During the past several weeks, numerous chapters of the Occupy movement have been evicted from the spaces they have been inhabiting in cities around the country. Occupy Charlottesville became the latest group to experience this fate when its City-issued permit to occupy Lee Park expired last night. Yet prior to this happening, the group decided it would carry on its protest against economic inequality in George Rogers Clark Park across from the Red Roof Inn on West Main Street.

This plan was short-circuited, however, when Michael Strine, University executive vice president and chief operating officer, sent a letter to the group pointing out that the University owns the park and will not allow an encampment to exist there. Although the administration’s decision may re-enforce the Occupy movement’s perception of the University as an “elitist” institution, it was the right response to ensure the maintenance of a safe environment on Grounds and the avoidance of more serious conflict with protesters in the future.

There are a number of reasons why it would be inappropriate for the University to allow the occupiers to take up residence on a portion of its property. Most obviously, some of the individuals inhabiting the Occupy encampment could pose a risk to students. The protesters themselves have not harmed anyone since gathering in Lee Park in October, but an incident in which three homeless men posing as occupiers allegedly lured two teenage girls into a tent and supplied them with alcohol is a cause for concern about the movement’s ability to keep track of its members and maintain security within its own encampment.

Therefore, it would fall to the University to assume responsibility for policing the encampment so that students would not be threatened by rogue individuals or environmental hazards that could develop. Not only would this mean additional police and maintenance costs for the University, but it could also be held liable should any individual — protester, student or other community member — suffer harm as a result of the encampment. This would place an unacceptable burden on the University at a time when its resources are already stretched thin between priorities such as academic quality, financial aid and fair pay for workers. If nothing else, the segment of the Occupy movement concerned with student debt should understand that the University cannot be expected to subsidize the occupiers’ ability to protest at the expense of subsidizing low-income students’ tuition.
Finally, the University was wise to step in now and prohibit the protesters from relocating to George Rogers Clark Park so as to forestall a more heavy-handed response in the future. As the above concerns illustrate, it would be impossible for the University to support the existence of an Occupy camp on Grounds indefinitely. Therefore, it would eventually have to evict the protesters in much the same way as the City and other municipalities have done when their local chapters of the Occupy movement have become unsustainable. Because violence and disorder have arisen in some of these instances, it was better for the University to simply deny the occupiers the opportunity to establish a presence on Grounds in the first place.

Some may wonder where the Occupy movement is to go if it cannot locate itself on publicly-owned lands such as Lee Park and George Rogers Clark Park. Unfortunately for the movement, there is no appealing answer to that question. Establishing an unauthorized encampment on land which one does not own or rent is inherently unlawful, so the movement should anticipate a legal response wherever it decides to carry out its chosen form of protest. The movement may consider such civil disobedience to be justified in cases in which it is targeted toward a particular institution which it views as a central cause of the inequality it opposes. Yet while the University certainly is not a perfectly egalitarian institution, it would be a stretch to say it meets that criterion for an occupation.

As one of the physicians who co-signed the complaint against the University’s use of kittens and adult cats in pediatrics training, I want to point out that, contrary to the University spokesperson’s claims in the Nov. 28 article, “Group protests medical training on cats,” it is never necessary to use an animal for this training. Non-animal methods are actually the standard of practice.

In a survey conducted by our organization, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, we found that 94 percent of pediatrics programs use only non-animal methods in training. A large majority of pediatrics residencies use purpose-designed simulators that mimic the airway of a low-birth-weight premature newborn.

Unlike a cat or other animal, these high-tech simulators replicate human anatomy. Studies have demonstrated that those who engage in simulator-based training display great proficiency in intubation, compared with those who practice on animals.

Pediatrics residencies at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Inova Fairfax Hospital and Hospital for Children and Virginia Commonwealth University Health System in Richmond exclusively use training methods based on human anatomy. It is time for the University to join them.

John J. Pippin
Director of Academic Affairs
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine

I ALWAYS tend to think inventors are people of the past — creative minds like Edison and Ford who crafted something ambitious and made a dramatic change in our lives. Nowadays, most products are just improvements on previous ones: smaller phones, more data storage, sleeker designs and whatnot. But there are inventors out there who are still doing just what you would imagine they do — inventing.

