Film Reviews by PV

This film is terrible: boring, dull, confusing, pretentious, and a waste of the acting talent on show. I like Jesse Eisenberg and no doubt he wants some arty actorly kudos and status from starring in an arty film. But but but...

I like arty movies - I like films which do not rely on Hollywood tropes and special effects.

But really, this pretentious and over-rated film is the worst film I have seen this year - maybe the worst in 3 years.

I know hipsters will praise anything this director does, because he is trendy and so an 'emperor's clothes' effect takes place.

But I have to be honest - this film really is dull and up itself - and is, frankly, boring to watch.

It thinks it is really clever - and is trying hard to be Gilliam's Brazil in a steam punk way. And BOY is it trying! I struggled to the end and wished I'd turned it off after half an hour.

Only watch if you like this sort of thing...

I would recommend reading the book where this story came from though - - because this film is evidence, if more were needed, that some books and stories on the page just do not translate well onto the screen.

The only really bad thing about this DVD is that there is NO option for SUBTITLES! That is a real shame because the naturalist mockumentary style and the northern accents and mumbled dialogue mean that subtitles would have been very helpful.

Having said that, all else is positive. This is in the mockumentary tradition and probably influenced by Michael Winterbottom's The Trip with Steve Coogan and Rob Bryden BUT Downhill - a Road Trip is FAR funnier than that, and than any other Winterbottom film.

There are well-drawn characters, efficient flab-free storytelling in the script, lovely scenery, genuine surprised, probably the best drunken acting I have ever seen, and some great weather jokes!

OK, so the ending is a tad unbelievable (are non-friends really so forgiving after...well...no spoilers here). Also, I could predict parts of the screenplay and a couple of the issues each character had - because every major character has an issue, as screenwriting courses teach.

But I can forgive all that and could easily watch this film again now. It is more suited to TV of course than film, but the BBC would never ever be so creative as to take a risk on new writers and directors, preferring to stick with stale, tried and tested old hands or those with who get maximum diversity points to write about social issues.

Downhill is a really funny film. 4 stars+.

A load of Old Testament hokum that drifts badly in the watery second half. No doubt creationists will love it - though there is a nod to evolutionary fact in the speeded up sequences. There is also a clear reference to a tsunami - which is how the myth or Noah and the ark was cobbled together (though actually scripture does not even mention 2 of each animal...)

The premise is silly; the acting hammy; the conclusion wet. Some people'll love it!

But I certainly cannot recall fallen angel rock men from my school days, nor any battles before the ark set sail, nor any cockney descendants of Cain acting as the adversary to increase jeopardy and dramatic tension!

Oh well, it passes the time. And I doubt Sir Anthony Hopkins has seen as much rain since he lived in Port Talbot (where it's wetter sometimes).

I found this film somewhat irritating. I think it was because of the stagey concept - as a play in the theatre this would probably work better.

I was also more than irritated by some of the characters - and was egging them on to jump off that very high building!

The emotional manipulation by Hornby in his original story is shameless, and the tabloid plot silly. But a wafer-thin story needed some sort of plot, structure and direction - though these things, like the holiday, feel tagged on. As does the ending.

It would have been 1.5 stars were it not for the good performances by the actors, especially Pierce Brosnan.

If you're the sort of person who think dire modern Hollywood comedies with swearing and bodily function obsessions are funny, you probably won't like this.

If, however, you enjoy sharp satire and are bright enough to notice intelligent irony, then you'll love this film. The humour is Jewish, and also pitch dark for those who get the references. No wonder it was successfully revived recently.

True, it is a bit dated in patches - and those easily offended by dolly bird gags should probably cover their eyes.

But really, this is one of the best musical movies ever made - a classic. Mel Brooks at the top of his form.

Five stars.

Although occasionally resembling The Fantastic Four, with all-American and achingly diverse (woman, tick; black lead, tick...) cartoon superheroes saving the world and not suffering so much as a scratch whilst all the natives around them fall like flies, this is a well-made and genuinely exciting film that will have you on the edge of your seat. The action and bomb sequences are impressive and startling, in all ways, and the script keeps you guessing. Real adrenalin here.

OK, so it's an action movie and follows the tropes of those. But this has more - a thoughtful consideration of the paradox that is Saudi Arabia. That is why I award 4 stars to this. A couple of laugh out loud lines too.

The ending is particularly poignant, and unusual for an action movie; this is so much more than good guys versus bad guys.

And the first 5 minutes is perhaps the best potted history of Saudi Arabia ever put on film, which explains clearly the pact made by the Saud family and the Wahabi Islamic extremists (who want to destroy all books, all images, everything except the Koran). I doubt very much devout Muslims or Saudi nationals will be fans of The Kingdom, however...

After watching this, I'm just glad I never took that teaching job in Saudi Arabia (despite the money...)

