Movie Review: "The Dark Knight"

"The Dark Knight" or, "A Very Long Derangement"
(with apologies to Audrey Tautou)

After raking in the record-breaking number of $158 million during its opening weekend, “The Dark Knight” has burst into theaters nationwide and taken them by storm. I was among the enthusiastic throngs on opening day, though the Cine-Sib beat me to the theater (touché). So did the Batman sequel live up to the ludicrous amount of pre-release hype, hoopla, and hullabaloo? Sort of – more yes than no, but not yes entirely. Buckle in for a big fat nerd review and commentary.

I initially walked out of the theater with a lukewarm response. The film is not a “feel-good” film, and its ending is wrapped in grim shadows both physical and metaphorical. The content of the movie, compounded with its length of two and a half hours, made me tired both physically and mentally. The thing is, in places, a grim grind that’s excruciating if not outright oppressive. I should also tell you right now that this movie should be rated R for relentless graphic violence. There were moments when I wondered if director Chris Nolan was trying to be as gruesome as possible for the sake of being as gruesome as possible, and he wouldn’t be the first moviemaker to mistake butchery for profundity. This is NOT a movie for children or the faint of heart. This is not a movie for those wanting a little playful adventure. This is a movie for grownups—grownups who can stand being rattled. Murder, mutilation, maiming, madness – they’re all on the menu. Add a bleak color palette and interior settings that are deliberately cold and impersonal, and you have a movie that shuns comfort on purpose. It’s consciously unsettling. (The best example could be the Wayne penthouse. Though it’s home for Bruce Wayne, it’s as cold as a furniture catalog, and to reinforce the idea that there is no rest or comfort to be had for anybody, Alfred finds the bed unslept in. On top of that, it’s said to be the safest place in the city, but it proves not to be . . . in spectacular fashion.) The entire movie is like this.

Still, the more I thought about the movie – as opposed to feeling about it – the more I appreciated its finer points. There is still much I don’t like about it, and I’m not going to gush, “Oscars for everybody – This is the best movie EVER!” because I honestly don’t think it is. It’s not a flawless masterpiece, it’s not the fanboy-hailed pinnacle of cinema, and it’s not significantly better than “Batman Begins.” But “The Dark Knight” is a movie that’s worth your while. It’s not a “fun” film, but it has some interesting things to say as it turns the comic book movie into a taut, gritty urban psychological thriller. (As for the urban part, I’d always thought Gotham was a fantasy-fiction version of New York, but here Gotham looks a lot like Chicago… “Chicagotham”?)

The film ostensibly revolves on the pivot of Batman-versus-Joker, but it depends on its ensemble cast as a whole. Nearly all the core characters from 2005’s “Batman Begins” reprise their roles (the happy exception is the replacement of Katie Holmes by Maggie Gyllenhaal as Rachel Dawes). Reliable veteran actors Morgan Freeman (equipment master Lucius Fox), Gary Oldman (police lieutenant Gordon) and Michael Caine (butler Alfred Pennyworth) are all impeccable, and I wished that they had more to do. Even so, Alfred plays a subtly critical role, and once more I thank the theater gods that Michael Caine was cast to play him. Oldman has a bit more screen time and a plot twist; his understated performance is both delicately nuanced and robustly fleshed out: Gordon is a fully rounded character.

As for the principles: Christian Bale (elegantly dashing as Bruce Wayne in his billionaire-playboy persona, broodingly morose under his Batman cowl) returns as the complex Bruce/Batman figure, though I did find his affected Batman voice, a grating, guttural growl, to be distracting after a while. Is he talking or coughing up hairballs? Somebody give the man a drink of water, please! Aaron Eckhart’s crime-fighting district attorney Harvey Dent is a man as charismatic and likeable to the public as Batman is frightening and even alienating. This dichotomy, and the complicated relationship between Dent and Wayne/Batman, becomes crucial as a consequence of the most talked-about character in the film: the Joker (remarkably portrayed by the late Heath Ledger), the demonic madman who redefines the comic book villain as a nightmarish embodiment of deep human fears. At one point he openly declares, “I am an agent of chaos,” and his lack of a back story (even when he explains his mutilated face, he spins a different tale every time) makes him much archetype as criminal. His increasingly nauseating clown-mask of smeared, oozing greasepaint reflects his crazy desire to plunge the world into madness—and laugh at the mayhem. The Joker pushes the limits of humanity, and he’s like a bipedal gila monster, a disgusting, venomous, yet weirdly mesmerizing creature right down to the reptilian flicking tongue. What humor there is in him (and there is) is born from a sick, creative malevolence: you’ll never look at a nurse’s uniform or a pencil the same way again.

The Joker, seen in counterpoint both with Dent and Batman, opens the film’s wider discussion of human evil and the fighting of it. I’ll just skim over some thoughts, because the Cine-Sib’s already laughing at me for being too nerdy in analysis:

~Different kinds of evil. Eric Roberts and his mobsters form one kind, the kind that the Gotham authorities (and even Batman) is used to fighting. As brutal and dangerous as they are, they nevertheless have a certain predictability and basis of rational behavior. They and the authorities live in the same world. The Joker doesn’t behave in the same way; he brings panic, disorder, and death even to other criminals. He lives in his own lunatic universe. The unmistakable corollary is the idea that you can’t handle the Joker in the same way that you handle reasonable criminals.

~Motivation. We could indulge in endless speculation and psychoanalysis about the Joker and why he does what he does (should we put him in therapy? should we throw him in Arkham Asylum and throw away the key? is he evil or just misunderstood?)…but in the end, he’s inscrutable and largely incomprehensible – which makes him all the more terrifying. On the other hand, note Dent’s drive to clean up Gotham and Batman’s own complicated reasons. What makes Bruce Wayne tick?

~Escalation and fighting back. This idea appeared at the end of “Batman Begins”: what happens when you fight back against the criminal? When he retaliates? (Still, the whole thing may be best worded by Sean Connery in “The Untouchables” – Film fans, you know what I’m talking about). I also suppose that some people regard the prospect of escalation and the fear of blowback as reasons not to fight back forcefully. So then what? Not fight back at all? That makes even less sense.

The argument that Batman somehow “created” the Joker doesn’t convince me; the Joker focuses his malignance on Batman out of a twisted fascination with him (watch for a famous romantic movie line reworked as creepy fixation), but Batman did not “make” the Joker, only serve as lightning rod for his rage. And if Batman does not fight the Joker, who effectively can even if Batman is criticized and even demonized for fighting back? (digression: hm, this seems to have a certain geopolitical resonance these days). The Joker claims he will stop his murderous spree once he has Batman’s identity (and therefore Batman himself). For a nanosecond, this might sound like a solution, but it’s actually desperate appeasement, and you’d be a fool to believe that someone as deranged as the Joker will keep his word. Besides, if Batman is out of the picture, who will stand against the Joker then? What’s to stop the demon clown from holding bloody unchallenged sway over all Gotham, killing whimsically whenever he pleases?

Meanwhile, the Joker’s campaign of terror (because that’s exactly what it is, and it’s designed to crush Gotham) rolls on, complete with abducted civilians and videotapes. Eventually, this rattles even Bruce Wayne, who has a stunning scene with Alfred. (Spoiler alert until the end of this paragraph.) The pressure is on, and the Joker-caused body count is mounting even as Batman is trying to defend Gotham; public opinion has turned ugly, and Batman himself is weary and discouraged. “What can I do?” he asks Alfred. Is this flash of personal pain meant as a rhetorical question? Is Wayne actually contemplating, even for a moment, the idea of giving in? Alfred’s quiet, eloquent answer is one of the pivotal lines in the movie. What can you do? “Endure,” Alfred says simply. In that scene, he went from proper, starchy British butler to flat-out, awesome, breathtaking hero in his own right. That line is worth ten action sequences.

~Best line of the movie with implications about the limits of soft power: “We burned the forest down.” I’ll leave it at that. Let the Greenies howl if they want to, but this line’s worth another ten action sequences, even if they involve overturning 18-wheelers in all the cinematic sound and fury Nolan can muster.

~The Individual. Think on this: the Joker and Batman wage their own personal, titanic struggle. But the Joker’s acts reverberate on a small individual scale also: he insists that if normal, civilized people are pushed hard enough, “they’ll eat each other – I’ll show you.” The struggle between right and wrong isn’t only about superheroes and supervillains; it’s also about normal, flawed people’s choices and decisions. Take a look at the (I confess) awesome scene of two ferries and one convict’s solution.

~The Unheroic Hero. One of the very good features of the movie is that it portrays the struggle against the Joker’s nihilistic chaos as a dirty, messy, grim business – and that’s a bit closer to reality. There’s Batman. In an ideal world, there’d be no Batman because Gotham wouldn’t need him. But it’s not an ideal world even if it’s a fictional one, and Batman exists even if some Gothamites turn against him. But that fact doesn’t negate the other fact that Batman is the hero that Gotham needs, even if he’s not the hero that it wants – or thinks it wants. Dent is the hero that Gotham wants, cheers, and loves, but this turns out to be . . . problematic.

(Spoiler alert until the end of this paragraph.) Batman in the final analysis fights on, and he chooses to do so even though he knows that he is shouldering not only the full misery of the fight but also the disregard, calumny, and even contempt of the people he’s trying to protect. There’s not only no fanfare; there’s actual antipathy. He could just walk away. He could just rebuild Wayne mansion, install a nice panic room (and stock it with champagne and supermodels), leave Gotham to its own devices, and call it a day as he holes up in his plush personal fortress. But there’s no isolationism in him; he chooses to carry on the fight. The idea of doing what’s right instead of what’s easy – of doing what’s right even if it’s hard and thankless and basically guaranteed to cause more personal pain . . . Now that’s pretty darn heroic, even if it’s also grim. It’s also a great meditation on actual heroism. At the same time, I found one related idea to be not just disturbing, but perverse: one either dies a hero or lives long enough to turn into a villain? What kind of total cynicism and moral debasement is THAT?

