Film Reviews by RP

Encountering a double of oneself is a recurring theme in many novels and films - and that's what 'Enemy' is about. It's a stylish psychological thriller, with an excellent central performance from Jake Gyllenhaal who plays both roles as 'the double'.

I found the film gripping. Not only is it mysterious and confusing, but it includes repeated bizarre images of spiders - beneath the foot of a naked woman, as the head of a naked woman, towering above the cityscape of Toronto, a web of overhead electrical wiring, a web-like pattern of cracks in shattered car window. The film ends with one final bizarre spider image.

'Enemy' requires some detective work to understand and will repay a second (or more!) viewing, but the clues are all there. Perhaps the most obvious clue is a strapline on the film publicity: 'You can't escape yourself'.

Adam is a college history teacher. He lives a spartan life and his girlfriend (wife?) leaves his bed early. Adam views a film and sees that a bit-part actor looks like himself. From the film credits, he finds the actor's name (Anthony), stalks him and eventually meets him. Who is this man, his doppelganger? Are they one and the same? Is one a figment of the other's imagination? Is Adam suffering from a psychosis? Why is he recognised as Anthony by others? Who are their wives?

This is great stuff and I urge you to see it - some of the imagery is still haunting me, days later. I understand that the novel (by the Portuguese Nobel prize-winning author José Saramago) is somewhat different - but the film has impressed me so much that I've ordered a copy of the book 'The Double'.

Great stuff - highly recommended. 5/5 stars.

Events of early 2015 make this a good time to view this satirical action comedy, populated by deliberately and amusingly badly-operated 'Thunderbirds'-type puppets. Team America would no doubt have dealt with the real-life terrorist events in Paris the same way as in the film, with collateral damage include demolishing the Eiffel tower and blowing up the Louvre. And perhaps they would have dealt with the alleged Sony America hack by North Korea (supposedly in retaliation for the film 'The Interview') in a similar vein...

This is a rude, funny and very, very satirical film that pokes fun at how the USA (the one with the guns and ships) exercises its 'right' to scour the world for terrorists (yes, the ones with brown faces) armed with WMD - and kill them. It was made in 2004 so the passage of time has changed some of the targets - the film parodies Kim Jong-il, today it would be his son, Kim Jong-un, as Supreme Leader of North Korea.

Developed by Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the creators of 'South Park', this is a scabrous attack on US political values in the wake of 9/11. If you can live with the f-ing and blinding and puppet sex (!) it's also very, very funny - even after 11 years.

It's not a comedy to watch with your kids or granny - this is adult humour throughout, poking fun at a range of easy targets including our royals and Tony Blair (PM way back in 2004), together with 'liberal' (= left wing in USA-speak) big-name Hollywood actors.

For a US film, this is a startlingly cynical view of America's position in the world. 4/5 stars.

'Return to Cranford' is a 2-part 'Christmas special' broadcast in 2009 as a follow-up to the original 5-part series broadcast in late 2007.

It's a BBC period costume drama. That means it's about the best there is, with excellent performances, excellent production values and locations, sets and costumes as near perfect as they can be. No cheap shortcuts here!

The acting is excellent, with big name Brit actresses Judi Dench, Imelda Staunton, Julia McKenzie, Eileen Atkins, Celia Imrie and so many more - you'll recognise their faces from every period drama you've seen. That is perhaps the only weak point - faces that have become familiar from more recent series such as 'Downton Abbey' are here, but of course in different roles.

Cranford is a fictional village in Cheshire, the location shots are from the beautiful National Trust owned village of Lacock in Wiltshire, and the railway that features in the storyline was shot at the Foxfield light railway in Staffordshire. Every location is superbly chosen and the studio interiors are also really well done.

The tale is told with great humour (including the 'bird cage' incident) and includes a superbly over-the-top cameo by Tim Curry as magician Signor Brunoni. The closing scene is of a waltz, a highly risqué dance for a northern village such as Cranford!

