The star-studded evening relied heavily on random appearances of celebrities who have nothing to do with the music industry. TV personalities such as Neil Patrick Harris, Jonny Depp and Ellen Degeneres were peppered in-between the long list of performances that jammed the broadcast so full that the musical guests in the early evening could easily be forgotten by the end of the night. Does anyone remember that Alicia Keys performed? Nope.

This show reeked of obligatory, forced tributes, undoubtedly to form an emotional connection to otherwise unmoved home viewers. Dick Clark, Bob Marley and even the victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy all got shout-outs in either the form of musical performances or speeches. Still, nothing could have compared to the sudden shock of Whitney Houston’s death on the night before last year’s Grammys.

Mumford and sons and Black Keys were among the more exciting performances . Their songs gave the Energetic and upbeat break that was needed among the majority of the evening’s performances, which were somber and almost depressing.

Of course, none of the evening’s musical performances could compete with the Bob Marley tribute performance that included Bruno Mars, Sting, Rihanna and Ziggy/Damien Marley. During the medley, on-looking stars in the crowd, such as Wiz Khalifa, Taylor Swift, Jay Z and Adele watched in amazement, appearing as if it were the coolest thing they’d ever witnessed.

Country music and folk jam bands owned the evening, excluding music lovers who don’t follow the genre.

The rest of the show was composed of irksome moments, such as Justin Timberlake’s performance of his new song that no one likes, LL Cool J’s attempts to turn the night into an emotional retrospective of his life and “accomplishments,” and the totally predictable list of winners. No surprise victories here.

Unquestionably, the greatest shame of Grammys 2013 was the tragic fact that Carly Rae Jepsen failed to snag any wins, which would have been triumphant, gratifying and absolutely hilarious. Next year, maybe?

This freedom has allowed Netflix to create a rich, addictive show with an A-list cast. Kevin Spacey stars as Frank Underwood, a member of the House of Representatives out for revenge after he gets passed over for secretary of state. Robin Wright is consummate politician’s wife Claire Underwood: a cold, calculating Lady Macbeth. She is the perfect complement to Frank’s cunning, chess-like strategy to get back on his lack of promotion. Kate Mara is Zoe Barnes, a typical overeager (and somewhat annoying) rookie reporter.

Critically acclaimed director David Fincher helms the first two episodes, and his stark cinematography adds quiet gravity to every shady deal and glamorous gala.

Frank’s startling asides are equally compelling. The series premiere opens with Underwood directly addressing the audience as he twists the neck of a canine hit-and-run victim. He continues to do so throughout the show, usually with an eye roll and a snide comment about the person he’s trying to schmooze. The most powerful of these moments comes when Underwood delivers a eulogy at the funeral of a teenager from his South Carolina district. He recounts the profound experience of his father’s death, turns to the camera and, in the same breath, remarks that his father did nothing but take up space.

Instances like these are the genius of “House of Cards.” Viewers become complicit in Underwood’s underhanded dealings and invested in his plans as we gain further access to his thoughts. This tactic is borrowed from the identically titled BBC miniseries that aired in the nineties, which was adapted from a novel by Michael Dobbs, who is currently an executive producer.

Writer Beau Willimon, who gained prior experience writing the political thriller The Ides of March, updates the show to reflect the current political climate. Claire Underwood runs the Clean Water Initiative, a charity that she wants to expand on an international scale. As ruthless as her husband, Claire fires half of her staff in order to hire one person with access to resources she desperately wants.

“House of Cards” certainly has credentials, but it remains to be seen whether audiences will actually buy into this new television format. Viewers may not be willing to purchase Netflix subscriptions simply for its own original series, but this show is definitely worth watching for current subscribers. Netflix caters to fans of binge watching by placing all thirteen season one episodes online at the same time. This could be the beginning of a new era of television, and “House of Cards” is an ambitious start (Hulu’s original series don’t count. Let’s be real. No one watches those.)

Written by Craig Mazin (“The Hangover Part II”) and directed by Seth Gordon (“Horrible Bosses”), “Identity Thief” boasts several talented performers. Jason Bateman (“Horrible Bosses”) and Melissa McCarthy (“This is 40”) have extraordinary comedic gifts, and the supporting cast is populated with excellent actors like Jonathan Banks (“Breaking Bad”), Amanda Peet (“Bent”), Robert Patrick (“Gangster Squad”) and Eric Stonestreet (“Modern Family”).

Unfortunately, none of this talent elevates the shoddy material.

The movie’s first scene climaxes with a vomit scene more gross than amusing, a harbinger of things to come. Shortly thereafter, Bateman arrives on screen as a businessman named Sandy Patterson. Hilarious, right? Well, no, but seemingly every new character gets in an unimaginative jab about the endless comedic potential of a traditionally female name transposed on a male body. The script lacks the good sense to recognize that the word “Sandy” is not inherently funny.

Melissa McCarthy’s eponymous character takes advantage of Patterson’s allegedly hysterical gender-neutral moniker and, as the title indicates, steals his identity. For the rest of the movie, Bateman’s Sandy convinces McCarthy’s Sandy to travel from Florida to his home in Colorado so that the identity thief can admit her crimes to the victim’s boss (John Cho, “Star Trek”) and the police. Complications include a drug boss (Banks) and his cronies (Genesis Rodriguez, “Man on a Ledge,” and rapper T.I., “Takers”), an unhinged lunatic (Patrick), a promiscuous cowboy (Stonestreet) and all manner of transportation-related issues.

“Identity Thief” fails the first test of movie comedy — it doesn’t inspire laughter. McCarthy is making every effort, running and singing and pratfalling, but her character is excessively unlikable and cartoonish rather than endearingly outrageous. Bateman serves as the straight man to McCarthy’s antics, but even he seems irritated by the tired dialogue.

The problem is not simply that the movie is too ridiculous or that the premise is too absurd. In fact, in some instances, the opposite is true. The first act treats this identity crisis almost as if it were reality. The writers have misjudged the absurdity of this premise. Why not exaggerate those elements instead of making us pretend to care about the ramifications of a police investigation?

Even more problematically, the script seems to frequently call attention to McCarthy’s weight. McCarthy is a beautiful woman who happens not to fit the stereotypical weight of a Hollywood actress. So what? How about a movie in which the character’s weight is simply a fact and not a talking point? Such progressivism would be refreshing. Instead, this movie makes cheap jokes at her expense.

After more than an hour of tiresome antics, the script takes an unwelcome turn into entirely unearned sentimentality. Suddenly, the writers require that the audience invest in the emotional lives of formerly loathsome characters. Yes, she’s a con artist, but she has a sob story! Yes, he’s an impressionable doofus, but he has been pushed around all his life! To McCarthy’s credit, she nearly pulls off this abrupt transition by virtue of her charm. Bateman is not so lucky.

Some of these problems might have been alleviated if the comedic set pieces were fresh or amusing in any way. Sadly, they’re not.

At one point, the conversation between the two Sandys takes an inexplicable turn. “I visually enjoy you,” McCarthy tells Bateman lustily.

Unfortunately, it’s nearly impossible to visually enjoy this lazy, sloppy, inane movie.

Ted Mosby, you’re awful at telling stories. Don’t get me wrong, your memory is impeccable, but this is getting ridiculous. If someone asked me where I went to eat lunch today, I wouldn’t tell him/her about the last 29 restaurants I ate at before answering the question. Kids, really, just walk away from your father and ask mom how it happened if you’re curious.

Many of you who keep up with the beloved sitcom, “How I Met Your Mother,” are probably aware that the series got picked up for another season several weeks ago. If you fans are keeping track, that’s nine seasons of “HIMYM.” Sure it’s a great show, but I’m basing that judgment off of the series as a whole and not its most recent seasons. The actors are just as loveable as they’ve always been, but the quality of the stories has plummeted recently.

With the exception of the midseason finale, the biggest success this season came last week with the return of Robin’s Canadian super-star alter ego, Robin Sparkles. It worked because they appealed to long-time viewers by bringing back a recurring plot from seasons past. For me, that says a lot about the current state of the show.

Sure, we all love the occasional moments of nostalgia for our favorite long running TV series, but when your fresh storylines are consistently weak, maybe it’s time to call it quits. That’s what many fans, including myself, were saying back in the fall before season 9 was even announced.

To be fair, “The Office” announced their final season during a time when many considered the show unwatchable. Thankfully, “The Office” has proven this year that it still has momentum and solid stories to tell, and hopefully “HIMYM” will do the same in its final season.

But the difference between these series is that “HIMYM” draws in its fans in a similar fashion to “Lost” that’s almost manipulative. Most “Lost” fans weren’t going to stop watching until the big questions were answered about the island (many things are still not clear), and the same goes for long-time “HIMYM” viewers who just want to learn the answer to the question that the very title triggers.

I believe this is a sign that the series is now setting itself up to reveal the mother at the end of this season and spend next year telling the story of the couple’s relationship. But when I bring this up, I usually hear, “No way, the show’s called ‘How I Met Your Mother,’ not ‘How I Married Your Mother!” By that logic, “New Girl” should have ended after the first season since Zooey Deschanel is now beyond acquainted with her roommates.

The “HIMYM” staff would be killing this show if they waited until the end of the series to reveal the mystery woman. It would mean more bogus storylines for the gang and pointless relationships for Ted that would just act as filler material until the finale.

I can’t get angry with anyone for agreeing to one more season, but I just hope they handle the storyline appropriately. We fans have all been patient and it’s about time we learned who she is. I love this show and just ask for a final season fans can look forward to. If Ted Mosby waits any longer, I want to see him transform into Bob Saget.

If you haven’t seen it yet, by all means take a couple of minutes to check it out. Seriously, go ahead, I’ll wait…

You see what I mean?!

With all that in mind, it is easy to see why a lot of people don’t think too highly of his acting. But in my highly professional opinion, I don’t think his acting is necessarily bad. It’s just different.

First off, let’s point out that, as hard as it is to admit, Cage has been in some quality films. In “Raising Arizona,” “Leaving Las Vegas,” and “The Rock,” he plays it straight and does a fairly good job in the more dramatic or, at the very least, serious roles. Hell, the man was nominated for an Oscar for his role in “Adaptation.” Even in the “National Treasure” movies, which weren’t fantastic, he did a passable job.

Of course, those aren’t the movies that have really earned him his infamy. Instead, it’s the movies contained in the video that I mentioned before (which, just to see where I’m coming from, you really should watch if you haven’t already) that people really like to remember. For God’s sake, the video has over seven million views, which is more than most of Cage’s actual movies!

Call me crazy, but when Nicolas Cage acts really, really weird in a movie, I usually don’t attribute it to bad acting. Ultimately, it comes down to one of two situations. The first is when Nicolas Cage is intentionally acting bat-shit crazy because it suits his character. In that video, half the snippets come from just two movies: “Vampire’s Kiss” and “Bad Lieutenant.” In both of these movies, he acts completely and utterly insane, jumping on desks, picking fights with random strangers, and inexplicably wailing at the top of his lungs. But here’s the thing: that’s precisely the point. In “Vampire’s Kiss,” Cage plays a psychopath who’s convinced that he’s turning into a vampire, and in “Bad Lieutenant,” he’s a crack-addicted, corrupt cop. Both of these movies are about watching a character completely and utterly break down and then terrorize everyone around him. In this task, Cage certainly doesn’t disappoint.

Then there’s “The Wicker Man,” or as some people may know it, that movie in which Nicolas Cage has bees poured on his face and starts punching a woman in a bear suit. Would I call that bad acting? Yes and no. Don’t get me wrong. It’s not good acting. It’s bizarre, jarring, and completely out of place in the rest of the movie. But here’s the thing: even without Cage’s over-the-top performance, “The Wicker Man” isn’t a good movie. In fact, I’d go so far as to call it one of the worst pieces of shit I’ve ever seen. Everything about it fails, from the awful plot to the crappy writing to the across-the-board terrible acting to its attempts at scares that amount to a level of strangeness I haven’t seen since “Troll 2.” Sure, Nicolas Cage running around in a bear suit and roundhouse kicking people in the face might make no sense within the film’s context, but it’s also the only fun part in a movie that otherwise makes me want to claw my own eyes out.

It’s a misconception to say that acting can only be defined as good or bad. There are some actors out there who are inarguably “good” in everything: Javier Bardem, Christoph Waltz, and Daniel Day-Lewis, to name a few. Then there are actors who fit into a very different category.

The best example of this, I think, is if we look at “Twilight: New Moon.” Okay, stop snickering and hear me out. The acting in that movie is terrible. Everyone gives a cold, emotionless performance that serves as one of many elements making the film unwatchable…that is, until Michael Sheen steps in as the ludicrously flamboyant head of the vampire organization. Making a face like a ventriloquist dummy undergoing a prostate exam, he delivers every line with so much strange energy and accompanies it with equally inexplicable gestures that he had me cracking up whenever he was on screen. Now, calling this good acting would be downright disrespectful to any actor who respects his art, but the fact remains that he succeeded as the only one making the film at least mildly entertaining. Thus, it might be said that this kind of acting can serve a purpose.

This is why I won’t call Cage a bad actor. “Ghost Rider 2” is so much fun because he spends the whole movie acting like a heroin addict in withdrawal who just drank four Redbulls. In “Drive Angry,” he acts like a schizophrenic terminator.

Even in “Kick-Ass,” he spends half the time acting like a pedophile on the verge of a psychotic breakdown. Degree of skill aside, his acting can at least be called  entertaining.

Cage claims to have invented his own style of acting called “Nouveau Shamanic” specifically for portraying bat-shit insanity. Some think the man’s just nuts. Ultimately, whether it is method or madness, Cage achieves something very special with his acting. If only the man did a better job at picking his projects.

While the movie still has the basic punch lines that any run-of-the-mill action-comedy is anticipated to have, director Fisher Stevens (“Decisions”) also incorporates a surprising amount of heartfelt emotion and light drama. However, the inconsistency and sloppy transitions between the serious and humorous parts make the movie underwhelming and difficult to watch.

“Stand Up Guys” revolves around the reunion of released convict Valentine (Al Pacino, “The Son of No One”), better known as Val, and his longtime friend and crime partner Doc (Christopher Walken, “Seven Psychopaths”). After picking up their friend and former getaway driver Richard Hirsch (Alan Arkin, “Argo”) from a retirement home, the gang decides to pursue a night of debauchery. No night out with older-aged men is complete without stolen prescription drugs, a joy ride, awkward dancing, a brothel and a steak.

The laughs aside, Stevens adds some raw drama that is not expected in a typical action-comedy. Walken’s stoic dialogue and soft-put mannerisms along with visible tears allows genuine emotion to seep through an otherwise deadpan performance. Pacino gives a rather average performance filled with repetitive talk and cliché jokes. Nonetheless, Pacino is able to showcase his more expressive side in subtle scenes, such as when Val slow dances with a younger woman at a bar.

Arkin shines when he needs to despite having hardly any screen time. Shockingly, Doc’s granddaughter, Alex (Addison Timlin, “Afterschool”), who is a waitress in a diner, gives one of the most compelling performances in the film. Timlim’s upbeat, youthful energy is a nice contrast to the hardened and nostalgic attitude of the older men. Lucy Punch (“Bad Teacher”), who portrays the manager of a brothel, also adds some well-timed humor in her short time in the film.

Although presented as a crime-comedy, “Stand Up Guys” feels more like a soft drama at times. The joke-filled but honest conversations between the main characters speak to deep philosophical themes about old age, regret and responsibility. At certain points the laughs are necessary to counterbalance a few grim moments, such as the death of a friend.

However, the director unsuccessfully blends the action-comedy side of the film with the more serious and somber parts.  A slow-paced and heartfelt dialogue between Val and Doc immediately transitions to a brawl in a clothing store. The action in “Stand Up Guys” seems out of place at times and takes away from the thoughtful developments in the film. Stevens’ lack of focus takes away from the full potential this movie has to really engage audiences.

“Stand Up Guys” doesn’t fall into any major pitfalls that make it totally unbearable.  Although the mix of action and drama does not mix well, it does not completely take away from the enjoyable and hilarious parts of this movie.  Ultimately, the star-filled cast, tolerable directing and a mediocre plot make for a satisfactory film.

Despite the astoundingly low ratings of “30 Rock,”  NBC still awarded this masterful program six full seasons as well as an abbreviated seventh. Despite the poor commercial reception of the show, critically the program has proved a darling for the network, winning the Primetime Emmy for Outstanding Comedy Series three years in a row perhaps stands as the shows crowning achievement.   One can only hope that the show’s small but incredibly dedicated fan base will expand with the passage of time as more are exposed to the antics of Liz Lemon via syndicated reruns and online video steaming services.

And how was the final hour long show itself? In a word, spectacular.

Besides providing fans with a well deserved and, as expected, incredibly funny conclusion, “30 Rock’s” finale manages to draw an actual emotion and perhaps a tear or two from its audience for the very first time on more than one occasion.

Jack Donaghy, finally achieves his goal of becoming one of the world’s greatest CEOs only to find himself unfulfilled.  Liz is unsure of what path to take now that TGS is over, especially since Jack is now going back on all his past several years of advice, which Liz points out makes him nothing more than “an alcoholic with an amazing voice.”

New NBC President Kenneth is no help after rejecting a new show pitch from Liz for using descriptive no-no words including “woman” and “quality.” Pete is on the verge of finally leaving his depressed life of wife and kids, while the writing staff of TGS is finally getting payback from years of ragging on Lutz.

Jenna meanwhile fails to realize her total and utter uselessness but at least finds a real emotion at last when her mirror is taken from her.

Tracy, in an attempt to receive $30 million due to a contract clause, wrecks as much havoc as usual before he and Liz have a heart to heart, fittingly inside a strip club.

While the entire 7th season has featured encore appearances from favorite recurring guest stars, the finale itself featured a who’s who of surprise appearances including Salma Hayek, Julianne Moore, Conan O’Brien, and Al Roker among many others.

The entire cast delivers an amazing performance in the finale, mixing the shows characteristic one liners with a twinge of emotion, in particular Alec Baldwin whose performance as Jack in the episode is absolutely Emmy deserving.

The jokes in the finale flowed plenty and often, as they have for seven years, and without a single hitch during the episode to boot. In summary – brilliant.

“30 Rock” was a show whose commercial failure is sometimes blamed on the thought that the idea is too smart, too quick, and too witty for most average americans to stay invested in.  To be honest, the same has been said about “The Simpsons” and “Arrested Development”, and I wouldn’t have it any other way.  Over the past decade, ever since her famous stint as co host of Weekend Update on SNL began, “30 Rock” star and creator Tina Fey has established herself as one of the premier comedic minds of her generation.  While no one knows if the future will hold a comparable degree of wild success for Fey, one thing is for certain: “30 Rock” will serve as the standard upon which other comedy programs should be judged. Tina Fey has easily created one of the funniest television sitcoms in history. Period.

Oh and as you might have guessed, Kenneth is indeed immortal.

In the virtually untested waters of original online programming, the stakes were high for Netflix’s $100 million dollar gamble in the original debut. Netflix Chief Content Officer Ted Sarandos says the decision to commit to two seasons of House of Cards did not come lightly.

“We wanted to go all-in,” Sarandos said to the Los Angeles Times. “It’s important to signal … that we’re moving into this space in a meaningful, big way. So we did it loud.”

A glance at the show’s credits, however, suggests that “loud” is an understatement. Executive producer and partial director David Fincher is the man behind such acclaimed works as Fight Club and The Social Network. Paired together with Academy Award-nominated writer Beau Willimon, House of Cards is a series that demands to be taken seriously.

The high degree of talent on the show’s lineup is something that one might expect to find on Showtime or HBO. But when Netflix — formerly strictly a media provider, never a producer of original content — outbid every network that vied to control the show, the world of TV raised its eyebrows.

But for Modi Wiczyk, co-CEO of producing studio Media Rights Capital, which created the series, Netflix offered something far more valuable than anything the other networks could: complete artistic freedom.

“[Netflix] gave us the opportunity to be the anchor, the defining show,” Wiczyk said to USA Today about Netflix’s unprecedented 26-episode commitment before filming had even begun. “It was really kind of rare air.”

With unlimited creative control, the producers of House of Cards do not have to obey network demands for script changes or production design specifications; to the filmmakers, this freedom alone could almost be worth the enormous budget to which they are also privy.

Normal network shows are subject to changes sometimes literally while an episode is being filmed — mainly because of current ratings and reviews. “We’re telling a story. We’re gonna tell it at our pace,” actor Corey Stoll told MTV. “… That’s very hard to do when you’re worried about ratings.”

Hopefully, this decision to leave the story uncensored will be of great benefit for not only new fans of House of Cards, but also for online originals in the near future.

If Netflix’s undertaking proves to be as successful as it appears it will, a full move to original online content could be underway very soon. And if online providers follow in Netflix’s footsteps to let their filmmakers have real artistic control, then a new wave of exceptional TV and cinema could be on the way.

But perhaps more valuable to the fast-paced audiences of the digital world, dons one feature that could never be matched by traditional networks: On Feb. 1, the entire first season — not just the first episode — was posted online all at once.

It’s a move that bucks the usual network strategy of “Wait a week and we’ll give you new episodes, then wait a season, we’ll give you another season,” Sarandos told the Los Angeles Times.

But this just won’t do with modern audiences. “The Internet is attuning people to get what they want when they want it,” he said.

The instant gratification that the Internet provides is nothing new, so it seems about time for more facets of pop culture to start exploiting it. Netflix and competitors Hulu and Amazon Prime have established themselves as the standard (legal) online cinema providers, but by creating an entire original series all available in one click, Netflix has significantly upped the game.

In researching how subscribers use their websites, providers like Netflix have coined a new term, “binge-viewing,” to describe the watching of several episodes of a series in one sitting. Sarandos told investors at the BOA Merrill Lynch Media, Communications and Entertainment Conference that he noticed the significance of binge-watching when 50,000 subscribers watched the entire fourth season of Breaking Bad in a 24-hour period the day it was posted on Netflix.

Though Netflix’s competitor Hulu was technically the first to air an original drama online, the lack of a substantial budget and little critical attention prevented it from gaining much attention.

With House of Cards, that certainly isn’t a problem — and it certainly doesn’t seem it will be a problem for other online shows if they follow in Cards’ footsteps.

The romantic comedy, adapted from Isaac Marion’s novel of the same name, is told through the eyes of R, perhaps the most charismatic zombie to ever exist on−screen. Nicholas Hoult absolutely shines as R — who can’t remember his own name, except for its first letter −— and whose wide−eyed innocence and shy but likeable persona make him easy to root for. R self−describes his “boring” life to viewers through a series of witty voiceovers that reveal that zombies not only have conscious thoughts, but are also capable of having emotions. “I’m lonely, I’m lost,” R laments in his inner monologue as he is shown wasting away each day wandering around a rundown airport. “I mean I’m literally lost, I’ve never been in this part of the airport before.”

The story is a post−apocalyptic “Romeo and Juliet”: two people from vastly different backgrounds fall for each other. R meets human survivor Julie (Teresa Palmer) when her friends’ raid for medical supplies goes awry. He feels an instant attraction to her even before eating the brain, and therefore gaining the memories, of her boyfriend Perry (Dave Franco). Instead of making her his next meal, R brings Julie back to his airplane−home to protect her, and the two begin an unconventional friendship. They bond over old vinyl records, drive a red sports car up and down the landing strip and boom — there goes his supposedly undead heart: it beats.

Viewers will likely identify with R’s adorably meek attempts to get closer to Julie, his love interest. “Don’t be creepy. Don’t be creepy. Don’t be creepy,” he thinks as he catches himself staring at her again.

But their relationship isn’t easy, as Julie’s dad (John Malkovich) is a general who leads a zombie−slaying army. Understandably, the bitter general absolutely does not want his daughter to be in the presence of, let alone fall in love with, a brain−munching corpse. He firmly declares that the zombies are “unfeeling” and “incapable of remorse,” but R and Julie hope to use their growing emotional connection as counterproof. And of course, there’s a balcony scene, and Julie’s best friend, Nora (Analeigh Tipton) wants to be a nurse. These are parallels that don’t even take the characters’ names into account.

The film is refreshingly humorous, and both R and best friend M (Rob Corddry) prompt numerous laughs, despite only being able to communicate with body language, moans and the occasional one−word grunt. The undead Corddry in particular gives a new meaning to the phrase “deadpan humor”, and delivers a number of laugh−out−loud one−liners.

Analeigh Tipton, “America’s Next Top Model” alumna and “Crazy, Stupid, Love.” (2011), actress exhibits a knack for comedic timing which is much more developed in “Warm Bodies” than in it is in any of her previous films.

The film only has a handful of action sequences, but the storyline of R and Julie’s budding romance is more interesting than the killing scenes anyway. The movie also gets bonus points just for trying to step out of the zombie box, a genre that has taken over the entertainment world. The soundtrack also has a unique twist to it; the clever guy who chose Bruce Springsteen’s “Hungry Heart” deserves a pat on the back.

“Warm Bodies” isn’t perfect. The second half of the film is less entertaining than the first, and the conclusion is a bit too convenient. Hardcore zombie film purists may hunger for more blood and gore, but the movie overall is a delicious treat that doesn’t need piles of guts to generate suspense and emotion; “Warm Bodies” already has heart. This is the perfect date movie for Valentine’s Day, as guys and girls will both find entertainment in the undead−fight scenes, the romantic tension and the hilarious enigma that is Corddry’s M. The star−crossed lovers’ journey is a definitely a satisfyingly fun one to follow.

Since its inception in 2006, “30 Rock” has followed the exploits of Liz Lemon (Tina Fey), head writer of the sketch comedy show “TGS.” But “30 Rock” quickly branched out beyond this basic concept, using the backstage setting as a springboard for over-the-top hijinks, eccentric humor and meta references that allowed the show to grow into one of the strangest, funniest comedies on television. While the show was rather hit or miss in later seasons, this final run of episodes in the seventh season has been one of the strongest in the series’ history and epitomizes all that is great about “30 Rock.”

The home stretch of the show finds Liz striving to resolve many of the issues she’s struggled with throughout the series. She’s finally made headway with an adoption agency, has found a steady partner in Criss (James Marsden) and her life generally seems to be looking up. Still, pitfalls lurk. A pending lawsuit has placed the status of “TGS” in jeopardy. Jack Donaghy’s (Alec Baldwin) promotion at Kabletown leaves him unable to save the show while Liz can find no help from her cast and crew to save “TGS,” led by Jenna (Jane Krakowski) and Tracy (Tracy Morgan). All these events coalesce in an organic way, making the episodes in the seventh season feel like a proper build-up to a finale that will bring resolution to all of these plot threads.

Liz’s life may still be a bit less than perfect, but “30 Rock” still manages to fill each moment with hilarious punch lines and rapid-fire gags. Thanks to the fantastic supporting characters, with standouts being Kenneth (Jack McBrayer) and Tracy, there has yet to be a dull moment during the past five episodes. Jenna is still vain as ever in her attempts to upstage everyone else, and Tracy remains the king of irrelevant yet hysterical one-liners. Kenneth has still struggled with trying to find his place in the world, but his plotline ends up arriving at a satisfying conclusion. “30 Rock” has also welcomed back fan-favorites this season, giving recurring characters such as Dr. Spaceman, Devon Banks and Colleen Donaghy one final appearance.

The heart of “30 Rock’s” success lies in the mentor-mentee relationship between Liz and Jack, and the writers have highlighted this remarkably during the concluding season. The mutual admiration and respect between the pair manages to shine through the banter and gags, serving as a reminder as to what will be sorely missed when the series ends. As Jack comes to terms with what he’s looking for in life and as Liz begins to realize that her job can’t always be prioritized over her personal life, the final stretch of episodes finds the two characters remarkably developed and matured since their first appearance in the pilot seven years ago. The audience has followed both the highs and lows of Liz and Jack throughout the years, and this makes the impending conclusion to their storylines all the more satisfying.

It’s a testament to the creative power of Tina Fey and her writers that the quirky “30 Rock” has been able to survive seven years in primetime on a major network. Even though the series finale will not air until tomorrow night, it’s clear from these last few episodes that the writers have put much care into constructing a conclusion that will reward long-time viewers by combining the show’s trademark humor with a surprising level of emotion and sense of farewell. So even if you haven’t watched “30 Rock” in ages, there’s still time to join in and say a final goodbye to Liz Lemon and the rest of the gang at 30 Rockefeller Plaza as the show ends on a high note.

“Django Unchained” explores the possible history of a fictional slave named Django who attempts to free his wife from the plantation of a wealthy slaveholder. In presentation, the film has been likened to spaghetti-westerns of the mid-1960s by Telegraph reviewer Jenny McCartney, and is punctuated by numerous scenes of extreme violence. Tarantino defends these moments, telling an audience at the British Academy of Film and Television Arts that the reality of American slavery was “incredibly shocking” and much worse than anything depicted on film.

“Unchained” has been nominated for five Academy Awards and received critical and commercial success, becoming Tarantino’s highest-grossing movie, with a box office rake of $130 million. It is this success which prompted NECA to take interest in making collectible dolls fashioned after prominent characters in the movie. Of the six-doll set, one depicts Candie, a cruel slave owner who forces his male slaves to fight one another to the death for sport. Another doll is Stephen, a house slave played by actor Samuel L. Jackson, who called his character “the most despised Negro in cinematic history.”

With news that NECA was discontinuing their line of “Unchained” collectibles, owners immediately began putting the dolls on market sites like Amazon and eBay, with prices often tripling their original value. Already, an “Unchained” doll which initially sold for $39.99 fetched over $400 in an eBay auction, while a complete set has sold for $2,000.

“I’m not surprised at all,” said Krystal Moore, an employee at The Great Escape, a comic and collectible store located on Bardstown Road that specializes in a wide variety of pop-culture items and memorabilia. “We had customers asking for them even before this. When people start hearing that items are rare, the prices will skyrocket.”

On Jan. 25, the dolls were pulled from eBay on the grounds that it violated their offensive-materials policy, which prohibits products that “promote or glorify hatred, violence, racial, sexual or religious intolerance, or promote organizations with such views.”

NECA has previously made collectible dolls for other Tarantino films, such as the 2009 World War II fantasy, “Inglorious Basterds.”

As is suggested in the song, Harlan, Ky. — the main setting of FX’s exceptional modern−day Western epic — is a very dangerous place to be. It also happens to be the home of some of the best−written characters on television. To name a few, the show’s fourth season alone brings a young snake−handling preacher and his mysterious sister, an upstart constable, a former soldier beginning a career as a hitman and a hulking ex−con mixed martial arts fighter. Remarkably, this show about a deputy U.S. marshal who returns home to police the criminals he knows and grew up with is as spellbinding as ever.

Having just come out of last season’s thrilling grudge match with the Dixie Mafia, the protagonist of “Justified,” Timothy Olyphant’s brilliantly portrayed, Stetson−donning Deputy U.S. Marshal Raylan Givens, finds himself taking seemingly straightforward off−the−record side jobs in order to provide for his now−pregnant ex−girlfriend. However, Raylan again finds that there is no such thing as easy money in Harlan County, especially when he is surrounded by people willing to do whatever it takes to succeed. In fact, one of the main themes permeating this season seems to be the far−reaching consequences of betrayal and the toll it can have on one’s resolve.

That said, this theme does not bog “Justified” down — in fact, the show is energized by it. This season, wickedly humorous banter and breakneck tension continue to flow effortlessly within the framework of the story. Viewers will once again find themselves gleefully absorbed by both the action and the dialogue that is exchanged as the season progresses.

Cleverly foregoing previous seasons’ truly magnificent “Big Bad” antagonists, this season instead focuses on developing an overarching mystery spanning decades. It all begins with the curious death of a man who fell from an airplane in 1983 whose passing has puzzled law enforcement officials for years. By chance, a crucial, unexpected clue falls into Raylan’s lap and inadvertently connects him with modern−day criminals, one of whom is Raylan’s own geriatric convict father, Arlo. Arlo, portrayed by Raymond J. Barry, hid the clue from Raylan long ago and refuses to divulge the meaning behind it. Arlo is so anxious to keep the truth hidden that he is willing to kill in order to preserve the mystery. This plotline is crucial to the series, but ironic family dynamics are only some of the many darkly humorous aspects of “Justified.”

Also returning in fine form is fan−favorite Boyd Crowder (Walton Goggins), the quick−witted crime boss who pulls the strings behind every criminal outfit in Harlan. When his drug business begins to take off commercially, Boyd unexpectedly crosses paths with a religious congregation led by a youthful preacher who proves his unfaltering faith in the almighty by handling live snakes in the middle of services. The showdown between these two men already provides a season highlight that is sure to stay with the viewers.

By consistently reinventing the show, executive producer Graham Yost and the show’s writers have provided colorful characters with engrossing storylines that are, somehow, firmly grounded in reality. The creative forces behind “Justified” continue to surprise with twisty writing, sometimes bleak but always genuinely laugh−out−loud humor and clever dialogue between its rich characters, setting it apart from other network dramas. A show that continues to get better with every riveting season, “Justified” has indicated that this year Raylan and company are showing no signs of slowing down. Simply put, “Justified” is one of the best shows on television, and you should be watching.

Argo tells the story of a CIA rescue operation carried out during the Iran hostage crisis in which, to rescue six Americans who had found their way out of the burning embassy and were hiding in the house of the Canadian ambassador, the CIA created a fake movie agency and smuggled them outside of the country as foreign filmmakers.

Affleck plays the lead role, CIA extraction expert Tony Mendez, an affable character who expertly straddles the line between emotion and professionalism. The audience is quickly introduced to Mendez in his office, where he is tasked with rescuing the agents and struggles to find an idea to do so. The agency throws around cover stories—in one memorable exchange, Mendez addresses a fellow official and asks him if he truly expects the hostages to bike hundreds of miles through the desert across the border to another country—but is stuck.

While home and talking to his child on the phone, Mendez is hit with a bolt of inspiration. Affleck gets the ear of his superior, played by Bryan Cranston, and begins describing the idea: using a fake movie production of a ­sci-fi script called Argo as cover to extract the hostages. After getting support—Cranston pitches it to the organization as “the best bad idea we’ve got”—Affleck goes to Hollywood and works with a Hollywood makeup artist (John Goodman) and longtime producer (Alan Arkin) to make the fake film.

***

The movie is a testament to the evolution of Ben Affleck as a director. A brilliantly directed opening sequence in Tehran, where quickly moving shots capture the raging incoherence of mob protest, conveys the dystopia faced by the fleeing diplomatic corps. Forced to be the faces of a President harboring the shah, a detested despot in Iran, the group of six is a picture of frayed nerves the entire time, fearing for their lives. Chris Terrio’s brilliant script moves fluidly back across the Atlantic Ocean, first to Washington and then to California, where the Hollywood personas of Goodman and Arkin give the movie its true comedic delight.

Affleck and Terrio strike a balance between humor and gravity in the movie; the Arkin and Goodman characters provide a balance of levity and urgency in their approaches to the rescue. As they sort through bad scripts, Arkin rejects idea after idea, asserting facetiously “if I make a fake movie, it’s going to be a fake hit!” In the town of Hollywood glitz and glamor, Arkin and Goodman introduce Mendez to how to get things done, a comedic process that involves preying on Arkin’s inside knowledge of everyone’s personal lives to coerce them into paying him back favor after favor. The entire “this is so crazy is might work” motif hangs over the middle section of the film, as scrambling executives move to make the agency in less than a week to satisfy Mendez’s superiors back at the CIA, who threaten to “move ahead with the bikes” if the idea doesn’t work.

During this time, flashbacks to Tehran keep the movie grounded in reality and cuts to the embassy—where rebels are putting together images that had been put through the paper shredder in order to try and account for all the hostages—maintain a dramatic undertone to the oft-whimsical proceedings in California.

The voyage of Mendez to Tehran is the weakest part of the film. The drama is slightly overplayed, with the images of child workers putting together paper strips to identify the missing six slightly ridiculous. When interviewed about the movie, Mendez mentioned that the airport extraction went without a hitch but, with the typical Hollywood flair that turns the mundane in each story into the dramatic, it is nearly a thirty minute process that culminates with the plane taking off with Iranian security officials chasing it down the runway.

At its core, however, Argo’s distinguishing characteristic is its stark simplicity. Affleck makes no attempt to get the audience emotionally attached to any one character and leaves no onerous subplots to drag the film astray. The movie attempts to do no more than tell a story and insofar as it achieves its goal, it is, perhaps, the best move of the year. Slight satirizing of Hollywood only brings to the forefront the idea of Argo as a throwback to previous, utopian cinematic times. Nowhere do computer-generated images dominate action and reduce the onus on the human actors to, well, act. Nowhere are scantily clad women (or men, looking at you Steven Soderberg) used to attract denizens to the theater for their beauty instead of their performance.

The financial motives that form a significant motif in Arkin and Goodman’s interactions with Hollywood mainstays are as much an indicator as any about what moves images on scripts to the big screens now: profitability, not ingenuity. In the words of Katey Rich, “Argo is a spy thriller of a buttoned-up old school variety; we’re not given a lot of emotional attachments to these characters, and the reward for a job well done is a pay on the back, not an explosion of grateful tears.” Argo is a movie that aims to entertain and use the cinema as a medium of storytelling instead of embellishment and creation. The drama is rarely burdensome, the attention to detail in casting and costuming meticulous, and the emotion of the moment captured without being oversaturated. There are no side plots, and the movie’s happy endings and overarching motifs (international cooperation and goodwill, the power of innovation, etc.) are benign without being intrusive (à la Tarantino’s attempts at forced catharsis). It is, inauspiciously, a movie that tries to be no more. It is a throwback to the novel conception of movies and is in its simplicity, simply beautiful.

***

The story of Ben Affleck begins here in Cambridge. Not with the set of Good Will Hunting but when he, at the age of eight, met a 10-year old Matt Damon. The two are tenth cousins and went to the same schools together before going off to different colleges. When their education was over, they teamed up for Hunting, a movie with Damon in the lead and Affleck as his big brother, hidden in the shadow but notable nonetheless. The two shared an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay that year and the next three years Affleck starred in three Hollywood blockbusters (Armageddon, Forces of Nature, and Pearl Harbor). At this point in his career, he was reportedly earning $15 million dollars a year and was one of Hollywood’s rising young stars. A handsome thirty-something, Affleck was dating Jennifer Lopez—another young Los Angles starlet—and looked to be heading to the top of the film world. The utopian career peak was never realized, however. In fact, it was never close.

After starring in several box office successes and critically lauded films, Affleck struggled to find a script that he didn’t like during the mid-2000s. Producing films like Daredevil, Surviving Christmas, and Gigli—the last film had him nominated for ‘Worst Actor’ for his role by an independent comic organization—Affleck’s career went sour. In the meantime, his tabloid recognition eclipsed his mediocre work. He broke up with Lopez as he was caught getting lap dances while they were engaged. They called off the wedding, citing both personal reasons and excessive media attention. This occurred right before the premiere of Gigli, where Lopez and Affleck starred together in a film that IMDB summarized as “the violent story about how a criminal lesbian, a tough-guy hit-man with a heart of gold, and a retarded man came to be best friends through a hostage.”

Since his nadir, Affleck has struggled to turn it around in front of the camera. While he was nominated for a Golden Globe for his role in Hollywoodland, he was featured in a number of forgetful romantic comedies and continued a worrisome trend after the promising beginning to a career. However, Affleck—who did a lot of the work for Good Will Hunting that went on behind the scenes—transitioned to work as a director and immediately demonstrated talent considerably more vast than his as an actor. Gone Baby Gone and The Town, his first two features, were tremendous and received a lot of media attention for his directing. Argo is the culmination of this transition and while it is, coincidentally, Ben Affleck’s best job in front of the camera, it is also an epitome of his renaissance.

Affleck’s most notable facial expression is the slight smirk, the look of confidence that comes from inner belief among a torrent of media slander. From Good Will Hunting to Dazed and Confused, the superior look that simultaneously manages to appear self-satisfied and strained is an iconic Affleck expression. He flashes it early in Argo, a quiet acknowledgement of the film that should shut up his critics for good. While not quite an “Argo f— yourself,” a comedic mantra used over and over in the movie, Affleck’s look at the audience is an indication of something deceivingly simple: he’s back, and he knows it.

Only a standout series can take exceptionally crass vulgarity and skillfully finagle the obvious denial and throwaway laughs into unsuspecting, should-I-even-laugh-at-this humor. FX’s new half-hour comedy, “Legit,” plays perfectly into this dynamic, pulling cautious snickers from every uncensored line out of Jim Jefferies’s mouth.

A successful stand-up comedian before partnering with FX, à la Louis C.K., Jefferies essentially plays an overblown version of himself in front of the camera. Still, the delivery is spot-on and Jefferies, who looks like Ricky Gervais’s mellowed-out twin (the series does have an odd similarity to “Life’s Too Short”), makes the comedy look effortless — a mean feat for a pilot.

As proven with “Louie” and “The League,” FX knows how to work with comedians in an outside-the-cookie-cutter approach to sitcoms. And while “Legit” doesn’t have the maturity of an established comedy yet, it certainly showcases good bones. The non-stop, say-anything crudeness never becomes a crutch, and typical beginning-of-series stumbles are the only things that drag the premiere down.

The loose premise of the series plays out in the first two minutes, with Jefferies’s mother’s plea for him to legitimize himself before she dies, a task he takes as seriously as he’s able. The pilot focuses on his first “legit” good deed: honoring his best friend’s brother Billy’s (DJ Qualls) request to get laid for the first time — a unique request as Billy is 32 and at an advanced stage of muscular dystrophy. Jefferies takes this all in stride (mostly) and manages to make the strenuous search for the perfect hooker seem awkwardly heroic. The parting sequence, complete with an extremely satiated looking Billy rolling out while fun.’s “Carry On” blasts in the background, certainly comes off as inspirational.

There’s no doubt that, as with most of FX’s programming, “Legit” is an acquired taste. It’s not for everyone, and will inevitably offend more than its fair share. But, as FX proves time and again, even vile, boorish nastiness is palatable when there’s the tiniest bit of heart shining through.

It’s that heart, more than unconventional formats and lengthy pauses, that pushes “Legit” past ordinary. Sure, Jefferies is a selfish, useless stoner with a bad habit of saying whatever the hell he wants, but the audience can tell he actually cares about Billy. That is, for more than just the handicapped parking space and unlimited wingman potential. And that’s nice. Nice enough to make a road trip to an out-of-the-way dive bar into a surprisingly poignant moment of male bonding. It might even provoke a reluctant smile.

In true FX style, buried beneath all the male posturing and obvious dick jokes is a series that might just make you feel something. And hey, the dick jokes can be fun too.

“Fools… speak wisely what wise men do foolishly” (As You Like It 1.2)

Stewart defines himself as “a comedian” and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart as “fake news.” In an interview on Meet the Press, Colbert described his character on The Colbert Report as “an active idiot.” However, some have argued that the Stewart-Colbert brand of “fake news” can actually be substantive and impactful. Their shows frequently highlight and raise awareness of serious issues, including some that may not receive sufficient attention from politicians and the mainstream media.

For instance, while many politicians decline to talk seriously about climate change, Colbert and Stewart have invited leading scientists to discuss the issue. Indeed, the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that, in 2007, The Daily Show “devoted a greater percentage of its news to science/technology and environmental stories than did the mainstream news media.” Shortly after Colbert invited astrophysicist Neil de Grasse Tyson on the show to criticize proposed cuts to NASA’s manned space program, President Obama, coincidentally or not, backtracked on the proposed cuts.

Similarly, Stewart repeatedly lambasted Congress for holding up benefits for 9/11 First Responders (the “Zadroga Act”), increasing coverage of the issue and arguably shaming Congress into eventually passing the bill. Meanwhile, by creating his own Super PAC, Colbert called attention to the issue of campaign finance and what he calls the “politico-industrial complex,” winning a Peabody Award for his efforts.

The substantive content of these shows has not been lost on viewers. While Stewart and Colbert insist that they are not newsmen, some, especially younger viewers, view the shows as legitimate news sources. A 2004 Pew study found that shows like The Daily Show rivaled traditional broadcast news as sources of campaign information for young adults. Meanwhile, an Indiana University study found that The Daily Show’s coverage of the 2004 campaign was as substantive as network news. Furthermore, a 2007 Pew survey found that regular viewers of Stewart’s and Colbert’s shows were much better informed than the national average and were even better informed than those who rely on traditional news outlets.

The appeal of Stewart and Colbert may be largely driven by deep frustration with current political reality. Timothy McCarthy, Director of the Kennedy School’s Carr Center for Human Rights Policy and a cultural historian, told the HPR that The Daily Show and The Colbert Report have become “place[s] where people would go to get their news because our politics ha[s] become so absurd and so…superficial and really all about a series of performances” that are themselves much like entertainment. Indeed, when asked if the shows ever push the envelope and become offensive, Stewart himself told Maureen Dowd, “I don’t understand how anyone can consider jokes about this stuff worse than the reality of it.”

“There’s no slander in an allowed fool” (Twelfth Night 1.5)

Arguably, an advantage Stewart and Colbert have over mainstream journalists is that, like the jesters and Shakespearian fools of old, they occupy a position outside the societal, or in this case, journalistic, mainstream from which they can tear into politicians and mainstream journalists without fear of pushback or accusations of bias. According to Paul Cantor, a culture critic and visiting professor of government at Harvard, they “share with a venerable satirical tradition,” a willingness and license to “speak truth to power.” Cantor told the HPR that he has been “struck by how many times particularly Stewart has brought up an issue that the mainstream media refused to deal with.”

Clearly, Stewart takes on powerful people and weighty issues, perhaps surprising for a self-described comedian. According to McCarthy, however, “we are in a political and cultural moment where the distinction between entertainment and political journalism is being blurred.” He traces this blurring of the line between journalism and entertainment to the 1996 emergence of Fox News and MSNBC, which offer a mix of news coverage, “explicitly partisan” commentary and entertainment segments like Chris Matthews’ “Hardball Sideshow” and Bill O’Reilly’s “Dumbest Things of the Week.” McCarthy believes that the emergence of Stewart and Colbert “even further complicates and blurs those lines of distinction” between journalism and entertainment.

At times, Stewart and Colbert have even flirted with activism, though with mixed results. Their joint “Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear” received less-than-glowing reviews. McCarthy says that he attended the rally but left early, finding it to be “politically bankrupt” and a tremendous missed opportunity to “cross over into a serious political space while bringing all the humor and absurdity.” Meanwhile, Colbert acknowledged on Meet the Press that “everyone was critical of” his testimony before a Congressional subcommittee, which was intended to shine a light on the plight of immigrant farm workers.

This suggests a possible limit to their influence. Ultimately, McCarthy concludes, Stewart and Colbert are quite able to “generate political energy and rile people up,” but they generally do not “determine political outcomes.” Similarly, Cantor argues that, in terms of elections, “their effect is marginal.” To be clear, Colbert and Stewart have emphasized that they are not attempting to influence political outcomes or, as Stewart told Maureen Dowd, be “warriors in anyone’s army.” Their real power lies in their capacity to question authority and show, in Cantor’s words, “that the emperor has no clothes.”

“Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody’s face but their own” – Jonathan Swift

Some would argue that with their present influence, whatever its extent, come certain ethical obligations. The Daily Show may claim to be “unburdened by objectivity, journalistic integrity or even accuracy,” but media experts Bruce A. Williams and Michael X. Delli Carpini write that even “fake news” shows should be held to some journalistic standards. Williams and Carpini complain that “The Daily Show does a much better job shining a light on the foibles of others than it does taking responsibility…for its own truth claims.”

It is difficult, though, to say exactly what sort of standards Stewart and Colbert should observe. Jeffrey Seglin, Director of the Communications Program at Harvard’s Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy, told the HPR that their “ethical standard is driven by the genre they’re working in.” Since that genre is satire, they should be afforded some “license to exaggerate and…embellish the news.” Seglin adds that the viewers, themselves, “have some responsibility to be more informed.” For example, a study published in The International Journal of Press/Politics suggested that at least some conservatives watch Colbert and fail to get the joke: they believe that he is a genuine conservative, rather than a satirist parodying conservative talk-show hosts. Seglin considers this “a problem with the viewers,” not Colbert, adding, “I don’t think there needs to be a disclaimer that says ‘this is fake news’” for a show on Comedy Central.

McCarthy broadly agrees: “I’m not sure that Stewart and Colbert should be held to the same kinds of standards as, say, New York Times journalists.” He notes that “we’re not holding the political pundits on MSNBC or Fox News, or CNN for that matter” to the traditional standards of “objectivity and ethics” either. McCarthy views this as further indication that, “the definition of what is journalism and what is entertainment [has] shifted” over the past 20 years.

Indeed, freedom from strict journalistic standards is central to the ability of Stewart and Colbert to do what they do best. Perhaps a more apt criticism is that they tend to use their comedic license as a shield as well as a sword. McCarthy notes that they, and especially Stewart, have a worrisome tendency, “when they get really sharply criticized,” to “pull back and say ‘I’m just a comedian.’” McCarthy calls this an “abdication of a certain kind of political responsibility” and argues that it is difficult for them to dodge criticism in this manner and still “be taken seriously as a political force.” Stewart and Colbert may benefit from the breakdown of distinctions between politics, journalism and entertainment, but that breakdown can be a double-edged sword: as McCarthy puts it, “it’s hard…to reestablish those lines of distinction once you’ve blurred them.”

“Satire is parody with a point” – Stephen Colbert

Heirs to a long tradition of political satire, Stewart and Colbert enjoy special license to expose the folly of society’s leaders. That said, they are also very much products of their times. Their prominence, not only as comedians but also as news sources, stands as a testament to widespread popular dissatisfaction with current politics and the mainstream journalists who cover it. They epitomize the breakdown of old distinctions between entertainment and political journalism. Even if they cannot shape political outcomes, they have considerable power to inform voters, expose and shame politicians, and increase political engagement.

With this power comes a responsibility: not a responsibility to adopt the strict and confining “balanced reporting” standards of mainstream journalists, but a duty to embrace their unique capacity to enhance political discourse without retreating, as Stewart sometimes does, behind the “I’m just a comedian” shield. Just a comedian?  When Comedy Central rivals mainstream network shows as a source of substantive news, perhaps Stewart would be better advised to shed the modesty and take a leaf from the in-character Colbert’s book. “I AM a comedian (and so can you!).”

9/The film opens with calls of 9/11 victims trapped in the tower with no accompanying image, sending the viewer back to a day perhaps too painful to witness. Bigelow doesn’t sensationalize the infamous day with the cheapness of an image, and instead humanizes it with a cacophony of desperate voices. This explosive opening prepares the rest of the film for a series of aftershocks: torture, misinformation, dead ends, suicide bombings and an indolent bureaucracy — unwelcomed fallout for a nation hell-bent on justice and revenge.

The manifestation of this national bloodlust is Maya (Jessica Chastain), a CIA agent who spends most of the film convincing a male-dominant bureaucracy to act on the accumulated evidence of Bin Laden’s whereabouts. The film falters after the midpoint, as Maya attempts to rally her government to attack Osama bin Laden’s stronghold. Writer Mark Boal includes a montage of Maya defiantly scribbling a count of the number of days that have gone by without attack on her superior’s glass pane. This is Boal’s desperate attempt to breathe some life into the mundane intelligence office sequence, but he doesn’t explore the bureaucratic process enough to make it worthwhile.

After this slow section, the audience is shaken awake with the film’s payoff: the raid on Osama’s stronghold. Bigelow exhibits her mastery of the war film in this dark, grungy attack laden with night-vision shots and sweat-inducing silence. The audience becomes complicit in Maya’s mission. The camera acts as her omniscient eye over the event — she is a woman with commanding vision and we live vicariously through her victorious moment, which takes on a greater meaning for all Americans.

While we follow Maya through the story, we get little insight to her background and, perhaps even more disturbingly, her motivation. But the opening of the film is her motivation — it’s the panic, doom, dread and suffering of those trapped in the twin towers that needs to be avenged. As critic Scott Foundas aptly points out, “She’s a fanatic hunting a fanatic.”

Indeed, Maya has her own Jihad or “religious crusade,” which leads one to ask: “on our quest to kill bin Laden, have we become just as fanatical and violent as our enemy?” This impersonal, nationalistic goal leaves our very human protagonist drained and purposeless once achieved. She parallels a suicide bomber, except she lives through her Jihad and finds nothing on the other side.

____

Zero Dark Thirty is a rare, significant film because it stirs up the socio-political war gauntlet while maintaining the focus on its human characters. Many critics have taken issue with the former aspect, especially in regard to the film’s portrayal of torture. Critics have problematized these scenes with an unimaginative, vehement outcry, with Rethink Review’s critic Jonathan Kim as their lead crusader. Many critics claim torture doesn’t work as a means for extracting useful information and that it didn’t contribute to the hunt for bin Laden — therefore its function in the plot, not its portrayal, is the point of contention.

After all, if we believe for an instant that the critic knows more about torture than we do, then the critic escapes with her contempt and ignorance unquestioned. I offer a new perspective: the torture sequence could arguably be a poetic summation of American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. The body of the terrorist takes on the meaning of a larger Middle Eastern population — one America has invaded, bombed, accused and ravaged in its unflinching search for Osama.

Regardless, Kim brings up a considerable point: why does Bigelow claim this film is “based on firsthand accounts of actual events,” if parts of the film digress into fact-twisting and historical digressions?

Kim and many other critics fail to understand that the story subsumes events and acts committed by the military into a general narrative revolving around one character, thus inherently fictionalizing it. If the film didn’t do this, these same critics would be bemoaning an incoherent, scattered narrative unable to string together a causal chain leading to bin Laden’s killing. Furthermore, Bigelow has no obligation to tell her story as it exactly unfolded, even with the opening claim being based on firsthand accounts. Such a film would be inherently dull. Intelligence worked for eight years — enough time to assemble a staggering six million-page document — before finding bin Laden. Who wants to watch these preliminary intel-hunts unfold in three hours?

Critics bemoan Zero Dark Thirty’s use of torture as a means for inaccurately pushing the plot forward. They refer to a report from Diane Feinstein, head of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which claims torture did not directly lead to finding bin Laden. However, as CIA director Michael Morell states, “Some [information] came from detainees subjected to enhanced techniques,” adding that “whether enhanced interrogation techniques were the only timely and effective way to obtain information from those detainees, as the film suggests, is a matter of debate that cannot and never will be definitively resolved.”

Film critics, government officials and any moral-do-gooders who found a comment box online have disregarded Morell’s statement (ironically, the person in the best position to see all sides of the issue) under the rhetoric of “discrepancies” and “potentially inconsistent,” desperate to affirm their anti-torture crusade.

When Kim contends that the plot from torture to bin Laden should be taken literally (and thus morally reprehensible), he reveals his severe ignorance to intelligence-gathering techniques. His own evidence laughs back at him: the six million-page intel document. Any effort to retrace causality from one clue to another would be futile.

Zero Dark Thirty uses torture as an expedient plot device with multiple functions: it takes on a wider poetic significance as the larger Middle East reveals Maya’s character and brings an American audience face to face with something ugly that did happen in the war effort. Unfortunately, the plot’s use of torture has become the major hang-up of critics missing the film’s more implicit significance. Perhaps Bigelow would’ve been wiser to muddy up the investigational timeline to dissipate the strong causality between torture and information.

___

Critics who claim the portrayal of torture in the film is immoral need to rethink the way torture serves the plot without thematizing or condoning it. At the end of the day, the US did torture detainees — whether by Maya’s hand or someone else’s – and the film presents that. Critics instead reveal contempt for the audience, determined to wave a warning flag crying, “it didn’t really happen like this!”

We get it — but it’s a movie and you’re a movie critic, not an intelligence officer. None of us know exactly how it happened and none of us wish to piece together every clue that got us there.

The real contention lies not in the how, but in whether or not Bigelow’s reductionist portrayal of intelligence gathering reveals her own misunderstanding or a conscious artistic decision to tell a complex revenge story. I’ll go with the latter.

“The Carrie Diaries” focuses on Carrie Bradshaw’s teenage years and the trials and tribulations of any teenager.

The plot lines of “The Carrie Diaries” should be similar to the plot lines featured in “Sex and the City,” with less on-screen sex.

Since the show is geared toward teenagers and is on a public network, the show will not have the gratuitous amount of sex featured in “Sex and the City.”

The pilot episode, titled “Lying and Consequences,” begins with Carrie, played by AnnaSophia Robb, narrating her life and dreams.

AnnaSophia Robb is not the Carrie many envisioned. Robb overacts in certain scenes and can be a little annoying when she narrates, but Robb can play a grieving, angst-filled teenager fairly well.

Robb just might not be Carrie Bradshaw.

The other characters, especially her friends, are like any normal teenage girls and boys.

One of her friends, Jill Chen — played by Ellen Wong — falls in love with a college student, loses her virginity to him and is heartbroken at the end of the episode when her boyfriend breaks up with her.

The costumes, makeup and other elements are distinctively 80s but do not seem to be a caricature of 80s culture.

New York City seems to be a caricature of itself. In the 80s, crime was at a high and the streets were an extremely dangerous place to be at night.

The city is glamorized too much in “The Carrie Diaries.”

“Sex and the City” is a cultural icon because it had charm, with a cast of characters who were flawed individuals. Their problems were problems many faced in real life, so viewers felt they could connect with Carrie, Miranda, Samantha and Charlotte.

“The Carrie Diaries” utilizes those elements, but the show does not have the same charm and magic as “Sex and the City.”

“The Carrie Diaries” will appeal to many people, but for those looking to get their daily dose of Carrie Bradshaw, it makes more sense to watch reruns of “Sex and the City.”

Grade: C+

This is partially because we spent all of last season waiting for most of these plotlines to be carried out, and because the show insists on doing the “will they or won’t they” bit with absolutely everything that happens, making it all feel pretty similar.

Mary and Matthew are getting married, no “Downton” fan can speak these words without smiling, but the last minute call-off, and then morning-of call back on? How many times are we going to see Matthew and Mary together, then torn apart because of pride or honor or some other ridiculous quality? Matthew and Mary’s relationship is supposed to be an emotional roller coaster, but my neck hurts from plot-whiplash effect. And were any of us terribly surprised when Edith got left at the altar? In true “and none for Gretchen Weiners”-esqe fashion, Edith is the sobbing single sister once again.

After the first two episodes of the season, I feared the show had jumped the shark. Downton Abbey’s impending sale seemed like a promising plot twist, but we all knew some ridiculous deus ex machina was going to appear and save the family estate. Predictably, Matthew randomly inherited a bunch of money. Does anyone else wonder how it could possibly been enough money to keep Downton going, and when Lavinia made the jump from being upper-middle class to richer-than-Lord-Grantham wealthy? I wouldn’t have minded Matthew saving the day with his dead-girlfriend money, but the whole saga was a bit rich for my blood.

Perhaps the most bothersome aspect of the new season so far was Mary and Sybil’s icky new hairstyles. I’m really just confused. Are these supposed to reflect changing fashion trends, or is the show making some kind of statement about the effect marriage has on a woman’s hair (it just goes to crap overnight)? Mary’s sticks down around her face like a helmet, and Sybil’s is just the most awkward, bushy bob. I don’t understand why Maggie Smith hasn’t called them out for this yet.

Despite my annoyance and fear that the show is on its way down, episode three left me with a bit of hope. The advent of Edith’s feminist newspaper writing, the possibility for Matthew to teach Lord Grantham a lesson about handling money and the historical context of the Irish Revolution are all really exciting plotlines. Even the impending battle between Thomas and O’Brien seems promising. Servants acting incredibly petty and sabotaging each other is nothing new for the show, but we’ve never seen Thomas and O’Brien face off before. In one of the best scenes of the show so far, Anna and Bates read each other’s letters in their respective prisons as they were meant to be sleeping. Every “Downton” fan could feel a tear grace their cheek and the eternal call of “Free Bates” cross their lips during this touching moment in episode three.

We go into this Sunday’s episode with a little apprehension that they’ll pull more of the same old trite, a little hope that they hired a new hairstylist for the show and the knowing feeling that none of it really matters anyway as long as Maggie Smith is still there making snide comments in her nasally old woman voice. Long live Downton and FREE BATES.

The hazy nostalgia of ’80s pop music sent through a psychedelic filter — synonymous with the subgenre chillwave and Toro Y Moi’s previous albums — is anything but recognizable in Chaz Bundick’s, the man behind the stage name, latest full-length. Instead, the LP is composed of remarkably rich and catchy numbers that tickle meriting a spot on the Top 40.

The album is a mixture of busier, more charismatic and lyrically unmemorable songs that combat Toro Y Moi’s association with chillwave and bond more closely to pop music.

“Anything In Return” signifies more than just a third full-length release; it marks a change in Bundick’s aesthetic. Recognized for his creation of music that sounds like a daydream, this album strays from that classification and introduces something new. It’s a sincere attempt at exposing his versatility as an artist.

The album’s first single, “So Many Details,” sets the mood to any make-out sesh, working in the art of seduction through direct come-ons delivered through silky vocals amidst a rich sonic landscape. “I just want to tease your eyes, maybe we can check these locks, I just want to go inside.”

Tracks like “Touch” and “Rose Quartz“ are perhaps the finest two resembling the artist’s new pop-sounding intentions, though the two do so in still-alternative ways.

“Touch” communicates the widely identifiable feelings of being hurt romantically, a trait common in many radio-friendly songs, but does so by transporting listeners into a sonic lounge of emotions instead of a brief encounter.

Between layers of percussive bases, manipulated vocals and synth waves, “Rose Quartz” similarly exemplifies the pop brand through relatable lyrics of unconditional love. However, it communicates this idea by way of its blending structure of vocals and instrumentals in lieu of a catchy chorus.

The album lacks in overtly sugary tracks such as “Cake” and “Day One” which veer too far from Bundick’s vibe insomuch as they’re unbelievable. The line “I look at her and she’s all I want” doesn’t feel remotely legitimate to a Toro Y Moi album. The two tracks feel forced in the pop stream and make evident the newness of Bundick in the genre.

If you jump on the Toro Y Moi wave with “Anything In Return” as your first album, you’ll be pleased by the pop influence with a mild bubblegum taste. If you’re part of Bundick’s existing fan base, however, it may be best if listened to on a candy high with the intent to engage in tomfoolery with the comrades. Not suitable for solo trips on the crest.

Rating: 7.0/10

This, for people who want to attend entertaining movies, is perfectly OK if Cruise carries out his end of the bargain. The bargain being that Cruise remains compelling to watch — an essential skill for any actor, but his lifeblood.

In “Jack Reacher,” Cruise’s physical stunts only diminish slightly from his previous work. At moments, his silhouette seems borrowed from the “Mission: Impossible” franchise (the prominent nose and tuft of hair), which makes it less striking, but his steadicam scenes of combat and movement occasionally seem fresh. Fresh may be an inappropriate word though, as “Reacher” seems to reach back toward the past for its action tropes. The fighting is direct and realistic without the crutch of shaky-cam; the car-chase scenes are loaded with skidding and minor bumps — creating chaotic, screeching tension. Perhaps most wonderfully, the gun fights ring with hundreds of missed bullets as combatants dash for strategic cover. It’s more “duck and cover” than “kill hundreds of bad guys.”

Beyond the physical is the more-intriguing mental state of Cruise. In his movies, there has always been a sense of detachment, with perhaps a glimmer of some erratic behavior. The “cool” in Cruise comes from the detachment, the “compelling” comes from his sudden, wry humor. In “Jack Reacher,” he nails detachment. Reacher is cold and calculating; even though he’s hit on by literally every woman in the film (one wonders who added that to the script), Reacher remains stoic and untouchable.

It’s in a similar vein to “The Expendables” series, in which bros help out the ladies not for sexual gain but for a sense of revenge or justice. This detachment, though, provides a feeling of something missing, of an opportunity wasted. While it makes sense within Reacher’s character (ex-military, extremely diligent, justice-seeking, etc.), there’s still a nagging sensation that Cruise could be doing a little more, that he could not just say funny lines (of which there are plenty in this film) but also deliver them in more humorous ways. In “Reacher,” one wishes Cruise would give a “Risky Business” smile, instead of just resting on a stern “M.I.” expression.

Beyond the leading actor, “Jack Reacher” also provides some surprising roles. Rosamund Pike (“Wrath of the Titans”) is excellent as a lawyer providing a flickering love interest for Reacher. There’s a dignity in Pike’s characterization, a determination and regality that is powerful and sexy — it’s refreshing to watch. Werner Herzog (“Cave of Forgotten Dreams”) completely chills as a stubby crime lord. One particular Herzog scene imagines one of the more horrific choices someone pushed to the edge would have to make (think self-cannibalization). Lastly, Robert Duvall (“Get Low”) provides a much needed side-kick for the titular character, and proves old men can hang with the young guys.

Modern times contain a lot of self-depreciation, and movies are catching on to this fact, especially within the shoot-’em-up genre. “Jack Reacher” understands this, and it almost perfectly toes the line between serious and comedic. Cruise ends up as the barometer for the movie’s success, and while he wears the grim mask of a soldier driven toward justice quite well, one wishes it would occasionally slip off to reveal a grin underneath.

Imagine the most stereotypic gangster movie: the clothes, the violence, the way of speaking. Imagine Scarface, but without the credit of any level of originality, and you might have conjured up an accurate picture of Gangster Squad. The film follows the reign of Mickey Cohen (Sean Penn), a Capone-style kingpin who’s taking over Los Angeles, and a group of unofficially/officially commissioned misfit cops who join together to stop his evil plot: the Gangster Squad. The problem is that nothing in this movie lives up to its potential.

Advertisements had suggested that the romance between Ryan Gosling’s character and Emma Stone’s would be a major subplot—even a driving force—but the scenes that progress the relationship are chaste and can be counted on one hand. The violence, chock-full of Tommy Guns, isn’t dastardly enough to be worthy of the R rating. Nor are the love scenes, seeing as there are none. Also, Mickey Cohen’s schemes are greed-driven, and while the character is violent in nature, his success would not mean the imminent destruction of lives and civility, just the loss of money. So while he is definitely an evil villain, he’s not very interesting and it’s hard to be invested in his downfall. There’s a talented cast in place, a few of whom were responsible for my wanting to see the movie. But they all play characters the average audience has seen many times before. Either they’re one-note and shallow or have an unoriginal complexity like the bad-boy with a heart of gold.

