Film Reviews by PV

I was looking forward to watching this film - but it was so plodding, so predictable, so unbelievale in its plotting (the rap subplot), that I looked at my watch many times whilst I precicted (accurately) in the first minutes what would happen by the end - then ticked off my correct prdictable predications as they came true.

This movie has such a wonderful cast of British character actors - almost any old actor worth their salt took the pay-cheque for this one then!

And it should have been good - or better - with a fine writer like Ronald Harwood. Perhaps at aged nearly 80 he cannot see the sheer unbelievabiity and predictability of his screenplay (which is based on a theatre play, which was based on a TV documentary about a real retirement home for opera singers in Italy).

Sorry, but this gets 1.5 stars rounded up. As a movie with and for oldies, the Marigold Hotel one is far better than this.

I really wanted to like this film. It's a little self-made movie (who wrote, directed and produced) by someone who has the money to do that. I tend to forgive films made with not much money, because I know what a monolith the movie business (and the publishing business) is. I therefore always support independents.

However, this is pretty bad. Wordy, flabby, with some wooden acting and a barely comprehensible plot. It needs rewriting and the rewriting some more, then more editing and cutting.

I fatsforwarded through some parts because it was dragging so much.

The script is the first big problem - lots fo swearing for no reason.

There need to be more action and far less sitting around and chatting and nattering - that's boring, on film.

Still, I shall award this 1.5 stars rounded up to 2.

I can see potential here, but the writing is flabby, the direction slow and plodding, and the film is really quite amaterish and boring. The ending is also a cop-out and utterly predictable - with no twist! The whole movie should have been working towards a great ending, but it just sort of peters out, like this review, and fades...to....black....leaving...nothing....

This is the sort of movie that would appeal to off-duty plods and woodentops in the UK, fantasising about doing interesting police work on their days off watching DVDs (instead of their usual arresting of drunks, druggies, shoplifters and those who say bad words on Facebook and emails - well, easy meat boosts arrest targets eh?)

For me, this was pretty boring - though I can appreciate the immediacy the director was aiming for with the hand-held camera and police car camera stuff, all from the convenient fact that one cop is filming a documentary (though we are never told why).

There is a constant attempt to add empathy to the two main characters, to humanise them, and thus build up to the finale. Sadly, for me, I still didn't care much about them as characters, so was unmoved by what happened to them; and certainly I didn't believe the Mexican drug cartel plot shoehorned into the plot to raise the stakes. That balances the 'good' hispanics we see who are cops.

Lots of shooting, drug crime and murders, for people who like that sort of thing.

3 stars - just - because it is well-made. But really, one for the Americans and off-duty plods fantasising about being cool LAPD cops.

There is good news and there is bad news. Bad news first: the sound quality in this film is awful - we had the volume up to the max and still could not hear some dialogue! The other bad news is that there is no subtitles option - no hard of hearing subtitles. They would have been handy!

Happily, that is the only bad news. The good news is that the rest of this film is brilliant. The script is clever, witty and well-written - and efficient, with no flab - the acting and direction are great; the locations look wonderful! I used to live in Prague for a while, so recognised the awful and doomy Hotel Dum too (where lots of English teachers get dumped by their employers!)

Some of the gags are old-fashioned in that visual humour slapstick was the continentals love - one particular joke was the same as I've seen in a 1930 Laurel and Hardy film (about one man breaking in through a window while the other enters the house through the open door and watches him).

But anyway, this film made me laugh out loud several times. It is genuinely funny - far more so than most Hollywood comedies. I could watch it all again now. If you like black humour, then you'll love this. The comedy is winter dark and the ironies abound. Funny funny funny! 5 stars!

This is a well-made and well-written story, from a novel, I think.

However, there is one major issue with this film: it is, frankly, unbelievable. I shall not give any plot spoilers, but just say bthat characters must be believable, especially if they end up killing people (rather a major step). This movie is called The Killer Inside Me so we know that happens (so no spoiler).

Lecter in Silence of the Lambs is believable, as is Starling. Here the main character acts in a way no human would - and not enough back story and character development is givem to explain his actions and what eventually happens. I suppose the religious will put it down to the devil inside him...But it just doesn't work in terms of story development: the world of the story is not believable.

But a nice period piece and watchable - hence 4 stars.

This film is just deadly dull - it is far too dull to be offensive, other than to those desperately looking to be offended, or so conditioned by our politically correct age that they cannot see the contradiction in being offended by this, but not offended by a movie showing leery women exploiting men (no doubt some would see that as 'liberating' and portraying 'strong women'). Well, you can't have it both ways, sisters! (Unless feminists are hypocrites, of course).

Anyway, the problem with this film is that it essentially has no plot - two likely lads hassle women for sex and engage in petty theft on an early 70s road trip across France (but really, it is not as exciting as it sounds).