This is an oddity - and feels odd, a bit amateurish, and perhaps more suited to a 1 hour TV drama than a movie. The premise is slight and absurd; some of the acting performances over-theatrical; the script sags in the middle (though thankfully it's a very short film). The budget was clearly of the shoestring variety too!

Suspension of disbelief is needed on a huge scale here - but as time travel features in so many TV series, maybe that's not such a big deal.

There's a vague and under-developed romantic subplot featuring the Italian soldier, but one wonders where the movie can go exactly, so maybe it's best under-developed. It's merely meant to balance the weird village teacher romantic subplot anyway. One sensed that the film makers were trying to find ways to pad out a slight story that could have been wrapped in in half an hour of a sci-fi TV series though!

Still, despite all the negatives, there is something charming about this film. Hence the 2 stars and not 1.

OK, so this film is not unpleasant, though one wonders if the endless focus on relationships and explicit aural scenes are absolutely necessary.

It is a not bad film but way overlong and feels it. That is because the story is so slight the movies is stuffed with padding and unnecessary subplots. It could have been a great half hour episode of a Twilight Zone style TV series. It is basically a short story which has been padded out to be a novel.

One issue with this: all the characters become extremely irritating after a while, from the main character to the subplots. The disembodied voice of 'Her' is probably the least irritating.

Difficult to get emotion into a relationship with a machine - but it was done better almost 40 years ago in a SciFi film when a computer sings Daisy Daisy of course...

The twist is fun but not surprising enough to pay off the time invested in the previous 2 hours.

So, all in all, very average. No idea why it was nominated for an Oscar. But then Gravity won, and that was worse...

I love Charles Dickens - I am a great fan of his novels and world-view - so I was looking forward to this film. But oh my goodness what a slog it all was.

SO slow - due to 1) a flat script by BBC golden girl Abi Morgan who always focuses on women's interest and portrays women as victims (only she could write a movie script about Mrs Thatcher which did not feature politics at all, but focused on Mrs T as A WOMAN...zzzzzz....); and 2) very dull direction by R. Fiennes which seems to prove the axiom that actors shouldn't direct.

I was yawning and looking at my watch long before this finished.

The script is also confusing and switches back to flashback when Dickens was alive from the 'present' in 1883, 13 years after his death, at random. Moreover, I do not believe the feminist angle imposed on this tale by the writer (who has decided to misrepresent history and show Mrs Dickens as a victim harshly treated when the evidence shows she was just a typical Victorian wife and happy enough). The stuff about Great Expectations being related to Dickens' affair is entirely Morgan's invention.

Very disappointing and boring. One star - but a half a start more for the views of Kent and Gad's Hill, and the good costumes and make-up.

I like Nick Frost, Ian McShane and Olivia Coleman, but for me not even this acting talent could save this limp little film.

Perhaps it didn't do anything for me as I have no interest in Salsa or dancing generally.

But anyway, the storyline is weak and predictable, and the laughs come mainly from Frost falling over, and also the camp Iranian dancer (they get the accent 100% right here - unlike the BBC usually whose foreign accents are usually pure drama school fake).

A silly karate-style sequence tested my suspension of disbelief too.

It's the sort of film comedy we are always making in the UK: it thinks it is really funny, but isn't. I always wonder why we can't emulate the snappy funny 90 minute comedies that the US puts out regularly. Just never seems to happen.

Worth a watch though. Not terrible, but not good either, and it really loses momentum towards the end. 2 stars.

This is an at-times plodding biopic of Nelson Mandela, good in parts and interesting, but spoilt by overbearing Hollywood blockbuster music and the Hollywood-by-numbers script.

The film does address the issue of the murderous Winnie Mandela, but it is far too generous to her (she has been convicted of killing children, after all...)

It also only touches on Nelson Mandela's belief in violence which was stronger than shown here back in the 1950s (he changed his mind on that in prison). It completely leaves out the communist sympathies of Mandela and the ANC too. It ignores massive ANC brutality and corruption, and that of the extended Mandela family too: it tries to make them a 'first family' of a saint, in effect.

Having said all that, any biopic of Mandela was always going to be a hard ask, and this one is competent at least. Good acting all round. Though some confusing parts - especially at the beginning - and why are we never told how Mandela got the name Nelson?

I sort of preferred the movie 'Invicta' which is about Mandela's time in prison and his relationship with a guard. However, this movie had to tell a whole life story, which is always tricky, and why the script focused on easy villains (whites) and heroes (all blacks).

Too long really too, as usual for Hollywood movies.

Worth a watch so 3 stars.

This film is just brilliant. It should have won Oscars, for sure. It's probably one of my favourite Scorcese movies now too.

