John Carpenter (“Halloween”, “Escape From New York”) directs “Ghosts Of Mars” and while it is not a great sci-fi picture, it is quite fun. This film can easily be compared to “Starship Troopers” and it works very much on the same level.

Set in the far future where humans have colonised Mars, a group of police officers including Lieutenant Melanie Ballard (Natasha Henstridge “Species”, “Maximum Risk”) are sent to pick up a dangerous prisoner by the name of Desolation Williams (Ice Cube “Friday”) when they discover that an entire mining community has turned into zombie-like savages. Of course, the heroes have to resort to blasting their way out of this tough situation.

Natasha Henstridge does a good job considering as she shoots and kicks her way through hordes of monsters. She is able to act tough but still very charming and seductive. I didn’t particularly care for Ice Cube’s performance. Jason Statham (“The Transporter”) is enjoyable as Sergeant Jericho Butler. Pam Grier (“Foxy Brown”) doesn’t really get enough screen time to leave much of an impact. The creatures are a slight improvement over the regular zombies you see in many horror movies because the creatures in this film often carry weapons.

“Ghosts Of Mars” is a very silly sci-fi picture but it looks stylish, the action sequences are very enjoyable and the music is great. There are tons of over the top moments throughout the movie that are likely to amuse you as well as entertain you. This movie has been harshly criticised but I don’t really know what people were expecting and why they can’t just accept this cheesy film for what it is. If you liked “Starship Troopers” or any of the “Resident Evil” films then you should give this film a watch… it’s so much better than the “Doom” film (also set on Mars).

“Ghost Ship” is a painfully bland horror movie with its only catch being that it’s set on a boat. I don’t know what the filmmakers were thinking when they wrote this stupid picture.

A salvage crew, led by Murphy (Gabriel Byrne “The Usual Suspects”, “Miller’s Crossing”), set out on another assignment when they come across a long-lost passenger ship that has been missing since 1962. They get aboard but it isn’t long before they’re under attack from the ship’s ghostly inhabitants. It turns into just about the generic horror movie ever made so if you’ve seen any films with ghosts before (“The Haunting”, “The Others” etc…) then you’ll know what’s coming.

I didn’t care about any of the characters. It’s so sad that it is so rare for horror movies to produce characters of any interest and “Ghost Ship” is simply another movie to confirm that. Gabriel Byrne is boring. Julianna Margulies (“Snakes On A Plane”) is abysmal and so is everybody else in this film. Also, what’s the obsession with making movies with ghosts? Ghosts are one of the least scary creatures that you could put in a movie yet time and time again, we see endless films with ghosts. The ghosts in this film are as dull as they come.

The opening scene in “Ghost Ship” shows a ton of passengers being sliced in half but the gore is so over the top, nobody could find it scary. The movie is not remotely scary and it’s certainly not interesting. I was not expecting a lot but I did hope the movie would make good use of its location and feature some strong special effects but this film completely failed. I don’t know who could conceivably enjoy this picture and I suggest you steer clear from this port.

Maybe I am crazy giving “Ghost Rider” a good review but for me this is what a good action-packed and slightly dark comic book movie should be. With “Ghost Rider”, I may have got some of the problems seen in other superhero movies but I got enough top-notch action to please me and another thing, why do people consider it campy?

Meet Johnny Blaze (Nicolas Cage “Con Air”); he’s a cocky motorcycle rider with a thick southern American accent. Johnny made a deal with the ‘Devil’ but as a result his father, who was also a motorcyclist, died in a horrible accident and Johnny was made to forget about his friends and family. Years later we see Johnny is stilling riding and although he never seems to land he’s got enough fans to make him one of the most famous motorcyclists ever. Johnny is then forced to become Ghost Rider and avenge the Devil.

Nicolas Cage is amusing as the not too bright but good at heart Johnny Blaze. Sam Elliott (“Hulk”) is good as the unnamed caretaker, who becomes Johnny’s mentor on how to use the power of Ghost Rider. I found about half of the cast pretty good although most had a few dodgy lines too. The main villain was rubbish.

“Ghost Rider” is cheesy and amusing in places but when the sun goes down so does the tone and the movie becomes a wonderful dark superhero adventure. Ghost Rider is a brilliant character and he’s done justice here. The action is great, some of the acting is great and the film is just really enjoyable. I don’t know why so many people dislike this film because I had a great time watching Ghost Rider take on the dead who just won’t stay dead. Amusing, smart and action packed I found “Ghost Rider” to be.

I’ll confess to actually really liking the original “Ghost Rider” (it wasn’t a masterpiece or anything but it was good). I don’t normally like gothic style movies but somehow it managed to work in favour of “Ghost Rider” as it brought the character from the pages of the comics to a whole new dimension of entertainment. This one abandons a good plot, comedy, good acting and throws in mindless and poorly done action scenes as a substitute.

In “Spirit Of Vengeance”, Johnny Blaze (Nicolas Cage “Con Air”) is hiding out in Eastern Europe but then he is called upon to stop the Devil from passing his mind to his earthly son.

