Showbits

Over the past year, I've heard of the film The Squid and the Whale from two sources. The first was my chiropractor, himself something of a philosopher, who'd also successfully suggested to me the film The Razor's Edge. The second is from a list entitled "20 Essential Break Up Movies". Those are two very different contexts in which to receive the same film recommendation — so, my curiosity piqued, I checked it out of the library.

The film, set in 1983 Brooklyn, bears many similarities to Blue Car: we have two children of the same gender struggling with the fallout of a broken home — the younger is the more outwardly distressed, while the older one flirts with romance. There's also a teacher open to having an affair with a student. The differences between The Squid and the Whale and Blue Car is that, here, we see the divorce happening, making its impact more immediate with both parents present.

Jeff Daniels and Laura Linney play the troubled couple, each with a PhD in English. Mr. Daniels plays his character with such ego and arrogance that it's easy to cast him as the villain, but just because his flaws are given more screen time does not mean that his spouse has none of her own. Their two boys each favor a different parent, coping with the stress of separation in a manner roughly analogous to how their preferred parent brought about the divorce. It's intriguing to hear the son speak to his girlfriend with the same words we earlier heard exchanged between his father and mother. But separation does not cure what ails this family, as each parent confuses the situation by quickly moving on to a new love interest (in Mr. Daniels' case, that being a flirty Anna Paquin). All four family members are desperate for attention, but none are

The film is roughly autobiographical of its writer and director, Noah Baumbach. At 81 minutes, it's also makes for a short viewing session, but I found its length just right for a view into the times and trials of a broken home, without the drama or creepiness of Blue Car.

As with this time last year, I'll be AFK for a few weeks as I enjoy a summer vacation in Missouri, then Washington and Missoula. I have some Showbits content queued for the next two weeks, so there will be something to read while I'm gone.

I didn't want to leave the site in a precarious position while away, so once I'm back and available to smooth out any bugs, I'll be upgrading Showbits to WordPress 2.6 (that being the software that powers this blog). If, while I'm under the hood, there are any additional features you'd like to see implemented, please let me know!

In the meantime, I may be blogging on my journeys for my day job, so if your interests are not just cinematic but also retrocomputic, surf on over.

Today is the release of The Dark Knight, for which I, a diehard DC comics fan, am not waiting in line to see. I was thoroughly underwhelmed with its predecessor, Batman Begins — Christian Bale just isn't the man to portray Gotham's caped crusader.

That opinion is a happy consequence of the fact that there isn't one right way to portray the Dark Knight. There have been many interpretations of the character over the years, and Web 2.0 has allowed fans to put him in their own tales as well. The dark, landmark short "Dead End" is one of my favorites, as it plays on many of the grim aspects of both Batman and the comic book medium that are so appealing.

"Dead End" also provides a sharp contrast from which to create more humorous takes on Batman. Ever since Frank Miller (of 300 and Sin City fame) wrote The Dark Knight Returns in 1986, most incarnations of Batman have depicted him as brooding and violent character. So any return to the campiness with which Adam West first brought Batman to life is a welcome relief, such as shown in this recent release, entitled "Batman's Bad Day":

This film is funny for more than showing how superheroes treat each other when not in crisis management mode. Showbits contributor Hiphopguy23 hates the Man of Steel for having every other character's superpower, usurping any other hero's usefulness. It's past time to see him and his god-like brethren put in their place — and the quintessential Boy Scout's uncharacteristic riposte is a great zinger.

Another recent entry into the Batman fanfilm category is one that doesn't feature Batman at all, and again features a surprising ending. I give you "The Interrogator":

This is just a small sampling of the creative output of the Batman fan community; a more complete index can be found at BatmanFanFilms.com. And if you too are uninterested in today's theatrical release, check out Dayton Ward's Batman gallery, which takes the audio and action of the Dark Knight trailer and recreates it using a variety of media, from animation to LEGOs. Finally, remember that the animated film Batman: Gotham Knight is now available on DVD, serving as a bridge between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.

