Seth MacFarlane has already built a media empire that currently dominates Fox’s Sunday night line-up, but it was only a matter of time before he moved on to a bigger challenge, and though “Ted” represents the multi-hyphenate’s first foray into feature filmmaking, the movie is such a confident debut that you have to wonder why it took so long to make the jump in the first place. While the film can feel like a live-action version of “Family Guy” at times – featuring trademarks like cutaway gags, a knock-down-drag-out fight, and enough boundary-pushing humor to comfortably earn its R rating – you don’t have to be a fan of the show to enjoy “Ted.” It certainly wouldn’t hurt, but there are also things that MacFarlane is able to do here that can’t be done in animation, and it creates a more well-rounded movie as a result. Mark Wahlberg and Mila Kunis are both solid in their respective roles, but it’s MacFarlane who steals the show as the foul-mouthed teddy bear. His decision to perform the motion capture and provide the voice of Ted not only does wonders for the interactions between him and Wahlberg, but it makes him feel like a real, living, breathing thing, and that goes a long way in making the film such an incredibly funny buddy comedy.

Blu-ray Highlight: There’s a lot of great bonus material for fans to dive into – including an amusing audio commentary with Seth MacFarlane, Mark Wahlberg and co-writer Alec Sulkin – but the making-of featurette is the best of the bunch, focusing mainly on visual effects and MacFarlane’s decision to perform Ted live on the set during filming.

I was a little wary when Universal announced that they were continuing the Jason Bourne franchise without Matt Damon and director Paul Greengrass (or for that matter, the title character), but “The Bourne Legacy” proves that there’s still life to the series without them. One of the most important factors in its success was the decision to bring Tony Gilroy back to write and direct the fourth installment, because no one knows the Bourne series better than him, and it was likely his idea to design the story so that it runs parallel to the events in “The Bourne Ultimatum.” That way, there’s still some sort of connection between Jeremy Renner’s Aaron Cross and Damon’s Bourne, even though they never actually cross paths. If they do get around to making another film, that would be the next logical step, but for what’s essentially a spin-off, “The Bourne Legacy” is a lot better than it probably has the right to be. It’s still not as good as the original trilogy, but between its talented cast (which includes heavy hitters like Rachel Weisz and Edward Norton) and superb action sequences, there’s more than enough here to keep you invested in the Bourne saga.

Blu-ray Highlight: Though it’s a little disappointing that none of the film’s cast appears on the audio commentary, the track – which features director/co-writer Tony Gilroy with several of his crew members – is a great conversation about making the movie, with each participant getting the chance to discuss their contribution to the film in detail.

“Girls” is one of those shows that makes me question why I continue to tune in every week. Though it’s a big hit with a lot of critics, and there’s invariably something that makes me laugh out loud each episode, the HBO comedy’s quartet of leading ladies doesn’t make it easy to enjoy. Creator Lena Dunham’s Hannah is easily one of the most annoying characters on television; Allison Williams’ Marnie makes more bad decisions than a horror movie victim; Jemima Kirke’s Jessa fails to prove what makes her so alluring to men; and Zosia Mamet’s Shoshanna… well, I don’t actually have anything bad to say about her. That might make “Girls” sound like a pretty insufferable viewing experience (and it is at times), but even with such terrible characters, it manages to deliver some surprisingly biting commentary on this generation’s crop of entitled, self-centered twentysomethings. Still, if it weren’t for breakout star Adam Driver’s hilarious performance as Hannah’s weirdo on-again, off-again boyfriend, there’s a pretty good chance I would have tuned out a long time ago, because he single-handedly makes the show worth watching.

Blu-ray Highlight: HBO doesn’t normally include many extras on their Blu-rays, but the two-disc release of “Girls” is loaded with bonus material, and many of them are really good. In addition to a pair of roundtable-type conversations between Lena Dunham and her female co-stars, and Dunham and producer Judd Apatow, there’s also a cool making-of video diary that goes behind the scenes of several Season One episodes.

