Poster courtesy of Wikimedia user Dhialokaaaa.

The Contenders:  Demian Bichir – A Better Life, George Clooney – The Descendants, Jean Dujardin – The Artist, Gary Oldman – Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Brad Pitt – Moneyball

The Front Runner: The Artist, yet again, leads the race for Oscar glory with Jean Dujardin’s electric performance as George Valentin in one of this year’s best films. So far, he’s won the Best Actor title from the Screen Actor’s Guild, the Golden Globes, as well as at Cannes–so it looks like he’s a shoo-in for taking home the prize on Oscar night. And Dujardin rightly deserves his accolades as well–he managed to make us laugh, cry and cheer for him all without uttering a single word. He was both charismatic and emotive, and the fact that he was able to do so silently makes his performance even more of a triumph. The only thing going against him is that he not well known in the United States and he’s up against three huge Hollywood names. I doubt that this will hold him back very much, though.

Worth Mentioning: The biggest competition Dujardin will have is George Clooney with his role as Matt King, a man living in Honolulu who is about to lose his wife. An Academy darling, many thought Clooney was going to be the one to win the Oscar this year until Dujardin exploded onto the scene. In comparison to Dujardin, Clooney’s performance is more subdued (although there was one pretty tear-jerking scene towards the end of The Descendants that is worth applauding) so he is most likely going to be edged out of the competition this year. Nonetheless, Clooney played his role well and deserves his nomination.

Jean Dujardin is this year's front runner for the Best Actor prize. | Photo courtesy of JJ Georges via Wikimedia Commons

Probably Not Going to Win: People say third time’s the charm, but this probably isn’t the case for three time Oscar-nominee Brad Pitt. That’s not to say that his performance in Moneyball isn’t good (he turned what could have been a relatively mundane baseball movie into something quite touching), but Dujardin and Clooney are going to eclipse him. The same goes for Gary Oldman for Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and Demian Bichir in A Better Life. Oldman is long overdue for an Oscar, but Tinker was low on the Oscar radar and he will most likely be passed over for another person on the nomination list. The same goes for Bichir. The Academy seems to like reserving a spot for actors in lesser-known films (like Javier Bardem in Biutiful last year), so it’s unlikely he will win. All of this Academy exposure can only do his career good, and it looks like he’ll get something out of the Oscars anyway.

Snubs Galore: The Best Actor category this year has its fair share of snubs, including Ryan Gosling, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Michael Fassbender. Gosling was a triple threat, with three critically acclaimed hits this year (Drive, The Ides of March, and Crazy, Stupid, Love), so it’s kind of frustrating that he didn’t get nominated for any one of those performances. While J. Edgar wasn’t exactly a hit in the critics’ circles, most can agree that DiCaprio’s role as the notorious J. Edgar Hoover was powerful and convincing. But perhaps the biggest snub of all in this category goes to Michael Fassbender as a sex addicted New Yorker in Shame . Maybe it was the NC-17 rating that was just a bit too racy for the Academy, but it’s a pity that this up-and-coming talent didn’t even get a nomination.

Nomination Speculation: Best Picture by Ruth Chan

Nomination Speculation: Best Director by Ruth Chan

QuadFilm Picks the Oscars: Best Actor by Ruth Chan

Tim Heidecker in Tim and Eric's Billion Dollar Movie | Photo courtesy of Magnet Releasing

“Tim and Eric’s Billion Dollar Movie” is the duo’s deranged, outrageous, and altogether awkward foray into feature-length film. Heidecker and Wareheim play versions of themselves that have been granted $1 billion by the “Schlaaang Corp.” to make a film. When the financiers learn that the production can’t afford to span longer than four minutes due to other expenses like diamond suits and spiritual guidance from the guru Jim Joe (Zach Galafianakis), Tim and Eric must escape vengeful Hollywood executives while trying to earn back the misspent cash. They do so by taking the administrative reins of a struggling mall in “S’Wallow Valley” from its seedy owner (Will Ferrell).

It’s an amusing premise, but the proceeding fiasco is surprisingly mundane. Hunting wolves, stealing children, slicing throats, hosing down vagrants, delivering corporate presentations, taking “brown baths,” and finding true love is somewhat bland in comparison to Tim and Eric’s television material. Cameos from Galifianakis, Ferrell, John C. Reilly, and Will Forte are unexceptional. Jokes feel scripted. The movie seems cramped by its own story and genre.

In the “Awesome Show” world, much of the humor comes from the presentation: a ludicrously drawn-out transition, a freeze-frame of a face mid-sneeze, a poorly delivered line reinforced with subtitles. It’s this calculated shoddiness surrounding the Tim and Eric universe that makes its absurd content so funny. But when strung out over a feature film, even the more bizarre elements of “Billion Dollar Movie” fall flat. Hackneyed tropes (poop jokes, weird voices, wacky names) might be good if they were packaged in their usual camp, detached style. But, unlike in “Awesome Show,” shoddiness isn’t immediately part of the joke.

That’s not to say the film isn’t funny in parts. The opening sequence, for instance, had me in stitches — a man named Chef Goldblum (played with hilarious repose by Jeff Goldblum), explains to audience members how to use their “Schlaaang Super Seat” in preparation for the following feature. The chair, he says, optimizes a user’s viewing experience through odorous vapors, widely spread foot stirrups, a handy built-in popcorn machine, and a mystery fluid that’s injected intravenously. Once settled, viewers “synchronize” with the film by staring directly at the screen and blinking their eyes rapidly. Such diversions from story-telling show Tim and Eric at their finest.

