Film Reviews by PV

OK so this is not as slick as Breaking Bad and can be a bit confusing - it's been a while since I saw the previous series so I was a bit foxed at times.

However, I still enjoyed it much more than most UK TV drama series.

It's still slick and well-made, with interesting plot twists and well-rounded characters. I presume another series is coming too. 4/5

First, the negatives: this is way too long, with so much lingering on moments of struggling with PTSD and personal relationships - it could have been made to fit into 90 minutes, I am sure, and lays on the emotions rather thick to garner sympathy. This could be because the director has only directed documentaries before.

Second, the positives: it's better than the movie THE NEGOTIATOR which starred Rosamund Pike too, at least, and tells a tragic tale well.

One wonders how fair and unbiased this is, however - I doubt the writer or backers blame anyone but Assad for the situation in Syria; however, it's well known that Homs was full of ISIS supporters. So it's strange, as it was on news reports in the UK, to have the West siding with ISIS Islamists who are also responsible for terror attacks in Britain, France, Germany etc.

It's all aimed squarely at a US audience - why there's some Brit-blaming from the main character in Sri Lanka. For the record, the British Empire did not create ethnic/religious/caste/tribal tensions in Ceylon or India or Asia - they were there anyway! The British in fact tried to lessen them via a man-made law which applied equally to all and tried to get rid of the caste system. but it lingers on.

Also worth mentioning that there are a great many war journalists, mostly male, many of whom get killed and injured yet don't get movies made about them. I suppose they all have to balance being bold and/or reckless with safety concerns too, and maybe the risks excite these types of people, even if they get attacked. Maybe, like a lot of risk-taking mountaineers, many of them suffer depression if not taking such risks. Rather them than me anyway.

I'm sure a lot more films can be made about Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq and other warzones. This is a useful addition to the genre. 3 stars.

Well Christian Bale was nominated for a best actor Oscar for this and maybe he should have won it AND the actor SAM ROCKWELL playing George W Bush certainly should have won a supporting actor Oscar for that (the black guy from Green Book stole that one for a phoned-in role to tick diversity boxes).

But the movie itself I found really slow and boring - I suppose if you're American, esp if you're a liberal who hates Cheney and Republicans, then you'll like this more. For me it was dull, and I had to rewind in parts and check subtitles not to miss anything in the montage. Watch HOUSE OF CARDS US version first 4 series or UK series for a brilliant drama. Not this.

It's all very tricksy and post-modern, thinking it's cleverer than it is! Like fake credits half way through, or the narrator 'twist' towards the end (NO SPOILERS) which is the same as the twist I have read in 3 separate novels! It's not that clever, really. Dull, yes, and TOO DAMN LONG.

Thing is, you could make a hatchet job like this about ANY politician - Obama, for example - and PLENTY of people have alcohol problems. Remember that the USA is a democracy and the people voted for Trump and George W too. In fact, I recently watched a movie re surveillance by the US govt (cannot remember the title) and Obama was fingered to that, allowing the CIA etc to monitor ALL emails and calls. I just do not believe the 'liberal conspiracy theory' either, no matter how much so many want to.

There's a silly bit after a few minutes of the end credits so watch on.

2 stars.

Glad when it finished.

I enjoyed this movie. However, it is flawed and silly in parts. For example, the TOTALLY unnecessary Irish scenes in the third act, which are a blatant attempt to appeal to US audiences. That failed, as the movie was not shown much there, hence NO Oscar nominations at all.

John C Reilly should have won BEST ACTOR maybe, and the actress playing Stan Laurel's Russian wife CERTAINLY should have won BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS (won by an African-American actress - predictably). It is perhaps their misfortune to be around in an age when 'people of colour' have an unfair advantage for nominations and so often leapfrog over better actors to get their (often undeserved) wins. Sad.

I heard a much better radio play from 2004 called STAN by Neil Brand - it's available on YouTube - set after Ollie had had a stroke and was on his death bed in the USA. That's sublime drama.

This is yet another PBC movie - 'pre-branded content'. Film Studios love making movies about events and people we KNOW - such as the life of Queen, Elton John, 'based on a true story' stuff, like The Queen, Margaret et al. This is because people are more likely to go and see such films rather than 'cold' movies which are completely original. It also seems true that in these politically divided times, we are seeing loads of song and dance films - as in the 1930s, Busby Berkely movies at a time of depression and chaos.

