“I’m Hollywood treasure Jerry O’Connell and I’ve worked on some serious projects in the past.  ‘Stand By Me,’ ‘Crossing Jordan,’ ‘Sliders,’ ‘Kangaroo Jack,” the young actor explains before a brief pause.

“But none of them hold a candle,” O’Connell argues, “to ‘Piranha 3D.’”

And so commences in earnest the Best Picture Oscar campaign for “Piranha 3D,” director Alexandre Aja’s remake of B-movie producer Roger Corman’s 1978 “Jaws” knockoff, on the popular website Funny or Die.

“Well, obviously Best Picture,” notes “Piranha 3D” actor Adam Scott.  “But, why stop at Best Picture.  How about Best Penis Being Gobbled and Spit Out In 3D?  Best Gun-Toting Jet-Ski Fight in a Piranha-related Film?”

Since its August opening two weeks ago, “Piranha 3D” has scared up nearly $20 million, secured a sequel and emerged as something of a critical darling amongst the nation’s film critics, enjoying a 75 percent fresh rating on rottentomatoes.com and favorable reviews from Variety and Rolling Stone.

Who knew that a 3D film about ancient piranha unleashed on a small Arizonan lake community would cause such excitement around the country?

The answer is anyone paying any attention whatsoever to what passes as political discourse these days, particularly in the waning days of summer as the theater of the absurd offers distractions in lieu of the serious.

“From a marketing point of view, you don’t introduce new products in August,” former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card explained in a 2002 New York Times interview on why the Bush Administration wanted to wait until September to sell its case for an Iraq War to the American public.

This Tuesday, President Obama takes to the Oval Office to address the nation on Iraq, specifically regarding the drawdown of troops in that country and marking a formal end to combat operations that began nearly seven years ago.

A serious moment requires a serious venue and a primetime address from the Oval Office certainly fills that bill.

Still, the recent weeks leading to this moment have surely been anything but serious with an Islamic community center located two blocks from Ground Zero in Lower Manhattan magically becoming “Ground Zero Mosque” and occupying most of our time.

So serious was this issue that protestors took to the streets of Manhattan to voice their concerns.

Just days before Obama makes his second address from Oval Office, Fox News’ Glenn Beck “reclaimed the civil rights movement” (whatever that means) and captured headlines across the country for having the audacity to deliver a speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on the anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech.

According to the Associated Press, tens of thousands of conservatives attended the rally ready to restore the country’s honor (lost when we sanctioned torture? Invaded Iraq under false pretenses?).

In times of high economic anxiety and unemployment, distractions have a funny way of illuminating the obvious and perhaps there’s no better example of just that than “Piranha 3D.”

Set in Arizona, the film follows Elisabeth Shue as a local Arizonan sheriff (and single mom) who must not only defeat the monstrous, bloodthirsty piranha unleashed by a recent earthquake but also deal with the thousands of rowdy college students who’ve descended on her lake community as their spring break destination.

Given the anti-immigration rhetoric dominating Arizona’s politics, the most interesting thing about “Piranha 3D,” then, is its setting, an Arizona overrun by interlopers threatening its way of life.

That it is not a serious film matters little.  That the film tackles a serious subject, albeit through allegory and metaphor, only makes it that much smarter, right?

It matters only that we say it’s serious and worthy of consideration.

So, ladies and gentlemen, kind Academy voters, I present for your consideration: “Piranha 3D,” a Best Picture contender if there ever was one.

James Cooper is a MA student in screen studies and political science.  He received his BA from the University of Oklahoma

If for some reason you live in Oklahoma City and your travels have taken you near Penn Square Mall in recent days, then chances are you’ve seen the marquee advertisement for screenings of “Piranhas in 3D” overlooking the city’s Northwest Expressway.

That “Piranhas in 3D” is actually “Piranha 3D,” director Alexandre Aja’s remake of Roger Corman’s 1978 “Jaws” knock-off, is precisely besides the point.

In its way, Penn Square Mall’s Dickinson Theatres has laid bare what “Piranha 3D” brings to the summer movie table and anyone expecting more than piranhas wrecking havoc and mayhem—in 3D, of course— might do well to rethink their weekend movie plans.

Since “Piranha 3D” is rarely interested in anything more than winking and nodding, it seems fitting the film should begin with Richard Dreyfuss sitting alone in a boat in the middle of Lake Victoria, playing a character with the same name as he did in “Jaws.”  As Matt fishes and sings along to the song playing on his small radio (guess which song, “Jaws” fans), an earthquake opens up an underwater passageway to an even larger lake far beneath the surface.

And, as a giant whirlpool created by the quake begins to engulf Mr. Dreyfuss, so, too, do a school of ancient piranha swim to the surface to greet him.

A remarkable sight to be sure, the image is surprisingly less terrifying than Aja’s earlier work (the much scarier and far better, High Tension, for example) suggests.

The killer, bloodthirsty fish unleashed, the film sets up the rest of what it considers its plot, focusing largely on Arizona Sheriff Julie Forester (Elisabeth Shue) and her son, Jake (Steven R. McQueen), while thousands of rambunctious college students descend on Lake Victoria as their spring break hotspot.

When a “Girls Gone Wild” Joe Francis knockoff, Derrick Jones (Jerry O’Connell), arrives to Lake Victoria and asks Jake to take his crew location scouting on the lake, the young teen agrees, abandoning the task entrusted to him by his single mother to babysit his two younger siblings in favor of spending time with the sexy models aboard Derrick’s ship.

As will happen, this decision triggers a further chain of events —Jake’s young brother and sister find themselves trapped on an island surrounded by piranha, Derrick talks Jake’s virginal crush, Kelly (Jessica Szohr), into joining them aboard his ship, etc.

