Film Reviews by PV

This movie is an obvious attempt by Hollywood to get more women on screen, and in a spy movie which is a traditional male arena (maybe y'know because most spies are actually male - most M15 and MI6 staff in the field ARE male, so that is the fact, just like n95% surgeons are male and 99% airline pilots make. Deal with it!). So loads of women characters in charge, some of whom look so similar you cannot tell them apart. Brilliant casting - NOT!

The problem is, it's just not very funny. Really.

I watched the theatrical release version which was shorter - no idea why anyone would want to watch the longer director's cut of this! It's a disposable movie which passes the time. That's all. And so forgettable I can hardly remember what happened and I only watched it 5 days ago!

This is the sort of movie you go to a cinema to watch of a Friday evening because it doesn't really matter if the place is crammed with noisy teenagers - it's a disposable mildly entertaining movie to pass the time. But that's all!

I seriously hope that Hollywood will not continue on its present path of casting large numbers of women in comedies if they all turn out to be this bad!

And I was REALLY annoyed at British actors using American pronunciations of words in this and also vocubulary. It's obviously for a US audience first and foremost (or solely). Fine! They can keep it. I just hope no-one commissions a sequel!

This is the sort of film aimed at making an audience cry - and it's full of male characters crying too, which is a very American fashion now.

It is an emo-fest really - telling the story (based on truth but how much so?) of the Boston bombing in which 3 people died.

Well, 3 innocent people killed and everyone hugs and cries and makes a movie about it. BUT how many people get shot dead every single week in the USA eh? I couldn't help thinking that when watching this.

The constant forcing of emotion through the film annoyed me greatly - all group hugs and man tears. Makes me wonder how we ever won the war (that's WWII actually). London endured 3 months of bombing from September 1940 every single night and 50,000 people died. Compare and contrast with this relatively minor event.

If you life self help manuals and group hugs, and like a good cry, then you'll like wallowing in this.

I did like the scenes hunting the terrorists and the interview with the suspect's wife - and women play a HUGE role in all these terrorist attacks actually, something feminists constantly want to deny as they blame men.

So it's all so-so. 2 stars.

I really enjoyed this film. Real paradise lost when naïve Westerners stumble into what is really the Third World - a country run on drugs.

OK so it's a fictional representation, and so I have no idea how much of any of this is true.

In common with many other novels/films from Citizen Kane to The Last King of Scotland uses the device of an ordinary bloke who just happens to find himself meeting then working for a powerful wealth man monster.

It reminds me a bit of Breaking Bad or The Interpreter - and as all drugs movies are, this is very violent at times and tense.

The ending surprised me and I hated the very end though no spoilers here. I could have done with some text about what happened to Escobar and the real people featured at the end too.

Well this is certainly an interesting film - the sort of slow state-funded lottery-funded sort of thing we have come to expect - and it ticks the pc diversity boxes re the gay storyline and also the Romanian immigrant who is also a gypsy thereby ticking those important ethnic boxes which state/lottery funding demands...

But is it any good?

Well, that depends what sort of film you're into. There have been loads of gay films now so this stuff is not shocking or even unusual - and the scenes are less explicit than in other movies. Brokeback Mountain is the immediate reference, of course, whether the writer/director of this likes it or not.

One criticism would be the lazy stereotype of all white Brits being racist.

And that Romanian farm gypsy speaks better English than English university professors too which is all somewhat unrealistic as he'd be doing a better job with that idiomatic and proficient English!

But it's certainly an unusual film and worth a watch.

I am in 2 minds about this reboot - it's sort of Lock, Stock and 2 Smoking Barrels + King Arthur, a baddie king, some monsters, snakes etc, some fit birds, and some blood and guts, and loads of multiculti Cockney geezers. Oh and loads of CGI.

It starts terribly - for me (teenage boys probably love the start!) - and is all a bit too Lord of the Rings at times (and those movies bore me rigid).

But then it does pick up with a simple revenge and betrayal plot JUST as in Gladiator and SO many other movies. Though to be honest I preferred The Sword in the Stone or other King Arthur movies.

This follows the fashion for casting black actors in historical drama - but really, were black Africans leading armies in 7th century Britain? It's absurd as casting white or Chinese actors as Zulus, when you think about it.