Overall, the film has many praiseworthy features, but my criticisms of “The Dark Knight” are not few, and some of the film’s flaws are significant. For one thing, the film isn't streamlined enough and so it's too long. A good half-hour or more could have been trimmed overall, and the final half-hour or so of the film feels like a drag. Nolan felt compelled to include things that were not crucial to the plot of this film, and even if those things had value in themselves, there should have been a harsher hand in choosing. Frankly, some of the length problem goes back to the violence. Perhaps these violent pleasures have violent ends, but if there's so much unrelenting brutality and outright sadism that the film beats the audience senseless, there's not much pleasure in that either.

In terms of the overlong story, I thought the entire Hong Kong digression was unnecessary. Yes, yes, it’s cool to see Batman flying over the HK cityscape, fighting HK mobsters, and confusing HK cops, but how much of this was strictly necessary? Also, for me, taking the story out of Gotham diluted it (the core is the struggle for and in GOTHAM), as well as inserted the idea that Nolan suffered from a bit of James Bond envy – and maybe Jet Li/Jackie Chan/Asian action flick envy too. Playing with genres is fine and good (crime drama, psychological thriller, comic book, etc.), but on this point, it didn’t work so well. The sheer “wow” factor of the flying Batman isn’t enough justification. And anyway the entire subplot of the Asian mob ties fizzles out in the end and doesn’t give the film a payoff worthy of all that investment.

I still have complaints about the Rachel Dawes character. Maggie Gyllenhaal is better than Katie Holmes (though this itself isn’t much of a recommendation), but the character itself seemed flat to me. Rachel is supposed to be virtually the one flash of life and color in grim Gotham; she’s supposed to be the woman beloved of Gotham’s most eligible bachelors, Dent and Wayne. Heck, Bruce is pinning on her his entire hope for a normal life in the future – shouldn’t she be a warm, engaging person? She isn’t, really, and there’s no chemistry with either of her admirers. She seems stronger here than in “Batman Begins,” but she lacks the spark that would make her character someone you really cared about – and this lack makes a later pivotal plot point seem less powerful. Look, you don’t have to have a huge part in order to show sparkle and personality even if technically you’re “only” the prerequisite comic book girl: just look at Gwyneth Paltrow’s delightfully understated yet punchy turn as Pepper Potts.

Cillian Murphy returns as the Scarecrow for a cameo, but he’s completely wasted. We’ve seen how effectively creepy the angular Murphy can be in “Batman Begins,” but his appearance here is a throwaway scene. It doesn’t play to his strengths at all, and in fact the scene itself is a muddled mess that doesn’t convey much other than give Bale a chance to quip about hockey pants while giving Nolan a chance to shoot an action-ish scene that looks like he shot it, threw it into a paper shredder, and then tried to put it back together again in the dark. Both the scene and cameo lack real punch and substance, and it shouldn’t have, not with the Scarecrow involved. I’ll tell you what it should have felt like: the opening sequence with its performance by the unnamed bank manager. (Also, brownie points if you can identify the excellent and ubiquitous character actor who played the banker. No fair IMDB'ing.)

Finally, I have to point out the Plot Hole So Big You Can Drive the Batmobile Through It. This is a SPOILER, so don’t read this paragraph if you haven’t seen the film. Nolan spent a lot of time and effort planning out the huge evening party that Wayne throws for Dent in the Wayne penthouse. When the Joker and his goons crash the party, I was excited and waiting for a huge action/narrative sequence and Batman-Joker throwdown, the first real encounter between these two. The Joker shows up in spectacular fashion with a pack of masked thugs, and Wayne slips off to don the Batsuit while the demon clown menaces the guests. When Batman appears, the Joker tosses Rachel Dawes out the window (after my previous complaint about her, I can’t say that I blame him), and I’m thinking, that’s a good start – Batman will save the girl and then crash back into the penthouse and rip into the Joker, and we’ll get a great action sequence. I was only half right. Batman does indeed hurl himself out the window to save Rachel, and it ends with the two of them atop a crumpled car that broke their fall. They heave a sign of relief . . . AND THEN THE SEQUENCE ABRUPTLY ENDS.

The next scene shows Alfred and Bruce alone in the sunlit penthouse at some later date! I was disoriented – and then absolutely livid. This was a cheat horribly like the finale of “The Sopranos.” Nolan has Batman save the girl, but he leaves the Joker, the guests, and his responsibility to the audience back at the top-floor party! What happened after Rachel and Batman go out the window? The Joker’s still back there! I’m sure the Joker didn’t just indulge in a few canapés, sip a flute of champagne, and then quietly leave. He had burst into the party proclaiming, “We’re tonight’s entertainment!” He would have at least left the premises memorably, wouldn’t he? Remember how he left his meeting with the mob bosses? Shades of Conrad’s bomb-clutching Anarchist all over that. But here, in a much more important scene, we get none of that kind of detail. Nolan seems to think that the only thing that matters is saving Rachel – forget about everything else! There’s ZERO FOLLOW-THROUGH HERE on the gatecrashing, knife-wielding Joker, the development of Harvey Dent (how does the DA respond to the Joker’s chaotic brand of evil? We don’t know here!), or the relationship between Dent and Wayne which was the ostensible reason for the party in the first place. Nolan built up the scene like a towering sculpture of artful cake, only to drop it on the floor and then fall face first into it. Shameful.

Still, in the end, there is a solid core to “The Dark Knight.” Take away all the cool tech, the explosions, and the hype, and that core remains. It’s rare to have a movie of any type these days that has a solid center – or any substance at all – so it’s a cause for enthusiastic viewing when one does appear, even if its flaws are many and obvious. Go see “The Dark Knight” – but prepare to be rattled, and prepare to do some thinking.

Mad Minerva gives this film a grade of B+. You can see the Cine-Sib's fanboy-happy review here also.

“The Dark Knight” runs for two and a half hours and is rated PG-13 for action, violence, and some frightening images. (It should be rated R, IMHO).

RottenTomatoes gives “The Dark Knight” the remarkable score of 95%.

UPDATE: Commenters Greg and Christian Toto have posted their own respective reviews. Do take a look.

Nerd Journal: Moving House is a Headache, plus Batman Review Preview

Moving house right now. The Cine-Sib is coming to help. I can't wait to get into my lovely new apartment, though the entire moving process is always an expensive, exhausting business, no matter how much help you get!

I'm about to run out the door to buy more packing tape and to scrounge more boxes. (I just packed up all my DVDs -- and breathed a sigh of relief that the Nerd Lords won't ever see that collection. I'll get no points for gravitas -- or shall we say, nerditas? -- with my season boxes of Buffy and Angel and Farscape and Arrested Development and Firefly and Ally McBeal... all of which, BTW, I highly recommend!)

Golly, moving in the SUMMER is such a bad idea. What I really want is to do, instead of schlepping boxes, is run into the nearest Satan Coffee and find comfort in an enormous mocha frappuccino (no whipped cream, thanks!). Save me, Il Barista!

And yes, I know, I know, I promised Cine-Sib and everyone else a big fat "Dark Knight" review. It will be online by tonight or, at the latest, tomorrow morning. The short version? Go see this movie (enough people did over opening weekend for it to bank $158 million and smash all previous records), though beware that it really should be rated R for violence, violence, and did I say, violence -- some of it coming in creative but creepy forms. This is NOT FOR KIDS.

Here's a thought: who's creepier, Hannibal Lecter or Ledger's Joker?

Nerd News: Meet Cambridge University's Oldest PhD Recipient

Meet 91-year-old Michael Cobb, who is now the oldest person ever to complete a Cambridge University PhD.

Mr. Cobb's original PhD research consisted of an atlas of British railway stations between 1807 and 1994. Outstanding.

Euro Notes: EU Regulations Versus Peking Duck?

Delicious dinner or public health hazard?

I love Peking duck. Absolutely adore it. No fantastic special-occasion dinner is complete with it, and I rush off for a glutton-fest of duck whenever I can, special occasion or not. But can I do this if I'm in the UK and not in the US of A?

So, can this culinary desecration possibly be true? Here is an infuriating blurb about an EU ban of that splendid dish in the UK:

It is a firm favourite in Chinese restaurants the length and breadth of the country, but crispy Peking duck faces extinction at the hands of the European Union.

The traditional gas ovens used to cook the dish, which are made in China and imported into Britain, have fallen foul of Europe-wide regulations over carbon monoxide emissions.

Eleven restaurants have already had their ovens permanently closed by council environmental health officers in Westminster, London, and a further 39 have been issued with notices saying they must replace the ovens with models which meet the higher standards.

They face having to pay up to £4,000 for replacement appliances approved by gas watchdog Corgi, despite the fact that there have been no reported problems involving faulty ovens. [My emphasis -- DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE HAVE BEEN NO REPORTED PROBLEMS!]

It is now feared that the move could be copied by local authorities across Britain, forcing the popular dish off the menu at thousands of restaurants and takeaways.

The ban has been condemned by celebrity chef Ken Hom, who said he was "livid" about the decision.

He said: "It's absurd. What do the Europeans know about making Chinese duck?..." [PREACH IT, KEN! -- MM]

The ovens are being switched off because they do not carry the CE (Conformité Européenne) mark which shows they adhere to rules set down by bureaucrats in Brussels.

It follows similar action carried out by the same council in 2005 when it targeted burners used on tables at Korean restaurants. It is also investigating traditional Indian TandoorCORR ovens.

Did you get that last bit? Do-gooder nanny government bureaucrats carrying on against Korean barbecues and Indian tandoori ovens? I insert a bit of satirical sarcasm: Hey, why does the EU hate ethnic Asian food?

