Film Reviews by PV

The writer/director was responsible for the awful LaLa Land and 10 Cloverfield Avenue BUT also great movies Whiplash and First Man. So...

Did I enjoy this? Yes. In parts. Is it a bloated self-indulgent mess of a movie which badly needs to focus and slice away the flab? Yes - it should be 2 hours.

It is lavish, for sure, and the budget must have been huge. A feast for the eyes - and ears with a great jazz soundtrack (though I do feel the predictable tickbox racial theme adds nothing and is so cliched these days when EVERY single movie has woke preachy themes about racism/sexism. Yawn. Just tell the story! No need for lectures about racism, Mexican immigration, metoo sexism etc! EVERYONE gets exploited, white males too, in the entertainment business).

The 1920s (mostly) setting is wonderfully realised too, with some fascinating characters, and the actors do well too. It is utterly believable.

BUT if you want to watch a better film about Hollywood at that time and earlier, watch CHAPLIN.

Hollywood LOVES movies about Hollywood - see the massively over-rated Lala Land. But here, a movie s 3 hours long because it drags out stories, character backstories, themes and does not need to. WHY even have a 30 minute prologue before we get to the opening titles?

So, in conclusion, yes it is enjoyable and watchable, esp for those who are interested in film history, but it is an ordeal to sit there for 3 hours watching it, especially when it drags. Maybe a NON-director's cut can be made - max 2 hours?

3 stars then.

OK so I always have a soft spot for low budget British films - and those made by the fwar film company TIN HAT productions set up by Callum Burn (born 1992) and his dad Andrew (each get 10+ multitasking mentions on the credits) cost £80,000 or so. It is possible, The very decent horror film CANARIES cost less than £30,000.

But, and it is a BIG but, it all looks very cheap and underproduced, with a risible script, even if the film is just over 70 minutes. The acting (which includes Callum and his dad plus those who acted in their other warplane films) is so wooden it could make a spoon to stir it up a bit - which is badly needed.

Worst of all is the script. Writers and authors spend hours, months, years revising and rewriting and perfecting novels and scripts and screenplays, getting professional advice and editing often. That does not seem to have happened here. The flimsy script could maybe carry a short film of 30 minutes.

The by-numbers script is designed to be low budget as most 'action' takes place in a cockpit. I was a bit baffled plot-wise as there seemed to be NO taking photos of Germany happening at all, and that is the whole point of the mission and this unit in the RAF - which deserves a decent film or at least a part in a war film, as it is a little-known unit.

Best watch BATTLE OF BRITAIN the wonderful 1969 movie then. Or Dark Blue World.; or Reach for the Sky. Or Angels One Five (1954); or Piece of Cake, 1988 TV drama.

I wanted to give this 2 stars but just could not bear to in the end. Maybe 1.5 stars for effort.

I must admit I hate Spike Lee films - about as much as Wes Anderson films. Just awful, What do people see in them? No idea.

BUT because I am a big fan of satire, including shocking near-the-knuckle stuff, I thought I would watch this. I gave up after 40 minutes.

Spike Lee has to be just about the most racist film director/writer in the history of the USA certainly in recent years. His complete lack of awareness (I assume) of his own racist stereotyping of ALL white people as ignorant clueless buffoons or out-and-out-racists (ALL white people in the world fit into these 2 camps in the Lee universe) is stark.

For GREAT scathing satire in movies watch TEAM AMERICA - WORLD POLICE. Or even DR STRANGELOVE. Or even PLANET OF THE APES (1967/8). Or even WHITE CHICKS (in which blacks white up, though that film which is occasionally funny steals a lot from the classic SOME LIKE IT HOT).

Not sure what this is filmed with - seems like a home video, The writing is dire, clunky and on-the-nose. The acting so wooden you could make an African mask out of it. The direction just so clumsy and amateurish. It was painful to watch even 40 minutes of this racist dross.