Soon, Adam Scott shows up as a scientist—as does the delightful Christopher Lloyd as an eccentric marine biologist— to help Sheriff Forester and her deputy (the always reliable Ving Rhames) warn everyone of the underwater dangers lurking beneath Lake Victoria as “Piranha 3D” becomes a race against time and nature.

With its structure borrowed largely from the eighties slasher films that came after 1978’s “Piranha,” Aja’s remake comes across as equal parts morality tale and Grand Guignol, far more interested in punishing its characters’ sexual exploits and displaying Greg Nicotero’s amazingly gory special effects make-up than frightening anyone.

Gory excess makes “Piranha 3D” sparkle and it’s a shame the film never aims higher than spectacle and slasher retread.

More interesting, however, is the film’s setting, an Arizona overrun with the interlopers threatening its way of life, particularly in light of the anti-immigration rhetoric dominating the state’s politics this summer.

What, then, are we to make of monsters here, the “Piranhas in 3D,” as they set about cleaning house and our desire to see them do just that?

Such questions are considerably more interesting than “Piranha 3D” itself, a film whose 3D effects actually make it more difficult to tease out what exactly we’re seeing onscreen as the piranha attack their helpless victims.  Much like the jackhammer-style camera work and editing in Michael Bay’s “Transformers” films, “Piranha 3D” has little time to waste anchoring audiences in the terror that surely comes with being ravaged by a school of cannibalistic piranha.

That’s too bad because I can’t escape the feeling that “Piranha 3D” deserved better, no matter how many severed penises I see a piranha burp up for our viewing pleasure.

Grade: C+

“The seed of Muslim is passed through the father like the seed of Judaism is passed through the mother. He was born a Muslim; his father gave him an Islamic name.”

Those televised remarks, made in an interview with CNN’s John King on Thursday, come amidst the backdrop of an August 19^th survey by The Pew Research Center which found an increase in the number of Americans who believe that President Obama is a Muslim.

In the results, Pew found “that nearly one in five Americans (18 percent) now say Obama is a Muslim, up from an 11 percent in March 2009.  Only about one-third of adults (34 percent) say Obama is a Christian, down sharply from 48 percent in 2009.”

And, nearly 43 percent say they have no idea what religion Obama practices.

However, the number who question Obama’s Christianity is larger among the president’s political opponents. 34 percent of Republicans believe Obama is a Muslim, “as do 30 percent of those who disapprove of Obama’s job performance.”

Rumors and innuendo surrounding the religious beliefs of Barack Hussein Obama have long swirled around the country, as far back as the 2008 Democratic Primary race.

Early in the general election, then-Candidate Obama’s campaign unveiled their “Fight the Smears” website in an effort to aggressively refute whisper campaigns that Obama was a secret Muslim, refused to say the pledge of allegiance, etc.

What a difference, then, two years makes during what former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich described on Sunday as “the summer of our discontent” on ABC’s “This Week.”

The same week the Pew Research survey became the topic for water cooler discussion, an already heated conversation regarding the building of a mosque two blocks from ground zero in Lower Manhattan had reached fever pitch.

No matter the “ground zero mosque” was actually an Islamic community center in the mold of the Jewish 92^nd Street Y uptown and that it was located two blocks away from ground zero.

No matter that in December 2009 when conservative political commentator Dr. Laura Ingraham guest-hosted “The O’Reilly Factor” and interviewed Daisy Khan, co-founder of the project and wife of its Imam, Abdul Rauf, she praised Ms. Khan and the building’s construction.

“I can’t find many people who really have a problem with it,” Ingraham told Ms. Khan.  “I like what you’re trying to do and Ms. Khan we appreciate it and come on my radio show some time.”

That was old Laura Ingraham.

New, reasonable Laura Ingraham appears on “Good Morning America” and says things like “the terrorists have won with how this has gone down.  600 feet from where thousands of our fellow Americans were incinerated in the name of political Islam and we’re supposed to be considered ‘intolerant’ if we’re not cheering this?”

The reason for Ingraham’s newfound outrage and moral indignation?

As per usual, look no further than Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News and the right wing media.

Thanks to Salon.com’s Justin Elliott and his research and reporting, we now have a timeline charting the manufacturing of a fake scandal, describing how an Islamic Center became “Ground Zero Mosque.”

“Ground Zero Mosque” resonates for all the obvious reasons; what Elliott’s piece in Salon.com makes clear is that Rupert Murdoch’s conservative media empire appears all too ready to exploit those ‘obvious reasons’ for political gain, ginning up tension in an already anxious electorate struggling through the worst recession since the Great Depression with tales of Muslim boogeymen.

And, as if the obvious need be more obvious, Murdoch’s News Corp. donated $1 million to the Republican Governors Association (with—surprise, surprise— no matching funds to Democrats).

Finally, Murdoch has given the Republicans their long promised dowry, making official what many of us have known for years:  Fox News is about as “fair and balanced” as Obama is “Muslim” and “the Antichrist.”

James Cooper is a MA student in Screen Studies and English at Oklahoma State University.  He received his BA in Film Studies and English from the University of Oklahoma.

Since the earliest days of its inception in the late nineteenth century, those interested in analysis or interpretation of cinema—particularly Freud—saw in the medium a correlation between it and dreams.  In recent decades, of course, psychoanalytic film theory has taken up Freud’s work, exploring the ways in which the cinema functions similarly to dreams, debating that correlation as well as its implications.

Such conversations and debates continue, largely among academics and cinephiles well versed in the work of Freud and Lacan.

Director Christopher Nolan’s fantastic and intriguing new film, “Inception,” appears acutely aware of those discussions as the movie itself comes across as an intelligent mediation on the nature of cinema and the images it produces, and maybe most importantly, our relationship to those images.

Not quite the masterpiece that many critics and internet bloggers claim it to be, “Inception” is that rare summer blockbuster with as much philosophical waxing to spare as it has awesome explosions.