The blame lies largely with the uninventive screenplay written by Will Beall, whose sparse IMDb credits indicate his limited film-writing experience. There is never enough at stake and far too much awkward dialogue, such as “Who’s the tomato?,” uttered by Sgt. Jerry Wooter (Gosling) when inquiring about Stone’s redheaded character. Sure, people die and families are ruined, but nothing about those supposedly dramatic scenes are emotionally moving; maybe the blame is equally shared with the director Ruben Fleischer. Unfortunately, it’s not even the type of bad you find yourself giggling over—I laughed more in Twilight. Flat all around, Gangster Squad is simply a lackluster story wrapped up in predictable and cliché direction.

Raylan Givens, U.S. Marshal, is an unhappy man. Re-assigned to his home county of Harlan, Ky. after a controversial Miami, Fla., shooting, the Marshal finds himself embroiled with violent felons, scheming drug runners and the sinister Dixie Mafia. But the most dangerous people around him may be his own friends and family.

“Justified” is probably the best written cop show on television, and that is not said lightly. Much of the pleasure of the show comes from its deft juggling of stand alone cases with more serialized elements.

The story arc of the first season is introduced quietly in the background, gathering tension and momentum with each episode until it explodes into a bloody and devastating climax. That attention to detail affects other aspects of the show as well, including the uncommonly sharp dialogue. Scenes manage to veer between hilarious and serious without ever sounding unrealistic. During one particularly tense standoff, Raylan douses a gun-holding felon with gasoline from a pump. When the man cocks the gun, Raylan bemusedly asks if he knows how firearms work, and proceeds to explain basic chemistry to him.It’s bits like this that make Raylan such a compelling lead. A soft spoken man with a hidden temper and a lightening quick draw, Timothy Olyphant plays him with easy charisma and a charmingly understated sense of humor. The swagger masks a deeply conflicted character; Raylan is a good man, but also an occasionally selfish and thoughtless one, and the writers do a nice job of exploring the contradiction between his cool affect and the anger boiling within.

Of course, every hero needs a villain, and into this role steps the marvelously complicated and enigmatic Boyd Crowder. A white supremacist turned evangelical preacher, he knows his scripture back to front and has a penchant for blowing things up with rocket launchers. As portrayed by the excellent Walter Goggins, Boyd speaks with a slow articulate drawl and hypnotic eyes, dominating every scene he’s in. Watching him and Raylan in their verbal duels is never anything short of thrilling.It would be very easy for a show set in rural Kentucky to slip into caricature, but “Justified” balances humor, violence and pathos with uncommon skill. Those looking for gripping and addictive television will not be disappointed.

C.K. performed several stand−up shows at the Boston Symphony Hall from Jan. 3 to Jan. 5 on his most recent tour. Each night consisted of an early show beginning at 7 p.m. and a late show beginning at 10 p.m.

For the late show on C.K.’s final night in Boston, comedian Gary Gulman opened the performance with a 15−minute routine. Gulman, who has appeared on both “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno” and“The Late Show with David Letterman,” also earned the spot of runner−up during two seasons of “Last Comic Standing,” and received a positive response from the Boston audience. Gulman, employing a Boston accent, played up the show’s location by presenting a well−liked bit on the New England Patriots’ Tom Brady.

When Gulman introduced C.K. onstage, the audience applauded wildly, clearly eagerly anticipating the next hour and a half. C.K. introduced his act with a short anecdote about his first trip to Boston Symphony Hall, when he came with his father to see a classical music performance. C.K. divulged that this trip marked the first moment he realized he had full control over the act of killing himself. The audience roared with laughter in response.

C.K. is known for telling simple stories that simultaneously resonate with broader existential concepts, and this evening’s performance was no different. C.K. continued life and death themes throughout various segments of his show, including a hilarious piece on why people are so lucky to have time on earth. While audience members who may not be familiar with C.K.’s style might have expected a more uplifting indicator of the human race’s good fortune, C.K. fans were unsurprised when the comedian reduced the equation to, “We get to have sex!” The joke itself does not necessarily appear original or creative when taken out of context, but C.K. succeeds because he forms clear connections with his audience. In his fearlessness, he keeps nothing from them and in doing so builds up a bond similar an old friend who knows us at our best but more particularly at our worst. The awkward, the painful and the crude are all fair play because of this trust C.K. establishes. We are all in the same position as he is and we all share similar experiences.

The most controversial section of C.K.’s show was without a doubt his finale, which the comedian began by explaining that he often views events and ideas with an “of course, but maybe” mentality. For example, he first states that “of course” safety measures should be taken for people with nut allergies. “But maybe,” C.K. continued, those who are so allergic that contact with nuts is fatal should be allowed to die. He went on to set up another instance using the Make a Wish Foundation and the audience began to murmur and groan, deeming the topic inappropriate for humor.

C.K. maintained his hold on the audience, however, and moved on to the subject of soldiers being killed in action. At this point, heads shook and “oh mans” could be heard across the theatre, but C.K. interjected, “Hey, you laughed at those other ones — you’re all in this with me now.” The now complicit audience laughed with a sense of guilt as C.K. finished the bit. They recognized that the master comedian had proved that there is a comic dichotomy: a comedian can remain distant from a subject and stay on the outside, never taking a chance with a controversial punch line for fear of going into the politically incorrect, or a comedian can allow themself to be pulled into the comic abyss and find side−splitting and profound humor in even the darkest of subjects. C.K. has always chosen the latter, and his ability to balance with the scandalous with the thought−provoking and the profound speaks to his immense skill.

The scenes of the CIA water-boarding prisoners were hard enough to watch, but what was harder to watch was the way the movie was filmed and told. It was filmed documentary style, showing the director’s point of view of what life is like in Pakistan and Afghanistan when U.S. forces and the CIA were present. Most people sat there complacent, accepting this view face value. Many people, including myself, do not know what life is really like there. Some would rather just accept this view even though it may not be accurate. Original phone calls from the Sept. 11 attacks were played, and a wave of sadness and unrest hit me and the rest of the room suddenly. This is when I realized that Zero Dark Thirty might become a catalyst for hatred and further violence involving racism on both the American side and the Middle East.

My thoughts raced as I remembered how the Middle East reacted to the anti-Islam film in September. Zero Dark Thirty could upset the Middle East with its graphic scenes of their men and women being killed by U.S. soldiers. We are often so quick to buy into the hype of movies that are “based on a true story” that we don’t often question the consequences of their wide spread popularity unless it directly affects us. To Americans, seeing people being murdered or killed is quite the norm in Hollywood movies, but to more conservative countries this may not be the case.

Many Americans who will watch this movie will possibly feel hatred towards those who attacked us as they listen to the frantic 911 calls from those trapped in the towers on 9/11. I did; it was impossible not to. Is it actually healthy for our country to essentially rehash what happened in a graphic, documentary style movie? We should always remember what happened and honor the victims and families of 9/11 and those who fought in the Iraq war, but Hollywood should be careful not to cross a fine line. Where I just felt angry and sad during the movie, another normal citizen may act upon their perpetuated hatred and take it out on innocent people, as events have shown quite recently in the United States.

Hollywood is not the reason violence occurs, but we cannot deny it may be a catalyst. When something as delicate as the relationship, or lack of, between Americans and people of the Middle East is depicted in Hollywood, there is of course going to be discussion on either side or possibly violence.

I have consistently heard those around me call people who may look or act like they are from the Middle East derogatory names or worse, say they are probably “terrorists”. Zero Dark Thirty may possibly reinforce this racism, because it is in fact racism. Some will leave the movie feeling hopeful for the future and others will be leaving with more hatred for the Middle East and Al Qaeda than ever before.

To fix the perception of average Americans from a Middle East standpoint, and to fix the perception of the Middle East from an American standpoint since 9/11 may be impossible. However, movies, literature and television can educate both sides and stop reinforcing biases. Not every person from the Middle East is in Al Qaeda and agrees with terrorism, which many Americans do not understand. Imagine someone with this ideology being essentially armed with a Hollywood movie like Zero Dark Thirty; it is a recipe for further discrimination and hatred.

There is also a clear difference between a documentary, and a movie filmed like it is a documentary. Though the filmmakers were in contact with the CIA, it doesn’t necessarily mean it is completely accurate. Mike Morell, acting director of the CIA, released a statement on the agency’s website stating that the “CIA interacted with the filmmakers through our Office of Public Affairs but, as is true with any entertainment project with which we interact, we do not control the final product,” according to a TIME Magazine article.

Movies like Zero Dark Thirty will not stop being produced, but what Americans can do is research and educate themselves on such topics beforehand to decrease discrimination and realize what is true and what isn’t. As citizens, it is our responsibility what we do with the media that is presented to us. By asking questions and doing formative research this may help eliminate biases, discrimination, and essentially inform consumers of what they should expect from the media and what they shouldn’t.

Fade is a Yo La Tengo lover’s Yo La album. The tracks run together like satisfied breaths that sound at once muddy and precise. It is shoegazing but accessible, rejecting the cliches that dominate so much of indie-rock today.

The record feels slow and lazy like a perfect Sunday afternoon, when the sun is dancing in and out of the clouds and there’s nothing to do but stave off Monday. At times it almost becomes boring, but the deliberate choice of instruments, lyrics and effects makes the motivation of the album clear.

The strings on “Is That Enough” make that track feel like a pop song. The horns on “Before We Run” lend gravitas to the album’s closer. And the lyrics, oh goodness the lyrics — about aging, hope, romantic love and deep friendship. Yo La Tengo has never shied away from getting personal, and these songs elevate the honesty that fans expect to a new level.

And rightly so. Ira Kaplan and wife Georgia Hubley formed the band in 1984, and bassist James McNew joined them in 1992. During more than two decades of playing together, they have seen the world as well as their own relationships change around them in profound ways. With this latest effort, Yo La Tengo takes the time to reflect on its experiences and the future.

Kaplan and Hubley remain a beacon of indie-rock love after the heartbreaking split of Sonic Youth’s Kim Gordon and Thurston Moore. In album highlight “I’ll Be Around,” Kaplan sings the slow steady promise to stay even as the world changes.

Fade feels like a promise to fans, too, that Yo La isn’t going anywhere even as the rest of the bands we grew up on break up in a heaving morass of half-hearted side projects and acoustic covers of top 40 songs.

Fade veers from 2009’s infectiously poppy Popular Songs, echoing instead the sounds that make And Then Nothing Turned Itself Inside-Out a perennial favorite. The album lacks the long rambling jams that stood out on previous records (for example Painful’s “I Heard You Looking”). Instead, opener “Ohm” clocks in at 6:50. It’s the longest song on the record and worth every second with its rich use of percussion and perfect opening lines — “Sometimes the bad guys go out on top, sometimes the good guys lose. We try not to lose our hearts, not to lose our minds.”

Fans of Hubley’s vocals will find a treat in “Cornelia and Jane,” one of the few songs in the band’s catalog that she sings alone (although she shares the track with perfectly subtle distortion and a great horn line).

Fade fits perfectly into Yo La Tengo’s catalog. In iTunes, when “Before We Run” slips to a close, the first track on Fakebook effortlessly follows. It looks like 2013 will be a great year for music (did someone say Destiny’s Child?) and it feels comforting to start things off with a great record from a band that has been playing exactly the music it’s wanted to since before most of us were born.

The book sets out to provide the public with a national update on college fraternities, claiming that Greek life today “makes Animal House look like a Pixar movie.” It promises a hilarious and enjoyable reading experience, tracking the journey of college freshman Townes Prescott as he encounters the college party scene for the first time.

Current and former college students alike might find themselves smiling at the familiarity of the classic college experiences he describes, such as Prescott’s first college party, first college hookup and initiation into his fraternity.

Other familiar issues are introduced to the reader as well, most notably the freedom that ensues following the separation from one’s parents and a failed attempt to make that classic long-distance high-school relationship work.

The book seemingly intends to be every teenage boy’s dream and every mother’s nightmare. TFM flaunts a barrage of alcohol, drugs and debauchery from page one, said W.R. Bolen, the book’s author.

“The point of me writing it was to create the most entertaining and hilarious book possible, focused on capturing the unique insanity that comes with this incomparable lifestyle,” Bolen said. “I want people to have the [best] time they’ve ever had reading a book. Personally, I can’t get through a chapter without wanting to go out and rage.”

The website that inspired the book rose to notoriety over the past few years for its postings about fraternity life in college, amassing comments and stories from Greek communities across the United States.

The site was so successful that it garnered the attention of literary agent Byrd Leavell, who submitted an inquiry to the TFM website.

“I came across the message, we got in contact with him and the next thing I knew I was writing this thing,” Bolen said. “A few months of writing later, Byrd sold the book to Ben Greenberg at Grand Central Publishing, and the rest is history.”

Bolen started his career writing for TFM in college. The original founders of TFM, Madison Wickham and Ryan Young, were two of Bolen’s older fraternity brothers. They reached out to Bolen during his last semester of college and he began writing for TFM, launching the “Columns” section. A few weeks before graduation, they offered him a job as a staff writer, and Bolen was brought on as TFM’s first employee.

“Writing was always something I wanted to do and I was already working as the staff writer for TFM, but I never would’ve imagined the opportunity to write a book would come just weeks after I graduated,” Bolen said.

As far as inspiration for the actual material inside the book goes, everything was either ripped from events in Bolen’s life, friends of his or stories he had heard.

“It was obviously very important to me that the book be as real as possible,” Bolen said.  “I made sure there was inspiration behind everything, instead of just [making stuff up] and slapping it down on paper.”

Bolen is new to publishing, but he said the creative process ran pretty smoothly, even if it did go by in a blur.

“The writing part was a nice little crash course for me as a first-time author. It turns out that writing a book isn’t like writing an essay for class, or writing a column to post on your comedy website,” Bolen said. “Fortunately, I got the hang of it pretty quickly.”

And it’s a good thing he did, as Bolen has crafted a tome of over-the-top collegiate hijinks that will likely trigger a bit of nostalgia in many who peruse it.

“[The book will] make you wish you were still in college, wish you’d done more when you were there or want to go out right now,” Bolen said.

The release of the single coincided with Timberlake’s announcement via an open letter to his fans that he will release a new album, “The 20/20 Experience,” later this year.

Although Timberlake has enjoyed success in his acting and producing career, it is nice to see him back to doing what he does best –– singing.

While not as catchy as past Timberlake songs, “Suit & Tie” has a very smooth, almost hypnotic sound that works well with Timberlake’s smooth falsetto. The up-tempo track heavily features horns and harps in the background, which provides a refreshing twist on the typical R&B style.

The lyrics, in typical Timberlake fashion, are not exactly philosophical. As the title would suggest, the song is quite literally about putting on a suit and a tie and showing off on the dance floor.

The song starts off slowly, but after a mysterious voice asks, “Are you ready JT?”, Timberlake kicks it into high gear.

With lines such as “I can’t wait to get you on the floor, good-looking” and

“As long as I got my suit and tie, imma leave it all on the floor tonight”, this song is perfect to listen to while getting ready to go out for the night.

The song abruptly transitions from Timberlake’s vocals into an unexpected verse from Jay-Z near the end of the song. The rap seems a little bit out of place, but it is hard to complain when two powerhouse artists such as Jay-Z and Justin Timberlake come together for something like this.

If this single is any indication of what the rest of Timberlake’s album will be like, fans are in for a long-awaited treat.

It’s safe to say that both Poehler and her co-host Tina Fey lived up to the hype that had surrounded them ever since it was announced that they would be hosting together.

Fey and Poehler have perfect comedic chemistry, and their every moment on stage was filled with witty, perfectly crafted one-liners.

The two were each nominated for the same award, Best Actress in a TV Series, Comedy or Musical – a fact that they wasted no time acknowledging.

“Tina, I just want to say that I very much hope that I win,” Poehler said politely to Fey, like any good frenemy would.

“Thank you,” Fey replied affectionately. “You are my nemesis.”

After they both lost to Lena Dunham for her hit comedy “Girls,” they each dejectedly returned to the stage with a drink in hand.

“Congratulations, Lena. Glad we got you through middle school,” Fey sarcastically slurred in response to Dunham’s acceptance speech.

Despite the loss, Fey and Poehler nailed both the lighthearted, appreciative quips (“Meryl Streep isn’t here tonight. She has the flu and I hear she’s amazing in it.”) and the more biting, “oh-no-she-didn’t” jabs (on Kathryn Bigelow, “When it comes to torture, I trust the woman who spent three years married to James Cameron.”).

Fans of the comediennes will be glad to see that their flawless give-and-take has only gotten better with age since their time together as co-anchors on Saturday Night Live’s “Weekend Update.” Even as seat fillers, Poehler and Fey stole the show by appearing with buck teeth, wigs or mustaches.

It would be a dream come true to have Fey and Poehler host every awards show from now on. Everything from the Oscars to the National Dog Show would be infinitely more entertaining with their presence.

If they aren’t available, Kristen Wiig and Will Ferrell would serve as viable stand-ins. Their introducing of the nominees for Best Actress in a Motion Picture, Comedy of Musical was a bit that seemed straight out of a particularly hilarious episode of Saturday Night Live.

Twenty-six-year-old Lena Dunham is not the slacker/wannabe writer she plays in the hit HBO series “Girls” that she stars in, created and currently directs. Although the current darling of the New York media circuit, Dunham has incurred as much criticism as she has cover photos.

While many of the critiques of the show are valid — unrealistic situations, a lack of diversity among main characters and catering to a narrow audience — criticizing “Girls” for the appearance of Dunham’s body is about as relevant as praising “Friends” for Jennifer Aniston’s haircut.

Flanked by three thin, media-approved beauties (Zosia Mamet, Allison Williams and Jemima Kirke), Dunham’s figure has been used to critique the realism of the show. God knows that Dunham could never have sex with a man like Donald Glover while Williams, who plays her “beautiful” best friend, sits forlorn on the couch.

Marnie (Allison Williams) is uptight, critical and regularly complimented for her beauty on the show. She is Dunham’s opposite both in body type and body visibility. In the premiere of season one, Marnie and Hannah (Lena Dunham) sit in a bathtub. Dunham’s arms drape over the side of the tub while Williams sits upright, tightly wrapped in a towel. “I only show my boobs to people I’m having sex with,” Marnie says.

Curiously, the audience never once sees her naked chest or behind during season one nor in the premiere of season two though she has plenty of onscreen sex. While this could be Williams’ reluctance to be naked on television, it doesn’t really matter. The decision is one that fits her character.

It is doubtful the media would be up in arms over seeing Williams naked anyway. The New York Post used words like “blobby” and “sloppy” to describe Dunham’s naked body, wondering why we even have to be subjected to such an imperfect figure. But the truth is that Dunham’s character is insecure and seeking approval. Hannah is hoping that by quickly shedding her clothes, she can appear more confident than her insecurity allows.

The season two premiere opens and closes with a mostly naked and unashamed Dunham. Her co-stars spend little time in equally naked situations. And that is realistic. It should no longer be a crutch that cruel and lazy writers use to critique the show. Why is it that we can accept a variety of nationalities, sexual orientations and races on screen, but not an atypical body type?

Ultimately, no one is as naked as Dunham, but that is a realistic step for the show. Hannah Horvath is not modest in season two, and honestly, we shouldn’t expect her to be.

Apatow is a predictable filmmaker. Not unlike Dane Cook — the Ryan Reynolds of standup — Apatow makes self-respecting funnies angled for a millennial audience. Biggest concern? Longevity. His stamina will continue to be challenged. But guess what: “Predictable” can be a good thing. You know what you ordered when one of his films open. “This Is 40” is no exception. With recycled actors and congruent plot frameworks, his semi-sequel scores through the uprights, but never quite reaches the end zone.

Congratulate Pete and Debbie (played by Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann, “Knocked Up”). Unsurprisingly, they are approaching the 40-year mark. In Debbie’s mind, she’s turning 38 again, not 40. This is further backed during a scene at the gynecologist when two nurses inquire why her birth year climbs higher each visit. Pete, however, remains honest to his Tour de France biking club jerseys and his covert cupcake fetish. They loosely make a pact to exercise daily, revamp diets and rectify relationships with their respective fathers (Albert Brooks, “Broadcast News,” and John Lithgow, “The Campaign”). We follow the pair as they fight, rekindle, jest and fume.

Professionally, Rudd operates a suffocating record label while Mann manages a clothier that’s missing an unexplained $12,000. Supporting, Chris O’Dowd and Megan Fox add pizzazz and mountainous cleavage (respectively) as coworkers. Even Jason Segel, an Apatow veteran, is thrown in the mix as the prescient, womanizing personal trainer. Fox’s character brainlessly answers, “I’m just young,” as Debbie cops a feel of her supple juggies.

Several elements work in “This Is 40.” Primarily, the film tackles precisely what its title suggests: oncoming menopausal behavior, overprotective guardians, receding hairlines and Generation Y-technology cluelessness. In this sense, the film’s grounded reality and honesty appear refreshing. In the past, Apatow has excelled in depicting life’s inevitable encounters that people pretend don’t exist. You have everything from the graying virgin to a comic’s misery.

Mann kills while Rudd weakly follows. To be fair, Debbie is structured stronger than Pete, but we fail to sympathize for Pete the way Apatow hopes. His crippled business marries with his inability to refuse his broke father monthly checks. Ideally, you want to pat weaker characters on the back and ensure them it’s going to be OK. That never happens.

“This Is 40” pigeonholes itself as an older person movie. Unless younger viewers have parents with overlapping traits and empathies, it’s tough to resonate. With an overlong runtime, the film eventually feels like it’s working on fumes, and many unnecessary scenes bog down the script’s momentum.

Thankfully, though, Apatow specializes in one important category: handcrafting a unique, relevant perspective on harmlessly contentious subject matter …

In this case, it’s enduring the discovery of gray pubes.

However, for ESPN calling the opinions Parker shared as “inappropriate,” the network also did not shy away from practically looping the “First Take” snip-it in which Parker made the disparaging remarks. ESPN later said it took “appropriate disciplinary measures” with “personnel responsible” for airing and re-airing the comments.

Although just 18 days into what was initially said to be a 30-day suspension, news broke Jan. 8 that ESPN would not be renewing Parker’s contract. A spokesperson from ESPN issued the following statement.

“Rob Parker’s contract expired at year’s end. Evaluating our needs and his work, including his recent RG III comments, we decided not to renew his deal.”

It all started at a Redskins press conference back in December where Griffin stated that he wanted to be known for his talents, not because he was a black quarterback. His comment was in response to a reporter’s question of why he wasn’t allowing himself to be defined as an African American quarterback.

“For me, it was just… you don’t want to be defined by the color of your skin,” Griffin said. “You want to be defined by your work ethic, the person that you are, your character, your personality. That’s what I strive to go out and do. I’m an African American in America. That’ll never change. But I don’t have to be defined by that.

“I understand that they’re (the fans) excited that their quarterback is an African American. I appreciate them for being fans, and not just fans because I’m African American.

“They’re (fans and media) going to try to compare… you know, we always try to find similarities in life; no matter what it is. So they’re always going to try to put you in a box with other African American quarterbacks—Vick, Newton, Randall Cunningham, Warren Moon. Warren Moon and Doug Williams really didn’t run that much.

“I think that’s the negative stereotype when it comes to African American quarterbacks that most of us just run. Those guys threw it around. I like to think I can throw it around a little bit. That’s the goal. Just to go out… not try to prove anybody wrong, but just let your talents speak for themselves.”

Parker’s role is of analyst on “First Take” and he was asked to respond to Griffin’s statements that he would rather be defined by his work ethic than by his skin color. Parker insinuated that the remark would have many black people questioning the quarterback’s “blackness.”

“My question, which is just a straight honest question, is he a brother or is he a cornball brother?”

When asked to elaborate by the program’s host, Parker said, “He’s black, he kind of does his thing, but he’s not really down with the cause – he’s not one of us. He’s kind of black, but he’s not really like the kind of guy you’d want to hang out with.

“I want to find (out) about him. I don’t know because I keep hearing these things. We all know he has a white fiancée. Then there was all this talk about he’s a Republican, which there’s no information at all. I’m just trying to dig deeper into why he has an issue. Because we did find out with Tiger Woods, Tiger Woods was like, ‘I’ve got black skin, but don’t call me black.’ So people wondered about Tiger Woods.”

Parker admits Griffin’s braids do make him appear urban. “Wearing braids, is… you’re a brother. You’re a brother if you got braids on.”

He was suspended the next day by ESPN.

Parker has long been a contributor to WDIV-TV’s Local 4 and has also written for its companion website ClickonDetroit.com. It appears Parker will remain in his occasional role as sports commentator, although there’s a possibility that can change.

Local 4 news anchor Devin Scillian invited Parker to be a guest on his Sunday morning news program, “Flashpoint.” It was Parker’s first one-on-one interview since his controversial remarks were made. The South End had the opportunity to get Scillian’s thoughts on this whole controversy.

“’Flashpoint” has, over the years, continued with a running conversation about race,” Scillian said in an online interview with The South End. “My friendship with Rob along with his occasional freelance work for WDIV made him a natural (guest) I thought.

“I’ve known Rob for a long time and he has always enjoyed saying the controversial thing. But that one left me a little dumbfounded, not only because it was a really damaging thing to say from a career standpoint but also because it felt like a kind of truth serum – that it was showing me a part of Rob I didn’t know existed.

“At first, I thought it was the only thing ESPN could do (regarding Parker’s suspension). But after hearing that the producers apparently knew what he was going to say I felt that was just ESPN covering their fannies. Seems ESPN bore some responsibility, too.”

When asked if his opinion of Parker’s comments changed after his “Flashpoint” interview, Scillian said.

“Well, Rob didn’t exactly run away from his comments. He did try to put them in a different context (that they were the feelings of others ‘in the barbershop’ and not necessarily his own views) but I was a little surprised that Rob didn’t just say, ‘Well, that was a stupid thing for me to say.’ From a strict PR standpoint, fessing up and apologizing seems to be the fastest way to get something to die off.”

Parker said in his “Flashpoint” interview, “The one thing I’m proud about being on that show, ‘First Take’, for the last six years, is that we are willing to tackle a lot of stuff that most shows won’t even touch or even discuss. I think it’s important. I think we’ve done it in a really good way. This is the first time, really, we were in hot water after dealing with such an issue.”

Though Parker’s apology for his comments appeared on Twitter, as of Jan. 9, he had posted no comments on his profile regarding his contract not being renewed (likely because his handle is @RobParkerESPN).

Director Tom Hooper’s adaptation of Les Miserables is certain to appease the legions of musical theater fans who will be happy to see veteran Broadway heartthrobs Aaron Tveit and Samantha Barks. Hooper’s adaptation will also satisfy movie-goers who crave sentimentality—after all, it is impossible to leave the theater without teary eyes and a few sniffles. However, Hooper’s film will not leave a lasting impression in the film community.

It attempts to reconcile three different mediums of telling the same story: novel, musical theater and now film. However, it caters too heavily to its roots and fails to successfully create its own space on screen. Hooper misses an opportunity to provide spectacular and cohesive visuals. In addition, the actors tip-toe along the fourth wall, sometimes acting within the world of Les Miserables and other times orienting themselves around the camera to give piercing looks into the audience. Hooper’s film was simply an adaptation of the stage musical and manifested no new meaning or craft from the familiar story.

Just because Les Miserables is not the best film, though, does not mean it is a bad film adaptation. Hooper is wise to use the makeup department to his advantage, creating a highly dramatic, yet genuine, metamorphosis of Jean Valjean over the seventeen years shown in the film. In addition, while the setting as a whole is underwhelming, certain scenes shine with an epic glory that only film can hold, especially the initial images depicting a crew of prisoners hauling in a ship. These moments of grandeur are fleeting, but clearly the work of a seasoned director.

In the fashion of many audiences before me, it is impossible to go without applauding Anne Hathaway’s performance as Fantine. Hathaway emerges as a contemporary Audrey Hepburn, simultaneously embodying both beauty and power in the framework of a fragile character. Crowe provides a wholly-convincing performance of Javert’s steadfastness to the law amidst inner turmoil, even if his singing isn’t up to par. However, he lacks chemistry with Jackman, whose performance is deserving of, at best, an “A” for effort. The Thenardiers (Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter) bring humorous interludes to the sob-fest, but the humor is owed more to the lyrics rather than their acting. The best character of all is the ensemble, which, if it were utilized better, could have provided much-needed breaks between a seemingly unending string of deaths.

Hooper’s Les Miserables is worth seeing for the shining performances and momentary glimpses of filmic potential, but the audience should not expect to glean more meaning or experience than they would from viewing the stage production. However, given that Les Miserables is a fantastic musical in and of itself, the movie is a gem in a season full mostly of 3D re-releases and bad Billy Crystal comedies.

The Casual Vacancy deals with the aftermath of the sudden death of Barry Fairbrother, a well-liked parish councilor who delicately held together the various social and political factions of the town. His passing creates a “casual vacancy,” an open seat on the parish council, setting off a fight for the empty seat. Through the course of the election, the serious but hidden tensions of the town are revealed. The most controversial issue is the Fields, an estate of public housing. Traditional Pagfordians see the Fields as an imposition from the larger neighboring city of Yarvil, a drag on parish resources spent on junkies who attend the Bellchapel Addiction Clinic, and an overall blight on all that is good and right about wholesome Pagford. The fight over parish control of the Fields and Bellchapel ultimately eclipses Barry Fairbother’s casual vacancy that starts the story and exposes marital struggles, teenage angst and parental attempts to handle it, class conflict, and cultural divides.

The Somewhat Good, the Bad, and the Worse

No character in the novel is truly likeable. They have occasional, fleeting moments of goodness or sympathy. The reader spends the story placing each character on a spectrum of disagreeability in relation to their fellow townspeople. A prime example is Howard and Shirley Mollison, long-time residents of Pagford who see themselves as fixtures of Pagford and all that the town stands for. They are also the leaders of the anti-Fields “movement” in Pagford. Howard and Shirley, like others, mourn Barry Fairbrother’s death very briefly, and only because it is the socially acceptable thing to do. Their thoughts reveal their almost immediate scheming to capture Fairbrother’s newly vacant seat so as to augment the anti-Fields faction and finally get rid of the Fields. Howard and Shirley are gossipy, petty, prejudiced, and entitled.

The novel’s teenagers are the most vibrant, relatable, and best portrayed. Considering Rowling’s past in adolescent fiction, this is unsurprising. Though they deal with serious issues, they focus mostly on typical teenage problems: crushes and sex, conflict with parents, and the general tendency to see things in binaries. One of the most notable teenagers is Krystal Weedon, used as an example of both the good and bad of the Fields in which she lives. Krystal is promiscuous, violent, angry, truants often, and occasionally steals. She is also the effective caretaker of her addict mother and infant brother and helped lead the local girl’s crew team to success. Krystal’s troubled history, her abject living conditions, and the stark choices she faces create sympathy for her situation, yet they do not completely erase her rough, defensive exterior.

Reality, Crude and Uncensored

The Casual Vacancy is a raw description of human character and its many immoral imperfections. In Rowling’s sometimes heavy-handed inclusion of almost any horrific experience that people can have, there is little room for redemption for any of the characters. This is a stark difference from the tale that made J.K. Rowling a household name and The Casual Vacancy. This novel is no doubt completely different in genre, perspective, and setting from Harry Potter; not even an about-face, it is on an entirely different literary plane. One of the most noticeable differences is the prevalence, often overly saturated, of sexuality and vulgarity. While Harry and his friends did not even start to like people until they were fourteen and kissing them until they were fifteen or sixteen, the teenagers in The Casual Vacancy have sex on their minds more often than not, either the real thing or the online porn they know far too well. In addition, words like “fucking,” “cunt,” “shit,” and the like are heavily used. One character notes that Krystal Weedon “used ‘fucking’ interchangeably with ‘very’, and seemed to see no difference between them.” Rowling herself is guilty of a similar authorial charge.

 “Little Vacancies” Not Totally Filled 

The Casual Vacancy has Rowling’s signature strong and engaging writing, but this does not make it easier to digest the novel’s stark subject matter. Frustration, sadness, even slight horror may come up in reading the stories of the interwoven lives of Pagford residents. Barry Fairbrother’s vacant council seat catalyzes and ultimately becomes irrelevant as the town is further embroiled in personal conflicts. Several messages from “The Ghost of Barry Fairbrother” left on the parish council website reveal intimate secrets of various town-members and contribute to the messy drama surrounding the election. Between an eventful council meeting and two more sudden deaths, the superficially polite and delicate seams holding together picturesque Pagford come apart. The town becomes aware of its glaring problems, but solutions are not initially obvious. The end of the novel leaves a sense of opportunity for improvement but uncertainty about Pagfordians’ ability to realize it.

Just as in her Harry Potter series, Rowling notes that her new novel deals with “mortality and morality, the two things that I obsess about,” as she told The New Yorker. The Casual Vacancy gives many glimpses into how these themes play out in real life, but does not provide much hope for their future resolution. Rowling, in the same New Yorker interview, says that she “was dealing not only with responsibility but with a bunch of characters who all have these little vacancies in their lives, these emptinesses in their lives, that they’re all filling in various ways.” The characters of this novel and the ways in which they interact to form a community are the true focus of this story. The political jockeying that lead to these events is just a premise, becoming secondary to the crude humanity Rowling presents.

At the start of the novel, Howard and Shirley Mollison “were contemplating the casual vacancy; and they saw it, not as an empty space but as a magician’s pocket, full of possibilities.” This novel is worth the read, but the possibilities it presents are dark and unpleasant, with no magic available to lighten the load.

Set in the South in 1858, the film follows Django (Jamie Foxx), a slave who is bought by dentist-turned-bounty hunter Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz). Schultz promises Django his freedom and a cut of the reward if he can help identify three wanted men—the Brittle brothers—on a nearby plantation. Despite the success of their bounty mission, plantation owner Big Daddy (Don Johnson) arranges a lynch mob, which results only in the mob’s embarrassment and death after one of the funnier sequences in the film—a back and forth about the merits of wearing hoods when riding horses in a lynch mob.

In exchange for the success of their initial endeavor, Schultz feels obligated to help the newly freed Django find and rescue his wife, Broomhilda (played by Kerry Washington). After Schultz spends the winter training Django in the mountains, the two men travel to a plantation called Candie Land, whose owner, Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio), had purchased Broomhilda at a slave auction. In order to convince Candie to part with Broomhilda, the pair pretends to be interested in purchasing a Mandingo wrestler—a purchase that they hope will result in Broomhilda’s freedom.

When things go sour (as things are wont to do in the Tarantino-verse), the two are forced to escape Candie Land under hostile fire, endangering Django’s life and the likelihood of escaping with his wife.

As with other Tarantino films, the cast of “Django” is its greatest strength. Foxx is particularly strong as the titular freedman-turned-bounty-hunter. But just as Waltz was unmatched by his costars in “Inglourious Basterds,” he is similarly on top of his game here in his second Tarantino film, in which he plays a character with persuasive powers similar to his smooth talking, dangerous SS colonel in “Basterds.”

DiCaprio does a fine job as Candie, though he lays his faux-Southern accent on a bit thick, and Samuel L. Jackson has great chemistry with DiCaprio as Candie’s house slave, Stephen—the only person on the plantation who knows what’s going on.

Unlike his other films, which are are filled with obscure allusions and layered meaning, Tarantino is rather overt in explaining the subtext of “Django.” Schultz tells Django the German folktale of Broomhilda, a woman who is imprisoned on a rock by her father until the hero, Siegfried, slays a dragon and walks through hellfire to rescue her. This sequence too obviously presented the film as a loose retelling of the folktale, with Django as an analog of Siegfried.

Despite some of its overstatement, the film is an admirable alternate-history spaghetti western. While the question of why Tarantino would do essentially the same thing he did with “Inglourious Basterds” (except with slavery) may arise, it is superseded by the question of why three separate plots are crammed into a single movie, albeit a movie of almost three hours.

Though some have expressed uneasiness with the way the film handles slavery—Spike Lee called the film “disrespectful,” according to Rolling Stone—Tarantino doesn’t avoid the graphic brutality of slavery, and the film does more to indict slavery than anything else.

Despite its flaws, “Django Unchained” is a good film infused with enough of Tarantino’s style to make it a rewarding, though bloody, three hours.

“Skyfall” is a major turnaround from the last Bond movie, “Quantum of Solace” (2008), because, unlike Quantum, “Skyfall” is an extremely simple movie. There is never any question as to where Bond is and what he is doing. There is a clearly established bad guy, and there is no question what his motivation is: to get revenge for being cast out by M from MI6. It is as basic as a Star Wars movie. At the end of “Skyfall,” good prevails over evil in the simplest and, consequently, the most powerful fashion.

First-time Bond director Sam Mendes tested the series’ waters with a bold story line: a villain has gained access to the identities of MI6’s undercover agents and bombs their headquarters. It gives the film a greater urgency than your run-of-the-mill Bond movie.

MI6 is seriously endangered. This makes the viewer feel like “Skyfall” matters in the 007 series. This is not a typical day for Bond, where he just needs to shoot a few goons and save the girl. When a massive explosion goes off at MI6 headquarters and six Union Jacks are draped over their respective coffins, it becomes apparent that this story matters.

The biggest reason this movie is so fun, though, is that Bond and the characters surrounding him look and feel extremely lively. The audience doesn’t have to assume anything about them.

“Skyfall” successfully demonstrates Bond’s macho nature and super villain Silva’s (Javier Bardem) devilishly evil charm.

The script, pacing and acting all work together to do so. When Bond is shot from an explosion and into a train car, he doesn’t fall to his hands and knees. Rather, he lands on his feet, props himself up swiftly, and walks down the car, past the camera, fixing his cuffs as if he were walking into a ballroom.

When Silva makes his grand entrance at the end of the movie, he does so in a grand fashion, blasting “Boom Boom” by the Animals through the speakers attached to his massive gunship, adding a bit of comic appeal as he flies in to finish off the protagonist. These moments have borderline cartoonish charm, but they are so well done that they leave audiences thinking to themselves that, yes, Bond and his nemesis really can be that cool. It is very easy to buy into what “Skyfall” is portraying in the Bond universe.

Mendes managed to make “Skyfall” a very physical film while still keeping the audience engaged in nearly every frame. Whether Bond is flying across rooftops on a motorcycle or clinging to the bottom of an elevator in a skyscraper, every shot has something unique to offer, and the action is always surrounded by fantastic scenery, from the night skyline of Shanghai to the cloud covered hills of Scotland.

Even the most casual Bond fan will enjoy “Skyfall.” Its perfectly paced, and the characters are wellwritten and fantastically played. After seeing it once, it is worth seeing again. Even the second time through, it is difficult to look away.

Campaign

Halo 4 finds Master Chief still in a cryogenic state aboard the ship “Forward Unto Dawn.” He is awakened by his artificial intelligence companion Cortana once the ship reaches a planet known as Requiem. There, the rogue Covenant, one of the main enemy forces in the series, boards the ship, causing it to crash-land on the planet below.

Halo 4’s story focuses on the relationship between Master Chief and Cortana. Cortana is reaching the end of the natural life cycle for AIs, which is about seven years. Master Chief, while fighting the main antagonist,  forerunner the Didact, must also try to fix Cortana; this story probably provides the most emotion for Master Chief that players have seen in a Halo game. You get to see how Cortana deteriorates over time, and also how it affects Master Chief, both emotionally and in action.

The campaign takes about six hours to complete, which is about average for a first-person shooter but seems to end relatively quickly. The campaign also adds a little more variety in the missions, throwing in quick-time events and vehicle missions, all of which work well within the story. The main antagonist, however, only makes an appearance a couple times during the story, and never seems to be as developed as well as he could have been. But despite this slight issue, this is a campaign well worth completing, and it will provide some great fan service to long-time players.

Multiplayer

Multiplayer — or War Games, as it’s referred to in Halo 4 — is the standard by which all first-person shooters are measured nowadays, and Halo 4 doesn’t at all disappoint in this department. This version provides a much more customizable experience than before, while still maintaining the classic Halo gameplay fans have always loved. The classic Halo game modes are here, including Team Slayer, Slayer, Capture the Flag, Oddball and King of the Hill. Fan-favorite game mode Grifball is now its own playlist, along with Flood (previously known as Infection). The maps are well designed, allowing for all different styles of play, whether slow and tactical or run-and-gun, to be viable in the multiplayer environment.

The game’s biggest change to the multiplayer experience is in the player customization. Players can now create their own custom loadouts, allowing them to pick their own primary weapon, pistol, grenade, tactical package and support upgrade. Though this feature was briefly explored in Halo: Reach, Halo 4 allows you to cater your loadout to your playing style. Similar to Call of Duty, there are even challenges that unlock experience for earning a certain amount of kills or medals, and the commendations from Halo: Reach return, updating every day, week or month.

Armor customization is just as big a part of this game as in previous games, allowing for thousands of possible armor combinations. And though the emblem customization hasn’t changed too much, it still provides enough of an opportunity to express yourself with a unique team player logo. But, you have to reach a certain level in order to unlock certain emblems, which is an unusual decision on 343 Industries’ part.

Spartan ops

Spartan Ops, Halo 4’s new game mode, is a story-driven series of multiplayer missions that 343 Industries adds to every week. Each mission, which takes about 15 minutes to complete, starts off with a cut-scene that gives you the mission objectives. All the missions culminate into one storyline, which is divided into seasons, allowing fans to receive new episodes every week, similar to a TV series.

Though the idea is innovative, and provides a longer story arc than the one in the campaign, it takes the place of Firefight, a horde-style game mode that was featured in Halo 3: ODST and Halo: Reach. Considering it was a popular choice for many fans, it seems a bit unusual that this game mode was excluded from this game. Fans hoping for a revamped Firefight experience will be sorely disappointed, although Spartan Ops does what it intends to do very well.

Final Verdict

If you’re afraid to continue the Halo series because of a new developer, don’t be. 343 Industries does an excellent job continuing the storied franchise, making sure to keep the campaign and multiplayer up to Halo standards while adding its own unique elements to the franchise. Though Spartan Ops isn’t as successful, and doesn’t quite fill the void left behind by Firefight, Halo 4 still serves up a compelling experience that will keep old and new fans alike glued to their controllers.

This is the all-too-familiar problem Pittsburgh rapper Wiz Khalifa finds himself battling on his sophomore major label release O.N.I.F.C. [Only Nigga in First Class], out Tuesday from Atlantic Records. After generating local interest — which eventually became national — with a series of mixtapes and independent releases, Khalifa rocketed to superstardom with the chart-topping Steelers anthem “Black and Yellow,” followed closely by his critically and commercially successful debut album Rolling Papers.

A motion picture role alongside Snoop Dogg followed, and now the 25-year-old MC must produce another hit on par with “Black and Yellow” in order to maintain his newfound popularity and relevance.

His first attempt is with O.N.I.F.C.’s lead single “Work Hard, Play Hard,” another Pittsburgh-centric anthem that does much to mimic his breakthrough hit. The production is massive and grandiose, with a steel mill drum pattern pounding over an ominous single-note bass line. The verse mostly consists of Khalifa bragging about how rich he is, while the chorus strives for something a little more profound: “The quicker you here, the faster you go / That’s why where I come from the only thing we know is / Work hard, play hard.”

The song works well enough, but ultimately lacks the intangible energy captured in “Black and Yellow” and the rest of Rolling Papers. The same can be said for O.N.I.F.C. as a whole; the production and guest appearances are on the money, but Khalifa lacks anything new to say as well as a new way to say it.

About 90 percent of the lyrics concern either the rapper’s love of smoking weed or his love of his own money. At 17 tracks and more than 73 minutes long, the album quickly begins to drag, with tracks like “It’s Nothin” and “Initiation” adding nothing new or interesting to the sonic portraiture.

A notable exception is “The Bluff,” featuring a guest appearance by NYC rapper Cam’ron. The song features a delicate, ethereal production that glides hazily over a slow jam drum pattern as the MC’s trade off verses. It’s about as close to “sensitive” as a song that revolves entirely around marijuana and hundred-dollar bills can get.

Two of the album’s best tracks are reserved for the very end. “Remember You” features a haunting chorus sung by alternative neo-soul singer the Weeknd, while “Medicated” closes the album out with introspective, reminiscing lyrics that finally reach beyond the shallowness that pervades the rest of the disc.

The delivery and production on O.N.I.F.C. reveal an artist who has just hit the big time and is trying to make it last. In order to do so, Khalifa would be wise to find more substantive subject matter to rap about the next time around.

Though Warrior has a different sound than 2010’s electro-pop hit Animal, Ke$ha’s effective genre-mixing is unlikely to alienate her fans. Infectious lead single “Die Young” — which incorporates a catchy mix of pop, acoustic guitar and rap elements — well represents the mix of musical styles on the rest of the album.

The opening title track is a solid power ballad with a dubstep sound, and “Dirty Love,” which features Iggy Pop, has enough guitar to pass as pop-rock.

Fans of Animal will be pleased by the subject matter of Warrior — plenty of material is devoted to sex and partying, and Ke$ha’s signature lyrics continue to toe the line between crass and hilarious. However, she also left room to expand her repertoire with “Thinking of You” and “Wherever You Are,” which are more personal than any of her previous releases.

The album’s weakness is in its second half, which is dominated by a string of danceable but unoriginal pop tunes that simply blend together. Warrior might not be a great or even memorable album, but Ke$ha’s appealing new direction and irresistible beats make it a perfect guilty pleasure.

However, the college-aged crowd doesn’t seem to be the focus of comedy troupe Broken Lizard in this case; instead, their newest film, “The Babymakers,” is directed toward post-college age adults who are now dealing with issues such as marriage and children.

Perhaps they’re attempting to follow their fans into adulthood or reach a wider audience, but this market is not a good choice for Broken Lizard. They should stick to what they do best, as proven by the cult-like success of their previous films and leave the romantic comedies alone.

That said, I don’t think this movie deserves quite the amount of negative feedback it has received. The film currently has a nine percent on RottenTomatoes.com, and its box office results were extremely disappointing.

There is some foundation for this unenthusiastic response. In many cases I wasn’t sure whether the movie was taking itself seriously or not, and some scenes are so random and over-the-top they almost made me regret watching.

For example, there is an excruciatingly long scene toward the end of the film in which one of the main cast is repeatedly slipping in a giant pile of semen. There’s also some mildly offensive humor with homosexual stereotypes and an adopted Chinese girl named Jackie Chan.

Overall, though, the actors do a decent job with what they’re given. Paul Schneider (“Parks and Recreation,” “Lars and the Real Girl”) and “Attack of the Show!” veteran Olivia Munn work well with the script, even though they seem aware of its ludicrousness.

The two play a couple who have been married for three years and are discussing having children. Munn’s character, Audrey, brings up the subject during their anniversary dinner, and after initially mistaking the talk for hints toward anal sex, Tommy (Schneider) is on board with the idea.

After pursuing it for months, however, Audrey and Tommy are met with no results, and they’re bored with trying. Everyone in the couple’s life begins to immediately assume the issue is Tommy’s fault. This leads to the beginning of his exaggerated paranoia regarding his manhood that lasts throughout the film.

They finally seek medical help, and Tommy discovers he has an extremely low sperm count. Even though Audrey seems ready to deal with the issue, Tommy insists the doctor must be wrong. In his defense, he confesses to donating sperm for months in order to pay for Audrey’s engagement ring, proving he must have viable goods.

But when the couple arrives at the sperm bank to recover the rest of Tommy’s old sperm they discover there is only one “batch” left, and it’s promised to a couple. Tommy panics, convinced Audrey will divorce him if he can’t provide her with the children she wants so badly.

This is when he and his two friends, Wade (Kevin Heffernan, “Super Troopers”) and Zig-Zag (Nat Faxon, “Ben and Kate”) – probably the two worst characters in the movie – plan to steal the last batch from the sperm bank before it’s used Monday.

The rest of the film involves their quest for the last batch, a team-up with an ex-member of the Indian mafia (played by director Jay Chandrasekhar) and an extremely long scene during which Tommy is carrying the sperm and being chased by the police.

If the entire movie was downplayed about 50 percent, it could be really good. It’s obvious there are creative people on the project, but somehow the delivery failed completely.

If you can look past the oddly juvenile adult humor, this has the potential to be an enjoyable movie, and I’d recommend it to anyone with lowered standards and time to waste.

Just don’t go into it expecting much.

TVLine reported Tuesday that actors Ben Savage (Cory Matthews) and Danielle Fishel (Topanga Lawrence) have officially signed on for the pilot episode, which will feature their 13-year-old daughter, Riley, in her journey through adolescence.

Actor Ben Savage announced his involvement via Twitter, writing, “I’m going to be a father! Well, on TV at least. The ‘Boy Meets World’ sequel is officially happening!”

The now young adults who originally watched the show are becoming more excited about the new “Girl Meets World.” Students, like Ryan Oldach, are eager to see how the famous couple has turned out over a decade later.

“I’d like to see it, how Cory and Topanga grew up and what they’re doing now,” Oldach said. “I’d like to see how they pick up that huge jump from when they were teens to parenthood. They will definitely get a lot of the 90s viewers like us because we knew how funny those two were in the original.”

Penn State senior Lisa Peirce, writer and producer of the show “Reel TV” on psnTV, attributes the hype on a yearning for the past.

“The show has a lot of potential I think. Having a new female character [Riley] is interesting, and bringing back the two main characters is a big deal also,” Peirce said. “Those are characters people loved as kids, and [the characters] are parents now.”

Pierce added that the now young adults have grown up with Cory and Topanga and they are excited to see how the pair turned out.

“It really ties into nostalgia, and I think people have been waiting for this type of show to come back,” Pierce said.

It has been 12 years since the “Boy Meets World’s” run ended on ABC, yet fans continue to watch the re-runs and learn from the familiar characters, such as Cory, Topanga, Sean and Mr. Feeney.

“I’m a huge fan,” Jennifer Morgenstern said. “I loved it because it dealt with issues that were prevalent in my life at the time, but it was also hilarious. You can’t really get that comedy nowadays.”

Morgenstern admitted that initially she thought the spin-off sounded like a bad idea, but she changed her mind when she heard the news that Savage and Fishel had signed on. While long-time fans are excited for the show, many have similar reservations.

Will Monkowski, senior president of psnTV, said that the cookie cutter “Disney Channel humor” could possibly ruin the classic show.

“I’m hesitant to get too into it because there is a risk of [the show] being a big let down, just because it will be on Disney Channel and that comes with certain connotations of its own,” Monkowski said.

TVLine reported that Michael Jacobs, the executive producer of “Boy Meets World,” is in the forefront of the project for Disney Channel.

“I think [Jacobs] will probably want to keep it going in the same direction, because that was the show that people really related to,” Peirce said. “They’ll adjust it for the new generation of viewers and they will hopefully relate in the same way. I mean they haven’t even finished casting or filmed the pilot episode and people are already really excited for it, which is a really good sign.”

When a mob of angry, distressed Iranians overtook the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979, over 50 American employees were taken as hostage. Six diplomats managed to escape and find refuge in the home of the Canadian ambassador, risking the security of both countries and the lives of everyone involved.

The CIA struggled to come up with a plausible plan for exfiltrating the diplomats, but it was hard to create one that was believable enough to get past the Iranian government.

CIA specialist Tony Mendez, played by Affleck, was the one to come up with the masterful operation that was just bizarre enough to have a chance.

Mendez’s idea was to travel to Tehran and pose as a movie producer scouting for locations to shoot a science fiction film that’s described as a “$20 million ‘Star Wars’ knockoff.” Once there, he’ll meet up with his “film crew,” or the six diplomats, who will each be given new constructed identities so airtight they’ll be able to pass through Iranian security and fly back home.

It sounds like an insane and far-fetched plan that would have no chance of playing out the right way. It’s easy to think that this is the type of scheme that would only work out in a Disney movie.

That is, until you remember that this is no fairytale. “Argo” tells the story of a true crisis and the heroes that resolved it.

“The whole country is watching you, they just don’t know it,” Jack O’Donnell, Mendez’s supervisor, played by “Breaking Bad” star Bryan Cranston, tells him once the plan is approved and ready for action.

This energetic sense of urgency is found throughout the entire film, with a few short bursts of the type of dark humor that breaks the tension just enough to make you feel guilty for laughing.

“Argo” never claims to be a documentary account of what later came to be known as the “Canadian Caper,” and, at times, scenes were overdramatized and exaggerated in ways that were too hard to buy. Yet, the film captures a story of heroic masterminds so full of heart-stopping action and gut-wrenching anxiety that it’s difficult to look away from the screen even for a second.

“Argo” is sure to earn a handful of Oscar nominations. Most notably, its thrilling take on this historical event makes it a strong candidate for Best Adapted Screenplay. Affleck could also receive a nomination for Best Director, and it wouldn’t be surprising to see this film be nominated for Best Picture.

Grade: B+

Had MGM left nationalities alone, “Red Dawn” would’ve just been another stupid remake, a stupid, stupid story of how Washington teenagers band together as a tight-knit group of insurgents who call themselves the Wolverines (after their high school mascot) fighting off a Chinese invasion. Now, “Red Dawn” has become an ignorant, misguided mess pandering to audiences infected with American jingoism and racial fears, bitten by Yellow Peril. It has been made into something it should’ve never been.

And yes, it’s still stupid.

Directed by newcomer Don Bradley, a well-known stunt coordinator who worked on such films as “The Bourne Supremacy,” it should be a safe assumption walking unknowingly into “Red Dawn” that its action scenes would be its saving grace. Instead, the viewer is too often lost in a jumble of shaky camerawork, hindering the action rather than augmenting it. The action lacks ease, direction and, worse yet, fun.

Lost, too, is any sense of logic. Whenever the Wolverines leave their humble home in the woods to kill some commies, they seem to waltz into their North Korean-occupied city. We have no idea how they got inside with AK-47s. Were there fences? Were there guards? The Wolverines walk in, bomb a few places, shoot up some people and walk out. They learn to kill and to be soldiers in what appears to be a couple of weeks. It’s difficult to decide what to blame for these discontinuities: Was it the terrible writing, the terrible editing or both?

It’s only when “Red Dawn” is three-quarters finished that an actual objective arises for the Wolverines. Until then, without a clear sense of setting and time, we spring from one flashy, shaky gunfight to another like an unhappy version of that slinky on an escalator from the GEICO commercial — miserable and mindless. You can’t help but think almost half of the film could’ve been lopped off.

Speaking of things that are clunky and absurd, Josh Peck (TV’s “Drake and Josh”) stars as Matt Eckhert, and he sure does try. To be fair, his moments with his Marine brother, Jed Eckhert (Chris Hemsworth, “The Avengers”), are performed with believability, though never with depth. Hemsworth is charismatic as a big brother, but his patriotic speeches often leave you burying your head in a bag of popcorn, rather than roused.

When Smith (Kenneth Choi, “Captain America: The First Avenger”) enters the picture, it’s painfully obvious what they were doing. He’s the token Asian-American character fighting for his country, for the Red, White and Blue — which is hardly consoling for any Asian-American.

While enduring this long hour-and-a-half as the lone Asian-American in the theater, there was a woman in the audience, clearly incensed by Jed’s “Go America” speech, who let out a painful, whispered “yeah!” each time she saw America’s freedom being righteously defended. As if the mightiest military superpower should feel like a victim. There is no self-referential humor or anything else to indicate filmmakers of “Red Dawn” really understood that irony.

MGM’s decision has politicized what should have been nothing but bubblegum action thrills. Still, it’d be slanderous to say the director, the writer, the actors or anyone else involved in “Red Dawn” is racist. But for pandering to the minutemen in all of us, for reviving old memories of immigration exclusion, riots, violence, war and xenophobia, the film itself is tremendously irresponsible. It makes one wonder if and how many Americans across the country reacted the same way that woman in the theater did. Do they see the North Korean/Chinese army as invaders? Or Asian invaders?

“Life of Pi” is a romanticized interpretation of Martel’s novel with Lee adding long introspective sequences, dreamy interludes, and even a superfluous love interest. This “Pi” is less concerned with the concrete reality of being stranded at sea than the novel. The tangible details of the character’s narrative voice are largely abandoned, along with the majority of the accounts of Pi’s day-to-day struggle on the lifeboat. Lee focuses instead on Pi’s spiritual journey, dwelling on his thoughts—explored through extensive voice-over and monologue—rather than the work of his hands or the various strategies for survival essential to the novel’s appeal. Indeed, religion also plays a large part in Lee’s interpretation of Pi’s journey, though it is approached with lightheartedness, such as when Pi says, “Thank you, Vishnu, for introducing me to Christ.” Martel (Rafe Spall) is given a more significant role in the film; he changes from a passive recorder of events in the novel to an obvious on-screen character. Spall offers a peaceful and calm portrayal of the character that does not overshadow Pi’s story.

Sharma’s first major role gives us a Pi of genuine innocence and desolation—a wise piece of casting on Lee’s part, as Sharma’s lack of exposure lends another layer of believability to the performance. Sharma captures Pi’s developmental arc from callow mommy’s boy to seasoned mariner through all the attendant highs, lows, and flashes of humor. However, Sharma’s skill is most clearly seen in his interactions with Richard Parker. Grounded as the story is in this journey from hell, it is easy to see Pi’s growing attachment to the tiger, though it is only really through him that the viewer develops a sense of its personality.

Richard Parker is a shining example of CGI. The 3D effects used throughout are rarely extraneous or unnecessary; indeed, they have an elegant simplicity unusual in films that use them. The landscapes, seas, and storms are at their most stunning with a washed-out palette, although Lee is tempted at times into the exaggerated psychedelic gorgeousness reminiscent of  “Avatar,” with which the film has been compared on its posters. The animal life, however, is a different story. There is a bizarre mix of beautifully lifelike creatures and jarringly obviously computer-generated ones, including an eerily smooth elephant and weirdly stoned-looking orangutan. The tiger, strangely, becomes more and more realistically rendered as the story progresses, until there are times when it reaches photographic quality; the illusion of its personality is matched only by that of its apparent reality. It is difficult to tell whether this phenomenon is intentional or not given some other crudely-created CGI characters. In any case, the creature is so expressive—whether gazing serenely at the ocean or hurling itself, roaring, across the boat—that it matches Sharma in keeping interest.

Despite the aforementioned inconsistencies present in the CGI, “Life of Pi” generally succeeds as a canvas for glorious visual effects and sweeping adventure. However, its strongest aspect is its touching story enlivened by a lead performance that may herald the beginning of a promising career for Sharma. If not, it at least solidifies Lee’s already established filmography.

With more than 817 million views, the 34-year-old South Korean singer’s “Gangnam Style” music video became the most watched YouTube video of all time, the website announced on its Trends blog Saturday.

As of Sunday night, “Gangnam Style” surpassed Justin Bieber’s’ 2010 “Baby” music video by about 15 million views.

The video features PSY galloping and singing in a variety of locations, including a stable, bus, tennis court and female yoga class.

Park Jae-sang, whose stage name is PSY, wrote the song as a satirical interpretation of the Gangnam District of Seoul.

The song, which is sung mostly in Korean, has found its way into American nightclub playlists, a “Saturday Night Live” sketch and even the Pride of the Sunshine ’s gameday set list.

Following the July release of “Gangnam Style,” the video went viral in August. It continues to receive about seven to 10 million views a day, according to the blog, and the keywords “Gangnam Style” and “PSY” have been the top searches on YouTube in the last six months.

PSY’s YouTube channel has also received more than one billion collective video views — two billion shy of Bieber’s channel.

I’ll admit, I read all of the “Twilight” books when they first came out, but I only saw the inaugural movie and “Part One” of the two films made from the last novel in the series.

The first movie made me gag from its cheesiness. But “Part One” was a guilty, but nonetheless entertaining rental choice on an extremely late and bored night.

I only could imagine the final chapter to the “saga” only could be better. And, trust me, director Bill Condon (who worked on the fourth film) and crew certainly didn’t disappoint.

“Part Two” picks up right where its predecessor left off, in the process of cleaning up “Part One’s” post-birth — both in terms of the birth of Bella’s (Kristen Stewart) daughter Renesmee and Bella’s birth into full-fledged vampiredom. Bella is a newborn vampire, complete with bloodthirsty red eyes, flawless beauty and fancy set of undead skills to match.

She wants to see her baby, but the “I want to suck your blood” thing and Jacob (Taylor Lautner) imprinting on Renesmee gets in the way. Thus, Edward (Robert Pattinson) takes her for a lively jog through the forest — a.k.a. running at break-neck speeds, scaling cliffs and tackling mountain lions — to try to get her newfound thirst under control.

From then, the movie is full of drama. A fair deal of humor is thrown into the mix, as Bella, out of her awkward human years, is now in her awkward years as a gorgeous vampire and has to learn to deal with the major adjustment. This is where Stewart eases up on her signature sulkiness and starts to let loose in her altered role.

What this movie also has that the others lacked is an interesting slew of minor supporting characters. The Volturi (coven of vampires who enforce vampire laws) are sure Renesmee (Mackenzie Foy) is some kind of unnatural threat against their kind and are dead set on confronting (and likely destroying) the Cullens. Alice (Ashley Greene), with her clairvoyant abilities, is able to warn the family and allow them time to gather friends and allies from across the globe to act as witnesses to Renesmee’s unthreatening nature.

Enter in Alaskan Kate (Casey LaBow), who can stun vampires with her taser-like physical electricity; Egyptian Benjamin (Rami Malek), who has insane control over the elements; Amazonian Zafrina (Judith Shekoni), who has the ability to create amazingly realistic visual illusions; and American nomad Garrett (Lee Pace), who is incredibly good looking and should’ve been introduced into the franchise much earlier.

Obviously, subtlety isn’t “Twilight’s” strong suit, so at certain points it’s just best to go with the extremely over-the-top, computer generated flow — which is half the fun of watching it anyway. The most notable example is the tremendous fight scene between the Volturi and the Cullen mini-army. Extremely intense and well staged, a major twist is thrown into the mix — one that wasn’t included in the books — that only makes things that much more thrilling.

Those who have yet to buy into author Stephanie Meyer’s undead love saga are unlikely to change their personalities and suddenly laud “Twilight’s” worth as a film franchise. But readers and viewers who have followed the story since its inception will not be disappointed by this final chapter in their beloved series.

Like it or not, the “Twilight” saga’s success and popularity is as immortal as its undead characters — maybe it’s time to give into its “so-not-cool/I’m too hipster for this shit” cheesiness after all.

Before you throw me in a shark tank, let’s look closely at the six actors to embody Ian Fleming’s famous character.

Pierce Brosnan appeared in four films starting in 1995 that were, with the exclusion of “GoldenEye,” rather silly. In these films, Bond was portrayed not as a suave MI6 agent, but as an invisible car-driving, sci-fi gunslinger. Though he may have looked the part, his less-than-stellar acting paired with awful storylines lost him the chance to be considered the best.

George Lazenby stepped in for only one film in 1969 and failed to dig deep into the character. His acting was wooden and unconvincing, though he managed to redeem himself slightly by the end of his film. He certainly wasn’t the worst Bond, but definitely not the best either.

Roger Moore, who portrayed Bond from 1973 to 1985, overstayed his welcome. He was a witty Bond and often used puns for comedic relief. Too often, actually. His movies are comparable to “Austin Powers” in their ridiculousness. The lighthearted, low-violence approach was childish in a role meant to be at least somewhat serious.

Timothy Dalton was a breath of fresh air, making Bond grittier, darker and truer to Fleming’s Bond from 1986 to 1993. However, he dropped the sadistic humor entirely and hardly captured the hearts of fans. Had he been given the chance for more than two movies, perhaps he could have done a little more with the role.

Of course, most people love the original. Sean Connery was the first to depict this iconic role and is a primary example of class in the ’60s. But originality is not synonymous with superiority. Too much credit is given to Connery for establishing James Bond on screen.

Although having a tough hide is a key characteristic of Bond, Connery shows almost no instances of emotional distress. The character is static throughout all of his movies, which may increase interest in the overall story, but lessens any interest in the character.

This, however, is where Craig shines. Over the course of his three movies, Craig has shown an excellent character arc. He has gone from an inexperienced agent who falls for the girl in “Casino Royale” to a polished (and finally witty again) killer in “Skyfall.”

He has managed to embody all of the best qualities of Bond without overdoing any one in particular. His Bond is well-rounded: two parts smooth, three parts handsome, one part smart and two parts emotionally gripping. Shaken, not stirred.

“Lincoln,” Spielberg’s latest creation, is an epic movie chronicling President Abraham Lincoln’s time in the White House in January 1865, just months before the end of the Civil War. The focus of the film revolves around the vote on the 13th Amendment, the abolishment of slavery, in the House of Representatives and Lincoln deciding whether or not to negotiate with Confederate delegates to end the war immediately. The question about which to do may seem obvious in hindsight, but its complexity becomes apparent while watching, leaving even the viewer conflicted.

The complexity of the situation becomes apparent to the viewer while watching how Lincoln handles himself and his decisions. Lincoln is played by renowned actor Daniel Day-Lewis (“There Will Be Blood”). Day-Lewis’ portrayal of Lincoln is superb: brutally honest and humorous, yet soft-spoken and good-natured. Having a British actor playing one of America’s most iconic and well-known people, let alone presidents, is a risky idea. But Day-Lewis lives up to Lincoln’s legacy.

The remainder of the star-studded cast lived up to their roles as well. Sally Field (“The Amazing Spider-Man”), who has acted in an array of award-winning films and television programs, plays Mary Todd Lincoln (Lincoln calls her Molly in the film). Field does a terrific job conveying the paranoid and deeply depressed feelings the former First Lady deals with daily after the death of her son Willy. Her depression adds to the realistic feel of the movie, particularly in scenes that show the interactions between Mr. and Mrs. Lincoln.

Another major character is House Representative Thaddeus Stevens, played by Tommy Lee Jones (the “Men in Black” series). Stevens, historically one of the most powerful Republicans during Lincoln’s time, is portrayed as a cynically funny and righteous leader, and the scenes depicting the relationship between Lincoln and Stevens are some of the most pivotal and well-remembered.  Unfortunately, the appearance of heartthrob Joseph Gordon-Levitt (“Looper”), playing Lincoln’s son Robert in the film, is short. With his name so high on the bill, one would expect him to be in the movie a bit more often.

One of the more surprising elements of “Lincoln” is its humor. It is easy to forget how funny Lincoln was when his inspirational and thought-provoking speeches are the ones remembered in history (not that this is a bad thing in the least).

Also, Lincoln’s Secretary of State William Seward (David Strathairn, of the“Bourne” series) has some of the funniest lines of the movie, as do the men Seward hires to sway Democrats in the House into voting for the 13th Amendment. While the subject matter of the film is not funny in the least, Spielberg’s choice to lighten up the film was a good one because it keeps the viewer attentive throughout.

