Film Reviews by RP

Anybody expecting this film to be a biblical epic re-telling the story from Genesis is going to be disappointed. It's not that version - this one is from the apocryphal Book of Enoch, partly based on the Book of Watchers. The 'stone giants' are meant to represent the Watchers, angels sent to watch over man, a number of whom had offspring (Nephilim) with human women. The flood was intended to rid the earth of Nephilim. The angelic form of the Watchers is seen released from their earthbound stone form when they die during the battle with Tubal Cain's men. And Tubal Cain (played by Ray Winstone) is barely mentioned in Genesis. All clear as mud now?

That's as much as I want to say about the background to the film. I remember with a certain fondness the biblical epics of the 1950s and 1960s and I looked forward to Darren Aronofsky's film, thinking that with his pedigree he would be able to deliver something new. But no...

This is awful, unwatchable, turgid drivel - yet I managed to stay the course to the end, hoping against hope that it would improve. All I can think is that Russell Crowe must have wanted the money very badly.

I'll give it an over-generous 1/5 stars. This is terrible stuff.

Liam Neeson has a distinguished acting career, probably peaking with his leading role in Steven Spielberg's 'Schindler's List' in 1993. But from 2008 onwards he has re-invented himself as a (somewhat elderly) all action hero, first with his role in 'Taken' (and a couple of sequels), this film - 'Unknown', 'The Grey', 'Non-Stop', and 'A Walk Among the Tombstones'. (I might have missed one or two - and I'm not counting the 'Batman etc' films).

I enjoyed 'Taken' but frankly it was a bit formulaic, a bit condescending to the world outside the good ol' USA - apparently Europe is a dangerous place, a hotbed of the white slave trade...

Now here he is in 'Unknown' and it's a bit more of the same, but with a twist (which is easily guessed). He plays a US scientist attending a conference in Berlin with his wife. He is involved in a car accident and loses his memory, finds that another man has taken his place and his wife no longer recognises him. What's going on? Is he going mad? His search for his true identity takes up the rest of the film.

Given that his role is 'elderly action hero' you can expect fisticuffs, car chases and violence. It's quite entertaining, but Mr Neeson was 58 when this was made, some 26 years older than January Jones who plays his wife. I find this kind of thing at best inappropriate, much like Clint Eastwood used to cast himself with a far-too-young family before he got used to playing grumpy, grizzled old men. But Mr Neeson hasn't yet reached this stage, although his hair dye is showing...

I did enjoy it, but it is formulaic stuff again so I'll give it 3/5 stars.

Liam Neeson has a distinguished acting career, probably peaking with his leading role in Steven Spielberg's 'Schindler's List' in 1993. But from 2008 onwards he has re-invented himself as a (somewhat elderly) all action hero, first with his role in 'Taken' (and a couple of sequels), 'Unknown', 'The Grey', 'Non-Stop', and this film - 'A Walk Among the Tombstones'. (I might have missed one or two - and I'm not counting the 'Batman etc' films).

This time round Liam's character is an ex-cop, a recovering alcoholic, acting as an unlicenced private investigator. He accepts a commission from a drug dealer to find the men who kidnapped his wife, took off with the ransom money - and returned the wife in pieces.

It's a dark, gritty film. The victims are the wives and daughters of drug dealers. The kidnappers are violent psychopathic killers, probably insane. In tone I would compare the film to the TV series 'True Detective' - it's very dark. [Aside: be aware that the film was cut by the UK distributors to get a 15 certificate - but it's definitely 18-type material]

It's quite slow moving - there are no car chases, the central character walks everywhere, and although there is violence the worst is off-screen and there isn't the silly fisticuffs that seem to pop up every few minutes in most 'action' films. But then Mr Neeson was 61 when this was made - how long can he keep up these 'action hero' roles?

If there is a down side, it's that of the teenage TJ/Astro - I found him most annoying and a severe distraction.

Great, dark stuff. I found it gripping and in my opinion it's Liam Neeson's best film for a while. 4/5 stars.

