"X-Men: First Class" review

I must make a confession to you all: I've never actually seen the X-Men movies.

Okay, maybe that's an overstatement. I tried watching the 2000 film when the sequel came out, but just couldn't get into it so I sort of forgot about the franchise until 2006, when I saw X-Men: The Last Stand with my day camp of sorts in middle school (they called it a teen travel group but it really was a day camp with trips every day). I tried to follow what was an interesting plot but soon became very bored with it and it's non-stop action I couldn't comprehend. Of course, this was five years before I saw Green Lantern, which was the exact opposite of a non-stop action superhero movie, so if I saw The Last Stand again, I'd likely be one to reconsider my opinion on it. The only thing that had me interested in X-Men: First Class was that Matthew Vaughn, director of last year's Kick-Ass (a film that I used to be a lot more into that sadly doesn't hold up at all in repeat viewings no matter how much I try to like it), was helming this project. The notion of Vaughn directing a movie about actual superheroes after handling a good take on amateur heroes was a natural fit.

Even though I had to wait over a month to actually see this movie due to seeing other summer movies first and almost seeing it only to be dragged by a friend to see Green Lantern instead (his reason: "Green Lantern is a fresh new origin story, critics don't know anything!" Even though this movie is technically an origin story, too. *facepalm*). I hoped it would be worth the wait, but unfortunately, X-Men: First Class isn't the critical darling everybody made it out to be. But that doesn't mean it isn't a good movie.

I walked in with only a half-assed knowledge of the X-Men but could follow the story and recognized what was going on. Aside from one cameo from an actress who was in another well-known Marvel film, I was able to get the idea of what was going on. James McAvoy makes a pretty memorable performance as Charles Xavier and Michael Fassbender is good as Magneto. Though I must say I found the villains the most interesting, such as Kevin Bacon. They were pure evil.

It seems Vaughn learned from Kick-Ass' shortcomings and put together a damn good comic book movie. More of a drama this time around than Kick-Ass very awkwardly became. Still one of the best movies of the summer overall, especially in a summer that has consisted of huge letdowns it's the franchise with ill will that succeeded in my eyes, even if just barely.

"Winnie the Pooh" review

I really don't remember when this was made official, but when Walt Disney Animation Studios announced their next hand-drawn animated feature following 2009's splendid The Princess and the Frog would be a brand-new Winnie the Pooh movie, I felt as if this was a step back for Disney. It didn't feel right to fall back on a franchise that really that profitable up on the big screen and more profitable on store shelves. But, here we are in July 2011 and Winnie the Pooh is finally released right at the tail end of the summer movie season and on the same day as Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2. Disney's idiotic scheduling decisions aside, the critics ended up loving this movie, which came as a shock as it was a dud overseas when it came out in just about every country but the US in April of this year. As it stands, the big question is Winnie the Pooh a true worthy addition to Disney's now-51-films animated filmography or should this have stayed straight to video?

I have very good news: Winnie the Pooh delivers. Even if you have to listen to your parents bitch and moan about you going to see this movie the way mine did, it's totally worth it. Despite the fact that this is a movie technically made for little kids, directors Stephen Anderson and Don Hall went out their way to make the movie enjoyable for all ages. You can be 5 or 55 and still enjoy this movie. Perhaps the power of the Pooh franchise, no matter how dumbed down it seems to get, it'll still get people's attention.

The voice cast is awesome. Jim Cummings returns to do Pooh and Tigger as he always has and does a great job, but the big two voice actors who stuck out to me are Tom Kenny as Rabbit, who is very funny but is really backed up by Eric Goldberg's wonderful animation of the character. The two together make Rabbit easily the most memorable character of the movie. Craig Ferguson as Owl, the only major star in this movie, is also just as hilarious and provides some of the film's funniest moments.

The animation is also awesome. The hand-drawn animation easily brings back memories of the 1960's Winnie the Pooh featurettes and replicates it perfectly while still having a very modernized style. And on the subject of the extremely short length of 53 minutes, it is honestly the perfect length. It doesn't feel too long or too short, while it could have used some extra fine tuning, I was fine with the short length.

Overall, Winnie the Pooh is one of the best movies of the summer (I can't believe I'm actually saying that!) and easily this year's Toy Story 3. If this wins Best Animated Feature in February, I'll be very happy.

As a added treat, Disney attached the short film The Ballad of Nessie, which was first announced in 2006, to the beginning of Winnie the Pooh in theaters. The second short from Kevin Deters and Stevie Wermers, who were behind the absolutely hilarious Goofy short How to Hook Up Your Home Theater (from 2007 and released with National Treasure: Book of Secrets), The Ballad of Nessie is much more subdued and is in a style all it's own. Again, like Hawaiian Vacation several weeks ago, I can't recommend Winne the Pooh just to see this short but it's a bouncy and fun little addition to the main movie.

"Green Lantern" review

Question for you all: what do the movies Steel, Jonah Hex and The Losers all have in common?

Answer: They are all really bad movies and they are all based on DC Comics characters.

