IRON MAN

Well, summer is finally here, and with it comes the onslaught of new blockbusters. I'm happy to say that IRON MAN kicks things off with a huge bang, and I really hope the rest of the summer lives up to my geek fantasies, because Jon Favreau has delivered one of the best entries in the superhero genre. In fact, while watching the film, I could already picture about five sequels - all of which would be just as fantastic with all of the same people involved - and the various plots and secrets they could cover. This movie left me wanting, not in a negative way, but in a big, I-can't-get-enough sort of way.

IRON MAN is based on Marvel Comic series, obviously, about genius billionaire arms manufacturer Tony Stark, who, on a sales pitch in a war zone, is abducted by the enemy (Vietcong in the comics, Islamic extremists in the movie) and escapes using a suit of iron that he constructs for himself instead of building weapons for the bad guys. Upon his return home, he decides that he must perfect the suit, and help rid the world of various baddies, thus becoming a de facto superhero. Also, being a comic book superhero, he is kept from dying by an electromagnet placed around his heart (the arc reactor) and which also powers the suit, allowing for his superhuman abilities.

The bulk of the movie is the origin story, with the final version of the suit and the ultimate decision by Tony Stark to devote himself publicly to superheroics being placed about midway through the third act. A lot of superhero movies have origin stories, I know, but IRON MAN never fails to excite, and it subverts some of the tropes of the genre by having a fully adult character who comes into being via his own means and skills rather than some mere freak accident or reaction. There are things that happen that can obviously only take place in comic book reality, but the film never belittles them or makes jokes out of them. Quite simply, IRON MAN is a film that never fails itself, nor its viewer, by feeling the need to over explain every single detail, and trusts its origins as being believable enough for an audience. Even in its most absurd moments, the fantasy simply exists as a part of reality, and never comes off as too science-fiction-y.

Robert Downey, Jr. as Stark, Gwyneth Paltrow as Stark's assistant, Pepper Potts, and Jeff Bridges as villain Obadiah Stane turn in confident, strong work, and take their characters seriously, which is refreshing. The acting in this film is far and away the best of any superhero movie, and Downey's turn as Tony Stark is inspired. I think it just goes to show how much casting actually lends itself to certain roles, as Stark is (and becomes a much worse) alcoholic, and given Downey's own much-publicized problems with addiction. He knows this aspect of the character well, and he knows how to - in this first film, at least - hint at Stark's dependency, but not overplay it or make it obvious. If they ever film the story arch "Demon in a Bottle", which sees Stark battling his alcoholism and is one of the best IRON MAN stories period, I imagine it will be nothing short of fantastic.

Director Jon Favreau throws in some subtle nods to what could come in further installments, mostly for fans to speculate on or get really excited about. The terrorist group that abducts Tony is called the Ten Rings, which points toward the arch-enemy of Iron Man, The Mandarin, who seeks the ten rings of power, as well as the scene in which Rhodey, Stark's friend in the military sector, glances at one of the Iron Man prototypes and says, "Next time, baby." Rhodey becomes the much more heavily armed War Machine in the comics. There's also the much-publicized appearance of Nick Fury and the mention of S.H.I.E.L.D. and the "Avenger initiative," which hints at the super-team's appearance sometime in the future. But the real surprise is that you don't really have to be an Iron Man fan at all in order to enjoy the film and take away from it enough information that you feel like you know anything you should.

Finally, I want to say that this film looks fantastic. There is a lot of special effects work at play here, and it's handled really, really, amazingly well. The Iron Man suits are part practical and part CGI, but it's so seamless you really can't tell the difference. The action sequences are likewise thrilling, and believable, if at times venturing into slightly cartoonish territory (the fall from the sky and then surviving thing, for instance.) The final battle between Iron Man and Iron Monger is a bit short and somewhat standard, but seeing the two suits battling in the streets and destroying everything in their path is a whole lot of fun, and like I said, looks really nice. For the most part, the world of IRON MAN is a pretty strict PG-13 one, complete with enemies being blown up, smashed and slammed into walls, and being shot in the head with any number of Tony's gadgets. There are so many deaths in IRON MAN that had there been any real amount of blood shown, it would have been an easy contender for an R.

