Film Reviews by PV

This is a BRILLIANT film. Ignore those who complain about the theatrical acting - it is almost a century old, just after the silent era, for goodness sake! The incomprehensible mumbling of naturalism in acting in film had not started yet (YAY!)

It was made in 1930 or 1929 filmed then - so 94 years old! Yes, the sound can be hissy and creaking a bit - but then you would be too aged 94!

What is amazing is how explicit the violence of war is for a 1930 US movie - injuries, death on the battlefield, severed limbs portrayed and corpses. That is why it gets a PG certificate even now, and they would not show this before 9pm on any TV channel and only then with trigger warnings.

There is also (male) nudity. The Hays Code was 1934 - before that, Hollywood films could do that and have Mae West. I watched the 1979 TV Movie of ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT and it is not a patch on this and has no such male nudity or explicit violent and gruesome war scenes - I prefer the realise of this.

The battle scenes (decades before CGI) are impressive, and the script is fine, it shows instead of tells, and the relentless rain and cramped quarters are effectively portrayed. The acting us superb from all the young men.

Odd in a way that the US should make a movie with American actors speaking English playing Germans and being so sympathetic to them in the First World War - though the German enemy is mostly the French, sometimes the 'English', never the Americans (who only joined WWI in 1917 anyway).

So glad I watched this - I shall soon watch the new version, in German, and compare.

5 stars. Watch it and make your kids watch it too..

Ted Bundy's life and crimes have been covered in so many films, maybe 10 or so, the latest being NO MAN OF GOD.

I suppose his good looks and charm make it so - how he attracted so many young women - he admitted to killing 30 but there were probably more.

This film focuses on his relationship with his girlfriends and constant denial, and how he was an arch manipulator liar.

Then it becomes a courtroom drama.

Watch to the end credits to see real-life footage.

4 stars

I expected nothing from this film - from 2016 and I had never heard of it. But OH what a joy.

First it is a slink lean mean 90 minutes - not rolls of flab on this script, as with most Hollywood movies these days, all over 2 hours some 2 hours and a half.

Secondly, the script, scenario and acting is SO convincing, it could be now - there are clear parallels. But this is 1976, in the last French colony of Djibouti (independent the next year).

It reminded me in a way of the 1964 British classic ZULU - which made a star of Michael Caine. Maybe it is the massive battle at the end? And I must admit it was an absolute joy to see what happened to the hijackers (no spoilers). I was almost cheering!

The tension is high and not sugar-coated either, with dilemmas and jeopardy aplenty. Gallows humour of the snipers works too.

No idea how close to the truth the story is, but who cares? Like RAID ON ENTEBBE 1977 film, it shows what a basketcase Africa was then and is now.

Just some background information. Britain had Somaliland in its empire - a peaceful well-run place north of Somalia. The Italians had Somalia proper. And of course then the KGB and communists and now, China has its tentacles extended on all mineral and landrights of Africa with their amoral empire. Sadly, things are much worse now than in 1976.

Highly recommended, 4.5 stars rounded up., A HIDDEN GEM.

OK so this film is way too long - the sort of extended pretentious leftwing political film which always does well at Cannes and with European film critics - it is VERY European in that. It is not as bad as the awful THE SQUARE by the same director though, and has some fun scenes.

Watch the same director's PLAY - a great film on modern European cities and bullying of boys, with ethnic issues confronted.

This satire is clunky - SO obvious. Satirise the super-rich, idealise the downtrodden workers etc. The story is just not believable at all esp the end section.

This could perhaps have made a half-decent one hour TV drama - just cut and slice away all the flab, and there is plenty here. So much that could be jettisoned.

It would have been 3 stars had it not gone on with the final part which is just not credible. No spoilers.

2 stars

It would be great to watch this with the wonderful 1969 Battle of Britain film, which is superb.

This may be a bit dated but is also a superb film, the like of which we shall not see again.

This is one of those 'meta' or post-modern tricksy films with actors playing themselves - it's been happening a lot lately, and with radio drama. Older films too like Being John Malkovich.

The problem is these movies always think they are more funny and clever than they actually are. All a bit of a self-referential in-joke which the insiders find hilarious but which bores the pants off evenyone else.

It is watchable yes, but beyond irritating too as actors ham it up in a knowing way (funny for about 5 minutes).

And so forgettable. I watched another film after this and then tried to remember how this movie had ended, and couldn't. It is that unmemorable.

So 2 stars

I was not sure whether to give this 3 stars so gave it 3.5 stars rounded up. Some parts of this movie are so annoying and the end was MEH for me (No spoilers). The start was also annoying. BUT some excellent scenes in between, and I like Paul Dano as an actor and Daniel Radcliffe does well too.

I am totally amazed that new film makers seemingly with no experience could get an oddball film like this made with those top stars. How they do that then? Usually film makers who achieve that are seriously loaded and well-connected to start with.

Not as original as some may thing - it's basically Robinson Crusoe with the scatalogical humour of Swift and much British black comedy. Having a dead body in the cast is not original either. Remember Psycho? Plenty of British theatre plays also used this comic device. Farting gags are nothing new either. All a bit cartoon character really.

