Film Reviews by PV

I loved the director's HEARTSTONE. This is not quite as good, just a tad bloated and overlong esp in 2nd half and 3rd act.

As ever, I could do without the cod spiritual stuff - I always think that's a bit of a cop-out, a way for film makers to try and spice up a story, but it actually has the reverse effect.

This film starts brilliantly, exploring the bullying dynamic of a teenage boy gang - the amateur actors here do so well, utterly believable and naturalistic performances by all the boys. Not sure I believe some of the plot strands but...

But gosh, is Iceland really all druggies and criminals, the deranged, the sex pest perverted, not to mention the level of mental illness! And the colourful painted wooden houses all look so pretty. Instead it's a hotbed of abuse and madness. It's probably eating all that fish that does it. And remember in 16th century Europe, Iceland was actually stated as the geographic entrance to hell itself (see VIKINGS).

Flawed and overlong, but a decent film about the dynamics of teenage boys, their friendships, loves and hates. And all done without the silly boybashing manblaming moral panic of the very feminised media and TV/film industry in the UK, and our feminised politics getting hysterical about the socalled manosphere and 'toxic masculinity' socalled, words and concepts invented by misandrists maybe?

CLOSE is another films (this time Flemish/Belgian by Lukas Dhont) which nails it. WAY better than anything any Netflix/UK TV drama has done re the same subject. This writer/director really GETS teenage boys with sympathy and lived experience no doubt. Could not be different from the unpleasant boybashing attitude of the moralising movies and TV dramas made on the same subject, and the ensuing pofaced prissy moral panic of politicans and manblaming feminists.

4 stars. Maybe 4.5

Sweet Sue is piquant and sour social satire — a tragicomic British film about life among loners, strivers and skivers.

I am not a great fan of Mike Leigh, and still think his NUTS IN MAY and ABIGAIL'S PARTY were his high point way back in 1970s.

His son Leo no doubt had the double-edged sword of having a famous film maker father - the connection would have opened doors for sure, and like many a socialist Mike Leigh lives in a nice big house in north London so not short of a bob or two, and his son certainly would not have lived the working class and underclass lives of the London suburbs as portrayed here (though Hastings get a look in).

But then he had the weight of daddy's reputation and he seems in his 40s now so waited for his movie debut, and this one apes Mike Leigh's way of making films exactly, with rehearsal and improvisation. It does not always work, but has created some cracking characters, scenes and lines here.

I really enjoyed this, notwithstanding the ending - no spoilers but the film seems to go nowhere and lacks focus in that third act, ends rather abruptly imho.

All the actors are great, esp Maggie O'Neill who is utterly believable in the main role and Harry Trevaldwyn as the slacker 30-something bitchy online influencer wannbe - expect to see him in many more movies, i am sure, with that face.

But 4 stars

OH so I can see why state funding encourages diversity etc etc etc but does EVERY SINGLE film our taxes pay for (via BBC films, BFI then also lottery funding) HAVE to go to films written/directed by women or 'people of colour' with female stories (where white males are absent or only shown as baddies) or various ethnic stories?

It is literally YEARS since I watched a state-subsidised British film written/directed by a white British man about white British (male) lives - other than other tickbox ones, whether gay or disabled or whatever. It is just getting tiresome and many of these tickbox #metoo #BLM movies are really not very good.

Just to add: the Philippines were NEVER the British empire, twas Spanish then from about 1900 American, then Japan invaded in WWII, then independent. The writer/director is of that background and grew up in the UK, so that makes it authentic (though I worry about the requirement for such tickbox authentic casting as if a 'white' person can only makes movies about people who look JUST like them) which is useful in these tickbox days to get state funding, for sure.

This is strangely old-fashioned horror, maybe more modern in the far east than here, I do not know. Use of sound and quick moves are tropes, and cliches, used for many decades - it all feels a bit 1970s actually. I like sound in films but the bangs/jumps are overuse here - as I said, very old-fashioned, like old horror films, even Hammer, the loud bursts of sound in the late 1950s Dracula films for example.

The cartoon character acting is a bit OTT for me, but I have seen it in Hong Kong films, and Japanese and Chinese films, so it seems more acceptable in the far east, as opposed to the naturalism of western acting styles. Who knows?

