Film Reviews by PV

This is a curiosity - made in the 1970s and it looks it. I haven't seen speeded up footage like this since the DOUBLE DECKERS were on TV! No OBs here - all filmed on obvious studio sets with surreal decoration, plus song and dance sequences,

Very odd and bonkers, and not frightening at all, more interesting.

I watched a more recent movie from Japan which also used animation as here - cannot remember the title, the Life of the Kamagochis or similar. Probably influenced by this.

But a good idea this mad collage of a movie which doesn't really make all that much sense didn't have more influence on film makers. Best keep these post-hippy curiosities back in the 1970s where they belong!

But different anyway, and more interesting that most yawnsome Hollywood haunted house movies. AND I LIKED THE CAT!

I endured this movie - I didn';t enjoy it. The whole thing is basically like a computer game. Way too long and, frankly, BORING.

I couldn't identity with any characters or care if they got killed or whatever.

The plot is utter hokum. No dramatic tension. Dreadful overblown score too.

NO MAGIC in this whatsoever as there was in many old Spielberg movies though to be fair he didn't write it (this monstrosity is based on a novel I shall try very hard to avoid for the rest of my life).

So achingly pc too - one white male out of a team of 5. Two females, one black, female and sassy (itself a stereotype); the other a sort of girl-power metoo man-girl co-lead. Then a Japanese male and a Chinese child - and lots of karate martial arts moves and set pieces ALL cynically designed to appeal to the massive Chinese market.

Not worth watching unless you're 12 with the attention span of a puppy and like computer games.

The first thing to say about this movie is that it has a MASSIVE plot hole. No spoilers, just 2 words to ponder: "DNA TESTING".

But if you can look beyond that, this is a slow but clever movie, not a horror really more a psychological case study which is what made it interesting.

I appreciate inter-racial relationships are still deeply controversial in the USA, way more than the UK; and also the US has 12 or 13% blacks who have lived there for centuries; the UK has 4% blacks mostly here from 1950s on (16% total ethnic but half that is south Asian, 1% Chinese, the rest Mixed Race etc). I get very annoyed when Brits and diversity campaigners demand more black faces on screen because, well, they're now over-represented! Remember, the UK is only 4% black as a whole.

Anyway, this is a neat little film, showing the awful ghetto culture of the largely black projects in the USA - this time New York; it was Baltimore in The Wire. More a TV film than a cinematic movie.

I particularly liked the retro 1970s-style synthy soundtrack.

The ending is unnecessary - the film could and should have ended sooner.

But that DNA TESTING plot hole really niggles. So 3 stars.

I LOVED this movie. One reason is that after watching the new film GHOST STORIES which is a homage to those old Portmanteau films by Hammer or others, usually from the 1960s and 70s, although THE film that began it all was DEAD OF NIGHT from 1945 which was remade in the 1970s with Tony Hopkins in the ventriloquist dummy story (Michael Redgrave was in the original version and the black and white camera-work and direction is Oscar-worthy).

These films feature usually 4 short stories united by a common thread - maybe all the tales feature visitors to an antiques shop run by a creepy owner, or they're all on a train, or whatever - and often they see the future in their dream sequences and then realise some horrific truth at the end (like they're all dead anyway).

I have been trying for years to find this movie - I always remembered the staring into the shears bit but had no idea re the Greek myth reference back then! I last watched this filmaged 11 on a black and white telly, a treat to stay up and watch the horror movie on a weekend night! I remembered the last 2 stories for all that time - esp the piano one 0 SO clearly. Now THAT is memorable, effective cinema! Most modern movies I forget in a couple of hours.

The 2nd story is duff and unbelievable; the first typical Hammer-esque. But the last 2 stories are sublime. I have just watched it again and LOVED IT. So 5 stars from me!

Yes, it's dated and was at the time probably, but that is part of its charm.

This film dates from 1945 so of course it will have dated - but criticism of that is rather unfair. I am sure the tedious Hollywood tripe of superhero movies like Black Panther will date much worse, and they have zero value.

This and the sublime SOME LIKE IT HOT are director Billy Wilder's masterpieces, and bot movies did badly in preview screenings. These days such negative previews would mean an editor would cut them to shreds; thankfully, back in 1945 directors who stick to their guns! And thank goodness, because THE LOST WEEKEND and SOME LIKE IT HOT and two of the best movies ever made.

THE LOST WEEKEND is based on the classic book which I have read - and so the entire plot makes sense in the light of that. I found myself rooting for the main character to recover and get writing!

