Reviews

I adore the Transformers. For me, they rank third behind Superman (and the DC Comics Universe as a whole) and "Star Wars." There was something so intrinsically and viscerally cool about normal looking vehicles and contraptions that could turn into giant, sentient robots. I ate up the original Generation One toys and the three seasons of the Sunbow cartoon up with such relish, and pretty much believed that these characters and this story could never be fully realized in a live-action movie.

Of course, I was wrong with 2007's "Transformers," a film I enjoyed then and thoroughly love now. It filled me with such nostalgic gladness, but I knew even then that, despite hearing Peter Cullen's baritone protruding from the metallic lips of an honest-to-God, real (well, CGI, anyway) Optimus Prime, that this was no longer my time or my era. Generation One was dead and gone, and something entirely different had replaced it. However, I felt that the spirit of "The Transformers" remained and that was good enough for me.

Then, came the train wreck that was 2009's "Revenge of the Fallen." Blame for this debacle comes in many forms, not the least director Michael Bay's rush to start production on the film in the oncoming wake of the Writers Guild strike. The film was sloppy, poorly edited, choppy, and at times, really offensive. Yet, there were good things about it, just not enough to make me want to see the movie more than once.

"Dark of the Moon" corrects many of the mistakes of "Fallen," and expands and expounds upon the original film. It hearkens back somewhat to Generation One, but really does ring the death knell for that era of the franchise. This Optimus Prime, despite the same voice, is not the same Prime we all grew to love and look up to. This is a character that comes off as an actual general at war and a leader of a displaced race seeking refuge and peace. This Prime made the hard decisions to finally stop the Decepticon menace and fully embrace Earth as his home and mankind as his protectorate. That make me love this version of the character and look up to him even more than his G1 self.

Now, "Moon" is overlong, by about an hour. Excise the goofy, sophomoric, potty (literal) jokes, the stupid characters like Sam's parents, Agent Simmons -- hell, most of the human characters, then you have a nice, fast-paced, stream-lined action film. I never really cared for these people, at least not in the way I cared for the Transformers, particularly the Autobots, and what's oddest to me is that the newest additions to the cast of characters, like Carly, were the most intriguing and interesting.

The entire Chicago battle sequence is breath-taking and shows Michael Bay at his gratuitous best. The guy knows how to film battle scenes and ILM's CGI work is seamless and realistic. Everything about this movie seems expensive, but in a good way.

And what can I say about the original Galvatron, legend Leonard Nimoy, portraying good-guy-turned-villain Sentinel Prime? Well, it's good to hear Galvatron's voice one last time.

I don't know what will happen next with the Transformers' live-action franchise, but I'm intrigued to see it continue on in the hands of another set of filmmakers and designers. I'd love to see the blocky, chunky Transformers of the G1 era return, and maybe even hear Frank Welker as Megatron at last...but I doubt it'll happen. Why? Simply because these just aren't my Transformers any more.

And I'm okay with that.

There are two saving graces in "Iron Man 2." The first is Gwyneth Paltrow's wondrous performance as Virginia "Pepper" Potts. Paltrow is literally stunning as Pepper and brings a warmth and depth to this character in a beautiful way.

The second is the "Easter egg" scene after the end credits in which we see S.H.I.E.L.D. agent Coulson discover the mighty Thor's hammer, Mjolnir, in a crater in New Mexico.

That's pretty much it.

"Iron Man 2" is boring, trite, and does nothing for the character or this franchise in any meaningful way. Even the battle scenes were not entertaining. Whereas "Iron Man" was fun and exciting and interesting, "2" is the exact opposite and even borders on "Batman & Robin" embarrassing at times, which is pretty terrible.

I had low expectations for "Iron Man 2" whenever I saw the first trailer for the film, and it's safe to say that it exceeded (or whatever the opposite of "exceed" is) them in spades.

I can only hope that the "Captain America," "Thor," and "The Avengers" films are better. And a word of advice to the filmmakers, reign in Robert Downey, Jr. a little bit next time. Just say what's in the script, Robert...we didn't come to the theater to see a Second City improv performance.

I, like many other movie-goers, was pleasantly surprised with "The Rise of Cobra." I didn't expect much, but was very happy with the end result.

Why? Mainly because of Ray Park's spot-on portrayal of the definitive Snake Eyes as envisioned by comic book writer (and author of the action figures' data cards) Larry Hama.

The mere fact that director Stephen Sommers and Co. included Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow's shared past and the reason behind their feud was brilliantly executed and very appreciated.

A great film and a fine adaptation of "G.I. Joe." I hope they make more, but who knows? If not, at least for a little bit, we got to see Clan Arishikage realized on the silver screen.

I liked "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" right after I left the theater. I defended the durn thing to anyone who'd listen. But, as the days ticked off, I came to find myself not liking this film as much as I had when the credits rolled and the lights came on.

"Revenge" is crude, sexist, and a bit bigoted, and those are things I didn't believe when I first saw the film. I feel ashamed towards Hasbro, the owners of the Transformers brand, for letting such a nasty-spirited film feature the properties they have always protected and held close to the chest.

Now, having said that, there is much to like about "Revenge" including the once-again incredible special effects, the lovely Megan Fox, and most especially Peter Cullen reprising his role as the voice of Optimus Prime. There are many very good battle scenes, some pretty good acting, and even a few jokes that don't make you feel dirty laughing about afterward.

Here's hoping that Michael Bay, who made the original "Transformers" his magnum opus, will get back on track for 2011's "TF 3." God, I hope so, because I won't be so defensive next time...

Not to impugn the work of Mr. Lucas and Co., but J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek" should be the textbook definition of how to make a prequel film. How did Mr. Abrams and his fine crew do it? Well, to make mention of the notorious G.L. once again, they added just enough "Star Wars" to "Trek" to make it both palatable to the non-Trekker audience, and kept just enough Trekker-attuned stuff to make long-time "Trek" fans like me happy, content, and excited once again for the future.

Creating an alternate reality for this films and the inevitable ones to follow was a brilliant move by Abrams and the screen writers, Orci and Kurtzman. The latter two's love of "Trek" was apparent in this film, as was their feelings to keep this film separate from the various television series and films, thus allowing them to peacefully co-exist together. Awesome move, fellas.

And who da thunk it? "Star Trek" on the big screen and "Star Wars" on the tube...boy, the times, they are a-changin'.

I liked "Watchmen." It was a very authentic adaptation of Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons' seminal 1985 twelve-issue D.C. Comics maxi-series (not a graphic novel!), painstakingly put together by auteur Zack Snyder, but in the end, I feel like it was just a movie that didn't really need to be made.