Recently, on the social news website Reddit, someone asked the directors how they might direct without any financial or legal constraints. Heidecker responded, “Sometimes censors and budgets are good. They create boundaries that help you define what you do.” The boundaries of a full-length comedy film are clearly much different from a ten-minute spot on Adult Swim. Regrettably, it feels a little bit like Tim and Eric have gone off course in their new setting.

“Tim and Eric’s Billion Dollar Movie” is currently available to stream on YouTube, iTunes, and On Demand. In theaters March 2.

‘The Greatest Movie Ever Sold’ Review: The Greatest Review Ever Written? by Monica Castillo

‘Moneyball’ Review: A Sports Movie About Why Math Is Important by Liishi Durbin

‘The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1′ Review: Taking the Idea of Bad Movie to a New Extreme by Gabriela Fernandez

Poster courtesy of Dhialokaaaa via Wikimedia Commons.

The Contenders:  Michel Hazanavicius – The Artist, Alexander Payne – The Descendants, Martin Scorsese – Hugo, Woody Allen – Midnight in Paris, Terrance Malick – The Tree of Life

The Front Runner: This is a pretty solid bet–Michel Hazanavicius is most definitely the front runner in this category. While there is a lot of love for Hugo, there is no question that The Artist will take home the prize. Even if The Artist doesn’t tick all of the Academy’s boxes for “Oscar Winner” (it is a silent period piece with beautiful costumes that is set in Hollywood’s Golden Age), Hazanavicius has managed to distinguish The Artist from all the other nominees by creating a modern film using bygone methods, one which manages to breathe some fresh air into the category. Hazanavicius also won the Directors’ Guild’s Best Director prize, which is further proof that he will most likely take home the little gold man this February. What’s more, The Artist is the most likely to win Best Picture. Historically, the two categories have been closely linked together.

Worth Mentioning: Even though The Artist will most likely take home the prize, Martin Scorsese’s Hugo is a directorial triumph that has earned its place on the list of nominees. With its lavish and beautifully directed story that manages to intersect childhood fantasy with a melancholic touch, it is a different side to Scorsese that audiences haven’t seen from him. Instead of his usual adult-orientated films, his family friendly fantasy is an intricately designed, almost Harry Potter-esque film that is infused with the Lumière brothers’ whimsical influence. All in all, it is a great film that is worthy of a prize.

Hugo was great, but it probably won't win. | Photo courtesy of Paulae via Wikimedia Commons

Probably Won’t Win: That just leaves Alexander Payne’s The Descendants, Woody Allen’s Midnight in Paris and Terrance Malick’s The Tree of Life. All three are examples of great filmmaking, but on Oscar night they most likely will not take home the prize. Having said that, the directors’ efforts should not be overlooked. Alexander Payne makes his film visually lush with the Hawaiian setting, managing to adeptly capture the natural beauty of the area. Likewise, Woody Allen captures Paris in all its romantic glory, making viewers swoon under the charm of the French capitol. While Terrence Malick’s The Tree of Life is not the most conventional of films and at times is even a little confusing, his direction provides the film with visually stunning sequences of the origins of the world.

Snubs Galore: The five directors on the list are all worthy of the Oscar this year, but where are Steven Spielberg, David Fincher and Nicolas Winding Refn? Spielberg is having a tough Oscar year with two snubs, first for being left off of the Best Director list for War Horse, and second for The Adventures of Tintin not making the Best Animated Film category. David Fincher (The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo) was nominated for a Directors’ Guild Award along with the five Best Director nominees but was ultimately left off of the Oscar list. And what about Nicolas Winding Refn? He won the Best Director award at Cannes and has received lots of positive attention for Drive, so why isn’t he on the list? In a perfect world, there would be more than five nominees in the Best Director category.

Nomination Speculation: Best Picture by Ruth Chan

Nomination Speculation: Best Actor by Ruth Chan

QuadFilm Picks the Oscars: Best Director by Kelly Gallagher

The Contenders: Hugo, The Artist, The Descendants, Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close, The Help, Moneyball, Midnight in Paris, The Tree of Life, War Horse

Who will take home the prize? | Poster courtesy of Wikimedia user Dhialokaaaa.

The Front Runner: It’s a tough one this year, folks. Hugo leads the race with 11 nominations and The Artist is just behind with 10, so it’s a very close call. However, if The Artist winning a Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture in Comedy or Musical is anything to go by, it might just be the one to edge out Hugo. The Artist is also a very refreshing movie – a modern-day silent film that’s filmed in glorious black and white, without a touch of 3-D to be seen anywhere. While Hugo is a spectacular film that allowed Martin Scorsese to pay homage to the art of film, The Artist does the same thing by reinventing something from the past, modernizing it, and making it enjoyable to current audiences – and that is very impressive indeed.

Worth Mentioning: There are a lot of good films on the Best Picture list, and almost all of the other nominations are worth a view, if not a vote towards winning an Oscar. The Descendants was angsty, touching, and sometimes very funny, made all the better with its tropical island setting. War Horse was a sweeping and emotional epic about a horse that survives against all odds. As a period piece, The Help is a character-fueled drama that manages to both appall and entertain. Midnight in Paris is Woody Allen’s utterly charming love letter to Paris. Moneyball made baseball more than just a sport, infusing it with sentiment and sharpness. Even with The Tree of Life, which managed to polarize critics at Cannes last year, one cannot deny the how beautifully shot the film was, despite its strange storyline and sometimes slow pacing. All in all, it is a good list that deftly encompasses some of the best films of 2011.

