There's an interesting show headed your way on H2, and I have a giveaway for you to help celebrate. America's Book of Secrets aims to dig deep into our nation's secrets, and reveal a host of mysteries. Check out more info below, including a preview video, and enter to win some cool H2 items here, and check out another giveaway H2 is running through Facebook.

America’s Book of Secrets uncovers the controversial truths behind some of the most confidential secrets in American history. The new series takes a look at historical landmarks throughout the country and reveals mysteries through captivating footage and live interviews.

To celebrate the launch of this show H2 is running a daily contest on Facebook designed to challenge your knowledge of American history. Do you know America’s secrets? Take the quiz https://www.facebook.com/dishnetwork?sk=app_162800283829076 and earn a chance to win prizes like an iPad, Beats by Dre headphones and other great swag.

Tune in to the premiere of America’s Book of Secrets this Saturday, January 21st at 10pm on H2!

Behind the façade of some of America’s most public institutions and landmarks, there is another world that is hidden from view. Shrouded in secrecy, only a handful of people will ever have access to these forbidden corridors of intelligence. But their inside knowledge can actually mean the difference between national security…and national disaster.

Now, insiders and experts have pierced the shroud that conceals the covert world of seemingly familiar places. A gripping new 10-part series, AMERICA’S BOOK OF SECRETS, takes viewers behind the locked doors, security clearances and "Do Not Enter" signs into worlds they are not supposed to see. The series premieres Sunday, January 15 at 9pm ET on H2 and then airs Saturday’s at 10pm ET thereafter.

Through exclusive channels of access and deep research, AMERICA’S BOOK OF SECRETS reveals inside information about such icons as the White House, the Pentagon, Fort Knox, the FBI, Area 51, the Freemasons, and more. The series launches with the two-hour special, " AMERICA’S BOOK OF SECRETS: The Monuments."

Leave a comment below, and you are automatically entered to win a cool prize pack of H2 gear.

Winner will be randomly selected on January 26th. U.S. only.

RU?

© 2012, Are You Screening?. All rights reserved. Reprinting without express permission of the author is prohibited.

The second season of Being Human kicks off on Syfy on January 16th, and the show delivered well enough the first season to warrant some real excitement when it comes to how things will continue on. It's becoming increasingly rare that British translations work out, and this one has been a welcome surprise.

To help kick things off, I have a couple of very cool clips, and an interview with the stars.

Let's just dive in.

‘Relationships’

‘A Look Ahead’

And, here's the interview.

Pictured: (l-r) Meaghan Rath as Sally, Sam Witwer as Aiden, Sam Huntington as Josh -- Photo by: Jeff Riedel/Syfy

Could you talk a little bit about what it’s been like to film season two and maybe touch upon some of the bigger things people see happening with you, and how it’s different to play these characters in the second season.

Sam Huntington: Sure, we loved the show so much, I think I can speak for all of us when I say that and so we were all really, really excited to get back.

And you know the funny thing is I personally expected it to feel a lot like just one giant bout of déjà vu and to be honest, like it really just felt as though we never had the hiatus. It just felt because it was all the same crew and a lot of the same cast it just felt like we had maybe a two day break and then we just rolled into season two, it was bizarre.

But at the same time it was great because I felt like we were able to really just pick up right where we left off which was a really cool spot. So yeah, anyway, like that.

Sam Witwer: Yeah, I guess I didn’t expect it to be - I mean okay there’s me and Sammy and Meaghan and we bonded I think all the way back during our first audition together.

But I guess you know you go away, we were so exhausted after the first season, I for months afterwards even the thought of doing season two would make me sleepy. And by - when we got back I guess I hadn’t expected to be as happy to see everyone as I was. The crew and all the directors and everyone and that kind of carried for me that carried me through the season. I wasn’t as exhausted this year, there was something about having a successful season one behind us and knowing the characters and having that momentum that was really positive this year.

Meaghan Rath: Yeah, and I think it was just script wise it was a lot easier to just fall back into it this year because there was no establishing who our characters were and what our circumstances were, we just jumped right into it. And that’s reflective of the first episode, we just get right into the story immediately which was really great.

Sam Witwer: Absolutely, and in the first season there was so much heavy lifting on everyone’s part to establish these characters and to try make this all work and now we had a - some - what do you guys think, I think we had a little bit of competence going on this time.

Sam Huntington: So much more, there was so much uncertainty in season one, it’s like imagine like any television show, your season one is you’re kind of biting your fingernails the whole time just saying to yourself God I hope people like this and I hope people watch this.

Sam Witwer: Right and you’re second guessing yourself.

What about a story line, you know what’s coming up, how season two felt different and just like the stories you’re getting to tell?

Sam Witwer: It’s extremely different, it’s very, very different. It’s - if season one was about putting these people who are at risk into a safe environment, well season two is all about what is that risk about? And I think it’s inevitable with these people and their adversities, you know specific risks that they have in terms of you know vampire, werewolf and ghost, what do those conditions mean. And basically what it means is these people are in trouble and we’re going to see a lot of that trouble this year. We’re going to see why they need so badly to have a sanctuary because things get a little bit darker this year.

It seems like your characters this season are sort of tempted by the darker parts of their natures. And are put in situations where that comes out. I was wondering how you maintain sort of their humanity when playing the dark parts and what kind of challenges there are in doing that.

Sam Witwer: Well Sam - Meg go for it.

Meaghan Rath: I was going to say I mean it’s - I think for me it’s important to keep in mind that these are real people and not to get sucked into the supernatural element of the whole thing. What makes the show different is that we’re playing into the supernatural stereotypes, we are trying to play these as regular people. So for me it’s a lot about just keeping in mind what I would do in this kind of situation and what’s great about the show is that it’s really acting, what would you do if you were put in this situation.

And so I think that’s where the humanity comes from, just being a good person and being with these challenges that sort of question your morality and your values.

Sam Witwer: Yeah I think Meaghan is absolutely right with that. For example in television we’ve kind of seen everything including vampires, werewolves and ghosts and we’ve seen people get killed and all kinds of crazy stuff.

What we’re trying to do as three actors is we’re trying to bring as much humanity into those events as possible. For example if someone dies, we’re going to show you - hopefully we’re going to tell a story where you realize that that is an awful sacrifice or that something has happened that is really, really terrible.

It’s all about the character’s reactions and I mean these three characters are the eyes through which the audience watches the show.

So we’re really trying to keep our reactions to all this giant supernatural stuff very grounded. And in terms of the dark stuff that comes up, I mean the messed up thing is that at first you’ll see our characters react with horror and shame and all this awful stuff. And then as time goes on you might see them kind of get used to it and that hopefully will be a very sad thing to watch.

Sam Huntington: Yeah, I think you just kind of hit the nail on the head. I mean a lot of times on the show I can say I think the characters are almost seeing these horrible things happen for the first time, so they’re almost like the audience. You know they’re viewing these things and so hopefully that’s what the audience can kind of grasp on to and also it helps as an actor it helps in form what you do. Because you’re like okay well what if this person was killed, what would the ramifications, what emotionally what would that mean to me and how would that affect me and how would that affect every aspect of my life.

And so it’s cool. It sets the show aside, we don’t just roll over these issues, we actually tackle them.

Pictured: (l-r) Sam Huntington as Josh, Sam Witwer as Aiden, Meaghan Rath as Sally -- Photo by: Jeff Riedel/Syfy

You guys as actors and as the characters you portray have these really likeable chemistry and it’s a very believable thing because you know you guys actually seem to get along with one another. So from season one to season two and this is sort of expanding on what a previous caller asked, how are you guys interacting differently as actors on set? Do you trust each other more, do you seek out advice from one another about how to deal with a scene? Do you feel more comfortable to bite and push back? How has your chemistry kind of changed as actors this sophomore year?

Meaghan Rath: I do not do a scene without first consulting Sam Witwer. He coaches me.

Sam Witwer: It’s true. And I give her the okay whether she should do it or not and sometimes she shouldn’t do it. I’m like look.

Meaghan Rath: Often it’s just don’t do it.

Sam Huntington: Those are horrible.

Sam Witwer: You have to march right back to the producers and tell them you’re not doing this.

Sam Huntington: Yeah it’s miserable. And I’m on the outside looking in, I’m just sitting there in my trailer waiting it out, you know what I mean?

Sam Witwer: Yeah well it’s kind of fun because Meaghan has almost gotten fired several times because of things that I told her to do.

Sam Huntington: Exactly. And the weird thing is she’s so loyal to Witwer that she won’t start, like no, there’s this guy who’s telling me not to do this.

Sam Witwer: Yeah, me and Meaghan have this relationship where it’s a little bit like the bond between kidnapper and victim.

Sam Huntington: Yes.

Sam Witwer: It’s a little bit like that.

Sam Huntington: Brainwashed.

Meaghan Rath: I have Stockholm syndrome.

Sam Witwer: So if this is partially answering your question like we really like hanging out. We really do and this year the three characters they get split up a little bit and they go off on their own little journeys and for us that just made us appreciate every time that we had a scene together all the more.

And you know I think there’s like one or two scenes with us at least in every episode with all three of us. But I think our favorite episode to shoot was this episode that’s coming up down the line. Where we’re in every scene together throughout the whole episode. That was kind of, for us it was like oh this is the way to do it, this is the way to do the show. Who needs other actors?

Sam Huntington: Yeah, it’s what the show is about and to be honest like we were comfortable with each other instantly on set. Our relationship in that regard hasn’t changed. I feel like we like pretty much learned who each other were by half way through the first season, not even and have - our friendship has grown and built and everything.

But we have so much trust and faith in one another and like I just know, when we’re in a scene with one another, it’s going to work and there’s going to be that shorthand and it’s going to be fun and it’s going to be loose and it’s going to be natural. So you just have that confidence going into it and then in all seriousness like I think we also - I can speak for myself anyway - when I have a question or if I have a concern or if I am struggling with a piece of motivation I always ask Sam or Meaghan what they think.

And because I respect and love them so much and trust them so much so it really is truly as lame as that sounds it’s kind of true and also I feel very fortunate to have that relationship with them.

Sam Witwer: I think something that’s really cool about our relationship is this thing with me and Sammy and Meaghan is that both of those actors can do a whole bunch of stuff that I can’t. And I think that’s really awesome. Like there’s not a lot of overlap in terms of personality and ability so we all have our own turf with which we have to play with but at the same time I love watching an episode and seeing what they’re doing.

Because it’s like wow, look at all the stuff that they’re bringing that I frankly don’t know how to do. I love watching them and then stealing from them when I can.

Meaghan Rath: Yah, I think the best thing about it is that the trust level has gone up so much and for me these two guys are the people I trust most on set and you always feel like in scenes you’re in good hands. Like you’re never questioning the direction the scene is supposed to go in because it just always works every time we’re together. We just are able to feed off each other in a way that I’ve never experienced before.

Sam Huntington: There’s a scene in episode one, it’s actually online right now, it’s the scene that they teased, the scene in the kitchen where Kristen comes down and she’s like you know I pulled this you know high school reunion invitation out the trashcan and Meaghan’s very funny, Kristen’s very funny.

Anyway when we - obviously it’s episode one so you get the set and you know we’re shooting that scene I’m like God is this - is it - like I couldn’t tell what I was doing, like it was still so fresh in the process of season two and we were like getting back into it. And I was like this feels good but I really hope it’s working and then you see that scene and it just - I personally think it’s fantastic. Like it just nails the relationship, it picks back up exactly where it left off.

And I was just so happy to see that.

Sam Witwer: And also Kristen Hager is just wonderful this season, she’s so great. She is such a talented actress and we - and it should be noted we feel tremendously bonded to Kristen as well.

You know she’s one of us and is really awesome when we see someone that we’ve worked with for so long and that we bonded with come to set, it’s like oh it’s her, it’s Kristen. You know she’s there a lot so that’s good.

Are we going to be seeing a lot of tension between the roommates this year and if so is it hard to keep a straight face when that happens?

Sam Witwer: We will be seeing tension between the three in ways that we didn’t see in the first seasons, things get pretty serious and I’ll say this, - the scenes feel really good when you do them. There’s some scenes that we have where we’re kind of at each other’s throats, I hope that doesn’t give too much away. And it feels really good in once sense to do because you know that you’re really cooking, like when it’s really working you feel great about that.

On the other hand I don’t like having to shout or be mean to Sammy or Meaghan, you know what I mean? That’s the tough part. Is you’re like oh, okay.

Meaghan Rath: I like when you yell at me.

Sam Witwer: But she loves it, she loves taking it.

Sam Huntington: She’s an odd duck. But you know what, you said is it hard to keep a straight face, generally speaking you know when it’s a really, really rough moment for one of us it usually means it’s a rough moment for all of us. And we always you know like we love each other so we always generally respect when somebody needs a moment or somebody needs to gather themselves for a take.

I usually give Meaghan a really hard time, but beyond that.

Meaghan Rath: It’s unreal the hard time that he gives me. No consideration at all. For the most part you’re great, but then there’s the odd moment where you just - I’m trying to focus and you’re like fake vomiting on me.

Sam Huntington: Yeah, it’s good times. Those are the nights that I sleep well, you know? But I just - oh, I lead a good day.

Sam Witwer: Or I really got her today, I really made her feel bad about herself.

Sam Huntington: Really tore her up, really made her feel (unintelligible).

Meaghan Rath: But yeah this season you will see a lot of tension between the three roommates because we all are on our own journey and trying to get ourselves out of these really desperate situations. So for the reason that we’re doing completely different things when we do come together there’s a question of can we still relate to each other and how non-judgmental are we actually going to be towards each other? And that generates a lot of tension between us.

Sam Huntington: And you know the temptation this season is just a beast. You know what I mean? Just a beast.

Are any interesting or favorite guest stars this coming season that you’d like to mention.

Sam Witwer: Mark Pellegrino.

Meaghan Rath: Yeah.

Sam Huntington: There you go.

Meaghan Rath: There are a lot of guest stars we can’t talk about.

