Film Reviews by RP

Set on a council estate in Langley, Middleton, an overspill housing area for Manchester, the film tells the story of the life and hard times of Bob, who wants his daughter to have a (costly) new dress for her first communion. Out of work, he resorts first to dodgy deals and then in desperation to borrowing the money, which results in a loan shark and local hard man terrorising his family; Bob then takes his revenge.

Told with humour as Bob (played by Bruce Jones) and his mate Tommy (played by Ricky Tomlinson) bumble around trying to raise money through assorted ill thought out schemes. The film is typical of Ken Loach's work, with the message that the British working class are hard done by and driven to desperate deeds by the system. The film is gritty and realistic but with considerable warmth, the characters are believable, and Bob is portrayed as a fundamentally decent man, the victim of unavoidable circumstances. 4/5 stars. Highly recommended.

The film tells the (apparently fact-based, as it's based on a book by Charles Gieg, the central young man and narrator) story of the crew of 15-16 year old final year US high school boys on a school sail training ship 'The Albatross' as they learn to sail, learn their studies and learn assorted lessons of life. The climax is a severe storm in which crew members die, and the subsequent tribunal of inquiry into the responsibility of the captain. The film ends in an emotional scene reminiscent of 'Dead Poets Society'.

I liked it, although it's not my usual cup of tea. It shows the growth of the young crew from a random collection of individuals into a disciplined crew capable of working together and the trust and loyalty which develops – which was of course the point of the school ship. Perhaps this loyalty is then misused at the enquiry?

The film is competently directed, the photography is superb, but Ridley Scott's trademark direction of films with dark, complex, threatening backgrounds such as 'Alien' and 'Blade Runner' and the later 'Gladiator', 'Black Hawk Down' etc is not present in this much lighter but emotional film. 3/5 stars - Recommended.

Set largely in a Los Angeles luxury apartment block and looking out on the city, this film tells the story of an alien invasion by implacable tentacled beings in invincible spaceships who depopulate LA to harvest human brains. So, every sci-fi fan will enjoy it, right? Well, this film has received some of the worst reviews that I've ever read for a recent film – yet I sort of liked it.

It's cheesy, the acting and dialogue are dire, and the storyline seemingly plagiarised from a combination of 'Independence Day', 'War of the Worlds', 'Cloverfield' and 'District 9' [Aside: although I'm very thankful that 'Skyline' doesn't have Will Smith or Tom Cruise in the cast, which would have made things infinitely worse]. But the special effects are really rather good.

If you can put up with the silly backstory of the characters, the film is a run-of-the-mill alien invasion film – just switch off your brain while watching. You'll probably hate it, but I'll give it 3/5 stars. I really have seen worse...

This is an uncomfortable and disturbing film to watch. It's not a horror film, it's not a thriller, it's not a gung-ho revenge film, and if you're looking for blood and gore or so-called 'torture porn' then you won't find it here. What you will find is a superbly tense psychological drama as a distraught father takes revenge on the man who raped and murdered his young daughter. Over the period of 7 days after which he says he will kill the man, he comes to realise that he is only punishing himself and that nothing will bring back his daughter. There is almost no soundtrack and the virtual silence of the film serves to heighten the tension.

The film is French Canadian and the photography superb, with a washed-out look which suits both the mood of the film and the magnificent Canadian lakeside location. After watching it I felt disturbed for several hours – it's not an easy subject nor an easy film to watch and I guarantee you won't forget it. Highly recommended. 4/5 stars.

Somewhat pointless remake of 'Manhunter', which was the first of the Hannibal Lecter films to be made back in 1986 – but 'Manhunter' didn't have Anthony Hopkins, who came along later to play Lecter in 'Silence Of The Lambs'. I guess that 'Red Dragon' was made to give a consistent Lecter trilogy with Hopkins in each one (the fourth film, 'Hannibal Rising' is about Lecter's childhood). But 'Manhunter' is in my opinion the better film and Hopkins is far too hammy an actor for the role. In fact Lecter plays only a small role – the central character is a disturbed FBI agent who has been psychologically damaged by his experiences with too many disturbing cases, but who is called out of retirement to solve yet another case. The role here is filled by Edward Norton who is not a patch on the characterisation given by William Petersen in 'Manhunter'.

Don't get me wrong – 'Red Dragon' isn't a bad film and has a host of excellent actors and in fact I enjoyed it – it's just that I'm fed up with seeing remakes of perfectly good films. 3/5 stars.

I've been revisiting some older science-fiction films that I've either enjoyed or missed. This is one that I enjoyed – a comedy sci-fi adventure I saw at the cinema over 25 years ago. Has it stood the test of time? Yes. While it's a little dated (who remembers DeLorean today?) it seems to have retained its core humour remarkably well and it still made me laugh out loud. If I have a criticism it is the use of actors in their twenties to play teenage roles – I know Michael J. Fox looks boyish, but he's actually older than Crispin Glover who played his father, and 'Biff' was 26 at the time! I know the film is about time travel, but that's just ridiculous :) That minor irritation aside, I can thoroughly recommend this rather good film. 4/5 stars.

