Film Reviews by PV

Martyr (Märtyrer) is a German play by Marius von Mayenburg from 2015, here translated into Russian and realised by an openly gay director as a critique of Russian society and government. Sadly his latest films have not been released, maybe because of sanctions due to conflict with Russia?

I found the tone inconsistent and mixed, and sometimes the story meandered and lacked focus. Better than the Russian films which ape action movies though - much.

The acting is superb, esp the main character Pyotr Skvortsov who plays his role to perfection.

Subtitles are small and fast, so rewinding sometimes was required. The script is full of biblical quotes for those who are interested.

Not the first film about a religious conversion or someone thinking they are a prophet, but a decent effort.

4 stars

Watch MIDSOMMAR for a great film about a weird isolated community. Or maybe BRIGADOON. Not this dross.

It seems someone has decided to write a feminist pity party fantasy, a la Handmaid's Tale, in which all males are portrayed as nasty evil monsters and all women as innocent wickle girls (which is actually deep misogyny, infantilising adult women).

It seems the writers tried to rip off rumours Jeffrey Epstein in this.

The movie thinks it is SO clever and radical but it is neither. It does not have the style of the albeit flawed GET OUT. In a word, it's BORING.

And the ending. Why, this is metooboo feminist emoporn I think, complete with a manhating starter kit.

For anyone disagreeing with my take on this, JUST REVERSE the genders - and then ask yourself if you'd consider that sexist.

This is a silly girl fantasy, which I'd classify as porn really. And the TRIGGER WARNING before it thanks to AMAZON MGM studios made me realise the horror to come.

No stars

I see lots of people crediting this 'passing on a curse' trope to IT FOLLOWS as if that movie created it! Nope. This is an OLD idea, centuries old in fact in literature and myth.

I would highly recommend everyone to watch one of the top 50 films of all time, the 1957 British horror THE NIGHT OF THE DEMON (U.S. title: Curse of the Demon) which Kate Bush sampled for her track HOUNDS OF LOVE ('It's in the trees, it's coming) and which stars the actor Brian Wilde later famous as the wet Mr Barrowclough from TV sitcom Porridge and Foggy from LAST OF THE SUMMER WINE (it doesn't end well for him). It was adapted from the 1911 M. R. James story "Casting the Runes".

If you have not seen that, WATCH IT. More than once. It is sublime, a top 10 horror film of all time.

M.R. James is the master of creepy ghostly short stories of late 19th and early 20th C, often 'folk horror' or antiquarian. UK TV makes adaptations of them every Christmas now too though there are many old film versions. Worth reading for those who can appreciate the written word. James as a massive influence on Stephen King.

So no spoilers BUT I liked this film though its trope is old, it's well-directed and paced, acts one and two anyway. Sadly the last act lets it down with as other reviews say a full-on CGI-fest. I prefer the psychological horror and felt the film would have worked just with that. BUT audiences these days demand it maybe.

I liked the dream sequences and flashbacks, all the waking dreams kept me on my toes - it is not a predictable plot anyway. Reminds me of an old Hammer horror films set in psychiatric hospitals too.

I see at the end the credits boast re DIVERSITY IN MOVIES - maybe that is why the mixed-race relationship of the main character with a man of colour seems so unrealistic, almost as absurd as so many TV advert unrealistic couples. It just felt so fake, there to tick the DEI box. Shame.

4 stars anyway, just. Now to the sequel which someone told me is better...

First let's get this out of the way: it is not as good as FOUR LIONS. What could be? That is one of the best ever satirical movies, up there with DR STRANGELOVE.

So this will pale by comparison, pardon the pun. It's a short film with some cracking scenes.

I could have done with subtitles and did rewind sometimes to try and catch all of the fast fizzing paradoxical CATCH-22-style dialogue. Some could compare it to MASH or in brits terms THE THICK OF IT, or THE WEST WING/VEEP.

Due to the madness of 2020, Covid and BLM take the knee stuff which was satire made real, I doubt this could have been made only 2 years later and that is probably why it has not been released on DVD.

The religious satire was fun, taking aim at all cults and the black power fanatics like Marcus Garvey, Malcolm X, Elijah Mohammed etc. Plus of course Santa and superheroes.

