Film Reviews by PV

OK so full reveal, I disliked the original 1987 PREDATOR film - I thought it was silly. And the creature is basically a bloke in a suit, and still is, despite the modern CGI.

But what gets me with this film is the femitwerpy - YET AGAIN we have a superhero perfect lead actress and most men are shown as useless and clueless at best, and often as BAD through and through, racist, amoral etc. The only good males are the ones who defer to the superior females.

So many movies like this now - it's a real cliche, a stereotype now. IT'S BORING! So tiresome and predictable, and box office ratings have olummeted too, with most #MeToo movies losing many millions. People do not like to be preached at with woke sermons and lectured in movies, WHO KNEW?

When oh when will we ever see again a feature film or TV drama with a male hero to inspire boys - as these VERY political #metoo propaganda films are designed to inspire girls (made obvious at the end, no spoilers)

FACT CHECK: there were NO female braves in the very basic, brutal, primitive tribal native American cultures (actually not native, immigrants 30,000 years before Europeans who gave them horses, guns, tech, modernity etc and the bad stuff). None. Not a one. It was a Stone Age society, so the role of females was to get a high status man as soon a s puberty hit, then have babies and bring them up, which is why women and girls were in the cave/camp doing domestic tasks.

So this is ALL a femi-fantasy. The irony is JUST LIKE with Wonderwoman, it's created by a man and written and directed by men, white men too!

Romanticising these cultures is arguably racist - it's all like a Michael Jackson video. These native tribes had tribal wars, slavery, raided each other to steal females to make them pregnant to make more babies, killed any disabled or mixed race babies and more. The 'Red Indian' culture has had a massive influence on Europe and 'white America' over the last 200+ years, and I love it too, Sitting Bull etc. BUT we need to see the reality.

Here the natives all have clear skin and perfect American style teeth - it's about as realistic as Star Trek.

BUT it's not overlong, and the 'plants' are there for later plot points, all ducks in a row. And I liked the French buffalo hunters and did understand the French with subtitles (there is no English subs for general audiences, many of whom may be unable to read without moving their lips in any language).

But it is what it is, with decent pacing and structure. odd however that they follow 'authentic casting' here with those with Native names and at least some 'Comanche' blood starring. BUT why no colourblind casting here though? AND THAT is the woke hypocrisy of all of this.

3 stars. Just. 2 maybe - but I like the dog and the landscape and the 'native' American folklore and feathers etc.

The first series of TRUE DETECTIVE was sublime. Then there was a dire decline in Series 2 and 3. This pulls it back - a bit - yet with so many tickbox issues going on, the story gets lost in the muddy-rainbow native waters...

Honestly, so many woke boxes are ticked the diversity compliance form must have run to several pages - #metoo stuff (yet again all main/good characters are female, and most of colour) global warming, indigenous rights, LGBTQ issues etc. Fine to have such issues but NOT in such a preachy sermonising way, as if the purpose of a feature film is to EDUCATE the audience to THINK CORRECTLY. Nope, TELLING A GOOD STORY WELL is the only rule in fiction, as Dickens did, while including social issues etc. Learn from him.

The EXTRAS admit this, the writer/director (female, Hispanic) making her #metoo intentions clear here, as others the 'native' inuit theme clear too. Sadly, this is real romanticism of 'native' cultures and the throat-singing and other stuff is a real mishmash of many 'native' cultures (earlier immigrants to the Americas anyway so NOT 'native'). Lots of opinions about how somehow 'indigenous people are connected to the land and their ancestors there and future generations'. Yep, can say the same about the British or French or anyone. The glazed-eyed romatisiation of what could be very brutal Stone Age cultures is silly because it is not based on truth. Lots of nonsense here about 'my truth' etc. I would LOVE to see these cultures portrayed as they were - and are. Very brutal harsh Stone Age tribal cultures in the past; now social issues and alcoholism dominates. It is as racist to romantise them as it is to demonise them surely?

And why is there an obsession with socalled 'authentic casting' whenever any character with a skin pigment is cast, yet when it comes to white characters even real people, the demand is the polar opposite, for colourblind casting. BRAZEN HYPOCRISY. So inconsistent, and it will be unless and until we see Ed Sheeran play Nelson Mandela strumming his little guitar singing his ditties on his long walk to freedom, Colourblind casting, right there. IT IS ALL SUCH HYPOCRITICAL NONSENSE.

