Film Reviews by RP

I've been a Doors fan since first hearing their music waaaaaay back in 1967, have all their albums and have even made the pilgrimage to Père Lachaise Cemetery in Paris. Narrated by Johnny Depp, 'When You're Strange' is a documentary about the Doors, focussing on the lead singer, Jim Morrison. Morrison was the archetypal rock star – surly, profane, drug addicted, yet magnificent on stage. The author of pretentious poetry and great songs, he and the Doors remain one of the most influential rock bands of all time. With plenty of both well known and unseen footage of the band and plenty of music, the film has a contemporary feel; however I didn't find that the commentary offered many new insights. But all in all, an excellent documentary which can be recommended to anyone interested in the Doors.

I enjoyed this fairly run-of-the-mill sci-fi film. It's certainly no masterpiece, but it tells a simple story well, has action and *very* few words – so sit back and enjoy.

Kurt Russell plays Todd, a soldier trained from birth to be a highly disciplined fighting machine. He is an emotional cripple. After long and distinguished service he is superseded by a new breed of genetically engineered soldiers, and literally thrown on the scrap heap, in this case on an outworld garbage dump planet.

Here he meets a small colony of shipwrecked civilians and is exposed for the first time to the emotions of family life. The new supposedly improved soldiers arrive, Todd defends the civilians, and everything ends happily.

Don't expect great dialogue: Kurt Russell says about 100 words total of which the majority seem to be 'Yes Sir'. But he uses a limited range of facial expressions to convey both feeling and emotion as his character changes from an automaton to a man.

I enjoyed it and can recommend it – it's deeper than it at first appears and there is even a little bit of character development if you watch out for it...

Strangely, the US Army seems to be recruiting big muscled Belgians (Jean-Claude van Damme) and Swedes (Dolph Lundgren). Even stranger, they have been 're-animated' into semi-human, almost robotic fighting machines. But frankly, that does fit with their skills as actors :)

Suspend your disbelief for a while and the film becomes enjoyable – it's so bad it's good! Plenty of action, plenty of awful acting, awful accents and even worse dialogue. Just sit back and enjoy this classic (?) all action B-movie...

What a silly film. What a silly plot: good guy sees family killed, is let down by a bad prosecutor and the justice system, waits 10 years, then takes revenge against both the killers and the lawyers – but does it all from within a prison cell because he's a rich technical genius...

There's a couple of nice gruesome bits, but the two most gruesome things are: the ending (very silly) and the acting (Jamie Foxx is awful). Sorry, but I didn't enjoy it and can't recommend it. 2/5 stars.

I enjoyed this, but frankly I'm not sure why. The story is silly – Clive Owen + friends commit the 'perfect' bank robbery. Denzel Washington is the detective trying to stop them. Other roles from Christopher Plummer (well acted), Jodie Foster (big name, silly role), Willem Dafoe (wasted). And a big name director (Spike Lee) as well.

All that talent – wasted. The plot is full of holes, Denzel Washington overacts so much he almost turns into Will Smith. The twist at the end seemed obvious to me. Luckily Clive Owen has his face covered most of the time, so the fact that he is a wooden actor doesn't show. But there were some lines that made me smile, and apart from a slow bit in the middle there was plenty of action. Like I said, I enjoyed it but don't really know why. I'll give it 3/5 stars – it's watchable.

I rented this film because it was directed by John Schlesinger ('Billy Liar', 'Darling', 'Far From The Madding Crowd', 'Marathon Man', 'Midnight Cowboy' and many other excellent films) so it must be good, right? Wrong. It's awful.

The plot is yet another tired old hackneyed vigilante story, albeit with a serious subject matter: 17 year old girl is raped and murdered by serial rapist. Let down by the US justice system, mother turns vigilante and kills him. And with actors such as Sally Field (mother), Keifer Sutherland (rapist), Ed Harris (father), what could go wrong? Well, plenty...

