After "The Artist," what would be the best career move for him?

Everything!

(Happy weekend, all . . . )

Been wondering about this one: Today comes the announcement that Naomi Watts, last seen in "J. Edgar," will play Diana, Princess of Wales in "Caught in Flight," a drama about the last two years of the princess's life. Oliver Hirschbiegel ("Downfall") will direct the film, which begins production later this year. No word on who will play Prince Charles.

In other casting news:

-- Morgan Freeman will team with Tom Cruise for the post-apocalyptic thriler "Oblivion," directed by Joseph Kosinski. I'm having a hard time visualizing this movie, as wouldn't Ethan Hunt have found a way to keep the apocalypse from happening?

-- Robert Redford will be the sole cast member in writer/director J.C. Chandor's follow-up to "Margin Call": "All Is Lost," about a man lost at sea.

-- Oscar winner Natalie Portman will next take on a Terrence Malick doubleheader: She's cast in his next two movies, "Knight of the Cups" and "Lawless." Christian Bale and Cate Blanchett are also signed for both movies; with Ryan Gosling and Rooney Mara set just for "Lawless."

-- Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson will team up again, for the first time since "Wedding Crashers," for the comedy "Interns." Written by Vaughn, the film is about a pair of downsized guys who became interns at a dot-com. OK then, but I think it'd be more fun if they crashed the "Bridesmaids" wedding, don't you?

Last week, a reader emailed me to ask about star ratings -- he was curious about criteria for the middle ratings, whether I ever gave a movie zero stars, and if I would give examples for each rating. Glad to oblige! I'll admit I'm not crazy about giving star ratings, but appreciate that they are customary. It's frustrating, though, that a two-and-a-half star rating can mean a movie that's kind of OK but utterly unambitious, or a movie that's both amazing and terrible at the same time. And I also recognize that star ratings are entirely subjective; a four-star experience for me might not be the same for you, and vice versa. For me, a three-star movie isn't necessarily "better" than a two-and-a-half star movie; but it did a better job of doing what it sets out to do -- in other words, I'm rating the movie not against other movies, but against itself. Does that make sense? Anyway, here are the eight possible ratings, with a few thoughts:

Four stars: A truly wonderful movie; a transporting experience; something for which I can't imagine how it could be any better. Recent examples: "The Artist," "The Descendants," "Pina" (which I just wrote up today).

Three and a half stars: Very, very good; among my favorites of the year; maybe just one little thing about it that feels like a misstep, or perhaps overall it's just not quite as overwhelming an experience as a four-star movie, but still a genuine pleasure. Recent examples: "Margaret" (just shy of four stars, as I felt a few of the characters were undeveloped; perhaps due to the movie's well-publicized recutting); "Pariah," "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo."

Three stars: Good, solid movie; recommended; no major qualms. Recent examples: "Albert Nobbs," "The Woman in Black," "Young Adult."

Two and a half stars. Now we're getting a little murky. This might be a movie that's solidly mediocre, or a wildly ambitious movie that only partially fulfills its ambition, or a movie that's got some great qualities or uneven execution. Recent examples: "The Innkeepers"; "War Horse" (yes, I know nobody agrees with me on this); "Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows".

Two stars: Not recommended; needs a lot of popcorn; not good but there's something about it that keeps it from being truly bad -- maybe a strong performance or impressive effects. Recent examples: "Carnage," "W.E.", "Chronicle," "The Iron Lady."

One and a half stars. Now we're getting into the dreck. Not good; not worth your time; maybe not offensively bad but bad all the same. Examples: "The Hangover, Part II."

One star: Bad movie; indifferently made and maybe even a little insulting and/or offensive in its use of our time. Examples: "30 Minutes or Less."

Half a star: Really, really, really awful. Examples: Can't think of any; I know I've awarded half a star in the past, but it's been a while. (In general, I'm noticing as I look back on these ratings that I tend to err on the generous side. I'll work on that.)

No stars: Haven't given this as a rating, as I think it would just look as if I'd forgotten to rate the movie. But maybe I should.

And what about you -- do you find star ratings helpful?

