“Forces Of Nature” is a pleasing romantic comedy that serves a spin on “Planes, Trains & Automobiles”. Although “Forces Of Nature” is not as funny as “Planes, Trains & Automobiles” it is still enjoyable and it’s different enough for it to not constantly remind you of that film.

Ben Affleck (“Argo”, “The Accountant”) stars as Ben Holmes, who is trying to get to Georgia from New York for his wedding. His plane suffers an accident while trying to take-off and he encounters an energetic stranger by the name of Sarah (Sandra Bullock “While You Were Sleeping”, “Demolition Man”). The two decide to travel together as they encounter one disaster after another.

Although Ben Affleck is not a particularly good actor, his relatively straight performance here works as a nice contrast to Bullock’s more lively performance. Bullock gives a good performance. The chemistry between the two is surprisingly strong. The two end up going through a lot together such as getting arrested, pretending to be husband and wife and performing a strip dance for money and some of these incidents are genuinely amusing. Some of the other cast members are okay such as Ronny Cox (“RoboCop”), who plays the father of Ben’s fiancée. However, Steve Zahn (“Rescue Dawn”) is pretty terrible as Ben’s friend.

“Forces Of Nature” is an innocent comedy movie. If you like silly romantic pictures, you will probably enjoy this film. One aspect of the movie that does deserve criticism is the ending because it was not one I was expecting and in the case of a film likes this, that can be a big problem. It’s not a romantic comedy classic like “Roxanne” or even Bullock’s “While You Were Sleeping” but “Forces Of Nature” is a competent picture. I’m surprised the movie is not more popular considering its star power.

“Forbidden World” (not to be confused with “Forbidden Planet”) is a low-budget sci-fi/horror flick produced by Roger Corman (“The Terror”). It’s essentially a rip-off of “Alien”, uses the Vasquez Rocks filming location that was featured in one of the most iconic episodes of the original “Star Trek” tv series and it even uses footage from “Battle Beyond The Stars”, which was also produced by Corman. It’s an incredibly disappointing movie.

Set in the distant future, Mike Colby (Jesse Vint “Silent Running”) is a federation marshal that is dispatched to a research facility on a remote desert planet. He discovers that a genetic experiment has gone horribly wrong leading the creation of a killer mutant monster.

The characters in “Forbidden World” are so boring that I would prefer to stare at a blank wall rather than hear them talk. The female characters are solely there to remove their clothes; there is even a shower scene in which they both stand together. Colby’s robot colleague, SAM-104, looks pretty cheap and nasty. The worst thing though has to be the monster because it looks so similar to the Xenemorph from “Alien” that I cannot believe that the filmmakers of “Forbidden World” did not get sued. It looks tacky and not believable in the slightest, especially when compared to “Alien”.

Mediocre special effects, dull characters and a mundane plot make it a real challenge to get any real enjoyment from “Forbidden World”. It seems like it exists just to show some blood and nudity but I never felt like anybody involved was enjoying what they were doing. Corman has produced hundreds of movies over the years and “Forbidden World” feels like it came off an assembly line with love and care from the people making it. Just watch “Alien” again and do not bother with “Forbidden World”.

“For Y'ur Height Only” (I have no idea why they decided to spell it like that) is a parody of the “James Bond”. However, instead of getting the suave British secret agent, our spy is a Filipino dwarf that does martial arts. If you have seen the “Austin Powers” movies or the Peter Sellers version of “Casino Royale”, you may think that you have seen spy films at the most absurd but I can assure you that they can compete with the lunacy of “For Y'ur Height Only”.

Weng Weng (“D’Wild Wild Weng”) stars as Agent 00, a fearless and talented spy that must do battle with Mr. Giant. The villain wants to steal some form of new bomb in order to take control of the world but that’s about it in terms of plot. This is really just an excuse for a series of hilarious yet surreal scenes with Agent 00 fighting the bad guys.

At 2’9”, Weng Weng is considered to be the shortest man to ever get the main role in an action film. It’s pretty darn funny watching him slide along the floor shooting at goons. Sometimes he does martial arts and in one scene, he gets on a jetpack. My favourite scene though has to be the one where he uses an umbrella to safely descend down the side of a building like Mary Poppins. The villains are fairly forgettable and so all the other character.

“For Y'ur Height Only” definitely put a smile on my face but there is no denying that it is a bad film. The characters are dull and the plot is virtually non-existent. This is my first exposure to Filipino cinema and I can safely say that it has made an impression but I cannot recommend this to the average moviegoer. This is a film only for people that have too much time on their hands.

“For A Few Dollars More” is the middle instalment in the “Dollars” trilogy and it might be my favourite of the three; it’s certainly a lot more interesting than a “Fistful Of Dollars” and it doesn’t drag like “The Good, The Bad and the Ugly”.

In “For A Few Dollars More”, the ‘Man With No Name’ (Clint Eastwood “Sudden Impact”, “Hang ‘Em High”) is a bounty hunter out for the reward money but he’ll be forming an unlikely coalition with a rival bounty hunter (Lee Van Cleef “High Noon”). After the two combine forces, it’s off to bring in the outlaws.

