Film Reviews by PV

Sometimes you just want to watch a simple, funny comedy - and this is it. No pretensions - it knows what it's about. 90 minute comedy to allow 3 big stars Christopher Walken, Morgan Freeman and William H Macy to shine.

Of course, in these days of metoo moaning femi-quotas, such male-focused movies would not go into production now BUT after people stop going to the cinema to watch the tedious femitrash, movies by gender quota, things WILL revert back to a MERIT-based approach.

Not on the pc BBC though where 50% of actors in main roles HAVE TO BE FEMALE by 2020. The reason I no longer watch BBC drama as it's tripe aimed at women. Give me BREAKING BAD or THE SOPRANOS any day (of PEAKY BLINDERS which is NOT made by the BBC but a private production company; ditto for that Tom Hiddleston drama the Night Manager; ditto for the London Olympics which the BBC did NOT film - the international Olympic organisation did that!)

I just really enjoyed this - and impressed that the artworks, a couple of which LOOK like plausible works by great artists, are not - they were created either for the film or as modern homages to the greats. Nice pictures!

I enjoyed this more than that Piers Brosnan art heist movie, and more than Mr Bean's Whistler's Mother one!

So 4 stars. Good clean fun.

(BTW many movies lack subtitles, often smaller releases - it's not uncommon, and a silly reason to give any movie 1 star. Better not to comment really).

Well this is sort of ANIMAL HOUSE crude, rude, lewd - the sort of thing kids whose shoe size is close to the age in years will enjoy.

For me - I endured it. It's basically a crude cartoon - a disposable trashy low-bar comedy.

Interest to see Welsh actor Craig Roberts wo starred in SUBMARINE in it though.

Like SO many movies these days, they get remade of get a sequel full of women - like YAWNSOME Ghostbuters, Oceans 8, Widows. Is this what Hollywood think we want?

The first movie was cartoony, lewd, rude, crude trash BUT it was twice as good as this femidrivel.

Just awful. Only watch if you're a sad teen girl maybe.

OK so this is enjoyable hokum, co-written by David Koepp (Jurassic Park) especially the first half BUT some things I seriously hated include:

1) the way every Hollywood movie now panders to the #metoo feminist mob by making women just like men - eg fighting in combat which women never did in history really - but more like the WORST most arrogant, abusive, chauvinist men but opposite. Tom Cruise gets hit in the face by TWO women in this film, and one is undead! Now, that is SUCH sexist hypocrisy - if Tom had hit these violent women back, he'd be an abuser, yes? So these 2 women are also abusers - IF we are to have gender equality. QED.

2) Some silly subplot re Jekyl and Hyde is absurd.

3) the idea Tom Cruise' character even if a meat-headed thicko would never have heard of hieroglyphics is absurd - even 8 year old children know about them and what they are!

4) This is overlong with a silly ending. The first half is superior.

5) The UK scenes flit around between London, Oxford (Radcliff Camera is in one) and Aylesbury though no sight of the famous and ancient standing stones.

Things I liked included:

1) The setting in the UK and especially the Natural History Museum - or a film set version of it (there is NO wooly mammoth in Hintze Hall there but a blue whale skeleton now. The specimen lab is fairly accurate - I have been down there and there IS a giant squid, though that too is a film set.

2) Watching the great CGI stuff - though honestly I preferred the 1930s Universal Studios THE MUMMY with Boris Karloff and also SHE from the 1950s.

3) the film references - like 'a new world of gods and monsters' from James Whales' 1930s Bride of Frankenstein. Others too.

4) Watching skeletons of 12th century Crusader knights doing breast stroke underwater. Hilarious!

5) The Iraq setting makes it interesting if hokum.

Just to state, this is all hokum - Egyptian pharaohs were all male, and in women, beauty and grace were admired, NOT being able to fight a man with a stick LOL. That's the #metoo virus infecting everything.

This is set up for a sequel but not sure if there'll be one after this.

OK so first some facts: 1) Dickens was 31 when A Christmas Carol was published in 1843, NOT 32 as stated here;

2)Goose was what they had on Christmas Day in the 19th century (it's even at the end of the story when Scrooge sends a boy to buy the biggest goose at the butchers for Tiny Tim and his family!);

3)Dickens did not have a teenage Irish servant/main who came up with the idea of Scrooge from an Irish myth (this movie is an Irish Film Board/Canadian production!); no doubt emphasised to appeal to Americans...

