As I start my last semester at Whitman, the terror of the fast approaching real world is looming.  I’m starting to be expected to have answers for questions such as, “What do you want to do?” or “What are you going to do for the rest of your life?”  Luckily, I can ignore the dread of my impending “jobs” and/or “decisions” by going to the movies. Here is my list of spring movies to assist with denial and procrastination:

For the Kids:  Unfortunately there is not that much coming out for the youngsters/young at heart.  Disney is continuing their live-action remakes with “Cinderella” (Mar. 13) starring Lily James as Cinderella and Cate Blanchett as the evil stepmother.  Disappointingly, “Cinderella” looks to be a cutesy remake with not much new to offer.  I am looking forward to seeing “Home” (Mar. 27) starring Jim Parsons (The Big Bang Theory) and Rihanna.  “Home” promises to be a cute animated adventure about an alien making friends with a human and a cat in order to save the world.

For the Love of God NOOOOOO!:  I have a fairly high tolerance for bad movies, but this spring I am boycotting two “major” movies.  No matter how much convincing my SpongeBob loving housemates are going to attempt, I will not pay ten bucks to see “The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water” (Feb. 6) starring Antonio Banderas.  (Come on Zorro, you used to be a stud, now you’re a villain tormenting a sponge named Bob?).  I also refuse to see “Paul Blart:  Mall Cop 2” (Apr. 17) starring Kevin James.  James is back as the portly Segway-riding Mall security guard but this time all hell breaks loose in …. Vegas …

Show Me the Money:  Spring 2015 is filled to the brim with sequels and reboots, and surprisingly, three of these films show promise.  Although not a big budget flick, “Pitch Perfect 2” (May 15) reunites the eclectic group of girls who compete against a cappella groups from around the world.  Even if the film is more of the same, The Bellas on stage are a hoot.  Moving to bigger budgets and fast cars, “Furious 7” (Apr. 3) is Paul Walker’s final movie before his untimely death last year.  “Fast Five” featured a plane chase and “Fast and Furious 6” had a tank chase.  What can Walker, Vin Diesel and The Rock absurdly chase this time?!  I am excited to find out.  The last and biggest budget sequel I am looking forward to is “Avengers 2” (May 1) starring…well everyone.  The trailers look AWESOME and suggest a battle between our favorite superheroes that could divide the group.  Mindless destructing will surely ensue but maybe Joss Whedon will throw in some heart/sentiment with the battles.

Bold First Date Movie:  How fitting, the day before Valentine’s Day opens “Fifty Shades of Grey.”  This erotic sex romp has had lots of hype, probably will be bad but still is a worthy candidate to see this spring.  So, come join me at the movies for procrastination and denial.

After passing my film orals last week, I felt confident in my film analytic abilities and was ready to tackle “Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance).” I’ve avoided this surreal and mind-bending dark comedy for weeks, but now was ready to tackle a movie that wasn’t the normal mindless entertainment. I had no idea what I was getting myself into.

The plot line of “Birdman” seems pretty basic. An aging actor, Riggan Thompson (Michael Keaton), is trying to resurrect his career after playing the title character in three “Birdman” superhero movies 20 years ago. Attempting to redefine himself as a “real” actor, Riggan heads to Broadway starring in a play he directs, produces, and adapted.

“Birdman” begins three days before the opening of the play and we see Riggan is struggling to pull the actors and his personal life together—not an easy task. Conflict and chaos abound. Costar Mike (Edward Norton) seems to be stealing the show but also is a major draw to the theater, so he cannot be fired. Laura, Riggan’s possibly pregnant girlfriend (Andrea Riseborough) is an emotional rollercoaster, and Lesley, first time Broadway actress (Naomi Watts) is entangled in a complicated relationship with Mike. Riggan’s relationship with his recovering drug addict daughter, Sam (Emma Stone) adds even more chaos to the mix. Alongside all the personal drama, Riggan’s best friend/lawyer/producer Jake (Zach Galifianakis) tries to keep Riggan sane and out of bankruptcy.

