“Lord Of War” is all about arms dealing but its style sort-of reminded me of “Thank You For Smoking” as it handles some very unsettling truths but blends it with a touch of comedy. However, I can’t help but feel that “Thank You For Smoking” did it better; there just seems to be lack of focus here.

Yuri Orlov (Nicolas Cage “Face/Off”, “Raising Arizona”) is a Ukrainian-born arms dealer that will sell to anybody with the money. He’ll sell anything he can get his hands on, no matter your race, religion or political persuasion and would have even sold guns to Osama bin Laden if his cheques didn’t bounce. The film follows Yuri as he sells weapons in places ranging from the Balkans to the Middle East to West Africa while being pursued by Interpol’s Jack Valentine (Ethan Hawke “Training Day”).

Nicolas Cage does a good job as Yuri but the material doesn’t always seem that great. Ethan Hawke is pretty good as Valentine. I liked the performance from Bridget Moynahan (“John Wick”) as Yuri’s trophy wife, Ava. Jared Leto (“Suicide Squad”) is terrible as Yuri’s brother, Vitaly, and the character becomes a real distraction. Some of the other characters are interesting and I quite liked the Liberian despot.

“Lord Of War” features an opening scene where we see the ‘life’ of a bullet from being made in a factory in the Soviet Union to being shipped to Africa where it is later fired into the skull of a young man. It is a powerful opening and some of the insights into the world of arms dealing is certainly intriguing. My problem with the film is that there are too many scenes focused on Yuri’s personal life because they are boring and simply distract us from the more interesting aspects of the movie. “Lord Of War” could have been terrific but it gets muddled at times.

The first adaptation of the book of the same name, “Lord of the Flies” copies and pastes scenes and dialog from the novel but fails to capture it in spirit due to the horrid acting. “Lord of the Flies” is an interesting story but here it is presented in a primitive fashion with all the heart sucked out.

In “Lord of the Flies”, the world is being torn apart by war as a plane full of male, British children crash-lands on an island. With no adults around, the boys must decide how they are going to survive and what they are going to do if being rescued is an option. Over time the group separate as mankind’s inner savagery rises to the surface.

The acting in “Lord of the Flies” kills the film as the children here read their lines as if they’re news presenters; the young actors fail to display any emotion or conviction in their performances and as a result, they eradicate any chance of conveying the real struggle told through the story. Tom Chapin is easily the worst as Jack and I’m not at all surprised that I can’t find any other film attached to his name in any way.

This movie doesn’t really take any poetic license when it comes to differentiating it from the book but one thing I found odd is the briefness of the titular character. In the book he or it has lines and here the character features in only a few measly shots. “Lord of the Flies” could have worked well as a film if it did cast such incompetent youth because that is what is holding it back as I could have easily seen myself enjoying it had that issue been seen to. I would love to know what the author of the book thought of it.

“Looney Tunes: Back In Action” is certainly an improvement over “Space Jam” but certainly isn’t perfect. This is actually one of the most challenging films I’ve ever had to review because while I find the film to be fun, I think it does not consistently deliver what I wanted from a “Looney Tunes” movie.

Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck find themselves on a mission to find the elusive ‘Blue Monkey’ diamond. They are teamed-up with a stuntman/security guard (Brendan Fraser “Monkeybone”, “The Mummy”) and a Hollywood executive (Jenna Elfman “Keeping The Faith”) as they travel across the world to destinations including Las Vegas and Paris, to stop the evil ACME Chairman (Steve Martin “Parenthood”).

I of course love the Looney Tunes and it’s great to see so many of them including Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Porky Pig, Yosemite Sam, Marvin the Martian and even some more obscure ones such as Dr. Lorre. I have mixed feelings about the human characters because while they are actually somewhat amusing, I wanted the focus to be on the Looney Tunes. We also have small appearances from Timothy Dalton (“Rocketeer”), Heather Locklear (“Wayne’s World 2”), Matthew Lillard (“Scooby-Doo”) and many others. My favourite cameos are by all the 1950s sci-fi movie characters including Robby The Robot from “Forbidden Planet”. The way that cartoon characters so seamlessly share the screen with real actors reminded me of “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?”.

There are some genuinely funny scenes here and there but at the same time, it feels like the movie is throwing so much at you that it’s not always clear that this is meant to be a “Looney Tunes” film. I have mixed feelings on this movie and it really could go either way for me but I cannot deny that it is entertaining but don’t expect to be as good as some of the other films by director Joe Dante such as “Gremlins”.

I’m not really much of a romantic comedy fan but that doesn’t mean that there can’t be good ones out there. However, this certainly isn’t one of them. Also, I don’t know if you can really class this as a family movie as it is overly sexual for that genre (at least in my opinion).

In “Look Who’s Talking”, we meet an accountant by the name Mollie (Kirstie Alley “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan”), who is going to have a baby after she has an affair. That guy leaves and after the baby is born Mollie goes in search of a ‘perfect’ father. Meanwhile the baby named Mikey (voiced by Bruce Willis “Die Hard”, “Unbreakable”) bonds with the taxi driver turned babysitter James (John Travolta “Grease”, “Face/Off”).

