REWIND REVIEW: Burlesque

MOVIE
Burlesque

CAST
Cher, Christina Aguilera

RATING
PG-13

RELEASE
November 24, 2010

DIRECTOR
Steve Antin

STUDIO
Screen Gems

RUNNING TIME
1 hour 59 minutes





STARS
***










REVIEW:

Burlesque isn't quite the musical you would expect coming from this day in age. This isn't a musical where you feel pretty or you feel so wonderful that you feel like singing in the rain. Instead, it's the typical small town girl with big city dreams story with the setting of a burlesque theater. Think of it as being a modern day set 'Chicago' starring the legendary Cher and the incredibly talented Christina Aguilera. From the trailers, I knew that this would be another Chicago. But the question is if Burlesque is as good or better than 'Chicago.' Well, the answer is both yes and no. The movie is as good as 'Chicago,' but its surely not better than it. Both films are similar, with Christina Aguilera's Alice acting slightly similar to Renée Zellweger's Roxy. Cher's Tess is also similar to Catherine Zeta-Jones' Velma, being one of the film's antagonists turned anti-hero. Both films are very similar to one another, except for the fact that this movie doesn't involve 20s Chicago and the women convicted of murder.

From the trailers, I had a good feeling that this movie would be a knockoff of Chicago. Unfortunately, despite wanting to check this out in theaters, I decided to wait for on demand because of the mixed reviews. So now it's June, I was bored after seeing Cars 2, and I found this in one of Starz's Early Premieres category. Now I am here to discuss what I thought of the latest non animated musical to spill onto the scene. Despite the film having spectacular musical numbers, catchy tunes, and nice work from the two main leads, Burlesque also includes choppy dialogue, a story nobody cares about, and an ending so abrupt I blinked and missed it with no further explanation on what just happened. Burlesque is a good musical, but not a good But for the signing and dancing along, I'd recommend checking this movie out because it is as magical as a real burlesque club.

SYNOPSIS: (Courtesy of Fandango.com)
Ali is a small-town singer who takes her shot at stardom performing at a neo-burlesque nightclub in Los Angeles. Taken under the wing of a friendly featured dancer, Ali quickly realizes that not everyone is quite as nice when she forms a friendship with bartender/aspiring musician Jack and incurs the wrath of the club's cattiest showgirl. After making her leap to the stage with a little help from a sympathetic stage manager and the club's playfully androgynous host, Ali becomes the star attraction at The Burlesque Lounge, and the crowds start packing in. Later, a wealthy businessman makes a bid for the club while trying to charm the talented young performer straight into his arms.

Let me start off by saying that the songs in this movie and the extensively choreographed dance scenes are by far the best things about this movie. The songs aren't as memorable as "I Feel Pretty," "Singin' In The Rain," or "Sit Down You're Rockin' The Boat," but they are catchy as hell. Cher is a brilliant singer and that is clearly shown in the two songs she sings in the movie. Christina Aguilera is also a fantastic singer, being able to have her voice play as a character in the movie. Music plays a big part in this movie, so the songs featured in this movie add another layer to this non-stripping musical. Unfortunately, the acting isn't as good as the singing and choreography.

I've never seen a single Cher movie, so I have no idea how good of an actress she really is. She isn't terrible in this movie, but she plays the typical depressed woman anxious to claim what is hers. She gets angry, acts like a queen, and so on. The performance isn't award worthy at all, but it is good for a musical movie that was never even going to win any awards in the first place. The same thing goes for the movie's other star, newcomer Christina Aguilera. Aguilera can really hold a note, as she and Cher are fantastic singers. Like Cher though, Aguilera isn't a terrific actress. I give her props that this is her first movie, but her acting should be better. Instead, it's something that I could've gotten from an episode of Degrassi.

