“Constantine” is a movie where lots of special effects are used while religion battles against unspeakable evil. This premise sometimes works because I also enjoyed the first “Ghost Rider” and the 1999 version of “The Mummy” but “End Of Days” and “Van Helsing” were most certainly underwhelming. I’ve been trying to work out what makes them good and what makes them bad and to be honest I don’t know.

In “Constantine”, Keanu Reeves (“The Matrix”, “Point Break”) stars as John Constantine. From his apartment above a bowling alley, he uses his knowledge of demonology and his ‘special gifts’ to send rule-breaking demons back down to hell whilst smoking an endless supply of cigarettes in a cross between “The Exorcist” and “Ghost Rider”.

Keanu Reeves just works brilliantly here but what’s odd about Mr. Reeves and his work is that I usually don’t enjoy his films appreciated by the masses (e.g. “The Matrix”) but rather prefer the ones that get bashed (e.g. “Johnny Mnemonic”). Rachel Weisz, who was in the version of “The Mummy” I mentioned, and Shia LaBeouf (“Transformers”) play dull supporting characters. I like Satan in this film played by Peter Stormare (“Fargo”), who gives the character a kind of Hannibal Lecter feel.

Despite the fact it has some interesting ideas about God, Satan and the world around us (such as an alternate version of the Bible), the film is nothing more than a fun and entertaining display of special effects (Hell looks incredible). “Constantine” is in its own bizarre, sick and bad way, really good. Sure it gets overly biblical to the point where it becomes nonsense at times but that’s sort-of what you want to see in these movies. Maybe I’m totally wrong, like I seem to be with most of the Keanu Reeves filmography but I think this is a silly yet intriguing film.

“Congo” is a movie that has been heavily criticised over the years and that’s a real shame because I really enjoyed because it showed me stuff I haven’t seen before and seem to have a lot of fun doing it.

In “Congo”, a scientist named Peter Elliot (Dylan Walsh) has taught a gorilla named Amy to communicate using sign language and wants to release her into the wild. He finds himself being lumped with Karen Ross (Laura Linney “Absolute Power”, “The Truman Show”), who wants to find what happened to another expedition and a high-powered laser, and Herkermer Homolka (Tim Curry “Legend”), who wants nothing more than to find a mine full of diamonds. Not all goes to plan, it becomes a race for survival and ends in a cartoonish kind of way as tons of people lose their jobs.

The two leads okay and the gorilla, who is played by someone in a suit, also can be described using that word. I loved the supporting cast though that had Tim Curry, Ernie Hudson (“Ghostbusters”), Bruce Campbell (“Army Of Darkness”), Joe Don Baker (“License To Kill”) and Delroy Lindo (“The One”). It’s a shame we don’t see a bit more of some of these people as they are really good. I also liked the evil gorillas.

“Congo” is done in the same vein as “Jurassic Park” and while I appreciate that Spielberg’s picture is superior, I also think this movie is very good. It has some fun performances, I like the set pieces, I like the action sequences (the one on the plane is very entertaining) and all-round it is just good old-fashioned fun. You can judge “Congo” and pick out all the dumb moments but then you’d be the kind of person who does fully appreciate movies such as the “Indiana Jones” films.

I didn’t feel as though I enjoyed myself with “Conan The Barbarian” but this one brings it down several notches making it even less entertaining. “Conan The Destroyer” is as stupid as they come and some may say it benefits from that but I disagree… heavily.

In this sequel, Arnold Schwarzenegger (“Total Recall”, “The 6th Day”) returns as the barbaric hero Conan. Conan is promised his love from the first film will be resurrected by Queen Taramis (Sarah Douglas “Superman II”) if he goes on a quest with his assorted group where they must overcome all sorts of perils including an evil wizard.

Conan is like I said before not a complex character so he doesn’t need a complex performance to go with him, that’s why Arnold Schwarzenegger makes a great Conan because of his barbarian qualities and his muscular appearance. Queen Taramis is an underwhelming villain, who has surprisingly little screen time. Grace Jones (“A View To A Kill”) is horrifically bad as Zula. By far the worst character is Conan’s new sidekick with an awful voice and a numbskull wit that makes Jar Jar Binks look not half bad. The rest of the cast don’t deliver either in my opinion.

“Conan The Destroyer” is a brainless film that is exceedingly campy. Although it is less violent than the first the sexual vibe isn’t toned down too much. Although this time it’s not blatant, they slip in so many little things such as innuendos and angled shots of breasts that it is equally as crude. Kids won’t enjoy this one either as despite it won’t be too gory for them the fact that no brain goes in will really annoy them and the action scenes don’t make up for that. I say if you haven’t seen it, you’ve saved yourself from a bad Schwarzenegger flick.

Arnold Schwarzenegger (“Commando”, “Last Action Hero”) stars in this sword and sorcery movie that I’m not too keen on to say the least. It’s a barrage of gory violence, sex and goofiness, which makes it very unclear what audience this was both intended for and suitable for.

Conan (Schwarzenegger) was a slave at childhood after Thulsa Doom (James Earl Jones “Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back”, “The Lion King”) murdered his parents and his people. After he is made free Conan embarks on a quest to kill Thulsa Doom and along the way he meets friends and has to overcome obstacles including a giant snake.