Probably Won’t Win: Perhaps the only film that is odd in the list is Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close. Many considered it a long shot for getting nominated and, in some strange turn of events, it now stands a chance to win the Academy’s highest honor. Standing with a paltry 48% on Rotten Tomatoes, most critics seem to agree that even though it has a story that is worth telling, it was poorly executed and schlocky. There is no surer bet than that this film will not be winning the Oscar this year.

The Verdict: The Artist will most likely be taking home the prize on Oscar night. Wouldn’t it be cool to see a silent film win an Academy Award in the 21st century?

Nomination Speculation: Best Director by Ruth Chan

Nomination Speculation: Best Actor by Ruth Chan

QuadFilm Picks the Oscars: Best Picture by Monica Castillo

The plot of The Adventures of Tintin is a combination of three original stories from the series: The Crab with the Golden Claws, The Secret of the Unicorn, and Red Rackham’s Treasure. The film opens with Tintin (Jamie Bell), an intrepid young journalist, browsing in an outdoor flea market. He stumbles upon a model of an old ship called the Unicorn. Immediately after he purchases it, Tintin is approached by a sinister man called Ivan Ivanovitch Sakharine (Daniel Craig) and a mysterious American, both of whom try to buy the model off of Tintin without success. His curiosity sufficiently piqued, Tintin starts to look into the background of the Unicorn, and finds that the real ship belonged to the Haddock family. Tintin returns home to find that his apartment has been ransacked and the model ship is missing. Soon afterwards, Tintin is kidnapped and trapped on a ship by Sakharine, who has commandeered Captain Archibald Haddock’s (Andy Serkis) vessel in an attempt to find the long lost Haddock family treasure. What follows is 107 minutes of globe-trotting, Indiana Jones-esque adventure full of intrigue as Tintin tries to put together all the pieces of the mystery with the help of the perpetually drunk Captain Haddock and his ever loyal dog, Snowy.

What smacks one right in the face is how good the animation is. Everything is rendered in extraordinary detail – the nooks and crannies of the model boat, Tintin’s hair ruffling in the wind, every fleck of dusk floating in the midday sun  – it all looks so real that one can’t be sure whether it’s an animated film or a live-action film. The 3D technology helps contribute a sense of fullness and realism to the film without making one’s eyes hurt. Spielberg has also given a period look to the whole film, enhancing the nostalgia for those familiar with the Tintin series.

Poster courtesy of Paramount Pictures and Columbia Pictures

Having never read Tintin before isn’t a problem, because the screenplay (written by Britain’s Steven Moffat, Edgar Wright and Joe Cornish) weaves together three of Hergé’s stories and creates a whole new plot that everyone can understand, without alienating people who are already fans of the series. It’s hard not to get swept up in all of the action that never slows down. The audience is propelled from one country to the next at a breakneck speed, tagging along with Tintin as he goes on his epic adventure and rooting for him all the way.

The Adventures of Tintin isn’t just an animated film for children, because it is sophisticated enough to be called one of Spielberg’s finest. Spielberg made the right choice when he chose to use animation rather than live action, because he infuses a number of elaborate and wholly enjoyable chase scenes that could have never been achieved through live-action. The cinematography during one such scene in a town in North Africa shows Spielberg’s excellent execution of a brilliantly conceived scene. He seamlessly brings Tintin from a palace on the top of a hill, down into the market below, and into the air in an airplane in a spectacularly choreographed scene that never loses its pacing. Tintin does some pretty amazing feats of human strength that, if it were film with real actors, would lack the grace and elegance of an animated version of the same scene.

The cast provides impressive voices to the characters, especially Andy Serkis as Captain Haddock, who is essentially a functioning alcoholic. He is egotistical, defeated, manic and hilarious all at the same time, helping Tintin uncover his family’s secret as much as he wants to find out himself. Daniel Craig is sufficiently slimy as the evil Sakharine, whose own family history has crossed paths with the Haddocks, and who now wants to seek revenge. Helping Tintin in the sidelines are twin detectives Thompson and Thompson (voiced by British comedic duo Simon Pegg and Nick Frost of Shaun of the Dead fame), who are inadvertently hilarious due to their monumental incompetence. None of these colorful characters draw away from Jamie Bell’s Tintin, however, who brings a liveliness and curiosity to the character. Rounding out the cast is Snowy, Tintin’s clever and almost human-like dog, who also raises the film’s overall cute level.

The Adventures of Tintin is a great adventure film that will be enjoyed by the whole family. It is a thrilling romp of a movie that does great service to the original source material, while bringing a fresh touch to a long-running and cherished series.

Grade: A

Promotional poster courtesy of New Line Cinema

New Year’s Eve is right around the corner, and what better way to celebrate than by going to see it celebrated in a movie? The film New Year’s Eve, directed by Garry Marshall, is almost identical to his film Valentine’s Day (anyone else sensing a theme?), complete with shallow story-lines, sappy-sweet endings and a large all-star cast. While the movie certainly won’t be winning any prizes for original material, the movie still manages to bring all that anyone would expect and would want out of such a film.

The movie starts off with a dowdy Michelle Pfeiffer, who is clearly having a bad day. Deciding her life is in desperate need of a change, she quits her job. After all, what’s a better way to bring in the New Year than with a fresh start? Assisted by an annoying yet lovable Zac Efron, Pfeiffer spends the rest of the movie crossing off resolutions one by one as the clock winds down to midnight.

