Jet Li (“Black Mask”, “Hero”) stars in “Hitman” (also known as “Contract Killer”), an action film that combines thrilling martial arts, energetic gunfights, a somewhat interesting plot and a dose of comedy. It’s a good film but the tone seems to shift quite a lot throughout the movie and I wish the action was more spread it out.

When a Japanese businessman is murdered by the ‘King of Killers’, hitmen are assembled to kill the culprit and earn themselves a fortune. Conman Ngok Lo (Eric Tsang “Infernal Affairs”) and novice hitman Fu (Li) band together to net themselves the reward. However, things get very complicated and it becomes clear that some competitors are not playing fair.

Jet Li is of course a terrific martial artist and he is very likeable as Fu. At times, the film seems reminiscent of a Jackie Chan (“Rush Hour”) film with Li having to show that he can be funny. Li’s moves are flawless, I just wish he got to do some more of them. Eric Tsang is good as Ngok Lo. Some of the comedy involving the two main characters is surprisingly good. Simon Yam (“Ip Man”) is fine as Officer Chan Kwan. The villains in the movie are good.

While it is not Li’s best work, I enjoyed “Hitman”. Some of the fight scenes are fairly creative and I like how one of the villains utilises lights on rings to blind Li’s character. The gun battles are impressive and the finale is quite explosive. Some may dislike the comedy in the film given that Li tends not to have as much humour in his films as some action stars but I think a lot of it actually works quite well. If you want a Hong Kong action flick that is going to pack a punch, “Hitman” is a good choice.

You may remember that back in 2007 there was a film based on the popular “Hitman” videogame franchise and this could very easily be a sequel or a remake, it really doesn’t matter. “Hitman: Agent 47” is filled with shootouts and fistfights but there is no real substance, it’s far too synthetic.

In “Hitman: Agent 47”, Rupert Friend now stars as the legendary Agent 47 assassin. After several chase scenes, he meets up with a girl named Katia (Hannah Ware “Cop Out”) and then proceed to shoot their way through endless hordes of goons in order to stop the restarting of the same programme that created Agent 47.

Rupert Friend is alright as Agent 47 but you never really feel like he’s a true assassin because he acts more like a machine than a smart assassin. I don’t whether I prefer Friend to Timothy Olyphant from the 2007 film or not. Hannah Ware is okay as Katia but the character isn’t too great. There is very little chemistry and their interactions are often awkward. The bad guys aren’t very interesting and spend most of the film being shot, blown up or killed in some other fashion. The other characters are quite dull.

“Hitman: Agent 47” is properly slightly more enjoyable than the 2007 film because at least it’s quite fast in its pace but apart from that, there isn’t any significant improvement here. If you liked the first film then you’ll probably like this one but I think most people will find this yet another dud videogame film. You end up feeling a bit sorry for Agent 47; he’s had two films to his name and neither have really delivered an entertaining assassin flick. I doubt he’ll ever get another cinema shot but if he does then let’s hope the filmmakers actually try to give us something with some real substance.

There’s a curse surrounding movies based on videogames and “Hitman”, which is based on the popular series of stealth games of the same name, is further proof filmmakers can’t get it right. “Hitman” is probably one of the better videogame-based movies in the sense that as it does at least capture the game well but as a movie, it definitely fails.

In “Hitman”, an organisation ‘known to all governments’ named ‘The Agency’ raises orphans from childhood to become the ultimate assassins. The movie focuses on Agent 47 (Timothy Olyphant “Die Hard 4.0”), who allows a barcode tattooed on the back of his head to be visible at all times with his baldness, as he goes to Russia to make a hit. His target is Russia’s President. He makes the hit and escapes but sees the guy make an appearance publicly on tv so he sets out to find who set him up and to finish the job.

Timothy Olyphant tries his best to be intimidating but just doesn’t seem all that mean and that’s a huge problem. They capture how 47’s assassinations work very well even if they aren’t filmed too great as some are clean and others turn a bit messy. Along the way, 47 picks up a girl named Nika (Olga Kurylenko “Oblivion”, “Quantum of Solace”) to assist him but their relationship is hollow and never for a minute seems believable as she proves worthless throughout. I like Dougray Scott (“Mission: Impossible II”) as he is good as the Interpol agent chasing 47.

I found an action scene involving swords to be entertaining, the joke with the kids playing one of the games was funny and the Interpol guy was interesting (I wish the film had focused on him). For the most part, “Hitman” is bland but thankfully forgettable. It never looks special in any way and therefore never left an impact on me (good or bad) and that’s something movies should do (hopefully in a good way). Skip “Hitman” and any other videogame-based movie.

Alfred Hitchcock (“Rear Window”) is one of cinema’s most influential filmmakers and has made some undeniable classics; I was saddened to see that biography picture focusing on him is such a disappointment.

The film focuses on the relationship between Alfred Hitchcock (Anthony Hopkins “The Silence of the Lambs”, “Red Dragon”) and his wife Alma Reville (Helen Mirren “Calendar Girls”) during the making of Hitchcock’s most famous and controversial film “Psycho” but I felt we should have had more on the movie than on the awkward marriage problems. The film shows the real struggle as Hitchcock had trying to convince the studios and the censors about his movie.