The film’s runtime, at two and a half hours, is a bit lengthy even for the most avid Lincoln fan. The lighting and the camerawork of the film were also questionable at times. Some of the scenes had buildings that looked too modern, and there were even instances where the weather changes drastically without an explanation.

The language used throughout the film was tremendously verbose, and the subject matter shared between delegates of the House of Representatives is not exactly common knowledge. These combined factors could potentially confuse the audience.

In the end, “Lincoln” is a film worth seeing for its historical significance and its honest look into the world of one of America’s most beloved presidents.

Developer: 343 Industries

5 out of 5 stars

One of the biggest questions in gaming this year was whether or not developer 343 Industries would be able to successfully take over Halo 4 from the franchise’s creator, Bungie. For nearly a decade, the Halo series has set the standard for first-person shooters (FPS) under Bungie’s guidance, so the idea of a new team taking on the franchise left many fans nervous.

In this case, though, change is a good thing. Not only has 343 hit the ground running, it has brought a plethora of new features and updates to the formula that makes Halo 4 the best game the franchise has seen in years.

Halo 4 picks up four years after the end of Halo 3, and finds Master Chief and his AI partner Cortana still stranded in the depths of space. Things change quickly, however, when a Covenant attack alerts them to the Forerunner planet their ship is in orbiting.

Upon landing on the surface, it becomes clear that Cortana is no longer in top form. Now in service for eight years, Cortana has begun to deteriorate into a state known as rampancy. Not one to give up without a fight, the Chief promises to find a way home to try and save his oldest friend. Along the way, he must also combat a long-dormant threat and discover the truth of the Forerunners’ disappearance.

The narrative in Halo 4 is an absolute success by FPS standards, and serves as a great way to kick off a new trilogy in the Halo universe. The relationship between Chief and Cortana has always been one of the series’ best, and Halo 4 explores it in greater depth than before.

Learning about the ancient Forerunner race is also a treat, but the biggest addition its presence brings is a new race of enemies, the Prometheans. From the powerful Knights that can mow Chief down with a single swing to Crawlers that attack in large swarms, the Prometheans bring a fresh sense of action, especially when paired with the classic Covenant troops.

Regardless of whether Chief is up against enemies new or old, the refined combat system makes every encounter an exciting one, with each weapon having its place on the field of battle.

Halo 4 is just a joy to play, which is made even better by the lengthy campaign. Of course, you can blow through the story mode on Easy and Normal, but those up to the challenge will find the game truly shines on Heroic and Legendary.

As you go through the campaign, you’ll also be treated to some of the best visuals of any game this year. Everything from the Covenant armada to the environments has been upgraded, making for a game that has beauty around every corner, even after it has been filled with bullets and explosions.

Of course, Halo has always been known for the revolutions it made in online multiplayer. While Halo 4 doesn’t bring the same amount of innovation, it has picked up a few new tricks from Call of Duty that again help set it apart from what came before.

The abilities to set specific weapon load-outs, pick unique perks and call in ordnance are nothing new in the FPS landscape, but their inclusion in Halo brings the series to a new level. The multiplayer also manages to stay true to its roots, with the same announcer, score structure and top-level design included.

The aforementioned weapon tweaks also make for a more level playing field, especially with the ability to pick which weapons you start with. The Battle, Assault and Designated Marksman rifles all serve as solid choices, with aiming and sniping now much easier to pull off. Competitive play is still possible, but the emphasis is on providing a fun multiplayer mode that anyone can enjoy.

The last major mode in Halo 4 is the new Spartan Ops, which replaces the Firefight mode from Halo: Reach. The mode offers 10 episodes with five levels each available on a weekly basis.

Though the mode is more of a free-for-all shooting gallery than a structured campaign, the story sections, centered on a new generation of Spartan soldiers, offers a solid reason to return to the game each week.

Halo 4 is the start of a new era for the franchise and 343 Industries has proven itself more than worthy of carrying on the legacy of the Xbox’s biggest series. It may not be the Halo that it used to be, but Halo 4 is easily one of the year’s best games and proof that the series still has plenty of life in it.

There are certain aspects of every James Bond film that audiences have begun to expect. He drinks martinis, makes witty remarks, sleeps with dangerous women and talks back to authority. It takes a skilled writer and director to implement these things without repeating themselves or getting cheesy. Director Sam Mendes (American Beauty) does a beautiful job of including all of these things while also tweaking and playing with the Bond mythology in intriguing ways.

In 2006’s “Casino Royale” we were briefly shown Bond’s soft side when he fell in love with the beautiful Vesper Lynd, played by Eva Green. “Skyfall” brings back Bond’s psychological side by showing how a near-death experience on a job-gone-wrong affects his psyche.

After being betrayed by his own people and presumed dead, Bond returns to MI6 after hearing about a massive terrorist attack on the agency’s office. An unknown villain has stolen a list of the secret identities of all of the British undercover operatives and is threatening to reveal five of their names every week. This has made Bond’s boss M (Judi Dench) look bad, and the government is threatening to force her into retirement.

The villain turns out to be the evil computer hacker Raoul Silva, a genius programmer who may have connections to MI6 himself. Silva is played brilliantly by Javier Bardem who steals almost every scene he is in.

In 2007 Bardem proved he could play a cold menacing villain in “No Country For Old Men.” However, the character of Silva is unlike that character in every way. Instead of cold and calculating, Bardem plays Silva as a playful flamboyant trickster, which makes him seem all the more menacing.

Bond villains have always been borderline cartoon characters, but Silva has a humanity to him that is rarely seen in these films. Much like “Skyfall” shows us some of what makes 007 who he is, we also get to see what could possibly transform a man into a murderous monster.

“Skyfall” pulls back the curtain on another classic Bond character, M. M has been played by Dame Judi Dench for the past six films. She was even there before Bond went blonde-haired and blue-eyed, back when he looked like Pierce Brosnan.

Not much has really been shown about M’s character; she always seemed like someone who is all business. In “Skyfall” we get to see what kind of toll this job has taken on her and how she holds it together when everything starts to go wrong. Dench brings a human quality to the character that we haven’t really seen before, and she finally gets some screen time outside of her office.

“Skyfall” manages to teach us more about the characters we know and love while also including all of the action, car chases, sex scenes and espionage that is expected from the series. Because of this, “Skyfall” manages to be more than just another Bond movie and may be the character’s greatest adventure yet.

But if you want to know about all that, you’ll read the 500 pages yourself. I’m here to answer the real question people have, whether they plan on opening the book or not: how does “The Casual Vacancy” compare to the Harry Potter series?

Here’s the short answer—it doesn’t.  And I mean that in the best way possible.

In some ways, “The Casual Vacancy” is the antithesis of “Harry Potter.” Harry’s story unfolds in a world that is entirely Rowling’s creation, a society built on magical foundations. “The Casual Vacancy” is rooted in a world that is resolutely normal and all too familiar. The book’s greatest appeal is that it delves so deeply into this mundane Muggle society, uncovering layers of conflict in a story that is rather unremarkable on the surface.

The plot kicks off with the sudden death of Barry Fairbrother, a resident of the fictional town of Pagford in southwestern England. His death leaves an empty seat on the Pagford Parish Council, the political powerhouse of the town. The general grief over Barry’s passing gets buried in a bigger question: who will fill the vacancy?

In the battle that ensues over the Council seat, the main source of contention is The Fields, an area of public housing projects that also houses a drug rehabilitation clinic. The Fields are technically a part of Pagford, but some members of the Pagford Council are determined to give up responsibility for the area, feeling that its persistent poverty and negative reputation should be totally severed from the idyllic Pagford community.

Barry Fairbrother was in favor of keeping The Fields a part of Pagford, rather than handing it over to the neighboring city of Yarvil. But in his absence, the head honchos of the Pagford Council are determined to override the pro-Fields contingent. The decision depends on who gets elected to replace Barry.

The novel’s central conflict isn’t especially gripping. It’s the story’s implications—the ever-present problem of class warfare, the question of who should take responsibility for whom—that make “The Casual Vacancy” a culturally relevant and compelling read.

Caught up in this struggle is Krystal Weedon, a teenage Fields resident whose foul mouth and reputation for indiscretion disgust many Pagford residents. While she seems like just a waste of space at first, we soon find out how complex and sad her story is. She essentially has to raise her little brother while her single mother continually fails to quit her heroin habit. If the anti-Fields people had their way, the local methadone clinic would close down, making her situation worse than ever.

Krystal’s story is the most tragic one in the book. Her problems pose a stark contrast to the petty preoccupations of Pagford’s more affluent residents. The members of the Mollison family, who lead the anti-Fields regiment, are unsurprisingly on the opposite end of this spectrum from Krystal. By constantly shifting perspectives, advancing the story through the eyes and minds of all of her characters equally, Rowling makes this contrast all the more apparent.

It would take way too long to go through this novel’s entire cast of characters. So many people factor into the novel’s plot that their interconnecting storylines are at times hard to keep up with. Rowling makes an admirable effort to get inside each of her characters’ minds, exposing attitudes and flaws that go beyond appearances. Sometimes she goes overboard or misses the mark, but the characters are generally believable.

The one thing they all have in common is that they are all somehow unsatisfied with their own lives, whether they are unhappy in their romantic engagements, lusting after people they can’t have, or struggling with self-consciousness. Unfortunately, this dissatisfaction is the unifying factor that makes them so relatable. There are only a few truly likable characters, but that’s to be expected when you’re taking such extensive trips inside each of these people’s heads.

Rowling is really in her element when she delves into the lives of Pagford’s younger residents. The kids play an indirect but crucial role in the outcome of the town’s elections. But they also are involved in their own sub-plots—stories of insecurity, frustration, and sexual curiosity that are convincing without being contrived. Their narratives often provide a refreshing break from the adults’ melodramatic woes.

That being said, this book is decidedly not for children.  Its content is raw and often sexually explicit, and it deals with cases of self-harm, child abuse, drug addiction, and rape. Parents of young Harry Potter fanatics should take heed.

In an interview with The New Yorker, Rowling said that the idea to write about a local election came to her on an airplane trip, in a “rush of adrenaline.” It’s a bit difficult to understand how small-town politics could inspire such excitement, and I found it hard at times to sustain attention on an issue that was fundamentally not that interesting. But Rowling’s psychological exploration of her characters makes up for the places in which the story itself is lacking.

Though this novel definitely has its funny moments, it is by no means an uplifting book. If you’re prepared for a dose of disillusionment, “The Casual Vacancy” is worth a read.

Aerosmith is widely considered to be one of the most successful American rock bands, together for 42 years.

On the eve of their 15th studio album “Music from Another Dimension!” the band returned to 1325 Commonwealth Ave. to play where “The Bad Boys from Boston” lived in the 1970s.

Arriving on the iconic Boston Duck Tour boats, the band was greeted with an introduction from New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady.

“They created rock and roll for America,” he said. “They sang the national anthem for us back in 1994, and we hope to give them the chance to do it again soon.”

Steven Tyler grabbed the microphone before the band kicked off the show.

“We were never up this early when we lived here,” he said. “So thank you for coming out. We have been trying to give back to this city, so here is one for you.”

The concert was advertised to last for 20 minutes, but the band played about 10 songs in succession, combining crowd favorites such as “Sweet Emotion” with tracks from the new record.

Tyler made a point of stopping halfway through the set to give a shout-out to Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, who is still in the hospital.

Menino was hospitalized on Oct. 28 because of a virus, The Daily Free Press previously reported.

“Mayor Menino!” he shouted. “I hope you’re feelin’ better, baby.”

Publicity for the concert suggested that it might have been held with the underlying agenda of encouraging viewers to vote on Election Day Tuesday.

But once the concert was underway, it became clear that entertainment was the primary focus.

Gayle Flaherty, a 46-year-old realtor who took a few hours off to enjoy the concert, said she was not surprised by the lack of politics.

“I wasn’t expecting they would talk about it,” she said. “Besides, I don’t really see Steven Tyler as the type to endorse a candidate.”

Though the crowd reached into the thousands, there was no trouble among the concert goers.

“We’ve had no trouble,” said a Boston police officer who asked to remain anonymous. “Everyone just had a good time, just wanted to enjoy the music.”

The B branch of the Green Line from Washington Street to Packard’s Corner was closed from 10:30 a.m. to 3 p.m., and the city closed parts of Commonwealth Avenue, from Harvard Avenue to Allston Street, to vehicles from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m.

The band performed right outside the building where Boston U. sophomore Ally Damiano lives.

“Our landlord slipped a note under our door on Thursday saying that there would be disturbances,” she said. “They didn’t say it was Aerosmith coming. We heard that on the news.”

Although the concert might have lacked distinct political overtones, Aerosmith did end its show by showering the audience in red, white and blue confetti.

The concert brought people of all ages together for an entertaining tribute to the lasting success of Aerosmith.

“This is where it all began,” Tyler said at the conclusion of the show. “And it will never end.”

No, these are not just rights to keep their Star Tours attraction up and running in Tomorrowland. We’re talking about the whole franchise here. Every movie, character and piece of merchandise from perhaps the most lucrative intellectual property in history is owned, from this point forward, by the house that Walt built. And they have no intention of letting it go to waste.

On the contrary, they’re going to release Star Wars Episode VII in 2015. Yes, that does require repeating. In three years or less, there will be a new, full-fledged Star Wars film in theaters. In terms of shifts in the pop-culture paradigm, it doesn’t get any bigger than that.

Many fans — and when it comes to Star Wars, practically everyone is a fan, if only through osmosis — expressed initial dismay that the series will be further tarnished, an already over beaten horse reduced to a fine pulp. But they’re missing the big picture.

The prequels were, well, less than what people had hoped for almost entirely because of the overbearing presence of George Lucas, who wrote and directed each film with a level of absolute control that ensured his vision made it onscreen. It just so happened to turn out that the original trilogy was classic stuff — perhaps because of the difficult conditions and creative compromises that surrounded its making, not in spite of them.

But whomever’s to blame, it didn’t matter much because Lucas made it very clear that he had no interest in directing or producing any more Star Wars films. Considering his word on the franchise had always been law, there was no reason to think that someone would attempt to continue the series for perhaps decades to come.

Well, it would appear even George Lucas couldn’t say no to $4 billion.

“It’s now time for me to pass Star Wars on to a new generation of filmmakers,” Lucas said in the initial announcement, and he’s backing that up by ceding the Lucasfilm presidency and Star Wars brand management onto producer extraordinaire Kathleen Kennedy. Lucas is moving toward retirement, which means it’s finally time for a fresh group of creators to see what they can do with a galaxy far, far away.

Though it would normally be more than a little troubling to hear about media consolidation on such a grand scale, the truth is that Star Wars will never be more stagnant than it was under Lucas’ total control. With Lucasfilm and Disney now working together to produce new content, there’s a fair chance that Star Wars could be genuinely good again. And regardless of the quality, the quantity that Disney has planned is staggering. They’ve announced that beyond a sequel trilogy taking fans through Episode IX, they’ll continue to release a Star Wars film every two or three years for the foreseeable future.

It’s a massive undertaking that calls to mind the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which also falls firmly under the Disney umbrella ever since they acquired the comic book behemoth in 2009 in a deal much like this one.

At their most optimistic, fans are wondering if Disney’s plans for Star Wars could turn out as well as they did with The Avengers. Maybe Joss Whedon would even want to direct a Star Wars movie. Why not? And at their most ridiculous, fans are wondering if Earth’s Mightiest Heroes could cross Universes and join the Rebel Alliance. Ridiculous and impossible, sure, but don’t act like it wouldn’t sell tickets.

That’s not to say these new Star Wars films are guaranteed to hit home. It pays to remember how badly Disney botched John Carter last year. But in a way, that doesn’t matter at the moment. No one knows anything concrete about Episode VII or beyond at this early in the game. But in a way, the quality is hardly the point. What Disney’s done already is something that no one could have predicted: They made Star Wars relevant again.

The Disney-Lucasfilm buyout is the topic of discussion among anyone who cares even slightly about what goes on in the movie-making world, and it will be for years to come as millions of fans scrutinize, criticize and celebrate every word from Disney and Lucasfilm in regards to how they’re handling this massively important enterprise. The questions are already flying fast (Who might be involved? Will Pixar animate a Star Wars movie? Does this mean Leia is now a Disney princess?) and they’re not going to stop so long as there’s more Star Wars on the horizon. Knowing Disney, there always will be. A week ago it would have been horribly cheesy to say this, and maybe it still is, but they’ve earned it regardless: May the Force be with them.

In Robert Zemeckis’ newest film “Flight,” Denzel Washington gives a show-stopping performance as Whip Whitaker and epitomizes what it means to be an “imperfect hero.” Selected as the New York Film Festival’s closing film of 2012, “Flight” is deserving of its already warm reception.

Captain Whitaker is one of the most gifted pilots in the airline industry, but he’s also the biggest drunk. Even with a blood alcohol content over .25, he is still able to make an impossible crash landing after his plane begins to fall apart midair. As a hearing to determine the cause of the accident approaches, Whitaker struggles with his addiction, all the while leaving the audience to ponder whether or not he’s really to blame.

Washington delivers humor, loss and addiction perfectly. Using mere facial expressions and dialogue, he transforms from a charming and tender man into a raging monster under the influence of alcohol. Unlike Zemeckis’ former characters Marty McFly and Forrest Gump, Whitaker is by no means some sort of likable underdog who eventually fights his way to the top. Instead, he is a large man of means and status who eventually loses everything.

Washington keeps good company in the way of talent with co-actors Kelly Reilly, John Goodman and Don Cheadle, who all execute their roles to provide equal parts wit and drama.

Reilly’s character Nicole gives a highly dramatic performance as a junky. Following an overdose, she easily glides from pathetic to likable in her efforts to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. Her character also acts as a vessel to depict the fine line Whitaker rides between “hero” and “monster.” While he saves her from poverty and abuse, he is unable to protect her from his own alcoholism.

Goodman, meanwhile, provides a largely comedic performance as Whitaker’s crude friend and cocaine dealer, Harling. Following the emotional scene where Whitaker learns that six people died in the crash, Harling rolls into the hospital to overly cheerful music, hits on an unsuspecting nurse with distasteful pickup lines and condemns the quality of drugs the hospital has given Whitaker.

After a 12-year break from live-action in favor of computer animated films like “The Polar Express,” Zemeckis is still able to use a camera to capture raw emotion. With well-timed close-ups, he keys in on the actors’ faces to catch subtle emotional changes. When Whitaker wakes up in the hospital and learns about the deaths of the passengers, one blood-soaked tear rolls down his face. The close proximity of the camera is able to catch the expression of regret and pain on Whitaker’s face.

Likewise, the cinematography and special effects in big action scenes are just as effective. Because the entire plane set had to be inverted, this was quite the feat from both a physical and cinematic standpoint. In using the camera to focus on particular people in the plane and then refocusing on their objectives, separate mini-stories unfold among the chaos and stretch each moment for maximum tension and impact. A flight attendant’s noble efforts to save an unstrapped child in the upside-down cabin is clearly discernible in the turmoil.

While the film delivers in the way of storyline and theme, it does drag slightly near the end. Because of the massive action that occurs early on in the film, the later scenes dealing with Whitaker’s addiction can drag, although Zemeckis usually breaks these up with tastefully delivered comedy. After one such scene, Harling comes in to “sober up” Whitaker by getting him high off cocaine while Cheadle’s character watches in astonishment.

Similarly, the plotline with Nicole starts out as a large and powerful part of the story. As the film progresses, however, she seems to fade into the background. Then, two-thirds of the way through, she simply leaves and the storyline disappears altogether. This was confusing and definitely leaves the audience hanging.

Despite these minor plot discrepancies and lulls in the flow, “Flight” is a thought-provoking film with impressive performances and skillful cinematography. While drawing on familiar storytelling trademarks, Zemeckis also brings something new to the screen with his hard-hitting protagonist and leaves the audience to ponder questions of responsibility, honesty and the human will.

I think everyone can agree that the first “Paranormal Activity” was a hit. I remember going to see it at its midnight premiere. The big guy next to me continuously attempted to hold my hand out of pure terror. Another person threw up outside the theatre after the movie, supposedly out of fright, but feel free to speculate.

After the first film, I could not sleep alone for a couple of nights, but I slept like a baby after “Paranormal Activity 4.” It is by far the least scary of the four movies and is also the least gripping. The plot does not tie the four movies together whatsoever. The audience is left confused and, more importantly, not scared. The scare factor should be the focus of this series. When trying to fit in a larger picture or plot, the audience is left feeling like there was no significant ending and no reason in the least bit to feel frightened.

The movie starts off by showing the last couple of minutes of “Paranormal Acitivty 3.” Once again, the “home video” technique is used. This time, the person behind the camera is a teenage girl named Alex (Kathryn Newton). Her curiosity behind filming everything is never explained, and much of the filming takes place through Alex Skyping her boyfriend Ben (Matt Shively). Other times, when she hears something happening, she uses her iPhone. Once again, paranoia leads Alex to put up cameras throughout her house. This leads to panic as she and her boyfriend watch unexplained things happen. Worst of all, no one seems to believe her.

If there was one thing that I liked about the movie, it was the unexpected amount of humor in it. Considering it was supposed to be scary, I was not impressed at how calm I was during the entire film. However, the playfulness of Alex and her boyfriend flirting was funny and made me like the two together. I also liked the two little boys in the film, Wyatt and Robbie. Although the relationship was one that was meant to frighten viewers, it personally made me laugh.

I would give this movie 1.5 out of 5 stars. I cannot give it 2 stars because I would not watch it again and was not scared by it — and I am the type of person who is easily frightened.

Airing “Seal Team 6,” the dramatized portrayal of the raid, just before elections seems uncanny timing to some, but National Geographic Channel President Howard Owens told The Hollywood Reporter that it wasn’t motivated by politics.

“We’re not trying for this to be a political film,” Owens said. “We have a fall schedule coming out, and we want to be able to promote that schedule.”

BYU political science professor Jeremy Pope doesn’t think that’s true.

“As for the timing of the show, of course it was motivated by politics,” Pope said in an email interview. “But it was probably even more motivated by money.”

Pope said National Geographic more than likely chose to air the movie right before elections as a way to bolster viewership and to get free advertising through the attention it will gain.

Whether or not the movie really does have any hidden political agendas will become more clear when the film actually airs, but sources still think it is doubtful the movie will have any swaying power with voters.

“I don’t think it will in any way because of the staunch partisanship in both parties,” Colten Ashley, a film student from New Mexico, said. “The movie won’t change the game that much; it might generate some thought-provoking conversations (among) individuals, but I think events happening elsewhere might incite them more.”

As for how people will react to the film, Ashley said the bin Laden raid is something that many Westerners, especially Americans, are interested in. So there will be many who think it’s an appropriate event to broadcast, while there will be others who think it’s totally inappropriate.

There has been some outcry about the film already. TV by the Numbers, a TV ratings and news site, published an article on the movie earlier this month, and some readers expressed their concerns in the comments section.

“Do all the people responsible for this decision not care about the effects both on the presidential election and how people who see bin Laden as a hero might react?” reader E.A. Keenan posted.

Chris Smith, a recent graduate of the BYU Army ROTC, also thinks there could be some negative effects of airing the movie.

“We do have to consider the fact that the enemy will have access to whatever is broadcast,” Smith said. “I just hope that the makers of this film have consulted with military leaders about the impacts that this film may have on the enemy’s preparation for similar raids which may occur.”

“Paranormal Activity 4” is a direct sequel to the events in movies one and two, and ups the terror factor in surprising ways.

As the adopted slogan goes: “All the activity has led to this.”

Five years after the possessed Katie (Katie Featherston, “Mutation”) kidnaps Hunter, a woman and her six-year-old boy move in to a suburban neighborhood across from Alex (Kathryn Newton, “Bad Teacher”), her little brother Wyatt (Aiden Lovekamp, “The Time Being”) and their family. Once the boy, Robbie (Brady Allen), starts hanging around with Wyatt, terrifying things start to happen in the house. Alex and her boyfriend set up computers around the house to record everything through webcams, and what they find is more than a little unsettling.

“PA4” has a lot to make up for with the disappointment of “PA3” still fresh in fans’ minds. And while it answers some questions, it also creates new questions and revives some old ones.

Which, given the sense of finality you get from the ending, could be a bad thing.

Old question number one: why does the demon (called “Toby” in the prequel) want Hunter? It is established that he wants the first-born male heir to the family in payment for the deal allegedly made in the 1930s, but what he plans to ultimately do with the kid is unknown.

Old question number two: What purpose does the coven revealed to be active in “PA3” serve? Besides making a deal with the demon back in the day for wealth and power, what do they do? What is their overall purpose?

At the end of “PA4,” the demon has what it was promised it would, but one last old question still burns: What does it really want?

“Paranormal Activity 5,” anyone?

What “PA4” does deliver is a witty take on terror but not in the way that you would think. Alex serves as the stereotypical dumb blond in a horror movie, to the point of stupidity. There are more cheap-shot scares than in any of the previous movies. There is more lull between scares, especially near the beginning, than in previous installments as well.

But that just means that once the real scares start popping up, you don’t expect them. You’re waiting for the cheap shot, but then you’re thrown into terror after terror, with just enough lull between them for your heart to start beating normally again.

The webcam concept is great, offering some creepy backlighting at night, as well as sometimes-gritty camera quality. Alex also has a handheld camera she likes to carry around, so the range of footage is relatively complete. An Xbox Kinect also aids in the terror because of the unique way it captures motion. I won’t ruin it for you, but the Kinect’s tech adds more suspense to the footage, much like the fan cam in “PA3.”

Last but not least, Katie. Katie is definitely in the movie, and she’s more terrifying than ever. For those that remember her eerie smile and possessed killing spree in previous movies, this installment sees her on an entirely different level. She gets much more screen time than in “PA2,” and boy, does she use it well.

We’ll keep the ending under wraps, but trust me when I say that no viewer will see it coming. Watch it in theaters — after a marathon of the first three if you can swing it. You won’t be disappointed.

Movie: “Paranormal Activity 4”

Release Date: Oct. 18, 2012

Director: Henry Joost, Ariel Schulman

Starring: Katie Featherstone

At least the movie is consistent with its lead’s attributes. “Alex Cross” is passably involving and features the occasional exciting action sequence. But its cookie-cutter plot, shaky performances and uninspired visuals make for one unimpressive viewing experience.

Unsubtle dialogue and tired music cues telegraph most plot points, and the scenes featuring the eponymous character’s family are needlessly cloying. The movie’s most admirable achievement is that it is formulaic but inoffensive. Faint praise indeed.

The basic plot will be familiar to anyone who watches an average episode of a crime procedural on CBS. Alex Cross (Tyler Perry of the “Madea” films, acting for the first time in a movie he did not direct) is a homicide detective and psychologist with an uncanny ability to interpret crime scenes based on little observable evidence, a la Sherlock Holmes.

Cross meets his match with an emaciated serial killer called “The Butcher” (Matthew Fox, “Vantage Point”) who commits an act of personal significance to Cross, forcing the police officer to abandon his rule-abiding manner and seek revenge. As he pursues the twisted killer, Cross and his partner Tommy Kane (Edward Burns, “Man on a Ledge”) discover that “The Butcher” may be tied to a larger operation involving industrialist Leon Mercier (Jean Reno, “Les Seigneurs”).

The plot description alone is indication of this movie’s lack of originality, but the script by Marc Moss and Kerry Williamson is also rife with unnecessary plot detours. Tommy’s romantic life is prominent in one early scene only to completely disappear for the rest of the film. The movie discards a crime boss in a car dealership after a single scene, wasting the formidable talents of “Breaking Bad” actor Giancarlo Esposito. Alex’s wife, kids and fellow detectives are woefully underdeveloped and difficult to care about.

Colorful performances might have compensated for the plot fatigue, but “Alex Cross” falls short in this regard as well. Perry is far from abysmal in his first action hero role, but he’s stiff rather than engaging or distinctive. His oversize frame and soft delivery are ill-suited to tasks like pointing a gun, and his emotional moments are overwrought, although his charisma occasionally shines through. He’s competent in a role that could have used an overachiever like Idris Elba, a reliably compelling dramatic and comedic actor who signed on as Cross before dropping out (a wise career move).

Fox, meanwhile, seems to be straining for a creepy, off-kilter vibe but comes off as overly well-mannered and sometimes laughable. Despite admirable effort, the effect is off-putting in the wrong way.

The director is Rob Cohen of “The Fast and the Furious,” who acquits himself decently in the propulsive sequences but falters with clunky banter between the leads and saccharine moments with Cross’ children.

Even the action moments are unsatisfactory. The manically edited fights render the individual characters indiscernible, and the explosions look cheap and unconvincing.

Ultimately, “Alex Cross” is the umpteenth example of the Hollywood machine at its most cynical and lazy. By putting Perry, an established box-office star, in a genre with established box-office credibility, the studio likely hopes to merge two audiences for maximum profit. Maximum quality, however, proves far more elusive.

With an eclectic mix of radio-ready pop songs, twangy country tunes and heartbreaking ballads, Swift proves her range both lyrically and musically.

Although she teamed up with several co-writers for this album, the lyrics are still signature Swift.

The ballad, “All Too Well,” begins as a flashback to happier times in a relationship and then builds until she is nearly screaming about what went wrong. The words thread a beautiful narrative as she uses images like a forgotten scarf that reminds her lover of their past.

In other songs such as “I Almost Do,” she brings depth to her words by repeating the first few lines again at the end, now holding a deeper meaning after Swift crooned about her desire to contact an ex-lover.

Once again, she covers the entire spectrum of love and relationships from pure bliss in “Stay Stay Stay” to the final stand in a dysfunctional union in “The Last Time.”

But it is in the duet “The Last Time,” with Snow Patrol lead vocalist Gary Lightbody where Swift falters, pairing her thin falsetto with his deep, complex tone. Her voice, along with the truly powerful lyrics, are drowned out in the process.

But, the other duet, “Everything Has Changed,” featuring Ed Sheeran may be the standout of the album. Swift and Sheeran’s tender voices mold into one another, and the lyrics are propelled into the spotlight. As they sing about an instant connection with a new lover, a listener can’t help but think this one is about her current beau, Connor Kennedy.

Another ballad about the start of a relationship, “Begin Again,” also seems to be about her famous, albeit young boyfriend as she speaks about a relationship blossoming eight months after a breakup (Swift presumably dated Jake Gyllenhaal eight months ago).

Although many of these songs are emotional ballads with mature lyrics reminiscent of many tracks off her somber second album, “Fearless,” Swift has not forgotten her younger fan base.

Following up on her first foray into the pop genre, 2010’s “Speak Now,” Swift includes punchy pop songs such as hit singles “We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together,” and “Red,” along with lesser known tracks “Holy Ground” and “Starlight.”

But she also captures her former curly-haired teen with songs like “Stay Stay Stay,” which has the same country sound and upbeat lyrical riffs as songs off her self-titled debut album, which was released when she was just 16 years old.

While Swift pulls inspiration and musical styling from each of her past albums, she still pushes her own limitations and dabbles in a genre no one ever thought she could: dubstep.

In her hit single, “I Knew You Were Trouble,” Swift melds her high pitched lines with a beat produced by Max Martin and Shellback and created a dance-club worthy hit.

Many people might ask why she is straying away from what she knows and what she does well, but the answer is quite simple: Because she can.

Swift’s likeability as a celebrity allows her to experiment. Her fan base is so loyal that they will follow her into any genre she explores. With “I Knew You Were Trouble,” Swift is able to pull off a massive departure from her country roots.

And her loyal fans will thank her.

With catchy hits like this and the titular “Red” juxtaposed against deeper, tear-inducing tracks like “Sad Beautiful Tragic,” it is safe to say Swift has perfected the ability to produce a hit album with substance.

Grade: A

With an eclectic mix of radio-ready pop songs, twangy country tunes and heartbreaking ballads, Swift proves her range both lyrically and musically.

Although she teamed up with several co-writers for this album, the lyrics are still signature Swift.

The ballad, “All Too Well,” begins as a flashback to happier times in a relationship and then builds until she is nearly screaming about what went wrong. The words thread a beautiful narrative as she uses images like a forgotten scarf that reminds her lover of their past.

In other songs such as “I Almost Do,” she brings depth to her words by repeating the first few lines again at the end, now holding a deeper meaning after Swift crooned about her desire to contact an ex-lover.

Once again, she covers the entire spectrum of love and relationships from pure bliss in “Stay Stay Stay” to the final stand in a dysfunctional union in “The Last Time.”

But it is in the duet “The Last Time,” with Snow Patrol lead vocalist Gary Lightbody where Swift falters, pairing her thin falsetto with his deep, complex tone. Her voice, along with the truly powerful lyrics, are drowned out in the process.

But, the other duet, “Everything Has Changed,” featuring Ed Sheeran may be the standout of the album. Swift and Sheeran’s tender voices mold into one another, and the lyrics are propelled into the spotlight. As they sing about an instant connection with a new lover, a listener can’t help but think this one is about her current beau, Connor Kennedy.

Another ballad about the start of a relationship, “Begin Again,” also seems to be about her famous, albeit young boyfriend as she speaks about a relationship blossoming eight months after a breakup (Swift presumably dated Jake Gyllenhaal eight months ago).

Although many of these songs are emotional ballads with mature lyrics reminiscent of many tracks off her somber second album, “Fearless,” Swift has not forgotten her younger fan base.

Following up on her first foray into the pop genre, 2010’s “Speak Now,” Swift includes punchy pop songs such as hit singles “We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together,” and “Red,” along with lesser known tracks “Holy Ground” and “Starlight.”

But she also captures her former curly-haired teen with songs like “Stay Stay Stay,” which has the same country sound and upbeat lyrical riffs as songs off her self-titled debut album, which was released when she was just 16 years old.

While Swift pulls inspiration and musical styling from each of her past albums, she still pushes her own limitations and dabbles in a genre no one ever thought she could: dubstep.

In her hit single, “I Knew You Were Trouble,” Swift melds her high pitched lines with a beat produced by Max Martin and Shellback and created a dance-club worthy hit.

Many people might ask why she is straying away from what she knows and what she does well, but the answer is quite simple: Because she can.

Swift’s likeability as a celebrity allows her to experiment. Her fan base is so loyal that they will follow her into any genre she explores. With “I Knew You Were Trouble,” Swift is able to pull off a massive departure from her country roots.

And her loyal fans will thank her.

With catchy hits like this and the titular “Red” juxtaposed against deeper, tear-inducing tracks like “Sad Beautiful Tragic,” it is safe to say Swift has perfected the ability to produce a hit album with substance.

Grade: A

Few people will deny that the two “Cars” films are horrible. “Brave” was met with very mixed reviews. Many people love “Wall-E” and “Up,” although some, like myself, found the emotions in these films to be false and the storylines flat. My personal favorite Pixar movie is “Ratatouille,” but all too often when I tell this to people, they jeer and ramble about those snobbish French. The only recent movie that breaks this lackluster trend is “Toy Story 3.” I haven’t heard a single complaint lodged against it. Why did this happen? What happened to Pixar after Disney took control?

From 1991 to 2006, there was indeed a partnership between Disney and Pixar. Pixar was responsible for the creation and production of films while Disney handled marketing and distribution. This, in effect, kept all creative decisions safely in Pixar’s hands. Pixar was a small, independent and self-determining company, at times employing only 42 people. The company made movies with quality over profit in mind.

However, then things became “Disneyfied.” With the creation of Disney-Pixar in 2006, Disney took an active role in the production of Pixar films. Movie concepts were to be screened and approved by Disney. Because the budgets of Disney-Pixar movies were higher than they had been without Disney, only sure box-office hits were approved. The films became duller with higher budgets. They feel engineered rather than artistically crafted. The old movies were charming in their naivete and cheerful bliss; the new movies are frustrating in their overbearing settings, characters and plots.

Perhaps one contributing factor to Pixar’s decline is that beginning in 2006, Pixar has released a film every year. Before 2006, films were released two years apart on average. Pixar also suffered the loss of Steve Jobs in 2006. Jobs had been the CEO of Pixar for 11 years before 2006. After the transaction, Jobs abandoned his leading role at Pixar and became the single largest shareholder on Disney’s board of directors. In fact, upon his death, the majority of his estate’s worth was derived from Disney, not Apple.

I wish for a return to those good ol’ simple-minded Pixar masterpieces. Maybe I’m seeing through the lens of nostalgia — if I had spent my childhood years with “Wall-E” or “Up,” I might prefer them to “Finding Nemo” or “Monsters Inc.” Pixar seems to prefer its old movies, too — what else would explain all these recent sequels? (In addition to “Toy Story 3,” Pixar has slated upcoming releases for “Finding Nemo 2” and “Monster’s University,” a “Monster’s Inc.” prequel). Unfortunately, Pixar has lost originality in pursuit of easy money. The sequel is almost always worse than the original. Sequels exploit the novelty of yesteryear rather than surprising us with further creative originality. Ed Catmull, the current president of Pixar, can learn from his own advice: “We as executives have to resist our natural tendency to avoid or minimize risks, which, of course, is much easier said than done. In the movie business and plenty of others, this instinct leads executives to choose to copy successes rather than try to create something brand-new.” Nevertheless, “Monster’s University” may prove to be very exciting for the Dartmouth community — the university setting looks like it may even be modeled after our very own Baker Bell Tower and Webster Hall.

I hope Pixar will go on to hire fresh talent and pursue creativity without the necessity of hungering for the big bucks that come from the next predictably formulaic blockbuster. One intriguing prospect scheduled for release in the far future is Pixar’s first live-action film, “1906,” a historical disaster film based on the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. Directed by Brad Bird, the same man who wrote and directed “The Incredibles,” this movie is sure to reintroduce creative risk to Pixar.

The film opens with the fall of the US Embassy in November of 1979. While most of the embassy’s employees were taken hostage, six managed to escape and take shelter at the home of Canadian Ambassador Ken Taylor (Victor Garber). Realizing that any boilerplate cover story will not be strong enough to get them out of Iran, the CIA brings in Tony Mendez (Affleck), who is regarded as an expert in exfiltration. Mendez suggests that the six trapped men and women pose as members of a Canadian film crew.

From there, the film’s second act follows Mendez’s quest to Hollywood to meet with John Chambers (John Goodman), a makeup artist and occasional CIA consultant. As Mendez jets into LA, the film shows a digital recreation of the Hollywood sign, which had fallen into heavy disrepair in the ‘70s—a not-so-subtle metaphor for the industry itself. Interestingly enough, the sign was restored in 1978, before the events in “Argo” occur.

Chambers and Mendez also find a producer, Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin), to set up a shell production company. It’s shrewd casting, since it allows Arkin and Goodman, two of the best character actors working today and veterans of the Hollywood system, to play off each other and offer line after snappy line of criticism towards their own industry. “You can teach a rhesus monkey to be a director in a day,” quips Goodman in his first scene. When the team realizes they will actually have to buy the script for “Argo,” Arkin quickly wisecracks, “You’re worried about the Ayatollah? Try the WGA.”

From there, Mendez sets off to Iran to prep the trapped Americans. This is easily the dullest part as the film focuses on the reservations held by these six particularly unestablished characters. They are human MacGuffins: catalyst for the plot and little else. Do they go along? I wouldn’t dare reveal that, but I will remind you that “Argo” is Based On A True Story.

While the hand-wringing in Ken Taylor’s living room is artificial, the film climaxes with a remarkably nerve-racking airport sequence that makes TSA frustrations look trivial. It’s Murphy’s Law in action, as all of the spinning plates in Mendez’s story wobble and nearly shatter.

While “Argo” almost always manages to strike a balance between the real-life tension of the situation and its outlandish premise, the tones occasionally clash. This is no clearer than in a sequence in which Affleck cuts between an ostentatious table read of the sci-fi screenplay meant to drum up buzz from the press and a press conference in which the Iranian hostage-takers list their demands. The sequence is meant to portray how this Hollywood circus is serving a greater good, but it lays on the sermonizing a little too thickly.

The greatest asset of “Argo” is its sizable cast of “that guy” actors. Zeljko Ivancek, Titus Welliver, Kyle Chandler, Richard Kind, and Philip Baker Hall are all on hand to don the campiest of ‘70s fashion and hairstyles. The most important of these parts belongs to Bryan Cranston, who chews scenery as Mendez’s pragmatic CIA superior. Shortly before a meeting with the secretary of state, Cranston offers up an apt analogy that “It’s like those two old fucks from the Muppets.”

With “Argo,” Ben Affleck  once again managed to show his skill as a director, combining scenarios of Hollywood excess and pessimistic espionage operations. As Arkin states when briefed on the situation “We did suicide missions in the Army that had better odds than this.” The same thought encapsulates “Argo,” which probably shouldn’t work nearly as well as it actually does.

In “Taken 2,” retired CIA operative Bryan Mills is in Istanbul, Turkey, with his ex-wife and daughter, where he and his ex-wife are taken hostage. Their captor is seeking revenge for the death of his son, who Bryan killed in the original “Taken” for kidnapping his daughter.

Bryan (Liam Neeson) is a concerned and overprotective father who also happens to be pretty adept at giving villains a beating. His daughter, Kim (Maggie Grace), takes an active role in the rescue of her parents. She teams up with her father over the phone to help discover her parents’ location.

The relationship between father Bryan and daughter Kim is one of the highlights of “Taken 2.” Their bond is both believable and endearing. A few moments of tension, including an argument over Kim’s new boyfriend, makes their relationship realistic.

Kim’s role as the unlikely heroine of the movie is also refreshing. Like her father did for her in the previous movie, Kim will also go to great lengths to save her parents. However, she is not a fearless savior, as some might expect. Her fear, both for her own life and for the life of her parents, adds dimension to her character.

The plot, however, is often predictable and therefore lacks the surprise factor that is so important to the success of action films. Viewers can probably see the ending coming from a mile away. And many of the crucial plot points are mundane and expected.

With the exception of a few heartwarming father-daughter moments, the film lacks emotion. Viewers may not feel close or connected to any of the characters, as few unique qualities are given to their personalities. All members of the Mills family also remain flat and unchanging from the beginning of the film to the end.

Additionally, viewers may find it beneficial to watch the original “Taken” prior to viewing “Taken 2.” Some of the plot of the new film may be a little hard to follow without the back-story that the first movie provides. This is especially true of the beginning, which skips around a lot and can disorient or confuse the viewer. “Taken” may have allowed viewers to become more connected with the characters prior to the sequel.

But, the film made tactful use of its special effects. While some action films tend to overuse explosions or car wrecks, “Taken 2” used such effects sparingly, which was refreshing. Some viewers may see this as a negative, though, as the effects do not compensate for an insufficient plotline.

While “Taken 2” was not a gripping thrill ride, it may make for an easy and entertaining Friday night at the movies.

Grade: C-

Sure enough, season two began in spectacular fashion, with the survivors hiding on a crowded highway from a sea of zombies. With the show’s intensity picking up, anything was possible, so the writers naturally went with … a seemingly never-ending search for a missing girl and a season-long stay at the most boring place in the entire zombie apocalypse: Hershel’s farm. Cue the collective groans of Walking Dead fans.

I weathered through the entire second season, complaining regularly to my friends who watched the show along the way. With the third season just starting, I’m hating on The Walking Dead as much as ever. People have asked me why I keep watching a show that I complain about so much. “You complain about Here Comes Honey Boo Boo, and I’ve never seen you watch that,” my roommate reasoned after my latest Walking Dead rant.

But I’m not watching the show because I enjoy self-torture. I’m watching because The Walking Dead has had the potential to be a great series right from the get-go, and it hasn’t lost this potential yet. The show still has only 19 episodes to its name, and some of my favorite series have had rougher beginnings. With this 16-episode third season, I am, once again, cautiously optimistic that series show-runner Glen Mazzara and crew will use a new setting to finally, set this show on the right track. For this to happen, other aspects of the show will also need a face-lift, such as …

The pacing! A zombie shuffling slowly across the screen is the perfect image to describe how long it takes for anything interesting to happen on The Walking Dead. To bring up a sore point again, Walking Dead writers stranded the characters on a relatively safe farm for virtually the entirety of season two. In a show where the majority of the population is dead and hungry for human flesh, we shouldn’t spend multiple episodes having characters argue about leadership, birth control pills, and whether zombies make good pets. The series seems to be going for a Breaking Bad-style pacing, but unfortunately, it isn’t Breaking Bad. With the season-three setting of a huge prison, Mazzara and company should include more violent interactions and more twists in the plot. Another season of sitting around and talking would only remind viewers that …

Few of the main characters are interesting, up to this point in the series. Leader Rick may finally be manning up, but what about the other characters, who range from mildly annoying to “Please kill this character off. Right. Now.” The writers have made Lori into the most annoying wife and worst mother of the apocalypse. Hershel is too old to be useful, and rarely has words of wisdom. Glen and Maggie spend more time awkwardly interacting with each other than trying to survive. Andrea alternates between bad-ass and mopey, depending on how the writers are feeling that day. Then there’s Carol T-Dog, Carl, and a bunch of other minor characters who can only serve the show by dying. Right. Now. In season three, the writers will hopefully have the sense to purge the cast of all useless characters and to give all the major characters a consistent personality. These actors all seem capable of performing well if given good material. But good material for a show about zombies should involve …

More horror. More comedy. The writers have tried to wring every bit of drama possible from The Walking Dead’s where-does-humanity-go-from-here premise. Unfortunately, their efforts have resulted in melodrama, not compelling television. Let’s all remember that we’re dealing with zombies here, not serial killers. Zombies, by their nature, are the funniest of monsters. By lightening up its somber tone, The Walking Dead will start becoming more enjoyable to watch. Also, a few more legitimate scares per hour mixed in with the drama and comedy should help to make the series unique in a positive way. If the show makes even one of these changes during its third season, I, for one, will be a much happier viewer.

Also, stop calling zombies “walkers.” They are zombies. And someone, please keep an eye on Carl!

The film is based on the declassified true story of CIA Exfiltration Specialist Tony Mendez, who was assigned to travel undercover to Iran disguised as a film producer scouting locations for a Canadian film.

MUSE sat down with Affleck to discuss his feelings on tackling a true story, and a true story not about Boston to boot.

“The really hard part is that it’s a true story,” Affleck said. “It’s got all these real people in it, and it’s their true lives, and if you change any little thing in it, now you’re like, ‘s—t, I’m lying.’”

Affleck said he kept Mendez, as well as the hostages, around to consult on the film and to make sure that every aspect came off as authentic and accurate to the original story.

“On this one [Argo], I felt a responsibility to stay really close to the truth because it’s not just some Civil War battle where you’ve got two soldiers in a ditch … it’s something that’s actually affecting people’s lives,” he said.

The film, of course, still has relevance today because it deals with U.S.-Iranian relations. In fact, the day it premiered at the Toronto Film Festival, Canada (the embassy that hid the American hostages in Tehran in 1979) announced that they had closed the embassy and cut diplomatic ties with the nation of Iran.

Despite its somewhat controversial political implications, Affleck insisted that he was not trying to send a political message through Argo.

“I’m not trying to brainwash anybody. I’m not trying to do anything political, I’m not trying to editorialize,” he said. “But it’s important to understand that before we jump into this movie where there are guys jumping up and down and breaking windows yelling ‘Death to America’ in Farsi.”

He joked that this was a film that he would absolutely bring John McCain’s wife to, as well as his hometown die-hard liberal Bostonians.

“I wanted to tell that narrative without wagging a finger at anyone or anything like that but also just say, ‘Look this part [of the story] is just part of this experience, and you can draw your own conclusions from what happens after that.’”

In that sense, the film does an excellent job of balancing the political tension of the situation and capturing the humorous seedy vibe of 1970s Hollywood. Argo will put one through the emotional wringer, juxtaposing hilarious one-liners from Alan Arkin with nail-biting moments of the disguised hostages wandering through the bazaar in downtown Tehran.

With any other director, the two tones in the scope of the film might have felt too disconnected, but Affleck and his crew’s finesse in shooting and editing really shined from shot to shot. The visual detail was exquisitely down to the last funny haircut and pack of cigarettes, which lent itself to the authentic feel that Affleck was going for.

“I wanted it to be All The President’s Men, you know?” Affleck said when discussing the movie’s visual style. “Like dirty. Papers everywhere, smokin’ cigarettes, just kind of a f—kin’ mess, and everyone was really into that — like, how messy can we make it?”

Maybe the visual effects were carefully constructed to look “messy,” but the film as a whole is tight and nearly flawless in almost every aspect — plot, effects, cast and historical accuracy.

When asked how he felt about his finished product of his first film not set in Boston, Affleck said, “I’m glad I made this movie because now that I have, I can say, ‘Okay, let me go make a Boston movie now.’”

In the works now for Affleck is a film about Boston mobster Whitey Bulger with Matt Damon and Casey Affleck tentatively penciled in to star. The real question is whether or not Affleck will be able to top the phenomenal filmmaking of Argo upon his return to the Boston scene.

Affleck demonstrates his newly acquired talents with “Argo,” a sophisticated, taut suspense drama that employs real-life events to simultaneously exhilarate the audience and tweak Affleck’s beloved film industry. Likely to be a contender for several Academy Awards, “Argo” is gripping but not overly serious, smart but not overly complex, well-paced but not overlong. It’s just right.

The film begins in 1979 Iran, detailing relevant history through subtle animation. A stunning first sequence depicts an intense frenzy as Iranian protesters infiltrate the American embassy and take 52 Americans hostage. Six of the Americans manage to escape the Iranians’ clutches and find temporary refuge in the Canadian Embassy, but to leave from there would be to endanger their lives.

Back in D.C., CIA specialist Tony Mendez (Affleck) devises a risky and outlandish scheme to smuggle the hidden ambassadors out of militant Iran with minimum suspicion. With the help of Hollywood makeup artist John Chambers (John Goodman, “Trouble with the Curve”) and legendary producer Lester Siegel (a hilariously dry Alan Arkin, “The Muppets”), Mendez constructs the trappings of a fake science-fiction film called “Argo” and travels to Iran, where he hopes to transport the hostages disguised as a film crew.

“Argo” avoids many of the pitfalls of lesser thrillers. Its focus is tight, with no extraneous subplots to distract from the driving rescue narrative. The process-oriented script by Chris Terrio ignores melodramatic tendencies to focus on the simple problem of how best to retrieve the hostages, detailing necessary machinations like trade publications, script readings and publicity. Such buildup amplifies the power of the later, more action-oriented section.

The dialogue is sharp, with witticisms about the movie industry and Melendez’s drinking habits drawing surprisingly cathartic laughs amidst the pervasive tension. Affleck seems to be simultaneously mocking and celebrating his own industry, lampooning its tendency to produce schlocky science-fiction and foster unjustified egos while reinforcing the idea that movies, frivolous as they often seem, can make an impact.

The cast is superb. Affleck proves to be a capable (if not earth-shattering) lead, understated as a man who excels at his job even as his colleagues doubt him. Bryan Cranston’s intensity from “Breaking Bad” translates seamlessly into his role as Mendez’s boss, a man whose patience quickly wears thin. Goodman and Arkin, meanwhile, provide some of the film’s most vibrant comedic scenes; they are particularly adept at delivering several well-timed F-bombs and satirizing various Hollywood professions.

Admittedly, “Argo” is not entirely original or even particularly surprising. The action sequences and dramatic conversations are compelling enough to offset much of the predictability, but the climax and denouement are far from shocking. Nonetheless, both pack a surprisingly emotional punch. Tony’s marital struggles, meanwhile, feel tacked on in a few obligatory scenes of Mendez moping generically, but the film’s moving conclusion and last line partially offset that unnecessary wrinkle as well.

Affleck’s direction raises the suspense and accentuates the mood with such finesse that the relative lack of originality allows “Argo” to excel beyond conventional iterations of its genre.

Swift has released four promotional singles on iTunes from her newest album in which fans see her taking her music in different directions when compared to older records. The list of released singles, all of which have hit the number one spot on iTunes Top 10, each have a different flavor of the Taylor Swift fans may or may not know.

The first single, “We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together,” shows Swift teaming up with hit making producer Max Martin, who has worked with artists like Britney Spears and Katy Perry. Together they have created a song that is less Nashville and more “Top 40” worthy. With a catchy hook and up-tempo pace, this “all-girl’s anthem” will be a sing-along favorite.

“Begin Again” is a self-written and composed piece showcasing Swift’s falsetto in the chorus against a simple music composition that brings back a classic country version the Swift fans have come to love. “Begin Again” is a love story that is told in a mature and romantic manner that classic country fans will be able to appreciate.

One of the most cross-marketable songs released in the promotional period is the song that shares the album title of “Red.” Another song written and composed alone, Swift paints a vibrant picture of a failed relationship that still has a hold on her emotions. The song has a musical composition that can be appreciated by pop and country fans alike. Swift seamlessly intertwines the genres and provides strong vocals on a catchy chorus.

The fourth single is one with the most risk and change for Swift’s musical sound known and loved by fans. “I Knew You Were Trouble” showcases Swift taking her pop-rock sound to a new level by inserting “dubstep” breakdowns to appeal to the masses. The song describes an on-coming relationship that ends badly even though there were signs of trouble from the start.

The promotional singles clearly would lead fans to believe that Swift and her management have decided to experiment heavily, trying to appeal to a new audience while keeping the current fans intact. Only Oct. 22 will reveal what the complete album “Red” has in store for fans.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender characters are on TV screens this season more than ever.

About 4 percent of actors on prime-time network series portray LGBT characters this season, according to the “Where We Are on TV” study that was released Friday by the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.

The 4.4 percent of LGBT TV character exposure is the highest level GLAAD has ever seen, said Matt Kane, associate director of entertainment media for GLAAD. That number shows a 1.5 percent increase from the 2.9 percent represented in 2011.

“This increase shows that the LGBT community is finding greater acceptance on television and with the audiences,” Kane said.

GLAAD studied 97 shows on the five broadcast networks and graphed out regular characters with an LGBT affiliation. About 700 characters on TV were found to portray the affiliation in some aspect, with all orientations and character statuses confirmed by the networks, he said.

Although LGBT characters are becoming more popular, what’s shown on TV isn’t always like reality, said Matthew Wintle, sponsorship director of UF’s Pride Student Union.

“People take shows like ‘The New Normal’ and base their perspectives off that,” Wintle said. “That show has a lot of stereotypes, and a wide range of the gay and transgendered community don’t fit those stereotypes.”

Chris Boyett, an 18-year-old U. Florida freshman, said he felt similarly.

“The increase of gay characters on television is important, but the characterization in these shows is really forced,” Boyett said. “A lot of the producers and directors in Hollywood are part of the LGBT community, so they need to work on creating more well-rounded characters that represent themselves better.”

Shows like Glee don’t show the LGBT community in a good light, he said. The show emphasizes on the flamboyancy, which isn’t accurate to what the community is really like.

“We see shows like ‘Modern Family’ and ‘Will & Grace,’ and a lot of those are just two white gay men,” UF LGBT affairs director Lauren Hannahs said. “We still don’t have a lot of variety in terms of getting transgendered and bisexuals noticed.”

Even though Americans are becoming increasingly accepting of the LGBT community, media outlets and networks often take more conservative approaches, she said.

“It’s hard to pinpoint a perfect example because the LGBT community is so diverse,” Wintle said. “Callie and Arizona from ‘Grey’s Anatomy’ are probably the best representation I can see on TV because it gets to the heart that we’re all just people.”

But the increase in character development shows that audiences resonate with these characters, Kane said.

“With Unique’s storyline on ‘Glee’ still to come and Chaz Bono on ‘Dancing with the Stars,’ we’ll get to see the different personalities within the community,” he said.

Wintle said he believes the representation will get better over time.

“As time progresses, the statistic is going to increase,” Wintle said. “We’re making progress, but there’s still a lot of work that needs to be done.”

“Frankenweenie,” however, is a breath of fresh air. This movie is a return to some of director Tim Burton’s favorite themes: namely, the imaginative and inventive youngster in conflict with a close-minded and conservative community.

The creative and eccentric young protagonist, Victor Frankenstein, is restricted by the depressingly strait-laced and bourgeois town of New Holland. Appropriately enough, it eventually turns out to be Mr. Frankenstein’s insistence upon his son’s adoption of “normal” activities that turns Victor’s life upside down. During a baseball game gone awry, Victor’s beloved dog, Sparky, is hit by a car and killed.

Needless to say, Victor is devastated. Inspired by his class’ equally eccentric science teacher, he decides to bring Sparky back from the dead. The operation is a success, and Victor must take special care to hide his reanimated pet from his classmates and neighbors.

The voice actors are a treat. The young actor Charlie Tahan (“Charlie St. Cloud”) who portrays Victor delivers a restrained yet off-beat performance. Martin Short (“Madagascar 3: Europe’s Most Wanted”) and Catherine O’Hara (“Killers”), who are usually seen in over-the-top character actor roles, manages a sublime subtlety in their roles as Victor’s parents. The golden mean is Martin Landau (“Mysteria”), who portrays the science teacher with an enthusiastic and heartfelt austerity. The only issue with the film was Winona Ryder’s (“The Dilemma”) less than substantial role as Victor’s friendly neighbor Elsa.

The art design, reminiscent of “Corpse Bride,” is effective in conveying a sense of both eccentricity and wonder. Danny Elfman’s score is both playful and heartfelt.

If just one aspect of the movie could be changed, it should be the relatively short-running time of just under 90 minutes; many of the supporting characters, such as Victor’s classmates in particular, could have been fleshed out further given perhaps another 20 minutes.

Although kids these days may be jaded to the rather tame attempts at horror in PG movies, but the movie’s third act is an homage to old monster movies. Combined with the 3D glasses, it’s guaranteed to strike terror into even the most apathetic of children.

For a series with such an underwhelming slogan, the impact “Seinfeld” has had on television, comedy, and culture is difficult to underestimate. It comes as little surprise, then, that Jerry Seinfeld’s return to New York has garnered so much media attention.

After focusing largely on acting since “Seinfeld” went off the air in 1998, the famed comedian will be making a symbolic return to both New York City and stand-up comedy with a mini-tour of the five boroughs, which began last night with his show at the Upper West Side’s Beacon Theater. Seinfeld will be appearing in a different borough every Thursday night through Nov. 8, when he will perform at Brooklyn College’s Walt Whitman Theatre.

Although most fans know Seinfeld from his namesake TV show, co-created with “Curb Your Enthusiasm” star Larry David in 1989, the entertainer initially made his name and developed his signature style in the New York stand-up scene in the late 1970s. Unlike other prominent comics at the time, such as George Carlin and Richard Pryor, Seinfeld emphasized everyday experience rather than broader social issues.

“What we’re seeing in his [Seinfeld’s] stand-up is a shift towards … something that’s not really about political or social issues, but rather the minutiae of daily life—observational humor where it’s autobiography that really provides the framework for comedic observation,” said Robert King, an associate professor of film studies who teaches classes on comedy. “That, then, obviously feeds into the show ‘Seinfeld,’ but it also feeds into the orientation of stand-up today, which remains largely observational—which remains grounded in this sense that comedy comes out of autobiography.”

When “Seinfeld” premiered on NBC, it introduced viewers to its creator’s signature focus on the petty annoyances of everyday life. Episodes centered on topics as seemingly mundane as lost socks or waiting in lines, creating a sense of absurdity and meaninglessness. Producer Larry Charles famously described the show’s philosophy of humor grounded in observation rather than moral lessons as “no hugging, no learning,” representing a clean break from the family sitcoms that had once dominated the airwaves.

In addition to its characteristic concern with the everyday, “Seinfeld” also derived much of its humor from its unique setting: New York City.

In the world of “Seinfeld,” “New York … is a collection of very idiosyncratic and strange, crazy people who are all, in their own ways, outsiders—who all in their own ways have a series of obsessions that set them apart from all sorts of other people,” Jeremy Dauber, associate professor of Yiddish language, literature, and culture, said. Dauber incorporated “Seinfeld” into the syllabus of his own class, “Humor in Jewish Literature,” along with the work of other Jewish comedians like Woody Allen.

Dauber noted that “Seinfeld” incorporated Jewish identity into the sitcom. In the world of the show, “New York is Jewish,” Daubner explained. “Even if you’re not Jewish and you live in New York, you’re Jewish. ‘Seinfeld’ decreed this kind of sense of what New York was as a Jewish place in presenting New York as that same kind of world that he and his couple of friends have,” he said.

But the show is accessible, irrespective of religion. Characters like the now-famous Soup Nazi and locations like Columbia’s beloved Tom’s Restaurant incorporated New York into the show long before programs like “Sex and the City” hit the air.

Evangeline Morphos, Columbia U. associate professor of professional practice in film, cites the accurate depiction of the city as an essential element in the humor of “Seinfeld.” Morphos recalls Seinfeld’s famed monologue on socks going missing from the laundromat. “I lived in the same block as Seinfeld, and, honestly? The dry cleaner would take my clothes and wear them,” Morphos said.

The Soup Nazi was also based on a real-life example: “Years ago, one of the great audition places in New York was in the West 50s. And you’d go across to this soup place, and you had to be prepared, because that guy was a nightmare. And of course, it is the Soup Nazi! We’ve been there,” Morphos explained.

To many students at Columbia, however, the impact of Seinfeld’s comedy is far less immediate. Seinfeld’s sitcom went off the air in 1998 after an impressive run of nine seasons, and his last stand-up special, “I’m Telling You for the Last Time,” was released that same year. Nonetheless, Seinfeld’s career has had an enduring impact on the way much of Generation Y experiences humor, including several Columbia comedians.

“Seinfeld and Larry David were the first people that showed me the funny people are the same as the smart people,” Orli Matlow said. Matlow is involved with Jester, a humor magazine, and takes improvisational and sketch comedy classes at New York’s famed Upright Citizens Brigade Theatre. Matlow cited Seinfeld as one of her most prominent comic influences. “When I sit down to write jokes … it just comes from a knee-jerk reaction in my everyday life,” she said. For Matlow, Seinfeld depicted “the comedian’s process as not isolated from the world, but really of the world.”

Contemporary viewers can find humor that is “of the world” in nearly every popular sitcom of the past decade. Tune in to an episode of “Friends,” and you will probably find Rachel, Ross, Monica, and the gang worrying about being on time for an event, what outfit to wear, or how to interact with a former childhood friend—in other words, exactly the kind of mundane issues that “Seinfeld” made fair game for television humor.

“He [Seinfeld] would have these conversations like, ‘How do you know when you’re in a relationship? Do you have a standing date for Saturday night, is it implied, is it this or that? How long do you have before you can return a gift?’” Dauber said. Seinfeld’s humor, he continued, has “this extremely detail-obsessed focus, almost legalistic perspective of how we all operate in our daily lives, taking these minutiae and turning them into the subject of great investigation and speculation.”

Seinfeld’s comic success stems not only from the content of his humor, but also its style. Bob Vulfov, member of improv group Fruit Paunch, and co-writer of XMAS!7, said, “Comedians our age tend to swear and curse, and he’s this beacon of a comedian who still can be hilarious and extremely influential without needing to be completely inappropriate.” Vulfov explained, “When you see him do stand-up live in the Comedy Cellar or something, he’s still very clean and appropriate, and that’s something I think anybody can appreciate—a person who can be funny without being too offensive.”

Part of the Seinfeld shtick of “not doing anything” is the legitimate idea that the method behind his comedy is just as deceptively unintentional as the sitcom.

“As much as I love ‘The Daily Show’ and ‘Colbert,’ they don’t mask biases, and the setup of the joke is just to serve as the setup to the joke, whereas in ‘Seinfeld’ the setup is funny in and of itself,” Matlow said.

Seinfeld’s return to stand-up coincides with a recent resurgence in the medium’s popularity, demonstrated by the runaway success of comics like Louis CK, star of FX’s “Louie,” and Marc Maron, the host of the podcast, “WTF with Marc Maron.” “To a certain extent, the idea of Seinfeld now returning to New York … I wouldn’t say that it’s exactly closing the loop, between these two cycles of stand-up booms, but it’s certainly drawing a line or a connection between these two periods,” King said.

Both as the creator of one of the most influential television sitcoms to date and as a comedian in his own right, Jerry Seinfeld’s impact on humor has only gained force since “Seinfeld” aired its last episode over 14 years ago. And if the number of tourists taking photos outside of Tom’s is any indication, that reputation is here to stay.

In this knock-off of Freedom Writers sans hot actors, Jamie Fitzpatrick (Gyllenhaal) gets pissed off when a fellow classmate berates her dyslexic daughter to read faster (t-t-t-today junior) while her teacher shops online for knee-high boots. Using her frustrations as an impetus to skulk around the school, Fitzpatrick watches Nona Alberts (Viola Davis) drowsily lecture her bored-as-hell class of students and logically thinks, “Well, that’s way better than my kid’s teacher; Pikachu, I choose you!” The film then focuses on Fitzpatrick and Alberts’s quest to take on the failing school system, and if the ending isn’t wholesomely predictable to you, you’re probably a nice kid.

The producers of the film were kind enough to ensure that no moviegoer would leave confused as to what each scene intended to convey. Any scene meant to vilify the school system is shown in gray to convey the sadness that we feel by teachers who online shop way too often. On the flip side, passionate speeches about creating schools run by overactive, single parents with an affinity for denim jackets are colorful and vibrant. Snaps to director Daniel Barnz for his ability to find professionals with basic iMovie skills.

The true issue with the movie, however, is that it strives to touch upon a meaningful topic and fails every single time. Barnz’s main point in the movie is that unions perpetuate problems within the public school system because they keep teachers who aren’t doing their job from getting fired. An assault on tenure and unions is contrary to the typical puff-pieces Hollywood produces about inner city kids succeeding with the help of a super-attractive English teacher—and this quality should, by default, make the movie somewhat captivating.

This theme, however, gets lost in a sea of terrible dialogue and poor character development. Through the entirety of the film we never actually learn of the other changes listed in Fitzpatrick and Alberts’s over 300-page document to change the school. The movie attempts to focus on the debate over teachers’ unions so much that there are literally no ideas mentioned about how to fix the school. Not only does this reduce Fitzpatrick’s quest into a roundabout way of getting her daughter’s teacher fired, it also makes the whole process completely meaningless.

