Film Reviews by PV

OK, so this film is a bit too long - esp in act 3 - and layers on the emotion with a psychobabbly trowel sometimes. However, it is also a genuinely moving film about how a 12 year old copes with a broken home and a sick mother - though it does milk it shamelessly!

No idea of the Young Adult novel does the same, though I note the book's illustrator got himself a share of the profits by claiming copyright ownership of the monster image.

The special effects and cinematography are superb - and I notice this is mostly filmed in Spain where other movies with great special effects have been made (the one about the Spanish Civil War Pan's Labyrinth, for example). The director is Spanish too. Outdoor scenes were filmed in the UK in Manchester.

The lead actor is superb and Sigourney Weaver has nailed a normal British accent (unlike most Americans who sound like Dick Van Dyke when they try one!).

I liked the animated sections BUT thought some of those stories within stories a bit weak so the plot was not a strong point here. The whole what and why or the monster is never really explained. The adults also seem weirdly tolerant of the boy who never gets punished for anything!

I also saw the end coming a mile off. This movie will appeal particularly to those who like Hollywood group-huggy family films. It's all very conveniently emotional and aims to manipulative the viewer into an emotional teary response too.

BUT a decent and unusual film, and with British accents for once. 4 stars.

Good things about this film:

1) the inspiring true story of James Bowen (a man from a well-off family who, for various reasons and none, became a drug addict on the streets BUT THEN made the 'up the hill backwards' journey back to being drug-free) after meeting a lost, homeless cat - the symbiotic relationship here, the way their stories mirror each other, is nothing short of perfect - for story anyway.

2) the film is very well cast with Luke Treadaway perfect in the lead role - in fact, if this were a Hollywood movie and esp if Luke T were black, he's be a shoo-in for the Oscar! The fellow junkie Baz is also well-cast with Welsh actor Darren Evans (also to be seen in the soon-to-be-released film CHARIOT;

3) it is genuinely funny in places and touching, though some parts are NOT how they happened in real life (James met Bob outside on the estate, for example.

4) The way the film really does show how utterly awful the menace of drugs is, as is the desperate homelessness it causes where people - esp the kebab seller - are unimaginably cruel;

5) Bob the Street Cat himself - a cat who has obviously been raised on the street so who is not phased by traffic, people etc. It's the best cat story I have read other than A CAT CALLED DOG by Jem Vanston.

Bad things about this film:

1) It exaggerate the role of James' kooky female neighbour, I suppose because the screenwriters and directors wanted a love interest - I found this irritating and boring;

2) the sometimes cartoony feel of scenes, like the mouse emerging for a cartoon mousehole in James' flat's skirting board - are these scenes really needed?

3) Sometimes one feels the scriptwriter has piled up the obstacles - as all screenplay books says one must - to make James' challenge even greats BUT is there any need to make things up in a story like this?

4) the agent saw James outside Covent Garden and signed him for a book - she did not see it online.

5) AND it is worth remembering that the publishers have milked this dry, and made most of the money from 5 million sales - James Bowen himself will have received the tiniest fraction of profits from that (but as sales have been so huge he's still lucked out and could buy a house in London which most people cannot afford).

So, in general, a good film from what has become a publishing phenomenon - which has unfortunately spawned a huge industry of what I call "pity party cat books" where a cat (sometimes real; sometimes reincarnated) appears and saves someone or a family from: homelessness, illness, autism, library closure etc etc etc. I am so sick of these books now.

But 4 stars. A flawed film but also enjoyable to watch, esp for a cat lover like me! Go Bob!

OK, do first thing to say is this really is like a cartoon with a cartoon character teen girl superhero starring.

Having said that, it's also hugely enjoyable hokum and entertaining. The plot is utter nonsense of course, but if you don't worry about little details - like anything making any sense - it's all great fun.

Some odd flashbacks don't really work but I see the backstory needs inserting somewhere.

Would be 3 stars but a truly GREAT Soundtrack (I think from Hans Rimmer) make this special.

