Film Reviews by PV

This is just awful - a British film as bad as all those 1970s film spin-offs of BBC TV comedy series (Morcambe and Wise and Steptoe movies). Really bad - predictable in the extreme, unrealistic, and most of all, UNFUNNY, from beginning to end. If you find Hawaiin shirts and men in chicken suits funny, then you'll love this - and the desperation of this movie is clear on the 20 or so cameos by smug TV comedians from Frank Skinner to Jack Dee etc. The producers knew this film was rubbish - why they sold it by using the names of these cameos (a sign of how bad the script is). The main role is played by the ever-irritating and massively over-rated ego-manic Noel Clarke, who yet again plays the goofy character that made his famous in Dr Who, but this time with a wig and comedy glasses (no doubt he thinks this signifies 'range'). This is based on a stage play, by Ben Miller and others: and it lifts lines and scenarios from old comedy movies from the 70s and 80s that didn't work either.

Do yourself a favour and choose not to waste 70 minutes (yep, a short film coz they ran out of script) on this trash.

I wasn't expecting much from this. The director is Guy Ritchie whose films - often cartoon-violent and mockney - bore me. However, I really enjoyed this - 4.5 stars. The plot and screenplay was well-paced and full of nice twists; acting and accents are spot-on; and it even made me laugh several times with one liners. Clever and watchable - though some of the violent explosion scenes were a bit too Hollywood action movie for my tastes. I loved the location of the finale too. SOME silly language errors: Sherlock Holmes would not use modern phrases as he does sometimes here. But still, all in all a good ride and WAY better than the rather irritating new text-speak TV series. I can actually believe in these two actors as Holmes and Watson (and the latter is given an interesting backstory which adds to the story and is not just tacked on). 4.5 stars.

I thought this movie would be a diasaster - after all, it got awful reviews and was direct by Madonna; however, this is a passable movie and an interesting 2 hours. Very confusing at times as the film switches back and forth between the modern day anf the 1920s and 30s. Way too much of the 'story of a strong woman' agenda, and utterly predictable focus on domestic violence. Also, it seems to argue that Wallace Simpson wanted to leave the ex-King but stayed because he forced her too (shurely shome mishtake...) To be honest, I think this would have worked better without any of the modern story - set around the 1998 sale of Wallis and Edward's effects and jewellery: it was pretty lame and sentimental really, with a predictable 'surprise' ending. BUT if you keep a close eye on locations and dates, it's an OK film - though the imaginary conversations between the modern Wally and the 1930s one is VERY clunky, as is the use of music - eg the sex pistols and other music. Laurence Fox is miscast as George VI too. Mohammed Al Fayed gets a starring role though - which is no wonder, seeing as (I think) people like him and billionaire 'byeesnyeesman' Roman Abramovich picked up the bill for this movie. 2.5 out of 10.

NOTE: TURN THE SUBTITLES TO ON (in the terribly designed menu) when watching this (French) film or you won't get subtitles for all the French-speaking bits!............

Anyway, this film was more of a TV drama - an ethnic-fest and very unrealistic drama, full of coincidences that drive its political agenda home (eg drawing analogies between the UK attacking the Falklands and Muslims attacking London - some might find that offensive actually). Very French in all its long pauses and silences - and clumsy metaphors and symbolisim too. The streets of ethnic London are accurately shown though - but yet again there is no acknowledgement in this film that actually 15% of UK Muslims thought that the 7/7 bombers did a good thing and over 40% think their actions were justifiable. As per usual, all Muslims are shown are fluffy little bunnies and 100% wonderful, and the argument here is that bombings like 9/11 and 7/7 are carried out by a few bad apples instead of a natural result of radical Islam. Anyway, worth watching - but the ID scenes are as unrealistic as the whole scenario: the director is showing the 7/7 he wants us to see and has just made up some silly cold police and mortuary scenes for his own political and dramatic purposes. 1.5 stars.

