Film Reviews by PV

OK, so this movie is not groundbeaking - well, biopics tend not to be. They are easy meat for the studios as are adaptations of video games and cartoons, and remakes of old films or sequels, or filmed books. But then most movies from the risk-averse studios fit into one of these categories.

As a simple biopic of a woman who was probably off her rocker, this is great fun. I loved the pianist character - so true to life, when I compare with several camp classical pianists I have known. I'd award him the best supporting actor Oscar right now.

Hugh Grant redeems himself and has a career comeback with this too. I often find La Streep irritating, but she ticks all the boxes here - and it is VERY hard indeed to deliberately sing or play a musical instrument flat. Les Dawson was the master. But for singing, Streep is spot on.

I loved the images of New York in 1944 - to be honest, I wish I'd been able to go there then and not now.

Great fun and a fascinating story of a one-off woman - I suppose she was maybe the Jade Goody of her age time ten. Never forget however that Florence was super rich and people like that can do ANYTHING they want in the arts - I could name several writers, actors, film makers and performers who owe their entire careers to the fact they're from a rich background. Money trumps talent every time.

4.5 stars rounded up to 5. The notes at the end of what happened to these people are fascinating and they play an actual recording of Florence Foster Jenkins at the end too so we can all hear how bad she truly was! Btw the same thing happens these days with Russian Oligarchs investing millions into trying to make their talentless young wives pop stars. Plus ca change...

This film was apparently shot in just 9 days on a shoestring budget - which just shows what can be done with talent, despite lack of funds.

Vinnie Jones - ex-footballer with Welsh roots (who played for Wales back in the day) - really makes this thriller. It is HIS movie and he dominates every scene he is in.

It's a simple revenge drama, basically, and is a lean 86 minutes though no bad thing considering how flabby, long and drawn-out so many Hollywood thrillers are.

An excellent theme tune ends the movie - which I give 4.5 stars rounded up to 5.

This movie is basically based on a photo - the most requested one in the US archives, namely the one of Elvis and Nixon when he visited the White House in 1972.

It's all a really funny romp, with some laugh-out loud lines, and some hilarious riffs on the early 70s (eg King Fu culture etc). Clever writing and - unusually for Hollywood - a movie that is less than 90 minutes long! Hoorah! I am sick or 120-180 minute yawn-fests!

I am SO pleased they didn't just choose someone who looked just like Elvis to star - the actor playing Elvis inhabits the role wonderfully; he doesn't just give a cheap impression.

The masterful Kevin Spacey gets Nixon off to a tee too. And the supporting cast are great as well.

This is a clever and very well-written film, though based on a slight premise with little plot (and the subplot of E's assistant and his girlfriend is never cloying or schmaltzy). Great music too.

Hugely fun and enjoyable comedy. 4 stars.

This is a hyper-violent and bloody movie, full of Grand Guignol (a la Sam Pekinpah) so the squeamish should avoid. Ditto with the sequel Blue Ruin - also very violent and most people end up dead.

Surprising to see Patrick Stewart in this small indie movie, but the script is original and good, so maybe that's why/ Star Trek fans will be baffled though - no aliens or space ships here!

Some interesting music choices - worth watching to the credits to see who wrote the tracks and did them originally (Dead Kennedys etc). Awful music generally, but... Good acting and script.

The only thing I didn't really believe is that a neo-Nazi white power base cab exist like that in the USA with no-one being interested.

But a good fil of its type. 4 stars.

The first thing to say about this film is that it is Belgian. And Belgium is famous for its surrealism (eg Matisse) and its bureaucracy (The European Union is based there. Nuff said).

But it is MORE than just Belgian - it is from Wallonia, the southern half of Belgium, with a third of the population, formerly heavily industrialised area, and vehemently anti-Flemish (the very Catholic Belgian northerners who speak Flemish, a dialect of Dutch). Walloons are well-known for being a bit, how you say, 'individual' and 'quirky'. Well, that shows in this film.

Basic plot as on the DVD blurb - God is real and lives as a bureaucrat in Brussels, European HQ of cold faceless bureaucracy. However, he is not the main character - his daughter Ea is. And it's a change to see a movie narrated by a small girl really - and watch her adventures (though I do not agree a world ruled by women would be full of love and peace LOL!)

