“Blue Jasmine” is sort-of a comedy and kind-of a drama directed by Woody Allen (“Annie Hall”, “Sleeper”) and while it didn’t really laugh at it or get that attached to anybody in it, the film just has such a pleasant entity that you can’t help but thoroughly enjoy it… I guess that’s the best way to describe it.

“Blue Jasmine” dances around the timeline of roughly a decade as we meet Jasmine (Cate Blanchett “The Aviator”, “Robin Hood”), who maybe out and about but has never really recovered from the break-down she suffered. Now living with her sister Ginger (Sally Hawkins “Layer Cake”), Jasmine reminisces about her time with her now-deceased husband Hal (Alec Baldwin “The Hunt For Red October”).

I don’t know what it is but Cate Blanchett’s performance just works so exceptionally well. She used to have it all and now she’s sharing a less than luxurious apartment with her sister. Ginger isn’t as interesting as her sister but I guess she’s okay. I felt Baldwin wasn’t given a lot to do and therefore anybody could have played Hal. There is a dentist character that is so like Woody Allen that he’ll be one of your fondest memories of the film.

I don’t know what it is about “Blue Jasmine” that makes it so good because it’s not unique, it doesn’t appear especially clever and several characters will fade into the back of your mind but while I was watching I just couldn’t get enough of it. Even visually it isn’t an accomplishment so what is it that had me so engrossed? It’s a film where there is nothing obvious that stands out (other than Blanchett); it works as a package. “Blue Jasmine” is a nice reminder that great slow movies can still be made at a time when many movies thrive on people lack of attention.

“Bloodsport” is supposedly based on the true story of martial artist Frank Dux but over the years, Dux’s has repeatedly been discredited and his success called into question. The film is basically a combination of “Enter The Dragon” and “The Karate Kid” and it makes no apologies for ignoring conventional aspects of films such as the plot and characters as pretty much goes from one action scene to another.

Jean-Claude Van Damme (“Timecop”) stars as Frank Dux, who takes part in an illegal fight competition in Hong Kong where he faces the best fighters from around the globe. Almost straight away we’re into the training montages and it isn’t much longer before the fighting begins with an occasional intermission.

Every now and then, the fight scenes stop and the characters talk or do something besides try to kick each other; such scenes are probably the film’s greatest weakness but they’re pretty much mandatory to stop the film from just being action. Van Damme is awful when it comes to dialog but he’s amazing when he’s beating people senseless. Bolo Yeung (“Enter The Dragon”) serves as the main antagonist and the role is pretty much perfect as he’s given very few lines and many opportunities to flex his muscles. Watch out for a young Forest Whitaker (“Phone Booth”) but aside from that, you won’t care about the actors.

“Bloodsport” may be the quintessential Van Damme film and it uses him almost perfectly; it doesn’t waste time trying to get you to find him interesting or even likeable, it just shows that he’s one great fighter. If you want to watch one fantastic fight scene after another then “Bloodsport” offers that with almost nothing to interrupt the action. I had a blast watching Van Damme kick his way to victory in this film and I think anybody that likes martial arts films will enjoy this.

Uwe Boll (“House of the Dead”, “Far Cry”) is regularly compared to Ed Wood (“Plan 9 From Outer Space”) and it’s easy to see why when you watch “BloodRayne”. The movie is based on a videogame that I’ve never played and it feels like it’s trying to cash-in on the “Blade” and “Underworld” franchises as well as “Van Helsing”.

Set in the 18th century, “BloodRayne” tells the story of a half-human, half-vampire by the name of Rayne (Kristanna Loken “Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines”). She slays vampires as she hunts for the notorious Kagan (Ben Kingsley “Gandhi”, “Shutter Island”) and there really isn’t much else to it than that.

