I love Star Trek I loved the original series, I loved The Next Generation, loved it when they changed things up with Deep Space Nine, enjoyed Voyager, and paid no attention whatsoever to Enterprise. The films were a mixed bag, from brilliant science fiction to abysmal efforts created solely for the purpose of extracting money from die-hard Trek fans. This film is definitely not the latter.

With each Trek film I looked forward to it with fear and trepidation. We knew long ago that this was going to take the characters we love and give us a prequel to the series, but how do you successfully replace William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelly, James Doohan, Nichelle Nichols, George Takei, and Walter Koenig? If you're J.J. Abrams you hire Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Karl Urban, Simon Pegg, Zoe Saldana, John Cho and Anton Yelchin. These newcomers slip into their predecessor's roles almost seamlessly. In some cases the resemblances are uncanny.

The new film gets us off to a very emotional start as we see James T. Kirk's father saving the lives of many hundreds of his crew mates at the very same moment that the baby James is being born. The young Kirk turns into a rough and ready rebel, drinking hard, playing hard and fighting hard. We see a young Spock on Vulcan being tormented by his school mates for being half human. This eventually leads to the most inventive use of "Live long and prosper" ever captured on film or video tape.

Bruce Greenwood, far too often cast as a heavy, plays Christopher Pike the commanding officer of the Enterprise. He meet with the young Kirk and encourages him to follow in his father's footsteps which eventually he does, taking his hell-raising ways to Starfleet Academy, and setting up the all the required meetings to get The Crew together.

The action is fast and exciting, the story much better than recent Trek films, but also with some glaring plot problems that, if they had been conquered, would have pushed this into Wrath of Khan quality territory. Unfortunately while it is quite possible to suspend disbelief for the duration of the film, mostly due to it's fast and furious pace, those plot problems come back to haunt you when reflecting on the movie.

The performances are really quite brilliant all around. Zachary Quinto is Spock, there is never any question. Chris Pine does well with his portrayal of Kirk, resurrecting many of the mannerisms, but discarding the delivery. Karl Urban looks so much like a young Dr. McCoy that you might have trouble distinguishing the two. The backstory of why he has joined Starfleet is quite entertaining. Everyone else does very well.

While, upon further review, the story fails, I still would place this film high on the list of Trek films. Because of the ingenious manner of resetting the story, it is possible that we will see some very good films in the future. Of course, it's also possible that this will be viewed as an excuse to regularly milk money from the new generation of Trek fans.

I hope that the next installment is of the quality of Khan. That would be totally awesome.

Friday night Jennifer, Travis and I went to see Quantum of Solace. We had been looking forward to it ever since the excellent series restart in Daniel Craig's first Bond film Casino Royale. We came away mostly disappointed from what may well be the worst Bond film ever. While it may be the worst Bond film ever, if viewed without the Bond lens, it does succeed on some levels as a film.

When describing James Bond, there are all sort of adjectives that can be used, but I usually think along the following lines, suave, debonair and witty. This Bond is none of those things. In fact, during the one brief love scene (which barely qualifies as such) my son asked me, "Dad why did she put out for him?" Granted this Bond is troubled by the loss of his lady-love in Casino. But Bond does not feel right when completely driven by vengeance. He needs something more to be Bond.

There is no wit, there is no charm, there is simply a very good looking man killing his way across the globe in search of some sort of justice in the death of Vespyr, the woman he loved. In addition to the lack of wit or charm there is a decided lack of any of the cool or exciting gadgets we're used to seeing in the Bond universe. Their use was very limited in Casino but we did get to see some of the neat tricks the Aston Martin had available. In this outing we're deprived of even that little bit of gadgetry wow-factor.

On a positive note Judi Dench's M gets a bit more valuable screen time in this installment of the series. She is a marvelous actress and does a great job of bringing Bond's boss to life. Her no-nonsense toughness, plus evident caring for Bond are the one bright point in what is a colossal failure as a Bond film. A Bond film far worse than any outing Roger Moore ever participated in.

If you can remove the "Bond Lens" and watch Quantum solely as an action film with a disposable hero, it is really quite successful. The action sequences are well done and exciting, including one scene in an airplane that is quite the nail-biter. Watching Daniel Craig, beat, thrash and kill his way around the world is an entertaining diversion, but one which requires you to complete forget the character Craig played in Casino.

