Film Reviews by PV

The first thing to say is that this movie is 2 hours 20 minutes long. 30 minutes could have been cut, but it suffers from the modern Hollywood disease of stretching movies past the 2 hour point. Silence of the Lambs was around 90 minutes. Look and learn.

Secondly, the plot is full of coincidences and contrived plot points - and some holes. I simply don't believe the persons responsible would not have been caught or at least investigated earlier. The plot also 'jumps the shark' (the snake...) a wee bit.

Having said this, I enjoyed the film - interesting and believable characters, esp Jake G and the Mr Dover character - maintained the interest. Some of the minor characters went in for drama school histrionics (USA drama schools must teach this as I have seen examples of such hissy fits in many modern movies - but it really isn't believable).

The thriller maintains the interest and has some interesting - if contrived - twists and turns. Guessed the true situation early on, however, as I knew this is where a script writer would go.

3.5 stars.

I quite like slow European films, but this movie is just too 'magic realist' for me. I just never believed in the story of some invisible wall; I was frustrated by all the unanswered questions too (where did the people she was with go? Who are...? etc)

I couldn't also help shouting 'pull yourself together!' at the woman - she never really seems to methodically plan an escape; she just rests her hands on the invisible wall (at which point she hears a Star Trek hummmmm).

Confusing and random flashbacks didn't help either.

It probably means more to Austrians and Germans, what with their love of mountains and forests.

The best thing about this movie is the animals, especially the dog, who deserves an award for his range of expressions (he has a bigger range than the actress playing the lead).

If you watch this, forget the silly and pointless story which gets nowhere, and just enjoy the animals and the scenery.

For a much more interesting surreal Euro-movie, watch The Bothersome Man from Norway (5 stars).

OK, so this movie isn't perfect, and has some irritating elements - not least of which the fact that it's almost a great big long pitch for Google - (A Pitchoodle?) - but it is really good fun and it made me laugh.

I found the fish out of water plot full of zest and fun, and the double act of the leads carries the movie wonderfully. The nerdy characters are comic book - but no harm in that - and the wonderful Mr Chetty deserves a whole movie of his own. I suppose we can expect a great many more social network/internet-type movies - so why not?

The script is well-written and clever - despite some perhaps unnecessary crudeness - with some zinging dialogue in the double act lead. (In fact, I'd recommend turning on the subtitles so you don't miss any of it).

The worst thing? The needless stereotype of the guy with the British accept as 'the baddie'. Why do Hollywood movies do this? If they used a black, a Jew, a Hispanic in that role they'd rightly be criticised.

Anyway, despite that racist silliness, I'm going to give this 4 stars as I found it a good fun film which made me laugh. Don't think too hard about it or try to analyse it (as I heard some pompous critics do on the BBC). Just watch the full horror/beauty of the absurdity of the internet.

And if you want, you can even watch on 'on the line'...

Gosh, this film is boring. It's only an hour and a half but feels much longer. This is probably because of the 'who cares?' aspect of the story. I know of these artists but even I wasn't interested...

The acting is fine; the views of Cornwall's wonderful beaches are great, as they always are, even when the pictures are taken by a 3 year old.

In this movie, the cameraman may well be older than 3 years old, but he may possibly be drunk - the wobbly hand-held camera work occasionally makes scenes indoors look as though they are taken on a boat, because the camera leans to left then right. Very odd and sloppy too.

I suspect the book on which this is based is better - it's probably one of those tragic romances aimed squarely at women of a certain age.

Watch this only to pass the time or to look at pretty sea views. It's like a 2 star B & B really, so that's the score I shall give (I am tempted to give one star, but I love views of Cornwall!)

In some ways this film is very irritating and smug - the sort of thing cobbled together by arty leftwing times in Hampstead, all too used to being self-obsessed at their Islington dinner parties.

It is, however, redeemed by 2 things: 1) the sheer quality of the acting all round, esp from Jim Broadbent; 2) a bang-on speech by his character at the end (the reference for a former poly university as a factory producing idiocy will ring a bell with many who have studied or taught at such places).

