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.

“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.”

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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!”

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.”

“When I grew up, radio was all you had, and you turned it on the second you woke up,” Allen said.

The tried and true New Yorker was joined onstage by talk show legend Dick Cavett Tuesday night at 92Y, for a screening of Allen’s nostalgic comedy “Radio Days” and an hour-long talk moderated by Annette Insdorf, director of Columbia’s undergraduate film program.

The conversation stayed loosely tied to radio, often drifting into reminiscence—many of Allen’s anecdotes were variations or explications of scenes from “Radio Days.” In the autobiographical, Oscar-nominated film, Allen narrates life from the perspective of a younger self growing up in Rockaway Beach during the late 1930s. The plot is guided by the stories his family hears on the radio.

Both speakers marveled at the technical expertise of radio stars, and the challenges of being confined to sound. “For years, there was a sense that silent comedy was much harder to do. They didn’t have the benefit of sound, and so they had to work just with their bodies and props, and sound is much easier, but I always felt that it was much harder because you’re stuck with speaking and your voice,” Allen said.

For the biggest stars, this was no handicap. Allen joked about the contrast between physique and voice embodied in Jackson Beck. “He had this fabulous voice. He played a number of heroes on the radio, but he was this squat paunchy little man. But when you heard his voice, you thought you were saved by Superman.”

Before television and the Internet expanded media options, the radio was a central thread which united much of the nation, since nearly everyone could recognize the voices of radio stars such as Beck.

Cavett recalled the force of 1950s radio and television personality Arthur Godfrey’s voice. “Godfrey was the king of radio, so much so, when I was a kid … you could walk down the street in Lincoln, Nebraska on a hot day—we had no air conditioning and the windows were open—and not miss a word of Arthur’s show as you went from house to house to house.”

They often returned to the transcendent power of radio. “Sunday afternoon, 40s, my mother comes out to the yard, gets me and Mary, my little friend, and said, ‘You better come in and listen to the radio. This will mean something to you someday—the Japs have gotten us into the war,’” Cavett said.

Allen asked, “When we were kids, was there any more blissful thing than you pretended you were sick, you didn’t go to school, you faked an illness, held a thermometer over the radiator? You were in bed all day being waited on by subservient parents … You listened to the radio for 12 hours. It was just bliss.”

Though radio was the common experience that unified their America, Cavett and Allen were forced to admit that the comedies, mysteries, and talk shows that once enraptured the nation are extinct, replaced by other media. But Cavett argued that even new media sources are finding a place for older media.

“There is a vast amount, on the Internet, of old radio, tons of it,” Cavett said. “‘Little Orphan Annie,’ ‘The Lone Ranger,’ everything you’ve ever found, you can hear on there … There’s a lot of it there, so we can all go home and have a nice recollection of something we remember in the past.” Cavett paused. “It’s nice that it’s retained.”

The Counselor, an originally screenplay from acclaimed writer, Cormac McCarthy, will reunite the duo together.

The film is being labeled as “No Country for Old Men on steroids” and is concerned with a respected lawyer who tries dabbling in the drug business, only to be faced with extreme consequences.

The Counselor is scheduled to start production on May 1.

Michael Fassbender recently starred in Jane Eyre, X-Men: First Class, A Dangerous Method, Haywire, as well as Shame, for which he received considerable praise and won Best Actor at the Venice Film Festival. The young actor is scheduled to reunite with another director this year, Steve McQueen, who directed him in Hunger and Shame, as they reteam for Twelve Years A Slave.

But that’s what I found myself doing last Friday, when “The Artist” finally made its way down South to the local theater.

“The Artist” is a great movie, but it took about the last 20 of its 100-minute runtime to truly convince me. We have a Lifestyles section for movie reviews (see page six), though, so I’ll get on to my point.

Watching a silent movie is and will always be an exercise in reading face and body expressions. There’s a telling scene in the second act of the movie, when Bérénice Bejo’s character, Peppy Miller, talks to an interviewer about being the big star in those newfangled talkies.

She mentions (via title cards, of course) how silent films were all about “actors mugging at the screen,” mimicking the exaggerated faces as she talks.

After the film was over and my friends and I were standing outside the theater, there was a brief moment when I paid particularly close attention to their facial expressions. It was fleeting, and obviously a tendency leftover from an hour and a half of no one speaking, but it was still remarkable to look at a friend with the same curiosity and intensity that is required of a silent-film audience.

Of course, the ideal is to pair meaningful dialogue with telling facial expression, as we see in the climax of “The Artist” as well as film’s own history. Still, it only seems appropriate to use “The Artist,” as a backdrop to examine where human communication is today.

The reason it seems appropriate is because of the pervasive use of technology as the standard medium through which we communicate. Not that it’s a negative aspect of our culture – quite the opposite, in fact. This isn’t a column lamenting “Generation Text” and our lack of interpersonal relationships, like I don’t also have TweetDeck open on the other side of the screen at this very moment.

The question is whether this self-imposed 140-character limit is beneficial to human communication as a whole. Those in favor would say it forces individuals to get to the point faster; to not waste time with flowery language that muddles the actual message.

The flipside of that point is that by eliminating the flowery language, we are also eliminating the beauty of language as a whole, though I might be inclined to argue that there is certainly some charm in the creativity people employ to get down to the character cap.

What I find the most fascinating is that in its own way, the character limit actually serves to point out how reliant we are on nonverbal expression.

We’ve all had an experience when sarcasm didn’t translate via text message. And as much as I’ll always associate this with America Online instant messages, we still rely on emoticons to get across the finer points – the scalpel counterpart to the textual sledgehammer that is a tweet.

As much as high school English teachers might disagree, language is an ever-evolving concept. With it, too, is human expression. Hollywood moved from silent films to talkies 80 years ago, but 80 years on, it seems all we want is a few lines of text. Maybe in another few decades or so, we’ll just be walking around winking at one another.

Want another reason the world is definitely going to end in 2012?

Twilight producers are looking to extend the story beyond the Breaking Dawn Part 2 supposed finale this November. Yes, you read that right, the cinematic abuse that people call “Twilight films” are continuing beyond the 2012 finale that corresponds with the conclusion of the books.

Though the films may be abysmal to most film buffs and people in general, the plans to extend the series are actually not much of a surprise considering that despite receiving condemnation from most critics, the films bring in loads and loads of money. Jon Feltheimer, Lionsgate chief executive, anticipates Breaking Dawn Part 2 to exceed the U.S. $700-million dollar box office gross of Breaking Dawn Part 1.

With a cash cow like that, it is not difficult to fathom why producers are eager to extend the series.  That does not, however, make it any more palatable.

The movie is based on the true story of the Tuskeegee airmen, a group of African-American fighter pilots who changed the course of WWII. Gooding and McCallum said they were motivated to do the film because they felt it was important to bring attention to the story of the Tuskeegee airmen, because of their role in the war effort and the racial discrimination they faced.

“In America, 90 percent of kids under 20 have no idea of who the Tuskeegee airmen were. I remember the first time I read that script—supposedly having finished my education—and not knowing anything about the Tuskeegee airmen,” Gooding said. “A lot of kids who don’t get wonderful educations get their educations through cinema. It’s about time to celebrate the contribution that we as African Americans have made to America.”

While Red Tails opened at the box office at number two, McCallum said that it was difficult for him and executive producer George Lucas to secure funding for the film, primarily because there were no white actors in leading roles.

“It has to do with the fact that [the major studios] don’t inherently believe that you can have a film with an all-black cast,” he said. “They just don’t know how to market it.”

Gooding and McCallum emphasized the potential for this film to open up the market for other serious, African-American films.

“If this film does well, other writers and directors will be able to bring their stories to the screen,” Gooding said.

McCallum joked that if the film had a Twilight-esque opening weekend, “we’ll never see another white person in a movie again.”

But Gooding also added that he felt the film’s message goes beyond racial struggle. “Everyone keeps saying ‘black airmen,’ but it’s also a film about airmen. It’s about being American.”

Real-life Tuskeegee airman and Yale Law School graduate Colonel Enoch “Woody” Woodhouse also attended the event. At the end of the talk, Woodhouse presented Gooding with a red tie similar to those worn by the Tuskeegee airmen, noting that the tie was “red, not crimson.”

Alexis J. Smith, who attended the event, said that she found the panel “inspirational.”

“The clips they showed of the movie were very empowering,” she said.

Jeffrey G. Edwards was impressed with the level of dedication from the people involved in making the movie.

“It’s great to see how much they cared about such an important story,” he said.

The panel was moderated by Director of the Harvard Criminal Justice Institute and Winthrop House Master Ronald S. Sullivan Jr. and was co-sponsored by the Black Policy Conference, the Black Student’s Association and the Black Men’s Forum.

Banks certainly knows how time can weigh on the will to make a daring leap.  At an enviously questionable 37, Banks has contended with a decade of formulaic supporting roles. Yet, in that same decade, innumerable actors and actresses have succumbed to time, “coming inside” from inhospitable and unforgivable stratosphere of show business, surrendering to physical exhaustion.

Banks’ plunge of perseverance has proved fruitful. Triumphantly securing her place as both as a film and television superstar, she has also proved her acting range in a spectrum of leading roles such as in W., The Next Three Days, and 30 Rock.  In Man on a Ledge, Banks reflects this liberation in playing, for the first time, an independent woman: “working class” NYPD detective Lydia Mercer who is called to coax the suicidal Nick Cassidy (Sam Worthington) off of a ledge of Manhattan’s Roosevelt Hotel.

“I really liked the idea of not playing someone’s wife or girlfriend,” Banks explains during our conversation at Boston’s Liberty Hotel last Friday, referring to the myriad of arm candy she’s played in films such as The 40-Year-Old Virgin and Definitely, Maybe. While Banks’ Lydia Mercer in Man on a Ledge “parties hard” and is hardened by the misogyny and emotionally tumultuous nature of her profession, Banks wanted to create a character who was “a woman…very feminine…because I think [being tough] is just clichéd.”

Banks’ consideration to explore the dynamic depth of her character is indication of Banks’ dramatic depth too. To this same end, Banks extensively researched the nuances of suicide negotiation, conversing with real-life NYPD negotiators to hear their “amazing stories” and various industry strategies.

“‘Jumpers always jump,’ that’s [negotiators’] motto. If you want to off yourself, you go to the top of the building and you jump off,” Banks said. “If [negotiators] actually get into a situation where they’re talking to someone, they have a pretty high success rate. So, little moments like that are built into the movie because of research. When [my character] first walks into the room, [I know that Sam Worthington] is not particularly suicidal, because if he was, he already would’ve jumped…and so I take my time going to the window, I ask questions…there is no rush.”

Banks’ devotion to authenticity was likely influenced by Man on a Ledge’s commitment to realism (yes, they actually filmed on a ledge of the Roosevelt Hotel). Yet, her decade of supporting masters like the “super committed” Ed Harris in Man on a Ledge, comedy heroes Seth Rogen and Paul Rudd in several films, and the “so pro” Alec Baldwin on 30 Rock, have fine tuned Banks’ observation skills, vital to an actress, and clearly paid dividends, exemplified in Banks’ 2011 Golden Globe nomination for 30 Rock.

It’s no wonder that Banks’ intrigue in her Man on a Ledge character, Lydia Mercer, came in “her curiosity and her hunger to figure out what’s going on, her need to know the truth of the situation.” Elizabeth Banks herself has proved, now that she’s on top of, or on a ledge, so to speak – of that same insatiable desire to absorb all that the Hollywood stratospheric spectrum offers. And if her upcoming role as the “Marie Antoinette meets Kabuki” Effie in The Hunger Games is any indication, Banks’ panoramic catalogue will only continue to diversify.

It is said that time slows when one plunges from the skies. If only to see the trajectory of Elizabeth Banks, let’s hope time creeps by.

Her commitment to the art of acting and her ability to completely transform into a wide variety of characters has guaranteed her a near-annual nomination since 1978. If awarded, this would be the first Oscar she takes home since her leading role in “Sophie’s Choice” in 1982.

Holding the most Oscar nominations of any actress in history, sixteen as of this year, Streep’s performance as the former British prime minister is one of conviction, specificity and absolute physical transformation. After 30 years since she last won the award, will this be the role that wins her the next Oscar?

Streep has been known to effectively become her characters, ranging from the rambunctious, jolly and high-pitched French chef Julia Child in “Julie and Julia” (2009), to the icy, fiercely fashionable and quick-witted editor-in-chief Miranda Priestly in “The Devil Wears Prada” (2006); from a Catholic nun with a grievance against a priest (“Doubt”), to a modern version of Virgina Woolf’s Mrs. Dalloway (“The Hours”).

Streep’s extensive training in her art is evident through the dramatic changes she makes for each individual role. Though some of her characters may seem out of the ordinary at face value, it is through her moment-to-moment characterizations, mannerisms and full-embodied physicality that she realizes a humanistic performance.

The film, shown through the lens of an elderly and nostalgic Margaret Thatcher, tells the story of her rise and fall in British parliament through a series of flashbacks as she packs away her late husband’s belongings. Struggling with early signs of dementia, each object she stores sparks a memory from different moments in her life, and Streep’s portrayal of Thatcher bounces between the former prime minister’s past and present life.

Margaret Thatcher, the first female British prime minister with the longest-serving term of the 20th century, was widely known for her strict conservative policies, compelling speeches and harsh rhetoric against the Soviet Union. It is through her convictions, persistence in creating change and push for a self-sufficient lifestyle that the prime minister earned the nickname “the Iron Lady.” Although prosthetics and extensive film makeup were used to assist her transformation into an older Thatcher, Streep’s physicality, subtle character choices and commitment to Thatcher’s driven, passionate personality separate her from other nominees.

Written as a sympathetic portrayal of a prime minister who was not always well-liked by the public, the film has garnered mixed reviews. Many critics said the film lacks the range to portray Thatcher’s story beyond the drama and pathos of her personal life, which limited the film. Despite the harsh criticism surrounding the film, Streep is praised in reviews for her brilliance as an actress and the totality of her transformation. Streep’s portrayal is so spot-on that comparing video clips of Margaret Thatcher to the film render the two nearly indistinguishable.

This type of transformative role is not an unusual contender for the Oscar. Actresses playing famous women throughout history are commonly seen in the Best Actress category. Other actresses nominated for historical portrayls include Salma Hayek as Mexican painter Frida Kahlo in “Frida”, Helen Mirren as Queen Elizabeth II in “The Queen” and Charlize Theron as the serial killer Aileen Wuornos in “Monster.” Although the majority of these women undertake complete transformations to do justice to their real-life characters, Streep’s Margaret Thatcher has authenticity that sets a new bar.

Already having won a Golden Globe for Best Actress in a Motion Picture Drama for “The Iron Lady,” as well as holding a nomination in the same category for the Screen Actors Guild Awards, Streep is a critic favorite for the Oscar, and it seems that an Oscar win is almost inevitable — after all, 16th time’s the charm.

The 2012 Sundance Film Festival kicked off Thursday with tons of films that sound both promising and intriguing.

The films that premiere in Sundance are eventually released in the United States toward the fall – that’s hoping they find a distributor there, if they don’t already have one – and usually sparks become game changers for awards season. Like Crazy, last year’s Sundance charmer, didn’t quite find love when the film was released in October, but previous films such as Precious and Winter’s Bone have successfully kept their fire burning all the way up toward the Oscars.

Bridesmaids was a critical and commercial success and could potentially gain an Oscar nomination for Best Picture, considering its Producers Guild of America nomination. Bachelorette is a similar film, focused on a group of women embarking on a self-destructive journey, though initial word is that it’s not necessarily a knockoff, because the idea was in place before Bridesmaids. The film stars Kirsten Dunst, Isla Fisher and Lizzy Caplan in what could be this summer’s big comedy film.

Spike Lee is back into filmmaking mode with his latest independent film, Red Hook Summer. The film is his first narrative film in four years, in which the character of Mookie is said to return. The film still doesn’t have distribution, however, he should have no problem with this one.

Andy Samberg and Rashida Jones team up in Celeste and Jesse Forever, a film that pairs them together as former high school sweethearts who are going through a divorce. The potential here is that Andy Samberg will have a lead role to shine in, providing us with hopefully some heartbreak and humor.

Elizabeth Olsen and Josh Radnor made waves at last year’s Sundance with Martha Marcy May Marlene and happythankyoumoreplease, respectively. They will now star together in Liberal Arts, a film that centers on a 35-year-old man who falls for a college student when he returns to his alma matter. Elizabeth Olsen is a promising star and this film could potentially show us her in a different light.

The exact origin of the festival seems to be debatable, with the Sundance Institute crediting the official festival to be created by Redford in 1985 while other sources, including Time Magazine, have a more complex story which states that before “Sundance” and before hoards of celebrities, there was the U.S. Film Festival.

Organized in 1978 by Sterling Van Wagenen, who was then a recent Brigham Young U. graduate, along with John Earle and Cirina Hampton Catania, the U.S. Film Festival was created to showcase independent films as well as bring filmmakers to Utah.

While the first festival achieved moderate success, it concluded with more than a bit of debt. Van Wagenen told the Deseret News the first festival was $20,000 over budget. The need to pay the bills, in addition to a passion for independent film, propelled the founders to launch another festival the next year. With Redford as the first board chairmen, the group was able to establish a successful independent film festival.

By 1985 Redford took over the festival and eventually named it Sundance in 1991, after the film “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.” Because of his fame, Redford naturally launched the festival more than before into the public eye. With all the attention, the festival continued and still continues to grow in success.

Brad Barber, a professor in the Theatre and Media Arts Department at BYU, provided information on how BYU students have been involved in the festival.

“In the last five to 10 years we’ve had three or four student films there, which is really remarkable because they have more submissions than any other American festival that I know of,” he said. “There are well over 1,000 and there’s not many slots, so the chance of getting one is around one percent.”

Barber also spoke about how the festival has reached out to the Utah community, saying the festival offers special showings for Utah locals and opportunities for people to volunteer. He also said Sundance has now provided a list of family-friendly films.

“It kind of has a reputation for showing content that pushes the boundaries of what you’re used to, but there is so much great content that I don’t think anyone should write it off all together,” Barber said. “I think listing family-friendly films is a real effort on their part to reach out to locals.”

Marshall Moore, director of the Utah Film Commission for the past eight years, shared what the film festival has meant for Utah.

“The festival gives the state a lot of attention. The entire film world is turned to Utah during the 10 days,” Moore said. “It is one of the premiere film festivals in the world and the premiere festival in the United States.”

While this success has created the exciting and thriving atmosphere we know Sundance for, even Redford himself is known to have said publicity is not what the festival is about. Because many of the films shown have celebrities and endorsements, some less established films are overshadowed and go unnoticed, contradicting the principles the festival was built on.

However, Jim Faulkner, associate director of marketing at the Salt Lake Film Society, explained in an email how independent film can and does still have a place in Utah, thanks to Sundance.

“Sundance provides the audience an opportunity to transcend their film-watching comfort zone by exhibiting films with daring subject matter and cinematic methods, thus enriching and educating our audience,” Faulkner said. “I feel that we can really take advantage of a community that has grown with this film festival and maintains an astute knowledge of independent film.”

I also have my qualms with George. In the eyes of many fans, he’s done a considerable amount of questionable re-editing with many of his best-known films (mainly the Star Wars franchise). Many fans were also dissatisfied with the latest Indiana Jones movie, citing the weak story and inclusion of Shia LaBeouf. I may not agree with many of his decisions, but I believe he’s a great filmmaker, and his impact is unequaled.

My newfound respect for George has stemmed from his willingness to do something the majority of Hollywood is completely against—he made a film consisting of an entirely black cast steeped in one of the most prominent African American stories, The Tuskegee Airmen. Note: Go see the film Red Tails.

The Tuskegee airmen were the first African American combat pilots in the United States Army. They fought in World War II. The airmen were met with racial discrimination and hatred from the army and citizens of The United States. Still, they served their country valiantly and became known as one of the best groups ever to emerge from the US Army Air Corps.

Now, why is George Lucas’ movie important? Simple. Absolutely no one wanted to make it. Forget story structure, production costs, or the magnitude of the film’s scope. It is an African American movie that does not feature melodrama, gang violence or hood portrayals. Hollywood is having none of that. If the story does not revolve around what I previously stated, sports, or a white person helping a poorly educated (often idiotic) black person (see The Blind Side, Finding Forrester, etc.), it will not be made. The Help is not an exception. The story may have African Americans, but it dwelled on the overwhelmingly privileged lives of southern whites.

There are bright spots. Spike Lee’s movies can bring a non-black crowd. Tyler Perry movies have been notably profitable, but are rigorously scrutinized by mainstream critics.

So what’s the problem? Hollywood does not think black sells (unless you are Will Smith, maybe Denzel Washington or Samuel “I Play Myself in Every Movie I Make” Jackson). A cast for a mainstream, high budget movie will never be predominately black (or predominately minority for that matter). Hollywood will not even allow a white woman to be a black man’s love interest, unless it specifically deals with race issues (see O, a modern conception of Othello). In Will Smith’s movie Hitch, Nicole Kidman was considered for the part of Will Smith’s love interest, but executives opted for a Latino lead role in fear their white audience may not approve of such interracial sexy. The opposite is untrue. A white man can bugger up a black woman on screen all he wants (see Monster’s Ball or Star Trek).

Hollywood executives said no, watching the screening of Red Tails. One executive didn’t even show up. I could understand such individuals ignoring Spike Lee or Tyler Perry in this endeavor, but to know someone of George Lucas’ clout could be ignored tells us Hollywood retains a circle jerk of high-powered money-rollers who still have a stamp of prejudice on the money they stuff up their rear-end.

So, thank you, George Lucas for making this film. Thank you for using your own money to distribute it. Thank you for fighting the convention minorities should not be allowed to play lead roles in major movies. I can respect someone who is willing to push boundaries. This also lends itself to the fact some issues will not be resolved until white people address the gash of racism still upheld by their less forward brethren.

God, I just hope the movie doesn’t suck. That would really ruin my argument.

Moderated by radio-television-film professor John Pierson, the Saturday screening took place at U. Texas and included a discussion with Depp, who produced and starred in the film, and director Bruce Robinson. Depp has been working on the film, based on a book of the same name by the novelist and journalist Hunter S. Thompson, for more than 10 years. He said he hopes students will understand the struggle Thompson went through to find his own voice against big corporations.

“The voice he found was one of rage,” Depp said. “[Here] was a guy that cared so much that he had to rail against the authority that pushed the world into its corner.”

Thompson’s legacy includes the creation of a new style of writing called gonzo journalism in the 1960s, a subjective style of reporting often told in first-person narrative. He wrote “The Rum Diary” in 1959 based on his own experiences with American capitalism in San Juan, Puerto Rico, and published it in 1998.

Depp said the core of the film was what enraged Thompson after the U.S. embargoed Cuban goods and began commercializing Puerto Rico. When asked about what Thompson would think about the current Occupy Wall Street and Occupy Austin protests, Depp said Thompson would probably be supportive and doing “Snoopy dances.”

In relation to the film, which exposes the influence of American corporations in Puerto Rico and on the news media, Depp said Thompson would say journalism is in a bad place today.

“[Journalism] is on par with the [corporations] on Wall Street,” Depp said. “It’s about selling the truth but really selling something people want to buy.”

Depp first came to Austin in 1993 for his lead role in “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape.” He came into town for the Austin Film Festival and won the festival’s first award for extraordinary contribution to film in acting.

“I don’t really recognize the place anymore,” Depp said. “When you go around Sixth Street you go, ‘Okay, this looks familiar.’ I had great experiences here, and I love this joint.”

Robinson, who came out of retirement to make the film, said he believed journalism had become a business of people shouting fear and horror in his ears. Robinson said when he was a child in the United Kingdom there were two competing newspapers in Russia. When he asked his schoolteacher who was telling the truth, his teacher said neither told the truth.

Robinson said that all the media covers nowadays is fear and that the first time he read Thompson’s book, he felt enraged at the relationship corporations have with the media.

“The only time you ever feel comfortable [in media] is in the [advertising universe], where you see people cuddling with their kids in the living room,” Robinson said. “It worries me — the ads are the one great thing, and everything else is terrible.”

More than 400 students and faculty attended the screening. The film was also shown at universities in Kansas, Washington, Arizona, Indiana and Illinois, where students were allowed to text in questions for Depp and Robinson.

Bob Berney, UT alumnus and president of the film’s distributor FilmDistrict, said Depp pushed to show the film at UT because he felt students would be able to identify with Thompson and his work. He also said it was very important for Depp to make the film after Thompson’s suicide in 2005. Berney graduated from UT with a radio-television-film degree in 1977.

Berney said the screening was FilmDistrict’s first satellite tour, and the company will continue to partner with UT in the future.

Radio-television-film junior Alexandra Prather was the first in line to see Depp at the screening. Prather showed up at the SAC at 8 a.m. for the 6:30 p.m. program because she was afraid she wouldn’t get a seat. Prather said that the first time she saw Depp was in “Edward Scissorhands” and that she loved seeing him portray a character that was a little darker but was normal at the core.

“He’s been one of my idols since I was little, and I never thought a person like Johnny Depp would come to Austin,” Prather said. “I’ve never met a celebrity before, but I’d like to be respectful because he’s a human being just like everybody else.”

Morgan Spurlock, director of the Oscar-nominated documentary, “Super Size Me,” spoke Thursday at Duke U. Spurlock spoke with humor and snippets of seriousness about the production of his film, “The Greatest Movie Ever Sold,” released in April, which explores product placement, marketing and advertising. The movie is funded entirely by product placement and features brands prominently.

Spurlock discussed the frustration of calling up more than 600 brands before convincing the film’s first sponsor—Ban Deodorant—to contribute to the movie. When he approached Abercrombie and Fitch about product placement, for example, the woman at the clothing company asked him if he wanted to know why he was not Abercrombie material.

“‘You’re not very attractive—and by not very attractive, you’re not handsome at all. And that thing on your face… a moustache? We’re selling clothing, not pornography,’” Spurlock recalled her telling him, to which he replied, “I’ve seen your advertisements. I disagree.”

Duke sophomore Forrest Etter, vice president of operations of the DUU Speakers and Stage committee, said the event was overall very successful based on the laughter and unexpectedly high turnout.

One audience member, senior Kevin Nguyen, said he deliberately brought McDonald’s food to the event in reference to “Super Size Me,” Spurlock’s 2004 documentary on the influence of the fast food industry and the health effects of McDonald’s food in particular.

“I had seen ‘Super Size Me’ previously and really enjoyed the film,” Nguyen said. “I know how much everyone at Duke eats at McDonald’s, so I thought that was an interesting point.”

Spurlock noted Nguyen for his choice of food.

“I love you. Thanks for coming out,” Spurlock said. “I love you, but your liver doesn’t.”

When asked about pirated versions of his work, Spurlock replied unconventionally.

“If you’re taking the time to download my movie from Pirate Bay, watch it and talk to your friends about it, then I say ‘God bless you,’” he said

Spurlock shifted to discussion of more serious themes toward the end of his talk, noting that he wanted “The Greatest Movie Ever Sold” to question where the line needs to be drawn with regard to the prevalence of advertising in everyday life. He also left aspiring filmmakers and entrepreneurs with a few nuggets of wisdom, noting a story about a small job helping at a volleyball game that eventually led him to become an announcer at the Olympics.

“Be open to all opportunities,” Spurlock said. “It might not be the opportunity that you think will be best for you, but you should really capitalize on those opportunities.”

After recalling how he once went into more than $200,000 of credit card debt to make a film, Spurlock ended the night with a call to action.

“As you go out into your careers, you’re going to have to make a decision about how far you want to go to achieve your dreams,” he said. “I chose to go however far I needed to to make that happen. I hope all you choose to go as far as possible, too.”

In the company’s blog post, it revealed it’s nixing the recently announced Qwikster site, which would have required customers to order and manage dvds separately from the Netflix site.

Customers and critics buzzed with comments after the news, with the feeling I-told-you-so.

“It appears Netflix management got their MBA’s in A.D.D.,” comedian and TV host Tom Burgeron tweeted soon after.

Sites like Tech Crunch added to the discussion, asking “Is it ever OK to Fire Your Customers?”

The company is changing its tune after hearing less than lackluster reviews and a drop in customers since the summer months. News sources such as CNN Money have reported Netflix has lost nearly one million customers since July and many are wondering whether this announcement will retain current customers and bring others to return.

Blockbuster, another struggling business, has capitalized on Netflix’s recent troubles by offering unhappy Netflix customers free trials.

In the same announcement, Netflix affirmed that the recent price hikes however are here to stay.

According to some analyst estimates, the contract could earn the production house an estimated $30 million per movie. Under the deal, Netflix will begin distributing DreamsWorks’ titles in 2013 for an unspecified number of years. It replaces HBO’s similar deal with DreamWorks.

This new deal offers a small ray of hope for the content streaming company, which has suffered from a declining subscriber base and a resultant drop in stock prices in the recent past. Apple, Amazon and Vudu, Wal-Mart’s streaming service, have also been offering strong competition to the embattled company.

In fact the very day after Netflix announced its deal, Amazon also announced a licensing agreement with Fox. The contract allows Amazon Prime members to instantly stream a broad selection of popular movies and TV shows from the Fox library. These include Fox biggies such as The X-Files, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, 24, Arrested Development and The Wonder Years.

Another of Netflix’s key competitor, Dish Network, which plucked Blockbuster out of bankruptcy earlier in 2011, had launched a Blockbuster-branded streaming and DVD-by-mail service Sept. 23 to further tighten competition.

While it remains unlikely that Netflix can reclaim the dizzying heights of a $300 stock price, this new deal could provide some much needed relief to the content streaming company and lead to a revival in its fortunes.

Jonah Hill is one of Hollywood’s most sought-after talents. He is famous for his comical personality and riotous roles, including his character Seth in the acclaimed hit “Superbad.”

But this year the 27-year-old actor steps into a different light of the movie industry, co-starring with Brad Pitt in “Moneyball,” the upcoming sport drama based on the true story of Paul DePodesta.

Hill plays the character Peter Brand, a Yale economics major hired by Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) to help rebuild the small-market baseball team, the Oakland Athletics.

Beane, the general manager of the team and a would-be baseball superstar, has the task of replacing the star players they lost to big-market teams for higher salaries.

With Beane’s competitive drive plus Brand’s knowledge and passion for statistics, the duo put together a team of baseball players overlooked by everyone else in the sports league.

Beane and Brand’s decision to put together a team based on re-examination and statistical analysis leaves almost everyone but themselves questioning their stance on the game of baseball.

Hill’s character in “Moneyball” is one of his two more dramatic and serious roles, including “Cyrus” where he gets the chance to break the “funny guy” typecast.

When Hill was cast for the film, he explained that a lot of sports writers thought his involvement with the character, re-named Peter Brand, was a disgrace: Hill looks nothing like, nor acts like, the real life Paul DePodesta.

“Through this experience, I think that sports writers tend to be a lot more harsh than film critics because they are so passionate about what they’re talking about,” Hill said.

After seeing the film, many of those sports writers have expressed to Hill that they really enjoyed everything, especially the way in which he portrayed the character.

Hill said it feels amazing to shift someone’s expectations of what they thought they were going to see.

The expectations that Hill will constantly be making the audience members laugh is still there.

However, moviegoers can continue to be impressed with the simple way in which the polite Peter Brand still manages to contribute some comic relief in “Moneyball.”

“I am intentionally doing movies that are diversifying who I am,” Hill said. “I think it is easy to put someone in a box and label them as something.”

Hill said he was excited about his opportunities and the chance to shed light on his ability to be a well-rounded, diversified actor.

“My first big introduction into the world was “Superbad,” and it really made a big splash when it came out, so since then I have been regarded as that character,” Hill said. “But that’s not who I am.”

Hill has grown up in front of the world, but has hopes that everyone will accept his desire and action to do both drama and comedy, he said.

“This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for an actor to star alongside Brad Pitt,” Hill said. “The whole thing has and does still feel like a dream.”

Hill said he is humbled by the whole experience.

On paper, the idea of “Moneyball” is “baseball statistics,” but it is actually “exciting, remarkable, moving, intense, sad, funny, honest and dark all at the same time,” Hill said.

“The filmmakers used baseball as a beautiful aesthetic backdrop to tell a really moving story about underdogs and value, and more specifically being undervalued,” Hill said.

“Moneyball” hits theaters Sept. 23.

Lucas had hoped to utilize new digital special effects to “finish” Star Wars. Most of the additions had a neutral effect, such as scattering more space creatures in A New Hope’s Mos Eisley Space-port, or enhancing the appearance of Cloud City in The Empire Strikes Back. (Notice that these edits do not enhance the films’ emotional content, and are therefore unnecessary.)

However, other changes significantly altered character development. A famous example is the “Han Shot First” controversy. In the original version of Star Wars, Han Solo shoots and kills the bounty hunter, Greedo, in cold blood, leaving the audience to wonder whether Han is a hero or a villain. The scene is indicative of why Han is a compelling character; he walks the line between good and evil within a film that clearly defines good and evil.

For the newer versions, Lucas altered the scene so that Greedo shoots first and (in a display of unbelievably bad intergalactic marksmanship) misses Han from point blank range. Han then kills Greedo in self-defense. And his conflict—to continue his life as a smuggler or join the “good guys,” is watered down, if not lost.

Now, with the release of the original Star Wars trilogy on Blu-Ray, Lucas is revising again. The change that’s getting most attention is the addition of Darth Vader screaming “NO!” as Luke is being tortured by the Emperor, near the end of Return of the Jedi. This is the scene in which Darth Vader turns from the Dark Side and kills the Emperor. However, in the original cut, Darth Vader says nothing while killing the Emperor.

