Vampires! They’re goddamn everywhere! When they look back on the start of the 21st century, will they wonder what we were thinking, or will there be no fiction without vampires?

Of course, not all vampires are born equal. There are some that are unreadable, and there are those that offer themselves to you with no real challenge: vampires on cruise control. The Sookie Stackhouse novels (AKA the Southern Vampire Mysteries), which became the TV series True Blood, is one such vampire series; easy enough to read without causing much concern, but also without approaching greatness in any capacity.

Given the two month release delay and the awful trailers, I always knew that Green Lantern was not going to be a good movie. Periodically I see movies that feel more than anything like I'm sitting in a darkened room, staring at a screen, and Green Lantern falls precisely into that elite circle.

Green Lantern is a special kind of bad movie. It's not dull, but it is singularly unengaging. It has a relatively good cast who either don't bother or founder in its roles. Its action is stupid and the CG is unforgivably bad for a 2011 production. There is very little indeed to like about a film that is more toyetic than anything else; this is the first comic book film since the 21^st century "renaissance” that is blatantly geared towards children and the sale of toys.

Full disclosure: I have an aversion to apes. I simply don’t like them. I have never seen a Planet of the Apes film, so this is a new experience for me. In the age of The Simpsons it’s hard not to have a base familiarity with the series, though, so I think I knew enough going in to make a reasoned judgment.

I had a healthy scepticism for all of the early promos for this film. It wasn’t until the last trailer was released that I was willing to give it a chance. In the end, James Franco delivers on his promise with all of his limbs intact.

Shrek! is the perfect antidote to the movie franchise that it inspired. Where that was a movie about discovering the beauty within and being a good “person” despite outer appearances, this is a book about being hideous in body and soul and revelling in it.

Shrek is a villain, not a hero. There are no heroes in Shrek’s world. It is glorious.

Written by William Steig, who was 86 at the time of publication, Shrek! tells the story of an ogre who is kicked out of home by his parents and terrorises the countryside while looking for a princess.

At 32 pages, there's not much more it than that, but it's worth mentioning that there is absolutely nothing of the Dreamworks film in this picture book beyond basic character designs. As a subversion of fairy tales, it works much better because there are no knowing winks to non-existent cameras, no waffles and, best of all, no Smash Mouth. I don't know if it would be as subversive if the billion dollar franchise had never existed but, as the counterpoint to the bitter rantings of a man with a grudge against Disney, it's brilliant.

Steig's artwork is charming, and exactly as it appears on the cover. This is a very rough, hand made book. The dialogue generally rhymes and pretends to be set for a fantasy world, but it's not important: Shrek is on a journey of self-realisation. Shrek suspects that he's the greatest and most horrible, and it's not until the ending that he gets it confirmed in the funniest way possible.

This incarnation of Shrek is truly like an onion; if you cross him he’ll make you cry. I wouldn’t have him any other way, and certainly not as a billion dollar franchise. Shrek! counts among one of the best dollars I’ve ever spent.

As the vanguard of the last sixteen years of British literature, Nick Hornby has a lot to answer for. You can call what he writes what you like – "lad lit”, "dick lit” (as opposed to chick lit, obviously) – but that doesn't make it any better than what it is: fiction about people who never bothered growing up and show no intention of ever doing so.

This isn't true of his entire canon, but it holds up for both the instigator of the genre, High Fidelity and its spiritual sequel, 2009's Juliet, Naked. Reading about people who choose to wallow in lives that they consider wasted is not particularly fun or illuminating. It's High Fidelity 14 years after the fact: if you thought that collection of characters was developmentally arrested, you will not be at all impressed with this troupe.

Captain America: The First Avenger is a pretty good film. Technically the fifth in the Marvel universe that has been forged since 2008's Iron Man, it is the chronological first. I would go so far as to say it's the best one that they've offered yet, completely failing to pander to easy nationalistic pride while presenting a valid hero's journey and allowing Chris Evans to create a character with some nuance and likability. Intensely stylish and pure of heart, Captain America: The First Avenger is surprising in many ways … except for its wholly and depressingly unnecessary subtitle.

The quadrant of America that rails against the "lamestream media” is the same that claims that the educational system is terrible, that kids don't learn the important things, and that, because education is so bad, funding should be withdrawn from schools. Bad Teacher plays right into the fears of the "heartland”: teachers are apathetic morons and the only lessons that your children need are the filtered teachings of Jesus.

It's not a good movie, and it's hard to see who it's designed to appeal to: it's a dumb comedy with feigned bite, occasionally falling back on racism and homophobia to generate laughs. If you think that the implied erection of a grade school boy is hilarious, then this film is for you.