Worth a watch to pass the time - but as flimsy and unsatisfying and an amuse-bouche really...

Some negatives about the film: some events are so unbelievable as to be ludicrous - I just do not believe risk-averse boring teachers aged 60 would behave that way; the female character here is very odd - almost schizophrenic - and it's amazing anyone would put up with her for a weekend, let alone a 30 year marriage; a senior lecturer would not be sacked for making one comment - a complaints procedure would mean at most suspension, and probably not even that, so the writer is using a skewed plot point here; apparently, this wife is a schoolteacher of biology GCSE - very unrealistic, as she is married to a lecturer in philosophy, and she's just the wrong personality type (the screenplay writer Hanif Kureshi is clearly ignorant about real life schools and colleges these days, as many are, cf Martin Amis); some set pieces are reminiscent of the worst of pretentious rep theatre, all wordless and contrived; the ages of the leads are a bit off - if this is set in 2013, then someone in their late 50s would not be of the 60s generation listening to Bob Dylan - they would more likely be into Queen and Elton John, or prog rock, which was fashionable in the early/mid 70s.

OK, so this is really a low-budget B-movie and is a bit wordy in places.

However, it's on the ball as far as American trash TV culture goes. As a dark satire it is fun, depressing and horrific at the same time - but not as depressing and horrific as reality TV of course!

It's a bit of a wish fulfilment fantasy really, and references Bonnie and Clyde. The main character is an everyman who finds one day that he has had enough - so takes direct action. 'Jobless, loveless and hopeless' the blurb says, which together with a perhaps less successful brain tumour plot, pile catastrophe on catastrophe until he snaps - but in a very sane way! Forget the plot holes (and the fact the police seem unable to catch such obvious criminals or even bother trying) and just enjoy the ride.

Well-acted by both leads, with plenty of action, and with really great music, this was a really entertaining movie that says something about our TV culture and society - so 4.5 stars.

This is the sort of pretentious film that used to wow art students in the 1970s. Lots of naughty words about s,e,x. Lots of stares into the middle distance. Lots of hysterical unstable young women.

I can't say if the second half of the film was any good because I turned this tosh off before the halfway point.

Just awful. Yet it obviously thinks it's so radical and shocking' It's not. It's just plain boring.

Avoid unless you like the most pretentious and yawn-inducing of Euro-cinema.

Jeez - if Greece makes movies like this using public money, no wonder the place is in trouble!

2.5 stars for this.

This movie is way overlong and also self-indulgent - that makes it really boring in places. It takes ages to get going - the plot point being in the 35th minute. Why? Because we have stupid dancing scenes for ages before that.

To be fair, there is no plot really. It just washes over you - but no amount of arty cinematography can eliminate the boredom felt by many a viewer at the self-indulgent waffle here (and it's co-produced by a French company, so know what to expect - long gazes, confusing flashback editing).

I also feel the director's back catalogue and reputation has created a case of the Emperor's New Clothes amongst some adoring reviewers.

Some great characters though, esp the dwarf. Plus some genuinely laugh-out-loud lines. But a film has to be more than that. If I or you had written this script and sent it to the BBC or other production companies, it wouldn't have got a full read - 5 pages in, it would be on the REJECT pile.

For me, the final act - the last 25 minutes or so - was the best. Though the 104 year old nun character seems dropped in as a means to finish an amorphous and nebulous mess of a movie.

Is this movie anti-fracking propaganda? Yes.

Is it achingly worthy, smug and sanctimonious? Yes.

Is it utterly unrealistic (as in a saleswoman for a $9 billion corporate having an old banger of a car that won't start'; as in a character being prepared to throw away their whole 6 figure salary and career)? Yep.

But having said that, it's a watchable movie. The last reel is the worst by far, as in many Hollywood movies, where the schmaltz and happy-ending-obsession goes into overdrive.

I am sure smug Hollywood types - who earn millions, several cars (incl a Toyota Pious or two), several homes and who have a carbon footprint the size of Canada - will make more propaganda like this. And perhaps the other side will too. And so the battle between the pro-fracking lobby and the anti-fracking lobby will continue on film for decades. But the hypocrisy is stark.