The original is vastly more effective because Darth Vader’s inner conflict between good and evil is hidden behind his signature black mask.

Thus, Darth Vader is not fully redeemed until the mask is removed, just before he dies. The “NO!” appears to be an echo of young Darth Vader’s similar cry at the end of Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (2004). Such empty grasps at continuity should never come at the expense of character and plot devices that made the movie successful in the first place.

It’s almost as if Lucas has totally reversed the formula that made Star Wars the global phenomenon that it is. Scenes are made complex when they should be simple.It’s no secret that the original Star Wars plot was heavily influenced by the work of mythologist Joseph Campbell, particularly his book The Hero with a Thousand Faces, which describes the common storyline that connects most myths and stories since the beginning of recorded human history. This sounds hefty, but it’s easily recognizable when spelled out.

The main conflict of the original Star Wars is between the rebel alliance and the galactic empire, representing the struggle between good and evil. Luke Skywalker represents the young, coming-of-age protagonist who goes on an journey of self-discovery.

Princess Leia: the Damsel in Distress. Obi-Wan Kenobi: the Wise Teacher. Han Solo: the Debonaire Rogue. Darth Vader: the Embodiment of Evil. These instantly recognizable character archetypes are present anywhere from ancient myths, like The Odyssey, to classic Westerns or modern day action/adventure flicks.

Compare the plot of the original trilogy to Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace (1999), which has no clear protagonist and is centered around an “intergalactic trade dispute.” Say what?

The familiar, almost primal storyline of the original Star Wars trilogy, is the reason it succeeds. It’s why the Star Wars is still emotionally compelling despite the unfamiliar, galactic setting. It’s also the reason why adults and children alike can enjoy Star Wars.

George Lucas appears oblivious to this fact, relying on creatures like cartoonish ewoks or the semi-racially insensitive alien Jar-Jar Binks from The Phantom Menace. A generational artistic triumph has given way to cheap marketing opportunities.

I’m not opposed in principle to directors revising their films, but George Lucas has consistently revised Star Wars for the worse. The man must be saved—from himself.

Star Wars nerds, the time has come for action. We must storm Skywalker Ranch and seize the original Star Wars masters.

We must keep them out of George Lucas’s greedy hands once and for all. It will be a risky mission, but well worth it. Dust off your stormtrooper helmet. It’s time.

We’re all clear, kids. Let’s blow this thing and go home.

Undeniably, we live in a generation of movie adaptations. It seems as if a majority of movies nowadays are “based on the bestseller” or “inspired by a true story.” Even more films are a part of the burgeoning trend of remakes, such as Conan the Barbarian and Fright Night.

But having these phrases stamped onto a movie poster doesn’t mean the movie is necessarily going to be “bad” solely because it is not the original.

 With the upcoming Farelly Brothers reboot of The Three Stooges — starring Sean Hayes of Will and Grace fame as Larry, MADtv cast member Will Sasso as Curly and Chris Diamantopoulos as Moe — there is quite the fervor over  fidelity to the classic slapstick trio’s legacy.

According to the Hollywood Reporter, the film will take on a modern day twist as Curly, Moe and Larry circumstantially find themselves on a reality TV show. 

One fan notes on the film’s IMDb webpage, “I know it’s going to suck (or not be very good)! … Even if the impersonations were all that good, nothing can replace the Stooges!”

Comments like this reflect our tendency to reject an adaptation before it’s even seen due to the sentimentality surrounding the primary source.

 Modern day adaptations should be looked upon more as versions of a story. This by no means requires that we ignore the original material. Rather, we should accept the original as an influence upon the newer film and take that film as a single chapter in the vast volumes of the characters’ lives.

The Three Stooges film is merely a probable moment of an adventure the trio might encounter in today’s world. 

We can’t expect the film to remain in the same era — the shorts began as vaudeville in the early ’20s — nor expect it to strictly abide by the minute details of the characters’ histories.

Such a replication wouldn’t be relevant to today’s audiences. If you want the original Stooges in this film, you might want to head over to the nearest Blockbuster to rent the black and white adventures of the long-gone actors on DVD.

The Three Stooges may be a hilarious take on the infamous trio or it may be a total flop. But we should at least judge the film by its own merits and as a separate entity, rather than make assumptions based on our predisposed emotional attachment to the source material.

Decide for yourself on April 4, 2012, when the film is set to be released.

It’s been more than 10 years since the East Great Falls class of 1999 walked the halls together and nearly a decade since the last movie, American Wedding, hit theaters. Now the original cast of American Pie is coming together for a good ol’ fashioned high school reunion.

Set to be released in April 2012, American Reunion reunites the gang we grew to love, apple pie and all. Despite being under a different director and screenwriter from the original, audiences will still be able to recognize the on-screen faces.

Jason Biggs returns as awkward Jim Levenstein, who is married to Michelle, played by Allyson Hannigan. Chris Klein and Mena Suvari will reprise their roles as Oz and Heather, respectively. Thomas Ian Nicholas will revisit the role of Kevin, and Tara Reid that of Vicky.

Last but not least, we can’t forget Seann William Scott as the ever-so-obnoxious Stifler and Eddie Kaye Thomas as his rival, Finch.

Though the boys of the group will obviously no longer be seeking to lose their precious virginity, the synopsis on the movie’s website promises to revive memorable traits that define some of the characters. For instance, MILF-seeking Finch will still be after Stifler’s mother, reprised by Jennifer Coolidge.

In recent years, some of the cast members have moved on to other projects (you can catch Hannigan on How I Met Your Mother), so it’s understandable if you worry the humor has vanished with the hormone-raging teenage years. But Scott quells our anxieties in a recent interview with People magazine, stating, “In many respects we’ve grown up a lot. But on the other hand, we haven’t grown up at all.”

So whip out your American Pie quotes and “get ready for one last slice.” A teaser trailer of American Reunion can be found at americanreunionmovie.com.

“One time, at band camp…”

While both are enormously popular franchises, this will be the eighth and final film adaptation of the “Potter” series, while the Marvel Comics character is making his debut as a blockbuster hero.

Actor Chris Evans, who portrays the man behind the red, white and blue shield, said he approached the film like any other movie even though it would be an enormous undertaking.

“When I decided to do it, I tried to think, ‘Let’s not look at this as a gigantic comic book movie. Let’s not look at this as some giant, life-changing opportunity,’” he said. “‘Let’s just look at this as any other movie and any other script, and would I want to do this with the words on the page and the creative forces behind and in front of the camera?’”

And talent all around the camera isn’t something “Captain America” lacks. The film’s score is by legendary composer Alan Silvestri, it stars Academy Award-winning actors like Tommy Lee Jones and it has visual effects created by the same team who won an Oscar for “Inception.”

Evans saves his highest praise for director Joe Johnston, who has directed everything from critically acclaimed movies such as “October Sky” to classic family films such as “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids.”

“You know, Joe Johnston is fantastic. I had an amazing, amazing working relationship with him,” Evans said. “You really end up — you feel heard and you feel involved, and that’s how it should be on a film set.”

With a franchise as iconic as “Captain America,” there are plenty of product tie-ins, promotions, and toy lines used to market the film. While the idea of playing a part in the marketing machine didn’t seem to bother Evans, when asked what it feels like to know thousands of children are playing with a plastic replica of you, he said it could be a reflection of his career.

“You know, it’s one of those things, it’s tough to say,” he said. “I think if I showed up in L.A. and in the first month I booked some huge movie and in a couple — in a year, I had an action figure, I think it would have maybe been too much to swallow.”

Evans said the hard work and time he has put into his career have allowed him to enjoy these moments.

“I’ve had a very gradual career, where little things have happened slowly over time to the point where once there’s an action figure, you’re like, ‘Oh, OK, that’s — I guess that’s next,’ and that’s — you know, it’s kind of crazy,” said Evans. “I think it’s a dangerous thing to fall in love with it a bit too much.”

Evans’ career has indeed been a slowly improving trek over time. Starting off in teen comedies like “The Perfect Score,” Evans made his way into another major comic book blockbuster with “Fantastic Four,” as well as notable turns in Danny Boyle’s “Sunshine” and the Tennessee Williams adaptation “The Loss of a Tear Drop Diamond.”

Last year, Evans cemented his place in cult cinema in another comic book adaptation — director Edgar Wright’s “Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World.” While his character Lucas Lee was an arrogant former skateboarder turned action star, Evans proved he was the exact opposite.

“You know, Lucas Lee was a really fun character,” Evans said. “He’s despicable. You know, he’s this ridiculous guy. He’s a horrible actor. He has no self-awareness, but a really fun guy to play.”

“Can you imagine Lucas Lee as Captain America?” Evans said when asked how the character would incorporate his penchant for absurd one-liners and bad action movie theatrics into the role. “That should be a spoof. That’s actually hilarious.”

Up next for Evans is the “Avengers” film, which will find him reprising his role as Captain America to battle alongside other Marvel superheroes, as well the romantic comedy “What’s Your Number?” with Anna Faris.

Even if “Captain America: The First Avenger,” doesn’t reach the success of the “Harry Potter” franchise, Evans has a promising career ahead of him as a budding leading man in Hollywood.

Thus states the tagline for the next and final installment of Harry Potter films: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II. For many of us in our late teens and early 20s who have grown up with the Harry Potter story, however, this line rings especially true.

“I’m actually pretty hesitant to go see the last movie because I know as soon as the final credits are over, my childhood will have ended,” Vanderbilt U. junior Evan Lloyd said.

The final Potter film also marks the end of childhood for Harry, Ron and Hermione, forcing them to face darker themes than ever before. The film will premiere on July 15, and is rated PG-13 for “some sequences of intense action violence and frightening images,” according the the MPAA website.

“The all-out war between good and evil is thrilling, but there is still an emotional underpinning,” said director David Heyman in an interview with Warner Brothers Pictures Press. “And because we’ve been invested in these characters for so long, it feels there is much more at stake.”

In Deathly Hallows Part II, audiences will see Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson reprise their roles as Harry, Ron and Hermione, respectively, as well as the return of many other beloved characters from throughout the series.

“We were fantastically lucky because virtually the entire cast wanted to be part of the finale,” said producer David Barron. “Some of them are only briefly seen, but it was important to them, and to us, that they be there.”

Fans who are familiar with the books know that these appearances include characters such as Sirius Black (Gary Oldman) and Albus Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) who met their untimely ends earlier in the series. Of course, the finale to the Potter saga also means that some of the beloved characters may not survive.

The final film of the series picks up where the last left off: Harry, Ron and Hermione must continue to destroy the remaining four Horcruxes in order to defeat Voldemort once and for all. In their quest, the trio face goblins and dragons in an epic heist at Gringott’s Bank, ending up back where the action all began: Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.

The action takes the trio across the castle and through key areas from other films, from the Chamber of Secrets to the pivotal Room of Requirement and finally to an epic battle on the stairs of the school itself. Unfortunately, however, the nature of the final battle also meant that many of the sets, most importantly the Great Hall, were completely destroyed in the process.

“To see the grandeur of Hogwarts destroyed was very emotional,” Heyman said. “In a very graphic way, it really brought home the fact that we were rapidly moving toward the end of the journey.”

Even though Harry’s journey on film is ending, the story lives on for the many fans that followed his adventures from the beginning and grew up with the characters.

“Even though the series is ending, it never really will end,” said Vanderbilt junior Jessie Rodriguez. “For anyone who has been touched by the Boy Who Lived, the magic will always live on.”

“Cars 2″ features star race car Lightning McQueen (voice of Owen Wilson) and his best friend Mater (voice of Larry the Cable Guy) as they head overseas for the first-ever World Grand Prix, a race to determine the world’s fastest car.

When Mater is mistakenly caught up in a case of international espionage, he finds himself torn between helping Lightning McQueen and assisting in a top-secret mission orchestrated by British super spy Finn McMissile (voice of Michael Caine) and Holley Shiftwell (voice of Emily Mortimer).

Giving the “Cars” international flavor by visiting London, Tokyo and Paris was a nice change for the franchise, Wilson said in a press conference earlier this month.

“It felt like with this movie that it was sort of just this exciting new adventure that they’re kind of going with … the World Grand Prix and that the friendship between them became sort of a funny story element and has a sweetness to it,” he said. “But then also just kind of the hilarity of seeing Mater, such a kind of fish out of water in this sort of spy, intrigue and stuff, I think is very appealing.”

The film primarily focuses on Mater, Lightning McQueen’s trusty, rusty tow truck friend.

Being the focus of “Cars 2″ was a surprise for the man behind the character’s voice, Larry the Cable Guy, whose real name is Daniel Lawrence Whitney.

“There’s a lot of stuff on Mater in there, so I never really thought that when the movie was going to come out that it was basically, boom: a big, long tall tale,” Whitney said. “This is a Mater deal.”

When Mater realizes in the film that others perceive him as simple and dumb, he questions whether he really is. However, it’s Mater’s amicable nature that makes the character likable, Whitney said.

“The cool thing I like about Mater is Mater’s Mater,” he said. “He likes people for what they are. He doesn’t judge anybody by how they look or anything like that. He’s just – he’s an easygoing guy and he’s a friendly guy and he just wants to be friends with everybody and so that’s why I like Mater.”

Also lending his voice to “Cars 2″ is acclaimed British actor Michael Caine, who has appeared in Christopher Nolan’s two Batman films as well as other British spy films.

Despite playing spies before, Caine said he’s never played one quite like this — a shiny blue Aston Martin.

“I have honestly never played a car before,” he said. “I drove some cars in ‘The Italian Job,’ which was a thing about mini cars, but I’ve never been a car. This is a brand new experience to me, and one of the reasons I did it (is) because I (have) been in the business a long time and it’s very difficult to get a brand new experience.”

Still, Caine said voice work was not totally unexplored territory for him and his iconic voice.

“I’ve done radio plays for BBC when I was young,” he said. “So I was absolutely used to that style of work and working with the voice and I have a very distinctive voice and so, it’s always great for me.”

Recently, “Cars 2″ has taken heat from conservative groups for the film’s portrayal of big oil companies. The conservative blog The Lonely Conservative said in a June 20 post that “movie directors and producers are coming out and admitting” that “the Hollywood industry is trying to indoctrinate our children with left wing propaganda.”

Director John Lasseter, who is also chief creative officer at both Pixar and Walt Disney Animation Studios, said the film isn’t trying to be political.

“It’s not really like a political view, it’s more like who is a good bad guy, a big bad guy in the car world, and we thought it was this interesting thing that’s been going on of like alternative fuels and big oil and all that kind of back and forth that’s going on,” he said. “I’m just trying to make an entertaining film. I’m not trying to say anything political.”

Regardless of its political detractors and even its critical detractors — “Cars 2″ has a 50 percent on Rotten Tomatoes as of Wednesday evening, far and away the lowest score for any Pixar flick to date — the film is poised to be a financial success.

The first “Cars” film made more than $490 million in worldwide box office, according to boxofficemojo.com. Merchandise based on the film has also raked in an estimated $5 billion, according to a 2009 report in The New York Times.

However, Wilson said kids still don’t recognize him as Lightning McQueen.

“I have parents that (say), ‘This is Lightning McQueen,’ and the kid just sort of stares there at me blankly,” he said.

The romantic comedy pairs Hanks and Julia Roberts, two famous faces who had a significant impact on the genre in the 1990s. The film focuses on Larry Crowne (Hanks), a middle-aged man who decides to enroll in college after being laid off. Roberts stars as a passionless and unenthusiastic professor, who ends up in a mixed romance with her student.

Larry Crowne seems like harmless fun in a genre that has long needed a revival. The question remains whether Hanks can pull off the job, both as the authorial force of the film as well as its star.

The film is the sophomore directorial effort from Hanks, who previously directed That Thing You Do!

Larry Crowne is scheduled for release on July 1, 2011.

“We’re shooting the Zoolander sequel at the moment,” Ben Stiller said, confirming another fashionably hilarious movie about clueless supermodels. “Derek’s going to be back bigger and better than before —no catwalk is safe,” Channel24.com reported.

Zoolander (2001) ended happily with Derek (Stiller), Hansel (Owen Wilson), and Matilda (Christine Taylor) conquering the evil Mugatu’s (Will Ferrell) machinations to kill the Prime Minister of Malaysia. Hopefully the sequel will provide dastardly fashion plots with more “break-dance fighting” and “walk-offs.”

“It’s ten years later and most of it is set in Europe.  [Derek’s and Hansel’s] lives have changed and they’re not really relevant anymore.  It’s a new world for them,” Stiller revealed to Empire Magazine.

While no actors are at this time attached, Justin Theroux (Tropic Thunder), who played the Evil DJ in the last Zoolander, is confirmed to be director.

Although there is no doubt that Wilson will return to his iconic supermodel role, the villain is still up for grabs.

Stiller told Empire “Will Ferrell (Mugatu) is written in the script and he’s expressed interest in doing it,” but Jonah Hill is also in negotiations to play the villain.

The sequel will most likely be released in theaters in 2012 with a PG-13 rating.

The movie’s opening introduces an as-of-yet unnamed protagonist—a pet lizard in a fish tank with a flair for the theatric. In a most amusing vocal performance by Johnny Depp, the lizard acts out imagined dramas alongside a dead insect and wind-up goldfish, with Depp providing all the voices and personalities. But the lizard soon finds himself embroiled in a real-life adventure when he is accidentally abandoned by his owners in the desert, and left to fend for himself with only the Hawaiian tee on his back.

The lizard makes it to the town of Dirt, where trouble is brewing—the water supply is running out, and the all-too-aptly named town is overrun by corruption and lawlessness. Eager to carve out an identity for himself and establish his acting bona fides, the lizard invents a backstory in which he is a fearless hero from the deep west named “Rango.” After he accidentally slays the town’s feared scourge—a hawk—he becomes revered by the townspeople and earns the sheriff badge.

With a motley crew of companions, newly christened Sheriff Rango embarks on a quest for some desperately needed water for the town. What follows is delightful parody of the Western canon, ably executed by Depp, and the ensuing comic mischief and genre impiety are strongly evocative of another convention-busting comedy collaboration of Depp and Verbinski—“Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl.”

Rango soon finds his chief nemesis to be the town’s mayor (Ned Beatty), a wizened tortoise in a wheelchair whose dialogue is suspiciously Obama-esque. “[The people of Dirt] believe that tomorrow will be better,” he tells Rango. “They believe in you.” Of course, he’s a crook—not unlike Beatty’s deceptively wholesome Lotso character from another animated dramedy, “Toy Story 3”—and Rango spends the rest of the movie uncovering his secrets and combating his corruption.

Throughout this cartoonish jaunt, the strength of “Rango” lies in its self-awareness and self-conscious parody. Most amusingly, the film’s Western storyline is framed for the audience by an owl mariachi band with thick Spanish accents. The group provides the film’s faux-outback soundtrack—in reality composed by Hans Zimmer—and their absurd commentary throughout the movie is a constant reminder that we are sitting in a theater, watching a Western comedy narrated by owls. In this fashion, “Rango” proudly revels in its absurdity.

Like many animated flicks, “Rango” relies heavily on allusions to outside culture—but unlike those in many other contemporary animated features, these references enhance rather than overwhelm the film’s satire. Rango and his compadres ride off into the desert Monty Python style, complete with melodramatic strings as musical backing. There is a play within a play, nodding to Shakespeare, and a flight sequence—with bats—cleverly reminiscent of World War II fighter flicks. And of course, an obligatory Clint Eastwood lookalike a la “The Good, The Bad and The Ugly” shows up late in the film to impart some inspirational words to the young hero.

When “Rango” begins to drag, as it does toward story’s end, it makes up for its narrative shortcoming with its crisp, gorgeous visuals. Indeed, the film’s meticulous attention to detail—from rotating shards of broken glass bottles hanging outside saloons to the gentle sliding of the desert sand—is a tribute to its CG artists at Industrial Light and Magic, for whom “Rango” is the first fully animated feature.

With its persistent self-deprecation and swipes at its own seriousness, “Rango” has the feel of a film with simple, unoriginal intentions—a typical children’s comedy marketed to the usual target audience, with colorful visuals for the kids and cultural asides for their parents. But the film’s gags and charms end up being more than the ostensible sum of the parts. Sheriff Rango, too, starts out with few real aspirations, initially stumbling through the desert to act out a personal Western fantasy, while lacking any genuine identity or commitments of his own. But like its eponymous hero, “Rango” creates an identity out of the myths and legends of the past, and soon becomes an unwitting Western classic itself.

The Rapoport Center for Human Rights and Justice sponsored the event. The center is an interdisciplinary organization that aims to encourage dialogue and scholarship at the intersection of activism and advocacy.

The event started with the screening of “Nostalgia de la Luz” — “Nostalgia for the Light” — a film by Chilean documentary filmmaker Patricio Guzmán, and was followed by a panel about human rights featuring law professor Zipporah Wiseman and assistant Spanish professor Luis Carcamo-Huechante.

A friend of Guzmán, Wiseman said the film was shot in the vast Atacama Desert and was featured in the 2010 Cannes Film Festival. It moves between women searching for the skeletons of those they loved who were murdered by the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet and the huge astronomical observatory at the top of a mountain above them, where astronomers gaze into the cosmos.

“The film is an extraordinary work of art and advocacy,” Wiseman said. “Anyone who sees it can’t help but take away the women’s tragedy of losing family to a dictator and murder.”

Carcamo-Huechante, a Mapuche Indian from Chile, talked about the history of the Chilean dictatorship and gave a broader background of human rights in Chile, putting the issue into a larger context.

“I hope that attendees are moved by the film, either by its artistic expression or by its grave subject matter,” said Rapoport Human Rights scholar Stacy Cammarano. “This film is a great avenue for people with different academic backgrounds to think about enforced disappearance, the transition and recovery from human rights abuses and how those themes are portrayed in film.”

The screening is the first event by the newly-created Human Rights and the Arts Working Group, a mix of professors and graduate students from multiple departments who are working to bring arts to campus and have a human rights discussion.

“Art is so often used for human rights advocacy, or as a means of understanding and coping with traumatic events,” Cammarano said. “We chose this movie because it is a perfect example of the intersection of art and human rights.”

The event featured a 30-minute screening of the movie “Be Like Others,” an official selection of the 2008 Sundance Film Festival which explored the nuanced and complicated social phenomenon of sex reassignment surgery in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Iran, described by Grungras as a country fraught with strict and conservative social mores, is among the “most dangerous countries in world to be LBGT in terms of government persecution.”

Grungras traced the origins of the unusual permissibility of—and sometimes even the encouragement and subsidization of—sex-change operations in the otherwise conservative country to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. After the Iranian Revolution, Khomeini issued a religious edict to make sex reassignment surgery permissible for “diagnosed transsexuals,” giving rise to a generation of young Iranian men adopting transsexual identities, Grungras said.

“The government ideology is, if you are homosexual, you must have been born into the wrong body, so the only obstacle that remains is to change sex,” he said. “The complex situation in Iran includes social stigma, legislation, subsidies, and corruption that comes together tend to compel or force people who are lesbian and gay to have sex reassignment.”

The government position on sex-change surgeries can leave individuals who are transgender or choose not to opt for surgery in an uncomfortable situation, he added.

Emma Q. Wang ‘12, co-chair of Queer Students and Allies—which co-sponored the event along with the Harvard Undergraduate Legal Committee, Trans Task Force, and the Radcliffe Union of Students—said she plans to stay involved with ORAM, the first organization focusing exclusively on refugees fleeing from sexual and gender-based violence. She plans to write her thesis on LBGT individuals who have successfully sought asylum in the United States.

Wang, Samuel J. Bakkila ’11-’12, and Jia Hui Lee ‘12 worked at ORAM for two weeks over January Term at its headquarters in San Francisco, where they compiled country profiles and examined benefits for refugees in certain countries, such as housing stipends or subsidies for HIV treatment.

“I learned a lot about issues facing refugees,” Lee said. “It got me thinking about law school.”

I got to get to her somehow […]

We always did feel the same,

We just saw it from a different point of view,

Tangled up in blue.”

– Bob Dylan, “Tangled Up in Blue”

“The Adjustment Bureau” is like one giant visual representation of Dylan’s song; that is, it’s art done right.

We are treated with a wholly poignant film with just the right amount of intellectual teasings. Instead of bogging us down with the details of just how the Bureau works, its members, for the most part, don’t take themselves too seriously.

Many have criticized this, insisting that given the film’s short running time, writer/director George Nolfi should have provided more explanation of the story’s sci-fi threads.

I think this is the beauty of the film, though.

We are treated to an easily digestible story dealing with the various implications of both sides of the free will issue. However, we are spared the pseudo-philosophy that bogs down films like “Dark City.”

It’s not that these issues aren’t interesting. But they can get in the way of our characters, which ultimately move the story along. “The Adjustment Bureau” thankfully does not fall victim to this.

Matt Damon stars as David Norris, a rising politician running for a seat in the United States Senate. When he loses an early lead, he meets a mysterious woman (Emily Blunt) while rehearsing his concession speech in the hotel bathroom. Their chemistry is immediate, and after sharing a kiss, David is inspired and delivers a very honest, well-received speech.

One morning, an agent of the Bureau fails to make an “adjustment” on David. Rather than David spilling his coffee and being late for work, David gets a glimpse of the future the Bureau does not want him to have. He meets the mysterious woman again by chance. She introduces herself as Elise and gives David her phone number.

Thus begins the scramble of the Bureau to get things back on track. They tell David he must never see Elise again. When he ignores their requests, they start taking drastic measures to ensure that David and Elise remain apart.

Of course, as David struggles to be with her, Elise feels betrayed by David’s lack of stability in their relationship. One of the Bureau’s agents finally convinces David to move on from Elise, and eleven months later David is running for Senate and Elise is engaged to another.

David finally decides he cannot have a life without her. In the face of overwhelming odds, he decides to forsake his predetermined path and risk everything to be with her.

This sounds like the kind of high-stakes storytelling that produces very moving results, but only if the leads are believable. Damon and Blunt hit a home run with their performances. Nothing ever feels forced, which is important for whatever payoff we get in the end.

I applaud the film’s commitment to telling its story with the tone it does. Some may view it as over-the-top, but the film grounds itself in its emotional core. This is vital.

Even if the film avoided the criticisms of its sci-fi scenario, we would be faced with another serious charge: so what? Because the film places its characters and their story first, we know why it all matters.

“The Adjustment Bureau” is based on a short story by Philip K. Dick (“Total Recall,” “Minority Report” and “Blade Runner”), yet it is a film that remains more hopeful than these others. Instead of getting caught up in the trappings of various philosophical conundrums, the film gets tangled in its most human aspect: love. We can’t help but get ourselves tangled up as well.

The show had a strange dynamic with James Franco and Anne Hathaway as the hosts, and the awkward presentation with Kirk Douglas felt extremely out of place.

Also, the way they presented each award was drastically different than in past years. Usually they do a good job giving a solid clip of the nominees’ work at their best, but it seemed like the clips they chose did not accurately represent their performances as a whole.

As for the winners themselves, the awards essentially started off as planned. Melissa Leo won best supporting actress for her performance in “The Fighter,” “Toy Story 3” won best animated film, and “Inception” won for achievement in cinematography.

Then something strange happened when “Alice in Wonderland” won awards for achievement in art direction and best costume design. It felt like a dark force was twisting reality and I had no idea if I was watching the Oscars or the Razzies.

And the hits kept on coming, with “The Wolfman” surprising next for Best Makeup. Granted, these categories have never been known for their exclusivity, but I think the Academy should be more select in their choices of film nominations.

The results returned to normalcy as “The Social Network” scored wins for best film editing, best original score, and best adapted screenplay. Unfortunately, those were the only Oscars the film won last night.

The other acting awards all went down as predicted, with Christian Bale, Natalie Portman, and Colin Firth winning for best supporting actor, best actress, and best actor, respectively.

The first surprise of the major awards occurred in the best director category, where Tom Hooper (“The King’s Speech”) upset David Fincher (“The Social Network”). And the biggest award of the night followed suit, “The King’s Speech” was awarded best picture of 2010.

Although I praised “The King’s Speech” on its victory —it was my second favorite film of the year—I couldn’t help feel a little un-kosher about the decision.

As a whole, “The Social Network” was the most well made film of 2010. “The King’s Speech” had it beat in acting, the component that I predict put Oscar voters over the edge.

The Academy has had a history of making decisions regarding best picture that they end up regretting when they look back on it. (See: “Forrest Gump” winning over “Shawshank Redemption”).

They allow themselves to become emotionally compromised and look at a film’s accomplishments by how well it can affect viewers on a sentimental level.
That, and their penchant for traditional historical biopics has a “King’s Speech” victory all over it.

While presenting the award for best picture, Steven Spielberg made sure to say that the films that end up not winning the award join an elite group that boasts such films as “Citizen Kane,” “2001: A Space Odyssey,” and “There Will Be Blood.” And you know what, “The Social Network?” I’m perfectly fine with that.

Although the trailer is just a teaser at only 1 minute and 16 seconds, it’s enough to show the results of a night of hard-core partying, which includes Zach Galifianakis with a shaved head, Ed Helms with a Mike Tyson tattoo and Bradley Cooper’s sexy swagger.

In the sequel to the top-grossing R-rated comedy The Hangover, the gang travels to Bangkok, Thailand for Stu’s (Helms) wedding.  And don’t worry, Stu isn’t marrying his crazy ex-girlfriend Melissa (Rachael Harris) or the prostitute named Jade (Heather Graham.)

In an interview with Entertainment Tonight, Cooper said, “Bangkok sort of tops Vegas in a huge way… [This one’s] a grand movie. This is the gritty, dirty reality of a city that’s populated by, I think, 7 million people, so it’s a lot different.”

The reunion comes to theaters May 26.

Dehghan’s visit to Emory marks his first appearance in the United States since covertly interviewing members of Agha-Soltan’s family in the aftermath of Iran’s elections despite the risk of sneaking back into Iran.

“It’s perfect timing with what’s going on in the Middle East that we scheduled this now particularly in the aftermath of what happened in Egypt and what’s currently going on in Yemen, Bahrain and Libya,” Communications Manager for the Center of Ethics Tonya Anderson said. “I think the story [of Neda] can be told because it’s telling itself over and over again.”

Agha-Soltan’s death on June 20, 2009, after being shot by a Basij sniper, became a rallying point for protesters who proceeded to use the meaning of her name, “voice,” as an icon in their struggles against Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Her death was captured on video, which ultimately went viral on the Internet.

Anderson noted the significance of Dehghan’s journalism coverage in Iran not only because the country had banned journalists, but also due to the fact that a visit to Iran posed a risk to his life.
“To be 22 years old and do something like this, can you imagine?” Anderson asked. “To do all of this in order to tell this young lady’s story definitely makes him a hero in our eyes.”

Dehghan, who also co-produced the documentary “For Neda,” said he felt completely alone when he was in Iran.

He called his journey in tracking down Agha-Soltan’s family members as “facing the greatest challenge of my life.”

After getting in contact with Agha-Soltan’s brother and learning that the family was willing to meet him, Dehghan said his stomach was churning from the fear and anxiety he felt.

“I was sure that someone from the intelligence unit would come up at any time,” he said.

Seeing Neda’s portrait against the wall when he walked inside the Agha-Soltan home caused him to break down in tears because he was “walking into the home of the girl who had become a symbol of freedom for our country.”

“When I went into her bedroom, I thought how Neda used to walk in here every day,” Dehghan said. “This is where she slept … .She was no longer a stranger.”

“For Neda,” which was directed and produced by award-winning filmmaker Antony Thomas, interviewed a number of people including Agha-Soltan’s friends from her University days to Arash Hejazi, the doctor who was by her side when she was killed.

The film was meant to paint a portrait of the woman who symbolized more to Iran in death than she did when she was alive, according to Dehghan.

College junior and President of the Muslim Student Association (MSA) Sami Tabbaa said the film is important because it exposes the truth about Iran.

“Most Iranians don’t have this type of story to tell because they’ve grown up in America, but it becomes more different from what actually happened,” Tabbaa said. “I feel like it’s an excellent way for them to be aware.”

Dehghan is currently based in London and is working as a journalist for the Guardian newspaper.

The Choices For Best Picture

“Black Swan”

Don’t hold your breath, “Black Swan” won’t take Best Picture this year. But director Darren Aronofsky’s knack for tapping into our insecurities makes for an unsettling movie-going experience unlike any other.

“Black Swan” transcends logic as its simple premise disintegrates into a series of dark encounters: obsessive weight loss, self-mutilation and one of the most disturbing mother-daughter relationships in recent cinematic memory. Yet despite the Gothic theatrics, the film never loses sympathy for its characters, creating a surreal tapestry of both realism and melodrama.

Aside from Clint Mansell’s eerily pompous score and a triumphant performance by Natalie Portman, “Black Swan” is above all a statement of Aronofsky’s blaring importance in modern cinema. Like a burgeoning Stanley Kubrick, the director has honed his distinct voice, creating his first American classic and the best film of the year — an achievement that needs no validation.
—Ren Ebel
Associate Hiatus Editor

“The Fighter”

Director David O. Russell’s sports flick “The Fighter” could very well take the night’s biggest prize. The boxing film moves past the familiar underdog sports saga in its exploration of the relationship of two brothers, low-level boxer Micky Ward (Mark Wahlberg) and his half brother Dicky Edlund (Christian Bale), former boxer and current drug addict.

