Director Tim Burton’s visual sensibility is once again at the forefront of another dark spectacle full of big ideas but ultimately hollow at its core. This time it’s “Alice in Wonderland,” a beautifully-realized take on the popular 19th century Lewis Carroll tale, which has been remade numerous times in the past 100 years.

In the newest version, “Alice” takes the best of what Burton does and buries it under an incoherent narrative by animated film screenwriter Linda Woolverton (“Beauty and the Beast,” “The Lion King”). It’s not so much that the magic or overall look has been squandered. The twisted tale of a Mad Hatter, a waist-coated white rabbit, and Cheshire Cat is quite stunning with the characters going through a computer-generated makeover. Burton’s version, however, must overcompensate on imagination when the sluggish story sucks all the adventure out of what could have been an epic reimaging of a beloved classic.

Fresh-face Australian actress Mia Wasikowska (“Defiance”) is entrusted with the role of the title character. In a sort of sequel to any of the preceding films, here Alice is actually returning to the fantasy world most people know from the trippy Disney film of 1951. In this adaptation, Alice is an unconventional 19-year-old who visits a place called Underland after she rejects a suitor who has asked for her hand in marriage.

Bothered by nightmares of her first journey down the rabbit hole (an event she hardly remembers), Alice stumbles yet again into a land where flowers talk, frogs are royal servants, and oversized facial features are signs power. Woolverton’s script even finds room for Carroll’s Jabberwocky, a monstrous character first introduced in his novel “Through the Looking Glass.”

Since her last visit, the vile and bulbous-headed Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) has taken over. Alice does her best impersonation of the kids from “The Chronicles of Narnia” to try to stop her and her loyal army. A prophetic scroll shown at the beginning of her second coming reveals Alice to be the one who will put an end to the queen’s reign. Most of the characters, however, think she is the “wrong Alice” and won’t be able to help.

Cast near-perfectly especially with Johnny Depp as the eccentric Mad Hatter, Crispin Glover as the sinister Knave of Hearts, and Alan Rickman and Stephen Fry lending their voices for the hooka-smoking Blue Caterpillar and the hypnotic Cheshire Cat respectively, “Alice” definitely transports us to the world we all new Burton could create. It’s unfortunate, however, that the digital enhancements outweigh a story that is more aware of its dreamlike marvels than before. Because Alice is older, that childlike sense of wonderment is absent. Woolverton (off with her head!) compounds the problem by fashioning a whimsical yet convoluted tale that often becomes dull and gaudy all at once.

Someone really needs to start a Save the Squibs campaign in Hollywood. Those tiny little explosive devices used in the movies to pop packets of fake blood and create the effect of someone getting shot are being wasted. While squibs are fairly cheap in comparison to other special effects, the cost can add up if you use them as gratuitously as director Antoine Fuqua does in his latest dirty-cop film “Brooklyn’s Finest.” It’s a violent, mind-numbing, and generic cop flick that kicks down the door with guns blazing and has nothing new to say.

Despite the overemphasis on the brutality of life in the hood, the blood spurting is not the real problem. Fuqua filled Denzel Washington with bullet holes at the end of his Academy Award-winning performance in “Training Day” in 2001 and that violent scene was shot to perfection. What doesn’t work in “Finest,” however, is Fuqua inability to detach himself in any way from first-time screenwriter Michael C. Martin’s horribly clichéd script and his failure to differentiate intense performances with overacting.

In “Finest,” three New York City police officers play the pawns of this wannabe gritty drama. Richard Gere (“Nights in Rodanthe”) is Eddie, a veteran cop with an alcohol problem who is only a week away from retirement. You get a sense of who he is when he rolls out of bed and into a bottle of Jack. He’s also in love with a prostitute, but the script doesn’t really explain why. Don Cheadle (“Traitor”) is Tango, an undercover cop who is caught up in the criminal underworld and hope he can soon transfer to a cozy desk job. His last assignment: to put the sting on a criminal friend (Wesley Snipes) who just happened to save his life. Ethan Hawke (“Training Day”) is Sal, a crooked cop who starts stealing drug money so he can buy a new home for his growing family.

As Gere, Cheadle, and Hawke hobble through the motions, Martin’s haphazard story structure quickly falls apart before it even begins. If there is supposed to be some kind of statement about the injustices in black America or how faith can’t always heal a reckless soul, Fuqua and Martin miss the mark. “Finest” becomes a hopeless narrative sew together with weakly-written characters with nothing to live for and no reason to change.

Without any emotion invested in any of the officers, there is not much to be concerned over when bodies begin to hit the floor and Fuqua starts thinking he is Francis Ford Coppola and Martin Scorsese. Even when his stock was at it’s highest nine years ago, he still didn’t come close.

