“It seems a safe bet that Cate Blanchett will be in the race for Elizabeth: The Golden Age,” Hollywood Reporter columnist Martin Grove has written. “Blanchett won a best supporting actress Oscar in 2005 for The Aviator, [and] her already acclaimed second performance as the 16th Century English Queen could bring her a second Oscar, but this time for best actress.”

Not happening. No way. The Cate performance of note is her Blonde on Blonde Dylan in I’m Not There.

In his review of Elizabeth: The Golden Age, Maxim critic Pete Hammond says “[it] will most likely be admired by those who have actually already reached their own ‘golden age’, say around 60 or so. This one is squarely aimed at the kind of crowd who loves seeing big, blustering epics where monarchs dress in what looks like opulently appointed outdoor tents and ferociously shout lines like, ‘I have a hurricane in me that will strip Spain bare if you dare to try me!’ No problem, we believe you.”

Yesterday Premiere critic-columnist Glenn Kenny disputed Nikki Finke‘s recent claim, as stated in an Elle magazine interview, that she her campaign against torture porn was somewhat successful in shutting the sub-genre down.

In response to which Finke posted a response this morning to Kenny, to wit: “Didn’t your dumb-ass movie magazine go out of business in the U.S. because (a) it sucked, and (b) it sucked up to Hollywood so pathetically that even the movie biz lost respect for it?” In response to which Kenny replied, “Hey, great to hear from you, Nikki. Say, are you ready to file that Ovitz piece yet? When did we assign it to you — 1997? Stay classy!”

Academy spokesperson Teni Melidonian, who works for Leslie Unger, confirmed this morning that the Academy has in fact ruled against Eran Kolirin‘s The Band’s Visit from competing for the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar because the Academy’s foreign branch has determined that more ” a majority” of the dialogue is in English. Melidonian also said that no appeal will be considered. On top of which three Israeli news sources — Haaretz, the Jerusalem Post and Israeli blogger Yair Raveh — reported yesterday that this decision had been reached.

And yet Indiewire‘s Brian Brooks wrote this morning that that reports of The Band’s Visit being disqualified are “rumors” that are “unconfirmed.” Brooks also included an observation that Sony Classics chief Michael Barker was “not bothered by the rumors” and that The Band’s Visit “is in keeping in a long tradition of foreign language films that have some English.” On top of which Variety had filed nothing at all (to judge by a search on the Variety website plus several calls made to Variety editors and reporters) about the decision.

The Catholic League’s Bill Donohue occasionally rips into this or that Hollywood movie for delivering his idea of an un-Christian or anti-Catholic message (ask Kevin Smith), and his latest salvo is against director-writer Chris Weitz and New Line Cinema’s The Golden Compass (New Line 12.7), an adaptation of Philip Pullman‘s fantasy novel that is one of a trilogy called “His Dark Materials.”

Catholic League spokesperson Bill Donohue

Dakota Blue Richards, Daniel Craig in The Golden Compass

Donohue is not actually not ripping into the film as much as trying to warn Catholics parents not to give the “Dark Materials” trilogy to their children as a Christmas present, which would be tantamount, he feels, to indoctrinating them into the evils of atheism.

Donohue’s basic beef is that unlike C.S. Lewis‘s The Chronicles of Narnia, which spawned the popular ’06 Disney film that was widely seen as an allegory about Christianity, Pullman’s “Materials” trilogy basically pushes an atheist, anti- Christian message.

Weitz’s film has been “toned down so that Catholics, as well as Protestants, are not enraged,” says Donohue, but he wants Catholics to be wary of the film because it might lead to parents buying the “Dark Materials” trilogy for their kids.

A New Line spokesperson said this morning that a statement about Donohue’s attack would be forthcoming.

The movie stars Nicole Kidman, Daniel Craig and Dakota Blue Richards. Weitz directed and wrote the screenplay. Set in an imaginary/parallel/metaphorical universe, it’s about a young girl named Lyra Belacqua (Richards) who journeys to snowy northern terrain in order to “save her best friend and other kidnapped children from terrible experiments by a mysterious organization,” etc. Aaah, but what real-life mysterious organization could Pullman be referring to?

