"Splice" has a pretty good pedigree for a horror film. The movie stars Academy Award winner Adrien Brody and the well-thought of Sarah Polley as a pair of geneticists who splice together human DNA with several animals and create a monster. Beyond the talent in front of the camera, "Splice" had the distinction of premiering at the 2010 Sundance film festival as part of "Park City at Midnight." Blast got a chance to sit down with the film’s director and main creative force, Vincenzo Natali in Boston recently and we asked him about the long development process, how you create a memorable movie monster and the challenges of defying the expectations most people have for a horror film.

BLAST: I read that "Splice" was eight years in the making. What took so long to get the film made?

VINCENZO NATALI: It was a number of things. Actually it was more than eight years. It was more like 12. I almost made the film in 2000 and it didn’t work out. There were several reasons it didn’t. The main one being that the real-world technology — genetic engineering — just wasn’t part of the popular consciousness. In a way I had to wait for the real science to catch up to my fiction before people would want to see this movie. Also the film tech has evolved a lot in ten years. I was able to make "Splice" much cheaper and more effectively than I would have been in able to in 2000. Then there is just dumb luck or serendipity. Getting the right people involved at the right time. It was a lot of work getting this movie made. There are aspects to the story that are a bit dangerous or a bit frightening for Hollywood studios. Going the independent route was the only way to make it really work.

BLAST: What about genetic engineering and the scientific world appealed to you as a setting?

VN: A whole bunch of things really. Once you dip your toe in that world, it is really captivating. Life is really strange when you look at it at that level. It is just a fascinating subject.

I am a huge fan of creature movies. In a way this is a love letter to creature films. The thought that is so fascinating to me is that things that have only been imagined for thousands of years could actually come into existence, courtesy of new technology, was really an extraordinary prospect. I was seduced by the whole thing. I was kind of shocked actually that no one has made a film like "Splice" yet. It just seemed so obvious to me. I kept waiting with dread that I would wake of one day and read that someone was doing a similar project. Thankfully for me they didn’t.

BLAST: Clive and Elsa (Adrien Brody and Sarah Polley) feel like very real, genuine scientists. How much research did you do in constructing the characters?

VN: When I went to visit these labs, the median age was around 30, so people are pretty young at the labs and they are not the clich©d image of scientists. They aren’t wearing pocket protectors or horned-rimmed glasses or anything like that. They are pretty hip. I thought that made sense for Clive and Elsa and I thought that would make them more relatable as characters and humanize them. On one of my tours I met a guy who became a consultant on the film and he was wearing a shirt that said "Born to clone" and I was like wow. It was like a case of life imitating art or at least it confirmed some of the things that we had put in the script that I wasn’t sure about. I made some connections about these kinds of people that had proven to be real.

BLAST: Clive and Elsa are both very complex characters and could easily exist outside a monster movie. Did you start with the characters or the monster?

VN: The reason d’ªtre was to splice a creature film with a relationship story. I half joking call it my family film. And it is, though a really odd one. So yes it was always about the characters. And that is why I needed to get great actors. There were some fairly complex emotions being dealt with, especially for a horror film.

BLAST: There is a clear focus on the characters in the film. Why was it so important to make Clive and Elsa more realistic than the characters you usually see in horror films?

VN: I mean otherwise it would be just another Frankenstein movie. It’s not that Frankenstein doesn’t have well-developed characters, but I thought that the thing that was going to propel the Frankenstein myth into the 21st century was to make it a love triangle. And also I wanted to make Elsa the protagonist and to make it a mother-daughter story and more female-centric.

BLAST: How long did it take to conceive and flesh out your movie monster Dren?

VN: It took about as long as it took to get the film made. It was always done in fits and starts. I started drawing Dren right away when I was first writing the script. She was always a key component to selling the film because everyone wanted to know what the creature would look like. Along the way I worked with some really great artists and then great film technicians. So Dren is the child of many parents. The final and most important component of the whole process was the casting of Delphine Chaneac who plays the adult Dren. I think if Dren works as a character it is due to Delphine. She just gives so much to that character. She makes her both something that you can sympathize with and be scared of. In some ways we reverse engineered the early stages of Dren to be consistent with her. She really informed a lot of the early designs. Because Dren in the early stages is a lot different physically than in her adult phase.

BLAST: What did having to create Dren based around Delphine’s performance and practical effects rather than CGI add?

VN: Even if I had the money I never would have been able to make Dren fully digital and have that same kind of performance. There is a degree of subtlety that a real actor can give you that even in a movie like “Avatar” can’t fully give you.

BLAST: You reveal all of Dren’s different traits very slowly and it makes the film much more effective and frightening. Was that a conscious choice?

VN: That is one of the advantages of low-budget filmmaking. I couldn’t afford to do a lot so I had to be very judicious with when I showed different parts of her anatomy. Because each different part had a price tag with it and a dollar value so it was all done in a very meticulous way. And as is often the case with these sort of things I find that those limitations improve the story of filmmaking better because I end up having to be more economical as a filmmaker and I need to leave more to the audiences imagination.

BLAST: When writing and conceiving "Splice," did you get inspiration from any particular filmmakers?

VN: The film obviously owes debts to a number of filmmakers — first and foremost David Cronenberg because I think when you make something in the biological horror world, that is territory trademarked by David Cronenberg. I think he is such and intelligent filmmaker and that is something I was aspiring to. But also James Whale who did the original Universal Frankenstein horror movies. I think that those sorts of influences seeped in unconsciously or subconsciously. They kind of entered by osmosis. "Splice" is definitely a hybrid, but like Dren, it is composed of many different components. Hopefully they add up to the greater sum of its parts.

BLAST: Horror is a genre that has certain expectations. Was it challenging not simply falling into simply reproducing the same kind of "scares" you see in most horror films?

VN: I had the great fortune of making the film independently so I didn’t have a nervous executive leaning over my shoulder saying it isn’t scary enough or telling me to do it a certain way.

BLAST: Like someone saying you need four "jump scares" or whatever.

VN: That was never and issue. We were very lucky

BLAST: That has to be challenging. You see a movie like the recently released "Nightmare on Elm Street" remake and you can almost predict every beat. It has to be tough working in the horror genre to fight those kinds of expectations.

VN: I am sympathetic. I don’t know what I would do if I had "Nightmare on Elm Street," because we are kind of at a stage now with film being over a 100 years old where we have seen these kinds of stories a lot. It feels sometimes if you are working within the boundaries of a film like "Nightmare on Elm Street" you don’t have a lot of room to mess around. It is probably very difficult. That is why it is so liberating to work on something like "Splice" because I could set my own boundaries.

BLAST: Did you find that focusing on the characters is the best way to upend people’s expectations about horror?

VN: You can never go wrong with focusing on the characters.

BLAST: I guess with a horror film it is easier to surprise people in a way.

VN: To some degree as a filmmaker you have an unfair advantage working on a horror film because people do have low expectations. If they are going to see an Academy Award-nominated movie, expectations are pretty high; but if they are going to see a monster movie, they might be pleasantly surprised and impressed that there is a little bit of character development.

The five of you out there not planning on catching "Iron Man 2" this weekend are going to miss more than another chance to catch Tony Stark in action; you are going to miss your chance to get your first look at J.J. Abrams’ new mystery project, co-produced with directing icon Steven Spielberg.

The Internet has been buzzing this week with the news that Abrams, creator of the infamous TV show “LOST,” was working on a new super-secret project called "Super 8." The speculation was that it might be a sequel to the Abrams-produced 2008 film "Cloverfield."

Turns out that’s wrong. Apparently "Super 8" is a film that’s a kind of homage to the ordinary people thrust into extraordinary situations, like "Jaws" and "E.T." that Spielberg specialized in the 80′s. Abrams apparently approached Spielberg last year with the idea and asked for his approval of the project.

Anyone whose stomachs got a little queasy with the shaky, handheld cameras in "Cloverfield" don’t have to worry. Abrams is shooting the modestly budgeted (by summer blockbuster standards) $45 million film with stationary cameras and will direct this one for release next summer before hopping aboard the Enterprise again for "Star Trek 2," which is set for release in summer 2012.

Keep your eyes out for the Abrams-directed trailer of "Super 8" this weekend in front of "Iron Man 2" and check back with Blast for regular updates about "Super 8" as more information on the top-secret project becomes available.

The movies destined to make the biggest splash at Cannes this year aren’t even competing for the Palm d’Or.

In what has become a tradition, the opening night film is an upcoming summer blockbuster. The premiere of "Robin Hood," Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe’s return to the summer action epic 10 years after "Gladiator," will kick off this year’s festival.

Hopefully, "Robin Hood" will prove to be a better film than past opening night films- "The Da Vinci Code" opened the festival in 2006 and "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" had the honor in 2008. While both were blockbusters, neither was particularly well received critically.

Other high profile film’s screening out of competition include Oliver Stone’s "Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps." The hotly anticipated sequel features Michael Douglas returning to his Oscar-winning role as Gordon "greed is good" Gekko. The film also stars rising stars Shia LaBeouf and Carey Mulligan. Woody Allen’s newest "You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger is also screening out of competition. While not much is known about the plot, Allen’s latest features an all-star cast including Josh Brolin, Anthony Hopkins and Naomi Watts.

Speaking of Watts, she is the star of the only American film that was accepted into main competition. She stars as outed CIA agent Valerie Plame in Doug Liman’s "Fair Game." Sean Penn co-stars as her husband, Joseph Wilson. This is the second time Watts and Penn have worked together. They previously appeared together in

Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu’s 2003 film, "21 Grams." "Fair Game" marks an interesting shift to the serious for Doug Liman. The director has become known for making fun, breezy action films like "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" and "The Bourne Identity."

Other notable films showing at the festival include, Mike Leigh’s "Another Year," Stephen Frear’s "Tamara Drewe" starring Gemma Arterton, and Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu’s "Biutiful" starring Javier Bardem.

Director Tim Burton is heading up the juror’s panel. Fellow judges include actors Benicio Del Toro and Kate Beckinsale

It is surprising that "Date Night" is the first time that Steve Carell and Tina Fey have teamed up. They just seem like one of those natural pairings that should have done five movies together by now. Despite the long wait, a solid script and great performances from Carell and Fey and a very game supporting cast make "Date Night" an auspicious beginning to what I hope is a long partnership.

Carell and Fey play Phil and Claire Foster, a married couple that has fallen into a bit of a rut. Their two young children take up most of their time and energy. They have their routine. There’s book club and date night, always at the same restaurant — the waiter even knows them by name. Phil and Claire are shaken when they learn their best friends are separating. Both wonder if they have let things get too stale.

Trying to shake things up, the two decide to switch it up and head into Manhattan for dinner at a swanky new seafood restaurant. When they are unable to get a table ("people make reservations months in advance" according to the snooty host), Phil impetuously makes the decision to steal another couple’s reservation. Phil’s seemingly innocent bit of reservation theft leads to a night full of mistaken identity and bizarre encounters. The Fosters are forced to tangle with dirty cops, mob bosses, burnouts (Mila Kunis, James Franco) and an always-shirtless security expert (Mark Wahlberg).

What makes the craziness work so well is that Phil and Claire are a grounded and realistic couple. Yes they have their problems, but they are realistic, not just manufactured plot points. Carell and Fey have a nice chemistry, and are just plain likable. That may sound simple, but they are simply delightful together. The movie has us rooting for Phil and Claire before they are even in danger.

The all-star supporting cast is used exceptionally well and are given actual characters to play. Wahlberg has a blast poking fun at himself as a former client of Claire’s who seems uninterested in wearing a shirt, much to Phil’s chagrin. And Kunis and Franco are hilarious as the couple whose reservation Phil and Claire stole. Their scene is the funniest in the movie.

Director Shawn Levy capably balances the comedy and action with the character work. And stages one of the more inventive and impressive car chases in recent years involving two cars stuck together. Perhaps most importantly, Levy seems very comfortable directing large, diverse casts and gives everyone their moment to shine while keep things moving at a brisk pace.

While "Date Night" is nothing particularly original, it shows how fresh old standards can be when done well.

The ads for "Clash of the Titans" have trumpeted the film as the next 3D epic. It’s an understandable decision. Audiences wowed by the immersive experience of "Avatar" are hungry for more and it doesn’t hurt the studios bottom line that 3D tickets go for $4-5 more than and old-fashioned 2D show.

Unfortunately director Louis Letterier did not shoot the film with 3D conversion in mind. And the decision to convert the film to 3D was not made until 6 WEEKS AGO. For a reference, it took the technicians who worked on "Alice in Wonderland" 6 months to convert that film using the same process. I can’t imagine the corners that had to be cut to make such a tight deadline.

Instead of making "Clash of the Titans" more involving, the 3D muddles the film’s impressive set and creature designs and makes the frequent action sequences damn near unwatchable.

It’s a shame the 3D is so bad, because on its own terms, "Clash of the Titans" is a fun, gritty take on classic Greek mythology.

Zeus (Liam Neeson), who is angry that the citizens of Argo are turning their backs on the Gods, is persuaded by his brother Hades (Ralph Fiennes) to remind them of the order of things. Perseus (Sam Worthington), a mortal son of Zeus, emerges as mankind’s only hope against the powerful forces of Olympus. Perseus is out for revenge, having lost his adoptive family in an attack by Hades and is driven to bring down the Gods.

Aided by the mysterious, sexy and ageless Io (Gemma Arterton) and a collection of Argo’s toughest soldiers (led by the excellent Mads Mikkelsen), Perseus battles giant scorpions, the slithery Medusa and the gigantic sea creature the Kraken.

Worthington, fresh off the massive success of "Avatar," once again proves himself a capable, if unexceptional, leading man. He brings the same masculine, brooding presence he brought to "Avatar" and "Terminator Salvation." While he is always solid, he lacks the charisma and personality to make any role his own. But Worthington again shows his ability to act in the midst of wall-to-wall CGI. Perhaps that makes him the perfect modern leading man. He is never interesting enough to take attention away from all the expensive special effects.

Nothing in the movie proves that Louis Leterrier is ready for the big-time as a director. He seems to lack a strong narrative sense and while he is good at the big establishing shots that introduce his actions sequences, he doesn’t have the feel for making them visceral and exciting. But once the story gets rolling it is hard not to get caught up despite Leterrier’s weaknesses. It was commendable that he used massive sets and on-location shooting for much of the film instead of CGI backgrounds. It lends the fantastical and fairly silly film a grounding in the real world that otherwise would have been lacking.

If you are looking for a fun and well-made action film, "Clash of the Titans" does the job, but ignore the ads to see it in 3D. It’ll save you $4 and will hopefully show the studios that audiences wont put up with shameless money grabs that detract from a film’s quality. I understand that filmmaking is a business, but as 3D ticket prices quickly approach $20 in big cities like Boston and New York it is important we aren’t getting half-assed 3D conversions motivated by profit margins and box office receipts.

"She’s Out of My League" never gets around to answering its central question, "Why would a 10 date a 5?" Instead the film seems more interested in lame gross-out gags and tired scenes of guys sitting around talking and trying to sound like they are in a Judd Apatow movie.

It’s a shame, because there is a solid comedic set-up here that is wasted in the unoriginal execution.

Kirk (Jay Baruchel) is a nerdy TSA airport security guard who meets blond bombshell Molly (Alice Eve) in a perfectly cute fashion. She forgets her iPhone after rushing through security to catch her flight and Kirk returns it to her. As a thank you, Molly offers to take Kirk to a hockey game and the two begin an awkward courtship.