As a film, it's faithful to its source material, and that may very well be why it works so well. The comic has long been considered one of the best (when it is written well, of course, like any other continuing series), so it should be no surprise that if you just translate something that's already quite good into another medium the results will be positive. As a semi-fan myself (I've always liked Iron Man, but didn't read his books as much as the X-Men or Batman ones), I was very much blown away. Please, please, please let the rest of the summer season live up to the awesomeness of IRON MAN.

Underrated: DICK TRACY

Warren Beatty's 1990 film of DICK TRACY gets a bad rap. Personally, I think it's fantastic. I don't think I've ever seen a film that does such justice to its comic-strip origins. Even that other great, unjustly maligned comic-strip film, Robert Altman's POPEYE, doesn't come close to matching the adherence of style to DICK TRACY. But rather than delve into the various criticisms of the film, I want simply to point out why it's great, and why I love the film so much.

DICK TRACY is a joy to look at. Filmed in high contrast primary colors (an attempt to recreate the comic's original four-color printing process), there is a vibrancy not regularly seen in the palette of a typical noir. And believe me, despite its cartoonish look, this film is noir through and through. Tracy is a little more black and white than most leads in films noir, but the situations he gets himself into and the general feel of the film make for an interesting take on the genre. Hell, if anyone doesn't get absolute thrills at Madonna's take on Breathless Mahoney/The Blank - one of my favorite femme fatales - they probably aren't alive.

Taking seminal characters from the comic strip - Flat Top and Big Boy, prominently - writers Jim Cash and Jack Epps Jr. tell the story of crime boss Big Boy Caprice's attempted takeover of the city and the battle Tracy faces in a city filled to the brim with henchmen. And filled to the brim it is, as producer/director/star Beatty, a huge fan of the strip, decided to put in as many of the series's signature villains as possible in case a sequel never got made (which it sadly didn't.) The result is a bit of an overcrowded cast and an underdeveloped plot, I'll admit, but I won't admit that this negates the feel of the strip the film achieved.

A rogue's gallery: Flattop, Itchy, "Breathless" Mahoney, Big Boy Caprice, and The Stooge

The music is also a highpoint, as Stephen Sondheim wrote one of my favorite "period" songs ever in a modern film: "Sooner or Later (I Always Get My Man)." It's perfect in just about every way, and the montage over which it plays is amazing as well. I'm such a little girl for little sequences like this.

I love the relationship between Tess Trueheart and Tracy, and the development of The Kid's role in their family dynamic. I also love the little nods to the strip here and there, from the opening sequence with the rescue of The Kid from The Tramp, straight through to the use of the two-way wrist radio (an invention of Gould's that served as an early inspiration for cell phones.) And the decision to set it in the period of the strip's classic run rather than the more current takes made the art direction stand out even more.

Going back to Tess Trueheart for a moment, I just want to say that I think it's criminal that Glenne Headly never broke bigger than she did. Sure, she has had major roles (notably in DIRTY ROTTEN SCOUNDRELS), but someone of her talent should be well-known, not relegated to small roles in GREY'S ANATOMY and the upcoming KIT KITTREDGE movie. Anyone who sees this movie and doesn't automatically fall head-over-heels in love with Tess Trueheart really doesn't get it. She's the heart that keeps everything together, and Glenne provides a huge performance with what she's given.

The bright, blown-out primary colors took a knocking at the time, but today look fantastic.

I think the real problem everyone had with DICK TRACY was that it was a bit ahead of its time. It came out about a decade too soon, before we really started analyzing and thinking about the importance of artifice in film. The prominence of style as a form of narrative itself really wasn't even considered heavily in mainstream film criticism (academics, certainly) until the 90's (despite the style-over-substance movement in France a la Luc Besson's LA FEMME NIKITA.) Maybe it's time to think about what DICK TRACY is and where it fits into film history. I, for one, would be completely down with a re-evaluation of comic strip movies that have gotten a raw deal. Seriously, go back and watch DICK TRACY again and don't enjoy the hell out of it on its own terms. Take no pretense other than it is a comic strip come to life. Go ahead, I dare you.

