It was only a few years ago that actor Sacha Baron Cohen could take one of his eccentric, ignorant and goofy characters across middle America and hold up a mirror to the country’s uneasiness with foreigners and homosexuals, among other things. But then “Borat” was released and became an instant comedy classic, shooting the extremely talented actor responsible for the hilarious “Da Ali G Show” into superstardom. Though he was still able to fool people in the less successful follow-up “Bruno,” Cohen’s box office success combined with his increasingly recognizable face and lanky frame made his formula of pestering oblivious people under the guise of a documentary become less possible. With this in mind, Cohen makes his first foray into the world of scripted narratives to bring another larger than life character to the screen in “The Dictator.”

While in the U.S. fixing to speak to the U.N. about a potential military intervention, the racist and nuclear weapon- obsessed Republic of Wadiya dictator Admiral General Aladeen (Cohen) is kidnapped and replaced with a look-alike. The plan is orchestrated by Aladeens uncle and advisor, Tamir (Ben Kingsley) in an effort to democratize Wadiya and open up its oil supply. While staggering around New York City, Aladeen runs into a local vegan store operator named Zoey who gives him a job while he plots a way to stop the decoy from signing the document to change Wadiya.

As usual, Cohen immerses himself in a character complete with a crafted accent and exaggeratedly unethical cultural customs. Like 2009’s “Bruno,” this film doesn’t feature one of Cohen’s stronger characters, though without question, he commits to a performance more than most comedic actors. As the love interest, Faris plays the role of Zoey pretty straight, mostly reacting to the absurdness of Aladeen. It makes for an okay, if not slightly disappointing performance considering how strong her comedic chops can be. The strongest member of the supporting cast is Jason Mantzoukas who plays Aladeen’s right hand man Nadal. Perhaps best known for his work on TV’s “The League,” Mantzoukas is able improvise lines and infuse great comedic timing to deliver some of the films funnier moments. Other than the role played by Kingsley, the rest of the cast is essentially a revolving door of cameos which work to varying degrees. John C. Reilly’s intensely racist character stands out in particular, while the Megan Fox cameo seen in trailers and commercials is particularly stale.

While the film misses more than it hits, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have humorous moments. The problem with these scenes, however, is that every single joke in “The Dictator” is easy. It isn’t just the excessive usage of shock and gross-out humor for an easy laugh. It’s pretty much every joke in the film. From the opening credits dedication of the film “in loving memory of Kim Jong Il” to the wacky customs of Wadiya to the androgynous appearance of Zoey, every joke can be spotted from a mile away.

There’s no question that Cohen is one of the most talented character creators in the film industry today. But based on the quality of his last two character-driven films, perhaps it’s time to move past the zany foreigner conceit. The fact that there are enough body hair jokes to count on two hands should inform potential audiences the humor in “The Dictator” can often be eye-rollingly lazy. And even when a joke comes around that works, one is more likely to crack a smile than bust a gut.

“I actually put my audition on tape and sent it to [director] Patricia [Riggen],” Ramírez, 17, told me during an interview. “It was a little intimidating, but thankfully she liked me.”

Not only did Riggen like Ramírez, she cast her in the lead role of “Girl in Progress,” the follow up to Riggen’s 2007 film “Under the Same Moon.” In the film, Ramírez plays Ansiedad, a frustrated teenager who decides she will create her own coming-of-age story so she can fast forward her adolescence and become an adult.

During our interview, Ramírez talked about whether she has gone through her own rebellious phase as a teenager and how actress Eva Mendes, who plays her mother in the film, helped her through the acting process. “Girl in Progress” opens at theaters May 11.

Since you’re around the same age as your character Ansiedad, have you gone though any of the same things she has? Were you able to relate to her?

Well, I definitely related to the character in a sense that I, too, am a girl in progress. I’m still trying to find myself and my coming-of-age story. But Ansiedad is in a very big rush to grow up. That’s very unlike me because I am really trying to enjoy my teenage years. I’m trying to take it slow and not rush into anything.

Did you ever put your parents through the same rebellious phase Ansiedad puts her mom through?

(Laughs) Definitely not. I’m not as rebellious as her. I’m thankful I don’t have parents that I feel I need to get their attention. They’ve always been there for me.

