Film Reviews by PV

I enjoyed this. Yes, it treads a well-worm post-MeToo feminist revenge porn path, true. However, it does so with style, poise and panache.

It stars better than it ends and is so unbelievable as it morphs into somesort of gallic desert Wonder Woman shtick which is unintentionally hilarious at times.

I Iiked the unusual setting and close-ups of Nature etc. Plus the dreemy truppy bits.

Suspend your disbelief and enjoy the ride.

3.5 stars rounded up

OK so this film is entertaining to watch though sometimes a tad gruesome, which is why it has 3 stars.

I found it funny at times, esp some of the madder female characters who demand ops.

Not so sure re the revenge theme; I always play the equal-and-opposite game at such times - I wonder what feminists would make of a male surgeon doing this stuff to the same deluded self-obsessed women.

A nice touch was the real-life people with split tongues, horns and the rest, doing cameos. All a bit weird and disturbing but original hence the 3 stars not 2.

I enjoyed this - a neat cheap horror flick. It obviously panders to the present craze for MeToo movies with mostly feamle main characters but unlike so many of those tedious preachy flops, this film is actually entertaining.

'Set in the future' is often an alarm bell for such films. However, here it sort of works, weirdly.

The movie has pace too and is entertaining. As a metaphor for those being pursued in the woke witch hunts of now, this is like The Crucible of the McCarthy era.

The classic movie reference is fun but the film loses momentum after the excellent beginning first act. By the 3rd act, it's running out of petrol, for sure.

But better than most horrors. Why 4 stars.

OK so this film has a stellar cast - of voices.

It is essentially a puppet movie and the extras on the DVD shows how it was filmed. I did like the puppets, esp Goebbels.

One wonders how new film makers got the funds and the names.

It is not nearly as clever as it thinks it is, however, and not in the same league as TEAM AMERICA: WORLD POLICE.

The plot is daft and occasionally funny - but peters out rather towards the end which flops. Maybe it's a wish fulfilment fantasy from the writer/directors (who have Scot Land names). And of course, in real life Hadrian's wall is in England and was never a border between Scotland and England. In real history.

And what accent is Ewan McGregor doing? West country via Scot Land?

Some smutty humour does not save it, and some very metropolitan elite superior claims of the people being little Englanders are trite, pompous and inaccurate.

One wonders if wokeness would allow this to be made now too, especially with the Punjab regiment. and associated jokes.

BUT watchable. And mercifully not too long. 3 stars.

Well what to say about this. Great music, yes - though one objection. In the credits DECK THE HALLS (sic) is credited to Thomas Oliphant 19th C musician. BUT the tune is traditional Welsh, as WIki says: "Deck the Halls" (originally titled "Deck the Hall") is a traditional Christmas carol. The melody is Welsh, dating back to the sixteenth century,[1] and belongs to a winter carol, "Nos Galan", while the English lyrics, written by the Scottish musician Thomas Oliphant, date to 1862.'

Anyway, this is really aimed square at women and teenage girls - it's a child's film really. One could call it 'emotional pornography' like Mills and Boon or romantic TV drama (Bridgerton et all). Romantic interest fantasy.

The plot is very slushy, icky and odd. I found the litterless London hilarious and the lack of crime too. And btw half of homeless people in London have homes - in Eastern Europe, and yet all homeless people here are stereotype tramps with trousers held up with string. It's panto time!

Clearly made to appeal to the Chinese market, though what these conservative viewers make of the irritating main character's behaviour, I do not know.

The first series of True Detective was utterly superb - strong, believable characters and wonderfully written with lean efficiency and sharp focus.

By contract, this second series is flabby, confused and confusing, with a real lack of clarity and focus - why is this? Well there is no hypnotically strong character as Matthew M was in series one with his well-contrasted partner Woody H.

Instead we have a fragmented story and lone characters and cartoon character baddies with little in common with each other whose lives occasionally randomly interact. I suspect a real effort has been made for create main female characters and this seems very forced, as some just take up screen time for no real reason.