I only watched this as the next movie of these film makers scooped loads of Oscars though I doubt I shall like it very much. I suspect I shall prefer this.

BUT ANYWAY nice to see original films based on original screenplays getting made - that is a very rare thing now that all movies are based on Marvel characters or computer games or old books or feature real-life stories of well-known historical characters (kings, queen,s Churchill, Thatcher, presidents etc etc etc). Pre-branded content is king in Hollywood which gets less original and watchable by the day.

4 stars. JUST

OK so this film is keen to point out at the end that it is BASED on a true story, and is 'one truth of many' etc. Possibly legal reasons for that. But then there are always at least two sides to every story.

For me, this sort of thing is far better dealt with in a TV documentary or a drama-documentary. There are decent scenes here and characters, with the required plot structure and character arcs etc.

Much of the film involves young people hiding from 'the shooter' who is only ever shown as a dark figure and not named in the credits. Obscene as it may seem, the most interesting character in such an awful tragic tale and in any mass murder case IS the killer - no way of getting away from that, ever. Hence the fascination of movies and TV etc with serial killers, real or imagined, their motivations and twisted minds.

So for me, it was a half-hour film which dragged on - dramatically speaking. I'd prefer to watch a TV drama-doc on this, to be honest. though, the Oslo bombing real-life footage is shown - that happened on the same day.

So 3 stars

I could only bear a few minutes of this - it's basically a Chinese nationalist propaganda film. JUST propaganda.

Remember, in the Korean war, the Chinese were fighting for what is now North Korea - where people starve to death and live under a Stalinist regime.

There were British soldiers, Americans as well as Koreans fighting the Chinese AND SO we now have a place called SOUTH Korea.

The Chinese 'heroes' here ensured half of Korea would be under communism.

North and South Korea - compare and contrast.

This film is SO 'by numbers' with 'how to write a screenplay. SO by the book it could be in a (burning) library (with a child to save and 2 baddies after it). It could be in a join the dots book.

SO start with goodies and baddies, character arcs, and increase the jeopardy again and again and again, to really absurd levels. I was almost expecting an iceberrg or an asteroid to come along to increase the jeopardy further (as copyrighted in every screenplay book EVER). ALL mapped out carefully and neatly - and therein lies the problem. It is a like a CHAT GBT screenplay - with no real inspiration or heart.

Having said that, it is a decent watch - Aiden Gillen is always great as is Nicholas Hoult. I can do without the tickbox casting and good old boy country music firefighter crew stuff. Angelica Jolie annoys me more than any forest fire could.

And the effects and great and it is not too long.

SO 3 stars.

I enjoyed this film despite its flaws - the sheer stereotyped repressed Englishness, for a start; then the attempts to diversify the story, regarding ethnicity; and of course the usual required focus on female stories. As such it reminded me a lot of DARKEST HOUR, in its cinematography, music and tone.

BUT I mostly liked it. I now want to try and watch the 1952 Japanese film on which it is based.

Kazua Ishiguro the British Japanese author (and former social worker) wrote REMAINS OF THE DAY, and so clearly likes that sort of stifled English male repression BUT it is a stereotype nonetheless, and a racial one which would not be accepted for other races or nationalities.

I am not sure I believe County Hall was like that in 1953 either - it is, rather, a version of quaint old-fashioned Englishness that the world WANTS to see.. And was there REALLY a Mr Singh working there then?

As for the seaside scenes - deliberately added to daub a splash of ethno-colour contrast on the austere post-war monochrome England of 1953. Do I believe such a man would have reacted that way? Not sure. As I said, I have to watch the 1952 Japanese film on which it is based to see what has been added here.

There are some obtuse scenes, which are confusing, with a man in a moustache and flashbacks. BUT then when one realises the director usually makes movies with a gay theme (like the excellent MOFFIE), it all makes sense. Maybe.

Too long, of course, and drags at the end a tad, but watchable so 4 stars.

This is directed by Edward Norton who stars - never a good sign. Based on a novel. Maybe that is why it is rather meandering and convoluted.

As most modern movies seem to do, it lingers on racial injustice - the problem with that is these films tend to show a rather romantic portrayal of all black people, making tjem rather two-dimensional, and which could be called as racist as demonising such people.

Anyway, this movie is way too long - I was clock-watching throughout.

It reminds me a bit of TV series MONK about a detective with OCD from years ago. The private eye suffering from never-named Tourette's syndrome reminded me of several other neuro-diverse main characters - this seems very on-trend now together with transgender leads. i supppose they must have run out of races to celebrate...

Worth watching for the late great Michael K Williams, in one of his last roles, playing a louche troubled jazz musician - anything with him in is worth a watch.

Was going to be 3 stars but the preachy woke lectures esp in the second half, and rather clunky points made that 'racism is bad' (no, really?) and cartoon character racists portrayed tested my patience.

I liked the music and the early 1950s decor etc. And the memories of the 1920s and WWI again, a bit like the recent Amsterdam, which shares many of the same flaws.

I had great hopes for this movie BUT it was just annoyingly awful on so many levels, For a start, it was obviously very expensive and self-indulgent David O Russell movie - like the awful Wes Anderson, I am not a big fan of his films.

