His formula is simple: 1) Create a character. 2) Imbue him with social and cultural ignorance and a host of stereotypes and/or insensitive world views. 3) Commit to him on and off the screen. 4) Use character to push boundaries of political correctness and obscenity. 5) Do not stop repeating No. 4. Ever.

The success of the formula to date has led to comic gold for Sacha Baron Cohen in his three biggest endeavors: “Da Ali G Show,” “Borat” and “Bruno,” and now the question is whether he can keep it up with “The Dictator,” which opens tomorrow.

The difference between “Borat” and “Bruno” from both a critical and monetary perspective already suggests that the comedian’s act is getting stale, which is perhaps why “The Dictator” drops the “mockumentary” style in favor of a traditional (yet no less vulgar) narrative.

“Borat” made more than $260 million worldwide, and “Bruno” only made half as much despite a better opening weekend (though to be fair “Borat” opened in fewer than 1,000 theaters). In terms of reviews, fans were less impressed by “Bruno” though critics still liked it enough that it sits at 67% on Rotten Tomatoes.

Cohen’s newest character, General Aladeen of the fictional Republic of Wadiya, certainly shares a bit more in common with Borat, though the sheer genius of the entire Borat character might never have an equal. Borat is a bumbling fool ignorant to his racism and sexism; General Aladeen appears to be a man so taken up by his sense of self-importance that he is ignorant to his own bigotry. The “Prince and the Pauper”-type story in place for “The Dictator” seems an excellent fit for this character.

Although the scene is set for a success, Cohen seems destined to be judged by the bar he set with “Borat.” Perhaps that’s rightfully so, but the comparison will likely be in regards to the quantity of moments in which theater-goers lose their shit, not the social commentary that so brilliantly underscores everything he does.

Undoubtedly there are people who mistake gross-out humor for Cohen’s greatest strength, not the fact that he challenges perceptions of obscenity by forcing comic situations out of our comfort zone. He exposes the true nature of our arbitrary standards for decency and always takes his chances doing so, even if most audiences will recoil in disgust.

What elevates his work, however, is how the story and the characters he creates expose our own ignorance. “Borat” does this better than any film in existence. Cohen embodies outlandish exaggerations of racism, sexism, anti-Semitism and general bigotry in order to show how unfounded and ridiculous these beliefs and behaviors are while simultaneously supporting the argument that in the right light, anything can be funny.

A lot of the intelligent thought here goes unobserved by most. For one, despite Borat’s flagrant anti-Semitism, Cohen himself is Jewish and when Borat speaks in his native Kazakh tongue, half the time he’s dropping bits of Hebrew. When Borat meets the the old Jewish couple, the two most normal people in the film, he flees them in terror. There’s a certain danger in perpetuating stereotypes and myths such as Jews having horns as you never know how someone ignorant might receive them, but he does it with such exaggeration that even the simplest of audiences have to find it at least a little absurd.

As Bruno, rather than playing a character who is hateful and ignorant, he plays the extreme stereotype himself—an extremely flamboyant man of ambiguous sexuality—and jabs at society’s discomfort with homosexuality. Although Bruno has a host of other issues that make him a funny character, the strength of that film is really in the few scenes that truly identify this rampant discomfort.

How “The Dictator” provides a social commentary will be at the heart of whether Cohen succeeds. There’s certainly room for him to poke at those who deny others the right to think and act as they wish as well as room to prove not all Arabs are terrorists.

While the comic aspects of what he does might vary film to film and ultimately determine his future in doing this kind of work, Cohen will always remain a top-notch comedian so long as he can find more characters that will challenge social and cultural perceptions.

No risk, no reward — you can’t exactly picture Hollywood execs saying that one too often.

The movie industry is almost always about sure bets, especially when studios spend more than $100 million on most of their major films. Sequels, book adaptations — anything familiar with a built-in fan base to justify a high price tag.

But if every film were a safe pick, what would movie history look like today? Truth of the matter is some of the greatest films of all time began as leaps of faith. They were ambitious projects, usually with incredibly high budgets and no certainties as far as box-office appeal.

Sure, some of these films go down as the biggest embarrassments Hollywood has ever seen, but in an industry driven by imagination both from the filmmakers and audiences themselves, sometimes you have to go big.

Walt Disney Pictures has aimed high with “John Carter,” giving a lot of trust (and more than $200 million) to Andrew Stanton, director of Pixar films “Finding Nemo” and “WALL*E.”  This spring blockbuster is now in fate’s hands, but let’s look back at some other films that dared to be great.

Star Wars (1977)

Let us begin with the obvious. The world had not been prepared to see anything like “Star Wars” ever before. The closest comparison would be “2001: A Space Odyssey” and of course the TV series “Star Trek.” Even so, the special effects couldn’t even compare (“Close Encounters of the Third Kind” came out the same year), and the stories of those films were much more grounded in Earthly things. George Lucas created an entire universe with an $11-million budget. He made back about 30 times that much in the film’s initial run, and those are just domestic totals.

The Lord of the Rings (2001-2003)

The risk with these films was not that there would be no audience eager to receive it, as J.R.R. Tolkein’s fantasy series has had devoted fans for decades. With only a few animated adaptations in the past, perhaps studios and filmmakers were terrified of upsetting an entire fan base. Surely enough, Peter Jackson bravely stepped up to the plate, but the real risk was filming all three movies at one time. If the first had disappointed, this now-enormous franchise would have been one of the worst and most egregious miscalculations in movie history.

Gone with the Wind (1939)

Taking a risk was a much bigger deal in Old Hollywood, which makes “Gone with the Wind’s” mammoth success in the early ‘40s all the more staggering. Famed producer David O. Selznick, who became a movie mogul thanks to this film, purchased the rights to Margaret Mitchell’s novel for $50,000, a record amount at the time. Adjusted for inflation, this sprawling Southern-set romantic epic still holds the record for the highest gross in U.S. history.

Ben-Hur (1959)

“Gone with the Wind” established the precedent for epic motion-picture events, which made a remake of “Ben-Hur” a possibility, even being 20 years later. Even so, this religion-themed blockbuster came with major financial risk. It cost $15 million to make ($120 million when adjusted for inflation), $1 million of which went to director William Wyler alone, the highest directing fee ever paid at the time. To say it was worth every penny would be an understatement: the film ranks as the 13th biggest moneymaker in U.S. history with inflation taken into account and received 11 Academy Awards, the most ever at the time and a record that would last 38 years. I should also mention that two years earlier, “The Ten Commandments,” also starring Charlton Heston, made the equivalent of more than a billion dollars in today’s terms.

Cleopatra (1963)

Historical epics abounded in the ‘50s and ‘60s, but not every one of them lived up to the hype. Joseph L. Mankiewicz’s four-hour biopic “Cleopatra” is known for being perhaps the most notorious waste of money in history. Starring heavy-hitters Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton and Rex Harrison, it made $57.7 million, good for 39th all time with inflation. It also won four Oscars. So … what’s wrong with that? Well, it cost 20th Century Fox an estimated $44 million, a million of which went to Taylor alone. Today that would be like spending nearly $350 million to make your movie. Not even the least cash-conscious franchises of today come close to spending that kind of dough.

Waterworld (1995)

One of the biggest failures of the last 20 years is Kevin Costner’s sci-fi epic “Waterworld.” In the late ‘80s and early ‘90s, Costner had built enough clout in Hollywood to earn himself Carte Blanche, so $175 million was sunk into this sinker, which made $264 million worldwide. Those are poor figures today by blockbuster standards, let alone 17 years ago. Being about a decade too late to the gritty dystopian future party (led by the “Mad Max” films) didn’t help, in addition to being an original story with no built-in audience.

Titanic (1997)

The days of the epic romantic blockbuster had seemed long dead until a little ship that could named “Titanic” came around. “The Terminator” director James Cameron decided to use his technological prowess to tell a love story and just like that, history was made. Although most infamous for the unreal money that it brought in, “Titanic” was not cheap. It cost $200 million to make this film in a decade when animation/family films and science fiction were the big moneymakers. Considering everyone knew how the film would end, it’s amazing it ranks as the second biggest movie of all time.

Avatar (2009)

We all wondered where James Cameron had been for the last decade and we got our answer in the biggest movie of all time. Cameron and crew had spent that time developing state-of-the-art motion-capture technology and 3D cameras to create the most immersive and believable out-of-this-world film experience ever. With a classic story arc, it’s now wonder why the film became so universally beloved. It’s easy to look back at Cameron’s career, which includes “The Abyss” and “The Terminator,” and see a technical genius at work, but after falling off the map for nearly a decade, would you have put a ton of money into “Avatar?” Down to it’s name, nothing about this movie back when word first came to us screamed $2.7 billion worldwide.

Directing can be assessed in countless ways, from the how someone frames a shot to how they interpret the script to simply an ability to get the best out of the talent on screen. Sometimes, they might just be damn good at picking the right projects.

The very best directors seem to possess one or more of these strengths innately. Anyone can direct, but few have a gift to really impact the films they make. And despite only four feature films to his name, it can be said with a great degree of certainty that Jason Reitman is one of them.  

Reitman’s gift might be one of the most impossible to emulate. It’s tough to say exactly how he does it, but he brings such humanity to his films. Part of it is working with scripts and actors of a certain quality, but “Thank You For Smoking,” “Juno” and “Up in the Air” all exist in this perfect plane of humor and drama, of levity and poignancy. We should expect nothing less of “Young Adult,” which is now in theaters.

The story of how Reitman came to be involved in Hollywood is quite simple: he’s the son of director Ivan Reitman. Yes, he of “Ghostbusters” fame and “Kindergarten Cop.” Jason was always interested in film as a boy and when he grew older he worked as a production assistant on “Cop” and spent much time learning in the editing room of his father’s films.

But while he learned the trade from Ivan, the professional similarities end there. Presented with opportunities to direct various commercial films, he turned these offers down, such as the chance to direct “Dude, Where’s My Car?” — twice. Instead, he decided to dedicate all his time to his own short films. He made five from 1998 to 2004 plus one documentary short. During this time he adapted a novel by Christopher Buckley into what became “Thank You For Smoking” in 2005. It was an instantly acclaimed film that received two Golden Globe nominations.

“Smoking” introduced not only Reitman, but star Aaron Eckhart to the masses. It surprised most audiences in the way it caused us to sympathize with Nick Naylor, a spokesperson who works for Big Tobacco and essentially makes his living off others dying. The idea of taking something controversial and reshaping the perception of it through the use of comic perspective would become somewhat of a trademark. “Up in the Air,” his 2009 drama based on a Walter Kirn novel, took a similar approach to George Clooney’s Ryan Bingham: a man who goes around firing people for a living. That movie ended up scoring six Oscar nominations and was robbed of all of them.

And 2007’s hit “Juno” is not all that different from those two. Teenage pregnancy could’ve been a subject taken too lightly or too seriously, yet “Juno” touches brilliantly on both ends of the spectrum, which is why Diablo Cody won an Oscar for her script. Credit should of course also go to Ellen Page for taming those words. Honestly, the success of “Juno” cannot be understated. Name another pure comedy in the last 20 years that isn’t a musical or an animated film that received a Best Picture nomination. I can’t think of one.

Naturally, Cody and Reitman working together again on “Young Adult” has drawn a lot of attention. Thinking back to some of Charlize Theron’s comedic work, such as her stint on the third season of “Arrested Development,” lends credence to the fact that she can indeed pull it off. It might not go Academy recognized, but early word is largely positive for this film. Truly, some directors have a sixth sense for storytelling, and if you don’t believe it, let’s revisit this topic in 20 years time and find out how many “duds” Jason Reitman has made. He’s gotten four Oscar nominations to this point and only made three films; there won’t be many.

