Film Reviews by PV

I thought this was a film when I rented it BUT it is a a 2017 TV drama in two parts. Based on a novel.

The first part, 90 minutes, is SUPERB - I loved it. I was surprised as I was expecting a rather tedious historical romance aimed at women as so many of these things are. but no, the first part was amazing, intriguing and I was hooked (though I did guess the plot maybe more than many would).

The shorter second part loses the plot a bit - gets a but pc/feminist lecturing and moralising, and some typical boxes ticked. I was really not convinced by the miniaturist character parachuted in (NO SPOILERS) and the whoe attempt to make it mystical/magical. Maybe I should blame the novel though - ditto for the very unlikely relationship twist (no spoilers).

This is set in 1686. In 1688 Catholic king James II was deposed, William or Orange married Mary Stuart, and The Glorious Revolution meant they ruled as joint monarchs of Britain.

Knowing Amsterdam I found this all interesting THOUGH why they make the streets in these historical dramas so clean is beyond me. The streets would have been filthy back then.

Anyway, the superb first part is 5 stars, but the 2nd half lets it down so 4 stars overall.

Fun but sometimes plodding Northern Ireland-set story of a record shop, and how punk - especially The Undertones and their first single Teenage Kicks - put it on the map.

The first half is great and has pace; that goes in the second half which drags a bit - the direction is workmanlike (though it seems a couple direct!)

The main actor irritated me or at least the clueless innumerate character - I wonder if that record shop is still open. If so, how?

Probably the first time I have seen muso DJ John Peel portrayed in a film, and the accent is bang-on - having talked to him in 2004, i can confirm that (though John was actually from a rather posh background are affected that accent).

Watch the film '71 (2014) if you want the Troubles politics. Watch The Crying Game (1992) if you do not. Watch Sing Street (2016) to see similar in Dublin. Watch Killing Bono (2011) for the best film made about NI music via a U2 failure, and about the shark-run rapacious music business in general.

Watchable punk-birth biopic. 3 stars

OK so if you like football this may be for you. This footballer was a star player of Juventus in 2004 or so apparently. No doubt famous in Italy and Sweden.

A flimsy take dragged out to 90 minutes - his upbringing seems fairly normal, and not so underprivileged really. Had 2 parents, after all. Refugee from Yugoslavia wars so richer in a Sweden council flat than in Bosnia or wherever no doubt.

The main character's main problem is not poverty or circumstance, but his own vile, selfish and disruptive personality.

Anyway, pretty predictable stuff. Watch ESCAPE TO VISTORY from 1981 to see how football films can be made entertaining, or THE KEEPER (2018)

Hard to make films about sport BECAUSE they have to be about something else - adventure/war/love story etc.

This script is basically a rewrite of Rocky with football.

3 stars, just.

I hate dubbing so watched this in German with English subtitles, I recommend that.

I found this film to be overlong, it dragged badly at times, very wordy and, worst of all, there was a lack of emotional connection SO even though there are CGI horrors of the first world war, it was all visual rather than emotional for me.

This is the third version of ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT I have watched.

The best imho is the 1930 version which, despite its lack of CGA (or perhaps BECAUSE of it) is more shockingly gruesome and affecting AND there is emotional connection too. And humour, which this film lacks - the black gallows humour of war, esp with scenes with 3 French girls (omitted here). There is also some male nudity in the 1930 film which this German movie aimed squarely at the US/international market does not dare show. There is emotional connection with characters in that 1930 film SO it is more shocking what happens to them.

The 1979 US TV movie version - with Richard JOHN BOY off The Waltons - Thomas is also a puritan film as so many American TV films and Hollywood ones are. No male nudity

there either and santised for violence.

SO this film I give 4 stars, just BUT way too long and no emotional connection of characters or humour.

The 1930 film I gave 5 stars - please watch it. This version is the best.

The 1979 version I gave 3 stars I think. Watchable too.

Anyway, not sure how it swept the board with awards at BAFTA. It is a good filme yes, but not a great one. The 1930 version is that.