And I can't watch Matt Damon any more without seems him in Team America World Police. He is, like Sean Penn, smug, self-righteous, irritating beyond belief (and often ignorant and badly informed too).

3 stars - it passes the time but the plot of this film is simply not credible.

This movie is excellent entertainment and had me gripped from the start. A BIG problem is the lack of subtitles on the DVD, because so much dialogue is so naturalistic as to be inaudible. However, the film itself is sound.

What is intriguing here is that a detective knows who murdered girls from early on - but he just cannot prove it. The movie is a quest for that evidence, with a neat trick in the final scenes concluding the movie well.

There are fine acting performances all round. The jeopardy increases throughout until the final scene - essential for a film structure but making me think if everything here is 100% true.

Still, it's based on a disturbing true story. Set in 1983 too, though not much 80s flavour!

The is one of the best thrillers I have seen in the last decade. A refreshing change from the usual LA or New York set detective dramas.

So disappointing. This got rave reviews everywhere, but I would describe it in one word: BORING.

It is really just a TV-style soap about 2 best friends living life in Noo Yoik, and mixing with rich kids who are pretending to be artists.

Maybe if I were a 17 year old girl, I would love this. But I am not, so I didn't.

The dancing parts were painful; the psycho-babbling and 'I love you I love you' between the two female leads (who at times seemed to be the mental age of 12) were beyond irritating.

There are a couple of good gags that made me laugh, especially one about a book being 'heavy'.

But really, no more than 1.5 stars for this, just because it is SO tedious and annoying.

This is a watchable movies. However, it is almost entirely fiction - NOT a true story: 1) the British embassy did NOT in real life turn any Americans away; 2) The Canadians were largely responsible for getting the 6 out, not the USA or the CIA; 3) most of the things here are invented - for example ALL the obstacles the 6 face en route to the airport.

So enjoy it as a caper movie and fiction. The problem is, most people will see this as fact - just like those lie-drenched 'America won the war single-handed' movies (Private Ryan, U571 etc etc etc).

Arrogance which looks rather hollow when one realises the USA is burdened with debt it cannot pay back and now is owned mostly by Arab states and in hoc to China. No wonder so many hate America when its propaganda machine spews out lies like this.

In short:

Argo has been criticized for its portrayal of events; especially for minimizing the role of the Canadian embassy in the rescue, for falsely claiming that the Americans were turned away by the British and New Zealand embassies, and for exaggerating the danger that the group faced during events preceding their escape from the country.

THE FACTS:

The six American diplomats had earlier been given sanctuary when they turned up unexpectedly at the British embassy's summer compound in northern Tehran,

Yet not only does Hollywood's account write out the British officials who sheltered the Americans but it also claims, falsely, that the US staff were "turned away" from the British embassy in their hour of need

The film's script also fails to credit the New Zealand diplomats who helped the group's passage to safety.

Early in the film, Affleck's character is briefed on developments by his CIA supervisor Jack O'Donnell, played by Bryan Cranston. He explains that the six US Embassy staff had escaped and been given refuge by the Canadians: "Brits turned them away, Kiwis turned them away."

But Mr Anders, 87, said: "That is absolutely incorrect, absolutely untrue. They made us very comfortable, the British were very helpful and they helped to move us around to different places after that too.

"If the Iranians were going to start looking for people they would probably look to the British. So it was too risky to stay and we moved on.

"They put their lives on the line for us. We were all at risk. I hope no one in Britain will be offended by what's said in the film. The British were good to us and we're forever grateful."

Argo is the latest in a long line of Hollywood movies to twist British history for their own dramatic ends.

U571, starring Matthew McConaughey, rewrote the Second World War so that American servicemen captured an Enigma code machine rather than British sailors. Mel Gibson took many liberties with British history in Braveheart (1995) - including depicting his Scottish warriors in kilts hundreds of years before the garments were introduced - and in The Patriot, his heavily fictionalised account of the American War of Independence.

