Was it always a given you would be returning to play Scotty for a sequel or was there a lot of deal making that had to be done before that happened?

I was excited to do it. We spent the years between the first “Star Trek” and this one just waiting for the call because we had such a great time on the first film. Doing the second one was a no-brainer.

J.J. Abrams, of course, was so instrumental in the success of the first film. Do you think you would’ve reprised your role if he had decided not to direct “Into Darkness?”

The thing is, J.J. was always going to be involved in “Star Trek.” Even if he came back as a producer his stamp would have always been on it with Bad Robot Productions. If the film had nothing to do with Bad Robot and J.J. Abrams, then, yeah, that would have been a concern, but that was never a possibility.

How has Scotty changed after the events of the 2009 film?

Well, we worked out that the events of this film take place about six months after the first “Star Trek.” Scotty is fairly ensconced in engineering on the Enterprise. He has the job he wanted and is very happy tending the warp core and doing his thing down in engineering. Then the events of “Into Darkness” somewhat upset that.

When a start date for a “Star Trek” sequel is up in the air for so long like this one was, how does it affect you as an actor and planning what projects you work on until a date is set?

You just have to get on with stuff. The organization is good in that they give us advanced warnings so we can keep that time free.  We’d run into trouble otherwise. But they have the option on you as well, so they can basically just pull you out of anything. When you get involved with something like “Star Trek” you agree that when they say go you say OK. But it worked out well for everybody. We were all there front and center on the first day and available for the five months it took to shoot the movie.

Now that we know this new series of “Star Trek” movies isn’t going anywhere for a while, as an actor is it exciting to know that even if everything else goes to shit, you’ll have a “Star Trek” movie to do every few years or so?

I would be very lucky if that was the case. It’s a great film to work on and a great bunch of people to hang out with. I think any actor would be foolish not to see that as a blessing.

I was never a fan of the TV series or the original films, but I really enjoyed what J.J. Abrams did with his version. Was creating a new fan base something that was important to you?

I think what was most important to us was making a good film.  We made a film for film lovers. Whether people enjoyed it in the moment as a single film or joined up with the allegiance of lifetime “Star Trek” fans out there, the important thing was that the film itself was an effective and enjoyable piece of cinema. We all worked our asses off to make sure that happened. Everyone around J.J. commits themselves 100 percent as J.J. does. He leads by example. All of us just wanted to do our very best for the film.

What was it like having a fellow Englishman, Benedict Cumberbatch, join the cast as the villain?

Well, we had him and Alice Eve, too, who is also British, and Noel Clarke, even though we don’t see him as much. We had our own little British contingent on this movie, which was kind of nice. But we didn’t sit in a corner alone drinking tea and eating cucumber sandwiches. It was a very integrated cast. We all welcomed our new team members with open arms. Everyone settled in really nicely. Even if Benedict was playing the bad guy, he was still accepted into our conversations off set.

What are your thoughts on the film being converted into 3D in post-production? I know as an actor those decisions are out of your control, but in the past, we’ve seen films go through this conversion and not really work.

I wasn’t worried because we didn’t make a 3D film. We made a 2D film. J.J. wanted to shoot anamorphically and you can’t shoot like that with 3D cameras. The compromise J.J. came to with the studio, whose decision it was for the film to be in 3D, was to shoot the film in 2D and then convert it and also push the technology of conversion in doing so. I saw the film in 3D and even though I’m not a huge fan of it as a narrative device – because it has no value at all – there is definitely value in the sensation you get watching environments like the Klingon high world or deep space or the future. There are environments that are genuinely awe inspiring. It’s another dimension of enjoyment you can participate in if you want. If you don’t, you can watch it in 2D. I strongly recommend watching it in 2D because then you’re solely concentrating on the characters and the story rather than the effects. Although I have to say the effects are very important in a story like this because it is a science fiction story and you are looking at an imagined world.

Are you a fan of secrecy behind making blockbusters like “Star Trek?” Studios spend so much time making sure nothing about the film leaks and then release photos and posters and clips little by little. As a fanboy yourself of certain things like “Star Wars,” does that drive you crazy or really build up excitement?

I think it’s necessary. Sometimes I think [studios] release too much. I think secrecy is vital because it’s all about protecting the experience of the audience. It’s not just about protecting the film. People can be weak minded and want to know what’s coming, so they need to be protected from themselves. I think you’d want to enjoy any film as it was intended by the writers, with every twist and turn revealed to you as you see it for the first time and not after you see it in some magazine or on some website prior just because those people want to sell advertising. The kind of people that want to spoil the things we do by leaking secrets or revealing plot details are the enemy as far as I’m concerned. I owe those people nothing least of all the truth. I feel very strongly about that.

I can definitely feel that you do. But in this day and age, some asshole is going to see “Star Trek Into Darkness” opening night and after he or she comes out of the theater – or even during the movie itself – is going to jump on Facebook or Twitter and give something away on purpose.

Yeah, unfortunately, there are assholes out there. That’s what we learned from this.

Really? Did anything specifically happen?

Well, I just think people won’t relax and allow it to happen naturally. People are so impatient and have to speculate. In a sense, that even spoils things. Then people are disappointed because they think they know and then they are wrong. It’s intensely childish, really. Just wait until it comes out and then you’ll have all the answers. But some people enjoy that kind of speculation. I guess some people have fun in guessing what’s going to happen. But, ultimately, spoilers are for the weak minded. Spoilers are like a big torch that illuminates the darkness. They’re for people who are too frightened to experience the film and already know what is around the corner. I think if you carry around one of those torches, you’re no friend of mine.