“I have Cancer.”

I’ve said this many times, but never to try and pick up someone at a bar. It mostly comes up in conversation while I am out with friends, and I can say it is just as awkward as the movie “50/50” makes it look.

“50/50” was written by cancer survivor Will Reiser and based (loosely) on how he coped through humor and friendship. It is important to know that all medical information used in this film actually came out of the writer’s own life. He did make it more extreme than his own diagnosis, but in the end — no matter what kind of cancer you have — it is all equally as scary.

I have to give major points to Joseph Gordon-Levitt. He plays Adam, an average healthy-looking 27-year-old guy who schedules a doctor’s appointment after having some back pain while running that turns out to be caused by a rare cancerous tumor. He must quickly start chemotherapy to try and shrink the tumor. JGL does such a great job showing how cancer treatment not only affects you physically, but mentally. As he went on his journey through the movie you could tell he was feeling the horrible effects of chemo. What was also great is how you could see his view of those around him changing and adopting to each situation. I loved when he was too tired to stay out all night with his friend Kyle. I have definitely been there.

I also appreciated how Adam learns he has cancer. The way the diagnoses scene cut in and out of focus, how the doctor seemed to be talking a lot of medical nonsense and not directly at Adam was very familiar. The way Adam was trying to make sense of what was going on, saying that he recycled so he clearly could not have cancer to me made the moment very realistic. He didn’t get emotional; it was just a sort of shock of disbelief, thinking only of the now. When I was diagnosed with 4th stage Adrenal Cancer, I was not worried about the long term — I just wanted to make sure I could finish my senior year of college.

Then comes the hardest part, in my opinion: Telling everyone else. This is something I did not want to do. What if I forgot to tell some one? What if people stopped talking to me? What will they say, do, react? The movie approaches this with the four different ways that people react to finding out you have cancer.

There are the people who withdraw, people who smother, people who look out for you and people who honestly just don’t know what to do. The way Adam approaches people in his life about his cancer fits each of their personalities. How they cope with it after they are told gave me one of those light-bulb moment ideas. The hospital is the friendship test in this movie.

I know people don’t like hospitals, but this idea comes after I connected some of my own experiences. I have been hospitalized about four times since I was diagnosed three years ago. I have done IV chemotherapy on schedules that would have me sitting there for five hours a day every other week to my current chemo where I go three times a week for two hours once every month. I clearly spend more time sitting in a plastic blue chair then other activities. I always have gone to chemo or the hospital with someone. I have friends and family who visit, people who send cards, call, or leave Facebook messages a week later. This movie helped me realize that those who are able to come to physically visit realize that I am more than my diagnosis. This does not mean I am going to de-friend everyone who does not visit me, but it helps me to know where people are when it comes to dealing with cancer or illness in general.

A moment that really shook me was when Adam realizes what having cancer can actually mean. This was a heart-wrenching moment. It was one I have had many times and comes up often from experiences extremely similar to Adam’s. (If you have yet to see the movie, you should look away for a second here). One of the men who Adam has chemotherapy with passes away, leaving an empty chair that day during treatment. This is intensified by the fact that Adam has a scan coming up. “Scan Anxiety” is the worst and causes really high tension. You see this as Adam tries to get a hold of Kyle (Seth Rogen) to take him to the doctor to find out what is next, only to get his voicemail and end up going to the doctor with his mother, making him even more on edge.

“50/50” brought a young adult’s cancer experience full circle. It showed the reality of how hard it can be to loose those closest to you. It showed how you become reliant on your family and friends for positive support. Most importantly, it really highlighted what it is like to have cancer and what that feels like. Yes everyone’s cancer treatment and experience is completely different, but this movie did an amazing job of capturing moments that are similar to most real-life cancer stories.

I have been living with cancer for three years now. I have gone through surgeries, radiation, oral chemo, and IV chemo. I get CT scans every 2-3 months. The cancer has spread to my liver, my lungs, and my abdomen. My odds for living I don’t think about, nor should they be something I ever have to worry about. I just keep living life like Adam does, by making light of the serious situations and leaning on others for support. This is why I give “50/50” 4/5 awkward pats on the shoulder.

Heather Kornick
3-year Cancer Survivor, life long movie watcher, and preschool teacher

Perhaps this point could be debated, but nothing is more cruelly unfair than serious illness. You can blame murder and war on people, but unless you’re a conspiracy theorist, you can’t sanely blame anyone when someone develops cancer or a similarly vile or fatal illness. Yes, some are preventable, but many simply aren’t.

Depressed yet? Hollywood is. You might be able to name tons of films where someone has such an illness, but few shine a spotlight on it and those that do twist it to a more public friendly genre. People don’t go to the movies to watch two hours of the stuff that already has or might ruin their lives, at least that’s what most studios think. And while they’re right, that doesn’t mean these subjects are incapable of providing a positive film experience — or even entertainment. “50/50,” which I reviewed this weekend, proves my theory.

Of course ”50/50″ is not the first film to tackle terminal or potentially fatal illness (not even this fall, as Gus Van Sant recently released “Restless”), but it might be the first of its kind in terms of the specific angle. Most Hollywood uses of serious illness can fall into three categories, a series of traditional lines that until “50/50″ went unbroken.

Illness as Used to Add Emotional Weight to an Oscar Contender

There’s little gray area when it comes to dramas that have serious illness as one of the focal points; it’s either go Oscar or go home. A sad illness tips the emotional scales of an already weighty drama and it either falls on the side of “my God give them/him/her an Oscar! And uh … pass the tissues” or “That was a bit too much — not a fan.”

One of the biggest most prominent examples is James L. Brooks’ “Terms of Endearment.” At first it seems like it will be a family drama about the unusual relationship between a mother (Shirley MacLaine) and daughter (Deborah Winger) as the daughter gets married and starts her own family. Then seemingly out of nowhere, Brooks drops a C-bomb that explodes all over the film. At first it seems like a gimmick, but eventually you see how it magnifies the existing relationships and conflicts that Brooks has spent hours building. All that translated to 11 Academy Award nominations and five wins, most highly deserved, but some undoubtedly bumped up thanks to cancer.

As for your Oscar chances if you’re playing a character with a terminal illness — gold. I don’t think you can fault me for saying a dying character rates second only to a disabled character when it comes to hailed performances by actors and actresses coping with tangible obstacles. With that in mind, it should come as no surprise that Tom Hanks won back-to-back Best Actor Oscars for playing one of each.

Hanks’ first statuette came for his role in “Philadelphia,” Jonathan Demme’s five-time nominated drama about a lawyer laid off from his big-time Philadelphia-based firm right after receiving a promotion. He learns it was because the firm found out he had AIDS, so he files a wrongful dismissal case that an up-and-coming yet homophobic civil attorney (Denzel Washington) agrees to take. Hanks gives a powerful realism to the debilitating effects of AIDS, and the way the script takes aim at our prejudices about AIDS and homosexuality makes it a troubling film, but it’s not at all without a positive outlook.

Illness as an Emotional Sucker Punch in a Romance

Many romance films are well-loved, but don’t have the hardware to prove they belong among the all-time best. Half the films that fall in that general description usually have a some kind of hopelessly tragic element, often times in the form of a terrible disease. These low jabs at our tear ducts might be cheap, but they can be damn effective, especially if you tend to not have a Y chromosome.

Novelist Nicholas Sparks might be the all time champion of the emotional sucker punch. In “The Notebook,” which could rightfully be considered the best romance in the last 10 years, he depicts an old man telling a love story to a woman in a nursing home, only to reveal that they are the lovers in the story and she can’t remember because of the severe nature of her Alzheimer’s. Nope, that’s not a terminal illness — Sparks saved that for “A Walk to Remember.” I never saw the film starring Mandy Moore and Shane West, but what I did manage to hear about was the story’s big twist, that West’s character Landon, after falling for Moore’s Jamie, learns that she has terminal leukemia. The ill-fated lovers must come to terms with said ill-fate.

This is where we could learn a lesson from “Romeo & Juliet.” Shakespeare’s classic tells a profound tale of star-crossed lovers, but I don’t recall the part where Juliet learns she has a couple fortnights to live after contracting the Plague.

If I sound like I’m speaking lightly of something that’s touched many lives, I do apologize. Truth of the matter is these things happen in some regard, but it would be ignorant to ignore the smell of Hollywood cooking up these painfully life-like tales in a way that makes them all the more heart-wrenching.

One example would be “Stepmom,” the 1998 film starring Susan Sarandon as a woman who must cope with her divorced husband’s (Ed Harris) new wife (Julia Roberts) as must her two children (Jena Malone and Liam Aiken). The whole game changes when Sarandon’s character comes down with possibly fatal cancer. The film won audience approval (I recall enjoying it as a tween), but critics tore into it for being a contrived tearjerker.

The sucker punch works the best when the film doesn’t try to be too real. Take “Moulin Rouge!,” for example. When we discover Nicole Kidman’s alluring entertainer Satine has developed Consumption and starts coughing up blood, we know her time with Christian (Ewan McGregor) will be short, regardless of the intentions of the Duke among others. Death begins to creep in just as they seem to have beaten the rest of the odds, a cheap shot to be sure, but why it works is because the entire film aspires to be a grandiose love story of unrealistic proportions. Whatever can strengthen the emotion of that love story could and should be used.

Illness as Cheap Motivation for Characters to Make the Most of Life

At first thought, you wouldn’t believe any film that involves fatal illness as a crucial plot element could possibly be a comedy, but you would be oh so wrong. Most of these films are in fact recent, using a main character’s terminal illness diagnosis to jumpstart an entire film plot, generally with the intention of showing them try to live life to the fullest, which involves doing “funny” things.

The first to come to mind would be Rob Reiner’s 2007 comedy “The Bucket List” starring Morgan Freeman and Jack Nicholson as a pair of old men who escape a cancer ward for the terminally ill in order to do all the things they wanted to do in life but never did, or cross them off their “bucket list.” Together they travel the world, skydive, drive race cars — all manner of adrenaline-boosting things that people never do when they have their whole life ahead of them. All this so that you really like them and when the inevitable happens, you shed a tear or several. Like “Stepmom,” the film didn’t earn favor from critics, but audiences ate it up, especially on DVD — it’s still one of Netflix’s most rented films.

The cheapest of the cheap would be Queen Latifah vehicle “Last Holiday.” Latifah’s character lives the simple life and hasn’t ventured out of her comfort zone in New Orleans ever, but a CT scan reveals she has a three weeks to live, so she goes to Europe, rents the presidential suite at one of the nicest hotels and decides she has nothing to lose. I didn’t see this film, but the trailers emphasize comedy above all else, as if to say a fatal diagnosis gives a film free license to have its character be over-the-top.

Perhaps the only attempt that feels anywhere near Friday’s “50/50″ is Judd Apatow’s “Funny People.” Adam Sandler plays a stand-up comedian named George Simmons who learns he has a rare form of leukemia, which causes him to contemplate his life choices. He ends up hiring a joke writer in the form of a promising young comedian (Seth Rogen), who ends up being more of a personal assistant in keeping him company. The catch here is that George finds out he’ll live earlier on in the film (it was even in the trailers). The use of cancer has little ultimate bearing on the film, just on George’s perspective. He doesn’t use it as license to go crazy; it seems to have little point to being part of the plot, yet it’s the whole plot. Perhaps the bitterness comes from the fact that the film wasn’t anywhere near as funny as you’d expect from Apatow and the movie found very few fans.

This morning, if you are a Netflix subscriber you were apologized to, so let me start off by apologizing for not covering the big Netflix news this summer, which now matters all the more after the most recent announcement.

