Film Reviews by PV

OK so this is a remarkable true story. That is true and it is based on an autobiography.

However, as a film it is clearly riding the SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE coat tails. It is also too slushy as if it feels it must have the love story. You could cut those girlfriend bits and make it run more smoothly - the craving for heart is constant in Hollywood though, but it is layered on with a trowel too much for me. The street dancing bit - YEUCK!

Fascinating story, though romanticising non-white cultures - or ethnophilia - is an issue maybe. As bad as demonising them really, and patronising.

Some cartoon character baddies in here and one wonders if it is ALL actually 100% true - most autobiographies are not. Great performance from the child actor.

Lovely Tasmanian scenery too and interesting contrast with the brother.

Nice to see overpopulation mentioned by the mother character: THE reason why there are so many teeming millions and homeless kids in the first place.

3 stars

I loved this. Fargo series 2 got a bit silly - still a good watch but not a great one. THIS is a great one.

I do not usually like Ewan Macgregor - his smugness overwhelms. Here however he plays two brothers with aplomb - ONLY to have the show stolen from him by fellow Brit David Thewlis, with the most memorable grotesque portrayal of a character on screen for years. LOVED IT!

The plot twists wonderfully and some episodes are so original in production that it's breath-taking. One or two bits miss - I dislike any references to other Coen Bros movies, bowling alleys etc. BUT these are small gripes.

Also the ending suggests a series 4 - and who knows of the Thewlis Varga character will appear again. The East German hinterland beckons maybe?

All in all for me, this 3rd is the best FARGO series., Second is series 1. The plot, writing, characters, setting, acting - ALL superb ALL spot on.

5 stars. BRILLIANT!

Gosh - reading the 5 star reviews I feel as if I have watched a different movie.

I lasted 40 minutes of this dross. I rarely fail to finish a film but just could not stand it any more!

Special effects are the usual CGE but the story is ludicrous.

I suspect it is strictly for fantasy movie buffs and steal punk fans (though I do not mind BRAZIL).

Not my teacup.

No idea why this is getting 4 star reviews. For the first film, yes. Not for this Jaws 2 level sequel.

It is yet another weak sequel milking it for all its worth. Silly non-plot, all the usual #metoo pc woke box-ticking casting. Goes nowhere - predictable cartoon character nonsense. I like Cillian Murphy loads, but this is just a pay cheque film.

The fist film was genuinely original - though many sci-fi stories had already covered the ground. Not movies though and the sound design was brilliant.

If you like computer games, CGI and have the attention span of a 12 year old, this may well be for you. It is forgettable drivel.

I actually laughed at some of the scenes - the creatures swimming? Or being unable to? Could never work it out.

If you want a real class monster movie, watch Jurassic Park, which has REAL animals which did once exist (though a fictionaised version) not fake monsters in an absurd alien plot and trite, lazy, by-numbers plot, sub-plot and character arcs. No doubt there'll be a 3 and a 4 if it keeps coining it, and then it will continue to eat itself - that started when they made a meal of this sequel.

For me, 1 star with half added for the couple of scare scenes and the song LA MER, then rounded up to 2.

The only thing that amazed me about this film is how all the actors in it manage to keep a straight face while speaking their absurd lines.

The wonderful Mads Mikkelsen phones it in no doubt thinking of the pay cheque. Tom Holland is clear eye candy for the expected teen audience, no doubt - used as much as any starlet of old Hollywood was. Apparently, that hypocrisy is just fine in the new woke world of metoo.

This is based on highly acclaimed YA books by Patrick Ness - a massively over-rated author and darling of the pc publishing scene. But the whole concept of the plot is sexist - against men. Pure misandry - claiming what this story claims. No spoilers. But if you could not read someone's thoughts, is it realistic to expect you would murder them all? All the fault or the book not the film - as are the 'Spackle'. What a limp name for an 'alien' species. Sounds Spangles, the kids; sweets. Maybe Patrick Ness was eating one and his genius imagination came up with it. No wonder the book won awards eh?

This film is confusing, silly, illogical and ticks all the pc boxes - if #MeToo had made a sci-fi movie, it'd look like this mess.

It cost $100 million to make and made $25 million only, so a massive flop. It had a script from 2011 rewritten multiple times with poor test screenings leading to more rewrites and shoots. Just so people know what a mess to expect.

I am only giving this 2 stars not 1 because the special effects of the 'noise' are done well, and the soundtrack music is decent so 1.5 stars rounded up. Not good.

