Viggo Mortensen is a study in contradictions: rugged and undeniably virile, and yet thoroughly and irresistibly sensitive; the kind of man movie stars are made from, but seemingly more satisfied in a more subdued role in a smaller film. Appropriately, his latest film is both a post-apocalyptic epic and a profound character study; The Road is an adaptation of the acclaimed Cormac McCarthy novel of the same name, and Viggo plays its main character, a father desperately trying to protect his son from an unhospitable world, both physically and emotionally.

Cinematical recently sat down with Mortensen at the film's press day to discuss his work in the film, which was directed by John Hillcoat (The Proposition). In addition to talking about navigating an unforgiving landscape, he discussed the challenges of balancing fealty to source material and simply making a fulfilling movie, and revealed a few of his own fears and insecurities when facing the prospect of sustaining a career both as a movie star and character actor, often at the same time.

You can read our interview with director John Hillcoat over here.

Cinematical: Given the richness of the source material and the familiarity that audiences will have with it, do you make an effort to draw upon the text for your character, or do you have to divorce yourself from it and focus on what's in the script?

Outside of the established and expanding franchises for book series like Harry Potter and Twilight, there don't seem to be a whole lot of literary works that audiences are just dying to see adapted – except perhaps for The Road. Remarkably, Cormac McCarthy's remarkable 2006 story of a father and son making their way across a post-apocalyptic landscape has been successfully adapted for the screen by director John Hillcoat, who eschewed 2012-style spectacle in favor of a more harrowing and humanistic portrait of two people surviving in the harshest possible environment.

Cinematical recently spoke to Hillcoat at the film's Los Angeles press day, where he was wrapping up a long afternoon of roundtables and one-on-one interviews. Thankfully, he rallied for one more short conversation about The Road, and in addition to talking about the challenges of bringing McCarthy's words to life, he spoke about conceiving the scope of the film, and finding the right faces to fill its damaged landscape.

Cinematical: You obviously began with extremely rich source material when starting to adapt The Road. What was the thing you knew you had to get right and then everything else would sort of fall into place?

Read Part One of this interview right here

When Judd Apatow's latest film, Funny People, was announced, many critics and audiences hailed it – even before they saw it – not only as an evolution of the filmmaker's style, but a return to the kind of drama-laced comedy that flourished in the 1980s and early '90s thanks to folks like Cameron Crowe and James L. Brooks. When it was released, the film more than satisfied those expectations, offering an unflinching but frequently hilarious portrait of an A-list comedian rediscovering himself, but there seemed to be a sense that audiences knew themselves less well than they felt like they knew the film's main character, resulting in a less enthusiastic response than perhaps even they expected.

The film arrives on Blu-ray this week, offering what is indisputably the most complete and comprehensive look behind the scenes at a comedy ever produced, and offers audiences a second chance to check out Apatow's most meaningful and resonant work to date. Cinematical got a chance to catch up with the writer-director via telephone to discuss the contents of the expansive, 2-Disc Collector's Edition; in the second part of our chat, Apatow talks about precisely what made the movie so personal for him, and offers a few insights about its place in his growing body of work, and its potential influence on his future films (including a Harry Potter movie, maybe?).

Cinematical: With or without talking to you at the time of the film's release, people seemed to assume that this was a very personal film, I think because it was more serious than your previous work. Was it really personal, and if so in what way or why?

Personally speaking, I've been a fan of Jason Schwartzman since he and writer-director Wes Anderson collaborated on Rushmore and created what I still think is a definitive portrait of the beautiful torment of teenage life. While of course Anderson and co-writer Owen Wilson conceived the ideas, Schwartzman fleshed them out both literally and emotionally, offering a character that was weird and idiosyncratic but also remarkably relatable, not the least of which because it seemed like the actor was going through many of the same things as his on screen counterpart.

Eleven years later, Schwartzman has matured into one of the most versatile and interesting actors in Hollywood, even if, as he himself puts it, he isn't yet able to "get a part like someone can order a pizza." His latest film reunites him with Anderson for the fourth time, playing another kid who's growing up way too fast in Fantastic Mr. Fox. In addition to talking about tackling another coming of age story, Schwartzman discusses his own Hollywood story, and offers a few insights about the interesting filmmakers with whom he works so frequently, and so closely.