Furthermore, the teachers move seamlessly from opposing the dynamic duo tooth-and-nail to getting drunk in a nightclub with them and emphatically shouting their disapproval of unions in the Board of Education meeting. Even Michael Perry (or Sexy Texy, Fitzpatrick’s witty name for a guy with no Texan accent) goes from absolute support of the unions to complete disapproval within two scene cuts. The complete unreality of this situation prevents the movie from having any real point. It’s clear that changing the bureaucratic nature of a school system would never be this simple, and having everyone jump on board Fitzpatrick’s “screw the unions” train disallows any true debate or dialogue to enter the film.

Most will recognize the 39-year-old comedian for his biting one-liners (“Saying, ‘I’m sorry’ is the same as saying, ‘I apologize.’ Except at a funeral”), which he underscores with pleasant plucks from his guitar. Others might remember the observational “visual aids” he uses, such as the large pad to explore the paradoxes of sitting in chairs.

In our digital age, standup comedians are readily available commodities. Even talented ones are easy to come by. But with his new special, which premiered last Saturday on Comedy Central, Martin continues to prove his unique comedy techniques are as razor-sharp and cunning as ever.

Martin, who finds inspiration in everything from daydreaming and music to people watching at coffee shops, said his success comes from basing his routine on simple jokes and one-liners rather than long, drawn-out personal stories.

“My material is simple and relatable enough,” Martin said. “Kids come up to me and they tell me they like my stuff, and someone who’s like 60 also might like the jokes. They’re just basic ideas about the human condition.”

Standup Comedian is no different.

In the one-hour special, Martin doesn’t set out to offend or make sweeping remarks about any particular group. Instead, he artfully showcases his punch line prowess and innovative tactics that are guaranteed to receive laughs every time. Filmed at the Skirball Center for the Performing Arts in New York City, Standup Comedian features Martin playing up his established tricks brilliantly and delivering pithy remarks accompanied by his music (“It’s cool when an ex-girlfriend becomes an XL-girlfriend,” he says).

Martin even tackles new visual media like his ridiculous yet hilariously handwritten fliers — “Free tiny strips of paper!” one cleverly says — which he posted on coffee shop bulletin boards to generate a reaction.

He even shows off his physical comedy chops by demonstrating the absurdity of mechanized responses in public restrooms: “The automatic paper towel dispenser is a solution to something that was never a problem.”

Standup Comedian marks Martin’s first cable special since his Comedy Central Presents show back in 2004. When asked what he learned from his experience creating a televised special nearly six years ago, Martin claimed that the biggest challenges of the process would arise on the cutting room floor.

“When I did the first show, having seen my other friends’ specials live and then seeing how they got edited, I wanted to protect myself,” Martin said. “And by that I mean I wanted it to be the way it was when I shot it when it aired on TV.”

He added, “In my Comedy Central Presents show, I didn’t have any access to the edit. If you don’t have access, some guy you don’t know edits it a certain way and takes out the second punch line, for example, or takes your closer and puts it in the second act as opposed to the end of the show. They can do whatever they want. So, by doing something like the large pad or playing my guitar, it’s harder to edit because there’s the sequence to it.”

But Martin didn’t learn this industry savvy over night. In fact, one of his earlier jobs was as a writer for Conan O’Brien’s Late Night show in 2003, and later as a “Senior Youth” correspondent for The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. From those experiences, Martin said he learned a lot about the industry, including how to write on a deadline.

“With Conan, you had to be on it, do your stuff, and hand it in,” Martin said. “At The Daily Show, I’d shoot the piece with the producer, and then we’d be in the editing room and Jon Stewart would come down and say, ‘let me see it.’ So it’s really cool because it’s not only screened for an audience, but also [for people you look up to].”

And while his late night experience was beneficial, Martin joked that he learned an even more important lesson from his time writing for these talk shows.

“I have a lot of respect for those guys, but I don’t want to do that job. That is a grind,” Martin said. “It’s [close] to doing real standup but with a lot more responsibility and staff. But it does have that pretty immediate feedback which is cool.”

But during his near-decade of mainstream standup success, Martin discovered his knack and passion for acting, which stemmed from a love of film and desire to write screenplays. In 2009, Martin created and starred in a sketch comedy series for Comedy Central called Important Things with Demetri Martin, which lasted two seasons. He also appeared in films such as The Rocker with Rainn Wilson as well as the HBO series Flight of the Concords. Though he admits that he’s still “learning as he goes” with acting, Martin is excited to absorb as much as he can from the talented people around him.

“My plan was always to write films and write parts for myself that I know I’d be perfect for, “ Martin said. “But I’d be psyched when I got parts even if they were small, because it’s cool to be on set with somebody like Ang Lee or Steven Soderbergh. It’s like being at school. I get to see how they get through their workday, how they shoot a scene, how they do the coverage … just all the different moving parts of a film. It’s really cool.”

An incredible amount of experiences have led Martin to his successful career, and even though he enjoys performing for every type of audience around the country, he says that his college fans are by far his favorite.

“College crowds are among the best because [college] is a very hopeful time in people’s lives. Even with the economy being as terrible as it has been, there’s still a certain kind of optimism and possibility on the college campus that you can’t really find anywhere else,” Martin said. “There’s a certain earnestness, and I really like that.”

His college fans especially will appreciate Standup Comedian and Martin’s honest, fresh flair on comedy. With this special, Martin is truly in his best form with his always-relatable material and quirky and unconventional methods. Authentically funny, quirky and genuinely kind, Demetri Martin is a comic that will continue to leave a lasting impact on audiences of all ages.

The biggest change in NHL 13 is the revamped skating system. The game goes for a more realistic type of play. Momentum is much more important and skaters can no longer turn on a dime and reach max speed within half a second. Shot and pass accuracy also now depends on speed. The physics system is greatly improved with body checks becoming more realistic and in turn more effective. The pace of the game is slowed slightly and lowers the chances of cheap breakaway offensive tactics. Overall the new system is for the better. The game seems more authentic and I feel like I have a stronger sense of control. One of my biggest complaints with “NHL 12” was that when I losing, I could never really tell what I was doing wrong or how to fix it. This time around one’s mistakes are much more apparent and their effect on the game is more substantial.

The AI has also received a noticeable upgrade. Computer controlled players are now much more aware of their surroundings and no longer need player control to retrieve a puck six inches away from them. They are able to recognize plays and adapt to changes on the ice much faster than in previous games. The goalies are now much more balanced. They’re more likely to save basic slapshots and less likely to stop chaotic rebound shots.

The amount of content in “NHL 13,” is quite staggering; that is, if you haven’t seen any of the last four games. The game modes are basically the same as “NHL 12:” with GM Mode, Be a Pro, Be a Legend, Online Leagues and Season Play. The only major addition is GM Connected, which is basically the online leagues with the ability to do team transactions. While the games’ modes are aplenty, they all basically boil down to the same thing: you playing hockey against somebody else. There is also the Hockey Ultimate Team feature which allows you to build a fantasy team and play in tournaments. It’s a very expansive and well made mode, but there’s one major issue with it. In order to be good at it, you have to pay to buy packs of players. Why? Because EA loves to grub for extra money for what should be free content. That’s pretty aggravating, and the score is receiving a sizeable deduction because of it.

In terms of aesthetics, not much has changed. The graphics have received a slight improvement, and in game animations are now more specific. The commentary is mostly recycled, but is still good on its own. I do have several minor complaints. The menu system in the GM Mode for actions such as trading and scouting can be very confusing. Changing lines manually is difficult and annoying. And the ability to implement custom music is not an excuse for the terrible default soundtrack.

Going back to whether or not you should dish out $60 for “NHL 13.” If you have not done so for any of the past three or four installments, definitely pick this one up. If you have, then I would say give this a pass. “NHL 13” is certainly a better game than “NHL 12,” but it’s only worth getting if you were completely dissatisfied with the last one or two entries. While “NHL 12” did have its frustrating aspects, there was nothing about it that had me begging for an overhaul, let alone a very expensive overhaul.

My sense of name inferiority finally disappeared in “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” when J.K. Rowling introduced one minor character, Leanne, Katie Bell’s friend. No, it wasn’t exactly my name, but who cared. If “Leanne” was a name worth including in the same paragraph as Harry and Hermione, I might as well have been a wizard.

It’s still possible to connect with “The Casual Vacancy,” Rowling’s latest tome, but the grounds of connection are surprising in their immediacy to everyday life. She accompanies a funeral with Rihanna and Jay-Z’s song “Umbrella” instead of Dumbledore’s phoenix dirge, explores teenage sexuality through internet porn and unprotected sex rather than love potions, and even replaces Quidditch with crew. Yet through it all, some constants remain: a deft skewering of small-town life, youthful disillusionment, and a character named Leanne. Only the Leanne of “A Casual Vacancy” is not walking back from Hogsmeade with Katie Bell. She’s the best friend of Krystal Weedon, a promiscuous, foul-mouthed child of a welfare heroin addict. We hear you loud and clear, J.K. Rowling. Harry Potter, this isn’t.

It nevertheless remains nearly impossible to read, analyze, and absorb “The Casual Vacancy” without invoking Harry Potter. How do you turn the page on a cultural milestone and open to a small town in southwest England, where the greatest drama involves a local election rather than a corporeal force of evil? Rowling’s tendency to rely on excessive adjectives and adverbs has lessened, yet she retains just enough of this trademark style to enliven descriptions: “The sky was a cold iron-gray, like the underside of a shield.”

This iron-gray sky lies over Pagford, a provincial town in the shadow of its larger neighbor, Yarvil. The story opens at the death of Barry Fairbrother, more an idea than a man, whose quest for social justice and equality reaches beyond the grave. His death leaves a gaping hole on a divided town council, and various citizens hurry to fill his shoes and exert their influence over the fiery controversy du jour: the inclusion of an area of low-income housing, The Fields, in Pagford’s upper-crust school district. This social commentary forms an intelligent backdrop against which to parade and judge a score of characters. From this unsuspectingly common premise, Rowling artfully exposes the intricacies of human relations with a colorful, memorable set of players.

Fraught with duplicity, seething with anger, and at times starkly hopeless, the citizens of Pagford often appear more as caricatures than realistic people. At times, indeed, the narrative feels overstuffed. Rowling careens from one third person limited point of view to another; this is certainly a more holistic approach than her singular focus on Harry, but at times the array of characters is dizzying (though Rowling helps the reader out by periodically repeating their names and occupations).

All these perspectives do not always serve the story well. The beauty of Harry Potter was its single-minded devotion to the end battle. Any side adventure that occurred was almost always in service of a greater narrative. “The Casual Vacancy” may be significantly more adult in its content, but Rowling risks losing readers along the way due to narrative offshoots. The book could have benefitted from a more condensed focus, yet Rowling’s ambition to fully explore the disparate lives of so many characters is admirable in its scope. Several books could have been written about the most compelling ones—adventurous and outspoken Fats, self-destructive yet compassionate Krystal, pimpled and besotted Andrew, corpulent and corrupt Howard, steely and driven Parminder, and the elusive, deified Barry Fairbrother.

If Rowling’s goal was to expose how different worlds can haplessly intersect, she’s done her job. She has frequently stated her adamant support of social welfare, and perhaps partially informed by her own pre-Potter bout with poverty, Rowling’s descriptions of privation, neglect, and drug abuse are often shocking in their audacious power of prose. “But she had seen far worse,” thinks Kay, a social worker, “welts and sores, gashes and burns, tar-black bruises; scabies and nits; babies lying on carpets covered in dog shit; kids crawling on broken bones; and once (she dreamed of it, still), a child who had been locked in a cupboard for five days by his psychotic stepfather.”

Rowling seems nearly to wink at her Harry Potter fanbase with this cupboard reference—“Think Uncle Vernon was abusive, do you?” she might be asking. “This is the real world.” Harry Potter was an introduction, through the lens of magic and ultimate happiness, to momentary loss, disappointment, and death. Here, though, when a relative, spouse, or friend is gone, they’re lost forever. Characters may have jarringly conspicuous access to the latest technology, but with no Resurrection Stone, “Priori Incantatem” spell, or Mirror of Erised at their disposal, this new treatment of death is decidedly harsher.

The final Harry Potter book was released four days before my 15th birthday. I was living in Chile for the summer and anxiously journeyed to the nearest mall to get the book. Dawn crept through the curtains as I finished it the next morning. It hadn’t been released in Spanish yet, and my host siblings begged the main details out of me the second I was done reading.

I nonchalantly bought “The Casual Vacancy” two days after it appeared in stores. It took me three days to read rather than a night—the driving tension, both on my part and on Rowling’s, simply was not there. Rowling, however, is not a one-hit wonder. Darkness, redemption, and even humor are more layered and complex in her latest effort. But the “Potter” cohort is grown up and probably ready to spend more than one night digesting the moral maelstroms of a book. A fast read isn’t always the best read. “The Casual Vacancy” has its moment of gut-wrenching horror, finely sketched characters, and steady-handed authorial intention. Rowling can’t babysit the literate youth of the world forever; finally, she drops the hand holding for a hard but welcome slap of reality.

Radnor plays Jesse Fisher, a 35−year−old New York City high school college counselor invited back to his alma mater for the retirement party of a former professor (Richard Jenkins). Jesse’s trip back to college is fraught with romance and tension, featuring old teachers and awkward parties.

During his visit, he meets with 19−year−old Zibby (Elizabeth Olsen) who invites him back onto campus for what turns out to be a weekend of growing up, growing down and soul searching.

It is the earnestness of “Liberal Arts” that makes it so unique. Though the film rarely lets itself get weighed down by seriousness, there is a sense of urgency here for Radnor — both as filmmaker and character — to rediscover himself in an institution that meant so much to him as a younger man.

The supporting characters Jesse meets on campus help to carry the film. Students and professors alike chase fantasies of what it means to be young or old, all somehow running from their lots in life. Zibby tires easily of her fellow students and seeks something a little more refined, while Dean (John Magaro) is rarely seen without a copy of the novel “Infinite Jest” (1996) in hand and his thoughts visibly far from his surroundings.

Rounding out the younger cast is Zac Efron as Nat, a friendly stoner who wants Jesse to find happiness.

“Liberal Arts” requires a certain vulnerability on the audience’s part, thanks to Radnor’s direct way of addressing characters’ concerns and emotions.

Jesse is a middle−aged man returning to a place where adolescent self−searching is the norm.

There, he finds a deeper meditation on growing up that plays powerfully to anyone familiar with such an environment.

The film is also unapologetically cloying. In between Jesse’s trips to the college, he and Zibby write each other letters by hand in order to forge an intimate connection.

Dean and Jesse discuss the power of “Infinite Jest” not solely to provide audiences with a metaphor to guide their viewing, but because the two are sincere literature majors searching for answers hidden in their books.

“Liberal Arts” can be a rewarding film, but in return it asks for indulgence of its sporadic romanticism and sheepish sincerity.

In “Liberal Arts,” college is seen as both an incubator for growth, and a trap that ensnares the human tendency to eternally hope or despair. Here, Radnor does not shy away from the bold hopefulness of youth: All of the film’s characters have growing up to do, and they will continue to do so, it seems, for the rest of their lives. These are daunting concepts to consider, but Radnor deftly gives them their due significance while finding humor in the absurdity of it all.

For the collegiate among us, “Liberal Arts” is an antidote to our culture’s hipster compulsions that dismiss earnestness and romance. Central to the film is the idea that people want to love and to be loved, despite coming face−to−face with cynical mores as they mature.

Radnor’s desire to live and love beyond the cynicism shines through “Liberal Arts,” resulting in an unexpectedly happy piece about the futility of life.

In an interview with the Kenyon Collegian — Kenyon is Radnor’s alma mater and the film’s setting — Radnor was asked why he chose not to name the college in the film. He replied, “So it can be everyone’s college.”

And this film does speak to a universal college experience, replete with its questions and struggles. “Liberal Arts” questions what it means to grow up, asking the ever−urgent question of how to live. For those who enjoy facing that urgent question head−on, Radnor has created a gem.

Where was this movie? Everything that preceded the concept art was completely uncharacteristic of the tomfoolery that was the feature film.

“Hotel Transylvania” is a monster menagerie movie directed by Genndy Tartakovsky, already an accomplished animator and creator in the TV realm with classic shows like “Dexter’s Laboratory” and “Samurai Jack” to his name. This film marks his first foray in the animated, CGI realm.

The plot involves Dracula (Adam Sandler, “That’s My Boy”), who in this variation is a single father raising his 118-year-old daughter Mavis (Selena Gomez, “Monte Carlo”) by himself.  Fearing the world of humans, he constructs a Four Seasons-like hotel dedicated to becoming a safe haven for monsters. Trouble ensues when a human named Jonathan (Andy Samberg, “Celeste and Jesse Forever”), on the eve of Mavis’ birthday, stumbles upon Dracula’s secluded and luxurious hideaway hotel while backpacking through Europe.

Dracula is stuck between sneaking Jonathan away before the other ghoulish guests are alerted to his presence or opt to satisfy his daughter, who is already anxious to fly off into the real world with a human, by creating a ruse where Jonathan pretends to be a monster himself.

The film itself can be disjointed. At times it wants to pull punches on humor, all the while trying to establish its dramatic identity with Dracula wondering why he is afraid of the outside world. The shift in tone can be disorienting when jumping from fart jokes to themes of death, love and dubiously concealed politics about a world that won’t accept monsters if they “come out.” It then attempts to crowbar in some impromptu musical numbers that border on narcotic dullness. One thing no one has ever demanded to see was Sandler attempting to rap in the voice of Bobby Boucher (Sandler’s character from “The Waterboy”).

Tartakovsky manages to insert personal touches from his TV career into the character designs: from the way Dracula’s bipolar personality resembles HIM from “Powerpuff Girls,” to the many wry smiles and smash cut punch lines that appear throughout “Hotel Transylvania,” including cartoon versions of the characters during the credits.

These kinds of animated films are designed to attract heavyweight talent. The voice actors co-opted in this movie include Cee Lo Green as The Mummy (who bears a strikingly suspicious resemblance to Oogie Boogie from “The Nightmare Before Christmas”), Steve Bucemi (“Rampart”) as The Wolfman, Kevin James (“Zookeeper”) as Frankenstein, Fran Drescher (“The Nanny”) as Frankenstein’s intolerable wife and David Spade (“Jack and Jill”) as the Invisible Man.

“Hotel Transylvania” does not match the nimble cleverness of “Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs,” nor does it pull off its ambitious Pixar-esque leaps of narrative weight. It all makes the viewer wonder what would have happened had the animators taken inspiration from the art accompanying the end credits; would we be talking about a different film altogether?

It’s strange that a band with such inoffensive music can be so divisive, but most of the disagreements are based on Green Day’s history. The group began as a punk band that played music hard enough to piss off your parents, but cheeky and endearing enough to win over the younger demographic. Green Day became kings of the alt-rock airwaves, and built a sizable following of disgruntled youths. However, Green Day leapt from the alternative stations to the mainstream with their monstrously successful album American Idiot in 2004. No longer were they a group for people “in the know,” but rather for drivers stuck in traffic coming home from work.

The phrase “selling out” has such a negative perception, but really, it should be seen as savvy business. While the old music may have been more creative, energetic and authentic, Green Day has struck gold with the blend of pop-punk that they’re now (in)famous for, and they’re having a good time headlining corporate concerts and international tours.

¡Uno!, the new album, is exactly what you’d expect: a little bit of Springsteen, a little bit of Sex Pistols, a lot bit of watering down. In short, the perfect recipe for a mediocre top-seller. You could read a rundown of some of the songs, but it’s really not worth your time. They made one song and changed a few chords here and there. The music isn’t as insidious as the utter lack of creativity. For 41 minutes and 42 seconds, you will be subjected to pop-punk that makes Fallout Boy sound intricate. Truthfully, you’d be better off listening to Kenny G hold an e-flat for 45 minutes than listening to ¡Uno!

The songs aren’t terrible on their own. “Let Yourself Go” and “Oh Love,” stand out as energy-pumped singles. However, listening to the entire album will make your ears bleed. Every song has the exact same recycled pseudo-punk riffs. In case you didn’t believe he was punk, Billie Joe Armstrong swears a lot on some songs too.

This album will be a hit, though. It’s hard not to lose faith when the Billboard 200 crowd spends their money on garbage like this. ¡Uno! is less exciting than white bread. More people fall asleep listening to ¡Uno! than in Stats 250. And rumor has it that Rip Van Winkle had ¡Uno! playing on his iPod right before he took his marathon nap for two decades.

¡Uno! is one of those rare moments where something inoffensive makes you furious. The music may not be horrifying, but the complacency is. To quote Green Day’s own music “it’s something unpredictable, that in the end is right, I hope you had the time of your life” making the shittiest album of the year.

The buildup leading to Sunday’s 64th Primetime Emmy Awards suggested that the show would be the most exciting and fresh edition yet, but the show unfortunately proved to be another predictable and unimaginative awards ceremony that viewers will soon forget about.

Despite Jimmy Kimmel’s hosting prowess, his slew of well-timed jokes (“Being a Republican in Hollywood is like being a Chick-Fil-A sandwich on the snack table at Glee.”) and funny gags weren’t enough to save the Emmys from being what most of these shows have unfortunately become: self-congratulatory and uninteresting.

There were still, however, a handful of entertaining moments that proved worthy of watching.

As the master of ceremonies, Kimmel generated compelling TV moments with ease. This was the late-night-host’s opportunity to reach his largest primetime audience yet, and he certainly made the most of it. Though it can prove to be a challenge to engage such a far-reaching audience for three hours, Kimmel succeeded, getting laughs by virtue of his every-guy persona, honesty and non-introduction introductions.

“Our next presenters are Mindy Kaling and Melissa McCarthy. Please welcome Mindy Kaling and Melissa McCarthy,” Kimmel said, totally deadpan, as if to jokingly indicate to the nation that he doesn’t elevate actors just because they’re rich and famous.

Perhaps Kimmel’s greatest accomplishment of the night was the impressive execution of his prank on the people at home who decided not to tune in. Inviting 30 Rock star Tracy Morgan onto the stage, Kimmel told him to lie down and then asked viewers to tweet that Morgan had “just passed out” and to turn into ABC right now to witness the commotion. And to no surprise, it thoroughly worked. With big names like Joel McHale and Stephen Colbert playing along, “Tracy Morgan” was trending nationwide in no time. And Morgan committed, lying motionless on the stage for a good 10 minutes before eventually being carried away.

Another hilarious moment came in the form of a pre-taped bit starring the Modern Family ensemble, specifically focusing on 5-year-old Aubrey Anderson-Emmons, who plays Lily on the show. In the feature, Anderson-Emmons is portrayed as a tyrannical prima donna who insults her castmates and even tries to physically injure Ty Burrell and Ed O’Neill by removing the stairs to their trailers.

Amy Poehler proved that, for the second year in a row, she could single-handedly make the presentation of the outstanding lead actress in a comedy category the highlight of the night.

After embracing Poehler on her way up to the stage to accept her trophy for Veep, Julia Louis-Dreyfus began to read from a speech that clearly wasn’t her own. Great directing and acting collided to create a hilarious (albeit planned) moment of comedy in which Poehler “accidentally” switched her acceptance speech with Louis-Dreyfus’.

“Isn’t it a shame Amy Poehler didn’t win?” Louis-Dreyfus asked, going along with the gag.

Poehler spearheaded the beauty pageant setup of last year’s best actress presentation, which was similarly deemed one of the more amusing instances of the broadcast. Though these types of pre-planned moments are wildly entertaining, they’re also quite time-consuming and tricky to pull off, which makes Poehler worthy of praise for her comedic finesse.

The show itself was riddled with technical difficulties that weren’t easily detectable by the TV-viewing audience, but noticeable nonetheless. One of the biggest gaffes of the night came when Family Guy creator Seth MacFarlane strutted to what he thought was his mark and began to speak inaudibly, to the bewilderment of the Nokia Theatre patrons as well as viewers at home. Whether it was the director’s fault or the mistake of a stage manager, the misplaced mic mishap turned out to be one of the most entertaining moments of the night.

“That’s going to be on YouTube,” MacFarlane correctly predicted.

The awards themselves, however, were as unexciting as could be, with outstanding reality series going to The Amazing Race for the ninth consecutive year and Jon Stewart and company taking home their 10th trophy for outstanding variety series. Equally as boring was the presentation of the miniseries and movie categories, which always seem to bring what little action the Emmys have to a screeching halt. Such mind-numbing awards ought to be banished to the untelevised Creative Arts ceremony that take place the week before the Emmys, but Television Academy politics would unfortunately never allow that to happen.

In one of the night’s few surprises, Showtime’s new hit Homeland took home the top prize for drama, making it the first series win ever for the subscription-based network. But in the comedy category, Modern Family won for the third straight year, sweeping in outstanding supporting actor and actress category wins with Eric Stonestreet and Julie Bowen.

Though there were a handful of shining moments that worked in the Emmys’ favor, those glimpses of amusement were few and far between in an awards show that was bogged down with unenergetic attendees and too-long acceptance speeches.

Maybe Jon Stewart said it best while holding his trophy aloft and speculating about some future age when aliens arrive to Earth and find a box of Emmy awards:

“They will know how predictable these (bleeping) things are.”

Albom is the writer of beloved tales such as “Tuesdays with Morrie” and “The Five People You Meet in Heaven,” which both contain insightful, relatively understated glimpses into the lives of interesting characters. In “Tuesdays With Morrie,” Albom chronicles his 14 weekly meetings with Morrie Schwartz, his 78-year-old former sociology professor at Brandeis University who was dying from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. In “The Five People You Meet in Heaven,” Albom recounts the story of an elderly man named Eddie who dies while trying to rescue a little girl on a ride at Ruby Pier, the amusement park at which he is the head of maintenance. Eddie then meets five people with whom he was somehow connected in life, even in seemingly insignificant ways.

While “Tuesdays With Morrie” and “The Five People You Meet in Heaven” certainly portray common themes of love, happiness, human interconnectedness and the trajectory of life, Albom relates these themes in unique ways ­— through conversations with a professor and imaginative, yet understated, stories of the life encounters of an ordinary man after death.

In “The Time Keeper,” however, Albom draws on the experiences of trite, archetypal figures ­— a moneyed businessman mired in his work and a nerdy high school senior in the throes of a first crush — to elucidate the theme of life’s ephemeral nature and the preciousness of time.

Protagonist Victor Delamonte is a successful businessman — the 14th wealthiest person in the world — and he is dying of kidney cancer. He hopes to cheat death by freezing his corpse in a cryonics lab to be revived when medicine is advanced enough to cure his disease. Victor is a classic workaholic. He works into his mid-80s, ignores his wife to run his company, stays awake for West Coast business hours and has his assistant brief him on office matters while he is in the hospital undergoing dialysis. Incredulous at his immortality, Victor cannot “imagine the world without him” and hopes to be reanimated by cryonics in another life.

The book’s other main character, Sarah Lemon, is an awkward, chubby high school senior who develops a dangerous crush on a boy named Ethan, who once tried to seduce her but has since shown no interest. She texts him obsessively, travels to New York to buy him an expensive watch and asks him to meet her on Christmas Eve to present her gift. When Ethan rejects Sarah’s advances, she tries to kill herself.

Victor and Sarah’s plotlines converge at the end of the novel when the two meet Dor, or Father Time, who grew up in ancient Babylon and created the first clock. Dor was imprisoned in a cave for 1,000 years for attempting to measure time. In a bizarre, “Christmas Carol”-esque sequence of events, Dor shows Victor and Sarah scenes from the future. Sarah witnesses Ethan’s apathy after her death and her mother’s enduring grief. Victor sees his revived body, which lies mangled and disfigured in a tube while his memories flash on a video screen before an audience of viewers.

As a result, Victor and Sarah realize the precious nature of time and the need to spend it with the ones they love. Victor decides to die and be buried naturally and weakly calls for his wife on his deathbed, but not before improbably donating his wealth to fund Sarah’s education. Sarah, in turn, attends an unspecified Ivy League school and finds a cure for “the most dreaded disease of our time” that will “save millions of people, and life will never be the same.”

While Albom’s “carpe diem” message is abundantly clear, readers are left wondering why Albom even attempted to join the ranks of those such as Thomas Mann (“The Magic Mountain”) or Gabriel Garcia Márquez (“One Hundred Years of Solitude”) who have written true classics about humans’ relationship to time. Perhaps Yvonne Zipp of The Washington Post said it best when she wrote, “Time is precious. The good news is that readers can save themselves tens of valuable minutes by skipping [Albom’s] novel.”

In terms of storyline, “End of Watch” is pretty bare-bones. The plot revolves around the activities of two police officers, Brian Taylor and Mike Zavala. The first is a handsome ex-Marine (Jake Gyllenhaal “Source Code”), the second, a fun-loving Mexican-American and father of four (Michael Peña, “Tower Heist”). The two partners’ attempts at playing detective into the activities of the area’s violent drug cartels eventually result in a small seizure of drugs and guns. When Mexican drug lord “Big Evil” (Maurice Compte, “Breaking Bad”) finds out who stole his merchandise, he stops at nothing to extinguish the problem.

While this storyline is straightforward, it isn’t lacking in content. Stellar camerawork, excellent music and genuinely convincing acting make up for the plot’s lack of complexity. The combination produces an effect that conveys sheer emotion, thrill and an alarming sense of realism.

These factors are perfectly displayed in the film’s first scene, which involves a car chase through the streets and alleys of South-Central Los Angeles. Video is captured through a high-definition, dash-mounted camera with audio coming from both inside and outside of Officer Taylor’s patrol car. The chase comes to a close when the thugs crash and a firefight ensues. As the gangsters’ bullets come bursting through the windshield, the sense of fright and terror is extremely palpable.

The experience is almost like jumping into a real-life version of “Grand Theft Auto” with funky, heart-pounding music and indomitable dialogue. (Taylor delivers sensational lines like, “I am fate, with a badge and a gun.”)

Equally compelling is the relationship between Taylor and Zavala. Their relationship is characterized by both hilarious antics as well as the love and trust they have for each other. Taylor and Zavala are more like brothers than partners just as they are more like soldiers than police officers.

The film was deftly shot, written and directed by David Ayer (“Street Kings”). Gritty, raw acting left the footage minimally produced, and it kept hearts thumping and eyes wide. At the same time, the action is never overwhelming.

Scenes of knife-fights and car chases brilliantly complemented the comedic relief and romantically-driven subplots. Disappointingly, the film is finished with a slightly abrupt ending. However, with a fast-paced action thriller like this one, a smooth finish doesn’t always happen.

Always trying to set the bar higher, West pumps out the first music compilation under his record label G.O.O.D. Music, featuring a total of 22 artists including names like Jay-Z, Common, Big Sean, CyHi Da Prynce and John Legend.

West has largely kept to the standards set by “My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy” and “Watch the Throne.” Even so, his 12-track LP is surprisingly average with no bangs and little fanfare unlike his previous works.

Make no mistake, the album is still a collaboration and not a solo work, although West’s signature lyricism is distinct throughout.

The first track titled “To The World” couldn’t be more appropriate for the album as it clearly echoes West’s mantra of doing it big and with middle fingers high up in the air. R. Kelly also lends his vocals in the three-and-a-half-minute song, which is paced by distant drums and muted synths.

In “New God Flow,” Pusha T humbly (but not really) declares that “I believe there’s a god above me/ I’m just the god of everything else” while West drops rhymes like “Way too cold, I promise you’ll need some Theraflu” in “Cold.” In many ways, the self-crafted lyrics highlight an amusing overconfidence with blatant lyrics that dare the non-believers to test true talent.

Each song that follows on the album carries a distinctive sound and brings in various instruments in addition to wide-ranging vocal talents. “Clique” follows a faster rhythm paced by droning background synths in contrast with “The One,” which opens with former Floetry member, Marsha Ambrosius, delivering the opening hook with her resonating alto soul accompanied by the familiar drumming of distant percussions and piano interludes.

Above all, the album demonstrates how a compilation should sound like, with all of the artists cohesively blending their musical styles in a seamless manner without overpowering one another. John Legend keeps his brassy jazz voice in the “Sin City” collaboration with CyHi Da Prynce, Travis Scott, Teyana Taylor and Malik Yusef, just as Kid Cudi maintains his lyrical rap while working with Pusha T and Common, among other artists, in “The Morning.”

Judgement of his character aside, West produces a successful-enough first compilation “Cruel Summer” under his label G.O.O.D. Music, not amazing but not terrible.

“Prometheus,” however, is a worthy addition to Scott’s canon. While not officially a prequel, “Prometheus” takes place in the same universe as the “Alien” series and introduces a new set of mythology and ideas to explore. In the year 2089, archaeologists and lovers Elizabeth Shaw and Charlie Holloway, played by Noomi Rapace and Logan Marshall-Green, respectively, discover concrete proof regarding the origins of humanity. With this evidence, the two set out on an expedition on the scientific vessel Prometheus, funded by the wealthy Peter Weyland (Guy Pearce), to find our makers.

Four years later, the crew, commanded by the icy Meredith Vickers (Charlize Theron), find themselves at their destination and descend to do their research. What they find on the surface of the planet, however, may threaten to destroy not only them, but all of humanity.

With modern technology now at his disposal, Scott creates a vision of the future that seems, well, futuristic. The Prometheus seems to evoke the aura of Star Trek’s USS Enterprise in its high-tech fluorescence and post-modernist decor. The breathtaking aerial shots that open the film look as foreign as anything that came from Pandora. It is a testament to the cinematography that the opening scene was shot in Iceland and is not in fact unused footage from “Avatar” (2009).

In all the technological wizardry “Prometheus” has to offer, it’s easy to forget that there are actual people in the film. Neatly making her transition to Hollywood from the Swedish film industry, Rapace portrays Shaw excellently. Yet, she’s no Ellen Ripley. In a disappointing move, “Prometheus” relegates its female heroine to a damsel-in-distress role. Rather than kicking ass and taking names, she’s running away from things and praying that she makes it to the sequel. I must begrudgingly assign badass points, however, to Rapace’s character for what is perhaps the most horrifying do-it-yourself surgery sequence ever committed to screen.

The other main female in the film, played by Theron, seems to phone it in as the cold and calculating captain of the Prometheus. She’s the same cold, icy bitch that she played in “Snow White and the Huntsman” (2012) without the emotional vulnerability that made her so captivating to watch in “Young Adult” (2011). I hope that this isn’t a new stereotype that Theron falls into; she’s too good to have the next phase of her career characterized as having the range of Kim Kardashian’s talents.

Yet the sins of Rapace and Theron are more than absolved by Michael Fassbender’s ridiculously good performance as the android David. Literally channeling Peter O’Toole, Fassbender looks like a Ken doll with his square jaw, blond hair and chiseled-from-a-rock good looks. Emotionless and loyal to a fault, Fassbender effortlessly destroys the line between human and robot and makes us forget that his character is an android.

What brings Fassbender’s performance up to a whole new level is the moral ambiguity that lies at the heart of David’s actions. As fans of the “Alien” franchise know, the androids built to serve in this universe are not always what they seem.

While David never approaches HAL 9000 levels of malevolence, his actions are certainly not what one expects from a figure so lovingly advertised in the viral campaign for “Prometheus.”

There have been complaints from hardcore fans of the series that the film is riddled with plot holes to the detriment of its overall structure. While the story does have its flaws, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the film is unsalvageable. In fact, I believe that Scott’s masterful direction in building up the suspense and terror more than make up for any minor details that may have slipped through the cracks.

The album is like a kaleidoscope of influences from their previous albums, such as “Kerplunk!,”  “Warning” and “Dookie,” but still manages to sound like something new.

Green Day’s album kicks off with “Nuclear Family,” a song that sounds like a throwback to their 1997 record “Nimrod.” The track is a head-banging electric guitar track with catchy solos and riffs, almost similar to something the Ramones’ would have created.

Their track “Carpe Diem” has a simple but enthralling melody, and it moves the album along nicely.  Despite the music sounding upbeat and positive, the song’s lyrics criticize the cliché ways that the Latin phrase “carpe diem” is used in our culture.

Before the band released their full album for streaming, three singles had been released: “Oh Love,” “Kill The DJ” and “Let Yourself Go.” These songs gave the world a glimpse at the throwback sound that Green Day will deliver us with this album.

“Let Yourself Go” is a signature Green Day track with a raw and in-your-face attitude that would have felt at home on their classic 1994 release “Dookie.” The anthem has a simple chorus that’s easy enough for anyone to sing along to but creates a surprising passion and anger at just over three minutes. The track will certainly be a real treat to experience live.

“Kill The DJ” is one of the most diverse tracks on the album. Instead of a typical bass line blended in the background of a snazzy guitar solo, the track relies heavily on a funky bass lick. The slow and whimsical sound is paired with lyrics that ridicule traditional top 40 tracks, which is ironic due to the fact that Green Day has been played heavily on the radio in the past decade.

By the last few songs, the album starts to waver in energy. The songs aren’t necessarily disappointing, but it feels like the album came to a halt too soon.

“¡Uno!” is much like a mix of Green Day’s discography. Influences from past records are easily intertwined within their new songs. Green Day managed to craft a new album that steers clear of creating another political concept album and instead creates a collection of songs with just enough spark to bring back old fans and gain a generation of new ones.

“¡Uno!” will be released on Sept. 25 and is the first of a trilogy of albums, with the next two albums, “¡Dos!” and “¡Tré!,” being released Nov. 13 and Jan. 15, 2013 respectively. These albums will be available for purchase on Greenday.com or iTunes.

The world-class cinematography by Janusz Kaminski is immediately striking.

Daniel Day-Lewis, as the 16th president leading the all-star cast, gave an impassioned speech that left me with chills as I watched the trailer come to a close. But I also was left with a more peculiar impression as the image faded out on ol’ Honest Abe: Spielberg’s “Lincoln” is pure Oscar-baiting.

I immediately had flashbacks to last year’s “J. Edgar.”

Films made for awards are just as reprehensible and artistically lax as films made as shameless cash grabs. The reason is in both cases you have an objective to be achieved which constrains full artistic potential. A film shouldn’t be made just to garner awards or satisfy a filmmakers’ ego.

Perhaps Spielberg genuinely wants to tell the story of Abraham Lincoln’s life, but will the film add to or challenge our perception of the great emancipator, or will it merely reinforce what we already believe?

Will it be technically innovative in any significant way? Will it be remembered 10 years from now? One year from now? Doubtful.

Take a film from the opposite side of the spectrum: “The Avengers.” I think we can all agree that while “The Avengers” was crackling with entertainment and made a gazillion dollars this summer, it is unlikely to garner any awards come Oscar season.

It’s pure popcorn entertainment, and that’s just fine.

The trailer for “The Avengers” features explosions, superheroes duking it out, computer-generated action sequences and more explosions. The script doesn’t necessarily have to make sense, people are fairly forgiving of plot holes as long as there’s some quippy dialogue … and a bunch more explosions of course.

Now consider this: Are the flashy cinematography and top-notch actors and chill-inducing dialogue of the “Lincoln” trailer that much different that the explosions and chill-inducing computer-generated spectacle of “The Avengers” trailer?

Blockbusters like “The Avengers” are rather undemanding of the audience. Oscar-baiting films are equally undemanding of their audience.

We know what to expect here: A transformative performance by Day-Lewis, impassioned dialogue, inspiring and pathos-infused speeches on freedom and the American way, perhaps a sweepingly photographed Civil War battle scene or two. But is any of that new?

Will “Lincoln” add anything to the lexicon of American film language or will it stick to the tried and true formula for Oscar success? This is the meter by which “Lincoln” should be judged. Because we all know the acting will be great, the cinematography top notch and the script polished to perfection. But how worthy is it if it doesn’t challenge us in some meaningful or memorable way?

One of my favorite things to do around Oscar season is to ask people looking forward to the ceremony to name the film that won Best Picture the previous year. Most people can’t do it. They’ve already forgotten. These films go the way “Lincoln” likely will.

Unfortunately, the answer is no.

Jimmy is gone.

But don’t let that turn you away. The premiere episode of season three did not leave any doubt the show is back and stronger than ever, despite Darmody’s absence.

Set during New Year’s Eve in 1922, the first episode is focused around the Thompson’s New Year’s Eve party.

Overall, the segment has an upbeat feel, but one can’t help but sense the show’s typical lying, cheating undertone – something is just not quite right here.

Nucky Thompson (Steve Buscemi) starts the season by shaking things up a bit.

Atlantic City’s corrupt treasurer is scheming as usual, and the audience finds out at the end of the episode that Nucky has a secret.

At the end of season two, Jimmy’s son, Tommy (played by twins Connor and Brady Noon), was left with no parents and in custody of his grandmother, who wants the young boy to forget about his real mother.

Now, Tommy is faced with the conflict of not knowing his real mother’s identity.

Foreshadowing suggests Margaret Schroeder (Kelly Macdonald), Nucky’s wife, may take more of a front-seat role this season.

Shortly after opening a children’s hospital in Atlantic City, Margaret finds out women, particularly pregnant ones, are not receiving adequate care and instruction. At the end of the episode, the first woman to fly across the country inspires her to better her life.

On the contrary, when Margaret’s husband is asked about the female pilot, he makes a sarcastic, degrading remark.

Margaret has always been a righteous woman, but it seems like she wants to return to her roots as a women’s rights activist this season.

As prohibition continues to fuel crime and corruption, the gangsters of “Boardwalk Empire” grow more and more violent. Episode one already gives a little taste of what’s to come in the way of action-packed fight scenes.

Part of what makes “Boardwalk Empire” such a unique and popular show is its authenticity.

Everything in the show – the filming style, colors, set, characters, props and conflicts – reflect the time period. I noticed this more than ever Sunday night as it showed the creators of this show have really stepped it up for the third season.

Sure, there have been plenty of gangster movies throughout the years that have gone down as instant classics (“The Godfather,” “Goodfellas” and “Scarface” to name a few) but for the first time, we are seeing a television show that rivals these classic films.

So far season three has not disappointed, even with these lofty expectations.

In a show like this, anything can happen at any time, and that keeps the viewer constantly on edge. Most of the marquee characters have returned, and with so many secrets and so much animosity, no one is safe. Things are definitely changing in Atlantic City, but not for the better – dark days are ahead in this chapter of the series.

Personally, I am glad the show is back on air. If you don’t watch “Boardwalk Empire,” you are missing out on one of television’s finest offerings.

The season started with a bang (literally), and there are plenty of twists and turns available to keep the show rolling smoothly for a long time to come.

Tune into HBO every Sunday night for brand new episodes.

Quite some time has passed since I’ve seen a movie as beautiful as The Words. I admit that the real reason I went to go see it is because of my undying love for Bradley Cooper. I would have been content with just scenes of him shirtless and brooding, but I was pleasantly surprised to find that the plot had actual substance to it.

The Words is the story of book character Rory Jansen (Cooper), a writer struggling to produce publishable work. His father is tired of lending him money and keeps pushing him to find a steady job that can support a family. Only one person believes in Rory: his wife Dora (Zoe Saldana). Honestly, I don’t know who I had a bigger crush on during the movie, Cooper or Saldana. Besides being unnaturally beautiful, the two of them are flawless actors, with such chemistry that at times, their scenes were sickeningly sweet.

Rory and Dora are characters in a book-within-a-movie written by author Clay Hammond (Dennis Quaid). Their story is narrated by Hammond doing a reading of his new book, also called The Words. Quaid is no Morgan Freeman, but he held his own as narrator. He also has his own place in the movie when an overeager Columbia grad student, Daniella (Olivia Wilde), seduces him. Wildeand Quaid are not your typical romantic pairing, but it worked in the context of the movie.

At the beginning of Hammond’s story, Rory finds old, worn pages of a novel in a vintage suitcase that his wife buys him. This story moves him so much that he decides to type the words, just so he can feel them. When Dora stumbles across the story on his computer, she is overcome with emotion and convinces him that he should try and get this story published. He ends up publishing the book, and the once-overlooked author skyrockets to fame and glory. That’s great for Rory, as he seems to forget his guilty conscience until running into the person (Jeremy Irons) who actually wrote the book he found. You think getting caught quoting SparkNotes is awkward? Imagine getting caught plagiarizing someone’s life story.

The shafted author then confronts Rory and tells him the stories behind his book. At this point, the movie turns into Hammond’s account of a story about an author who stole a story from a man who had an incredible story to tell. A story within a story within a story within a movie. It was like Inception. Or Russian nesting dolls. Either way, it was awesome.

The Words is subtly funny and has an impeccable cast. As someone who has watched a few too many movies that rely heavily on special effects and not so much on an actual plot or message, I really appreciated the level of storytelling involved. Also, any movie where a main character is referred to solely as “the Old Man” (the true author of the plagiarized work) has to be either remarkable or abominable. I also like a movie that leaves you with a little bit of uncertainty. Go see The Words, at the very least so you can explain to me exactly what the ending meant.

The film, which was released on July 13 and has since made $26 million, posits that in contrast to the American dream, “Obama’s dream” is born out of his father’s anti-colonialist mentality and will result in catastrophic policy positions, according to New York Times reviewer Stanley Fish.

In the film, D’Souza visits multiple countries to conduct research, which includes an interview with the president’s half-brother, George Obama.

Based on D’Souza’s 2010 book, “The Roots of Obama’s Rage,” the documentary relies heavily on unproven and controversial theories, according to College Democrats President Mason Cole.

“The movie really avoided the policy issues,” Cole said. “It spent too much time pursuing the tedious link between the president and his father’s allegedly anti-colonialist views.”

In an Associated Press article, Beth Fouhy disputed multiple claims made in the documentary, including the argument that Obama is sympathetic to Muslim jihadists, that he has strangely avoided placing harsh sanctions on Iran, that he is determined to return control of the Falkland Islands back to Argentina and that he deliberately removed Winston Churchill’s bust from the Oval Office due to its association with British colonialism.

D’Souza defended these claims in a Sept. 3 post on his website and said that he was not contacted by the AP to check the facts in Fouhy’s article.

Sterling Beard, former Dartmouth Review editor-in-chief, said he agreed with the film in that he believes Obama’s idea of fairness is different from the traditional American view.

“[Obama] is more interested in equal outcomes rather than equal opportunities,” Beard said.

Beard pointed to Solyndra, the solar manufacturing company that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy after receiving a $527-million federal loan, as an example of the president’s skewed notion of fairness.

Fish, a friend of D’Souza’s and a humanities and law professor at Florida International University, said in his review that D’Souza’s main argument is that Obama’s polices are “un-American.”

“I think that sentiment cultivates an environment of bad faith and counter-productivity,” Adam Schwartzman, The Review’s current editor-in-chief, said in an email to The Dartmouth.

Schwartzman, who has yet to see the film, said that referring to the president as un-American is “supremely off-putting.”

Cole, who said he watched the documentary to gain another perspective, thought some people would not see the film to avoid supporting the extremely conservative argument.

“At best, it gets people thinking about something new, but when the film is so focused on something and avoids the real ways in which we can disagree, it doesn’t really lead to much political dialogue that’s useful,” he said.

Beard believes that many students will be drawn to the film in search of an explanation for the disappointing past three years.

“People are really trying to figure out whom they voted for,” Beard said.

Born in India, D’Souza, who joined The Review after its 1980 founding and previously worked for The Dartmouth, brought a unique voice to the paper, according to Beard.

“I think having someone on staff that could give a view from the outside could help with the force of the arguments,” Beard said.

The Rockefeller Center and PoliTALK most recently hosted D’Souza last spring when he gave a presentation titled “The Moral Case for Free Markets.”

In “2016: Obama’s America,” D’Souza mentioned the College and The Review by name.

“It speaks to the strength of the paper,” Beard said. “It’s certainly a different kind of brotherhood than I think a lot of groups on campus have.”

The Review was originally founded to offer a diversity of opinion, combat the increasing dominance of an excessively politically correct and liberal mindset, advocate for the preservation of the College’s liberal arts education and to question stale academic orthodoxy, according to Schwartzman.

Beard said that D’Souza is one of many notably alumni to emerge from The Review. Other prominent Review alumni include conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham ’85 and Wall Street Journal columnist Joseph Rago ’05.

In D’Souza’s time as a writer for The Review, the paper came under fire for its controversial stances on such topics as affirmative action and LGBT issues.

After his time at the College, he served as an editor of The Prospect, a conservative monthly magazine, which he later left to become an advisor in Ronald Reagan’s White House.

“It’s no secret in conservative circles that people who come out of The Dartmouth Review go places,” Beard said.

“It is our choices … that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities.”

Let’s play a game. Above are two quotes, one from “Fifty Shades of Grey” by E.L. James and one from “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” by J.K. Rowling. Tell me — which quote belongs to which British novelist’s bestseller?

OK. You win. The former excerpt is found in Chapter 15 of “Fifty Shades of Grey.” The two series are literary opposites, yet “Fifty Shades” recently surpassed sales on Amazon for all seven “Harry Potter” books in the United Kingdom. Globally, James’ trilogy has surpassed 40 million sales.

I know. I know. Porn is outselling mystery and magic; Christian Grey is now just as infamous as our main man Harry is famous. I’m concerned, and I think you should be too.

Porn is a booming industry, arguably one of the biggest in the world. Our culture loves sex, and bondage is just another piece of the puzzle. Until “Fifty Shades” rose to fame, however, BDSM was not a household term. Thanks to James, chains and whips are now at the forefront of our minds.

Once you watch an X-rated movie or online video, you don’t forget what you saw. The human mind is a powerful tool; so powerful, in fact, that it permanently seals those images into our memory.

Much like visual porn, literary erotica will also linger in our minds. I still remember the chapter I read out of “Fifty Shades of Grey,” and unless I suffer some sort of traumatic brain injury, I will never forget it.

I also still remember the adventures of Harry Potter, of course, but those engrained thoughts are far less toxic.

Nevertheless, it blows my mind that a book — a book made up essentially of vivid sex scenes intertwined with poor writing — can possibly gain more popularity than the “Harry Potter” series. After all, people live for Harry, Hermione and Ron. That series is more than just popular — it’s an empire.

This isn’t to say I’m a huge fan of either author. I have, however, read bits and pieces of both series, the more titillating of which I peeked at while waiting for my train one day.

And, oh wow — E.L. James doesn’t mess around. She describes each touch, every kiss and the entire scene using the filthiest language available. It’s word porn. But here’s the kicker: The simple syntax and dull diction is comparable to that of a seventh-grade girl. It’s hard to believe that in the U.K., “Fifty Shades of Grey” is now the most-downloaded e-book ever, a trend that will surely move to the U.S. very soon.

Bruce Handy, Vanity Fair deputy editor, phrased it like this: “The prose, which originated as ‘Twilight’ fan fiction, is functional at best, silly at worst, the characterizations are insipid, the plotting holds stubbornly to sub-college-workshop level.”

The “Harry Potter” books have received similar criticism when it comes to J.K.’s readability. Harold Bloom, a professor at Yale University, said, “Rowling’s mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing.”

But excessive adverbs aside, the “Harry Potter” books are filled with imaginative themes and a rich cast. The captivating story line attracts all sorts of readers, from middle-school students to soccer moms. “Fifty Shades,” aimed at an adult audience but often falling into the hands of young people, is simply sexy. And that’s that.

If the world is coming to poorly written erotica as our main form of entertainment, then we are in serious trouble. What if bondage becomes the norm? Already, the sex-toy industry has grown exponentially. On a bustling Manhattan street in early August, Trojan doled out 10,000 free vibrators in a span of two days. Then there’s those ropes and whips — Babeland, a chain of adult-toy stores, has experienced a sales increase of 40 percent since the “Fifty Shades” phenomenon exploded. Trojan and Babeland have E.L. James to thank for their wild success.

Here in America, we are privileged to read whatever we want. If we have that freedom, then we should choose with caution, picking books that will enrich and inspire us. Reading shouldn’t be an outlet for us to stimulate our bodies; it should be a way to stimulate our minds.

Last Resort (ABC)

When given the order to deploy nuclear weapons against a foreign country, the captain of the United States ballistic missile submarine Colorado (Andre Braugher, House M.D.) does the one thing that a soldier should never do: disobey. The upcoming military drama depicts the submarine crew  as branded traitors, targeted by their country and forced to flee to a desert island in the middle of the ocean. It is there that they must learn to live with each other and hopefully be taken off of America’s hit list. For any viewers hoping that ABC is cutting another piece of LOST pie, stay tuned.

The Mindy Project (Fox)

The Office’s favorite customer service representative, Mindy Kaling, stars in Fox’s upcoming comedy The Mindy Project. It is the story of a thirty-something OB/GYN and her quest to be the perfect woman and in turn find the perfect man. However, first she must contend with the attractions and distractions that come from the hospital staff around her. Kaling has a good bit of experience from almost a decade of acting experience in comedy, and with any luck, the only thing bad to say about The Mindy Project will be that Kaling had to leave her role on The Office to create it.

Revolution (NBC)

NBC’s science fiction drama Revolution is one of the more well-known upcoming television shows. Trailers have been airing for months. The plot revolves around a world where all forms of electricity and advanced technology have stopped working. The people of Earth are left in darkness, and the rise of new powers across the United States ensues. Years later, a family surfaces that may have the key to turning the lights back on, but only if they can keep it out of enemy hands first. So far, trailers for Revolution have been impressive in their large-scale special effects, but only time will tell if the show will stand on its own.

Elementary (CBS)

Prepare yourselves America, because Sherlock Holmes is coming to the big screen in his third incarnation in recent years. CBS’s new mystery-drama Elementary follows the lives of the master sleuth and his faithful companion Watson as they unravel modern mysteries based on the original works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. However, this version of the Holmes-Watson relationship may even have some romance in it. In an interesting twist on the classic duo, CBS has cast actress Lucy Liu for the role of Joan Watson.

Even with a fresh new look in the casting department, the recent Sherlock Holmes movies, as well as BBC’s widely successful series Sherlock give Elementary a lot to live up to in order to be successful. Hopefully it will make the cut.

Beauty and the Beast (The CW)

A tale as old as time itself comes to life once more in The CW’s supernatural drama Beauty and the Beast. Set in modern-day New York, the show follows an NYPD cop (Kristin Kreuk, Smallville) as she tries to move on from witnessing her mother’s murder from a few years before. What she cannot escape is the memory of the mysterious vigilante (Jay Ryan, Terra Nova) who saved her that night.  He may have a supernatural beastly side to him, but the sensible cop can’t be sure. Based off the late 1980’s show of the same name, Beauty and the Beast finds itself in the same fairy-tale-revamp category as NBC’s Grimm and ABC’s Once Upon a Time. It remains to be seen whether or not the show will stay there.

Of course, there are dozens of promising new shows that are not listed here, and it will be up to viewers to decide which ones deserve a second season, and which ones should be pitched head-first into the Hollywood dumpster. The sad truth is that many of these upcoming series will face cancellation due to lack of a consistent viewership. Shows that pique interests or have a good story line should be fought for intensely. To keep it alive, viewers should watch every episode. This fall there is a television show for everyone, but whether or not that show returns next year is in the hands of the fans.

Many people expected this latest addition to the “Madden” franchise to be the most advanced sports game to date, and the title was rumored to exhibit the biggest leap forward the series has ever taken in a single year.

I have to say, the game does not disappoint on these fronts.

“Madden 13″ features a number of new technologies that enhance both presentation and game play.

A fresh new broadcast team in Jim Nantz and Phil Simms adds to the experience, while a virtual commentary booth creates aesthetic appeal.

Another advancement in the presentation is motion blur, which some of you might have seen in EA Sports’ “NCAA Football 13.”

While this reinvented version of the game still has some kinks to work out, most of the new components of “Madden 13″ are unprecedented.

Motion blur is the one development that seemed unnecessary.

The game play element is designed to “blur” the screen during fast moments in the game, but unfortunately it does not bring any substance to the game’s presentation.

One seemingly flawless transition of this edition, though, was the new CBS-style commentary.

In recent years, the repetitive Chris Collinsworth sayings got old quickly. Now, there are more than 9,000 recorded phrases, with Nantz and Simms sounding as calm and natural in the game as they do on live national television.

This makes the “Madden” experience all the more realistic. With the replacement of the previous annoying phrases every few plays, “Madden 13″ deserves a check-plus.

As far as game play goes, the brand new Infinity Engine was easily the biggest change. Infinity Engine gives “Madden 13″ something no sports game has ever had before: real-life physics.

The engine implements physics into each and every collision, providing unique hits and tackles each play. Players no longer “morph” through one another, and it also allows for in-air contact. In previous editions, receivers and defenders had to come back down to the field before being tackled, which is neither realistic nor gamer-friendly.

With revolutionary technology like Infinity Engine, initial imperfections are to be expected. “Real life” physics create some awkwardly overdramatic player movements, especially in the secondary and after the whistle.

Regardless, other elements of the game make up for this small misstep.

The pass ready system, for example, is another game-changer in “Madden 13″. This feature allows the receiver to catch the ball only once when he is ready and looking for the pass.

This feature means receivers no longer catch the ball before running their routes; they must be actively looking for the ball. When a receiver is looking for the ball, the icon above his head will turn from grey to color, and only then can the player make a catch.

However, if you choose to user catch with a receiver, this feature is almost a non-factor.

The new read and react defenses further add to the realism of the game, essentially allowing the playbook to open up for the receivers. Before, defenders would occasionally jump routes before receivers even made their cuts, almost as if they knew the play. Now, defenders must read the play and react to the motion of the receiver, making both out routes and curl routes much easier to complete.

Last but not least of the game’s innovations is the 25 new pass trajectories thrown by quarterbacks.

Users can choose to throw to a number of different places in attempt to put the ball where only their receiver can catch it. This skill is very difficult to master, but the advantages are numerous.

Combine these new factors with improved graphics – due in part to Infinity Engine – and a slightly faster pace, and “Madden 13″ provides a freakishly-real playing experience.

This game is revolutionary in the world of sports video games.

EA Sports has brought football fans closer to the field than ever with “Madden 13,” undoubtedly earning the hype surrounding its release.

A little more than a year has passed since he was diagnosed with inoperable lung cancer and turned to manufacturing crystal meth as a means of providing for his family. In that time, the once mild-mannered high school chemistry teacher has become the dominating force in the southwestern drug trade, and he’s damn proud of it.

But in the last scene of Sunday night’s “Breaking Bad” midseason finale, audiences are given a glimpse of the nascent stages of his inevitable downfall.

Much of this season of AMC’s critically acclaimed drama has involved Walt (Bryan Cranston), attempting to rise from the ashes after killing his boss, Gus Fring, at the end of the last season while simultaneously evading the suspicions of his DEA agent brother-in-law Hank (Dean Norris) in one of the most powerful instances of dramatic irony ever produced for television.

If we’ve learned anything about Walt in the series’ five-year history, it’s that his ingenuity is a force to be reckoned with. But, viewers may start to question whether he is merely acting on impulse, as indicated by his decision to shoot Mike (Jonathan Banks) in last week’s episode.

“It had to be done,” Walt says of killing Mike. It’s an excuse we’ve heard countless times before, but we know it isn’t true.

Just as he’s about to dispose of the body using the old “stick him in a barrel full of hydrofluoric acid” trick, Walt’s former student-turned-partner in crime Jesse (Aaron Paul) arrives, still under the impression that Mike left town.

“There is no ‘we,’” Walt coldly responds when Jesse asks what they plan to do next. “I’m the only vote left.”

As if his deteriorating relationship with Jesse wasn’t enough, Walt still must deal with the 10 jailed employees on Gus’ payroll who might disclose his identity to the police. What follows is one of the most humorously gruesome montages the series has offered with each of the men being brutally stabbed (or in one case, burned) to death as Nat King Cole’s “Pick Yourself Up” plays in the background.

The way Walt looks at his reflection in a window as his master plan is being put into action miles away proves once and for all that series creator Vince Gilligan is making good on his promise to “turn Mr. Chips into Scarface.”

Meanwhile, Walt’s wife Skyler (Anna Gunn) brings him to a storage unit and shows him the heaping pile of money that has become too big to launder.

Although it seems like a lost cause at this point, she begs him to stop his illicit activities and eventually, he relents with a simple “I’m out.”

All is well and good in the White household again, at least until Hank steps into the bathroom at a family gathering and discovers a book of poetry belonging to lab assistant Gale, a name Hank knows only too well. The connection has at long last been made.

The shame Hank feels in realizing his prey was right under his nose is undoubtedly strong, but not as strong as the pain felt by the viewers in knowing they must wait until next summer for the season — and the series — to conclude.

Though ultimately satisfying, the finale leaves a lot of questions unanswered, but its questions like these that make the series such a thrill to watch.

In collaboration with filmmaker Gerald R. Molen, who is best-known for producing “Jurassic Park,” “Twister” and “Schindler’s List,” D’Souza takes viewers on a journey through Obama’s life and sheds light on some important aspects that may influence the upcoming election.

D’Souza begins the film by talking about his own struggles in adapting to life in America after immigrating from India, as well as how he got involved in politics over the years. He then presents his research on Obama’s life from the beginning.

The film continually returns to one theme: “Love him, hate him, you don’t know him.”

“2016: Obama’s America” takes the viewer on a voyage through Obama’s childhood and adulthood, right up until the present day. We are taken through his triumphs and hardships which have ultimately shaped the person he has become.

The visual effects were creative and attention-grabbing, as different charts and pictures illustrated the changes Obama has made to the economy, healthcare and other key issues during his administration.

D’Souza also incorporates several personal interviews that give the audience some insight into Obama’s leadership methods and what the future may look like. He refers to Obama’s book, “Dreams From My Father,” and visits different places where Obama grew up in order to get a better connection with his subject and a better understanding of his life. D’Souza also meets with people who played key roles in Obama’s childhood.

The overall message of the film does not necessarily say, “Don’t vote for Obama.” However, some key points D’Souza brings up in the film have a negative connotation for Obama’s presidency and where he stands in his bid for reelection.

Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, “2016: Obama’s America” is worth checking out this weekend. You may not agree with some of the film’s points, but for the insight it offers, it’s well worth watching.

After the fall of Gustavo “Gus” Fring (Giancarlo Esposito), Walt and partner Jesse Pinkman (Aaron Paul) try to erase any evidence connecting them to Fring. They also begin their comeback by once again making and distributing their own supply of methamphetamine, which even involved a train robbery. On top of this, Walt is still trying to stay one step ahead of his brother-in-law, Hank Schrader (Dean Norris), and the Drug Enforcement Administration as well as deal with problems at home with Skyler White (Anna Gunn) as she continues to unravel the true nature of her husband and his line of work.

Plans that are supposed to end well go awry, and once again, White is at the center of it and tries his best to fix the issues, all while keeping his stream of revenue alive. White’s transformation from an awkward and nervous chemistry teacher to a confident and cold meth cook is a well-written evolution by the writing team. Cranston has performed nothing short of excellent throughout the series. At the beginning, viewers always thought of him as Hal, Malcolm’s father in “Malcolm in the Middle,” but five great seasons is more than enough evidence to show this will be Cranston’s most memorable work.

Of course, it is not possible to mention White without Pinkman. Paul has risen to fame by playing the role of the experienced meth dealer who bites off more than he can chew. When White crawls into his criminal skin, it seems Pinkman is shedding his own, but something always brings him back into the fray. Like Cranston, Paul’s work is great and the chemistry between the two characters on-screen is a perfect match. His character’s experiences throughout the series have continuously tested his willingness to stay involved with Walt and cooking meth.

As a whole, this season is nothing short of excellent. The removal of Fring’s meth empire sets the stage for a very interesting aftermath. Keep in mind we are only watching one-half of the fifth season (the second part will premiere next summer), but despite the decision to split it into two parts, Vince Gilligan has managed to create a world and story that has captivated us since the pilot. There has never been a show like “Breaking Bad,” and it is unlikely we will ever see something like this again on television.

Between this film and HBO series “Boardwalk Empire,” Prohibition-era gangsters are making a bit of a comeback in pop culture lately. “Lawless” is set in Franklin County, Virginia, the biggest moonshine producer in the world. The three most proficient bootleggers are the Bondurant brothers: the gruff, notoriously resilient Forrest (Tom Hardy), the young and eager Jack (Shia LaBeouf) and Howard (Jason Clarke). Unfortunately, Special Agent Charlie Rakes (Guy Pearce) is after them, and the threat that he poses is not just to their business, but to their lives.

Between this film and “The Dark Knight Rises,” Hardy is really coming into the public eye. His performance as Bane was a highlight of the summer and a perfect prelude to his coiled, monosyllabic work here. Forrest is a man of very few words, and it’s a testament to Hardy’s charm that he’s able to get a laugh with nothing more than a grunt by the end of the film. There’s a myth building around Forrest that he’s immortal after a few close calls, and the way Hardy engages that perception — playing Forrest as a heavily guarded, decisive instrument of destruction — is a blast to watch. Hardy’s scenes with Jessica Chastain, the de-facto mother of the crew, have a tenderness that stands out amongst the bloodshed, and watching her slowly peel away Forrest’s defenses is a lovely showcase for both actors.

Unfortunately, the main character of the film isn’t Forrest, it’s Jack. LeBeouf can be good in the right role, but he’s utterly unconvincing as a hard-ass bootlegger. Jack’s character arc is your basic crime lord origin story, straight out of “The Godfather,” but instead of becoming the king of anything, Jack continually screws up. A strong character grows and changes over the course of his story, but Jack rushes into situations half-cocked and relies on his brothers to cover his back all the way through the film’s climax. Unfortunately, LaBeouf fails to make any of this material particularly interesting, and his best scenes often involve him working with Hardy or Mia Wasikowska, who plays his love interest with a relaxed, alluring confidence.

Also worth mentioning is Pearce’s work as Agent Rakes, the film’s hammy villain. Pearce gives a fascinatingly opaque performance, and all of the different strokes he brings to the character combine to make Rakes seem as alien as possible in the Virginia backdrop. And Rakes is a propulsive element in the film, wreaking havoc across Virginia with reckless abandon. Nick Cave’s script has simple, smart dialogue, and seems to understand the stubborn sense of independence that drives the bootleggers at the film’s center.

Cave also collaborated with Hillcoat on “The Proposition,” and this film has the same hard-jawed, bloodthirsty sensibility. The difference here is the amount of fun Hillcoat has is having with his action. Even when things turn ugly, there’s still a pulpy appeal to every moment of the film. The skilled direction and Hardy’s gruff, fantastic performance combine to make “Lawless” an exciting and worthwhile.

ABC has decided to move “Jimmy Kimmel Live” from its current timeslot of 12:00/12:05 a.m. back to 11:30/11:35 p.m. this coming January marking the 10th anniversary of Kimmel’s show.  This will push the long-running news program “Nightline” back one hour.