Now, I know the #Metoo moaner mob lobby and the pc diversity-worship virtue signallers will get all po-faced and self-righteous about the very male-based story, the passive female characters, the one black character as a toilet assistant in a bar. But this was 73 years ago! And I much prefer a portrayal like this compared to the box-ticking 'politically correct' dramas of now . Maybe this could actually be remade with an all-female drunk cast, like some dipsomaniac Ghostbusters. Now there's a thought LOL.

A serious issue well-handled and imaginatively directed - and the views of New York's Jewish and Irish quarters are fascinating. I wish it looked like that now - I would definitely visit.

Of course, tales of drunken writers are nothing knew and many famous writers have been drunks from Poe to Fitzgerald to Dylan Thomas. And it's hard to portray that without getting boring but Wilder succeeds - my reaction was certainly not to condemn the addict but to pity him. Perhaps these days the drunk would need to be a weepy professional victim woman to gain our sympathy, and that says a lot more about us and our hypocritical society than anything else. It's very easy to condemn. But plenty of stones flying around glass houses, methinks.

Of course, without his rich brother's help he'd be on the street, which is the same from a lot of addicts from wealthier backgrounds.

A good partner film to LEAVING LAS VEGAS a modern version really, or THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN ARM, or TV series BREAKING BAD or THE WIRE to show addiction through drugs, but alcohol was and is the biggest addiction issue in our society.

5 stars.

I really wanted to like this film because it's a local British/Welsh production and I always support independent films and those who dare to have a go. However there are real issues with this:

1) the plot features way too many characters and is confusing. This leads to a sort of two-dimensional character thriller which has various violent events but they have little impact because we never really care about any characters, except maybe the teenage boy.

2) the acting is sometimes very wooden indeed.

3) the ending which is supposed to be a 'Usual Suspects' type reveal made no sense to me - it's meant to be profound but is just confusing.

4) there is no humour. None. Other than 'laughing at' some dreadful acting.

So, how to solve these issues? Rewrite and rewrite and rewrite the script, get rid of superfluous characters and streamline everything. FAR more attention at the pre-production stage was needed. This really needs a script doctor!

I believe this is a state-funded production with British Council money, no doubt because it's very ethnically diverse. However, it just does not work as a movie. Which is a shame, because this does look fairly glossy and professional, and there is a kicking soundtrack at the start too.

1.5 stars rounded up.

I loved this film - which is based on a stage play, which shows in the clever structure and twists.

Andy Newman comes from a magic production background - he produces many of Derren Brown's stage shows - and Jeremy Dyson who cowrote/produced this with Newman, comes from The League of Gentlemen, so that's a class double act to start with.

Three short stories about spooky goings-on are linked by common threads (no spoilers) and, whilst the increasing tricksiness may pose more questions than it answers and irritate, it keeps the film well-paced and entertaining until the very end.

Paul Whitehouse plays, well, Paul Whitehouse doing his cockney act though makes it more mental than on The Fast Show or his own TV show; Martin Freeman is brilliant as a posho city boy - in fact, he's so convincing that at first I didn't recognise him - his impression is spot-on of that type of person. The middle tale of a teenager is also entertaining.

I do so hope more of these modern portmanteau horror movies get made - I loved the old Hammer horror ones, often featuring Peter Cushing and people like Roy Castle and even Boris Karloff (British Universal horror veteran William Pratt). The first was perhaps the brilliant Dead of Night (1945) which was remade in the early 70s - the ventriloquist doll sequence of the first movie is classic. But also Dr Terror's House of Horror, Torture Garden, Tales from the Crypt, Asylum etc. They died out (pardon the pun) as Hammer went under in the 80s, which is a shame - though TV replaced horror movies really. Now they live again. HOORAH!

These portmanteau films always have a twist at the end which links all the stories, so keep your wits about you during the film as the ending will make more sense then (no spoilers).

I could watch this all over again. Brilliant entertainment and genuinely spooky with some frights and jumps along the way, though the stories are based on old horror tropes such as the haunted house/asylum, a broken-down car, spooky woods, ghostly children etc.

Enjoy the ride! 5 stars!

I LOVE film music - from the old Charlie Chaplin films to Ealing Comedies to the great John Williams scores for Spielberg and then Jerry Goldsmith scores from the 1970s.