Those explosions come courtesy of Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his efforts in the film’s early moments to convince corporate businessman Saito (Ken Watanabe) that a conversation they are having is actually taking place within a dream.  From here, Cobb explains his business and his ability to extract key information from anyone’s mind.

As will happen, shenanigans ensue, leaving Cobb and his partner Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) to barely escape their meeting; however, before too long, Saito approaches Cobb about the possibility of inception, a way to plant an idea in someone else inside a dream.

What others consider impossible, Cobb suggests he can do—particularly if Saito can arrange for Cobb to return to the United States without the threat of arrest (for reasons the film only reveals at a later point).

Saito enlists Cobb and Arthur to assemble a small team that will allow them to plant an idea in Robert Fischer Jr. (Cillian Murphy), the son of Saito’s ailing business rival and the man who whose company stands at the precipice of becoming the largest energy power in the world.

To accomplish their task, Cobb meets briefly with his estranged father/professor (Michael Caine) who suggests he meet his brightest architecture student, Ariadne (the always delightful Ellen Page).

For everything to work accordingly, Ariadne will create the buildings and landscapes within the dreams, Eames (Tom Hardy) will work as a sort of, uh hum, dream-impersonator, Yusuf (Dileep Rao) will act as the group’s anesthesiologist while Saito accompanies the group to monitor their success.

To say too much on “Inception” risks spoiling the fun the film has in constructing its elaborate labyrinth.

Suffice it to say, the lovely Marion Cotillard haunts Cobb’s dreams (and by extension those sharing that dream as well as the film itself) as Mal, Cobb’s ex-wife, a character the film shrouds in mystery until even its final moments.

That Nolan’s script names the character “Mal”—Latin for “evil” or “bad”— suggests what might be in store for Cobb and the rest of the film’s characters.

And make no mistake, “Inception” is playing at that level, the level of allegory and philosophy, even as it razzle dazzles its way through impressive set designs and creative special effects (cities fold onto themselves; the laws of gravity often no longer hold true as characters battle each other on ceilings, walls, and the like).

As with “The Dark Knight” two summers ago, Nolan has once more crafted the thinking person’s summer blockbuster; however, where that film challenged audiences to reconsider the superhero film and our relationship to symbols, heroes, etc., “Inception” aims higher.

Here, an architect designs the dreamscape while someone else’s subconscious and their projections play around in it (film studies and media graduate students, bon appetite!)

With a concept such as that, “Inception” asks some mighty lofty questions, the most obvious one as to just whose dream/film this is anyway.  Are those our subconscious projections always up there on screen?  Have they always been?  What then of the collision between the filmmaker, what he puts on screen, and our subconscious—and conscious—relationship to them?

These aren’t necessarily new questions.  (And, feminist-inclined film theorists, who frequently dabble in the psychoanalytic, surely must have thoughts on the two women here, one the creator and the other, well, in limbo).

Still, with “Inception,” Nolan gives us new ways to think on those questions, new images to play around in as we interpret and analyze.

Though the film never quite resonates emotionally as it mesmerizes and thought provokes, the actors are more than mere set design.  DiCaprio, Page, and Cotillard, in particular, provide “Inception” the emotional depth lacking elsewhere in the film and rarely, if ever, come across as if they’re playing a secondary role to Nolan’s green screen and puzzles.

Nevertheless, those puzzles and the questions raised by them, sustain the film long after its oddly breezy 142 minutes are up.

And with “Inception,” that’s likely the point.

Grade:  A-

If for no other reason than citing past precedent, “Toy Story 3” and Pixar deserve a special scratch-and-sniff sticker for pulling off what few film franchises rarely accomplish: delivering a third film worthy of its predecessors.

The first two “Toy Story” films share the enviable and rare honor of having a perfect 100% over at Rottentomatoes.com, a site that compiles the ratings and reviews of film critics across the country.

“Toy Story 3” will likely join in that distinction as it is a marvelous film, if not quite a great one.

At the heart of the “Toy Story” saga has always been the relationship between young Andy and his childhood toys, specifically the cowboy Woody (voiced perfectly once more by Tom Hanks) and the space adventurer, Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen).

Here, the emphasis is less on that relationship necessarily and much more on the community developed by the toys through their years as Andy’s willing playthings.

Early in the film, as Andy prepares to head off for college, the toys debate their future.  And, already, signs of aging are setting in.

Mrs. Potato Head (Estelle Harris) has misplaced an eye, for example, and the rest of the remaining toys — Jessie (Joan Cusack), Hamm (John Ratzenberger), Barbie (Jodi Benson), Slinky Dog (Blake Clark filling in for the late Jim Varney), Rex (Wallace Shawn), the green aliens (Jeff Pidgeon) —wear their worry that Andy will soon abandon them for adulthood on their plastic faces.

Woody attempts to reassure them that Andy will merely move them into a comfortable retirement in the attic but still their worry persists.

Besides, who will play with them now?  What use are they now that their imaginative owner/playmate appears set for a life without them?

Such is the existential dilemma facing our familiar friends and it is a problem that only intensifies when Andy’s mother (Laurie Metcalf) accidentally throws the toys out to the curb, further convincing Jessie, Buzz and the rest of the gang that Andy no longer cares for them.

Nor does it help that Andy has already packed Woody in a box marked for college.

But instead of college, the attic, or even the trash, Woody and the rest of the toys inadvertently find themselves headed to Sunnyside Daycare Center.  There, they meet Lotso (Ned Beatty), a large strawberry scented bear who explains how life at Sunnyside works.

And, the toys, save for Woody, like what they hear.  Lotso shows them a world where kids play with toys endlessly, year after year as each new batch of children come into Sunnyside.

Better still, Sunnyside promises back massages, new batteries, spare parts and even a Ken (Michael Keaton) for Barbie—complete with a dream house.

“Toy Story 3” trailers hint at what’s to come so there’s little reason to belabor plot points here.  Suffice it to say, things aren’t quite what they seem at Sunnyside.

