The original “Clerks” was an underground hit but despite its cleverness, I found it a little underwhelming. “Clerks II” is far more amusing with really witty dialog but it pushes the grossness too far and ultimately that’s what killed it for me. I can tolerate the bad language when the writing is this good but I cannot stomach watching an explicit sexual sequence involving a donkey.

“Clerks II” follows the mundane lives of Dante (Brian O’Halloran) and Randal (Jeff Anderson), who now work at a fast-food restaurant named Mooby’s (the same place that first appeared in another Kevin Smith directed movie, “Dogma”). It’s Dante’s last day as he hopes to leave with his fiancée as they head to Florida but things don’t go as planned.

The Dante and Randal characters dish out plenty of funny dialog but they aren’t the stars of the show here as easily the best character is Elias (Trevor Fehrman). This young guy is as innocent as he comes and nearly every conversation he has with Randal messes with his view of the world. Jason Mewes and Kevin Smith of course return as Jay and Silent Bob but they don’t really add anything here. Some of the other cameos such as the one by Ben Affleck (“Argo”) feel totally pointless.

I found a lot of “Clerks II” really funny. This is a disgusting movie from beginning to end but its smart writing makes conversations about Helen Keller, racism and the “Lord of the Rings” versus “Star Wars” very amusing. However, it crosses the line with a graphic scene near the end that is completely unjustified. It’s a shame that Kevin Smith didn’t realise the limit of his comedic talent as he needlessly provides us with a sequence so painfully perverted that it hinders the whole picture.

From Troma comes “Class Of Nuke ‘Em High”. It’s pretty much the same sort of thing as the “Toxic Avenger” films with vulgar gags, over the top violence and plenty of nudity. This is an absurd film from beginning to end and it just goes all the way with its crazy vision. A movie like this has no filter on the creativity.

Tromaville’s nuclear power plant is not exactly a place that meets health and safety requirements so it’s no surprise when the local high school, which is located less than half a mile away, gets contaminated. Watch the wild and wacky ways the toxic waste plays havoc with the students.

As you have probably guessed by now, all the characters are exaggerated with cheesy performances. It works because that is clearly what the filmmakers are going for. We have the popular boy and girl, who are the main characters. Also, we have the drug dealing punks and we have the nerds. We also get the boss at the nuclear plant that is adamant that any strange goings-on having nothing to do with his facility. There’s also a toxic mutant creature that gets created. It looks ridiculous but terrific nonetheless.

“Class Of Nuke ‘Em High” does not take itself seriously in the slightest. It’s got mutant babies, toxic gunge, a nuclear joint and tons of other insane stuff. It’s not a great movie or anything like that but it is definitely entertaining; it comes across like “Animal House” meets “Re-Animator”. Unless you are somebody who refuses to watch goofy films, I’d recommend that you give this one a go. I probably preferred the first “Toxic Avenger” film but this is not far behind. If you have not seen any other Troma films then this is perfectly suitable place to start.

The 1981 version of “Clash of the Titans” is not a bad movie but it isn’t very impressive even when you put things into perspective. The film lacks essential qualities that it needed to succeed.

The film follows the adventures of Perseus (Harry Hamlin), the son of Zeus (Laurence Olivier “Sleuth”, “Rebecca”). He is about to be married to Princess Andromeda (Judi Bowker) when Thetis (Maggie Smith “Death On The Nile”) claims she has been insulted and then Andromeda must be a sacrifice to the Kraken or also the whole city will be destroyed. Perseus must find a way to kill the Kraken but it involves getting the head of Medusa.

The acting in the film is laughably horrible. Perseus is one of the blandest heroes I’ve ever seen. Burgess Meredith (“Rocky”, “Batman: The Movie”) is sadly not very good in this film. Laurence Olivier is great as Zeus, although he has little screen time. Princess Andromeda is nothing more than your average damsel in distress. Maggie Smith is average at best, which is a shame as she can be a good actress. All-round I was not impressed with the acting in this film, which is a real shame as there are some good people in it.

Near the beginning of the movie we see the Kraken destroy a city in a few minutes. Near the end he is about to eat a sacrifice but seems to take forever, this is another stupid addition to this film. The special effects although are nice. Ray Harryhausen had made movies long before this and I must say it is little if any improvement over his earlier work. This was made in the 80s yet the skeleton fight in “Jason and the Argonauts” was made in the 60s and there is little difference. Even the first “Star Wars”, which only had a budget of $8,000,000, came out several years before this and looks better. The acting is bad, the action is silly and the special effects aren’t too great.

The master of silent comedy is undoubtedly Charlie Chaplin (“The Gold Rush”, “The Kid”) and many consider “City Lights” a classic. The movie was made after the advent of sound but Chaplin decided to only embrace a few sound effects rather than spoken dialog. This is an exceptional piece of work that had me laughing throughout.

The Tramp (Chaplin) falls in love with a beautiful girl (Virginia Cherrill “Delicious”). Unfortunately, the girl is blind and her family is in financial trouble. In order to help out, the Tramp is determined to do anything and everything to raise the funds needed for the eye operation and the rent.

