There once was a spy named Nikita

If you feel like you've seen this before

It's because it is time number four

That they've made Nikita

The killer Lolita

You're forgiven for asking "what for?"

To stick with this blog's gimmick, I title posts with the classic limerick opener whether it fits well or not. In this case, it's definitely not, but "There fourth was a spy named Nikita" doesn't really work from a grammar standpoint. Regardless, this "new" show is hardly that – it's the latest iteration of the revenge story of a criminal-turned-assassin-turned-spy-turned-on-her-makers. The first two were films – La Femme Nikita from Luc Besson and the American remake starring a seriously miscast Bridget Fonda called Point of No Return. It moved to TV in the late 90s with Peta Wilson on USA, and now the CW's hoping the fourth time's a charm with the singularly titled pilot, Nikita.

This one stars Maggie Q, a Jackie Chan protege who plays Nikita as sort of the offspring of Michelle Yeoh and Sydney Bristow – if the pilot's any indication, the primary element of most of the plots will involve either getting dressed or punching people in progressively skimpier outfits. When she's not doing that, Nikita's main mission is to take down "Division," the shadow government organization that created her. We learn why through the eyes of Alex, an apprentice assassin played by Lyndsy Fonseca with a brooding stare that's likely due to the missing and/or misplaced vowels in her name. They're going up against Shane West, Melinda Clarke and Xander Berkeley, of ER, OC and 24 fame respectively, who at this point are fairly standard bad guys/girls in suits and pantsuits.

"Fairly standard" turns out to be a pretty apt description, based purely on the pilot. We've seen a lot of this before... and not just because it's the fourth version of this story. It's more that many of the pieces of the pilot feel put together from other shows – a training sequence here, a gravesite visit there, etc. None of it's bad, but it's not particularly compelling yet. The one element that does stand out is Maggie Q, even when she's not dressing or punching. While the series is being sold on her looks, she shows glimpses of a wry sense of humor that could eventually elevate Nikita above its somewhat generic status of "Sexy Spy Show."

Here's hoping that happens, because there's definite potential kicking around the corners of the pilot – an appealing cast, solid (if well-worn) premise, etc. Freed of the expository tasks that weigh down most pilots, the next few episodes will show whether Nikita can develop an identity of her own. Worth a watch.

There once was a teen girl named Katniss

Despite her unfortunate name

This heroine isn't too lame

Altho much of the bulk

Of these books is her sulk

Ing because she's forced to maim.

The Hunger Games trilogy is the latest "OMG are you Team This Guy or That Guy?" sensation that the kids (and a bunch of their parents) are all atwitter about. As young adult books go, it's somewhat standard – plucky heroine, love triangle, teen angst, and so on. What's not standard is the premise: it takes place in a post-apocalyptic America that's been divided into Districts that are forced on an annual basis to enter two teenagers into a March Madness of sorts where they kill each other for sport. So... not the cheeriest premise, but does it hold up through three books?

Almost.

The first two books are grim little page-turners. Katniss Everdeen (I know – perhaps the dictionaries of our far future have her picture next to the words "trying too hard") is a seventeen-year old girl scratching out a meager existence by sneaking through the walls surrounding her coal-mining District 12 to find food for her family armed only with a bow. Foreshadowing alert! That bow comes in handy when she gets swept up in The Hunger Games, the somewhat ill-defined tournament that the government created as punishment for a decades-old rebellion that wiped one of the Districts off the map.

The first book plays out sort of like The Running Man meets The Most Dangerous Game with a dash of Twilight thrown in. Amidst the remarkably gruesome slayings of teenage children, Katniss meets the men that will mold her future – Peeta, another contestant who she gets paired with and Haymitch, a former winner of the Hunger Games who serves as her mentor. And is almost always drunk. There are several other kids competing in the Games, but I won't bother describing them because, well, they pretty much all get killed. The offhanded brutality woven through the entire series never stops being an odd tonal element – in our world, where the Hunger Games haven't been running for seventy-five years, it's somewhat jarring to watch your heroine put an arrow through a stranger's eye without blinking hers, considering the combined age of those involved probably doesn't total thirty. They're in the process of making a movie of the trilogy and one wonders how they're going to make bleak tween killings work on screen.