The acting in the film is quite frankly terrible. Kirstie Alley and John Travolta give boring performances as Mollie and James. Throughout the picture we hear the baby Mikey’s thoughts via the voice of Bruce Willis. There are some deeply wrong things with both what he says and the fact that he is talking. Although, that is really the film’s gimmick. Nobody else in the film is good either. For what is supposed to be a family movie lots of bad language and dirty talk is present.

I don’t feel that this film is funny, I don’t think the characters are interesting and the gimmick of the film is just that, a gimmick. No matter what you say to me I will never deem something like this good entertainment. The film is too adult themed for kids and too moronic for anyone old enough to understand or care about the subjects discussed. Like so many other brainless comedies out there this film forgets that you need actually need something funny to happen. Just discussing sex isn’t funny.

Chuck Norris (“The Delta Force”, “Firewalker”) stars in “Lone Wolf McQuade”, which is a pretty enjoyable film. It’s been compared to the Spaghetti Westerns starring Clint Eastwood such as “A Fistful Of Dollars” and I can see why but I wouldn’t have necessary made the comparison.

In “Lone Wolf McQuade”, Norris plays a tough Texas Ranger (I think I know where Norris got the idea for the television show “Walker Texas Ranger”) by the name of McQuade. He finds himself taking on a bunch of bad guys as he moves from one scene to another, dishing out some harsh karate moves and doing so with some serious style.

Chuck Norris is far from being the best action star but he fits the bill perfectly here and his karate skills are highly impressive. McQuade likes to drink, he doesn’t like taking orders from his superiors and he’ll stop at nothing to get the job; he’s pretty much like Eastwood’s Harry Callaghan. David Carradine plays the main villain and he’s entertaining. Barbara Carrera (“Never Say Never Again”) is the love interest and she’s pretty entertaining. Some of the other characters were okay but none of them were fascinating or anything like that.

“Lone Wolf McQuade” features Norris being buried alive, hanging onto a speeding car and downing more than his fair share of beer; it’s the kind-of action movie that is nice and easy to just sit and watch. It’s certainly an improvement over some of Chuck Norris’ other films such as “Sidekicks” but I still prefer his film “The Delta Force”. If you’re a fan of Norris and haven’t seen this then I think you should definitely see it, if you like action films in general and it sounds somewhat impressive then you should probably see it and if you couldn’t care less about action films then you’re reading about the wrong film for you.

“Lone Survivor” is an intense war picture; it’s shockingly violent, incredibly brutal yet amazingly triumphant. It’s one of those movies where once the action starts, your interest never diminishes. Now do I think it is as good as something such as “Black Hawk Down”? No… it isn’t too far off though.

Based on a true story, “Lone Survivor” shows American soldiers in Afghanistan going a recon mission to locate a Taliban commander. They’re found by a couple of goat herders but are they Taliban? A possibly wrong decision leaves four men fighting for their lives across the mountainy terrain of Afghanistan.

Mark Wahlberg (“Ted”, “The Other Guys”) plays the main soldier named Marcus Luttrell and he gives a very competent performance to say the least. I think he gets it just right in terms of making sure the emotions and intensity are conveyed without making the character seeming over the top. The others get less screen-time such as Taylor Kitsch (“John Carter”). Together you really get a sense of their brotherhood as soldiers. The various Taliban members get very little screen-time and most are just in the distance firing at the American troops. Some significant moments are given to civilian Afghans.

“Lone Survivor” is pretty disturbing at times; the disorientating make the violence even more intense than it already is. As with any movie based on a true story, people like to nit-pick about the little things but even if it isn’t 100% accurate, it’s a very good movie. There’s great precision in terms of the camera-angles to the sound when explosions have gone off that really make you feel as involved with these guys fighting the Taliban as you’re going to get. It’s also surprising how few set pieces there are as most of the movie takes place on the mountainy terrain, it just seems to amplify the exhilarating nature of the film’s events.

Hugh Jackman (“The Prestige”, “Real Steel”) has claimed that “Logan” will mark the last time that he will play Wolverine. It’s amazing to think the first “X-Men” movie was released all the way back in 2000 and that the series has endured, boasting nine instalments with “Logan” being the latest entry. This is a remarkable superhero flick that is arguably the best in the series.

Set in 2029, Wolverine/Logan is no longer a superhero. He spends his days caring for an ill Professor X (Patrick Stewart “Star Trek: Nemesis”) as they try to hide somewhere near the Mexican border. The arrival of a young mutant (Dafne Keen) forces Logan out of hiding as he must escort the girl to North Dakota while enemies of the mutants pursue them.

Hugh Jackman gives a great performance in a film that develops the Wolverine character in new and exciting ways. The fact that we have had so many previous films, allows us to have a significant connection to the character and that enables Jackman to be so wonderful here. Patrick Stewart is terrific as Professor X, again the character is developed in new and meaningful ways. The interactions between Logan and Professor X are great. The young girl, who is named Laura, is good. I did not really care for the villains in this movie.