What this new film never hints at is the greatness of the earlier two films; in fact, “Toy Story 3” charts its own path, a darker one to be sure, but one that makes sense thematically.

If the film meanders early on (particularly after a fantastically clever opening sequence where we glimpse just what a child’s imagination and some plastic toys are capable of), “Toy Story 3” comes into its own soon enough.

Once more, Pixar makes subtle use of 3D rather than going for that technology’s most obvious gimmicks.

The animation here is gorgeous, the 3D working to add depth to the frame, giving the film’s backgrounds room to breathe and audiences the opportunity to explore them.

Director Lee Unkrich does an especially nice job with his first solo directing gig—he co-directed Pixar’s “Finding Nemo,” “Monsters, Inc.,” and “Toy Story 2” and supervised the editing on several other Pixar films.  Here, he infuses “Toy Story 3” with a sense of urgency in its climatic final moments, scenes as intense as any Paul Greengrass film and as well edited as one, as well.

And, thematically, those scenes work almost better than anything in either of the earlier two films.  It is nearly impossible not to reach for a tissue during any number of moments towards the film’s concluding scenes.

That temptation is not necessarily the result of gooey sentimentalism but rather stems from the film’s sincere efforts to examine the way we cycle through fads and toys (and things in general), only to cast them to the trash once their usefulness has been sufficiently exhausted.

That theme—in an animated summer blockbuster no less— underlies many of the best moments at the heart of “Toy Story 3,” to say nothing of Barbie’s passionate speech on authority and the governed or Buzz Lightyear’s momentary conversion into a Spanish speaking Lothario.

Pixar can now safely add “Not Being ‘The Godfather III’” to its trophy case.

A-

"The End."

Spoiler alert: if you’ve yet to watch the “Lost” series finale, read at your own peril.

Television critics and “Lost” fans took to the Internet water cooler the moment after a white light engulfed Jack Shephard (Matthew Fox) as he sat in a church surrounded by the crash survivors of Oceanic Flight 815.

And, thus, came the conclusion to the television phenomenon known as “Lost,” a satisfyingly poignant, thrilling, and nearly pitch perfect end to the show’s six-season run.

Since the Sunday night finale, TV critics from The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times to Entertainment Weekly’s delightfully geeky Doc Jensen have opined poetically and analytically on what the show’s two and a half hour episode accomplished.

And, at seemingly breakneck speed, “Lost” fans inundated Facebook and Twitter with status updates expressing all manner of emotion, ranging from the jubilant to utter frustration and confusion.

The finale, appropriately titled “The End,” seems to have left many “Lost” fans with more questions than answers, much to their chagrin.

Truthfully, I simply do not understand the confusion surrounding “The End,” an episode that focused on just what Jack —via Juliet’s detonation of an atomic bomb— had set in motion in season six’s flash sideways scenes.

“The End” answered that question in a bold, audacious move:  the flash sideways world where we’ve seen Jack, Kate (Evangeline Lilly), Claire (Emilie de Ravin), Sawyer (Josh Holloway), Sayid (Naveen Andrews), Sun (Yunjin Kim), Jin (Daniel Dae Kim), etc. is a purgatory of sorts, a special place created by the castaways where they can reunite with each other as they await the move onto whatever is next.

The writers choreographed each of those reunions beautifully as characters became “island enlightened,” finally aware of their lives lived on the island and the special bonds they formed there.

Each reunion proved tissue-worthy.

Sun and Jin’s moment of revelation led to a hilarious run-in with Sawyer as the couple chuckled at the thought of Sawyer as a police detective.

Juliet (Elizabeth Mitchell) and Sawyer’s cutesy reunion at the hospital vending machine was lovely as were the reunions of Sayid and Shannon (Maggie Grace), Daniel (Jeremy Davies) and Charlotte (Rebecca Mader), Charlie (Dominic Monaghan) and Claire (and Aaron!).

The resurrection of the real John Locke was as tear inducing as it was celebratory.  His reunion with Benjamin Linus (Michael Emerson), the moment where he abandons his wheelchair was, well, magical.

And, therein lies the likely rub for many “Lost” fans who found themselves deeply immersed in the show’s rich mythology and mystical elements.

“Lost” has always been at its best when it manages the right balance between exploring the island’s mysterious mythology —i.e.  smoke monsters, giant four-toed statues, polar bears, and the like— and diving into what makes its key characters tick and tock.

In fact, “Lost” fans more awed by the show’s time traveling sci-fi badassness and smoke monster awesomeness likely found “The End” tedious and sentimental, possibly even a touch too much on the spiritual side.

That, however, is precisely what “Lost” has been about from its earliest episodes:  the prospect of redemption, forgiveness, and maybe even transcendence no matter how flawed or wounded the soul.

Those themes have long been with “Lost,” the producers and writers using the island as allegory for the trials and tribulations each of us undergo en route to possible redemption, maybe even salvation—whatever the hell that looks like.

“Lost” made that allegory all the more literal with Sunday night’s finale as Jack battled Monster Locke for the fate of all humanity with all hell literally breaking loose in the process.

Long ago, the show’s producers, Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse, promised that what happened on the island mattered, attempting to quell early concerns among fans that the show would undermine events unfolding on the island by “making it all a dream” or revealing that “they’re all dead.”

Lindelof and Cuse took care to repeat frequently their mantra that what happened on the island mattered and had very real consequences.  Jack explained as much to Desmond (Henry Ian Cusick) in “The End” as the Scottish fail safe appeared dumbstruck that his attempt to undo the events of the last six seasons failed.

“What happened, happened,” Jack told Desmond.

So, rest easy, “Lost” fans.

Jack really did defeat Monster Locke (with some “assistance” from Kate!); Desmond did uncork the island, letting evil free to roam however briefly; Frank Lapidus (Jeff Fahey) really did fly Claire, Kate, Sawyer, Miles (Ken Leung) and the suddenly graying Richard Alpert (Nestor Carbonell) off the island to safety; Hurley did take over as a benevolent island guardian, with Ben as his loyal number two for many years to come.

