“Bram Stoker’s Dracula” is one of the most visually amazing supernatural films ever to be made. It is a creative masterpiece with solid performances that perhaps rivals the incredible 1931 version of “Dracula” starring Béla Lugosi.

“Bram Stoker’s Dracula” sees a law clerk by the name of Jonathan Harker (Keanu Reeves “The Matrix”, “Constantine”) travel to Transylvania where he meets Count Dracula (Gary Oldman “Batman Begins”). Harker is soon trapped as Dracula travels to England as he believes Harker’s fiancée (Winona Ryder “Beetlejuice”) to be the reincarnation of his dead love from centuries ago. Professor Van Helsing (Anthony Hopkins “Hannibal”) is soon in pursuit of the vampire.

Gary Oldman is great as Dracula. We get to see Dracula in many forms as he begins as we see him appear as an old man, a somewhat young man, a green mist, a werewolf creature and a giant bat creature. He also climbs walls and has a shadow that moves on its own. Although I love the performance and the creativity, I still think Béla Lugosi’s Dracula is what I’ll think of when I think of the character. Despite what most people seem to say, I actually think Keanu Reeves does a very good job as Harker. Anthony Hopkins, Winona Ryder are terrific. I also like Tom Waits (“Fight Club”) as Renfield.

Directed by Francis Ford Coppola (“The Godfather”, “Apocalypse Now”), “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” is an excellently stylish film. Some criticise it for lacking substance but I think the performances are all very good. There is an opening battle scene depicting a fight between European Christians and Turkish Muslim invaders and its mesmerising and from then onwards, we get more and more stunning sequences. If you love the Béla Lugosi “Dracula” then it is great to compare and contrast it with this film.

“Brain Dead” is a mind-bending sci-fi that belongs in the same category as “Brazil” and “Total Recall”. This is one that seems to have gone unnoticed by most people and it’s a real shame because I found it to be very entertaining.

In “Brain Dead”, Dr. Rex Martin (Bill Pullman “Lake Placid”, “Independence Day”) is a neurologist that gets given an extraordinary opportunity to perform brain surgery on a man (Bud Court “Coyote Ugly”) to help cure his paranoid delusions. The operation is hailed as a success by a corporation that wants the man’s mathematical skills restored. However, it’s not long before Dr. Martin is experiencing his own delusions as the lines between fantasy and reality continue to blur.

Bill Pullman is great to watch as Dr. Martin. He’s very likeable and you want to see him succeed in preserving his sanity and finding out what is really going on. Bill Paxton (“Weird Science”, “True Lies”) is also very good as Jim Reston, a sleazy corporate man and Rex’s friend. I like the scenes where we get to see the two interact because they have a somewhat uneasy friendship. Bud Court, Nicholas Pryor (“Risky Business”), Patricia Charbonneau (“Manhunter”) and George Kennedy (“Cool Hand Luke”) are all okay as well.

“Brain Dead” is a little on the cheesy side at times but it also has many disturbing elements as well. It reminded me somewhat of an episode of the original “Twilight Zone”, which is not surprising when you realise it was originally written by one of the writers of that show back in the 60s. The script was reworked a little before the movie was finally made. The performance from Pullman is also very satisfying. I have mixed feelings about the ending of the movie. In some ways, it is very powerful but there’s something about that also leaves you feeling a little empty. Overall, “Brain Dead” is a blast to watch.

I have enjoyed many of the great gangster films such as “Goodfellas”, “Scarface” and “The Departed” but “Boyz N The Hood” did very little for me. I respect the fact that it is well-made but I ultimately find the black gangs of Los Angeles rather uninteresting. There’s just something that sparks my interest more when you make a film about the mafia or the Yakuza.

In this film, we follow a group of young black males that were raised on some of the most violent streets in America. We see them develop from mere boys to young adults as they try to navigate the dangers surrounding them posed by living in areas dominated by gangs.

