Toronto

[Mister Tee]

This thread has gone really far afield. Responses to a few of the things contained herein:

No one was suggesting there's always 100% correlation between box-office success and Oscar nominations, but it's damn sure a factor, especially in competitive fields. Back in August of 2001, Roger Ebert confidently declared Tilda Swinton a certain best actress nominee, based on her stellar reviews for The Deep End. When the nominations came around, Swinton failed to qualify in a crowded batch. One of the actresses who bested her, Renee Zellweger, received favorable but nowhere near as enthusastic notices. Wouldn't you say the fact that her film was a $75 million grosser was what carried the day for her? Sure, critical notice can trump box-office indifference (though you wouldn't want to count on it, as Steve Buscemi and Peter Sarsgaard can attest), and, in lackluster categories, big names can win nods based on familiarity. But it's silly to pretend commercial failure can't affect a film's chances of getting nominations. If, say, Little Children or Notes on a Scandal flame out at the box-office, barring extraordinary critical endorsement, it will adversely affect its actors' chances at Oscar recognition.

Anyway, I was coming at the Streep issue from sort of the other direction. Given the times we live in -- with the mass audience favoring ever more the stupid and the spectacular -- there are precious few opportunities these days for Oscar voters to grant major nominations to truly popular films (and probably even fewer in the perennially underpopulated best actress category). It seems to me when there are such candidates, they get nominations (Roberts '00, Depp and Keaton '03). Devil Wears Prada did $120 million domestic. Can anyone find recent examples of a critically-praised contender that did that well and failed to score an Oscar nod?

Penelope, you may know (Magilla certainly does) I've long been disdainful of big stars slumming in supporting slots (especially if it's solely designed to snatch away an award a big star really shouldn't need). It used to be called Major Stars Lusting After Minor Oscars, and I always root again such candidacies -- though they've become more and more frequent in recent years.

On the general subject of Toronto: Does it strike anyone else the festival was kind of a bust his year? There was no big breakthrough on the scale of Brokeback last year, or Sideways/Ray the year before. And it appears, from sudden loud murmurs across the Net, that the didn't-bother-to-screen The Departed is about to critically upstage the whole bunch.

[flipp525]

Thank God we got out of that Ben Affleck black hole.

The Lead/Supporting debate does seem to come up every year, doesn't it? For me, as a rule (and there are, of course, various exceptions) any actor in a multi-character, multiple story arc, inter-connecting film should be considered supporting. Gosford Park, Short Cuts, Magnolia – you can't single out one single performer out of these ensemble pieces as a true lead. Sure, George Clooney was the de facto focal point in Syriana but his character all but disappeared for large chunks of the movie. I don’t think you could’ve sold his as a lead performance last year. If he was used to “sell” the movie, that was simply a marketing choice; the actual performance itself didn’t support a lead distinction.

The question of whether or not everything that took place in the other plots threads, essentially revolved around one character is the barometer by which I’d even consider an ensemble performance in the lead category. This is the rationale I used to justify Nicole Kidman’s nomination and subsequent win, in the Lead category for The Hours. Regardless of screen time, her character was the glue that connected all the other storylines.

Sandra Bullock (Infamous) and Sharon Stone (Bobby) are very clearly supporting players in their respective films but that doesn't change the fact, as Magilla points out, that they are really "leading ladies".

Essentially, I think the debate here is two-fold: 1) stars “slumming” it in supporting roles and garnering attention over true supporting actors who’d benefit from the recognition versus 2) the role of screen time and plot significance in the categorization of a performance.

[Penelope]

Magilla, I've been thinking about this Lead/Supporting issue a great deal over the past few days, and it has me a bit upset, as well.

In the past decade, we've seen the development of a kind of sub-genre of film, the multi-character, multi-story, overlapping flick: movies like Pulp Fiction and Go told each story in contained arcs, but with films as diverse as Traffic, 21 Grams, Love Actually and Syriana, we see all 3 or 4 or more stories--tenuously connected to each other--told simultaneously. It has blurred the distinctions between what's Lead and Support, at least as far as some people are concerned, and, apparently, the Academy.

