The first picture in the famous “Dollars” trilogy created by director Sergio Leone (“Once Upon A Time In The West”) definitely isn’t fantastic but it is an effort worthy of Western fans’ viewing because it does have some really good moments in it.

In “A Fistful Of Dollars”, Clint Eastwood (“Sudden Impact”, “Heatbreak Ridge”) stars as the ‘Man With No Name’, who this time rides into a dysfunctional town split into two sections due to having two rival families named the Baxters and Rojos so he plays the two off against each other; getting rich as part of the plan.

I really like the Man With No Name because he has no name. He’s an unsung hero unlike James Bond, John McClane and Superman. I also love that he’s an anti-hero as opposed to your run-of-the-mill good guy. Clint Eastwood does a superb job creating one of the most iconic screen personas both of his interesting career and cinema in general. The other characters aren’t particularly great as they severely lack any great level of intrigue, which is something Man With No Name has. Also they’re not particularly well acted unlike Man With No Name. The main character is good so I guess the rest of the characters can be forgiven for not being fascinating.

“A Fistful Of Dollars” has some cunning Western moments but it isn’t brilliant throughout. Although the film is very short (it’s only 95 minutes) it still feels a little long so perhaps having ten minutes shaved off it wouldn’t have been a bad thing. If you like Westerns then this isn’t a bad choice at all because you’ve got some shootouts, some bad Mexicans and some decent one-liners. “A Fistful Of Dollars” introduced the world to Clint Eastwood as not just a television star and it was the first ‘real’ spaghetti Western.

“A Few Good Men” is a decent effort by director Rob Reiner (“This Is Spinal Tap”) but it’s weakened by a few poor performances and it never plays out with any sense of mystery or any real thrills. It’s well-made but lacking in terms of spark.

In “A Few Good Men”, Tom Cruise (“Mission: Impossible”, “Minority Report”) stars as a cocky military lawyer, who must defend two marines accused of murdering a fellow officer at Guantanamo Bay. The two claim they were acting under orders and now this arrogant kid named Daniel Kaffee must prove it is all the doing of their superiors.

Tom Cruise is pretty bad here as he’s really whiny and never fun to watch. Demi Moore (“Indecent Proposal”), Jack Nicholson (“Batman”), Kiefer Sutherland (“Phone Booth”) and Kevin Bacon (“Tremors”) all given good performances, in fact I’d say Nicholson’s is great. The guys playing the marines aren’t too good. The final confrontation between Cruise and Nicholson is good but it could have been a lot better if the film didn’t have you expecting it pretty much all the way through because we’re told way too early what’s going to be said and things follow this plan, meaning the heat of the moment in the courtroom you should experience is gone.

There’s no denying that aspects of “A Few Good Men” are not so pleasing but I enjoyed because of Nicholson’s performance as the bad yet definitely understandable, Colonel Jessup. We get a clear understanding of the mind-set of many marines and the loyalties that they have that while it may make them flawed as people, it does however makes them the flawless defender of others. I guess I kind-of liked it but I was also disappointed because it really felt like it could have been written a lot better and I’m pretty surprised that Tom Cruise couldn’t get the character to be at least somewhat likeable… as far as lawyers go at least (Jim Carrey did it in “Liar Liar”).

Many consider it to be the greatest Christmas movie of all-time but I found “A Christmas Story” to be loud and annoying. I do not get why the film is so widely celebrated and why it continues to have such a significant impact.

Set in the 1940s, “A Christmas Story” follows a young boy by the name of Ralphie (Peter Billingsley), who has sights set on one gift in particular for Christmas. More than anything, Ralphie wants a Red Ryder BB gun and he will try his best to convince someone to get it for him. He tries his parents, his teacher and of course, Santa Claus but they all want to warn him of the dangers.