Bullz-Eye: Not that you haven’t been asked this more than a few times, but…what’s your very first memory of experiencing the Three Stooges?

Peter Farrelly: You know, the God’s honest truth…? I don’t remember it. Because they were always there. I’ve been watching the Stooges since I could turn on a TV. But I guess the thing I recall the most is, for some reason, I went through a period when I was, like, a freshman in high school where they were on every day from I think 4 – 5 PM, and I just remember it being the highlight of that winter. [Laughs.] Every day, because it was freezing out, you’d just get in the house and turn on the TV. Every kid in my school at that time was watching. For some reason, they were going through some sort of a renaissance. Everybody was watching them that year.

BE: Not that you guys have ever been afraid of testing boundaries, but it would seem to be pretty daunting to update the Three Stooges. I think the last time anyone tried it was with “The Three Robonic Stooges.“

PF: Yeah, we knew it wasn’t gonna be easy, but we love the Stooges and…the God’s honest truth is that we felt like they were going away. I had little kids…well, they’re 11 and 13 years old now, but the last few years, I asked their friends, and two-thirds of them did not know the Three Stooges. Or they had heard of them, but they didn’t really know who they were. And that bothered us, because we’re huge Stooges fans – they’ve given me more laughs than anybody – and we wanted to bring them back. But we knew that…you know, look, anytime you do anything like this… There was a huge, huge opportunity to fall on our faces, but I did believe that it should be done, the movie should be made, and I felt very confident that we could pull it off.

BE: Who came up with the idea of dividing the film into three Three Stooges shorts as a framing device?

PF: Um…that’s really one of those questions like, “Who came up with this joke?” I never remember, honestly, if somebody says, “Peter, who came up with that line?” Because you’re kind of bouncing things around. It was our call, Bobby’s and mine and Mike Ferrone’s, who we wrote it with. We had struggled with it for a long time. “How do you do this?” Because the Stooges were 18-minute shorts, so how do you turn it into a movie and make people not lose interest? So we thought, “Well, wait a minute, what if we break it into two shorts, and each one picks up where the last one left off, so it holds together as a movie?” And originally, by the way, we had four shorts. There were four of ‘em, and they were more like 18 minutes…just about that, actually…and the problem was that when you got to the fourth short, there was feeling of, “Are you shitting me? There’s another one?” [Laughs.] “Three’s plenty.” So we extended each one and broke it into thirds. And now it’s nice, because when you get to that third short…we have on the beginning where it says, “Final episode,” so you know this is it, but you’re only 55 minutes into the movie, you’re thinking, “Jesus, this thing’s wrapping up!” Psychologically, it makes people happy. [Laughs.]

BE: To say that the Stooges themselves went through a few different casting incarnations would be a bit of an understatement…

PF: Yeah.

BE: …but did it ever reach a point where you began to wonder if the thing was ever gonna get made?

PF: [Long pause.] Nah. There were many points when people said, “It’s not gonna get made,” and the studio said, “No, we’re not doing it,” but I always figured someone else would do it. I never thought, “Nah, it’s just not gonna happen. It’s not meant to be.” I couldn’t go there, because I’d worked on the script too long. We really put a lot of time into the script. I’m proud of that script because it’s original. They look the same, think the same, act the same, sound the same, and we have some of the hits, some of the moves, but the stories are original and Stooge-like. And they weren’t easy to do. They took a lot of work, because it’s not like writing a normal movie, where you can just go in any direction and it doesn’t matter, where as long as it’s working, it’s fine. With this, there were a lot of times where we came up with something that was funny, but we thought, “The Stooges wouldn’t do it. The Stooges wouldn’t do this. The Stooges wouldn’t do that.” So it took…it was a hard, hard script to write, and that’s why I was very reluctant to give up on it. Too much work was put into it. I just couldn’t see quitting on it.