Although inventing is a worldwide enterprise, the traits of inventors — their drive, ambition and ingenuity — are hallmarks of the American Dream. These qualities do not often take center stage, however, and exist mostly in the people quietly striving to excel.

Inventors recently got a chance to shine at the University of Virginia Entrepreneurship Cup, which was held shortly before Thanksgiving break. This annual competition is a chance for students who want to test their abilities to present to others their ideas and inventions.

It does not hurt that some hefty prize money is involved, as well. The winning team of fourth-year Commerce students Ginny Robinson and Tyler Durham, were awarded $20,000 for their invention “Memoria,” a kind of online obituary that allows loved ones to celebrate the deceased in a more personal manner than simply writing on their Facebook walls. The second-place prize of $10,000 went to first-year College student Joseph Linzon, who happens to be a friend of mine who lives on my hall. And it is Durham, Robinson and Linzon who I think truly embody what it means to be an inventor.

To better understand the people behind the inventions, I asked Robinson about her endeavor to create Memoria. “We want to make a difference,” she said. “The goal for Memoria is to help families in the grieving process remember their passed loved ones and connect with friends and relatives regardless of their geographic proximity.” Robinson said the death of a friend in high school motivated her to create Memoria.

Since he lives only a few yards from me, I have a greater understanding of Linzon. Many weeks before the competition, Linzon had me review an essay he was writing. It was here that I first learned of his invention, called Powersole.

Powersole is essentially a shoe constructed to harness the energy generated by walking to charge devices like cell phones and MP3 players. At first, I thought Powersole was a piece of fiction Linzon was using for a creative writing class. When I asked him, however, he assured me that not only was Powersole a real idea, it was also something he had already invented and had sitting on a shelf in his room. I was definitely impressed, especially considering the affluent background from which Linzon comes.

When I asked Linzon why he pushes himself to such limits to succeed, when he lacks the same monetary incentive as others, he said, “In order to derive a sense of satisfaction with my life, I feel I need to attain success on my own merit.”  His successful father, he said, is his role model, but Linzon wants to make a name for himself other than the one associated with his father’s accomplishments. Whenever Linzon was offered help in developing or presenting Powersole, he would respond simply, “I’ve got it.”

Linzon has certainly “got” something. He has a relentless drive to excel, succeed and, in his words, “empower the powerless, literally, one step at a time.” I have mentioned Linzon to others, and have been discouraged by the reaction. I have heard people say they too could make something like Powersole if they wanted. Others say Powersole is not viable because it only helps in developing nations, where cell phones and music players are scarce.

I do not think it really matters if Powersole is the perfect product or not. What matters is that Linzon, Robinson and Durham, unlike so many others, actually want to challenge themselves and their limits. They are willing to stay up late, expend their own effort and make their own connections in order to develop something they truly feel will make a positive difference in the lives of others.

With the sense of entitlement and complacency so prevalent in society today, Linzon, Robinson, Durham and those inventors who submitted work alongside them two weeks ago serve as a refreshing reminder of the values that have gotten us to where we are today. I am not saying Powersole and Memoria are going to revolutionize the world tomorrow, but the kind of attitude those inventors possess and the motivations that drive them are crucial if we as a society are to continue advancing.

Sam Novack’s column normally appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at s.novack@cavalierdaily.com.

I AM REALLY not sure what the thrill of Black Friday shopping is, but the chaotic atmosphere that surrounds the opening of stores is almost equivalent to the traffic of course selection times at the University. The only difference is that instead of lining up and camping outside of Best Buy or Walmart, we impatiently sit in front of the computer while the clock ticks toward midnight.

The situation with course selection in many ways parallels Black Friday. Because only certain things are on clearance on Black Friday, consumers tend to purchase only those select items. The high demand for these select items will result in shortages and backup; therefore, it is highly inefficient.

Furthermore, customers often do not even need those items; they only purchase them under the assumption that they are cheaper on Black Friday. The point is that people spend money on goods they really do not have to spend money on at the moment. People overspend instead of being frugal, and many do not even realize it.