Possibly the second half of this movie is brilliant - but we lost patience after 40 minutes and simply could not stand any more! It felt as though we'd watched 5 hours of tedium after half an hour, so just couldn't take the second half. If it's as bad as the first though, this is one star - and evidence that the French are different if this was a huge hit in 1974. With whom? Who could possibly enjoy this drivel?

If you want to have a real cinematic treat, watch this, and then Shallow Grave and/or Fargo: you will see that Fargo is essentially a bigger budget remake of this, and Shallow Grave (directed but not written by Danny Boyle, and still his best film, I think - way better than the tedious Trainspotting or the sentimental wallowing of Slumdog) lifted so much from it. Some scenes (light shining through bullet holes)were 'taken' directly from here for Shallow Grave.

The best thing about this film is the script: tight, terse, pithy and funny. Some great lines.

It has a plot to die for (literally!).

Nice direction too.

The weak things about this movie?

Well, it is dated - and looks dated even for 1984!

And the music - much of it hispanic - is awful. Also, the black barman character was an unnecessary distraction, included probably for the interesting contrast between a Detroit Motown-loving outsider black man in Countrya nd Western territory.

But really, still 4.5 stars, despite the creaky bits!

This film is brilliant - and should have won the Oscar for best foreign film 2012, and every other award going.

This really is a must-see. For all MPs, teachers, paranoid parents, children's groups etc.

The script makes the dialogue, and the characters who speak it, so very believable, as a tragedy unfolds, (perfectly paced), all spurred on by parental paranoia, false rumours, a 'no smoke without fire' reasoning, and the sort of vile mob mentality we often see in Britain today.

Indeed, some of the lines reminded me of some of the silly things my female colleagues used to say when I was a college teachers - the nursery school scenes here show how very stupid such people can be, and how their wooly reasoning destroys an innocent man's life. This movie shows all men are extremely vulnerable to being a victim of such false accusations - which is perhaps why the school system today is being so feminised and female-dominated as to be a man-free zone: why should men expose themselves to a hellish experience like this?

This film should be remade in English and shown to all those thinking of assuming anyon accused of any crime (esp child abuse) is automatically guilty, or that children always tell the truth: the way adults project what they want onto children in this film is brilliantly done, and disturbingly believable and realistic. This makes it moving and sometimes disturbing really - one almost has to watch through one's fingers as the mob of gullible parents turn on their former friend (who is a great teacher!).

Particulatly chilling is the vile head of the nursery who idiotically seems to believe that children never tell lies, and seems to think all men who are ever alone with children are therefore guilty of child abuse.

The way the false accusations grow like a virus and never go away is handled brilliantly right up until the last scenes.

The only part that didn't really work for me was the deer/hunting analogy (though I am not Danish and have never been hunting, so maybe that's why!) - though it works way better than that silly scene in The Queen with the stag called Diana (yawn!).

But that is a small gripe.

This film deserves a much wider audience - and perhaps a remake for those too lazy or illterate to read subtitles.

It fully deserves 5 stars as the best foreign film I have seen in the last year, or maybe the last 5 years.

A brilliant, moving and sometimes disturbing movie.

This film at its worst is like the tedious 2nd part of Lord of the Rings - with boring battle after boring battle.

However, there is enough story to keep it going - and some really excellent dialogue (from the book or the film), especially by Ian McKellen playing Gandalf. Sylvester McCoy does a good turn as a scatty St-Francis of Assisi-style wizard, with some lovely animals, although the plot points are a bit confusing sometimes.

The dwarfs are good - (yep, it should be dwarfs and NOT dwarves as they use here in the subtitles) - and there is some great British acting talent on display: Christopher Lee (AKA Dracula) is almost 90 and still does a great turn. Plus, I am delighted they use the word 'chips' to mean, well, chips! And not 'fries'. The New Zealand scenery if lovely too.

I would advise use of subtitles to appreciate the dialogue, as with lots of noisy movies these days - unless you are a child who just wants the pictures and noises and bright colours.

All in all, not a bad effort. 3 stars - and would have been 4 if they had shown self-discipline and cut out the flab to make this 2 hours. Really, it is too long - and the orc CGI battles are boring, frankly.

How much you like this movie depends on how much you are in love with elves, wizards, orcs, dwarfs and the whole LOTR schtick.

This film starts off so well: the central premise is a strong and believable one, and it's good to see an older character on screen too. Though I did struggle at times to believe a bluecollar worker would push his kis to go into artistic careers (notoriously badly - if at all - paid), rather than go into IT, law, medicine, business.

But not matter. There are some genuinely touching and funny scenes and dialogue. And the set-up, and the increased jeopardy of the plot, are believable.

Then, about two thirds of the way through, it all goes splatt - no doubt to some Hollywood script doctor wantingt more drama and sentimentality (and, as per usual, the cheesiness of the sachharine sentiment has the opposite one to that intended, at least on me).

I won't give a spoiler here. Suffice to say there is no need for the increased melodrama in the final half hour of this movie (and the son's character arc is not really believable either). It's a shame this movie could not have ended much sooner, and saved itself from the unnecessary sentimentality towards the end.