This film is excellent - a real thriller that keep you guessing. It is well acted and filmed - and, being Spanish, has the usual gruesome grand guignol (all that Catholic guilt and bull fighting combine to make the Spaniards love this blood and guts - look at Goya!). Unlike most thrillers, this is interesting - a psychological thriller which combines with the eye problems and blindless oif characters to make a rounded whole. Twists and turns abound - and some hands-over-the-eyes scenes of knives and eyes too. BUT this for me is one the best Spanish films I have ever seen - better than derivative The Orphanage (by the same director) and certainly better thanthe rather boring and one-note gender-therapy sessions of Pedro Almodovar. If you want to see a thrilling and very watchable movie, with great pace and tension, then this film is a must-see. Recommended.

This is a really first rate film - and nice and efficient, at 90 minutes - based on Susan Hill's superb classic ghost story The Woman in Black. I thoroughly enjoyed this - it kept me and others with me rooted to our seats, and on the edge of them, and made me jump more than once (the director's intention of course!) Nicely filmed and with period details correct; creepy imagery, even the CGI. My only criticism is that two of the main actors were middle-aged men who looked too similar to each other: film makers usually do this when casting actresses - many films seem to have 2 or 3 young blonde women in them, so confusion results! So when you watch this, concentrate on who is who! BUT apart from that annoyance, this is a nice neat efficient creepy ghost story, happily only 90 minutes long (Hollywood would have added some unnecessary back story and made it 2 hours and more...yawn...). Recommended.

There are some great songs in this film: ELO and Bowie songs, with which no-one can ever go wrong. Hoever, the songs are just about the only thing that is right in this movie. The story - what there is of it - is, frankly, boring, not to mention unrealistic. This all has the feel of a schools TV programme, a BBC2 drama, a sanitised 'Skins' - and should never have been a movie really because there's just not enough here for one. Acting is OK, but can't salvage the film from its silliness. It is SO unrealistic and here's how: 1) No teacher would swear like the main character (played by the always irritating Minnie Driver) - swearing, being abusive and slagging off other teachers to the kids would get an immmediate suspension, as would introducing kids to fags and booze! And as for havin a pupil get drunk and sleep at her house!; 2) No headmaster would say or do what this one does either; 3) No-one said 'That Sucks!' in 1976!; 4) No-one ate pizza and had 'pizza evenings' in 1976 either - that kind of thing was new in 1986!

I know where this film was filmed - Bishop Gore school in Swansea - and so really do not want to be too harsh. However, this state-funded movie (which was made with lottery cash and Welsh film agency money from taxpayers) is exactly the kind of vanity project that so many millions of taxpayers' pounds get squandered on. I just didn't care about the characters, ultimately, and was too busy scoffing at the sheer fantasy of what I was seeing in the behaviour of this magical mystery teacher than the wafer-thin story or what happened to the characters in it. If this is based on a true story, it must have been embellished mightily! I would like to know if the biographies at the end are true though or just made up - sadly, we are never told. And the clumsy racial/skinhead subplot storyline is clunky and unnecessary - as if this film thinks it has to add some social drama to make up for the chronic lack of anything else worthwhile in it........... All in all then, a cringe-worthy disappointment. Two stars: one for the acting; one for the superdooper songs............ But it is actually hilarious in a Grange Hill or Waterloo Road or Fame kind of way - of course the kids, man, will put on their show, no matter what adversity they face... Ahhh bless. Funny thing though: every single school concert I have ever seen (and unfortunately heard) has sounded like cats being strangled, such is the sheer awfulness of the musical talent on offer (especially the recorder section). Happily, this school seems to have note-perfect musicians and singers and a virtuose violinist. Must be all that pizza they were eating in 1976 in the fantasy land of South Wales portrayed here (which is nothing at all like the real thing in 1976, I can assure you).