The Ralphie character is very bland. The whole film, he just hounds people for a BB gun and I can see where filmmakers got the inspiration for the kid in “Jingle All The Way” that wants the action figure. I struggled to empathise with Ralphie because he is so dull. The other characters in the movie are really boring as well. It’s pretty sad when the most interesting child is the one that gets his tongue stuck on a pole. Ralphie’s parents are irritating as well.

It might be viewed as a holiday classic by some people but I thought this was an awful movie. It is not funny with the only vaguely amusing scene being the one involving some Chinese restaurant workers. The movie focuses on some very strange elements as we are forced to spend a lot of time on a subplot involving a lamp shaped like a woman’s leg. The popularity of “A Christmas Story” is almost frightening considering how bizarre and poor it is. I do not care how alone I am on this one, “A Christmas Story” is a really bad movie.

“A Bridge Too Far” is a war movie that effectively captures the scope of a major military operations. Showcasing numerous perspectives, director Richard Attenborough (“Gandhi”) has made a fine addition to war film genre with this one. It may lack the clarity of some war films but it does provide a great spectacle.

“A Bridge Too Far” follows Operation Market Garden, the failed Allied to capture a series of bridges in the Netherlands during the latter stages of WWII. A series of problems including the weather and unreliable communications turn what should have been a decisive moment for the British and the other Allies into a blood-soaked disaster.

There are so many famous faces in here that it is hard to remember them all. My favourite was probably Sean Connery (“Goldfinger”, “The Rock”) as Major General Urquhart. I also enjoyed the performances from Anthony Hopkins (“The Rite”) and Michael Cain (“Get Carter”, “The Dark Knight”)). I would have definitely liked to have seen more from Gene Hackman (“Superman: The Movie”) as Major General Sosabowski. James Caan (“The Godfather”), Laurence Olivier (“Spartacus”) and Robert Redford (“The Great Gatsby”) also appear and they were okay. The German military men shown here are as villainous as you would expect. Keep an eye for the brief cameo appearance made by Richard Attenborough.

“A Bridge Too Far” contains many violent battle scenes throughout. It’s actually very gory considering this came out in 1977. However, the violence seems to serve a purpose as it conveys the disturbing nature of war. The all-star cast is great but it’s the thrilling action sequences, the immense scale of the production and the theme music that help make this a really good movie. While I think that there are probably better war movies out there, do not overlook “A Bridge Too Far”.

“A Beautiful Mind” is an interesting and rather disturbing movie from director Ron Howard (“Rush”). I did not really care for some of the early scenes but as the film progresses, it all starts to make sense. There are some very powerful moments in this biography movie about a troubled mathematician.

John Nash (Russell Crowe “Gladiator”, “Virtuosity”) may lack basic social skills but he is a magnificent mathematician. At Princeton, he helps revolutionise economic theories with his ‘game theory’. A few years later, he accepts a cryptography job from a shadowy government agent (Ed Harris “The Abyss”, “The Rock”). He becomes increasingly paranoid and his wife (Jennifer Connelly “Hulk”) struggles to come to terms with what is truly happening to him.

Russell Crowe does a really good job playing John Nash. However, it’s Jennifer Connelly that steals the show as Alicia Nash. I really loved her performance here as she portrays a dedicated wife that is suffering tremendously due to her husband’s behaviour. Ed Harris is okay as Parcher. Paul Bettany (“A Knight’s Tale”) plays Charles, Nash’s roommate at Princeton and the character provides a real contrast from Crowe’s. Christopher Plummer (“Dragnet”) and Judd Hirsch (“Independence Day”) also have roles here.

I was initially frustrated while watching “A Beautiful Mind” because it seemed to think it was really intelligent yet it glossed over a lot of the maths. I really wanted to understand some of the elaborate equations I was seeing but the film never really explained them. The movie changes and you begin to see the great writing come into effect. By the end, I was pretty darn amazed by this film. It’s never graphic but psychologically, it’s one of the most disturbing films out there. I highly recommend it for people that like mind-bending movies such as “Unbreakable”, “Naked Lunch”, “The Prestige” and “The Machinist”.