One niggle: using the word 'England' is WRONG as England itself did not exist until Alfred the Great (died 900AD) and his son who united England from various kingdoms.

The word they should have used is BRITAIN - the name of this island (which they always refer too).

This is especially true as King Arthur and Merlin are thought be many to come from the west, or Wales (which in the 7th century was a place of warring princedoms too) which is next to the west of England Glastonbury/Stonehenge region. The Welsh town Carmarthen even means 'Merlin's Town'!

They use the word ENGLAND for American audiences, I think, but it irritates and it factually wrong BUT THEN I don't mind so much fantasy dramas like this based on myths clouded in time taking liberties - I do mind when supposed factual historical dramas do the same (as with The Crown, or U571 or Argo or MANY other movies).

2 stars.

This film reminds me so much of 1970s sex comedies - which were breaking boundaries regarding nudity and talking about sex. Blake Edwards' movies ring a bell here.

Of course, these days, the focus is all on exposing men not women - we never see female genitals, but plenty of prosthetic males ones. No doubt teenage girls will giggle a lot at this.

Me, well I thought it all got too much really and became rather boring - it's a typically self-indulgent Californian story.

Maybe 3 stars, just.

I didn't expect much of this movie but really enjoyed it.

Many things remain unexplained - and the ending of this (no spoilers) annoyed me, as I like resolution!

But it's a great little film, imaginative and well-made. In a way Britain cannot make them.

4 stars

So long as you accept this is a low-budget B-movies - one of many churned out in a matter of weeks (2 or 3) by the director, then you'll enjoy it more. This one is not written by the director - maybe why it has more dramatic tension that other films of his.

If you start thinking too hard about the plot holes, the sometimes wooden acting, the misjudged scenes (all black and white flashbacks here), the fluffed lines (the son says "they're both gonna x us" instead of "they're gonna x both of us" in one scene!); the limp ending; the cheap feel of it all - then you'll enjoy it more. It is what it is.

The accents are not too bad considering the actors are all British/Welsh not American and it's all filmed in Wales (and looked like Wales, frankly!)

The best thing about this is the soundtrack to be honest.

This is the sort of comedy the British film industry just cannot make - a nice simple comedy based on a fantasy conceit which has a moral core and a resolution at the end.

I have always hated Emma Thompson - she always plays Emma Thompson and I cannot get past that! She is also SO what the Americans thinks is a typically British or English person WHICH SHE IS NOT - she is an American version of a Brit woman, and that irritates me.

Dustin Hoffman adds class to everything he's in though.

The start of this film is very funny - and maybe it is a tad overlong with some unnecessary subplots.

Also, my suspension of disbelief was sorely challenged at times, but it's far worse in other fantasy films from Hollywood. So this is not at all bad - although postmodern fantasies are not my thing.

Passable. 3 stars.

I despair about Hollywood movies sometimes. They create fiction from history, and then people just swallow it whole and believe it as fact. Happens all the time - with U571 and Argo and The Patriot and many other films. Often, Brits are portrayed as the bad guys, esp at the hands of some film directors.

Well let's look at the facts. BP is NOT a British company but a multi-national. British Petroleum merged with US giant Amoco in 1998, becoming BP Amoco plc, and acquired ARCO and Burmah Castrol in 2000. It is this a US company too.

The rig was misrun and mismanaged by Transocean, a US company - or based in Switzerland I believe.

The rig and drill were built in South Korea and laid down by Halliburton - yep, the company which Dick Cheney is so involved with.

Blaming a British company for this disaster was the saddest part of Obama's presidency as it showed him to be racist against the Brits and prepared to lie to create a scapegoat when it suited him for electoral gain.

SO that is why this movie deserves no stars.

But also it is VERY predictable. Wives waiting at home TICK, Diverse crew TICK. Slow built to disaster TICK. But frankly, it's boring.

If you want to watch a decent disaster movie then rent out THE TOWERING INFERNO or THE POSEIDEN ADVENTURE. The CGI is not there but so what? The characterisation and story-telling are better.

I also disliked the Christian.praying agenda in this film, so no stars.

