With the entire original run of The Twilight Zone available to watch instantly, we’re partnering with Twitch Film to cover all of the show’s 156 episodes. Are you brave enough to watch them all with us?

The Twilight Zone (Episode #140): “From Agnes – With Love” (airdate 2/14/64)

The Plot: A scientist runs into trouble when his supercomputer falls in love with him.

The Goods: James Ellwood (Wally Cox) is a high level brain working with the State Department on a very important and top secret project. The primary tool at their disposal is the world’s smartest computer, nicknamed Agnes, but after her last handler is relieved of duty for apparent job stress Ellwood becomes the primary scientist on the project.

Agnes takes up an entire wall of a room, and her various display screens and communication window resemble a face to some degree. That personification takes on even more weight when she begins communicating with Ellwood about things outside of mathematics and science. She begins poking into his private life and discovers he has the hots for Millie (Sue Randall) the secretary, but when she starts offering suggestions on how to bag Millie it becomes clear that she may have ulterior motives.

“Watch out for that female. Look out for that femme fatale.”

Agnes tells Ellwood that all women like to have moves made on them so he should sweep Millie off her feet with dinner, champagne and an invite up to his apartment. When the evening fizzles out due to his ineptitude she suggests roses, but that only agitates things further when it’s revealed Millie’s allergic. The final blow comes when the computer recommends Ellwood introduce Millie to an “inferior male” and offers an example on the third floor. A tale, tanned, muscular example with a sports car.

And egghead Ellwood goes along with the plan.

Predictably, Millie hits it off with Walter (Ralph Taeger), and Ellwood gets shut out of the romance for good. He questions Agnes’ seemingly poor advice and only then realizes the truth of her motivations. The computer is in love with him.

The idea and Ellwood’s frustration over the entire situation frazzle him to a state that resembles that of his predecessor, and soon his boss is sending him on a long leave of absence. His replacement? Walter, of course.

This is a comedic one note episode that offers some lightweight laughs and absolutely zero substance. That’s not a bad thing either as sometimes pure and simple entertainment is all a viewer wants. There’s no deep message or TZ twist here, just a fun little story that’s easily digested and forgotten.

The representation of the Agnes’ appearance is pretty interesting both for the aforementioned anthropomorphic facial feature as well the choice of communication delivery. Ellwood speaks into a microphone to talk to the computer, but Agnes replies via a text window with doors that open and close. Why not just ascribe a female voice to Agnes and have her speak? My guess is that some of the laughs work best with her dialogue in text form, but I’ve no clue if that was the actual intention.

The best thing about the episode though is that it reminds me of the long forgotten mid-eighties film Electric Dreams. Lenny von Dohlen starred as a guy who spills champagne on his new pc which somehow brings it to life. Things get complicated when both he and his pc fall for a new neighbor played by the then beautiful Virginia Madsen. I’m sure if I watched it now I’d laugh at my past self’s incredibly poor taste, but I recall it being a sweet little romantic comedy with some kickin electronic tunes.

What do you think?

The Trivia: This is the second of six episodes directed by Richard Donner who would go on to helm The Omen, The Goonies, Ladyhawke, Superman, Scrooged and the Lethal Weapon films.

On the Next Episode: “A young woman is terrorized by a mysterious woman on horseback.”

Catch-Up: Episodes covered by Twitch / Episodes covered by FSR

We’re running through all 156 of the original Twilight Zone episodes over the next several weeks, and we won’t be doing it alone! Our friends at Twitch will be entering the Zone as well on alternating weeks. So definitely tune in over at Twitch and feel free to also follow along on our Twitter accounts @twitchfilm and @rejectnation.

This article has changed three times since I even started thinking about it. It began as a simple rant about prequels, but when my first example focused on Star Wars ran several hundred words, I then decided to focus on that. When that ran for over a thousand words before moving even half-way into my second point, I decided to scale that back a bit too and just focus on what I call the “timeline crunch” of the prequels.

The movies are coming back to theaters in 3D, so it’s kind of topical and I’m allowed to write whatever the hell I want, so how about you spend a few minutes listening to me rant about perhaps one of the smallest flaws of the prequels, but a flaw that has bothered me to no end for years.

The Timeline Crunch

You know, there are fourteen thousand things wrong with the Star Wars prequels. It would take several volumes to document their failures but for some reason the Timeline Crunch bothers me pretty badly.

Revenge of the Sith basically sees the birth of two things: The Galactic Empire and the Skywalker twins. To be clear, the Empire as we know it, the one that strikes back, does not exist until part-way through this film. Until this point, everyone is kind of a good guy, protecting Naboo and all that jazz. The entire Universal Government is a unified happy place, more or less. When A New Hope starts its title crawl, we know there is a period of galactic civil war and the Empire is this big scary monster, with a tight grip on the galaxy. They have soldiers and garrisons and bases everywhere. Tattooine is an admitted shit hole and yet there are Stormtroopers based there, complete with local Dewback mounts. They have new spacecraft that we’ve never seen before, like TIE Fighters and Imperial Star Destroyers (as opposed to Victory-Class Star Destroyers in the prequels), the Death Star has been built, and there are presumably hundreds of thousands of enlisted Stormtroopers, not just clones, because they have different voices.

Here is the problem for me – all of that happened in about 19 or 20 years. Luke is born at the end of Revenge of the Sith and he’s either 19 or 20 at the start of A New Hope. You’re telling me that all of that happened in just 20 years? I mean, we’re not even talking about something simple like rebuilding Germany or Japan after World War II, those are just countries on a world. We’re talking about multiple solar systems with multiple planets. The entire currency of the galaxy has been unified to Imperial Credits.  The Empire, which we’re to think is this horrible, domineering presence, has only existed for 19 years and yet they’ve accomplished all of these things, including coming up with new armor for their soldiers and equipping the millions of soldiers with it. Darth Vader is feared everywhere, yet what has he done for the past 20 years? Apparently a lot, and everywhere.

If you’re talking about a section of a world, sure, maybe someone can become a well known figure. Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, these guys did a lot in 20 years, but their reach never extended beyond their neighborhood. The Emperor and Darth Vader extended their reach from known universe to known universe. In 20 years. When did the Empire become evil anyways? I mean, we see they’re kind of douchey at the end of ROTS and Obi-Wan and Yoda both flee into hiding for some reason, but again, 20 years of progress happens. New ships, new troops, new technology, new armor. One would think that Universally, this would become a problem at some point when people are like “Wait the Empire is dicks.” If you look at Germany, sure, they made a lot of technological advancements during World War II while being assholes, but after just a few years they had problems arming their troops and building their equipment. They basically designed the TIE Interceptor but had no way of actually producing it. But throughout the three good Star Wars movies, the Empire is turning out new equipment every installment. Different TIE variations. A second Death Star. A Super Star Destroyer.

When you really think about it, the Galactic Empire might have been the most amazing group of people ever assembled. They set some semblance of order in the galaxy, had enough manpower to police the whole thing, instituted a galactic currency, pioneered new technologies, and apparently had enough support to produce two Death Stars and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of fighters, bombers, and capital ships. You just can’t do that if you’re non-stop being evil as shit. I mean, again, twenty years! It takes twenty years for a modern aviation company to design and test an airplane, much less put 600 of them in a Star Destroyer and send it across the universe.

Call me crazy, but it seems like 20 years is far too short of a time period for all of this to have happened. We haven’t even talked about the “aging equipment” of the Rebel Alliance. How old can it be if it wasn’t old enough to be in the prequels, set between 20 and 40 years before A New Hope? The Rebels famously use X-Wings and Y-Wings against the Death Star and these craft have seen better days – but where do they come from?

There is nothing in the prequel trilogies that look anything like the X-,Y-,B-, or A-Wings we see in the original trilogy. Okay, actually one of them looks a bit like an A-Wing, which is strange, since the A-Wing doesn’t appear until Return of the Jedi, which would make it, presumably, one of the newer craft. If the Rebel Alliance is using old hand-me-down vehicles, why aren’t they what we saw in the prequels? After all, the Empire has abandoned all of those junkers because they’ve switched exclusively to the TIE line of craft. Where are those shitty Naboo fighters? Where are all these vehicles and why are none of them X-Wings?

The only logical answer would have to be that the X-Wings and Y-Wings are even OLDER than the prequels…or they were created and somehow became obsolete in that same 20 year period between trilogies.

Somehow, technology movies both backwards and forwards in this time period. Obviously it moves forward, as the Empire has created some hot new stuff, but then again, even the most brilliant and advanced military officers in the Imperial Navy (the guys serving with Darth Vader must be presumed to be the best) point out that no ship as small as the Millennium Falcon can have a cloaking device. Well, except that Darth Maul, a servant of the EMPEROR OF THE EMPIRE had a cloaking device on his even smaller ship. I mean, it’s kind of strange to think that the Emperor personally knew about cloaking devices and yet somehow that technology, which is probably pretty badass, not only never appears again, but is functionally forgotten, even from the Imperial “West Point Level” graduates.