Kristanna Loken is incredibly bland as Rayne. I’ve seen the vampire hero done before and I didn’t care for it in “Blade” or “Underworld”. It’s shocking that the highly-respected Ben Kingsley is in here but he’s not the only big name in here. Michael Madsen (“Reservoir Dogs”), Michelle Rodriguez (“Resident Evil”), Billy Zane (“Titanic”), Meat Loaf (“The Rocky Horror Picture Show”) and Udo Kier (“Ace Ventura: Pet Detective”) all somehow managed to get talked into doing this movie along with Kingsley. Everybody in the film gives a terrible performance and I’m sure they all had bitter conservations with their agents afterwards.

“BloodRayne” is a lousy even by the standards of the competition such as “Blade” and “Underworld”. I didn’t care for either of those movies but at least they looked pretty impressive, “BloodRayne” looks cheap and nasty. I saw Uwe Boll’s “Postal” and didn’t think its infamous reputation was necessarily deserving but I totally get why people hate “BloodRayne”. Boll is known for challenging film critics that didn’t like his movies to boxing matches and I’m pretty sure watching those fights would be more interesting than anything found in “BloodRayne”.

“Blood Work” is a very good thriller brought to you by Clint Eastwood (“Bronco Billy”, “A Fistful Of Dollars”); all it needs is to lose some of the little extra scenes that don’t do it any real favours.

While chasing a suspect, F.B.I. agent Terry McCaleb (Eastwood) suffers from a heart attack and is forced into retirement. With his new heart he’s living life peacefully until a woman named Graciella Rivers comes telling that her sister was murdered and that here heart is inside McCaleb and she wants McCaleb to solve the crime. With the circumstances constantly changing McCaleb is closing in on the killer.

Clint Eastwood gives a great performance as McCaleb, it’s a pity though that they add in a few ridiculous shots of stunt doubles. Jeff Daniels (“Dumb And Dumber”, “Looper”) is surprisingly good as McCaleb’s neighbour Buddy. My favourite performance is by Angelica Huston (“The Addams Family”) as McCaleb’s doctor. My big problem is with the Graciella Rivers character; she drags the film out and tries to add almost spiritual elements to the picture, which I despise. Aside from that character I was pretty happy with the acting side of things in this movie.

“Blood Work” has plenty of exciting twists and turns but there is what I like to call a few layers of ‘fat’ spoiling it as it slightly detracts from the great crime solving. There are also one or two scenes that feel like they belong in a goofy action picture as opposed to a serious thriller, one of them has an obvious stunt double for Eastwood burst through a wooden fence. “Blood Work” should have had bits where McCaleb and Rivers bond removed to make it a more serious and just better working crime thriller. I heavily praise Eastwood’s work as a director but I question bits of the script and some editing decisions, that aside the film is still a great watch.

Jason Statham (“The Transporter”, “Crank”) stars in “Blitz”, a really gritty police thriller that feels like a successor to the “Dirty Harry” and “Death Wish” franchises. This is not your standard fun action flick so this is definitely one to keep the younger viewers away from.

Somebody is prowling the streets of London and violently murdering police officers. Brant (Statham) is a loose cannon but he might just be the only man on the force that is up to the task of hunting the serial killer. As the days pass, the body count is increasing so Brant and his new partner (Paddy Considine “The World’s End”) need to get their man.

Jason Statham manages to inject some humour into this rather depressing movie. The opening scene sees him beat up three thugs that are trying to steal a car and we get to see Statham at his best. The chemistry between Brant and Nash is good but do not expect to see the next Riggs and Murtaugh. The serial killer in the movie is chillingly realistic, in the same way that the villain in the first “Dirty Harry” was. Some may find the villain so disturbing that they do not wish to watch the movie.

“Blitz” contains a terrific chase sequence where Statham pursues the killer by foot across London and it’s a great scene but it ends rather abruptly and that’s a shame. The characters are entertaining and there are a few great comedic moments but the film’s violence is likely to divide audiences. Some will find this a great thriller that is more believable than your average action film but others will be horrified by the graphic nature of the violence and some of the themes explored in this movie. It is by no means an easy watch but I have to recommend “Blitz”.

