Nicole Kidman has been nominated for Best Actress by both the Screen Actors Guild and the Foreign Press Association for her role in Rabbit Hole, and with good reason. She manages to stay on the brink of tears for the entire movie, holding back her emotions as she tries to eliminate every trace of her dead son's existence, and it's hard to look away, just in case she lets go while you're fishing for that last Junior Mint. There are other good performances in the film, as well, but Kidman is certainly the standout, and since the story, what little of it there is, is mostly an exercise in grief management, her performance is pretty much the only draw here. Luckily, it's enough.

In a college dorm somewhere, a Resident Advisor has put her head on this movie's poster and modified the title in an attempt to seem cool. It will fail.

Full disclosure: I hate lies. Specifically, I hate movies based on lies, where all of the action is based on a lie or secret or misunderstanding which must then be covered up for the remainder of the movie, usually by more lying. This includes a lot of Ben Stiller movies, and most definitely the Meet the Parents franchise, where approximately 90% of all the spoken dialogue is a lie. Granted, if they told the truth, the movie would pretty much end, so I understand why they do it, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. The third film, Little Fockers, is as dishonest as the others, but with recurring theme of marital infidelity that gives the formulaic farce a dark center.

When you go to see a Jack Black movie based on Gulliver's Travels, you pretty much know what you're in for, right? The book itself is already pretty raunchy, so add in Jack Black's usual shtick of being a man-child who makes lewd comments and you've got the general idea. But there were so many little things in the movie that made me shake my head, either because they were better than what I'd hoped, or much, much worse, that make it difficult to write off. Part of me wants to see it again, to figure out if the parts I liked at all counterbalanced the parts I despised. Based on a single viewing, I'm going to say they don't.

If you're a fan of Sofia Coppola's slow, quiet, very visual storytelling style, you will love this movie. Somewhere is the unencumbered essence of all her signatures, showing simply the story of a nice man helped by his nice daughter told over a series of meals in expensive hotel rooms, and not much else. It's beautifully done and incredibly poignant in parts, but if you thought Lost in Translation or The Virgin Suicides were indulgent or boring, or you think she just champions the whiny rich, you will hate this. You'd be wrong about what her movies are about, but since a lot of people are wrong about what her movies are about, I thought I'd warn you anyway.

Like all Coen Brothers movies, True Grit is a solemn blend of comedy and murder, populated by more quirky, funny characters than you can fit in a woodchipper. Obviously, each of their movies is a unique snowflake, and has a slightly heavier balance of one than the other, but it's amazing how they consistently manage to deliver a similar mix of subject matter, or, rather, are drawn to material that has that mix. You could call it formulaic, but when the formula is so delicious, and you drink a big glass of it every time it's put in front of you, all you're doing is calling yourself a big baby. I must be such a baby.

If The Tourist had been half as bad-ass as the other Jolie actioner Salt, it would have been a much, much better movie.

How Do You Know is the story of a love triangle between three very different people, wrapped in a bunch of morality questions (stupid ones, a lot of the time, but we'll get to that in a minute) that deserves some leniency for actually trying to do something different than the standard rom-com by numbers. So I'll try not to be too mean to it. It's a bad movie, but in watching this I felt like I was watching something at least attempting to have more of an identity than all the Heigl and Aniston movies I have to see for my job, and considering how criminally rare that is, I respect it. I mean, I also felt like I was watching a real failure of a movie, but thank God it was something "romantic" that actually sort of tried. That counts for something.

It's hard to think of a movie that's built up more expectations than Tron Legacy. It was teased three Comic-Cons ago, which is like a century in nerd years, and the teaser made people stand up and cheer even then. Plus, the original movie came out 30 years ago which has given at least two generations of geeks time to elevate it to mythological status in their minds, collect the limited-edition action figures and gloss over any flaws. On top of that, the most popular electronic act in the world, who already dress and act like computer programs, are scoring the movie. It's pretty much guaranteed to disappoint, right? I know some were, but I couldn't pry my eyes off the screen for the entire running time of the movie, and of all the emotions I experienced in the theater, disappointment definitely wasn't one of them.

I will never understand why one awards show would announce their nominees two days after another awards show announces theirs. Unless the SAG Awards are simply trying to steal a teeny bit of the Golden Globes' spotlight? C'mon, guys -- that's cheap. And if you want to shine, all you have to do is avoid making any nominations that are every bit as ridiculous as those made by the foreign press. You almost succeeded, although I will give you props for not nominating anybody from The Tourist.