Paramount started releasing some pictures from the new J. J. Abrams helmed Star Trek film. This is the film that is going to be a "reset" of the series going back to when the crew of The Original Series was very young.

I'm a big fan of all the Trek's but Enterprise. I've stuck with it through some really really horrible film versions. I have big hopes for this film hopefully they can bring it back to level of excitement that it deserves instead of the "ho-hum" many of the films have produced.

I'm also hoping these pictures will breathe some life back into my investment in the film at the Hollywood Stock Exchange It's fun game, you should check it out, though my portfolio there tanking at the same time the Dow was tanking was a bit surreal.

Via: The "Looking Closer" Journal

Linda Litzke, employee of the Hardbodies Gym, needs several cosmetic surgeries, Osborne Cox, recently of the Central Intelligence Agency, needs a way to make some money. Harry Pfarrer, Treasury Agent, needs more women than your average male. Katie Cox, wife of Osborne, needs Harry Pfarrer. Ted Treffon, manager of Hardbodies Gym, needs Linda Litzke. Lastly, Chad Feldheimer, trainer at Hardbodies Gym, needs...well he needs a haircut and hydration.

Burn After Reading is not the Coen brothers best film, however, it is an amazingly entertaining, quirky diversion, and far better than most of what is available on the big screen. Written and directed by Joel and Ethan Coen it is as quirky, offbeat and sometimes dark as many of their other films. There is no message here, nothing deep and thought provoking, just the Coen's supported by a fabulous cast having a wonderfully good time being mostly silly.

Osborne Cox (John Malkovich) quits his job after finding out from his witless boss (David Rasche) that he is being re-assigned to a far less important part of the agency. The bow-tie wearing, perfectly pronouncing, effeteness of the man is set in contrast to his ability to use the word "fuck" with almost Joe Peschi fluency, and a burning rage that moves from simmer to boil. Deciding to write his memoir (a word he pronounces so perfectly that many people can't understand him), as a bit of vengeance against his former employer, and a way to earn some money, he sets one of the pieces of the complex machine into motion.

Katie Cox (Tilda Swinton) wants the philandering Harry Pfarrer (George Clooney) and uses her husband's quitting his job as an excuse to start investigating divorce proceedings. This sets a second cog in the machine in motion.

When a CD containing what appears to be highly classified "stuff" is discovered on the floor at Hardbodies, Linda (Frances McDormand) and the vacuous Chad (Brad Pitt), set another piece of machinery into action when they attempt to be good samaritans and return, for a reward of course, the "stuff" to it's rightful owner.

Once all the pieces of this machine are in motion, it behaves like one of those children's wind up cars, spinning all over the floor in all sorts of interesting directions. It's a story that is never dull, often pushes the edges of of credence, but is held together by the sheer willpower and willingness of the cast to chew up as much scenery as possible and act like complete buffoons. The buffoonery is heightened by the fact that two of Hollywood's leading men, both with appearances on People Magazine's Sexiest Men lists, are so sure of themselves that they are willing to act like complete imbeciles. I can't imagine that there are too many actors confident enough that they would be willing to take on the task, especially Pitt's appallingly bad haircut.

Along the way we get to meet the manager of hard bodies, very nicely played by Richard Jenkins, J.K. Simmons (recently seen in the fabulous Juno) has an all-too-brief, but wonderfully entertaining turn as David Rasche's boss at the CIA.

Definitely well worth seeing.

Jeffrey Overstreet has a new column appearing at Christianity Today Movies. Now before you go dismissing it because he's a Christian, please keep this in mind. If more Christians were like Jeffrey more people would pay attention to Christians and not completely write them off as having nothing useful to add to the discussion.

His new column, "Through a Screen Darkly" is an extension of of his book by the same name. It is a column that will allow him to explore the themes he started exploring with the book.

Whether you share his core beliefs or not, I encourage you to go check out what he has to say about the Russian film The Island, and the service, Film Movement, who are bringing some exceptional foreign films to this country.

Last night Travis, William, Kellan, Jennifer and I watched the extended edition of The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. I can't count the number of times I've watched it, but it was a first for the little boys. They'd seen part of it but not all of it. I generally glean something new from it each time I watch it, but last night it raised the following question for me.

"What kind of friend am I?"