Cinematical: You've worked with a number of filmmakers, such as Sofia Coppola and David O. Russell, who have very specific visions for their films. How is Wes different, whether it was just on Fantastic Mr. Fox or in general, that makes your collaboration more satisfying?

Funny People was the latest in Judd Apatow's ongoing series of summer comedies, but it was anything but a typical summer comedy: following a successful comedian (played by Apatow's longtime friend Adam Sandler) who reflects on his life after discovering he's going to die, the film offered lots of humor but with decidedly heavier themes lurking beneath the yuks. The film debuts on Blu-ray in a 2-Disc Collector's Edition next week, and the contents are amazing, showing how Apatow combined lighthearted fare with more serious ideas in the service of exploring something substantive.

Cinematical was lucky enough to catch up with Apatow via telephone one recent morning to discuss the process of putting together the film's home video iteration. In addition to discussing the bonus materials, extras, featurettes, and a documentary that's the most thorough and thoughtful ever produced about a comedy production, Apatow talked about finding the right ending for his magnum opus, discovering and deconstructing the process of producing laughs, and front-loading the film's universe with outside content about the supporting characters.

Cinematical: One of the ideas highlighted in the Blu-ray bonus materials was the fact that you knew this was going in a different direction than your previous films. Even knowing that while you were making it, were you surprised by the reactions of audiences and critics when it was released? Or does it matter?

Carla Gugino has spent the better part of the last decade playing some of the most complicated and interesting female characters in Hollywood. After early roles in lighthearted fare like Son in Law, she played an appropriately combative counterpart for Michael J. Fox's deputy Mayor on Spin City before appearing in Wayne Wang's The Center of the World as a troubled seductress, Robert Rodriguez' Sin City as a tough-as-nails parole officer, Ridley Scott's American Gangster as Russell Crowe's exasperated ex-wife, and most recently in Zack Snyder's Watchmen as a sexpot superheroine with a pitch-black past. This month, she's acting in Sebastian Gutierrez' Women in Trouble, where she plays a porn star coming to terms with the news that she's pregnant.

Cinematical recently spoke to Gugino at the film's Los Angeles press day, where in between pointing out some of the bruises she earned while shooting Zack Snyder's Watchmen follow-up, Sucker Punch, she offered a few insights into her character in Women in Trouble.

Cinematical: What immediately jumped out to me about Elektra is that even though she's at her own crossroads in Women in Trouble, she seems to have the most certainty of the characters about who she is.

New York's Museum of Modern Art is hosting a retrospective for Tim Burton that spans the artist's career so far, from doodles on paper, Polaroids, sketches, full-blown paintings, sculptures, and, of course, movies. The MoMA will be showing 14 of his films, and Burton himself curated a collection of films that inspired him, aptly titled "The Lurid Beauty of Monsters." Burton was on hand to talk to the press, comparing his joy at the show to "an out-of-body experience." He said, "In my life, I've had many surreal, great things happen -- meeting my idol, Vincent Price; being able to make movies; and this one, I think, tops it in the sense that it's the most amazing and surreal, and that's what you look for in life, is these great and incredible [experiences]."

The MoMA's Ron Magliozzi, Assistant Curator, and Jenny He, Curatorial Assistant, Department of Film, worked feverishly to uncover work from the artist's 27-year career, even touring his house to find art for the show. Burton also created seven new statues for the exhibit.

The show opens November 22nd and ends April 26th, 2010. You can see a selection of the art on display in the gallery below.

Cinematical: What's the most personal piece in the collection for you?

Tim Burton: Well, it could be any of a number because I noticed the ones that freaked me out so much that I can't look at, which is a lot of it, I think it's a lot of that early stuff. Stuff that I didn't even know I had. I don't even know where they found some of that really early stuff. 'Cause it's, as they [Ron Magliozzi and Jenny He] pointed out, it was all just kind of personal and private, so there's a lot of that in there. Mainly, the early stuff, I'd say. Stuff that – I don't know where you actually found stuff that I actually got decent grades on! Because I don't remember that at all! [Laughs]

While it came as little surprise to the fans of Stephenie Meyers' original books, the success of Twilight caught Hollywood and the rest of the world by storm when the first adaptation arrived in theaters late last year. A big part of the credit for the movie's crossover success must be attributed to screenwriter Melissa Rosenberg, who rendered the romance of Bella and Edward in dimensions that more than die-hards (or more accurately, Twi-hards) could understand and appreciate.