Wahlberg’s compelling performance was snubbed for the Best Actor nomination, but both Bale and Melissa Leo — who plays the pair’s mother — are expected to win their respective supporting actor/actress categories. Bale’s method acting and weight loss make Dicky a fully realized human being, while Leo’s performance balances humor with heartbreak. Despite her pushy nature, Leo is able to portray her as a caring mother. Combined with Russell’s direction, which provides the film with an essential sense of wit, “The Fighter” is one of the most compelling and entertaining films of the year, and a worthy Oscar recipient.
—Rusteen Honardoost
Staff Writer

“Inception”

“Inception,” like most blockbusters, received astronomical hype — but unlike most, it deserved the attention. Directed by Christopher Nolan and featuring a star-studded cast including Leo DiCaprio, Ellen Page and Marion Cotillard, (not to mention ’95 UCSD grad Dileep Rao), the film crafted a heroic journey through mind-bending dreams.

Unlike any of the other films in the category, “Inception” is a three-hour adrenaline rush that keeps you guessing, allowing you to watch shit blow up and think at the same time.

Nolan put the estimated $160-million budget to good use: With jaw-dropping special effects — buildings fold over like a piece of paper, Joseph Gordon-Levitt sprints down the ceiling of a chic hotel — and grandiose sets (catch the Geisel snow fortress?), the visuals are unmatched. But it’s not all on-screen flash — the conceptual gymnastics of the premise and the awe-inspiring scenery take a backseat to the best and oldest trick in the book: interesting storytelling.
—Marie Sbrocca
Contributing Writer

“The Kids Are Alright”

Nearly every year, Oscars pay tribute to the films that make strides in telling neglected gay narratives (e.g. “A Single Man,” “Milk,” “Brokeback Mountain”). As groundbreaking as they are, these films make gayness their primary focus, which is where “The Kids Are All Right” distinguishes itself: This isn’t a gay movie — it’s a family dramedy that happens to feature a pair of lesbian leading ladies.

The finesse with which director Lisa Cholodenko dodges that pitfall is what qualifies “The Kids Are All Right” for this year’s Best Picture award. With nuanced performances and subtle plotlines, it avoids “coming out of the closet” drama in favor of showing what a contemporary gay family looks like.

The comedy even has school pride: UCSD theater grad Rebecca Lawrence (MFA ’09) takes a bit part as a dreadlocked white girl who makes innuendos to sperm donor Mark Ruffalo while heaving around a basket of organic vegetables.
—Leila Haghighat
Senior Staff Writer

“The King’s Speech” – WILL WIN

A prince is thrown onto the British throne and finds help for his ongoing stutter so that he can rally the country together — sounds uplifting, doesn’t it? That’s exactly why “The King’s Speech” will likely take home the top prize come Sunday evening.

Colin Firth’s Bertie, aka King George VI, works with speech therapist Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), forging a friendship that makes the film more buddy-movie than war-time drama. Amongst the silliness of humming, arm flailing and Firth’s constant failure, there lies a story of perseverance (and boy, does the Academy love perseverance).

Director Tom Hooper has the benefit of a pitch-perfect cast, which helps deliver a drop of history and a uniquely British experience, with all that signature dry wit. The film’s entertaining, inspirational and perfectly executed — making it a frontrunner over less feel-good choices like “The Social Network” and “Black Swan.”
—Kirsten Mauro
Staff Writer

“127 Hours”

Known mostly as “the film in which James Franco cuts his arm off,” Danny Boyle’s (“Slumdog Millionaire”) fast-paced docudrama “127 Hours” packs every frame with high-energy entertainment.

You read that right: Self-amputation is entertaining.

The cramped premise — mountain climber Aron Ralston (James Franco) gets lodged underneath a boulder, spending the titular length of time struggling to get out — should have been unfilmable. But Boyle makes it work with a heavy dose of stylistic adrenaline: Saturated flashbacks are cut between harrowing moments in the desert; A.R. Rahman’s organic, guitar-driven score weaves you through the plot, exploding at its climax; split screens whiz by at a frenetic pace.

Most importantly, Franco gives his most nuanced performance to date. In the midst of Ralston’s nightmare, he transitions from paralyzed fear to exhausted delirium and survivalist exaltation in a way that is so natural, so pure, it hardly feels like acting.
—Arielle Sallai
Hiatus Editor

“The Social Network” – SHOULD WIN

As calculated as its protagonist, “The Social Network” brings together the biggest talent in Hollywood — David Fincher’s subtle directorial hand, Aaron Sorkin’s cutting screenplay and Trent Reznor’s infectious score. Loaded with cinema’s brightest young actors, the film is less concerned depicting the semantics of big business than the alienation, hatred, insecurity and youth of today’s tastemakers. In the captain’s seat, Jesse Eisenberg secures his first Oscar nod as Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, spitting Sorkin’s lines with expert timing.

But in the pre-Oscar shuffle, the film somehow went from being a sure thing to an underdog. But despite “The King’s Speech”’s nomination lead, “The Social Network”’s sure wins in the directorial, screenplay and score categories bodes well for the drama.  “The King’s Speech” may have a historical background, but “The Social Network” has the future of the Internet at its virtual fingertips.
—Angela Chen
Senior Staff Writer

“Toy Story 3″

With flawless animation and a tearjerker of a script, Pixar’s “Toy Story 3” had viewers laughing and crying as Buzz, Woody and the gang fought all the odds to get back to Andy from the clutches of a corrupt daycare.
Director Lee Unkrich avoided the sequel slump by maintaining the signature “Toy Story” charm. Despotic daycare leader Lots’O — voiced by southern-accented Ned Beatty — was the surprise antagonist bent on stopping Spanish Buzz and his amigos from fleeing Sunnyside Daycare.

The film succeeds where other nominees don’t, however, by forcing viewers of all ages to bawl their eyes out. The toys’ final moment with Andy was the poignant ending the saga needed — and a damn good excuse for a quick cry in the aisles.

The film continues Pixar’s blemish-free legacy, achieving a sense of warmth that most films — animated or not — fail to reach. So to all those who thought that “Up” was snubbed last year, stay tuned: This could be the animated breakthrough.
—Joshua Irvine
Contributing Writer

“True Grit”

After more than two decades of critical acclaim, the Coen brothers have become such an integral part of the Academy Awards that it’s easy to overlook just how powerful their filmmaking still is. Their adaptation of the darkly comic Charles Portis cult novel is a resilient reminder that the hardest working duo in filmmaking is still a force to be reckoned with.

Like their 2008 Best Picture winner “No Country for Old Men,” “True Grit” is another shoot-’em-up western with serious style, consisting of the stark cinematography and multidimensional characters that are so distinctly Coen. This time around they’ve replaced “No Country”’s meditative, score-less approach with thundering Protestant hymns, whip-cracking shootouts and one hilarious, ass-kicking grizzly of a U.S. Marshall played by the endlessly talented Jeff Bridges.

Everything about “True Grit” is rough and masculine. And with a string of quiet, subdued releases this Oscar season, it’s a welcome change of pace.
—Regina Ip
Senior Staff Writer

“Winter’s Bone”

Stuck in a perpetual, muted frost, “Winter’s Bone” seems at an immediate disadvantage to its flashier peers.  But it’s remarkable in its realism — “Bone” lays bare the unsung hardships of struggling middle America, opting to strip its actors of heavy make-up and fancy lighting while exposing them to caked-on grime, dried blood, rocky terrain and a scorched, desolate countryside.

The bare-bones approach paid off — both Jennifer Lawrence (for her unflinching, hardnosed Dee) and John Hawkes (as the menacing and slight Teardrop) earned Academy nods. Though the indie flick may be the darkest “Best Picture” horse, its unflinching examination of human perseverance is the truest show of cinematic grit this year. In an Oscars race in which major plot conflicts include such white-collar problems as a billion-dollar lawsuit and a competition for a ballet lead, we could all use a touch of “Bone”’s reality.
—Neda Salamat
Senior Staff Writer

And the rest of the show . . .

Best Actor In a Leading Role

Javier Bardem – “Biutiful”
Jeff Bridges – “True Grit”
Jesse Eisenberg – “The Social Network”
Colin Firth – “The King’s Speech”
James Franco – “127 Hours”

Colin Firth, in all of his hesitant, twitchy, stammering glory, will take home the prize for his role as King George VI in “The King’s Speech.”

While it might seem possible that young stars James Franco or Jesse Eisenberg could pull off an upset (for “127 Hours” and “The Social Network,” respectively), Firth has been unstoppable this awards season, claiming victories at the Golden Globes, the Critics’ Choice and the Screen Actors Guild Awards. The reason’s simple: Firth’s portrayal of the speech-impaired George VI is without a doubt the subtlest, most masterful display of acting talent this year.

The other nominees (Eisenberg and Franco in particular) put up strong performances, but none of them achieve the level of precise characterization and empathy that Firth exhibits in “The King’s Speech.”
—Andrew Whitworth
Staff Writer

Best Actress In a Leading Role

Annette Bening – “The Kids Are Alright”
Nicole Kidman – “Rabbit Hole”
Jennifer Lawrence – “Winter’s Bone”
Natalie Portman – “Black Swan”
Michelle Williams – “Blue Valentine”

Long before “Black Swan” hit screens, Natalie Portman’s transformation was all over the Internet. A year of regimented ballet lessons, the dramatic weight loss — it all seemed overhyped, and it was still difficult to imagine Queen Amidala tackling the kind of dark, deeply personal roles we’ve come to expect of director Darren Aronofsky.

Yet from the opening scenes of the film, it is immediately clear just how much Portman lost herself in the performance. She captures every minute detail of ballerina Nina Sayers’ complexity — her fragility, her fear, that deep-lingering evil — and the effect is truly unnerving. By harnessing an emotional range well beyond her years, Portman navigates warped mother-daughter interactions, giddy high-school joy and disturbing animal ferocity to a frighteningly real degree. The protagonist and villain are such a stark contrast that at times, it’s easy to forget they’re the same person.

Like Heath Ledger in “The Dark Knight,” Natalie Portman pushes the craft in brave new directions, gracing audiences with the thrilling experience of witnessing her full metamorphosis. Her performance in “The Black Swan” is one of those rare, instantly iconic moments in cinema, heralding the definitive presence of a great actress.
—Ren Ebel
Associate Hiatus Editor

Best Directing

Darren Aronofsky – “Black Swan”
David O. Russell – “The Fighter”
Tom Hooper – “The King’s Speech”
David Fincher – “The Social Network”
Joel and Ethan Coen – “True Grit”

David Fincher (“Fight Club,” “Zodiac”) — long overdue for a Best Directing Oscar — delivered a tour de force with “The Social Network.” With a relentless grasp on every aspect of the film, Fincher didn’t delete a word from Aaron Sorkin’s dense screenplay; instead, he demanded perfection, forcing his actors to nail the film’s now-signature fast-paced dialogue. The first scene of the film, in particular, took a whopping total of 99 takes.

Others did fine work this year, too. Russell’s “The Fighter” and the Coen brothers’ “True Grit” are also indebted to their directors, but neither stand a chance against Fincher. The only real competition comes from Darren Aronofsky and his moody “Black Swan,” though it may prove too bloody for the Academy. (That cinematic aesthetic will likely be imitated in film schools for years.) Fincher, however, shoots for exacting perfection in “The Social Network” and for that, he should be awarded.
—Tanner Cook
Contributing Writer

Best Adapted Screenplay

“127 hours”
“The Social Network”
“Toy Story 3”
“True Grit”
“Winter’s Bone”

Regardless of how you feel about Jesse Eisenberg, the stylish cinematography or Trent Reznor’s brooding score, “The Social Network”’s screenplay — written by Aaron Sorkin — is nothing short of a masterpiece. What’s more, Sorkin, who also wrote outstanding screenplays for “A Few Good Men” and “Charlie Wilson’s War,” is long overdue for an Oscar victory. The other nominees are strong: “True Grit” and “Winter’s Bone” would ordinarily stand a strong chance, but sharp dialogue and intense personal interactions make “The Social Network” a shoo-in for the award. The film’s strength is a testament to the power of Sorkin’s writing.
—Andrew Whitworth
Staff Writer

Best Original Screenplay

“Another Year”
“The Fighter”
“Inception”
“The Kids Are All Right”
“The King’s Speech”

Veteran screenwriter David Seidler took almost as long as his protagonist, Bertie, to find his voice, but the resulting script is Oscar bait.  “The King’s Speech” showcases tongue-in-cheek humor comparable to Sorkin’s witty “The Social Network” (the frontrunner in the adapted category) and was a painstaking 25 years in the making. The script’s an old Oscar favorite: a story of trying, lifelong hardship miraculously overcome; the fact that British royalty’s featured front and center is just an added bonus. Though Seidler doesn’t have the established lead over his competitors that Sorkin does, his film’s late surge in popularity should only bolster the writer’s edge — making him damn near impossible to dethrone.
—Neda Salamat
Senior Staff Writer

Best Actor In a Supporting Role

Christian Bale – “The Fighter”
John Hawkes – “Winter’s Bone”
Jeremy Renner – “The Town”
Mark Ruffalo – “The Kids Are Alright”
Geoffrey Rush – “The King’s Speech”

After years of abusing his body more than a bulimic school girl, Christian Bale’s method acting is finally churning out Oscar gold. Bale was unrecognizable as scrappy former pro-boxer Dicky, sporting darkened teeth, sweat-coated garb and an emaciated physique. His performance is electric: loudmouthed, stubborn, bleary-eyed and spoken in an affected lisp, his Dicky is miles away from the aloof Batman. The clincher is Bale’s interpretation of Dicky’s writhing, pained meth withdrawals on a prison bed. The retired boxer recovers quickly thereafter, though the same can’t be said of his awed audience.
—Neda Salamat
Senior Staff Writer

Best Actress In a Supporting Role

Amy Adams – “The Fighter”
Helena Bonham Carter – “The King’s Speech”
Melissa Leo – “The Fighter”
Hailee Steinfeld – “True Grit”
Jacki Weaver – “Animal Kingdom”

This year’s Best Supporting Actress has three favorites in for the running, with one of them only narrowly outshining her co-star.
Fourteen-year-old Hailee Steinfeld’s breakthrough performance in “True Grit” was no supporting role, but her youth leaves her out of the running, while Aussie nominee Jacki Weaver’s “Animal Kingdom” is too under-the-radar for the Academy.

Amy Adams is back for a third grab for her feisty performance in “The Fighter,” but will lose in a face-off against co-star Melissa Leo, who has swept most of the prizes this season as the boxer’s hellcat mom. Leo’s latest campaigning foibles (she designed her own Oscar ads), however, might have undone her in this popularity contest, paving the way to victory for second-time nominee Helena Bonham Carter as Queen Mum in “The King’s Speech,” the most nominated film of the night.

But whatever faux pas she may have committed, it would be a crime to take away the gold from Leo’s dynamic performance come Sunday.
—Krystle Wong
Staff Writer

The Snubs

Some of the best films and performances of the year were unfortunately left out of the show. Here are the best of the forgotten:

Jim Carrey – Best Actor, “I Love You Phillip Morris”
Ryan Gosling – Best Actor, “Blue Valentine”
Greta Gerwig – Best Actress, “Greenberg”
Barbara Hershey – Best Supporting Actress, “Black Swan”
Christopher Nolan – Best Director, “Inception”
Martin Scorsese – Best Director, “Shutter Island”
“Blue Valentine” – Best Picture
“Shutter Island” – Best Picture
“The Town” – Best Picture
“Waiting For Superman” – Best Documentary Feature
“Catfish” – Best Documentary Feature
Daft Punk – Best Original Score, “Tron: Legacy”
James Murphy – Best Original Score, “Greenberg”

The opening of “I Am Number Four” feels very familiar. Echoing the start of “Twilight,” it introduces Number Four (Alex Pettyfer), a hunky yet troubled teenager who has recently been forced to move to a place called Paradise, OH, which “should have been called Irony, OH.” His backstory? He is one of nine alien children—the last of their race, of course—taken to Earth because they have “legacies”—special powers that will allow them to defeat the destructive race of Mogadorians. These Mogadorians are hunting down the children one by one, conveniently in order. Seeking to blend into the populace, Number Four takes on the unassuming alias ‘John Smith,’ and he and his guardian Henri (Timothy Olyphant) try to look natural. Henri stays home as a ‘writer’ while John heads off to school.

This is where “I Am Number Four” takes its teen movie turn, with Dianna Agron of “Glee” fame starring as the obligatory gorgeous ex-cheerleader love interest, Sarah. Within 10 film minutes, John and Sarah are madly in love and eating dinner at her parents’ house—unfortunately for the movie, the one thing CGI cannot do is character development.

To John’s dismay, the local quarterback hotshot (Jake Abel) still claims Sarah as his own, and typical high school drama ensues—complete with a missing father, a local spring festival, and a haunted house. Of course, there comes a scene in every superhero’s movie when he must save his beau from the clutches of evil. In this case, it isn’t the Mogadorians, but rather the more laughable menace of the school’s quarterback—backed by a football team which has somehow acquired night-vision goggles for the smackdown. The acting in these sequences is exactly what one would expect from the “Glee” backdrop—shallow, unbelievable, and predictably paint-by-numbers.

What saves the movie from its own silliness and soppiness are its true villains, the Mogadorians—tall, ugly aliens with red eyes who could easily serve as doubles for Lord Voldemort in the “Harry Potter” series. As John absurdly attempts to survive high school, the genuinely frightening Mogadorians are tracking him down in their Mustangs, alternatively passing as humans in prosthetics and scaring little children without them. Their well-realized malevolence lends actual urgency to a storyline that would otherwise be confused for daft dramedy.

The finale of “I Am Number Four” brings all the genre confusion and assorted awkwardness to a head, as each of the movie’s cinematic styles are stacked implausibly atop one another. In classic Michael Bay form, the film culminates with an epic battle scene. But in classic “Glee” form, that fight scene incongruously takes place in a football stadium. Finally, in classic superhero form, viewers get to watch John’s hands light up like flashlights and discover just what he can do with his much-vaunted superhuman powers. But as the audience has no investment in the characters or storyline, the climax is all flash and no substance. Viewers who are not 14-year-old girls looking for the next Edward Cullen should consider themselves forewarned.

The trailers paint the picture of “Unknown” as a follow-up to 2008′s “Taken.” Yet, this film is quite far from that superior, former film.

Neeson is a pint-sized version of his former self in this film. No longer a super soldier, Neeson portrays his character like a clumsy Average Joe.

The story surrounds Martin Harris (Neeson), a celebrated doctor, who is invited to Berlin to speak at a conference and is unwittingly the victim of a car accident after he forgets his briefcase at the airport and attempts to retrieve it.

After the accident, Harris has some memory loss concerning the events leading up to the crash.

To make matters worse, his wife has already fallen into the arms of another man, the real Martin Harris.

This obviously infuriates the possibly real Martin Harris (Neeson) and triggers his famous “Taken”-like rage, but with far less enjoyable consequences.

Is Neeson an ordinary human being or a professional killer? Is he really Martin Harris? Trying to connect the dots in this movie seems impossible in the beginning, but after about an hour, the plot becomes predictable enough for the viewer to aptly guess the conventional ending.

The action in “Unknown,” to its benefit, is fairly subdued and not excessive. Whenever there is a fistfight or brief chase, Neeson provides an impression of an ordinary man fighting to stay alive. His transformation between movies is akin to Superman changing into Clark Kent.

The plot of this film is rather convoluted, with Neeson’s character continually discovering clues to his identity. This, intermixed with brief, realistic violence, makes for a very pragmatic thriller. Think of Neeson as Jason Bourne, but older, and with significant muscle loss.

“Unknown” is a psychological thriller to a movie reviewer as well, being that I am still not sure whether I liked the film enough to see it again.

(PG-13)  (Two and a half stars)

Since the Academy created the Best Animated Feature category in 2001, Pixar has taken five of those nine Oscars and every one of their films released in the last 10 years has been nominated.

Before that, Pixar had never released a feature film that wasn’t nominated for at least one Oscar.

Up and Toy Story 3 are two of only three animated films ever nominated for Best Picture (Beauty and the Beast was the third).

There might not be a single production company that consistently makes such commercially successful and critically acclaimed films. What’s the secret to Pixar’s impeccable record?

According to Pixar’s corporate statement, its objective is simply “to combine proprietary technology and world-class creative talent to develop computer-animated feature films with memorable characters and heartwarming stories that appeal to audiences of all ages.”

That sounds easy enough, and Pixar’s certainly managed to accomplish such a goal with each of its films.

Its incredible box office record is proof of these films’ mass appeal. Toy Story 3 was the highest grossing film of 2010, pulling in a whopping $920 million. That kind of money isn’t just kids’ stuff.

But Pixar’s corporate objective doesn’t capture what makes it special.

All movies ought to strive for memorable characters, and heartwarming endings generally fall within the territory of family fare.

Of course, Pixar is not the only company that makes excellent animated films. It just inexplicably does it the best.

Last year, five of the highest grossing films were animated. Dreamworks is generally considered Pixar’s biggest competition in terms of quality animated movies, and the former’s How to Train Your Dragon was highly praised.

It is arguably the second-best reviewed among those top-grossing films, following only Toy Story 3, whose 99 percent on Rotten Tomatoes just barely outdoes Dragon’s 98 percent.

Pixar’s and Dreamworks’ animation domination hasn’t stopped others from getting into the fray, but those who try rarely live up to the absurdly high bar that Pixar has set.

Last weekend’s release of Gnomeo and Juliet, an adaptation of Shakespeare’s classic tragedy in which the main characters are lawn gnomes, is the first of many family releases set for 2011. It’s reception has been lukewarm at best.

New York Times’ critic Stephen Holden writes that the Gnomeo and Juliet characters have “little emotional resonance.”

Granted, Woody and Buzz have had more than 10 years to work their way into our hearts, but the emotional resonance of characters like lovesick robot WALL-E and Up’s crotchety old Carl is undeniable.

Variety, on the other hand, gives the gnome romance a generally positive review, but specifically notes that it “never quite plumbs the existential depths of [the Toy Story] franchise.”

Pixar’s stories delve into issues such as love, loss, death, growing up and what it means to be a family. Many of the best films — animated or live action — simply don’t achieve the complexity and sophistication that Pixar somehow manages to pull off every time.

So is there a secret to Pixar’s unheard-of consistency?

When Ed Catmull, president of Pixar and Walt Disney Animation Studios, visited USC in 2009, he didn’t provide any easy formula for the studio’s success. Pixar seems to just always assemble incredible teams to tell great stories.

“We realized having lower standards for something is bad for your soul,” Catmull said.

The fact that Catmull cares about his team’s collective soul already sets Pixar miles apart from the major studios and countless production companies, such as those willing to produce Saw XI, to make a quick buck.

The people at Pixar care. They care about the quality of their product and they care about telling good, original stories. Even when the characters are monsters, cars or toys, there is something deeply human in every story Pixar tells.

The originality and genuine heart of Pixar features are a breath of fresh air among all of the meaningless dreck that is released by studios every week.

Toy Story 3 might not win Best Picture in a few weeks, but Pixar has created something better than award bait. It made something that is good for the soul.

The film stars Adam Sandler, Jennifer Aniston, Nick Swardson and swimsuit model Brooklyn Decker’s bikini. Decker’s bikini is perhaps the best actor in the film and makes several cameos as itself. After watching the film, one can’t help but feel that the bikini was horribly miscast and should have replaced Jennifer Aniston, who plays the “Jennifer Aniston character” in the film (better known as Rachel Green from “Friends.”)

In the film, Adam Sandler’s character, Danny, is a womanizing plastic surgeon who pretends he is married in order to get women in bed with him. This all works well for Danny until he has an honest beach-hook up (is this even possible?) with Brooklyn Decker’s character, Palmer, and she discovers a wedding band in the pocket of his pants.

Palmer is of course upset, as she truly had feelings for Danny, especially after their shallow exchange of non-witticisms at the party they met at the night before. Danny, wants to tell Palmer the truth, but ends up telling her that he is in the process of getting a divorce. This seems to make everything okay for Palmer, who decides she wants to meet his soon to be ex-wife.

Danny recruits his assistant Katherine, the Jennifer Aniston character, to pretend to be his soon-to-be ex-wife. Katherine has a slip up after going out to dinner with Danny and Palmer and mentions something about her kids. Danny now has to pretend to be the father of Katherine’s two bratty children who he bribes into his charade with the promise of money, a trip to Hawaii, and acting classes (something the entire cast could use.)

A series of predictable events occur once in Hawaii, as the film struggles to decide if it is a farce, romantic comedy, or children’s film. It ends up becoming an unpleasant, schizoid mix of all three.

Sadly, the audience seemed to enjoy the film, and it will likely do very well in theaters. Perhaps the apocalypse is coming sooner than 2012.

For the most part, the film serves as one long infomercial on Bieber, giving audiences a brief insight into who he is, his unlikely rise to fame and, of course, his adoring, somewhat crazy, mostly adolescent fans.

But director Jon Chu gives enough insight into Bieber’s process and world that it keeps audience members without Bieber Fever still slightly intrigued.

After all, Bieber is a ubiquitous icon in pop culture, making some wish they could teleport back to days when Miley Cyrus was still Hannah Montana and bowl cuts died when The Beatles left the ‘60s.

The film wants us to know Bieber is more than his haircut (which I’ve finally figured out looks like a giant, angled bang that wraps around his head without stopping). The film focuses on Bieber’s humble background in Ontario, Canada, and that, with the help of sites such as YouTube, Bieber’s natural talent helped him catch the attention of the world.

It’s a lofty argument that sometimes I agree with and sometimes not so much. Bieber has a decent singing voice (which we have heard get deeper over the years; oh, adolescence!). As a kid, he had a natural affinity for music and musical instruments such as drums and guitar.

In a sort of touching, but overwhelmingly corny scene, Bieber stops to talk to a young girl on the street playing violin and he remarks that he used to play on the same steps, and look where he is now. “Follow your dreams — and use YouTube” is the message here.

The scene plays out like it’s set up, until you see the expression in the little girl’s eyes and see that yes, this might just be a genuine moment between Bieber and a fan.

The film spends only about a quarter of the time documenting Bieber’s rise to stardom and how he caught the attention of Usher and record executive Antonio “L.A.” Reid.

A good portion of the film takes place at one of Bieber’s concerts, which can be tiring because as much as the film tries to push “this kid’s got talent” on audiences, Bieber is much less exciting as a performer than he is as just a musician. There’s something a little awkward when Bieber performs — maybe because he’s 16 and still figuring out who he is, or maybe because Bieber doesn’t quite yet own the star power fans have given him.

But like I said, I kind of liked the film. Not because Bieber as an artist is awe-inspiring, or because the film is at all compelling, but because, probably unbeknownst to even the film’s creators themselves, the film gives us insight into the vulnerability, the sweetness and the awkwardness of a kid who, underneath a veneer of confidence, is as unsure as any other teenager, even if he doesn’t lead the life of just any other kid.

In case it wasn’t clear, “Gnomeo and Juliet” is the story of garden gnomes Gnomeo (James McAvoy) and Juliet (Emily Blunt) from opposite sides of rival, color-coded gardens, who must cope with their forbidden love and, in the process, try to convince their ceramic pals that war is not the answer. With mediocre animation and a cornucopia of stale ideas, the film promises all the stuff little kids are into — you know, Shakespeare, Sir Elton John and, um, lawn ornaments.

To no one’s surprise, little of the film actually resembles the classic tragedy. The few references that do surface are presented with such mindless obviousness (like two gardens are owned by a man and a woman named, hmm, Montague and Capulet) that it’s as if the writers are whispering, “Get it?” The result, and chief of the film’s many failures, is an audience divided between children who won’t pick up on it and parents who won’t care.

These gnomes don’t look so hot, either. With plain, undefined features, they come across as hollow shells. Meanwhile,
the breathtaking, meticulously detailed environments of Pixar animation are replaced with cheap-looking scenes of fences, shrubs and identical houses.

“Gnomeo” also suffers from unimaginative attempts at humanization that are consistently overwrought or incomprehensible. Gnomes love lawnmowers (in their world, they’re like cars). Gnomes hate dogs (and vice versa). Gnomes keep their gardens watered and perfectly manicured (makes it easy on the homeowners).

The all-important role of bumbling-but-lovable side- kick is squandered on Juliet’s aggressively annoying, sexually ambiguous frog (Ashley Jensen) and Gnomeo’s silent, featureless mushroom named Shroom. Peripheral characters are crippled by lifeless, left-field performances from a slew of superfluous cameos, each more baffling than the last: Jason Statham as Tybalt, a television commercial narrated by Hulk Hogan and a plastic deer voiced by the mumbling Prince of Darkness himself, Ozzy Osbourne.

Adding to the madness is executive producer Elton John’s out-of-place soundtrack, which includes plenty of his classics, as well as a tragically forgettable new original, “Hello, Hello,” featuring an awkward duet with fellow glamour queen Lady Gaga.

It’s difficult not to blame the extensive team of writers for this mess. The dull script half-assedly inserts Shakespeare quotes into idiotic monologues that sound unfinished. “Why must you wear a blue hat?” begs Juliet from her balcony. “Why couldn’t it be red like my father? Or green like, like a leprechaun? Or purple like, uh, like some weird guy?”

Even for a children’s film, it’s difficult to ignore some of the more major inconsistencies (are we just supposed to brush over the implied romance between Gnomeo’s mom and Juliet’s dad at the end?). In fact, these soulless trolls are so unfunny, so absolutely devoid of likable human characteristics or believable goals, that the biggest disappointment comes during the film’s conclusion, when (spoiler!) we are woefully deprived of the double-suicide bloodbath promised by Shakespeare’s original.

Occasionally, “Gnomeo” even dares to mock its source material — and not just by virtue of being such a catastrophic adaptation. At the film’s climax, a suddenly and inexplicably self-aware Gnomeo chats up a statue of William Shakespeare, as the two literally compare and contrast the plot of “Romeo and Juliet” with what has happened in the film so far. “I think this ending is much better,” says Gnomeo in the final scene, just before the entire cast gears up for a hackneyed community dance-a-thon/curtain call.

Somehow, “Gnomeo and Juliet”’s defiant atrociousness feels like a swan song for the legendary bard. This tale of star-crossed lovers has been reworked to death — be it nimble-footed gangsters or Leonardo DiCaprio — and is finally buried here, under the lawn. (D-)

Although some might have been hopeful after the Academy Awards last year when Mo’Nique took home the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress for her role in “Precious” and Kathryn Bigelow became the first woman to win Best Director for the “The Hurt Locker,” others were rightfully trepidatious.
While it was exciting to see Mo’Nique recognized, one must wonder why it took such a dark role for her to earn the accolade.

The problem with the Hollywood machine is that it continues to typecast people of color. This is evident in the midseason replacement “Harry’s Law” by the wildly popular David E. Kelley.
While the show has endearing qualities and witty writing, the supporting characters of color reify negative stereotypes of drug addiction, poverty and helplessness.

Kelley is a liberal and one of the best writers and producers in television. But even if he, at times, misses the sociocultural mark, the implications for less prudent storytellers are harrowing. I only wonder if the gag about “a black man falling from the roof” would have made it into the script had there been more voices of color at the table.

In an interview with “Complex” magazine, Michael B. Jordan (“The Wire,” “Friday Night Lights”), by far the most promising star of my generation, reflected on the challenges of being a young black actor in a white- dominated industry. “There are still a lot of white writers writing for black people, and there’s always going to be a lot of stuff lost in translation,” he said. The 23-year-old acknowledged he felt a responsibility to speak out against mischaracterizations especially in a business that relegates black talent to a “crab-in-a-barrel mentality.”

In response to the heavy criticism The Academy will receive throughout this award season for what many are deeming “the whitest Oscars in a decade,” we will hear the age-old excuse that there was merely not enough talent of color to chose from. Filmmaker Ava DuVernay, who was cited in several recent articles about the lack of diversity, recently formed the African-American Film Festival Releasing Movement, a campaign to widen the distribution of black films. Her efforts and her mission are compulsory in a field that treats people of color as if they are invisible. However, one must wonder how long African Americans will have to rely on their own mediums. In a society where all races coexist, black people should not be limited to black media.

Alicia Niwagaba ’11 argues that people of color don’t generally receive roles that would garner them critical praise. She cites her frustration with films like “The Social Network” (nominated for eight Academy Awards) that cast a white actor to play an Indian man. “I have a hard time believing there was not one Indian actor who fit that role. It was a small part but it just exemplifies what is wrong with casting and the film industry.” Ultimately, Niwagaba maintains it is a numbers game. “Studios don’t think audiences want to see films with minorities or strong women, so films about white people (especially men) are disproportionately funded and supported.”

The few times that people of color were celebrated in the past were what DuVernay described as anomalies.“People of color do not receive awards unless we are degrading ourselves and playing downtrodden characters,” Niwagaba said. “We are always represented as the other, something to be pitied, never triumphant and never strong. It just shows you what kind of narrative Hollywood wants to maintain.”

Tanya Hamilton, a black Philadelphia director who showed her exemplary film “Night Catches Us” on Tuesday, said more black talent need the opportunity to “fill in the empty center, melding art and commerce.” There are few films with strong artistic vision that can also be profitable. More filmmakers of color should be given the chance to fill that void.

Some might ask why we should care about what is going on in the lavish likes of Hollyweird at a time when many Americans are fighting to keep their jobs. As Marie Wilson, President of the White House Project, said in the trailer for “Miss Representation,” a new documentary about the portrayal of women in the media, “You can’t be what you can’t see.” The media is the most powerful tool of dissemination in the world and America dominates the message.