It's an epic sci-fi film about man's escape into space from a dying earth. It's directed by Christopher Nolan who has made some of the most inventive films, from his early 'Following' and including 'Memento', 'The Prestige', two 'Batmans', 'Inception' - and now 'Interstellar'.

It's certainly epic - it runs for over 2¾ hours and has rather good visual effects that won it an Oscar and a BAFTA. It has a vast sweep of vision from a future earth ravaged by crop blight and dust storms and an abandonment of science, through a remnant NASA attempting to seed the universe by colonising far off planets circling a black hole via space travel through a wormhole with ships carrying frozen human embryos, time travel via wormholes, communication via gravity waves. And of course, love triumphs in the end...

Despite the rather good visuals, the acting skills of Matthew McConaughey, Jessica Chastain, Anne Hathaway, Michael Caine et al, professional theoretical physics advice and resounding box office success - guess what: I didn't like it.

It's too long, too pretentious and frankly, too boring. And the dialogue is awful [two of my favourites: "our greatest accomplishments cannot be behind us, because our destiny lies above us", "the bulk beings are closing the tesseract"]. And pulp sci-fi novellas from the 1940s onwards have endlessly explored man's escape from earth into space - it's been a staple story for 70 years or more. So despite the modern take, frankly it's just not original.

Like that other major - and also pretentious, but more original - Christopher Nolan film 'Inception', this is yet another film that has a polarising effect: people rave over it or are unmoved. They love it or hate it. Me, I didn't hate it, there are things about it that I like, but on balance I found it very, very average.

I liked it more than 'Gravity' - but that's damning it with faint praise. It is better quality tosh, but it remains tosh and I really can't give it more stars than I gave 'Gravity' so 2/5 stars it is, although that does seem a little mean for all that effort...

The film tells the story of a teacher at a boys' private boarding school (curiously, the British call them 'public' schools...) from his first day as an insecure young teacher, through a mediocre middle age where he is passed over for promotion, his whirlwind love affair and marriage to a young woman who inspires him to greater things, his days as headmaster during the Great War, through to his death bed memories of the boys he has taught over the years.

This is a sentimental and yet uplifting film, guaranteed to bring a tear to just about anyone's eye. If you're wondering if it's worth watching, then remember that it won Robert Donat an Oscar for Best Actor – when the competition in the same year was Clark Gable in 'Gone With The Wind'. Yes, it really is that good. 5/5 stars. Highly recommended.

I originally saw this in the cinema and enjoyed it. Having watched on DVD a number of pointless film remakes, watching 'True Grit' again allowed me to reflect a little more. The original 1969 version with John Wayne was – and still is – a classic, and won him an Oscar for Best Actor. Is the 2010 remake as good, or better than, the original? Well, no it's not. It's good, but not that good, and perhaps that's why it didn't win any Oscars despite 10 nominations. But what makes the film is the excellent portrayal of young Mattie Ross by the then 13 year old (!) Hailee Steinfeld. Jeff Bridges has had plenty of practice playing scruffy layabouts and he slipped easily into the role of Rooster Cogburn. But Hailee Steinfeld handled a difficult, wordy role with an ease beyond her years.

I said the film is wordy... there is a lot of dialogue here, so listen carefully. Even if you don't like Westerns, see this – I think you might enjoy it. Recommended - 4/5 stars.

Superb 1970s sci-fi film, never bettered. Despite its reputation, this is not a horror film – there is very little on-screen blood and gore with the sole exception of *that* scene. This film made the reputations of both Sigourney Weaver and director Ridley Scott. Scott went on to make (among other superb films) 'Blade Runner' and the less-appreciated 'Black Rain', both of which use similar stylish dark and brooding visual surroundings shown here.

'Alien' immerses the viewer in an intense, claustrophobic atmosphere of tension, unease and menace which never lets up until the very end. Highly recommended - 5/5 stars

Based on the historical novels 'Wolf Hall' and 'Bring Up the Bodies' by Hilary Mantel, this is a 6-part BBC costume drama centred on Thomas Cromwell and his rise to power in the time of Henry VIII.

