It’s been time to start the music, light the lights and all that other jazz for some time now. And after a great deal of waiting, we finally have a new Muppets film to call our own. For the first time in a long time, and for some, the first time ever, we can see Kermit The Frog, Miss Piggy, Fozzie Bear and other favorites on the big screen. And according to our own review by Brian Salisbury, it’s a splendid experience. And while we trust our own instinct on stuff like this, secure in the knowledge that a few of you rely on us to help guide you through a cinematic sea of uncertainty, we also love to hear what you have to say. Which is why we’d like you to tell us what you thought of The Muppets in the comments section of this very post. Give us your review, short or tall. Tell us what you liked, loved or hated about The Muppets and most importantly, tell us why. We’d love nothing more than to have a little discussion about it.

To inspire you, I’ve also left you with one of my favorite clips from the film…

(Though I’d recommend abstaining from watching it if you haven’t already seen the film. It’s not giving away any crucial plot points, but it is fun to see it fresh the first time.)

For more Muppet coverage, check out our Guide to The Muppets.

Asking someone to choose his or her favorite Muppet is tough. It may not be as tough as asking a parent to choose his or her favorite child; it’s maybe more akin to asking someone to choose his or her favorite ice cream flavor. Sure, there are some you like more than others, but can you rally make the defining choice between Baskin-Robbins mint chocolate chip and rocky road?

But if you watch some of the old episodes of The Muppet Show or spin through the multiple Muppet movies, you’ll find that there are at least one or two characters who rise to the top…

The thought process I go through for choosing my favorite Muppet is similar to the one I used for choosing my favorite Stooge. Curly is the easy answer, but he’s too obvious for me. And while I love Moe as the acerbic leader, my favorite Stooge has and always will be Larry. He’s the glue that holds the team together, from the early days with Curly to the doldrums with Joe. Larry is the Stooge’s support and reliability. And I have a penchant for secondary and sometimes tertiary characters.

In this sense, my favorite Muppet is not one of the A-listers. That’s not to say that there’s anything wrong with Kermit, Miss Piggy, Fozzie or Gonzo. They’re all adorable and loveable, and each one has his or her (or its) strengths. But like Curly, those choices are too easy.

I go for the underdog in the Muppet derby, the guy who ends up the butt of many jokes and the figurative (and often literal) punching bag. My favorite Muppet, by a mile, is Beaker.

As the assistant to Dr. Bunsen Honeydew at Muppet Labs, Beaker was the real star. It didn’t bother him that Dr. Honeydew didn’t have any eyes (which is probably at least part of the reason that most of the Muppet Lab innovations were absolute disasters). He was a loyal helper, even when he knew he’d be seriously harmed in the process.

Everyone needs a Beaker in their lives, and he’s a star in my book.

My runner-up is another secondary Muppet who is often literally misunderstood because, like Beaker, he doesn’t quite know how to speak proper English: the Swedish Chef. These two comedic geniuses have rarely shared the spotlight, but along with Animal, they had a chance to sing this little ditty, one of my favorite Muppet sketches of all time…

So who’s your favorite Muppet and why?

For more from our week-long celebration of The Muppets, check out our Muppets Guide homepage.

Earlier today I republished our list of the 20 most pro-American films of the last ten years, which can be used to provide some inspiration for the discussion we’re about to have. It’s July 4, and much of the FSR staff is taking the day off to attend BBQ’s, drink copious amounts of alcohol and if I remember correctly, participate in epic games of Risk, all in defiance of colonialism. We’re proud to be the Greatest American Movie Blog (someone said that, it wasn’t me), and we’d like to hear from you, the Greatest American (and non-American) Movie Blog Readers: what is your favorite movie to watch on the Fourth of July?

Leave your answer in the comments section at the bottom of this article. And be safe out there as you celebrate all things red, white and blue. (Also, as a special note: if Texas goes up in flames, we had nothing to do with it.)