Similarly, when the course selection process begins, some classes — like goods — fill up very quickly regardless of whether students need them. Certain classes or professors are in demand, and students enroll in them for that reason rather than necessity. This inhibits students who do need the classes from enrolling, and in the long run those students may be delayed in declaring or finishing their major or area requirements.

Registering for classes has restrictions. Students are limited first by the 15-credit policy and then the 17-credit policy. “The system of allowing every student to enroll in 15 credits first grew out of increasing enrollment pressures in the College of Arts & Sciences,” said Rachel Most, assistant dean and director of advising in the College. “It seems only fair to allow each student to enroll in four to five classes first, and then allow everyone to go back and add another class, lab or discussion if they wish to do so.”

Although the logic of the 15-credit policy is very reasonable, the problem is that it ends up being rather complicated. A couple weeks ago when I was selecting classes for next semester I had a difficult time because I needed to select 17 credits to fill my requirements for my major. I had to prioritize and hope the one class I put on hold would remain open until the 15 credit policy is lifted. If the 17-credit policy had existed from the beginning, I simply could have registered my classes and be done with it.

Furthermore, the 15-credit policy makes the course selection process incredibly inefficient. For example, a student might have already enrolled in 13 credits worth of classes but still need a three-credit ENWR class, which is an area requirement for the College. That individual will have to wait for the 15-credit policy to be expanded to the 17-credit policy and hope that ENWR classes are still available.

Such a strict restriction on classes often prohibits students from taking four-credit or two-credit classes because it complicates the easy math of five three-credit courses. Taking either a four-credit or two-credit class can force a student to wait until the 17-credit policy is in effect for unnecessary reason.

In addition, the fact that a 15-credit load is encouraged means that some students who do not want to take that many credits end up enrolling in classes in which they are not interested. This deprives those students who sincerely wish to enroll in those same classes from having the opportunity to do so. Course selection has become similar to blackjack, where the objective is simply to ensure a perfect number of credits, not more or less.

There are not many drawbacks to allowing students to enroll in 17 credits from the beginning. One might argue, of course, that 17 credits is also an arbitrary limit — why not more or why not less? How should we really determine what is the limit?

If you ask most University students how many credits they are taking, though, they will respond anywhere between 15 to 17 credits because that is the standard. Thus, a limit of 17 credits makes sense, but the process becomes inefficient when the credit limit is expanded halfway through the course selection process. With an initial credit limit of 17, there would be the risk of classes filling up faster, but that risk exists with either policy.

Reducing the complication of course sign-up can start with the elimination of the transition from a 15-credit to a 17-credit limit, and just allowing 17 credits from the beginning. Then, perhaps, selecting classes would be less of a mathematical game and more of an expression of one’s genuine academic preferences.

Fariha Kabir’s column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at f.kabir@cavalierdaily.com.

Best movies:
1. Drive

This slick, stylish crime drama allows outstanding veteran actors like Albert Brooks and Ron Perlman to take on their most complex roles ever, even as it showcases rising stars as Ryan Gosling and Carey Mulligan.

2. Warrior

Invigorated by two powerhouse performances from Joel Edgerton and Tom Hardy, this mixed martial arts movie packs enough of a punch to knock out all five Rocky films — at the same time.

3. Melancholia

The incomparable Lars von Trier has struck again with this revisionist disaster film, which somehow manages to make a hopeful and serene movie out of a catastrophe of epic proportions.

4. The Tree of Life

Director Terrence Malick has provided artsy audiences with the year’s most profound, albeit deliberately-paced, portrait of humanity and the mysteries of existence.

5. Bridesmaids

Kristen Wiig and Rose Byrne lead an impressive ensemble to new comedic heights as they tackle scene after scene of both high- and low-brow humor; the “three best friends” of The Hangover ain’t got nothin’ on these fantastic females.

Worst movies:
1. Abduction

A laughably terrible script, monotone acting and ridiculous directing makes Abduction the holy trinity of cinematic failure.

2. Shark Night 3D

No, you didn’t read that incorrectly — “3D” is actually part of the title.

3. Bucky Larson: Born to be a Star

This is the story of an average man making porn and being average at it, which makes average men feel good about themselves. Yes, that is seriously the plot, which is somehow the best aspect of the movie.

