“Animal Crossing: The Movie” is based on the popular and addictive videogame series of the same name. This is a movie where nothing really happens. As a result, it perfectly captures the spirit of the source material. As an adaptation of the videogame, it’s great but as a movie, it’s terrible.

A young girl by the name of Ai moves to Animal Village. Most of the population is made up of anthropomorphic animals including shopkeeper Tom Nook. Ai makes new friends and she tries her best to be a good member of the community. She also finds messages in bottles that lead her to believe that there will be a miracle on the eve of the Winter Festival.

The characters in “Animal Crossing” are really dull. I didn’t find any of them interesting as they all engage in the most mundane conversations that I’ve heard in a motion picture. I did not care about Ai because nothing interesting happens to her so her character never really progresses. Everything is just too cutesy for me to care. I remember caring about the young girls and the creatures in “My Neighbour Totoro” so I know it’s possible to make characters in such an innocent film be captivating. I also thought the animation on the characters was quite underwhelming for the most part.

I remember the “Animal Crossing” games were addictive but the more I look back, the more I realise how pointless they were. Nothing of any real significance happens and maybe that mirrors a lot of real-life. However, the purpose of entertainment is to give us exciting fantasies. If you absolutely adore the videogames and/or you are a young girl then you will probably find this movie endearing. If you are not a fan of the games then this is just another bad videogame movie.

Allegedly one of the worst films ever made according to various popular film review websites, “Kirk Cameron’s Saving Christmas” may have worked well as a special on tv but some scenes feel completely tacked on just to get this film to barely cross the finish line of feature-length runtime.

In this film, a popular evangelical Christian by the name of Kirk Cameron (“Like Father Like Son”) plays himself as he turns back the tide on the ‘War On Christmas’. After his brother-in-law goes outside after becoming unhappy with a Christmas party so Kirk joins him and tells him how Christmas is neither too commercialised nor is it wrong to try and celebrate the religious aspects of the event. I suppose he therefore ‘saves Christmas’.

Kirk Cameron is alright but I don’t think he is anything special. I didn’t really care for the brother-in-law. The interaction between the two is okay but nothing great. A few of the other characters are a little bit annoying and there really isn’t a lot to say about the characters in this film. So much of the film is just Kirk talking and you feel more like you’ve bought yourself a Kirk Cameron audiobook than anything else at times.

“Kirk Cameron’s Saving Christmas” features some good messages and I think many will want to hear its reassuring words about Christmas as Christians continue to feel pressured by claims from the orthodox that it too commercialised and claims from others saying that we need to remove the religious aspects of the holiday. It’s not as horrible as it’s made out to be and I think the film received such low ratings due to an internet smear campaign. Sure the scenes near the end with the dancing, which feel entirely pointless, ruin the picture overall but even so, it’s not that bad.

“Kinjite: Forbidden Subjects” is another rough and tough crime picture in which Charles Bronson (“Death Wish”, “Mr. Majestyk”) serves as judge, jury and executioner. He’s already taken on muggers, street gangs and drug dealers so now he’s taking the fight to child molesters.

A no-nonsense L.A. cop (Bronson) finds himself using increasingly brutal methods as he takes down child molesters. His own daughter finds himself touched in public by a Japanese businessman (James Pax “Big Trouble In Little China”) but then the Japanese businessman’s daughter gets kidnapped and Bronson’s Lieutenant Crowe must race to rescue her and he’ll use any means necessary to get the job done.

Charles Bronson is good as always as he delivers his lines with a great level of personality and even though he’s clearly not in his prime here, there’s a decent amount of action in this movie. I do think that an early scene in which Bronson uses an ‘unorthodox’ method to deal with a child molester in a hotel room goes a bit too far and doesn’t help you root for him. The film spends a lot of time with the Japanese businessman character. He moves to L.A. and doesn’t quite understand the difference between American and Japanese cultures when he touches Bronson’s daughter but you end up feeling sorry for the guy because of what happens to his daughter. The bad guys are generic.

“Kinjite: Forbidden Subjects” undeniably features some of the most unpleasant/awkward scenes you’ll ever see a 1980s action movie. However, in a way, that makes you want to see Bronson dish out justice all the more. The original “Death Wish” featured a somewhat graphic scene of sexual assault and while this movie is perhaps not as graphic, the fact that many of the movie’s victims are children does make this a lot harder to watch. I prefer “Death Wish” but “Kinjite: Forbidden Subjects” is good enough for me and I do like the way the film focuses on both the L.A. cop and the Japanese businessman.

“Kingdom Of Heaven” was directed by Ridley Scott (“Alien”, “Black Hawk Down”) and is exactly what I wanted to see. You can talk about its philosophical questions about mortality, eternity and righteousness and you can draw parables between its historical violence in the Middle East and the violence we see there today but what’s most impressive is just how good a film it is. Scott knows how to direct the perfect huge-scale sequences but leave enough character development for it work efficiently.

