John Hancock appears to be breaking the box office along with buildings in Los Angeles. Peter Berg's superhero flick brought in $17.4 million in just under 4,000 theaters on its opening day. Combined with the $6.8 million grossed from Tuesday night preview screenings in 3,680 theaters, "Hancock"'s total from its first 1.5 days adds up to $24.2 million. By the end of the holiday weekend, the action flick could bring in $90 million - $100 million range. 

Last year's Fourth of July flick, "Transformers," opened with preview screenings on Monday night earning $8.8 million. The following day, it picked up another $27.9 million, putting its 1.5-day take $12.7 million ahead of that of "Hancock." By the end of the holiday weekend, "Transformers" had brought in $155.4 million. It is, however,  important to note that "Transformers" benefitted from a brand name. "Hancock" should continue to do well despite lackluster reviews from critics based on Smith's star power and likability.

Let's face it: being Will Smith has got to be exhausting. He's a megawatt star who brings people of every race, class and gender to the theater, he's proven his range with action, romantic comedy, thriller and dramatic roles, and he's got a family-man, squeaky-clean image. Whether he likes it or not, he's a role model. Thus, the opportunity, albeit a risky one, to play a vulgar, alcoholic, sloppy superhero must have been attractive. In Peter Berg's intriguing "Hancock," Smith shows that even the most despicable characters have a shot at salvation. This innovative take on the superhero flick is both entertaining and carries an emotional weight not often seen in the genre, but it loses track halfway through and rushes towards an ending that is less than satisfying.

John Hancock (Will Smith) can leap tall buildings, toss cars as if they were tennis balls, and deflect bullets with just his skin. He can also drink like a fish, talk like a sailor, and spends most of his time passed out on a park bench. He stops crime in Los Angeles when he feels like it, so the city tolerates his presence even though no one can stand him. When he does step in, though, he causes the city a lot of damage (finally, a superhero who suffers the consequences of the big, flashy action sequences!). His first heroic act of the film is stopping a high-speed chase, during which he busts through road signs, destroys part of the highway, and leaves an SUV speared on the top of a building. The tally? $9 million. 

The public hates him, but he doesn't seem to care. When he saves do-gooder public-relations rep Ray (Jason Bateman) by throwing his car out of the path of an oncoming train but in effect causes a huge train wreck, Hancock suffers a slew of insults from an angry crowd. "Couldn't you have just flown the car straight up into the air? You're such an asshole," they cry. Ray, happy to be alive, decides to thank Hancock by giving him an image makeover, instructing him to be more careful on take-offs and landings (avoid the $100,000 cars), ditch the hobo fashions for a sleeker costume, and say "good job" to local law enforcement. As Hancock tries to redeem himself - unenthusiastically at first - we learn more about his past, his powers, and the strange connection he has with Ray's wife Mary (Charlize Theron).

As I said before, Smith's likability makes this role an interesting choice. I can't decide if it's a flaw in the character of Hancock or not, but Smith's comic timing and facial expressions make it hard to find the uncouth hero offensive. Even when tossing children into the air or grabbing at women, Hancock still possesses that Will Smith charm. He seems to be having a hard time giving the character an edge; throughout the film Smith screws up his face to create a grimace, but it looks more painful than angry. 

Theron also seems an odd choice for the role as Mary. In recent films, she has avoided the pretty-girl image by playing plain, severe, and even ugly women ("In The Valley of Elah," "North Country," and "Monster"). Here, she lets her wavy blonde hair fall around her shoulders and wears understated but flattering clothing. Mary's secret, which I will not divulge here, becomes apparent the first time she and Hancock lock eyes. What Mary has to hide becomes the central focus of the final third of the film, and though Theron does her best to give the film the emotional weight it needs to make the relationship believable, director Berg rushes the film towards a chaotic and melodramatic ending that leaves the viewer wanting more.

"Hancock" is not an origin story, mainly because our hero can't remember where he came from or what he is. The script, written by Vincent Ngo and Vince Gallian (who often wrote for "The X-Files" television series and is behind the script for the upcoming "The X-Files: I Want to Believe"), is sharp and edgy in some parts, soft and cliche in others, but all actors make the most of their lines. Bateman, always funny, gives Ray a childlike innocence and sense of obliviousness that makes him impossible to dislike. "Hancock," which was watered down from a more violent and more sexual R-rated script, retains only a little of the 13-year-old-boy humor (I'm thinking of a prison threat turned into a new meaning of rape by Hancock in jail) and trades dumb gags for more entertaining lines and more interesting tensions. 

Director Peter Berg, whose last film "The Kingdom" was an all-out action movie, changes his plan of attack with "Hancock," using shaky cameras to get in close on his actors. These close-ups are part of what makes "Hancock" stand apart from other entries in the superhero genre. Thus, when the film does give way to the climactic battles and CG spectacles we all expect going in -- the trailer hints at a lot more whale-throwing and tornado-twirling -- it jolts and unnerves us. "Hancock" might have, dare I say it, benefitted from a few more action sequences, if only to stretch the story out a little longer. Just as we begin to learn more about Hancock's past, the film speeds towards a quick but untidy ending. At just under 90 minutes, "Hancock" teases the viewer with an idea but concludes with a conventional ending not expected for such an unconventional character. I guess that's what we get when studios step in and take control of a script.

In the opening scene of "Wanted," a man in business attire runs down a hallway at the top of an office building and bursts through a plate-glass window, leaping across to another rooftop in a shower of glass. This "Matrix"-style scene is only the first of many, giving the audience a taste of all of high-intensity action sequences to come. However, with all of the over-the-top violence and non-stop action, "Wanted" disappoints with the lack of a strong script or intriguing story.

"Wanted" is Kazakhstan-born director Timur Bekmambetov's first venture into American cinema. Best known for his Russian sci-fi vampire thrillers "Day Watch" and "Night Watch," based on a fantasy trilogy by Russian author Sergei Lukyanenko, Bekmambetov seems the perfect director to tackle the film based on comic book mini-series "Wanted" by Mark Millar and J.G. Jones. The film is part origin story, part revenge flick, and part drama. If only all of these parts had combined to make a memorable whole.

Twenty-five-year-old Wesley Gibson (James McAvoy) begins the film by complaining that he feels nothing but suffers frequent panic attacks that send his heart racing and blood pulsing. He is cubicle-bound in a dead-end accounting job, his boss is a bitch, his fratboyish best friend is sleeping with his girlfriend, and his apartment is a dump. Even though he is clearly unsatisfied, he does not care enough to change his situation. 