BE: Not to cast any aspersions on the final three guys, but was there anyone from the process of casting the film who was a real heartbreaker when you couldn’t get them into the film?

PF: You know, I know this sounds like bullshit, but, Will, I’m telling you the truth: I take a very Zen view of casting, and I’ve never had my heart broken casting, because…with “Dumb & Dumber,” Jim Carrey was about the 150^th guy we offered that movie to. Everybody had passed. Every single person had passed, and finally we got Jim Carrey, and it worked out in a way that was just beautiful. You can’t imagine it any other way. So throughout our career, we’ve been passed on in just about every movie by lots of guys, and I just always tell ‘em, “It’s okay, man, you gotta do what you gotta do. I don’t want you to do a movie that…” Because, you know, I always try to talk ‘em into it. I give them the old hard-sell, why they should do it. But at the end of the day, if they say, “I dunno, man, I just don’t feel right about it,” I’m, like, “Great! No problem! I have more respect for you than ever!” [Laughs.] And then we move on. Because I do believe that if you get everything in this world that you could imagine, then it’s gonna be as good as you could imagine it. But if you don’t get everything that you want, then sometimes the universe opens up and it gives you things that are better than you could’ve even imagined. And that’s how it’s been. In this case, everybody passed, ultimately, but it finally allowed us to do what we had asked to do in the beginning, which was to cast the three best people. And when we did a worldwide casting call, I guarantee you there’s no actors out there that could’ve done better than these guys. These three were geniuses.

BE: For me, Chris Diamantopoulos was the greatest surprise. Somehow you don’t expect a guy who’s successfully played Sinatra (in “The Kennedys”) to be able to turn a performance as Moe Howard.

PF: He’s a…I’m telling you the truth that he’s maybe the most talented guy I’ve ever worked with. He’s Jim Carrey talented. He can do anything. And I’d never heard of him before! He just came in, and apparently he’s well known on Broadway and has done a lot of Broadway stuff. I’ve met people since then who work on Broadway and said, “Do you know Chris Diamantopoulous?” “Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah…” But I’d never heard of him. [Laughs.] But he blew us away. And not just his acting, but his total knowledge of the Stooges and of what we were trying to accomplish. It was sort of like having a third director on set, having him there, because he really did know about what Larry and Curly should be doing as well, and he would walk them through things. Everybody was great, but he was the guy who kind of made it all happen.

BE: How did Larry David find his way into the project? I figure he’d be someone who you’d either really have to twist his arm, or else he’d say, “Oh, yeah, I got a nun’s habit right here, I’ll be right over.”

PF: I think when he heard “Sister Mary Mengele,” he giggled and said, “Ah, okay, lemme look at it.” [Laughs.] And then with Larry, y’know, he’s an old friend. We’ve been working him for years trying to get him in a movie. I said, “C’mon, man, if you don’t do this one, you’re never gonna be in one.” So he said “yeah.”

BE: Has the Catholic Church had any official response to Kate Upton’s performance in the film?

PF: There was some response, actually. The Catholic League came out, and they criticized her, and they criticized Larry David and his portrayal of Sister Mary Mengele. But, y’know, it wasn’t a…it didn’t pick up any steam. But the day the movie opened, there were a couple of press releases.

BE: Did you take any hits for the “Jersey Shore” cast potentially dating the film in the long haul?

PF: You know, the truth is, I don’t read reviews. [Laughs.] So I’m not exactly sure. And I also stay off the internet. Because I’ve gone on the internet enough for my friends to see that if they’re saying that about them, what are they saying about me? I don’t wanna know! Like, I went on for Seth MacFarlane, I was looking at some of his reviews for Ted, which I loved, and I couldn’t believe the amount of hatred and anger. Anyway, I avoid that kind of stuff, so I’m not exactly sure. I haven’t heard too much backlash. I had one guy…I did an interview with a radio guy up in Chicago, Mancow, and he said, “Look, I loved this movie, it blew my mind, I couldn’t believe how good it was, I wasn’t expecting it, but the fucking ‘Jersey Shore’ ruined it for me! As soon as they came on, I was, like, ‘Goddammit, why’d they have to do that?” And, you know, my argument is, well, if you don’t like “Jersey Shore,” that’s who you should want in that role, given that we just beat the shit out of them for the whole time that they’re on there. [Laughs.] Didn’t that give you some satisfaction?

