Says Wachtel, “We know the web series medium is not the most popular. But to date there has never been a serialized, online show about the entertainment industry created by the insiders themselves. We want this to be branded as a show made by Hollywood assistants, for Hollywood assistants. And because we want to direct in the future, this is a way we can hone our skills and stay busy. Anyone can make a short film – why not make many short films, and make them for a specific audience?”

The series is expected to satirize many fixtures in Hollywood – the producers are taking liberties with the humor and are apparently not concerned with how offensive the show may be at times. The first episode is said to feature a mockery of Michael Bay.

Wachtel and Copeland plan to release episode 1 entitled “The Voice” online October 2nd, which is the anniversary of the first ever airing of Rod Serling’s “The Twilight Zone” television series. The two see this as a fitting homage to a filmmaker who gave them inspiration for their own series. Wachtel sees serialized entertainment as an asset to companies like Funny or Die, College Humor, Break.com and even Deadline.com who rely so heavily on relevant content. His short term goal is to co-produce Season 2 of the series with said companies while pooling from their access to celebrity talent. Wachtel and Copeland are looking to involve as many entertainment professionals as possible in the process.

Follow the show on Twitter @The30MileZone or “Like” The Thirty Mile Zone on Facebook for news and updates.

Ed Helms in "The Hangover: Part II"

Everything about this new script is just plain lazy. A monkey was substituted in for a tiger. Gunshot wounds replaced tazer wounds. A tattoo on Stu’s face took the place of his previous dental deformity. Alan’s roofies were switched out with muscle relaxers and ADHD medication. Justin Bartha’s character was once again a plot device – why isn’t he allowed to have fun with the other guys? Oh that’s right, he’s not funny. The film itself wasn’t all that funny. Ok it was kind of funny. Sort of. So-so. Isn’t it frustrating how the film never lives up to the buzz? That being said, the film will likely creep towards $1 billion international grosses. So tell me, how long will this already franchise drag on? I’m guessing it’ll make it to seven films. The eighth will be straight-to-DVD.

Kevin Smith speaks about his film "Red State" at Sundance 2011.

In what distributors considered a self-aggrandizing, eulogistic rant, Smith snubbed buyers when he revealed at this year’s Sundance Film Festival that his new film Red State wasn’t even up for sale. He has instead decided to release the film on his own on the 17th anniversary of his 1994 Clerks release. Emphasizing a reactionary approach to indie filmmaking, Smith explained how he believed his film would generate more profit if distributed by himself and without the burden and price-tag of involving a studio.

“It’s not enough to just make the movie. We have to learn how to release the movie because true independence isn’t making a film and selling it to some jackass. True independence is schlepping that shit to the people yourself. And that’s what I intend to do.” At this point of Smith’s speech, most of the crowd welcomed his words with a lengthy applause while others (namely distributors) felt slighted and prematurely walked out.

Smith is convinced that if his film can successfully generate a profit without the middle-man distributor, that he will open the doors for the masses to bring their films to a theater near you without the requirement of having deep pockets. The question then becomes, is it appropriate or even wise for the designated entertainees to take part in the actual entertainment that is intended for themselves. This is a little bit of a Haily Mary for Smith, that will either leave him looking like a genius or a fool. We’ll check back later to see how his plan holds.

Charlie Wachtel is a Senior Writer for The Film Crusade and Founder of www.filmcrusade.com.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Leonardo DiCaprio in "Inception."

It’s easy to credit the American movie-going public with having the highest theatrical IQ of anyone in the world. Yet somehow whenever a Christopher Nolan movie hits theaters, that all seems to change.  And then all of a sudden, routine movie-goers magically turn into amateur movie critics, declaring films like Inception to be the cinematic equivalent to the messiah. Professional critics themselves search for reasons to boldly resurrect Christopher Nolan in all his glory as the Pied Piper of Hamelin, leading us through the dark annals of Michael Bay’s 21st Century Hollywood nightmare. “Hallelujah for Christopher Nolan! The most brilliant filmmaker in the history of worldwide cinema.”

More like the most brilliant illusionist. Chris Nolan’s movies (and this discussion can exclude Memento, which I think most can agree is a fantastic and sensible film) have a strange power of turning theater-goers’ brains into mush, convincing them that what they have just seen is better than any imaginable vision of heaven. I bet this all sounds pretentious–and to some extent I hope it does. Because taking the stance I’m taking may be the only way to get people to see the same thing that I’m seeing. Which is that post-Memento Nolan is a talentless hack who pulls the same brainwashing gimmicks from film to film.

It really is as if viewers are dreaming under a hypnotic Chris Nolan spell when they watch his movies, disabling the functionality of their brains once the credits start rolling. Equally baffled by this is David Edelstein of NY Magazine who “truly [has] no idea what so many people are raving about,” claiming that “it’s as if someone went into their heads while they were sleeping and planted the idea that Inception is a visionary masterpiece.” In fact, so many critics are in overwhelming agreement over the greatness of Inception that Roger Ebert questions whether or not anyone is allowed to disagree!