Take George Clooney in Syriana: really, in retrospect, but what thought process is he a Supporting player in that film? For all intents and purposes, he, alongside Matt Damon, Jeffrey Wright and possibly Alexander Siddig, is a Leading player in the film, and his character is certainly the leading player in that arc of the story. Plus, he was first-billed.

This leads me to Brad Pitt in Babel; now, obviously, I've not seen the movie yet, but from the description, it sounds like Pitt's role in the film serves a similar function as Clooney's in Syriana--essentially the lead in his story arc, and undoubtedly the top selling point for the movie. This is partly why I think he should be placed in the Lead category; perhaps I might change my mind after I see the film, but I'm doubting it.

And, then, of course, there's the whole issue of stars scrambling for Supporting nominations when they realize that the Lead category is too competitive. That's always struck me as a rather wussy response, and distinctly unfair--which is why I'd rather see Streep nominated in the appropriate Lead category so that Emily Blunt (admittedly, a longshot possibility) can have a fair chance in Supporting.

[Big Magilla]

I would think lead, but if they can consider Sigourney Wever supporting for a similar role in Snow Cake, who knows. This positioning of lead performers in the supporting category in order to secure them a nomination has gone too far. Imagine Ingrid Bergman having been nominated as a supporting actress for Stromboli or Florinda Bolkan nominated as a supporting actress for A Brief Vacation, two similar roles in which they starred as hospital paitents. Ludicrous on the face of it, and it does great dis-service to the real supporting players who accordingly lose the opportunity of becoming the new Eve Arden or Joan Blondell in terms of career recognition.

We've all become guilty of this to an extent with our predictions for supporting actress nominations for Sandra Bullock (Infamous) and Sharon Stone (Bobby) over Catherine O'Hara (For Your Consideration) and Adriana Barraza (Babel), but at least Bullock and Stone are clearly supporting players in their films.

[Reza]

I also have a strong hunch that Away From Her will be given an Oscar qualifying run before the year is out giving Julie Christie a strong shot as well.

In lead or in support?

[OscarGuy]

My, all this debate about Ben Affleck! Who da thunk it! If that's not an indication of some kind of a comeback, I don't know what is. At the very least, whether he gets a nomination or not, hopefully his fine perf in Hollywoodland will launch him into a better trajectory in his career.

There's also something to be said that when reviewers like these consistently point to Affleck's past deficiencies but then highlight past positive performances, it also seems that they think this is a kind of comeback.

American Heritage Dictionary has one particular definition of comeback: "A return to formerly enjoyed status or prosperity". Status is the key word here. His status as a talented actor was in question with questionable choices and now he has returned a good set of choices, so I disagree with the constant characterization that he actually has to receive an award or a nomination for it to be considered a comeback. As many of the reviewers note below, he has comeback from acting obscurity.

[Penelope]

My, all this debate about Ben Affleck! Who da thunk it! If that's not an indication of some kind of a comeback, I don't know what is. At the very least, whether he gets a nomination or not, hopefully his fine perf in Hollywoodland will launch him into a better trajectory in his career.

[OscarGuy]

I apologize for misreading your post. You brought up critical response I thought you were talking about the films. Someone else may have brought up filmic drubbings by critics.

Now, to address the review of performance aspect of your argument. I went down the list alphabetical of the "Cream of the Crop" at Rotten Tomatoes. There are a few negative reviews and a few positive, yet not that positive reviews but overall, it appears that Affleck's gotten a lot of attention and positive reviews for his work.

James Berardenelli (positive): "There's no faulting Affleck's acting in Hollywoodland, but one can question whether he's right for the part...although the strength of Affleck's portrayal should eventually win over doubters."

