Film Reviews by RP

Based on a Tom Clancy novel, this is one of series of stories whose central character is Jack Ryan. There have been a dozen or so books and four films have been made. The films are 'The Hunt For Red October' (1990) in which Jack Ryan is played by Alec Baldwin, 'Patriot Games' (1992) and 'Clear And Present Danger' (1994) in which Harrison Ford played the role, and 'The Sum Of All Fears' (2002) in which Ben Affleck took over the reins.

'The Hunt For Red October' also stars Sean Connery and several other big name actors and is a moderately gripping tale of the attempted defection of a Soviet submarine commander and his officers as his boat is chased by the Russian navy. I say moderately gripping because in my opinion the film has dated badly – the Cold War is long past, the USSR is no more, and military relationships between East and West – although never cosy – are far more relaxed. Indeed, even when the film was made, Mikhail Gorbachev had already introduced his policy of glasnost (openness) which started to normalise relationships between the superpowers.

That apart it's a well told tale – if it has a further flaw it is that Sean Connery is a powerful character actor (even if he does always play Sean Connery) and completely upstages Alec Baldwin and the other players.

I'm aware that 'The Hunt For Red October' is regarded by many as the best of the Jack Ryan films, but personally I prefer the two Harrison Ford variants. Each to his own – I'll give it 3/5 stars.

A political / action thriller, now looking a little dated, but still pretty good. Harrison Ford plays Harrison Ford in his usual role as the humble man (of course) who battles to protect his family and (of course) succeeds in the end against the odds.

The storyline goes like this: Harrison Ford plays Jack Ryan (ex US Marines, ex CIA analyst) who is in London for a conference. He foils an IRA-type attack on a minor Royal but kills the younger brother of one of the terrorists, who then targets Ryan and his family. The terrorist training camp in Libya is wiped out, but the baddies have already left and attack Ryan at his home. Baddies die, goodies live.

The problem is that events have overtaken the story, making it quite dated. There has been peace in N. Ireland since the Good Friday Agreement in 1998, the IRA has disarmed, and with the growing normalisation of relations with Libya from 2003 to the downfall of the Gaddafi regime in 2011 the idea of desert training camps is very much yesterday's news. Terrorist attacks in the UK have been from home-grown Islamic militants from 2005 onwards :(

The politics in the film is naive, and assumes the existence of 'good' terrorists (the IRA, represented by Richard Harris) and 'bad' terrorists (a violent splinter group, represented by Sean Bean). In fact it was the IRA (more accurately, the Provisional IRA) which was responsible for UK mainland bombings.

That said, I enjoyed the film way back in 1992 and enjoyed it now (2012) on DVD. But as I said, it has suffered from the passage of some 20 years. The world has moved on, but Harrison Ford is still playing the same 'humble man' roles :)

The first film in the series 'Alien' is a superb 1970s sci-fi film, never bettered, and made the reputations of both Sigourney Weaver and director Ridley Scott. The second film 'Aliens' is a superb 1980s film directed by James Cameron. So the third film 'Alien 3' directed by newcomer David Fincher needs to be pretty good to live up to its predecessors. Is it? In a word – no. This variant of the story takes place on a semi-deserted metal refining planet operated by prison labour, where the prisoners are almost self-governing and have developed their own religious code of ethics. There is plenty of running about in tunnels, plenty of alien encounters (the alien always gets his man, of course), but it all seems much the same. What is different is the movement of the creature – somehow this one doesn't seem as scary. Other things which seem 'wrong' are the number of British accents from fairly well-known British actors, the amount of f-ing and blinding, and the bogus religion which all seem out of place. I regret that this is yet another example of a sequel too far. I've seen worse, but I didn't enjoy it much so I'll give it 2/5 stars.

This is the original film from which the 2010 remake 'The Next Three Days' starring Russell Crowe was taken. Having seen both films I think I prefer this original French version. Why? Well, it's not as glossy nor quite as silly. Yes, both films are silly because the underlying supposition is that a man-in-the-street (in this case, a teacher) can break his wife out of prison and escape to foreign lands. Clearly, it's all a drama – but the Russell Crowe version has him buying a gun, learning to use a 'bump' key, opening car doors with a half tennis ball, outwitting the police – and generally playing Russell Crowe. The story in both versions is almost identical and many of the scenes are the same – but the emphasis is quite different. Here, the action is more understated and the emphasis is on the love and affection between the unjustly imprisoned wife and her husband and the prison-break story is more straightforward, has less trickery and is less centre stage than the Hollywood variant. Worth watching – I enjoyed it – and it's certainly worth 3/5 stars. For the record, I gave the silly US remake 2/5 stars.