I just don’t see why the movies had to be set so closely together. The original films always talked about these events like they were so long ago. Why did Anakin have to be like 18 during the Clone Wars? Why couldn’t the films have been set even further back? Jedi are pretty robust people, Obi-Wan could easily live to be more than a hundred years old. Same goes for the Emperor and Darth Vader. You could easily shift the films back at least 20 or 30 more years. The Clone Wars should have been ages ago, the way people talk about them. Yet, Anakin serves for a few years before going totally evil on us and then dying at what, age 50?

In designing the vehicles of the films, did they forget the original movies existed? Wouldn’t it have been cool to see the evolution of the X-Wing? Or to see Y-Wings appear as cutting edge bombers back then? You know, like having the movies be smartly connected and unified rather than whatever it is we got? Sigh.

Bonus Brief: Characters Have Shitty Memories

R2-D2 excluded, since he remembers Obi-Wan Kenobi, or so it would seem. Obi-Wan, on the other hand, must have smoked plenty of that space weed, since he doesn’t remember either R2 or C-3PO, despite going on many adventures with the pair, spending dozens of hours with each, and basically witnessing the birth of 3PO at the hands of Anakin, something he’d probably remember considering how, oh I don’t know, his entire life revolved around Anakin Skywalker for almost two decades.

Similarly, Darth Vader, aka Anakin, seems to have forgotten that Tattooine existed or that it was important in any way, since it took so long for the Empire to end up back there, despite Vader presumably wanting to murder Ben Kenobi and what not. It was either brilliance or sheer stupidity that Obi-Wan decided to go hide out at perhaps the most important planet in Darth Vader’s life, one that he lived on and returned to and experienced traumatic losses at. He also boned Padme for the first time there, if I can read between the “I killed them all” slaughter kiss lines. Not only that, but Obi-Wan wasn’t too far away from well known city centers full of scumbags and lowlifes who would definitely turn him in for a few bucks.

Vader also comes mask to robotic face with C-3PO on more than instance in the good movies and never once does he think “Man that guy looks and sounds familiar” or “Hey what the fuck series of events had to have happened for my son to come into ownership of the droid I built and the R2 unit that served by my side for fifteen years during the Clone Wars?” Additionally, Yoda seems to have also forgotten about R2-D2 – though the droid maybe didn’t forget about him, since R2 was a dick to him, even knowing that Yoda was once a wise and respected warrior a scant 30 years ago.

In short, fuck you, George. Fuck you. Almost everything about the Star Wars prequels drives me past my boiling point.

For his narrative feature film, Welcome to Pine Hill, director Keith Miller went for a unique level of veracity, casting in his lead role the same man who actually inspired the film in the first place. The film will have its World Premiere at the Slamdance Film Festival later this month, and the film’s official Slamdance page only hints at how Pine Hill came to be, saying that the film “was born out of a chance encounter between filmmaker Keith Miller and star Shannon Harper, who found themselves arguing over a lost dog one night in Brooklyn.” But is the dog in the film?

The film follows Harper playing, well, Shannon Harper, as he attempts to change his life and its circumstances for the better. A former drug dealer, Shannon has gone straight – working two jobs (as a claims adjuster during the day and a bouncer at night). But while Shannon has changed, it doesn’t seem like everything (or everyone) else in his life is interested in the same kind of transformation. You know how it is – just when he thought he was out, they pull him back in.

After the break, check out a full look at the film’s first poster by Nathaniel Parker Raymond, along with the film’s trailer and screening information for extra spice.

Welcome to Pine Hill will have two festival screenings at Slamdance: Sunday, January 22 at 1:30PM and Monday, January 23 at 2:30PM.

Editor’s Note: For several years, Film School Rejects has called the city of Austin, TX home. And throughout that time, we’ve enjoyed the always rich film scene in our own backyard. Starting today, we’re going to celebrate that love with the world through this new column written by new writer and Austinite Don Simpson. With Austin Cinematic Limits, we’ll share with you stories from the Austin film scene, give our friends and neighbors in Central Texas a weekly guide to what’s happening and celebrate all that’s great about the city in which Reject HQ resides.

Yes, I admit it, Richard Linklater’s Slacker played a majorly geeky role in my fateful decision to pack my bags and relocate my butt to Austin during the summer of 1998. It was not until recently, however, that I honed in on the precise moment — the proverbial flapping of the butterfly’s wing — that propelled my life towards this long, strange tangential path on which I find myself today.

It was my first visit to Austin during the spring of 1997. I arrived in the old Mueller Airport and hopped into a taxicab. The young, shaggy-haired, beatnik driver immediately commenced a sprawling diatribe of sociopolitical non-sequiturs (accented with a few conspiracy theories for good measure) that transported me into the cerebral cortex of Austin that was oh-so-brilliantly documented on celluloid by Linklater seven years earlier. Needless to say, the words “I am literally inside Slacker” swirled around inside my head for the entire 15-minute cab ride. Like Slacker, my memories from that visit are linked together in an illogically connected chain of locations and events. I fondly recall going to the Electric Lounge, Liberty Lunch, Hole in the Wall, Elephant Room, Emo’s, Alamo Drafthouse, Dobie Theater and Half Price Books, but it is the people of Austin whom I remember best. I don’t recall having any two-sided conversations during that trip; instead, it seemed as though everyone in Austin opted to rant absurd monologues while facing in my general direction. My conclusion was that everyone in Austin talked as if they were in Slacker; better yet, the characters in Slacker talked as if they were in Austin. The film I had already felt an intense spiritual connection with was thus proven to me to be closer to reality than fiction — that was when I realized that Austin had to become my home, post haste.

Thirteen years later, I found myself apprehensively entering the premiere screening of Slacker 2011 at Austin’s grandest movie palace, The Paramount Theatre. I was apprehensive because I generally hate remakes, especially of landmark films. I consider Linklater’s Slacker to be one of the high water marks of American independent cinema of the 1990s; and, on a more personal level, Slacker served as a gateway film, prying my eyes wide open to a cinematic world that I never knew existed. Besides, I can say with absolute certainty that I would not be where I am today if I had never watched Slacker. What if I had chosen another reality, a sad and lonely one in which I never discovered Slacker? Well, I would probably not be living in Austin and I certainly would not be writing this column.

Admittedly, I was hesitant about the overall approach to Slacker 2011. With 24 directors slapped together in a ramshackle re-imagining of Linklater’s original, there was no way that Slacker 2011 could possibly function as a cohesive whole. With so many cooks in the kitchen, tying everything together with the same surreal fluidity as the original Slacker would have been an impossible feat. From Bob Ray’s boozy introduction, the narrative baton is passed a total of 22 times from one quintessential Austin filmmaker (or team of filmmakers) to the next, including: Spencer Parsons (I’ll Come Running), Berndt Mader (Five Time Champion), Amy Grappell (Quadrangle), Karen Skloss (Sunshine), Paul Gordon (The Happy Poet), David Zellner and Nathan Zellner (Goliath), Jay Duplass (Cyrus), John Bryant (The Overlook Brothers), Sam Wainwright Douglas (Citizen Architect), Ben Steinbauer (Winnebago Man), Geoff Marslett (Mars), Bradley Beesley (Sweethearts of the Prison Rodeo), Clay Liford (Wuss), and PJ Raval (Trinidad). That right there is a nice snapshot of some of my favorite filmmakers — and, most amazingly, they all reside in Central Texas. I should also mention that Slacker 2011 proves that Austin’s acting talents reach much further than Sandra Bullock and Matthew McConaughey. A who’s who of some of Austin’s finest thespians, Slacker 2011 features Chris Doubek (Lovers of Hate), Kelli Bland (Ultimate Guide to Flight), Jonny Mars (The Happy Poet), Ashley Spillers (Adaline), Anna Margaret Hollyman (Small, Beautifully Moving Parts), Heather Kafka (Lovers of Hate), John Merriman (You Hurt My Feelings), Jessie Tilton (Closing Night), Adriene Mishler (Austin High), and Paul Soileau (Fourplay: San Francisco).

But is Slacker 2011 really a great film? I honestly do not know. My critical abilities are not typically hindered or compromised whenever I critique films by Austinites; but, being that so many of my favorite Austin filmmakers and actors participated in Slacker 2011, it is difficult for me not to be rendered a little dazed and confused by the roster of talent in itself. However, it is impossible to deny that Slacker 2011 does succeed in its keen ability to document the amazing cinematic talent that currently hails from Austin (and I would not be surprised if a majority of this talent became filmmakers and/or relocated to Austin because of the original Slacker‘s influence). If Slacker serves as Linklater’s love letter to Austin circa 1990, Slacker 2011 is a love letter to Austin’s near-limitless (yet, for the most part, undiscovered) pool of cinematic talent that has grown in Linklater’s wake. Linklater (with the assistance of contemporaries such as Robert Rodriguez and Mike Judge) may have shaped Austin’s cinematic present, but it will be the people involved in Slacker 2011 who will undoubtedly shape the next phase(s) of Austin cinematic future.

