Film Reviews by PV

I hated this film. So much so that I left just after half way through and returned just to see the ending - which, as per usual with Richard Curtis films, is wincingly sentimental and milks emotions for all they're worth. If you like that sort of thing, then fine, Me, I hated it. Maybe it's more a women's film?

So, typical Richard Curtis film: we have a main character who even LOOKS like Richard Curtis, an upper-middle-class Englishman who grew up in a house that has to be worth 2 or 3 million in a family that claims, as all Curtis characters, that they are not rich.

There are weddings, funerals, loads of bumbling upper-middle-class rich Englishmen and, of course, the obligatory American characters - always an American female love interest in Curtis films too.

The idea for this is an old time travel one, lifted quite shamelessly from many a science fiction film or book or play or whatever. Nothing whatsoever original about this film and I did not laugh or smile once - I winced a great deal though.

For me this is a one star mess of a movie; those who like treacly saccharine sentimental lovey-dovey stories - like Mills and Boon for those who own 5 million pound houses in Notting Hill then claim they're just ordinary and not rich at all - may enjoy it. You pays yer money. Me, I shall never be watching a Richard Curtis film again - the man is a menace with a constant drip drip drip of the same old sentimentalist love stories featuring Americans and bumbling Englishmen and very VERY few black people indeed (the London of Richard Curtis is not like the 40% ethnic city I cannot afford to live in any more!)

This film is clearly influenced by Mike Leigh's Nuts in May - it's shot in a naturalistic fashion and obviously improvised at parts (occasionally that means knowing glances between actors which remind me of stand-up and TV sketch-shows like French and Saunders).

But, after a patchy start when I thought the story would go nowhere, this develops into a study of female jealously really when a poet's on/off girlfriend arrives. The film has some great lines and scenes, and some funny parts, but is uneven. And can one ever believe 2 young women would live as con-women (or as they say 'con-persons') stealing cars etc?

This reminds me of why I avoid writers' retreats and don't get involved in the local Welshie poetry scene (dominated by the same elite - the 'crachach' in Welsh).

A silly ending (no spoilers), but that's OK.

The best thing about this film is the way it massively takes the mickey out of a pretentious poetry scene which fully deserves it. I really hate slam poetry evenings and performance poetry!

3.5 stars rounded down for the film's weak start and ending.

What is the point of this movie remake with modern actors doing impressions of the original TV cast? Cashing in and making money, of course - and making the film and characters available to an international audience who have sadly never experienced the joy of watching the original TV series (I own the box set and watch the classic episodes a lot).

So I won't be precious about it, despite my occasional winces at modern actors doing impressions of Arthur Lowe, John Le Mesurier, Clive Dunn, Arnold Ridley (plays Godfrey) who wrote the classic 1920s play The Ghost Train and who was also badly injured in World War I.

Toby Jones (same birthday as me but looks older!) is spot-on as Captain Mainwaring and has obviously studied his vocal ticks because he gets them spot-on.

Other well-known actors are well-cast too - and the dialogue is loyal to original TV series and even steals the plot of one episode to hang the whole movie on: the one where Captain Mainwaring stops wearing his glasses and bumps into things because he is trying to impress a female visitor.

Unfortunately, this film is ruined by political 'correctness'. There really is NO need to create an equivalent female home guard (ATS) to march alongside the men in order to shoehorn more women on screen. No need at all. No need for us to see Mainwaring's wife at all either, and she is no way what I would have expected.

Also, the word 'discombobulating' (which I hate) only entered British English from American English around the year 2001. So what is it doing in this script? Silly.

Catherine Zeta-Jones looking good and sounding spot-on as the love interest.

A silly plot, but that is fine - and it's always good to see what fools men make of themselves when trying to impress women (this movie shows why putting 2 or 3 female sailors on a navy ship with 300 men is a VERY bad idea indeed!)

Interestingly, in the original TV series, the writers Perry and Croft moulded all dialogue of the fictional characters to fit easily with the real-life characters of the old hand actors (many were over 60 or 70 at the time). That cannot be replicated.

So, not great, but no the cinematic car-crash it could have been - this is good in parts. 3 stars.

Far better is the BBC2 TV drama from last year about how Dad's Army came to be made. Can't remember the title but that is a must-see. This is passable but that's it. 3 stars.

This is a very workmanlike movie - all well written and directed and acted - but somehow a bit cold an efficient.

Anyway, the story is fascinating. It's about how the 'UnAmerican Activities Committee' of the late 40s and 50s (though it didn't end till 1975 officially) conducted a witch hunt against those whose views and thoughts and political opinions were of the left and particularly the Communist party.

Now, many were sympathetic to the Communists before, during and just after the war, as Russia and the butcher Stalin were our Allies. However, most saw how vile Stalin and Russian Communism were in the 50s, especially when the Soviets sent tanks into Hungary in 1956.

These days, we also have our witch hunts so no-one watching this film and shaking their heads should feel smug. We have witch hunts now - anyone who refuses to abide by the often absurd ideology of political correctness and diversity worship can find themselves the victim of a witch hunt. A TV producer saying Midsomer Murders is popular because it is not set in the modern inner city full of ethnic minorities finds himself the victim and loses him job. Harvard professor who suggests boys and girls may be innately different in their brain and behaviour and aptitudes loses his job after mobbing by witch hunting feminists. Anyone suggesting that 'affirmative action' or the UK version 'positive action' is racist, sexist and wrong is likely to lose their job. Anyone saying that we do NOT need the Oscars rigged to ensure more blacks win Oscars is sure to be blacklisted by Hollywood these days if they are an actor or a director.

