The reason why my review for “Star Trek: Nemesis” has been up so long. Take your pick:

1. I really REALLY liked that movie.

2. Paramount Pictures hired me in a last-ditch effort to drive up the film’s profits so I’m keeping the review posted until I get my check.

3. If you’ve been paying attention, you would have noticed that every week I write a new review of this movie, focusing on a different aspect of the production. This week: CRAFT SERVICE!

4. I live in a tiny, secluded hamlet in rural Alaska and the only movie house in town is still playing this flick . . . so in essence, it’s still a current release.

5. I’ve been busy training to become the Ultimate Fighting Champion. Something had to give.

Oh yeah, during all that time, I also got married. (CUE TO READERS: Throw rice at monitor now). The wedding was one bitchin’ good time, but planning and then actually going through with a wedding can take a lot out of you. Who knew? Let me clarify that I’m talking about the whole logistical nightmare that is a wedding. I’m psyched to be hitched to the best little movie date in this whole wide world.

But now the prodigal reviewer has returned so here’s a few words on films unspooling in your neighborhood. And just so you know, I’m delinquent in more things than just writing movie reviews. My moviewatching has suffered as well. Many of these films are a bit past their prime. They could still be considered new releases if you maybe lived in that tiny town in Alaska with the one movie theater.

Even so, don’t despair . . . so these reviews weren’t ready immediately after the premiere. Guess What? Now you’re prepped for when these flicks arrive in your local video store. Besides, you visit this page out of your undying love for me rather than any interest in mainstream film so what are you worried about? Sit back, relax and be amused by wit and candor.

Once more into the breach, dear friends:

Time will probably be more kind to “The Core” than today’s audiences will. In about 40 years, some kid watching TV (or whatever we’ll use to watch movies by then) on a rainy Saturday afternoon will really get a kick out of this movie. Age will dull its over-earnest tone and nostalgia will forgive its languid pace. For now, the entertainment value of this “movie science” prattle will most likely be overwhelmed by bigger, flashier or better films.

“The Core” is really custom-made for prime b-movie viewing. It’s got a cornball plot device, budget global destruction (you can practically hear the bean counters during the major effects scenes) and very serious actors spouting intense techno-babble. The earth’s core has stopped spinning, producing all kinds of environmental mayhem. Now it’s up to an intrepid crew of “terranauts” to save the world. They’ve got to journey to the center of the Earth and jump-start the core.

This movie wants to be the test tube baby of Jules Verne, Irwin Allen and Michael Bay, but it has no verve or finesse. A sci-fi disaster flick should be more fun. Verne, Allen, Bay – an odd triumvirate for sure, but those guys knew they were fabricating far-fetched amusements. Director Jon Amiel (“Entrapment”) must think he’s making a story about the “triumph of the human spirit.” This flick takes its itself way too seriously. It’s not that a genre film can’t have depth, but first you’d have to care about the people in it. There’s some impressive talent in “The Core,” but we’re given little reason to empathize with them.

Aaron Eckhart, Delroy Lindo and Stanley Tucci are all fine actors, but their roles are really one-note. I’m surprised the writers even bothered to name the characters. We could just call them the hunky professor, quirky inventor and obnoxious famous scientist with a dark secret. Gee, how difficult is it to guess who survives, who dies and who gets redeemed? The actors try very hard to rise above the material, but something this cheesy should be served with nachos. They meander through the plot, victims of connect-the-dots filmmaking.

What saves this disaster film from being a complete disaster is this cast and the effects. Not all of the eye candy looks budget-conscious. While the suicidal pigeons dive-bombing London made me chuckle, there is a space shuttle crash-landing in downtown LA that’s realistic enough to be reasonably disturbing. I don’t know if that’s a salute to the CGI wizards or a nod to unfortunate current events. Which brings me to the final reason why this flick will probably be enjoyed a lot more in the future. Even in popcorn movies, images of crumbling world monuments take on an eerie resonance these days. Hopefully, a 10 year-old in 2043 won’t have that problem.

FILMBOY RECCOMENDS: Fantastic Voyage

Daredevil is a superhero flick that’s darker than Spider-Man and grittier than Batman, but that doesn’t mean it’s better than its predecessors. While not as true to the source material as last summer’s wallcrawling blockbuster, the film does retain a good portion of that comic’s tone and atmosphere. There are elements that feel torn directly from the comic page, but for the most part, this is just an action film with a dude in a costume. Decent escapism, but that’s about it.

You can tell Writer/Director Patrick Read Johnson (“Simon Birch”) is a fan, which accounts for the film’s strongest moments. The action scenes are fun – kinetic and well shot – but nothing we haven’t seen before. Johnson is at his best when he stays close to the source. “Dardevil” is not “Superman” or “X-Men.” The blind vigilante of Hell’s Kitchen with the super senses is not trying to save the whole world, just his little corner of it. This guy is more protector and enforcer than defender, which makes for some entertaining moral issues.

