Film Reviews by PV

I give this 2.5 stars rounded up.

I don't usually like Bill Murray (I hated Lost in Translation) - and neither do I like the sort of hipppy-dippy Californian-style movies - all the self-obsession and focus on 'being happy' and finding 'closure' bores me.

However, this is watchable - it is all saved by the comedy of situations, the hilarious amateur detective neighbour (though why a poor family is living next door to a rich man is never explained! Or are they in his garage? I dunno!).

There are funny encounters - and believable types.

But I agree with other posters: the lack of resolution in this movies goes beyond ambiguity to be very annoying - as annoying in fact as the DREADFUL Ethiopian jazz music that made me wince every time it played.

No doubt the writer/director thought the ending would be ambiguous and make people think; sadly, it just annoyed - because more clues were needed so the audience could think: of the mum could be that one or that one, and the son could be... etc.

Instead this film ended prematurely. Very annoying.

The writer/director needed another pair of eyes and ears to tell him: this does not work. Stories need resolution of the main plot - and that would STILL leave ambiguity and many questions unanswered (subplots can stay unresolved). This, I suppose, is the problem with writer/directors and vanity projects: they're too quirky and desperate to be different for their own good.

Worth a watch though - and some funny lines make it worth the trip.

This is the sort of film I could happily watch all over again after a first viewing - it's intelligent, well written and directed, and oh so timely about how betting on the moeny markets created credit and free money, and the subsequent 2008 crash.

It is shame there is no 'subtitles' option on the DVD - some dialogue is drowned out, and with complex financial stuff like this, it's worth watching the film again with hard of hearing subs. I had to rewind in some scenes to make sure I heard all the mumbled and fast dialogue.

The screenplay for this is intelligent and excellent - though on occasion some may find it a little preachy (as if characters are presenting a paper in a college class) - and the characterisations of those working in the money markets is spot on.

But why oh why oh why do they (as in Hollywood) have to use a British actor to play the bad guy always?! Jeremy Irons is a good 'baddie' actor, and one could say he's balanced by the nicorette-chewing unlikeable but goodie character of Paul Bettany, but perhaps if Hollywood always used blacks or Jews as bad guys, it would be called sort of, er, racist?

Fact is this: it was the easy credit that came out of Wall Street and the US government's deregulation of the money markets in the 1990s that precipitated the financial crash of 2008. Blaming the British is as silly as the anti-Brit nonsense about the Gulf Oil disaster (also caused by US govt deregulation).

Kevin Spacey is always a joy to watch - and I loved the arc of his character - and the dog. I also loved all the references to bridge-building, digging, real work versus the better paid non-useful work of being a trader on the markets. Hammered home at times, but still effective as a contrast - and true too.

So, despite the anti-British racism, this movie gets 4.5 stars rounded up. Recommended.

If you want to watch the definitive version of Room with a View then watch the 1985 version starring Daniel Day-Lewis, Simon Callow, Rupert Graves, Denholm Elliot. One actually wonders why on earth this remake was made - but anyhow, it is mostly an entertaining film, and great fun for those who know Florence to location-spot.

The scenery and acting is fine as one would expect from Timothy Spall and others. The vicar is better cast the the earlier movie actually, and I liked the more explicit mention of his reasons for bing the 'non-marrying kid'. However, Laurence Foxx seems miscast as the intellectual character who the main character gets engaged to - he just looks too cool and not nearly gawky enough. One also expects Lewis to walk by investigating a murder...

Sadly, the wonderful poppy-dotted Tuscan countryside is devoid of poppies, unlike the 1980s version, and at the end we realise that this is symbolic with First World War relevance. This addition at the end was utterly unnecessary - as was the sex scene in this film. The screenplay was written by Andrew Davies who has adapted many an old book for television and who always adds sex scenes of the proto-feminist variety. Fin, but not realistic - this would not have happened in 1912!

So a flawed film though, not as good as the original film version, but still worth a watch.

I give this film 3.5 stars rounded up to 4, because despite its wit, sharp script, interestig premise and snappy dialogue, good visuals etc, the pomposity of the ending spoils the movie for me.

The first half hour and hour are the best; the rest delves into unnecessary mataphysical spiritual territory. That's a shame really and the movie would have been better without foolishly veering down that path in the final minutes.