I turned this off after half an hour.

Beyond boring, also deeply precious and pretentious - the point at which a chair Bergman once sat in is worshipped was too much for me, and out came this DVD.

I suppose for deep fans of Bergman only.

Everyone else should avoid.

Maybe watch MISOMMAR instead - or old ABBA videos.

The USA does not DO poor - Hollywood films show magic, rich people, winners. The archetypal main character in British comedy is an Everyman little guy, often a loser (think Chaplin';s tramps, Frank Spencer, Pitkin, so many more).

So this sort of kitchen-sink film about poverty is unusual for the USA. A bit of a novelty therefore, showing a side rarely shown on TV drama (reality Tv is another matter) or in movies from Hollywood.

It juxtaposes a rent-by-the-week welfare/poverty motel which is right by Disneyland in Orlando - which many Brits go to for holidays (and a brit features too). No shock to us Brits as poverty and great wealth live side by side in London, But anyway, the point is hammered home here, in what can only be called a clunky way. Social issues are shoehorned into the stew throughout.

All a bit long-drawn-out and desperately stapling a plot on a 'poverty porn' which has very little in the way of story (a bit like the tedious NOMAD which I turned off after half an hour). I watched this to the end (though dislike the ending - NO SPOIILERS).

I suppose such films are necessary and unusual really for Hollywood, but I would not call it all that exciting or great entertainment, Largely a movie to be endured rather than enjoyed.

So 2 stars

I suppose I'd enjoy this more if I were from Chile. It takes place at a specific time, when a middle class woman is forced to see her own advantage in a Chile now ruled by a fascist regime - though to be fair, this was the Cold War, and the communist regimes around the world were just as brutal.

It brought to mind the superior Argentinian film THE SECRET IN THEIR EYES from 2009.

Also I could not help thinking of recent south American TV dramas like NARCOS about Pablo Escobar.

More like a TV drama than a film really. Worth a watch but probably only for fans of Chilean film or those interested in South American politics and history. 2 stars

The first thing to say is I loved the same director's second film CLOSE more than this. Both share a documentary feel, and are beautifully shot with lovely lush strings in the soundtrack too.

Maybe because I have zero interest in dance and ballet - I find it all so boring, as I did other movies like Black Swan etc. White Crow I gave 4 stars though.

One thing that is exceptional here is the casting of the main actor - see the interview with the director on the EXTRAS to see how that happened. He explains the film is based on the true story of a French boy who was trans which he read about in 2009.

It is a fascinating and very timely film as trans issues are very much live issues at the top of the agenda (though most kids who want to transition are apparently girls wanting to be boys, or were at the Tavistock clinic).

I suppose the anti-trans lobby will be triggered by this. Me, i see it in psychological terms (the direct mentions too how fragile some young trans actors he was seeing in auditions were). Ultimately, anyone born male cannot became female and anyone born female cannot become male - that is just biological fact. People can take pills, have hormone injections and have physical operations (or get mutilated as some would say) and for children and teens, that can often be seen as wrong as often these kids have autism of are just gay or think the grass will be greener as the opposite sex, THEN want to change back again. Maybe better not to give pills to children - i am sure many who believe they are trans are just common or garden gay anyway, coming to terms a nd being confused, and clutching onto false hope re trans-magic-fixes.

Anyway, I did see the ending twist coming (no spoilers). The issue of mental health features in the director/;s next film CLOSE too which I preferred, tbh.

So 3 stars, but I cannot fault the extraordinary performance of Victor Polster the main trans actor, though I do wonder where he/she goes from here.

OK so firstly, the animation here is brilliant. the MAKING OF doc on the extras is half an hour long and well worth a watch.

I have never read Terry Pratchet's Discworld books - I dislike fantasy genres like that usually. I know fans of it and him.

I do, however, like cats - and great cat books such as the A CAT CALLED DOG stories (no films of them yet sadly). The characters in those are, without wanting to offended Maurice, way funnier and more feline than his gingerness himself.