I first saw this film in 1972 I think – it was showing at a local film club. It impressed me then and I'm still impressed 40 years or so later. So what is it that impresses me? The acting (Jack Nicholson and Karen Black are excellent), the photography (excellent, from California to Washington, and the character shots), the music (the use and contrast of country and classical pieces). But not the story – there really isn't one: it's a character study, the character of what a few years earlier in the UK we would have called an 'angry young man'. Bobby Dupea (played by Jack Nicholson) is angry with the world, with his family, with his girlfriend, his friends. He has run away (yes, I think that's the right description) from an intellectual, musical family (he's a classically trained pianist) and ended up in a number of dead-end jobs – he is currently working as a roughneck on an oil rig. He has a dead-end girlfriend (Rayette Dipesto, superbly played by Karen Black), a waitress with big hair whose idea of 'music' is country & western. She adores Bobby, but he can't or won't return her affection. Learning that his father is ill, they head for Bobby's family home where Rayette sticks out like a sore thumb and Bobby defends her, but eventually runs away from her yet again. I think the film can be best summed up by a quote from his brother's fiancée with whom he has a brief fling: "If a person has no love for himself, no respect for himself, no love of his friends, family, work, something... How can he ask for love in return?". Directed by Bob Rafaelson whose previous claim to fame was creating 'The Monkees', 'Five Easy Pieces' is a superb piece of filmmaking. It was nominated for 4 Oscars, and Karen Black won a Golden Globe award. 5/5 stars – highly recommended.

I've recently taken the opportunity to see (again!) the 'Godfather' trilogy. The original film in the series was made waaaaay back in 1972, 'Godfather Part II' in 1974 and 'Godfather Part III' in 1990. This film – Part II - is my favourite and I consider it even better than the original. Although a 'Best Supporting Actor' Oscar went to Robert de Niro for his role as the young Vito Corleone, my vote goes to Al Pacino for his role as Michael Corleone, Vito's son and successor as 'the Godfather'. (Aside: In fact he did win a BAFTA for Best Actor, but I'm sure he'd rather have had an Oscar). It is a superb film and while it is a sequel it is a fine film in its own right and is strong enough to stand alone. There are two strands to the story: Michael Corleone's progress as he ruthlessly expands his father's empire into legalised gambling in Nevada and (unsuccessfully) into Cuba, and the story of the young, orphaned Vito Corleone coming from Sicily to the US and making his name as a young but powerful figure in the New York Italian community. The film ends sadly with Michael reflecting on the deaths in his own family, his estrangement from his wife and the heartbreaking decision to order the killing of his own brother. Superb stuff – 5/5 stars.

I've recently taken the opportunity to see (again!) the 'Godfather' trilogy. The original film in the series was made waaaaay back in 1972, 'Godfather Part II' in 1974 and 'Godfather Part III' in 1990. Strictly speaking, I'm not seeing it 'again' as I can't even remember seeing the 3rd film before. Perhaps that's because it really isn't up to the high standard set by the first two films... Time has passed since the events of 'Godfather Part II', the Corleone businesses are now wholly legitimate and the casino interests sold. Michael Corleone makes a play for control of a Vatican-owned global property business but is out-manouevred, even double crossed, by powerful players within the Church. At the same time his hot-headed nephew Vincent stirs up trouble with an upstart New York mafia boss, there is a helicopter-borne shoot-out which wipes out the older generation of mafia bosses, Michael retreats to Sicily to recuperate and sort things out, anoints Vincent as his successor as the Godfather, arranges for assorted killings to sort out a corrupt Vatican while watching his son singing at the opera, sees his daughter killed, and dies himself – of natural causes. So, a long, complex, confused story, jumbled plot lines, some real events mixed in (Roberto Calvi aka 'god's banker' was indeed found hanged under Blackfriars Bridge in 1982, corruption and huge losses at the Vatican Bank, control by the shadowy P2 Masonic lodge etc are all real news items. Aside: In the film the character Frederick Keinszig is a heavily fictionalised Roberto Calvi), and ropey dialogue. Frankly it's not a patch on the first two films in the series and while Al Pacino is always worth watching, Andy Garcia in the role of Vincent is never convincing enough as a strong 'Godfather' figure. The director cast his own daughter Sofia Coppola as Michael Corleone's daughter, Mary and the semi-incestuous love interest of Vincent. Hmmm... opinion is polarised as to whether this bit of vanity-casting was worth it. My verdict: The film is OK, but as a follow-on to two superb predecessors it is fairly disappointing. I'll give it 3/5 stars.

A rather good conspiracy movie. It was made in 1974 so it's a bit dated in parts (haircuts, cars, typewriters, TV sets, the video game 'Pong' etc) but these don't detract too much. It has all the essentials components that make a good conspiracy: a mysterious corporation is manipulating events, in this case The Parallax Corporation which carries out political assassinations. It has the brave, lone, investigative reporter (played by Warren Beatty) who finds out that witnesses to the killing of a US Senator in Seattle are being killed off one-by-one. He investigates, is recruited by Parallax, but finds out the hard way that such recruits are just patsies. I enjoyed it and rate it 4/5 stars. Aside: If you like a good conspiracy movie there's quite a good list on Wikipedia: search for "List of conspiracy-thriller films and television series".