Chaplin’s decision not to embrace sound is an intelligent one because he knew that he had mastered the art of silent comedy. He would eventually speak in the terrific movie “The Great Dictator”. His comedic choreography here is just absolutely brilliant. The way he spends the majority of the boxing match hiding behind the referee is marvellous and I could not stop laughing during the scene where he accidentally swallows a whistle. Chaplin was a perfectionist and he even had Virginia Cherrill do hundreds of takes for a scene where she offers him flowers. It’s rather amusing to think that so much time was dedicated to a line in a silent movie.

“City Lights” is a comedy movie masterpiece that shows why Chaplin was (and arguably still is) the king of slapstick. It’s even more impressive considering the competition he had from the likes of Buster Keaton (“The General”). Almost every scene in “City Lights” had me in stitches because the timing is just so brilliant. The movie is also very endearing with a genuinely great romantic storyline. The final scene where the Tramp and the girl encounter each other after time apart is truly touching. Even if you are not somebody that particularly likes old movies, you owe it to yourself to check out “City Lights”.

“City Heat” is a gangster comedy that has one of the messiest scripts I’ve ever seen as although this film isn’t a parody it seems to apply the same respect of logic, physics and common sense. I heavily recommend you skip “City Heat”.

“City Heat” is set in the 1930s and centres around a tough, policeman named Lieutenant Speer (Clint Eastwood “Sudden Impact”, “Tightrope”) and a wisecracking, private eye named Mike Murphy (Burt Reynolds “Hooper”, “Smokey and the Bandit”) that despite being once partners hate each other but they find themselves once again working alongside one another. Aside from that I really can’t tell you much about the story as the film didn’t reel me in at all.

Burt Reynolds is not funny as Murphy and the character felt just like a very exaggerated version of many other of the actor’s screen personas. I was very displeased with Clint Eastwood’s work as Speer and the character felt again exaggerated version of many other of the actor’s screen personas. The two have very little chemistry and feel entirely wrong together. Nobody else left any real impressions on me either so I can safely say I was displeased with this aspect of the movie.

“City Heat” is a fishing rod without bait. Nothing in this movie captivates you because even when it has something that could potentially work it just does it so poorly it loses anything good about it. The film is all over the place with strange humour, silly yet dull gunfights and lots of uninteresting plot points. When I watched “City Heat” I eventually found my eyes drifting away from the screen not because the movie was horrifically bad (it isn’t painful to sit through) but because I was bored. “City Heat” apparently had a very troublesome pre-production with several directors on and off the project so it’s understandable how this could have happened but surely that should have meant we got an amalgamation of all the best bits. “City Heat” is a movie where it is obvious some said ‘I want this to happen’ without any structure.

“Chopping Mall” feels like it could have been directed by John Carpenter (“They Live”, “The Fog”). It’s a super cheesy 80s movie with killer robots. There’s little to no plot; it’s just a big excuse for robots firing lasers and some big explosions. It also reminded me a lot of “Maximum Overdrive”.

In this movie, shopping centre gets a security upgrade with three high-tech robots designed to detain anybody try to rob the place at night. During a night of partying, a group of workers get trapped inside with the robots. Unfortunately for them, a lightning strike has made the robots malfunction and now they will kill anybody that they see.

The characters in “Chopping Mall” are not exactly riveting and most of them are just there to be blasted by lasers. Some of the workers are at least smart enough to arm themselves with guns in order to face the robot security guards. The killer robots themselves are great. It’s so satisfying watching them shoot lasers at people. They are like ED-209 crossed with Johnny Five. We are first introduced to the robots with a short video presentation and some eggheads that assure everybody that nothing can wrong (it feels like it could have been a deleted scene from “RoboCop”). Dick Miller (“Gremlins”, “The Terminator”) has a very small role as a cleaner.

“Chopping Mall” is not high-art but it does belong in the same category as movies such as “They Live”, “Maximum Overdrive” and “Army of Darkness”. It’s a pretty short movie but it does not really get going until the second act when the robots start killing everybody. One scene involves some of the characters sat watching “Attack of the Crab Monsters”, which again reminded me of when Carpenter that showed “The Thing From Another World” on television in “Halloween”. If you want some killer robot carnage then “Chopping Mall” should satisfy your thirst.

Jackie Chan (“Police Story”, “Rush Hour”) shows us once again why the world loves him in one of his best films to date. By 2010s, I’d have thought he’d be out of ideas but “Chinese Zodiac” features some of his most creative stunt work and special effects that don’t interrupt the fights (“The Tuxedo”) but rather enhance the overall picture.

In “Chinese Zodiac”, Chan is on a mission to find a bunch of animal head statues representing the twelve animals of the Chinese years. Forget the plot though, there’s a scene with a roller-skate suit, a mid-air scuffle that puts “Moonraker” to shame and a fight in which the two guys involved try to stay on the couch; he’s got the big, expensive ideas and the smaller-scale ones too.