Here’s Donohue’s written statement, and here’s a video presentation that spells it out.

“A film called The Golden Compass opens December 7,” be begins. “It is based on the first book of a trilogy titled ‘His Dark Materials.’ The author of this children’s fantasy is Philip Pullman, a noted English atheist. It is his objective to bash Christianity and promote atheism. To kids. The Golden Compass is a film version of the book by that name, and it is being toned down so that Catholics, as well as Protestants, are not enraged.

“The second book of the trilogy, ‘The Subtle Knife,’ is more overt in its hatred of Christianity than the first book, and the third entry, ‘The Amber Spyglass,’ is even more blatant. Because The Golden Compass is based on the least offensive of the three books, and because it is being further watered down for the big screen, some might wonder why parents should be wary of the film.

“The Catholic League wants Christians to stay away from this movie precisely because it knows that the film is bait for the books: unsuspecting parents who take their children to see the movie may be impelled to buy the three books as a Christmas present. And no parent who wants to bring their children up in the faith will want any part of these books.

“‘The Golden Compass: Agenda Unmasked’ is the Catholic League’s response. It provides information about the film, The Golden Compass, and details what book reviewers have said about Pullman’s books; a synopsis of his trilogy is also included.”

Newark Star-Ledger critic/columnist Stephen Whitty knows about these books a lot more than I do — here‘s his take on the matter.

A tough-minded exhibition guy from another continent says that “‘awesome’ is the only word I can think of to describe Paul Thomas Anderson‘s There Will Be Blood,” which he saw yesterday.

“As someone who fell giddily for Boogie Nights only to be frustrated by the excesses of Magnolia and disappointed in many of the indulgences of Punch Drunk Love, this new film does more than restore PTA’s stature as one of the most exciting American filmmakers — it puts him in the leagues of the masters.

“Blood is two hours and 45 minutes of cinematic heroin. It’s a frightening, overwhelming, punch-to-the-gut work — as strong as anything that John Huston or Stanley Kubrick ever made.

“Too much will be written and said about the accomplishments of Daniel Day Lewis‘s performance to start drooling here. Let’s just say that the Best Actor Oscar is his to lose, not that I imagine he’d care. Paul Dano, in a difficult role, matches him scene for scene — the breakout performance of the year. And Jonny Greenwood’s score is still giving me chills.

“The film is probably too grim and narratively uncompromising to break out commercially beyond the realms of where Jesse James aspires (and may not reach). But it deserves to, and will, do better than that film and certainly is more than just an actor’s showcase in the vein of Last King of Scotland. $20 t0 $30 million is possible, assuming the big awards come through? For my money Day-Lewis pushes the potential of the film beyond the art milieu.

“I can forgive the film for a shocking, visceral final scene that teeters on the verge of hysteria and then dives right off the edge. And also for that same scene’s logic-defying continuity problems.

“Despite these minor flaws, this is a cinematic and artistic experience that few other American films have delivered in recent memory.”

A friend who saw Lions for Lambs says it runs 88 minutes, and is calling it “a Godard movie” in the most intriguing sense of that term. It’s almost all talk and that’s fine, he says, because it really rips into the Bushies and their mishandling of the Middle Eastern terrorist threat. The hottest promotional angle for the film is that it will likely piss off Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and all the other staunch neocon militarists to no end, and good for that because it’ll be a lot of fun to see them fuming with necks and faces turning beet red.

Three “reveals” came out of today’s screening and press conference for Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story (Sony, 12.21), which happened from 12:30 to 2 pm on the Sony lot and was hosted by producer Judd Apatow, director Jake Kasdan (who appears to be roughly the same size as The Orphanage director Juan Antonio Bayona and Jason Schwartzman…good company!) and star John C. Reilly.