It seems that when DC Comics tries to make movies, it usually ends in disaster. Aside from Superman and Batman, whenever DC tries to take their works and turn it into a feature, it bombs at the box office or has terrible critical reception. Green Lantern marks the first time another character from the Justice League has gotten a movie. And it's about as good as you'd expect. There's nothing I can say about this movie besides the fact that it's bad, bad, BAD.

This movie has absolutely nothing original. if you've seen Iron Man, you've seen Green Lantern. They are literally the same movie excepting swapping out heroes. Except Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark started as a jerk and turned into a great guy by the end of the movie, Ryan Reynolds as Hal Jordan is a jackass from beginning to end. In fact, the movie lacks action for the majority of is basically this scene over and over:

Hal Jordan brings random supporting character to his apartment.

Hal: "You have to see this."

Other guy: "OK."

Hal brings out lantern.

Hal: "In brightest day, in blackest night, Green Lantern's light!"

Hal turns into Green Lantern. Other guy flips out.

Other guy: "Oh my god!"

 Hal: "I know, right!"

And that's it. No action until the climax and by then you are just so sick of Hal Jordan showing off you just don't care anymore. The only commendable performance is Peter Sarsgaard as the film's villain and even then he does so little he barely qualifies as a villain. And the scenes in space when Hal is training... it's visually just Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland in space. I am dead serious, it looks exactly like that.

I can't say much else, Green Lantern is the worst movie of the year. Dull, unoriginal, uneventful, Green Lantern is a waste of time and money. It's not easy being green indeed, especially when your movie sucks.

"Cars 2" review

That awkward feeling when you are way behind on movie reviews. Super 8 and Green Lanturd reviews coming soon but for now, let s talk about Cars 2!

So coming off the heels of my Top 11 Animated Movies video, I'm sure a lot of you are wondering what I thought of Pixar's 12th feature, Cars 2. For what it's worth, the original Cars is a great movie. Not Pixar's best by any stretch of the word but it's still pretty difficult not to enjoy. But I don't think anybody was really clamoring for a sequel to it. John Lasseter has said in the past that Pixar will not make a sequel unless they feel they have a story good enough to warrant one. Well - this movie with a story good enough to warrant a sequel has received horrible reviews, getting Pixar their first "Rotten" rating on RottenTomatoes.com and it's looking very doubtful that this film will outgross the first film, even with inflated ticket prices and 3D surcharges. But the big question is that, despite the slightly bad reputation of the Cars franchise, is it worth watching at some point?

This is a really hard movie to review. Even with the bad reviews, I really wanted to like this movie. And it starts out well enough. Honestly, the beginning of the movie when we are in Radiator Springs is probably the best part of the movie and that's only about 7-to-8 minutes of a 106 minute movie. Actually, all the scenes that primarily focus on the characters from the first movie are as great the first film. The whole World Grand Prix concept is good enough to warrant a sequel - which when this movie was first announced three years ago seemed to be the direction it was heading in. But then we come to what's the core of this movie - this ridiculous spy plot with Mater (voiced by Larry the Cable Guy). At the beginning of the movie, you are at least able to take it seriously to a point but by the time the movie reaches it's climax, it really runs out of steam until it gets a real resolution. Michael Caine and Emily Mortimer as their new car characters are entertaining enough as the stars of this spy plot alongside Mater. But here's my problem: Five years ago when the first Cars came out would you ever expect the sequel to it to be a spy spoof movie that the main characters barely play any part in? I didn't think so. This isn't a Cars movie, it's a spoof of a Cars movie. That's really what it feels like. When you ignore the movies Pixar has done before this, it's pretty entertaining. But just don't set your hopes too high for this one.

Oh... and how in bloody Hell did this thing get a G rating?

The good news though is Hawaiian Vacation, the Toy Story short shown in front of Cars 2 in theaters, makes the experience easier to swallow. Disney has done shorts based on their animated features before (the three Roger Rabbit shorts, the Timon & Pumbaa short released with the Jonathan Taylor Thomas snoozefest Tom and Huck, the Cars short Tokyo Mater released with Bolt) so this Toy Story short offers nothing particularly new. But that doesn't mean it's bad. On the contrary, it gets more laughs in 6 minutes than Cars 2 does in 106. The short is mostly sight gags but still, the fact that the Toy Story characters are not going anywhere just yet is great. If anything, it's really just great to see Andy and Bonnie's toys really interact, which we didn't get to see in Toy Story 3. I can't completely say Hawaiian Vacation alone makes it worth seeing Cars 2 due to the fact that it just feels so short and quick (well, it IS a short after all) compared to some other shorts before movies but if you do plan to go see Cars 2, Hawaiian Vacation makes it worth while alone.

