Film Reviews by PV

I have to confess I hate Marvel and superhero movies BUT rented this as the preview looked good. A mistake. I lasted just after halfway before yawning for the umpteenth time and ejecting. I have forgotten the first half already - it is that sort of movie.

Clearly aimed at the teenaged computer game generation, this is so CGI and computer game-y that for me it got very boring very quickly. A lot of cod spiritual nonsense reminded me of 'grasshopper' in the 1970s - all mystical nonsense about different dimensions and totally humorless.

Watch the 3 series of DA VINCI'S DEMONS instead to get mystical united with fun.

This is just boring. 1.5 stars rounded up.

This is a TV series made, I presume, to pander to the MeToo demands for more 'strong female lead' characters in drama. Most movies doing that have flopped badly because the movies are so dull. This is not, BUT I longed for a TV drama about the more fascinating Peter the Great (early 18th C and he worked as a ship builder incognito of Deptford in London too) or Ivan the Terrible (16th C).

Helen Mirren does her usual royal imperious act, though it was hard to keep her portrayal of Elizabeth II in The Queen out of my head while watching this.

I am no expert but I believe Catherine was a brutal ruler who executed many people - she is portrayed here as a 'liberal' who wants to ban slavery (Russia had serfdom till 1860s, I think). I suspect Russian language films about Russian history will be better.

Potemkin in real life was a sycophant who grovelled to Catherine and lied to her about the success of Russia. He lends his name to Potemkin Villages - the fake PR exercise using stage set boarded facades of houses which he ordered by put up along a river so when Catherine saw them from her boat she thought these were wonderful new villages and towns constructed during her reign., It is baffling that that is not included here. Instead Potemkin is portrayed as an idealised and perfect man who was adored by Catherine - the relationship was a lot more political then that. BUT then, The Crown is pure fiction and lies re the British royal family, and Hollywood's pc lies are legion.

The Crimea features no doubt as the recent annexation of Crimea by Russia was a news story not so long ago - and it all started here.

All filmed in Lithuania. Nice period buildings, sure, but it ain't the real thing, the Kremlin, Read Square, the WInter Palace and Hermitage. So it's all rather understated and just not bling enough, really.

But, watchable. If meandering. I'd love to see a series on Peter the Great though. Over to you, Amazon/Netflix/whoever.

3 stars.

OK so I have to admit that The Lion King original was not my favourite Disney cartoon - not in the same league as Dumbo or Sleeping Beauty or Pinnochio for example. Its plot is totally ripped off from HAMLET. But anyway, I did enjoy this film with some reservations. Here are the pros and cons.

1) the bad things: why remake a decent animated feature anyway? Milking it. The animation though is superb - lovely colours and contracts black evil/lighter colourful day. Not sure how much they took from the original and how much they added. One issue then is that this looks SO realistic and yet a) the lions lack any physical sign of maleness under their tails (!) as if they are all sexless, and the naturalism jars then. b) the animals of various species all living together happily is pure nonsense - it works in an animated film BUT when this looks so realistic, it comes over as silly. I also disliked the use of black actors only for play the lions as if that makes it authentic! They are all Brits or Americans anyway. How absurd! Lions are not black people, even if living in Africa! Clownworld 'authentic casting' trend. WHY is Nala sounding like an African American sassy woman as played be Beyonce? Miscast badly. I can think of many white actresses who could have done a MUCH better job. The music by Pharrel Williams is too modern R&B for me, and tbh the Elton John/Tim Rice songs were not all that great in the first place.

2) the goods things: the animation is really classy, detailed and superb. The script and story structure is well done. AND I loved the fact there was violence and death in this story - so many authors of children's books and TV shows get told these days that they are not allowed to show bad things happening or violence or death. So good for the Lion King producers for that. I did enjoy the characters and story, despite its silly 'all animals love each other' shtick. A good evil character in Scar too.

SO all in all, this is Disney milking it as it is all its back catalogue now - so lazy and cynical. On the plus side, I enjoyed a mindless almost 2 hours watching this fairy tale. So 3 stars.

I have to agree with all the poor reviews - this is an awful, amateurish film. It's as bad as the end of year art shows it parodies - that was the only bit of this where I even smiled. It's just over an hour yet feels so much longer because it is so very dull.