This is just one of the many story lines featured in the film. Josh Duhamel searches for a once-met love, Abigail Breslin strains against her mother Sarah Jessica Parker for a little freedom, and a heart-wrenching Robert De Niro holds onto his one remaining wish, and Hilary Swank charms the audience with a beautiful speech about the meaning of New Year’s, bringing a tear and a smile to even the most cynical in the audience.

These are amongst many other cliché story lines, all featuring big-name actors. The movie entangles so many different plot lines; it does not leave much room for character development. Still, with its heart-warming messages, the movie manages to surpass its poor script.

No question, New Year’s Eve is the perfect movie to enjoy with friends, family and loved ones. Filled with beautiful shots of New York City, the visuals in the film are well-shot and show off how lovely New York can be. The film’s soundtrack is well-selected to compliment each scene, which helps generate even more warm feelings. Like movies Valentine’s Day and Love Actually, New Year’s Eve shoots for lovable romantic comedy and hits a bull’s-eye. Overall, New Year’s Eve is a fun and clichéd film, featuring many favorite stars. The story-lines are funny, even if they lack some depth, and the movie manages to faithfully channel the spirit of the holidays.

Grade: B+

‘Carnage’ Review: Short, Satisfying, And Not So Sweet by Ruth Chan

‘The Three Musketeers’ Review: All for What? by Ruth Chan

The Obscure Film: The Shop Around the Corner (1940)

This 1940 classic film can probably be known as “the other James Stewart Christmas film.” The Shop Around the Corner follows no-nonsense Alfred Kralik (James Stewart), a lonely shop clerk who works in a gift store in Budapest. One day, Klara Novak (Margaret Sullavan) walks in the store, asking for a job. She is immediately hired by the store’s owner, Hugo Matuschek (Frank Morgan) and Alfred and Klara quickly become rivals. Unbeknownst to them however, they are each other’s pen pals, and have been slowly falling in love with each other through their correspondence. In real life they remain oblivious to each other’s real identity and continue to bicker and fight.

Known for his wit and playfulness, director Ernst Lubitsch infuses The Shop Around the Corner with his trademark “Lubitsch touch.” The whole film is both charming and very humorous at the same time (there is a subplot concerning novelty cigar boxes that Matuschek wants to stock but no one will actually buy), as the narrative glides along in a leisurely way. As with most romances, it is more about the process of getting together rather than the moment that they get together. Lubitsch gives this screwball rom-com his usual graceful treatment, and it makes for a nice change from the usual It’s a Wonderful Life reruns on TV.

And here’s a fun fact: 1998’s You’ve Got Mail with Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks was based off of The Shop Around the Corner, but with a digital age twist.

The Comedy: Elf (2003)

Elf is one of those films that appeals to everyone’s inner child. When Buddy (Will Farrell) was just a child, he accidentally crawled into Santa’s sack as he was delivering presents to an orphanage. Having grown up as a elf learning all the tricks of the trade from his Papa Elf (Bob Newhart), Buddy has never questioned why he is so different from his fellow merry workers. Turns out though, Buddy is not very good at making toys, and there isn’t much for him to do in the North Pole, so Papa Elf tells him the truth about his real family: his mother Susan has died, but his biological father, Walter, works at a children’s book company in New York. Buddy then sets out for New York City, and gets into all kinds of adventures with his newfound family and Jovie (Zooey Deschanel), a girl he befriends at Gimbel’s and later falls in love with. Full of light-hearted comedy, Elf has a kind of purity that makes it a perfect Christmas staple. Will Farrell puts on a memorable and hilarious performance as the wide-eyed Buddy, making Elf a delightful Christmas comedy that can be enjoyed by both the young and the young at heart.

The Drama: Scrooge (1951)

Everyone knows the story: Ebenezer Scrooge, a lonely, bitter miser is given a chance to change his selfish ways on Christmas Eve when he is confronted by three ghosts in Charles Dickens’ classic tale of redemption. For even the most hard-hearted of cynics, the story can’t help but make us smile at the end of the film when Scrooge finally sees the error of his ways and becomes a man who embodies the spirit of Christmas.

Poster Courtesy of United Artists

With so many adaptations of this famous Christmas tale, why is this particular version worth watching? The best answer for this is Alastair Sim’s exceptional performance as Scrooge. His transformation from tight-wadded cheapskate to a happy, generous man is a delight to watch. At his most despicable, you want to slap the man for being so cruel, but he makes up for it at the end with his infectious glee. This is also one of the most accurate adaptations of Dickens’ novel and at 86 minutes, it is compact enough to not make it slow and cumbersome to watch. If anyone needs a reminder of the true spirit of Christmas, Scrooge is the film for them.

The Animated Film: A Charlie Brown Christmas (1965)

For movie viewers disillusioned with the over-commercialization of Christmas, A Charlie Brown Christmas will help those who are looking for the true meaning of Christmas to regain their love for the holidays. Charlie Brown, who becomes depressed over his friends’ obsession with holiday gifts, tries to discover what Christmas really means by directing the school play about the Nativity. After becoming increasingly frustrated when his friends only want to use modern music and dance in the play, Charlie Brown sets out to find a Christmas tree to get them all in the “proper mood.” There, he finds many big, shiny aluminum trees, but decides to go for the only real tree there, even though it is small and slightly pathetic. His friends make fun of him for choosing such an ugly tree, but they soon realize how harsh they were on Charlie Brown and ends the film with a rousing chorus of “Hark! The Herald Angels Sing.”