I really like the Man With No Name character and I think Eastwood is brilliant here. Also, I think Van Cleef is excellent. I like how the two work together rather than be bitter rivals like in “The Good, The Bad and the Ugly” (Van Cleef plays a different character in that one). The scene where the two shoot the hats off of each other is arguably one of the best scenes in any Western movie to date. I think the other characters are okay but the one-liners and attitudes simply radiating from the leads will have you content.

“For A Few Dollars More” has pretty much everything that’s great about Westerns; there are great shootouts, great saloons sequences and all that stuff. I do enjoy the “Dollars” films because they have a great style and that’s what I remember most about them and not so much what happens in them. I think “For A Few Dollars More” might be the best because it really seemed to have me gripped from beginning to end much more tightly than the other two entries in the series but still they’re all worthy of viewing for any Western fan or indeed any fan of Clint Eastwood.

“Foodfight!” was intended to be released in the early 2000s but numerous setbacks (including having all the footage stolen) led to it getting released as late as 2012. That is still no excuse for this monstrously bad animated film. It is the “Troll 2” of animated movies; I have never seen animation this ugly and a plot so nonsensical.

“Foodfight!” is about the mascots of supermarket products, who come to life when the shop closes. The evil Brand X intends to seize control of the store and destroy the other mascots so it is up to Dex Dogtective (Charlie Sheen “Wall Street”) and his friends to save the day.

I have never seen such ugly animation in a movie. All the characters look absolutely hideous and are even likely to give young children nightmares. The characters are all really boring and all their attempts at humour are terrible. I also hated the sexual nature of a lot of the dialog. Perhaps the only thing more shocking than the animation on the characters is that the voice actors include big names such as Charlie Sheen, Hilary Duff (“The Lizzie McGuire Movie”) and Christopher Lloyd (“The Addams Family”). All these stars should have fired their agents after this.

“Foodfight!” features animation so stiff and random that you would swear that this is the first time the animators have ever used the software. “Toy Story” came out in 1995 and looked fantastic, “Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within” arrived in 2001 and looked phenomenal but then in 2012, “Foodfight!” took us back to the Stone Age. It is arguably the worst animated movie ever made (though “Eight Crazy Nights” is putting up a pretty strong fight) and it is also arguably one of the worst films ever made. The release of “Foodfight!” should not have been delayed by a mere decade, it should have been delayed indefinitely.

“Following” is the first film from director Christopher Nolan, who would go on to direct the masterpieces “The Prestige” and “Memento”. The movie is a low-budget thriller and was filmed in black and white. It gripped me at first but the finale was a disappointment.

“Following” focus on an aspiring writer, credited only as ‘The Young Man’ (Jeremy Theobald), who decides to start following strangers around the streets of London. He has a set of rules but when he breaks them, he meets a thief. The criminal takes the writer under his wing and things start to get complicated and dangerous.

When the movie is so low-budget, you need great characters and great writing to make it work. The writer character is quite good and I do like the thief a lot. Their interactions are actually very interesting at times. The big problems start with the introduction of the female character, credited as ‘The Blonde’. There is also a gangster character, credited as ‘The Bald Guy’, and I did not care for him at all. The film tries to tie these characters together in a meaningful way but the more complex the mystery becomes, the less interesting it is. The movie has so few characters and only two of them are any good.

I was fascinated by the initial ideas presented in “Following” but the twists and turns feel a little forced. The movie almost feels like a blueprint for “Memento”. For people that have seen Nolan’s more famous later work, it might interest you see the humble beginning of a great filmmaker. However, as a film itself, it lacks the polish it needs to be truly satisfying. I will note that it is nice to see a movie in black and white, showing that you do not always need to make your film in colour.

Okay, I think “Flubber” is a little underrated but it’s not good in my opinion either. “Flubber” has potential but it doesn’t have great material for its star to work with.

“Flubber” follows the eccentric Professor Philip Brainard (Robin Williams “Dead Poets Society”), who with his assistant Weebo (voiced by Jodi Benson) creates wondrous things. The Professor is about to get married to his colleague Doctor Sara Jean Reynolds (Marcia Gay Harden “Into the Wild”) but his experiments keep getting in the way of his personal life. He has missed two weddings and on the afternoon of his third he creates an elastic, rubbery substance that he calls flubber. Brainard is determined to win Doctor Reynolds heart but first he must overcome the Doctor’s new man Wilson (Christopher McDonald “Superhero Movie”). With flubber by his side it seems nothing can stop the Professor now.

Robin Williams is fantastic as Professor Brainard. Robin Williams has the energy of Jim Carrey (“Ace Ventura: Pet Detective”, “Dumb and Dumber”) and the charisma of Anthony Hopkins (“Silence of the Lambs”). With as must energy as he put into the character of the Genie in “Aladdin” Williams attempts to create an enjoyable character, too bad the script doesn’t allow him. Doctor Reynolds is forgettable and I wish was portrayed by a more interesting actress. Wilson is a boring adversary for Brainard. Flubber isn’t just a substance but an energetic little creature with a mind of its own; he’s mildly amusing.

