Film Reviews by PV

This is one of those pretentious films directed by a European director (Italy) with one eye on Cannes.

But I grow really tired of such navel-gazing auteur movies. Much of this film is confused and confusing - utterly pretentious at times too.

It would have been far better if the story had been told in a traditional way - the acting talent here (Paul Dano, Michael Caine etc) are wasted.

However, some parts are good - so if you just ignore the pretentious arty vignettes peppered throughout, it's an OK watch. Those pretentious bits are SO irritating though. They are the cinematic equivalent of waffle in an essay - as are gratuitous images of naked women!

So, worth a watch BUT not worth the praise some give it (or this director).

I am no fan of cycling so only really knew about Lance Armstrong after he was exposed.

Essentially, this is a Greek tragedy where hubris (arrogance) brings down a man.

It's watchable, but not thrilling - though the performances are excellent.

Best of all is a superb Great British indie soundtrack (even The Fall on here with Dr Pharmacist).

So 3 stars.

I disliked this film for several reasons: firstly, because Steve Jobs was nothing more than a jumped-up computer salesman who created his own god-like myth which way too many sheeple are prepared to swallow m(others created computers: Woz, the designers at Apple, the British Jon Ives who created the iMac); secondly, because it's all rather wordy and worthy - and, frankly, a bit dull.

I suspect if people buy into the Jobs myth they'll like the movie. Me, I don't rate Steve Jobs at all - he's no genius and invented nothing. And he did NOT invent a pocket digital storage device in the iPod either (other versions came first).

Still, it passes the time but is rather a boring and irritating film about one of the most over-rated men in history.

I have to confess, I love dinosaur movies so even the less-good ones are fine with me (and the original Jurassic Park ripped off the old film 'Gwangi', for those who don't know, especially at the end; and 'King Kong', of course).

This is a pretty good film, I'd say better than Jurassic Park III.

It's strongest at the start and in acts 1 and 2. Act 3 goes OTT with the CGI - and it's worth remembering here that in the classic original Jurassic Park, dinosaurs were on screen for ONLY 6 and a half minutes - and there was a mix of CGI and puppetry.

The plot is silly but hey, the plot is absurd in all blockbusters which are scifi and fantasy! The science is fake, but so what? Ever see Superman or Star Wars?

I saw this movie at the cinema and on DVD - and I have to say it's the sort of thing that plays better in a cinema.

4 stars because of the overdone dragged-out monster-mash-up third act - but this movie is fun, enjoyable, sometimes unintentionally hilarious (dinosaurs have feelings too LOL), and great for a family watch.

One final point: the plesiosaur here looks NOTHING like the real thing (you can see a fossil in the Natural History Museum).

In my opinion, this is the best Star Wars film since the 1977 first movie which I saw aged 10 at The Odeon, Leicester Square, in London's West End (what a treat!).

I have had NO interest whatsoever in The Phantom Menace, Revenge of the Sith, and the other new Star Wars franchise movies (prequels, I think).

This movie continues on from the 1977 first Star Wars.

It's fast-paced, rooted as it is in 1930s film episodes of Flash Gordon etc, and never lets up with it's slide-cuts and edits to different locations. The Nazi reference is made even more explicit than in the first Star Wars (the dark side First Order could almost wear Swastikas!)

The new droid is wonderfully realised. Harrison Ford looks good as Han Solo. Chewbacca hasn't changed and nor have C3PO and R2D2 (the classic robots for all time).

Now some bad things: the ending seems a bit rushed and illogical (no spoilers); sadly, 'political correctness' means a woman MUST have an action hero role, and this does clash with the 1930s adventure roots of the story - but this sort of thing (making a female character great at technology and fighting) is something of a stereotype in itself now; ditto with race - whether one likes it or not, putting a black character in a lead role makes race a theme, which is a shame, though these pc things have clearly been done to maximise the market (we must remember that 12-13% of the US is black; only 4% of the UK is; 75% of ethnic minorities in the UK are not black but south Asian and other) - maybe it shouldn't, but it does; also, some dialogue falls flat, especially when trying to be funny; and finally, the music - as in songs played by aliens in a bar - is just awful and unmemorable, unlike the great theme in the original Star Wars movie (maybe coz JJ Abrams co-wrote these! Maybe he should stick to directing...).

The John Williams theme music is of course JUST WONDERFUL - the best theme music ever. The first album (remember vinyl?) my mum ever bought me in 1977! Classic score.

Happily, this movie comes in at 2 hours exactly, which is not too long at all (though act 3 could be tightened up). I am sick and tired of movies coming in at 2 and a half hours or more, (often with false endings 2 thirds of the way through before a tedious twist comes along to drag things out for another half an hour) so was pleased with the running time here.

So, all in all, 4.5 stars rounded up. Watching this is a thoroughly enjoyable experience.

The first thing to say about this movie is that it's directed by Clint Eastwood - which means it's too long (all his movies are).

The second thing is that it's based on a novel, thank goodness, so not even Clint can ruin it.