I really like this director's later films We Have Pope and others.

But oh dear, this really is terrible. SO slow, SO tedious, SO tiresome - actually I did close my eyes for about 20 minutes in the middle.

The story? There is none. A man (the director and writer) rides around on his Vespa, occasionally borderline mental as he dances and annoys strangers. A weird Flashdance subplot left me baffled.

The ONLY redeeming feature were some funny lines and scenes in the final chapter, when the man gets a rash and visits doctors and Chinese medicine charlatans.

But apart from that, this has to be one of the worst films I have ever seen and worst Italian films too.

Baffling. Boring. Blah!

Very hard going indeed.

For me, this is the best film of 2013.

It is what it is - the story of a bullied underdog, Paul Potts, who ends up winning a talent contest and escaping the awful provincial industrial town where he grew up, and works as a salesman in Carphone Warehouse, to become a professional opera singer.

So it's predictable and we know the ending - but the journey is done so well. This is very well-written and structured - there are lots of laugh out loud lines which are genuinely funny - and the acting is spot on. Julie Walters, Mackenzie Crook et al - and the best Pavarotti impressionist I have ever seen! James Corden fits the role perfectly - I don't usually like his work, esp when it's too slapstick and loud, but he is perfect here (though thank goodness Paul Potts provides the voice). The change from childhoods to adulthoods is done brilliantly too.

Nice to see a usually unfilmed part of Britain too - Port Talbot in South Wales - a dead-end steel factory town which is contrasted here with the sublime city of Venice. The detail is spot on, though I was trying to work out Paul's age all the time.

I could watch this film again and again. The music - classic opera - is of course wonderful.

2 small gripes - on occasion, Corden lets the accent slip slightly into London-ese. However, it is true that people all over the UK pick up and speak in a London way now, so maybe that's OK. Also, Potts was born and grew up in Bristol (the film is BASED on truth only; his father was actually a bus driver not in a steel factory).

The second gripe is that when they sing 'for he's a jolly good fellow' they don't say 'and so say all of us' but the American 'which nobody can deny'. However, again, many people now - especially the working classes - do ape American expressions (happy NEW year, and not Happy New YEAR as we used to say...)

Anyway, this film is warm and funny, and gives hope to all underdogs who want to have a go and find their one chance of making it and following their dreams. It's a lovely fairy tale, basically!

It's a really well-made bio-pic of Pol Pott...no...er...Paul Potts!

Bellissimo!

Bravo, maesto!

I was very disappointed in this movie. I watched it on the same day I watched Sharknado - and Sharknado wins hands down for being way more comic and entertaining!

There are a multitude of problems here.

First, the characters behave like 11 year old boys, going on adventures in the woods, and yet also look about 20. Maybe they're retarded? Perhaps they've been watching too much Wes Anderson drivel and it's addled their adolescent brains.

Second, it is just not funny. The script thinks it's oh-so-clever - but it is utterly contrived, with some comic dialogue lifted from US TV shows - we're right in sit-com land here, and bad sit-com land at that.

Third, it is utterly unbelievable - the plot, the characters, the plot points - everything.

Fourth, no characters is likeable. Not one. We have seen it all before but done miles better: 3 boys include the zany silent one, the pretty central character one, who falls out with the lolloping ginger one with whom he is or was best friends. I wanted them all to starve to death in the woods really - but sadly, we were denied such resolution and catharsis.

Two good things about this film: the music (nice to hear Thin Lizzy) and some of the cinematography (though that linger too long to try and make out this movie is deep and meaningful, when in fact it's just a soap opera TV show aimed at girly kids and the undemanding young adult).

Want to watch a film about boys becoming men? Stand by Me did this SO much better. Lord of the Flies (black and white 1950s version) did too. And more recently, Mud.

This is not a good or particularly entertaining film, though no doubt it appeals to American film school students who love these self-consciously quirky silly movies. The film also seems to think it's shocking and radical - when it SO is not. It's as controversial as chicken popcorn, and quite as monotonous too.

Wes Anderson has a lot to answer for...