And, in other comic news (I can't tear myself away), Batman Begins is supposed to be 1/2 origin story, including training, and the second half fighting villainous threat.

The above isn't significantly spoilery -- no characters named, just about how much of the movie is to be dedicated to origin.

eta: Gary OLDMAN is James Gordon? How did I miss that? They should switch him with Caine.

Boreanaz is in talks for the neferious Dr. Doom.

"So pouts DOOM!"

Now that I think about it, Shia LaBeuof has Jimmy Olsen written all over him.

And nifty news on the Bats movie. Although could be tricky to develop the villains with only half a movie, what with their being obscure to a mainstream audience (and hell, even I don't know who Ra's Al-Ghul is).

eta: Gary OLDMAN is James Gordon?

Really? How odd.

I figure they're thinking if they just paint him metallic, they won't need expensive prosthetics.

OK, I've tracked down internet rumors that the secret woods-dwellers in Shyamalan's The Village might be Indians, or alternately modern construction workers.

Please tell me the twist isn't that everyone's being menaced by The Village People.

That's very scary, Matt. More scary than the individual scenarios.

On the plus side, it would get me to not only be happy I paid my money, but also to drag other people back for repeat showings.

So, claiming I had errands to run before five, I skipped out of work twenty minutes early to see an afternoon matinee of Arthur. Sigh...I felt a little sorry for the actors and some of the lines they had to say. They weren't given much to work with that's for sure.

I don't think I care about it enough to actively dislike it, but it was the least of the Arthur movies. A big old meh. Worse than campy old MoA? It was so dour, it's hard to compare the two. Some beefs:

Don't you think the Saxons, over Britains, would know how to deal with crossing a frozen lake? Or and sure, one guy with an axe can cause the lake to break up when a couple of hundred Saxons walking in time can't.

There was no apparent reason for the loyalty to Arthur, beyond him being a good soldier. The story was set up so that he was aloof from the other knights and the filmmakers left him absent from the few scenes of camaraderie. Obviously it was deliberate, but to what purpose? To show that it was his leadership qualities? It wasn't working for me.

Little, tiny, ropey-armed Guinevere didn't look like she would have lasted a second in hand to hand if she hadn't been an above the title star.

Was that Brian Blessed as a Saxon extra? ye gods! Get that man some real work.

Lots of smoke seems like a lame way to stage a battle

Clive and Keira had almost no chemistry.

My god, why a perm on Clive? Why!?!?!? Clive in leather pants, however, mreow!

I apologize if this has been posted before...

...but Star Trek XI is going to be pre-TOS, about the first Human/Romulan war that led to the formation of the Federation.

Reportedly.

it was the least of the Arthur movies.

Worse than First Knight?

That's a lot of damnation.

But I'm seeing it tonight anyway.