“Kung Fu Panda 2″ is far from a failure in what it sets out to do; the problem with that being that it’s not trying to do anything particularly exciting. It goes through all the paces that a film of its sort is expected to do, fitting damn-near perfectly into the supposed ‘plot-triangle’ with all the requisite motions (rising action, climax, et cetera…). Where action is required, action takes place. Where displays of emotion are required, they are “emoted”. When it behooves the director [first-timer Jennifer Nelson] to drop comic relief, she executes it with impeccable efficiency. And this is really how “Kung Fu Panda 2″ left me cold.

It’s TOO efficient, too workmanlike. It’s TOO neatly constructed. It’s a creation that feels thoroughly constructed top-to-bottom, frame-to-frame, kick-to-face.

It’s the second in a franchise with humbler beginnings than most studio fare. The original was a surprise in all regards, or at least the ones that matter most (financially & critically). What other film could squeeze Jack Black & Dustin Hoffman into the same frame? The film, set in ancient China, was essentially about a lot of furry animals running around and doing kung fu on each other, the main character being the underdog wanna-be panda, Po. But given the dramatic gravitas and weight it was handled with though, it was convincing, entertaining, even uplifting.

Po’s back for “2″, as is his back-up squad, “The Furious Five”, a colorfully animated and celebrity-voice-populated clan. Voices include Angelina Jolie, Seth Rogen, and Jackie Chan. Characters with more than five lines of dialogue include none. The objective of the group this time around? To destroy an evil leader, who is developing a weapon that threatens the future and relevance of kung-fu itself. (I was excited to see what creative ‘weapon’ the filmmakers would come up with, only to find that its a simple cannon.)

Along the way, Po experiences flashbacks to a childhood in which his parents abandoned him. A sub-plot is about him harnessing these painful memories to find “inner peace”. Read above comments on arbitrariness of emotion in this film.

The film is superbly animated, as I’ve come to expect from animation-house DreamWorks. The gorgeous, often fantastical landscapes of China are vividly captured. It’s the combination of these and the combat sequences that really engaged me, most of the time. And what combat!

One element where they totally stepped up their game is indeed, the action in the film. It feels like the kind of large-scale badassery that live-action CGI, for all of its tricks and tools, can’t quite conjure. It’s certainly where the creative juice of the film was mostly used up. A sequence where the protagonists, propelling themselves by throwing the others upward, dart up a collapsing tower is brilliant. It’s these sequences that, should the series continue its current downward trajectory, will keep me coming back for more. C+

In movies, it’s no small secret that women often get the short end of the deal. I mean, think about it. They’re mostly relegated to mom or girlfriend roles, with only the occasional meaty part that men seem to get in the industry so frequently. If they do in fact get their own starring vehicle, it’s rarely much beyond the odd romantic comedy. So the recent Judd Apatow-produced comedy “Bridesmaids”, actually carries a good deal more cultural significance than was probably intended. It’s something of a tester, to gauge if all audiences can respond to a female-driven comedy the way they can to a male one. And I can appreciate that.

The pieces were certainly in place to make a great, memorable comedy; and if critical consensus and box-office are any indicators, the majority of America believes the pieces clicked together. As for me,  I feel like “Bridesmaids” doesn’t quite know what its shooting for. It tries to balance the arc of a woman (Kristen Wiig) trying to piece her life back together with rauncy, crude, “Hangover”-esque humor. But I feel like it doesn’t properly emphasize either, so in other hands, neither aspects really work.

The film’s about Annie, played by Wiig, who is selected to be the maid of honor for her best friend Lillian’s (Maya Rudolph) wedding. Annie’s at something of a low-point in her life, after the failure of her newly-opened-cakery and moving in with an erratic brother-sister duo. (the bizarre incestual undertones of which are uncomfortable yet brilliant comedy)Annie is given the task of coordinating all the various pre-marital events: Dress fittings, parties, wedding dinners, et cetera. But for this, she faces competition in Helen, Lillian’s gorgeous other best friend who will do whatever it takes to derail Annie’s relationship with Lillian.

Now, there are a few moments in “Bridesmaids” where the film’s potential is fully developed and realized. Ditto the brutal dress-fitting sequence, in which all six bridesmaids fall prey to food poisoning. (Note: If you don’t want to be subconsciously turned off of Brazilian cuisine, don’t see this film.) There’s also a scene aboard a plane, a 15-minute marvel where motivations and tensions slowly simmer and eventually blow up in everyone’s face.

What these two sequences have in common is a slow, workmanlike pace. It takes time to develop an elaborate scenario with various forces playing against each other, both culminating in gut-busting hysteria. And what they have in common is that they’re head-and-shoulders above everything else in the movie.

