Film Reviews by PV

WHY THIS FILM HAS AN IMAGE OF THE FIFTH ELEMENT I DO NOT KNOW! I hope Cinema Paradiso can fix that!

This is a 1946 black-and-white documentary-style film almost incredibly filmed in situ in 1945 at the end of the war when the Nazis were still in France!

By the great French director Clement who made WHEN PARIS WAS BURNING (1966) about the end of the WWII Nazi occupation, the superb FORBIDDEN GAMES and the glorious early version of THE TALENTED MR RIPLEY called PLEIN SOLEIL.

As said before, documentary-style with sound added later, and a truly amazing climatic scene. All about the Resistance, even though yes, it ignores the massive collaboration in France and other occupied lands, or the French-run Vichy regime which had French gendarmes rounding up Jews to cram on trains bound to the death camps.

This focuses on the sabotage done by railwaymen (no women, just men) which was common around Nazi-occupied Europe. The train workers tried strikes in both Prague and Holland, which the Nazis ruthlessly put down BUT after German was losing the war 1943/4, their troops were too busy to stop these strikes so instead took revenge through cutting off supplies, as with Amsterdam - leading to the 'hunger winter' of 1944, as all food diverted to German troops and away from civilian populations after the Dutch railwaymen went on strike.

A classic and an important film, esp for anyone interested in the Second World War.

5 stars.

It is rare for me to eject a DVD before the end, but I only lasted half an hour with this - by that time in a film, I know the score, after plot point one I know where it is heading. I only lasted half an hour with Wonderwoman too, so to speak, and Mary Poppins the 2nd.

So, lots of motobike gangs. But really if you want that, watch the original WILD ONES with Marlon Brando or possibly the freewheeling Easy Rider from the hippy era.

I hate using this word, but I found the half hour I did watch 'boring'.

Nothing much happened, just macho posturing and flashbacks to various motorbike gangs - this is all based on recorded interviews from 1965-73, apparently.

I suppose it is a question of taste. So 2 stars from me.

I almost turned this off after 30 minutes. It's that sort of film.

Very confused, expensive, glossy spectacle, this is, interesting rather than enjoyable.

I felt NO emotional connection with ANy character - a problem when an audience has to care about characters when good or bad stuff happens to them.

Some great-looking scenes, a couple of shocks and twists. But the plot all seems very pointless.

Nice to see Giancarlo Esposito who shone so bright in Breaking Bad, and real movie stars too, like Dustin Hoffman, looking very doddery but then he is 87.

Not sure if it is meant to be a satire on the USA and Trump, but if so, it fails.

Watch GLADIATOR instead of 1964's CLEOPATRA or maybe THE RISE AND FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE. Or goodie-v-baddie sci-fi like Star Wars.

1.5 stars rounded up.

OK so I am not a sci-fi nut so maybe those who are will like this more though it is hardly original.

But, it's all very slick with a big budget spent on CGI etc. Not like some Russian films I have seen which are amateurish pale imitations of Hollywood action movies.

I see nothing new here and yawned at the attempt to humanises characters with relationships and backstories. Maybe the 3rd act lets it down. It starts so well, act 1 with information dripped to the audience in a nicely paced way. So there is dramatic tension and mystery here, and one never knows really where the plot is going which is good.

The logic of the plot needs serious suspension of disbelief, but if you go along with it, it all slimes along nicely...

Almost 2 stars but 3. One really for the sci-fi fans though.

OK so, disclaimer first: I loved and LOVE the original Paddington books, still have 4 hardback picture books, by Michael Bond. In them, the Browns live in a standard semi-detached house and are perhaps lower middle-class or respectable working class on a socio-economic scale, though the older moustached Mr Brown's trade is not revealed. Adventure are gentle, such as Paddington goes shopping or does gardening.

Look at the Browns now! They live in a house in Kensington which has no doubt doubled in price since the first Paddington movie a decade ago when it was worth 3 or 4 million, though the exterior is a real Georgian row of houses in posh Primrose Hill north London, though still worth £5 million. Two words: family inheritance. No way could someone working in a middle management insurance job afford that. These people are seriously rich, the upper class, the elite, though that'd usually mean the kids sent off to public school to acquire that annoying drawling accent kids affect in such places.

But remember THIS is a version of England that foreigners want to see, as Hugh Grant and before that David Niven gave the world of then the Englishman stereotype they always seem to want. So a lot of this is crude stereotype with added wokery, almost an advert for migrants to come to overcrowded London yet again, and yet again too the lie that it rains in London a lot. Nope, there is more annual rainfall in Rome actually and the south of England has been in drought for decades, a situation made worse by a sudden influx of millions putting huge pressure on infrastructure and water tables.