We don't really know the back-story on the friendship of Sam, Merry, Pippin and Frodo (at least from the film. It's been so long since my last read of the books that I don't remember if it is delved into more deeply there). Regardless of back-story, it is evident that Frodo has engendered a special kind of loyalty from his friends--even the two party-dudes, Merry and Pippin. At the end of the film when Merry and Pippin see Frodo and then cause a distraction to aid in his escape to the river, they are risking their lives to help their friend. And then of course there's Sam, the most faithful and true friend someone could have, he doesn't just risk his life, he goes on to what is almost guaranteed certain doom to aid his friend in his quest.

So I come back to the question "What kind of friend am I?" Am I the kind of friend that engenders the kinds of sacrificial loyalty in his friends? Am I the kind of friend who would be as sacrificial as Merry, Pippin or Sam? If I'm not, what do I need to do to become that type of friend?

I ask the same questions for my boys. What types of traits do I need to encourage in them as they grow into man-hood to help them become those sorts of friends.

It has certainly given me something to think about.

My friend, co-worker and Dungeon Master, Transluscent has been working on a plugin for Vista Media Center called Open Media Library This is an open source effort that allows users to have great control over playing and managing their media libraries using Vista Media Center and Media Center Extenders (such as the XBox 360).

While I don't own a Windows machine, I have been watching the team's work, and think their interface is one of the coolest things I've seen in a long time.

If you have an interest in such things go download one of their builds (they are releasing nightlies) and join in the discussion on their forums.

Some people are huge fans of the Coen brothers. I'm not. I enjoyed Fargo very much, and thought that O Brother Where Art Thou was brilliant. The rest have not done much for me, that is until No Country For Old Men.

I've never read anything by Cormac McCarthy. Many many people have encouraged me to, but I've simply never gotten around to it, so I went into the film knowing one thing and only one thing, the people who had seen it loved it. Add me to the list of fans. The film is an amazing piece of work and the three leads all fit their roles wonderfully.

Tommy Lee Jones is Sheriff Ed Tom Bell. A better pick could not have been made for the aging sheriff watching the world change out from under him. He finds himself attempting to protect the none-to-bright Llewelyn Moss, played by Josh Brolin, after Moss finds and decides to keep a briefcase full of money from a drug deal gone sour. One of the gangs wants their money back and they send Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem) to get it back.

Chigurh is one of the most cold-blooded killers to be found in film. A man who usually kills without having to think about it, and when he does have to think about it, uses a coin flip to decide his course of action, thereby absolving himself of the consequences of his actions, as if the image of George Washington on the quarter has told him what he must do. His ruthless pursuit of Moss is frightening, and very Terminatorish, though it's more frightening due to the fact that he is on some level a human being who believes that other human beings are little more than cattle to be led to the slaughter.

The Sheriff is tired, tired of seeing the world he knows deteriorate, tired of all the changes going on around him, tired of fighting a losing battle against the bad guys. Even though he's tired, he saddles up and does his best to help someone who has made one of the more foolish decisions in their life.

Moss, the tough veteran, thinks he's found a short-cut to taking care of his wife Carla Jean (Kelly Macdonald), and getting out of the double-wide he calls home. Unfortunately for him, he's stolen from the wrong bad guys and ends up on the run, trying to stay alive.

McCarthy's and by extension the Coen's West is a forbidding place. A place where even as late as the 80s men live and die by how quickly they can draw their guns, and how quickly they can get their sights on target and pull the trigger. This is not a place for the faint of heart. It's bloody and the good guys don't always win.

If you haven't seen it already, go see it before it ends it's run.

Jodie Foster has long been one of my favourite actresses. Even in some of her lamer films, she always manages to hold her own, and perform with grace and poise. Ever since I saw Hustle & Flow, Terrence Howard has been at the top of my "must watch" list. The man has serious game (if you haven't seen his portrayal of the small time Memphis pimp who is a wannabe rap star, you need to see it). When Foster and Howard teamed up for Neil Jordan's The Brave One I knew I would eventually see it. Add to that that the film touches on the question of "what is justice?" and I knew I had to see it.

Neil Jordan who may be best known for the super surprise ending at the end of 1992's The Crying Game, does an excellent job of getting good performances from both Foster and and Howard. They're not spectacular, but they are very good. The interplay between the two of them almost always works very well in what is essentially a two-person film. In fact there are vast quantities of the film where Foster or Howard seem to be the only person on screen.