Most of the jokes in the film come from the characters’ various idiosyncrasies and personalities. But in order for them to work, the characters themselves have to feel fully fleshed and developed. Save for Kristen Wiig, I don’t believe I felt fully convinced by any of the actors’ work here. They play the characters to a certain degree of ridiculousness, yet in the third act try and turn it around to bring a most realistic take on it. I didn’t entirely buy it.

“Bridesmaids” did have to walk a tight-rope, and I can admire and respect that. But the film’s problem is that it isn’t funny, or heartfelt. It’s just not funny or heartfelt enough. C

There’s a scene in “The Hangover: Part II” where the three protagonists are looking for clues. See, the same three guys as in the first installment, Stu, Alan and Phil, have awoken from a drunken night on the eve of an important wedding, and need to re-piece their night and find a friend they lost. Phil gets the idea to open up their pockets to check for traces of where they were the following night, but drops a line that quietly devastated me: “Alright guys, you know the drill.” It almost felt like writer-director Todd Phillips was speaking from behind the screen, ‘Alright, guys. I’m not REALLY gonna try here, but Warner Bros. is gonna drop me a fat paycheck so I’m in.’

Now, before I get too deep into my feelings about this film, I’ll shed some light on the positives. The major “twist” with this installment is that it’s set in Bangkok. And truthfully, its the hallucinatory, hellish way cinematographer Lawrence Sher shoots Bangkok, that was the major highlight of the film. Watching it, soaking in the sights, makes you feel like you’re melting in your seat, sinking into a sweaty, dirty hole. And there’s one particular chase scene in the latter third of the film involving a pig, a monkey and a group of Russian mobsters that is actually a superbly directed, well-realized sequence.

“The Hangover: Part II” is about as routine and rote a sequel as they come. It’s a movie that doesn’t feel like it had much creative or passionate energy behind it. Hell, it copy-and-pastes almost everything from the first one — the plot structure, the wacky events, hell, even some of the jokes. But what made the first “Hangover” such a bizarrely inspired stroke of comedic genius, is sadly, largely gone. It was the sense of surprise that we had as an audience. Make no mistake, that film was just as genuinely compelling a mystery as it was an uproarious comedy. Here, that’s gone. The sense of discovery and curiosity is gone. Instead, we get a mechanical retread; one that captures all the surface of the original at the expense of its soul.

Now, note that I said, it “captures the surface” of the original. This is true. There remains the offbeat chemistry between the leads. There remains the awkward dentist Stu, there remains the good-looking straight-man Phil, there remains the whiny, psychopathic, potentially pedophiliac man-child Alan. There’s still the quirky, crude one-liners, there’s still the constant penis jokes, there’s still the Mike Tyson cameo. Hell, there’s still the ending-credits montage, in which cell-phone-pictures of their wild night are displayed, so that we can piece together the mystery as an audience.

This may sound like the same uproarious fun of the first, but its truly not. On the contrary, it was probably one of the duller cinematic experiences this year. Not just because I’ve seen it all before, but because its delivered from a group of wildly talented individuals who all know they could do better. D+

Imagine a world where every movie title described its subject matter perfectly. Interesting, no?

Where instead of “Fast Five” it’d be “Muscular Men Driving Fast Cars For The Fifth Time”; where instead of “Your Highness” it’d be “Medieval Stoner Comedy”. An endearing concept, but one that would wear thin after a while. Used sparingly, though, it’s awesome. Enter “Hobo With A Shotgun”, where the premise is succinctly summarized in the four words of its title. It is, in fact, a hobo wielding a shotgun, on a one-man quest against a web of corrupt cops, psychopathic mobsters and their army of robots. It is, in fact, as ludicrous, bombastic and stupid as it sounds. And it is, in fact, very close to a masterpiece. Call me insane, but this is seriously inspired cinema.

Director Jason Eisener pulls off something very tricky. See, on the exterior, “Hobo with a Shotgun” is out-of-control; a manic, chaotic, bloody romp of a film. But Eisener actually has a tight, taut vision; one that he executes perfectly. He’s making a film not in the style of, but actually of vintage exploitation cinema. He plays everything totally straight, relying on the audience to pick up the tone that he’s trying to convey. Basically, the movie is one great big inside-joke.