If you are OK with totally anthropomorphised rats and a cat using coins and money etc, fine. But that makes the characters people not animals. Maurice is not CAT enough for me - my favourite parts were when he was MORE CAT.

I suspect the plot of this is way too complicated for children - they'll be totally lost but will no doubt enjoy the colourful animation and chase/dance scenes etc.

I do have to say that this film did not make me laugh - once. I did roll my eyes rather a lot though.

As per usual with animation these days, this is a 'white male free zone'. What is the original novel like? Did that have a 'sassy' rude little madam female narrator and an Asian main character? For a European 15th C folk tale? This is what they do with ALL adaptations these days - why I vote with my feets, fingers, paws and eyes and not not watch them usually - I like cats and thus I wanted to watch this.

There is the usual cocky 'sassy ('arrogant' over-confident rude) female narrator which is now something of a cliche in middle grade fiction and animation (Disney, Pixar). This is the new normal - it is convention. It is Not radical or different - a white male character would be that,. but as per usually all white males here are presented as either useless buffoons or baddies JUST like in most movies and (UK) TV drama - which I avoid now (see how the SAME thing ruined the TV adaptation of Professor Branestawn which was trying so hard to be Mathilda). Just got to a bookstore and look at the main characters of middle grade children's books - they either female or of colour of both. It is pure politics and deliberate woke propaganda SO I advice parents to check out the archive of great kids' books for their kids., before it was ruined by woke/pc/identity politics propaganda.

This no criticism of Himesh Patel, BUT would he be happy if white blond actors were cast to play characters from Asian folk tales set in the Middle Ages - the Pied Piper of Hamelin is 15th century Germany, and I suggest that BAME and Asians and black villagers were pretty thin on the ground back then. want colourblind casting - fine, then BE CONSISTENT and stop demanding 'authentic casting' for any Asian/African story. I look forward to white blond male actors playing Zulus and Indian Maharajahs and Chinese Emperors too, and Ed Sheeran playing Nelson Mandela, soon.

I shall stick with the A CAT CALLED DOG books (which also have a wonderful dancing cat!).

2.5 stars

I usually love dinosaur films and have watched them all - but this? It's not even a B movie or a C movie or a D movie, Keep going, if you must - I could not ad turned off halfway through.

Just awful. HOW can a movie about dinosaurs be so mind-numbing boring? They must have put a great deal of thought into how to achieve that.

Instead watch THE LAND THAT TIME FORGOT (1974) and the VALLEY OF GWANGI (1969) from which the final scene of Jurassic Park is lifted The T-Rex focus which is NOT in the novel actually, just the superb screenplay by David Koepp).

I do even like low-budget dino films like THE DINOSAUR PROJECT (2012). Though no doubt there are some turkeys i have not seen,.

But this is beyond bad. 1 star, Just.

This is a great film about male friendship. Very original and brave, in this hysterical age too ( this film could NOT have been made in the UK or USA).

It is so well-acted too - many cast are amateurs such as the two boys themselves who are perfect.

It is also well shot and looks beautiful, with colour schemes reflecting mood, especially of the flower-growing family, so lots of bright colours in summer becoming brown, earthy and dead and events occur.

Watch the two interviews with the director and his fellow writer on the EXTRAS. They are illuminating. About the casting especially and how much time was taken to do that and film through the seasons.

Personally, I'd say boys of that age 12/13 (year 7 or 8 UK schools) would tend not to behave like these do - certainly not my memories. Maybe younger boys, aged 8/9/10 who had a very close friend the same age, often with a power imbalance - one boy older/stronger/bolder. That is the age when children fantasise when playing too - that is all over by 12/13.

SO I am not sure I believe the story or the acceptance of two boys that age sharing a bed (having been a 12/13 year old boy, I know that would not have been seen as OK in the UK; maybe Belgium is different?). I remember such close male bonds at age 8/9/10 and then they slip away. By secondary school and puberty.

