And my first impression was, to be quite honest, "too much." But I liked it deep down inside my morbid soul and, for some reason, I felt that airy whiff of trust fill my bones and finally decided I dig it entirely.

It's terrifying on one hand and captivating to boot. The internet campaign has begun and with it, the promise of knowing what the audience wants and, above all, knowing how to tease the shit out of them.

Summer 2007 is so tired. Bring on the next wave.

(By the way, I haven't scoured the net to see if there is a discussion on this topic anywhere, but did anyone else notice the "See you in December" mixed in with the Haha's at IBELIEVEINHARVEYDENTTOO.com, the site where this image originated before teasingly being removed? WTF??)

I loved the first one. Enjoyed the second one. And I'm sure I'll eventually see this one. Yet for the life of me, I can't motivate myself to do so.

Am I alone on this front?

To the point, Sam Raimi and company embarassed themselves. That's all I'm willing to even speak about "Spider-Man 3."

As for "Frost/Nixon," I can't share the enthusiasm of most viewers because it seems to quite clearly indicate itself as coming from the pen of a first-time playwright, but Peter Morgan does indeed put forth an actor's dream with this piece. Frank Langella is fantastic (if not quite as electrifying and captivating as Schreiber in "Talk Radio"), but I'm somewhat worried about how the performance will transfer to the screen. He looks nothing like the former president, but he has the voice and mannerisms down to a T and that makes a theatrical performance all the more enjoyable. But when it'll come to close-ups and such in the film world, I don't know if it'll pack the same punch.

I found Michael Sheen to be a touch better in the Frost role. He seemed to wear it like a glove and had charisma to spare. I'll definitely be looking forward to how he tackles it on the screen. But, with all this talk of the adaptation, I have to say I find this the wrong material for Ron Howard. But perhaps something will come of it.

To bring it full circle, Howard's daughter was absolutely GORGEOUS in "Spidey 3." Bombshell material. And wasted, both the actress and the role. A shame...

Hello again. Thought I'd pop in from the Big Apple to offer thoughts on the most dynamic stage performance I've seen in a long time: Liev Schreiber in "Talk Radio."

I caught the matinee this afternoon, and I was floored by how powerful this work was. We're all familiar with Bogosian's play, maybe you've seen Oliver Stone's attempt at a film adaptation, but I think the role of Barry Champlain might be owned, officially, by Mr. Schreiber. A Tony nomination is probably a given, but I hope he can stick it out against the Frank Langellas and Christopher Plummers to pull through a deserving win. I was captivated, and from the nosebleed balcony, no less.

I may try to catch "Frost/Nixon" while I'm out here, but I love the lingering effect "Talk Radio" is having right now. I don't want anything to overpower it.

...is instead one solid, enjoyable, yet uneven and overambitious effort.

"Spider-Man 3" is in no way a bad film. At its best, it is every bit as good as its predecessor in this series. Yet in his desire to cram many characters and subplots into the movie, Raimi is lacking what made the second installment in the franchise one of the best of this genre, and made the first as good as it was (poor scripting aside) - consistent joyousness.

I maintain this easily could have been fleshed out over two films - the new characters (Sandman, Venom, Gwen) all had so much potential I don't feel was totally realized. This is particularly the case for Venom, who was superbly played by Grace.

Nonetheless, I'm pleased for Maguire and Raimi. This is a fine, if somewhat disappointing, effort and this series has brought them enormous dividends - which are very well earned for both of them.

Stay tuned for a special off-season "Tech Support" on the film's sound.