Anthony Hopkins is a fantastic actor and we see him perfectly transformed into Alfred Hitchcock thanks to some amazing make-up. He gives a good performance. I really wasn’t keen on the Alma character as it hinted at her being a great filmmaker but we don’t get to see that side of her enough and the performance by Helen Mirren wasn’t impressive. I hated the character Ed Gein (the real-life murderer the book “Psycho” was based on), who Hitchcock has many dreams about. The other characters visually are quite convincing but they didn’t stick in my mind.

I hated the Ed Gein subplot, I disliked the quantity of the relationship stuff as I wanted more on the filmmaking and I really wanted to see new people playing Cary Grant, James Stewart among others. I liked the performance by Anthony Hopkins, the make-up for Alfred Hitchcock really is brilliant and I liked the little bit of trivia about Hitchcock being the one in the shower scene which I’m sure people who aren’t big film fans like me will find interesting. Like the “Chaplin” biography movie, it suffers from being too much about the person rather than being on his great skill. A tubby and perverted man bickering with his wife and being generally unhealthy isn’t what this tribute to his masterful work should be like.

This is a film that made me laugh but it would be a lot funnier if it doubled the length, it should be epic in length like most legitimate historical films and I’m surprised director, writer and star Mel Brooks (“Spaceballs”, “Silent Movie”) didn’t realise this.

In this film, we get a look at several key historical events such as primitive man developing arts (and therefore the immediate follow-up of the ‘critic’), a tale of how a Roman comedian ends up being a pushy waiter during the ‘Last Supper’, a story of revolution in France, a rather amusing look at the Spanish Inquisition and stay for the end for some coming attractions. The sad thing is that lots of these are very short but the lengthy one involving the Romans and Christ proves the film needs to be longer and the ideas can be explored a lot more.

Mel Brooks has a wonderful charm to him because he’s not child-friendly but does not rely on the use of bad words or toilet humour, making him hit that note both Steve Martin (“The Jerk”) and Eddie Murphy (“Beverly Hills Cop”) have in their good outings. Brooks plays many roles and he succeeds at being funny but I’d like to see him do a bunch of roles that show off his acting range. The other people are okay.

“History of the World Part I” features a hilarious music number and Last Supper scene that plays out like the very early ideas for “Life Off Brian”. The film works because it has a playful sense of humour that doesn’t restrict itself by trying to appeal to any one audience and that’s what I like about it but I do really wish Brooks had made the film longer because there are scenes here that feel as if they rush you by. If only “History of the World Part II” wasn’t just a gag.

“Highlander” is a surprisingly good flick that captures you with its actually quite original sword and sorcery plot and its rather enjoyable action scenes.

Connor MacLeod (Christopher Lambert “Fortress”, “Mortal Kombat”) is an immortal. He fought his first battle in Scotland in the 16th century and his final battle will take place in 1980s New York. He is what’s known as a ‘Highlander’ and when the ‘gathering’ happens he and the other ‘Highlanders’ must fight for the ‘Prize’, which is power beyond belief, by decapitating their opponents. Also there is a dark warrior called the Kurgan (Clancy Brown “Starship Troopers”, “Cowboys And Aliens”) who intends to get the ‘Prize’.

Christopher Lambert was only selected for his sword skills and he’s good at that. Aside from that he’s very dull as Connor MacLeod but it’s not a role that required a good performance. Sean Connery (“Dr. No”, “The Hunt For Red October”) does a great job as another ‘Highlander’ named Ramirez who teaches MacLeod the skills to win the ‘Prize’. The villain is disgusting but that’s why he’s enjoyable because he’s clearly evil. I love to see in this sort of over the top film good and evil clearly divided both in looks and personality.

“Highlander” is a good movie because it executed in an over the top manner that makes it very enjoyable. Another great aspect is that I think adults will find their inner child come to surface with this film as it is silly but not in a bad way. I can’t necessarily explained why I liked this movie as such as opposed to films such as “Conan The Barbarian” (the original) but I felt I had more fun with “Highlander” and just generally enjoyed myself a lot more. I recommend you see this movie as longer as you’re not looking for anything too deep.

The original “Highlander” wasn’t exactly high art but it was a fun film, the second outing involved sci-fi, totally contradicted the first picture and was a real mess but “Highlander III: The Final Dimension” manages to be a boring repeat of the original that still messes with the story.

Despite keeping the three in the title, the film ignores the events of the second movie as we see Connor MacLeod (Christopher Lambert “Highlander”, “Mortal Kombat”) is deceived he won the ‘Prize’ by killing all the other ‘Highlanders’ via decapitation but he forgot the master of illusion Kane (Mario Van Peebles “Ali”). Now there must be one final battle so get ready to see the same scenes from the first film redone on a harsher budget.

Christopher Lambert was never picked for his acting skills but this film has a distinct lack of sword fighting so having him here is pointless. Mako stars briefly as yet another wizard character and it’s really stupid. The villain is very close to the one in the first movie and although you can see Mario Van Peebles is trying but he just can’t beat the Kurgan (Clancy Brown) from the original. Thankfully Sean Connery (“Dr. No”) stayed far away from this third film.

