Poor Benjamin Gates. In the first "National Treasure," he was thought to be crazy for continuing a hunt for the Knights Templar Treasure that had been sought after by six generations of his family. And now, in "National Treasure 2: Book of Secrets," he must restore the name of his great-grandfather, who has been accused of being a co-conspirator in the assassination of President Lincoln. So much treasure, so little time. If only "National Treasure 2" had the spunk of its predecessor to make it worth the trip.

In an opening sequence that bares a gloss only a Disney historical recreation could bare, we see an interaction between John Wilkes Booth and Thomas Gates, great-grandfather to Ben (Nicholas Cage) that takes place four days after the end of the Civil War. Gates is instructed to decipher a code, but when Booth leaves to murder the President, Gates rips his findings from Booth's diary and throws them into the fire. With his last breath, he whispers a clue to his young son. 

Ben and his father (Jon Voight) are in the midst of explaining how their relative kept Booth and his gang from finding the wealth of treasure hinted at on the map when they are interrupted by Mitch Wilkinson (Ed Harris), who reveals one of the diary's missing pages. According to this slightly burnt scrap, Thomas Gates was one of the conspirators. 

Ben and Patrick, picking up Riley (Justin Bartha), Abigail (Diane Kruger) and later Ben's mother Emily (Helen Mirren) along the way, set out to find the hidden treasure that would prove that Gates was one of the good guys. The mission takes them to Paris, London, Washington, and finally Mt. Rushmore. With the help of the President, the Gates gang finds the presidential Book of Secrets, thought to be an urban legend, which includes a photo of the final piece of the map. It's no surprise that they once again find a secret room filled with golden artifacts, avoid arrest, and save the family's name. 

I can't imagine how unbearable "National Treasure 2" would have been without the star power Disney can afford. It appears that the actors are having so much fun that it's hard not to want to join in. Unfortunately, "2" just doesn't have the same pizazz that the original had. Gates once again has all the answers, but he doesn't really have to work very hard to get to the treasure. Though the original found Ben constantly hounded by the bad guys (Sean Bean and pals), Wilkinson and his henchmen are always too far behind and not "bad" enough. 

The story for "2" is just as convoluted as the first. We're supposed to believe that the guy who designed the Statue of Liberty left a clue that leads to an old ship that was made into two desks that currently reside in the Queen's study in Buckingham Palace and the Oval Office in the White House and contain secret compartments holding planks of wood with Native American hieroglyphs, except that one was destroyed but not before President Coolidge could write about it in the secret Presidential diary and how Mt. Rushmore was carved to cover it all up? Ok. And on top of all that, our main character has access to all of these because all of the security cameras have mysteriously disappeared. 

Silliness of the story aside, I found myself constantly wondering, "Who the hell is building all of these secret compartments, stone trap doors, and underground tunnels?" The folks over at Disney still have a wonderful imagination, I'll give them that much. 

Sadly, when it's all said and done, the ending is too perfect. The discovery has reunited Ben and Abigail (whose relationship was on the rocks at the film's opening) and also Patrick and Emily, who had apparently divorced because of Patrick's persistent but fruitless treasure hunting. Well, clearly nothing says "I love you" like a big room of treasure and even better, a way out of the flooded underground temple. 

"National Treasure 2" is hard to hate since, let's face it, no one went in expecting high art. It's not great, it's not even that good, but it still manages to entertain, mostly due to Cage's determined Gates. This money-grubbing sequel from the same folks that have jammed 2 disappointing "Pirates" films down our throats reunites a fun and energetic cast for another fast-paced adventure, but fails to reclaim the spark that made the first "National Treasure" so much of a guilty pleasure. 

Who knows, perhaps they'll fix the formula the next time around. Oh yes, did I mention the open ending? When the President tells Ben where to find the Book of Secrets, he asks him to take a look at page 47. At the end, he asks Ben if he took a gander, and he replies "Oh yes. It was life-altering." If that isn't enough to convince you that there's more treasure to be found, Disney has recently purchased the web domains for NationalTreasure3DVD.com and NationalTreasure4DVD.com. There's just no rest in sight for the Gates family. 

I can remember seeing commercials on television for “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”. I can recall Harrison Ford wearing Indy’s famous fedora and seeing the title flash across the television screen. Being only four years old, I was not allowed to view the PG-13 film (nor was I allowed to see that other big summer film of 1989, Tim Burton’s “Batman”, for the same reason), but I wanted to go so much because I knew who Indiana Jones was from exposure to the character by my older brother. Eventually, I did get to see “Last Crusade” and it became my favorite of the series (though “Raiders” is a better film).