That, unfortunately, doesn’t just happen when people are following movie news. We saw a lot of speculation with the Boston Marathon bombings where networks like CNN basically started reporting rumors as fact during that entire week. I found it insane how much bad information was circulated during that time.

Yeah, I think the dissemination of information is just so intent. Theories can suddenly become fact in a heartbeat. I think that’s the fault of the internet. Anybody can start a website and anyone can appear like they are a printed journalist. People who have no journalistic instinct can pass things as fact. It’s very dangerous when people who don’t have the skill and the sensitivity and the credentials and the integrity of real journalists start spreading rumors around. It’s a very difficult thing to regulate, really. You can’t do anything about it. The best way is to not look at it and to choose your news sources carefully. That’s for both factual news and for entertainment news. If you don’t want to know what’s going to happen in a film, don’t go looking at websites run by nerds.

Already having given audiences the best “Mission Impossible” film of the series with the third installment in 2006 and the best “Star Trek” movie with his hip revamp in 2009, director J.J. Abrams attempts to top himself again by joining up with the Starship Enterprise in “Star Trek Into Darkness,” a solid follow-up to Abrams’ first foray into space seven years ago. It’s more proof that you don’t have to be a Klingon-speaking geekboy to find this franchise one of the more fascinating big-budget sci-fi projects to hit the mainstream in the last four or five years.

Of course, if you are one of those hardcore “Star Trek” fans that won’t be happy with the shape of Mr. Spock’s ears in comparison to Leonard Nimoy’s or looking forward to nitpicking any number of creative choices Abrams makes that are different from the original TV show, then it’s probably best if you stay home and Netflix “The Trouble with Tribbles.” This isn’t your grandfather’s “Star Trek.” For those interested in another fresh take from Abrams and have the open-mindedness to let things go, then “Into Darkness” just might be the popcorn movie of the pre-summer.

Working loosely off 1982’s “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan,” which is what most “Star Trek” aficionados agree is the best of the original films, we join the crew of the Enterprise as they search for John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch), a former commander who has gone rogue. On his trail and reprising their roles from the 2009 film are Chris Pine as Capt. Kirk, who was recently relieved and then reinstated as Captain; Zachary Quinto as Mr. Spock; Zoe Saldana as Uhura; Karl Urban as Bones; Simon Pegg as Scotty; John Cho as Sulu; Anton Yelchin as Chekov; and Alice Eve as new and attractive science officer Carol Marcus. When they catch up to Harrison on a Klingon planet, the crew is shocked to learn there is more to their manhunt than simply eliminating a powerful villain.

Aside from the outstanding action sequences and set pieces that packed its predecessor, “Into Darkness” also takes an effective emotional turn with the relationship between Capt. Kirk and Mr. Spock. Kirk’s massive ego and bullheaded nature and Spock’s reluctance to break regulation frame their interaction very well. Pine and Quinto once again take command of the characters in the same way William Shatner and Nimoy did in the late 60s. Sorry, purists, but those roles are theirs now.

With today’s technology catching up to Gene Roddenberry’s creation, the universe feels even more volatile, which makes for an exciting adventure with this crew. Who knows how long Abrams will stay on board (now that he’s been dubbed to lead the new “Star Wars” movie in 2015), but he’s laid some great groundwork for a dozen more and has taken the storytelling to a place few directors have gone before.

What are your earliest movie memories growing up in Chile?

I was raised watching “Ghostbusters” and “Back to the Future” and “Gremlins” and all those mainstream movies from the 80s. That was like my film school.

Was making an English-language film something you knew you wanted to do in your career?

Yeah, watching all those mainstream U.S. movies is what made me want to become a director. My goal was always to make a movie in English for the world. But I wanted to shoot that movie on my own terms. So, it was awesome I was able to shoot in Chile with my actors, crew, and production company and with the help of someone like Eli Roth.

Was Eli someone you had looked up to in the industry before you connected with him for this project?

I always loved Eli’s movies because he was doing what I was doing. He shot his movie independently and then sold them to studios to release them. That was very inspiring.

As a director, Eli is known in the industry for his gory horror films. Would you be OK if people started putting you in the same category or are you more than that?

I don’t care about labels. I just want to make movies that people are going to enjoy. I think people need a release and that’s why they like horror movies. In this case, the film is based on true events. We aren’t talking about the Boogeyman. We’re talking about an earthquake – something that could happen to anyone. In a way, I think that is a very different kind of horror movie. It’s a disaster movie with a twist.

What was going through your mind when that earthquake hit in 2010?

The earthquake happened during the last week of the summer at 3:40 a.m. I was at my house. I had to be up early the next day because I was shooting a movie. When the earthquake hit, I thought it was just a tremor at first, but then I saw my Nintendo Wii go flying across the room. I thought, “Oh, shit, this is real!” I opened my door and there were electrical explosions everywhere. The sky was white. At that moment I thought, “This would make a really good movie!”

Selena Gomez seems to be trying to shed her Disney reputation these days. She was in “Spring Breakers” earlier this year and now she makes a cameo in your movie. How did she get involved in “Aftershock?”

Well, for this movie particularly casting her was a happy accident. She met Eli two months before we started shooting the movie. She told Eli she was a big fan of “Hostel.” Suddenly, she was in Santiago with her band doing a show and Eli invited her to the set. So, we wrote a part for her and then that became longer than we thought. It was so funny and she was so good at it. We were all among friends and it was fun. That was the whole vibe of the movie.