With this move, there will now be six different late night talk shows on partially or in full between the hour of 11 p.m. EST and 12:35 a.m. EST. These include “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report” on Comedy Central, “Conan” on TBS, “Jimmy Kimmel Live” on ABC, “The Late Show” on CBS and “The Tonight Show” on NBC.  This is not even counting “The Late Late Show” and “Late Night with Jimmy Fallon” which are on CBS and NBC respectively at 12:35 EST.  This brings the total to eight different late night talk shows that reach the airwaves.

Despite the over-saturation, the move might indeed prove a smart one for ABC.  In the past year, between Letterman, Leno and Kimmel, Kimmel is the only late night host to have seen his ratings increase (3 percent) in the past year.  In addition, as Leno and Letterman get older, so do their audiences. A poll broadcast on CBS’s “Entertainment Tonight,” shows that Kimmel’s viewers median age is 51, about five full years younger than either Leno or Letterman’s audience. And we all know how much advertisers like younger audiences.

Speaking of advertisers, “The Late Show” and “The Tonight Show” take in almost $400 million in advertising revenue annually, far and away more than “Nightline” does on ABC.  Putting a late night talk show at 11:35 will enable ABC to collect a share of that pie.

The move is a no brainer for ABC.  Jimmy Kimmel has deserved it as well. His brand of comedy has been under appreciated due to the crowded market but his may change things.  Emmy viewers certainly have noticed the comic’s value, nominating “Jimmy Kimmel Live” for Outstanding Variety Series for the first time.

Only time will tell who the real winner will be in these renewed “Late Night Wars,” but Kimmel’s move proves that ABC isn’t afraid to take on the big players at night.

Patton was one of the most celebrated, yet controversial men of his time. His daring leadership earned him the admiration of his men and many in the American public during the war, but his temper made him a complicated figure. He once slapped and kicked a shell-shocked soldier in Sicily because he believed the man might be dodging his duty.

Posnanski writes that Paterno particularly loved a line from a 1944 speech, delivered by Patton to troops before the D-Day invasion of Normandy, France and famously portrayed by actor George C. Scott in the opening scene of the 1970 film “Patton.”

“An Army is a team. It lives, sleeps, eats, and fights as a team,” Patton said. That’s the part Posnanski included in the book. The rest of the quote?

“This individual heroic stuff is pure horse s—t. The bilious bastards who write that kind of stuff for the Saturday Evening Post don’t know any more about real fighting under fire than they know about f—ing!”

At a time when fierce criticism of the way Paterno handled reports of child sex abuse involving Jerry Sandusky is clashing with staunch defenses of the coach, Posnanski’s decision to link these two men early and throughout his book is brilliant.

As much as some on both sides of the debate over Paterno’s legacy might hope he’ll be remembered as some type of cartoon character — a moustache-curling villain to some and a close cousin of the Archangel Gabriel to others — Posnanski signals his intention early to write of Paterno’s humanity, and it’s a theme he wisely sticks to throughout the book.

He writes of the coach’s well-documented contributions to the Penn State community. Vignettes with former players capture every emotion they felt about the coach, from deep resentment to unwavering appreciation.

Posnanski also sheds light on some of Paterno’s deepest insecurities: failing to live up to his father Angelo’s expectations, dying shortly after retiring from coaching like former Alabama coach Paul “Bear” Bryant and failing to intervene in Sandusky’s abuse.

At one point, Paterno asks Posnanski what he thinks of “all this” — Paterno’s role in the Sandusky case. Posnanski tells Paterno he thought he should have done. Paterno tells his biographer, “I wish I had done more.”

This moment, which Posnanski said he included because he thought it was “important,” really crystallizes the image of Paterno that the writer is trying to project, one that sees Paterno not as “good” or “bad,” but human.

Those looking to this book for a wealth of new information about what Paterno knew about Sandusky’s crimes and when will be disappointed. Posnanski offers a gripping view of how Paterno and those close to him handled the media firestorm in the wake of Sandusky’s indictment, though few fresh facts pertinent to the case pop up.

Those hoping the work will reinforce a polarized point of view of Paterno will probably find little value here, too. It’s likely that’s why many reviews of the book to this point have been lukewarm (The Atlantic calls it “a relentless, failed defense,” while the New York Times says it’s “breezy and largely sympathetic).

But the way Posnanski highlights both Paterno’s strengths and flaws, much in the way “Patton” shows the good and the bad of the legendary commander, gives the book a chance to stand the test of time and become the authority on the man’s life when the rabble-rousing and sanctimony coming from both sides fades away.

“Premium Rush.”

In the hustle and bustle of New York City, there are almost limitless suit and tie jobs, but more than 1,500 brave men and women take to the streets as messenger carriers. Instead of being locked in a cage of an office, these brave men and women risk their lives to deliver whatever whenever to wherever.

The main characters in “Premium Rush” include three of these courageous bikers. Joseph Gordon-Levitt (“The Dark Knight Rises”) plays main character Wilee, a law school graduate who never took the bar but now is the top gun when it comes to delivering packages in the Big Apple.

Vanessa, Wilee’s ex-girlfriend (Dania Ramirez, “X-Men: The Last Stand”) plays an important role as she helps Wilee navigate his way through the treacherous city streets as they do their best to dodge cabs, cops and pedestrians. Adding to craziness, Michael Shannon (“Boardwalk Empire”) plays Detective Bobby Monday.

The movie begins in the middle as Wilee is flying through the air after being hit by a car. Then, it rewinds the clock in this real time heart-pounding day.

As the movie goes on, we learn the ins and outs of the mail-carrier lifestyle in New York, but suddenly when Wilee gets a job to go pick up a package from his alma mater, everything changes.

Monday becomes a major nuisance to Wilee and Vanessa as they try to deliver the package on time.

Visually, the movie delivers a quite different view of Manhattan. During some scenes, the rider would put in the address of his delivery, and it would transition to a Global Positioning Device type view of the island, and show the route that messenger would follow.

Another interesting characteristic “Premium Rush” delivered were a variety of chase scenes. Nothing is more boring than watching the same pattern chase scene, but this film surprisingly pulled off the chase scenes stupendously.

Compared to “The Bourne Legacy,” where the chase scenes are just one continuous shot of Cross driving and running away from his enemies, “Premium Rush” shows Wilee riding his bike and hiding during chase scenes. Although there are no real big explosions or shoot-outs, “Premium Rush” outperforms many of its competitors with a fresh look at what it would be like to be a bike messenger trying to get across Manhattan in one piece to deliver the package.

The non-linear editing in “Premium Rush” is a delectable change from the lackluster suspense movies that follow the basic cause and effect plotline. Although at times it got confusing, the movie quickly brought me back, leaving me wanting more tires skidding across the asphalt as Wilee and Vanessa rode for their lives in one of America’s most dangerous cities.

The rapid editing combined with the hectic streets of Manhattan kept me more interested in the plot than I expected going into the movie. Another captivating touch was when director, David Koepp (“Ghost Town,” “Secret Window”) capitalized on the scurrying New Yorkers, giving the impression that everything in the movie was happening now.

“Premium Rush” has mostly upsides, but I was not impressed with the special effects. In this day and age, there is no excuse for bad special effects.

The chase scenes were done with jaw-dropping pace and accuracy, but when you can clearly tell it’s a stunt double riding a bike, it’s just not exciting to see because you know it is fake.

The movie shocked me with its editing, original chase scenes and all the small things that make a movie “good,” but it was lacking in effects. “Premium Rush” pushes viewers to edge of their seats, leaving them wanting more tire-skidding action.

Their wedding will be the day Don McLean sung about— the day the music dies. That said, it’s time to take a look at the most atrocious offerings Mr. and Mrs. Kroeger have created over the span of their careers.

Chad Kroeger feat. Josey Scott of Saliva – “Hero”

Remember being nine, ten, or eleven years old and hearing that uplifting anthem to the badassery that was 2002’s “Spiderman” movie? Personally, I was enamored with the gravelly tones of both Scott and Kroeger’s limited vocal ranges and filled with envy at the sight of Kroeger’s flowing golden locks.

I was an idiot.

Let’s break down the components of this song’s shitty-ness. We’ve got Josey Scott (his relevance outside of the nu-metal scene after this song is just as mysterious as Kroeger’s inability to write likable music) harmonizing with Nickelback’s frontman about how he’s so high that he can hear heaven. What the hell does that even mean? Combined with the melodramatic strings and the congas (yes, congas) that back “Hero,” this song is nothing but laughable. Kroeger should have just held on to those eagles’ wings he sung about and then let go of them — preferably over a canyon or volcano.

Avril Lavigne – “Sk8er Boi”

If you possess even an iota of respect for the English language, the title of this track alone should send you into eye-clawing conniptions. The bouncing pop track from her 2002 debut, Let Go, was the chart-topping single that made Avril a household name. Her awkward persona and affinity for poor makeup choices only added to her WTF factor, but it was the clunky lyricism of “Sk8er Boi” that really should have had parents banning their kids from watching MTV. “He was a punk / she did ballet / what more can I say?” Really, Avril? You could have turned the first two verses into something that avoided laying out the most obvious of plots for your alt-girl listeners.

Nickelback – “Rockstar”

To be fair, Avril’s not as big of a detraction to music as her soon-to-be hubby. He fronts one of the most hated bands in the world, placing his Canadian rock outfit alongside Insane Clown Posse and Creed. If that isn’t enough to break Nickelback’s personal grandeur, then maybe “Rockstar” truly is their theme song. The song spins a cringe-worthy tale of chasing tail, blowing rails and quesadillas (I’m not kidding here. Look the lyrics up. I’ll wait.) This is the only sign we’ve ever gotten that Nickelback may realize what a joke it is, but given that “Rockstar” is the band’s best selling single, and the fact that Rolling Stone named it one of their best songs of 2007, the band may just be a little too caught up in its own schtick to see itself for what it really are.

In this installment of “The Expendables,” Barney Ross (Sylvester Stallone) and his team of retired military men turned mercenaries pay a debt to Mr. Church (Bruce Willis), which they incur in the first “Expendable”s movie.

The task is seemingly simple: Retrieve merchandise from a downed plane in a relatively peaceful faraway land. But to get the merchandise, they must join forces with attractive newcomer Maggie Chan (Yu Nan), who is needed to the crack the code of a safe on the plane.

In a fashion true to late 80s and early 90s shoot ‘em up classics, nothing goes as planned. The team is bested by the Sanks, a cartel for hire headed up by Jean Vilian (Jean-Claude Van Damme).

The confrontation is the epicenter of the entire movie. Audience members moaned and wiggled in disappointment to see heroes such as Lee Christmas (Jason Statham) and Hale Ceasar (Terry Crews) bend to the will of the enemy. It’s simply not what we’d expect our saviors to do, but their motivation for literally belly crawling in front of the cartel is enough to make it work. While it was painful to watch, it was even more painful to witness a member of the crew murdered with Ross’ own knife.

This instigates the vengeful remainder of the film described by Ross in a thick voice as being, “Track ‘em. Find ‘em. Kill ‘em.”

But, what makes this film a four-star winner? Why is it any different than the latest “Mission Impossible” or comic book hero movie?

Ummm … did I mention it also features Jet Li, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Dolph Lundgren?

Now, I know what the typical moviegoer is asking themselves right now: “Who cares? Those guys are struggling to relive long gone glory days in a cheesy collaboration meant to earn enough money to last them into their old age.”

Is this true? Maybe.

But that cheese never looked so good.

The movie portrays Stallone, 66, with an amazingly realistic and rugged sexiness. He has the same appeal to the viewer as he did in early films “Rambo” and “Rocky.” The same goes for all of the stars. Willis is 57 years old, but that doesn’t stop him from believably driving the getaway car. Li is 49, but it seems completely plausible that he could destroy a room full of armed villains with two cooking pans. And, let’s not forget Chuck Norris’ cameo as The Lone Wolf. The man appears in the film for literally no reason at all, but his illogical appearance is completely vindicated because he’s Chuck freaking Norris. The movie would be worth seeing solely for the opportunity to hear his godlike lips confidently deliver a Chuck Norris “fact.” Every single character in this movie boasts charisma that ranks off the charts.

The fight scene choreography is original and colorfully done. It implements not just big guns and devices that go bang, but old school fighting tools such as brass knuckles and chains.

Even the last hand-to-hand fight scene featuring Stallone and Van Damme, though incredibly predictable, prompted loud hoots and cheers from the audience.

The movie is an admittedly action/comedy flick, though.

There are gimmicky one-liners, such as, “If I don’t get this back, you’re terminated.” (Guess who that line was delivered to.) There are also several “I’ll be back” references, but that doesn’t take away from the storyline. It only adds to it because they literally creates a movie of whoop-ass based, in part, in allusions to other movies of whoop-ass. And, somehow, the silliness is not overdone.

The only part of the movie that could have been completely deleted is the character Maggie. While she does have a few opportunities to show off her combat skills, her main role is to be the poorly developed, almost love interest of Ross. It’s not that she’s a bad actress, but the movie didn’t need her, and the audience is left wondering why the heck this nobody is along for the ride with so many somebodies.

So, if you think Stallone finagling a motorcycle to take down a helicopter is cheesy, don’t see the movie. But, if you’re not bothered that 50 shots are fired at close range at your action stars without consequence, you’ll love it.

Perhaps you’ll even love it enough to get amped about “The Expendables 3,” which is rumored to be courting additional cast members Clint Eastwood, Harrison Ford, Wesley Snipes and Nicolas Cage. Yeah, I know.

Shepard, in addition to writing and directing the film, also plays the lead as Charlie Bronson. While hiding out in witness protection, he falls in love with Annie Bean (Kristen Bell). Bean is soon offered her dream job in Los Angeles, the very place Bronson has been hiding from. He decides to risk it, and a wild goose-chase ensues while Bronson and Bean are driving to Los Angeles. His dirty past as a getaway driver comes back to haunt him in the form of Alex Dimitri (Bradley Cooper), Bronson’s past partner-in-crime.

The screen really comes to life once the high-speed cars hit the road; an amped-up Lincoln and a monster dune buggy are among the most memorable. Both are equipped with 700 horsepower and are capable of incredible stunt work. In one scene, Bronson’s dune buggy drives through a barn wall and proceeds to jump over another car.

More impressive than the cars is the driving talent. Shepard did all his own stunt driving with Bell in the passenger seat. Likewise, Cooper and other cast members followed suit and performed much of their own stunt driving. The races are loud and fast, yet they are filmed in coordination with slow, classy music such as “Pure Imagination,” which brings a comedic and ironic vibe to typical chase scenes.

The visuals in this movie provide the perfect contrast of open road and vibrant speed machines. Few would accuse the scenery as being picturesque as it features dry shrubbery, small towns, and a lot of dirt and road. Yet, this setting provides a very simple backdrop for the car chases. Visually, these chase scenes are excellent because although the cars move very quickly, they weren’t so fast that viewers couldn’t tell what was going on.

The acting is very refreshing for the honesty it conveys, not a common characteristic among romantic comedies or action films. When Bell cries on-screen it’s real and vulnerable. Similarly, Shepard’s character banters with and teases Bean in a way that is typical of a real-life couple while simultaneously portraying a guy who is head-over-heels. Neither character says cliched lines the audience has heard a hundred times before such as: “You complete me, and I’d die without you.”

As a film that plays on the unexpected, viewers are always on the edge of their seats, wondering what could possibly happen next. Granted, as a romantic comedy, the plot of the film is relatively easy to guess at. However, wild-card characters in the script, such as Randy the state marshal (Tom Arnold) and Bean’s ex-boyfriend Gil (Michael Rosenbaum) deliver particularly funny lines and get themselves into outrageous and humorous situations. Randy, for example, seems to be the only state marshal in existence who cannot properly handle a firearm. In this unconventional road trip, it really is the journey that counts because the audience knows where Bronson and Bean are going, but it’s how they get there that is a riot to watch.

While “Hit & Run” provides endless laughs, it sometimes comes across as slightly insensitive. Be forewarned, this is not a film for those who easily take offense. The film makes cracks at race, rape, homosexuality and law enforcement, among other things. Although, the film points out its own crude jokes, which depletes their offensive punch and creates even more comedic dialogue.

“Hit & Run” is a film genre all its own. While it circulates around a very touching couple’s relationship, it also keeps the audience engaged with impressive car-chase scenes and outlandish humor. The film above all is an anthem to the well-known phrase “live in the moment.” With this ideal in mind, it seems that anyone, even former bank robbers can get fresh starts.

Now, don’t take this as an initial slam. By putting the “Bourne” name on this film, there is a certain expectation of action and suspense of uncovering the CIA secrets of Tredstone. With this fourth installment, the audience knows the secrets revealed in “The Bourne Ultimatum” and now exposes alternate branch of Outcome agents featuring the new hero, Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner from “Avengers”). The story focuses on Cross’s fight for survival as the agency he worked for hunts down all the agents in the field.

Sadly, there’s nothing new for the audiences that isn’t spoon fed within the first thirty minutes of “Legacy,” as it lacks all the suspense of the of the three films. With nothing new to learn about the CIA operations, this film fit with the others, becoming more of a personal story for the hero as he is only fighting for his life rather than answers. Without the foreknowledge of the other films and if it were in a world all its own, then perhaps the story seem more exciting and original, but would lose the box office gain of the ‘Bourne’ name.

If anything, the movie left me wanting more, being so well paced that after two hours of sitting in the theatre I was expecting another forty-five minutes of story. Renner and his costar, Rachel Weisz, did wonders with what they were given, but Renner is mostly overshadowed by the presence (or lack thereof) of Matt Damon, who starred in the original trilogy. Without the stigma of the original star, Renner would have been viewed less as a replacement and more as his own type of actor, creating a character with charisma and wit to character Aaron Cross instead of Damon’s angst. Renner is a natural choice for any upcoming action leads, but best not compare him to the original franchise’s star.

I recommend this movie for anyone wanting a good action film, but Bourne purist should proceed with caution. If you expect this to be just like the others, then you’ll probably be disappointed.

Walt Disney Pictures’ “The Odd Life of Timothy Green” suffers from having a plot and premise so implausible that it fails to reserve human understanding. Harsh, yes, but keep in mind it is a film about a ten-year-old with leafy legs.

When Cindy and Jim Green, played by Joel Edgerton and Jennifer Garner, come to grips with not being able to conceive, they draw up a batch of notes about how perfect their imaginary progeny would be.

During that dark and stormy night (yes, really), the notes are placed into a box and buried and then, to the Green’s surprise, a ten-year-old, played by CJ Adams, appears at their front door the next morning.

The biggest problem is that this live action, sentimentally cliché flick runs for 90 minutes. With every foreseeable plot twist at each corner, the film quickly becomes forced and predictable.

This would’ve benefited greatly from being a 70-minute-long animation. A film centered on a child composed of vegetation would’ve been amazing if the witches and warlocks at Pixar or the masters at Studio Ghibli had gotten their hands on it first.

Sad as it sounds, 90 minutes and real people make it so hard to digest, and the film ends up feeling awkward.

The film’s cast seemed to be doing their very best to work with what had been given to them. Child actor CJ Adams made being a tree-child believable, plus he’s camera-friendly in a childish way not seen since 1944’s “National Velvet” that starred an adolescent Elizabeth Taylor.

In that vain, this film isn’t t without its charms. Couples and spouses in their late 20s and early 30s might be reassured by the fact that this piece of cinema proves that people can in fact make mistakes with a child and still be good parents.

When the sums of its parts are put together, this film, however pure of heart, can’t overcome a run time too long and being portrayed without a proper presentation medium.

With the film’s good nature and aforementioned cast aside, “The Odd Life of Timothy Green” can’t quite charm its way into the realm of works similar to 1974’s “The Little Prince.” It feels like it should be up there with “A.I.” or “My Sister’s Keeper,” but the best it can muster is a charitable, honorable mention.

In the Tucson area, the national and Arizona specific Pac-12 Networks are available thus far for customers of Cox and Comcast. Outside of Tucson, Western Broadband and Orbitel Communications will carry the network.

“We’d like to have every distributor out there; and that’s our goal,“Gary Stevenson, the head of Pac-12 enterprises, said in a conference call. “We’ve had very good conversations with the other distributors in trying to find a business deal that works for them and us.”

As far as preliminary programming, at 6 p.m., “Pac-12 Live” will be shown to a national audience and will preview the conference as a whole and recap Pac-12 athlete standouts of the recent London Olympiad.

Glenn Parker, an Arizona alum is a part of the on-air talent that will anchor “Pac-12 Live.”

At 7 p.m., the Conference Live football preview, which will discuss every Pac-12 team, will be shown, followed by a re-air of last season’s inaugural Pac-12 conference championship bout between Oregon and UCLA.

For Arizona fans, a 30-minute Wildcats football preview will be shown on August 19 at 7 p.m.

“This is a very good contract for the Pac 12 and how it benefits the University of Arizona,” Arizona athletic director Greg Byrne said. “We have a stage that we need to try and take advantage of and highlight what our strengths are.”

Approximately 350 of a total 850 events televised by the network will be live.

The Arizona football program will be on the network twice this season- the first on September 8 against Oklahoma State at 7:30 p.m. and September 15 against South Carolina State at 7:30 p.m.

In the past, the start times of west coast games were shown too late in different regions of the country, but Stevenson sees the network as an opportunity to eliminate that and showcase what the conference has to offer nationally.

“You’re not going to see crazy, 9 p.m. starting times,” Stevenson said.

The conference expects to launch a digital network that will be compatible with computers as well as mobile devices such as tablets and cellular phones “within 90 days of launch,” with the official conference website, Pac-12.com launching at the same time as the television network.

The newest Ferrell vehicle, “The Campaign” chronicles the race for Congress in a small district in North Carolina. Cam Brady (Ferrell) has swept the district four straight times and looks to coast to an easy victory until Marty Huggins (Zach Galifianakis), a homegrown town favorite, opposes him on the Republican ticket. Huggins’s candidacy is orchestrated by the Koch Brothers…I mean, the Motch Brothers (John Lithgow and Dan Aykroyd).

The majority of the film takes shots at the countless stunts politicians will do in order to win. While “The Campaign” lobbies for relevance, its comedy is too broad and obnoxious. We know that voters in the Bible belt don’t care what you say so long as it contains “Jesus.”

Ferrell has never been subtle, and the screenplay attempts to make comedy mostly by shooting fish in a barrel. There is no nuance here, no insightful observations or any clever humor. It’s exactly what you expect out of a Ferrell film.

Unfortunately, the film seemed to promise a bit more. It’s funny, sure, if you’re into the Ferrell brand of humour. I have to admit, I had a few good laughs. An improvised Ferrell rant, laced with inventive non-sequiturs will always get me, and “The Campaign” has a dozy during a scene in which Brady is bitten by a snake.

Yet, “The Campaign” enlisted director Jay Roach with McKay taking the backseat and a writing credit. Roach directed two intriguing political films for HBO, “Game Change,” and the superior “Recount,” so I had hoped some of that flair might rub off on “The Campaign.” Unfortunately, “The Campaign” more closely resembles Roach’s earlier work with the “Austin Powers” series.

“The Campaign” is disappointing. It is not uproarious, but funny enough. And while it feels like an extended SNL skit, it thankfully is a short film, clocking in under 90 minutes, which keeps the film moving rather briskly. Ultimately what drags “The Campaign” down is a lackluster supporting cast. Only Karen Maruyama as Mrs. Yao, Marty’s dad’s assistant, pulls her weight.

I appreciate that “The Campaign” called out the Koch Brothers, the puppetmasters behind the Tea Party, but this unfocused satire deserved a smarter treatment.

Rating: 2.5/5

Rated: PG-13

Directed by: Tony Gilroy

Starring: Jeremy Renner, Rachel Weisz, Edward Norton

Opens: August 10

In a year full of prequels, remakes and reboots, the minds behind the massively successful “Bourne” franchise did the unthinkable: when faced with losing leading man Matt Damon, they continued the story without him.

Instead, series scribe Tony Gilroy stepped up to helm the “the Bourne Legacy,” which casts a new hero and attempts to expand the “Bourne” mythology. The results are decent, but nowhere near the heights of the original trilogy.

“Legacy” focuses on Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner) another super assassin created by the CIA. When a leak is discovered, Ross’ handler Eric Byer (Edward Norton) begins cleaning house by killing his own agents. Ross must connect with a government scientist (Rachel Weisz) who can get him the ability-enhancing pills he needs to survive.

“Legacy” works hard to weave itself alongside the events of “the Bourne Ultimatum,” which happen concurrently. Jason Bourne’s exploits are mentioned, and key figures from previous films are glimpsed at. This marries Ross and Bourne’s plotlines well, but the frequent references to “Ultimatum” also serve as consent reminders of the more interesting film playing out in the background

This overlong first act culminates in a brutal workplace shooting. The scene is well shot, but would be disturbing even without recent events.

Cross’ story is triggered by his former bosses trying to kill him, but he never seems to question why or even fight back much. Cross’ only concern is getting to the Philippines to find the medicine he relies on to keep his advanced abilities.

Even though “Legacy” is expanding the world of the Bourne series, this pill addiction plot device makes the scope of the film feel very small. Gilroy drops in flashbacks to Ross and Byer’s past together and seems to be mounting to a confrontation and then…nothing. After more than two hours, when the credits roll, it feels like the movie is missing its final reel.

Gilroy stays true to the style and themes of the series, although he ditches Paul Greengrass’ perpetually shaky camera. His action scenes are decent, but there are too few of them. Besides the workplace shooting and a scene where Cross wrestles with a wolf (yep), there are only two extended action sequences.

After supporting turns in “Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol” and “The Avengers,” Renner has proven himself more than capable of headlining a big budget action movie. Renner performs quite well here, especially in his early scenes opposite another field agent. But when compared to Damon, Renner was set up to fail. It would be better for Renner to start fresh, not enter a franchise with ten years, almost a billion dollars in box office gross, and an established hero behind it.

This problem extends to the rest of “Legacy,” It’s admirable to press on and expand the “Bourne” universe without Damon, but “Legacy” just isn’t up to the task. The efforts it makes to fit into that story end up over complicating the plot. More room to breath, perhaps in the inevitable sequel, would allow the film to work out its kinks.

“Legacy” had potential to be a solid action movie on its own, but attaching the “Bourne” name invites a comparison it just can’t match.

I would first like to say that my experience with country music is very limited. Beyond some guilty-pleasure Taylor Swift or the occasional country song that finds itself toward the top of a music chart, I am generally not a country fan.

Therefore, it definitely means something for me to say that this was actually a pretty good album.

That said, there were definitely moments that weren’t for me, but I don’t think I’ve ever loved every song on any album.
I was ready to dislike it from the start, based on the album’s genre. Indeed, the album’s first single “The Wind ,” definitely fit my stereotype of twang-ridden, fiddle-infested country music.

The song’s cartoon-animated music video features lots of beer, swamps, tractors, guns, power-tools and other redneck paraphernalia.

At this point, I was definitely not impressed. Once I got past this song and a little deeper into the album, however, I was pleasantly surprised.

The Zac Brown Band incorporated elements and styles from a wide range of musical genres that gave many of the songs a fresh, unique sound.

There were times I forgot I was listening to a country album, particularly on the album’s title track, which had a driving bass line that I can’t get out of my head, in a good way. As an alternative rock fan, this song really had some appeal to me.

Another song on the album “Island Song ,” was almost pure reggae, with only a slight country twist in the chords and vocal style.

The strength of this band comes from their ability to create country fusion with other styles of music. I found these blended songs to be the most compelling, and found excited to see what style the next song would explore.
That said, several songs were entirely “too country” for me.

Though many of the album’s songs departed musically from a typical “country” sound, the lyrics definitely did not.

Even on tracks that didn’t sound country, such as “Uncaged ,” the lyrics are pretty classic country: “Gonna swim in the coldest river / Gonna drink from a mountain spring” … “Freedom is a gift worth living / Go chase that sunset highway down .”

While it certainly had songs and moments that were not for me, it had just as many that I enjoyed. There’s definitely something for everyone on this album, even if the whole thing isn’t your cup of tea.

If you’re looking to branch out musically, this is definitely an album to take a look at. It certainly has potential to be a gateway album to explore more country.

Grade: B+
Download: “Island Song,” “The Wind”

After invading a Costco, a group of aliens looks to take over the world, starting with suburban Ohio. Evan (Ben Stiller), an over-active go-getter, community organizer and Costco manager decides to form a neighborhood watch, but the fun-loving Bob (Vince Vaughn), the troubled, failed cop Franklin (Jonah Hill), and the awkward Jamarcus (Richard Ayoade) are the only men who step up to the job.

Boasting the likes of Stiller, Vaughn and Hill, “The Watch” looked to be a fun riff on sci-fi home invasions. While the actors look to be having fun, with Vaughn spewing out his manic ramblings and Stiller returning to Greg Focker territory, “The Watch” lacks inspiration.

Instead of splitting your side, “The Watch” wields a dull knife. It is almost immediately forgettable with no significant payoff. Most of the best comedic sequences are spoiled in the trailer. The rest of the jokes rely on references to male genitalia.

This is not altogether surprising, however, given that “The Watch” comes from Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg, the writing team behind “Superbad.” Like Rogen’s own comedy, most of the asides and references in “The Watch” feel unsure and insecure.

“The Watch” had an opportunity to set itself apart. I could have been a comment on American masculinity, consumerism or suburbia, but these ideas are only fleeting references. In addition, R. Lee Emery and Rosemarie DeWitt are woefully underused. Emery is an immediately recognizable character actor (the drill sergeant from “Full Metal Jacket”). But he’s only given one scene. Who would not have loved to seem him waste aliens while rattling off gruff one-liners. Likewise, DeWitt is a funny and talented actress, but is isolated in the supportive wife role here. She briefly takes up a gun and joins the guys, but quickly fades into the background.

Hill and Vaughn are fun to watch, but most of the film’s supporting cast and plot turns are lacking any imagination. Similarly, Akiva Schaffer of SNL’s Loney Island fame fails to add any zest to the film’s direction, which just goes to prove that “The Watch” was better left as a short comedy sketch.

Rating: 2/5

Based on the play by Tracy Letts, “Killer Joe” is propulsive and stylish from the first scene, which finds Chris (Emile Hirsch) roping his father Ansel (Thomas Haden Church) in on a scheme to kill his mother so he can use the insurance money to pay off a drug debt. Enter Joe (Matthew McConaughey), a Dallas cop who moonlights as an assassin and demands cash in advance. Unable to pay, Chris agrees to offer up his virginal sister Dottie (Juno Temple) as collateral, not betting his scheme will go awry, which it inevitably does.

McConaughey is on an astounding hot streak right now, and “Killer Joe” is the crown jewel of his year so far. He has built his entire career charming his way through romantic comedies, and “Killer Joe” brilliantly reappropriates that same demeanor, turning that silky charisma into something much darker and more predatory. McConaughey is utterly magnetic in every scene, and as his Joe becomes more and more manic and his cool blue eyes take on a terrifying iciness, the film intensifies along with him.

The film focuses on one of the most violently dysfunctional families this side of Rob Zombie, and all of its central figures are wonderfully acted. Hirsch brings an angry desperation to his role, and watching his slow descent into Joe’s clutches is fascinating. Gina Gershon plays Ansel’s second wife, and her take on the femme fatale is absolutely fearless. Church is a hilarious buffoon, and while that’s the only real note he gets to play, he wrings every laugh possible out of it. Temple has perhaps the most challenging role to play as the object of Joe’s affections. Her Dottie is a girl in a woman’s body, and Temple shows an undeniable knack for delivering Letts’ monologues with a soulful Southern twang. As her character shifts into the center of the film’s conflict, Temple navigates truly troubling material with grace and skill, developing into the film’s sole sympathetic figure.

Letts adapted his 1998 play for the screen and his dialogue crackles throughout the film, veering from vulgar tension-building to eloquent Southern poetry. The script weaves a tangled web of despicable characters in inescapable situations, and the way the film slowly lets each character rack up a stable of frustrations with one another before letting all hell break loose in an explosive final sequence as equally merciless as it is gratifying.

“Killer Joe” is Friedkin’s second collaboration with Letts after 2006’s “Bug,” and it has been a bountiful partnership so far. “Killer Joe” finds Friedkin in top form, and the film is a stylish pastiche of Southern pulp from its very first scene. Friedkin approaches his characters with broad strokes and a heavy hand, and the way he’s unafraid to let a scene wear its stage roots proudly while still filling it with his own flourishes makes for several riveting moments.

Much of the attention “Killer Joe” gets is going to focus on its final scene, particularly a harsh bit of cruelty one character exacts on another, and it’s a perfect finale, an ending that’s an ellipsis on the page but an exclamation point on the screen, thanks to the momentum that Friedkin and his cast build throughout the film. Even without the epic finale, the film is one that deserves to be seen and discussed, a compelling deep-fried bit of entertainment, and one of the blackest comedies ever made.

The network will be comprised of one national network and six regional networks that will be dedicated solely to Pac-12 sports. The league will also launch a digital network that will be accessible to fans via the web, mobile devices, televisions with Internet connections and gaming consoles.

“The idea is Pac-12 content, anywhere, anytime, by any device,” Scott said. “This is going to be a major innovation and a new and exciting development in the world of college sports, the first conference to completely own and control its own network.”

Starting August 15, the entire country will be able to see Pac-12 sporting events on a regular basis, something that the SEC already accomplished with their own conference network, which is run by ESPN, as well as the University of Texas’ Longhorn Network.

The elevation in exposure gives fans more access to their favorite teams, while providing potential players with the incentive of playing on television which will aid coaches in recruiting.

For example, every Pac-12 team will be featured at least once on the Pac-12 Network through the first four weeks of the football season, with Arizona starring when the Wildcats take on Oklahoma State and South Carolina State on September 8 and 15, respectively.

“The launching of the linear TV networks and the digital networks means more live sports, more Pac-12 championships, and connecting fans with their favorite teams,” Scott said. “The impact on our universities and student-athletes will be great.”

At Media Day, Gary Stevenson, the Chief Executive of Pac-12 Media Enterprises, announced the lineup of shows and current on-air talent. In addition to the conference championship game to be played in December, “Pac-12 Football Encore” will replay the top 10 games from the 2011 season.

In addition, all 79 home games from last season will be replayed in 60-minute formats. The network plans on having the pregame, halftime and postgame shows for regular season games broadcast from their studios in downtown San Francisco, Calif.

In the spring, the network will be sending crews to every Pac-12 campus to document and follow spring football.

“It will be a busy year for us, and we are delighted,” Stevenson said. “Our talent will go a long way in branding our network, so we searched high and low to find the professionals who have lived and experienced our brand over their careers.”

Only one member of the on-air talent is an Arizona alumnus: Glenn Parker was an All-Pac-10 lineman in 1989 before being drafted by the Buffalo Bills in the third round of the 1990 NFL Draft.

The show centers on former first lady Elaine Barrish Hammond (Sigourney Weaver) and her inner circle. When the show opens, we see her preparing to lose the Democratic primary and divorce her husband, past president Bud Hammond (Ciarán Hinds), a president known for his multiple affairs but still beloved by the country.

The show then quickly jumps two years into the future. Elaine is midway through her term as secretary of state to the man who beat her in the primary. As the episode progresses, we continue to delve deeper into the life and mind of Elaine Barrish as she works not only for her country but for her family, too.

Here, the show incorporates elements of reality. Elaine represents a Hillary Rodham Clinton figure: a strong, independent woman on a mission. This leaves Bud as Bill Clinton, both equally as famous for their presidency as they are for their smooth-talking, philandering ways. This little hint of reality really works to bring out the realistic elements of the show, highlighting them for the viewers to see.

Though Elaine handles a hostage situation with poise, it is clear that she’s struggling internally to handle the immense stress of her life. She finally snaps in a moment of weakness. But being Elaine Barrish, she’s able to pull it together enough to do her job — and do it well. Watching her slow breakdown despite her projected poise is a true highlight of the show, and Sigourney Weaver continues to prove herself as a stunning actress.

This is what the show does best. It allows viewers — ordinary people — to relate to each and every character, due simply to their collective brokenness. They’re real people, just like us.

The way the writers handle the highly dysfunctional Hammond family, examining them from every angle, bolsters this effect even further. The family is unified around the various problems they all face on a persistent basis, but their lack of cohesion is jarring. On the exterior, they present a united front, but through our knowledge of their inner thoughts, it quickly becomes apparent that they’re not at all cohesive.

Through all the drama the Hammonds face throughout the show, Elaine Barrish appears to be the most stable character of all, which is sadly unexpected for a female lead in modern television. Elaine is the rare female character who is strong and in a leadership role. She looks around and tries to make everything better for everyone. She wants to save the day — both for her family and her country.

It’s refreshing to see a fictional character like Elaine Barrish portrayed so well. I don’t often find myself coveting the virtues of characters I find on TV. But I see Elaine Barrish and want to be like her in many ways, especially because somehow, her life seems so attainable.

“Political Animals” has created an outstanding fictionalized world with characters that draw viewers in to watch their crazy, screwed-up lives play out. While it’s not uncommon to envy the lives of television characters, the Hammond family seems almost ordinary, which makes them infinitely more accessible than characters on other shows. At the same time, it’s a television show — their lives are more dramatic than most, and watching the show has a voyeuristic quality.

Full of all the juicy goodness of a TV drama, it’s never been as easy to become a part of that new television fantasy world as it is with “Political Animals.”

You can’t go into a movie about Batman and expect to see the greatest piece of cinema, or a taut, gripping tale that blows your face off. That would be unreasonable. I admit that I may have had some unreasonable expectations for this latest caped crusader flick, but it is still remarkably fun to watch.

Two of the better-known bat-villains make their appearance this time around.

For me, I’ve never been a huge fan of Bane. Bane always seemed to be a somewhat lame villain, dripping with 90s art design. But, there weren’t many villains that could overmatch the Batman physically while still being a match mentally, thus, Bane.

In the film, the talented Tom Hardy played Bane. This must have been a challenging role, as most of Bane’s face is obscured by the drug-delivering mask he wears. Therein lies the rub, for many times I couldn’t hear some of Bane’s muffled and distorted lines through the mask. I really like that his voice sounded like he had a mask on, but at times it wasn’t clear. It almost became comically tragic when Bane and Batman were on screen talking to each other. The growl of Bale’s Batman and the napkin-over-the-mouth-of-the-telephone-handset-during-a-prank-call sound of Bane’s voice seemed at times almost unintelligible.

Be that as it may, I feel like Hardy’s Bane was a good one, despite my initial dislike of the character itself, and the challenges that the character design brings to the performance.

Catwoman (played by Anne Hathaway) seemed to be many theatergoers’ favorite in the film. I couldn’t really stand her all that much, but that’s just me. She wasn’t as obnoxious as she could be and there was a noticeable lack of gratuitous ass shots.

I will admit, that she’s a second-story criminal, and never calls herself “Catwoman.” That’s admirable. Nolan’s pseudo-realistic take on the bat-franchise still has its hold on her character. She’s less of a villain and more of a flamboyant opportunist.

This was the first Batman movie that I actually cared about Batman. Normally, he’s really flat, but this film is about his “rise” to deal with the inner demons.

I did like the scene where Bruce Wayne goes to the doctor about his leg, which consequently has no cartilage in his knee, on top of many other long-term medical problems from being the Batman. Little details like this helps the believability.

That being said, there were also a bunch of little details that seemed to get missed. The film looks like it could have been a film editor’s nightmare.

For instance, when Bane and his thugs go into the Gotham stock exchange to pull some sort of electronic share heist, it’s broad daylight. One of the thugs says it’ll take seven minutes to run the program to finish the crime. The cops show up, and then when they ride dirt-bikes out of the building to escape around 3 minutes into the timer, it’s dark all of the sudden during the chase scene.

The pacing of Dark Knight had some serious issues. The first act and part of the second seemed pretty sluggish and erratic.

The Dark Knight Rises is not a perfect film. Far from it. But, like I mentioned earlier, it’s a movie (a good movie) about Batman. It’s entertaining and doesn’t deviate from the big picture of the story, and (usually) all of its elements work with one another. Who cares if it’s an amalgam of the comics “Knightfall,” “No Man’s Land,” and “The Dark Knight Returns?” The Batman character has been around so long, everything that is written about him is likely to be derivative anyway. It’s not a gem. But it’s entertaining. Nolan succeeded in that.

Final Score: B-

Donna Nelson, chemistry professor, has been a consultant for the show since 2008 and said she wants to give the writers an accurate portrayal of what scientists are really like, not just the stereotypes.

When Nelson first heard about the show, the first season was well underway, she said.

She read creator and producer Vince Gilligan’s appeal to scientists in the American Chemical Society magazine. He was seeking “constructive criticism” to help accurately portray the science on the show, Nelson said.

“Breaking Bad” tells the story of a cancer-riddled chemistry teacher, Walter White, who cooks meth to save money for his family after he is gone, according to IMDb.com.

Nelson said she considered many things before signing on, including elevating the drug industry and her own reputation. When the show started winning awards, she said she realized how big it would be.

“This show is going to be a hit with good science or with bad science,” Nelson said. “I really need to step up and help the scientific community.”

Plus, the show is not a how-to guide for making meth because it never demonstrates the synthesis of the drugs, Nelson said.

“If they (the viewers) tried to reproduce this, they would get garbage,” Nelson said.

She said she visited Burbank, Calif., to meet with Gilligan. When the show’s writers grilled her, Nelson said she had to give insight into the lives of scientists.

“They started asking me all these questions about my life,” Nelson said. “What makes a person be a scientist? What makes a person be a chemist?”

They had not talked to many scientists, and she wanted to give them an accurate portrayal to dispel the known caricatures, Nelson said.

“The mad scientist, the evil scientist, the bad scientist, the nerd scientist,” she said. “They don’t know us. So I tried to make a connection and make them realize we are just like normal people.”

Since that meeting, Nelson said she has been a regular consultant for the duration of the show.

She said a highlight from working on the show has been seeing her contribution on television. She also has met the cast, visited to the set and appeared at Comic-Con.

It is important that science is accurately portrayed on shows because they can reach the next generation of scientists, Nelson said.

“We need to have more U.S. kids going into science,” she said. “There are going to be a lot more people watching that show then there are going to be sitting in my classes.”

Her interaction with the show is reaching people. Cameron University in Lawton invited Nelson for a panel Feb. 23 to discuss scientific accuracy in film, Cameron chemistry professor Ann Nalley said. Nalley said she was surprised when the room filled with undergraduates, graduates and TV news crews.

“It was very popular; I was amazed,” Nalley said. “Television stations don’t usually come out when I have ordinary chemists speak.”

Cleaning up scientific error does not stop with the show. Currently, Nelson is working with OU undergraduates to evaluate organic chemistry textbooks to help improve their accuracy.

“There were severe flaws. I don’t mean the styles or typos — I mean they were getting the science factually wrong,” she said. “So we are going to clean it up.”

Biochemistry junior Jean Wu, an undergraduate participating in the study, said Nelson wants to create a uniform textbook just for organic chemistry.

It also is a learning opportunity because researchers can compare and contrast the information in different textbooks, Wu said.

Nelson said she also is doing research into the national numbers of women and minorities among faculty in 15 scientific fields.

“We are showing whether women are represented appropriately in proportion to their numbers and also how that has changed over time,” Nelson said.

Nelson said she is open to consulting on other shows in the future.

Wal-Mart selected singer/rapper/entrepreneur/all-around real-good-time-haver Pitbull to represent their brand. The rapper has numerous endorsement deals – this particular contest was brought about by his association with Sheets Energy Strips.

But then the Internet happened. Boston Globe writer David Thorpe led a campaign to exile the rapper to what has to be the most secluded Wal-Mart in the world – a store on Alaska’s Aleut Island, in the town of Kodiak. The town’s population is a little more than 6,000.

Thorpe’s campaign worked, with the Kodiak store receiving more than 70,000 likes, one of them being yours truly. For those of you keeping track at home, that’s almost 12 times the population of the town. The store was announced as the winner of the contest on July 15.

Being the upstanding gentleman he is, Pitbull obliged, releasing a video stating he will, “go anywhere in the world for my fans.” Pit has scheduled a promotional appearance in Kodiak on Sunday, July 29, with a show likely to follow.

It will be the rapper’s first performance in Alaska.

In the video, Pitbull addressed Thorpe, referring to him as “someone that thinks he was playing a prank.” He also invited him to come to the show, because Pitbull loves talking to his haters.

I almost feel bad for my dog, Pitbull. Either he simply doesn’t understand that most people voted as a joke, or he knows the whole thing is a farce but must keep a straight face to appease Wal-Mart and Sheets.

As funny as Thorpe’s campaign is on the surface, I have to respect the underlying reason for his desire to exile Pitbull. The rapper has endlessly plugged products in his music and videos. He’s turned himself into a walking billboard – a living, breathing platform for companies to push their brands.

The problem is, unlike product placement within a movie, Pitbull has done this at the expense of the music. His songs, such as “Give Me Everything” and “Vida 23 (featured in the infamous ‘Real Good Time’ commercial),” have poorly-constructed lines that were written only to advertise for Kodak and Dr Pepper, respectively. Not that the rest of Pit’s music is better than either of those songs, but it’s the thought of a song being sold as advertising space that’s disconcerting.

Surprisingly, Pitbull is upfront about his approach to music. He told Billboard magazine, “This is called the music business. It’s 90 percent business, 10 percent talent. There is no genius to what I do.”

For a guy who takes himself seriously in a dance party commercial for Dr Pepper, an honest confession such as this is impressive.

While I wholeheartedly supported Thorpe’s campaign, one must admire Pitbull for becoming as popular as he has.

When he stepped on the scene eight years ago, would anyone have guessed he would one day be selling out concerts across the world while singing about everyone’s favorite 23 flavors?

Sadly, Pit may represent the future of pop music.

Advertisements are everywhere these days, and music, or at least songwriting, is one of the last territories they’ve inhabited. Other artists may start modeling themselves off of Pitbull, getting rich by branding themselves like a company, not by selling albums.

But for now, let’s just enjoy the fact that we, the Internet, have outsmarted not only one of the world’s biggest chain stores, but one of the most annoying, omnipresent celebrities out there today. So grab a Dr Pepper and savor this moment, because I say a victory like that calls for a real good time.

The plot picks up eight years after the events of The Dark Knight. Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale, The Fighter) has hung up his cape and become a recluse within his own home to avoid the criminal symbol for which Batman now stands. However, when Gotham is once again threatened with destruction, he is forced to get back into the game. The villain is Bane (Tom Hardy, Inception) a massively aggressive fighter and strategist who plans to drown Gotham in complete anarchy before nuking the entire city. In addition to saving his city, Batman must also contend with the sleek and dangerous Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway, One Day), a cat burglar who may or may not be his ally.  Other newcoming actors to this final installment in the series include Marion Cotillard (Inception) and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (50/50).

After the tremendous success of 2008’s The Dark Knight, fans were expecting something epic and breathtaking for the conclusion of the series. And in more ways than one, The Dark Knight Rises does not disappoint. Of course, neither Bane nor Kyle can hold a candle to the super-villainous phenomenon that was Heath Ledger’s Joker, but there are several instances in which this most recent film outdoes its predecessor. Whereas The Dark Knight was presented as more of a one-on-one duel between Batman and the Joker, Rises can better be described as an all-out war between the forces of good and evil. The cast is twice as large, and as a result the plot stretches between several story arcs and twists, ending in a thrilling climax worthy of the standards set by the trilogy.

This time around, viewers are treated to an older, more world-weary Batman who may have finally met his match. This news may not be so good for the Caped Crusader, but fortunately for the audience, Bale’s performance has never been better. In his third appearance as the Batman, Bale displays an intensity that practically leaps out of the screen. This intensity is matched by Hardy, whose performance is all about the physical. Due to the fact that a mask partially covers most of his character’s face throughout the film, Hardy employs a certain body language that communicates a savage nature in addition to his massive frame. Lastly, flirting with the line between good and evil throughout the film is Hathaway’s Selina Kyle, a.k.a. Catwoman. Hathaway, who is not necessarily known for playing tougher, more intense roles, brings a refreshing taste of femme fatale to her character, resulting in one of the stronger female performances in a trilogy that has predominantly focused on males. These three main characters, along with a fantastic supporting cast that truly does support, are what makes this film an instant classic, and possibly the best in the entire series.

For those of us who have followed Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy from beginning to end, it has been quite a ride. We have watched new characters be introduced, and old ones evolve. The city of Gotham has been the setting of some of our greatest Hollywood moments. The Dark Knight Rises does give an end to the story of Batman, but it does so in such a way that very few audience members will be left unsatisfied. The Batman may be gone from our lives for now, but with films like this one, he will certainly not be forgotten.

“I was ready for that shit. I’m over it. It means nothing to me now. I’m Rick James-proof,” Chappelle said.

During a 2004 stand-up performance, Dave Chappelle walked off stage after constantly being heckled and cat-called. Chappelle later walked back on stage and said, “You know why my show is good? Because the network officials say you’re not smart enough to get what I’m doing, and every day I fight for you. I tell them how smart you are. Turns out, I was wrong. You people are stupid.”

Shortly after, Chapelle went on an extended hiatus in South Africa, leaving “Chappelle’s Show” to lie fallow.

For Chappelle’s show this evening, he dealt with the inevitable heckling with grace and appreciation for his audience.

According to Chappelle’s interview with James Lipton in the television show “Inside the Actors Studio,” during Chapplle’s early career, he had a short conversation with his father concerning his impending career in stand-up. After a brief father/son back and forth, Dave’s father knew that his son was set on the path to go into show business. He offered his son a bit of advice: “Name your price in the beginning. If it ever gets more expensive than the price you’ve named, get out.”

“Thus, Africa,” Chappelle said.

During this same interview, Chappelle remarked on his journey to South Africa in 2005:

“Why is Dave Chappelle going to Africa? Why does Mariah Carey make a hundred-million dollar deal and take her clothes off on TRL? A weak person can not get here and talk to you. Ain’t no weak people talking to you. So what is happening in Hollywood? Nobody knows! The worst thing to call somebody is crazy. It’s dismissive. I don’t understand this person, so they’re crazy. That’s bullshit. These people are not crazy, they’re strong people. Maybe the environment is a little sick.”

Chappelle continued, “You guys are students now, so you’re idealists. But you don’t know about where art and corporate interests meet yet. Just prepare to have your heart broken.”

After a brief opening set by stand-up comic Nathan Brannon, Chappelle walked onto stage in front of a ravenous fanbase.

Back and forth he went during a two-hour set, pulling topics seemingly out of thin air. Even his segues seemed barely able to contain the comedy and charm that Chappelle is capable of.

Upon entering the McDonald Theatre, signs were posted everywhere proclaiming “No phone calls, no heckling, no texting, no tweeting. If you fail to do this, we will remove you.” It was only a matter of time before somebody tried to take a few video shots of Chappelle on their cell phone.

“Sorry man, but I gotta ask that you bring that phone up here so I can delete that,” Chappelle said. “I appreciate you being here, and I appreciate that you want to record my jokes but, it’ll end up on YouTube for free, and I’d rather tell my jokes on stage. At $50 a ticket,”

The crowd applauded.

Even after getting sidetracked by a bizarre and confusing question to the comedian about “moments past and future” that was so esoteric, it was rendered indecipherable, Chappelle took it in stride despite the remarkably harsh calls for the woman who asked the question to retake her seat from the audience.

Gone were too many jokes about marijuana and race. They remained in his set, but they have a softer edge to them now, and a more accepting, worldly way about them. Chappelle was a pleasure to watch, and it seems like he truly finds joy in his comedy.

“I’ve set out all these goals and I’ve achieved them. I wanted to be rich enough to know what fork to use in a fancy restaurant,” Chappelle said.

“You’ve gotten there, what now?” called out an audience member.

“I’m just coasting on being a rich douchebag,” Chappelle said.

Chappelle has grown in his career, and it seems, as a person as well. This is a victory for one man deciding to change himself; to decide who he wants to be. In a way, this is a victory for us all. People can change. You don’t always have to sell your soul for success. The person that Chapelle has chosen to be is a gracious one. A funny one. A stand-up comedian.

And we’re all luckier for it.

Christian Bale (“The Fighter”) reprises the role of Bruce Wayne and The Batman, who returns to Gotham after eight years in retirement just in time to fight Bane (Tom Hardy, “This Means War”), a masked villain who seeks to hold Gotham hostage in an extremist plot of populism to erase the corruption that’s plagued Manhattan’s fictional counterpart. With the help of the standard cast of characters of Gotham Commissioner Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman, “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy”) and scientist Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman, “Invictus”), as well as some new faces including Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway, “One Day”), better known as Catwoman, and Officer John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, “50/50”), Wayne must—-what else?—- save the citizens of Gotham while dealing with his own physical and mental weaknesses.

The creators of the Batman trilogy, at the direction of Christopher Nolan (“Inception”), have made their superhero movies into true insights on the human condition. The movie is rich in allegory and symbolism, pitting the weak against the strong, the poor against the rich and the loyal against the treacherous. It’s striking to essentially see a Gotham version of the French Revolution play out in all its ugly glory, complete with a citizen-run, unjust justice system and quotes from “A Tale of Two Cities.” The lecture on human nature can be heavy-handed at times, but it’s genuine and deliberate.

But the story leaves something to be desired. Granted, the twists and turns have the audience guessing until the end, making the two and a half hours pass by in a flash. But anybody who has not seen “Batman Begins” or “The Dark Knight” will spend half of the movie wondering how some of these characters know each other. Going back to the original two movies (which stand alone much better than the third installment ever will) reveals brilliant foreshadowing, and it’s clear Nolan and his team methodically created a story arc that is compelling and thorough. True Nolan fans will not be disappointed in the ending of one of the few cinematic works of art to deserve the name “epic.”

But even epics have flaws. The final plot holes and abundant deus ex machinas mar an otherwise believable script. The final scenes are canned and groan-worthy.

However, the cast more than makes up for these flaws in acting prowess. Hardy’s Bane is a shining example of brilliant acting; he’s stoic and controlled throughout, and he contrasts nicely with the delightfully manic performance of the late Heath Ledger’s (“The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus”) Joker in this movie’s prequel. Hardy takes a faceless man and gives him depth and character without appearing robotic. That is no easy task.

Hathaway is also fantastic as a sociopathic jewel thief. The rising star takes the feline aspects of her villain and makes them more covert than apparent; it’s more of an overall attitude of standoffish arrogance than the outright, animalistic mannerisms that viewers saw in Michelle Pfeiffer’s original Catwoman.

Gordon-Levitt has matured significantly, and he carries a gravitas that was barely noticeable in “Inception” (alumni of “Inception” appear en masse in “Dark Knight Rises,” including Nolan, Zimmer, Hardy, Michael Caine (“Harry Brown”) as Wayne’s butler, Alfred, and Marion Cotillard (“La Vie en Rose”) as Wayne’s latest squeeze, Miranda Tate). He carries himself with poise and purpose, and it’s exciting to see how far the young man has come from humble beginnings of “Third Rock from the Sun.”

There are flaws to Nolan’s Batman trilogy, but it is a fitting tribute and an absolute must-see. It’s difficult to keep today’s audience entertained for almost two and a half hours straight. The last two movies did just that, and the final installment is no exception.

Not only are America’s favorite animated characters faced with everyday challenges like the pursuits of rebellious teenagers and unwelcome relatives, but they are also confronted with several perils and are forced to struggle for their own survival when their surrounding environment takes a turn for the worse in the fourth installment of 20th Century Fox Animation’s Ice Age saga.

After an unexpected visit from a dysfunctional and absent family, Sid and his friends find themselves stuck with a half-senile grandmother who ends up playing an integral role in the group’s survival after a devastating attack by Mother Nature brought on by one of Scrat the clumsy squirrel’s famous little “incidents.”

Wanda Sykes was the perfect woman for the role, and played the part to a tee by providing most of the comic relief throughout the movie.

When the ice splits and the lands are divided, Manny finds himself separated from wife and daughter, drifting into uncharted waters with Diego the saber-tooth tiger, Sid and Granny the sloth.

To find their way home and ultimately save Manny’s family, the team embarks on the adventure of a lifetime that tries their dedication, endurance and will.

Along the way, their lives are put at stake as history mixes with mythology when the characters deal with bloodthirsty sirens and treasure hunts for lost islands.

The familiar voices of Ray Romano and Queen Latifah join with new and well-received voices of artists Jennifer Lopez and Nicki Minaj in this hilarious and motivational film, entertaining the entire family.

“Ice Age: Continental Drift,” with its classic good versus bad and man – or animal in this case – versus nature, not only sends an inspirational message to viewers with the ultimate triumph of good, but also provides enough comic relief to keep the audience laughing throughout the entire movie.

“Ice Age: Continental Drift” is worth the trip to the theater.

If this practice sounds cynical, that’s because it is. But it’s brought us “The Amazing Spider-Man,” a reboot of the series Sam Raimi started a decade ago, ushering in a renaissance of comic book movies. After 2007’s “Spider-Man 3” flopped, Raimi’s films went into limbo. With Sony in danger of lapsing on their rights to the wall-crawler, the studio scrapped everything and prepped a brand new film helmed by “(500) Days of Summer” director Mark Webb and starring “The Social Network” breakout Andrew Garfield.

It would be easy to write off “Amazing” as a retread or a cash-in, but to do so would be to ignore a very fun film that tells a well-known story but adds enough new wrinkles to make things interesting, and gets the new series off on the right foot.

Garfield plays a Peter Parker that is both true to the character’s 50-year history and completely different from his predecessor Tobey Maguire. Garfield’s Parker is less of a nerd and more of an outcast. He is angry and confused by his parents’ mysterious disappearance, which landed him in the care of his Aunt May (Sally Field) and Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen).

After a spider bite gives him special abilities, Parker finds some of his father’s old research and seeks out his partner, Dr. Curtis Connors (Rhys Ifans). When Connors mutates himself into the hulking reptile villain Lizard, Parker must assume his role as Spider-Man and save the city.

Garfield’s chemistry with Emma Stone, who plays love interest Gwen Stacy, is remarkable. Stacy, barely seen in the original series, is a key part of Spider-Man’s story, and her inclusion here is welcome. Stone’s charming performance keeps Spidey’s origin, which takes up more than an hour, fresh. It’s no surprise that Webb knows how to direct adorable budding romance, and the scenes with Stacy and Parker in high school don’t disappoint.

It is a surprise, however, that Webb, a music video director with just one feature under his belt, knows his way around a good action sequence. The big set pieces in “Amazing” are easy to follow and feature a fair amount of practical special effects. This is a far cry from the manic editing that clouds fight sequences in “Transformers” or “The Dark Knight” and the overuse of CGI that prematurely aged Raimi’s films.

The original series also dispatched Spider-Man’s archenemy in the first entry, and tried to pack in all of the comic book’s key elements in a scant two hours. Instead, “Amazing” takes a cue from Christopher Nolan’s “Batman” films by first using a b-list villain with ties to the hero’s origin for the first entry, promising to touch on juicier members of Spidey’s rogues gallery later in the series.

The Osborn family and the Daily Bugle are referenced, but barely seen. They—along with a few dangling plotlines—are waiting in the wings for the already-in-development sequel.

Again, this kind of franchise building seems calculating, but it actually streamlines the film by taking advantage of the groundwork laid out by previous installments.  When a sequel is inevitable, why not build a world that can be believably sustained across several films, instead of stuffing the first with exposition?

“Amazing” was shot in 3-D, instead of being converted in post-production, and the format adds a lot of pop and grand scale to the film’s many swinging sequences and shots from Spider-Man’s point of view. The 3-D is rarely gratuitous, save for the final moments of the drawn-out denouement.

Even with dazzling set pieces and interesting changes to the story, “Amazing” can’t quite shake the warmed-over feeling that comes with redoing Spider-Man’s origin. Connors is also underdeveloped, and some of Parker’s scenes with Aunt May are confusing. This seems to indicate that even with a running time over two hours, “Amazing” had to be edited down aggressively.

Ultimately, these aren’t deal-breakers. Redundancy aside, “Amazing Spider-Man” is a fun and sweet film that manages to capture the spirit of the comics without copying Raimi. Maybe the gritty reboot isn’t so bad.

Grade: B+

Rated: R

Once upon a time, Channing Tatum was a stripper. “Magic Mike,” written by Reid Carolin and directed by the mystical Steven Soderbergh, is Tatum’s chance to show us what it’s like to be a teenager thrown into an adult world. Tatum doesn’t play the rookie though – that’s Adam, played by Alex Pettyfer. Tatum plays the old vet, the perfect flirt and the aspirational entrepreneur, aka Magic Mike. He meets Adam at work on a construction site and the rest is history, as they both struggle with the demands and norms of their industry – exhausting work, late nights, constant drug use, even more constant sex and a whole lot of leg-shaving.

“Magic Mike” is a value menu combination of “Hamlet 2” (hot weather ennui meets showtime glam) and “Weekend” (hyper-realistic dialogue meets sexual confusion) and hell, even a little bit of “Coyote Ugly.” But there’s not a lot of “Pretty Woman” in there – if you’re looking for a glitzy movie with a happy ending, you can go elsewhere. Here’s what you will get from “Magic Mike,” broken down in alphabetical form:

A is for ASS: There’s so much of it, all the time. We get our first glimpse of Tatum as he’s lumbering into the bathroom, post-threesome, in the buff. Minutes later, we see the behind of his bedmate Joanna, played by the charming and intimidating Olivia Munn. You also see their third bedmate naked, whoever she was.

B is for BROOKE: Brooke is the big sister of Adam, the teenage cub that Tatum welcomes into the stripper fold.

C is for CODY HORN:  Horn plays Brooke, and she’s the best actor in the film, beating out the attention black hole that is Matthew McConaughey and even Tatum himself. Horn’s quiet energy brings a sense of earnestness to the entire film, but she especially shines in the scene in which she watches both her brother and Mike strip. She transforms from blasé and annoyed as her bro awkwardly does his routine to dry-mouthed and aroused and uncomfortable as she watches the experienced (and flirtatious) Mike groove with finesse. Remember “Step Up”? Tatum knows how to dance.

D is for DANCING KINGS: Led by the bizarre ringleader Dallas, played by McConaughey, the circus of male strippers engages in choreographed dry-humping, hip-pumping numbers, replete with cheesy costumes and literal song choices.

E is for ENTREPENEUR: Mike works as a stripper, but he picks up side cash as a construction worker and as a car-detailer. But his true passion is…

F is for FURNITURE: Mike really wants to be a furniture designer and run his own business – he’s got a binder of his designs and one of his original pieces is in his home.

G is for GYM: This is where the exotic dancers have their practices and work out. The mammoth stripper named Tarzan just stands around lifting weights while Dallas teaches Adam how to take off his clothes with panache. It’s an intensely awkward moment, with McConaughey crouching behind Pettyfer as they swivel their hips in unison before a final, unified thrust.

H is for HURRICANE: “Magic Mike” finds its sweaty home in the summertime in Tampa, Fla., but adverse weather hardly affects its crew: They celebrate the expansion of their club to Miami at Dallas’ crib while a hurricane rages outside. They’re oblivious, seated squarely in the lap of pill-popping and orgy-filled luxury – but through the windows and on the TV screen, we can see actual damage from the hurricane. It’s surreal.

I is for “I THINK WE SHOULD BE BEST FRIENDS”: After they spend their first whole night partying together,  dancing and stripping and drinking and getting with a birthday girl and her friend and jumping off a bridge into water, Adam says this to Mike. And it happens: They become best friends. This movie is as much about friendship, and friendship lost, as it is about the world of male strippers.

J is for JOANNA: The relationship between Joanna and Mike is the most realistic in the whole film. Joanna (Munn) is Mike’s casual hook-up and frequent threesome-mate. Mike can never remember what Joanna’s studying (psychology) but he can remember to give her a call every time he’s lonely.

K is for KNIGHT IN NOT-SO-SHINING ARMOR: There are a lot of savior-saved relationships in this movie – Mike saves Adam from poverty, Brooke saves Mike from promiscuity and Mike saves Brooke from a boring long-distance relationship. And Mike and Adam together save a sorority from having a boring night.

L is for LOANS: Renaissance man Mike needs cash so he can make his furniture design dreams come true, but his credit score is too low. The lady at the bank calls him a client in “distress.” “I read the news,” he tells her. “I know the ones in distress are y’all.”

M is for MCCONAUGHEY: His Dallas is magnetic and creepy and chilling as the business-owning badass. He says he’s done stripping, but then look at him go. All right, all right, all right.

N is for NICKNAMES: Big Dick Richie. Magic Mike. The Kid. Tarzan. Stripper names aren’t just for ladies, y’all. Channing Tatum’s real-life stripping colleague from back in the day was pretty pissed at him for using his moves and stories for the movie – his name? Awesome Austin.

O is for (LADIES’ NIGHT) OUT: Hopefully the audience in your movie theater won’t mirror the strip club audience, which is rife with hyena-like women, cackling and hungry.

P is for PEPSI: On his first day at the construction gig he finds on Craigslist, Adam takes two cans of Pepsi from the cooler at the site. The manager admonishes him, and stripping it is. This is big foreshadowing, telling us a lot about Adam’s character – he’s the type to take two Pepsis in every situation, even if “taking two Pepsis” means “being rude to his sister and losing all the drugs he’s supposed to sell.” It’s also chance for us to get used to Soderbergh’s style of pushing dialogue to a quieter plane, so that it almost feels like side conversation.

Q is for QUEER: In spite of the in-your-face male nudity, there is not a lot of gayness in this movie. For a movie about male strippers, it skews hetero.

R is for REALITY: People, strippers and laymen alike, are debating the verisimilitude of “Magic Mike” all over the Internet. Whether or not the world of male strippers is really like this should plays little part in our judgment of how “realistic” the movie is – what matters are the relationships. And those feel real. The dialogue often feels ancillary and low-key, just like how people talk in real life.

S is for SODERBERGH: The director of “Erin Brokovich” and “Ocean’s Eleven” did a bang-up, stripped-down job on this one. His grimy fingerprints are all over it.

T is for TRAPPED: Most of the characters in this movie are trapped by something and most of them don’t escape. The movie leaves its audience with more questions than answers and more loose ends than tied-up sub-plots.

U is for UNDERWEAR: One of Adam’s initiation rites is buying underwear with Magic Mike.

V is for VIRGIN: Adam’s not even 21 yet and he can’t dance for his life. So his shtick is that he’s the Kid, the Virgin, the new guy. He becomes far less precious as the seedy currents of stripping suck him under.