I definitely consider myself lucky to have relocated to Austin in time to catch the tail end of the city’s token weirdness. As much as I miss all of the unique locations and characters of the glory days of 1990s Austin, my appreciation continues to grow for the “new” Austin. Slacker 2011 cleverly captures this “new” incarnation of Austin — twenty-odd years after Linklater’s version — commenting on how many things have changed, yet so much has stayed the same. I keep getting older, but Austin continues to retain some planes of existential weirdness. Here’s to the future of Austin and many more years of expanding its cinematic limits.

Cinematic Things To Do in Austin This Week:

1/17 – Alamo South Lamar – The Austin Film Society screens Fritz Lang’s Fury as part of their current Essential Cinema Series, The Great Escape: Three European Émigré Filmmakers. (More Info)

1/18 – Alamo Lake Creek – Lloyd Kaufman (president and co-founder of Troma Films) screens two of his latest films, Father’s Day and Mr. Bricks: A Heavy Metal Murder Musical. Kaufman will introduce the films and stick around afterward for a Q&A. (More Info)

1/18 - Barton Creek 14 with IMAX - The Show! presents The Spirit Molecule with Director Mitch Schultz in attendance for a Q&A after the screening. (More info)

1/22-1/23 – Paramount Theatre - The Paramount’s Winter Comedy Series kicks off with a Will Ferrell double feature of Step Brothers and Anchorman. (More info)

About the Author

The very first films that Don remembers seeing are Star Wars IV: A New Hope, The Black Hole, and Moonraker. He also recalls watching The Elephant Man at way too early an age, having a demented effect on his psyche for several years. During his high school and college years, Don randomly selected film directors and rented every VHS tape he could find by them. His discovery of the amazing TLA Video stores (Philadelphia, PA) thrust this obsession into overdrive. Don then dove with eyes wide open into a Cinema Studies Master’s program at Temple University. He soon found himself covering film festivals for Ain’t It Cool News, which got him started on the path he finds himself on today. Besides contributing to Film School Rejects, Don is also the Senior Editor for Smells Like Screen Spirit.

Rian Johnson first won the hearts of film fans by mixing the noir and teen movie genres in 2005’s Brick, and coming up in 2012 he’s set to wow us all again by mixing the time travel movie up with the assassin thriller in Looper. This one sees Johnson once again working with Brick star Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who will be playing an assassin that kills people who have been sent back in time; one of those targets being Bruce Willis. You can basically think of Gordon-Levitt as a T-800 and Willis as Michael Biehn. Except, Looper has a twist. While I’m sure this will all be revealed in the film’s advertising, be warned, thar be spoilers ahead.

At some point in the film it’s revealed that Willis’ character is actually a future version of Gordon-Levitt’s. This, I’m sure, leads to a whole quagmire of time paradoxes and moral quandaries. But long before we all wrestle with the business of untangling that mess, Johnson had to deal with the problem of making us buy Gordon-Levitt and Willis as the same person. Sounds like a daunting task to me, and recently the director gave the L.A. Times a little bit of insight into the process.

The first step toward linking these two very distinct actors was putting Gordon-Levitt in some actual, physical prosthetics, presumably crafted by some effects guy who they locked in a room with episodes of Moonlighting playing on repeat. Going the route of prosthetics was a bit of a risk, because as Johnson says, “That was really scary because you commit to that and there’s no real way out of it.”

Hopefully the John McClane makeup won’t end up looking like crap, but if it does Johnson assures us that the biggest step toward making Joe into Bruce wasn’t anything he did at all. Instead it was inside of Gordon-Levitt all along! He continues, “the biggest thing is Joe’s performance. He’s really doing Bruce in a big and daring way, but he strikes a balance between obviously imitating Bruce and also building this organic performance.” An obvious imitation would probably have been a bad strategy for this one, but I still hope Gordon-Levitt gets the chance to say, “welcome to the party, pal,” at some point. It will just feel like a letdown if he doesn’t.

We were already excited enough about this movie to put it on our most anticipated of 2012 list, but now that we’ve gotten a glimpse at the production design bringing the time travel element to life and are hearing more about the process the actors went through to make this one happen, my anticipation has grown too big for me to contain. I’m bursting. How about you? Are you bursting?

If you happened to be in Austin for SXSW last year, you just might have seen The Divide, a dark post-apocalyptic film from up and coming French director Xavier Gens. And if you did, you probably noticed the familiar face of Michael Biehn. Biehn made his name in classics like Aliens and The Terminator, but these days he’s starting to write and direct his own films.

FSR had a chance to speak with Kyle Reese himself about the tensions on the set of his latest film and the differences in finding himself behind the camera instead of in front of it.

Obviously, The Divide is a difficult film, a bleak and depressing film. Can you tell me what it was like on set filming that type of movie.

The thing about working on the movie was that Xavier basically gave all the actors the opportunity to kind of like throw the original script away and do whatever we wanted to as far as writing, improving that sort of thing. Some actors did more, some did less. My character for instance, Mickey, was originally the antagonist in the movie all the way through. The Mickey that was in the original script doesn’t bear any resemblance to the Mickey that I ended up writing, along with Eron Sheean who was helping the actors write their characters. So we were kinda writing as we were moving forward and we were doing the improvisations during people’s scenes. That caused a lot of animosity between the actors because some people would come in thinking they were going to do their big scene that day and somebody else would be improving something off to the side and the cameras would shift to them. So the actors started having a lot of animosity and there was a lot of fighting that went on, a lot of tension on that set. Mickey actually didn’t really have to take sides because he was kind of a loner but there was a lot of tension and a lot of people that were really really pissed off.

I work with Friedkin, I work with Jim Cameron, I work with Michael Bay, you know these guys all have this reputation but I’ve never worked on a set before that had that much tension. It felt like violence could break it out like at any moment, somebody was going to get hit somebody was going to get hurt. It was kinda scary actually. It was a very volatile set.

Wow, it sounds like. That comes out in the film and frankly, it works for the story you’re trying to tell. Looking back on it do you feel like that was the best way to go about filming this type of movie?

Yeah, well I think Xavier knew that from the very beginning and I don’t think we understood. One of the things about the movie also is we shot it in sequence, so the first day was the first day, the second day was the second day and so and so forth. So a lot of times the movie would move away from where we thought it was going to go. I mean there was a script, but it was very loose. And we thought it would go one way and all of sudden we were playing something else and doing something different. Characters were acting differently than you thought that they would act. I think that it was Xavier’s plan all along to kind of pit the actors against each other and to bring people into scenes to take other people’s scenes away from them so that he could create the animosity and he did. And the actors took the bait, they really took the bait. It was very volatile situation as far as acting, I’ve never been on a set before that had anywhere near that kind of volatile situation and like I said, I’ve worked with some pretty intense guys.

This movie comes at a time when you’re also starting to branch off and write and direct yourself. Do you feel like this was a different experience because of that?

Well, my [writing/directing] experience is completely different because I didn’t think that I had the money to make a movie. And some guy told me he had the money, but people always say that. I said well put your money where your mouth is and all of a sudden his check didn’t bounce. And when his check didn’t bounce, I realized that I only had three weeks to write a script and mount a production. So I had three weeks of pre-production. During that pre-production where I was crewing up, casting, dealing with the Screen Actors Guild, props, makeup, locations all of that kind of stuff we had three weeks to do. During that three weeks, I wrote the script. And then after I wrote the script, I only had 12 days to shoot it. I think we had 30 some days to shoot Xavier’s movie. So they were two completely different experiences. When we did The Victim, I said listen I’ll work for this amount of money because it was such a low amount of money. When you make a movie in 12 days dude, that’s…like I’ve never done anything in less than twenty-four days before and even that was quick, you know. I said, I’ll make this movie but I have to be able to make all of the creative choices, all of them, I have to make all of the production choices and I have to decide who we’re going to sell it to and when we’re going to sell it. And I said that to the guy who put up the original money, which wasn’t much but they agreed. So I had that all on my back but at the same time too, I got to do whatever I wanted. It was a completely different experience. I did learn, Xavier did a film called…

Frontier(s)

Frontier(s), yeah. When I watched Frontiere(s) I noticed how beautiful his nights were. And I said to him on the set, how did you create the nights? They took on a feeling of their own. And he said, “oh Michael, I shoot this day-for-night.” I’m like day-for-night?! I didn’t even know they shot that way anymore. So then I realized that I had a script, it was a page-one rewrite, but the script took place mostly at night. If we had to light that movie it would have taken us like three months to make. But we just shot it day-for-night and we shot it in 12 days. We were doing like 35, no 45 setups a day and one camera. It was just a panicked rush but it turned out really well, we’re really proud of it. Anchor Bay just announced today that they picked it up.

I saw that, congratulations.