I assume it was made coz Simon Amstell has some rich and famous film industry mates. Just shows what a mistake cronyism can be then.

I like Simon Amstell as a presenter and also GRANDMA'S HOUSE a BBC2 sitcom.

I suspect this whole idea, a rather limp and twee gay fantasy, may have worked better as a gentle BBC2 late night sitcom.

I suppose some young gay guys coming out may relate to it. No-one else will. And even for them, no-one gets naked much.

The lead actor is a mumbleton who does not seem to be acting.

Truly awful, and so trendy it's disappeared up its own Hoxton hole somewhere in its body...

For a decent gay romance watch ANOTHER COUNTRY maybe or BEAUTIFUL THING. Not this.

1.5 stars rounded up to 2, solely on account of the music and half-decent French boy performer who is clearly posh Paris stock with a first name like Phoenix.

OK so the later series of VIKINGS are not as good as the earlier ones - something which often, or perhaps always, happens in TV series (think Peaky Blinders; think Endeauvour). But it is still hugely enjoyable.

Now we have the shifting loyalties of brothers with various power hubs, whether in England or Scandinavia.

Some of the 'strong independent women' metoo feminism goes way too far - in no way would women have talked to their noble husbands in the way many here do. But then they would not have been fighting in battle either - women were too precious as child bearers to risk losing, except the 'shield maidens' who were more like cheerleaders really. But then the pc elements of this drama reflect our age - not the Viking age. Just like all the 'sword and sandal' epic movies of the 1950s and 60s reflect those ages and not the real ancient world. I must admit groaning at the pc metoo stuff - the series would be better without much of it. It all makes me long for THE VIKINGS the late 1950s movie which made the late Kirk Douglas 's new production company rich (he was angry at being turned down for the Charlton Heston role in Ben Hur so optioned The Vikings immediately and produced and starred it in himself, then sacked the first director and appointed Stanley Kubrick...and the rest is history)

Some great characters here, all male really, the most interesting ones - Ivar the Boneless the snake-like disabled son of Ragnar (though nobody really knows why he was called that - maybe he was just impotent; some believe he had a brittle bone disease). Hvitseck who is great and conflicted. Ubber. The Warrior Bishop played sexily by Jonathan Rhys-Meyers (an improbable King Henry VIII in The Tudors). And even old Stephen Berkoff pops up theatrically in the final parts.

There is a 6th series and I look forward to it. Hard to keep up the momentum though really. This gets 4 stars (maybe 3.5 rounded up) from me - points taken off for the padding here (lots could be cut) and the OTT pc agenda.

I really disliked this film - more as it went on.

No plot spoilers but really when movies start with the spiritual guff, especially when it comes from nowhere, I tend to tune out. The first act is fine but after the halfway point, I wanted to chuck this DVD out of the window.

There is NO explanation where the mystical stuff comes from - the writers (incl the director) just though it'd be fun to add it, I suppose. So why not a space ship too, some aliens, maybe a unicorn - they would make as much sense.,

The acting is fine and the slow pace arty as expected. It's pretentious, unbelievable and silly - and nowhere near as clever as it thinks it is - though I can see the roots of this story in Ancient Greek drama which it rips off (as so many soaps). Why arty types worship this director I shall never know. This is a boring stage play brought to life - slowly.

And no way is this as bad as the dreadful THE LOBSTER by the same director.

But really, if you want a revenge drama, watch MISERY or CAPE FEAR (original drama) or even JAWS or the excellent NIGHT OF THE HUNTER - panned on release which is why the British gay director Charles Laughton (played Henry VIII in 1930s and Hunchback of Notre Dame) could not face making another film. BUT IT IS BRILLIANT. And all those moves are far more intelligent than this arty tosh.

1.5 stars rounded up

I loved this film when I watched it on TV as a kid in the late 70s so thought I'd watch it again - and loved it. Yes, it's dated in a way - but so what? Some so-called progress in movies such as CGI or pc quota casting is often not progress at all.

