Film Reviews by PV

I wanted to like this movie and it has some memorable scenes.

However, it meanders terribly at times and does glamorise gang culture too.

The plots darts here and there, which may be because it follows the source material novel too close. Some should have been cut.

I like it more than Gomorrah though so 3 stars.

I doubt the Naples tourist authority will use it to attract visitors though.

This is as brilliant as series 1. So well made in every way - plot, writing, pace, acting, setting, music.

The murky and slippery world of south American politics is brought to life in all its hideous horror - and the end, when it comes., manages to elicit sympathy for a man who killed so many.

Pablo Escobar was clearly a fascinating Narco - he was not the only one at all, but he liked the fame and wanted to be loved by the people. The money was secondary even though at one time he was the 7th richest man in the world. That makes him fascinating

I could watch it all again now.

Brilliant. 5 stars

Series 1 and 2 of this were so brilliant, especially with the presence of the actor who played Pablo Escobar (Wagner M), so it was unclear if the same standard would be reached after the charismatic kingpin P.E. had left the stage.

No need to worry because despite Escobar being replaced by 'the gentlemen of Cali', this series is as watchable, horrific and exciting as the first two. Most fascinating perhaps is the gay narco, and the extras on the DVD discuss this. The inevitable fate of these Narcos ensues as does the sad fate of many of the good guys.

Yet again, the way the series mixes Spanish and English, and the way it cuts real news footage from the 1990s with drama, make this something special.

5 stars

I loved the original film Fargo (though the Oscar-winning actress in it is now seriously over-rated as she wins yet more Oscars).

This spin-off, however, irritates as much as pleases. It's what is known as 'milking it'.

It reminds me of self-consciously quirky, preppy, US humour - like Frank Zappa. I found him unfunny and unenjoyable too.

There's a lot of flab here and way too much self-conscious quirkiness, acting up for the camera in an unrealistic setting - a bit like a panto. Not to my taste really.

There are so many - far too many - unlikely random events happen to look good or move the plot forward. Deus Ex Machina on steroids then. I know the Coen brothers films are well-known for this sort of thing - but then this is just a spin-off of the original movie which was entertaining.

The acting is fine, with Martin Freeman finally emerging from typecast Office hell. And he gets the accent spot on.

In short, this is nowhere near as funny or clever as it thinks it is. So 3 stars. Watchable but unremarkable.

This may be over 80 years old yet is way more entertaining than most modern movies.

Also it is prophetic - made in 1938 and set in a fiction central European state, it somewhat predicts the way the continent would be ravaged by war within a year.

Based on a short story, I believe, and full of the spy-sage mystery reminiscent of The Riddle of The Sands and other fiction post 1904 when Britain signed the Entente Cordial with traditional enemy France, and instead faced the enemy of 'new' country Germany. This is very much a post WWI story.

I loved it. I also find it shocking how bad so many modern pc woke movies are by comparison, No CGI here just clever use to backdrop film reels. Some clever direction. Amusing too how most of these old films (anything before the 1990s maybe) has scenes which would now get labeled sexist or racist or even 'sexual assault', Show how much we have regressed maybe from a better unwoke age.

5 stars.

I had heard of various murders in the Scandinavian death metal scene in the 1990s and this is a drama based on a true story of one such band called Mayhem.

This is a well-made band biopic with added extreme violence - the viewer is not spared anything, and the camera lingers on it actually. The actors nail it too - I was impressed by them all.

But then, violence and murders and suicides happened. Based on a book about what happened, this film has been called 'truth and lies' - like all biopics then! Bohemian Rhapsody and Rocket Man were hardly documentaries either and twisted the truth for dramatic effect.

The script is witty and funny at times which shows just how pathetic these young people were. An interview with a journalist here nails it.

A quick search on Wiki reveals the fate of the real-life characters. One released from prison after 9 years for a murder; another still there but due to be out soon as 21 years is the maximum allowed in Norway.

To be honest, this movie is great in exploding the perfect Scandi myth promoted by so much TV detective drama - life for people in these places is very conformist and collective, which arguably stifles individuality. Norway is also hideously expensive (£10 a pint I heard) and of course left the EU too - in order to protect its oil reserves from greedy Brussels Eurocrats.

4 stars.