I’ve defended the works of Leslie Nielsen (“Airplane!”) when few others would. I really enjoyed “Spy Hard” and “Wrongfully Accused” and I even liked “Mr. Magoo”. However, I have to accept that “2001: A Space Travesty” is nothing but a travesty. It makes “Dracula: Dead and Loving It” seem like the first “Naked Gun” by comparison.

The dopey Marshal Dick Dix (Nielsen) is sent to the Moon base Vegan to locate President Clinton after it is believed that he has been replaced by a clone. The movie does not really take that many shots at “2001: A Space Odyssey” as it parodies several other films including “The Fifth Element”, “Total Recall”, “Men In Black” and “The 6th Day”.

No matter how hard he tries, Leslie Nielsen just cannot get a laugh with this material. His character is almost identical to Frank Drebin from “The Naked Gun” and tv’s “Police Squad” but here, he gets nothing particularly funny to say or do. One particularly painful sequence is a spoof of the journey to the Moon from “2001: A Space Odyssey” and you cannot believe that in just a few short decades, Nielsen has gone from “Airplane!” to this. Ophélie Winter and Alexandra Kamp (“Half Past Dead”) also have significant roles here. The President Clinton impression is pretty mediocre. Most of the aliens look pretty terrible.

“2001: A Space Travesty” is pretty awful from beginning to end but the last act is especially bad. Several of the gags and plot elements feel directly lifted from “The Naked Gun” and its sequels. Many of the jokes here rely too heavily on body functions. It’s not as bad as “Scary Movie” or “Epic Movie” but nevertheless, this is a horrendous spoof flick. The only people that might want to see this are those that are determined to see every Leslie Nielsen film out there.

It’s really sad that this 2007 version of “3:10 To Yuma” might be the best Western of its decade because although it isn’t a very entertaining film, it just goes to show that we don’t get to see nearly enough Westerns anymore. Gone are the days of “The Searchers” and “A Fistful Of Dollars” when you had lots of choices.

In “3:10 To Yuma”, a simple rancher named Dan Evans (Christian Bale “The Dark Knight”, “The Machinist”) decides to join a group that’s transporting outlaw Ben Wade (Russell Crowe “Gladiator”, “Noah”) to a prison train. It has the same style as “Unforgiven” as you really feel as if this could have happened.

The performances here are great. I don’t know whether I preferred Christian Bale or Russell Crowe. It’s like Robert De Niro and Al Pacino in “Heat”, you could redo the film with them in the opposite roles. Bale makes his character believably flawed as a family man and you really feel for him whereas Crowe makes a despicable yet intriguing villain that you can’t help but like in the same way that Hannibal Lecter and the Joker work. The other characters are good but to be honest, the focus really is on these main two characters but I will say that the best side character is Dan’s son played wonderfully by Logan Lerman.

“3:10 To Yuma” is a more than competent Western and with its success, why aren’t more Westerns made? I challenge anybody to name five big Hollywood Westerns from the 2000s off the top of their head and I bet you that they can’t. It’s depressing to think of the overload of romantic comedies and teen slashers that we’ve endured when there’s been a distinct lack of Westerns. “3:10 To Yuma” is a very good film on its own terms but it’s just such a shame to think your choice of modern Westerns is severely limited.

“300” from director Zack Snyder (“Watchmen”, “Man Of Steel”) is essentially “Gladiator” meets “Sin City” as historical realism goes out the window in favour of stylish violence. This is not an accurate portrayal of the ancient world yet it is an entertaining movie filled with entertaining battles.

Sparta’s King Leonidas (Gerard Butler “The Bounty Hunter”, “Law Abiding Citizen”) and a force of a mere 300 men go to defend their civilisation and the wider European continent from the seemingly unstoppable Persian forces under the command of Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro “The 33”). Outnumbered and with traitors among Sparta’s politicians, the epic confrontation takes place in 480 B.C. at Thermopylae.