Come to think of it, the actors, aside from Stanley Tucci come from an adult, musical version of Degrassi, which takes place in a burlesque club. However, Degrassi's acting isn't as good as the acting in this movie. No, it's not great acting. But like I said, the acting is good enough for this type of musical. The best acting in the movie comes from Stanley Tucci. He is great in every movie he does, even if it isn't Academy Award worthy. He is always the best thing in the movies he's in. This movie would've been like every other modern musical if it wasn't Stanley Tucci's gay performance. So to sum up, the acting isn't fantastic, but it's good enough for a typical chick flick musical.

The one thing that was worse than the acting in this movie was the story. The subplot story involves Cher not being able to afford the burlesque club, so she's being pushed to sell the club to this cocky businessman. As hope began to dissolve for Cher, along comes Christina Aguilera to save the day. The plot is pretty unoriginal, and you always know what's going to happen in the end. We've seen this plot in many movies before, so why does Hollywood have to recycle subplots, when we want to see something original for a change. The one thing original about the story is the fact that it ends so abruptly. The final scene of the movie has Christina singing the song "Show Me How You Burlesque." One second after the song ends, credits start rolling. The movie ended faster than I could blink. This was one of the biggest "what the hell" moments that I've ever had watching a movie. There were so many questions I had after watching this movie, but they will never be answered. The one thing a movie wants to avoid is to have a fast ending and a sloppy story. Burlesque unfortunately missed every mark with that.

So Burlesque won't be called a classic, like Hello Dolly and Showboat, but instead it will be put along the lines of Hairspray and High School Musical. The singing and dancing is as usual spectacular, but the story is predictable and sloppy, the acting isn't so great, and the movie ends so abruptly. Yes, the songs are toe tapping, the ladies are sexy, and the dancing is unbelievable, but the movie's story and acting really make the film suffer. I enjoyed these songs so much, I may consider putting them on my iPod. The dancing is as good as the dancing you see in the Step Up movies and on YouTube. But if you saw Chicago, you might as well have seen this movie if Chicago had the storyline of this movie and took place in the modern times instead of the 20s/30s. The story and acting may not be as good as they should be, but the singing, dancing, and scantily clad ladies make up for all of that, and give us a musical that is as good as the more recent musicals that have come out in the last few years. This movie is far from a must see, but if you do see it, it is a fun watch and a musical dream. If you're browsing the movies in Starz by any chance or you don't know what to get at Redbox, then you may want to pick up Burlesque. After all, seeing Cher in a movie once again and Stanley Tucci being Stanley Tucci is always a treat. Treat yourself during a boring night and watch the ladies of today flaunt their stuff in Burlesque.

REVIEW: Cars 2 3D

MOVIE
Cars 2

CAST
Owen Wilson,
Larry The Cable Guy

RATING
G

RELEASE
June 24, 2011

DIRECTOR(S)
John Lassetter,
Brad Lewis

STUDIO(S)
Walt Disney Pictures,
Pixar Animation Studios

RUNNING TIME
1 hour 46 minutes





STARS
***3/4










REVIEW:

Of all of the fabulous Pixar films to be chosen for a sequel, they choose the least popular film on their resume, Cars. I, like every die hard Pixar fan would've rather wanted to have seen an Incredibles 2 or a Finding Nemo 2. But alas, this was a financial choice and I would've rather seen a Cars 2 than another Wall-E. (I hated that movie unlike the 96% of critics on Rotten Tomatoes) So of course I would go see this latest Pixar movie with an open-mind, hoping for Pixar to once again deliver like they did last year with Toy Story 3. First off of the bat just let me say that Cars 2, unlike every other Pixar movie has no PSA like message about our home planet, fancy life montages within the first 10 minutes, or an ending so bittersweet the entire audience was bursting in tears. There is no heart present in Cars 2 at all. Why would a movie having a hillbilly tow truck as the main lead have any kind of heart at all? I don't know, and I'm glad this movie didn't. This movie is just a full spy movie homage with Mater the Tow Truck at the lead. This movie clearly won't satisfy anybody looking for another Up or Toy Story 3. If you go into this movie just ready for anything, you will enjoy Cars 2 no doubt. This may not have the heart every other Pixar movie beholds, but Cars 2 is the one Pixar movie that is full blown action and many bellylaughs throughout. Not only is this movie better than its predecessor, but Cars 2 might be the one animated Disney movie that you don't need any heart to enjoy.