The plot line of “Birdman” has the makings of your run-of-the-mill celebrity pathos story. However, normal is not in Director Alejandro G. Iñárritu’s playbook and “Birdman” is weird to say the least. There’s a strange supernatural element present throughout the film. Keaton’s character seems to have telekinetic powers when no one is looking and spends most of the film only wearing his tighty whities (ala Walter White in the first few episodes of “Breaking Bad”). Riggan also hears the voice of his old superhero character talking to him and sees the Birdman walking next to him or sitting on the toilet going to the bathroom. The film takes a strange twist when Keaton’s character wakes up with a hangover and starts to believe he is Birdman flying everywhere and stopping mass destruction.

All of this surreal chaos would have completely ruined the movie for me had it not been for the superb acting. Keaton and Norton in particular gave stellar performances as their characters struggle with who they are both on stage and in the real world. Emma Stone’s acting was spot on and her monologues grabbed me more than her eyes, which seemed to pop out of the screen. And Zach Galifianakis played the only sane person in the movie, which totally blew me away.

After the movie ended, I sat in my seat and wondered, “What the hell did I just watch?” Given time to process what happened in “Birdman,” I think I liked it more, but am not convinced I enjoyed it. As I already mentioned, the acting is hands down terrific. The cinematographer, Emmanuel Lubezki, won an Oscar for “Gravity”. He seemed to shoot the film in one take giving the feeling of a play. And the musical score featuring a single drummer made my toes tap.

Even with everything I liked about “Birdman,” the film is difficult to recommend. The movie seemed to have the temperament of Riggan’s girlfriend who constantly switches from a good mood to a bad move then all of a sudden slaps you in the face for no apparent reason. To enjoy the movie, you really need to be in the mindset where you can handle the crazy ride as well as Keaton occasionally screeching like a bird. So if you are up for a dark comedy that eventually rewards the audience after many surreal adversaries, “Birdman” is exactly the move to see.

With Thanksgiving Break officially over, I can finally get into the holiday spirit by listening to Christmas music like the Drifters “I’m Dreaming of a White Christmas” or Bing Crosby crooning “I’ll Be Home for Christmas” and watching my favorite holiday movies. Most people have movies they watch every year, and I am no exception. I could rattle off the usual suspects like “Miracle on 34th Street,” “It’s a Wonderful Life” or “White Christmas,” but those holiday classics are simply not my favorites. Here is a list of my top five holiday movies that I watch almost every year because of their humor and entertainment:

5) “Elf”: Although “Elf” may not be a yearly holiday staple, I cannot help but laugh every time Will Ferrell attempts to reconnect with his father. Just seeing Ferrell, a grown man, sitting on the lap of his adopted father, an elf played by Bob Newhart, makes me chuckle. This humor filled adventure is fun for the whole family, and even I get over-the-top excited when I hear that Santa is coming!

4) “Love Actually”: Maybe this is not the strongest work of cinema. Yes, the film is a bit too sappy and has too many storylines with too many actors, but I actually love “Love Actually.” One of my favorite scenes from any movie is when the prime minister, played by Hugh Grant, dances and shakes his butt through 10 Downing Street ot hthe Pointer Sister’s “Jump.” As for the rest of the film, I recommend trying not to read too far into what is actually happening in the storyline. Simply sit back and enjoy some of my favorite actors falling in love in over-dramatic (and cliché) ways. With so many stories, you are bound to connect or relate to someone. Make sure to enjoy Bill Nighy playing a washed-up singer who speaks his mind as he attempts to make a comeback with a new single to hopefully top the charts.

3) “The Santa Clause”: Starring Tim Allen, “The Santa Clause” movie is a Christmas tradition in my household (I still watch it on cassette but might upgrade to DVD this year). Every Christmas after a big meal, my family sits down to watch Allen reluctantly accept the position of Santa Clause after he accidentally makes the old Santa fall off his roof (and presumably die). Every year Tim Allen’s self-assured character, who believes he is never wrong and makes snarky comments to everyone, gets funnier and funnier. The humor and sense of family instilled in “The Santa Clause” brings my family back to the film year after year. Forget the sequels… to put it bluntly, they suck.

2) “Arthur Christmas”: I don’t understand why this film hasn’t become a classic with more households. This beautifully animated Aardman Animation and Sony Pictures Animation movie follows the Clause family on a Christmas Eve adventure as the youngest Clause son tries to deliver the last gift to a girl who has been missed. “Arthur Christmas” has everything you could want in a holiday movie: humor, sentimentality, clashing of the new versus old traditions and an all-star voice cast that includes James McAvoy, Hugh Laurie and my favorite, Bill Nighy.