Erica Bain is a radio personality in New York city (a fitting role for Foster who has a fabulous voice), she has a great job, fabulous relationship with her fiance, David (Naveen Andrews), supportive friends and a great dog. Of course that is far too good a situation to last, what fun would a movie be about a woman who's biggest problem is picking out the correct wedding invitations? One evening while walking the dog, Erica and David are brutally attacked, David is killed and Erica horribly hurt. In those few moments, not only does Erica's life change, she changes. She becomes someone different.

Terrified to walk the streets again, she buys a gun, and then starts using it. The central theme of the film is "What is justice?" Erica starts dishing out her version of justice. She doesn't go looking for it. Except in one specific case her victims come to her. Detective Mercer starts investigating these crimes, and ends up becoming friends with Erica. The good detective has his own sense of justice, and that differs from Erica's. Of course his suspicions grow about who the killer is, and there is a final confrontation. The way that confrontation plays out is the weakest part of the film for me.

I'm sure police officers everywhere are often frustrated that they are hampered by the rules. I, for one am glad those rules exist, yes they make the work of catching the bad guys more difficult, but they also make it more difficult for for someone to be falsely or incorrectly accused of a crime. I dread to think about the state of things should our administration be successful in eliminating some of those rules that they believe make their lives too difficult. I also get a great sense of satisfaction at seeing an ordinary citizen circumventing the rules and dealing justice. I'm not sure how those two thought processes co-exist in the same mind without creating some sort of mental meltdown, but they do.

This film grapples well with the issue, how does a cop with one sense of justice deal with a vigilante with another sense of justice, especially since given the circumstances around each act of vigilantism, it is clear that justice has been served. Equally interesting is the emotional toll this behaviour takes on Erica. She's not the jubilant vigilante, relishing the kill, rejoicing in removing one more scum dwelling bottom feeder from the face of the earth. She's the puking, unable to clean the stench of murder off her body type of vigilante, knowing the exact price she has exacted from each of her victims. She is painfully, heart-wrenchingly aware of exactly what she is doing, and it haunts her.

The film is dark, not just in tone, but visually too. That is because most of the action happens at night, and even when it's daylight, all of the shades in Erica's apartment are perpetually drawn. The opening brutality is very brutal, painfully so, there were several cringe inducing, make it stop please moments, but it was required to set the stage for Erica's transformation. After that opening sequence I was surprised at how the rest of the violence in the film was significantly toned down. It's a visual clue that the violence perpetrated by Erica is not as bad as the violence perpetrated by the thugs at the beginning of the film.

The ending is wrapped too neatly for a subject that is so very messy, but this was definitely one of the more thoughtful films I've seen on the subject of vigilantism. Definitely worth seeing.

In September of 2002, Fox Broadcasting did something special. They aired a new television show called Firefly. It was so special that I never ever saw it. It was so special that Fox canceled it after airing only 11 of the 14 episodes that had been filmed. It was also so special that Joss Whedon, the cast, and the fans were unwilling to let it go. While Fox didn't pick the series back up like some networks have done with canceled shows, a completely different media company, Universal, was willing to put up the money for a feature film based on the show.

I first became aware of the show Firefly when the film Serenity started making my life "interesting" at work in April of 2005. As some of you know, I work for a company that tracks box office grosses for the film industry. Universal ran several special screening for Serenity in May and June of 2005, and those special screenings had special reporting requirements. I couldn't figure out why this film could possibly require or inspire all this pre-release hype. So after dealing with planning for a week or so, I finally decided I had to find out what the big deal about this movie was. I did some research and found out that it wasn't a film about recovery at all, it was a science fiction movie based on a canceled TV show. I was intrigued. Immediately I started reading up on the TV show, and what I read was amazing. I visited Amazon, and ordered the Firefly DVDs sight unseen, purely because of the quality of the reviews.

When the DVDs arrived my wife, my oldest son and I sat down and watched them, and were completely blown away. It had been a long time since we had seen anything so compelling. It was one of those situations where we didn't want to play the last episode, because then it would be done, and we would miss it in our lives. Fortunately we had the film to look forward to.

We saw the film opening weekend, and while not as taken with the film as we were with the TV show, it still stood head-and-shoulders above much of what is available in movie theaters. I have two major gripes with the film. The first is that the dialog in the series had a rhythm, a patter, a style. If you've seen the early seasons of The Gilmore Girls you get the idea. The dialog was instantly recognizable, it was...shiny. My other gripe was that this large cast felt like family on the series, in the film, a couple of characters end up being barely there. I felt this was a bit of a blow.