This also annoyed me as, to comply with the BAME-casting so-called 'colourblind' obsessed these days, there were several black and Asian actors cast - as theatre manager in Glasgow, hotel receptionist in Newcastle and at the Savoy. This is 1953! Let's say that again. 1953! Even London was not very ethnically diverse then - Newcastle certainly wasn't. I have photos taken in London from my father from the early 50s. One black face - a nurse. That's it. To cast BAME actors in such roles is NOT OK - even worse in silly films like MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS which casts black actors late 16th Dukes which is ABSURD!). It is rewriting history - very Stalinist actually. And NOT true or real. It's fraud, basically - and cringe-worthy. And what is worse is audiences will actually BELIEVE 16th C Dukes were black and 1953 Britain was very ethnic too. It wasn't. This is pure pc propaganda and ruins many movies now.

The acting is great - though it is hard to see Steve Coogan in anything and not think of Alan Partridge of 'AHA!'. John C Reilly should have been nominated for an Oscar as should the 2 women playing the wives. The fact they were not is a disgrace BUT this movie got limited release in the USA. ALL filmed in England though.

It's worth remembering that ONE reason this is an enjoyable watch is because of the genius of Laurel and Hardy (and in fact it was the Brit Stan Laurel who wrote it all and was the genius; Ollie just acted - perfectly - but he was not a creator). Not knighted and had financial issues as they got older which is sad and just shows how cut-throat and exploitative the movie industry has always been. The routines are fab - The Blue-ridged Mountains of Virginia especially which has always been my favourite Laurel and Hardy sketch BUT WHY NOT watch the ORIGINAL movies, all 150 of them, rather than recreations here?

Nice to see Swansea on the map - I know the Palace Theatre there where Laurel and Hardy performed is now derelict. Chaplin performed there too any Anthony Hopkins. Sad.

Nice to see Richard Cant (son of Brian) in the cast too.

SO I give this 3 stars out of 5. It would have been 4 if not for the silly pc casting and the mistake of pandering to US audiences with the Irish section.

This film demands concentration - it's got quite a complex and winding plot AND some characters look very similar, so the viewer has to keep on his toes! I used subtitles too and rewound at certain points.

Some thrills and spills, with plot twists and it all shows how confusing and confused the tribal warfare in Lebanon is - with the PLO, Christians and Israelis all at each others' throats. Worth watching with the great animated movie WALTZ WITH BASHIR (which explains the history and politics) and maybe the film LEBANON too.

I enjoyed this BUT hated the way so many scenes took place in the dark. Really annoying!

Also the alcoholic has-been called in for a special mission is SUCH a cliche.

Ultimately depressing - hard to think that Beirut used to be somewhere like Cannes, or Monte Carlo, where the rich went. These places and many others were arguably better under colonialism by European powers - which is not a pc thing to say, but true, none the less. Ditto with Africa.

Around 3 stars. Would be 4 were it not for the confusing casting, the slowness at the start and the plethora of scenes shot in near-darkness!

I agree with others that this is worth 2 stars at most.

It's slow, and I mean REALLY slow, and also very depressing and occasionally violent BUT it is set on a rock with a lighthouse, so it's hard to see how anyone can make an exciting film from that.

It's all a fantasy. What probably happened with the 'true story' this story is based on is that the 3 lighthouse keepers were washed away by a big wave when they were fishing on rocks.

This confused story, with some mysterious 'gold' theme, is sheer Boy's Own fantasy.

I did not believe the sudden decent into madness of one character either or what he did.

Too Scottish for my liking too. Taxpayer-funded by state subsidy, remember.

I enjoyed this, but not as much as Bohemian Rhapsody, perhaps because I am more of a Queen fan and have never really been a massive Elton John fan (despite going to a concert on his final tour this very week!).

Both movies are 'based on a true fantasy' and play fast and loose with the truth and timeline - songs written in the 80s feature in the 70s etc (such as I'm Still Standing which is 1983!). Also, I always heard Elton got his surname from Long John Baldry in whose band he played - that is all left out here. As are friendships with Freddie Mercury, George Michael and Princess Diana. It's all 1970s-focused and set, even if the timeline for a lot is the 80s. It's still the 70s in its heart!

I have read am interview with one of Elton's half-brothers (who lives an alternative lifestyle making tee-pees in north Wales) which states the negative portrayal of their father is wrong and inaccurate - and I am sure it is. Drama needs baddies to overcome. I know Elton was estranged from his mum was 15 years until shortly before her death in 2017 because she gave an interview he disapproved of - and Elton's been sober 28 years, it says at the end. SO Elton seems hardly angelic himself in his petty ruthless behaviour and would seem to still have a god complex of some sort.