From the novel of the same name by David Storey with the author writing the screenplay for the film and directed by Lindsay Anderson, this is superb example of the 'British New Wave' / 'angry young man' / 'kitchen sink' dramas of the late 1950s / early 1960s. Set in Wakefield, it tells the tale of a working class man (Frank Machin, a miner, played by Richard Harris) who makes the transition to a well paid (for the day) rugby league player. Frank lodges with a recently widowed woman (Mrs Hammond, played by Rachel Roberts) who received minimal compensation when her husband was killed in an industrial accident at an engineering company owned by Gerald Weaver, who is also the chairman of the rugby league club. Frank falls in love with his landlady but she is still grieving for her husband and is unable to return his clumsy affections. The film ends with the death in hospital of Mrs Hammond and Frank Machin doomed to remain as 'a great ape on a football field'. So far, so bleak. What lifts this film above its gritty backdrop is the quality of the acting. Both Rachel Roberts and Richard Harris earned Oscar nominations, and Rachel Roberts won a BAFTA for Best Actress. The other characters in the film are played by an excellent cast of well-known British actors including Arthur Lowe, William Hartnell (who went on the become the first Doctor Who), Leonard Rossiter, Alan Badel, Colin Blakely, George Sewell to name but a few. If I have a slight criticism it's about the accents – Rachel Roberts is Welsh, Richard Harris Irish – not many Yorkshire accents here :) But that's a minor point - the film is always included in any list of 'best British films' and with good reason. Excellent stuff – highly recommended. 5/5 stars.

Made in 1960, I first saw this at the cinema in 1966 – and if I remember correctly, it had been running at that particular London cinema continuously since its release. I found it disturbing then and watching it again I still felt the same suspense and unease – not exactly horror – that I felt then. Yes, there has since been a (somewhat pointless) remake, but the Hitchcock original is superb. Filmed in black and white, you can't see the blood running red – but you know it's there! Superb – and cleverly misleading – beginning, great middle, excellent ending. Am I using too many superlatives? Probably – but this really is one of my favourite films from one of the 20th century's best directors. Highly recommended. 5/5 stars.

I first saw this at the cinema in 3D and was impressed by the effects and CGI animation but underwhelmed by the story. Seeing it now at home confirms my impressions: the story is naive and simplistic, and boils down to: white boy goes native. Although clearly a great deal of money and effort has gone into the CGI effects the underlying story is poor and has been done before. Certainly, the films I immediately think of are 'A Man Called Horse' and 'Dances With Wolves' which both tell stories of a white man who lives among a tribe of North American Indians (more politically correctly, Native Americans) and absorbs their way of life. I believe this story weakness is also reflected in the fact that it only (??!!) won 3 Oscars for Art Direction, Cinematography and Visual Effects rather than the further 6 that it was nominated for, including Best Picture. And my disappointment in the film is mirrored in its fall in the IMDB rankings, currently (Jan 2012) down to #214 – and I believe that soon it will fall out of the top 250 altogether once the novelty of the admittedly good effects wears off. Still, the studio and producers must be laughing all the way to the bank since it has taken a little under $2.8 billion so far. So who am I to judge? Well, I judge it worth 3/5 stars – and compared to other Oscar winning films over the years, frankly that's being generous.

I hesitated for some time before writing a review of this film as I'm in two minds about it. Is it a pointless remake? Certainly, Graham Greene's 1938 novel and the original 1947 film starring a young Richard Attenborough are classics. But this remake does have something about it.

Updating the time to the 1960s works reasonably well (with excellent photography, and the use of Eastbourne to stand in for many 'Brighton' backgrounds) but one element of the period – and an important one – has been lost. While the film has references to Catholicism, by the 1960s religion was playing a much reduced part of everyday life and certainly in the largely secular England of today religion plays a vanishingly small role. Yet the underlying theme of the novel is about faith, guilt, sin, good and evil, right and wrong, hatred, love, damnation, confession and redemption – almost all of which is lost in the remake. The atmosphere is lost, and it becomes an exercise in story telling.

The remake also keeps the ending from the 1947 film with the record jumping so that it repeats 'I love you', rather than the novel's original ending where Rose will hear 'the greatest horror of all'.

Pinkie is played by a creepy but too-old Sam Riley (in the novel Pinkie was a 17 year old twitchy, nail biting, juvenile delinquent). Rose is well played by Andrea Riseborough, but Ida is played by a miscast Helen Mirren. And the film has a number of anachronisms.

So, it's a bit of a curate's egg: good in parts. I enjoyed it, but I really do wonder if a remake was justified. I guess it will be if it introduces today's audiences to Graham Greene's work – but this really isn't a mainstream film, so I suspect that unfortunately it will fail.

Despite its faults I enjoyed it. I'll give it 3/5 stars, but it won't be to everyone's taste...