There is certainly a reason that the German film “The White Ribbon,” which won the top prize at last year’s Cannes Film Festival, is the favorite to win the Academy Award for Best Foreign Film this weekend. It’s a haunting, metaphorical drama that speaks on many different levels, none more importantly than the idea of inherent evil and the loss of innocence.

Set in a small, Northern village in Germany at the start of World War I, Austrian director/writer Michael Haneke (“Caché”) builds the film’s tension on the mysterious accidents that begin to plague the villagers. When a doctor is injured after his horse trips on some wire and a boy is tied to a tree and tortured, the strange occurrences no longer seem like accidents as much as they do cruel pranks.

But who is to blame for what is happening in the once-peaceful village? Slowly, Haneke draws back the curtain as we watch the expressionless characters shot in cold black and white put a major dent in the history books. In doing so, Haneke once again explores the dark areas of human nature as he did with 2007’s sadistic “Funny Games.”

Most of “Ribbon” is narrated by a young school teacher (Christian Friedel), who is trying to find meaning behind his country’s fascist ideals and moral deficiency. His thoughts take him back to the small village where he remembers the children and the strict upbringing some of them became accustomed to.

Actor Burghart Klaussner is chilling as a pastor and the father of a handful of these children, who linger in the background of almost every scene like entities. The white ribbon he ties to his son’s and daughter’s arms is supposed to remind them of their purity. As you being to understand Haneke’s unpleasant viewpoint, “Ribbon” becomes all the more disturbing and intriguing.

While he never spells it out for the audience, Haneke’s message is a profound one. Even when he does allow us to see more of the heartlessness of these characters, “Ribbon” never becomes as unsettling as when these moments are happening behind closed doors.

The movie would be small, inexpensive, and a hard sell in the Hollywood market. Krieger didn’t care. This was the type of film he wanted to make.

“Last year, audiences were clearly looking for an escape movie like ‘Avatar.’” Krieger told me during a phone interview. “We knew it was going to be an uphill battle.”

After debuting at the Sundance Film Festival last year, no major studio stepped up to buy the rights to the film. (It’s unfortunate since “The Vicious Kind” was No. 7 in CineSnob.net Top 10 movies of 2009). For the entire year it floated in cinematic limbo until the film earned two Independent Spirit Award nominations this year (Krieger for Best Screenplay; Scott for Best Actor). “The Vicious Kind” was also just released on DVD last week.

The 25th Annual Independent Spirit Awards airs on March 5 at 10 p.m. on IFC.

First, let me just tell you that I loved this movie. What inspired you to make this film?

For me it was a product of seeing a lot of these independent films in the last couple of years. Don’t get me wrong, I liked “Little Miss Sunshine,” but I wanted to see the type of independent films we were seeing in the early and mid-90’s like “Buffalo 66” and “Welcome to the Dollhouse.” These weren’t indies only because of their small budget; they had filmmakers who wanted to tell a story that wasn’t your by-the-numbers drama. I’m a big John Cassavetes fan like a lot of indie filmmaker. His films certainly carry that spirit. One of my favorite movies is “Faces” and clearly he wanted to create a piece where the actors could turn themselves lose. I wanted to make a movie in that spirit. Two more contemporary films that also caught me by surprise were Jonathan Glazer’s “Sexy Beast” and Paul Thomas Anderson’s “Punch-Drunk Love.” I started with the Caleb character. It’s a character that – like him or not – I feel there were a lot of young actors out there that would like to sink their teeth into something like that.

The idea of an independent film has changed so much over the years. Twenty years ago, a filmmaker could get noticed with a good $10,000 film. Now you need $10 million. As an indie filmmaker, has the trend affected you?

Yeah, it’s starting to. In the last year, look at all the specialty division studios are shutting down. Now you’re either making a movie for a studio or maxing out your credit card and asking the doctor down the street for $100,000. You look at Neil LaBute’s first film “In the Company of Men;” that film was made for $25,000. I feel there were a lot more examples of that at Sundance in the mid 90’s than there are now.

If someone gave you $100 million would you know what to do with it? Would you make one huge movie or 100 indies?

(Laughs) I think I’m like every filmmaker that has a couple of big ideas that you might have to have a big budget for, but I would rather make a bunch of small movies than one big one. Beyond the practical reason of if you fuck a $100 million movie up you’d be sent to director’s jail for a long time, I’m draw to character-driven stuff. You look at the work that Paul Thomas Anderson is doing. I want to write something like that where you can get an actor like Daniel Day-Lewis to come out of pseudo-retirement to give a world class performance that will go down in history. That movie will have a longer shelf life than the $100 million studio film.

