Gareth Rafferty (MightyShort)

Robert Langdon is back. Prop me up, for I fear I may faint with excitement.

It seems that no adventurer-cum-lecturer is ever going to top Indiana Jones, but writers and filmmakers keep trying anyway. Thus we get watered down history-made-exciting movies like National Treasure 1 and 2. At the bottom of the pile lie Dan Brown and his bastard progeny, Robert Langdon. Tom Hanks returns as the frowny-faced Harvard professor, who is once again on the trail of some conspiracy or other, armed with library books.

It's not that Angels & Demons is bad, exactly. It's perfectly serviceable in its way, dispensing factoids and solving clues in a manner best described as Scholar Porn. (Characters look befuddled by word; Langdon smirks and explains it. Characters look on at crime-scene; Langdon huffs and locates clue. How this boring claptrap is popular with the masses, I've no idea, but Dan Brown must be absolutely irritating at pub quizzes.) It even gets quite exciting towards the end, when Ron Howard (and scriptwriting uber-hacks Akiva Goldsman and David Koepp, who add up along with Dan Brown to form some kind of Hellish hack quartet) ditches the clue hunt in favour of, well, the finale. It's the cheating, guessable variety, but such is the world of Robert Langdon: big words, obscure factoids, all taking place within a flat and obvious drama about babbling flesh robots, rather than people.

What's wrong with it is Robert Langdon. Having not read Brown's popular Da Vinci Code prequel - or, come to think of it, The Da Vinci Code - I can't attest to the character's literary worth; on screen, however, he's a great deal slower and creakier than Henry Jones Jnr., circa Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull. Langdon helps the Vatican Police locate four abducted Cardinals, due to be murdered one an hour, on the hour. He is generally unsuccessful, arriving minutes (and in one case, about an hour) after the guy in question croaks. Call that a hero? He also manages to completely miss the identity of the bad guy (here's a hint: for all the talk about a bunch of Illuminati running around, we don't actually see any), and fails to strike up an ounce of chemistry with his female colleague (forgotten her name, don't care). He is categorically useless, quite smarmy, and dull to boot. Whoever thought he was worth spinning several of these stories around needs their head examined. (Paging Mr Brown.)

The plot talks itself in circles for two hours, as the audience tries to ignore the silliness of an antimatter bomb at the centre of Vatican City. (If you don't already know what the Large Hadron Collider is all about, this movie won't help.) Throughout, the people of Vatican City are mostly unaware of what's going on, and those that know about it seem unbothered. You could cut the tension with a plastic straw. There are a few decent setpieces: the bit where Langdon rescues a guy from drowning, for instance, and the climactic scene on the helicopter. It's rarely truly tedious, despite having one of those shadowy bad guys that seemingly can't be killed, and several bits where we watch our heroic Harvardite spectacularly fail. Indy's earned the time honoured badge of Getting Too Old For This Shit. What's his excuse?

Where do you begin describing a film called Kung Fu Panda? Just by quoting the title, you know it's about a panda who does kung fu. You can probably derive at least 70% of the movie from that. It's not a film bursting with plot - again, it's called Kung Fu Panda, which is a title as mysterious and full of meaning as Snakes On A Plane - and many of the things that happen in it are guessable to anyone old enough to afford the DVD, without having to save up their pocket money first. It's a ropey old yarn, it does what it says on the tin, and it wraps up fairly quickly.

So why did I like it? There are lots of possible reasons. Jack Black plays Po, the panda of the title, who is miserable as a noodle chef. He dreams of becoming a ninja, but his father - Mr Ping, a goose, who may possibly not be blood-related - will hardly let him out of the noodle shop. Anyway, Black brings much of his characteristic energy to the role of Po, but never bubbles over into sheer irritation. He's a genuinely likeable lead, and it doesn't particularly matter that he's a panda, or that he dreams of becoming a ninja, or that his day job consists of serving noodles to talking animals: chances are we can still empathise with him.

His story is funny, as is the script relatively consistent and witty, without resorting to pop culture references* or excessive potty humour. (*Well, okay, there's a ton of kung fu / anime imagery, but that's rather apt, isn't it? There's nothing wrong with Kung Fu Panda referencing other kung fu movies, just as there's no problem with Shrek taking pot shots at other fairy tales. It's when you start wheeling in recent blockbusters, of note purely because they're currently on people's minds, that there's a problem.) It's just not much like an annoying DreamWorks movie: even down to the animation, which tows a fine line between beautiful CGI and beautiful 2D, resulting in a kind of mish-mash that might also have worked either as a computer-generated movie or a cartoon. It's great to look at, amiable enough to listen to.