4. Jack and Jill

Adam Sandler isn’t funny as a man, and he’s certainly not funny as a woman.

Best new TV:
1. Game of Thrones (HBO)

A Lord of the Rings-esque fantasy world which features interesting characters, action-packed battles and Sean freakin’ Bean. Enough said.

2. Hell on Wheels (HBO)

If Deadwood has taught us anything, period-piece dramas set in the Old West — or the East in this case — are ratings gold.

3. American Horror Story (FX)

Creepy storylines and psycho-sexual tension abound in this deliciously scary new FX series.

4. New Girl (FOX)

Love it or hate it, Zooey Deschanel’s dorky but lovable persona is mined for some solid laughs on this new sitcom.

5. Person of Interest (CBS)

Anyone remember that guy who created Lost (J.J. Abrams)? How about the creepy guy who played Benjamin Linus (Michael Emerson)? Well, they’ve reunited for the action-packed Person of Interest, and fans of either should definitely tune in.

Worst new TV:
1. Terra Nova (Fox)

Despite its dinosaurs and fun CGI effects, Terra Nova has the same trite lines and silly plot twists as any other boring and overhyped network drama.

2. Charlie’s Angels (ABC)

Thankfully canceled after only eight episodes, the storyline went nowhere, and the show somehow managed to take away the sex appeal of smoking actresses like Minka Kelly.

3. The Playboy Club (NBC)

Canceled after only three episodes, the writers and producers of this show tried and failed to portray the life of a playboy bunny as glamorous and wonderful. The writers relied on nostalgia to add to this vision of glamor, but in the end, nothing could save these bunnies.

4. Whitney (NBC)

This show is simply painful to watch, and despite high hopes, it will never walk in the shoes of the other great NBC sitcoms.

Best albums you probably haven’t heard:
1. M83: Hurry Up, We’re Dreaming

Hurry up and download the exultant sixth album from French synth-pop guru Anthony Gonzalez. It’s candy-coated electronica at its finest, and every gloriously layered track demands attention.

2. Bon Iver: Bon Iver

Often haunting, always beautiful, Justin Vernon’s latest record takes listeners on an emotional, high-concept journey through 10 tracks, each named for a different city.

3. The Horrible Crowes: Elsie

Gaslight Anthem’s Brian Fallon gives fans the best side project of the year with this impressive collection of bluesy alt-rock that’s equal parts Springsteen and The Afghan Whigs — which is a huge compliment.

4. Childish Gambino: Camp

After garnering some serious Internet buzz, comedian Donald Glover’s rap project is poised to take off with Camp, a surprisingly hard-hitting album which showcases Glover’s acerbic wit.

5. Noel Gallagher’s High Flying Birds: Noel Gallagher’s High Flying Birds

The former Oasis frontman creates a lush array of adult-alternative tracks, highlighted by the sweeping love song “If I Had a Gun.”

Worst Singles:
1. “Friday,” Rebecca Black

Songs from the teen’s much-maligned label Ark Music Factory could single-handedly occupy every position on this list.

2. ”Dance (A$$),” Big Sean

“Wobble-dy wobble-dy wa wobble wobble.” I don’t care if this song has more beats than I can count — somebody throw Mr. Sean a dictionary.

3. ”Red Solo Cup,” Toby Keith

There’s some confusion as to whether this song is supposed to be a parody. We truly hope so.

4. ”What the Hell,” Avril Lavigne

I just cannot bring myself to ‘jam out,’ ‘play’ and ‘mess around’ to the pre-teen warbling of a 27-year-old punk princess. Why’d it have to get so complicated, Avril?

5. ”Yankin,” Lady

Perhaps Lady should be lauded here for her post-feminist declarations. Of course, you have to understand what she’s saying first. And then possibly wipe away all the tears you shed for the future of mainstream music.

Best Cville concerts:
1. The Avett Brothers

They’re folk, rock, indie, bluegrass, country and after two consecutive shows, they’ve raised the bar for concert performances.

2. My Morning Jacket

If you Google this band, Google asks if you meant: “best possible rock band to see in concert this millenium.”

3. Pretty Lights

Whether it was the smooth electronic beats, bass-thumping dubstep, entranced crowd or simply the light show, Derek Smith killed it. Needless to say, if you missed Pretty Lights, you missed out. Big time.

