“Hard Target” might feature some decent action sequences but the real problem is that the rest of the film is so poorly made that you can’t take any joy in watching the rest of the film and part of that is down to the obnoxious moviemaking techniques utilised by director John Woo (“Face/Off”).

In “Hard Target”, a woman named Natasha (Yancy Butler “Drop Zone”) hires a tough drifter named Chance (Jean-Claude Van Damme “Universal Soldier”, “JCVD”) in order to help find her father but the duo end up uncovering a murder-for-sport ring (it’s a bit like “The Running Man” but without any personality). The film slowly goes about its dull business before finally delivering a good shootout but after you’ve suffered through all the talky bits, will you really care how big the explosions are.

I’ve said before that Van Damme is a bad actor and lacks charisma but he’s done better films than this before. He needs to find more roles that play to his strengths and not to his weaknesses. The woman here also lacks charisma and is forgotten as soon as she leaves the screen. The villains aren’t particularly exciting and that is a shame as one of them is played by Lance Henriksen (“Aliens”), who can be very entertaining; the only one that is okay is the main henchman played by Arnold Vosloo (“The Mummy”).

“Hard Target” features dialog that makes watching paint dry seem like watching “Star Wars”, an unhealthy obsession with slow-motion effects (they use it during the most trivial of moments) and a terrible plot. Sure Van Damme shoots people while standing on top of a moving motorbike and sure there are some big explosions but when in every other scene the film is incredibly bland, you can’t get into any of it.

Director John Woo (“Hard Target”, “Face/Off”) is the man behind “Hard Boiled”, one of the most exhilarating action movies of all-time. The truly spectacular action sequences from this Hong Kong classic rival those of its Hollywood rivals such as “Lethal Weapon”, “Die Hard” and “Predator”.

Inspector ‘Tequila’ Yuen (Chow Yun-Fat “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon”) is on the trail of a group of Triad gangsters. Things become complicated when he finds out that an undercover cop (Tony Leung “Infernal Affairs”) has infiltrated the crew. The two will have to join forces in order to bring down the criminals once and for all. It all culminates in a thrilling finale with more gunfire and explosions than you could have hoped for.

Chow Yun-Fat is great as Tequila. Tony Leung is also entertaining as Alan. Teresa Mo (“2 Young”) does a fine job as Superintendent Pang. The villains are perfect for this type of movie. The action style known as ‘gun fu’ is absolutely amazing as you will see the actors dive around blasting away at their opponents and Woo has perfected this style via his collaborations with Chow Yun-Fat. Also, look out for John Woo’s brief cameo. Sadly, the director does not join in any of the firefight mayhem.

“Hard Boiled” has some of the best action scenes ever put to film. The opening shootout in the teahouse is terrific but then the movie outdoes it with the even more impressive scene in a warehouse and then the movie outdoes itself again with the last act taking place inside a hospital. The plot is nothing revolutionary but it only needs to serve the action and it definitely does. If you have seen many of the great Hollywood action flicks then look to the East and check out “Hard Boiled” because I’m sure you will not be disappointed.

“Happy Gilmore” is not a fantastic movie but I enjoyed bits of it, maybe that’s because golf is one of the few sports I like to watch. The film is juvenile and has plenty of bad scenes but it is not completely irredeemable.

“Happy Gilmore” follows Happy Gilmore (Adam Sandler “Billy Madison”). Happy is a rubbish ice hockey player but when his grandmother (Francis Bay) named simply ‘Grandma’ in the credits has her house repossessed, Happy turns to golf in an attempt to win enough money to get her house back. Happy has a knack for golf as he can hit the ball further than any other player but his putting skills need work.

Adam Sandler plays the incredibly aggressive Happy Gilmore. He does a reasonable job despite the fact I normally don’t find him funny. I do think the whole thing about Happy trying to stab someone with a skate is unnecessarily violent. Christopher McDonald (“Superhero Movie”) does a good job as Happy’s adversary Shooter McGavin. Carl Weathers (“Rocky”, “Predator”) is mediocre as Happy’s golf trainer Chubbs. Ben Stiller (“Zoolander”) does a good job as the mean guy, who works at the care home ‘Grandma’ is in. Richard Kiel (“Moonraker”) is appalling in this film as Mr. Larson. Game show host Bob Barker is funny as himself and he is involved in one of the funnier moments in the film.

“Happy Gilmore” is stupid, the characters aren’t great and there are plenty of bad jokes but there are some good ones in there. You don’t go into this movie without expecting stupidity and that’s just what you get. Although not a good comedy or anything like that, “Happy Gilmore” succeeds at what it tries to do. Unfortunately, it aims rather low but I’m afraid that is Adam Sandler for you.

Ridley Scott (“Alien”, “Gladiator”) directs “Hannibal”, the follow-up to “The Silence of the Lambs” and in many ways it is good as it takes just about every route a sequel to that film could have successfully gone down but for me it just didn’t do any of them especially well.

In “Hannibal”, F.B.I. agent Starling (Julianne Moore “Magnolia”, “The Big Lebowski”) is put on the trail of infamous cannibal Hannibal Lecter, who is still played fascinatingly by Anthony Hopkins (“Thor”, “Magic”) after the only surviving victim of Lecter’s attacks named Mason Verger (Gary Oldman “Batman Begins”), who desperately seeks to see Lecter suffer, says he has some information.

