Film Reviews by RP

A coming of age film with a difference - a tremendous difference, since this is set in a small Maori costal settlement in present day New Zealand, and not (as almost all others are) in smalltown USA.

Beautifully photographed, it tells the tale of the chief Koro who has no first-born grandson to lead the tribe. Sadly, his grandson died at birth - but his twin sister Paikea survived. Koro has no time for girls - but Paikea is strong willed and the stuff of which leaders are made...

Young Keisha Castle-Hughes plays the role of Paikea to perfection and was Oscar nominated. Only 11 years old when the film was made, her performance is quite astonishing.

The film won the 2003 BAFTA Children's Best Feature Film Award - but it's far more than a children's film.

Superb stuff - 5/5 stars.

I suppose this is meant to be a moral tale of sorts. But it's hollow, it has no heart.

After watching I thought to myself "so what?" - it left me unmoved and untouched. Frankly, I didn't care if the dodgy deeds and the wheeling and dealing of central character Robert Miller (Richard Gere) left him with nothing. He lost his mistress (killed in a car he was driving), his wife, his daughter, his company, his fortune (well, most of it). But he's not a sympathetic character, and he got no sympathy from me.

The film is well made and well acted with Richard Gere, Susan Sarandon and (in particular) Tim Roth all playing their roles well, but their characters operate in a world that I don't - and can't - relate to.

It's not a bad film. But I didn't enjoy it much so I can only give it 2/5 stars, although that does feel a little on the mean side...

A bizarre low budget Brit comedy serial killer film - you won't see many like this one!

Dodgy caravan enthusiast Chris collects his new girlfriend Tina (whose Jack Russell terrier has just died in a bizarre knitting accident) from her over possessive mother and takes her off on a round-Britain caravan holiday. But normal, boring Chris is really a demented serial killer who casually bumps off those who annoy him. And soon Tina joins in - and becomes the stronger character.

This really is great stuff: if you like black comedy with a few rude (but amusing) bits thrown in, you'll laugh out loud at this - I certainly did. Combine that with some beautiful scenery that I know well (including the Peak District, the Lake District - Buttermere, Honister Pass, Honister slate mine) and with a dénouement on the Ribblehead viaduct and the result is an eccentric film that is surely destined to become a cult classic.

Highly recommended - 4/5 stars.

One of the great British horror classics, along with 'Witchfinder General' and 'The Wicker Man'. As an aside, none of these were made by Hammer, the best known horror studio name but who seemed to specialise in more camp offerings. Both 'The Blood On Satan's Claw' and 'Witchfinder General' were made by Tigon British, and 'The Wicker Man' by British Lion.

As far as the storyline, it goes something like this: a plough turns up an unusual skull + eyeball + fur. Soon after, a young bride-to-be goes mad and develops a claw. Young people in the village start to do nasty things to each other, attempt to seduce the local priest, and grow hair in unusual places. The local Judge suspects witchcraft and with a posse of locals attacks and kills the risen Devil. Err - that's it. All very silly stuff.

What makes this different is the atmosphere. The photography is excellent and provides an enveloping vision of an isolated 17th century English village community. The soundtrack is eerie and adds to the claustrophobic atmosphere. Linda Hayden plays the role of the ringleader of the possessed village girls and combines both provocative beauty and evil. And Patrick Wymark plays the role of the Judge rather well [Aside: he died shortly afterwards at the untimely age of 44].

Highly recommended - 4/5 stars.

'Expresso Bongo' was originally a stage play, a satire on the music business. In this 1959 film version some elements of satire remain, but are overshadowed by an attempt to provide a vehicle for the talents of Cliff Richard.