His humdrum existence is turned upside down when the beautiful and deadly Fox (Angelina Jolie) appears and tells him that she was sent to protect him from Cross (Thomas Kretschmann), a rogue assassin who killed his father (the airborne gentleman from the first sequence). The point at which Fox screams by in a red sports car, does a 360-degree turn, and scoops Wesley into the passenger seat without even touching the break pedal is when you, the viewer, must make a choice. Do you go along with the ride or complain about the lack of physics and grumble about the $8.50 you just spent on the ticket?

Gibson is recruited into the "Fraternity," a 1,000-year-old secret society of assassins led by Sloan (Morgan Freeman). Since it's Morgan Freeman, we immediately trust him, believing his claims that the names revealed in the fabric made by the Loom of Fate (woven in binary, of course) are bad people who must be killed. As a member of the Fraternity, Gibson learns to bend bullets, dart across the tops of trains, and shoot the wings off of flies. He leaves the world of sheep to become a wolf, but does he really understand what he's getting himself into? 

Written by Micahel Brandt and Derek Haas, the same team behind the recent remake of "3:10 To Yuma," "Wanted" could have and should have been so much better. The characters in Wesley's pre-Fraternity life lack dimension and motivation. They might as well have been portrayed by those cardboard cut-outs that stand in the windows of comic book shops. The script is weak and rough, and until Fox appeared in all of her tattooed and charcoal-eyed glory, I feared the worst. "Wanted" then got better for a bit, but started going downhill about halfway through. 

However, even with a lackluster script, "Wanted" is, at parts, undeniably badass and a triumph of post-production and special effects. Possessing what must be only a handful of non-CGI shots, the film impresses, stuns, invigorates, and most importantly, entertains. The camera follows intricately-designed bullets through impossible trajectories and cars are jumped and flipped like Matchbox toys. In turn, though, the viewer must question the necessity of some of the stunts - is shooting a man from the roof of a speeding train really the best plan? Must Fox perform hip-cracking yoga in order to fit under the tunnel? And, now that I think about it, what made these ancient weavers decide to become trained killers? And what's with all the fast motion and slow motion? Can't we just let this play out in real time? But for every question that popped into my head, I immediately thought, "Oh, never mind." 

The first half of the film is an origin story and a fantastic one at that. I'm quite sure that anyone would follow and believe Angelina Jolie, especially after she shoots out the windshield, slides out onto the hood of the car, and straddles you while she fires at the car behind you, but the following sequence of Gibson's training and transformation from account manager to instinctive assassin is tight, effective, and extremely well done. It's in the second half of the film that the action gives new meaning to the world "ridiculous" and the plot falls apart. Gibson learns the truth behind the Fraternity's motives, but by this point, the story has gone so far off the track that it doesn't matter anymore and you just kind of have to go with it.

Instead, we're forced to drool at the bloody violence and impossible action. A train full of innocent passengers careens off of a bridge and plummets into the abyss between two mountains, but never mind the consequences. Somehow, the two people we need to care about have survived, so who cares about the others? And in a final one-man-against-many (just how many people are there in this Fraternity?) battle, Gibson fires repeatedly through the gaping hole he has just blown in the skull of a former comrade, proving that Bekmambetov has studied up on his Tarantino and Wachowski brothers.

As Gibson, the Scottish-born James McAvoy, who has dazzled in dramas "The Last King of Scotland" and "Atonement," makes his grand entrance into the action film genre. He plays both of Gibson's personas (pre- and post-Fraternity) with skill, looking downtrodden and hopeless in a shirt and tie beneath a windbreaker and tough and powerful in a leather jacket and wielding a gun. He takes on the emotional depth of Gibson's character with all of the care he gave to previous, more emotionally-demanding roles; if only he had a better script to work with. Jolie shines as the sly but believable Fox; this is Mrs. Smith taken to the next level. Looking at her past roles, it's no great surprise that Jolie can kick ass and look amazing doing it, but with "Wanted" she also incorporates the emotion and depth typically saved for pieces like "Changeling" and "A Mighty Heart." She is a piece of the Fraternity machine, but that does not mean that she follows orders mindlessly. 

Overall, "Wanted" is the sort of film that is meant to set up a franchise. Comic books, video games and movies are all merging into one big monster with sights set on the consumer market, and though "Wanted" sets up the sort of story - the apathetic nobody finds his inner strength and becomes a powerful hero - that makes for great characters with dimension and moral challenges, it unfortunately trades intrigue and depth for adrenaline-packed action and relentlessly bloody violence. 

For the first time in months, the weekend box office has pulled ahead of that of 2007. Disney-Pixar's "Wall-E" and Universal's "Wanted" both brought in some serious cash this weekend. 

Director Andrew Stanton's "Wall-E" came in first place this weekend with an estimated $62.5 million from just under 4,000 theaters. This makes "Wall-E" the second-best June opening of all time ("Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" is in first place with $94.7 million), the third-highest opening weekend for a Pixar film ("The Incredibles" and "Finding Nemo" both scored just over $70 million), and the highest opening-day gross of a G-rated film with $23.1 million on Friday alone.

In second place, "Wanted" grossed $51.1 million from just over 3,100 theaters, making the action film starring Angelina Jolie and James McAvoy the best-ever opening for an R-rated film released in June and the sixth best opening for any R-rated film. Universal is of course already preparing for a sequel. In 2005, Jolie's film "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" opened with $50.3 million. 

In a recent interview, "Wall-E" director Andrew Stanton was asked to name some of his favorite films. Topping the list was "Lawrence of Arabia," followed by "The Lion in Winter," "Cool Hand Luke," "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" and several others. "Hey," Stanton said, "there's no animation in my top ten." For most people, this wouldn't be a surprise. Stanton, on the other hand, was one of the first two animators to join the Pixar team; you would think he'd at least give a shout-out to "Snow White," or "Fantasia," or "Pinocchio." Yet, paradoxically, Stanton's list provides a look into what makes "Wall-E" - and the wide majority of Pixar's output to this point - so extraordinary. They make films that, like those Disney classics, transcend categorization as animated movies. The movies are animated, of course, and stunningly so; there's no question that Pixar remains on the cutting edge of technology. But these are films, plain and simple, and they never forget to pay homage and respect to the past even while paving the way to the future. The forebears here are the films of comedians like Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton and Jacques Tati, and Stanton and his animators have created a character to match up with those men's screen personas.