What happened, happened.  The events unfolding on the island over the past six seasons weren’t for naught.

But, what happened in the show’s final ten minutes proved the most poetic as we learned that Juliet’s detonation of an atom bomb had created a sideways world where the “Losties” could gain perspective on their lived experiences…and make that final journey into the unknown together.

Back on the island, Jack’s final journey back towards the small clearing where he awoke at the start of episode one was glorious in its execution and in its simplicity.

The good doctor had saved Claire, Kate, Sawyer, Miles, Richard and Frank; he knew as much as he lay dying in the forest, watching their plane fly safely off the island as he stared up at the sky.

That final moment where Vincent lay down beside a dying Jack almost proved too much to watch.

“Lost” premiered at a time when reality TV dominated television and only three years after terrorists flew planes into the World Trade Center.  For years to come, I’m sure television scholars will tease out just what “Lost” was up to with its playful use of time, its diverse international cast, its function as political and cultural allegory (it’s a show about a plane crash and the survivors trying to make sense of it and their lives in the aftermath of a major tragedy after all).

With allegory comes interpretation, not necessarily easily outlined explanations.  (Isn’t that right, Jack?)

For now, let us be content with what will surely go down as one of the best written shows in television history.

And, a special thanks to the show’s creators, J.J. Abrams, Mr. Lindelof and Mr. Cuse for giving viewers six years of just that.

Amen.

Grade: A

One week into its release, Platinum Dunes’ “A Nightmare on Elm Street” remake has met with considerable box office success, a C+ Cinemascore score, and a lukewarm reaction amongst horror fans.

In its way, this new “Nightmare” film plays out like a greatest hits compilation of iconic moments from Wes Craven’s original 1984 film.

Freddy’s claw comes up from the water as Nancy (Rooney Mara) falls asleep in the tub; one of Freddy’s victims levitates high above her bed before claw marks rip suddenly across her torso; Freddy haunts the dream of a wrongly incarcerated teen and the list goes on.

More than anything else, director Samuel Bayer’s attempts to make the iconic Freddy Krueger (here played well enough by Jackie Earle Haley) scary again —after sequel after sequel did their best to make him anything but— only work when the director veers from or expands upon his source material.

The source material, of course, should be familiar to anyone who has seen the original film; teens in the Midwestern town of Springwood, Ohio start to realize that they’re sharing a collective nightmare, one where a badly burned man in a fedora and striped sweater stalks them.

Dean (Kellan Lutz) sits in the Springwood Diner early in the film; his eyes blood shot, his dreams beginning to blend with reality.  No longer able to distinguish between what’s real and what’s not, Dean confides in his friend, Kris (Katie Cassidy) that if he falls asleep again, he won’t wake up at all.

Soon, after a brutal murder, Kris and a group of Springwood teens start to look for answers, realizing that their parents are keeping something from them, something to do with a man named Fred Krueger (Jackie Earle Haley).

As Kris, Jesse (Thomas Dekker), Quentin (Kyle Gallner), and Nancy struggle to stay awake long enough to discover the truth, Freddy hunts them down, one by one.

Yes, the structure of “A Nightmare on Elm Street” owes much to the original film, perhaps too much.

Where Rob Zombie’s recent “Halloween” remakes veer considerably from their source material, Bayer’s “Nightmare” remake insists on hitting the notes most familiar to viewers and fans of the original film even at the expense of generating genuine suspense or horror.

Zombie’s effort made for a more studied, more frightening look at the boogeyman, keeping audiences slightly off balance and unsure what the film might do next.

That’s missing in the “A Nightmare on Elm Street” remake.  Only visually does the remake truly chart its own course.

That’s a shame considering the moments where screenwriters Wesley Strick and Eric Heisserer infuse the script with its nastiest aspects.  Particularly, the remake plays with the idea of Krueger’s innocence, briefly flirting with the notion that the man accused of molestation and murder before his death might be innocent.

It’s an idea the film raises and drops quickly.  Still, even when the teens learn the truth, it is nasty and something the film could have used more of.  Instead, Bayer’s “Nightmare” remake is too ready to return to its familiar Freddy routes.

This “Nightmare” only flirts with originality and reinterpretation; it seems too scared, however, to do anything different.

The film manages to set a dire tone.  A sense of foreboding haunts this remake, its characters (thanks largely to performances by Gallner, Rooney, and Cassidy) afraid of both their waking and dream worlds.

Or, at least that’s what a smarter, more daring film would have emphasized better.

The kids in Springwood have a choice, their lying, vigilante parents or Freddy Krueger, and the film only hints at that the nihilistic possibilities offered by a story where normality is just as monstrous as the monster.

The kids here suffer not because of sexual indiscretion, illegal drug use, or other immoral behavior as in the traditional slasher film but for their parent’s decisions to shield them from the horrors of the world.

That’s scary; “A Nightmare on Elm Street” can only claim that on occasion.

Grade: C+

Donnie Darko

The beautiful nightmare decade came to an uneventful end.  Three numbers and bastards flying planes into the World Trade Center haunt the aught years.  Not to make too big a deal of it but the images of folk meandering, dazed down the gray streets of downtown New York City stuck.  And, say what you will, but the best cinema of the aughts feels weirdly haunted by those images, that moment that early Tuesday morning.

Sure, the worst films addressed the subject and its aftermath directly — Oliver Stone’s boringly sentimental World Trade Center — but the most interesting and clever responded to the times, the feeling, the zeitgeist as it were.  And the spirit of the times seemed anything but celebratory or lucid.  What they were will be the subject of inquiry for decades to come, as will the matter of reconsidering the films it produced.

For now, here are the aught films that stuck.