W is for WATER: One of the strippers shaves his leg without it, while smoking a joint, but for the most part, water is an ever-present element. When Mike and Brooke have one of their biggest moments, it’s walking through water on a sandbar. Overall, though, the movie feels hot and dry – warm orange light filters most of the scenes and most of the characters look like they could use a bottle of water – instead, they get shots.

X is for XQUISITE: Xquisite is the name of the club they work at in Tampa. It’s illegal for Adam to work there because he’s not 21, but they decide to take a risk on him anyway. This is one of the movie’s flaws – he’s not even a great dancer, so why do they risk so much for him? Because he’s cute?  It’s hard to believe there’s only one cute boy in Tampa.

Y is for YEARNING: Mike wants the American dream. From start to finish, that’s his goal. While Adam is into ass for the sake of ass, it’s a side dish for Mike. He cares about his furniture dreams more than any other character cares about anything else. One of the dance numbers features the men in combat gear, which they strip down to American flag-flavored unmentionables – in combination with the loan scene, this makes the whole movie feel like a jab at the notion of the American dream.

Z is for ZILLIONS: Zillions of pills popped, zillions of glass shards, zillions of bad decisions, zillions of g-strings, zillions of funny moments. “Magic Mike” is worth seeing – but maybe not a zillion times.

If you saw the 2002 original, or have any familiarity with Spider-Man’s history, you know most of the story already. The smart yet awkward Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) is bitten by a radioactive spider, one that gives him the ability to climb walls and impossibly fast reflexes. He learns the consequences of his powers after his Uncle Ben’s (Martin Sheen) death, and dedicates his life to fighting crime. “The Amazing Spider-Man” mixes in a few new elements, namely Peter’s interest in the circumstances that resulted in his living with his aunt and uncle. This ultimately leads him to Dr. Curtis Connors (Rhys Ifans), whose obsession with growing back a missing arm leads to his becoming the Lizard, a scaly, near-immortal beast.

In their reinvention of the franchise, Sony went with “(500) Days of Summer” director Marc Webb. This could have been a total disaster, throwing a rookie director into very deep water, but Webb rises to the challenge admirably. His strongest scenes are still the bumbling, sweet moments when Peter and his crush Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) get to flirt with one another. However, Webb also delivers an exciting, satisfying spectacle of a finale, and his use of the film’s Manhattan setting, particularly as Peter is first learning about his powers, is a franchise best. Webb also made some truly inspired casting choices, ranging from Martin Sheen’s warm take on Uncle Ben to Denis Leary, whose role lacks his trademark bite but still manages to play out an interesting, vital character arc.

Garfield was an interesting choice for Peter Parker, cast long before Garfield started amassing Oscar buzz for his performance in “The Social Network,” and he nails the character’s trademark awkward charisma. His take on Spider-Man is much more humorous than Maguire’s, and much more fun to watch. Garfield plays Parker as much smarter than the original films gave him credit for as well, something that comes across in small details like Garfield’s boyish face in his father’s oversized glasses, or in the big ones like the web shooters Parker builds for himself.

Casting Stone was another bold move, especially when they asked her to play Gwen Stacy instead of Mary Jane Watson, Peter’s love interest from the first three films. However, so early in the story, the characters are more or less interchangeable, and the gracelessly charming way Peter relates to his love interests is more or less the same with both characters.

A major problem with “The Amazing Spider-Man” is, frankly, that there’s no reason it couldn’t just be “Spider-Man 4.” The James Bond films get away with recasting their hero without much confusion, so why can’t superhero films adapt to the same standard? The Raimi films had also spent time setting up Dylan Baker’s Curtis Connors, who Raimi planned to transform into the Lizard this time around, and it’s a shame that we didn’t get to see Baker’s take on the villain. While Ifans is perfectly fine in the role, it seems to demand a subtle creepiness that Baker could have delivered.

More importantly, “The Amazing Spider-Man” spends half its runtime telling the exact same story that “Spider-Man” told just 10 years ago. Audiences may have short memories, but it’s still a waste of time to tell Spider-Man’s origin story if you’re just going to wheel out the exact same narrative with a few cosmetic tweaks to it. “The Amazing Spider-Man” may not be telling a particularly new or original story, but thankfully, Webb still keeps it exciting, coaxes strong performances out of each of his actors, and crafts a familiar but entertaining superhero film that will surely keep you sated until “The Dark Knight Rises” hits later this month.

In addition to directing “Ted,” MacFarlane lends his voice to main character, an animated teddy bear who is brought to life when a young John Bennett (played as an adult by Mark Wahlberg) makes a wish for a best friend. Nearly 30 years later, Ted and John are still friends, content to sit around smoking pot and watching television, even as John’s four-year relationship with Lori (Mila Kunis) teeters on the edge of disaster thanks to John’s immaturity.

There’s one quality that stands out throughout “Ted,” and it’s laziness. The film only really knows how to tell three kinds of jokes: casually “edgy” racist humor, fart jokes and pop culture references. “Ted” comes back to these three tropes over and over, and by the end of the film, things have taken on a mean-spirited abrasiveness. The script lacks ambition, and seems uninterested in telling its own story. Things happen to the characters, but the film’s ending betrays every narrative development that’s transpired. Instead, the finale lays out the film’s themes in a few neon-lit lines of dialogue and fades to black.

The film is full of illogical story gaps and character decisions, right down to its foundations. John and Lori are four years into their relationship before the film starts, but the problems she develops with Ted’s shenanigans seem like the sort of issue you bring up before you move in with your boyfriend and his stoner teddy bear. Kunis uses her natural charm to bring some nuance to Lori’s stereotypical nagging girlfriend, but Wahlberg isn’t so lucky. He’s basically playing your average Judd Apatow-esque man-child, but without any of the heart or conscience that makes that character so affable, and the result is an irritating character who makes an endless stream of bad decisions.

There’s one subplot in particular that sums up everything wrong with “Ted.” Giovanni Ribisi shows up, playing a truly creepy fan of Ted’s named Donny, with an overweight son (Aedin Mincks) who desperately wants the teddy bear for himself. Seeing as the film’s central conflict involves John’s need to get rid of Ted to move on with his life, this subplot practically serves up the film’s ending on a platter: John passes Ted along to another young boy wishing for a friend, and moves on with his adult life. Sure, it’s a little “Toy Story 3”-ish, but it’s a lot more interesting than the way the film treats Donny and his son as monsters, easy punchlines for easy jokes, and it’s a narrative detour that puts all of “Ted”’s problems into focus. It’s a film that wants to be about growing up, but it’s really just a string of cheap jokes.

That’s why “Ted” may be the worst movie of the year, or at least the one I hate the most. It’s one thing when a film is lazy, and its humor proves that “Ted” is certainly that, but it’s another when a film is just repulsive and morally rotten, and that’s what dooms it. The film has a few funny moments, but its characters are so predictable in their illogical mistakes, its plot so uninterested in its own stakes, and its spirit so thoroughly hateful and unpleasant, that it’s not worth watching in any shape or form. Avoid it at all costs.

Look out, New Jersey: newly engaged Nicole “Snooki” Polizzi and Jennifer “JWoww” Farley decided to embark on one last adventure before finally growing up.

Many critics have dubbed “Snooki & JWoww” a modern-day “Laverne & Shirley.” “Snooki & JWoww” documents the pair as they share an apartment that was formerly a firehouse in Jersey City, N.J.

The season premiere opens with the pair house-hunting. Unprofessional and obnoxious, Snooki and JWoww asked the realtors if they had ever hooked up with anyone and cursed at them after they were late to the first apartment showing. Their behavior is not a good example for teenage girls who are fans of the show.

If viewers are looking for idiotic one-liners, then this is the show for them. The first 10 minutes of the show provide many examples, prompting viewers to wonder if Snooki ever thinks before she speaks.

One such example: While driving in Jersey City, Snooki looks up and asks if the building in front of her is the Empire State Building. The best one-liner by far, however, is when JWoww finds out Snooki is pregnant and asks how this could happen. Snooki’s response? Sex.

It’s no wonder why the show, with moments like these, was denied filming rights in many of the cities for which they requested permission. The show initially sought permission to film in Hoboken, N.J., but was denied. A request to film in Jersey Shore, Pa., also was denied because of the public’s disapproval.

Some businesses in Jersey City have denied filming permits to MTV because they wanted to give their regular customers priority. “No Snooki” signs have also been placed in many front windows of liquor stores.

It’s unfortunate these two stars give New Jersey natives a bad rap. Viewers who are not from New Jersey won’t know what the Garden State is really about.

This ain’t rock. This ain’t country. This is John Mayer. And, yes, he did it again.

John Mayer, notorious for his egotistical brashness and profoundly crude words and acknowledgements, is seen through a different scope. He seems to have transformed while writing this album, which some critics are calling his best album to date. This new, mature John has an appreciative and reflective outlook on life.

After expressing controversial remarks in interviews with “Playboy” and “Rolling Stone” magazines, Mayer took a two-year hiatus from the “neon” lights and buildings with scaffolding to experience a nature-filled paradise where “Born and Raised” was, well, born and raised.

Mayer incorporates new elements of ’70s folk and Americana into his classic blues, rock and soul sound while still keeping his identifiable sound.

Big John Mayer fans know he likes to integrate his world-famous guitar-shredding skills into melodic, hypnotic solos some could even find annoying. This album is different — no two-minute guitar solos can be found in “Where’s Waldo.”

This album begins with the song “The Queen of California,” in which he expresses his happiness to have a certain lady out of his life who was bringing him down and his return to a cheerful, positive way of life. “Age of Worry” says life is too short to worry, and you should live your life because you’ve only got one to live — basically, YOLO.

Some say “Walt Grace’s Submarine Test, January 1967″ is John’s best song to date. It tells a folklore tale about a man named Walt Grace who rode in a homemade submarine. His family never had faith in him to build a boat and sail it, but one day, his wife gets a call about his death at sea.

“Born and Raised” was released at the perfect time, amid all of the new party songs being released this summer. This album will take listeners on a trip into Mayer’s heart and allow them to reflect on life’s ups and downs, just as John did while composing this exceptional and unique work.

“Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter” is just like it sounds. It’s Abraham Lincoln, hacking through vampires with a silver-edged axe. And, somehow, it’s boring.

Ridiculous action movies with silly premises are not inherently bad. Certainly the idea of Abe Lincoln slaying Confederate, slave-owning bloodsuckers is fun. But when you actually see the action scenes, over-saturated with shoddy CGI and enough slow motion to extend the film’s length by a few minutes, it becomes apparent that something has gone wrong.

The story spans Lincoln’s life. After young Abe Lincoln’s (Benjamin Walker, “The War Boys”) mother is killed by a vampire, he vows revenge. He learns the ways of slaying undead from a jaded vampire hunter (Dominic Cooper, “Captain America: The First Avenger”) while studying law and meets his future wife (Mary Elizabeth Winstead, “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World”). Eventually, Lincoln must choose how he wants to save his nation: kill the vampires and their leader Adam (Rufus Sewell, “The Illusionist”) or end slavery through political action.

Even though the story follows Lincoln from cradle to grave, don’t think it takes a long look at his life. It has a problem with transitions, trying to sum up big changes in single scenes, so the sections of Lincoln’s life it focuses on feel disjointed. Characters from Lincoln’s early life show up later with no explanation of how they got there, and you can tell the movie just wants to rush along to the next big action set piece.

The performances are mostly clumsy but don’t stray into ‘memorably awful’ territory often. Sewell stands out as Adam, the arrogant plantation-owning leader of the vampires, and he makes the Southern gentleman vampire a joy to watch. The cast members play their roles stern-faced. If they think the whole affair is stupid, they don’t show it. You can have some fun watching the ever-serious expressions on the actors’ faces even in the midst of absurdity.

“Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter” wouldn’t be worth a penny if it didn’t take advantage of its setting with some historical cameos. It handles these about as subtly as an axe to the face. Every time a place or person from Civil War history is introduced, the movie pauses for a second, as if the entire film is winking at you and nudging your elbow. It could be construed as endearing or insulting, depending on the viewer.

People who just want to see some fight scenes and vampires will be pleased. The vampires look ferocious and appear often, though their horrific nature is abused. By the fifth time the movie pulls the same jump scare on you it’s not shocking, but predictable and annoying. The fight scenes, rife with slow motion, are generally over-stylized but they’re at least easy to follow and can occasionally deliver satisfying moments.

If you see the movie in 3D, it’s a small blessing and a big curse. The 3D is often used subtly, to enhance depth-of-field and make the calmer scenes more absorbing. It’s also used in the opposite way, focusing on objects hurtling toward the camera in a way that is utterly obnoxious. Additionally, it blurs the action scenes a bit, making the frenetic fight scenes harder to follow.

Stumbling far more than soaring, “Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter” doesn’t deliver much ludicrous, guilty enjoyment. It’s an idea worthy of a few chuckles, but better suited to viewings on daytime cable than on the big screen.

To sum up, I think I’d first recommend dropping 15 bucks plus popcorn on Twilight if you’ve got a hankering for some bloodsucking action before I’d advocate for seeing AL:VH. I know the 3D glasses and the free A/C in this heat wave are tempting, but friends, don’t fall prey to the trap.

In this adaptation of the critically acclaimed novel of the same name, director Timur Bekmambetov and screenwriter Seth Grahame-Smith make the hilariously fatal mistake of taking themselves far too seriously. The film’s historical tie-ins seem ludicrously garish, but unintentionally so, rendering their execution even more painful to watch.

In a moment written to be deeply philosophical, Abe (Benjamin Walker) is arguing at knifepoint with head vampire Adam (Rufus Sewell) over the morality of slavery, an argument Adam deflects with a sharp-toothed grin and one-hundred-percent-serious sweeping metaphor, “We are all slaves to something.” By this point, the film’s heavier moments such as this one, reaching for star-spangled poignancy and Higher Morality, have only managed to elicit a derisive chuckle from the audience at best.

In fact, much of the film left one wondering whether it was, in fact, supposed to be funny. Ridiculousness compounded by a hopelessly stale performance from lead Benjamin Walker, an axe-wielding Abe waltzes onscreen as gaudy as the butt of a joke, with a story about seeking vengeance for the murder of his mother by vampires (not to mention a set of fake ears larger than the Union he’s trying to save). As he (inexplicably) gains almost superhuman strength and reflexes, he goes after various vampire targets in town on the orders of mentor Sturgess, finding time to study law, fight slavery, and court a town girl named Mary Todd (guffaw) in between missions. The result of this awkward balancing act between over-the-top action sequences and tepid plotline causes the film to develop like a lukewarm superhero story, inelegant in transition and heavy-handed in cliché.

However, all its obvious flaws aside, how much can we really expect from a movie called Abe Lincoln: Vampire Hunter? Do we dare hope for riveting plotline or intricate character development? Historical accuracy or grandly woven metaphor? Hell no. We go to see movies like Abe Lincoln: Vampire Hunter because we want to see some monsters get dealt with. Which brings us to Abe’s one saving grace: some seriously stylish cinematography and art direction. The camera angles took excellent advantage of the 3D the theatre afforded them, plunging viewers straight into the film’s revised version of history with blood-curdling cool.

But that and a small chuckle, really, is all we can ever hope to get from a movie about an American President who hunts vampires by night. The mere sentence is downright campy—it’s only a shame that the filmmakers lacked the self-awareness to realize that in the first place.

“Brave” fills that gap in a visually awe-inspiring film by featuring a bold and spirited Scottish princess who rebels against the traditions of her land. The film is set in the brilliantly rendered medieval Scottish highlands, and follows Merida (voiced by Kelly MacDonald).

While she is a princess in her late teens like her Disney counterparts, Merida has no interest in wearing puffy dresses, attending fancy balls or finding Prince Charming. She is wild, effervescent and would rather spend her days riding her horse Angus or firing her bow with stellar accuracy.

Merida’s mother, Queen Elinor(voiced by Emma Thompson) is affectionate and devoted to Merida and her younger triplet brothers, but disapproves of her daughter’s prowess with weapons and wants her to get married in accordance with tradition. Merida rebels against her overbearing mother’s wish¬es and insults her suitors, riding off into the forest where she encounters a witch and makes a wish that proves to be disastrous. “Brave” more or less revolves around the feminist ideals of female strength and independence. Merida not only rejects her suitors, but she also displays greater expertise than them in the use of weapons. While Queen Elinor attempts to transform her daughter into a debutante, Merida remains impossible to control.

Queen Elinor, while very devoted to tradition and decorum, does not come across as meek and passive. She plays the role of a proper queen and dotes on her family, but can be fierce and outspoken when interacting with them. In other words, there is a depiction of subtle feminism in her character as well.

Pixar excels at the technical level, with every minute detail of the characters and their surroundings delivered with such expertise that viewers find themselves pulled into the haunting Scottish highland forest. Merida’s fiery and unruly hair is full of movement — with each curl portrayed to perfection. The voiceover work is exceptional, and the film overflows with vibrant colors and realistic movement, but more importantly, it breaks away from traditional princess tales and focuses on the much more relatable story about a teenage daughter’s bond with her mother.

The film depicts realistic emotions that evoke a sense of familiarity in its audience, illustrating the universal relationship between mother and daughter. Merida and Queen Elinor share a deep sense of attachment, but also experience turmoil brought on by impassioned fights regarding differences of opinion on Merida’s future. Merida struggles between her intense need for independence and her deep sense of regret. She is brave, as the film title suggests, but she is also vulnerable. Pixar remains true to its ideals of creating unique themes and breaking boundaries. The complexity of the underlying motif is handled with characteristic Pixar finesse.

The film does not contain any major flaws, but is somewhat different from earlier Pixar films. “Brave” lacks the sharp wit that Pixar is often associated with. This does not mean that the movie is not funny. It consists of an ample amount of humor that comes from Merida’s high-strung Scottish clansmen, her jovial father and her mischievous brothers.

The film capitalizes on its characters’ goofy behaviors, and the comedy contained within the film is of the slapstick variety, which is more of a Disney element. In fact, the movie contains some very familiar Disney film ingredients, such as the presence of a familiar looking witch and a feel-good moral to the story.

Merida’s interaction with her mother is funny and heartwarming in some parts, and heartbreaking in others. The animation is breathtaking, and the movie does a magnificent job portraying a unique and somewhat edgy Disney fairy tale. In a sense, “Brave” is an excellent amalgamation of Pixar and Disney characteristics.

What the film lacks in wit, it makes up for in its ability to elicit deep emotions from its audience.

“Brave” releases in theaters this Friday.

Starring Steve Carell and Keira Knightley, the film’s protagonist Dodge finds himself at an existential crossroads. In a moment of panic, his wife leaves him just as they — and the rest of the world ­— learn that an asteroid heading toward earth is expected to bring them all to their untimely conclusion. Despite the undeniably bleak subject matter, Scafaria’s film is unusually lighthearted without being insensitive or flat-out unbelievable. If anything, it’s more of a black romantic comedy than an end of day’s showdown.

“It was definitely less of a reaction about end of the world movies and more of a response to what romantic comedies have kind of become. I love them, and I love watching people fall in love, but I felt like I haven’t related to them much lately,” Scafaria said.

Alone and expectedly frightened, Dodge decides he’ll reach out to a high school sweetheart before his last hurrah. But after a riot erupts near his home, he flees with his British neighbor Penny accompanying him. It was a creative decision Scafaria decided on after interviewing various people about how they’d act if they were put in a similar situation.

“When I did a lot of human research and asking people what they would do, their needs were very basic. It was very much like being with friends and family,” Scafaria said.

“I asked a relative, and he said that he would find his high school sweetheart. Some people said they would go to work the next morning because they wouldn’t know what else to do with themselves, and other people obviously wouldn’t ever go to work again.”

There might be an asteroid at the center of it all, but there aren’t any elements of science-fiction in the film. It’s clear that Dodge feels like life has passed him by, but it’s with Penny’s help that he breaks out of his shell.

“For a guy who’s kind of been half dead and sleepwalking through life, this could be one of the best things that’s ever happened to him,” Scafaria said. “So I wanted to take the future away from him, he’s obviously going to chase the past, but whose going to pull him out of that?”

Scafaria said she had the idea floating around for a while but the script became more personal following the passing of her father.

“I think that’s when things really started to take shape because I had a brand new perspective on everything. So that had a big impact on the story,” Scafaria said.

“Seeking a Friend for the End of the World” doesn’t attempt to answer any huge questions despite the grandiose context. There are moments where the dialogue falls flat, and Carell’s performance is unconvincing, but it takes a deft hand to find some humor in a story where the stakes couldn’t be higher while still maintaining some sense of realism.

Love, of course, is the primary focus of the album. Though her lyrics can be mysterious, Apple is very personal and at times confessional, which provides authenticity to her work. Her songwriting rejuvenates well-worn subjects, like budding romance, with vibrant images (“neon zebra shaking rain off of her stripes”) and creative rhyme schemes that break the toilsome routine of predictable love songs.

Her voice propels her poetry to its fullest potential; it carries an authority from experience. She explores the depths of her voice as an instrument, and from the highest pitch to the lowest whisper, she delivers. Her passions even push her to a broken scream on “Regret” in which she howls, “I ran out of white dove feathers.” Her inability to cleanly hit these notes only add to the performance, and her splintered cry embodies the pain of regret.

Musically, most of her songs consist of piano and percussion. She has shed nearly all extravagances, and what’s left is just a woman and a piano communicating with her audience. Her compositions are beyond merely drums and piano, however; she constructs a variety of percussive sounds ranging from what appears to be a sound loop of footsteps trudging through gravel on “Periphery” to knives and forks banging on jelly jars on “Hot Knife.” The rhythms are often fast-paced and chaotic, matching well with her bare piano.

Apple elegantly combines this minimalist style with many genres including pop, jazz and even classical. Her more traditional pop songs are simple, melodic compositions that still manage to be unpredictable and exciting. Just when you think it’s a basic love song on piano, Apple throws in an instrumental jazz break in “Valentine” and an eerie back track of child voices on “Werewolf.” “Daredevil” and “Jonathan” are impressive in their structure. They supersede classical approaches to songwriting and manage to create a touching and overarching sonic impression of her emotions. “Jonathan,” for example, has a see-saw effect, mimicking the back and forth nature of Apple’s affections.

In “The Idler Wheel…,” Fiona Apple manages the ever elusive feat of revamping her sound while staying true to her roots. Fans will find what they have always loved about her, plus something new and refreshing.

Rock of Ages, a musical comedy about music, features an expansive cast of A-list celebrities filling a variety of roles. There’s a diva (Mary J. Blige), a heartthrob (Tom Cruise), and a crazy person (Russell Brand), as well as a mixture of the three (Alec Baldwin). However, what the trailers and talk show interviews fail to mention is that the film centers on the rather boring love story between Sherrie Christian (Julianne Hough) and Drew Boley (Diego Boneta).

As a naive singer hoping to find fame in Hollywood, Sherrie begins the film on a Greyhound bus with a wistful rendition of Night Ranger’s “Sister Christian.” The scene quickly turns humorous when the rest of the bus joins in. This sentiment prepares the viewer for a musical filled with great ’80s music and a fun cast.

The joy that emanates from the screen is infectious, and the theater had a somewhat festive atmosphere. The ensemble cast works well together when singing mash-ups of songs like “Juke Box Hero” and “I Love Rock ‘n’ Roll.” However, the almost constant jamming of songs created a problem common in mediocre, jukebox musicals: a lack of plot and character development. Rock of Ages, though full of fun and games, gives each character and the plot too little cultivation.

Even though it gets the most attention, Sherrie and Drew’s romance is probably the least compelling storyline in the film,. Julianne Hough definitely looks the part of the edgy songstress, but her sugarcoated vocals are a mistake for a film that eschews pop music. At times, she even sounds like Vanessa Hudgens, which, needless to say, is not how a rocker should sound. Talented rocker Drew’s search for fame leaves him — surprise, surprise — unhappier than ever.

A far more interesting — but unfortunately less explored — perspective is that of Stacee Jaxx (Tom Cruise). In the original Broadway version of the movie, Jaxx is a washed up creep, but his character was altered for the film. (Let’s be real: Tom Cruise is way too pretty to play a washed up creep.)

As the lead singer of Arsenal, the world’s biggest rock band, Stacee Jaxx has more fame than he knows what to do with. Coddled by his wily manager Paul Gill (the superbly cast Paul Giamatti), Jaxx coasts through life with an entourage of scantily clad groupies and bottles of Wild Turkey Whiskey until Rolling Stone reporter Constance Sack (Malin Ackerman) finally gives him a reality check.

Cruise’s acting is absorbing, and it’s easy to understand how every (and I really do mean every) woman in the film finds Stacee Jaxx irresistible. He has magnetism that allows him to get away with appalling things. When he meets Sherrie, now a waitress at the renowned Bourbon Room, for the first time, he places his hand on her, uh, chest. But when he says, “You have a perky … heart” with such compelling charisma, every woman in the theater wishes she were Sherrie in that moment.

It’s a shame that Stacee Jaxx is only in the film for about 45 minutes. Cruise’s dedicated work (he received vocal training for five hours a day before filming) does not receive the attention it deserves. The Venus Gentlemen’s Club’s owner Justice Charlier (Mary J. Blige), Bourbon Room owner Dennis Dupree (Alec Baldwin) and manager Paul Gill all suffer the same fate — too little screen time is given to good performances.

Don’t get me wrong: Watching Rock of Ages is thoroughly enjoyable. It’s easy to sing along to the classic ’80s tunes and appreciate the punny humor. What Rock of Ages lacks in textbook plot and character development it makes up with the pure spectacle of ’80s rock. The theatrical release poster says, “Nothin’ But A Good Time” (an ode to Poison’s hit song), and that’s exactly what this film is — nothing more, nothing less.

I admit that I was stoked to see Ridley Scott at the helm of this one. He did “Alien” so well that maybe he might be able to lend some of his magic to the new iteration of the series. All “Prometheus” shows us is that he has lost his way in the churning gears of time, and no amount of wishes or sacrifices to the film gods will ever give us back what we had before.

The film begins with what we learn is how humankind was introduced on earth via alien tampering. Then we get introduced to two archeologists who uncover further evidence as to the origin of our species. This is the beginning of the bad science that the movie hinges on. “Screw proper excavation techniques! We need to get the plot piece that sends us to LV-426 (the planet where the aliens that we’re all familiar with are found in the first film).” I have no idea why they changed the name of the planet to LV-224. Like hardcore sci-fi nerds wouldn’t pick that up? It’s not at all important. I didn’t care that they changed the name, I’m just saying, why the hell do it? This question will never be answered. But it sets the tone for the film nicely: nothing anybody does ever makes sense. Not that it matters. It doesn’t matter because the plot is nearly non-existent.

Then they go to the planet with a team of unhinged scientists. Since when do people with obvious personality disorders get cleared to go on deep space missions? The geologist is a mohawk-wearing, tattoo-bearing psychopath who does no geology at all. All he does is release some stupid barking floating mapping devices that map the alien ship out. I guess in the year 2093, jobs are so abundant that they can’t give ‘em away. This is the most significant discovery in the history of mankind, and yet, they get the D-stringers from the science team. I guess education continues to take a tumble future-historically.

The geologist goes fooling around in the ruins with the equally useless and dumb biologist, who, when he encounters an alien life-form he does what every good scientist does: he tries to pet it. Pet it? Seriously? He calls it pretty. The thing looks like a cobra-vagina-penis (yes, it looked like all of those things at once) and is obviously posturing aggressively, and he wants to pet it? This does not make sense. Like many other things in the film, they do not make sense! Doesn’t anybody watch any movies in the future? It defies rational behavior! Let’s make a leap and say that yes, there are still films in 2093. Creepy space cobra-vagina-penises kill people in movies, and have for the better part of the history of film. Oh yeah, and those guys die in a horrible fashion. When it happened I couldn’t help but laugh out loud because I couldn’t care less anymore.

Characters? What are those? I would love to call these characters two-dimensional, but that indicates at least two planes of detail. They’re lifeless bags of flesh saying lines that are vapid, empty and devoid of any meaning. I disliked most of them (when I had a reason to feel any emotion for them), but usually they were just there to be killed.

The whole reason they showed up is to find who created the human race, but that plot gets so distant to what is actually going on, that it doesn’t seem to matter anymore. Even the terrifying monsters don’t even show up until maybe the last 10 minutes of the film. You can’t show the monsters, and if you do, you need to use them after you show them. But they just seem to be forgotten after they make an appearance. “Oh, look at those alien skeletons. I wonder what they were running away from. Do you feel like playing Tetris? This science thing is hard!” Where’s the story?

There was far too much “running away from the thing that was going to fall on/open up beneath/away from” in the movie. I thought this was a sci-fi horror film with undertones of xenophobia and isolation. Nope. I don’t even think Ridley Scott could tell you what kind of a film this is without lying his ass off.

The pacing was abysmal. The film seemed to have been mangled while trying to cross the plot superhighway and still tried to drag itself to the other side of the road. It wasn’t until after the two “scientists” died that the movie got the least bit interesting, and that was after about an hour.

It was pretty to look at. That does not even come close to making things OK.

“Prometheus” is a studio-produced betrayal of the original subject matter. Ridley Scott straight up pulled a “Star Wars: Episode One” on the “Alien” franchise.

If you must see it, go ahead. But you may be better off just seeing “Alien” and “Aliens” over again and consider everything that came out afterward as a bad dream.

Congratulations “The Devil Inside,” you were bumped down to second place for the worst film of the year award.

Grade: F

The entire weekend was a blast. There was much to see and many activities catered to a variety of interests. According to festival organizers, the 80,000 festival-goers at Bonnaroo increased the population of Manchester to the seventh most populated city in the United States.

Upon entering the festival grounds for the first time, it was obvious that it was the most well-organized music festival I had ever attended.

Prior to Bonnaroo, I had been to several smaller festivals, all of which were fun, but many important amenities were unavailable to the crowd, such as free water.

Bonnaroo‘s organizers made sure that no one was dehydrated. There were multiple water stations in convenient locations where festival-goers could fill their water bottles for free. For anyone who has run out of water during a summer festival, this is an awesome feature.

I heard that the festival was big, and there were a lot of activities, but I underestimated the sheer magnitude of the event.

For one, there is no way to see everything. Although I was able to check out many artists who I have been waiting to see for quite a while, there were still many areas that I was unable to visit.

For example, my fiance and I wanted to go to the Silent Disco, which was a dance hall where everyone danced and listened to music through headphones – no music could be heard by passers-by. It was funny to see a huge crowd people dancing to no music. Though we wanted to partake in this, we never found the time (and the popularity for the Silent Disco usually produced an enormous line).

Bonnaroo is truly a music lover’s paradise. Walking through CenterRoo (the main festival area) usually ends with at least a couple of fun surprises, such as an unannounced performance by Jacob Hemphill of the reggae band SOJA at the Relix magazine tent.

The headliners for this year’s Bonnaroo were nothing short of amazing.

Radiohead’s stage show was the largest and most impressive of the weekend. The band played mostly newer songs, but satisfied long time fans with a few older ones – the set ended with my personal favorite, “Paranoid Android.”

The Red Hot Chili Peppers gave a phenomenal performance as well. The band’s new guitarist, Josh Klinghoffer, had the opportunity to prove to the large crowd why he was worthy of filling the shoes of RHCP veteran John Frusciante, who departed in 2009. The band played many favorites, including “Under the Bridge,” “Suck My Kiss” and “Give it Away,” as well as new songs such as “Rain Dance Maggie.”

If I could give a Bonnaroo MVP award to any artist, it would be the Chicago-based jam band Umphrey’s McGee. The band was scheduled to perform the Friday late night set from 2–4 a.m., but surprised fans with a tweener set from Big Gigantic at 4 a.m. and went back on stage and rocked until 6 a.m. This was Umphrey’s Mcgee’s sixth Bonnaroo appearance, and it was clear why the band is asked to come back again and again.

The Saturday late night was the only letdown for me. Having been impressed by other electronic acts such as Bassnectar and Pretty Lights, I was excited to see Skrillex perform. His show was good, but not great. His light show wasn’t as creative as I anticipated and he ended his show 15 minutes early. Because Umphrey’s McGee went all out during its late-night set, I expected Skrillex to go above and beyond as well. Unfortunately, he fell short.

All in all, the weekend was a success, and I encourage anyone who has not been to Bonnaroo to make sure they attend next year – you won’t be disappointed.

Abrahm Lustgarten

W.W. Norton

April 2012

The basic plot is that four friends are vacationing in Europe, hopping from country to country and enjoying the sights until they reach the Ukraine, where they meet up with the older brother of one of the friends who schedules a surprise trip to the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant through an illegal tour company. As they are about to wrap up the tour, they discover that their van has been disabled, and they become trapped in the radioactive town of Pripyat near the plant.

To be completely fair, the movie was good. Until you reach a certain point and realizing that it is snowballing to an end, you’re completely sucked in. The basic problem with the movie is the lack of a payoff. Viewers are left with questions that are answered sloppily at best, if at all. And certain characters who are built up to do something great are killed off without them having realized their potential. While some of the deaths are appropriately abrupt, others are too glazed over, leaving you wondering what the point of the character was in the first place.

We’re going to breech protocol and offer up a spoiler here to illustrate the point, you’ve been warned.

Two of the friends are actually in a relationship, with Chris (Jesse McCartney, “Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked”) planning to propose later on in the trip. At one point, he is injured by the radioactive mutant people suddenly running loose at night, and stays in the van with his girlfriend Natalie (Olivia Dudley, in her first lead roll) while the rest of the stranded tourists go for help. When the tourists find wires that the van needs to run they head back to their friends, only to discover the van in shambles and their friends gone. They find their video camera, which shows Chris trying to propose, but then the video shows the van being attacked before cutting out. Later, those still alive find Natalie alive, but no Chris. Later, they find the engagement ring, but again, no Chris. Not even a corpse.

The reason this passiveness ruins the character is because he is a main character. He is also the sensible one, but with a bit of a temper. He butts heads with his brother Paul (Jonathan Sadowski, “The Goods: Live hard, Sell Hard”), and there is a fairly big rift between them when they separate and Chris ends up “missing” (read: eaten somewhere). The movie makes a huge point of creating this huge tension between the brothers, bringing up past issues while new ones are being introduced, and these issues are never resolved. They are built up to a point where you are just waiting for him to snap…and then he’s gone. Out of the movie entirely. His reserved but minor displays of toughness give the impression that he is going to do something fantastic later in the movie. Maybe he’ll die in the van while shooting mutants to save his girlfriend, or maybe he’ll even defy all the odds and survive until the end of the movie. You form expectations for the character, and then he disappears. You don’t even get the satisfaction of witnessing his death. It just happens, somewhere off screen, and you have to accept it.

The acting in “Chernobyl Diaries” was actually great, McCartney and Sadowski especially. The two were every bit the bickering brothers they portrayed, and the level of emotion they expressed was beautiful as it was tragic. Sadowski stood out even more,  mostly because he was in the movie longer and had more chances to impress, but still.

The movie offered an interesting plot with a few memorable characters and great acting, but the writing itself was just terrible. Wait to see it until it’s on DVD.

However, Mayer’s latest studio album, Born and Raised, is a redemption album — an apology for all of his past mistakes. It’s an album that literally says “Hard times helped me see / I’m a good man with a good heart.” Battle Studies, his last album, sort of represents the dark days, while on B&R, it’s as if he’s found the light. An uplifting vibe flows through the entire track list and the lyrics indicate Mayer’s desire for atonement.

The opening track, “Queen of California,” begins with the words “Goodbye cold, good bye rain / Goodbye sorrow and goodbye shame.” The song is an embodiment of blissful, up-beat chords and finger-picking on the guitar. “Shadow Days,” the third track and first single off the album, really stands out. It has a melody that immediately draws the listener in, and the guitar and piano
complement each other well.

“Born and Raised,” the title track, is another great one that slows it all down and serenades you with crisp harmonies and harmonica playing. Even slower is, “A Face to Call Home,” a calm
song that picks up around 2:42 with a great guitar riff and the repeating words, “Baby I could stay awhile.”

While the album primarily features crafty guitar pieces, it blends instruments like the piano, harmonica and organ as well. There is a soulful simplicity to the album that was well thought-out. Nothing sounds overdone and there’s no overkill.

Born and Raised is Mayer’s fifth studio album and was released in stores on May 22. It certainly has Grammy potential, so go check it out.

Directed by Rupert Sanders, “Snow White and the Huntsman” follows the darker route of the Brothers Grimm fairy tale, in which Snow White (Kristen Stewart) must take back the kingdom from the oppressive Queen Ravenna (Charlize Theron), who usurped the throne by marrying her father and killing him in the sack.

Once the audience accepts that Kristen Stewart is supposed to trump Charlize Theron in the looks department, the premise of the fairy tale becomes easier to fathom.

Put under a spell by her mother as a child to preserve her beauty, Ravenna is a megalomaniac about her looks, and it doesn’t help that her brother Finn (Sam Spruell) is equally obsessed with his sister to a creepy degree.

Subsisting on a rich diet of birds’ hearts, it’s a little surprising to see Ravenna keep her figure, but then it becomes clear that she derives her looks by sucking the life out of young girls and dunking herself into weird milk baths, crown and all. Locking Snow White up in the castle for 10 years, Ravenna learns from her giant platter of a mirror that she must devour Snow White’s heart to fully gain the immortality she desires.

When Snow White escapes the castle, Ravenna sends the Huntsman (Chris Hemsworth) to track her down. The Huntsman decides to take sides with Snow White and takes the opportunity to breathe in her face for romantic tension by teaching her how to fight in combat, giving her the necessary skills to battle Ravenna for her rightful kingdom.

While her English accent vacillates in and out of varying degrees of mumbling and mouth breathing, Stewart’s Snow White is all right, and at least she had a suit of armor to avoid slouching in the battle scenes. It is Theron’s appropriately over-the-top Ravenna that invigorates the screen and actually provides a decent argument on the problematic emphasis placed on women’s looks.

The special effects are especially impressive, from the knights made out of slick black shards to the intricately detailed dark forest. Likewise, costume designer Colleen Atwood deserves props for Ravenna’s couture-like gowns that simultaneously look high fashion while echoing a Darth Vader-level malevolence.

Like Ravenna’s vanity issues, though, the film becomes a little more obsessed with looks over substance. The gorgeous cinematography and sweeping images of bloodshed take precedence over various plot holes throughout the film. For instance, Ravenna’s powers cannot work in the dark forest, yet she manages to swing on by and trick Snow White into biting into that wretched apple.

The film lacks the interludes of humor necessary for its two-hour run time, though the rambunctious dwarves who show up halfway through the film give a little rest to the constant battlement and queen tantrums. While a little formulaic, the sumptuous cinematography and attention to detail in design are truly sights to see.

Also, it’s just nice to see a Snow White wielding a sword instead of a broom covered in chirpy birds for a change.

The storyline follows the escape of brutal alien assassin Boris the Animal from the Lunar Max prison. He comes back to Earth and travels back in time to kill Agent K — as revenge for a previous escapade in which K took Boris’ arm — and let Earth be destroyed by his alien counterparts. Boris alters the course of history by killing K in July 1969; in turn, Earth faces imminent destruction. To rectify the situation, Agent J journeys back to the late ’60s to try and prevent the assassination of Agent K.

In the course of his mission, J gets the chance to meet young Agent K (Josh Brolin) and uncover secrets that shed light on both J and K’s lives in the present. These discoveries occur throughout the characters’ efforts to save Earth from future destruction by an evil alien race.

This film does several things right. First, it stays true to the series’ characteristic blend of comedy and sci-fi action. Though in the beginning it seemed like another cheesy sequel, the fresh twist on J and K’s partnership hit the bullseye on genre blending. The classic quotes from Smith came out in the very first scene and the audience loved his quick quips. In addition to its comedic nature, the plot was well balanced. It did not go over the top or try to outdo the previous two films, and it provided a case that was easy for the audience to understand.

Some crucial questions were left unanswered in the wake of the first two movies. This film tied up those loose ends nicely by letting the audience delve into the past of both Agents J and K. It solved the mysteries of Agent K’s stubborn attitude and Agent J’s entrance into the Men in Black while providing a satisfying conclusion. And after the long hiatus this series took, the plot took off right from where they left off in the second film in a smooth transition, something that many reboots or sequels fail to do.

The cast members’ excellent performances further enhanced the movie. Smith inhabits the classic role of Agent J perfectly, provoking plenty of laughter and bringing additional character to the film. In addition, Brolin does an incredible job playing the young Agent K, emulating Jones to perfection. Finally, Jones himself continues to play a fantastic Agent K, blunt humor and all. Overall, the acting in this film has stepped up since Men in Black II.

One thing to note is that this film deals with time travel. Time travel, even in movies, is complex, and pulling it off with a satisfactory explanation requires finesse and caution or the audience is lost in disbelief. MIB III does it very well by using the concept of the fifth dimension, where all possible futures, pasts and presents simultaneously occur.  The butterfly effect also plays a crucial role in justifying the film’s fictional time travel.

All in all, MIB III delivers on all fronts. It is well worth your time and money to go see this comedic sci-fi film that incorporates its prequels seamlessly. It provides a fresh perspective on the traditional storyline with quality acting to boot. Most importantly, MIB III is a stellar capstone to a series that everyone has and will love well into the future.

Those are the three different volumes present in one of the first summer blockbusters of the year, “Battleship.” The movie’s plot is relatively simple. Humans have sent a radio signal out to deep space and it has finally been answered by things that are unequivocally hostile. A group of ships crashes into the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Oahu, right in the middle of naval war games.

Lieutenant Alex Hopper (Taylor Kitsch) is a slacker turned semi-slacking naval officer, and he is poised to be kicked out of the navy by Admiral Shane (Liam Neeson), who just happens to be the disapproving father of Hopper’s girlfriend, Sam (Brooklyn Decker). But that’s all before the aliens attack, and from then on the movie is similar to Michael Bay’s “Transformers” series, but it takes place on the ocean.

Whether or not viewers enjoy this film is going to be entirely dependent on expectations. Audience members expecting anything remotely in the realm of subtlety is not going to find it. That being said, if moviegoers want explosions, (mostly) witty one-liners and super loud music by Steve Jablonsky (who, incidentally, also composed the score for “Transformers)”, they will find exactly what they’re looking for in “Battleship.”

And that’s because the special effects in this movie are spectacular. From the alien ships to smaller, demonic wheel-ships that reign terror down on unsuspecting military installments, alien technology is portrayed with exact and horrific scope. These aliens are packing some serious heat.

It’s in the area of acting that “Battleship” really falls short. Kitsch and Neeson turn in fine performances, but Decker’s performance is usually shallow, and she rarely gives her lines any sort of context – they don’t fit the intensity of the situation.

The best two performances come from two supporting characters. The first is from Jesse Plemons as Boatswain Mate Seaman Jimmy “Ordy” Ord, who acted alongside Kitsch in the television adaptation of “Friday Night Lights” (which Peter Berg also oversaw). Plemons comes across as naturally petrified, and his desperation to receive orders from Hopper in the face of an alien onslaught is truly convincing.

But the best and most surprising performance comes from Rihanna, who plays Petty Officer Cora “Weps” Raikes. Rihanna clearly has a blast portraying the tough young woman who excels at making things blow up. It’s a little weird seeing Rihanna as an officer in the Navy, but she makes it work in what will surely not be her last major role in a film.

But one only has so much time to take in any of these performances, because then the explosions and screeching of metal start in again, vaulting the viewer right back into the chaos and combat.

When all is said and done, “Battleship” is good for what it is: an action-packed, testosterone-filled blockbuster. The special effects and music are good and loud, the acting is okay – if spotty at times – and the scenery of the island is beautiful as well. The film is no Academy Award contender, but it was never trying to be.

“Battleship” is perfectly comfortable being a somewhat shallow, but nonetheless diverting and enjoyable action movie, and so it does a good job at being just that. And it must be noted that, even though the “Transformers” series was reviewed negatively by critics, it made a huge amount of money and was successful with audiences. “Battleship” can be expected to have the same success.

“The Dictator,” Cohen’s latest film scheduled for release nationwide Wednesday, marks the third major movie Cohen has had a hand in writing, producing and starring in. The film documents Admiral General Aladeen (Cohen), who is the supreme leader of Wadiya, a fictional, oil-immersed country in North Africa. A man who has made his life’s goal to keep Wadiya under his dictatorship, Aladeen has obtained everything he has hoped for, except a heavy arsenal of nuclear weapons and love.

After announcing that Wadiya was on the brink of obtaining nuclear capabilities, Aladeen is summoned to the United Nations. After a string of events, he is left stranded to fend for himself in the streets of New York City, and replaced with Wadiya’s second in command, Tamir (Ben Kingsley), who has an agenda of his own.

With his trademark beard shaved off his face, Aladeen goes unnoticed throughout New York City, and is forced to begin a job working for Zoey (Anna Faris) at her extremely liberal organic health food shop. Their two worlds awkwardly collide as Aladeen works to regain power of his country while helping Zoey with her store along the way.

Compared to Cohen’s other two films, “Borat” and “Bruno,” “The Dictator” serves by far as the most traditional film. It has a much more evident plot line that remains consistent from start to finish. Of course, no Cohen film is complete without the attempts of hard-core humor.

As is expected of Cohen, he did an effective job when it came to poking fun at some modern issues and dilemmas faced in the news.

Overall, it was crude, it was disgusting and it was downright wrong. I’m guessing that is why a full house at the Gateway Film Center, myself included, couldn’t stop laughing for 75 minutes.

Directed by Joss Whedon

Starring Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, and Scarlett Johansson

Rated PG-13

Now Playing

For his hour of standup, Gaffigan had the auditorium full of laughter as he discussed family, dietary habits, fast food restaurants and going to the bar.

“For those of you who don’t know me, my name is Urban Meyer,” Gaffigan yelled to a laughing crowd.

He then divulged on parenthood, especially the newest addition to his family, his fourth child.

“Just imagine you’re drowning, and then someone hands you a baby,” he said.

Eating habits and various fast food chain restaurants played a part in Gaffigan’s act.

“Hot dogs are like strippers,” Gaffigan said. “You don’t want to hear their back story.”

Another focus of Gaffigan’s jokes was McDonald’s. Although most people won’t admit they eat there, he said almost everyone does because its food is actually amazing.

“Has your mom ever made anything as good as McDonald’s fries?” he asked. “Of course not.”

Gaffigan said he always hears people say they would never eat at McDonald’s.

“Well McDonald’s wouldn’t want you, because you’re a d—,” he said.

But people’s attitudes toward McDonald’s wasn’t the only thing Gaffigan said annoyed him. He said picking up a friend from the bar is like picking up a toddler from day care. There is always someone screaming, crying or wanting to get in a fight.

“He was standing where I wanted to stand,” Gaffigan yelled. “Or, she was my best friend, but not anymore.”

Gaffigan also said at every bar there is “that guy” who uses anything as an excuse to take a shot, and he peer pressures others to join him.

“He acts like you’re rejecting a sweater that he crocheted you,” Gaffigan said.

Referring to women bartenders who act like “the master” of the bar toward costumers Gaffigan said, “I’m not going to say b—-y … Because that would describe them perfectly.”

On the other end of the spectrum, Gaffigan said women bartenders also have the habit of calling people “honey” and sounding like your grandma.

“‘What can I get you, honey,’” he mocked. “‘Oh, I don’t know, maybe a birthday card with $2 in it.”

Going back to food, Gaffigan said his eating habits were not so healthy.

“I’m on a diet,” he said. “That Domino’s pasta bread bowl diet. The only ingredient missing is a suicide note.”

Gaffigan poked fun at various food chains, aside from Domino’s. His jokes about Subway seemed to be a crowd pleaser.

“It’s fun to watch a clinically depressed person make your sandwich,” Gaffigan said. “They make it right in front of you, why not do it with some flare?”

After then proceeding to joke about his weight, lack of exercise and then pretending to talk on an imaginary phone to “annoy” the audience, Gaffigan thanked the crowd and walked off stage. He returned for an encore saying that he had went behind stage to eat a Hot Pocket, after the majority of Mershon Auditorium gave him a standing ovation.

Robert Brickner, a fourth-year OSU student, said he enjoyed the entire show and that Gaffigan was hilarious.

“My favorite line was, ‘Hot dogs are like strippers, you don’t want to know their backstory,’” Brickner said.

Mollie Worthington, a first-year OSU student, said she has always loved Gaffigan and his non-vulgar style of performing.

“He has a rambling way of telling his jokes,” she said. “It takes a couple seconds to get it but when you do it’s hilarious.”

The album, produced by Brian “Danger Mouse” Burton, who has worked with U2 and Gnarls Barkley, begins with a whimsical tune called “Good Morning.”

The song is slow and melodic, but the lyrics reveal that the album was going to take me through all of the stages of her breakup. Lyrics such as, “Good morning / Why did you do it? / I couldn’t sleep / I knew you were gone,” let me know this was the introduction to her journey of a heartache.

“Say Goodbye,” the second song on the album, is surprisingly upbeat considering the context. The song begins with, “Bring me back the good old days / When you left and misbehaved,” which implies there were issues of fidelity in her past relationship.

With a slow but catchy tempo, “Little Broken Hearts” has a haunting feel to it.

“Travelin’ On” is a song about moving on, which made it one of my favorites on the album. The combination of her velvet voice, the simple guitar and the sad violin was fantastic.

Lyrics such as “Hey I’m too weak / It’s too much to fight off / A past so strong,” makes me think she will always be drawn to this heartbreaker.

“Happy Pills” is a pleading song asking her former lover to let her go.

“Miriam” packs a strong punch. I pay a lot of attention to the lyrics, and this song names the enemy quite obviously. Lyrics such as, “Miriam / When you were having fun / In my big pretty house / Did you think twice?” stab at her enemy.

The darkest songs of the album stood out to me, because the listener feels her pain exuding from her lyrics. This album takes the listener on a journey of heartbreak, but her pain makes for some really powerful music.

Grade: A-

Here’s where Nerd-dom collectively sighs, “Told you so.” They’ve been preaching the Gospel of Whedon for years, but “The Avengers” is Joss’s long-awaited, much-deserved coming-out party for the rest of the world — a soiree that makes the “Project X” riffraff look like a neighborhood potluck. From opening frame to post-credits sequence, “The Avengers” glistens with effervescent entertainment — it’s classic stand-up-and-cheer, holy-shit-did-The Hulk-just-do-that cinema that leaves audiences with a grin plastered on their face as they exit the hall, furiously pulling up Google Calendar to check when they can experience the movie again.

The first films of superhero franchises are always bogged down by the necessity to tell the origin story (see: how much better “The Dark Knight” and “Spider-man 2” are than their predecessors), but “The Avengers” takes advantage of its status as a quasi-sequel even further. The standalone Marvel movies gave introductions to not just Captain America (Chris Evans), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), The Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) and Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) and all his S.H.I.E.L.D. agents, but also the film’s main villain Loki (Tom Hiddleston) and the Tesseract, a blue cube that is the object of everybody’s interest (it’s powers aren’t sufficiently explained, but who gives a shit, it gets the Avengers to bring the pain).

So “The Avengers” gets to cut right to the action, with Loki’s theft of the Tesseract and the assembling of the Avengers — and it’s these opening scenes where the idea that this movie is going to be truly remarkable begins to take root.

In the briefest of vignettes, the film saves the Black Widow from irrelevant character-stasis, unveils Captain America’s 21st century loneliness, shows the heart behind Tony Stark’s caustic facade and gets Bruce Banner to actually crack a quip, exuding Whedon’s expertise in developing dynamite characters.

Like the boss he is, Whedon never loses focus that this is a team movie — every single Avenger, from Thor to Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) gets a dramatic showcase, spouts uproarious zingers and goes H.A.M. in a moment that demands a thunderous ovation. Whedon’s control of this delicate equilibrium is at center stage during the film’s sensational final battle — a flurry of hearty laughs (unrelenting, in a good way) and electrifying action set pieces that culminates in a stunning single take featuring every one of Earth’s Mightiest Heroes earning their title. Heaven is a place where you can watch the Avengers duke it out with Loki’s alien horde in midtown Manhattan for eternity.

These days, the phrase “gamechanger” is thrown around as casually as the Hulk kicks the living shit out of Loki and his minions, but that’s exactly what “The Avengers” is for blockbuster cinema. The smashing success of “The Avengers” shows that Marvel’s massive gamble was an absolute bonanza and that such elaborate, multi-layered storytelling is possible in Hollywood.

More importantly, it shows that big-budget productions can thrive outside of the hands of commercial and music video directors (no hard feelings, Michael Bay).

Putting years of planning and hundreds of millions of dollars in the hands of Joss Whedon, a man with a single directorial feature to his name — that had a domestic gross totaling barely a tenth of the production budget for “The Avengers” — but a body of work worth billions in quality, proves that studios can be rewarded with leaps of faith. Filmmakers like Whedon may not be able to protect Hollywood from Bay-esque schlock, but you can be damn sure they’ll avenge it.

Such is the case for “The Avengers,” the first in Marvel’s cinematic canon to be an honest-to-goodness grand slam.

“The Avengers” follows Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Captain America (Chris Evans), the Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), and later Thor (Chris Hemsworth), who are assembled when Thor’s brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston), is brought to Earth through a portal created by the Tesseract, a cube with unlimited energy.

Led by Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) and aided by Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) and Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), S.H.I.E.L.D. is charged with stopping Loki before he and the alien Chitauri race go to full-scale war to enslave Earth over the rights to the Tesseract and its power.

Lost in many of the overblown, action-riddled Marvel films is story. Neither the “Iron Man” films, despite Downey Jr.’s charisma, nor the woeful Sam Raimi “Spider-Man” films, for example, were able to keep up much of a cohesive narrative with so many things exploding in the distance.

“The Avengers” is different.

Director Joss Whedon, the pop culture guru whose credits include “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” and “Firefly,” brings a melodious mesh of humor, story and ass-kicking action to the table. “The Avengers” is not offensively stupid like a lot of its superhero ilk, which is a breath of fresh air in a climate of bourgeois cinema favorites adopted from comic books such as “Transformers.” Rather, “The Avengers” is a total blast without ever resorting to too many gratuitous shots of Johansson’s lady lumps and leg-humping dogs.

Perhaps more commendable is Whedon’s symbiosis of different universes. Whedon likely had to walk on egg shells writing a script combining character and story arcs of beloved heroes with devoted individual bases, and the end result is one that’s largely faithful and without too much clunky exposition.

If there’s any semblance of a complaint, it’s that “The Avengers” is a bit slow in parts. At 143 minutes, “The Avengers” isn’t particularly swift, but once S.H.I.E.L.D.’s invisible airship starts blowing up and New York City is later invaded by the gnarly Chitauri warriors, “The Avengers” shifts into overdrive and delivers one of the most awe-inspiring final acts in recent memory.

It also needed more Hulk, who was largely the most enjoyable Avenger to watch, especially near the end, when he provides much of the film’s comic relief.

That’s nit-picking, however, as “The Avengers” is a true romp, one that’s both fun and funny without ever feeling too frivolous. Even Loki, who wasn’t especially menacing in 2011’s “Thor,” was a surprisingly sufficient villain, even if he doesn’t carry the same star power as some other Marvel-universe baddies.

In fact, when Captain America instructs the Hulk to “smash,” he foreshadows “The Avengers’” success, as that’s exactly what this film will be, both critically and financially.

“The Avengers” is rated PG-13 and is slated to hit theaters Friday.

Grade: A-

Most summer movies are adrenaline-fueled blockbusters, and this summer’s roster is no different. With movies from fan favorites like Christopher Nolan, Joss Whedon and Ridley Scott, Hollywood’s hottest season doesn’t look like it will disappoint.

The summer movie lineup for 2012 is one of the best in recent memory, but I’ve managed to narrow it down to this list of what I think will be the five best movies of the season.
“The Avengers,” May 4

Set for release this Friday, “The Avengers” signals the beginning of the summer movie season. Fans have been waiting for this one since the 2008 reboot of “Iron Man.” Finally, we’ll be able to see all of our favorite superheroes together on one screen.

Helmed by the ultimate fanboy, Joss Whedon, the film is already garnering high praise for its mix of action and humor. It seems the movie has lived up to the years of hype.

I’ll be first in line to see “The Avengers” at the midnight premiere. While it may not be the summer’s best superhero movie, it’ll definitely be the most fun.

“Prometheus,” June 8

In its infancy, “Prometheus” was set to be a prequel to Ridley Scott’s “Alien” series. Scott decided against this, opting to set the movie in the same universe as “Alien,” but creating a new story with
new characters.

The cast looks to be the best part of the film. Scott brought in heavy hitters like Noomi Rapace, known for her brilliant performance as Lisbeth Salander in the Swedish version of “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.” There’s also Michael Fassbender, Charlize Theron, Idris Elba and Guy Pearce.
Couple a cast like that with Scott’s top-notch direction, and you can’t go wrong.

I have one beef with the movie: The trailers have damn near given away the entire plot. If you haven’t seen any of them yet, watch only the first trailer. The others contain plenty of spoilers.
“The Amazing Spider-Man,” July 3

While I’m most excited for Batman’s final installment, I’m almost equally anxious for the beginning of a new “Spider-Man” franchise.

Each component of “The Amazing Spider-Man” looks solid. There’s director Marc Webb, most famous for “500 Days of Summer.” Some great young talent in Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone will also hit the screen.

Webb has all the pieces to construct his own “Spider-Man” franchise. He’ll be building it from the ground up, starting off by telling a story fans have been wanting for years — the interactions between Peter Parker and his professor, Curt Connors, who becomes The Lizard, one of Spider-Man’s biggest enemies.
“The Dark Knight Rises,” July 20

Let’s not kid ourselves here. This is, or should be, No. 1 on everyone’s list. “The Dark Knight Rises” is undoubtedly the most anticipated movie of the year.

Everything we’ve seen from this movie so far looks great. Hardcore Batman fans probably think they can figure out most of the plot. But leave it to Nolan to reconstruct the Batman mythology in a brilliant way.

I do have some doubts about this one. Yes, Nolan is a genius, but even geniuses strike out sometimes. Look at the history of trilogies. The first two parts of “The Godfather” trilogy are masterpieces, but part three was a dud. Same with Sam Raimi’s “Spider-Man” trilogy.

I’m hoping Nolan can prove me wrong, and I believe he can. Like “The Dark Knight” before it, “Rises” will likely be everyone’s favorite movie this year. Unfortunately, it will also signal the end of one of the best trilogies of all time.
“The Bourne Legacy,” Aug. 3

An August movie still counts as a summer movie, right? This is not just the newest entry into the “Bourne” series. Rather, it’s the beginning of a new series. Matt Damon is nowhere to be seen here, as budding action star Jeremy Renner will take the reins.

Renner portrays Aaron Cross, another product of the Blackbriar program that gave Jason Bourne all of his ass-kicking abilities. The formula for “Legacy” is as simple and brilliant as its predecessors — Cross is innocent, but the CIA tries to hunt him down. He turns the tables and hunts them. Plenty of asses are kicked along the way.

For me, nothing beats a well-crafted spy movie. Renner was great in last year’s “Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol,” so I can only expect him to excel in this role, as well as the future “Bourne” movies he’ll likely star in.

Similar to his previous album, “The Adventures of Bobby Ray,” B.o.B features artists on the majority of his tracks. This time around, he shares his spotlight with those such as Taylor Swift, Ryan Tedder and even Morgan Freeman.

Though his previous album has much more of a pop-ish feel, “Strange Clouds” takes on more of a hip-hop sound. The beats are stronger and the bass is louder, showcasing B.o.B’s rapping abilities but leaving no room for a couple of the more upbeat tracks that were present on “The Adventures of Bobby Ray.”

Overall, the sound of the new album is much more consistent, with a definite flow from track to track rather than being all over the place like his last CD was. At times, the songs can seem a bit too similar, but there is some variety throughout the album to break the monotony.

His sound is more developed and, as a result, much better. All the kinks from his previous tracks have been worked out, just as they should be in a second studio album.

Although there isn’t a dance track similar to that of “Magic,” which peaked at No. 10 on the Billboard Top 100 chart, listeners might be inspired to dance in some capacity to the tracks that B.o.B presents this time around, such as “So Good” and “Arena,” the latter featuring Chris Brown and T.I.

“Out of My Mind,” featuring Nicki Minaj, quotes the hit “Airplanes,” but bears no similarity to the track. Nor does any other song on the album, unfortunately for those who were hoping for such.

“Castles,” featuring Trey Songz, is reminiscent of “Nothin’ On You,” and proves to be a strong track on the album. It wouldn’t be surprising if this track were released as a single in the future.

B.o.B’s second album will likely be a best-seller in the weeks to come, with its infectious beats and new sound that pulls listeners in and keeps them on cloud nine.

Grade: B

In Obama’s Rolling Stone interview, the president said: “I think Jon Stewart’s brilliant. It’s amazing to me the degree to which he’s able to cut through a bunch of the nonsense — for young people in particular, where I think he ends up having more credibility than a lot of more conventional news programs do.”

I could not agree more. Stewart’s comedic genius has impacted me as a person on a level that is only eclipsed by the late Christopher Hitchens.

The earliest recollection I have of “The Daily Show” is centered around 9/11. Much like everyone else, I remember that day for the images of the planes smashing into the towers, the horrendous fires and the buildings’ eventual collapse. However, I also recall the moving and emotional introduction Stewart gave on his first “Daily Show” after the attacks. It was in this episode that I developed such an affinity for Stewart. Since then, I’ve been drawn in by his whirlwind of comedic political satire, confronting the likes of Tucker Carlson on “Crossfire,” Jim Cramer and countless other public figures.

Stewart has often made remarks to the effect that if it weren’t for Fox News, he would easily lose more than half of the potential material for his show. Stewart has led the charge against Fox News, “the most powerful name in news.” By using the same exact tactics Fox News uses in their “reporting/commentary,” Stewart memorably demonstrated two salient counter-points:

1) Fox News’ hypocrisy in attempting to tie “Ground Zero Mosque” leader Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf to terrorism. In this clip, Stewart reveals how Fox would be considered a terrorist command center, using its flawed logic. Quite poetically, he uses a clip of a Charlton Heston National Rifle Association speech to solidify his point.

2) The second largest shareholder of News Corp., Fox News’ parent company, outside of the Murdoch family is Al-Waleed bin Talal, the very same shadowy figure who Fox News launched a (hypocritical) scare-tactics campaign against, also regarding the “Ground Zero Mosque.”

Stewart has been accused of demonstrating a double standard in his methods, attacking Fox News and CNN for shoddy journalism practices, while claiming himself to be a comedian first. While this critique is partly true, the fact that Stewart is first and foremost a comedian should not overshadow this man’s insightful, enlightening and brilliant work.

The comedic credentials of “The Daily Show” go without saying. But, in conjunction with this visceral and up-front humor, true moments of journalistic genius have emerged.

To accentuate this point, one of my all-time favorite “Daily Show” pieces, “Jason Jones: Behind the Veil — Persians of Interest,” demonstrated how the show’s writers can accomplish extraordinary feats of journalism without having to use CNN or Fox News as their punching bag. With this series, “The Daily Show” set the gold standard in its coverage of the Iranian Green Revolution, which is an achievement to be heralded.

Whether you lean to the right, the left or forward, it is impossible to deny Stewart’s tremendous influence with millennials. “The Daily Show” is billed as a satirical comedy news show but is certainly steeped in real-world implications. From classic hits like “Indecision” election coverage to “Mess O’Potamia” Iraq war coverage, the program remains consistently a cut above the rest.

So here’s to hoping Stewart extends his contract past the current 2013 agreement.

As the sun was still out, the Arctic Monkeys opened the concert by playing “Brainstorm” — the track that put them on the charts and defined them as a band.

The song was riveting and so was the adrenaline and rock sound that a band of this caliber is known to deliver to its audience.

Fans of the band were touched by the intensity and power that the Arctic Monkeys delivered with the tracks “Don’t Sit Down Cause I’ve Moved Your Chair” and “If You Were There Beware.”

There were many parts of their performance that were similar to their set seen at the Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival this year.

As their one-hour set came to a close, they played their newly released single “R U Mine?” — which was promoted on this year’s Record Store Day.

The lights dimmed in preparation for the main event of the night — The Black Keys — and the audience snapped into attention as soon as they heard the guitar riff and keyboards introduce the song “Howlin’ for You.”

The set predominately consisted of music from the band’s mainstream career.

The Black Keys performed songs from their Grammy award-winning album “Brothers” as well as tracks from their new album, “El Camino,” which was not a surprise since this is the duos first stadium sized tour.

Though they had to appease their new fans, there were also tracks that only longtime listeners of the band knew such as “I’ll Be Your Man,” which was on the band’s first full-length album.

They also played the singles that made them popular among the blues and rock crowds during the growth of the band.

“Thickfreakness” and “Your Touch” lacked nothing and sounded rugged and formidable in comparison to their album counterparts.

Guitarist and vocalist Dan Auerbach of the duo started singing “Everlasting Light” — a fan favorite from “Brothers”— as a giant disco ball propelled down from the rafters.

Finally, the track from their 2008 album “Attack and Release” that propelled The Black Keys to become more of a household name — “I Got Mine” — was performed.

There was a mellow rhythm after the second verse that was dismissed during this live jam session that was a masterfully crafted build.

As Auerbach strung his guitar, the drums kicked in exploding the sounds through the mounted speakers and onto the audience.

The wailing guitars ended the night perfectly.

The premise of the movie is simple enough. Tom Solomon (Segel) and Violet Barnes (Emily Blunt) are engaged, but things keep happening to delay the marriage.

First, as somewhat of a prologue, is Violet’s sister Suzie (Alison Brie) marrying Tom’s best friend Alex (Chris Pratt). Pratt, otherwise known as Andy from “Parks and Recreation,” is the unsung hero of the movie, stealing just about every scene he enters, in hilarious fashion.

From there, Violet’s career is the main cause for delay – the couple moves to Michigan, away from San Francisco and Tom’s promising career as a chef. Violet likes it in Michigan and Tom hates it, resulting in a realistic and tense movie bound to affect any couple traversing that awkward step between settling down with each other and settling down with a career.

Segel co-wrote the screenplay for the film, and his range as a comedic actor just as capable of capturing pain and resentment is on full display. He and Blunt have excellent chemistry on screen, both are earnest in their portrayals to the point where it is impossible to know which of them – if either – is to blame for their current situation.

Though extremely well-written, “The Five-Year Engagement” can be predictable. There is, of course, the character thrown into the mix to test the integrity of Tom’s and Violet’s relationship, as well as a slightly cliche final scene.