The company’s announced change in pricing structure, which takes effect this month (for me on Wednesday in fact), charges significantly extra to retain both its flagship DVD-by-mail service along with Watch Instantly streaming service. The move angered the subscriber base to say the least. As much as many enjoyed the complimentary streaming service, many were cognizant that it was just that — complimentary — and that something would give: either fewer streaming titles or a higher cost. But as any businessperson knows, taking  something away from your customers or charging them for something once free doesn’t go quietly.

As such, CEO Reed Hastings sent all subscribers a personalized letter of apology for not explaining the changes earlier that attempted to now explain the company’s motives and more importantly improve its image. It basically says Netflix has been trying to identify what the demand is, and the demand is shifting to streaming services, so rather than get too protective of its flagship DVD-by-mail service and die with the likes of Borders, AOL dial-up and (the unmentioned) Blockbuster, the company put the first stepping stone in place to make a full transition to a streaming-first company. You can watch Hastings explain the changes in detail below.

Now, a second stepping stone has been put in place. The company has introduced Qwikster, the re-branded name of its DVD-by-mail service and a terrible name considering the similarities to movie social media site Flixster, but the company plans to make PS3, XBox and Wii games available. If you’re more interested in that and how it might affect Gamefly, check out Player Affinity’s article here.

The Qwikster service will be a sibling site of Netflix to some extent: the interface will be the same for smooth transitioning, but you pay with a different credit card, manage the queue separately and Netflix and Qwikster will not be integrated. That means you will have to rate movies on both sites for them to process recommendations using the site’s notorious algorithm.

As I alluded to, I was among the most affected of the demographic with my 1 DVD-at-a-time plan that included Watch Instantly. Those of you in my shoes all had a similar question to answer: dump the mail service or accept the price hike?

Unlike many of you, and I say this to clarify my perspective only, my Netflix was presented to me four years ago as a generous gift which rather than having other gifts in coming years, I opted to renew year after year, so over the summer I made no changes to my account. Now, however, I have to reconsider.

I don’t blame Netflix for rebranding the DVD-by-mail service, but I feel the bad move here that could hurt them is the lack of integration. Unless the company has something sick up its sleeve for the streaming service that will bring in tons of new streaming customers and render the folks clinging to snail mail irrelevant to the company’s growth and overall profit, having two separate sites could hurt Qwikster in the long run.

I have absolutely no interest in visiting two sites to manage two queues. It’s pain enough to do it on one site. I also don’t want to have to check Netflix to make sure that something isn’t streaming before I order it through the mail. Knowing Netflix, however, when you hover over a movie on Qwikster if it’s streaming on Netflix they’ll have a link to Netflix sign up so you can “watch this movie right now!” — but that’s still annoying. I also don’t want to rate movies on both sites to get optimal recommendations.

As far as payment, there’s a big difference to me on a credit card statement that reads one charge from Netflix for $15.99 compared to two side-by-side charges of $7.99. Seeing them as separate makes one seem expendable, which of course would be the mail service. My Netflix benefactor and I will likely have to have a conversation now …

With these two services separated, Netflix has shown it’s more interested in streaming and cares little for the mail customers and their service. Why? Because as Netflix finds new ways of getting better through securing more titles and content, the more irrelevant in renders the mail service. I still subscribe to the mail service not because I prefer it to streaming, but because the title selection is infinitely wider. If I decide today that I want to watch “Forrest Gump” because on Wednesday the bar I go to for trivia will dedicate an entire round to that film, if that’s not available on instant and all the brick-and-mortar stores near me are dead, mail service is my only option. Hopefully I get it in time, but that’s another matter.

So, my conclusion? If you’re still clinging to both, jump the mail ship and go to streaming. It’s the future and Netflix has just made it clear that’s where it’s focused. Unless you would be interested in the video game options, there’s nothing to benefit you on Qwikster. I know, it’s tough, I prefer to have the mail service as a safety net too, but unless they change the price model of Qwikster to a per DVD basis (a la Redbox), subscribing to something Netflix is trying to render obsolete sounds like a waste of money. I’d much rather pay a dollar a piece to rent the 4 DVDs each month that I want to watch that I can’t get anywhere else but through mail than bay $8 for as many as I can watch, especially if streaming accumulates more and more titles.

$168 million in its first weekend. $92.1 million in its first day. $43.5 million in its first public screenings. These are incredible numbers, but allow me to cast a small memory charm on you for a moment. The success of “Harry Potter” goes well, well beyond the current and long-term success of “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2.”

As such, there are just three numbers I want you to consider: 2.177, 84.7 and 10. The first figure there represents the amount of dollars, in billions, that this eight-film franchise has grossed to date. The second figure represents a percentage, specifically the percentage of positive reviews for all eights films averaged together. The last, of course, would be the number of years it took to accomplish all that. So if it’s true that life amounts to the perfect combination of time, money and love, then “Harry Potter” has truly been “The Franchise That Lived.”

The story begins with David Heyman, a British film producer. No, he had no previous clout or influence. He helped bring “Superbad” director Greg Mottola’s early feature “The Daytrippers” to the big screen as well as the horror film “Ravenous” starring Guy Pearce. That’s pretty much it. In 1999, he decided to take a gamble and purchase the rights to the first four books in a young adult fantasy series by J.K. Rowling. At that time, the first two books were just beginning to make waves; I personally received my first copy in the summer of that same year. The total cost to those rights? $2 million. Producers everywhere have been trying to do the same thing with the every imaginable up-and-coming young-adult book series for 10-plus years now.

Teamed with Warner Bros., Heyman brought Chris Columbus, original writer of “The Goonies” and “Gremlins,” who had broken through as a director with the family classic “Home Alone.” You might say that few talents were better adept at working on fantasy films and especially working with kids. Columbus would direct the first two “Potter” films and produce the third.

At the time “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” entered production, likely in late 1999 early 2000, the first three books in the series had been picking up steam. After the finishing touch of a John Williams score, the film debuted on Nov. 16, 2001. Despite costing just $125 million to make, “Sorcerer’s Stone” took in $90.2 million in its opening weekend and went on to gross $974 million worldwide, which currently ranks as the ninth biggest film ever.

The trend had been set early for the fledgling franchise. “Sorcerer’s Stone” also boasts an 80% on Rotten Tomatoes, with the only criticisms being that the adaptation aimed to be as fan-pleasing as possible. I would agree. Columbus also set a family friendly tone for the franchise (which would be drastically changed a film at a time after his departure). Keeping the film a PG children’s fantasy certainly helped this first “Potter” become the franchise’s most profitable entry to date, though credit should chiefly go to the allure of seeing the book on screen for the very first time.

When “Chamber of Secrets” made its theatrical run exactly one year later in 2002, fan and critic approval stayed the same, but numbers were down (not all that surprisingly). The film made $878.6 million around the globe (currently 21st all time), nearly $100 million fewer than the first entry.

By this point, the books and movies had become a worldwide phenomenon. No one questioned whether “Potter” would have the steam to go seven films, but many did wonder whether the kids would eventually outgrow the franchise in the physical maturing sense. And rightfully so; even the biggest franchises took three years between features, such as James Bond. Without filming multiple films at once a la “Lord of the Rings,” it was preposterous to assume that every “Harry Potter” film would come out before the actors were nearly 30. Yet Warner Bros. had the franchise fast-tracked. “Prisoner of Azkaban” came out a year and a half later in 2004, “Goblet of Fire” in 2005, “Order of the Phoenix” in 2007, “Half-Blood Prince” in 2009 and finally the “Deathly Hallows” films in 2010 and 2011. Not too much of a reach to have a 20-year-old Daniel Radcliffe play 17-year-old Harry Potter.

Eight films in 10 years seems ridiculous, but okay, definitely doable. Even if you had known that’s what Warner Bros. would do, however, you’d still be stumped as to how they would be able to maintain the standard of quality. “Sorcerer’s Stone” and “Chamber of Secrets” were good films, yet they were the shortest of the books and clocked in at 152 and 161 minutes respectively, about two and half hours per film. And those adaptations were not without their problems either. With tomes awaiting in “Goblet of Fire” and beyond, it seemed certain that too much would be sacrificed and the magic would start to wear off. But no, not so.

After “Prisoner of Azkaban,” some doubt might’ve seeped in. The third film was the most praised by critics (91% RT score), but made close to $100 million less than “Chamber of Secrets,” about $795 million worldwide. A slip in quality would certainly guarantee successively depleted box-office takes for the future films, even though the budget remained relatively stagnant for each film and films that make, say, $500-600 million worldwide still warrant sequels and the label of “success.”

“Goblet of Fire” became key to the rest of the franchise. As the film that marked the transition between family friendly and decidedly dark and scary, success would be huge, especially in terms of quality. With 87% on Rotten Tomatoes, Mike Newell’s lone directorial contribution to the series out-grossed “Chamber of Secrets” to become the second biggest “Potter” film.

The film took a step in maturity that would become a leap once David Yates took over the series starting with “Order of the Phoenix.” Suddenly the dark tone helped draw in bigger box-office numbers for films five, six and seven part one, likely due to attracted new customers who had long assumed “Harry Potter” was child’s play. The maturity Yates brought to the films shined through with the now-young adult leading actors and the critical approval continued, though the RT scores are generally higher for the earlier films. The later films all grossed in the mid-$900-million range at the international box office, with “Deathly Hallows Part 1″ coming the closest to beating “Sorcerer’s Stone.”

So how could the finale have been anything less than superb? With momentum rising thanks to the well-marketed conclusion, “Deathly Hallows Part 2″ should be well on its way to owning the title of biggest “Potter” film yet, and how fitting that cinema’s most unlikely mega-franchise should go out on top.

Now, the question that should be on everyone’s tongues as this huge chapter of film history comes to a close is will we ever see anything like this again?

There will no doubt be hit book series for Hollywood to adapt. That much has already proved true. We’ve already seen “The Twilight Saga” do incredible business, which will likely continue through the fourth and fifth films in November of this and next year. “The Hunger Games” also looks to carve out its own franchise identity starting next March. Those books don’t have the following of “Harry Potter” and have ended at  just three or four books, but they prove that a franchise of similar magnitude is not out of the realm of possibility.

The other difference between “Potter” and “Twilight” for example, would unquestionably be quality. An average of the Rotten Tomatoes scores for the three “Twilight” films so far equals 42%, exactly half the average of “Potter.” Although equipped with a teenage girl stigma, the films simply don’t measure up in the film community as the books do in that community. 84.7% is a tough number for any film to reach, let alone it being the average score of films in a franchise. Even the franchises that will one day reach seven films (“Fast and Furious,” maybe “Resident Evil”) will not be able to average that score, and even then the box-office numbers won’t compare. Even 23 films in, Mr. 007 himself has had his share of misfires, and that franchise has been around almost 50 years. If “Potter” kept going, it would make 40 films in that same amount of time.

So even if quality and box-office power could be matched, the quick turnaround would seem unlikely. The real trick to Potter’s success undoubtedly had to do with the strength of its entries and the prowess of its creator. J.K. Rowling envisioned these books as a seven-part series. As she wrote, this trajectory was in mind, a risky move when you have no idea if anyone will publish or care to read seven of your books. Rather than come up with a great story for a sequel after the first succeeded, each book was part of one greater arc in addition to the excellent individual story arcs.