Nicolas Cage is poor this time around as Johnny Blaze and lacks the humour featured in the first one. Ghost Rider himself is boring this time around. A new coat of paint for our hero doesn’t make him shine. The character Nadya (Violante Placido “The American”) was a boring character. The bad guys were horrendous this time (and they weren’t brilliant in the first one). Most of the characters really disappointed me and none of them feel anything more than two dimensional.

This film wasn’t funny, the action was badly done, the acting was poor despite it featured some big names, the plot was awful and the special effects felt a downgrade from the original. The film also lacks the great gothic style that seemed to make “Ghost Rider” for me at least an enjoyable experience. This is the sort of film you’d recommend to someone you don’t like because you want to see them waste their money on it to make it seem to serve some purpose that isn’t negative. This film is proof that filmmakers are sometimes blissfully unaware of how bad the movies they make actually are and I hope that this will teach them to get their act together.

“Ghost In The Shell” is a beautifully animated and rather intelligent sci-fi film from Japan. It might not be as good as “Akira” or “My Neighbour Totoro” but it’s a fairly slick picture that asks a lot of tough questions about artificial intelligence and humanity.

We enter a futuristic world in which human beings live alongside cyborgs and there exists a means to communicate with others through some form of connection via implants. In this increasingly robotised world, a cyborg policewoman, Major Motoko Kusanagi, comes to question her existence whilst tracking down a cybernetic criminal known as the ‘Puppet Master’.

The characters in “Ghost In The Shell” engage in many philosophical conversations and one even quotes “The Bible”. The characters look excellent and I love the invisibility effect given to some of the characters when they use their ability to cloak themselves. Although the characters have deep and meaningful conversations, we always feel a certain sense of formality and perhaps this was done to further emphasise how artificial these characters are. I was a little confused by the motive of the villain and not enough screen time is given to the Puppet Master for you to really understand where he was coming from.

“Ghost In The Shell” is somewhat convoluted, it’s rather hard to follow at times and some may find themselves underwhelmed by the briefness of the action sequences. The film is in no sense a kids’ cartoon as there are exploding heads, countless shots of nudity and a very disturbing feel to it all. The film is very stylish in its execution and I imagine anime fans will adore this if that haven’t already seen it but I can see this film being lost on the masses. It is a confusing movie but don’t let that fool you into think it isn’t a good film.

The original “Ghost In The Shell” was undoubtedly a little hard to follow but it combined stunning animated visuals with great action and deep philosophy to make an entertaining movie. However, this sequel focuses way too much on the philosophy and features only brief action scenes. Loyal fans of the franchise maybe eager to see it but I doubt the masses will care for it.

The year is 2032, cyborg detective Batô is tasked with finding out the reason why several robots used for pleasure have mysteriously killed their owners. His investigation leads him to confront serious issues about what it means to be human and mankind’s increasingly complex relationship with technology. He also waits for the return of Major Motoko Kusanagi.

The characters in this movie all have speeches like university lecturers. There are tons of lengthy philosophical debates with quotes from “The Bible”, Confucius and various philosophers and scientists. It feels like the filmmakers wanted to show off just how smart they are and as a result, they have turned most of the characters into scholars. A lot of the discussions seem to tread on the same territory as the first movie. The animation on all the characters is absolutely amazing so I cannot fault the makers there.

“Ghost In The Shell 2: Innocence” is a treat for the eyes but that is about it. The movie gets very convoluted and it makes you feel intellectually inferior. The best science-fiction explains complicated concepts without shrouding it unneeded philosophical babble. A love a lit bit of philosophy and theology thrown in but when it obscures your point, that is when you are going wrong. The first “Ghost In The Shell” works because it seems the filmmakers were trying to make an entertaining film, this sequels fails because it seems like the filmmakers just want to prove how deep and meaningful they can be.

The hit anime movie “Ghost In The Shell” gets its Hollywood live-action adaptation and I was actually fairly impressed. I enjoyed the original version and I think this new version manages to faithfully recreate the style of its Japanese counterpart while adding enough variation to create a new experience for fans of the original. If you are unfamiliar with the original and therefore the premise, just imagine a cross between “Blade Runner” and “I, Robot”.

We return to the disturbing futuristic world of “Ghost In The Shell” as Scarlett Johansson (“The Island”, “Avengers Assemble”) stars as Major, a cyborg counter-terrorist officer. She’s on the trail of an elusive hacker known as ‘Kuze’ (Michael Pitt) but what she will find is the dark truth of her past.

There was a lot of controversy over the casting of Johansson but I think a lot of it was just people trying to find something to complain about it. Johansson does a good job. I didn’t really care for the villain all that much, which is a shame. Fans of Japanese cinema will most likely be happy to see that Takeshi Kitano (“Battle Royale”) has a small role. The special effects on the various cyborgs and robots look pretty impressive for the most part.

