Showbits

When I previewed the summer blockbuster season, I declared Iron Man a must-see and Speed Racer a maybe-see. I've so far been right — Marvel's first of two superhero films this year was everything I'd hoped it would be, and more (with a full review to be posted here as soon as my editor is finished with it). With Speed Racer not being released until tomorrow, this other live-action adaptation remains an unknown quantity.

But more and more, I'm finding myself opening to the idea of spending 135 minutes watching a film from the same brothers who invented, and then ruined, the Matrix trilogy. What most recently nudged my opinion in a positive direction was this uninterrupted three-minute clip. It's corny, but that's okay: as with the second Fantastic Four film, it's not necessarily about having low expectations, but realistic expectations. And the more I see of Speed Racer, the better an idea I get of what to expect.

I was surprised that the plethora of Iron Man clips the studio released to the Internet did not ruin the film; despite all the previews, I went into the theater still not knowing as large a detail as the villain's identity. Given that safe philosophy, here are the three minutes of Speed Racer linked to above, along with its preceding four minutes, in the film's first seven minutes:

Combining the trend of direct-to-DVD adatations of DC comic books such as Superman: Doomsday with the multiple personalities of The Animatrix, I present to you Batman: Gotham Knight, hitting home video on July 8th:

This comes hot on the heels of the recently-released Justice League: New Frontier, which I hope to review soon:

I'm a fan of DC Comics and find their animated adaptations to be consistently above average (unlike, say, live-action Marvel films). I love how energetically DC is pursuing the home video market as a viable alternative to cinematic releases — and since I'm not a fan of Christian Bale, these DVD releases will give me an alternative Dark Knight fix this summer. Keep 'em coming!!

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull recently wrapped filming — just in time to precede today's opening of The Spiderwick Chronicles with this blessedly spoiler-free trailer:

On one hand, this preview doesn't offer many clues about the plot, Karen Allen's return, or Indy's relationship to Shia LaBeouf. But on the other hand, we don't want the trailer to give much away. Either way, what could a trailer do to make us want or not want to see the film? I've met people as recently as this calendar year who didn't know a new Indiana Jones was in production, let alone on the cusp of release. So perhaps the advertising Lucasfilm does need not be persuasive so much as declarative: yes, this film exists. You know the name, and you want to see it. What more is there?

Though the following information already exists as various comments on existing threads, I perceived the pending premieres of a pair of popular pilots prompted promotion (phew!) — so to ensure our readers stay savvy and don't miss the return of these franchises, here's a timely reminder.

On Sunday, January 13th, at 8:00 PM EST, and Monday, January 14th, at 9:00 PM EST, will be Fox's two-part The Sarah Connor Chronicles, which attempts to bring the successful Terminator movie series to the small screen. The show features a strong cast that includes Thomas Dekker (Heroes) and Summer Glau (Firefly), as seen in this trailer:

Five weeks later, on Sunday, February 17th, at 9:00 PM EST, will be NBC's debut of what could be a new Knight Rider series. This two-hour movie is what's known as a "backdoor pilot": a stand-alone film that could conceivably lead to a continuing series. Trailers such as the following have not yet shown much actual movie footage, just teasers:

Each show is based on a successful license; what could possibly go wrong?

(Hat tip to Coming Soon)

Here's a five-minute clip from Cloverfield:

I'm amused by the reaction of the New Yorkers to seeing Lady Liberty's decapitated head; I would think 9/11 would've struck a bit less shock and somewhat more caution around seeming catastrophes. The videographer does not seem to manifest himself much, though it does seem my previous concern that the film would be shot entirely from that character's perspective will be realized — but the motion is far less jerky than I feared. Perhaps my stomach will tolerate it after all.

Earlier this month, a full-length trailer was released for Cloverfield. Before then, the film's title was only a rumor, with the project being better known by its release date — 01-18-08 — or as "J.J. Abrams' new monster movie." Even with this trailer, little is known:

What is known: Cloverfield is an American-made film about a giant monster attack on New York City, from the director of Lost, Alias, and Star Trek XI. I've not actually seen these samples of Abrams' work, but they've earned enough publicity to make his latest venture worth a look.