I found the therapy-like emphasis that a lack of hugs from daddy messed up little Reggie Dwight's head tiresome - as if that matters! Until very recently, dads did not hug their kids. Does that make them all monsters? Arguably, kids were LESS messed up in the past when dads did not hug them every day and when most kids had 2 parents at home, a mum and a dad. Discuss...

As in most movies which show alcohol and drug abuse (eg Wolf of Wall Street) the abuser looks the picture of heath - no days in bed with DTs and cold sweats. Watch The Lost Weekend to see that, or Leaving Las Vegas. Vodka for breakfast is not sustainable!

The gay sex scenes are so mild too - even THAT'LL BE THE DAY the classic rock n roll movie from the early 70s with David Essex showed more explicit scenes. No idea what the fuss is about!

This is really a song and dance movie, (music arranged by George Martin's son), a fluffy musical at heart. BUT a great performance by Welsh actor Taron Egerton which should win him an Oscar but probably won't because he's not black or visibly ethnic - or female. Ho hum...

Good to watch if you're in the right mood, and designed to have mass appeal - a sort of white 1970s Bollywood movie in places (and an Indian dance routine is even there at a fairground scene set in the early 60s. Yeah, right...)

Worth watching just to Taron Egerton's brilliant performance and the music. 4 stars.

OK so this is not quite up there with brilliant films featuring the chaotic end of WWII such as DOWNFALL or the wonderful German TV series GENERATION WAR. But it's a fascinating portrayal of the end of the war through the eyes of German soldiers - who eventually become a rag-taggle unit of lawless German soldiers, which reminded me a bit of KELLY'S HEROES or APOCALYSE NOW.

I wonder how much of the story shown is 100% true; and also yearn to know what happened to the first soldier the 'captain' meets called Freitag (Friday) which may be a Robinson Crusoe reference, as the 'captain' is stranded a alone on an island in a way.

The film shows how anyone can adopt utterly amoral brutality when they get a taste of power. It also shows how absurd it is to automatically respect someone for their name of rank or uniform, because it's all basically a pose. There used to be a TV series called FAKING IT when people got tasked with posing as various roles they knew nothing about AND they mostly pulled it off - I remember the laddish navy guy who posed as a drag queen, and NO expert guessed they were faking it.

We're all acting a role, and even if we don't think we're in a play, we are anyway...

The end credits of this are sort of fun, so watch them - Nazis driving through the modern-day town and searching passersby (obviously actors). This is the sort of movie Hollywood cannot make, and worth a watch. 4 stars.

This series has a massive black hole at its centre - a Kevin-Spacey-shaped hole. There is no getting away from the fact that his presence is what really made the US version of House of Cards a great and, indeed, classic TV drama. Without him, it's like Dallas or Dynasty at The Whitehouse with increasingly preposterous plots and #metoo femi-posing (and personally I do not agree that any man accused by possible compo and attention-seekers should even be named, let alone fired from ANY job - Spacey has not been charged and has had not trial for the allegations by adult males). I did not even watch the last DVD - I was so sick and tired of it all by then.

TOO many women characters - who all merge into one in the end. This drama is so busy meeting its diversity targets it forgot it exists to entertain! That's where drama by committee gets you - boring worthy po-faced drama. With lots of women and black people.

Forget this series; watch and enjoy the towering performance by Kevin Spacey in the first few series - and I sincerely hope Mr Spacey is back on our screens soon too.

2.5 stars rounded up.

I enjoyed watching this film, though yes, it does lapse into romantic melodrama - a tad Mills and Boon really. Tulip Fever was a best-selling novel, and I suspect 95% of the readership was female too - so it's one of those movies.

Oddly, for a movie based on tulips, there are very few flowers to be seen here. Maybe because it's mostly filmed in studios?

Some period detail is good and interesting, especially for those who previously knew nothing or little about the tulip bulb craze in Holland in the late 17th century - a financial bubble, repeated many times since (South Sea, Internet etc).

I did have an issue with the casting, though Tom Hollander is excellent as usual, here as a dodgy 'doctor'. Some great minor characters, and Judi Dench phones it in as an old nun.

I have seen a great many paintings of this golden age of Amsterdam, with wealthy businessmen, and not one was black - some servants were and sailors. But to cast a black actor as being central to the tulip trade is just plain silly - like casting a white ginger man as a Zulu chief. I wonder whether this is being loyal to the novel or something added for the sake of 'diversity'.