I see we share a love for Paul Thomas Anderson’s work. He’s my favorite director working today.

He’s arguably the best director alive. I’ll watch anything he does. I think he is one of the only filmmakers working who is incapable of making a bad movie. He might make a movie that doesn’t make money, but I don’t think he’ll ever make a movie that’s not interesting and well done. I don’t think you can even say that about Martin Scorsese. (Laughs) I know that blasphemy. It’s hard to deny how brilliant [Anderson’s] work is.

Recently, Adam Scott told New York Magazine that he’s never had an entire film rest on his shoulders like “The Vicious Kind.” Did you feel like all the pressure was on him?

I agree with him 100 percent. When you write a piece for a tour-de-force performance, it has to be all or nothing. We don’t have any big set pieces to distract the audience. The movie hangs on Adam’s work. If you read Caleb on the page, he could be this totally unlikable character. He had to find a balance between the dark and comedic elements of the character. I knew Adam had a great sense of humor and could do it. When we first sat down and talked Adam said, “I think this is really funny. Is it supposed to be funny?” I said, “Yes, thank God you get it!” Without that element that Adam brings to it, you’re sort of hopeless.

It must have been daunting to give the script to someone and they didn’t think it was funny. But not everything reads funny on the page like “The Squid and the Whale.”

That’s funny you mention that movie because I own that script. It’s one of my favorites. I didn’t read it before I saw the movie, so now I’m wondering if I had read it beforehand would I have thought it was funny as it is now. I think you just have to have a perverse, darker sensibility and humor to laugh at those sorts of things. My dad read [“The Vicious Kind”] script and said, “I think this is really fucking dark. I think this it’s really upsetting and I think you need to see someone.” He didn’t think any of it was the slightest bit funny. That was kind of disconcerting. There are some people that probably feel the same way as my dad, but we knew we weren’t making a movie for everybody.

Has he seen the movie since?

My mom and dad saw the movie at Sundance, yes. It’s hard to tell, but I think they are both bigger fans of the film than they were of the script. I think a lot of people that didn’t get it right away get it now. That’s really a testament to Adam understanding the balance. That charm and charisma he brings to his character is something I take no credit for. He made my job incredibly easy. He was Caleb from Day 1.

Tell me about shooting the supermarket scene. It seems like as a director you just need to step out of the way and let the actors do their work and hope they get it right because it would be hard to recreate that emotion over and over again.

Yeah, we didn’t have much rehearsal time, but we were able to go over some of the scenes that I thought where going to be the tougher ones and that was one of them. That was one scene where I felt it was really close to the way I wrote it and pictured it in my head. Adam and Brittney [Snow] had really settled into their characters and we had all really gotten into a groove. I think I was trying to stay out of the way and thinking, “How do we get him to that place.”

I know Adam called you up because he wanted the role. How did Brittney Snow get on board?

We were talking about Adam and a couple of other guys for the role like Paul Schneider and Jeremy Davies. I felt we wanted to switch it up with her. We like the notion of turning the role on its side and doing something people wouldn’t expect. A name we were really talking about was someone like Olivia Thirlby because she was and is such an indie darling. We didn’t really want to do something that was obvious. To me, Brittney was one of these pretty actresses that is really underrated. I met with her and we got along really well. Fortunately, she like the material and I think was looking for something to shed those studio roles she had been known for. She wanted something to challenge her.

What about J.K. Simmons?

He’s been able to work in such a wide range of movies. One of our producers was scared of J.K. because he only knew him as the guy from “Lost.” Then other people just wanted to give him a hug because they knew him from “Juno” or “Spider-Man.” Then the TV junkies love him in “The Closer.” He’s got TV, he’s got studio movies, he’s an indie darling. His simple take on it was that he only does what he likes. It seems so simple, but it’s obviously worked for him. Fortunately for us, he liked “The Vicious Kind” and wanted to come out and work for little money and spend a week in the freezing cold.

This is only your second film, but you are already getting some comparisons other directors (Neil LaBute, David Gordon Green). Is that OK with you or would you rather stand on your own this early in your career?

(Laughs) I guess it depends on what directors you’re comparing me to. I don’t really put too much stock in that stuff. I know what kind of movies I want to make. Someone like David Gordon Green – “George Washington,” “All the Real Girls,” “Undertow” – had a really big influence on me. Whenever I read something that says I’m like David Gordon Green meets Neil LaBute I can’t help but feel a bit flattered. Ultimately, I hope I can make more movies and that they will stand alone. I hope I can be a voice that is original.

You bring up David Gordon Green, who did some great indies, but then he went on to make a bigger film with “Pineapple Express,” which is good in its own way. Do you think there could be a natural progression for you into studio films like this or would you consider that selling out?

