“Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol” has a great combination of lots of action and a little humour. It features enough daring stunts and enough amusing moments to keep both diehard fans of the series and your average moviegoer entertained. It’s not as good as the first “Mission: Impossible” but it’s still pretty good.

“Ghost Protocol” starts with an action-packed opening as agent Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise “Top Gun”) is broken out of a Russian prison. After some even more explosive titles we find Hunt is then sent on a new mission to locate files at the Kremlin. After Hunt and his team are framed for bombing then the secret agent government branch IMF is shut down so Hunt and his team must find the person/people responsible for the bombing without any assistance whatsoever.

Tom Cruise was not as amusing as he was in the other “Mission: Impossible” movie I saw him in so I have to say he was much better this time around as Ethan Hunt. I thought Simon Pegg (“Star Trek”) was okay as Benji but I must say I didn’t find the character too exciting anyway. The villain is not too memorable unfortunately. Brandt (Jeremy Renner “Town”) was again an okay character with and okay performance.

“Ghost Protocol” features some amazing stunt work as Tom Cruise’s character climbs a building with some special spy glove and then runs down it on a rope. Although that’s probably the highlight I also loved it when Ethan Hunt took on the bad guy in a car factory in a well-choreographed scene. Bits including those examples are what make “Ghost Protocol” such a fun film to watch. If you haven’t seen any of the other “Mission: Impossible” movies I still recommend this one for its great action and decent enough humour so what are you waiting for accept my mission.

“Knock Knock” is a 2015 thriller from director Eli Roth (“Hostel”, “Cabin Fever”) and it’s a remake of the obscure 1970s film “Death Game”. This is movie reminded me a lot of “Play Misty For Me” as well as “Audition”. The latter being no surprise as I’ve heard Roth cite it as one of the few films that really scared him.

In “Knock Knock”, architect Evan (Keanu Reeves “The Matrix”, “John Wick”) is busy finishing up some work while his wife takes their kids to the beach for the weekend. During a stormy night, there is a knock at the door. Two girls, Genesis (Lorenza Izzo “Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood”) and Bell (Ana de Armas “Blade Runner 2049”), appear in need. He welcomes them inside but they are not as innocent as they initially appear.

Keanu Reeves gives a terrible performance in this movie. He’s so wooden and is never believable in the role. I can’t get into too much detail about the girls as it would spoil things but I didn’t find either of them to be that memorable. This is a film with very few characters but nobody in the movie does a good job. Colleen Camp (“Clue”), who appeared in the original movie, has a small role in this version.

I’ve never seen the original movie so I can’t compare the two versions. All I can safely say is that this is a disappointing movie. It’s definitely going to make for uncomfortable viewing for most people with subjects referenced including adultery and paedophilia. It’s not as violent as “Hostel” as it’s more psychological but the material here is almost as disturbing. Both “Hostel” and “Knock Knock” suffer from poor writing and weak performances. It’s hard to be scared when the characters seem so ridiculous. Again, Roth has demonstrated that he knows what situations are harsh and disturbing but isn’t capable of crafting characters or dialog that get us invested in the situations.

Jackie Chan has made so many memorable movies including “Rumble In The Bronx”, “Police Story”, “Armour Of God”, “Rush Hour” and “Who Am I?”. I think it’s quite clear that he is in the best in the business of making martial arts comedy.

His amazing stunts and fight choreography have wowed audiences across the globe for decades. However, unlike many of his rivals, Chan manages to combine exhilarating action with genuine comedy. His work has just as much in common with the great silent comedians such as Charlie Chaplin (“City Lights”, “The Gold Rush”), Buster Keaton (“The General”) and Harold Lloyd (“Safety Last”) as it does with martial arts stars such as Bruce Lee (“Enter The Dragon”). In fact, Chan practically copied some of the stunts from the silent greats but put his own unique action spin on them. I think stunts in “Project A” are perhaps the greatest evidence that Chan likes to pay homage to the silent era.

He also manages to keep things light-hearted by being a nice guy. While Sylvester Stallone (“First Blood”), Jet Li (“Lethal Weapon 4”) and Steven Seagal (“Under Siege”) usually play tough guys, Chan often plays likeable and innocent characters. These are characters that don’t really like to fight but find themselves forced to. He even did a film called “Mr. Nice Guy” where he plays a chef that ends up being chased by bad guys.

Of course, Chan’s greatest asset is his martial arts skills. The fight sequences are fast, fun and filled with creativity. He loves to use a lot of props. Just watch his excellent use of a ladder during a fight in “First Strike”. He also knows how to perfectly shoot a fight to make it look as good as possible. The professionalism of Chan’s fight sequences means that he almost always outshines other action stars, even talented martial artists such as Chuck Norris (“The Delta Force”) and Donnie Yen (“Kung Fu Killer”).