1) “Die Hard”: John McClane kicking ass is a must see to get in the holiday spirit! In fact, I couldn’t wait until winter break, so I watch it the Friday after Thanksgiving (actually, I was trying to avoid doing the work my professors assigned over the break). Hands down the best edition in the “Die Hard” franchise, we are introduced to John McClane played by Bruce Willis, who saves the day on Christmas Eve. Willis is perfect as the smartassed and lethal New York cop who takes down a group of thieves holding his estranged wife and company hostage. Alan Rickman plays the villain Hans Gruber, one of my all-time favorite movie villains. I still tense up whenever I see McClane trying to climb through the elevator shaft.

Other holiday movies I enjoy include “Home Alone,” “A Muppets Christmas Carol,” “How the Grinch Stole Christmas” and “Lethal Weapon” (why not?). The top five films listed simply are the ones I keep coming back to year after year for holiday cheer. The humor and sense of family throughout all the films serves as the leading role in a movie being worthy of joining my holiday traditions. Watching ”The Santa Clause,” released in 1994, has been a family tradition as far back as I can remember, and I don’t foresee that changing anytime soon. This holiday season, if you and your family are looking for a movie to watch while curled up on the sofa, why not take a chance on one of my top five “traditional” holiday films? Enjoy!+

Illustration by Sophie Cooper-Ellis.

After a long pre-holiday week, nothing seemed better than heading to the movie theater for some mindless entertainment. “Dumb and Dumber To” was certain to kill off a few brain cells but seemed like a worthy choice.  Sure, I was only one year old when the first “Dumb and Dumber” came out in 1994, but my middle school recollection of the mindless duo seemed like a perfect fit. Unfortunately and surprisingly, “Dumb and Dumber To” waited too long and was filled with unfunny jokes making the sequel just too dumb.

“Dumb and Dumber To” is set 20 years after the first installment, identical to the amount of time elapsed between films. We pick up with the characters when Harry (Jeff Daniels) comes to meet Lloyd (Jim Carrey) at a psychiatric clinic where Lloyd has been catatonic/immobile/unresponsive for the past two decades. Suddenly Lloyd pops out of his wheelchair and exclaims he has been faking his illness the whole time. The “boys” laugh at the joke and begin a road trip to find Harry’s newly discovered daughter, Penny (Rachel Melvin), so she can give Harry a kidney.

Lloyd creepily becomes enamored with Penny after seeing a photo of her. During their journey, Harry and Lloyd are entrusted with a billion-dollar invention that is supposed to change mankind. The two must take the invention to a KEN talk (supposed to be a funnier version of a TED talk). Oh, and also, Rob Riggle’s multiple characters are trying to kill the two nitwits. Just like the original movie, the nonsensical plot is second to the more prominent gags and stupid jokes.

Normally, I am a fan of lowbrow comedies. “Something About Mary,” Wedding Crashers” and “Anchorman” crack me up every time I watch them. I even laughed during the first “Dumb and Dumber.”  Unfortunately, “Dumb and Dumber To” was just not funny.

One major problem was the acting. The former master of physical comedy, Jim Carrey, has been having trouble connecting with audiences in his more recent films such as “Kick Ass 2” and “The Incredible Burt Wonderstone.” Audiences seem to be growing tired of Carrey’s particular brand of physical humor. The Farrelly Bros seemed to waste Carrey’s talents on bad jokes and merely focused on his stale bowl-cut hairstyle, feeding him stale jokes.

The dumber half fared no better. Jeff Daniels seemed out of place in his ratty, skin-tight t-shirt. I am hooked on Daniels’ more serious performance in “The Newsroom,” and seeing him reverting back to constantly exposing his butt crack or having flashbacks changing Carrey’s diaper in the psychiatric facility makes Daniels’ performance seem weak and such a waste of talent. The plethora of butt jokes made waiting 20 years for this slapstick comedy sequel disappointing.