I think about this all the time. If you were to have asked me that question six years ago when I was in film school and my folks were paying all of my bills I would have said, “I’m going to do indies all of my life.” Look at Todd Solondz’s work. He truly doesn’t care about making other types of movies except the ones he wants to make. Give him $2 million and he’s probably just going to make the money back. I think I would like to find some middle ground. I love David Gordon Green. I liked “Pineapple Express.” I don’t know if that’s a movie – even if I’m given the opportunity – I would jump to make. Sure, making money is great, but if you’re not proud of your work, no one really cares. As a filmmaker you have to spend a bare minimum of two years with a film. For me, if it’s not burning inside me and consuming my every thought, it’s not going to work. I like money, but not that much. But I don’t have a mortgage or a family to worry about yet, so we’ll see what happens in a few years.

One could say that the reason we’re seeing so many horror remakes is because Hollywood is running out of ideas. Original scripts are a rarity in the industry. Would you disagree with that assertion?

You know, I totally understand the frustration with all these remakes. I would share that same frustration if every remake was a piece of junk. If a remake is great and people are making them for a reason and there’s something to tell, then go for it. But if a remake is just there to exploit a property and make money it’s no longer a reason to make a movie. With “The Crazies,” I saw a movie that had relevance when it was first made in ’73 and a relevance that existed today. It’s a different world, a totally different audience, and there are still things to say about the core conflict that makes the original work. For me, the idea of writing off all remakes is wrong. If it’s good then it’s no different than remaking a book or a graphic novel. Do it because there is a purpose.

Why do you think directors like George A. Romero and Wes Craven are open to the idea of their movies being recreated? I know you’ve said in a past interview that you would only remake a movie if you saw a flaw in the original. Do you think they see some of those flaws, too?

I think the flaw – if you can call it that – of [1973’s] “The Crazies” is a lack of resources. Obviously, having more money doesn’t mean you are going to have a better movie, but in a movie like “The Crazies” it’s a movie about the government taking over a town. When scaled to that, it’s kind of expensive if you have the desire to do it right. Romero was very limited in what he could do. One of the things I wanted to push against and try to scale up was to depict the military in a realistic way. In terms of their openness to make movies, I can talk specifically about Romero. He owns the rights to this movie. He benefits financially from selling it. It was his decision to allow the remake to happen, which gave me confidence in getting into this project. His point of view on it is this: here it is guys, be true to the original but I want to see your version of it. This is your movie. Go ahead and remake it.

While “The Crazies” has some gory moments, I wouldn’t necessarily say it focused on that element like a lot of horror movies do these days. Was not overdoing the gore something you did intentionally?

For me I just wanted to make a movie that I would want to see and the style of horror that I like. I certainly recognize that there are gorier movies out there. What I like in horror is a strong concept and good characters that you can invest in so when things start going horrifically wrong for them you have an emotional connection to them. My thought on gore is that it should service the movie itself. It’s fine when it’s in a scene where it’s appropriate. But don’t put gore in a movie for gore’s sake. Don’t just make it graphic because you think that’s what people want.

You’ve said in a past interview that the horror genre is something you hope you can keep doing. You said you’re not mucho of a romantic comedy type of guy. What’s the last romantic comedy you saw?

(Laughs) Oh, gosh, what is the last romantic comedy I saw? Is “Wedding Crashers” a romantic comedy? I love comedy. I love what the Coen Brothers do and I love comedy with a male point of view. If I was going to do a romantic comedy it would have to have some kind of dark comic take on it. But I love movies and appreciate them so to get the opportunity to make a good one, I would certainly take it.

Do you personally think you would be able to survive something apocalyptic like what we see in “The Crazies?”

I would absolutely go down in the first page of the script. I would like to think I would survive but I think I would be one of those guys that didn’t make it out alive.

What is something that drives you crazy about the film industry? About life in general?

What drives me crazy in the film industry is just the uncertainty of it. You’re never employed. You’re always looking for your next job. It’s a really unstable life. It can drive you mad. In life: traffic. Sometimes traffic can push me to the brink of insanity.

Since making her American film debut, de la Reguera has worked mostly on Spanish-language projects in Mexico, Argentina, and Colombia, including films such as “Sultanes de Sur” with Jordi Mollá (“Che: Part Two”) and “Paraiso Travel” with John Leguizamo (“Nothing Like the Holidays”).

Now, de la Reguera, who was born in Veracruz, Mexico, stars in her second American comedy “Cop Out” alongside Bruce Willis (“Live Free or Die Hard”) and Tracy Morgan (TV’s “30 Rock”). The movie was directed by Kevin Smith (“Zach and Miri Make a Porno”). In the film, de la Reguera, 32, plays Gabriela, a woman who escapes from a group of killers in Mexico and ends up under the protection of two New York City cops (Willis and Morgan).

