“Rad” is not really a movie, it’s more of a feature-length advert for BMX racing. The bike stunts are impressive but everything else is as clichéd and predictable as possible. This is one of the cheesiest films from the decade that also gave us “Rocky IV” and “Top Gun”.

Cru Jones (Bill Allen) is a wise-cracking paperboy that loves to do tricks on his BMX. When a big racing tournament known as ‘Helltrack’ comes to his town, he wants to have a shot at being the best racer there is. However, he will have to battle against the current champion Bart Taylor and match wits with a sleazy businessman (Jack Weston “Dirty Dancing”).

The characters in “Rad” are extremely bland. Cru is like a cheap knock-off of Daniel from “The Karate Kid”. Lori Loughlin (“Old Dogs”) plays the love interest Christian and she is okay. Talia Shire (“The Godfather”, “Rocky”) plays Cru’s mother. What happened to Shire’s career for her to go from Oscar winners to a film about BMX racing? Jack Weston gives easily the most entertaining performance in the movie as Duke Best. The real heroes of the film are the stunt people doing all the snazzy bike tricks.

I was entertained by the bike stunts, the final race and some of the music numbers but overall, this is a dud sports flick. If you are not a fan of cheesy films then I doubt you will be able to stomach “Rad” because the movie is really just pure cheese from beginning to end. Probably the cheesiest and certainly the weirdest moment in the entire movie involves a school disco dance with bikes. If you ever wanted to see a film about BMX racing then I guess this is the film for you because if nothing else, it does do a great job of showing off the bikes.

Ever wanted to see a rip-off of “RoboCop” and “The Terminator” with a fraction of the budget? Well, even if you answered in the affirmative, I doubt you would be satisfied with “R.O.T.O.R.”. This is an embarrassing sci-fi flick with horrendous acting, even worse editing and possibly the least impressive killer robot ever.

Coldyron (Richard Gesswein) is a scientist developing a new robot policeman, designed to combat the scourge of crime. Unfortunately, the politicians are impatient and want a new R.O.T.O.R. robot ready as soon as possible. R.O.T.O.R. is released but is not able to function correctly and is now trying to murder a woman for a petty traffic violation. Can Coldyron stop his creation?

The acting in this movie is absolutely abysmal. Nobody looks like they have any clue what they are doing and it’s like they are all acting in different movies with some being serious and others being like they are in an outright comedy. Exactly what ‘R.O.T.O.R.’ stands for is unclear because in one instance it is referred to as ‘Robotic Officer Tactical Operations Reserve’ while in another, it is called ‘Robotic Officer Tactical Operations Research’. I guess it just shows you how little the filmmakers cared about what they were doing. R.O.T.O.R. is just a fat guy with a moustache in a traffic cop outfit.

“R.O.T.O.R.” does have some pretty amusing moments but the movie overall is pretty darn dreadful. The action sequences are awkward, the special effects are pitiful, the plot is generic and the editing is a complete joke. Prepare to jump from day to night to day again with cuts that rival an Ed Wood movie. The only good thing about this film is the poster so I was reminded of “The Exterminator” because that had a good poster despite being terrible. Just please go and watch “The Terminator” or “RoboCop” instead of this.

“Punisher: War Zone” is the third and probably the best film about Marvel’s The Punisher character. It’s more exciting than the 1989 version and doesn’t try to be as deep and meaningful as the 2004 version; it focuses on the action and that’s why it works.

In “Punisher: War Zone”, Ray Stevenson (“Divergent”) stars as The Punisher, who for the last several years has been taking down hundreds of criminals. After one night of crime-fighting, The Punisher realises he accidentally killed an undercover agent and begins to question what he is doing but unfortunately, he can’t leave the game just yet as he must take down a new villain called ‘Jigsaw’ (Dominic West “Johnny English Reborn”).