BE: A bit, yes. [Laughs.]

PF: By the way, I do have to say this about the “Jersey Shore” people: when they were coming, we were bracing ourselves for the worst, because, y’know, you read things about how horrible they are, how annoying, they seem like a lot of work, but they showed up on time, worked their butts off, and couldn’t have been more easy-going. No problems, no whining, did everything we asked. I really liked them. I’m probably the first person in the world to say that. [Laughs.]

BE: Over the years, do you have a favorite project that you’ve worked on that didn’t get the love you thought it deserved?

PF: Wow. Ah, boy, that’s really… [Long pause.] Yeah. Y’know, it’s funny, people ask me, “Well, what are your favorite movies?” And you’d expect it to be, like, “(There’s Something About) Mary” or “Dumb & Dumber,” and I love them, but…making movies is sort of like having kids. You feel closer and more protective of the kid who never made it than the kid who went off to Harvard Medical School. That kid’s gonna do fine. But you worry about the other kid who, for whatever reason, didn’t do as well. And you tried just as hard on that one, but…so, yeah, “Kingpin” was a crusher when that came out. It did nothing. Well, it did $25 million, but that was…I went into a dark place after that. I felt that “Stuck On You” could’ve done a lot better, too. I really liked “Stuck on You.” You know, those two come to mind. And I wish “The Three Stooges” had been released in the summer. It was a terrible time to release this movie. They released it in mid-April, and the kids weren’t even off on Spring Break. They were all done with Spring Break, and…on the weekend, it opened great, but in the week, it did zero, because kids were in school. And it did okay, but I believe that if they’d released it June, July, or August, it would’ve been double. But on the other hand, you can’t control the world, you can’t control everything, and, y’know, maybe nothing mattered. Maybe it could’ve been released at the best time ever and nothing would’ve changed. But, yeah, you do feel like some of them deserved better.

BE: How was the “Unhitched” experience for you? Would you go back to the small screen after the way that series was received on Fox?

PF: Well, I didn’t…you know, “Unhitched” was something that we executive-produced, and, honestly, it wasn’t my baby. It was friends of mine who I really admire and like, and they did it, and I helped them get it made, and they went off with it, so…it didn’t leave at all a bad taste in my mouth. Yeah, I would still consider going off and doing a show. I’ve never really done a show on a day-to-day basis. I’ve never really created a show and then worked on that show. That’s something that I could see myself doing in the future, without question. But, no, “Unhitched,” I thought it was a valiant effort. I loved the guys who did it, Chris Pappas and Mike Bernier and Kevin Barnett. They’re sensational guys and sensational writers. It was fun. I believe if they’d given the show a little more time it might’ve done better. Who knows? But I have no bad feelings about it.

BE: To kind of bring this full circle by bringing up Larry David again, Wikipedia suggests that you guys wrote “Seinfeld” episode “The Virgin,” but IMDb says you just wrote the story.

PF: Yeah, we didn’t actually write the script. We pitched the idea and sold it. We went into a room and pitched it to Larry and Jerry (Seinfeld) and Larry Charles, and they bought the idea. We were given story credit, and they wrote it. So it was… At the time, we were trying to get in and wanted to get on staff with “Seinfeld,” but they didn’t hire us for that, but they bought that. When we look back in retrospect, if we’d ever been hired as writers, we would never have been able to go off and make “Dumb & Dumber” and those things. So it all worked out.

BE: Is there anything that you would’ve changed about the way “The Virgin” came out? Anything that veered way away from what you’d envisioned when you pitched the story?