AND it dares tackle the faith connection with mental illness psychosis (very common symptom of mental disorders is thinking you are god or can talk to god/s and are a prophet, seeing things others cannot and being able to cause events - this was shown in Samuel Johnson's 1759 novel RASSELAS which features with a man who thinks he can control the weather).

3.5 stars

Want a horror film with a sinister sense of place in the British countryside? Watch THE WICKER MAN. or IN THE EARTH. Or MIDSOMMAR the 2019 Swedish folk horror film. Or 1970s TV series for kids CHILREN OF THE STONES.

But this is better than the same director's AWFUL debut BAIT which I gave 1 star. That as this is funded by public funds, FILM4 and others. This is the sort of arty film that gets our cash, and I suppose the claim is made it reflects the region of Cornwall so ticks that box. I am SURE there are better writers/directors in that region and others, so WHY does public money always go to arty pretentious self-absorbed stuff like this? Or the endless tickbox BAME/metoo stories.

As per usual these days, the main character is a woman and it is very female-focused like every other state-funded British film made in the last decade. Token male characters. But really these are 2D cartoon characters.

Pretentious, pointless and simply not coherent - a bit like conceptual art which needs a long label to explain WHT IT MEANS because the artwork itself gives no clear. I hate that.

And as for the plot - well, where is it? I literally did not have a clue what was going on here. And did not care.

And how long was the script for this? 3 pages?

I just watched the pretty shots of Cornwall and enjoyed the sea - why this gets 1.5 stars and not 1.

This is based on a stage play, unsurprisingly - its attempt to use fantasy elements cannot get away from the wordy stagey origins.

Thing is, this is what I call IMAGINED REALITY. at the end the captions tell us about Freud and CS Lewis, and then state an unknown Oxford Don visited Freud in 1939 - from that, this was constructed by a playwright Mark St Germain to debate faith and belief really. All fine for what it is but probably more suited to the theatre actually.

Tony Hopkins cruises and never quite convinces as Freud - maybe someone could have taught him how to pronounce German words authentically.

It is what it is. I have no idea if the female characters, daughter etc, feature a lot in the stage play, but it seems this is an attempt to woke up the film, as with SO many these days that shoehorn women characters into plots, always as 'strong and independent' women of course... And we even have here one of the 6000 black people who lived in the UK in 1939. What a coincidence.

A rainy afternoon film, not offensive in the least to me but then I am not a worshipper of any religion so even the nonsense woowoo of the Da Vinci Code does not trigger me.

Passable, so 3 stars.

The Battle for Warsaw. Warsaw 1944 and Warsaw Uprising are arguably better movies which deal with the same events. WALKING WITH THE ENEMY (2014) is great.

This pretends to be a true story, a bit like the excellent 1989 film THE MUSIC BOX, which is way better and also had a WWII Hungarian setting. Son of Saul also and the documentaries The Last Days and Hungarian Corridor will explain the context.

However, as a film it's a bit unfocused, bitty, meandering, partly set in the present or maybe 1980s/90s. Not sure how true much of it is, but it has exciting moments and the main character is great - though the ending if for me predictable.

A small modest film worth watching however. 3 stars

I hated THE WONDERS by the same director but loved HAPPY AS LAZZARO by her. To be honest, she seems to have benefited greatly from being female in an age chucking funding at female and BAME directors/writers (and discriminating against white males loads). She has a posh German-Italian background...who also gave her actress sister a role here. How cosy.

The main actor Josh O'Connor is not Irish - he is deep English from Newbury with illustrious ancestors too.

This has been called 'magic realism'. I hate that term and books/films which claim the label - usually they are silly self-indulgent incoherent whimsical woowoo and that is the case here. If this film were in English, critics would call it drivel, I am sure.

Meandering, unfocused nonsense. Far better to watch Indiana Jones movies if you want archaeology, or maybe Gladiator, or The Mummy...

The non-plot annoyed, and what plot exists is more nonsensical and unbelievable than Indiana Jones or even The Mummy.

The fastforwarding of segments shows desperation in a director craving for comedy. And the idea pots and statues remain so intact after 2500 years is just clueless.