It started with a conversation I was having with my friend Robert about Salo. You’d be surprised how many ideas for articles arise from discussing this film. Not so many dinner plans, though. Makes sense for a film subtitled 120 Days of Sodom. Anyway, being avid film lovers, we agreed Salo was a film we were glad we had seen despite the inability to ever be able to “unwatch” it. We love film, and we love the notion we could sit through and appreciate a movie like Salo despite the graphic imagery therein.

This spiraled the conversation into other films that our desensitized minds could handle, films we could observe from a film-lover or even a critical perspective even though they had imagery that could not be unseen. An hour later, we had disgusted ourselves to the point of seppuku, we went our merry separate ways, but a lingering idea was stuck in my head. Amidst all the onerous images I had conjured back into my mind from years and years of watching whatever whenever, a nugget of a question remained.

It was basically this: As a film connoisseur, can you desensitize yourself for the sake of cinematic appreciation?

Of course, the idea of desensitization is nothing new. Naturalistic violence for the sake of either entertainment or something more symbolic has been occurring in front of people’s eyes since before film even existed. Oppressive imagery was a staple of the Grand Guignol in 19th Century Paris. Violent images have been depicted in film since the beginning, and the modern culture has become so desensitized to much of it anyway that it is now a common thread in many mainstream films.

Look at the movies in wide release right now. Much of what’s playing in thousands of cineplexes across the nation depict extreme violence of some form or another. Movies like Super, Hobo With a Shotgun, and Scream 4 all depict extreme violence to a varying degree of sobriety. Even the current slate of comedies – Paul and Your Highness to be specific – incorporate gore in some way.

But it’s more than just blood and guts. In recent years, films like A Serbian Film and Antichrist have created paramount film-related controversy. While both of those films do include their own brands of bloody gore, it’s more than wall-to-wall violence and decapitations that makes them so contentious. Psychological? Sure, but it’s in their depictions of certain physical violence, too, that makes them targets for some critics who feel they have a moral obligation to dissuade movie lovers from ever watching them.

And this gets back to the question at hand. If you are a film lover, if you are someone who wants to see every film that comes down the pike regardless of content, do you or even can you desensitize yourself to the point where films like Antichrist, Irreversible, and, yes, Salo don’t have you instantly hitting the eject button on your DVD player? For the sake of the art you love to consume, do you watch anything that comes before you so the next time something like Visitor Q comes up, you will have no qualms in taking in that film’s particular brand of nastiness?

It’s not a question of being disturbed. There’s a knee-jerk reaction that can’t be helped, and everyone has their threshold for being unnerved. No one can be completely numb to everything they see depicted in film. That’s what makes us human, the uncontrollable discomfort that comes from something like the rape scene in Irreversible or the final reel of A Serbian Film.

But, and this goes back to the idea of forcing desensitization on one’s self, does someone who can sit through those scenes, finish that film, and watch it from an analytical eye become a better lover of the art form simply because they can? Are you more of a connoisseur of cinema than someone who instantly turns the movie off when extreme violence comes into play or even someone who doesn’t watch it in the first place knowing what may be in store for them? Does that make you more of a film lover than someone who can’t even hack an episode of CSI, because it’s too graphic?

These are just questions, and I don’t claim to have the answers to them. I’m not the foremost expert on what makes someone more a film fan than anyone else. However, it does bring up an interesting point about the idea of the connoisseur. If a connoisseur is someone who has vast knowledge of the art form at hand, should they shut any aspect of that art form out? If not, how much desensitization must they endure to keep their passion for that art form alive?

I know, more questions. Let us know what you think below then go watch a Gaspar Noe film. Maybe something lighter like Miike.

For those who have not seen the film yet, please beware of spoilers. Also, you should probably head out and see Inception. It’s pretty good, if I do say so myself.

