“Attrition” has moments that seem somewhat promising but it all descends into a rather formulaic action thriller experience. Steven Seagal (“Executive Decision”, “Half Past Dead”) not only stars in “Attrition” but also wrote it. This was a passion project for him; he looks more enthusiastic than has done in lots of his other recent films but the movie itself is still disappointing.

Axe (Seagal) is a former-soldier that has killed a lot of people and now he just wants a quiet life. He becomes a doctor in a tranquil village in Southeast Asia. However, when he learns that a young woman with alleged healing powers has been kidnapped, he must assemble a team to rescue her.

As is the case with a lot of his recent movies, the fight scenes involving Seagal are a little underwhelming. I get that he is getting older but other ageing action stars have been able to still delivers the goods. Aside from the average at best fighting, Seagal’s performance is actually fairly decent. Siu-Wong Fan (“Riki-Oh: The Story Of Ricky”) plays Chen Man and his martial arts skills are fairly impressive. The villains are not memorable and are just there for Seagal and his team to off.

Some of the locations look great and the scenes that feel more like a pure kung-fu movie are actually quite refreshing. The problems come from the more generic scenes where Seagal and his crew burst into the bad guy’s lair and start blowing people away. We have seen it all before in countless other movies (including many of Seagal’s films). A little thing that bugged me throughout the movie was the unrealistic blood effects that make the film look cheap and nasty. “Attrition” may be enjoyed by Seagal fans but it’s unlikely to excite the general public.

The 1950s is often considered the golden era for bad B movies. “Attack of the Crab Monsters” directed by the infamous Roger Corman (“The Wasp Woman”) won’t even put something vaguely resembles a smile on the most diehard monster movie fanatics.

Normally these sort of movies are too long so I thought with a runtime barely over an hour it might just be fun but the film drags with an inconceivably dumb plot about mutated crabs monsters the are destroying and island and can put human brains inside them. I thought with a mere hour we’d just get crabs killing people but we only get a dozen or so shots of the monster and seen as this should be the one good thing about the movie you’d think they’d design well or make it hilarious, neither of those two is done here.

There aren’t characters in “Attack of the Crab Monsters”, there are simply some actors and actresses walking on camera and struggling to remember boring lines before the waddle back off camera. I’m not surprised the cast did such a bad job, with the low pay you get doing this type of film you most feel really bad about yourself. Most of these films do poorly in the acting/character department but this one does exceptionally bad.

When you watch a movie like this you don’t expect a classic or even something good but the film lacks the laughs created by films such as “Robot Monster” and the “Godzilla” franchise. No effort has been put into any part of this film, each and every moment just tries to wing it but it doesn’t succeed. If this movie were someone doing a test it would be ungraded. This movie made me ask a question “How does Roger Corman sleep at night?” as I would be tossing and turning all through the night if I had the knowledge I’d created something this monstrous.

“Assault On Precinct 13” features a reasonable premise but it has horrible execution. John Carpenter (“Big Trouble In Little China”, “They Live”) directs this very disappointing film, which does looks cheap and just cannot deliver the action that you want. I found this to be a very bland and unremarkable experience.

A police officer (Austin Stoker “Horror High”) is sent to a closing L.A. precinct. He and several others, including two criminals, must defend the place from an army of gang members. It feels very similar to a zombie picture as the characters spent the majority of the movie trying to survive against wave after wave of enemies.

The characters in this movie are not remotely interesting. In that respect, I was also reminded of zombie movies such as “Dawn of the Dead” where I just did not care whether these individuals survived or not. The gang in the film have about as much personality as a bunch of zombies as I do not believe we ever hear any of them utter a word. I also did not care for the young girl near the beginning as she is only there for the movie to give us a needless shock.

“Assault On Precinct 13” contains action scenes that play more like shooting galleries than anything else as streams of bad guys step in front of gun barrels. The relatively simple premise is fine and there are a few moments that work but for the most part, I was bored by “Assault On Precinct 13”. This is not completely awful or anything like that but I find films such as this to be very unfulfilling. I do not get why many consider this to be a great movie and it is far from being Carpenter’s best work. I know this movie has legions of fans that will disagree with me but I cannot recommend this one.

The remake of “Assault On Precinct 13” is a rare picture because it is one of the few remakes to actually be better than the original. I found the original boring and unimaginative while the remake is entertaining. There are some welcomed changes to the storyline; the movie is also helped by a much more polished look and feel.

In this version, a closing L.A. precinct comes under attack from corrupt police that want to stop a gangster (Laurence Fishburne “The Matrix”) from testifying against them. Outnumbered and outgunned, Seargent Jake Roenick (Ethan Hawke “Training Day”) and his colleagues are forced to team-up with criminals if they hope to survive the night.