The last remaining robot on an Earth that, as the film opens, has been abandoned by humans for over 700 years, WALL-E (an acronym for Waste Allocation Load Lifter, Earth-Class) spends his days gathering and compacting the piles of waste that have rendered the planet uninhabitable. "Wall-E" introduces us to its hero and his surroundings through a 40-minute, nearly dialogue-free opening that is, in its way, every bit as stunning as the silent first act of Paul Thomas Anderson's "There Will Be Blood." Designed with the assistance of legendary cinematographer Roger Deakins ("No Country for Old Men"), this sequence has the pure visual expressiveness of silent cinema and, in its wittily choreographed physical humor, evokes the graceful slapstick of Chaplin and Keaton. Can a robot have a soul? WALL-E, with his deeply expressive eyes and human concerns, suggests the affirmative. He collects interesting trinkets, watches a worn copy of "Hello, Dolly!" religiously and longs for companionship beyond the single cockroach he keeps as a friend.

Enter EVE, a sleek white robot sent to Earth to search for biological life, with whom WALL-E falls head-over-heels for. When EVE returns to her home base, a massive interstellar luxury cruiser known as the Axiom, WALL-E stows aboard to stay close to his new love. The relationship between WALL-E and EVE provides a romantic core to the second half of the film, which takes place on the Axiom. The ship that provided the human race a way to escape from their inhospitable home, the Axiom's design draws influence from Chaplin's "Modern Times" and the sterile metropolises of Tati. The simple beauty of the film's first forty minutes gives way to the inspired chaos that marked earlier Pixar efforts like "Toy Story."

Stanton imagines a world where mankind has been rendered so passive by their reliance on commercialized technology (represented here by Buy 'n' Large, a Wal-Mart stand-in that seems to have taken over every aspect of life on Earth) that even walking has become unthinkable. The Axiom's citizens are grotesque, nearly-boneless slabs of flesh that float around on moving chairs and drink liquidized meals through straws. It's a clever look at the future of our current culture, and combined with the images of the earth as an uninhabitable waste-land, it forms the basis of the film's political message. As an engagement with our current political situation, it's unusual stuff for a kid's movie (there's even video footage of Fred Willard as Earth's CEO/president, a bumbling fool who urges citizens to "stay the course," which is admittedly kind of a cheap shot), and although it can't help but feel like some sort of letdown after the almost otherworldly beauty of the film's first act, it represents a level of intellectual and satirical ambition unmatched by Pixar's previous works.

It is also, with the possible exception of "Toy Story 2," the most emotionally involving film Pixar has made to date. It's no mean feat to evoke feelings for machines, but Stanton goes even farther than that; WALL-E and EVE are among the most sympathetic characters to have appeared in an animated feature. Once the Axiom returns to Earth, so do the film's aesthetic strategies; dialogue disappears, and WALL-E and EVE's relationship takes center stage once more. And as the film closes, silently and in moving homage to Chaplin's "City Lights," Stanton reminds us that sometimes we say the most when we aren't saying anything at all.

Leave it to Pixar to take a post-apocalyptic theme, a protagonist reminiscent of silent movie comedians, and an environmental message and create a film that is at once humorous, touching, and romantic. "WALL-E," directed by Andrew Stanton, is the tale of the little robot who, after 700 years alone, ends up saving our devastated planet, and all because of a pretty girl. Looks like things won't change too much in the future.

When the trash heaps became overpowering and earth was no longer hospitable to humans, the planet was evacuated to a giant space station called the Axiom, and little trash-compacting bots (Waste Allocation Load Lifter - Earth class) were left behind to clean up the mess. Over the years, all of these little guys have become defunct, except for WALL-E. WALL-E, a clunky trash compactor, spends his days collecting garbage and stacking it into makeshift skyscrapers. When he finds something he likes (a bra, a bobble-head, a rubik's cube, even a spork), he takes it home and stores it in his trailer. At night, he watches an old recording of the musical "Hello, Dolly!" with his friend, a cockroach. It is through this near-forgotten musical that he realizes what his life is missing: someone to hold hands with. 

During a normal day of work, WALL-E notices a red beam on the ground and follows it until a large spacecraft lands practically on top of him. Out hovers EVE (Extra-terrestrial Vegetation Evaluator), a sleek and shiny robot as pretty as anything on the shelf at your local Apple store. WALL-E thinks she is his chance for love and gives her a gift: a small green plant. This tiny sign of life sends EVE back to the space station, and WALL-E tags along for the adventure of a lifetime.

The muddied colors of the earth WALL-E is tasked with cleaning is astounding, but you don't realize the gravity of the environment's plight until that one tiny plant appears on screen. Never has a glimpse of the color green been so moving; this gentle handling of the topic continues throughout the rest of the film, allowing Stanton to concentrate on story and characters instead of beating a political message into the ground. "WALL-E" is a cautionary tale, not a slap on the wrist. 

WALL-E's dusty and scrapped world is contrasted with outer space and the Axiom. As WALL-E hangs on to the side of EVE's ship, he takes the audience on a wonderful voyage, passing over planets, the sun (MacNerds pay attention to our lead's start-up sound), and through star fields. The imagery is unbelievably beautiful, rivaling the footage shown in planetariums and natural history museums. 

The humans of "WALL-E" are infantile blobs whose arms and legs have been reduced to nearly-useless flipper-like appendages. They hover around in automatic recliners, drink all of their meals from plastic cups, and live with their heads surrounded by projected screens. In the vein of COSTCO and Sam's Club comes Buy 'N Large, the superstore that makes everything from baby food to the space station on which these humans live. Everything that they could possibly want is made available to them in this floating utopia, but these people are too spoiled to realize it. This is the world and race created by consumerism. It can't be all bad, though; after all, WALL-E himself is a product of Buy 'N Large. It is in this detail that Stanton cleverly illustrates the dual nature of creativity. 

"WALL-E" marks director Andrew Stanton's second outing as a Pixar director (his first was "Finding Nemo"), and this tale of an unlikely hero certainly places him among the pantheon of talent that resides in Emeryville, CA. The story is the child of both Stanton and co-writer Jim Reardon (a longtime contributor on "The Simpsons"). The team has skillfully blended a subtle environmental message into a family-friendly romantic comedy. 

Being a Pixar film, "WALL-E" is guaranteed to feature top-notch animation. "WALL-E" doesn't disappoint, but I don't feel the need to repeat here what everyone knows going in to the film. Instead, I will focus on the sound design for the film. The first half-hour or so contains no dialogue, but trust me, you'll hardly miss it. Instead, WALL-E's world is filled with cranks, bleeps, blips, and squeals, all orchestrated by the master sound designer Ben Burtt, also responsible for the sound in "E.T.," the "Indiana Jones" series, and the "Star Wars" films. So much character is given to this little guy purely through sound effects. With binocular eyes and no mouth, WALL-E generates a symphony of different noises, combining with slapstick physical humor to create a contemporary (or future, I guess) Buster Keaton with treads. He and EVE communicate in similar chirps, some of which mesh together to create the heart-wrenching cries and coos of "EEE-VAA" and "WALL-E!"

