Back for another cup of coffee?

As many of my friends and colleagues know, I have a pathological hatred of the remake, the "time-honored" method of taking the core elements of a previously made movie or TV show and reviving it as an newly produced entity. The reasons for this are simple enough - remakes, for the most part, blow. They do nothing to enhance the enjoyment of the original and quite often send audiences running toward the hills and away from the screen, much of the time throwing off profanities in the process. Yes, I am not naive enough to think that every remake every made has been a worthless pile of civet cat excrement (minus the aromatic coffee, of course). But for every 3:10 to Yuma, there are least a dozen All the King's Men. Maybe a thousand. It's hard to keep track in a Hollywood that increasingly reaches for the past instead of, oh, trying to create something new and different. So you will forgive me if I'm not in a tizzy over the forthcoming remake of the 1951 sci-fi classic The Day The Earth Stood Still, starring no less than Keanu Reeves in the pivotal role of the mysterious alien Klaatu. ("Klaatu barada nikto, dude!")

"That's fine, Dave," you may ask, "but what about sequels?" "Good question," I would respond. Sequels are in a different category, as they are usually a continuation of a story previous told. And many a sequel has improved on the original, or at least been up to the standards of the first, whatever those standards were. The Godfather, Part II, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, The Dark Knight - just three examples of a follow-up to an acclaimed movie achieving its own level of excellent. (The first two actually won Oscars for Best Picture, while the latter may be up for its own Academy Awards if the cards fall in place.) Still, there are many sequels that also, well, blow, meaning that there is still something of a dread that comes into my movie-loving heart whenever a "Part II" or such is announced.

This all comes up because of an article in the New York Post this morning which reported that Kevin Costner, Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins are in talks to reprise their roles in a sequel to the popular 1988 baseball romantic comedy Bull Durham. According to the Post, the film would have Sarandon and Robbins' characers, baseball groupie Annie Savoy and hotshot pitcher Nuke LaLoosh, now married, apparently wealthy and co-owning a big-league franchise that is managed by Costner's "Crash" Davis. Now, the sequel will reportedly be written and directed by Ron Shelton, who did the same for the first. And on the surface, the plotline sounds plausible, as many a minor-league catcher has gone on to manage in The Show in the real world. But a sequel? To one of the best baseball movies ever made? Twenty-plus years later.

Oh, well, I guess the proof will be in the celluloid. Besides, I was so fearful of the Sex and the City sequel until I finally saw it. Just don't have Tim Robbins wearing women's lingerie again.

Skull!

I announce to you a great joy ...

I've seen Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Whatchmacallit, and it is good.

Not great, mind you. There will really never, ever be another Raiders of the Lost Ark, in for no other reason that it was the first and, at the time, unique. But in terms of what it's supposed to be - a ripping summertime yarn with great stunts, a few laughs and some genuine corny moments - it gets the job done. And, at just over two hours, quite efficiently as well.

Obviously I won't give away the precious details of the film lest some of you actually want to see it for yourselves (duh). But suffice it to say that:

• Harrison Ford - grayer and gruffer - acquits him well as the older Indiana.

• Karen Allen is as pretty and feisty as ever as the returning Marion Ravenwood, aka Indy's True Love.

• Cate Blanchett's accent is a little too Boris-and-Natasha for its own good, but at least she seems to be having a fine time chewing the scenery without the burden of shooting for an Oscar hanging over her head.

• On the other hand, Shia LaBeouf's greaser hair should be up for an Oscar nod come February. (As for the big question, is he or isn't he … sorry, not telling.)

• While there are slow patches, they never are to the point of pure boredom. And the set action pieces are well above-average.

In short, despite some of the buzz emanating from Cannes, among other places, this one doesn't suck. But please, Steve and George, let's let things lie here. In some ways, they got lucky that three of their four Indy movies worked, let alone that one of them was a classic. But I don't want to see Dr. Jones helping the Beatles find Ringo's missing ring.

One more thing: As my friend and I left the theater, she commented on how kids who weren't around when Raiders was released in 1981 may ask their parents why Crystal Skull cribbed so much from National Treasure, the adventure film that Nicolas Cage made before designing to follow in the footsteps of Harvey Keitel's penis. Hopefully their folks will tell them what really came first.