4. Portugal. The Man

A little prog, a little electronic and a lot of soul-charged rock made Portugal. The Man a must see. The performance was nothing short of transcendent.

Worst fashion trends:
1. The Barbour Jacket

No, it doesn’t keep you that warm, and it went out of style in Europe at least five years ago.

2. Vera Bradley

Seriously, it looks like flowers vomited all over your bag.

3. Ruffled Tank Tops

If you actually have a hint of a décolleté, these are NOT for you.

4. Pastel Chinos

I don’t care if they’re fratty; they’re not hot.

5. Cowboy Boots

You’re not in elementary school; therefore, you are too old to wear them.

Best viral videos:
1. Nyan Cat

The adaptation of the Japanese word “nya,” parallel to the English “meow,” is compiled, digitized and presented with an animated rainbow Pop Tarts cat. Nyan, Nyan nyan. Nyan.

2. Webcam 101 for Seniors

Bruce and Esther Huffman, aged 86 and 79 respectively, attempt to learn how to use their new webcam. Uploaded Aug. 21, this cute couple attracted 7.7 million views.

3. Cara Hartmann’s eHarmony Video Bio Parody

Hartmann’s parody video includes the best of what viral videos have to offer — online dating commentary, outrage and crying about not being able to hug all the cats in the world. This video includes all.

4. “Friday” Rebecca Black

I never understood how Rebecca Black became so famous March 14 when she released her pseduo-hit single. With 167 million views and counting, “Friday” is absolutely one of the best viral videos of 2011­ — based on popularity, not quality, of course.

Worst tweets:
1. #Winning

Charlie Sheen’s catchphrase has officially entered the chatspeak lexicon.

2. “What does every Japanese person have in their apartment? Flood lights.”

Comedian Gilbert Gottfried, best known for voicing the Aflac duck, created outrage with a slew of tweets about the Japanese tsunami — the day after it happened.

3. Weiner’s unexpected package

Congressman Anthony Weiner tried to slip a Twitpic of his junk to one female follower, but ended up tweeting it to everyone. He eventually resigned from office three weeks later.

4.”Friends don’t let jackasses drink and drive.”

Film critic Roger Ebert went too far when he commented on the death of Jackass star Ryan Dunn, leading to a hailstorm of Twitter hatemail from cyberspace notables like Perez Hilton.

Best video games:
1. The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword

You’re again saving your childhood friend, Zelda, but the interactive controls make this new venture feel fresh and exciting.

2. The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

Dragons. Enough said.

3. Uncharted 3: Drake’s Deception

It’s not as groundbreaking as the last installment, but just as fun and captivating.

4. Portal 2

Game creators should take note of the brilliantly designed story and puzzles which make your brain hurt.

5. L.A. Noire

With a brilliant narrative and stunning visuals, Noire is a prime example of a video game breaking the mold and asserting itself as a work of art.

Worst celebrity stunts:
1. Kim Kardashian’s 72-day wedding

For the price of the wedding ceremony and the ring, each day of the marriage cost roughly six times the national debt.

2. Lindsay Lohan’s legal issues

As if Lindsay Lohan needed any more issues, the rehabbed jailbird added shoplifting to the list. A necklace, Lindsay? Really?

3. Justin Bieber — Baby-Daddy?

Cougars across the nation were ecstatic at the thought that the Biebs might not actually be the prude — and might we add, underage — little boy they sadly assumed he was.

4. Charlie Sheen

Need we say it? #Losing. But if you consider the fact that his roast on Comedy Central had more viewers than any roast before it, then I guess Sheen was #winning in 2011 — the joke is on us.

5. The Casey Anthony trial

We’re not quite sure if she qualifies for the title of ‘celebrity,’ but Anthony certainly earned her role as ‘America’s Most Hated Mom’ of 2011. Step aside, mothers of Toddlers in Tiaras, there’s a new queen of creepy in town.

Best guilty pleasures:
1. The Starbucks holiday flavors

It doesn’t matter whether it might taste awful; you have to order every new holiday flavor at least once to get the full holiday experience — and wait in line for half an hour to get it.