At times, I was a little confused because this version features some significant plot changes from the original but many of the famous scenes are recreated. While I definitely still prefer the original, this is about as good as a live-action remake could be. I think fans of the anime will find it enjoyable but this may also be a good way to ease in audiences unfamiliar with the anime. It isn’t quite as philosophically intriguing as the original but it does a good enough job in recreating the dark world of “Ghost In The Shell”.

“Get Shorty” feels very much like “Pulp Fiction” (it even has some of the same cast) yet it’s not as good as “Pulp Fiction”. Even though you may look at it as just a lesser version of another film, I have a strong feeling that if you enjoyed that ‘other’ film, you’ll get a kick out of seeing this one too.

In this movie, John Travolta (“Saturday Night Fever”) stars as Chili Palmer, a gangster off to Hollywood to collect a debt but he ends up getting into the movie business only to find that isn’t really that different from the mob. Nothing much really happens but it’s full of style and that’s why it works.

Travolta is pretty good here and that’s a surprise as he usually feels pretty bland but here manages to convey a movie-loving mobster effectively. I also really like James Gandolfini from tv’s “Sopranos” as a stuntman/crook. I felt the characters played by Gene Hackman (“Superman: The Movie”), Danny DeVito (“Twins”) and Rene Russo (“Lethal Weapon 3”) didn’t really go anywhere and that was a real shame. I did enjoy the cameo appearance by Harvey Keitel (“Reservoir Dogs”) and I have feeling that the white suit he wears isn’t a coincidence.

“Get Shorty” is kind-of funny but like movies such as “The Big Lebowski” and many of Tarantino’s pictures, it’s all about the style. They all have a certain look to them and have this great way of glorifying yet also humanising criminals as it elegantly walks the line between reality and fantasy. My favourite scene involves Palmer’s mission to get back his coat; it’s right near the beginning of the movie and although brief, it serves as the start of a chain reaction of events. Sure the script isn’t quite as smooth as some other films but I had a nice time watching “Get Shorty” and I’m sure anybody that likes these slick crime comedies will too.

Steven Seagal (“Under Siege”, “Attrition”) used to be a successful movie star but he has become the punchline of many jokes in recent years. Ridiculed for his low-budget movies, his political activism and his expanding waistline, Seagal has now scrapped the bottom of the barrel with “General Commander”. Not only is this easily the worst movie I’ve seen him in, this is one of the worst action films ever made.

After a botched mission, a group of C.I.A. agents operating in South East Asia are set to be separated and reassigned. However, they are determined to end the reign of terror of a vicious criminal involved in the illegal organ trade. They decide to disobey their orders and go rogue.

Seagal looks tired and disinterested. He barely does anything in this movie. He gets a few lines where he rants about conspiracies but the rest of the time, he looks like he does not want to be there. You would never know that he made his name in the professional martial arts world by watching this film. The other cast members are absolutely abysmal. Some of the performances in here are just painful to endure. The villains are incredibly generic.

Most of Seagal’s more recent films have been underwhelming and forgettable but “General Commander” is a true chore to sit through. There is just nothing even tolerable in “General Commander”. I thought that the action sequences were pathetic, the plot was disposable, the performances were atrocious and the editing was horrendous. Even the title is bad. Never has there been a better case made for Seagal to go into retirement from showbusiness. It’s a shame too because his first film, “Above The Law”, was (and still is) genuinely entertaining. If you want a better action movie then just pick one and I almost guarantee that it will be better than “General Commander”. To be fair, how could it be worse?

“Gattaca” did not succeed at the box-office but it has gained a following and it certainly deserves it. This masterpiece is not only a sci-fi gem but it seems to get at the core of the genetics debate. This is a beautiful film about determination that touches on issues of faith and morality and I believe it will only become more relevant than it is in the years to come.

“Gattaca” takes place in a future where the vast majority of children are born with the genes selected by their parents to give them supposedly the ‘best’ start in life. Vincent (Ethan Hawke “Training Day”) is a genetically inferior man that must assume the identity of the superior Jerome (Jude Law “The Holiday”) if he is to fulfil his lifelong dream of space travel.

Ethan Hawke does a wonderful job as Vincent. This is a character that will not surrender his dream and will go to extraordinary lengths to do what he wants to do. Jude Law gives a reasonable performance as Jerome. Uma Thurman (“Pulp Fiction”) plays one of Vincent’s colleagues, who falls in love with him, and she does a great job. Alan Arkin (“Rocketeer”) and Tony Shalhoub (“Men In Black”) also have roles and they do decent jobs.

This is an excellent movie with a truly moving performance from Ethan Hawke, one of the most elegant film scores that I have ever had the pleasure of hearing and some spectacular visuals. This is a terrific film from beginning to end about a man put under endless scrutiny where one fault could shatter his world. “Gattaca” is sprawling with amazing concepts and the film itself has all the polish it needs to ensure that it is one of the greatest sci-fi films ever made. If you have not seen this underrated picture then you are missing out on a brilliant movie experience.