Hauer is pretty fantastic as the titular hobo. He plays it entirely straight-forward; making a character that could have easily slipped into caricature but instead gives a somewhat nuanced performance as someone who clearly isn’t entirely in his right mind. Brian Downey steals every scene he’s in, however, as The Drake, who, as the head mobster in the town, is the chief villain of the film. Memorable (and publication-appropriate) lines of his include, “When life gives you razor blades, make a baseball bat full of razor blades!”. He knows just how much ham to bring to each individual line, as do his psychopathic sons cum henchmen, whose almost impossible level of ego and bravado remind me of “Risky Business”-era Tom Cruise, million-dollar-smile and all.

Eisener’s originality shines through in truly bizarre ways here. The structure and concept of the movie are nothing new, but it’s little nuances that truly are (i.e., the staging of the action sequences, the kills, etc.). Nothing is off-limits here….not even a school-bus full of children.

“Hobo With A Shotgun”, though gruesome and repelling; loud and brutal; stupid and silly, is fantastic. It’s a film made with the utmost care and passion, with some of the most original action in a while and a truly great performance from a long-respected veteran actor, Rutger Hauer. It’s definitely fringe cinema. You won’t find this at your local cineplex. [As it stands right now, "Hobo With A Shotgun" can be seen at art-house cinemas and on iTunes] But it’s a film that touched me in a weird way, one that struck emotional chords in me, both brutal and poignant. B+

When you re-invent something by both satirizing and embodying it, how do you follow up on that? That’s been Wes Craven’s dilemma in the wake of his 1996 smash “Scream”. Being pretty much the undisputed master of American horror up to that point (See: “Nightmare on Elm Street” franchise, “Hills Have Eyes”), Craven saw fit to both comment on and embrace all of the various clichés, characterizations and quirks of horror. Inevitably, it was a success; inevitably there were sequels and inevitably they were vastly inferior.

But the horror landscape has changed since Craven gave the franchise up in 2000. Reboots, remakes, re-imaginings…whatever you wish to call them, have permeated the genre. Horror’s never been more popular. It’s also never been more creatively and artistically barren. Either way, a new “Scream” feels appropriate, almost necessary. Enter “Scream 4”.

Robert Pattinson, Reese Witherspoon, and their animal co-star in "Water for Elephants"

When people refer to the “conventional romance”, they’re harkening back to something that doesn’t really exist anymore. I submit that Hollywood’s too demographic-minded these days to put out any romance that doesn’t (awkwardly) cram numerous genres into the same product, one such example being your typical romantic comedy. Even the insanely popular “Twilight” franchise, both revered and scorned for its unabashed romanticism, incorporates elements of horror and action into its mix. Seeing onob, an acrobat, Marlene, and her violent husband, August, against the back-drop of a Depression-era traveling circus.

One thing that director Francis Lawrence totally nails? The visual angle. From the very first frame, he had me totally sold on its period setting. But when at about the 25-minute mark, when the circus comes to life for the first time, the movie turns a whole new cheek and becomes a total feast for the eyes. It’s lit and portrayed in a very lush, romantic way; a stark contrast from some of the more glum, violent events of the film.

Continuing with the positives, Robert Pattinson actually delivered a very effective performance. It’s no secret that the mention of his name is to the chagrin of most males of any demographic, but I’ve found him to be a pretty capable guy, and he doesn’t do much to prove me wrong here. And Christoph Waltz, who continues the unfortunate pattern of dallying in work beneath his considerable talent, nevertheless is excellent as August. He adds an angle of unpredictability and menace to the film not unlike, say, Heath Ledger’s work in “The Dark Knight”. It’s also cool to see one of my favorite elderly actors, Hal Holbrook, get some solid work as an elderly version of Jacob, that serves as a framing device for the film to be told in flashback.

It would be considered odd that the biggest star of the film is also the weakest link, but I’ve never taken much of a liking to Reese Witherspoon, so it doesn’t strike me much that shee such “conventional romance” is truthfully, a bit of an oddity. Enter “Water for Elephants”, a romance almost determined to sprint in the opposite direction of where the industry is taking its genre.

It’s got Oscar-winners (Christoph Waltz, Reese Witherspoon), teenage idols (Robert Pattinson) and an accomplished director, so essentially its exactly what one would expect for a pedigreed project of its sort. And really, that’s just what “Water for Elephants” is: Exactly what you would expect, in both in its strengths and its weaknesses. It tells the tale of a love triangle between a young veterinarian, Jac didn’t impress me. Whereas Pattinson and Waltz imbue some degree of personality to their performances, Witherspoon doesn’t bring much life to her work. She delivers her lines with a vague look on her face, never really in synchronization with the tone the film’s trying to strike. Unfortunately, this hampers what’s probably the most important aspect the film was trying to sell: The romance between Pattinson and Witherspoon. I was still invested, but not as much as they were shooting  for.