I really enjoyed this movie - which is way superior to the awful Million Dollar Baby and other Clint Eastwood B-Movies. One reason this is so good: it is based on a book and a script by an excellent screenwriter. The action takes place partly in the 20s/30s and partly in the late 60s. The time frames are intercut regularly and without warning - however, I watched this with an 86 year old who usually does not understand flashbacks and she understood all of these timescale changes and was not confused. Leonardo DC was never better - Judi Dench ditto - and the whole story and events left me transfixed. Of course it is very Americo-centric (no mention of WWII at all!) and also plays on J Edgar's odd personality, his sexuality and cross-dressing - but only the most sensitive of PC muppets could ever be offended. This is a good story well told and exposes the hypocrisy of US society in the 20th century, its rabid red-hating, it's union history, its inner corruption. An Excellent Movie. Five Stars.

I really liked this film. I am now interested in searching out the book it's based on to compare them. This movie's great strength is its wide appeal: kids will love it, adults wanting special effects fun will too, as well as adults who know a lot about the history of early cinema (it's all about director George Melieres who directed 'a Trip to the Moon' in 1902 and much else too!). Well-written, filmed and paced - NOT overlong, for once - and some really good fun hammy Brit character actor performances too (from Richard Griffiths, Ray Winstone, Frances De La Tour, even Jude Law!). JUST 2 points that grate: 1) The Lumiere Brothers did NOT 'invent the movies' - they are one of several people who can claim to have pioneered cinema; 2) the use, on a few occasions, of modern American expressions, spoken by British actors in a British accent who live in 1920s/30 France: why can't Hollywood scriptwriters get things like that right? No Brit says 'Excuse me' to mean 'pardon' now - and they certainly didn't in 1930!

I wouldn't say I didn't enjoy watching this movie - but, frankly, I can't see what all the fuss is about.

It's pleasant enough, with funny moments, some arch scenes and 'dialogue', and the usual sentimentality of the era it parodies. However, I feel clear that the reason this won the Oscars is because most of the voters at the Academy are over 60, live in LA and used to work in the movie business!

My reaction to this movie is 'so what?' - though I suspect women may like this love story more than men. Kids will hate it, for sure!

It looks great though - all the art deco cinemas. Actually, I can't fault a thing about this movie - except that is the whole concept of it: the interesting use of sound is fun, and the 'miniatures' hark back to 'Bride of Frankenstein'.

But it just didn't do it for me or those watching the film with me who were amazed it won any Oscars at all.

And I could see the 'twist' punchline ending coming a mile off.

Three stars then.

I note at the end that this film is financed by the EU Film Fund and the BBC, amongst others. No surprise then that it is essentially propaganda - a manifesto for left-wing policies and anti-captitalism and 'the bosses'. As it's a French film, it is ponderous - with long looks into the distance and much 'Where are we going?' existentialism. It shows an innocent who goes over to the dark side (the bosses) before seeing sense and becoming a good little French socialist. How very lower sixth politics class!!! Well-acted but really actually rather dull and worthy all round. Also, it has a really fatal flaw: is anyone seriously arguing that a young man leaving business schools in the late 1990s would not be a seriously greedy grabbing capitalist, looking forward to a high salary and eager to sack people if that was needed? Most business courses didn;t even touch on ethics until after the 2008 crash. And the elephant in the room is this: the Frech socialist 35 hour week caused all the problems and led to the sacking of workers - in real life and in this movie. But watch this if you want to know why France has a massive deficit and lost its triple A rating - if the worker-bosses relationship in France is like this, no wonder French industy needs so many government subsidies (which are all against EU law - like France cares!) THE BEST movie about Unions is 'I'm Alright Jack' with Peter Sellars. This movie is ponderous, worthy, serious and very, VERY French. The Humour of 'I'm Alright Jack' works far better - to my mind, anyway. Humour is surely the only reaction to the absurdities of the work place?

Some might think, from the title, that this is a documentary about Kurt Cobaina nd Courtney Love. It isn't. It's a documentary about Nick Broomfield. This documentary maker's strategy is the same as always: choose a famous person - someone controversial - then stalk them, follow them around, portray them through the edit as 'guilty' of whatever Broomfield says they are guilty of, and then use their fame to sell and promote the movie. Quite frankly, it's a boring strategy used by filmmakers with no imagination - and creates boring films like this (which should have beena TV filler). Conspiracy theories are mostly codswallop - including this one. But the conclusion has already been decided at the beginning - with constant insinuations against an individual which the gutter press would be proud of. I call films like this 'parasite movies' - they feed off the fame of others whilst smugly declaring that they occupy the moral high ground. But really, Broomfield is nothing more than a paparazzi or groupie. 1.5 stars. ALSO a BIG issue here is the LACK of ANY Nirvana music at all! My reaction to sitting through the 90 minutes of this movie (which felt a lot longer) was 'So What?' This a non-movie which has dated terribly in the 14 years since it was made too.