This weekend saw the nasty, totally untrue, let’s-all-calm-down-because-we’re-still-safe rumor that Edward Scissorhands was going to get the remake treatment and that Robert Pattinson was going to strap on the gloves to play another other-worldly Edward. Although they wouldn’t have to do much to that hair.

It’s totally untrue, and that’s a good thing. But its mere existence gave me the opportunity to brainstorm who I’d cast, and now I put the question(s) to you.

There are two options here:

1. Imagine that it’s 1989, and Tim Burton has hired you to cast his new movie because it’s got a choice release slot of December 1990. Also imagine that Johnny Depp is off making Cry Baby or something, and is otherwise unavailable. What big star or rising star do you cast as the lead?
2. Imagine that the film was never made, but Tim Burton has this hot new original idea for a film involving a Frankenstein-type young man with scissors on his hands. It’ll be in 3D. What young star of 2010 do you cast in the role?

My answers are pretty straightforward I think:

1. Either Nicolas Cage (who was busy filming Wild At Heart that year) or Sean Penn (who was doing State of Grace).
2. Donald Glover.

Who would you cast?

If you start from the beginning of Tom Cruise’s young career, before he became one of the most profitable box-office attractions of his time, you’ll see at the outset the seeds of a very particular trend in regard to the kind of people he chose to work for, or want to work with.  Whether you love him or hate him, for whatever reason you choose to feel either way, you can’t deny that Tom Cruise has made very few poor decisions when it comes to his projects.  Not all of the films he’s done have been good, but he seldom agreed to do anything with a filmmaker that hadn’t already proven themselves as competent, or as is the case with a good deal of the films in which he appeared, unquestionable greats in the art of filmmaking.  Basically, Tom Cruise only works with the best.  But, has he worked with more best than anyone else?

Setting aside what you may think about Cruise’s acting prowess, or the films in which he’s appeared, take a look at the names on the list below:

• Francis Ford Coppola
• Steven Spielberg
• Martin Scorsese
• Stanley Kubrick
• Ridley Scott
• P.T. Anderson

The first four names will undoubtedly appear on almost any list of top 10 greatest filmmakers while P.T. Anderson may end up there before he’s finished and Ridley Scott not far behind if not there already.

Then, you have these names:

• Brian De Palma
• Rob Reiner
• Oliver Stone
• Cameron Crowe
• Michael Mann
• Sydney Pollack
• John Woo

Each one of the above filmmakers has contributed several works worthy to be considered amongst the greatest American films ever made, or in the case of John Woo a handful of the greatest action films the world has ever seen.

Rounding out the list:

• Tony Scott
• Curtis Hanson
• Robert Redford
• Ron Howard
• Neil Jordan
• JJ Abrams
• Ed Zwick
• Bryan Singer
• …and now James Mangold

Each one of the above filmmakers either has at least one considerable contribution to cinema, or a fairly impressive portfolio of successful projects.

There you have a list of over 20 filmmakers that most cinephiles will recognize as either an all-time great, one time great fallen from grace, or someone whose name piques interest if seen attached to a project.  The question now is if this is the greatest stable of directors any eventual lead actor has ever worked with.  How about others from his generation like Sean Penn and Nicolas Cage?  Or, maybe slightly newer like Brad Pitt?  Possibly Jack Nicholson, or maybe someone else from the Golden Age of Hollywood like Jimmy Stewart?  Maybe it’s not even a male.

What do you think?  Has anyone else worked for greater names in the history’s medium?  Discuss.

I have several friends who don’t call each other anymore. They haven’t lost touch; they just never speak to each other on the phone. If a few of them want to go out, they put a note on their facebook walls that they are hitting the town, and the others catch wind via the social networking site and meet up or don’t. It’s as simple and lethargic as that.

Facebook hit wide when I was in college, and it was as fantastic as everyone would later remember it to be – especially if you needed contact information for a ton of freshman co-eds so you could toss them in the back of a U-haul truck to take them to a party.