The film spends little time explaining why Molly falls so hard for Kirk. Sure, he seems like a nice guy, but there seems to be very little else to recommend him. He has a crappy job, a terrible family and a truly loathsome ex-girlfriend. Molly’s best friend (played by a scene-stealing Krysten Ritter) suggests that she sees Kirk as a safe alternative after being hurt by a more handsome ex. But that is hardly a reason for Molly to go for a dip in the shallow end of the gene pool.

Instead of scenes showing Molly and Kirk developing a relationship beyond the music-montage standard of your run of the mill crappy romantic comedy, we get a scene of Kirk getting help from a friend with his manscaping. Then one of Molly’s dog amorously licking Kirks crotch after he has an "accident" during a particularly heavy make-out session with Molly.

Perhaps a more charismatic actor could have made it work. Unfortunately Jay Baruchel proves to be a bit of a dud in his leading man debut. His twitchy body movements and understated line delivery recall a young Nicolas Cage but unfortunately he doesn’t have the kooky charm to match. He just seems completely uncomfortable in his own skin and it makes him an unappealing hero to root for.

It’s a shame that Baruchel isn’t better, because Alice Eve is quite good. She takes a thankless "dream girl" part and invests Molly with genuine charm, intelligence and sweetness. I never bought that her character would stick with the befuddled Kirk.

"She’s Out of My League" squanders the promise it shows early, chasing the easy joke instead of focusing on the characters. Instead it becomes and awkward mash-up of the Farrelly Brother’s “anything goes” vulgarity and a Judd Apatow bro-centric relationship comedy.

Skip this one. Instead stay home and wonder if there is anyone outside characters from crappy movies who actually ranks girl’s hotness numerically. Seems to me like an incredibly limiting and subjective evaluation method.

Oscar looks good for 82.

In one of the most fun and breezy Oscar telecasts in years, co-hosts Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin proved to be a terrific duo, keeping the long awards show rolling with consistent laughs. After giving the stage over to Neil Patrick Harris who opened the festivities with a show-stopping song and dance number, the “It’s Complicated” co-stars proved to be a winning combination, poking fun at Hollywood’s biggest stars without any of the awkwardness that exemplified Ricky Gervais’s shot as host of the Golden Globes.

The awards themselves proved fairly predictable.

The acting awards were all taken by the heavy favorites with Monique (“Precious”) and Christoph Waltz (“Inglorious Basterds”) winning supporting honors while Sandra Bullock (“The Blind Side”) and Jeff Bridges (“Crazy Heart”) took the lead acting honors. It was the first win for all four, and the first nomination for all but Bridges.

The big winner in the battle for total award dominance belonged to “The Hurt Locker” which beat out box office behemoth “Avatar,” 6-3. The war film won both Best Picture and Best Director for Kathryn Bigelow — making her the first woman to take home directing honors. While “Avatar’s” ginormous box office numbers and rave reviews made it the heavy favorite early in the award season, “The Hurt Locker” had dominated the last few weeks of the season and was considered a strong front runner going into tonight’s final leg.

On to the most stacked category of the night…Best Actor. Very cool bringing out some other fine actors to talk about the nominees. And congratulations Vera Farmiga for actually getting a smile out of the surprisingly moody Clooney. Wow these stories have been great, particularly the one where Morgan Freeman didn’t know Tim Robbins’ name the first day of shooting “The Shawshank Redemption.” And who wouldn’t want to go on a trip to Mexico with Colin Farrell and Jeremy Renner — even if you did have to share a pillow. Bet those guys can party.

I am not sure who to root for. This category is so strong top to bottom. I am hoping for Jeremy Renner — the guy was a force of nature in “The Hurt Locker,” but Jeff Bridges has waited so long and his turn as Bad Blake is certainly award-worthy. And presenting is the always luminous Kate Winslet. With a standing ovation, it is Jeff Bridges. Yeah, “The Dude” has an Oscar. Bit of a rambling speech, but the guy deserves it. And acting really is a “groovy” profession. Bridges is one of a kind.

Best Actress has been considered a two-person race for a few months now. Will it be Streep or Bullock? My personal choice would be Carey Mulligan for “An Education.” She was absolutely wonderful as the young and naive Jenny, but my money is on Sandra Bullock. Besides, I expect Mulligan, like Streep, will be back here a lot. I think it is going to be tough to give Streep a third instead of the well-liked Bullock a first. Really love the decision to have actors “present” each actress with a story. Hard to choose who to root for; all the stories were great.

And it’s Sandra Bullock. Who would have ever thought Bullock would ever be nominated, let alone win? But she found a heck of a part and played it well. Her speech should be used as a template by future winners. Just classy top to bottom. And great sentiment to end on, thanking the “moms who take care of the children and babies no matter where they come from.”

We are in the home stretch, people. Here comes Best Director. I think it is Bigelow’s year. It would certainly be a worthy first win for a female director.

And Kathryn Bigelow it is. She made a kick ass action flick and got some got some great performances from her entire cast. Great to see her come out with a win in such a strong year for the category. And in the bigger award battle, that makes it 5 for “The Hurt Locker” to “Avatar”‘s 3.

To end the show, we have the indelible Tom Hanks. And the winner is… “The Hurt Locker,” winning its sixth of the night. Sorry “Avatar,” you will have to live with the $2 Billion plus you have earned world-wide. Gotta love how pumped the whole cast is. Summit is no longer just the studio behind “Twilight.” Now they have an Oscar winner…. wow.

You know you are a big star when they ask you to present solo…case in point, Matt Damon presenting best documentary. “Food Inc.” may be the scariest looking movie of the year. I am afraid to watch it as I hear it immediately makes you want to become a vegetarian. And I love cheeseburgers. It was a strong year for documentaries, but “The Cove” was a front-runner since its release this summer. Wow, actor Fisher Stevens getting some Oscar love! Am I the only one that remembers “Early Edition” fondly?

And we have Tyler Perry presenting Editing. Loved the shot of Baldwin and Martin back stage chilling in Snuggies. And now it is 4-3 “The Hurt Locker” with Bob Murawski winning. Really expected “Avatar” to dominate these technical awards. I am switching my pick for best picture from “Avatar” to “Hurt Locker.”

Wow Keanu Reeves at the Oscars — never thought I would see that. Thought it is fitting that he would present “The Hurt Locker.” Kathryn Bigelow made him an action star in “Point Break.” Not sure if we should thank thank Bigelow for that or not.

And we have two masters out to present best foreign language film in Pedro Almodovar and Quentin Tarantino. Almodovar’s most recent — “Broken Embraces” was very strong and featured a great performance from Penelope Cruz. And in an upset “El Secreto de sus ojos” beats “A Prophet.” Great acceptance speech by writer/director Juan Jose Campanella featuring a nice dig at “Avatar.”

Wow Elizabeth Banks…funny and gorgeous. What was that, the 8th James Cameron joke? She hosted the Sci Tech awards show apparently. Not that I am much of a dress expert, but hers might be my favorite so far.

Cool to get John Travolta to introduce Tarantino’s “Inglorious Basterds.” Although Travolta might need Tarantino’s help with another comeback role after the double crap whammy that was “Old Dogs” and “From Paris With Love.” He has slipped so far from the heights he reached with his turn as Vincent Vega in 1994′s awesome “Pulp Fiction.”

And we have Sandra Bullock out to present Cinematography. Not a make-up expert either, but Sandra Bullock’s lipstick might be a bit much. Wow, are those lips red. And “Avatar” rebounds with a win. Ah, Mauro Fiore, thanks for keeping your speech short. I loved “Avatar” but I was rooting for Bruno Delbonnel from “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.” Thought it was the most gorgeously shot movie of the year.

A really nice thing — Demi Moore introduces James Taylor to play a song commemorating the stars who died this year. Taylor absolutely killed with an acoustic version of “In My Life.” Nice simple way to remember the deceased.

Another curious duo, pairing Jennifer Lopez and Sam Worthington. And of course we get our completely unneeded dance montage. I would have much rather had the best song nominees performed than an interpretive dance number. Though the version of the robot they did during the “Up” portion was pretty cool. It is a bit suprising “Avatar” got nominated for best score. James Horner has been coasting since his win for “Titanic” and the score was one of the weakest aspects of the film. And Horner shouldn’t have been allowed anywhere near the Oscars after that horrendous Leona Lewis song over the end credits.

Sweet, Micheal Giacchino won for “Up.” Giacchino is probably the most inventive composer working right now. Not only did he score “Up” but he also composed the really cool score for “Star Trek” and has done the music for every season of “Lost.” The guy is the go-to pop culture composer.

“Avatar” picks up its third award of the night for visual effects…didn’t see that one coming. Right now “Avatar” and “Hurt Locker are tied at three awards a piece.

And by the way, what’s George Clooney’s problem? He’s shot a few pretty nasty glances at the camera this evening.

You know, I actually buy that Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin would share a hotel room. Hilarious parody of “Paranormal Activity” and nice intro to a horror film tribute.

OMG!!! Taylor Lautner and Kristen Stewart. Both look rather bored, although it’s nice to see that KStew dressed appropriately for the Oscars — no converse or daggered skirt. And Taylor Lautner, suit and tie as usual (does this guy own a tshirt?) Did we really just see an Oscar clip package that included “Saw”, “Chucky,” an evil leprechaun and…”Twilight”??? The clip package gave some great examples of why horror movies aren’t taken more seriously. Though I do have to say the “Scream” clips have me excited for the fourth movie.

Young Hollywood on parade continues with Zac Efron and Anne Kendrick presenting art and sound editing. They are the much more impressive duo. For those of you who didn’t get a chance to see “Me and Orson Welles” (which I am assuming was many of you), definitely look for it on DVD. Efron equates himself really well and proves he is a promising leading man.

Nice bringing Morgan Freeman into the clip to show the artistry behind sound editing and mixing. Love what the Oscars are doing to explain these awards to us novices at home. I was expecting “Avatar” to pick up most of the technical categories. This could be a sign that “Hurt Locker” should be the strong favorite for Best Picture now.
And Mixing goes to “Hurt Locker” as well. “Avatar” may be in trouble.

Curious they have Robin Williams step in for Heath Ledger to present “Best Supporting Actress” but he was funny… shocking for anyone who saw “Old Dogs.”

Another non-shocker. Monique has been the favorite for months now. “Showing that it can be about the performance and not the politics.” Aren’t we a little full of ourselves Monique? In my opinion, Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick should have split the award. Sorry “Precious” fans, I just wasn’t a big admirer. But congrats to Monique. Never imagined she would ever be a nominee, let alone an Oscar winner. It is great when actors surprise everyone and are given the chance to show of unexpected wells of talent.

Art Direction could kick off the “Avatar”-dominated portion of the proceedings. Expect the James Cameron box office monster to dominate the technical categories. Say what you will about James Cameron but the people who work with him seem to love and respect him.

Love how they have set up a running joke about Martin mispronouncing things and have Baldwin collect him. “Clothes whores” versus “clothes horses” — good stuff. “Costume Design” — not exactly my favorite category but an important one.

Nice to see “Young Victoria” get a win. Really loved that movie. Shame that Emily Blunt wasn’t nominated.

Really cool having Jeff Bridges present “A Serious Man.” Gotta say, it is appropriate to have “the Dude” present the Coen Brothers’ movie. New update for those who dont know — Jeff Bridges is starring in the brothers’ remake of “True Grit,” the movie that John Wayne won his Oscar for. Matt Damon and Josh Brolin are costarring, so expect the upcoming western to be an awards contender in 2010.

Got to love how they pick these presenting duos. The only connection between Jake Gylenhaal and Rachel McAdams… they are both really hot.

Best Adapted Screenplay is another stacked category. Just another example of how strong a movie year 2009 was. Wow! First big upset. “Up in the Air” had been the heavy favorite for months. I wonder if the spat between writers Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner had anything to do with it. Reitman definitely took a big PR hit with how dickish he seemed to be at the Golden Globes. Honestly, if it wasn’t “Up in the Air” I would have preferred “An Education.” Nick Hornby’s script was gorgeous.

And what an awkward but heartfelt speech by Geoffrey Fletcher.

“I wrote that speech for him.” Steve Martin, you are comic gold. And Queen Latifah, looking beautiful in pink, presents another montage. This one for the Governor’s Award.

“Because frankly we are sick of bringing out all these ugly actresses.” Martin and Baldwin continue to roll. Sorry, let me just take a minute to admire Carey Mulligan and Zoe Saldana. Both are looking gorgeous. Wow what a double whammy to make them present categories that most people won’t care about. With those two ladies on stage, they will definitely keep my attention — Best Animated Short, Best Live Action Documentary Short Subject, Best Live Action Short. Really cool getting past filmmakers that have gone on to great success off of their short film wins. Taylor Hackford, David Frankel, John Lasseter…really cool. Is it just me or are the Oscars making an effort to really help casual viewers understand the art behind all of the awards? Really cool idea and pretty inspiring.

Funny speech from animated short winner Nicolas Schmerkin. It is always fun to see how these unkowns handle the stage and the audience. Usually they produce some really memorable moments and Schmerkin was no exception.

Oh my god… Ben Stiller is dressed as a Naavi!!! “This seemed like a better idea in rehearsal.” Gotta love how far he will go. I am not sure I will be able to take “Avatar” seriously ever. Again. Suddenly my 4-star review is feeling somewhat foolish. “I will try to stand as far away from them as possible to not demean their moment of triumph.” Ben I forgive you for “Night at the Museum”…one and two.

Yes!! “Star Trek” gets some love. How fun was that movie? It was such a strong summer for really good blockbusters and “Star Trek” was one of the best of the bunch.

Really cool getting Molly Ringwald and Matthew Broderick to introduce a tribute to John Hughes. Has any filmmaker defined a decade as completely as Hughes did for the 80′s and early 90′s? I am not sure there is anyone from 20-35 who doesn’t have a favorite movie somehow connected to Hughes.

Really nicely-cut tribute. And what a deep and incredibly diverse filmography Hughes had. Just a unique filmmaker and person. He walked away from a successful and incomplete career and never thought twice. And well done Oscar, gathering the actors he made stars and letting them give their own tributes. And very cool that his family was there. Just another reminder that the Oscars aren’t just a celebration of Award worthy movies but all movies, particularly the ones that capture and enthrall audiences.

And “Up” for Best Animated Feature. It was such a strong year for animated features. “The Fantastic Mr. Fox” showed how magical stop-motion animation can be and “The Princess and the Frog” reminded us of how fun classic Disney hand drawn animation is. But “Up” was in a different league. The film’s emotionally ravaging first seven minutes was award-worthy enough, and when you throw in a talking dog…no contest.

Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin continue to dominate. Their back and forth is fun without feeling overly polished or rehearsed. Loved how they introduced Miley Cyrus and Amanda Seyfried. “Two girls who have no idea who we are.”

And yet another worthy winner, “The Weary Kind” for best song. No brainer as far as I am concerned. Just a gorgeous song.

How bad-ass is Robert Downey Jr.? Even playing the tool, he is always cool. Is it just me or should Hollywood get him and Tina Fey in a romantic comedy, like, right now? And I really liked how they presented the best original screenplay nominees. Letting you see the actors interpret the script…really cool.

What a stacked category. Honestly there is not a weak script in the bunch. Loved them all, though I have to say I am partial to “Inglorious Basterds.” What an ultra-fun script. And, as largely predicted, it is Mark Boal with “The Hurt Locker.” The film has picked up a ton of steam as the awards season has gone on and is now looking like a freight train that wont be stopped. Nice short and sweet acceptance speech for you.

It’s the biggest movie event of the year — The Academy Awards. From the outrageous dresses to the long speeches, the wins and the losses, Blast reporter Ned Prickett is keeping you updated.