What was your experience working with Eva Mendes?

I was a little nervous going into the film because she is so well known. But she made me feel right at home and treated me as her equal. She helped me through the process of becoming this character. What helped me a lot is that she’s the type of actress that likes to stay in character throughout filming. We really had fun on the set because her character is very childish. She was a really great friend.

Something the film explains are these rites of passage a teenager must go through before becoming an adult. Have you experienced a rite of passage yet? Did you have a quinceñera, maybe?

I actually didn’t have a quinceñera, but I did get to take part in one for my cousin. I’ve just never really been into parties. But the thing I’m most looking forward to in that aspect is getting my license.

What else is happening in your immediate future?

Well, I relocated to L.A. because I booked a role on the show “The Secret Life of the American Teenager,” which is super exciting. But I still want to continue with school. A dream of mine is to become an executive producer and writer. I would love if that ended up happening to me in the future.

During an interview with me last week, Riggen talked about the challenges she faced growing up as an independent spirit in a conservative home in Guadalajara, Mexico and what currently worries her about her own 4-year-old daughter.

Were you a rebellious teenager like the main character in “Girl in Progress?”

Well, I grew up in a very conservative family. I wanted to be independent. I loved going out to parties and dancing and being with my friends and boyfriend – everything a normal teen would do. I just wanted to live my life. I never got into anything really bad. That was already bad enough in a conservative family.

Do you think it was harder for you as a teen growing up in a Latino family?

Oh my God, yes. Especially in a very machista society like Mexico, women are meant to get married. That’s the goal in life. It’s not a bad goal, but I always thought, “Why not combine that with getting a career and being a professional?” That was my struggle. Thankfully, I was able to do that. I am a female Latina director. I am a very rare species.

If you could talk to your teenage self, what would you tell her?

I would tell her to be more self-assured and to enjoy life while it lasts, especially those younger years. Life is hard, but you just have to keep going and make the best of it.

It is just a coincidence that your movie about mothers and daughters will be released just in time for Mother’s Day weekend?

I didn’t know at first, so when they told me I thought it was perfect. What I like about the movie is that it speaks to moms and daughters and the struggles they face together. I don’t see that very much in movies today. I like that the movie is fun and entertaining, but at the same time it has a message about teenage pregnancy and bullying and how to understand each other. [Latinas] are an underserved audience. There aren’t very many movies out there that speak to us. It’s a perfect gift for Mother’s Day.

It’s interesting that a movie like this was written by a male screenwriter. How did that change the perspective of the story?

I think [screenwriter] Hiriam [Martinez] did a nice job. He has a very nice style and is very smart. I came in and gave the characters more of a female perspective, which is something I usually do with writers. I did the same with “Under the Same Moon” so I could bring in my own vision. Hiriam is a very talented guy. These movies are hard to make with Latinas and female main characters. They’re not easily financed. We’re lucky that we were able to make this one.

Since the days of “Edward Scissorhands,” the cinematic pairing of director Tim Burton with mega-star Johnny Depp has brought with it certain expectations: a Gothic tone, a chilly color palette, and Depp in some form of fright wig/pancake make-up combination. When it works, as in “Scissorhands” or “Sweeny Todd,” it’s a delightful marriage of style and quirk. When it doesn’t, however, as in “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” or “Alice in Wonderland,” the end result is an exhausting mess of, well, style and quirk. But in a bad way.

In their eighth collaborative effort, Burton and Depp tackle a project seemingly tailor-made for their sensibilities: a big-screen adaptation of “Dark Shadows,” the cult TV soap opera from the late-’60s best known for it’s main character, vampire Barnabas Collins. Depp, of course, plays Collins, who narrates a grim prologue detailing his youth spent in colonial Maine. As the son of a wealthy fishing family, Collins meets with tragedy after romantically spurning Angelique (Eva Green), a family housekeeper who also happens to be a witch. Soon afterward, Collins’ parents are killed in an accident engineered by Angelique. She is also responsible for Collins’ fiancee Josette (Bella Heathcote) being bewitched into throwing herself off a cliff, as well as Collins himself being cursed to live out eternity as a vampire buried alive in a locked coffin.