But now I find myself sounding more and more like my grandfather, because while facebook was great at augmenting social events, it’s grown to become the sole engine that powers them. I’m not sure yet that that’s a good thing.

Disney does.

I caught wind of a new ticket strategy that Disney is using through facebook over at Cinematical (the article is in the New York Times). Essentially, you can buy tickets for Toy Story 3 on facebook, and a convenient box pops up to allow you to invite friends of yours that you want along for the ride. Or people you want to tell that you’re going.

That’s right. Disney is using the Dating Website Strategy for their ticket sales.

What’s the dating website strategy? As some of you may know, dating websites all work on one principle – that you, the customer, drive their traffic. For free, you can do very little, so when you pay, you can send messages to everyone. But not everyone has a paid account, so when they get your message, it prods them to buy an account so they can read it.

Essentially, Disney is using a similar method to sell more tickets. Will it work? Probably. Will it be difficult to quantify since everyone on the planet is probably already planning on seeing Toy Story 3? Most definitely.

The question today is – if you got a facebook alert saying that one of your friends was planning on hitting up the midnight showing, would you:

• Be happy facebook let you know so you can go too?
• Feel strange that facebook invited you tacitly instead of your friend?
• Do you think that after facebook invites you and you have a good time, that he’ll call back to ask you out again?
• I mean, he seemed like a great guy, and you were flirting a lot.
• He’s gotta call back, right?
• I bet he has mother issues.
• Or would you feel like yet another useless thing is cluttering up your facebook experience?

Disney is most likely banking on this being a success so they can use it in the future. Fortunately, whenever anything even remotely works in Hollywood, everyone follows suit, so be on the look out for all major releases using the website to get your friends to poke you into buying more movies.

When do you, don’t forget to poke us. We promise to invite you to all the movies we get tickets to. Even the ones your grandmother won’t approve of.

We know. She hates Katherine Heigl romantic comedies.

So those crazy fans over at Avengers News caught a hold of a rumor that Josh Holloway was in talks with Marvel to play a “lead role” in one of their upcoming films. Take it with a grain of salt, but also consider it an opportunity for me to poorly photoshop Holloway’s head on comic book characters.

Of course we all know that Holloway was Fox’s go-to for Gambit until his schedule for “Lost” got in the way, and until Fox decided not to have Gambit in X-Men 3: Even X-ier. However, it looks like he might have another shot at playing a superhero – albeit a role that he won’t be nearly as well suited for as he was for playing Gambit.

Judging by what Marvel has on the slate and Holloway’s general appearance and from what was postulated at Avengers News, here’s a few options:

Ant-Man

The talk of a stand alone Ant-Man has been around for a few years, and it’s not picked up the kind of steam that anyone making the movie would really see as proof that it needs to happen. After all, a superhero who can get really small is sort of sad, and it might lead toward Honey! I Shrunk the Kids: The Superhero Movie. Still, the character is beloved for some reason and might just make it into The Avengers considering that he was one of the originals. That is, if you believe a comic book adaptation has to be absolutely faithful to its roots.

Holloway isn’t exactly Henry Pym material, but it’s the most notable character that hasn’t been cast yet.

Hawkeye

Except for Hawkeye. Clint Barton is a bad ass with a bow and arrow, and despite the rumor about Jeremy Renner that just won’t die, nothing has been confirmed yet. That leaves a window open for Holloway. Would he be great in the role? I think so. Renner is a better actor than Holloway, but he’d be more than capable. Plus, he’d get free archery lessons. How do you turn that sort of thing down?

Dum Dum Dugan

On the list that Avengers News had, this is the strangest name. Dugan will certainly appear in the S.H.E.I.L.D. movie (a movie I never want to type out again), but he looks nothing like Holloway and the age range is completely wrong. Still, that sort of thing can be changed around fairly easily considering he’s not a character well-known to the outside world.