Every studio has a flop, but Pixar, who has been churning out instant classics for the past 13 years, doesn't appear to have gotten the message. "WALL-E" is certain to be listed among the best films of 2008 and will be recognized come Oscar season for the Best Animated film category if not Best Picture. With this beautifully-rendered film, "WALL-E'"s creators have shown that beauty and goodness can survive an inhospitable planet; it comes in a little yellow box. 

"WALL-E" opened today to rave reviews, cementing it as the best-reviewed film of 2008. It has maintained a 98% on Rotten Tomatoes and is being heralded as the best film of 2008 and the best Pixar film yet. 

According to Nikki FInke, Pixar will be pushing hard for a Best Picture Oscar nomination for the film, a feat attempted by last year's "Ratatouille" which instead brought home Best Animated Feature along with several other nominations. The only animated film to make its way into the Best Picture category was 1991's "Beauty and the Beast." 

Even though films that have been in release since January 1 are eligible for Oscars come nomination season, the first half of the year does not usually yield much in the way of award-worthy films. The summer is typically blockbuster season, during which studios can make some bank to put towards projects in the fall and winter, the prime Oscar-bidding season. "WALL-E" is so far the only film to be released this year that will likely still be resonating with audiences when the nominations are considered. 

Who would've thought an animated film with post-apocalyptic themes but silent film charm would make it so far? Leave it to the wizards at Pixar!

A product of the director of "Nutty Professor II" and the writers of "Failure to Launch," it's surprising that "Get Smart," the feature adaptation of Mel Brooks' zany 1960s comedy series, actually works. The fact that it does, however, is more a result of clever casting than anything else.

Popular funnyman Steve Carrell brings his talents to the role of Maxwell Smart, a self-confident agent for CONTROL. Smart is currently tasked with parsing through international chatter, and though he produces lengthy and ultra-detailed reports, he sometimes misses the point. For example, he announces at a meeting that the Russians are eating muffins, a carb-heavy food, and therefore must be stressed, but misses the connection between the baked goods and the nuclear factory housed in the bakery. Smart seems destined to stay behind a desk until a rival agency KAOS ransacks the CONTROL office and all of the agents' identities are compromised. Smart is partnered with the savvy and beautiful Agent 99 (Anne Hathaway), whose identity is unknown due to some recent plastic surgery, and sent into the field to uncover the truth behind the weapons trading and nuclear bomb production. 

For a spoof, Peter Segal's "Get Smart" favors action over comedy. There are few truly funny lines, but the ones that are there make the film worth the ticket price. The character of Smart here is a departure from that of the original series; this film's Smart is a little more aware of his surroundings. He's not completely on top of it, but he does seem to have a better handle on things than did his predecessor, whose clumsiness and unawareness made him all the more endearing. But with Carrell in the role, how could you deny Smart the chance to grow? Carrell's ability to both deliver dry and sarcastic comments and to pull off pure slapstick comedy recalls some of the zany humor from the original series but also gives the film a contemporary feel. Fans of "The 40 Year Old Virgin" will delight in the scene in which Smart battles himself with a miniature crossbow. Even the most intelligent of viewers will find themselves laughing at his facial expressions. 

Hathaway's Agent 99 appears cool and collected but shows range with an emotional side that hints at and eventually leads to a light romance between her and Smart. Dwayne Johnson (The Rock) plays Agent 23, the "it" guy of CONTROL. The hard-bodied actor plays well off of Carrell here; Johnson seems to enjoy the chance to goof off with such a great cast. Last but not least is Alan Arkin, who plays the Chief of CONTROL. "Get Smart" marks his second film with Carrell, and it certainly has a different tone than "Little Miss Sunshine." Arkin, still quite spunky for an aging actor, has some of the best lines of the film and proves that you don't have to be young to be a good agent. 

Some complaints may arise from "Get Smart"'s move away from the series' zaniness to more of an action-packed thriller, but if a film can break out of its genre and succeed, why shouldn't it make the effort? Some laughs fall flat and there are a few cheap attempts at humor (a paintball to the crotch and that sort of humor), and we do have to put up with David Koechner ("Anchorman," "Semi-Pro," "Drillbit Taylor," "Balls of Fury," and here playing Larabee), but overall, "Get Smart" manages to be one of the smartest spoofs of James Bond to hit the big screen. I'm just glad they let Steve Carrell fill Don Adams' shoe-phones. 

In 2003, Ang Lee unleashed "Hulk" to poor reviews and disappointed audiences. It therefore seems a little odd that Marvel would try to resuscitate the franchise just five years later but lo and behold, they have. Though Louis Leterrier's film "The Incredible Hulk" doesn't deserve to be called incredible, it still makes for a thoughtful summer action film. 

Anyone who paid attention to movie news before "The Incredible Hulk"'s opening this past weekend will remember that the biggest buzz surrounding the film was concentrated on the supposed frequent blow-outs between Marvel Studios and the film's star Edward Norton. For a little bit of backstory, Norton initially turned down the role but eventually signed on when Marvel agreed to hire a screenwriter to retool the script. 

A new screenwriter was never hired, so Norton took on the job himself and did a page-one rewrite. He couldn't make any drastic changes since he started the rewrites just two months before the film began shooting and sets were already being built, but he did add more dialogue and character motivation. However, when Marvel put together the rough cut, the studio decided that they wanted a shorter, more action-packed film and discarded much of Norton's work (his version would have run almost 2 1/2 hours). 

So, what are we left with? "The Incredible Hulk" is a different sort of comic book movie, mainly because the Hulk story made for a different kind of comic book. Hulk isn't a superhero, and "The Incredible Hulk" isn't an origin story. 

Through images played during the title sequence, we are shown the basic story we already know: Bruce Banner (Norton) was doing research for the Army under the supervision of Gen. Ross (William Hurt) and dating fellow scientist and Ross's daughter Betty (Liv Tyler). An experiment with gamma went terribly wrong, and Banner became something, well, incredible. 