However, this US-focused documentary interviews a lot of composers who, unlike those mentioned above, fail to compose or write any memorable music - what they write is music. Composers here have credits for Minions and the Lego Movie for goodness sake! Music for such things and most superhero movies like the Avengers is tat, pure muzak, and not as some of the writers features here, the equivalent of Beethoven!

Happily there is NO pc bas here - if this had been made by the diversity-worshipping BBC they'd parachute a lot of minor female composers in to try and achieve alleged 'gender equality' (which would be the opposite!). Most featured here are men because the fact is men tend to be better at songwriting and composing (83% of PRS members are male, and film writing and directing, come to that.

One interesting section visits AIR studios near London, but this is very much a Hollywood show so people here make claims that withouth film music there wouldn't be any orchestras any more. WELL maybe in the USA< but in the UK and Europe we have state-funded orchestras aplenty and actually TOO MANY funded by the BBC licence payer - 9! Way too many!

Anyway, a so-so movie but all a bit MEH!

This film was so awful I couldn't watch till the end.

Allegedly based on a 'true story' (AKA totally made up to tick on trend diversity boxes), this is about as realistic as Star Trek. THIS DID NOT HAPPEN. Yet all those watching this travesty will think it all did and is pure fact.

The romantic portrayal of native Indians contrasts with the nasty-wasty cartoon character, racist stereotype white British characters.

Most viewers of this pc tripe will not know that the British empire was the most benevolent in history, banned slavery and spread that ban around the world, outlawed backwards traditions in Indian such as widows throwing themselves on the funeral pyre of their husbands to burn to death, and managed a vast country - India, which the British in effect created (AND imported foodstuffs not native to India such as tea and chillies) - created a democracy, based on rule of man-made law and organisation. Compare and contrast with the brutal rule of the Mogul Muslim dictators the British replaced, or the ethnic/religious violence that erupted when the British left. There were NEVER more than 50,000 soldiers and 250,000 administrators in the British Raj to manage a country of 300 million people, so no-one can make a serious case that the British were unwelcome - people are not stupid: they know who the superpower is at any time! Thank goodness it was the British at the time and not the Nazi Germans or Japanese or Chinese, as it is now, sadly.

I refuse to watch such nonsense and trash. I'd much rather watch It AIN'T HALF HOT, MUM, to be honest yet that isn't pc enough - though the jokes is always on the white British soldiers and never the native Indians.

Well this film was so-so but the focus was all on the style as in a pop video - some tableaux are visually impressive too. But the story is basically unbelievable nonsense.

The director/writer obviously think the lesbian angle makes this original. It doesn't. It makes it boring.

This film annoyed me massively. From the start, it has a pc feminist agenda - incl the predictable child abuse back story (though the idea working men would stand by and let a small child get raped is wrong, and I doubt they'd be working alongside a black man either back then), hinted-at FGM with a hot iron, mucho abuse by nasty men (typical of drama and movies in this metoo mob age), loads of innocent fluffy women, and a 'strong' survivor woman taking centre stage.

OK so it's based on a Peter Ackroyd novel DAN LENO AND THE LIMEHOUSE GOLEM and we have to remember that this author is gay, Jewish and NOT a novelist really, being expert at non-fiction about London. And it shows.

Typical 'grand guignol' gruesomeness as expected from a Spanish director (more yawns).

I loved the actor playing Dan Leno; I thought the leading female failed to convince though. AND for me the twist was predictable, and also unbelievable. To murder someone and dismember them requires the strength of a strong man! That's all I'm saying. Pc reversed roles do not work - just as casting women as snipers and in roles which are 90% men (as in The Bodyguard) is dishonest and fails to convince.

My favourite part of this film - the Music Hall context - and Eddie Ramsden as the UNCLE character was great - until the YAWNSOME predictable 'men are all abusers' trope kicks in.

A film that could have been good but which annoys greatly and grates. 'Political correctness' and gender quotas do not a great movie make. Be warned - much more of this sort of stuff on its way from femi-Hollywood. We all lose as a result.

At first, I thought this movie would be a typical tedious Britflick low-budget horror BUT a great inciting incident, and the following trek to the Swedish forested wilderness gave it an unusual angle. Filmed in Romania by the way, not Sweden.

The ideas are not new at all - haunted house, spooky forest, witch craft etc - BUT the first and second acts were SO effective and being scary and spooky, it doesn't matter! The dialogue is crisp and realistic, as are the characters (except the need to tick diversity boxes with ethnic characters which did jolt me out of suspended disbelief really - just not necessary and one wonder if they were that in the original novel). The trick is to scare with atmosphere - the spooky forest and moving trees, growls of something in there, strange symbols and dreams.

