“Fantasy Mission Force” is a ludicrous action movie spoof with silly antics from beginning to end. It’s like if you mixed together the Peter Sellers version of “Casino Royale” with “Drunken Master”. I found it very funny but I can imagine a lot of people hating it.

A team of misfits is assembled to try and rescue a group of senior military figures that have been captured by the Japanese. Along the way, the whacky team get into one crazy situation after another including an encounter with a group of masked martial arts fighters and a brief visit to a haunted house.

The characters in “Fantasy Mission Force” are as ridiculous as they could be. The Japanese soldiers for some reason wear uniforms with swastikas on and even their vehicles have swastikas on them. Also, one of the heroes has a helmet like a WWI German soldier. It’s like the filmmakers just used whatever costumes they could find. Jackie Chan (“Who Am I?”, “Supercop”) appears but he is not exactly the star here. I wish Chan had a bigger role but when he is onscreen, he is very entertaining. Almost all the characters engage in some form of slapstick comedy and a lot of it made me chuckle.

I can understand why few people have seen “Fantasy Mission Force” because it is an odd Hong Kong picture. Even many Jackie Chan fans probably have not seen this one because he does not have a major part. However, I found a lot of this movie to be very funny. I especially liked an early scene where the military are deciding who to send on this dangerous mission and we see the candidates including James Bond, Snake Plissken (from “Escape From New York”) and Rocky Balboa. “Fantasy Mission Force” is a weird movie with no real plot but it did put a smile on my face.

2015’s “Fantastic Four” is considerably worse than 2005’s version and that film’s sequel “Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer” because even though those films weren’t particularly entertaining, they at least felt like superhero films but the 2015 remake, reboot or whatever you want to call it, feels more like a rip-off of “Stargate”.

The new but certainly not improved “Fantastic Four” tells the tale of young scientists Reed Richards (Miles Teller “Whiplash”), Johnny Storm (Michael B. Jordan “Creed”), Susan Storm (Kate Mara “Shooter”) and Ben Grimm (Jamie Bell “Billy Elliot”), who travel to an alternate universe and find their physical forms substantially altered. When they return to the alternate universe, they must stop Dr. Doom (Tony Kebbell “Wrath of the Titans”) from destroying our universe.

The characters are insanely dull. Miles Teller is cringingly bad as Reed Richards and Tony Kebbell is downright awful as Dr. Doom. We really get to see very little of the characters using their superpowers and we see virtually no real superhero stuff like the older films; the scene in the 2005 film where they rescued everybody on the bridge would be far more entertaining than watching the new team just sat inside a government lab somewhere. The other characters are worthless.

“Fantastic Four” is a stupid, stupid, stupid film that offers next to nothing in terms of the superhero content I wanted to see. The film is so slow and boring up until the point when they get their powers that you think that there is going to be something exciting that the filmmakers are setting you up for but then when they get their powers, they spend most of the time sat around and the final battle is mediocre. This film makes the earlier “Fantastic Four” films seem entertaining and if you haven’t seen any of them then watch those ones; they’re not very enjoyable but their vastly superior to this.

“Falling Down” is an excellent film from director Joel Schumacher (“Batman Forever”, “The Number 23”). It reminded me a lot of “Do The Right Thing” as both films perfectly seem to capture the tensions of a hot day in a major American city. The way that “Falling Down” captures the crushing pressures of the hazy urban jungle that is L.A. is terrific.

William ‘D-Fens’ Forrester (Michael Douglas “Wall Street”, “The Game”) is a seemingly normal guy struggling to cope with modern urban living. When he becomes stuck in traffic, he ditches his car and decides to walk across Los Angeles to go ‘home’. Along the way, he has a series of encounters where he decides to respond violently.

Michael Douglas is excellent as D-Fens. The way that the film establishes how he feels bombarded by commuting in the very first scene (probably the best scene in the movie) is outstanding. Robert Duvall (“The Godfather”) is pretty good as Prendergast, a police officer that is on his last day before retirement. The day should be simple but he is soon on the trail of D-Fens. Barbara Hershey (“Black Swan”) is also really good as Beth, who is not exactly pleased at the prospect of seeing D-Fens.

“Falling Down” is a brilliant looking film and it looks great from the moment that it starts. The opening scene is fantastic and I was impressed how the movie sustained my interest throughout. I also found that the scenes involving Prendergast did not distract from the scenes with D-Fens but actually complimented them rather nicely. For those that had written off Joel Schumacher after seeing his two underwhelming “Batman” films, I recommend you give the director another shot and watch “Falling Down”. Not enough people talk about this film and it’s a shame. It’s like a cross between “Do The Right Thing” and “Taxi Driver” so I do not get why there is not more love for it.

“Fahrenheit 9/11” is an intriguing documentary about the conspiracy theories surrounding the presidency of George W. Bush but there are huge problems: George W. Bush is not highly intelligent man like this movie portrays and also there a few scenes that just seem a little too convenient.