Cuba Gooding Jr. (“Jerry Maguire”) is really weak as Tre. He never seems remotely invested in anything that is going on and I found the performance to be unconvincing. Ice Cube (“Friday”) is a little better as ‘Doughboy’. Morris Chestnut (“Half Past Dead”) is tolerable as Ricky. The chemistry between the men is poor; I never really felt like they were friends. I actually prefer the performances from the child actors that play these characters in the early scenes. Laurence Fishbourne (“The Matrix”) and Angela Bassett (“Contact”) play Tre’s parents and they are okay but nothing special. Nobody real grabbed my attention like the cast members in other crime dramas and that is a big problem.

“Boyz N The Hood” has some controversial but important stuff to say at times and I can see that the writers and director have talent even if not everybody in front of the camera is great. Ultimately, I just found the criminal worlds showcased in other crime films more intriguing. If you are interested in the Crips and the Bloods then this is probably a movie that you will enjoy. If you want a better movie exploring the issues faced by minorities in urbanised areas, watch “Do The Right Thing” instead.

I criticised Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” for being biased but that movie has nothing on the one-sided narrative of “Bowling For Columbine”. Moore blasts us with a ton of conspiracy theories about the American government that seem to have no real relation to anything to do with firearms.

Michael Moore goes around America (and briefly visits Canada) to try to uncover why America has so many more gun-related murders (proportionally) than other developed nations such as France and the UK. Large parts of the film focus on the shooting at Columbine but somehow Moore manages to get it round to be the fault of American foreign policy.

Moore is dull and fairly unpleasant. At least in “Fahrenheit 9/11”, we didn’t get to see that much of him. Interviewees include victims of Columbine, politicians, death metal musician Marilyn Manson and Hollywood legend and NRA leader Charlton Heston (“Ben-Hur”). While I fairly enjoyed the interviews with Manson and Heston, some of the interviews with dangerous individuals seemed ridiculous as one openly discussed illegally dealings firearms and another claimed that he was disappointed he didn’t make it to the top of a bomb threat list. Moore also finds the time to interview Matt Stone, who is one of the creators of “South Park”. Shortly, after the interview, there is a cartoon done in a similar fashion to “South Park” but Stone was so annoyed and the attempt to make it look like he was responsible for the cartoon, he got his revenge by depicting Moore in “Team America”.

“Bowling For Columbine” is as one-sided as you get and all the conspiracy theorist stuff just made more frustrated than anything else. Moore never seems to take into account that politicians, businessmen and any other high-ranking individual might just be incompetent, he instead likes to depict them as moustache-twirling villains. I would’ve enjoyed a sensible debate on firearms in the US but what we get is an immature swipe at gunowners and politicians.

“Bowfinger” is a comedy about making movies and while I don’t think it’s especially funny, the film is almost unsettlingly plausible in its depiction of Hollywood that I think it’s worth seeing.

In this film, Steve Martin (“The Jerk”, “Dirty Rotten Scoundrels”) plays a desperate wannabe filmmaker by the name of Bobby Bowfinger. He gets a script for a sci-fi action picture called “Chubby Rain” and decides to make the film starring Hollywood bigshot, Kit Ramsey (Eddie Murphy “Beverly Hills Cop”). The only problem is that Ramsey doesn’t want in so Bowfinger is following him and filming him without permission.

Steve Martin is totally believable as Bowfinger and somewhat amusing. Eddie Murphy is funny here and there and I like his absolute arrogance as Ramsey. Due to the nature of the film, Martin and Murphy get very few scenes together and that’s a real shame, I’d liked to have seen the two comedy legends interact more. Arguably the best character is the head of the secretive Mind Head cult played by Terence Stamp (“Superman II”); the whole cult is such a biting satire on Scientology that I’m surprised the film got away with it. Heather Graham (“Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me”) creates a few laughs as Daisy.

“Bowfinger” has some similarities to “Get Shorty” with a fairly similar premise and both are pretty similar in the sense that neither are particularly funny yet make great points about Hollywood. “Bowfinger” perhaps isn’t the dream pairing of Martin and Murphy that you wanted to see but it’s a harsh attack as well as a loving tribute to the filmmaking industry. I guess the film also reminded me a lot of “Ed Wood” and while it isn’t anywhere near as enjoyable as that film, I still think “Bowfinger” is a good watch for anybody that has ever wondered about what Hollywood is like.