As a parody and pastiche of horror movies (especially the wonderful Wrong Turn) it's great fun. The characters - especially the stoner - are great fun too, with some sharp lines.

The underground lab scenes initially confuse, but then it all comes together like mind and brain connecting as it dawns on everyone (incl the audience) what's happening.

Fans of blood and gore with like the final half hour - me, I didn't really need that. But the Grand Guignol is fun anyway and suitably modern in its in-yer-face blood n guts. I actually saw some of this as comedy, especially all the references to past movies, though I'm not sure others will.

This movie is basically a horror version of The Truman Show - though it's less intelligent and original than that movie and I have no idea why people are using the word 'genius' about this film. It's a good fun movie, which is great, but that's it!

It is clearly aimed at teenagers - but sneaks in a lot of intelligence that will go over many of their heads, especially with dialogue unclear and action so fast I had to rewind and play again to see and hear everything!

Many I am sure with just watch for the gore - and there are some genuine jump-out-of-your-seat surprises too!

There is also enough intelligence here for more demanding viewers, so all in all, a movie wel worth watching. 3.5 stars

I loved this film, despite not usually liking family dramas of kitchen-sink-style misery memoirs. Its story, characters, acting, direction were all superb - spot-on - and the well-written part of the boy loyal to a father who is uninterested in him struck true. The music too is great.

The film never drags and is an efficient 80 minutes or so. Perhaps because it concentrated on action and the kid's reaction to actions against him - rather than staring into space and talking philosophically (like many French films) or wallowing in poverty porn polemic (like many British films of this kind).

In essence, this was a modern fairytale - with its darknesses, villains, heroes, and a boy negotiating them all: like Oliver Twist or Pip.

I could watch this film again right now - it's an enjoyable and intelligent drama, which explores the morality of family loyalty. The ending sort of fizzles out a bit, and one does have to suspend disbelief then and occasionally, but no matter: a clear 5 star winner! From Belgium too.

This is an interesting film well worth watching. It was a bit spoilt for me by the fact I knew the story and also that the women-dressed-as-men really do still look like women - albeit manly women or lesbians, but still very much female - so the suspension of disbelief is tested.

But this film really falls down when it starts to become a sort of campaign for women's rights or lesbian rights, instead of telling a story: it seems at time like propaganda, a manifesto, a polemical appeal for gay rights and women's rights. For example, EVERY single male character in this movie is a 'bad guy' - even the kindly doctor is a drunk - and all the men here are useless at best, bastards at worse, and treat women badly and run away from their responsibilities. One wonders if Glenn Close would be uncritical of a movie that did the equal and opposite and stereotyped all women as child beaters and devious sleeparounds to blame for all bad in the world?

Using modern standards to criticise the thinking and behaviour of others who lived in the past is wrong and silly - but it is the basis of much politically correct and revisionist thinking (and most university history courses too, it seems!)

Having said that, the film is based on a short story by a well-known Irish writer who no doubt witnessed a lot of drunken boorish oirishness and abuse of women by macho countrymen, so if this is faithful to the story then one has to blame the novellist and not the screenwriter!

But really, if black people were portrayed as men are in this, then that film would be banned.

Apart from that, it's still enjoyable - though the sets do not look nearly dirty and poverty-stricken enough, and pretty boy Aaron as an illiterate drunken waster is arguably miscast. Really it's juts a love story and a melodrama - but really sexuality or gender would not be the most important problem faced back then: poverty would be. The identity politics of the 60s onwards which put race and gender and sexuality above all else are on display in Albert Nobbs.

So really, an average 2.5-3 star rating. Worth watching as a curiosity piece.

This film is classified as a 'Thriller' on Cinemaparadiso. Well, if you watch this for thrills then you are going to be sorely disappointed: it is one of the slowest films I have ever watched (even at 88 minutes) with so many static shots of people standing around and staring meaningfully into the distance. Maybe the director is aiming for 'Seventh Seal' Euro arthouse? Or maybe the source book was dull too. Frankly, Welsh hill farms are not very dramatic places,, unless you're a sheep, I suppose.......