Nothing has changed! We still have victims of witch hunts now. And any screenwriter now who dares write about certain topics will NOT get their screenplay made.

btw this movie makes it seem easy to be a screenwriter. Well, people say if you pack your bags and go to Hollywood it'll take you 15 years to get a script made on average. In the whole USA no more than 12000 people made alive writing for TV and film and that is 2000 in the UK.

But, despite the way this is a very worthy and smug film, it's also interesting - and the introduction of Kirk Douglas and Spartacus is great (though several people wrote that screenplay and several directors worked on that movie).

4 stars. Just.

This film is in German with subtitles - and it is one of the best films about the rise of the Nazis and Hitler I have ever seen.

A fascinating story that I had never heard of before.

Well written/acted/directed.

Maybe a bit heavy so not much comedy here and a bit grim.

But a clear 5 stars

This is a workmanlike retelling of the true story from 2010 about the 33 copper miners who were trapped deep in a mine for 10 weeks before being lifted to the surface.

It does what it says on the tin really. There is the build-up to the mine collapse; then the collapse itself; then the men trapped and waiting for help, and what's happening on the surface.

All fine and good. But I do have to say I found it oddly cold really and didn't find I cared much about any of the characters. Maybe because there are so many we can only know a few scant details of the lives of each of them.

Various subplots and backstories pad this out - alcoholism, affairs, a baby on the way etc. I particularly liked the way the film showed the Chileans being racist against a Bolivian immigrant. We often assume racists can only be white Europeans! Nope. Racists can be any colour and from any culture and country (Asia, Africa etc).

I did not like the movie largely ignored the fact Chile, like most Catholic South American societies, is deeply divided with a tiny elite (shown in the President and Mines Minister here) who own EVERYTHING, and the people who own next to nothing. Compare to a protestant property-owning democracy (from British culture) which exists in the USA.

I have a connection with this film. I live in the Welsh city which in the 19th century produced 80% of the world's copper. Ore from Chile was imported here - especially from Valparadiso. Trivia fans should know Catherine Zeta-Jones' great-grandfather captained a ship which sailed the Wales-Chile route. We also got ore from Cuba and elsewhere - but Chile has a particular connection to Swansea, Wales.

So, OK to watch. Maybe 3.5-4 stars then.

James Horner's last soundtrack too and the movie is dedicated to him.

OK, so this is not a bad film - per se. Based on a novel, with a screenplay by Nick Hornby (he no doubt liked the cheque), and some well-known actors (Jim Broadbent, Julie Walters...), it's watchable enough.

But it's really just a Oirish Mills and Boon affair, made to appeal to the American market. And my, how clean everyone was back in 1950/51/52. Even the tramps look freshly scrubbed with lovely teeth!

The best bits of this film are the comic vignettes - especially Julie Walters as the boarding house owner, keeping her spiteful, dizzy Irish girls in check.

Jim Broadbent does Jim Broadbent, playing a Catholic priest - and these days, it's unusual to see such a character in a film who isn't accused of molesting choirboys! So that was different.

But really, this is just a silly Oirish soap opera melodrama for women to weep at - and cynically made for the American Irish market. How about looking at English or Welsh immigrants to the USA for a change eh? Or Gernans or Swedes. I get so sick of all the Oirish plastic paddy piffle.

2 stars.

This is a highly enjoyable film and also disturbing - the massive abuse of children by the Catholic church and the way that institution covered it up for decades (centuries?) and just moved priests to other parishes to abuse again, is truly disgraceful and shocking.

It's an 'All the President's Men' for the 21st century.

Some may say it's a bit one-note but I can see no other way to tell this tale. There are enough subplots and extra characters (the devout grandmother Catholic; the abused now grown up after surviving drugs and drink; the deluded priests who thought the abuse was OK; the devious church leaders who resist the truth to protect the church; the dodgy lawyers; the population of very Catholic Boston who in effect knew what was happening but put loyalty to the church before protecting children. 'Good Germans' indeed.

Good acting; standard plot. Utterly believable. This movie well deserved its awards.

A bit too long, however, and so can lose momentum and drag a little in the middle. Hence 4 stars and not 5.

I would say, however, that all institutions can behave like this - the instinct of institutions and their loyal defenders is self-preservation. So we have seen similar patterns of corruption and cover up in the police, schools, councils, universities etc.

I am also convinced that there are similar abuse scandals in other religious institutions which also demand total unquestioning loyalty - from mosques, temples etc and that there is a huge hidden problem of abuse in Muslim, Hindu and Sikh institutions. I doubt anyone would dare to investigate that, though.

I enjoyed watching this movie. It's way better than the blockbuster Godzilla from a few years ago, but not as hilariously funny as the 1950s Japanese version.

The radiation issue was cleverly folded into the plot and backstory.

Anyone complaining that Godzilla wasn't on screen enough just does not realise the way a story needs to build tension; in Jurassic Park the dinosaurs were on screen for only 6 and a half minutes! OK, so this is not up there with that film, but it's a good effort and I had no issue with the MUTOS - mega moths who eat radiation. Godzilla needs an enemy! Mankind needs jeopardy (will the mutos breed?) All decent plotting actually.

Loads of CGI, of course, with hundreds of digital artists credited, but that's true of most movies these days.

The acting is fine - with 'nowhere boy' Aaron Johnson doing an American accent (as so many Brits have to do these days, coz Brits in these sort of films are always either the baddies or the boffins or the totty...)

The film was perhaps a tad overlong - and some subtitles need a serious edit by someone who is literate in English.

But for a good fun monster movie, this does the job. 4 stars.

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.