Sam Huntington: I can tell you Kristen Hager is one of my all time favorite people to work with ever and one of the greatest scene partners and I’m such a lucky guy.

Sam Witwer, why do you think that Aidan is - seems to me so much better than other vampires as far as trying to keep his dark side in check?

Sam Witwer: Why is he trying to keep his dark side in check, well it’s interesting, again not knowing what other vampire shows are doing these days or vampire movies, I haven’t really watched them so I don’t know how new the idea of a vampire trying to become a good guys is. But our take on it with the whole drug addiction analogy is I think really fresh and cool and that analogy, that metaphor is alive and well this season in a big, big way.

And why is it, why is it cool, why - what’s better about it, yeah, I don’t know. I like the fact that this is generally - that all things considered if you take away the addiction this is a principled guy. I like that about the character and I don’t know, I really don’t know. I couldn’t tell you.

The others all seem to either embrace it, really get into it or just you know go with it, whatever and he seems to want to fight against it.

Sam Witwer: He wants to fight against it but this year you do see him embrace it a little bit. Kind of against his will, the thing that we have to remember is in the first season if he’s trying to kick the habit in a drug addiction sense well the first thing he’s got to do is stay away from his old drug buddies.

And this season he can’t so we start seeing older - we’re going to see an older version of Aidan this year and when I say older we’re going to see a worse version of him, we’re going to see some of his old character traits that he had over the past 200 years start to resurface.

We’re going to learn first hand why everyone seems to be afraid of this guy, why everyone’s - you know even in the first season Bishop gave him you know a wide berth and Marcus was wary of him and everyone was you know spoke so highly of him as this maniac, this really dangerous guy. And this year we kind of start learning why.

Sam Huntington: You see the old Aidan.

Sam Witwer: That’s right.

Being Human was originally a British show, Being Human UK so I was wondering if any of you have watched it and do you feel this coming season is a chance to break away from the original because I do know that the first season very closely matched the first season of Being Human UK.

Sam Witwer: Well this season - sorry, Meaghan you want to go?

Meaghan Rath: No, go ahead.

Sam Witwer: We as actors we didn’t watch the British series when we were shooting our first season because we wanted to do our own thing. We wanted to make sure that ours was its own animal.

And then afterward we watched it. We watched everything. I love their show and I truly dig on it and I got Sammy and Meaghan started by buying them the box sets for season one and they watched it since then, watched more of it since then.

And you know we’re all into it, but the writers, our writers hate it. No just kidding. Our writers, no our writers for the same reason that we avoided watching season one, they’ve avoided watching season two because they want season two to be its own animal.

So any - there is a little bit of cross over here and there in terms of things happening sometimes in similar ways. But it’s really coincidental considering our writers didn’t even know. So it’s interesting, whenever something would happen that was similar I’d read it in the script and kind of laugh.

Because they have no idea, but you know it’s for the most part extremely different.

RU?

© 2012, Are You Screening?. All rights reserved. Reprinting without express permission of the author is prohibited.

The Wolf Pack is back, and this time they're terrorizing Thailand. The Hangover Part 2 is on Blu-Ray, and I've got your copy waiting for you.

This time around, suspect of everything at this point, Stu (Ed Helms) doesn't even want a bachelor party, and it's only by way of a guilt trip that Alan (Zach Galifianakis) is allowed to come to the wedding at all. In fact, Stu is so paranoid that he doesn't want to leave his finacee's side, and is only willing to have one beer with the guys, because he opens it himself.

Of course, it would be an awfully short movie if they didn't wake up in outrageous circumstances, and now we find ourselves in Bangkok, and we better piece things together quickly, because the bride-to-be's little brother is gone... but we've got his finger.

It's ultimately more of the same, and it's a wild trip through the streets of Bangkok, trying to piece together bars, tattoos, monks, and strip clubs, and figure out what exactly happened, and how that might lead them to their missing friend.

While filled with more zany episodes, and sure to inspire at least a few laughs, there's something about running this course that doesn't quite work the second time around. The first one was not only filled with humor, but the uniqueness of the idea was the best element, and raised the comedy on its own. Now we've been down the road, and as much as there are undeniably funny moments, the overall product is somewhat stale, and just doesn't pull you in the way it did the first time around. Worse, though rather unavoidable, a good deal of the movie is covered simply by the characters' repeating that they can't believe this is happening again.

There's something to be said for popping some serious craziness into the Blu-Ray once in a while, and for the proper mood and setting, this one won't disappoint... much, but it won't hold up to the original for most, and those looking for more of this is a limited enough demographic.

That said, the stars (including Bradley Cooper and Ken Jeong) have a certain charm that is inescapable, and can make the most out of a mediocre situation.

Rating: ★★☆☆☆ 

The Blu-Ray quality is certainly good enough, and it's hard to imagine an overabundance of interest in the video quality on this one. The special features aren't bad, though one might expect a few more of them.

There's a gag reel, a featurette on the monkey, and oddly enough, a fake documentary that purports to be of someone trying to expose that real-life craziness that went on during filming. The general idea behind it is that making the film is just an excuse to have a wild vacation in Thailand (which is obviously true), and a certain documentary filmmaking hopeful accosts the stars and director at press junkets and so on, trying to get to the truth. It's not a bad piece actually.

Win Yours Here!

I'm going to make this one a Facebook Liker giveaway. If you already like us on Facebook, you don't have to do anything. If not, see the box below, and click that thing. Winner will be randomly selected on January 20th.

RU?

© 2012, Are You Screening?. All rights reserved. Reprinting without express permission of the author is prohibited.

Hitting theaters on March 9th is not only what looks to be a great movie, with a brilliant cast, but a film you can real cheer for just based on the writer/director. Friends with Kids is written and directed by Jennifer Westfeldt, and while being in a relationship with Mad Men's Jon Hamm for more than a decade probably doesn't hurt your career, she broke out as both a writer and actress with 2001's uber-indie Kissing Jessica Stein.

Not just a quirky charmer, that film has gone on to manage almost a cult status. She also wrote and starred in the horribly overlooked Ira & Abby in 2006, and won a Best Actress Tony in 2004.

In Friends with Kids, Westfeldt finally takes the reins, writing, starring, and directing this ensemble piece about a group of friends who are all at that place in life where kids start entering the picture. Our gimmick here is that the last two singles in the group take a long, hard look at the changes in their friends' relationships, and decide to approach adulthood from a different angle, by having a kid together, but dating other people.

Westfeldt is again doing what she does best, exploring relationships by throwing some monkey wrench into the works, and letting the nature of curiosity bring to light the truths about all relationships.

The film stars Westfeldt, Adam Scott, Jon Hamm, Kristen Wiig, Maya Rudolph, Chris O'Dowd, Megan Fox, and Edward Burns. While most of that cast will pull a lot of people in just by naming them, don't overlook The IT Crowd's Chris O'Dowd, who I think may finally get a chance to prove himself to American audiences with a role he can really deliver.

In the next few months, this is the one you really want to watch for, and I have little doubt it will find its way to the top of the comedy pile at year's end.

Check the trailer below.

For more info, visit:
http://friendswithkids.com/

RU?

© 2012, Are You Screening?. All rights reserved. Reprinting without express permission of the author is prohibited.

A couple of FOX's big shows, mainly Bones and Fringe, have outstayed their welcome really, but Bones is at least trying to provide some more entertainment for its fans, sort of. Billed to some extent as a spin-off, despite having no justifiable claim to the idea, The Finder may nevertheless turn into a hit based on some theory we might connect to the general idea of spin-offs.

Generally speaking, having a show put together already, and then having characters from that show guest star on an already existing show does not magically turn the new show into a spin-off. However, there is something about The Finder that works as a kind of perspective spin-off. Much like Bones during its first couple of seasons, The Finder is in the category of "hopefully crazy enough to work." Pieced together with elements that connect it to the general crime drama, but centered around a unique spin that is completely goofy, The Finder is clearly at least some sort of child of Bones.

Geoff Stults gives a wonderfully quirky performance as Walter Sherman, aka The Finder, a one-time military man who has been given the gift of being able to find anything... apparently. According to the show, this gift came his way by virtue of a serious head injury, and this fact, coupled with his increasingly eccentric behavior, has some people rather concerned for his well-being.

Not among the concerned is his right-hand man, Leo Knox (also managed well by the often undervalued Michael Clarke Duncan), who came to his position when Walter "found" him, and just in time.

With his base of operations being a bar in the Florida Keys, the locations alone make for a decent amount of fun, and provide the perfect backdrop for the less-than-normal routine that makes up Walter's curious modus operandi.

My one nagging doubt about the show is that the case at the center of the pilot might not be the perfect choice. It still involves all the fun that the show will hopefully capitalize on, but the case itself feels more like something we would find a few episodes in, as opposed to the sort of thing that manages a good deal of establishment on its own.

THE FINDER: Walter (Geoff Stults, R) recovers one of John Fogerty's (guest-starring as himself, L) vintage guitars in the series premiere of THE FINDER, airing Thursday, Jan. 12 (9:00-10:00 PM ET/PT) on FOX. Cr: Isabella Vosmikova/FOX

The show gets most of its potential from the pure appeal of Walter (and Stults) as an almost uncooperative genius. Often hesitant to take cases, because people don't really like the fact that he actually will find anything, Walter is fanatic once he does, and will find what he's after, or die trying.

It's all pulled together with a wry, sarcastic brand of humor, and like Bones, it's focus is on how a completely different perspective interacts with the rest of humanity. Dissecting the show in this way ultimately connects it to some other hit shows (Monk springs to mind), and it deserves the comparisons it manages in this way, because it has that curious something that sucks you into the character far more than any examination of the episodic plots could ever explain.

This is probably in most people's uncertain category, but if there's one show of the winter season that is worth giving a chance, this is it. Trust me, you won't be sorry you caught this one.

Rating: ★★★★½ 

Iraq war veteran WALTER SHERMAN (Geoff Stults, "She's Out of My League") gained a reputation while serving in the Army Military Police as someone who was very good at tracking down insurgents, deserters and improvised explosive devices (IEDs). Unfortunately, Walter found one IED just moments before it found him.

Two months later, when Walter woke from his coma, he earned an honorable discharge and returned home. His resulting brain damage from the explosion transformed him from someone skilled at recovering people and things into something much more extraordinary: a Finder.

From the creator of the hit series BONES comes THE FINDER, the new one-hour procedural centering on a remarkable man who uses his unique gift to help others recover what they've lost.

Walter may have left the military, but his reputation as a discreet professional who can unearth anything and anyone has been passed on to generals, politicians and other powerful figures. His first post-military assignment was to find the CIA head honcho's missing daughter and bring her home. Walter did both, and since then has never been without an assignment.

After settling in Key West, Walter met the beautiful and worldly IKE LATULIPPE (Saffron Burrows, "Law & Order: Criminal Intent"), a woman with a mysterious past and many hidden skills. She tends bar at The Ends of the Earth, which also serves as a makeshift office and home base for Walter. Walter helped Ike escape a dangerous life, and for that, she is eternally grateful. Another island denizen dedicated to Walter is LEO KNOX (Michael Clarke Duncan, "The Green Mile"), once an obese lawyer who, after the deaths of his wife and children, completely reinvented himself into a gentle giant, philosopher and Walter's legal advisor.

Because of his skills, Walter is often asked to find a person or a thing that law enforcement either will not or cannot find. With the help of Ike and Leo, as well as a patchwork of indebted connections, he and his team ultimately find meaning in their own lives by finding something or someone other people have lost.

THE FINDER is a production of 20th Century Fox Television. Hart Hanson (BONES), Dan Sackheim ("Lie To Me") and Barry Josephson (BONES) are executive producers. The series is created and written by Hanson. Sackheim directed the pilot.

RU?

© 2012, Are You Screening?. All rights reserved. Reprinting without express permission of the author is prohibited.

An update on Fright Night, even if only loosely connected, might seem odd, but I suppose with the popularity of vampires, werewolves, and so forth on the upswing, nothing in the general realm is really a surprise. But, while every manner of vampire story is making its way to a screen of some sort, and largely with less than impressive results, Fright Night is an update in a truer sense than most, and that ultimately means much more than simply putting out yet another tale of the undead.

Like the mid-80s version, Fright Night is not only about trying to put "creepy" back in the horror genre (as opposed to massive gore and slaughter), but its also a certain kind of throwback to a more distant time, when scary movies were a very particular sort of awesomely bad at their main effort. Perhaps a few scary moments, sure, but overall simply about something scary, rather than truly frightening in themselves. Moreover, infused with a certain craziness that makes for a fun factor which is much more on par with the fun/scary quality of a rollercoaster than a haunted house.

In this go around, Charley (Anton Yelchin) suspects that his new neighbor is a vampire. It takes a lot of convincing, but in the end, he can't escape the idea that Jerry (Colin Farrell) is indeed sucking the blood out of his tiny neighborhood.

Of course, Charley has other problems, largely stemming apparently from the fact that he's sort of nerdy and has a hot girlfriend, but High School woes soon fall by the wayside. Unfortunately, as soon as it starts to look like Jerry might actually be, at least very odd, it also seems that Jerry is taking an equal interest in Charley.

With nowhere else to turn, Charley seeks out Peter Vincent (brilliantly portrayed by David Tennant), who is a Vegas magician with an act that centers around the occult. Apparently some kind of expert, at least according to certain stories, Charley is quickly turned away by the ever-intoxicated conjurer who looks quite a bit different off-stage.

A crucifix proves to be a useless defense against a powerful vampire (Colin Farrell) in DreamWorks Pictures€™ horror film €œFright Night ©DreamWorks II Distribution Co., LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Also like the original, what happens isn't of much consequence. All that matters is that there is a certain amount of tension, and it is of a variety that fits well with the world of a not-quite-twenty. The steps of discovery, pursuit, and further discovery are not only creepy, but charming, just as is Farrell's spin on vampirism. The mix of reality and necessary goofiness is almost a perfect blend, especially in the case of Christopher Mintz-Plasse's character (Charley's too geeky to hang out with anymore friend) who is "horror" enough to run upstairs in a house when chased by a vampire, yet real enough to deliver a fantastic reaction to the loss of an arm.