Anyhoo, this is what it is. I have always liked Ben Wishaw as Paddington's voice, as much as I find Olivia Coleman annoying in anything she is in.

The script is by-numbers, with so many 'plants' early on which are followed up on later I almost thought I was watching an episode of Paddington Goes to Midsomer Murders. But it made me laugh a few times, as it should when one sees who wrote the story/script, including Wallace and Gromit writers and deceptively handsome actor Simon Farnby (of GHOSTS and DETECTORISTS) with decent visual gags, but many things made me cringe too.

As with so many big budget and Hollywood films, it's all a bit spoilt in the third act where the jeopardy stakes get ramped up to absurd levels.

Watch the DVD extras and watch to the end of the film credits for a Hugh Grant monologue.

3 stars. My one wish is they do not make any more Paddington movies, but it's a corporate cash cow now so...

One issue always with films/TV dramas about fictional pop stars or groups is the songs are NEVER good enough and the adoration of the the fans depicted drips with fakery. Some try to get past this by having bands just do classic cover versions as with TV drama Tuttu Frutti BUt it never ever quite works. THAT'LL BE THE DAY (1974) probably the best effort, starring David Essex.

I admit modern R&B is a style of music I'd often pay folding money NOT to have to listen to, but these samey 4th rats songs written by the director's daughter are VERY weak - the depiction of an adoring crowd at a concert singing along to this derivative dire drivel is absurd. Most tracks seem manufactured by JUKEBOX AI or similar programs too.

As for the film itself, well derivative seems a hallmark of M Night Sh- movies and this continues the crib. It is clearly written by numbers, with regular twists so unlikely and unbelievable that this really should be a comic book or Marvel movie.

IF you are going to tell an incredible story, you need to make the character believable as with the great Hannibal Lecter created by brilliant author Thomas Harris. That story tests our willing suspension of disbelief BUT we're prepared to invest in the story and characters due to the special, intelligent sly chutzpah of Lecter played by Tony Hopkins to the max. As with Mephistopheles and the Devil in 14th C Morality plays, we root for the devil!

Again and again the plot here made be exclaim OH COME OFF IT! as the preposterous plot entered cartoon character land.

Hayley Mills continues her late blooming in film/TV roles here, though at her age being an FBI boss strains credulity too.

Almost 1 star, 1.5 rounded up. Only for MNS fans or teenage girls maybe.

This is the sort of film stupid simple people think is intelligent and profound.

It is, however, neither.

I'm actually stunned this meandering pointless boring and expensive drivel even got made, let alone won awards, 7 Oscars, I believe? Bonkers.

The only pleasure I got watching it was when it ended. Oh and seeing a photo (one of zillions used in quick cuts to try and be arty and meaningful) of Brighton's west Pier at around the 2 hour mark (I almost switched off after 30 minutes, but left it running till the end to see just how bad it could get).

Not funny at all, and certainly not clever. Not plot really. Deeply derivative too, though younger viewers may think it is original as they have not watched all those late 60s and 70s hippy acid trip movies. This is pure Californian self-indulgence and not culturally Chinese at all - it is pure west coast, like Wes Anderson movies which i also hate.

No stars.

My favourite bit of this film was the setting, the buildings and sculptures of Rome and the Vatican.

As for the plot, well I could predict the film's end in the first half hour when the new character appears (NO SPOILERS) and the MAIn twist at the halfway point. It was obvious to me, really. And been done. Watch THE CRYING GAME (1989)

I like Robert Harris as an author esp his WWII/Nazi novels and esp his debit FATHERLAND though the TV movie of that from 1994 could be made better. MUNICH and V2 are worth a read too.

This, however, reminds me of RH's Roman novels, Pompeii etc, and I lose interest tbh. This is probably of interest to all of faith who liked the Da Vinci Code etc.

Me, I do not understand why the praise is being heaped on this movie, maybe it is the on-trend gender issues of identity politics? But, as I said, watch THE CRYING GAME or recent Flemish/Belgian film GIRL which is superb.

2 stars only. 1 of them for the lovely architecture and cinematorgraphy.