Jodie Foster, who played Clarice in the original, was decent but her performance seems excellent when compared to Julianne Moore’s because I felt something was severely lacking in this one. Anthony Hopkins is great as always as Hannibal but the script isn’t as smart here as the other films. Gary Oldman plays the disfigured victim, who is the other villain of the film as it also explains that before he was attacked that he was a child molester, and it’s interesting to see two villains like this but sadly Oldman’s character doesn’t get too much to do. Giancarlo Giannini (“Casino Royale”) is good as a small-time detective who decides to capture Lecter himself but the script hinders what he does.

“Hannibal” has the strange romance between Lecter and Starling, a revenge plot and a small-timer trying to bring the guy in but it doesn’t dedicate enough to any of these for them to work. The violence in this film is grotesque as a man is hanged and his bowls fall out simultaneously and worst of all a man is drugged, cuts of his face and feeds it to his dogs and although it is shocking it kind of works as it makes the brutality of the film more realised. I love the Lecter character as he’s sophisticated, charming, romantic, poetic and brutal but I’ve yet to see him in a film that perfectly accommodates him. Scott’s film is artsy but messy.

I’ve always loved the character Hannibal Lecter but I’ve always felt his movies and tv shows have misused him. The only decent thing he’d been in was “Silence of the Lambs”. “Hannibal Rising” comes along and not only does it not feel remotely like a picture about Lecter but it’s also one of the worst sequels/prequels I’ve ever seen.

In “Hannibal Rising”, we see how Hannibal Lecter, who is played appallingly by Gaspard Ulliel, becomes a complete monster but there is nothing indicating how he became the suave and mentally seductive man seen in later films. What we get is a series of grotesque killings and a lack of sophistication.

I loved Anthony Hopkins in “Silence of the Lambs”, “Hannibal” and “Red Dragon”; I also enjoyed Brain Cox in “Manhunter” and that’s because these gave Lecter personality and made him seem intellectually superior. Gaspard Ulliel plays Lecter as a whiny brat with zero charisma and his stabs knives through men’s heads, decapitates people with samurai swords and removes their cheeks for digesting. Lecter’s been violent onscreen before but here he does it more like a torture picture than a thriller. The other characters aren’t remotely interesting and they lack any screen time for them to be interesting.

It’s brutal, it’s miserable and it’s boring. “Hannibal Rising” is badly made, badly acted and has is easily the worst film to feature its main character. I still remain hopeful that a seriously impressive film about the world’s most famous fictional cannibal is possible but at the moment all we’ve got is “Silence of the Lambs” and a handful of moments from some of the other ones. If you like watching people intentionally cut themselves then the bloodbath that is “Hannibal Rising” eagerly awaits your viewing, for anybody with the mental capacity of a normal human being then this is one you’ll want to steer clear of.

In his first American-made Western Clint Eastwood (“Bronco Billy”, “Gran Torino”) stars as a great anti-hero in a wonderful picture from director Ted Poster, that is full of brutality and offbeat humour, a formula that a generation of movies would go on to copy.

In “Hang ‘Em High”, Jed Cooper (Eastwood) is beaten and hung by a group of vigilantes that think he’s a rustler and murderer but unfortunately for them, they didn’t finish the job. Jed then takes the responsibility of wearing a U.S. marshal’s badge as he sets out to find the people who done him wrong. Also Jed tries to confront hanging enthusiast Judge Fenton (Pat Hingle “Batman”).

Clint Eastwood is amazing as Jed Cooper. I love when after he guns down one of the men who hung him he says he’s going for some steak and it’s that kind of humour that you also seen in lots of other movies, especially the Arnold Schwarzenegger (“Commando”) library. Lots of Eastwood’s Western characters are brutal but good at heart so I wonder if any of them are related to Harry Callahan (another role he took). Pat Hingle is good as Judge Fenton. The rest of the cast aren’t impressive to say the least.

“Hang ‘Em High” is a simple film at heart; it’s about a guy who goes out to get the bad guys that unjustly harmed him but the film has great execution, which makes it really engaging. Execution is everything in a movie like this, if you want to be more than just average that is and that’s something “Hang ‘Em High” craves. The film doesn’t really have anything wrong with it as such but nothing in it makes me want to give any more than the rating I have. I think if you loved the “Dollars” trilogy (Eastwood’s earlier Westerns), I think you’d probably enjoy this one too.

The long title should imply that you’re sitting through yet another dull “Halloween” sequel that sorely misses the point of what made the original such an eerie outing. The famous or perhaps infamous Michael Myers is not a figure of terror in this movie but rather a ridiculed celebrity. Someone on the radio suggests he’s in space… now that at least would be a funny film.

In “The Curse Of Michael Myers”, the titular character is back in his hometown to kill a few more people as usual. This time we find out his acts of violence are part of an ancient druid curse and if that doesn’t make this now laughable menace seem about as realistically threatening as Barney the Dinosaur then what will? The plot is pretty much chucked out the window as it is all just an excuse to see some blood and gore.