The script is dreadful, the acting awful, and the storyline unbelievable. I just didn't believe or care about any of the characters – Sally Field did not make me believe that she either cared for her daughter or was capable of being a vigilante, Keifer Sutherland played a character so over-the-top that it was unbelievable, and Ed Harris played the (step)father in such a detached manner that he too was unbelievable.

The film reminded me of one of those awful made-for-TV dramas that we see used as late night fillers. In fact I read the end credits carefully to check – but unfortunately, it is indeed a real film.

Watching this wasted 101 minutes of my life which I shall never get back. Don't waste yours.

I guess this could be described as a modern cowboys-and-Indians film. Outdoors type with loyal dog discovers lost native American tribe, saves them from baddie sheriff while girlfriend leads them to safety. Sounds very trite, but it's actually surprisingly enjoyable.

It does have its politically correct moments of course – good white man good, only bad white men bad, Indians good, white woman (who coincidentally just happens to speak Cheyenne) good with children and animals. The story is pretty slight and I guess the real star is the scenery which is truly spectacular. It's certainly worth 3/5 stars, perhaps more. In fact I'll give it 4/5. Recommended.

I saw this at the cinema waaaaaaaaay back in 1975 and this was the first time I've seen it since then – guess I must have missed all the times it's been shown on TV! Clearly it shows its age in some minor areas, but overall it holds up very well. It's certainly not a horror film (there's not much blood, and no real terror) but there are a few minor scary moments and a couple of scenes to make you jump. It is rated PG after all. If it were made today there would probably be more blood and guts, and the shark effects would be better. But would it be a better film? Probably not.

'Jaws' turned Steven Spielberg into a household name – and the film is well directed, turning a fairly slight story into an entertainment that stands the test of time pretty well. There is an abiding sense of menace, enhanced by the musical score. It has humour and character development, goodies and baddies, and it has the shark – or does it? In fact the shark is unseen until the very end of the film – and I guess that is one of the strengths of the film – to create that sense of unseen menace.

This is a classic of 1970s films. 4/5 stars. Highly recommended.

Why have I missed this superb film until now? Made in 1972 and starring Lawrence Olivier and Michael Caine, I enjoyed this immensely. It has the feel of a stage play (it was adapted from one) but it works very well as a film. The acting is superb: you would expect no less of Lawrence Olivier, but Michael Caine is surprisingly good. Although I have seen most of his films, he displayed real acting ability which surprised me: he usually just plays Michael Caine :). And the location setting in a country house filled with automata and games is superb.

The storyline goes like this: Caine plays an Alfie-like character who is having an affair with Olivier's wife. He is invited to meet the cuckolded husband, an author of detective novels, who offers a money-making proposition: steal his wife's jewellery while he claims on the insurance. This is planned as a humiliation - but there is a twist in the tail...

The dialogue is sharp and witty, the characters show a degree of class rivalry and racism which is well observed and perceptive, and not out of place today. Yes, the characters themselves (and the hairstyles!) are somewhat dated, but the drama itself is timeless.

Both actors and the director (Joseph L. Mankiewicz) received Oscar nominations, but unfortunately lost out to 'The Godfather' which was released the same year. All I can say is that Marlon Brando's acting isn't a patch on what you'll see here.

5/5 stars. An excellent film – highly recommended.

Hmmm.... Is this an animated film for children? If so, why is the story so BORING, and the characters so uninteresting? And frankly, no amount of CGI can make a horde of rats in a kitchen appealing. Yes, the film is a triumph of state-of-the-art computer animation, yes I know a lot of people seem to like it – but it's just so BORING. Yawns all round in this house :(

This is the 1998 ITV made-for-TV version – but it's actually quite good, although it's usually the BBC that does period drama best. I'm not entirely sure that Paloma Baeza as Bathsheba Everdene quite strikes the right note, but all the other actors seem well in character and the accents are about right. No out of place USAnian accents here :) The baddie Sergeant Troy is played by Jonathan Firth, Colin Firth's younger brother, so period drama seems to run in the family. If you're expecting to see the film version with Julie Christie and Alan Bates directed by John Schlesinger then you'll be disappointed – but give this a try. Who knows, you might like it – I know I did :)