It's influenced by RUN LOLA RUN but better IMHO.

4 stars.

This movie is hugely enjoyable to watch and far better than the Da Vinci Code and the other earlier movie based on a Dan Brown novel. Also I adore Florence and know it so well having holidayed there twice, so I knew all the places the film was shot on location. Also been to Venice to knew that too.

The screenplay is by David Koepp who adapted the novel into the movie Jurassic Park SO well and effectively.

Similarly, the plot here is lean and mean - not much flab on it. Some great twists, 180 degree car spins at times (and as ever in Hollywood movies halfway through the 2nd act so exactly halfway through the movie). A bit long maybe and too much is made of flashbacks and hallucinations etc.

I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. Yes, it's hokum and utter nonsense. But Tom Hanks is less irritating than usual and the plotting is clever and classy - and the film LOOKS beautiful too.

The only weird thing is this: the baddie is portrayed as someone who wrongly wants to cull the world population which is now heading for 8 billion (when it was 4 billion in 1970 and 1-2 billion in the 1930s. Now, I happen to agree with this character - world population WILL destroy us all. Already it is making most animals extinct and causing most famine, wars, environmental disasters. We MUST act now or humanity is doomed. So I was rooting for the so-called baddie in this!

4 stars maybe 4.5.

This is a fun watch and suitable to all the family really - not TOO crude, not TOO much swearing or nudity. My old mum found it fun anyway, and some lines are laugh out loud.

It's all a cartoonish caper really with goodies and baddies. A road movie with a difference.

All very silly but the actors are clearly having a ball and carry the story along - the script is sharp too.

Perhaps a bit overlong towards the end, but a funny comedy anyway.

4 stars

OK so this is a bit dated BUT just think: this was made in 1942. Britain had already fought for 2 years ALONE as the USSR was in hock with Nazi Germany and the USA sitting on the fence (and would have dealt with Hitler if, as Joe Kennedy expected, he'd invade Britain).

Just imagine people watching this at the local pictures. It would certainly boost morale. Now it exists as a tribute to all those Britons who lost their lives in the war and a nation who fought alone and fought bravely to save the world. It should be shown in every classroom of every school in Britain. Sadly, it many classrooms it would be mocked because daft 'political correctness' has made hating one's own country fashionable. But just imagine what the world would look like if Hitler had won the war! And without Britain's bravery, he would have done. In 1941 or 2.

This is a Noel Coward Tour de Force. Coward needed a director as well as himself as he needed another director for scenes he was in (Noel Coward stars as the captain of this ship). He selected the editor David Lean - who went on to direct Lawrence of Arabia etc.

So this film stands tall as an important one in cinema history.

5 stars

OK so this is so-so is all ways - so-so script, so-so story, the usual so-so CGI effects etc. It has a stellar cast including Judy Dench (who no doubt is still hugging the large cheque). But all in all it left me a little bit cold.

But it's not that bad. A well-worm time-travel plot. A build-up to an improbably finale. A love interest.

A Brit comedian dons a good US accent to play the kid's father and the lead actor Asa Butterfield is well cast. Terence Stamp seems a bit miscast for some reason though... Not sure why.

I tire of fantasy and sci-fi - the way anyone can solve a problem by waving a wand or using magic powers is tiresome indeed and all a bit of a cop-out.

But watchable so 3 stars.

This is a spin-off from Harry Potter which I have always thought was massively over-rated anyway.

The difference here is that character does not seem to be the motivating force for the story - instead, it all seems just an excuse for endless CGI imagery - loads of fantastical creatures on screen most of the time. Maybe the makers of this movie should remember that in the classic Jurassic Park the dinosaurs were on screen for only 6 and a half minutes. Spielberg knew the anticipation and suggestion of dinosaurs would be more effective. Less is more, indeed. With this movie, more is less and it all gets very tedious indeed.

The plot is limp as a lettuce leaf. I never believed Eddie Redmayne as the character he played either - he seems miscast. And it's 2 hours long!