What makes this film special is the towering performance of Anthony Hopkins who is always a joy to watch. I can watch him in anything.

By contrast, I find Olivia Coleman (stage name) annoying and irritating, so just tolerate her.

The script comes from a stage play, and the director stated he wanted to adapt it to be cinematic and not stagey - nevertheless, it is a bit stagey. And it is very French - it feels French, somehow. Bourgeois Paris transplanted to London maybe? The original play was set in Paris.

I know the script is meant to reflect the confusion of dementia; however, it is still confusing and not all is resolved in the end. I watched this alone but would have liked to watch it to others maybe so they could explain it to me. The whole issue of France and Paul... (no spoilers). Baffling. I may watch it again one day and see if I get that bit.

Also irritating - as in so many films - is the idea ordinary British people like in such houses and apartments (posh ones are not called flats apparently). This is Maida Vale London W( where a 2 bed flat in a mansion block costs £1.2 million minimum - the flat here is larger, so 1.5 or 1.8 million maybe. And then the daughter has a similar flat too. So this is \a seriously rich family, Nor ordinary middle class British people at all.

This is annoying and wrong - no wonder Americans all seem to think we live in Downtown Abbey! Most Brits like in small flats in London and normal suburban semis and terraced houses otherwise. Not this millionaire luxury. This may be that Paris Bourgeois effect again. But it is what I call the PADDINGTON EFFECT as the Browns in that film live in a mansion which would cost at least 3 million quid ad maybe five. In the Paddington books, the Browns live in an ordinary semi. Film-makers deliberately posh up movie adaptations to appeal to American and world audiences. The Downtown effect again. JUST STOP IT!

The DVD comes with a half hour zoon interview with him and the director and Olivia Coleman which is illuminating.

All in all, not the masterpiece people claim, but good enough. Up to now though, I suspect TV drama has dealt better with issues of dementia and mental health generally.

3.5 stars rounded up.

I enjoyed this. Like many biopics, it fits a well-worn mould of overcoming adversity to succeed, with flashbacks, emphasis on bad experiences in the past, and ending in victory and redemption. I do wonder how much of it was true though - esp the WWII 'event'. No mention of that in the Wiki page. I suspect it is pure fiction, intended to make visual possible guilt and trauma of the war. Trautman did serve with his unit on the Eastern Front where most were killed and must have seen horrors.

What is true is that he broke his neck while goalie for Man City in the FA cup final they won. Trautman was also VERY lucky to be caught by the British after the war and not the Russians (90% Germans they took prisoner died) or the Germans (who would have shot him as a deserter). One senses he knew that which is why he stayed here after the war.. Not a football fan really and most sports films are awful but this is a good watch (as is the distinctly weird Escape to Victory of 1982). I believe there is a statue of Trautman in Manchester? One hopes the usual suspects do not want to tear it down for whatever reason they choose to make up (well he was married 3 times). The sad story of the son is true too - though there is no mention of his other children who came later or a pre-existing daughter or 2 later wives, not even at the end. That does not fit with fairytale romance eh?

Sport and movies do not mix - quite simply because of what Bert says in the film about football being in 'the moment', in 'the now'. SPOT ON. So if you're making a film with a sporting context, you have to decide on the genre - and here and in many other sport films (like the awful 'Wimbledon') that is romance. A love story (no mention this marriage ended in divorce in real life of course though the end credits do reveal she died 1989 while Bert died 2013 aged nearly 90). Or a thriller/war story (Escape to Victory). Sport is not a genre in itself - it is always in 'the now' while a football match is happening. After that it is over. I mean, who watched football matches from the 1970s as we do with films? Sport is immediate. So this film is romance. Fairytale too.

Anyway, I very much enjoyed most of it. This is set in the 1940s/50s some some things jarred - people did NOT whoop back then. In fact not until the 1990s! And some slang used was too modern too. Most people won't notice or care. But I do. It matters.

One also wonders if working class women of the time would have behaved as the two young women featured behave. That is a very common issue in so many films set in the past - whether earlier 20th century of 19th or earlier. Thee are modern 21st century women transplanted into the past so are not authentic for their times. Not most costume drama for this - where women as standard now are 'strong and independent' and say stuff no 16th C court lady would have done. It is pure fiction, fantasy and metoo wishful thinking. Most of all, it is tiresome and predictable and pc - though we can thank the gods that there was at least no colourblind casting at least.