I'm trying to stay relatively spoiler-free, but hopefully it's not a shock that Katniss survives her first Games to make it two the second book, Catching Fire. Here's where the requisite love triangle really gets going – between the aforementioned Peeta and Gale, the childhood friend Katniss used to hunt with. Also, the road to another rebellion begins to be paved, as the government contrives to draw former contestants back into the Games. A la Empire Strikes Back, the sequel's an improvement over the original in that we start to get a window into a larger world and the author's writing style smoothes out a bit. Powerful prose isn't exactly Suzanne Collins' strong suit, but she seems to be guiding the action with a surer hand in book two.

Unfortunately, sticking with the Star Wars metaphor, the threequel is the weakest of the trilogy. Mockingjay suffers from a rigid adherence to theme; rather than watching Katniss evolve from an overwhelmed girl into a confident leader, much of the book is spent hiding and bemoaning her fate. It's a problem with the protagonist throughout the series, actually – while Katniss does get older, she doesn't do a whole lot of growing up. It doesn't doom the books, but her increasingly introverted inaction does begin to wear thin. Part of the problem is the present tense the books are written in. It helps amp up the immediacy and sense of danger, but relegates many of the major developments to offscreen action. Huge cultural shifts take place between the pages, meaning Katniss (and consequently the reader) only hear about how the world gets reshaped, rather than experiencing it.

So it ends with a bit more of a whimper than a bang, but overall it's a good ride. Don't go into it looking for a fully-realized Harry Potter world, or the purple prose of Twilight – think of it more as a bleak beach book and enjoy.

There once was Glee and Family

I don't watch Modern Family

But wanted it to lose to Glee

I guess I can't judge

And don't hold a grudge

But it seems much more ordinary.

There once was a show that got Lost

So Mad Men the Emmy did score

I'm sorry, I think it's a bore

It was a great mystery

Will go down in history

I wish Lost did not get ignored

There once was an Emmy for Claire

Apparently Claire Danes was great

In a role that's so Emmy bait

So was she delirious

With her "like, for serious"

Or is she still Angela Chase?

There once was a Clooney named George

George Clooney is a total badass

His intentions are really first class

His speech can't be beat

Kept it short and sweet

And even peppered in some sass.

There once was an incestuous system

Awards shows should not win awards

Although I can't say I was floored

It's way too inbred

Voters are brain dead

No surprise that The Tonys scored.

There once was a show I won't watch

I know people love Breaking Bad

But it seems unmercifully sad

Was rooting for Fox

Or Chandler, who rocks

For either of those I'd be glad.

There once was an opening salvo

So this year I'm pulling for Lost

In hopes that Mad Men will get tossed

But Mad Men won writing

Uphill Lost is fighting

It's chances might begin to frost :(

There once was a stale category

Since the first reality Emmy

It has played out predictably

The Amazing Race

Always took first place

But Top Chef broke the streak – whoopee!

There once was a big bang upset

With people like Carell and Baldwin

As really big time competition

The Big Bang guy won

People said "come on!"

His PR team was on a mission.

There once was a Family and Glee

Modern Family went two for two

It started to look like a coup

But then Jane Lynch won

And her speech was fun

Before off the stage she was shooed.

There once was an Emmy host named Jimmy

Jimmy opened the show with a bang

By performing with the Glee gang

Then grabbed a guitar

And while breathing hard

Wished to himself he hadn't sang.

There once was a Pilgrim named Scott

Unless you played video games

You might think this is pretty strange

It's anime meets

The Rage of the Streets

And within Michael Cera's range.

They've made movies that are slavishly devoted to their graphic novel source material before – sometimes you score a 300 and sometimes you get stuck in Sin City. Fortunately, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is way more of the former, as it's full-tilt fun from the first minute on.