PF: Nah. I thought it was great. Again, we had very little to do with it beyond the idea of…our idea was, “What happens when you go out with a woman who’s a virgin nowadays?” If the ‘50s, that was a great thing, but now, it’s, like, “What?” It raises so many questions. Why is she a virgin? Does she not like sex? Is it a religious thing? Is she nuts? I mean, what’s going on here? [Laughs.] It was the idea of taking it from the other angle and being horrified about having a virgin in your life and not knowing how to deal with it. And, of course, that led them into the next week, which was the masturbation episode. So I think it all worked out for the best for everybody.

BE: So what do you guys have on your plate for the future?

PF: Well, we’re hoping to do “Dumb & Dumber 2” next, but right now the studio and Jim Carrey are having…uh, they’re having some negotiating issues. [Laughs.] Basically, what happened is that New Line had released the original “Dumb & Dumber,” and when we got together to do “Dumb & Dumber 2”…and, by the way, as a reminder, we had nothing to do with “Dumb & Dumberer.” We never wanted to do that with young guys. We only wanted to do it with these guys. So, anyway, when everybody got together and we said, “Let’s do it,” we went off to write, and New Line cut deals for all of us. And then we gave the script to New Line, they loved it, they gave it to Warner Brothers, and Warner Brothers said, “Great, but what’s with these deals? We don’t like these deals!” And that caused a problem, because they started renegotiating deals. But I hope and think it’s going to all be resolved. But right now we’re sort of in a holding pattern, waiting to see what happens there.

BE: I’ll keep my fingers crossed. I write for the Onion AV Club, and I talked to Jeff (Daniels) right before “The Newsroom” premiered – in fact, I was talking about the range it takes to jump from “Gettysburg” into “Dumb & Dumber” – and when I asked about the status of the sequel, he said, “Oh, I’ve read the script, it’s funnier than hell, and as far as I know, we’re just working out a deal.” And then two days later, Jim Carrey said, “Sequel’s off, we’re not doing it.”

PF: Yeah, well, I think it could all be fixed. They’re still talking. Right now, as we speak, it is off. But that could change any day.

With the exception of Marvel’s “The Avengers” (which not only lived up to expectations, but is also currently destroying the competition at the box office), last month wasn’t exactly the greatest start to the summer season. Thankfully, June looks like it’s going to fare a little better, with a return by director Ridley Scott to the genre that made his name, the latest from animation giants Pixar, and even some good old schlock in the form of Abraham Lincoln versus vampires. It’s hardly the type of blockbuster month we’re used to, but there’s enough variety and promise among these films that it doesn’t matter.

Who: Kristen Stewart, Chris Hemsworth, Charlize Theron and Sam Claflin
What: A twist on the classic fairy tale where the Huntsman ordered to kill Snow White winds up becoming her protector and mentor in a quest to vanquish the Evil Queen.
When: June 1st
Why: First-time director Rupert Sanders’ coming out party looks mighty impressive from a visual standpoint, and I’d like to believe that a cast of this caliber (from the three leads down to the seven dwarfs) wouldn’t have signed on to the project if the script wasn’t good. The idea of adapting the popular story into a fantasy action film is certainly an inspired one, as it not only broadens audience appeal, but allows for the introduction of newer elements as well. I’m a bit surprised that Universal hasn’t revealed more of the aforementioned dwarfs in the marketing campaign, but while they’ll likely play a bigger part in the movie, it’s quite refreshing not to have every single detail ruined in advance.