After 'Alien' (1979), director Ridley Scott went on to make (among many other superb films) 'Blade Runner' (1982) and the less-appreciated 'Black Rain' (1989). Each of these films features similar stylish dark and brooding visual surroundings. 'Blade Runner' immerses the viewer in an intense, claustrophobic atmosphere of tension, unease and menace which never lets up until the very end. The film will repay several viewings to understand the full and complex story, which goes something like this: in the future (well, the film says 2019...) it is possible to manufacture androids almost indistinguishable from humans. Banned on Earth, such androids (Replicants) are hunted down by agents known as Blade Runners. A group of six is loose, and it falls to Harrison Ford to track them down – which he does, falling for one of their kind in the process. A superb sci-fi film, highly recommended – 5/5 stars.

Nicolas Cage and Ron Perlman star as two disillusioned Crusader knights journeying home across medieval Europe. They come across a plague-ridden town and agree to escort a young woman, suspected of being a witch and spreading plague, to a distant monastery where she can be exorcised – or something.

Someone said to me before I watched this: don't waste your time. They were right – this is complete twaddle from beginning to end, and I have now wasted 90 minutes of my life which I will never get back. Apparently, strong US accents were prevalent in medieval Europe. Certainly, appalling dialogue was common and special effects were dreadful. Nick Cage, you should be ashamed of appearing in such rubbish.

The rating system here doesn't allow 0/5 stars, so I'll give it the lowest that I can. And I'll pass on the warning again: don't waste your time.

I watched this film largely out of curiosity. My curiosity has now been satisfied – it's complete rubbish. The original 1978 film was titled 'Day Of The Woman', then re-titled 'I Spit On Your Grave' for the re-release in 1980 to jump on the rising tide of notoriety as one of the so-called 'video nasties'. The original film is a rape / revenge story: lone woman violently raped by several men and later returns to wreak revenge. End of story.

The 2010 remake is based on the earlier film. What else can I say? It follows the same pattern but is even more silly: how can such a slightly built woman physically overpower and handle 5 sturdy men and manoeuvre them into restraints ready for the revenge scenes? Just silly.

It's certainly not a horror film – there is no suspense, no shocks, just several lengthy, boring, unrealistic and distasteful scenes. However, it's a tough watch but probably not as offensive as the original was in its day.

Be aware the UK 18 certificate film has been cut and edited to remove some of the nudity – pity that it wasn't cut by another 104 minutes, so reducing it to zero. Unfortunately I can't gives it 0/5 stars, so I will have to give it an undeserved 1/5 stars. Don't waste your time. And there's no grave spitting here.

This film currently (Jan 2012) has a rating of 7.1 on IMDB, so you might assume that it should at least be watchable, right? Wrong – it's complete and utter, boring twaddle. Kenneth Branagh, renowned director, you should be ashamed. The script is truly awful. The acting is wooden, with the sole exception of Anthony Hopkins, as perhaps might be expected – but frankly his role is silly. In fact, it's all silly. I suppose this might be expected since it's derived from Marvel comic characters. But there have been some fairly good films from comics – Spiderman, Batman, even Superman. This one is grim. 1/5 stars – and that's only because I can't give it zero. Avoid like the plague.

I've seen some poor films in my time but this has to be one of the worst. Not only is it boring and unfunny but the characters are unlikeable. And it's not just the me – the children I (started) to watch it with sat stony-faced and after about 30 minutes we switched it off. While I realise that it's an American film about American kids in an American school and based on a comic rather than real life (heaven help us if it's reality), few things have emphasised for me the cultural gap between our countries as much as this. Avoid like the plague. Rated as 1/5 stars but only because I can't give it zero.

Set in 1984 East Berlin the film is German, with subtitles. But please don't let that put you off - it's superb. That's why it won the 2007 Oscar for 'Best Foreign Language Film' and why it's currently (Jan 2012) at #56 on the IMDB Top 250. Slow moving, yes – but gripping. It tells the tale of a Stasi security police captain (Gerd Wiesler, played by Ulrich Mühe) who is assigned to surveillance duty on an author and his actress girlfriend. But it soon emerges that this is being done for the advantage of a high ranking party official and Weisler becomes aware of the bleakness of his own life, the hypocrisy of the state machinery, and the need to do something. By his actions he assists in the publication of an article in the West German press, ruins his own career, and is the indirect cause of the death of the woman. A really excellent drama – highly recommended. 5/5 stars.

The first film in the series 'Alien' is a superb 1970s sci-fi film, never bettered, and made the reputations of both Sigourney Weaver and director Ridley Scott. Seven years later along comes the sequel 'Aliens' and a different director, James Cameron. So, was it as good? Or – as most sequels, remakes etc seem doomed to be – a load of old tosh attempting to cash in on a lucrative franchise? Despite its reputation, the original 'Alien' is not a horror film – there is very little on-screen blood and gore with the sole exception of *that* scene. This second film is an action adventure sequel, plenty of running about, shooting, flamethrowers, and of course, nasty aliens. Great fun, highly recommended. 5/5 stars.