“Fahrenheit 9/11” is partially about 9/11 but most of it focuses on George W. Bush’s push for the war in Iraq so why this film couldn’t have been called something like “Fahrenheit Iraq” is something I’m not sure about. The structure is off and that’s what ruins a lot of it.

When I say there are some scenes that are a little too perfect, I mean the material of soldiers used and the footage of a woman breaking down outside the White House just seems as if it was used to show an extreme minority rather than the generalised majority. Director and narrator Michael Moore (“Sicko”) is dull to listen to. Some of the people interviewed say some very interesting things and the hilarious archive footage of George W. Bush’s terminology just had me laughing every time but this is one of the reasons why I don’t think he’s too smart, in fact the footage and some details convinced me he’s even less intelligent than I thought he was; I guess you can say I ‘misunderestimated’ Mr. Bush.

“Fahrenheit 9/11” has some great moments but anything I’ve seen about George W. Bush pre-presidency, during presidency and post-presidency makes me believe he isn’t the brightest spark and this movie shows you enough to make sure you can see that so why on Earth does it then claim he’s smart enough to have effectively masterminded tons of schemes. It’s got its moments to be sure but it’s very biased and that’s why I don’t think “Fahrenheit 9/11” quite works.

“Faces In The Crowd” is an interesting movie that made me think of “Blood Work” and “Irresistible” (the latter especially) as it features the same type of chill. It’s a movie with an intriguing premise but it feels as if it could have been done substantially better.

In “Faces In The Crowd”, Milla Jovovich (“Resident Evil”, “Fifth Element”) stars as schoolteacher Anna Marchant, who one day witnesses a murder by a serial killer that dominates the papers but suffers a fall during the encounter and then is unable to recognise faces (every time she sees someone their face is different). The killer could be anywhere, even right in front of her and she wouldn’t know.

Milla Jovovich is a good actress, who really has done a variety of films and while this isn’t her best film; it’s nice to see her in a film where she feels somewhat vulnerable. It’s also interesting to see anybody play a character with this problem. You can’t really talk about the other characters in this film because the cast keeps changing all the time and this is something I’ve never encountered before and I highly doubt I’ll come across this style any time soon.

‘Faces are the human barcode’ according to this film and it’s absolutely right. I like how this film chose not to make her blind but rather give her this impairment with faces because people are usually courteous to the blind but I suspect the same level would not be applied to interaction with people with conditions such as this. Although the film seems like it could have been written a lot better, they do it well it enough to pull it off. Not only is this a movie featuring an intriguing look at impairments, it’s also proof Jovovich can do movies where she isn’t kicking everyone.

“Face/Off” is a thrilling action film from director John Woo (“Mission: Impossible II”, “Hard Boiled”), that manages to give us exhilarating action sequences as well as premise that is both fun and original in equal measures so it’s a real blast.

In “Face/Off”, F.B.I. counter-terrorist agent Sean Archer (John Travolta “Grease”, “Look Who’s Talking”) manages to defeat insane criminal Castor Troy (Nicolas Cage “Ghost Rider”, “The Rock”) but there’s one problem, the bad guy just left a bomb somewhere. Archer surgically swaps faces with Troy to find out where it is but then Troy wakes up from his coma and steals Archer’s face and now things get interesting.

It’s a little confusing when talking about the cast/characters section of this movie. John Travolta is okay as Archer and equally okay as Troy pretending to be Archer. Cage is absolutely fantastic as Troy and he’s pretty decent as Archer playing Troy. The meetings between the two are really fascinating due to the premise and provide some great and original conversations between the good guy and the bad guy, that I haven’t seen done before. I thought was interesting that in the closing credits, each actor is only credited for their original part rather than both. The other characters are okay but these two are where the focus clearly is.

“Face/Off” delivers typical John Woo action sequences as we get death-defying battles using guns, planes, boats, explosions and fists. I like the movie more than your average action film because of the cheesy but somehow fantastic set-up. It’s a crazy movie that gives you more than your fair serving of shootouts but also slows down for some intriguing pieces of dialog. I think “Face/Off” has just the right amount of action, just the right about of cheesiness and just the right amount heart to get itself to work. If Travolta were as good as Cage, we’d definitely have a serious winner here.

Tom Cruise (“Top Gun”, “Mission: Impossible”) might just be the last person I expected to have the lead role in a Stanley Kubrick (“A Clockwork Orange”, “2001: A Space Odyssey”) picture as one fetches the big money while the other gathers an amazing critical reception, this made me sceptical as well as intrigued in “Eyes Wide Shut” and I’m happy to say it delivers.

Cruise stars as New Yorker Doctor Bill Harford, whose wife Alice (Nicole Kidman “The Golden Compass”, “The Others”) tells him her sexual fantasies about other men. This angers and confuses him so he goes out a finds a seedy sexual underworld lurking in the city. The film asks the question “What’s worse? A. Having fantasies about doing something B. Coming close to doing something in real-life” and this doesn’t have to be about sex.

