As was the case with HBO's Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, Lionsgate has very discreetly opened Bill Maher's Religulous in two theaters -- one in New York, the other in Los Angeles -- in an qualifying run for next year's Academy Awards.

As pointed out by Jeff Wells over at Hollywood Elsewhere, the Academy's Rule 12 states that any documentary hoping to qualify must open in both Los Angeles Country and the borough of Manhattan for at least one week prior to the end of August. Having already premiered at the Traverse City Film Festival, the doc will then formally show at the Toronto International Film Festival next month, before opening proper on October 3rd.

However, I'm not sure that I entirely understand agree with the logic that any damage would be done should any enterprising critic (like this guy) head out to one of these wholly public showings and subsequently write up a review. Sure, I'm speaking as a guy who lives in the O.C. of Fla., but seriously: What harm? What foul?

Yesterday, Jeff Wells over at Hollywood Elsewhere put up the poster for the new comedy My Best Friend's Girl, starring Kate Hudson, Dane Cook, Jason Biggs and Alec Baldwin. The poster (which premiered online earlier this summer) is boring in the extreme, making the film look like your typical snoozerific rom-com, and the digital altering on the photo makes everyone involved look rather ... freakish.

My first reaction on seeing the poster was, "Boy, somebody's screwing up the marketing on this film," quickly followed by "Hey, I don't remember Dane Cook's complexion looking quite so dewy-fresh ... "

I've seen the red-band trailer, which is actually pretty funny, if you can overlook the more misogynistic elements (or at least, in my own case, overcome the feminist tendency to be immediately annoyed by blow-job jokes) , and the film being marketed in that trailer and the film being promoted on this poster are not the same film. Not that it looks like something I'd choose to see over a good indie flick, but if I wanted a lightweight comedy film, and I'd already seen Tropic Thunder and Pineapple Express, and couldn't find anything else to do here in Seattle on a nice day, I'd maybe see this.

When he's not covering film for us, Christopher Campbell is out living a bold double life, instead covering film for Spout Blog, and by way of his derring-do, he's come across a relatively watchable bootleg of some of the ill-received Comic-Con footage from The Spirit, and to borrow his incredibly apt reaction: "The scene you heard about is actually worse than you imagined."

Their Kevin Kelly tried to warn us, as did our own Elisabeth Rappe, and the latest trailer brought forth its own wave of doubt, but witnessing it for myself is something else. I can't speak for Will Eisner's original comic-book creation, though a couple of my pals have assured me that Frank Miller's take on the material is pretty far from it, and while I'm down for a Sin City 2, I'd really rather it be a more intentional affair than this likely farce.

Are any of you fans still willing to give this project the benefit of the doubt, or are toilet-smashing gags the new par for the course?

As someone initially unimpressed with the teaser trailer for next weekend's horror offering, Mirrors, I found myself pleasantly surprised by the unpleasantries on display in the film's restricted trailer, among them the sight of Amy Smart ripping her own jaw off (what can I say, I'm a man of simple taste).

However, I then wondered if that particular moment wasn't the best that the film had to offer. Sure, you don't want to spoil too much before a film opens, but it's a scene that has become the focus of most TV spots and -- in hindsight -- the poster, and as a plot development, I'm almost certain that it'll happen before the film hits its hour mark (a matter that no one will be able to confirm until late Thursday evening, which is its own little omen). But it fell on me to watch that part and find my interest piqued.

After making a fair impression in 2004 with Mean Girls and The Notebook, and then pulling a hat trick the following year with Wedding Crashers, Red Eye, and The Family Stone, it seemed to me that Canadian cutie Rachel McAdams was primed to take off in the years to come... and yet, here we are in 2008, with her one release since having been in the not-bad period drama Married Life (which grossed a not-great $1.5 million this past spring).

However, it looks her profile is about to rise yet again, between the star-studded drama State of Play next year and two other releases this fall: the long-awaited adaptation of The Time Traveler's Wife and, before that, the Iraq War drama The Lucky Ones, in which she, Tim Robbins, and Michael Peña all play returning vets who bond on an impromptu road trip to Vegas.