Now a fugitive, he lives in a Brazilian slum and works at a soda bottling plant. He spends his free time learning to manage his anger and keep his heart rate down while he tries to find a cure for what is inside him. But when his whereabouts are discovered, Banner must go on the run from Ross's team of hunters, lead by Agent Blosky (Tim Roth), a slimy-looking individual with a crazy look in his eye that instantly tells you he's going to be Hulk's nemesis.

"The Incredible Hulk" is more character-driven than most action hero and comic book movies and is made more effective by the expert casting of Norton in the lead. Norton perfectly captures the thoughtful and intelligent side of Banner, but could have brought a little more energy to the role. I understand that Banner can't get his heart rate up, but that doesn't mean he has to stay so sedate in his human form. He is shown suffering Christlike one too many times; the pain and fear that flashes across his face when his eyes grow green becomes as repetitive and tiresome as Gen. Ross's cigar smoking. Overall, Norton brings the quiet determination necessary to make Bruce Banner a man with whom audiences can identify. He doesn't want to be Hulk; he can't get too excited (a point made all too clear when he can't go through with having sex with Betty), he is forced to live in hiding, and he's consumed by the desire to get rid of the big green guy inside.  

Liv Tyler's Betty pouts and coos at Bruce in perfect sympathetic girlfriend fashion. The only problem there is that she's no longer his girlfriend. Does anyone else feel bad for her current beau? She also brings back the Daddy issues of Lee's 2003 version by frequently screaming at Gen. Ross. She's disgusted by his treatment of Banner and his desire to use the Hulk power to create a race of super soldiers, which, by the way, would be a disaster. With Banner running around as Hulk and then Blonsky turning into the Abomination, Gen. Ross ends up with hundreds of dead soldiers on his hands but apparently no repercussions. Does he have to answer to anyone for this mess? 

What sets Hulk apart from most of his Marvel counterparts is his lack of control over his powers. When Betty asks Bruce what it feels like to make the transformation, he replies that Hulk "isn't me." Whereas most comic book heroes are interesting because they provide viewers and readers with the opportunity to see ordinary people struggle with the discovery and possession of extraordinary powers, Hulk and Bruce Banner remain two separate entities. By saying Hulk is a different creature rather than the other side of Banner, our lead is released of any sort of responsibility for Hulk's actions. Clark Kent and Peter Parker struggle to balance their quiet professional lives with saving crime, Bruce Wayne uses his alter-ego to right the wrongs in Gotham City, and Tony Stark is trying to make up for spending his life creating weapons of mass destruction. And then there's Bruce Banner. Not only is his identity not a mystery, he doesn't use his power for any real positive means. Yes, he eventually battles what Blonsky becomes (The Abomination), but that's just an excuse to show off special effects and blow things up. 

This is to say that the weakest points of "The Incredible Hulk" are those that feature Hulk himself. When he first appears through clouded night vision goggles, his mass and green tinge are delightfully creepy. However, his big square head and shaggy hair (why isn't it the same color as Banner's?) soon fills the screen too often, growling into our faces and then tearing cars in half and throwing them around. His size is inconsistent, though I'm told this is a factor of how angry he is, and all I could think about was how hard it must be to go through life never knowing when you're going to need a new pair of elastic-waisted pants. 

After one last Christlike sacrifice, Banner voluntarily becomes Hulk for the final battle sequence against The Abomination. A lot of buildings and cars are destroyed, and we are all forced to marvel at the supposedly dazzling special effects. Though long and full of flashy explosions, this battle does not compare to that of last month's "Iron Man." Featuring essentially the same set-up (the original and a copy), "Iron Man" succeeds because the characters are fully aware of who they are and what they are doing. Here, we've just got two huge powerful guys duking it out. Even though Leterrier tries to show us the sensitive side of Hulk by putting a few sparkles in his eyes, it's hard to see the human under all of those rippling green muscles. 

"The Incredible Hulk" is a lot better than what Hollywood is currently offering audiences, but it's not great. The interesting and thoughtful drama of Banner's battle against what's inside him is unfortunately lost beneath a big green guy who speaks in monosyllables ("Hulk! Smash!") and Marvel's desires to prove that Hulk's story isn't a box office dud. If a great comic book movie is what you're looking for, go see "Iron Man" again while you wait for "The Dark Knight." 

"Signs" had its flaws, "The Village" had a twist too easily found out, and "Lady In The Water" missed its mark. Thus, it shouldn't come as too much of a shock that "The Happening," M. Night Shyamalan's latest wannabe thriller, proves that the director once hailed as the next Steven Spielberg has lost his touch. 

In an opening sequence worthy of an episode of "The Twilight Zone," the people in Central Park and the surrounding neighborhoods are struck by a strange and sudden epidemic that makes them freeze, stumble backwards, and then kill themselves by whatever means are at hand. Believing this to be a terrorist attack, officials order an evacuation of the city. High school science teacher Elliot Moore (Mark Wahlberg) grabs his wife Alma (Zooey Deschanel), his buddy Julian (John Leguizamo), and Julian's daughter Jess (Ashlyn Sanchez) and leaves the city on a train. The train soon "loses contact," stopping in a small town in Pennsylvania and leaving everyone to fend for themselves. The passengers and locals splinter into smaller groups as they try to outrun the compound that kills everyone in its path.

The jump to terrorism is too easy; the compound turns out to be a neurotoxin that blocks man's self-preservation instinct. However, it seems that if this was blocked, it would be more likely that people would begin to make unsafe decisions, such as driving without a seatbelt or eating something poisonous, that would result in a higher accidental death rate over time than killing themselves as soon as the instinct was inhibited. Unfortunately, Shyamalan is too busy throwing people off of buildings to address that question.

Pinned as the director of thrillers with a twist, Shyamalan has painted himself into a corner. The film's opening is intriguing and presents an interesting concept, just as most of Shyamalan's philosophically-charged pieces do. What would make so many people calmly kill themselves without reason? If only this quiet thriller was as elegant as some of his earlier works. Here, we are told what caused the epidemic early on in the film, releasing the tension elevated by confusion and allowing the remainder of the film to be an exercise in finding different ways to kill off characters. Perhaps "The Happening" is his way of getting back at those in Hollywood that thought him to be a golden child but abandoned him after his work grew stale, but the more likely explanation is that the film simply isn't good. 

"The Happening," bearing an R rating for bloody violence, marks Shyamalan's first departure from the PG-13 rating. Targeting those bloodthirsty male moviegoers, the director is free to dispose of his film's population in strange and uncensored ways. "The Happening" aims to shock but doesn't earn the right. A toxin that makes affected people suicidal is creepy enough on its own, and Shyamalan could have made a more effective film by leaving some of the deaths up to the audiences' imagination. I frequently found myself covering my eyes, not because the film was shocking, but because I simply did not feel the need to watch one man feed himself to lions and another plant himself in front of a running lawnmower. 