“Bottle Rocket” is a delightful picture that is not quite a comedy and not really a drama. It marked the directorial debut of Wes Anderson (“Rushmore”), who has gone on to make a real name for himself with a very unique style of filmmaking.

In “Bottle Rocket”, Anthony (Luke Wilson “Idiocracy”, “Old School”) leaves a voluntary mental health facility and his brother (Owen Wilson “Shanghai Noon”, “Behind Enemy Lines”) has their future planned out. The two recruit their friend Bob (Robert Musgrave) to be a getaway driver in a robbery. The guys then go on the run and things start going wrong.

I’m not a big fan of the Wilson brothers but I have to say, I actually did not mind them in this movie. Luke Wilson is good as Alexander and Owen Wilson is fine as Dignan. You know you are doing something right when you can make a film where Owen Wilson does not cause you problems. James Caan (“The Godfather”) plays Mr. Henry and he is pretty good and I wish he had more screen time. Lumi Cavazos plays Inez, a housekeeper at a motel that attracts the attention of Alexander. Despite a language barrier, the pair fall in love and the romance is rather sweet.

I can see a lot of people not liking this film as they will feel they did not get it but I think that’s the point. Like some of Woody Allen’s best films, it does not comfortably sit in one particular genre and instead presents a more realistic view of life. In some respects, I would also compare the film to Coen brothers films such as “The Big Lebowski”. Some of the scenes in “Bottle Rocket” are very amusing and I recommend this film because I do like the style. I’m interested in seeing more from the director.

“Borat” received a lot of attention when it came out. It was criticised by many for its crude humour but many praised it, claiming it was a great comedy but I myself am in the middle of the pack. To me, “Borat” is foul, disgusting yet at times, it is amusing. It sometimes overuses the grossness and that’s its downfall.

“Borat” is another secret camera movie like “Jackass: The Movie”. It’s about Kazakhstani reporter Borat (Sacha Baron Cohen “Bruno”) and his ill-fated trip to America. He offends Jews, gun lovers, churchgoers, feminists and just about everybody else while trying to make his way to celebrity Pamela Anderson from tv’s “Baywatch” so he can kidnap her and take her as his wife.

Borat is as unpleasant as they come and that sometimes works but he goes too far. He’s basically Mr. Bean meets Johnny Knoxville and that’s the problem. I don’t mind it when he insults a few women or drives an ice-cream truck with a bear in it but the vulgarity involved in his displays of nudity and toilet humour is simply not funny. I’m shocked that Baron Cohen attempted some of the things here because I know I’d have dished out something painful if he’d have done this stuff to me.

“Borat” has a few good scenes here and there and I kind of like the whole film’s presentation and style but ultimately, it becomes just a shock fest. Many of the gags aren’t done in a remotely playful tone. This isn’t a cartoon, these are real people and some of the time you get the sense that this just isn’t funny, it’s merely cruel. I enjoyed the part where Borat struggles to make a ‘not joke’ but the same sequence also features a part where he talks in detail about a child’s sexual organs. It’s dull and nasty.

Eddie Murphy (“The Distinguished Gentleman”, “Metro”) stars in “Boomerang”, an amusing romantic comedy that does not revolutionise anything but it is entertaining. It’s sad that this Murphy film seems to have slipped under most people’s radars.

In “Boomerang”, we meet successful advertising executive by the name of Marcus (Murphy). He is successful and a real womaniser but things start to change when a new female boss (Robin Givens) arrives on the scene. Marcus desperately wants to woo her but he soon discovers that she is more like him than he could have imagined. This causes problems for Marcus both professionally and personally.