A month ago, Universal released a two disk DVD set called Serenity: Collectors Edition. I could hardly wait to get mine in my hot little hands. The first thing you notice about this set is just how cool the packaging is. It's the coolest DVD packaging I have seen. Cool packaging aside, the important thing is the content, are the two disks worth the price? This morning, I completed watching everything on the two disks. The first disk contains everything the original DVD does, plus a few other items, the most noteworthy of which, to me, is the new commentary track featuring Joss Whedon (writer and director), Nathan Fillion (Mal), Adam Baldwin (Jayne), Summer Glau (River), and Ron Glass (Shepherd Book). Listening to these five enjoy each other's company while talking about the movie was was not necessarily enlightening about the film making process, but definitely a lot of fun.

The second disk contains many different special features, all of them interesting, though some of them do feature some repetitive footage. Once again there's one standout feature though: "Session 416" which gives us a bit of a glimpse into what happened to River once the Alliance started mucking about inside her head. It's quite chilling to watch her transformation from happy young girl to something menacing, and scary.

If you own the first DVD, and are not a huge fan, you might want to take a pass on this edition. If you are a huge fan, this edition is worth the price even if you have the original DVD. If you've never seen Firefly or Serenity you owe it to yourself to do so. The series is some of the finest television ever created, and the movie, while not on a par with the series, is still very very good.

"I've been standing on one leg for three long years, waiting for God to do me a favor, and he ain't listening." With that Dan Evans (Christian Bale), the crippled rancher, sets out to do himself and his family the favor that God, aided by a greedy land owner, has failed to do.

3:10 to Yuma is the latest film from director James Mangold (Walk the Line). It is a remake and re-imagining of the 1957 film of the same name. Dan Evans is the down-on-his luck, small-time rancher trying to survive through difficult times. Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) is the charismatic gang leader, and gunfighter who doesn't have a heart of gold, but may have a conscience. Rancher and gunfighter cross paths during a stage coach robbery, and then again, more permanently after Wade dallies with a barmaid instead of getting the hell out of Dodge, errr, Bisbee.

What do you do with a famous gunslinger, who has a gang of ruthless and completely amoral sycophants that will do anything to rescue him? You send him to a federal prison aboard the train. The train to Yuma which leaves the town of Contention at 3:10pm three days hence. How do you get him to the train? You ask for volunteers, and then, when there are not enough volunteers you cough up a large sum of money for the successful completion of the task. With those details worked out, Evans, the railway man, Grayson Butterfield (Dallas Roberts), the naive, but willing to help Doc Potter (Alan Tudyk), and the crusty, and violent Pinkerton man, Byron McElroy (Peter Fonda) set out to make sure the job is finished. None of them are aware that Evan's eldest son, William, a young man just starting to find his own identity, who fears that his father is not the man he would wish his father to be, has tagged along.

One of the continuing themes throughout this film is "What is the price of a man?" Does Evans have a price? Can he be bought off? Does Wade have a price? As the story unfolds it becomes apparent that Evans doesn't just need the money the railroad has promised him. He needs to complete this job, because somehow it will complete him, validate him. We also learn that Wade may still have a conscience.

The climax of the film is a well-staged gun battle between Evans and Wade's gang, led by feral Charlie Prince (Ben Foster), Evans trying desperately to get Wade to the train station, Prince and the gang trying desperately to stop them.

Mangold gets fine performances out of his cast, Christian Bale always appears somewhat stoic, and as the crippled rancher Evans he uses that stoicism to good effect. I have a feeling I would really despise Russell Crowe were I to meet him. However, he regularly turns in above average performances. This one is no exception. He brilliantly captures the wicked, charismatic master criminal. Ben Foster as Charlie Prince is truly scary, he manages to go the entire film with a maniacal look in his eyes that is completely believable.

When I was growing up I loved westerns, I loved my good-guys in white hats, and my bad-guys in black hats, and no ambiguity. As I've matured, I much prefer shades of gray, and texture to abound. This film accomplishes that very well. It provides us with characters who are believable, and recognizable.

My biggest problem with this film is the ending. To me it seems a bit of a cliche, and yet, it may not be, it depends on how you choose to view it, and I've waffled several times on it, but I'm going to come down on the side of cliche that is slightly redeemed by the final frame.

That minor criticism aside, I don't think we've seen a western this good since Unforgiven.