Gabe Jones

In the same vein, I offer Gabe Jones, a member of the Howling Commandos (which have already been rumored to be in Captain America). This would be bad timing considering that filming is fast upon us, but if they only make an appearance, it might be the case that the team hasn’t been assembled yet. In fact, it isn’t at all beyond the realm of possibility that Holloway still has a chance of joining that team.

But Gabe Jones is black, you say! That’s true, but Nick Fury is white, and Samuel L. Jackson refused to wear white-face. I imagine if Holloway refuses to wear black-face, they’d be able to make a few character alterations.

Hercules

There’s no chance for Holloway to play Loki since Tom Hiddleston was already cast in the role, and Thor is already knee-deep in production, but Holloway could still be a muscle-bound beast of mythology. Hercules was a member of The Avengers, although not one of the originals, and he could easily be brought into the fold via Thor. Plus, this is a perfect role for Holloway who fans seem to enjoy shirtless.

She Hulk

This is just absurd enough to work. Email Marvel and tell them you want Donald Glover for Spider-Man and Josh Holloway for She Hulk.

But seriously. Who would you want him to play?

Last week, the discussion about movie piracy heated up again, as it will continually until a workable solution to the problem is found or until the art form ceases to exist.

I spoke with indie filmmaker Dan Eckman on Reject Radio on Sunday, and got his thoughts on piracy. Of course, despite seeing the nuances of the situation, he hates piracy. Why? Because he and his crew worked insanely hard on Mystery Team, and people that steal it are disrespecting that hard work.

As you can probably tell, it’s my opinion that you can’t be both a true film fan and pirate movies.

However, I fully admit that I can’t exactly explain why.

My argument goes something like this:

1. If you love film, you should love those who create it so that you can appreciate it.
2. If you love those who create it, you should support them.
3. If you steal from them, you’re not supporting them.

That’s actually pretty good. I realize that it’s a tough world out there, and that people can’t afford all the things they need to live, but I just don’t see how anyone could take content without paying for it and 1) not admit to themselves that they are stealing (granting that what they are taking is available for purchase) and 2) still claim to love movies.

The only interesting gray area that I can see was offered up by my friend Ryan who has only pirated one thing in his life – a rare movie from Jim Henson that was so weird it never saw a real release. That’s a tough one to argue against. If the artist wants it out there, but no one will put it out there, is it ethical to find it and watch it without paying?

That’s just a side question to the main one, but the whole thing is fascinating to me. I realize that this makes me sound like an old fogey who hates poor people, and it’s always precarious to define something like fandom, but I just don’t see any way around it.

But I’m open to suggestions.

What do you think?

Thirty years ago to the day, a sequel was released to a film that people would later consider a game-changer. Not only did it launch one man’s career (or several), it created a cult around it that has united science fiction fans, movie fans, and people trying to growl like a giant, hairy alien from Kashyyyk.

Somehow, that sequel outshone the original, and to this day it remains a fan favorite even amongst the die hards.

The Empire Strikes Back has an amazing amount of things to love about it. It’s a solid continuation of the characters we fell in love with from A New Hope, it sees Luke carry through with his training, there’s a blossoming love between the beautiful princess and the roguish smuggler, and then there’s Lando.

Plus, it has one of the most famous plot twists of all time. One that has been parodied, mimicked and discussed earnestly to the nth degree.

I hadn’t been born, so I wasn’t in line to see it like Harry was, but the movies still have a personal connection for me because my brother Daryl loved them more than anything in the world.

His bookshelves were littered with the novelizations, and every time a new edition came out of the Trilogy, he owned it almost immediately. There were the collectibles, the Yoda that came to life and talked you through your own training, and endless quoting and poorly done impressions that were none less endearing even when they got a little annoying.

Daryl was the biggest Star Wars fan that I knew personally, and, unfortunately, he didn’t live long enough to see The Phantom Menace, but I remember my mother being more than okay with me skipping school that day to get up way too early and find a spot in line for it.