Although somewhat overlooked today, Cliff is the most successful British pop artist with more Top 20 records to his name than anyone else - and he's been going for 5 decades, so he must have some talents. Unfortunately, those aren't on show here. Yes, he does get to croon a couple of numbers, more in the style of Ricky Nelson than in the 'British Elvis' rock 'n roll style by which he first came to fame, although he does curl his lip in the approved manner of the day. His acting is awful - and he just generally seems out of place,

As far as the music goes, the best is from Cliff's backing group 'The Drifters' (pre-Shadows). But the film isn't about music, it's about the music business and the squalid and dirty deals of small time agent Johnny Jackson (Lawrence Harvey) and music promoter Mayer (Meier Tzelniker). Lawrence Harvey is an actor that I can't usually stand - but his acting (and his jiving!) here was a eye-opener for me. Harvey is excellent and despite his dodgy accent which ranges from Jewish to South African via Cockney (despite his English sounding name he was Lithuanian via S Africa) his role is very well played, as is that of Meier Tzelniker.

There are some very peculiar things about this film. Why do the 'teenagers' look so old? Did they really go wild for such timid music back in the 1950s? And go wild in a coffee bar of all places? (Yes, I know that the reputed birthplace of British rock 'n roll was the 2i's Coffee Bar in Soho - I just don't understand it). Why is there a bongo player in a rock 'n roll band? And 'Bongo Herbert' - is that a name to set kids on fire? Why is the strip show so tame? (Well, I guess the film was mildy risqué for its day - and it was cut to get an 'A' certificate). Why was Sylvia Sims cast against type as a stripper - and why is her accent so posh? Why does Susan Hampshire get an uncredited role as an upper class twit? In fact, the screen is littered with well known actors - have fun spotting them!

The film is a very curious period piece and worth watching for that reason, but unfortunately not for Cliff's performance. 3/5 stars.

Ewan McGregor is a wooden actor, so when he's playing a clone whose knowledge of the world is a bit lacking, he manages it quite well :)

This is a cross between 'The Matrix', 'Logans Run' and a modern action film and after a slow (not to mention boring) start gets down to an all-action chase film with lots of crash-bang-wallop effects. I suppose you could sit back and enjoy it as a chase film, but frankly it's all a bit silly.

The story goes like this: in the future (supposedly 2019), wealthy individuals ('sponsors') pay out shed loads of money to have their body cloned as an insurance policy in case of medical mishaps etc when the clone will be killed and necessary body parts harvested for repairs to their sponsor. The clones live in a sterile environment where they are conditioned to wait for a chance to be sent to a paradise 'island', little suspecting that this is a lie. Ewan McGregor and love interest Scarlet Johansson play clones who escape. Err, that's it.

Wooden acting, a highly derivative storyline, silly CGI chase effects, too much product placement (especially Microsoft) - nope, didn't like it. 2/5 stars.

Much as I admire the acting of Denzel Washington and the directing skills of Robert Zemeckis, I didn't like this film.

Denzel Washington plays 'Whip' Whitaker, a highly skilled commercial pilot who, following a mid-air mechanical failure, crash-lands a plane saving the majority of lives on board. Unfortunately, Whip is an alcoholic who is also high on cocaine and the majority of the film deals with his attempts to dry out prior to an air accident inquiry.

The film is just under 2¼ hours long and feels even longer - at least 30 minutes could easily have been cut, including the opening scenes (affair with stewardess, scenes of junkie porn actress taking overdose) and Whip's later unlikely hooking up with the aforementioned junkie porn actress. I really didn't like the message that the way to cure a drunk is for him to take a few lines of coke, nor did I enjoy the f-ing and blinding. And nor did I like John Goodman's portrayal of a pseudo-hip coked-up drug dealer.

Yes, the flight and crash effects were good (if very unlikely), Denzel Washington's acting was good, the songs that form the soundtrack were well chosen, but that's about it. The best I can give it is 3/5 stars - I just didn't like the subject matter very much.

