Film Reviews by PV

This is a decent monster movie, way better than the tediously silly movie CRAWL.

One reason this works is the fact that it is based on reality - in Australia's Northern Territories there are saltwater crocs which are massive and do kill people every year. I remember a real-life story about tourists trapped on an island fending off crocs all night - maybe this tall tale is based on that?

This is very geared to the American market and produced by the Weinsteins.

However, the leads are decent and the plot holds water more than the boats LOL. The dramatic tension is nail-biting and the jump-out-of-your-seat eye-popping shocks are well-staged.

I enjoyed it, as a trashy horror flick.

4 stars

I am hooked by this series as I was with Breaking Bad - it shares the same multi-layered complex plots and violence with that show, and for that reason keeps up momentum with random new events and characters appearing regularly.

Both shows rely on someone with a secret life they want to hide. The 'will they or won't they get caught' issues and the near-misses make some scenes nail-biting. This is dramatic irony, much used by Shakespeare and theatre for centuries - we, the audience, know things about the main character/s that most other characters do not know, Watch Richard III.

Great stuff, with Matthew Rhys a Welsh actor really excelling in the main role - a new Alec Guiness who really inhabits the various characters and identities he plays. The girlier emotive parts play less well and I hope they do not come to dominate things, as happened in later series of Breaking Bad. I hope too there is now token metoo and ethnic quote box ticking.

For me, from the UK who was at school in the 1980s they don't get the British experience of that time right exactly but I assume this is the more paranoid anti-USSR USA, with a real fear of commies from the 1950s McCarthyism still lingering in the air.

For now, 4.5 stars rounded up. Highly enjoyable hokum - though based on some true stories of spies, but all condensed into these two. But hey, it's a story not a documentary, so I willingly suspend my disbelief.

It's great to watch series 6 of th magnificent VIKINGS at long last - and who knows when or if we shall see any more, now Covid has ruined filming for, well, everything. How on earth can you have socially distanced Vikings in battle?

Anyway, while not up there with the best series of Vikings, this is still pretty decent. A tad too much focus on 'strong' female characters in highly implausible all-female Viking battles - as if. Could be worse, though.

I loved the Vikings Rus scenes and Ivar and his brothers brilliant as usual.

Better than any drama on BBC TV or ITV.

4 stars

OK so the technical side of creating this movie with very long takes and no editing was a masterful use of technology - watch the EXTRA documentaries on the DVD about this.

But and it is a big but, the film and story oddly fail to really engage - and the CGI is massively used (done in India I see from the credits). Maybe because it's a thin story - 2 soldiers on a mission into enemy territory to deliver a message to stop a deadly doomed attach by the British on the Germans in 1917 (not a spoiler - the blurb states this). So that is what it is. 2 hours of it.

A great cast including the wonderful young actor George Mackay almost unrecognisable for his role in Pride as a young shy teen. One to watch - an Oscar one day for him, I am sure. BUT this over-rated and over-praised movie is not the one.

A couple of niggles. I HATED the superhero movie soundtrack - it really spoilt so many scenes (and no I do not care what won a BAFTA).

Secondly, it is wrong to show Indian soldiers mixed in with young British men - it did not happen like that. There were Indian units, for sure, separated - by colour, yes, but mostly by religion due to deep ancient hatreds of Indians by Indians (Muslim, Hindu, Sikh). That is another film, so show that. Ditto for the black soldiers - there were separated West Indian units in WWI (not WWII in the UK - in the US< yes) as well as a TINY number of British-born blacks reflecting the tiny number of blacks in the UK in 1917 to join up. There are too many here and yes it does matter as it would matter if white faces were shown in a film about Zulus or native Indians, non? It seems to me people pick and choose colourblind casting as it suits them and their agenda. If it doesnlt they yell about 'authentic casting' - well this casting was not authentic and it spoilt the film as it is promoting a pc woke imagined and wished-for truth rather than a historical one. Shame.

3 stars. A bit meh and feels oddly lacking in emotion and flat. I cannot work out why.

I enjoyed this - a neat little simple story. It's be ELI ROTH who made HOSTEL so we know what to expect. Grand Guignol and then some.

But the story was solid, the character arcs efficient, the costumes, make-up and special effects fun, and the lush seething rainforest as horrific as ever full of creepy crawlies and dangers unseen.

No doubt the usual pc woke BLM academic types won;t like the portrayal of native tribes as blood-thirsty barbarians - however, that is what so many were like in pre-colonial lands, with slavery, massacres, torture, and human sacrifice standard in pre-colonial Africa, for example. Cannibalism too. So good to Eli Roth for running with it. Romanticisng such lost tribes and pre-colonial Africa/Asia is actually deeply racist. Pre-colonial lands were NOT Wakanda or a Michael Jackson video in real life actually. They were monstrously awful mainly. Watch Mountains of the Moon.