As for minstrel shows - a US tradition imported to the UK via touring groups in late 19th and early 20th C, this is ALL about theatre - makeup and facepainting and no different from African natives 'whiting up' (watch MOUNTAINS OF THE MOON or SHE to see it). The fake outrage by supposedly traumatised persons of colour who have glimpsed Al Johnson is pathetic and fake - pure manufactured racism. It is threat, not racism, and theatre and drama creates types for EVERYONE, all colours and genders. The way it is. STILL. See how white males are portrayed on TV drama these days (if you can find a white male) - all useless clueless buffoons (in adverts only that) though in drama they can also be abusive violent monsters, Yay!

Spike Lee seems to think being racist against all 'white people' (as he would call them to create the OTHER) in the world makes him non-racist, Not very bright then. But hey, it made him very rich as a professional victim.

I shall not make the mistake of watching a Spike Lee movie ever again.

This film and Lee think they are so clever. Nope. Just boring and worse, this sort of stuff incites division. Please keep it in the USA and stop importing it to the UK, which never had slavery (not since 12th C) and ended it all over the world. BLM etc is like that and has been SO damaging in the UK, like a viral pandemic actually, sowing the seeds of division and mate. The UK is a class-based society and that is where disadvantage lies - not race or gender. Socio-economic class.

No stars

This is an effective haunted house film, in effect, funded by BFI and BBC.

It leans heavily on THE TURN OF THE SCREW and also THE CEMENT GARDEN (though no way was Ian McEwan the first to explore that theme).

Actually, all a bit tame. I had expected more nudity and violence really. This could be family viewing at 7-8pm on terrestrial TV. Most actors here have UK TV pedigrees. The acting is great however so no fault there - the kids are suitably deranged and creepy. As I said, very TURN OF THE SCREW (watch the 1961 movie THE INNOCENTS which is based on that Henry James story - it is the best version).

HOMEBOUND is BY THE BOOK in terms of character arcs and journeys - the thing is, that arc is just not believable at all, the way characters switch so suddenly Sometimes the logic here is nonsensical too. They have phones. So someone would have been on to social services pronto in real life.

This is not really a horror - there is one great JUMP moment which effectively uses sound though! I love it when directors use sound well, so full marks for that.

3 stars overall

I really enjoyed this film. It was genuinely original, though perhaps could have been a TV drama. The director/writer is clearly drawing on lived experience - and the street featured is just like the ones I knew when I lived opposite Palmers Greek, I mean Green, in north London! Many Cypriot immigrant families in north London - most Greek but also Turks, as at Wood Green.

Is is believable? Not really. These Saul on the road to Damascus do OCCASIONALLY happen in real life, but not often. Very rich people tend to stay very rich and will do anything to keep it that way! BUT it is a story and fiction, so...fine. It's fun! Nonsense but fun.

I saw the end twist coming miles off, from act one actually. So many PLANTS in the early film re the geek boy in the family playing the stock market.

SO best to see it all as a fantasy, or IMAGINERY REALITY - there are roots in the real world here, yes. Despite the morality-tale-cum-fairytale which follows.

The actor Stephen Dillane stars here with his real-life son who, to be fair, is not the spitting image of him, no more so than the daughter. All actors do well.

The Greek-Turkish beef (or doner lamb/mutton) gets referenced. Though I do wonder how many Muslim Turks marry girls from Greek Orthodox families.... How many Muslim families are happy for daughters to marry non-Muslims? Yes, for the sons, so long as the wife converts to Islam. That is the sad reality. There is a GREAT deal of bigotry, racism and faith hate amongst London's and Britain's multicultural communities - often hidden when ethnic/faith groups are in a minority. When in a majority as in certain northern English towns and cities, then we get separate societies, ethnic and faith enclaves living by their own rules and values and not integrating into British or Western culture. Just watch the news. Any decade.

SO do not overthink this. Do not worry or fuss about the ethnic stereotypes (especially as ALL stereotypes are based on truth even if just part of it or an outdates truth - just see how white Brits are portrayed as Imperial bowler-hatted gin-swilling racist stereotype buffoons in ALL Asian and Bollywood).

I liked the amoral financier characters - so close to reality, it is scary. Though no way did I believe the character arc and journey of the woman who was supposedly employed to work for the accountant firm. Fairytales like that just do not happen. People - male and female - in the City wallow in their amorality out of pure greed and self-interest. My lived experience, that.

