“Children Of Men” offers the most plausible dystopian future that I have ever seen in a movie and it has only become increasing plausible in the years since its release, given the large-scale migration and terrorism that has plagued Europe in recent years. However, I was unhappy with many elements of this film.

In 2027, women have been inexplicably infertile for 18 years, most of the world has collapsed and only Britain remains with all immigrants being rounded up in detention centres and refugee camps. Theo Faron (Clive Owen “Inside Man”) is a former-activist that is recruited to help escort a young girl (Clare-Hope Ashitey) to safety but it turns out she might just have the one thing that can help salvage humanity.

The characters in this movie are very, very bland. I thought that the Theo character was not remotely interesting and Clive Owen looked bored. The young girl was also rather dull. There are some big names in this movie such as Julianne Moore (“Hannibal”) and Michael Caine (“Batman Begins”) but none of them give good performances. The weak characters really hinder a movie like this because it makes it hard for you to ever really engage with the movie.

There are some interesting ideas including ones about authoritarianism and some stylish scenes such as the battle in the refugee camp but for the most part, the main characters just seem to drift through the movie. You feel more like you are on a sightseeing tour bus than you are watching a movie because it feels like minimum effort was placed into writing the story and characters. It’s a real shame that this film just doesn’t work because a lot of effort has clearly been put into building this disturbing future. Most people seem to like “Children Of Men” so maybe it’s just me not getting something.

“Chato’s Land” is hardnosed Western, in the spirit of pictures such as “Hang ‘Em High”. It stars Charles Bronson (“Death Wish”, “Mr. Majestyk”) and while it drags at times, ultimately satisfied me.

In “Chato’s Land”, a posse led by Captain Quincey Whitmore (Jack Palance “Batman”) go out to hunt down a Native American (Bronson). They soon find themselves being outwitted and the target of the man they’ve gone out to hang after they attack his family. It’s an interesting picture as we see the hunters become the hunted and we get to see the breakdown in communication among the posse.

Bronson is always great and here he delivers very few lines but conveys his toughness through his physical presence. His looks always let you know that he means business. Jack Palance is very good as the lead posse man. I would have liked to have seen some real interaction between Bronson and Palance. His sort of commentary as the group pursue Bronson is pretty entertaining. I think the rest of the posse isn’t as good because the script doesn’t give the rest of them many great opportunities. There aren’t really any other characters in the picture as it is very much focused on the posse and Bronson.

“Chato’s Land” is a little bit dull and it certainly isn’t as entertaining as something such as “Joe Kidd” or “The Shootist” but I enjoyed it; it’s a very gritty Western with some graphic scenes. I certainly would have liked to see a bit more happening and some tighter dialog and I think it would have helped had the film not moved onto the pursuit so quickly. “Chato’s Land” spends a lot of its time in the wilderness and we get some great visuals so add that to the entertaining acting and the gritty tone and I think “Chato’s Land” while far from perfect, is an enjoyable film.

“Charlie’s Angels” is a movie based on a tv show I’ve never seen and is basically action scenes from “The Matrix”, humour from “Austin Powers” and a whole bunch of needless celebrity appearances. They show a trailer for a movie based on tv cop show “T.J. Hooker”. Now, that I’d like to see.

In “Charlie’s Angels”, Natalie (Cameron Diaz “Being John Malkovich”, “Shrek”), Alex (Lucy Liu “Shanghai Noon”) and Dylan (Drew Barrymore “Scream”) are three martial-arts experts, that use their sex appeal to complete missions for an anonymous millionaire. Their latest assignment turns out to be a set-up and they must do everything to stop the bad guys.

The girls themselves are okay as all they’ve got to do is jump while big explosions go off behind using special effects and they’ve got to look as they wear exotic clothing (they do look very creepy though when dressed as men) as things such as personality really come later in the list of priorities. Like I said there are lots of other famous faces including Bill Murray (“Ghostbusters”), Tom Green (“Freddy Got Fingered”), Matt LeBlanc (“Lost in Space”), Tim Curry (“Legend”) and Crispin Glover (“Back to the Future”) but none of them are particularly good with the exception of Bill Murray, who really feels a cut above this movie.