It all gets very silly, especially the 3rd act, but there are some genuine laugh-out-loud moments before then - and it's all warm-hearted in the style of AMELIE (but more imaginative and less schmaltzy).

Recommended viewing. 4 stars.

The first thing to say is that this movie is very dated. Why? Because nothing ever dates as fast as a vision of the future - which this is (indeed, it's set in 2017!!!)

Arnie has his usual funny one liners - a couple make me laugh out loud.

It's nice NOT to see endless CGI too - but real special effects with stunt men etc.

This is basically all about a TV show which kills people - so like Rollerball and a blueprint for The Hunger Games which is the most unoriginal story series ever IMHO.

I am giving this 5 stars because it is HUGELY enjoyable and fun in a way most movies now do not seem to be. It's violent yes, but all in a cartoony way. And that goodness there was no love story subplot or any need to parachute various ethnicities into every role and make it all about racism or something (I get sick and tired of being lectured to by the pc gestapo).

To enjoy a drama one must engage in the "willing suspension of disbelief" as Samuel Taylor Coleridge correctly argued. This film shows how veering away from that truth leads to a story that is utterly unbelievable, with unbelievable characters behaving in unbelievable ways. The end result is not pleasure of fulfilment, but deep annoyance and irritation.

This is basically a vehicle for Helen Mirren who is totally unbelievable in a role as the chief of the army or some such nonsense. Well, if she's senior soldier material I'm an Olympic champion! Too silly for words BUT in these pc days the pressure is on for more female leads so this is the mess we get.

Then there are the soldiers - tough US soldiers with years of training and killing experience - and yet, because of one wickle girl selling bread, they turn into blubbering wrecks crying on the job and unable to do it either! Soldiers kill - they do and will, and will kill civilians too if that means it prevents greater catastrophe and killing, So the whole pretext of the plot if absurd.

No doubt the director though it best just to be on the side of the poor people in Africa so we get our noses rubbed in how awful their lives are.

A truly awful film on every dramatic level.

It has good special effects and watching the drones is fun (though not sure I believe the science). Maybe if I am forced to watch this film in my lifetime, I certainly hope I'll be stone deaf by then so I won't hear any of its nonsense.

What a sad finale to Alan Rickman's career. A clunky subplot about buying his daughter a toy doll scrapes the bottom of the barrel then goes right through the wood, as does all this film.

1.5 stars rounded down.

The first thing to say about this film is 1) it's a state-subsidised British film (BBC/lottery/BFI funding) so I doubt anyone went to see it or that anyone much cares because it got subsidy; 2) it's a simple drama with cartoon 2-dimensional characters so is MUCH better suited to TV than film.

Having said that, I found it enjoyable and it was mercifully short.

The old man played by great actor Phil Davies is a classic character (though in fairness Phil Davies doesn't really look old enough to be so decrepit. And how does he afford a house that must be worth a million on a teacher's salary eh?)

The small boy was great and added humour. Some good gags and dialogue in this.

Less convincing is the kung-fu scouser thug and his sidekick - in real life they'd just stab enemies or beat em up, not be scared off by a girl! And I saw that plot twist coming an hour before it did.

Some lines lifted from Dirty Harry and a plot lifted from Oliver Twist too.

The teenage black gang and the white hooligans acting black is all to true to life - and one reason I no longer live in London, mugging capital of Europe.

So, all in all a fair effort BUT why not make things like this for TV. There is NO NEED for public subsidy to put them on film - they're essentially domestic dramas, and perfect for BBC 2.

3 stars.

But as a character study of an old man, it's great.

This starts well - it's the usual fish out of water storyline wherein the Tom Hanks character - an IT manager - is sent by his employer to give a presentation in Saudi Arabia. Lots of fun ensues, with a great taxi driver character and some sharp dialogue and funny lines. The contradictions of this dictatorships are explored well, without any hectoring or arrogant American approach.

And so it goes on. But it all starts to go wrong when an odd health condition the Hanks character has means he has to go and see a doctor. S female doctor (this would NOT happen in Saudi by the way - they keep the sexes so separate there that the government censors even black out all pictures of women in English text books!)

The final third of the film is so awful it's almost unwatchable - it all becomes a Mills and Boon Arab fantasy in reverse (think Rudolph Valentino's The Sheikh with gender role reversal).