“Flubber” is a very goofy yet creative movie with lots of dumb moments but it redeems some of itself with some very funny and inventive ideas. Robin Williams is trying and I guess the substance/character Flubber maybe liked by small children. I think young children will enjoy “Flubber” for its truly ridiculous stunts and antics but there are other movies I think they’d enjoy quite a bit more.

“Floating Weeds” is an emotive little film from Japan directed by Yasujirô Ozu (“Tokyo Story”). Interestingly, it’s actually a remake of an earlier Ozu film (“A Story Of Floating Weeds”). Like many great dramas, not a lot happens in it but you feel moved by the characters and the dialog. For fans of Japanese cinema, it’s also a refreshing change of pace from the samurai epics and monster movies that are so often used as the faces of the nation’s cultural output.

In “Floating Weeds”, a theatre troupe arrives in a small coastal town in the south of Japan. Komajuro Arashi (Ganjirô Nakamura “Summer Clouds”) is the man in charge of the group and he has a very personal reason for choosing to perform in the particular town they are in. He visits his old mistress and his illegitimate offspring while leading actress Sumiko (Machiko Kyô “Rashomon”) becomes jealous.

I really like the very subtle performance from Ganjirô Nakamura as Arashi as it makes his more aggressive outbursts later in the movie all the more powerful. The other cast members are also very impressive. The interactions between the characters are very engaging throughout. It’s also interesting that although the film centres around a theatre troupe, we see only brief moments of them performing their play.

If you are not a fan of slow movies then there is a chance that you will not enjoy “Floating Weeds”. It’s certainly not a visual as a Japanese drama such as “Ikiru”, a film littered with many scenes that are a treat for the eyes. “Floating Weeds” and other Ozu movies such as “Tokyo Story” have repeatedly been hailed as some of the greatest films ever made. I must confess that this is my first exposure to Ozu and while I was definitely impressed by “Floating Weeds”, I could not go that far. Perhaps some of his other films are worthy of such praise but for me, “Floating Weeds” is just a very enjoyable drama.

“Flightplan” is a movie that takes a premise that would make a good “Twilight Zone” episode but can’t sustain itself long enough to be a suitable concept for a feature-length film and therefore has to switch its style later on, making it just plain silly.

In “Flightplan”, Kyle Pratt (Jodie Foster “Silence of the Lambs”) is with her daughter Julia as they fly to America to take the body of Kyle’s husband back home to be buried. After a while Kyle falls asleep and when she awakens Julia is missing with there being no evidence of her ever being on the plane, making this a bit like the movie “Unknown”. It should be thrilling but it ends up being goofy.

Jodie Foster takes the role very seriously but the script has her do such stupid things as accuse Arab men of being terrorists and also finding a way to the plane’s main computer systems from the bathrooms. Peter Sarsgaard (“Green Lantern”) plays a law enforcer on-board but the character becomes so obvious and weak. I like the captain of the plane played really well by Sean Bean (“GoldenEye”). The other passengers aren’t too exciting but we don’t see too much of them so maybe very little effort went into creating them.

The film takes an interesting idea and gives us some genuine suspense for a bit but it runs out of steam quickly and the last part of the film involves gunfights and explosions (some realistic thriller, right?). A successful intense film set in a claustrophobic environment was “Phone Booth” and if someone can make a movie using a phone booth as the setting interesting for the whole movie then why can’t the same be done for a plane? If this film is going to be this silly it needs to take notes from the juvenile yet fun plane outing named “Passenger 57”.

I am told that “Fletch” is a comedy and a good film but I really disagree. This is one of those supposed comedies where you don’t laugh at the few pitiful attempts at humour there are in the film.

Chevy Chase (“Caddyshack”, “Vegas Vacation”) stars as Irwin Fletcher, who is an investigative reporter. He’s about to solve a big case surrounding drugs on the beach when he asked to murder a man, who says he is dying of bone cancer. Fletcher smells funny about it and the film then takes him from Utah and back to L.A. to solve the mystery.

Chevy Chase is a bad actor. Unlike Eddie Murphy (“Beverly Hills Cop”), Steve Martin (“The Jerk”), Jim Carrey (“Ace Ventura: Pet Detective”) and Bill Murray (“Groundhog Day”), who have all done bad movies, Chase lacks any extra effort to try and make his lines work better. He just delivers them in the blandest way making it so the material has to be great before he’s funny. The other people who I mentioned try to add a bit of personality. Fletcher constantly disguises himself but each disguise is just a simple physical change (e.g. glasses) without any form of accent or mannerism alteration. Chase looks bored during the film and makes us lose interest in the whole thing. The other cast members were average.

Aside from a funky yet forgettable tune that plays several times throughout the duration of the picture “Fletch” offers nothing. I was surprised at the few attempts at comedy there actually were. How has this film received good reviews? The film is disjointed, not fun in the slightest and has a mediocre car chase. The plot might have been interesting but the awfulness of the rest of the film just eradicated my care for the story.