It is not unusual to travel to another country and find an entire evening line up of programming of American shows, or travel to a local theater and find only American films. The diversity that we represent in America will be the diversity illustrated around the world. If The Academy continues to ostracize and marginalize certain voices, they will make themselves an irrelevant program.
We don’t have to look any further than the Miss America pageant to see that viewers can easily outgrow award ceremonies if they lose touch with reality.
However, industry power players are equally responsible. People of color and women need a platform within mainstream spaces to showcase their array of talent and when they do so they should be similarly celebrated for their work.

Eva is a senior. You can reach her at emckend1@swarthmore.edu.

The arrival of Sundance brings celebrities, films, tourists and traffic to Utah, but the festival also brings the state more than $62 million in revenue and 1,500 jobs, according to a study conducted by the U.

Park City native Miley Feltman, studying exercise and sport science at the U, says that she actively participates in Sundance every year. This year, she went to see “The Woods,” an independent film portraying students who set out to live in the woods as a revolt against technology.

“I thought the movie was OK,” Feltman said. “It was entertaining, but bizarre.”

Although she says that she enjoys going to see the films, she’s more interested in the Hollywood culture the festival brings to Utah. As an annual attendee, she has gotten the chance to meet several celebrities, including Justin Timberlake, Jennifer Aniston, Colin Farrell and Charlie Sheen, she said.

“I like how much money it brings into our economy,” she said. “I also like how it has put Park City on the map and brought some really cool people in.”

Although tickets are sometimes difficult to find and prices can be steep, Feltman recommends that students check out Sundance to enjoy a unique opportunity.

“Sundance gives people interested in film or the entertainment industry an opportunity to get their foot in the door by getting involved with various Sundance events,” she said.

Some students stick to watching films and scouting celebrities, but others take the initiative to produce a performance of their own.

The Utah Flash Mob, which included several U students, performed in the streets of downtown Park City on Saturday afternoon.

“We wanted to showcase Utah’s talent,” said Tessie Pham, a junior in biology and chemistry. “Sundance exports talent from places like New York and California, and we wanted to show that we have talent, too.”

The group of about 90 people rehearsed their dance for two to three weeks, she said. As no one—besides the performers—was aware that the event was happening, it took most people by pleasant surprise. Many media photographers and videographers who were present turned their attention to the dance happening outside of Reyes Adobe Restaurant on Main Street.

“That’s why we picked Sundance—for the media coverage,” Pham said.

By year’s end, remakes of “Footloose” and “Red Dawn,” as well as reboots of franchises like “Conan the Barbarian” will have been in a theater near you.

Also, announcements of a “Lethal Weapon” series reboot and a remake of “Annie,” that will feature Willow Smith, littered industry news just last week.

Hollywood studios are making it clear that they are alright with sorting through their recycling bins. However, remakes and reboots are not all bad.

Here we present examples of when recycling old ideas produces successes at the Oscars and the box office, as well as when it produces films that fail miserably.

The Great

The Departed (2006)

Screenwriter William Monahan cleverly reworked the popular Hong Kong film “Infernal Affairs” with his Oscar-winning screenplay for 2007′s “The Departed.”

The Boston crime drama also signaled a new chapter in director Martin Scorsese’s career after criticism that he had lost the edge that made his early work so strong.

The film was met with critical praise and enthusiasm from the general public. It went on to win Best Picture at the 2007 Academy Awards, as well as a long overdue Oscar for Scorsese’s directing.

“Star Trek” (2009)

“Lost” creator J.J. Abrams wasted little time presenting his vision of the “Star Trek” universe, a franchise with over 40 years of history and fan adoration, to a new generation. “Star Trek: Nemesis,” the 9th film in the “Star Trek” series, was practically ignored upon its release in 2002, and Paramount Pictures took notice. What had once been a popular film and television series was now viewed solely as the entertainment of a lonesome science fiction geek.

Abrams’ “Star Trek” delivered on a story that was compelling enough to ensure it could both stand as its own film, as well as make well-known characters like Kirk and Spock new again. The film pleased not only critics and the average moviegoers, but also die-hard Trekkies.

The Mediocre

“The Karate Kid” (2010)

The actual quality of the 2010 “Karate Kid” remake is not much better than what you will see on Disney Channel or Nickelodeon. The original story is intact, and the directing and writing are all pretty standard.

It is Jayden Smith, as Dre Parker, whose performance makes it worth watching.

“The Karate Kid” also sports action legend Jackie Chan as Mr. Han, a character who is essentially Mr. Miyagi from the original film. While Chan does not live up to actor Pat Morita’s Miyagi, it is his best performance in years.

“The Incredible Hulk”(2008)

“The Incredible Hulk” is perhaps the quickest turnaround for a reboot with the exception of the upcoming “Spider-Man” series.

Only four years after director Ang Lee’s “Hulk” was released, a new team announced that the entire franchise would be rebooted. Edward Norton was cast as the angry green scientist and “Transporter 2″ director Louis Leterrier took the filmmaking reigns from Lee.

Besides mind-numbing action sequences, and a terrible story, “The Incredible Hulk” featured some fun performances from Norton and actor William Hurt, as well as some excellent stunt work. Other than that, “The Incredible Hulk” was a mediocre mess.

The Awful

“A Nightmare on Elm Street” (2010)

Director Michael Bay’s production company Platinum Dunes has made a fortune churning out remakes of older horror films. Within the past decade they have released remakes of “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre,” “Friday the 13th” and “The Amityville Horror.”

Crafted only the way a former music video director can, the new “Nightmare” was complete with visual flair and eye-catching set design created by director Samuel Bayer. However, he loses track of just what made the original so terrifying to begin with: its supernatural elements.

The infamous Freddy Krueger is now simply a product of sleeping pills, and the whole town is in on some sort of cover-up. Basically, 2010′s “A Nightmare on Elm Street” tries to do its own thing, but fails on almost every level.

“Clash of the Titans” (2010)

There may be no better way to protest the remakes and reboots Hollywood is churning out than to slip a copy of last year’s “Clash of the Titans” into a studio executive’s DVD player.

While the film made a decent amount of revenue, both critics and audiences alike panned the film for its lack of an engaging story, characters or action.

Director Louis Leterrier (“The Incredible Hulk”) claims that Warner Brothers made him cut scenes that would improve upon the film’s narrative, but it is difficult to believe he could have built upon something that was so weak to begin with. A sequel, “Wrath of Titans,” is already in production without the involvement of Letterier and promises to be far better than “Clash.”

The more I thought about joining, the more it made sense. I could certainly afford $9 a month (which got me as many DVDs as I could watch and mail back, and unlimited streaming ability), I had plenty of free time and there were hundreds of movies I wanted to see. Plus, Netflix’s convenience and massive selection blew Blockbuster out of the water.

I pulled the trigger and signed up. More than three years later, I’m glad I did. As I prepare to graduate, Netflix has been one of the constants of my Baylor experience. It doesn’t matter if I’ve lived in Penland, North Village or an apartment– I’ve fetched those iconic red envelopes out of my mailbox every week.

I’ve rented 215 movies. Do the math and that comes to about $1.80 per movie. Not a bad deal. That doesn’t include all the value I’ve gotten out of Netflix’s instant streaming service. I’ve blitzed through entire seasons of “Lost,” “Dexter,” “The Office,” “Friday Night Lights” and more on my laptop, without being forced to watch annoying ads like on Hulu.

When I was a sophomore one of my assignments for speech class was to convince my classmates to invest in a company. I chose Netflix, not because I’m an expert on stocks, but because I wanted to research a company I actually liked and believed in. At the time, the Netflix stock was selling for about $46.

I hope my classmates were listening carefully. Recently heralded by Fortune Magazine as “the stock of the year,” Netflix’s stock has rocketed up more than 200 percent since last January.

Shares now sell for about $182. For all the company’s success, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings was named Businessperson of the Year by Fortune.

But this isn’t a love letter to Hastings and his company. As much as I like Netflix, recent moves by the company have me concerned.

A year ago Netflix began signing deals with major film studios, like Warner Bros. Entertainment, agreeing to delay the studios’ DVD and Blu-ray releases for 28 days to give the studios more time to sell before customers can rent the discs. In exchange, Netflix got access to more titles from Warner’s catalog for customers to view online.

This setback has proven to be incredibly annoying. Before the change, getting brand new DVDs in the mail on the day they were released was a thrill. Now, many of the most popular titles, like “The Social Network,” are withheld from customers for the first month of their release, which is exactly when most customers want to watch them.

What’s more, prices have been raised. My plan jumped a dollar to $10 a month, before tax. That’s not enough to make me cancel my subscription – yet – but it doesn’t bode well for the future.

Most recently, Netflix announced it was removing customers’ ability to manage their DVD queues on their digital devices, like iPhones. The logic behind the move? Netflix is trying to encourage customers to stream more content via its “watch instantly” feature – and rent fewer physical DVDs through the mail. That’s because Netflix knows that instant streaming is the future of movie and television viewing. In 20 years, everyone will be using the Internet to stream content directly to their televisions.

The catch is that Netflix’s library of films and TV shows available for instant streaming pales in comparison to its DVD library.

To be fair, the company has improved its instant streaming selection over the years, but not nearly enough to begin shifting its core business from physical DVDs.

I’m not alone in my frustration. Angry customers have stormed blogs and Netflix’s Facebook page to voice their displeasure.

Netflix may have enriched my college years and provided endless hours of entertainment and distraction, but if the company forgets what made it so popular in the first place – listening to customers – then it’s going to lose at least one subscriber: me.

It’s just that there is a preconceived notion that all actors are tiny so that they can be on screen with their other small costars.

He was smoking a cigarette a few yards from the movie poster for “No Strings Attached” with his picture in it. It requires a double take at the poster just to make sure that it’s him.

It was about an hour before the press conference for his new movie, so he turns and heads away from the room he’s in, to go back into the lobby at the Four Seasons Hotel in Beverley Hills.

When the conference starts, the writer of the movie, Elizabeth Meriwether, is the first to sit down at the table followed by Natalie Portman, then Kutcher. The last person to join the table is comedy legend and director Ivan Reitman.

When you are surrounded by professional journalists, you hope that someone will ask a deep, philosophical question that will cover what people want to read about this current film.

That doesn’t happen. The questions range from “why was there no nudity” to “how does Portman feel about her Oscar nomination.” Anyone could have asked these questions.

The most obvious question — that’s actually rooted in the movie “No Strings Attached” — is if friendship can survive casual sex.

“I wouldn’t know. I haven’t been fortunate to try one of those relationships out,” is Kutcher’s first response.

He then quickly launches into a more meaningful answer with, “I really think whoever you’re with needs to be your friend… I don’t know that sex always has to have feelings, but I think that friendship always has to, so I don’t know if it’s possible (for friendship to survive sex.)”

He then was asked about the fun of being on the set, with the usual teasing and joking.

“It was mostly height jokes,” Kutcher said “She looks like my child when we stand next to each other.”

The conference takes a sober turn when the stars are asked about the prevalence of sex in their movie and how it might affect teens.

The question is directed at Portman with the hopes that her pregnancy will bring new insight into the issue.

“Well, I’m not a teen – is the first thing I’ll say. I’m a grownup,” Portman said. “Obviously it is prevalent in the country, and I think that is part of what this movie addresses.

“We have so much sex in our media that it is disassociated from emotions. These people (in the movie) really do belong together.”

Kutcher stayed politically correct, but applauded the film’s educational value.

“I didn’t want to veer off on a weird human trafficking direction, but one of the interesting things, especially for women, is the sex education process in schools,” Kutcher said.

This question paved the way to talk about filming the first of several sex scenes that involved Portman and Kutcher.

“I didn’t want to do anything too romantic,” Reitman said. “This is a movie that really starts with these characters having sex and then seeing what that relationship is going to evolve into.”

The progression of the interviews, of course, turned to the success of Portman’s recent movie, “Black Swan,” and her journey through Academy Award season.

“It’s a big honor to have people excited about a movie that you make. It’s the one thing that you want.” Portman said.

This shifted the mood of the conference, but then it went back to questions about filming the sex scenes.

“I just want to start by apologizing,” Kutcher said. “I’m not sure what other actors do, but when in doubt, use Sir Laurence Olivier. I think he said something to the effect, I apologize if I do get aroused and I apologize if I don’t.”

Then a reporter asked why they didn’t go for a nude scene.

“This is not about how much nakedness or sex there is in the film,” Reitman said. “If people want to see pure sex they have the Internet and extraordinary things are available.

“This is meant to be an honest comedy about sexuality.”

Christian Bale’s dark, moody Bruce Wayne will spend his nights fighting Bane and Catwoman, who will be played by Tom Hardy and Anne Hathaway respectively.

Hardy was rumored to have already been tapped for a role as a villain in the film, though some may be surprised at Nolan’s choice for Bane, a beefy thug pumped with what can only be described as plant steroids. The last big-screen appearance the character had was in Joel Shumacher’s 1997 Batman & Robin.

It will be interesting, however, to see how Hathaway will fare as the sensual and slinky Catwoman, who was last played by a supple and sassy Michelle Pfeiffer in Tim Burton’s 1992 Batman Returns. Hathaway is completely foreign to the world of action and as someone who has spent her last couple of roles in serious independent films, it will be interesting to see her in a catsuit spitting out one-liners.

The script will be written by both Christopher and Jonathan Nolan, with David S. Goyer crafting the story and Bob Kane creating the characters.

According to IMDB.com, The Dark Knight Rises will be released in the summer of 2012.

The director of past Oscar winning movies, such as The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, and the new critically acclaimed The Social Network, is set to direct and bring to the screen an adaption of the late Stieg Larsson’s much buzzed about bestselling novel The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.

Fincher recently revealed to the New York Times that he will be partnering once again with Trent Reznor, the frontman of the band Nine Inch Nails, who co-composed the score of The Social Network. Reznor will again combine his talents with composer Atticus Ross (The Book of Eli). The dark and subtle style they used for The Social Network’s soundtrack is sure to fit perfectly with Larsson’s mysterious crime novel.

Although the novel has already been successfully adapted to the screen in Sweden, Sony looks to create a film that will draw in a significantly wider audience with stars such as Daniel Craig playing Mikael Blomkvist, Rooney Mara playing Lisbeth Salander, along with appearances from Stellan Skarsgard, Robin Wright, Christopher Plummer.

Set to be released at the end of this year on Dec. 21, Sony is certain to have another successful trilogy in its hands.

Never missing out on an opportunity to please the average movie goer and the pocketbook, Hollywood has responded by being in talks for the next movie in the franchise over the past year.

Three obstacles have unfortunately made it impossible for a complete reunion of all the past talents. First, The Bourne Legacy, the book the next movie would be based on is not written by the original author Robert Ludlum who died in 2001, but by thriller and fantasy writer Eric Van Lustbader. But no big deal, there are several great movies that don’t stay true to the book.

Here comes obstacle number two. The director of the previous Bourne movies, Paul Greengrass, has been replaced by Michael Clayton director. And the cherry on top seems to be The Bourne Legacy is so far sans Damon.

Even though the movie is to be released in theaters August 3, 2012, it has yet to be put into production.

Although over the past months tension has been pretty taut between team Sony and Gilroy versus team Damon and Greengrass, the Critics Choice Awards this past Friday night gave light to a new and hopeful possibility.

According to The Hollywood Reporter Damon said, “I really hope it’s going to happen.” But there are apparently a few conditions.

“It’s really up to Paul Greengrass, the director. I’ve always said I won’t do it without him and I think it would be a bad idea to do it without Paul.”

But the question remains whether Greengrass can be coaxed into directing another Bourne movie.

“I think Paul’s probably going to do one or two other films that he’s got kind of cooking but after that [maybe they would start working on a Bourne film],” he revealed. “I think it’s kind of the thing where enough time has passed that I think it won’t matter if we wait five more years to do it.”

Patience will apparently be the virtue Bourne fans will have to develop.

Within the first five minutes of his hosting gig at the 68^th annual Golden Globe Awards, the British comedian managed to not so-subtly imply that Tom Cruise is gay, accuse the Hollywood Foreign Press Association of taking bribes, call out Charlie Sheen for his hooker-related exploits and completely eviscerate The Tourist.

But besides the palpably awkward atmosphere created by Gervais’s obvious (and humorous) disdain for Hollywood, the Globes broadcast was fairly lackluster, with a few unexpected wins in the TV categories but no surprises amongst the film wins.

Glee and Boardwalk Empire were the big TV winners of the night. Glee took home Best Series Comedy or Musical, and Chris Colfer and Jane Lynch won Best Supporting Actor and Actress. Colfer, who plays Kurt, a gay high school student dealing with bullying and homophobia, seemed genuinely shocked at the win and gave a heartfelt speech, speaking to the kids who are “told they can’t be who they are,” and advising them, “Screw that, kids.”

HBO newcomer Boardwalk Empire won Best Series Drama, beating out the seemingly infallible Mad Men.  Empire’s Steve Buscemi took Best Actor in a Drama Series, a surprise because of his illustrious competition: Jon Hamm, Michael C. Hall, Hugh Laurie, and Bryan Cranston – all critical darlings. Katey Sagal garnered some attention for the little-noticed FX series Sons of Anarchy with her win for Best Actress in a TV Drama.

Laura Linney took home Best Actress in a Comedy Series for her performance as a woman diagnosed with cancer in Showtime’s new series The Big C. The Big Bang Theory’s Jim Parsons’ win for Best Actor in a Comedy Series was one of the bigger surprises of the night, considering the show has never gained much award season attention.

Al Pacino’s win for TV movie You Don’t Know Jack and Clare Danes’ for Temple Grandin were no surprise after their success at the Emmy awards last summer, but few people have even heard of Carlos, the Globe winner for Best Miniseries or TV Movie. The French-produced miniseries about a notorious Venezuelan terrorist, which aired on the Sundance channel, managed to beat out three nominees from HBO including the critically lauded The Pacific.

On the film side, everything played out as expected. While there were no obvious frontrunners in the Supporting Actor and Actress races, Christian Bale and Melissa Leo’s wins for The Fighter came as no surprise.

Annette Bening took home Best Actress in a Comedy as most critics predicted, and she is a frontrunner for the Oscar as well. But she is expected to lose that award to Black Swan’s Natalie Portman, who won tonight in the Drama category. Paul Giammatti won Best Actor in a Comedy for the little-seen Barney’s Version, and, every critics’ pick for Best Actor, Colin Firth won for The King’s Speech.

Diane Warren won Best Song for “You Haven’t Seen the Last of Me” in Burlesque, while Nine Inch Nails’ Trent Reznor took home Best Original Score for The Social Network.  Pixar continued its long tradition of award season success with Toy Story 3’s win for Best Animated Feature, and the Danish film In a Better World took best Foreign Film.

The Kids Are All Right thankfully beat its far inferior competitors in the Best Comedy or Musical category. And as expected, The Social Network swept the major categories of Best Screenplay, Director, and Picture Drama.

So the Hollywood Foreign Press Association may not have embarrassed itself with any bad wins this time, but it might need to reconsider its choice of host next year if it wants to keep celebrities happy.

Best Director – Motion Picture

David Fincher should win for “The Social Network” – he created the most distinctive and precise vision of any director in 2010. He could lose out to Darren Aronofsky, though, who created a daring and disturbing world of artistic perfection and paranoia in “Black Swan.”

Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture – Drama

Halle Berry, Nicole Kidman, Jennifer Lawrence and Michelle Williams all played intense, grittily realistic characters, but this is Natalie Portman’s year. She’s been gathering attention as an intelligent, serious actress for some time now, and “Black Swan” is her haunting showcase.

Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture – Comedy or Musical

They might as well just call this category the Best Performance by Johnny Depp; he’s nominated for both “Alice In Wonderland” and “The Tourist,” neither of them well-received, and neither of them a comedy. But his competition is underwhelming, and the Foreign Press wants to give him an award, so he’ll win for “Alice,” the lesser of two unfunny evils.

Best Motion Picture – Drama

“The Social Network” would be my own pick, but it’s faded from a lot of memories after the influx of big-time movies at the end of December. It’s also a very America-centric film. “The King’s Speech” could have more international appeal, and the performances of Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush might be enough to take the top award.

Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture – Drama

Jesse Eisenberg made a bold and impressive statement as Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg in “The Social Network,” but Colin Firth’s performance as the stuttering King George VI is more obviously impressive and inspiring.

Best Foreign Language Film

This category could come down to a face-off between two actors well-known to American audiences: Javier Bardem in Alejandro González Iñárritu’s “Biutiful,” from Mexico and Spain, and Tilda Swinton in Luca Guadagnino’s “I Am Love,” from Italy.

Best Motion Picture – Comedy or Musical

“Burlesque,” an actual musical, should technically win this category, because none of the other nominees really qualify as comedies. “The Kids Are All Right” comes a lot closer than the spy flicks “Red” and “The Tourist,” though, and benefits from a lack of Cher.

Best Original Song – Motion Picture

If “Burlesque” is good for anything, it’s as a showcase for Christina Aguilera’s astonishing voice, but it could split the vote between “Bound To You” and “You Haven’t Seen the Last of Me.” That could open the door for “Coming Home” from “Country Strong,” itself a showcase for Gwyneth Paltrow’s solid vocals.

Best Screenplay – Motion Picture

Add this to the list of awards that should go to “The Social Network.” Aaron Sorkin’s rapid-fire, hyper-intellectual dialogue is as outstanding as David Fincher’s direction, and they are both more impressive considering how well their two very different styles worked together.

Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture

“The King’s Speech” was impressive mainly for the acting of Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush, and the Foreign Press certainly could put them both onstage. But Christian Bale is a serious contender as well. Like Amy Adams, he contributed a huge, abrasive supporting personality to “The Fighter.”

Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture

Amy Adams shocked a lot of people with her brash and aggressive turn as Charlene in “The Fighter.” She’ll take this one home for proving she can turn off the cutesy charm and turn on the attitude.

Best Original Score – Motion Picture

Any of these nominees could potentially walk away with a statue: Alexandre Desplat, Danny Elfman, A. R. Rahman and Hans Zimmer are all well-established powerhouses in the world of movie music. Trent Reznor is the odd one out, and his dark score with Atticus Ross for “The Social Network” could be a surprise winner.

Best Animated Feature Film

This might be the strongest overall category in this year’s Golden Globes. “Despicable Me,” “How To Train Your Dragon” and “Tangled” were all audience favorites, and “The Illusionist” made quite an impression on critics. But there is simply no beating Pixar, and “Toy Story 3” is yet another masterpiece.

Best Performance by an Actor in a Television Series – Drama

Replacing Bill Paxton of “Big Love” and Simon Baker of “The Mentalist” from last year’s list of nominees with Steve Buscemi in “Boardwalk Empire” and Bryan Cranston in “Breaking Bad” makes this a thoroughly stacked category. The Foreign Press will likely want to make up for snubbing Cranston last year.

Best Performance by an Actress in a Television Series – Drama

Julianna Margulies will likely win again for “The Good Wife,” which appeared atop many top 10 lists, though it’s nice to see Piper Perabo nominated for the more lighthearted “Covert Affairs.”

Best Performance by an Actor in a Television Series – Comedy or Musical

“The Big Bang Theory” has become one of the most-watched television shows in the country, and most of the credit can be handed to Jim Parsons for making a one-of-a-kind supernerd out of theoretical physicist Sheldon Cooper. The Foreign Press might as well hand him the statue.

Best Performance by an Actress in a Television Series – Comedy or Musical

There’s a good chance the Foreign Press will give the series award to “Glee” and save the acting trophy for Laura Linney in “The Big C.” Her show is television’s equivalent of “The King’s Speech,” a less-than-perfect overall production elevated by stellar lead acting.

Best Television Series – Comedy or Musical

“Glee” won this category in 2010, and it’ll be even harder to beat this year, considering its second season made it a fairly ubiquitous pop culture phenomenon. “The Big C” has received positive attention for carefully mixing comedy with tragedy, but it lacks the cultural impact to usurp the throne.

Best Mini-Series or Motion Picture Made For Television

HBO could very well be fighting with itself for this award. “Temple Grandin” and “You Don’t Know Jack” both garnered praise for their unusual biographies and for strong starring roles by Claire Danes and Al Pacino. “The Pacific” is a more ambitious affair, though, with none other than Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg at the helm.

Best Television Series – Drama

“Mad Men” won last year, and it could certainly repeat this weekend, but it has strong new competition in “Boardwalk Empire,” a similarly expensive and meticulously produced period show with an all-star production team that includes Terence Winter of “The Sopranos” and Martin Scorsese.

How do you make a film about a guy who was trapped beneath a boulder for five days? Those who are familiar with “Slumdog Millionaire” know that director Danny Boyle doesn’t hold anything back in his films. That same frenetic, impossibly energetic style takes hold in this telling of real-life adventurer Aron Ralston’s ordeal. “127 Hours” puts viewers right in the cave with Ralston, who eventually freed himself by cutting off his arm with a cheap Swiss Army knife. Boyle depicts that part in graphic detail, complete with the sound of cannon fire to correspond with the snapping of bones. While the film is sometimes tough to watch, and rightly critical of Ralston’s reckless behavior, it is ultimately a story of triumph.

I had a chance to speak to Ralston after the “127 Hours” screening at the Telluride Film Festival in September. When I asked Ralston what adventure he was planning on taking next, he smiled and told me that he was going to climb one of the nearby 11,000-foot mountain peaks – this time, with a buddy. Like Danny Boyle’s direction, Ralston can’t help but keep sprinting forward.

-Max Siegel

THE GHOST WRITER (dir. Roman Polanski)

Roman Polanski is a natural at dealing with the inner depths and realization of paranoia. The feeling that,no matter what one does, any attempts to escape the inevitable will only prove futile is a staple in the political thriller genre. But for Polanski, it’s become a sort of obsession, so it’s no wonder that “The Ghost Writer” marks a return to form for the aging director, as well as one of the best films of the year.

At a time when he seems to be gaining greater attention for his house arrest and possible extradition to the U.S., Polanski still approaches his latest effort with the skills of a master who knows the key elements of a great thriller. Mood and tone are the keys for Polanski to access a fairly rudimentary story and turn it into an unnerving journey into substantiated fear.

It’s always a pleasure to see filmmakers do what they know how to do best. Although some may deride him for his personal ordeals, “The Ghost Writer” comes across as a response to all those who would rather focus on Polanski’s darker personal life by illuminating an artist who still has a few tricks left.

-Jawad Qadir

I AM LOVE (dir. Luca Guadagnino)

A Shakespearean family tragedy, a sumptuous visual feast and a whole lot of Tilda Swinton’s face – Luca Guadagnino’s “I Am Love” is many, many things. Like a Thanksgiving meal, the film’s offering of sensual and sensory overload – from the Baroque architecture of Milan to John Adams’ classical score that never stops swelling – will leave you overwhelmed and exhilarated. Tilda Swinton, also known as god, plays the lead (perhaps title) role of Emma Recchi, a Russian emigre and the matriarch of an Italian high society family. But Emma, swept off her feet by a really hot chef and his orgasmic prawns, deigns to leave her dynasty in exchange for a life of headboard-pounding-ly good sex – and love.

Though Guadagnino’s film is often totally flamboyant and over-the-top, making the quiet moments quite savory, he never ceases to work at such a high level of craft. Swinton, who not only takes off her clothes but also speaks Russian, Italian and English, gives a hell of a performance. “I Am Love” is everything you could ask for in a film and it even manages to inaugurate a new cinematic genre: food pornography.

-Ryan Lattanzio

INCEPTION (dir. Christopher Nolan)

An impressively constructed 148-minute fantasia on perception, creation, dreams and alternate realities, Christopher Nolan’s “Inception” unfolds as a love letter to cinema itself. The film marks a personal turning point for the director who, in the span of a decade, gave us the millennium’s inaugural mindfuck in “Memento” and has since carved a remarkable personal niche in studio filmmaking.

Backed by a stellar supporting cast, Leonardo DiCaprio plays the protagonist Dom Cobb as a complex man, possibly an extension of Nolan himself: frenetic, intelligent, uncommonly driven. “What’s the most resilient parasite?” we hear him ask rhetorically. “An idea. An idea can transform the world and rewrite all the rules.” So convinced is Cobb of his ability to create and manipulate that he remains tragically unaware of his own vulnerability.

In the end, it is the shared obsession between architect and creation in the film – as Nolan’s determination to realize his grandest undertaking merges with Cobb’s quest to simultaneously free himself of his past and cling to it in desperation – that elevates “Inception” above the sum of its parts.

-David Liu

MOTHER (dir. Bong Joon-ho)

An extreme example of the power of maternal instinct, Bong Joon-ho’s thriller, “Mother,” chronicles one woman’s attempts to absolve her son of a murder she believes he could not possibly have committed. But rather than casting any one party in the wrong, Bong uses the plot’s ambiguous elements to explore the complexities of moral choices while regaling viewers with stunning displays of the South Korean countryside.

Kim Hye-ja, the film’s leading lady, brilliantly commands the suspenseful plot. Though quaint and adorable at a first glance, her face seems able to silently convey every subtle nuance of her character’s emotions as her quest throttles her between moments of hope and savage desperation. Kim’s character – an herbalist and acupuncture practitioner inseparably attached to her mentally challenged adult son – demonstrates that dire circumstances (and sometimes mere chance) can tilt even the most basic moral standards off their axes. Bong and Park Eun-kyo’s meticulously crafted script and Kim’s adept acting make for an enthralling investigation of dubious personalities in dubious circumstances.

-Nastia Voynovskaya

SCOTT PILGRIM VS. THE WORLD (dir. Edgar Wright)

When you watch a fresh-faced young actor up on a screen punching a dude, and then that dude turns into a shower of gold coins, does it touch a special place in your heart? There’s a logic to it that appeals – and makes sense – to members of a certain generation who grew up with gaming as a major constellation in their cultural universe. Edgar Wright’s “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World,” adapted from Bryan Lee O’Malley’s six-volume modern comics masterpiece, renders a tale of romance in the language of video games, comics and indie rock.

“Pilgrim” makes pitch-perfect use of these contemporary signifiers to the end of storytelling, painting the external world in the hues of internal fantasy. Wright and his excellent ensemble cast have realized everything from bass guitar battles to the pouty intensity of Kim Pine (Alison Pill), a sort of Glowering Cynic Dream Girl, with loving integrity to the source material and a zest for visual expressionism. Bonus: Michael Cera’s turn as the film’s bafflingly immature title character may be his best since “Arrested Development.”

-Sam Stander

SHUTTER ISLAND (dir. Martin Scorsese)

By all accounts, Martin Scorsese’s “Shutter Island” should be hackneyed and tired. In the vein of the great 1940s noir thrillers, the film digs into the disturbed recesses of a man’s psyche with all the requisite elements of the genre: the insane asylum, the political conspiracy and the omnipresent fog. However, as the film follows U.S. Marshal Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) through the convoluted cliffs and caves of the titular landscape, what becomes clear is that nothing is what it seems.

Haunted by a foreboding soundtrack and jolting images of a pained past, the undertones of Nazi experiments, McCarthyism and familial tragedy subvert any assumptions one may have previously held about the plot. The audience is taken in and never released from this persistent tension until the final reveal. It’s a testament to bothy Scorsese’s direction and the skill of his actors, especially Michelle Williams, that the climax is not ruinous despite its potential predictability. Scorsese’s nuanced calculations of character and craft elevate the film above just adrenaline-driven amusement to a film that can stand amongst his finer achievements as a master of storytelling.

-Jessica Pena

THE SOCIAL NETWORK (dir. David Fincher)

Fast, funny and exhilarating, “The Social Network” reaffirms David Fincher as the most subversive studio filmmaker working in Hollywood today. The “Zodiac” helmer further cements his status as an heir apparent to Billy Wilder and Howard Hawks with his blistering portrait of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, the world’s youngest billionaire.

Working from a 162-page screenplay by Aaron Sorkin, Fincher paces the film to the pulse of a psychological thriller. Along the way, he elicits remarkable performances from his ensemble cast: Jesse Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield, Justin Timberlake, Armie Hammer and Rooney Mara, radiant twenty-somethings whose collective distaste toward tradition and bureaucracy is beautifully expressed in Sorkin’s fiercely independent characterizations.

As Fincher’s restless vision and Sorkin’s incisive dialogue merge, “The Social Network” blossoms into a masterclass in cinematic craft, so meticulously constructed and realized that each individual scene and line of dialogue cascades into a totalizing quest for progress and fulfillment.

-David Liu

TOY STORY 3 (dir. Lee Unkrich)

Pixar has really been sticking it to the world’s tear ducts lately, hasn’t it? First “Up” came out with that incredibly sad montage that pretty much came out of nowhere. Then, just when you were convinced “Toy Story 3″ would have to suck according to some unbending law that all sequels with numbers greater than two must be terrible, you found yourself in the theater with droplets of salt-watery nostalgia streaming down your face as you fondly remembered your own childhood, your own toys – your own living room viewings of “Toy Story” and its first sequel.

And as those tears rolled down your face, you could feel the built-up layers of cynicism washing away with them, but not your hard-won life experience. Because “Toy Story 3″ isn’t just a hugely effective nostalgia trip. For those of us who have aged with Andy, the film also serves as a gentle (and funny, of course) reminder that it is possible to grow up without growing callous. Some sequels do deserve to be made.

That said, if they release “Toy Story 4,” I might actually kill someone. Just kidding, it’ll probably be good, too.