And so it was that “Indiana Jones”, along with that other great Lucas creation “Star Wars”, became my favorite films growing up and caused me to develop a love for cinema. Those were the films I watched over and over again, wearing out my VHS copies of each series. Growing up, there was always the looming rumor that Lucas was going to do these prequel “Star Wars” films about the origins of Darth Vader. There was also a rumor that there would be a fourth “Indiana Jones”. The thought of my two favorite film trilogies gaining new entries was exciting and developed into a long wait of unnerving anticipation.

Around the late 1990’s, it became clear that Lucas was ready to go back to the “Star Wars” franchise and make the highly anticipated first installment of the prequel trilogy. In 1999, sixteen years after “Return of the Jedi”, Lucas released the first prequel, “The Phantom Menace”. The buildup to the release of “The Phantom Menace” can in retrospect by compared to talk of the Second Coming. Expectations from fans and critics were lofty and excitedly fantastic. There was good reason to be enthusiastic. This was the first “Star Wars” film in two decades. This was the back story of Anakin Skywalker’s fall to the Dark Side. This should the creation of the Galactic Empire. This was going to be awesome! The generation which grew up watching “Star Wars” and “Indiana Jones” were now in their late teens, twenties, and thirties and placed so much stock and so much faith in “The Phantom Menace” that there was nothing the film could do but be a disappointment to those same fans.

For when one takes a film series, like most of these fans did and continue to do, and uses it to define his or her childhood, he or she places in their mind an expectation of how any new installment of the series should be based on the preconceived notions they have been carrying since childhood of how the film should look, how the story should progress, and how the characters should be portrayed. This occurred not only with “The Phantom Menace”, but also with “Attack of the Clones” and “Revenge of the Sith”. Critics and a significant number of the “Star Wars” fan base despise these movies. The bile and venom which is spewed from some of these fans both in real life conversations and in blogs and talkback forums online at fan sites is at times unbelievably vicious and just plain hateful. They hate the stories, they hate the acting, the hate the dialogue, and they have grown to hate George Lucas because he has effectively ruined their childhood. Which brings us to “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull”, a film which has been in the making for nearly twenty years. In fact, the time between “Last Crusade” and “Crystal Skull” is longer than the time between “Jedi” and “Phantom Menace”.

The trailers, production stills, casting, and television spots have caused fans to gleefully await the new film. The first trailer for “Crystal Skull” has been seen millions of times online and the film consistently tops lists of most anticipated movies of 2008. And this is why it is prone to fail with fans. Like the “Star Wars” prequels, “Crystal Skull” has huge expectations from legions of Indy fans from around the world. Fans that grew up watching the series are dying to see a new Indy adventure. But are these fans setting themselves up to see a movie which will not be like the one they have imagined in their heads? After all, they have been waiting almost two decades to see this thing. That being said, how can “Crystal Skull” meet such expectations? How will fans react to it? Will they like the incorporation of Russians in the story? Will they like Cate Blanchett as the villain? Will Shia LaBeouf become a whipping post for disdained fans? Will they think the idea of Indy chasing after a crystal skull with alien origins to be outlandish and too far-fetched? Will they have qualms about the dialogue or about Indy’s age? These questions came to me after I read two reviews of the film on Ain’t It Cool.com which basically trashed the film, calling it just a rehash of the older films, bringing nothing new.

From these early reviews by Indy fans, it appears that the unmet expectations of the “Star Wars” prequels and the hatred of all things Lucas has begun to manifest itself online with fans. Fellow readers, this is a warning not that “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” will be terrible, but that there are going to be some pretty negative things said about it among film fans and the press once it is released. And they have every right to criticize it if they feel so. My point is that I feel that most of this criticism will be over the film Lucas and Spielberg should have made instead of the movie they did make. Fans are going to be looking for every flaw, every missed moment, and every failed thing that does not work in the film. And that is an awful way to watch this movie. True, “Indiana Jones” has been a part of my childhood forever, but I have no right to say what film Lucas and Spielberg should make, nor how they should present it to fans. This is why Lucas made the statement that he did that the film will not meet the expectations of fans. He knows what happened to him with “Phantom Menace”. He gave the world a new “Star Wars” adventure and his fans crucified him for it.