The Twilight sequel New Moon comes to theaters next Friday and offers even more tortured teenage romance than before, as well as a wealth of mythology about vampires, werewolves and other monsters that inhabit the series' supernatural universe. Cinematical recently spoke to screenwriter Rosenberg at the film's press day in Los Angeles; in addition to discussing the process of putting together a satisfying sequel, she talked about subjecting Bella to the universal disappointment of a bad break-up, and examined what audiences might take away from this latest installment in the series.

Cinematical: Is there an emotional core or some central theme that was guiding you through writing New Moon, or do you see this more as an installment in a larger narrative?

Whether as a fast-talking high schooler in a film noir (Brick) or a disfigured soldier in a big budget blockbuster (G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra), Joseph Gordon-Levitt has proven himself to be one of the most talented young actors. His new movie, Uncertainty, takes the viewer on a journey into two different worlds, where a flip of a coin takes a young couple (Gordon-Levitt and Lynn Collins) into an innocuous visit to her family and decisions about their future and another takes them into a strange criminal underworld where everyone is after a cell phone they found in a cab. Directed by David Siegel and Scott McGehee, Uncertainty was filmed on the fly with hand-held cameras in S16m and HD as the couple race towards their different futures. In this interview, we discuss the freedom of improvising within a structured world, his favorite movies, and what he can't say about G.I. Joe sequels or Christopher Nolan's Inception.

Cinematical: Can you discuss the beginning of the movie a bit? I was confused if it was symbolic or literal or what.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt: What do you think was happening?

Cinematical: Well, I went back and I watched it again and wasn't sure.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt: I don't want to be evasive or anything... You know, it's the kind of movie that's meant to stimulate a conversation or provoke your own creative thoughts about it, so I hesitate to say, "Well, what it means is blah blah blah." First of all, because it means something different to everybody. And second of all, I would never want anybody to say, "Well, I read an interview where the actor said that it means blah blah blah, so it means that and it doesn't mean anything else. 'Cause to me that's the beauty of movies, is that it can mean really whatever you want. The act of watching a movie, I think, is a creative act; it's not just input. All of us, as audience members, we're telling the story the way that we see it.

We've already explored the history of 2012 here on Cinematical and what you need to know to see the movie (hint: the world might blow up!), but here's what 2012 stars John Cusack, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Thandie Newton, and Woody Harrelson and director Roland Emmerich have to say about the end of the world. Do they believe the world will end with a whimper or a bang, T. S. Eliot-style? Will we go out in fire or in ice? Do they even believe the world will end in 2012? Let's find out.

Roland Emmerich: It's always great if you find some sort of belief people have and put it in your movies, as fantastic as they may be. For example, Independence Day, I used Area 51 and centered my whole story around Area 51 because I found out in my research that people really believed in it. And in this movie, as we discovered the phenomenon of 2012, because some culture, the Mayas, gave the end of the world a date. An exact date. The 21st of December, 2012. And that's just so incredible and so interesting that a lot of people are fascinated by it and there's believers; there's people like you [who] just find it fascinating. I hope it will not happen. But when you research it a little bit deeper, you kind of find a lot of other cultures [that] believe the same thing. They only don't put an exact date to it, but they have other predictions which all point to 2012. It's quite eerie...

If there's a thin line between confidence and arrogance, Ti West straddles it. Not unlike many of the characteristics ascribed to his films, however, that's a compliment rather than a criticism: his sense of self-worth as a filmmaker is predicated on personal responsibility, and because he participates in the writing, directing and editing of his films (among other duties), he is eager to take the credit, or blame, for the end result, which is why he's insistent – or, as he admits, "a little difficult" – about the fact that he wants what makes it to the screen to be his vision rather than the result of test-marketing or some other form of studio interference.