I would have given this achingly woke pc B-movie one star, but gave an extra star for the anti-poaching message and especially the way there is a Chinese character shown as doing business with elephant/rhino poachers - the demand for ivory, rhino horn, pangolin, lion/big cat teeth bone, shark fins ALL comes from there. I have never seen another film dare do this or criticise China - the reference is subtle here to get past the studio monster/. But it is there at least.

The rest is like some B-Movie Jurassic Park minus the dinosaurs or fun. At least it is mercifully short as a film - though ROGUE by the same writer/director was more believable really. The same main female characters and obsession with woke issues pervades this movie which sounds like a Californian therapy session with Harry and Meghan at its worst. Of course we have a cis-gender white man who works in the oil business (boo!) and has failed (yay!), and his wife is sorted and shows the way as do his kids (one gay son the daughter who may well be trans - a gruesome metoo-type speech at the end is really vomit-inducing).

I saw the plot development, character arcs and alleged 'twist' coming a mile off, from early act one. Yawn. Also there is NO female-only anti-poaching unit in Kenya - and Africa is VERY traditional re gender roles as is Asia and most of the world - so that is all pc woke metoo fiction. Fake news then. BUT it shows women are goodie heroes and men as baddies - so YAY! That is how wokery ruins movies and truth.

The director of this is a man yet now claims to be trans, which no doubt helps his career massively these days, with female gender quotas and 'affirmative action' - there has been no worse time to be a white man wanting to get films made or books published. It;s racism and sexism, sure, but promoted as good. Hypocrisy does not even cover it.

This director also always casts his wife/daughter in his movies (she stars in no others) - now THAT is entitled privilege.

SO a great message BUT I much preferred Africa-set films such as the Last King of Scotland, Blood Diamond or the native film Wound.

Predictable, woke, slushy, pc preachy, teary, touchy-feely, huggy-wuggy nonsense. CGI passable except in the end. I felt sorry for the animals having to put up with the wokeworld nonsense, even though the rhinos were CGI., Nice leopard. Shame he missed a meal.

1 star for the film. 1 for the anti-poaching message.

I have no idea why this has got 5 star reviews - maybe because Robert Redford says it's his final film. well, fine, But the film itself is distinctly average and predictable. Not bad, no - not great either. Ultimately. a forgettable slice of Romantic Escapism cake. If that's your thing...

The noodling slushy piano muzak completes the Mills and Boon feel. I suspect women will like this more than men, which is the case for many of Robert Redford's films anyway, I think? If you want to rent a great movie, watch ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN a 1970s classic.

It may be based on a true story, via a magazine article, but the schmaltzy romantic portrayal of a career criminal is pure Mills and Boon. I doubt this has much relation to reality, to be honest, as a wasted life spent mostly in prison is not a good one ever. Not sure real life would have had such ethnic diversity either, in 1981, in middle America. I'd have liked a little doc on the Extras telling the REAL story of this career criminal (the script claims he was first arrested aged 13 for bike theft and the references to Catholic boarding school suggest cans of worms to be opened).

AND the dates and timeline are skewwhiff too. SO this is set in 1981 and the main character is supposedly 74 years old, so born then in 1907. Why, then, does a reform school scene in act 3, set in 1936, show a boy. A 29 year old boy? Yup. Sloppy.

BUT it passes the time. Forgettable though - 3 stars maximum. Just past 2.

Far better to watch TOUGH GUYS (1986) with Kirk Douglas (age just 70) and Burt Lancaster, or even NEW TRICKS the BBC oldie con artist drama series.

This is from 1989, back when TV could make drama for kids (or adults) that did not think its sole purpose was to preach and lecture a 'correct' way of thinking whilst shoehorning in social issues clunkily.

This 2 and a half hour drama series - all in one segment - is a great watch and puts the story and characters first/. I dread to think what TV would do with the story these days, what with colourblind pc woke casting. Some music hall jokes here would be deemed 'offensive' too, no doubt.

Thankfully we have good old-fashioned children;s TV to watch on DVD - and this should be watched with the Richard Attenborough 1992 movie 'Chaplin; which I also loved.

I loved the music hall routines - which still inform some good modern comedy, and esp the best TV comedy (much from the 1970s).

This may be a bit sanitised for the young audience, but nevertheless, it's a great and highly entertaining watch. It also never mentions that probably Charlie's real father was not Mr Chaplin senior (who in real life died of alcoholic liver failure aged 38).