Got to say, starting out with a big musical number featuring Neil Patrick Harris — freaking brilliant. Is it just me or is he slowly taking over the world? And Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin absolutely killed. They hit all their marks with aplomb. They were snarky, but not in a mean way and picked their targets well. In an awards show were most of the awards are considered sure things, Martin and Baldwin are keeping things fun and breezy, even while making racial jokes, Nazi jokes and pot-shots at Meryl Streep.

And on to the first award of the night — Best Supporting Actor. Christoph Waltz has been the favorite since the day “Inglorious Basterds” opened. If he doesn’t win it will be a big shot. Last year’s Best Supporting Actress winner Penelope Cruz is presenting and shockingly she looks gorgeous.

No suprise there. Best Supporting Actor goes to Christoph Waltz. Long considered the favorite, Waltz started the night off well with a classy and eloquent acceptance speech. Penelope Cruz and an Oscar, “uber bingo” indeed. Stay tuned for more Oscar updates!

"The Art of the Steal," takes a look at the battle over one of the most impressive and valuable collections of art in the world. Valued between $25-30 billion, The Barnes Collection, currently housed in the Barnes Foundation outside of Philadelphia, has been long fought over.

Despite Albert Barnes’ explicit instructions left in his will detailing his desire to keep the paintings at the Barnes Foundation in Merion Pennsylvania, the city of Philadelphia, backed by a powerful group of allies including the Pew Charitable Trust, has taken steps to move the collection to a new facility in downtown Philadelphia.

The film takes a detailed look at how a desire for tourism dollars has led to the dismantling of one of the most unique art museums in the world as well as a man’s vision for a unique art experience.

Blast got a chance to sit down with the film’s director, Don Argott. We talked with him about greed, money and the Barnes Collection.

BLAST: When did you first encounter the Barnes Collection?

DON ARGOTT: Lennie Fienberg (the film’s executive producer) approached us with the idea of doing the film. I didn’t know anything about the Barnes Foundation up until that point. Lennie took classes there 20 years ago and he lived in the area. And if you live there, just like in Boston, you hear rumblings about the Gardner Museum; it’s one of those local stories that has been around forever. Lennie had the foresight to figure out this was a really big story and no one was telling it. Then I read John Anderson’s book called Art Held Hostage which recounts the history of the Barnes Foundation and the circus that ensued in the 90′s and kind of ends before the idea was to move it. It’s a great book; people should check it out if they want to learn more about the history of it. The film picks up where John’s book leaves off.

BLAST: Watching the film you see how much the former students value the education they got there. What about the education inspires that loyalty?

DA: It is really intimate, really comprehensive. I never took classes there but I don’t think you have to, to appreciate what that place is. It’s not dissimilar to the Gardner in that it’s this small, anti-art museum experience. That’s really what it is. I can’t for the life of me understand why the city of Philadelphia and the region is so committed to destroying this when they should be doing the exact opposite. Why can’t we have the art museum on the parkway and then have this thoughtful antithesis of the art museum experience at the Barnes Foundation. Why isn’t there room for both?

BLAST: It seems like a completely different experience, particularly comparing it to typical art museums.

DA: The whole thing is a work of art. It is different than an art museum. I don’t want to be anti-art museum, but most people who have gone to art museums know it is a pretty sterile environment. You see the painting with the placard that tells you everything you need to know and then you are on to the next thing. The Barnes challenges all that. You go in there and it is a true art experience. It is not just "The Card Players" hanging with the other Cezanne’s. Everything is arranged in such a unique way. Why they would want to dismantle that just doesn’t make any sense to me. The idea [is] that they can’t make it work, where it is proven in the movie that it was never their intention to make it work.

BLAST: Yeah the building and the arboretum are works of art themselves, like you said, and it doesn’t seem like that is being taken into account.

DA: How could it? You see where they are putting it on the parkway. It’s a swath of land. Even if they put gardens in there it will be the difference between a city garden and a suburban garden where there is actually an expanse of horticulture around you.

Blast: Do people in Philadelphia remember Albert Barnes? That there was an actual guy behind this incredibly valuable collection?


DA: The turning point for us was when we got the footage of Barnes. That was an amazing find for us. It was literally under someone’s bed. No one even knew what was on it until we got the film transferred and we were like "Oh my god, it’s Albert Barnes." He was not a heavily photographed or documented guy, and these are actual home movies that we have. The idea of really seeing him as a living human being is more compelling than most people realize, because for so long Barnes has been a name on a building — The Barnes Foundation. But that name doesn’t mean anything. There is only one photograph — it’s not even a photograph, but a reproduction of a painting — hanging in The Barnes Foundation. For all accounts, the Barnes does nothing to bring him back to life or show that he was this real guy. I think it is easier to discount someone’s wishes when you don’t think much about them. Seeing him as a living human being, it is different. You see he was a real guy. To me, this is his story. It’s not my story or my opinion. I think it is the film that Barnes would have made if he were alive. It is a pretty cool thing to have that responsibility.

BLAST: It is really easy to forget that the names on these collections were actual people and that the works they chose to buy represent them in such a personal way.

DA: That is exactly it. There are supposed to be checks and balances for all these things. Frankly, the Barnes trustees, the people who run the foundation — that’s their responsibility. It is not an outside group’s responsibility to make sure the Barnes is maintained as an amazing cultural institution. It is the people who are running it, and the people in place now have the exact opposite idea of what they should be doing with the art versus what the donor asked them to do. That is their responsibility, to make sure his wishes are kept. And they should be ashamed for what they are doing. There is a way to make it work; they’re just not interested in figuring out how to do that. They have moved on. They are all about turning it into something else now. It’s not about preserving what they should be preserving.

BLAST: And the fact that the value of the collection is completely due to Barnes’ incredible eye for the best artwork.

DA: That was important to illustrate. Oh, I get it, these paintings are worth millions and millions of dollars; that is why this is such a big deal. That is why the idea of moving it has more at stake. You see the other side and what they see. They don’t see a Van Gogh; they see a $10 million painting. That is what it has become. They see the paintings hanging in the Barnes as a series of dollar signs held captive away from the tourism community. It is this untapped resource to them that they can’t keep their hands off. It is almost like they can’t help themselves

BLAST: When you can advertise that you have an art collection worth $30 billion it has to be appealing.

DA: They can advertise that now and still be making all this tourism money because, the last time I checked, there is no Merion International Airport. People are going to come in to Philadelphia and not just see the Barnes Foundation. If they are interested in art they are going to go to the Philadelphia Museum of Art and to the Rodin Museum. If they want history they will go to the Benjamin Franklin Institute. There are amazing cultural institutions in Philadelphia and that’s not even mentioning the history. You can go see the Liberty Bell or Independence Hall. There is a ton to do. The idea that it all has to be in a 20-block radius because you don’t want to inconvenience the tourists by going out five miles into the suburbs and experience something unique is so ignorant. It’s disgusting.

BLAST: Before Richard Glanton took over as President, was there this big push for people to get more access?

DA: I think, to Richard’s credit, or discredit — whichever way you want to look at it — it was his idea was to put this thing on the map. He said as much and he did. He put it on the map in a pretty big way. The problem is the way that he put it on the map didn’t have this farsightedness of all the ramifications that would cause. I think, again, any part of this story, if cooler heads had gotten together and said “How can we figure this out? Where is the middle road?” things could have been different. But that never happened. From that point forward it became about something entirely different. Like everything else in our culture, we start arguing about the things that are not important and not about the things that are. So we are talking about this issue and this issue when we should be talking about how we can make this work without playing the blame game. We need to shift the argument back to what it is really about.

Even now with the film out, the people at The Barnes Foundation and Pew Charitable Trust who have commented are trying to discredit us as filmmakers because of our stance. They are doing everything but telling anybody what is false in the movie. But they will keep it up, hoping by beating the drum about how the film is filled with baseless facts, it will stick without them having to back up what they are saying. It’s all about not having the real discussion. I think that’s what is cool about the movie, because it asks more questions than it answers, and that is a good starting point. As long as the dialogue is talking about things that are really important.

BLAST: And you gave Bernard Watson (President of the Barnes Foundation) and Rebecca Remmel (President and CEO of Pew) the chance to counter the other arguments. That they declined speaks volumes, I think.

DA: You have to ask yourself, “Why wouldn’t they want to talk?” When you pull up Pew’s FAQ page about the Barnes Foundation, the last question is about why they didn’t participate in the film. And their answer was that we were going to be a biased film and they didn’t want to take part. They have gone on to say, because they have so much integrity for the truth and facts, they didn’t feel like it would be worthwhile. But isn’t that statement the whole reason they should set the record straight? It would be like no Democrat wanting to go on Fox News because they know they have a contrary position. That is a sure-fire way to make sure we never get anywhere — by not talking to the other side.

We didn’t have an agenda going into it. We would have still asked the hard questions; we still would have showed what we showed, but maybe there would have been a more compelling answer that would have challenged the viewer to consider their side. Instead, they chose not to. I feel like they are acting like they chose not to participate because they knew we were this nefarious [group] that was trying to discredit them. The truth, is they didn’t think anything of us. They didn’t think they needed to answer to us because they didn’t think we were anything. It wasn’t until we premiered at the Toronto Film Festival that their ears perked up and they were like, "Oh shit." And then we got distribution and it was even worse. Now they are up against the wall and they are trying to save face.

BLAST: Was there a challenge for access throughout?

DA: Only when we tried to get in touch with Barnes and Pew and we just got flat out rejections. We contacted the Barnes so many times throughout this. We almost begged them to be apart of it. I obviously wanted to shoot inside the gallery; that’s why I really wanted their participation…early on, but then throughout I kept telling them that people were saying some pretty nasty things, you should defend yourself. They said we don’t even want to talk about the opposition because if we acknowledge there is an opposition then we are playing right into the idea that this is a worthwhile dialogue to have and we don’t think it is. The courts permitted us to move forward, so we are. Then I told them to come onscreen and say that. That would be more effective than putting a graphic up that said they denied comment.

BLAST: It is so ironic that the people who are supposed to be representing Albert Barnes won’t come on and talk about Albert Barnes.

DA: Thanks for picking up on that.

BLAST: The Barnes Foundation is supposed to represent his vision and Watson wont even come on to talk about it.

DA: Now the film is representing his vision and the foundation that is supposed to be, is doing the exact opposite and that is the grand irony of the whole thing.

BLAST: Going back to Richard Glanton — he was such an interesting interview and you have to give him credit for coming on and being so open. I was curious did he express any regrets for the moves he made?

DA: Like you said Richard is an interesting guy and I gave anyone who came on the record and spoke a lot of credit. I gave Governor Rendell a lot of credit. I give them all a lot of credit for coming on and saying, "Yeah, let’s talk about this and let’s have a real discussion about this." Rendell wasn’t trying to hide anything. He told us the facts. It just so happens that the facts support the other side’s claims, the idea there was this plan set in motion a long time ago. I think Glanton had been kind of painted and portrayed as a bad guy in the press for a long time, and for good reason, no question. But we were giving him a forum to speak and he spoke candidly about it and I think the film shows that. Say what you will about Richard Glanton but at least he did kind of bring the Barnes out of the dark ages — once again, depending how you look at it, that [it] was a good or bad thing.

BLAST: Have they explained how the new building will help with the money problems the Barnes Institution has?

DA: We didn’t put it in the film because we couldn’t get a definitive number but the foundation runs at a deficit about $1.5 to 2 million a year. That means they have to make up $2 million in revenue to sustain themselves. It seems like a pretty big extreme to combat that by building a $200-400 million building and then figure out how to sustain that. The problem is all the other cultural institutions in Philadelphia are really strained right now. They aren’t doing well. This isn’t an example of putting a shopping mall in an area desperate for more shopping. People aren’t pouring into these institutions like they used to. The idea of putting something else on the parkway and that it will help seems wrong. I see it as a bigger strain. You are going to have yet another cultural institution that is going to need significant funding to sustain itself. To combat this very small problem, they are making an even bigger one. I haven’t seen the plans for how much the new building is going to cost because I don’t think they even know. First it was $100 million, now it’s $200 million. They haven’t even started pouring concrete in the hole and they are already $100 million off from your first estimate. I’m not an accountant, but that is off by a lot before you are even done. That should be causing a lot of red flags to go up.

And how much is it going to cost to sustain itself? How much revenue do you expect to bring in every year? What happens when the luster wears off and the tourism numbers drop because it isn’t new anymore? What is the plan?

BLAST: I thought it was funny that John Street (former mayor of Philadelphia) said the Barnes would generate revenue to match three Super Bowls "without the beer." Interesting way to put it.

DA: Yeah. We didn’t show it in the film, but later in the press conference a reporter asked him how much it was going to cost and he said "Oh, I know you people, I’ll say a number and then you’ll hold me to it, I don’t know." He doesn’t know how much it will cost but here you are all excited about it. I don’t know anywhere else in the world, except politics, where you can get away with that kind of ignorance and arrogance. I know I cant as a filmmaker. When a producer asks me how much a film is going to cost, I can’t say, "Lets just get started on it and figure it out as we go." If that isn’t a recipe for disaster, I don’t know what is.

BLAST: Another interesting idea that several people expressed in the film was how this isn’t the way Philadelphia should try to establish itself. It’s like they are trying to steal or manufacture culture.

DA: Philadelphia has — probably Boston too — this inferiority complex because we want to be something we are not. Instead of embracing what we are, it’s always about getting better at this or that. No city is going to be New York City. We don’t have to be New York or Washington or Los Angeles. It’s like an identity crisis. But we are already good enough. We have all this history and culture, let’s just be that; let’s promote that.

I shot that sign in front of the Ritz Carlton that says "Philadelphia- America’s Next Great City." What does that mean? Why do we have to be the next great anything? Philadelphia is a great city. I love living there. I have been there for 15 years. I grew up right outside New York, but I chose Philadelphia because of what it is, not what it wanted to be. It’s this idea that we are always falling short. To them this is something that means we won’t fall short now. We are going to have a world-class art institution. But we already do — its called the Philadelphia Museum of Art. That is a world-class art museum. People around the world recognize it as a world-class thing. Why do we need to bring something in to compliment that? We already have that. It’s called the Barnes Foundation and it is five miles outside the city. It’s a 10-minute car ride, 15 in traffic.

BLAST: And a collection that has been in place since 1922 is more impressive than a brand new museum. The Barnes is already a part of the city’s history.


DA: It is beyond counterintuitive.

BLAST: Perhaps the scariest part of the film was how the state allotted $107 million in the budget for the new facility and no can say who put it in. How is there no check or accountability?

DA: It’s terrifying. These budget bills are as thick as novels, and how many more of the little Barnes-type things are in there that we don’t know about? The mayor of Philadelphia announced yesterday that because the city is in such dire financial distress, they are going to start charging $300 a year for trash removal. There is always money for these other things, like the new Barnes building, that don’t benefit us, but they hide behind the idea that they are. They have already used $30 million of taxpayer money for the new building. That is a lot of money. Especially when you are now trying to charge me for my trash removal. That pisses me off. Enough is enough. Can’t we go back to the drawing board? When a family is struggling, they look and say we are going to have to scale back on the entertainment or the going out to dinner and then you figure out how to make it work. But within city government or government in general, there is always all this money and they never look at it because it is untouchable somehow. Instead they see, how can we squeeze more money out of citizens to make it work. Isn’t it time that somebody should look at the numbers and say hey, is there another way here besides charging the residents $300 a year to take out their trash?

BLAST: And you show these public hearings in the film about the Barnes, but in at least this case, it seems that the deals get done long before the process even started.