Anyway -- Peking Duck. Cook it. Eat it. Fight the power. Time to gather your Chinese cookbooks into barricades and turn your woks into helmets. Hey, food police! You can have my Peking duck . . . when (come on, gentle readers, you know when!) when you (all together now) pry it out of my cold, dead hand!

Fun Video of the Day: JibJab's "Time For Some Campaignin'"

Fabulous and funny without being mean, as nearly all the JibJab political satire musical cartoons are. Enjoy!

It's a Date with Tony Stark: "Iron Man" DVD Release Date is September 30

Dirty Harry has the news: "Iron Man" will be out on DVD and Blu-Ray on September 30. And you can pre-order your copy now on Amazon.

I am so *THERE.* September 30: it's a date, Tony Stark!

And I will be watching endless iterations of that glorious, geek-tastic scene when Stark learns to fly in his garage. Endless iterations.

(Goodness knows I need something to look forward to, since September is that dreaded time of year for students and teachers alike: the start of another semester!)

Movie Review: the Cine-Sib Reviews "The Dark Knight"

The Cinema-Mad Sibling saw "The Dark Knight" last night at a midnight showing (he didn't finish until nearly 3 AM), and he has just now emailed me his review. I'm seeing the film tonight, so my own review will be online in the next few days. For now, though, you can enjoy the latest Cine-Sib review:

Bona fide spectacle of @$$-kickery.

Can a sequel be as good or even better than what it sprang from? Does it live up to the hype? Can Batman Begins even be topped? The answer is yes to all of the above. Chris Nolan has definitely outdone himself, crafting a movie worthy of being called a sequel. The Dark Knight raises the bar - it's not just bigger, badder with more explosions a la Michael Bay, but a solid, action-packed non-stop gritty crime thriller set in the Batman mythos, an all-around spectacular visceral experience.

The world is careening upside down. Police corruption is at the highest it's ever been. Crime is at an all time high. The mob controlling finances and owning people everywhere. Copycat Batman wannabe vigilantes appear, inspired by the original to try to make a difference. A new twisted villain in town wanting to bring a new type of criminal to the table and tired of the just petty thieves. He wants the identity of the Batman. Or people will die. Bruce wanting to have a normal life and not having to put on a mask in order to do good. The new D.A., Gotham's newest hope for cleanup, hitting the criminals hard and taking names. He's a new hope for Batman. Someone who could replace him and do everything on the right side of the law.

These are just some tidbits of the goings-on, but of course it is all more complex than this. The 2 hour 32 minute run-time zips past like half an hour, and not once did I doze off as I saw this movie at a 12:45 showing last night. No, the Icee really didn't do much for me. Christian Bale, Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine, and Gary Oldman all are back, bringing the Caped Crusader back for his next adventure, after we saw Bruce Wayne become Batman in Batman Begins. This time, the challenges are definitely tougher, rougher, and he must endure it with his wit, skill, and tactics. With almost no one in the police force to trust, can you even make a small difference in this evil world? This grim potboiler is forged in the mold of your gritty crime thrillers of yesteryear and is uncompromising as it is unforgettable.

Whatever talks of nominating Heath Ledger for a posthumous Oscar, do it. He deserves it. The Joker is not your father's Joker. He makes Cesar Romero and Jack Nicholson look like circus clowns. This Joker is definitely twisted but way more sinister than previous movie incarnations. And he has a really sick sense of humor. The other supporting character, Aaron Eckhart as DA Harvery Dent, lends believability to this character who we know is a villain, but is portrayed much differently as a man trying to do go in a den of evil, finally taking matters into his own hands. Rachel Dawes much more fits Maggie Gyllenhaal than Katie Holmes. Gary Oldman is always impressive as Gordon.

The action is ramped up several notches as we see Joker's onslaught on the city throughout the movie. Cinematography is excellent, dark and grim to match the tone. Hans Zimmer's score impresses as always, lending a brooding orchestral accompaniment. The around-the-world location shoots add to the grandeur of the movie. The Batpod? Way cool. The Lamborghini? Not subtle at all. Overall, a bravura directorial effort from Chris Nolan and team, creating an intense thriller that never ceases to let go of your attention, grabbing you for 2 and a half hours. The Dark Knight, easily the best sequel movie this summer. Why so serious?

PS: Here is an addendum. Over the phone, the Cine-Sib said that this is really Heath Ledger's movie, that he steals it from Christian Bale and turns in an excellent performance. Well, I can't wait to see this flick for myself tonight.

PS 2: Alessandra's comment on the Cine-Sib review: "So basically he's a gibbering fanboy?" Pretty much, yeah. :-)

Friday Fun Video: Aussie Humor -- Let's Invade New Zealand!

I first found the following delightful bits of Australian humor via a link from Ninme. A little exploration revealed some background, but what you really want are the actual videos promoting an Aussie invasion of New Zealand. Enjoy!

(OK, now before anybody rushes off to accuse me of being a blood-soaked, Kiwi-hating warmonger -- this is all a JOKE!)

PS:
Check out the large version of the tourism-ad parody here: http://www.invadenewzealand.com/

Hello Kitty Monstrosity of the Day: Hello Kitty Virus Protection For Your Computer

Well, here's the latest: Hello Kitty antivirus software. Of course, it is an absolute necessity if your computer looks like this. My eyes! My eyes!!!

Nerd Notes: The Value of a Bachelor's Degree

Embedded in this story, which reads like a tear-jerker, is the basic truth of all degrees:

A degree . . . "isn't any big guarantee of employment, it's a basic requirement, a step you have to take to even be considered for many professional jobs."

Surprise! Not. It's obvious. A degree isn't a guarantee, and you'd be naive to think otherwise. There are no guarantees in life, PERIOD. (Well, except death and taxes.)

Of course, sensationalism is the rule in journalism these days, so the story is headlined with the alarmist yet mournful title of "The Declining Value of Your College Degree." (Got that? *YOUR* college degree! Hit that panic button right now!)

Admittedly, we could have a long and jolly argument about the quality of various degrees and degree-granting programs, but that's really another post.

On the other hand, Advice Goddess (also quoting Theodore Dalrymple) points out that a person doesn't necessarily need a college degree in order to be successful in life.

Brits Can Now Legally Defend Themselves Against Burglars and Muggers

Huh? The legal right to self-defense? Isn't this obvious? But apparently not.

Here is a news story that shouldn't be a news story. It should be common sense. Then again, this is the UK, where another approach seems current. Anyway, this is the news blurb now:

Home owners and “have-a go-heroes” have for the first time been given the legal right to defend themselves against burglars and muggers free from fear of prosecution.

They will be able to use force against criminals who break into their homes or attack them in the street without worrying that "heat of the moment” misjudgements could see them brought before the courts.

Under new laws police and prosecutors will have to assess a person’s actions based on the person’s situation "as they saw it at the time” even if in hindsight it could be seen as unreasonable.

For example, homeowners would be able stab or shoot a burglar if confronted or tackle them and use force to detain them until police arrive. Muggers could be legally punched and beaten in the street or have their own weapons used against them.

WELL, I SHOULD HOPE SO! Read the whole thing.

What really gets me is the sense of novelty in the writing. Wow, you mean law-abiding citizens can actually use force against scumbags who attack them? Well, golly! You mean that if some criminal breaks into my home, I can legally defend myself and my property? What a concept!

*MM hugs her Second Amendment.*

Geek Fun: Gotham Meets Cybertron -- the Batmobile as Transformer

This awesome technophiliac mashup comes via (who else?) the Cinema-Mad Sibling.

Click and enjoy!

UPDATE: The Cine-Sib just emailed to demand that I link directly to the original site because its soundtrack is the theme from "Batman Begins." OK, here you go. Turn up your speakers, Bat-fans!

Commentary: A World Dominated by Russia or China?

Thomas Friedman has an interesting op-ed in today's New York Times. Blurb:

Maybe Asians, Europeans, Latin Americans and Africans don’t like a world of too much American power — “Mr. Big” got a little too big for them. But how would they like a world of too little American power? With America’s overextended military and overextended banks, that is the world into which we may be heading.

Welcome to a world of too much Russian and Chinese power.

I am neither a Russia-basher nor a China-basher. But there was something truly filthy about Russia’s and China’s vetoes of the American-led U.N. Security Council effort to impose targeted sanctions on Robert Mugabe’s ruling clique in Zimbabwe.

The U.S. put forward a simple Security Council resolution, calling for an arms embargo on Zimbabwe, the appointment of a U.N. mediator, plus travel and financial restrictions on the dictator Mugabe and 13 top military and government officials for stealing the Zimbabwe election and essentially mugging an entire country in broad daylight.

. . . Vitaly Churkin, Russia’s U.N. ambassador, argued that the targeted sanctions that the U.S. and others wanted to impose on Mugabe’s clique exceeded the Security Council’s mandate. “We believe such practices to be illegitimate and dangerous,” he said, describing the resolution as one more obvious “attempt to take the Council beyond its charter prerogatives.” Veto!

Mugabe’s campaign of murder and intimidation didn’t strike Churkin as “illegitimate and dangerous” — only the U.N. resolution to bring a halt to it was “illegitimate and dangerous.” Shameful. Meanwhile, China is hosting the Olympics, a celebration of the human spirit, while defending Mugabe’s right to crush his own people’s spirit.

Indeed. Frankly, I don't think I want a Russia- or China-dominated world, and you'd be darn crazy if you thought it'd be a better place under the unchallenged sway of these two autocrats.

Great Moments in Higher Education: University Persecutes, Then Apologizes to a Student For...Reading a Book

The student janitor had been reading a history book about the Ku Klux Klan. The book was actually an account of anti-Klan behavior by some Notre Dame students in 1924.

But that doesn't matter! Somebody saw the book cover, complained to the edu-crats, and student Keith John Sampson found himself under fire for reading this history book. (Well, that itself is recommendation enough for me to go find, acquire, and read it too.) The school accused Sampson of racial harassment. Say WHAT?