Who: Noomi Rapace, Logan Marshall-Green, Michael Fassbender and Charlize Theron
What: A team of explorers discover a clue to the origins of mankind, leading them to a distant world where they must fight to save the future of the human race.
When: June 8th
Why: Whether or not “Prometheus” has anything to do with the original “Alien” (and at this point, I don’t think even Ridley Scott knows for certain), it’s shaping up to be one of the coolest movies of the year, despite my concerns that it’ll pull a “John Carter” at the box office. The trailers have done an excellent job of whetting our appetites while still remaining fairly elusive about what the hell is going on, and from the footage I’ve seen, it’s obvious that the film shares many of the same visual and tonal cues with the 1979 sci-fi horror classic. Though Noomi Rapace has a lot to prove in her first Hollywood leading role, Scott has smartly surrounded her with enough talent that she’s under no real pressure to carry the movie on her own. With that said, however, she certainly looks the part of an Ellen Ripley substitute, and that’s something worth getting excited about.

Who: Aubrey Plaza, Jake Johnson, Mark Duplass and Karan Soni
What: Three magazine employees head out on an assignment to interview a guy who placed a classified ad seeking a companion for time travel.
When: June 8th
Why: I had the good fortune of seeing the Sundance hit at SXSW earlier this year, and I can’t say enough great things about it. Based on a real-life classified ad that became an Internet meme, “Safety Not Guaranteed” is a magical film about the human spirit whose charm is difficult to ignore. The character-driven dramedy is an amalgamation of everything that’s great about indie filmmaking – from its hugely original script, to the quirky characters, to the incredibly honest and funny performances by its cast. But the one thing that it does better than anything else is create a cinematic experience that’s rich in both comedy and emotion. A lot of movies have tried to juggle the two in the past, but “Safety Not Guaranteed” is one of those rare few that pull it off almost effortlessly.

Who: Julianne Hough, Diego Boneta, Alec Baldwin, Russell Brand and Tom Cruise
What: Set in 1987 Los Angeles, small town girl Sherrie and city boy Drew fall in love while pursing their Hollywood dreams on the Sunset Strip.
When: June 15th
Why: After stealing the show in “Tropic Thunder” and reclaiming his box office mojo with the fourth installment of “Mission: Impossible,” Tom Cruise’s latest step towards career rejuvenation has the actor playing rock god Stacee Jaxx in this big screen adaptation of the Broadway musical. But while there’s a lot of great talent involved in the film (like Cruise, Alec Baldwin, Catherine Zeta-Jones and Paul Giamatti), “Rock of Ages” doesn’t look nearly as much fun as it should be. “Hairspray” director Adam Shankman appears to have done a good job of retaining the theatricality of the musical numbers while still making them cinematic, and 80s rock music was tailor-made for the genre, but if you’re expecting “Rock of Ages” to be the next great movie musical, prepare be disappointed.

Who: Kelly Macdonald, Billy Connolly, Emma Thompson and Julie Walters
What: After Princess Merida is granted a wish, she must rely on her bravery and archery skills to undo a beastly curse.
When: June 22nd
Why: If you’re still fuming over last year’s blatant “Cars 2” cash grab, you’re not alone, and the only way that Pixar can make things right is by bouncing back with another instant classic. The studio owes its audience that much, although that may be easier said than done, because “Brave” already stinks of a typical Disney princess movie. But if anyone can turn the ordinary into something extraordinary, it’s the guys at Pixar, who have excelled at doing precisely that since the first “Toy Story.” The news surrounding the film hasn’t been very encouraging – with original director Brenda Chapman booted from the project – but it looks stunning (especially Merida’s bouncy, curly red hair), and when it comes to Pixar, sometimes you just have to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Who: Benjamin Walker, Rufus Sewell, Dominic Cooper and Mary Elizabeth Winstead
What: Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the United States, discovers vampires are planning to take over America and makes it his mission to eliminate them.
When: June 22nd
Why: Author Seth Grahame-Smith’s first revisionist monster mash-up “Pride and Prejudice and Zombies” didn’t really live up to my expectations, and although I never got around to reading his follow-up novel as a result, “Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter” has the makings of a much more interesting movie. It’s been awhile since Russian director Timur Bekmambetov’s last effort, the 2008 action film “Wanted,” but he’s done the vampire thing before, and I’m looking forward to seeing what he has up his sleeve this time around. The decision to cast an unknown like Benjamin Walker in the title role is encouraging, and it’s also fitting that the actor donning Lincoln’s trademark beard and top hat played another U.S. president in the rock musical “Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson,” because the movie promises to be every bit as gory as its R rating allows.