I never thought I’d see the day when Jackie Chan (“Supercop”, “The Legend of the Drunken Master”) would be blasting bad guys away with a laser gun. For a long time, Chan has spoken about his desire to move away from martial arts films that require him to do lots of elaborate stunts. Now, is he having a shot at the sci-fi genre with “Bleeding Steel”.

“Bleeding Steel” has a nonsensical story with way too many plot threads for its own good and to summarise is a real challenge but I shall try. Police officer Lin Dong (Chan) has to try to protect his amnesiac daughter (Na-Na OuYang) from a mutant super soldier in search of a deceased scientist’s regeneration formula.

Jackie Chan has put his body through a lot over the years from jumping onto moving vehicles and smashing through countless panes of glass so it’s understandable that he would want to start to slow things down a bit. He still fights better than most people half his age so I cannot really complain. The daughter character is okay. However, the other characters are pretty poor. The thief character Leeson is as annoying as Chris Tucker in the “Rush Hour” films. The villains are fairly forgettable and look like rejects from the Marvel movies.

“Bleeding Steel” has some reasonably satisfying sci-fi/action sequences and the special effects are pretty impressive for the most part (but the parachute scene at the end look terrible). The movie is also very vibrant and fun to look at but the script is just all over the place. There’s an underwhelming battle on top of the Sydney Opera House, a weird and unneeded crossdressing scene and short sequence with a pagan witch and her assistant dwarf to name just a few bizarre moments. It’s not a terrible movie but I certainly cannot recommend it and even most Jackie Chan fans probably will not need to bother with it.

“Blankman” is supposed to be a fun superhero comedy but it never quite succeeds in delivering a particularly fun time. You can tell that the film is highly inspired by the “Batman” tv show from the 1960s (they even show a few clips) but you can’t help but want to be watching that show rather than sitting through “Blankman”.

In “Blankman”, a simple inventor (Damon Wayans “Major Payne”, “Celtic Pride”) decides to become a superhero by the name of Blankman in order to fight crime. With a ton of gadgets at his disposal, Blankman takes the fight to street thugs and empowers the folk around him to stand up for what’s right even if he does look incredibly silly.

Damon Wayans isn’t very funny as Blankman. Wayans puts on a very annoying voice in this film. David Alan Grier (“Jumaji”) is somewhat amusing as Blankman’s brother. Their interactions are occasionally amusing but it isn’t that great. Robin Givens (“Boomerang”) is forgettable as the love interest. The chemistry between Blankman and the love interest is poor. Jon Polito (“Barton Fink”) is easily the best as the film’s gangster villain. It’s perhaps a little bit of a shame that Blankman doesn’t really have any kind-of supervillain to fight against.

Some of the crazy gadgets and some of the scenes in “Blankman” are kind of funny; I like the scene sets in McDonalds and the final fight. However, “Blankman” never really gets going and therefore it never amounts to a great deal. I’m not really sure who the audience is for this as it times in seems to edging towards children but at other times it seems to be aiming at people a little older so I was left confused by who exactly this film is meant for. “Blankman” is a pretty harmless comedy but don’t expect too many laughs from it.

“Blade” clearly wants to be stylish and exciting but it comes across as merely tedious. The film places far too much emphasis on the violence and forgets pretty much everything else. “Blade” is of course a Marvel superhero film but I think most people would much prefer “X-Men” or “Spider-Man” to this.

In “Blade”, Wesley Snipes (“Passenger 57”, “Demolition Man”) stars as the titular vampire-killing anti-hero. Blade has a ton of fancy weapons at his disposal as he shoots, stabs and kicks his way through hordes of vampires in order to save the world when the vampires decide to try and fulfil an ancient prophecy. Unfortunately, the blood and guts you see throughout the film are the stand-ins for the story.

