“The best? No way,” I said. “Good, yes, but the best ever?”

“Well, it’s at least in the top ten,” he replied.

So maybe this really is a guy thing, because I cannot for the life of me see how The Dark Knight could be considered one of the best films ever made, as good as it was for what it was.

Surely, classics such as Citizen Kane or Gone With the Wind haven’t been forgotten? Or, if you are into things of a more sci-fi nature, how about the prodigious effort resulting in the Lord of the Rings trilogy? Or the original Star Wars? 2001? Blade Runner?

Granted, we haven’t quite had a serious film about a superhero that might be elevated to art, but I’ll say that The Matrix, with its post-modern superhero Neo, could certainly fit that bill.

When I saw The Matrix for the first time, I was absolutely blown away. It was not only technically brilliant and innovative, but it set a mood and tone that really messed with your head. You walked out of The Matrix questioning the very nature of your conscious reality. And you were entertained to boot.

The Matrix made me reevaluate my relationship to the world. It reminded me that the world is really just a temporary illusion, a brief stopping point in the eternity beyond.

In comparison to that feeling, my feelings upon leaving The Dark Knight were, “That was really good, but I doubt I’ll ever want to see it again.”

The Dark Knight was not brilliant or innovative. It was simply well-executed. It was an almost flawless action movie. But it was not deep, nor was it original.

So, as much as The Dark Knight has blown away the box office, I am going to make the bold prediction here that it is not going to become a classic that changes the way we see cinema in the way The Matrix did. Spider-Man, as you recall, also gets huge box office, but it will be seen as cheesy and dated in 20 years. Box office success does not necessarily mean lasting cultural impact.

Of course, The Dark Knight is anything but cheesy. It is filled with terrific action scenes and great performances. If anything, it will be remembered for Heath Ledger’s brilliant, tragic performance, so poignant now that we know that the emotional toll the role took on him played a part in his death. But beyond the great action and fast plotting, what does The Dark Knight give us that will stick in our minds later?

Hey, I think it’s great when a truck flips upside down from front to back, but if you’ve seen it once, you’ve seen it.

I recently saw No Country for Old Men, and while I’m not a fan of that kind of violence, nor do I go out of my way to watch Coen Brothers movies, No Country for Old Men was brilliant. I’ll remember it. It said something meaningful about the human condition.

The Dark Knight, in contrast, tries to be deep and meaningful, but cannot escape its comic book roots. “Gotham needs a hero,” Batman tells us. And yet, for all the apparent philosophical pondering on the surface, The Dark Knight is so busy piling on the plotlines and action that it loses its heart. The Joker is simply insane; Batman is typically stoic; our heroine is good and beautiful in the most generic way. Most disconcerting: Two-Face makes his dramatic shift without much real character development to back it up.

In fact, the only hint of heart and soul I found in the whole film was the scene involving the large black convict on the boat – you’ll know what I’m talking about if you’ve seen the film already.

I was also greatly disappointed in the setting and cinematography. While I understand the trend lately is towards realism in sci-fi (Battlestar Galactica), I found Gotham to be flat and boring. I must admit I enjoyed Tim Burton’s retro-futuristic Gotham’s much better. While I didn’t expect that type of over-the-top Gotham here, I just wanted something more…dark. The entire film was too bright for a film called The Dark Knight. (I did think the final hospital explosion was well-done, however.)

This type of overdone realism in sci-fi will become out of vogue at some point, and the film will show its age later because of it. Mark my words.

As for the cast (beyond Heath Ledger): Super hottie Christian Bale makes a terrific Batman, except for his “Batman voice,” but he did not have much opportunity to shine here. Harvey Dent took up more focus. Maggie Gyllenhaal is a better actress than Katie Holmes, but the lighting on her made her look absolutely awful. With that, I just couldn’t buy that two hot men were so in love with her based on her bland personality and puffy face. (It’s not that I need her to be a supermodel. She just looked tired to me.)

On a more positive note, I’m always delighted to see Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman in just about anything. These two truly gave the film some sparkle that was otherwise missing in our overly serious main characters. Gary Oldman is another favorite of mine, even with that horrible bushy mustache.

All in all, I’d give The Dark Knight an 8 out of 10 for its fast plotting, great action, and fantastic performances by Oldman and Ledger. But a classic? No, not quite.

I will make an effort to see the next Pirates of the Caribbean in the theaters, though. Love that Johnny Depp. Oh, and Orlando Bloom. Yum. I’ll take one or both of them over Toby McGuire any day of the week!

I loved this and I hated it; hated it because Hugo Weaving’s voice behind a creepy-looking mask gets kind of annoying at times. This is not his fault; it’s the ridiculous comic-book dialogue he is forced to speak. Portman does a fine job as the female protagonist, but the semi love story that evolves here still doesn’t feel quite right.

I loved the ending; it was surprisingly inspiring, and overall the film had an important point to make about governments gone bad. I give this one a B.

I finally got around to seeing Superman Returns. It became a rental, instead of an in-theater must-see, due to the lukewarm reception. I actually liked it better than I expected (I kind of wish I had seen in the theater), but it had its problems, as everyone else has already stated.

First, I must comment on the casting of Lois Lane. I realize others have before me. I know that Kate’s young age did not go over very well to others. Well, it did not work for me either. Note to casting directors: It is one thing to have a young, childless Lois Lane played by a 22-year-old. It is quite another to have Lois Lane, mother of a 5-year-old son, played by a 22-year-old. Get real! Lois should be around 30 years old, not 20!

But even if Kate were 10 years older, that would not have helped. Margot Kidder played a terrific Lois Lane. Teri Hatcher played a terrific Lois Lane. Kate Bosworth, however, is no Lois Lane. She did a fine job playing a female character in an action movie. She just wasn’t Lois. Not only was she too young, her face is too delicate (Lois should have a strong face), and she’s just too passive by nature. I’m not faulting her acting. She just wasn’t right.

Teri Hatcher, at 40something, would have been better playing the role. She’s still hot, so what’s the problem? We all know Superman doesn’t age like the rest of us. While Superman stays young, Lois will age. Right? Get Teri back in there!

Oh well.

At least Brandon Routh was a fine choice for Superman. He filled his tights well. I liked him almost as much as I liked Dean Cain. (Christopher Reeve…well, let’s just not compare, OK?) Unfortunately, they did not give dear Brandon enough time to play Clark Kent. Had this happened, we might have seen more chemistry between him and the aforementioned poorly-cast Kate, but that did not happen.

Onto Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor: Wow, as Kevin ages, he sure is starting to look a heck of a lot like Gene Hackman. He acted a heck of a lot like Gene Hackman too. Good for continuity. A bit campy for the 2000s though, but it still worked for me.

Writing: Not so great. I mean, are we to believe that everyone will simply ignore the fact that Clark Kent has come back from a five-year trip around the world, and then Superman suddenly appears the very same day, and no-one notices? C’mon.

And the idea that Lex Luthor is going to take over the world by creating a new continent: Yeesh.

I liked the action scenes though. Falling plane: Terrific. Hot Brandon flying and swooshing around. Fantastic. Earthquake in Metropolis. Great.

All in all, I thought it was enjoyable, but certainly not anything mindblowing that would take the “franchise” out of the campy 70s and 80s and into the present. In many respects, it’s the perfect “sequel” to Superman II, since it is about on that level, only with better special effects. I give it a solid B.