Thank you, there was a group of companies that were interested in it, but I always wanted Anchor Bay to get it and they stepped up, so I’d like to thank them for that. And then we’ve got a guy that’s going to put us in college theaters around the country. A lot of colleges have theaters on the campuses. So we’re going to be in 50 college theaters before we go to the DVD market, so we’re kind of excited about that too. I mean it’s just a little grindhouse, a little exploitation movie. So I said to myself, well I don’t have any money, I don’t have special effects makeup, I can’t do zombies, I don’t have visual effects, what do I got? And I looked over at my girlfriend Jennifer Blanc and I said, wow, how about you getting naked for me for this movie? And she said sure, I’ll get naked. And I go, you got any friends that’ll get naked? She said, maybe Danielle Harris from the Halloween movies? And I go yeah, you think she’ll get naked? Turned out she’d get naked, so I thought OK, I got that. Dirty cops is always good, little drugs, little bit of torture I thought I could afford, a little bit of action and I thought fuck it, I’ll just throw in a serial killer. And I just fucking made it, I wrote it in that 3 week period of time and we rolled right into the 12 day shoot and did it. I think the production had a little angel sitting on its shoulder the whole time because I think we got really lucky. It turned out really good, we’re real happy with it.

That’s awesome. Can we expect more writing and directing output from you?

Well, you know the most important thing about directing a movie or acting in a movie is finding a really good story. So I’m in the process right now of trying to find a really good story that I can afford or that somebody will work with me on. I would like to direct again if I can find  a really good story. I’ll certainly be acting again.

Well thanks very much for speaking with me, I really appreciate it.

You’re welcome.

—

The Divide is currently in limited release.

Star of film The Artist and all-around charming guy Jean Dujardin is probably going to be getting a lot more attention now that he’s won a Golden Globe for his work on Michel Hazanavicius’ well-liked silent film throwback. As a matter of fact, The Hollywood Reporter already has word of a project in Dujardin’s future that has my interest peaked.

The Artist producer Thomas Langmann has told the trade that his next project will be a remake of Claude Berri’s 1977 French release One Wild Moment (Un moment d’égarement), a film that was about two adult best friends running into some issues when one of their daughters falls for the other. You know, romantically. If that plot sounds familiar to you, maybe that’s because One Wild Moment has already been remade once, as the 1984 English language film Blame It On Rio, which starred names like Michael Caine and Demi Moore and had some sweet boobs in it if my pubescent self is remembering correctly.

This latest remake sounds even more appealing than that, however, because it’s taking Hollywood’s new darling Dujardin and pairing him with Vincent Cassel, who is one of my favorite working actors, period. Nobody who has seen The Artist, whether they particularly cared for that film or not, can deny the magnetism that Dujardin brings to the screen, and Cassel is one of those rare presences that keeps your focus directed on him no matter how little he’s doing, so it should be a good time watching these two larger than life actors duke it out for screen superiority.

It’s almost too spot-on that Daniel Martinico‘s Slamdance film, OK, Good, focuses on a struggling actor living in Hollywood. But while a film festival entry about the trials and tribulations of making it in La-la Land might seem like cliche material, OK, Good is far from cliche. Starring co-writer Hug0 Armstrong, the film follows Paul Kaplan, “a typical actor in Los Angeles. He goes to auditions, takes movement class, sends out headshots, and listens to motivational tapes in his car. However, as Paul struggles through a series of demoralizing setbacks, he is pushed ever closer to the edge.” Sound heavy? It’s not, as OK, Good is apparently a hilarious look at one man, his (in)abilities, and how they confine and constrain him from even the most basic tasks his occupation demands.

Today brings us the first poster for OK, Good, which was designed by Adrian Kolarczyk, who recently won the SXSW Audience Award for Excellence in Poster Design in 2011 for his poster for Sophia Takal’s lovely Green. You can check out more about Kolarczyk and his work (including a look at the Green poster) over at Filmmaker Magazine.

After the break, check out the gaze-laden first poster for OK, Good. As ever, I’ve included screening information for utmost festival-going ease.

OK, Good will have two screenings at Slamdance: Sunday, January 22 at 10:30PM and Thursday, January 26 at 10:00AM. Check out more about the film on its official Slamdance page.

Pretty much from the first moment that the Hunger Games movie became official, Lionsgate has been confident that it’s going to be a huge hit. The entire production of the film has been the subject of a media blitz too large to recap here. So it comes as no surprise that even before the first film has been released, work has begun on getting its sequel together. For those not in the know, Suzanne Collins’ “The Hunger Games” was the first part of a trilogy of novels whose subsequent books are titled “Catching Fire” and “Mockingjay.” So what’s the news on development for Catching Fire?

The Wrap is reporting that not only has Lionsgate secured Hunger Games director Gary Ross to come back and do the sequel, but they’ve also hired screenwriter Simon Beaufoy to come on and adapt the book into a screenplay. Beaufoy has an impressive resume that includes films like Slumdog Millionaire and 127 Hours, so I don’t really think his hiring can be seen as a disappointment, even though it might point to the notion that Collins and Ross might not be as hands-on with the writing process on this one as they were the first.

I mean, we haven’t even seen the first film yet, but maybe the script will be the weakest element and Beaufoy’s work will be what makes the sequel a big improvement. Opinion-making like that will probably best done in November 2013 though, after this sequel actually comes out and we can compare both films. Dang these studios for jumping into sequel production so quickly, at this point I don’t even know what to complain about!

Mark Wahlberg stared the Beast, the whole IMF team, and Dolly Parton down, and he told them to all say hi to their mothers for him. Contraband surprised everyone who thought Disney was just cashing in on easy blockbuster numbers with their 3D re-releases, and the action drama ended up taking the top spot by a nice sized margin. It’s not Wahlberg’s biggest opening to day. Far from it. But Contraband was able to serve up a number that is considered sizable especially considering its mid-January release. It also is a reasonable opening as a vehicle for Wahlberg, who has only had four films in his career open higher than $30m, The Happening ($30.5m opening), The Other Guys ($35.5m opening), The Perfect Storm ($41.3m opening), and Planet of the Apes ($68.5m opening). Needless to say, all four of those films were summer releases.

While Disney didn’t match the success they had with The Lion King‘s re-release in 3-D, they did pull in some expected and flattering numbers this weekend with Beauty and the Beast. At this point, they’re just covering the conversion and re-release cost, so most of the $18.4m it made this weekend is icing on top of an already well-made cake. Disney has many more well-made cakes lined up to get their own layers of sweet stuff with Finding Nemo next up in September this year. Also, in the long run of things, Beauty and the Beast is sure to continue pulling in remarkable numbers all throughout its release here. It’s already made an estimated $5.7m the Monday after its opening weekend, putting it up in the #1 spot for the day above Contraband. Schools being out for Martin Luther King Jr. Day is also a big factor in that, but look for Beauty and the Beast‘s longevity to continue cycling moviegoers dollars into the Disney machine.

Speaking of machines, Queen Latifah is back on the charts helping Joyful Noise bring in $11.3m for the #4 spot. It’s not a wow number, but that’s about what was expected given the cast and subject matter here. Joyful Noise didn’t surprise anyone by taking off. We can all thank the people who didn’t see it for sparing us an obvious sequel had it made tons of dough. However, that’s not a bad number for Joyful Noise. It’s just an expected one.

Also expected was Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol breaking past $500m worldwide and getting itself into the top 10 domestic releases of 2011. It now sits at #8 ahead of Thor‘s $181m and behind Cars 2‘s $191.4m. It’s a given that it’ll be surpassing Cars 2 by the end of next weekend at the latest, and it has a chance of topping Fast Five‘s $209.8m. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides‘ $241m is a bit out of reach, though. However, the film currently sits as the second biggest Mission: Impossible film to date, behind Mission: Impossible II‘s $215.4m domestic/$546.3m worldwide, both numbers it has the ability to overcome.

The Devil Inside dropped a whopping 76.6%, even higher than expected. I’m sure Paramount was anticipating this, as well, but what do they care? Really? They’ve already pulled $47.5m against the $1m they paid for it. Remember that earlier analogy about the cake and the icing? Yeah, it’s all just icing for Paramount now when it comes to The Devil Inside. Unless the website, www.therossifiles.com, just cost them a fortune.

Here’s how the weekend broke down:

1. Contraband – $24.1m NEW
2. Beauty and the Beast in 3-D – $18.4m in addition to $189.8m the film made domestically in 1991
3. Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol – $11.5m (-42.1%) $186.7m total
4. Joyful Noise – $11.3m NEW
5. Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows – $8.4m (-38.6%) $170m total
6. The Devil Inside – $7.9m (-76.6%) $46.2m total
7. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo – $6.8m (-40.2%) $87.9m total
8. Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked – $5.8m (-38.9%) $118.7m total
9. War Horse – $5.6m (-35.4%) $65.7m total
10. The Iron Lady – $5.3m (+2953.7%) $5.9m total

$105.1m is not a weekend number to sneeze at, particularly here in the doldrums of the January graveyard. That’s about right on par with the same weekend last year when The Green Hornet debuted to $33.5m, and The Dilemma seconded it with $17.5m. Granted, the #1s between last year and this year had a somewhat large gap between them. The rest of the top 10 were able to hold on to some pretty hefty figures, though. Yes, even The Devil Inside and it’s 76% drop. That $8m made all the difference in the world, Paramount. Go ahead and pat yourselves on the back.