Hollywood judges the continuation of most movie franchises on a per-film basis. Even “The Chronicles of Narnia,” a long-established seven-part series with decades of clout built up, doesn’t have the overarching storyline, just blips of continuity. Disney evaluated the long-term potential of the box-office numbers and decided to dump the franchise. “Narnia” would’ve had a shot at comparing to “Potter,” but the films didn’t measure up in terms of quality after the first. C.S. Lewis’ novels were as beloved as “Lord of the Rings.” That should tell you how important the minds putting these films together were in creating the success of “Harry Potter” and how that success was a complete and powerful synergy between so many great forces (Rowling, Columbus, Heyman, writer Steve Kloves, Radcliffe, John Williams, etc.). The magic of the “Potter” films has no clear secret, answer or source — and that’s why we may never again see anything like it.

Personally, the mid-way point in the year is not so much a time for putting together lists of the best films of the year thus far. If you want my take on the best, just look at the scores I’ve given movies released in 2011 so far and you’ll find my top picks (although I’ve only given one 4.5/5 and that was to “X-Men: First Class,” so now you know all you need to). Rather, I’m more interested in assessing what we thought we’d like that didn’t work out and what we didn’t think we’d care for that went above expectations. After all, most years in movies are back-weighted thanks to festivals and Oscar season. Most people end up disappointed in the year so far because July through December yields better films in general.

I haven’t seen all these movies (4 of the 10), but in combination with past success, early buzz, user ratings, word of mouth and box-office receipts, this was not a tough list to put together. My early findings were this: March was a hotbed of activity in this area this year. Looking at March 2012 and 2013, March is shaping up to truly be a buzz-worthy month with films that have big hopes yet not enough confidence to go up against the titans of summer.

—

The Biggest Disappointments of 2011

5. The Dilemma

Not many people had high hopes for “The Dilemma” after the trailers came out. Ron Howard directing Vince Vaughn and Kevin James felt awkward and Vaughn has been losing steam as a comedian. Yet a box-office success would’ve been reasonable enough to predict. Of Vaughn’s last five releases, only one (“Fred Claus”) did not make $100 million in the United States. “The Dilemma” finished about $25 million below that with $48.4 million. Perhaps a poor January release date with 21% on Rotten Tomatoes and negative word of mouth snuffed its life quickly with more adults interested in seeing well-reviewed Oscar fare. Movie goers also react negatively when a film doesn’t come as advertised; “Dilemma” was pitched as hard comedy but had too many dramatic twists and turns. I gave it a 2/5.

—

4. Drive Angry

Exploitation films have never performed that well in theaters, but a 3-D movie focusing on cars and attractive ladies in the form of Amber Heard alongside Nicolas Cage seemed to be the perfect antidote to the winter doldrums of February. For any film not a comedy or drama in 2011, “Drive Angry” finished dead last with just more than $10 million domestically. I’m sure that they had to pay Cage at least that much. To be fair, however, the film earned mixed reviews (45% RT) and mostly satisfied those who indulged it. I rated it 2.5/5 and found it watchable in spite of being hollow. No question, however, that it constitutes one of the worst box-office performances for an action film maybe of all time.

—

3. Scream 4

Reunion films tend to make noise. We saw how well “Toy Story 3″ did more than 10 years after “Toy Story 2,” so why wouldn’t the highly successful “Scream” franchise from Wes Craven make bank about as many years later with stars Neve Campbell and Courtney Cox back (among others)? With good early buzz and a decent 57% RT score for a horror film, the movie seemed poised to lap up April audiences with nothing better to do and horror fans who helped the films make back production costs in nearly one weekend. Yet “Scream 4′s” opening totaled $18.6 million, more than $16 million less than “Scream 3″ and that’s with more than 10 years of inflation. The film made $38 million domestically and nearly hit $100 million worldwide. Not a total failure thanks to international audiences, but not a guaranteed start to a new trilogy as The Weinstein Co. hoped. This floppage has me most dumbfounded of all: where did the fans go all these years later? Attendance was clearly down. Did Ghostface kill them? Seriously, when a berated “Scream 3″ can open with $34 million, that means it has a big fan base to patronize it no matter what a la horror films such as “Saw” and “Resident Evil.” Something was lost in the last decade, even though most fans who showed up liked what they saw.

—

2. Green Lantern

Of all action genres, we hold our superhero films to the highest of standards, which means the ones that turn out to be average fall the hardest. I wouldn’t call “Green Lantern” a bad film, I found it quite watchable actually, but it left so much to be desired, especially for a superhero movie that takes us beyond the reaches of Earth (well, somewhat). The film’s lack of imagination was a tremendous let down and its paying dearly at the box office for it. Warner Bros. should have seen this film break $100 million in two weekends, but it’s taken three, with that third weekend totaling $6.5 million. Around the world, no one cares, which has not been the trend in 2011, so that’s surprising. Just $33 million overseas so far. With such a tremendous lack in staying power, “Lantern” won’t even see $200 million worldwide most likely and that was the cost of the production budget alone. In this heated summer battle, you can’t come up lame in reviews (26% RT) just a couple weeks before the big July films, or you’ll get crushed. That’s what happened and you can’t imagine Warner Bros. is happy about it, even with the studio talking up the sequel.

—

1. Sucker Punch

When the trailer debuted just after Comic-Con last summer, roars of excitement came from cinephiles everywhere for Zack Snyder’s impossibly cool-looking femme fatale action fantasy. But what was one the most highlighted weekend of March on most movie calendars quickly came and went. Most could have predicted “Sucker Punch” would make less than $20 million considering the mediocre openings of most films targeted at males 13 to 30 such as “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World” and “Kick-Ass,” but what those films had that “Sucker Punch” didn’t was a Rotten Tomatoes score higher than 22%. I just viewed this film for myself and while much of it blew me away, it was an uncooked mess on the whole. Snyder, the man who made an unprecedented $456 million worldwide with “300″ in 2007, came up with $89 million across the globe. I couldn’t have thought more highly of this film from last July up through the first wave of reviews, but I didn’t even end up seeing it in theaters. Perhaps the real disappointment is Snyder, whose films have gotten worse and worse reviews since “300″ and made less and less each time.

—

The Biggest Surprises of 2011

5. Rango

The first of four March releases on this list, “Rango” surprises the least, only because animation has been so good. This was Gore Verbinski and this animation studio’s first attempt at the medium, however, and it looked stunning. The heart and humorous nature of the story and Johnny Depp’s performance as the out-of-water lizard helped matters as well, but normally you don’t expect a first effort to be so excellent. “Rango” ended up as 2011′s first big hit both critically and at the box office, grossing a respectable but not earth-shattering $242 million worldwide and an 89% on Rotten Tomatoes. The film would probably rank about sixth on my list of best films so far this year.

—

4. The Adjustment Bureau

I had become deeply interested in this film a little over a year ago, but that all dwindled when Universal moved it from late July 2010 until this past March. As it turns out, the move was likely in response to “Inception,” which would’ve completely crushed it thanks to a few similarities and similar release dates — quality had nothing to do with it. So few action films or sci-fi films in this case get the characters right, but George Nolfi’s directorial debut did and more people than I ever expected made plans to see this film. It would certainly not have opened with $21 million going up against the summer tentpoles, so props to Universal for realizing that. Modestly budgeted at an estimated $50 million, the international gross more than doubled that with about $125 million. I would rank it currently as my fifth favorite of 2011 thus far.

—

3. The Lincoln Lawyer

I would not have pegged an early-year film starring Matthew McCounaghey as a favorite for one of the first best-reviewed films, yet “The Lincoln Lawyer” managed to do just that. With an 83% on Rotten Tomatoes and an identical audience approval rating via Flixster, audiences really liked this legal thriller. For a drama, the film opened reasonably with $13 million, but hung on week after week to make an unusual $57 million (and it’s still playing in 30-some theaters across the country). The strong supporting cast seemed to bolster this one a bit, with Ryan Phillippe, Marisa Tomei and William H. Macy among others. Director Brad Furman has two credits: this film and “The Take,” both with greater than 80% on Rotten Tomatoes. Expect to see more of him. I eagerly await this coming Tuesday when I can check it out on DVD.

—

2. Limitless

Welcome to the big leagues, Bradley Cooper. The fourth and final March film in my biggest surprises, “Limitless” drew mixed reviews and seemed kind of helter-skelter, but audiences responded well to the premise of a man who can take a pill that unlocks the full potential of his brain. With a strong 70% RT score, “Limitless” opened similarly to “Adjustment Bureau,” just shy of $20 million, speaking volumes right away to Cooper’s drawing power as co-star Robert De Niro isn’t enough in this kind of film. Although I seemed to mostly read so-so reviews claiming that the film didn’t jump on its high concept and dissolved into more of your typical triller, audiences didn’t seem to mind. In domestic gross, “Limitless” finished just behind the much more hotly anticipated March film “Battle: Los Angeles,” which just missed my list of biggest disappointments.

—

1. Insidious

Marketing gave you little reason to believe “Insidious” would be anything other than a film trying to capitalize on the “Paranormal Activity” phenomenon. After all, “Activity” director Oren Peli produced the film. Yet that’s precisely why we should’ve been interested and “Insidious” turned out to be one of the best-reviewed horror films in recent memory. With “Saw” director James Wan at the helm and some talents who took pay cuts in Patrick Wilson and Rose Byrne, distributor FilmDistrict found themselves with an absolute dream film. Fans loved it, RT critics gave it 67% (anything above 50% is a victory for horror) and it made $53 million domestically after opening with just $13 million. The clincher? A budget below $2 million. That, folks, is how you make a good movie on all cylinders.

Here’s a trivia question for you: name one first sequel to a pure comedy (the second film in a comedy franchise) that was better than the original. I will give you a few hard returns to think about it.

…

…

…

Yup, it’s a trick question. There are none. And that’s a matter of fact, not opinion, at least according to two of the most reputable film rating sites (we’ll get to that later). Not to kill your (or my own) buzz for “The Hangover Part II” this weekend, but history literally says it will not compare favorably with the original.

“Hangover” stars Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms and Zach Galifianakis were underexposed in 2009 and the script’s formula of “what happened last night?” never utilized in such a manner. Now, director Todd Phillips and Warner Bros. have tried to re-create that success less than two years later and trailers literally suggest a re-creation, just one set in Thailand. With history so completely and utterly against them, why even try?

The obvious answer of money comes to mind first. “The Hangover” made more than any R-rated comedy before it and ranks among the highest-grossing comedies of all time. Considering comedies are among the cheapest films to make, the profit margin would convince even the dumbest of dumb to dip their foot into the same pool. In the modern era, comedy sequels also tend to out-gross their predecessors, which would put “The Hangover Part II” in the driver’s seat to become the biggest comedy of all time, at least in the United States.

Notable recent comedy sequels, such as “Meet the Fockers,” “American Pie 2″ and “Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me” all performed better than the previous installments at the domestic box office, with “Spy Who Shagged” me nearly quadrupling the domestic gross of the original “Austin Powers.” Considering that the first “Hangover” nearly out-grossed a successful sequel in “Meet the Fockers,” that should give you a sense of the expectations for “Part II” this weekend.

Yet all those sequels (and every comedy sequel) also have another thing in common: they were not as well-received as the originals. Whereas “Meet the Parents” has an 84% on Rotten Tomatoes and a 7.0/10 user rating on imdb — unusually strong numbers — “Meet the Fockers” has a 38% and a 6.4/10. Less noticeable depreciations exist for “Austin Powers” (69%, 7.1/10) compared to “Spy Who Shagged Me” (51%, 6.6/10) and “American Pie” (59%, 6.9/10) and “American Pie 2″ (52%, 6.2/10).

I put together a list of 16 high-grossing and positively reviewed comedies (above 50% on Rotten Tomatoes) and the compared their RT scores and imdb user ratings with their immediate sequels (not third installments or beyond). Not one of the 16, nor any of the other film franchises that I looked into that I did not put on my final list, had a sequel with a higher RT score or imdb rating than the original. Not one.