I wish I could say that "The Happening" was made at least partially watchable by the acting. Leading man Mark Wahlberg's Elliot is stilted and unnatural. Did the toxin invade the set and remove his acting capabilities? Too naive and childlike to be a leader, Elliot is not the man to save his fellow travelers. Wahlberg is not totally at fault for the character's ineffectiveness, however. The script given to him by Shyamalan is rough and frequently begs the question, "Who talks like that?" He is given one comic line that works, but overall Wahlberg's inherent charm is not enough to salvage the role. Zooey Deschanel, often quirky and undeniably cute, plays Alma as if she has just been woken up from a coma. She relies heavily on her big blue eyes  but doesn't carry enough emotion to make her character of dissatisfied wife believable. Gone are the days in which Shyamalan commanded strong performances from his actors. 

Most of the people the Moores encounter are crazy and odd in their own ways, making you doubt the toxin is the only thing in the air in the rural northeast. Elliot, Alma, and Jess are given a ride by an odd but friendly couple that own a plant nursery and pass up no opportunity to expound upon the virtues of hot dogs, and Betty Buckley appears as Mrs. Jones, the psychotic hermit who unwillingly offers the survivors a place to stay. Within thirty seconds of meeting her, it's no surprise that she lives alone.

Technically, "The Happening" is difficult to watch. The film feels unfinished and amateurish, not what is expected of a seasoned director like Shyamalan. By this point in his career, even if his stories are weak, his films should at least be assembled well. In this film, the camera is invasive, cutting to extreme close-ups of his characters' faces at every opportunity, a technique that would work well if his actors were showing any emotion. His desire to be on top of his actors results in choppy shot-reverse-shots that create an unsettling feeling of distance between the characters on screen. When Elliot questions the train conductors, they are never shown together, and the cuts back and forth make the dialogue feel mismatched. The horror is meant to be found in the shots of The Wind whistling through the trees, but that is as laughable as the bad dialogue and unpolished acting. 

In the wake of films of worldwide destruction and epidemic, audiences deserve a better film than "The Happening." The only scary thing about this paranoid thriller is how unintentionally humorous it turned out to be. With no trigger point or examples of how the human race should change, "The Happening" presents a thought-provoking concept that quickly becomes buried under an empty and wandering argument for environmentalism. Trying to be too philosophical for a summer action movie but being too laughable to be taken seriously, "The Happening" is one more nail in the coffin labeled "Shyamalan's Career." 

Ask almost anyone about “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull,” and the biggest question on his or her mind is most likely, “Is Indy really back?” Or perhaps, “Did George Lucas muck it up like he did ‘Star Wars?’” Fans of the archeologist and adventurer can rest assured, for together, screen giants George Lucas and Steven Speilberg have found the right balance of comedy, action, fantasy, and fun to create a film worthy of joining the “Indiana Jones” series. Sure, it’s a little silly, but that’s just the good doctor’s style.

It’s been nineteen years since Dr. Jones last appeared on the big screen, a fact that director Spielberg has taken into account and played up to his advantage. “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” opens with a car chase between a jeep full of soldiers and a convertible brimming with poodle-skirt- and letter jacket-wearing teens. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, it’s 1957, the age of the atomic bomb, the Red Scare, and little green men. Meanwhile, our beloved Indy is being pulled out of a Russian soldier’s trunk. The professor and his sidekick Mac have been brought in by Soviet officer Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett), a slender and striking figure dressed in fencing gear and armed with a rapier, to help them find a coveted object in a large warehouse labeled “Hangar 51.” Well, Spielberg’s gone and told us the ending already. Might as well enjoy the rest of the film for the popcorn movie it is. 

What Dr. Jones helps them to find is a magnetic entity that appears to be alien. A chase scene and action sequence ensues (the impossibility of which I will get to later), resulting in Indy’s expected escape. This is only the beginning. Mutt Williams (Shia LeBeouf), a stereotypical greaser in all the glory of the Fonz, contacts Indy with news from a mutual friend, Professor Oxley (John Hurt). It seems the dear old fellow has gone and gotten himself kidnapped while trying to hunt down the lost Crystal Skull of Akator. He has sent Mutt a map but it is written in a code only our beloved archaeologist can decipher. Mutt is afraid that his mother and Indy’s former flame Marion (Karen Allen reprising her role from “Raiders of the Lost Ark”) is in grave danger. Thus, Mutt convinces Indy to embark on another adventure to find the Crystal Skull and save Oxley and Marion. One small problem: they’re not the only ones after the mysterious artifact. Spalko wants to get her gloved hands on the skull in order to amass all the knowledge of the world, a power that she thinks will help her end the Cold War and prevent all future wars.

Ridiculous as the story is, “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” fails to disappoint. After submerging yourself in the Indiana Jones world, a magical place in which ancient objects possess hidden powers and an archaeology professor is able to defeat international armies with the crack of a whip, you are free to let the adventure wash over you. And wash over you it does.

In the first twenty minutes of the film, our hero swings into a truck, is involved in a high-speed chase in a warehouse, is blasted into the desert on a rocket, and is launched into the air in a fridge when an atomic bomb test detonates. Aside from being a little dusty, Dr. Jones is completely unscathed. This opening segment sets the pace for the rest of the film: it retains the energy and humor of the original trilogy, but “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” abandons story and plausibility (as much as one can expect from the series) in the interest of flashy action sequences. Since Spielberg is inherently against the over-use of special effects, I assume this decision was made in order to prove that Harrison Ford is not yet too old to play the adventurer. However, since Ford has never made a point of trying to act younger than he is and much of the film’s humor comes from Mutt’s referring to him as “old man,” the fourth installment seems a silly place to start. Nonetheless, this crusade for the Crystal Skull soon becomes an excuse to throw the characters into one over-the-top sequence after another. 

On that note, it’s no great surprise that the purpose and true power of the Crystal Skull remains largely a mystery. Sure, it opens doors, scares away giant ants, and frightens the natives, but Indy and company wouldn’t have been in those situations if not searching for the strange magnetic object. The first problem they must overcome is getting the skull before the enemy does. Over the two-hour length of the film, the skull switches hands, often being chucked like a football, just as often as Indy’s supposed comrade switches sides, and there is much cheesy dialogue to be had along the way. When Indy’s companions ask him how he knows that he must take the skull under a waterfall, he replies, “Because it told me.” After this line, we understand why The Ox is now a little more Kurtz than doting professor and that Indy himself might be approaching the same fate.