During an interview with me, de la Reguera talked about why it was hard not to laugh during the shoot and what she added to the script to make her character a bit more mischievous.

Have you been looking forward to the next opportunity to star in an American movie since your last one was four years ago?

Yes, but I love my career in Mexico, too. I’ve been doing amazing projects there. I work all over the place. I just chose things that I like and things I think I can do well. I’ve been trying to get more opportunities in the U.S. This was my next big one.

Was it a lot different only speaking Spanish in “Cop Out” since everyone else is speaking English?

Yeah, I don’t speak any English in the movie so there are lots of misunderstandings between characters. That’s what makes it funny a lot of the times. They don’t know what is going on with me or what I’m doing or saying.

There is a scene where you are locked inside the truck of a car. I’m guessing you’re not claustrophobic.

I’m not claustrophobic at all. I was happy because it was very sunny outside and it was comfortable, so I could take a little nap (laughs).

Did you get to teach Bruce Willis or Tracy Morgan any Spanish?

Bruce knows a little bit of Spanish. Tracy really has no idea. I didn’t get to teach them too much. We were just working and having fun with the scenes. I think it was better that they didn’t know Spanish because they weren’t supposed to know what I was saying. For me it was harder because I had to pretend I didn’t know what they were saying to me and sometimes they were saying something funny and I was supposed to be scared or crying. It was hard to keep a straight face when they were saying all these funny things.

Is it easier to act in English or Spanish?

It’s easier for me to act in Spanish, but as soon as I get the lines in English and I know them by heart it becomes really easy. You don’t have to worry about the language anymore. It just takes more time. In Spanish, I can learn lines in 10 minutes. In English, it’s going to take an hour.

What was it like to work with Kevin Smith? This is the first movie he’s directed that he didn’t write himself.

I was a huge fan and we connected very well. We had a lot of fun working together. He really takes care of the actors and has great ideas all the time.

Did you have to stick to the script or did he give everyone some freedom with his or her characters?

Actually, my part was written in English on the script. I had to translate my own scenes. I asked Kevin if I could give her a dirty mouth. People that don’t know Spanish aren’t going to know what I am saying, but I am saying some terrible things. Kevin loved the idea, so we changed that.

So you added all your own curse words?

All of them. She didn’t have any bad words, so I put all of them in.

Hopefully, they paid you a little more for writing and translating your scenes.

(Laughs) No, they didn’t, but I was happy to do it and I was happy that they thought it was a great idea. We had fun with it and they trusted me. It felt really good.

With as many mediocre horror movies that come out of Hollywood in any given year, there is bound to be some apprehension when a remake of 1973’s “The Crazies” rears it’s ugly, infected head at theaters.

First of all, things don’t look too promising when screenwriters Scott Kosar and Ray Wright are attached to the project when they’ve already penned three unmemorable remakes between them in the last seven years (“The Amityville Horror” and “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” belong to Kosar; Wright remade a Japanese horror movie into 2006’s yawn-inducing “Pulse”). Secondly, although director Breck Eisner has some talented genes (his father is Michael Eisner, former CEO of Walt Disney), he didn’t make much of a statement when he dropped the cinematic bomb that was the action/adventure “Sahara” in 2005.

Funny thing is, with nothing much going for it, “The Crazies” somehow works rather well. Produced by the original film’s director George A. Romero (“Night of the Living Dead”), “The Crazies” is a stimulating blend of chilling moments, solid characters, and enough violence and gore to make aficionados of the genre screech in delight.

Set in the small, fictional town of Ogden Marsh, Iowa, “The Crazies” – if you want to get technical – isn’t part of the zombie culture Romero’s name is usually tied to. This follows a story more in the realm of “28 Days Later” than “Dawn of the Dead.” In the film, townspeople have become infected by something that is turning them all into aggressive, murderous pyschopaths. Unless the military can quarantine the population, the mysterious sickness will eventually infect millions and lead to a global pandemic.

Timothy Olyphant (“A Perfect Getaway”) plays David Dutton, the sheriff of Ogden Marsh who is trying to uncover the reason his neighbors are becoming raving lunatics. Along with his doctor wife Judy (Radha Mitchell), his deputy Russell (Joe Anderson), and his wife’s assistant Becca (Danielle Panabaker), the foursome maneuver their way through town on survive mode and become aware of something more frightening than the virus-plagued antagonists who are after them. There is something inherently wrong with the way the soldiers are sweeping through the farming community and rounding up the sick for testing that points to a government conspiracy.