-Jill Cowan

WINTER’S BONE (dir. Debra Granik)

Winter’s Bone” isn’t what you would call an uplifting film. Ree, a teenage girl played by the fantastic Jennifer Lawrence, tries to find her father, a drug addict who has placed the family’s house for bail. It’s a simple story, but that central plot isn’t what’s really important; the film is really about how meth tears rural communities apart. “Winter’s Bone,” which was shot on location in the Ozark Mountains in Missouri, stands out because of its haunting atmosphere. You can almost smell the decay as Ree wanders among different, violent family clans, visiting decrepit houses in a futile search for help.

Watching “Winter’s Bone” can be a painfully intense experience, but like the best neorealist films, it is anchored by the quiet strength of its hero. What Ree lacks in physical power she makes up for in perseverance and pragmatism. Audiences may squirm at the sight of Ree teaching her younger siblings how to skin a (real-life) squirrel, but there’s something touching about the gesture. It’s a passing of the torch in a land where family and neighborliness have faded into distant memory.

-Max Siegel

Reidy is a 1992 graduate of Notre Dame with a degree in English. After serving in the United States Army (he was in ROTC at Notre Dame), he took up employment as a pharmaceutical sales representative for Pfizer, a job he quickly learned to manipulate. Reidy managed to only work 15 hours per week but also become the No. 1 sales representative in the country, peddling drugs of all kind, most notably the 1990s wonder drug, Viagra.

Reidy was “always interested in writing,” and it was selling Viagra that gave him an initiative to start. In 2005, “Hard Sell” was published by Andrews McMeel Publishing. Reidy snagged the book deal without an agent.

The Observer interviewed Reidy about the “Evolution” of his life from a salesman to a screenwriter.

What made you decide to write “Hard Sell?”

One of my classmates said to me one time, “When are you going to stop talking about [writing] and actually do it?” That was a great question for me, kind of a kick in the pants.

As far as “Hard Sell” goes, when I was working for Pfizer I was working 15 hours a week, but I had this whole elaborate system for making it look like I was working when I wasn’t working. I thought, “I have a lot of funny stories, but you can only write about sleeping late and quitting early so much.” Then, I got promoted to sell Viagra, and Viagra became a pop culture phenomenon — I knew that was my hook. Drug rep: okay good story, but it’s selling the one drug. That was the hook.

Once you got “Hard Sell” published in 2005, you were fired from pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly, where you sold chemotherapy. Do you at all miss your days as a pharmaceutical rep?

I miss people. Being a writer is a pretty lonely occupation. I don’t miss the day-to-day BS of a corporate job, but I do miss establishing relationships with doctors and nurses.

And certainly, I miss selling the chemotherapy for Eli Lilly. I really believed in our drugs and helping patients. A woman from Maui, a breast cancer survivor, once hugged me as if I had invented the drug. That was really rewarding.

Whose idea was it to adapt the book into a movie? How did Fox 2000 Pictures end up with the rights to the book?

I always thought it was a no-brainer, in terms of turning it into a movie. Just add a love story, and boom it’s a romantic comedy: guy selling Viagra, falls in love.

I got in touch with Malcolm Gladwell, the guy who wrote “Blink.” He spoke at the last Eli Lilly cancer meeting that I went to. He told some stories that he had written for “The New Yorker” about the prescription drug crisis. I contacted him afterwards and told him I had a book coming out in a couple of months and wanted to see if he’d be interested in doing a review on it for “The New Yorker.” Of course, I look back now and think, “As if, no way.” I couldn’t even believe he answered my e-mail. My publisher sent him one of the galleys and we never heard from him. I thought, “Oh my God, my book is so bad, this poor guy doesn’t even want to e-mail me.”

I stalked him again. I said, “Hey, my book came out, I got fired, I was on TV a couple times, blah blah blah,” and he said, “Yeah I noticed that, I hope everything worked out.” Then he asked if I had sold the movie rights. I said, “Not yet, here’s my agent,” and he said, “Okay, I know somebody who might be interested.”

So, a couple weeks later my agent got a call from the manager for Charles Randolph. He was hot in 2005, for writing the script for the movie “The Interpreter.” It was the film that reminded Hollywood that adults would go see a movie.

I got on the phone with Charles and he said, “You know why we’re talking right?” I said, “Because you read my book?” He said, “No, Malcolm Gladwell.” I couldn’t even believe it: Stalking totally paid.

So he bought the book. Once Charles got on board the project launched. Universal [Pictures] and Fox 2000 actually ended up in a bidding war, two words you definitely want to hear sometime in your career. Universal won, but two years ago they decided adults weren’t seeing movies anymore. They put it on what’s called “turn-around,” meaning it was open for some other studio to come in and buy it. That’s how Fox got it.

Did you have a role in the filmmaking process, or did you simply hand over the rights to the book?

Certainly when you sign your rights away, it’s just gone. But I worked pretty closely with Charles, probably spent about 20 hours together, either at lunches or over the phone. I was telling him stories that were in the book, and actually I remembered stories I forgot to put in the book — really just explaining the whole life of a drug rep. There’s a lot of stuff in the movie that’s completely true. If it didn’t happen to me, it happened to people I know. He really did a nice job keeping it as real as possible.

And when they were shooting, I was on set for five days, which was amazing.

Do you think the fact that the film has become largely a love story detracts from its ability to portray the life of a pharmaceutical salesman?

I don’t think it detracts at all. In his character’s arc, he becomes a better person over the course of the movie thanks to the love story. He comes to a big realization about what he’s doing in life, which is pretty cool and really fits well at the end. If the movie is as big as we’re hoping it is, it will certainly shine a light on the industry.

Were you happy with the choice of Jake Gyllenhaal to play you in “Love and Other Drugs?”

I don’t know if you’ve seen a picture of me but I’m thrilled, believe me. When I was still for sale after I first made the deal, they could have had RuPaul play me and I wouldn’t have cared. But my friends were really concerned that my large ego was going to grow even further. The girl I took to the prom e-mailed me to let me know Danny DeVito was available to play me. That was a little rough.

When Jake was chosen, classmates of mine from Keenan Hall — I used to live in Keenan — e-mailed me to ask if Jake had to shave his head to play me. And I said, “You guys are such jerks, you know that I had hair when I was 27.” Love those Domer friends.

What is your favorite and least favorite thing about the way “Hard Sell” was adapted?

My favorite part is the fact that in 50 years people might think that I actually slept with Anne Hathaway.

And least favorite, I don’t think — I like everything. And I also don’t want to get in trouble with Fox. I’m trying to make it as a screenwriter now. The whole process was so amazing. On set, I actually got to correct a couple things, make them more realistic in terms of what drug reps really do. They really embraced me.

At the premiere a couple of weeks ago, I felt like the belle of the ball. Everyone was congratulating me, and the director said to my girlfriend, “Aren’t you proud of this guy?” I don’t have a love interest in my book, so I don’t know how they could have made it any better. I’m really proud.

Do you have any other projects you’re currently working on?

The banter between my dad and I in the book got a really good response, so I’m trying to start a collection of humorous essays about my dad and me.

Do you have any advice for Notre Dame students looking to get into the entertainment industry?

You have to write everyday. Whether it’s good enough isn’t nearly as important as honing your craft and writing, writing, writing. My mom said that to me back when I was talking about being a writer. She said, “You know what? I think writers, they write,” which is absolutely true. That is how you get better, doing it everyday. It’s a lot easier to get on a roll when you just start writing.

And the second thing, you have to have an outline. You can’t just write your novel or your screenplay and wing it. I don’t do anything without a really detailed outline now. It really annoys me that I have to admit that because I used to think differently. I’d wake up in the morning sit down at my desk and be like, “What the hell is this? What was I thinking last night?” The outline is key for me now.

I’m here to interview “Chuck” star Zachary Levi and actress / former teen pop sensation Mandy Moore about their parts in the new Disney film, “Tangled,” but with my recorder prepped and my questions written, all I can concentrate on is who ordered the untouched green salad sitting primly on the room service cart.

Suddenly, there is shifting in the room to my left. The voices get louder and thank-you-goodbyes are exchanged. An older man, presumably a reviewer for a paper more important than the one I represent, emerges from the room, notepad in hand. He looks at me and says, “You’ll like them. They’re very friendly.”

I nod, smile and wait for the other reporters to be ushered in before I follow. I’ve got a seasonal sore throat and I’m worried the actors might want to shake my hand. God forbid I be the one to give Mandy Moore, my childhood idol, a cold.

My fear is squashed when Levi introduces himself by offering a fist bump and an explanation that he’s sick. I take silent, personal delight that we are simultaneously ill and offer my knuckles. Ditto to Moore.

Levi is unexpectedly charming and charismatic while Moore, with a genuine grin permanently affixed to her blushed face, is a living embodiment of sunshine — the ideal Disney princess.

The Daily Aztec: Is “Tangled” a story that will appeal to both boys and girls?

Zachary Levi: Absolutely. I think that is one of the things Disney set out to accomplish. They’ve had a lot of success in the “princess” world and a lot of those movies appeal to boys as well. I mean, I was a little boy and I watched all of them, I don’t know what that means. They wanted a movie that was equilateral. Yes, you have this princess character, but it’s a fresh take on it. It’s an adventure movie at heart.

DA: What lessons do you think college students could learn from “Tangled”?

Mandy Moore: I like the idea of never questioning that little voice inside of you and not letting fear win at the end of the day. Her entire life, Rapunzel’s been told it’s her 70 feet of hair that makes her special when clearly, it was something within her that was special.

DA : I’m sure both of you are Disney fans —

ZL: Dis-nerd.

DA : Right … What’s it like to be a part of the Disney legacy?

ZL: Mind-melting. We’ve talked about this at length, (motions to Moore) it’s growing up watching the films. Not just the ones that are considered our generation, starting with “The Little Mermaid.” We’re the 50th animated feature, which is unbelievable.

MM: It’s so above and beyond that we’re a part of it with this movie because you know, those movies, and “The Little Mermaid” and so on, were such huge parts of our childhood. They’re so ingrained in my memory, like singing every single word of “Beauty and the Beast.” And now, this movie could potentially mean to kids nowadays what those movies meant to us. It doesn’t get much cooler than that.

DA : When you were little did you want to be Ariel?

MM: I did, I did.

ZL: So did I, sister.

DA : I’d say you’re more like Aladdin.

ZL: I love Aladdin … For little boys, that was more the movie because he was a guy. There was also so much adventure going on. And the genie was so good — Robin Williams as the genie was maybe one of the most perfect Disney roles ever. And Abu is great, and the carpet is great and Iago is great … definitely it was more male-driven. And Jasmine was hot.

DA : Did you guys record dialogue together?

ZL: We didn’t record dialogue together once.

MM: We only met when we did the duet. Doing all the press, all of this, is the first time we —

ZL: The first time we’ve hung together.

DA : Is that difficult, when you’re imagining someone’s reactions?

MM: Yeah. I mean, I guess you get used to it as well. It allows you, or forces you to dig deep into your imagination and give every different variation on a line you can give. And at least the directors were there — they were with Zach and they were with Donna (Murphy) for her sessions, so they know what they need to get from me to match what they love and they’ve already gotten from Zach. You have to just get in there and throw caution to the wind and have fun.

DA : In your opinion, is any one type of character more fun to play or easier to play than others?

MM: It’s always fun to play the villain.

ZL: Yeah, it’s fun to play the villain. I think in society, people are called upon to be nice people — as they should be. I think it’s good to have standards, for people to treat other people with kindness and respect … (but) you don’t really have that outlet for those other parts that might be inside of you that are just dying to yell at somebody. I don’t know if it’s a matter of exorcising your demons, but when you get to be a bad guy, you get to. And there’s no recourse — you’re actually being paid to do that.

MM: It’s very cathartic.

“Tangled” hits theaters Wednesday. For more information, check out its website at disney.go.com.

This time the stunts, pranks and private parts are going to be right in your face in Jackass 3-D, which opens Oct. 15.

Some of the stunts in the trailer for Jackass 3-D include bungeeing Steve-O into the air in a portable toilet, playing duck hunt by feathering a cast member and launching them into a lake while other cast members shoot paintballs at him, and playing tetherball with a bee hive full of 50,000 bees.

Actor Johnny Knoxville and director Jeff Tremaine sat down on a conference call Friday with college media.

Q: Do you have any rituals that you do previous to performing a stunt? And can you tell us what convincing it takes, if any, before you agree to film a potentially dangerous scene?

Johnny Knoxville: Before I’m doing a big stunt, about 20 minutes before it’s on, I’ll go sit and listen to my cousin’s music or other music. When it’s on, I’ll just have someone come pat me on the shoulder, and I’ll walk right in and do it (right then) because I want to just get it out of the way.

Q: What’s the process for shooting 3-D compared to what you’re normally accustomed to?

Jeff Tremaine: The 3-D cameras were a lot bigger and bulkier, but man, once we got all the guys together, it just felt like we were shooting a normal Jackass. The process – we had to be a little more prepared. You know they took a little more prep time to get everything ready so when the guys show up, we can just shoot.

They don’t have to wait for all the – you know the extra (bodies) to get set up. But for the most part, you know it felt the same.

JK: Yes, my request to Jeff was if we shoot 3-D, I don’t want to have to worry about the cameras one time during filming because we just need to be able to do what we do. And Jeff and (Demitri) absolutely set it up where we filmed it just like a regular Jackass. We did not think about the cameras once.

Q: What do you think the 3-D format will add to the movie experience?

JK: It feels like you’re right in the middle of a stunt or prank with us. It really elevated the movie to a whole other level. Like, this bit, “The Beehive Tetherball,” we’re playing tetherball with a beehive, and it feels like 50,000 bees are swarming around the theater or around your head. It really – it really works in 3-D.

JT: And it just makes a dumb idea even dumber.

Q: What made you guys want to shoot the movie in 3-D originally?

JK: Yeah. The studio suggested it and we resisted. But after we did some tests with the cameras, it didn’t slow up the way we shot, and that was our big concern.

It would shoot it like a regular “Jackass.” That took the pressure off, and we had a ball with the cameras.

JT: And also it gave us a good title for the movie right away. You know your third movie – got to be in 3-D. That’s just the rules.

Q: Other than the 3-D, is there’s anything that takes this movie above and beyond where the other two were?

JK: We – the relationships with the guys are just – you know we give each other hell, but you can really feel how close we are, and that just seems to be there. It was in there in the other films, but it was in this film bigger than ever. And really, the – we think that naturally elevates the stunts and pranks in each film, not super consciously, but just it takes a little more to make us laugh.

JT: There’s a – there’s a competitiveness that goes on when we shoot those. There’s a real natural one-up-man’s-ship that happens with the guys, so everybody wants to get the best footage, and then once you start getting really good stuff, they realize how hard it’s going to be to get in the new movie, so everyone steps up, you know?

Q: Is it hard coming up with ideas, since you guys have pretty much done like everything already?

JT: No. We were just bursting with them. This one happened more naturally than any of the ones before.

JK: Yes, it was easier coming up ideas for this movie than any of them. We had a stockpile of ideas that we never even got to because we ran out of time.

Q: Has there been any time at any point in Jackass history when you had to turn down a stunt because it was just too crazy, too off the wall for you?

JK: You know the only time that we won’t do a stunt or I won’t do a stunt is if there’s a negative vibe going around the set and it just kind of puts a dark blanket over everything and then I’ll just say, “Let’s not do it. Let’s not do it today. We were filming this stunt up in Tahoe on this huge ski slope and someone on that ski slope died that day. It wasn’t associated with the production, but there was a death on that ski slope the day we were there. It was on the same mountain, the Donner families cannibalized themselves on. We we’re getting ready to do a big stunt and it just felt weird. We called it off but that is super, super rare.

Q: How do you like producing compared to acting? Because you’ve done some work with the Dudesons and Nitro Circus, so how do you like being a producer as compared to being an actor?

JK: I enjoy every aspect of doing TV shows. If a person I think is interesting I’ll just kind of lend my services where needed. So I’m able to jump back and forth between the things pretty easily.

Q: Can you tell a story of like, the worst injury that happened or like, the – how someone got hurt the most badly during the making of this one?

JT: We had a fighter jet that we had parked on the end of a runway and we were using the big thruster at the back. We set a little mini-trampoline up and Loomis was jumping into the jet stream holding an umbrella, and that dude only weighs probably 63 pounds soaking wet, so he just …

JK: 68 with a hard on …

JT: and he comes to the ground pretty hard and he broke his collarbone and got his hand tore up.

JK: He had to have surgery on his hand. I think he might have surgery on his shoulder.

JT: The other guys got banged up pretty bad, but no one got too seriously hurt. I mean, there’s mental scars …

Q: What is your favorite stunt that you performed in the movie?

JK: Between Jeff and I, it’s kind of a tie between the high five where we built this 5-foot-tall hand and spring loaded it so whenever someone walked into the kitchen in the morning, they just got smoked by the palm coming around the corner and the port-a-potty bungee where we took Steve-O and put him in a full port-a-potty and shot it 100 feet in the air with a bungee cord and a crane.

“The first question I ask is, ‘Is there any nudity?’ When I find out there’s not, I’ll read the script anyway,” Galifianakis said, talking about how he chooses a role. “But seriously, it’s kind of new to me to be able to choose things, so I don’t really have a pattern yet, but most of it is comedy. But some of it is a little bit more of a grounded comedy that has some realism to it. That’s how I got involved in this.

“I like characters that are fragile and a little bit on the edge,” Galifianakis said. “I feel like (the character of) Bobby was certainly one of those… and he also has the capacity to be angry, so it wasn’t much of a departure from my real life.”

Bobby is one of the patients at the hospital where the film’s main character Craig (Keir Gilchrist) admits himself for a minimum of five days in an attempt to deal with his depression, the origin of which he can’t pinpoint.

“I hope, honestly, first and foremost that people are entertained, because I think that’s the main purpose of films,” Gilchrist said. “And then I hope people gather a message about hope [and] finding people — and how connections with other people can be healing.”

Gilchrist’s character admits himself to a psychiatric hospital in Brooklyn and, upon meeting Galifianakis’ character, is reminded of how many things in life can be rewarding.

While in the hospital, he also meets Noelle (Emma Roberts), a patient of the same age whom he begins to have romantic feelings for.

“One of the great things about this story, about Ned’s book and the character of Craig is how he learns to appreciate what he has, and I feel like I need to remind myself to count my blessings a lot of the time,” Roberts said. “I think we’d all be a lot happier if we did that more often.”

The movie may not be an atypical comedy, but in this day and age, director Ryan Fleck feels it’s an appropriate movie for college students.

“I think that college students have a lot of the same pressures that the characters are going through in this movie, and I think it’s tough times for young people,” Fleck said. “Getting a job when you get out of college, that seems to me these days quite the impossibility almost, and I have a lot of sympathy for college students. [This movie] might make you feel better for a little while.”

While Fleck tried to stay faithful to the book, he admitted to making a few changes in the film adaptation.

“There were a number of patients we had to trim down or take out, which would have been nice to keep in there,” Fleck said, “but we had to take them out, because we have a 90-minute movie, and we didn’t have time for it.”

Galifianakis too feels it’s an appropriate movie for an age-group that is, in his view, put under far too much stress.

“I think the pressure put on college students is ridiculous; it’s crazy,” Galifianakis said. “I think college puts too much pressure on people, and I think society is putting too much pressure on young people… It’s good for people who work on ulcers, but [laughs] chill out, young ones, and those who are chilling out too much, go clean your room and study some.”

Galifianakis may be primarily a comedic actor, but he takes his roles seriously. For “It’s Kind of a Funny Story,” in order to better portray a close-to-the-edge mental patient, he did his homework.

“I went to a couple of mental facilities in New Mexico, and I observed, took some notes and asked some questions,” Galifianakis said. “I noticed a couple of people in the facilities who I think could function on the outside, and I kind of think [my character] could function on the outside, but he does have the wicked possibility of snapping.”

Above all else, Galifianakis feels that the setting in which the movie is shot makes for a great film, and he hopes audiences feel the same.

“I liked the location of the story,” he said, commenting on why he was originally drawn to the script. “I think a mental hospital is a very specific place where good stories can evolve because of where a group of people are forced to be together.”

“It’s Kind of a Funny Story” comes out in theaters Oct. 8.

Producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson announced back in February that the franchise was being shelved until the financial problems of studio MGM could be resolved. It is thought that the studio is about $3.7 billion in debt.

There is much uncertainty surrounding a timetable for the franchise and the next film itself. There are conflicting reports as to whether production for the next film has been cancelled or merely postponed. There have even been reports that Sam Mendes, who was attached to direct the next film and then dropped out, has had second thoughts about his second thoughts and is still back in the mix to direct the next film.

Despite the uncertainty, the only thing that is clear to me is that the reboot of the franchise has proven to be hit-or-miss for most people. It seems that the wildly popular “Casino Royale” is everyone’s new favorite, while “Quantum of Solace” left most moviegoers feeling incomplete.

This inconsistency seems to stem from the fact that the reboot was designed to get Bond back to basics, eliminating the increasingly outlandish use of gadgets and various other fantasy elements that were a staple of the early franchise (with the Roger Moore films being the worst offenders). This rebooted Bond is thought to be more in line with the Bond from Ian Fleming’s original novels.

This new, darker Bond was quite a treat for audiences in “Casino Royale,” but after seeing “Quantum of Solace” (which I liked), I couldn’t help but get the feeling I was seeing an extension of the Jason Bourne series. Although that probably has more to do with the story of “Quantum,” the new direction of the rebooted franchise also has its share of the blame.

There are a few elements I believe are worth bringing back, if only to give some sort of continuity or familiarity with the new films. Still present are the title sequences, the exotic locales, the unique super-villains and the various vehicles and sports cars. But there are two I would like to see make a return.

First, the franchise needs to see the return of a central nemesis, much like the criminal organization SPECTRE and its Number One Ernst Stavro Blofeld from the earlier movies. Whether or not there should be an archenemy like Blofeld is less important than an identifiable organization.

Although this may seem out of place with the rebooted franchise, it is entirely consistent with both “Casino” and “Quantum.” At the heart of both films are characters from a mysterious group called Quantum, which seems to function as a new sort of SPECTRE. I can only hope that Quantum continues to make its presence known going forward, given that is has proven to be quite the adversary to Bond in the last two films.

A second thing I would like to see for the future of the franchise is the return of familiar characters that were staples of past movies. Although the reboots have featured characters like M (played by the incomparable Judi Dench) and Felix Leiter, missing is Bond’s relationship with Q and Miss Moneypenny.

I know their relationships in past movies fell into a kind of contrived rhythm but having them around is not the issue. Some of the best moments from the past films included Desmond Llewelyn’s performance as the go-to gadget guy. If the writers can find ways of introducing them and keeping them around in fresh, original ways, then the franchise would be better for it.

Part of what makes “Casino Royale” such a great Bond movie is the fact that the reboot has put an emphasis on Bond as an emotional character, which was absent from pretty much every film prior to “Casino.” (The most notable exception is “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.”) When the plot of a movie is actually driven by characters, then we get a good movie. However, after “Quantum of Solace,” the franchise seems headed for a dark place, probably due to the fact that Bond himself was going down a dark road.

Bond has always had its appeal in escapist fantasy, and reintroducing some of these old elements would help balance the gravitas of the direction the reboot has taken. And this would only help Bond return to its rightful place as the most successful and enduring film franchise of all time.

The latest push comes from the World Health Organization.

The portrayal of smoking in movies increases the probability that young viewers will start smoking, according to an August report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Data show young people heavily exposed to onscreen tobacco use are two to three times more likely to begin smoking.

“It makes perfect sense that it would have an impact,” said Anne Osborne, associate professor of mass communication. “Celebrities are who young people look up to and want to emulate.”

Continued exposure to these behaviors may reinforce false ideas in impressionable minds, said Kathy Saichuk, Wellness Education coordinator.

It’s for this reason WHO aims to issue an R rating to films depicting tobacco use.

Saichuk said Hollywood’s portrayal of smoking has changed over time.

“There was a time when everyone in the movies smoked, even on television,” she said. “It was more ‘the norm’ than not.”

Saichuk said instances of tobacco use have decreased as health risks have been publicized, but smoking in movies is still an issue.

Forty-nine percent of the top-grossing films in 2009 contained depictions of tobacco use, according to a study by Breathe California Sacramento-Emigrant Trails, a nonprofit advocating clean air.

“When you see it used, it is in a glamorous way,” Osborne said. “You rarely see a movie where someone faces the long-term consequences of tobacco use.”

Saichuk added, “I think it would be a good environmental change to reduce the use of tobacco in movies and television.”

But not everyone is in favor of the rating system.

“Tobacco use isn’t that vulgar — it’s something you see in everyday life,” said Daniel Colvin, music composition freshman. “An R rating is a little extreme.”

Osborne said she didn’t know how much the rating could be enforced.

“Most of movie consumption is outside the theaters,” she said. “Kids can still find ways to see the images.”

Communication studies professor Michael Applin said the images of smoking may not be the key issue.

“I don’t put much stock in the idea that children mindlessly repeat what they see in the media,” he said. “They are much more likely to repeat what they see in their families and friends.”

The CDC reported that most people who begin smoking during adolescence are addicted by the age of 20.

According to the 2009 CORE Alcohol and Drug Survey, 52.5 percent of University students indicated using tobacco in their lifetime, while 12.8 percent used tobacco three times a week or more.

“Cigarettes are the only product that when used as directed will kill you,” Osborne said.

The MUSE got a peek at the script for the movie that’s being hailed as the next Mean Girls, and take our word for it – this is one you should definitely mark on your calendar. With sharp, quick-witted dialogue and a sassy, strong female lead, Easy A, out Sept. 17, looks like it might be the star-making role for Emma Stone, who has previously had noticeable turns in Superbad and Zombieland. The film follows Stone’s character, Olive, as she deals with the fallout over lying about losing her virginity to her closeted, gay best friend. Go see this Scarlet Letter derivative as a bonding trip with your new floor mates, or just as a celebration that you’re no longer suffering through high school.

THE TOWN

If you’re new to Boston, or you’ve been missing the city while you languished at miserable summer job at home for three months, this Sept. 17 release might be just what you need. Shot in and around Boston in 2009, the Ben Affleck-directed The Town (pictured above) is a heist movie in the style of The Departed. Though it does feature plenty of action, expect some substance, too. Affleck’s directorial style is only getting stronger, and The Town looks like a great example of that.

BURIED

If your new dorm room has you feeling claustrophobic, SKIP THIS MOVIE. If you’re not put off by tight spaces, and you feel like staring at Ryan Reynolds for the literally the entire runtime of Buried, consider catching this interesting little flick, which features Reynolds as an American truck driver in Iraq who wakes up to find himself trapped in a coffin with only a flashlight and a rapidly dying cell phone. The film screened to enthusiastic response at Sundance this year, but the verdict won’t really be in until it’s released in select theatres on Sept. 24.

One of those videos was “Winnebego Man,” a low quality copy of a copy of a copy of a VHS tape digitized and uploaded to YouTube. The clip was a series of outtakes from an infomercial promoting the 1989 Itasca Sunflyer featuring Jack Rebney, a disgruntled industrial video salesmen. Rebney’s short temper and creative use of profanity propelled him to stardom.

Steinbauer’s obsession with the video inspired a documentary about his search for “the angriest man in the world.” Midway through his last semester, Steinbauer premiered “Winnebego Man” at the 2009 South By Southwest Film Festival to audience and critical acclaim. One year later, the documentary has won more than five awards at international film festivals, including the Traverse City and Sarasota film festivals, is currently being screened in more than 40 theaters across the country and is showing for an extended weekend at The Ritz and Alamo Drafthouse South Lamar in Austin.

Steinbauer spoke with The Daily Texan on Monday about the film.

—

The Daily Texan: When did you first watch the infamous Jack Rebney video?

Ben Steinbauer: It was about 2001 … and this friend of mine pulls up this beaten-up VHS tape with masking tape on the spine — and this is before YouTube, so to get videos like that was rare but then to see something like that was like an artifact from a bygone era, something that just spelled classified, something you just shouldn’t be watching. And then it proceeded to just get funnier and funnier and by the end you are like, “this is scripted, there is no way that this is real,” because it’s that good. And then you watch it again, and then you start quoting it, and then I ask for my own copy and showed it to everybody I knew, and then usually people that I showed it to did the exact same thing — and that’s how this thing spread from 1988 to the present day pretty much.

DT: What has the past year been like for you?

BS: It’s one of those things where this movie kind of has a life of its own to the point that it startled everyone on my team. I wanted to make a good film and do something that I was going to be proud of and that people would like, but things like being on the “Tonight Show” or our movie reviewed by “Access Hollywood” were never even on the radar for me. With an independent documentary you don’t even get a theatrical distribution, let alone the publicity that we’ve received. It’s a really small movie that I made with my friends with a bunch of credit cards. I didn’t really have the infrastructure built necessarily at the beginning when I premiered it. This past year and half has taken me by surprise. I mean, we’ve been all over the world. We’ve played western Europe, Australia, Canada, New Zealand; it’s been incredible. But I’ve had to learn so many things I didn’t know about distributing a movie.

DT: Since the release of the film, Jack Rebney’s life has changed significantly. How do you feel about playing this kind of role in his life?

BS: If he was on the phone [right now] he would say “aw bullshit, nothing has changed.” The thing that was really interesting for me to understand about him and took a long time is that he is the embodiment of that screen-writing maxim “show and don’t tell.” And that’s absolutely how you know where you stand with him or what he is thinking, you just see it on his face. So at the end of the film when he is standing in the theater and everybody is laughing at the clip, that look on his face, to me, almost sums up the movie; he’s amazed, he’s bewildered, he’s excited. I mean, Michael Moore introduced our theatrical screening in New York and people stood for hours to talk to Jack. He loves addressing these audiences and his message has turned from doom and gloom to more of this proactive, hopeful message. And in that simple example you can see it. At least to me, I think he has re-entered society to an extent and that has given him hope, or at least the understanding that the people who are fans of the clip or the documentary are not “room-temperatured idiots,” as he said in the movie.

DT: Did you have a backup plan in case you couldn’t find Rebney or he didn’t respond the way you expected?

BS: We were definitely like “if he quits or if he throws me out, I don’t know what I’m going to do.” Maybe I can find other people who had the same kind of story happen to them and it could be three or four of these portraits woven together, but the more Jack started to open up to me and we developed this relationship, the more that so clearly became the story. I was flying by the seam of my pants and pushing in a direction that I never quite knew how it was going to end up, and I just had to sort of go all in with it and not really have a safety net.

DT: You really know you might have something when you are taking giant leaps of faith like that.

BS: Yeah, either that or you know that you’re really stupid and should maybe consider another line of work. The outcome of he and I being friends and he and I doing these interviews has been wonderful but it was not like that during production.

1. Machete, Sept. 3 The original trailer for “Machete” was actually a joke. It appeared in the B movie double header homage “Grindhouse” in 2007. Director Robert Rodriguez thankfully recognized the fact that this film needed to be made. A powerhouse movie cast will overshadow a likely pointless and certainly violent plot about a renegade Mexican Federale. The cast includes Danny Trejo, Michelle Rodriguez, Steven Seagal, Lindsay Lohan, Don Johnson, Jessica Alba and Robert De Niro.

2. Freakonomics, Oct. 1 Based on a bestseller by the same name, “Freakonomics” looks like the most exciting documentary in recent memory. Just like the book, “Freakonomics” uses economical research techniques to objectively study subjects ranging from cheating in sumo wrestling to the socioeconomic patterns of naming children. If it’s anything like the book, “Freakonomics” will challenge conventional wisdom and reach unsettling conclusions.

3. Jackass 3-D, Oct. 15 Johnny Knoxville and company are back to make people laugh at their own expense. Though it might be the last movie that “needs” 3-D treatment, it’s getting it anyway. The third installment of the franchise that was founded by the marriage of idiocy and hilarity is a sure-fire bet.

4. Due Date, Nov. 15 A goofy Zach Galifanakis and skittish Robert Downey Jr. road-trip film is a can’t-miss flick. Galifanakis invented a breed of humor with his “The Hangover” character, Alan, and since then directors and film makers have been chasing him for it. The trailers hint that Galifanakis will bring his signature humor back for “Due Date” as well.

5. Red Dawn, Nov. 24 In 1984, the Cold War was coming to a close, but that didn’t erase the ingrained cultural fear of the Red Army in the minds of Americans. Filmmakers jumped at the opportunity to exploit that fear with “Red Dawn,” an action film about a group of American teenagers saving their rural town from a Russian invasion. It’s not going to help foreign relations, but this remake, which replaces the Soviets with the Chinese, looks intriguing and exciting.

He could be standing at a podium, ready to shoot down the next reporter who mentions expectations or future games.

More likely, he’s pacing down the sideline, orchestrating teams towards perfection. Despite the victories, he always manages to look joyless. Football may be a game, but to Saban, it’s a no-nonsense business.

What about Saban the other six days of the week? What about the off-season? Are there other dimensions to the man? Or does he live, eat and drink football 24/7?

“Nick Saban: Gamechanger,” the first authorized biographical film of Saban, attempts to answer these questions.

“He can seem like a two-dimensional figure,” said Trey Reynolds, director/producer of the film and an Alabama alumnus. “But there’s much more to him.  He is a dad and a husband.  He’s an organizational leader, an administrator and a humanitarian.”

This is not the first time Saban has been approached by filmmakers. He’s coached at many different schools, winning championships and sometimes bringing a little controversy to the table. Saban never agreed to cooperate in a film project until after last season when Flashlight Media Group approached him, though it took some persuading.