The average Rotten Tomatoes score for the 16 original comedies was a 76.6%. The average for the sequels, a significantly worse score of 35.5%. As Rotten Tomatoes scores are determined by the ratings of accomplished or at least regularly published film critics, this should tell you a bit about the skeptical eye that critics will take to “The Hangover Part II.” That stat does not, however, mean critics will not like the film at all. Six of the 16 sequels had RT scores of greater than 50%, though the highest score among the list was a 61% for “Hot Shots! Part Deux” followed closely by 60% for “Wayne’s World 2.”

General audiences, it seems, tend to be a bit more forgiving than critics as the discrepancy in the imdb ratings is not as large. That’s partly due to the fact that critics have no choice in going to see something, whereas fans usually never see a sequel to a comedy they didn’t find funny. Because humor is incredibly subjective, even the films with some of the best Rotten Tomatoes scores have average imdb user ratings. More people see these highly rated comedies due to word of mouth and critical praise, regardless of their personal sense of humor. People with contrarian opinions about popular comedies don’t usually patronize sequels, leaving the fans of the original to rate them instead. Those fans tend to have split reaction to sequels themselves, hence a smaller discrepancy between original and sequel in user rating. The average of the 16 films that scored an average 76.6% on RT rated 6.85/10 on imdb. Compared to the 35.5% RT average for the sequels, the imdb user rating average is 5.62/10. That 1.23/10 difference isn’t much, but given who sees comedy sequels, its enough to tell you their approval rating is not high.

One must acknowledge, however, that “The Hangover” is not your average comedy sequel. Considering its gross, more people than usual saw the first film and it retains a 7.9/10 on imdb, higher than any of the 16 comedies on the list. What does that mean for “Part II?” If you look at the six films on the list with 7.0/10 or better (most successful comedies rate no higher than the 7.0 range on imdb), the sequels average a 5.77/10. The outlier there is “Caddyshack II,” one of the most notoriously berated sequels in movie history. Take that out and you have a respectable 6.2/10 user rating. Look at the RT scores for those five and you have a 47%.

With expectations higher than usual for this kind of film yet more fans than usual, I expect a similarly polarizing rating and score for “The Hangover Part II.” We know that no pure comedy sequel has done better than 61% on RT, so if the film’s any good, expect a 50%-range score for for the film at best with a high user rating to start that will eventually dip below 7.0/10 over time. Not bad — for a comedy sequel.

I know, weird to put a science behind whether a film will be liked. Truthfully, Phillips and his writers might have found new ways to change the game and up the stakes to create the first anomaly in comedy sequel history, even though that history of not doing so is quite long.

Hollywood began pumping out comedy sequels primarily in the ’80s and did so recklessly. The sequel to Bill Murray comedy “Meatballs” (1979) came in 1984 and didn’t even star Bill Murray. “Caddyshack II” came out eight years after the original (also without Murray as well as Rodney Dangerfield). “Meatballs Part II” doesn’t even have a Rotten Tomatoes score and “Caddyshack II” has an 8%. “Revenge of the Nerds” (1984) boasts a 77% on RT compared to 6% for “Nerds in Paradise” (1987).

Today, with folks like Adam Sandler and Judd Apatow as the main purveyors of comedies, sequels have become rare because they are produced more so by the filmmakers themselves, who actually care about the quality of humor since their name is artistically connected to the film, not just their cash. A sequel to “Anchorman” was recently shot down, although “Zoolander 2″ might indeed see the light of day more than 10 years later. Rarely do studios not try and capitalize on the immediacy of a film’s popularity and instead churn a sequel out quickly. A hiatus rarely works for a film franchise steeped in comedy (unless you’re Pixar and “Toy Story 3″) in terms of box-office success. One need only compare “Blues Brothers” and “Blues Brothers 2000″ (which should never have existed in a world without John Belushi). The sequel, made 18 years later, made $14,000. I didn’t bother to include it on the list.

So it’s an understatement to say that “The Hangover Part II” has an uphill climb. I doubt there could any more powerful of a qualitative correlation in film than the downward trend of a popular comedy and it’s first sequel. The only thing we can say for sure is that the film’s bound to smash box-office records, regardless what anyone thinks of it.

Below is the list of 16 films and their first sequels with Rotten Tomatoes scores and imdb user ratings. List is done by RT score highest to lowest. I included in my study. Thanks to Rope fo Silicon and Hollywood.com for some pointers.

1. Airplane (98%, 7.8/10) … Airplane II: The Sequel (39%, 5.8/10)
2. National Lampoon’s Vacation (94%, 7.3/10) … European Vacation (40%, 5.7/10)
3. Wayne’s World (85%, 6.9/10) … Wayne’s World 2 (60%, 5.8/10)
4. Major League (85%, 6.9/10) … Major League II (5%, 5.0/10)
5. Meet the Parents (84%, 7.0/10) … Meet the Fockers (38%, 6.4/10)
6. Hot Shots! (82%, 6.5/10) … Hot Shots! Part Deux (61%, 6.3/10)
7. Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure (82%, 6.8/10) … Bogus Journey (56%, 5.8/10)
8. Revenge of the Nerds (77%, 6.4/10) … Nerds in Paradise (6%, 4.3/10)
9. Caddyshack (75%, 7.2/10) … Caddyshack II (8%, 3.4/10)
10. Fletch (75%, 6.7/10) … Fletch Lives (31%, 5.6/10)
11. Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle (74%, 7.2/10) … Escape from Guantanamo Bay (54%, 6.7/10)
12. Austin Powers (69%, 7.1/10) … The Spy Who Shagged Me (51%, 6.6/10)
13. Legally Blonde (68%, 6.2/10) … Red, White and Blonde (35%, 4.3/10)
14. Grumpy Old Men (67%, 6.8/10) … Grumpier Old Men (18%, 6.3/10)
15. American Pie (59%, 6.9/10) … American Pie 2 (52%, 6.2/10)
16. Scary Movie (53%, 6.0/10) … Scary Movie 2 (15%, 4.8/10)

Whether or not life exists outside of our planet is one of humanity’s defining questions. Ever since Copernicus and the early astronomers proved that the Earth revolved around the sun, not vice-versa, the thought that humans might not be the focal point of the universe became a real possibility. Then, in 1920, Edwin Hubble discovered that not only was Earth not the center of our solar system, but also our solar system is merely part of a galaxy of which there are billions in an ever-expanding universe. Whoa, imagine waking up to that for the first time in your morning newspaper.

The possibility of life in other corners of the universe has inspired and driven the world’s countries and best scientists to spend infinite time and resources on pursuing an answer to that question. At the same time, it’s also inspired some of the greatest literary and creative minds, eventually spawning what we have come to refer to endearingly as “alien invasion movies.” This sub-genre has been making a tremendous comeback lately, and while you could dismiss it as fantastical entertainment, it cannot and should not be divorced from one of our planet’s few truly and sincerely existential questions: Are we or aren’t we alone?

“Battle: Los Angeles,” easily 2011′s first film with a high-powered marketing campaign, harkens back to the long-held fear that if extra-terrestrials encountered Earth, they could well be significantly more evolved than us and seek to destroy our planet and human existence altogether. This idea was the driving factor behind what has long been considered the first work of alien invasion fiction, H.G. Wells’ 1898 novel “The War of the Worlds.”

“The War of the Worlds” tells the story of a Martian invasion in England and a man who seeks to reunite with his wife amidst it all. It was first most famously adapted into an radio drama voiced by Orson Welles in 1938. As many history books tell us, Americans turning on their radios in the middle of the program actually came to believe we were under attack.

“Worlds,” adapted into a film in 1953, was also among the first alien invasion stories that Hollywood ever told. It was a part of the first wave of alien films that took place in the ’50s during the onset of the Cold War. These films embodied and played off Americans’ constant fear of nuclear annihilation at the time. If nuclear war was as simple as the push of a button, we could just as easily be wiped out by an alien life form, right? Not so coincidentally, this coincided with the sudden wave of UFO sightings in the United States that began in 1947 with Kenneth Arnold’s reported sightings, the man who brought the term “flying saucer” into infamy.

These events inspired stories and these stories were turned into the first prominent alien invasion films: “The Thing from Another World” and “The Day the Earth Stood Still,” both in 1951. “The Thing from Another World,” which was later remade into the more successful alien horror movie “The Thing” in 1982, was the first of the two originals. It combined the monster movie/creature features of the Bela Lugosi days with an extra-terrestrial premise: a strange creature is discovered in a spaceship in the arctic and wreaks havoc on the people who find it.

“The Day the Earth Stood Still” is the more famous of the two and for good reason: it shows aliens making first contact but not in an immediately threatening way, which serves as the heart of the political commentary. The humanoid alien Klaatu and his robot Gort land their spaceship in the middle of Washington D.C. and warn that if Earth’s leaders do not communicate peacefully, the planet will be destroyed.  It operated on almost a faith-based notion that perhaps humans are being judged by an other-worldly power.

The 1950s then went rampant with alien films, some memorable and others not. In 1953, “It Came From Outer Space” premiered, the first story of a crash-landing ship and people starting to act strange as a result. In 1956 the famous “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” would use a similar premise with aliens taking human form and in 1958 even Steve McQueen would go up against an alien force in “The Blob.” Characters who face doubters and skeptics were a common thread in these films.

The decade was capped off by a film later celebrated as the worst of all time, Ed Wood’s “Plan 9 from Outer Space,” one of cinema’s beloved and abhorred B-movies about aliens who plan to raise the dead to use as an army for taking over the world. That was the movie that finished beating the dead horse and made alien films a scarce commodity for nearly 20 years. When the genre stopped having political poignancy and turned into meaningless pulp, that’s when moviegoers of the time rightfully began ignoring it.

The resurgence of alien films that followed decades later can be credited to three men: Steven Spielberg, Ridley Scott and George Lucas. Spielberg, who changed the face of monster movies forever with “Jaws” just a few years earlier, did the same for alien films with “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” in 1977. The film used the vastly improving special effects of the day to imagine what a close encounter/first contact with aliens would be like. Scott’s “Alien” was considered “Jaws in Space” by many at the time, even those who made it. As for Lucas, although his famous film took place in a galaxy far, far away, it whetted the appetites of an entire generation of moviegoers for imaginative science fiction, a hunger that would last, well, forever so far.

The ’80s would follow up with a more diverse menu of alien-based offerings thanks to advances in animatronics and makeup. There were the singular-creature “Alien”-inspired sci-fi horror flicks such as “The Thing,” “Predator,” and of course “Aliens,” a slew of new off-the-wall B-movies and bizarre films like “Killer Klowns from Outer Space” and Tobe Hooper’s “Lifeforce.” Then there was “E.T.,” which made Spielberg a game-changer yet again by imaging aliens for children and depicting them as non-threatening and in need of our help.

After about 10 years in the late ’80s and early ’90s when realistic action a la “Die Hard” took the reigns of most major films, in came Roland Emmerich. “Independence Day” re-imagined the films of the ’50s in the context of modern technology and through the use of improved effects. This 1996 film completely altered the course of the ’90s with a bit of help from Tim Burton’s ode to B-movie alien films, “Mars Attacks!” Will Smith, the young star of “Independence Day,” went on to star in one of these films, the action comedy “Men in Black.” There was also cult hit “Starship Troopers,” “Contact,” The X Files” (1998) and “The Faculty” among others. More intellectual sci-fi flew below the radar at this time, such as Alex Proyas’ “Dark City.”

