Film Reviews by RP

Excellent – but it’s the kind of film you’ll either love or hate. Me, I liked it very much.

It's ambiguous. There’s no dialogue. The countries in which it takes place are not identified. The nationality, identity and motivation of the central character are never stated: it’s a sort of blank canvas on which the viewer can set his own preferences – or perhaps that should be prejudices. It's only by reading the credits that you find that the central character is named Mohammed. If that sounds like the kind of film you may be interested in, read on.

The film opens in Afganistan? Iraq? where a party of one US serviceman + 2 civilians are exploring a canyon with a hand-held mine detector. An unnamed, unarmed observer watches them, picks up a rocket propelled grenade launcher from a dead man, and shoots. He runs, a helicopter gives chase, fires a rocket which fells and deafens him. He is captured, transferred to a Guantanamo Bay type facility, interrogated (but can’t hear as he is still deafened), shaved, shackled, hooded, orange-uniformed, waterboarded – you get the picture. But then things start to go wrong… He is in the process of being renditioned / transferred to some un-named apparently Eastern European location when the vehicle leaves the road and he is left alone and barefoot in a snow-covered wilderness in a foreign country. What follows is his attempt to escape this alien environment without food or proper clothing, chased by helicopters and men with dogs…

I found it gripping. It reminded me in some ways of 'The Grey' but with a great deal more realism. This is no Bourne-type story about a fugitive. It's not a Hollywood-type thriller - although it's thrilling.

As the film draws to its ambiguous ending the director seems to run out of ideas and the scenarios become less likely (examples: the lactating woman, and the mute woman who dresses the wounds). I enjoyed it - I'll give it 4/5 stars, but it's probably not a film for everyone.

Alien' is a superb sci-fi film, and 'Prometheus' was hyped as a prequel - which it is, sort of. I say 'sort-of' because the storyline is very, very confused and without reading an explanation on IMDB or Wikipedia or whatever it would be difficult to make it out. And that's a great disappointment.

The film looks great, with the same use of dark, densely-realised backgrounds that Ridley Scott films are famous for (cf 'Aliens', 'Blade Runner', 'Black Rain'). The effects are great. The sound is great. The acting is so-so - 'wooden' comes to mind - and to say that the best acting comes from the android character David is to damn the film with faint praise.

Unfortunately instead of 'Prometheus' being a prequel to a sci-fi thriller / horror film it falls into the somewhat over-ambitious and certainly over-pretentious trap of trying to make a film about the origin of man. And in this it fails. If it had simply stuck to the formula it would have been really good, but as it is - and despite the excellent photography and effects - it becomes just another over-complex, messy film. Which is a pity because it could have been great rather than just average. Or perhaps I'm missing something and the inevitable 'Prometheus 2' will reveal it to be a masterpiece...

3/5 stars - very average.

This is the blackest of black comedies and deals with issues of mental illness, alcoholism, suicide, religion, child sexual abuse and murder - oh yes, and the Cuban missile crisis too. I just might have missed a few there.

It does this in an acceptable way by narrating the story of growing up in a small Irish town where innocent mischief, childhood friendships, and boyish fantasies come to dominate the thoughts of young Francie Brady as he grows up in a family where his mother is suicidal and has a mental breakdown (cue humour about going to 'the garage'), his father is a violent drunk, and his boyhood 'enemy' is perceived to be Mrs Nugent. And it becomes apparent that Francie is beginning to suffer from paranoid psychosis...

The film culminates in the bloody death of Mrs Nugent - but while the film tells a dark tale it does so in a way that makes this appear a natural consequence, rather than in a 'shock horror' manner.

An excellent film, powerful and disturbing. 4/5 stars.

Two characters cooped up a bird watcher's hide. Both clearly - since this is a drama - with something to hide. So it must mean one goodie, one baddie. Which must mean that the one who looks immediately like a baddie is really the goodie. Err - that's it. And no, that wasn't a spoiler but the essence of all such plays.

This really is an excellent two-handed play made into an excellent film. Yes, it's still stagey, but that works well in such a claustrophobic setting. The acting is also excellent, particularly from Alex MacQueen as Roy Tunt, the introverted, eccentric, obsessive-compulsive bird watching nerd. He's harmless, surely?

The other player is Phil Campbell as David John, who is tormented by some unspoken loss. And it is only at the end where this loss is seen to connect him to creepy Roy Tunt.

The film was directed by Marek Losey, grandson of renowned director Joseph Losey, perhaps best known for 'The Servant' and 'The Go-Between'. Good directorial skills seem to run in the family.

