Film Reviews by PV

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

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!