Then the last act somewhat spoils it - but I suppose younger audiences will want the full money shot, to see the beast. It was so-so but a couple of plot holes yawn out during that final third.

However, all in all a decent movie - and one I think lesser low-budget movies like Jurassic Predator, with its opening scene, have stolen from.

The most impressive thing about this film is that it's written and directed by a Dutch guy and filmed in Spain, Germany and Hungary. Nothing in north America, but it convinces. The central baddie character is well played by Guy Pearce, though he is rather comic character.

Awful things about this movie are that it is so slow and overlong, and the 2-dimensional characters, esp the men all of whom are bad and nasty in contrast with all the women who are all victims and innocent in everything in every way. Yawn. The film is divided into several 'chapters' which is a trendy arty device, and relationships between people become clearer as we near the end of chapter 2 - at first, one wonders why the mute woman is so terrified of the new preacher. All will become clear...

This no doubt is a nod to the #metoo boohoo man-hating Hollywood fashion - but on the strength of this, such femi-films should be avoided at all costs. This sort of thing turns so easily into a misandrist cartoon with man baddies and woman goodies, if you're not careful. Is that really what an audience wants to see? I don't think so.

Lots of violence but so what? Doesn't bother me coz it's NOT REAL. Plenty of silly stupid cartoon violence in real comic book superhero films which I detest.

I hated the lush string-based sentimental score for this movie - always prodding the audience to cry at the sight of innocent women abused by nasty men - deeply manipulative, that. Ticking the boxes. Awful music.

One issue I always hate about films set in the 19th century - all the actors look TOO healthy and have perfect teeth - unlike REAL people in 19th century and present America (a British charity works for free to give poor Americans healthcare and dental care too, eg in New Orleans after the flood - their teeth are FAR worse than anything in Britain!)

Watch DEADWOOD the great US TV series with Lovejoy actor Ian McShane to see where they nicked a lot from (incl the brothel/bar, the Chinese trader, the pigs eating the corpses). Watch that for a superior version of 19th century America though that is very violent too.

Watch CAPE FEAR too (both versions) as that was a clear influence.

But if you really want to watch a GREAT movie about an evil preacher, then watch NIGHT OF THE HUNTER directed by the great actor Charles Laughton (Henry V!!! in 1930s film and the hunchback of Notre Dame too).

A BRILLIANT movie yet got such bad reviews on release that Laughton decided never to direct another film. Well done, evil critics. Now where did I put those man-eating pigs...

2.5 stars rounded up.

I hated this movie - but then I am not its target audience AKA teenage girls.

I must admit I lost interest and forgot this tedious movie as soon as it ended.

Unlike nuttier ever-moaning feminists I see nothing wrong in the concept and I'm sure the same themes could be used to create a much better, funnier, wittier movie in future.

But this is dire. 1 star and that's being generous!

Michael Caine is perfect to present this movie - though as he was born in 1933 I think, he was 30 when the 60s began in earnest! So his youth was in the stale, staid 1950s and he speaks well on that era. Believe it or not, MANY modern things started back then - like sex before marriage and more tolerant views towards homosexuality.

He has interviewed some real big fish like Paul McCartney for this film and other bits of old interviews with others are used too, so we also get the Stones, and especially The Who (real working class London boys).

His description of the 1950s is great - esp from a REAL working class kid like him. Sadly, most Cockneys now live in Essex or southern Spain, it seems, though you may find one or two amongst the Asian communities of East London - the ones who cannot afford to leave perhaps.

Important to remember that teenagers could exist and be freer because of increased wealth and the lack of a war to kill them (the boys anyway); conscription ended in 1960, I think. It didn't end in most other European countries. That was certainly ONE reason for the explosion in pop music in Britain.

My one criticism is this movie is a bit squeamish and coy about addressing issues of immigration and race, and attitudes of native Brits to this. Nothing on ska music or skinheads either.

It's stronger on social class though remember that even in the 60s, many who made it and got famous and had a singing time were posh and rich - as were the managers of most pop groups, and others who were famous. John Lennon and Mick Jagger both grew up in semi-detached suburbia so lower middle class rather than working class.

Sad to say social mobility has gone backwards in recent decades. Maybe because of the abolition of grammar schools, maybe because of sky-high property prices (13 times average income in London!).

I could watch this documentary again right now. A real treat. 5 stars.