4)Christmas trees became popular after an illustration of Queen Victoria and her German husband with one at Buckingham palace BUT before then, British homes WERE decorated with evergreens such as holly, ivy, mistletoe and pine boughs, hoisted up in the top corners of rooms (as in Deck the Hall - NOT Halls, by the way - it's an old Welsh folk carol called Deck the Hall!(. Dickens wife was a famous spendthrift, which was the entire reason Dickens had to go on tours of America to make money to keep up with her shopping bills! She was no angel, as portrayed here!

5) Charles Dickens DID work in a blacking factory (on the Hungerford steps near Charing X station in London) aged 12; he then escaped that by becoming a journalist covering court cases who was well known for his massive work ethic (which killed him in the end from a stroke aged 58 in 1870). So his rejection of an alternative journalistic career to Forster (his biographer who I very much doubt sounded like a comedy Geordie in real life!) is utterly absurd. He was a SUCCESSFUL author by the 1840s, NOT a failure or a flop. He did have an expensive wife though, and had to tour the USA to make money to fund her shopping habits AND to counteract the lax US copyright which meant cheaper shorter copies of his stories under other authors' names came in days after his own novels were published (often in serial form in magazines AND with illustrations - always). The British copyright laws were better back then - and now, arguably.

6) Finally, Dickens like all writers would have spent hours thinking through his story AND certainly would have written the ending in his head very early on, so this is all fabricated really, to make a good movie and a book before it. Dickens wrote standing up (after drinking a pint of Champagne at midday every day!) but that hard effort and work is what created A Christmas Carol, which was one of 5 Christmas stories Dickens wrote in the 1840s - The Chimes, The Haunted Man, The Battle of Life and The Cricket on the Hearth are the others (I have read them all and would recommend people only read A Christmas Carol which is a BRILLIANT story): http://mentalfloss.com/article/521782/4-dickens-christmas-stories-youve-probably-never-heard

A good cast though. I particularly liked Charles Dickens ever-hopeful always-failed-small-businessman father. BUT how can the ghost of Christmas past NOT be an old man? To make it a teenage girl is daft.

WAY too much emphasis given to Dickens' wife (who was apparently AWFUL) and the teenage Irish servant girl who is a total fabrication.

It's all too American psychobabble and pc for me, but one has to be grateful for small mercies - tat least they didn't 'diversity destroy' it, and thankfully no family characters were black, as in the absurd and preachy pc Dr Who. Some silly modern turns of phrase in this too which made me wince.

BUT if you want to watch a movie, then rent out Scrooge (1951) starring the brilliant Alistair Sim. Watch that, NOT this.

AND DO READ A Christmas Carol too - it is not a long book, a novella or even short story in 5 parts (staves) and works SO well read aloud, especially in a group of family and/or friends at Christmas.

2 stars

I don't know whose idea it was to try and link modern dance routines and rehearsals - a tenuous link via the girlfriend of one of the Israeli soldiers - to a raid by Israel of terrorists hijacking a plane and taking it to Uganda when ruled by mad monster Idi Amin, but may I suggest they go and stay in a Ugandan prison for a while? That'll make it real...

Anyway, as a film maybe not as good as the 1976 RAID ON ENTEBBE or THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND or a drama-documentary I saw about this raid.

BUT this is always a story worth telling - as Israel fights the Islamist terrorists who want to destroy it and all Jews.

The review here that claims Israel 'stole' Palestinian land is nonsense! The land did NOT belong to them at all - and Palestine was only a country under the British. 700,000 Jews used to live in all the surrounding Muslim-ruled states (Iran, Iraq, Syria etc) - they had to leave and had all their property stolen by Arabs who want to kill them. GOOD FOR ISRAEL! It will NEVER be destroyed by Islamofascist Nazi terrorists like Hammas, and if they try then they'll end up like the saddo terrorists here.