It's bizarrely fun, and that either works for you, or it doesn't. If there's a chance it does, you don't want to miss this. No one is going to really get scared by this one, but it's a definite good time.

Rating: ★★★½☆ 

The bonus features (see full list below) are about what you might expect from something that is ultimately just a quick romp of a film. Decent enough date night fare isn't the sort of thing that is going to lend itself to depth in the bonuses. A gag reel and a few deleted scenes are about all you can expect, and those show up to provide a few laughs.

Best is the featurette Peter Vincent: Swim Inside My Mind, which is a kind of mockumentary exploring the magician persona. It's the sort of thing Vincent would sell after his shows for $19.99, leaving everyone feeling rather ripped off. It's a fun effort, even if it doesn't quite amount to much.

You get a few other bits and pieces, like an extended version of the Squid Man video seen in the film, and the uber-silly The Official - How to Make a Funny Vampire Movie Guide, which, if nothing else, clues you in to the atmosphere the film is after.

Overall, the release is a pretty solid effort, especially considering the film. The Blu-Ray video is above-average, which is a surprise in itself, and delivers the darks and shadows well. On the other hand, apart from giving a solid representation of mood, there isn't that much for the video to do in such a feature. The bonuses are better than you'd expect, but only because you wouldn't expect a ton. Fair enough though, because adding some fun is all you ought to be looking for, and they are at least well worth a look.

If the fun factor moves you, this is one to pick up.

Check out several clips below, and be sure to enter to win a copy! 

Fright Night - Film Clip: "Don't Expect Me to Join Your Scooby Gang"

Fright Night - Film Clip: "Your Son is Harassing Me"

Fright Night - Bonus Clip: "Kid Comeback"

Bonus Features:

• Gag Reel (unrated)
• Kid Cudi Music Video (uncensored version) ―No One Believes Me‖
• Squid Man – Extended & Uncut
• Peter Vincent: Swim Inside My Mind
• The Official ―How to Make a Funny Vampire Movie‖ Guide
• Frightful Facts & Terrifying Trivia
• 5 Deleted Scenes with intros by Director Craig Gillepsie (Ride to School; Neighborly; Once A Freak, Always A Freak; Midori & Kerosene; and Back at the Penthouse)

Win It Here!

To enter for your chance to win a copy of the Blu-Ray release, just leave a comment below. Remember, I have to be able to contact you somehow. Winner will be randomly selected on January 20th. U.S. only.

RU?

© 2012, Are You Screening?. All rights reserved. Reprinting without express permission of the author is prohibited.

The Critics's Choice Movie Awards are only a couple of days away now, and I really hope you're going to be tuning in. I've cast my votes, the film's are great, and it's going to be a great time.

The awards are Thursday, January 12th at 8:00 PM ET/PT on VH1, and I think they are going to be especially good this year.

Among the usual fantasticness in store, it was recently announced that Sean Penn will be receiving our Joel Siegel award this year, and George Clooney will be presenting.

The Broadcast Film Critics Association (BFCA) announced today that renowned actor and humanitarian Sean Penn will be presented with the fifth annual Joel Siegel Award at the 17th annual Critics’ Choice Movie Awards. The award will be presented by fellow actor and 13-time Critics’ Choice Award nominee George Clooney. The ceremony will air live on VH1 on Thursday, January 12 at 8:00 PM ET/PT.

Given annually, this special award pays homage to beloved “Good Morning America” film critic and BFCA member Joel Siegel, who lost his long struggle with cancer in June 2007. It seeks to honor those who understand, as Joel did, that the greatest value of celebrity is as an enhanced platform to do good works for others.

Sean Penn founded the J/P Haitian Relief Organization in the immediate aftermath of the 7.0 magnitude earthquake that struck Haiti on January 12, 2010. Since then J/P HRO has led the effort to raise money and awareness in response to the disaster, which took more than 200,000 lives. Led by Penn, J/P HRO is dedicated to saving lives and bringing sustainable programs to the Haitian people quickly and effectively.

“We are extremely proud to be able to make this presentation to Sean on this night in particular, exactly two years after the devastating earthquake struck Haiti,” says BFCA President Joey Berlin. “While it was heartening to see such an outpouring of support and aid for the Haitian people in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy, the long-term commitment made by Sean and his organization is particularly notable. The Joel Siegel Award was created to spotlight such above and beyond efforts by the leading lights of our industry and its spirit is truly personified by Sean Penn.”

Penn has been nominated for seven Critics’ Choice Awards throughout his career, including two wins in the Best Actor category, for "Mystic River" and "Milk." His five additional nominations included Best Actor for “I Am Sam,” Best Acting Ensemble for “Mystic River” and “Milk,” Best Director for “Into the Wild” and Best Writer for “Into the Wild.” In 2011, Penn starred in “The Tree of Life,” a Critics’ Choice Best Picture nominee.

The evening will also honor Martin Scorsese with the Critics’ Choice Music+Film Award.　In addition to this honor, Scorsese’s film “Hugo” is nominated for 11 Critics’ Choice Awards and he directed the Best Documentary Feature nominee “George Harrison: Living in the Material World.”　Hosts for the star-studded awards gala will be comedians Paul Scheer and Rob Huebel.

The Critics’ Choice Movie Awards are bestowed annually by the BFCA to honor the finest in cinematic achievement. The BFCA is the largest film critics organization in the United States and Canada, representing more than 250 television, radio and online critics.　BFCA members are the primary source of information for today's film going public.　Eligible films were released in 2011. The accounting firm of CMM, LLP tallied the written ballots.

Since its inception in 1995, the Critics’ Choice Movie Awards has been a star-studded bellwether event of the movie awards season.　Historically, the Critics’ Choice Movie Awards are the most accurate predictor of the Academy Award nominations. Last year, for example, all four of the acting category winners at the Oscars – Colin Firth, Natalie Portman, Christian Bale and Melissa Leo – first accepted their awards in the same categories at the Critics’ Choice Movie Awards.　In all, 18 of the 20 actors nominated for Oscars were first Critics’ Choice Movie Awards nominees.

RU?

© 2012, Are You Screening?. All rights reserved. Reprinting without express permission of the author is prohibited.

In the realm of reality shows with questionable audience interest, Dance Moms lives in a special place that makes its popularity especially difficult to understand. Generally, the arena of reality television I like to refer to as the "negative viewership" branch is split into two groups - the screaming, and the odd.

I say negative viewership, because by and large (one hopes) people aren't coming to the show with a positive outlook. For example, in the one category, people are not watching other people scream at each other because they like them, but because it's fun to watch crazy people yell at each other.

Screaming is simple enough, and any show that has as its main draw the fact that people lose it qualifies to be in that category. Everything else is in the odd category, and whether it's Hoarders, Toddlers & Tiaras, or any number of spins on addiction and disorders, these are shows that find their market by way of some new spin on schadenfreude, which is not so much pleasure at another person's misfortune, but a fascination with another person's lack of sanity.

Dance Moms, kicking off its second season tonight at 9pm/8c,  somehow manages to fall into both categories, featuring not only a group of people who are whacktastically interested in the "dance careers" of their daughters, ala Toddlers & Tiaras, but also a dance instructor of, frankly, questionable girth given her career choice and alleged ability to instruct in this particular field, who is most famous (by now) not as a dance instructor, but as perhaps America's foremost screamer. Hardly a minute goes by in the show without some shouting at someone, whether it is dance mom vs. dance mom, or dance mom vs. dance instructor, or some varying combination of participants.

At any rate, the show is back, and you know you'll be watching. Tune in tonight on Lifetime, and I have a prize pack available for you as well. Due to certain timing mechanics, this giveaway is going to be a Twitter follower giveaway. If you're following Are You Screening? on Twitter, you're already done. If not, jump on board.

The winner will be randomly selected from all Twitter followers on January 15th, and you will be notified via Twitter.

Dance Moms Work Out Prize Pack Includes:

•  One Lifetime Gym Bag
•  Dance Moms Gym Towel
•  Lifetime Water Bottle
•  Dance Moms Gym Shorts
•  Dance Moms Leg Warmers
•  Dance Moms Sweatshirt

Set in Pittsburgh’s renowned Abby Lee Dance Company, owned and operated by notoriously demanding and passionate instructor Abby Lee Miller, “Dance Moms” follows children’s early steps on the road to stardom, and their doting mothers who are there for every rehearsal, performance and bow … all under the discerning eye of Miller. Season 2 premieres Tuesday, January 10th at 9pm/8c!

 

RU?

© 2012, Are You Screening?. All rights reserved. Reprinting without express permission of the author is prohibited.

I'm sure they exist, but it's almost unfathomable to imagine a cinephile who does not count themselves as a fan of the work of Martin Scorsese. Out of the group of directors who came into their own in the 1970's, the decade that revolutionized the art of filmmaking, Scorsese is perhaps the most influential of them all (with the possible exception of Steven Spielberg). Scorsese's films, from Taxi Driver to Goodfellas to The Departed, have made an indelible mark on the consciousness of moviegoers the world over, leading to countless imitators and knock-offs trying to capture some of the essence of a "Scorsese film".

Your everyday, average citizen who doesn't have the slightest clue what auteur theory is would still likely recognize Scorsese's face and be able to name at least one of his movies, and that's no small feat for a man working behind the camera.

Part of the reason for Scorsese's prominent place in pop cultutre, other than the high quality of his work, is his love of films and film history. Scorsese has made himself a very visible director when it comes to discussing the movies, as almost any feature documenting the history of cinema is bound to have Scorsese professing his love for and extolling the virtues of classic cinematic hits such as The Heiress and The Red Shoes. Scorsese's love of film is palpable, and this comes through not only in his films, but in his very identity, forever fusing him in an interlocking relationship with cinema in the mind of the public. His passion for the movies has also led him in a tireless crusade to preserve every possible aspect of cinematic history (saving films before they deteriorate into oblivion), which brings us around to Scorsese's newest film, Hugo.

Based on a children's book, The Invention of Hugo Cabret (very fittingly written by the grandson of legendary movie producer David O. Selznick), Hugo tells the story of a young boy, Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield), who, after the sudden death of his father, is forced to live in the Paris train station, secretly operating the stations clocks as he survives on stolen pastries and dodges the watchful eyes of the Station Inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen) (a man whose greatest pleasure is catching orphaned children and sending them to the orphanage).

Hugo's sole purpose in life is to repair a mysterious automaton he and his dad had been trying to fix before his father's untimely demise. Hugo forges together the missing parts of the automaton by lifting them from a small toy shop in the train station run by a mysterious old man (Ben Kingsley). After getting caught in the act of shoplifting by the old man, Hugo is forced to work doing repairs for the shopkeeper in order to earn back Hugo's prized notebook, which contains the details on how to repair the automaton. This leads Hugo on an unexpected journey into the mysterious shopkeeper's past, as Hugo and Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz), the shopkeeper's goddaughter, find unexpected answers about the true identity of the toy maker.

The plot serves mostly as a guise for the celebration of the earliest days of cinema and it's innovators, as well as a plea for film preservation. I won't get into the specifics of which filmmaker and films Hugo focuses on, since I guess it could be considered a spoiler for those unaware of the film or book, but suffice it to say that Scorsese does a masterful job of mixing in the film's plot with his desire to highlight the history of the dawn of cinema to the uninitiated. Scorsese also illustrates his versatility with Hugo, his first foray into the "family" genre. With a narrative that would initially appear much more suited to the likes of Steven Spielberg or Robert Zemeckis, Scorsese handles the fantasy elements with ease, taking the time develop the characters and establishing a firm sense of time and place, avoiding the modern pitfalls of filling children's movies with action sequence after action sequence (although the chase scenes are probably the weakest part of the film).

While Scorese handles the fantasy elements deftly, the real strength of the movie is the historical aspect. The late 19th and early 20th Century have been more or less neglected in terms of cinematic spotlight, and this endlessly fascinating time gets some much overdue recognition in Hugo. This period in history was marked by unbridled optimism (to an almost rediculous degree), where people reveled in the miraclous magic acts of magicians such as Harry Houdini and exalted what must have seemed like the unstoppable force of science and all of its innovations.

After WWI, the naivete of this previous era was painfully thrust into the faces of all Western culture, forever tainting any nostalgic look back at a time when anything seemed possible. This is likely why we have never seen much cinematic documentation of this era, and even though it approaches it tagentially, the cultural casualties of this death of innocence is essentially what Hugo is about. (As a side note, I also have to point out how giddy I was over all the cogs and gears shown in the film. It's really amazing how much people were able to accomplish with only mechanics, before the days of computer chips).

The kudos for the film's excellent evocation of the past should not only go to Mr. Scorsese though, because much of the credit belongs to Scorsese's long time production collaborator, Dante Ferretti. The art direction in Hugo is breathtaking. Whether it's the 1930's Parisian train station, or one of the first ever "movie studios", all the film's sets are immaculate, and the overall aesthetics of the film go a long way towards accomplishing the goals the film sets for itself. Ferretti has done brilliant work for Scorsese in the past in films such as Gangs of New York, The Aviator, and Kundun (just to highlight some of his most impressive work), and I imagine Hugo will be a major player in the art direction category come Oscar time.

An aspect of the film I wasn't so high on was it's use of the ubiquitous technology of the day: 3-D. Now as a disclaimer, I've been an avid detractor of the gimmicky technology since its rebirth at the end of the last decade, and the only 3-D film I have seen where I actually felt that the technology improved the film is Avatar, but given Scorsese's endless hyping of the wonders of shooting in 3-D, I went in with an open mind.

At first, it was a hard pill to swallow. Due to the added dimension of depth, the edges of the actors are very pronounced which, especially in long shots where the characters are relatively small, gives them a sort of "photo shopped" look. It was a little jarring at times and took me out of what was otherwise a superbly rendered world.

As time went on, I grew more accustomed to the look, and it did actually add to the effect of certain shots. When the film's themes made themselves more apparent, the logic of shooting Hugo 3-D also became clear, and even seemed appropriate. Overall though, I was still left indifferent to the technology (which I guess is an improvement over the active hatred I usually harbor towards 3-D).