I also LOVE the fact it was self-funded, so no state subsidy from BFI BBC FilmFour etc - which these days would lead to preachy woke sermons and colour-blind casting. This low budget British film mostly avoids that (except a bizarre scene of some hawker selling household goods door to door - which happens in the suburbs, though does not tend to happen when huge houses with long drives and big gates are on a street!)

The ending is eye-rollingly silly slushy (NO SPOILERS) BUT it is actually very Hollywood movie and MAMA MIA so many will love it, no doubt.

So flawed but watchable and yes, original. Reminded me a bit of another semi-autobiographical self-financed film, SIXTY-SIX (2006).

If the ending were less toe-curling it would be 4 stars. 3.5 stars rounded up.

This is a brilliant film, harrowing but true, well-written, well-directed and well-acted, with real heart and focus. It matters.

I did think it would be dubbed when I saw no subtitles option BUT thank goodness it had subtitles and is the German. Its cast has many familiar faces for those who know German films and TV drama.

Buchenwald was one of the lesser known concentration camps, because it was not a death camp like Auschwitz and others - it was a work camp, though 50,000+ people died there of 250,000 sent there 1937-45.

The way the war ends in chaos, panic and uncertainty for all, the SS and German soldiers and inmates works very well.

This is directed by the same guy who directed the brilliant 2013 TV miniseries GENERATION WAR.

One of the best wartime concentration camp films ever made. ESCAPE FROM SOBIBOR (1978) is also superb and there are others. This is up there with the best of them.

4.5 stars

I have not watched any of the TV series at all, so came to this film totally green really.

I enjoyed it. The characters are genuinely quirky, funny and strong as individuals. The usual types, and cartoon character sometimes, but that is fine - it is comedy and IS actually comedy and made me smile and laugh (unlike so much modern comedy esp onc pc BBC TV).

The plot is silly, but why not? Have you watched BRITANNIA? And that is not even comedy.

Nice and compact in length too, no dragging.

3.5 stars rounded up

I had no idea what to expect in this film. I am not a big fan of Mark Rylance - for some reason I find it hard to believe any character he plays. Not sure why.

Anyway, I was amazed this did not start off as a stage play because it follows many of the conventions of one, including the one-set interior location - which would have kept the budget down nicely, especially if it was filmed in the UK pretending to be Chicago 9I have no idea).

I was grateful for a James Dean reference revealing the 1950s time period; the reveals later on sort of make sense though I struggle to believe the final big one (NO SPOILERS) which held true to screenplay demands for character arcs, but there are limits to what we'll believe and suspend our disbelief for.

An interesting curiosity. Maybe watch as a starter before a main course of Goodfellas, The Godfather or The Sopranos!

3 stars

Hmm well, I like a good comedy horror film - and arguably all horror is comedy anyway (DISCUSS!) But this is limp. I did not laugh once. Maybe I would have done if I were a teenager. Maybe not, I do not know. It is based on a video game, 'parently, which says it all, I suppose.

Not a patch on a classic like AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON which also has WAY better special effects - mind you, compared to this B-movie, Michael Jackson's Thriller video has better special effects! Those wanting great werewolf transformations will be yawning in disappointment with this film. Want a great comedy horror with gore, watch SEVERANCE (2006).

This is another one of those new films which aim to cast black/BAME and female actors in all main roles. Any white male characters that do exist are useless buffoons or abusive monsters. Apparently this racism/sexism is progress... Personally, I think it is boring.

BUT if you're feeling hungee for diversity donuts and tickbox jollies, then watch SPELL (2020) or the over-rated GET OUT, I suppose, or the genuinely funny slasher horror comedy FREAKY (2020) which did make me laugh.

Sadly this film falls between 2 stools - it is neither scary (so not a horror) nor funny (so not a comedy) and it is certainly not original or clever or surprising in its supposed twists (NO SPOILERS). Plus, no subtitles and the dialogue is mumbled though oddly also very stagey and overblown, with cartoon characters aplenty - the main actor would have fitted in well in those 1930s black comedies which are considered racist now. All those eye-bulging shocked expressions.