Amy Biancolli, Houston Chronicle (positive): "And while it doesn't innovate, it does surprise: with Brody's cynical, scrappy-American debauch; with Affleck's beefy resignation..."

Manohla Dargis, NY Times (positive): "which is why Ben Affleck has packed on the pounds, slipped on some tights and given this exasperating film far more than it gives in return." later in the review "and Mr. Affleck is more than up to the task"

Robert Denersten, Denver Rocky Mtn News (positive): "Those who remember Reeves as Superman will know that Affleck skillfully mimics Reeves' performance on the series. His Reeves is a hulking, affable charmer who, for the most part, tries to smile his way through difficulties..."

J. Hoberman, Village Voice (positive): "Props then to Affleck. Coulter contrived a neat behavioral trick by inducing his star to play a comparably big-jawed bad actor. Surrounded as he is by canny professionals—Lane, Hoskins, Smith, and Jeffrey DeMunn as an unctuous glad-handing agent—it's an unexpectedly touching performance."

Stephen Hunter, Washington Post (positive): "And though brilliantly acted, it's not [a good movie (reference to previous line in review)]...Meanwhile, Affleck as Reeves gives his best performance in years.

Lisa Kennedy, Denver Post (positive): "Better still, it's an actor who has found a way to intrigue us again. Or if you've never been sold on Ben Affleck, then "Hollywoodland" is a fine place to make his acquaintance. ...Affleck plies the alchemy of the personal and professional to conjure a portrait of an actor whose entanglements help, then hamper, then destroy him."

Liam Lacey, Globe and Mail (not able to read because I'm not registered)

Anthony Lane, New Yorker (positive): "and we soon grow bored with his sleuthing, keen to flip back to the living Reeves and his tanglings with Toni—in other words, to Affleck and Lane. I have rarely warmed to Affleck, except for his bastard turn in “Boiler Room,” but here he delivers a lovely study of a star, both shooting and falling: tall, dark, handsome, but wise to the fate of all vanity, and, though hardly whip-smart, by no means dumb enough to be happy with his lot. For every Burt Lancaster, there have been thousands of George Reeveses, and Affleck pays them the kind of fond homage—an offer of limelight—that they otherwise never get. In the words of Reeves’s genial agent (Jeffrey DeMunn), “An actor can’t always act—sometimes he has to work.”"

Mick LaSalle, SF Chronicle (positive): "In a square-off between Brody and Affleck, one might expect, given their recent resumes, that Brody would walk away with the picture, but it's Affleck who commands the screen and Affleck who lingers in the mind. Brody has more screen time, but Affleck has the better role -- his best since "Changing Lanes" -- and he responds with his most assured performance in years and his most mature to date."

Terry Lawson, Detroit Free Press (positive): "If Affleck needed career rehabilitation to prove he’s an actor, this provides it..."

Tom Long, Detroit News (positive): "This may be the best role Ben Affleck has had since "Chasing Amy" nearly a decade ago. It lets him use his natural pretty-boy charm, but it also lets that charm be the death of him. His Reeves has been worn down by the celebrity he once sought, weary of playing the hero. It's got to be a state Affleck is familiar with."

Bob Longino, Atlanta Journal-Constitution (back-handed compliment, then later negative): "Also, it's a kick just to watch Ben Affleck toil as Reeves, a lump of a guy with a sheepish grin and barely enough talent to land a one-scene gig in "Gone With the Wind." Rarely has a bad actor been so accurately and effectively portrayed with such steady ... well, bad acting. Affleck's hammy style also superbly sells a nightclub scene where, in his pre-"Superman" days of eager self-promotion, Reeves worms his way into a celebrity photo for the newspapers...Probably worse, while Affleck does sell Reeves' clammy celebrity, he seems unable to generate much nuance, relevancy or emotional connection with an audience about his character's demise."