This is a low budget, creepy, tense thriller. It's less than 80 minutes long - just right. Really good - 4/5 stars.

Directed by Kathryn Bigelow who had earlier directed 'Point Break', the almost so-bad-it's-good film about bank robbing surfer dudes, and went on to greater things with the Oscar-winning 'Hurt Locker', this is a sci-fi millennium apocalypse tale, released in 1995 and set on then-future New Year's Eve 1999.

The trouble with sci-fi films set in a specific time frame is that time overtakes them, and they look immediately dated. And so it proves here - rave parties, Rodney King style beatings, riots on the LA streets, leather trousers - yesterday's news I'm afraid. And of course the end-of-the-millennium proved to be pretty uneventful...

The film was produced and co-written by James Cameron, Kathryn Bigelow's ex-husband and the storyline bears his stamp ('The Terminator', 'Aliens' etc) as do the richly and darkly realised backgrounds.

I like sci-fi films. This one isn't too bad, but I had a real problem with the plot (which boils down to a simple 'bad cop' story) and the acting.

The plot involves a sort of visual/emotional narcotic second-hand experience delivered by means of a SQUID (Superconducting QUantum Interference Device), a sort-of rubbery spider-like gadget (usually worn under a wig it appears) which delivers someone else's recorded memories and experiences via a sort-of MiniDisc player. The usually excellent Ralph Fiennes plays Lenny Nero, a weakling ex-cop who does dodgy deals in the software for such devices but who is sent a snuff recording... And so it goes. Also involved is Angela Bassett who has a strong role as a strong woman (whatever happened to her?) and Juliette Lewis as Lenny's sleazy ex, who gets to reveal a bit of chest and show off her rock singer credentials (she sings two PJ Harvey numbers).

Ralph Fiennes plays a weak character with a weak American accent and seemed seriously out of place here. Not one of his best roles, considering he'd done 'Schindler's List' a couple of years before.

Given that it involves snuff recordings and scenes of sexual violence, perhaps it's not surprising that the film was cut slightly for UK release. And there's a bit too much f-ing and blinding for my taste.

It's certainly not the worst sci-fi film I've seen but after the excellent opening the rest just hasn't aged very well, so I'll give it a pretty average 3/5 stars.

There have been many films about Jesse James, many eulogising him as a sort of 'Robin Hood' character. There are popular songs about him [Aside: one of which is included near the end of this film, performed by Nick Cave]. If you want to know more about Jesse James and the James-Younger Gang, Wikipedia has lots of info.

The film tells the story of the end of the James brothers' long criminal career as Jesse descends into distrust and perhaps paranoia, trusting only the Ford brothers Charley and Robert. Unfortunately his trust is misplaced, as having already shot and/or betrayed other gang members, Robert Ford shoots Jesse in his own home.

'The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford' is an excellent film which I enjoyed very much. The photography is excellent, the acting by Brad Pitt (as Jesse James) and by Casey Affleck (as Robert Ford) is excellent, and the directorial device of using a semi-documentary style with narration (often a lazy way of telling a story) works well here.

It's a long film at over 2½ hours but it held my interest throughout and I believe it needed that length to do the subject justice - it's more of a character drama than a Western.

Jesse is portrayed as a ruthless, violent criminal, albeit somewhat charming, rather than as Robin Hood. Robert Ford is portrayed as a naive teenager hero-worshipping the James outlaws from afar, then wheedling his way into the gang, becoming disillusioned, then betraying them. Also shown is the Ford brothers cashing in on their notoriety by way of a travelling stage show, through to Robert Ford's own assassination. And it's the length of the film which allows this lengthy tale to be properly told, rather than scrimped.

Excellent stuff. 5/5 stars - highly recommended.

When I saw this at the cinema I thoroughly enjoyed it. But watching it now at home I felt slightly disappointed...

Where is the glamour? Where is the excitement? Where are the under-dressed Bond-girls, the over-the-top baddies, the gadgets, the not-so-subtle one-liners, the exotic locations?

This latest Bond is missing just about all of these: it's more down-to-earth, in fact somewhat more down-at-heel, and despite its large budget looks as if it was made on a shoestring. There are some awful props and effects with the MI6 HQ explosion being the worst and baddie Silva's roomful of compute-power running it a close second. The characters are a bit wishy-washy with Javier Bardem exuding the megalomaniac power of a turnip, and the two love interests (the Eve Moneypenny and Severine characters) the seducing power of limp lettuce.