The female characters are better especially the mindreading sister. Best of all is the short stout moustachioed Polish-named fellow who works in a factory but has ambitions to start a bakery - HE is the reason I am not awarding this film one star.

Only watch this if you like yawning. One to watch for duty not pleasure.

This is a superb film - laugh-out loud funny. Also relevant to ANY era and timely now.

All about a politician having a breakdown really which makes him tell the truth, however offensive. Having taken out a contract on his own life he then changes his mind and wants to live - and so an almost Shakespearean farce ensues.

Halle Berry is the love interest here as well as Don Cheadle, I think.

The culture clash between genteel middle class white America and the black ghetto is lots of fun (though I didn't understand some of the slang).

Brilliant stuff. This is the 3rd time I have watched this film and could watch it again soon - it's that sharp as satire.

5 stars

The first thing to say about this film is all the guff in the blurb about how this is some sort of master analysis of what makes a fascist dictator is just that.

Apart from the final section - which feels VERY much tagged on - this is just a story of a privileged spoilt son of a US diplomat in France as he works on the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 (when World War I officially ended).

Overlong and self-indulgent, this film can bore because it's slow and goes on and on.

Still, an interesting film about a weird little boy and his messed up childhood BUT that and only that. Just ignore the nonsense in the movie summary about this somehow being a deep analysis of what makes a child become a dictator - that is simply PR that's been used to sell what is, frankly, a pretty ordinary little film (which feels more French than American - hence the long pauses and the fact it's over long).

3 stars. JUST!

At times, this resembles one of those amateurish Children's Film Foundation films from the 1970s. This comes complete with dastardly carton character baddies (the police, child welfare officers, huntsmen).

It's basically a chase movie. So far, so cartoony.

However, the charm of the script + great acting + action lifts this above that. It's an enjoyable movie and great for anyone who wants to see the lush New Zealand landscape.

I do not believe for a minute that ANY social services in NZ or any developed country would behave like this or dump a child with a family consisting of two ex-drifters in the middle of nowhere. But the plot demands it.

Some comic scenes - very visual comedy. Some work, some don't. Some funny wordplay too.

So 4 stars despite the negatives.

I didn't see this movie till my mid-20s. Apparently it was bigger in the USA and they watch it there every Christmas (for us it was The Wizard of Oz).

For me, Charlie and the Chocolate factory will always mean the book, not any film - esp as I met Roald Dahl and he signed my copy back in the mid-70s.

The original book (1964 USA only) makes it clear the Oompaloompas are pygmies from Africa. The 2nd edition toned that down after accusations of racism (Dahl had worked in African for an oil company in the late 1930s so his attitudes were of his time). But the Oompaloompas certainly were never orange. Sadly, the London musical copied from this movie including making Augustus Gloop German which he most certainly is not in the book!

Tellingly the best song in that musical was the 'Imagination' song from here, which is a good song.

Gene Wilder doesn't really convince as Willy Wonka for me. He's too fey and wide-eyed innocent.

I find it hilarious how David Walliams basically rips off Roald Dahl at every turn, including the obsession with cabbage and cabbage smells. he lacks the darkness under the comedy to come anywhere near to matching Roald Dahl and is a pale imitation (ie rip off) of his books. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is a work of genius and Dahl's best book by a mile. read it if you haven't already. Then reread it. Then read it again. SO much better than this movie.

And of course this movie is too American. There were no Americans in Roald Dahl's book even though he lived in the US at the time of writing it (and originally there were 10 kids but Dahl cut that to 5).

This is watchable, yes. But not that great, to be honest. I'd make any child read the book FIRST before this pollutes their wonderful imagination!

3 stars.

The first thing to say is Ken Loach (who some on the left worship) directed this BUT he did not write it. The screenplay is by someone called Paul Laverty. He deserves credit. Ken Loach did not write this!!!