Jack Mathew, New York Daily News (negative): "And though Ben Affleck's performance may remind you more of Clark Kent than Superman, he looks adequately campy in a muscle suit with a red "S" on his chest."

Todd McCarthy, Variety (positive): "Pic begins clicking when Reeves, appealingly played with evident depth of sympathy by Ben Affleck, meets Toni Mannix (Diane Lane), showgirl-turned-BevHills grand dame who's all over Reeves within minutes. ...Along with Affleck's happy change-of-pace turn..."

Wesley Morris, Boston Globe (positive): "There are degrees of torture, grief, and self-pity in Affleck's performance. But the real surprise is his comfort with looking like a star. He is classic-Hollywood handsome (for once that jaw line has a purpose), and there is real crackle between him and Lane. She looks seductive, and he seems seduced. But the movie is up to too much -- and yet not nearly enough -- to give either star room to breathe. Indeed, that part of this story is so well told, and Affleck so good in the telling, that it's hard to understand, aside from the most pretentious artistic aims, why the filmmakers bothered with the detective story."

Bill Muller, Arizona Republic (negative): "The movie, a delicious noir throwback with a smart parallel construction, suffers only when Affleck is on-screen, and then only part of that time."

Michael Phillips, Chicago Tribute (back-handed compliment): "Affleck and Lane, playing real-life characters who essentially trained themselves into becoming classy and well-spoken, interact in a way that's slightly arch and heightened, as if they're play-acting at being adults. Affleck lacks Reeves' gravitas and surly charisma, and he doesn't have a great speaking voice for this sort of elocution-minded Hollywood specimen. But he's pretty good all the same."

Claudia Puig, USA Today (positive): "Reeves (Ben Affleck in a strong performance) longed to be a serious actor, scoffing at the notion of playing a superhero in tights. Affleck as Reeves is appropriately enigmatic, dashing yet downbeat. ...Affleck acquits himself after a spate of roles that have been lackluster at best (2004's Surviving Christmas) and at worst downright embarrassing (2003's Gigli). He has a talent for singing melancholy songs in Spanish and achieves the appropriate self-deprecating tone toward Reeves' Superman persona."

Steven Rea, Philadelphia Inquirer (positive): "[referring to Brody] It's the sort of out-of-sync performance that can destroy a film. It doesn't quite - thanks to Affleck, Lane, Tunney and the filmmakers' neat take on the change-is-in-the-air mood of late-'50s L.A. - but it makes Hollywoodland a lot less interesting."

Michael Rechtshaffen, Hollywood Reporter (negative, though he never really refers to the performance, just the appearance): "..though a hard-working Affleck gained 20 pounds for the role, he still doesn't have that convincing Reeves heft."

Rex Reed, New York Observer (positive): "Regardless of my own theory, I will always be left with the final wrenching shot of George Reeves himself, played with pain and sympathy by Ben Affleck—leaving his guests and wearily climbing the stairs alone to his death in a bathrobe, wearing the encroaching ravages of the aging process like scars."

Richard Roeper, Ebert & Roeper (no review actually list. the link is dead and the E&R site reflects no reviews for Hollywoodland I could find)

Jonathan Rosenbaum, Chicago Reader (site wouldn't load)

Lisa Schwartzbaum, Entertainment Weekly (positive): " [referring to the other performers in the film] ... and all of them enhancing Affleck — hungriest of all — as Reeves. There's something simultaneously heartfelt, wised-up, playful, and fierce about the way the onetime Daredevil acknowledges that he knows that we know that he knows that we're bound to read something of the actor's own skids with fame in his expiatory portrayal of a star who couldn't quite steer his own image."

Gene Seymour, Newsday (positive): "Ben Affleck's portrayal of Reeves epitomizes the movie's solicitousness and grace. Affleck gives his all to his star-crossed character, evoking Reeves' vocal inflections and physical presence (even his creeping middle-age puffiness) with startling precision and affecting sympathy."

