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.