Saturday, after a fabulous Thai dinner at Thanh Thao on SE Hawthorne, A friend and I saw Superbad (special thanks to Bob who was willing to dig up showtimes for me when I couldn't get them on my Blackberry), the newest film from Judd Apatow's (Knocked Up, The 40 Year Old Virgin) production company. I must confess that I have seen neither of those films though I was a huge fan of his short-lived but fantastic television series, Freaks and Geeks.

First things first, I have not laughed so hard at a movie in ages, laughter that goes from quiet snickers to great gales of very loud guffaws. This movie is hilarious, however that hilarity comes with a price, you have to be willing to put up with more penis jokes and references than you have likely ever heard or seen in one place at one time. In addition to the copious penis jokes (both verbal and sight gags), there are an almost equal number of jokes about female genitalia and sex in general. I suppose it's to be expected as almost the entire film takes place in one day, as two high school seniors, Evan (Michael Cera) and Seth (Jonah Hill), attempt to get laid.

So is Superbad just an incredibly juvenile excuse for penis, vagina and sex jokes? i don't think so. Beneath it all, it still manages to somehow be--the only word I think fits is--sweet. It's all about the adventures of two mostly misfits who spend lots of time talking about sex, and girls, but never actually socializing with girls. Evan has his eye set on the adorable Becca (Martha MacIsaac) to whom he has actually managed to be brave enough to loan a pen. Seth sets his sights on the beautiful Jules (Emma Stone) with whom he shares a dream lesson in Home Ec, and who wants him to hook her up with some liquor for a party she's throwing.

Apparently liquor is the price of coolness, and to get the liquor Evan and Seth have to enlist the aid of their friend Fogell (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) who is even geekier than they are, but who also has fake ID under the one-name-only moniker McLovin. During the big buy the friends get separated, and the story splits into two story lines. One follows Seth and Evan, the other follows McLovin, and the exploits of two of the funniest and most ridiculous police officers ever filmed. Bill Hader plays Officer Slater, the older and wiser (yeah right) veteran. Seth Rogan, who also shares a writing credit, plays Officer Michaels.

While Officers Slater and Michaels are complete buffoons, they're completely lovable, and absolutely hilarious. Their interactions with McLovin are some of the funniest in the movie. Hearing a uniformed police officer hear a siren and go "Oh Shit! The cops!" is priceless.

Eventually the boys and the liquor make it to the party, and some things happen and some things don't happen, and everyone learns a little something about themselves and their relationships, not just with members of the fairer sex, but with each other.

This film will never win any acting or directing awards, nor writing awards, unless they give an award for most uses per minute of the word "fuck" (186 times in a 114 minute film). That doesn't matter to me, behind the language and the penis jokes, this movie has heart, and characters that you actually end up caring about, and there are films with far less juvenile humour, that take themselves far more seriously, that can't accomplish that.

Robert Downey, Jr. has long been one of my favourite actors. When it comes to acting, the man has serious game. I firmly believe his stint on Ally McBeal was some of the best acting television has ever seen. I sincerely hope he's been able to get those inner demons of his under control because he has far too much talent to allow it to go to waste, and too much talent to deprive the rest of the world of the privilege of seeing him work.

There are far too many awful movies based on comic books. There are some exceptions, the Spider-Man trilogy, the first two X-Men films (the third was a travesty), the first couple of Batman films, and then Batman Begins. Unfortunately the good ones are far outweighed by the bad, Elektra anyone? The Punisher is a great character, how could anyone think that the movies they've made were good ideas? How about the abysmal Fantastic Four films (not even the drool factor of Jessica Alba in spandex could save those films!)

I've never been an Iron Man fan, in fact, I don't think I have an Iron Man comic book in my collection, however, Robert Downey, Jr. is playing Tony Stark in the Iron Man movie that will be released next May, and that starts to peak my interest. Paramount just released the First Trailer for the film, and after seeing I have high hopes.

The Postal Service delivered my highly anticipated Serenity: Collectors Edition yesterday. I hope to watch some of it with Travis tonight. The first impressions are good though. The packaging is the best I've ever seen for any sort of DVD set. It looks like a box, but isn't and has to be seen to be believed.

I don't think Serenity was quite as good as Firefly the television show on which it was based, but that still puts it leaps and bounds beyond most movies.

I'll let you know about the content as soon as I've seen it.