The second thing is the weird paradox here. Ken Loach is criticising the way the state treats people. BUT as a hardcore socialist, his solution to all problems is more state interference and control. Square that circle if you can! Most people are appalled by the exponential rise in things like housing benefit payments - many to immigrants - and want that cut. I don't know anyone of any political colour who'd want to force someone who's just had a heart attack back to work.

So, in a way this is poverty porn. It's also polemic at times, not drama. The final scene reminds of the final scene in Charlie Chaplin's The Great Dictator with its propaganda. One wonders if those who praise this film to the skies would be equally impressed if a film were made promoting the alternative view with a speech at the end saying how many truly poor people were suffering because of uncontrolled mass immigration and the vast sums of housing benefit paid to them! But then, this movie is preaching to the converted...

Having said all that, I enjoyed watching this film - though it was at times massively predictable (I could see the ending coming after the first 10 minutes). An unlikely subplot re trainers adds some ethnic flavour - but there's not much of that in Newcastle.

I enjoyed listening to the Geordie dialect and accent - if 'Scots' is supposedly a language (I do not accept it is anything but a dialect of English) then so is Geordie, and Cockney, and many more regional accents.

The way the state deals with people in all countries is awful - Loach may worship socialism, but having lived in a socialist state and waited 3 hours to be seen re a residence permit, I'd advise Loach to travel more! In many EU countries they make it as hard as possible for anyone to claim benefit (France, Greece etc). And of course in many EU countries there is NO benefit - no housing benefit at all in Spain and Italy, for example.

So, all in all, worth watching - but deeply and political rather smug and convinced its belief in a socialist solution is right. So irritating on that level. But not as irritating as other Ken Loach movies (which rewrite history according to his own leftwing bias).

The acting here is superb - with improvisation really working. But I wish they'd cut the loud angry Scotsman in the graffiti scene. We see more than enough Scots on our screens anyway, thanks to the BBC's Scottish Raj. Time to go home to STV and BBC's new Scotland channel which is costing us all more than BBC4.

I've never really liked improvised kitchen sink drama - as in several Ken Loach and Mike Leigh films - so watched this expecting to dislike it too.

BUT what a revelation! This pitch dark comedy - set, I think, in Essex - becomes a gangland film with twists and turns for the many dislikeable characters. The banality of murder is here in all its glory.

Great acting, writing + improve, with some really funny lines and jokes - and scenes - make this s winner for me.

OK, so there are plot holes. No CCTV or DNA in evidence here. So I wouldn't call this 'realism' as such.

But just enjoy the ride. And don't, like those with goldfish attention spans, turn off after the first 10 minutes. This film REALLY warms up quickly and I bet you'll enjoy it if you have the patience to enter the film and watch its all-too-believable characters' sad, twisted and funny lives.

Wonderful stuff. 5 stars. And better than Ken Loach or Mike Leigh IMHO too.

This is one of the worst films I think I have ever seen.

I don't know what is worse - Emily Blunt's massive over-acting (chuck the girl a ham hock!). The woefully confusing flask-backy plot - not helped by the way the 3 women featured look almost identical. The self-righteous misandry where all men are cartoon character villains or morons. The feminist preaching in which all female characters are lovely and cuddly and innocent (despite doing what they do).

The plot holes riddle this as in a Swiss cheese - the worst of them is the fact a simple DNA test would have made this movie 30 minutes long! Yet no cop seems to know DNA exists.

It's apparently based on a novel by a woman, screenplay by a woman, directed by a woman. No surprise there then. The whole thing is a manhating wish fulfilment movie - if men made a film that showed women like that, they'd be called misogynists. Ergo, this movie is misandrist. It could have been made by mediocrities are some women's studies department. Maybe it was.

It's also deeply boring and the plot is unbelievable. It's like some trashy 1950s moralistic melodrama - reminds me of Ira Levin's first novel actually. Deeply old-fashioned and dull, I am glad to say the woman who watched the film with me agreed with every word I said too.

No stars at all. The worst movie I have seen for ages - it's so smug and self-satisfied you want to give it a good slap and tell it to grow up!