Warner Bros. spent in excess of $120 million to make "Watchmen." This could've been better spent on a sequel to Bryan Singer's "Superman Returns," or any of Warner's long-gestating D.C. Comics-based films like "Wonder Woman" or next year's "Green Lantern." Warner Bros. will take a financial beating on "Watchmen" when they could've made a "real" superhero movie and captured a windfall like they did with last year's "The Dark Knight." But, enough financializing. "Watchmen" features nice performances, particularly Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach, most people's favorite character from the original comic's, and perhaps, the most psychologically damaged. Haley deserves at least an Oscar nod for this role, but won't get one. Patrick Wilson is also very good as Dan Dreiberg, the second Night Owl, as is the lovely Malin Ackerman as Laurie Jupiter, the second Silk Spectre. However, Laurie's dramatic arc from the comic feels forced and put upon here in the film. But, that's really what happens when you compress a twelve-issue series down into a two-and-a-half movie.

Jeffrey Dean Morgan is never quite believable as Edward Blake, the Comedian. He has the chops, but just really doesn't pull off being the real scumbag the Blake is. Matthew Goode is fairly forgettable as Ozymandias. He brings little to this, perhaps, the most pivotal role in the story. And the ending is a total cop-out, once again feeling forced and rushed. I like Carla Gugino as Sally Jupiter, the original Silk Spectre, but I like seeing her in just about anything. She isn't given much to do here, and her old-age make-up is pretty atrocious.

Billy Crudup makes a fine Doctor Manhattan, but his origin story depicted in the film slows the whole thing down considerably, as does Crudup's dead-pan, monotonic delivery of Osterman/Manhattan's lines. The SFX used to bring he blue, nude living atomic reactor to life is adequate, but not sufficient enough. The CGI Doctor's lips often do not match his lines, which is a bit off-putting.

The SFX for the film as a whole was well-done, and the set direction was spot-on to Mister Gibbons' original artwork. Much has been said about the fast-moving, incredibly choreographed fight scenes. What can I say? I liked them. It shows that these people are well trained and thoroughly experienced enough to be costumed crime fighters. What more do you want? All in all, "Watchmen" is a good movie, but ultimately forgettable. I still think this was money best spent elsewhere on true superheroes like the Man or Steel, the Amazing Amazon, or the Emerald Gladiator.

Recommended.

One thing I realized after watching "The Dark Knight" was that, for the first time in my life, I do not want to be Batman. It is a horrible, horrible life. There is no peace, no rest, no happiness for Bruce Wayne. "The Dark Knight" crystallizes what it is like to be the Batman in a way never seen before on the printed page or on the silver screen. And I do not want to be Batman. I'd rather be any other superhero -- Superman, Green Lantern, or even the Flash.

And another thing. Batman, especially Christopher Nolan's Batman, does not whine. He doesn't complain about how bad he has it. He is the antithesis of Spider-Man, particularly Sam Raimi's Spider-Man. Peter Parker seems to almost wallow in his misery, whereas Bruce Wayne gets up, dusts himself off, and launches himself at evil and injustice again and again.

And I'll take the Dark Knight over Iron Man any day. Bruce Wayne plays the role of the vapid, moral-less playboy. Tony Stark is one. Bruce Wayne never compromised himself to do what's right. Tony Stark does this all the time, and even kills people. And lastly, Batman's identity is a secret...Stark basically unmasks himself for everyone to see. I'd rather have the Batman on my side at any time.

Now, this is no normal review of "The Dark Knight." You can get that anywhere. I apologize for using this review as a sounding board, but after seeing the masterpiece that was "The Dark Knight," I just had to share my feelings. And don't get me wrong, I loved "Iron Man." Loved it. But, Iron Man is no Dark Knight. There's only one and thank God he still lives on the silver screen.

Iron Man was one of my favorite comic book superheroes. In many ways, he was the Marvel equivalent of D.C.'s Batman, but also the Dark Knight's juxtaposition.

Well, leave it to Marvel to so totally screw up the character, as of late, that I can hardly stand the guy any more.

That being said, "Iron Man" is, indeed, the finest film adaptation of a Marvel Comic book. It eclipses all of Marvel's other cinematic efforts, even the fairly flawless "Spider-Man 2" and "X2: X-Men United." Robert Downey, Jr. is awe-inspiring as Anthony Edward Stark and his alter ego, the Golden Avenger. It's good to see Downey in top form and he ably proves that he can play the good guy, the action hero, and the star of a huge summer blockbuster.

And that's exactly what "Iron Man" is. A huge summer blockbuster. But, the film is also really grounded in reality, features snappy dialogue, and at times, is genuinely funny.

Jeff Bridges is terrific as the classic '80s comic book villain Obadiah Stane. He's so nice and charming as Stane, that when he transforms into the villain of the piece, it's quite alarming and disarming (well, at least to those who don't know anything about Iron Man or his rogue's gallery).

The film's features spot-on special effects and some great animatronics/costuming work by the legendary Stan Winston. The only time I could tell the "real" Iron Man from the CGI one was when he moved. Otherwise, the transition was flawless.

I so totally fell in love with Gwyneth Paltrow as Stark's stalwart assistant Virginia "Pepper" Potts. Now, here's a Marvel-based redhead we can get behind after the dour, sour Mary Jane Watson of the last two "Spider-Man" films. Paltrow is absolutely gorgeous as Pepper, and you have to love the way she teetered about in those heels while on the run from danger.

The film features a cameo from the Marvel secret agent organization, S.H.I.E.L.D., which has been transformed into an American agency here. And I love the way they are integrated into both Tony Stark and Iron Man's lives. However, why the filmmakers (and more than likely, Marvel's editorial department) chose to have Stark reveal his secret identity at the film's close is really beyond me. What's the point of superheroes at all if they don't have secret identities (the Hulk and a few others notwithstanding)? Yet, much of that shock and disappointment is made up in the post-credits sequence featuring Samuel L. Jackson as Nicholas J. Fury, S.H.I.E.L.D.'s public director basically recruiting Stark and Iron Man for the Avengers, Marvel's premier superhero team (think Justice League).

Despite this tiny little gripe, "Iron Man" is amazing, truly amazing. And since Marvel actually financed this small film, hey, they might actually make some money from it this time.

Highly recommended.

I've grown up loving "The Transformers." It was 1986 and everyday I'd come home from the third grade and sit in my school clothes and watch twenty-two minutes of every episode of third season of "The Transformers." Even without Optimus Prime that very last season, my all-time favorite Transformer and toy, I was enthralled and engrossed and loved every minute of it.

"The Transformers" have stayed with me. Optimus Prime remains one my heroes, as well as Bumblebee and Jazz. They are still real to me. They always were.

So, when I see some of my childhood heroes realized on the big screen, alive and well and in real life, to say I was floored would be an understatement. To say I didn't cry when I saw that semi-tractor trailer transform into a thirty-foot tall robot and hear Peter Cullen's baritone voice booming out of it would be nothing less than a lie.

