Film Reviews by PV

This is the sort of film Stephen Spielberg would have made if he'd been dropped on his head as a baby.

It's a real special needs, silly, shameless mash-up of disaster movies and Jaws (which it references in some lines).

Funny to laugh at and with. Happily, nice and short too.

This was way more enjoyable than many Hollywood movies that cost 100 times more and think they are profound and high quality. Hence the 3 stars.

Sad to see so many sharks getting killed though, even though the special effects are in some cases utter CGI pants and knocked up on the cheap on some Korean computer. Hilarious too that they use the same footage of a real shark over and over!

The film starts well - with a scene showing shark finning and a Chinese man hiring a boat to kill thousands of sharks.

Let's not forget the scandal of shark finning - whereby sharks are caught, get their fins sliced off, then are thrown back in the ocean alive to die horrible deaths - all to satisfy Chinese demand for shark fin soup - which tastes of chicken broth because shark fins actually have no flavour at all.

Up to 90% of large sharks have been killed in the last 20 years because of this vile trade. Maybe the sequel to this film could have Chinese people sucked up in a tornado and killed by sharks in revenge? That's be fun - and poetic justice.

I can't stand the way some people think they can go around the world wiping out endangered species - or as the Chinese call it, 'lunch'.

Sharks are really not the threat and kill so few people, and mostly silly surfers who are irresponsible. People are the dangerous species. Not sharks.

There is a charity and campaign group called Shark Trust, by the way. They do good work.

This film is so-so. Predictable, yes. Aping Hollywood comedies, indeed - and an American character here is obviously aiming for the US market.

But it's not too bad - a romantic comedy really. Some nice scenes and lines - and a snapshot of late 50s France.

Fun to see the French typewriter keyboard too.

3 stars.

In many ways, the original House of Cards was superior - it was shown with perfect timing in 1990 as Mrs Thatcher fell from power. I would certainly say that gets five stars.

This US remake differs a lot from that one - it makes relationships sexual rather than purely manipulative, for example - both share one thing: a fine actor in the lead, with an overpowering performance - the late Ian Richardson in the 1990s version pips Spacey at the post for me for his sly Shakespearean asides to camera.

Really, this is just a rehashed Mephistopheles or Iago or The Devil, as in the old Mystery Plays. But none the worse for that!

Spacey is excellent, as always, bringing an interesting southern good ole boy drawl to the character, which marks him as an outsider in the Washington monied WASP camp. It's all like a game of chess really, and the plot does keep you guessing and has some fine intrigue. Well-structured too - so never boring (UK TV drama writers take note!)

I was less convinced by the young girl journalist character, who gets very irritating. The role of Peter Russo is well-acted too though, as are many minor ones.

Too many sub-plots though, I think - it feels like padding to make 13 episodes as well as shoe-horned in political correctness to get more female characters and storylines in there.

Plus, I am starting to get very bored and irritated by baddies in US dramas being shown as 1) cigarette smokers; 2) atheists (the new 'blacks' in America, it seems!).

But these are minor quibbles. All in all, this is a superior drama and I enjoyed it more than any British drama I have seen in the last 2 years.

This series is well worth watching, though people should remember that it's based on a non-US TV series (from Israel), just like House of Cards is based on the superior 1990 UK version.

Not believable at all really, and both leads are irritating actors, but the writing saves it.

Avoid Homeland series 2 though - it's a shame they couldn't leave it here, instead of milking it. And Clare Danes a supposed CIA whizzkid is always so dizzy and incompetent she looks like she wouldn't be able to run a cookie stall at Charing Cross station, and yet here constantly seems to be an intelligence genius - there is real comedy in this series if you know where to look!

I didn't know what to expect from this movie - esp as I only sometimes like Jack Black (sometimes he is over te top). But in this movie he is perfect.

This is part drama and part mockumentary about a funeral director's assistant who ingratiates himself with a much-hated local widow, only for it all to end in disaster.

Really funny - and I mean laugh out loud funny - clips from mock interviews with townsfolk, add to the charm of this slight but excellent film. It has no need to be longer than 30 minutes either. This movie will never win Oscars (comedies never do anyway) but for a great fun film where the copious laughs come from a deep foundation of sadness (as all good comedy does) I am prepared to give this top marks.

This is a thought-provoking film and one I won't forget - and the initial demonstration of how to prepare a corpse is so very funny and true (the Americans really do conduct funeral care like that).

And it's based on a true story (how much we do not know) - watch through the final credits to see more mock interviews and footage of the real Bernie and photos of him with the widow.

