We are happy to report that Iron Man is exactly as fun and cool and action-packed-wonderful as we had hoped. Insider's tip: Stay past the closing credits to get the full Geek Experience.

A raspberry to you, Mr. Turan!

"Harold and Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay" is going up against "Baby Mama" this weekend. Both are scoring high on the Rotten Tomatoes poll scale. "Baby Mama" getting 89% and "Harold and Kumar" a noteworthy 78%.

Both candidates are qualified and competent comedies. They have both enlivened and energized those that are loyal to the genre. It'll be a nice competition between a guy with a foreign sounding name verses a super successful chick with crippling relationship issues.

It's an exciting race at the box office this weekend - either a minority or a woman will get top spot.

The winner is of course the American people - for once they have two good solid comedies to choose from. Yes We Can. Let the conversation begin!

Word on the street is that Baby Mama got made because she slept her way to the top and Harold and Kumar are elitists/secret Muslims. Check back here for updates.

Still it's so tough to decide which one we're going to pick! It's ridiculous! We think they should just be a double feature and be done with it. SIGH. Maybe by August, that'll be the case.

EDITOR'S NOTE: We of course, were going to really beat this metaphor to death and say that the old white male films debuting this weekend are "Rogue" and "Deal". But that would be cheap. Not that we're against cheap. It's just that we've become accustomed to denouncing it in public.

A clever spoof of Diablo Cody with spiffy dialog.

"My name means the devil in Spanish. Water is agua!"

Look at the shirt she's wearing.

My WORD - they predicted her Oscar and her DRESS!

Patricia Arquette couldn't do better.

Via FishbowlNY:

Two irrefutable truths have emerged from the premier of Superman Returns: 1. The new movie, like, totally rocks, and 2. Kate Bosworth is as personable as paste.

While fans (and even some reporters) cheered the likes of Dane Cook and Shaq at the Warner Bros. premier last week, the scary-skinny ingenue was met with near silence -- and she's Lois Lane!

Bosworth cocooned herself in a fortress of solitude and refused to talk to non-TV reporters, with the exception of one particularly tenacious scribe who said she was, well, "bitchy."

"She was cold and skinny and uncomfortable," another reporter told us. "And she looked like death."

Can Lois Lane be revived from a skinny bitchy death coma? Looks like a job for Superman!

Oh, wait...

Can you remember as far back as yesterday when Disney distribution guru Chuck Viane was scoffing off the idea that Car's $62 million and change opening was less than what the House That The Two Mikes Couldn't Quite Destroy were hoping. "As far as expectations go, we've all grown accustomed to hitting home runs, and in anyone's ball park $60 million is a home run," he would tell anyone who is interested.

Well it turns out that on Wall Street -- and maybe in San Diego's Petco Park where homeruns go to die -- Cars' opening was more of a dribbler past the mound, and with the DVD market as soft as a Carvel swirl, this could be a problem. Apparently when your company pays $7.4 billion to save their core business, the fella's back east hang a number on all your openings. And let me tell you, Mister Aloha Shirt, you better hit that number.

This is how Ron Grover in Business Week lays it out:

Short-sellers meanwhile had set a mythical $70 million opening as their "bogey," figuring Disney's stock would tank if Cars opened with less than that. And sure enough, Disney's stock fell by 1.5%, to $28.90, on June 12, the first trading day after the weekend. Well, chalk one up for the short-sellers. They got their one-day Disney swoon.

Now the rest of Wall Street has to ponder whether Disney Chief Executiver Bob Iger overpaid to get Pixar, and will be left picking up the pieces if upcoming Pixar flicks also "disappoint." It certainly didn't help that his predecessor, Michael Eisner, has publicly weighed in that Disney may have overpaid for Pixar. Pardon me if I don't immediately jump on the Dump Disney bandwagon for this one.

Spoken like someone who lives in Marin County and wears flip flops to work, like all the rest of those enlightened ones who are charged with saving that beloved Burbank institution. Grover hates on the panic mongers, pointing out that the investment was in executive and creative talent and content that can be spun six ways to Sunday.

What he doesnt mention, is that the scrutiny that Pixar is under is all encompassing and coming from everywhere not merely 'short sellers.' Not ideal working environment for the Pixar creative types who work and think outside the box, don't you think? Is that really worth giving up that luxury box at all those Giants games?

We're supremely amused by the frantic denials of any ubermensch gay-ness that "Superman Returns" director Bryan Singer has been issuing of late.