I did not laugh or smile. I yawned. I love archaeology, Etruscan and Roman, and Italy too - watch the great film REALITY (2012), the best ever take on reality TV. I do like some Italian films, though their comedy leaves me cold.

Almost 1 star, but 1.5 rounded up to 2. Some pretty scenery and I practised my Italian...

I was transfixed by this. The writer/director Eksil Vogt also wrote the best ever film about drug abuse OSLO 31 August and also THE WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD, and often screenplays about disability and blindness.

OK so it is overlong, and another fault is some random events, acts and characters. They could've been cut imho. Some seem just so random (no spoilers), just added to make the film longer, pad it out. It makes the film sag a bit - there is enough mysterious power misery and gruesome violence without that random stuff.

No explanation is ever given for the mysterious powers and the supernatural thing, so it lacks logic there in a way the MIDWICH CUCKOOS (original 1960 version) does not. I found that frustrating.

The child actors are brilliant here, esp the main girl, and the entire thing is SO Scandinavian with a collective block of flats. Just about gets away with tickboxing ethnic characters too, though some boyblaming & manbashing maybe.

Very gruesome rather than scary, and some may dislike that; I find it brave and no doubt UK TV would give it a big trigger warning. It is a film, so fiction and no animals or children were harmed SO it is fine. Some may think the violence too extreme or gratuitious.

BUT Was was transfixed by it and genuinely did not know how it would end. LOVED the soundtrack too, the use of silence.

4 stars

This starts slowly but wow, what a film!

The hate drips of the envious bitter local Spanish Galician hilltop peasant farmer villagers like vinegar, or maybe battery acid. A bit like a realistic WRONG TURN. or DELIVERANCE.

It is really racism against the wealthier, educated 'hobbyist' organic farmer French couple. Bigotry, bullying, but utterly believable. A nice irony with a proposed windfarm plot strand, with the green incomers opposed and locals there generations keen. So who is green then?

Yes it drags a bit towards the end and is maybe a tad long, but European films often are, and travel at a slower pace.

One of the best Spanish films I have seen, way more watchable and interesting than the perpetually over-rated Pedro Almodovar.

4 stars

OK first thing to say is 90% sharks have GONE from the world's oceans in the last 30 years thanks to the disgusting shark fin demand from China and the Far East - shameful. These status symbols used for soup BUT just cartilage so taste of NOTHING - they are boiled in chicken broth. So barbaric and this vile Chinese habit is making sharks extinct! And the rest - elephants, tigers, pangolin, lions, the lot. SO I am with the sharks always.

Second, this is a move made to pander to the #MeToo movement clearly - the whole thing is almost man-free. THIS I think is the reason it was made in these wokeworld diversity tickbox days. No doubt all involved believe they are stunning and brave, esp with the LGB theme. Ironic it's the silly young women's fault they end up in the drink...

Sadly, the film itself is utter drivel though it starts well, in London... Clearly made on the cheap as we hardly see a shark and a small cast with a group of girls bobbing the the sea nattering and gossiping is most of the movie.

THE REEF is a way better film this borrows from - but that is intelligent, scary, tense and based on a true story, Watch that.

Or the best shark movies, the master - JAWS (1975) of course, but recent female-cast film The Shallows is watchable as is Open Water.

Less good are 47 Metres Down, a modern #MeToo movie too, and CGI-fests like Deep Blue Sea.

And then we scrape the bottom of the chum barrel with The Meg and the absurd Meg 2, the so-bad-it-sells franchise Sharknado, and the 2 or 3 or 5 headed Shark Attack, Ghost Shark, Sand Sharks, SO much shoddy shark nonsense.

1.5 stars rounded up

OK so full reveal, I disliked the original 1987 PREDATOR film - I thought it was silly. And the creature is basically a bloke in a suit, and still is, despite the modern CGI.

But what gets me with this film is the femitwerpy - YET AGAIN we have a superhero perfect lead actress and most men are shown as useless and clueless at best, and often as BAD through and through, racist, amoral etc. The only good males are the ones who defer to the superior females.

So many movies like this now - it's a real cliche, a stereotype now. IT'S BORING! So tiresome and predictable, and box office ratings have olummeted too, with most #MeToo movies losing many millions. People do not like to be preached at with woke sermons and lectured in movies, WHO KNEW?