Just not to my taste, but passes the time. Kids may like it more.

2 stars, 1 for having a screenplay written by someone called Wolff!

I usually hate shoot-em-up Action Movies, and the writer of this wrote the John Wick ones which I avoid.

However, loving Breaking Bad (which this resembles, and The Americans), I watched for the BETTER CALL SAUL main actor. I am glad I did.

There are some laugh-out-loud moments in the dialogue and actually the whole thing plays as a satire on the whole action movie genre, which I like.

Cartoon character violence veers into superhero computer game or Marvel territory BUT it does not matter - for a movie this entertaining.

Realistic and plausible? NAH! Just silly but fun.

Great Friday Night viewing. 4 stars

But just one little question: WHY CAN WOMEN NOT PUT THE BINS/TRASH OUT? Do women lack arms or legs? Are they unable to carry bags and walk? Odd that, as so many seem to carry tonnes of shopping when they have been out buying clothes, especially if a man is paying LOL. We need gender equality. That means women taking the backbags out on bin day. Go on, sisters, you know you can...

This was directed by the same guy who did the BRILLIANT TV miniseries GENERATION WAR also from 2013 which is THE best German war film/series I have ever seen. Original German, subtitles, as it should be too.

I hate dubbing into English - most Brits do. I suppose the production decision was made to appeal to US TV channels. But, personally, I hate it. No option for subtitles and original German, WHY? There's enough expense spent on the cast, settings, numerous stuntmen and CGI artists for all the special effects, How much would subs cost? Pennies! Much cheaper than dubbing for a start.

So that gripe over, is it good? Well it is passable, and the story constructs a dastardly bomb plot around a real airship disaster (search online for real footage and that for the British RH101 which also burst into flames after crashing into the ground). The loss of 48 lives was more than the 36 killed in the much better-known Hindenburg disaster of 1937, though fewer than the 52 killed in the French military Dixmude in 1923 and the 73 killed when the USS Akron crashed in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of New Jersey in 1933. THIS is why we do not travel bu airship today!!!

There is a 1975 HINDENBURG film which I have enjoyed on TV (despise lacklustre reviews).

Not sure why this needs 2 DVDs with a 90 minute half of a 3 hour drama on each. Could all fit on one DVD, surely?

3 stars. Worth watching anyway and special effects impress - the Nazi-ere atmosphere is done well too.

I wanted to like this, I really did. I was on TEAM TORPEDO-235 before I pressed play. When I did, the first horror was the atrocious dubbing. WHY NO OPTION for the original language with subtitles? The only way to watch foreign films imho.

A vaguely Indiana Jones-style silly Nazi plot tentatively featuring Africa and the Congo, and with words used in dialogue sometimes that would give BBC/UK/KAFTA wokiedokies conniptions. and cause them lifelong trauma no doubt. Fine, I have no issue with racial words in dialogue - it is realistic. I have no issue with silly fantasy plots - many movies have them. It is how the plot is enacted and realised that is the issue here.

This is a short film but I found my mind wandering and my eyes looking at my watch.

Obviously low-budget and aimed at the US straight-to-DVD market, with some absurd endpiece which btw has NO basis in historical fact.

Try watching Oppenheimer (the 1980 TV series is WAY better than the over-rated recent movie) or DAS BOOT - all versions - to see how a submarine chase drama can be done.

2 stars

I was suspicious about this film, as I am about all films that win so many awards, from BAFTA or OSCARS. There is usually a political reason, these days often one that is woke and all about ticking boxes. So obvious at recent Oscars. Here, the Irish bias seems to have done it - I doubt an identical film set in England of 1823 would win any awards or plaudits. Racial bias then is the reason for the fistfuls of awards.

I found this all silly, boring, pointless, UNFUNNY to the nth degree (dark humour? Give me a break! There is no comedy). A parable or allegory? About conflict and war - been done WAY better elsewhere (read SMITH' GAZELLE by Lionel Davidson). I mean, who cares? This is a NOTHING film, about NOTHING, meaning NOTHING and by a writer/director with a track record in such movies.