The green theme is there, especially green hypocrisy and the way zealots can lose their humanity - no coincidence that the fascist and Nazis and Hitler were closely connected to the Green movement (back to the earth, blood and earth etc). Not so sure re the FGM theme - one to tick the #Metoo femi-box, that one - but absurd it's made out to be the worst thing ever - when compared to the other horrors portrayed. I think a horrible death trumps circumcision (and millions of boys mutilated against their will worldwide every year too).

A great shame it is all spoilt by the epilogue - ending (NO SPOILERS). My eyes rolled and heart sank at that trite twee finale so I docked a star, so I give this 3 stars instead of 4.

Reminds me of a film whose name I cannot remember about human organ harvesting in South America. Watch with the sublime APOCALYTO, maybe Mel Gibson's only decent film as director.

I enjoyed this spin-off movie, as I enjoyed the spin-off TV series BETTER CALL SAUL. Of course, neither that nor this is the sublime wonderful US TV drama series BREAKING BAD, just about the best TV drama of the last decade, despite the soppy slushy later series - the pilot of BREAKING BAD is the best pilot for any drama I have ever seen - ever. Brilliant!

So this movie recreates some flashback scenes from BREAKING BAD - and suspension of disbelief is needed as the character Jesse Pinkman looks much older as, naturally, Aaron Paul has aged in 5-10 years. Never mind. Flashbacks are needed in a drama like this and BETTER CALL SAUL. The way it is.

There is enough in this movie to make it work, to be honest - some neat set-ups and a quest for Jesse. Some old friend characters pop up again too - and amusing that some who died in the TV series also appear in newly-filmed flashback, including Walter White himself played by Bryan Cranston, brilliantly - always.

I was hooked and glued to my seat at this and it's a satisfying watch/. Some great music as usual on BREAKING BAD (and lots of US TV drama series which are SO superior to UK drama series, esp inhouse pc woke BBC nonsense which feel like 4th rate preachy lectures).

Not quite 5 stars but a solid 4. Watch it! Recommended.

I enjoyed this film - the first hour anyway. No spoilers but the third act made me laugh out loud - a shame as the first and second acts nicely built tension, in a slow but creepy way (do not watch if you want fast action shocker horror!). I liked it.

The acting of the children is really excellent and creepy - totally believable, especially the boy played by an actor called Harvey Scrimshaw, I think. And the 2 creepy little ones. The acting of all the cast is faultless.

This is sort of based on folk tales and also dialogue of real-life 17th C accounts, as at Salem etc, but to be honest it's an almighty mash-up. Mass hysteria caused the Salem witch trials - and the theory that ergot, a fungus in rye which can cause hallucinations in humans was also a factor in the 17th C obsession with witches, that and a general belief in the spiritual back then in Puritan times.

Another criticism is the accents - in the 17th the standard English accent was like the modern West Country of farmers; accent, with a voiced 'R' as in a Bristol accent. It was not pure northern or Yorkshire or Leeds really. The American accent comes from the standard accent in England in the 17th century which resembles a modern West Country accent. That niggles.

Also, subtitles often needed due to naturalism in verbal delivery AKA 'mumbling' as is the modern TV drama fashion too (no-one annunciates any more compared to old movies!)

2 stars. It would be 3 stars were it not for the third act which, in my opinion, was not needed - not that plotline anyway - and the movie should have ended 10 minutes maybe before it does. Shame.

Oh happy days! Remember when people make movies to tell a good story and not tick woke diversity boxes! I think many movies have a 20% white male limit now - the BBC certainly do.

I remember watching this aged about 10 on our rented black and white telly and remember it from them - not all but the demon scenes and slip of paper bits for sure. It's in the same class as other 1950s classics The Midwitch Cuckoos and The Day The Earth Stood Still. Those two (which I also remember watching aged 10/11 on TV) have been remade in recent years - horribly - and that is the true horror. I pray to the gods and demons they never try to remake this wonderful, beautiful, scary, spooky, memorable classic British film.

And yes, of course, Kate Bush sampled the "It's in the trees - it's coming" from the medium scene, actually, not the initial demon experience. Loved that scene, the playing with sound and voices. The camp medium is also spot on!

Acting is great - the US element may not have been in the original MR James short story, I do not know. But handy for US sales, so American interest often shoe-horned into movies, then and now.

As others have said, the main Alistair-Crowley-type character is beautifully played as are so many (Mr Barraclough from Porridge plays the mental patient under hypnosis).

And some scenes are genuinely scary and made me jump - the Halloween scene, for example.