Given that he is working with a tongue-in-cheek script – please, Mr. Lucas, stop writing dialogue! – Mr. Ford succeeds in inviting the viewer back into Indy’s world. Years may have passed, but he is not yet done with this character. Sure, the archaeology is a little shaky in this film – our aging professor does little more than decipher code – but that doesn’t discount his ability to bring audiences back into his world. Karen Allen likewise invigorates the film with nostalgic charm. Her Marion Ravenwood recaptures the tomboyish charm and willingness to go on an adventure of her “Raiders” role. Unfortunately the characters are too busy rushing between action sequences that she and Indy are not given the chance to properly reconnect. Thrown into car chases and at one point, multiple waterfalls, the former couple quickly starts to bicker. When she finally shares an important piece of information about their relationship and her son with Indy, it is overwhelmed by flashy sequences and becomes another source for cheap laughs. 

Speaking of that little piece of information, though Mr. Labeouf’s Mutt Williams starts wooden, he proves his worth about halfway through the film and shows his skill with a blade. He even does gymnastics as one scene finds him swinging from vine to vine with monkeys in the jungle. And – spoiler alert! – just like dear old Dad, he’s got his own characteristic habit. As Indy has his hat, Mutt is armed with a comb, prepared to coif at any moment.

Ms. Blanchett’s Officer Spalko is delightfully campy. Channeling her Natasha of “Rocky and Bullwinkle,” Spalko more resembles a Bond villain than an Indy enemy. This is the first Indy film not to feature the Nazis as the enemy, and Blanchett appears to be having fun playing up every stereotype she can spear on her rapier. As great as her desire for the Crystal Skull is, Spalko appears happy to have come up against someone that is her equal. I wish I could say the same for the Russian army, for if “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” teaches the viewer anything, it’s that everyone in the Russian army is a really bad shot. Greatly outnumbered, Indy and his companions consistently make it through unharmed. 

In a conclusion worthy of Disney’s takeoff on historical adventure series “National Treasure,” Lucas’s influences on the space alien storyline and desire for heavy special effects shines through. After almost two hours of high-speed antics, the ending may disappoint audiences. However, no matter what the critics say, “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” will make bank from the box office to the inevitable DVD box set. For a summer blockbuster and sequel, “Indiana Jones” excites, entertains, and most importantly, rewards audiences for the 19-year wait. I just hope it’s not another two decades before we see him back on the big screen. As a final note, there are rumors flying that Spielberg has hinted at a fifth film with Labeouf in the lead, but as we can see from the final scene of “Crystal Skull,” Indy isn’t quite ready to surrender the hat.

Written by David Koepp; directed by Steven Spielberg; produced by Steven Spielberg and George Lucas; cinematography by Janusz Kaminski; production design by Larry Dias; editing by Michael Kahn. Running time: 123 minutes. Rated PG-13.

With: Harrison Ford, Karen Allen, Shia Lebeouf, Ray Winstone, John Hurt, Cate Blanchett, Jim Broadbent.

"Un Conte de Noel (A Christmas Tale)," Arnaud Desplechin's fourth run at the Palme d'Or, presents viewers with a dysfunctional family that puts all others to shame. Frequently shocking and at times over the heads of foreign audiences, "Un Conte de Noel" retains its honesty and humanity throughout, making it a triumph for Desplechin and his cast and a sure hit in France.

The Vuillard family has had a tough time of it. Through quick introduction, we are told that a son named Joseph fell ill with lymphoma at the age of 7. When no one in the family is found to be a compatible match for a bone marrow transplant, the family had a third child, Henri, in hopes of saving the second. Unfortunately, this boy was not a match either, and Joseph died. They had another son, Ivan, after the boy's death but Joseph's presence was always missed. Flash forward forty years to find the family estranged, Joseph’s death being the likely catalyst. When matriarch Junon is found to be suffering from the same disease that took Joseph’s life, she turns to her children as a last-ditch attempt to find a compatible donor and extend her life by a few years. 

Most of the film is spent in exposition as all of the characters' back-stories are explained and the audience is told why the relationships between these family members are so strained. First in line is depressed playwright Anne, surprisingly the only Vuillard in therapy. She despises her little brother Henri (Desplechin regular Mathieu Almaric) for his inability to take responsibility for himself and lead a stable life, or perhaps for his failure to save little Joseph all those years ago. Next in line is Ivan (Melvil Poupaud, France's answer to Matthew Fox), a man who tried to repair the damage caused him by his family by rushing into starting his own with wife Sylvia (Chiara Mastroianni). Heading up the family are Junon (Catherine Deneuve) and Abel (Jean-Paul Roussillon).

With so much information to deliver to the audience, Desplechin finds interesting ways of presenting it. The film, similar in style to Wes Anderson's "The Royal Tenenbaums," is separated into chapters to help guide the viewers through the backgrounds of the different characters. The introductory story about Joseph's death is told in shadow puppets, foregoing dull flashbacks and avoiding stretching the film's length any more than it already has been. At some points, characters break the fourth wall and speak directly to the camera documentary-style; Junon discusses her relationship with her children as though she was being interviewed on a talk show, and Henri reads his letter to Anne aloud to the audience.

Even with this mix of styles, it is hard to keep track of this entire cast of misfits. "Un Conte de Noel" comes in at 143 minutes, much longer than the usual ensemble dramedy or holiday family film. I frequently found myself wishing I could see more of some characters (especially Henri) instead of constantly jumping around the family, though there is something to be said for the scenes in which all of these characters interact. The ensemble plays well with and off of each other, and though such a talky production could quickly dissolve into intellectual navel-gazing, Desplechin keeps his script lively and entertaining. This is not to say that the characters’ outlook on life is particularly positive. By the end of the film, the general consensus seems to be, “Cancer’s a pain, but what does it matter anyway?”

Non-European audiences may have difficulty accepting the frankness of the script. I found it to be refreshingly honest. Though most families don't throw quite as many barbed comments at each other, I enjoyed these characters' ability and willingness to say exactly what was on his or her mind. After all, if you can't be honest with your family, with whom can you truly be honest? One element that may go over poorly with foreign audiences is Sylvia's extra-marital relationship. Her husband's reaction and her lack of shame are shocking and unconventional and may split the audience's final reactions.