DA: It’s disingenuous. It’s a dog and pony show.

BLAST: Have you seen the plans for the new building? How does it look?

DA: It’s a big, modern, ugly-looking building. I mean, it looks fine for a new building. But for the Barnes Foundation, it just doesn’t work. I think the architects are stuck between a rock and hard place. The whole idea of the move is so guilt-ridden. The idea that they are going to move but keep it the same is ridiculous. Or that they are going to hang the paintings the way Barnes intended for them to be, but the rooms are going to be bigger. You are already destroying it. Just finish destroying it. The idea that they are trying to do it in the name of Barnes is more insulting and disingenuous than anything else.

Alice Eve is a solid 10 — at least, according to the new comedy "She’s Out of My League."

Eve plays Molly, a blonde-haired, green-eyed knockout who inexplicably falls for quirky, nerdy guy Kirk Kettner (Jay Baruchel). Despite her best friend Patty’s (Krysten Ritter) doubts, Eve starts to date Kirk and they both find out what happens when a "hard 10" dates a 5.

Beyond introducing the British-born Eve to America, the film marks Jay Baruchel’s first shot as a leading man. Baruchel is a member of Judd Apatow’s never-ending stash of comedic talent that has produced stars like Seth Rogen and Jason Segal.

Blast got a chance to hang out with Alice Eve and co-star Krysten Ritter at Kings Bowling Alley in the Back Bay and talked with the two young stars about playing a a “dream girl,” having potty mouths and the best date advice they ever got.

Video Credit: Brooklynne Kelly Peters

“The Crazies” suffers from too much ambition and no follow-through. However, despite some unnecessary plot complications, it delivers solid scares.

The film opens well with a nicely constructed scene involving a shotgun wielding man interrupting the first baseball game of the spring in Ogden Marsh, a sleepy farm town in Iowa.

David Dutton (Timothy Olyphant), Ogden Marsh’s sheriff, shoots the man before he can hurt anyone and chalks his odd and violent behavior up to a bender. The guy was the town drunk after all. Dutton grows suspicious when the man’s wife angrily assures him that Hamill had been on the wagon for two years. Dutton’s suspicions are confirmed when more of Ogden Marsh’s once kind citizens begin acting out in a very violent fashion.

The plot builds well, hitting all the appropriate foreboding notes. The film develops two solid, central easy-to-root-for characters. The first is stalwart Sheriff Dutton. The other is his beautiful wife Judy, who is smart and newly pregnant, and is also the town doctor.

About halfway through, "The Crazies" is moving along at a nice clip, seemingly happy to be a solid zombie film, when it introduces another malevolent force — the U.S. Government. Apparently what’s been causing the citizens’ violent behavior is exposure to an experimental and top secret bio-weapon. Worried about an epidemic, or even worse, bad press, the government decides to contain the situation by wiping the entire town off the map.

This plot switch would not have been a problem if it hadn’t derailed the movie that was doing a perfectly fine job of being entertaining. While "The Crazies" does manage to get moving again, it sacrifices momentum on this twist.

And this is were ambition comes in. The introduction of the military suggests the film is going to try and be more than just a zombie film. However, the military becomes merely another nameless, faceless boogeyman. Instead of raising the stakes, it just makes for a disjointed film; it’s like the screenplay was cobbled together from two separate story ideas. "The Crazies" tries to be more than just another zombie movie, but then doesn’t do the work to get there.

Despite its shortcomings, "The Crazies" has a few redeeming qualities.

Timothy Olyphant is great. Olyphant is typically a character actor, and it’s nice to see him take on a traditional hero role. He brings an intensity to the film that makes his character more interesting and invests the role with a physicality that serves the action scenes well. Olyphant is well supported by Radha Mitchell and Joe Anderson as Russell, Dutton’s loyal deputy.

“The Crazies” contains all of the jump scares that you would expect from a genre film. However, director Breck Eisner punctuated most of the scares with nice bits of action. Eisner has a real feel for set pieces. The high point of the film is when the small group of survivors is attacked by some of the infected townspeople in a car wash. The scene is genuinely scary and ends with a creatively constructed bit of violence.

"The Crazies" is a solid genre film. While it makes superficial attempts to be more than just typical zombie horror, the effort doesn’t match the film’s ambition. Despite that, "The Crazies" has its moments and compared to the recent slate of horror films, is high art. If you are looking for a few scares this Friday or Saturday night, "The Crazies" does the job.

The "Red Riding Trilogy" is a five-hour noir opus. Adapted from a series of novels by author David Peace, the trilogy explores the dark corners of Yorkshire, a once sleepy British province, torn asunder by corruption and crime.

The three films — which take place in 1974, 1980 and 1983 — follow three different protagonists. A young journalist (Andrew Garfield), a noble cop (Paddy Considine) and a crusading lawyer (Mark Addy), all of whom are swallowed up by the hopelessness and greed that has consumed Yorkshire. Sean Bean casts a long shadow over all three films as John Dawson, the real estate developer who funds the seedy activities that tear apart Yorkshire.

“Red Riding” opens with a young girl’s kidnapping and and moves through a series of grizzly serial killings. The trilogy depicts a series of heinous crimes covered up, forgiven and sometimes perpetrated by the institutions meant to protect the people that are being hurt. At several points in the films, the corrupt and powerful men of Yorkshire raise their glasses in a toast and proclaim, "To the North, where we do what we want." That mantra covers all manners of sins.

At one point one of the characters is asked if he would call the police if someone kicked in his door and threatened to kill his wife. "You mean if it wasn’t them that already kicked in my door?" the man deadpans.

The films’ three directors — Julian Jarrold, James Marsh and Anand Tucker — bring their own distinct visual styles to the separate films without detracting from the whole. Tony Grisoni’s screenplays deserve a lot of the credit. The screenplays have momentum and his spare style keeps the proceedings from becoming too overwrought and over the top. The material is so strong there is no need to ramp things up, and Grisoni understands that.

While all three films work separately, put together they take on a real power and resonance. Every loss and new betrayal builds until the despair and hopelessness becomes suffocating. Grisoni’s work builds a world as rich as James Ellroy’s Los Angeles in his "L.A. Quartet" or Dennis Lehane’s Dorchester.

Despite the fact that it’s five hours long, the trilogy feels a little rushed. The producers cut the 2nd novel, "Red Riding 1977" due to budget constraints and it sometimes shows. Some details seem to be missing and some characters’ motivations remain a bit too shadowy. But overall, the "Red Riding Trilogy" is an impressive achievement. The trilogy brings Yorkshire to life in all its grimy glory.

Five hours is a long time to spend in a movie theater. Sure, your butt gets a little numb and your eyes get a little bleary I know. But trust me — "The Red Riding Trilogy" is worth it.

The Sundance Film Festival began as a celebration of American independent cinema, but it has become a showcase for the best foreign independent films as well. "Peepli Live" has the distinction of being the first film from India to be accepted by the film festival. "Peepli Live" is a dark satire about life in rural India. Blast got a chance to talk with the film’s director Anusha Rizvi, the films producer Aamir Khan (India’s biggest movie star — think Tom Cruise and Will Smith combined) and the film’s star Omkar Das Manikpuri about their film.

Blast: How does it feel to have the first Indian Film to be accepted at Sundance?

Aamir Khan: It’s exciting.

Anusha Rizvi: I am excited to see what kind of response we will get.

Blast: Aamir, what drove you to get involved with the film?

AK: I was busy shooting a film, and I don’t usually read scripts in the middle of filming, but Anusha was very persistent and some instinct told me I should look at the script. And I loved it. Also, when I read the script, I felt it had the potential to entertain a world audience. Which is why right from the start we have been discussing how we need to take this film across the world, and I am really happy in that sense that Sundance has accepted it. We are trying to take the movie to people who otherwise would not experience the independent film coming out of India.

Blast: Anusha, what made you choose this story for your first feature?

AR: I never wanted to make films. I was not interested in having anything to do with films. I was just watching television and suddenly the story just struck me in its entirety, so I had to decide what to do with it. I could have explored it as a documentary, which is tough, because funding is practically nonexistent for documentaries. But funding for a film like this, which is about bureaucracy and government mentality and the state — a very political film — is almost impossible. So I started to write. I mean, I didn’t even know how to write a script. I just started to write something. And then I heard an interview with Aamir in which he said he was looking for scripts so I thought, “Okay.” That is why I got the idea. So I wrote him and I kept writing to him and he finally accepted it.

Blast: What was the challenge of balancing the satire with the serious subject matter?

AR: Indian humor has a tendency to deal with very serious issues in a peculiar way. So when you see the film, the humor is completely Indian. A lot of us actually deal with a lot of stuff in our lives like this. At times it can be cruel. But our job is to try to keep it rooted in Indian humor.

Blast: I read that most of the actors had not been on camera before. Anusha, how was the experience of learning along with the actors?

AR: It was fantastic. That was the most fascinating thing. It was an amazing experience. They brought so much to the movie and they created really beautiful characters. You feel completely humbled looking at so much talent.

Blast: Omkar, did you audtion for the film?

Omkar Das Manikpuri: I auditioned and Anusha and Aamir liked it, and I felt that I suited the character really well.

Blast: Omkar, while this is your first film, you have done a lot of acting on the stage. What were the challenges in moving from stage to film?

ODM: Theater is much easier because you rehearse it and then you do the whole thing in one night. Most of the time in front of the camera I was really nervous. All the lights and people made it a different experience. Finally, after the first couple of days I calmed down.

AR: The major problem for a lot of theater actors is that every performance is different. But when you are doing it for film you have to make sure the continuity is right. Make sure that each movement matches with the last one. In theater, you can move any way and change your performance spontaneously. Theater is an actor’s medium in that sense.

AK: For a lot of actors doing cinema, is very difficult because in cinema you have to have a mental graph to figure out in your head what you need to be doing in each shot. Because you don’t shoot a scene in sequence — you shoot depending on the light and depending on how the director wants to do it.

Blast: Aamir, I read that you have said you learned a lot from watching the actors like Omkar work in the film. What did you learn?

AK: When I saw the first cut, I was just blown away by the performances because I know that 80 percent of the cast was facing the camera for the first time. I don’t know how Anusha managed it.

Let me take a step back. When you see a scene that is shot well and feels real, as an audience you kind of sink into it. When you are dealing with two actors it is easier to create and make it real, but when you are dealing with 30 actors and an entire village is there, to make that moment real is very difficult. So it was very amazing for me to watch how Anusha had done that because this was her first film and to see how the actors had performed it. You feel like this is really happening — like hidden cameras are capturing it. That is almost the quality it has. It is almost like a documentary because it feels so real.

Blast: Anusha, you said that you had considered telling you story as a documentary, is that why you decided to tell your story in that realistic way?

AR: That was always in the back of my mind. And it was shot very much like a documentary. Having said that I have to add that I had absolutely no skills as a cinema person.

Blast: You just kind of did what felt natural?

AR: Yes, exactly.

AK: You know, that is the remarkable thing and I was discussing this with my wife Kiran who is also a filmmaker. I was discussing with her and one of the other producers how Anusha did it. She is off on her own. She doesn’t have any training in the tools that cinema has to tell a story, but it is because her urge or her need or desire to communicate is so strong that she finds a way, that it works wonderfully. You know what I mean

Blast: Well, it is almost like that because you didn’t go to film school Anusha you didn’t fall into the usual traps or clich©s because you didn’t learn them so you are able to follow your own direction.

AR: The actors were really supportive, and you just kind of pick up the technical stuff.

AK: I told her before shooting, because I was not on set with her, to look at the monitor. If you saw on the monitor what was in your head then you are doing right. If it feels right it’s right. If it doesn’t feel right, make sure you get it back to what you see in your head.

Blast: Anusha, were there any moments where you were just overwhelmed?

AR: Everyday. You should see some of the “making of” footage. Every single day there was something that was going on. At one time, our first director of photography quit.

AK: That was a very dramatic moment because I was working and I got a call from Anusha saying “I am having trouble with the DP.” He is someone who has shot a number of films. She is making her first film. The end result was that he was unhappy with Anusha and they couldn’t get along. So as a producer, I was being told that we had no DP. And the set was in this little village in Central India, so this is a small film with a small budget and cant afford delays or cancellations. I can send a new DP overnight, but I don’t know if Anusha will like him. And apart from the money, you lose the excitement

Blast: And the rhythm

AK: Yeah, exactly. But anyway, filmmaking is a crisis a day. In my 20 years as an actor, that is what I have realized, is that everyday, there is a crisis. Filmmaking is a lot about juggling different balls in the air. It is about creativity, but a good director is able to get the best out of what he or she has.

Blast: Aamir, I saw that you have begun to produce more films. Do you do it because it is material you want to be seen or as a learning exercise?

AK: You know I am not a “producer,” producer. You know someone who produces to earn money. My main profession is as an actor. While I am doing my work as an actor, when I come across something that interests me, I want to help. Because a film like this will never get made. I don’t know who would make this film. When I am not sure who is going to make it because it might not make a lot of money. I pick films that I find exciting and other people won’t touch.

PARK CITY, Utah — Tommy Lee Jones and Chris Cooper round out “The Company Men’s” all-star cast as two men trying to survive inside the corporate world. Blast got a chance to sit down with the pair of Oscar winning actors as part of a roundtable interview with other journalists. We talked with them about where they got the inspiration for their characters, working with John Wells and how they define themselves as people.

Chris, your character goes through so much despair in the film. How did you find your character?

Chris Cooper: As an actor I will do my homework, and I like to have a script as early as I can. I make no bones about it because I am so insecure as an actor anyway, I spend every night studying, working on it, thinking about it. And I try to be prepared for what I think John might want and to have a couple of options and if I am completely off the track then be open to the director’s suggestions. There is enough life experience that I can bring to a character like this, whether it is something like that has happened to me or in my family. I can’t see how it can’t all relate to it.

Tommy, it has been suggested there is some dichotomy with your character. Because he is seen as a noble figure at work but he has an affair, which would suggest a flaw. To what extent is that a key to the film and to human nature?

Tommy Lee Jones: I am sure it is relevant to the central theme. Where does the flaw lie? Is it with the girlfriend of the wife? I think it depends on how you tend to moralize. There are two parts to Gene McClary’s emotional life. One of them is very materialistic and one is essentially emotional. He leads those two lives. I think it is supportive of the overall theme of materialism and how we look upon it. I think in the life of Ben Affleck’s character, we see a guy lose a $160,000 job and wind up with a real job in construction, and I think his family and the audience learn together that losing a bunch of things is not necessarily a great tragedy. So I think McClary’s dual life is part of John’s attempt to address the subject of materialism. Look at it twice. Where is the flaw in this guy’s life? Is it his wife or his girlfriend?

The movie suggests that a lot of people find identity through their jobs and possessions. Do you ever find yourselves doing that?

TLJ: No. I don’t identify myself through the things I own. Do you (looking at Chris)?

CC: No. I still live in the same split-level ranch that I bought in 1994 and had no business buying. It was a cheap house, and I had no business buying it at that time. But I still live there and I’m still trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. You know, renovating the place and adding to it, but Marianne and I make a point to really live below the radar of this whole Hollywood nonsense.

Has this movie provided any perspective on how you take parts? What are you doing next? Are you thinking about taking a different kind of role next?

TLJ: I don’t drag movies around with me in my life.

You just finish one and go onto the next?

TLJ: I think there are some important themes for us all to consider. And the consideration of those themes, the performance of them, the enjoyment of them as a dramatic event whether you’re in the audience or a performer is the whole point.