Every fan should be thankful that there is at least going to be a fourth Indy adventure to be seen. Some thought that the day would never come. I still have an issue of “Cinescape” magazine from 1997 with a cover story about how “Indiana Jones 4” was going into production. Yes, it has been a long wait, but do not let that put some idealized notion of how this film should be. My attitude is this: do not go looking for the negative. Don’t say, “Well, this could have been better or why did they make all those cheesy jokes or why did they write in this scene?” Just enjoy the movie folks, because it is probably going to be the last one ever! And for the record, I don’t think it is going to suck, nor be terrible. I think it is going to be a kickass time at the movies. Follow this advice: sit back, relax, and go on another adventure with Dr. Jones. What could be more cinematic fun?

"Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" will premiere at the Cannes Film Festival on May 18. It will be released wide on May 22. 

I spent the better part of yesterday exploring the city of Cannes. I'll just say that everything's just about ready for the festival and I can't wait for it to start!

Since I'm stealing the Internets (yes, all of them) from the local laundromat and the slightly menacing owner is starting to catch on that I don't have laundry in any of the machines, I'll make this another quick post.

Spielberg has decided what his next project (after "Tintin") will be: "Lincoln," a biopic starring Liam Neeson. "The Trial of the Chicago Seven," which was set to be his next project in line has fallen through because of script issues (writer's strike strikes again!). "Lincoln" should begin production in 2009. 

I wrote earlier about the possibility of indie studio Picturehouse becoming absorbed into Warner Independent Pictures, but it appears that both divisions have been closed in a move by Warner Brothers. This is a "cost-cutting move" because of the riskiness and "changing economics" of specialty and independent films. 

SlashFilm offers us a photo from Woody Allen's "Vicky Cristina Barcelona," set to premiere out of competition here at Cannes.  The film stars Rebecca Hall, Scarlett Johansson, Javier Bardem, and Penelope Cruz. It is rumored to be "Woody Allen's funny and open-minded celebration of love in all its configurations." 

Finally, as was expected, the cast and crew of "Hancock" are currently doing some last-minute reshoots to try and get the film a PG-13 rating instead of R.

Greetings from Cannes! Well, sort of... I'm not quite there yet. I am currently leaching wireless off of the local laundromat after soaking in the rays on the beach here in Juan-Les-Pins (between Nice and Cannes).

The festival runs May 14-25, so we're all getting settled in and ready for the circus to begin!

So, since I've been traversing the globe (really just crossing the Atlantic) over the past day or so... it's 2 p.m. here but 8 a.m. in the States... I will just give you some links to update you on the news.

First off, now that New Line has been absorbed into Warner Bros. Studios, the fate for fellow indie production company Picturehouse ("Pan's Labyrinth") is uncertain. The studio, the independent division of New Line, has gained three Oscars and introduced the States to many a foreign film, but it may soon be merged with Warner Independent. Will independent treasures get lost amongst the blockbusters over at Warner Bros.? 

Here's the first trailer for "Igor," an animated film featuring the voices of John Cusack, Steve Buscemi, Eddie Izzard, and Jay Leno.

RopeOfSilicon has posted batches of new photos from Cannes-premiering films "Che," "Blindness," "Synechdoche, New York." 

A new "Indiana Jones" trailer has hit the web. Check it out here.

Woo hoo! SlashFilm gives us 40 high-res photos from "The Dark Knight."

Enjoy! I will try and post the goings-on of the festival as they unfold!

Merry Christmas! Lionsgate has decided to bump up the release date of Frank Miller's "The Spirit," adapted from Will Eisner's graphic novels, from January 16, 2009 to Christmas Day of 2008. 

"The Spirit" will now open against "Bedtime Stories," an Adam Sandler starrer from Disney, "The Time Traveler's Wife," and "Marley & Me," both literary adaptations and romantic comedies. 

Two years ago, actor Tom Cruise and Viacom leader Sumner Redstone ended a 14-year business relationship. The cause was obvious: Cruise was becoming a cartoon of himself; "Mission: Impossible III" bombed at the box office and Cruise jumped up and down on Oprah's couch. 

Despite all of this (and Cruise's behavior since 2006... scientology anyone?), the studio exec says he's willing to rejuvenate the franchise and bring Cruise back for one more "Mission." 

According to a report from E! Online, Redstone claims that the decision is "up to Brad Grey, who runs Paramount." He went on to say that "if Paramount decides - and they will make the decision - to move ahead with him, I will not object." 