It's a sort of country & western zombie comedy. The story (such as it is) is interspersed with songs - the one that plays over the end titles includes the lines:

Well, this used to be such a quiet little town

We never had too much trouble around here

Until that spirit was released

And we were haunted by the deceased

And that's about it... Three couples en route to a wedding are forced to stop overnight in a creepy B&B and meet David Carradine (he of 'Kung Fu' fame + 'Kill Bill' + lots of very dodgy minor roles, including this one, made a few years before his death in 2009). He has a small wooden box, that when opened releases the Kuman Thong, a spirit which will (of course) possess you and turn you into (of course) an unkillable zombie. And (of course) the zombies can only be destroyed by removing their heads. Cue many buckets of blood, fountains of blood, pools of blood, and assorted weak attempts at humour, with zombie dancing and a few amateur country & western numbers thrown in for good measure.

It starts off slowly, but the last half does have plenty of gore and is mildly amusing, with occasionally an inventive way of seeing off a zombie or two. Unfortunately it's a pretty poor attempt at a zom-com but isn't so bad that it falls into the 'so bad it's good' category.

I didn't hate it, so I'll give it 3/5 stars - but only because I've seen so many worse than this.

Kathryn Bigelow has directed an Oscar-winning followup to her previous Oscar-winner 'The Hurt Locker'. Only this time the Oscar was not for 'Best Picture', but (bizarrely, given the fact you'll probably need to use the subtitles to hear what's going on) for 'Best Sound Editing'. And that gives a clue - it isn't 'best picture' quality.

The film is a lengthy (2½ hours) pseudo documentary on the 10 year hunt for Osama Bin Laden, starting in September 2001 and culminating in his shooting in a raid on his compound in Pakistan in May 2011. The first 2 hours of the film deals with the questioning and torture of assorted detainees to obtain information and the following of several dead end leads, with the lead character (Maya, well played by Jessica Chastain) focusing relentlessly on a single named but unidentified suspect, a courier for Bin Laden. The final ½ hour covers the raid.

The film is a drama - but I didn't find it very dramatic. Yes, bits of it were tense, but frankly I can't see what the excitement was about. The characterisation was shallow, the events shown were simple snapshots, there was no placing of the events into a wider context. The attack on the World Trade Center led to not only a manhunt for Bin Laden but to full scale wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. And an attempt in the film to place the July 2005 London bombings in that context is misguided as these were carried out by home-grown terrorists without help from al-Qaeda / Bin Laden. I found the focus on a few individual CIA operatives to be a very shallow device, and if I can spot errors in the film it makes me wonder what other errors there are. But hey, this is a Hollywood movie...

The film left me cold. It's an emotionally detached film whose central character is recruited out of high school by the CIA and the single assignment she has worked on is the hunt for Bin Laden, has no friends, no boyfriends. I didn't feel any involvement with the characters nor the subject matter, which was (perhaps understandably) relentlessly US-oriented. I wasn't moved by the waterboarding / torture scenes. I certainly didn't enjoy it - but then it's not the kind of film you 'enjoy'. And I didn't like it very much.

I did enjoy the appearance of the late James Gandolfini as the CIA Director - despite his f-ing and blinding, I understand that at least was true to life...

3/5 stars. Pretty average stuff for me.

In 2013 we're accustomed to reality TV shows and unfortunately also accustomed (although we don't like it) to living in a 'surveillance society'. Yet back in 1998 when 'The Truman Show' was made such things were unheard of; the TV show 'Big Brother' was first broadcast in The Netherlands in 1999 and the concept of 'Big Brother' in the 1994 sense was something to be very scared of, and perhaps still is.

So the premise of 'The Truman Show' was in its day a science fiction fantasy, an uncomfortably close look at the manipulative nature of a future media world and its potential for cynical exploitation - yet here we are 15 years later where real world events may be approaching that futuristic fantasy.