Judging from the trailer, it really seems to be a change of pace for director/co-writer Neil Burger, as he follows up the modest success of The Illusionist. Do I honestly believe that some bar skank would pull such open mockery if she wasn't scripted to? Not at all, but do I believe that McAdams' character would react as she does? Absolutely.

Regardless, it's just nice to see a genuine talent working her way back into the limelight. Who knows, maybe audiences can convince her to stay there.

When was the last time you saw a first-run movie on opening night and paid just $1.75? Hardcore horror flick The Midnight Meat Train has been relegated to second-run theaters in its limited, 100-screen release this weekend, as William Goss nicely detailed for us. (Thanks to commenter Christopher for pointing out that Dread Central compiled a very handy list of theaters.) Let me testify: watching the movie at a theater with cheap seats did not enhance the experience.

Here's why: The Midnight Meat Train is a very good flick -- I agree completely with our own horror hound Scott Weinberg that "it's one of the most effective horror films of the year" -- and horror fans who sought it out deserved to see it in the best possible environment. I was fortunate in that one of the six theaters playing it in the Dallas / Ft. Worth Metroplex is only about 10 miles away, though I had a devil of a time finding it. Unfortunately, the theater has seen better days, the seating layout is not optimal, and the audio equipment is lacking.

It felt surreal to watch the far inferior The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor at a Cinemark complex with great sound and a huge screen and then travel 10 miles to see The Midnight Meat Train at another Cinemark complex with sound that lacked any oomph and a much smaller screen. Nonetheless, the 9:25 p.m. show drew a mixed crowd of 60-70 people, despite zero advertising in the local newspapers, and folks seemed satisfied with what they saw.

In a development noted on several horror sites, not the least of which are Shock and BD.com, it appears that Lionsgate is indeed opening the oft-shuffled adaptation of Clive Barker's The Midnight Meat Train on roughly 100 screens this Friday. However, all currently-posted showtimes are at second-run theaters -- otherwise known as dollar theaters, although it never seems to be that cheap anymore, not even on Tuesdays.

In my neck of the woods, one theater has it booked for two evening shows a day, for an engagement that I'm willing to bet will last only one week. The last time I remember a first-run film being shown at this theater, it was the Weinsteins' Feast, although that usually neglectful studio did so as part of a clear strategy to boost general awareness of that movie before its DVD release a month later (and wouldn't you know it, that wasn't a bad flick at all).

Despite all the fuss between Barker and the studio and the frequent release date changes, Scott saw it at Comic-Con and really dug it, and he doesn't seem to be alone among the genre gurus, which leads one to wonder just why Lionsgate would go to such curious lengths to so poorly fulfill a contractual obligation when it seems that fans might, y'know, actually turn out and pay full price to get the grisly goods. (On the flip side, at least it'll hit more cities than Pathology or Rogue did when they were similarly dumped.)

What do you guys think? Are you still interested in catching the film, and if so, do you find yourself inconvenienced by this odd distribution tactic?

Easily the best Clive Barker adaptation since the first Hellraiser film, Ryuhei Kitamura's The Midnight Meat Train is so absolutely a "horror fans only" experience that I'm not surprised that Lionsgate wants to give it only a cursory theatrical release before dumping it into DVD. I do not mean that as a knock on the film. As a matter of fact, this is certainly one of the most effective horror films of the year -- but man, oh man... it would be a really tough sell on 1,200 screens. It's kind of an unfair catch-22 where certain horror movies are concerned: if you "go dark," dabble in grimness, and don't cater to the under-18 crowd, then there's a good chance your "hardcore" horror movie will debut on DVD (at best) or, like The Mist and The Ruins, arrive in theaters very quietly.

But let's hear it for the filmmakers who still insist on pushing the envelope, giving the horror fans something dark and challenging, and focusing more on mood, atmosphere, and scares more than in catering to the widest audience possible. Frankly, if The Midnight Meat Train hits only 100 screens (which is Lionsgate's current plan), I'd take that as a compliment paid to the movie: This is not a mainstream horror flick. If all you know of horror films is stuff like Prom Night, consider yourself warned.