Anyway, if you enjoy long-winded romantic melodramas, then this is for you - though the plot is about as believable as Star Trek.

3 stars.

I had no idea what to expect with this movie, but as it started and CGI dawned, I was gripped. It's just SO original, and for once, CGI is used well and with flair - unlike the usual CGI overload of many Hollywood movies.

What is even more remarkable is that it's based on a true story.

It's hard to describe this film - and I usually don't like fantasies though this movie takes place in 2 worlds, in effect.

But just great. Sure., it gets a little twee towards the end as most US movies do BUT even that is not overdone and does not ruin the movie.

I would have loved to have seen a bit more of the funny Russian carer...but these are minor quibbles.

This is the best Hollywood movie I have seen for ages. I won't be watching Aladdin or any Marvel Comic/Avengers mainstream tripe.

If you like your films a little off-beat and quirky, then this is for you.

I shall probably watch it again in 6 months or so - it's that sort of film. Memorable. Original. Classic, even.

I found the first hour of this film excruciatingly boring - I was watching the clock a lot. Then around the 1 hour mark, things pick up with the rivalry between the 2 'favourites'. From then on it's watchable.

Sarah Churchill who became Lady Marlborough (Queen Anne gave the lordship to her husband for his military and political duties, and Winston Churchill is from that line) DID in history fall out with the monarch and thus portrayed Anne badly in her memoirs. The falling out, however, was political and about money, NOT lesbian affairs of competition with other favourites. That is all pure fiction. It's MADE UP, folks!

But hey, make a movie about some old British monarch, give it a women-focused feminist slant, add a good dollop of lesbianism, and then add some illness/disability (miscarriages, gout, early 18th C wheelchairs) and you are guaranteed Oscar nominations. Queen Anne did have gout and get carried round in sedan chairs and in a wheelchair because it made her lame - she became very obese and depressive because of it too. That is fact.

BUT this film is not a patch on THE MADNESS OF KING GEORGE (set 50-70 years later) or the brilliant THE KING'S SPEECH.

THE FAVOURITE is, in fact, rather a forgettable movie AND mostly fiction, which reflects our pc feminist #metoo age, not the historical reality of 300 years ago.

For the record, Queen Anne gave birth to 12 babies, 5 lived, most died under 2 years of age BUT one - William - lived till 11. The other 5 were miscarriages (half of all pregnancies end in miscarriage actually, most not even noticed).

There is NO historical record of any lesbian affair with a favourite or any poisoning or any rabbits or the rest - this is all from the imagination of the (female) author, no doubt keen to put women and women's concerns centre-stage in her script (which took 20 years to be filmed - it's now 'on trend' as is so female-focused, of course).

Yes, gambling was growing popular at the time. Yes, Queen Anne's 5 year reign was important because under her Great Britain was formed as a solely Protestant Christian nation which excluded Catholics (like Anne's deposed Papist father King James II - her sister was Mary, married to William of Orange, who ruled as WILLIAM AND MARY from the 1688 Glorious Revolution) and modern Tory-Whig politics developed. THAT is what is important - and maybe the furniture. Not fantasy lesbian romantic subplots.

And people did NOT use the word 'smart' to mean 'clever' in the early 18th century either. That is annoying. The language AND the female characters in this film are WAY too modern - it's like 'girl power' and post-1990s aggressive feminist women. They would NOT have behaved like that in the 18th century - or even 50 years ago! As per usual, the women are just TOO modern in looks and attitudes. And thus, not really believable as characters.

Thankfully, the diversity police have not riddled the cast with black actors, making it all unrealistic, though the number of black servants is overplayed and the sole black noblewoman I glimpsed is an absurdity - she would simply not have been there. It's a shame people who watch this will think they are watching documentary history. They are not, They are watching a Mills and Boon, feminist, made-up version of history to suit the 'politically correct' prejudices of our age.

To watch a brilliant movie set just before this in history, watch THE LION IN WINTER all about the development of the English Civil War and Charles I.

Worthy of Oscars? No. Except for costume design.

The music and credit design at the end is dreadful.

2.5 stars rounded up.

The 1964 Mary Poppins was a classic with GREAT melodic songs written by the brilliant Sherman Brothers - way better songs that Greatest Showman R&B anthems, too. Dick's accent was gloriously bad, the cartoon sequences interesting and fun, the kids great (sad the actor who played the boy Michael died aged 21 after getting infected with a liver-destroying parasite after eating bad meat on a trip to India...)