Jim Carrey plays Truman Burbank who was born and has lived his entire life within a closed world, a giant TV studio, surrounded by actors - and he believes that this world is real. He is unaware that all around is false and that his entire life and personal relationships have been manipulated and that he is watched by 5000 cameras 24 hours a day - until he begins to suspect and tries to escape. The creator / producer / director of this fantasy world, Christof, is well played by Ed Harris in a stand-out role for which he was BAFTA and Oscar nominated.

At that point in his career Jim Carrey was known for his manic comic acting talent - and here he shows a mature dramatic acting ability. Both he and Ed Harris, neither of them obvious choices for the roles, are excellent. The director is Peter Weir, known for 'Picnic at Hanging Rock', 'Witness', 'Dead Poets Society' et al and the combination of an excellent director, an excellent script and excellent acting talent created an excellent film - one of my favourites.

I find 'The Truman Show' quite scary - it's not a future that I want to see nor do I want to see a world where millions of viewers are glued to reality TV. I felt sorry for Truman cocooned and imprisoned within his too-perfect, too-clean, too-white, smalltown USA seaside town - and while the ending is (of course!) too Hollywood, I was very pleased for him and pleased that he had, at last, got one over on baddy Christof.

Excellent - 5/5 stars - highly recommended.

I saw this at the cinema when it first came out over 20 years ago and I liked it, despite the dodgy accents. I must have missed all the times it's been shown on TV and now watching it again for the first time since that cinema viewing I have a somewhat more jaundiced opinion.

First the bad bits:

Robin Hood is a swashbuckling English legend. Why then tamper with the legend? Why the extra black character? Why cast Americans in lead roles? Why all the American accents - don't they have voice coaches? Why do the British actors seem to speak with a strange mix of Somerset / Cockney dialects? Why does it apparently only take one day on foot to travel from the white cliffs of Dover to Nottingham (apparently via Hadrian's Wall?). Why does Nottingham look like Carcassonne? Why are the Merry Men so glum? Why do they live like Ewoks up in the trees? Why is Marian so old? Why does Will Scarlet(t) not wear any red whatsoever? What happened to King John? Why is the film so dreadfully long? Etc etc etc...

The worst bit of all:

Kevin Costner. Wooden acting, boring voice, US accent - if he is the inspiring leader of a band of English outlaws then I'm a banana. Perhaps his character should have been called Robin Wood.

The good bits:

Brian Blessed in a brief cameo role.

Sean Connery in an even briefer cameo role.

The best bits:

The baddies. Michael Wincott as Guy of Gisborne makes an excellent evil henchman to the Sheriff of Nottingham.

And last but by no means least, Alan Rickman makes an excellent Sheriff, playing the role with so much ham that he might as well be in panto. He also has the best lines :)

Watch it with an uncritical eye and you might enjoy it. If however you don't like to see English legends casually trampled underfoot by an uncaring Hollywood production, see the excellent 1938 version with Errol Flynn. Now that's proper swashbuckling!

I'll give 'Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves' 2/5 stars - but only because I have seen even worse...

A minor traffic accident on FDR Drive entangles two lives: recovering alcoholic Doyle Gipson (played by Samuel L. Jackson) and rich young lawyer Gavin Banek (played by Ben Affleck). They antagonise each other and end up with deeply entrenched positions from which neither will easily budge.

Lawyer loses an important file, and in order to force its return ruins Gipson's finances. In revenge, Gipson taunts Banek with snippets from the file and causes an accident to his car. Banek eventually comes to realise that he is enmeshed in a fraudulent legal case and resolves to do something about it. Gipson returns the file and Banek uses it as a weapon against the corrupt partners in the law firm and also helps Gipson reunite his family.

Clear as mud? While the story itself is unrealistic, the film makes it pretty clear that the choices made by the characters are moral ones, wrapped up in a thought-provoking drama.

The central characters are very well played and I like it. 4/5 stars.

From the general direction of 'down under' have come some weird and wonderful creature-features including 'Night of the Lepus' (giant killer rabbits - truly awful) and 'Razorback' (giant killer wild boar - not that bad), both from Australia, and now from New Zealand we have 'Black Sheep' (mutant killer sheep).