SYNOPSIS: (Courtesy of Zachary Marsh's Mind)
Lightning McQueen and Mater are about to take their friendship to new locations when they travel to the world's first ever World Grand Prix. But things start taking a slight detour for Mater as he gets involved in an international spy espionage. Teaming up with Finn McMissile and Holly Shiftwell, Mater must stop a group of "lemon" cars before they use the race to gain lots of money by corrupting it. Will Mater suceed? Will Lightning win the World Grand Prix? Is the Popemobile Catholic? Find out when you see Cars 2.

This isn't the sequel we expected from Pixar at all. I mean, we expected something high off the heels of the Toy Story sequels. Instrad, we just get a spy movie homage with bumbling Mater at the lead. Who exactly asked for this? Nobody, actually. However, John Lassetter made it, so we know that it has something in it. Lassetter, along with co-director Brad Lewis created a fun spy movie with our kids' favorite Pixar characters. This movie isn't meant for adults at all. I believe that critics are bashing on this movie because they didn't expect Pixar to make a movie with no heart, and all action/comedy. This is the perfect start for kids if you want them to start watching old spy movies, more noteably old James Bond movies. I personally have never seen a single James Bond movie or ever read a single James Bond book. It's not that I have anything against the famous spy, it's just that I never got around to watching or reading a James Bond story. I will one day, but today is not that day. I found this movie to be similar to a Scooby Doo cartoon at parts, particularly the ending. It just added to the goofiness and fun of the movie. For kids who enjoy a fun Scooby Doo cartoon will enjoy this Scooby Doo cartoon with Mater being Scooby Doo.

Speaking of Mater, the voice cast was outstanding. Owen Wilson was Owen Wilson, and Larry The Cable Guy was Larry The "Git-R-Done" Guy. Mater was the main comedic point of the movie. I mean look at his appearance, you know that he's going to be the comedic point of the movie. I liked how they had a tribuite to Doc Hudson, aka Paul Newman in this movie. The segment was brief, but nevertheless a nice tribuite to the late actor. Instead of paul Newman as the mentor of the movie, we get Michael Caine as the head international spy guy, Finn MicMissile. He was clearly the coolest character in the entire movie, mostly because his character was badass. Who would've thought that a talking car could be a badass. We already knew that adrenaline pumped guys driving fast cars could be badass, so this came as a nice surprise to me. He is the James Bond of the Cars world. In fact, Michael Caine's James Bond persona was a nice take off of the character played by Sean Connery and many others. He may soon become one of Pixar's most memerable characters, along the lines of Woody and Buzz. The characters in this movie clearly make the entire movie. The rest of the fantastic ensemble cast include John Turturro as the rival Itallian car Francesco Bernoulli, Jason Issacs as a spy jet named Siddeley, and of course John Ratzenberger in the small role of McQueen's carrying truck Mack. The characters were awesome, but the story was just so so.

Like every 20th Century Fox movie, the plot of this movie is clearly never explained in the trailers. We get the edges of the story in the trailer, but never the full core of the story. The real spy story involves a group of "lemon" cars sabatoging a new type of electrical fuel so cars would have to start buying gasoline over electricity, thus making them the richest cars in the world. The plot is a bit uninspired, pulling a Fox, but it adds to the fun of the movie. Actually, whenever a movie other than a Fox movie pulls a stunt where the plot is never explained in the trailer, I'm just going to call it "a super Foxy move." Aside from the story in this movie, everything else is just pure summer animated awesomness fun.