Not only does A Charlie Brown Christmas help remind us all of what Christmas is really about, it is also a great dose of nostalgia for people who have watched Charlie Brown and the gang in their childhood. It is a clever short film that thematically, is a lot more grown up than it seems. This is a classic short that will never get old, and deserves a viewing every holiday season.

The Foreign Film: Joyeux Noël (2005)

A film about World War I probably isn’t something that would spring into mind when thinking about holiday films, but Joyeux Noël actually carries a great Christmas message. A sweeping historical film that portrays the unofficial truce of December 1914, the story is told through the eyes of French, Scottish and German soldiers as, for one evening, the fighting is put on hold and they are able to join together to celebrate Christmas.

Joyeux Noël is filled with anti-war sentiment, and does so through the camaraderie of a group of enemy soldiers, that, if the context of war was taken away, could be friends. Even amidst the bloodshed of war, they are able to bond over Christmas carols and champagne, showing the universality of humanity. For a short moment in time, the fact that they are all human beings transcends any notion of country and culture. None of them regret what took place on Christmas Eve, even under the threat of punishment because for one night the goodness of humanity outweighed the bad. The film does veer into sentimentality at times, but the poignant message helps make up for the occasional sappiness. As a war film, it is deftly shot and realistically portrayed and it is further bolstered by a strong cast that does justice to a momentous moment in history.

The Romance: Love Actually (2003)

Poster Couresty of Universal Pictures

Written by Britain’s leading rom-com funny man Richard Curtis (of Four Weddings and a Funeral, Bridget Jones’s Diary, and Notting Hill fame), Love Actually features an ensemble British cast and follows ten different interweaving romantic stories set in the chaotic five weeks leading up to Christmas. Each story touches upon a different aspect of love – friendship, family, young love, old love, married love, unrequited love, and love at first sight, to name a few – and how it affects all of them during the holiday season.

Love Actually is a romantic comedy on drugs. The audience gets ten times the amount of romance in a single film, but it never gets overwhelming or confusing. Curtis imbues all of his films with his characteristic quirky touch, and Love Actually isn’t any different. It is heartfelt throughout, but it never crosses the line into cheesy and has a great balance of serious passion and aloof comedic relief. Love Actually isn’t just a great romantic film, but it’s also a great Christmas film. Grab a significant other (or, for single people, it doesn’t matter if it is watched alone) and revel in the romance this Christmas.

Senior Bucket List: Boston’s Alternative Movie Theaters by The Quad

Holiday Guide to Holiday Gift Guides by Ashley Hansberry

The Muppets was a highlight in theaters this holiday season.

Being nice is back. Though the days of humor at someone else’s expense will never entirely fade, a consensus seems to have been reached within the comedy community; for the time being, it’s more fun to be excited than it is to be miserable. The triumphant return of the Muppets to the big screen signals a collective decision among our country’s funny-makers to be silly instead of angry, to laugh with the audience instead of at them.

Like all things, comedy goes through a cycle of phases, each in response to its predecessor. The 90s were characterized by angry “alternative” comedy in response to the flashy excess of the 80s. Comedians like Louis C.K., Marc Maron, Patton Oswalt, Janeane Garofalo, and Dave Attell raged about the state of the nation on stage. The following generation just didn’t have the same anger as the generation before it, and satirized their anger with the overuse of irony. The comedians of the early Aughts turned to less traditional, more absurdist forms of standup. Mitch Hedberg and Demetri Martin spouted clever one-liners (predecessors of the modern tweet?) on stage, propped with guitars, easels, and skateboards. The VH1 classic I Love the… series made sarcasm a national pastime. But comedy, like all things, is cyclical, and the era of irony has come to pass. In a recent episode of the Fox sitcom New Girl, a male lead spoke of a potential flame who was so nonstop ironic that he couldn’t tell when she was being serious. This sentiment taps into a collective exhaustion of irony – its extreme overuse in the past decade has left the public yearning for clear-cut sincerity.

The anger of the 90’s alternative comics has now largely subsided. Infamously angry alt comic Marc Maron has conquered his addictions and overcome a low point in his career through his podcast, WTF! with Marc Maron. The podcast is like comedic therapy, where comedians talk about their lives and the traumas that have shaped who they are. The podcast is also a public forum for Maron to make amends: many of these comedians are people Maron offended during his angry past. The raw honesty in these podcasts is simply astounding. The comedians aren’t afraid to tell Maron where he’s wronged, and Maron isn’t afraid to post the episodes unedited. In a particularly noteworthy episode, comedian Louis C.K. confronts Maron for letting his professional jealousy get in the way of being a good friend. It’s riveting stuff, and while it’s not always funny, it gets to the heart of this new sincerity running through comedy. Comedians seem to be letting go of the brutal anger they had in the 90s, and audiences seem more interested in this resulting emotionally honest work than the more emotionally detached comedy of the past decade.

Maybe there’s so much to be angry with in the world right now that if we really allowed ourselves to be upset over everything we could be upset about, we’d be eternally depressed. When Jon Stewart hosted the Oscars in 2008, he said of the films nominated for Best Picture: “Does this town need a hug?” Maybe the return of the Muppets is Hollywood’s response to that question – we are getting more optimism and happiness in our entertainment because we have to. Because we need it.