As an outsider looking in, where do you think the American horror genre is these days? Some people say we’re running out of ideas because of all the remakes that are produced. What are your thoughts on the state of American horror films?

I don’t think there is anything wrong with remakes as long as they are good movies. You could say the same thing about romantic comedies. I think the new generation filmmaker are actually Spanish speaking like the director of “Mama” (Andres Muschietti) and the director of “Evil Dead” (Fede Alvarez). They both did an excellent job. They really care about the genre. I think that is a generation that has been inspired by Guillermo del Toro. Horror is something that is part of the Latin culture.

For having a reputation of delivering gaudy visual feasts even when his scripts aren’t always spot on, filmmaker Baz Luhrmann has surprisingly become a party pooper with his adaptation of “The Great Gatsby,” the classic tale by F. Scott Fitzgerald set in the early 1920s. In the past, Luhrmann has been able to take a celebrated writer like William Shakespeare and turn a story like “Romeo and Juliet” into his own fantastical creation. His work might feel overblown to some (“Moulin Rouge!,” especially, may cause a few epileptic seizures), but his more-is-more approach without apology is what makes the Australian director spectacular despite his flaws. Still, in “The Great Gatsby,” Luhrmann promises a grand circus and shows up with some really expensive silly string.

The year is 1922 in New York City. Business is booming, liquor is cheap, and the roaring jazz music is turning everyone into wild animals. For a good time on the weekends, most find their way to the mansion of Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio), a mysterious millionaire whose shindigs are the bee’s knees. When Jay meets his new neighbor Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire), he seizes the opportunity to become his friend in hopes of reuniting with Nick’s cousin Daisy (Carey Mulligan). Daisy is a girl from Jay’s past who is now married to Tom Buchanan (Joel Edgerton), a hulking polo player and philanderer who beings to question Jay’s new-money success.

Considered one of the great American novels, Luhrmann somehow squeezes all the romance and emotional value from “The Great Gatsby” and diminishes it to a series of soap opera-like encounters. Where other renditions capture at least some of Fitzgerald’s social commentary (the most famous being the 1974 version starring Robert Redford and Mia Farrow, which isn’t groundbreaking either), Luhrmann hides his under era garb and confetti just long enough for indiscriminate viewers to get sidetracked by the fireworks (and the Jay-Z hip-hop).

That’s not to say a more contemporary soundtrack brimming with anachronistic hits is never welcomed. Director Sofia Coppola did a fantastic job spinning Bow Wow Wow songs inside the walls of Versailles in 2006’s “Marie Antoinette,” but Luhrmann seems to use the music in a much broader way rather than have it support the narrative. Sure, a song like “$100 Bill” drops Gatsby’s name, but it all feels very overproduced and forced.

As Carraway, Maguire is a boy in men’s clothing. Never do we get a sense of the person he is or why he is enthralled with Jay’s lifestyle. He becomes a fly-on-the-wall kind of character and an afterthought long before the credits roll. While DiCaprio is sufficient as the leading man, he, too, is unable to assemble the emotion needed to make Jay’s longing for Daisy soar. It’s not until his two hot-blooded scenes with the well-cast Edgerton that DiCaprio lifts the vale from his enigmatic character. By then, however, all the Cristal has finished, everybody’s gone home, and not even Luhrmann’s decision to scroll Fitzgerald’s poetic words on screen can give another cinematic “Gatsby” reason to exist.

Based on the New York Times bestselling novel, “The Reluctant Fundamentalist” takes viewers into the past of Changez (Riz Ahmed), a Pakistani man who moves to the U.S. to go to Princeton and  chase the American dream. He rises to the top of a consulting firm where he is immediately take under the wing of Jim (Kiefer Sutherland), an executive who believes Changez has what it takes to thrive in the industry. After 9/11, however, things take a turn for the worst for Changez as he is met with new difficulties because of his nationality. Met with hostility from a country he loves, he soon finds himself at the center of a kidnapping. Sitting across from him is Bobby Lincoln (Liev Schreiber), a reporter who wants to find out where Changez’s ideals lie.

The element that works best in “Fundamentalist” is Changez’s rise to prominence at his firm Underwood Samson. Changez is a natural at thinking critically and assessing values of companies, often reminded by Jim of his “gift.” Ahmed plays these scenes with a well-rounded, quiet confidence. In fact, Ahmed is easily the strongest part of the film. He shows not only the ability to anchor the story as the lead, but delivers a wide emotional range. The film also takes time to reminds its viewers of the uneasiness with foreigners (and especially those of Middle Eastern descent) that was held in America shortly after the 2001 attacks. Not only is he mistakenly arrested on the street, but when returning from an international flight, Changez is singled out, taken to a backroom and strip searched. It’s a touch ham-handed but director Mira Nair certainly gets her point across that racial profiling exists in this country.

Technically, the majority of the film takes place in flashbacks, which attempts to offer most of the intended tension for the film. The plot, however, becomes convoluted and the payoff is weak. Additionally, there is a subplot involving Changez and his girlfriend Erica (Kate Hudson) that don’t work. The romance (and the arguments) between these characters fail to ignite any passion or chemistry on the screen.

In the wake of the events of the Boston marathon bombings, “The Reluctant Fundamentalist” is likely to be a hot topic for debate. It’s anti-profiling themes can be taken several different ways, with its impact either strengthening or weakening depending on how one relates it to current events. Regardless, the film as a whole fails to muster up enough interest and wears out its welcome over its bloated 2-hour-plus run-time. It’s a nice display for Ahmed, who is likely new to American audiences, but doesn’t have enough substance to stand alone as a strong political thriller.