I am not the world’s biggest fan of Empire Strikes Back, but I remember watching it dozens of time with the man who was, and for me, his memory is always going to be wrapped up in those films.

So on this auspicious day of memories and nerdy discussion, I ask humbly:

What was your favorite thing about Empire Strikes Back?

Mine is something I inherited from my brother – a love for a ridiculous, green, crotchety old alien that speaks in a funny voice and happens to be the most powerful Jedi in the universe. He also happens not to have a keen understanding of English grammar, and he sounds suspiciously like Frank Oz, but he’s such an insanely cool character, and, in my mind, the entire heart of those films. Whenever I see Yoda, I’ll always think of my brother.

What’s yours? Don’t be shy.

I realize this has nothing to do with movies, but we watched television sometimes in between reloading the Blu-ray player with the next disc.

As you’ve probably already heard from your granparents or your creepy friend who collects TV Guide, NBC has canceled “Law and Order,” the police/legal drama that ran for two decades on the network.

It has created several spin-off shows, and delivered hundreds and hundreds of episodes featuring a truly awesome opening theme.

On a personal level, this show affected me greatly because it allowed me to cite pretend legal precedents in everyday conversation. This garnered me both the friendships I have to this day and my ability to feign knowing what Ex Parte Milligan means.

Trick question. No one knows what it means, Mr. Lincoln.

But are you sad to see the show go?

Part of me is, and part of me knows that there are 3,009 episodes ripe and ready to be picked for syndication. Hell, most of them are already there. Jokes aside, I’m just hoping they wrap up Van Buren’s storyline by the end of this season, because it’s been excruciating to live through so far. Plus, she’s possibly one of the best characters (let alone actresses) on television right now, and she deserves some strong, tear-rendering closure.

Fortunately, when I ever I miss the show, I can always watch this:

What do you think? Are you pouring one out for Law and Order?

Usually our discussions are based on some sort of strange anomaly in filmmaking, a look at a cultural trend, or a piece of technology, but sometimes you just need to throw a few punches instead.

With that in mind, I’d like to bring up the hypothetical fist fight between Charles Bronson and Clint Eastwood. Who would win?

Of course with Eastwood at the age of 79 and Bronson unfortunately passing in 2003, this fight would be impossible now so let’s consider both men at the height of their talents. Specifically 1966 Bronson vs 1966 Eastwood.

A few things to consider:

• Bronson was in the process of filming The Dirty Dozen at the time, and would still have fuel 8 years later to begin killing everyone in Death Wish.
• Eastwood starred in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly that year.
• However, neither man can use a weapon except his fists.
• Whoever taps out first loses.

Both men proved to be brawlers in their time, even with Eastwood’s singing appearance in Paint Your Wagon. It’s essentially a fight between the city and the West. Bronson made the urban jungle his comfort zone when he wasn’t at war, and it would still  be a decade before Eastwood would come out of the dusty world of cowboys and a few dollars more and enter Dirty Harry’s police cruiser.

I know my vote: Eastwood.

They are fairly evenly matched, but the West hardens a man in a way the city can’t. Plus, to quote Fight Club, skinny guys fight ’til they’re burger.

Who would win? Cast your bets now.

This is what happens when you make a ton of films all at once. You get a crazy, money-making fad that passes by several of your properties. It’s not like you have time to retro-fit Iron Man 2, and you might be able to get away with Thor, but it’ll have to be done in post which means even more money.

The position that Marvel finds itself in is a precarious one. They are a studio that has only made a few, very successful films, and their run has been predicated by the idea that the brains behind the characters know a bit about how to bring them to life cinematically. So far, none of those characters have been in 3D.

That might change, according to the LA Times, which is claiming that Captain America: The First Avenger: Captain America might be planned for and shot in the third dimension.

Knowing how dangerous and how expensive film permits are in the third dimension, this is a bold choice.

