Film Reviews by PV

This is a great fun film, vaguely reminiscent of the classic film Hobson's Choice based on the 1915 play.

It is basically a rags to riches trope, with morality, guilt and women thrown in, and social class of course - the great obsession of most British films esp comedies (until the recent import of US-style race obsession. Not progress then).

Petula Clark, famous singer of Downtown, stars here aged 20 - she is now 90 and still performing and recording.

There is also stalwart of 1950s films Wilfred Hyde-White (uncredited).

Yes, some bits are dated and owe a lot to the silent era, esp the mule scenes.

But i really enjoyed this good solid film, with morals, fun, and some great lines.

AND the CLUBCARD is mentioned - the title refers to that local shop buying scheme and also the main character, which is both likeable and unlikeable, so more three-dimensional than most main characters, even now.

4 stars

I enjoyed this, though as with Westworld and other robot stories and scifi generally,. one has to suspend one's disbelief massively.

What I liked was the context - the archaeology career of the main character who was believable, not overdone either way, not too feeble and not to 'strong and independent' as all wimminandgirl characters now are in Hollywood (a new cliche and stereotype).

The location of the famous Pergamon Museum on an island n Berlin, with the Market Gate of Miletus a backdrop to a scene..

A nice plot point I did not see coming connected to the main character's career which I did not see coming (no spoilers) but very clever and logical.

Brit actor Dan Stevens shows off his German no doubt acquired by that very expensive private school education.

It drags in the second half, so 4 stars. but it has some sublime moments., and some slick dialogue too, esp at the start. The flab appears in act 3. Some fun scenes too, though no sure I believe the sex scenes (no spoilers). It is FAR better when addressing issues of loneliness and what people want from friendships/relationships. And I liked the old father...

I liked it more than AI and much more than the tedious Ex Machina. The original Westworld movie is great as is Metropolis as a robot story. And the original Stepford Wives (1970s NOT the remakle and certainly NOT the yawnsome Don;t Worry Darling).

4 stars

I enjoyed this.

It is crude and squalid in parts, but shows what a lie the media is whether TV or online.

It follows an influencer keep fit guru - a young woman whose life is skillfully shown as not being all happy and joyful as her TikTok smartphone broadcasts show. There have been many influencers who have died young by their own hands - the obsessive attention-seeking is not that normal really.

I am not sure I believe the story arc here - but anyway, the main character is utterly believable and that carries this tragic tale.

4 stars - a decent modern Polish film.

watch REALITY a Spanish film to see how empty reality TV is too.

SO this is written and directed by the team behind the US version of THE OFFICE, just so the unlikely appearance of UK's original The Office writer Stephen Merchant makes sense.

This film is funny, in parts - certain scenes, very cartoon caper, but fun. The young actors do well, incl the lead Jacob Tremblay who 5 years before this was a tiny boy in ROOM - his parents must be coining it seeing just how many roles he has had as actor and voice for cartoons. one wonders if he ca translate that into an adult career. The ghost of the voice of Peter Pan movie from 1953 - Bobby Driscoll - still echoes...

Just to say, Grade 6 in the USA is like year 7 - first year secondary school - in the UK. Having been a boy that age, I can say interest in girls and sex etc doe snot really kick in big time until year 8, later, so the claim pre-pubertal boys get crushed on girls, cry buckets etc is very much an image of boys seen through adult writers' eyes.

SOMETIMES they get it right, though this is NOT the first film or book to use the phrase 'social piranha' which the Radio Times reviewer claimed.

No doubt some puritan US reviewers will be appalled by the sex references and se toys etc, which makes it even more fun, if rather crude.

It is OK, and I enjoyed it in parts. A shame everything has to be rap and modern R&B music though.

3 stars

OK so this started so well - the first DVD of 4 episodes. Credit to the writers, the actors too, esp the boy.