The university has now apologized to the student. As well it should! This entire episode was disgraceful.

This quote from Sampson made me wince. Here he is, trying to explain why he had that book: "I have an interest in American history...I was trying to educate myself."

See, this is exactly the kind of interest and initiative that I encourage, but apparently nowadays it'll get you persecuted by the Politically Correct Admin Lords of Campus. No good deed goes unpunished.

Besides, the entire idea of a university persecuting a student for reading a book? It's just too Orwellian for words.

Nerd Notes: 100 Chicago Professors Versus Economics

Megan McArdle has the link. She calls the entire mess "a festival of willful misunderstanding" and says, "This from a University that has cultivated a reputation as one of the most intellectually rigorous campuses in the country. I'm tempted to weep."

The short version: over 100 University of Chicago professors sign a letter against Milton Friedman.

Well, OK, I'm not saying that everybody has to agree with Friedman's economics or whatever. But I find it crazy for a bunch of professors to oppose the establishment of the Milton Friedman Institute at Chicago because they personally don't like Friedman. Whatever happened to academic freedom or actual academic diversity of thought? Of course, look at the topsy-turvy "logic" employed by these opposition nerds:

When the University of Chicago invests so heavily in culturally and politically conservative thought we wonder about its commitment to strong intellectual diversity . . .

Is this a sick joke?

Oh, I did take a look at the disciplines which produced this band of folks who apparently don't really understand economics. Will you be surprised if I told you that I found the usual suspects? You can take a look for yourself. Literature, history, poli sci, philosophy, gender studies, area studies . . . I didn't see a single actual professor of economics in that list.

Satire Alert: "The Dark Knight Pre-emptively Sweeps the Oscars"

The unrelenting hype over the upcoming Batman movie has become ridiculous. Just take a look not only at the Rottentomatoes meter and the hyperbolic reviews, but -- more tellingly -- at the sheer verbal venom being thrown at the few writers who criticized the film. (Weirder still, the critics who have seen the film are being attacked for their opinions by fans who haven't seen it. On that note, The Movie Blog has a spot-on, if profanity-laced, commentary.)

Anyway, some pie-eyed, gushing critics have turned into mushy, shrieking fangirls, and they've been giving "The Dark Knight" just about every kind of over-the-top praise you can think of, while using some of the purplest, most cringe-inducing and overcooked prose I've ever seen. Here's just one example: one swooning critic actually wrote this line (complete with comma splice):

It’s not just the best superhero movie ever made, it’s one of the best movies ever to show up in a theater.

Got that? It's one of the best movies EVER MADE IN THE HISTORY OF MOVIES! Move over, "Casablanca"/ "Citizen Kane" / etc.!

Or take this line from another critic, who seems to have turned into an emo, hormonal teenager who's busy drawing hearts all over her notebook and filling them in with Batman's name:

Christopher Nolan's film is indeed an epic that will leave you staggering from the theater, stunned by its scope and complexity.

Somebody alert the theaters to have ambulances ready to carry away the swooning, fainting, sighing masses in their film-gasmic fits. Get real. This sort of "review" is embarrassing. "Staggering"? "Stunned"? Please.

Since I have a reflex to make fun of the ridiculous, hyperbolic, and just plain silly, here's the latest satire:

"'The Dark Knight' Pre-emptively Sweeps the Oscars."

(I have to note, though: The entire movement to nominate the late Heath Ledger for a posthumous Oscar? It's real.)

I'll be seeing the film on opening night, and I'll report back to you here.


UPDATE 1: I kid you not. Right after I posted this, I read this review, which shouts, "This is the first Oscar quality superhero movie!" It also proclaims that Ledger is a shoo-in ("a lock") for the Oscar. Oh, brother.

UPDATE 2: I've been linked by What Would Toto Watch! That's cool. It's a lovely movie blog that's definitely worth your visit.

UPDATE 3: OK, I've found the most ludicrous review yet, as this Batman-acolyte compares the movie to MICHELANGELO and DA VINCI, for Pete's sake! Come ON! Yes, specifically the David and The Last Supper. You have got to be kidding.

Bruce Springsteen and the Berlin Wall

This goofy news "story" seems to believe that Bruce Springsteen had something really substantive to do with the fall of the Berlin Wall.

What?

Come on, the whole thing is vastly oversimplified. Then again, the story comes from Reuters.

Film Culture Commentary: The Ladies, the Critics, and the Superhero Movies

I'm talking actually about the ladies who happen to be movie critics.

Earlier this summer, I ranted about one whiny female writer's wailing about superhero movies. (Boo freakin' hoo.)

I'm glad to point you now to a more grown-up and intelligent approach to female opinions about superhero films. The ladies involved here are far more professional, and they don't use their gender as a reason to moan and wail and pewl for attention. Instead, they think about greater issues of movies and culture. Hooray! (And thank you.)

I'm amused, though, at one question in the survey of these female film critics: "Who is this summer's sexiest superhero, and why?" Well, I suppose we can't get away entirely from that ancient touchstone of gender relationships, the hot summer romance! (By the way, the vast majority of the critics went for -- no real surprise there, or is it? -- Robert Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark/Iron Man. In fact, one critic specifically said what I had said a while back: smart IS attractive.)

But do take a look. While this survey is by no means comprehensive (nor can it be), it's a conversation involving a nice cross-section of female film critics and their feedback/opinions.

Geek News and Fun: Whedon's "Dr. Horrible" Is Online!

Joss Whedon's latest creative project hits the Internet today: "Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog" starts streaming online. Whedon fans, rejoice! (That means you too, La Parisienne, because Nathan "Captain Malcolm Reynolds" Fillion is in it!)

Here is a brief write-up and interview with the man himself, via Wired. The premise of the project: Neil Patrick Harris plays Dr. Horrible, a bumbling, aspiring supervillain who longs to be a member of the elite Evil League of Evil. He's not quite good enough (or, rather, evil enough), and he's finding life even more complicated because he's hopelessly in love with a pretty girl (Felicia Day) whom he just can't seem to talk to and also because all his evil plans keep getting foiled by the egotistical, obnoxious superhero, Captain Hammer (Nathan Fillion). The nature of the thing is pure Whedon.

Here is the trailer:

The actual website for Dr. Horrible is here. The Internet musical will "air" in 3 parts.

By the way, I had no problem seeing the musical early this morning, but right now the website seems to be down. It's probably collapsed under the weight of too many rabid fans rushing to it.

UPDATE: Yep, the site did crash from too much traffic! Keep trying if you haven't managed to see it yet. "Dr. Horrible" is worth your time.

Movie Preview: "The Dark Knight" Opens Friday! Plus Video Fun

The sequel to "Batman Begins" is probably the most anticipated film of the summer season. The hype has been unbelievable, along with the expectations. Early reviews have been mostly positive, if not openly effusive. "The Dark Knight" is finally opening in theaters nationwide. Yes!

It opens this Friday, and I have to tell you: I'm taking no chances, especially because I can't wait. I just bought my opening night tickets on Fandango. There's a tiny convenience fee to be paid aside from the movie ticket prices, but this is what everybody's doing who wants to guarantee that they have a ticket on opening night -- because it's a certainty that theaters will sell out of tickets. Some theaters already have, according to the latest news.

I'm looking forward to a big night with friends at the cinema, and you can look forward to a hefty movie review afterwards both from me and from (who else?) the Cinema-Mad Sibling.

In the meanwhile, I'll be dealing with "Hellboy II: The Golden Army" (don't laugh! the Guillermo Del Toro flick actually has some stunning visual effects). But that's just passing time until I get my Christian Bale-versus-Heath Ledger smackdown in Gotham.

But I know what the Cine-Sib is thinking too: Will "The Dark Knight" make me forget my love affair with "Iron Man"? Will Bale's performance overshadow Downey's? (Or will Ledger's incarnation of the Joker leave everybody else in the dust?) Well, time will tell. As in, right about 9:30 PM this coming Friday.

PS: As far as I'm concerned, "The Dark Knight" already has one huge factor in its favor: ABSOLUTELY NO KATIE HOLMES.

I can't help leaving you with a bit of humor too. Check out these playful parodies with Iron Man and Batman squaring off against each other. Brilliant.

Monday Relief: A Duet with Sting

Mondays are horrible. This little video is my attempt to soothe the Monday blues for Alessandra and La Parisienne. Enjoy, ladies.

Nerd Analysis: The Disadvantages of an Elite Education

Here is an interesting article from The American Scholar, the publication of that venerable old nerd society, Phi Beta Kappa.

The author is an Ivy graduate who spent a decade teaching at Yale, so he has the "nerd cred" to speak, even if his words will probably anger a great many elitists.

Here are a few choice lines from his article:

~The last thing an elite education will teach you is its own inadequacy.

~The first disadvantage of an elite education . . . is that it makes you incapable of talking to people who aren’t like you.

~The second disadvantage, implicit in what I’ve been saying, is that an elite education inculcates a false sense of self-worth.

~One of the great errors of an elite education, then, is that it teaches you to think that measures of intelligence and academic achievement are measures of value in some moral or metaphysical sense. But they’re not.

~If you’re afraid to fail, you’re afraid to take risks, which begins to explain the final and most damning disadvantage of an elite education: that it is profoundly anti-intellectual.

Hm!

I'm not saying that I agree with all of Mr. Deresiewicz's assertions, but they are worth looking at. The last thing we should be doing is treating elite education as if it is beyond criticism, because it's not.

A caveat too: beware the danger of overgeneralizing. Do consider the possibility that some elite students can actually have minds of their own, thoughts of their own, and the ability to be mavericks, black sheep, and rebellious, robust individuals who aren't total automatons of the system. (Golly, I hope I'm such a nerd.)