The film's cast does a fine job filling the roles demanded of them. The two child stars, Asa Butterfied and Chloe Grace Moretz, who have been described as "wooden" in some reviews, keep you interested in the developments of the film's narrative. Hugo's script doesn't exactly give the children Tarantino-style dialogue to work with, as much of the dialogue feels aped from simplistic fairy tales ("This might be an adventure"), but the only thing really required from their performances is sincerity, and that they have.

The film's best performance comes from Sir Ben Kingsley, playing a mysterious old grump doing everything he can to forget the glorious days of his past. While initially stern and harsh, Kingsley manages not to go overboard on the old fart routine, always keeping the audience at least partially sympathetic to his character, which really pays off in the film's third act. Some of the performances from the peripheral characters, such as Sacha Baron Cohen and other regulars of the train station, didn't quite feel up to same level as the rest of the cast, but this might have had more to do with the arbitrary nature of these story threads than any particular performance by an actor.

Hugo may not be in the top echelon of the Scorsese canon, but it's a solid piece of work that easily earns the good will and reputation that go along with being a "Scorsese film". In terms of genre, Scorsese proves he can be just as effective in the starry-eyed realm of children as he is in the incessantly violent world of gangsters and thugs. No one gets the shit beat out of them in Hugo, but Scorsese's undying love of cinema and its history makes for an infectious subject that puts Hugo as one of the best films of the year.

Rating: ★★★★½ 

RU?

© 2012, Are You Screening?. All rights reserved. Reprinting without express permission of the author is prohibited.

Horrible Bosses is one of those ever-increasing number of films that works best simply as the pitch. One of the clearest proofs of this is that the funniest moments in the film are those that are given the least attention. The small asides (largely delivered by Bateman) that could easily go unnoticed, are the moments stuck in by brighter minds, who know the overall arc doesn't carry, and likely aren't responsible for much of the filler.

It's one of those stories that causes much laughter when you're out drinking, throwing out ideas, but when you're back at work on Monday, you realize you've got to try to make it funny for at least 90 minutes, and that ain't gonna happen.

It's a spin on the old switcheroo murder game, wherein (usually) I'll kill your wife, if you kill mine, thus throwing off motives, and allowing for alibis, etc. This time around, three friends find that they all hate their bosses, and worse, can't really leave their jobs. One is being held back by an ass who is never going to promote him, and can destroy his chances at finding another position in the same field. Another is a dental assistant working for a psychotic dentist, but he's a registered sex offender (he peed in public unaware that he was on the grounds of a school), and he was lucky to get anyone to hire him. The last has worked for a small family company so long that he is practically a son, but when the patriarch dies suddenly, it's the real son who takes over, and he's a drug-abusing loser who is going to destroy the company.

After sufficient time setting the stage, largely by way of ludicrous antics, the trio decides they have to do something, and there really isn't anything they can do other than play round robin boss death match. Things progress more or less as expected, with little in the way of higher humor, imagination, or even a relatively decent commitment to the spin. It's average in, average out, though, as I said, there are a few moments that provide laughs, but if you blink, you'll miss them. The overt efforts are entertaining-ish, in the kill a night with a non-horrible movie sort of way, but they're funnier when you explain them the next day than they actually are.

Bateman is the star, and carries the weight of the world on his shoulders here, as is usually the case when he's involved in such efforts, and most everyone else phones it in, content with a few days of moderate work and a paycheck. Fair enough actually, because a great deal of effort wouldn't amount to much difference.

On the other hand, if nothing else is calling your name, this one is at least serviceable in its ability to get a few laughs somewhere. It hearkens back to certain films of days gone by, when movies would come out with some frequency that hardly covered their "excuse," and the plot only served as the jumping off point to filming stars audiences like to watch as they screwed around for a while. It may not make for any part of an interesting, or especially humorous film, but who doesn't want to see Jennifer Aniston acting like a sex-crazed nutjob? And, if there's anything we can all get behind, it's watching a pack of schlubs as they set out to murder their bosses.

Rating: ★★½☆☆ 

The standard DVD offers virtually nothing in the way of bonuses, and the Blu-Ray doesn't exactly raise the bar a great deal. What the Blu-Ray does do rather wonderfully though, is offer special features that provide the best sort of extra value. What I mean by that is that they are brilliantly only loosely connected to the film at all.

3 Featurettes have the stars talking about their least favorite jobs, horrible bosses, and how much fun it is to play a mean character, all of which might just as well have been connected to any other film, or no film at all. The result as that these are pretty interesting, even if they are just as short as you expect them to be. A small bit of fluff to say that there are bonus features added on to a film that makes it tricky to come up with what else you could relevantly add.

Management candidate Nick Hendricks (Jason Bateman) has been logging 12-hour days and eating everything his twisted supervisor Dave Harken (Kevin Spacey) dishes out, toward the promise of a well-earned promotion. But now he knows that's never going to happen. Meanwhile, dental assistant Dale Arbus (Charlie Day) has been struggling to maintain his self-respect against the relentless X-rated advances of Dr. Julia Harris, D.D.S. (Jennifer Aniston), when she suddenly turns up the heat. And accountant Kurt Buckman (Jason Sudeikis) has just learned that his company's corrupt new owner, Bobby Pellit (Colin Farrell), is not only bent on ruining his career but plans to funnel toxic waste into an unsuspecting population.

What can you do when your boss is a psycho, a man-eater or a total tool? Quitting is not an option. These monsters must be stopped. So, on the strength of a few-too-many drinks and some dubious advice from a hustling ex-con whose street cred is priced on a sliding scale (Jamie Foxx), the guys devise a convoluted but foolproof plan to rid the world of their respective employers... permanently.

But even the best-laid plans are only as good as the brains behind them.

BLU-RAY / DVD ELEMENTS

· My Least Favorite Career - Colin Farrell, Jennifer Aniston, Jamie Foxx, Jason Bateman, Jason Sudeikis, Charlie Day, Julie Bowen and director Seth Gordon recall jobs and difficult bosses from their past in this humorous “Before They Were Famous” piece.

· Surviving a Horrible Boss - Jason Bateman, Jason Sudeikis, and Charlie Day discuss what makes a “Horrible Boss,” how to deal with their unpredictable and outrageous behavior, as well as elaborate on their on-set camaraderie as they play out the fantasies of oppressed workers everywhere.

· Being Mean Is So Much Fun - Delve into the mind of the Horrible Bosses - Colin Farrell (Pellit), Jennifer Aniston (Dr. Julia), and Kevin Spacey (Harken) reflect on what it was like to get mean, down and dirty.

· Additional Scenes

· Making of the “Horrible Bosses” soundtrack

The “Horrible Bosses” Standard Definition DVD contains the following special features:

· Additional Scenes

Win it Here!

Leave a comment below, and you are automatically entered to win your very own copy of the Blu-Ray. Winner will be randomly selected on January 15th. U.S. only.

RU?

Related articles

• Horrible Bosses [Blu-Ray] (cinemablend.com)

© 2012, Are You Screening?. All rights reserved. Reprinting without express permission of the author is prohibited.

War Horse opens with a man buying a horse at auction for more than it's worth, and more than he can afford, because his foolish pride won't let him lose. This, despite the fact that the sum he puts down is likely to cause him to lose his home and farm. It ends with a man buying the same horse at auction, and declaring that he will not lose, even if he has to sell his house and farm to keep bidding. He does so, because his daughter loved the horse, even if only for a short time.

If you're a fan of film, there's a lot of work that opening and closing can do, and the statement of the competing viewpoints (and that of the young lad at different points in his life) deliver fairly decent depictions of what we're after as a "story," and do it with a good deal of charm.

There's a lot that happens in between, but the film has little else to say beyond wild platitudes and postcard truisms. You'll get what you can from the beginning and end, and anything else you'll put up with by way of a certain spin on cute, fantastic scenery, and the sleight of hand efforts of a master filmmaker. That, or you'll fall for the syrupy goo offered up through what is ultimately cut-and-paste from early war propaganda films, with a horse in place of the All-American everyman with the teeth so bright they make a little ping noise, and a bent toward the similarities found among all those unfortunates who are caught up in war, no matter what side they might be on.

Though certainly passable entertainment, and a well-crafted film in a variety of ways, at the end of the day, War Horse is one of those films that rides high on a wave of critical and public acclaim that has at its foundation the general idea that to say anything bad about it is the political equivalent of kicking a puppy.

Spun together like an attempt to craft a folk tale, our horse in question first plows a field that not even an actual work horse could manage, mainly by the sheer force of will of the young boy who doesn't want his rather nutty father to cut his losses and kill the horse. This allows the horse to live long enough to befriend said boy, and thus hang around long enough for the military to conscript the horse for a decent enough amount of money that our home won't be in serious danger. Thus, we have lazy days spent in trees playing hide and seek with the horse, so that we can be sufficiently sad when the horse is taken away.

This puts our horse into position to lead a charge against a post of Germans, and miraculously survive when a score of machine guns lay waste to the entire British force. This then puts our hero in the hands of the Germans, who use him to pull the hospital wagons, which leads to further adventures, and the butterfly effect way in which he manages to be passed around through a wide variety of points of interest. From the G.I. hiding in a small farm behind enemy lines moments, to the slave labor camp, you've got just about everything covered here.

It's all delivered with the most brilliant of panoramic views, the most doe-eyed of young, German lads (who are German enough to seem very similar to non-Germans, and not German enough to be confused with that rat bastard German in charge of moving artillery), and a soundtrack that could convince you to sign for a timeshare all on its own. It is possibly the feel good movie of the year, and it's an undeniably safe choice for entertainment, but the depth is all pretense, and "feel good movie," is more and more widely viewed as the flaw it is.

Like many Spielberg films, its effort is by way of broadest common denominator, and its most positive quality is that it looks amazing. Even I can't deny that it has its moments of fun, and at the very least puts a great deal of grandiose fun into a somewhat clever spin on war in general, but most of what you'll see serves best as a showcase for greater moments in other films. Those with trench truces are too numerous to mention, as are those with Germans searching houses for people (though somehow this one makes Christoph Waltz' opening scene in Inglourious Basterds stand out), and those with even a passing cinematic history behind them will get little out of the film that is ultimately more than a wash of emotions other films have actually brought to bear.

Rating: ★★★½☆ 

RU?

© 2012, Are You Screening?. All rights reserved. Reprinting without express permission of the author is prohibited.

It's that time of year again, and the award buzz is starting to heat up. The nominations are in for the Critics' Choice Movie Awards, and while not all my nominations made it, the vast majority of them did, which makes me feel pretty good about how the year is going to turn out for all the award shows.

Take a look at the full press release below, and mark your calendar for January 12th! Let me know your thoughts, and if anything should have been nominated that wasn't. My picks to win are in bold, and I'll let you know if I nominated anything that didn't make the cut.

The Broadcast Film Critics Association (BFCA) has announced the nominees for the 17th annual Critics’ Choice Movie Awards. The winners will be announced at the Critics’ Choice Movie Awards ceremony on Thursday, January 12, 2012 at the Hollywood Palladium. Hosted by Rob Huebel and Paul Scheer, featuring Fitz and The Tantrums as the house band, the show will broadcast live for the fifth year in a row on VH1 at 8:00 PM ET/PT.

“Hugo” and “The Artist” each received an impressive 11 nominations for the 17th annual Critics’ Choice Movie Awards, one short of the record 12 nominations for “Black Swan” last year. Martin Scorsese’s “Hugo” garnering nods for Best Picture, Best Young Actor for Asa Butterfield, Best Director for Martin Scorsese, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Art Direction, Best Editing, Best Costume Design, Best Visual Effects, Best Sound and Best Score. Michel Hazanavicius’ “The Artist” received nominations for Best Picture, Best Actor for Jean Dujardin, Best Supporting Actress for Berenice Bejo, Best Acting Ensemble, Best Director for Michel Hazanavicius, Best Original Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Art Direction, Best Editing, Best Costume Design, and Best Score.

Martin Scorsese could have a very big night at the Critics’ Choice Movie Awards. In addition to the 11 nominations for his film “Hugo,” he directed the Best Documentary Feature nominee “George Harrison: Living in the Material World.” Last week it was announced that Scorsese will also be honored with the Critics’ Choice Music+Film Award at this year’s show.

“The Help” and “Drive” earned 8 nominations each, and “The Descendants” and “War Horse” both garnered 7 nominations. “Drive” was honored in the Best Picture and Best Action Movie categories while “Midnight in Paris” was recognized in Best Picture and Best Comedy categories. “The Tree of Life,” “Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close” and “My Week With Marilyn” also scored multiple nominations. “The Muppets” received four nominations, three of which came in the Best Song category for “Life’s a Happy Song,” “Man or Muppet,” and “Pictures in My Head,” the fourth for Best Comedy.

George Clooney received three nominations as part of the Best Acting Ensemble nominees for “The Descendants” and “The Ides of March,” along with his Best Actor nomination in “The Descendants.” This gives Clooney a record 13 Critics’ Choice nominations over the years, having received 10 prior nominations in addition to winning a special Freedom Award for “Good Night, and Good Luck.”

Meryl Streep will be seeking her third Critics’ Choice Movie Award as a Best Actress nominee for “The Iron Lady” while Charlize Theron will be after her second award in the category. Streep previously won Best Actress for “Doubt” and “Julie & Julia” while Charlize Theron took the prize in 2003 for “Monster.” Michelle Williams, Critics’ Choice winner for Best Supporting Actress in 2005’s “Brokeback Mountain” will also compete for Best Actress for “My Week With Marilyn.” Twenty-year-old newcomer Shailene Woodley earned nods in both the Best Supporting Actress and Best Young Actor/Actress categories, among the seven nominations for “The Descendants.” Saoirse Ronan was also nominated for Best Young Actor/Actress for her role in “Hanna,” having previously won the category in 2009 for “The Lovely Bones.”