The movie sums up a series of graphic novels by Bryan Lee O'Malley, hitting the high points of the six-book cycle. It's the oldest story in the world: boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy has to fight girl's seven evil exes, evil exes explode into coins when boy punches them, and so on. That's right – in addition to other visual flourishes like captions appearing on screen and cartoon hearts appearing over characters kissing, Scott Pilgrim comes off like a slacker version of Super Mario Bros.

Michael Cera delivers another patented performance as the sorta-nerdy-sorta-cool-vaguely-effeminate-emo-type-guy, but in this case it's pretty much perfect casting. The rest of the cast scores, too, particularly a couple cameos by Chris Evans and Brandon Routh. And director Edgar Wright steps outside of his previous parodies to deliver a film with similar visual sizzle but a different kind of emotional connection. At heart, Scott Pilgrim is a fairly standard twentysomething story, but the inventive style, videogame trappings and underlying sweetness elevate it to another level.

There once was a plan: Eat, Pray Love

This story of personal journey

Does not make all that great a movie

There's some great food porn

Overall I'm torn

On whether this flick's worth your rupees.

Full disclosure: Julia Roberts stayed at one of our honeymoon hotels in Bali while shooting the "love" part, so I entered the theater with more than your average amount of goodwill for the film.

Fuller disclosure: I still didn't love the movie.

It's based on the autobiographical book by Liz Gilbert, a woman who loses herself in a marriage and sets out to visit three different destinations (Italy, India and Bali) to find herself again. Along the way, she befriends a spunky younger woman and is mentored by a wise older man... three times in a row.

Eat Pray Love is sumptuously shot, generally well-acted and has some powerful moments, but the whole is somehow less than the sum of its parts. Each section feels like a start-to-finish mini-movie, which is a little jarring when you're charting a yearlong journey of self-discovery. After "Eating" her way through Italy, where she meets fabulous friends, devours amazing food, and self-actualizes about her body image, it's odd that when she arrives in India, it feels as if none of it has happened – Liz is back to the morose and withdrawn mess she was when she started.

On top of that, the movie absolutely grinds to a halt in "Pray." Second act problems aren't unique for films, but when forty minutes of your movie revolves around someone psyching themselves up to meditate, you're in serious trouble. Things pick up a bit in Bali, although that's basically because the movie morphs into a fairly traditional romance. A couple of complications ensue, but the ending is nothing that you won't see coming.

Eat Pray Love... Watch? I'm gonna say cable. Netflix if you're invested in the book. It's certainly enjoyable, but also not memorable.

There once was a spy they called Salt

While mostly a silent avenger

This Salt is a spy to remember

The crowds should be rushin'

To this sexy Russian

Too bad the critics didn't concur.

Bourne. Jane Bourne.

Angelina doesn't speak much in Salt, but if she did I bet she'd eventually get around to introducing herself as such. Because from the central identity crisis to trademark shaky-cam, Salt's very much in the mold of the Matt Damon adventures. But what it might lack in originality it more than makes up for in visceral thrills, as a few seconds after the credits it turns into a super solid thriller that's well worth watching.

The movie's centered around a mystery teased in the trailer and poster – is Evelyn Salt a spy, good guy, bad guy or all of the above? It takes several twists, turns and triple crosses to get that answer, and it whips along at a powerful pace that's energetic without being frantic. Jolie is terrific – more a force of nature than a character, but as she strides through her scenes all guns and cheekbones blaring, she totally dominates the screen.

There are sequel rumors rumbling, and even though it's not performing terribly well domestically, future stories are set up nicely and I hope we get the chance to check them out. See it on the big screen if you get a chance, but it would hold up at home as well. Don't let this Salt slip through your fingers – it'd definitely be bad luck.

There once was a dream called Inception

The director of the Dark Knight

Apparently only does right

While the top keeps spinning

Count Oscars it's winning

He should be the king of the night.