I've recently taken the opportunity to see (again!) the 'Godfather' trilogy. The original film in the series was made waaaaay back in 1972, 'Godfather Part II' in 1974 and 'Godfather Part III' in 1990. Strictly speaking, I'm not seeing it 'again' as I can't even remember seeing the 3rd film before. Perhaps that's because it really isn't up to the high standard set by the first two films... 'The Godfather' won 3 Oscars, is #2 on the IMDB Top 250 (and 'Part II' is #3), and catch phrases from the film have entered popular culture: "I'll make him an offer he can't refuse" and "bada bing" come to mind. Although the film is now 40 years old it doesn't feel dated. It was the film that gave Al Pacino his first big role and he really is the star of the film, although the 'Best Actor' Oscar went to Marlon Brando – and yes, he's very good. In fact all the actors are excellent. The film is perhaps the first to take a gangster's-eye view of society (rather than the more usual condemnation of the criminal fraternity) and led to further films and TV series from that viewpoint such as 'Goodfellas', 'The Sopranos' etc. 'The Godfather' is one of my favourite films, I rate it 5/5 stars. Go watch it – or I'll make you an offer you can't refuse :)

This film won the 2010 BAFTA for Outstanding British Film – and rightly so. It's not a pretty story – but it will grab you and not let you go until it reaches its inevitable conclusion. 15 year old Mia (an astonishing role by Katie Jarvis) lives with her single, slutty, mother and younger sister in a high rise block of council flats in Rainham, Essex, within sight of the Dartford Crossing QE II bridge. [Aside: the location is the Mardyke Estate, also seen in 'Made In Dagenham' and now being redeveloped].

Mia's mother moves her boyfriend Connor in. Mia finds Connor not only useful as a source of cash and a video camera to record her dancing - which he encourages - but also finds him attractive. There is a certain inevitability as we watch the film that things will almost certainly go wrong - and of course they do. Mia's world slowly unravels as she has sex with Connor, find out that he is (of course) married, that (of course) he has a child and that her dreams of becoming a dancer are (of course) hopelessly unrealistic.

Yes, it's a downbeat film – but it has a realism and feels so true to a certain gritty slice of life and the personalities and the f-ing and blinding that goes with it that it is very watchable through to its ending which is happier than you might expect. 5/5 stars. Highly recommended – but it's a film to admire rather than like.

At the time this was the most expensive film ever made and it was critically panned. It also appears very derivative, sort of like Mad Max set at sea. Kevin Costner is a 'wooden' actor, but luckily here he doesn't need to say very much so comes across well as the Mariner – and his boat is amazing! The baddie (Deacon, played by Dennis Hopper) is suitably over-the-top, but the woman (Helen, played by Jeanne Tripplehorn) is very wishy washy. For what it's worth, I like 'Waterworld' and find it enjoyable – and I believe the film also made a significant profit in the end, so it can't be all bad. I'll give it 3/5 stars.

Hmmm... I was looking forward to this film by director Peter Weir ('Picnic At Hanging Rock', 'Gallipoli', 'Witness', 'The Truman Show', 'Master & Commander', 'Dead Poets Society') but I confess that I'm disappointed. The cast of excellent actors can't unfortunately liven up over 2 hours of dull dialogue with both a token American and a token woman among the 7 original characters, all of whom speak English with fake Russian or Polish accents.

The story is based on a 1950s book that has apparently now been discredited, so quite where that leaves the film's acknowledgements is a little unclear.

I enjoyed the magnificent scenery, I enjoyed (I don't think 'enjoyed' is quite the right word here) how the suffering was portrayed, particularly the desert scenes which were quite harrowing, and I enjoyed the photography and magnificent scenery. But if you're looking for action and adventure, then you'll be disappointed. What you will find is a long, dull, scenic tale with a strong anti-Russian, anti-Communist message. I'll give it 3/5 stars - it could have been so much better.

Wow. The best film I have seen in the last year. It tells the true story of Aron Ralston (played in a remarkable performance by James Franco), who went on a solo exploring weekend among the canyons of Utah, became trapped by a fallen boulder, cut off his own arm to escape, and lived to tell the tale. And no, that isn't a spoiler – the story is well known.

So how can you make an engrossing film about that, where most of the time is spent trapped and almost immobile? It takes the directing skill of Danny Boyle ('Shallow Grave', 'Trainspotting', 'The Beach', '28 Days Later', 'Millions', 'Slumdog Millionaire') to give it life. And it succeeds by never letting your interest fail, filling the screen with initial action, then with flashbacks of Aron's life and regrets, with his hopes of life and of escape, then his bitter realisation of what he must do, then with a finale which is both uplifting and optimistic for the future. Superb – 5/5 stars. Highly recommended.