The film also feels a bit too long, perhaps because it tries to juggle one or two too many subplots in the air over the course of the entire narrative. None of them necessarily detracts from the movie itself, but the elimination of one would have streamlined the movie a bit.

“The Five-Year Engagement” may be classified as a romantic comedy, but in reality it is rarely romantic and also sneaks some drama and sadness in with the frequently funny comedic material that courses through the entire film.

Fans of Segel’s previous work will no doubt be just as enthralled by his portrayal of Tom, and his rapport with Blunt makes the duo engrossing to watch. Though it is definitely a flawed movie, “The Five-Year Engagement” makes up for any shortcomings with its honesty, heart and ability to make audience members laugh and question life’s priorities all at the same time.

While every year has showcased a new selection of guests and films, patrons will get to experience something that hasn’t been heard in six years: the sound of Ebert’s voice.

Ebert, who was diagnosed with thyroid cancer, was left unable to speak in 2006. But his wife, Chaz, noted one of this year’s special features in her speech at Wednesday’s opening night gala — a commentary track that will be played at Sunday’s showing of “Citizen Kane.”

“One more time, in the Virginia Theatre. His voice,” she said.

The 14th annual festival kicked off with the gala at the president’s house. Aside from Ebert and his wife, other attendees included guests from several of the films, sponsors and University administrators.

The event began with a presentation given by University president-designate Robert Easter, chancellor and vice president Phyllis Wise and other administrators.

Champaign Mayor Don Gerard was also present. He gave Ebert the key to the city, to which Ebert quipped, “When you get a key to the city, where is the lock?” via a message given to his wife.

The guests at the gala said they were eager for the film series.

David Graham, a first-time sponsor, said he was interested in seeing several of the films, including the Oscar-winning “A Separation” and the Indian film “Patang,” which he said is “supposed to be visually amazing.”

“After going for five years, I wanted to give back and be a sponsor,” Graham said.

Kelechi Ezie was excited to see her 13-minute short film “The Truth About Beauty and Blogs” on the big screen. It was shown at 10 p.m. at the Virginia Theatre. Ezie wrote, produced and starred in the film.

“The inspiration was my interest in reality TV and the kind of overexposure that everything is having now,” Ezie said.

Ezie’s film is about a self-obsessed YouTube blogger. While Ezie is not familiar with personally producing YouTube videos, she said she is an regular YouTube watcher and was inspired by online makeup tutorial videos.

This year’s festival is dedicated to Paul Cox. A director, Cox is the subject of “On Borrowed Time,” a documentary that will be screened Friday at 1 p.m.

Cox was thankful for the dedication, but he said the real honor was for Ebert.

“I think it’s amazing that with all his handicaps to still have the festival,” Cox said. “He’s the hero.”

The documentary follows Cox during a serious illness in which he required a liver transplant. He said the documentary began while he was still uncertain of his survival. Three years later, he has returned to Ebertfest and is a repeat attendee. His film “A Woman’s Tale” was shown in 2000, and two other works of his were shown over the decade.

The gala carried over to a showing of “Joe Versus the Volcano” at the Virginia Theatre in Champaign, followed by “The Truth About Beauty and Blogs” and “Phunny Business: A Black Comedy.” Before the first movie, Ebert and Chaz made another appearance.

“He just wanted to come out and see you and says he knows he’s said this once before,” Chaz began. “But this is his happening, and it freaks him out!”

For many of us, our introduction to Jack White’s raw and ferocious guitar playing was the White Stripes’ 2001 hit single, “Fell in Love with a Girl.” Now, White has moved on from his two-piece days, creating other blues-rock groups The Dead Weather and The Raconteurs, while making time for himself on this solo debut.

Single “Sixteen Saltines” could be the ballsier older brother to the White Stripes’ “Hardest Button to Button.” Staccato-heavy riffs clash between talk-box guitar melodies, an incredible sound that grows with intensity until the very end. “Who’s jealous?” repeats White frantically, the words searching for an answer within an arsenal of roaring cymbals and guitars. There’s a reason why “Sixteen Saltines” was one of the album’s singles. It’s an indicator of White’s never-ending creativity, providing listeners with screeching riffs that are sure to be imitated by blues-rock wannabes.

White can shift from in-your-face guitar madman to relaxed and composed crooner. Take “Love Interruption” for example: driven by a sinister acoustic guitar riff and vocal harmonies between White and his female accomplice Ruby Amanfu, the song is an ode to blues-folk love songs. “I won’t let love disrupt, corrupt or interrupt me, anymore.” It starts off as dispirited; lone lover White searching for happiness externally and realizing that the answer to his problems has been with him all along. Listeners will empathize with White because he’s showing so many sides. Anger, sadness and fear — you’re getting all of the White you can handle.

The songs are refreshing and reassuring, reminding listeners of why they fell in love with White in the first place. He’s still got a bag of lyrical and guitar tricks for even the most devoted White fan, keeping listeners in a comfort zone until the end of the album. This is where the artist shows that he’s comfortable in more genres than just blues. Jazz-tinged country songs “I Guess I Should Go to Sleep,” and “On and On and On” move with a fluid spaciness, the absolute opposite of what listeners were introduced to at the beginning of the album. But it works well, and White is fearless in unfamiliar territory. He allows the songs to just ride and crescendo before bringing in an assortment of explosive guitar licks.

Blunderbuss is a culmination of all White has done. It has traces from all of White’s musical efforts, which is why it could not easily be dubbed merely a Dead Weather album or a White Stripes album. White is confident in his experimentation, and although it may not be completely cohesive from beginning to end, it shows that the guitarist still has plenty of musical ideas to share.

This dark and witty show created, written by and starring Lena Dunham, follows the lives of four recently graduated women attempting to “find themselves” amidst the roar of the Big Apple. The characters are nothing like anything we’ve seen before on television, but are everything like what we’ve seen in real life. With visually or abdominally-stimulating shows such as Game of Thrones and Eastbound and Down maturing like a Bordeaux Claret, it’s about time the network produced a show that’s mediocre in the most overachieving sense. Girls provides viewers with more examples of purposeful artistic mediocrity than is fathomable.

The pilot opens with main character Hannah (played by Dunham) at a dinner with a mother who no longer wants to be responsible for her financially, and a father who can’t bear the sight of his daughter unhappy. Hannah, whose only job is an unpaid writing internship, quickly crumbles under the pressure of having her funding permanently frozen and spends the episode doing things which are bad for her, both emotionally and physically.

Her best friend and roommate Marnie (Allison Williams) seems to be financially stable, but is distracted by her attempts to hide from her boyfriend, whose smothering love has recently begun to feel like “a weird uncle just putting his hand on my knee at Thanksgiving.”

At first glance, a summary of this show might look a lot like the plot of “2 Broke Girls,” but this is no Witney Cummings sitcom. These girls aren’t the usual “Rent”-inspired anorexic, artistic, NYC hipsters whom we are used to seeing on shows about poor twenty-somethings.

They’re not even really that destitute, but it’s their utterly uncomfortable normalcy which makes them so appealing. Hannah has this self-awareness which is almost painful to watch; most of it manifests through body-image problems, such as calling herself a “fat baby angel” next to her “Victoria’s Secret angel” roommate. Similarly, she tells her parents she thinks she may be the voice of her generation, immediately degrading it to “at least a voice of a generation.”

Hannah may be busy trying to “be who she is,” but like many a college graduate, she seems to have no concrete clue what that could possibly be.

The cliché social problems don’t seem so bad when they are held together with such simply self-aware dialogue. Hannah masochistically seeks out the company of Adam (Adam Driver). Adam’s snide remarks, amazing talent of finding and pointing out Hannah’s insecurities, and cavalier attitude toward sex are enough to make any girl swoon — and provide a convenient foil for Marnie’s suffocating lovebird, Charlie.

The list of destructive personalities grows when Hannah’s terrifyingly bohemian English friend, Jessa (Jemima Kirke), drops out of the sky and starts to stir things up, urging Hannah to follow in the footsteps of great artists such as Flaubert, Picasso, Mick Jagger and Jessa’s stepbrother.

The shining characteristic of this show is its ability to bring something to the table which none of us have seen for a while: mutability. I can’t tell whether this show is applauding its characters or making fun of them, and I’m totally okay with it.

The whole 30 minutes feels like a prophetic dream which will come true the second I throw my cap in the air, and as hard as it is to watch Dunham’s character fall to pieces, I realize that it’s more a warning of our not-so-far-off future than anything else. It’s dark, it’s real, it’s nightmare fuel, and I’ve already recommended it to anyone who will listen.

Electronic Arts, the major Videogame publisher and developer, which was recently rated The Consumerist’s Worst Company in America, has become a running joke among gamers in the wake of seemingly innumerable controversies. From the recent release of their ‘Origin’ content delivery service, to the “Mass Effect 3” Launch day downloadable content, it seems that as of late, EA games can do no right.

Though it’s only been relatively recently that gamers have begun to pick a fight on a large scale with EA, the company has been condemned by major industry figures for years. In 2004, the company was subject to a major class-action lawsuit over their unfair treatment of their employees and lack of overtime pay. EA has also been accused of sexism as well as ageism. In 2011, to prepare for the release of “Dead Space 2,” EA promoted the “Your Mom Hates Dead Space 2” advertisements, showing the disgust of mothers specifically chosen because their age and the fact that they did not play videogames, at the game’s content, primarily to promote the game through shock value and humor. Critics, such as Daniel Floyd and James Portnow of the ‘Extra Credits’ web series found the advertisements to be in bad taste, and representative of an outdated stereotype that adults and women do not play videogames, which is duly untrue, considering that 40% of gamers are female, and the average age of a gamer is 34, according to the Atlantic.

EA’s decline in popularity with most gamers, however, seems to begin with the release of EA’s ‘Origin’ content delivery service. Origin is a platform that allows for users to purchase content online and download it straight to their machine of choice, without ever having to leave the house. Intended as a competitor to Valve Co.’s content delivery service ‘Steam’, Origin was released in June of 2011. Since then, it has been subject to heavy criticism, mainly over the perceived lack in customer service, as well as a significant amount of unjust account bans that render users unable to access the content that they’ve purchased, even offline.

Another criticism is on the limited number of computers that one is permitted to download their purchased games onto. EA also experienced significant backlash from gamers after the removal of certain games from rival delivery services like “Steam,” making them Origin-exclusive, “Crysis 2” being the most notable example. EA did, however, deny responsibility for “Crysis 2”’s removal, citing Valve’s “business terms” as responsible for the decision.

Images of chat logs and stories of abhorrent dealings with Origin’s customer service representatives flood websites like Reddit.com every day, where gamers gather and discuss issues like this. Since the release of Battlefield 3 in 2011, these have become increasingly prevalent with the difficulties many gamers experienced in either downloading the game itself, or its DLC.

However, the issue as of late has been EA’s treatment of the recently released ‘Mass Effect 3’, the anticipated ending to the Mass Effect trilogy. Both Bioware, the game’s developer and EA’s daughter company, as well as EA itself were heavily criticized before the game was even released, according to Kotaku, for the inclusion of “Launch Day DLC”, extra downloadable content that was available for purchase the very day that the core game was released. As Kotaku puts it, “…if a piece of content is ready for a game’s release day, why would a publisher charge extra for it?” Bioware and EA have defended the decision, citing the fact that the DLC was created after the game was finished. Mass Effect’s executive producer, Casey Hudson, tweeted, “It takes about three months from “content complete” to bug-fix, certify, manufacture, and ship game discs. In that time we work on DLC.” However, some players have mined through the game’s files and found evidence to suggest that the DLC was actually intended as part of the core game, but instead cut out in order to be purchasable.

Mass Effect’s distinctly vague and wildly unpopular ending also caused a major stirrup, with many fans accusing Bioware and EA of specifically creating such an ending in order to charge gamers for a ‘true’ ending after a few months, a move not unheard of in the industry, Capcom being a primary culprit of this maneuver, with their release of “Asura’s Wrath’s” DLC ‘True Ending” for $6.99. It seems though that these plans have since been abandoned, as in the wake of gamers’ angry response, Bioware and EA have come fourth to offer a free piece of downloadable content this summer that will “offer extended scenes that provide additional context and deeper insight into the conclusion of Commander Shepard’s journey,” according to Bioware’s official website.

One thing is for sure, if EA doesn’t begin to shape up and try to improve its relationship with the community, it’s going to lose the support of its fans for good.

As Reddit user Moleculor put it, “EA sucks. I don’t trust them, they don’t care about me (lack of updates, SOPA, etc.), only my cash, and they’ve already had something like four attempts at getting a download service running, and failed so far. Why would I trust them at all?”

Sadly, Tupac is actually dead. Still, reanimated from previous concert footage and with some creative effort on the part of effects powerhouse Digital Domain and AV Concepts, the image of Tupac was unmistakable. It had the Tupac swagger, it had the Tupac face and it even sported the classic Tupac tattoos.

Almost immediately, photos and videos from the concert went viral.

Networks like Twitter and Facebook blew up. Some users referred to the hologram as “creepy” or “too real.” Andrew Alejandre, a linguistics junior who posted a video of the concert on Facebook, wrote, “He kinda’ glides when he walks, like he is on skates, or ice or something, but that is pretty freaking real looking!”

One fan even responded by creating a Hologram Tupac Twitter page. Overnight, the Twitter page attracted upwards of 3,500 followers. In response to a fan’s question about why he isn’t following anyone on Twitter, Hologram Tupac tweeted, “Hologram Tupac don’t follow nobody.”

According to MTV.com, Dr. Dre was the main brain of this project. However, officials at AV Concepts, the company behind the actual projection, refused to discuss the mechanics and technology behind it with the Daily Wildcat and other news organizations.

After seeing such a realistic image, some students think that the holographic concert could become a thing of the future. “That’d be so sick to be in a restaurant and just pay a couple dollars (to see a long-dead band),” said Joe Putrelo, a pre-journalism freshman. He also said that he would be willing to pay $50 or $60 to see a holographic concert.

But the Tupac show wasn’t the first of its kind. Fictional band Gorillaz played with Madonna on a holographic stage at the 2006 Grammy Awards show, and Black Eyed Peas also incorporated holograms into their concerts.

Not only do the images wow viewers, but this technology could allow an artist to perform at multiple venues simultaneously.

Even though Tupac can only live through fancy new equipment, Hollywood’s ability to wow audiences with something new is alive and well. And who knows? Maybe we can see all four Beatles playing together in the near future.

The most disappointing part of “Love” is that Mraz seems to have lost his desire to experiment, sonically or conceptually. On 2005’s “Mr. A-Z,” he dabbled in opera, psychedelic rock, and rap, and wrote songs about airplanes and the moon. Even when Mraz missed the mark, it was refreshing to hear a singer-songwriter exploring in a genre that too often gets caught up in treacly affectations and innocuous platitudes. With “Love,” however, he has abandoned his sense of adventure.

Previously, Mraz’s words and affect were sometimes so silly they bordered on the ridiculous. However, he allowed his lyrics to go down easily by throwing in a healthy spoonful of self-awareness—even his biggest eye-rollers, like “Geek in the Pink,” were accompanied with an obvious enough wink that the listener knew he was having fun in spite of himself. On “Love,” Mraz scarcely bats an eyelash as he tosses out lines like, “With my hand behind you, I will catch you if you fall / I’m just gonna love you like the woman I love.” The groaners on the album—and they are everywhere—are accompanied by none of the irony that made his previous indulgences tolerable.

It also does Mraz no favors that he says absolutely nothing unique about love. The target of his affections is bland and faceless. We are told on “I Won’t Give Up” that looking into his lover’s eyes is like “Watching the night sky / Or a beautiful sunrise,” and on “The Woman I Love,” he alludes to her maybe having some problems. But this is the extent of the complexity he gives to her: the songs on the album could be written about any girl.

Though normally this would simply broaden the songs’ appeal, given Mraz’s new stylistic sterilization it feels more like a cheap marketing ploy. His songwriting, which used to be on the whole frank and straightforward, now feels pedestrian, underwhelming, and contrived. “Ticket lines and places to dine / Taking baths and drinking wine,” he sings on “In Your Hands.” Or, alternatively, on “Living in the Moment,” he sings with a grinning earnestness that is so forced that it almost feels ironic: “I’m living in the moment / Living my life / Easy and breezy / With peace in my mind.”

However, the album is not a complete wash. For one, Mraz’s voice, his best asset, is in top form. On “Frank D. Fixer,” for instance, his voice goes from mellow and soothing to exciting and energetic as he belts out pitch-perfect notes and glissandos that span his register.

And “5/6,” the album’s best track, sees Mraz playing with a compound time signature with satisfying results. His most compelling lines also appear in this song: “Don’t dress up your children like dolls from your past / or they’ll run from you madly, they’ll never look back.” The old Jason Mraz, with his thoughtful songwriting and proclivity for musical experimentation, is in here somewhere.

However, these moderate successes only highlight the glaring failures of the album. There is no shortage of interesting ways to write music about well trodden topics, but Mraz appears largely uninterested in exploring any of them. Despite its subject matter, “Love is a Four Letter Word” is surprisingly hard to love.

Sadly, that wasn’t the case.

The Canadian band performed at the Schottenstein Center Sunday before a far from sold-out crowd of mostly middle-aged moms and dudes with faux-hawks wearing Affliction shirts.

A few songs into its set, a circular apparatus adorned with clock gears, a drum set and a clear, plastic wall descended from the rafters. The band hopped on and the device transported the band in the air from the end of the arena where the main stage was to the other.

While it was a nice touch visually, you can only do so much to disguise a lousy catalogue of songs, which Nickelback certainly has.

Nothing about the show was particularly unexpected — silhouettes of dancing women appeared on the large video screen behind the band, and loud explosions and fireballs constantly erupted from the set, which made watching the about 90-minute show the equivalent of drinking a case of Red Bull while watching Spike TV.

Frontman Chad Kroeger, sans his trademark long hair, which he claims is a real hit with the ladies, offered plenty of Kroeger-like moments. Before playing “Side of a Bullet,” Kroeger told the audience he wanted to play some metal and drink some beer. The former is nothing short of laughable, sure, but at least there was some logic behind the latter.

Summoning his stage hands to toss cups of beer into the crowd was a genius move, one that allowed anyone who caught their remnants to drink away the pain suffered by extended exposure to the wall of noise Nickelback was creating. At the same time, T-shirts were fired into the crowd, as if you wanted some kind of physical reminder of where you were Sunday.

But if you did, you’re in luck. Kroeger said during the show that a camera crew was there filming the show for god-knows-what.

The band played most of its well-known singles, including “Photograph” and “Gotta Be Somebody.” During “How You Remind Me,” Kroeger came in with his vocals at the wrong time, a gaffe 50 times funnier for the simple fact it was Nickelback. Later, when it played “When We Stand Together,” Kroeger asked that the entire planet come together to fix what is wrong with the world.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear as if he thinks Nickelback is one of those problems.

Fans seemed to still be on board, though. Kroeger said he once attended an Ohio State-Michigan game a few years ago, which OSU won, and tried to take credit for it. After a few “O-H … I-Os” and saying, “F—, I love this town,” the already largely hammered crowd was certainly in his favor.

Before its two-song encore, Nickelback played “Burn It To The Ground.” While the pyrotechnic-heavy song might have seared off a few of my facial hairs, I couldn’t help but be disappointed it didn’t melt away the migraine and memories the prior 90 minutes had given me.

And while he hasn’t enjoyed any sort of independent commercial success of his own, Richter’s ’never quite left the forefront.

A&E chatted with Richter before his appearance at the Fitzgerald Theater this Friday, to talk about being on TBS, NBC and the inevitable pitfalls that come with being in show business.

So how’s it going?

It’s good. I’m with six guys in an SUV driving back to San Diego right now. We just got done filming the show for today.

This current version of Conan seems like more of a callback to your guys’ early years on NBC. How do you think the show’s changed?

Well, I guess it’s natural for a show to evolve over time. But having the Tonight Show not happen and getting Conan to own his own show and not having anyone to fill anyone’s shoes. Because up until that point we were always replacing somebody and also working with a network that is openly just completely supportive. It just makes it funnier. All those things: autonomy, a sense of being treated with respect … somehow it makes you funnier.

What’s different about working with TBS opposed to network NBC?

It’s just easier. Well first off, I don’t have to deal with them that much, and that will tell you it’s easier. They’re all nice, they come by to visit, but other than that there’s nothing that we think of where we’re like, ‘Oh, how are they going to feel about this?’ We’ve been doing this long enough. We’re not like 22-year-old kids trying to say dirty words, or 45-year-old kids saying dirty words. It’s just easier. To take an idea and have it be funny and put it on TV, it’s just easier.

You do a fair amount of improv related to pop culture on Conan. Do you actually make an effort to keep up with that stuff at all?

Not really. It just floats in through the transom as they say. That would bum me out if I was like, “I gotta read “Us” magazine as homework.” I would feel like I was going to the most retarded university on the planet.

So it’s not so much a matter of time constraints — you just aren’t interested.

Pretty much. I try to just do what I want. I’m a talk show sidekick. If it isn’t easy then I’m sort of missing the point.

When you say you “do what you want,” what does that entail?

I basically go and be myself and crack wise on TV everyday. If you overthink that, it’s not going to be good for it. I go home to my wife and kids and read books about violent crime and watch cartoons with my kid, go to bed, wake up and go be funny on TV again. I don’t have to eat a lot of crow in my life, it’s pretty nice. That’s what I mean by doing what I want. I don’t mean some dick artistic thing, I just mean like a spoiled brat thing.

Your first sitcom “Andy Richter Controls the Universe” has had a cult following since it was canceled. Were you surprised when they originally pulled the plug?

Not entirely. I would say surprised is less the issue, more just disappointed, profoundly disappointed. I spent the better part of a year in a funk over it. I mean, if you feel good about something and you like what you’re doing — even if you’re doing dumb stuff and you don’t like it — if it goes away, you’re still like, “Oh that’s a bummer.” But if you really like what you’re doing you feel proud and have a sense of ownership over it, and once it’s taken away from you, it’s pretty crummy.

Is some part of you still interested in pursuing sitcoms or has that experience left you a little jaded?

I would say both. There’s plenty of people doing interesting good stuff. One of the big components of the drive to do a sitcom is to fall into a giant dumpster full of money. If you don’t admit that to yourself, then you’re lying. Everyone who puts a show on the air, there’s [some part of them] where they’re like ‘Maybe I’ll … never have to work again.’ There’s a lot of people doing good stuff on TV; they’re making a living. You know, things on cable, different little niche areas, stuff they’re doing on Adult Swim. Even stuff they’re doing on kids channels. A show like “Yo Gabba Gabba” is more interesting and funny than most of the big things on TV. So yeah, I want to make television, that’s what I want to do. I don’t see Conan and I doing this show for 40 years, but I plan on working for a long time. I’m sure I’ll do something else. But the standard, run-it-up-the-same-flag-pole sitcom world, yeah, I’m definitely a little jaded about that.

What about when Conan got the boot from NBC? Did that incite any cynicism?

No, not really. There was nothing that surprising. It was a basic evolution … when you take particular institutional characteristics and put them under the right pressure, things like that happen. It’s not that shocking. It’s kind of like “Oh yeah, that happened.” If you run a salmon processing plant, you’re going to eventually get bears to come in, so you can’t really be surprised when the bears come in and attack. That’s what they do — they’re bears. They attack. And some of these people make bad decisions.

Your career has had an interesting trajectory. You’ve been involved in a variety of work and experienced so many varying degrees of success. Have you ever considered writing a book?

Yeah, and people have talked to me about it. I’m a little bit of a loss as to what to do with it. I probably will sometime. But I kind of don’t want to write a typical memoir. Between me and a reader, I should be more interested in the story than they are, and if I were to write a memoir, I wouldn’t be that interested. I can’t think of anything more tedious than writing something like “So I was born … ”

The film focuses on Doug Glatt’s (Scott) search for a new career and the acceptance and pride of his father, played by Eugene Levy. Levy and Scott also worked together throughout the American Pie movie series, with the latest installment American Reunion now playing in theaters.

The film starts in Massachusetts, with Doug utilizing his undeniable ability to give and take a beating as a bouncer. When Doug and his friend Pat (Jay Baruchel) attend a hockey game and Doug gets in a fight with one of the players, he draws the attention of a coach and is soon picked up by the Halifax Highlanders, a minor league team in need of a morale boost after its star player (Xavier Laflamme) has lost his confidence and the team’s losing streak appears to be ever-lengthening.

The subplot of Ross “The Boss” Rhea (Liev Schreiber), a fellow hockey goon, and his impending retirement give the film just enough drama to keep the audience’s attention as the film builds to the inevitable fight: rookie versus veteran. Doug sees Ross as a potential mentor, and their mutual understanding of what happens on the ice is separate from their personal feelings for one another, demonstrating the sportsmanship that is missing from professional sports nowadays.

In a movie about hockey and the game’s enforcers, violence is expected, and Goon does not disappoint. The opening and closing shots of the film are dripping with blood and lost teeth, the symbol of any good hockey fight.

The gore is most graphic when Doug comes into his own on the ice and ends up blocking a goal with his face. As the puck falls and the blood covers the screen, Quentin Tarantino’s films come to mind, but the scarcity of these scenes throughout the film makes the violence inconsistent. Gore is not used excessively for any kind of comedic effect, as Tarantino would do, but it isn’t used lightly enough to take at face value. With the only remnants being a few bruises throughout the movie, the importance of the violence in comparison to Doug’s emotional journey is disproportional, making the audience unsure of the tone of the film.

Following the unrealistic precedent of other hockey movies, the fights in Goon are over the top. In professional hockey, the slightest inkling of a kick can have a player suspended for multiple games. In Goon, a referee allows the final fight to continue, even encourages it, until Doug can no longer stand on his previously broken ankle — oh, right, in addition to stopping a goal with his face, while he’s on the ground, Doug gets stomped on by an opposing player, with no repercussions to anyone involved — all for the sake of Rhea’s “last stand.”

Scott’s portrayal of Doug as a man appreciative of his experience is the film’s finest attribute. His sincerity and willingness to do anything for his team is a touching, refreshing aspect of Scott’s performance. Scott commands attention through simplicity, and the honesty prevalent in Doug’s persona gives Scott the chance to evolve past the American Pie character that made him famous.

Unfortunately, Scott is partnered with Baruchel as co-leads. Baruchel, a co-writer of the screenplay, had the opportunity to write himself his dream role, and he chose a lewd hoodlum who doesn’t have a single scene without multiple f-bombs and perverted hand gestures. Baruchel is supposed to be comic relief in the film but ends up coming off as a Stifler-impersonator, and not a very good one.

Levy’s persona as a funnyman is underplayed in the film, giving Scott the opportunity to command scenes more effectively. But in the end, Levy is a missed opportunity for greatness in the film. In the few scenes that Levy is in, he portrays the shame of having a son deemed unsuccessful convincingly, but with a lack of that Levy-pizzazz that has made him such a draw for moviegoers.

Directed by Michael Dowse, the movie continually dances between the borders of comedy, Tarantino-esque gore and drama. From start to end, Doug’s insecurity is unfortunately translated to the tone and direction of the film, making its 90-minute run-time seem much longer as the audience and Dowse wrestle with what they want the film to be in the end.

What’s clear is that Scott as Doug Glatt measures up to the hype; unfortunately, even with comparisons to The Mighty Ducks and Slapshot, Goon does not.

Showrunners D.B. Weiss and David Benioff waste no time in plunging the series into vicious and violent action. The first episode,“The North Remembers,” thrusts viewers back into the drama left off at the end of the first season.

Tyrion (Peter Dinklage) takes over the vacant position of Hand of the King, trying to keep the Seven Kingdoms from tearing itself apart under Joffrey’s (Jack Gleeson) cruel rule while the king’s mother, Cersei (Lena Headey), flexes her muscles as queen regent. Meanwhile, Robb Stark (Richard Madden) and his northern host march further south with the Kingslayer (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) in tow.

“The Night Lands,” the second episode, takes the audience to Pyke and the Iron Islands for the first time, following Theon Greyjoy (Alfie Allen) as he tries to win over his lord father to Robb’s war plans. Balon Greyjoy (Patrick Malahide), however, has his own plans. Tyrion continues to cement his power in King’s Landing, tangling with the spymaster Varys and replacing the captain of the City Watch with his own man, Bronn. On the kingsroad, Arya (Maisie Williams), disguised as a boy, tries to make her way back north in the company of men bound for the Wall, including one of the late King Robert’s bastards, Gendry. Beyond the Wall, Jon Snow (Kit Harington) and the Night’s Watch search for what’s become of the wildlings.

In addition, an entirely new set of characters are introduced: King Robert’s brother, Stannis Baratheon (Stephen Dillane) and claimant to the Iron Throne broods on Dragonstone, while his advisers, Ser Davos Seaworth (Liam Cunningham) and the red priestess Melisandre (Carice van Houten), discuss the right time to strike at King’s Landing.

“Game of Thrones” has not lost its edge. The cutthroat drama and deep, organic characterization, along with the merciless, violent action and gratuitous (yet not out-of-place) nudity and sex expected from an HBO production, remains. Despite losing a major character in the finale of the first season, the show maintains course with its cast of captivating characters played by some stunning actors.

Dinklage and Headey trade pointed barbs with all of the pent-up hate of two jealous siblings, while Gleeson fits his role as a young man drunk on power. It is easy to hate the monster that Joffrey is becoming while forgetting that he is just a boy with the authority and responsibilities of a king thrust upon him. Madden is quickly coming into his own as Robb just his character is coming into his own as the King in the North. And Coster-Waldau remains his charming, albeit condescending, self.

Even in just two episodes, Dillane exhibits the hard, uncompromising nature of Stannis aptly. Stannis sees the Iron Throne as rightfully his and despite not commanding as many men as his brother, Renly (Gethin Anthony), as a proven battle commander, he is a major threat to Joffrey’s reign. Cunningham is featured heavily as Ser Davos, Stannis’ most trusted servant, and a better man for the role, both actor and character, is nonexistent. Behind the Lord of Dragonstone is the red priestess, Melisandre, who claims that her foreign fire god has chosen Stannis to be the savior of the world. Van Houten plays a magnificent Melisandre with her smoldering gaze and rich Dutch accent; However, in “The Night Lands,” Stannis and Melisandre consummate a relationship that is only hinted at in the books. And this is not the only deviation from the source material.

In “A Clash of Kings,” which the second season of “Game of Thrones” is based on, Tyrion does not replace Lord Janos Slynt with Bronn. And Tyrion does not blatantly keep his whore Shae at the Tower of the Hand, but hides her in a manse in the city. Theon’s sister is called Asha, not Yara. However, these changes, for the most part, are minor. Weiss and Benioff admitted to combining the roles of several characters. It is unlikely that many fans will mourn the loss of Ironhand and newer viewers will be glad of the clarity between Yara and Osha, instead of Asha and Osha. As a reader of the “A Song of Ice and Fire” series, it also isn’t hard to understand the logic behind these decisions considering the limited time and resources of a TV adaptation.

The complexity of Martin’s interweaving plot is rearing its head this season. The most we see of Daenerys (Emilia Clarke) and her wayward khalasar is their languishing in the Red Waste. Bran (Isaac Hempstead-Wright) is also downplayed in the past episodes. Every episode can’t fit all of the major characters and their story arcs, so viewers are going to have to stave off their Dany and dragon fix, at least for a while.

But it isn’t all bad. By focusing on specific story arcs in each episode, “Game of Thrones” can deliver a more satisfying and visceral experience, such as the scene with Littlefinger (Aidan Gillen) and Ros (Esme Bianco) in “The Night Lands,” which showcases the kind of man Petyr Baelish really is and is a splendid bit of acting on Gillen’s and Bianco’s part.

Despite differences from “A Clash of Kings,” the second season of “Game of Thrones” promises to not only reach the same thrilling climax of the first season, but maybe even exceed it. Winter may be coming, but in the words of House Tyrell, the show is still “growing strong.”

____

Speakeasy rating: A

“Game of Thrones”

Sundays, 9 p.m.

HBO

Wallace graduated from the University in 1939, but he long remained connected to Ann Arbor. He endowed an investigative reporting fellowship to the Knight-Wallace fellowship — a year-long program for mid-career journalists to study at the University — and donated the fellows’ residence at 620 Oxford Road, which is filled with memorabilia and awards from his six-decade long career.

Wallace also worked at the University’s radio station, and after graduating he reported for news radio station WOOD-WASH in Grand Rapids, and later at WXYZ in Detroit.

Known for being an exceptionally tough interviewer, Wallace was one of the journalists who helped launch “60 Minutes” in 1968. Wallace formally retired from the program in 2006 to become a “correspondent emeritus.” He did many major interviews in this role, including his last appearance on the venerable news magazine show in January 2008, in the first public interview of former Major League Baseball pitcher Roger Clemens after a report suggested he used performance-enhancing drugs.

Wallace has interviewed many notable figures, including Jack Kevorkian —a famous doctor and University alum who was imprisoned for assisting individuals in committing suicide. Oakland County prosecutors used his interview with Kevorkian during a trial that resulted in the doctor’s eventual imprisonment for second-degree murder.

Wallace began the “ambush” interview, in which he presented his subjects with otherwise unknown evidence of wrongful acts they had committed. Wallace later admitted that such tactics were more to create attractive TV rather than good journalism.

Wallace was the subject of several libel suits, which endangered his career and reportedly caused him much stress, eventually driving him into clinical depression.

Wallace earned 21 Emmy Awards, five DuPont-Columbia journalism awards, five Peabody awards and the Paul White Award, the most prestigious award given by the Radio and Television News Directors Association. He also won the Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Award grand prize and television first prize in 1996, and was inducted into the Television Academy Hall of Fame in June 1991.

Yesterday morning, Jeff Fager, chairman of CBS News and executive producer of “60 Minutes,” said in a statement that Wallace was critical to the formation of “60 Minutes.”

“There simply hasn’t been another broadcast journalist with that much talent,” Fager said. “It almost didn’t matter what stories he was covering, you just wanted to hear what he would ask next. Around CBS he was the same infectious, funny and ferocious person as he was on TV. We loved him and we will miss him very much.”

CBS News producer Don Hewitt picked Wallace for the program in 1968 because of his “hard-charging” style, according to the release.

“Wallace was as famous as the leaders, newsmakers and celebrities who suffered his blistering interrogations, winning awards and a reputation for digging out the hidden truth on Sunday nights in front of an audience that approached 40 million at broadcast television’s peak,” the release read.

Harry Reasoner, Wallace’s original partner on “60 Minutes” who died in 1991, said Wallace’s interviewing abilities were one-of-a-kind.

“There is one thing that Mike can do better than anybody else: With an angelic smile, he can ask a question that would get anyone else smashed in the face,” Reasoner said before his death.

During Wallace’s time on “60 Minutes,” the show spent 23 seasons on the Nielsen top 10 list, including five seasons as the number one rated program.

A front-page article in the April 7, 1938 edition of The Michigan Daily announced that CBS hired Wallace to join its radio broadcast team. According to the news brief, Wallace’s “cultured tones” and tasteful use of emotion in his stories helped him beat out his peers in his broadcasting classes for the coveted job. The Daily cited a telegram from Wallace to his parents announcing his appointment.

“Announcing Columbia network Thursday 4:15. Whee!,” Wallace wrote in the telegram.

“No radio station WHEE in Boston. Please explain,” his parents wrote back.

Wallace also spoke at the University’s 1987 Spring Commencement, delivering an address to graduates on racism and intolerance.

“Here on this university island in which you’ve lived these last few years, you are about as sensitive, as pure probably, as you will ever be in all your lives,” Wallace said. “Your minds are open, you’ve been stretching them, learning more about yourselves and others, other societies, other struggles, other notions of fulfillment, other ideas.”

Wallace’s speech came despite protests over a remark he made in 1981 while conducting an on-air interview regarding faulty housing contracts that were signed by Black and Hispanic Californians.

“You bet your ass they’re hard to read if you’re reading from over watermelons and tacos,” Wallace said in the interview.

At the 1987 commencement, a group of graduates turned their back to Wallace wearing signs on their robes that said “Anti-Apartheid Commencement.”

Wallace addressed the risqué remark in his commencement address.

“(Bigotry is) an easy out. It can be downright comforting to feel bigger, better, than the next fellow,” Wallace said. “Your sense of injustice will flag.”

Wallace additionally angered some students when he made another racially insensitive comment during the speech.

“It never occurred to me back in college that one day I would be listening to Polish jokes, or Jewish jokes, or Italian jokes, or Black jokes, and laughing,” Wallace said.

In an interview with The Michigan Daily, Wallace’s youngest grandson, Lowell Bourgeois, an LSA senior and Wallace’s fourth grandchild to study at the University, said his grandfather joked that his first grandchild to go to the University would receive a car.

“Obviously none of us got a car,” Bourgeois said. “But his purpose from a very early age was to instill us with this idea of Michigan and Michigan pride.”

Bourgeois said Wallace’s home is abundantly decorated with Michigan memorabilia. He reflected back to 2006, when Wallace addressed a crowd at halftime during a Michigan football game.

“He was always super aware of what was going on at Michigan,” Wallace said.

Bourgeois said a shared connection to the University allowed for a very meaningful relationship to his grandfather.

“It was a very nice way to be able to connect with my grandfather,” Bourgeois said.

Bourgeois added that his grandfather may have been inspired to donate to the Knight-Wallace program because he often argued that undergraduates should major in subject areas outside of journalism, in order to study what they’re passionate about and later translate that passion through journalism. He said the fellowship program allows journalists to hone their skills later in life.

Bourgeois said Wallace told him he gained his love for radio and journalism from working at The Michigan Daily and the University’s radio station.

“I think that his experience with journalism and his role in the media comes from exploring his interests here on campus,” Bourgeois said.

Though Wallace married four times, Bourgeois said he loved all of his grandchildren equally.

“There was never a shortage of love he gave to us, and he has a very constant presence in all of our lives,” Bourgeois said. “He has seven grandchildren, and all of us have extremely personal, close connections with him.”

Wallace’s stepson, Angus Yates, said in an interview with the Daily that the University held a special place in Wallace’s heart.

“He never forgot the place, worked his whole life at improving Michigan and helping Michigan,” Yates said. “It was a very, very important part of Mike’s life.”

He added: “I think a lot of what happened later in his career came together or began at Michigan. And that stayed with him and became a very important part of his persona and his life, and he, I know, wanted to make sure that other kids coming through Michigan had the same chances that he did, so he and his wife Mary Wallace spent a lot of time making sure that Michigan offered opportunities that were important to Mike.”

Though Yates adored his stepfather, he acknowledged that Wallace knew how to get under the skin of his interviewees.

“He was a gifted genius, a very sweet man but you could never let your guard down,” Yates said. “He knew how to find your jugular, and he knew how to … he knew how to get inside your soul. But he was a lovely man, and a real angel.”

University President Mary Sue Coleman said in a statement that while Wallace may be remembered nationwide as a journalist, he meant much more to the University than his professional record.

“Society will remember Mike Wallace as a dedicated, hard-charging journalist,” Coleman said. “At the University of Michigan, we know him as that and so much more. He was extremely generous with his time, his papers, his financial support, and, most important, his belief in this University and its role in today’s world. We could not have asked for a more enthusiastic and loyal alumnus, one whose words and actions changed both the University of Michigan and the world beyond.”

LSA freshman Justin Goldman — president of the University’s chapter of Zeta Beta Tau, the fraternity to which Wallace held membership in during his time at the University — said the chapter is thankful for his legacy as a brother of ZBT.

“We send our condolences to Mr. Wallace’s friends and family,” Goldman said. “It’s ZBT Michigan’s 100-year anniversary in September, we want to thank him as a beneficial, benevolent alumni and appreciate everything he’s done for ZBT in the past.”

Wallace is survived by his wife, Mary Wallace, his son, Chris, host of “Fox News Sunday,” his stepdaughter, Pauline Dora, two stepsons, Eames and Angus Yates, seven grandchildren and four great grandchildren.

In “American Reunion,” the fourth installment (eighth if you include the spin-offs), the original cast convenes for the first time in nine years for their 13-year high school reunion (why 13? It’s never explained). With “Harold and Kumar” writer-director duo Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg at the helm, the characters, now in their 30s, find themselves at another crossroads — forced to confront the professional and personal hurdles that come with adulthood while still grappling with their all-but-forgotten past.

Whether they admit it or not, everyone in the reunion has their qualms: Jim and Michelle’s marriage hits a rough patch after having kids interferes with their sex life. Stifler, still married to his high school glory days, hits a new low as an office temp living with his mom. Even the reliably handsome Oz, now a second-rate sports broadcaster, finds himself revaluating his motives and relationship with his Los Angeles party girlfriend, played by actress Katrina Bowden.

Obviously the film isn’t just a bunch of existential gloom and doom. It’s plenty fun and rife with all kinds of turn-of-the-century nostalgia that includes a soundtrack brimming with late-nineties, early-ought’s radio rock has-beens (Third Eye Blind and Semisonic). Like the previous installments, Jim’s interactions with his dependably awkward father (Eugene Levy) deliver the most thoroughly hilarious dialogue.  But callbacks to band-camp smut and Jim’s webcam fiasco are more parenthetical than centerpiece, as the film handily avoids getting bogged down in the franchise’s classic gags.

Call it cynicism, but it’s a bit surprising that the franchise is still capable of delivering the goods considering it’s been treated more as a cash cow in recent years. Perhaps much of its lasting appeal can be attributed to the quality of its characters, each one distinct and charming in their own way. Like any other teen flick, “American Reunion” delivers the occasional dud, sometimes opting for cheap and crude toilet humor and hackneyed puns. But whether or not it makes you cringe, it wouldn’t exactly be an “American Pie” film without these elements.

Oh, and yes, there are boobs, too.

There’s nothing remarkably original or profound about “American Reunion.” But it succeeds in capturing the spirit of the original while at the same time revealing the sorrow that comes with lost youth. It might be the last piece of the pie, but at least this tastes almost as good as the first.

3 stars out of 4 stars

Most recently, CBS has come under fire from the BBC for allegedly copying the show “Sherlock,” Additionally, the faceless masses of the Internet have begun criticizing CBS’ decision to cast Lucy Liu, an Asian-American woman, as Holmes’ sidekick Watson.

Now, I won’t touch on the legality of the CBS adaptation, except to say that while it certainly seems like CBS got the idea from the BBC, it’s hard to call it a “rip-off” since the character is in public domain and has remained relatively unchanged over the past century. The second controversy, the one over Lucy Liu, however, does bother me.

Even ignoring arguments about gender roles and the lack of women on TV, what bothers me most about the complaints against Liu is that they suggest that CBS is somehow betraying the essence of Watson. Let me be clear: Watson is one of the most underdeveloped characters to ever become a household name.

Do you know what Watson does in the Sherlock Holmes stories? Almost nothing. The only thing he’s really good for is to compliment Sherlock Holmes and propose wildly inaccurate theories at crime scenes. He’s boring and slow and lifeless and famous.

For reasons utterly beyond my comprehension, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle chose to take the fun and interesting Sherlock Holmes and force readers to experience him through the exceedingly dull Watson. I read “The Hound of the Baskervilles” earlier this year and enjoyed it up until Sherlock left halfway through the story and I was forced to watch Watson stumble his way around the moor.

I really feel that anyone who’s upset with Lucy Liu playing Watson cannot have possibly read the original stories or else they would know that the only way it betrays the character is that it adds a personality.

Maybe I’m biased, though. I tend to like any given adaptation of the Sherlock stories more than I like the stories themselves. Spurred by a love of detective fiction and a desire to read the story where Moriarty shows up and kills Sherlock (after which, Doyle revived him), I read the first three novels and twenty-five short stories in the Sherlock Holmes canon and really at no point enjoyed myself.

After reading a series of poorly-plotted and unexciting mysteries, I came to the conclusion that Sherlock Holmes’ legacy is not due to Doyle’s decidedly limited writing ability, but to the ease and talent with which Holmes is adapted for each new generation. Because each writer is able to take the basics of Holmes and mold it to his or her own vision, the detective is able to stay alive much longer than his fellow fictional detectives.

Given CBS’ track record, the new Sherlock show probably won’t be good, but at least we’ll know the good detective will always survive. And even if he doesn’t, we’ll always have “The Great Mouse Detective.”

Most children grow up watching animated Disney movies, no matter what generation they were born into.

They’re classics, and to deprive a child of them is just a downright crime. For this reason, I don’t know a person alive who doesn’t know the story of Disney’s first animated feature film “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.”

Snow White is abandoned in the woods when the queen’s henchman doesn’t have the heart to kill her (nor does he have the stomach to cut out hers), she runs into seven very short men with incredibly descriptive names, she and some forest animals clean the house while the men are whistling at work, the queen feeds her an apple, she “dies,” but the otherwise aloof prince shows up and kisses her, she wakes up, happily ever after.

Pretty basic fairy tale stuff, not easily retold in a way that makes it any different. So when I took my seat in the theater to see “Mirror Mirror” this weekend, I knew they were going to have to come up with something original. And boy, did they.

“Mirror Mirror” doesn’t require much of a recap since everyone already knows the basic premise and set of characters, but I’ll go over a few of the differences.

An evil queen controls a kingdom, which in this case Snow White is the rightful princess of, and in this version, the queen is taxing the people to death. With the help of seven dwarves and a delightfully attractive prince, Snow White seeks to take back her kingdom and defeat the queen’s magical beast that haunts the forest.

The film has a star-studded cast, including Lily Collins (“The Blind Side”), Julia Roberts (“Erin Brockovich”), Armie Hammer (“The Social Network”) and Nathan Lane (“The Producers”).

Since I was a young girl, movies have become more and more disenchanted with the idea of the prince saving the day.

So it comes as no surprise, then, that this re-working of the Snow White tale focuses less on the ivory-skinned beauty’s housekeeping skills and more on her sword fighting and advocacy. What this amounts to is a film that really looks nothing like the the Grimm brothers’ classic.

Rather, it should be considered and critiqued as an original story in itself. While there are still some familiar elements like the talking mirror and the seven dwarves, the similarities basically stop there.

The infamous apple doesn’t even make an appearance until the last five minutes, and even then it is dismissed almost immediately.

“Mirror Mirror” goes in a completely different direction with a story about a courageous young princess who is both an interesting and entertaining adventure. While it does move a little slow in places, the script is well written and includes more than a few laughs.

The most notable performance in this film is by Roberts as the evil queen. She commands the screen as the controlling but still humorous monarch and is supported by her hilarious servant Brighton (Lane). Collins graces the screen with her beauty, and though she doesn’t get many opportunities to showcase any real dramatic chops, she is impressive in the film’s many sword-fighting scenes.

The most surprising performance comes from Armie Hammer, whom I have only seen in highly dramatic roles up to this point. Here, Hammer has the opportunity to show off his comedy skills, which he seems to have a great deal of. Many of his jokes work incredibly well due to his impressive skill in physical comedy.

The only performances that were relatively disappointing were by a few of the dwarves, who, try as they might, just couldn’t deliver the quirky and silly lines given to them in the script in a way that would guarantee a laugh.

Too many times the jokes delivered by dwarves were met with silence in the theater, and their performances were greatly overpowered by those of Roberts, Lane, and Hammer.

While this film would be nothing without its original script and strong performances, what I found most impressive were its stunning visuals.

The costumes, sets and computer animation all contributed to a beautiful picture that includes many frames that, frankly, I would like to blow up and hang on my wall as art.

What this film does best, though it does other things well, is undoubtedly creating a beautifully styled magical world fit for the legend of “Snow White.”

In the end, I admit I was surprised by this film. I could see from the previews it wouldn’t be exactly the Snow White legend I knew, but the script was so original that I began to think of it as a new independent story that is strong on its own. I’d recommend this film to anyone who loves the Snow White classic.

The pretty dresses and the love story will keep the girls happy, the sword fighting and physical gags will be appreciated by the boys, and anyone can be entertained by the strong acting and gorgeous pictures presented.

Black threw in a bunch of political jokes about Rick Santorum, political parties and the candidates in the running.

Besides the political jokes that he threw in his act, Black also took the time to put the jokes aside and address something that was really close to the university’s heart — the news that broke about the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse case.

PSU student Caitlin Hutton thought he did a great job noting the news surrounding Penn State.

“I appreciate that he addressed what happened and didn’t try to make fun of it,” Hutton said.

When he was getting ready to walk offstage, Black made sure to give the students advice on their college years. He told students to do what they want to do, and not what their parents or anyone else tells them to do.

He also said not to let what happened to the university affect their years on campus.

“Don’t let them take away these years from you,” Black said with a softer tone as he looked out into the students in the audience. “These are the best years of your life.”

Last year, HBO’s tagline for their ambitious adaptation of George R. R. Martin’s fantasy book “Game of Thrones” was, unforgettably, “Winter Is Coming.” No, it really was unforgettable: in addition to being splashed across every promotional poster and teaser video HBO put out leading up to the show’s debut, we were constantly reminded that “Winter Is Coming,” as the mantra was consistently repeated in every episode.

This season, which premieres this Sunday at 8 p.m., it seems that things have changed in the fantastical realm of Westeros, if only slightly: this season’s tagline is “War Is Coming.” And in the season premiere, it seems as if the encroaching winter and looming war go hand in hand, as the numerous pieces of “Game of Throne’s” bafflingly expansive chessboard move into place to prepare for what promises to be an explosive battle for the throne of Westeros.

For the purposes of this review, it’s futile to try to summarize last year’s season of “Game of Thrones.” Martin’s world is so vast, the alliances and rivalries of the various clans and families so convoluted and the cast of characters so bewilderingly extensive that, rather than trying to catch up through recaps, it’s easier just to go back and watch the first season in one breathless marathon (or, better yet, read the books).

It is, however, somewhat easier to lay out the state of Westeros as it stands at the season premiere. Practically the entirety of the first few episodes of the season are devoted to setting up the cataclysmic rage of a war that promises to end during this round of 10 episodes. King Robert Baratheon (Mark Addy) has died, and though his young teenage son Joffrey (Jack Gleeson) has now inherited his title, the position is precarious and up for grabs by a myriad of competing forces — because word has gotten out that Joffrey Baratheon is illegitimate, a product of incest between his conniving mother Cersei (Lena Heady) and her twin brother, Jaime (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau).

Meanwhile, the repulsively spoiled 13-year-old King Joffrey is doing a predictably horrible job of leading the kingdom, spending his days throwing elaborate parties and tournaments and harassing his court along with his tragic young fiancee Sansa (Sophie Turner), whose father he’s just had executed. The Queen Regent Cersei is the one who’s really been governing the kingdom behind the scenes, but her vicious ruling style is winning her no love from her subjects, who are restless and on the brink of rebellion.

Cersei is in constant struggle with her dwarf brother, Tyrion (Peter Dinklage), for the upper hand in the capitol city of King’s Landing. Some of the most delightful and entertaining scenes of the premiere involve the expertly written and dynamically acted back-and-forth between the siblings, their repartee seething with both malice and wit. (“You love your children. It’s your one redeeming feature. That and your cheekbones,” Tyrion jabs at Cersei).

Showrunners David Benioff and D. B. Weiss’ real challenge, at this point, is to keep their massive canvas from becoming too unmanageably broad. But judging from the tidily rapid pace of the season’s first four episodes, “Game of Throne’s” devoted audience is in good hands.

The story follows 16-year-old Katniss Everdeen through her time competing in the 74th annual Hunger Games, a competition which selects one boy and one girl from each of the 12 districts of post-apocalyptic North America, now called Panem, to fight to the death on television.

Created after a rebellion against the governing Capitol, the Hunger Games were designed to show the districts they are powerless against the Capitol and cannot rise up again.

Employing superb camera work and an outstanding script adaptation, the filmmakers take on this dystopian and disturbing tale with alacrity, translating a complex page-turner into a similarly gripping on-screen story.

Cramming a 374-page book into two and a half hours for a big-budget Hollywood movie seemed destined to result in a heinous flop. But Ross rises to the occasion, perfectly conveying all of the necessary plot information. Instead of having to rely on awkward on-screen introductory speeches or the whispered explanations of fellow audience members, viewers who have not read the books will instantly understand from the title slides at the beginning and by piecing together the dialogue.

Ross’ artistic abilities have earned him an Oscar nomination before for both directing and writing, and they make The Hunger Games truly amazing. His minimalistic film techniques allow the script and acting to take hold of the audience without distraction or interruption.

Despite the stacked cast, which includes Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Elizabeth Banks, Woody Harrelson, Lenny Kravitz and Donald Sutherland, the story at the heart of The Hunger Games is the real reason for the film’s box-office success.

The midnight showings of the movie brought in $19.7 million, which is the all-time first night record for a non-sequel, and the seventh-highest grossing midnight screening ever behind three Harry Potter movies and three Twilight films.

Suzanne Collins wrote an amazingly gripping story, which Gary Ross brought to life in the woods of North Carolina.

To find such success, however, having an Academy Award-nominated actress in the lead can only help. Lawrence fully embodies heroine Katniss Everdeen in yet another brilliant performance. Lawrence and the rest of the cast bring the characters to life so powerfully I cannot imagine the movie any other way.

The story and the violence are troubling and aggressive, but because the movie is made the way it is, this world seems realistic.

While movie and book fans will debate the various merits and flaws of the widely popular Harry Potter, Twilight and Hunger Games franchises until the cows come home, Ross’ film dwarfs all of the others, at least from an objective film-making standpoint.

The media has drawn unwarranted comparisons between The Hunger Games and the terrible Twilight saga by focusing far too much on Katniss and the love triangle which springs up around her as the Games story proceeds. This romantic element has little bearing on this first film, however, which deals largely with courage and the power of family and friendship, rather than with wishy-washy teenage love affairs.

This movie has a lot to offer for fans of the books, fans of the actors, fans of Ross and newcomers who know nothing of the story or phenomenon. Simply put, The Hunger Games is victorious on every level.

It’s true — the singer’s asexuality and innocence have greatly contributed to his appeal and success. Although Bieber is now experiencing the pains of growing up (the recently-turned 18-year-old started out at the young age of 15), he’s maturing more slowly than his contemporaries, allowing his progression to be digested a lot easier by his fans.

Inevitably, Bieber, like those who have come before him, made the long and perilous journey through adolescence, acquiring a deep voice and newly-cropped haircut along the way. Now the question seems to be, will Bieber successfully make the transition from preteen lover-boy to that of R&B singer and mentor Usher, or forever be remembered as the former? The singer’s latest single, “Boyfriend,” seems to show Bieber caught in between.

“I got money in my hands that I’d really like to blow (Swag, swag, swag), on you,” raps Bieber on his latest single. Yes, he raps; it almost comes off as laughably forced, but the compressed guitars and lay-you-down-gently synths indicate that the singer means business. The hip-hop inspired boasts production by fellow R&B artist Mike Posner provide a taste of Bieber’s maturity as an artist and person.

The steps to Bieber’s adulthood have been gradual and cautious: a public kiss with girlfriend Selena Gomez here, a punk-rock-inspired Rolling Stone cover there (did anyone else think Sid Vicious upon seeing that photo?) and a battered and bruised Bieber on the cover of this month’s Complex to top it all off. Of course there have been a few minor stumbles (Bieber flipping off reporters last March), but for the most part, Bieber seems ready for his growth.

The young artist’s perseverance and growing maturity is reminiscent of another Justin: Timberlake. Timberlake and Bieber may not have identical career trajectories, but there are some parallels. For example, Timberlake’s rise to fame also began in innocence as a cast member of The Mickey Mouse Club and a member of the boy-pop group, ‘N Sync.

Fast forward to 2006, and Timberlake released his sophomore album, FutureSex/LoveSounds. The album showed Timberlake’s racier side — I don’t think we’ll ever forget the singer’s video for “What Goes Around…/…Comes Around,” a nine-minute epic that featured lust, love and lies.

Obviously, Bieber’s “Boyfriend” has nothing on FutureSex/LoveSounds in quality, but it is an indicator that Bieber knows that with age comes more sexually suggestive ways of expression. “Spend a week wit your boy/I’ll be calling you my girlfriend,” he raps. It’s not surprising lyrically, but the deep-voiced rhymes, and an atmosphere that channels the sounds of Usher and The-Dream are head-turning, because Bieber has never been known to be a rapper.

The song is not completely bad, but there’s a level of awkwardness in Bieber’s forced delivery and lyrical content that indicate the singer is not fully prepared for the shift. His rapping delivery attempts to show signs of maturity, but the awkwardness and childish flirting stop it from being taken too seriously.

For example, towards the end of “Boyfriend,” Bieber relies on Disney pick-up lines to get his interest’s attention: “I could be your Buzz Lightyear/fly across the globe.”

Fans will still like “Boyfriend” because, although the rapping may come off as unfamiliar, the singing won’t. Even though the lyrical content doesn’t indicate a significant shift in maturity, fans will appreciate that Bieber has not completely abandoned his childish appeal. It’s smart that Bieber is moving slow. As we’ve seen with Miley Cyrus, rushing to appease an adult audience sometimes isn’t the best method.

“I’m constantly thinking about my future,” Bieber said in an interview with Barshad in 2010. “I always listen to what Michael Jackson has to say, and Usher and Justin Timberlake, and how they came out in interviews, and how they were able to transition from teen stars into adult stars.”

Bieber seems to know what he’s doing — as long as he continues to grow naturally with his fans, rather than try to appease one specific age group, the Bieber fever will continue to spread.

Boneham, who gained national attention in 2003 for competing on CBS’ “Survivor,” has been active in libertarian politics and protests in the state for years.

“We have a governor’s candidate in Rupert Boneham that can reach out to the 70 percent of the population that does not vote and bring them in the process,” State Chair Sam Goldstein said in a prepared statement.

The Libertarian Party is guaranteed a spot on the November ballot in Indiana based on its showing of 6 percent of the popular vote in the 2010 Secretary of State race. Parties must receive between 2 and 9 percent of the vote to gather for nomination conventions.

Also on the ticket for the Libertarian Party is Lt. Governor candidate Brad Klopfenstein and U.S. Senate candidate Andrew Horning.

Jobs
Boneham’s job creation ideals are based on empowering those on welfare to enter the workforce. He plans to launch a “welfare-to-work” program that gets people out of the system and into jobs.

Spending
On his campaign website, Boneham said he will “fight to eliminate all wasteful spending.”
“My budgets will be as thoughtful with your money as I am with my own,” Boneham said on his website.
He plans to create a merit-based pay scale for state employees and cut spending across the board.

Constitutional Protections
Boneham entered the political stage in 2011 to protest court rulings allowing for unwarranted search and seizure. The issue remains one of the main components of his platform.
“As Governor, I will support and defend each Indiana citizen’s Fourth Amendment rights vigorously,”
Boneham said.

Election Reform
As a third-party candidate, Boneham is very interested in reforming the two-party system. Boneham calls for an end to gerrymandering by legislators and an addition of printed receipts to electronic voting machines.
“We don’t let Coke and Pepsi write anti-trust laws, so why do we let Republicans and Democrats design our election code?” Boneham said. “It should be those outside the existing system to get on the ballot.”

Education
Boneham has said that he is in favor of ending ISTEP testing and believes that competition in the educational system is beneficial for students and a community.
“A parent knows an individual child’s needs better than a set of guidelines will. A group of parents and teachers in a community will almost always know what’s best for that community’s students, than that state board of education,” Boneham said.

Criminal Justice Reform
Boneham hopes to reform the Indiana correctional system to account for more rehabilitation of prisoners and less punishment.
“We can’t stand by while people commit violence against other Hoosiers and their property,” Boneham said. “It’s time to close the revolving door that has been created in the criminal justice system.”

Abortion
On his campaign website, Boneham said he wants abortion to be “safe, legal, rare and privately funded” but also made clear that he didn’t want to confront it head-on.
“We ought to stop dividing over the issue, and declare a cease-fire,” Boneham said. “We have important economic hurdles, and these times require us working together on the big issues of our day.”

The beats underlying Madonna’s voice are sparse and uninteresting productions. They seem to combine hangovers from the ’80s and ’90s with bass tactics more characteristic of popular music today. “Turn Up the Radio” is a pop song that begins with an evenly spaced synthesizer reminiscent of techno hits from the ’80s and eventually transitions into the chorus, “Turn up the radio,” with a wash of bass much like you would hear from a dubstep song today.

It’s not the combination of musical genres that makes it bad — obviously, great musicians do this all the time with success. Likewise, picking and choosing from the past can be a source of innovation for the future. But it would be laughable to suggest this album breeds invention. It seems as if the tinny-sounding beats were made in two minutes from contemporary producers who listened to some of Madonna’s old hits and mixed them with a bit of what we’re used to listening to today.

“Gang Bang,” the album’s second song, is a miserable effort that truly epitomizes the lack of musicality in this work. Madonna is trying to sound like a badass over a pumping beat resembling the soundtrack of a Nintendo Game Boy game. For a song to prompt video game nostalgia rather than appreciation for the actual production is certainly bad news, and unfortunately, Madonna does little in the rest of the album to grab our attention.

Her voice is an instrument of annoyance throughout the album, airily floating around the corny beats. It fails to exhibit any significant contrasts, and she sounds like she’s singing a bad lullaby instead of a pop song most of the time. The offensive simplicity of the background music demands Madonna to infuse some energy, but she doesn’t. Her voice seems detached and childish. Are we watching the intermediate rounds of “American Idol,” or listening to one of the biggest pop artists of all time? Where’s the energy? Not in MDNA.

The lone highlights of the album come not from anything Madonna offers, but rather from Nicki Minaj — whose characteristic pizzazz generates some welcomed energy in “Give Me All Your Luvin’ ”— but the positive experience is over too soon, and we are left with the bare, bare bones of Madonna and silly techno beats.

Considering Madonna’s larger-than-life celebrity status, it would’ve been nice to justify it with an engaging album. Instead, we’re left scratching our heads, asking depressing questions such as “why is this person so famous?” and “why does our society put her on a pedestal?” Sadly, MDNA gives us no answers.

Don Draper had a surprisingly small role for the episode, a contrast to his normally domineering presence. Sally Draper introduced the changes, stumbling upon a naked Don and Megan in his new house. A stereotypically perfect family is displayed, even without Betty. The only nod to the ex-wife is when Don drops his children off at her swanky new mansion.

What the writers of “Mad Men” do best is put their characters in the hardest possible positions and deliver tremendous reactions — no one gets off easy. Perfectly illustrating this is Peggy, who gave up her baby four years ago only to now handle Joan’s baby at the office. Pete, meanwhile, calls all the partners in to discuss a change in his office arrangement, starkly contrasting the aging partners opposite the new generation of talent.

The most complex parallel made is between Roger and Don. Roger did exactly what Don did two years prior — divorce his wife, marry his secretary and feign happiness. And Roger, in this episode, is nothing but lost. Without Joan, he despises Jane. It’s a cycle that will certainly play out in the coming seasons.

It’s hard to believe that no one from this show has won an Emmy for their performance. This cast is stunning, and Elisabeth Moss and Jon Hamm have charged chemistry whenever they are together. And John Slattery singing “Frère Jacques,” mocking Megan’s birthday present to Don, was nothing short of priceless.

The episode also smartly sets the stage for the next three years with the question “Who is Don Draper?” We’ve met the mysterious Don, the scandalous, the faithful, the scorned and the lost. Right now, he appears to be at his most pathetic and delusional, which may not be something viewers will be interested in for long. If the writing and direction can maintain its high quality, fans may be able to forgive the alterations to his character. But with Don so central to the show, it will be curious to see where they take his character in the coming episodes.

“We have a lovely show planned for you tonight,” said MUTEMATH frontman Paul Meany awkwardly into the microphone at the House of Blues in Boston on March 7. Meany and the rest of the band appeared to be nervous early on, and their first few songs sounded stiff. However, the band started to communicate with the audience and each other, and the energy level escalated throughout until the raucous encore, “Typical.” By the end of the night, MUTEMATH had ignited an initially listless crowd and asserted its expertise in fusing blues into earth-tone alternative rock.

MUTEMATH arrived on stage impeccably polite and well dressed. Set up in a horizontal line, they mostly just stared ahead into the audience for the first few songs. The rendition of the band’s latest single, “Blood Pressure,” was a very tight if perfunctory version of the recording. The band rushed through several more songs from the album with little direction, and the crowd became a little restless, openingly having conversations with each other over the music.

Towards the end of the first hour, however, the band members made a more conscious effort to use the space and interact with each other. Bassist Roy Mitchell-Cárdenas dropped his instrument to bang furiously on a bass drum. Later, all four members of the band clustered around the drum set, whacking away at its various pieces. Meany got up on his organ several times to do handstands and flips, and guitarist Todd Gummerman, not to be outdone, climbed up as well and leaped triumphantly on a drum break.

The musical fervor and chemistry of MUTEMATH guaranteed that the band’s theatrics weren’t empty showmanship. On “All Or Nothing,” Meany’s falsetto soared over a U2-esque groove with ringing guitar notes and a pounding bass. And at the end, “Typical” looked and sounded exactly how an encore is supposed to. The song began with a huge guitar riff and turned into a huge sing-along; at just the right places, confetti shot into the air. Afterwards, the band members came to the very front of the stage to shake the hands of clamoring audience members. The band’s stiffness had given way to a warm intimacy. MUTEMATH may have used many typical gimmicks to ignite the crowd, but the show ended up being undeniably energetic and refreshing.

When Commander Shepard makes it back onto the Citadel to activate the Crucible, what we find is disconcerting.

We come face to face with the Illusive Man for the first time, and we can tell he’s completely indoctrinated. He tries to argue us over to his side and we do the same with him. If you have a high enough paragon or renegade score, you can convince him to commit suicide, Saren style, and proceed to activate the crucible.

But you pass out at the controls because you’ve lost so much blood. Despite that, it turns out that’s all anyone needed to do. Then you get up to this higher platform which has a sweeping view of the battle raging over Earth and this giant construct built onto the Citadel.

Then this hologram approaches in the form of the child who died at the beginning of the game. He claims to be the creator of the Reapers.

After more explanation of why the Reapers came to exist in the first place, the climax occurs. Players are given two — three if they fulfilled certain conditions — options to solve the conflict and … that’s it.

There’s nothing else. No discussion, no Shepard-style “make my own option” attitude. The player is forced to submit to these options, all of which have no consideration for how the rest of the whole series was played. No other choice is important in the end and almost everything you worked for is torn down no matter what.

I can understand Shepard dying in most of them — the “Mass Effect” series truly is the first video game epic and it should be appropriately tragic. So OK, the player’s character’s life is over, but BioWare took it a step further, ruining the lives of everyone else in the galaxy by destroying the mass effect relays.