The premise of this movie is ridiculous. It is set in 1944/45, and the caption at the start says 'The D-Day landings have failed and Germany has invaded Britain.' Utter tosh! IF the D-Day landings had failed, Germany would NOT have invaded Britain at all - they would have focused on fighting the Russians in the East, and stopping the invasion that had already happened in southern Italy. The East and South would have been the scene of invasion and fighting - NOT Britain.

And the idea that the invading Nazis would have bothered to go to a Welsh hill farm area is nuts anyway - they would not have bothered with sheep, and would have focused on the industry in Swansea and Cardiff areas, and the ports. A Nazi farm show at a showground with cows winning prizes is pure comedy - I actually laughed out loud during this film.

Moreover, the concept that the German soldiers in this film would do what they do is absurd too (I won't reveal the plot) - but that is the fault of the book, not the film.

Perhaps the novel on which this movie ('or 'still-ie') is the problem: it is hard to make a Welsh hill farm with pretend Nazi soldiers in it dramatic - though the writer tries with some old guff about an old map (which is never clearly explained).

If you want to see a really great film imagining a possible Nazi invasion, then rent out 'Went The Day Well' or 'Fatherland' (or read that book). Rent this only for curiosity interest, and don't watch when tired or you'll nod off - this film is SO SLOW that it could be rather a good sleeping pill actually.

I really wanted to like this film. I loved the story of Faustus, and have seen many versions on stage (Marlowe's Faustus) and is films. But this film was just 2 things: 1) bonkers; 2) boring. So yes, there was surreal arty camerawork.

Yes, the scenery and acting were fine. This is a German/Russian/Czech co-production I think, and was made at the Prague Barrandov studios - so we know that is quality. But really, this goes on and on and on, with typically pretentious arty European faffing about, before ending as confusingly as it began. I think I ordered this because it was recommended by a critic or was nominated for a prize at Cannes or somewhere. All I can say is: avoid unless you have the patience of a saint - though if you look arty films then you'll be in heaven. One for the most pretenious poseur film studies students... 1.5 stars.

For a REALLY great German film, rent out The Wave.

A nicely-animated French/Belgian co-production - possibly from a graphic novel.

The best bits are not the plot (way too silly) but the nice little animation touches. The cat walking on the wall past the yapping dog is a highlight - and so true (our cat used to wind up next door's dog just the same way).

The whole thing is a play on the phrase 'cat burglar', and the plot becomes hugely unrealistic towards the end. It's all just goodies and baddies really, but no worse for that - but too many strands to this plot, involving art theft etc and Africa. No need for that.

But for a movie of just over an hour, this is great entertainment for adults - though maybe kids would be a bit confused.

I have no idea how good/bad the English dubbing is because I watched it in French. I think well-known Brit actors do the voices though.

Probably the worst thing about this movie is the limp title. 'Heartless' says nothing to me. Instead it should have been called 'Demon versus Hoodie' or 'Hoodie in Hackney, innit?' or The Demons of Dalston' or something..............

Anway, other bad points include: a confusing plot with unnecessary subplots that make the film drag; clunky placing of objects (look out for the clingfilm) early in the story which crash back in later; clunky parachuting of ethnic minority characters and 'ishhoooos' into the story'; unnecessary characters - the ever-irritating and smug Noel Clarke does his usual Dr Who turn (his role would have been better cut out completely); too quiet dialogue when characters say really important things (you'll need subtitles!............

Good Points: some really funny and well-written comedy scenes, especially with Eddie Marsdan and also the 'clingfilm guy'. Timothy Spall phones in his part, with his usual plaintive attempts at creating character sympathy.....

The Writer is also the Director (and also wrote the lyrics of the dull songs playing throughout) - always a bad sign. This script needed editing - badly!

And why on earth is this an 18 certificate? It does not merit that.

But overall, an interesting Brit-flick horror - more interesting than most Hollywood fare. And I really wouldn't mind watching it again - then I might understand what sigificance the Polish girl, the little Asian girl, and a great deal else has!

3.5 stars rounded up to 4.

This film was SO boring that the 2 people I was watching it with were yawning so much they had to go go to bed after 10 minutes. Me - I stayed with it. Well, that's an hour and a half of my life I'll never get back!