Filmmaker Michael Bay has made his masterpiece and it's called "Transformers." And that's whats so damn weird, because in reality, this film is an adaptation of a late animated series and a stalwart toy line. It's not an original idea, and maybe that made it easier for Bay. Whatever the case, he, along with two very talented screenwriters, and Industrial Light & Magic, gave me, and so many other fans, old and young, our Transformers.

I'm really just too emotional to give a good, solid synopsis-filled review. Maybe I will someday, but after seeing "Transformers" twice, I can't sit here and write, "Well, this happened next, and then this actor portrayed his character well, and blah, blah, blah." I can't do it.

At the end the end of the day, I saw a live-action "Transformers" movie. I saw Optimus Prime living and breathing (or the Cybertronian equivalent), I saw Starscream fail Megatron, and I saw Prime and Megatron fight to the death. I heard that glorious transforming noise, and well, I just can't say enough about Mr. Cullen's voice work. He's a god among men, especially men my age.

His Optimus Prime, as it was twenty-plus years ago, is still the heart and soul of everything "The Transformers" stood for then and now. As I've left the theater for the second of probably several more times, it hits me every time, "Now I know why Optimus Prime is still my hero." He just is...

Now, many will not like this film, fans and non-fans alike. And that's fine, I don't expect everyone to like "Transformers." It may not be everybody's cup of tea. But, for me, it was pretty much exactly what I had hoped for...and leaves me wanting more, much, more than meets the eye.

Sorry, had to do it.

Highest recommendation!

Let me preface my review of "Spider-Man 3" by saying that in the last few years Marvel Comics has ruined what they have deemed for more than forty years as their flagship character and fictional ambassador, Spider-Man.

Spider-Man was used and abused by Marvel in their disastrous epic storyline known as "Civil War," where he was essentially forced by his creators (and characters in the story) to unmask himself publicly, ruining his reputation as Peter Parker, his crime-fighting career as Spider-Man, and most stupidly of all, risking the very lives of himself and every single person he cares for.

Really, in the scheme of the Marvel Universe, there is no Spider-Man any more. Oh, yes, he still appears in any number of eponymous titles published in grind house-fashion from the House of Ideas, but Peter Parker really isn't Spider-Man any more.

However, the Webslinger still exists, and oddly enough, he exists truly only on the silver screen. What Sam Raimi and Co. have done since 2002 has placed Spider-Man at the forefront of public consciousness in a way that Marvel never has, and now, never will.

"Spider-Man 3" continues that strange phenomenon, and is an awe-inspiring addition to the two companion films that preceded it. Also, interestingly enough, due to its dense, multi-layered, and intricate plot lines, it is the most comic book-esquire film ever made in this re-emerging genre.

So-called critics have complained that too much goes on "Spider-Man 3," and thus, it falls flat. Look, if the eight-year old children sitting around me in the theater could follow the plot(s), and still enjoy the film and themselves, then I really fail to see how middle aged, accomplished writers and journalists could not.

"Spider-Man 3" was able to masterful weave Peter Parker, our lamented titular hero, and the very love of his life, Mary Jane Watson's burgeoning relationship's ups and down, along with MJ's own lagging stage career, Peter's growing ego now that his alter ego has become the city's most beloved citizen and resident protector, the origin story of the criminal Sandman, and the reality that he was actually the murderer of Peter's Uncle Ben Parker, the arrival of rival photographer Eddie Brock, the bonding of Peter with the alien "symbiote" who affords him a new, black costume and a severe personality alteration, Harry Osborn's vendetta against Peter, whom he sees as the murderer of his father, and finally, the rise of Venom, his team-up with the Sandman, the climatic battle between heroes and villains, and culminating in deaths, forgiveness, and redemption. Yes, all that happens in 140 minutes, and somehow, it is done with such skill and enjoyment on the part of the audience, that I still wonder at how it was accomplished.

Tobey Maguire returns as our hero, and hopefully, not for the last time. Maguire epitomizes what Spider-Man used to be, and wears the role with the sort of ease the late, great Christopher Reeve possessed during his reign as the screen's Superman. Kirsten Dunst is given a lot to do here, and portrays Mary Jane Watson with real dramatic gusto, although as the film progresses, I really began to loathe MJ in a way I never have before.

The true highlights are James Franco's Harry Osborn/New Goblin and Thomas Haden Church's Flint Marko/The Sandman. Franco's character has evolved so much during the series, and in "Spider-Man 3" his fall into darkness is well done, as his return to innocence following his disastrous attack on Peter. I have to admit that there were tears in my eyes when Harry, now knowing how his father really died (thanks, Bernard!), saves the life of Peter, not once, but twice in the climactic battle with the Sandman and Venom. Harry dies for his friends, and is truly redeemed in a Darth Vader-like way that is sad, but satisfying.

Church fully fleshes out Flint Marko in such a way, that you can really see director Raimi's fondness for the popular Spidey villain. Church's Sandman is a tragic figure, not sure if he is good or bad, but ultimately willing to do anything to save the life of his daughter (incidentally, also the daughter of the Bride in Kill Bill Vol. 2). Church's Sandman not only survives this film, but actually is forgiven for the worst crime in the Spider-Man mythos, killing Uncle Ben, by Peter himself.

Topher Grace somewhat channels his smarmy role as Carter Duryea in "In Good Company" as the despicable Edward Brock, Jr. And frankly, as the symbiote-fueled Venom, is given little to do at the end. Venom is not seen on screen until the final battle, and does not survive the outcome. And I think for this fact alone, many fans of Spider-Man's comic book adventures from the late 80s and through the late 90s were turned off by this film. Venom rose from a one-trick pony. rip-off supervillain (see Superman's Bizarro No.1 and The Flash's Reverse-Flash) to a full-fledged anti-hero, and I guess, many fanboys expected this to be on full display in "Spider-Man 3." But, this wasn't Venom's story, or even the symbiote's story. It was the story of three friends, Peter, MJ, and Harry, who at last overcome the horrible things that have done to themselves and one another, and at last triumph over evil in a way that could never be done behind a mask or with super-powers.

If this is the end of Spider-Man's cinematic adventures, then I am truly sad. There are still just too many damn stories to tell about the Wall-Crawler. If this is simply the next chapter in Peter Parker's tale, then it is a fitting one that opens the door to the future of still my favorite hard-luck hero...well, next to Batman.

Highest recommendation!

First off, let me preface this review by saying that I was never huge fan or aficionado of Marvel Comics' Ghost Rider. I liked the character somewhat, but found myself more attuned with Marvel's other heroes, like Spider-Man, the Avengers, and the Hulk. Now, going into the cinematic version of the Spirit of Vengeance, I really had no preconceived notions. I enjoyed the very first theatrical trailer for the film that I saw with last year's disastrous X-Men: The Last Stand, but was sort of wary of the film after seeing the corny, humorous television commercials that were run endlessly before the movie's release on 16 February 2007.