Conan isn’t a particularly complex character and doesn’t need a good performance to go with him so I guess Schwarzenegger is suitable for the part as he has the muscles for it and some barbarian qualities. Thulsa Doom feels very much like Darth Vader so you feel they just wrote the part or altered him after James Earl Jones was attached to the project. He’s sort of enjoyable but when he talks about ‘power’ and is wearing a cape and helmet you feel a massive sense of déjà vu. The other characters aren’t very good either. Mako (“Sidekicks”, “TMNT”) is alright as the Wizard, who does a little narration also.

The film starts off pretty well but by the time it gets good again you’ve lost a lot of interest. I’m not sure what audience this is really for. Like I mentioned it is very gory and has sex in it but at the same time has a light-hearted sense of adventure that you find in a lot of children’s films. The special effects aren’t too thrilling even by 1980s standards. The action scenes and music are good aspects of the film though. If you don’t mind some typical sword slashing with Arnold then maybe you’ll want to pick this one up as you can do a lot worse but for everyone else just stick to something else.

Based on the allegedly true story of novelist Whitley Strieber and his encounters with alien beings, “Communion” is a hilarious mess from beginning to end but I just could not resist its charm. It stars Christopher Walken (“Batman Returns”, “The Prophecy”) as Strieber and he transforms this movie into something very enjoyable.

After strange experiences at a log cabin in the woods, struggling writer Whitley Strieber begins to descend into madness. While questioning reality and his own mental health, he begins to believe that he had encounters with aliens. With the help of a psychiatrist (Frances Sternhagen “Outland”, “Misery”), he begins to recall the experiences in greater detail.

Christopher Walken is allowed to be as crazy as he wants to be and is just wonderful to watch. Every single scene has him acting in a way that only he can. He utilises the most ridiculous material and delivers it with such style that you cannot take your eyes off him. The aliens in the movie are absolutely laughable and look about as realistic as the goblins in “Troll 2”. Even 1950s sci-fi films such as “Robot Monster” feature monsters more believable than the ones in this movie. The interactions between Strieber and the aliens are just brilliantly bizarre.

The dialog is often atrocious, the costumes for the aliens are pathetic and the story is often non-sensical but somehow Walken’s over-the-top performance makes it all work. This is one of those movies that I really think is so bad that it’s good. The fact that this seems to have been intended to be serious just makes it even more amusing. If you like Christopher Walken at all then you need to see him here in what seems like a completely unfiltered form. If you watch and hate it then I can totally understand why but I cannot honestly claim that I did not enjoy “Communion”.

“Commando” is one of the most over the top films I’ve ever seen with every 80s action movie cliché thrown in without any real plot. It’s mindless and has good moments but I’m sure it won’t impress anyone outside the big action movie fan section of the audience.

In “Commando”, a retired commando named John Matrix (Arnold Schwarzenegger “Eraser”, “The 6th Day”) has his daughter Jenny (Alyssa Milano) kidnapped and he embarks on a mission of vengeance. Nobody is safe with Matrix around as he takes down everybody in sight like the Incredible Hulk. Will Matrix be able to save his daughter in time?

I’m not keen on Schwarzenegger’s role as John Matrix. He seems to have more strength and less emotion than when he played the Terminator, which shows the script has left out any sign of humanity. The bad guys are all stupid but lack charisma so it doesn’t work. If you are going to have a stupid enemy, at least make him memorable and fun as opposed to just a brainless person to add to the film’s large body count. Probably the worst character in it is Bennett (Vernon Welles “Innerspace”, “Weird Science”) as he had the potential to be fun but again he’s just a moron.

“Commando” has more than enough explosions and people killed to satisfy people looking for a brainless action film but the issue is that there is no storyline to match the intensity of the action sequences, instead we get a concept… revenge! Also no humanity in the characters whatsoever does spoil the film as well. With some shred of emotion (you don’t need a lot for this type of film) and a storyline this could have been one of the best action films of the 80s because the action is so amazingly good.

“Coming To America” is one of the funniest films I’ve ever seen, up there with the likes of Charlie Chaplin and “Dr. Strangelove”. It’s a movie that stars Eddie Murphy (“Trading Places”, “Shrek”), who like Steve Martin (“Roxanne”), Robin Williams (“Flubber”) and Jim Carrey (“The Mask”) has appeared in many films that undermine his talents but this is pure comedic genius.

In “Coming To America”, Murphy stars as Prince Akeem, who leaves his native Africa in order to find a woman, who will truly appreciate him by travelling to Queens, New York (that’s already funny). He pretends to be just some guy rather than an exotic member of royalty as he works in McDonald’s (not the McDonald’s) but his father (James Earl Jones “Star Wars”) isn’t too far behind.