I'm having trouble getting excited for "The Amazing Spider-Man," due in theaters July 3, mainly because it just seems so unnecessary: it's an origin story, and we already had one (and a pretty great one) in the 2002 Sam Raimi/Tobey Maguire "Spider-Man." But Sony's just launched a new trailer, and I have to say I'm intrigued: Andrew Garfield, who was wonderful in "Never Let Me Go" and "The Social Network," seems to have an nice light touch here, Emma Stone is always a treat (though I like her better redheaded), and what's not to like about a trailer that incluces the line "38 of New York's finest vs. one guy in a unitard"?

And what do you think?

Sorry, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. I've long maintained that the British Academy of Film and Television Arts Film Awards (coming up this Sunday, likely broadcast here on BBC America) are much more fun to watch than the Oscars, for a variety of reasons: better acceptance speeches, more entertaining presenters, and an endearing habit in years past of forcing high-heeled and long-skirted female presenters to arrive at the podium via a steep, scary ramp, which makes for some thrilling suspense. But here are two reasons why this year's BAFTAs will be, without question, superior:

-- Stephen Fry is hosting. Sure, I love Billy Crystal. But read Fry's statement upon accepting the gig, after an absence of several years:

I had a marvellous time presenting the Film Awards for the first six years of the century. Hard as it may be for some characteristically sceptical Britons to believe, the BAFTAs have real kudos, reputation and cachet all over the world of film-making and I, old as I am, never cease to be shamelessly glamorised by the sight of so many legendary names who come every year as nominees and presenters.

"The adorable Jonathan Ross has done a magnificent job since I last hung up my bow-tie and boxed my patent leather pumps, and I am honoured and pleased to return to the lectern and host what I am sure will be an evening of squeals, surreally weird acceptance speeches and genuinely exciting surprises and pleasures."

I've interviewed Fry in person and he really does speak just like that. Always clever, always funny, always sounding like he has a staff of writers in his head.

-- And who will be BAFTA's official red-carpet host? Miss Piggy. No, I'm not kidding. "Imagine the likes of Clooney, Dujardin, Fassbender, Oldman and Pitt achieving the very pinnacle of their careers - being interviewed by the one and only moi!" she told the Hollywood Reporter. Imagine indeed. I'll be watching.

I didn't watch the Super Bowl yesterday, because football has always been sort of a mystery to me, and because I had to watch "The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp" on DVD, in preparation for an interview this week. (For all Powell/Pressburger fans: note that Thelma Schoonmaker will be at SAM next month, March 6 and 7, to present "Colonel Blimp" -- in a newly restored version -- and "Peeping Tom.") So all I saw of yesterday's big event were a few furtive peeks at the Puppy Bowl -- but I'd be curious to hear, from those of you who watched the game, what you thought about the trailers for upcoming movie shown during the breaks. New York Magazine has all the ads here: "Battleship," "John Carter," "Act of Valor," "The Lorax," "The Avengers," "G.I.Joe 2: Retaliation," "The Dictator," and "The Hunger Games." Anybody impressed by what they saw? Unimpressed? Which one are you most eager to see? (I bet it's "The Hunger Games," isn't it?)

Ten days after the Academy Award nominations, I'm hearing from colleagues and friends who are busily trying to catch up with the Best Picture nominations before Oscar night. (A tip: Unless you have a truly amazing big-screen setup at home, approach the wonderful "Tree of Life" with caution. It was not meant to be watched on a computer screen, and will make no sense there.) Me, I've seen them all, and am watching the campaigning with interest. Currently "The Artist" is the front-runner, with its charming stars out and about to chat about the film. Meanwhile, the cast of "Bridesmaids" has been announced as presenters at the awards ceremony (no, not the whole cast, just the bride and bridesmaids -- including the three who proposed a "Scorsese" drinking game at the SAGs), the ballots have been mailed out (for the last time; voting goes electronic next year), and people are complaining about the nomination process in the foreign-language film and documentary categories, as well they might.

And what's your feeling about the whole thing? I thoroughly enjoy Oscar season myself -- though I have to admit that a lot of it, for me, is about the dresses -- but I know not everyone's a big fan. Take a poll, and enjoy this sunny (in Seattle, anyway) weekend.

It's "Groundhog Day" . . .

Should we indeed be due for six more weeks of winter, there are far, far worse ways to kill two hours of it than watching this movie. It's a gem.