This is one of the best US movies I have seen for ages. There is superb acting here and well-structured, tight writing, plus a wonderful sense of place.

Particularly impressive is the way this story delves into characters' psychology - the way the situation and psyche of a young teenage boy mirrors that of the fugitive he tries to help. The rejection each face change them - and a wonderful climactic scene when the boy confronts Mud is superb and not overdone. You can feel the young boy's rejection and sense of betrayal - ad he grows up to discover an adult world of relationships, lies, betrayal and disappointment.

The drama never lets up here until the quintessential American ending; however, this film takes it further with what is really a epilogue, ambiguously hinting at hope for the future and the characters.

A great film. Far better than I expected. Five Stars.

I love Christopher Walken, and his performance here is as superb as one would expect from him. Ditto for the other actors.

Unfortunately, the whole movie quickly descends into a relationship movie rather than anything to do with music. Lots of shouting, crying and histrionics - which at times looks a bit like one of those classes at US drama schools where girls scream and cry about how unfair life is. Well, cry me a river honey...Shouldn't you be practising the violin instead of behaving like a toddler?

Anyway, all watchable and so-so - it's just a shame there was so little music, and so much Noo Yoik relationship nonsense, though I suppose it was supposed to show Walken's predicament more clearly.

I liked the ending though.

Three stars. Something to watch when there's nothing else on.

I can't decide what is most irritating about this movie.

Is it the fact that it's overlong? Or that its soundtrack sounds like something James Horner wrote to accompany warships? Or maybe the overuse of CGI animation that, despite the attempt to impress, are not a patch on the hand-made 1939 'decorations'? Maybe it's the weird china girl which is I think a completely unnecessary character who was probably only added for gender representation reasons (and she is well spooky too!)

No, no, no, no again...

So what is it?

Well, it's the point at which Oz states that Edison invented the lightbulb, the phonograph (recorded sound) and the cinemagraph (film) - which is all a load of UTTER TOSH (a lie, basically)

Despite what ill-educated Americans think (and I refer to high school teachers here too), Thomas Edison invented nothing at all. Yep that's right - nada, zilch, sweet FA. He took others' inventions and developed them brilliantly, and was a genius at that, but he was NO an inventor as such as invented nothing new.

The lightbulb was invented by Joseph Swann, a Brit, and recorded sound and film were invented by several people at the same time arguably - British, French and German. But it sure weren't Thomas Edison, honey. That fact that this is a plot point in this film and repeated ad infinitum as truth so irritated me that I almost turned off.

However, I persevered and can say that, in parts, this film is entertaining - especially the start, ironically, before all the CGI stuff starts (some funny lines here). And there are some nice scenes with witches towards the end - and a handful of laugh-out-loud funny lines (some from Jewish stand-up, I think).

But really, it's all too long and too overblown - and promotes a lie to the world too!

2.5 stars rounded up.

Do yerself a favour and watch the brilliant original Wizard of Oz instead.

I loved this film and laughed out loud several times during it. Great script, with interesting dream sequences, good female roles, superb framing with an intro and ending, and some genuinely classic scenes. This film should have won Oscars and awards galore.

If anyone has seen the sexist, scurrilous BBC drama called The Girl about Hitchcock - which basically set out to portray him as leering disgusting pervert - then watch this and see what real talent and good writing, acting and directing can do (it seems we can't find much of it at the BBC these days). Hitchcock is class; the BBC movie was trash.

This is 5 stars easily - for acting, script, direction, music, the lot.

I really enjoyed this film. It's genuinely funny, in a cartoonish way. It is well-written, with some funny lines.

Set in the near future, its robots are believable if one suspends disbelief - but the music in one sequence certainly isn't - and nothing ages so fast as a vision of the future.

Some funny lines about libraries made me laugh out loud (well, we do live in an age of 'learning zones').

One has to suspend one's disbelief a lot for this - but the film is genuinely enjoyable and funny. Not too long - but with a silly subplot (about an ex-wife) which is utterly unnecessary and unbelievable. Despite that, it's well worth 4 stars - and the lead actor is perfectly cast, and the robot's dialogue is utterly believable. Good fun.

I found this movie deeply irritating.

Yes, Daniel Day-Lewis gives a perfect performance of Abe Lincoln - though he doesn't use the N word as he did in real life, and there is no mention of his plan to send blacks back to Africa. There is also an assumption too that the American Civil War was all about slavery, when in fact it was more about control and whether states (incl the southern ones) would be run from the centre (i.e. the north, and Washington).