The sequel to 1994’s “Dumb and Dumber” is the latest in a string of long-awaited sequels coming out of Hollywood. Last year “300: Rise of an Empire” came out seven years after the original. Other memorable sequels coming years after their predecessors include “Men in Black 3” (10 years), “Indiana Jones: Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” (20 years) and “Tron: Legacy” (28 years). Soon “Independence Day 2” (20 years) and “Jurassic World” (14 years) will be entering the theaters. None of the sequels listed are as good as the originals, but they still made money. “Dumb and Dumber To” is no exception. Already, the unfunny film is tracking to close around 100 million dollars domestically and should be able to match the original’s 247 million dollar worldwide gross.

The passage of time was a big factor hindering the movie’ success. By waiting so many years to make a sequel, filmmakers lose their original audiences. Loyal fans have had years to move on from the humor that made the original movies memorable or have spent years becoming nostalgic over the original film. Sequels are an uphill battle to reconnect with audiences who fell in and out of love after so many years. Sure, I was drawn in by the nostalgia factor for “Dumb and Dumber To,” and even though I couldn’t help but chuckle a few times, my favorite part of the film was the ending credits of the highlights from the first film 20 years ago. Those six enjoyable minutes left me with over an hour and 40 minutes of wanting to leave the theater.

Illustration by Sophie Cooper-Ellis.

I am a huge fan of movies that explore the final frontier: space. My voyages to unknown worlds in “Star Trek” and going to infinity and beyond in “2001: A Space Odyssey” (or maybe that was “Toy Story”) left me chomping at the bit for Christopher Nolan’s newest film, “Interstellar.”” Nolan, who previously directed critically acclaimed projects like the Batman Trilogy and “Inception,” did not disappoint when it came to the scale of the movie.

“Interstellar’s” space scenes were spectacular and visually stunning. Unfortunately, the first hour of the film was on the decaying Earth before they finally escaped to a spectacular depiction of space. Maybe I had my hopes set too high or three hours is too long for a movie, but after seeing “Interstellar,” I walked out of the movie feeling amazed yet slightly disappointed from watching a movie that was good, not great.

To briefly summarize the plot, “Interstellar” is set in the near future where overpopulation and a crop disease have nearly killed off mankind. Food has become so scarce that all humans are expected to die off within the next few decades. To save the day, an ex-pilot widower father of two, Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, two other astronauts and a cheeky, talking robot must travel through a wormhole just past Saturn. The wormhole will transport the group into a different galaxy in hopes of finding a new home for humanity. Piece of cake, right? Not exactly…

Complicated physics drives the plot of “Interstellar.” Kip Thorne, a renowned theoretical physicist, was executive producer and helped Nolan infuse actual theoretical physics principles in the plot. Nearly all of the black holes, planets, solar systems, spaceships and space travel depicted are supposed to be scientifically accurate and stunning. And these are the most interesting part of “Interstellar.” Whenever our not-so-merry band of astronauts are in space, the view is breathtaking.

Although I may have been stunned by the spectacular visuals, there were moments where I felt the physics that the film so heavily relied on was shoved aside to make way for the over-the-top sentimentality. The idea was that love between McConaughey and his 10-year-old daughter and grown-up daughter played by Jessica Chastain (they are both the same daughter but aged 20 years due to complicated physics time dilation…) actually transcends time and space.

The movie has a hard time deciding whether or not it wants to be about flashy visual effects or a love story, making it hard for me to choose which one I actually wanted. While I may have had a few issues with “Interstellar,” the film still had flashes of brilliance making it worth seeing. The filmed was made to be seen on the big screen. Nolan even filmed with special 35mm and IMAX 70mm film so that the bigger the screen you watch on, the more stunning the viewing experience will actually be.

“Interstellar” had the incredible visual depictions of space that made films such as “Gravity” and “2001: A Space Odyssey” films to be experienced in theaters, and the bigger screen the better. I recommend waiting until Thanksgiving to see “Interstellar” on the big IMAX screens where the visuals can be properly appreciated.  Unfortunately, even with the great visuals, “Interstellar” tried to reach for the stars and came up just short.

Illustration by Sophie Cooper-Ellis.

After Halloween last week, I was reminded how much I hate being scared and how the horror movie genre is the worst.  Nothing (and I mean nothing) about horror films is attractive to me. When I sit down to watch a movie, I expect to enjoy the experience or get blown away, not to be terrified out of my mind. The whole sensation of being scared simply has no appeal to me.