Cars 2 may not be the best Pixar film in the franchise, or appeal to both audiences and critics, but it was only made to be pure summer fun. The action scenes look incredible, the driving scenes that are shown worldwide look breathtaking, and the characters are likeable enough for you to want to stick around and see what happens next. The characters will keep your eyes glued into your glasses, and will make you laugh until your glasses get foggy. This movie isn't popular with critics because it lacks the heart of Pixar's other masterpieces. However, audiences will love this movie bewcause of it being just a fun summer movie. The kids will love it because of Mater, and adults will love the whole spy homage and the fact that their kids are having a good time watching their toy cars spring to life in 3D. The 3D doesn't add alot, but it looks cool when you're watching the racing sequences, the spy action scenes, and the Lion King/Brave previews. If you're choosing to see a fun family movie that both kids and adults will enjoy, you should probably choose this movie if Kung Fu Panda 2 is nowhere to be found. I'm glad that I enjoyed this movie this week after the annoying penguin movie last week. Unless you want to see Jim Carrey kill himself over a bunch of penguins, go see this action packed 3D spectacle. The Cars are fun, the movie looks cool, and it's just everything you want in a summer movie. Do yourself a favor and give Pixar another chance with their latest sequel, Cars 2.


PREVIEWS YOU MAY SEE:

Winnie The Pooh


The Smurfs


Spy Kids:
All The Time In The World


The Lion King 3D


Dolphin Tale


Puss In Boots


Brave

REVIEW: Toy Story Toons: Hawaiian Vacation

SHORT
Toy Story Toons:
Hawaiian Vacation

CAST
Michael Keaton,
Jodi Benson

RATING
G

RELEASE
June 24, 2011 (Along With Cars 2)

DIRECTOR
Gary Rydstrom

STUDIO(S)
Walt Disney Pictures,
Pixar Animation Studios

RUNNING TIME
approx. 6 minutes






STARS
****








REVIEW:

Whoever saw Toy Story 3 last year can clearly point out that the best characters in the movie were Barbie and Ken. Every time they were on screen, I could barely keep my laughter in, because they we just so damn funny! Now it's a year later, and Pixar is all out of original ideas for their world famous animated shorts. So their only option, aside from doing another Mater short, is to create an all new short based off of other movies they made. In this case, they chose Toy Story for their subject, and the idea that the toys want to create a Hawaiian Vacation for Barbie and Ken after they are left home. This is far from being as memerable as Day & Night or For The Birds, but I can assure you that even if you hate Cars 2, you can still rely on this short to provide you with all of the laughs you can need. This short was pure magic in my eyes, because I love revisiting the Toy Story characters and seeing how they've been. This short will make you laugh out loud in your seat throughout. The best part about it is that the entire audience will be laughing out loud along with you. Imagine an entire chorus of 300 people just laughing all around you. If your theater is big enough, that's what you'll be experiencing when you see Cars 2. So even if you don't enjoy Cars 2, you can still fall back on the pure comedy that is in Hawaiian Vacation.

REVIEW: Mr. Popper's Penguins

MOVIE
Mr. Popper's Penguins

CAST
Jim Carrey,
Six Annoying Penguins

RATING
PG

RELEASE
June 17, 2011

DIRECTOR
Mark Waters

STUDIO
20th Century Fox

RUNNING TIME
1 hour 34 minutes







STARS
*1/2












REVIEW:

Ever since I was a young kid, I always loved Jim Carrey movies. From 'The Mask' to 'Liar Liar,' I could never stop laughing at Mr. Carrey's physical humor. Heck, I even still like some of his more negatively received movies like 'The Cable Guy' and 'Yes Man.' Now it is 2011, a year where family movie are thriving with critics and audiences alike. So what not be better for Mr. Carrey to expose himself to a large family audience than put himself next to a bunch of penguins? That's basically what 'Mr. Popper's Penguins' is: Jim Carrey next to a bunch of penguins. I went in to this movie expecting some belly laughs from the king of physical humor, with some cute penguins to go around. What I got was far much worse. This movie only provides the audience with annoying penguins, non-stop poop and fart jokes, and mushy family bonding moments that just made me squint in my seat. As hard for me as it is to say this, but Mr. Popper's Penguins is the worst family movie that I've seen since Alvin & The Chipmunks: The Squeakquel.