I let this all wash off me and made the effort to watch all episodes, but it did not grab me and I really was not sure what was going on at many points. The action sequences and violence are well done, at least.

Even the music is not up to the standard of series 1. What a shame.

2 stars

OK so I have not watched all the Mission Impossible films before this one, loads of them by the looks of it, but thought I'd watch this as critics seem to all give it 5/5 stars. I can only assume they were well wined and dined by the producers and the film studio!

This is OK. A so-so action film with some exciting action sequences and car/plane/helicopter chases in some spectacular scenery.

The problem is that half the time I had not a clue what was going on plot-wise and that means I very much doubt the average 12 year old will have a clue either - they will just like the glossy action, and fighting scenes. Fair enough.

I let this flow over me, like a glossy high-end action movie wave. I have seen worse. But ultimately forgettable.

I preferred INFERNO based on Dan Brown's book tbh.

3 stars

This 1978 3-parter may be a bit dated but it is a great watch. Classy cast incl Kenneth More most famous for playing Douglas Bader in 1956 classic 'Reach for the Sky' - a must-watch, that, as is the Dambusters. I did not see it at the time as it was probably on late and I was a child! Never repeated as far as I am aware, possibly because of some gross sexism and comments to the female secretaries etc.

Fun to see Nigel Havers (born 1951) looking younger than his 27 years here - I watched this at the exact same time Mr Havers was presenting the Repair Shop on BBC1 as his now 70 year old self LOL.

This has the same workmanlike director as Shoestring - but the premise is always fascinating. WHAT IF Germany had won WWII or a peace had been reached with Britain. Nothing original in that as many MANY novels and films and TV series imagine it (1994 novel and film FATHERLAND; 1962 novel THE MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE; .Films like WENT THE DAY WELL from 1942 a must-see; SILENT VILLAGE 1943; IT HAPPENED HERE from 1962; THE EAGLE HAS LANDED 1976; so many).

This TV drama has an unusual premise - a TV drama about the events of 1940 when the Germans won and invaded Britain is being made and More plays its writer. His sons and the resistance are the sub-plots but the main theme is what the main character played by More will do and which side he will choose.

Remember this was written/made in 1978. The country was in chaos with strikes everywhere - binmen, bakers, the lot! Oil crisis in early 70s. UK had to go cap in hand to IMF for a loan. We were the sick man of Europe and some thought there COULD be an uprising from the far left or far right - both were very vocal and active in late 197os and an uprising or coup was a real possibility, unlike now. That is the context.

4 stars. I enjoyed it. Youngsters may find it too slow for their puppy attention-spans though. Not many whizz-bangs and fast0-edit action here.

This takes a while to get into but it's mostly worth it.

The story is strongest when it focuses on the crimes - and weakest when it deals with relationships with wives/women etc. That is a must these days for pc reasons but is so often superfluous (the final series of Breaking Bad lost it in the same way).

The dialogue and character development is brilliant, as is the acting and music.

I lasted just 30 minutes with this. Why?

Well, I have always disliked these docu-drama style movies - very old-fashioned really as many made in 1960s. Yawnsome.

It all seems so preachy pc - all about DEE ISHOOS. Well fine, but for that you want to make a documentary; for a feature film just TELL A STORY. This is poverty porn.

I dislike the main actress - she was good in Fargo. Did not deserve any Oscar after this.

It is SO over-rated and gets showered with awards because it ticks the boxes - like so many BLM blackcentric movies. Awards given for reasons other than talent.

1 star

OK so if you like scifi and fantasy you'll probably like this more than I ever will, but there are some serious dramatic flaws in this whole series.

Firstly, the characters - they are cartoon characters, two dimensional, and I care not about all but one (the Michael K Williams old drunk uncle/father). The sassy black woman is a stereotype of our age - how many times have we all seen that now? And the brave young black man ('Get Out' etc).