2. Ke$ha

Lets be honest, her vocals and music are sub-par, but you get excited when she comes on the radio and you know all the words. The glitter is just too good to pass up.

3. Glee

The plotline is terrible, the acting horrible, and yet you can’t miss an episode because Puck is hot and the musical numbers are simply to die for.

4. The Bachelor

I don’t care if you’ve watched every episode or not — everyone is invested in a Bachelor relationship.

Although it has only existed for a few short months at the University, College Fashionista has already become a presence in the local fashion scene. Since the beginning of the semester, students of all backgrounds have been drawn to the website by links posted on Facebook or Twitter, thirsting to know more about College Fashionista.

Since 2008, CollegeFashionista.com has documented the unique fashions of American college students at campuses across the nation. The site was started by Indiana University student Amy Levin, who recognized the fashion innovations of her classmates and realized the need for an outlet to share and develop these innovations. In her words, College Fashionista was created to “give college students a medium through which their cunning eyes for the latest college fashion trends can be showcased and give them the ability to administer advice on how to adapt it to student life.”

College Fashionista has since expanded to more than 180 college campuses around the United States, covering combinations of street style, classic prep and high fashion trends adapted to a student’s budget, among many other styles which are apt to crop up at universities. Levin’s initial dream of reporting on students who embody the ideal “fashionista” has been realized through the site’s “Style Gurus,” hand-picked students who are constantly on the lookout for real-life fashionistas at each of their respective universities.

Third-year College student Folayemi Agusto was responsible for bringing College Fashionista to Grounds. She became aware of the website while working as an intern this past summer in New York City, and from there she paved the way for College Fashionista at the University. Now she is one of three Style Gurus for the University, all of whom have been integral in the growth of the University’s College Fashionista site.

The site is conducted according to the College Fashionista model, which features a different theme for each day of the week: “Style Advice of the Week” on Monday; “Let’s Hear it for the Boys” on Tuesday — that’s right, guys — you’re not left out; “Fashionista/o Spotlight” on Wednesday; “All About Beauty” on Thursday; and “Accessories Report” and “Fashion From Abroad” on Friday.
In addition to showcasing the trendiest students at campuses around the nation, College Fashionista offers several other features, including collaborations with well-known fashion companies. Recent collaborations have included contests with Frye, Madewell and C&C California, the latter of which took the form of a T-shirt design competition. College Fashionista clearly does not only encourage the promotion of fashion by imitation and inspiration, but pushes its readers to take fashion into their own hands.

College Fashionista has the unique and irresistible effect of making our peers pseudo-celebrities, and of course, giving its readers the hope that they, too might count themselves among that group. Therein lies the power and the potential of the site: As long as students are being featured, their classmates will continue reading and spreading a universal love for fashion. In the token parting words of Levin, “Style on.”

Iconic director Martin Scorsese, known as the Gangster Priest for his proclivity for making violent Italian-American films, makes his first foray into family films with his new feature Hugo. Following the young orphan Hugo (Asa Butterfield) through a Parisian train station which doubles as his home, Scorsese shows audiences a new side of his filmmaking.

Taking place almost entirely within the confines of the train station, Hugo is the tale of the title character. Orphaned by his father’s death and tasked with maintaining the station’s clocks by an alcoholic uncle, the neglected Hugo spends his time tinkering with a mechanical man his deceased father had hoped to repair. All the while, he evades the station inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen) and his well-groomed four-legged friend. Forced to steal to survive, Hugo is eventually caught by toymaker and avant-garde filmmaker George Méliès (Ben Kingsley) and becomes his apprentice as punishment for his theft. This encounter intertwines Méliès’ and Hugo’s fates, which becomes the premise for the rest of the film.

Scorsese, who serves as both the director and auteur of Hugo, engineers a wonderful stage for the story to unfold: the train station. After briefly showing us his creation, Scorsese employs a wonderful tracking shot which follows Hugo as he slides through the walls of the station. Gliding past the pipes, gears and other machinery, Scorsese establishes a sense of alienation which envelops the main characters, and invokes the complexity of life through the many parts which make up the station.