It is watchable, but gets very tiresome towards the end. All total tosh of course. Not believable at all in so many ways.

Maybe this needed someone more detached to be involved, to call out the vanity project indulgence, EDIT EDIT EDIT, rewrite rewrite rewrite. I believe the writer/director even got what must be a a family member (called PANCAKE) on the writing credit, Well that's a first.

I'd slice half an hour of flab off this story, much of act 3, the silly final display. And I always think druggy dream sequences are a bit of an excuse for directors to indulge themselves with special effects and extras wearing silly costumes.

There is a point in this film where the main character preaches what I consider misinformation and near-hate against white Westerners incl Britain which could be called racist, Not on. This claim ONLY people of colour and immigrants are poor, disadvantaged or domestic staff/cleaners etc is wrong indeed. Plus there are MANY privileged and rich people of colour in the UK. Racialising the issue is wrong. It is a socio-economic class issue, if anything.

And remember, only 1 in 5000 people were 'upper class' in Georgian England so the VAST majority of Brits a( all but a few thousands were 'white') were not in that elite, not rich, and actually very poor and non-privileged and oppress - and STILL ARE. Try researching the hopeless lives of working class white boys all over the UK. The London townhouse featured here must be worth £3 million - and most white Brits do NOT live in such houses (Paddington, looking at you too in your £5+ million mansion).

So, I almost gave this 1 star. 1.5 stars because of the wonderful acting esp by David Hayman, though his casting as the cliched trope of the perpetual BADDIE white British man is Bollywood in its Britbashing racism. And that end scene is pure Bollywood- I have seen this a lot in films lately, Dr Who Beatles episode, and that Medusa Deluxe movie. I HATE that, I hate Bollywood; I hate song and dance numbers tacked on for no good reason!

I always have the same issue with misery memoirs - how much is true and how much is deliberately exaggerated? There are other addiction memoirs and films, from TRAINSPOTTING to THE LOST WEEKEND, to LEAVING LAS VEGAS. All fiction. Then another adaptation from a book, A MILLION LITTLE PIECES by James Frey, originally sold as a memoir later marketed as a semi-fictional novel following Frey's admission that many parts of the book were fabricated.

Anyway, assessing this as a film in its own right, I'd say it is very watchable, with interesting settings, landscapes and I liked the way it showed the main character as badly behaved and not just a victim of others, and even showed her false accusations that others were trying to control her when they were not. It touches on inherited mental illness too with the main character's father.

I suppose it is the #metoo trend now to only ever focus on female stories, as there has ben a deluge recently and it seems all state-funded films must be directed by women and feature female stories, or BAME ones. Maybe white boys need a special fund so we can have films telling their stories now? How about it BFI, BBC, FilmFour, National Lottery.

Anyway, I loved the landscape and Nature here, and the conrcrake humour. Addictionis always messy and tricky to live and experience and to portray in fiction - novels, films, whatever. This is one of my favourite addiction films tbh. THE LOST WEEKEND is the classic movie, of course.

DO watch the 5 short films in the EXTRAS section - well worth a watch. Interesting from the German female director about the colour palettes used and how it swaps as the film progresses, from colourful London and monochrome faded outdoors, to the opposite when we reach the later scenes in beautiful Orkney, the sea, the sky, the fields and wildlife - GLORIOUS! And the wind...

4 stars.

This is billed as a mix between comedy, horror and soap opera. REALLY?

Well it did not make me laugh or even smile, so if it is meant to be farce or perhaps satire, even allegorical, it fails miserably. Horror? Well if you think men in costumes gyrating is horrific, I suggest you watch some 1950s horror movies or maybe 1930s ones, like Flash Gordon's mud people. Soap opera? Well some characters 'connect' so to speak but, well, who cares?

This is one of those films which thinks it is clever but is in fact pointless, silly, shallow, unfunny and annoying. There are others which this reminds me of, like OLD by M Night Shhh, and the awful TRIANGLE OF SADNESS. Again, pointless, not satirical or profound at all, not even a bit.

This all feels so contrived and stagey - I was surprised it did not start in the theatre. It's the sort of thing the Lover Sixth do for an Easter Play, complete with cardboard brain.

Don';t bother. Unless you like the films I mentioned. 1.5 stars.

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.