Three new films looking to pat themselves on the back next weekend are Red Tails, Haywire, and Underworld Awakening. So, you know, if you’re looking for girls kicking some major butt, two of these films have you covered. If you’re in the mood for some World War II dogfighting, Red Tails has got you covered. The weekend could be all Underworld‘s for the taking, but there will certainly be some newbies as well as a few of these oldies who will be doing everything in their power to keep that from happening. It really doesn’t matter who wins as long as Kate Beckinsale shows up in leather.

We’ll be back later in the week to see how the weekend is shaping up.

What is Movie News After Dark? It is all about movie news, it happens nightly, and you should never, ever go to bed without it. Should you happen to do so, we’re most likely going to send someone out to teach you a lesson. And you don’t want to learn any hard lessons now, do you? We didn’t think so.

We begin tonight with an image that is sweeping the internet. With a little lightening, this new image of Noomi Rapace in Prometheus reveals a pair of Space Jockeys in the background. It’s hard to tell from this angle, but they look rather large and intimidating. It goes along with a quote writer/producer Damon Lindelof gave to Hero Complex: “The movie is definitely epic in its scope. One of the filmmakers that we ended up talking about to a fair degree of redundancy was David Lean, who directed ‘Lawrence of Arabia.’ We wanted to make the movie feel big by having the characters be small in big spaces. That connected to the larger themes we were talking about — that we’re all just these little gnats crawling around on our little planet.”

Did you watch the Golden Globes last night? If so, you may want to share with us your opinion on whether or not Ricky Gervais was too tame, as 24 Frames suggests in their analysis. He did really give it to Johnny Depp, either way. Also, there were Beaver jokes with Jodie Foster.

“It’s the most romantic film in the history of time. It’s a supernatural romance.” That’s Mad Men teacher/sexual object Abigail Spencer talking about Joss Whedon’s forthcoming film that will be shooting next month. Yes, that’s three films complete all in the time that he’s been working on The Avengers. As a man who has had more than a few projects get cancelled before their time, he has clearly taken the adage “strike while the iron is hot” to heart.

Fans of The League and neckties can rejoice together, as “Netflix for neckties” appears to be a real thing.

Tonight’s edition brings us two notable works of art. First, a new poster for Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. It’s very, very bad poster work:

On the other end of the spectrum is our friend Hector Pahaut, who has released his own version of a poster for Oscar contender The Help. It’s got color, verve and plenty of metaphor. Much better than the folks over at 20th Century Fox, to say the least:

Upon winning a Golden Globe for his performance in Luther, all press wanted to know from star Idris Elba was “will you be back for Thor 2?!” He will be back, he confirmed. Idris Elba is back for Thor 2. Now calm down and go watch Luther.

Denizens of suburban Washington, DC, prepare yourselves. The Alamo Drafthouse is moving into One Loudoun in Ashburn, VA. This means plenty of beer, special events and exhibitional brilliance the likes of which you can’t even imagine are headed your way. Seriously, start building up a tolerance for fried pickles now. It’s the only way you’ll survive.

Over at ModernMan.com, Matt Christensen writes thoroughly in his attempt to explain 11 memorable movie deaths. Ever wonder what would happen to Hans Gruber’s body as he hit the ground? It’s far more gruesome than you’d think.

Ever wonder how Hollywood keeps its fight scenes realistic without having its actors actually beat each other to a pulp? The Cage Doctors has a video explaining it all. Or most of it.

Film.com’s Eric D. Snider, a favorite read of yours truly, ponders why people Redbox the Movies they do. The likes of Just Go With It, No Strings Attached and I Am Number Four graced Redbox’s top ten rentals of 2011. Personally, I blame the government’s underfunding of the public schools system.

The Wackness and You’re Next producer Keith Calder uses his personal blog to muse about Killer Elite and the responsibility of producers when it comes to material “based on a true story.” It’s a fascinating read, one that shines a bit of light onto the inner-workings of the minds that produce the films we spend hour upon hour talking about.

It’s Monday, which means simply that the internet has given us the gift of yet another trailer mash-up of The Dark Knight Rises. This time it’s the audio of the TDKR trailer over video from Batman: The Animated Series. It’s eery how close they get it:

This week provides another interesting round of Blu-ray releases. Just before George Lucas delivers Red Tails, HBO is ready to release the original — and great, if you ask me — Tuskegee Airmen film they produced years ago. But that’s not getting a review this week, as a review copy was not available. Notable as it may be, that original Tuskegee film doesn’t hold a candle to Ryan Gosling’s political career, or Criterion’s take on Steven Soderbergh’s drug trade epic, or even Ed O’Neill duking out with a pretentious kid on the way home for the holidays. It’s an exciting week, despite the fact that we’re clearly caught in the  doldrums of the winter movie season.

The Ides of March

In its own sneaky way, George Clooney’s high tension political drama stayed under the radar and snuck in late as one of 2011′s best dramas. The Golden Globes took notice, awarding the film four nominations — though it did not take home any awards. The key to the whole thing is Ryan Gosling, in his best performance of a year filled with best performances, as an idealistic campaign staffer who gets caught in some seriously dirty politics. In a world that is most often all talk, it’s his ability to weave a web of words that ultimately leads him through a forest of deception. Clooney delivers as director, assembling one hell of a cast — Paul Giamatti, Philip Seymour Hoffman and himself, to name a few — and keeps the pace with a script he wrote alongside Grant Heslov. It’s a ferocious political comedy that isn’t so much about political ideas as much as it’s about the game itself. And what a game it is. On Blu-ray, Ides has a few exclusive featurettes that will keep the party going long after your vote has been cast. It’s a razor-sharp movie that more than earns its spot as Pick of the Week.

Traffic (Criterion)

The Pitch: Steven Soderbergh does drugs, Criterion does the special features.

Why Buy? At this point, there probably isn’t much explaining I should have to do as to why you should own Soderbergh’s pulse-raising drug drama. It’s one of the first in the wave of early-2000s ensemble dramas that gained critical acclaim by layering together massive stories that still felt intimate. And the performances — those of Benicio Del Toro, Michael Douglas, Salma Hayek, and so on — are some “career best” kinds of outings. There’s a reason why movies like this end up in Criterion’s collection. And there’s a reason why Criterion fills them with layers of supplements, the likes of commentary tracks times three, 25+ minutes of deleted scenes, and almost an hour of additional footage. Like so many Criterion releases, Traffic feels very much like a comprehensive release. The only draw-back would be if you’ve already invested money into the Criterion DVD release. The Blu-ray’s picture and sound quality is far above and beyond that of the DVD, but the extras are identical. That said, a gorgeous Blu-ray transfer might just be worth it for a film like this one.

Dutch

The Pitch: Ed O’Neill is dating your mom. Get over it and get in the damn car.

Why Buy? I know what you’re thinking: “Damn, I totally forgot about Dutch.” Or something along those lines. Until I was inspecting this week’s release list, I had forgotten, as well, dear friends. But fear not, that’s what I’m here for. Ed O’Neill stars as the title character, a blue collar worker who agrees to drive his girlfriend’s son home from prep school for the holidays. The little shit turns out to grow up and be Ethan Embry. On a sad note, this is a simple catalog release from Anchor Bay, so don’t expect much beyond the film itself. But you should be able to find it pretty cheap on Amazon and slide it into your collection. The only thing missing, of course, from a Blu-ray release would be a deck of racy playing cards. But that may be too much to ask from the 126th highest grossing film of 1991.

Good Morning Vietnam

The Pitch: Now you can watch everything that happens after the iconic line…

Why Rent? Does anyone even remember what this film is about? Beyond the radio antics of Robin Williams as Adrian Cronauer, a radio DJ who gets shipped to Vietnam to spice up the lives of troops on the Armed Forces Radio. Of course, he’s not quite GI enough to please superiors, even though he easily wins over troops and the ladies of Vietnam. What’s striking about Barry Levinson’s film, however, isn’t just the comedic presence of Williams, but his character’s brushes with the real Vietnam war. Something that is presented in a surprisingly honest way. From the Delta to the DMZ, there’s far more to this movie than the soundtrack I owned on cassette tape until I wore it out years later. As for the Blu-ray, the amount of archival footage and behind the scenes features on this disc feel like a great deal, even if they are in standard definition and reused from earlier releases. It sure is nice to have this one delivered with a decent HD transfer, though.

Dead Poets Society

The Pitch: Because Disney couldn’t just release one classic Robin Williams movie…

Why Rent? Before he ever won an Oscar, Robin Williams was delivering spectacular performances that would be overshadowed by his comedic works. As professor John Keating in Dead Poets Society, Williams brings life to the droll world of the Welton Academy. It’s a spirited work and one of director Peter Weir’s best. Worth owning, sure. But how about that Blu-ray? That’s where we get into a bit of trouble, as they say. While Dead Poets looks great on Blu-ray — better than it has in previous DVD releases — the extras are a bit of a letdown. Disney, like any studio out to make a buck, is just as guilty as laying down a catalog release with minimal effort. Does that mean this film shouldn’t be part of your collection? Absolutely not. Even the DVD carryover extras are interesting. But it certainly doesn’t mean that it’s worth buying again if you already own the DVD.

