The story follows the stupidly named Bob Lee Swagger (Mark Wahlberg), a skilled Marine Scout Sniper. After a mission of his is disavowed, Swagger goes into exile, retiring from the sharpshooting business. Three years later, Colonel Isaac Johnson (Danny Glover) comes looking for him to try and stop an assassination attempt on the President. Blah, blah, blah…double cross…blah, blah, blah. The story’s as retarded as it sounds. Even though the story does go deeper than that, it doesn’t go far enough for my liking. The acting in general is O.K. with Marky Mark sleepwalking his way through most of the proceedings. Right, first problem I have with “Shooter” are the character names. Naming a character “Swagger” is one of the stupidest things you can do if you want people to take your film seriously- I’ll come back to that in a minute. The sidekick F.B.I. agent is called Nick Memphis (Michael Peña). Was Danny Miami taken? Michael Wyoming? Sammy San Francisco? It’s so, so dumb. Maybe it’s because I’m not American, but I find the naming of characters after U.S. places an incredibly lazy way to try and convey the “everyman” quality of a character. If I made a film, I would not call a character Dave Bristol or Chris Liverpool. Christ, it’s like a “Point Break”/Johnny Utah thing all over again.

The beginning of “Shooter” is promising. I liked the whole sniping thing and I bought the notion that Marky Mark was a Marky Marksman. However, the film seemed to decide that there was too much talking and the shit hit the fan when Swagger took down a helicopter by shooting the blades out. From that point on, “Shooter” can’t decide what it wants to rip-off first. We get elements of the “Bourne” trilogy here (the healing whilst on the move, the conspiracy angle) and elements from “First Blood” there (the beginning of the ranch scene is almost a shot-for-shot copy of the forest scene). There is even a little moment ripped from “Saving Private Ryan” (the memorable shot through the scope and into the sniper’s eye bit is present here). Overall, if I was Matt Damon, I’d be pissed at “Shooter”.

The action sequences are pretty good, but I got the feeling that if this film took itself less seriously (told you I’d come back to that) it’d be a hell of a lot more fun. The film seems to be preoccupied in trying to make a serious point. For example, when Col. Johnson first approaches Swagger, we see that Swagger has a copy of the 9/11 Commission Report on his desk. Swagger initially mistrusts Johnson but is won over due to his overwhelming sense of patriotism (yes, that old chestnut). Also the villain is a U.S. Senator. Subtle. In general terms, “Shooter” is fucking infuriating because it thinks it’s clever, when really it is showing how immature it is.

When it all comes down to it, “Shooter” is pretty bad. There are some truly awful lines of dialogue including this woeful exchange:

The story follows Po (voiced by Jack Black), a panda who dreams of kung fu greatness outside of his tedious noodle making job. When he is “accidentally” chosen as the fabled Dragon Warrior, Po’s world is turned upside down when he is trained by Master Shifu (Dustin Hoffman) and the Furious Five (deep breath…Angelina Jolie, Lucy Liu, Seth Rogen, David Cross and Jackie Chan) in preparation for the arrival of Tai Lung (Ian McShane), a psychotic snow leopard bent on revenge. As far as stories go, it’s pretty good. I can’t be too harsh on it as it is a kiddie film. I enjoyed it though. Jack Black is fantastic as Po- who is pretty much Black in panda form. The best voices in this are Dustin Hoffman’s Shifu, Michael Clarke Duncan as a rhinoceros guard and Ian McShane’s deliciously evil Tai Lung. However, Tai Lung is British- so fuck you, Dreamworks. Please, can we stop with this? The ’80s are over now. Let it die.

The film starts with a jaw-dropping traditional 2D animation piece, depicting Po as a “legendary” kung fu warrior. I half-wished the entire film was like this, as it was great fun to watch. 2008 seemed to be the year of this phenomenon as the vastly underrated “Horton Hears a Who!” also had an inspired Japanimation sequence. After that, it was a pretty standard affair, lightly funny and colourful. I could really relate to Po’s fanboyism, but the film was shaping up to be pretty average. It was the scene where Tai Lung escapes from a maximum security prison that reached out and shook my shoulders, imploring me to pay attention. The kung fu sequences are brilliant! Ignore the fact that there are CGI fluffy animals on screen and it becomes a good action movie in its own right- a great feat, I think you’ll agree. The film is pretty funny at times too, with the relationship between Shifu and Po throwing up some great humour.