AND for 1957, the special effects are pretty decent too - I am sure kids would watch this and be spooked (so much so when shown on TV the announcer states some scenes may be too scary for younger children; I disagree - show it to all ages to scare em silly and show them what great films used to look like because OTT CGI special effects and quick-tick editing). It all makes a refreshing change from the yawnsome and trite CGI of now, that's for sure, as do many of those old Ray Harryhausen movies. More believable too, oddly.

Some decent photography - close-ups and distance shots which I am sure come from German expressionism.

Anyone at all interested in film or who just wants a great 1 hour 50 minutes of class and scary entertainment should watch this classic old film which is genuinely spooky and just SO satisfying.

There is NO issue in this being made from a short story at all. Compare to modern Hollywood films which average 2 and a half hours - so full of flab and false endings, I often lose interest. You do of course have to suspend disbelief AS WITH ALL FICTION. The leading man needs romantic interest - and he is not unlikeable. Just rational. The spiritually-minded who believe in angels may not like that, but...

Forget the X-files. This does the believer/sceptic debate better.

5 stars.

I rented this because I really like Freddie Highmore, especially in the 5 series of BATES MOTEL.

This series is not as good as that; and it is not as good as 'House' either, though the writer/director of that. David Shore, developed this too. Each episode follows the same template really - a 'genius' medic sees an issue no-one else can see. In this case, the Freddie Highmore character Shaun Murphy, has autism too, which ticks a good few more diversity boxes which goes down well these days.

I deeply disliked the soapy aspects of this, but hated the woke pc box-ticking diversity aspects more. Literally, the only main white male character is the one played by Freddie Highmore, and he has autism so ticks a box as well. Every single other main character is female and/or 'of colour'.

And the issues are ticked too: Racism - TICK. Sexism - TICK. Sexual harassment - TICK. Domestic violence (but only against women by men, not then 40% done against men mostly by women) - TICK. Some episodes spread the woke pc putty on with a trowel and are cringe-worthy. Some episodes are better (episode 15 was great).

The MeToo BLM agenda is here everywhere and that, I suggest, is why it won awards. If all future TV dramas are like this, I have to say I shall be looking back at the archives. Why is racism and sexism against white men in casting seen as good? It isn't.

So-so then. But not sure I'll be renting series 2. So 3 stars.

I hope Alfred Highmore does more and better in future, for sure.

I generally enjoy this series - it does sometimes get bogged down in rather Mills and Boon romantic subplots, no doubt to appeal to female viewers. That is yawnsome. It slows the series right down, and it loses momentum at those points - hence 4 stars and not 5.

However, the battle scenes are awsome! Really great. I rewound and watched some again. They are so well done it is awsome. They must have had such fun filming this (in Hungary, coz it's cheaper - watch the EXTRA little film on the final DVD).

Not sure it's necessary to pander to 'authentic casting' with Scandinavian actors playing Vikings (after all they look no different to Brits really). However, thank goodness there is no 'colourblind casting' - imagine if 40% of the actors here were BAME as on TV ads or awful woke BBC drama. I for one would not watch it, in that case. Historical drama MUST be authentic re skin colour. The way it is. Film is visual.

One weak point of series like these is that there are so many characters and so many look alike! One has to keep track. The last DVD has an EXTRA with a full recap of series 1 and 2. Useful, that. Hard to keep track of all the characters and changing allegiances at times too.

Very silly to see female warriors fighting and killing men twice their size but woke pandering to metoo pc girl power criteria is standard these days, if utterly tiresome and not authentic - though there were a very small number of manly female Viking warriors (in sensible shoes no doubt lol), but I'd bet anything they were not the eye candy blonde model totty we see here with long perfect blonde hair, perfect teeth, perfect skin, perfect unstained clothes etc. SO one has to bear in mind all that fantasy element. Maybe that is being true to the historical novels, I have no idea.

Anyway, a decent watch - better than any drama on terrestrial TV now, all the woke preachy pc Dr Who drivel which I avoid. Different from VIKINGS but about as violent - though I do not mind appropriate goriness. To leave it out would be pofaced and prissy indeed. Life was very violent back then.

4 stars. I hope they keep it up in series 3.

I really enjoyed this. OK it is no SHAUN OF THE DEAD in comedy horror zombie stakes. And it is no SEVERANCE either which is the better film of a group out in a strange place in the woods. THE RITUAL is a seriously scary version of this sort of thing too. This film though looks are feel cheap and stagey. And becomes an OTT Grand Guignol blood and guts fest. It is what it is.

However, what is REALLY refreshing is the lack of pc - and it is very un-pc at times. Probably wouldn;t be allowed not - or maybe the other way round only with women killing male zombies. 2009 was a saner time.