Of course we have the magical mystical woowoo, as expected with anything connected with 'native' cultures - it's a real stereotype. And this mirrors the X-files with the sceptical boss and the believing 'native in denial' deputy. Crazy plot - in NOW WAY would cops get away with what they do, even in this dark wintery outpost.

Of course, the baddies are all men. Same old same old, and white men too. The occasional token white man who defers to the women and is therefore GOOD. Yawn.

BUT I like snow and ice, and the whole 'native' culture thing as a backdrop. Decent music too.

Jodie Foster is great as ever but not a disadvantaged female as an actor - from a very wealthy family, Ditto the fine young actor Finn Bennett, son of an Irish film director/producer/writer. . I am not sure I believe some of the characters or plot points though and probably it could all be done in 4 episodes, as it did drag and stall a bit in the second half, before those hand-break turn plot points (no spoilers).

Christopher Eccleston looking old (well he is 60-ish though not sure we need to see his bare bum or have a sex scene - NO SPOILERS) and he does a decent Alaska accent though for some reason his character vanishes in the last 2 parts of this 6-parter (maybe he had a reboot Dr Who reunion?)

3.5 stars rounded up. Almost a 3 star.

The first thing to say about this film is that it is NOT - repeat NOT - an original idea (as some critics think). If you read the Beano from the 1970s you'll see a cartoon strip in there called the Numbskulls about little men in a boy's head controlling and managing his actions and emotions.

The first INSIDE OUT film was great, 4 stars from me. THIS is very girly, woke, twee, slushy nonsense. AND only ONE WHITE MALE character in the whole movie, a hapless clueless primary school teacher. Some might call that racist and sexist. Imagine the opposite - a film with no women (Lawrence of Arabia is one - it could never be made now, they';d invent some female characters and love triangle tosh and have characters of colour harping on about waycism and how awful the British and white people are).

WILL WE EVER see again such a film with a white male lead? Thing is, all these metoo movies with female focus lose money at the box office big time...

This lame, irritating and tooth-rottingly saccharine slushy twee sequel wallows in a big wet bubble of American psychobabble therapy culture, where children are worshipped and overprotected, and where group-hug-itis is seen as the cure for everything. Emotions and feelings are now seen as the pinnacle of human existence, rather than achievements or 'doing'.

This is colourful stuff, the usual excellent CGI, but too many characters and a plot so complex that I almost gave up - so I very much doubt pre-teen kids will be able to follow it and teens will probably give up too, just let the colourful ride burst over them from the screen without much clue what is going on. Like puberty...

I did like the new character ENNUI, that made me laugh. The rest, not so much. And I find all the girliness annoying, though female bulling s THE worst, so snide, all about exclusion and spreading false rumour, girls the main victims of it. Boys are simple by comparison - if a boy dislikes another boy they avoid each other or occasionally it's fisticuffs. No snide side to it, as with the twisted malicious nasty girl bullying that happens. This movie shows a VERY mild version of it.

In a word - boring. I another, forgettable. In a third, over-complicated. It is what it is. 2 stars.

One word for this film: SUPERB. Amazingly I had not watched it all until recently, and I know Sheffield well from late 80s/90s so recognise some locations. The accents took me right back.

Written by Barry Hines (1939-2016) still most famous as the author of KES, and the book A KESTREL FOR A KNAVE. He often worked with Ken Loach.

It could be called shocking. Depends on the viewer really. Images of nuclear war then the aftermath, intercut with documentary-style voiceover with facts and figures. truly scary, esp in 1984 - a year after the USSR apparently almost accidentally fired a nuclear missile at the UK when their computers went wrong and told them they were being attacked. IT fails can cause this stuff which is even more scary, when one thinks how huge companies and banks have IT fails and how hacking happens so much.

Very timely, the fictional war here all starts around IRAN. In the news now as the cause of attacks on Israel, funding Hamas and Hezbollah too, and firing rockets at Israel AND Iran is trying to become a nuclear power and make bombs. Scary.

Imaginative too though not the first fiction to see the past in the future, a return to the Middle Ages when the power runs out or a pandemic kills everyone.

I think everyone should watch this, even though the USSR does not exist any more - they still have nuclear bombs as does China and Pakistan/India who could go to war, and Uk and France, and Israel - with Iran trying to get them (must be stopped really).

The director Mick Jackson (born 1943) started his feature film career with this, having previously made documentaries (which shows in Threads, why it is newsy and authentic-looking) then went on to make Hollywood movies like VOLCANO, LA STORY and THE BODYGUARD.