Today, Reuters offers this tidbit:

"After weeks of Internet buzzing that the new Superman movie portrays the Man of Steel as gay, the director of the film issued a strong denial on Friday and said it was the most heterosexual character he has filmed. Superman "is probably the most heterosexual character in any movie I've ever made," said Singer, director of "Superman Returns," a new movie about the crime-fighting superhero that opens June 28. "I don't think he's ever been gay."

The "most heterosexual character in any movie I've ever made"?(!)

Can we infer from this that Wolverine might enjoy a little antique-hunting on Fire Island? Or that Verbal Kint is more likely to hit the gym and then head over to Rage in West Hollywood for a few Mojito shooters?

The whole thing is so patently ridiculous, we lack the words for it.

This is the problem with the web: Rather than asking a more justifiable question ("Isn't "Superman" wildly overpriced at $250 million?) web conspiracy theorists want to equivocate being in the closet, with ducking into a phone booth.

And what if Superman was gay? It would explain a lot: Can't commit to Lois. The always-dashing-off-whenever-she wants to spend the night. ("The Barneys Winter Sa- er, a runaway train, Lois. Couldn't be helped!") It would make Clark Kent's secret life a far more empathetic than a pathetic one. But with a quarter billion on the line, Warner Bros. can't take the chance that Red State America might boycott the film.

Besides: Does anyone really think a gay Superman would be caught dead wearing red and blue together in this combination?

Of all the pieces that offer a look at Disney Pixar Animation's "Cars," perhaps none is as interesting at the International Herald Tribune's assessment:

"An animated fable about happy cars might have made sense before gas hit three bucks a gallon, but even an earlier sticker date couldn't shake the story's underlying creepiness, which comes down to the fact that there's nothing alive here - nada, zip. In this respect, the film can't help but bring to mind James Cameron's dystopian masterpiece "The Terminator," which hinges on the violent revolt of the machine world against its human masters. To watch McQueen and the other cars motor along the film's highways and byways without running into or over a single creature is to realize that, in his cheerful way, Lasseter has done Cameron one better: Instead of blowing the living world into smithereens, these machines have just gassed it with carbon monoxide."

We wonder aloud if "Cars" will suffer the same fate as Fox / Blue Sky's "Robots" - a good but not great movie that was so oddly bereft of organic living things that audiences somehow rebelled.

Surely, it'll be number one at the box office this weekend, but then what?

We're also a bit surprised to learn there isn't a hybrid in the movie, and that references to eco-friendly fuels made by George Carlin's character are largely relegated to stoner-hippie blather. Not that Pixar is necessarily a bunch of bed-wetting pinko Commies just because they're up in Northern California, but really: Has John Lasseter been so busy with "Cars" that he never got a chance to see "An Inconvenient Truth"?

What's surprising isn't the Chinese's decision to pull "The Da Vinci Code" out of theaters - it's the way they went about it.

For starters, the AP says that

"Chinese authorities said the withdrawal of the movie from theaters Friday was to make way for locally produced films, one industry executive said, declining to be named because she wasn't authorized to speak to the media on the matter."

Look, I've lived in China, and I can tell you: Opaque, if not utterly obscured rationales are the rule. No one ever really knows why something has happened, only that it has. Was it because of a beef the Vatican has with China over the government's decision to appoint bishops without papal approval? Maybe. It could be a sign of goodwill, since the Vatican loves the "Code" about as much as it loves the Pill.

In this case, the Chinese decision, however capricious, doesn't really much matter to Columbia's bottom line. Sony's already made $13 million from the "Code" and with piracy being what it is over there, they weren't going to make much more than that.

The real issue is what this act of vagarious pique will do to China's relationship with other studios looking to invest and explore the Chinese market. It may well be that to "get rich is glorious" as Deng Xiaoping once said, but the Chinese are clearly determined to remind the West that they'll have plenty to say about who'll do the getting.

We just finished the trifecta of Howard Stringer articles this week, and have to agree with Nikki Finke: They don't break a lot of new ground.

But after a windy piece in this week's New Yorker, Stringer today appears in the Wall Street Journal, defending "The Da Vinci Code." More, he actually says a few provacative things, even stepping on some toes in an apologia for the turgid Ron Howard movie despised by critics nationwide.

Viz,

"There is a school of thought that it's a singularly European movie inasmuch as there are foreign actors and the locations are foreign and the teenage audiences that watch American movies don't like to work really hard at a movie."

In other words, American teenagers aren't going to see "Code" because they're essentially lazy xenophobes. Funny that they haven't responded to Sir Howard's blandishments, non?