There once was a Twilight's Eclipse

While following books to the letter

These movies do keep getting better

Bella's much less nervous

The others will service

It works as a good table-setter

The "Twilight phenomenon" has proven remarkably review-proof. The books are a triumph of concept over execution, as Stephenie Meyer's prose is pedestrian at best and luridly over-the-top at worst, particularly in the final novel. The movies, however, improve as they go along – the first film was a digitally graded blue bore and the most recent release is a generally solid story.

That said, once you peel away the Team Edward/Team Jacob fervor, there's not a whole lot actually happening in this installment. The basic story concerns the Cullen's nemesis raising an army of newborn vampires in order to kill Bella, who's knee deep in a love triangle featuring a bloodsucker and a shapeshifter. Each of those threads is given appropriate attention and come to conclusion, but as the credits rolled I realized this one was of the few movies that I felt actually could've been longer. Plot points and backstories get touched on more than explored, so it all feels a little "lite."

There are a couple particularly odd elements, too – the vampire Jasper has unexpectedly evolved from a quivering weirdo to a swarthy Southern dandy. And while the series' vampires have always been described as incredibly strong and solid, it's somewhat weird to see their bodies break apart to reveal a powdery silver inner structure not unlike a shattered statue. Not that these ruin the movie or anything, I just didn't picture the villain as Victoria de Milo.

Eclipse basically serves to wrap up and set up – the love triangle loses a side and some life-altering (or ending) decisions get made. It features more action than the first two films, but don't expect Underworld-level wall-to-wall fight scenes; these movies will always be more about anguished choices and significant glances. And it does all these things pretty well. Is it worth a watch? Sure, if you're invested in the franchise. If a viewer walked into it cold, they'd likely be a little lost, but that could be said of the later chapters of most series.

I'm neither Team Edward nor Jacob – being, you know, a guy – but I can say I'm Team Twilight. With increasingly better directors and more natural performances, Eclipse is the best of the bunch so far... which hopefully bodes well for the upcoming Breaking Dawns.

There once was a Knight and a Day

There was a great shot in the preview

That guaranteed it would get my view

Though nobody's going

And reviews aren't glowing

I thought it was pretty good – it's true!

One doesn't often describe action movies as "cute," but Knight and Day turns out to be maybe the most adorable blockbuster ever. With one caveat... if you've got Tom Cruise issues, you'll hate this like Hudson Hawk.

Because even tho a bunch of stuff blows up real good, Knight and Day succeeds almost entirely on how much you like/dislike Cruise and Cameron. Despite his cults, couches and CGI doves, I still count myself as Team Tom, particularly when he's Les Grossman. And he's in full-on movie star mode here, all cocksure come-ons and badass poses. Cameron Diaz also plays basically an idealized version of herself, smiling thru a series of supercute costume changes – sometimes with a gun.

The plot basically amounts to one long chase scene, with the movie's MacGuffin being a perpetual fusion battery or some such thing. Peter Saarsgard's the rival spy who may or may not be the bad guy, depending on whether you think Cruise's character has gone insanely rogue or just wackily bullet-happy. None of it really matters – the fun of the flick is watching the leads play off each other, and they're clearly having a better time than they did in Vanilla Sky.

Part of what makes the movie works is James Mangold's offbeat direction – his resume (Walk the Line, Girl Interrupted) doesn't exactly scream "high-octane summer adventure" and watching him experiment with the format is entertaining in its own right. Some of the set pieces have a classic action movie soundtrack, while others are backed by light Italian classical tunes or jazzy spins on Harold Faltermeyer's Axel F. And the scenes themselves unfold almost languidly, giving the entire endeavor a slightly dreamy feel.

Here's the thing: if you break the movie down into its basic elements, there's not a ton of "there" there. But if you like the leads and are willing to go with it, the sum is definitely greater than the whole of its parts. So go ahead and embrace the excesses of big-time mainstream Hollywood moviemaking – despite the fact that America seems uninterested, I think it's worth a watch.