While “The Crazies” doesn’t offer much in groundbreaking plot or character motivation, it does something so few horror movies do these days: avoids undermining the audience. Instead of cheap thrills created by deceitful editing and lame scare tactics, “The Crazies” stays engaging through its tone and attention to detail. It all makes for an entertaining zombie-type movie featuring military cover-ups, apocalyptic scenarios, and a paranoid cast of characters you can actually root for.

While “The Last Station,” a melodramatic period piece on 19th century Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy, might not find the literary scholar in all of us, there’s no denying the major influence the writer’s work has had on generations of free-thinking minds. From Gandhi to Martin Luther King Jr., Tolstoy, who wrote such well-known novels such as “War and Peace,” “Anna Karenina” and “The Kingdom of God is Within You,” is regarded by many as a one of the greatest storytellers in all of literature.

Portraying Tolstoy at the age of 81 is an icon in his own right, 80-year-old Canadian actor Christopher Plummer, who began his professional film career in the last ’50s and is best known for his role in “The Sound of Music” and his Tony Award-winning work on Broadway. As Tolstoy, a part that earned him the first Academy Award nomination of his career this year, Plummer is fantastic. Accolades are also well deserved for Oscar winner Helen Mirren (“The Queen”), who plays Tolstoy’s wife of 48 years, Sofya. The role earned her a fourth Academy Award nomination.

The acting talent is limitless in “The Last Station,” which also stars Oscar nominee Paul Giamatti (“Cinderella Man”) and up-and-coming Scottish actor James McAvoy (“Atonement”). In the film, McAvoy plays Valentine Bulgakov, a young and impressionable essayist who becomes Tolstoy’s personal secretary. Like his role in 2006’s “The Last King of Scotland” where he plays Ugandan dictator Idi Amin’s private physician, McAvoy’s Valentine is at the center of a delicate, emotional, and historical narrative. This one splits Tolstoy between his family and his faction.

The year is 1910 and Tolstoy has built a substantial following of people who live life according to his philosophy, which includes celibacy and passive resistance. Known as Tolstoyans, a Christian anarchist group formed by Vladimir Chertkov (Giamatti), the advocates regard Tolstoy as a prophet. In “The Last Station,” Vladimir sends Valentine into the Tolstoy estate to spy and report back family news from inside the household. Vladimir is worried Sofya will ruin the commune’s plan to indoctrinate the public with his beliefs. She wants the rights to her husbands work after he passes away, but Vladimir argues the work belongs to the people. Tolstoy, himself, seems bewildered at the thought of having to choose between his wife and the man who could help seal his legacy.

While “The Last Station” might feel a bit stuffy and slowly-paced for some viewers, director/screenwriter Michael Hoffman (“A Midsummer Night’s Dream”) has created an intelligent drama based on the intricacies that evolve when relationships and ideals collide. As Mrs. Tolstoy, Mirren is memorable when revealing her character’s frustrations as she slowly loses her husband to the world. McAvoy, too, holds his own alongside the veterans by creating a sympathetic character lost between his idolization of a flawed master and his better conscience.

He has also earned roles in a number of award-winning TV shows such as “The Sopranos,” “Law & Order: Criminal Intent,” and “Late Night with Conan O’Brien” where Martinez played characters for various skits, which included donning a red wig to imitate the late-night host.

Like he has done for his entire career, Martinez is keeping busy in 2010. His next film is “Cop Out” starring Bruce Willis and Tracy Morgan, which hits theaters next Friday. After that, you can see Martinez in the superhero action comedy “Kick Ass” in April. The movie stars Nicholas Cage and Christopher Mintz-Plasse. Currently, he is shooting the film “The Miracle of Spanish Harlem” with Kate del Castillo.

During an interview with me, Martinez talked about how he started in the industry, what kinds of roles he likes playing the most, and why he thinks Conan O’Brien will be just fine wherever he ends up.

What first interested you in acting?

Well, first I went and tried everything else and I was completely incompetent. (Laughs) Some people say I don’t know how to do this either, but I’m doing it anyway. Actually, I was just watching movies like “Raging Bull” and seeing these great performances. It was very alluring to me – the work and the passion of actors. I felt very connected to it. I just told myself, “I want to be in movies.” I started taking acting classes and doing workshops in New York. My mother was like, “Ah, what are you doing? You have to get a job with a pension!” The first time I took her to a movie I was in, she saw my name in the credits and yelled out, “That’s my son!”

What were you doing before you became an actor?

Most of the time I was just on the sofa looking for the ketchup and watching cable. It was ridiculous. I did a little bit of social work, but mostly I just hung out.

After 17 years in the industry are you able to be more selective with roles?

Well, the thing about this business is you always have to prove yourself. I have five or six movies coming out this year, but I still have to audition for everything. But I accept the challenge. I love doing the work.