A must-see. 5 stars

SO if you like LONG films about fantasy heists for millions of dollars (what, no ink to explode later?) with loads of car chases and crashes, and shooting - then this is the big boy action movie for you!

The plot is basically this: rob a bank, police come, Shooting shooting shooting, endless car chases, shooting shooting shooting - but without the stylish intelligence or dramatic tension of Breaking Bad's shoot-outs. If you hate that sort of boys' action film you'll hate it.

I think the director Michael Bay specialises in this sort of thing, so a name to look out for - and avoid, if you hate such movies.

As an action movie, it does the job, with interesting direction and shots but WAY TOO LONG. No reason for this movie to be over 90 minutes.

Just cut the pc woke nonsense that the two main characters, one white one black, are brothers for a start.

Those looking for more intelligent ambulance-based films should watch The Death of Mr. Lazarescu (Moartea domnului Lazarescu) is a 2005 Romanian dark comedy film about an old man carried by an ambulance from hospital to hospital all night long, as doctors keep refusing to treat him and send him away.

AMBULANCE gets 2.5 stars - JUST. Rounded up.

Sadly, it seems more and more Hollywood movies are remakes, reboots, unoriginal, and that continues here.

I detest preachy woke propaganda sermonising as in so many new Hollywood movies BUT I did not find it too bad and just rolled it away with my eyes when it appeared.

I liked the shadow play imagery and the art theme in general.

Some bonkers plotting and barely credible mixing of reality and mystical woowoo.

Also just to point out, the idea of summoning someone by repeating their name in a mirror is actually common in European folklore of several countries regarding several mythical mystical ghostly figures - so in a way, this is cultural appropriation. Especially as modern mirrors are a European invention too (ancient China has polished bronze).

A passable horror film remake.

I liked the film MARGIN CALL probably the best movie about how Wall Street financiers exploit people - or 'dumb money', their name for individual investors.

The main character here is portrayed as some sort of social justice warrior - in fact he was and is an investor, started trading again 2024, worth $250 million owning stock of GAMESTOP and now a pet food company, Hardly a working class hero.

And this film with its rap soundtrack reminds me why I hate most rap - how American music has declined since the 60s, when there were such great black artists and songs.

It is what it is, but I enjoyed it even without any prior knowledge of GAMESTOP.

4 stars

No idea why this is categorised as gay and lesbian movie. It is not. It's a bittersweet coming of age film mostly about betrayal.

Great acting from the young lead who reminds me a bit of the actor who played OLIVER in the 1968 film musical, Mark Lester. A really superb performance - and the actor's only one. Also the writer-director's only movie, which suggests this is autobiographical.

For non-Mexican audiences it shows the stark social class differences in that society (and ALL countries have a class system). The boy's from a posh land-owning family with as many servants as they have mental health/addiction issues.

It ends a tad abruptly maybe (NO SPOILERS) though I can see why.

4 stars.

Little Richard was great! That is enough. No need for racially-motivated claims he 'invented' rock n roll etc. It was a joint effort. As Howard Goodall has also shown, the roots of blues were not black, rather European - British folk music + British church music with added African influence from some drums (Europeans also had drums of course!) and the banjo etc.

The great weakness of this documentary is its political confirmation bias, in thrall to what I see as quite racist divisive theories, as promoted by BLM and black power in the USA for decades - understandably maybe, as they had slavery and race laws and segregation - the UK never had any of that. The Normans banned slavery in 11th Century and the UK never ever had race laws and had VERY few non 'white' people, only 6000 blacks in UK in 1939 out of 44 million population for example. The UK is not the USA, esp the Deep South.

So we get the usual social studies persons waffling about race pride and queer pride too - very divisive as it arguably is in the USA still.

Music has NO colour. I hate the expression 'black music'. The typical American way of claiming something as BLACK is annoying and in a word racist - to these British ears anyway.

No, Little Richard did not invent rock n roll. Many did - it was a movement which grew from what came before, and many songs recorded by artists were from 1920s and 30s, such as AT LAST and TRY A LITTLE TENDERNESS. Teenagers (a word invented by an ad agency in 1948 though teen-age was much older, from 1900) were the new consumers, recording tech and instruments were there and cinema and radio and TV (one could call them 'white' inventions...). The music travelled to the UK, London and Liverpool, and Richard toured Britain in 1963 with the Rolling Stones supporting - Jagger watched Little Richard 30 times from the side of the stage and learnt from him.