And the story is hardly original either. A list of agents is stolen, putting them in danger. Err - haven't we seen that many times before?

I also disliked the obvious product placement (VW-Audi, Heineken, Omega etc). The 'real' Bond doesn't drink lager from the bottle, let alone in bed - Bolly or better for that, surely.

This is Daniel Craig's third Bond film and while his characterisation revitalised the franchise in 'Casino Royale' the two later films have been less good. It must be tricky keeping the stories fresh after so many films (what is it, 25?) so I understand the problems, but Mr Craig is already starting to look a little past his prime :(

If I'd rated it after seeing it in the cinema I'd have given it 4/5 but having seen it again it's down to 3/5 stars. Not bad, but regrettably not excellent.

Violent medieval drama with much death and destruction, spurting of blood, hacking off of limbs etc. Great stuff - but it's like this all the way through without anything to lighten the load, so overall it becomes a somewhat gloomy affair.

Set in the years after the signing of Magna Carta, it tells the tale of the return of baddie King John to reclaim his throne aided by a bunch of Danish mercenaries. The goodies (a Templar Knight + a few others) hole up in Rochester castle and withstand a siege until the French arrive to rescue the few survivors.

Dark brooding stuff. And did I mention the spurting of much blood? See it if you like the genre. 3/5 stars.

They don't make them this any more! Black-and-white courtroom drama set in 1952 with Charles Laughton (barrister), Marlene Dietrich (glamorous wife of the accused) and Tyrone Power (accused of murder). Whodunnit? There's a voiceover the end credits asking the audience not to tell, so I won't :)

Based on an Agatha Christie play from her own short story it's a fairly straightforward tale. But what sets it apart is the acting, particularly from Laughton and Dietrich. The role played by Tyrone power is fine - he comes across as a 'hammy' actor, but that is just right for the role.

I enjoyed it very much and there are some good comic touches too. There are however some bits that grate on me... It's a Hollywood drama (director Billy Wilder) so perhaps it's unsurprising there are courtroom errors, but the characterisation of Tyrone Power (an American) serving in the RAF but somehow managing to give his new German wife a British passport seemed all a bit odd. And as we all know, there are no 'Perry Mason moments' of last minute evidence in British courts...

That apart, it's a fine drama and fully deserves its IMDB score of 8.4. I'll give it 4/5 stars - highly recommended.

Hmmm... It's not very often that I don't watch a film all the way to the end, even really bad ones. Yet I switched this off after about 15 minutes - I'd had enough.

Back in the days when I had a very long commute I read a selection of Russian classics: Tolstoy's 'War and Peace' and 'Anna Karenina' and also Sholokov's 'And Quiet Flows the Don' and Pasternak's 'Doctor Zhivago' come to mind, if only for their length :)

So I was interested to see this film - but what's this? The lightweight Kiera Knightly playing yet another lightweight role in pretty-pretty clothes, and the 'action' mostly set on a theatre stage?

I found it unwatchable. Perhaps someone will come along and tell me that I missed a classic - but I don't care and consider that I've had a narrow escape from over 2 hours of tedious boredom.

Nice costumes - pity about the rest of it. 1/5 stars - I hated it.

This film inevitably invites comparison with the original TV series (and falls short). It also invites comparison with the 1970s films (and falls short). Both the Regan and Carter characters are pale imitations of the John Thaw and Dennis Waterman interpretations. And regrettably, Ray Winstone is descending into a caricature of himself.

It has a silly plot with too many guns - this is England, not a place where Serbian gangsters run riot with submachine guns in Trafalgar Square. Jack Regan shouldn't be the driver, let alone of a piddly little modern Ford Focus rather than a proper Granada-sized car. What's this, a car chase on a caravan site? - you're having a larf, surely. And it's full of Americanisms ('Give me your gun and your badge', references to 'Internal Affairs') and inaccurate detail (a suspect can be detained for 36 hours without charge, and up to 96 hours with the authority of a magistrate). There is the occasional nod to other roles that Ray Winstone has played, for example when he loads a sock with batteries as a weapon compared to snooker balls in a sock in 'Scum'. There's also too much f-ing and blinding for my taste.

Directed by Nick Love, perhaps the best thing about it is that he hasn't cast the tiresome Danny Dyer in it. Below average stuff - 2/5 stars.