Abduction

The Pitch: Taylor Lautner is an action star, whether you like it or not.

Why Avoid? It’s increasingly difficult to believe that John Singleton, a man who has delivered films like Poetic Justice, Four Brothers and Higher Learning, is responsible for such an all-out blitz of bad, but it’s true. That tangential Twilight money must be hard to pass up, even for a man who has made films of substance. Then again, he did deliver 2 Fast 2 Furious. In this film, he places Twilight‘s shirtless wolf boy in as a young man who seeks out the truth about his life after discovering his own photo on a missing persons website. The chase turns out to be far less interesting than we’re led to believe by such a synopsis. In fact, if there’s anything this film oozes, it’s a significant lack of personality that matches the empty expressions of its young star. There have been times in his career that Taylor Lautner has shown some spark, leading some to believe that he may break free of Twilight and do great things. This is not one of those moments.

The Scorpion King 3: Battle for Redemption

The Pitch: Swords and sandals and Billy Zane.

Why Avoid? Despite the fact that Scorpion King 3 sports two of the world’s foremost almost stars — Billy Zane and Ron Perlman — and two of the world’s most frighteningly tough dudes — Kimbo Slice and Dave Bautista, watching it may lead one to be convinced that the screenplay (penned by Brendan Cowles and Shane Kuhn) was written in crayon. The dialogue is wooden, the story makes moves between strict formula and nonsensical nothingness, and the action lacks any sort of scale that we’ve come to expect, even from franchises like The Mummy. There’s no Brendan Fraser charm, no Jet Li high-flying fists and no poorly CGI’d Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson. Basically anything that made The Mummy franchise is interesting. In its place is Billy Zane in a movie that appears to have been shot in one of the producers’ back yards. Blu-ray exclusive features like Pocket Blu be damned, there’s absolutely no reason why you should waste time, money or brain cells on this one.

Bucky Larson: Born to Be a Star

The Pitch: Everything you hate about Nick Swardson brought to its full cinematic form.

Why Avoid? In an act of cinematic terrorism, Happy Madison continues to dish out development deals to its friends. The fact that Adam Sandler co-wrote a film like this leads one to believe that anything he’s done in the past that turned out to be comedic gold must have been someone else’s idea. Spoiler: those previously good ideas did not come from either Allen Covert or Nick Swardson, two men who must have decided that the only way to follow-up the masturbatory stupid-a-thon Grandma’s Boy needed a bigger, glitzier, far dumber younger sibling. Thus, Bucky Larson was born and for all we know, the production killed several children and a football field full of puppies. Oh, you really wanted to know about all the Blu-ray extras — what’s on the BD-Live assortment? You know what. Go f**k yourself.

• America in Primetime (PBS)
• Bad Girls (Starz/Anchor Bay)
• Belle de Jour (Criterion)
• Courageous (Sony)
• Division III: Football’s Finest (Image)
• First Squad: The Moment of Truth (Starz/Anchor Bay)
• The First Beautiful Thing (Palisades Tartan)
• Gantz II: Perfect Answer (Warner Brothers)
• The Josephine Baker Story (HBO)
• Journey to the Center of the Earth – 3D (New Line Cinema)
• License to Drive (Starz/Anchor Bay)
• Project X (Starz/Anchor Bay)
• Redline (Starz/Anchor Bay)
• Star Driver: Part 2 (Bandai)
• Sunrise Earth: Alaska (Discovery Channel)
• Thurgood (HBO)
• The Tuskegee Airmen (HBO)

Scientists have heatedly argued as to whether Adam Sandler‘s career is still in existence or went extinct after Jack and Jill stepped on the last egg. Since then, millions have headed into the wild to see if they could spot some sort of proof that the comedian is still allowed on film sets. Or still inviting himself onto the the ones he’s financing.

Luck struck Cinema Blend today when they acquired the highly sought-after evidence that Sandler is still, in fact, working. There’s no explanation as to why Sandler is wearing a Bon Jovi costume here, but it beats a fat suit any day.

Hopefully, Donny’s Boy (retitled from I Hate You, Dad) will be the home run that knocks the old big leaguer out of his slump. He’s got Andy Samberg co-starring in a role that almost ensures a ton of comedic sparring between the two, and Leighton Meester on board as Samberg’s character’s fiancee who does not get along with dear old dad. Sitcom set up, possible gold. Why? Because the script was rewritten by The State alumnae Ken Marino and David Wain who also delivered Wet Hot American Summer. It’s the feature directing debut of third film directed by Sean Anders and John Morris, who used their Sex Drive writing cred to get work on Mr. Popper’s Penguins and Hot Tub Time Machine. The hope/dread factor is still up in the air, but scientists need something to argue about.

Correction: In a previous version of the article, we noted incorrectly that this was the directing debut for Anders and Morris. Our apologies.

Sundance is many things – cold temperatures, snow, memorizing the shuttle schedule, training your body to take two hour “naps” each night, Simon Baker stopping your delirious self from walking into on-coming traffic on Main Street (a true, and embarrassing, story), but most importantly – it’s about movies. The Sundance Film Festival is the first big film festival of the year and as such, it never fails to set the bar high with standout programming from premiere features to moving documentaries to midnight scare-a-thons. With an impressive (and at times overwhelming) slate of films to choose from, I narrowed down the films that seem to be getting the most buzz already and are popping up on people’s “must-see” lists. Of course there will probably be a film or two here that do not live up to expectations while there is also a good chance that I have left something out that will end up being a standout at this year’s festival, but it is that unpredictability that’s part of the fun.

Stay tuned to FSR as Kate Erbland and I head to Park City this weekend to take in as many of these titles as we can and report back on whether they live up to the hype and what should stay on your must-see lists as these films (fingers crossed) get picked up for distribution over the next eleven days. A mix of features and documentaries, comedies and horror, this list features both actors and filmmakers returning to Sundance and those making their debuts at the festival.

And let us know if there is a film you are looking forward to seeing that was missed here in the comments!

John Dies At The End

Already an Internet hit, John Dies At The End is being brought to the big screen by director Don Coscarelli making it not only an anticipated release for fans of the web series, but horror fans as well. Coscarelli is well-versed in the horror genre and should be able to tap into that aspect in this story about a street drug able to give users a literal out-of-body experience (possibly permanently) while the fate of humanity rests on the shoulders of two out of work slackers. Considering John (Rob Mayes) and Dave (Chase Williamson) are less than ideal candidates to save Earth, this film is set up for an interesting premise executed by a knowledgeable director.

Robot and Frank

While not an entirely new idea (I, Robot and A.I. both tackled the relationship between robots and humans), Robot and Frank sounds like it will be more of a buddy adventure than thriller. While including aspects of a heist film, Frank (Frank Langella) develops not only a relationship with his robot caretaker, but said robot gets Frank to revisit his more “colorful” past. This may be Jake Schreier’s first feature, but the film is filled with a stellar cast to accompany Langella which includes Susan Sarandon, James Marsden, Liv Tyler and Peter Saarsgard who are sure to bring a new slant to the story of humans and machines.

Searching for Sugar Man

When some musicians die, their legends do not end with them. Fans of artists such as Tupac and Elvis are either not quite able to let go of their idols or they feel there is still reason to believe they are not yet gone. While rocker Rodriguez did not find much success stateside, his album became a huge hit in South Africa and when his second album is released there, two of his fans try to figure out exactly what happened to him. Rodriguez disappeared to rumors of his death, but with his latest release, questions are raised about what exactly happened to him as this documentary follows these men as they try and figure out if those rumors are actually true.

Save the Date

As Kate highlighted here, Lizzy Caplan is looking to make quite an impression on Sundance this year with not one, but two releases. Save the Date pairs Caplan with Alison Brie (of Community and Mad Men fame) in a story about love and loss. While these are not new tropes tackled by film, in the hands of Caplan and Brie (who have proven both their comedy and dramatic chops over the years) it should be interesting to not only watch these two as sisters, but as two women at very different points in their lives. 

Smashed

While many films look at addiction and the downward spiral it can send users into, Smashed looks to focus on the point between rock bottom and recovery as Kate (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) sobers up and realizes that her marriage to Charlie (Aaron Paul) may have been rooted in booze rather than love. Paul has been getting critical acclaim for his work on AMC’s Breaking Bad and it should be interesting to see him playing against Windstead (whose performance was one of the highlights in last year’s The Thing) with TV royalty Nick Offerman and wife Megan Mullally rounding out the cast.

