Film Reviews by PV

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...

I really enjoyed this movie. It is extremely well written - by class TV writers Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais - and loosely based on a book of real events. It's a great caper movie - and the farcical events depicted are not so far from those many in rock bands face in real life. Lots of great one liners, so fab acting, and a final performance from Pete 'Kabayashi' Postlethwaite himself, as an Uncle Monty style gay landlord. The only place the movie loses its way slightly is when it tries to tell us a message - to be yourself and not to try and be someone else - something, togehther with a fit American neighbour - which seems to have been added to appeal to a US audience. But these are small gripes. If you want a couple of hours of funny, entertaining, rock n roll capers, then this is a good film to pick. I actually laughed out loud at some one liners in this movie - but then I too used to be in a band and know the music business and its awful wonderful ways. Four and a half stars.

This is just such a bad movie - maybe so bad it's good. It is probably the first Malaysian movies I have ever seen; and, if they;re all like this, I sincerely hope it will be my last.

So, the story goes something like this: a marriage has been arranged between a Roman Prince (sic) and a Chinese Princess. History just does not matter here - it matters not that Rome was a Republic and then had Emperors. They need a Roman PRINCE to match the Chinese PRINCESS - so invent one! Do you see? The bad guys - we know they are bad guys because they have tattoos and have acne scars - are pirates from some non-specified Asian country. Not wishing to spoil the ending - - which is just as risible and absurd as the beginning and the middle - but all ends well, and we are told in an epilogue all this guff led to the establishment of the great Malaysian Nation. Yeah right... I think whoever made this movie has been sniffing too many burning rubber fumes. Watch if desperate or drunk, for a laugh (at, not with). Otherwise, avoid. and the sound is TERRIBLE (because it's made for a Malaysian market who would have subtitles for the English speaking parts) so use subtitles - but only if you want to hear the words of the wooden clunky on the nose script.

This film is not only dull, predictable and full of stereotypes and cariacatures, it is also inacccurate and factually wrong. It is a soppy story with a Hollywood byline to 'stand up for what you believe in'. That would be fine if it were entertainment! What annoys me about films like this is that people watch them and think they are watching an accurate portrayal of events and the time it's set. Not true at all. This is fiction. Also, it's VERY much a women's movie - though the woman I was watching it with thought it was nonsense too. It's like a propaganda piece too - and promotes the lie that women now earn less than men, which they do not, not for the same job (the average over a lifetime is lower for good reason - men do more work and take risks in the private sector more!)

This movie is a misery-fest poverty-porn drama set 'oop north; with a mad drunk Scotsman and his unlikely friend. It is passable, but really, I was ticking off the social issues as it went on - it's as if the writer.director had a list, and went through all points one by one: alcoholism, tick; violence, tick; racism/Islamophobia, tick. Having said that, it's still worth a watch - but would have been better as a TV drama maybe. The main problem I had was that I just did not believe that the characters would meet and be friends, and I thought some characters were mere steroetypes too. And I could not believe events in the latter part of the film either. But, it's good enough - acting, directing are fine; it's over-written though and the writer is clearly trying to cram as many social issues in as he can - some of those scenes are not needed. In this, it resembles something from a left-wing theatre company on the fringe. Paddy Considine is a well-known and admired actor; this film is no disgrace, but I can't help thinkinhg he should stick to what he is clearly brilliant at.

One possible irritation: the title has little significance in the film but is a nifty marketing trick - it's eye-catching for sure. The marketers of the movie know that dinosaurs sell! I wonder if anyone went to see it expecting Jurassic Park? If so, the must have been well disappointed at the misery-fest on offer.

There is one thing that lifts this movie above the standard boring US political drama to make it clever, twisting, intelligent and thus entertaining: the writing. I noticed in the credits that it is based on a play - and that's no doubt why. There is some great writing, some unexpected plot twists, and also fabulous acting from all involved. AND it is around 90 minutes - unlike the usual Hollywood movie which stretches up to an hour past that usually. This film is thought-provoking, succinct and precise. ALSO, Clooney has not just made a movie that supports and promotes Democrats. I loved the cynicism of the movie - which works in a plot twist on a smart phone (a first?). Politicians, agents and lobbyists are portrayed prety accurately in their ruthless ambition and hunger for power. I am not much interested in US politics or their weird primary system - where the supporters of the opposing party have a vote for the candidate of their enemy! But this film is just about the best of its kind. An intelligent, watchable film about politics of the type that Hollywood rarely makes.

Is this Japanese film at its best? Probably. OK, so the soundtrack - and hammy acting - are perhaps more of a south-east Asian taste, and they grate with me. But there is no doubt that this movie is entertaining - as well as an excuse for plenty of grand guignol bloodletting. There are screeching Japanese schoolgirls aplenty too, for those who like that kind of thing. This film also has a plot that sort of makes sense, with characters' motivations justifying their actions, and a good dose of Japanese shame and suicide too. A bit overblown, a bit nutty (but now on in the same mentalist league as The Happiness of the Katakuris) - but good horrific fun. The only thing missing is reality TV cameras (and just how the organiser can afford his own private army and island is anyone's guess!). Was the writer of this script a teacher exploring a fantasy maybe? Anyway - Recommended.