Lots of stars here - Gregory Peck. Tele Savalas, Anthony Quale. And loads of wonderful Apache who these days would not pass the pc censorship test as the actors who play them are not real Native Americans! See what I mean about 'progress' - it's ACTING, for goodness sake. The nonsense of so-called 'authentic casting' now does not recognise that!

The music is pretty awful and by the great Quincy Jones who, less than 15 years later, was writing and producing THRILLER with Michael Jackson.

If you like a good Western and some good old hokum about finding gold with goodies and baddies, then you'll like this; If you demand CGI, quick edits and pc casting, you won't.

But I give it 4.5 stars rounded up. It's one of the best cowboys and Indian movies ever.

This movie was SO boring - I was prepared to give it a go, but honestly, the more it plodded on the more tedious it got.

A typically #MeToo absurd story line - the lead is a 'strong and independent' woman and conveniently a wonderful swimmer - because of course no alligator could possible swim as fast as such a strong and empowered girlpower star. Yawn.

Very boring compared to some great disaster monster movies, like the Jurassic Park series (all of them) or some shark movies.

The CGI alligators are OK . That is the only good thing I can say.

AS real turkey. 1 star.

This has to be THE worst shark movie ever.

It reminds me of PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE by the worst director in history, ED WOOD (as played by Johnny Depp in the wonderful movie with Martin Landau as Bela Lugosi). That is a great film. This is a dreadful one - it even uses stock footage like Ed Wood of nuclear explosions etc.

An absurd plot and wooden acting - though occasionally one senses it's comedy horror but nowhere near enough. I did toy with giving it 2 stars for some one-liners but the whole thing is just so awful, I stopped myself just in time.

It tries to be modern - text messages and online stuff, as well as drones. A daft play re nuclear bombs and a glowing red hot radioactive shark and silly plot points make this a tedious watch. Even worse than Ghost Shark.

Made in that world champion of the film industry, Puerto Rico.

I give this 3.5 stars rounded up - it's not as good as earlier series, as great characters die and leave. It is still watchable though with plenty of violence, family feuding, Viking atrocities etc.

First, the comedy: it is truly hilarious to watch all these pretty Vikings with peachy faces with barely a blemish, so well dressed and with perfectly complete and white teeth. The Vikings must have been brilliant dentists eh? And then the many female warriors - all pretty lookers with long blonde hair, who behave just like women in 2020! This all says way more re #MeToo than about the 9th century. And now even gay/lesbian storylines.

History is interpreted here to meet 21st century audience expectations. There are historical facts as with Ivar the Boneless (who may have just been impotent not a 'cripple') and Alfred becoming king (though in real life 2 of his brothers ruled for short periods before him) and the Vikings did take York etc. It's a fascinating glimpse into the 9th century BUT huge liberties have been taken with plot etc. For example, is there really any record of Vikings in Saharan Africa? And actually, Muslims did not make women wear burqas until they stole the idea from Byzantine Christians in the 111th century.

But it's all gory and bloodybathy, and some real grand guingnol keeps things splattering along nicely.

I enjoyed this film, esp the first act and to some extent the second BUT the final third ruined it for me - not spoilers.

US movies always have to descend into slushy sentimentalism often with a mystical, spiritual, quasi-religious flavour, and these days the woke virus ruins them too. Shame.

It's sort of like a cross between Dead Poets Society and The Breakfast Club updated for these pc woke diverse days.

It's a minor movie though, and not ground-breaking like those two - but pleasant enough.

But for some of the one liners and scenes it the first half, I give this 4 stars.

This is one of those movies based on stage plays that for a brief period in the last 60s were very popular, no doubt an innuendo-drenched reaction to the lifting of stage censorship by the Lord Chancellor in 1966.

Other plays in the same vein are NO SEX PLEASE. WE'RE BRITISH and THERE'S A GIRL IN MY SOUP. None of this stuff has aged well. Benny Hill has - watch that on YouTube.

These days, it looks SO dated - as if the sight of a penis on a statue would be enough to get an A certificate or a ban. Maybe it was funny in the late 60s/early 70s. Now it's more a curiosity piece. No doubt these days the feminists would call it sexist and get hysterical. It may therefore be fun to organise a MeToo film show just for them!