The story jumps ahead to 1972 as a young woman, Victoria (also Bella Heathcote), travels to Collinwood to take a job as a governess for what remains of the Collins family. Led by matriarch Elizabeth (Michelle Pfieffer) and featuring weaselly brother Roger (Jonny Lee Miller), rebellious teenager Carolyn (Chloe Grace Moretz) and haunted child David (Gully McGrath), the family is in shambles both financially and emotionally. The arrival of Victoria is meant to bring stability to David, who is grieving the loss of his mother. However Victoria has her own problems, namely a tragic childhood and ghost that looks just like her prowling the halls of the sprawling mansion passing on cryptic messages. And all of this happens before a construction crew accidentally frees Barnabas Collins, whose return prompts retaliatory action from the still-living Angelique (now known as Angel, the town’s powerful fishing magnate) as well as a whole mess of fish-out-of-water jokes. Crap, I haven’t even gotten to the fact that Helena Bonham Carter and Jackie Earl Haley are hanging around Collinwood, too.

If you think that sounds like too much plot and too many characters for a movie running just under 2 hours, you’re right. Threads are picked up and dropped at a moment’s notice. Heathcote’s Victoria is saddled with a laborious back story that fails to pay off in any way. On the flip side, Moretz’s Carolyn is given an out-of-left-field third act twist that’s explained away by one throwaway line of dialogue. Helena Bonham Carter’s Dr. Hoffman doesn’t offer much to the story beyond an eye-rolling set up for a sequel that is likely dead on arrival. And even with a fine performance by Depp, Collins is given little to do but stalk from plot point to plot point to deliver wry lines in an aristocratic accent. Pair things like that with a wildly inconsistent tone that veers on a whim from straight-faced melancholy to winking dry humor and we’re left with another tiresome disappointment from Burton wherein the only element given any attention seems to have been Johnny Depp’s make-up.

It’s a term every high school freshman English class has covered since teachers started passing out copies of “The Catcher in the Rye” and “To Kill a Mockingbird.” Whether reading Charlotte Bronte’s original novel “Jane Eyre” or watching director Cary Fukunaga’s dark and elegant film adaptation from last year, the coming-of-age story has outlined the transition from childhood to adulthood for a countless number of literary and cinematic characters over generations. Adding itself into the already crowded film genre is “Girl in Progress,” a sort of meta coming-of-age tale that attempts to stand out from the pack by making its lead protagonist self-aware of her own maturation. It’s a sometimes clever albeit limiting little concept from director Patricia Riggen (“Under the Same Moon”) and first-time feature screenwriter Hiram Martínez that never rises above the initial setup. There may be a serious need for more well-structured, Latino-themed movies of this brand (consider “Raising Victor Vargas,” “Real Women Have Curves,” and “Quinceañera” admirable examples), but “Girl in Progress” is sadly not one of them.

Meet Ansiedad (newcomer Cierra Ramírez in a likeable role), a frustrated teenager living in Seattle who is tired of being treated like a kid by her often negligent mother Grace (Eva Mendes), whose current relationship with a married doctor (Matthew Modine) doesn’t make her an ideal role model for her daughter. When Ansiedad (Spanish for anxiety) learns what a coming-of-age story is in school, she decides she will fast-track her way through adolescence by checking off a list of things she must experience to reach adulthood (first kiss, bad-girl phase, loss of virginity, running away to NYC, etcetera).

The approach “Girl in Progress” takes might’ve worked if it didn’t play right into the hand it wanted to avoid. By giving Ansiedad the freedom to map out her own transformative journey, there aren’t any scenes of insight or ambition except on an artificial level. Instead, Martínez fashions the script in the same manner Ansiedad would if she chose to ever document her unrealistic strategy on paper, cliché after cliché.

In one particular scene that had the potential of being a very sweet moment between mother and daughter, Grace kneels at the base of a bathtub to wash Ansiedad’s hair and have a heart-to-heart talk. The scene is interrupted by Grace’s ringing cell phone, which she promptly answers to unnecessarily reiterate how self-involved her character is. It’s only one example of the many pointless plot devices misused in “Girl in Progress,” a family film that defines the word epiphany so someone can actually have an epiphany. If that’s considered forward-thinking filmmaking, here’s to always staying a step behind.