Despite the extensions, talks between SAG and AMPTP have yet to yield any agreement. The talks came to an end Tuesday afternoon with the producers calling the guild's DVD residual demands "unreasonable."

According to a statement by the AMPTP, "In the end, this round of SAG negotiations ended without an agreement because SAG simply refused to recognize the fundamental business and labor principles that have already been accepted by directors, writers and producers." 

SAG executive Doug Allen responded by saying, "We made significant moves in their direction. We're trying to get the deal done and we're not the ones who walked away." 

According to a report from Nikki Finke, "SAG asked for a third extension of the talks, but the AMPTP refused, instead offering to resume talks only as late as May 28, only a month before SAG's contract expires the end of the June."

Starting Thursday, the congloms will enter negotiations with the smaller AFTRA. Though SAG's goal is to get its members a better deal than was made with WGA, DGA, and PGA, AFTRA is conversely ready to get in and get out with a deal. 

The AMPTP will continue talks with SAG after talks with AFTRA end. SAG has about 120,000 members and AFTRA about 70,000. The two unions share 44,000 dual members.

AFTRA released a statement Tuesday announcing the start of their talks with the congloms. They will begin negotiating a primetime deal which covers "Rules of Engagement," "Cashmere Mafia," "Curb Your Enthusiasm," "Flight of the Conchords," "Dante's Cove," "The Reaper," and "Til Death." Their current contract also expires June 30.

In the meantime, you can read up on the SAG reports. They've they've issued two more, #4 and #5. 

This year's Cannes Film Festival, which runs May 14-25, will honor Warner Bros. by screening Richard Schickel's PBS documentary "You Must Remember This: A History of Warner Bros," to pay tribute to the studio. Warner Bros. is celebrating its 85th anniversary this year. 

In addition to this screening, the festival's Cinema de la Plage will show a Warner Bros. film every night. This particular festival will feature titles ranging from the 1931 "I Am A Fugitive From A Chain Gang," to 1971's "Dirty Harry" to "Matrix." A one-off "Looney Toons" event will also be featured. 

"I'm Not There" (Two disc edition)
Directed by: Todd Haynes
Starring: Cate Blanchlett, Richard Gere, Christian Bale, and Heath Ledger

Plot: Six different actors portray the many personas of Bob Dylan

Extras: Feature commentary, deleted/alternate/extended scenes, outtakes, auditions, and more.

Bottom Line: Simultaneously meditative and exhilarating, "I'm not There" is writer/director Todd Haynes post-modern poem to Bob Dylan. Using six different actors to portray Dylan proves ingenious, as traditional musical biopic genre conventions are bypassed for thematic relevance in reinforcing the ambiguous personality of Dylan. "I'm Not There" functions as pop-essay, exploration of the many facets of an individuals personality, and ultimately a touching tribute to one of the 21st centuries most prolific artists. Extras: A Film: A


"P.S. I Love You"

Starring: Hiliary Swank

Plot: After her husband dies of a freak illness, Holly (Swank) tries to recover by traveling to Ireland and possibly finding someone else. 

Extras: N/A

Bottom Line: The highlight of this dismal excuse of a romantic dramedy takes place when a gag-inducing "adorable" Irishmen (Gerard Butler) dies, leaving behind an overacting, grieving widow Holly (Hilary Swank). From then on, contrived plot sequences of Holly trying to come to terms with the death of her husband will likely make even the kindest viewers eyes hurt from all the rolling. Kathy Bates and Harry Connick Junior supply the occasional, welcomed comedic relief in unfortunately minor roles. Extras: N/A Movie:D-


"Teeth"

Plot: A highly pious Christian teen set on remaining a virgin until marriage discovers her vagina has its own set of teeth.

Extras: Audio commentary, Behind the scenes, and deleted scenes.

Bottom Line: "Teeth" surprisingly walks the thin line of camp and horror. Revolting and hilarious, "Teeth" should rightfully become a midnight camp classic. Extras: B- Movie: B+

When I first saw "Flags of Our Fathers", I was what appeared to be the only American in a filled Japanese theatre. My initial impression of the film was therefore accompanied by this awareness, this feeling I had toward the other people in the room.