“After [Saban’s] first title, he was approached by a lot of people about books and video projects—he didn’t like this experience at LSU,” Reynolds said. “It took some time for us to get the green light, but we convinced Coach that we’d be flies on the wall.”

The University is already familiar with Flashlight’s work. The group produced another documentary titled “Defining Moments: The Stories Behind Alabama Football’s Greatest Plays.” Their history with the University and relationship with Jimmy Sexton, Saban’s agent, helped them to win the coach’s trust.

Grant Guffin, producer of  “Gamechanger,” said he is pleased with the relationship Flashlight and the University have formed.

“We tried to show respect for the environment we were in,” Guffin said. “It was a good, mutual understanding.”

In the film, Saban recalls his humble upbringings in West Virginia and his various coaching stops throughout his career. It gives the audience rare glimpses of Saban and his program preparing for the BCS National Championship Game, and it contains many interviews of celebrities speaking to his success on and off the football field. Among the interviewees are Bill Belichick, Joe Namath, and Gene Stallings.

“We were surprised by the lack of any difficulty in contacting his more famous colleagues,” Guffin said. “But that just points to the fact that coach Saban has great rapport with these guys.”

By winning his trust, the filmmakers were granted unimpeded access to Saban for an extended time this past spring. During this time they followed the coach to spring practice, the A-day game, his home in Tuscaloosa and even his hometown in West Virginia. Saban even let them pick his brain, a privilege not bestowed on many.

“He was very giving,” Reynolds said. “He never waved off a question, never told us to get lost.”

Reynolds did not interview any of Saban’s critics for the film because, he said, it’s already well documented that Saban is a polarizing figure.

Still, some Alabama students are excited to see new sides of Saban.

“He doesn’t say much in his typical interviews. I’m happy that the documentary will show more of his true self,” said Cassie Mccay, a junior majoring in marketing and advertising.

Reynolds said he believes the film will appeal to all sports lovers and anticipates its reception when it is released to the public on Aug. 27 to theatres in the state and region.

“The reason for the film is to entertain people,” Reynolds said. “We want people to be thoroughly taken on a ride.”

On Aug. 13, the young and talented cast of “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World” — including Brandon Routh, Jason Schwartzman, Anna Kendrick, Cera and Winstead — as well as director Edgar Wright made Austin their last stop in the United States before heading out to promote the film in Europe. Sitting at a round table at the Four Seasons Hotel, the cast members opened up about their on-set experiences and the appeal of their respective characters.

The Daily Texan: What attracted you to the script?

Brandon Routh: No one could read the script unless [they were] working with the director Edgar Wright, but I read the source material and knew that this was something I was interested in.

Mary Elizabeth Winstead: I read the [comic] books, loved everything. I like the stylized, over-the-top performances.

DT: In the film, Scott must defeat Ramona’s exes by using their weaknesses against them. Do each of you have a weakness?

Jason Schwartzman: Getting buried alive and hair pulling.

Edgar Wright: Tickling. Definitely tickling.

Michael Cera: I hate when people grab you by the neck.

DT: If you could have a superpower, what would it be and what would be your superhero name?

JS: I would be Ultrasound Man.

EW: Wizard Sleeve. I would have Dumbledore in this sleeve, Merlin in the pocket and Gandalf in the other [sleeve].

MC: The Tailor, I could make anyone’s clothes fit perfectly with the touch of my finger.

DT: Anna, you have acted in a variety of different films, each in a different genre. Are you trying to find your niche?

Anna Kendrick: You get lucky. If I told you that I had any type of strategy, I would be lying. I wanted to do “Scott Pilgrim” because I was a fan of Edgar’s work and wanted a shot at working with him.

Louis, played in the film by Paul Dano, comes with some unique baggage: a possible penchant for cross-dressing, which gets him fired from his prep school teaching position and catalyzes his move to New York. He bears a palpable aura of nostalgia not unlike that of his new roommate, Henry Harrison. Played with infectious whimsy by Kevin Kline, the mercurial, mysterious Henry is (maybe) a playwright, an eccentric, an aristocrat and an ‘extra man’ — a man the city’s richest old ladies call to fill out the table for dinner.

Dano admitted that the making of “Extra Man” was not a physically rigorous exercise, but it had some unique challenges.

“I didn’t even think about the cross-dressing when I accepted the part,” Dano said, referring to the fact that throughout the film, Louis dons several items of women’s lingerie. But as filming approached, Dano grew worried: What if his next thought became, “Oh shit, I’m into this?”

Fortunately, wearing lipstick proved awful and the actor became more fascinated by the contrasts of the story.

“The image of Louis carrying the woman [one of Henry's nonagenarian client-friends] up the stairs is in a weird way so sweet and so romantic,” he said. He also welcomed the “great excuse to read Maugham, F. Scott Fitzgerald and John O’Hara,” some of Louis’ favorite authors.

Dano is still getting milkshakes sent to his table by fans of his performance as a greedy preacher in “There Will Be Blood,” so the chance to vary his resume — as well act out Jonathan Ames’ gently hilarious novel, which he read several times while filming — was appealing, as was the prospect of working with cast members like John C. Reilly, Katie Holmes, Kevin Kline, Patti D’Arbanville and Celia Weston.

Much of “Extra Man’s” cast had worked together previously, but none as consistently as directors Pulcini and Springer-Berman, who have collaborated since their 1994 marriage. After several documentaries, as well as the Academy Award-winning “American Splendor,” they almost missed out on adapting “Extra Man.”

“Our manager called, [saying] ‘I have a book for you to read over the weekend’,” but this was a different Ames novel, Springer-Berman said. Luckily, Pulcini accidentally read “Extra Man” instead, and a love affair began: “We didn’t even know about all the previous development plans,” she said.

Funding came together like a dream: “We got the money right before the economy completely collapsed,” Springer-Berman said, sounding grateful. And the material was more than fertile — “you could make much more than one movie from this novel.”

Much of her favorite dialogue, as well as memorable characters like Louis’ elderly aunt, had to be cut in the screenwriting process.

But the essences of those only-in-New-York individuals like Henry — and eventually, Louis — who “survive on the edge and the fringe of culture,” remained, as did the only-in-New-York set pieces: the Metropolitan Opera, Central Park, the Russian Tea Room, a Times Square transgender bar and Henry’s alarmingly cluttered apartment (he’s “morally repugnant but lovable,” Springer-Berman said).

The man who brings Henry to life is very New York himself. A Julliard graduate, Kline frequently appears on the stage as well as on film and has Tony Awards to go with his Golden Globes. When it came to “Extra Man,” though, Kline “loved the material,” particularly Henry’s “great style and panache and joie de vivre.”

Kline said he found Henry Harrison appealing because he misses “the bygone days when people had a mystique” and admires Henry’s “poetic, imaginative streak” — both a life-long act of “willful self-delusion” and a canny way to survive on his own terms.

“They’re both outsiders,” Kline said about his Henry and Dano’s Louis. Yet both characters become intensely lovable despite their flaws: Louis’ confusion, and Henry’s … fleas, boot-blackened ankles (to make up for a lack of socks) and much-touted ability to piss nonchalantly while walking (a skill Kline, while shooting, had time to perfect). Extra men they may be, but to the rich, warped wool of “Extra Man’s” New York City, they are indispensable.

Goro’s directorial debut, “Tales From Earthsea,” is based loosely on the well-loved “Earthsea” fantasy novel series by Ursula K. Le Guin – the K. stands for Kroeber – whose father was a founder of UC Berkeley’s Anthropology department. Goro wrote the screenplay for the film, originally in Japanese, which premiered in Japan in 2006 produced by Studio Ghibli (Miyazaki and producer Toshio Suzuki’s animation film studio).

After seeing the film, Le Guin published a letter on her website denouncing the “whitewashing” of the Earthsea people – described as “red-brown” in the novels – along with a representation of violence that is “deeply untrue to the spirit of the books.” According to her letter, Le Guin originally signed onto the project with the understanding that the senior Miyazaki would be directing the film. When the film became first-time director Goro’s project, the author expressed concern at the way the film would be treated.

Adapting a popular book series is often a difficult task for any filmmaker. In the case of “Earthsea,” it is obvious that the film is not aiming to be a faithful adaptation. However, even in its attempts to borrow from the books in order to create something of interest – let alone, a piece of work associated with Hayao and Studio Ghibli – Goro’s “Earthsea” fails not only its source material, but its family name.

Dealing strictly with the plot and characters as they appear in the film, we are introduced to a dilapidated feudal kingdom known as Earthsea, and a king who is told by his wise old sage that “the light of that balance that sustains the world” is growing dim. The king retires to his chambers, and then his son Arren comes running at him down the corridor, kills him and steals his magic sword. Don’t worry. No one ever comes after the son, his friends don’t seem to care about the patricide and the murder doesn’t exactly give Arren any Hamlet-esque complexity.

In fact, the characters are flatter than their 2-D animations, which are fairly standard-issue anime themselves. The simplistic, unmotivated and generic overdubbed English dialogue is laughable, but only so much can be lost in translation. The score by Tamiya Terashima swells at the faintest hint of a picturesque nature scene with Celtic overtones. Look away for a second and you’ll swear those beached shipwrecks on the screen are animated Titanics with all of the musical James Horner-isms going on.

The saving grace of the film is the Willem Dafoe-voiced Lord Cob, the evil wizard who just happens to look like a female runway model with long blue hair and is eerily reminiscent of Frank from “Donnie Darko.” But even creepy Cob is defeated without much effort, and the film closes with a bunch of bow tying plot devices that fail to connect all of the storyboards together.

With rumors that Goro wasn’t even down in the first place to direct “Earthsea,” it’s hard to hold him completely responsible. Yet Disney’s release of this film is disappointing. A Miyazaki is not necessarily a golden ticket, and the work done here under the family name is poorly written, churned out in lifeless fashion and sorta boring.

The Harry Ransom Center has started a campaign to raise $30,000 for the restoration and preservation of five original costumes from the classic film “Gone With the Wind.”

The film, which earned 10 Academy Awards following its release in 1939, has consistently been recognized as one of the greatest American movies ever made. The American Film Institute has repeatedly ranked “Gone With the Wind” as one of the top 10 American films.

The five original costumes that the center is working to restore and display are part of the David O. Selznick Collection, which the center has had in its possession since the 1980s. Selznick was a Hollywood producer who was active in the 1930s and ‘40s.

“The dresses are as much a cultural document as the script or storyboards. Costumes are not the same as clothing,” said Steve Wilson, curator of film at the center. “A costume is meant to contribute [to] and enhance the actor’s creation of character, so in the same way that we can tell a lot about someone’s personality through the way they dress, we can learn a lot about a character’s personality and backstory through their costume.”

In addition to the five costumes, the center has about 5,000 boxes of materials in the Selznick Collection, along with 200 paintings, 2 million feet of film and 500,000 photographs. The original costumes, including Scarlett O’Hara’s green-curtain dress and wedding dress, are currently kept in storage at the center.

The money raised for the project will be used to restore the costumes and to purchase custom-built mannequins that will allow the Ransom Center to safely transport and display the garments.

“We are planning on having a 75th-anniversary exhibition of ‘Gone With the Wind’ in 2014, and so, we’d like to have all of the gowns in good shape for that exhibition,” said Jill Morena, the center’s collection assistant for costumes and personal effects. “To have these costumes in a state in which they can be viewed not just here at the Ransom Center but at venues around the world will be really spectacular.”

A&E sat down with stars Mary Elizabeth Winstead (“Live Free or Die Hard”) and Brandon Routh (“Superman Returns”) to discuss comic culture, fanboys and Edgar Wright’s vision.

Were you fans of the books before you signed on for the movie?

MEW: I hadn’t heard of the comic. I was a huge fan of Edgar, so when my agent told me that I had a meeting with him I was extremely excited. He started talking about this project and he gave me the first three [volumes] — that was all that was out at the time — and I took them home and read them and just instantly fell in love with them. I thought they were so funny and so different from anything I had read before, and the character of Ramona is so cool and interesting and unique. I knew I had to be a part of it.

The “Scott Pilgrim” visuals draw heavily from videogames. Are you big videogame buffs?

MEW: I’ve never really been that into video games, but when I watch the film and when I read the books I get every reference. So, I feel like it’s just part of my childhood and the generation that I’ve grown up in.

BR: I did grow up playing a lot of games, so reading the comics was a lot of fun. And to see how they were implemented in the movie was very cool as well. If you don’t know them you’re not going to miss out on anything; it just adds some nostalgia for the people who do know it.

It’s hard to imagine anyone other than Edgar Wright directing this movie. What was it like working with him?

MEW: One of the great things about working with someone who’s so brilliant is that they know exactly what they want and nobody questions it. It takes a load off to work with somebody when you know you’re in good hands. He doesn’t sleep, you know. He’s tirelessly passionate about what he does, so that kind of made us all step up and put all of our efforts into it.

BR: He took a lot of responsibility on his shoulders and it paid off. But he was the only one who knew what his vision was, so he had to be alert and ready to explain that to everyone. [This movie] is making leaps and advancements in film, in effects, in the way you edit a movie and the use of sound. It will be really interesting to see, ten years from now, how many films have taken something from this movie.

Comic book fanboys are notoriously critical of film adaptations. How has their reaction been?

MEW: So far, it’s been really positive. We screened it at Comic-Con, which is where, you know, the diehard fans all were. You could really feel their love for the film and their excitement about it. I’m sure not everybody’s going to be happy, because you can’t win them all, but I think the spirit of the books is so alive in the film. I think that’s what’s most important. I feel it’s the most faithful, in spirit, of any adaptation I’ve ever seen.

BR: Even though there are bits and pieces that you’re not able to put in a two-hour film, the idea of the books is really in there — the music coming to life, the video game fighting style — and all that really colors the world in a way that comes straight from the books.

“Scott Pilgrim” has been called a defining story of our generation. Do you think that’s the case?

BR: This is a film for several generations, and the first film of its kind for those generations that really speaks to what’s happening for kids growing up now. The hyper-styled stuff that we’re seeing … maybe everybody won’t get, but I think it’s pretty genius and brave for Edgar to do that. He’s certainly taking some risks with this movie and pushing the envelope in many ways.

MEW: I think it strikes a chord for anyone who grew up with video games or who is sort of a part of that text-messaging world right now where everything has to move so fast. This film moves faster than any film I’ve ever seen. I think that’s kind of what people are looking for right now, but at the same time it’s so smart and the characters are so well written, and that’s also something we need. We can’t just focus on the action and the speed and not have an interesting story and some heart and some intelligence.

Niche? Cult? More like edging on mainstream, comedic XXX renditions of celebrated television shows and films – and apparently, current events – are joining the ranks of other fetish pornography while claiming widespread appeal.

Hailing from Los Angeles, the mecca of porn production, companies such as New Sensations and Hustler are at the forefront of this new approach to adult films, notable not only for its often high quality, but also lofty artistic endeavors. Digital Playground and North Carolina-based Adam & Eve’s “Pirates,” released in 2005, became widely popular because of its unusually high production value, containing over 300 special effects shots and an original musical score. With a budget of over one million dollars, the film has won a bevy of AVN Awards, aka the Oscars of porn.

Expanding from James Gunn’s branch of non-nudity PG Porn – “for people who like everything about porn … except the sex” – these adult parodies are rooted in two camps: Those, like “Pirates,” which riff liberally off of the original work’s main premise, and those that are exceedingly faithful to its plot, style and tone. New Sensations’ “The Big Lebowski: A XXX Parody” was lauded for maintaining an aesthetic surprisingly similar to that of the original, with an attention to detail prototypical of a new brand of “art porn.”

Lee Roy Myers’ film is one that values quality acting among other production elements, and features a Peter – ho-ho – O’Tool, whose Walter is eerily identical to John Goodman’s. Admittedly, there are a host of unnecessary puns – much of which give punch with diminishing returns – that depict the senior Mr. Lebowski’s main handicap as erectile dysfunction, and insert the terms “cock,” “johnson” and a variety of other expressions that imply that The Dude has one big Lebowski. (And it’s true: He really does.)

Aside from the gape-factor that such descriptions are prone to elicit, why merge parody with porn at all? As Myers writes in an email, “It is rare to find many (adult films) that have as much entertainment value as they do masturbation value. My philosophy is that a movie can do both if it is done right. I’d like my movies to entertain and turn on an audience at the same time.”

Axel Braun, director of the award-winning “Batman XXX,” holds a similar view: “With the porn parodies we are selling the fantasy of seeing our favorite TV characters come to life and interact in sexual situations. Suddenly porn is not only a masturbatory tool anymore, but an excuse to have fun.”

But who the hell is watching this stuff? And of those that watch, does anyone take the material seriously? Porn parodies are part of a medium that insists on “evolving with the times,” says Myers. “Piracy via illegal downloading and tube sites are killing off a good chunk of Adult businesses … (Porn parody) opens up the Adult market to demographics of people that porn isn’t typically aimed at; women, couples, first time or seldom buyers, and people like college students who are looking for a more sexual style of comedy.”

With plummeting DVD sales, porn parodies may very well be the saving grace of the adult film industry, providing customers more entertainment bang for their buck. “The Adult industry needed to give consumers a reason to go and buy product instead of downloading free content on the Internet,” says Axel Braun. “(They’re) literally keeping the industry alive.”

While the average porn film from a top studio may sell about 2,000 DVDs in its first month, a quality parody can sell up to 10,000 in the same amount of time. Braun’s “Batman XXX” sold 250,000 DVDs in only its first three weeks, earning the title of the most financially successful porn parody ever made.

The adult film business and the very material it chooses to spoof – look for New Sensations’ June release of “The Golden Girls: A XXX MILF Parody” – are reflective of an industry that is both knowingly sardonic and in tune with its irony-loving, hard-to-impress audience. It’s not as limited in its scope as other porn phenomenons, such as Japan’s fascination with elder porn and yaoi, guy-on-guy romance marketed for girls. Instead, it appeals to a larger and more varied demographic that apparently can’t get enough of watching its favorite films revisited O-ver and O-ver again, at least in the bedroom.

As the titular CIA operative in “Salt,” Jolie doesn’t rewrite the code of the action movie. She fills in like any male actor, and it’s a performance more empowering than any ham-fisted Action Babe character could deliver. And though the film toils in generic, bombastic irrelevance, Jolie’s performance is on equal ground with even the beefiest of pectorals.

“Salt” is Jolie’s CIA field agent Evelyn Salt, whom we meet at the end of a long workday awaiting her anniversary dinner with husband and total loser Mike (August Diehl, “Inglourious Basterds”), allegedly the world’s foremost arachnologist and facial hair magician. You might think that a man who can make his beard appear and disappear would put that talent to better use than spider research, but then again Mike is rather dumb. Around closing time, the CIA gets a walk-in defector from Russia who says Salt is a Russian spy trained by the KGB from birth to infiltrate the American intelligence community. Presumably against her better judgment, Salt splits and goes on the lam. Before all is said and done, dozens of necks are broken, people explode, one guy gets paralyzed by spider venom, we’re on the brink of global nuclear warfare and Mike’s stupid beard keeps coming and going.

A film this patently silly desperately needs a sense of humor; unfortunately, “Salt” forgoes it entirely for a false sense of worldly importance. International diplomacy is serious business, and if maintaining it means killing lots of uniformed dudes, well, there’s nothing to smile about, mister. People are dying out there — people whose names you’ll never know and whose faces you’ll barely see and whose Vaudevillian accents belie their true nefarious colors.

Director Phillip Noyce is best known for his Jack Ryan political thrillers “Patriot Games” and “Clear and Present Danger.” Besides their protagonist, the two films share in common a lot of exposition, steady camerawork and early 1990s release dates. So while his experience in chasing diplomatic intrigue remains stable, Noyce is, sadly, old. And his movie reflects his age. Every chase, every fistfight, every set piece, every line of dialogue is so familiar and so reheated that the film feels like it was constructed entirely from chunks of other, better action films that already exist. The trick where villains greet each other in a foreign language but find an excuse to hold their conversation in English, for example, is scattered all throughout “Salt.” But Jolie does her best to salvage some ingenuity.

Where the film shines is in Salt’s martial prowess. It does a great service to Jolie’s credibility and indeed the credibility of heroines in general that not one quip about Salt’s sex is uttered. Never does Salt feel a sudden urge to take a long steamy shower, nor does she seduce a clueless security guard for the keys to his handcuffs. She can kill people, evade capture and leap between moving vehicles like any James Bond or Jason Bourne. She bleeds all over the place and gets punched in the face. She is an action hero, not a heroine. No stuffy male superior chastises his emasculated underlings for failing to catch “a girl.” It’s much more respectful than the alternatives and deserves a lot of credit.

The title role was originally written for Tom Cruise, who agreed to star in the film but backed out after finding the character too similar to his previous stint as Ethan Hunt in the “Mission: Impossible” series. It’s a miracle he abandoned the project; without Jolie as Salt, the film would be a chemically precise feat of sheer boredom.

“Dark imagery is an integral part of the Walt Disney legacy. After all, Disney himself was the father of some really chilling moments and characters – think Chernabog from ‘Fantasia’ or Maleficent as the Dragon or the Evil Queen in ‘Snow White,’” del Toro said in a statement.

The mansion was first opened in 1969 in Disneyland’s New Orleans square as a haunted attraction and has since been rebuilt in other Disney theme parks in Paris, Orlando and Tokyo.

“Millions of people from around the world visit The Haunted Mansion each year, but no one has ever had a tour guide like Guillermo del Toro,” Rich Ross, chairman of the Walt Disney Studios, said in a statement. “Guillermo is one of the most gifted and innovative filmmakers working today and he is going to take audiences on a visually thrilling journey like they’ve never experienced before.”

Originally from Mexico, del Toro has made critically-acclaimed films in both Spanish and English. He is most known for the “Hellboy” series starring Ron Pearlman and “Pan’s Labyrinth,” set in the mountains of Spain during the Spanish Civil War. He has worked on movies since the early ‘90s as a producer, director, writer and has also done various jobs in movie crews.

The “summer” genre features good acting, amazing action sequences, solid plots and targets the age 16 to 30 years old demographic. Examples of these movies would be “Star Wars,” “Terminator 2” and “Jurassic Park.”

It would be unfair to compare this summer with last, seeing that “Transformers 2,” “The Hurt Locker,” “Terminator: Salvation” and “Inglorious Basterds” were released all within a couple months. But 2008 had “Iron Man” and “The Dark Knight.” 2007 yielded “Spiderman 3,” “Bourne Ultimatum” and “Transformers.” In 2006, there was “Pirates of The Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest,” “X-Men 3” and “The Da Vinci Code.”

You get the picture. The past three summers have featured numerous films that are still talked about today as some of the best movies ever. Yet, in 2010, we’ve seen only two worthwhile films of the summer genre, “Iron Man 2” and “Inception” (“Toy Story 3” was great, but can’t really be thrown into the same genre as the previous films).

The most alarming aspect of this bland summer is the fact that these huge movies are failing at epic proportions. Some of the most anticipated movies of the summer (“Clash of the Titans,” “Jonah Hex,” “Prince Of Persia”) have failed to live up to a fraction of their initial hype.

Now, it has been speculated that this may be due to the down-trodden economy or that people just aren’t interested in those types of movies anymore. The main problem is that Hollywood is quickly becoming more and more shallow. Original ideas are becoming scarcer by the minute. I’m not saying that writers and directors need to come up with their own completely original ideas for scripts; but that movies are just starting to look, sound and most of all feel the same. Moviegoers might not notice it while watching the actual film, but a lot of ideas, scenes and actors are just being recycled over and over (prime example: Michael Cera, do a different role, man).

This summer’s lull in quality films is a warning to the industry that something has to be done — for a lack of better words — to pull its head out of its ass. Hopefully something happens soon because, I don’t know about you, but I’m pretty tired of watching the same guys run, jump, shoot, roll and scream all over the screen while their scantily clad girl is idiotically getting herself into unnecessary trouble.

Still licking his fingers from that deliciously lucky break into the limelight, Wiseau seems pleased to deliver a comeback, embracing the comedic persona perhaps imposed by the public’s response to his cinematic debut. Lucky for this presumably francophone writer-director-producer-leading-man, his devastatingly unrealistic attempt at a drama was quickly embraced by a rising generation of Americans for whom sarcasm is practically a native language.

At this coming Saturday’s Comic-Con in San Diego, Wiseau will premiere “The House That Drips Blood on Alex,” his first horror-comedy written and produced by Studio8.net in conjunction with Comedy Central’s Atom TV. But judging by his relentlessly self-important attitude in regard to “The Room,” it’s hard to say how much of the joke Wiseau actually gets.

“Find me one person in the world that would be honest and say ‘I really hate your movie,’ you will not find it,” Wiseau told the movie blog /Film at one of his film’s widely attended midnight screenings last spring. “We are releasing the movie overseas, like for example UK, Canada, New Zealand, whatever, and we have the same reaction. So I’m now very sure about it.”

“The Room” made Wiseau a star alright, but perhaps in more ways than he wishes to acknowledge. Lauded as one of the best worst movies of all time, the ambitious independent project quickly became a cult sensation for its uncanny ability to induce both sardonic snickering and admiration for its sincerity.

Playing Johnny – an all-American, football-tossing, pizza-ordering good guy betrayed by his girlfriend Lisa and best friend Mark – Wiseau spins a tale so cliche it borders on surrealism with its off-key version of basic social interactions. Like a Barbie doll whose face has been melted by a heat lamp, “The Room” is an irreparably warped display of familiar tropes and behaviors. Nonetheless, Wiseau defends his intentionality, even in spite of the film’s painfully obvious plot inconsistencies and numerous cinematic defects (greenscreen, anyone?).

The online teaser of “The House That Drips Blood on Alex” doesn’t reveal much about the storyline, but the continuous shot of Wiseau screaming, half-naked and soaked in blood seems to promise campiness tantamount to the actor’s established reputation.

Still, the intentionally comedic origins of “The House That Drips Blood” could potentially add another layer of accidental irony to Wiseau’s persona if the camp comes off as overwrought. Atom TV’s website has already posted a parody of “The Room” titled “The Room 2,” though the video does little more than reenact the plot with an overweight man in a wig as Lisa. Maybe its creators would resort to Wiseau-style denial and insist that they meant to make a failed parody of a failed drama, but I have my reservations.

As anyone who has attended “Rocky Horror Picture Show” could tell you, midnight movie screenings often beget a ritualistic environment, with fans dressing up like characters, reenacting scenes, or, in the case of “The Room,” throwing plastic picnic spoons whenever they see spoon-themed art in the background of the film. Whether or not “The House That Drips Blood on Alex” will acquire its own viewer cult remains to be seen, but Tommy Wiseau sure doesn’t fail to entertain, regardless of where his intentions lie.

In an e-mailed statement to The Crimson, Counter said that the film is slated for release in late 2011 and will be developed by Overbrook Entertainment and Sony Pictures—both of which are declining to publicly discuss the project. Debbie Allen is also producing the film, and Farhad Safinia will be penning the script, Variety magazine reported.

Counter, a neurology professor at Harvard Medical School, said he is “flattered” that Smith—the star of multiple blockbuster movies and a producer with big-name projects under his belt—will be working on the biopic, which will focus on Counter’s scientific explorations abroad.

Counter said that Debbie Allen described his character as “a mixture of Indiana Jones and Robert Langdon,” the fictional Harvard professor of symbology in Dan Brown’s novels.

Colleagues who learned that Counter’s life would be turned into a biopic emphasized the multi-faceted nature of a man who has gained the titles of neuroscience professor, humanitarian, mentor—and even the Consul General of Sweden in Boston and New England.

“Some people think that Allen Counter is one person,” said Harvard Extension School Dean Michael Shinagel, who is on a faculty advisory committee in the Harvard Foundation. “He is a combination of several workers at once.”

The biopic will reflect Counter’s numerous expeditions abroad and his deep interest in indigenous cultures. A scholar of African-American ethnography, Counter has conducted scientific research and cultural studies among the indigenous people of the Suriname South American rainforest. He has also traveled to the Andean mountains in South America and visited the indigenous people of Northwest Greenland, Ecuadorian rainforest, Suriname and South American rainforest, and tribal villages in northern Togo.

“I still live with and fight for the rights of indigenous people against those who exploit them, take their land, and destroy their culture,” Counter said. “I have always had an interest in different cultures of the world. I have always been able to live with people of different cultures, backgrounds, and religions, and gained their respect.”

“Instead of trying to teach them his ways, he’s learning from them,” said Entomology Officer of Environmental Health and Safety Gary D. Alpert, a colleague of Counter. “He’s what you would call a social anthropologist.”

The 2011 biopic will not be the first time Counter’s life and work fall before the camera. In 1978, his explorations led to the production of an award-winning documentary called “I Shall Moulder Before I Shall Be Taken,” which studied the culture and history of the indigenous rainforest people in Surinam in the 1870s. Other documentaries followed, such as “Lost Africans in the Andes” and “I Sought My Brother.”

Between 1993 and 2000, Counter led medical teams into the Ecuadorian Andes Mountains to study the health problems of indigenous children and to provide medical services. Currently, he is working to reduce the severe lead and mercury poisoning found among the children in the ceramics glazing and gold mining areas of Ecuador.

“It’s hard to name a single person who has done as much work in 30 years,” said William A. Graham, dean of the faculty at the Harvard Divinity School, about his colleague.

Nearly 30 years ago, former University President Derek C. Bok and Reverend of Christian Morals Peter J. Gomes appointed Counter to the directorship of the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations, which seeks to improve intercultural understanding, equality, and peace within the University by sponsoring and conducting over 200 student and faculty programs each year.

“The Foundation is very much created out of personality and dedication,” said Biology Professor David Haig, who works with Counter at the Foundation. “The unique part that he’s done is to recognize groups without allowing them to become isolated in separate centers…There is no equivalent in most other colleges.”

In addition to his scholarly work, Counter has served as a mentor for students and has taken groups on trips to Louisiana to assist his medical relief team in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and to remote areas of South America.

Counter is currently working to establish the first memorial to African-American slaves, and has been petitioning President Barack Obama about the establishment of the American Slavery Memorial on the historic Washington Mall in D.C.

“He has done it for so many years that we almost take it for granted,” Shinagel said of Counter’s work on behalf of minorities. “If and when he retires, you’ll end up having to hire six people.”

Unless it’s trivia night at the local watering hole, in which case I’m the most popular man in the room. It feels good.

So when I catch a star-studded flick, much like “Inception,” I stow away information about the cast and crew to use to my future advantage.

Like the director, Chris Nolan, who also directed “The Dark Knight” and “Memento.” Or actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who was in the show “3rd Rock From the Sun” and the movie “Angels in the Outfield.” Or Leo DiCaprio, who needs no introduction.

But these useless nuggets of information, which will likely cause me a brain aneurysm at some point, come in handy during that long road-trip game Six Degrees.

And no, I don’t play to Kevin Bacon. He’s creepy.

But every good player uses jumping-off points to easily connect celebrities.

Here are five really good ones. You’re welcome.

1. Happy Madison Productions

Aside from “Happy Gilmore” and “Billy Madison,” the two films that make the production company’s name, the Adam Sandler’s company has produced most Sandler and crew’s films.

The usually cameo-heavy Sandler flicks have included the likes of Dan Aykroyd, Steve Buscemi and Courteney Cox.

Not to mention, Sandler crewmembers like Peter Dante and Allen Covert, who had roles in “Little Nicky” and “The Waterboy,” have struck out on their own.

2. Any Kevin Smith movies

Before you write the director/producer/writer/actor off as a smut artist, take a deeper look. I mean, you’re probably right about the smut thing, but still.

Smith has created a series of flicks –– “Mallrats,” “Clerks” and “Dogma” –– that have found a cult following with some serious Hollywood backing.

In “Dogma” alone you get Salma Hayek, Chris Rock, George Carlin, Ben Affleck and Matt Damon.

3. Anything Judd Apatow touches

King Midas of our generation, everything Judd Apatow touches turns to gold.

When you think of star-studded comedies, you picture “Old School” or “The 40 Year Old Virgin” or “Superbad” or “Anchorman.” All Judd Apatow-produced.

Without the man, there may be no Will Ferrel, Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson connection; no Michael Cera, Jonah Hill and Clark Duke connection; and no Seth Rogan, Jane Lynch, Elizabeth Banks, Paul Rudd, Steve Carell and Jason Segel connection.

The man’s a comedy gold mine full of bright, young stars.

4. ‘The Departed’

So this movie stands alone in its own category for a couple reasons. One, it’s just a damn good film. Two, its cast spans so many generations.

You’ve got the veterans, Alec Baldwin, Jack Nicholson and Martin Sheen; the newcomer, Anthony Anderson; and the studs, Mark Wahlberg, DiCaprio and Damon.

Aside from the cast, Martin Scorsese has a pretty stellar resume also: “Goodfellas” and “Taxi Driver.”

I’ve made a personal rule to avoid going through this cast when trying to connect actors as a challenge to myself.

5. The ‘Ocean’s’ series

“Ocean’s Eleven” was widely touted as one of the most expensive casts ever assembled, and for good reason.

Again you’ve got Damon and another Affleck –– this time Casey instead of Ben.

Then there’s Clooney, Pitt, Garcia, Roberts, Reiner and Cheadle. They only get a last name because they notoriety might deafen you. In the later movies you get Zeta-Jones and Pacino.

But the real goodies come in the obscure actors: James Caan’s son Scott, Bernie Mac and Eddie Izzard.

“Baseball has always been, since its inception, a really precise mirror of our larger country,” Burns said. “All of the things, good and ill, that are part of us are written in baseball so it acts as a way to gain access to the American psyche.”