After the roaring success of “The Avengers,” the biggest question facing the Marvel cinematic universe was “What’s next?” Since 2008, with the release of the original “Iron Man” film, everything that came afterward—vehicles for Thor, Captain America, and the Hulk—was a build-up (for better or worse) to the epic team-up adventure of last summer. And boy, did it deliver, wowing critics and audiences on its way to becoming the third-highest grossing movie of all time. But after all of that (Marvel calls it Phase 1), what could they possible have in store for fans?

Marvel’s answer: go back to square one and kick off Phase 2 with “Iron Man 3.”

While the film does reference the events that took place in New York City that involved gods battling aliens, “Iron Man 3” plants its feet as a stand-alone adventure. A rattled, sleepless Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) has spent every waking moment since “The Avengers” tinkering with different designs for his Iron Man suit, which are at number 42 at this point. As a result of his erratic tinkering, though, Tony’s domestic life with Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) has begun to suffer. Enter handsome Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce), a scientist with connections to both Tony and Pepper. He’s come peddling his highly unstable treatment for regrowing lost limbs—a treatment that may be tied to murderous terrorist the Mandarin (Ben Kingsley).

For having the unenviable task of following one of the biggest films ever, “Iron Man 3” does pretty solid work. Director/co-screenwriter Shane Black (“Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang”), stepping in for Jon Favreau, gets to stretch his legs in an adventure that’s refreshingly free of table-setting for whatever next year’s Marvel movie will be. Somewhat surprising is how little time Downey spends in the Iron Man armor, though the film’s climax more than makes up for it.

Not everything works, however, and the legacy of what came before it weighs a little too heavily on the film. Don Cheadle, returning as James Rhodes, again doesn’t get much to do. He flies around in his War Machine armor (now re-christened and repainted as the red, white, and blue Iron Patriot) for a little while busting up potential terrorist safe houses until he gets kidnapped and has the armor stolen from him like a punk. And the movie never really answers the nagging fanboy question: “Why not just call in the rest of The Avengers?” when Stark’s days get darkest. I appreciate that Tony Stark is a badass genius with incredible technology at his fingertips, but couldn’t the Hulk or Captain America or even that chump Hawkeye have chipped in to take out a goon or two?

In the quickest follow-up to a film in his 30 year career, director/writer Terrence Malick delivers “To the Wonder,” a drama so polarizing it earned a series of boos and cheers when it debuted at the Venice Film Festival last September. “To the Wonder” comes after Malick’s Oscar-nominated – albeit still as dividing – “Tree of Life” starring Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain. While it might be considered a companion piece to “Tree,” “Wonder” is less experimental and far less emotionally gratifying than its predecessor. In fact, of the six films Malick has directed since 1973’s “Badlands,” it’s the only one I cannot recommend.

As with every Malick film, viewers can insert their own personal meaning behind the thinly-plotted “Wonder.” Ben Affleck stars as Neil, a man who falls in love with single mother Marina (Olga Kurylenko) in France and brings her and her daughter back to Oklahoma to start a new life together. When things don’t work out (it’s not evident why they don’t since all Affleck does is stare into the distance for most of the film), Marina moves back to France and Neil rekindles a romance with Jane (Rachel McAdams), a childhood friend who is now a rancher. When that relationship ends, Marina comes back. Plotted sloppily between the love triangle is a secondary storyline about a priest (Javier Bardem) who has lost his faith. In perfect Malick form, he walks around aimlessly trying to find it.

For a majority of the film’s 112-minute run time (a short film for Malick’s standards), not much happens. Affleck has tickle-fights with Kurylenko and McAdams on beautiful backdrops as Wagner, Hayden and Rachmaninoff music blend with sparse, meaningless dialogue. There is also verbose narration in French and Spanish that tries hard to be poetic, but proves ineffective. Malick shoots Kurylenko and McAdams like a father who is chasing his twirling toddlers with a video camera he just got for Christmas. It was probably great footage in his mind, but no one else is going to want to see it.

Of course, you can’t dismiss the beauty of “Wonder” with Mexican cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki (“Tree of Life,” “The New World”) at the helm again. Here, he makes a field of grain and a parking lot at a Sonic Drive-Thru restaurant look immaculate. Still, “Wonder” is exactly why Malick detractors don’t give him a fair shake. And this time they’re right. The imagery is incredible, but it’s a pretentious mess. With three more projects already in the canon for the next two years (“Knight of Cups,” “Voyage of Time,” and an untitled piece), here’s to hoping Malick’s sudden craving for rapid filmmaking isn’t his downfall.

It might flaunt the most impressive cast top to bottom you’re likely to see this year on the big screen (21 Oscar nominations, 4 wins), but the script behind Oscar-winning director Robert Redford’s political thriller “The Company You Keep” can only lead its actors just far enough before they’re let down by the material.

It really is unfortunate since Redford, who earned an Academy Award for directing in 1981 for “Ordinary People,” comes into the project with a lot of the pieces already in place. This should be a more intriguing look into the radical leftist organization known as the Weather Underground in the late 60s and early 70s, but it falters. The revolutionary group, whose members were charged during that time for bombing a number of sites such as the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon, were hell-bent on overthrowing the U.S. government.