“Part of my job as director is to stay a step ahead of the audience and to keep them intrigued,” Hicks, 59, told me during a phone interview last month. “I think there are a lot of elements that will really distinguish ‘The Lucky One’ from the other Nicholas Sparks-based films.”

In “The Lucky One,” U.S. Marine Sergeant Logan Thibault (Zac Efron) searches for a woman he credits for keeping him alive during his tours in Iraq.

During our interview, Hicks, who also directed “The Boys are Back” starring Clive Owen and “Hearts in Atlantis” starring Sir Anthony Hopkins, talked more about his role as a director in adapting a novel written by someone as popular as Sparks, and what he thinks about The Lucky One being considered a “date movie.”

Was it a goal of yours to try and make this film different from other Nicholas Sparks adaptations? There have, of course, been a number of them over the last few years.

Well, yes, because you don’t want the audience to feel like they’re going down the same road they have before. At the same time, the film does fall under the genre of a Nicholas Sparks romance. As a filmmaker, you want to tell the story in a different fashion. Among those [different] elements in [‘The Lucky One’] is the war setting, which is quite hard hitting at the beginning of the movie. Then there are the love scenes, which I really wanted to do in a way that was fresh.

How did you confront a film adapted from someone with such a huge fanbase as Nicholas Sparks?

Well, there was already a very receptive audience that came along with the film. Nicholas Sparks has a huge following as a writer. The movies that have been made from his books have also been very successful. As a director, I’m making something for a very eager audience. My task was to make sure I got the feel and the emotion and the core of the novel onto the screen.

In past interviews, Sparks has said he sometimes likes being on the set of movies that are being adapted from his work. Was he on the set for “The Lucky One?” How receptive are you to writers who want to be close to the action?

In this instance he wasn’t a presence. He certainly did come and visit us, which was fun. He keeps in close contact with one of the producers. He has a great relationship there that goes back a number years. I think he felt like his book was in good hands. As a director, you’re making a different creation. You’re using the words, obviously, but it’s its own animal.

Over the past few years, it seems like actor Zac Efron has been trying to distance himself from his days as a tween heartthrob in the “High School Musical” series by taking on more serious roles like in “Me and Orsen Wells” and “Charlie St. Cloud.” What did you see in him that led you to believe he could accomplish that here?

When I met with Zac I was really impressed with his energy and enthusiasm. I think that eagerness is really something you look for as a director. We talked a lot about how this was going to involve a lot of work for him. Zac is not a Marine, so I needed him to give the effort to gain that physique, which he was totally prepared to do. He turned out to be a very hardworking actor who was focused on his craft.

Was it important to you as a director to make the details of war and combat as authentic as possible?

Very much so. Regardless what one’s attitude is to the war from a political aspect, you’re making a film and it has to look and feel believable. I think you have to do this to respect the sacrifice of all those involved. I’ve been very appreciative of the comments I’ve received from Marines who have seen the film. They’ve felt the characters and experiences have been portrayed authentically. I tried to do that by taking Zac down to Camp Pendleton to hang out with Marines so he could get a sense of their lives. In addition to the physical work he was doing, I wanted him to get a sense of the mindset of people involved in that world.

As a director who has made a number of different films in different genres, are you comfortable with the term “date movie,” which might be the way this film is categorized by some people?

I’m quite comfortable with that. This is a movie where the most appreciative audiences are likely to be women. But at the same time, women take their men to the cinema with them. The response that I’ve gotten from guys is, “Wow, this wasn’t as bad as I thought it was going to be.” (Laughs) Yes, it’s a chick flick, but it’s also a chick flick for guys. The success of a film like “The Notebook,” for example, was in part because guys surprised themselves in finding they really enjoyed the movie. Hopefully, “The Lucky One” will strike that same chord.

After your success in 1996 with the film “Shine,” have you ever felt any pressure to get back to that level of filmmaking again in the last 16 years?

Not really. To me, it was such an extraordinary journey with “Shine.” It was a little film made for very little, but went as far as films can go in this business. It changed my life. Far from any pressure, it put me into a whole new landscape. It gave me new access to material and talent and resources in a way I didn’t have before. Of course, one is always looking for ideas and hoping things can really connect with audiences, but I’ve never really looked at it as a pressure – more of a privilege.