Alien invasion films petered out for most of the last decade as CGI was still being perfected and superhero films were seeing a resurgence that had every studio preoccupied with grabbing a piece of that pie. Exceptions were 2002′s “Signs” and Steven Spielberg’s 2005 remake of “War of the Worlds,” but the sub-genre waned until about 2007/2008 when the genre took a small-budget approach in J.J. Abrams’ “Cloverfield.”

“Cloverfield,” the story of a singular massive alien attack as seen by a group of young people, fused together several sub-genres of film. Most prominently, it successfully used a “found footage” style that had previously been dismissed after “The Blair Witch Project” split public opinion. It also worked in the classic “monster destroys skyscrapers” motif, harkening back to the days of “Godzilla,” but it did it with the subtlety and elusiveness of “Alien.”

More significantly, “Cloverfield” brought a healthy does of realism to the genre, which we’re seeing yet again in “Battle: Los Angeles.” Rather than people running and screaming their heads off and general chaos, “Cloverfield” envisioned what city protocol would be like for such an attack and focused on how a bunch of young professionals would react to the first signs of danger, something that evoked September 11 in a way.

In 2007 and 2009, the film adaptations of “Transformers” were set the stage for a battle of massive robot aliens taking place on our planet, so two blockbusters that weren’t afraid of having alien-based origins. 2009 was the huge year for science fiction and alien films, however, and that’s led us to where we are now with at least a dozen alien films on hand for 2011.

After the needed renaissance of “Star Trek,” the smaller film “District 9″ took many people by surprise. Neil Blomkamp’s film out of South Africa supposed that aliens could come to Earth in distress and be powerless. Blomkamp placed his “Prawns” in refugee districts and depicted them a poor, creating an effective apartheid commentary and bringing that socio-political relevancy back to the genre. It was nominated for Best Picture and Best Original Screenplay at the 2010 Academy Awards.

That winter, “Avatar” came along and not only proved alien films could be beloved universally by people of all cultures, but gross billions of dollars — becoming the most successful film of all time. James Cameron cleverly envisioned humans invading an alien world instead of the other way around and adding to centuries of stories depicting the cruel and imperialist nature of some human beings and cultures. Taking place almost entirely in a CGI world as believable as it was groundbreaking, “Avatar” showed the extent of what had now become possible in movie technology and proved an existing market for great stories whether they focused on humans or not.

Now that a year has gone by, we will finally see the way “District 9″ and “Avatar” have impacted the film landscape. Last November, the film “Skyline” depicted an unfriendly alien attack but was not a huge box-office success. It did, however, prove the idea suggested by “District 9″: you can make an alien film that looks terrific on a tight budget.

This year, the alien invasion of movie theaters has already begun. The film “I Am Number Four,” considered by some as “Twilight” with aliens, already combined the genre with the wave of teen lit adaptations. In March alone, three alien-inspired flicks debut: Other than “Battle: LA,” the motion-capture animated family film “Mars Needs Moms” also comes out this weekend and the next weekend the comedy “Paul” adds a dash of Area 51 to the road trip comedy.

In April, aliens and found-footage filmmaking combine again for the space thriller “Apollo 18.” May provides a bit of reprieve due to the high volume of sequels, but in June, the superhero genre gets extra-terrestrial with “Green Lantern” and “Cloverfield” and “Star Trek” director J.J. Abrams brings another singular alien film to life with “Super 8,” a film that early trailers have likened to “E.T.” but scarier. July brings a third “Transformers” film with a backstory involving the moon and the bluntly titled “Cowboys & Aliens” from “Iron Man” director Jon Favreau also debuts.

So aliens are giving vampires a run for their money these days. Given the steps technology has taken over the last decade to create believable non-human lifeforms, the spike makes sense. How long it will last remains to be seen. There seems to be a fine line between an entertaining and thought-provoking alien films and total shlock. Some films will carelessly insert aliens into their stories (like the upcoming game-to-film adaptation “Battleship.”) Others will continue to push the genre in new but familiar ways (Ridley Scott’s upcoming “Alien”-related film/prequel “Prometheus”). I suspect alien films will continue to come and go in waves, but with a few gems in between those years thanks to the ability for filmmakers to make convincing aliens with CGI for so little.

Given how much we’ve learned about our universe yet simultaneously how little we truthfully know, the idea of life on other planets will continue to fascinate us and these alien invasion stories (whether they or we are the ones invading) will continue to enthrall audiences and speak to the eternal curiosity of humans and our — albeit to a fault a times — pioneering spirit.

Natalie Portman has long been a respected actress, but coming off a Golden Globe win and on the brink of a second career Oscar nomination, the 29-year-old has finally hit her stride and could quite possibly become one of the more in-demand actresses of the next decade.

When her latest film debuts on Friday, the R-rated romantic comedy “No Strings Attached,” Portman’s career could reach a boiling point. All her praise and publicity for “Black Swan” and the headlines upon getting engaged and becoming pregnant to her “Swan” choreographer could culminate in a surprisingly strong gross for “No Strings.”  And when you hit it big at the box office doing a romantic comedy, everyone in Hollywood’s kissing your feet — just ask Reese Witherspoon.

So, what better excuse did I need to write about my favorite actress working today? Film geek crush aside, however, no time seems more relevant to put Natalie in the spotlight, (I normally use only last names in articles, but in my head I’m on a first-name basis with Natty.) as she’s certainly found a way to shine in it lately.

Growing up in my shoes, it doesn’t take long to fall for Natalie Portman’s charms. Whether I like it or not, one of the seminal films of my adolescence was “Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace.” A then-18-year-old Portman, known exclusively to that point as a child star, made her first film appearance as a woman. If you can recall the geek excitement over the return of the “Star Wars” universe, imagine what making Portman the exclusive feminine presence at the center of what was already a nerd-gasm of incomparable proportions did to both boys and men at the time.

In retrospect, given the critical lashing the prequels have received, it’s amazing Natalie even survived. She had to deliver enough of George Lucas’ wooden dialogue that she could’ve built a small cabin, but where other actresses might’ve failed, she has always had the ability to make melodrama feel sincere. Actresses with that talent will get you every time and that’s why I’ve been hooked on Natalie Portman for 10-plus years.

Portman was born in Israel to an Israeli father and American mother (both of whom were present at Sunday’s Golden Globes) and then moved to the United States around age three. She grew up in New York mostly and was discovered randomly by an agent at a pizza parlor. Choosing to pursue a career in acting rather than modeling, she was ultimately cast in “The Professional,” a celebrated film that could’ve been the high point of her career but was far from it. As such, she was cast in Michael Mann’s “Heat” starring Robert De Niro and Al Pacino, “Beautiful Girls” and cult favorite “Mars Attacks!”

Even when she hit the big time in “Episode I,” Portman still made it her duty to finish up her degree at Harvard. Yeah, Harvard. At the time she was often quoted as saying that acting was only a phase of her life and she had no intention of making a lifelong career out of it. We’ll see if she still sticks to that thought …

Public awareness of Portman’s talent as an adult was not fully realized until her Oscar-nominated role as a troubled stripper in “Closer” for director Mike Nichols. The same year she also continued to win over younger fans playing a free-spirited hipster opposite “Scrubs” star Zach Braff in “Garden State.”

Portman had a relatively quiet few years after the final “Star Wars” film. She dipped once more back into the geek community that revered her in the graphic novel adaptation “V for Vendetta,” a role for which she shaved her entire head, in 2006. Her most notable role prior to last winter’s drama “Brothers” was “Mr. Magorium’s Wonder Emporium,” a luke-warmly received family film.

There were some reasonable doubts about Portman’s career long term during that stretch. Starring in mediocre period dramas “Goya’s Ghosts” and “The Other Boleyn Girl” did her reputation no favors. It was not until her casting for “Black Swan” and this summer’s “Thor” that her stock began to rise. “Black Swan,” as it turns out, has been a career-defining role.

Portraying Nina Sayers, a perfectionist ballerina with an overprotective mother attempting to control her every move as well as some schizophrenic tendencies was pitch perfect for getting Natalie back toward the top. She had long ago discussed the role with director Darren Aronofsky and so it seems their pairing was meant to be. Portman started dancing at an early age, so the challenges of the role were within her reach. And as a former child star, she could probably relate to Nina’s situation with her mother, this straddling of childhood comfort and adulthood pressure.

Several have compared Portman to the great Audrey Hepburn, which in terms of looks certainly holds true. However, I don’t think we’ve quite seen the commanding presence from Portman to this point. She’s typically been cast in leading roles that the audience sympathizes with, playing characters with more internal struggles rather than more brazen, outwardly conflicted or troubling characters. The day we see her play any kind of antagonist, for example, will be something special. “V for Vendetta” was about as close as she’s come to “daring” and arguably her alternate persona in “Swan.”

But Natalie has superstar capability and here’s why: how many people’s careers have gone from “Star Wars” babe to (possibly) successful romantic comedy? Certainly not Carrie Fisher’s. Natalie’s not only won a place of high esteem in the geek/fanboy community, but she’s now winning fans of all walks of life with “Black Swan.” Couple that with grabbing up the chick flicks-only demographic and you’re talking about a star that appeals to several core demographics. That’s what we call a hot commodity.

After “No Strings Attached,” look for Natalie in the indie drama “The Other Woman,” also due out this winter, as well as “Thor,” as I mentioned, which opens up the summer. She’s also attached to “Cloud Atlas,” based on the novel by David Mitchell, a multiple separate-but-connected story lines film.

—

Bio info from imdb

It’s tough to be funny in the 21st Century. Doesn’t it seem that almost every big movie comedian of the last ten years becomes either annoying or keeps playing the same character way too quickly? I challenge you to find a prolific comedian with an immaculate record, especially north of the year 2000.

Funny people heat up so quickly and cool off even faster these days; Hollywood shoves them right through the ringer. If they’re not starring in something immediately after their breakout hit, they’re given a cameo or supporting role. Everyone who’s ever made a Judd Apatow-produced movie belongs to this fraternity of comedians that shuffles around to give a different member the lead for each successive film. Actors fall into ruts so fast that even though no one makes comedy sequels almost ever these days, it feels like that’s exactly what they’ve been doing — and for years.

So let’s take a look at some of those names and see if we can figure out why these once-fresh acts turn so quickly stale — and what they can do about it.

Two great examples star in films hitting theaters this weekend. One is Seth Rogen (“The Green Hornet”) and the other Vince Vaughn (“The Dilemma”). Each actor has one clear breakout role, two or three other well-received films and then a short slew of unpopular or berated junk.

Rogen hit the movie scene with his first big supporting role in “The 40-Year-Old Virgin” as the shady electronics repair guy, Cal. His breakout film was the extremely well-praised “Knocked Up” in 2007, just three and half years ago. He followed that up as a dumb cop in the equally hilarious “Superbad” and had a strong 2008 starting with some voice acting and then later on in stoner comedy “Pineapple Express” and Kevin Smith’s “Zack and Miri Make a Porno” (not as universally loved as the 2007 films, but both very enjoyable).

Then came 2009′s off-color “Observe and Report” that starred Rogen as a bi-polar mall cop — mostly awful. That summer he starred for Judd Apatow again with Adam Sandler in “Funny People” as an aspiring comic — luke-warm responses. 2010 was a below-radar year for the actor, but 2011 puts his humor front and center right away in “The Green Hornet.” How will he be received?

Vaughn underwent a career renaissance as a comedian, though he was known for starring in “Swingers” and appearing in “The Lost World: Jurassic Park” and the loathed Gus Van Sant remake of “Psycho.” He resurfaced with a supporting role in “Old School” in 2003 with Will Ferrell and Luke Wilson and then became a household name after the trio of “Dodgeball,” “Anchorman” and specifically “Wedding Crashers,” a film that got him in with the 40+ audience.