The bits that I didn’t really find funny were the slapstick bits where Po pratfalls around. Yes, this will make the kiddies laugh and breathlessly talk about that bit “where the panda gets hit in his privates and says “Ooh my tenders!” heehee!” on the way home, but I just couldn’t wait for those bits to be over. Successful animated slapstick isn’t impossible though, as documentaries like the Tom & Jerry chronicles taught us. As a CGI film, you expect new levels of computer generated beauty and “Kung Fu Panda” does not disappoint. Some of the scenes are genuinely gorgeous to behold- especially Master Oogway (Randall Duk Kim) becoming one with a cloud of blossom- wow.

Of course, this being a kids’ film there is always going to be some underlying message. In “Kung Fu Panda” it’s about body image but also believing in yourself. As messages go they’re sound ones and more realistic than say, telling kids that if they wish hard enough, they’ll get what they want. I’ve wished and waited for well over a decade and still no fucking hoverboard, dammit! It doesn’t work kids. You may as well believe in yourself, because you’ll find very few other people can be bothered to.

I think it’s impossible to not like “Kung Fu Panda”. There is humour, action, a good story and bright colours in abundance here- enough to keep even the most ADD children happy for its runtime. That’s not to discredit the film though as I’m sure people of all ages will be entertained by the antics of Po and the Furious Five. Take that, Pixar!

The story follows John Beckwith (Owen Wilson) and Jeremy Grey (Vince Vaughn), two business men who have a unique way of scoring with the ladies- crashing weddings. After successfully crashing a few weddings, John falls for Claire Cleary (Rachel McAdams) and persues her ignoring the “get in, get out” rule of wedding crashing. Fuck it, that’s all I can be arsed to type. The film’s as predictable as the changing of day into night. Nearly every (figurative) corner the film turns there’s another hackneyed character or plot device ready and waiting. Example? Remember the “old lady who says inappropriate things” gag? Yeah, that’s in here. The “character who seems quiet and sweet but then turns out to be a sex mad nutter”? In here too. In terms of acting, Wilson and Vaughn are just playing the same characters they’ve always played. I’d say they’ve got nice chemistry and play off each other well, but that’s mainly down to the fact that they know each other in real life. “Wedding Crashers” is just a paycheque to them, you can tell. Neither are particularly funny, which is a shame as both are highly capable comedic actors. I expected more of Christopher Walken too- although I’m not sure why.

I hate to drag out me ol’ stuck record, but this film should be funnier. I swear, I have not seen a comedy in four or five years that has made the most of the situations and actors’ talents. I think the last films to do that to my satisfaction was “The 40 Year Old Virgin” and “Borat” both of which I found to be incredibly funny. Judge me if you want. I reckon that the reason that very funny comedies aren’t being made anymore is due to the fact that they are churned out with startling regularity without care or attention.

Apart from the lame “seen it all before” jokes, there are some genuinely funny lines and situations. I thought the montage of the different crashed weddings and the lies they told to get in was great. I also liked the secretive-handjob-under-the-table scene with Vaughn pulling out some funny gurns from his bag o’ tricks. Special mention for Will Ferrell’s funny cameo too.

All in all, “Wedding Crashers” is a functional comedy. It’s the “White Lightning” of ciders- cheap, but gets the job done. I get the feeling that if it had stuck with its quite risque guns, it could have been a much better film but it ends up a predictable, unremarkable comedy.That’s all I can say, really. I kinda wish it was terrible because then I could call it “crashingly boring” or something, but it isn’t. It’s a solid three stars from me.

The basic story starts in 1944, during the last part of World War II, where the Nazis have turned to black magic to try and enslave the World. The Nazis enlist the help of Grigori Rasputin (Karel Roden) who opens a portal to another dimension. Fighting ensues and the portal is closed, but an ape-like devil boy is left in our World. He is adopted by Professor Broom (John Hurt) and becomes the centre of the Bureau of Paranormal Research and Defence (BPRD) along with Abe Sapien (Doug Jones/ David Hyde-Pierce) and later, Liz Sherman (Selma Blair). We flash to present day and follow Agent Myers (Rupert Evans) as he is assigned to the Bureau. However, those pesky Nazis and seemingly unkillable Russians are at it again and it’s up to Hellboy (Ron Perlman) and the rest of the BPRD to stop them. As stories go, I liked it. It’s got a dash of X-Men here (mutants/ “freaks” sticking together) and a bit of supernatural/ religious stuff there all add up to an interesting story. As a comic book fan in general, this is the sort of thing I love reading and subsequently watching. It’s good.