“Logan” is an entertaining movie that combines the thrills with some deep and poetic drama. The movie is not perfect and I feel that some of the scenes in the first act are much better than the ones later on in the movie. Also, I was ultimately unimpressed with the bad guys. One thing that I must note is that this is not a children’s movie. Some of the other “X-Men” movies are fine but this one has a lot of bad language and the violence is quite graphic this time around. I recommend “Logan” because it is a unique superhero film and a great way for Hugh Jackman to exit the franchise.

Few mainstream comedies are as repulsive as “Little Nicky”. A lot of the film is about Hell and watching this film certainly feels like a trip to the underworld. It seems as though Adam Sandler (“Billy Madison”, “Hotel Transylvania”) is actively trying to irritate you with this movie.

In this film, the Devil (Harvey Keitel “Bad Lieutenant”) finds himself decomposing when two of his sons escape Hell to cause trouble on Earth. Satan sends his third child, Nicky (Sandler), to bring them back in order to restore the balance between good and evil. Get ready for lots of gross gags and celebrity cameos.

Adam Sandler is even more annoying that usual as he spends the entire film pulling a ridiculous face and putting on an equally ridiculous voice. I could maybe tolerate a minor character acting like this but for this to be the main character, it was grating. Isn’t it appropriate that Sandler is playing the son of the Devil? Maybe this is a documentary. Harvey Keitel is bland as the Devil. Patricia Arquette (“True Romance”) is bad as Valerie. The only character that was vaguely amusing was a talking dog. There were so many cameos in here, it was unbelievable. I spotted Rodney Dangerfield (“Caddyshack”), Quentin Tarantino (“Desperado”), Reese Witherspoon (“Hot Pursuit”), Jon Lovitz (“Rat Race”), Dana Carvey (“Wayne’s World”), Henry Winkler (“Here Comes The Boom”) and Ozzy Osbourne. How did all these people get suckered into appearing in this disaster.

The jokes are lame and frequently just disgusting. There is a moment where a dog shoots an arrow from his genitals and there are several scenes where Satan shoves pineapples up Hitler’s backside. If the attempts at humour were not bad enough, we also have to deal with atrocious special effects and the terrible acting. This is easily one of Sandler’s worst movies. If you want me to put into perspective just how bad it is, Mike Nelson from “Mystery Science Theatre 3000” claimed it was the ‘worst comedy movie ever’.

Jackie Chan (“Rush Hour”, “Project A”) had apparently wanted to make “Little Big Soldier” for two decades before the film was finally made and it’s a little disappointing so maybe now we can understand why it took so long. There is confusion over the movie’s tone with some parts being comedic but much of it is far darker than most of Chan’s work.

In ancient China, there are many kingdoms at war one another. After a large battle between the forces of Liang and Wey, an old soldier, credited only as ‘Big Soldier’ (Chan), kidnaps a young military leader, credited as ‘Little General’ (Leehom Wang “Blackhat”), and takes him on a long journey to collect the reward. Along the way, an unlikely friendship forms and the two are confronted by various foes.

Jackie Chan is world-famous for his stunts and great fight choreography but this film contains some rather generic action scenes by his high standards. Chan plays a likeable character and generates a few mild chuckles here and there. Little General isn’t really very interesting. The chemistry between Jackie Chan and Leehom Wang really isn’t that great. The villains also are not particularly interesting but I have to say that I wasn’t remotely surprised by that fact.

“Little Big Soldier” is an intriguing watch as it’s nice to see Chan experimenting and trying something new but unfortunately, it seems to come at the expense of his stunt skills. The tone is unclear, the pacing isn’t great and I was a little confused as to what to make of it all. If you are a big fan of Jackie Chan, like me, then “Little Big Soldier” offers a chance to see Chan in a different kind of movie. I think those that are not fans of the martial artist’s films are going to find this a relatively dull experience.

“Lion” is a heart-warming true story starring Dev Patel (“The Man Who Knew Infinity”, “Slumdog Millionaire”). Nothing in this picture really amazed me but it was a pleasant viewing experience.

Saroo (Sunny Pawar) is a young Indian boy, who lives a life of poverty. One day while waiting for his brother, he gets lost and finds himself in Bangladesh. Upset and scared, nobody is able to find out exactly where he’s from so he ends up being adopted by an Australian couple (Nicole Kidman “Eyes Wide Shut”, David Wenham “300”). Decades later, Saroo (Patel) decides to go in search of his real family, which proves to be just as much an emotional journey as a physical one.

We spend the first half of the movie with Saroo as a young boy. Sunny Pawar does a good job conveying the sense of being lost. Dev Patel is also good as the adult Saroo and pulls off the Australian accent rather well. At the end of the film, they play some footage of the real Saroo and I was pretty shocked to see that Dev Patel did not resemble him in the slightest. Nicole Kidman and David Wenham are okay as the adopted parents of Saroo. None of the other characters were particularly of interest.

“Lion” is a competent movie. If you want a film that shows a story of feeling lost both physically and culturally then this is probably worth checking out. The movie has received an awful lot of praise and I have to say that I think some of the hype around the movie goes too far; this is not worthy of so much attention. I recommend the movie but I do warn viewers not to expect a lot from the movie as I didn’t expected much and was pleasantly surprised.