The last 20 years have been among the most consequential in the history of baseball and included conflicts ranging from the strikes of the early ’90s to the steroids scandals that have plagued the sport, he said.

The original “Baseball” series — the most watched series in the history of PBS — came out in 1994 as nine episodes that, over the course of its 18.5 hours, traced the history of baseball from the Civil War to 1992, Burns said. The new program picks up where “Baseball” left off and focuses on more recent developments in the sport. The film includes interviews, footage from games and Burns’s distinctive use of still photographs as a part of documentary’s features.

“The Tenth Inning” covers Barry Bonds’ success and part in the steroid scandal as well as the home run race between Sammy Sosa and Mark McGuire during the mid-1990s. While the game did see a spike in the sheer numbers of home runs during the late 1990s and early 2000s, the game has begun to return to normalcy, Burns said.

The film does not limit itself to American baseball, but also looks at the baseball culture of countries like the Dominican Republic and Japan, Burns said.

“I think [baseball] has a huge potential to expand — in the 19th century the Japanese and Latin countries adapted it and took it as their own,” he said.

Baseball continues to grow and create exciting new talent like Washington Nationals’ Stephen Strasburg — the “most-hyped pick in draft history,” Burns said. Burns had the opportunity to throw the first pitch of his debut game, he said.

“I think [baseball is] the greatest game that has ever been invented,” Burns said. “It’s so unique and cerebral that I can’t imagine there being anything that could supplant it.”

“The Tenth Inning” was originally intended to be a two-hour special but grew into a two-part four-hour program, Burns said. Even with the additional time, a lot of footage was set-aside during the editing process, according to Burns.

“Our cutting floor is always filled with scenes that were fantastic but just didn’t fit,” Burns said.

The film features figures from the original series and has “lots of surprises and lots of good humor,” Burns said. Highlights from the four-hour segment include interviews with former New York Yankees manager Joe Torre and Boston Red Sox fan Mike Barnacle, he said.

In an important moment in baseball history, the film captures the game when an umpire’s call ruined Detroit Tigers pitcher Armando Galarraga’s perfect game and the following public apology. These incidences reflect the way that instant replay and the media are changing the nature of spectator sports, according to Burns.

Issues that pertain to the United States on a larger scale, like immigration patterns and financial instability, are also prominent in the film, Burns said.

“The Tenth Inning” will premiere on New Hampshire Public Television on September 28 and 29.

Documentarian Ken Burns will present the world premiere of his new film “The Tenth Inning” this Friday and Saturday at Dartmouth College. The film is a continuation of his 1992 project entitled “Baseball” and showcases the last 15 years of baseball history.

“Baseball has always been, since its inception, a really precise mirror of our larger country,” Burns said. “All of the things, good and ill, that are part of us are written in baseball so it acts as a way to gain access to the American psyche.”

The last 20 years have been among the most consequential in the history of baseball and included conflicts ranging from the strikes of the early ’90s to the steroids scandals that have plagued the sport, he said.

The original “Baseball” series — the most watched series in the history of PBS — came out in 1994 as nine episodes that, over the course of its 18.5 hours, traced the history of baseball from the Civil War to 1992, Burns said. The new program picks up where “Baseball” left off and focuses on more recent developments in the sport. The film includes interviews, footage from games and Burns’s distinctive use of still photographs as a part of documentary’s features.

“The Tenth Inning” covers Barry Bonds’ success and part in the steroid scandal as well as the home run race between Sammy Sosa and Mark McGuire during the mid-1990s. While the game did see a spike in the sheer numbers of home runs during the late 1990s and early 2000s, the game has begun to return to normalcy, Burns said.

The film does not limit itself to American baseball, but also looks at the baseball culture of countries like the Dominican Republic and Japan, Burns said.

“I think [baseball] has a huge potential to expand — in the 19th century the Japanese and Latin countries adapted it and took it as their own,” he said.

Baseball continues to grow and create exciting new talent like Washington Nationals’ Stephen Strasburg — the “most-hyped pick in draft history,” Burns said. Burns had the opportunity to throw the first pitch of his debut game, he said.

“I think [baseball is] the greatest game that has ever been invented,” Burns said. “It’s so unique and cerebral that I can’t imagine there being anything that could supplant it.”

“The Tenth Inning” was originally intended to be a two hour special but grew into a two-part four-hour program, Burns said. Even with the additional time, a lot of footage was set aside during the editing process, according to Burns.

“Our cutting floor is always filled with scenes that were fantastic but just didn’t fit,” Burns said.

The film features figures from the original series and has “lots of surprises and lots of good humor,” Burns said. Highlights from the four-hour segment include interviews with former New York Yankees manager Joe Torre and Boston Red Sox fan Mike Barnacle, he said.

In an important moment in baseball history, the film captures the game when an umpire’s call ruined Detroit Tigers pitcher Armando Galarraga’s perfect game and the following public apology. These incidences reflect the way that instant replay and the media are changing the nature of spectator sports, according to Burns.

Issues that pertain to the United States on a larger scale, like immigration patterns and financial instability, are also prominent in the film, Burns said.

“The Tenth Inning” will premiere on New Hampshire Public Television on September 28 and 29.

By sticking to their trademark garage-surf-rock sound, The Fleshtones have maintained a strong fan base for more than three decades. Taking time from their busy touring schedule, lead singer/organist Peter Zaremba was able to share a few words with The Daily Texan about the good old days of rock ‘n’ roll, and the love of touring and performing for audiences today.

The Daily Texan: You have been a band for more than 30 years. Who were your initial influences, and who are your influences now?

Peter Zaremba: We were thrashing around for a couple of years, always talking about starting a band, wanting to play old Stones, Eddie Cochran and Yardbirds-type R & B. Seeing the Ramones in 1975 settled all the confusion, and we put together The Fleshtones and played CBGB in May of ‘76.

DT: How would you describe your sound?

PZ: We call it ‘Super Rock’! Half joking, but yeah, all of those influences are mushed up in there. It’s all the music we got a kick out of listening to as we grew up. We don’t discriminate.

DT: You’ve opened for James Brown and Chuck Berry. What were those experiences like?

PZ: I had seen how shabbily Berry treats other musicians, so we were very pleasantly surprised when he was civil to us. It turned out he wanted to borrow one of our tuners. I always figured he expected everyone to tune to him. It was on the feast day of Barcelona; about 100,000 people were there — by far the largest crowd we ever played in front of. We opened for James Brown at the Zenith in Paris, a big arena kind of place. It was all very professional, an honor really.

DT: What was the best show you’ve ever played?

PZ: There have been many. Our first show in Paris, at The Palace, comes right to mind. It was mayhem: screaming fans, riot police in the streets, dancing and singing on top of cars, then a late, late dinner with the French Hells Angels.

DT: And the worst?

PZ: Actually, we haven’t had too many. Something usually redeems our performance one way or another. However, a really bad time onstage was opening for The Police at the Cow Palace in San Francisco. The lights came on, and I think the audience fully expected to see The Police, although I don’t know why — they weren’t due on for hours. Instead, they got our completely stripped-down, rinky-dink, anti-rock-star, ridiculous selves. They hated us from the first moment. There was no way to win them over, so there was nothing to do except hurl profanities back at them and try to avoid getting hit by quarters. I collected quite a bit of money off the stage at the end of our set.

DT: You used to perform at CBGB as well as other popular New York venues. Could you describe how your live performances might have changed from playing those venues to playing venues now?

PZ: Well, sets were much shorter then, a precedent set by the Ramones. Also, people “posed” a lot more then, something I didn’t like. But there was always the feeling of being part of something very secret, yet important, something you had been waiting most of your life to be part of. We were lucky to be there, and we knew it. Oddly enough, I enjoy playing more now, and I’ll actually sing into the microphone, which greatly adds to the song quality. We also don’t destroy equipment the way we used to. Not me, certainly; you can’t buy a used Farfisa for 50 bucks anymore. Well, maybe somewhere in Texas you can. Let me know.

DT: If you could collaborate with anyone, who would it be?

PZ: [Vocalist and guitarist of The Fleshtones] Keith Streng. What do you expect? Elton John? Most artists I admire are better off doing what they do alone, or have already done what I’ve wanted to hear a long time ago, like Ray Davies. Plus, I’d guess a lot of these people can be very “difficult.”

DT: Some people view music today as being very progressive while others view music today as lacking the soul and spirit of past generations. Where do you fall on this spectrum, and where do you think music is headed?

PZ: People have always accused the contemporary music scene as lacking soul and creativity. There has always been mindless stuff taking up a lot of the airwaves and popular imagination, even when guys like Jackie Wilson were burning up the stage. It does seem things are particularly lame now, especially as bands like us do draw on the past a lot. But I remember thinking that The Beatles sounded “old-fashioned” the first time I heard them as a child — they certainly were drawing on the past to create music they didn’t think was being made at that particular moment.

DT: Any parting words for the folks who are going to come see you guys play?

PZ: Don’t miss us. It’s a hell of a lot more fun seeing us than reading about us. You never know what’s going to happen.

Modest Mouse: (Fri. 8:30p.m. A stage) Though these indie rock veterans just played Milwaukee’s Summerfest less than two weeks ago, a Friday night headlining slot at Pitchfork provides yet another opportunity to watch the Seattle six-piece dip into their expansive catalog of angular indie rock in an outdoor setting. Hopefully Isaac Brock and company look a bit livelier than they did at their recent Summerfest gig.

Raekwon: (Sat. 4:15p.m. A stage) Raekwon makes his return to Pitchfork – although this time without partner in rhyme Ghostface Killah – for a late afternoon performance on the main stage. 2009 proved to be a revitalizing year for the Chef as he reasserted himself as hip-hop’s premier ghetto Mafioso storyteller with the release of Only Built 4 Cuban Linx… Pt.2. Fingers remain crossed, in hopes that Rae sticks around for Big Boi’s Sunday night set to drop guest verses on “Skew it on the Bar-B” and “Royal Flush.”

Freddie Gibbs: (Sat. 7:40p.m. B stage) Straight outta Gary, Ind., “Gangsta Gibbs” is an authentic, self-made thug trying to make it in the rap game during an era overrun with club rap and straight up phonies. Dropped from Interscope Records in 2009 before an official album could be released, Gibbs continues to grind out mix tapes (Miseducation of Freddie Gibbs, Str8 Killa No Filla, ) in preparation for his first proper release on his own label, Gibbs Family. Having no qualms with openly discussing murder and gunplay, Gibbs message is loud and clear: gangsta rap is far from dead.

LCD Soundsystem: (Sat. 8:30p.m. A stage) Reportedly, the recording sessions for the third and most recent LCD Soundsystem album, This is Happening, excluded front man, James Murphy from helping produce – brace yourself for this – part of the new Arcade Fire album. Understandably, it’s missed opportunities of this caliber that have caused Murphy to mark this summer as the end of the road for LCD as a touring band. In a similar move to Trent Reznor retiring Nine Inch Nails, Murphy has asserted that the LCD name will continue in some fashion or another for years to come. At any rate, this Union Park performance for the New York ensemble is a DO NOT MISS for Midwest fans.

Beach House: (Sun. 3:20p.m. C stage)
Milwaukeeans were faced with a conundrum of musical preference earlier this year when Beach House (Pabst Theater) and Passion Pit (Riverside Theater) were both booked to play within a few blocks of each other on the same night in early April – things could be much worse I suppose. But considering that Passion Pit decided to check out their competition prior to hitting the stage, and despite our less than glowing review of Beach House that evening, we remain intrigued as to how the dream-pop duo and its layers of textured rhythms will be received at the outdoor festival with a mid-afternoon set.

Big Boi: (7:25p.m. C Stage) Antwan “Big Boi” Patton, aka Daddy Fat Sax B-I-G B-O-I, aka the more productive (as of late) half of OutKast has finally – after years of label politics – released his first true solo album, Sir Lucious Left Foot: The Son of Chico Dusty. And while it’s not the OutKast album that fans have been impatiently waiting for since Stankonia (2000), it’s certainly the next best thing, for now. Watching a Big Boi solo show is a little bit like watching Roger Waters perform Dark Side of the Moon without David Gilmour; you can’t help but notice that something is missing. But rest assured that Big Boi can hold it down on his own (performing solo since ’04), usually starting with Southernplayalisticadillacmuzik and leading through the catalog to his present day solo material.

Pavement: (Sun. 8:30p.m. A Stage) Sure, the ‘90s gods of indie rock were booked as the centerpiece of this festival, but we’re a bit more exited to catch them at the smaller, more intimate confines of the Pabst Theater in Milwaukee come September. But don’t worry we’ll check them out after Big Boi finishes up his set.

Three-day passes, Saturday and Sunday tickets have all sold out, but a limited amount of tickets will be available at the Union Park box office Thursday, July 15 at 11a.m.

And for those of you who remain ticket-less, there will be a live webcast of select performances broadcast here throughout the weekend.

As 3-D films climb the summer box office charts, and 3-D televisions make their way into the home, a U. Minnesota professor has taken a closer look at how the technology works.

Dr. Gail Summers uses her experience as a pediatric ophthalmologist — an eye doctor — to explain how movie studios are able to give their films another dimension, and why some people leave the theaters with headaches.

By using two cameras set a small distance apart — like eyes separated by the nose — filmmakers are able to create the illusion of depth at the movies, Summers said.

The video is projected so each eye sees a different image from a different perspective. With the help of a pair of polarized glasses, the characters and scenery can jump off the screen.

It’s called stereoscopic imaging, and it has swept the entertainment industry. By the end of the year, at least 24 new movies will have been released using the technology — 10 more than in 2009.

Despite the popularity, some people have left the theaters less than thrilled. Summers had an explanation for that, too.

“There’s that disconnect between what your body is telling you and what you’re seeing on the screen, and I think that’s what makes people uncomfortable,” Summers said.

Though the eyes have convinced the brain that the body is moving, the inner ear — responsible for balance and movement information — is stationary.

So while some can enjoy a 3-D movie with no issues, confusion between the eyes and body may disturb some people more if they have inner-ear problems, Summers said.

Headaches, motion sickness and eye irritation may be the worst of the problems, she said.

“It’s unlikely it would cause any permanent damage to your eyes. It’s annoying,” Summers said of the symptoms, “and for some people, a little more annoying than for others.”

University graduate student Chris Sheehy said he didn’t experience any problems when he saw “Avatar” in theaters earlier this year but that it might be a while before he gives into the lure of a 3-D television.

“I’ll probably change my story in three years when the prices come down,” he said.

Television giants like Samsung, Sony and LG all offer 3-D TVs for between $2,000 and $3,000.

The future

Movies using stereoscopic imaging have been around since the late 1800s, but it didn’t take off until recently because of inadequate technology.

“The current technology is so far superior to anything that had been available before that it has excited filmmakers and audiences,” said Peter Koplik, executive vice president of 3-D applications developer MasterImage 3D. “The days of paper glasses and rudimentary images on screen are really over.”

Koplik’s company is working to ensure those days are indeed done. More than 1,600 of its 3-D systems are installed in movie theaters worldwide, 390 of which are in North America, according to the

MasterImage 3D website.

In addition to its work in the movie world, MasterImage 3D worked with Hitachi to create the first cell phone with a 3-D display. That phone features a three-inch screen that doesn’t require glasses to view in 3-D.

The future of the 3-D industry looks bright in the mobile world, Koplik said. While a cell phone screen may not be preferable for watching movies, “it’s going to be extremely popular with gamers,” he said.

Though he declined to address the health questions that experts like Summers have discussed, Koplik said 3-D technology in the theaters will continue to improve and change.

“It cannot be over-emphasized enough how early in this process we are,” he said of the industry as a whole. “We’re still in the early stages of 3-D production.”

No duck phone was harmed in the process of this interview.

Release: We’ve seen bits of your audition tape where you’re fist pumping like crazy. What made you audition for the show, and were you aware of the show’s concept?

Vinny: Yes I was aware of the concept and I auditioned just for fun, not really knowing the outcome.

R: Why do you think ‘Jersey Shore’ was such a hit?

V: Aspects such as comedy and drama as well as the rawness of the show with no script or set-ups made the show very relatable and entertaining.

R: When did you start being recognized everywhere you went?

V: I was recognized as soon as the show aired, but the recognition grew as the season continued.

R: At the end of season 1 of ‘Jersey Shore,’ Mike “the Situation” suggested that the whole cast get a shore house again the following summer. Is there any chance that you would rent a house with any of your cast mates when there are no cameras rolling?

V: Yes, I would definitely have a shore house with some of them.

R: You have a pretty massive family. If your fame and fortune only escalated as a result of the show, would they ride your coattails to Hollywood? Would they be your own personal entourage?

V: I keep my family very close to me and I would hope they would be a part of my entourage.

R: When did you first realize that you had hit celebrity status?

V: When I was at Hollywood parties hanging out with A-list celebrities.

R: You’ve been on red carpets, attended exclusive parties and have sat front-and-center at award shows, so what was your “ah-ha!” moment as a result of the show?

V: The MTV Movie Awards was a crazy experience where I was able to hang out with many celebrities.

R: Season 2 of ‘Jersey Shore’ was actually filmed in Miami. How different was it to film in Miami this time around versus the Jersey Shore?

V: People did recognize us [this time around in Miami] but it wasn’t too much of a hindrance.

R: You were recently featured in Enrique Iglesias’ music video for ‘I Like It.’ What was that like?

V: It was a cool experience. Enrique was very nice and being on a music video set is a trip.

R: What does life after ‘Jersey Shore’ look like for you? What do you plan on pursuing?

V: I have many goals in the entertainment industry that I would like to pursue, so maybe a career in acting/comedy/music/literature.

R: What’s something that hasn’t happened for you yet, but you know that there’s a strong possibility it could, due to the show?

V: Move to L.A. and become an actor.

The nuclear family (or even functioning one) is a phenomenon rarely witnessed in the animated classics of our childhoods. Stretching as far back as Sleeping Beauty, you can trace the anti-normal family trajectory through the years. Where were Beauty’s parents when she was waltzing around the kingdom, trying to avoid the dagger-piercing glare of her evil stepmother and munching on poison apples?

And the blonde-haired damsel is far from alone.

What about the poor Little Mermaid, whose mother apparently pulled a fast one on King Triton? No one warned her about the tantalizing temptation that would walk into her world on pantalooned legs. Bambi and Nemo’s mothers didn’t stand a chance, and the Lion King himself died halfway through his own movie; at least they were better off than Tarzan or Mowgli, both inexplicably parentless, who must have been immaculately conceived by the forests themselves. And there’s still no one who can tell me where Peter Pan came from.

The list goes on, as Disney character after Disney character find themselves in parentless predicaments.

Mulan was recruited into the Chinese Imperial Army as a child, following the tragic murder of her father — similarly, James relegated himself to a giant fruit with a cavalcade of talking insects following the untimely deaths of his parents. If the Disney writers were going for “relatable” with these plots, I’d hate to see the households in which they were raised.

Even Up’s young Russell, whose father couldn’t be bothered to pin on his Explorer’s Badge, reached out to some unsavory characters in his search for a father figure: an endangered bird with a soft-spot for junk food, a half-demented dog with a speaker box, and an old man who (along with his house) can defy the very laws of physics. Which is where Toy Story 3 makes its fantastically plastic and brand-name approved entrance into the long line of questionable family fables.

Andy’s father has shown neither hide nor hair throughout this trilogy; the vaguely named “mom” was left to raise two children and hold down a full-time job (and presumably, pay for Andy’s college) all on her own. Luckily, with playthings as loyal as Woody and Buzz, “father” seems like a foreign concept. Everything you need to know, you can learn from a cowboys-versus-Indians mentality.

The only other patriarch in this movie happens to be a Southern gentleman-type plush bear named Lotso (“Short for Lotso Hugs”), who throughout the course of the movie reveals himself to be nothing more than a bitter and cold-hearted villain (another favorite Disney theme for children). But it seems as though Andy has still managed to turn out OK, throwing it in the face of all those who proselytize the necessity of nuclear-family structures in growing up right.

Which leaves me to assume that the Disney screenwriters must have also written the theme song for the toys’ stories: “Just remember what your old man said, boy, you got a friend in me.” Sorry, kiddo; your old man fled the scene, and your friends are inanimate plastic objects onto which you superimpose alternate personalities. Maybe they’ll play ball with you tomorrow.

The DePaulia: How does this film in the franchise differ from the others?

BooBoo Stewart: I think it has way more action. Guys are going to really like seeing it. It’s just a great action film. Each film gets better as they go.

Tinsel Korey: And it’s a lot darker. (Director) David Slade is known for his films in the horror genre, and there are definite scenes that sort of, take you back when you’re not expecting it. I think people sort of expect the lightness of “New Moon.”

BS: This one goes to another place.

TK: Lot more intense.

TD: Tinsel, I’m wondering for you, how do you think the character of Emily changes between the last film and this one?

TK: I think the main change, not in her character, but for the film, was the presence of Leah (the character, Leah Clearwater, played by Julia Jones.) You know, there’s that awkwardness, where Leah can hear about what Sam is thinking about Emily, and all those romantic thoughts, and Seth gets to hear it, the rest of the wolf pack gets to hear it, so you definitely feel that presence, and that sort of gaze from Leah when I’m with Sam. So that was a little different, whereas before it was just sort of, the guys, and us. That energy was definitely more present.

TD: Do you feel a lot of the craziness that comes with being brought into the world, and this franchise, say, when you’re at premiers and such? How much does it hit you, that “Wow, here we are, in this huge, huge phenomenon.”

BS: It just changes so much, you know? You can never expect anything. It’s so different every time, and I don’t know what to expect. It’s so awesome though. I’m really happy to be part of it.

TK: Like we just came from Denver, and it was just like over 600 people screaming, and they were waiting in the rain.

BS: Ten hours? One person said?

TK: Yeah. And it was like pouring and they stayed there and waited for us, and it was so heartwarming that people love this film so much, and want to meet us and interact with us that they’re willing to go through that. I mean, they camped out for the premiere. There’s just a lot of love from the fans. The fans are what make this movie, we’re privileged to be in it, to help facilitate whatever the books created in their imaginations.

BS: I went down to tent city (where the fans camped out)… coincidentally I went, and then right after I got done she was there, Tinsel, and so we went and signed autographs for the fans. We appreciate them coming down.

TK: Because people are always like, “I can’t believe you guys went down. You sure show the fans a lot of love.” But we have that mutual respect between each other I think.

TD: BooBoo, you’ve done martial arts with the Sideswipe Kids (a Disney group), and your dad’s a stuntman, I guess I’m wondering, how did you end up deciding you wanted to act, and did the physicality you learned in your background help you at all in this role?

BS: Unfortunately when the shape-shifters fight they turn into wolves (laughs) so I never got to do any cool stunts. But you know, acting us just, once I started acting I was just like, “Oh my gosh, this is so awesome, and it’s what I want to do for the rest of my life.” And I’m just having’ a really good time, I just love it. And when you’re an actor, you can do your own stunts sometimes, so I’ll use my stunt background, karate background.

TD: I understand that you’re both musicians as well; can you elaborate a little bit on that?

BS: Yeah, our sound that we have, with me and my sister Fivel, and my older sister Megan actually plays bass, it’s actually like an alternative rock sound. You can actually go in iTunes and check out the song “Rainy Day.”

TK: My music I guess is a sort of bluesy, rocky, jazz. I sort of call it soul music, because that’s where it comes for me, and I play guitar and piano. But it’s been such a juggling act, every single time that I get excited about music, it’s like acting comes and sort of pulls me away, so it’s been a journey trying to complete a CD. But I’m hoping this year. I’d love to get on the “Breaking Dawn” soundtrack, but I know I need a CD to make that happen.

TD: Yeah, the soundtracks for these movies are really awesome. You guys talked a little bit before about David Slade, and him taking a different tone with this film, because he’s done darker stuff in the past, with “30 Days of Night” (another vampire movie), and “Hard Candy.” Can you kind of talk about what his process was like on set, and working with him? I know he’s a different director than the last film (“New Moon” was directed by Chris Weitz.)

BS: He was just like, when you walked on set you felt comfortable, which was really nice, because it’s so much easier to work on screen when you feel comfortable. And he was just so friendly. I remember, I’m sitting down, and I see him behind the camera, doing karate punches and Russian dancing, I think he might’ve been a little tired (laughs). But he was a really cool guy. He knows what he wants to shoot and gets it.

TK: I think he’s much more of a technical director, whereas Chris Weitz is I think is like an actor’s director. I think he focused a lot more on the emotions and all that sort of inner-dialogue work. Whereas David Slade had a vision stylistically, and also because there was so much more action he was focusing on that. I mean, I’m sure he focused on the emotional stuff too, but for me personally, I thought he was a really technical director.

TD: I’m curious, for both of you, being Native American actors in Hollywood, do you ever feel like when you’re being cast that you’re sometimes limited in that? This film seems like a pretty good opportunity for that to be embraced.

TK: I mean, I think the problem is that people only see Native people in feathers and buckskin, I mean, that’s what we’ve been fighting against. And they don’t think that there’s like Native doctors and lawyers and police officers. But it’s slowly changing, so a film like this broadens people’s perspectives on what Native people can do. But I think you’re limited by yourself. If that’s how you see yourself, and you think that you can’t go further then that’s where you’re going to stay, you know? So for me, yeah there are hindrances because people are like, “Oh, you’re Native, you can’t do this,” but there are going to be people out there who are willing to work with you, and you just have to fins those people and work with them. I don’t know what it’s like for, say, Tantoo Cardnial (longtime Native American actress,) back when she was one of the only Native actresses, but it’s slowly changing, for sure. As long as you think that you can do it, then people will see you doing that.

BS: I agree (everyone laughs.)

The DePaulia: Once you got cast in this movie, did you go back and watch the original show that it’s based off of (the Nickelodeon cartoon)?

Jackson Rathbone: Yes, I, you know I was always aware of the original show. I think I actually watched more of the original show during the auditioning process than I did during the actual run of the film.

I wanted to kind of step away from it a little bit and kind of make it as natural and as realistic as possible because, you know, that’s one of the difficulties in bringing an animated TV show to life in a two-hour movie is, you know, you’re condensing 16 hours or so of animated television to be put into a two-hour film.

And especially with all the kind of extreme martial arts and the extreme element bending and all that, it’s a lot more serious so I, you know, I tried to stay away from watching the show.

But you know I’ve always been a fan of the show and all my friends were excited as all hell when they heard I was going to be playing the character.

TD: What was the dynamic like on set in terms of working with your co-stars and director (M. Night Shyamalan) and the overall experience?

JR: Well, it was really – it was a pleasure and a joy. I mean, first off I got to do a lot of kung fu training and a lot of martial arts training with some incredible stunt men and women, just some of the most sweetest and talented people I’ve met.

And then we actually filmed the first two weeks in Greenland which was extremely cool and I don’t think I’d have any other reason to go there except for, you know, filming a movie. And that was just an incredible experience.

And it was like – it was like a big family you know. M. Night likes to have the same people in all of his films, and the (same) crew, which is really nice, and it creates this kind of family element. So, you know, while you’re filming, it’s not a chore ever. It’s not like you’re working. It’s like playtime you know. It’s an amazing thing.

TD: Obviously you’ve been really busy lately but now that “The Last Airbender” is completed, do you have any more interest in producing films with your friends like you did with “Girlfriend” (an indie film produced by Rathbone and his buddies)?

JR: Oh, yes. I’ve got a couple of projects in the works right now… like I’ve got a couple of options for books that I’m kind of waiting on the legalese to finalize, you know, just to get all the signatures on the dotted line and whatnot.

But yes, I definitely plan to do a lot more producing the next few years and kind of eventually work my way around the camera. I’m still going to act and play music and, you know, all that, but I also want to try my hand at directing, try my hand at writing, and working with these amazing artists that I get to call my friends.

TD: If this movie does well, do you think that there’s going to be other movies that follow it (based on the original books)?

JR: Oh, I definitely hope so, and I think that’s the plan. You know it’s waiting at the – waiting for the box office basically…As an actor I’m not too privy to all that but at the – at the end of the day from a, you know, from a speculative standpoint, I think hopefully this movie will do extremely well and people will want to see the next two books put up into a film format. And you know I’m really excited and ready for it.

It’s hard to tell with people who often assume a comic persona where the character ends and the real person begins. Take Will Ferrell, Reilly’s frequent cohort, in films like “Step Brothers,” and “Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby”; Ferrell often seems so immersed and committed to his comedy that it feels rare to see him when he’s not “on” in anyway.

Eventually one has to question whether someone is trying to be funny, or if that’s just the way they are. Reilly, however, is naturally funny, and has a personality not unlike the characters he’s played in movies.

That being said, I never once questioned whether he was putting on an act rather than just being himself. Several other college journalists and I met with him to talk about his latest film, “Cyrus,” a comedy about a man named John, played by Reilly, who gets involved with Molly, played by Marisa Tomei. Molly is the woman of John’s dreams, except that she has a grown son named Cyrus, played by Jonah Hill, who feels that he will lose his mother to the new man in her life.

Although “Cyrus” is a comedy, it’s also huge departure for Reilly in comparison to his films with Ferrell. Of course, that’s not to say that Reilly can’t do serious movies.

A Chicago native who studied acting right here at DePaul, Reilly has played a myriad of parts on both the stage and the screen, even earning an Academy Award nomination for his performance in 2002′s “Chicago.” Although he’s known for being a funny guy, he’s all business when talking about his new film.

On “Cyrus” writer/director’s Mark And Jay Duplass, he says, “We shot this on digital video so we did these long takes, and improvised for a long time, and kind of moved around these rooms and figured out the scenes, and then Jay and Mark would go off and talk to each other alone, for 20 minutes, which, was really weird.”

He stops to laugh before continuing, “The crew on this movie were like, ‘Where? The directors are going where? Just down the block? Can we get them anything? No, no they’re just going to go talk, and process what just happen.’ And that’s really one of the main reasons I wanted to do the movie, because I heard they worked like that… we could literally build a story in an organic way… It has a lot of emotional truth to it, the movie.”

When asked about the term “mumblecore,” a supposed movement being led by several filmmakers, including the Duplass brothers, Reilly brushes it away, indicating; the Duplass’s have no patience for labels.

“Not one of them would admit to being ‘mumblecore,’ they hate that name,” he says.

But mumblecore or not, it is clear that Reilly is passionate about “Cyrus,” and tells us that the fact that this movie is a comedy doesn’t mean he takes it less serious than if he were doing a drama.

However, when asked whether he has any favorite stories similar to the party scene in the film, where John gets very drunk, Reilly abandons all seriousness, and drops all discussion about his craft and tells us with a reluctant smile, “Yeah, I wouldn’t say they were favorites.”

He then proceeds to talk about the first time he got drunk in hilarious and extensive detail, going on so long that it is impossible to even paraphrase the whole tale here.

When I try to turn the discussion back to a more serious tone by asking him what kind of characters he’d like to play in the future, I preface it by telling him that he’s played a lot of dyspeptic, everyman sort of characters. He stops me and says, “Dyspeptic, you must go to college.”

I tell him that I’d been rehearsing that word the whole morning, and we all laugh before he gets back to the question.

“Things that I’m like personally interested in, like right now, are books about explorers,” says Reilly. “I got on this like, extreme adventure jag in my reading, I read all about Shakelton, and Colonel Percy Fawcett, who was looking for the lost city of Z, the whale ship Essex, which is what “Moby Dick” is based on.”

Although I’m not sure at first whether he’s joking around, as he continues it becomes clear to me that he’s completely serious. It’s this earnestness that makes Reilly so much fun to talk to. I would never have guessed he’d tell me that explorers are at the top of his list in terms of desired roles, but it is clear that this is another thing he’s passionate about.

In addition to this, Reilly says, “I’ve always wanted to play a priest, growing up Catholic, I thought there was some interesting stuff there.”

Having talked about explorers, someone suggests that he star in a Dan Brown movie He smiles a little bit at this but doesn’t react strongly, that is until about thirty seconds into the next question when he blurts out, “‘The Giordano’s Code.’ It’s all about me trying to break the recipe for Giordano’s pizza.”

Once again, funny John has reared his head. The last big topic of conversation is Reilly’s involvement with Adult Swim sketch show, “Tim and Eric Awesome Show, Great Job!” Once again, he wears his passion for this topic on his sleeve.

“That stuff I’ve done with ‘Tim and Eric,’ with a certain age group, that’s the thing they mention, even more than “Step Brothers” and “Talladega Nights,” he says. “I think it has to do with a sense of discovery, that it’s not being packaged, it’s not being sold… there’s something exciting about how weird it is… I think in ten years people will look back at them like we did ten years after Monty Python. Like, ‘What the hell are these guys doing? It’s still weird ten years later it must have been insane then.’”

He goes on to say that he’s also planning on doing a movie with Tim and Eric, although he’s more reluctant to talk about his own sketch show, “Check It Out! With Dr. Steve Brule,” a spinoff of a character he played on “Tim and Eric.”

“I never talk about Steve Brule,” he says, “He’s a real person” (in fact, this isn’t the only time Reilly has dodged a question about Brule, he makes a point not to talk about the character in interviews.) When asked why he thinks his work on “Tim and Eric” has connected so much with young people, he says, “I was always someone who was more apt to treat younger people like an equal than like a superior.”

I definitely agree with Reilly’s statement; through our whole interview he has interacted causally, not doing the slightest thing to change who he is because of our age.

The interview with Reilly concludes by him telling us, “As an artist, you want to just stay relevant, you just want to be doing work that you find exciting and interesting, and hopefully if you’re doing that then people want to watch it.”