If it were not for events towards the end, I would give this 4 stars. But this movie spoilt itself, so I give it 3.

OK, so this film is shamelessly calculated to tug at the heart strings; and OK - quite a lot of it is funny set pieces (dancing, haircuts, funny 'fish out of water' scenes); and OK, it's rags to riches, fish out of water trope is well-worn and familiar (and this fim obviously draws on many a Hollywoord comedy, from Traditing Places and before).

But - the fact remains that this is a really well-made and enjoyable movie. And, unusually for a French film, it is actually funny and keeps up the pace.

The writers and director have obviously borrowed a lot from Hollywood, from the initial car chase, to the quick-cut editing, to the soundtrack, to having a black African in the lead role (rather than the Muslim Moroccan on whom the character is based - we see him and the real life paraplegic right at the end of the movie too).

But despite the sentimentality and the shameless maniulation of the audience, I will give this 4.5 stars because it made me laugh out loud on several occasions - which, considering most Hollywood comedies hardly raise a mild smile in me, is some achievement.

It's not a great film or a classic - though it is the buggest ever grossing movie in France, I think. But it is a must-see, just because it's a really funny comedy with interesting characters you care about (however stereoyped).

4.5 stars

This is a hilarious collection of 5 short stories connected by a single theme: life in communist Romania in the 1980s. It made me laugh more than most Hollywood comedies, that's for sure!

They used to call these Portmaneau films, and companies like Hammer used to do them a lot, in films like Dead of Night, or with passengers on a train telling heir tales, or with characters connected by objects bought by people from an old antiques shop (which led to horror tales), and another one where people stared inot shears and had dreams.

Anyway, I loved this movie - and would happily watch it again. There are 5 tales for me - the strongest for me being the first (the Merrygoround (a great metaphor for communism), the second (about the photographer) and the hilariou penultimate tale about the pig.

Acting and direction are spot-on, and the scripts made me and those with me laugh: there are some real absurdities and paradoxes, which are all too often based on the almost surreally absurd realities to communism: things like this really happened back then.

Five stars.

I had high hopes for this film - which is perhaps why I am so disappointed.

Yes, it's adapted by a great writer - Tom Stoppard. But, as those finanical adverts put it, 'past performance is not necessarily an indicator of future success'. He messes with the novel something rotten.

The director too seems to think he's making a film for his luvvies down the local state-subsidised theatre, or perhaps for the Edinburgh fringe. This movie is strictly for theatre fans and luvvies - though I watched it with a theatre lover and she hated it! It's neither Arthur nor Martha - but half a film and half a stage play. In other words, a right royal mess!

This film is largely set in a theatre - for some incomprehensibe reason. Budget maybe? But hey - they budget on this movie was rather large: they could afford top actors and one of Britain's most famous writers!

How much better this would have been if it had been made as a traditional historical story - like Dr Zhivago (a superb movie) or a movie like the Danish 'A Royal Affair': now THAT Is good storytelling.

Not sure about Aaron Johnson or Macfadyon in their roles either - I kept thinking of John Lennon and Spooks! Keira Wotsit does her usual coy ting.

1.5 stars rounded down because I'm so disappointed!

This will pass 2 hours relatively harmlessly (though a little confusingly, seeing as there are so many characters and many look alike).

This film is a classic and fully deserved its Oscar in 1952.

The script is superb, with family feud subplots mirroring the conflict all around, as is the acting. The multi-faceted story is driven by character - and how characters psychologies cope - against the awful backdrop of the war. But perhaps this film is mostly about class - and how a middle class little girl from Paris fares in a French peasant family.

The music too is excellent ('La Source', I think).

This film is far better than most French films today, for sure! The same child actor (the boy) starred in Les Diaboliques, another Gallic classic.

One thing that stands out these days: the treatment of children by their parents in this movie would probably count as child abuse today, though - which shows how silly our culture has become rather than how brutal they were 60 or 70 years ago!

And the ending (which I won't spoil) wouldn't be done today, especially in Hollywood, which follows the boring template of structure for every single movie.

But this is a real classic, and if you haven't yet seen it, you're in for a real treat. 5 stars.

There are two great things about this movie: 1) the title; 2) the poster promoting it (a classic).

As for the film itself. Well, it's based on a stage play - and an American one. That means it's overly sentimental, and well as engaging in flights of fancy and fantasy, and also marinated in the sort of racial politics that seemingly hems in all US drama.

I found the story too plotless for my liking, and the characters way too rooted in pity party sentimentality.

No doubt this was made specifically to appeal to the Africa-American demographic too. But I kept asking myself: if the film were like this but about Norwegians or Finns, then would I like the film more? And the answer is: NO - it would be just as dull. Being set in the Deep South with black children does not make it better...

I was actually really disappointed in this, though I wouldn't say it's a bad film, per se. I would say it's a watchable, average, unreamarkable film - with a great title and film poster.

2.4stars.