He’s a terrific filmmaker and I’m sure he will keep innovating to entertain us even as his body grows tired of all the death-defying stunts and the spectacular fights.

“Hatchet” is a horror film with a comedic edge. It’s as gory as they come but it also has self-aware humour. It knows that its audience has already sat through countless slasher flicks so it likes to take a few shots at the tropes.

In New Orleans, a group of tourists take a tour to a haunted swamp. When their boat crashes, they are stranded in the wilderness. They then learn of the disturbing history of the area as they come face-to-face with the deformed monster, Victor Crowley (Kane Hodder “Friday The 13th Part VII: The New Blood”), that lurks in the swamp.

The characters are relatively entertaining. The characters include a charlatan tour guide, a bimbo girl and a scaredy-cat jock. The dialog is actually fairly funny at times. The Victor Crowley killer does look pretty ridiculous. He looks more like the Toxic Avenger than any other slasher villain I’ve seen. During the scenes where we see Crowley as a child, the make-up effects look really bad. In most of the scenes when he’s an adult, the effects look okay. Tony Todd (“Candyman”) and Robert Englund (“A Nightmare On Elm Street”) both have cameos so horror fans are likely to enjoy seeing them.

“Hatchet” has its enjoyable moments but it also could have been a lot better. It has some comedy in it but why not go all the way? It feels like the filmmakers were constantly having to also appease a studio by making this also serve as a legit horror flick and not just a spoof of one. Looking at the posters, you would have no idea that this is a comedic picture. I will also make it clear that this film is way funnier and more entertaining than anything in the dreadful “Scary Movie” series. If you are a big horror fan and want to see a comedic take on the genre then check out “Hatchet”.

I have long hated the found-footage genre. To me, found-footage is one of the most dreadful trends in cinema.

The style became popular with release of “The Blair Witch Project”, a movie I definitely didn’t care for. A major reason why I didn’t like it was because of the style. It’s so nauseating to watch shake violently from side to side and you never really get a good look at anything. For example, the movie “Cloverfield” prevents you from ever getting a good look at the giant monster attacking the city. You don’t have this problem with the “King Kong” or “Godzilla” films because they are not found-footage pictures.

Also, frequently, the visual quality is much lower than that of a normal film as they seek to make it look like it was shot on a camera that an average person might actually own. This presents a big problem as camera technology has advanced. The average smartphone now can shoot something that looks much better than the expensive video camera that rich families in previous decades may have owned. This means that more is done to artificially affect the image quality and make it look as amateurish as possible. I go to the movies to see professionalism; I don’t want to see something that looks like I could have filmed it with my camera or phone.

It’s not just found-footage that I have a problem with. The first-person action movie “Hardcore Henry” as well as the first-person sequence in Dwayne Johnson’s “Doom” were plagued by many of the problems present in found-footage films. Again, I felt really sick watching the camera jerking around and I didn’t feel I got a good look at anything. The brilliant thing about films is unlike theatre, you can put the camera anywhere to always give the audience the best view of what is going on.

I hope that the found-footage style dies out pretty soon because I think it is spoiling some movies that actually have the potential to be very entertaining.

Director Eli Roth (“Cabin Fever”) sets a new standard in dreariness and depravity with “Hostel”. It’s like a teen sex comedy combined with “Saw” and “Texas Chainsaw Massacre”. The movie also upset Slovakia’s authorities with its inaccurate depiction of their country as war-torn and impoverished (more like a 90s Bosnia than anything else).

In “Hostel”, a group of backpackers are going around Europe. While in Amsterdam, they are told that they can find the best women in Slovakia. Based on the recommendation, they decide to go and stay in hostel just outside of Bratislava in the hopes of having their filthiest sexual desires fulfilled. However, they find themselves facing the most brutal torture at the hands of a sinister organisation.

The main characters in this film are so unlikeable. They are just out to get sex with as many girls as possible. I didn’t care about them at all so I wasn’t remotely shocked or distressed by the unpleasant hell they find themselves in. The women in this film are frequently shown with little to no clothing. The nudity is gratuitous. The despicable folks behind the torture are pretty boring. There’s just absolutely no creativity with the characters in this movie.