OK so minus the themes - the cause of the PTSD etc (NO SPOILERS) - this could be one of those fluffy romantic made-for-TV movies on Channel 5 of an afternoon. It really is a soapy women's interest drama, and I counted just 2 roles for white males, both baddies as per usual, so the DEI tickbox department's been on overtime then. Unbelievable mixed marriage of the week here, as per so many TV adverts now. It matters, for authenticity's sake, to convince an audience to willingly suspend disbelief.

Some massive plot holes - in the UK, no-one is ever disconnected for not paying an electric/gas bill, ever. The most the companies can do after many months if force entry and fit a key/card meter.

Another one is the absurdity that a debt of a few thousand is supposedly crippling for a family with a headteacher husband on £50-60k+ pa and a paramedic wife on what, £35k? Have these people ever heard of loans? The average student loan now is £40 and those in debt tend not to own houses even if on a mortgage. SO some big unbelievable stuff here.

It's all rather contrived and convenient, full of coincidences, as if the writer created the plot then dropped the characters as actors into it. As all writers know, the characters should drive the drama, not act as puppets in a contrived melodramatic plot which strains the patience with its incredulity and also features some real cartoon character baddies, veteran actress Hayley Mills is one.

It passes the time, but too long and contrived, a bit like those romantic fiction or mystery ebooks that female readers gush about on Goodreads and Amazon reviews. It's the sort of thing that'd sit well as a short story in a women's magazine, or one of those Channel 5 afternoon made-for-TV movies.

It passes the time but is contrived forgettable nonsense really, not a serious analysis of PTSD either (why I watched it at all as I am researching the condition).

2 stars

The more usual name for this film is STAMBUL GARDEN which is the name of the Young Adult Novel it is adapted from, by the author Finn-Ole Heinrich and another.

It is very soapy, really, a bit Hollyoaks or similar, with 18 year old characters ending school and pondering their futures.

What lets this down is a need to be gratuitous re sexual imagery - GRATUITOUS is the word. Many movies/TV drama now do this, show male nudity, includng arouses prosthetics - it is unnecessary and exploitative, The female equivalent would be sticking a camera between a woman's legs when she is naked and aroused. Never see that on film so why the need for this? #Metoo? Well stuff #metoo then, it is nothing but sexist abuse.

I am no prude at all, and do not mind ANY sexual imagery when the film/story requires it. This, however, is just exploitation and male nudity for its own sake, MAYBE if they balanced with an aroused female between the legs shot it would at least represent gender equality...

Without these unnecessary scenes, this could have passed for 15 or under and thus reached its target audience of teenagers.

The Turkish/ethnic/Istanbul theme ticks the usual ethnoboxes of woke, SO many children's and young adult books and films do the same now. But as this is German, with a huge Turkish population, that makes it unusual, for UK audiences anyway.

It becomes a travelogue really, a road movie in a way, an adventure abroad - like the INBETWEENERS but not funny.

One big issue for me is I did not believe the events portrayed OR the characters' reactions to them.

The subtitles also got stuck/jammed at one point, an issue I solved by rewinding a playing again, but it should not happen.

anyway, cut the gratuitous misandrist smut and end the film well, structure it better, and it could be 4 stars.

As it is 2.5 stars rounded up.

This is real B-Movie stuff, and very VERY NOW, in its woke casting - even authentic casting with Richard Attenborough's grandson and David's great-nephew Will who identifies as queer and his character has the best lines too!

Well let's hope that from now on only 18th century pirates play 18th century pirates in movies, because authentic casting SO matters. On the other hand, actors could try ACTING, y'know, pretending to be people they are not...

As unrealistic as it is predictable - I could guess who would survive (no spoilers). All very silly by the end and the Iraq War backstory of a Mary Poppins-type English old lady character is laugh-out-loud funny.

Seeing as 90% sharks in the world's oceans have disappeared in the last 35 years thanks to overfishing and the Chinese demand for shark fin soup, I'm amazed any sharks were still living in the ocean where the DEI hires crashed.

Oh well, just coincidence I suppose, just like that fact not ONE straight one man is amongst the cast surviving in the plane underwater (as stated in the blurb so not a spoiler).

In fact, the only straight white males here are the sharks! Maybe they couldn't find black or gay ones eh?

2 stars...

Well, I have seen 'X' but some time ago so my memory is vague, that was a slasher horror film set in the 1970s porn industry and watchable enough, with authentic fashions etc. BOOGIE NIGHTS is way better though.

This moves on to 1985 with the same character apparently though it means nothing to me, as I cannot remember the first film 'X'. I see the second film 'Pearl' is recommended by others as better than this so may watch that.