I remember almost busting a gut trying to hold in my laughter when I first heard the exchange between the Texan Harlan's mother and family. Being a Texan myself, this glimpse of culture and language from a land so far removed from the theatre in Japan reminded me who I was and where I had come from. I also remember wondering what the Japanese people around me were thinking. Were they upset at the way some Americans treated the war? Did they sympathize with the soldiers that raised the flag and what they went through because of it? What message did they take home with them? Or did they take anything out of it at all?

The second time I watched the movie, I was back on American soil, at home, watching HBO. My heightened sense of awareness of culture was not there. I did, however, experience the same sadness, the same empathy for the "heroes" of the movie. I enjoyed how the film was crafted, pieces here and there, told through flashbacks, documentary-style interviews, and up-close-and-personal camera shots.

When I was in Japan, I remember feeling almost ashamed of my country's past actions. It was an odd feeling, really; I also felt proud for the men and women of my country who acted as they saw fit, living their lives they way they thought best. I remember looking out at the crowd as the credits ended and the lights went up, thinking What does it all mean? What do we all mean?

I have never been more aware of myself and my culture until I went and lived in one completely different than my own. The movie, in my opinion, was a good movie, for it made me think, made me feel (and had some pretty decent-looking young fellows acting in it). Watching it again brought up memories and evoked similar feelings, further strengthening my thought that it is, in fact, a well-done movie.

Entertainment Weekly has long been predicting that Will Smith's "Hancock" would be one of the top-grossing film of the summer season and the top superhero movie. Unfortunately for "Hancock" reps, it may be hard to achieve this ranking if the film keeps getting an R rating from the MPAA.

Director Peter Berg and writer-producer Akiva Goldsman are working to retain the darker nature of the original script by creator Vincent Ngo, but the film needs a PG-13 rating to reach its target audience. However, the film has remained "surprisingly sexual, violent and true in spirit to an original script that was viewed as brilliant but unmakable." The project was first shopped around over ten years ago as "Tonight, He Comes." 

In an article in the New York Times, Berg described some of the elements that have caused the film to get an R rating both times it's been presented to the ratings board. "We had statutory rape up until three weeks ago," Berg said. The superhero's drinking problem is also an issue. 

Sony's co-chairman Amy Pascal told the paper that "Hancock" will break some new ground in the genre. "It's scary in that it goes farther than we've gone before," Pascal told the New York Times. 

All this talk of an "Iron Man" sequel raises the question of whether or not director Jon Favreau will return for the next installment. Favreau, the director of what is now one of the most successful and well-reviewed superhero movies of all time, sat down with Entertainment Weekly to discuss the project and the future of the series. 

According to the interview:

"We've been speaking informally about it, and in concept we would all love to work together again. But I found out about the announcement last night, so it's not something that -- we would definitely love to collaborate more with the sequel. there's no formal arrangement yet, but in theory we would all love to see it happen.... There's definitely a lot of ideas that we all have now. This type of movie is based on serialized materials, so it lends itself very easily to [many different sequel possibilities]. There's definitely a level of enthusiasm from myself and the cast to tell more stories."

It sounds like he's on board for more "Iron Man," but nothing's on paper yet. The good news is that star Robert Downey Jr. is contracted for at least one more installment. 

We're coming up on the 5 p.m. deadline set by both SAG and AMPTP to end negotiations on a feature-primetime deal. 

This will likely be the last day of negotiations until after AMPTP has met with AFTRA (or maybe even until SAG goes on strike).  AMPTP is not willing to to grant another extension unless a deal is in sight.  

With the wild success of "iron Man," Marvel Studios' first in-house flick, it's no surprise that the studio is eager to announce their upcoming slate through 2011. 

The already-anticipated sequel of "Iron Man" will make its debut on April 30, 2010. Marvel is clearly trying to start the summer season even earlier than it did this past weekend. Five days later on June 4, "Thor," based on the Norse god, will open. Matthew Vaughn is currently set to star. 

The following year, "The First Avenger: Captain America" will open on May 6, closely followed by "The Avengers" (Iron Man, Incredible Hulk, Captain America, and Thor) which will hit theaters in July. 

Marvel will not be releasing any pics in 2009 due to the production delays caused by the writers strike. However, the studio still has one more film for this year, "The Incredible Hulk," starring Edward Norton, which will open June 13. 

/Film has posted three minutes of Wachowski Brothers' "Speed Racer," released by Warner Bros. I have to admit the transitions are seamless, and it plays out like an anime brought to life. Congrats to the Wachowskis, but I still don't know if I can sit through 2+ hours of this crazy visual style.