“Hostel” is a very sick and twisted movie. However, it is not a scary movie by any means. I just could not get invested in what was going on so it made impossible for me to actually be scared by what I was seeing. Like Clive Barker (“Hellraiser”) and Tobe Hooper (“Texas Chainsaw Massacre”) before him, Eli Roth is a director that has established himself as somebody that is not afraid to push the boundaries of violence in entertainment. “Hostel” feels less like an actual movie and more like an exercise in trying to show as many nude breasts and sliced flesh as possible.

The “Nightmare On Elm Street” series continues to disappoint with “The Dream Master”. Although these films are always more creative than the “Friday The 13th” or “Halloween” sequels due to their elaborate dream sequences, they are still so shockingly bland. Something mildly interesting to note is that this entry was directed by Renny Harlin (“The Long Kiss Goodnight”).

After a dog urinates fire on his grave (I’m not kidding), Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund “A Nightmare On Elm Street”) is back. He’s just as lethal as before as hunts down the teens that defeated him last time and now, he is out for some new blood too. Can Alice (Lisa Wilcox) defeat him?

Robert Englund seems to be having a lot less fun this time around so maybe he was getting as bored as a lot of the audience was. There is only so much entertainment one can get from being caked in lots of make-up and pretending to slice up teens for a living. The teens are as bland as ever. It’s just so hard to care about whether these characters live or die when they have no real personalities. One guy does martial arts, one girl is a nerd and so on; that’s how deep and meaningful things get.

Despite some moderately impressive special effects, there really is not that much on offer. It’s worse than the previous ones, not because it’s got worse writing or anything like that but we’ve seen it done thrice before. If you are a big fan of these movies then I’m sure you’ll love this one as it’s more of the same. For everybody else, there is nothing here that is going to make you change your mind about these movies. Go and watch something better and maybe your dreams will be better too.

Chuck Norris (“The Delta Force”, “Lone Wolf McQuade”) stars in “Missing In Action”, a rather mediocre action flick that deals with some controversial political issues. The movie closely resembles “Rambo: First Blood Part II” and although this one came out first, it was actually based on the script treatment for the “Rambo” sequel.

After nearly a decade since the Vietnam War ended, there are still American troops being held in the country. Colonel James Braddock (Norris) joins politicians travelling to Vietnam to help bring the soldiers home but when diplomacy fails, Braddock will take things into his own hands to locate a P.O.W. camp and rescue his fellow servicemen.

Chuck Norris struggles to convey the emotions of a Vietnam War veteran but he sure can kick people rather well. The first “Rambo” movie, just titled “First Blood”, showed us an ex-soldier that we could believe had gone through hell and back but “Missing In Action”, like some of the “Rambo” sequels, doesn’t get it quite right. The American politicians are not very interesting and are just there to be another reason to trigger Braddock. The villains are very underwhelming and are just there to be shot, which is not surprising for a movie such as this.

“Missing In Action” features some reasonable action sequences and there are a few genuinely entertaining moments here but for the most part, this is a very generic action movie. The political elements are there but they are never fully explored, instead the film is happy just to provide us with a routine action flick. Chuck Norris’ fans often declare this to be one of his better films (although he isn’t exactly the greatest action star) so I recommend the movie for the true fans of Norris that have yet to see this one but for everybody else, it’s not really worth it.

“Miss Potter” isn’t a particularly good movie that can leave you a little dry but it has enough quirky charm to it to get my recommendation.

“Miss Potter” tells the story of the beloved British children’s author Beatrix Potter (Renée Zellweger “Jerry Maguire”, “Chicago”). We follow the not very fascinating story of how Beatrix gets her wonderful books including “The Tale of Peter Rabbit” published with the help of publisher Norman Warne (Ewan McGregor “Trainspotting”, “Big Fish”). With the help of some great animation that occurs when Beatrix imagines the adventure of the characters she has created the movie manages to hold your interest for when you get some intriguing facts about her life.

Renée Zellweger is okay as Beatrix Potter. Beatrix Potter did not live a fascinating life like fellow British children’s author Roald Dahl (“Matilda”, “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory”), this makes the movie not exceptionally interesting and it doesn’t help the performances aren’t fantastic. Ewan McGregor is alright as Norman Warne. The interaction between the two is quite stale to say the least. The other characters in the film didn’t hold my interest much either but I was amazed by the wonderfulness of when you see images of Peter Rabbit move around and only Beatrix can see this happen.

“Miss Potter” succeeds in doing what it sets out to do via being charming and innocent so that you can’t really judge it too harshly. You can bash certain technical aspects such as the weak script but you can also praise it for having one or two amusing moments that give the film a nice vibe that you don’t get in a lot of films. If you’re in the mood for a pleasantly quiet film that doesn’t feature big explosions or a complex story than “Miss Potter” is a good choice and just except it for what it is.