It’s set 100 years after the First Crusade, in which the Christians seized Jerusalem from the Muslims. We meet Balian (Orlando Bloom “Troy”), whose wife committed suicide and who killed a priest, as he seeks redemption for both himself and his wife by fighting for the Crusaders. Although currently at peace, some Crusaders and the Muslims’ crafty Saladin (Ghassan Massoud) want war.

Bloom is not the best actor here but he conveys a man striving to better himself and his people in a world full of conflicting ideology. Edward Norton (“Fight Club”) gets an uncredited role as King Baldwin, who might be the most interesting character in the film. Saladin is great too. Other good actors include Liam Neeson (“Taken”) and Jeremy Irons (“Eragon”).

The action sequences are incredible and combined with the deep, meaningful questions; we end up with a film truly worthy of seeing. The conflict is truly brutal as the Crusaders battle to keep the holy city of Jerusalem in their hands while the Muslims want it back in theirs with all that take up arms believing they have a deity on their side. “Kingdom Of Heaven” might not be quite as inclusive as Scott’s “Black Hawk Down” due to the narrative but it is a moving piece, a very moving piece. Why are there not more historical epics? Only God knows, I guess.

Few movies have made an impact on the movie industry and pop culture that “King Kong” did when it was released back in 1933. The quintessential giant monster movie paved the way for countless others (including the “Godzilla” franchise) but none could match the magic of this true classic.

The original “King Kong” tells the simplistic but brilliant tale of a group of filmmakers that head to the mysterious Skull Island. Once there, they discover a land with dinosaurs and of course, King Kong, a giant ape worshipped by the local tribespeople. The filmmakers survive the ordeal of the jungle island and decide to take Kong back to New York City where the beast breaks free.

The characters in “King Kong” are not really very interesting. The film director Carl Denham (Robert Armstrong “The Most Dangerous Game”) is probably the most memorable but you came here for the monsters and that’s where the film delivers. There are many creatures including King Kong and they all look fantastic. For 1933, the special effects are truly amazing and still to this day, have a mesmerising quality, a quality missing from the vast majority of special effects in the movies. When the mighty King Kong climbs the Empire State Building, you realise just what an important and special picture this is.

The plot is simplistic and the characters aren’t the most interesting but “King Kong” creates a wonderful fantasy adventure with a vast jungle inhabited by an array of dinosaurs and of course, a giant ape. Despite the many versions of “King Kong”, people keep coming back to this one, in much the same way that people flock back to the Boris Karloff version of “Frankenstein”. The original “King Kong” has stood the test of time and even Peter Jackson couldn’t outdo it when he remade it in 2005.

I love the original “King Kong” and as a monster movie fan, I can get some enjoyment from the original “Godzilla” (the uncut Japanese). However, “King Kong vs. Godzilla” has no chance of appealing to anyone who is not a diehard monster movie fan as it a combination of boring characters, a dull plot, bad dialog and some silly looking monsters.

In “King Kong vs. Godzilla”, King Kong and Godzilla arrive in Japan to cause chaos as they tear the place apart and battle each other. Somehow King Kong has grown well over a 100ft. and has become a lot stronger (we know this as in the original film he gets shot down by planes). In the end the two legends have a titanic wrestling match as they destroy buildings and shove trees down each other’s throats in a bid to destroy the other one.

If you have seen any of the other early “Godzilla” films you know that the real focus is on the monsters. Godzilla looks okay but King Kong look terrible at times. It’s a shame because the original “King Kong” had great special effects and that came out in the 30s. Besides the two main monsters, there is also a giant octopus and it’s pretty underwhelming. The human characters are very dull and just did not care about them in the slightest.

“King Kong vs. Godzilla” is arguably the weakest film to feature King Kong to date and also it is not one of the better entries in the “Godzilla” franchise. I will admit that the final battle is hilarious and I did enjoy it. This was a missed opportunity as a movie with two of cinema’s most famous giant monsters should have been really good but a lot of it just falls flat. Stick with some of the other “King Kong” movies and many of the other “Godzilla” films are better than this one too.

I kind of liked the 1976 remake of “King Kong”, a film which received a mixed reception from critics and moviegoers. Its sequel, “King Kong Lives” is almost universally despised and the movie was a massive flop and while it isn’t good, I think people are way too harsh on this movie.

After falling off the World Trade Centre in 1976, King Kong somehow managed to survive and is being kept on life support by a university. Kong needs an artificial heart and a blood transfusion and the doctors know just the donor when a female Kong is found and captured. After surgery, King Kong escapes in search of the female Kong while the army are in pursuit.

The King Kong in the 1976 movie didn’t look too great but considering this movie came out a decade later, the special effects are in no way an improvement on the ’76 movie and in fact, I’d say the gorilla costumes look worse. Linda Hamilton (“The Terminator”, “Dante’s Peak”) plays the surgeon that operated on King Kong and Brian Kerwin (“Jack”) plays the guy that captured the female Kong. The two characters inevitably fall for each other and I didn’t care for either one of them.

