Film Reviews by RP

Disappointing. It's hardly a sci-fi film – it reminded me more of 'Black Hawk Down' crossed with an army recruitment film. Marines fight enemy invaders, who could have been anybody / anything. The fact that they were aliens hardly entered into it. And what we see of the creatures is hardly scary – or even interesting. The shaky, hand-held camera work is very overdone. However, the scenes of a devastated city are quite well done, the shooting action is non-stop, and if you like 'boys' films you might like this. But a decent sci-fi film it isn't. 2/5 stars.

This complex film tells 4 overlapping stories about drug trafficking across the US-Mexican border. The director has 'colour coded' each story so that as each thread unfolds, you can tell which one you're following. Confused? Not really – it's just one of director Steven Soderbergh's ideas.

The 1st story follows the newly appointed US 'drug czar' played by Michael Douglas. Unfortunately his good intentions are undermined (a) by the scale of the problem and (b) by the fact that his 16 year old daughter is experimenting with drugs, becoming an addict, and descending into prostitution.

The 2nd story follows a corrupt Mexican cop (played by Benicio Del Toro) as he receives money for information on rival drug cartels, turns a blind eye to assorted dodgy practices, and eventually cooperates with the US authorities.

The 3rd story follows the wife (played by Catherine Zeta-Jones aka Mrs Michael Douglas) of a major drug dealer as she establishes herself as head of his empire when he is under arrest.

The 4th story is of two DEA agents who arrest and are then responsible for protecting a drug dealer as he prepares to give evidence against his boss.

Good film – but it's a remake of the Channel 4 TV series 'Traffik' and despite awards, it really isn't as good. The best acting in my opinion is in the 4th story from one of the DEA agents played by Luis Guzman. And frankly, Catherine Zeta-Jones is too wimpish to give a convincing portrayal of a ruthless woman aiming to run a major drug dealing operation.

Recommended – but I can only give it 3/5 stars.

A straightforward, predictable, US gangster film with plenty of blood and gore. Old – and old school – gangster Charlie Valentine tries to pull off one last heist. But everything goes pear shaped and sole survivor Charlie takes off in a v. nice 1960s AC Cobra sports car. He holes up in LA with his son, who is also involved in the fringes of mobster business, and who works in a strip club – so plenty of scantily clad ladies to watch. Together they rob a local gangster, and – somewhat mawkishly - get to know each other over a few drinks. Charlie's son is blamed for the robbery, Charlie slopes off but thinks better of it and returns to rescue his son in a final bloody shootout. Its an OK sort of film, pretty slow moving, but with adequate amounts of blood - and did I mention the scantily clad women? 2/5 stars.

This is a Guy Ritchie film, directed like 'Lock, Stock' or 'Snatch', with the usual Ritchie mockney gangsters, full of words and action but no real substance.

The story reminded me of the far superior 'The Long Good Friday'. In that film it is US mob money moving in on the London property boom of the 1980s, in this film Russian mob money moving in on the London property boom of the 2000s. There, it was the IRA who did for the lead characters, here it is a pair of unstoppable Russian war criminals.

With 'RocknRolla' Guy Ritchie has returned to something of his earlier form after a few duds, so is you like Guy Ritchie's style and are amused by stunts like feeding villains to the crayfish then you might just enjoy this. It didn't do much for me – but it isn't a bad effort and I'll give it a too-high 3/5 stars. I've seen worse.

Let's get it out of the way: I don't like Will Smith films. He's too over-the-top for me, too excitable, too silly, too mouthy. Unfortunately 'I Am Legend' stars Will Smith, so guess what - I didn't like the film. It's also yet another remake – the story has been filmed 4 times so far.

Based on Richard Matheson's classic 1954 novel it tells a similar story of a man alone after a global pandemic turns the population into vampiric zombie type creatures who come out at night. It is supposedly a study in loneliness – here, Will Smith is alone but for his dog.

There are a few silly bits: the infection is caused by a virus originally intended to cure cancer, and the doctor responsible is a Dr Krippen. Will Smith rents videos (he's word perfect at 'Shrek') and in his loneliness is apparently attracted to shop mannequins.

Anyway, unlike in the novel where the central Richard Neville character stands as a lone survivor killing the infected to whom he becomes 'Legend', here he finds a woman survivor who delivers the 'cure' to a colony of other survivors. Mawkish stuff and clumsily done.

2/5 stars – I have seen worse.

Yes, it’s a remake of the 1978 original. But I enjoyed it (Aside: can one 'enjoy' zombie films? Yes!). It follows the original storyline in that a small group of survivors hole up in a shopping mall – although quite why anyone would want to I’m not sure: don’t they have nicely breakable glass windows, doors etc. Doesn’t seem very secure to me...