Then came the mixed-to-poor reception for the 2006 teaming with Jennifer Aniston in “The Break-Up,” the frustrating “Fred Claus” (2007) and in the following couple years, the critically ripped “Four Christmases” (2008) and  ”Couples Retreat” (2009). Directed by Ron Howard and paired now with Adam Sandler regular Kevin James, Vaughn looks to have a similar fish in “The Dilemma.”

The same trend of two incredible years followed by as many as three bad ones can be found with most comedians, (especially Will Ferrell), but the problem is never so much the actor but the failure to change the context around him/her.

With exception of “Fred Claus,” all of Vaughn’s comedies since “The Break-Up” have been geared to couples in the 30-60 year-old age range. Vaughn is a master of rants, insults and making everyone around him seem crazier than he is. But if he’s constantly ranting about wives or girlfriends and typical “guy” stuff because he’s only playing that kind of part, then he’s never going to resurface.

That’s why I’m optimistic for Rogen, if nothing else, to come out of “Hornet” with his reputation in check. There’s no doubt “The Green Hornet” has been injected with his and friend/collaborator Evan Goldberg’s humor, maybe even excessively at times. It also appears as if he’s going to play someone stupid. However, the dynamic with someone like Taiwanese star Jay Chou will be totally different; he won’t be with his usual Apatow cronies and the superhero trappings will be a total change of pace. He also lost a lot of weight for the part, which bares relevancy only because part of his shtick was being physically revolting.

Other famous comedians have had to adapt over time. Adam Sandler (Rogen’s “Funny People” co-star) has been making reputable comedies for 15 years now. He didn’t go without his string of derided films (“Little Nicky,” “Mr. Deeds” and “Eight Crazy Nights” to name a few) either, but he’s taken some big leaps to keep himself fresh in the public eye. Consider the drastic change for “You Don’t Mess with the Zohan,” one of his few recent films I really enjoyed, that had him bulk up to play an Israeli agent turned hair stylist. Sandler has also painted himself into more age-appropriate roles. Instead of the idiot immature guy he’s the non-traditional dad or distasteful bachelor. The change didn’t revolutionize him, but it allowed for his continued success financially at least and kept him in good standing with his also-aging fans.

All great comedians have the highest of highs and lowest of lows throughout their career. Some leave the comedy gig altogether (Bill Murray) while others try totally out-there stuff (such as Eddie Murphy’s prosthetics binge and Steve Martin’s “Pink Panther” failures). Chevy Chase has just recently found a new fit on NBC’s “Community” after essentially a 10-year absence from the public eye.

No one stays consistently funny forever, but it’s the great ones that adapt and rediscover the magic as times change because no genre remains as in flux as comedy. What’s in now will be out in two years, maybe a year and a half. But because comedies can be scraped together, popular actors like to crank them out while the coals are still hot. Decisions on upcoming projects are made without thinking about the future or being ahead of the curve. It’s “how can I capitalize on my last hit movie now,” not “what’s the next great funny thing I can wow people with in two years.” Money factors into this thought process I’m sure — such is the nature of the beast.

But today’s burgeoning comedians must answer those questions faster than anyone before them ever had to. Exposure is at an all-time high: people can consume mass amounts of movies, television and  random YouTube clips at will. They’re following the Twitter feed of that cool actor on that obscure new cult-favorite show and reading fan blogs about that person in between episodes. If you’re only a one, two or three-tool actor, you’re going to go stale fast. Or if you don’t go stale because you’re really good, someone’s going to find the next great funny person who does what you do. Maybe that person will even be discovered on YouTube.

Comedic actors or filmmakers aren’t less funny than the guys of the ’70s. I’m not going to make that argument — humor has evolved too much to make a fair comparison. What I can say, is that people who make a living off funny need to be forward-thinking today and no one really does it. Judd Apatow did during the middle chunk of the last decade whipping up R-rated comedies  – every new movie was a hit and launched someone’s career like Rogen or Steve Carell. The key is figuring out how to make what you do appear fresh again.

Certainly some eternal truths exist about what makes a movie funny or an actor funny. Shakespeare is just as funny now as back then albeit some Elizabethan pop culture is lost today. When it comes to acting funny, that core truth remains in creating characters, particularly those who surprise us. When today’s popular actors broke onto the scene, we thought they were hysterical because what they did was “unexpected.” When actors or filmmakers use those same tactics or don’t change who these characters are internally so that we’re just looking at actors on screen instead of creations of a story, that’s when things go rotten.

Zach Galifianakis was to die for in “The Hangover” in 2009. He didn’t change too much other than up the eccentricities for last November’s “Due Date,” which was funny, but didn’t fair quite as well with critics and moviegoers. It happens that fast.

So a comedian’s quest for a long life in the limelight is how to defy, break or exceed our expectations. Most commonly this comes in the form of stories. If an excellent story and characters are at work in a comedy, the talents will be funny. You’ll often read reviews that state “two great comedians couldn’t salvage an awful script,” but you’ll almost never read “the story was so downright hysterical — if only the actors were up to the challenge.” Movies just don’t work that way. So today’s funny people are killing themselves with complacency and comfort rather than thinking ahead and looking for a script that can work to their mutual benefit. With some patience, most comedians could have a much longer lifespan.

I’ve already shared with you the top genre films and my top 10 films of 2010, so now it’s time to take a close look at the year 2010 as it was for movies. Most movie-lovers, myself included, look back in disappointment at this year. The first-half slate of new movies was excruciatingly weak and the summer completely devoid of quality blockbusters (minus “Inception”). Only since the fall have some quality dramas crept into the picture to make for what will be an interesting awards season.

But however lackluster, I will assert that 2010 has been an important year for movies, just not necessarily on screen. It was a time of evaluation for most major studios and making big decisions about moving forward. Below, I’ll give you a few major defining points of the year such as how the most important film of 2010 didn’t even come out in 2010 and also which genre proved itself heads and tails ahead of the rest of the industry. Let’s get started!

—

2010 was largely shaped by the mammoth success of “Avatar”

It’s incredible to see just how much “Avatar,” which became the biggest film of all time early on this year, shaped not just the 2010 cinematic landscape but visual entertainment across the board. Think back to every commercial for a television that you saw this past year. What was the movie playing on that ultra-thin and often times 3D-capable television? “Avatar.”

I’ll get more into 3D a little further down, but “Avatar” created a perceived demand for high definition and better quality home entertainment across the board. This was the first year I considered buying a Blu-ray player. I’d be super curious to see how Blu-ray faired this holiday shopping season as well.

When we look back at “Avatar” in a few years, we will see it as probably more of a 3-D anomaly, but it convinced just about every studio to start filming new projects in 3D or convert existing soon-to-be-released films into the format and to disastrous results. Nevertheless, “Avatar” making film’s biggest fortune off a medium that had otherwise just tested the waters in 2009 created an immediate and seismic ripple effect through the industry.

Slightly more understated in impact is how “Avatar” in tandem with “District 9″ brought alien movies to producers’ attention once again. After “Independence Day” caused a slew of alien flicks to be released in the late ’90s, the sub-genre stayed fairly quiet until those two movies. Although we didn’t feel that effect this year as much with “Skyline” and “Predators,” next year brings us “I Am Number Four,” “Battle: Los Angeles,” “Mars Needs Moms,” “Paul,” “The Green Lantern,” and “Cowboys & Aliens” — all different takes involving alien life. That’s not to mention films such as the third “Men in Black” film were announced this year and even the upcoming “Battleship” movie contains an alien attack.

Really, it’s incredible what a billion-dollar movie can do to shake up an establishment like Hollywood.

—

“Inception” saved 2010 from disaster

In any normal year for big blockbusters, “Inception” would’ve still stood out, but unfortunately its the lone giant among peons. Summer 2010 would’ve been described as maybe the worst summer for movies of all time. As great as “Toy Story 3″ was, alone it wouldn’t be able to carry the dead weight of the rest of the summer.

Other than the first part of the final “Harry Potter” saga, the rest of 2010 was also lame. “Inception” could’ve just saved it by being immensely entertaining, but it also managed to be whip-smart and incredibly imaginative. At the time I figured the success of the Christopher Nolan’s brainchild could send a strong message to Hollywood, but I realize now that there’s no way it could create a jarring shift. Open the door for some more intelligent eye candy? Sure, but studios would rather hedge their bets on films based on previous material. “Inception” did have the reputation of “The Dark Knight” to stand on.

But even back down to earth, “Inception” was a terrific movie that killed most of the pain that was 2010 and its a shame it didn’t have the chance to prove its greatness among other good films.

—

Animation established itself as the best genre in movies today

Last year, I asserted three major things in my 2009 Year in Review: science-fiction had its best year in the last decade, the ’60s were “in” and no genre was better than animation. This year, while not as prolific, the quality of the films remained mostly the same. This prompts me to conclude that the animation sect of Hollywood is heads and tails further ahead in making great modern films than the rest of the industry.

Starting with DreamWorks surprise hit “How to Train Your Dragon,” which made strong use of 3D, the genre was off to another incredible start. In May, “Shrek Forever After,” though significantly worse, made even more money as the green ogre took his final bows.

Animation stole the headlines of the summer (minus the “Inception” exception) starting with “Toy Story 3.” The final installment of that beloved animated series, even 10 years later, earned $415 million in the United States, became the 7th film to break a billion worldwide and now ranks 5th all time. It earned 99% on Rotten Tomatoes. Can you blame Disney for pushing it for Best Picture? If this film doesn’t win it, no animated movie will. Then again, if the genre continues at this pace, I’ll be speaking too soon.

“Despicable Me,” the first for its animation studio, became another surprise hit this summer, beating out the totals for “Dragon” and “Shrek.” Recent films “Megamind” and “Tangled” both sit in the top 20 of the year and the latter will come close to finishing top 10. Four of the top 10 grossing films this year were animated. Only “Legends of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga’Hoole” and “Alpha and Omega,” both early fall entries, flopped this year.

No, it wasn’t quite 2009 in terms of quantity (only three films will be nominated for the Oscar this year because there aren’t enough entries), but no genre faired better with critics. One way to look at it is that visual prowess has become a bigger component in audiences’ enjoyment of films and animated movies can design their worlds to a T being as abstract or lifelike as they choose. Either way, live-action movies could learn a thing or two.

—

The explosion of 3D in 2010 might well define the decade.

As I mentioned above, “Avatar” catapulted 3D into the mainstream, which turned it into the biggest movie-related topic of the year and its big moving forward, so I’ll end with it.

It wasn’t necessarily all “Avatar” that made 3D go boom this year. After a quiet start to 2010 except for a big Valentine’s Day weekend and the buzz for “Shutter Island,” the box office ignited with the first major 3-D film post-”Avatar” in “Alice in Wonderland.” Tim Burton’s take on the story Disney had previously made famous earned $116 million its opening weekend. But it opened another can of worms as it was converted to 3D in post-production. Although it took a few months for the public to become aware of the difference in filming a movie in 3D as opposed to converting it in post-production, that would catch on a month later.

Nevertheless, “Alice” would rank as the second most profitable film in 2010 behind “Toy Story 3,” both of which made Disney the indisputable champion of the box office this year among the studios. “Alice” also became the sixth film in history to make over a billion dollars worldwide and ranks 20th all time in the U.S. box office. How much “Avatar” helped the movie by being in 3D remains unknown, but I suspect it was signifiant. “Alice” was also a very mediocre film, which I imagined made some people wonder why they spent nearly $20 a ticket to see it in IMAX 3D.