I mentioned ITV's 'Downton Abbey' earlier. While that is popular it's a little too 'modern' for me - 'Cranford' is based on Mrs Gaskell's novels of the period while 'Downton' is wholly modern fiction. 'Cranford' is the real thing, if you know what I mean...

Superb stuff. 5/5 stars.

Set in 1932 in the depths of the American recession, Robert (Michael Sarazzin) and Gloria (Jane Fonda) enter a dance marathon, with the last couple left standing supposedly picking up a $1,500 prize. The all-knowing, cynical, rabble-rousing MC (Gig Young) eggs on the contestants (including Susannah York), driving them to greater and greater feats of endurance with his rabble-rousing cry of 'Yowza, yowza, yowza!' The competition is, of course, a scam.

The film captures well the desperation that must have driven on real-life contestants and Gig Young won a well-deserved Oscar for his role. It really is a quite remarkable performance.

An excellent drama, well worth a watch. 4/5 stars.

Well, that's wasted just under 2 hours of my life that I'll never get back.

If you sit back, switch off your brain and let it wash over you, you might think this is a half-decent action film. But it's not. It's awful. In fact it's a dreadful, soppy / sloppy over-American film, with a ridiculous plot, awful script, too much gunfire, too many fights / accidents / falls with the 'hero' receiving nary a scratch or bruise, set in a strange version of Paris where no-one speaks French.

Kevin Costner plays an ageing CIA agent who finds out he is dying, travels to Paris to meet his estranged wife and make it up with his daughter he has neglected. He is re-recruited for another mission, has many meetings with daughter + boyfriend, teaches her to ride a bike, and has assorted shoot-outs and car chases during all of which he has lengthy phone conversations with his daughter. It's soppy, it's silly, it's very American - and it also has Mr Wooden Costner, who to his credit, has dropped his annoying, dislikeable nasal drawl for a deeper, gravel voiced effort.

I don't know where scriptwriter Luc Besson dragged this ridiculous storyline from - although the soppy aged agent / daughter / Paris elements remind me of a very, very bad version of 'Taken'.

This is without doubt one of the worst films I've seen in the last year. But unfortunately I have seen even worse, so I'll have to give it an over-generous 2/5 stars.

Back in the days when I had a very long commute, I read an enormous number of books. The only ones that made me laugh out loud - always dangerous when surrounded by other commuters - were by Tom Sharpe: 'Porterhouse Blue', 'Blott on the Landscape' - and 'Wilt'.

The books are a strange mix of satirical comedy and slapstick humour, laced with much comic sexual innuendo, poking fun at certain British institutions and small-minded pomposity. I haven't picked up a Tom Sharpe book in years and I suspect the humour may be very dated now - but I happened to chance across the film version of 'Wilt'. It's now over 25 years since it was released, so - what's it like?

With comic duo Griff Rhys Jones and the late lamented Mel Rees, together with the always excellent Alison Steadman, this should be excellent stuff. And it is - but unfortunately the on-screen humour and vulgar comic antics (much use of an inflatable sex doll), poking of fun at minor academics and their dim-witted students and at dim-witted policemen is not as funny on screen as it is on the page. And the passage of time has made what was amusing in the mid-1970s (when the book was written) and late 1980s (when the film was made) seem very dated...

Just to recap the storyline: Lowly academic Henry Wilt (Griff Rhys Jones) is suspected of murdering his wife (Alison Steadman). Local plod (Mel Rees) digs up supposed body, only to find it's a blow-up doll. Err - that's it (well, there's more in the same vein, but you get the picture).

If I'd seen it 25 years ago I might have found it wildly funny. Now, it raised but a single smile (for what it's worth, a minor joke involving a Thermos flask). Nope, it's dated and unfunny, and the comic genius of the actors is fading with time.

3/5 stars, and that's being very, very generous.

It's yet another romantic costume drama. Err, that's it.

It isn't a 'true story'. The leading characters are indeed based on actual individuals and the legal case was an actual one, but the film is well out of sync with accurate historical detail and the timeline of events is also incorrect. For more info, search Wikipedia for "Dido Elizabeth Belle" and "Zong massacre" [Aside: Yes, I know that Wikipedia isn't always accurate...]