Thirdly, it has a stellar cast: Kevin Spacey, John Cusack and Jude Law doing a perfectly impression of a southern white trash hustler. Despite the big names, the real-life drag queen steals the show - Lady Chablis or something. You can tell s/he's not an actor, and all the better for it - s/he plays real life, but we are all on a stage and are merely players playing roles, after all.

It's slow to start with and THERE ARE NO SUBTITLES or options at the start - the movie just starts. Subtitles would have been useful even for the non-deaf coz of all the deep south accents.

The addition of a supernatural very black deep South theme and requisite crazy lady seems as though it won't work but it does - maybe because the Deep South culture - sultry, backwards, heavy with history - is so different and alien from the context of most US-set movies.

The ending - well, no spoilers. But personally I don't think it was necessary - but anyway.

Best of all is the music - they visit the house of lyricist Johnny Mercer's great grandfather in the movie, and most songs are from 30s, 40s, 50s and co-written by him, which is damn clever! Great songs too - Skylark and many others.

All in all, a slow burner of a movie BUT if you're in the right mood and have patience, this is really a very good watch. 4 stars.

Robert De Niro in comedy cash-in mode again here. A rather silly film with some good bits in it - that's how I'd describe this.

Just couldn't believe the set-up though - but hey, it's just a dramatic device.

Hated the twee family set-up and the 'working woman' spiel though. The very idea someone who could set up and run a large company couldn't manage so clear a desk or eat breakfast is just plain daft too.

This is the sort of pleasant, inoffensive, mildly amusing girlie film you'd take a girlfriend to on a first date.

Forgettable twaddle, but raises a laugh now and then especially with the clash of generations - lots of gags there that ring true (which much of the rest of the movie doesn't). The dodgy driver subplot is a nonsense, and some of the coincidences in the plot are as silly as they are unnecessary.

It's a 'meh...' movie and as such get a limp 3 stars. Not good or bad or memorable in any way. But a passable feelgood film.

OK, so this movie clearly owes a lot of American Psycho - and I suppose it's a question of personal taste if you like the over-the-top satire or not. Personally, I wish it'd just been a more real world tale of the music business rather than a murderous fantasy - because it really does not need the flights of fancy (which are full of plot holes anyway - and a subplot with a bent copper is so unbelievable it should be on Star Trek - as should the dodgy porn subplot. Just not credible). But anyway...

Nicholas Hoult is, as usual, excellent - and even the ever-annoying James Cordon can't spoil this film!

The shark-infested music business is shown in all its amoral horror - as it has been many a time before in movies like 'Killing Bono' or even 'That'll be the Day'. This has a 90s twist though and in-jokes about shoe-gazing music and German techno are spot on!

Oddly, the movie is now almost nostalgic - since 1996/7 when this is set, the price of music has halved and the size of the record industry has halved too (half the staff now too). Internet downloading certainly nailed these rich kids! Power to the people now - who download for 99p an album track, so no need to buy a £10 album at all. Oh and the singles market has now utterly collapsed too.

I am not sure whether to give this 3 or 4 stars - because although enjoyable it's not all THAT great. But I shall give it 3.5 stars (the half is for being mercifully short and for some great tunes on the soundtrack) and round that up to 4 stars.

This is from the same team that made 2012 - about the Olympics. All written by John Morton who wrote People Like Us for Radio 4 which is what led to 2012 and then WIA.

Many people have called this a satire about the BBC. It isn't. It's a farce - and not about the BBC either but about the PR industry and the awful managerialist language you get in all modern corporations.

The other thing is this: it's not as funny as it thinks it is. I got very tired of the BBC waffling about what good sports they are allowing a comedy like this to be made on their promises. But really, this is NOT biting satire - it is (very) mild satire at best, but mostly farce. It's basically harmless and toothless, and not satire at all then. A real satire of the BBC (in books such as Rasmus) offends its target - and W1A is basically a harmless TV documentary spoof.

Having said all that, the use of language by the writer is exquisite in its rhythms (though some characters can get wearing). There is a real musicality and bounce to the language - as though words were ping pong balls being shot back and forth in meetings by managers who speak managerialese to try and justify their absurd job titles and huge salaries. That really IS like the BBC.

So 3.5 rounded up to 4. It was a good choice to limit each series to 4 parts. That means it stops before it could really get annoying.

Worth a watch anyway. But nowhere near as funny as it (or the BBC) thinks it is.

This 3 part TV series is one of the very best adaptations of Agatha Christie I have ever seen. It was made not BY the BBC but FOR the BBC - which is possibly why.

Really top notch scripting, production values, acting, everything.

And changed the '10 N-words' poem into '10 Little Soldiers' did not, for once, seem achingly 'politically correct' as so much pc tampering does. It was utterly effortless and natural.

Sheer class.

Five stars.

I read some poor reviews of this movies giving it 2 stars, but I found it hugely enjoyable. It really is nail-biting, especially is you don't like heights! My heart was racing at times, and my stomach quesy as camera panned down to the drop!

There was also a documentary Man on a Wire a while ago, and that's good too. But to be honest, I preferred this.