Of course, this may not be the fault of the director or writer because this is based on a novel by Dave Eggers.

Still, a director or film writer should have knows this would never work - if the film has stuck to the 'fish out of water' story, it would and could have been a funny satire on Saudi Arabia.

Sadly, it goes all al-Mills and al-Boon and I lost the will to live by the end.

The 2 stars are for the great first half.

This is a very watchable movie - it has some wonderfully awful characters (and people in TV really ARE as bad as this, I know).

It's not in the same league as a film like MARGIN CALL but it does address the serious issue of the money markets and how that can affect people's lives and lose a lot of people a lot of money.

The film progresses well with lots of tension and a real sense of not knowing what's coming next.

NO SPOILERS here - but the 3rd act really didn't do it for me. I'd rather an alternative ending!

The mix of comedy and tragedy here just doesn't feel right somehow.

The international plot stretches credulity, but that is fine in a satire.

This is a short film but as long as it needs to be. I mostly enjoyed this cynical and dark satire on raw capitalism.

4 stars

I enjoyed watching this Danish movie a lot - for a start, it was an education: I knew NOTHING about the Danish resistance or how all sides in WWII met in neutral Sweden. Secondly, it had some great scenes from fine actors. The shifting sands of war are well portrayed.

Based on a true story - but how much is truth and how much is myth is moot.

My only real criticism is it's just too long - some earlier quieter scenes could, I am sure, have been cut.

AND I wanted to know how all the real life people fared after the war, not just the main 3 or 4 (it tells you this at the end).

4 stars

I think this indie film deserves 4 stars. it's so violent and depressing that I wouldn't really say I enjoyed it, but I appreciated it. It's full of guns, violence, blood and gore and

I thought the actor playing the main character was note-perfect in his portrayal of a traumatised loner haunted by his past.

If you was quick cuts and CGI battles, then you'll have to slow down to watch this movie - but it'll be worth it.

Apparently there's a sequel too - though I don't see how...

4 stars

This film should be better - a great writer (John le Carre) and a superb cast. However, something doesn't quite gel and I never felt really connected to the characters or cared about them. Maybe it's the direction? Not sure.

Anyway, the story strains credibility on several occasions - we're expected to believe that violent Russian gangsters can overnight turn into good caring fluffy bunny types. We're also expected to believe the Ewan McGregor character (a university poetry lecturer) would be married to a high-flying black lawyer. Sorry, but that's so unlikely and to affect my willing suspension of disbelief (essentially when watching any fictitious drama). I am sure John le Carre did not write it like that.

So, all in all, this is an oddly limp affair. My reaction to it is 'meh'.

And the Russian mafia are a lot nastier and less slick than portrayed, though there is much truth in the way they clean money in the City of London.

2 stars.

Gosh this film is dreadful. Now, I am rather fond of black humour and the darker the better. But this just fails on all counts. The plot is risible. The story is dull. The supposed shock value wallows in a puddle of tedium. And basically this is 90 minutes of my life I'm never getting back.

Now, some Scandi movies are great. But this isn't. Avoid.

No stars.

A stellar cast here - but it can't help this being rather plodding and derivative. No doubt the novel it's based on (almost certainly promoted to women of a certain age) is equally plodding and derivative, so maybe that's not the fault of the film.

Vanessa Redgrave loves playing her mad old women, but Olivia Coleman is never very believable for me in her roles, and she isn't here (though I know others adore her).

This is the sort of film the BBC adores - all major characters are female, for a start.

Spooky stereotypes and tropes abound: big house, mystery 'women in white', corner of eye glimpses of possible child, mad aristocratic family, dissolute aristocratic brother, mental aristocratic sister, hints of incest etc. The type of stuff we've seen a thousand times before on TV dramas and in old B-movies.

I saw the twist coming a mile off. This is the sort of thing that works better as a TV drama really so no idea why it was a feature film at all. Made with BBC (i.e. OUR) money. One wonders why.

But all fairly watchable and a way to pass the time. Mercifully short at 90 minutes too.

Almost forgotten it already, however.

2.5 stars rounded up for the pretty scenery efficiently directed (BUT nowhere does it mention where this was filmed! I know I've been there!)