In “Company,” Redford stars as Jim Grant, a New York City lawyer and former activist of the Weathermen, who has been living as a fugitive for the last 30 years after a bank heist he is involved in during his heyday claims the life of a guard. Jim is flushed from his quiet suburban home when one of his former Weather Underground colleagues Sharon Solarz (Susan Sarandon) is finally found and arrested for her involvement in the radical movement. Her arrest triggers a domino effect that leads to Jim’s participation in the crime. Now on the run with the FBI and media (Shia LaBeouf plays a scrappy newspaper reporter who cracks the case) on his trail, Jim hits the road in search of a way to clear his name.

Based on the novel of the same name by Neil Gordon, “Company” is a sort of slowly-paced road-trip movie where tons of characters join the fracas, but none are very important to the overall narrative. It’s great to see the likes of heavy-hitters like Julie Christie, Richard Jenkins, Chris Cooper, Nick Nolte and Stanley Tucci tag in and out like some kind of all-star contest, but the substance behind each of their individual connections to the story is thinly scripted.

The acting makes up slightly for the film’s lack of tension. We’re not looking for car chases and extensive getaway scenes here, but Redford’s inability to draw out more emotional conflict from the script is its greatest letdown. There just aren’t enough big moments the talent can sink their claws into. “Company” is never boring, but it also never shifts out of first gear, which poses a major problem when you have a fugitive on the run and a lot at stake.

Moontower is only in its second year of existence but they’ve been able to pull some really good acts. What about the festival appealed to you?

There are a lot of good acts working there. Amy’s [Schumer] working there, [Anthony] Jeselnik, [Marc] Maron. So the fact is when you see these really good comics doing something and you’re invited to do it you feel good to be associated with good comedians. And I like Austin. I’ve only done Austin once, but I loved it. The money was good and it’s a late-night show. It seemed like a really, really easy one to say yes to.

I saw last week that Louis CK was kind of criticized by a blogger about something he said during his HBO special. How frustrating is it as a comedian to see other comedians continue to be attacked for things they are saying on a stage in the context of their act?

It’s embarrassing for the country. It’s frustrating, but it makes me embarrassed for the country because we’re such a nation of twats. I mean that’s across all gender lines. We’re just babies. It makes me angry. Also, I find the outrage with all of them to be absolutely fraudulent and attention seeking. I have zero respect for the people offended by comedy or want to have comedy “taken to task.” Zero respect for them.

Right. It seems like in a lot of these cases you have these interest groups come out and basically try to dictate what is or isn’t okay to joke about. Do you think that makes things a lot more difficult for comedians who are trying to have their free speech and say what they want to say during their act?

Well, you have to take your free speech. You have to say what you want anyway. The interest groups are all selfish. All of them. Black groups care about black stuff, gay groups about gay stuff, Irish groups about Irish stuff. Every interest group is self-centered. So why anybody takes them seriously when they snivel about language is laughable. I respect a lot of what they do. I think that GLAAD is fighting for gay marriage and all these real things – these legitimate things – and then they get caught up on somebody’s language and I’m like, “Shut the fuck up.” Like, “That’s what you’re worried about?” Then they lose me. You know what I mean? Or all these other special-interest groups like women’s groups. They were all founded for a reason. They all started for a very legit reason and they’re all fighting for a real thing. But when they begin language policing it just makes me sick to my stomach. And I don’t believe that they’re truly offended. What they want to do is piggyback on the performer. Like when they catch you out there, “Gotcha!” They want to jump on your back and then you run around and parrot their message. It’s really weird. Special-interest groups are parasitic when they catch people saying something.

What about this past weekend when [Boston Red Sox player] David Ortiz dropped that F-bomb and the FCC came out and said that since he spoke from the heart it was OK. Were you annoyed by that?

No, I mean I liked the way they did it because they get letters from people like the Parents Television Counsel and all those other vomit-inducing groups. So, I think what happened is they were just kinda coming out and saying, “Everybody can just shut their mouths. We’re not changing anything.” I think that’s why the FCC did that. They kind of came by that to cut off any complaints that might come in.

Do you think the FCC doesn’t look at things circumstantial enough? Like they’ll just throw out a fine if you’re breaking a rule rather than looking at context?

Well, the FCC is a worthless organization. I mean, the content is everything and I can understand at one point where certain profanity wouldn’t be allowed but then they just, like everything else, over-extended and over-reached and they just became hateable thought-police. The reason cable is just kicking the shit out of radio and TV as far as all these awards are concerned is because a lot of the content can’t be done on regular TV. A lot of the honest language, they can’t have on regular TV. So I think the FCC has hopefully lost some steam.

Do you think it’s important that no subject is off-limits in terms of comedy?

Absolutely not. Of course, it’s all in terms of how you address the subject. Like, if you do a Boston Marathon joke, you might wanna be careful not to make fun of the people who got their legs blown off, you know, cause then people will be like, “Eh, we don’t see any joke there at all.” But the subject itself, why not talk about it? Why not talk about the incompetence of the attackers? Or make fun of their attraction to Islam? Whatever you want to make fun of. Usually you want to keep it off the victims, though. Or make fun of the media and the way covered it. But there’s no subject as a rule that is off-limits. Absolutely not.

Do you think in some cases it can make things like that easier to deal with? Just the fact that you can find a laugh somewhere in such serious subject matter?

It actually makes it easier for me. They call it gallows humor and I’ve always had that. So that’s what I think the great part of comedy is. People go, “Well, that’s not a funny subject.” Well, of course not. That’s the beauty of talking about it. The subject doesn’t have to be funny to talk about it. A comedian’s job is to take a subject, even an unfunny subject or a sad subject, and allow you to laugh at it. Or about it. Or with it.