It's always good to cheer on Israel, the ONLY democracy in the Middle East with human rights unlike ANY Muslim country in the entire world. I think Palestinian huggers need to so their research and read some history actually - they're as bad as the hard left German terrorists here. AND the Palestinians here hate Jews, end of, like so many leftists in the West too.

Anyway, I liked some psychological drama here with the silly naïve German lefties realising their lives and actions and stupid and pointless.

Interesting information on screen too, and a link to Netanyahu I didn't know.

This would have been 4 stars but all the modern dance references, rehearsals and scenes make me wince - I HATE modern dance with a passion and it's about as welcome in this movie as a Palestinian terrorist at a Bah Mitzva.

3 stars

Only the British could make a movie which makes a national hero who saved Britain, Europe and indeed, the civilised world, in 1940 when Britain stood alone, as a stupid, weak, cowardly idiot who didn't want to send troops to liberate Europe on D-Day in June 1944. This is very odd, as Churchill was more than keen to defeat Hitler and the Nazis and indeed to liberate France.

This film was OK - no more. Other submarine dramas struggle with the same issues - in such a confined space, conflict between men will be inevitable, and a psychological war happens, with a drip drip reveal of loyalties and the truth. It was thus in DAS BOOT the best submarine drama on film; and also in one I saw with ghosts on a sub.

Having visited a submarine in Italy, I would say this looks pretty roomy compared to the sub I went on where I was always bending down so as not to bang my head on metal!

Anyway, a plan to get gold is always fun (cf The Italian Job) and this movie is credible, incl the twists and turns.

I disliked the way Jude Law for some stupid reason has to put on a a Scottish accent. WHY? Is that the myth of all Scots being salt of the earth trustworthy fellows (just look at the cybernats and SNPO to explode that lie!). It would have been better with a London accent.

The Russians and stereotypical BUT then stereotypes are based on truth.

It may all be a tad unbelievable as it goes on, but is still watchable, so 3 stars.

I though the music was too in your face imposing though. Was it really even needed?

I first tried watching this when tired - but had to give up as it's so slow and has details in it that you'll only see if you concentrate.

I watched it again when I was fresher and really enjoyed it - if that's the right word. It has genuinely spooky moments, all about ghosts and spirits and seances.

However, the final half hour of the movie - the third act - badly lets it down. The story becomes laughable then really, which is a shame, considering the time taken to build up the tension and suspense. Maybe the slowness means it is NOT a movie for teenagers with the attention span of a puppy to watch though...

Maybe those of a religious bent will find it scary - I know people like that who were terrified of the Exorcist because they actually believe in God and demons and hell. Well I don't and I found that movie laughable too.

BUT it's not TOO bad. I liked some scenes and the soundtrack too.

But I must admit I did burst out laughing at the end...

3 stars

I enjoyed this film.

OK so it's a bit of a Brit-flick farce, and fairly dated, with a silly romantic subplot that ties things up too conveniently. AND I am not sure killing off a character (no spoilers) was wise really as it makes the movie too dark.

But anyway, if you don't expect too much it's a fun film, and the dogs are great!

And Tom Watt AKA Lofty from EastEnders plays a loonie leftie revolutionary!

3.5 stars rounded up.

I was a little too young to watch this 1976-made drama at the time of broadcast BUT I am so glad to have watched it now - it is FAR more entertaining and effective than most drama on TV today, and happily lacks clunky diversity-box-ticking. This sort of drama wouldn't be made today - FAR TOO MANY nasty white men in it.

These days, the leads would be female and/or black (even when hardly any ethnic minorities live in the English countryside - just watch the new series of Midsomer Murders to see the unrealistic absurdity of that). The BBC has a target for 50% of main roles to be played by females by 2020, so expect endless pc femi-drama from now on. SO we have to look back to the past for great drama like this.

Children of the Stones is classic drama with a classic soundtrack which, if you listen carefully, includes whispers of 'HAPPY DAY' throughout. It's genuinely spooky with great use of the Aylesbury stones location. SO WHAT if some bits look clunky - OB to studio sets. I didn't mind that at all, because the drama was captivating. Reminiscent of the old 1950s version of the Midwitch Cuckoos. Don't bother with the newer Hollywood remake!