For all the secrecy around the film, the most intriguing element is the antagonist itself. In the last decade, Hollywood has seen the reimagining of the archetypal behemoths, Godzilla and King Kong. How will Abrams' threat to the Big Apple set itself apart from its ill-received predecessors? The Internet is abuzz with speculation: could it be a Lovecraftian, Cthulu-type abomination? A giant mechanoid? The Stay Puft Marshmallow Man? As depicted in the trailer, the destruction of the Statue of Liberty suggests the seriousness of the assault, but pure mayhem on a major metropolis has been done often enough, including in Independence Day. To engage and retain the audience, Abrams has to produce something original — assuming the monster is even a central figure, in much the way the Autobots were not the stars of The Transformers.

Regardless of the content, it's vital Cloverfield be presented in an easily-consumable format. The entire film appears to be shot in the amateur style of The Blair Witch Project, which I hope is not the case. As I've learned with that film and the likes of the last two Bourne films, I haven't the constitution for the irregular motion and unfocused shots. Films should be emotionally, not physically, demanding. Give me a clear and shocking view of a creepy colossus, and I'm sold.

When a movie, show, or franchise is successful, it not only spawns cheap imitators, but also encourages the funding and development of similar properties and adaptations. Without the success of Spider-Man and X-Men, we'd likely not have Heroes, for example. Observe RiffTrax's description of that show:

Imagine, just imagine, if ordinary citizens suddenly began to discover that they have acquired extraordinary powers. Why, you would have X-Men. But imagine if instead of acquiring X-Men-like powers of healing, time travel, mind control and the ability to fly these people instead had those powers but weren't X-Men! Why, then you'd have the very un-X-Men-like Heroes! Follow the exploits of Claire, Hiro, Peter, Logan, Scott Summers, and Jean Grey as they struggle to come to grips with powers that are so obviously not modeled after X-Men.

You need not be that cynical about new properties, regardless of their influences; nothing exists in a vacuum, after all. So while superheroes are currently en vogue, I'm nonetheless excited about Jumper, starring Hayden Christensen as a Nightcrawleresque ne'er-do-well and Samuel L. Jackson as the man who hunts him. (If a lightsaber's involved, this pairing cannot end well.) Based on Steven Gould's 1992 novel of the same name, this film's trailer is now available (tip of the hat to TheForce.net):

Most everyone wishes for superpowers, but I think it's in one's youth that the need for uniqueness, power, and escape is most powerful. So to see two young men with the most alluring of Star Trek's magics — teleportation — will have me first in line for this film's release on February 15th. Sure, Hayden Christensen did Star Wars: Episode II few favors as Anakin, but his performance in the sequel and in Life as a House have redeemed him in my eyes. And for those still carrying a grudge — well, here's your chance to see him disappear. :-)

After stumbling across the excellently-choreographed Ryan vs. Dorkman Star Wars fan films, I started watching for more from the dynamic duo of Ryan Wieber and Michael Scott. Hearing their interview on Geekza was cool, but I wanted to see more.

I found it when I subscribed to Scott's YouTube channel, as shortly thereafter, he posted this teaser trailer:

It's a live action adaptation of the Dark Horse comic book The Descendants, which doesn't seem to be a widely-distributed publication; the best source of information I've found about it is its MySpace page. We can gather more from watching the trailer, though.

First and most important, it features Ray Park, who deserves any role he wants after his enjoyable performances as the short-lived Darth Maul and the evil mutant Toad. Second, the trailer exhibits some great special effects, but something about their nature that I can't put my finger on suggests homebrew — like that of a high-quality fan film instead of a professional studio. Backing up that intuition is the fact that many other sites are reporting this venture is intended to be a Web series. But from co-director Scott himself comes the admission that its ultimate format is to be determined:

We're trying to get funding for the full project, but we don't know yet what form it will take. At this point in the negotiations with certain groups, it could become anything from a theatrical feature to a TV miniseries to a collection of webisodes posted right here on YouTube. It's up in the air at the moment.

So there remain many questions about this project, but based on the directors' portfolio and what I've seen of this latest collaboration, I hope the answers are positive. IMDb suggests we won't be seeing the fruits of their labor until 2009, which should be enough time to get The Descendants the green light it deserves.