I saw this at the cinema when it was first released and now again on DVD I was just as shocked by the first 20 minutes. Certainly it does not glorify war. If this is what war is like, then that's one place I never want to be. After that – when the storytelling begins – it all seems a bit of an anticlimax, and the premise that a small platoon of troops is sent to wander semi-randomly around to rescue / retrieve a lone soldier seems a little far fetched. There are other flaws that bug me as well, from its over-riding American war perspective to the wooden acting abilities of Tom Hanks. I guess this sums up this film for me: multi-Oscar winning, flawed action film masquerading as a war film, some very powerful scenes, and despite my reservations Tom Hanks does act better than in many of his other films. It is most definitely American and the patriotism is a little over-done for this Brit. But it's a good film and I rate it as 4/5 stars.

Insurance salesman Walter Neff (played by Fred MacMurray) has an affair with customer's attractive, murderous wife (Phyllis Dietrichson, played by Barbara Stanwyck). Together they plan to kill hubby and claim the insurance money – but suspicious claims investigator (Barton Keyes, played by Edward G. Robinson) smells a rat, and the unlucky Walter ends up with no woman, no money – and indeed, dead.

The three main characters are all well cast – the woman attractive and deadly, the salesman good looking, fast talking and slightly oily, the investigator rumpled, world weary and cynical. A superb film with excellent plot, excellent dialogue, excellent acting. 5/5 stars. Highly recommended.

This film tells the story of hard man Harry Mitchel (played by Colin Farrell) from his release from Pentonville prison where he's served 3 years for GBH, through his rejection of a job with London gangster / money lender Gant (Ray Winstone), his acceptance of a job as handyman–cum-bodyguard-cum-companion to depressed actress Charlotte (Kiera Knightley), to his eventual demise.

Excellent cast, stylish photography and locations, violence, plenty of f-ing and blinding, superb musical score. So, yet another strong Brit gangster film? Well, not quite... I think it's one of those films you either love or hate. Personally, I liked it very much – but it could have been better.

The violence is largely off-screen. There are a couple of sub-plots (one of which leads to Mitchel's death) but no real surprises. I thought the South London / Kennington / Holland Park settings worked well and I recognised many of the character types as being authentic (yes, I have lived there). I don't think Kiera Knightley – big name actress though she is – had quite the on-screen presence to be convincing and was pretty limp, and Ray Winstone seems to be descending into a caricature of himself. Colin Farrell was convincing but had few words to say (probably just as well as his sarf London accent was a bit suspect).

But these are minor criticisms – as I said, I liked it. Others maybe won't. It's certainly worth 4/5 stars from me.

This is a dramatised story of John Lennon's adolescent years from 14-18 or so. How accurate it is I don't know, but it's based on a book written by John's half sister, so it should have elements of the truth. What it most certainly isn't is the story of The Beatles and nor are the actors look-alikes for the real-life characters: anyone expecting that will be disappointed.

Much of the film deals with young Lennon's attempts to deal with the emotional turmoil of a disjointed (not to say dysfunctional) childhood, his relationship with his Aunt Mimi Smith who brought him up from the age of 4, and his absentee mother, Julia Lennon. It shows limited contact between young Lennon and his mother until she was knocked down and killed in a road accident when he was 17. She did however teach John to play banjo. The film shows the Quarrymen, Lennon's skiffle band – though they do seem to play rather well for a schoolboy band, but that's movie reality I guess. The story ends at the point where John has written his first song ('Hello Little Girl') and the pre-Beatles are about to leave for Hamburg.

I liked it – the performances seem credible, particularly that of Aaron Johnson as Lennon, who is cheeky, cocky and lippy enough to raise the hackles of any adult in authority – which I understand is exactly what happened. Watch it – you may like it as well. I rate it as 3/5 stars.