Gerard Butler is really good as King Leonidas. He’s like an exaggerated version of Russell Crowe’s Maximus from “Gladiator”. The other Spartan warriors were good. I was less fond of the villainous Xerxes. The movie has a striking visual style like the “Sin City” movies, unsurprising when you realise both are based on graphic novels from Frank Miller. The visual style helps to bring the characters to life. Also, like “Sin City”, “300” has various characters that are more like monsters than people. I did not really care for these horrific creatures because they seemed like a step to far into the realms of fantasy.

“300” may not have the most thrilling story but I enjoyed the visual style, some of the over the top dialog and the action sequences. The combat scenes kept me engaged because they are relentless blood-soaked endeavours that see the heroic Spartans keep the waves of Persians from advancing. The movie received ample criticism from the Iranian government, claiming that the negative depiction of Persians amounted to American propaganda. I do not remember the Italians complaining about films with nasty Roman soldiers. I enjoyed “300” a lot more than “Sin City” and I recommend it.

I liked the first “300” movie; it was stylish and exciting. “300: Rise Of An Empire” is a prequel, sequel and midquel that fails to live up to the original. Perhaps one of the reasons why this feels a little underwhelming is the fact that a lot of the action takes place at sea and the visual style of the “300” movies is not really suited to naval combat sequences.

As Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro “The 33”) and his Persian forces lay siege to Greece, Themistokles (Sullivan Stapleton “Gangster Squad”) leads the Greek naval effort against the vengeful Artemisia (Eva Green “Casino Royale”).

I thought Gerard Butler was really fitting for the lead role of King Leonidas in the original “300” so Sullivan Stapleton’s Themistokles ends up feeling like a poor substitute. I still was not overly keen on the depiction of Xerxes. Eva Green is okay as Artemisia. The other characters were not particularly memorable. The weaker characters made it harder for me to get as involved with this one. A problem that I had with the first “300” was that some of the villains are more like monsters than human. Sadly, the problem persists in “300: Rise Of An Empire”. The “Sin City” style visuals on all the characters are still enchanting.

“300: Rise Of An Empire” does contain some impressive scenes and I think those that really enjoyed the first movie might have some fun with this one. It certainly is not a bad movie, it is generally just more of the same. I think the decision to have this not be a clear sequel or prequel is in some respects interesting but I imagine those that have not seen the first movie in a while will feel a little confused. If you have not seen the first movie yet, I recommend you watch that.

“’71” shows the horrifying nature of the ‘Irish Troubles’. It’s an intense film that keeps you on the edge of your seat; it’s well-made and very believable. To describe it, I would say that I think “’71” is sort-of like the ‘Irish Troubles’ equivalent of “Lone Survivor” or “Behind Enemy Lines”.

In “’71”, a young British soldier named Gary Hook (Jack O’Connell “Starred Up”) is sent to Northern Ireland during the height of the ‘Irish Troubles’. During an operation to seize I.R.A. weapons, he finds himself separated from his fellow troops and must try to survive the gauntlet of Irish paramilitaries.

Jack O’Connell is okay as Hook. He isn’t given much to say but he manages to perfectly convey a sense of fear and a sense of isolation via his body language. We want to see this guy survive; we want to see this guy get home safely. His fellow soldiers get little screen time so I can’t comment on them that much. The Irish paramilitary men come across as very disturbing; the various cast members do a good job of showcasing how cruel these men were and the lengths they went to in order to reach their objectives. Some of the other characters are okay as well.

“’71” thrills us with its intensity; every moment is a struggle for survival. The film isn’t perfect and I felt that something such as “Lone Survivor” was a little bit better done (not much though) but it is far superior to “Behind Enemy Lines”. Why can’t we have more of these intense war movies? Why do we have so many dud romantic comedy and some many teen slasher pictures? Movies such as “’71” show how exhilarating war films can be. If you want a serious and entertaining thriller or you want to learn something about the conflict in Northern Ireland then “’71” is a movie for you.