In many ways “Charlie’s Angels” is a horrible movie but in its own weird way I guess it does it very well but the problem is no matter how well you get your bizarre idea to work, it doesn’t make it a good one. “Charlie’s Angels” is a ‘girl-power’ movie full of bad dirty jokes and terrible fight scenes that dumb-down the physics from “The Matrix”. It isn’t a self-aware parody but rather an excuse for sexual behaviour, over the top stunts and lots of explosions but surprisingly the plot is quite detailed.

I love the work of the magnificent Charlie Chaplin. His slapstick action will always be remembered and it has gone on to inspire countless imitators. “Chaplin” sadly doesn’t focus a lot of its time on his movies but more on his personal life and political views. Now, I don’t mind seeing a bit of that but I want more info on his movies. In this film Chaplin (Robert Downey Jr. “Iron Man”) says ‘if you want to understand m, watch my movies’ and that is accurate.

“Chaplin” quickly goes over parts of Charlie Chaplin’s life as it spends several minutes at a time on his love life and several minutes at a time on whether his a communist or not and then a few moments on something like his movie “The Gold Rush” and even less on his film “Modern Times”. It also flies past things such as his childhood.

I didn’t actually think Downey Jr. was that great in this film I must say. I don’t know why but I just didn’t. Danny Aykroyd (“Ghostbusters”) is average as the filmmaker. Anthony Hopkins (“Silence of the Lambs”) is actually good in this film. Kevin Kline (“Ice Storm”) was good too. Penelope Ann Miller (“The Artist”), Milla Jovovich (“Resident Evil”) and the rest of the women in this film are all used simply for sex objects and that shows how weak the film is at times.

This film has plenty of shameful moments; I hated the pathetic attempt of recreating Chaplin’s slapstick chasing but in a real-life situation and not when he was in front of the camera because it felt cheesy. Most of the film is very bland. If “Chaplin” focused more on how they made such classics as “The Great Dictator”, “The Kid” and others this film would have been great but sadly the highlight of the film is seeing footage of the real Charlie Chaplin in his films.

From director Andrew Davis (“The Fugitive”, “Under Siege”) comes this good thriller with goofy action to lighten to the tone.

In “Chain Reaction”, Keanu Reeves (“The Matrix”, “Point Break”) portrays machinist Eddie Kasalivich. Eddie is part of a group of researchers, who are trying to use water as a sustainable source of energy for everything such as fuel. However, the leader of the project named Doctor Alistair Barkley (Nicholas Rudall) wants this to be free and for everyone but the problem is if it falls into the wrong hands. The whole place is blown up and Doctor Barkley is dead. Now a nationwide manhunt is on for the innocent Eddie and his colleague Doctor Lily Sinclair (Rachel Weisz “The Mummy”) as they’re framed for giving info to the Chinese.

Keanu Reeves isn’t great or anything but he’s decent enough for me to enjoy his performance as Eddie. Rachel Weisz is a bit boring as Lily. Morgan Freeman (“Se7en”, “Bruce Almighty”) plays Paul Shannon and he does a really great job as you can’ decide whether he’s a good guy, a bad guy or even both. Other cast members such as Fred Ward (“Tremors”) and Brian Cox (“Manhunter”) aren’t too impressive to say the least.

This movie is in my opinion quite a sophisticated thriller and they throw in hilarious action scenes such as Keanu Reeves outrunning a mushroom cloud on a motorcycle (near the beginning surprisingly). This makes “Chain Reactions” a fun mixture that I’m surprised not more people enjoy. I don’t understand why people can’t just enjoy the fact it’s serious in some places and silly in others. It’s not like the plot keeps changing tone, it’s only the action that isn’t taken too seriously and it feels like the makers of the film were having fun with their product and that fun was passed on to me, the viewer.