BUT then, in the second half, it all goes wrong (NO SPOILERS). Just to say that when writers decide to create unlikely coincidences to drive the plot forward, connect characters and create dramatic tension, they are scraping the barrel or, most likely, trying to stretch what should have maybe been a 6 part drama into 8 parts.

Up until that point, I;'d give this 4.5 stars; The latter half really does spoil it - my eyes were rolling so far back in my head I am surprised I could still watch it tbh. Totally unnecessary. Ditto the love interest (no spoilers). A real shame because up to then it was great.

As I know how writers think I know what they were playing at and why - and I suppose they had to stretch the story out to 8 episodes and add a required love interest BUT I SO WISH THEY HAD NOT. A real shame. I preferred the first series.

Be aware the subtitles are both American and often wrong too.

3.5 stars

OK so for a start, I hope this is not Michael Caine's last film - he is 89 years old here, yet this really is a mediocre movie.

I know Bohemia and lived a year in Prague, near ZIZKOAV the area named after this ZIZKA early 15th C hero (where the massive TV tower that can be seen from all over the city is situated - looks like a rocket ship). I know and have visited the ZIZKA monument with ZIZKA on his horse up high which I have visited. I know the statue of protestant reformer Jan Huss in Old Town Square.

SO I know a lot of the history of that region, religious and political, AND YET even I was confused! So those unfamiliar with the history must be utterly baffled!

WHY could the producers not add a short film at the start explaining the history or some text - I have seen films like that. It would make sense here.

Sadly, the usual 'strong independent women' characters are shoehorned in, absurdly knocking out big man soldiers. And some colourblind casting nonsense. not TOO bad, however. Compared to Hollywood.

It is so-so but all a bit boring and confusing. VIKINGS is a better watch as a TV drama and maybe that is what this history period needs - a quality TV drama series, not a movie trying to tick Hollywood boxes.

2.5 stars rounded up to 3 - JUST. Only just.

I rented this as I am at present watching series 3 every Saturday on TV.

It';s a superbly tense drama, at 8 episodes possible 2 episodes too long though.

And the last part was disappointing. No spoilers but I felt there was an agenda here, to excuse any female criminals or killers and manblame for all bad any such women do, as if it is all the fault of males.

JUST IMAGINE that argument reversed - all bad men do, incl murderers, is because of bad things their mothers and sisters and girlfriends and wives have done. But if we want gender equality, we have to have that womanblaming to match the manblaming yes?

Until the end I was really enjoying it, would have give 5 stars. Instead 3.5 stars rounded up to 4.

FAR better than awful BBc and ITV detective drama anyway which is all preachy woke sermonising lectures with tickbox casting and stuffed full is ishoooos. Why I much prefer foreign detective drama, from Denmark, Germany etc.

There are so many movies on Ted Bundy - one of the serial killers whose good looks, charm, friendly demeanour in court and body count - well over 30, mutilated, horribly murdered and raped - attracted macabre attention. Apparently, the way the FBI used his help in early 80s to try and profile the killer of the 'green river murders' (mentioned here) was the basis for the Thomas Harris novel SILENCE OF THE LAMBS.

It is well written and acted, focuses on psychology, with the actor playing Bundy scarily believable. The focus is on he emerging FBI Profiling unit. Read the info at the end to learn about the main character psychologist interviewer.

Worth watching with other Bundy films like Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile (2019) which focuses on the trial and Bundy's capture and his girlfriends.

Some may object to the focus on the murderer rather than his victims - but that is the way it is. People are and have always been fascinated by monsters and baddies in general, from the devil and mephistopheles on. Jack the ripper too (who may not even have existed - mass hysteria seems a valid explanation), and also the clown killed Gacy who inspired the Stephen King novel IT.

Worth also realising that, as any police officer will tell you, most murder victims are males (75%+) and it is FAR easier for them to get media interest in a missing or murdered female, esp a young pretty one, than ANY murdered or missing man - now THAT is sexism. But it is the way it is, and taps into our dep instincts to protect the women of our tribe probably.

A decent film, if a bit disturbing sometimes. 4 stars

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