The young actors do well - Lee Whitlock from from the classic TV Scene 'Two of Us' (1987) is 20 years old or almost 21 but plays down for 17. Joe Greary who plays the young Chaplin is 15 here and also plays down to age 12/13 - he did not do much acting after this, I think.

Twiggy is Twiggy and Ian McShane is superb as always (watch 'Deadwood').

Good to see Stan Laurel in music hall - he was the brains behind Laurel and Hardy - and other acts.

One interesting fact: 'silent' film grew from music hall slapstick which had no dialogue so as to avoid the wrath of any censors. These days, the censors would want woke pc cuts - as with some of the impressions of Chinamen and Japanese. Sigh...

Anyway, for kids or adults, this is a solidly entertaining 2 and a half hours - I loved it.

This is as good as series one, or maybe even better. EVERYTHING is right - the casting, the acting, the writing, the setting, the plot progression, the music. Filmed in Colombia too which is great, and I do not mind subtitles at all. So authentic and fascinating. The way real-life TV footage of 1980s and early 90s is spliced into the drama really works - which surprised me. But it works. It just does. We even see real TV footage of Pablo's mum at the end.

I would watch this all over again, It is that good. The only people who maybe should be worried are South American tourist boards as the place looks dodgy and dangerous as hell really, with massive violence and enormous poverty, and so a destination to be avoided. For me, anyway.

The Brazilian (I think) actor Wagner Moura plays Pablo Escobar with class and style - PERFECT casting. Even if the belly prosthetic and fake beard look a bit off. That is very common in TV drama BUT the locations here look so authentic. You can almost smell the humidity and heat, not to mention the crime, corruption and danger.

Wagner and the writers of course manage to make Escobar, a brutal charismatic drug lord who murdered so many so ruthlessly, a victim in the end. This can be done - as with Hitler in DOWNFALL of the TV drama about Saddam. And it works - these people are all just human. They were all babes in arms once...

It is sad to say but maybe a TV version of this not made by Netflix would have played it safe, and censored the name 'Blackie' for a start and maybe insisted on more female roles as they do these days - I am SO glad the producers of this did not defer to the diversity quota orders common now. Of course, in many ways, the very word 'Gringo' for all white people is racist... It is authentic though so why the problem?

The extras on disc 3 here worth a watch too. The only thing I would have liked more is some on-screen information at the end about what happened to the characters who got arrested and also to Pablo's family.

5 stars. if this series has not won awards then it has been robbed.

Well Jurassic Park, it ain't! It's not even The LAnd that Time Forgot or its sequel, or the woeful Jurassic Predator. (Or the wonderful The Dinosaur Project). It is more like Watching-Paint-Dry-o-saurus.

This film stinks of state subsidy - the usual, BFI, BBC, lottery and sure enough, the end credits revealed all 3 funded it, BINGO! This also boasts its DIVERSITY credentials - as so many tedious new state-funded films do and that is why so many are flops. Most metoo movies have flopped and lost money. Just TELL A STORY WELL and stop painfully trying to tick all the diversity boxes, and you may make a decent film now and then.

Only 2 male speaking roles in this film and both men are portrayed as idiots, nasty users, in contrast to the poor repressed women (the victims, you see, of nasty-wasty patriarchy). CAN YOU IMAGINE a film where the only 2 female characters were portrayed as monsters or morons? It is pure sexism and misandry. AND not the historical truth at all. It is ALL SO BORING. It does not work on any level.

But costume drama can work - see THE TUDORS. See The Madness of King George. See the great 1960s and 70s films on Cromwell etc.

This is pure feminist fantasy - there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that Mary Anning was in any way lesbian. None. I suspect the male writer and director tagged it on 1) to get state funding; 2) because he seems to like a pity party blaming men for all that is bad in the world; 3) the story of walking on a beach finding fossils is not cinematic - so a script needs a beginning, middle and end 3 act structure. SO what to do? Tack on some repressed 1840s lesbianism. I suspect Mary Anning would be appalled.

This veers into soft porn and if that is your thing, fine. But why not just watch 'Desert Hearts' and be done with it. ALL fabricated and false, and unnecessary too. There is a story here without that.