Ethan Hawke does a great job as Roenick. The opening scene shows him working undercover, pretending to be a drug dealer in an operation that goes awry. Since then, he has a had a desk job before being forced to defend himself in this siege situation. Laurence Fishburne is acceptable as Bishop. Gabriel Byrne (“The Usual Suspects”) plays the corrupt Captain Duvall and he does a good job. The other characters are all fine and I was surprised by what happens to the police psychiatrist character, who is played by Maria Bello (“Payback”); there are some clever twists and turns with the characters.

2005’s version of “Assault On Precinct 13” is better than the original in just about every single way because the action sequences are engaging, the characters are more interesting, the performances are better, the storyline is more captivating. This is not a great movie, yet I think it does a good job considering how dull the original was. The “Assault Precinct 13” remake is a smart action thriller that is worth watching so if you have only seen the original or you have not seen either version, check this one out.

“Assassination” isn’t the kind of film that’s too bad to watch but the problem is it doesn’t do anything particularly well and there are other films that are similar yet far superior.

In “Assassination”, Charles Bronson (“Death Wish”, “The Dirty Dozen”) stars as White House bodyguard Jay Killion, who now finds himself looking after the headstrong First Lady (Jill Ireland). After a few explosions Jay seriously considers that someone may be trying to kill her and therefore the two go on the run as they try to evade some deadly assassins. It’s an action-packed premise but it never really delivers on its promises.

Charles Bronson is pretty good as Killion and by far the best part of the film. I wasn’t too keen on Jill Ireland as the First Lady as anybody in that position would be more aware of the dangers they would face. The chemistry between the two really isn’t there even though Mr. Bronson is clearly trying. The villains are very unmemorable like a lot of this type of action film and that’s a real shame because that could have helped out. I kind of liked Jan Gan Boyd as Jay’s partner (both in and out of the office) Charlotte Chong.

“Assassination” reminded me a lot of the better movie “In The Line of Fire” by Clint Eastwood (“Unforgiven”), which came out several years later; that film is better in just about every conceivable way. This film has a few mildly funny lines and I do like Bronson in it but we get action scenes where heat detecting rockets miss enemies and possibly the dumbest First Lady ever put to film. The film does work in a way because its flaws are harmless and we do get some decent bits with Mr. Bronson but I can’t recommend it simply because it isn’t all that exciting and of course you have “In The Line of Fire”, which is much better.

“Arthur” is a delightful comedy starring Dudley Moore (“Bedazzled”, “10”). Like many of the best comedy films, it is a genuinely heart-warming little movie. We do not get enough comedies like this these days, filmmakers now seem to think that you have to be mean and vulgar to get a laugh. “Arthur” is a charming relic from a more civilised and sophisticated age.

Moore stars as Arthur Bach, a cheerful millionaire that drinks like it’s a competition. He has never worked a day in his life and has his wishes fulfilled by his assistant Hobson (John Gielgud “Julius Caesar”). His family want him to get married to Susan or else they will cut him off from his inheritance. The problem is that Arthur does not love Susan, he loves the working-class Linda (Liza Minnelli “Cabaret”).

Dudley Moore is fantastic as Arthur. The character is so funny and likeable that you cannot resist him. I believe that the secret to the greatness of the character and the performance is innocence because we know Arthur has a good heart. John Gielgud is also really good as Hobson. Liza Minnelli is somewhat funny as Linda. The other characters are okay but I think the main three are by far the most memorable.

Not a great deal happens in “Arthur”, there is no ludicrous event that could only happen in a film and that just helps make it even more endearing. Some may find it a little slow but I enjoyed this film a lot. I was reminded of other great comedies such as “While You Were Sleeping” and “Coming To America”, that also won me over with their charm. I sincerely recommend this movie because I think even if you do not love as much as I do, it should still put a smile on your face.

“Arthur Christmas” is a cheery, little holiday flick that I’m sure will delight young children and it’s entertaining enough to keep adults satisfied. At the centre of the movie is a charming and likeable character and that is all you really need for a film such as this.

Santa Claus (Jim Broadbent “Moulin Rouge!”, “The Iron Lady”) no longer just has a little sleigh to deliver presents, he has a computerised system, an airship and an army of elves that act like a special forces team. However, something goes wrong and one child ends up without a present. Santa’s son, Arthur (James McAvoy “Split”, “X-Men: First Class”), is determined to make sure every child receives their present from Santa.

Arthur Christmas is a wonderful, heart-warming character. He clearly loves everything about Christmas and he will not give up until he is certain that everybody gets their gift. McAvoy does a good job providing the voice. I also really like Jim Broadbent doing the voice of Santa. Bill Nighy (“Love Actually”) was okay as Grandsanta. I was less impressed with Santa’s other son, Steve (Hugh Laurie “Stuart Little”). However, I did like the idea of the three generations of the Claus family all interacting with one another. I did not care for the female elf that tags joins Arthur on his adventure. The animation on the characters is pretty good.