What kind of roles do you gravitate to the most?

When it’s all said and done, I would love to be the guy who represents the underbelly of society; someone on the fringe; someone you don’t want to look at when your on the subway or on the street. Those are the people I want to represent because they’re human beings, too, and they matter. I’ve always had a great heart and empathy for the mentally disabled, the impoverished, the people that are ignored by society. I love those kinds of roles. Then you have to mix it up and do big Hollywood movies. I play a mobster in “Cop Out” and “Kick Ass.”

Was your first professional acting gig really as a criminal on an “America’s Most Wanted” reenactment?

Yeah, I think it was. Actually, I played a guy that they ended up catching. (Laughs) So, I take full responsibility for getting him off the street.

You’ve worked with Conan O’Brien on a number of occasions. What is your take on everything that happened between him and NBC?

All I know is that everyone is still going to be making a lot of money and everyone is fine. Conan will resurface somewhere bigger and better than ever. He’s a genius. I’m not worried about him; I’m worried about me. (Laughs) Anybody who gets a $40-million check not to work is doing better than me.

I saw your role last year on the TV medical drama “Mercy” where you play a technician who works in the part of the hospital where they store all the amputated limbs. Did they let you keep that fake leg?

(Laughs) Yeah, I put it right next to my candles at home. No, actually that role was supposed to be a recurring one, but I guess they thought I was a little too creepy for national TV.

There are times during Academy Award-winning director Martin Scorsese’s (“The Departed”) thriller “Shutter Island” where you can feel the anxiety of the picture frothing up inside your gut. Once Robbie Robertson’s disturbing Hitchcockian score and Robert Richardson’s misery-stricken cinematography merge to create the ominous tone during the opening scenes, it is obvious Scorsese plans to keep you as uneasy as he possibly can for as long as he can.

There is only so much, however, that a masterful director like Scorsese and a few members of his technical crew can do before its foundation collapses from under them. Adapted from the Dennis Lehane (“Mystic River”) novel of the same name, screenwriter Laeta Kalogridis (“Alexander”) rides Scorsese’s coattail as far as she can before the work itself shrinks back into predictable dark corners. The twist and turns might be sharp, but that doesn’t make them any less dull.

Collaborating for the fourth time with Scorsese, Academy Award nominee Leonardo DiCaprio (“The Aviator”) plays Teddy Daniels, a U.S. marshal investigating the disappearance of Rachel Solando, a murderess from a mental hospital known to house the most criminally insane patients. Teddy’s new partner Chuck (Mark Ruffalo) joins him on his tour through the facilities where he plans to interrogate every one who knows Rachel, including psychiatrists Dr. Cawley (Sir Ben Kingsley) and Dr. Naehring (Max von Sydow) who aren’t exactly cooperating with Teddy’s methods of inquiry.

Teddy, however, has more to worry about than unsupportive head doctors who seem to be hiding the truth. Nightmares of his dead wife (Michelle Williams) and his time in the war begin to haunt him as he and Chuck end up stranded on the island during a vicious thunderstorm. They are the type of hallucinations that would easily be dismissed if they were in any other horror-type movie, but since Scorsese is directing the scenes we’re led to believe that they should be considered more artistic than overly-stylistic. However you want to identify them, they have no bearing on any emotional aspect of the story, which is unfortunate since they are revisited numerous times.

Most of the emotional pull comes from DiCaprio’s performance itself. Walking a fine line between awareness and madness, his on-the-spot portrayal of a man uncertain of his own mental welfare as he caves in on himself is frightening. Still, the suspense refuses to take another step forward once the pieces start fitting together more obviously. Once that occurs, it is only a matter of waiting out the rest of the unsubstantial plot points in “Shutter Island.” By then, all the dread has subsided and that ball of nerves that was floundering around inside you earlier feels more like bad indigestion.

Oscar winner Benicio Del Toro (“Traffic”) phones in his performance as an iconic monster in “The Wolfman,” a re-imaging of the 1941 classic starring Lon Chaney Jr. It’s not only Del Toro, however, who should take the blame for how terribly things go for the creature feature, which was delayed an entire year because of production problems.

Despite starting off on the wrong paw, one can’t ignore the talented cast pinned down for “Wolfman,” including Del Toro. From Oscar winner Sir Anthony Hopkins (“Silence of the Lambs”) to the young and blossoming starlet Emily Blunt (“The Young Victoria”) to the reliable Hugo Weaving (“V for Vendetta”), some of the pieces are definitely here. It’s unfortunate that director Joe Johnston (“Hidalgo”) and screenwriters Andrew Kevin Walker (“Sleepy Hollow”) and David Self (“The Haunting”) fail to create any type of suspense or frightening scenes to match these actors’ supporting roles or the eerie gothic cinematography by Shelly Johnson.