Although I myself am a total wuss when it comes to scary movies, I decided to ask people what draws them to the horror genre. After sifting through the responses, I found that people either love or hate horror films. The reason behind both the love and the hatred was often one and the same. People who disliked horror found the films unappealing because they hated being scared or because the movies tended to be so ridiculous that they laughed at the implausibility and couldn’t get past the silliness. On the opposite side of the horror aisle, many found the absurdity of horror films and the grotesque violence alluring. One person simply loved to watch people get cut up… Not surprisingly, the vast majority of female horror fans told me to “man up” and watch more horror films. As if I should enjoy or be able to handle scary horror films because I am a guy.

An issue I have with generic horror films is the substitution of storytelling for cheap scares. My favorite “horror story” is the 2012 film, “Cabin in the Woods.” This film is a spoof of all the classic elements of a horror film: A group of friends goes to a remote and isolated location, are unable to escape an element or demon as they are picked off one by one, and a survivor or two discovers and tries to exploit the demon’s weakness in an attempt to survive. The group is also made up of the classic horror film characters: the jock, the ditzy blonde, the geek guy, the clumsy friend and the All-American girl we all root for to survive. I enjoyed “Cabin in the Woods” not for the horror or scary/grotesque elements, but because of the intelligent script and way the filmmakers mocked the core elements of the horror genre that they were using to tell the story.

Getting joy from most horror movies comes down to whether or not people enjoy having their funny bone tickled. While my favorite “horror” film doesn’t shy away from scary moments, I prefer movies that never let cheap scares overshadow the story. I simply do not relate with people who enjoy the thrill of have the crap scared out of them. I remember, as a resident assistant, taking my section to the haunted corn maze and not hiding behind the six-foot eight or the seven-foot tall residents but choosing to push my friend, and fellow resident assistant, in front of me as a shield. She claims that I screamed several times and shoved her against the wall towards the scary people.

While I may not completely agree with her version of the story, we both agree that I screamed bloody murder and was terrified … Even in “real” life, getting scared has no appeal to me. So if watching Freddy Krueger, possessed dolls and evil clowns excites you, feel free to enjoy the terrifying experience on your own. I will be staying home where the chainsaws can’t get to me and where I can still appreciate a good and funny story, watching “Oceans Eleven” for the hundredth time.

Illustration by Cooper-Ellis

After HBO’s hit show “True Blood” ended a few weeks ago, I have been suffering from withdrawal in the bloodsucker department. “Twilight” never satisfied my appetite and “Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter” sucked (in the wrong way). I hoped the recent release of “Dracula Untold” would fill the vampire void, but unfortunately I left the theater still unsatisfied and thirsting for more. OK, OK, enough of the bad vampire puns …

“Dracula Untold” opens with Prince Vlad (Luke Evans) living happily with his loving family, ruling the peaceful and tranquil Transylvania. Prince Vlad’s perfect life falls apart when the powerful Turkish army crashes Transylvania’s 10-year celebration of peace and demands that Transylvania give 1,000 boys to fight for the Turks or suffer the consequences.

Coincidentally, Prince Vlad just so happens to have been enslaved by the Turks as a boy soldier and was beaten until he became the fighting machine known throughout the world as Vlad the Impaler. Well, Vlad does not stand by and let his son (Art Parkinson) and the other 999 boys suffer as he did. More easily said than done; even Vlad the Impaler is not strong enough to take on the Turkish army. So what does he do? Ah, of course! He seeks out guidance from a vampire living high in the mountains.

Vlad explains to the nefarious vampire (Charles Dance) that he needs help in defeating the evil Turks. The vampire offers to give him superpowers, but in return Vlad must agree to drink the vampire’s blood — an off-putting task with consequences. Vlad will have an unquenchable thirst for human blood, but if he can keep himself from drinking human blood for three days, he will revert back to normal. Vlad foolishly agrees and downs a skull-full of vampire blood and turns into … COUNT DRACULA (maniacal laugh: “Muhahahaha!”).

What follows is Vlad’s acquisition of a whirlwind of magical powers: He controls bats, turns into a swirling horde of bats, has super strength, grows ‘sexy’ pointy teeth and thermal vision. Vlad struggles to keep himself from drinking human blood because everyone, even his wife (Sarah Gadon), look delicious.