I was a bit annoyed the backstory of one boy and his mother was not explored more - no spoilers. Maybe it is meant to be vague, re bathroom door lock etc. A scene when one boy plays at a concert is central re his sensitive personality.

This could also be classed as a film exploring mental illness too. Some may say what occurs is a bit clunky and melodramatic, but not necessarily.

Some dreadful clunky subtitles at times - clearly NOT translated by a native English speaker into English - and they stick at one point. Why not get a native speaker to do them perfectly?

Anyway, as another reviewer says the first half is the strongest part of the movie. It can drag a little in the second half. A small criticism though.

Overall this is a great film and I enjoyed it way more than another recent film of 2 boys of 12/13 'ARMAGEDDON TIME' (3 stars).

One of the very best coming of age films ever. I watched it twice in 2 days.

4.5 stars rounded up.

I was ;looking forward to watching this film, which I had not realised existed - after watching a superb TV documentary about this discovery of the bones of Richard III, I was delighted to find out there was a film about it too.

I needn't have bothered. It is truly awful. I could not stand it any more and turned off halfway through - did not make it to the end of the battle (a bit like King Richard III at Bosworth then eh?)

I am not a fan of Sally Hawkins and Steve Coogan can be uber-irritating. BUT they are not the problem here/ The woeful script is - it misfires all the way.

1 star

This is a coming of age story of two 12/13 year old boys BUT it is not a patch on the BRILLIANT Belgian film CLOSE which explores the same theme, happily without the racial blm politics showhorned into the script in a tickbox preachy woke way (sadly the way in SO many US and UK movies and TV dramas now).

OK this is New York, so racially mixed in 1980 in a way the UK really was not except in inner cities. I was the same age as these boys in late 1980 near London and all I can say is my experience of life - and pop music - was so completely different from this. No black people in London suburbs for a start - some Asians. Not many, Pop music was New Romantic stuff or Ska or heavy metal - not the Sugar Hill Gang or rap.

The reliance on The Clash on the soundtrack is odd BUT they were big in the USA. The only punk band to break through.

The racial themes are like a sermon, with clunky scenes of what no doubt is said to be 'white privilege' portraying all whites are racist (and adding a Trump connection too in this staunchly pro-democrat film. I just find it all boring). MAYBE feature some privileged black people - they did exist in 1980 even. Plenty exist now - visit ANY tope public (private) school in the UK and see they are 20-30% BAME; and see how white working class boys are THE least advantaged and most discriminated against group.

I almost turned this off as it seemed at times an advert for racial theory I believe to be fake and victimhood-craving posturing. I lasted until the end.

I suppose this is personal to the director as it is autobiographical BUT I do wonder how much was added to tick the blm/race/woke boxes which ALL movies from Hollywood must do these days, sadly - because it is making movies preachy woke sermons and lectures WHEN a movie should ONLY be about 'TELLING A GOOD STORY WELL'. The end.

So meh. 3 stars. Good to see Welsh boy Anthony Hopkins and the kid actors do well. But watch CLOSE instead.

Gosh well, this is apparently from a story by gay nationalist Japanese writer MISHIMA - so maybe watch the 1980s film of that name first to get it more, as he was a literary author, some would say pretentious and all about ideas.

Totally unbelievable story and characters too, esp the CHIEF boy. remined me of a Graham Greene short story (and TV film) The Destructors. Or maybe Lord of the Flies (the old film is MUCH better).

Made in 1976 the same year as The Omen which does nasty child much better! Also the same time as JAWS.

I disliked the scenes of animal torture BUT the credits assure us no animals were harmed.

I liked the nice scenes of Devon.

Borderline horror movie and a tad odd.

I love these old horror films, many by Hammer, often with great casts of British character actors and an arch sense of fun. very camp and weird.

They often have portmanteau structures, lots of small stories with an over-riding theme - here it is the plagues of Egypt, Done MUCH later with US movies like SE7EN of course.

I enjoyed this, but the ending does let it down (no spoilers) so 4 stars.