I was surprised by how much this film didn’t strike me as an off-the-cuff pastiche of the original TV show. Yes, there are perm and disco jokes. Yes, they make a big deal of the car. Yes, the camera work deliberately mocks “classic” seventies zoom shots and outboard chase-cams. But overall, this felt like a comedy that could stand on its own two feet.

Ben Stiller in particular makes the character of David Starsky his own. Owen Wilson plays Hutch as his standard cuddly, flaky rogue, and the dynamic between the two heroes is good. The story is simple, but it doesn’t go for Naked Gun-style absurdity: the bad guy (Vince Vaughn) is a serious drug dealer (with some decidedly odd henchmen–Will Ferrell is subtly excellent as Big Earl), not a madman with a crazy plot to take over the world.

I think that’s what makes the difference: the comedy flows from the story, rather than the other way round. It also clearly has a lot of respect and affection for the Starsky & Hutch TV show. It allows you to laugh at it without making you feel embarrassed about having enjoyed it the first time round. That’s a good trick.

It’s 1917, the Great War is raging, and children are being evacuated from London. Robert, Cyril, Anthea, Jane and baby Lamb go to stay with their eccentric Uncle Albert (Kenneth Branagh), while thier father, a pilot, goes to fight in France. While exploring Uncle Albert’s sprawling mansion, a secret passageway leads them to a beach where the discover a sarcastic Sand Fairy with wish-granting powers.

I haven’t read the book it’s based on, but taken on its own merits, this is a sweet little film. It skips over a host of plot details (such as where Thursday and last October vanished to, and exactly what the housekeeper knows about the Sand Fairy) in favour of delivering a simple story about family bonds, magic going wrong and lessons being learned. My favourite scenes, though, were those with the Sand Fairy. Eddie Izzard provides its voice, and does so with his characteristic sly absurdity. “Have your parents tried boiling you?” Nice, but not quite a classic.

Jack Black plays Dewey Finn, a layabout musician with dreams of being a rock star. When he gets kicked out of his band, and his flatmate starts pushing him to pay his share of the rent, he fakes his way into a job as a teacher at a prestigious primary school. At first he tries to get by with a minimum of effort, but when he realises that some of the kids in has class are decent musicians, he starts secretly training them to enter a rock band competition.

Just as the character of Dewey Finn is too much in love with his guitar solos, so the film is a little too preoccupied with Jack Black solos. I know it’s a star vehicle for him, but it still felt like too much of him, especially when the film didn’t need an excess. The script is good, the situation is funny, and the supporting cast–especially the kids–are strong enough that they could have carried more weight. For all the manic rocking energy on display, the production itself felt very tight and controlled.

That’s not to say it isn’t any good–it is. For a film that has school kids so much at the heart of it, it’s not just for children. There are plenty of jokes that require some knowledge of Rock history to appreciate, so all of us thirty-something parents will appreciate it, too. It comes together as a strong all-round family-friendly comedy. Not an all-time great, but very entertaining nonetheless.

Surprisingly entertaining little animation. It’s a simple story, done well: three cows go off to hunt down a cattle rustler for the bounty money that will save their farm from foreclosure. Good characterisation, fun musical numbers, and animation that is a pleasing fusion of modern blockiness and trademark Disney fluidity. In nutritional terms, it’s a snack between mealtimes. But it’s a good snack.

Leaving aside the similarities (or lack thereof) with Asimov’s Robot stories, this is an unbalanced film. The plot turns on an intellectual premise, but relies on Will Smith as a wise-cracking, muscular, lone action hero. Without Smith, this could have gone down as a clever piece of science fiction, but it wouldn’t have been a blockbuster, and it might not have got made in the first place. With Smith, it feels simultaneously watered down and pumped up, an awkward fit for an otherwise interesting script. Good fun, but not without its failings.

Ed Norton doesn’t have the same edgy, fearful presence that William Petersen did in the 1986 version (Manhunter), nor does Ralph Fiennes have the same slightly vacant chill that Tom Noonan displayed. As for Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter… Well, he’s been there and done that already. The best performance here was from the ever reliable Philip Seymour Hoffman as the seedy reporter Freddy Lounds. Taken on its own, it’s a decent thriller, but I want more from a remake. I already know the story, so show me something new. Red Dragon doesn’t.

The pace of this film is more relaxed compared to its predecessors, and more even throughout. This contributed to the performances and settings feeling more natural and convincing, without sacrificing any of the sense of wonder that surrounds Hogwarts. However, it also left the film without the same kind of soaring climax the the first two had. It had been so long since I read the book that I was actually waiting for something else to happen when the credits rolled. Having said that, I was surprised to find that two hours and twenty minutes had passed so quickly. Fun stuff.

Juvenile, in places very shakily acted, but really quite funny. Jason Lee’s uptight Brodie gets tiresome after a while, but he ends up sympathetic enough (especially in his support of TS’s romance) to be worth rooting for at the end. I didn’t know much about this film going into it, apart from the fact that it’s Kevin Smith’s poorly received follow-up to Clerks, which I also haven’t seen yet. I hadn’t expected it to be a romance, and I was pleasantly surprised to see that there are two love stories at the heart of all the comedy. Note that it’s not a “romantic comedy” in the chick-flick sense; it’s a geek comedy filled with with Star Wars and comic book references, that also happens to feature some very touching romance. Nice.

After the sudden death of a colleague, grizzled reporter Steve Everett (Clint Eastwood) finds himself having to do a story on a death-row convicted murderer Frank Beachum (Isaiah Washington) before he is executed at midnight. His nose for a story tells him that the man is innocent, but can he prove it in the space of twelve hours? There’s a lot about this film that works well: the prison warden and guards are not stereotypes, and are played with honesty and compassion; the scenes showing Beachum saying goodbye to his wife and daughter are heart-rending and free of mawkishness; Denis Leary even does an intense yet restrained portrayal of Everett’s frustrated and betrayed editor. However, the film’s race against time is clichéd, the climax is predictable, and the epilogue is trite. And all throughout, I couldn’t help but think that Eastwood was too old for the role of Everett. Still, it’s a strong film, and an emotional plea in opposition to the death penalty.

There’s good rubbish, and there’s bad rubbish. Van Helsing is good rubbish. Simple plot, simple dialogue, simple acting, but packed to the rafters with pure action. In a way it reminded me of Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle: there’s no traditional three-act structure, or even a natural progression from introduction, through exploration, to resolution. It’s just a two-hour sequence of five minute scenes, each with its own CGI-filled, action-fuelled set-piece. There’s never time for your attention to wander into things like character motivation, or even simple common sense. By the time you start wondering why he doesn’t just…oh look! Something shiny!