The combination of Dracula’s cool new superpowers, his animalistic thirst and his aristocratic bloodline gave this film great potential. Unfortunately, the CGI effects were at times abysmal, and the movie took itself too seriously. The problem really seemed to be the disconnect between maintaining a PG-13 rating and a storyline filled with evil, blood and violence.

I mean come on, Count Dracula/Prince Vlad/Vlad the Impaler single-handedly kills hundreds of thousands of people, and no blood?! But hey, congrats on receiving that deceptive PG-13 rating.

All of the movie’s faults left me completely unfulfilled at the end of “Dracula Untold.” What’s more, the movie ends on a cliffhanger with someone ominously saying, “Let the games begin,” which is a sure hint that many sequels and monster spin-offs lie on the road ahead. The unsatisfying ending, coupled with the production and plot foibles, meant this movie neither beat out other sub-par vampire movies nor quenched my thirst for horror this Halloween season

So unless you really want to get hooked on watching a desperate aristocrat try to protect his family by doing unspeakable acts and killing hundreds of thousands of people, you might as well put a stake in it and pass on “Dracula Untold.”

Illustration by Sophie Cooper-Ellis.

This past week marked the UK return of every college student’s favorite TV show, “Downton Abbey.” You know, the classic British Masterpiece series shown on PBS, and one of the most watched drama series in the world? Okay, most 18 to 20ish year olds are not diehard fans of “Downton Abbey”. Even I considered it too highbrow and stuffy to watch. Last winter break I decided to “sophisticate myself” (the bar is pretty low), and borrowed the first three seasons from some family friends who are closer to the usual PBS intellectual demographic. Incase you were considering hunkering down and immersing yourself in British life, the rest of this article contains spoilers and content through the first few episodes of the fourth season.

My binge-watching of “Downton Abbey” got off to a slow start. The first few episodes were boring and dull. The Crawleys, aristocratic inhabitants of the Yorkshire estate called Downton Abbey, were a bunch of self-absorbed elitists who were dealing with the shocking news that the estate’s heir just died on the Titanic. The only reason I kept watching was because Maggie Smith’s (Professor McGonagall in “Harry Potter”) character was a caustic spitfire who hurled the best insults at her fellow elites. Eventually I got hooked on the relationships brewing at the Abbey, and the drama, Drama, DRAMA!! Yes, scandal, love, money troubles and war affects everyone in England, especially the rich Crawley family and their butlers, maids, cooks and workers who keep their little secrets.

I became a loyal fan and stayed current with “Downton Abbey” through the first two episodes of the fourth season, but missed the third episode. After checking out an online summary of the episode I missed, I was horrified to learn that the sweetest and kindest character was raped. Eight months have passed and I still have not watched that episode or anymore of the show. My sudden detachment from “Downton Abbey” stems from the very drama that made me love it. All television shows, especially dramas, have their ups and downs, and tend to make certain characters have “issues.” Usually, however, after a character suffers a personal disaster or crisis, a ray of hope appears and their world seems to jump back on track. Not so with the “Downton Abbey” clan. After sitting through death after death, scorned love, marriage of convenience, unwanted engagements, and money woes, the brutal rape crossed the line of entertaining drama for me, and I quit watching “Downton Abbey.”

The fifth season of “Downton Abbey” will be broadcasted in the United States in January, and I hope to convince myself that the incredible acting and storylines are worth watching some of my favorite characters get hurt. Until then, I am willing to lose my “sophisticated” viewing and will substitute “Downton Abbey” with less depressing shows like “Gotham” or “How to Get Away with Murder.” Sorry Crawleys, I am afraid the overload of negativity and unnecessary hurt may have lost you yet another member of your family, me.

Last Thursday, I was curling up on my couch with a nice glass of wine getting ready to start my Shonda Rhimes night with “Scandal” and “Grey’s Anatomy” when it dawned on me that hey, I’m drinking a glass of red wine just like Olivia Pope— she in an Armani suit with a 1991 bottle and me in sweatpants with a 2014 bottle. Sharing a glass of wine with “Scandal” got me thinking maybe there were other characters I should share a beverage with. Maybe a White Russian with The Dude while watching “The Big Lebowski.” Pretty soon I was researching shows with actors drinking, which naturally progressed to movie drinking games. This is college, right?