What? Killer sheep? You must be joking - and indeed, that's the whole point: the entire film is a comedy horror film, black humour with some bits of appalling (and funny!) bad taste.

Killer sheep aren't scary, not even a were-sheep. Even with the buckets of blood and assorted body parts, this isn't a horror film but a comedy that pokes fun at many easy (and some less easy targets): naive animal rights activists, ovinaphobic (fear of sheep?) farmer's son, mad scientists, another son with a love (geddit?) for sheep etc etc.

This film has the makings of a B-movie cult classic. 4/5 stars - recommended.

This film won 2 Oscars and 2 BAFTAs, has an IMDB score of 8.5 (July 2013) and 88% on Rotten Tomatoes, so it must be good, eh? Well, I didn't like it :(

Directed by Quentin Tarantino who has a stellar reputation as a director for mixing humour (well, satirical scriptwriting anyway) often about 'unfunny' situations and with explicit violence. This is typical of his work - only this time I really didn't find it amusing at all. Yes, there's lots of trademark gun violence and bloodshed, but I was left profoundly disappointed - from the awards and they hype I was expecting something better.

The story is told in a typical Tarantino disjointed style, with unbelievable scenarios and characters. In outline, it's this: set in pre-Civil War southern USA, a German bounty hunter masquerading as a travelling dentist (King Schultz, played by Christoph Walz) frees a slave (Django, played by Jamie Foxx) to help in tracking down three wanted brothers. It is revealed that the baddies have whipped Django's wife (who just happens to be fluent in German), and after eliminating them bounty hunter + Django seek her out and attempt to free her by tricking her new owner, a baddy plantation owner (Calvin Candie, played by Leonardo DiCaprio). Much gunfire ensues with bucket loads of blood splashed everywhere.

This storyline is ridiculous, and while the viewer may be carried along by the flow of the film any attempt to sit back and analyse it reveals just how silly it is. And the repeated attempts at 'humor', often in a current-day tongue-in-cheek style, come across as false and patronising as does the repeated use of 'nigger' which while historically accurate would seem to hold some peculiar fascination for Mr Tarantino.

I'll give it 2/5 stars. And did I say that I didn't like it?

I had read Antony Beevor's (very readable) history book 'Stalingrad', I had seen 'Enemy At the Gates' and I had seen the episode on 'The World At War' that dealt with the battle of Stalingrad. But all of these were Western European accounts and having learned something of what is one of the bloodiest battles in history with up to 2 million deaths, I wanted a different perspective - and ordered up a copy of this film, a 1993 German film directed by Joseph Vilsmaier.

I have to say something about the DVD first. The Region 2 copy that I received from Cinema Paradiso is *dreadful*. It has a ridiculously bad dubbed English soundtrack with embarrassing, cringeworthy bogus German accents that makes the film unwatchable, and it doesn't have any original German language or subtitles. I returned it almost unwatched. Still wanting to see the film, I purchased a Region 1 copy on eBay - this time, in proper widescreen, 5.1 sound, the option of German with subtitles, and a range of 'extras'. Much better :)

This is one of the best anti-war films I have seen and gives an account of the battle from a German perspective. It tells the tale of a platoon initially relaxing in Italy after a successful North Africa campaign, before they are shipped off to the Eastern front. It then follows them through assorted battle scenes - suffice to say there are few survivors - attempts to obtain almost non-existent medical assistance, attempts to escape the front on the last plane out, until the eventual death of the final few in the snow.

From an upbeat beginning the film shows the decline in morale as defeat looms ever closer and it is clear to them that the Russians - and the Russian winter - have won. Yes, it's a downbeat film, but quite engrossing.

As an aside, the director cast his wife Dana Vávrová as the Russian woman Irina.

A great film - 5/5 stars. But do watch the Region 1 version...