You’ve been doing “Opie and Anthony” for many years now and I was wondering if being in that kind of environment where you’re always around funny people put some pressure on you to be funny or at least entertaining for four hours a day. Does that impact how you approach stand-up or do you see those as two different processes?

They’re different things. I hear Ant laugh or Opie laugh but with stand-up there’s an immediate reaction with strangers. So it makes you think more about topical stuff because we’re talking about them all morning. But it doesn’t really change the way I approach stand-up because I can’t meander on stage the way I can on radio. You can just talk about something for a little while.

Something I’ve heard you say on the show before is that you don’t really watch other comedians. Can you kind of elaborate a little on that?

I don’t want to know what they’re doing for a couple of reasons. A: it will depress me if it’s really good and B: I don’t want to be influenced by it. Like I’ve seen Louie (CK) do stand-up a million times, but I’ve never watched one of his stand-up specials. It’s not cause I don’t love him. I think he’s great. I think he’s hilarious. I just don’t want to see other people’s jokes, you know what I mean? I just don’t want to know. I don’t want to know what they’re doing. I’m only concerned with what I’m doing and this way I know any time I come up with a joke it has not been tainted or influenced by another person.

Does that make it any more difficult to know whether or not somebody has done a similar joke or a similar premise that you’ve done?

Yeah, I mean, it’s almost like if someone else is doing the exact same joke that I’m doing then one of us shouldn’t be doing it. But premise-wise, there are very few things that you can talk about that aren’t talked about. What can I talk about that no one else is? Which is why whenever I talk about stuff I try to put my own personal life into it and expose myself. Cause that part I own. I talked about Tiger Woods when that was topical. I can get my own destructive perversions and now I make fun of him. To me, that’s what makes it mine. That’s what makes it original. Owning up to my own bullshit, my own deviance.

That seems to be a trend that you see more and more often – comedians getting more personal with sometimes unflattering details about their lives. Do you think that’s something that is ingrained in a comedians DNA –  to be able to talk about those things with no shame?

Some comedians. And sometimes even with shame.  But I think comedians have learned how to take these demons and these horrible things, the things that hurt you or make you whatever, and make fun of them because it’s a way of getting power over them. That’s all it really is. Just a way of getting power over something that you feel is hurtful. Some comics don’t talk about stuff like that though. They don’t talk about personal stuff at all. So that kind of varies from comic to comic.

Something I feel like I’ve noticed is that there’s more comedians who are stepping away from the “joke-punchline” format and going to more anecdotal, long-form stories. Is that something you’ve noticed or picked up on?

Well, I mean again, I think that a comic should do all things. I think set up and punchlines are fine. But I also think you should be able to tell a story without making it such a joke-fest that there’s nothing believable about your story. But I think sometimes a laugh can come, not on an anti-punchline but on certain moments in your story. It doesn’t always have to be a rhythmic pounding. Any good comic, I think, is a little unpredictable. Whenever I see a comedian who is predictable in his rhythm or predictable in every opinion he has, I get immediately bored. When comics try and be right all the time, they get boring. I think you’re only obligated to be honest. You’re not obligated to always be right.

You’ve written two New York Times Best-selling books. I imagine that when you’re working out new stand-up material you have an instant sense of whether something works or not for an audience. Is not having that immediate feedback something that makes writing a book more challenging?

Well, I didn’t mind it because I’m a pretty good judge of my own writing. I re-write and re-write and edit and re-edit it so many times that by the time it got out, I was very confident in it. But it does make it a weird thing without any feedback, sure. But sometimes that can be an advantage because you get to look at it so many times before anybody else sees it. So I’ll get a good feeling whether or not it’s good. Like, I’ll read it and go, “Oh, that sucks!” Or, “Wow, that really holds up 10 days later.”

Has there ever been any point where you’ve gotten burned out on stand-up after doing it for so many years?

When I shoot a special, I’m done with that material. Like, “Please Be Offended,” I shot a year ago and it aired on Comedy Central and I haven’t done that material in a year. I just shot another special about a month ago which is going to be called “American Degenerate,” which will not air until June but I’m almost done with this material, too. So I don’t get burned out on it but I get burned out on certain material. I’m actually still enjoying the stuff I’m doing now cause I’ve been doing it less than a year, but after a year or 15 months I get burned out on certain jokes. As long as I’m switching out my material, I always find stand-up to be pretty fresh.

So your special will be running on Epix. Is there any kind of theme to it or is it just you doing your thing?

It’s me just talking about myself and what’s going on in the country and attacking the media. It’s like “Please Be Offended,” but the material is totally different. It’s me tying in my own dysfunction to what the rest of the country is going through.

What was it like reuniting with Lou Diamond Phillips for the first time since “Stand in Deliver” 25 years ago?

(Laughs) It was a dream come true. It was a great way to move forward and see him and rejoice in our lives. He gives a tremendous performance in this film. It might be his best performance since “Stand and Deliver” or “La Bamba,” I’m not sure.

Does it feel like 25 years?

Nah, it went by pretty quick. (Laughs) It doesn’t feel like it. Time just goes by so fast.

This is your son Michael’s third film as a director and the second time you’ve worked with him on one of those films. Over the years, how have you seen him evolve as a filmmaker?

He’s grown an awful lot. His writing has grown. He helped write “Filly Brown.” He’s grown a lot as an artist.

As a father, was there a specific time in his life where you sensed that the film industry might be something he wanted to be a part of?