Jokes aside, I have to wonder if a studio like Marvel film find more success with 3D or if it will prove unnecessary.

For one, they don’t really need it. They draw in their target audience and more with their films and have done so mostly by not sticking to what every other kid on the block is doing. On the other hand, jacking up some ticket prices and presenting a superhero film in 3D (which, ostensibly, is the exact kind of movie that should be glossed over by the gimmick) might just significantly raise the gross figures at the end of the day.

As concerned with all that as I am, I’m more interested in what you think. Or what you plan to do. Let’s say they announce Captain America is going to be in 3D – does that make you more likely to see it?

• If you’re already hyped for the film, would you rather see it in 3D?
• If you are looking forward to it, would the news get you hyped?
• If you are apathetic, would it catch your interest?
• If you hate the concept, would 3D change your mind?

Find out what group you’re part of in an orderly fashion, give it some thought, and tell me what you think.

The wait is over. Summer 2010 has officially begun today with the release of Jon Favreau’s Iron Man 2, a film that sees Robert Downey Jr. return to the role of the iron-clad hero. It’s filled with action, comedy, danger and all of those fun things that make Summer movie season so much fun. Like explosions.

As I’m sure you’ve noticed, we here at Film School Rejects have a thing for Iron Man 2. We’ve shown our affection through article upon article of coverage. If you missed any of it, might I suggest the following links:

• Iron Man 2 Review
• Sam Rockwell Interview
• Iron Man 2 Photo Gallery
• Iron Man 2 Suitcase Armor Clip
• 8 Things We Learned at the Iron Man 2 Press Conference

That should be enough to get you ready, assuming you haven’t already seen the movie. Once you have seen the movie, we’re interested in hearing what you thought. The comment section below would be a wonderful place to give us your Iron Man 2 review. We promise we’ll read it. Seriously.

Apparently Iron Man 2 hits theaters this week, and for those of us unlucky schlubs who didn’t get a secret screening in Austin weeks ago, we need to knuckle up and buy a ticket.

The question is…do you plan on making that ticket a midnight showing on Thursday night or will you wait until Friday?

Or will you wait until a Sunday matinee?

Or will you wait until it comes out on DVD because you have no idea what all the fuss is about?

Questions abound.

Is Tony Stark worth hitting the theater early?

The saddening news of the day is, of course, that screen legend Lynn Redgrave died as a result of breast cancer at the age of 67.

The first movie featuring Redgrave that I saw was Every Thing You Always Wanted to Know About Sex But Were Afraid to Ask – the Woody Allen comedy that saw her being chemically seduced by Allen as the chastity belt-wearing Queen of the court. Allen, of course, played the Jester.

It may have been a strange introduction to her as an actress, but exploring her filmography should uncover a fearless dedication to all ranges of acting styles. Even though she burst onto the scene with similar comedic chops for Tom Jones and Georgy Girl, there was always a complexity to her work which shines brightly if you ever do a double feature of Georgy Girl and Gods and Monsters.

The latter happens to be my favorite film she appears in. The story of director James Whale where Redgrave plays his caretaker and housemaid Hanna. It’s a role that offered Redgrave a ton of opportunities to steal scenes, and she takes almost every opportunity.

As usual, we can think of no better way to celebrate the life of an artist, than to talk about our favorite films.

So, what’s yours?

Feel free to refresh your memory. You might have forgotten she was in Kinsey. If you’d like to donate to fight breast cancer, you can do so here.

As we’ve rounded the corner into the next decade, it’s interesting to note that there’s still heat on projects that were essentially born way back in the 20th century. The success of X-Men was a key reason why we’re seeing so many comic books turned into movies, and the franchise itself might be hobbling from Wolverine, but it’s not dead yet.

Considering the anticipation of an X-Men: First Class film, Fox should be smart to choose wisely when it comes to the best possible talent available to understand the complex franchise (both the films and the giant body of work from the comic books). According to Deadline, a short list of director’s they’re looking at is available for everyone to see:

So who would you want?