There is, though, one advantage of an elite education that doesn't show up in this discussion, and it might be relevant if the discussion is going to tackle issues of quality. I've said this before, but I'll say it again: one of the great things about my getting an "elite" degree is the fact that I'm no longer impressed, awed, or cowed by other people who have "elite" degrees. So-and-So might be able to overawe some people because So-and-So has a famous degree, but I feel perfectly justified in saying that So-and-So is talking nonsense if I think So-and-So really is talking nonsense. And if So-and-So tries to pull out his/her elite credentials, I can pull out mine too. So there.

"You think you can steamroller over me because you have an elite degree? WELL, SO DO I. Pffffffffffffffft!!!!"

The Moral Life of Cubicles

This post is dedicated to the Cinema-Mad Sibling and everyone else who has ever worked in an office cubicle. (I have too, and I can't tell you how happy I am to escape that.) You know, the thought occurs to me that perhaps the CPD, La Parisienne, and I should apologize for recently making fun of the Cine-Sib by making up and singing a song about cubicles -- and singing it to him over my cellphone while we were out of town having fun. But I'm evil and therefore feel no need to apologize. Besides, I'm sure that the Cine-Sib, who is even now in his cubicle as he reads this, is plotting his revenge -- and why should I deny him that opportunity for time-honored inter-sibling warfare?

Anyway, going on! Here is an interesting article on the history and the "moral life" of the cubicle. I like this little tidbit:

In Dilbert, The Office, Office Space, and many other popular satires of contemporary work, cubicles are a symbol of all that is uninspiring about office life, and on this point, cubicles seem utterly without defenders. Fortune recently ran an article called “Cubicles: The Great Mistake,” complete with a public apology from one of the first cubicle designers. Twenty years after his Atlantic article extolling the virtues of the cubicled office, James Fallows wrote another on how he changed his mind. The promises of a cubicle utopia now seem curious, to say the least. In fact, the companies that make cubicles increasingly offer up apologies of their own. Steelcase, in its “State of the Cubicle” report, addresses the “Dilbert-type issues” that surround them, turning to head of design James Ludwig for a response. “Our goal in design would be to unfold the cubicle in ways that might make it unrecognizable.” The cubicle, once a cutting edge statement of corporate identity, has become an embarrassment, even for its makers.

Really!

Now I feel the overwhelming urge to watch "Office Space." Yes, today is that dreaded first day of the week, and I have "a case of the Moooooooooooondays"!

PS: How do you reconcile "the moral life of cubicles" with the glorious habit of humorous cubicle warfare? Here are two hysterical examples: one and two.

A Note on the Tour de France: I Love That Polka-Dot Jersey

We're about halfway through the Tour de France, and I'm having a hard time explaining why I love watching this thing. It's a summertime tradition. I mean, sure, it started with looking to see what all the fuss was about when the mighty Lance Armstrong first started ruling the race, but he's retired and I'm still watching.

Right now the race is in brutal mountain stages, and I have to say, I just have to love a race that has a position actually known as "King of the Mountains" . . . and acknowledges this by giving the man a POLKA-DOT JERSEY. Seriously. A white background with red polka dots. It looks like a pattern you'd see on a little girl's sundress. The thing would look silly if it didn't represent something as flat-out awesome as -- come on, bellow it out with feeling -- "King of the Mountains."

Iranian Dissident Ahmad Batebi Escapes

It is an epic tale.

Check out the video link also, with footage taken by Batebi himself on a tiny videocamera.

Cool Op-Ed: Send Congress Back to School

This editorial made me smile. What an awesome opening:

Maybe the quickest way to lower oil and gas prices would
be this: Immediately enroll every Democratic member of Congress in an entry-level economics class.

The lack of even a basic grasp of economic concepts has led Democrats to oppose sensible policies that would begin to lower oil and gas prices. Instead, they push hare-brained ideas that make no sense.

FYI: American Airlines' New Luggage Policy Stinks

FYI: American Airlines is now charging passengers for luggage check-in. That's right. I flew American Airlines to get back to Nerdworld, and apparently it's just not enough that I have to pay an outrageous amount of money for my ticket and also endure bad service. Now I have to pay extra for checking in bags!

Yes, it'll cost you an extra $15 to check one bag and another $25 for a second one. Don't even think about checking a third one, because that'll cost you $100 more.

I was going back to campus for a new school term, so I had a lot of luggage. A LOT. I couldn't help it. I had two big bags (one was almost entirely full of books and articles and journals and nerd-stuff). I had to check both of them in, and that meant I had to cough up an extra 40 bucks.

I was furious. $40! But I had no choice but to hand it over.

So here's your public service announcement. American Airlines is now charging extra for luggage!

Geek Fun: Lab Testing Goes Automated . . . and Musical

The link comes from the lovely Ninme, and you need to click on this immediately and turn up your speakers!

Dedicated to Alessandra and everyone who has worked or is working in science or medical laboratory. Automated pipetting will never be the same. Here's epMotion by Eppendorf.

Friday Fun Video: Barry White's "My Everything"

It's Friday!

I'm off to see some friends before I -- sadly -- have to go back to Nerdworld.

So in the spirit of summer fun, I give you this from the late, great, ever-smooth Barry White. Enjoy! (Especially any "Ally McBeal" fans out there.)

Video of the Day: Drew Carey and "Ban-Happy Busybodies"

Comedian and commentator Drew Carey takes aim at the "nanny state" mentality that wants to place government bans on more and more things.

As Carey says, "Welcome to the Nanny State Nation, where the government minds your own business."

Here's the video. (Errrr, Mr. Carey? Your libertarianism is showing. *grin*)

Geek Fun: Breakfast for Fans of "Battlestar Galactica"

What's on the menu? Something you'll need toasters to make, of course.

Beijing Olympic Watch: China Restricts Broadcasts from Tiananmen Square

Somebody needs to tell Beijing that this sort of thing is rotten PR.

Also, how much are you willing to wager that there will be still more restrictions placed on foreign journalists during the Games (including freedom of movement)? Restrictions that become increasingly draconian as the Games open? I'll be surprised if we make it through the Games without at least a couple journalists getting detained or deported.

The Game's Afoot: Cinema's New Sherlock Holmes

Directly from the Cinema-Mad Sibling, king of all entertainment news and rumors, who shouted out from his computer this morning:

"Your Downey's been cast as Sherlock Holmes!"

"My" Downey? Well, the Cine-Sib has been busily teasing me about the so-called "Downey Crush," which is a form of "I can't wait for 'Iron Man 2'." But anyway! Here's the Holmes story straight from Variety.

I'm delighted about Robert Downey Jr., but I'm not so sure about Guy "Swept Away" Ritchie's involvement in the Warner Brothers project. (Other movie mavens are also concerned.) Still, there's plenty of potential for greatness -- or at least entertainment -- in a rip-roaring new twist/interpretation of Holmes. As for villains . . . Will we get Professor Moriarty? One can only dream at this point -- and speculate.

Overall? The casting of the versatile Downey is interesting, and like the casting for "Iron Man," there's an intriguing meeting point of fiction and reality. Holmes, as you know, possessed a brilliant mind, a talent for music, and a certain individualistic flair. But Holmes was also a drug addict. Hm.

The thought does occur to me, though, that Hugh Laurie ("House") would be a great Holmes too, brilliant mind, abrasive manner, drug addiction, and all.

So, gentle reader, any thoughts on your favorite Holmes tales? One of the first ones I read was "The Hound of the Baskervilles." (And yes, yes, I know the movie will also be drawing from the Holmes comic books.)

My Heathrow-o-phobia Continues Unabated

You all do know that I have Heathrow-o-phobia, right?

Stories like this one do not help. Terminal 5 is losing 900 pieces of luggage a day.

I always try my hardest to get Euroland flights that don't stop at Heathrow, but sometimes it's inevitable. The horror!

Quirky Euro Files: In France, Carla Bruni's New Music Album

The entire spectacle of Sarko and Carla Bruni has been tabloid heaven for a long time, and I don't know about you, but I think it's been amusing to watch.

And now it's amusing to listen to. Carla Bruni's released a CD, and as one commentator states,

This must be the first time that the presidency of a leading nation has promoted a pop album. The Elysée Palace has been working closely with Naive records to maximise the launch of breathy love songs by the first lady.

OK, whatever. But what really made me laugh was one particular song on the CD. It's supposed to be a love song for Sarko. Click here for the French lyrics and English translation. Here are a few lyrics, though:

tu es mon seigneur, t'es mon chéri, t'es mon orgie . . .

Say WHAT? *Giggle*

UPDATE: Here's a CD review, song by song.

UK: Gordon Brown = Heathcliff?

British PM Gordon Brown, now wallowing in the depths of mass unpopularity and his own crippling charmlessness, states that he is an older, wiser version of . . . the dark, brooding literary hero Heathcliff.

Seriously? Seriously FUNNY.

Poor Emily Brontë.

I can't resist including this wittily nasty response to Brown's self-comparison:

Vince Cable, Liberal Democrat front-bencher and author of the famous “Stalin to Mr Bean” jibe, said: “Heathcliff may be dark and brooding but he is also ruthless and vindictive. He ended his life a broken and tormented man haunted by a ghost. Tony Blair perhaps?”

Oh, snap!

To be honest, I've never really liked Heathcliff. If I had to choose a brooding Brontë hero, I'd pick Rochester from Charlotte's Jane Eyre. (Still, Austen's Mr. Knightley is lovely, and Mr. Darcy beats them all.)

Euro Notes: Thoughts on the English Eccentric

What does it take to be a true English eccentric? The author of a new book on the subject has a few thoughts.

Here are a few examples of English eccentrics throughout history:

• Regency-era eccentric John "Mad Jack" Mytton, who had a pet giraffe that joined him for Sunday lunch via a trapdoor in his dining room.
• 18th-century landowner Charles Hamilton employed somebody to live in his garden as an ornamental gnome -- and forbade the man to cut his beard or nails, leave the grounds, talk to the servants or wear anything other than a camel-hair robe.
• The 21st-century Leopard Man of Skye, a pensioner tattooed from head to toe with leopard spots who lives half-naked in a converted sheep-pen.