When oh when will we ever see again a feature film or TV drama with a male hero to inspire boys - as these VERY political #metoo propaganda films are designed to inspire girls (made obvious at the end, no spoilers)

FACT CHECK: there were NO female braves in the very basic, brutal, primitive tribal native American cultures (actually not native, immigrants 30,000 years before Europeans who gave them horses, guns, tech, modernity etc and the bad stuff). None. Not a one. It was a Stone Age society, so the role of females was to get a high status man as soon a s puberty hit, then have babies and bring them up, which is why women and girls were in the cave/camp doing domestic tasks.

So this is ALL a femi-fantasy. The irony is JUST LIKE with Wonderwoman, it's created by a man and written and directed by men, white men too!

Romanticising these cultures is arguably racist - it's all like a Michael Jackson video. These native tribes had tribal wars, slavery, raided each other to steal females to make them pregnant to make more babies, killed any disabled or mixed race babies and more. The 'Red Indian' culture has had a massive influence on Europe and 'white America' over the last 200+ years, and I love it too, Sitting Bull etc. BUT we need to see the reality.

Here the natives all have clear skin and perfect American style teeth - it's about as realistic as Star Trek.

BUT it's not overlong, and the 'plants' are there for later plot points, all ducks in a row. And I liked the French buffalo hunters and did understand the French with subtitles (there is no English subs for general audiences, many of whom may be unable to read without moving their lips in any language).

But it is what it is, with decent pacing and structure. odd however that they follow 'authentic casting' here with those with Native names and at least some 'Comanche' blood starring. BUT why no colourblind casting here though? AND THAT is the woke hypocrisy of all of this.

3 stars. Just. 2 maybe - but I like the dog and the landscape and the 'native' American folklore and feathers etc.

The first series of TRUE DETECTIVE was sublime. Then there was a dire decline in Series 2 and 3. This pulls it back - a bit - yet with so many tickbox issues going on, the story gets lost in the muddy-rainbow native waters...

Honestly, so many woke boxes are ticked the diversity compliance form must have run to several pages - #metoo stuff (yet again all main/good characters are female, and most of colour) global warming, indigenous rights, LGBTQ issues etc. Fine to have such issues but NOT in such a preachy sermonising way, as if the purpose of a feature film is to EDUCATE the audience to THINK CORRECTLY. Nope, TELLING A GOOD STORY WELL is the only rule in fiction, as Dickens did, while including social issues etc. Learn from him.

The EXTRAS admit this, the writer/director (female, Hispanic) making her #metoo intentions clear here, as others the 'native' inuit theme clear too. Sadly, this is real romanticism of 'native' cultures and the throat-singing and other stuff is a real mishmash of many 'native' cultures (earlier immigrants to the Americas anyway so NOT 'native'). Lots of opinions about how somehow 'indigenous people are connected to the land and their ancestors there and future generations'. Yep, can say the same about the British or French or anyone. The glazed-eyed romatisiation of what could be very brutal Stone Age cultures is silly because it is not based on truth. Lots of nonsense here about 'my truth' etc. I would LOVE to see these cultures portrayed as they were - and are. Very brutal harsh Stone Age tribal cultures in the past; now social issues and alcoholism dominates. It is as racist to romantise them as it is to demonise them surely?

And why is there an obsession with socalled 'authentic casting' whenever any character with a skin pigment is cast, yet when it comes to white characters even real people, the demand is the polar opposite, for colourblind casting. BRAZEN HYPOCRISY. So inconsistent, and it will be unless and until we see Ed Sheeran play Nelson Mandela strumming his little guitar singing his ditties on his long walk to freedom, Colourblind casting, right there. IT IS ALL SUCH HYPOCRITICAL NONSENSE.

Of course we have the magical mystical woowoo, as expected with anything connected with 'native' cultures - it's a real stereotype. And this mirrors the X-files with the sceptical boss and the believing 'native in denial' deputy. Crazy plot - in NOW WAY would cops get away with what they do, even in this dark wintery outpost.

Of course, the baddies are all men. Same old same old, and white men too. The occasional token white man who defers to the women and is therefore GOOD. Yawn.