Originally, he was a severely disturbed stalker repulsed by teenage intercourse but as the years and sequels have gone by, Myers has turned into a mixture of Superman and a clown as he impatiently and blatantly murders and seems invulnerable. In this film he’s beaten round the head multiple times by a metal pipe but manages to walk away without too much trouble. The teen characters have about as many brain cells as the filmmakers. Donald Pleasance (“The Great Escape”, “Halloween”), who has appeared in many of these films made his last onscreen appearance here and that’s a shame because he’s talented.

The long-titled picture is the same as every other “Halloween” imitator out there and just because it shares the name, doesn’t mean you should be fooled by it. It makes a laughing stock out of the bad guy, the murders are overly violent and dull and of course the characters are the kind of idiots you only ever find in movies.

“Halloween: Resurrection” is not the first, nor the last shameless “Halloween” rehash. The first film had a very popular reception and despite none of the sequels (or remakes) fairing too well filmmakers feel the need to make an endless amount of the same teen slasher plot with only minor variations.

After finally killing his sister (Jamie Lee Curtis “Trading Places”, “True Lies”) after several attempts in the previous movies, Michael Myers (Brad Loree) sets his sights on a group of teens that are filming a live web series in his old home. I love the stupidity of the teens as they’re picked off by the seemingly indestructible Michael Myers. It all leads to this ridiculous conclusion where the last teen is guided on how to escape from her internet boyfriend, who is watching the whole thing online.

Michael Myers isn’t scary, maybe he was but he becomes a joke when it’s clear no matter what anyone does he’ll be back in yet another pointless film and because of this he doesn’t even try to sneak up on people anymore as we numerously see him just stand there in perfect view of everyone. Some fans may enjoy the brief appearance by Jamie Lee Curtis at the beginning of the film. The teens are exceptionally bland like they always seem to be in this type of film.

The eight “Halloween” film is really bad because we can predict every single event so therefore there isn’t even any shock value for those who crave it. The best scene in the entire picture is when we see two Michael Myers, one fake and one real as the fake one mistakes the real one for an assistant and starts pushing him about. It’s ludicrous, it’s not scary and it’s just a real mess that only the most die-hard “Halloween” fans will enjoy.

I’ll admit that I was looking forward to this film; it’s famous (or perhaps infamous) for being the only “Halloween” film not to feature Michael Myers. It instead features an entirely different story so it’s as much a sequel to “Halloween” as “High Society” is to “King Kong”. I though this new story might mean I’d get a film that was entertaining on its own terms and wasn’t forced to be same Michael Myers routine but I was mistaken, it’s awful on its own terms.

In “Season of the Witch”, reality takes a backseat as we get a story featuring killer clothing items and robots. The film could have literally been about anything but it takes the stupidest possible path possible for a horror movie to take and what it’s even worse is that it shows the original “Halloween” advertised on tv (much like we see “The Thing” in the first “Halloween”); I would love to have been sitting through that instead of this.

The characters are dud. The only one who remotely works is the bad guy played by Dan O’Herlihy (“RoboCop”) because of his great voice but the problem is that he isn’t really given anything to do. The special effects for this one look cheap too, there’s one scene where a guy gets his head ripped off but it’s all dark and you can’t see much so even the gore enthusiasts are going to be disappointed.

“Season of the Witch” isn’t scary, interesting or well-made. At least the Michael Myers films seem to make some sense but this one evades logic with staggering eagerness. Supposedly the “Halloween” films were each going to feature a totally new storyline but many were confused by the absence of Michael Myers seen as how he was in the first two but even if that confusion hadn’t occurred, this one doesn’t exactly spell out ‘success’. I’d have admired it for doing something unique if that something hadn’t been so boring and poorly executed.

“Halloween” is a truly great movie that has inspired countless cheap imitators in the same way “Star Wars” has but I had somewhat reasonable expectations for the series’ second outing (especially since the original prompted one so you knew one was always meant to come out). It’s not like I’m walking into a film titled “Halloween XI: Reanimation of Michael Myers” or “Michael Myers vs. Mike Myers” (I would be surprised to find those two films in the pipeline). “Halloween II” is the first film but without any attention to detail, any understanding of violence and any skill.

“Halloween II” starts with the ending of the first film but with a bunch of new camera angles and it kills the scene. Then we get treated to a terrible version of the theme tune. When the film begins Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis “True Lies”) is recovering from her injuries in a hospital but serial killer Michael Myers is after her.

Michael Myers was somewhat believable in the first film but here he takes a beating worthy of being in an old-fashioned cartoon. I can’t believe that within the space of a mere two films he goes from being a ruthless and feared killer to a superhuman laughing-stock and if he were real he’d be ending up on a reality tv show anytime soon. The Laurie Strode character lacks the great situation she was in during the first film for us to truly care about her. The other characters feel poor.

“Halloween II” has very graphic violence compared to the first film but it is a lot less impressive. I highly recommend the original and I highly recommend purposely avoiding the sequels and other cheap clones. “Halloween II” can be placed among films such as “Alien 3” as being a dive off a mountain for a film franchise.