This was made in the days when MERIT was all, and quality resulted - which never happens when the whole point of TV drama is ticking the pc boxes.

It's a shame in a way they never made a sequel BUT I hope to goodness they don't make a new version - because they'd do a 'Dr Who' and make all leads female and/or black, with token white men. No thanks.

Special mention for actor Peter Demin who plays the boy Matt who, incredibly, was 17 at the time of filming but looks 13 (films/TV always cast actors who look younger than their years and short - look at Michael J Fox). He made a couple of other dramas but nothing since 1983 (Robin Hood).

This is thoroughly enjoyable drama for kids or adults. 5 stars.

Well, if it's cannibalism you want, I would certainly recommend watching Tony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs or Hannibal, or maybe even Wrong Turn, rather than this tired drama which hasn't got an original bone in its body. Other cannibal movies are available.

No doubt made to appeal to and shock teenagers, I didn't find this shocking just silly - and unbelievable. Moreover, the 2 sisters main characters were so annoying I honestly wouldn't have cared if someone had stuffed em in a roasting tin and popped em in the over at gas mark 7.

The vet school featured is so fake an unbelievable - such hazing died out years ago.

I saw the final twist coming a mile off too.

The gay North African character shines in this dross like a diamond in a gung heap.

1.5 stars rounded up.

Now, we all know the USA is obsessed about race and has gone through something of a crisis lately as it self-hates some more about not giving black actors enough Oscars.

However, we are not all so obsessed, maybe because Britain never ever had race laws or large black populations either.

This sort of movie is aimed at redressing a supposed racist balance, so goes too far the other way and becomes nothing more than an anti-white racist polemic whose aim is what - to inspire guilt in all white people? Who knows.

So mostly we have angelic fluffy black people who wouldn't hurt a fly (no murders or shooting or looting with violence or anything like that - and the riots are the fault of white folks because they moved to the suburbs!); and against the holy black folks we have pantomime baddie whites, thereby making the absurd claim really that ALL whites were and are racist.

This is unpleasant, odious, racist tripe. It's not history and it's not good drama either. It really is pitched at a Noddy level of political understanding - and the intro cartoon which basically blames white people for making inner city blacks in US cities criminal by moving out to the suburbs is absurd. WHY did the whites move? Ah yes, to get away from violent inner city blacks.

Sadly, we are not getting this state of affairs in the UK, so I suppose we should expect riots too, and according to the twisted thinking on display here, when blacks in the inner city riot, it;'s not their fault, oh no - it's the fault of white people.

Offensive, racist, deeply stupid tosh the lot of it.

Maybe one day someone will make a decent movie about these riots. This isn;'t it.

No stars.

This film is boring - which is quite an achievement if you're making a movie about people getting attacked by great white sharks! If you want a modern low budget movie with a woman and sharks, watch THE SHALLOWS which is a decent shark movie. This isn't.

Why? Well the focus on 2 sisters - maybe a nod to femi-film-making - just does not work, because instead of caring for these characters, you (or I) thought how dizzy they were to agree to go in a rusty cage into shark-infested waters.

I enjoyed EVERY entry in the Sharknado series more AND took them more seriously AND cared for the characters more.

Very boring./ 1 star

The best part of this movie is when Peter Turner who wrote the memoir plays his own character's father in the film!

Apart from that, I found this dull. Firstly, this actress though she won an Oscar for supporting actress (footage at the end), is basically a ditzy blonde model - like a Poundland Marilyn Monroe, and utterly forgettable - which is maybe why she was forgotten.

Things that annoyed me included the main character WHOOPING at a theatre in 1980 - sorry, but people in Britain did not do that then (happy days).Some other modern language used too which grates. THINK how people spoke in 1980!

I wonder if a man 30 years older than a vulnerable girl then seducing her would be seen as acceptable and OK now. Makes me laugh too when a man forces a kiss on a woman and a relationship starts - the #metoo mobsters would surely accuse him of sexual assault in these femi-bonkers days LOL!

It's all so-so BUT the story is as flimsy as the actress and that is the issue - the constant need to try and make a dull and rather sordid little affair with a has been interesting.

Way too much wallowing in feelings and pity here to care much. A curiosity, but no more, so 3 stars.