1. Timur Bekmambetov: Busted onto the scene with Daywatch and Nightwatch, followed them up with his American debut Wanted (showing comic book cred), and has several projects on the horizon including its sequel.
2. Louis Leterrier: Got his start with The Transporter, delivered a strong version of Hulk with Ed Norton (also comic book cred), but may have stumbled a bit with Clash of the Titans.
3. David Slade: Shocked people with Hard Candy, scared people with 30 Days of Night (oh crap, more comic book cred), and shocked Neil Miller with a good trailer for Twilight: Eclipse.
4. Daniel Espinosa: The Deadline write-up labels him as Daniel Espinoza, so I have no way of knowing if this is who they meant, but Espionsa is the Swedish filmmaker who directed Snabba Cash (which is now getting remade with Zac Efron).
5. Carl Erick Rinsch: Blew people’s minds with his short film The Gift, and is set to direct 47 Ronin for Universal.
6. Matthew Vaughn: Got a head start producing Guy Ritchie’s films, directed Layer Cake and Stardust, and just earned his comic book cred with Kick-Ass this year.

The early word is that Vaughn was the top choice, but that talks are iffy. With a decision being made by next week, who would you argue for if you were in the room at Fox right now?

I think sometimes I forget how fervently I worship certain directors, or even just the career itself. It’s an awe-inspiring, cyclopean task that’s taken on by these brave men and women, and when they emerge on the other side of it successful, it’s to be applauded. When the emerge on the other side as icons, it’s to be worshiped.

I’m reminded of that healthy obsession whenever I hear a director who has risen to the top of his or her field say something completely moronic.

In an interview with Screen Daily, Ridley Scott claimed that he wouldn’t have any of he iconic creature designs in his upcoming Alien prequel. The main reason: because they’re completely “worn out.”

This is, well, damn it, it’s true. Scott brings up a great point, and it’s perfectly valid (and heartbreaking that commercial bullshit killed such a cool creature), but part of me still thinks it’s a misstep. No drooling, teeth-baring, double-teeth-baring alien in Alien? The shark from Jaws has been culturally beaten to death, but I can’t even conceive of a Jaws prequel (or another film for that matter) not featuring the damned shark.

To wit, I offer Patton Oswalt‘s famous rant about the Star Wars prequels as proof that we don’t want to see where something we love came from. We just want to see something we love:

Keep in mind, there are bound to be some sort of aliens in the prequel. I mean, logic dictates it. Still, it can be seen as a fantastic opportunity to create and innovate or a fantastic opportunity to let fans down.

So what do you think?

I have gone on record as not being the biggest fan of Monster Squad. Granted, that record was me being interviewed by Roger Ebert as played by the Iron Man maquette on the desk of Reject HQ who was holding a carrot that I was pretending was a microphone.

That controversial interview aside, the recent non-controversial interview that Shock Til You Drop did with Platinum Dunes producer Brad Fuller revealed a strange possibility in the forthcoming remake.

According to Fuller, they have several different versions of their Monster Squad remake in the till right now – meaning that they might stay true to the original or they might go crazy.

I take that craziness to mean that there’s a possibility that the classic monsters (Dracula, Wolfman, Mummy, Frankenstein, Fish Monster Thing From the Deep) might be replaced by new villains.

I have no idea who those villains would be, but just for fun, try to imagine a Monster Squad where the boys were teamed up with

• Jason Vorhees
• Freddy Krueger
• Jigsaw (complete with mobile IV unit)
• The Cloverfield Monster
• …and a Romero-style Zombie

This is absurd. I realize that. But it’s a strange and terrible sort of absurdity.

I highly doubt that it’s going to go down without the classics, but if they had to go, what monsters/villains would you like to see in the flick?

Inquiring minds are desperate to know.