Kyle Smith, New York Post (hard to say, no other mention of Affleck exists in the review): "We get to know Reeves (Ben Affleck) only partially, in flashbacks, which is a problem. Despite the lovingly detailed costumes and the corruption that hangs over everything like smog, Reeves is the only interesting character."

Jeff Strickler, Minneapolis Star Tribune (hard to say without knowing how he quanlifies the word "understated"): "He discovers that the actor (played in flashback scenes by an understated Ben Affleck) had broken off an affair with Toni Mannix (Diane Lane), the lonely trophy wife of MGM honcho Eddie Mannix (Bob Hoskins)."

Peter Travers, Rolling Stone (positive): "Which brings us to the big topic I've been saving: Ben Affleck as Reeves. That's right, Ben Affleck, whose potent beginnings with Good Will Hunting, Chasing Amy and Boiler Room deteriorated into the ego excess of Armageddon, Pearl Harbor and -- dare I say it -- Gigli. The irony is that Affleck's battering at the hands of fame has prepped him beautifully to play Reeves. He knows this character from the inside: the surface charm, the hidden vulnerability, the ache of watching a career become a joke and being helpless to stop it. Affleck beefed up twenty pounds to fill Reeves' tights, but it's the pain behind his eyes that makes this an award-caliber performance. Watch his fear and shame when the flying rig used to hoist Superman drops him to the ground. Or catch the moment when Reeves attends a preview of From Here to Eternity, the Oscar-winning 1953 film he hopes might lift him out of the kiddie-TV ghetto, and the audience laughs at the sight of him. Or the weariness with which he walks up the stairs on the final night of his life. This is feeling, nuanced work from an actor some of us had prematurely written off. In his generous spirit toward a forgotten icon, Affleck turns the death-obsessed Hollywoodland into, of all things, a film about resurrection."

Kenneth Turan, LA Times (positive): "Instead, it ends up as little more than a reasonable facsimile of the real thing, despite a subtle and effective performance by Ben Affleck, of all people. ...Perhaps because his own career has had its unexpected downturns, Affleck is particularly effective as a man simultaneously desperate and full of himself. He captures the sensitivities and insecurities of an actor who is not being taken seriously, someone who is worried to death despite his glib repartee. With its combination of vulnerability and charm, this is perhaps Affleck's most interesting performance, and certainly one of his best."

Susan Walker, Toronto Star (positive): "Somehow Ben Affleck is perfect as director Allen Coulter's Reeves: a mediocre actor ambitious for big dramatic roles, with a weakness for women who wanted to look after him."

Stephen Whitty, Newark Star-Ledger (positive): " For close to a decade, Ben Affleck has been stupidly following the career path of Bruce Willis, when the actor he should have been modeling himself after was Bill Holden, the patron saint of charming, self-loathing heels. Affleck doesn't naturally have the smirking self-confidence of an action star; what he does have is the embarrassed grin of someone who can't believe how lucky he's been and deep down feels he doesn't quite deserve it. His George Reeves is a guy who lucked out by getting a small part in a huge movie -- and then coasted for a decade, pushing his way into photos and chatting up powerful people. Finally he catches a live one in Toni Mannix, someone who both believes in his career and is willing to pay his bills. And Affleck's Reeves accepts it all with a mixture of pleasure and guilt, which eventually gives way to annoyance and disgust. No one should ever remake "Sunset Boulevard," but if anyone does, here's their boy."

Philip Wuntch, Dallas Morning News (positive): "owever, they've created a trio of intriguing lead characters, and the star triumvirate of Adrien Brody, Diane Lane and Ben Affleck responds with haunting performances. ...Mr. Affleck's thoughtful performance reflects the despair of a natural-born charmer who discovers that charm isn't enough to reach Hollywood's heights. Those who insist that Mr. Reeves' rise and fall mirrors Mr. Affleck's career trajectory are entitled to their opinions, but Hollywoodland definitely is an upward step."