I think all my kids looked at this lifestyle and kind of liked it. [Michael] came to me right out of high school and said, “Listen, I want to go to college.” I said, “OK.” He did all his prerequisite work for two years and then came back to me and said, “I’d like to graduate from Columbia and be a director.” I said, “OK. Learn how to write. Take the writing program.”  He said, “But I want to direct.” I said, “That’s great, but learn how to write first. Directing is easy. Writing is hard.” So, he did and he came out of Columbia a wonderful writer. Now, his directing is catching up to his writing, so I think he is going to be right on schedule.

Would he ever go with you on movie sets when he was younger?

Oh, yeah. He went on almost all the sets. All my sons did. Bodie’s in the business. He’s an actor and producer. He worked with me on “Battlestar Galactica.” Then Mico, he wrote and performed the music and produced “Filly Brown.” My other son [Brandon] is a documentary filmmaker and musician. So, they’re all inside of it.

Were you at all worried that all four of your sons wanted to get into what I’m sure you know is a cutthroat industry?

No, because I brought them up knowing that there is no security in this business. It’s consistently fluctuating. Sometimes you’re working and sometimes you’re not. They grew up knowing what that world was like and what those sacrifices were. They could go their whole life and never make a penny.  They know that, but it’s the life they chose.

Is the music in “Filly Brown” something you could get used to listening to while driving? Is that a genre we’d find you playing on your radio?

Oh, yeah. (Laughs) I really like it. A lot of the actors that are in the movie are really strong rappers. Chingo Bling is fantastic in the movie. He’s a great rapper, songwriter and entrepreneur.

Part of the film deals with how women in the entertainment industry have to sometimes use their sexuality to get people to take notice. We saw the same thing in “Selena.” Do you think much has changed in 16 years when it comes to that issue?

No, it’s gotten worse. Not just for the [Hispanic] culture, but for women in general. The sexuality in our communities is just growing and growing and growing. Of course, we have the moral majority telling us that it’s not right. What happens is that we don’t have any balance. We don’t have what Europe has. Europe has a very strong and wonderful way of looking at its sexuality. It’s much more understanding of itself. It’s more normal. Here, it’s like, “Whoa!” It’s the same way with men, too. They have to be sexier or they’re not going to make it. You have to be good-looking, suave, cool, all of that.

My favorite line in the film is said by actor Daniel Mora. He says, “You’re a real asshole, but we’re family.” Do you think family tolerance like that is exclusive to the Latino culture?

Not exclusive, but it does prevail in our culture sometimes more than in the Caucasian or African American cultures. But I think our culture definitely does have that more consistently. It’s unconditional love.

I know you don’t have any scenes with Jenni Rivera in “Filly Brown,” but can you talk to me about what she brought to this film and what you felt when you found out about her passing last year?

It’s still one of the hardest situations that has ever hit me because of the sheer shock of it. I mean, Selena was bad enough, but I didn’t make a movie with her. Here we are at our first press junket for “Filly Brown” and the movie is coming out and everyone is happy and Jenni isn’t here. There’s a huge hole. We’ve finished this little movie and it has become a very strong film and now it’s about to go out into the world and she’s not with us to rejoice. When you’re working on a real intimate film like this, you really do become family. The very last scene of the movie, when [Jenni] stands up to leave, has become a very iconic moment. She puts her hand on the window and walks away and her handprint stays there and you know it’s going to dry up and fade away. It riveted everyone in the audience so much when we saw it. No one could’ve imagined that when she turns around and walks away, it would be the last time you see her. It’s still very emotional. It brings a tear to my eye right now just talking about it.

Well, let me lighten things up a bit before I let you go. I’m wondering, has anyone has shown you the episode of “Portlandia” yet where Fred Armisen plays Jaime Escalante in “Reverse Stand and Deliver?”

(Laughs) Yes, I saw it. (Laughs) “Portlandia” did “Battlestar,” too. Of course they’re going to jump on “Stand and Deliver.” A bunch of people have done skits on “Stand and Deliver,” even Jim Carrey. It’s one of the classic teacher-student films that has ever been made.

What can we expect from your character Papi Greco in your new film “2 Guns” with Denzel Washington and Mark Wahlberg?

Oh, boy. Well, Denzel and Wahlberg and those guys called me up and asked me if I would help them out. If it wasn’t a direct call, I wouldn’t have been a part of that movie. It’s a very strong movie. It’s an action-packed movie, but it also has a lot of truth in it. The CIA is at the helm of narcotic drug trafficking. (Laughs) It’s very true! It’s fun and you’ll laugh and there are a lot of car chases and things blowing up, but when you get down to the nitty-gritty it’s about the inner workings of the highest covert military people we have in this country. This isn’t a fantasy. This is right on the money.

What about your new film with director John Salles, “Go For Sisters?”

Man, what a movie. Wow. Now, there’s a film that has no car chases.  It has a lot of drama and great character work. John is a genius when it comes to character work. It’s about as good as “Lone Star.” The nuances are superb. Thinkers are going to love the movie.

Just like in his last film, the CGI-rich albeit hollow-to-the-core sequel “TRON: Legacy,” filmmaker Joseph Kosinski captures an exciting setting in his second movie “Oblivion.” In this Tom Cruise-vehicle, Kosinski’s idea of a futuristic, post-war Earth is vast and dreary. High-tech drones blaze through the sky with purpose. The planet is lifeless, but Kosinski’s vision isn’t. It’s not until characters actually speak and a plot is brought to the forefront when “Oblivion” becomes just another dull sci-fi genre flash in the pan.