It happens in the second half of the highly-anticipated Marvel comic-book movie “The Avengers,” a precisely planned superhero assemblage that has been culminating since 2008′s release of both “Iron Man” and “The Incredible Hulk” reboot (most über-nerds unfairly ignore director Ang Lee’s fascinating “Hulk” of 2003 as art-house nonsense). As “The Avengers” ensemble cast, including Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man and Chris Hemsworth as Thor, contemplate how to stop the supervillain Loki (Tom Hiddleston) from destroying the earth with his barrage of alien soldiers and machines, Captain America (Chris Evans) takes it upon himself to assign his comrades to do what each one of them does best.

“Hulk … smash,” he says, directing his bulging, green, gamma ray-infused super teammate who swiftly carries out his instructions by ripping apart serpent-like battleships running amok in NYC. It’s a phrase fanboys will be pleased to hear, especially since Marvel seemed to agree with their assessment of Lee’s aforementioned attempt, which prompted the studio to hit the reset button by plugging Edward Norton into Eric Bana’s transforming role as Bruce Banner (the role now belongs to Mark Ruffalo after creative differences arose between Marvel and Norton). From that point on, the comic-book conglomerate knew exactly what they needed their Universe to become.

“The Avengers” isn’t trying to reinvent the comic-book movie like Lee or Christopher Nolan with his “Dark Knight” trilogy. It’s evident that the studio’s main objective is mass commercial appeal and not to clutter things up with complex ideas and themes. That’s exactly what they’ve been doing over the last four years. With releases like “Thor” and “Captain America: The First Avenger,” they wanted to give fans already invested in these characters concrete evidence no one was going to wax philosophical. They wanted big, blaring scenes capable of melting eyeballs in 3D. In the simplest of terms, they wanted to see Hulk, well, smash.

And smash he does in “The Avengers” alongside the mightiest of heroes, which first appeared together in comic books written by industry savant Stan Lee in the early ’60s. Back then, the squad was created to compete with the ever-growing popularity of DC Comics’ Justice League. While the roster has changed over the years, the modern film adaptations have chosen to follow the characters best able to sidestep their natural comic-book kitsch (sorry Ant-Man, your protruding shoulder pads are just too silly to overcome). With approximately $1.8 billion in box-office revenue worldwide, geekdom has spoken. Despite its flaws, “The Avengers” is solid entertainment.

What better way to appease the geeks than with one of their own? Directed by cult favorite Joss Whedon (TV’s “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” and “Angel”), “The Avengers” is pumped with exciting action sequences and razor-sharp special effects that can compete with anything Marvel has ever put out. Known for his clever writing ability (screw Buffy, the dude wrote Darlene’s “To Whom it Concerns” poem during a Season 2 episode of “Roseanne!”), Whedon’s dialogue is perfect for more charismatic characters like industrialist playboy Tony Stark — though far less so for characters like Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), and the always doltish Thor, who unfortunately doesn’t provide much oomph to the already ordinary storyline. It starts with Thor’s evil brother Loki, a flimsily written antagonist who is able to get his hands on a powerful cube known as the Tesseract, which holds the key to unlimited sustainable energy. With the planet on the brink of destruction, S.H.I.E.L.D. director Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) rallies his all-star team together to (trumpet fanfare) save the human race. Before they can do that, however, the Avengers must experience some growing pains as a diverse superhero unit and quibble like kids on the playground. It’s during these fight scenes that fanboy fantasies come true. Watching Thor’s hammer slam down onto Captain America’s shield is the stuff of epic wonder. Other amazing feats of action bliss include the Hulk intercepting a fighter pilot as he ejects from a damaged jet, and Stark changing into his Iron Man suit in midair.

While the narrative itself leaves much to be desired, Whedon, who also has the overrated meta horror movie “The Cabin in the Woods” out at theaters, does have a knack for hilarious pop-culture references, snappy one-liners that get every character involved, and some physical comedy. It all keeps the story from falling into too many past superhero pitfalls. “The Avengers” may not divert much from the typical superhero blueprint, but what hardcore Marvel enthusiast would really want that anyway?