Kim Morgan's Take on THE MUPPET MOVIE

Kim Morgan has long been one of my favorite critics/writers on film. She is currently in charge of the MSN movies blog, and also has her own fantastic website, Sunset Gun, that serves mainly as a collection of her writing from all over the 'Net. I don't think it's hard to see why she's so good at what she does, as she is clearly impassioned about films (car movies and ones that star Warren Oates), and cares a lot about making the lesser-known gems stand out from the pack. Her taste is impeccable, and her writing is so good it's hard not to crib it and pass it off as my own (to a certain extent, I already write like her, I think...at least style-,if not quality-wise.) I guess then it's no reason to see why I love her so much.

Anyway, over at the MSN blog, she has a wonderful little post about THE MUPPET MOVIE up, and I thought I'd share it with you. Clearly, she has some Muppet love to go around (as I think anyone with any taste does.) From her entry:

...“The Muppet Movie” is one of those rare television-to-movie adaptations that gives a back story but dips and swerves into so many different experiences that you hardly feel like you’re watching anything remotely television-like.

I couldn't agree more. The Muppets are some of the most endearing creations ever, and I cannot wait to see them in their full glory once more. Of all the Muppet movies to come and go over the past 30 years, the original is still the best, and worthwhile viewing for anyone who loves to be entertained and thrilled.

To read the full entry, visit the article at the MSN Movies Filter.

Antici---pation: MOTHER OF TEARS, WALL-E, and PINEAPPLE EXPRESS

The Summer in movie theaters is usually a mixed bag for me. I love a lot of things that come out (this year there are far more than usual I'm looking forward to), but I ultimately enter the Fall season a bit underwhelmed and unsure of what I actually liked or disliked. That said, things are usually bookended pretty well. Last year, for example, GRINDHOUSE, ZODIAC, KNOCKED UP and BLACK SNAKE MOAN all came out between March and May, while THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM and SUPERBAD wrapped things up with a bit of a bang. This year there are a ton of flicks I'm looking forward to that come smack in the middle of the season...and I hope they don't disappoint.

1) MOTHER OF TEARS
Dario Argento's long-awaited follow-up/conclusion of the "Three Mothers" trilogy that he began with his classics SUSPIRIA and INFERNO. As a life-long fan of SUSPIRIA in particular, and as a fan of his daughter, Asia, this movie is something I absolutely cannot wait to see. Concerning a coven of witches hell-bent on destroying Rome, MOTHER OF TEARS promises to be quite a gory and disconcerting time from a true master.

2) WALL-E
Pixar has only made one film that was not very good (CARS), and even then, the animation was flawless, and, hey, it was still better than all the other dreck that gets bandied about as entertainment for children. The studio's upcoming film, WALL-E, is directed by Andrew Stanton, who shared directing duties on A BUG'S LIFE, and helmed the superb FINDING NEMO, and I'm sure it's going to be nothing but a good thing. Take a look at the very cute, sweet, funny and sad trailer, and you'll get a hint as to why I think this may be Pixar's best outing yet...

3) PINEAPPLE EXPRESS
I'm a huge Apatow fan, from his days as producer/curator of the criminally under-seen series FREAKS AND GEEKS and ANCHORMAN to his own films. This film is one that he produced, but that perennial Apatow player Seth Rogen wrote, as was last year's SUPERBAD, which I don't think I need to tell anyone pretty much rocked all the way through. I expect no less from PINEAPPLE EXPRESS, a stoner comedy that turns into an action-comedy when an extremely rare strain of weed leads a mobster to a stoner, who witnessed a murder, and his dealer. It's directed by David Gordon Green, of the superb ALL THE REAL GIRLS and last year's praised-but-unseen-by-myself-as-of-yet SNOW ANGELS. On top of that, the trailer features several of the funniest things I've seen on screen this year in its sparse two minutes.

FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL

In writer/star Jason Segel's FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL, super-producer Judd Apatow's clan finally comes completely into their own. Not that Seth Rogen's SUPERBAD wasn't great, or that his upcoming PINEAPPLE EXPRESS doesn't look like a hell of a good time, but Segel's little wonder of a movie ventures outside the usual tropes of his mentor and settles firmly into its own take on the Apatow brand. But fret not, there's still plenty of raunch, bit parts by all the regulars, and also some gratuitous male nudity; humiliating, emasculating, and really funny male nudity.