Worse, this is preachy woke sermonising - TELLING the audience what to think and how wrong certain views are - that is preaching. SHOW DON'T TELL. First rule of storytelling.

Too may characters in this meandering mess of a movie. Top star cast, yes.

I also worry that those watching this film will believe lots of black Americans fought in the First World War, FOR A START, the USA was 2 years late to that war as it was to The Second World War. But more than that, the USA armed forces like the nation had strict segregation - so there were black units, but there were not mixed ones,. AND in both world wars, African american soldiers were often put in auxiliary units or medical ones well away from the front lines. In a way, racism saved many black American lives that way! By the time of Viet Name, racial segregation in the US armed forces had ended, so many more black soldiers died in action.

Overall, black soldiers accounted for 773 of the 52,947 battlefield deaths sustained by USA in France during WWI, less than 2 percent of all battlefield fatalities.

The UK armed forces never ever had racial segregation BUT THEN the UK had very few black people , only 6000 in a population of 44 million at the start of WWII.

These are the facts,. It is a great shame this film is not acquainted with them and instead prefers t manufacture a fake and dishonest new truth of history. WHY DO THAT? It is a worry to think people watching this film will now believe what it shows, that the USA in WWI had loads of black soldiers fighting and dying - it simply is not true. the Navu and MArines banned blacks completely too.

There is a great movie to be made one day about the BUND, the German American pro-Nazi movement popular in the 1930s and supported by the likes of Lindbergh and Henry Ford, This is not it.

I just cannot abide the preachy woke worthy tone of so many modern movies like this - it's patronising propaganda really.

2 stars,. Just. Almost 1 star.

My advice: rent the 1972 version of The Stepford Wives or read the excellent novella by Ira Levin (who also wrote Hitler clone thriller The Boys from Brazil, Deathtrap, Rosemary';s Baby too). The story back then was new and radical.

Now, it is not new or radical at all - it is cliched, orthodox, conventional manblaming metoo femicinema - which this female director seems to be riding the bandawgon coat tails of.

My test is always asking if the equal and opposite would seem sexist or racist of whatever. WELL if we had a mvoie where a man called his wife a 'stupid stupid woman' then killed her, I suspect the same metoo activists who applaud sexist propaganda like this would scream SEXISM! and MISOGYNY. Yep, so this is MISANDRY then.

It starts relatively well, obviously all fake so one expects a Stepford Wives or Westworld trajectory or character arcs and story. Then we get Avatar-style explanations of what we have seen. By the half way point I was rolling my eyes and by the last act this was like Dr Who on a bad day.

It is not clever or radical or revolutionary. It is not 1989's Thelma and Louise of The Stepford Wives of 1972. It is actually all deeply manhating and is just metoo propaganda to have a go at all men really. I cannot believe most women are so dim and simplistic that this is what they want to watch. They do not judging by the awful losses most metoo movies make, as people stay away from cinemas in their droves - and this was before the lockdowns.

A deeply annoying film. In fact, if there is an Oscar for being annoying and hypocritical and sexist, I think this movie should win all there.

The director also stars in it, which marks this out as a pure vanity piece which was funded to tick the diversity and equality boxes. No wonder cinema receipts are plummeting with this sort of thing on offer.

On the plus side, it looks pretty and there is some decent old music, making the 1950s vibe complete - as if that decade was evil or something (most kids in those days had 2 parents at home and the epidemic of obesity and mental disorders in children was not present ins the apparently awful 1950s...)

2 stars. JUST

This biopic is based on truth; as ever, however, one wonders how true it all is. Some of it is, no doubt, and the main characters are real.

It's a fascinating story set in Rome under German Nazi rule - and how an Irish priest helped partisans and allied prisoners of war escape to safety.

Gregory peck was a great actor, Boys from Brazil, The Omen etc. AND John Gielgud here aged nearly 80 plays the pope (he died aged 96 and worked to the end).

The relationship between the catholic church and indeed ireland with the Nazis is complex. Many Nazis were catholics and after the war the church and priests ran the ratlines which helped nazi war criminals escape from genoa to south america. However, some priests were anti-Nazi. The only head of state in the world to sign the book of condolence for Hitler was the Irish one - because there is no such thing as a neutral country in WWII, not really. Some irish were spies for the Nazis, esp the upper class ones who had cut glass English publil school accents. Some Irish fought with Britain. The latter has been explored in film more than the former.

And of course the historic abuses of priests in Ireland and elsewhere is ignored - this film was made when people and Catholics still looked up to priests and the church unthinkingly.

One final point: no Christians were thrown to the lions at the Colosseum in Rome, ever. No historical evidence at all. I have visited the place twice and researched its history in detail. Criminals were killed yes, and some may have been Christians. BUT there was no mass slaughter ort Christians thrown to lions, as stated here.

The real history is fascinating - the SS man Kappler was spared the noose for his mass murder and spent over 30 years in prison, escaping when suffering from cancer to die in Germany after 6 months of freedom (he was so thin and small, his wife carried him out of hospital in a suitcase to escape).

Anyway, interesting and watchable. 4 stars.