Stephanie Zecharek, Salon.com (positive from title only as I didn't have time to register to read the full article): "Ben Affleck plumps up and adds weight to this picture about the mysterious demise of "Superman" star George Reeves."

[Sonic Youth]

What I mean Sonic is exactly what you just did in your second post. You ignored a great majority of what was said and then tried to make a point off a minor aspect of the entire post.

Um, my first post was a response to Okri, not you. I didn't deliberately ignore anyone. Rather, I deliberately answered someone in particular. And in any event, I didn't say anything different that several other people on this thread have said.

And the fact is, I actually did address the great majority of your post, although indirectly. I addressed how this was not a comeback "many dream of." I addressed how he is not coming off a "string of box office duds." I addressed his win at Venice (which is really the only comeback stat one can hang a hat on, and I don't find it compelling). I just didn't address Cruise and Reynolds. That's a slim minority I didn't address, not a great majority. Or, if you prefer, I addressed many "minor aspects." Aspects that weren't so minor until I actually addressed and debunked them, and then it became a case of "Oh, well who cares?"

You don't address any of my facts or figures that Hollywoodland is at least as well respected by critics as any number of other box office duds that earned supporting actor nominations. you ignore it because it makes a valid point and you want to avoid my point because you disagree with it.

No, I didn't address it because I wasn't talking about nominations. I was talking about whether this was a comeback role. All those statistics had no bearing on the point I was making, so why should I address it? But since you asked...

First, we can disregard the imdb rating immediately, because that number always skews toward fanboyism. Second, we can disregard the Rotten Tomatoes score because they rate films, not perfomances. If you can find me a Rotten Tomatoes performance-meter, I'll examine it with all seriousness. Otherwise, they're irrelevant. (And they didn't even vault any one of these films into the Best Picture category.)

And, with one exception, none of these actors were being touted as a comeback role. They were either emerging actors or veterans putting in expected good work. The one exception was Burt Reynolds, who was hailed for his comeback role. But this was for Boogie Nights, which is 35 percentage points higher than Hollywoodland. I know I said one shouldn't measure critical reception by the Rotten Tomato film ratings, but 95 percent approval is a much, much longer coattail for actors to ride in on than 70 percent is.

The only point I'll admit is valid is the one about box office, and that one can be nominated and even win with an underperforming box office performer. It's not something I would deny. But again, I was talking about comeback. If he is nominated, then it's a comeback. But not yet.

So now it can't be said that I deliberately avoided that point. Consider it answered.

Would anyone else care to fling any spurious accusations upon me?

I use the sonic blow because you accuse him constantly (and rather unnecessarily vehemently) of doing the same thing. I may not have taken it well in the past but I'll take it much better now. I may not like Criddic's politics, but I also don't like how much of a whipping boy you make him.

HA HA HA! Now THAT'S funny.

What's the past? Three weeks ago?

G'night.

[OscarGuy]

What I mean Sonic is exactly what you just did in your second post. You ignored a great majority of what was said and then tried to make a point off a minor aspect of the entire post.

You don't address any of my facts or figures that Hollywoodland is at least as well respected by critics as any number of other box office duds that earned supporting actor nominations. you ignore it because it makes a valid point and you want to avoid my point because you disagree with it.

I use the sonic blow because you accuse him constantly (and rather unnecessarily vehemently) of doing the same thing. I may not have taken it well in the past but I'll take it much better now. I may not like Criddic's politics, but I also don't like how much of a whipping boy you make him.

[Sonic Youth]

Oh, c'mon guys, it is a comeback. A minor one, but a comeback nonetheless, from being one of Hollywood's golden boys (Academy Award, blockbuster films) to practically a laughing stock in the industry, thanks to massive overexposure (Bennifer) and notorious bombs (Gigli, Surviving Christmas). If Hollywoodland had become a success, then, yeah, it would be a major comeback; as it stands, it's a comeback in that he's regained, well, some respect.