40. Cloverfield (Matt Reeves, 2008)

39. Mysterious Skin (Greg Araki, 2004)

38. Cache (Michael Haneke, 2005)

37. Ratatouille (Brad Bird, Jan Pinkava, 2007)

36. Elephant (Gus Van Sant, 2003)

35. Traffic (Steven Soderbergh, 2000)

34. Inglorious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

33. City of God (Fernando Meirelles, Kátia Lund, 2002)

32. Moulin Rouge! (Baz Luhrman, 2001)

31. (500) Days of Summer (Marc Webb, 2009)

30.  United 93 (Paul Greengrass, 2006)

29.  Pan’s Labryinth (Guillermo del Toro, 2006)

28.  Sunshine (Danny Boyle, 2007)

27.  Memento (Christopher Nolan, 2000)

26.  Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (Ang Lee, 2000)

25.  Zodiac (David Fincher, 2007)

24. Superbad (Greg Mottola, 2007)

23.  Kill Bill Vol. 2 (Quentin Tarantino, 2004)

22.  The Dreamers (Bernardo Bertolucci, 2003)

21.  Dancer in the Dark (Lars Von Trier, 2000)

20.  Halloween II  Theatrical Edition (Rob Zombie, 2009)

19.  Y Tu Mama Tambien (Alfonso Cuarón, 2001)

18.  In the Bedroom (Todd Field, 2001)

17.  Battle Royale (Kinji Fukasaku, 2000)

16.  The Dark Knight (Christopher Nolan, 2008)

15. Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (Peter Jackson, 2002)

14.  There Will Be Blood (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2007)

13.  Requiem for a Dream (Darren Aronofsky, 2000)

12.  WALL-E (Andrew Stanton, 2008)

11.  Donnie Darko (Richard Kelly, 2001)

10.  Far From Heaven (Todd Haynes, 2002)

Nostalgia never looked so lush, so heartbreaking, so eerily prescient as it does in Todd Haynes’ “Far From Heaven.”  The Douglas Sirk fifties melodrama as filmed by cinematographer Edward Lachman, performed by Julianne Moore and Dennis Haysbert — simply devastating as would-be lovers in an unforgiving era — and directed by Mr. Haynes is too smart to be too sentimental and too beautiful not to lose yourself in.

9.  28 Days Later (Danny Boyle, 2002)

Nihilistic and nightmarish, “28 Days Later” is Danny Boyle’s best film of the decade.  As lovely a piece of digital cinema as it is terrifying, “28 Days Later” haunts you long after its final image slowly disappears from the screen.

8. Wet Hot American Summer (David Wain, 2001)

Funnier on subsequent viewings, “Wet Hot American Summer” is proof positive that someone out there in America was watching those seemingly endless showings of “Meatballs” and other terrible late seventies, early eighties movies that cable TV just never seemed to get enough of these last couple of decades and taking notes.  Writers Michael Showalter (MTV’s “The State”) and David Wain prove good parody or satire need not be as obvious as the Wayne brothers insist on making it.  Now, if you excuse me, I have to fondle this sweater.

7.  No Country for Old Men (Joel and Ethan Coen, 2007)

Widescreen images haven’t looked this terrifying or foreboding since Stanley Kubrick’s “The Shining.”  The vast images in “No Country for Old Men” hold only the promise of violence removed from spiritual  or religious redemption.  Recalling the western tales of Fenimore Cooper’s “Leatherstocking” stories and the violence of Peckinpah, “No Country for Old Men” is as stark as it is unforgiving and relentless.

6.  A History of Violence (David Cronenberg, 2005)

The article directly preceding the word “violence” in the title is quite key to describing how David Cronenberg treats the topic in his suberb and ultimately unsettling look at how one man tries to reinvent himself as an American everyman.  The film itself is as much an indictment of Tom Stahl’s attempt at rural domesticity as it is a survey of it.  Either way, “A History of Violence” is as gripping and startling as Cronenberg’s best work, maybe more so.

5.  Brokeback Mountain (Ang Lee, 2005)

Nowhere near as conservative as many queer critics suggest, “Brokeback Mountain” is an interrogation of the particular, the rural gay experience.  Heath Ledger’s Ennis del Mar is a study in internalized homophobia, his stoicism and hesitation a stark contrast to the wide open spaces created by director Ang Lee and cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto.  I wish I knew how to quit it.

4. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Michel Gondry, 2004)

“The Graduate” and “Love Story” as directed by Michel Gondry, “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” is an unforgiving yet strangely gorgeous film, an unapologetic and anything but straightforward treatise on falling in love, falling out of love, and all the messy emotional nonsense to accompanies both.  Inventive, stylish, and brutally honest, for a film supposedly about forgetting, it is a one you simply cannot.

3.  The Royal Tenenbaums (Wes Anderson, 2001)

Wes Anderson’s best film, “The Royal Tenenbaums” is nearly frame for frame a perfect film.  Detailed and precise, each frame is beautiful and often heartbreaking but never too showy or inaccessible.  The wit is fast and furious, dry and memorable and the performances are all pitch perfect, particularly Gene Hackman as the Tenenbaum patriarch.  “The Royal Tenenbaums” isn’t so much about family dysfunction as it is the sometimes funny struggle for one human being to connect to another.

2. Mulholland Drive (David Lynch, 2001)

Figuring out “Mulholland Drive” is precisely besides the point.  Not since “Blue Velvet” has David Lynch captured so beautifully the idea of a town so haunted by what lurks just beneath the surface as he does in his haunting masterpiece, “Mulholland Drive.” Here, Los Angeles is the City of Dreams American mythology promises only Lynch blends that dream with nightmarish and surreal images so alluring that you only realize nearly two hours into the film that you’re unsure precisely who is who, where is where and when the dream ended and the nightmare began.