The facts are there: the Anning family found fossils to sell to tourists as extra income and THOMAS ANNING Mary's father started it. He gets forgotten AS DOES Mary';s older brother Joseph WHO FOUND THE Ichthyosaur fossilised skull, NOT Mary. He is forgotten and as a boy was forced to do an apprenticeship and give up fossil hunting/. "Their first well-known find was in 1811, when Mary Anning was 12; her brother Joseph dug up a 4-foot ichthyosaur skull, and a few months later Anning herself found the rest of the skeleton. " As with Pierre Curie, and many men, these men and boys and written out of history by the pc metoo feminist industry and woke historians.

They are the facts though. The fossil was found by JOSEPH ANNING., Not Mary. Natural History Museum take note. Mary found fossils by herself later on - plesiosaurus and pterosaur BUT they are not shown here. The ichthyosaur skull shown here was found by JOSEPH ANNING not Mary.

The social class issues are more interesting and much is made of the deaths of many of Mary's siblings BUT that was not unusual for this time at all - it was standard. And NO WAY were males more privileged than females - many men and boys were forced down mines, out to sea, into the army. Working class women did not have it easy but arguably the men had it harder. AND women should know that men did not have the vote either for most of history - and working class men got the vote just 30 years before women, 'White male privilege' my fanny A! Read some history.

The FACTS show Mary was actually quite well off financially in the 1810s and 20s and bought a house. She then did a bad investment and like many in Britain of the 1830s suffered poverty BUT then got a decent special pension from the British government after a campaign by scientists - she was hardly a victim then.

If this is the future of British film then I shall stop watching all ne British films.

On the plus side, I enjoyed the scenery of Lyme Regis. 1 star for that.

This is not an easy watch at all, so realistic are the characters and scenes of mugging. However, I am so glad this film was made - I doubt any UK TV or film company would dare, to be honest. It was painful to watch sometimes - like watching hyenas or wild dogs surround their gullible prey. It is all so menacing and nasty.

Anyone who has lived in London knows how endemic mugging and street crime is. People also know the demographic of those who do it - the same as in this film set in Gothenburg in Sweden, I believe. And the victims in London are the same as shown here too, In London this sort of mugging is called 'taxing' and is why so many kids after school will not visit shopping centres etc. I DETEST street crime and do not mind saying I hoped the vile nasty thug criminal muggers shown in the film were locked up for ever in secure units well away from us all.

At times this is like a documentary it is so realistic and all the child actors do so well in that.

Based on a true story apparently where muggers used power game psychology and the 'brother' trick to mug younger Swedish boys - I hope they got caught and punished appropriately, Probably not - this being liberal Sweden. The psychology aspect is interesting and nasty - the vile cruel muggers have no sympathy from me. I do not care about their age of ethnicity.

No spoilers but I liked the late scenes where pc dogooding women (it usually is) make excuses for the muggers by saying they are children and immigrants so we must understand them. That is SO true to life.I have worked with women like that! None have been mugged - I expect their opinions would change if they'd had to grow up as boys in London constantly under threat of mugging or attack.

The race issue is addressed here in a way no UK TV channel would - esp the woke pc BBC. One young mugger of colour says at one point "anyone dumb enough to show their phone to 5 black guys only has themselves to blame". Well it ain;t the Bill, for sure, where most muggers in sunny Sunhill fantasy land were white...

This being a Swedish films there is some arty flab which makes the film maybe 20-30 minutes longer than it should be.

But this is probably the best film about mugging, esp by black boys against white boys, ever made.

But 4 stars anyway.

This scratchy little film has so many chips on its shoulder it should fry em up with the fish featured in it - then it wouldn;t be such a waste of space and time.

Honestly, the pretentions of this little state-funded film! Scratchy overlay for some reason to make it seem like old film and in black and white WHICH I believe is more expensive than colour film - and not to show the gorgeousy colourful coast of Cornwell with its translucent blue-green seas is almost a crime - and pointless.

The story itself is passable - and could be a short story of short film. It is stretched and padded out with plenty of ponderous flab here, loads of long looks in acting so wooden it could float on the waves! The sort of film only pretentious film critics and state-funded film institutes like.

And the cartoon character stereotypes abound! Imagine is ANY other demographic were demonised the way blue-eyed, well-spoken, educated people from London and the south-east are in this bigoted little film. But it;'s as insulting to the people of Cornwall - as if they're all poor fisherfolk speaking 18th century dialect, ABSURD! A pure fantasy of a no-doubt middle class Kernow separatist activist at film school.

And as for the tedious anti-Brexit Remainer narrative!