This segues a bit into my chief problem with “Water for Elephants”, which is that alot of times certain dramatic elements just don’t click. Due to some directorial (and in Witherspoon’s case, acting) slip-ups, some events that the film wants us to be swayed by or shocked by just don’t click. Prime example? The film’s grand climax, which everything in the film is supposedly building up to. But due the way Lawrence cuts and paces it, it simply doesn’t feel important at all. It ends the film on a very “meh” note, when it should have been cathartic and warming.

Generally speaking, those who see “Water for Elephants” know what they’re getting into; probably emerging from the theater completely loving it. The two I was with certainly did. And at the end of the day, that’s all that really matters. B

James Franco, a brave prince, Zooey Deschanel, his fiancee, and Danny McBride as Franco's lazy brother in the medieval comedy "Your Highness".

A silly joke told once is funny. A silly joke told repeatedly, serving as the basis for a 102-minute, $50-million movie is not. “Your Highness” is that joke. It’s a juvenile premise: Two brothers, one a brave prince and the other a lazy stoner, go on a quest to rescue the prince’s fiancee from the clutches of an evil wizard. Basically, penis and weed jokes in the setting of a medieval adventure. But given the comedic talent behind “Your Highness”, I expected much more.

You have James Franco and Natalie Portman in the cast, who gave the best male and female performances of last year. It’s helmed by David Gordon Green, whose plunge from art-house-respectability (“George Washington”) to low-brow comedy (“Pineapple Express”) has been a thing of both beauty and sadness. The cherry on top is the fact that it stars Danny McBride, whose comic cocktail of cynicism and aloofness has been insanely fun to watch in his work.

But alas, “Your Highness” doesn’t click. It’s due to both the repetitive nature of the humor and the lack of enthusiasm with which the humor is executed. I’d blame the script, but since reportedly the movie was mostly improvised, I suppose the blame goes onto the performers. Is it because they realized the limited comedic potential and gave up? It’s possible, probable even. There’s honestly such little life in any of these people’s performances, which given my adoration for Portman (and man-crush on Franco) totally sucks to see.

Danny McBride is actually totally game here, bringing the requisite level of goofiness when no one else really bothered. He occasionally delivers a one-liner that totally floored me with laughter, serving as something of a tease of what could have been.

And that’s really all that “Your Highness” is: A lazily constructed tease, that’s frustrating not just because of how far from entertaining it is, but because it constantly reminds you of how much better it could have been. D

Energy. A feeling so often portrayed yet so rarely conveyed in the movies these days. A feeling that often times eludes the films that are supposed to thrill us the most. It doesn’t elude “Hanna”. “Hanna” is about a trained, seasoned assassin on the run from CIA captors, with the twist that said assassin is a 16-year old girl, the title character.

Where this film gains its energy isn’t merely the fact that Hanna is constantly in motion, be it running, fighting, jumping, hiding. Rather, through a masterful blending of several elements: Cinematography, whose style adapts whenever the scene demands it: Elegant long takes in some instances,  The music, scored by electronic duo The Chemical Brothers, which uses throbbing beats and clashing sounds to complement the on-screen chaos and destruction. Masterfully choreographed (and more importantly, really exciting) action, fought between characters that are thoroughly developed if not always sympathetic.

It goes on. All of these elements, however varied and seemingly unconnected, come together in an unconventional, offbeat way that is, frankly, unlike any movie I’ve ever seen. ”Hanna” is an engaging, thought-provoking drama and character study, that just so happens to have incredibly exciting action sequences throughout. It’s a dream mix.

Saoirse Ronan, whose work in “Atonement” and “The Lovely Bones” had highly impressed me, cements herself as no less than the greatest teenage actress working today. Her work as Hanna is deeply complex, portraying a person whose social skills are that of a toddler yet whose combat skills are that of a seasoned soldier. Ronan can effortlessly transition from vulnerability to blind fury and violence, sometimes in the same scene. She’s fantastic, bringing gravitas and physicality to this odd coming-of-age-tale.

Although Ronan is undoubtedly the star of the show, there’s alot of great actors showcased on the side. Eric Bana plays Hanna’s father, who’s mentored her and taught her all her skills. He’s long been an actor that I feel hasn’t gotten as much work as he deserves, and his great work here only makes me wonder why I’m not seeing him in more stuff. Cate Blanchett, though, is a total scene-stealer here. She plays the CIA agent devoted to wiping Hanna out, and is a total blast to watch. Given that Blanchett has a penchant for more meaty, awards-fodder parts, seeing her cut loose a bit is great.

In short, “Hanna” gave me all that I’ve been looking for. It’s a heavy, complex drama that still entertained and enthralled me every step of the way. A