SAG and the studios will continue negotiations this Monday after a weekend session brought about by SAG's first noteworthy concessions. SAG and AMPTP are now in their second extension of negotiations.

On April 23, both sides agreed to keep the talks going for another week. This past Friday, SAG backed down on its demand for DVD residuals to double and in addition dropped several rate hikes. Following these moves towards compromise, both sides agreed to extend talks until this coming Tuesday. 

SAG's current contract expires on June 30, so both sides are feeling the pressure to make a deal. Though SAG may not get the required 75% strike authorization vote from its members, who number over 120,000, the possibility of a strike is looming over Hollywood, threatening to shut down all movie and primetime production. 

/Film released 9 hi-res images from "WALL-E" sent from a reader.  Check them out here. I can't wait until June 27th. Cuteness overload!

I'll be perfectly honest; I keep forgetting that "Wanted" is on it's way. The hype started in October of last year, then there were rumors of last-minute reshoots, and then everything just sort of... stopped. 

So you'll understand my shock at uncovering a FirstShowing post that referenced an interview with the film's writers Michael Brandt and Derek Haas, who said last September that they had already been hired to write a sequel! Whaaat?! 

Of course, the actual film won't be greenlit until the studio sees how much money "Wanted" brings in this June, but it's a little early to jump on that franchise train. 

It probably comes as no surprise, but "Iron Man" is raking in the dough for Marvel studios. The film, which opened Friday, has brought in $104.2 million at the domestic box office and almost an equal amount ($96.7 million) internationally. And that doesn't include the $3.5 million from the 8 p.m. showings at select theaters on Thursday night. For a little perspective, that's more money than "Daredevil" and "Catwoman" made in their entire theatrical runs. 

What all these numbers boil down to is that aside from being really freakin' awesome, "Iron Man" currently holds the 8th best opening weekend ever, and is the second-best debut for a non-sequel ("Spider-Man" still holds that throne with a $114.8 million opening on the same weekend in 2002). 

The audience for "Iron Man" was male-dominated, which left a little bit of wiggle room for the Patrick Dempsey starrer "Made of Honor," the only other film to open in wide release this weekend. "Made of Honor" came in second place with $15.5 million. "Baby Mama" came in third with $10.3 million with "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" in fourth with $6.1 million. 

"Iron Man" is the first film fully produced and financed by Marvel Studios as a part of their new business plan. The film was marketed and distributed by Paramount. 

Now that "Iron Man," our first superhero flick of the summer, is out of the gate and tracking quite well at the box office (the experts now estimate the Downey starrer will cross the $100 million mark by Monday morning), we're free to focus on "The Dark Knight."

The second full trailer for the "Batman Begins" sequel hit the Interwebs today, and it's a doozie. The trailer gives us some of the first glimpses of the Joker and Harvey Dent in action, but fails to offer any footage of Two-Face. Looks like director Nolan is trying to keep this character under wraps. In an interview with Aaron Eckhart in the L.A. Times, the actor said, "I can tell you that, basically, when you look at Two-Face, you should get sick to your stomach. Being the guy under all that, well, that was a lot of fun for me. It's like you would feel if you met someone whose face had pretty much been ripped off or burned off with acid. I can't talk about it beyond that because I don't want to give away too much of the plans by Chris [Nolan]."

As for the Joker and Heath Ledger's performance, it's chilling. There have been rumors of a posthumous Oscar, which up until now I figured was people blowing things way out of proportion. Of course I haven't seen his whole performance yet, but what this trailer presents shows an unbelievably creepy transformation. 

"The Dark Knight" opens July 18th. 

Look out, Spider-Man, Superman, and the Fantastic 4. Your sequels have been disappointing audiences for some time now, but director Jon Favreau has rejuvenated the superhero flick with the kickoff of the summer movie season, "Iron Man." 

At first glance, Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) is not the superhero type. He didn't have any traumatic experiences during his youth, the ladies love him, and he's made a place for himself in the business world by putting his engineering genius to work designing weapons of mass destruction. While in Afghanistan to demonstrate a new weapon, the Jericho, Stark's convoy is attacked by terrorists and he is wounded by a weapon of his own design. When he comes to, Stark finds that he is being held captive in a cave with a doctor, Yinsen (Shaun Toub), and is being kept alive by an electromagnetic device and a car battery. Though the terrorists, who are well equipped with Stark Industries weapons, want Stark to build them a Jericho weapon, Stark instead builds a suit of armor that helps him escape his captors.