The Beatles too loved him, but as Ringo Starr did not join them until late 1963, the use of a photo with him claiming he was with them when they met Richard in Hamburg early 62 is wrong - the drummer then was Pete Best.

Anyway, GREAT music and still so vital, and this film reveals what I already knew - the lewd sexual lyrics of the original Tutti Fruiti. The gayness or not of Richard who did marry late 50s and had at least one other girlfriend is fascinatingly flamboyant! Yes, Richard was inconsistent and maybe hypocritical - because he was human. I hate the way people want to claim him for their team whether TEAM BLACK or TEAM QUEER. Just listen to the music, watch the archive clips of his performances and ENJOY IT.

Though the claim only black artists were ripped off is NONSENSE. All artists were ripped off - the Stones were broke at the end of the 1960s; watch the 2022 ELVIS film to see how he was ripped off. Queen made nothing from their first 3 albums. The Beatles first contract gave all 4 a farthing per record sale between them AND they lost the rights to the songs they wrote (later bought by Michael Jackson who sold em to Sony, why we hear Beatles songs on adverts these days - they earn loads).

So a flawed documentary made by a black film maker wanting to promote a certain racial opinion which I find divisive.

Little Richard was first and foremost a great and influential songwriter, singer, artist and performer - one of several who originated rock and roll in the 1950s.

But without that, the life story of Richard Penniman is superb - his influences, two black male singers especially, both gay, with big hair and that pencil moustache. The swaying of Richard between rock n roll and the church is fascinating, as he quits music several times, first time 1959 to study theology. But he needs money so goes back to the stage.

3.5 stars rounded up. A shame the race politics spoil what could have been a superb documentary.

This film is brilliant. The way some reviewers criticise it for being 'too depressing' is truly bizarre - do these people only watch pink fluffy slushy films, Wonder Woman and Trolls? Maybe. If so, I think that's as sad as it is absurd - read some great literature. It's often depressing, sad, moving and about the human condition. Most Shakespeare is full of death and tragedy after all. Drama is meant to be sad and upsetting - to MOVE the reader/viewer. It should.

Anyway, I loved this as much as I hated the writer/directors last film JUST JIM (gave that 1 star). Mental illness on screen is often tricky. 'Typist Artist Pirate King' (2022) also does it well based on a true story, a real person. This by contrast is pure fiction. The way neighbours shun the individuals suffering mental illness is bang on, in my experience of knowing people who suffer with it. Shameful really.

The way the film portrayed the mental illness esp the hearing of voices is very clever, using phones, radio, more. It makes it all visually and aurally interesting. Great music too.

The cast is great - superb veteran actor Bob Pugh as the long-suffering husband and father; and of course the great David Thewlis fresh from this brilliantly repulsive turn in FARGO series 3; Billie Piper's malicious spoilt sister is utterly believable too. All the cast are great. I often dislike Sally Hawkins but she is perfectly cast here. The writing is spot-on too, esp in the first half.

It's not perfect - it meanders towards the end and just adds too many characters and plot strands (no need for the pretty sister to get an older boyfriend - extraneous character who should have been cut, he adds nothing).

Also, to manblame in a Miss Haversham way that being dumped at the altar caused the mental illness is dramatically neat but actually a cheap shot - mental illness of this severity (schizophrenia, delusions, psychosis, hearing voices etc) is often genetic and triggered by drug-taking (heavy cannabis/skunk usage) - that is what I have seen anyway. Though true, the horrendous mother character here no doubt helped though the other 2 sisters are unaffected which suggests a genetic cause.

Odd, but I have never ever heard the expression IN MY OILS meaning IN MY ELEMENT, not in Wales or England!

One of the best films ever made about mental illness and its effects on others.

4 stars. A great watch.

I was surprised how much I liked this.

The first A QUIET PLACE film was original but so riddled with plot holes it was annoying; the sequel was dreadful; I have not watched part 3.

This genuinely surprised me in how much I liked it and was occasionally moved by it too, especially at the start.

Yes, there are CGI computer-game-style monsters which bore me as CLOVERFIELD did too - not real, like dinosaurs were (even though movies show very fictionalised versions of the truth; in reality, a T-Rex could not roar or run! No matter...)

Amazing this was films at UK studios and in London, nowhere near New York. I think they filmed at Canary Wharf and the river is the Thames!