The Dude is the man not only for sharing a drink, but also for kicking off a movie drinking game night. Each player must drink a White Russian every time The Dude drinks one. Here are a couple of games with rules that made me chuckle:

“Lord of the Rings”: Drink every time Frodo looks like he is jizzing himself.

“Top Gun: Drink every time there is a homoerotic look shared between two actors.

“Zoolander”: Drink every time Will Ferrell looks like his dog.

“Archer”: Drink every time Archer references Burt Reynolds.

“Dirty Dancing”: Drink every time a dancer exposes a thigh.

The possibilities were seemingly endless (and very dangerous, so always drink in moderation and look after your friends). The goal of these drinking games seems to not be about watching the movie but just to get you highly intoxicated as quickly as possible. However, in talking with friends who have partaken in these games, I found most people actually seem to enjoy the movies the further into the game they are. One person went so far to say how drinking games actually made them more conscious about what was going on in the movie as they had to pay attention to details to not break the rules. Another person, who probably had just finished participating in one such game, gave me a big bear hug and explained how the games are just a way to bring friends together to bond.

Having a drink and watching a movie or TV show is a social event that combines my favorite activities of watching shows and hanging out with friends.

This weekend you probably won’t find me taking a shot every time someone says “fuck” in “Reservoir Dogs,” but you might find me trying to convince a group of friends to share a cosmo with Carrie and the gang while watching “Sex in the City.”

Illustration by Luke Hampton

Sun’s out, shorts on, jacket ditched, finals looming and summer vacation with lots of time for movies is just around the corner. New releases coming out this summer thankfully seem interesting and filled with huge explosions and a few laughs. Here’s a brief list of the movies that have caught my eye to see this summer.

MONEY, MONEY, MONEY: With the premiere of “Iron Man 3” this week and the “Star Trek” sequel coming out over Camp Whitman (and I CANNOT WAIT to see both), I am not seeing much in the way of originality at the start of summer. Some of the biggest upcoming summer blockbusters include “Fast and Furious 6” (guilty pleasure; I loved the fifth installment),  “The Hangover Part III” (really, aren’t they all married yet?), “Man of Steel,” “Monsters University” (I’m a sucker for animated movies), “Despicable Me 2,” “Grown Ups 2” (REALLY???), “Red 2,” “The Wolverine,” “The Lone Ranger,” “Smurfs 2” (not going to happen), “300: Rise of an Empire” and “Kick Ass 2.”  With the exception of “Smurfs” and “Grown Ups,” I’m excited to see all of these movies.  That being said, the sheer number of these sequels, prequels or reboots raises a question: Has Hollywood become unoriginal? Sadly, the answer is obvious.

Mystery: Leaving the retreads, a more innovative movie coming out is “Now You See Me,” which is about a group of the world’s best magicians who pull off impossible heists and give the money to the audiences of their show. The movie sports an intriguing cast with Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Mark Ruffalo, Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman, just to name a few. And of course, who doesn’t love magic?

Eclectic and not totally made for money: For those who like movies that are offbeat and a bit out of the box, Joss Whedon’s (“The Avengers,” “Firefly” and “Buffy the Vampire Slayer”) new movie “Much Ado About Nothing” looks promising. Apparently a contemporary take on Shakespeare’s play, the movie is shot in black and white and looks to be smart comedy. The question is whether Whedon can pull off Shakespeare without his superhero gadgets and without any visual effects—I vote a hopeful yes! Another eclectic movie that shows promise is “The Way, Way Back,” a movie along the same lines as “Juno” and “Little Miss Sunshine.” “The Way, Way Back” is about the spring break trip of a 14-year-old and his unusual family. I think the movie looked cute, but I also enjoyed Chevy Chase in his vacation movies!

Although this summer’s flicks are not original or groundbreaking, they promise to be very entertaining. While I’ve only highlighted my personal favorites, there are many, MANY more action movies and comedies such as “World War Z,” “The Internship,” “Elysium” and several more indie movies coming out. Looks like I’ll be a mole for many hours this summer. Enjoy the movies!