A few minor niggles: the 'zombies' aren't the usual standard shambling type, but more like the Rage-infected variety seen in '28 Days Later'. There isn't the expected entrail-eating, only biting. The 'zombie baby' sequence is just soooo predictable. And there's too much f-ing and blinding for my taste, although I'm sure I'd be swearing if I was in the same situation!

One other thing: the 'extras' are pretty good as they aren't just boring 'how the film was made' stuff but include a couple of horror extras: a 'home video' from one of the characters, and a short film of how the outbreak happened from the point of view of a TV newsreader.

So, not a bad film if you like that kind of thing – recommended. 3/5 stars.

Based on a stage play, this is the 1977 BBC 'Play For Today' version. Written and directed by Mike Leigh, it translates well to the small screen. While it is a little dated, it is most definitely 'of its time' and the 1970s decor, dress, music and topics of wannabe middle class aspiration only add to the black humour. It makes for excruciatingly embarrassing viewing in places as the truly dreadful, pretentious hostess (astonishingly well played by Alison Steadman) entertains her hapless neighbours. I'm of an age where I saw the original, and seeing it again some 35 years later it is still superb stuff. 5/5 stars - highly recommended.

Although the story is very slight (and perhaps that's why Jaques Tati himself never developed it further) this is a charming film. The animation is superb – and the look and feel is entirely different to the CGI laden animated films from, for example, Disney or Pixar. In fact, it is the animation which is the true star of the film and gives an authentic late 1950s feel to the whole production. 4/5 stars – highly recommended.

After watching this I felt contradictory emotions: happy yet sad, angry yet somehow fulfilled. It's a moving (and slow moving), poignant, disturbing film about human mortality. It's beautifully photographed in muted tones which give it a 'period' feel. And it is indeed set in a particular 'period' – a sort of parallel world where humans have been cloned and used for life-saving organ donation from the 1950s through to the late 1990s. So it's a science fiction film, then? No, not at all – it does not intrude. The following description does not really contain spoilers – the basic premise is stated in the first few minutes of the film. It centres on the lives of three children as they grow into adulthood, a maturity that will never be reached as they are clones, destined to be harvested for their organs. They lives are circumscribed by routines, designed to accustom them to their predetermined role in live. Part of the underlying question is: are they human? And the answer is most definitely Yes, as we see the three at school (a very English boarding school), at play, in love, in search of their Original, in search of a future, yet knowing and strangely accepting of their intended fate. The film includes big-name actress Kiera Knightley, but the stand-out central role (Kathy) is played by Carey Mulligan in a superb performance. I saw her in 'An Education' for which she was nominated for an Oscar and won a 2010 BAFTA 'Best Actress' award and she is again excellent here. But I suspect that this is one of those films that you will either love or hate – me, I loved it and rate it 5/5 stars. Highly recommended.

In 1993 the film 'Jurassic Park' told a tale of disaster at a futuristic theme park; it was based on a novel by Michael Crichton, who also wrote the screenplay. Michael Crichton must like the storyline, because 20 years earlier in 1973 he wrote and directed the film 'Westworld' about - guess what - disaster at a futuristic theme park. I remember seeing it at the cinema waaaaaaaay back then, and viewing it today some 40 years later it's still pretty entertaining. It tells the tale of two men who go on holiday in the Western-themed Westworld theme park, part of the virtual reality Delos holiday complex. Here they can have gunfights with impunity, because the local residents are all androids. But a computer error causes the androids to go rogue and the gunplay becomes a deadly reality. The star of the film is Yul Brynner who plays an implacable robot gunslinger. The film is spartan in its special effects, and perhaps because of this it has aged fairly well – it is clearly dated, but the story remains quite fresh even though it has been done to death in later films. I enjoyed it in 1973 and again in 2012 and rate it at 4/5 stars. Give it a try.

I'm honestly not sure whether to be appalled or impressed.

Reasons for being appalled: It's a Guy Ritchie film, directed like 'Lock, Stock' or 'Snatch', full of words and action, but no real substance. Holmes is played by Robert Downey Jr who reprises his role in 'Iron Man' and plays Holmes in much the same vein as he played Tony Stark – brash, opinionated, wordy. The plot is simply ludicrous and mixes black magic, secret societies, world domination, ginger midgets and a radio controlled cyanide gas machine under the Houses of Parliament. Add to that a succession of American and Irish accents, bare knuckle boxing / karate and Irish music from 'The Dubliners'... Words fail me.

Reasons for being impressed: Suspend your disbelief and it becomes quite entertaining. The period London details work quite well, even the rather silly ending atop the half-constructed Tower Bridge. There's plenty of action and Holmes displays his renowned powers of deduction throughout. Dr Watson is played by Jude Law and this secondary role is quite well done.