Another British connection. The song FEELING GOOD was written by Brits. Anthony Newley (who did the music and was David Bowie's biggest influence) and Leslie Bricusse (did lyrics) for the musical The Roar of the Greasepaint – The Smell of the Crowd. It was first performed on stage in 1964. They also wrote the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory musical as in the early 1970s US movie, incl the IMAGINATION film, and they also wrote the lyrics to the Bond film GOLDFINGER. Nina Simone did not write that much.

The main character actress - Star Wars and Wakanda star - puts on her usual emote face, but does it effectively. A bit tiresome the white male (Brit, from Kent!) is shown as weak and needing the support of a woman (and one of colour). They'll be dancing in the streets of metoo BLM diversity department town tonight! LOL! Because these days, a woman can never ever cry or be weak in films or need the help of a man (as happens so regularly in real life...)

Oh and I LOVED the cat - or cats, as 2 VERY obedient cats play the role (no cat I have ever known would take orders!). Not sure it's a great idea to walk a cat on a lead through a city, where dogs get walked, but...

I loved this. Unusual drama set in 1402, not long after the vain and brittle Richard II had been deposed by Henry Bolingbroke - Henry IV, the first monarch whose first language was English not French. This is factored in here with a visit from the English court.

Lots of machinations and sly manoeuvring by all interested parties, royal and otherwise. Interesting history, wonderfully filmed in various languages. The foundation of Scandinavia indeed. My advice is CONCENTRATE as the goings-on and shifting loyalties could be confusing if you miss a bit (I rewound to reread subtitles several times).

There are other imposter dramas - and this is largely fiction though based on a real case (which I had never heard of before). Reminds me of Perkin Warbeck who in late 15th C claimed to be the rightful king of England (he wasn't).

The actress playing the devious, self-serving queen is superb and actor playing ERIK is great as well, so I shall try and watch other films Morten Hee Andersen has appeared in.

4 stars.

Not sure how close to the truth this is. But fascinating and timely.

My advice - PAY CLOSE ATTENTION because it is hard to work out which side various soldiers are on at times.

Watch right till the end. NO SPOILERS. Right to the very end and the credits too.

A tad confusing and overlong, but watchable. And the cracker reveal at the end is great (NO SPOILERS) but I am unsure if that is based on truth or is fiction.

Those not familiar with Ukraine history might like to watch MR JONES or THE OCCUPATION to learn more before watching this. Like most mainland European countries, borders and populations have changed over the centuries, the cause of so many wars. We in Britain are luckily an island, and left that tribal stuff behind with Alfred the Great in 900 AD or soon thereafter when England was united.

I was expecting so much more from this film. It is long and feels it, because it is unfocused, flabby and self-indulgent which makes it, in a word, boring.

It's a bit like watching someone else's holiday video of Christmas family video - fascinating for them. Tedious for everyone else and anyone not there. THAT is what it's like watching so many scenes of twenty-somethings partying, arguing, drinking, meeting their families etc,.

And then there is what is a 2-D racist caricature of a WASP lawyer from Toronto. Having lived in Canada I am aware of a giant POMME FRITE on the shoulder of some French Canadians in Quebec, and that no doubt is why this character is introduced at all. ALl completely extraneous to the plot, so no point in this character or, frankly, many others.

Very disappointing. 2 stars, just.

OK so the first thing to say is that the CGI here is superb. Only once did I see the clumsy computer-game-like movement when an ape jumps, Otherwise it is spookily real, esp the human eyes and features on the ape faces.

The plots is textbook, with the usual antagonist, allies and enemies, grand goal, jeopardy. Rather good though with lots of early plants turning up towards the end - and I loved the eagles, symbol of Ancient Rome of course... That matters here (no spoilers).

BUT and here I show my age, I remember watching the original 1968 film, on our late 70s black and white TV at first, colour later. The best PLANET OF THE APES film by far, with a superb soundtrack score too, which is echoed in the music here, those discordant bursts.

All watchable and nothing against it, though I am so weary of every single hero in Hollywood films being a 'strong independent' young woman who here is a cross between Wonderwoman and Lara Croft, so superhero is her brilliance and strength, able to physically defeat any man in a fight and also an IT tech expert (who knew?). It would really make a REAL change to see a white male hero for once in a Hollywood film...

But it's exciting, with brilliant visuals and all hangs together and makes sense, just about, though I cannot remember any of the 3 reboot APES films in detail - they may well be referenced here. And I did like the ending (no spoilers, again).

It does what it says on the tin really. You know what you're getting! So for me, 3 stars