I’m not as big a Hellboy fan as Jason and Tony are—I’ve read a few of the comics, and I saw the 2004 movie, which I enjoyed. While I did like Hellboy II: The Golden Army, I would say that on many fronts it failed to fully engage me (especially coming on the heels of the complex tapestry of The Dark Knight). But much of it does work: director Guillermo del Toro’s fantastic imagination for the creatures that inhabit this world, for example (which bears a strong resemblance to his 2006 masterpiece Pan’s Labyrinth). The most successful scenes to me are not the action scenes, which still rely a little to heavily on CGI for my tastes, but the ones that focus on the mundane lives of the characters themselves: Hellboy and Abe commiserating about love over a beer and sappy love song or the great slapstick scene of Hellboy butting heads with new BPRD leader Johann Krauss. But del Toro seemed to be tugged between telling a couple different stories in the movie (Hellboy’s relationship with humans and the overt conflict with the elves), and ends up giving short shrift to both. That said, it is worth noting that Selma Blair is hot—in every sense of the word.

It’s long. Let’s get that out of the way right up top. Christopher Nolan’s sequel to his excellent 2005 Batman Begins, The Dark Knight (rejected working titles: Batman in the Middle, Batman Keeps on Keeping On) clocks in at a hefty 2 hour, 32 minute running time that approaches Lord of the Rings level epic. Despite its length, it rarely feels bogged down—though it probably could have benefited from some edits here and there and it veers into territory that Tony and I had both presumed would have been covered in a sequel. Nolan’s The Dark Knight has much in common with Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man 2, which many consider the apogee of that series: free of the shackles of re-imagining the hero’s origin story, Nolan (like Raimi) spends much of the second installment concerned with two main questions—”what does it mean to be a hero?” and “what is a hero’s relationship with the people he protects?” Things go, er, less well for Batman than they do for Spidey, but that’s always been part and parcel of the dark knight’s character. Like in Batman Begins, a fantastic cast of supporting actors (Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, and Gary Oldman) elevate the movie from mere popcorn flick to dramatic tableau—add to that a solid showing from Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent and a gosh-darned note-perfect performance by the late Heath Ledger as the Joker. Nolan and Ledger have captured the Joker as a character: he’s a wild card, a psychotic force of nature concerned only with sowing chaos.

Some might be concerned with where Nolan’s Batman diverges from its source material (to which, it must be said, the movie is largely if not always faithful)—that, to me, misses the point. The character of Batman has been interpreted by so many different authors and artists over the years that he has become more of a legend, a fairy tale character to be spun for different ages. Nolan has ably captured his Batman—a Batman for the 21st century—in the same way that characters like James Bond or Dr. Who have been constantly re-envisioned for contemporary contexts. What matters (and what makes his films excel) is that Nolan’s vision is internally consistent: his interpretation of characters perfectly fits the story he is telling. At this point, the only worry I have is that Batman 3 (working title: Batman: Batting .1000) might verge into Spider-Man 3, Return of the Jedi territory. History has shown that all we need is Batman taking on a horde of Ewoks to ruin a perfectly good franchise.

In our continuing self-appointed duty to bring you all the news that is fit to electronically print about our favorite cryptotechnological means of conveyance, I just wanted to point out to you that one lucky person will be able to take home the actual hoverboard used in Back to the Future II. Along with a handful of other rare artifacts such as the Holy Fucking Grail, it’s being auctioned off on July 31st. Granted, you’ll need to pony up $30,000—but come on, I mean, a hoverboard pays for itself, amirite?

There’s kind of a cruel bent to this auction. I mean, selling of C-3PO’s feet? And what about Geordi’s visor; how’s the poor guy going to see? Why don’t you auction off Stephen Hawking’s wheelchair while you’re at it?

Oh man, it’s an embarrassment of riches, though: I mean, The Rocketeer’s helmet? Kirk’s phaser? A Tusken Raider costume from…Attack of the Clones? Ew. Lame.

Unfortunately, I suspect I’ll be missing the event, as I’ll be busy helping some jackass unload his moving van. But if anybody is looking for something to commemorate a certain blog’s upcoming fifth anniversary (hiatuses not included), well, I’m just sayin’.

If you enjoyed the TV show Get Smart, don’t get your hopes up. The characters here lack any similar chemistry, the zaniness is usually an entirely different sort of zany, and you will just be as disappointed as I was. In some ways, I actually think that Austin Powers was a better spiritual successor to that series than this movie, which had a few chuckle-worthy moments (certainly more for others in the theater than for me, I suppose). Generally, though, I thought the jokes were dull and uninspired, and I found all the major characters—Max, Ninety-nine, even the Chief—generally gratingly foolish rather than lovably silly.

I really enjoyed this movie. The sheer absurdity of its action sequences reminded me of Equilibrium and Shoot ‘Em Up (in a good way), but it actually has a better story than either of those. It was pretty straightforward as a “lovable loser becomes kickass” summer action flick, but had just enough new material to make it feel new and worth watching. It’s a little longer than it needs to be, maybe, but I didn’t mind. Basically, if you think you’d like seeing a movie where people shoot bullets that curve mid-flight from moving subway cars, check it out.

My colleagues have already shared their thoughts and opinions so I’ll avoid direct comparison to the 2003 version.