I once expressed concern about the ability of the Terminator franchise to successfully reinvent itself as a television series. But Terminator 2 is one of my favorite films of all-time, and the Terminator himself is a fantastic hero and villain — how many characters can claim such duality? These previous impressions encouraged me to set aside my reservations and give The Sarah Connor Chronicles a look when it debuted this past spring. I was pleasantly surprised by the two episodes I saw, sufficiently that I've preordered next month's DVD release of the nine-episode first season.

So, despite a lack of interest in almost anything with Christian Bale (including tomorrow's Dark Knight — sorry, but that kid hasn't impressed me since Newsies), I'm trying to keep an open mind about next year's fourth Terminator installment. In playing to the Balehead crowd, tomorrow's Batman flick includes the official premiere of the first trailer for Terminator Salvation — but you can watch it here, now, for free:

It's not much to go on, and unless time travel is involved, the film will likely lack any of its titular adversaries. Say it with me: it's too early to judge… And hey, if it sucks? There's always RiffTrax.

(more…)

Superheroes have been a hot property for decades, but the last few years have been especially generous to fans of the genre. We've seen everyone from Superman and the X-Men to Constantine and Hellboy transition from comic book to silver screen, many of them successfully. Nonetheless, it was a welcome change of pace to take in Hancock, an original property with its own take on superpowered beings living among us.

Secret identities are a mainstay of the superhero genre, and the same is true for Will Smith's John Hancock, but with a twist: his identity is secret even to himself. Hancock is imbued with flight, super-strength, super-speed, and invulnerability, but like Superboy and unlike Superman, he is always "on" as Hancock. He has no normal childhood to serve as a foundation for his self-identity, nor human persona to retreat to and through which to keep in touch with the non-powered populace he tries to serve. The result is a drunken, reckless "hero" frustrated ostensibly with an ungrateful citizenry, but truly with his own inability to connect to the rest of humanity. The opportunity and struggle to overcome that conflict arises when Hancock saves someone (Jason Bateman) who sees the maligned martyr's potential for greatness, and the two team up to create a new image that rectifies the careless flaws for which Hancock has become infamous.

It's an interesting approach, and one, as another review noted, that's welcome after the fantastic though typical fare of Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk. There's some comedy here, not too much action, and some character introspection — though there could've been more. The film takes an unusual, though not entirely unexpected, turn in the last half-hour. I've heard criticism of this portion of the film, but I found it satisfactorily answered many questions I'd accumulated during the previous hour.

A different script could likely have satisfied both me and the film's critics more uniformly, but that's not the movie we were given. What we got was a character study on the burden of great power — not its inherent responsibility to others, but its ability to elevate above mankind someone who considers himself below it. Some touching and thoughtful sequences make this a superhero film of a different ilk from what we're accustomed to, and I appreciate that diversity.

In 1983, personal computers were in an exciting infancy. The Apple II, Commodore 64, TRS-80, and more made for a diverse digital landscape in which to explore, create — and hack. We didn't know what "security" meant other than simple passwords, and the necessity of direct connections in that pre-Internet era exposed many vulnerable machines.

A quarter-century later, networking and security have evolved barely beyond recognition of those early days. But this July 24th, you can journey back to a simpler time with the 25th anniversary of a seminal geek classic:

According to the Web site for the WarGames 25th anniversary event (which also gives a film synopsis — for all three of you who haven't seen WarGames yet), "The event will include never-before-seen interviews with cast and crew on how the movie was ahead of its time and its relevance today." Just as when Star Trek: TOS returned to theaters this past November, WarGames is a one-night, one-time-only engagement — one that happens to coincide with KansasFest, the only remaining Apple II convention. So I'll be seeing this film with folk who actually remember the days of the acoustic coupler and won't need to go far to research how accurate this film is!

But every silver lining has its cloud: this celebration will include a preview of the sequel, coming to DVD a week later.

(more…)

Bill Bixby's Hulk impressed on me the quintessential rendition of the monster, which made Eric Bana's take all the more monstrous. I have spent the last five years submerging memories of that 2003 Hulk film, and I worried that this summer's second attempt at the green giant would be more of the same. But with the reassurances of Marvel devotees, I paid my admission and steeled myself for the worst.

It's amazing what a difference is made when a film's star shares my opinion. As Ed Norton said on Jimmy Kimmel, "We're trying to rescue this franchise from the crapper!" He thus took a heavy hand in the scripting and editing of this outing, resulting in a much more engaging and fluid tale.