Tom Popper is a fast talking businessman who is also divorced with two kids who can't stand him. One day he receives a package from his now late father, a traveling explorer who was last seen in Antarctica. In this package there are six mischievous penguins who cause nothing but trouble for popper at first. However a sudden change of heart from his family help convince him to keep the penguins. But soon his career and an evil zookeeper keep pulling the penguins away from Popper. Now Popper must decide what is more important to him in life: family or business.

As much as I love going to see movies, whether they are good or bad, I absolutely wish I went to see something else. I really wanted to see a funny family comedy, but instead I get a non-stop poop, fart, and selfish family marathon that goes on for an exhausting 87 minutes before the credits roll. I believe that this is the first movie in many years where I actually couldn't wait for the credits to start rolling. The main problem I had with this movie was the six penguins that you see on the poster. These are the most annoying movie animals I've seen in a very long time. I had a huge headache when driving home, mostly because of this one penguin, Loudy. For those who have hearing aids and are going to see this movie, do yourself a favor and keep your aids at home, because this penguin will annoy you throughout the movie. There's also another penguin named Captain who apparently has a dream to fly like other birds. I know that this is a kids movie, but what penguin in the world has the urge to fly? It's only the kids movies that add these dumb sub-plots. Then there's a penguin named Nimrod, and you could probably guess why they would have a penguin named Nimrod in this movie. The penguins will bring many awws and bellylaughs to the young children, no doubt. But if you're someone over 11 and enjoys a good kids movie, stay away from this movie at all costs.

A bad family movie is only supported by a bad movie family. Jim Carrey's family in this movie is one of the most selfish families that I've ever seen. Before the penguins, Popper's kids practically hate him. But alas, potentially dangerous penguins come into their lives, and they're instantly in love with their father again. When the penguins are taken away from Popper an hour into the movie, guess what happens again? This just shows that only dangerous, wild animals can charm kids that hate you. Ain't that special? Wait a minute, why is Carla Gugino in this movie at all? Just for the quick buck, I'm guessing. She has no purpose being in this movie, and has no reason to call Jim Carrey 'Popper' throughout the movie. Hell, Jim Carrey's entire family calls him 'Popper' throughout the movie. Whatever happened to calling someone 'dad' or 'Tom' to talk to someone? Like I said, worst movie family I've ever seen.

There is no denying that Jim Carrey is a very funny comedian. His physical timing is absolutely sublime. He is really the only good thing in this movie. If it was anybody else playing Mr. Popper, this movie would have been even worse than it is now. In fact, Carrey's antics in this movie are the only reason why I boosted my rating an extra half star. Mr. Carrey is a master at improvization, which helps drag this movie through its worst moments. In fact, Carrey is the only reason why I didn't walk out of this movie. But like I said, only Carrey could pull this role off, even if he pulls it at a minimal. If there's any reason to be forced to see this movie, it should be because Jim Carrey is a funny person and a talented comedian. This movie may suck, but Jim Carrey is still one of the funniest people alive.

Despite having Jim Carrey as a strong player, this movie fails on many levels. This movie shouldn't even be considered a "family movie." This is more like a joyless, stupid little kids movie that only people under the age of 10 would enjoy. I've never been so annoyed by penguins in my life. If you want to see penguins in a movie, do yourself a favor and watch Happy Feet. Even though the penguins can talk in Happy Feet they're still less annoying than these troublemaking animals. As for the family, the Malcolm in the Middle family is less selfish than this family. Well, I may be over exhaggerating with that, but I'd honestly rather be living with Malcolm's familythan Popper's family. Jim Carrey may be funny, but he can't save this disasterous movie. If you take your kids to see a family movie this summer, take them to Kung Fu Panda 2. Kids and adults can both enjoy the animated panda movie rather than the annoying family/penguin movie. Do yourself a favor this summer and do not even dare to visit Mr. Popper's Penguins.