The Incredible Hulk is a fine summer movie in that it has some nice action sequences, a decent story, but it is generally pretty generic and not particularly memorable. Edward Norton does a nice job as Bruce Banner, but I feel like putting him in a summer super hero movie is kind of a waste of his talents. The actions and chases scenes work ok for your standard summer action movie, though I thought the chase scenes with Bruce Banner were more interesting than watching CGI Hulk smashing things. I appreciated that they heavily condensed the origin story but they still chose to include a variety of scenes that feel awkward: Michael K. William’s (The Wire) has a cameo so brief I’m not really sure why it was included. Stan Lee’s appearance is distracting and I’m starting to get tired of the requirement that he appear in all of the Marvel movies especially in that it no longer seems enough to leave him in the background of a crowd shot. Robert Downey Jr. makes a brief appearance as Tony Stark that I think would have been better placed after the credits as the current location of the scene feels awkward at best.

Unfortunately I’m just not as interested in the Hulk as I am in say Batman or Spiderman. I thought Iron Man really worked well in that I had no prior interest in Iron Man but was inspired to seek out the comics after seeing the movie. (Note that Jeremy has told me there isn’t any great collection of Iron Man comics he can recommend and the new Ultimate Iron Man is somewhat disappointing. Spoiler: They made Ultimate Iron Man a mutant.)

In short, the Incredible Hulk is an ok movie but I could have just as soon waited to see it on DVD.

An absolute gem of a movie, with sterling performances from Edward Norton, Paul Giamatti, and Rufus Sewell. Jessica Biel is adequate as Norton’s paramour, but it is truly the gentlemen in this movie who absolute disappear into their roles. Watching Norton afterwards in the “making of” featurette, I was struck once again by what a consummate actor he is—I ceased to think about him as Edward Norton while I watched the movie, which is the highest praise I can offer a performer. The plot revolves around a marvelous magician in 19th century Vienna, his relationship with a duchess (who’s also involved with the crown prince), and the detective who attempts to uncover his secrets—to say any more would be to reveal the secrets of the movie itself. I think there’s much to be said about narrative in this movie, and how storytelling is itself a magic trick—or an illusion. This film occasioned many comparisons to The Prestige, which also dealt with 19th century magicians and came out at the same time. While I haven’t seen it yet (though I have read the book), I intend to in the near future.

Great article in Wired about Christopher Nolan’s forthcoming Batman Begins sequel, The Dark Knight, and his preference of really shooting things instead of relying on visual effects. I love that Nolan’s approach to filmmaking both hearkens back to early guerilla work by the likes of George Lucas and at the same time, contradicts, oh, everything Lucas has done in the last ten years or so.

Nolan has a cogent Theory of Applied Batmatics: Insist on reality — no effects, no tricks — up to the point where insisting on reality becomes unrealistic. Then, in postproduction, make what is necessarily unreal as real as possible. “Anything you notice as technology reminds you that you’re in a movie theater,” Nolan explains. “Even if you’re trying to portray something fantastical and otherworldly, it’s always about trying to achieve invisible manipulation.” Especially, he adds, with Batman, “the most real of all the superheroes, who has no superpowers.”

Not only that, but Nolan’s been shooting portions of the movie in Imax and The Dark Knight will be shown on around 100 Imax screens around the country when it’s released. I’m thinking that might be a worthwhile trip to make.

Jason may not have the cajones to say that Louis Leterrier’s version of the Hulk was better than Ang Lee’s, so I’ll come out and say it instead. Let me give you a few short reasons to back up my assertion.

1. Edward Norton.
2. An utter absence of “Hulk dogs.”
3. At no point do any characters fly out of the screen, freeze-framing in a ridiculous attempt to recreate a comic book panel.
4. Robert Downey Jr. Even just sixty seconds of him.

I agree with Jason’s assessment that this version is utterly unambitious; and yet, it still manages to meet its goal of being entertaining—in that, I deem it superior to its predecessor (to which it does not directly allude, though there is an oblique tip of the hat in that it more or less picks up where the last left off). It’s also got me actually excited about the prospect of an Avengers movie, provided that Marvel doesn’t screw things up by trying to push the Iron Man 2 sequel out the door early and alienating Jon Favreau.

I’m not generally a fan of horror movies, but I am a fan of M. Night Shyam—look, I’m just going to call him Shazam, okay?—so I went to see The Happening. As with most of Shazam’s previous work, the atmosphere is expertly crafted—this is an effectively creepy movie. It’s also his first R-rated venture, and it deserves that rating, if only for the very disturbing content—if you’ve seen the trailer, you’ve got a good idea of what to expect. Unfortunately, while Zooey Deschanel and several of the other actors put on a good show, the movie is somewhat undermined by a poor performance from lead Mark Wahlberg, miscast as a high school science teacher. He does well in a couple of the more comic scenes and the “epiphany moment” is played pretty well too, but I think there are other actors that would have been better suited to the role. Unlike Shazam’s other work, there’s not necessarily a big reveal at the end—instead, the film revels in its own mystery. While the director doesn’t make his habitual onscreen cameo, à la Hitchcock, keep an ear cocked for his voice in a minor role and look for the ever so brief tip of the hat to his next project.