Desplechin appears to have a bleak and hopeless worldview. The film takes place in the director's northern hometown of Roubaix, but his characters seem to live in a world without consequence. One thing that does remain certain, though not always treated with the most sensitivity, is Junon's terminal illness. The hope for a match from one of her children is a last-ditch attempt for Junon, who has already resigned herself to death. Help comes from the most unlikely source, and even though Junon is unhappy about it, one of her children will come to save her and in the process, save himself.

The character to which I could most easily identify is the patriarch Abel, who still believes in the conventional notion that family members should take care of one another and becomes determined to figure out Junon's odds of beating the disease. Anyone who has looked death in the face or has watched a family member die will understand his approach to Junon's fate. At one point, he says, "life and death are a game of playing odds," and those few tortured loved ones will be able to relate to his attempts to dehumanize the illness and find a logical and mathematical solution for what is impossible to solve.

"Un Conte de Noel" is a dialogue-heavy project that will either be loved or hated by viewers. The all-star cast and reputable director will bring it success in France and the rest of Europe, but American audiences will be hard to win over. The most surprising thing about this film to me was that somehow, this tale of family hatred, cancer and death turned out to be one of the most entertaining and uplifting films of the Cannes Film Festival.

Directed by Arnaud Desplechin; written by Arnaud Desplechin, Emmanuel Bourdieu; produced by Benoit Pilot. Running time: 143 minutes. Not yet rated.

With Catherine Deneuve, Mathieu Almaric, Elizabeth Cosigny, Melvil Poupaud, Jean-Paul Rousillon.

"Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" appears to be on a steady path to becoming the 2nd biggest Memorial Day opener of all time. The film took in $126 million over the four-day holiday weekend, putting it behind only "Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End." The third "Pirates" film made $139.8 million on this weekend last year. 

"Che" premiered Wednesday night at the Cannes Film Festival to mixed reviews. While some critics are claiming that it's back to the drawing board for director Steven Soderbergh, others say it's a shoe-in for the prestigious Palme d'Or. 

I was fortunate enough to get a ticket to the double premiere Wednesday, and must admit that I fall somewhere in between the two extremes. I am incredibly grateful to have gotten the opportunity to see the first cuts of both "The Argentine" and "Guerilla," which played back to back under the name "Che," but I don't think they are the strongest entries in the competition. 

Benicio del Toro will certainly gain some Oscar recognition come the next award season; he is not simply portraying the iconic Che Guevera, he has become Che Guevera. The dramatic thrust of the films, however, is where the project is currently lacking. The first film is incredibly slow; an hour in I found myself doubting my ability to stick out the remaining 3.5 hours. There's a pretty good shoot-out at the end of the first film, but it concludes on a strange scene that wraps up the fight but feels as if something (besides the next film) is to follow.

The second portion is completely different in tone and focuses more on visual aspects than dialogue. This was the stronger of the two pieces and served to make the first film worth it. Seeing the films back to back gives me a definite advantage. As the first film currently stands, if I saw it in theaters, I probably wouldn't make the effort to see the second one. However, despite being stories of different periods in Guevera's life and communicating different themes, these two films are meant to be shown together. 

It will be interesting to see who distributes the films in the United States (they are currently a product of Spain), and how they handle this monumental project. In the meantime, I suspect Soderbergh will be going back to the editing room to tie up a few loose ends and hopefully invigorate the first film with something that grips the viewer.

The wait is over. The hype has peaked. The movie is here. After a long, nearly two decade absence, “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” ushers back to the big screen a brand new adventure for whip-cracking archaeologist Indiana Jones.

A two decade wait is a long time, one in which over-exaggerated expectations and tremendously high excitement by fans has done nothing but make “Crystal Skull” a film which is destined to be seen as a disappointment by some Indy enthusiasts. The plot, the acting, the story, the ending- it all will come under the close scrutiny of fans who have been watching Dr. Jones scavenge the globe for missing artifacts since “Raiders of the Lost Ark” first appeared in 1981. The question every fan will be asking is was it as good as the other ones? And honestly, they should not be asking this question because there is virtually no way that this film could be as good as the three movies which defined the movie-going childhoods of so many millions of fans. To make that comparison to the older films is to wreck the fun, enthusiasm, and sheer joy of watching this new movie.

Far from perfect, “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” is an entertaining, over the top, often absurd piece of moviemaking magic which will be a cinematic joy to anyone who lets go of minor quibbles they may have with it based on how the older movies were made and presented. It is a fun romp which throws the audience scene after scene of visual eye candy, incredibly well-staged and paced action sequences, and deliciously devilish villains. It provides Harrison Ford with a chance to don the fedora once more and kick ass as Indiana Jones. “Crystal Skull” is also a glorious nostalgia trip through cinema history. The film contains numerous nods to the kinds of sci-fi B movies which populated the 1950s movie landscape and is filled with a plethora of references to the first three films which will make even the most hardened cynic of the film grin with delight. Watching the film, one obtains the realization once and for all that Lucas and Spielberg are two big kids whose films often deal with nothing more than telling a fun, crowd pleasing story which is steeped in the aesthetic of the films they grew up watching as kids.

The basic plot of the film repeats the same structure and style of the first three movies. It opens with a chase in search of a specific object, uses the middle portion of the film to set up the background of the place and/or artifact Indy and his sidekicks are trying to find, and closes with a creepy and mysterious ending in which the main villain meets an outlandish demise. “Crystal Skull” begins with Indy and his adventurer partner Mac (Ray Winstone) being kidnapped by Russian troops disguised as American soldiers. Taken to the crate-filled warehouse last seen at the end of “Raiders”, Indy is instructed by the beautiful, but cold Soviet Agent Irina Spalko to aid her in finding a box in the warehouse containing the corpse of a being discovered in the wreckage of the Roswell UFO crash of 1947 ( in the time since “Last Crusade”, Dr. Jones has become Colonel Jones, serving in World War II and working for the military on special projects, including Roswell, which is why he is of interest to Spalko). Following a spectacularly staged action sequence in the warehouse and a sequence involving a nuclear bomb testing, Indy finds himself back at Marshall College teaching archaeology only to be told by the dean of the school (Jim Broadbent) that he has been suspended due to suspicions of him willingly aiding the Communist Soviets. On his way out of town, Indy meets up with a young greaser straight out of “American Graffiti” named Mutt Williams (Shia LaBeouf). Mutt needs his help in a plot which involves the Crystal Skull of Akator (a mystical city of gold also known as El Dorado), a missing professor from Indy’s past who is obsessed with the city and the crystal skull named Oxley (John Hurt), and his kidnapped mother, who turns out to be Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen).

Eventually, we are told that if the missing crystal skull is returned to a temple in Akator, the temple’s