A decent good old-fashioned biopic which succeeds at being that rare thing: a film about sport that works. 4 stars.

Perhaps the biggest rule on all story-telling is ensuring the reader/viewer/listener knows what is going on - not everything and certainly not all at once. Reveals are needed later. BUT some clarity is called for, not the confused and confusing third act of this.

I mean, I read the review which said look the ending up online, so I did - and I have to say it did not OCCUR to me that that was the plot and 'reveal'. Not good.

Prior to that this is well done - creepy, creaking haunted house plot basically - a horror film with added #metoo perhaps.

I liked the dementia carer theme which was original. The other so-called twists etc were definitely not.

Made me jump at one point and that gets a star. First act and second worth watching. The ending? Oh dear...

And I do get so sick and tired of any film with child abuse plots - that palled after the first 3000 of em. And these plots always portray older white men as the abusers which is not only racist and sexist, but ageist. Most of all though it is tiresome and lazy.

A great shame it all goes wrong in the third act. I'd have rewritten the script, to be honest, all that part. Forgotten the supposed big reveal surprise which I did not get anyway, and...but...well. The writer/director comes from a background of Waterloo Road, so maybe that is why it is how it is. No good male character in this film at all. Like most UK TV drama these days then eh, esp on the BBC...

2 stars, one for the jump.

So, this is co-created by Bryan Cranston and anything with him in is worth watching. It's what he did after the sublime Breaking Bad (the pilot for series 1 is the best ever in US drama arguably though later series jumped the shark somewhat). No way can this reach the masterpiece standard of Breaking Bad, of course.

Both series rely on the same central dramatic tension of 'will the deception be discovered' - as did excellent spy drama (2013-2018) The Americans - and 2 actresses here also feature in that (though the accent of one is the weirdest I have ever heard in any US TV drama series - I think an acting class taught her how to to an English or Scottish accent, but the Klingon version she speaks has no known planet!)

The imposter plot is an old one and there have been many true-life examples - and attempts - in history. A 16th French case was made into the 1982 film The Return of Martin Guerre. The Talented Mr Ripley is another, based on a Patricia Highsmith novel. The Tichbourne Claimant (1998 British film based on a true 1854 case) and the deeply weird documentary The Imposter (2012). Not to mention many Elizabethan plays and ancient myth.

Plenty of conman - and conwoman - films too, of course. The Sting, Paper Moon, American Hustle, Catch Me if you Can, Mississippi Grind. All good - and the card playing plot here certainly adds interest, for the cleverness of the cons and tricks etc. I like magic and card tricks etc so that aspect always appeals to me.

What I disliked was the convoluted plot which involved just too many characters. I suspect some were added just tick inclusion/diversity boxes too. But when, say, female characters look very similar it can get confusing! Some added little or nothing to the film or story in any way, just appeared in a couple of scenes to add colour. Needs a character cull. A good script edit to fight the flab! I think 10 episodes could become 8 too.

The plot is pretty incredible all round BUT then many are, so if you suspend your disbelief it's OK. Though the fact many characters have to explain stuff or that dialogue is deliberately set up to do so rings a few alarm bells. Very clunky at times.

And I hated the constant soundtrack in the background playing like some video game. I suspect this is an attempt by the producers/direct to mimic movies like American Hustle, the Kingsman films and the Now You See Me movies (which I find annoying). No doubt all to appeal to a younger audience with a small attention span - though I doubt many of them would stay with a 10 part series like this with a complex plot.

BUT I enjoyed it and will watch the next series. 4 stars. Just.

This was like a cartoon caper. The baddies (the racist cartoon character skinheads BOOOOOO!) versus the goodies (Finnish hippies and non-white asylum seekers). It is all two-dimensional cartoon characters If I'd wanted a lecture or sermon I'd have gone to a church. This pc preachiness is not all, however.

As a film which claims in its pose to be against racism and liberal-minded, it does a rather great job of promoting offensive stereotypes against the Japanese (in a point section of the film which has no reason to exist, like others too - all the alleged 'comedy' scenes which are not comedy as I define it).

The plot is not credible and the story does not flow at all.

I suspect the usual adore this film as it is woke and on trend, because that is their way.

However, looking at the film objectively, it is an utter mess. Badly written, with tacked-on musical interludes to pad it all out, and alleged comedy sketches. Time REALLY dragged when watching this mess. It felt like 5 hours. Never again.

No stars.

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.