Ray Stevenson doesn’t talk a great deal in this film and I guess that’s appropriate as The Punisher isn’t usually one of the more vocal superheroes from the Marvel comics. The villains are pretty good and Jigsaw in particular is quite entertaining and the make-up is fairly creative. I think the villains in the other “Punisher” films lacked personality so in that respect, this film is a genuine improvement. Wayne Knight (“Rat Race”) is alright as The Punisher’s sidekick. The other characters are okay but they are nothing special.

Now, maybe this is just another really violent comic book film but I enjoyed this one a lot more than films such as “Blade” and “Dredd” because it seems that it is more about the actual action rather than the blood and guts so the emphasis is right. It’s not a terrific film but if you want to see a good action film with plenty of creative shootouts then this seems like a fairly good choice to me. It glides through the action scenes and it doesn’t ruin anything by making everything overly dramatic like 2004’s “The Punisher”.

“Punch-Drunk Love” is a movie where I’m apparently meant to laugh when I see Adam Sandler (“Happy Gilmore”, “Big Daddy”) smash windows and hit people in the face with a tire iron. It’s unpleasant, bizarre and virtually unwatchable.

In “Punch-Drunk Love”, Sandler stars as the psychologically troubled plunger salesman Barry Egan, who has seven sisters, and one day he decides to call a sex hotline. He then finds himself in a world of trouble when criminals acquire his details. It’s a film full of silent stretches followed by loud noises and a lot of long shots of people walking down hallways and shop aisles; it’s like watching paint dry.

Adam Sandler is one of the worst comedic actors ever. He’s as bad if not worse than the Wayans family (“Scary Movie”). Here he plays a guy who struggles to get his words out unless he’s making a threat. He threatens to smash a girl’s face as he’s making love to her (truly an inspired comedian and a great role model for the kids). Even when he’s just a producer, he destroys movies (look at “Master Of Disguise”). He isn’t funny when he’s violent and he isn’t funny when he tries to be nice. Emily Watson (“War Horse”) and Philip Seymour Hoffman (“Doubt”) are both here yet add nothing.

Sure, it isn’t as generic as the majority of Sandler’s pictures so I guess I can give it that much but it’s such a bad film that it’s pretty unbelievable. It’s awkward and lifeless; it’s not much better than staring at a blank wall. If you enjoy watching Sandler needlessly swear and smash things then you’ll get a kick out of this I’m sure. However, those of you who aren’t a fan of his work will probably want to avoid this film at all costs. The film is weird as I’ve said but it could have worked had they taken a more serious look at a man’s mind as he copes with having so many sisters but instead, it’s more concerned with having an unfunny man do unfunny things.

“Pumpkinhead” is a cheesy monster movie with a great monster and not a lot else. This is not a long film but it seems to take forever for the monster to be let loose and then the movie seems to draw to a rather abrupt close. It’s a shame that it doesn’t really work because a lot of work seemed to go into the aesthetics of this film.

After his son is killed in a tragic accident, a man (Lance Henriksen “Hard Target”, “Aliens”) seeks the help of a witch to summon a demonic creature to get revenge. A group of teenagers are then marked for death and they are mercilessly hunted by the beast known as ‘Pumpkinhead’.

Lance Henriksen is pretty good as Ed Harley and he really seems to nail the country accent. The teenagers are city folks and they are not even vaguely interesting. You actually do not know who you want to win in this film because Harley has lost his son but then again, it was an accident that killed his boy. The Pumpkinhead creature looks terrific; that’s not at all surprising when considering the film was directed by Stan Winston, who worked on the special effects for “The Terminator”, “Aliens” and “Predator”. The dog in the film is the same one from “Gremlins”.

Fans of monster movies might have some fun with “Pumpkinhead” but I think most people are going to be disappointed. The film is visually very pleasing and the special effects are impressive but the plot is a little too simplistic and the dialog is weak. Stan Winston knows how to do special effects but he does not seem quite up to the task of directing a movie. I recommend watching one of the many Stan Winston films where he just did the special effects. I imagine most people will have seen the ones I mentioned earlier so why not try “Leviathan”, “Lake Placid” or “Galaxy Quest” instead of “Pumpkinhead”.