1. American Psycho (Mary Harron, 2000)

Terrifying and satirical, Mary Harron’s “American Psycho” is in many respects the film that the Bret Easton Ellis novel of the same name never quite had the chance to be.  Attacked unfairly by feminists as a misogynist text, that book never really had the opportunity to launch its full scale critique of an America so enraptured with short term greed, Wall Street worship, materialism, brand names, the objectification of women.  It matters not as Harron’s “American Psycho” does a beautiful job mixing satire with horror, the horrors of realizing that “monsters are real” and they are us.

"(500) Days of Summer"

The first decade of the 21^st century enters its waning days.  The proverbial curtain prepares to close.  But, before we move onto much more provocative lists such as the requisite ‘Best of the Decade,” we have 2009 to contend with first.

This year saw the stark nihilism of Zach Snyder’s “Watchmen” adaptation, J.J. Abrams’ spectacular reinvention of “Star Trek,” Sam Raimi’s delightfully wicked return to horror with “Drag Me to Hell,” French filmmaker Claire Denis’ achingly beautiful family drama “35 Shots of Rum” and general awfulness that was “Transformers: Revenge of Very Loud Noises,” Beyonce in “Obsessed,” and “Twilight: Are You F*%king Kidding Me?”  What follows is my own list of the top ten films of the year.

10.  Avatar

“Terminator,” “Aliens,” “The Abyss,” “Terminator 2,” “Titanic,” and now, with his visually mesmorizing “Avatar,” James Cameron continues to raise the filmmaking bar.  It cannot and should not be ignored, even if it were possible to do so.

"Avatar"

9.  Burma VJ

Early in the stirring documentary, “Burma VJ,” a voice describes life in present day Burma.  He explains how the military junta assumed control of his country in 1989 in a military coup d’état.  Declaring martial law, the government opened fire on student protestors, killing thousands.  Since then, he tells us, the people of Burma live in fear, having seen political opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi placed under house arrest for the crime of winning the election in 1990.  Though they want to desperately, no one voices dissent, knowing the government watches their every move and monitors their every conversation.

Director Anders Østergaard assembles footage smuggled out of Burma during 2007 filmed by a group of undercover journalists to create “Burma VJ,” a documentary about the moment two years ago when the Burmese monks led a peaceful protest against the military junta and its treatment of its people.  “Burma VJ” is an exercise in democracy, showing the world a place where cameras are strictly verboten.  To see these brave journalists deciding to show the world Burma is commendable.  To see Burma in “Burma VJ” is absolutely terrifying.

"Burma VJ"

8.  Fantastic Mr. Fox

Wes Anderson’s best film since “The Royal Tenenbaums,” the animated “Fantastic Mr. Fox” is a delightful adaptation of Roald Dahl’s classic children’s book.  Voiced by the likes of George Clooney, Meryl Streep, Bill Murray, Jason Schwartzman, Willem Dafoe, Owen Wilson, and Michael Gambdon and with beautifully composed shots, the film is as charming and fantastic as its title character.

"Fantastic Mr. Fox"

7.  Precious

Mo’nique, Mo’nique, Mo’nique.  Easily one of the best performances of the year, Mo’nique is equal parts terrifying and compelling as woman mentally, physically, and sexually abusive to her daughter.  The moment where she asks to hold her daughter Precious’ newborn baby for the first time, a cigarette dangling in one hand, a remote in the other, you know whatever happens next will not end well.

It is one of several such moments in “Precious” where bad things happen.  Director Lee Daniels occasionally betrays his material when his shots are too slick for the grittiness of the story.  Still, the performances here, especially Gabourey Sidibe as the title character, are phenomenal.  Smart enough to avoid sentimentalism, “Precious” will haunt you long after the end credits roll.

"Precious"

6.  The Hurt Locker

In the opening moments of “The Hurt Locker,” director Kathryn Bigelow sets up one of the most intense moments of the year as a soldier dressed in a special suit prepares to disarm an improvised explosive device on the empty streets of Iraq.  An exercise in suspense, the bomb eventually detonates.  Bigelow draws out the explosion with shots of the rocks on the ground slowly flying into the air, her camera slowing down to capture the rust and dirt coming loose off a nearby car.  Her direction precise and revealing, Ms. Bigelow has made a movie less about the politics of the Iraq War than a film about what propels a person to put themselves in extremely perilous and dangerous situations, here specializing in the disarming of crude improvised explosive devices.  Debate the merits of the decision to invade Iraq all you want.  “The Hurt Locker” is about what happens once we’re there.

"The Hurt Locker"

5.  Inglorious Basterds

The “Revenge of the Giant Face” sequence alone in “Inglorious Basterds,” the sequence where as thousands of Naziis, including Hitler and Joseph Goebbels attend a screening of the new Nazi propaganda film, “A Nation’s Pride,” warrants repeated viewings.  Here, a close-up of Melanie Laurent’s giant face appears on screen, laughing as fire begins to engulf the theater.  Her revenge at long last executed, the image of Shosanna’s giant face is mesmerizing, largely because you’re aware that Quentin Tarantino has spent considerable time thinking about that image, what it might mean to have Hitler and Goebbels—the man in charge of filmmaking under the Nazi regime— in the same room as that image.  The moment and its meaning, intended or otherwise, is one of many carefully constructed and brilliantly executed moments in “Inglorious Basterds,” Tarantino’s best film since “Pulp Fiction.”

"Inglorious Basterds"

4.  Where the Wild Things Are

With “Where the Wild Things Are,” Spike Jonze has delivered a brilliant fairy tale for children and grownups alike, a lovely and scary reminder of just how fascinating and terrifying the world can be as we grow up.

"Where the Wild Things Are"

3. District 9

In his fantastic “Star Trek” reboot earlier this summer, director JJ Abrams gave us an optimistic science fiction film, one that saw promise and hope for the future.  At summer’s end, “District 9” offered something else, something much more unforgiving. Smartly written and intensely directed, “District 9” is an alien invasion film with dashes of Cronenberg.  Part action, part thriller, part political allegory “District 9” is science fiction done right.