But this... I usually really like Ben Wishaw and Julie Waters, but their presence here and the whole set up only serves to remind the viewer of Paddington which was a genuinely funny film. This isn't.

And the songs are DREADFUL - 4th rate rubbish, totally forgettable. Compare with the wonderful songs in the original.

And, seriously, if this is set around 1929 or so, would there really be a black solicitor? Or a black secretary at a bank? REALLY? Utterly absurd casting - film makers MUST respect reality or the audience cannot suspend disbelief and enjoy the story. Casting so many black characters is as daft as casting white actors to play Zulu warriors of native Africans, and I didn't see any white faces in Black Panther...

SO the story's weak and derivative, the songs are terrible and unmemorable, so is anything good? Well I liked the scene where the characters 'enter' the world of the ceramic pot - that is fun and clever, and that gets the 1 star.

The rest - JUST AWFUL. I just do not understand how anyone can give this 4 or 5 stars. The critics said the songs are not up there with the songs in the original, and they are right - the songs are down there with the worst I have ever heard!

This is all style over substance - expensive CGI and animation won't fix a film with a weak foundation.

AND no way in 1929 would people use the word 'snuck' as the past tense of 'sneak' - the past tense is SNEAKED. Still is. 'Snuck' is Americanese.

First, I know my history. That is why I know the agenda this film desperately tried to promote - ie that all Brits were racist and horrible to Polish airmen in WWII is a lie. The analogy at the end re 56% wanting Poles to return to Poland is also a lie - of course, people wanted Poles to return home to a free Poland (for their own sake NOT because they were racist against Poles) - the USSR made that impossible and actually killed and imprisoned many who returned.

The British (actually ENGLISH) RAF men - I note the director has a Scottish name - are portrayed as racist, bigoted, hateful thugs - a racist portrayal and absurd as any pantomime villain. Maybe they should have worn twirly moustaches as with racist English stereotypes in tedious song-and-dance Bollywood movies? They're as 2D as that - cartoon carboard cutouts of baddies.

The Poles had to be trained and learn enough English so as NOT to put others lives at risk. MANY other nationalities took part too. Czech for example AND I would recommend the movie DARK BLUE WORLD which shows that. MISSION OF HONOUR is another recent film showing what Polish airmen did.

BUT the best movie EVER is BATTLE OF BRITAIN from around 1970 - fantastic REAL aerial dogfight scenes - stunning - and all against specially written orchestral music! Watch that to see how the CGI here pales into parody.

Other problems with this film: the women are TOO modern - my mum was of that generation and I can tell you women then did NOT get drunk and put it about or have the aggressive girlpower attitudes on display here. You always had 'goodtime girls' BUT other women avoided them in general.

There is a scene of whooping and hollering after an airman plays the piano. People did NOT whoop and holler in 1940. Not even in the 1980s! This is a recent US import thanks to shows like Jeremy Kyle and other reality TV.

There is NO NEED to do down the British in order to make the Poles look like heroes - that reveals the amateurishness of the writers, for a start. Better writers would have created balance to reflect the truth - that in general Brits and Poles go on very well, plenty stayed after the war, more Polish immigrants came in then too (incl the dad of a guy I did my A levels with who had been recruited into the German army; other Poles were drafted into the Soviet army. No choice BUT we in Britain let them in., We did NOT chuck them out like the trash).

What always worried me about movies like this (and others such as ARGO, THE PATRIOT, U571) is that they show a lie which most people believe to be truth.

Here there is a clear attempt to make an analogy with Brexit which is just plain wrong - it's propaganda really, worthy of Stalin or Hitler. Fake news, if you want. The film makers should be ashamed of themselves. The British and Polish and other members of the RAF in 1940 should not - they stood against a European empire then, and stood fast. Maybe THAT is the analogy with Brexit eh?

2 stars. But watch the other movies I mentioned and watch a documentary on the RAF too - they are closer to the truth. This is the opposite of that. Very disappointing and, frankly, shameful.

One thing I will say is this is preferable to the over-rated CALL ME BY MY NAME which inexplicably won an Oscar.

However, it's all SO predictable - I knew how the plot would end in the first few minutes. Far too many scenes of mummy moping around feeling sorry for herself!

Rather irritated too by he posh, rich, spoilt, second home owning Juliet Stephenson mother character. Didn't believe the subplot re the father either. And the teen boy is rather spoilt too!

All perhaps a bit of a romantic fantasy film. The classic of that teen boy love genre is probably ANOTHER COUNTRY from 1983.

Prettily filmed. 3 stars.