The Critics’ Choice Movie Awards are bestowed annually by the BFCA to honor the finest in cinematic achievement. The BFCA is the largest film critics’ organization in the United States and Canada, representing more than 250 television, radio and online critics. BFCA members are the primary source of information for today's film going public. Eligible films were released in 2011. The accounting firm of CMM, LLP tallied the written ballots.

NOMINATIONS FOR THE 17th ANNUAL CRITICS’ CHOICE MOVIE AWARDS

BEST PICTURE

The Artist

The Descendants

Drive

Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close

The Help

Hugo

Midnight in Paris

Moneyball

The Tree of Life

War Horse

I also nominated - Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (which I would have picked to win), Hanna, and Martha Marcy May Marlene

BEST ACTOR

George Clooney – “The Descendants”

Leonardo DiCaprio – “J. Edgar”

Jean Dujardin – “The Artist”

Michael Fassbender – “Shame”

Ryan Gosling – “Drive”

Brad Pitt – “Moneyball”

I also nominated Gary Oldman in Tinker, Tailor (who I would have picked to win)

BEST ACTRESS

Viola Davis – “The Help”

Elizabeth Olsen – “Martha Marcy May Marlene”

Meryl Streep – “The Iron Lady”

Tilda Swinton – “We Need to Talk About Kevin”

Charlize Theron – “Young Adult”

Michelle Williams – “My Week With Marilyn”

I doubt Elizabeth Olsen has any shot, but she gets my vote. I also nominated Kirsten Dunst in Melancholia

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Kenneth Branagh – “My Week With Marilyn”

Albert Brooks – “Drive”

Nick Nolte – “Warrior”

Patton Oswalt – “Young Adult”

Christopher Plummer – “Beginners”

Andrew Serkis – “Rise of the Planet of the Apes”

I also nominated Viggo Mortensen in A Dangerous Method (and probably would have voted for him to win), and John Hawkes in Martha Marcy May Marlene

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Berenice Bejo – “The Artist”

Jessica Chastain – “The Help”

Melissa McCarthy – “Bridesmaids”

Carey Mulligan – “Shame”

Octavia Spencer – “The Help”

Shailene Woodley – “The Descendants”

I also nominated Kate Winslet in Carnage

BEST YOUNG ACTOR/ACTRESS

Asa Butterfield – “Hugo”

Elle Fanning – “Super 8”

Thomas Horn – “Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close”

Ezra Miller – “We Need to Talk About Kevin”

Saoirse Ronan – “Hanna”

Shailene Woodley – “The Descendants”

I also nominated Alex Shaffer in Win Win

BEST ACTING ENSEMBLE

The Artist

Bridesmaids

The Descendants

The Help

The Ides of March

BEST DIRECTOR

Stephen Daldry – “Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close”

Michel Hazanavicius – “The Artist”

Alexander Payne – “The Descendants”

Nicolas Winding Refn – “Drive”

Martin Scorsese – “Hugo”

Steven Spielberg – “War Horse”

I also nominated Tinker, Tailor and Immortals

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

“The Artist” – Michel Hazanavicius

“50/50” – Will Reiser

“Midnight in Paris” – Woody Allen

“Win Win” – Screenplay by Tom McCarthy, Story by Tom McCarthy & Joe Tiboni

“Young Adult” – Diablo Cody

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

“The Descendants” – Alexander Payne and Nat Faxon & Jim Rash

“Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close” – Eric Roth

“The Help” – Tate Taylor

“Hugo” – John Logan

“Moneyball” – Steven Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin, Story by Stan Chervin

I also nominated Tinker, Tailor here... which you'll notice is getting shut out of a lot of things.

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY

“The Artist” – Guillaume Schiffman

“Drive” – Newton Thomas Sigel

“Hugo” – Robert Richardson

“The Tree of Life” – Emmanuel Lubezki

“War Horse” – Janusz Kaminski

BEST ART DIRECTION

“The Artist” – Production Designer: Laurence Bennett, Art Director: Gregory S. Hooper

“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2” – Production Designer: Stuart Craig, Set Decorator: Stephenie McMillan

“Hugo” – Production Designer: Dante Ferretti, Set Decorator: Francesca Lo Schiavo

“The Tree of Life” – Production Designer: Jack Fisk, Art Director: David Crank

“War Horse” – Production Designer: Rick Carter, Set Decorator: Lee Sandales

I also nominated Jane Eyre here

BEST EDITING

“The Artist” – Michel Hazanavicius and Anne-Sophie Bion

“Drive” – Matthew Newman

“The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo” – Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall

“Hugo” – Thelma Schoonmaker

“War Horse” – Michael Kahn

I also nominated Tinker, Tailor here

BEST COSTUME DESIGN

“The Artist” – Mark Bridges

“The Help” – Sharen Davis

“Hugo” – Sandy Powell

“Jane Eyre” – Michael O’Connor

“My Week With Marilyn” – Jill Taylor

I also nominated War Horse here

BEST MAKEUP

Albert Nobbs

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

The Iron Lady

J. Edgar

My Week With Marilyn

I also nominated Anonymous here

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

Hugo

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Super 8

The Tree of Life

BEST SOUND

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

Hugo

Super 8

The Tree of Life

War Horse

I also nominated The Adventures of Tintin

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE

The Adventures of Tintin

Arthur Christmas

Kung Fu Panda 2

Puss in Boots

Rango

BEST ACTION MOVIE

Drive

Fast Five

Hanna

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Super 8

I nominated Captain America and Sherlock Holmes 2 and the exclusion of both boggles

my mind utterly. For the record, I don't consider Drive or Hanna to be action movies in any

legitimate sense, and can't bring myself to vote for them, though both are far superior to Apes

generally

BEST COMEDY

Bridesmaids

Crazy, Stupid, Love

Horrible Bosses

Midnight in Paris

The Muppets

I nominated Carnage, Submarine, and The Guard, any of which fit the bill here better

than any of the nominees.

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM

In Darkness

Le Havre

A Separation

The Skin I Live In

Where Do We Go Now

BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE

Buck

Cave of Forgotten Dreams

George Harrison: Living in the Material World

Page One: Inside the New York Times

Project Nim

Undefeated

BEST SONG

“Hello Hello” – performed by Elton John and Lady Gaga/written by Elton John and Bernie Taupin – Gnomeo & Juliet

“Life’s a Happy Song” – performed by Jason Segel, Amy Adams and Walter/written by Bret McKenzie – The Muppets

“The Living Proof” – performed by Mary J. Blige/written by Mary J. Blige, Thomas Newman and Harvey Mason, Jr. – The Help

“Man or Muppet” – performed by Jason Segel and Walter/written by Bret McKenzie – The Muppets

“Pictures in My Head” – performed by Kermit and the Muppets/written by Jeannie Lurie, Aris Archontis and Chen Neeman – The Muppets

This category has gone goofy in my opinion.

BEST SCORE

“The Artist” – Ludovic Bource

“Drive” – Cliff Martinez

“The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo” – Trent Reznor & Atticus Ross

“Hugo” – Howard Shore

“War Horse” – John Williams

RU?

© 2011, Are You Screening?. All rights reserved. Reprinting without express permission of the author is prohibited.

Joss Whedon obviously likes to get his hands into a variety of projects, and now he's taking a shot at reworking the horror genre. The Cabin in the Woods, as you'll see from the trailer below, starts off in a way that is all too familiar, but we soon learn that there is a serious twist at work.

If the trailer is any judge, it looks like this one is going to add some serious fun, and a new layer of thrills to the standard play of the "alone in the woods" sub-genre. Whatever is going on exactly, it's high-tech craziness mixed in with the gore and slash.

Check it out below.

THE CABIN IN THE WOODS was co-written by Joss Whedon (BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER) and Drew Goddard (CLOVERFIELD, LOST), and is Goddard's directorial debut. Starring Chris Hemsworth (THOR), Richard Jenkins (LET ME IN) and Bradley Whitford (THE WEST WING), the film will be in theaters everywhere April 13th, 2012.

Photo courtesy Lionsgate

Five friends go to a remote cabin in the woods. Bad things happen.

If you think you know this story, think again. From fan favorites Joss Whedon and Drew Goddard comes THE CABIN IN THE WOODS, a mind blowing horror film that turns the genre inside out.

Produced by Whedon and directed by Goddard from a script by both, the film stars Kristen Connolly, Chris Hemsworth, Anna Hutchison, Fran Kranz, Jesse Williams, Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford.

Offical Website: http://www.discoverthecabininthewoods.com

RU?

© 2011, Are You Screening?. All rights reserved. Reprinting without express permission of the author is prohibited.

Though the American version of The Office is one of the increasingly rare success stories when it comes to "translating" British shows, it still can't hold a candle to the mad genius of the original. Talking up the show at this point is likely useless, but the entire collection has a new DVD release, and it's something well worth putting on your radar for potential gifts.

The only real question here is whether or not a new version of the full series release is actually necessary, and/or whether or not there is enough new content to qualify as sufficiently dissimilar from the one that already exists.

The answer is probably no, if I'm being honest, but I'm a sucker for the show, and liable to encourage purchasing anything that might come along. What works for this particular release is simply the timing, and the fact that there are people who still haven't made the leap from new Office to old Office. You know it's awesome, and as the New York Times said, "pretty much the funniest show ever," but some of your friends are still holdouts, and you are much more likely to buy them something that was just released, as opposed to something that came out a few years ago.

That said, there are some very cool additions to the bonus features, and all the originals, which were a nice assortment to begin with. It's just that, for most people, it may not seem like there is an entire world of new value added to the release. Rare indeed is the person who is going to upgrade their complete series to the special edition.

On the other hand, if you haven't taken the leap already, or know someone who has put off owning the entire series, then we are simply at a point where we have upgraded the already no-brainer status of the purchase.

Each episode on the first series now comes with an introduction, and you get an assortment of very cool interviews with Gervais, Merchant, and some special guests (see full details below). You also get the full original pilot, and a new featurette Comedy Connections: The Office, which is a retrospective of sorts, revisiting the show, its creation, and the effects of its popularity.

The introductions and interviews are worth more than you might expect, and what you have to keep in mind is that these are put together by the people who created The Office. The same, more or less, is true of the retrospective, which is thoroughly entertaining, and something fans will love.

Like I said, it doesn't seem like much additional content, but it's a show that can't be revisited too many times. Gervais' effort to actually focus a series on an obnoxious tool, in a situation built around dreary tedium and the antics of those who do and do not find any interest in their relative position on the laughably meaningless job totem pole, changed comedy television worldwide, and the influence of the show can be seen in virtually everything that has come along since.

The release itself probably isn't the gold standard of necessary ventures, but there are enough people who still need to pick this up to make it worthwhile. Someone on your holiday list will love you. Probably you.

Pick it up at the BBC America Shop now! 

Win Your Copy Here!

To enter, just leave a comment below and tell me your favorite scene from the show. Remember, I have to be able to contact you.

Winner will be randomly selected on December 14th. U.S. and Canada only.

BBC AMERICA first introduced U.S. audiences to the comedy genius of Ricky and Stephen when it premiered the show in 2003. At its launch The New York Times called it “pretty much the funniest show ever” while Newsweek declared it the “best comedy on television”. It went on to win two Golden Globes, inspire the U.S. version on NBC and continues to influence the tone and look of everything from television comedy and movies to commercials and pop culture at large.

The Special Edition DVD has all 12 episodes and the 2-part Holiday Special with bonus features including:

All New Bonus Features 
• Episode Introductions to Series One and Extended Interviews with Ricky Gervais, Stephen Merchant and Special Guests Matthew Perry, Ben Stiller, Richard Curtis, Hugh Jackman and more!
• Full Original Pilot
• "Comedy Connections: The Office" Retrospective Documentary
Original Bonus Features
• Exclusive Documentary: How I Made The Office
• Outtakes & Deleted Scenes
• Video Diary
• Director's Commentary (The Office Special)
• Golden Globes Featurette
• Making of "Freelove Freeway"
• Music Video

RU?

© 2011, Are You Screening?. All rights reserved. Reprinting without express permission of the author is prohibited.

One of the curiosities of films that focus on gays and/or lesbians, especially considering the trend of growth the genre is seeing, is that audiences are going to be asking themselves if the fact that these characters are homosexual is actually doing any work. I'm not sure they should be asking that question (and I'm not sure they shouldn't), but I know they're going to be. When it doesn't seem that this question is legitimately answered affirmatively, it can make the film a strange experience. This is all the more true when it seems the filmmakers expect the answer to be an obvious, "yes."

The Green focuses on Michael (Jason Butler Harner) and his partner Daniel (Cheyenne Jackson), who moved to smallish town Connecticut to get away from the big city life in New York. Michael is a school teacher, and Daniel has set up shop as a caterer/event planner (I think). They've been together some fifteen years, and though Daniel was perhaps not quite so keen when it came to their relocation scheme, life seems to be working out pretty well.

Everything begins to unravel, however, when Michael is accused of inappropriate conduct with one of his students. Not only does Michael get suspended, but the aftermath of the mere accusation begins to tear apart everything in Michael and Daniel's life, and the small town isn't particularly friendly towards the couple anymore. Contract don't want to work on their house, customers start to cancel the affairs they've lined up through Daniel's business, and that's just for starters. Meanwhile, Michael is trying to figure out how to stay out of jail, despite the fact that he isn't completely sure an actual accusation has been made exactly, and now that he's being investigated, some secrets he's been keeping from Daniel rear their ugly heads as well.

The couple and a few key friends try to figure out how to make it through the mess, and Michael remains concerned for the student that was doing so well only a few short months ago, and through it all, tempers flare and personality conflicts get thrown out of proportion in the way that only such a massive attack on one's character can bring about.

The plot itself plays out, more or less, exactly as you'd expect every step of the way, but the fact is only mildly problematic. The effort is really more playing the thing out, than the formulation of any new spins or twists, and it's the character creation and expression that drives us along.