Eddie Murphy is hilarious as Akeem, he has a great sense of innocence but that’s just one of the many characters he plays here. In one scene he plays Akeem, a loudmouth barber and an old white man. Murphy never uses the joke about being black here and benefits from that. Arsenio Hall deserves some credit for his multiple roles including the crazy Reverend Brown. I also love James Earl Jones and John Amos (“Die Hard 2”) as they provide plenty of laughs. Watch out for Cuba Gooding Jr. (“Jerry Maguire”) and Samuel L. Jackson (“Pulp Fiction”)

Director John Landis (“The Blues Brothers”) hits a homerun with this movie. “Coming To America” has plenty of verbal, visual, witty, laugh-out-loud and just generally excellent moments of humour scattered throughout. It’s a movie that takes an overused formula but masters it by not going for all the usual stuff, we don’t see him visiting monuments or desperately trying to embrace the foreign culture. It’s a shame Murphy’s career would later descend into absolute rubbish much like some of his fellow comedic actors but at least he gave us some movies like this.

“Collateral” is an interesting film to say the least and it reminded me a lot of the director Michael Mann’s other film “Heat”. This film, like “Heat”, focuses a lot on two characters: the good guy and the bad guy, even more than it does on the action sequences.

In “Collateral”, Jamie Foxx (“Ray”, “Stealth”) is a L.A. taxi driver, who one night picks up a guy named Vincent (Tom Cruise “Minority Report”, “Mission: Impossible”). Vincent wants taxi driver Max to stay with him all night as Vincent intends to briefly visit several places but as the film continues we discover Vincent is a contract killer and now Max is his hostage.

Jamie Foxx is reasonable here but he’s not exceptional. I do quite like the casting of Tom Cruise as the bad guy as it makes a change from him always playing the dynamic hero. However, out of the two lead roles, he certainly is much more suited to the role of the slick professional killer than the taxi driver. The two have good interaction, in the same way Al Pacino and Robert Niro did in “Heat”. Also the very first scene contains a cameo by Jason Statham, who drops off a package and if anyone has seen his “Transporter” films then they’ll find that quite amusing.

“Collateral” perhaps should have focused a little more on the action scenes than it does because they do feel a little weak in comparison to the character development and conversations but that being said the final shootout is really tense and once again reminded me a lot of “Heat”, in fact this whole movie is structured in a similar way, which is odd as they contain two completely different plots but they do at least occupy the same genre and the same city. “Collateral” is certainly not excellent but it’s worth seeing.

Terrorism is one of the horrors of real-life. I don’t really want to see realistic terrorism put into an action film because it is awkward to watch especially when this movie tries to make you hate and sympathize with terrorists simultaneously. Throwing Arnold Schwarzenegger (“Predator”, “True Lies”) in it only makes it more awkward to sit through.

In “Collateral Damage”, fire-fighter Gordy Brewer (Schwarzenegger) witnesses the murder of his wife and son in an act of terrorism. Obviously distraught he tries to find the man responsible and he discovers it was a Columbian terrorist that calls himself ‘The Wolf’ (Cliff Curtis “Training Day”). Brewer then embarks on a mission to Columbia to kill ‘The Wolf’ but he escapes and another bomb is about to go off in Washington.

Arnold Schwarzenegger has dealt with terrorists before but not in a realistic way like this. You want to see him kick some because he’s one of the biggest and greatest action stars but this movie just makes you feel so awkward it puts you off and sadly the film doesn’t really focus on action anyway. I dislike ‘The Wolf’ in it as I just feel they try to make him a little sympathetic and I just felt uncomfortable.

“Collateral Damage” wouldn’t be a horrible movie if it didn’t focus on terrorists so realistically. It has some good moments but they just completely ruined by how anxious you are to finish the film because you want to be relieved of the subject matter the film is thrusting upon you. I say skip “Collateral Damage” even if you’re a fan of Schwarzenegger because the way you feel while watching this movie is far worse than the kind you feel while watching some of his other films such as “Junior” and “Jingle All The Way”.

Despite limited screen time and very few lines of dialog, Steven Seagal (“Above The Law”, “Maximum Conviction”) gets top billing for “Code Of Honour”. This is a below average action flick with weak action scenes and some terrible special effects.

Colonel Robert Sikes (Seagal) is waging a crusade on the criminals of his city. Drug dealers, pimps and other outlaws are his targets. Only F.B.I. agent William Porter (Craig Sheffer “Bad Ass”) seems to have the expertise to stop Sikes. However, all is not what it seems as perhaps Porter has not been completely honest about everything. It all leads to a confusing finale that makes no real sense.

As I mentioned, Seagal gets top billing and he is on the poster yet we do not actually get to see a great deal of him. He does not even speak until almost half way through the film. Seagal is okay here but do not be fooled into thinking he is the star, he is just the most famous cast member. The F.B.I. agent Porter is really the main character and he is not very interesting. There are other characters in the movie but none of them are particularly interesting. We have some very lousy police officers and a stripper but they add little to the film.

“Code Of Honour” has a few slick moments but the action scenes are rather underwhelming. They are very generic and the special effects used during them are laughable. Fans of Seagal are likely to be disappointed by how little he appears in the film. The plot is also far from original so the filmmakers try to throw in some twists but it all gets needlessly confusing. “Code Of Honour” is not especially bad, it just never seems to rise above mediocrity. If you like these low-budget action flicks with action stars that have not had a big hit in decades, then maybe this is the movie for you.