The film concerns Peter Bretter (Segel), composer for the CSI-like show on which his girlfriend, the titular Sarah (Kristen Bell), works. The first scene is a breakup, with Peter in the buff, while he is dumped, underscoring painfully the helpless feeling one gets from being told by the person they love that they no longer want to be with them. Also, it's a really good laugh. In any case, Peter goes through a pretty deep depression, and with guidance from his step-brother, decides to go off on a trip to Hawaii to get a fresh perspective. Needless to say, he arrives only to find that Sarah and her new squeeze, British rocker Aldous Snow (Russell Brand), are also at the resort. He decides to stay, and that's when the story really picks up and transforms into the story of Peter meeting Rachel (Mila Kunis), the hotel concierge who hooks him up with a room he could never afford, and begins to take a liking to him.

Though the story has been told at least a million times in movies, I felt like this take was almost completely fresh. Of course, the biggest asset to Apatow's movies, either as producer or as the sole creating partner is that he is able to take material that is in no way new or innovative, and inject it with so much believability, wit, raunch, and heart that it is entirely infectious. I know the man has his detractors, but I'm so not one of them. And when a movie about really obscenely rich people taking holidays in Hawaii makes me care about the characters in any way, and doesn't make them all seem like vapid assholes, I know it's something special.

I like the style of Segel's humor on display in FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL. It doesn't rely solely on any one thing, and shows a rather broad range, from shocking and rude, to sweet and subtle: a smirk here, a penis there. There's something for everyone here. And don't even get me started on the prominence of puppets. When you see the movie, it should come as no surprise that Segel has pitched a new Muppet movie to Disney and is toiling away on the screenplay as we speak. "Snuffleupagus fucks my shit up" may be the funniest thing I hear a side character say all year. The cast is perfect as well, with just enough of the Apatow troupe to keep things funny without getting tiresome. Bill Hader, Jonah Hill, Paul Rudd, Da'Vone McDonald and 30 ROCK's Jack McBrayer all turn in some memorable work and all have their moments to shine.

Segel, Kunis and Bell are wonderful, and each has a very clear talent with comic timing (as anyone who has ever seen their television work well knows) and a certain level of believability in their characters. The standout performance, though, is definitely Russel Brand, a British TV comedian virtually unknown here in the United States, who should hit it big after audiences get a whiff of him in FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL, especially if his role in Danny McBride's upcoming THE FOOT FIST WAY is as fully realized and hilarious. His Aldous Snow is delightfully, cringe-inducingly honest and simple in his worldview, and completely spot-on.

For fans of Apatow's comedies, this is another hit. I feel a bit bad that the directors of the side cannon, as I think it's appropriate to label Apatow's producer work, are largely unnoticeable. Really, the style they have is completely that of their producer, and wholly influenced by the directorial style employed in THE 40 YEAR OLD VIRGIN and KNOCKED UP. Nick Stoller takes a few chances with SARAH MARSHALL, but nothing that really stands out. Maybe the director is inconsequential, especially since it's obvious everyone is playing off of everyone else anyway, from scripting duties to casting to comedic style. Segel's script takes some chances, and most of them pay off. I doubt very seriously, for instance that we'd ever see such a prominent display of Muppet-love in one of Apatow's efforts as a director.

Obsession: NIGHTS OF CABIRIA

Federico Fellini's masterpiece is often cited to be LA STRADA, and it very well may be, but my favorite film by the Maestro is his companion film to LA STRADA, NIGHTS OF CABIRIA. Reprising the same character in a different situation (not entirely unlike Chaplin's Tramp), Giulietta Masina turns in a brilliant serio-comic performance as a prostitute who embarks on adventures with people looking to use her in the hopes of making something of herself. Along the way, she becomes entangled in a plot by a man who systematically marries and murders women for their money. The comparison to Chaplin not only echoes through Masina's performance as Cabiria, but also in the film itself, which contains just as much heartbreak and outright hilarity as the Tramp's classic, CITY LIGHTS.