"District 9"

2. (500) Days of Summer

Think “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” but funnier and with more references to The Smiths.   Moments after the Fox Searchlight Pictures logo disappears, an author’s note appears on screen.  It reads, “The following is a work of fiction.  Any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental.  Especially You Jenny Beckman.  Bitch.”

Jenny Beckman, thank you for breaking Marc Webb’s heart so he could write and direct one of the most sincere and honest and brutal films on love and the fallings in and out ofs that accompany it of the decade. “(500) Days of Summer,” certainly this generation’s “Love Story” or “Annie Hall,” is a story of boy meets girl but, as the narrator tells us up front, this film is not a love story.  We know.  And even though Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel are pitch perfect together, they’re not.

"(500) Days of Summer"

1.  A Single Man

Stylish, eloquent, and heartbreaking, Tom Ford’s exquisite adaptation of Christopher Isherwood’s “A Single Man” is as haunting as it is elegant.  Deeply felt, the film feels like a dream, its aesthetics lush and graceful, its narrative poignant and well told.  Set in early sixties Los Angeles, the story of a 52-year British professor (Colin Firth) who suddenly loses his partner of sixteen years in a car accident, “A Simple Man” might easily have been a much more simplistic melodrama, a mere tale of repression in an era fearful of communists and the like.  Instead, Ford, in his directorial debut, mines the existential and Colin Firth is simply devastating as a man blindsided by sudden loss and the task of navigating life’s rich absurdities, contradictions, and enticements.

Firth delivers the performance of his career and Julianne Moore as his best friend and confidante, Charley, is a divine presence.  “A Single Man” is more than its marvelous performances; it is a film about the individual and the journey to make some sense of it all.   And, oh what a beautiful film Tom Ford has made of it.

"A Single Man"

Kate Hudson stars in Rob Marshall's new musical, "Nine."

“Nine” has precisely one truly great moment in it and that moment comes late in the film when a vivacious Kate Hudson bursts into a performance of “Cinema Italiano.”

“I love the cinema Italiano,” sings Stephanie (Ms. Hudson), an American fashion journalist in director Rob Marshall’s new musical “Nine, a film that wants desperately to be better than it actually is.  For most of “Nine,” Marshall works overtime to convince us that his project exists as a labor of immense love for Italian cinema.

And, for most of “Nine,” his efforts come up short of persuasive or compelling.

That is shame because only a few short months ago the mere idea of putting actor Daniel Day Lewis (“There Will Be Blood,” “Gangs of New York”) in a musical helmed by the director of “Chicago” sounded nothing less than tantalizing.  Because, as we know, Lewis is especially known as an actor who carefully chooses which projects he undertakes.

Here, he plays Guido Contini, a famous Italian director in the mold of Fellini.  The film tells us that Contini’s films have defined Italy as such for much of the world.  It also tells us early on that Contini is suffering something of a professional and existentialist crisis as he prepares to write his next film, an epic aptly named “Italia!”

The problem for Contini is that he has no idea what to write exactly.  Moreover, he lacks inspiration for a story; his muse, actress Claudia (Nicole Kidman) is nowhere around, his mistress Carla (Penelope Cruz) wants very much to serve as inspiration for his next project, perhaps too much as Contini seems increasingly turned off by her growing attachment to him, and his dead Mamma (Sophia Loren) seems to haunt his every decision.

Yes, Senor Contini is a man with woman troubles.  His costume designer Lili (Judi Dench) acts as a sort of mother figure, doing her best to keep the philandering director in line while finding herself charmed by the auteur, as well.  His wife (Marion Cotillard) once acted in the director’s films but now spends most of her time waiting for him to return home.

Based on the popular play of the same name, “Nine” really wants you to feel for Contini and his plight.

It is difficult to oblige.

The opening number has the various women in Contini’s life on display and expertly choreographed.  Where the film wants us to empathize with Contini and his predicament, it never quite manages to convince anyone really paying attention that Contini, the man we’re supposed to care about, is actually worth caring about.

In its way, “Nine” tries to make itself about art and what makes film, well, film.  But, this film is very boring in its responses and only rarely interesting in asking its questions.  It only ever really manages to present Contini as a deeply flawed man, a philanderer but never really anything more interesting than that.  We never know much about his work except that it seems to mirror the work of Italian director Federico Fellini.  “Nine” is disinterested such matters, spending much of its time focusing on Contini moving from woman to woman as he tries to make sense of their presence in his life.  What he learns from this—largely seen in the musical numbers that appear on screen— supposedly guides the film he ultimately makes by the film’s conclusion but what happens in between oscillates between boring and predictable.

The musical numbers, while generally lovely eye candy, are mostly forgettable save for the moment Hudson takes to the stage.  Her performance—yep, that’s her voice— is a breath of fresh air in an otherwise serviceable film, one that seems designed to trick unsuspecting Oscar voters into believing they’ve just been razzled and dazzled.  Only here does Marshall’s camera come alive as he recreates a fashion runway show where Hudson’s character declares her love for Italian cinema in a way that the film itself only seems capable of doing with its hollow declarations and lush images of Daniel Day Lewis by the Italian seaside.

“Nine” seems not to know what exactly it is or what it wants to say.  There is little justification for the musical numbers except that the film is based on a musical.  Are those numbers in Contini’s mind or the mind’s of other characters?  Is that moment where Contini’s wife belts out her emotional rebuttal in her mind or his?  Shouldn’t we know?

We’re never sure with “Nine” and you might find yourself not really caring either way.

Pop star Fergie, ahem, Stacy Ferguson, appears in the film as a scantily clad, sultry whore from Contini’s memories as a sexually curious adolescent boy.  Weirdly, the moment comes and goes, no real electricity or excitement.

The same is true for “Nine.”

Grade: C