Working hard? Or hardly working?

Addressing Nolan’s struggles at making sense of his own script, Movie Line critic Stephanie Zacharek admits that “Because Nolan can’t connect his visuals, he has to use words, and lots of them, to let us know what characters are doing and why we should care.” This is why 99% of the film serves an expository purpose.  Zacharek further remarks that Nolan’s lifelong reliance on Hans Zimmer’s score as a means for anchoring our interest into what we’re seeing on-screen makes Nolan less fit for “directing” and better suited for “directing traffic.” No truer statement.

The musical cues tell us when we should feel anxious or afraid instead of allowing the visuals and emotions of the film to achieve this (which clearly they’re incapable of doing). Hans Zimmer’s score (which, eyes-closed, pleases the ears) is so heavily relied upon by the incompetent Nolan that the entire film plays a 2.5 hour+ non-stop musical track. The track even plays during exposition. It plays throughout everything. Remove this track and I promise you that each person steps out of the theater complaining how much of a bore Inception was.

Adds Zacharek, “If the career of Christopher Nolan is any indication, we’ve entered an era in which movies can no longer be great. They can only be awesome, which isn’t nearly the same thing.” From this I take the following: Special Effects and visual imagery now supersede quality stories with competent scripts and technically-sound directing. Avatar brought new meaning to this. The Coen Brothers, Martin Scorsese and PT Anderson among others are continually working against this.

Inception is a great concept for a movie. But the movie itself serves as little more than a misinformed psychoanalytical instruction manual with little to no story or characters worth investing emotions in. Sure we find it cool. Some of the visuals are candy to the eyes. But I can’t help but think about how much of a rip Inception is off The Matrix. If I had to rename Inception, it would be “The Matrix (for dummies).” Have we no sense of recent film history to pick up on this? Every little thing that happens in Inception has to be explained. Nothing is left to the imagination. The whole reality vs. the dream world concept is recycled for the worse.

One false notion is that Inception is confusing because it’s “supposed to be”–it is a mind-bender after all. No! Inception is confusing because it makes absolutely no sense! Let’s stop giving the director credit for not doing his homework instead of making excuses for him. Nolan has done a poor job of creating his story and a poorer job of defining the boundaries of the story’s world. Rex Reed of the New York Observer agrees, adding that “[nothing] adds up to one iota of cogent or convincing logic. You never know who anyone is, what their goals are, who they work for or what they’re doing.” These are things which must be addressed. Moviegoers habitually give credit to directors like Nolan for “blowing their minds” when in fact the sum never adds up to all of its parts.

Let’s talk the whole “Dream within a dream” nonsense. Dream-themed films such as The Matrix, Total Recall, Strange Days, Dreamscape and even the original A Nightmare on Elm Street define the rules of their worlds well enough without relying too much on exposition. Having dreams within dreams within dreams within dreams is not a calculated strategy of Nolan’s, but rather a cop-out. The 2010 version of A Nightmare on Elm Street uses the same strategy. It’s technically acceptable to use this strategy so long as there is an indication that one dream has ended and the next one has begun.

The story-line is laughable and seems to only serve the hollow purpose of making the $160 million + summer psych-thriller into a run-of-the-mill Bourne Identity-like actioner. In the disastrous disaster flick 2012 we had something “on-the-line” to worry about: hello? the end of the world?” With Inception the value of the story is so insignificant and the characters so flat that there’s nothing to invest in emotionally.

Casting-wise, Inception is an utter mess, reminding us that Ellen Page is still Juno and Joseph Gordon-Levitt is ultimately too boyish for the big screen to be the next leading man outside of an art film (Shia Lebouf is doing an ok job and he’s five years younger!) As much as we all embrace post-Titanic Leo DiCaprio, his typecast is becoming a nuisance at this stage of the game and he’s simply overexposed. Michael Caine’s presence in this movie is a complete joke and another reminder of Nolan’s recent Batman blunders. And listening to Ken Watanabe is like trying to guess the English translation of R2D2’s dialogue in Star Wars.

So no people. I will not see Inception an additional time to have my “mind blown” or to try and see if I actually “get it.” I get it completely and I hate it. I got The Book of Eli and I hated that as well. Films which we need to see more than once are more often than not failures from the get-go. Inception is no exception. If you care to see Memento more than once then I encourage it.  The movie makes sense and the story is told purposefully and brilliantly. But come on now. It’s about time to start lambasting Chris Nolan and seeing the rest of his movies for what they really are: garbage in disguise.

Charlie Wachtel is a Senior Writer for The Film Crusade and Founder of www.filmcrusade.com.