Warning to anyone under 30 who wants the usual CGI horror-fest or Japanese style horror movie scares. This film is contemplative and stylish - and some would call it slow (it's obviously influenced by that French director Michel Hahne or something, with several long still shots of a house or something for 20 seconds plus, which can be trying...)

At first it's laugh out loud silly - like the director fell into the dressing up box.

BUT if you are willing to suspend your disbelief, which I was for SOME of the time, it's actually rather fun and enjoyable.

Loads of flashbacks, and a supposed revelation at the end, and some stuff is never adequately explained.

But it's imaginative and different from the usual Hollywood scarefest drivel, and I liked it.

AND I absolutely loved the score and the music in this film.

3.5 stars rounded up.

I saw the first Kingsman movie and thought it was just SO absurd - but then I am not a teenager raised on video games.

This is all cartoon violence reminiscent of the Beano but with more blood and explosions.

People get zapped; surreal scenes show cartoony martial arts fighting done with CGI; a ludicrous plot develops with goodies and baddies. So far so good. All watchable - just. It is what it is.

The action takes place all over the world - even at the Glastonbury festival - and features some top actors (no doubt loving the 7 figure pay cheques) plus Elton John (looking all his 70 years) plays a cameo caricature of himself. Whether that is a good or a bad thing is moot.

The chav white-acting-black English of the main character is spot-on, sadly - I hate this modern ugly inner city multiculturalist speak, though it is confined to poorer whites on London council estates. And 'Oh my days' makes these people sound like old aunties!

One flaw in this is that the baddies actually have a point - surely wiping away drug dealers and users responsible for most violent crime would be a good thing?

Anyway, watch this and go along for the ride - just don't think too hard or try to make sense of anything, and it'll all be over in 2 hours.

This is one for those who like gross-out movies - but it does hang together with a warped plot. And yes, I did enjoy it.

Sacha Baron-Cohen is convincing as a Grimsby lad and there are some genuinely funny lines - the whole underclass chav culture is rarely shown in films, but this one is fearless.

It's also the first film I have ever seen that was shot in Grimsby or even mentions it!

Not great but no turkey. 3 stars.

When you see Asa 'pixie face' Butterfield in a movie, you KNOW for sure who it's aimed at - teenage girls! He has that young-looking rehular-featured, button-nosed small-mouthed, large-eyed look, like a Japanese Manga comic boy character - and his dark looks means he also appeals in the Asian/Chinese market.

However, anyone who is a not a teenage girl should avoid films like this at all costs.

It's based on a romantic novel written by a woman author, and focuses entirely on creating a melodramatic world that ticks ALL the teen girl boxes - no spoilers here, but just watch any soap to see the same plotlines.

I just didn't believe in the film or the characters - no way would some posh, rich ballerina be a partner of a loser dope dealer, for a start! And yet again, Hollywood portrays all English people as posh and clueless snobs.

I give this 2 stars and not 1 because it is at least watchable though very overlong, with a silly gay subplot too which just does not convince, and a possible hint and brother/sister relations which is just plain pervily odd.

For me the best parts were all about the political clearing of homeless people and squats in late 1980s New York - this film is set in 1987, I think. Also fun to see a kid plating ASTEROIDS on the TV via the ATARI in 1980 at the start - in 1981 I used to go to the arcade to play that!

As so often in films, the pop music strand of the plot just did not work. However, I did like looking at all the snow, and the movie does show what can happen to kids chasing kicks by taking drugs.

I had no idea what to expect watching this film.

Despite so many plot holes (has no-one heard of DNA testing?), this is a pitch black dark comedy which satirises crime and policing in London - the way so many are sick and tired of crime, and how ineffective and pc the police so often are. If you like your comedy dark and occasionally sick, then this is for you.

In such a climate, you get vigilantes. That theme is nicely explored here, in this happily short film.

Kevin Bishop is great in this - a revelation. Utterly believable, as is his odious mum - though some digs at 'right wing' politics seem tacked on (as if crime and violence is only done by the extreme right!)

It's all quite nasty if you actually think about it SO best to look at it as a cartoon and an allegory of our times.

The first half is brilliant - 5 stars. Then it sags a bit. So 4 stars overall.