Green Lantern

Ryan Reynolds stars as Hal Jordan, a misunderstood hot shot who masks his fear with arrogance and sarcasm in the latest DC Comics adaption, Green Lantern. When he is chosen to succeed a dying alien as a member the Green Lantern Corps, an intergalactic police force, he must decide whether or not he can finally confront his uncertainty to help save Earth from a menacing threat. Reynolds gives a strong performance, as expected. However, the script never allows for him to showcase his ability to blend comedy and action like he did in ‘09’s X-Men Origins: Wolverine. But because of a few too many plot points, there isn’t really time for that.

The rotating storylines cause the film, which is fast paced and exciting for the most part, to seem drawn out in the second half. The fact that there’s support from actors like Peter Sarsgaard, Blake Lively, Mark Strong and others means that someone won’t get a ton of screen time. That’s okay. But the script tries to jam them all in there. With an origin film, a significant amount of time should be spent on building that single character.

What Green Lantern does have going for it is a unique concept. The Corps presence throughout the universe is different than any other comic book. Plus, his powers vary in each situation since his ring can create anything that his mind thinks of. I also like a little outer space thrown in there for some variety. The film opens tons of possibilities for a franchise that will no doubt be entertaining. Though it’s hard to even mention it on the same page as imprint/studio mate The Dark Knight. Warner set the bar so high that it makes their other movies look inferior when compared. But it's not even close to being the worst comic book movie I’ve seen. I’m looking at you Jonah Hex. (7.7 out of 10)

Bad Teacher

As much as the advertisements would like you to believe that Bad Teacher is equal parts Cameron Diaz, Justin Timberlake and Jason Segel, don’t be fooled. Diaz is the main focus, and had I known that originally I probably would have been looking forward to the film much less than I was. Her character is a crappy teacher who struggles to raise money for breast enhancement surgery while ignoring her responsibility to her students. She makes it clear that she wants to land a wealthy husband who can buy her stuff. Enter Timberlake, the timid and clueless substitute who has no idea he’s being played for his money and looks.

I have to admit that this isn’t Diaz’s worst performance, though it’s actually a clever approach from the casting department. Since so many people can’t stand Diaz, why not put her in a role that is completely unlikeable? Even though the other actors have significantly less screen time, they each are able to provide some funny moments to make the film better rounded. Timberlake adds another title to his growing résumé, but this role doesn’t even make it into his highlight reel. Segel does well reminding casual fans who he is before The Muppets reboot later this year, but he definitely isn’t kid friendly in Bad Teacher. He takes part in what is now a cliché, the “let’s smoke pot and all of a sudden we’re friends” moment. I never find this device to be effective and it exposes a lack of creativity from the writers. The other actor in main support is Lucy Punch, who plays the annoying know-it-all teacher extremely well, almost well enough to make up for her disastrous performance in Dinner for Schmucks.

As always, the most important thing in a comedy is its ability to be funny, which Bad Teacher is. So ultimately, that one fact makes it successful. But beyond that, none of the student characters are properly developed and Diaz’s character has virtually no growth until she, all of a sudden, is a completely different person. A better script would allow for better use of the star power and less pressure for Diaz to carry every scene. (7.0 out of 10)

Mr. Popper's Penguins

I wasn’t entirely sure that Mr. Popper’s Penguins was a project worth being made before seeing it. As movie fans, we’ve seen the story before, a well-known actor stars in a well-known story, no matter how bad the script is just for money, something to do etc. But the difference this time is that Jim Carrey’s unique brand of humor can turn a mediocre plot into a memorable movie. Loosely based on the classic story, Carrey’s titular character becomes the owner of a group of penguins when his father leaves him one in his will. He is then subsequently sent more after a misunderstanding with a friend of his late father. The rest of the film is pretty cut and dry. He struggles to learn the importance of family and the effect his work obsession has on them.

While these themes develop, there is a lot of simple humor, which is funny for varying demographics. I can’t say that I found it particularly hysterical when the one penguin repeatedly runs into the wall, but the children in the theater definitely did. There are some genuinely funny parts though, most of which are likely ad-libbed by Carrey. Other actors in the movie, but they’re nothing to write home about, not great, and not bad. As for the non-human actors, I don’t really know because as far as I can tell, they are mostly CGI. Yes, there are actual penguins involved, but even they look fake after a while. I guess that’s a testament to the effects team, unless real penguins hug humans and poop in toilets on command. Maybe they do, I don’t know.