BUT I like snow and ice, and the whole 'native' culture thing as a backdrop. Decent music too.

Jodie Foster is great as ever but not a disadvantaged female as an actor - from a very wealthy family, Ditto the fine young actor Finn Bennett, son of an Irish film director/producer/writer. . I am not sure I believe some of the characters or plot points though and probably it could all be done in 4 episodes, as it did drag and stall a bit in the second half, before those hand-break turn plot points (no spoilers).

Christopher Eccleston looking old (well he is 60-ish though not sure we need to see his bare bum or have a sex scene - NO SPOILERS) and he does a decent Alaska accent though for some reason his character vanishes in the last 2 parts of this 6-parter (maybe he had a reboot Dr Who reunion?)

3.5 stars rounded up. Almost a 3 star.

The first thing to say about this film is that it is NOT - repeat NOT - an original idea (as some critics think). If you read the Beano from the 1970s you'll see a cartoon strip in there called the Numbskulls about little men in a boy's head controlling and managing his actions and emotions.

The first INSIDE OUT film was great, 4 stars from me. THIS is very girly, woke, twee, slushy nonsense. AND only ONE WHITE MALE character in the whole movie, a hapless clueless primary school teacher. Some might call that racist and sexist. Imagine the opposite - a film with no women (Lawrence of Arabia is one - it could never be made now, they';d invent some female characters and love triangle tosh and have characters of colour harping on about waycism and how awful the British and white people are).

WILL WE EVER see again such a film with a white male lead? Thing is, all these metoo movies with female focus lose money at the box office big time...

This lame, irritating and tooth-rottingly saccharine slushy twee sequel wallows in a big wet bubble of American psychobabble therapy culture, where children are worshipped and overprotected, and where group-hug-itis is seen as the cure for everything. Emotions and feelings are now seen as the pinnacle of human existence, rather than achievements or 'doing'.

This is colourful stuff, the usual excellent CGI, but too many characters and a plot so complex that I almost gave up - so I very much doubt pre-teen kids will be able to follow it and teens will probably give up too, just let the colourful ride burst over them from the screen without much clue what is going on. Like puberty...

I did like the new character ENNUI, that made me laugh. The rest, not so much. And I find all the girliness annoying, though female bulling s THE worst, so snide, all about exclusion and spreading false rumour, girls the main victims of it. Boys are simple by comparison - if a boy dislikes another boy they avoid each other or occasionally it's fisticuffs. No snide side to it, as with the twisted malicious nasty girl bullying that happens. This movie shows a VERY mild version of it.

In a word - boring. I another, forgettable. In a third, over-complicated. It is what it is. 2 stars.

One word for this film: SUPERB. Amazingly I had not watched it all until recently, and I know Sheffield well from late 80s/90s so recognise some locations. The accents took me right back.

Written by Barry Hines (1939-2016) still most famous as the author of KES, and the book A KESTREL FOR A KNAVE. He often worked with Ken Loach.

It could be called shocking. Depends on the viewer really. Images of nuclear war then the aftermath, intercut with documentary-style voiceover with facts and figures. truly scary, esp in 1984 - a year after the USSR apparently almost accidentally fired a nuclear missile at the UK when their computers went wrong and told them they were being attacked. IT fails can cause this stuff which is even more scary, when one thinks how huge companies and banks have IT fails and how hacking happens so much.

Very timely, the fictional war here all starts around IRAN. In the news now as the cause of attacks on Israel, funding Hamas and Hezbollah too, and firing rockets at Israel AND Iran is trying to become a nuclear power and make bombs. Scary.

Imaginative too though not the first fiction to see the past in the future, a return to the Middle Ages when the power runs out or a pandemic kills everyone.

I think everyone should watch this, even though the USSR does not exist any more - they still have nuclear bombs as does China and Pakistan/India who could go to war, and Uk and France, and Israel - with Iran trying to get them (must be stopped really).

The director Mick Jackson (born 1943) started his feature film career with this, having previously made documentaries (which shows in Threads, why it is newsy and authentic-looking) then went on to make Hollywood movies like VOLCANO, LA STORY and THE BODYGUARD.

A must-see. 5 stars