Hollywood film director Oliver Stone (“Platoon”, “Natural Born Killers”) carries out arguably the most interesting and extensive series of interviews with Russian leader Vladimir Putin. A major departure from mainstream American and European media attempts to depict Putin, this is refreshing, moving and brilliant.

Over a year and a half, Oliver Stone carried out several short interviews with Vladimir Putin. No topic appears to be off-limits as they delve into everything from his rise to power, his thoughts on American politics and the American people, his faith, counter-terrorism, history and the crisis in Ukraine. By the end, you may not agree with Putin but you may at least come to respect his abilities.

Oliver Stone does not approach the interviews like a normal journalist would and it’s so liberating to see the two just engage in a conversation. Many controversial leaders such as Bashar al-Assad come across horribly in interviews. In contrast, Putin seems intelligent, rational, devout, precise and like a chess player. While his actions in his office may have had negative consequences for America and its allies, you at least come to understand the Russian perspective. At one point, the two watch “Dr. Strangelove” together and Putin makes some interesting observations and cracks a genuinely hilarious joke.

Oliver Stone may have some questionable politic views and he’s known to have previously been friendly with Fidel Castro when he interviewed him. However, Stone is not a journalist, he’s a filmmaker with a keen interest in politics. He fought in Vietnam and has put politics at the heart of his films. He never tries to catch Putin out and so the two come to trust each other and Stone secures the better interview because of it. Putin continues to be one of the most powerful leaders and he is loved and loathed like few others so maybe it is better we at least hear his side of the story.

Quentin Tarantino (“Reservoir Dogs”, “Grindhouse”) can come across as an obnoxious misfit in interviews. However, he has a brilliant understanding of how to make movies work as “Pulp Fiction” shows a lot of stuff I don’t really want to see but the way it is done, is absolutely spectacular.

“Pulp Fiction” tells several different interconnecting tales. We see the lives of mob hit men Vincent Vega (John Travolta “Grease”) and Jules Winnfield (Samuel L. Jackson “Snakes On A Plane”, “xXx”), gangster’s wife Mia Wallace (Uma Thurman “Batman & Robin”), a boxer by the name of Butch Coolidge (Bruce Willis “Die Hard”) and two small-time robbers. All of them are some of the scummiest people on Earth.

The characters in this film are highly unpleasant as they swear constantly (perhaps a little too much), are incredibly aggressive, do a lot of drugs, lie, cheat, rape, kill and are only looking out for number one and the film conveys this very effectively. My least favourite character was from John Travolta’s Vincent Vega as he seemed a little bland. The best character was the boxer played by Bruce Willis as he’s the most realistic. Harvey Keitel (“Fingers”), the director himself Quentin Tarantino and Christopher Walken (“Batman Returns”) all have great roles and give good performances. Most of the characters seem very realistic as Tarantino has a real skill for making realistic characters that talk about the things real people talk about.

“Pulp Fiction” is an ugly movie featuring scenes of rape and murder but in its own sick way, it works and is very hypnotic. I truly felt discomforted by observing these individuals and that’s how I should have felt. The only things I really disliked were John Travolta’s performance and I feel the swear words are used a little too much to seem plausible. I think I liked “Reservoir Dogs” a little more but this is another great movie from Tarantino.

One of the most controversial re-releases of all-time, the special editions of the original “Star Wars” trilogy have long been criticised by fans. While not as bad the re-release of “Return of the Jedi”, “A New Hope” still got some unwelcome changes. However, not every change made was awful.

Young Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill “The Guyver”) leaves behind his mundane life as a farmer on Tatooine and finds himself at the centre of the rebellion against the evil Galactic Empire. Joining forces with Ben Kenobi (Alec Guinness “Little Lord Fauntleroy”), Han Solo (Harrison Ford “Patriot Games”) and others to rescue Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher “Drop Dead Fred”) from the villainous Darth Vader (voiced by James Earl Jones “Conan The Barbarian”).