The special effects are weak, the story feels rather forced (it lacks the charm of the plot of the original version and the ’76 remake) and also the acting is rather poor. In defence of “King Kong Lives”, I enjoyed the scenes in which King Kong did battle with the army and also that it is very difficult to make a sequel to a movie such as “King Kong”. Most people really seem to hate this movie and I don’t really get why it is so disliked as I think it’s actually better than Toho’s movies featuring King Kong. It isn’t good and isn’t in anyway necessary but those that can’t get enough of the giant ape, you might get a few kicks out of this.

2005’s “King Kong” is an interesting remake directed by Peter Jackson (“The Frighteners”). I absolutely love the original 1933 film and this remake does a good job in that it seems very much to be in the same adventurous spirit as the original classic.

A film crew head towards the mysterious Skull Island where they discover the mighty gorilla beast that is King Kong (Andy Serkis “Rise of the Planet of the Apes”). The beautiful Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts “The Ring”, “The Impossible”) is taken captive by Kong so the crew go on a mission to rescue her and then also decide to take the beast back to New York City.

Naomi Watts is good as Ann Darrow. Jack Black (“Nacho Libre”) seems like a really odd choice for the film director, Carl Denham, and while he wasn’t bad, he wasn’t anything special. Adrien Brody (“The Pianist”) was good as Jack Driscoll. My favourite character was actually action star Bruce Baxter, who is played wonderfully by Kyle Chandler (“Zero Dark Thirty”). The native islanders are a little scary and rather enjoyable. King Kong looks fantastic and so do all the other creatures in this film; the special effects are very convincing for the most part.

“King Kong” features some terrific action sequences such as King Kong fighting some dinosaurs while tangled in a load of vines and King Kong swatting planes while on top of the Empire State Building. The big problem I have with this film is the pacing because the original is fast, it’s to the point and the focus really is on the creatures and the island but this version is almost twice as long and filled with loads more about the characters. All the detail we get is done well but it feels so needless. Fresh off the “Lord of the Rings” films, I think Jackson was just so used to make very long films that he couldn’t help it. If you want to see everybody’s favourite big screen primate on the loose then you need to see this.

The 1976 remake of “King Kong” fails to live up to the original but it’s still good to see King Kong again. After the Japanese got to make “King Kong vs. Godzilla” and “King Kong Escapes”, it’s nice to see King Kong back where he belongs, causing mayhem in New York City.

A sleazy oil company man (Charles Grodin “Midnight Run”) hopes to strike oil but he finds something far bigger when his expedition team come face to face with a huge gorilla by the name of King Kong. After King Kong kidnaps the castaway Dwan (Jessica Lange “Big Fish”), a stowaway primatologist (Jeff Bridges “Tron”, “The Big Lebowski”) sets out to rescue her. Then the oil company gets the idea to capture the giant ape and take it to New York.

The characters are somewhat different to the original as in the 1933 classic, a film crew is travelling to a mysterious island to shoot a new picture but here they are part of an oil expedition. Jeff Bridges is pretty good as Jack Prescott and Jessica Lange is decent as Dwan. Charles Grodin is somewhat entertaining as Fred Wilson but I have mixed feelings over the character. I like the fact he’s a new character as it helps differentiate the film from the original but I kind-of miss director Carl Denham. For the most part, King Kong is a guy in a suit and although he looks fine, it doesn’t have quite the same appeal that the beast from the original did.

I’ve already seen both the original and the 2005 remake and I think this is the weakest out of the three versions. It’s a competent film and the fact it tries new things and doesn’t just try to be a copy of the original, arguably makes it more interesting than the 2005 version. It’s certainly better than “King Kong Escapes” and I just can’t resist seeing this story of going to the island and discovering the giant ape.

Boy this is a stupid movie; not only can it not spell clowns correctly but it can’t deliver even one moment that isn’t beyond ridicule. “Killer Klowns From Outer Space” isn’t a bad movie, it just isn’t a good one. It’s a B movie and if you like stuff like “Plan 9 From Outer Space” and “Attack of the Killer Tomatoes” then you might like this one.

In this movie, what is believed to be a shooting star passes over a small town but in fact turns out to be a group of intergalactic beings, who resemble clowns, which wish to kill the residents. Mike (Grant Cramer “Night of the Living Dead”) and Debbie (Suzanne Snyder) are the only ones that know and the police won’t believe them. As the body count rises, the two must seek help to defeat the clowns (or ‘klowns’ in this movie) before it’s too late.

The human characters are beyond bland. Not one of them speaks any remotely interesting dialog. The clowns however are quite amusing in places. They act like big gremlins (you know the Joe Dante movie) as everyone thinks they are cute at first but then they reveal their sick sense of humour by bizarrely killing innocents for fun.

“Killer Klowns” has some good moments and will make you laugh in a few places, the puppetry is good and some of the special effects hold up surprisingly well. On the downside, the dialog is bad and the movie is overly predictable. The jokes are corny and the film feels tacky. I think “Killer Klowns” is a perfect film for the geeky individuals who like bizarre and wacky films, especially ones in the sci-fi genre. For everyone else this may well be a nice nostalgia trip for some but I think most of you will just notice how flawed it is.