Ben Affleck exceeded my expectations even if I still think he’s not the best choice for this part. He’s still a little too much the joyous frat boy to take seriously in the darker scenes, but he’s not bad. Plus, he doesn’t embarrass himself in the costume. His muscular frame is right for a hero, I just don’t know if that hero is “Daredevil.” Physically, I envisioned “Daredevil” as being much sleeker so maybe Ben’s buddy Matt Damon would have been a more interesting choice.

I have no complaints were Michael Clarke Duncan is concerned. He was an inspired choice for the villainous Kingpin. The actor’s considerable size and charisma are a great match for this character, regardless of race. Johnson’s slight tweaking of the Kingpin’s relationship to Daredevil gives our hero more motivation and while I think that’s a predictable Hollywood move, I can understand it. Perhaps the bigger crime is that Duncan’s not a larger presence in the film (no pun intended).

Colin Farrell’s scenery chewing was enjoyable as the inventive assassin Bullseye, but you can tell he’s only in this thing to pay off his bar tab. And I liked Jennifer Garner as Elektra even though I thought her character was the biggest departure from the comics. She had good chemistry with Affleck and an appealing screen presence, but wasn’t given enough time to fully develop her character. The director certainly had to streamline some details to keep the pace brisk, but Elektra’s transformation from apple-cheeked daddy’s girl to dark avenger was too abrupt. He has taken one of the more complex characters in comics and reduced her to simply “Daredevil’s karate girlfriend.”

Since there is talk of a sequel, hopefully Johnson will take time to flesh out these characters further next time out. A smarter choice might be to hire Kevin Smith, who makes an amusing cameo in this film, to pen a return visit to Hell’s Kitchen. Besides being a darn good screenwriter and director, Smith wrote a great story arc for the Daredevil comic a few years back. He knows that it takes more than a beefy hero in a cool costume to craft a legend.

FILMBOY RECOMMENDS: Spider-Man

The twentieth entry in filmdom’s longest running franchise is a tad edgier than its predecessors with Bond tortured and imprisoned and then going rogue after his boss, the delightfully dour M (played superbly by Dame Judi Dench), benches him for bungling his assignment. Director Lee Tamahori (“Along Came a Spider”) gives his hero a new millennium spin, but this movie is still vintage Bond with guns, gadgets and girls galore.

Pierce Brosnan is sleek and confident in his fourth outing as the superspy. In my opinion, he’s the best Bond since Sean Connery (the one true Bond as if you had to ask) and he’s suitably paired with Halle Berry as hottie NSA agent Jinx. Berry is a winning hybrid – equal parts sex kitten and riot grrrl. While I’ve never been a fan of Berry’s acting – she usually too shrill for my taste – she’s a happy surprise as the sassy slinky spy.

It’s great to see Bond girls who are more than just playthings – a refreshing trend that seems to have started with Carey Lowell in “License to Kill” and continued with the fabulous Michelle Yeoh in “Tomorrow Never Dies.” From Cuba to Iceland to North Korea, Bond and Jinx trade double entendres and blow stuff up as they pursue diamond smuggling terrorists with ties to eccentric mega-billionaire Gustav Graves (played snarkily by Toby Stephens from “Possession”).

Some people say that after 40 years and 20 movies, James Bond is past his prime. Well, who’s going to replace him? X-rated Vin Diesel? Tony Banderas and his spy brats? Secret Agent Malcolm in the Middle? Not in my book. 007 will always be cinema’s reigning superspy. Bond is gloriously retro, which is why these movies are still so cool. All that makes Bond Bond is on display in “Die Another Day” and it’s a glorious celebration of four decades of film heroics.

FILMBOY RECOMMENDS: Dr. No

Okay, start pelting me with olives, I didn’t love “Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.” Harry has inspired an obsessed legion of fans, both young and old, but I’m just not one of them. I’ve dabbled in the phenomenon and what little I’ve read of the books has been fun. They’re full of magic, whimsy and imagination. You’d think a movie version of these books would be a slam-dunk, but the past two films have left me cold. I don’t know why this talented group of filmmakers can’t bottle this magic for a decent flick.

Despite his shortcomings, Director Chris Columbus (who also directed the first Harry film) shows strength in casting or maybe he just knows how to hire the right people to take care of that for him. The youthful trio at the flick’s heart gives warm and guileless performances. They are well matched to their literary counterparts and are maturing nicely on screen. These tender youth are also extremely well supported by a bright ensemble of premier British talent. These master thespians help balance the film’s pedantic direction and slow stride.

“Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets” is mediocre at best. It killed a couple of hours, the effects were cool, and the acting was pretty good. I didn’t squirm too much, but I didn’t smile either and rarely was I thrilled. In my opinion, these movies don’t become blockbusters because they’re good. They just ride a wave of adoration all the way to the bank. The films don’t stand on their own, but just hum along as another cog in the Harry Potter machine. Honestly, if you didn’t love the books, would you really enjoy these movies?

Filmboy Recommends: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (Extended Version)