Could you talk about John Wells and some of his characteristics as director?

TLJ: He is entirely guileless as a person, and that is a quality he brings to his movie set. People are drawn to that and behave in a similar way. In other words, there’s not a lot of jealousy and paranoia or resentment or stupid competition going on.

What is next for you guys?

TLJ: Boy, I wish I knew the answer to that. He knows what’s next for him because he is leaving the country tomorrow.

CC: I’m going to work with John Sayles for the fifth time in the Philippines on a turn of the 19th century piece about the American occupation of the country. John always likes to get his bits of history in and have people mingle with each other — or don’t. He always likes his history and politics, and so we’re going to go do it again.

Brooklynne Peters contributed to this video.

PARK CITY, Utah — Josh Fox was a filmmaker living in Pennsylvania when he was offered $100,000 to let a company mine for natural gas on his land. Suspicious of the whole process, Fox investigated natural gas drilling and learned that hydraulic fracturing, the process through which the gas is collected, is terribly damaging to the environment. Fox’s film "Gasland," is about his investigation into the effects of hydraulic fracturing and the people who live with the consequences. Blast got a chance to sit down with Josh Fox at Sundance and talk to him about the dangerous consequences of natural gas drilling, why most people don’t know about it and what drove him to make the film.

Blast: What is Hydraulic Fracturing?

Josh Fox: It’s a technique pioneered by Halliburton and two other companies which causes mini earthquakes under the ground by blasting a mix of water and toxic chemicals at very, very high pressures, and that extracts the natural gas.

Blast: How did you find out about natural gas drilling?

JF: They wanted to drill in my area of Pennsylvania. I was asked to lease my land, which is like 19 acres, which my family got back in the 70′s. We built our own house by hand. I got this lease in the mail, which said I could lease my land for gas drilling and I would make $100,000 right then and potentially a lot more. I was very suspicious of it, but as it turned out most of my whole county was doing this and getting these letters in the mail. My area is a watershed area. It’s part of the whole system that provides 15 million people with water from New York down to Philadelphia and southern New Jersey. So I just started looking into it and found all these potential problems. Basically Dick Cheney and the Republican controlled Congress of 2005 exempted the natural gas industry and specifically the hydraulic fracturing drilling technique from the Safe Drinking Water Act. That was in addition to exemptions they already had from the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act.

So I said, wait a minute: these drilling companies can come in and do pretty much whatever they want? Then I went about 50 miles away to a town called Dimock, Pa. where there was drilling occurring. It was one of the only places in Pennsylvania near me where drilling was going on, and the place was a disaster area.

Blast: What did you find?

JF: Animals were dying, people were getting sick, and water was contaminated with Natural Gas. There were reports that people could light their water on fire. My mind was blown to pieces. Then I found out that we are actually in the midst of the largest natural gas drilling campaign in history in the United States. They are drilling in 34 states. There are these shale plates all over the country and reports were coming back and I was reading a little bit here and a little bit there on the Internet but I couldn’t get a lot of information. What I heard was that other places were having the same problems I saw in Dimock. People could light their water on fire, volatile organic compounds such as benzine toluene and zylene, which were being vented off of the sites and getting into water and people were having real health problems. I found massive industrialization of areas both rural or urban. Dallas-Fort Worth has 10,000 gas wells.

It’s unbelievable the transformation that has happened in Fort Worth over night. I felt like I was standing on the precipice of a cliff where my whole area, upstate New York, The Catskills and Poconos would be upended and also that very few people knew about this because people out west were screaming about it but no one was really listening. And then I basically took my cameras and myself as many places I could. I went to hundreds of drilling sites. I did hundreds of interviews with people in the affected areas from Dallas-Fort Worth to rural Wyoming and found the same story over and over again. Contamination, pollution, health problems — and nobody was listening.

Blast: How was the experience of talking to all these people who have been affected?

JF: The film is my road trip. It’s a road movie. It’s actually kind of fun. I play the banjo so I took the banjo on the road with me and the people who I met were unbelievably inspiring. When you can light your water on fire right out of the sink — the first thing you have to do is laugh. It’s totally absurd. It’s like the world turns upside down for a moment. And then the shock hits you.

Blast: That you were supposed to drink that.

JF: Bathe in it. Drink it. There was an instance where someones lawn was on fire but they couldn’t put it out with their garden hose. So to be here at Sundance is hopefully an opportunity to get this issue much more into the public eye. I think we have created a movie that’s really fascinating,and they’ve taken it here, which means it’s ok.

Blast: I read about the FRAC Act. Will that help?

JF: The FRAC Act is one page long and all it does is take out the exemption for hydraulic fracturing in the safe Drinking water Act. That exemption was $100 million worth of lobbying by the industry, it was aggressively pursued by Dick Cheney and the energy task force and what it effectively did was take the EPA completely off the job. When I talked to someone who worked at the EPA, he said that basically we are asleep at the wheel. No one is looking into this. And you know under the ground is a very complex, beautifully designed system that keeps things separated. It keeps bacteria out of water. It keeps heavy metals out of things we need to eat. It’s this amazing system. When you go ahead and start pulverizing it over and over again you intermingle those layers. You are going to get toxins in all the things that allow us to be alive. In addition to the fact that when they do the fracking, they use something called fracking fluid. There are 596 different chemicals that go into that mixture.

Blast: I saw that Radon was in there?

JF: Well, you know, there are 596 different chemicals and 900 different products. Half of those are proprietary, meaning they are like the special sauce for MacDonald’s Big Mac or whatever — you can’t know what’s in them. They can use toxic chemicals and not tell you what they are and then basically inject them into the ground. But the ones we do know are pretty bad. In the Pennsylvania’s DEP website it says 300,000 gallons of gluteraldahide are used per frack. Gluterahdahide is a dental disinfectant. It’s like the stuff that kills everything. You don’t want to drink it. It’s like drinking Drano. You are injecting that into the ground, into or adjacent to underground drinking water supplies. That creates a myriad of problems. And that is what I discover in the film. It’s like a detective mission. No one is talking about it.

Blast: What other harmful effects does the drilling have besides the affects it has on our water supply?

JF: When you create this level of drilling, you are creating a level of industrial air pollution that I cant imagine it won’t affect Massachusetts. It’s not far from the Berkshires. It’s not far from that area in upstate New York. In Dallas Fort-Worth where I mentioned, there are 10,000 gas wells drilling alone. The drilling process alone burns a lot of diesel; a lot of gas is released which creates more greenhouse gas emissions than all the cars and trucks in the Dallas Fort-Worth metroplex, and that is the fourth largest city in America. So it’s like building another Dallas Fort-Worth 50 miles away. That air pollution is going to migrate.

Blast: In these situations, you often hear companies like Halliburton using the argument that "there is no definitive proof we are harming the environment." What else could be causing it?

JF: It’s a chicken or the egg situation. You need expertise to determine that. Expertise only the EPA is qualified to give. You need really qualified hydro-geologists; you need surveys done; you need to find where things are migrating. If gas is migrating into the water supply, where is it coming from? It is a very hard thing to track. So when you take the EPA off the watch, then you have very few inspectors…most of the states’ Departments of Environmental Protection cant handle this. It is too big a job when you are talking about drilling campaigns of this size. You basically can’t have proof because you have no science. There is nothing happening. All the data stopped once that 2005 exemption went through. We ceased to know what was going on underground. So to say there has been no proof is because there has been no investigation.

Blast: Where is the proof coming from?

JF: We have the first level of proof, and that’s what people are saying on the ground. Thousands and thousands of people in these areas cant be wrong if they are in different, disparate areas not communicating with each other, and the only thing that they have in common is that companies are doing hydraulic fracturing. That’s one level of proof to me. That’s the human element. That’s number one. Number two is that we have their water tests. The burden of proof in 2005 shifted to the citizens. We need to look at their individually done water tests. We have all these independent studies. Someone has to look into that. Journalists have to look into that. I’ve looked into it; that’s what is in the film. We also have a few select cases where the EPA has started to get involved. There is only one place that I know of. In Pavilion Wyoming. During the Obama administration these guys out in Pavilion kicked and screamed and got (the EPA) to come out there. The EPA tested 44 water wells in one area and 13 came up with contamination of either fracking chemicals or methane. So there are the beginnings of what everyone expected to be true.
Of course when you are dealing with massive corporations with hundreds and hundreds of lawyers…even if you have the most concrete proof, they are going to contest it. In that case it’s one person or a class action suit of 20 to 50 people versus a mega corporation.

But if one guy can go out there with a camera in a couple of months of filming and uncover this many stories that are in the movie, what is the whole range of what is happening out there? You can’t administer a drilling campaign that drills 400,000 wells in America and 200,000 more projected in just the east coast alone without significant environmental damage being done. It’s a no-brainer.

Blast: It is so widespread and it is kind of baffling because until I heard about your film I had never even heard of natural gas drilling.

JF: Amazing. I don’t know why either.

Blast: The companies must be very good at keeping the whole thing quiet.

JF: They are. If you go on CNN or MSNBC, or you pick up a magazine, you see Natural Gas as a clean-burning solution to our fuel problem. They have done an amazing job of positioning themselves as a green fuel. But it’s a fossil fuel. It involves an incredibly polluting extracting process. It’s carbon emissions. It is all the same stuff that we are trying to get away from for all these different reasons. What you have here is a nightmare of total deregulation, air pollution, water pollution, health problems and the upending of our legal system in order to do all this stuff that contributes to climate change.

It makes no sense and for me personally and a lot of people involved in the film, it’s our homes on the line. If this goes through, I will not be able to live in the place that my family built because the risk of exposing myself to those things in the air and the water, I know what they are. I am one of the people that does know. I have talked to the people who have lived in the toxic clouds. The people who have the brain lesions and the sever neuropathies. Our land would be worthless. Nobody would buy it. It’s basically a nightmare.

Blast: The fact that you are not just talking about the drilling itself, but the fact that you are also talking about having to transport these dangerous chemicals to the sites and then dispose of them somewhere is just as scary.

JF: This is the other thing. The drilling process itself uses 1 to 7 million gallons of water per well dug or per well fracked. And you can frack each one of these wells 18 times and because it is this unconventional drilling, you have to frack it a lot. You have to bust it apart a lot to get the gas out. That water is all going to be toxic waste. If you do the math, with 450,000 wells, which exist now, you do 18 fracks a well, you have something like 40 trillion gallons of toxic waste. Where is it all going? There are very few water treatment facilities that can actually deal with that much waste. In the film we show them spraying it on roads. Dumping it illegally in certain places and injecting it back underneath the ground via injection wells. I have seen it in big open pits. I have seen it sprayed up into the air via evaporation sprayers which causes it to evaporate quickly in sunlight and that just rains back down onto the ground. These are the techniques being used to dispose of this fracking waste. Isn’t that great? Lets just take all these toxins and put them as many places as we can all over America. It’s mindboggling.

Blast: How can these companies do that kind of stuff? It’s so shortsighted and mercenary to say, "Well we’re making money now, who cares about 20 or 50 years from now." Did you talk to anyone who could talk about the mindset of these companies?

JF: I can’t conjecture as to what they are thinking, but I do know that this is short-term profit in expense of our long-term health and cleanliness of the whole country. I am astounded, and yet we have failed at coming up with sustainable models for anything. It just really calls all that stuff into question. The whole idea of energy independence is here. They are saying this is our domestic source of energy. Well I’ll tell you the only energy independence is renewable energy. That is the only way to go. And we have the technology right now. Instead of transitioning to natural gas we could transition to wind, we could transition to solar, we could transition to a whole portfolio of things that do not pollute the ground in the way that the drilling does. I don’t know what they are thinking in terms of long-term contamination. If history proves any example here, and you look at Louisiana where you have oil refineries and gas refineries for 60 years. All of that drilling and refining waste has been dumped into the Gulf of Mexico for decades. You have mercury ratings off the charts in the fish in the Gulf. When Katrina and Rita came through it dumped all that stuff right back onto land. The storm surge was full of all these chemicals, the waste of 60 years. Typically the companies get their resource and leave the site however they feel like it. It’s for the next generation to clean up. Their costs are externalized onto the landscape.

Blast: How has the whole issue over the environment become a partisan one?

JF: It’s not partisan. It shouldn’t be. This is a basic human issue.

Blast: Is it the best thing for the companies to make it a partisan issue because it gives them more cover?

JF: I don’t even think the Democrats are aware about what a major issue this is. You have a lot of Democrats talking about how great natural gas is. It has got the feeling of partisanship even though the proponents of natural gas are bipartisan. So at this moment of real economic hardship taking the easy money for states and people is one way out of the total chaos of this moment, economically speaking. But you are digging your own grave I think. You are making things way worse.

Blast: You have states taking money for the use of state land and it’s got to be tough for them to turn those opportunities down.

JF: We have got to do better. This is the same old refrain from guys saying it is a new technique that is not that invasive. It was the same refrain with mountain top removal and for the classic fossil fuels. The main thing here is that the drilling technique is claimed to be safe and it’s not. The chemicals are claimed to be safe and they are not. It’s like driving a car without seatbelts, without a windshield, without crash test ratings without a roll bar. You would never do this. If the airline industry reported as many problems as the gas industry no one would ever go near an airplane.

Blast: In his opening press conference Robert Redford talked about documentaries and how they are becoming more important because there is all this media out there now and kids aren’t reading as much so maybe they will respond to a movie. How important do you think documentaries?

JF: When you are making a movie, you are able to do things that are fun. You are able to present information in a way that is thrilling or humorous. Documentaries are the backbone of our journalism right now I think. I am not a documentarian. This is the only documentary I’ve made. It may be the only one I ever make. I am a narrative filmmaker. I felt that this project was forced upon me in a lot of ways because this is the way the world works now. This is the way you can get information out. You have to hear from these people. This is the way for me to tell their stories. The cowboys in Wyoming or the people living in suburbia in Colorado. It is amazingly compelling stuff. For them to be able to speak directly to an audience, I think, that is part of it.

PARK CITY, Utah — Of the 43 first-time directors at this year’s Sundance Film Festival, John Wells is certainly the most experienced. Wells has been a prolific force in television, having had a hand in the creating, writing and directing shows like "ER" and "The West Wing." Blast got a chance to sit down with Wells as part of a roundtable interview about his first film "The Company Men," which filmed in Boston last spring and features Ben Affleck, Tommy Lee Jones and Chris Cooper. Check out the interview below were we talk about Sundance, Wells’ experience as a first-time director and the corporate system that has made his film so timely.

BLAST: How are you enjoying Sundance?

John Wells: The Sundance experience has been wonderful. I’ve been here before, but not for seven or eight years. And I didn’t really realize how big the theater (The Eccles Theater, where "The Company Men" premiered) was going to be last night. I thought it was going to be 400 or 500 seats, tops. We made a small, intimate movie, and I figured the most people we would ever show it to would be maybe 250 people. So I was waiting in the wings and getting ready to walk in after John Cooper (festival director) said he was going to introduce me, and I heard the noise and I said, "Coop, how many people are out there?" He said, "About 1800," and then walked out on stage and introduced me and I am back stage thinking, “1800?!”

BLAST: What was your experience as a first time director?

JW: I have directed a lot in television, of course, over the years, but the biggest problem I had at the beginning was that I was kind of…worrying about the producing…I was falling back on what I already knew and what I was comfortable with. And around the third day, Roger Deakins, who was the DP (Director of Photography) and Barbara Hall, who line-produced the movie, came over and said,”You know, we’re here so you don’t have to do that. You just have to direct.” It was a great thing, because I got to go back and just focus and not worry about when the meal penalty was and just get to direct. I was trained as a director in college in the theater, and so it was a wonderful feeling to be back and work with the actors and the DP and to be able to worry about the individual details in a scene and not have to worry about everything else that was happening.