A well known student of film, Scorsese uses Hugo to flex his film-history muscles, which is appropriate since the movie provides a fictional account of Méliès, one of film’s most important early contributors. In Hugo, Scorsese’s encyclopedic knowledge of his art becomes an integral part of the plot in addition to filling other narrative functions. In one particular scene I enjoyed, the well-known flickering sound of old projectors creeps into the soundtrack as the light behind Hugo also begins to flicker; with a slow dissolve, clothing magically appears on the automaton. This is a clear tribute to Méliès’ films, which introduced new editing techniques and special effects into the cinematic canon.

Beyond the helmer’s finesse, Hugo features several surprising and enchanting performances. Most notably, Kingsley puts on a fantastically nuanced and delicate performance as the downtrodden Méliès, one worthy of recognition from the Academy. As the young protagonist, 14-year-old Butterfield makes the most significant performance of his career, foretelling a successful future. Finally, Baron Cohen, best known for his outrageous mockumentary characters, shows that he is capable of subtler comedy.

Hugo is a celebration of film history and the magic of cinema. Taking you to the snow-covered world of Paris and a warmly-lit train station, Scorsese holds your hand as you travel back in time to visit one of the most influential moviemakers the world has ever known.

Normally, I’m not a big “Christmas spirit” kind of guy. All the corny songs and silly traditions are just not my cup of tea. That’s why I was so surprised by Arthur Christmas, an unabashedly corny holiday movie which somehow still managed to warm my heart.

Arthur Christmas is the story of the titular character, who is one of Santa’s clumsy sons. In his world, Santa is a family name which is passed down through the generations. Arthur longs to spread his love of Christmas by helping his father, but his hotshot brother, Steve, is next in line for the sleigh. Steve’s modernized take on Santa’s rounds is efficient — it uses a giant spaceship shaped like a sleigh which travels at impossibly fast speeds — but uncaring and distant. When the speedy system misses a house, Arthur, along with the help of his grandpa and a spunky elf, decides to deliver the wayward present himself.

Aardman Animations, the geniuses behind Wallace and Gromit, have branched out past their usual stop-motion technology to deliver a beautifully-crafted, visually-pleasing film. Some purists may be dismayed at this departure, but the CGI is so gorgeous that it’s hard to complain. The style of animation allows frenetic action and huge crowd scenes to flow seamlessly across the screen. This is a fast-paced movie with very few quiet moments, and that frantic tone shines through in the movie’s presentation.

Still, what would good animation be without a wonderful and hilarious story? The most endearing aspect about the film is its originality. It takes tired Christmas movie themes and breathes new life into them. For example, I loved that it gave explanations of the tactics used by Santa and the elves; the extended opening sequence to the movie, in which the elves are presented as special ops soldiers, is wonderful and not to be missed.

The story is buoyed by a hilarious script and great interplay between the exceptional voice cast. James McAvoy is appropriately dorky and lovable as Arthur and infuses the character with a contagious love of Christmas which infected even a skeptic like me. Jim Broadbent as Santa and Hugh Laurie as Steve are amiable as the straight men who have lost sight of the true meaning of Christmas spirit. But it’s Bill Nighy who absolutely steals the show as Grandsanta, who’s still spry at 136 years old. His lines are gut-bustingly funny at times, though you have to listen closely to hear all of them.

Although I thoroughly enjoyed the film, it is not an instant classic, and Pixar still rules the CGI genre with amazing movies like Toy Story and A Bug’s Life. The pacing is not perfect either, with a slight narrative lull three-fourths of the way through. But these gripes are very minor, and overall the movie impresses. The stimulating animation, the clever script and the original story come together to create a magically entertaining film which everyone — even Scrooges like me — can enjoy.

“It’s time to play the music, it’s time to light the lights/ It’s time to meet the Muppets on The Muppet Show tonight!” The infectious theme song for the iconic Jim Henson show gets the big-screen treatment as Kermit the Frog and the gang reunite for the first time in 12 years. Their latest adventure, The Muppets, garnered a great deal of buzz before its Nov. 23 nationwide release — and with a 98 percent positive score on ratings aggregate Rottentomatoes.com, fans should expect to hear about the furry friends for a while. I deem the feel-good film a must-see.