Even that is understandable to a degree. The developers wanted to show sometimes there is no happy ending and all the choices made before are irrelevant. That’s fine. When it becomes a problem is when the series’ entire selling point are those story-changing choices.

Coming to the end of “Mass Effect 3” was like having someone buy you the coolest pet in the world, you spend a week falling in love with it and, at the end of the week, it gets taken away without explanation.

It’s unfortunate that the rest of the game is marred by one failure on the part of BioWare. Some fans are up in arms, submitting petitions to the FTC over claims of false advertising and starting loud online protests while others show their support.

Some fans have also gotten together and created a theory that would make BioWare the cleverest video game developer in history.

It began on the BioWare forums when a thread began on the “Mass Effect 3” ending: These people claim that, following the point when Shepard is struck with Harbinger’s laser, it’s all an indoctrination-based hallucination. The whole point? That’s the kicker. According to strong and convincing evidence, the reason is to show the players what being indoctrinated actually feels like.

BioWare took a made-up game construct and made it real. Just try and think about how insane that sounds. However, what’s more insane is that it really does make the most sense.

I’ve decided to buy into the theory since BioWare is about the only developer capable of such an astounding creative feat and it’s really the only way to explain the otherwise unexplainable endings.

I agree with many on the forums in saying if BioWare hadn’t intended this real-life indoctrination thing, it should go with it. Then all it needs to do to fix the problem of the ending would be to release some free downloadable content with what happens after the indoctrination and give a more satisfying conclusion. It’s as simple as that.

Jeff (Jason Segel, “The Muppets”) is a pothead living in his mother Sharon’s (Susan Sarandon, “Thelma and Louise”) basement. He wanders mindlessly and ignores his mother’s order to pick up wood glue to repair the window blinders. His obsession with the film “Signs” epitomizes his role: a cosmically charged bum who thinks everything happens for a reason. His bizarre behavior leaves his mother ashamed and his married brother Pat (Ed Helms, “The Hangover Part II”) distanced.

At first, it seems that the film will consist of everyone tearing into the innocuous, unemployed Jeff — until he, ironically, appears to be the most grounded of them all.

Sharon has a miserable cubicle job that gets twisted when a secret admirer supplies her with fresh confidence. Pat fosters a dysfunctional marriage that involves not listening to his wife, courtesy of an inflated ego. And then there’s Jeff, a stoner with a destiny — or so he thinks. Mommy and brother won’t admit it, but they need Jeff more than ever, despite their outward disregard.

Alas, we have seen this story foundation recycled ad nauseam. The loser stay-at-home son was seen in “Step Brothers” and the newfound bromance genre spearheaded by Judd Apatow. It’s not entirely fresh material, but that’s OK. The Duplass brothers manage to infuse enough eccentric elements to string together a solid film.

Throughout the course of this one day, the camera lens takes a very up-close-and-personal approach. This is complemented by timely mini-zooms that accentuate every word spoken, hugely elevating the power of the script.

A series of unfortunate events, including Pat’s wife’s potential infidelity, brings the two estranged brothers closer, while their mixed-up mother is caught saying she “hates” her kids now. The audience begins to despise the negligent Sharon as she vainly preoccupies herself with ambiguous messages from someone in her office.

Candy trucks, basketball jerseys and soaring birds are few of many “signs” that Jeff detects, hoping they’ll guide him toward his destiny. He looks and sounds zany, but persistence is his best asset. The Duplass brothers ensure Jeff is simplistic in every way, which is why he’s such a powerful character.

Segel deftly embodies the benevolence and drive of such an unlikely pursuer. Helms finds long-lost sensitivity despite his asshole portrayal. Sarandon proves, once again, her motherly genius. A perfect storm of catastrophic measures integrates the three in a way so emotive, it might be the magic to restore latent love. Jeff sets out to honestly bring forth a feeling everyone yearns for: completeness. Whether that means boning supermodel after supermodel or incessantly hitting the bong in your mom’s basement, the concept is relative.

The Duplass brothers show that destiny may take some searching for, but it must be sought out, devoid of overanalyzing and over-living. Unnecessary complication is the root of our demise. The film’s title is an oxymoron, because Jeff seems to be the single figure that ventures from his conventional, homey bubble — and that’s why we love him.

Dan Auerbach, one half of the blues-rock duo The Black Keys, steadies his guitar and launches the Keys into the 2003 song “Thickfreakness.” Auerbach’s riff dominates the track. He cuts off or draws out notes to accentuate the song’s ugly swagger, and he applies touches of vibrato to inject a fierce volatility. He shifts gears—he slips from the lurching riff into a spiky high-low pattern, then hits the chorus with three heavy chords. Auerbach knows his way around an electric guitar, and stellar musicianship like this powered the Keys’ Mar. 7 show at TD Garden. Auerbach, Keys drummer Patrick Carney, and opener Arctic Monkeys delivered highly skillful performances that were weakened slightly by a mild lack of spontaneity and verve.

Arctic Monkeys’ set relied heavily on the band’s older material, and the British rockers nailed these complex songs with precision and vigor. Drummer Matt Helders opened the set with the thunderous tom-and-snare workout on “Brianstorm.” The others pounded out jagged bass and guitar lines, then chased antic, interlocking riffs through “This House Is A Circus” and “Still Take You Home.” The band shared the stage well—one instrument after the next would emerge dominant and then drop back into the band’s layered sound. The set displayed the intricacy in Arctic Monkeys’ older material, and these songs brought out the band’s striking musicianship.

The quartet played its renditions faithfully, but with endearing enthusiasm and personal flair. This energy came primarily from frontman Alex Turner, who head banged jokingly, jumped from amps, fell to his knees for guitar solos, and teased the “people in the back” throughout. In fine vocal form, Turner sang crisply and forcefully—his eerie insistence charged the otherwise unimpressive “R U Mine?” However, much of Arctic Monkeys’ new material, including songs “Suck It and See” and “Don’t Sit Down ‘Cause I’ve Moved Your Chair,” suffered from repetitive chord progressions only slightly remedied by Turner’s half-engaged vocals. These few tracks felt weak in a performance marked by expert instrumentalism and displays of Turner’s oversized personality.

In its decade-long career, The BlackKeys has moved from raw blues to more richly produced, instrumentally varied rock. The duo’s set spanned that musical history and showed off both members’ skill. The band kicked off with newer material, and Carney took the lead on songs like “Howlin’ for You” and “Run Right Back.” His beats offered little variation from the record cuts, but deft snare work captured the songs’ moody swing—he drove “Howlin’” with a whip-crack downbeat, and his lighter touch on “Dead and Gone” kept the snare pulse bouncy instead of bombastic. Auerbach’s sharp riffs rebounded against Carney’s rhythms, and backing musicians contributed bass and keyboard to denser songs without eclipsing the duo.

Six songs in, the backing band left the pair alone on stage, and Auerbach’s guitar drove renditions of older Keys songs. Instrumental breaks in “Thickfreakness” found him spilling out descending riffs and grinding chord progressions. On “Your Touch,” he inserted a high, skittering solo before crashing back into the hook. He and Carney matched each other’s moves with a seasoned fluidity—Auerbach would smoothly switch up his guitar line after Carney pounded out a fill, or Carney would delay a snare beat to strike on the last note of a riff.

But despite the band’s technical proficiency and sheer energy, Auerbach’s performance initially lacked in raw emotion. Though his ragged voice packed an impressive range, it rarely shuddered or howled in the set’s earlier songs. He and Carney broke into no extended jams on these performances; in a short a freeform segment of “Girl Is On My Mind,” he meandered through brief, quiet guitar doodles.

Then came “Ten Cent Pistol,” a four-minute tale of murderous revenge against a cheating lover. At the final verse, a single spotlight struck Auerbach, who stared intensely into space. He whined the last lines with pained desperation—“‘Cause a jealous heart / did retaliate”—and the Keys jammed the song to a soft finish, Auerbach jerkily muttering the final line. The song’s intensity was carried through the rest of the Keys’ set. Auerbach’s voice trembled on the line “I wanted love / I needed love” as the band charged through “Tighten Up.” He bawled and stuttered his lines on closer “Lonely Boy,” and the song’s faster, sloppier instrumentation matched his tone perfectly. These exhilarating final renditions highlighted the emotional thrust that earlier songs lacked.

The three-song encore brought everything together. Auerbach turned the gritty stomp of “Everlasting Light” into a ballad, complete with delicate falsetto and a disco ball over the stage. Then the pair barreled through the weighty “She’s Long Gone” and jammed on “I Got Mine,” Auerbach strutting through his riffs and Carney chugging out a machine-gun snare line. The Black Keys may have begun their careers as two boys from Ohio, but especially in these final songs, they showed their continuing maturation as rock musicians.

The show’s third season finally returned to the Thursday lineup and took its rightful spot at the 8 p.m. time slot it originally claimed at the show’s debut in 2009.

It was edgy, quirky, hip and soon became a show that was hard to even think about missing on Thursdays. And for new fans, it only takes a few episodes to become addicted.

“Community” is a show based on several friends in a study group, similar to the rag-tag gang of opposites in “The Breakfast Club.”

It was doubtful that anything could save a TV favorite like “Community” from the demise of corporate television programming, and it seemed that the sitcom would most likely end and be forever regarded as a cult-favorite show like “Arrested Development” that was “gone too young.”

After viewers vented heavy resentment toward NBC for pulling the show in late September, audiences banded together on blogs, Facebook and Twitter to voice their anger and confusion with the show’s alleged cancellation.

I’m not sure if complete cancellation was intended when it got pulled at first, but the “Community” community reaction ensured that NBC knew fans wouldn’t idly sit by.

In the delayed return episode from season three, entitled “Urban Matrimony and the Sandwich Arts,” viewers got a rare chance to see the full range of emotions from the characters.

The episode centers around Shirley, played by Yvette Nicole Brown, and the Motown proposal from her “boyfriend,” who is actually her ex-husband that she began to date again during the second season.

Tensions of marriage quickly arise between Shirley and her soon-to-be husband, Andre, a former Cosby kid –– which he occasionally alludes to–– played by Malcolm-Jamal Warner.

The cast of the study group plays purely on opposing characters getting in the most bizarre of situations. For instance, Britta, played by Gillian Jacobs, volunteers to plan Shirley’s wedding — a task that probably shouldn’t be given to someone who is usually the drunkest girl at the party.

As relationship drama continues to rise, Britta keeps drinking, as does Jeff, played by Joel McHale. Britta and Jeff have had always had a tumultuous relationship and adding alcohol into the mix brings out the best — or the worst — in them.

Pierce Hawthorne, played by Chevy Chase, embarks upon some new business ventures, his first being a “automatic security camera that can tell your friends from intruders,” but later Jeff indicates is just “wireless racism” after the device calls Abed “a threat level four.”

Shirley and Pierce later decide to go into business together to open a new sandwich shop in the school cafeteria. This makes for some hiccups in the wedding process, but allows for some quality time with Abed, played by Danny Pudi, and Troy, played by Donald Glover, to “behave normally,” or at least that’s what they think they are doing by following Shirley’s directions.

As they attempt normalcy, the actions and chemistry between the comedic duo are non-stop entertainment. I could watch an entire 23-minute episode of just them sitting on a couch bantering back and forth.

There is no way any fan of “Community” could have been disappointed by this latest episode. Not only is the show back, but it includes all of our favorite characters and situations.

Troy even gets a glimpse of the spider monkey that lives in the college’s air conditioning vents and has been stealing the group’s small objects for the past two years –– including the epic pen from Annie, played by Alison Brie, at the center of the freak-out “bottle episode.”

All in all, this episode was extremely satisfying for someone who has longed for the show; it only leaves me addicted to the characters and storylines even more. Upon the return of Chang, played by “The Hangover’s” Ken Jeong, and Professor Duncan, played by “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart’s” Senior British Correspondent, John Oliver, would the show be utterly perfect.

And if they get Betty White back on “Community,” I think I might be able to die happy.  Just don’t let this show get the aforementioned “Arrested Development” treatment.

It is way too good to lose.

Grade: A

If you like: “Parks & Recreation,” “Arrested Development,” “Party Down”

Late at night, alone at his computer in the film’s Lehman Brothers stand-in, he is the first to see that Wall Street is on the brink of sudden collapse. The young banker, Peter Sullivan, follows that news as it travels up the chain of command during the final thirty-six hours before the crash… and the rest is all-too-recent history.

Actually, that history is never explicitly laid out in Margin Call: this disaster film plays with the formula by stopping short of the disaster and sending us out of the theater into a world that hasn’t yet returned to normal. At one point, one of the bankers looks out from a company car and wonders aloud if any of the “normal people” knows what’s about to happen… and we don’t really need that question answered for us. No, we didn’t have any idea, and to a certain extent we still don’t.

In that sense, Margin Call is a deeply ironic film: Director JC Chardon is (more or less) telling a true story that the audience-members were never privy to while it was happening, but the emotional payoff comes from inviting us to be much more concerned about the fate of the economy than any of these characters seem to be.

That emotional sleight of hand is one of the film’s greatest strengths, problematic though it is. In the age of Occupy, it’s very difficult to view these young and careless bankers positively. Some of them, like division head Jared Cohen (Simon Baker looking even more snake-like and unsympathetic than usual), are the furthest thing possible from heroes. However, they are also not quite villains as evildoers should lie outside of our sympathy, where we see their choice and can condemn them for it. There is never any doubt about the harm that these characters have caused, but there is a more complex form of moral ambiguity when we cannot isolate the bad guy’s choices or avoid feeling pity for him. That ambiguity is central to Margin Call.

The audience is constantly forced to ask if these bankers have real agency: these masters of the universe are scrambling to control forces that they barely understand, let alone have power over. In one of the film’s most striking moments, CEO Richard Fuld stand-in (Jeremy Irons) instructs Sullivan to explain the situation to him “as you would to a three-year-old, or a golden retriever.” The subtext is not lost on the audience: these people are playing a deadly serious game, and they’ve just realized how little they understand it.

How are we to react to this? This failure to realize their own limits should be the place where the audience pins our moral outrage on Wall Street: they played with fire and we got burned. But somehow that moral outrage is arrested when we watch these individual bankers realize their mistake: we’ve zoomed in on Icharus’ face when he realizes that the wings are melting, and our pity blunts our anger.

If the outside world has a representative in the cold boardrooms where the fate of American finance is being decided, it’s Peter Sullivan, the young banker who sounded the alarm call in the first place. Picking up geek-chic where Star Trek left off, Zachary Quinto plays Sullivan with just enough uncertainty to arouse our sympathies. He is not quite one of “them.” He’s a brilliant young physicist who went into banking because those equations pay better. He doesn’t reject the value system that prizes the firm’s profits above all else, but he doesn’t seem to have bought into it either. We make sense of the crash through his confusion.

Of course, Margin Call is not a primer on the 2008 financial crisis, and it is a better film for having not taken an explicit political stance. However, by using this historical event as a means to explore these larger themes of agency and blame, the film does provoke some uncomfortable questions about the crash. How much blame can we pin on individual people? Can we trust the banks to use their economic power wisely? Is it fair to say that the bankers caused massive harm to others because of greed and recklessness, but stop short of calling them bad people? There are no answers in this film, but it deserves credit for asking those questions.

CUIndependent: You are the king of improv; did you get to improvise in this film even though it was in Spanish?

Will Ferrell: Not so much. Yeah, it was a little difficult, but the main challenge for me, since I’m not fluent in Spanish, was to make sure that the joke of the movie wasn’t that I spoke Spanish poorly. So I was very focused on having as good pronunciation as I possibly could. And then of course memorizing in a foreign language is a whole other aspect as well, so it drastically reduced moments for verbal improvisation. I had to rely on little physical moments and reactions and things like that.

CUI: Was the decision always to make the movie in Spanish, and how did that inform the process as you went along?

Ferrell: This all came from a random idea I had five or six years ago. For some reason it struck me that it could be pretty interesting to put myself in a Spanish-language film. I felt like you hadn’t seen that. You hadn’t seen an American comedian commit to a foreign language movie. The premise being that I would be the only kind of “gringo” in the cast and it would be an entire Hispanic cast. So it was always intended to be in Spanish.

CUI: In this movie, you chose to work with a lot of Spanish-language actors like Diego Luna and Genesis Rodriguez. How would you say that the experience compared to working with the actors you usually work with, like John C. Reilly?

Ferrell: I have to say, and I am happy to say, it was relatively easy. Diego Luna and Gael [Garcia Bernal] both have great senses of humor. That’s the reason why they chose to do the movie, because they saw it as an opportunity to be funny in a way that they’re never offered. They found the same kind of bond, in a way, that I’ve found with performing with John [C. Reilly] and Mark Wahlberg, and people like that. As long as you commit to the character and you think things are real, the context takes over and before you know it, you’re doing comedy.

CUI: Are you a fan or viewer of telenovelas?

Ferrell: I wouldn’t say I’m a huge fan. I only watched them, you know, any weekday from 11 in the morning to four in the afternoon. So I’m not like a crazy person about it… No, I keep getting asked, “What are your favorite telenovelas?” and sheepishly, I have to say, “I really don’t know any of them.” I just basically got this idea from the thing, I am sure we all have done, where you’re just flipping through the channels and you stop for a second and are like, “What’s going on here? Is this – what is this show? Oh, it’s a Spanish soap opera. Okay, this is pretty intriguing.” That’s kind of how I got the idea, but no, I am not well-versed in them at all.

CUI: Beyond it being a parody of a telenovela, it’s an amazingly stylistic movie. Can you talk about some of the cinematography?

Ferrell: That’s kind of what Matt Piedmont brought to the table. He said, “I’ve been watching these kind of 1960s, ’70s Mexican Westerns and I’d love to mimic that.” He was able to use these really old lenses from Panavision, so all of that was a really conscious choice, to give it kind of this throwback feel visually.

CUI: What was it like to work with Nick Offerman from “Parks and Recreation,” and why did you bring him into the film?

Ferrell: When we were trying to cast, first we went to Chris Cooper and people like that were like, “What? No, that’s crazy.” And we thought, what about Nick? He can play that guy perfectly. He, of course, was fantastic, and I just love how he commits to everything. So he probably had a harder job than I did, to not only memorize it in Spanish, but in bad Spanish. He was great playing that shitty attitude and being the cocky DEA agent which is what we wanted the Americans to represent in a way.

CUI: Would you want to do a movie in another foreign language?

Ferrell: It would be hysterical to me if this movie became a little cult hit, and we made a sequel or a little series of them. That would be really fun. But there are a billion Chinese [people]; maybe I should do one in Chinese. That’s the next market to conquer.

CUI: How do you think humor is conveyed or interpreted differently in different cultures, and what you think are universal elements of comedy?

Ferrell: It’s tough because if you watch some of the “Mexican” comedy I’ve seen, like odd shows like Salvadore Gigante, it’s really over the top. Yet, from talking to Diego, they really appreciate subtle humor. Obviously there are going to be different cultural things that you can never compare from different countries, such as their style and humor. But obviously physical comedy translates and probably certain broad themes are shared in a way, but I’ve always found it difficult to analyze if something is funny [in one culture] and doesn’t get a laugh in another.

CUI: What was your favorite scene to shoot?

Ferrell: One of the scenes that makes me laugh so hard is when we go to the Pond of the Seven Tears and we’re on that ridiculous set that looks terrible and Genesis’ line is something like, “It’s the most beautiful place I have ever seen” and I just love that scene. That we’re having this romantic talk and it’s like a little pond. Probably that and any time you can talk to a gigantic, white panther, that’s always a plus.

CUI: So this movie is pretty different from most of your other movies, the language especially. How do you think the hardcore Will Ferrell fans are going to react to this film?

Ferrell: I think it’ll be a pleasant surprise because you literally don’t know where the movie’s going at any moment, and you really have to pay attention because it’s subtitled so you’re forced to lock into the story. But I’m kind of proud of it. It’s absurdist quality in the same kind of way that we kind of did “Anchorman,” and it kind of has a similar feel in a way that we threw all the rules out the window. So I think people that are coming expecting to see something different will be fully satisfied.

“Casa de mi Padre,” starring Will Ferrell, opens Friday, March 16.

His newest film, “Casa De Mi Padre” is about Armando Alvarez, a man who lives with his father on their poverty stricken ranch. Armando is much like the Ferrell characters we have known and loved–a socially awkward, unintelligent man.

But there’s a twist. He speaks only Spanish throughout the movie.

When Armando’s brother–the golden child–Raul (played by Diego Luna) comes home with his bride-to-be Sonia (played by Genesis Rodriguez), hope is restored that the ranch will survive. Things become intense when it is rumored that Raul is a part of drug trafficking ring to the United States and Armando begins to fall in love with Sonia. Armando sets out to find out if Raul is really a part of the drug trafficking and at the same time steals Sonia from him.

Ferrell didn’t speak much Spanish before the film, which has English subtitles.

“It’s kind of an out of body experience,” said Ferrell in a conference call when asked about learning a new language. “It was weird for language to be the first part of concentration, acting almost came third because it was all I could do to memorize Spanish. Then my focus was on pronunciation, because I didn’t want the joke of the movie to be that I spoke Spanish poorly. I wanted it to be so you were halfway through the movie, and it sneaks up on you that you’re like ‘oh my god, I’ve forgotten that he doesn’t speak Spanish.’”

If Ferrell’s primary focus was to perfect his Spanish, he was in good company. The cast included several Spanish-speaking movie stars including Diego Luna, Genesis Rodriguez and Gael Garcia Bernal–all award-winning actors known for their work in film and television. Another notable actor in the film is Effren Ramirez, who is best remembered as Pedro from “Napoleon Dynamite.”

The production value–or lack thereof–is all part of the joke. Everything from the horrible fake sets, to the animatronic tiger and partial love scene with a manikin, are intentionally awful.

“We knew that it could [add] another level to the comedy, along with the premise of me speaking Spanish and the jokes that go along with the movie,” said Ferrell. “I was like, ‘we should have more mistakes.’”

Like most Ferrell movies, “Casa de mi Padre” is likely to spur plenty of inside jokes for viewers to share with other friends who have seen the film. Catch it in theatres starting Friday, March 16.

After ex-CIA agent Rebecca Winstone’s (Ashley Judd, “Double Jeopardy”) son goes missing while abroad in Rome, she travels there in search of him, willing to use any means necessary to bring him back.

Rebecca’s history with the CIA is murky: She deactivated after her husband was killed by a car bomb and now dedicates her time to raising their son Michael (Nick Eversman, “Vampires Suck”). Michael doesn’t know of his parents’ past lives, even though he witnessed his father’s car go up in flames. Rebecca and Michael now have a very close relationship, evidenced by Rebecca’s annoyingly consistent phone calls and texts.

Michael’s kidnapping is not random — Rebecca finds pictures of him along the trail that date back prior to his arrival in Europe. Was Michael involved in something illegal that is now coming back to haunt him? Or does someone have an agenda against Rebecca, using Michael as a mere pawn? These questions aren’t answered in the first hour, but leave us eager to find out.

“Missing” is reminiscent of the 2008 film “Taken,” in which Liam Neeson’s character travels to Europe in order to save his daughter after she is abducted in France. In the two works, both children are abducted while abroad and both parents have connections to the CIA, which play a large role in tracking down their children. “Missing” is one of the first series to take the premise of a movie and adapt it to the small-screen, a feat that seems doomed to fail. Drawing out the plot for an entire season seems unnecessary when the same thing can be watched in an hour-and-a-half movie.

Rebecca’s experience as an ex-CIA agent feels entirely too convenient. Through this, she has unprecedented access to materials and aid, knowledge of multiple European languages and the ability to literally kick ass and take names. While this provides action and entertainment, it’s another reason the show is a carbon copy of “Taken.” It would be much more intriguing to see a regular parent going to extreme lengths to save their child instead of watching yet another trained professional act exactly how we already expect them to.

However, given these reservations, Judd’s acting is a bright light in the series. She portrays parental anguish with sincerity and also looks natural in the CIA getup. But even given this stellar performance, Judd is operating a one-woman show. Very few peripheral characters are introduced, and we aren’t given much information about Michael in order to latch onto and care about his predicament. “Missing” would be better served by more characters, instead of forcing Judd to carry its weight on her shoulders.

On the surface, the show is entertaining, full of action, violence and suspense. At every new development, Rebecca finds herself fighting for her life against the ruthless gangsters who kidnapped her son and CIA agents suspicious of her motives. But that’s all there is to it. “Missing” feels like something we’ve already seen before because we’ve already seen it. And without a novel premise, “Missing” isn’t worth getting wrapped up in.

Seth Meyers: You know, I think in certain cases, it does. I mean, when we write it, you have to write it for it to be funny. You can’t aim to affect the outcome of elections because I feel like that makes comedy too self-serious. So it’s like, be funny first, but then if the message you’re being funny about rings true with people, I do think it sticks in their head when they go to the polls.

Along those lines, is there anything you’re really hoping happens this election season in terms of comedic potential?

Well, I am a little worried about a Romney-Obama face-off. You know, I think it’s very hard to find things that are really funny about (President) Obama, and I think you know Mitt Romney. When someone’s stiff — having played John Kerry in 2004 — it’s very hard to exaggerate stiffness or gravitas or woodenness. So it could be tricky. I’m hoping that Romney picks a really juicy (vice president) because that certainly worked in ’08.

Any potential names in mind?

I mean, (New Jersey Governor) Chris Christie would be fun. You know, I think living in New York, a guy from Jersey is a good time.

On a “Weekend Update” episode,” you claimed a poll that showed an increase in Obama’s approval ratings was taken at a Brown University drum circle. Do you remember where this came from? Was this your way of confessing your love and admiration for Brown?

Uh, look I have nothing but love and admiration for Brown, but I do think it’s funny that, you know, obviously we try to write jokes that people respond to and … we do consider a drum circle at Brown probably the most liberal place on Earth.

I’ve heard that you go around doing performances like this at other colleges — have you ever spoken at a school that’s not quite as liberal as Brown? What has the response been like there?

Yeah, you know it’s funny, certainly when you go down and do Southern schools you realize it’s less loudly liberal. I’ve done shows where I’ve mentioned (presidential hopeful) Ron Paul, and I think a lot of college students relate to Ron Paul — you know maybe not at Brown, but you do realize he connects with them in a certain way. But you do realize even in the Deep South, college campuses are probably the most liberal places of those states. So even when a state is 80 percent red, 20 percent of that state is a lot of people, and they tend to find their way to your shows.

Do you tailor your shows at all?

I have enough of an act that there’s certain times where I’m like, “Oh, this is not going to be for them.”

So switching gears a little bit — if you could cast any three people, dead or alive, in a sketch, who would you cast, and what would the sketch be about?

The sketch about, that’s too hard. But I will say if I was doing any sketch with the benefit of dead or alive — the people I’ve never had the benefit to meet that I am such big fans of like, you know, Gilda Radner and John Belushi and Phil Hartman, and I guess (Chris) Farley as well. So I’ll go with Radner, Farley, Hartman, and I think with that cast we could write a good sketch. 

Turning away from your writing days and more toward your college days, what’s the most ridiculous thing you did in college?

The most ridiculous thing I did in college … I remember a couple of times going, like leaving bars when the car was too crowded, and I just rode in the trunk, but like way longer — from Chicago to Evanston. That wasn’t smart.

And what about the most valuable thing you learned in college?

Well, I mean I think the most valuable thing I got from college (Northwestern University) was going to a school that had such a strong performing arts school and just the people I met. You meet so many talented people, and you realize that there were no successful, talented people that also didn’t work really hard. And obviously you go to a school where people are there to excel. That was great.

And so if you could go back in time and offer your college self any piece of advice, what would it be?

I would say there’s no other time in your life when you’ll have time to learn things. So like, try to learn things they’re trying to teach you — you’ll be so happy about it. You can’t believe that you will at some point in your life be in South Africa and even have taken a history of South Africa class, and you can’t remember any of it.

Any more romantic comedies in your future?

If I will, they’ll be, like, twice as romantic.

Meyers set the tone for the evening as Hannah Cockrell, co-president of the Brown Lecture Board, introduced him and mentioned his appearance in the almost universally panned romantic comedy “New Year’s Eve,” released in December. In response to a collective bout of giggling from the audience, Meyers poked his head out from behind the curtain to shout, “It’s not a joke!” to raucous cheers.

When Meyers took the stage, he mocked his appearance in the film but quickly turned the tables. “The weirdest kid in my high school went to Brown,” he said pointedly. “I know you want the whole world to think you’re a bunch of John Krasinskis.”

Meyers attended Northwestern U., where he performed in an improv troupe. After graduating, he stayed in Chicago to take classes and perform with IO, formerly called Improv Olympic. He then moved to Amsterdam, where he said he had the “greatest two years.”

“It’s not what you think,” he said in response to audience laughter at his mention of Amsterdam. “I lived in Amsterdam because weed is legal there,” Meyers clarified. But he later explained that he enjoyed his time there because he was constantly on-stage.

Meyers returned to the United States two years later, and in 2001 he joined the SNL cast after being discovered at his two-person comedy performance in Chicago. In 2006, he was promoted to head writer.

Meyers began his stand-up routine discussing topics he said college students know well — futons, weed and those annoying friends who return from studying abroad and complain about drinking American beer and eating American chocolate.

Meyers then turned to politics, a frequent subject of his jokes. One of his more famous skits, former SNL head writer Tina Fey’s impression of Sarah Palin, drew national attention during the 2008 election.

“I think the best show on television this fall has been the GOP debates,” he said. “I miss Michele Bachmann,” he added. “Michele Bachmann to me has the eyes of a woman who just heard Michele Bachmann was elected president.”

He also expressed incredulity at the number of politicians involved in sex scandals, saying there is “nothing stupider.” Texting an inappropriate picture — or tweeting one, like former New York Congressman Anthony Weiner — is “super high-risk,” he said. “The woman who will be angriest is the woman who is most likely to recognize it as your genitals.”

Meyers also showed his human side to a wide-eyed and admiring audience, describing the awkwardness of greeting President Obama at the 2011 White House Correspondent’s dinner when he prematurely stuck out his arm and intercepted Obama’s handshake with Meyers’ girlfriend.

“I had to access the part of my brain that comes up with witty comebacks when you’re in awful situations to diffuse the most awkward situation I’d been in in my life with the most powerful man on earth,” Meyers said. “So here’s what I came up with … I said, ‘Hahahaha, I know’ and ran away.”

Meyers said he was the only man in the country who was disappointed by Osama Bin Laden’s death. Since Obama announced the death the day after Meyers’ performance at the dinner, he explained that he felt robbed of the press’ attention.

But Meyers added that he was reassured when he realized Obama had probably sent forces to capture Bin Laden to take out his anger about Meyers’ jokes upstaging his. Continuing on the topic of terrorism, Meyers said many people believe the Koran promises 72 virgins to martyrs, but added that he had recently heard that might be a mistranslation — the word may actually mean grapes. “That would be the best burn! You’re a suicide bomber and you get to the afterlife … and it’s like … here are your grapes!”

Students said Meyers lived up to their expectations. Kathryn Graves ’15, the first student in line last night, arrived at Salomon Center at 2 p.m., though the doors were not set to open until 6:15. “I love Seth Meyers — even if he’s just reading the dictionary, that’s fine,” she said.

Meyers did her one better. During one of the evening’s many highlights, he recited “Weekend Update” jokes that were deemed too inappropriate for SNL.

“According to Alaskan expense reports, Sarah Palin charged the state of Alaska for $21,000 for her children to travel with her on official business. In fairness to Palin, when she leaves them home alone, they get pregnant,” he said to wild roars of laughter and applause.

Meyers also responded to questions from students, discussing the “really, really, collaborative” relationship between writers and his love for Stefon, the flamboyant “Weekend Update” guest portrayed by Bill Hader.

On last weekend’s episode, Stefon planted a lengthy kiss on Meyers’ lips. But Meyers said, “I kissed Fred Armisen a lot deeper than that.”

Meyers’ love for his job was evident throughout the evening. He recounted a story of bumping into a fan in the middle of the street in New York City. When the fan screamed, “Oh my god!” Meyers was poised to turn, face him and “make his f***ing life,” only to realize the man was actually screaming about a woman who had gotten hit by a car, not Meyers.

He felt bad about his assumption, he said. “But then I thought, what if the driver of the car also saw me?”

The entire series centers on Nick Burkhardt (David Giuntoli), a police detective who inherits supernatural powers as a “Grimm” when his aunt passes away. These powers really aren’t much; Nick now has the ability to see the mythical creatures, known as Wesen, that inhabit the human world, but that’s about it. The powers don’t afford Nick any particular advantages, and his access to his Aunt Marie’s trailer full of intense and archaic weaponry is rarely used in any way.

Nick’s greatest asset is his friendship with a reformed “Blutbad,” essentially a wolf−man, named Monroe (Silas Weir Mitchell), one of the creatures Nick can now recognize. The direct translation of the German name is “blood bath,” but Monroe has given up on his violent ways and now enjoys leading a quiet life. That is, until Nick disturbs his peaceful existence and they grudgingly become friends as they learn to help one another.

The show draws its inspiration from the fairytales of the Brothers Grimm, though many episodes are completely unrelated to their stories. Some episodes are taken from early French folk tales or the more obscure stories collected by the Brothers Grimm, such as “The Queen Bee,” which has links but no direct relevance to the plot of episode three, “Beeware.”

“Grimm” is both set and filmed in the outskirts of Portland, Ore. The wild, rural landscape adds to the mystical atmosphere that permeates much of the show. The pilot episode starts with a lone student going for a run through a densely forested region, only to be attacked by one of the evil “Blutbads.” Since the setting feels so quiet and abandoned, the shock of such an attack is quite genuine.

Though the show just aired its 14th episode, many of the characters have yet to go through a sufficient exploration. Nick’s partner, Hank Griffin (Russell Hornsby), is still an enigma, even though he is one of the main characters. Nick’s fiancée, Juliette (Bitsie Tulloch), although attractive and a seemingly strong woman, has too little screen time for the audience to have any sense of her character. While Nick and Juliette seem to be loving partners, the show never delves into the intricacies of their relationship. As an example, the show barely addresses Nick’s inner struggle between telling Juliette about his newfound gifts or leaving her before she becomes endangered.

Police Captain Sean Renard (Sasha Roiz) is the most intriguing character. Though he first appeared to be a sympathetic−yet−fair colleague of Nick and Hank’s, it soon becomes clear that he knows more of the “Grimm−world” than Nick does. Renard may even have some placement in the upper echelons of the creature hierarchy, though Nick is still oblivious to this fact.

The most frustrating aspect of “Grimm” is not the bad computer−generated imagery or the poorly developed characters, but rather Nick’s complete inability to live up to the definition of a Grimm presented to the audience early on in the series. His Aunt Marie, while dying from terminal cancer, managed to endure and fight back during two attacks on her life, but Nick only manages to survive and deduce crimes because of police experience, the help of Monroe and — most of the time — dumb luck.

This is perhaps a more realistic approach to such a character; presumably, a Grimm does not become a full−fledged ninja overnight. But the slow evolution of his character affects the plot. The ending of each episode just leaves the audience wondering why Nick has these powers if they afford no particular changes to his character other than a mere understanding of the Wesen society. Ultimately, though, this is the reason many viewers keep watching: they want to witness the moment Nick comes into his own. So, perhaps the writers do know what they’re doing, and we are all along for the ride.

Being Flynn begins with an aspiring writer named Nick Flynn (Paul Dano) who grows up never knowing his biological father, Jonathan Flynn (Robert De Niro). Through a set of bizarre circumstances, the two become in contact again and attempt to reconnect. Jonathan is a delusional cab driver and writer, claiming to be a “great American novelist” among the likes of Salinger or Twain. Nick works at a homeless shelter because he wants to do “something meaningful” with his life. However, due to their respective substance abuse issues and personal demons, they are constantly at odds.

Both characters serve as a mirror to the other and essentially the story unfolds around this concept. While audiences understand this point mainly because of the juxtaposition of both characters’ narration, the parallel is made overtly and abundantly clear. This is why when the elder Flynn screams. “You are me, Nicholas!” it feels indulgent and contrived. The lines written “on the nose” remove the audience from the realism of the narrative, which is a shame because the story based off Nick Flynn’s critically acclaimed memoir, Another Bullsh** Night in Suck City, is brilliant.

For an hour and twenty-six minutes, the audience is saturated in a deep-fried drama. Although the characters complete some sort of arc in the end, the plot meanders and dawdles. As the story progresses, the characters sink deeper and deeper into a morose maelstrom while hope and humor precipitously disappear.

There are also undoubtedly humorous parts that never fully materialized. It often feels as if Weitz was afraid to make it too funny, exemplified in the vulgar and absurd nature of De Niro’s character that almost makes the audience laugh, but doesn’t quite make it. These moments precipitously drop off into a complete train wreck.

There is some light at the end of the tunnel: Some hope remains at the end of Being Flynn. But is this really enough to sit through an hour and a half of despair? Don’t think so.

Imagine an unremarkable character. Someone whose life is mundane, even tedious. She goes to school. She does homework. She looks for the meaning of life in cereal dregs. She is you, and reading about her uninspired routine is incredibly unfulfilling. Where is the journey? The star-crossed romance? The feeling of something greater?

After months of unending trailers and promotional videos, I caved and sat down to read the increasingly popular “The Hunger Games” trilogy by Suzanne Collins. And that’s when I was reminded how thin the line between wrong and right is when it comes to fantastic fiction. And to all those who have not been subjected to “The Hunger Games”: There are spoilers in this article.

I remember when I bought the books: The girl at the register grunted at the site of the three glossy novels and I asked if she had read the trilogy. She began to dissect the motives of each character while the line of tired, exasperated book buyers grew ever-longer behind me. I quickly paid and got out — but I soon learned that nowhere was safe. My friends, people who I thought I knew, began to preach about the pros and cons of Kale (a Katniss/Gale relationship) and what Peeta would have done had another tribute been chosen.

Whether they liked the stories or not, they were engrossed in the delicacy with which Collins apparently painted the imaginary world where the characters lived.

Would the books really live up to the hype? Could they really be so fascinating and relatable? Would they be the next “Harry Potter” series? OK, so they couldn’t be “Harry Potter,” but I was willing to give them a chance. So I began with “The Hunger Games,” and then, somewhere near the end, something went wrong.

The story transformed from moderately thrilling to entirely insignificant.

I forced myself to forge on, partly because I felt like I must be missing something: Everyone who has read the series feels strongly about it, one way or the other. I must have misunderstood the first book.

But as I finished the second and the third novels, it finally dawned on me why I was so apathetic to the series: The main character, the window through which readers creep into the wonderfully foreign worlds of books, was unimportant to the rest of the story. Katniss Everdeen was not the most heroic, the most noteworthy, the most beautiful or exceptional character. She was average. She was mundane.

I can already hear the hoard of Hunger Game fanatics struggling to contain their bows from firing arrows my way: “She’s a very strong person for a 17-year-old. She won the Hunger Games! She’s the Mockingjay! She killed the President! She saved Peeta’s life and the entire country!”

I only saw three remarkable things happen for Katniss. First, she wins the hunger games. This is the part of the first book I enjoyed reading. Then, Katniss takes down a couple planes that were bombing wounded people in a hospital with her bow, which is awesome. Finally, Katniss’s shining last moment happens when she kills President Coin and stops being a useless heap of morphling and uncertainty … only to return to that heap afterwards.

Out of three books, there were three shining moments for Katniss. Compared to the bravery of other characters, this is incredibly unfulfilling. I think the most disappointing part of “The Hunger Games” trilogy is that you really want to like Katniss. She’s a teenager, and while she’s strong at times, she’s also angsty and sassy — she could be you. If you were, you know, a poor girl from a forlorn district that hunted squirrels her entire life.

But none of that matters the moment Katniss shuts down after the second hunger games, after everyone begins protecting her and fawning over her. She becomes uninterested in the rebellion, halfheartedly agrees to be the Mockingjay, and after a while, her unending stream of self-loathing makes me hate her, too.

Without a sturdy main character, the fantasy genre falls apart. Adventures and romance and bravery of other characters can only hold your interest for so long until you feel yourself emerging from their world and back to yours. It is not a love story. It is not a story of a girl that finds herself through hardship. It is not the story of a resolved soldier. Katniss can’t make up her mind, but thanks to her, mine’s made up.

The film seeks to raise awareness of the events in Uganda to eventually bring Joseph Kony, the leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army, to justice for his crimes against humanity.

The Lord’s Resistance Army (known more commonly as the LRA) is a resistance group that arose of out of the civil conflict in Uganda. The LRA has been designated as a terrorist group by the United States federal government, in large part due to their role in the ongoing genocide in the region. The group is estimated to still have about 2,000 members — many of them children forced into roles as soldiers — although this is a remarkable decrease from the numbers that the group once had.

It’s not necessarily a bad goal to have, although it does make me nervous that the means to that goal are so unclear. Are we supposed to encourage an increase of the American military presence in the region? Are we supposed to begin working in the surrounding area where Kony and the LRA are often based out of?

These are questions that go relatively unanswered by the “Kony 2012” film.

I think that my friends on Facebook who are reposting the “Kony 2012” are well-intentioned, but they need understand that most of them are doing this somewhat blindly. International affairs — particularly when you get military force of any size involved — are complicated. It is not something that can be contained in a 29-minute video.

In fairness to the Invisible Children movement and the makers of the film, I don’t think that was their intention. “Kony 2012” was not meant to be the end-all, be-all source for Ugandan policies, but I wish they would have made that more clear.

Why couldn’t the video recommend books to read, classes to take or people to talk to? I’m not talking about people to lobby — the video does plenty of that — I’m talking about finding people to discuss the issues with.

An informed populace is a stronger populace. Before you lobby for a policy because of a film you’ve seen, you might want to look at what you’re actually lobbying for.

The duo produced deafening sound in the Schottenstein Center in Columbus, Ohio on Sunday.

The night ended with two hefty disco balls illuminating the stage and the audience in multicolored light, but it began with two lively, percussion-heavy bands.

English indie band The Arctic Monkeys warmed up the audience for The Black Keys, which consists of Akron natives Patrick Carney and Dan Auerbach.

Head-bobbing and heel-stomping kept the stands shaking throughout The Black Keys’ set, with many of the songs regarding women and relationships.

The ensemble took a moment to compose itself. Auerbach said he and Carney made a stop in their hometown earlier in the day.

“It feels so good to be in Ohio,” Auerbach said.

The Black Keys were also accompanied by various backdrops and lighting elements that flickered over the crowd. Auerbach and Carney emphasized their skills in “Chop and Change,” during which Auerbach played lead guitar, maracas and sang. The Black Keys built up crescendos in individual songs coming from lows to highs and back down again. The same was true throughout their performance, which ended with thunderous volume and a cut to darkness.

The duo returned and closed with “Everlasting Light,” “She’s Long Gone” and “I Got Mine.”

They played more than 20 songs with and without accompaniment from a bassist and a keyboard player. Some of the songs included “Lonely Boy,” “Next Girl,” “Ten Cent Pistol,” “Girl Is On My Mind” and “I’ll Be Your Man.”

The Arctic Monkeys played up their English charm with Alex Turner singing lead vocals. Their full-bodied sound was complemented with strobing drumbeats and strobing light.

The Arctic Monkeys’ performances of “Still Take You Home,” “When The Sun Goes Down” and “Brick by Brick” got the audience revved up for a stirring performance from the Keys.

Chris Aldana said this was her second time seeing The Arctic Monkeys in concert and she thought they paired well with The Black Keys.

“I think it was a really good pairing, they both have very drum-heavy music,” Aldana said. “The thing that makes them so different is the way that their frontmen sound. … (The) Arctic Monkeys seem more kind of grungy and The Black Keys sound more rock ‘n’ roll.”

The concert left Colleen Miracle impressed and wanting more from The Black Keys.

“Honestly, I just wish they had played more,” Miracle said. “I love those two. They did such a good job. I really like (Auerbach’s) voice. The fact that they’re from Ohio is a cool thing.”

The two bands drew a mixed crowd of various age groups. Miracle said she enjoyed the positive energy of the other audience members.

“This one guy was probably like 40-something (and) he was just dancing so crazily behind us,” Miracle said. “We just like danced with him though, I mean why not?”

Alyssa Rushman, an Arctic Monkeys fan, agreed that the audience members were actively involved with the performance.

“All the visual effects used, I feel like it really engages the audience really well,” Rushman said. “The audience was really cool. All their fans seemed really chill … (and) really wanted to be there.”

Its trailer debuted Feb. 19.

As a continuation of its prequel, ‘Mass Effect 2’, the story-based game follows the theme of saving Earth from the alien race known as the Reapers.

“With ‘Mass Effect 3’, we’re taking players on a more personal journey, even though the scope is bigger than ever — an all-out galactic war,” Casey Hudson, executive producer of the Mass Effect series, said in a June EA press release announcing the game’s release date.

‘Mass Effect 3’ features a multiplayer mode as a new feature to the series, allowing for co-operative play that links back to the main player’s campaign.

“I’m cautious about the multiplayer option since the series itself is predominantly a single-player franchise and introducing multi-player abilities could take away a bit from the game,” Baylor U. sophomore Nicholas Behren, an avid gamer who is familiar with the series, said.

“BioWare is trying to make an effort to appeal to the different tastes of gamers. I’m interested to see what the final product will be,” Behren said

The game will also feature a new twist to the role-playing format by offering three pregame selections: the action mode that allows the player to focus on the action while having a pre-set story line, the story mode which emphasizes decision and conversation selections, and the “Role-Playing Mode” that follows the same game play as the rest of the series.

‘Mass Effect 3’ will combine intense action, in-depth plot and complex relationship role-playing in order to intrigue and involve players in building suspense that will make them want to keep playing, Dr. Dan Shafer, Baylor assistant professor in the film and digital media department, said.

“Certainly, a game that has suspenseful elements can be more enjoyable than a game without those elements, as long as the player eventually triumphs,” Shafer said. “Suspense is an important predictor of the enjoyment of both audiovisual media (like TV and movies) and interactive media like video games.”

‘Mass Effect 2’, along with other predecessors designed by BioWare, has some negative aspects, such as repetitiveness in the layouts of maps — something Mass Effect 3 is expected to have resolved, Behren said.

“I’m expecting it to be a powerful conclusion to the Mass Effect trilogy,” Behren said.

“I think ‘Mass Effect 3’ will be the most anticipated game of 2012, but there is a lot of competition.”

Also released today is the N7 Collector’s Edition of ‘Mass Effect 3’, which offers bonus in-game items along with the standard options and other collectible items.

“With ‘Mass Effect 3’, we are delivering blockbuster action and heart-wrenching emotion on a scale that far exceeds anything we’ve ever done before,” Hudson said.

The game sells for $59.99 before tax on PC, Playstation 3 and Xbox 360.

Lohan had the chance to impress during one particular fast-paced bit with Kenan Thompson in which they lambasted three guys accused of stealing bikes. However, the bit turned out to be a showcase for awkward AIDS and prison rape jokes instead, in which Lohan jumbled her lines several times and didn’t do a particularly good job of acting like she wasn’t reading her lines off of cue cards. Not even self-deprecating “Herbie: Fully Loaded” jokes could save it.

The highlight of the episode was a bit titled “The Real Housewives of Disney,” in which Lohan, as well as several other female members of the cast, portrayed catty Disney princesses in the same vein as the hit Bravo reality series. It wasn’t Lohan who carried the skit, however — that was Kristen Wiig, who played an alcoholic Cinderella.

The rest of the episode was rather mediocre. A few bits fell flat on their face. A bit called “Rude Buddha” was a real chore to watch, as it wasn’t much more than incredibly lame puns. Another bit, in which several of the female cast dressed as ‘50s characters and danced in the street, revolved around one joke: getting hit by cars.

There were seemingly only two skits where Lohan felt comfortable. In one, she was one of three white radio hosts on a Wisconsin hip-hop station in which she proclaimed that she couldn’t read. In the other, she helped Wiig discover that the 196 calls she was receiving weren’t from a serial killer, but rather from her butt-dialing herself.

Not even the monologue was moving. Though “SNL” is no stranger to playing off the obvious, enlisting cast members to act as parole officers was particularly uninspired. Maybe that’s part of the problem. “SNL” has been suffering for far too long from a crippling disorder: being unfunny.

I can’t really fault Lohan for her performance. She never seemed particularly energetic and it was obvious live comedy isn’t her schtick, but that doesn’t much matter. Sure, she sucked, but the show itself sucks, too.

Colbert condemned KU Medical Center researcher Joseph Tash for his research in developing a male birth control pill, 50 years after birth control was made available to women.

“Folks, this is dangerous. If birth control becomes widely available to men, they might want to have a lot of sex,” Colbert said. “That’s why I’m a wag of my finger to the spermacidal maniacs at the University of Kansas who developed this pill.”

According to the KU Medical Center Tash’s research is aimed at developing at compound that acts as a chemical male contraceptive.

Colbert went on to cite presidential candidate Rick Santorum’s stance suggesting that birth control leads to more children being born out of wedlock, making a comparison to fire extinguishers causing fires.

With no pause in the contempt he released upon the prospect of male contraception, although he prefaced the wagging of his finger with a disclaimer.

“I never rush to judgment. I wake up early shower and shave, eat a full breakfast, then accuse you of being a horse molester,” Colbert said.

For any male wanting to use the pill, Colbert quickly suggested they should be forced to a have a trans urethral ultrasound. Though supposedly noninvasive, Colbert pulled out a big ultrasound wand for use at the end of the segment.

“You men will think twice about taking that pill, assuming you survive,” Colbert said.

Q: How did you guys end up with parts in the movie?

Thomas Mann: It was actually pretty awful. Over the span of two months, I ended up going in seven or eight times, and we all had auditions with [producer] Todd Phillips several times.

Jonathan Daniel Brown: [I originally had an] open call over the internet.

Oliver Cooper: I had nine auditions!

Q: Was the film shot on a set or in a real neighborhood?

OC: This is real life, sweetie.

JB: We shot it on the Warner Bros. lot in Burbank. But we got a whole block and actually furnished the entire house so it was actually in livable conditions. I’m a carpenter on the side [Laughs].

Q: What was the filming like with so many people?

OC: It was what you see. It was fun. They played awesome music. We had a DJ in the movie — they literally had him playing all day and all night! So, crazy sex and drugs.

TM: We did five weeks of night shoots, which shoot from 5 p.m. to 5 a.m. It was like one giant party. The energy on set was always at a ten.

JB: So much O’Douls, man. And apple juice and water mixed together in the beer bong.

Q: Have any of you been at a party anywhere close to the party in the movie?

JB: I don’t go to parties. I just play Xbox alone.

Q: The dialogue sounded real. Was most of it scripted or improv?

OC: [Mostly] the script. It changed every day.

JB: I would say it’s 70-to-30 scripted to improvised. With Nima [Nourizadeh]‘s directing and the writing and Todd on set, it helped create a naturalistic kind of style.

OC: Todd would throw lines at us while we were in the middle of a take.

TM: We also did a lot of rehearsals. We rehearsed a lot of scenes for two weeks before we started shooting. But a lot of scenes were rewritten for our specific voices once we were cast.

We usually got what was on the page first and had a couple takes where you could play around.

Q: What was one of your favorite scenes?

OC: I love every scene with the little kids. Like with the Tasers. I had a blast with those two kids, [Brady Hender and Nick Nervies].

Q: Was it hard to get permission to film this movie since it portrays high school kids on drugs?

TM: That was not our job!

OC: We just showed up.

TM: Warner Bros. has a legal team and they hashed that out. Everyone on set had to be 18. That was the only rule.

JB: Except for Brady and Nick. Lucky f—— kids!

TM: But, they were not allowed to be around any of the breasts.

Q: Who made out with the most girls in the most scenes?

OC: I definitely did. I had a make out montage, but it got cut out! But it was kind of weird. At six in the morning, you’re making out with a bunch of girls that hadn’t brushed their teeth since… [trails off]

Q: What was the best thing about doing this movie?

TM: Getting to work with Todd Phillips.

OC: Doing a movie.

TM: It was amazing to work with people who have established themselves, like Joel Silver, who’s known for all his action movies, and Todd, who’s known for “Old School” (2003) and “The Hangover” (2009). It was nerve-wracking, but very rewarding.

JB: Nima Nourizadeh was the man. He directed the film. He had an eye and a visual style that I’ve never seen in any comedy before. By the way, I had this really strong martini earlier, and I wasn’t expecting it to be this strong.

Q: Are you guys pursuing acting now or going to school?

OC: Not going to school, for sure. I dropped out a long time ago.

JB: I dropped out of community college, but don’t take my advice. I live with my parents.

OC: I live with my aunt and four dogs.

TM: I’d say we’re all pursuing acting.

The bare plot in this film revolves around the creation of a fictional billion dollar movie by Tim and Eric, with a subsequent and vigorous condemnation given by the executives who fund the movie, the Schlaaang corporation. Faced with the prospect of repaying their billion-dollar investment after having blown it on frivolous luxury items, the pair end up watching a kitschy advertisement with a ‘successful’ shopping mall owner (Will Ferrell) inviting anyone to come manage the business to make a billion dollars. Drawn by this exaggerated promise, they skip town to live out their new dream as shopping mall managers while avoiding their debt. As one might expect, this task is hardly a cakewalk and isn’t made any easier by the peculiar residents and shop owners that live in the mall.

Rounding out the cast are well-known actors taking odd roles, such as John C. Reilly, Will Forte and Zach Galifianakis. Aside from the strangeness of their roles, these characters can be surprisingly entertaining to watch interacting with the deadpan Tim and Eric. There are also some poorly acted roles, though Tim and Eric are also known for their use of amateur actors along with celebrity look-a-likes.

Beyond this minimal plot and amusing cast, it is hard for viewers to follow. From the start of the movie, terrible commercials and public service announcements pull the audience out of the story before tossing them right back in. While it is hard to understand their humor, it is worth noting that the surreal nature of their humor can be appreciated if one doesn’t attempt to figure it out. There are a number of gross-out moments which are presented in bad taste, but these may also be part of the joke. Tim and Eric aren’t content to simply parody any medium, but they instead take the absurd or silly elements out of things such as PSAs, commercials, trailers and big films and throw them into the audience’s face.

Heidecker and Wareheim were recently in town for a student press interview while touring the country.

“Well we’d made 50 episodes, and felt like we finished that chapter, wanted to expand into short films. We’ve always wanted to make a movie from the very beginning,” Heidecker said of why they made the move from television to film.

“Just like how the TV show is very much about television, so our film is very much about movies,” Wareheim said on the challenges faced in the transition.

In person, the duo possesses a similar deadpan humor, but responded seriously to the notion that their show and film had no narrative sense, and were against the term ‘anti-humor’ being applied to their work.

“We think it’s a misnomer. Our intentions are always to be funny, to make you laugh, but we’re just not relying on tired old staples to be very comfortable for people. But we’re not against comedy, we’re all for comedy.” Heidecker said.

Tim and Eric’s Billion Dollar Movie won’t win any critical awards, but that is not what the movie was created to be. It will make an audience chuckle, laugh and squirm in various ways, so it’s pivotal that viewers keep this in mind while watching. Fans will be thrilled to watch, but it’s not likely to win over new audiences.

“Project X” explores Phillips’ usual themes, but also remembers to build an often hilarious comedy around them, something the director’s work has lately forgotten to do.

Thomas (Thomas Mann), Costa (Oliver Cooper) and JB (Jonathan Daniel Brown) star as unpopular high schoolers yearning to party with the jocks, score with the cheerleaders and ultimately be the biggest men on campus. When Thomas’ parents leave town for the weekend, Costa makes the most of the opportunity and elects to throw the party to end all parties (and films it, making “Project X” another notch in the belt of the found-footage genre). That’s about it as far as the story goes for “Project X.”

Even though the narrative is wafer-thin, “Project X” never fails to entertain. From the beginning, it gets plenty of laughs just from the friends ripping on each other, and once the party starts, the film picks up steam. The party is practically a character in itself: it starts slow, setting up a few jokes and introducing a few elements and then methodically hits all its punch lines and pays off every joke perfectly, until the party hits a hilarious crescendo of absolute chaos. Going in, I certainly wasn’t ready for how insane “Project X” ends up being. By the end of the film, it’s easy to be taken aback by the level of lunacy the film reaches for.

Of the three main actors, Mann is the only one with any real experience with a supporting role in 2010’s “It’s Kind of a Funny Story,” but all three prove to be natural comedic presences throughout the film. Their friendships feel genuine. Even as the party of their lives rages around them, the trio still find time to bond and reflect on the madness around them — a human touch that keeps the film from devolving into empty high school wish fulfillment.

Though “Project X” is a harmless film at heart, an empty ode to irresponsible decisions, its coda is morally rancid and hard to swallow. Once the sun rises and Thomas is forced to face the consequences of his decisions, the film isn’t sure what to do with itself. On one hand, its main character has essentially ruined his life by throwing this party that becomes national news and a police matter, and on the other, he’s become wildly popular and gets the girl. “Project X” almost seems to say that the consequences are worth the rewards, but it’s a viewpoint as juvenile as the film itself. It leaves things on a distinctly sour note.

Despite its wildly irresponsible message, “Project X” is undeniably entertaining and should certainly be commended for just how thoroughly the film commits to its premise and the levels of insanity the it hits in the later moments. It’s a film with a rotten center but an exterior so funny and charming that it’s hard not to like.

The English Heritage Foundation recently decided to preserve McCartney’s house on Forthlin Road where he lived for nine years in his youth as well as the 1930s duplex house nearby where Lennon lived with his aunt and uncle. The houses have been listed as Grade II buildings and this listing celebrate the historical association and cultural significance of the Beatles to the UK as opposed to the typical architectural aesthetic. Now the homes cannot be demolished and they cannot be altered unless there is permission from local authorities. As many would guess, both houses are in Liverpool.

The homes of McCartney and Lennon were scenes of rehearsal, creative collaboration, production and the very formation of the Beatles in the artists’ early days. The pair wrote “Please Please Me,” the band’s first hit, in Lennon’s house and they composed possibly 100 songs in McCartney’s home, which had an enclosed porch to ensure that McCartney’s aunt Mimi wouldn’t be disturbed by the band’s practicing.

However, the homes of George Harrison and Ringo Starr were not preserved by the English Heritage Foundation, not as a slight, but because they were not historically significant to the band.

Now that McCarthy and Lennon’s houses are preserved, they can be added to list of destinations for Beatle-fan pilgrimages. The homes will be open to visitors during certain parts of the year and both will certainly become popular places for both avid Beatle-fans and tourists alike.

The show follows the tumultuous lives of 1960s-era Madison Avenue advertising men and their wives, mistresses, secretaries — well, you get the idea. The program’s businessmen drink during the workday, engage in extramarital relationships, and create scores of shallow advertisements, while the show’s female characters struggle to forge new paths for women during a time of social upheaval.

Promotional trailers for Season 5 proclaimed, “Style is back. Confidence is back. Debauchery is back. Lust is back. Action is back. Don is back.” Needless to say, the Ad Men of Madison Avenue will return. At the end of Season 4, Don, played by Jon Hamm, had just proposed to his cute young secretary; Joan was pregnant with Roger’s baby; and Roger was conspiring to keep Joan’s pregnancy a secret.

For better or worse, the show’s creators have remained remarkably tight-lipped about the new storylines. Weiner is well known for protecting even the smallest plot tidbits from the spoiler-minded press, but he has indicated this season will be full of change and character development, as the glamorous men and women struggle to find stability in the midst of turmoil.

A recent promotional video teases viewers with the eventual return of Betty Draper (January Jones), Don’s icy yet glamorous ex-wife. Not to mention, lead actor Hamm directs a few of the episodes for the new season, so audiences can likely expect a more intimate portrayal of Don than we’ve seen in the past.

Unfortunately, fans enter this upcoming season knowing the show’s next season finale might also be one of its last. In 2011, Weiner talked about the ending of the show, but has recently indicated the program will end after it finishes its seventh season.

Weiner wants to close out the show with a modern-day Don Draper, 84 years old, looking back on his time in the 1960s and the decisions he has made in his life.

“I want to leave the show in a place where you have an idea of what it meant and how it’s related to you,” Weiner said. Although this decision will likely tie everything together all too neatly, the seasons so far have demonstrated nothing but artistic genius. If you feel the need to spend time with Don and the rest of the Mad Men clan before the March premier, all four seasons of the stellar show are available for streaming on Netflix.

“The Hunger Games,” which began as a young adult fiction novel by Suzanne Collins, tells the story of 16-year-old Katniss Everdeen. Katniss lives in Panem, the product of a fallen North America. Panem is divided into 12 districts, each with a purpose to cater to Panem’s rich Capitol. The strict Capitol controls Panem through fear with The Hunger Games, a yearly battle to the death. The event is televised throughout Panem, and the Capitol forces citizens to watch.

The battle begins with the Reaping, when one boy and one girl aged 12 to 18 are chosen to represent each district. At the Reaping in Katniss’ district, District 12, Katniss’s 12-year-old sister Prim is chosen, and Katniss frantically volunteers as a tribute to save her sister’s life. What ensues is a fight of the mind, heart and body for Katniss as she finds herself in the middle of the Capitol fighting for sponsors and supplies to stay alive.

Author Suzanne Collins told Publishers Weekly she was inspired to write “The Hunger Games” by her inspiration from reality TV and Greek mythology.

The novel is filled with great characters, as well as hints of love triangles. “The Hunger Games” is also known for not having a lot of action until the middle of the story.

University of Southern Mississippi student Kim Bailey has been a long-time fan of the books. She felt the beginning of the story lacks action.

“The story was a bit slow in the beginning but was just interesting enough that you didn’t want to stop reading,” Bailey said.

The story has generated some controversy with its violent arena scenes in which the tributes are fighting for their lives.

Bailey, however, disagrees with this point of view.

“I didn’t think it was very violent,” Bailey said. “It was based in a futuristic time, and it was about survival. It’s not as if the main characters were going around killing for fun.”

USM student Britney Husson noted that the story eventually picks up the pace and engrosses the reader.

“I could barely put it down, and before I knew it I was done reading it and buying the second one,” Husson said.

Despite a slow-moving story early in the novel and some violence, “The Hunger Games” remains popular four years after its initial release.

According to The New York Times, the novel has 23.5 million books in print today.

When I purchased my almost $300 ticket to last year’s Bonnaroo Music and Arts Festival in Manchester, Tenn., I pictured myself frolicking through a field, possibly intoxicated, while listening to tunes by more than 160 awesome bands of every genre. When I left the festival before one of my favorite bands, Arcade Fire, even went on stage, I rejoiced with my friend and shouted, “We made it out alive!” as I barreled down the highway in my grandma’s minivan.

Bonnaroo 2012 has an impressive lineup, including Radiohead, Red Hot Chili Peppers, The Beach Boys, Alice Cooper, Bon Iver, Ludacris and The Roots, but is it worth it?

In my opinion, the folks behind Bonnaroo have decided — not surprisingly, — to make as much money off the festival as possible, which has resulted in too many people and not enough resources to accommodate them. Despite having an incredible lineup, the overcrowding of dehydrated, sickly people overshadowed the music. The festival, which is held in the middle of June, has seen 10 deaths in the last eight years, many of them heat-related. If this festival was moved to May, or some other time when Manchester doesn’t feel like Hades, I probably wouldn’t still be complaining about it a year later. It was too hot to sleep after 8 a.m. Maybe I had seen too much footage of music festivals on TV, but this wasn’t at all the freewheelin’, good-spirited time I had imagined.

When my friend and I arrived after the seven-hour drive from Columbus, we had to wait in traffic for another four hours to enter the park. By noon, the smoldering sun and humidity had reached 98 degrees. The Centeroo, where all the action happens, was a good two-mile hike from our campsite. Once we reached the entrance, we stood in the sun for another hour, waiting to enter.

Going from the Centeroo to the campsite between shows is not really an option, so you have to be prepared to stay all day. The only relief is the air-conditioned Cinema Tent, which is another one- or two-hour wait, depending on the movies and celebrities scheduled to appear.

While I might not be the best camper, I’m also not typically the biggest whiner, but the heat, humidity and lack of water stations, showers and toilets made every part of the festival miserable. As I mentioned, my friend and I left right before Arcade Fire went on stage, which was the band I had wanted to see most. The thought of staying one more day was unbearable. Because we were parked near the outskirts, we managed to weave through the maze of tents, vehicles and bodies. Leaving the festival was the highlight of the weekend.

If you choose to ignore this warning, I have some advice:

1. Get a huge group to go (minimum 24 people) and stay in the Groop Camping area. You will have a reserved spot, located closer to Centeroo and a water station, and it is only an extra $30 per person (Group camping for the 2012 show is currently sold out, but take your chances on the waiting list, anyway).

2. Dress as if you are going to run a marathon in the middle of summer, but with less clothing.

3. Because of Bonnaroo’s jam-packed schedule, it is tough to see all of the concerts you hope to attend. Unless you want to see your favorite band from a mile away, you have to get to the stages early and miss out on other performances.

4. Save your money and plan a trip to Indio, Calif. for Coachella or Chicago for Lollapalooza. I haven’t been to either, but the weather and accommodations have to be better than Bonnaroo.

The entire experience probably cost $700. Maybe it was an especially hot and dry year for Bonnaroo, but for the amount of money, effort and crushed high hopes suffered, I wouldn’t risk wasting another weekend in Manchester — not even to see my favorite musicians of all time, Radiohead.

“It’s great,” Griffin said. “We could have done this at the Super Bowl, but we wanted to do it here at Baylor to kind of bring that attention back to Baylor, and you guys are here so we were successful. I’m happy about that.”

EA Sports set up a pavilion on the Baylor campus displaying NCAA Football 13 banners and a rough, unofficial cover with Griffin on it.

“This is great for Baylor to have this photo shoot here and be on the cover of NCAA Football 13,” Griffin said. “It’s a great experience; only one person gets it every year and Baylor University gets that this year.”

Griffin will not be alone on the cover. This year, EA Sports will put a former Heisman Trophy winner alongside Griffin, and fans can vote for which players they want beside him at www.ea.com starting March 12.

“I mean all those guys are great,” Griffin said. “If it’s a quarterback, it’d be sweet, but Herschel Walker, Barry Sanders, Marcus Allen, all those guys that have done a lot more than I have. I’m excited to just be on the cover with them.”

Griffin spent most of Monday morning sitting on a stool in front of the camera doing interviews with various media outlets, including