The first Muppet film, The Muppet Movie, came out in 1979, a time eerily politically similar to our own. There was a disappointingly ineffectual Democratic president in office, war in the Middle East, and, in a scene right out of 1979, the British embassy in Iran was recently stormed and looted. In another scene out of 1979, Kermit the Frog first sang “Rainbow Connection.” The Muppets came at a time when audiences needed unconditional entertainment and humor, and now they’re back.

It makes a difference that the generation who grew up with the original Muppet films are the ones now creating our entertainment. More importantly, it’s a key player from the Apatow School of Comedy who has rejuvenated the Muppet franchise. The relationship between Jason Segel’s character and the new Muppet Walter in The Muppets clearly descends from the traditional I Love You, Man bromance, providing a good lead-in for audiences who may now be more used to bromances than they are to Muppets. Apatow films like The 40-Year-Old Virgin, Superbad, and Pineapple Express have become a key link in the cyclic nature of comedy, bridging the gap between vulgarity and sincerity.  In the same cyclical manner, the Muppets are both the clear predecessors and successors of the Apatow School of Bromantic Comedy. While they may communicate in R-rated terms, Apatowians generally mean well and communicate friendship and acceptance, similar to the Muppet message. The Apatow actors themselves are rather Muppet-like – they’re “everymen,” but strangely shaped, oddly voiced, and overly expressive. The Muppets addresses these Muppetly men in a song called, “Man or Muppet?” – and if Seth Rogen isn’t the human Rowlf, then there are no Muppetly men. In the three films he’s directed, Judd Apatow has embraced the 40-year-old virgin (Scooter), the well-meaning slacker (Rowlf), and the aspiring comedian (Fozzie the Bear). More than that, Apatow films are silly, funny, and never mean-spirited – values integral to the Muppet persona.

In the December 12^th issue of The New Yorker, co-writer and star of The Muppets Jason Segel talked about rules he was given by the Henson crew for writing about the Muppets. Chief among them was that “Muppets never lie, at least not to each other.” There is a straightforward trust guaranteed by the Muppets that’s refreshing in today’s atmosphere of disingenuous sarcasm. The Muppets are always genuine. Jim Henson’s right hand man, Frank Oz (the voice of Miss Piggy, Fozzie Bear, and Sam the Eagle, among others) refused to take part in the new addition to the Muppet franchise, voicing concerns that the script didn’t respect the characters. Segel addressed the original Muppeteer’s concerns in the New Yorker article: “There was a worry, I’m sure, that I was doing this with a sense of irony,” he said. “It took longer than I thought for them to realize,  ‘Oh, no, this guy is making a love letter.’” This perfectly articulates that sense of rediscovered sincerity in comedy today.

“Everything is great, everything is grand. I’ve got the whole wide word in the palm of my hand,” begins the opening number of The Muppets. The song is entitled, “Life’s a Happy Song,” and it perfectly encapsulates Muppet optimism and enthusiasm. The return of the Muppets has brought comedy full circle. Until comedians can’t help but get angry again, it looks like we’re in a period of sincerity.

Kari Koeppel is a senior in CAS & COM. This piece was originally titled, “The Lovers, The Dreamers, and Me: A Return to Sincerity in Comedy”.

After 20 Years, Brian Freeman and Fierce Love Return to Boston by Lauren Michael

Seth Meyers, an Ample Fool: Bitter Truth in Comedy for Obama, GOP and the Hill by Shawn Musgrave

The Return of The Beard by Chris Walker

The film takes place within the confines of a Brooklyn apartment, owned by Michael and Penelope Longstreet (John C. Reilly and Jodie Foster). After their son gets into a fight and is beaten up with a stick by another child, they invite the child’s parents, Alan and Nancy Cowan (Christoph Waltz and Kate Winslet) to their home to smooth things over. Their civil conversation quickly turns from trying to find a solution to making personal attacks on each other. They lose track of the task at hand and start to veer off into a violent tangent of vocal abuse that covers topics from parenthood to manhood. It is soon apparent that these “adults” are no better than their kids, only their playground is the middle-class Longstreet apartment and their weapons are stinging words.

Poster courtesy of Constantin Film

Since Carnage adapted from the stage, director Roman Polanski reflects this by filming it in one long, continuous shot. Like the story, the setting is also simple, which is appropriate because the plot is essentially character-driven. The simplicity really lets the audience focus on what the Longstreets and the Cowans are saying to each other, and helps strip the whole film down to its main elements, the four characters and the dialogue. Too much directorial intrusion would have taken away from the power of the script, but fortunately Polanski decided to make the whole film as minimalistic as possible.

The single setting makes the situation extremely confined, not only for the Longstreets and the Cowans but also for the audience. All four characters are trapped inside this house, slowly going insane as they figuratively try to rip out each other’s throats. This claustrophobia works well to fuel the volatile situation, as all four of them are essentially imprisoned with no way out. To add to the annoyance, Alan’s Blackberry continuously goes off, each time more grating than the last to escalate the mounting frustrations of the characters.

Carnage is also an effective class satire. The Longstreets are the quintessential, liberal middle-class family who enjoys art and culture equally as much as they like to flaunt their knowledge of it. The Cowans are conservative and wealthy, but are more distant both with each other and their son. Both couples clearly have their problems, but they have no problem pointing out the flaws in each other instead of examining their own faults. All four characters play the blame game, which makes for a scathing scrutiny of the state of modern social class disparities. Eventually, however, after the climax of the movie (involving Nancy projectile vomiting a lot of apple crumble, which makes for a lighthearted break from the seriousness of the first half of the film), the husbands bond together over glasses of scotch and the women come together to point out the silliness of their spouses – all of the drama aside, there are some things that bind even the most different of people.