However, after actually seeing Ghost Rider, I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised by the end product and had a great time watching it. Yet, the film is not without its problems. The story of a young motorcycle daredevil's bargain with the Devil for the life of his cancer-stricken father, Ghost Rider has a pretty good foundation to stand on. Then, of course, in the Marvel way, the story goes on a completely different, un-Faustian course, as that young daredevil, Johnny Blaze, now a grown up, world famous stunt cyclist, is forced to relive his horrible curse as the Ghost Rider, a flame-skulled demonic entity charged by Mephistopheles (not Mephisto as in the comics) to hunt down wayward demons, including Satan's own son, Blackheart, played with devilish, yet pale and gaunt, glee by Wes Bentley.

The film boasts incredible special effects. Ghost Rider was another one of those fictional characters I thought could never be pulled off on screen without looking cheap or silly, but in this movie, it totally works. Ghost Rider is fully realized and is one scary dude. And that demonic chopper of his is totally indescribable. As for the rest of the characters, including the Rider's own alter ego, this where the film stops short.

Peter Fonda is Mephistopheles, but not the red-skinned demonic creature from the comics. He is a leather-jacketed snake-oil salesman. Fonda is fine in the role, but what bothers me is that they pass this version of Mephisto off as the actual, biblical Satan, which was never the comics' intention. This could be a controversial point for some religious viewers, but I just felt that it betrayed the Marvel version somewhat. Eva Mendes portrays Johnny Blaze's lamented love, Roxanne Simpson, but she is given very little to do, but stand around in skin-tight, cleavage-magnifying outfits. Now, don't get me wrong, in that aspect, Ms. Mendes is incredible. She is incredibly beautiful and a treat to both stare at and watch move around, but her character really does little else, and she has little to no chemistry with Nicolas Cage's Johnny Blaze.

And as for Cage's Johnny Blaze, I think the film ultimately does suffer from the wrong casting here. I don't really believe Cage as the daredevil Blaze or as Ms. Mendes' love interest and his motion-captured movements as Ghost Rider do not really seem heroic or larger than life. It seems that Cage was sort of phoning in this role, even though he is a huge fan of both comic books and Ghost Rider himself. I found myself just wishing someone else were playing this role.

The story of Ghost Rider's hunt for Blackheart and his elemental minions is pedestrian and has be done time and time again, but it is still fun to watch and just cool to see on screen. Sam Elliot is, as always, terrific as the mysterious Caretaker, who guides Johnny on his journey as the latest incarnation of Ghost Rider. The big reveal at the end of Caretaker, as Carter Slade, the 19th Century Ghost Rider, is not all that shocking or surprising but does make for an interesting twist. And the scene of the two Ghost Riders, one astride a skeletal, fiery horse, and one traveling on a demon-fueled chopper, is just really amazing to see.

I think that Ghost Rider could have been a great movie, maybe with another actor in the title role, or perhaps with the original R-rated screenplay of David Goyer, but in the end it was simply a good film that gave me a great ride, and that's really saying and accomplishing a lot.

Recommended.

I am a lifelong Superman fan. The Man of Steel has been my favorite superhero, in fact, my favorite fictional character since I was five years old, and first donned that cheap, plastic Superman costume for my first foray into trick or treating on Halloween. I followed Big Blue through reruns of Superfriends and Adventures of Superman and all of the films released by Warner Bros. From 1978 to 1987, and have soft spots in my heart for all of them, even the dismal third and fourth ones. It wasn't until the late Eighties that I really began to read Superman comic book adventures, and in time, I became a veritable expert on the Man of Tomorrow.

To me, Superman never left. I've read about him basically every week for more than ten years. I've watched him on the terrific Superman: The Animated Series and in both versions of the Justice League cartoon. And of course, there is Smallville, which chronicles Clark Kent's pre-cape days in his Kansas hometown. Superman's always been there for me in numerous forms, and he'll never know how grateful I am because of it.

I've followed the long, convoluted process that brought the Last Son of Krypton back to the silver screen, and when I heard that Bryan Singer and his X-Men screenwriters were tackling Superman, I was both excited and relieved. Then, I heard about the plot in which Superman leaves for five years and then returns to a world that has adapted without him. The love of his life, Lois Lane, has also moved on, engaged to be married, and with a five-year old son. Well, I was a little worried. Why would Superman leave? And, it doesn't take Batman to figure out that, now, he has an illegitimate son. To me, these were plot devices weren't appropriate to apply to Superman. Yet, I held out hope about Superman Returns. Last night, many of my fears were put to rest as I watched the ten o'clock showing of Superman Returns. In my humble opinion, it is the second greatest comic book-based film ever made, a close second to Batman Begins, and a bit better than Spider-Man 2. It is director Bryan Singer's and his screenwriters' homage to Richard Donner's original two Superman films, and they spend much of the film driving that point home. The plot, the pacing, the editing, and the very flow of the film all evoke Donner's work, and in that, the filmmakers are a great success. And with the technology (and budget) of today, the special effects, particularly the gift of flight are spectacular and truly breath-taking.

Brandon Routh embodies the late Christopher Reeve's Man of Steel and at times, almost seems to be channeling him. He is Superman in the same way that Christian Bale is Batman or Tobey Maguire is Spider-Man. Yet, he is not my Superman, the Superman of the past twenty-one years of the comics. The Kal-El that Routh portrays so well is from the earlier films, and that is fine, but will we ever really see the Superman of the comic books ever fully realized in any medium, especially on film? Nonetheless, Routh fully captures the Man of Steel, infusing his portrayal with great physicality, emotion, and confidence. He was a terrific choice for this honored role, and did a great job with it.

The glowing Kate Bosworth is a fine Lois Lane, and she does a wonderful job of depicting a woman whose great love leaves only to be later thrust dramatically back into her life. Bosworth's Lois spends much of the movie trying to ignore the fact that she ever loved Superman, and trying to make everyone around her believe, unsuccessfully, that she doesn't care that he has returned. Truly, it is only Lois that is upset to see Superman has come back to Earth. Every other character, and the entirety of the planet, seems happy, as they can be that they have their beloved hero back.

That is, except for Kevin Spacey's Lex Luthor. Spacey is incredible as the world's greatest criminal mind and Superman's archenemy. His Luthor takes on characteristics from many past incarnations, including Gene Hackman's portrayal, the Silver Age Luthor, and the Post-Crisis businessman Lex, among them. Spacey's Luthor is truly evil and not a comic foil like Hackman's, and when Lex and his lackeys beat up a kryptonite-weakened Superman at one point in the film, it was the first time I ever truly hated Lex Luthor. That's just how effective he is written here and played by Mr. Spacey.