No doubt some 'politically correct' people will find it offensive, as I heard some po-faced humourless feminist whinge-Wendy describe it as on the radio last year.

But really, it's a great ride. Funny and well-written script; great memorable characters; packed with action, searing, sex, drugs and money.

My only criticisms: 1) it's too long, like most Hollywood movies these days; 2) The alcoholic druggies look far too healthy - in real life, it ain't like that!

But these are minor quibbles.

In general, this movie is a hoot - and with a serious message too. I was surprised it was this good - I watched it the same evening as American Hustle, which is yawn-inducing in comparison.

The Wolf of Wall Street should perhaps have won the Oscar for Best Movie, (instead of the tedious up-itself Gravity), and won Leonardo one too for this bravura performance.

Just great - 5 stars with chasers!

One of the best films I have seen in the last decade.

I watched this now for the first time since the original broadcast. I find I remembered a couple of scenes, which, when one thinks I saw this in maybe 1978 aged 10, shows how powerful this drama is and how it sticks in the memory. I can hardly remember anything of the Hollywood movies I watched last week!

OK, so it is a bit dated. That slow 1970s zoom is everywhere, and by modern standards it is slow-moving (though I like that; I despise the quick cut noisy running around goggle-eyed Dr-Who-style way of upping the drama). The acting and dialogue is a bit dated and wooden at times BUT the characters are well-developed as is the story and context. I suspect a similar drama made today would feel it had to hammer homes the race politics points; happily, Roots focuses on telling a story, as all drama should. Historians will never GET drama or fiction, of course, and so constantly snipe at historical inaccuracies - forgetting, if they ever remembered the fact, that writers have no responsibility at all expect to tell a good story.

The history is inaccurate of course; in reality whites rarely hunted blacks - slavery was thriving for centuries in Africa before the white man even visited in any mercenary way, and the Arabs were there slaving well before Europeans (that is why Kunta Kinte s Muslim - because his ancestors were enslaved within Africa by marauding Arabs - and that is why north Africa is Muslim now too; people had a choice - convert to Islam of die...)

Having said all that, this is a FAR better drama than the worthy and emotive sob story 12 Years a Slave, which I found tedious and manipulative, having more to do with modern race politics in the USA than anything else. That movie Armistad was also a bore.

This film is very wordy and theatrical - and I can see that one of the screenwriters is Frank Cottrel Boyce who tends to write very worthy and theatrical TV and radio plays, I think.

A far better drama is Bridge on the River Kwai - a great film albeit inaccurate - and Merry Christmas Mt Lawrence. This is all too psychotherapy-infused with long pauses and a failed attempt to add dramatic tension with a knife (how on earth did he get it through customs though?) As in most such dramas, the prison camp looks too clean and the prisoners too well-fed and healthy too.

Colin Firth looks ludicrously young to play a 61 year old man too, meaning one's suspension of disbelief is severely tested. That meant I just didn't believe the character - just as I did not believe how Lomax met his wife (actually, these days he'd probably be arrested for stalking or harassment, such are the obsessions of our pc police).

I can imagine that the book would be a good read - and far better than this film, which is unmemorable and wordy to the point of boredom: a shame for such an important subject.

As a drama, this film does not really work, I'm afraid, but is worth a look for curiosity value and interest. The story of the Burma railway needs to be told and retold - in Japan most of all.

3 stars - just.

This film was massively hyped, yes; many reviewers say how painful it was to sit through (as though they'd never heard of bad things happened to people before!). There is lots of racial politics going on here too, and a definite craving for victimhood in the reparation debate now. So I shall just stick to whether this is a good film or not.

Well, yes, it is a good film up to a point. Buy BOY does it labour the point! The doomy music and pained expressions may appeal to a US market, but I found it overdone.

It wants you to wince and cry - and not doubt some will - but I could just never emotionally connect with these characters, which surprised me. I remember watching Roots and really connecting then with Kunta Kinte. I shall have to rewatch that on DVD to see if it still does, or if maybe I have become too cynical - but I just didn't connect with the characters and I thought there was plenty of overacting too (esp in the female queen cotton picker character; the lead man character is excellent and he SHOULD have won the Oscar). I suspect I'd find the book more interesting.

I also didn't like the way the slaves all seemed so well-dressed and healthy. Silly.

Silly too that slavery is not really put in context; this is the 1840s and most whites were little more than slaves anyway, arguably - I think most who watch this movie will assume all whites were rich and privileged from this movie, Nonsense.

Plenty of good people supported slavery - black and white, Arab Muslim and Christian - all over the world. That point was missed by creating pantomime white villains and angelic blacks. No nuance here.

So 3.5 points, This is not a masterpiece at all, but a well-filmed biopic. One which maybe had to be made - but mainly aimed at a US market, which is why it wallows in its pity party polemic. Good, but not that good.