The first time I saw NIGHTS OF CABIRIA was a little over three years ago, and immediately I fell in love with Giulietta Masina's character. She's so endearing and charming, it's almost impossibly not become infected with love for her. Fellini's set-up is simple and affecting: a young prostitute looking for love in all the wrong places. The action takes place over three separate nights, with three different suitors. Each piece has moments of pathos and whimsy, and I think is most typical of Fellini's style. The final piece of this film is heartbreaking and miraculous all at once, as the third man, whom Cabiria had sought to marry, almost kills her, steals her purse and leaves her destitute - having brought all her savings to run off with him - only to return to the small village she came from.

The film is a companion piece to LA STRADA in that it invokes the same themes of hope and loss with a similar protagonist (Masina's character is basically the same in both films), and employs the magical-realism often associated with LA STRADA and much of Fellini's filmography. Furthermore, both LA STRADA and NIGHTS OF CABIRIA are films about love, and the ways in which the world can crush even the most adamant optimist and believer. Ultimately, though, you just have to get up and carry on; get over the problems life sets in your way.

Masina is amazing in such a part, and that's part of the reason the films are believable and touching. Like very few others, Masina can channel so many emotions at once it's incredible. From the simple joy of dancing in a nightclub (one of the funniest scenes in the film), to the horrific realization that your entire life has been ripped from right under you, she is a genius, and I can't get enough of her. Of course, neither could Fellini, which is probably why he married her.

For anyone who has never seen this, it's hard to describe the magic it works on you as a viewer. It entrances, overwhelms and ultimately enraptures you completely. You fall in love with this little prostitute with a heart of gold, and you simply cannot get enough. Cabiria is one of the greatest comedic performances ever committed to celluloid (it's up there with Chaplin in CITY LIGHTS and Michel Simon in BOUDU SAVED FROM DROWNING), and it should not be missed by anyone.

"I've got two words to say to that: Bull SHIT!"

I was watching producer Roger Corman's brilliant B-classic, DEATH RACE 2000 the other night, and while I was watching it, I was constantly thinking about the sure-to-be-horrible remake coming up toward the end of the summer. How in the world does anyone think this movie can 1) be viably remade for today's market while keeping its subversive nature intact, and 2) needs to be remade at all? The idea of a remake is not a new one, nor will I argue an invalid one. Some of the best motion pictures of all time have been remakes, including THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN (remake of THE SEVEN SAMURAI), SORCERER (remake of WAGES OF FEAR), and JOHN CARPENTER'S THE THING. So I'm not going to sit here and argue that remakes are evil and unnecessary.

I will, however, bring up that Hollywood in particular tends to remake far more films than need be, and usually in a far more inept way than the original, supposedly "inferior" films were. Setting aside the rash of PG-13 JHorror remakes aimed at teens, I instead want to focus on remakes that are a bit more puzzling, including the relatively recent releases HALLOWEEN, THE HILLS HAVE EYES, and DEATH SENTENCE, as well as discussing upcoming remakes/reboots (the Hollywood Executives' phrase- a'la mode.)

The DEATH RACE remake seems to me an unnecessary one simply because the original epitomizes everything one would ever hope to achieve in a movie called DEATH RACE 2000. There's nudity, gore, outrageous dialogue, a seriously black streak of comedy/commentary, and of course, the cars themselves, designed in low-budget futuristic glory by James Powers. Unless the screenplay for the remake culls everything exactly from the story on which the Corman film was loosely based, I just can't see the point of putting the exact same characters through the exact same motions other than upping the production values. That in and of itself is something that is almost laughable, with even the most bloated of budgets spent on CGI offering up a lot of crap (see the horrible effects work on display in I AM LEGEND, for intance), and that's really the only difference between a lot of the films made in the 1970s and today. CG is king, and that's why I think last year's brilliant DEATH PROOF, for example, is a hundred times more thrilling than stupid, stupid green screen and wire work that passes for "stunts" in today's films, and it's why the original DEATH RACE film will be more memorable than whatever gets churned out by the Hollywood remake factory.