There's also an extensive guest cast, and part of the fun is guessing who's who. Some are obvious (Ian McShane, David Cross, Dustin Hoffman and Lucy Liu practically wear name-badges); others, alas, are not given enough to do for us to notice (Angelina Jolie, Jackie Chan and Seth Rogen in particular, and while we're at it, David Cross and Lucy Liu again). James Hong is particularly hilarious as Po's Dad, and the screenwriters deserve credit for never drawing on the incredibly obvious joke of Po's orphan past. (Although I suspect it will crop up in the sequel.)

Still, it's not all wine and roses. There are, of course, tiny things wrong with it. In one sequence, Shifu (Hoffman) trains Po while his Furious Five (Jolie, Chan, Cross, Rogen and Liu) rush off to tackle the approaching bad guy. But why doesn't he notice they've disappeared? And why, when Shifu's master Oogway selects Po as the mythical Dragon Warrior (read: Chosen One), do Shifu and co. act like such asses about it? Sure, they're disappointed he didn't pick them, but isn't it a tad disrespectful to just assume Oogway screwed up? How likely is he to get this wrong?

Also, and we're onto the most minor of niggles at this point, Po is a shameless propagator of that old DreamWorks raised eyebrow face: an irritating habit meant to make the character look cheeky, cocky, or funny. Notice how all DreamWorks characters do it on their respective movie posters. Well, Po does it in virtually every frame, for no reason. It's just annoying.

Thing is, there's not a lot of nitty gritty with Kung Fu Panda. It's a slick, good-looking and fun movie, which wriggles out of deep analysis just by having that title. I could whinge about how tired much of the story is: for instance, we get that unbearable old "The secret ingredient was you all along!" routine. Then at one point, a character dies and dissolves into mystical energy - an occurance so random, the only reason we accept it is that we've seen it many times before. Also, while all the kung fu battles look badass, they don't particularly escalate as the film goes on, and those with a built-up resistance to eye candy may grow bored of them by the end.

But hey, it's disposable, it knows it is, and it works pretty well on those terms. Fast, funny and thoroughly less annoying than a lot of other animated movies (which is not a quality you can underestimate), Kung Fu Panda can be recommended. Just don't bring it up at Film School. And maybe don't watch it twice, if you're cynical like me.

The adorable story of a little car that could, The Love Bug just plain works. Jim Douglas (Dean Jones) is a has-been race driver, and his life is going nowhere until Herbie shows up: a strange Volkswagen Beetle with a mind of its own, who becomes instantly loyal to Jim the moment he stands up for the little car. He starts winning races again. After that, and Jim's complete disbelief that Herbie is anything other than a car, The Love Bug is mostly just lots of races, with the relationship between driver and car getting steadily stronger. But there's so much good dialogue, given to some surprisingly well-drawn characters, that the story seems a lot fuller. Carol (Michele Lee) is a particularly 3D heroine, working for the villainous Thorndyke (David Tomlinson, wonderful as the increasingly obsessed and devilish bad guy) but never really helping him. Buddy Hackett is also a hoot as Tenessee Steinmetz, the loopy mechanic who is the first to notice just how special Herbie is. And Jim is no clean-cut hero. A faded talent and too much pride make him easier to hate than love, but he comes around, and probably so will you. Of course, the car is the star. Few cars are as alive-looking as the Volkswagen Beetle; emotions are easily got across just by a few simple noises or movements. It's a far cry from the wretched CGI hysterics of Herbie: Fully Loaded. Not a lot of films can get away with a car trying to commit suicide - no, seriously - and The Love Bug just about does it, thanks to the surprisingly poingnant characterisation. Often hilarious and triumphant, The Love Bug is a film that fills me with pure, giddy joy. For that, I can't give it anything less than 5. A sublime and wonderful film.

Given the general appallingness of Ed Wood's films, it's bizarre to think that a film of his life could be a classic. Nonetheless, Tim Burton's biopic is his best film. Johnny Depp shines as the determined and adorable loser, and his rabble of freakshow friends offer great support. It's a wonderful story of believing in your talents even if you haven't got any, and of course, in his way, Ed succeeds. Sweet, funny, charming, and absolutely accurate in its recreations, this is one of my all-time favourites.