There once were 3 Stories of Toys

In the decade it's been since part two

The characters (and audience) grew

This tale of maturing

Is really quite stirring

Pixar's earned a great big "thank you."

I'll add my voice to the choir praising Pixar's first threequel – unlike other high-profile followups, this one more than lives up to the hype.

People praise kids' movies for "appealing to adults." Unfortunately, what that often ends up meaning is a bunch of snide jokes or easy parodies in the Shrek sequels – where Pixar excels is in making masterpieces that legitimately entertain the entire family. Because rather than offering up cheap pop-culture pot-shots, Pixar's delivered an unrivaled streak of spectacularly wonderful films that present evergreen themes under a shiny coat of CGI.

I won't recap the plot or share spoilers, but there's a moment in this movie where the overall theme of letting go becomes so sharply poignant that it elevates Toy Story 3 out of the "animation" category entirely. It's a lock for the Best Animated Picture win whenever the Oscars are next year, but based on the 2010 slate so far, it could be in contention for the real hardware. It's that good.

There once was some Sex and a City

This saga of stylish New Yorkers

Produced one film that was a corker

It made tons of money

And was pretty funny

But the sequel is more of a forker

Forker, as in "stick a fork in this franchise, it's done." Sex and the City 2 isn't the worst movie you've ever seen; frankly, it's not even as bad as the critics would have you believe. But it is almost completely irrelevant, and that's what kills it.

Over six seasons of the actual series, the stories of Carrie, Samantha, Charlotte and Miranda were pretty well wrapped up, but the first film did a surprisingly skillful job of creating a next chapter that felt organic and important. The sequel is not that. Having brought their characters' story arcs to a fairly natural close, what else can you do to showcase their fabulous clothes? Send 'em on vacation, I guess.

Just that idea isn't necessarily a movie-killer, but where they go and how they do it comes close. Aside from the, um, let's say uncharitable viewpoint of the Middle East that the movie espouses, the real problem is that they're in Abu Dhabi at all. While the lead actresses get top billing, the City of Manhattan's a living, breathing co-star. Putting them at a seven-star resort, while allowing the filmmakers to live out their Bollywood fantasies, does take some of the teeth out of the proceedings.

There's a faint framing story about Carrie feeling a little too settled in her marriage, but the stakes never feel very high. The other husbands and boyfriends make token appearances, but there's no drama there either. Overall, the whole thing feels incredibly slight – bright and colorful with some fun to be found, but nothing that makes any impact once the credits roll. Which takes an incredibly long time, btw – this romp clocks in at almost two-and-a-half hours. The first film was similarly a bit bloated, but as they were trying to shove in complete stories for four characters, it was allowable. Here, when a lot of the movie boils down to "Balenciagas vs. Burquas" jokes, it seems somewhat indulgent.

Speaking of indulgence, there are two musical numbers too many. They're kind of indicative of the overall problem – it's one thing to see these women striving to succeed in the urban jungle of New York, but it's another thing to watch them wallow in decadence and opulence just for the hell of it. The sequel's tagline is "Carry On," but I fear that this movie may prevent that. It hasn't been well-received by critics or fans, and frankly hasn't made much money. And in any City, from Manhattan to Hollywood or even Abu Dhabi, that just might be the kiss of death.

Which is too bad, really – what began as the defining voice of a generation of women might go out on a note as ethereal as a champagne bubble.

There once were six seasons of Lost

"The End" was a task Herculean

Discussions could go on for eons

For those craving answers

I'd ask would you rather

Been told it was midichlorians?

There once was a Hood they called Robin

This version of Robin is gritty

And missing the repartee witty

But altho it's grimmer

The movie's a winner

And all of the issues are nitty

Despite a problematic pre-production, this new Robin Hood turned out pretty good. What originally was conceived as "Nottingham" with the twist of the legendary Sheriff as hero has, after several rewrites and delays, been refocused on Robin, but as a Gladiator-esque prequel that sets up the Sherwood Forest saga. And before you think Jar Jar Binks, don't worry – while it definitely diverges from the original story, this decidedly darker take still treats the legend with respect.