Setting aside DEATH RACE for a moment, take a look at a couple of remakes that are as good as, or better than, or so different from their original source material that they validate their own existence. THE HILLS HAVE EYES, remade by Alexandre Aja into an ultraviolent retro-kitsch exploitation film, is better than the Wes Craven original only by a narrow margin, simply because it goes for the throat in every imaginable way, including creating characters that are fleshed out enough to care about, as well as monsters that are truly horrifying. The major differences between this and the original are negligible, but the style and subtext have been beefed up quite a bit, and the film becomes something all its own. HALLOWEEN, remade by Rob Zombie, is a film that differs substantially from the John Carpenter film, though in mostly good ways. While I won't say that Zombie's film is better (I don't think it is), I will say that it's much more interested in the monster than Carpenter's original, and therefore works by its own set of rules, creating a sort of hybrid/genre remix horror/domestic drama - a form that he began devoloping with THE DEVIL'S REJECTS in 2005. Both Aja and Zombie create films from the source that update the anxieties facing the modern viewers, and up the ante as far as the implications of their movies. The horror genre has always been a gauge of social anxiety, and Zombie and Aja prove that their updates of seminal films from the 1970s, arguably the last great decade for American horror, are valid extensions of the original films that incorporate just enough of today's world to terrify us all over again.

Last year's DEATH WISH remake, DEATH SENTENCE, starring Kevin Bacon, is a step in the opposite direction from the HALLOWEEN and THE HILLS HAVE EYES remakes. The first misstep is that the film's violence is meant to be "cool", something that, while present in the original film, is not the message, even though in later sequels it was the only thing holding proceedings together. The Charles Bronson classic is a film that stays with audiences because it doesn't feel ham-fisted. Bronson looks like the everyman, and the film's story never feels completely contrived. The one-man vigilante justice theme is a bit far-fetched, but only in that he continues to get away with it, not that he goes out and does it. In the remake, not only is the audience expected to buy that Kevin Bacon's character gets away with it, but that in no time flat he turns into a badass able to take on an entire gang in a very bloody shootout all by himself. It's just not good enough to warrant the effort. To add insult to injury, DEATH WISH is in the works to be remade yet again, this time by the original studio, MGM, and is to be written, directed by, and starring Sylvester Stallone. Sheesh already.

And that brings me back to DEATH RACE 2000, a film that Stallone got one of his first leading roles in as "Machine Gun" Joe Viterbo. A remake seems unneccesary only insofar as I can see nothing new being added to it. But, maybe like THE HILLS HAVE EYES and HALLOWEEN, there will be some validity to it after all. Still, leaving remakes in the hands of less-than-capable directors (DEATH RACE is being made by Paul WS Anderson, who has only made one film of note in EVENT HORIZON) reeks of simple greed and the desire to cash in on name recognition with a popular audience that increasingly has no respect for film history or classic cinema. Frankly, the studios would probably make more money simply re-releasing these classics into theaters rather than spend the millions and millions to remake them outright, but then, who would come to see them? I, for one, would. And I bet a whole lot more people than even I give credit to would as well. As for remaking things nonstop (look at Hollywood's release schedule: well over half of 2008's scheduled releases are remakes/reboots/or sequels), I would just like to plead that the studios at least embark on these projects as something more than the supposed cash cows they see them as.

Found Footage For Real

The horror genre of late has been rife with found-footage films, with stories told in the first-person in which the main character is the party filming the action around them, often for no other reason than they wish to "record" what's happening for posterity's sake. DIARY OF THE DEAD, CLOVERFIELD and the upcoming Spanish film [REC] (which I haven't seen as it's apparantly being remade in the US and they won't release the original until the remake is coming out...damned distributors...), as well as non-horror attempts like Brian DePalma's REDACTED all send up flares warning about the dangers of production and consumption of media.

Browsing around a couple of weeks ago online, I found the following article posted on CNN.com and thought it pertinent to share in light of my review of DIARY OF THE DEAD. Anyone who thinks these films are too far-fetched because anyone in their right mind would stop filming and attempt to help needs to read this: Indian 'Witch' Tied to Tree, Beaten by Mob

NEW DELHI, India (CNN) -- An Indian woman accused of being a witch was tied to a tree and beaten by a mob, with television footage of the incident aired in India on Friday...
...Tiwari said he was disturbed by the fact that a journalist filmed the incident before contacting authorities.
"The media filmed the incident, then called the police -- instead of the police first," Tiwari said.