Hmmm – the best I can give it is 3 stars out of 5.

Based on the real life story of Frank Serpico who exposed corruption in the New York police department, Al Pacino plays the central character with an outstanding performance. It's a long film and Pacino is rarely off screen and plays the part with commitment, as if he had immersed himself in the character. It's fairly slow moving, so if you're looking for a shoot-em-up cop movie then you'll have to look elsewhere. But if you want to see an intense performance and a film very much of its time, then watch this. The clothes, hairstyles, attitudes, smoking, parties etc are very much of the 1960s / early 1970s and perhaps we have since become inured to tales of police corruption, but at the time it was quite an unusual subject. While rooted very much in that period it still rings true today. Recommended – 4/5 stars.

I've seen this at the cinema so thought I'd give it a review in advance of it being available for rental. I had read mixed reviews but was looking forward to seeing it as I wanted to see what the film industry made of a period of British history which I experienced directly; also it's unusual to find a biopic of a person still alive. I regret to say that the film was disappointing, but Meryl Streep gave a quite uncanny performance (helped by heavy prosthetic makeup at times), so much so that it was almost an impersonation. The film is told in flashback, the memories of an old woman in decline, a sad decline due to the onset of Alzheimer's. The central character is very much Margaret Thatcher, but the supporting characters are weakly portrayed. For example, her husband was a millionaire businessman in his own right and not merely a cartoonish character who poured drinks. The politics is skimmed over – but a little analysis as to why Mrs Thatcher polarised opinion so much, from admiration to outright hatred, would not have gone amiss. The snapshot views of her life were just too far apart to form any structure as were the few political events shown. Many key events were missing entirely, others over-shortened, others the subject of mistakes or inaccuracies. When it is available for rental I'll probably view it again to see if my impressions are confirmed. I rate it 3/5 stars – but if it hadn't been for Streep's performance it would have been 2/5.

I was browsing for Mike Leigh films, and I came across some unflattering reviews of 'Another Year', so I though I'd add my viewpoint. I hesitated for a long time before writing a review of this film and in the meantime I've seen one of Mike Leigh's early works, the TV play 'Abigail's Party'. In a way I feel that these are the mirror image of each other: in 'Abigail's Party' the central characters are deeply unpleasant and are trying to impress others, while in 'Another Year' the central characters are well settled and comfortable with themselves, and have no need to try to impress anyone.

This is a typically British, typically 'Mike Leigh' kind of film, and like others from the same director you'll probably either love it or hate it. It's about life and relationships. It covers all aspects: there is a birth and a death. There is a happy relationship (the central couple, Tom and Gerri – yes, I'm sure there was a pun intended there). There are failed relationships, old relationships, and new relationships developing. There is the contrast between two sons – one estranged and angry, one appreciated and caring (and perhaps a little boring). Is all human life here? I guess that's for each one who sees the film to decide, but it's a mighty tangled tale that the director tries to tell...

The film is told in four distinct sections (contrived as seasons of the year): the stable, happy, comfortable relationship of professional couple Tom and Gerri seems to act as a magnet for others with problems: Gerri's work colleague and tipsy/dipsy friend/acquaintance Mary (wonderfully played by Lesley Manville) who has a history of failed relationships, Tom's longtime friend Ken who is deeply unhappy and has a drink problem, Tom's brother Ronnie who is newly bereaved, and Tom and Gerri's son Joe. Mary has a crush on Joe who is some 20 years younger: she takes it badly when Joe's new girlfriend is revealed, becomes estranged from Gerri, and her drinking increases to the point where she needs professional help. The film ends with a long, slow look at Mary as she reflects on her life.

And so it goes: it's a complex tale about life and relationships. I found it quite a mix of emotional uplift, humour and emotional depression. Above all it is very well acted, well photographed, well directed. But it's not an easy film to watch. As I said above, you'll either love it or hate it – me, I liked it very much. 4/5 stars – highly recommended.

A strange and haunting film set against a background of violence. Leon (played by Jean Reno) is a hit man. When a neighbouring family is killed by a corrupt cop (well, DEA agent + colleagues) played by a scary and over-the-top Gary Oldman, Leon looks after the only survivor, Mathilda (a remarkable performance from a then 12 year old Natalie Portman). She wants to get revenge on the killers and persuades Leon to teach her his trade. When she confronts the baddies she is easily taken, Leon comes to the rescue, kills all before him – then takes his own life along with the boss baddie. Err, that's it. But what makes the film is the characterisation, and the changing of Leon from a lone emotional cripple to someone who takes on the responsibility of a young girl and begins to care. And caring can be dangerous when you're a hit man. Highly recommended. 5/5 stars.