That said, as I hinted at earlier, there comes a point when the sexuality question begins to nag at you as a viewer. Those that keep an eye on the media at all surely know that when it comes to ignorant, knee-jerk reactions, and the full-blown ostracism of anyone accused of any kind of "inappropriate touching" of minors, we have found the arena in which homosexuals and heterosexuals enjoy equality. This, together with the overall impression that the "ultimate" truth of our scenario is rather obvious, and the fact that apart from the sexuality issue, this doesn't strike as being anything we haven't seen before, make for a curious viewing experience.

In the end, there are some fine performances here, especially by the leads, but there is some richness of purpose that seems lacking. As I said, it's a struggle to find the real "work" that the sexuality inherent in the film is doing, and it seems that the film intends that it be doing some.

Still, that curiosity aside, The Green is on solid ground when it comes to the level of craft at work, and for all that it may seem that there would be little subtlety to such a situation, it is the small moments (even if they involve shouting) of human interaction that pull you in and make the film what it is. I would lean toward the idea that the homosexuality is in a certain sense irrelevant, being only the story of two people who happen to be gay, and the final result might have a stronger overall effect, but I don't have the impression that is the way the film is leaning.

Rating: ★★★☆☆ 

RU?

© 2011, Are You Screening?. All rights reserved. Reprinting without express permission of the author is prohibited.

It has quickly become a holiday tradition, and this year Syfy pulls out all the stops for themed episodes of Warehouse 13, Haven, and the unfortunately already axed Eureka.

This season, you're really in for a special treat, at least, if you can stomach a send off visit to the town with all the smartest people in the world, because the Eureka episode is animated. Haven also gets seriously decked out in Christmas cheer, and that's sure to involve some things that will throw holiday for a loop as well. It's all coming your way Tuesday, December 6th, so mark your calendars, and check out some sneaks and images below.

Eureka Sneak

Warehouse 13 Sneak

Haven Sneak

RU?

© 2011, Are You Screening?. All rights reserved. Reprinting without express permission of the author is prohibited.

Series 6 of the revival of Doctor Who managed to do something that, despite growing and significant popularity, the revamp hadn't really been able to do before... it caused a stir. A legitimate, all out tizzy, and as the first few episodes aired, the blip of awareness that is Doctor Who skyrocketed as more and more people actually said the words, "Doctor Who."

On the whole, the show has been getting even better, and it started out strong, but even the "buzz" surrounding Matt Smith's entry as The Doctor didn't move the show to the hot topic category with such far-reaching effect as getting to say that The Doctor died.

The trend toward the long arc that has all but taken over television in recent years didn't give Doctor Who a miss, and while there were a few episodes that had little connection to the overall search for answers about his death, the 13-episode series often tugs at being one long movie.

As the discussion grew about the fact that The Doctor died, that discussion ventured off into other topics of general Doctor coolness (a pirate episode, an episode written by Neil Gaiman, etc.), and before you knew what happened, the show reached a new level of public awareness.

That's the sort of thing that is bound to die down under normal circumstances, especially considering a long break in the middle of airing the series. Luckily, the show also managed to include some of the most interesting and inventive episodes in its entire history, and as more people (apparently) tuned in to see what everyone was talking about, they found themselves watching some truly great television.

This after the episode "A Christmas Carol," which is also included in this DVD release, and is far and away one of the best things to come out the series in quite some time.

Now, I do have to come clean on one thing though, and it might not be surprising, but in the midst of the best you sometimes find yourself faced with the worst, and series six also put out two episodes that were absolute garbage. That is, if you count "The Rebel Flesh" and "The Almost People" as one episode given that its a two-parter. Those, along with "Night Terrors", were among the most bizarre head-scratchers to get thrown into the middle of a great season of television that has ever been witnessed, no matter what brand of TV you're after. Balancing those were "A Good Man Goes To War", "Let's Kill Hitler", "The Doctor's Wife", and probably the best, "The Girl Who Waited". The remaining episodes were above-average, and the finale's resolution worked, though it was a bit goofy, but it puts out a lot of questions that are going to make it hard to move forward.

Specific episodes aside, what's best about this particular series is the continued adoption of the idea that, in the end, what happens around The Doctor is actually more interesting than The Doctor. Notice the opening sequence that shifts the show into actually being Amy Pond's show, at least for now, and the general move away from The Doctor as the driving force of the action much of the time. Sure, he's the man with the plan, and he's always two steps ahead, but when it comes down to it, the things that happen are probably up to someone else. Indeed, coming to the fore repeatedly is his lack of ability to save everyone, especially those who have stepped into the blue box with him.

As for the release itself, the Blu-Ray quality is superb, though there were a few spots where the audio seemed to play with the levels more than I like. Still, it's a great show for Blu-Ray, considering the vast array of wild splendor we may up for in any given episode, and the drawn out darks and shadows we may be wandering through, and the release certainly gives you what you're looking for there.

It's also a wonderful set in terms of the bonuses, including some specially-produced shorts available only on the home release. These "Night and the Doctor" scenes are scattered among the discs, and are real treats for fans. These tidbits of "life" outside (but near) episodes of the show are wonderful extras, and feature everything from Amy and The Doctor simply having a chat, to the Tardis being occupied by several River Songs at once, to a cute bit that is a sort of prequel to "Closing Time", in which Craig drones on about his obvious inability to care for his son.

The mere existence of such little treasures is a testament to the consideration of fans put forward by those behind the show, and are exactly the sort of thing buyers hope for when the look at the special features.

You also get the Doctor Who Confidential featurettes that (at least on BBC America) aired during the breaks of the show, which give an inside look at some aspect each episode. These were very cool at first, and are a nice inclusion. You've even got a new one that takes a look at the above-mentioned mini-episodes. You also get Monster File featurettes which give a little background on the creation of some of the nasties, including concept discussion, and a look at how they were brought to life. You get the Silence, the Gangers, Anti-Bodies, and Cybermats. Of course, Cybermats are the coolest, because I remember the whacktastic little things from the original Doctor Who.

Rounding things out are two sketches from UK Comic Relief, which are rather good, and five of the episodes come with audio commentaries, none of which will I spoil for you. Sadly, "The Girl Who Waited" is not one of them. The commentaries are in line with what fans will be familiar with, and are quite good overall, especially for a television show effort.

Overall, this is a must own set, even for those who are not overly fanatic about the show. It's a great series in itself, and it's easily one of the better releases you'll find among TV shows. The bonuses actually are, and the quality in terms of video and audio is the kind of thing that you'll show off when you get the chance. Perfectly timed, this has to be on everyone's gift list for at least one person.

Rating: ★★★★½ 

Special Features List

•  5 Night and the Doctor specially recorded scenes exclusive to DVD
•  5 specially recorded episode prequels
•  2 sketches recorded for the UK's Comic Relief charity event
•  4 Monster Files - Get under the skin and inside the minds of the Doctor's most challenging opponents
•  Doctor Who Confidential - An inside look at each episode
•  Bonus Doctor Who Confidential - "A Night's Tale" about the exclusive DVD scenes
•  Audio Commentary on select episodes

RU?

© 2011, Are You Screening?. All rights reserved. Reprinting without express permission of the author is prohibited.

Another giveaway for you, this time for a film that looks pretty impressive, and stars one of my personal favorites, Richard Coyle.

5 Days of War is a thriller about a journalist caught behind enemy lines during the war between Russia and the Georgian Republic. Inspired by real events, it's an intense look at not only surviving in such a situation, but also a devastating war that was over so fast most people hardly had a chance to notice it.

I have two copies of the DVD available, and all you have to do is leave a comment to be entered. Winners will be randomly selected on December 10th. U.S. only.

Check out the info below, don't miss the trailer, and then enter for your chance to win.

ANCHOR BAY FILMS PROUDLY PRESENTS 5 DAYS OF WAR A FILM BY RENNY HARLIN STARRING RUPERT FRIEND, EMMANUELLE CHRIQUI, RICHARD COYLE, ANDY GARCIA and VAL KILMER

Available on Blu-ray™ and DVD November 29, 2011

Anchor Bay Films is proud to announce the release of 5 DAYS OF WAR on Blu-ray™ and DVD. This action-packed international thriller from acclaimed director Renny Harlin (Die Hard 2, Cliffhanger) is based on the true events of a renegade American journalist, his cameraman and a local woman caught behind enemy lines during the devastating five day war between Russian and the Georgian Republic. 5 DAYS OF WAR arrives on Blu-ray™ and DVD with bonus features including a commentary track by Producer/Director Renny Harlin and deleted scenes.

5 Days of War is an intensely human portrayal of courage under fire, combining heart-pounding action with real human drama. Inspired by the real events of the swift—but devastating—five-day war between Russia and Georgia in 2008, this action-packed international thriller centers around an American journalist (Rupert Friend) and his cameraman (Richard Coyle) caught in the combat zone during the first Russian airstrikes against Georgia. Rescuing Tatia (Emmanuelle Chriqui), a young Georgian schoolteacher from the attack, the two reporters agree to help reunite her with her family when she loses them in the chaos in exchange for serving as their interpreter. As the three attempt to escape to safety, they witness—and document—the devastation from the full-scale crossfire and cold-blooded murder of innocent civilians.

They desperately attempt to broadcast the footage they’ve captured while under attack from the Russian soldiers and local mercenaries, but are met with resistance from American and international networks either shorthanded from covering the Beijing Olympics or simply fatigued by war news. The trio realizes their survival is paramount, so they can live to broadcast the truth.

From writers Mikko Alanne and David Battle, 5 DAYS OF WAR features an all-star cast including Rupert Friend (Young Victoria, The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas), Emmanuelle Chriqui (HBO’s “Entourage,” You Don’t Mess With The Zohan), Richard Coyle (Prince of Persia), Andy Garcia (City Island, Oceans 12), Val Kilmer (Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, Batman Forever), and proves director Harlin to still be the master of the high-octane action genre.

RU?

© 2011, Are You Screening?. All rights reserved. Reprinting without express permission of the author is prohibited.

As I walked out of the theater, my son (10) asked if The Muppet Show really used to be on TV, and you could see in his eyes that he was hoping it did, because then he could ask if we could get the DVDs. I told him it was, and recounted some of the memories of watching it every Sunday night. I could tell that I lost him somewhere along the way, as I tried to put together the idea of the weekly event that it was for me. My son, who by way of DVDs, Netflix, and Tivo, only has a vague idea of "live" television, and imagines it only in the anachronistic way that children try to conceive of archaic ideas thrown into the rest of the world they know (like people riding horses down paved streets with stoplights, or taking responsibility for their actions), didn't quite know what I was talking about... but he liked the sound of the idea.

That exchange summed up The Muppets for me, because while the vast array of other Muppet films have been entertaining efforts, they are very different beasts from the creature The Muppet Show was. Still filled with the zaniness, and the same brand of general humor, sure, but they aren't replacements for the true event that featured the biggest names anywhere, and showcased the purest form of Jim Henson's magical persona and philosophy that kids are people in all but height, and adults are kids in all but their tendency toward being sour, cranky bastards.

Our story is that of brothers Gary (Jason Segel - who also wrote the screenplay with Nicholas Stoller) and Walter (who is a Muppet), and their trip to see the Muppet studios. It's a trip that starts out as a vacation for Gary and his girlfriend Mary (Amy Adams) to celebrate their 10th Anniversary, but since we're so close, and Walter is the Muppets biggest fan, we're bringing him along.

The brothers discover that the Muppet studios are rundown beyond all hope, and that oil baron Tex Richman (Chris Cooper) is going to get the land and level the place unless the Muppets can come up with $10 million. This is bad enough on its own, but the real crusher is discovering that time really has passed the Muppets by, and no one cares about them anymore, not even them. Kermit sits alone in what used to be his home with Piggy, Fozzy is working a lounge act at a dive casino in Reno, and generally the whole gang has gone their separate ways, getting by any way they can.

Photo: Scott Garfield

Gary and Walter convince Kermit to take on the task of getting the gang back together and putting on a fundraising special to save the old studios, but things don't come together as easily as we might hope. Miss Piggy is an editor at Vogue Paris (or whatever), and she isn't interested in leaving. The happy couple's troubles are hinted at, and have much to do with Kermit's lack of attention. Then we have the problem with the networks, as we find that none of them are interested in airing the special. We get a handy graph showing the tiny speck of interest remaining for The Muppets in the collective consciousness, and that isn't going to get ratings.

The Muppets are going to give it their all come what may though, and they aren't going to let absent pigs, or the evil machinations of an oil tycoon stop them... maybe.

In a world that has run out of ideas, and for lack of anything better dredges up reworking, re-releases, and/or sequels that cover everything that can be mined from days long gone, here is a film that proves that there are a few things worth revisiting. The story we've pieced together is simplistic, but serves as well as any, because whatever play we might have landed on, it doesn't matter any more than if any particular episode of The Muppet Show featured Pigs in Space. The only thing that really matters is that we call out the donkification of television over the last three decades at least, turn up the screwball antics, break the fourth wall, sing goofy songs, light the lights, and get things started. In short, we get to watch The Muppet Show again.

Photo: Scott Garfield

Segel delivers well, giving us a character that is wonderfully Muppet-esque in over-the-top, goofy performance, and Amy Adams is right there with him. More importantly, considering Segel's role as screenwriter, the humans involved are all brilliantly "sort of there," even in the few scenes that don't include any Muppets at all. On a side note, a musical number near the end that has Gary and Walter doing individual versions of (Am I A) "Man or Muppet" features one of the coolest cameos in years.

That said, this is not a film where the critic can play his normal game any more than it is a normal film. The story worked, the actors did great jobs, the jokes and rhythms were quintessentially Muppet, it was hilarious, and overall giant bags of fluffy fun... but that still doesn't quite mean anything. At least, not to me.

For ninety-some minutes I was back in a place where we still had a 50" TV, but the screen might have been 19", and you stole into the great, orange beast of a chair and tried to be quiet as a mouse so no one would notice (because that was Dad's chair), and you laughed your ass off at things you didn't completely understand, because the Muppets seemed to think it was funny, and there was everyone else, huddled around, doing the same.

And then, my son looked up at me and said he wished he could go there too, and I said,

"Mah Na Mah Na."