But what really grates is the fact that the US is portrayed as a beacon of democracy and justice - when in fact in Britain slavery was banned in 1807 and in the 1830s in British colonies. So the USA was well behind the UK in its pursuit of justice, equality and democracy therefore.

The film itself is so wordy - so much so that even I, someone who likes wordy films (and foreign films often are) was bored. It's surprising that Spielberg, the best action director in Hollywood (think Jurassic Park) should make such a movie - which anyway would have been far better suited to a TV mini-series. Arguably, it is all about the division in US society now, and the Obama presidency - so TV would have suited such a subject better.

Disappointing, over-long, boring and verbose - though no doubt a favourite of those studying law - this only deserves 2 stars. I think a lot of people are rating Abraham Lincoln (and expressing anti-slavery pro-equality sentiments) by giving it more. I am rating the film as a film, not the man it portrays.

Another movie that proves that Quentin Tarantino is a B-movie schlock director, whose films are just derivative mash-ups of 1970s Spaghetti westerns and Kung Fu fight scenes.

I disliked this movie - though I had no issue with the use of the N word (and anyone who does, like the African American pity party industry is just deliberately seeking offence for their own ends; in fact, if anything, the brutality against slaves is massively exaggerated - did slaves really fight to the death in the drawing rooms of Southern Plantations? The dates are also vague here...);

I hated the Kung Fu style fights (with silly sound effects), the cod spaghetti western 1960s/70s titles, the ridiculous scenes etc. However, the acting is fine and there are some good scenes - which are then spoilt when Tarantino just has to have shoot-em-up BORING!

This film is also VERY long and feels it; the story should have ended after the scene with Di Caprio's Southern landowner. Good place to end and have resolution. But oh no, hack B-movie director Quentin hadn't had enough blood and guns, so we get another half an hour or more of pointless story arcs.

1.5 stars rounded up.

This movie and those like it deserve no awards whatsoever - unless there is an award for being derivative and boring.

This is a dire movie, even by QT's plummeting standards. Silly, badly written (repetitive dialogue; dialogue that is clearly Tarantino's voice spoken by several characters, so not differentiation). Ridiculous rewriting of history (why?) for no purpose. Silly pantomime-ish hiss-boo portrayal of Nazis. Utterly absurd and deeply unenjoyable.

How this ever made money and got nominated for awards is beyond me. It is trash. No stars.

There are some real laugh out loud moments in this film - some perfectly crisp dialogue that made me chortle loudly! The tale of a put-upon professor in the late 60s who has work and family issues as his son prepares for bah mitzvah is bittersweet - a comi-tragedy that actually has a very British flavour (in that the hero is a 'loser') - like many a British comic novel.

One thing that does baffle a bit: the opening sequence which is set in Poland of the 19th century. I have no idea really why that is there - though it's funny. It almost seems you've got the wrong film when you start playing the DVD - but persevere through it to the main movie. The ending too confuses (no spoilers - but suffice to say there are mystical themes here). Lots of stuff about rabbis went over my head, but the characterisation makes it all work here, as does the wonderful snappy dialogue.

Intelligent, funny and so good I watched it 3 times in a row.

Five stars.

This movie left me thinking about it for the rest of the day and week. It is a somewhat brilliant study of alcoholism, and the air crash and flight stuff is merely the context where that happens. I was expecting some 'snakes on a plane' mash-up; instead I found myself watching the best movie on alcoholism since 'Leaving Las Vegas'. Its characters and moral issues are well-written and developed, and there is a level of depth and complexity here unusual in Hollywood movies. The female druggie character's story is also well-developed, and the separate-then-meeting technique works well. There are no easy answers here and no simplistic moralising - that impressed me.

Of course, the plane crash and CGI effects are great too - but this film is more intelligent than that. In fact, I was surprised they didn't start with the crash - I knew this movie would be different from the first scenes therefore.

The only negatives: a slight descent in sentimentality, esp with the son subplot. Rather too much waffling about God for my liking (but not TOO much and this is an American movie, after all). Moreover, Denzel Washington just does not look ill or addled enough, after all his drinking (and the smoking, drugs etc). But hey, it's a Hollywood impression of alcoholism, and a trembling wreck would be less attractive and not allowed to fly a plane. And there are high-functioning alcoholics.

I struggled to watch this sometimes - the battle of the main character, the lying, the compulsive need to drink are all things I have seen in people I know, so I know how spot on its portrayal was.

I give this 4.5 stars rounded up. One of the films of the year for me - sometimes funny, sometimes sad, always interesting.