Chan has always been likeable. It’s such a shame he keeps getting put in movies with actors that lack his charisma; his films always make him the focus rather than trying to be good films just with the addition of Chan. Would “Chinese Zodiac” work without Chan’s personality and with less creative action sequences? No, probably not but it’s an all-round better film than many of his. The other characters like so many of his other films will fade from memory quickly because it’s all about Jackie Chan.

The creativity of the stunts is what makes the movie so darn good. The bits of dialog are certainly nothing to get excited over but they’re more tolerable than “Wheels On Meals” or “The Spy Next Door”. The effects don’t get in the way because very little is added to actually fighting but rather helps create all-round more of a spectacle so we’re still seeing Chan do the work and not some computer. Most’ll probably tell you “The Legend of the Drunken Master” is his best but I think this one might just top it.

Judging from the marketing, you may think the martial arts action star Steven Seagal (“Under Siege”) and former-boxer Mike Tyson (“Ip Man 3”) are the stars of “China Salesman” but they only have small roles. Instead, make way for Dong-Xue Li (“1911”) as telecoms salesman Yan Jian because apparently the world has been waiting for an action movie about the telecoms industry.

Set in North Africa, this movie follows China’s DH Telecoms employees competing against European rivals for telecom contracts. However, a conspiracy leads to the nation being on the edge of civil war with the Europeans eager to exploit the resources. It seems the only person that can save the day is Yan Jian by fixing the communications systems.

Yan Jian is one of the most pathetic characters ever to be in an action movie. He never really does anything action-packed and he seems more like a comedic sidekick (minus the comedic part). The problem is that he is not a sidekick, he’s the main character. We have to suffer through hearing him try to say his lines in English. Seagal and Tyson do appear in the movie and they do have a fistfight (the highlight of the movie). The most obvious stuntman in the world replaces Seagal in several shots. Most of the other characters are just other people involved with telecoms.

The Chinese propaganda in this movie is laughable at times as one scene is just an excuse for Yan Jian to wave a Chinese flag around. The misleading marketing will likely annoy most viewers that are expecting Tyson and Seagal to be in the spotlight. The subject matter in this movie is just so boring. Maybe it is possible to make an interesting film about telecoms contracts but do not try to make an action movie about them.

“Child’s Play” is a slasher movie that most certainly has more brains than most as they give the villain a convincing disguise. The movie isn’t very scary (unless you have a phobia of dolls) but it is hilarious.

In “Child’s Play”, during the last few moments of his life, a serial killer (Brad Dourif “Dune”) puts his soul inside a children’s doll. The doll is named Chucky and is given to an innocent little boy named Andy for his birthday by his single mother. Chucky isn’t nice and he’s killing people but nobody will believe the boy until one person at a time the nasty doll reveals himself.

Brad Dourif voices Chucky and he’s hysterical. He’s rude as he spouts out naughty words and he makes threats. Chucky acts like a spoof of a slasher villain more than an actual one. The little boy in the movie is very dull and doesn’t portray being scared well at all. The adults are very dumb as the mother and a police detective are told a specific way to kill Chucky (I won’t spoil it for you) and they keep killing him or think he’s dead without actually killing him the special way.

“Child’s Play” has some rather amusing moments (can’t stress that enough) but I honestly can’t see what is so great about it (it has gained positive reviews from critics) and I can’t see what is so terrifying about it. Maybe I’m not easily scared or maybe I just felt Chucky was there to generate some giggles rather than screams. If you enjoy silly horror movies (especially killer doll/puppet) films then give this film a go as I think you’ll definitely get more than your fair share of kicks from it but otherwise I really can’t see why I should recommend it.

“Children of the Corn” is a film that works much like how the original version of “The Omen” works. It takes itself very seriously but is far too silly to be frightening so you end up just embracing the goofiness and having a good time anyway.

In “Children of the Corn”, two adults (Linda Hamilton “The Terminator”, Peter Horton “2 Days In The Valley”) finds themselves in a bizarre town where a dangerous cult of children has taken control and make kill anybody over 18 so it isn’t long before the town turns from merely creepy to outright deadly. It’s definitely corny (yes I just went there).

Peter Horton and Linda Hamilton are alright as the couple. The real stars of the show are the kids as although most of their acting comes across as silly, they put a lot of effort into it. You have to love the voice of Isaac (John Franklin “The Addams Family”, “Child’s Play”), who sounds so much like he’s trying to be sinister but it ultimately seems more amusing than anything else. I also liked Malachai (Courtney Gains “Back To The Future”) a lot. The strange creature near the end is funny.

“Children of the Corn” is based on a story by Stephen King and while it isn’t the best film based on a Stephen King book (“The Shining” is better), I did enjoy this film. If you’ve seen “The Omen” then you’ll know what kind-of film to expect. Apparently “Children of the Corn” became a whole franchise and although I enjoyed this one, I can’t see the material being good enough to sustain a series of films. Maybe you don’t like silly horror films but I’ll tell you this, I got a lot more out of “Children of the Corn” than films such as “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” and the endless “Halloween” sequels.