PREVIEWS YOU MAY SEE:

Monte Carlo

Zookeeper

Puss In Boots

The Muppets

Alvin & The Chipmunks:
Chipwrecked

REVIEW: Green Lantern 3D

MOVIE
Green Lantern

CAST
Ryan Reynolds, Blake Lively

RATING
PG-13

RELEASE
June 17, 2011

DIRECTOR
Martin Campbell

STUDIO(S)
Warner Bros. Pictures,
DC Comics

RUNNING TIME
1 hour 54 minutes



STARS
**









REVIEW:

It's Father's Day weekend and what better way to spend time with your dad then to go see a big budget superhero movie? Warner Bros. and DC have decided to release the much anticipated superhero flick, 'Green Lantern' in all of its 3D glory this weekend. This latest superhero adaptation stars Ryan Reynolds as the sometimes cocky and sarcastic pilot Hal Jordan, who suddenly is granted the responsibility of defending the universe as a Green Lantern. Back in November when Harry Potter 7 came out, a negatively received teaser for Green Lantern came out and there seemed that there was no hope for a good Green Lantern movie. However, our negative thoughts were flushed down the toilet as three fantastic trailers came into the spotlight. So now we have the final product, and the result is pretty mediocre. As much as I wanted to like Green Lantern, in the end there was nothing more than a good lead, killer visual effects, and spectacular 3D. Everything else is just bad in the movie. As much as this movie had going for it, Green Lantern might possibly be the worst superhero movie I've seen since Spider Man 3.

SYNOPSIS (Courtesy of ComicBookMovie.com)
In a universe as vast as it is mysterious, a small but powerful force has existed for centuries. Protectors of peace and justice, they are called the Green Lantern Corps. A brotherhood of warriors sworn to keep intergalactic order, each Green Lantern wears a ring that grants him superpowers. But when a new enemy called Parallax threatens to destroy the balance of power in the Universe, their fate and the fate of Earth lie in the hands of their newest recruit, the first human ever selected: Hal Jordan. Hal is a gifted and cocky test pilot, but the Green Lanterns have little respect for humans, who have never harnessed the infinite powers of the ring before. But Hal is clearly the missing piece to the puzzle, and along with his determination and willpower, he has one thing no member of the Corps has ever had: humanity. With the encouragement of fellow pilot and childhood sweetheart Carol Ferris, if Hal can quickly master his new powers and find the courage to overcome his fears, he may prove to be not only the key to defeating Parallax…he will become the greatest Green Lantern of all.

It seems that Warner Bros. is having a bad year so far with their movies, in terms of quality. So far this year from the studio, we've had movies like Sucker Punch and The Hangover Part II. Both movies were over hyped, but turning out to be poorly thought out movies. Since I never saw those two movies, I can only believe what I read. Many have criticized Sucker Punch for a terrible script and being nothing more than cool special effects. The Hangover Part II was criticized because it was apparently the same movie as the first, just with a different location. I believe that Warner Bros. is purposely making mediocre movies in anticipation of making the final Harry Potter film the best it can be. Without Harry Potter come July 15, WB will have to start making more decent movies. Green Lantern is luckily the last movie in this trend, so let's hope for some good movies in the future.

I've never been a fan of sub-plots in movies ever. Sometimes they work in movies that have quirky characters and a smart plot. However the other 90% of movies that are bad have unnecessary sub-plots. Green Lantern unfortunately is no exception to this curse. I can't even remember exactly how many sub-plots there were in this movie, all I know is that they were all useless in this movie. These plots ranged from Hal Jordan trying to live up to his father to Hector Hammond (the Big Headed dude) be envious of Hal and having a crush on Blake Lively. That's why I had to get a synopsis for this movie from another website. Even on the website I used there were about five paragraphs worth of a summary. When a movie needs that much space for a single summary, you know that there's a story problem with the movie. There was even some supposed sentimental moment in which Hal is talking to his nephew just like his father talked to him as a kid. This moment wasn't needed at all, but I'm guessing that it was put in there for the sake of generating a family audience. In fact, I think that only die hard Green Lantern fans and general family audiences will be able to enjoy this movie. I've never read a single Green Lantern comic, but I expect the story in the comics to be far more superior to the cluttered storylines featured in this movie.