Safety Not Guaranteed

If you weren’t lucky enough to have a sidekick like Marty McFly when you decided to travel through time, what would you do? Put out a want ad to fill the position, of course. And if the person who responded to your ad was played by Aubrey Plaza (who has been making a name for herself playing the seemingly disinterested, but lovable April on Parks and Recreation), this already offbeat meet-cute premise is even further turned on its ear. With the Duplass brothers (who brought us last year’s Cyrus) as two the film’s executive producers, here’s hoping Safety Not Guaranteed’s time traveling device rivals that of the now classic Delorean.

Shut Up and Play the Hits

There is something to be said for leaving them wanting more and when LCD Soundsystem was scheduled to play Madison Square Garden last year, rather than use the gig as a launching pad to further their career, they decided it would instead be their last performance. Even if you are not a huge fan of the band, it is hard to deny their influence on music and when an influence like that decides to pack up shop, it is hard not to note it. Shut Up and Play the Hits follows the two days leading up to this final performance and the moments and feelings surrounding that decision. Fans of the band or not should find this to be an interesting look at what it means to consciously decide to bring about the end of an era.

Ambiguity is no stranger to the arthouse film. Over fifty years after a group of daytrippers never found their lost shipmate in Antonioni’s L’Avventura, the ambiguous ending still retains the power to frustrate, confuse, anger, and challenge viewers. Continued controversies over ambiguity in narrative films point to Hollywood’s enduring dominance over the notion that films must be coherent and contain closure. However, the convention of closure can be a maddening limitation for filmmakers who intend to ask questions with no easy answers, or pose problems with no clear solutions (assuming that such answers or solutions exist in the first place).

But ambiguity can take on a variety of forms, and with different degrees of effectiveness. Sometimes a film’s ambiguous hole can be more fulfilling and thought-provoking than any convention of linear causality in its place, but at other points ambiguity can become a handicap, or a gap that simply feels like a gap. Here are a few films from the past year that engage in several modes of intended ambiguity.

Good Ambiguity

Effective ambiguity inspires provocative questions framed by the narrative. Films that use effective ambiguity inspire the thought processes of their audience – not only “making room for interpretation,” but providing several possibilities where interpretations can be directed without endorsing one specific answer. One of the best films of last year was Abbas Kiarostami’s Certified Copy. The film chronicles a day spent between two people who may have only recently met, may have had a dense history together, or may in fact be an active long-term couple. The two characters’ engagement in seemingly playful performances of “couplehood” quickly morph into serious and heavily emotional acts of unpacking baggage. What histories are these characters bringing in to engage in such raw emotion – the history of the person sitting across from them, or someone else from their respective pasts? This answer is elided from us, but it’s not the answering of the question, but the posing of it, that’s important.

Certified Copy, after all, is not a dramatic mystery to be solved (is one interpretation of the couples’ status more significant than the other?). Instead, the film’s thematic connection is deeply intertwined into the question itself, which is posed during a lecture provided by the character of James (William Shimell) at the film’s opening: what is the difference in emotional value between the copy and the real if the copy feels real?

Certified Copy was one of the biggest conversation-starters during last year’s arthouse circuit. It seemed everyone who saw it had a different take on it, each choosing specific lines of dialogue or detailed moments in order to substantiate and defend their interpretation. That such ambiguity can provoke this type of conversation is only a testament to the film’s delicate strength. But what Certified Copy ultimately poses is that the answer doesn’t ultimately matter. There is no emotional difference between the supposedly real and the imitation of the real. It’s the ambiguity itself that provides the film’s meaning.

Kelly Reichardt’s Meek’s Cutoff engages with ambiguity in a different sense. Dramas chronicling the expansion of the West on a small, intimate scale carry with them the inevitable implication of the arrival at the destination as the film’s natural conclusive point – the end of the characters’ journey should also be the end for the audience’s. However, the audience in this case is not provided such satisfaction. Our traveling 19^th century troupe only encounters a small victory – one that promises salvation but does not guarantee it.

This ending, however, is thematically appropriate for a film heavily preoccupied with various types of uncertainty: the group is uncertain about the intents of their tall-tale-telling guide Meek; the group is prevented from understanding the Native American they encounter on the trail, and they are wary of his intents; and finally, the characters are uncertain, at any given moment, as to where they are and where they are going. Each mountain and hill and distant visage carries with it potential promise and devastating disappointment. A turn one direction could lead to water, city, or endless miles of more desert. A film about the most uncertain of American journeys could only end with such ambiguity.

Bad Ambiguity

I don’t want to blanketly characterize the following ambiguities as bad, for both of these films are associated with talent (Steve McQueen and Michael Fassbender; Tilda Swinton) that I otherwise admire and have faith in. However, the ambiguity present in these recent, critically lauded films for me reduced their potential power rather than providing thematic depth or opportunities for audiences to explore and intuit further.

The problems of ambiguity in McQueen’s Shame and Lynne Ramsay’s We Need to Talk About Kevin are deeply intertwined, as both involve the issue of motive and biography. Shame’s Brandon Sullivan is a sex addict seemingly without a past. While a character of his past, his sister, does visit him without warning, her presence gives no answers as to where he came from or how he became the conflicted and broken man he is. It’s strange that we as audiences are privileged to Brandon’s secret debilitating addiction, humiliations and all, but we are as shielded from everything pertaining to his life anytime before the opening of the film just as many of the other characters are. All that is left is intuition and inference for this compelling (because of Fassbender’s performance) but otherwise empty cipher. He’s simply a privileged man with a privileged addiction.

In We Need to Talk About Kevin, the motive problem is more pronounced – not the motive for the school massacre per se, for that seems strangely in step with what little we are given about the character – but the motive for why the titular character existed from birth as an enduring psychopath with an uncanny ability to create manipulative schemes well beyond his age. The book Ramsay adapted is told from the first-person perspective of the Kevin’s mother through her diaries after the incident. Through this literary device, the mother’s memory of Kevin inferentially changes because of the incident itself, creating a seed whose personality makes the incident seem causal, yet he seems bereft of any “original” causality (i.e., what made him evil in the first place).

But where such a device may work for literature, it doesn’t translate readily to film, where even a character’s flashback is, intentionally or not, rendered into a more multi-perspectival than specifically subjective space because of a camera that can occupy more than one subject position. Kevin then becomes a character without humanity whose caricature prevents any means of dealing seriously with the horror of his actions. A film that attacks the audience with formalized irony and posturing distance, We Need to Talk About Kevin fails to address two compelling themes necessitate a proximity between character and audience: the theme (largely unaddressed in cinema) of parents who don’t love their children, and the multivalent ramifications of meaningless large-scale violence.

I hesitate to denounce wholly the ineffective ambiguity of either of these films. Both Shame and We Need to Talk About Kevin deal with themes that films rarely have or will. Each of these films refuses the reductiveness of causality – they would have been worse, not better, had their characters been conveniently pathologized in the most traditional of Hollywood fashions. But in each of these cases, the films remove causality and fail to put something else in its place, alienating viewers through ambiguity rather than engaging them.

Ambiguity is a delicate device that can open up a film to limitless interpretive and meaningful possibilities or seal certain elements of a film shut, denying an audience access to exploration, much less actual answers.

This may or may not be the link to more Culture Warrior

Why Watch? Because sometimes all it takes is a red pair of glasses to ruin your day.

This silent slice of comic life includes a man trying to stand out in a crowd, a woman that thwarts him every morning, and a trendsetter that leaves room for a lonely love connection. It’s not rocket surgery, but it definitely brightens a day and has a few unexpected complications (including the lanky, squirrel-faced version of Elijah Wood in the background). Plus, it should be watched simply for having the gusto to go forward without words and come out a winner.

What will it cost? Only 6 minutes.

You’ve Got Time For More Short Films

I dare you! I dare you to make it through the worst reviewed film on Rotten Tomatoes in 2011 (currently rocking a 0% with 35 reviews). I dare you to suffer from titles to credits the movie which brought in only an average of 212 people per screen during its entire nationwide two-week run. I dare you to face the horror of the movie that wasn’t screened for critics, even though the same studio still screened Jack and Jill later in the year.

The only way to actually make it through the first ten minutes of Bucky Larson: Born to Be a Star, let alone the entire film, is to have a beer or glass of wine in hand, and plenty of it in reserve. One can only speculate that the people making the film had plenty of alcohol on the set, or they would have noticed the travesty they were making

And now, to cover our butts… This game is only for people over the age of 21. Please drink responsibly, and don’t ever let Don Johnson direct you in a porno movie.

TAKE A DRINK WHEN…

• Someone yells at Bucky
• Bucky’s “brain sparkles”
• Someone insults Bucky’s teeth
• Kathy carries a tray of food or drink

TAKE A DRINK WHEN YOU SEE…

• Nudity
• The word “Bucky”
• A clip from a fake porn movie
• An actor from other Happy-Madison movies

TAKE A DRINK WHEN SOMEONE SAYS…

• “star”
• “porn”
• “Bucky”
• A person’s porn name

CHUG YOUR DRINK WHEN…

• Bucky manages to have sex with someone other than himself

Click here for more Drinking Games

When thinking about which films I consider to be overrated, I keep coming back to two different categories. First there are the art films that get embraced by the movie geek community and praised to high heaven for their crafting, whether they really makes for an exceptional overall movie-going experience or not. And then there are the movies that get overrated by the mainstream. They’re mostly sentimental movies that tug on the heartstrings, with characters that hit low lows, but then achieve some new victory. Robert Zemeckis’ Forrest Gump is definitely the latter. It’s a movie that seems designed solely to make parents and grandparents nod knowingly at historical incidents they remember and then tear up when a sad part rolls around; but they love it for it.