Personally, I knew of this phenomenon far before now, as I witness it all the time when there's any incident at all - people have their cell phones out recording it for easy upload on YouTube, etc. This sickens me more than a bit. At least I know the horror genre is still completely right-on about current culture and expressing anxieties and fears about it, despite the common person's seeming inability to get past the "corny-ness" of the first-person trope and see themselves as the producer who is being lambasted by the very film they're watching...

Antici---pation: X-FILES, INDIANA JONES, and THE DARK KNIGHT

Summertime is fast approaching, and with it the onslaught of new blockbusters. Usually the summer months are filled with mindless entertainment, with several extremely guilty pleasures sneaking there way into my life (last year's TRANSFORMERS comes to mind.) This year, though, it seems like it could be completely different, with the blockbusters offering a respite from the purely idiotic fare the season has become known for in multiplexes. Here's a glimpse at a few of my most-anticipated titles for the summer.

1) X-FILES: I WANT TO BELIEVE
This film just received its official title yesterday, and I'm still not sure how I feel about it. But I do know that I'm head-over-heels in love with the fact that on July 25th, I'll be watching a brand-spankin' new X-FILES film in theaters, and that's enough for me. Still no word on the plot, as Chris Carter is keeping the lid on even tighter than Spielberg is for Indy's new adventures (see below), though he has acknowledged that it will be a stand-alone story harkening back to the less mythology-heavy early seasons of the show. But everyone wants to know what the monster is, if the show's ending will be addressed at all in the film (the coming colonization/invasion in 2012), and if Mulder and Scully finally take their relationship to the next level (this may not matter to non-die-hards, but it's important, trust me.) I literally cannot wait to find out the answers. If this movie came out tomorrow, I'd call in sick to work and be there first thing.

This is the best I could find as the official trailer is not yet released.

2) INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL
After almost twenty years, I think it's a miracle this is even happening. But Harrison Ford still looks good in the costume, and I generally trust Spielberg, even with George Lucas involved very heavily. Aside from the basics (in-continuity with the other films, takes place in the 1950s and a very big Cold War vibe), not much is known about the plot, although general speculation that it takes on some sci-fi elements seems to be a good bet. If previous screenplay drafts with titles like Indiana Jones and the Saucermen from Mars aren't enough to convince you, then maybe the mere fact that, even in the trailer, it's acknowledged that Indy makes his way to Roswell will do the trick. That would also make sense given Lucas and Spielberg's intentions to make the series an homage to the major serials produced in the era the films take place in (in the 30's, it was adventure, in the 50's, science fiction.) We'll see. Also, I really hope they put out a full trailer soon. We're not that far off, guys...

I really, really hope this turns out well.

3) THE DARK KNIGHT
Aside from the amazing fact that they're releasing a Batman film in theaters without the word Batman in the title (egads!!!), this should shape up to be completely stunning work from everyone involved. I'm a huge, huge, huge Batman fan, and I love BATMAN BEGINS, so you can only imagine the anticipation I have for this film. The Joker, the story (pulled heavily from the comics' "The Long Halloween"), and everything else I've seen look and sound fantastic. The mother of all superhero movies? Quite possibly. And I wouldn't be surprised to see awards mentioned for this flick either, considering its highly respectable pedigree. Who in the hell isn't waiting to see THE DARK KNIGHT?

Even though everyone has seen it, here's the trailer anyway...but in LEGO-mation!

Underrated: Ang Lee's HULK

Back in 2003, Ang Lee unleashed his film HULK on unsuspecting comic book lovers everywhere. While the film is a successful and highly personal and intimate drama about childhood trauma and its manifestation during adulthood, fans of the comic book, The Incredible Hulk, cried foul, and dissed the film almost unanimously, and continue to do so to this day. The film was too "boring" and didn't feature enough of the trademark "Hulk SMAAAASSSSH!!!" that fans were expecting. To be fair to the fans, it certainly was not an action-packed extravaganza, though this gripe is somewhat missing the point. By making a melodrama centered around comic book characters, rather than a comic book movie with hints of melodrama, Lee successfully transformed the "comic book movie" into a full-fledged movie, something that didn't need to be preceded by the term "comic book."