Russel Crowe's take on the Hood is fairly understated: he's not the wisecracking animated fox of the Disney movie, but does imbue the role with some wry humor. He's not a dashing swashbuckler in the style of Errol Flynn, but does build a slow-burn romance with Marian (Cate Blanchett, who's reimagined as more of a warrior than cut from the classic Maid mold). And his accent is certainly more consistent than Kevin Costner's.

Prolly the best thing about this prequel is that it's not simply arranging the building blocks of the well-told legend. Yes, all the pieces get put in place: Robin redistributes wealth from the rich to the poor, meets the Merry Men (well, as merry as they get in the Middle Ages), fires off a few arrows, etc. But there's an actual adventure here, chronicling Robin's rise from an archer in the ranks of Richard the Lionheart's army slogging their way home from the Crusades to a defender of the people under the corrupt thumb of British rule.

It's not the fast-paced franchise starter that's typical of the summer, but despite a few meandering moments, Ridley Scott's look at the Robin Hood legend is worth a watch. Nothing spectacular, but solidly entertaining.

There once was a Man made of Iron

Though Iron Man is known for soaring

The second one's notably boring

Too bad that this sequel

The first film can't equal

You would be forgiven for snoring.

Despite starring a second-tier superhero, the first Iron Man movie succeeded thanks to a terrific turn by Robert Downey, Jr. plus a generally upbeat tone and snappy sense of style. The sequel, while featuring the same star and director, has none of the energy that made the first one so fun. Apparently story problems plagued the production, with the script not being set before shooting and many of the plots being worked out along the way. It shows – the movie is a muddled mess of uninteresting side stories that does little more than serve as a teaser for the upcoming Avengers films.

SPOILERS AHEAD, I suppose, altho I'm not sure how much that warning matters as so little actually happens.

While the series' creators did a terrific job in realizing the Tony Stark/Iron Man character, in two full films they've yet to create a villain worth watching. Mickey Rourke wanders around as "Whiplash," an inventor competitor that tries to exact revenge for Tony Stark's father wronging his father mostly by mumbling threats through an incomprehensible accent and typing instructions to robots with his ruddy dinosaur fingers. His partner in crime is Justin Hammer, whose evil scheme is the imaginative idea of making slightly different versions of Iron Man suit, just with more guns. Much of this action takes place at the "Stark Expo," a World's Fair of sorts that Tony Stark has apparently built at his own expense in order to make military product introductions to cheering throngs of fans. For a calendar year.

Recast and miscast, respectively, are Don Cheadle and Scarlett Johansson as frenemy James Rhodes who becomes the silver version of Iron Man known as War Machine and as Natasha Romanov who reveals herself to be the worldy superspy Black Widow. Cheadle's not awful, but plays no real role other than to strap on a suit in order to fight Stark when he's drunk. In what purports to be the film's climax, War Machine's weapons get hacked into and he attempts to shoot Iron Man, but the fact that he can warn Stark about every threat diminishes any potential tension more than a little bit. Johansson, while she can certainly fill out a black catsuit, isn't right for the role, as her apple-cheeked sexiness doesn't exactly scream "exotic Eastern European assassin."

Amidst these subplots is Tony Stark's search for a new element to add to the periodic table and replace the power core that keeps his heart pumping. Watching the protagonist research technological upgrades via old videotapes and new virtual screens does not a thrillride make. It's really one of the dullest superhero movies in recent memory – aside from some fun lines from Downey, Jr and nods to other heroes (Nick Fury, Thor, Captain America, etc.) there's nothing of consequence here. Tony Stark gets sick and he's given the cure. His assistant Pepper Potts gets promoted to CEO and quits within a week. Bad robots appear and Iron Man shoots then. And so on. Aside from the murky idea of an arms race to make more Iron Man suits, there's nothing propelling the plot, no sense of danger that matters.