The cast is small, but extremely strong. All Oscar-winners, the four give powerful performances that help drive the film’s plot at a breakneck pace. Waltz is especially strong here, and plays the arrogant Alan to perfection – his preoccupation with his work is evident, and he feels no guilt about it. Waltz is a master at playing self-conceited characters, and his performance in Carnage is no different. Winslet, once again, flaunts a perfect American accent, and is hilarious to watch when she starts to get angrier and angrier at the world. Penelope is by nature irritating and sanctimonious, and Foster gives it her all so it’s easy to dislike her. When she starts to drunkenly cry, it’s hard to feel sorry for her. Reilly plays the likeable mediator of the group who tries to keep things optimistic, but eventually even he concedes defeat.

Ultimately, Carnage is a minimalistic piece that deftly conveys heavy themes underneath its darkly comedic façade. These characters hide behind their fancy clothes and fancier homes, but when it comes down to it, they are nothing more than children at the playground hitting each other with sticks when push comes to shove. At an economical 79 minutes, Carnage is a short and not so sweet film that will leave audiences satisfied after the credits roll.

Grade: A-

‘New Year’s Eve’ Review: Sappy and Sweet, Yet Perfectly Lovable by Gabriela Fernandez

‘Drive’ Review: Ryan Gosling Enters the Shark Tank by Meghan Gilligan

‘Moneyball’ Review: A Sports Movie About Why Math Is Important by Liishi Durbin

Poster for 'No Way Out But One.' | Photo courtesy of Garland Waller and Barry Nolan

In 1992, Holly Collins went to a Minnesota family court intending to secure full custody of her two children, Zackary and Jennifer. She had believed that if she told the truth–that her ex-husband had repeatedly abused her and their children–everything would be okay. But her evidence of abuse, including several medical records and the children’s statements that they always feared visiting their dad, were repeatedly rejected by the court. Her husband claimed she was lying and trying to alienate their children from him. Then, like thousands of battered women each year, Holly lost full custody of her children to their abusive father.

After two years with limited supervised visitation, in which the children weren’t permitted to discuss the ongoing abuse, Holly decided to do something. One day, she asked her kids to meet her at a video store near their dad’s house. They got into a car and started driving. They tried going to Canada, Mexico and Guatemala. Knowing the FBI was searching for them because Holly had in fact kidnapped her kids, she decided to try escaping to Australia or New Zealand. They managed to sneak through airport security without passports and got onto a flight to Amsterdam. There, they were detained and sent to a refugee camp. Years later upon finding a lawyer willing to take her case, Holly became the first U.S. citizen to be granted asylum by the Netherlands on the grounds of domestic violence.

For COM Professor Garland Waller, Holly Collins’ story was the perfect outlet for her to make a documentary on the shortcomings of the American family court system. “My first documentary was about three women who all lost custody of their kids to men who had battered them and sexually abused them,” she said to me when I interviewed her last Thursday. The documentary was never aired for the public, however, because people considered it way too controversial.

“I thought, I know this is an issue that is going on in the family courts, every single day,” Professor Waller explicated. “How can we do a story on this issue of domestic violence and child abuse that people will want to see; that will have a story that has a beginning, middle, and end; that has a hero; and that doesn’t make them feel suicidal at the end?” That’s why she decided to center her film around Holly’s story. ”Holly is one of the few women who has been able to save her children from years of being abused,” she affirmed.

On December 2 at 7pm in COM 101, Professor Waller and her production team screened the film No Way Out But One for a packed lecture hall of students and faculty. The hour-and-a-half long documentary, which was followed by a Q&A session, follows Holly’s story and also outlines the grievous problems 0f the American family court system. Made for under $40,000, the not-for-profit film was a way for Professor Waller and her husband Barry Nolan (who also produced and narrated the film) to make a difference.

“This is what I do to give back,” she explained. “Some people work for charity, some people give to the United Way, but this is what I do.”

As the documentary cites, each year 58,000 children are placed in contact with an abuse parent after divorce, and batterers win custody in 70% of family court cases where abuse is involved.

Holly Collins with her children outside the refugee camp in the Netherlands. | Photo courtesy of Garland Waller and Barry Nolan

Professor Waller also cited the lingering gender bias in the family courts. “Courts do not have to consider domestic violence in their rulings, ” she said. “Now that is anti-woman, because it’s usually the women who get beaten up.” Money, she says, is also involved. “The men who want custody are the ones who can afford to have the kids, and you have to be able to pay the court costs,” she explained. “This is something that doesn’t happen in poor families…it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay all these people.” If the father is paying for the court evaluator, she says, often they’ll skew the evidence in his favor.

But even in ugly divorces, she says, usually the parents still want to do what’s best for their children. “When there are cases that involve domestic violence and child abuse, that is not the case,” she explained. “Women often get custody when there’s not domestic violence. But oddly, a batterer is more likely to go after custody than a non-batterer. So its a very complicated issue.”

Since the release of No Way Out But One, Professor Waller and her husband deal with angry father’s rights groups every day. These groups, like Fathers and Families, make an impassioned–if not entirely factual–argument for why they believe the Holly Collins case is a hoax. “After a nice review in a Boston Magazine blog, many pro-father’s rights men were highly critical,” she explained, but “none of them had seen the film and none of them had access to all the thousands of pages of legal documents and medical records and correspondence from experts and FBI documents that we had.” Many of these documents are shown and quoted in the film.