Ultimately, “The Wolfman” becomes a film that can’t decide whether it wants to be a throwback to the monster movies of the past mid-century or take the easy way out and go full-gore for mainstream audiences. It chooses both and succeeds at neither.

In the film, Del Toro plays Lawrence Talbot, a thespian who is summoned home to England after many years away to search for his missing brother Ben. Contacted by Ben’s fiancée Gwen (Blunt), Lawrence returns home to find he is too late. His brother’s body was found mutilated in the woods. Theories begin to flood in as to what could have killed Ben in such a manner. Gypsies? A Bengal tiger? A raving lunatic?

When the townspeople find out Lawrence had been sent to an asylum by his father (Hopkins) years before, suspicions start turning to him. Lawrence becomes a prime suspect when he is bitten in the neck by a mysterious beast. Soon, other folks turn up slaughtered and word spreads that the Talbot household is cursed. Weaving plays Scotland Yard Inspector Abberline, who steps in to hunt down whatever is shredding up residents.

As the carnage continues by way of campy decapitations and close-ups of intestines spread across the ground, Johnston provides no real tone or direction and lets “The Wolfman” ride the wave of blood. Is this a story about a man fighting his inner demons and trying to understand the nightmares he continues to have about the death of his mother or is this a straight-forward monster movie in the same mold as “Underworld” and “Van Helsing?”

No matter what it wants to be, there’s not enough of a story to support “The Wolfman” and Lawrence’s transformation, whether it’s physical or emotional. Relying mostly on computer-generated effect also doesn’t help its cause as it attempts to claw its way back to the roots of the genre. While six-time Oscar-winning make-up artist Rick Baker (”An American Werewolf in London”) had his hand in this one, it’s evident he didn’t have free reign to do what he does best. For that, “The Wolfman” suffers greatly. This setback, however, is only skin deep. There’s a more elusive identity crisis the film runs into that can’t be cured with a few extra prosthetics or layers of facial hair or even a Del Toro performance where the actor actually decides to show up.

Doing a shameless impersonation of director/writer Richard Curtis’ 2003 witty and warm romantic comedy “Love Actually,” the Hollywood-star-laden “Valentine’s Day” is a movie that’s all dressed up with nowhere to go.

Flashing an attractive cast of audience favorites including Julia Roberts (“Duplicity”), Bradley Cooper (“The Hangover”), and Taylor Lautner (“New Moon”) – among a laundry list of others – director Garry Marshall (“Georgia Rule”) takes a poorly-written multi-narrative penned by Katherine Fugate (“The Prince and Me”) and hauls it through the same cliché and predictable plot points usually reserved for this type of cinematic fluff. It’s no wonder sensitive women everywhere have to drag their significant others to the movies for date night. When a feature is as contrived as “Valentine’s Day,” not even a pajama party with Jessica Alba, Jennifer Garner, and Jessica Biel is reason enough for anyone to endure over two hours (and yes, it feels like it) of unbearable schmaltz.

Without going into too much detail with the storylines – which all somehow connect in the most absurd ways – “Valentine’s Day” spends much of its runtime with Ashton Kutcher on screen as Reed Bennett, the owner of a popular flower shop in L.A. who has just proposed to his girlfriend Morley (Alba) and is ready to settle down and start a family. But like all these sad-sack characters, love is not in the air for Reed and he is left all alone with only his employee (George Lopez) to help mend his broken heart.

More lovesick vignettes follow that are just as sparse on romance and narrative appeal. Jamie Foxx plays a sportscaster who hates V-Day, but is assigned to produce a story by his boss (Kathy Bates); Biel plays a publicist whose client (Eric Dane) is contemplating retirement from pro-football; Patrick Dempsey flexes his acting range to play a cheating cardiologist having an affair with Garner; Cooper and Roberts play strangers who meet on an airplane and make small talk; Bryce Robinson plays a kid in love; Emma Roberts and Carter Jenkins play teens in love; Topher Grace and Anne Hathaway play young adults in love; Hector Elizondo and Shirley MacLaine play old people in love; and Taylor Lautner and Taylor Swift dole out so much cuteness, you don’t know how the word “cute” even existed before this movie.

The “aww” moments are aplenty for moviegoers who don’t necessarily care about story, character or genuine heartfelt moments that don’t feel like they were mass produced like overstuffed Build-A-Bears. Like an open box of Walgreen’s chocolates in an office break room, gluttons for this type of cheap, faux-holiday filler will eat it up without much thought. For those who want their rom coms to have a bit more taste, it’s easy to pass on the flavorless eye candy.