Wow!

Oh, and what's a little post about English eccentricity without a quote on the subject from somebody famous? Here's some John Stuart Mill: "That so few now dare to be eccentric marks the chief danger of our time."

There's the role of colorful, unfettered individuality here, and the idea of eccentricity is also tied to the idea of heterodoxy. Sometimes it's GOOD to march to the beat of a different drummer: "Invariably, these people are founts of creativity - and sometimes this can lead to great inventions and intellectual breakthroughs." Indeed.

Taiwan: Follow-Up on US-Taiwan Arms Freeze

View from Taiwan has a follow-up to the freeze in US-to-Taiwan sales of defensive weapons.

On June 30, 14 Senators sent a letter to President Bush to ask why the arms sales have been frozen.

Here is the text of the letter as given on the official website of one of the signers of the letter, Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma (also co-chair of the Senate Taiwan Caucus). Here is a portion of it:

For decades, the United States and Taiwan have maintained a mutually beneficial economic and political relationship. Taiwan is one of our strongest allies in the Asia Pacific region, and we believe it is essential that there be a peaceful environment in the Taiwan Strait. The U.S. has a long history of making available to Taiwan the defense articles and services that enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability, and we are legally bound under the Taiwan Relations Act to continue doing so.

. . .

In our view, a secure and prosperous Taiwan requires the means to provide for its own self-defense and the ability to engage its neighbors without fear of military intimidation. Taiwan’s ability to maintain its defense rests heavily upon its ability to acquire defense articles that are capable of deterring aggressive neighbors. As your statement also points out, Taiwan has a right to be “secure,” and that can only be guaranteed by an unambiguous and non-negotiable commitment from the United States to provide Taiwan with weapons systems consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act.

Satire Alert: Michael Bay's Script for "Batman"

This is absolutely hilarious.

It does assume, of course, that you're familiar with "Transformers," director Michael Bay, and the entire Bay approach to moviemaking (something he himself cheerfully pokes fun at in a recent commercial).

Nerd Analysis: Service and Servitude

Blogging law professor Stephen Bainbridge thinks about service versus servitude. At the core of it all is the idea of mandatory public service -- or at least public service that is a prerequisite for other things.

In good nerd fashion, Bainbridge's post links to the relevant sources.

I'm all for public service, charity work, humanitarian efforts, and all that. But I'm not so sure that I like the idea of making any of it mandatory in any sense whatsoever. You can't FORCE people to be "virtuous."

Goodness knows I hate being pressured in any way to do something that I don't choose to do. While I'm at it, let me declare that I also hate "holier-than-thou" people getting on their virtuous soapboxes to tell me what I should be doing -- should according to them. What a tyranny of self-proclaimed virtue.

Don't even start with arguments that contain the words "for your own good" or, even worse, "for the greater good." Do you know the first casualty of any effort that's publicly trumpeted as "for the greater good"? I'll tell you: individual freedoms, liberties, choices, and self-determination. Why not steamroller over a few intransigent individuals if you're convinced that it's for the greater good? I mean, really. Pffft.

Euro Notes: Barack, Berlin, and Bother

Obama is heading to Germany, and he may give a speech in front of the iconic Brandenburg Gate. This isn't only a pretty photo-op, though: there are some troublesome implications involved also:

It is just a matter of the appropriate backdrop. Negotiations are underway between the Obama advance team and the office of the Berlin Mayor, Klaus Wowereit, to hold the speech in front of the Brandenburg Gate, close to the line that traces the route of the Berlin Wall. The newly built US embassy nestles alongside. So too does a museum honouring John F. Kennedy. If, as expected, Mr Obama is going to deliver a phrase in German (the insider tip is: "I can listen!" — “ich kann zuhoeren!”) and fling out his arms in the direction of Russia and Central Europe, then this surely is the place.

But, say advisers to Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, it would be tantamount to giving the German stamp of approval to Mr Obama, an undue interference in the election campaign.

"The Brandenburg Gate is the best known and most historically significant site in Germany," said a Chancellery official, explaining why until now only elected presidents have been allowed to perform there.

Well, who knows?

But I have to comment on the supposed little German blurb: “ich kann zuhoeren!” Really? It all sounds like touchy-feely diplo-mush. Listening is all well and good. But it's also mainly passive. We need leaders to act and . . . well, LEAD. I'm also not entirely comfortable with the fetishization of listening in a diplo-world where everyone worships the great god Dialogue even when it doesn't work with rogue regimes.

As for the (scripted?) flinging of arms? Are you kidding me? That's the sort of nutty gesture I'd expect from trashy televangelists and media hucksters.

UPDATE: More here.

Canada: the Quiet Leader?

Here is a thought-provoking commentary about Stephen Harper of Canada, who is -- if you believe this article -- the only world leader at the G-8 is isn't a laughingstock.

What do you make of this?

The trouble is that - partly because of the surging commodity prices that have made all incumbent regimes unpopular - G8 is led by politicians who lack authority.

Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel and Gordon Brown are disliked at home; George Bush is a lame duck; Silvio Berlusconi is changing the law to indemnify himself; Dmitri Medvedev is regarded as Vladimir Putin's creature and, in any case, Russia does not merit inclusion in the G8 by virtue either of its democratic structures or the size of its economy; Yasuo Fukuda, the host, has just become the first ever Japanese leader to have a censure vote passed against him in parliament.

Of all the leaders, only Stephen Harper - the talented but curiously neglected Canadian prime minister - is able to point to a popular and successful record in office.

Some will regard it as alarming that, in current times, world leadership should rest with Canada. But the Canadian Tories are a model of how to behave during a downturn.

They have kept spending in check and reduced taxes. They are playing their full role in world affairs, notably in Afghanistan.

Rather than canting about saving the world (Mr Harper, in his quiet and courteous way, is a Kyoto-sceptic) they have addressed themselves to curing remediable ills and, above all, to putting their own affairs in order.

If the rest of the world had comported itself with similar modesty and prudence, we might not be in this mess.

Interesting.

Movie Review: the Cine-Sib and "Wall-E"

The Cinema-Mad Sibling is all about the summer movies right now, and he's having a new burst of creativity. This morning he offered up a fresh contribution to share.

A few days ago, he and I had taken a crowd of friends to see the Disney/Pixar film, "Wall-E." My initial reaction has been posted. Now here is the Cine-Sib haiku review. In typical fashion, the review itself insists that you know your pop culture history of robot-centric movies.

Number 5 alive
Graphics good, eco theme sucks
Less replay value

Well, for the Cine-Sib, that's really the kiss of death for any movie, the statement that it has little or no replay value.

Amusing Video of the Day: Stephen Colbert + Cookie Monster

From the lovely La Parisienne comes this amusing video:





My favorite bit is probably this line: "Me have crazy times in the 70s and 80s. Me like the Robert Downey Jr. of cookies."

COOKIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quirky Euro Files: A New Collection

This looks like it might become an intriguing catalog of cultural oddities from Europe. Take a look.

Some of the oddities I've heard of (the wife-carrying competition, for example), but some took me entirely by surprise (goose-grabbing in the Basque region?).

Speaking of European quirks, the running of the bulls in Pamplona has just started!

Also, do you have any favorite cultural quirks from your area?

Unintelligible English!

ENGRISH LIVES -- and is becoming weirder and more incomprehensible by the minute. The article is specifically about "Chinglish" -- Chinese English.

By the way, you've been amused by the Engrish website, yes?

Movie Review: the Cine-Sib and "Wanted"

Over the holiday weekend, the Cinema-Mad Sibling and I, along with Alessandra d'Ambrosio who was visiting from out of town, went to see "Wanted."

The film, directed by Russian Timur Bekmambetov, is an ultra-violent celebration of guns, car chases, and assassins, and the whole thing clearly enjoys itself with unfettered gory gusto. This bloodbath, filmed in a way that would surely delight Louis Leterrier and Quentin Tarantino, stars Angelina Jolie, James McAvoy, and the great Morgan Freeman. I don't need to tell you that the flick is rated R for an almost ludicrous amount of violence and bad language. Still, it does have a certain quirky humor in places (there's a great visual gag with a keyboard) and a twist at the end.

Why am I telling you all this? It's merely a prelude to the Cine-Sib's movie review, which he just now gave me. Lately he's taken to writing movie responses in the form of haiku poems. Odd? Yes, maybe. Amusing? No doubt.

Enjoy:

John Woo would be proud.
Sick car chases and shootouts.
Angelina. Hot.

If I had to review it in similar fashion, I'd say this:

"Office Space" plus guns
Cubicle slave turns killer
Fanboy fantasy

Or, as I told La Parisienne, a one-line recap would be: "Mr. Tumnus kicks some butt."

(And yes, the Cine-Sib recommends this film.)

Preview of Movie Review: "Wall-E"

I went to see the Disney/Pixar film "Wall-E" Saturday afternoon with Alessandra, Ladybird, Foxtrot, and the Cine-Sib.

First impressions:

• The preceding short Pixar film about a magician and his rabbit was absolutely delightful.
• The trailers of forthcoming movies, though, were lackluster and even repulsive. The nauseating trailer full of singing, dancing chihuahua dogs made me want to poke my eyes out to halt the agony. MAKE IT STOP!
  
• The visual quality of the actual "Wall-E" movie is stunning. It's astonishing, really. Pixar's characteristic wizardry with computer-generated animation remains unparalleled as it produces ever more beautiful and detailed images.
  
• The first half of the movie is better than the second.
• The best thing about the movie is the romance between the robots Wall-E and Eve.
• Eve's development as a character is a splendid achievement.
  