This movies is superb - well-written (script won the Oscar), generally well-acted (some overacting too, but that fits actually in such a farcical satirical context), great sound (you can hear every line and there is no constant pounding music drowning out the dialogue as with so many modern movies). The scathing satire of the TV industry is still relevant today - except that today both TV and the Internet have gone further than any character on this movie could have imagined! Compared to TV these days, 1970s trash seems quality and 1970s sex and violence very tame indeed; now we have presenter-led TV where the presenter and not the programme matters (which is why the ubiquitous and oleaginous St Stephen Fry, a man stupid people think is intelligent, narrates programmes on wildlife and whales about which he knows nothing at all!)....This movie, together with The Truman Show, are the best movies about TV ever made. This film deserved its Oscars (they often don't!). A classic movie - in the top 50 movies ever made for sure. 5 stars.

This movie is tripe - utter tripe. It is based on a stage play - and boy does it show! It's acted like a bad play in rep - or by a university drama society (but less well acted). The chatroom concept just does not work on screen either - nor does the self-pity Oprah-style psycho-babbling self-pity (it makes characters whiny and irritating, not brave and interesting!). The film is also obsessed with diversity as much as any 4th rate episode of Dr Who which is resembles (it even shares some of the same 'actors') - the credits even thank the Film Council Diversity Department! OMG - it seems the purpose of this movie was to create a piece of diversity propaganda, not a good film. Like some state funded Soviet propaganda - but promoting political correctness. Just like the BBC really - and why the BBC is going downhill fast. Really, this twaddle should have been a cheap CBBC series - kids will watch such nonsense, with flashing lights, noise, internet imagery. Grown-ups can see it's a load of twaddle and badly made. The ending is also more or less directly lifted from Hitchcock, as if in a desperate attempt to inject some tension into the drama. This strategy fails utterly. Ultimately, you just don't care about the characters or if they live or die - which makes all tension seep out of the story and form a stinking putrid puddle of turgid tedium throughout this dire attempt to be 'fast, young and diverse'. Unsurprisingly, this is state funded - lottery and Film Council. All I can say is: if this is where our cash goes, I am glad the Film Council is no more. Good riddance. RIP.

Here's yet another British film aimed squarely at the US market (like The Queen and the awful The Iron Lady). It's all well-acted (by Brit character actors) and pleasant enough. Personally, I couldn't buy the constant sympathy for Marilyn Monroe - people who are unreliable druggies are not beautiful or lovely, just annoying and let everyone down. Also, one wonders if Olivier et al actually said the lines they speak here (buy luckily they are all dead so cannot sue!). This film makes me want to watch The Prince and The Showgirl though...... But really, I suspect this whole film and the book is based on is all some old posh bloke's wish fulfillment fantasy: he wrote it when he was in his 60s. It always happens - look at artists and other writers. Dirty Old Man Syndrome. Nothing more..........I am also getting more and more irritated at how the British film industry seems to have its snout permanently stuck up America's blowhole. Why do all British people in movies either have to be VERY upper class - utter toffs - or criminals and bad guys: if black people got that treatment it'd be called racist! Having said all that, I give this movie 3 and a half - for some nice acting and funny lines. Just do't take it too seriously or think it is fact: ditto for The Queen. The Iron Lady, Hollywood war movies and other figments of the imagination.

Yet another Scottish film getting huge chunks of public money (via the Film Council, FilmFour and The Lottery). Scotland's population is 10% of the UK's and yet it seems to get 20-25% of the funding. This needs to be addressed - for the sake of all the Welsh and English film-makers who are losing out because of policies of the Scottish Raj in London. Scotland already gets 10% more pubic funding than England and Wales, so I have no idea why the Scots are always such whingers (they would be if they got double the money, of course)..................Anyway, the film. Pretty boring, best suited to TV. A little inconsequential story - with wish fulfillment fantasy-line adolescent sex storyline, almost like the ones that used to be in porno mags. Pretty views of Edinburgh. Best of all - some really interesting and oft-unheard indie music on the soundtrack. The acting is fine. The accents not to strong (it's not Glassgie...). But why? Why was this film made? I see the director and writers are part of that clique that tend to get lots of BBC commissions and public funding. It's based on a book - a graphic novel? Anyway, this should have been a BBC 2 drama, not a publically funded movie - it is essentially uncinematic. And credulity was stretched to breaking point too. 2.5 out of 5, rounded up to 3 (and over 1 of that is for the music).

I really liked this film - it's entertaining, sometimes shocking and a bit disturbing perhaps. It's well-written and acted, for sure, and not too long like many movies (maybe because the writers, director some producers are British). But the director's flipping around to flashbacks at the beginning didn't do it for me - it was confusing and a bit pretentious too. Unnecessary. Reminded me of the kind of pretentious French New Age twaddle that students get taught to admire at film school. A film, like a novel, needs a timeline - one or two flashbacks are fine. But this movie had scenes from around 5 or more different times happening in seemingly random order. Now, the book.............. The novel was based on true stories of high-school massacres - and it shows. The author's trick was to listen to, watch and read about real cases then make a 'fictional' book from them. The only major thing changed from real life was how the son killed his victims (no spoiler here though). In the USA, where most states allow most people to buy and carry guns, a killer would surely choose a gun, non? So that was unrealistic, I thought, though interesting. Also, the demonic son storyline is an archetype - as in The Omen and many other films and stories. And don't they have social services in America? In the UK, this family surely would have got support. In the US, the Oprah-fied land of counselling, self-analysis and therapy, surely a family like this would have regular shrink sessions - just like all their neighbours. BUT, having said all that, I consider it a really good movie so award it 4 and a half stars, rounded up to 5.