The original film in this series was excellent, combining an action packed sci-fi 'creature feature' with social satire and irony. The second wasn't too bad, leaving out the irony and building instead into a sci-fi horror flick. I was looking for this, the third film, which brings back the lead character Johnny Rico (played by Casper Van Dien, who hardly looks much older than in the first film, 11 years previously) to get the franchise back on track again…

But this is dire. It's awful. It's just silly. The script is bad, the acting is bad, not just cardboard characters played tongue-in-cheek, but simply bad - but the worst thing is that it could have been so much better. The social satire is there (the future is fascistic, where dissent and protest is treated as treason, and there is an apparent need for a never ending war against 'the bug'), there is satirical comment on religion ('good' religion = Christianity, 'bad' religion = worship of a false god, a different god, here a 'bug god'), and there is a bit of alien splatter and a few bare chests thrown in for good measure.

But there isn't enough action, there aren't any pitched battles against hordes of bugs as in the first film, and last but not least - the creature effects are poor.

I really like the original 'Starship Troopers'. But this is a turkey. It's a stinker. I'll give it 2/5 stars because I really have seen worse, but it doesn't deserve such a generous score.

At last - a 'proper' comic-book film, rather than the wimpish so-called 'superhero' Hollywood Marvel comic characters. And it's 18 rated, not some cleaned up version for the kiddies market.

Based on the character from the British comic 2000 AD, a British-South African production, a NZ actor (Karl Urban) playing the deadpan Dredd. Super-violent, lots of blood and killing, in other words, just an ordinary day in the life of Judge Dredd.

Vastly better than the mediocre 1995 film with Sylvester Stallone, I enjoyed this - I think it got the character about right. And no, he certainly doesn't take his helmet off. If I have one criticism it's that the Peach Trees tower block scenario isn't futuristic enough. Also there's a little too much f-ing and blinding from the 'perps' for my taste.

I understand that possibly because of poor marketing and an insistence on releasing the film in 3D to most screens so missing out on the bigger 2D market, the film lost money at the box office. Let's hope its video release recovers some of the cash, because I for one would like to see more of the same.

5/5 stars - highly recommended to those who like the genre.

The first film in this series, 'Starship Troopers', is an excellent big budget, lots-of-effects space fiction film with much irony and satire on a future society. It was directed in 1997 by Paul Verhoeven who had previously directed 'RoboCop' and the original 'Total Recall'.

After a gap of 7 years came this low budget direct-to-video so-called 'sequel', this time directed by Phil Tippett, who has a decent pedigree since he supervised the creature effects on the original film and won an Oscar for the effects in 'Jurassic Park'. And to be fair, the creature effects here - although on a much more modest scale - are quite reasonable.

As a 'sequel' it's only the creatures that are anything like the original film. Only one actor from the earlier film is here (confusingly playing a different role) and the story has nothing in common - it's like an old-fashioned western, with a (sort of) cavalry detachment holed up in a fort while surrounded by marauding Indians and awaiting rescue. Here, it's a detachment of Mobile Infantry holed up in an abandoned outpost surrounded by arachnid aliens and awaiting rescue.

The film is essentially in three acts: (1) infantry under attack in pitched battle followed by retreat, (2) survivors secure position in abandoned outpost, (3) attack from within by aliens. This third act is more of a horror film rather than sci-fi in nature as the infantry are infested by aliens who take them over one by one.

The film has received some extremely poor reviews - but I think that's a little harsh. It really suffers in comparison to the original, but put that from your mind and it's a pretty run-of-the-mill creature feature with added horror and a bit of nudity thrown in for good measure. I've seen an awful lot worse and I didn't hate it too much so I'll give it an over generous 3/5 stars.

Slow starting at suburban dinner party with old ex-army mates Jay (Neil Maskell) + wife and Gal (Michael Smiley) + girlfriend, moving on as we learn that they are contract killers, moving on to accepting a contract to kill a list of people (priest, librarian, MP). And as the killing starts so does the violence - and the killing of the 'librarian' with a hammer is much worse then the violence in, for example, 'Drive'.

The story then takes a bizarre turn as the killers are pressured to complete the job and kill the MP and find him celebrating some weird ritual on his country estate. Chase sequence, scary stuff, building to a climax where Jay is forced to kill a 'hunchback' - with tragic results.

Plenty of violence, plenty of f-ing and blinding (don't watch it with your granny) as the story leads the viewer into an uncomfortable zone where belief is suspended and the disturbing, claustrophobic feel of the ending seems all too real.

This is scary stuff - if you like a mix of thriller + horror then give this one a go. You certainly won't forget it. 4/5 stars.