• The ecological aspects (and apparent critique of consumerism and big corporations) occasionally annoyed me. I don't like being emotionally manipulated. Nor did I like the depiction of human beings as a uniform lot of brainless lardbutts.
• Sci-fi fans will enjoy a few clever in-jokes and references.
  
• Overall, I'd say the movie was beautiful and often cute, but it wasn't really FUN.
  
• Low replay value IMHO. Frankly, I got bored. I won't be saying in the future, "Hey, let's just pop 'Wall-E' into the DVD player for fun while I grade papers." (That's the sort of thing I do with my favorite Pixar films "Toy Story 2" and "The Incredibles.")
• Is it just me, or did Eve look like she was manufactured by the same people who make Macs and iPods and such? She was just so . . . sleek and smooth and Apple-like.

I'll have a real movie review online later.

UPDATE: The Cinema-Mad Sibling has a haiku review of this film.

Italy Declares Pompeii "State of Emergency"

This headline made me laugh: "Italy Declares Pompeii Emergency."

Hey, Italy! Aren't you just a little bit late? I mean, goodness, that devastating volcanic eruption was in 79 AD.

I'm only kidding: the Italian government is declaring a state of emergency for the current archaeological site of Pompeii, because the whole place is falling apart. It's appalling, really.

Quirky Asia Files: the Fearsome Chinese Segway Commandos

Here is a quirky little story given to me by the Cine-Sib, who was laughing when he directed me to it. Take a look at the Chinese Segway commandos who are supposedly in training for the Beijing Games. It's a darn amusing photo:

Happy Independence Day

Happy Independence Day to all on this Fourth of July!

I am off for the holiday, as the Cinema-Mad Sibling and I are soon leaving to celebrate with our friends. A large number of us are going out of town together for a long day trip: Alessandra, Ladybird, Foxtrot, and others too. From parades to hot dogs to fireworks, we're ready for some fun. (And yes, we have lots of sunscreen too -- the day is blazing hot and sunny, as Fourth of July should be.) Time for friends: I already had some lovely time with Il Barista and La Parisienne a couple nights ago.

For quieter moments, I give you a few thoughts, a link to the Declaration of Independence, a book recommendation, and a chance to reflect on what is right and good about this great nation, the oldest modern democracy in the world. I'm still proud to be an American -- and as this recent study suggests, so are many of my fellow countrymen (and countrywomen).

Have a great holiday. I'll see you back here in the aftermath!

UPDATE: It's past midnight, and I finally am home, exhausted but happy. By the way, the fireworks were FABULOUS! *MM stumbles off to bed, whistling a few bars of John Philip Sousa.*

Nerd Notes: The Changing of the Guard in Academia -- Old and New Professors

There's change in the wind on university campuses as older professors begin to retire, opening up positions for younger academics. This seems obvious, but there's an additional twist, as this New York Times article points out.

Many of the retiring professors are liberals, leftists, and radicals who came of age in the 1960s. Their younger replacements tend to be less . . . Well, this is what the NY Times says:

Baby boomers, hired in large numbers during a huge expansion in higher education that continued into the ’70s, are being replaced by younger professors who many of the nearly 50 academics interviewed by The New York Times believe are different from their predecessors — less ideologically polarized and more politically moderate.

. . . Individual colleges and organizations like the American Association of University Professors are already bracing for what has been labeled the graying of the faculty. More than 54 percent of full-time faculty members in the United States were older than 50 in 2005, compared with 22.5 percent in 1969. How many will actually retire in the next decade or so depends on personal preferences and health, as well as how their pensions fare in the financial markets.

Yet already there are signs that the intense passions and polemics that roiled campuses during the past couple of decades have begun to fade. At Stanford a divided anthropology department reunited last year after a bitter split in 1998 broke it into two entities, one focusing on culture, the other on biology. At Amherst, where military recruiters were kicked out in 1987, students crammed into a lecture hall this year to listen as alumni who served in Iraq urged them to join the military.

In general, information on professors’ political and ideological leanings tends to be scarce. But a new study of the social and political views of American professors by Neil Gross at the University of British Columbia and Solon Simmons at George Mason University found that the notion of a generational divide is more than a glancing impression.

. . . When it comes to those who consider themselves “liberal activists,” 17.2 percent of the 50-64 age group take up the banner compared with only 1.3 percent of professors 35 and younger.

“These findings with regard to age provide further support for the idea that, in recent years, the trend has been toward increasing moderatism,” the study says.

The authors are not talking about a political realignment. Democrats continue to overwhelmingly outnumber Republicans among faculty, young and old. But as educators have noted, the generation coming up appears less interested in ideological confrontations . . .

I shall be pleased to be a member of the New Guard of moderate young academics, I think. I am tired of radicals. Besides, I've run into one too many gray nerd still mentally reliving long-faded glory days of Berkeley in the late 1960s. I wasn't even born yet. What was/is radical and chic to them is history to me. I'm thinking about the future.

Read the prediction about moderation with Stanley Fish's recent support for non-confrontational classrooms.

Nerd Notes: The Greatest Student Prank of All Time?

Via Tigerhawk comes this British article on a student prank so good that it just might be the greatest one in modern history.

It took place at Cambridge in 1958, and it involves a car on a roof. Hilarious!

Now there have been all sorts of famous student pranks over the years, but I must admit, this Cambridge automotive feat is ingenious, delightful, and pretty darn awesome.

Movie Survey: What Next?

It's pop culture democracy time at MMBlog! I'm planning to see a movie over the upcoming holiday weekend. But which movie is yet to be decided.

Gentle reader, which of the following should I see with my friends and then review for you? The choices are listed in alphabetical order:

1. "Get Smart"
   
2. "Hancock"
   
3. "Wall-E"
4. "Wanted"

Let me know in comments below, and tell me why I should see the film of your choice.

Hello Kitty Monstrosity of the Day: the Hello Kitty HD TV

(Lumpenscholar, this one's especially for you! Ask, and thou shalt receive!)

Well, it's been a good long while without any Hello Kitty lunacy, so here's a look at what's going on in the Kittyverse.

Uniden has announced a new 19-inch HD television with a Hello Kitty theme. Yuck! At least it's only available (so far) in Japan.

Feast your eyes on this:

For extra pain, go look at the company webpage for this product.

Aieeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!

Movie Review: The Cinema-Mad Sibling Considers "The Incredible Hulk"

This impromptu review by the Cinema-Mad Sibling is just too good to ignore. Here, in haiku form, is his review of "The Incredible Hulk," which he recommends:

Don't p*ss the man off
Green man will make you sorry
I'd see it again

Short and sweet! My review is, alas, a bit more long-winded.

Nerd Notes: Stanley Fish on the Political-Activist Classroom

From prof-blogger Instapundit comes a link to an interesting-looking new book by well-known academic Stanley Fish.

Here's the link to the book on Amazon, and here is a related article on Inside Higher Education. The gist of Fish's book? He says that professors should leave their political or activist inclinations out of the classroom. Blurb:

Stanley Fish is very clear about what college professors should do in the classroom.

They “can (legitimately) do two things: (1) introduce students to bodies of knowledge and traditions of inquiry that had not previously been part of their experience; and (2) equip those same students with the analytical skills — of argument, statistical modeling, laboratory procedure — that will enable them to move confidently within those traditions and to engage in independent research after a course is over.”

And what should they not do? Everything else.

In a new book to be published this month by Oxford University Press, Fish, the Davidson-Kahn Distinguished University Professor of Humanities and Law at Florida International University, argues that instructors need to approach their jobs narrowly — and to, as the title implies, Save the World on Your Own Time.

That doesn’t mean they can’t have opinions, espouse views outside of the classroom or make partisan pronouncements in public. But the argument — that professors should do their jobs, and nothing else — does establish a framework through which the book tackles every major academic controversy, from Ward Churchill (a professor who erred in melding politics and his academic work, Fish says, not in expressing those views per se) to the intelligent design movement (a relativistic attempt to sneak a nonscientific idea into the classroom) to Larry Summers (a man who went beyond the bounds of his job description).

This looks like it's worth a look. Goodness knows, on this blog we've talked a great deal about campus culture. The Inside Higher Ed piece includes a brief interview with Fish, and here is one little piece of his response:

It’s my conviction that teachers should not have posters . . . on the doors of their office that indicate some political, partisan or ideological affiliation. The office . . . is an extension of the scene of teaching, and no student should enter an office [believing that] some ideas are going to be preferred and others are better not uttered. The larger part are those professors who are sincerely convinced that it is their job to take their students and mold both their characters and their ideological views . . .

Interesting, interesting! See a previous, related post here on another professor's observations. I repeat here what I said there: "Frankly, I don't think my students should know what my politics are, because that'll squash any pretense at open, honest discussion of all relevant perspectives and evidence in a given issue or topic." I stand by that.

Back to the Moon: Buzz Aldrin on Lunar Landings, the Chinese, and the Americans

Buzz Aldrin wants the US to get back to the moon -- before the Chinese do.

May I remind you of this old satire?

Movie Review: "The Incredible Hulk"

Bruce Banner ponders whether anyone qualified is offering anger management classes in the slums of Rio.

Prelude: A ton of reviews insist on comparing "The Incredible Hulk" with its fellow Marvel production,"Iron Man" (with mostly unfavorable results). If I may say so, I don't think that's really fair. These are two completely different movies with two completely different protagonists. Bruce Banner isn't Tony Stark, and it's unfair to expect him to be someone he isn't. Only Tony Stark is Tony Stark, and, really, that's the way it should be. As for me, if I walked into that cinema with the specific intention of comparing the Big Green Guy with the Shiny Flying Suit, then I might as well stay home and save my money, because everybody knows that I absolutely loved "Iron Man" and Robert Downey Jr.'s riveting performance. I frankly doubt anyone can rival that anytime soon -- except Christian Bale. BUT! I went into the theater with Cine-Sib with the intention of seeing "The Incredible Hulk" in its own context and as a movie in its own right, with Edward Norton as the leading man. My first impression was favorable, and I haven't changed my mind.