The plot of Superman Returns is simplistic and fast-moving, somewhat the opposite of Batman Begins. Yet, it is perfect for a character like Superman, just as the latter film's story was made for the Dark Knight. The film ends with Superman acknowledging his son with Lois, and it is a touching scene, and at first, I felt that this was not enough closure. Superman had to finally get to be with Lois, tell her who he really is, and live happily ever after with her and their son. Yet, this is only the beginning of the story. Superman Returns, like Batman Begins, is the first chapter in a much larger story yet to be told, and in that, I am pleased with the film and looking forward to much more.

From the beginning of the film with its Donner-esquire opening credits and John Williams' stirring march to the very end with Superman patrolling his adopted home world from the cold, silent confines of space, Superman Returns filled me with nostalgia, pride, and even brought a few tears to my eyes as I triumphed in the cinematic restoration of my favorite fictional character of all time. I applaud the filmmakers' incredible work and thank Warner Bros. for finally seeing the light after so many years in darkness.

Highly recommended.

This review contains massive spoilers and only mild ranting.

X-Men: The Last Stand limped in, weakened and ailing, as the conclusion to Bryan Singer's filmic saga featuring Marvel Comics' venerable X-Men. I will not go into the specifics of how The Last Stand betrayed its characters' comic book origins, or will I speak of Fox Studios' flawed, fast-tracked, rushed, and sloppy attempt to spite Bryan Singer for leaving (temporarily) to direct this summer's "Superman Returns." No, that will not affect the normal movie-going public's opinion of this film.

Instead I will just say that this really is a film to avoid, and was a disrespectful follow-up to what Bryan Singer and Co. tried to build in the first two films of this series.

The Last Stand suffered from pacing problems and odd, frenetic editing. Much of the film is dialogue, and not particularly well-written dialogue. What action we do get is sporadic and anti-climatic. Hugh Jackman's Wolverine, an awe-inspiring character of the last two films, is reduced to a whimpering simp in The Last Stand, who stands around whining, complaining, and avoiding doing anything until at the end of the movie when he realizes that he will not get his way. Halle Berry, who complained about Storm's lack of anything to do in the first films, once again has little to do in this one but talk and complain. Professor X, our stalwart leader, is made a villain, and Sir Ian McKellan's Magneto is turned into a total psychopath. All in all, most of our returning characters have been transformed into pale imitations of themselves, self-parodying their once fine performances into a bad episode of Seinfeld. I almost expected Wolverine, Storm, Professor X, and Magneto to all be sitting around at Monk's Coffee Shop bitching about their miserable lives.

The film is not without its good points, though. Kelsey Grammar's Dr. Henry "Hank" McCoy, the anthropoid Beast, is terrific, and his action sequences, albeit brief, are exciting and filled with more ape-fighting action that all of "King Kong." Yet, he has little screen time, and ultimately, little to do. Ben Foster's Warren Worthington III/Angel is nothing more than scenery. He has two scenes, which will good, give little else to the film.

As for the plot: it's ham-fisted, trite, and downright boring. There is a cure for mutantcy, and Magneto wants to rally mutants against it. How does he go about it? By fighting other mutants. Really smart plan for Mr. Lensherr, isn't' it? And as for the "Phoenix" saga played out with Famke Janssen's Jean Grey? They didn't even attempt to follow the original comic book story, or build something the least bit original or entertaining. Basically, in the film's big climax, Jean just stands there for twenty minutes doing nothing until Wolverine comes forward, kills a "Class 5" mutant with his claws, and then cries over her body.

The Last Stand ends with major, beloved characters dead, one cured (hint: it's Rogue), and not much else. Oh, and if you stay past the credits, you'll discover a nice scene that really does little to save this horrible excuse for a movie.

The only thing I could think as I walked out into the Texas summer sunlight was "God, I hope Superman Returns is good." It's something I will continue to pray until the thirtieth of June.

Not recommended.

I think what surprises and sickens me most is that some of the user reviews for this documentary could be seen as Anti-Semitic, which is perhaps the most disturbing thing of all. This a very well-made film documenting the rise of Anti-Semitism in the wake of the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, and does a fine job of that. The resurgence of popularity of a horrible hoax called The Protocols of the (Learned) Elders of Zion following those attacks and the preposterous idea of a Jewish conspiracy bent on conquering the world sit at the center of Marc Levin's film. I won't use this review as a soapbox and talk about how I find the concept of Anti-Semitism unpatriotic and blasphemous, and I won't expound on how it makes me angry and sad that people still embrace the ideals of Adolph Hitler whom we fought a war against sixty years ago, and cost the world twenty millions lives, including six million Jews. And I won't wonder out loud why people could actually think that Jews could be ruling the world when they've allowed themselves to be persecuted, prejudiced against, and systematically exterminated. If you ask me, that's not a great plan for world conquest. I won't get into any of that...wait a minute, I just did. Oh, well, I guess I was up on my soapbox after all. Besides that, I did enjoy the documentary, but its message continues to haunt me, and I hope it does the same for many, many others, especially those who have posted reviews of this film.

Well, most people will tell you that Fantastic Four isn't a good movie. These people include so-called film critics, comic book geeks, and plain idiots.

Well, I am a comic book geek, fancy myself an amateur film critic, and have done some idiotic things in my life. And I still liked Fantastic Four.

It is an exciting, thoughtful cinematic adaptation of Stan "The Man" Lee and Jack "King" Kirby's creation, the Fantastic Four, the comic book that ushered in the "Marvel Age" of comics that gave us such characters and filmic fodder as Spider-Man, the X-Men, the Incredible Hulk, and Daredevil, among many others.

The film got many things right - Ben Grimm's horror at becoming the rock-skinned Thing, Reed and Sue's love-hate-love relationship, and Johnny Storm's shear love of being the Human Torch.

More questionable is the portrayal of Julian McMahon's Doctor Doom, which was changed quite a bit from his comic book counterpart. Well, I believe the dark, demented, jealousy-driven spirit of Victor Von Doom was still there, and a bit more fleshed out and realistic.

The humor was spot on, as was the drama, and you really felt sorry for these guys, especially Ben. Marvel's track record of edgy, depressed characters began here with the Thing, and in Michael Chiklis' tortured portrayal, he really shines.

I recommend those of you who have not seen Fantastic Four to see it, with objectivity and the idea of just having a good time. I just feel that when the spirit of the source material remains, a film adaptation can be good, and Fantastic Four is good.

Highly recommended!

Batman Begins is the starting point for a new filmic franchise featuring the venerable and venerated Caped Crusader, and it is, most likely, and in this humble reviewer's opinion, the best depiction of Batman and his mythos ever put to celluloid.

Director Christopher Nolan and screenwriter David S. Goyer flesh out the origin and pathos of Bruce Wayne and his rise to the self-styled guardian of the grim and gritty metropolis of Gotham City. Finally, the audience is given a glimpse of Bruce's world travels and training in the fighting arts. We see when, how, and why Bruce Wayne chose to don the cape and cowl of the World's Greatest Detective.

