Film Reviews by PV

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.

I was expecting some trashy, uber-American, unfunny comedy in this film, but was pleasantly surprised.

This movie is genuinely funny and touching, and hits more than a few nails on heads in its portrayal of a family breakdown and parent-child relationships.

2 points: 1) I have NO idea why the title is what it is - I suppose they had to call it something but it bears not relevance to the film; 2) it is massively better than the tedious and awful Kings of Summer - a really boring, silly. smug and disappointing 1-star movie.

I give this 4 stars. Not perfect, but some decent characters - major and minor - and a snappy script, make this an entertaining and thought-provoking film. Good music too!

I really loved this film. The trick to its success - and it really is both genuinely funny, and very touching too - is a brilliant script which is full of circular arguments and conversations, witty ironies, and nail-on-head commentary. I laughed out loud several times.

Really good to see a film about older people that does not go all silly like the lame Dustin Hoffman directed effort Quartet, or get all huggy girly happy endings like the Marigold Hotel film (though that was OK).

At one point a woman asks if the old man has Alzheimers; 'no', says his son, 'he just believes what people tell him.' 'Too bad', says the woman. You see? Class writing!

I was also very moved by the old man's faith in his winning ticket, his chasing of dreams after an unhappy life, and the devotion shown him by his wife and sons. His wife in particular gets some great lines and is a fun character.

The minor characters are also well-drawn - Stacy Keach pops up as the baddie here, a former friend who wants his cut (and has already had one judging by the big scar on his lip - why Mr Keach PI always had a moustache, of course. Who knew?)

The black and white works well, giving a faded forgotten mid-West feel to the film; and the ending is great - if you're not cheering the old man at this point you need a heart transplant.

The best US film I have seen in a year - and not in the least depressing, but life-affirming. It should have won awards. I could watch it all over again right now.

5 stars.

This film is very silly and childish, but it is really good fun too.

Misery-guts reviewers gave it 2 stars out of five - maybe because it didn't involve wallowing in poverty porn and northern gritty realism with lots of northern accents.

For me, this film made me laugh out loud several times, and I enjoyed the arch humour and knowing asides. The pace is snappy (unlike most movies which are overlong) and the scenes are imaginative, with the plot veering off the thin plot to add shell people and a mad section with The Magic Numbers.

The songs are pretty unmemorable, but that is OK, as are the amateurish versions of pop and dance tracks.

Nice to see the film references too - to those Japanese monster movies, as well as Jurassic Park and others.

All in all, an enjoyable and fun ride. 4 stars.

The biggest weakness of this movie is the soapy plot - particularly in the second half. The resolution is unbelievable, frankly. I just didn't believe the character would make the decision he made.

Having said that, the movie is pleasant enough - and the dance routines, though there are far too many, are impressive as are the dancers and actors.

This dancing did feel a lot like padding at times, however - as though there wasn't enough story and depth to rely on dialogue, so let's have a strip and a dance with loud music!

The music is interesting though - if you watch with subtitles on it'll tell you who it's by too.

Not great; not rubbish. Just...nyeh... so 3 stars.

I loved the first half of this movie. The characters, direction, context, dialogue. The supporting characters in particular were larger than life and memorable - whether Lipnik the producer or the souse old hand sell-out writer, and his wife.

Then, half way through, the handbrake turn - and what was a enjoyable movie about the movie business becomes tricksy, surreal - and for me - boring. Many people will like that stuff - but I don't consider it nearly as clever as it considers itself. It also makes the story unbelievable, trite and turgid.

I would have preferred this to NOT take that turn at the half way point at all, but to continue as a great movie about Hollywood, where a new and serious writer finds himself having to sell out and writer B-movies under contract.

So 3 stars overall.

5 stars for the first half though.

Despite its sentimentality, I found this a hugely enjoyable and interesting film. I have an interest in song writing, so loved watching the process of how the songs from Mary Poppins were written.

The script, acting, direction were all fine.

Also, unlike in many Hollywood biopics, I didn't find then flashback scenes intrusive. They added to and enriched the present day action and character, as they should.

I am not a big Tom Hanks fan, but thought he was perfectly cast here; Emma Thompson too, though she was younger that the 'real' PL Travers.

I wasn't expecting to find this so enjoyable, but found it a really touching movie. A shame it didn't win Oscars really; I enjoyed this so much more than the tedious Gravity.

4.5 stars

When watching this, first remember that the story comes from a novel - the sort of melodrama novel best forgotten now - and that Hitch had a screenplay to work with. I tend to get annoyed that people think film directors create everything - the story, the script, the characters. They don't/ They merely interpret it.

Having said that, this is an enjoyable watch. Very dated though - and perhaps the trendy (for 1958) dream sequence bit is the most dated of all. Strange to think just 10 years after this it was 1968 with all that implies.

Efficiently directed. Unbelievable plot twist at the end (from the book), and a plot hole in Stewart's first hotel visit looking for the girl.

The direction of the height scenes with camera effects is still effective though; probably the best bit is the opening sequence though - which has been much copied in more recent movies.

Three stars.

Two questions immediately pose themselves: 1) did this movie deserve to win so many Oscars incl Best Director; 2) is it a good film worth watching?

The answer to 1) is NO; the answer to 2) is YES.

The visual effects are spectacular, of course. The acting is fine, and the story is gripping. Best of all, it's only 80 minutes log (oh if only more Hollywood movies kept under 90 or 100 minutes!)

My problem with this was the sentimental American script. There really was no need for the female leads back story. or talk about angels (whenever American films start on the angel thing, I want to throw up).

Then again, not being into Sci-fi or space stuff, I really didn't think I would enjoy it much, and I did - as did the elderly person I watched it with who hates all space stuff. Why? Because the characters in jeopardy shtick worked.

It should have won 2 or 3 technical Oscars. I think it won Best Director because of the Hispanic vote and the thought it was this guy's turn to win - and also he probably ran a big and expensive campaign to win (yep, the Oscars really are as corrupt as the average Russian referendum...)

3.5 stars