I dislike the 2 main actors anyway, in the vastly over-rated Bruges and the rest. I do not know why, I just never believe they are the characters they play.

Barry Keoghan is superb as usual. Now to be seen in Spielberg's MASTERS OF THE AIR, I think. That is probably quality.

This? This is pure pretentious drivel and tedious with it - I mean clock-watching monotonous.

The sort of film stupid people who are keen to fit in with current critic opinion think is intelligent and profound. It is not. And worse, UK taxpayer cash paid for it.

The countryside and sea is all pretty, deliberately coloured by the cameras/lens to try and make it all magical and mystical, But it is neither.

Do yourself a favour, watch FATHER TED instead. Go on. Go on go on go on! Now THAT is funny.

1 generous star

I really enjoyed this. Decent simple story. Great actors, early George McKay (Pride, 1917) and Matthew Beard (Vienna Blood). And the great Keith Barron (The Land that Time Forgot etc) and Frank Finlay.

Adapted from a PROPER kids' book - not the sort of preachy woke lecturing middle grade kids books of now, which remind me of propaganda books under Nazi-ism/communism, or else cartoon character whizzbang simplistic stuff which does nothing to lift the literacy of kids. my advice to parents - raid the archive for decent books and stories for the young 'uns. Go back to the future!

Obviously inspired by the expression BAGS OF TIME with a silly time machine shopping trolley - BUT WHY NOT? All time travel tales are silly and vague re the details of how to do it! So if a story skirts over the how then fine - though I do know agents/publishers challenge this in submissions (WHY? IT IS FICTION!) No need to explain the (fantasy) science! OK so this is not up there with BACK TO THE FUTURE or THE TIME MACHINE (1960 film is sublime). But it is fun and it hangs together and works.

This is very traditional actually - people go back in time, change something then have to go back again and put right what they made wrong. That is a trope used by so many stories and authors. So nothing original here BUT it is a good fun proper story.

I have never seen this on TV and it seems to have vanished from the schedules for some reason - maybe the use of 'slur word' (SHOCK HORROR!) which the woke taliban of TV would certainly trigger warning now or maybe cut or mute as in so many 1970s sitcoms. No word is wrong in and of itself and when in dialogue in a story should NEVER be muted or cut - if the usual baby-brained wokies are offended and triggered, they should grow up and get an education as they clearly lack one.

I suspect Terry Pratchett felt he had to address race and gender in this film (though not the 2004 book which is the last of the Johnny Maxwell trilogy) so did so. Does not add much though and thankfully no absurd diverse cast in 1941 which they'd do now (in 1939 there were just 6000 black people in the UK out of a population of 44 million).

Anyway, I really enjoyed this. Yes, it is yet another time-slip drama, and as ever with these things, the logic/science of time travel is NEVER explained and is always vague and magical BECAUSE IT IS NONSENSE. It is the same in all time travel films. Oddly the only story which tried to explain it is the Czech novel NEWTON'S BRAIN, published 18 years before HG Wells THE TIME MACHINE.

Be aware: A tachyon or tachyonic particle is a hypothetical particle that always travels faster than light.

4 stars.

How much this is based on a true story is unclear BUT it is certainly inspired by one - watch to the very end to see the real-life people photos.

Anyway, the first half of this is simply brilliant - the main actor utterly nails it as a harsh and closeted army officer. A superb character study. I believed less in the openly gay Bosnian-Austrian recruit, to be honest and wonder if in real life he was that rebellious and cocky. The photo at the end of the film shows him far more white western European looking than the actor in the film who is swarthier and, it is implied, Muslim (was he in real life?)

A western director (USA?) which is maybe why it's all a tad coy and conservative (no full frontals here). Many of the actors here have been in the brilliant VIENNA BLOOD and also WE CHILDREN FROM BAHNHOPF ZOO a German TV series. The army recruit actors here are superb.

Still, it's an interesting film about how the army has changed in Hitler's own country, and about attitudes for homosexuality between generations and ages.

The second half deflated into a limp slushy love story for me - but the first half is blistering. Hence 4 stars.