Batman Begins is a realistic, firmly-planted-on-the-ground depiction of the early career of Batman and his alter ego's recapture of the financial empire established by his murdered parents. It is a subtle, almost low-key film, with the obligatory fighting and explosions, but more of a character study why a man would chose to fight crime dressed as a bat.

Christian Bale is Batman, just like Christopher Reeve was Superman and Tobey Maguire is Spider-Man. He embodies the triune role of the real Bruce Wayne, a tortured soul yearning for justice, the public Bruce Wayne, a foppish, slurred playboy, and the Batman, a frightening force of nature vowed to rid his city of evil and injustice. Bale brings all of those aspects to life, physically, mentally, and emotionally.

Of the supporting cast, the true highlights are Michael Caine as the stalwart, fatherly Alfred the butler, Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox, Wayne Enterprises' Applied Sciences Head turned steward of the family company, and the best of all, Gary Oldman as Police Sgt. James Gordon, Batman's staunchest, albeit originally reluctant, ally in his war on crime. Oldman looks and sounds just like all comics' fans' idea of what Gordon should look and sound like. Gordon is also given something to do this time in a Batman film, and in the end, helps to literally save the day. The creation of the unlikely partnership between the Dark Knight and Jim Gordon is a linchpin of this film, and is a moving and integral part to the movie.

The villains are not over-the-top neon-colored weirdos. They are realistic people played by Cillian Murphy as the corrupt psychiatrist Dr. Jonathan Crane and Liam Neeson as the duplicitous Ducard/Ra's al Ghul. Murphy is very good as the slimy and creepy Crane/Scarecrow, and Neeson is as great as ever as the true "Demon's Head." The true villainous standout is Tom Wilkinson's turn as mobster Carmine Falcone, the last of Gotham's "normal" bad guys before the city becomes plagued by Batman's unique and grotesque rogue's gallery.

There are few things to complain about in Batman Begins. If I had one complaint it would be that we didn't see enough farther shots of Batman fighting hand-to-hand, making the action quick and hard to follow. As for Katie Holmes' Rachel Dawes, I think she did a good job with what she had, and you can't really fault her for that.

The last scene of Batman Begins sets up not just a sequel but a true film series. Batman, summoned by the now Lt. Gordon and his Bat-Signal, and Gordon firmly establish their alliance, and we see that the "theatricality" of the Batman's modus operandi has inadvertently brought forth a new crop of criminals, one who Gordon reveals leaves as a calling card, a Joker.

As Batman gets to work, Gordon tells him, "I never said thank you." Batman's reply, "And you'll never have to."

And that, my friends, pretty much says it all. Batman Begins is one the best comic book/superhero adaptations ever created, and those of you that have shied away, still smarting from the not-so-great Bat-films from '92 to '97, do not fear. Batman Begins is so much better and so much more.

Highest Recommendation!

A Fitting End to the Star Wars Saga on the Silver Screen.

Well, I knew Revenge of the Sith would be a good movie. It wouldn't be as good as the other films in the Original Trilogy, but it would at least be better than the other two Prequel films.

And boy, how right I was.

Revenge of the Sith depicts the fall of nearly everyone and everything that the Prequel Trilogy, up until now, had established and attempted to get us to root for. The Old Republic crumbles in the wake of Supreme Chancellor Palpatine's, also known as the Sith Lord Darth Sidious, meteoritic rise from war-time leader to emperor of the galaxy. The Jedi Order is decimated to its very core, and not even its young Padawans survive. Jedi Masters Obi-Wan Kenobi and Yoda are beaten, broken, and dispirited, and ultimately, exiled. Padme dies from a broken heart and delivers Luke Skywalker and Leia Organa into a tumultuous new world. And lastly, but certainly not least, Jedi Knight Anakin Skywalker turns to the Dark Side of the Force so that the only thing he truly loves will not die.

It is epic Greek-style tragedy in the form of cinema's greatest space opera, and it works on so many levels, that I will simply not bore you with the details.

Revenge of the Sith finally gives the audience the humor we've been waiting for, but it's almost disheartening, knowing the dark turns the film is about to take. It depicts two men, Anakin and Obi-Wan, who genuinely care and love one another, and how horribly awry their relationship goes.

Many of the missteps and mistakes of the first two films in the Prequel Trilogy are corrected and rectified, besides the humor. The dialog is stronger, the performances and chemistry between the characters are smoother, and the whole tone just feels...like Star Wars. And that's something we've all been waiting for for six years.

Ewan McGregor shines as Obi-Wan Kenobi, and it seems that he finally feels comfortable in that role and its grand surroundings. Hayden Christensen gives a talented, tortured performance as the Chosen One gone wrong, and proves that he is a skilled actor. Natalie Portman is wonderful and luminous as the woman Anakin loves and yearns to save. Yet, the two performers that stole the show were Ian McDiarmid as the malign Palpatine/Darth Sidious, and the entirely-CGI Yoda, voiced once more with dramatic gusto by Frank Oz. As tormenting as the final lightsaber-filled showdown between Anakin and Obi-Wan was, the battle between Yoda and Palpatine is that much more sadder and dramatic. Yoda knows that he is losing a fight he cannot hope to win, and is humbled before McDiamid's Palpatine, as the once venerated Jedi Master must crawl to safety and exile through a rat-sized maze of tunnels and wires.

And that duel on the volcano world of Mustafar? It is no heavily choreographed kung fu fight like Obi-Wan and Darth Maul's battle in The Phantom Menace. This is a knockdown, drag-out brawl between two Force practitioners fed up with everything they've upheld and loved. It is violent, dramatic, and ultimately futile for both parties, as Obi-Wan tells his hacked-to-pieces former Padawan that he is sorry that he failed him. Anakin, then set aflame and charred to a gruesome crispiness by the rivers of lava below him, responds only with a declaration of hate for everything and everybody.

We see Anakin, now Darth Vader, re-born as the cyborgized, black armored giant of the Original Trilogy, told by his new master, the Emperor, that he has caused the death of his beloved Padme. In James Earl Jones' legendary and mechanized voice, we hear the last vestige of Anakin Skywalker in the form of a tormented cry of "No!" There are many things to love about Revenge of the Sith, and there are many things to be sad about. It's the end of so much for Star Wars fans, and the series goes out on such a high note, we wonder why it has to end at all.

But, at the end of the day, when the final credits role, you must take heart that despite the Sith's revenge and the rise of the Galactic Empire, that on two very different planets, and in the form of two infant siblings, there lies A New Hope.

Thanks to Mr. Lucas and all in involved in bringing back Star Wars to the big screen and maintaining a universe of stories and wonderful characters that have brought me, and so many, such great joy.

What does it matter if people don't eat well in the United States? You have to die of something...might as well as be happy.