BUT it does not take itself too seriously and is tongue in cheek always SO any wokies or feminuts who have an issue with it, should go back to gurning over Sylvia Plath whinge-gest poems or watch the femiwhinge fantasy Handmaids Tale or watch manhating femi-TV or the BB-She, and steer well clear of this.

I laughed and rolled my eyes and generally let myself go - so enjoyed this for what it was.

I never like Noel Clarke as an actor - so stagey, fake and over-rated - every character he plays is always Noel Clarke. BUT I like Stephen Graham and other actors here like Lee Ingleby.

Some of the female zombies are GREAT - especially the big mama! Others are fun. The plot s nonsense - but the same can be said of most horror films and most Hollywood movies too, even Oscar winners.

4 stars. One for the lads - get the beers in! Very refreshing in these woke and broke pc New Puritan times.

This film was AWFUL, But then I tend to think Almodovar is THE most over-rated film director EVER. If a British film director made drivel like this he'd get slated. Maybe there is a Hispanic bias at work here because his mediocre movies get showered with praise.

I turned off before 1 hour as I could not stand any more.

Pointless, pretentious, dull, tedious, deeply boring - it could be a BBC TV drama!

FOR A DECENT film about drugs watch 'OSLO, 31 AUGUST' which is a BRILLIANT 2011 Scandinavian film.

AWFUL no stars.

Well more of the same, if you've watched the first film SINISTER.

It is really painting by numbers and predictable - and as in so many horror movies these days, the torture porn of SAW etc demands all movies like this are gruesome.

The usual tropes - possession, haunted house, bogie man, dead children, darkness, tinkly music, TV/radio interference.

But I have watched worse. Nothing special but OK. 3 stars.

I seriously enjoyed this 1975 film - old-fashioned, maybe, but a good yarn of derring-do. They don;t make em like this any more and wouldn't - not with today's pc woke diverse casting box-ticking.

This is a movie where Sean Connery plays an Arab or Berber Sultan with a broad Scottish accent, remember - and these days the demand would be for someone non-white to play the role (hardly authentic though and no demand for colourblind casting for any ethnic roles ever, I notice...SUCH woke hypocrisy).

I have no idea if this is based on a true story or not. And really, I do not care. The British are there and Americans and French and Germans - and Moroccans. So it predates Casablanca then but is just as much a melting pot.

All that matters is that this is an action-packed story set in 1904 Morocco and thoroughly entertaining, with Connery acting the Berber Sultan in the manner of the Arab rulers in Lawrence of Arabia.

Of course, one has to remind oneself that the Barbary (Berber) pirates were the ones who raided the coast of Europe and especially England (Devon and Cornwall), Wales and Ireland stealing slaves - estimated at 1.25 million between the 14th and 18th centuries, right up to when Britain banned the slave trade in 1807. The BBC has yet to make a documentary about that - it does not fit the 'bad white European colonialist' agenda. But it is FACT. These Muslim Arab slave traders would raid villages on Sunday mornings when everyone was at church - they especially wanted the women and children, and all people stolen ended up in Arab slave markets, sold to hareems. Many people in Asia and the Middle East and North Africa have white European ancestry because of it (and soldiers). I would LOVE to see a movie made about that - but it won;t be in these woke and broke lie times.

4.5 stars. A good yarn. A Sunday afternoon film. Watch with Lawrence of Arabia.

I really enjoyed this AND would recommend watching the 3 excellent little extra films on the final disc showing how the series was made and how they all strove for authenticity.

It's not fair really to compare it to VIKINGS - also an excellent show, but with a very different feel. I enjoyed both series massively.

Some great characters and fight scenes, although i would advise viewers to pay attention esp in early episodes as there are lots of characters and it can be confusing, esp when some of the women look so alike!

I'm not sure it's 100% necessary to have authentic casting for the Vikings with Scandinavian actors - though they are all great; the equal and opposite would be to say no non-native English speaker should be allowed to play native English speaker British/American roles in films. But anyway THANK GOODNESS there is no colourblind casting - if the BBC had make this or a pc woke film maker (like the one who cast an Indian actor as David Copperfield) the Anglo-Saxon and Viking strongholds may well resemble Wakanda lol. Or perhaps Midsomer Murders...

Some serious characters and some good fun comic ones - I liked the poor king who lives in a 'palace' shed! There were so many kings around at that time, in what was to be England and Wales, and Ireland and Scotland, it seems anyone who thought they could chance it as a warlord did so.

I am not a fan of historical novels really - I always see them as a bit of a cheat too, taking facts and characters from history with research and writing them up. But it is a popular genre and I often like the TV series that come from the books.

I particularly liked the authenticity in place names and character names too - though some of the Vikings are perhaps not so authentic, and look more like a 1980s version of Keith Richards! I know Winchester which was Alfred's capital so that made it even more interesting for me.

Great anyway. Good music too.