This film is AWFUL. It is all about an emotionally detached bloke in Noo Yoik (though of course I am sure the filmmakers were not trying to appeal to the US market...) who watches porn a lot and whose sister comes to stay. Various uninteresting things happens and then it ends. Very few words are spoken (this is seen as deep and meaningful and profound, apparently, in arty theatre circles) - but this film is not profound at all. It is just dull, forgettable, and seems to be desperately hoping to shock and get publoicity that way (sadly, that worked, which is why I heard of it).

This is a lesson in why NOT to give pretentious Saachi-slobbering artists a film camera. Stick to the paintbox, eh. For all our sakes.

Half a star for the acting - no stars for the writing or the whole thing.

Just terrible.

One to save for when you invite your hated extended family round and want to get rid of them forever.

I missed this when it first showed - late on BBC2 - so am enjoying it now. It's a 6 part spoof documentary series on the management team in the run-up to the 2012 Olympics in London. Each episode features another example of a new initiative or idea that ends up going pear-shaped. The acting is spot on - from everyone - and the characters are really so close to real-life media, PR and management types that the writer must have observed it all from real life. The management-speak is spot-on too - much talk of embedding diversity and creating a sense of ownership amongst stakeholders in the Olympic space etc. Yes, people really do speak like that too - in government, business, education etc. Political correctness takes a real bashing - Jeremy Clarkson couldn't have done better - especially in episode 5 when they are looking to recruit a new member of the team: this is very close to a situation I knew happened at the college I used to work at!

In short, watch this comedy series - forget the other nonsense on the BBC, because this show is the only one in ages that has made me laugh. Five stars. Brilliant!

First off - Tintin is BELGIAN and NOT French: the writer was Herge (Georges Remi). Secondly, some have complained that there is a problem with accents; I disagree. The film is set in a non-descript and non-specified place - not meant to be France or London, but a city of imagination. I thought this worked really well actually. It chances its arm with location and pulls it off - because y'know there are people with various accents who work at street markets in any city!

The first half of this movie is excellent; the animation is a tad creepy at first, but the script (written by Stephen Moffat, Edgar Wright, and Joe Cornish) has enough wit to keep up the pace and characterisation. Some lovely attention to detail (watch the background always!) lifts this above usual flat animated movies, and some double entendres are there (probably only laughed at by British audiences). Some good jokes too, lovely animated dog and cat, and a basic polt set-up, and it's all going spiffingly. And then...the director (Spielburg) needs his chase - which is VERY confusing, with no idea who is who, and ultimately boring. This film sags in the second half but no matter - characterisation, animation, plot and script still merit 4 stars - and it's fun trying to recognise the voice-overs of so many British actors too (from Jamie Bell to Daniel Craig to Simon Pegg/Nick Frost etc). I doubt there'll be a sequel though - which is what the ending sets up.

I really enjoyed this film - unlike most Hollywoood fare, it as not all American smiles and group-huggy happiness. It is the old Man versus Nature story again - and the audience can decide for itself if the wolves here symbolise anything. The film is based ona short story - probably in the American Moby Dick Man versus the Monster tradition anyway. The cast is great, the story well-paced and the CGI effects are not intrusive: the realisation of the animals works, and the characters portrayed are believable. I could watch this again, no problem. 4.5 stars

I groaned on occasion in the first few minutes of this film. Was it the joy at seeing Judi Dench united at last with Bill Nighy? Nope - it was the age of the jokes, which were dated in the 1980s! There are also characters here which are well past their sellby date: Maggie Smith's caryoon character racist is embarrassingly old-0fashioned and unrealistics - people like this existed in the 1950s or 60s maybe - not now. The old joke in a hospital when she asks for an English doctor and Mr Singh or someone shows up is straight from Dick Emery or Benny Hill in the 1970s. It feels sometimes as if the movie is 1) trying to make a movie that will sell well in the Indian market, riding the wave oif Slumdog millionaire; and 2) trying to tick off social issues boxes: racism, tick; gay issues, tick; health issues, tick. The plot is older than then crumbling hotel featured - and it's all about as realistic as Jurassic Park. But but but - as the film goes on it does exude a certain charm, with the gay subplot superbly handled (the race subplot is so clumsily handled by contrast), and the issues of oldies and what they do is one often not seen on film. It's all whimsy and fantasy of course - but it is based on a novel, so I presume a lot of that comes from the book (very much a woman;s romantic relationship book by a female writer). I award it 3.5 stars.