One is that the movie isn’t a genre spoof (as David Carr‘s N.Y. Times piece suggested a day or two ago) as much as a flat-out Walk the Line satire. The second is that the tone is similar to Eric Idle and Gary Weis‘s The Rutles: All You Need is Cash, the 1978 Beatles spoof. Which is to say it’s dry and hip. It’s not Airplane, it’s not Hot Shots, Part Deux…it’s lewd and “:funny” but in a fairly earnest, low-key way. With fairly decent music.

Oh, and the third is that the film has a signficant penis shot that…uh, lasts more a few seconds. Not one of those blink-and-it’s-gone deals. I don’t know what this means but Aptatow and Kasdan made a point of mentioning it.

Here are two video files – #1 and #2 — of producer Judd Apatow, star John C. Reilly and director Jake Kasdan doing the shpiel.

And here’s Reilly singing the “Walk Hard” song. Thirty songs have been recorded, and will be issued in a “Box of Cox” CD package sometime in late November or December.

Read more

I was speaking to Judd Apatow an hour ago with four or five other web guys after the Walk Hard presentation at Sony, and one of them told Apatow he’d seen Pineapple Express (Sony, 8.8.08) , the David Gordon Green-directed comedy about a stoner (Seth Rogen) and his dealer (James Franco) forced to go on the run from the police after they see a cop shoot a guy for the wrong reasons. And the big revelation, he said, is Franco’s hilarious performance.

Playing a character named “Saul” who, Apatow said, is somewhat like Brad Pitt‘s “Floyd” in True Romance, Franco is incredibly funny in the film. The web guy seemed to think It’ll put him right back on the map, probably the best thing he’s ever done, etc. Or certainly the best thing since the James Dean film six years ago. One of those surprise performances from a guy you thought you knew that make you go “holy shit!”

This shot of Benicio in the bush was taken during the filming of Guerilla, the second of two Steven Soderbergh films about the definitive up and down chapters in the life of Che Guevara, near the Spanish town of San Pablo de Buceite, which was chosen to sub for Bolivia. The first film, The Argentine (which I feel is the better of the two, by which I mean the more rousing and engaging), is now lensing in Puerto Rico.

Benicio del Toro as Ernest “Che” Guevara during relatively recent scene filmed for Guerilla.

The trailer for Charlie Wilson’s War (Universal, 12.25) tells you right away it’s going to be at least fairly good. It also persuaded me that Phillip Seymour Hoffman has a Best Supporting Actor nomination in the bag. (I’ve read the script and know he has a real part and not just a few clever lines.) Which means he’ll be fighting himself with ThinkFilm pushing him for Best Actor in Before The Devil Knows You’re Dead. As Charlie Partanna would say, “Which one of these?”

“In addition to being one of the most beautiful movies ever made about rock ‘n’ roll,” Anton Corbijn‘s Control “also works, quite simply, as a story about a gifted and deeply troubled young guy who just couldn’t hold it together. Sometimes the stories you think you’ve heard a million times before are merely universal.

“This is, by far, the most rapturously beautiful-looking picture I’ve seen all year. The images have an almost satiny texture. Corbijn’s shots are always meticulously composed, as you’d expect from a filmmaker with a background as a portrait photographer, but even though they sometimes betray only the smallest traces of movement, they’re always alive, never static.

“The look of the picture reminds me of the early Beatles photographs taken by Astrid Kirchherr: Corbijn picks up on everything that’s innocent and open about these kids’ faces (and they were, after all, just kids). The suggestion is that they were standing on the cusp of something massive and overwhelming — that they’d been granted a wish that could either make or destroy them.” — from Stephanie Zacharek‘s Salon review, posted yesterday (10.10.07).

Astrid Kirchherr shot (Lennon and Stu Sutcliffe), taken sometime around ’61

This is the coldest (or pretending-to-be-coldest), flat-out funniest reply to a female golddigger I’ve ever heard or read in my life. In. My. Life. It’s completely logical (in a Wall Street sense of the term), completely heartless and utterly brilliant. My first big laugh of the day. The guy who wrote this should identify himself and take a bow…seriously. He’s a bit of a creep, but what he’s written has struck a nerve. He should go on Letterman.