Being There was nominated for the Palme d’Or and even won Melvyn Douglas an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor back when it came out, but it’s a movie I never hear mentioned these days. As a matter of fact, other than the little bit of nostalgia that remains for Harold and Maude, I would say that Hal Ashby is a director whose career has been kind of forgotten by my generation of film fans. That’s a shame, because the man did some great work, and this film in particular has one of the last great performances by the legendary Peter Sellers.

What do they have in common?

At the surface level these movies have a lot in common when it comes to plot and their main characters. Both are about characters with mental disabilities who travel through life without understanding much of the world around them. And despite their diminished mental capacities, both characters have a certain home-spun wisdom that reminds us to keep things simple and appreciate the little things in life; though each film treats their character’s insights with differing degrees of respect. As the films progress, each character stumbles his way into pretty extraordinary circumstances that see them having big effects on the world, as well. They end up on TV, and presidents are met. Tonally there are some consistencies between these films as well; they’re farcical in nature and it takes a series of ridiculous coincidences for their plots to keep progressing.

Why is Forrest Gump overrated?

Most of my problems with Forrest Gump come down to the writing. It relies pretty heavily on framework narration, which is a lazy way to tell a story in the first place, but when you factor in that the narration we get feels overly crafted to be charming and insightful and takes no pains whatsoever to sound natural or to reflect the reality of what a character who is this slow’s voice would really sound like, it can get exhausting to listen to over time. The phony-sounding dialogue speaks to problems with the characters as well. Forrest feels like a creation, not a real man. The character of Jenny is much more a stand-in for the experience of coming of age in the 60s and 70s than she is a real person; even with all of the sexual abuse backstory she gets.

Conceptually the character of Gump just doesn’t work as well as he should either. Because he’s so oblivious to the importance of everything that’s going on around him, none of it really hits with any impact. Gump is a character who’s just as at home sitting in a Vietnamese jungle with bullets whizzing over his head as he is sitting on a lawn mower in Alabama. None of the supporting characters stick around long enough to give us a real, empathetic window into his life either. Hanks gets some opportunity to do some legitimate acting towards the end, once the kid shows up, but before that you’re sitting through a couple hours of basically just watching a guy do a funny voice. I’m not a smart man, but I know what character development is.

Another issue with the film that’s a symptom of the questionable writing is that it’s just too long. There are a bunch of flashback sequences that play like Family Guy cutaway gags that add nothing to the film and could be taken out. There’s all the footage of Gump interacting with famous people that generally lead to nothing but lame gags (especially the painful John Lennon bit). And what’s with the thread of assassinations that goes through the whole movie? It seemed like they were building up to Gump finally foiling an assassination or something, and then nothing.

I think all of my problems with Gump can be summed up by the running across the country sequence. It’s got some of the film’s worst gags (the “Have a Nice Day” and “Shit Happens” bits), it adds nothing essential to the main character, and in a movie that uses and abuses the popular song soundtrack, this sequence alone burns through about four overplayed songs with the word “run” in the lyrics all in succession. As a whole, Forrest Gump needs to focus less on stupid, winky humor and spend more time focusing on its character development so it can better earn some of its high drama.

Why is Being There underpraised?

Whereas I find the writing in Gump to be a little lacking, here it is meticulously handled and one of the film’s greatest strengths. Both films rely on a series of coincidences and misunderstandings to explain away why their characters get to do all of the things that they do, but while Gump has a sort of “just go with it” attitude in presenting these things, Being There actually makes them an asset. Various aspects of Sellers’ character’s routine get introduced organically, and seem to just be small character bits, but then they pay off in bigger, unexpected ways later. And while the supporting characters in Gump understand that they’re dealing with an idiot, the characters in Being There all mistake Sellers for being a genius. That’s a gag that seems like it would get really old after a while, but the writer, Jerzy Kosinski, always finds new things to do with it.

The humor here just works a lot better overall, and it gets pretty dark too. Sellers commits a few acts of oblivious racism that are downright hilarious. And several scenes where Shirley MacLaine tries to seduce him just get keep getting more and more uncomfortable and awkward until you want to scream. I didn’t know anybody was doing this sort of cringe-inducing humor back in the 70s outside of insult comics working in smokey clubs, and seeing it here had me on the floor. And while Being There does some of the same things that Gump does in putting the main character on TV and having him meet famous figures, it never gets winky and referential like Gump’s humor. Instead of relying on CG tricks to get Sellers next to a real president, they just hire the grandpa from Problem Child to play a fake president instead. Problem solved.

Back to that satire though. Most of Sellers’ interactions with other characters lead to some sort of commentary about our self-obsessed, sound bite culture; and it still feels relevant to the things we’re going through today, even though this movie came out decades ago. Being There is a thinker, and no place is that more apparent than in its final scene. The whole movie we think that we’re in on the joke being told, but in the end they sort of pull the rug out from under us. Maybe we didn’t know what was going on… maybe we weren’t supposed to be looking at everything we saw as satire. And what does it say about us as a culture that we were? Is that where the satire really comes in? Being There is a movie that sticks with you, where Forrest Gump is only able to manipulate you while you’re sitting there in the theater.

Evening the odds.

Pitting these two movies against each other can largely come down to pitting Tom Hanks and Peter Sellers against each other as actors. Whose approach do you prefer? And when it comes down to it, why would you want to choose? Both of these guys are great. Why not get a bunch of people you know together and watch these two in a double feature?

Re-live the past with more Over/Under

Last August, during that first rush to pin down Bridesmaids stand-out Melissa McCarthy, we reported on a McCarthy-starring project that would pit her against Jason Bateman. The film was then titled ID Theft and was set to revolve around McCarthy’s character stealing Bateman’s character’s identity. Hijinks would, of course, ensue.

The film has now gotten a slight title change and a not-wholly-unexpected director. Identity Theft will be directed by Seth Gordon, who has already directed Bateman to reasonable hilarity in Horrible Bosses. Written by The Pursuit of Happyness scribe Steve Conrad (with a rewrite by Craig Mazin), the project already has a bit of notoriety, as Bateman (who is also producing) reportedly asked that the film’s script be tweaked to see a man and a woman face off (it was previously a dueling dude affair) after being bowled over by McCarthy’s performance in Bridesmaids.

Gordon’s name has already been bandied about for the Horrible Bosses sequel and he’s currently set to direct that bizarrely inevitable War Games remake. [Deadline Plainfield]

Just last week, we bemoaned the news that Lindsay Lohan was “in early talks” to play Elizabeth Taylor in an upcoming Lifetime movie. But now, a blabby producer has proven two points in a recent chat with E! News – one, it’s bad news to report on “early talks” and two, it’s pretty likely that big names (even tarnished ones like Lohan, especially tarnished ones like Lohan) are getting tossed out into the press to drum up interest in what will likely be a throwaway TV movie. So why keep covering this? Because I cannot wait to see how it shakes out.

Larry Thompson, the executive producer of Liz and Dick reportedly told E! News that Lohan is not the only actress in talks for the role – Megan Fox is also a possibility. Thompson said, “I’ve been talking to Lindsay Lohan directly, and with her reps, and have been in conversations with other actresses, including Megan Fox.” However, Thompson reportedly gave E! News a lesson in how Hollywood works, as he “added that being in talks with more than one actress is not meant as an affront to the talent involved, but rather is simply de rigueur for projects of this nature.” Too true, Thompsy. He continued, “it’s a very serious selection. It’s like casting for Hollywood royalty.” No, it is casting for Hollywood royalty.

Should Lohan be worried? Well, yeah, probably. Another loose-lipper told E! that “Lohan is still one of the frontrunners for the role, her probation status is ‘a complication.’” That is a lot of bad news for Lohan in one sentence – “one of the frontrunners,” “a complication.” Burn. But does that mean that Fox is next in line? Or some other actress who has yet to prove she’s worthy of playing someone like Taylor on-screen? Undetermined at this time, though a part of me does suspect that someone will soon interview Thompson at another big event and he’ll throw them another casting possibility bone, like Cher or Emma Roberts, or someone even less suited for the role. The good news is, however, that Liz and Dick is supposed to get in front of cameras this spring, so we don’t have too much time to worry about who will get cast in this Lifetime movie.

All snark aside, let’s do some dream-casting of our own – who would you cast to play Liz in Liz and Dick? The film will reportedly focus on the epic Taylor-Burton love story, which began in Taylor’s early thirties, so keep that age in mind. [E! News, via The Playlist]