Any Guardian sit-down worth its salt has to include a not-so subtle evaluation of the star's interview habits, and this new one with Maggie Gyllenhaal is no exception. "She sits directly opposite me, her feet planted firmly on the floor," the interviewer tells us. "She asks for a camomile tea and coolly, in a tone that brooks no argument, requests that the assembled public relations people leave the room while we conduct the interview." After this evaluation, it's off to the races, with Gyllenhaal delving into everything from her trepidation about doing Secretary -- "in the wrong hands, in even slightly the wrong hands, even in just slightly less intelligent hands, this movie could say something really weird" -- to everything that went into her performance in Sherrybaby. She's especially frank when it comes to the movie's sex scenes. "I find those scenes hard to watch," she says. "But when I was making them, I was thinking how Sherry would be thinking: I've been in prison for three years, I want to c*me."

Gyllenhaal also owns up to some tussles with directors over the years, but she's too polite to name names. When asked about what her most difficult acting experience has been so far, she replies that she once "realized very early on in a shoot that I was at odds with the director, and I had to go through the whole shoot trying to figure out how to stay alive as an actress, when I was being squashed by the director." For the record, it wasn't Oliver Stone -- she says that she loved working with him, and describes him as being "nuts, but totally inspiring." As for the movie she's shooting right now, The Dark Knight, Gyllenhaal has nothing but praise for how she's being treated. "Doing Batman has shocked me at every turn. When I started, I thought 'Well, it's a huge movie, I'll just do my best to put what I can into it. But, in fact, they've been really hungry for my ideas, for my views. It's great! They've been asking for more!"

I'm not a big fan of top ten lists. For the past couple weeks, a slew of people have bothered me for my top ten films of the year -- a list I've never felt comfortable putting together, regardless of what year we're in. The thing is, I cannot for the life of me throw together such a list when I haven't seen most of the films that probably would have made the list had I managed to catch a screening. Thus, I'd have to call it something like, "The Top Ten Films Erik Watched in 2006 ... But Keep in Mind He Hasn't Seen (insert a good ten titles here)." Now, how much fun would a list like that be?

However, movie trailers are a whole different animal. I don't have to see a film to judge a trailer, and the previews for pretty much every film released in 2006 (as well as a ton to be released in 2007) are available online for me to watch. But how does one go about picking the top ten trailers of the year? Well, first off, your opinion should be based solely on the trailer, and not the film (if you happened to have seen it). And, when you watch the trailer, you should ask yourself two questions: 1) How much does this trailer make you want to see the film and 2) How badly do you want to show this trailer to everyone you know? If the answer to both those questions is, "Holy crap, you have no idea how much I want to see that film, and I definitely need to show my friends this trailer right now!" -- congrats, it's most likely in your top ten.

Five years ago today, 19 men hijacked four commercial airliners, crashing two into each tower of New York's World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon and, thanks to a group of brave folks who refused to let their plane cause even more damage to the Capital, the last went down in a Pennsylvania field. Five years ago today, the world as we knew it forever changed.

While there's been a slew of 9/11-related films since, it's only been in the last year that Hollywood has decided the time was right to begin churning out bigger flicks, with bigger budgets and bigger names. Paul Greengrass' United 93 came first, though its box office tally suffered -- perhaps, because we weren't ready yet. Most felt it was just too soon. Last month, Oliver Stone's World Trade Center debuted with higher numbers (to date, we're looking at around $67 million), though mutants, pirates and a man that flies proved more attractive to audiences.

Now, Charlie Sheen is reportedly involved in a 9/11-related film and even Oliver Stone feels the subject matter is so "huge," he'd like to do another film as well. Before United 93 hit theaters, I asked if you thought it was too soon. Seeing as both films have since been released, with more on the way, I'm wondering if you still feel the same way.

So, I ask you: Is it still too soon for 9/11 on the big screen? Or, after seeing how genuine and respectful both United 93 and World Trade Center were to victims, their families and our society, are we now ready to open our hearts and accept whatever Hollywood has in store for us next?

According to a story that originally ran in the New York Post last week, Charlie Sheen and Esai Morales are in talks to bring the real-life story of William Rodriguez to the big screen. Rodriguez was working as a janitor on 9/11 and had the only available master key to the WTC complex when the first plane struck. Thus, the 20-year veteran helped firefighters evacuate the north tower by traveling alongside them, unlocking doors and saving lives.

In an interesting twist to the Rodriguez story, the hero later turned around and slapped a lawsuit on President Bush claiming the Commander in Chief orchestrated the 9/11 attacks in order to justify wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Not surprisingly, the lawsuit was dismissed and will not be mentioned in the film. Also involved in the project is writer-director David Marconi, though I must stress that nothing here is official. Is it just me, or do you also think Hollywood should take a bit of a break from the 9/11 films? Ya know, we wouldn't want to cash in on a "hot topic," right?

[via Movie Blog]