In their writings against Holly Collins, father’s rights groups cite Parental Alienation Syndrome, which means that a mother is trying to alienate her children from their father. Though it is not accepted as a legitimate diagnosis by the American Medical Association or the American Psychological Association (the psychologist who first wrote about PAS had conducted no actual studies), in family court it is often used to legitimize giving custody to an abusive parent.

L to R: Jennifer Collins, Barry Nolan, Professer Waller, and Holly Collins. | Photo courtesy of Jessie Beers Altman

As Nolan puts it, “these are people who do not and will not respond to evidence, or facts, or medical records, or court transcripts, or expert testimony if it does not fit their preconceived notions.” The groups say that Holly fabricated the evidence of her husband’s abuse, but in reality false allegations of abuse are very rare.

“Holly may not be perfect, but she was clearly a battered woman who only wanted to protect her children from abuse,” Professor Waller affirmed.

Still, this is an issue that has mainly been ignored by the mainstream media. “The mainstream media is terrified of getting sued, and this is a subject where everybody sues everyone all the time,” she explained. “It’s all he said/she said…so the mainstream media says, this is a mess and we’re not going to get into it. Just as the mainstream media did not cover pedophile priests abusing children, just as for years they did not cover the things that were going on at Penn State, it is the same thing only worse by thousands in terms of the children who are being abused.”

Many years after their mother kidnapped them, the Collins kids, now adults, are healthy and grateful for everything their mother has done for them. Jennifer Collins, Holly’s oldest daughter, is the executive director of Courageous Kids, an organization for young adults who suffered from court injustice as children to speak out and share their stories.

“I guess for me, the most important thing is that I would like people to realize that this is a national issue that is not going away until people begin to understand that in a family court, if you beat your wife and abuse your child, and go after custody, most of the time you will get it,” Professor Waller concluded. “I want to live in an America that protects the children.”

For more information about the film, go to http://www.nowayoutbutone.com/index.html.

The Rural Alberta Advantage Discusses Canada, the Internet, and Their Inability to Court Danger by Allison Francis

West African Research Association Panel Examines Race And The US Judicial System by Chris Walker

Professor Wiesel’s (Potential) Last Lecture: What a Treat by Allan Lasser

Like Crazy stars Anton Yelchin (Alpha Dog, Charlie Bartlett) and Felicity Jones (Brideshead Revisited), and it features Jennifer Lawrence (Winter’s Bone) in a supporting role.

Jacob (Yelchin) and Anna (Jones), a British student abroad, are studying at a university in Los Angeles. After finally mustering up the courage to act on the longtime crush she has had on Jacob, Anna places a handwritten note on his windshield after class. From there, the couple begins dating and, very quickly, fall rapturously in love with one another. The sequence of scenes concerning the early stages of their relationship is remarkable, as Doremus removes dialogue and allows his actors to convince the viewers of their love with some of the most realistic and believable scenes of affection I’ve seen on screen. In particular, the scenes of Jacob and Anna walking hand-in-hand, smiling on a Southern California beach are especially moving.

Anton Yelchin and Felicity Jones shine in 'Like Crazy.' | Photo courtesy of Paramount Vantage.

As the semester comes to an end and summer looms, Anna is confronted with a dilemma – at this point she is head-over-heels in love with Jacob, as is he with Anna, but her student visa is set to expire. Rather than confront three long months away from Jacob, Anna boldly opts to stay in California, thus violating her visa. She eventually returns home to the UK to visit her parents and then attempts to reenter the U.S. only to be denied entry. The scene that follows, one of Jacob frantically running around LAX, bouquet in hand, seeking the help of anyone and everyone, is heartbreaking.

So begins a long separation for Jacob and Anna, interrupted only by Jacob’s brief visits to London. The distance between the couple is devastating and tragic, for the effects lead to dalliances with others, including Jacob’s multiple flings with Sam (Lawrence, in a wonderful supporting role).

Official Like Crazy Trailer

To say any more about the plot would only spoil the movie’s many twists, turns and surprises. Undoubtedly, Like Crazy is an extremely well-made film. Carried by its two leads, particularly Jones – who should deservedly garner some Oscar buzz for her breakout performance –  and its free-flowing, improvised script, it is a film both delightful and heartbreaking, light-hearted and powerful.

In a way, it is reminiscent of Blue Valentine, last year’s biggest Oscar snub, albeit without the big-name actors and backing from the almighty Weinstein Company. In similar ways, both films depict the ups and downs of relationships. Yet where Blue Valentine was sometimes almost painful to watch (the scenes in the space themed motel room come to mind), Like Crazy does not go for the overdramatic and instead remains on a level that a viewer can believe. Its message is simple: love is thrilling and is at once the best and worst thing imaginable.

Overall, ‘Like Crazy’ is a superb film, featuring some of the best performances of the year by Yelchin and Jones. The relationship between the couple is palpably real, and the movie, at times, transcends entertainment to the point where a viewer would readily accept the notion of a relationship between Yelchin and Jones in real life. A film certainly not to be missed, expect ‘Like Crazy’ to be in the hunt for trophies this awards season. Grade: A-

‘Red Riding Hood’ Review: Wait, Are You Sure I’m Not Watching ‘Twilight?’ by Ruth Chan

The Gleecap: “Pot O’ Gold” by Jon Erik Christianson