Blade is half-vampire and half-human enabling him to be exposed to garlic and sunlight but retain the strength and agility of vampires. He seems somewhat interesting and I suppose Wesley Snipes does an okay job but the script is so weak that you can’t really enjoy the character or the performance. Kris Kristofferson (“Payback”) plays Blade’s father figure and is alright. The villains are dull and are just there to be killed in the most brutal ways possible as we see them incinerated, decapitated and pretty much anything else you can think of.

There are lots of scenes with martial arts and a lot with techno music and it becomes quite dull because although some of the scenes seem somewhat entertaining, the focus always seems to be on the effects and the blood and not the actual fighting itself and that’s a real shame. I don’t see the attraction with “Blade” at all; I don’t see the attraction of seeing a film where we have endless scenes of vampire’s heads exploding. Don’t get me wrong, the film can be violent but “Blade” pitches it all wrong.

The first “Blade” movie was pretty bad so I was surprised when I found “Blade II” to be noticeably better. I am now even more surprised to find that “Blade: Trinity” is the best one of them all. While it is not exactly a good film, it’s a lot closer to what I wanted from the earlier movies.

Blade (Wesley Snipes “Demolition Man”, “U.S. Marshals”) is back again to continue his crusade against vampires. When he is framed for a crime by the vampires, Blade is forced into the public eye and subsequently captured by authorities. When he discovers that the vampires have brought back Dracula (Dominic Purcell “Killer Elite”), he must team up with the ‘Nightstalkers’.

Wesley Snipes is fine as Blade although the script still is not quite good enough for him to fulfil his potential. The Nightstalkers include Abigail Whistler (Jessica Biel “Next”) and Hannibal King (Ryan Reynolds (“Green Lantern”, “The Proposal”). While the Abigail character is okay, the Hannibal character becomes very repetitive with Reynolds’ constant jokes. Some of them are genuinely funny but it feels like he is trying to upstage Blade. The vampires are pretty much the same as in the other movies. Dracula looks quite disappointing (in both his normal and final form) and throughout most of the film they just call him ‘Drake’ (that’s pretty stupid).

I like the idea of Blade fighting Dracula (why didn’t they do that in the first one?) and some of the action scenes are pretty darn entertaining but overall, I did not feel very strongly about the film. It’s got some good moments here and there but it treads on a lot of the same territory as the first two movies. Most people seem to think this is the weakest one so maybe if you liked the earlier ones, you will agree with that but I think this one is the best.

The original “Blade Runner” is a sci-fi masterpiece that was in no particular need of a sequel. It was a strange yet it was thought-provoking and in terms of visuals, it was spectacular. “Blade Runner 2049” comes decades later and it tries so hard (too hard in my view) to be a strange and thought-provoking film and in the end, it just comes across as pretentious.

In 2049, a young ‘blade runner’ (Ryan Gosling “Gangster Squad”, “Drive”) is busy hunting down ‘replicants’ (humanlike robots) even though he himself is a replicant. He uncovers a secret evolutionary development/miracle among replicants and embarks on a mission to resolve the situation.

I think most people going into a “Blade Runner” sequel expected to see Harrison Ford (“Air Force One”) reprise his role as Deckard and he does but he has a very short amount of screen time and looks severely bored. Instead, we get saddled with Gosling’s character and while there isn’t anything wrong with his performance anything like that, I just didn’t care about this new character. Much like the first “Blade Runner”, many of the characters and their motivations are fairly cryptic but I feel that this time, they went overboard.

“Blade Runner 2049” does have some stunning moments (I particularly enjoyed the scene with the woman creating memory implants) and there are some intriguing sci-fi concepts here but the movie really didn’t tell me anything that I cared to know. Actually, the film comes close to fully validating a certain fan theory about the original film, a theory that I sincerely disagree with. The original “Blade Runner” has stood the test of time and remains a classic of the genre but I think this sequel is trying to recapture the anomaly that was the success of the first film without pulling it off.