That's what I meant by a Rob Lowe-ish comeback. Exactly my point, only you put it far more diplomatically than I.

But I still say it's not even a minor comeback. Woody Allen's Match Point was a minor comeback. This is a slight oscillation. The best we can do is see how this plays out. If, by some miracle/catastrophe, Affleck gets on some critic's lists, or is even nominated, then it will qualify as a comeback. An unfathomable one, since he wasn't even close to the best in his own movie.

[Sonic Youth]

Sonic, I'm surprised you're pulling the same stuff Criddic does. My argument is in my post. The comeback argument is from mediocrity. From two huge duds of pictures. From status as a box office action adventure star into a roll that has everyone talking. Who cares if the film didn't make much at the box office? Who cares if critics didn't care much for it.

Everyone's talking about a film that's not making much at the box office, and isn't cared for by the critics? I wonder how those discussions go down...

"Hey, Joe."
"Yo, Bob."
"You hear about that new Ben Affleck movie, Hollywood-something?"
"Yeah. The newspaper critic didn't care for it."
"You see it?"
"Nah."
"Neither have I."
"You gonna see it?"
"Nah."
"Neither am I."

At least they're talking.

And you say I'm arguing like Criddic? There's a crack in your glass house.

(Also, I'm reminded of the tremendous offence you took when I made a comparison between you and Criddic several years ago, something to do with how you generalized something or other. I guess it's only a cheap, unwarranted shot depending on who's making the comparison, and who's being compared. And I have no idea how those comments I made are anything like Criddic's method of arguing.)

So far, his two huge previous duds has made more money than Hollywoodland has. In the end, it will make a little more than only one of the two, and not by much.

[VanHelsing]

flipp525, some peeps striked off Theron, McDormand & Giamatti from their predictions lists when their films bomb even though like you said, their "nominations had very little to do with actual box office receipts".

I cited them because they are fine examples of those who still make it to the Oscars despite the weak box-office performance of their films.

And now that Hollywoodland has bombed, people are striking off Affleck. Just remember, the studio behind Hollywoodland is Focus Features and I believe they're now already mounting a campaign for Affleck and perhaps, Lane as well.

Again, I reiterate, box-office success helps but box-office failure won't exactly deter an actor from securing an Oscar nod. There are many other more important factors (studio campaigns, comebacks, previous nominees) that come into play when voters cast their votes.

[Okri]

I guess I just never perceived him as one of Hollywood's "Golden Boys." He's had a couple major successes to be sure (Good Will Hunting, Armageddon), but other that, he hasn't really done anything other than hook up with two Jennifers. I didn't realize people thought he was a laughingstock, either.

I'd also suggest that people playing "Hollywood legends" are actually in worse positions, because unlike with most biopics, a lot of people in the industry has their own perception of the person they're playing, and any deviation is likely to be an irritant.

[Penelope]

Oh, c'mon guys, it is a comeback. A minor one, but a comeback nonetheless, from being one of Hollywood's golden boys (Academy Award, blockbuster films) to practically a laughing stock in the industry, thanks to massive overexposure (Bennifer) and notorious bombs (Gigli, Surviving Christmas). If Hollywoodland had become a success, then, yeah, it would be a major comeback; as it stands, it's a comeback in that he's regained, well, some respect.

I suspect his chances are bit better than some here insist. First of all, it IS a fine performance--yeah, I've preferred some of his other performances, especially his comic turns in Smith's films--but he does stretch himself, and pulls it off. Secondly, he's playing a real Hollywood individual, a semi-legend due to both his iconic role as Superman and his mysterious death--and the film does a wonderful job of capturing 50s Hollywood.

I wouldn't be surprised if he's left off the list come January--he will need the help of precursor mentions to really gain traction--but at this point in the race, when we don't know how the other contenders are going to turn out, he's still a possibility.