One more thing. While it's not fair to compare "The Incredible Hulk" with "Iron Man," I do think that it's perfectly legitimate to compare it with Ang Lee's previous "Hulk" film. In this case, I think the new version, directed by Louis Leterrier (of "Transporter" fame), is better -- but of course this is a matter of taste. And I prefer Hulk a la "Transporter" to Hulk a la "Crouching Tiger," OK? Maybe this means that I'm simply not interested in existential philosophy. Maybe I'm a shallow, simple-minded movie fan who wants more "Hulk Smash" and less "cogito -- or, rather-- irascor ergo Hulk." Fine. If you want the Zen of Hulk, go rent the Ang Lee version. I did watch the Lee version again after seeing the Leterrier Hulk (I'm a professional nerd, after all, and I believe in being thorough in research), and my former criticisms of that film still stand. Let's go to the full review of the 2008 reboot, shall we?

One of the most noticeable features of the Leterrier Hulk is the pacing. As in, there's plenty of it, and it's fast. After the seemingly interminable plodding of the Lee version, Leterrier's lightning fast pacing is a joy. The movie hits the ground running from the first scene, and it does not slow down. In fact, the opening sequence itself -- interspersed with the opening credits -- does in a few efficient moments what could otherwise have taken up far longer. It tells the origin story of the Hulk with a few well-chosen images of the gamma-ray accident that produces the Hulk Hyde to Banner's Dr. Jekyll, and so we begin the actual movie already in the middle of the story, with Bruce Banner (Edward Norton) hiding in the slums of Rio in Brazil as he carries his deadly secret within. The wryly humorous labeling of "days without incident" adds to the sense that Banner's problem is an ever-present sword of Damocles hovering over him; let him lose his temper just once, let his pulse race just a bit too much, and Banner the man transmogrifies into the Hulk, a beast he cannot control. And Banner's fear of this is chillingly real, as is the presentation of the consequences this had had on his life. The university-based scientist and researcher is reduced to a fugitive living as a manual laborer in a drink-bottling factory in the sketchy slums of Rio de Janeiro.

Another great feature is Leterrier's deft handling of the story. The action is always intense and, yes, sometimes ridiculous, but whether you think this is good or bad depends on your point of view (the Cine-Sib whooped with glee and shouted out, "It looks like MICHAEL BAY!" -- and he meant it as a compliment). I'm trying to avoid spoilers, but I simply must point you to a couple of outstanding sequences: the cat-and-mouse chase that has Banner running through the slums and over the rooftops of Rio (this reminded me of Jason Bourne) and also the first sequence in which the Hulk appears. Leterrier treats it almost like a scene from a horror flick and shows the audience how not seeing a monster can be even more terrifying than seeing one. I'll add one more note: the subtle inclusion of a bit of humor along the way that helps lift the film from the relentless gloom (a quip about the New York City subway made me giggle out loud -- oh, I've been on that subway!). Somehow the film manages to touch on the deeper issues of Banner's existential problems without making too ham-fisted an effort of it and without belaboring all the fun and action out of the movie.

I have to give kudos to Edward Norton as Bruce Banner. Within the first few minutes of the film, he managed to do what Eric Bana could not in two hours: Norton made me care about his character -- really, actually care. Norton didn't seem to me at first to be an obvious choice to play the tormented scientist; I'd seen him previously only in rather creepy roles in "Fight Club" and "The Italian Job," but there is a quality about him that he draws from and turns into a viable, believable Banner. Norton's not a flashy actor, not an actor whom one associates with lively energy. His is an understated ability to ponder on-screen, to hint and then plumb real depths. He gives the sense that there is more than meets the eye. With Norton, silence can speak volumes, and he proves that the axiom of "still waters run deep" can translate into nuanced character performances. I'd never been much of a Norton fan, per se; I always thought his rather thin, reedy voice was unimpressive -- but here in this film, it works perfectly in his embodiment of Banner the scientist. I couldn't help feeling for Banner the human being; despite his super-strong Hulk persona -- indeed because of that persona -- Banner the man is terribly vulnerable and ultimately alone (and long-time Hulk fans will appreciate the haunting reprise of a certain musical theme here). Beyond that, though, the quietly magnetic Norton deals with complexities that would easily defeat a lesser actor, but Norton is able to command everything from tormented love, indefatigable determination, heart-dissolving fear, and a tough, enduring courage that ennobles the man.

An aside here: I think finally a few filmmakers have grasped the idea that casting actual actors in superhero movies makes better superhero movies overall (well, DUH). The casting of proven, talented, chameleon-like character actors like Christian Bale (Batman), Robert Downey Jr. (Iron Man), and now Edward Norton (the Hulk) have all been creative decisions that helped elevate the films from camp morass to a level of good, even great entertainment. I want more of this -- a lot more. Listen up, moviemakers!

Norton's performance is key, and it is the standout in a cast that is -- to be honest -- desultory. Other characters of varying quality include Liv Tyler as Betty Ross, the love interest who hasn't much to do here (but still more than her Jennifer Connelly doppelganger), William Hurt as Betty's estranged father, the general who is out to capture the Hulk, and Tim Roth as Emil Blonsky, the creepily violent military uniform who eventually turns into the Abomination. The Sibling and I agree too that the Hulk persona, aka the Big Green Guy, is drawn with a slightly lighter touch here. Yes, he's still a leaf-colored embodiment of the id gone wild, but this Hulk is able to speak . . . and even able to hint at a personality and life within the monstrosity. This Hulk is capable of speech. OK, well, one word, but it's a word that hints at a soul inside. And all this for me is a far superior presentation of the problematic humanity of the Hulk/Banner.

Other good points: the extensive series of nods and homages to the comic book universe and its fans. There's an amusing note about stretchy purple shorts that made the Cine-Sib laugh. The cameos especially were a nice touch. There's even a cameo by the Banner/Hulk of TV fame, Bill Bixby. But wait, you say, Bixby's dead. Oh, but gentle viewer, you should know that being dead is no reason not to have a Hollywood movie cameo! The Lou Ferrigno cameo was fantastic, and made the Cine-Sib cheer. As for the most anticipated cameo of all, I won't be spoiling it for you because the cat is long out of the bag and everybody knows now: Downey appears as Tony Stark at the end of the movie. (Sharp-eyed viewers will notice the appearance of weapons stamped with the Stark Industries name at the beginning of the film -- a nice bookending effect.) This cameo was a great bit, but it might have actually been harmful to the movie it was meant to support. I mean, honestly, after watching Stark saunter into the frame with the grace of a jungle cat in a designer suit, flashing his devilish grin and oozing his signature charisma, the first thing I thought was, "I just gotta go see 'Iron Man' again!" I didn't want to see him leave the scene. (I guess I'm a fickle movie fan. Here I am, telling you how good Norton is, but show me Downey's Stark, and I start purring about him instead. Oh, tsk tsk tsk and shame on me.)

"The Incredible Hulk" does have its problems, no doubt. While the Hulk himself is a better product of CGI animation than his predecessor, the CGI rendition of the Abomination looked . . . well, artificial, like a Halloween funhouse prop. To me he looked more silly than scary, frankly. The final monster mash between the Hulk and the Abominable is your basic action smackdown between two huge figures, but hey, even so, at the end of the musclebound mayhem, there's a moment that makes you wonder -- how much humanity is in the Hulk? More than you thought?

One practical matter that bothered me: how did Banner get from the jungles of Guatemala to the college campus where his former colleague and object of affection Betty Ross (Liv Tyler) is?

Also, one major idea of the film centers on human relationships. I was endlessly grateful that this flick didn't have the overwrought father-issues of the previous one, but I think it strayed a bit in the other direction. I thought the relationship between Betty Ross and her father could have been better done with just a few lines more here and there. As it stood, it seemed a bit flat to me; perhaps too much had been left on the cutting room floor in favor of the quite good interaction between Bruce and Betty (well, given the limited parameters of Liv Tyler's scripted role as Betty).

In the end? "The Incredible Hulk" may not be quite incredible, and it's not up to the excellence of "Batman Begins" or "Iron Man," but it's certainly a good, solid movie that provides a worthy addition to Marvel's new universe. If Iron Man is the handsome, flamboyant troublemaker in this comic book family, then the Hulk is the quiet, rather bookish, thoughtful one. To each his (or her) own. The Marvel cinema universe is off to a great beginning with its one-two punch combination of these hero flicks.

"The Incredible Hulk" runs for 114 minutes and is rated PG-13 for partial nudity, a brief almost-love scene, some frightening images, and animated violence.

Mad Minerva gives this movie a grade of a solid B for entertainment, actual acting by Norton, and good directing by Louis Leterrier. Yes, I would happily pay to see it again, too -- and probably will. (And this is something I never said -- nor will say -- about the Ang Lee version.)

RottenTomatoes gives "The Incredible Hulk" a fresh rating of 68%.

This is the official website for the film.

Nerd Notes:

The entire movie resonates on a nerd level that's both incredibly moving and yet utterly different from the rock-and roll spirit and total tech-gasms of "Iron Man." Here the human element reigns supreme in the plight of Bruce Banner, a science geek who has to face situations for which he never planned -- and against which he has only his willpower, intelligence, and courage.

Also . . . Frankly, I found it extremely cathartic (oh, grad school frustrations) to see the Hulk and Blonsky's men tear up an entire college campus with fireballs, heavy weaponry, and things that go "boom." Take THAT, administration building!

UPDATE: The Sibling reviews the film here.

Nerd Journal: I'm Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack!

It's been a busy couple of weeks -- very, very busy -- and mingled with traveling and seeing friends, but I'm back home.

Blogging will return shortly. First thing on my list: my review of "The Incredible Hulk."

Did you miss me? *giggle*