It's a real disappointment and wasted opportunity. Rather than capitalizing on a stunning debut, Iron Man 2 is about as exciting as ironing.

There once was an ops team called Losers

Altho this is based on a comic

It's more like an old-school action flick

With lots of explosions

And brain cell erosion

It's fun but also dumb as a brick.

Some stuff always gets lost when translating books (even the comic kind ;) to the big screen. The original Losers comic was not a sacrosanct masterpiece by any means, but the movie version is missing the book's edge. Losing the R-rated language to gain a PG-13 audience isn't a big deal, but shaving the interesting off a couple of characters hurts and switching between slo-mo and hypertime shots doesn't quite capture the comic's visual style. For a bit of comparison, here's the comic version of the poster:

The movie's credits are executed with similar artistic flair, and they serve as a final reminder of why the rest of the film feels a little ordinary. Perhaps it could've used some 300-style digital grading to give it some style, because mostly it comes off as the ode to 80s action movies that Cop Out tried to be. But the real loss is Zoe Saldana's character Aisha, sanitized from an unhinged force of nature killer to a sassy gunslinger with a penchant for Flashdance shirts.

So, taking off my "the comic was better" hat for a moment, is the flick any fun? Yeah – some.

It's a very simple tale of revenge – a Special Ops team gets blamed for a mission going wrong and consequently burned by the CIA. After a few months of everyone thinking they're dead, the Losers gear up and strike back at the main villain, a mysterious man named Max that wanted them out of the way. And that's basically it – there's some nonsense about "snukes," a mythical bomb that sucks everything in its path into a wormhole of sorts by way of questionable CGI, but it's an obviously shoehorned-in plot that exists purely to give the Losers a vaguely heroic image.

This is the kind of movie where instead of driving around an obstacle, a henchman drives his Ducati up a previously unseen ramp to leap over a plane. The kind of movie where the two main characters decide whether they can trust each other by brutally fighting and setting the room on fire before having sex. The kind of movie where a guy gets shot in both legs, makes many jokes about the fact that he can't stand up because he's been shot in both legs, then eventually stands up just fine on both legs... when he needs to shoot people. And so on.

So if you put your brain on the back burner, it's not half bad, but at best it's only half good.

There once was an Ass that got Kicked

There's plenty of fresh controversy
About this satirical movie
At the end of the day
The flick is ok
You're fine if you just wait for TV





Kick-Ass doesn't, totally. It certainly has moments, but they're kind of hit and miss. So in that vein, let's go bad news/good news.

First, the misses – mostly plotting and a bit of casting. To say the film's unfocused would be an understatement. It purports to be a deconstructionist superhero story, but doesn't really look at the psyche behind the kind of people with no powers who pick up the cape and cowl to fight crime. Whereas something like Watchmen really examines what those choices would do to people, Kick-Ass mostly uses that conceit as a flight of fancy.

Also, the plot is pretty messy. There's the story of an average high-schooler becoming fed up with the evil in the world, purchasing a wetsuit and becoming Kick-Ass, street-level superhero. Much is made of how this inspires people to join his cause, wear his t-shirts, create comics about him, etc... but the other superhero stars of the film turn out to be completely unrelated. Rather than being inspired by Kick-Ass's emergence, these highly polished vigilantes (Big Daddy as a mean spin on Batman and Hit Girl, the tween assassin) are mostly embarrassed by his actions. In a world where the main character wants nothing more than real-world superheroes, why had he never heard of these two?

Another miss is the antagonist – a Central Casting mobster and his cadre of generic wiseguys. The basic inspiration behind the movie is of regular joes becoming superheroes... wouldn't some of them take the supervillain route instead? Watching Generic Crime Boss become increasingly annoyed that his drug trade is being interrupted or some such thing is beyond forgettable.