The House of the Devil is his latest film, and thankfully it arrives in theaters this week unimpeded by any such changes. Cinematical recently sat down with West at a Los Angeles press day for a short one-on-one discussion of the film, which follows a college sophomore (Jocelin Donahue) who gets more than she bargains for when a lucrative babysitting job turns into a night of abject terror. In addition to discussing the film's note-perfect recreation of 1980s horror conventions, not to mention period details, West talked about striking a balance between mundane boredom and mortifying terror, and finally, learning lessons even from lackluster filmmaking experiences.

Cinematical: How did this evolve, and how did you develop the aesthetic for House of the Devil? It's an incredibly faithful recreation of a 1980s horror movie.

The MacManus brothers are back with guns blazing in the long-awaited sequel to The Boondock Saints. The Saints are living in Ireland with dear old dad (Billy Connolly) when they get word a priest in Boston has been killed in a way that sets them up to be the fall guys. Long-haired and bearded from the Irish winters, they shed their hair (and their clothes) to head back to Beantown to set things straight. They're joined by a new Saint, Romeo (Clifton Collins Jr. with a sweet mullet), along with the trio of cops from the first movie. And although the unforgettable FBI Special Agent Paul Smecker (Willem Dafoe) is nowhere to be found, Special Agent Eunice Bloom (Julie Benz) is on the case, full of piss and vinegar just behind that sweet Southern smile.

Who's behind the murder? Why do they want to lure the boys back to Boston? You'll have to see The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day to find out. Meanwhile, Duffy spilled the beans on the legions of diehard Boondock fans, including his femme fanbase, his critics, and what he thinks women want from men these days. Read on after the jump ...

Two decades after their work on The Little Mermaid ushered in a renaissance for hand-drawn animation, directors Ron Clements and John Musker are at the forefront of a new movement to resuscitate the art form yet again. The Princess and the Frog is Disney's first non-computer animated feature film since 2003's Home on the Range, and in addition to competing artistically with Pixar's stellar roster of releases through their shared parent company, the film may ultimately serve as a test among studio executives all over Hollywood who want to see if audiences really want to watch movies where pencils and ink reclaim the place now occupied by ones and zeroes.

Given this enormous pressure, Musker and Clements seem remarkably calm, and most importantly, pragmatic about the film's potential success. Cinematical recently sat down with a small group of journalists to discuss the future of Disney's hand-drawn animation department, vis-à-vis the directors' latest film. Following a day at Disneyland and a tour of the studio's Animation Research Library, Cinematical posed questions to the filmmakers as they enter the final days before the film's release. (While the interview was conducted as a group, questions asked specifically by Cinematical questions are indicated in the transcript below.)

This is the second opportunity for you two to bring traditional animation in at Disney. Can you talk about what's different for you on this one, particularly in terms of technology allowing you to raise the bar?

According to longtime Saw editor and now first-time director Kevin Greutert, coming up with new and interesting ways to kill people is not as easy as one might imagine, especially when you've already come up with a gauntlet of gory deaths in not one but five previous films. "There's no point in trying to hide it," Greutert said in a roundtable interview in Los Angeles last week. "I think the films have this longevity because we've managed to rise to the task, somehow. But, it made me want to cry sometimes, sitting in a room, brainstorming and pounding my head against the wall. You can think of cool ways to kill people, but it still has to fit in with our story."

"It's very complicated, he insisted. "We want to always push the envelope to the end, in terms of insanity and mayhem, but if you go too far, it becomes campy or silly. It's a really tough balancing act." Ironically, Greutert is only the guy who has to bring those death traps to life; screenwriters Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan are the guys who have to actually develop and design them, making sure they're not only inventive and interesting, but that they actually reflect the personalities and storylines of the characters in each film.

Cinematical recently sat down with Dunstan and Melton to discuss Saw VI, the latest installment in the long-running horror franchise, to find out where they get those wonderful – and terrible – toys. In addition to describing their creative process, they talk about challenges of collaborating with a cast and crew filled with Saw experts, and reflect on why and how their debut on Project Greenlight didn't result in a dead end for their careers, as was the case with their predecessors.