I’m amazed Cruise was recruited for this picture as he plays a pretentious jerk that almost seems like an attack on Cruise’s other performance and the actor himself. Cruise does an excellent job here. Nicole Kidman is less good but then again her part requires a lot less work. I like how the two work together in the film because they actually spend very little time onscreen together. The other characters are interesting too.

While it is no “2001”, this film certainly is incredible. Like I said if nothing else it is the question embedded in the film that makes it so darn fantastic. Like most if not all of Kubrick’s films it can have a sense of humour and also be utterly terrifying but like most if not all of his films it is the questions and revelations that are more frightening than anything you actually see. Tom Cruise fans may leave with a bizarre expression on their face (they may not have realised it was such a deep picture they were walking into) but I’m certain Kubrick fans will be thrilled.

“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” is an intriguing documentary about the academic battle between evolution and intelligent design with Ben Stein (“The Mask”) guiding.

This film claims that a Darwinian agenda is being pushed in academia to keep religion out of the public square while also potentially hindering scientific understanding and creating a wider freedom of speech problems within academia. Ben Stein takes us on this fascinating journey as he talks to respected figures on both sides such as John Lennox and Richard Dawkins.

Ben Stein seems reasonably good at asking the right sort-of questions for the most part and it’s great to see such a wide array of individuals interviewed. There is a very personal moment where Stein visits a former-concentration camp, which has a massive impact on him as Jew in terms of his relationship with Darwinism. The interview with Richard Dawkins at the end is the only part where Stein does himself a disservice as he asks several ridiculous questions that make him look really immature and idiotic and that’s a real shame. We get to see interviews with biologist Richard Dawkins, mathematician John Lennox, science writer Michael Shermer and a whole host of other individuals on both sides of the debate, making for an interesting watch.

Some have heavily criticised “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” as creationist propaganda and while it may be biased, I think it’s still worth watching. “Religulous” was a passionately anti-religious documentary and while I disagreed with its messages, I still found it a thought-provoking film so I’m not going to attack “Expelled” for being a little biased. For those that are fascinated with science, this is an interesting piece that seeks to expand the academic conversation, helping to ensure the debates about what is taught in schools are settled in the lecture halls and not in the courts.

No, it is not about Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt, “Exodus” instead focuses on more recent Jewish history. The formation of the modern state of Israel is seen as a very religiously significant event by both Jews and Christians but this film is a little bit of bore.

In 1947, a Haganah leader (Paul Newman “The Sting”) defies the British to help some of the Jews detained in Cyprus to reach their destination of British Mandate Palestine. Once in their ancestral homeland, the creation of a Jewish state looks to be on the horizon but the Arabs will not tolerate its existence.

One of the most irritating aspects of “Exodus” is that much of the film follows an American woman by the name of Kitty (Eva Marie Saint “North By Northwest”). This is her not her fight and this is not her home so why have this irrelevant character as a major player? The character becomes a real distraction. The other characters are also really boring. I think the film does a reasonable job presenting the British as I feel it is a fair portrayal. I also like the way that the film does not seek to glorify the more extreme Zionist groups such as the Irgun.

“Exodus” is unsure of what to be. It clocks in at well over three hours but cannot decide whether it wants to focus on the conflict or do a more “Gone With The Wind” sort-of thing. This is surely one of the most interesting events in the years after World War II yet while “Exodus” is not a bad film, it just never conveys how important the establishment of Israel was. If you want a better movie on the subject matter, I do not believe I have seen one so if you want to see a film about the birth of Israel then this will have to do.

Ridley Scott (“Kingdom Of Heaven”, “Black Hawk Down”) offers is another masterpiece in the form of the biblical epic, “Exodus: Gods And Kings”. It is an amazing adventure with some real heart, some fine scenery and some grand effects.

“Exodus: Gods And Kings” tells the tale of how Moses (Christian Bale “Reign Of Fire”, “Batman Begins”) leads the Jews to escape from the Egyptians; only the cruel reign of Ramses (Joel Edgerton “Warrior”) stands between them and the land they are promised. Filled with great action sequences, plagues of everything from frogs to locusts and arguably the best water effects I’ve seen since “The Abyss”, this is a cracking picture.

Christian Bale is a spectacular actor and here he is on top form as Moses. Edgerton is also decent as Ramses. The relationship between Moses and Ramses is well done. I was a little surprised by the depiction of God by having him communicate with Moses in the form of a child and I’m not sure what I make of it. The interactions between God and Moses are intriguing. It really feels as if the plagues need talking about here; I thought the frogs and the locusts and everything looked fantastic.

“Exodus: Gods And Kings” is an incredible film that will surely satisfy anybody looking for a good biblical epic and anybody looking for some great special effects. I enjoyed this film a lot more than pictures such as “Noah” and it was a monumental improvement over something such as “The Passion of the Christ” because I think “Exodus: Gods And Kings” really understands how rich its source material is and uses it to its advantage. Scott has really impressed me here, instantly I’m reminded of how much I loved some of his other films such as “Kingdom Of Heaven”, “Blade Runner” and of course, “Black Hawk Down” so if you’ve seen those films then that’s another reason why I recommend you check out “Exodus: Gods And Kings”.