Returning to the United States, Stark is deeply affected by the reality of weapons dealing and the realization that his company has been dealing under the table with terrorists without his knowledge. He removes himself from the company and with the help of his assistant Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) and his friend Lt. Colonel Jim Rhodes (Terrence Howard), he begins building a series of suits so that he can undo what his company has done. Only one man stands in his way, Stark's business partner Obadiah Stone (a balded Jeff Bridges), who's been making a few deals on the side. You can probably guess how they settle their differences.

Dutifully doing my research before viewing "Iron Man," I came across a worrisome fact. Typically, when more than three writers are involved on a script, it's bad news for the film. "Iron Man" was penned by four writers working in two teams (Mark Fergus and Hawk Ostby, and Art Marcum and Matt Holloway). When each pair of writers had a final product, director Jon Favreau and studio Marvel merged the two scripts to create what we see on screen. However, despite a few cheesy lines (mostly when Stark is in the suit; I didn't know making the dialogue suck was a superpower possessed by the suit) and a rather obvious twist that lacked appropriate dramatic buildup, "Iron Man" held together and ran like a well-oiled machine. The script was clearly tailored for Downey, playing up to his snark and allowing for his own additions and improvisations. 

That brings us to Downey. "Iron Man" is his first big-budget studio flick since his 1997 incarceration for drug possession. He's been sort of a running joke in Hollywood and certainly a flight risk for studios, but "Iron Man" offered him the much-needed career boost and opportunity to step back into the spotlight. He does it well, proving that a hole in the chest is the new sexy. He is perfectly cast as Stark; Downey is not afraid to bare his slightly flabby physique and act his age. He's not as young or as spry as some of his Marvel counterparts. Rather, he's been around the block a few times and has done so with a glass of Scotch in his hand.

I wish I could commend Downey's supporting cast as well, but many of the roles needed either more development or lesser-known actors to lower expectations. Terrence Howard is wasted as Lt. Rhodes - a great actor is here given a relatively small part and is thus reduced to "token black guy." Likewise, Oscar-winning Paltrow is a bland and conservative Pepper Potts. If she returns in the next installments, I hope she does more with the character. A few instances hint at the chemistry present between her and Downey, but she seemed to be holding back. Jeff Bridges also seemed conservative in his role as Obadiah. The actor, who has played many a creepy part, doesn't take advantage of the darkness offered by this role.

Despite "Iron Man"'s claim that it is not an origin story, the first film in a franchise can't help but be just that. Favreau, however, offers viewers a very dark opening to the film, contrasting the freewheelin' tendencies of Stark's playboy character with a frightening and eerie portrayal of his captivity. With his electromagnetic chest implant, Stark transforms into more of a cyborg than a superhero. Unfortunately, the final fifteen minutes of "Iron Man" are a bit of a letdown. The action and determination of the character give way to a cheesy attempt at romance, a rather silly battle, and an open ending for the next installment (apparently due out in 2010), bringing what was a welcome departure from a typical entry into the superhero film canon back down to the genre's consistent mediocrity. Hopefully the next film will be more "Batman Begins" and less "Spider-Man 2" or "3." 

Aside from being a great action movie and a fun summer flick, the reason that "Iron Man" will be so successful is that audiences can read just about anything into the political nature of the movie. On one hand, "Iron Man" can be viewed as a statement on America's lack of control over into whose hands weapons fall. But, on the other, Stark's mission can be seen as a metaphor for American power and how sometimes, the only way to fix the abuses of power is to meet it head on with even more power. Either way, the film is pro-military and pro-government.

Ultimately, it looks like the "Iron Man" franchise is here to stay, and as long as Downey Jr is the man in the suit, I'm game.

Even though neither the AMPTP nor the SAG are likely to break down and reach a compromise in the next few days, both sides have agreed to another extension in the talks. Now, SAG and AMPTP will continue daily bargaining until at least May 6. Likewise, AFTRA will put off the start of their talks with producers until May 7. 

Here are two new full trailers at which to ogle: 

"Hancock"

This Will Smith as a superhero pic still hasn't won me over, but the trailer seems to be gaining ground around the 'Net. 

"The Happening"

Shyamalan's films have been slowly going downhill since we all figured out the twist in "The Sixth Sense" and then began looking for it in all of the director's subsequent projects, but I'll watch some Marky-Mark any time. "The Happening" looks promising and will hopefully be a return to the director's early days.