John Cleese plays a funny character - a psychiatrist who hates patients and psychiatry - and Tim Brooke-Taylor also there doing a posho character, suited to these public school-educated Python-esque comedians.

3 stars - for students of film either.

I remember the fuss when this film was shown in cinemas in the last 70s - the first time ever I heard of Islamic protests and demands. Little did I know what was coming down the line...

Anyway, it is a so-so but overlong epic - however, it whitewashes a lot, and reading books by Peter Townsend can fill in those gaps.

Many will be surprised at the promotion that Islam treats women as equals and does not force people into marriage or force them to convert to Islam - a light reading of history would debunk both.

The film makers were not brave enough to show Mohammad as a speaking character - instead the camera is him in a way reminiscent of the classic early 60s film PEEPING TOM, bizarrely.

If you like sword and sandals epics like Ben Hur of The Greatest Story Ever Told and those long 1950s films they used to play at Easter on the BBC (before it decided to ignore all Christian festivals but commemorate those of other faiths) then you'll like this.

It does show Islam as a warrior religion which fights - it also shows rightly that slavery was accepted by Muslims, and is, some would argue.

Interesting to watch. A bit of a curiosity piece really. Hamza played by Mexican-American actor Anthonio Quinn (Zorba the Greek; the Old Man of the Sea). These days no doubt casting would be what they now absurdly call 'ethnically appropriate' but Anthony Quinn and other acts do well. This is before CGI too and battle scenes are decent enough.

3 stars.

I enjoyed this though I probably enjoyed earlier series more. The pc gets greater as the series progresses - absurd female characters which say a great deal about the gender politics of now, not then. Pure femi-fantasy. Seeing female Viking warriors fighting in battles and killing 20 men is pure femi-fantasy, as is women leading and ordering their husbands (often kings) around.

Anyway, this series skips forward a few years and shows a ravaged RAGNAR crumbling as we see England again (though Wessex is in the West Country so NOT on England's east coast facing Norway - these boats would have had to go south through the English Channel then bear west to come ashore anywhere near Wessex; Northumbria is by contrast just over the sea from Norway). BUT then many places and towns in the west of England and Wales have names from the Norse Viking language.

His sons are grown (but why are their teeth so whitened and complete?) and plenty of potential there for conflict later, and the Mediterranean adventure should be fascinating. I hope it's not all too woke. I shudder to think what the BBC would have done with a Viking story - probably made it as 'diverse' and dreadful as Dr Who. I enjoy the lack of diversity in this and put up with all the silly tales of Viking queens - all amazingly good looking with long golden hair (yeah right).

I very much like the historical accuracy - there was a famous French king called ROLLO at this time (and William the Conquerer of 1066 fame was the grandson of Vikings who defeated and oppressed the French peasants, NORMANS are names after these NORTHMEN).

And of course there is Alfred, son of Athalstan the spared priest from Lindisfarne - all codswallop BUT of course, Alfred the Great (and his son) DID unite England. Visit Winchester to see his statue - that was the capital of Wessex. He died in 900 AD to the dates are correct.

Good fun epic,. so long as you do not see it as factual history, though it takes from that and adds the fantasy of our modern attitudes.

I only recently found out about this 2012 film so rented it out - and what a joy! It's a story about a documentary crew going into the Congo jungle to search for a reported creature in the rivers, but find much more (no spoilers).

This uses the technique of a found documentary film, like BLAIR WITCH or CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST and others, to great effect - the hand-held video footage brings the action closer somehow and gives it stronger flavour of realism.

But the characters and plot are believable too - yes, some may be two-dimensional tropes and even stereotypes, but so what? People do behave like stereotypes, and that is why they exist in the first place: they are based on truth.

The CGI effects are great, and totally believable. A nice selection of creatures and some genuinely scary moments.

This movie is SO watchable - I was glued to the screen.

True, I am as much a lover of dinosaur movies as I am a hater or superhero blockbusters, but even though, I have seen some pretty dire dinosaur films and this is up there in the top 10 of all time, maybe even top 5. A shame there is no sequel.

Shot in South Africa, though I am unsure how much the spectacular landscapes are real or CGI, or probably a combination of both.

5 stars. I could watch it all again now.