And speaking of casting, more misses: Christopher Mintz-Plasse (Superbad's McLovin') stays well within his wheelhouse – mealymouthed awkwardness with a touch of whiny profanity. If that's your thing, enjoy, but I think we're seeing the edge of his clearly limited range. And Nicolas Cage delivers all his lines with a halting cadence reminiscent of a fairly creepy science teacher, robbing every scene of any emotional impact.

But there are a couple hits in the cast, too – Aaron Johnson is relaxed and natural as the titular hero. He doesn't over- or under-play his face-in-the-crowd character, making him pretty approachable and his actions almost believable. But the breakout star is Chloe Grace Moretz as Hit Girl. Child actors are generally tiresome at best, but Moretz is remarkably natural and appealing. Her role could've been a film-killing embarrassment, but thanks to her it's a highlight.

That said, Hit Girl's the epicenter of the movie's controversy. Oddly, what seems to be upsetting people more than giving an 11-year old mass-murder the hero treatment is the fact that she drops the "C-word" at one point. That's completely backward, but I do have to say that there is something a bit queasy watching her perform bullet-riddled ballets. Or getting punched in the face by a grown man 'til she's weary and bloody. I'm not generally one for hand-wringing about the perils of copycat media and such, but the fact that her weapons and methods are all (relatively) realistic and obtainable means I would prolly pass on selling Hit Girl Halloween costumes at Toys 'r Us.

But it's a common contradiction inherent in the film – is this a comment on the oversexualization and hyperviolent treatment of women in the media or just a check-your-head-balls-to-the-wall-fantasy-action flick? Overall, the movie feels a little have your cake and smash it over someone's head, too. That said, there's an underlying spirit to it that sort of makes it work. The movie's kind of a mishmosh, but at heart the idea of everyday people unwilling to let the world slide into evil is appealing enough to make you root for even the most sociopathic of superheroes. Well, except for Nic Cage.

So if the trailer looked like your ultimate fanboy fantasy, the movie'll generally fulfill it. If you're purely looking for Hong Kong action acrobatics, you'll be somewhat underwhelmed, save for a few moments that are undeniably kinetically cool. It's not grand enough in scale to insist on a big-screen viewing, and may actually play better at home where it's freed from the expectations of an event movie. It may not completely kick ass, but you won't feel like you got your ass kicked, either.

There once was a Clash of the Titans

I had pretty low expectations

For this battle of Heaven's creations

The editing's shaky

Some CGI's fakey

But worthy of recommendations.

Clash of the Titans is perfect fodder for a remake – a film people remember fairly fondly, but really isn't particularly good. The modern version isn't a timeless classic, but a well-crafted update to an ancient tale.

Sam Worthington inherits Harry Hamlin's sandals as Perseus, the demigod son of Zeus on a quest to avenge the death of his family and assert humanity's place in the face of the gods. Mostly this involves fighting a bunch of CGI monsters – scorpions, snakes, and scenery chewers like Liam Neeson and Ralph "Call Me Rafe" Finnes. Looming over everything (under, really) is The Kraken, a sea creature created by the deities as the final option to keep their human subjects in line.

Gone are the stop-motion-Harryhausen-animation and R2D2 ripoff Bubo the mechanical owl, replaced by CGI and a somewhat snide cameo that would've been comparable to Jar Jar Binks tripping over an Ewokskin rug. The effects are a little inconsistent, as some strive for a similar stop-motion feel while others are hyper-edited to the point of being obscured. And the flick feels a bit like it's stuck on fast-forward – in addition to some slightly rushed action sequences, a few of the films revelation's pop up with little to no setup.

But look, it works. Clash is a fitting start to the summer season in that it's a great light blockbuster. Michael Bays of the world take note – one can put out a piece of popcorn entertainment that isn't a complete insult to your intelligence. As Perseus and Co. marched on, I found myself more involved than expected. Worthington's an appealing onscreen presence, and the supporting cast of (admittedly stock) characters are worth watching as well. It's a swords and sandals Saturday serial from people who seem to have had a genuinely good time making the movie, and that spirit carries over to the viewer. Enjoy – I did.