Eddie Murphy is really good as Marcus. Initially, this character is slick and confident but he eventually becomes sympathetic and that’s because the writing is good. Robin Givens is okay as Jacqueline. Halle Berry (“Executive Decision”) is great as Angela. David Alan Grier (“Jumanji”) and Martin Lawrence (“National Security”) play Marcus’ friends but the characters do not really feel necessary to the story. Grace Jones (“Conan The Destroyer”) is actually quite funny as Strangé, an overly aggressive woman that becomes the face of a new perfume that Marcus’ company is marketing. Eartha Kitt (“The Emperor’s New Groove”) also has a small role in the movie and she generates a few chuckles.

“Boomerang” is a delightful romantic comedy that leaves you feeling good. It has the right amount of heart and enough funny lines for you to invest in the characters. I find it sad that Murphy’s “The Nutty Professor” got so much praise when “Boomerang” is so much better. Unlike that movie, this one does not rely on toilet humour and fat suits, it relies on a relatively smart script to keep you engaged. If you are a fan of Murphy or you like intelligent romantic comedies, I recommend keeping an eye out for “Boomerang”.

The U.S.-led ‘War On Terror’ is the setting for “Body Of Lies”, a really bland thriller starring Leonardo DiCaprio (“Titanic”, “The Aviator”) and Russell Crowe (“L.A. Confidential”, “Virtuosity”). It’s very similar to many other films both before and after it, including “The Kingdom”, “Green Zone” and “The Hurt Locker” so maybe that is why it just failed to get me engaged.

In “Body Of Lies”, Roger Ferris (DiCaprio) is a C.I.A. agent and he is on the ground in the Middle East while his supervisor, Ed Hoffman (Crowe), is conducting things back on American soil. Ferris is assigned to help hunt down a powerful terrorist but finds himself stuck between his American superiors in Langley and the Jordanian intelligence officials.

The performances from both DiCaprio and Crowe are fine but I just did not care about either of them. DiCaprio’s character became a little annoying when he seems to just constantly show off that he can speak Arabic. Mark Strong (“Green Lantern”, “The Imitation Game”) plays Hani, a senior figure in Jordanian intelligence and I did not care about him either. He’s a tough Arab with a real desire for loyalty and that’s about it. The terrorists are pretty bland.

“Body Of Lies” is a disappointing movie from director Ridley Scott (“Black Hawk Down”, “The Martian”) because Scott is a man capable of delivering some real thrills. I was bored watching “Body Of Lies” and that is such a bad sign for a political thriller where I really need to be getting involved. It’s odd because as I have already stated, the performances are fine yet I came away feeling as though I had merely seen a couple of hours of DiCaprio running around the Arab world. Those that desperately need to see another Middle East espionage flick might have some fun with this film but I just found it really underwhelming.

“Blue Streak”, it starts, it finishes, you move on with your life. I remember much better police comedies such as “Beverly Hills Cop” (well the first one). It attempts to dish out both humour and action but does neither successfully, it just does them.

In “Blue Streak”, Martin Lawrence (“Bad Boys”, “Big Momma’s House”) stars as a jewel thief named Miles Logan, who must pretend to be a policemen if he is to obtain a precious diamond he hid away years earlier during a failed heist. It’s a pretty funny set-up but the movie never really takes advantage of it and we get left with something real mediocre.

Martin Lawrence is not funny enough to make me laugh and he’s not dynamic enough to be an action star. He spends a lot of time making strange grunting-style noises and it’s not funny. He’s definitely not the worst comedian but he pales in comparison to guys such as Eddie Murphy in “Beverly Hills Cop”. Luke Wilson (“Idiocracy”) stars as his partner and he’s actually funnier than Lawrence (he actually reminds me a lot of Billy from “Beverly Hills Cop”). The other characters are nothing to write home about, particularly the villains.

“Blue Streak” does everything casually; the humour is done casually, the action is done casually and the character development is done casually. What I mean no real effort goes into any of it; it’s done with the bare minimum for one to claim that they’ve done it. Movies such as “Supercop”, “Lethal Weapon” and of course “Beverly Hills Cop” manage to do both humour and action well so why is this film so laid back, unsure of what to do, when so many previous movies have done the framework for one to easily mimic. “Blue Streak” is done with so little desire to do anything that it’s hard to have feelings for it either way.