In the movie, Gary (Jason Segel) and his brother Walter (a puppet voiced by Peter Linz), both diehard Muppet fans, travel to the Muppet studios in Los Angeles with Gary’s girlfriend, Mary (Amy Adams), for the couple’s 10-year anniversary. Upon traveling to the Muppet Theater, Walter is shocked to overhear evil oil baron Tex Richman’s (Chris Cooper) plans to destroy the theater and drill for oil. Walter, Gary and Mary then track down Kermit, and together, they set out to reunite the Muppets to save the Muppet Theater.

In an imaginative leap, Segel — who also wrote the screenplay — places our favorite members of the gang into a post-fame world out of touch with the original Muppet spirit. Fozzie Bear has been performing stand up with his pseudo gang called “the Moopets” at a cheap joint in Reno; Miss Piggy has become editor–in-chief of the French Vogue; Animal has gone into anger management rehab; and canine piano extraordinaire Rowlf has been, well, taking a lot of naps.

With some inspirational tunes and tongue-in-cheek wit, the Muppets congregate together to raise the $10 million necessary to save their theater. They decide to air a new Muppet Show telethon, putting on one hell of a production in true Muppet spirit. But they must deal with treacherous traps set by Richman, lovers’ squabbles between Piggy and Kermit and a time constraint which sets stress levels through the roof. All the while, Walter questions his identity as “human” or “puppet,” and searches for an extraordinary talent to cement his position in the Muppet family.

As with any revival of a beloved cultural phenomenon, the stakes were high for The Muppets to successfully capture the essence of the previous installments. Thankfully, the film has all the magic and understated whimsy of the previous installments and just enough of a modern, updated feel to keep younger viewers engaged without alienating longtime fans.

With celebrity cameos from Jack Black, Zach Galifianakis, Neil Patrick Harris and Emily Blunt — who ingeniously reprises her The Devil Wears Prada role as secretary to Miss Piggy — the movie couldn’t get any better.

As Miss Piggy would say, this movie is simply “magnifique.”

As a 20-year-old Twilight fan, or maybe just a fan of all things Robert Pattinson, I am well accustomed to defending the book and movie series, both of which have faced so much scrutiny. Although I knew that the latest film installment, Breaking Dawn: Part 1, wouldn’t exactly be on par with a quirky Woody Allen film or a cinematic wonder by Martin Scorsese, I knew it would contain things such as a vampire wedding, a fantastical honeymoon in Brazil and the conception of a vampire-human baby. How bad could it be?

Unfortunately, I couldn’t help leaving the theater feeling that the latest product of the Twilight saga was far too forced and melodramatic for it to cross the threshold from tween culture sensation and acceptable movie choice. Perhaps it was the fact that I attended the movie with a group of non-Twilight lovers, but I couldn’t help but laugh out loud during some of the scenes, the images of werewolves stoically fighting one another and vampires delivering over-exaggerated one-liners proving too much for me to take seriously.

And yes, while the wedding between Edward and Bella — eclipsed in anticipation only by the vows of Prince William and Kate Middleton — was beautifully executed, the whole plot of the movie seemed overwrought and tedious. The film focuses solely on the first half of the fourth and final book, and I thought it paid too much attention to inane details and outlined minute aspects for viewers who hadn’t read the books.

In addition, the portion of the movie devoted to Bella’s pregnancy with Edward’s half-vampire spawn was far too grotesque and graphic for me, not to mention the hordes of 12-year-olds who will undoubtedly flock to the film. Images of her emaciated body and her spinal cord snapping in half were not exactly high points of the film, nor was the actual birth scene — comprised of a solid five minutes of screaming, exceptional blood loss and overall agony. As one of my friends put it, “The ratio in Breaking Dawn was totally off — 10 percent actual baby-making and 90 percent baby birthing. No one wants to see that.” If I wanted to see indulgent amounts of gore and explicitness, I would have turned on the Discovery Channel, not paid for a $10 movie ticket.

All in all, if you are willing to overlook the general camp and over-dramatization which bolsters the majority of this film, you will be satisfied with your Breaking Dawn: Part 1 experience. For discerning film critics and squeamish movie-goers, however, I recommend a different choice, as the latest screen rendition of Stephanie Meyer’s saga is far too ridiculous to be taken as a serious movie.