“Catwoman” is living proof that sometimes moviemakers don’t care about what they’re handing to audience just about how much money they make as “Catwoman” is ridiculous boring in every conceivable and inconceivable way but that sadly isn’t even the half of it so let me unwillingly delve into the awful mess left by “Catwoman”.

In “Catwoman”, we meet the light-hearted Patience Phillips (Halle Berry “Die Another Day”); she’s a graphic designer for some beauty product company. When she accidentally stumbles upon a secret plan hatched by some skin care designers she is murdered. Then because of cats she is brought back to life and unlike any other version I’ve ever seen of the character she becomes a vigilante as she tries to hunt down the person responsible for her death.

Halle Berry is okay as Patience although the character was incredibly poor to begin with. There’s also a police officer named Tom (Benjamin Bratt “Miss Congeniality”), who Patience has a relationship of sorts after he wants to apologise after thinking she was suicidal. I seriously cannot believe how stupid that is. Sharon Stone (“Basic Instinct”) plays the evil skin cream maker. Honestly, that has to be the worst idea for a villain in a comic book movie that I have ever come across. Maybe they were planning to have an evil shampoo maker for the sequel.

“Catwoman” is uninteresting, unfunny and just generally poor. The film is stupid and unintelligent. I thought movies like “Dumb And Dumberer” were idiotic but “Catwoman” seems to surpass it when it comes to awfulness. Nothing about “Catwoman” is in anyway fun. If you aren’t bored while witnessing the horrendous “Catwoman” then I just don’t know. The film is appalling beyond comprehension and it’s the kind of movie you would dare someone to watch. If you haven’t seen “Catwoman” then that itself is quite frankly a blessing and you should consider yourself far beyond lucky.

“Cats & Dogs” is one of those mildly amusing children’s movies that is easy watching but just isn’t that great fun but it is probably one of the better ones out there.

“Cats & Dogs” centres around the concept of cats and dogs waging an espionage filled war against each other in a bid to wipe out the other species with their owners blissfully unaware. Jeff Goldblum (“Jurassic Park”) plays wacky scientist Professor Brody, who is trying to cure people’s allergies to dogs. His family dog, who is a secret agent dog, is kidnapped by the evil cats and is accidentally replaced with a truly untrained Beagle named Lou (voiced by Tobey Maguire “Spider-Man”). Through various silly kung-fu and spy antics Lou and his partners must stop the evil Mr. Tinkles (voiced by Sean Hayes “The Bucket List”) from taking over the world.

Jeff Goldblum is relatively bland and unmemorable as Professor Brody. Tobey Maguire makes Lou seem really sweet and innocent, which makes him probably my favourite character. Mr. Tinkles is done in the “James Bond’ style as a villain and while that’s clichéd it’s enjoyable too.

“Cats & Dogs” probably is unapologetically stupid but I do feel it is amusing in some places. Surprisingly the concept of spy dogs works a lot better than spy kids as seen in the infamous “Spy Kids” franchise. The action scenes are silly but mildly enjoyable, the villains are clichéd but still enjoyable just “Cats & Dogs” won’t have you laughing enough of the time for me to recommend it to you. I do however feel that if you have a young child then they will fall in love with the film and it’s that type of harmless family movie that isn’t great but you can settle down and watch it without being too bored.

Steven Spielberg (“Jurassic Park”) is in the director’s seat for this average movie based on a true story of one of history’s most famous con artists and fraudsters. I would have preferred to see either a documentary on these true events or a movie with a similar concept as I thought it was a little anticlimactic and boring a lot of the time despite featuring some great ideas.

“Catch Me If You Can” follows the life of Frank Abagnale Jr. (Leonard DiCaprio “Titanic”, “Inception”), who successfully managed to pass himself off as a pilot, a doctor and a lawyer for cheque fraud all before his 21st birthday.