Rating: ★★★★★ 

RU?

© 2011, Are You Screening?. All rights reserved. Reprinting without express permission of the author is prohibited.

I have a special giveaway that I really want you to take a look at today, because this is a movie that is destined to become one of the unsung heroes of 2011. It's received a lot of critical acclaim and done well at festivals, and you don't want to let this one slip past you.

Check out some more info below, and don't miss the videos embedded below. Then just leave a comment with your answer to the question below, and you are entered to win one of 3 copies of the Blu-Ray combo pack.

Winners will be randomly selected on December 8th. U.S. only.

Win a copy of ANOTHER EARTH, out on Blu-ray Combo Pack November 29

Winner of the Special Jury Prize & Alfred P. Sloan Film Prize at the Sundance Film Festival, ANOTHER EARTH is the story of Rhoda (Marling) and John (Mapother), two people whose worlds collide after a tragic accident. Their intimate drama plays out against the astounding discovery of Earth 2, a parallel world that poses provocative and fascinating possibilities. Does a new Earth mean a chance at another life? Another destiny? Another self?

In his directorial debut, Mike Cahill brings this provocative indie sci-fi film to life with outstanding performances from newcomer Brit Marling (Sound of My Voice) and William Mapother (TV’s “Lost,” World Trade Center).

For your chance to win a copy of ANOTHER EARTH, simply answer the following question:

Who directed ANOTHER EARTH?

• Mike Cahill

• Brit Marling

• Gavin Wiesen

Follow Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment on: Twitter @FoxHomeEnt

On the night a mirror Earth emerges in the sky, two lives are intertwined in a dramatic incident that will change them both forever. In his directorial debut, Mike Cahill brings this provocative indie sci-fi film to life with outstanding performances from newcomer Brit Marling (Sound of My Voice) and William Mapother (TV’s “Lost,” World Trade Center). Winner of the Special Jury Prize & Alfred P. Sloan Film Prize at the Sundance Film Festival, experience all the heartache and passion when ANOTHER EARTH comes to Blu-ray Combo Pack November 29th from Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment. As an added bonus, consumers will receive two tracks from the band Fall On Your Sword, who provided the soundtrack to the film.

This "deeply emotional...extraordinarily profound" (USA Today) film became a must-see sensation at the Sundance Film Festival. "Beautiful, bright and fearless" (Associated Press) newcomer Brit Marling and fan favorite William Mapother (TV's “Lost”) star as Rhoda and John, two people whose worlds collide after a tragic accident. Their intimate drama plays out against the astounding discovery of Earth 2, a parallel world that poses provocative and fascinating possibilities. Does a new Earth mean a chance at another life? Another destiny? Another self? “ANOTHER EARTH is science-fiction at its best" (The Hollywood Reporter) -- with a mind-bending surprise ending that you will never forget.

ANOTHER EARTH Blu-ray Features:

• Deleted Scenes
• Music Video: “The First Time I Saw Jupiter” by Fall On
• Your Sword
• The Science Behind Another Earth
• Creating Another Earth
• Fox Movie Channel presents “Direct Effect with Mike Cahill,” “In Character with Brit Marling,” and “In Character with William Mapother”

RU?

© 2011, Are You Screening?. All rights reserved. Reprinting without express permission of the author is prohibited.

Cr: Gavin Bond/FOX

I Hate My Teenage Daughter is a curious, but largely understandable, result of the trend in reality television and the absorption of that trend into the collective psyche. This is actually true of another new show this season, Suburgatory, and the two shows are largely cut from the same cloth.

Those who are not overly familiar with reality television as viewers, but only insofar as they are aware of such things as Real Housewives of Wherever, The Continually Less Aptly-Named Real World, Toddlers & Tiaras, and far too many others, find themselves dumbfounded by their continued existence and popularity.

From a removed perspective, they make no sense. Simply from the standpoint of being able to get people to be on the shows (nevermind facts like the interview process for The Real World involves little beyond the quesiton, "So, you drink like a lot, right?"), trying to work out the logic behind the phenomenon requires more effort than anyone is willing to put forward, and rightly so.

Those somewhat closer to the trend understand that at some point there was a certain shift in reality television, and the pre- and post-shift world of reality television are wildly different creatures. The shift, for simplicity's sake, happened when it was decided that nothing about the show or the people on it needed to have positive viewership. That is, to randomly pick an example, your show could be based solely on the fact that people will watch, and make fun of, the people dressing up their 8-year-olds like hookers. There need be no positive regard for whatever and whoever we're filming, and best of all, those in front of the camera will never even realize, or care, that the entire effort is mocking their existence.

You'd think, if you're from that first group, that there could never be a second season of Toddlers & Tiaras (much less a competing show!), or that more "Real" Housewives would step up, but that's because, quite frankly, you are simply lost as to the true state of the culture you're living in. Not only do we wear out stupidity proudly around these parts, we follow that up by offering tens of thousands of dollars to get people who are famous for nothing beyond being hopelessly stupid to speak at our colleges (that would be Snooki).

I Hate My Teenage Daughter, as I said, is another step along this overall trend. The show follows two moms, Annie (Jaime Pressly) and Nikki (Katie Finneran), who are best friends, live next to each other, and have equally spoiled, obnoxious, teenage daughters. The general gist of setup is that both moms were, for one reason or another, allowed to do very little growing up, and were more or less outcasts in school. Annie is from a super-strict family, while Nikki was overweight and (I guess) rather socially inept.

I HATE MY TEENAGE DAUGHTER: Nikki (Katie Finneran, third from L) and Annie (Jaime Pressly, second from L) have a discussion with their daughters Mackenzie (Aisha Dee, R) and Sophie (Kristi Lauren, L) in the premiere episode of I HATE MY TEENAGE DAUGHTER airing Wednesday, Nov. 30 (9:30-10:00 PM ET/PT) on FOX. 2011 Fox Broadcasting Co. Cr: Greg Gayne/FOX.

Naturally, as a result of their childhood experiences, they have spoiled their daughters rotten, and turned them into the exact girls that used to pick on them when they were school. We enter the show as our two mothers are finally realizing that they have to do something to correct the situation, but now they have their work cut out for them, not least because they are at this point rather scared of their daughters.

Of course, adding to the difficulty here is the fact that neither of these two mother have any idea what they're supposed to actually do, and have little inclination to do it. Much as it seems like the idea might be to ground their daughters, and not let them, for example, go to the big dance, they also really want to see their daughter's go to the big dance. The fathers also jump in here, and add inability to an already overfull cup, and Annie's ex-husband even throws in his brother to round out the gaggle of voices.

There are some moments of well-delivered humor, though they are largely masked but a general silliness, but overall the show offers little in the way of entry point, or avenue to engage. Like Suburgatory, we are thrown into a world of the unlikable, who can only legitimately exist as cues to mockery, but we are meant to walk along with two people representing the "sane" viewpoint, who are situationally-obligated to continually shoulder the "insane" one. As opposed to say actually dealing with the spoiled kids, or not dealing with the Real Housewives of Suburgatory, because then the show would end. That makes for a rough go at considering either of the viewpoints sane once you're watching it.

I HATE MY TEENAGE DAUGHTER: Annie (Jaime Pressly, L) does not approve of her daughter Sophie's (Kristi Lauren, R) wardrobe in the premiere episode of I HATE MY TEENAGE DAUGHTER airing Wednesday, Nov. 30 (9:30-10:00 PM ET/PT) on FOX. 2011 Fox Broadcasting Co. Cr: Greg Gayne/FOX.

Worse, while we at least have the trapped teen as a last bastion of hope in Suburgatory, I Hate My Teenage Daughter can only offer up the hopeful connection to a kind of dizzy, inept parenting as the potential to positive regard for any of its characters (save the uncle, perhaps). There isn't really anyone to like in the show, there are just varying degrees of schadenfreude at play, mixed with a generous dose of poking fun at the stereotypes available. Then, as they say, hilarity ensues... apparently.

Mind you, this could all well be translated as, "It will be probably do quite well."

Rating: ★★☆☆☆ 

I HATE MY TEENAGE DAUGHTER is a new multi-camera family comedy starring Jaime Pressly and Katie Finneran as single moms, best friends - and former nerds - who fear their privileged and overly indulged daughters are turning out just like the mean girls who picked on them in high school.

ANNIE (Pressly), who was raised in an ultra-strict, über-religious household where she had little-to-no freedom, pretty much allows her daughter, SOPHIE (Kristi Lauren), to do whatever she wants. Annie's best friend NIKKI (Finneran), once an unpopular, overweight social pariah, is now a pretty Southern belle who also allows her daughter, MACKENZIE (Aisha Dee), to do as she pleases.

The moms have given the girls everything they've asked for and everything they never had: clothes, money and self-esteem. The unintended consequence is that they have created two mean girls just like the ones who tortured them years ago.

The series also stars Eric Sheffer Stevens as Annie's ex-husband MATT, who wants to be a good parent, but doesn't know what that even means; Kevin Rahm as Matt's brother JACK, a father figure to Sophie whose meddling would annoy Annie more if she didn't have such a crush on him; and Chad L. Coleman as GARY, Nikki's ex-husband, who also tries to help raise his challenging daughter, but the couple's complicated relationship often makes his involvement more difficult.

As their daughters begin to experience their first high school dances and other life-changing teen events, Annie and Nikki are often reminded of their own tortured adolescent years. But when Sophie and Mackenzie's mean-girl antics cross the line, the moms quickly realize that they must, for the first time, dole out some real punishment and fix what is broken. They have no idea how to do that, but they do know one thing: They can't do it without each other.

RU?

© 2011, Are You Screening?. All rights reserved. Reprinting without express permission of the author is prohibited.

15 years later, Neil Gaiman's Neverwhere has become a cult classic TV series to rival all comers. With a budget and production values that are hard to describe without using the word "laughable," the wild adventure and creative genius shine through to create a wonderful video experience that would otherwise be unwatchable. Even by the standards of the time, the obvious limitations here are mind-boggling.

For the uninitiated, the BBC production follows Richard Mayhew and the adventures that ensue when he happens upon a bleeding girl in the street. The girl, Door, turns out to be from the quasi-magical world of London Below, and Richard finds himself sucked into quite a fine mess that he didn't actually sign up for. Worse, he has no way out of it, because his normal life apparently disappears right from under him, being that his exposure to Door has somehow "London Belowed" him, and "London Abovers" can't even really see him.

Now Richard is going to have to help Door, whether she wants him to or not, and before he's done, he's going to face down the dreaded Beast of London, a pair of bizarre, otherworldly assassins, and an Angel.

As I said, the show is put together using the most modest of budgets, and it shows in every way. Locations are put together as though rented for an hour, and the mighty Beast of London is given to us by way of trying to talk up the fearsomeness and then just not showing the thing. But, here is one of those extremely rare cases where you won't find yourself caring a bit. The mind of Neil Gaiman is at its best here, delivering a uniquely wild tale of Door and her family's murder, and the feints within feints that are revealed as Richard peels more and more layers off this mystery.

You've got to have the right level of ability to disregard such things as the fact that a Flip and a couple of hundred dollars could get you a better look now, but if you can manage it, you're in for a treat.

Fans don't have all that much offered up to them with these release, but there is another commentary track, which means you can now catch the series with the original commentary by Neil Gaiman, or the new one with Gaiman, Lenny Henry, and Clive Brill. Along with a new Intro and Interview, this does add a bit of splash to the new release, but it probably only appeals to serious fans.

The new commentary and interview give you just about everything you could want, as Gaiman and crew revisit the creation of the show, talk endlessly about the humorous events tied to the lack of budget, and even reveal that the film rights have been reacquired. Fans will also love the map of Neverwhere that comes with the DVD, but overall it's tough to call this one a must own. You'll probably want to find a way to check out the commentary, because if there was anyone you ever wanted to listen to as they deconstruct their own work, it's Gaiman, but those who will get the most out of it probably already own Neverwhere.

Below check out a bit more info, some clips, and make sure you enter to win.

In Neverwhere, Richard Mayhew (Gary Bakewell, Chef!) leads an ordinary life in London when one day a girl named Door (Laura Fraser, He Knew He Was Right) falls and injures herself across his path. Door belongs to a different world – London Below – and has come to London Above determined to learn why her parents have been killed. The next thing he knows, Mayhew’s life as he knew it is gone and he's underground, pursued by the murderous messengers. The two attempt to find the Angel Islington, who knows the secret behind the murder of Door's family, and possibly a way for Richard to go home.

 

BONUS FEATURES:

•  15th Anniversary Intro with Neil Gaiman, Lenny Henry and producer Clive Brill
•  15th Anniversary Audio Commentary with Gaiman, Henry and Brill
•  Original Interview with Gaiman
•  Original Audio Commentary with Gaiman
•  Photo Gallery
•  Character Descriptions
•  Neverwhere Map Insert

Win Your Copy Here!

Leave a comment below, and you are automatically entered to win your very own copy of the DVD release.

Winner will be randomly selected on December 10th. U.S. only.

RU?

© 2011, Are You Screening?. All rights reserved. Reprinting without express permission of the author is prohibited.

When undertaking the task of translating the life of a famous historical figure for the purpose of cinema, discounting adventurous "left field" attempts such as Todd Haynes's Bob Dylan biopic I'm Not There, there are basically two approaches to take: the micro and the macro.

The micro approach selects a defining moment in the said protagonist's life and puts it under close scrutiny, so that we may get a better understanding of the man (or woman) through their actions in some crucial period of their life. The macro approach seeks to find an all encompassing view of the human being by tracing their origins (either from birth or some adolescent period), all significant relationships and events in their life, and the legacy left after their death, fashioning an underlying theme to tie together the hero's existence like a pretty ribbon atop a Christmas present.

A great illustration of the micro biopic is Lawrence of Arabia. Although the film does start with his death and funeral, we do not see T.E. Lawrence age before our eyes, nor are we privy to his early childhood or the nature of his relationship with his parents. All we are shown is a particular moment in the man's life (in this case, Lawrence's adventures and delusions in WWI-era Arabia) and his reaction to these events. Any explanation for the man's personality before or after these events is not given.