The central figure of Cromwell is superbly well played by Mark Rylance who, together with a terrific script, manages to portray a combination of resilience, determination, humanity and political astuteness. Very cleverly done.

The script is excellent (although the novels inevitably have more detail than the TV adaptation), the acting is excellent, the costumes are excellent and the locations well chosen. Natural light and candlelight have been used - so much so that some have complained that the image is too dark. I didn't find it so - but the lighting is much lower than in most films.

It is of course a drama rather a history, so whether this is a realistic portrayal is in some doubt - but it is startlingly well done.

Hilary Mantel is writing a further novel covering the period to Cromwell's downfall and it is expected that this will be the basis for a second TV series. I'm looking forward to it.

This really is historical costume drama at its very best. 5/5 stars. Highly recommended.

I remember with a certain fondness the biblical epics of the 1950s and 1960s and I looked forward to Ridley Scott's film, thinking that with his pedigree he would be able to deliver something new.

Has he delivered? Well, there is good use of modern CG FX to depict the plagues and assorted other effects, but that's about it. Frankly, the film is just not very interesting and no amount of re-writing the timeline of known historical events (eg the building of the pyramids), let alone re-imagining (I think that's probably the right term - the polite term) the biblical tale of the Jews in Egypt and the relationship between Moses and Rameses can make it exciting.

I won't go into the argument that it ought to be based on the bible story - it's a movie drama, so licence is expected, and the film departs some way from the biblical text.

I am however worried about one thing: why are the central characters, indeed most of the cast, so white? The inhabitants of ancient Egypt were not Caucasian, Christian Bale is a Brit, Joel Edgerton is an Aussie. Colour me puzzled...

No, I found it disappointing and distinctly average, but frankly I didn't enjoy it so I'll give it 2/5 stars. That does seem a bit mean, but at least it's better than the dreadful 'Noah'.

It's a comedy (?) cop buddy movie with lots of guns. Err, that's it.

Whatever acting qualities they may have, distinguished or otherwise, Denzel Wahington and Mark Wahlberg are wasted on this clichéd, violent, ludicrous, sad, unfunny twaddle.

Two wisecracking cops (each not knowing that the other is a cop) are attempting to set up a Mexican drug cartel boss. To do this, they rob a small local bank for his money - but instead of the mere $3 million they were expecting, rob it instead of $41 million. Implacable hard men come after the money - it turns out that it's the CIA's money (yes, you know, the CIA - that unaccountable, corrupt, international criminal conspiracy). There's a big shoot at the end (of course) and (of course) the wisecracking cops remain buddies.

It really is awful, unbelievable twaddle. Even a poor film really ought to have some semblance of reality - and this one has none. It was only when I watched the credits scroll by that I found the reason - it's based on a graphic novel (a posh name for a comic book) by Steven Grant. Well, the transition from comic page to screen makes for one of the silliest films I have seen.

The best I can say is that it's a good-looking film - I see that the production design was by Beth Mickle, sister of director Jim Mickle. Oh yes - Bill Paxton is rather good as the implacable CIA baddy.

Yes, it was a commercial success, but I didn't like it. 2/5 stars - and that's only because I have seen even worse.

It's a 'Spaghetti Western'. With Clint Eastwood in the third of his 'Man With No Name' roles, directed by Sergio Leone, the master of the sub-genre and with a score by Ennio Morricone, what's not to like?

This is a sprawling, epic tale about the search for $200,000 worth of gold coins set against the background of the American Civil War. There are three main protagonists - the Good (Clint Eastwood as Blondie, although he's not noticeably blond), the Bad (Lee Van Cleef as Angel Eyes) and the Ugly (Eli Wallach as Tuco). Van Cleef is a violent, implacable, pyschopathic baddie, Eastwood is a bounty hunter with an uneasy partnership with Wallach, who provides a certain amount of comedic relief. All play their parts well.