Leonard DiCaprio is sadly mediocre at best as Frank Abagnale Jr. Tom Hanks (“Big”, “The Green Mile”) plays the F.B.I agent Carl Hagratty who is on the trail of Frank. He is superb and I wish the film focused on him rather than Abagnale. The scene where Abagnale fools Hagratty by pretending to be a Secret Service agent is brilliant and the best part of the film. Christopher Walken (“Pulp Fiction”) is okay as Frank Abagnale Sr., which is a shame as I think Walken can be a really good actor at times.

The opening credits of the film, which features slick stick people animation and detective film music, really made me think I was going to watch a great movie about how a man goes around conning people and Hanks’ character was going to be always only a few steps behind him. Sadly, lots of the film is quite bland and I wish they hadn’t based the film on a true story and made their own as I saw really potential in the concept but sadly the individual scenario isn’t that great. If they were going to base a movie on the real Frank Abagnale Jr. I would have preferred a documentary.

Hayao Miyazaki’s “Castle In The Sky” arguably isn’t even his best movie but it is a truly wonderful animated adventure. It is visually one of the most impressive animated films ever made and it does an absolutely remarkable job of creating a world in which is totally believable that you can embark on a quest to find a kingdom in the sky.

“Castle In The Sky” centres around a young boy and a girl with a magic crystal that find themselves on a race against pirates and foreign agents to locate a legendary floating castle. sense of adventure is magnificent here as Miyazaki’s film has thrills at practically every turn.

I like the young children Sheeta and Pazu and we quickly become invested in their struggle so we want to see them succeed. Like in “My Neighbour Totoro” and “Spirited Away”, Miyazaki always manages to capture the innocence and the adventurous spirits of children. The other characters in the film are great too and as is to be expected of Miyazaki movie, the animation on the characters is great. I also must praise the robots that appear in the film as they reminded me greatly of Gort from “The Day The Earth Stood Still”.

“Castle In The Sky” has retained its popularity throughout the years (especially in Japan) and resulted in the most ‘tweeted’ moment ever on Twitter. There are many great scenes in here such as the chase sequence with the train and the scene where the robot escapes. Fans of anime or adventure movies need to see “Castle In The Sky” because this is a wonderful adventure in the same vein as the “Indiana Jones” movies or the original “Star Wars” trilogy. I believe that I prefer some of Miyazaki’s other films such as “Spirited Away” and “Princess Mononoke” but “Castle In The Sky” is his first masterpiece.

“Cass” is an entertaining football hooligan movie. It’s not quite as good as “The Football Factory” or “Rise of the Footsoldier” but it’s still worth checking out if you like hooligan films. It has some interesting things to say about issues such as race so you might it find it a little more thoughtful than some of the other similar films out there.

Based on the true story of Cass Pennant (Nonso Anozie “Entebbe”), who was a black orphan raised by white parents in London. He becomes involved in the violent hooligan scene of the 70s and 80s as he fights with his fellow West Ham football firm members. He spends some time in prison and tries to find a more legitimate lifestyle upon his release yet he cannot escape the violence of his past.

Nonso Anozie does a good job as Cass Pennant. The other hooligans are reasonably entertaining but they are nothing special. Most of them are just there to whack one another with beer bottles, metal bars and anything else that they can get their hands on. There are some more tender moments where Cass spends time with his parents. These scenes are surprisingly quite touching. The real Cass Pennant has a cameo as a bouncer.

“Cass” shows the routine racial prejudice blacks faced in the 70s and 80s from the whites but it also shows the abuse they get from other blacks that do not like to fully assimilate into society and view those who do as traitors. The language throughout is very strong so do be aware of that before going into it. I would have liked a few more hooligan riot scenes but what is on offer is pretty good. It’s not a revolutionary film or anything like that but it is entertaining. I especially recommend “Cass” for those that have enjoyed some of the other hooligan films out there.