Morgan Spurlock does not care about the obesity problem in America, and he doesn't care about any overweight person. He only cared about making a movie and performing a stupid, dangerous stunt to sell that movie.

Any jackass will become sick if they eat the same anything every day, three times a day, for one month. That's not an experiment, that's something out of Fear Factor, so please, Mr. Spurlock, don't try to scare the audience with your bogus stunt.

The reason why there is obesity in America is because we live sedentary lives. Most people used to be on their feet for 18 hours a day in a field, tending to crops. Ever read Laura Ingalls Wilder's "Farmer Boy?" Those people ate like pigs and didn't gain weight because they worked themselves to exhaustion everyday.

People eat fast food because our economy has become so inflated that women no longer stay at home and cook meals every day. Women must work, either to support a single parent household, or to divide the cost of living with their husband.

Oh, and that processed food? It sure seems to help all of those impoverished and malnourished people in the poverty-stricken nations the U.S. aids.

So, Mr. Spurlock, please don't sit on your high horse and judge people for what they eat. Why not use your ninety minutes of film to call attention to those who can't eat and must live on the street with no home or support? Now, that's a much worthier cause.

Elektra is a film that shouldn't have been made. It should have been made as a direct sequel to 2003's "Daredevil," because its fast and loose playing with the comic book mythos of Elektra Natchios, and too a smaller degree, Matt Murdock's red-suited alter ego, would have been served better with at least the addition of Ben Affleck's portrayal of the Man Without Fear.

Now, having said that, Elektra is not that bad of a film. It's just not that good of a superhero/comic book-based film. The high points include Jennifer Garner's tortured, stoic title character. Garner proves she has the chops to pull off a very complex and homicidal character. The fight scenes are also well choreographed, with a minimum of wire work and just enough CGI-enhanced special effects not to make the audience sick. The low points are the rest of the characters and their respective actors, excluding the always terrific Terrence Stamp as Stick (coincidentally, Daredevil's mentor in the comics, not Elektra's), and the slap-dashed story which picks and chooses bits and pieces from not only Elektra's comic book forays, but also any number of stories and films.

We know when Elektra was resurrected, but not how or why or why should we care that she was. Frank Miller brought Elektra back to life in the comics and it worked and the reader cared. But, at the end of this film, I was left thinking that this story could've never been told and I wouldn't have minded at all.

Recommended, but be wary.

Please take note that their are SPOILERS in this review, so beware before reading (that is, if you read this review, and you may not...)

Well, I was worried.

I had read some disturbing things about Spider-Man 2 in the months proceedings its 2 July 2004, then 30 June 2004, release. Tales of the title character (and one of my long-time comic book idols) unmasking in front of people, and other sundry scary scenarios had got me worried. Worrying about a movie, you ask. Well, I waited twenty-three years for a Spider-Man movie, and got a great one, so yeah, I was worried about the sequel!

Well, how wrong I was to worry.

Spider-Man 2 builds upon, expands upon, and almost eclipses its cinematic predecessor in so many ways, that I won't bore you with endless details. It was evident in the first film that director Sam Raimi admired Peter Parker and his crime-fighting alter ego, but with this film, we see that he truly loves and cherishes this character so much like the over forty million others throughout the world who have done the same for the last 42 years.

Spider-Man 2 continues the woeful tale of Peter Parker, a young man who, despite being superhumanly powerful, not only cannot catch a break, but is in danger of forgetting what a "break" is. Tobey Maguire returns (despite some off screen controversy) as Peter and his secret identity, and I must say that not since Christopher Reeve's Superman has an actor so fully brought to life a comic book hero on the silver screen. Maguire owns Peter and Spidey in an effortless, yet pitiful, way. You feel his pain, his torment, and you are overjoyed in his small victories and ultimate triumph.

Returning players Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, and Rosemary Harris give us once again Mary Jane Watson, Harry Osborn, and Peter's Aunt May in truly great performances. Dunst's look and attitude as MJ has improved dramatically and maturely. You finally see why Peter pines for her, besides her obvious physical attributes. Franco's fractured Harry Osborn, the embittered son of the first film's antagonist, the Green Goblin, strives to fill his father's shoes, all the while yearning for vengeance for the Spider-Man he believes murdered his father. Harris as Aunt May is a revelation. Her role is larger and more substantial, and we all come to the conclusion that May knows much more than she is saying, or in other words, that she is probably savvy to her beloved nephew's clandestine career as New York's unofficial protector.

Alfred Molina is Dr. Otto Octavius, a genuinely good man and a man of science, who loves his wife and wants to bring the world out of its fossil fuel dependence. You feel for Octavius, thanks to Molina's portrayal, but you see his myopic view when he is unwilling to correct what may be a fatal flaw in his experimental fusion generator because it was his life's work. This flaw is indeed fatal, causing the death of his beloved Rosie, and permanently bonding him to the scariest set of tentacles since 20,000 Leagues Beneath the Sea. Willem Dafoe's Green Goblin of the first film was over-the-top and a tad cartoonish, but Molina's tortured Dr. Octopus is frightening and sympathetic, and almost totally realistic (well, probably not the tentacles, but you get the idea).

The action sequences, as well as the special effects, have been improved upon, including Spidey's displays of his powers. We finally get to see just how strong he is (but if anyone's ever read the Official Handbook to the Marvel Universe already knows, right?). We also see that the choices that Peter's made in his life not only affect him outside of his costume, but within, as well.

One complaint you might hear about Spider-Man 2 is his frequent unmasking towards the climax of the film. No, it's not politically correct as far as the comic book goes, but it adds such dramatic depth to this film, that I was not only willing to forget it, but embrace it (and that is saying a lot for a comic book purist like me). Could the film have worked without the unmaskings? Absolutely. Would it have been as good? After much thought, I'd have to say no. If you don't like that, don't worry, you're not alone, and you, as film and/or comic book fans, have the right to that opinion, but don't let that ruin your enjoyment of this film. This is the sort of comic book-based film we've all been waiting for, and we've got enjoy it while it lasts.

I want to thank Mr. Raimi and Mr. Maguire, and everyone who worked so hard to give us Spider-Man 2. You gave us something more than a film featuring our favorite wall-crawler...you made us believe in him for the second time, and that's something I'll be grateful for for a very long time.

Needless to say, Spider-Man 2 is highly recommended!

I had heard about this little eight-minute "fan film" made for around $30,000 and being shown at the San Diego Comic Con, and how it had been lauded by many fans, including comic book artist Alex Ross and film maker/comics writer Kevin Smith. I was intrigued, but figured I'd never get to see it.

Luckily, TheForce.net was gracious enough to post it, and I spent much of the night on my Dial-Up Internet Service Provider downloading the large file containing the film.

I have to say it was worth the wait.