A bad story is only backed up by the cast in its movie. The worst thing about this movie was the somewhat large supporting cast. The supporting cast includes the undeniably sexy Blake Lively, the well known Peter Sarsgaard, and Tim Robbins. Blake Lively is clearly in this movie just for show, just like with Megan Fox in Transformers. Even though I can live with staring at these women for two hours each, there's no denying that they are both bad actresses. Like Natalie Portman in the Star Wars prequels bad. However I can give props to Lively for actually being a better actress than Fox. Believe it or not, Lively was not the worst actor in this movie. That position is a tie with the father and son roles of Peter Sarsgaard and Tim Robbins. They may good actors, but they are used poorly in this movie. Sarsgaard looks like Morgan Spurlock in the terrible makeup job and is laughing in almost every scene he's in with company. Tim Robbins is incredibly unbelievable as the father of Hector. I'm not sure if he just didn't want to be in the movie or if he was purposely acting bad throughout, but the truth is that he was unneeded in this movie and served no purpose being here in the first place.

Mark Strong is also in this movie playing Sinestro, the supposed arch enemy to the Green Lantern corps. He was only in the movie for about 20 minutes, including a stupid after credits scene that didn't make any sense to the movie at all. I think he was just in the movie to play a role in a possible sequel. The worst thing about Mark Strong in this movie is that he wasn't good as Sinestro at all. He was like an even more emotionless version of Professor X in the X-Men movies. In summary, all of the supporting actors were terrible in this movie. The only saving point in terms of acting is Ryan Reynolds in the lead role. Reynolds was very good playing a cocky pilot turned superhero in this movie. Sure he may not be another Tony Stark, but he was acceptable for what the role required. Like I said before, I never read a single Green Lantern comic, so i have no idea whether he perfected the comic book role. All I know is that Ryan Reynolds got the comedic timing right, as well as be a badass superhero. However, it seemed like he was trying to copy Christopher Reeve in the original Superman movies. That's when it got very corny. other than those moments, Reynolds was a good presence in a mediocre superhero movie.

The 3D and visual effects in this movie were good, but nothing spectacular. Sure seeing the planet Oa in 3D looked really cool, but that took up about 15% of the entire movie. For the rest of the movie we get three fight sequences and a slew of terrible dialogue in every scene in the movie. There was one scene on Oa where Hal projects a machine gun to battle off Sinestro for training that looked really cool in 3D. Actually all of the things Hal projected out of his mind looked incredibly cool in 3D. Well, the Hot Wheels like sequence in one of the big battle scenes was a bit cheesy. but still, the visual effects and 3D were really cool. They aren't any cinematic accomplishments, but they were just cool for the type of movie this is. However this superhero movie should have been much more than cool visual effects/3D and a fun main lead.

Despite having a strong main lead and some cool 3D effects, Green Lantern disappoints with a weak supporting cast, an awful script, and one of the most useless after credits scenes in recent memory. I had so many expectations for this movie because the trailers made this movie look like an epic of epic epicness. Instead, I just got a very corny, very stupid superhero movie that leaves me on the verge of asking for a refund. This isn't as bad as Batman & Robin, but this movie is just as bad as Spider Man 3. Spider Man 3 had many storylines too, as well as a bad script. This movie is the Spider Man 3 of DC movies. If you hated Spider Man 3 for all of the reasons I mentioned, you may hate Green Lantern. I think I hated this movie because I expected an action packed superhero film, like Iron Man and The Dark Knight. If you go in expecting a movie like Iron Man, you will be disappointed. All I know is that I didn't enjoy Green Lantern. People may enjoy this movie for the corniness it is. I am just one of the many who didn't. I will give the movie props for awesome 3D. But nevertheless, Green lantern is so far the most disappointing superhero movie in the last ten years. This movie isn't the most disappointing movie of the year. No no, that position is taken up by Mr. Popper's Penguins...




PREVIEWS YOU MAY SEE:

Transformers:
Dark Of The Moon

Horrible Bosses

Harry Potter And
The Deathly Hallows: Part 2

Cowboys & Aliens

Conan The Barbarian

Moneyball