Cruise, who is no stranger to substantial science fiction like “Minority Report” and “War of the Worlds,” tries his best to keep the drama high as the director maintains the fascinating world around him. He stars as Jack Harper, a security expert whose mission is to monitor drones on Earth. Along with his partner Victoria (Andrea Riseborough), the duo is only two weeks away from clocking out and joining their fellow humans who have been transported to another planet after a nuclear war ravaged the world uninhabitable. Hanging out in the shadows of Earth are aliens called “scavs” who are hellbent on attacking machines built to harvest the Earth’s remaining ocean water.

If that read like a jumbled up narrative, that’s because it is. In fact, we haven’t even started to explain why Jack is seeing a mysterious woman (Olga Kurylenko) in his dreams or why an annoyingly southern-accented Melissa Leo is giving him the runaround via video transmission or why the heck Morgan Freeman shows up wearing shades and smoking a cigar. Besides not wanting to ruin some of the surprises “Oblivion” has in store, we also don’t want to dilute the synopsis as much as screenwriters here do with the script. “Oblivion” is a sprawling mess filled with big, muddy ideas. It’s a perfect example of a sci-fi movie that over-thinks its mythology and ends up forcing the viewer right out of the story.

It’s also not very mindful of other recent sci-fi movies that share some of its major twists. Sure, there are plenty of movies out there that cover the same themes and a few of the scenarios seen in “Oblivion,” but it boggles the mind to understand how a couple of them didn’t set off the copycat alarms. And no, we’re not talking about Cruise reliving his fighter-pilot days in “Top Gun.” Here he’s impressive behind the controls of a high-speed spacecraft. Too bad the year is 2077 and not 1986.

Off his Oscar win for the gorgeously shot “Life of Pi,” the work of cinematographer Claudio Miranda is easily the film’s forte. From a shootout inside an abandoned library to the eye-melting landscapes and skyscapes, the images in “Oblivion” coincide with its $120-million price tag. Producers should’ve skimped on a few CGI drones, however, and transferred some of those funds to someone who could’ve tightened up the screenplay with a vise.

Since “Filly Brown” is the first lead role of your film career, do you feel like you are part of the industry now?

It’s still a hustle. I’m still trying to prove to the world I can act and that I have a place in this industry. But it’s been a blessing. “Filly Brown” has done wonders for my career. It has gotten me the recognition I’ve always prayed for. Let’s hope that it does well in theaters because that’s all that matters. We have to tell the Latino community we can make “Filly Brown” part of the movement. If “Filly Brown” does well, more money will go into the next Latino film.

Unfortunately, statistics show Latino moviegoers don’t go out and support Latino-themed films on a consistent basis. Why do you think the support isn’t there?

I think you hit it right on the head. Latinos don’t go out and support their own films, but at the same time it’s not their responsibility. I don’t want the Latino community to think I think the reason Latino films are not doing well is because of us. It is not fully our responsibility. There are a lot of Latino Americans out there. They want to see themselves in the movies they go out to see like “Fast and the Furious” and “Total Recall” and the movies that are blockbuster hits. We want to see our brown faces in those movies.  I think there is a little discrepancy in the industry where they think the only places Latinos belong are in their own movies. That’s clearly not true with people like Zoe Saldaña and Michelle Rodriguez and Jennifer Lopez. We have a few heavy hitters in the industry that are doing movies that don’t have anything to do with being Latino. I know we all desire more of that.

Do you desire that yourself as an actress?

I desire to be in a big blockbuster movie that has nothing to do with my skin color and just has to do with the fact I can act my ass off. I will play the characters with last names like Sanchez and Gonzalez until the day I die, but I also want to play the “Michelle Smiths.” I think all Latino actors want to be storytellers first. I want to be an actor first and then I want to be Latina. At the same time, a movie like “Filly Brown” is not all about “Viva la Raza.” It’s not all about me speaking Spanish. But these characters carry around their culture and what defines us as Latinos.

Although being Latina comes second to being an actress, it does sound like you are very proud of your culture.

Yeah, Latinos have power. We put the President in office! There are 50 million Latinos in this country. If two million go see “Filly Brown,” then Hollywood is going to start saying, “Oh, there they are. There’s the money. Now we have to actually start casting these brown folks because they want to see themselves on screen.” As many broke Latinos as there are – me included – we actually have the power with our $15 movie ticket.

Talk about working with the late Jenni Rivera and what she meant to you on the set.

I would give this whole movie to have her back. I would give my whole career to have her back on earth. This woman was tremendous. The woman that everyone saw when she would stop and talk to her fans, that was Jenni. She was never fake or phony. Outside of my mother, she was one of the greatest mothers I had ever seen. [Her death] is a lot to deal with because we have this movie that we are proud of and want to promote, but it feels like there is something missing. But she is our angel. She helped me so much with the music. I was terrified. I had never touched music a day in my life. But it’s time to celebrate her and what she does in this film.

Along with help from Jenni, how did you confront the musical elements of the movie?

I went to NYU School of the Arts for theater and trained my ass off as an actress, so I took the same approach for music. I watched Jenni. I watched Medicine Girl (Carolyn Rodriguez), Lala Romero, Diamonique, Chingo Bling, Chino Brown, Baby Bash for hours. I watched how far they stood from the mic. I watched how they enunciated their words. I watched the way they grooved. Now you can’t get me out of the studio!

Do you consider yourself a musician now?

Most definitely. I’m very new to the music industry and pay homage to those who came before me. By no means do I think I’m at the level of any of these musicians. I am now a musician in training. I will constantly be working on my music the same way I worked toward my acting. It’s going to take time and practice and patience. I’m far from where I want to be, but I’m on the journey.