I thoroughly enjoyed Batman: Dead End from its dramatic beginning to its ambiguous climax. It was a terrific eight minutes, and wanted me thirsting for more. I love the character of Batman...he's my favorite fictional character behind Superman, and it's a close second.

Director Sandy Collora, a veteran of Stan Winston's special effects company, and a group of dedicated, hard-working people as his cast and crew have brought their vision of the Batman to life in a way that has yet to be fully realized by any of Warner Bros. live action cinematic efforts. Having said that, I must say that this is not the best representation of Batman on film...I give that to the animated Dark Knight of Batman: Mask of the Phantasm. However, this is pretty close.

Clark Bertram is a muscular, panther-esque Batman, not unlike Alex Ross' version in his and writer/animator Paul Dini's Batman: War on Crime graphic novel. Collora and Bertram worked incredibly hard to have Ross' Batman leap off of the fully painted page. When Bertram's Batman first leaps from the rooftop, it evokes the classic mirror image from War on Crime, and that is a feat in itself.

Andrew Koenig, son of Star Trek's Walter Koenig, is a frightening, imitimdating Joker, the likes of which have never been fully realized on screen. Koenig's Joker harkens to artist Dave McKean's sinister and psychodelic Clown Prince of Crime from the graphic novel Arkham Asylum.

SPOILERS AHEAD

The inclusion of the Aliens and Predator from their eponymous film series was fun, exciting, and well done. Was their appearances overkill? Not for Sandy Collora, who obviously loves and appreciates these characters, and wanted them as enemies of Batman in his film. For the viewing public, it would be easy to see these characters' appearances as a little too much, particularly with the Predator(s), but it made for one hell of a twist.

I believe Batman: Dead End is a spectacular effort by Sandy Collora and all involved, and here's hoping this will open some doors for all of them in the film business soon.

Highly recommended...if you can download it!

There are some SPOILERS in this review, so please beware before reading.

The Hulk is certainly the most unique of the films based on Marvel Comics characters to date. It tries hard to be a serious drama with themes of emotional repression and the inability of people to control their id, but never truly succeeds in that venture. It is also not simply a popcorn, summertime blockbuster with little intelligence, heart, or spirit. What it is is solid entertainment with a terrific cast, a poignant story, and special effects that would make George Lucas blush green.

Most people know of the Hulk, or the Incredible Hulk as he is many times referred to in print or on the 1977-'82 television series, and that he is basically a giant green behemoth who smashes things and is the alter ego of a meek scientist who, along with his verdant other identity, is usually on the run from some authority figures. This film tries to flesh out the Hulk mythos much more, and does borrow from not only Stan Lee and Jack "The King" Kirby's original comics stories, but also from the groundbreaking stories of writer Peter David, who wrote The Incredible Hulk for many years. The film does succeed in giving us good reasons why Dr. Bruce Banner is the Hulk, but most of the time, this backstory only serves to slow the film down, nearly to the point of boredom.

Director Ang Lee really was not a good choice to helm an action-filled, thrill-a-minute Hulk film, and because of that, he never delivers that sort of film, a film I would have much more liked to have seen. However, I understand what he was trying to accomplish with The Hulk, and while he never truly succeeds, I have to commend him for his effort.

Eric Bana is wonderful as the tortured Bruce Banner. He does a great job of trying to come to terms with a horrid childhood and the rampaging beast that has been unleashed inside of him. The always stunning Jennifer Conneley is very good as Bruce's true love scientist Betty Ross, who has also had a tough adolescence, but she is given very little to do here. Sam Elliot is great as the Hulk's first archnemesis, General Thaddeus "Thunderbolt" Ross. Ross is also a tortured soul who uses his pain of being a bad father to fuel his own war against both Bruce Banner and the Hulk. Josh Lucas is particularly slimy as the wormy and pathetic Glenn Talbot, who never gets the idea that the Hulk is pretty much indestructible to anything you throw at him. Nick Nolte is over-the-top and not all that great as Bruce's warped, psychotic father David Banner (a nod to the name of TV's Incredible Hulk and Bill Bixby's character). Nolte never really accomplishes anything in his role, and meets a fate where nothing is resolved.

The computer generated Hulk is awe-inspiring. Industrial, Light, and Magic have created a character that conveys the size and power of the original comic book icon, but also depicts real human emotion and suffering. Yes, the Hulk does not look real, but how can a being that is roughly 10-15 feet tall, weighs more than half a ton, can turn tanks into scrap, and leap miles at a time not look fake? The Hulk is a fictional character who is only realized in all of his fictional glory on the silver screen. The action sequences featuring the Hulk: particularly the nighttime battle with the Hulk dogs in the forest, and the confrontation between the Hulk and the Army in the desert made my jaw drop. As a long time fan of the Green Goliath, I was stupefied to see this hero of mine so fully realized and doing what he does best, smash, on screen. And to see the heroic qualities of this monster-man come to light, when he saves Betty from the Hulk dogs, and especially, when rescues the jet fighter that has come to destroy him from crashing into San Francisco Bay, I have to admit I was a bit misty-eyed. To me, the Hulk is a hero, just as much as he is a monster. He is a destructive force, but not a murderous one, as is evidenced in this film.

The last scenes of the film show us that Bruce Banner is alive and well and using his skills as a physician somewhere in South America. And much to my delight, it also shows that the incredible Hulk has survived as well, ready to smash evil and defend innocent people. It also serves to set up a possible sequel, where maybe the character development so heartily worked upon by Ang Lee will be eschewed for more action and more adventure.

The Hulk is not the best of the Marvel films so far, but it is the most serious and gives the non-comic book reading audience a real glimpse of Bruce Banner and his massive alter ego as he truly is and was intended to be.

Recommended.

Just caught Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron on HBO, and have to say that the film, while rendered and acted beautifully, is some of the worst Dead White Male-bashing I've seen this side of Jebediah Springfield.

First of all, the American Indians were not the bastions of all thing natural. Few people know that the "Native American" tribes of ancient times hunted the North American horse to extinction. Just because we see that their ropes are a little less tight around Spirit's neck and that they use wool blankets instead of saddles does not mean that they understand the nature of horses any better.

The Union Army were baseless, barbaric savages? Yeah, that's a really authentic portrayal. Any fool that has experience with raising horses knows that you do not treat the animals this way. In the so-called "Wild West" or "Old West" horses were lovingly and respectfually taken care of...otherwise, they would not be adequate beasts of burden or an excellent mode of transportation. Cowboys and soldiers treated their horses very well...nothing like what is portrayed by these Nazi-like Union soldiers in this film.

The evil transcontinental railroad? Not hardly. And while we're at it, let's make the horse a terrorist. SPOILERS AHEAD. He could have killed those men when he caused that steam engine to roll back down that hill, as well as the ensuing explosions and fire. What kind of message does that show to children?

I urge parents with any amount of intelligence to keep this film away from their kids, or at least explain the great amount of fiction that lies within it.