BLAST: What brought you to this story? Why this story about men being laid off?

JW: I got interested in it about 10 years ago. A member of my family who was an MBA and had an electrical engineering degree was laid off. He had been approached many times to take jobs with other companies and it was just a situation where his company was taken over by a big European firm and they fired 5,000 people on a Tuesday. And he thought it wouldn’t be that difficult to find another job because he had fielded so many offers over the years, but his entire industry contracted in the same moment. And within about six months, he had lost his house and was living in his in-laws’ basement with his kids.

I wrote that first, and in doing research, I ended up communicating through the Internet with different guys and got little anecdotes and stories from about 2000 people, in very short order, who had experienced something similar. And then I interviewed a couple hundred people over a two-year period, but by the time I had finished it, the economy had rebounded and I turned the script into Warner Brothers, who said “Well, the economy is doing fine now.” And it was right around 9/11, so the attention of the country was elsewhere.

BLAST: What got the project going again?

JW: About two years ago, Paula Weinstein, who I had been developing the script with, called and said, "You know the economy is bad again, and this is happening to a lot of people again. You ought to revisit it." So I went back and started interviewing people again and discovered what had been, at the time, something that was really happening a little below the radar when I wrote it the first time, because it was something people were ashamed of and trying to keep to themselves. But when we went back, we were talking to 15 million people. Sometimes as many as two million people a month were losing their jobs, and not for any reason like they weren’t doing their job well. It was simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time and at the wrong moment within their company.

BLAST: How did the cast come together?

JW: I immediately thought of Ben and sent it to him and he responded. And then I sent it to Tommy and he liked it very much, and then suddenly, this was Christmas last year, and Roger Deakins, who I had sent it to, said he would be willing to do it. And Kevin Costner called me out of the blue and said he wanted to play Jack. He had read the script because someone he knew had it and said it was a good piece and he called me and said he could do it. Chris Cooper said he was interested. But what happened when I tried to put all those dates together, I had always thought I would do it sometime in the fall, but the only time they could all do it was exactly eight weeks between the beginning of April and the beginning of June. And that was the second week of January, so it came together really quickly. It was good because we didn’t have a lot of time to think about the wisdom of doing it; we just sort of did it.

BLAST: What was the challenge of dealing with such a topical issue?

JW: As we were researching, all the actors were meeting people and talking to people, and the places we were shooting in were the same places that we were going on. The building we used for the corporate headquarters was a large building, and we were on one of the floors that was no longer occupied. One Friday afternoon, the assistant director came over and said “Go and look in the lobby.” We went out and one of the other firms in the building had let, like, half their employees go, and they all had their cardboard boxes from a window which is kind of a shot that ended up being in the movie. They actually had their cardboard boxes and their plants and were walking out en mass. So it just came to be that was what was going on.

BLAST: What do you hope people take away from the film?

JW: I’m hoping it is more than timely. I think the film is talking about this notion that we have kind of defined ourselves by this notion that the American dream is exactly what Ben’s character has done. Which is come from this working class neighborhood, get an education, work his way up and get a nice house and that then you have then moved into this place where you have done exactly what you were supposed to do and then (you lose your job) and all of a sudden, it’s over.

BLAST: Who is the "bad guy" in the film?

JW: I don’t think there is a bad guy. One of the lines in the movie that’s one of my favorites…I left in the film because it was something I heard from one of the secretaries at a company who had just fired a bunch of her friends and she was in her 60′s and was the only one left. And two days after the big downsizing, her 401k, which was her stock in that company, went up, and she thought it was maybe her opportunity to retire early. And she said “It was bad for everyone else, but my 401k went up.” And the truth is, we are all like that. If you have money in the stock market, you want it to return a profit. We are all participating. Our desire to have a certain kind of return on our stocks forces the companies to act in a certain way. And there’s a lot of hubris and a certain amount of greed in CEO’s who are making 700 times more than the average worker in the company, but at the same time, they are being paid to do a certain kind of job that we are asking them to do.

BLAST: Did you find any answers for that kind of system?

JW: I think we are going to have to find some way to redefine the responsibility employers have to employees in this system. So when you give your loyalty to a company, you have some sense that they may look out for your interest and not only their own. I don’t think anyone has a solution to that yet. But I don’t know if you’re going to be able to keep stable, educated workforces in your place of work who know what their job is if you don’t look after them. And that is what is kind of starting to happen, now, in a lot of workplaces. They’re just leaving. If you have another opportunity, you take it, because you don’t think your employer is looking after you.

BLAST: Are you looking to direct more feature films?

JW: I’ll have to step back and think about it, because I am not sure I will have the opportunity on the next one to work with Roger Deakins, Ben Affleck, Tommy Lee Jones and Chris Cooper.

BLAST: What do you have slated for next?

JW: I don’t really have anything. This came together so quickly. We shot it and edited in June and we finished in November. Then Sundance accepted it and then I booked the flight to Sundance. That question has come up and it’s the thing that’s striking the most horror and terror into my heart, because I realize I have four or five things that I have started researching. So sometime next week I have to go back to my home, go up to my office by myself and turn on my iTunes and decide which one of those I am going to write next.

PARK CITY, Utah — Actors Ben Affleck and Rosemary Dewitt play two central characters in the much-anticipated “The Company Men," which premiered last weekend at the Sundance Film Festival. Affleck, a native of Boston, plays Bobby Walker, a hard worker from a working class background in Framingham who has his sense of identity threatened when he loses his high-paying corporate job. His wife Maggie (Dewitt) helps him as he discovers his identity outside of the cutthroat corporate world.

Blast got a chance to sit down with the actors at Sundance as part of a roundtable interview with other journalists. We talked with them about the film’s message concerning the American dream, corporate America and the unique realities of an actor’s life. Watch below for a clip from the interview, and keep scrolling to read the interview.

BLAST: Ben, how did you find your character?

Ben Affleck: There was a little bit of internet research to start. John (Wells, director) showed me some internet sites with people who had gone through this experience and then it was really constructing a biography. Then I went home and talked to some people from Framingham. I kind of keyed into that town because I knew a lot about it since I am from Boston, so that wasn’t that hard.

BLAST: Where is your character from exactly?

BA: The character is from Framingham, which is really suburban. It’s right out by route 128 about 10 minutes outside of Boston. It could be kind of suburban anywhere, but it isn’t. It’s got specifics too. So I went there and keyed into it and talked to some people. I went and visited some companies and talked to some folks who still had their jobs, which I thought was kind of interesting even though their companies were in for some big layoffs. Then I put the character based on that. There was a kid I went to school with who I really based most of it on. I like to find one person I know really, really well to base it one because you have a ready made, full biography of like 20 years which does all this work for you… I’m lazy I guess.

To me the character struck me as a guy who worked really hard on this goal that he had. He started out with relatively modest means, go to college, work really hard, get this job and work your way up the ladder. Have the Porsche, have the nice house, get the job, get the promotion, kill himself for the company and the promise was then you will be happy. That is the American dream and then he lost it all. And there is this feeing of betrayal and emasculation and confusion and loss that was really powerful to look at.

BLAST: John talked about how there is a sense of distrust between employees and employers now. Did you get that feeling when you were talking to people who still had jobs?

The people I talked to just have this thing that reminded me of stories you read about in American history. "The Trail of Tears" or something. These forced marches where people would die but you keep marching. There is this internalized fear that people are dying but you’re thinking, "I gotta live.” I’m sorry about him, sorry about them but there wasn’t a lot of pause to mourn anybody else. Most people would go and would get forgotten because if you start worrying or pausing for those people, you would die too. People really viewed their job in the very primal caveman way of going out with a stick and providing for your family. You’ve got to go kill the lion or whatever and bring it back to the cave. You eat the lion or the lion eats you.

BLAST: In your professional careers, have you ever felt that gutted by the loss of a job or something that went wrong in your own careers where you were able to tap into that for your roles in "The Company Men?"

Rosemary Dewitt: I fell like that is part of the gig of just being an actor. I know actors who are out of work for years at a time. And if they thought their worth was equal to what their career was or what their resume was, they would probably jump off of a building. Someone said to me very early on in my career,"When you go into the room to audition, pretend that you have a little Uzi in your bag." And I was like that is such a violent image. But they said “No, your Uzi could be ‘my grandmother thinks I’m awesome’ or ‘I did something really good today for my next door neighbor.’” I think everyone needs that sort of stockpile of what’s really important, because your stuff will go. Your career’s going to end. I watched my dad when he retired and all these men are like “What are we doing today?” The thing about the movie is it asks you to ask yourself those types of questions, which when people say "Why see this movie?" You have to ask these questions — everybody does.

BA: Actors are really unusual in that they live that reality from the beginning. You get really inured to that. You start out as an actor…it is really unstable. You never have that kind of stability that most other jobs have promised. You always know your next job could be your last. So you audition for something and get that, who knows if you’ll get the next audition. And you learn that lesson rather quickly. I think every actor internalizes that on some level and lives with it. But it is also why see people get moved by actors who make big comebacks. I was reading a book about old Hollywood and there was this speech that Sinatra gave about how he thought he was washed up at 37. And then he got "From Here to Eternity," but before he was having to borrow money. Actors’ lives, even Sinatra’s, have those movements in them. But most Americans’ jobs aren’t like that. We expect, and, I think, fairly, that if you give this much time to a company that they are not going to just saw you off on a whim.

RD: And that’s the promise. Go for the stable job. Go for the one that gives you the 401k. Don’t go be a creative person because then you are going to be dealing with uncertainty for the rest of your life. You might not have any pension. When you go for that you expect the company to take care of you.

BA: that’s the exchange.

RD: That’s the thing, because I think a lot of people in corporate America could have chosen something creative.

BA: They would have been sculptors if they had wanted instability.

RD: I remember someone saying they were going into sales, and I asked, "What are you selling?" And they said, “It doesn’t matter. I’m going into sales."

BA: They would have started drinking at lunch and painting if they wanted uncertainty.

Rosemary, what do you keep in your "bag," if not an Uzi, for maintaining that confidence or edge?

RD: I think it changes. I don’t know that it always gives you a measure of confidence. I think as I get older I try to figure out there is more. There are times — I hate to admit it — that you don’t get the job or you hear some criticism that sends you reeling in a way, that has you saying, “Come on. I know this. I’ve learned this lesson." For me it falls into the category of wanting more.

It is always a competitive process for you guys. This job is very competitive. How do you handle that?

BA: You try to learn the lesson that it shouldn’t be. That it’s not. I’ve always tried to feel like there is a role for everybody and that there are a lot of great actors. And I root for other actors. I like other actors and directors and writers. I respect them. I know people who feel like every time someone else succeeds they’re taking food out of their mouth and I know people who don’t. And I have always tried to be the latter. I have my smallness inside me, and my better half, and I’ve tried to veer towards the better half. I think we all struggle back and forth with it, I know I do. It’s tough. This movie speaks to the way that materialism and corporate America tries to solve that by trying to tell us, “You know what is going to make you feel better about that? Better than the Jones’s and not worrying about the next guy? Buy this new blender. You know you should try this other snowboard even though you’ve never snowboarded before. How about a carbon fiber 10-speed? And we accumulate stuff.

RD: It is such an outward-looking competition. Saying “What does that person have?” or “Is this person taking something away from me?” And I feel like in this movie it goes from the outward to what does a country club membership mean? I mean really what does it mean? It just means that you can go play golf.

BA: What it means to people is that they have elevated themselves and become part of an elite. So they raise themselves up from others so they feel special, they feel better that they have accomplished something. It’s literally buying self-esteem. Some people get self-esteem that way. The only real way to get it is by doing estimable things, but that’s the hardest to do.

Brooklynne Kelly Peters contributed to this story.

PARK CITY, Utah — "Get Low’s" opening shot is a great one.

The film’s first shot is of a white clapboard house engulfed in flames. After a moment a man on fire leaps out of one of the second story windows.

Like it’s first moments, "Get Low" grabs you and doesn’t let go.

"Get Low," tells the story of Felix Bush (Robert Duvall), a hermit in a 1930′s small Tennessee town. For 40 years, Felix has lived apart from a town that doesn’t want him. Felix is a local legend- everyone has a story about him, none of them any good. After an exile of seeming-contentment, Felix emerges and commissions a funeral party for himself from a slick funeral home director, Frank Quinn (Bill Murray) and his young prot©g© (Lucas Black). Felix tells Quinn that he wants a party where the locals can come out and tell all their stories about him. To get everyone to show up, Felix proposes a lottery with the winning family getting his valuable plot of land once he dies. Beyond his party preparations, Felix contends with the return of his former love Mattie (Sissy Spacek).

I’m not sure anyone else could have played Felix Bush other than Robert Duvall. Felix is like a walking tall-tale and while you need a larger than life figure to capture that aspect you also have to keep the character grounded. Duvall is, simply put, brilliant. He deftly captures Felix’s guilt and fear of the secret that has kept him in solitude for 40 years, while effortlessly representing a man who small children grow up telling stories about. Duvall, often carrying a shotgun slung over his shoulder, is both menacing and heartbreaking as it becomes apparent what a lonely life Felix has led. Look for Duvall to be heavily involved in the discussion next awards season.

Duvall is well matched by the film’s impressive supporting cast. Bill Murray is excellent and brings a layer of melancholy to his fast-talking and funny funeral director and Lucas Black puts in a solid turn as a young man frequently uncomfortable with what others around him are doing.

The screenplay by Chris Provenzano and C. Gaby Mitchell is well structured and paced and builds to a highly satisfying scene, where Felix tells Mattie and the rest of the town the secret that has kept him alone for the past 40 years.

Aaron Schneider’s debut feature (he won the 2004 Oscar for best short film) is an auspicious beginning. Schnieder’s deft handling of the script and his ability to cull great performances from his strong cast suggest a more experienced touch.

In the end it all comes back to Duvall. "Get Low" once again is a reminder of his incredible consistency. He has always had a great instinct at picking good material and "Get Low" is no exception. Trust Robert Duvall’s judgment, this is a good one.

PARK CITY, Utah — Irish documentarian Ken Wardrop’s film "His and Hers" opens with an Irish proverb:

"A man loves his girlfriend the most, his wife the best, but his mother the longest."

While that may suggest that Wardrop’s documentary would focus on Irish men, it turns the proverb on its head and focuses on Irish women and their relationship to the men that they hold sway over.

Wardrop’s film is made up of vignettes featuring 90 women (ages one to 90) from the Midlands of Ireland who each represent an age. Wardrop asks each woman about their relationships with the men in their lives.

The results are simply wonderful. Wardrop does a tremendous job framing his movie in a way that each vignette flows seamlessly into the next. He uses the effective technique of having most of his subjects enter and exit through stairs. The film opens with a toddler opening a safety gate and climbing the stairs with quite determination. Each subsequent shot of older girls calls back to that first mischievous toddler and suggests the experiences each of these women have had since they too were crawling carelessly past gates designed to project their fragility.

From a little girl lamenting her chores to a woman whose husband dies in her arms after a slow dance, the honesty and openness Wardrop gets from his subjects is stunning.

Through each of the 90 vignettes, Wardrop is able to show what has Irish men so smitten. These women are all funny, engaging and emotionally honest. As you get to know these women it is no surprise that Irish men love their women so much.While the film only contains one brief shot of a man, the men in these women’s lives comes through in their stories.

Like the women Wardrop features, "His and Hers" is funny, moving and always affecting. If this one makes it to a theater anywhere near you, I strongly recommend it.