I loved this movie - to my surprise, because I don't usually like fantasy. But what really makes this a winner is the script - based on a graphic novel. It is so typically British in its humour - with winning one liners, and witty dialogue, throughout. I liked this way more than any of the Lords of the Rings movies or the average Hollywood fantasy movie - so pompous, humourless and portentous. Unlike most British films, this has wide and commercial appeal - and the pace never slips either: multiple plot strands and twists make the action move along nicely, and the key characters face growing obstacles to their tru aim. There is so much tongue-in-cheek irony here that I can't help feeling that the original author meant it as a parody of the whole genre - with the happy ever after conclusion perfectly judged. This is a movie I'd be p[erfectlt happy to watch again if it comes on TV at Christmas - my only criticism would be that some lines can't be heard over the background music (especially on a standard TV) so I had to rewind and listen again 3 or 4 times. But nonetheless, this is fine entertainment of the type that the British film industry rarely manages. I REALLY loved the witty script and some really quite risque jokes too. 5 stars!

Without Streep's central impersonation of Thatcher, this film would get 2 stars or less. However, I do have to say thet Streep gets the accent and mannerisms spot-on, which is what the whole movie is about. BUT there are some real errors in this film: 1) Mrs Thatcher is not the senile old dear as the movie portrays, losing her mind - reports say she is absolutely not like that (Raegan was though); 2)There is no way Thatcher would go to the local shop to buy a bottle of milk!; 3) When Thatcher entered parliament she was NOT the only woman as portrayed here (conveniently, to make a pity party feminist point) - there was Shirley Williams, Barbara Castle and more - and there should have been shown! Sadly, this film is NOT about politics: the story of Thatcher is told through the well-worn Hollywood template of ' a woman's journey in a man's world - and she succeeds in the end': it is essentially a film portraying the American dream, in politically correct ways. The writer, Abi Morgan, oftenh writes these empathetic portrayals of 'strong' women. But really, this is not accurate - Miss Roberts married a millionaire upper class businessmand, for a start, and that is what enabled her to study law and be a politician! ONE THING I loved, however, was hearing the name of the town ' Dartford' (where Thatcher first tried to be an MP, in a major movie - a first, I think (though a Rollings Stones are from there too - Jaggera nd Richards anyway). SO all in all, worth watching for Streep alone (her Oscar was deserved, and often goes to actors made to age in movies, so she was a shoo-in). Thanfully, this did not win the best movie oscar - it did not even desrve to be nominated. IN CONCLUSION: a good movies for Americans, made for them, and pandering to their prejudices about Britain (or 'England' as they say) being backwards and sexist. Many probably think Thatcher is the Queen anyway though! If you want to watch a good film about Thatcher, then watch the TV drams Long Walk to Finchley and Margaret - better dramas by far, and about politics, not feminism.

I turned off this film half way through. Because of the graphic blood-drenched violence? Nope - but just because I was yawning my head off. This is the kind of movie 12 year olds would like - and is I think based on a graphic novel, or perhaps a computer game. It has an adolescent need to shock - but, though gruesome, deliberately drawing out torture scenes for a teen audience, it is only cartoonish violence and horror - with buckets of tomato sauce blood sloshing everywhere. Personally, I found it dull as hell - with 2-D characters, boring torture set pieces etc. But then, I have always hated Tarantino too - esp dross like Inglorious Blah blah. If you liked that, you'd like this. Grown-ups, however, should avoid and leave this to the young teenies who think this kind of 'desperate to shock' gore is shocking or radical or naughty. It isn't any of those things really - it's just boring. But each to his own...