I love Ron Perlman as Hellboy. As I’ve said, I never read the comics so I have no real clue as to how faithful he is to the character, although the general consensus from Hellboy fans is that he does a good job. Perlman just IS Hellboy. He’s a joy to watch, quipping sardonic one-liners in between puffing on cigars and shooting guns the size of a toddler. I really liked Abe Sapien too, with the combined efforts of Doug Jones and David Hyde Pierce bringing the fantastic fish creature to life. The one character that stood above everyone else in my opinion was Karl Ruprecht Kroenen (Ladislav Beran) a double knife wielding, gas mask wearing, surgery addicted Nazi assassin, who is so damn cool, the word “badass” fails to do justice to him. I mean, just look at him! The look of this film is amazing. Everything is just so damn stylised. I really am becoming a massive fan of director Guillermo Del Toro, mainly because he’s so visually driven. When watching this film, it’s easy to see where the kernel for “Pan’s Labyrinth” came from.

In terms of scenes, there are some highly enjoyable ones throughout. I love the scene where a jealous Hellboy spies on Liz and Myers out for coffee. I don’t know why, but the thought of a childish muscley devil really makes me chuckle. Whilst not so much a scene, I really like the little moment where the usually antagonistic director of the BPRD, Tom Manning (Jeffrey Tambor) teaches Hellboy to light his cigars with a wooden match instead of a lighter. It’s a nice, understated moment that really stood out for me. I’m a big fan of the subway fight between Hellboy and Sammael demon too. My main problem with the film is the choice of villain. While Rasputin is fine, I’m not a fan of the tentacle-y Sammael hellhounds. They just don’t work for me. The final fight in this (surprisingly long) film is just Hellboy vs a feckin’ massive CGI tentacle monster- which is a bit underwhelming. They really should have made more use of Kroenen.

Anyway, all in all “Hellboy” is an above average film. It’s got a great balance of action, horror and humour to appeal to most people. Definitely worth checking out.

The story follows stoner Dale Denton (Seth Rogen, in his 500th film of 2008) who witnesses a murder. Panicked, he goes to his dealer, Saul (James Franco) and the pair end up going on the run. I actually liked the story, as I thought the idea of two stoners caught up in a highly dangerous and action-packed adventure was a good one. Of course, the “stoner film” isn’t a new idea as they were born in the late Seventies with Cheech and Chong’s “Up in Smoke”.More recent attempts to revive the genre include the god-awful “Harold and Kumar” films. So now it’s up to the Apatow team to have a go at flogging an expired equine. My one problem with the “stoner” genre is that because I’m not one, it seems like a lot of the jokes go over my head. It all feels like an in-joke that I’m not part of. However, “Pineapple Express” has enough accessible humour for that exclusion to not be a problem.

It’s safe to say I’m not the biggest Seth Rogen fan in the World. It’s not that I don’t like the guy, it’s just that he plays the same frickin’ character no matter what he’s in with only minor details changed. Having said that, Rogen’s character in “Knocked Up” and his character here are pratically the same, the only real difference being what their job is. So, 10 minutes into “Pineapple Express”, I wasn’t feeling it. It was just Rogen doing his Rogen stuff. However, all my cynicism faded away when we met James Franco’s character, Saul, who in my mind is one of the funniest comedy characters in a long time. He’s your average stoner with a heart of gold, who reveals the only reason he got into dealing is to pay for his grandmother’s retirement home, all together now- Aww! The main surprise of the film is surely the fact that James Franco is a natural comedian as he’s mostly known for scowling his way through the “Spider-Man” trilogy as Harry Osborn. I’m sure Saul will be his springboard onto more comedic roles. I also really liked the character of Red (Danny McBride), an odd character with a Wile E. Coyote- like ability to withstand huge amount of punishment. The action is suprisingly good too, with an apartment fight, an accomplished car chase and a climactic shoot-out all thrown into the mix.

The main question of any comedy is “Is it funny?” and yes, it is. There are some great lines and scenes throughout. Some personal favourites include the scene in the woods and the fight at Red’s house, which is not only brilliantly choreographed but hilarious too. I also laughed an embarrassing amount at the scene where Dale and Saul are selling the titular drug to a bunch of schoolchildren -as politically incorrect as it is funny. However, there are some really unfunny moments too. One instance that springs to mind is the bit when Saul smashes a coffee pot into a hitman’s face. The following shot shows the hitman on the floor, with his hands covering his face, bleeding and sobbing. I’m sorry- but that’s not funny in the slightest. I don’t mind people getting hit upside the head with bongs or fire extinguishers, but when you show the consequences of them in a supposedly funny film, it takes you right out of it.

Overall, “Pineapple Express” is a good film. I do get the feeling (as I do with most comedies these days) that it’s not as funny as it should be, which is surely a big failing for a comedy film. Thing is, the film has enough funny lines, action sequences and Saul to make even the most miserable git crack a smile. So, I give it a good, solid three stars with a sidenote that you should add an extra star if you’re a stoner.