Popper’s was able to present tension, and conflict without attempting to scare the pants off of the adolescent audience. No one is trying to murder the penguins to make novelty beak harmonicas or anything. There is a zookeeper (Clark Gregg) trying to bring them to the zoo, but I actually find it hard to dislike him until the climax. Movie fans will also get a kick out of Jimmy Stewart, Charlie Chaplin and The Hurt Locker references thrown in there. The kids didn’t get those so they are obviously intended for the parents… and the two 20-somethings there without children in tow. Don’t worry, it wasn’t nearly as embarrassing as the time I saw Yogi Bear alone. I got some questionable glances that day. (7.5 out of 10)

Super 8

The fact that JJ Abrams’ latest sci-fi project, Super 8, has the distinct look of a Spielberg classic in the E.T. era creates a lot of misguided expectations heading into the theater. Spielberg may be involved as a producer, but the film fits Abrams’ agenda more directly. The story follows a group of kids in 1979, who witness a train accident while filming their own movie on a super 8 camera, hence the title. But as strange events start taking place around town, the kids and others begin to question what was on the train. Well, SPOILER ALERT, it’s an alien. But the buzz for the film has made that perfectly clear.

The alien ends up being a fairly small aspect of the story. The mystery proves to be the most interesting, followed closely by the development of the characters. Unlike other Abrams projects, such as Cloverfield, Super 8 does give the audience answers at the end of the mystery. It’s more of a mainstream take on the director, a logical step after his Star Trek reboot. One weakness that occurs in the film’s middle segment is when the alien has escaped from the train and no one knows they are in danger. Then something (the alien) jumps out and grabs people who scream for their lives, but to no avail. It’s just too predictable. Although, during one of those encounters astute viewers can catch a glimpse of the creature reflected in a puddle. That kind of small detail helps keep the story moving, even if the audience won’t see the thing head on until the resolution.

The young actors in Super 8 command the screen better than many well-known adults actors do. The main reason they do so is the use of believable dialogue and their ability to act the way someone their age should. That means a lot of insulting each other. Throw in Kyle Chandler, as the emotionally tough dad, and the movie is a hit. The comparison I keep thinking of is it’s kind of like The Sandlot, substituting an alien for baseball. Take that however you’d like. (8.5 out of 10)

Kung Fu Panda 2

Kung Fu Panda 2 has Po (Jack Black), now a well-trained Kung Fu artist, battling alongside the furious five, when he comes across a symbol from his past. With the help from his father and a mysterious new enemy (Gary Oldman,) he pieces together how he, a panda, came to be the son of a goose. In addition to Black and Oldman, the cast seems way too expensive. Angelina Jolie, Jackie Chan, Dustin Hoffman, Seth Rogan, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Danny McBride, David Cross and others. The fact that Chan’s character, Monkey, has at most five lines throughout the whole movie, I wonder if this and other superstar contributions are necessary. They’re fun to watch scroll through the credits though.

The film runs a bit slowly through the middle, much like the original did. 2 has a few too many moments where the protagonist ponders his emotions. Most of the time, the screen is occupied by instances of physical comedy so the ho hum events really stand out in contrast. There is an improvement in the writing between the first and second film however. A significant decrease in fat jokes leads the audience to laugh with the heroes instead of at them. But there is a good amount of laughing at the enemy’s expense, which is okay in my book.

The animation throughout the film has a unique look that sets it apart from other cartoons. Color and shadow have such prominence, especially in the red tinted scenes that usually mean the villain is near. The flashback and dream sequences utilize an entirely different style of cartoon, which proves to be an interesting and fun way to set them apart from typical moments in the story. I can say that I laughed a lot during Kung Fu Panda 2, but I couldn’t help feeling that the adults in the theater were enjoying it more than the children. Maybe we just laugh louder. (8.2 out of 10)

X-Men: First Class

The world of the X-Men contains more characters than any other story I can think of. Multiple titles and different teams, plus villains make the comic book series a haven for writers looking for specific personality types. So, I can’t say I’m surprised that out of the five major X-Men films, none have even attempted to stay true to a comic story arch. X-Men: First Class follows a young Professor X (James McAvoy) and Magneto, (Michael Fassbender) the events around their meeting, and the formation of the first team of X-Men. The film is split with new characters and others who the audience has met in the other X-Men films.

It takes some getting used to for McAvoy to work as the young professor, but Fassbender is perfect as Magneto, even coming across as a believable precursor to Sir Ian Mckellan’s rendition in the first three films. It says something that Kevin Bacon’s first appearance on screen as the evil mastermind Sebastian Shaw was greeted with laughs in the theater I viewed the film. Possibly it’s because he’s been missing from mainstream films for a while, but by the halfway point he commands the screen as an undeniably evil character. No one is laughing at his ascot by the end of things. Other actors like Jason Flemyng and Jennifer Lawrence have their moments, but the three aforementioned stars dominate the film with great success.

The main problems with First Class look as if they could be fixed with an extra take or a few more dollars in the production budget. But as is the case with all the X-Men films, this one is mostly character driven. The scenes where characters sit talking with each other are frequently more important than the action scenes, and as expected, they are better executed. This storyline has the makings of a strong franchise, but if that is the case, there should be less focus on showcasing similarities to the other X-Men movies and more focus on branding itself as a stand-alone series. (8.0 out of 10)