The film displays Leone's characteristic use of wide camera shots cutting to extreme close ups which matches well with the sprawling scenes of the film - semi-deserted townships, the desert, a town under bombardment, defeated Confederate troops, Union prison camp, open countryside railway scenes, battlefield between Confederate and Union troops, and the finale at the huge Sad Hill cemetery.

The film is just under 3 hours long in its 2003 restored version and some may find it slow moving. Not me - the director builds each scene to a climax of violence, all the while drawing the story to its climactic three-way duel and the final dénouement. Great stuff.

This is my favourite Western. Also in my top three are 'Once Upon a Time in the West' and 'For a Few Dollars More' - both directed by Leone. Add to these 'High Plains Drifter' and 'Unforgiven' and you can see that my taste in Westerns was perhaps changed forever from the John Ford / John Wayne masterpieces of the 1950s to the dramatically different style of the genre from the 1960s onwards.

Another reviewer commented on the bad lip sync. The film is Italian ('Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo'), each actor spoke his lines in his own language, and the film was dubbed in post production. The bad synchronisation is from the dubbing of original Italian dialogue into English.

I must have seen this film 50 times over the almost 50 years since it was made and I enjoy it every time. Superb stuff - 5/5 stars.

I recently saw and was impressed by director Kimberly Peirce's 2008 film 'Stop-Loss' and looked up her earlier work and found her 1999 film 'Boy's Don't Cry'.

This is a drama based on the true story of Teena Brandon who, undergoing a sexual identity crisis, lived as a boy named Brandon Teena. Unfortunately her new found male 'friends' discovered his/her true gender and were a tad unsympathetic, beating, raping and shooting her.

Hilary Swank won an Oscar for her role as Teena/Brandon. Frankly, I suspect that was for her boldness in a taking a part that addresses the question of gender identity, an issue that mainstream society can find threatening. I did not find her at all convincing as Brandon and could not imagine that Brandon's girlfriend Lana (played by Chloë Sevigny, who was also Oscar nominated) could be deceived.

To give you a flavour of what the film is about, here's a section from the end credits:

"A special thanks to all of the transmen and butch dykes who helped, advised and auditioned for this project and supported the process of bringing this story to the screen."

The soundtrack is rather good, with many country and country blues numbers, but unfortunately I didn't enjoy either the film or the acting. 2/5 stars.

The title is a play on the Latin 'deus ex machina' = god from the machine, which in the context of the film might either be a reference to the god-like abilities of an artificial intelligence, or its creator/inventor, or perhaps a reference (in the common usage of the phrase) to a mere, indeed lazy, plot device. Watch the film, then you choose.

It's about a very rich man (owning the largest Internet search engine) who has created and programmed an android, a humanoid robot, that appears to exhibit intelligence - artificial intelligence. He selects a young, highly intelligent employee to test the android for intelligent behaviour indistinguishable from that of a human - the so-called Turing test. But the android is female - and uses its (her?) sexuality to disastrous effect...

I enjoyed this British sci-fi film. It's clever, very well written, well acted, well directed and beautifully photographed. It moves at just the right pace and it's all over in 100 minutes or so. The basic storyline has been explored many, many times from pulp 1950s science fiction onwards, but here it appears fresh and up-to-date. It asks the right philosophical questions and gets the balance about right between obscure semantics and superficiality.

The acting is good and the Eva character is well played by Alicia Vikander who I have seen in the Oscar-nominated 'A Royal Affair' and the more recent 'Testament of Youth'. The film was written and directed by Alex Garland - his first directorial role - who is known for his scripts for '28 Days Later...', 'Sunshine', 'Never Let Me Go', 'Dredd' and the novel 'The Beach', also made into a successful film. A decent pedigree!

You may find the ending a little rushed (deus ex machina?) but if you've been reading SF as long as I have, it was always inevitable.

Confession: I spent some 10 years working on knowledge based systems, and my normal reaction to the typical movie treatment of any kind of computing, let alone anything about AI, is to cringe at the inevitable inaccuracies. OK, we're still a long way from a fully autonomous humanoid robot, but the philosophical questions addressed by the film are fairly accurately portrayed, although the simplistic question/response technique used in the first tests is reminiscent of the Eliza program dating from 1966 (!) [Aside: If you don't know of this, it's worth downloading a copy - you may be surprised.]