Secondly, one reason for this is the motivation of the film - as stated by the rather full of herself black female director on the last DVD extras. It is clear this was made to deliberately have a black only show promoting that (and no I shall not spell 'black' with a capital as on the subtitles). EVERY SINGLE WHITE person esp man in this film is shown as an idiot racist and a baddie. EVERY SINGL black person by contrast is good and angelic and if they are bad then that is because of white society.

This is racist. The only word for it. Can you imagine a TV drama series doing the equal and opposite? No. And words spouted such as 'whitey' and just plain racism. And this is NOT progress - it is very American race politics which is racist and not to be admired but condemned. I can only hope - perhaps vainly nin these BLM days - that we shall not get more of the same. Endless pity party TV dramas about racism (but only against black Americans eh? Imagine if someone made a film about a white suffering racism in the US or UK - which is common too: most racist bullying in London schools is now against white kids)

Apart from that, the whole thing is too silly for words. I am actually surprised members of the cast could keep a straight face at times when one listens to the dialogue they had to say. I was laughing out loud often!

Scary if you get scared by CGI monsters and thoughts of evil spirits etc. For me, often rather boring. Good music though.

Some good bits. Sad to hear Michael K Williams died of a drug overdose recently as he is by far the best thing in this.

2 stars. 1 for the CGI etc which has good featurettes on the final DVD.

I ad no idea what to expect with this film but was pleasantly surprised. It is a superb little horror movie, especially the first two acts, and genuinely scary - because it uses suggestion. Compare to unscary horrors which OD on CGI and reveals.

The suggestion is from pictures in a book - not CGI monsters. Lots of shadows and creaking doors opening. Great! And the horror is transferred to viewers via the characters and their reactions.

This film is a lesson in how to make an effective horror movie on a low budget. CGI fanatics, please watch. Though many teens these days seem to want in-you-face CGI monsters all through a horror film - pure gore-fests. Not scary at all.

Similar to some possession movies like The Exorcist or others, I suppose. And a book coming to life is an old idea, in the early 20th century short stories of MR James like the 'Mezzotint'. The image coming to life has been used more recently with TV and online monsters, as in The Ring.

It would be 5 stars but the third act and ending (NO SPOILERS) was not satisfying for me - though I know films have to end somewhere. I just didn't buy it, however.

Genuinely scary - and don't mention the lovely little dog!

4 stars

This is decent enough - just one series of 6 parts.

I preferred the HBO 'Rome' drama from 2007 which was on BBC2 - I think more classy with a higher budget. Sometimes this is a bit B-movie, and an Italian co-production.

But watchable and entertaining. Not 100% sure of historical accuracy which is totally different from 'Rome' the BBC2 series.

But anyway, so decent actors and fights - obviously taking a cue from blockbuster movie Gladiator.

4 stars. Just

As others have mentioned, this film is clearly influenced by Lord of the Flies (even a pig.,s head!) and Apocalypse Now (based on Conrad;'s novel Heart of Darkness). Nothing wrong in that. Everything is influenced by everything else and movies always steal.

The issue is this film seems to think it is profound and deep. It isn't. All the guff about a mystery 'Organisation'; is pointless as South America has a great many extremist groups and hostages often taken and ransomed.

Watch NARCOS the great TV series. That shows it all better than this. And it had wonderful plots unlike this one. Great shots of the rainforest in that too.

Or watch Green Inferno for horror down South America way or the great Apocalypto. Or Jungle, starring Harry Potter.

The usual arty critics have fawned over it. That is a warning sign.

It is not BAD - it is just not that good. The plot of wafer thin. I felt no real sense of horror or menace either.

It's all a bit MEH really. 3 stars

I loved this. One of those small,. low-budget films which is way better than most high-budget Hollywood movies.

Full of suspense and genuinely scary. A neat little plot which I fully expect Hollywood to steal soon.

Sure there's the usual supernatural guff but the psychology is what makes it - the edge of seat stuff, and a few jumps out of the seat.

4.5 stars rounded up. One of the best horror films I have seen in ages (together with The Bay and Burning Bright, also on Horror TV channels)