PARK CITY, Utah — "Howl," a film based on Allen Ginsberg’s famous poem and the subsequent indecency trial has been one of the hot tickets at this year’s Sundance Film Festival. The film’s star-studded cast including Jon Hamm (“Madmen”), David Strathairn (“LA Confidential”), and James Franco (“Milk”) as Ginsberg has made "Howl" one of the hot tickets as Sundance. Eager festival goers lined up around the theater hours before the film’s premiere on Thursday hoping to get a wait-list ticket.

Blast was at the film’s press conference on Friday where directors Josh Friedman and Rob Epstein, cast members James Franco and Jon Hamm as well as the film’s producers talked about the film as a "passion project" for all involved.

Friedman said that the poem’s importance and brilliance made the development process challenging. Originally Friedman and co-director Rob Epstein considered tackling Ginsberg’s story as a documentary but changed their minds during the development process.

"It was not doing justice to the material," Friedman said. "We had to do something that broke form the same way Allen’s poem did.”

Friedman and Epstein agreed that "Howl" would not worked without Franco and his passion for the material.

Franco said he was a fan of the beats since his teenage years and was excited to play Ginsberg. “dJames was a genuine conduit for Ginsberg’s words," Friedman said.

Franco said he has been drawn to playing historical figures because it makes him a more responsible actor. The obligation to get his performance absolutely right forces him to give his best possible performance. He added that he does not choose his roles lightly.

"I play people I love and want to celebrate," Franco said.

Jon Hamm was drawn to his role as Ginsberg’s defense attorney Jake Ehrlich because of the film’s passionate message.

"The film is a passionate defense of artistic freedom," Hamm said.

Josh Friedman said that it was the cast’s passion for the project and the belief in the central ideas of the film that make the film something special.

"We were inspired by actors willing to put themselves on the line everyday," Friedman said.

Producer Elizabeth Redleaf said it was easy to be passionate about the project because of the almost surreal nature of the story.
"To think there were real people in a real place debating whether or not a poem could be called literature," Redleaf said. "It’s absurd."

Co-director Josh Epstein said that the popularity of Ginsberg’s poem today shows that art will always win against censorship eventually.

"Art is truthful," Epstein said. "That’s what lasts."

PARK CITY, Utah — “I think we should celebrate the work that’s here, but I think keeping a mind on what’s happening is a good thing.”

That was Robert Redford’s advice to the Sundance Film Festival crowd when asked about his thoughts on the dire situation in Haiti during the opening press conference.

Listen to what else Redford has to say about the situation in Haiti and the struggles of putting on a festival that “was always meant to be fun and celebratory” while the situation in Haiti continues to spin out of control.

Brooklynne Kelly Peters and Melissa Unger contributed to this story.

So the biggest surprise at last night’s Golden Globes was that there weren’t really any surprises. Awards were given, champagne was drunk in copious amounts and Robert Downey Jr. proved once and for all that he is a complete bad-ass (seriously, did you see his speech? If not, watch below.)

The Globes are great because they give a pretty good indication of what we can expect to see at the Oscars. Here are the storylines that got a little bit clearer after last night’s fairly tepid telecast.

The Dude vs. Danny Ocean:

Top Oscar prognosticators have been saying since November that the race for Best Actor was going to come down to a battle between Jeff Bridges and George Clooney. Bridges, a four-time nominee, has been receiving rave reviews for his turn as broken-down country singer Bad Blake in "Crazy Heart" and it definitely feels like the long-time Hollywood favorite is due for a win. And while Clooney gives the best performance of his career in "Up In the Air," having already won an Oscar for his work in "Syriana" probably hurts his chances. Bridges’ win last night and the long standing ovation he got once he reached the stage for his acceptance speech makes this definitely feel like Bridges’ year. Expect him to be the heavy favorite going into the March 7th award show.

Will Meryl "T-Bone" Streep grab her Third Oscar?

Not so fast. Sandra Bullock’s win for her turn as Leigh Anne Touhy in "The Blind Side" makes her a very strong contender. Bullock’s work is the kind of crowd-pleasing performance Oscar has rewarded before (Julia Roberts in "Erin Brockovich"). And "The Blind Side’s" big box office doesn’t hurt either. Meryl Streep is beloved and her performance as Julia Child in "Julie and Julia" has garnered her plenty of awards already, but having won two Oscars previously, the never-nominated Bullock may have a slight edge.

"What does a tiger dream of, when he takes a little tiger nap?" Maybe a Best Picture Nomination

Thanks to its surprise win for Best Musical or Comedy, "The Hangover" might just have secured itself a position as one of Oscar’s 10 contenders for Best Picture. By increasing the Best Picture nominations from five to 10, the Academy definitely made room for some surprising picks and Todd Phillips’ raunchy comedy would certainly be the first movie to involve roofies, tigers, Mike Tyson, a lost baby, a grandmother’s holocaust ring and Zack Galifianakis to be nominated for best picture. Sure, it doesn’t have a chance in hell of winning, but a nomination would be a victory in itself for such an unlikely contender.

Can anything stop "Avatar"?

It doesn’t look like it. Its detractors may still think of "Avatar" as "Dances with Smurfs," but it looks like James Cameron has another big-time award winner on his hands. Thanks to another massive box office haul over the holiday weekend, "Avatar" looks set to cruise past "Titanic’s" record-breaking $600 million domestic gross. And not only did Cameron’s sci-fi opus take home Best Picture Drama last night, but Cameron also beat out a strong favorite in ex-wife Katherine Bigelow and dark horse Jason Reitman (who did not look pleased) for Best Director. "Avatar’s" two big wins have to make it the presumptive choice for Best Picture come Oscar time and certainly hurt Bigelow’s chances at being the first female director to be honored with an Academy Award.

Can Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin outdo Ricky Gervais as co-hosts?

God I hope so. Gervais was pretty terrible (besides one killer Mel Gibson joke). Here’s hoping the dynamic duo can give the always-long Oscars a comedic punch that makes things seem to go by just a bit quicker.

One of Blast’s resident film critics weighs in on the top 10 movies of last year.

10. Funny People: While many didn’t connect with Judd Apatow’s third film, I found it to be his most complete and satisfying feature to date. Boasting an honest and emotionally unguarded performance from Adam Sandler as George Simmons, a famous comedian who finds out he is dying- and then that he isn’t. While the film proves a bit ungainly at times, it’s both sweet and wickedly funny.

9. District 9: Along with "Star Trek" and "Avatar,” “District 9″ proved that Sci-Fi can be both smart and tons of fun. Neil Blomkamp’s first feature is exciting, thrilling, brutal and packs a surprising and rather emotional punch at the end. First time actor Sharlto Copley makes a great unlikely hero as Wikus and Blomkamp is definitely a director to watch.

8. Up: Yet another classic from Pixar. As gorgeous and intelligent as you would expect from Pixar, which can seemingly do no wrong. And "Up’s" opening, which tells a couple’s 60 year story in 10 minutes, is as emotionally affecting as anything I saw all year.

7. The Road: John Hillcoat’s second feature is as unflinching as his first. An adaptation of Cormac McCarthy’s Pulitzer Prize winning novel tells the story of a man protecting his young son as they journey across a post-apocalyptic U.S., rife with cannibalism and haunting reminders of an entire culture lost. Viggo Mortensen gives yet another fine performance as the desperate father and strengthens his status as one of the finest actors working. The film doesn’t shy away from the dark nature of the subject matter, but still earns its somewhat hopeful ending.

6. An Education: Director Lone Scherfig’s delicately told story about Jenny, a London teen in the 1960′s, who falls for the wrong man. Nick Hornby’s script is beautifully constructed and heartbreakingly honest. And Carey Mulligan is sensational as Jenny, embodying innocence and a woman’s maturity in equal measure. Mulligan easily earns the comparisons she has been getting to Audrey Hepburn. While she has been somewhat overshadowed by Meryl Streep so far this awards season, Mulligan’s performance was the best by an actress I saw all year.

5. Avatar: The year’s most singular cinematic experience. James Cameron’s first film in 12 years is a visual triumph and demands to be seen on the biggest screen possible. Using newly designed Performance Capture technology Cameron creates an entire world and a new species, the Na’vi who feel like living, breathing and most importantly, feeling creatures.

4. The Hurt Locker: Katherine Bigelow’s visceral and thrilling tale follows William James, a bomb unit member serving in Iraq. The action is fierce and genuinely exciting and Jeremy Renner turns in a star-making and award-worthy performance as James, an adrenaline junky who only feels alive when he is deciding which wires to cut to defuse a bomb. "The Hurt Locker" keeps the tension dialed up to the max and brilliantly captures the violence and destruction that follows an explosion. Bigelow, who has a real chance to be the first female director to win an Oscar, delivers the best and most muscular action film in years.

3. 500 Days of Summer: Along with "Up in the Air" proves that romantic comedies don’t have to be mind-numbingly predictable. Director Marc Webb and a smart script make this tale of love found and lost wholly original. "(500) Of Summer" shows that a love story does not have to have a happy ending to be funny and romantic.

2. Inglorious Basterds: Quentin Tarantino’s ode to cinema and Nazi killing is a delight from start to finish. While Brad Pitt is fun as Aldo Raine, the hillbilly leader of the Basterds, it’s Christophe Waltz who walks away with the movie. Waltz’s turn as "Jew Hunter" Hans Landa is the year’s finest performance and Landa proves to be an instant classic screen villain. "Inglorious Basterds" is Tarantino’s ode to the power of cinema, which he proves by rewriting history in grand fashion. When Aldo Raine looks into the camera at the end of the film and says "I Think this might be my masterpiece" it is hard not to agree with him.

1. Up In the Air: Jason Reitman continues his ridiculously hot start to his directing career with his third and finest film. "Up in the Air" takes flight thanks to three fine performances from George Clooney, Vera Farmiga, and Anne Kendrick and a funny and perceptive script by Reitman- seriously the guy is ridiculously talented. The film is smart, funny, thoughtful and engaging. Clooney is better than ever as Ryan Bingham, a man who slowly comes to question his entire way of life. Not much to say that hasn’t been already, but in this case the hype is well deserved. "Up in the Air" is as good as advertised.

I went into "The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus" eager to see Heath Ledger’s final curtain call.

That eagerness retreated rather quickly. I think it was right around the time Ledger’s character was introduced, hanging lifelessly from a noose underneath a London bridge. Unfortunately Ledger’s death casts a pall over director Terry Gilliam’s entire film and his patented madcap flights of fancy cannot erase a sense of melancholy that permeates the whole production.

It certainly does not help matters that the film itself is a complete mess.

It’s a shame because the story is certainly promising and right up Gilliam’s alley. Dr. Parnassus (Christopher Plummer) has spent his entire immortal life losing bets to the devilish Mr. Nick (Tom Waits). Dr. P’s latest wager is about to cost him his daughter Valentina (Lily Cole), with Mr. Nick poised to collect his prize as soon as she turns 16. Parnassus makes a last desperate wager in the hopes that he can save Valentina and avoid giving the devil his due.

Using his incredible powers, which allow people to literally explore their own imaginations, Parnassus has to "win" five souls before Mr. Nick. The arrival of the mysterious and smooth-talking Tony (Ledger) to his troupe gives Parnassus hope that he can save his daughter and finally beat Mr. Nick at a game that seems perpetually rigged against him.

The film comes alive when Tony is escorting unexpecting patrons through their own imaginations. Due to Ledger’s death, Tony is played by Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell in the scenes set in the Imaginarium, which is a shame as they are by far the film’s best. It is rather sad that every time Tony leaps into the Imaginarium and Ledger is replaced with another actor, the film becomes infinitely more fun. Farrell in particular is captivating, easily capturing Tony’s snake-like and sleazy charm as he struts through his scenes with a movie star’s confidence.

Unfortunately Ledger does not prove as capable. Gilliam allowed him to improvise most of his dialogue and it shows. Ledger’s performance seems to be coming from several different directions at once, as if he wasn’t quite sure of what to make of the character. It is sad to see Ledger get upstaged so completely in his last film, but Depp, Law and particularly Farrell simply have a spark that stands in sharp contrast to Ledger’s muddled and confused performance.

Much of the blame should be placed on Gilliam. He seems disinterested in the scenes in the real world. While I can understand his enthusiasm for the more fantastical moments in the film, he forgets to develop a narrative thread. Fantastical images are great, but fantastical images that exist in an engaging narrative are better. Gilliam sadly seems to have forgotten that, and the film veers wildly from scene to scene with no real connection to each other.

While the film doesn’t work, it’s hard not to admire it. It cannot have been easy finishing the film after losing Ledger so tragically and to see Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell work so hard to honor their friend is quite exceptional. It’s not their fault that they upstage him a bit in the process.

If you really want to see Heath Ledger’s last performance, I recommend you stay home instead and watch "The Dark Knight", "Brokeback Mountain" and simply admire how full of life Ledger and his characters are.

"Sherlock Holmes" is a fun and surprisingly faithful re-imagining of the world’s most famous detective. It may turn Holmes into a Victorian-era Jason Bourne, but it does so keeping a constant — if sometimes wandering — eye on Arthur Conan Doyle’s source material.

In the beginning of the movie we find Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) and his partner-in-crime-fighting, Dr. John Watson (Jude Law), investigating the nefarious Lord Blackwood (the always awesome Mark Strong). Holmes and Watson capture Blackwood after he kills several young women in a bizarre and ritualistic fashion. However the duo is compelled back into action after Blackwood is tried, hanged and resurrected, with his iniquitous plans to dominate the world only momentarily thwarted.

On top of their desperate search for Lord Blackwood, Holmes and Watson must contend with the strain of bringing a third party into their relationship, in this case Watson’s intended, Mary Morstan (Kelly Reilly). The particular and eccentric Holmes is not sure he likes the idea of Watson’s attentions being pulled elsewhere. The fact that Watson is moving out of 221b Bakers Street does not sit well either.

Another unwelcome female addition to the tenuous Holmes/Watson bromance is Holmes’ old flame/worthy adversary Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams). Adler is a tough and intelligent and has beaten Holmes at his own game twice before. She seems to be the only person who is capable of ruffling his truly impressive intellectual feathers.

As Holmes and Watson squabble and bicker their way through Victorian London’s dark corners, and in and out of trouble, it’s hard not to see their relationship as the original template for every buddy movie ever made. Like a 19th century version of Riggs and Murtaugh from "Lethal Weapon," they drive each other crazy and complete each other in equal measure.

Guy Ritchie work as director is inspired. He uses his patented hyper-stylized visuals, making the film feel a little rough around the edges, which is a welcome change from all of the super-polished CGI-fests that have become all the rage in Hollywood (I’m looking at you, "Pirates of the Caribbean").

Robert Downey Jr. is superb as Holmes. He easily captures the intelligence, idiosyncratic nature and amazing deductive powers that make Holmes a great detective while embodying the petulance and selfishness that make it hard to be his friend and roommate. In that way, Holmes is not much different than Tony Stark, RDJ’s role from "Iron Man." Both Stark and Holmes are brilliant and particularly set in their ways. RDJ is at home playing quick-thinking men of action. An actor of uncommon intelligence, he seems to have found a comfort zone playing ridiculously smart men who don’t mind kicking a little ass every now and then.

But Holmes is only as good as his Watson and RDJ is well supported by Jude Law. Law plays exasperated very well and captures Watson’s annoyance and adoration for his best friend in equal parts. More importantly, RDJ. and Law have a nice well-worn chemistry. They easily sell the longevity of the relationship between Holmes and Watson.