“There’s no logic to the algebra of love,” says one of the female characters in “Damsels in Distress,” an extremely dry and self-aware indie romantic comedy by director/writer Whit Stillman (“The Last Days of Disco”). The line is an example of the satirical and nonsensical dialogue aimed at exploring the pretentious nature of the new generation of overly quirky college students. At times, Stillman’s smart-alecky script makes you almost believe that what the characters are saying in this odd film makes complete sense. Mostly, however, “Damsels in Distress,” like its cast of female talent, never realizes its full potential.

The film stars indie darling Greta Gerwig (“Hannah Takes the Stairs,” “Greenberg”) as Violet, the leader of a college clique of progressive young women who take it upon themselves to help fellow coeds realize they don’t know much about the opposite sex or life in general. Volunteers at the campus Suicide Prevention Center, Violet, along with her cohorts Heather (Carrie MacLemore), Rose (Megalyn Echikunwoke), and new recruit Lily (Analeigh Tipton), maneuver their way across the social landscape to demonstrate how much more intelligent they are in comparison to the sea of inferior (and stinky) men in their midst.

It’s hilarious to think these girls really are helping the world in their own peculiar way, which is why Stillman’s screenplay is the type of writing that is both unique and aggravating. These are the type of neurotic girls most neurotic boys would love to hang around. The problem is, none of them are based in anything that could be described as realism. They are cute, bourgey caricatures and nothing more. There is a false sense of depth to them that may only be transparent to those who do not fall for their girlish charms.

It’s unfortunate since Stillman, who returns to filmmaking after a more than a decade, has a very specific and uncommon voice in the industry. Most film directors simply don’t have the backbone to make these types of movies (someone like filmmaker Todd Solondz would be an exception).  Still, as happy-go-lucky as a story like this can be, it can also cross that fine line into annoyance. “Damsels in Distress” fits in well with Stillman’s other “comedies of mannerlessness” from the 90s (“Metropolitan,” “Barcelona,” and “Disco”), but unless you fully commit yourself to this small army of arrogant personalities, it won’t be much fun even as a curiosity piece.

With 75 years working the same job and the number of accolades received, one would think that chef Jiro Ono would be content with where he stands in the culinary world. After all, he’s the first sushi chef to receive the coveted three Michelin star rating and has even been named a national treasure by his native country of Japan. But at 85 years of age Jiro still works as hard as he ever has and strives for perfection, a common theme in “Jiro Dreams of Sushi,” a brisk documentary about the life and work of man regarded as the best sushi chef the world.

“Jiro Dreams of Sushi” is a minimalist film in every sense. The subject matter, storytelling, and cinematography are extremely straightforward. Director David Gelb, however, is able to make basic shots of preparing sushi elegant by slowing the camera down and making every single subtle hand movement completely dramatic and all the more deliberate. The minimalism isn’t just limited to the filmmaking. It is also represented in the way Jiro carries himself. He is a simple man that believes you must fall in love with your job and dedicate your life to your work. He lives according to a daily repeated routine. Even his restaurant is minimal. Located in a subway station, there are only 10-seats (that must be booked a month in advance) in the establishment and patrons get the same menu and same food every day.

One of the more dominant stories in “Jiro Dreams of Sushi” is Jiro’s reluctance to retire and the pressure on his son, Yoshikazu, to take over for his father when that time comes. As with Japanese tradition, the eldest son is meant to take over the father’s business when he is forced to stop by retirement or death. For Yoshikazu, taking over for the man who revolutionized sushi is quite the burden, especially considering that he himself is 50 years old. This subject is explored perfectly by Gelb, with interviews with Yoshikazu and Jiro, who reiterates how important it is that his son keeps his legacy alive for the rest of his life. Interviews from a Japanese food writer are also extremely insightful into the subject of sushi and on Jiro himself.

Admittedly, “Jiro Dreams of Sushi” doesn’t contain the most exciting subject matter. There are stretches of the film which only feature people preparing food or shopping at a fish market. Still, it is not often that you get to intimately peek into the life and study the craft of someone who is the best in the world at what they do. He is often hard on his employees (especially his son) as he craves perfection. The scenes in which we see Jiro calmly and confidently work and serve a table full of guests in culinary bliss demonstrate why perfection is so important to Jiro. With a runtime of only an hour and change, “Jiro Dreams of Sushi” makes for a light course that goes down as smooth as a Unagi roll dipped in wasabi.