OK, we know that the guy DOESN'T fall from his high wire stretched between the World Trade Centre towers in 1974 BUT the writers stuff the script so full of jeopardy that it really doesn't matter (I only wondered at times how true all of the obstacles that appeared in the main character's way were really true!)

The only thing that grated a bit was the rather twee view of France occasionally; but then, Hollywood films give an equally twee view of London and the UK! Hence the 4 not 5 stars.

The characters and script were all good, as was Ben Kingsley as the strict circus teacher.

I would have liked to see the REAL M. Petit at the end perhaps, so we know how his life went after this.

But these are minor quibbles. This is a clear 4 stars and a great movie for the whole family to watch with their hands over their eyes!

This is a gripping thriller, superior to the usual Hollywood fare.

OK, so it starts with a coincidence and the bullying pity party is laid on a bit too think really, as is the wife's 'issues'. Also, a subplot with a competitor for a job does not really wash, and I kept on asking myself why the characters didn't do this or that to address the issue.

Anyhoo...this is a really watchable thriller that'll make you jump.

Like the best thrillers, it preys one of our greatest fears: that we never really know anyone - not really.

A genuinely surprising and brave ending too (though no doubt feminists will be outraged).

4/5 stars.

Together with the brilliant "Margin Call", this movie is the best made about the 2008 financial crash and the sub-prime crisis that started in the USA (we'd call it 'repossession' in the UK).

This film shows utterly believable characters - both the heartless scavengers feasting on the defaulters' misery, and the home-owners turfed out of their homes for defaulting by legal order - in a way that is both effective and believable. It must be a truly horrific thing to lose one's home like this, and some of the victims of the housing crisis are al too believable as they end up in single rooms in downbeat motels surrounded by crime, Hispanics, loud music and very angry people who have been evicted.

But what truly lifts this film is the moral debate - what is wrong and right soon gets very blurred indeed for both us and the characters. Sure, owning a home is important - but is it worth more than your family? A true moral quandary here.

If I had one criticism it would be that the misfortune affecting the main character (who looks too much like Andy Murray for comfort really!) is spread on with a trowel like very think mortar at first.

However, this does not detract from the excellence of this movie which is perfectly structured and exciting to watch in a way a typical British film or TV drama would not be.

Oddly, this film is produced from Abu Dhabi - not sure why (maybe the producers' families lost loads in the crash and wanted revenge?).

Whatever - this is a great movie and way better than most Hollywood fare. 5 out of 5. I could watch it again now, and then watch "Margin Call" - to prepare myself for the massive financial and housing crisis that is surely coming sooner than we think (in 20016 or 2017 I am sure).

This film is called 'The Lobster'. It should be called 'Preposterous pretentious unfunny Eurotrash fantasy drama'. It clearly thinks it is so clever and original - but it really is not. Theatre and film have done all this surrealist absurdist stuff a great many times over the last 100 years.

This is billed as a comedy, Well, no laughs for me, just groans at how AWFUL it all is. Terrible dialogue - written, I see, by Greek non-native English speakers copying drama workshops and many postmodern theatre writers (Becket, Pinter et al).

A shame so many great actors were wasted on this drivel, esp Ben Wishaw.

A fantasy story has to create a willing suspension of belief in the audience. Jurassic Park does that. This pompous film does not.

I see it is state funded by lottery and EU; and is a Euro co-production. No doubt someone had contacts and cash to get this awful film made with our money. But the world really would be a better place without it.

The fantasy setting seems half-Irish and half-French, which is distinctly odd. The Irish accents made me think of Father Ted, and I half-expected some great gags and jokes. There were none. The French is more like it - France has made countless pretentious movies like this over the years.

Boring, unfunny, pretentious, dull and deeply derivative and unoriginal. The only good thing is that I didn't pay money to go and see this at the cinema (which I was considering due to the superlative reviews it got at the time! The film companies and director are obviously very well-connected to film reviewers...)

I wanted to like this film - I really did.

But it has to be one of the most boring, slow, tedious films I have ever watched. Only 90 minutes but feels like 3 hours! Pretty countryside though, in Norfolk (not usually in films so that was a plus).

I suspect the problem is that the writer/director is pretending to be French - and this has all the hallmarks of one of those pretentious Gallic movies that art students and Derrida-drone academics so adore.

It's based on a short story. I wonder if it's French? That would explain why a British student goes to Switzerland (no-one ever did that, not from his social class! The hippy trail or Spain, maybe).

This probably works better on the page, frankly - and should have been a radio or TV drama really.

The lead actors are wasted AND very VERY irritating at times. I just did not believe in them. The older man who, despite being very academic, speaking fluent German and reading tomes on philosophy, works in a factory (this makes me think the story has French roots). The slightly younger woman - with a very odd accent - who apparently can afford a mansion on a teacher's pension. Other plot holes include: the convenient lack of children (why not adopt); the unreasonably resentful wife (as if anyone expects their partner not to have been in love with anyone else before marriage); the twee pregnancy subplot.

If you want to watch a deep and meaningful film about grief then watch something like Philomena. This 45 years film is pretentious and so in love with itself (it thinks it is SO clever and profound, but really is not).