While the film builds to a typical action-packed climax involving Parliament, fisticuffs and swordfights, it’s not enough to distract from the momentum and zany energy that mark the film’s first two acts.

Arthur Conan Doyle’s stories about Sherlock Holmes were always meant for mass consumption. Perhaps that is why the little tweaks here and there to make sure the character appealed to a modern audience didn’t matter so much. I think if Doyle had been writing his stories in today’s marketplace, Sherlock Holmes would probably look a lot like the more physical and brawling Holmes that RDJ plays. Holmes may throw a few more punches here, but he solves his case with the same intelligence and crystal-clear logic that marked Doyle’s original iteration of the character.

If this is your first or your 50th experience with the character, "Sherlock Holmes" proves to be an exciting and funny ride. And the film ends with a nice "Batman Begins"-esque tease for a sequel. Here’s to hoping we don’t have to wait long.

A recent television ad for "Avatar" boasted that the film "will change movies forever." That is not an empty promise. "Avatar" is an absolute triumph. Blending live-action and motion capture effects seamlessly, director James Cameron has created a stunning universe that feels as real as our own. Twelve years after conquering the known world with the Oscar-winning behemoth, "Titanic," Cameron has done it again. The self-proclaimed "King of the World" is back.

"Avatar" takes place in 2154, on the distant moon Pandora, a lush and tropical paradise that happens to be home to a large supply of a mineral (unobtanium) that Earth desperately needs to survive. The mining consortium that runs operations on Pandora has created an avatar program to help gain the trust of the distrustful natives, the Na’vi. Human "drivers" control genetically engineered bodies that combine Na’vi DNA with their own. The consortium hopes that the locals will be more willing to listen to people that look like them.

Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), a paraplegic former Marine, is the newest avatar driver. Upon arrival on Pandora, Jake agrees to gather intel for the military’s point man, Colonel Quaritch (Stephen Lang, chewing the scenery with gusto), in preparations for an assault on the Na’vi’s village, which sits right on top of rich vein of unobtanium. Quaritch promises Jake that he will get him the expensive surgery to repair his spine in return. While Jake begins his assignment dutifully enough, he slowly begins to question his orders as he falls in love with both Pandora and Neytiri (Zoe Saldana), the daughter of the Na’vi’s chief.

None of this would work of course, if the Na’vi didn’t feel real, but they are a fully realized tribal culture. They have their own language (Cameron had a linguist create one from scratch), a rich history and a deep and spiritual connection to their planet. Through their deity, Eywa, they share a connection with every living thing on Pandora- from the trees and plants to the insects. The Na’vi embody the purity and beauty of their world.

While that attention to detail makes for rich storytelling, if the Na’vi didn’t look real then "Avatar" wouldn’t work. You could not buy Jake falling in love with Neytiri or expect an audience to emotional respond to her people’s plight if the Na’vi do not feel like more than just computer-rendered cartoons.

Thankfully the newly developed motion-capture technology is up to the task. Cameron was not just able to capture performers movements but a full range of expression as well. From smiles that light up faces, to frowns to screams of rage and defiance. And while the Na’vi look very alien, with their yellow eyes, tails, blue skin and lithe, almost catlike bodies, they are extremely empathetic and oddly beautiful.

Just as impressive as the Na’vi is Pandora itself. Teeming with life, the planet feels like a living, breathing ecosystem. From six-legged, wolf-like creatures, to entire forests that are bioluminescent at night, the world is absolutely beautiful. The layers and layers of detail demand repeat viewings on the biggest screen you can find.

None of that detail feels superfluous, though, and it never feels like Cameron is simply showing off how much money he could to spend on special effects (upwards of $200 million, according to TIME). In fact, he uses practical effects and actors whenever he can. The script is tight and "Avatar" flows beautifully, from its opening scenes of Jake arriving on Pandora to the epic battle between the humans and the Na’vi that takes up much of the film’s third act.

The action is clearly and excitingly shot. It never feels like Cameron is using tight shots to hide flaws in the effects. He shows the confidence he has in the world he has created by consistently putting as much detail on the screen as possible.

Much like "Star Wars" was when it first came out, "Avatar" is a game-changer. It represents not just a tremendous jump in special effects, but in using special effects to tell an emotionally engaging and vastly entertaining story. "Avatar" is big, epic filmmaking at its best.

"Did You Hear About the Morgans?" is a romantic comedy that is rarely funny and never romantic. Assembled from a bunch of spare parts that better movies have been perusing and using for years, the whole thing feels like a rather pointless exercise where writer/director Marc Lawrence was told to get his two actors from point A to point B in the most unoriginal and unappealing way possible.

Peter and Meryl Morgan (Hugh Grant and Sarah Jessica Parker), two high-powered New Yorkers, are a separated couple that witnesses a murder one night after having dinner (Peter is begging Meryl for forgiveness for cheating on her). The FBI, wanting to keep the two alive to testify, put Peter and Meryl in protective custody. This ends the criminal plot of the story — we never discover why the murder occurred or who the murderer might be, and the Morgans are never questioned. The crime is just an random device used to thrust the unhappy characters together.

The Morgans are whisked away to Ray, Wyoming (the most clich©d small town ever), where they are placed under the charge of two local law dogs, Clay and Emma Wheeler (Sam Elliott and Mary Steenburgen). Clay and Emma are (you guessed it!) a happily married couple that just may teach the Morgans a thing or two about how to keep those home fires burning.

What follows is basically everything you would expect. The Morgans, feeling like fish-out-of-water, have to learn how to get by without cell phones, the Internet, Starbucks and city noise to lull them to sleep at night (though I am not sure how city noise reaches the penthouse). Along the way, they encounter a grizzly bear, experience good ole fashioned country hospitality and find love again.

Hollywood has proven time and again that creaky plot devices and clich©d writing can be salvaged if stars have chemistry. Unfortunately Grant and Parker have zero. There is simply no spark.

Grant in particular feels completely stranded here. His typical turn, characterized by a kind of eccentric detachment (the bumbling, floppy Englishman), is one that can easily feel like lazy, paycheck-driven acting if not countered by an actress that he can bounce off of. Sadly Sarah Jessica Parker just doesn’t work. She comes off as too neurotic and nagging. I found myself rooting for a quickie divorce, or for the killer to find them. Whichever would get me out of the theater quicker.

Go ahead and skip "Did You Hear About the Morgans?" But if you just cant help yourself, and find yourself buying a ticket anyway, here are some questions that I was left with that could use answering. Please get back to me:

Why do all small town citizens in movies have southern accents even when the small town is 4,000 miles from the nearest southern state? Sam Elliot sounds like he is from Texas and everyone else is doing a Virginia twang.

Why do characters always have to go to a small town to reconnect and figure out what is important? Is self-reflection illegal in major cities?

Why do bad romantic comedies always have supporting characters that are more interesting and fun than the leads? In "Did you Hear About the Morgans?’ it is Meryl’s ball-busting assistant, Jackie (a nice off-type role for "Mad Men’s" Elisabeth Moss). I would totally watch a whole movie about her.

Does bear repellant actually exist?

And of course…did you hear about the Morgans?

If you’ve heard anything about "Me and Orson Welles," it’s probably that actor Christian Mckay is sensational as Orson Welles. And while Mckay lives up to the hype and his performance is worth the price of a ticket alone, you may be surprised to hear that Zac Efron isn’t half bad as the "Me."

Efron equates himself nicely in Richard Linklater’s charming period piece and takes his first confident steps away from "High School Musical" (He smokes! He drinks! He seduces an older woman!). Efron has a nice aw-shucks kind of charm, which contrasts well with the brooding and deathly-serious take on tween-idoldom that Robert Pattinson is currently employing in the "Twilight" series.

Efron plays Richard Samuels, a confident, cocky high school student in 1930′s New York who cons his way into a pre-"Citizen Kane" Orson Welles production of the now famous version of “Julius Caesar" at the Mercury Theater. At the rehearsal leading up to the big opening night that will either break or make Welles, Richard falls for Sonja (Claire Danes), who helps run The Mercury, and learns a little bit about life’s little realities in the process (mainly, if something seems too good to be true, it usually is).

While Efron anchors the film, Christian Mckay steals the show. Mckay, in a turn that is part performance and part impersonation, completely captures Welles’ precocious brilliance (he was only 22 when he directed "Julius Caesar") and overwhelming ego that threatened to end his career before it truly started.

The script wisely does not try to explain or forgive Welles’ bad behavior. It becomes painfully clear that there is rarely a moment when Welles isn’t playing whatever part that will assure that the show will go on and yet everyone keeps falling for it. The guy is just too damn charming. From the little moments of encouragement, to the brilliant bits of off-the-cuff direction that he seems to casually pull out of thin air, Mckay completely captures the manic brilliance of Welles while never forgetting to acknowledge that the guy was kind of a jerk as well.

In the end "Me and Orson Welles" does not make excuses for Welles’ bad behavior. If anything, the film suggests that how he treats Richard is nothing new. You get the feeling Welles has burned a lot of bridges in the name of making great art.

"Me and Orson Welles" is full of characters that constantly talk about how they would give almost anything to create art that will stand the test of time. Welles is simply more mercenary and cold-blooded about it. It is the quality that probably made him brilliant, and very lonely.

When Nelson Mandela was elected president of South Africa in 1994, he was confronted with what must have seemed like an impossible problem. How do you completely remake a country that has long been divided by Apartheid? As one news broadcaster puts it simply, "How can he balance white fears with black aspirations?"

The clear answer is, of course, by supporting the rugby team.

"Invictus," Clint Eastwood’s involving and moving historical epic, focuses on Mandela’s first year in office and his strong support of the South African rugby team (The Springboks) in the build-up to, and during the 1995 World Cup that was held in South Africa. While the film never suggests that the World Cup healed all the wounds the country suffered under Apartheid, it does point to it as the moment when black and white South Africa become one united nation.

Eastwood wisely does not try to show every injustice and harsh reality that apartheid created — he is counting on the audience to know many of the basics. Instead he works with broad strokes. From shots of black children playing soccer on a patch of dirt while across the street white kids play on a beautifully manicured pitch, to scenes of Mandela’s black and white bodyguards slowly learning to trust each other — it is simple but effective filmmaking.

For the most part "Invictus" keeps the focus on Mandela, and Morgan Freeman is excellent, easily embodying the kindness and grace. Walking slightly stooped over and with a hitch in his step, Freeman captures the physical toll of 27 years spent in prison doing hard labor during the day and sleeping on a pallet at night. Those physical signs make Mandela’s willingness to forgive those who put him in jail even more moving and yet Freeman never lets the role move towards sainthood. He gives Mandela just enough quirkiness and humor to keep him human and relatable.

Freeman in ably backed up by Matt Damon as Francois Pienaar, the captain of the Springboks. Damon, looking buff and speaking with an impeccable South African accent, keeps Pienaar’s nobility from slipping into earnestness and beautifully depicts the almost overwhelming admiration that Pienaar feels for Mandela.

Of course everything builds up to a big final match and it does not disappoint. Taking up nearly 15 minutes of the film’s running time, the match is beautifully done. Eastwood uses every trick in the book from hand-held cameras to put us in the mix with the players on the field and in the scrums to sweeping shots of cheering crowds. It is a stunning bit of movie making.

"Invictus" is a straightforward story told extremely well that practically demands that you become emotionally involved. At an extremely youthful 79, Clint Eastwood is proving to be one of the most sensitive directors working. His passion for his material is always evident and you cannot help but be involved by it. So much so, that you will probably forget that Eastwood never stopped to explain the rules of rugby.

From Bambi taking his first awkward steps onto a frozen pond to Aladdin and Jasmine taking a romantic midnight magic carpet ride around the world, Disney’s hand-drawn animated features have provided indelible cinematic memories for over 65 years.

But in the six years since Disney’s last hand-drawn effort (the underwhelming "Brother Bear”), Pixar, Shrek and the explosion of 3-D features have completely changed the animated landscape. Can a 2-D animated picture hope to compete with all the visual marvels computers can create?

After watching "The Princess and the Frog," I say heck yeah. The film proves not only to be a funny, music-filled romp worthy of comparison to Disney classics, but one that is chock full of gorgeous visuals.

Disney’s new take on the classic tale of girl meets frog, finds Tiana — a hard-working waitress in 1930′s New Orleans — who is desperately trying to save up enough money to open the restaurant that she and her father dreamed about when she was a little girl. Her plans are rudely interrupted when she agrees to kiss Prince Naveen, who was turned into a frog thanks to a voodoo curse from the evil Dr. Facilier. Naveen hopes a smooch from Tiana will turn him back human. Unfortunately the kiss only causes Tiana to join Naveen in frog-hood.

The unlikely companions’ frenzied attempts to find a solution to their little green problem leads them on an adventure around the Louisiana Bayou where they battle gators, thorn bushes and voodoo. Apparently Kermit wasn’t kidding — it ain’t easy being green (crickets chirp).

But it wouldn’t be a Disney movie if Tiana and Naveen didn’t meet up with some fun sidekicks. Just imagine "The Lion King" without Timon and Pumbaa or "Beauty and the Beast" without Gaston and Lumiere — and "The Princess and the Frog" gives us some good ones. Louis, a jazz-loving alligator who finds his chances at playing the big time due to his ferocious appearance and Ray, the bravest firefly you could ever hope to meet who croons romantically to the love of his life Evangeline (I wouldn’t dream of spoiling who she is).

The whole movie is gorgeous to look at. From a nighttime hike through the bayou, lit by thousands of fireflies to a Mardi Gras parade full of floats, confetti and southern belles in hoop skirts, the visual canvas is never anything but full and brings New Orleans to life — you can practically smell the gumbo.

The music is a delight as well. Randy Newman composed the soundtrack which is generously infused with gospel, jazz and ragtime-inspired tracks that capture New Orleans musical soul perfectly.

Directed by veterans Ron Clements and John Musker ("Aladdin" and "Hercules"), the whole film feels like a massive unleashing of talent that has been waiting restlessly these six years for a moment to shine. Let us hope they don’t wait so long before making their next animated feature. "The Princess and the Frog" is a beautiful, funny and romantic charmer.

We are told at the beginning of "The Messenger" that Sergeant Will Montgomery is a hero. Wounded while earning medals for bravery, Montgomery is rotated back home and assigned to serve out the rest of his tour as part of the Army’s Casualty Notification Service. Will now has to break the bad news to the families of soldiers who died serving in combat.

Will is paired with Tony Stone (Woody Harrelson), a tough-talking and hard-partying veteran of the unit who quickly relays the basics of casualty notification. For instance: You never touch the NOK’s (next of kin), you never park to close (you don’t want the whole neighborhood knowing), and you always keep your beeper on and near you at all time ("The Army always has to be first. We don’t want them finding out watching CNN.").

The scenes of Tony and Will notifying the families are beautifully done. Seeing the two try to follow such a sterile and robotic script in the face of such raw emotion is heartbreaking and involving. They are slapped, spit on and yelled at. The reactions are always different but their method is always the same. The film acknowledges how completely inadequate the whole process is, without suggesting how it could be improved. Is there any good way to notify family members? Maybe there just is not a better way.

"The Messenger" could have easily descended into a preachy and over-wrought mess, but the strength of the performances and the sensitivity of the writing keep the film grounded in real human emotion.

Ben Foster, who has recently been typecast in wild-eyed and unhinged villainous roles like in "3:10 to Yuma" does beautifully understated work here as Will. It would have been easy to play the part over the top, but Foster finds a nice balance. Will may be full of survivor’s guilt, but he isn’t consumed by it. When he finally tells his war story to Tony near the end of the film,