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.

After O Brother, Where Art Thou? and Good Night, and Good Luck, I figured that it might be worth checking out a movie that I knew only as “George Clooney—IN SPACE!” It was a little dull at times, but not as bad as critics made it out to be, in my opinion. Sometimes disturbing, sometimes pretty, with interesting use of music without other sound, versus sound without music. It could’ve made a better thriller than a love story if it had received just a small nudge here and there, followed up on the creepy stuff just a little better. (I was a little disappointed that nobody ever grinned to reveal a mouthful of fangs.) After reading a little bit more about it and how it compares to the novel, I suspect I would have found the book even less interesting, and I like my (creepier) interpretation of the ending better than the one that the director probably intended.

Basically, this movie was somewhat fun and entirely unambitious. It is “summer comic book movie” by the numbers: enough subtle references to keep the comics nerds happy; enough cameos to keep nostalgic TV viewers amused; enough action sequences to keep audiences from getting bored; enough generic, tortured romance to prove that The Matrix hasn’t taught anyone that action movies don’t need generic, tortured romance, but whatever. If you liked the trailer, you’ll like the movie, because pretty much the whole movie is in the trailer.

Perhaps you’re waiting for me to say it was better than Ang Lee’s movie, but these movies are apples and oranges. One attempted to be cerebral and original and simply overextended itself. (I maintain that it consisted of at least two or three completely different but fairly decent movies that should never have been released as one product.) The other just offers a vehicle for the summer moviegoing ritual than an actual work of its own, and it succeeds in this just fine, thank you very much.