Obviously, the characters and performances are just as great as ever with so many memorable lines. This new version does little to change the characters but instead, it’s more about adding in new stuff. Some really terrible C.G.I. aliens get added and they just stick out like a sore thumb. They look awful compared to the brilliance of the practical effects. There is also an atrocious digital effect on Han Solo during his encounter with Greedo. However, the film does add Jabba the Hutt and Boba Fett. Originally, when the scene was shot, Jabba was just going to be a fat man but that obviously changed in “Return of the Jedi”. Now, we get this scene with a digital overlay to make Jabba the slug monster we know. The effect is poor but his scene is a nice addition.

The original version of “Star Wars” (it was just called “Star Wars” back in 1977) is a true masterpiece. Most of the additions made here just hurt the movie. The scene with Jabba is a good addition but the rest of the changes are poor.

This film has developed a following not because of anything in the film as such but because it was made by North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il after he kidnapped some South Korean filmmakers. The guy loved films and the “Godzilla” series was one of his favourite franchises so this is sort of his tribute to those films.

Set in feudal Korea, we see a band of rebel try to overthrow the government. They get help from an unlikely source. They have Pulgasari, a giant monster that is made from rice and blood and feeds on iron. As time goes on, Pulgasari arguably becomes more trouble than he’s worth. The film is surprisingly interesting compared to lots of the “Godzilla” films in terms of storyline but due to its historical setting and lack of other monsters, “Pulgasari” fails to deliver the same kind of humorous destruction seen in movies such as “Godzilla”, “Mothra” and “Infra-Man”.

The creature itself looks hilarious (as do pretty much all monsters that are played by guys in rubber suits). He eats metal to make him bigger, which is also funny, but he lacks any superpowers that other creatures from the “Godzilla” series have and physically he’s quite standard (there’s no circular saws on the belly or radioactive tentacles). The characters are fairly dull and spend a lot of time screaming.

It’s not too bad as far as giant monster movies from Asia go but it’s certainly not something for casual movie fans. Really, the only reason you’re going to see this is because you want an insight into the mind of Kim Jong-Il. He was a very eccentric man and interesting to read about. This movie is merely another whacky example of his works. As I mentioned, the film is set in the past, I assumed this was done because it might be somewhat crippling to the North Korean regime’s image of itself if Pulgasari was destroying a modern Pyongyang.

I was really genuinely impressed with “Psycho II” because it could have been a tedious rehash of the first movie. However, we have “Psycho III” to show us how to do a mediocre sequel. There’s nothing especially wrong with it but it’s very generic.

Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins “The Trial”) is up to his old tricks in this third instalment. When more bodies turn up, Bates is the prime suspect but is everything as clear as it first seems? Unlike the previous movies, there is no clear plot, it’s more just a series of scene where people arrive at the Bates’ Motel.

Anthony Perkins is great as always as Norman Bates and he is easily the best thing about the film. Interestingly, Perkins also directed this one. Bates’ guests include a suicidal nun (Diana Scarwid “Mommie Dearest”) and a wannabe singer (Jeff Fahey “The Lawnmower Man”). There’s also a snoopy reporter that suspects that Bates is behind the recent disappearance of an elderly woman. None of these other characters are very interesting and that is a disappointment. Some of the original ideas the filmmakers had for Fahey’s character suggest that the character could have been much more interesting than what we got in the finished product.

“Psycho III” has a dream-like (or even nightmarish) quality to many of its scene through its somewhat creative visuals. Also, the performance from Anthony Perkins is really entertaining. The murder scenes are your typical slasher stuff and there is an awful lot of religious imagery and symbolism that does not really seem to add anything. It’s certainly not as bad as the 1998 remake of “Psycho” but it’s also a long way from reaching the heights of the first two entries in the franchise. Those that cannot get enough of the “Psycho” films might enjoy this one but do not have very high expectations.