From the opening, it's clear this film is neither sequel nor remake. Dr. Banner's backstory is told primarily through brief vignettes that play out under the opening credit sequence. This encapsulation suffices for comic book buffs; others will pick up the details from ensuing dialogue. The story is clearly an homage to its television namesake: Within the first few minutes of the opening is a cameo by Bill Bixby, and later there's Lou Ferrigno in a much more noticeable and respectful appearance than in the last Hulk film. This is not a movie-length episode of the television series, but there are many common elements, such as a protagonist on the run, looking for a cure, which could not be present in an "origin" story such as Ang Lee's. The renewed focus on character development is a welcome change from the 2003 version that featured arena-type combat, a ridiculous villain, and a hero we could neither understand nor sympathize with.

The supporting cast here creates a valuable context for Banner to develop in. Like Jeff Bridges in Iron Man, William Hurt has aged into an excellent villain almost unrecognizable from his usual throwaway fare in films such as Michael and A.I. His brassy, hard-as-nails general is someone whose motivations we can almost understand, smartly keeping him from being the true villain. General Ross is also a more interesting father figure than the one Nick Nolte tried to play in the last Hulk film; Banner's relationships are sufficiently complex and painful without introducing unnecessary and villainous family.

As for the Hulk's actual adversary, I was hesitant by what the trailers suggested: essentially an evil Hulk, manufactured through the same means that brought us our original hero. Yet the smallest of details banished my concerns and instead subtly incorporated the Hulk into the rich Marvel mythos. It seems the gamma radiation which put Banner on the lam was a byproduct of research into creating the perfect "super-soldier" — a phrase that should hold meaning to any fan of the Marvel universe.

The Incredible Hulk has a good mix of action and dialogue. Banner is subjected to only three transformations, and in the style of Alien, his first appearance is kept almost entirely in the dark. Action fans may've expected more of the title character and less of his human counterpart, but I think the film's focus is exactly where its cinematic predecessor showed (by counterexample) it should be. (There could've been even more; I'm told there are over 70 minutes of deleted scenes, several of which are visible in the trailers.) Director Louis Leterrier deftly works the threat of the Hulk into even non-action sequences. There's a tense scene in which a metamorphosis begins and Betty climbs atop the thrashing figure to offer calming words, piercing Banner's confused haze to remind him who he is. Perhaps this act struck me for being so similar to my mother's own actions when my father had a seizure.

There are a few inconsistencies. When Banner is driving at night with "a person of interest", he ducks down in his car seat; but the next morning, he feels comfortable strolling through an open glade with her in broad daylight. When threatened, he pushes his love interest away for her own safety — but later, when he knows he's about to transform, he makes no such gestures. Is this guy a brilliant scientist or not??

More to the point: is The Incredible Hulk a brilliant film? I'd say yes, and it's almost enough to make me wonder if the 2003 film was Marvel Comics' attempt at New Coke to make us appreciate the reboot all the more. Iron Man is still the summer film to beat, but as superheroes go, Ed Norton has created an unexpectedly incredible movie.

It's proving a rather devastating year for Hollywood's roster. Yesterday, we lost the many talents of dancer and actress Cyd Charisse.

In an unexpected synchronicity, it's been in just these past six months that I became familiar with Ms. Charisse's work beyond her non-speaking role in Singin' in the Rain. When I was offered a part in a community theater production of Brigadoon, I quickly consumed the movie version to see what I was getting myself into. Though I now suspect the women's dance numbers did not showcase Ms. Charisse's full range of talent as the female lead, I was enamored of the film's colors and her chemistry with Singin' partner Gene Kelly.

A few months later, I finally saw them again reunited in It's Always Fair Weather, a musical I'd seen a clip of a decade past. Though a surprisingly unremarkable film for a performer of his caliber, the scene that drew me to it — a Gene Kelly dance number performed on roller skates — was worth the price of admission, while Ms. Charisse's sassy number in the boxing ring got her the screen time she deserved.

Though not all musicals translate well to film, the medium is infinitely capable of grand tales of song and dance. Hats off to Cyd Charisse for cementing the genre's place in Hollywood's history.

(Hat tip to Dear or Alive?)