Unlike “Highlander II: The Quickening” you won’t laugh at the badness of the movie as in “Highlander III” it’s just a pointless reshooting of old scenes with the tiniest of alterations. We get the same scene involving the bad guy driving a helpless soul around and we get the same prostitute scene to name a few. The bad guy in the movie changes appearance (like a cheap version the T-1000 in “Terminator 2: Judgement Day”) but the passers-by never seem to notice and it was then that I realised that this film hasn’t even moved on from the stupid writing of the first sequel. “Highlander III” will struggle to appeal to even the most diehard “Highlander” geeks.

I don’t care what anyone else says but to me, the first “Highlander” was a good movie that won me over with its surprisingly original sword and sorcery plot and its well-choreographed action scenes. “Highlander II: The Quickening” feels like it was made by people who hadn’t even seen the original.

The ozone layer is gone and the people of Earth are being killed by the radiation from the Sun until ‘Highlander’ Connor MacLeod (Christopher Lambert “Fortress”, “Highlander”) makes the ‘Shield’ to protect the world. Now in the 2020s the world is a bleak future and with a restored ozone layer MacLeod must destroy the ‘Shield’ as well as defeat the evil General Katana (Michael Ironside “Total Recall”) from the alien world Zeist (the same place the ‘Highlanders’ are from).

Christopher Lambert got the part in the first film for his sword skills but due to the weakness of the sword fights in this one he proves utterly useless as we all know he’s a terrible actor. Sean Connery (“Thunderball”, “The Rock”) returns as Ramirez and does a good job providing a few laughs. The villain General Katana is very bland to say the least. Also, there are two annoying bad guys from Zeist.

“Highlander II: The Quickening” repeatedly contradicts the original film, it has plot points that only serve as a means to quickly fix problems that would require good writing skills, it has corny special effects, it has an absurd premise and the action sequences aren’t half as good as they were in the original. It has some laughs in it but everything else is so half-baked so this is clearly a movie where the filmmakers said “We want to do this” and there was nobody there to talk sense into them. The strangest thing is that this was made by Russell Mulcahy, who directed the first “Highlander”. I think the catchphrase from the original “There can only be one” was more of a statement about sequels than anything else.

The first “Highlander” was good but it wasn’t amazing; it’s staggering to believe there have been several sequels and tv shows based on it. Like the other sequels this film feels exhausted and terrible but this one serves as a bridge between the movies and the tv show.

In “Highlander: Endgame”, Connor MacLeod (Christopher Lambert “Mortal Kombat”, “Fortress”) from the movies and Duncan MacLeod (Adrian Paul) from the show are immortal Scottish swordsmen, who team up to take on another immortal that has grown far too strong for any single person to face. It is just like the other “Highlander” movies but like all the sequels it’s cheap and uninspired.

Christopher Lambert isn’t a good actor and what’s unfortunate is that his swordsman skills aren’t demonstrated properly in this or the other sequels as the fights aren’t as well filmed. Adrian Paul is from the “Highlander” tv show that I’ve never seen and he is poor too. The two aren’t exciting together and really make the film feel like they could have picked any two random guys and created the same level of chemistry. The villain (Bruce Payne “Passenger 57”) is mediocre. Great martial artist Donnie Yen (“Iron Monkey”) somehow finds himself in this dull flick.

The first one was good, the second while original was totally distant from what made the earlier movie enjoyable, the third was simply a lower-budgeted remake of the original and this fourth one is just a totally pointless continuation of the series. The first film finished everything and tidied itself up but the sequels opened up the floodgates to aimlessly having more and more of the same thing; I don’t see why people can’t understand that as there is hardly any money to be made in this franchise any more. What started out as just a single film has sadly turned into something like a slasher movie series.

“High Society” is an innocent and harmless little musical film but there are so many other films (better films) just like it that there is no reason to see this one in particular and that’s a shame because as a musical this one has the right kind of cast to make it a truly magnificent one.

Musician Dexter (Bing Crosby “White Christmas”) lives in his mansion next to his ex-wife Tracy (Grace Kelly “Rear Window”, “Dial M for Murder”) and intends to get her back before she marries again to another man. The rest of the film is just a bunch of situations that are meant to be funny but none of them do anything more than create a small smile on my face.

The singing from Bing Crosby, Louis Armstrong and Frank Sinatra is all fine but the songs they sing aren’t my favourites. Where is Louis Armstrong’s “Wonderful World”? Sinatra’s “Come Fly With Me”? The characters’ interactions never really amount to anything very funny and that’s where the film falls flat because there are plenty of musicals that can create a good laugh or two. None of what the characters say or do is memorable and in fact that can be said about the whole movie.

You really have to think to remember anything about this movie. It enters just as quietly into the mind as it leaves. Movies are meant to leave impressions on us and I can safely say this one did not leave much of one on me. I have seen plenty of other musicals from Disney and even ones featuring some of the cast members of this film that have entertained me and I while I can’t really complain about something this innocent I just don’t see the need to see it. Watch “Mary Poppins”, “Holiday Inn” or “The Sound Of Music” instead.