The animation throughout is quite impressive, some of the gags are quite amusing and the film will leave you with a pleasant Christmas feeling. I also found the idea of Santa having an airship quite funny and it’s definitely unique. It’s not as good as more traditional Santa films such as “Santa Claus: The Movie”. If you are looking for a happy and fun movie about Christmas for the whole family then “Arthur Christmas” will do just fine.

The first “Arthur” film was a lovely little film that was very funny while “Arthur 2: On The Rocks” shows you that you can follow a clear formula but you are not guaranteed another hit. It’s hard to explain exactly how but this sequel just misses the mark.

Millionaire playboy and drunkard Arthur Bach (Dudley Moore “Bedazzled”) is back. His wife Linda (Liza Minnelli “Cabaret”) wants a baby but cannot have children so the two decide to go down the adoption route. Things turn disastrous when Arthur is cut off from his wealthy by Susan’s father, who demands that Arthur marry Susan. Now penniless, Arthur and Linda try to live a normal life.

The Arthur character was so darn likeable in the first movie but here the script just is not anywhere near as funny. Dudley Moore is clearly trying but the dialog here just does not pack the same punch. Liza Minnelli is given a lot more to do in this one and she is okay. The two have good chemistry so it’s a shame that the movie rarely makes you smile. The other characters are okay but there is nobody particularly special that I feel like singling out.

“Arthur 2: On The Rocks” is not really a bad movie but it never made me laugh like the first one did. It’s a relatively harmless comedy, just do not expect any big laughs. People often talk about how lightning never strikes twice and that is clearly the case with the “Arthur” movies. It’s definitely an unnecessary sequel; I saw no real potential for a sequel after viewing the first one. If you still have not seen the first movie then I suggest you watch that. For those that are absolutely desperate to see another film with the Arthur character then I guess this will have to suffice.

The critics and audiences alike heaped endless amounts of praise on “Arrival” and many considered this sci-fi to be worthy of an Oscar. Maybe I’m an alien from another world because I did not get the attraction with this movie at all. This movie was painfully boring and made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

When a dozen alien spaceships appear, hovering above the surface of the Earth, a linguist (Amy Adams “Man Of Steel”, “American Hustle”) and a theoretical physicist (Jeremy Renner “The Hurt Locker”, “The Bourne Legacy”) are sent to try a communicate with the aliens aboard one of the vessels. Their mission is to discover the aliens’ intentions but time is running out.

Amy Adams and Jeremy Renner are both incredibly dull to watch. There is not a minute of this movie where I cared about either one of these two and it’s such a shame because we have to spend virtually the whole movie with these two trying to communicate with the aliens. Their chemistry is terrible. Forest Whitaker (“The Butler”) is just about tolerable as Colonel Weber The aliens themselves are not remotely intriguing and that’s even when we learn the big revelation about why exactly they are on Earth.

“Arrival” has a one of the stupidest final acts I’ve ever witnessed in a movie. The plot holes are just so large, that it’s hard to believe a human being wrote this. This film is like “Independence Day” at a snail’s pace, it is just dreadful. There are many reasons why “2001: A Space Odyssey” works and “Arrival” doesn’t, one of the most important is that “2001: A Space Odyssey” had real intelligence whereas “Arrival” merely tries to imitate intelligence. It isn’t as open about its ridiculousness as “Stargate” or “Independence Day”, it instead tries to deceive the viewer.

“Army Of One” is a hilarious comedy that is inspired by a true story. It is about Gary Faulkner, a regular man from Colorado that decided to head over to Pakistan to capture Osama bin Laden. I recommend people go on the internet and watch some of the interviews with the real Faulkner else they might not get why this film is so great.

Gary Faulkner (Nicolas Cage “Ghost Rider”, “Bangkok Dangerous”) is an eccentric handyman with a kidney problem that believes God (Russell Brand “Get Him To The Greek”) has chosen him to be the man that brings in the world’s most wanted terrorist, Osama bin Laden. Faulkner journeys to Pakistan, armed with a samurai sword to hunt down the leader of al-Qaeda.

Nicolas Cage gives one of his best performances in one of his best movies here. Cage manages to perfectly capture the essence of the real Gary Faulkner and creates one of the most loveable comedic characters in recent memory. While I’m not a fan of Russell Brand, his performance seems to fit with the strange nature of the rest of the movie. The other characters are not particularly interesting but they do not need to be because Faulkner is so intriguing.

While there are definitely some differences between reality and what happens onscreen, I think “Army Of One” stays incredibly true to the spirit of Faulkner’s story. Faulkner is a genuinely interesting individual because here is a guy that actually went to one of the most dangerous places you can go in search of one of the most dangerous individuals you could ever meet. Whether he came close as he claimed to finding bin Laden or not is not really relevant. This is a very funny movie with lots of funny moments such as Gary’s attempt to sail to Pakistan (that really happened). I think if you do a little research beforehand, you are going to find this to be a fantastic film.