I see the director has done loads of horror films, with lots of gore, and there is definitely a big market for them - and he'd adapted and gone with the 'strong main female character' trope which is now a real cliche to be honest - does any movie (or children's book) NOT have a strong main female character, often of colour too?

What I liked: the 1980s setting and music. And it all started well, act one.

What I disliked: the OTT convoluted plot, and the gore - not shocking, just boring.

I was going to give it 3 stars but the last third was really very boring, to be honest.

SO one for the slasher horror films really, or a Friday night horror-fest with mates and food and drinks...

It is what it is, 2 stars.

I hated this. I suspect if you're a Gen Zee Teen you'll find the explicit sex and violent and psychedelic drug dreamscapes fresh and new and dangerous; for anyone over 25, it's a case of SEEN IT ALL BEFORE.

I did not believe it, not a bit or the characters - their motivations, make-ups, reactions.

One thing that annoys me re this and MANY new movies and TV dramas is how female characters force themselves on men and boys, kiss them, grope them, sexually assault then AND worse, these male characters always comply, give in to the forceful female forcing herself on him and is shown to be passive and to enjoy being sexually assaulted, used, abused, even raped (by legal definition). Not on at all.

I see it SO much now, incl in READY PLAYER ONE and other movies, where a woman or girl forces herself on a man or boy to kiss or worse, and he passively agrees ALWAYS.

CAN YOU IMAGINE it the other way round? Male characters forcing women and girls to have sex? And the females shown as passively complying and enjoying sexual assault?

I do not care about the sexual imagery - but it is GRATUITOUS and MISANDRIST here and in many modern movies, that is my problem, And if you want sex, watch hardcore porn, Plenty online and on DVD.

Also, use of prosthetics has been demeaning to men - the equivalent is a camera shoved between a female character's legs, right up there, showing everything. Well if this abuse of males and femihypocrisy is what the #metoo mob mean by gender equality, mighty I suggest they get a dictionary for Winterval next year?

Reminds me of other over-rated and unbelievable recent sci-fi movies such as OLD, US, and TRIANGLE OF SADNESS. I have them 1* too.

For a decent horror film in the same vein, I'd recommend MIDSOMMAR. Not this.

1 star

Instantly bringing to mind the British case of the ENFIELD POLTERGEIST as depicted in a TV miniseries (2023) of that name and also THE CONJURING 2 (2016) as well as the infamous 1992 TV show GHOSTWATCH.

This is maybe more sexual, possibly salaciously so - though this was released in 1981 it has that 1970s feel.

Genuinely scary, made me jump, though perhaps the last act jumps the shark a tad. BUT if that is what happened in the supposed real story... but who knows? I suspect the production team wanted desperately to use the new special effects at their disposal...

I really loved the thumping pumping soundtrack - it was different and minimalist in its effectiveness.

I suspect the 1982 Spielberg film Poltergeist was influenced by this, just as ET was influenced by 1978's the Cat from Outer Space, Hey ho.

Solid stuff, a tad long maybe esp at the end, 4 stars.

There have been many movies about disturbed men (usually) on a mission to cleanse society of, often, female prostitutes. So far, so derivative. But this is different enough to work, and it is well-acted (the main actress won the Cannes award for that and the film was on the Oscar shortlist), well-filmed, well-written and authentic.

It is closely based on a real case: the true story of Saeed Hanaei, a serial killer who targeted street prostitutes and killed at least 16 women from 2000 to 2001 in Mashhad, Iran who was hanged in 2002 aged around 40 so younger than the killer here, though he was a construction worker, was married with 3 kids and had been in the Iraq-Iran war. He was called the "Spider Killer" by the press for the way he lured his 16 prostitute victims back to his home before strangling them. It was a controversial case as some religious extremists expressed support for his self-described fight against "moral corruption" at the time.

A film such as this would no doubt get condemned by the usual prissy pofaced metoo feminist activists in the UK/US for making all victims young women and showing graphic detail of murders (and sex too). Thing is, this is absolutely necessary and not gratuitous, so fine, esp as it is based on a true story where the victims were young women, many of them heroin/opium addicts (as many men are in the region too).

What makes this different is how the director shows how women can be devoutly religious and so approve of someone cleansing the streets of prostitutes, NO western TV company would ever do that - they'd just blame men, set the MANBLAME default as per usual, So the film is different for that truth.

I loved this Danish-Iranian director's film BORDER so recommend that too as 5 stars.

This is 4.