By this time I have decided that I like this guy. He’s talented, he wears his heart on his sleeve, and unlike some celebrities, he’s undoubtedly excited about his career and the projects he’s been involved with. As we’re leaving the interview, he drops some final knowledge on all of us, saying “Be cool, stay in school.” Did I mention that he was really funny too?

My first exposure to the “Twilight” franchise occurred at a fateful “girls’ night in” last summer. After dutifully baking brownies and painting toenails, my friends and I settled down on a periwinkle futon with the original “Twilight” DVD in the player. A full two hours later, we emerged from a horrified stupor.

Now, I know lots of people pretend to loathe “Twilight” but secretly devour every novel and spinoff. I am not one of those people.

I abhorred the way Bella treated her dad when she fled Forks with the Cullens — even if James was out to suck her blood, she was unnecessarily cruel, and I’d have been grounded before you can say “Phoenix.” I cringed at Bella’s antisocial tendencies and her “dicks over chicks” mentality. I sharply frowned at her sexist portrayal in the film, and the old-time morals it seemed to be preaching. But mostly, as a lover and reviewer of music, I was totally freaked out by the awesome “Twilight” soundtrack.

Over the years, some of my prized artists have donated their music and even — God forbid! — written original tracks to support the “Twilight” films. I’m cool with the added exposure — Thom Yorke probably doesn’t need the money, but Zero 7’s Sia might. I was appalled, however, to find these forward-thinking artists supporting the backwards, dependent and kinda anti-woman philosophy behind “Twilight.”

I decided to read the first “Twilight” book to better understand where my indie darlings were coming from, but it only got worse. Now, I’m no bra-busting militant feminist, but I balked at Bella’s ritual of cooking dinner every night for her dad. Even when going out for the night, she has to leave cold cuts so the poor guy can make himself a sandwich.

Transfixed by Edward’s initial assholery toward her, Bella painfully and unrequitedly obsesses from early on. And when Edward kisses her, Bella reacts like any other smitten girl: She gives in and goes with it.

“I sighed, and my lips parted. He staggered back, breaking my grip effortlessly. ‘Damn it Bella!’ he broke off, gasping. ‘You’ll be the death of me, I swear you will.’ ”

It’s a constant “Twilight” pattern: Bella entices, Edward tries in vain to resist. The theme is emphasized by the cover picture, as delicate white hands offer up a bright red apple, Genesis-style. Eve the temptress, only this time there’s vampires.

But as I sat reading, mildly irked, I turned to the Internet. How, I asked it, did “Twilight” beckon Beck, muster Muse and feature fuckin’ Florence Welch, of Florence and the Machine?

And Google gave me Alexandra Patsavas, a normal-looking Midwesterner of probable Greek origin.

Once a rock promoter in Illinois, Patsavas moved to screen work and soon made an art out of sound tracking. She’s the brains behind the music of “The O.C.,” “Grey’s Anatomy,” “Mad Men”… the list goes on, but those are my picks. And she’s how I got into Spoon, though I blush to admit it.

Billboard called Patsavas a Top Woman in Music, and she’s been profiled countless times — by Glamour and Elle, sure, but also The Chicago Tribune, The New York Times, CNBC and more. Patsavas’s company, Chop Shop Music Supervision, has handled all three “Twilight” soundtracks, and even got a Grammy out of it.

So maybe it’s OK. I mean, “Twilight” is still shit. It’s badly written, badly acted, just utter shit.

But for all the “Twilight” sexism — impressive considering its notable lack of actual sex, or even sex appeal, for that matter — it’s nice to know that Stephenie Meyer (seriously, Steph?

You had to spell it that way?) let a woman handle the sonic side of things, and that this wildly successful rock chick is the one responsible for securing contributions from Iron & Wine, Grizzly Bear and all our now-big friends.

I won’t feel guilty listening to “Heavy In Your Arms” on the “Twilight: Eclipse” soundtrack that might surreptitiously make its way onto my New Music playlist this month. It’s a gorgeously echoing track, lovely in its depressiveness. And what’s more, Alexandra Patsavas picked it out for me.

A&E sat down with Reilly to discuss “Cyrus,” the difficulties of improvisation and the variety of his roles.

The trailers for “Cyrus” make it out to be a comedy, but it’s a fairly dramatic film. Do you consider it to be a comedy?

JCR: For lack of a better term — I shutter to say the phrase—but it is a romantic comedy. It is about relationships. There is a lot of awkward stuff in it, and I’m not going to deny there are some laughs, but I think it also has a lot of heart. The really appealing thing about the movie is that people who know my work from the last couple years in bigger comedies, like with Will Ferrell, will appreciate the big laughs, but then the people that have been hoping I get back to doing some dramatic stuff will also be pleased with this one.

Were you happy that this character could be funny without having to be as infantile as, say, Dale Doback in “Step Brothers?”

JCR: Yeah, I was sort of relieved that this guy wasn’t the kind of man-child that Dale was. I actually liked playing someone who was my own age, who had a little bit of world-weariness to him, and was able to be very direct when he needed to be. I liked that I got to be very real in my reactions to things. We were just encouraged to be as organic as we could and to be as honest as we could.

You do a lot of comic improvisation in films with Will Ferrell; do you find it harder to improvise dramatic scenes like the ones in this film?

JCR: To me, those are easy. The tough stuff is where you’re trying to top Will with ridiculousness from moment to moment, or trying to make Will laugh, which is essentially what we do all day on those movies. It is an exacting discipline: if something’s not funny it’s really clear right away that it’s not funny. I find it much easier to focus on being truthful and being in the moment, and that’s what improv really is all about. If you’re constantly trying to be funny, you’re not purely in the moment; you’re not reacting totally truthfully all the time; you’re reacting in what you hope will be a funny way.

I’ve always been craving the chance to do a movie where you could purely improvise, where it didn’t matter if it was funny or not as long as it was natural and organic and true to the character, and that’s what [Cyrus] was. It’s a lot of responsibility, taking on the authorship of the movie in those moments, but it was worth it, I think. I’m really proud of this one.

You’ve played some very different characters throughout your career. At this stage in your life, is there a type of role you prefer?

JCR: No, I prefer doing the thing that I didn’t do last. I like flipping it back and forth, and that’s kind of the game from my end. That’s the way to have longevity: constantly get one step ahead of what people expect you to do. And I’m just trying to do as much different stuff for myself as I can, because that’s how you stay interested and excited about going to work everyday. There’s nothing worse than feeling like you’re repeating yourself.

Lastly, I have to ask, how would Dr. Steve Brule characterize this film?

JCR: You would have to ask Dr. Steve Brule. I know Dr. Brule, I often speak to him, but I do not do press for him.

“Cyrus” opens July 2.

Drawing upon classic, comedic and creative minds such as Buster Keaton and Jacques Tati, Jeunet offers a tantalizing visual feast of comedy that seems as though it could have been co-written by Charlie Chaplin and Rube Goldberg.

“Micmacs” follows the unlucky and ordinary Bazil on a quest to get revenge on the two rival arms companies that have ruined his life. As a young boy, Bazil was orphaned after his father accidentally stepped on a land mine. Later, Bazil himself was struck by a stray bullet to the head from a car chase.

In most movies, having a character shot in the head might mark the ending, but for Jeunet this is only the beginning of an absurdly fatalist adventure.

Bazil, now with a few involuntary muscle spasms here and there, soon is welcomed into a diverse circus of people living in a scrap-heap bunker. After discovering the factory that made the bullet — located across from its rival, the weapons factory that made the land mine — he enlists the help of his new friends to get revenge.

However, that’s where some critics feel the movie is too shallow.

“Micmacs” is not a dramatic tour de force like Jeunet’s World War I love story “A Very Long Engagement,” and it’s definitely not a darkly romantic post-apocalyptic comedy like “Delicatessen.” “Micmacs,” just like its full French title “Micmacs à tire-larigot,” is exactly what it translates into in English: “Nonstop shenanigans.”

With a cast that Jeunet fans have come to adore, featuring Dominique Pinon and Yolande Moreau, the movie is a great celebration of all the screwball jokes Jeunet always sprinkles throughout his films. From the Congolese ethnographer who scrambles up all the way to the literally explosive finale, Jeunet provides one massive cinematic treat.

Disregarding the film’s fanciful nature, which may not be favored by more serious moviegoers, its R rating from the MPAA for “some sexuality and brief violence” seems odd. Don’t be fooled, though — “Micmacs’” jokes are funny because it’s like watching a Warner Bros. cartoon.

By more conservative standards, Bazil could be seen as a malevolent Frenchman hell-bent on bringing down the military-industrial complex, but it’s doubtful, considering the guy also does “the robot” for spare change.

Grade: A+

Apatow approaches the art of directing very loosely, and he is able to do so because of the actors with whom he chooses to work. Actors like Jonah Hill and Russell Brand (co-stars of “Get Him to The Greek”) bring their own comedic genius to work with them, and by not binding them to the script Apatow allows them to better the movie with their wit.

He also maintains relationships with the actors from his movies. Jason Segal and Apatow have been working together since the days of “Freaks and Geeks” all the way up to this movie, which Segal helped write and produce. This friendly relationship bleeds onto the screen in the natural, comfortable way actors such as Hill, Brand and Segal morph into their characters.

2. Jonah Hill may be a young-adult version of Cartman (“South Park”), but he is also a genuinely good actor.

Along with “Superbad,” this is Hill’s only leading roll in a major film.
After his performance in “Get Him to The Greek”, he is sure to sign on to more lead roles. If not, the only explanation is that Hollywood recently started to hate making money.

Hill is always on point with a sarcastic pop culture reference, but he also possesses the talent to flip the switch over to a passionate, believable lead character who convinces the audience that his anger, love, nervousness, ambition or any other emotion is truly his own.

3. Russell Brand is James Bond, minus the secret agent status.

Aldous Snow, the only main role by which America knows Brand (“Forgetting Sarah Marshall”), is essentially Russell Brand playing himself.
The only difference would be that Brand isn’t a rock star, except for the fact that the songs and music videos that he does in these two movies are so inappropriately hilarious and catchy.

Bond, Snow and Brand always get the girls, and all the guys wish they had their life.

All three do exactly what they want, when they want, and still come out on top. They’re as smooth as glass and can sweet-talk their way out of any situation with a badass British accent.

Brand’s devil-may-care approach to his character takes the crudeness of British humor and weighs it in perfectly with the punch-line comedy of Jonah Hill.

4. P. Diddy is hilarious.

Sean “Diddy Puff Daddy Dumbledore” Combs plays Jonah Hill’s overwhelmingly intense boss in the movie. It is a miracle that the other actors were able to make it through a single scene with Diddy without peeing their pants, either out of laughter or fear, despite the fact that Puffy never once breaks character to crack a smile – not until the end of the movie, when he literally goes insane for the cause of “mind-gaming” (age-appropriate version of the term he actually uses) Snow to the Greek Theater in Los Angeles.

5. It’s a good story that all of us have dreamed about at some point.

A young professional (Hill) hits the jackpot when his dream job requires him to spend three days with his favorite rock star (Brand). When he gets an up close look at the superstar’s life, he realizes that even the rich and famous are flawed, perhaps even more so than he. Once the two are established on level grounds, they are able to form an unlikely friendship that balances each of their polarities and allows them to literally and metaphorically Get Him to The Greek.

In 2008’s “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” however the British comedian-turned-actor Russell Brand effortlessly portrayed Aldous Snow as the coolest substance-abusing womanizer the world has ever seen. In “Get Him to the Greek,” Brand reprises his role as that same rabble-rousing pop star. A repeat performance gives Brand the opportunity to solidify his position as our foremost frat guy matinee idol, while maintaining the subtle depth that made his character so brilliant in “Sarah Marshall.”

In addition to Brand, the rest of the cast assembled for “Get Him to the Greek” is undeniably the film’s strong suit. Lovable loser Jonah Hill (“Superbad”) is given a familiar role as an Aldous Snow super fan, but instead of playing a pesky hotel waiter trying to force his CD into Snow’s hands (as in “Sarah Marshall”), he has a bit more pull as Aaron Green, employee of a major record company in Los Angeles. Hip-hop mogul Sean Combs plays powerful label executive Sergio Roma, whose no-nonsense attitude and perpetual straight face make his delivery of lines like, “I got six kids. You know how many Air Jordans six black kids wear!?” bizarrely perceptive and genuinely side splitting.

The narrative concept also initially appears to have some promise. With Roma in desperate need of a moneymaking scheme, the reserved Green suggests an anniversary concert for Snow’s group Infant Sorrow. Green’s assignment is simple: transport Snow from London to L.A. in time for his show at the Greek Theatre. But what happens during his time with Snow is simultaneously a dream come true — he gets to spend some quality time with his favorite musician — and a nightmare, as controlling a recovering drug and sex addict is more challenging than Green ever could have imagined.

With such a dynamic cast and so much room to work within a clever plot, there’s no way this movie could flop, right? Sadly in this case wrong, outright absurdity and sub-par writing prevail. Two scenes in particular illustrate the over-the-top ridiculousness of “Get Him to the Greek.”

One instance finds Snow and Green in a nightclub with Snow’s estranged father, attempting to mend old wounds. After smoking an outrageously potent joint referred to as a “Jeffrey,” Snow and Green start to frantically rub the shag carpet-lined walls to calm themselves down. To add to the unnecessary mayhem, guns are fired, heads are smashed into flat screen TVs, glass is broken and eventually an adrenaline needle is stuck into Green’s chest. It’s a whole lot of commotion for very little purpose.

Yet the nightclub scene actually seems believable in comparison to one of the movie’s final scenes. Returning home to his angry girlfriend, a dejected Green tries to justify his sexual exploits during his time with Snow. When Snow shows up at Green’s house, the consummate sex addict suggests a make-up threesome with Green and his girlfriend. After some strange foreplay, Green’s girlfriend realizes what the audience already knows; this is crazy. What’s more is how pointless the entire event truly is. There has to be a better way to show that no matter what their disagreements and differences were in the past, Green and his girlfriend will find a way to compromise in the future.

Despite its many pitfalls, “Get Him to the Greek” is still good for a laugh from time to time. The opening scene, for example, shows hilarious footage of Snow at the peak of his fame, before releasing an album based on every great rock star’s favorite alternative to sex and drugs: charity in third world countries.

Ultimately, the unexpected plausibility of “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” — one of that film’s most impressive feats — is where “Get Him to the Greek” falls short. Its nonsensical situations alienate an audience unable to relate to the insane experiences of Aldous Snow. For all its ploys to make Snow an unforgettable character, “Get Him to the Greek” is a surprisingly forgettable movie.

The DePaulia: Was there any particular inspiration for the way you did this voice for Rumpelstiltskin?

Walt Dohrn: Yes. We had … a little stew of characters we like from older films. One was this little girl in this B movie from the 50s, this [horror] movie called “The Bad Seed.” And she was this murderer little girl. And she was this – she had this innocence and she would turn and be really evil … And then also Betty Davis in “Whatever Happened to Baby Jane.” Again, she kind of played this kind of innocent character that had this really evil underside. Those two characters really gave us this, you know, youthfulness that could be evil.

TD: What was the process like in terms of acting in an animated film? Did you see a lot of the other actors when you were recording your voice, or when you were working on the movie?

WD: Yes. Actually, you know even before I was cast as the role, one of my jobs there was to be the reader with the actors … So I was reading with Mike Meyers, I would play Fiona. Or I would be Donkey to his Shrek. So I really got to learn a lot from all those actors. And how intense and how serious, you know, they took the role and how I would look over at them and I felt like when Mike Meyers was doing it, I am looking at Shrek. Or Fiona would be – you know, Cameron [Diaz] would be – so intense that she would look me directly in the eye and make me feel like crying because I really believed her.

TD: Is there a particular animated film that you would say is your favorite, or that’s really influenced you, or that you think helped really get you into animation?

WD: Yes. You know there is so many. I am such an incredible fan of animation. There’s an old Disney one that’s called “The Three Caballeros.” And it’s strange because it’s not really, it’s not really story-oriented. But it’s this mad insane kind of, you know, like psychedelic 1930s version of just pure expressionism … It’s “The Three Caballeros.”

TD: In the last few Shrek movies you were very much behind the scenes. What was the jump like going to being one of the people in the forefront? Obviously, you were very involved in the last couple, but now you’re acting in the film for everybody to see, or hear rather.

WD: You know it was – there was part of it that was really fun of course and just doing that voice … really cathartic to go ahead and behave evil, you know, loudly. So that part was fun … But the hard part was doing these interviews. That’s a joke (laughs). But it is – it’s been hard being in the – to have to get out of my room and be in front of the camera for the press, or be on the green carpet answering questions. I think that’s been the difficult part. But doing the voice was fun.

Mr. Romero himself was to be in attendance, and it seemed that most of the audience was more excited about the prospect of asking him questions after the film than the movie itself.

Rightly so. “Survival of the Dead” doesn’t compare with Romero’s earlier zombie masterpieces, but that’s obviously expecting too much. The story follows a quartet of National Guard members in the wake of the zombie resurrection. Searching for safety, they find themselves on an island off the coast of Delaware, in the midst of not only zombies but also a pair of warring native families.

Romero frames the zombie outbreak within the confines of a small island and some very narrow-minded people. The Muldoons and O’Flynns (the patriarchs are played by Richard Fitzpatrick and Kenneth Welsh) are like the Hatfields and McCoys of Plum Island, neighbors who’ve held nothing but hostility for each other for generations. Instead of banding together to fight off zombies, the existence of zombies, and the question of what to do with them, has only further cemented their mutual enmity.

In most zombie movies, the protagonists are a group of relative strangers who must unite in order to survive. From “Night of the Living Dead” to “Shaun of the Dead,” those who live are those best able to set aside their personal hang-ups and work together, creating a sort of parable about cooperation. Being handy with a cricket bat doesn’t hurt either.

The crazy thing about “Survival of the Dad” is that surviving zombies looks sort of tame compared with the intensity of the O’Flynn-Muldoon rivalry. Romero casts them as gunslingers worthy of the Old West, complete with cowboy hats and pistols, a very cool and pretty creative aesthetic choice.

The problem with “Survival of the Dead” is its supposition that some heavy moral question exists concerning zombies. I would disagree. There’s no way you would keep a barn full of insatiable zombies around just because they resemble people you used to know. Old Man Muldoon asserts the importance of “keeping the dead with us” as though it’s a line from scripture, but it just doesn’t make sense.

Another perplexing thing about “Survival” is, since the families have purportedly been living off the shore of Delaware for a few generations, why do they all retain strong Irish accents? It’s one of those little anomalies you just can’t convince yourself not to notice. Same goes for the silliness of the token Hispanic character, whose name, “Cisco”-apparently short for Francisco-is way too reminiscent of the erstwhile pop star than seems necessary. Plus, he doesn’t sound at all Hispanic, not until uttering “Dios Mio” moments before his death. I guess realism is too much to expect from a film in which a character sticks the nozzle of a fire extinguisher into the mouth of a living corpse, and then squeezes the trigger until flame retardant foam bursts out of his ears and his brain explodes.

Though “Survival of the Dead” proves he’s no longer at his best, George Romero is still great at making these kinds of scenes–in which he kills off his characters and especially their zombie foes in manners so ridiculous you want to laugh and puke at the same time.

His flippant demeanor at the Q & A session after the screening confirmed the notion that yes, these movies are not meant to be taken too seriously.

Seizing the opportunity to have their long-held questions about zombie lore answered, some of the more earnest fans asked questions like, “How do zombies tell humans from other zombies?”, to which Romero responded, “I’d imagine they smell better.” Asked to settle a debate between a pair of friends concerning the relative merits of fleeing to the Arctic tundra or taking off in a hot air balloon in the event of a zombie outbreak, Romero didn’t express much optimism for either tactic. Nor did he claim any authority, saying “You’ll have to call Max Brooks on that one,” referring to the author of such books as “The Zombie Survival Guide.”

It became apparent that, although Romero has dedicated his career to the zombie, he sees the whole spectacle as fun, and still seems genuinely surprised that his undead creations have had such staying power. He doesn’t pretend to be an authority on the very zombie alternate universe he’s created, which is perhaps why it is easy to note inconsistencies in this film. He admitted that he still has a lot of “unanswered questions,” saying, “Do zombies shit? I don’t know.” He knows a little about talking shit though, which he did about the “fast zombies” now seen in movies like “28 Days Later,” but that seemed more like a concession than an expression of genuine disdain.

It’s always interesting to notice how seeing someone in person informs your view of his or her work. After witnessing his modesty and playful wit firsthand, it’s hard not to take a more sympathetic view of his newest film. It’s not great by any means, but it’s gruesome, a bit thought-provoking, and entertaining. It seems like that’s all Romero is going for.

In the final chapter of the Shrek movies, Shrek becomes discontent in his domesticated lifestyle and makes a deal with the suave Rumpelstiltskin (voiced by Dohrn) to shake things up. But Shrek gets more than he bargains for when his whole world is turned upside down. Dohrn recently discussed his experience working with the crew on the Shrek films and how he created the voice for Rumpelstiltskin.

Daily Titan: You’re very multi-talented; you direct, do voices, write and do art work. Which do you enjoy the best?

Walt Dohrn: You know, I love doing it all. I mean anything – I love animation. But I have to say, the whole journey, the most fun has been doing (this) voice. Because it’s a chance to be, you know, kind of – get in there and do things I usually don’t do like yell at the top of my lungs. So I think it’s really kind of cathartic and it’s been the most fun I think, doing the voice.

DT: How did you get to where you are now?

WD: I went to (Cal Arts) and I met so many amazing creative people. And just kept up that relationship. And, you know, I think you know meeting people at school, funny enough with like college people I think you know that’s how – like with support from fellow students and keeping up those connections, that’s how I really got all the opportunities that have been given to me.

DT: What was the inspiration/process for finding the voice of Rumpelstiltskin?

WD: We had a particular, a little (stew) of characters we like from older films. One was this little girl in this B movie from the ’50s; this (horror) movie called The Bad Seed. And she was this murderer, little, and had this innocence and she would turn and be really evil in one moment. And then also Bette Davis in “Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?” Again, she kind of played this kind of innocent character that had this really evil underside. Those two characters really gave us this youthfulness that could be evil.

DT: What was it like working with the Shrek crew and will you miss working with them, since this is the final chapter of the Shrek saga?

WD: You know, even before I was cast as the role, one of my jobs there was to be the reader with the actors. So I was reading with Mike Meyers, I would play Fiona. Or I would be Donkey to his Shrek. So I really got to learn a lot from all those actors. And how intense and how serious you know they took the role and how you know I would look over at them and I felt like when Mike Meyers was doing it, I am looking at Shrek, you know. Or Fiona would be – you know Cameron (Diaz) would be so intense that you know she would look me directly in the eye and make me feel like crying because I really believed her.

You know, working with Shrek and all of those years, it’s a (change) because it became really real to us. You know, I mean, not only did he pay my bills, but you know, working with them 24 hours a day for like the last eight years, it became so real. In fact you know one story we always tell is like for this film we actually hired marriage counselors for Shrek and Fiona. You know, so I – working on these films for this long, I think you know it’s sad to see them go. It was the greatest honor to be able to play a villain for them.

Those familiar with Scott’s filmography should expect to meet his new take on the story of Robin Hood with an equal degree of amazement.

For example, you’ll be amazed at how a movie with a budget tantamount to the GDP of a small country could have required all that funding for flaming arrows, horses, chainmail and a hodgepodge of characters that — albeit allegedly English — showcase a mixed dialect of Irish, Scottish and God knows what else. Sure, it’s a shallow criticism, but you’d think that $237 million could at least buy a proper accent.

More importantly, you’ll be astonished at how such lazy character development and so sparse a plot could merit a 140-minute runtime. The movie had no more than four autonomous events to drive its plot an inch forward.

“Robin Hood” also features an epic introduction with a feigned Ye Olde English storybook motif that reads more like a Universal Studios disclaimer. It might as well just say, “This film was made by Ridley Scott, it cost a lot of money and you’d better like it.”

Movies in the vein of “Robin Hood” shed light on a troubling trend that parallels sequelitis — or, the tendency of a sequel to be far less calculated and interesting than the original. Over years of exceptional filmmaking, it seems as if acclaimed directors build franchises around themselves and begin to neglect workmanship, instead choosing to lean upon their pre-existing reputations and millions of dollars of marketing funds to surround their new releases with a false sense of mystique.

Indeed, “Robin Hood” doesn’t represent the same depth of character as Scott’s earlier works. But, to an extent, it is redeemed by the presence of Russell Crowe (“Body of Lies”). His dedication to his roles is evident in his near-perfect character performances: Even if many of his roles have been similar and one-dimensional in recent years, his execution is damn good. There’s something inexplicable that endears him to the viewer regardless of the movie he’s in, and the fact that some critics consider him to be among the best in his craft isn’t for nothing.

On that note, Crowe fans may want to check this one out for the screen time it dedicates to a skilled actor, but it’s too boring to be the epic it proclaims itself to be. Ridley Scott fans should stay at home and cross their fingers for the director’s upcoming adaptation of the Joe Haldaman novel “The Forever War.”

How did you get involved with the project to begin with? Are you a fan of the comics?

It was a series of events, you know. I knew Justin Theroux, who wrote the script, and went to the theater at Williamstown together. We were friends. He’s an actor as well.

And then Jon Favreau and I had done Made together with Vince Vaughn and (Jon) had called me once about screen testing for Tony Stark and then it didn’t come together, and Downey, of course, got the part and was amazing. And then I mean, so many things, and my girlfriend was in the first one and we sat down and had dinner with Downey. I ended up doing a guinea pig movie (with Downey), and so it all sort of came together, you know.

Is it freeing for you, as an actor, to get to create your own version of the character because he’s so different in the comics? He’s a lot older and he’s British.

Yes. Yes, it was – I mean, it was very – I mean, you know, Favreau really let me kind of just be myself and do my thing, you know. We were never going to try to do the ascot British accent thing.

How much did you know about Justin Hammer and Iron Man, in general, before taking the role?

I guess I knew very little. I knew nothing. I got the comic books as soon as I got the part and looked at it a little bit, and it was described to me by (Justin Theroux and Jon Favreau).

Was there anything particular about the film that you liked about filming Iron Man?

I think the scenes with Mickey Rourke were very fun for me to do. There’s a lot for me to do in the scenes, and it was a really – it was a good time, you know.

I know there was a lot of secrecy around the production of the film. Were there any moments where that you had to check yourself and make sure that you didn’t slip out any crucial details?

Yes, you know, they give you the script pages, which have your name on it so that if you get them out you get sued because your name’s on them, you know. So it’s – yes, you’ve got to be careful what you say about it because they’re – it’s very top secret.

Was there any ad-libbing or improvisation that you thought was really you guys’ kind of creating it live on the set, and if so, was there any that you thought were really memorable?

You know, I got to say most of it was Theroux, who wrote the script, and Favreau would come in with various ad-libs. I think most of it was the two of them, you know, and really Theroux writing a great script. I did very little improvisation, actually. I mean, I’m a pretty good improviser, but I’m not a writer, so I like to have some structure, you know, and I think Theroux provided that and Favreau provided that in a big way and I prefer it.

I think the real triumph of this movie is that when the main character (the socially awkward, comic-obsessed teen-turned-amateur-superhero Dave, played by newcomer Aaron Johnson) Takes a Level in Badass (thank you, TVTropes), it’s from level 10 to level 15, not level 1 to level 70 (thank you, World of Warcraft). It’s a refreshingly realistic look at what would happen if a teenager with no training decided that he wanted to put on a mask and fight crime, and the fact that he has to go through untold beatings and failures to get to the level of badass he becomes makes him a far more interesting character than he would have been if he’d just instantly been a super-ninja-badass-fighter dude. The fact that he gets the living crap beaten out of him nearly the instant he decides to be a superhero doesn’t make Kick-Ass a cautionary tale against kids who want to make themselves extraordinary; it just shows that the road to becoming extraordinary isn’t easy.

The true standout in the whole movie, though, is Hit-Girl, played by Chloe Grace Moretz. The daughter of cop-turned-Batman-esque-superhero Big Daddy (played so well by Nicolas Cage that he is now restored to my good graces), Hit-Girl hacks, slashes, and shoots her way through the film with an intensity (and potty mouth to boot) that evokes Natalie Portman in The Professional. When she’s gleefully ordering several hundred-thousand dollar weapons off the internet or quite handily slashing open the chests of her enemies with a massive blade-staff, I feel a twinge of sadness because I’m seven years older than she is and nowhere near as awesome, both when I was eleven and now. Truth be told, Hit-Girl is the real star of this movie. Aaron Johnson does an admirable job as the title character, but his sensitive, witty portrayal of a wimpy kid who just wants to be badass doesn’t stand a chance against the juggernaut that is Moretz. I hope to see more badassery from her in the future.

The other major surprise and one of the best elements in this movie is its effective balance of light and dark. All too often, modern comic book movies tend to draw from the Frank Miller/Alan Moore school of comic book heroes: gritty, deconstructed beyond belief, and very pessimistic. Not to say that this is a bad thing; after years of camp (and Schumacher’s Batman and Robin…excuse me while I shudder), superheroes needed to get a little more down and dirty and more realistic, and dark and gritty can be done stunningly well, as seen in The Dark Knight trilogy. But I’m also starting to get tired of the inky cloaks every hero and their mother seems to be wearing these days. What makes Kick-Ass so successful is that it has gritty and realistic elements without being dark and gloomy, and it has the color and fun of the superhero movies of old without being campy or silly. For this, Kick-Ass joins the ranks of Iron Man of a superhero movie that doesn’t insult your intelligence or leave you feeling depressed in the end. It also handled the high school comedy subplot (which perhaps it could have done without) admirably; while it wasn’t completely necessary to the movie as a whole, it didn’t detract from the more, well, kick-ass A plot, and it helped to provide a backdrop for the rise of Kick-Ass from average high schooler to internet sensation/superhero.

The other plot element that could have easily fallen flat was Dave/Kick-Ass using new media (YouTube and MySpace) to spread his fame. Most of the time, when the evil men in the suits who run the movie companies and cancel all of Joss Whedon’s shows try to include into film newfangled things that the kids are all into like the internets, it just comes off as pandering and condescending. Here, it actually serves to comment on the viral nature of fame and, as disturbingly rendered in a scene where Kick-Ass tries to fight a bunch of gangsters, a new kind of Kitty Genovese Syndrome. The onlookers at the fight whips out their phones—not to call 911—but to film and take pictures of the kid in the scuba suit trying to stop criminals from beating another man. And even though the movie pretty clearly showed how stupid the onlookers are, I didn’t feel like I was getting beaten over the head. Heavens! Could this be a social commentary that’s…SUBTLE? The horrors!

I think the movies I love the most are the ones that pleasantly surprise me with how well they worked: Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, and now Kick-Ass. I go in unsure of how a filmmaker could pull off an adaptation of something with so many opportunities to go wrong, and then I come out of the theater cheering. Kick-Ass is by far one of my top movies for this year (well, the cynic in me is saying that there are still 8 months to go, but for now, at least, Kick-Ass is up there): a realistic, yet still fun superhero movie that deconstructs the idea of the ordinary teen becoming a hero, and then builds it right back up again with mind-blowingly awesome action sequences. It’s…well, kick-ass.

“I came straight from nannying and I did not expect to meet him,” said Musur. “I had on sweat pants and a sweat shirt and I looked a mess and I met Ben Stiller!”

Though Stiller’s presence in her living room at that moment was a surprise to Musur, she had known since the summer that her apartment building would be one of the filming locations for “Little Fockers.”

During July, the location manager for the movie drove all around Chicago, reading the script and trying to find a place that matched the description of Stiller’s apartment. He loved how Musur’s apartment looked from the outside and one day a crowd of people with cameras gathered outside her place. Musur and her 2 roommates asked why they were there, and they simply said they were scouting locations for the movie “Little Fockers.” After contacting the condo association and getting the greenlight from her landlord, the crew secured Musur’s home as a filming location for the movie.

Although she lives on the first floor and in the movie Stiller is supposed to live on the third floor, her apartment became “the hangout space” on set, according to Musur.

Stiller decided he did not want to go all the way to his trailer for make-up touch ups, so they did that in her living room instead. Then, “The director started using our bathroom,” Musur said. All day long, as the cast and crew worked from 7:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m., people filtered in and out of Musur’s apartment, hard at work.

“We had to leave [the apartment] every time they started to work,” she said.

Though this seems like quite the inconvenience considering the fact that filming took place during midterms week, “Little Fockers” compensated Musur and her roommates $500 each.

In addition to the cash compensation, Musur can now brag that she got to meet Stiller and Robert De Niro.

“[Stiller] was nice, he was quiet,” Musur said. “He loved my dog!”

“De Niro didn’t interact with anyone in the crowd, he’s paranoid,” she said. “It’s understandable because he’s such a big deal.”

Musur has seen the first “Meet the Parents” movie but still has yet to see “Meet the Fockers.” She did go out to buy one of Stiller’s first-ever movies, Heavy Weights, a comedy in which Stiller is not even credited because he was not yet famous.

“I had to go out and buy the movie right away because I was like, I just hung out with him,” Musur said.

Now, Musur and her roommates must patiently wait for “Little Fockers” to premiere in July. “I really just can’t wait to see the movie and be like, ‘I live there!’” said Musur. “It’s going to be a story that I can tell forever.”

Celebrity brushes and bragging rights aside, the experience is not one that Musur is itching to relive in the future. “I had a lot of fun, but we would never do it again!” she said.