A good film, I enjoyed it and can recommend it. It gets 4/5 stars from me.

I watched this just after 'American Sniper' and am able to compare and contrast the two films, both of which deal with the effects of claustrophobic, deadly urban warfare in Iraq on US troops, leading to post traumatic stress and the breakdown of relationships.

Both films attempt to give a realistic depiction of coming under enemy fire and - as a civilian - I think they succeed. But where 'American Sniper' is well directed but ultimately long, dull, and too American, 'Stop-Loss' is competently directed, short, and involving - it's also very American, but this aspect becomes part of the drama rather than a distraction.

Apparently when you join the US Army you enlist for an 8 year term, 2-5 years on active service followed by the remainder as a reserve. "Stop-loss" occurs when the initial term of active duty is extended longer than expected.

The film depicts a team of soldiers led by Ryan Phillippe who are ambushed and come under gunfire and rocket propelled grenade attack, suffering death and serious injury. During the short battle a civilian family is killed by a grenade. The story then moves to the Texan hometown of three of the characters, where two are decorated. None wants to return to active duty and are looking forward to settling down, getting married - the usual things. There is a 'welcome home' parade and party. Things go wrong, post traumatic stress kicks in, too much drinking, breakup of relationships etc - and when Ryan Phillippe's character returns to base to be formally discharged he is told that he has been "stop-lossed" and is to be posted back to Iraq.

He goes AWOL, has assorted dramatic interludes, including visiting families of dead and injured buddies, and a hospital visit to see a severely injured and disfigured buddy. He is tempted to cross the border into Canada, one of his buddies (played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt) commits suicide, he is tempted to cross the border into Mexico - but after a fight with buddy (played by Channing Tatum) inevitably returns to duty.

Clearly this is a drama and the details of how "stop-loss" works and what happens to a soldier going AWOL are probably unrealistic, as are the urban warfare scenes. They're there for dramatic effect - but they work very well. There is an immediacy to the film, there is sympathy for the lead character as he struggles to come to terms with the fact that the actuality of the war he is fighting is not one he was expecting, and sympathy for the loss of his friends and comrades, and the self-blame he feels and the stress he suffers.

I wasn't impressed by 'American Sniper' - but I was by 'Stop-Loss'. 4/5 stars.

Clint Eastwood is one of my favourite actors and directors. I like the way that he has matured as an actor from macho roles where he does little other than squint and curl his lip into what might be described as 'experienced old man roles'. As a director he has an easy, direct touch that can be quite subtle.

Having just watched one of his earliest films as an actor (his first Western, the obscure 'Ambush at Cimarron Pass' made way back in 1957) I looked forward to seeing his latest directorial effort 'American Sniper' - and I was disappointed.

The film is based on the autobiography of Chris Kyle, a wannabe cowboy who joined the US Navy SEALs (sort of a cross between the UK's SBS and SAS) at the ripe old age of 30, apparently out of a sense of patriotic duty, and went on to become the USA's most successful sniper during his service in Iraq. Bradley Cooper gives a good performance as Chris Kyle.

The film is, of course, a drama rather than a history, but Clint's sure-footed direction provides a sense of the danger and claustrophobic operational conditions and life and death choices that eventually lead Kyle to the edge of marital breakdown and post traumatic stress.

So far, so good - but while the direction is fine, the film suffers from a number of major problems as far as I'm concerned. It's long, it's dull, it's too American. I admire the love of country that most Americans have, but when film actors deliver over-patriotic lines and homespun religious sermons it comes across as bogus. Add to that the anti-war sentiment here in the UK over involvement in the Iraq war and it would have to be a far better film than this to impress me.

'American Sniper' has been immensely successful at the box office. I didn't dislike it, but I really did find it dull and very average, so I can only give it a very average 3/5 stars. Sorry Clint, but it's not a patch on 'Letters from Iwo Jima'.