"Kung Fu Panda 2" review

People should know that I used to be very vocal about my dislike of DreamWorks Animation. Following the splendid first two Shrek films, DreamWorks' computer-animated films were plagued by trying to emulate Shrek a bit too obnoxiously. To this day, I still have yet to sit through Shark Tale (and I bet you completely forgot about it until I brought it up) and I'm really not fond of Madagascar. While Over the Hedge added some life into DreamWorks' disasters at that point, it seems they reached an all-time low in 2007 when the two animated releases, Shrek the Third and Bee Movie, were both massacred by critics and audiences expressed little interest after Shrek the Third's second weekend. So when Kung Fu Panda trailers began to come out, I had no expectations at all and planned on staying far away from it. It looked exactly to be like DreamWorks' typical fart-joke-and-movie-allusions-hell movies. When animation historian Jerry Beck gave the movie an incredibly positive review, I began to reconsider. When the movie eventually came out, people were all raves about it. Here it was, a DreamWorks movie that actually worked. The film doesn't have a single fart joke or pop culture references, yet still has the DreamWorks-style humor. However, the film still takes itself seriously enough to make itself distance from DreamWorks' other films. While it was followed up with the underwhelming Monsters vs. Aliens, DreamWorks has been doing consistently better films than they did in 2004-2007. With three releases in 2010, including the truly brilliant How to Train Your Dragon, the adequate Shrek Forever After and the good enough Megamind, DreamWorks enters 2011 with a sequel to the movie that gave them a great about face with Kung Fu Panda 2.

While I had my doubts leading up to the film's release, I'm happy to report Kung Fu Panda 2 ranks high as one of DreamWorks' best and is a worthy successor to the first film. People should first note that, much like the first film, Kung Fu Panda 2 is not a huge laugh-fest. It has a mostly light-hearted tone and does have some solid moments of humor, this movie mostly remains fairly straightforward and wants to get a story told. That's something I commend these two movies, as well as the fellow DreamWorks movie How to Train Your Dragon, for doing well. There's no obnoxious pop songs, no allusions to anything, no bodily functions. It's just a straightforward story about Po (voiced by Jack Black) finding himself. Gary "Spider Smith" "Ruber" Oldman is also very good as the peacock villain of the film.

Overall, Kung Fu Panda 2 is a great film and one of the better of the year. Go see it, it works very well. Even if this whole nonsensical "Ska-doosh" ad campaign is stupid as hell.

"The Hangover Part II" review

When the first trailers for The Hangover came out in early 2009, it seemed no one had any real expectations for it. It just seemed like a rather obnoxious, slightly unfunny R-rated comedy that we've seen millions of times. By the time it came out in June of that year, it surprised just about everyone with rave reviews and a spectacular opening weekend, being able to bump Pixar's Up for the #1 slot in a photo finish. With terrific word-of-mouth, The Hangover grossed an unbelievable $277 million in the US alone becoming one of the biggest movies that summer, the sixth highest grossing movie of the year and is on it's way to becoming a comedy classic. So when a sequel was announced for a Memorial Day 2011 release, one of the biggest holiday weekends of the year, it was assumed that director Todd Phillips and the entire team behind this movie would go as far as they could to make this a perfect sequel to such a highly-regarded comedy. That brings up the big question: "Does this movie work as perfectly as the first film did?"

Well... I have some good news. Unlike a lot of professional film critics, I felt The Hangover Part II wasn't as terrible as they made it out to be. The bad news? It's still not that great.

Basically, the movie is about Stu (Ed Helms) heading to Thailand to marry a woman named Lauren (Jamie Chung), the three over regulars from the first film head along for the ride and, after another crazy night, this time bringing along Lauren's brother Teddy (newcomer Mason Lee), they lose Teddy and have to retrace their steps to figure out what happened to him.

There is no denying that The Hangover and The Hangover Part II are very much the same movie. Aside from one being set in Las Vegas and the other in Bangkok, they are point-for-point very similar to each other. This brings down the movie quite a bit as it becomes more predictable. But still, the movie is still an entertaining popcorn movie. All the newcomers are put on entertaining performances despite screen time for many of them being minimal. But the Wolf Pack is of course hilarious. Each of the three main guys adds something to the movie to make it worth sitting through. Zach Galifianakis, Ed Helms and Bradley Cooper are all still hilarious together. Kim Jeong as Leslie Chow makes an unexpected comeback and has a lot more fun this time around with the character. Several other actors from the first film come back as well, including one very unexpected appearance, but this really is the Wolf Pack's movie. The cinematography of Thailand is also beautiful, a lot better than I thought it would be.

So, I'll say this: The Hangover Part II is not perfect. Despite some solid laughs, the movie is still one of 2011's weakest. There is very little new here but if you liked the first film, I say seeing this harmless movie won't leave a negative stench. It's an acceptable film.

Updated next seven reviews list

OK, here's the updated reviews list. I apologize for the delays and changes to the schedule but laptop problems have plagued me and caused these changes. No dates, they will come as they come. I want to see how the next review goes before settling on dates (so check this post again after the Buddy review is online).

• Buddy (should be up by the end of the week)
• Top 11 Animated Movies
• Richie Rich
• Commercial special (a look at nostalgic commercials)
• The Air Up There
• Charlotte's Web
• Grease 2

After the Grease 2 review, we will go on a hiatus till very late November when I will come back with a series of reviews of Christmas specials but those details won't be announced till around early November.

And look for a Kung Fu Panda 2 review on here later this week. That's all folks!