I endured this to the end. The younger actors try hard to salvage something and yet the memory that remains is of how many faults this film has. The image it gives of Cornwall (which I know well, and Devon) is utterly wrong - please do not think the place is as shown here.

I receommend watching the 2 old short films which come last on the EXTRAs page (avoid the pretentious student films of this director and wannabe poet which come before them) - the BILL BLEWITT 1936 film to try and get people saving with National Savings, and the next one a GWR advert on the Cornish Riviera which is fascinating AND edited by Alberto Cavalcanti who directed WENT THE DAY WELL (a classic).

This is how British films should NOT be, but I suppose we can be thankful it as made before the present obsession with wokery and colourblind casting - and the opposite, authentic casting. SO one wonders if they';d have to find real Cornish fishermen to play Cornish fishermen then eh? Alternatively, they could try acting.

I want to see more films from the regions of Britain - but not like this.

This film thanks the late NICK DARKE at the end - I am familiar with his writing and radio plays, incl one made after he suffered a serious stroke in his 50s and lost a lot of language ability, getting words all mixed up. he died a couple of years later.

I had low expectations of this, especially when the graffiti credits started the film to a rap soundtrack! However, the script is so obviously well-written by an excellent writer (Al Wilson) and the main character's development and lines so believable, that I was won over. The performances of all the teenagers, some playing their age and some playing down, are also authentic and spot-on.

The extras here are worth watching esp the half hour film on THE MAKING OF - the director Julian Richards is interviewed as are all cast - Including Kevin Howarth who plays the mysterious and erratic 'disheveled drifter' the kids encounter in the woods. His Sheffield/South Yorkshire accent as the character is bang-on despite it not being his own. That accent makes the stranger even more strange. What precisely is he doing in some woods in Wales? On the run? Escaped? Just homeless?

I was surprised this script started as a film screenplay and not as a theatre play - though I suspect the writer comes from that background. The moody mercurial disturbed person who can switch from nice to nasty and back again in the blink of an eye is rather a staple of drama in theatres.

But no matter, the dialogue is spot-on and there is NO flab at all on this film! Which is always nice to see,. Why its running time is just over an hour.

There is real menace here in the main character, and humour aplenty too, and the teenager characters are believable. No doubt these days, a disabled kid would have to play the disabled kid character - yet more absurd 'authentic casting'. I do so wish they'd all try acting. This is NOT progress. I dread to think what this would look like if the box-ticking BBC made it as a drama now (and BAFTA has its race/gender diversity quotas now too...)

As ever, Darren Evans - here 17 playing down in age - excels as an actor (see him as Baz the junkie in A StreetCat Named Bob and many a Welsh-made film).

This is a true British film and I liked the twist ending (no spoilers). No state funding that I can see (lottery and BFI funded films do not tend to be was watchable and entertaining as this).

It's nice to get really contemporary technology into films - though one wonders how playwrights and screenwriters of a former age would have coped with the existence of mobile phones or smart phones, where everyone can inform everyone else of everything instantly! A teeny-weeny plot hole may exist in this film because of that, but not so much as to spoil it.

4 stars. Recommended.

This film is SO long - over 2 and a half hours, At least half an hour of flab could be cut in minutes, and maybe a whole hour. Some dreadful irrelevant scenes (like the one featured on the DVD cover should have ended up on the cutting room floor. Pointless nonsense and it seems the director getting a performance artist he liked into his film maybe? Other scenes are flab too - some relationship scenes are yawnsome. CUT CUT CUT.

The question ALWAYS to ask when making a film/novel/story is this "does this scene/chapter/sequence advance the plot, story or characters". If not, KILL YOUR DARLINGS. Self-indulgent films like this irritate and bore.

This could have been good - a satire on a modern art world which is so pretentious and arty it has lost all self-awareness or connection to artistic talent (and I have been to modern art galleries all over Europe where neon lights, videos and piles of sand are considered valuable art). Cut the flab or ignore it, and some scenes shine.

Maybe the best film on the pretentions of the art world is THE REBEL (1961) starring Tony Hancock. Never bettered.

Claes Bangs is bang on as usual. And the satire of other arty characters is fun.

I was less convinced by the slum flats/angry boy storyline - I suspect a directorial need for some clunky symbolism.

Should this have won awards? No. But then Cannes gives the Palm D'Or to some real Euro-turkeys.

Not bad but you need patience to watch it. 2.5 stars rounded up.