The importance of the story's drama to the film should come as no surprise to anyone the least bit familiar with Ang Lee's work, namely SENSE AND SENSIBILITY and THE ICE STORM, which are arguably his two best films. The traumatic events that Bruce Banner faced as a child that feed into his rage once exposed to nano-radiation make much more sense when one considers the source of the film (Ang Lee) and his previous emphasis on family dramas, even when dealing with large-scale conflicts like the American Civil War in RIDE WITH THE DEVIL or ancient Chinese mythology in CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON. What is surprising is the extent to which Banner's background is explicitly played out in the film. Lee almost spells out the entire reasoning for his manifestation as the Hulk, and it leaves little up in the air, which admittedly is a major draw in the comic book form. And that maybe marks the major departure for Lee from the comic - and thus hints at the disconnect the film really seems to have with fans.

The Incredible Hulk, at least early on, was a Jekyll and Hyde story, with Bruce Banner not knowing he was changing, and not being able to remember the things he did when he was Hulk. This all changed fairly quickly, and Hulk eventually became intelligent during the Peter David years. To my knowledge, the personal history of Bruce Banner never played much into the story outside of those events that were already present when he first transformed: his relationship with Betty Ross, his reputation as a scientist, etc. What Lee does with HULK, though, is move as much of this mythology into his own private universe he has created as a filmmaker, transforming the "Hulk Smash" mythos into a fairly adult take on reconciling differences between desires and commitments.

Betty Ross is the emotional center for Bruce, and her father, General "Thunderbolt" Ross, provides the biggest obstacle for Bruce both as her father who disapproves of him, and as the military commander who is most interested in bringing the Hulk down. Bruce's attempts to stay with Betty form the majority of the plot, and his presence as the Hulk take place mostly while trying to defend her or make sure she is not harmed. Despite this, he is an enemy of her father, and in the film's final confrontation must be removed from her life, either voluntarily or against his will. The result is devastating as a character film, and ranks with Lee's other films quite easily.

Hulk's emotional core is constantly on display. His rage is obviously affected by Betty's presence.

On top of this, Lee brought some amazing innovations to the screen, not the least of which were the special effects used to create the Hulk courtesy of ILM. A lot of criticism leveled at HULK was the cartoonish look of its effects. This is ludicrous to me. Just look at any screenshot and you can see the level of detail that went into producing the Hulk onscreen. The range of emotion his face shows, the sweat and dirt that cling to his body, even the transformations look amazing, and of course they're not completely realistic, but it shouldn't be. We're talking about an average guy who turns green and grows to 9 ft. tall, and then gets bigger as his rage builds. There's absolutely nothing realistic about it. Perhaps one of the most impressive scenes is when the Hulk is in San Francisco, just having run from the desert in Nevada to reunite with/rescue Betty, he is standing alone, surrounded by helicopters and army vehicles, and sees his love for the first time. Anyone who says this isn't impressive effects work is out of their minds.

For once, the CGI in a movie looks like it actually belongs in the environment it's supposed to be in. If that's cartoonish, I don't know what could possibly be expected as realism. Lee's film used effects to create a character - fully fleshed out and living - instead of a caricature, and it's been the subject of debate ever since. I just don't get it. Just look at the sub-par CG work on films like SPIDER-MAN and SPIDER-MAN 2, and you'll see what I'm getting at.

The hatred for Lee's movie ran so deep that fans out and out demanded that another film be made, focusing on action and smashing than on characters and story. As of this year, they have their wish, as THE INCREDIBLE HULK, starring Edward Norton and directed by Louis Leterier, a veteran action director of THE TRANSPORTER series and UNLEASHED, comes out this summer. The trailer is lackluster, and the story looks to be almost nonexistent. Even the Hulk himself pales in comparison to what was achieved by ILM for HULK way back in 2003. The new animation is too shiny, is disproportionate, and under-developed. Give me Ang Lee's film any day. It may be the most mature comic book movie ever made.

A side-by-side comparison of the new and old renderings.
Personally, I feel Lee's is much more representative of a character.