Also in March, 3D got a boost on the animated end when “How to Train Your Dragon” became an unexpected hit for DreamWorks finishing as the 9th highest-grossing movie of the year domestically and worldwide. The flying sequences were described as breathtaking in 3D, much like “Avatar.”

But 3D didn’t take its first hit until April. After “Avatar” succeeded, Warner Bros. pulled the trigger to convert its spring blockbuster “Clash of the Titans” to 3D. Also starring Sam Worthington, this was the first film to test whether audiences would be privy to seeing any big project in 3D. The film opened with $61 million and made another $100 mil or so, finishing 11th in box office totals this year. A success, but ripped by critics and scorned for poor, useless 3D. In fact, when I went to see it mistakenly, the employee at the box office window said “that showing is not in 3D” to which I should’ve responded “I certainly hope so.”

When the summer opened with “Iron Man 2,” audiences were given a reprieve from the technology. “Toy Story 3″ was the next film to reap the benefits and most animated films including “Despicable Me” in July and “Megamind” and “Tangled” in November. Yet all of those films (including “Dragon” back in March) received no lower than a 72% on Rotten Tomatoes.

“The Last Airbender” was ripped this summer (converted 3D) and films like “Resident Evil: Afterlife,” and “Step Up 3D” which tried to play up the 3D didn’t fair any better for being the fourth and third movies in their series respectively. “Resident Evil” let the public know that Hollywood had heard the backlash against conversion by stating explicitly in trailers that it was filmed using the 3-D technology Cameron used in “Avatar.”

One major film to use 3D as a gimmick was “Jackass 3-D,” which had the biggest fall opening in movie history with $50 million, lending more to the “pro” argument.

This past month, Hollywood got a more accurate taste of whether all blockbusters would rake in cash by virtue of 3D. “The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader” performed below expectations and “Tron: Legacy,” though very cool in 3D and shot with the fusion camera technology, hasn’t done exceptionally well though it ought to finish among the top 15 this year in receipts.

There’s not question the 3D war will wage onward into next year with a remarkably higher number of big-budget blockbusters releasing in 3D and this time next year we might have more of a sense of the medium’s longevity.

They don’t make them like they used to — as archaic as that expression makes me sound. Heck, they don’t even make them at all, practically. Last year, I featured my five favorite Christmas movies, but none of them, naturally, come after 1996.

I’m not really complaining about this. Almost every “Christmas movie” that has come out in the 21st Century has been nothing short of garbage, so why ask for more? But if a movie about Christmas came out to good reviews it would make a killing, at least in comparison to its budget. Hollywood has spent so much time trying to make bank on Christmas spirit with half-assed family films that moviegoers have steered clear of most of them. There’s no real profit in it anymore. So instead we get “Little Fockers” come Yuletide. Hollywood, we want — nay, demand — good Christmas movies back.

The 21st Century has delivered a few true Christmas films come the Holiday season and many feel-good family affairs. There was nothing for Christmas fans this year. Last year, “It’s Complicated” offered the gooier family stuff and Disney’s stop-motion Robert Zemeckis film “A Christmas Carol” was the more Christmas-y film. It performed well, but was lost come Christmas time given the early November release so many Christmas films receive.

In 2008, “Marley & Me” won the Christmas box office (gooey family stuff marketed to seem Christmas-y when it wasn’t) while the Vince Vaughn and Reese Witherspoon-starring “Four Christmases” was the proverbial “Christmas comedy.” Those two bankable stars brought in a $120-million domestic gross, but scored a very bad 25% Rotten Tomatoes score with critics. That was the second year in a row that Vaughn tried Christmas on for size. The year before, “Fred Claus” debuted Nov. 9 2007. The film was ripped by critics (21%) and made below $100 million worldwide. “This Christmas” was offered in advance of the Thanksgiving weekend, but catered to the Black family market.

In 2006 we saw the last actual “glut” of Christmas movies. “Deck the Halls,” starring Danny DeVito and Matthew Broderick as neighbors in a house-lighting war, made under $50 million worldwide. Debuting in early November, of course, was “The Santa Clause 3,” which pitted Tim Allen as the Santa Claus against Martin Short’s Jack Frost. The unnecessary three-quel earned a 14% score and despite more than $80 million domestically, the film barely cracked $100 million worldwide. That’s another thing — Christmas movies virtually fail overseas entirely, which is much of why they’ve disappeared.

There was also “The Nativity Story,” in 2006, which aimed to capture that Christian audience that made “The Passion of the Christ” such a success in hopes of capturing the more religious spirit of the Holiday season. The film tanked with $46 million worldwide.

The earlier portion of the last decade has a few more bright spots. “The Polar Express” made $306 million worldwide in 2004 and enjoyed several reprise IMAX screenings the next couple years seeing as films were still not utilizing IMAX at that point in time. In 2002, “Elf,” easily the decade’s most popular Christmas movie, made $220 million worldwide (not very much of it was overseas, but a huge pull for a small movie). Certainly the novelty of Will Ferrell’s humor helped with the success of the film at the time.

Nevertheless, Jon Favreau’s “Elf” found a new way to capture the Christmas spirit in the form of a comically large man who believes he’s an elf and found his real human father in the big city. That’s all it takes — repackaging the Christmas message of giving and acceptance, which will last until the end of civilization, into something new and fresh. “Elf” cost just $33 million. Safe to say New Line made money on that one.

2000, however, might have provided the last real Christmas splash in the live-action version of Dr. Seuss’ “How the Grinch Stole Christmas” from Ron Howard starring Jim Carrey. $353 million worldwide, albeit the story is classic and had a built-in audience. Simply put, those films don’t come around all that often. Few classics could be remade without being scorned.

So we’ve been on a downward slide since “The Polar Express” pretty much. How to get back on track? Christmas movies appear too American to succeed overseas, which studios have gradually become more and more concerned with considering most other countries that do good movie business are fairing better that the U.S. If they could tap back into that market, perhaps with something a little more adventurous and a bit less comedy, there could be a resurgence.

In fact, next year brings us “Arthur Christmas,” an animated film that “reveals” Santa’s high-tech operation to deliver all those presents on Christmas Eve and how his dysfunctional son Arthur must save the day. The film is being made by Aardman Animations, Nick Park’s company (the “Wallace & Grommit” movies) and as such features a style of animation not stop-motion but like it as well as a largely British cast, which should enhance its appeal overseas. A Thanksgiving release next year favors its success come the holidays. In fact, the marketing campaign has already begun to ensure this Christmas film’s success in 11 months.

Christmas movies are the kind we take joy in revisiting every year, which means there can’t be enough of them to at least vary up the kind of crud that shows up on TV every December. Modern times and audience tastes should not inherently mean the extinction of this unique and special sub-genre.

But more importantly,

Merry Christmas from Movie Muse!

Who ever thought a film about a nurse named Gaylord Focker meeting his future in-laws, one of whom is ex-CIA, would ever pave the way for a comedy trilogy? The simple idea to capitalize on the tension of the in-law relationship made “Meet the Parents” a hit with audiences back in 2000 and consequently its sequel, “Meet the Fockers,” holds the box-office record for most successful live-action comedy of all time (though “The Hangover” gave it a scare).

Dysfunctional families have been a staple of comedy for quite some time now, so how is it that “Meet the Parents” and “Meet the Fockers” outdid what so many others have done?

The film has a unique history. “Meet the Parents” was originally made into a film in 1992 by amateur filmmakers Greg Glienna and Mary Ruth Clarke. Presumably, Universal swooped in and purchased the rights to their screenplay and then put it into production as a large-scale comedy, bringing in Jim Herzfeld and John Hamburg, both new to the game at the time to do some rewriting. Star Ben Stiller had a bit to do with the rewrites as well.

The, Robert De Niro found the project. The Stiller/De Niro dynamic makes the film a real standout. Countless family-based comedies have relied on good comedic chemistry, but Stiller and De Niro possessed the ideal combination of appeal and talent.

De Niro had just tasted success as a comic actor in 1999′s “Analyze This” next to Billy Crystal, but he was still relying off his “mob boss” typecasting. As Jack Byrnes, a conservative father who’s slightly cuckoo having been in the CIA, De Niro gets a chance to fit his quirks into a more “everyman” role as an over-concerned father. He dictates the tempo of “Meet the Parents” as Greg tries to impress him (or at least not embarrass himself) at every turn.

Stiller, two years after his breakout performance in “There’s Something About Mary,” was still a fresh face, one that audiences were beginning to associate with a new brand of uncensored comedy that would come to define the next 10 years. Stiller would succeed in the role by portraying a charismatic loser (with the much-debased career of male nurse) with a tongue much sharper than his common sense. This character type would find its way into more roles than that of Greg Focker, and as such diminished the effectiveness of his character in the sequel.

Other than the pair of actors, “Meet the Parents” did simple gags well: the volleyball to the face, the cat and the ashes, the name Focker in general …  nothing groundbreaking by today’s standards, but considering the implications these humorous moments had on the ever-failing Greg and the ever-skeptical Jack, they were more effective.

“Meet the Fockers” was a huge hit in 2004, taking advantage of Christmas time to make a huge haul, not surprising considering the business “Parents” did in October of all months. Undoubtedly the first film was never intended to have a sequel, but the idea of the Byrnes family meeting Greg’s parents this time was right on. To try and outdo themselves, big-draw actors would need to fill the roles of Mr. and Mrs. Focker. Dustin Hoffman and Barbra Streisand were perfect as the Jewish hippie parents crazy enough to name their son Gaylord Focker. Streisand, who hadn’t been in a film in eight years, came out of “retirement” for the role as she did again for “Little Fockers.”

Everything Jack and Dina Byrnes weren’t, Bernie and Rozalin Focker were, so naturally this shook things up in the sequel. And of course Jack went back to his old ways, convinced that Greg slept with his Hispanic cleaning lady, who became pregnant and had a son. The film had plenty of gags from the truth serum to Greg’s foreskin, but the originality in the jokes lacked a bit more in places. Nevertheless, no arguing with how the film performed at the box office.

A more appropriate six years later, we get “Little Fockers.” Greg, now in Jack’s “Circle of Trust,” wants to pass down the reigns as man of the house to Greg, who is nervous about taking them for fear of not living up to Jack’s standards. Undoubtedly his child-rearing capabilities will also be questioned.

From the trailers, it looks as if Stiller’s grown up in the role a bit, considering that Greg is now used to Jack’s antics and his gradual senility. We’ve already got an erection joke and a cutting finger episode, so the gags look to be the same old, but there’s no doubt “Little Fockers” will make bank at the box office yet again, though likely nowhere close to its predecessor.

The success and decade-long longevity of this series doesn’t necessarily speak to how funny it is, but that just about every one can relate to it. The pressure to “succeed” in the eyes of our family members, especially in-laws, is sort of universal. There’s always going to be a market for a good family-focused comedy, but the key is finding the right dynamic, this one obviously being founded on the terrific character of Jack and Greg. Both their styles of humor have certainly worn on us, but the relationship remains unparalleled in the history of father and son-in-law on film — and that’s a very frequently used relationship (see “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner?”).

My guess is we’ll have seen the last of the Fockers after this film. It will succeed, but the results will be diminished. And frankly, there’s nowhere else to take this story. “Teenage Fockers”? I don’t think so. There’s nowhere else to really take the key conflict/relationship between Jack and Greg. Even so, comedies never succeed critically beyond two or three films because more than other genres, freshness makes a film funny.

The Fockers and Byrnes have been funny. They brought freshness to a family comedy sub-genre that really hasn’t had any kind of success lately. Whether you find the films classic or you’re tired of them already, there’s no doubt of their imprint on modern comedy.