Who: Steve Carell, Keira Knightley, Gillian Jacobs, Connie Britton and Melanie Lynskey
What: As an asteroid falls toward Earth, a man is joined by his neighbor on a road trip to reunite with his high school sweetheart after his wife leaves in a panic.
When: June 22nd
Why: The idea of pairing Steve Carell with Keira Knightley may sound a bit weird, but since the movie is about the end of the world anyway, it might just work. Though this is exactly the type of project that Carell has been actively seeking lately (one that allows him to flex both his comedic and dramatic muscles), it’s surprising to see someone like Knightley stray so far from her comfort zone of bleak dramas and stuffy period pieces. I’ll watch anything that the British actress is in, however, and her involvement should be considered nothing short of a coup on the part of first-time director Lorene Scafaria, who’s perhaps best known for writing the hugely underrated 2008 rom-com “Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist.” Carell’s name may get audiences into the theater, but Knightley lends a distinct credibility to the material that simply cannot be ignored.

Who: Woody Allen, Penelope Cruz, Jesse Eisenberg, Ellen Page and Alec Baldwin
What: A series of vignettes that take place in Italy involving the romances, adventures and predicaments that its residents and visitors get into.
When: June 22nd
Why: Woody Allen may be coming off the biggest commercial success of his career with “Midnight in Paris” (a film that also netted him another Oscar for Best Original Screenplay), but unfortunately, that can only be seen as bad news for his next European adventure, because Allen hasn’t had back-to-back hits in over a decade. And despite the talented cast that he’s assembled (including frequent collaborators Penelope Cruz and Judy Davis, and the incredibly Allen-esque Jesse Eisenberg), the trailer doesn’t inspire much confidence that “To Rome with Love” is going to buck that trend. While it’s nice to see Allen stepping back in front of the camera for the first time since “Scoop,” that’s not exactly the best of omens considering how awful that movie turned out to be.

Who: Mark Wahlberg, Mila Kunis, Seth MacFarlane, Giovanni Ribisi and Joel McHale
What: The story of a man who must deal with the cherished teddy bear who came to life as the result of a childhood wish and has refused to leave his side ever since.
When: June 29th
Why: I haven’t laughed this hard at a movie trailer in a long time. Granted, it was the NSFW red band trailer and not the clean version embedded below, but that only makes me even more excited, because it means that Seth MacFarlane’s raunchy and mildly controversial brand of humor hasn’t been neutered by the studio. It’ll be interesting to see how MacFarlane fares working in live action after spending so much of his career in animation, but based on the early buzz so far, his directorial debut is shaping up to be the must-see comedy of the year. The concept is original and ripe with comedic potential, Mark Wahlberg and Mila Kunis are perfect choices for the two leads, and Ted (who is voiced by MacFarlane) looks every bit the scene stealer he was intended to be.

Who: Channing Tatum, Alex Pettyfer, Cody Horn and Matthew McConaughey
What: An experienced stripper takes a younger performer called The Kid under his wing and schools him in the arts of partying, picking up women and making easy money.
When: June 29th
Why: Reportedly based on Channing Tatum’s real-life experience as an exotic dancer (but not autobiographical in any way), “Magic Mike” actually sounds pretty interesting for a movie about male stripping. The first trailer didn’t do a very good job of showcasing everything the film has to offer (focusing mainly on the budding relationship between the title character and his pupil’s sister), but the cast is great and Steven Soderbergh is usually reliable. Though I’m still not as convinced that Tatum is genuine leading man material as most people (particularly Soderbergh, who’s so sweet on the actor that they’re reuniting for a third project together next year), after his hilarious turn in “21 Jump Street,” this could be the role that finally legitimizes him as a major Hollywood player.