Ever since “The 40-Year-Old Virgin” became a hit in 2005, the influence of its director Judd Apatow has been felt in nearly every comedy Hollywood has released since. The raunchy dialogue, the nudity, and the themes of male sentimentality have become a bankable style, used by Apatow proteges and copycats alike.

“The Five-Year Engagement” is the latest vulgar romantic comedy from the Apatow-backed duo of director/writer Nicholas Stoller and writer/star Jason Segal, previously responsible for “Forgetting Sarah Marshall,” which itself was responsible for introducing most of the world to Jason Segal’s penis. This time Segal stars as Tom, an affable San Francisco sous chef who opens the film nervously bumbling his way toward proposing to girlfriend Violet (Emily Blunt) by way of a sweetly amateurish skit. With their engagement official, Tom and Violet start to feel the pressure from both sides of the family to marry as soon as possible. However, as it sometimes does, life gets in the way: Violet lands a university job in Michigan, and a reluctantly supportive Tom travels halfway across the country with her, agreeing to postpone their wedding plans while they adjust to life in a new town.

As with the rest of the films producer Apatow has a hand in, the story in “The Five-Year Engagement” is in no particular hurry to unfold. Writers Segal and Stoller take their time, stocking the edges of the story with hilarious minor characters, including the scene-stealing couple played by Chris Pratt and Alison Brie. Director Stoller invites other comedic ringers like Chris Parnell, Brian Posehn, Mindy Kaling, and Kevin Hart to swing by for extended amounts of time just to hang out instead of actually advancing the main plot in any way. The result is a shaggy film that fits squarely in the Apatow/Segal/Stoller brand yet feels like a run-of-the-mill broad romantic comedy at the same time.

With “Forgetting Sarah Marshall,” Segal and Stoller made a romantic comedy for young men, one wherein the well-meaning man-child was done wrong by an indifferent, uncaring woman. “The Five-Year Engagement” seems to represent an effort to appeal to both men and women, with Segal’s well-meaning man-child being equally responsible for the highs and lows of his relationship with a Blunt’s caring, emotionally-conflicted career woman. At times, though, Segal and Stoller end up outside their comfort zone, littering the plot with threadbare romantic comedy tropes like a fanciful stunt wedding and the rakish older professor (Rhys Ifans) whose ill intentions can be seen coming miles away. But Segal and Stoller still realize the inherent hilarity in seeing Segal’s bare ass, so at least they haven’t forgotten where they came from.

“Now, a lot of people seem more interested in my work,” Vidal told me during an interview last week. “It has helped me to continue to do what I love doing. I think I’m going in the right direction.”

This year, Vidal composes the score for “The Raven,” his first film released nationwide by a major studio. Directed by James McTeigue (“V for Vendetta”), “The Raven” tells the fictional story of a 19^th century serial killer whose crimes are inspired by the writings of Edgar Allan Poe (John Cusack).

During our interview, Vidal, who made history at the Berklee College of Music in Boston when he became the youngest student to ever compose and record the score for a feature film with an 80-piece orchestra, talked about the process he undertakes when writing music for a film and named a couple of working composers today he draws inspiration from.

Did you do any research on Edgar Allan Poe to get inspired to write a score for this film?

I always try to do some research when I write a score, but for this one [McTeigue] wanted something different and something modern. That’s why we used electronic sounds with the orchestra.

That’s interesting. Classic composers like John Williams use only orchestras and then there are other composers who can go into a studio alone and create an entire score on a computer. You combined the two.

Well, I think everyone has a different vision. Both have value. Some people only like electronic scores while others like John Williams like to use orchestras. I like conducting and working with orchestras and making music for motion – whether its film or ballet or theater. I always enjoy supporting things that are visual.

As a composer, do you like getting a copy of the script before you start writing the score or would you rather start your work after the film is completed?

I got the script for “The Raven” first. Then [McTeigue] also started sending me rough scenes from the film. That’s how it started. [McTeigue] wanted something completely different than I thought when I first read the script. He wanted a lot of weird sounds. It was challenging, but it was a very good learning process for me.