A prime example of the macro approach is Taylor Hackford's Ray Charles biopic Ray. In Ray, like the Ghost of Christmas Past, we tour Ray's entire life. From his traumatic childhood (including the beginning of his blindness), to his rise to fame, to his drug and womanizing habits, to every important relationship in his life, we watch Ray age until he's an old (and inevitably "wiser") man and make all the rounds on the way there.

By stacking the deck and comparing Lawrence of Arabia to Ray, I'm afraid I've shown my hand in which side of the micro vs. macro debate I'm on. While there are always exceptions, in this humble reviewer's opinion, the micro approach has some undeniable inherent advantages over the macro approach. For one, the macro approach's implied notion that the very essence of a man's life can be summed up in a few key events in the matter of a couple of hours on screen is a bit offensive to someone with existentialist leanings such as myself. The macro approach also tends to have the unintended (at least I think it's unintended) consequence of being patronizing towards its audience, assuming that without being told so, the audience would not be able to draw any thematic resonance through the events of protagonist's life.

The micro approach on the other hand respects its audience enough to let them draw their own conclusions, as well as honoring the subject's life by not boiling down his/her existence to a catch phrase or line of dialogue. Instead it seeks to capture one aspect of the human being honestly, thereby celebrating the individual as a living entity (whether they have passed on or not), instead of memorializing them as some mythical historical creature. This is why it pains me to report that, unfortunately, J. Edgar is firmly in the macro camp.

(L-r) LEONARDO DiCAPRIO as J. Edgar Hoover and ARMIE HAMMER as Clyde Tolson in Warner Bros. Pictures’ drama €œ"J. EDGAR",€ a Warner Bros. Pictures release.

For the historically adverse, J. Edgar Hoover was one of the most powerful individuals in 20th Century America (perhaps the world). The first director of the FBI (previously known as the Bureau of Investigation), Hoover made the FBI into the all-powerful (maybe too powerful) crime fighting machine that it is today. Hoover also revolutionized criminal investigations into the scientific endeavors they have now become. Every CSI and CSI-clone on television owes a debt to J. Edgar Hoover, for it was Hoover who introduced forensic science (including the creation of a centralized fingerprint database) as the modus operandi for all crime scenes.

At the start of the film, we find J. Edgar (Leonardo DiCaprio) an old man at the twilight of his career. Dictating his life's tale in order to carefully manage his legacy even after his death, we flashback to J. Edgar's early days, before he became "J. Edgar". We start with the formative experience of J. Edgar's career, a 1919/1920 Bolshevik "insurrection". Marxist anarchists simultaneously bombed a number of houses belonging to powerful Washington politicians and bureaucrats, as well as shot up a bunch of WWI-veterans during a parade, which gave Hoover his life long goal: destroy all underground Communist currents existing in America. Like a man on a mission from God, Hoover systematically uprooted anarchist rebels and used this success to build the federal police force he had always dreamed of.

The film does a deft job at handling the historical elements, and this is unquestionably when J. Edgar is at its strongest. While Hoover was undoubtedly afflicted with Red Hysteria, there actually existed a serious threat from Marxist rebels at the end of the First World War, and to see a film shine a light on this unexplored part history is quite fascinating. The film also spends a considerable amount of time on the investigation into the kidnapping of the Lindburgh baby, which is another area where the film excels. In these scenes we not only get a strong sense of time and place, but we also get insight into the obsessive and egomaniacal personalty of J. Edgar Hoover that was likely paramount for him to achieve the level of success he did in his illustrious career.

Alas, the film is not satisfied to tell this simple but intriguing story, and chooses to spread itself thin to its own detriment. As with all macro biopics, J. Edgar has an incessant need to capture each and every angle of the life of J. Edgar Hoover, as if the story of a man possessed, building the most powerful and influential police agency in the history of mankind, is somehow incomplete. We get then a film that is not only a historical epic about one man's life's work, but a companion film, a love story, and another creepy mother-son relationship that borders on Norman Bates territory.

(Left) LEONARDO DiCAPRIO as J. Edgar Hoover and NAOMI WATTS (fourth from left) as Helen Gandy in Warner Bros. Pictures’ drama "€œJ. EDGAR,"€ a Warner Bros. Pictures release.

The fact that the film is this scatterbrained is bad enough, but it doesn't help that the non-historical aspects of the movie are terribly executed. The latter half of the film is particularly preoccupied with exploring the relationship between J. Edgar and his right-hand man, Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer). The relationship between these two men is a controversial one, some believing it to be a full-blown homosexual partnership, while others just describe the two as very dear friends. The film pretty much takes the side of the former, portraying the two as sexually repressed partners, but frankly the historical accuracy of their relationship is beside the point.

The film abuses the notoriety of homosexuality in the early 20th Century for its own exploitative purposes, never genuinely delving into details of their complicated relationship, but throwing together a formulaic love story for the simple fact of questioning J. Edgar's sexuality. This abuse culminates in the film's worst scene, taking place shortly after his mother's death. I won't get into the specifics of the scene, but its sanctimonious, melodramatic nature, betraying the intended importance of the scene to the filmmakers, instead comes off as laughably hokey, and even a bit juvenile.

While I'll admit there is some poetic justice to the man who popularized bending the law to see justice served as "Dirty Harry" Callahan directing the film about the man who did the same in real life, J. Edgar Hoover, Clint Eastwood is clearly in over his head with this material. While I admire parts of Eastwood's oeuvre as a director, subtlety has never been his strong suit. Even in his so called masterpiece, Unforgiven, the film's themes are painfully obvious, and the lack of tact in delivery of message is an unforgivable sin in J. Edgar. Eastwood's insistence on well-rounded characters, whose flaws are always explained away from some hardship in their life, is also an annoyance that is a significant setback for the film.

In terms of aesthetics, Eastwood's penchant for working in desaturated colors gives J. Edgar the feel of a gray make-believe dream world. My guess is the decision was made as a guard against potential criticism of anachronism in the film's art direction (as this seems to be a common choice for modern cinematic interpretations of yesteryear), but the result just feels inauthentic. If this trend continues, kids in the future will likely believe that color was an invention of the late 20th Century.

LEONARDO DiCAPRIO as J. Edgar Hoover in Warner Bros. Pictures’ drama "€œJ. EDGAR,"€ a Warner Bros. Pictures release.

The film does have a reliable anchor in its lead performance from Leonardo DiCaprio. It's true that DiCaprio slips in and out of the accent, but acting should first and foremost be about creating a character, not mimicry, and in this department DiCaprio draws you into the world of J. Edgar Hoover. Compared to other performances of famous historical figures, DiCaprio's turn as J. Edgar Hoover will not go down as one the greatest in the history of cinema (it falls short of say Philip Seymour Hoffman as Truman Capote, Robert De Niro as Jake La Motta, or even DiCaprio's own performance as Howard Hughes in Martin Scorsese's The Aviator), but its a solid performance that affirms DiCaprio's spot as one of the best in the business.

As for the rest of the cast, the performances are hit and miss. The actor with most screen time beside DiCaprio is Armie Hammer (famous for his double performance as the Winklevoss twins in last year's The Social Network), and while his performance starts on a high note, as the film progresses and increasingly indulges itself in melodramatic fetishism, Hammer's performance devolves into histrionics. Eastwood is famous for his laid back approach to handling actors, but a little more guidance would have done a world of good in this case.

J. Edgar Hoover had a fascinating life, a life that is inevitably intertwined with history of America. When the film J. Edgar focuses on this history, it's a compelling tale that highlights the positive aspects of the biopic genre, but when the film strays from this narrative, it exemplifies all the worst habits of the genre that give legitimacy to everyone who routinely deride it as "awards bait". I am still convinced a great film about the life of J. Edgar Hoover can be made, but J. Edgar is not that film.

Rating: ★★★½☆ 

RU?

© 2011, Are You Screening?. All rights reserved. Reprinting without express permission of the author is prohibited.

Like all of Alexander Payne's efforts, The Descendants is not so much a question of what happens, but who happens, and the answer is once again related to a man who finds himself uncertain how to proceed due to the cruel and confusing whims of life. Of course, in the end, it is largely about the fact that men, apparently, view most of their manhood as a product of the points at which they draw the line.

Election plays this out with brilliant humor, About Schmidt is almost the antithesis of actually playing this out, but rather stares blankly at the idea for an extended period, and Sideways is a feature-length conversation with a variety of players who discuss repeatedly how this is in ways the summation of men, as opposed to playing it out, not least insofar as Miles is, "not drinking any fucking Merlot."

What makes the man, or at least, this particular man, is where and why he makes his stand. Rolling through the day to day, at what exact point does he say this far, by God, and no farther. Now, as we see from the films and their characters, glorious as the statement may sound, we are talking about regular men here. Not everyone is Braveheart. But every poor sap wants to think there's a man in there somewhere, and they've got to get it from somewhere. There's a voice inside somewhere, however "ordinary," and trivial the act of defiance may seem, that says, "a real man wouldn't take that."

The Descendants, to put yet another spin on things, focuses on Matt King (George Clooney), a man who has yet to meet the place he wants to plant his standard. We meet him at perhaps the worst point in his life he will ever experience, and follow him along for a more or less random amount of time. His thrill-seeking wife was in a boating accident that left her in a coma, and her will demands that the plug be pulled. A busy attorney, he's now left alone to deal with his two daughters, who are both largely out of control. On top of that, he's a descendant of one of the first landowners in Hawaii, and he has to make the decision on what to do with $500 million worth of prime real estate that is held in a trust that must now be dissolved. Most of the cousins want to sell, especially because unlike Matt, they've mostly pissed away the other portions of their inheritance, but a few of them want to hold onto the pristine land, despite the fact that the law says the trust has to be dissolved within seven years.

You might think all that was enough, but just as Matt is beginning to deal with the fact that his wife is going to die, he learns that she's been cheating on him, and was on the verge of asking for a divorce before her accident.

Now Matt has deal with a large extended family, including his father-in-law who isn't quiet about blaming Matt for his daughter's death, while trying to decide what to do with his family's land. While he's at it, he now wants to get a look at the guy his wife was thinking of leaving him for. And, this is all only the immediate course for Matt, because he has to figure out how to make some kind of peace with his daughters.

We quickly come to understand that Matt's marriage has been a bit rocky for some time, perhaps largely due to his focus on his work. Despite having rather a large sum of money to draw on, he has chosen only to live on his salary as a lawyer. He likes the view his father had on the subject, which is that he wants to give his kids enough money to do something, but not enough to do nothing.

We get the view of the home life down before we've even realized we were trying. Matt's gone a lot on business, and his wife, whose life is really only given to us by way of the bits that lead us to understand she was a thrill-seeker, was less than fulfilled raising two daughters with a husband who wasn't around all that often. That's too simplistic, of course, and we learn that the key to describing Matt King comes from the fact that when all is said and done, he subscribes to the idea that avoiding conflict is the surest road to avoiding conflict. His daughters swear in front of him, and he clearly has little idea what reaction he's supposed to have to it, and besides, it's already over, why confront the situation? He wants to sell the land, or so he says, but only because everyone else does.

When they track down the house of his wife's lover, his daughter asks him what he's going to do when he sees him (or you going to yell, or punch him, or what?), and he hasn't the first clue what he's going to do. He not only has no idea what he might do in the normal sense that anyone might say that they don't know what they'll do, but he is also swimming in waters so far off his own charts, that he really can hardly imagine who he even is in searching for the lover in the first place.

The description might lead some to read Matt as a coward, and I think nothing could be further from the truth. I suspect there is little that would scare him at all actually, and he is most often making the brave and difficult choices when pushed, even just in that he doesn't give his father-in-law a nice what's what session.

No, the thing here (if indeed there is any thing here) is simply that men seem to find their sense of self in those moments when life and circumstances try to take one step too far. The Descendants is ultimately only a question about what happens if we have a man whose primary tenet is, "Why would I go down that dark alley?" If he draws his line now, how the hell will he manage it, unlearned and unpracticed as he is?

The problem for the film is that there is something inherently distancing about this approach to the overall discussion, and while the film is beautiful and unquestionably interesting, it doesn't manage the level of connection that Payne's other films seem to perfect almost without effort. There's a certain backdrop of, "Are you a man, or a mouse," at play, with certain obvious answers about what we're watching coming to the fore at different points, and the closer we get to Matt King, the further we get from him.

It's a shame, because you feel like you want to get more from the effort even as you're watching it, but it's biggest appeal in truly getting your attention is by way of the fact that it is so shockingly average. Still, average Payne is better than a lot of other things.

Rating: ★★★½☆ 

RU?

© 2011, Are You Screening?. All rights reserved. Reprinting without express permission of the author is prohibited.

Alright superfans of A Christmas Story, I've got news for you. You can win a trip to the real A Christmas Story House in Cleveland, Ohio, with a VIP Chinese dinner included. The contest, available at www.AChristmasStoryScene.com calls for you to recreate a scene from the film (see an example below).

You don't want to miss your chance here, because I've been there, and it's fantastic. I even met Ian Petrella while I was there, and he's going to be the celebrity judge of the contest. Check out more info below, and get those creative juices flowing.

Warner Bros. Consumer Products, invites everyone to get into the holiday spirit by recreating their favorite scene from the classic holiday comedy, A Christmas Story, with the “A Christmas Story: I TRIPLE DOG DARE YOU! Video Contest.” The contest features celebrity judge Ian Petrella, who starred as the lovable and hilarious Randy Parker, Ralphie’s younger brother, in the film and will give fans the chance to win the ultimate A Christmas Story experience.

Fans can enter at www.AChristmasStoryScene.com. Contestants must recreate and film their favorite scenes from A Christmas Story for a chance to win a trip to the real A Christmas Story House in Cleveland, Ohio, with a VIP Chinese dinner included! Fans can upload their creations onto YouTube and submit the links to the contest site.

RU?

© 2011, Are You Screening?. All rights reserved. Reprinting without express permission of the author is prohibited.