What did you think you’d be writing when you first read the script?

You know, I thought it would be something more classical and more period-oriented. But that’s exactly what [McTeigue] didn’t want. It was actually quite interesting. But what he wanted worked out very well.

You’ve worked on thrillers before. What is it about the genre that you like?

I really like how it feels like I am writing a musical script. I get to write something that is not on the screen. In a thriller, you can really play with the thoughts of the audience. That’s what I think makes music magical. It can make people think in a certain direction.

Are there any composers working today that you consider at the top of your field?

I love [French composer] Alexandre Desplat (“The Tree of Life”). I love his style. I also love Alberto Iglesias. He’s from Spain. He works a lot with [director] Pedro Almodóvar (“Talk to Her”). [Desplat] was nominated for an Oscar this year [for “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy”]. His vision is great. There are so many great composers out there I can learn from.

Goodall, 78, is best known for her endless research on wild chimpanzees in East Africa. In support of the new Disneynature documentary “Chimpanzee,” Goodall spoke to me on behalf of the film about the rare footage directors Alastair Fothergill and Mark Linfield captured of a full-grown adult male chimp (Freddy) raising a baby chimp (Oscar) all on his own.

“Chimpanzee” opened at theaters Earth Day, April 20. A portion of the film’s proceeds during opening week will be donated to the Jane Goodall Institute, an international wildlife and environment conservation organization founded in 1977 to improve the treatment of primates through research, education and advocacy, and to preserve and sustain their habitats.

How rare is the story featured in the documentary “Chimpanzee” where a baby chimp is being raised by a full-adult male chimp? Has this ever happened before in nature?

As far as we know, it has only happened once before in the 52 years I have been involved in chimp studies across Africa. You have adoptions, but to have a top-ranking alpha male adopt this baby chimp is just amazing.

Since this is so rare, I’m wondering what is going on in your mind seeing this footage for the first time?

A lot of things are going on in my mind. First of all, it takes me back to the days when I, too, roamed through the forest and followed chimpanzees and saw amazing events while I traveled around the world trying to save chimps. It was also making me think of the tremendous effort this film team put in to get this extraordinary footage. It’s not just the story of the alpha male and little Oscar, it’s also the warlike relations between two neighboring communities. The film footage there is utterly incredible. There are also the long sequences of little Oscar showing us how young chimps learn by watching adults. In this case, it’s especially poignant because he’s watching the alpha male rather than his mother.

What other behaviors from these two specific chimps are captured on film that would be considered rare footage?

Well, we’ve seen these things before. Freddy, the big male, is giving the little chimp tender love like a mother would – carrying him around and sharing his food. What’s rare is that this gentle side is happening underneath this aggressive demeanor this adult chimp needs to have. It’s what makes the film so special along with the absolutely fantastic cinematography.

You’ve been working with chimpanzees all your life. Are there still days when you learn something about these animals you didn’t know before?

I’m always learning new things. It won’t be a dramatic new thing like discovering chimpanzees in the wild use tools and hunt. But every chimpanzee has a different personality. They all have emotions and intellect like us. Because of this we collect different life histories and all their early experiences. It’s very fascinating data on individuals, families, and communities.

Is there something they have taught you overall about humankind?

Two things: One, because they’re so like us biologically, they help me explain to the general public and to scientists that there isn’t a lot dividing us from the rest of the animal kingdom. They also force us to admit that we humans are not the only beings on the planet with personalities, minds, and, above all, emotions. They help us to be more humble and less arrogant.

You’ve been vocal in the past about your displeasure when chimpanzees are used as actors or bought as pets. Do you worry a film like “Chimpanzee” might overemphasize how cute these animals are as babies and cause more people to think they can raise these animals on their own?

I think it will be the opposite. Yes, Oscar is cute, but people will realize he needs to be with his own kind. Also, when you look at the behavior of the big males and see the violence during their aggressive conflicts, nobody is going to want to have a creature like that in their home. I think it will actually have a great benefit in our fight to get people to stop buying them. Hopefully, people will come to understand how amazing chimpanzees are. That, in turn, will help raise more awareness and money and help us do our work of protecting chimpanzees in Africa.