Does it matter if it's not historically accurate? Not really, if you're looking for entertainment. But don't be fooled into thinking that modern views on racism were common in the 18th century - they weren't.

The film is well photographed, well directed and has an excellent central performance by Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Dido - but that's not enough too raise it above many other similar period dramas. I enjoyed it but found it somewhat insipid - it really needed more 'bite'.

3/5 stars. Average costume drama fare.

[Aside: Film critic Mark Kermode rated this as #4 on his list of the 10 best films of 2014. I think he must be going soft in his old age...]

It's a post-apocalyptic (?) road movie with added Aussies. Err, that's it.

This is yet another of those films that could have been so much better. It has flashes of brilliance - for example, man drinking in bar oblivious to tumbling car crash happening behind him - outweighed by moments of weakness. Perhaps the best example of this is the ending, where the rationale for the whole film is revealed - and it's simply foolish.

The film is essentially a chase movie - Guy Pearce plays the central character who sets off after some oddballs who steal his car, dragging one of their number (played by ex-heartthrob Robert Pattinson) with him. Along the way he shoots a wide range of oddball characters - and really, that's about it.

Guy Pearce has played some great roles - remember Ed Exley in 'LA Confidential' ? - but here he seems emotionless. In fact none of the characters show much emotion - they all seem pretty passive, even when Mr Pearce is pointing a gun at them or indeed, shooting them.

This is a well photographed, well directed film (by David Michod, who directed 'Animal Kingdom') but it's a road movie that simply runs out of road...

3/5 stars. Could have been great, but ended up merely average.

Cormac McCarthy is regarded as one of America's most important modern novelists, but his works are regarded as 'difficult'. Some have been turned into successful films - 'No Country For Old Men' (4 Oscars, including Best Picture, 3 BAFTAs) and 'The Road' (1 BAFTA). Now comes director James Franco with the film version of Cormac McCarthy's 1965 novel, 'Child of God'. So, what's it like?

Set in Tennessee mountain country, it deals with the life of one Lester Ballard who lives alone in the woods. Be aware that the film covers some disturbing subjects including mental illness, homelessness, isolation and descent into degradation and has scenes of defecation, masturbation, necrophilia and murder, with plenty of mucus thrown in for good measure. This makes for some difficult viewing - it won't be everyone's cup of tea.

The film sticks pretty closely to the novel and its three-part structure, although the ending is different as Lester is shown making for the woods again.

This is not a film to be 'enjoyed'. What I can admire is the quite remarkable performance of Scott Haze who plays Lester Ballard. To say that he throw himself into the part whole-heartedly is an understatement - if anything, it's an over-the-top performance full of guttural gruntings and drooling.

Frankly, it's a pretty average film based on disturbing subject matter so I would normally rate it as 3/5 stars. But Scott Haze's performance is so remarkable that I'll give it another star for effort. 4/5 stars - but it's not suitable viewing for your granny or for children.

After a war, we Brits have an unfortunate habit of forgetting our allies and letting it all fade into history. We have all too easily forgotten that it was our Russian allies who effectively won the Second World War with huge loss of life, and we have all too easily forgotten the men from the Empire who gave so much for King and country.

We owe an enormous debt to the Australians who fought in 'our' wars and we owe a debt to Australian cinema for reminding us of it with excellent films such as 'Gallipoli' (WWI) and 'Breaker Morant' (Boer War) - and 'Beneath Hill 60'.

'Beneath Hill 60' is based on the mining operations of the 1st Australian Tunnelling Company before the Battle of Messines. It is based on the diaries of Captain Oliver Woodward (played here by Brendan Cowell). The film combines a love story as Woodward leaves behind his young love to fight in Belgium with a claustrophobic tale of the dangerous lives of the sappers as they place some 32 tonnes of explosives under the German lines.

While the film doesn't have quite the same deep impact of some earlier Australian war films it is rather well done, and well worth a watch. For more info on the background to the film search on Wikipedia for "Battle of Hill 60 (Western Front)"

4/5 stars - recommended.

It's an American 'road' movie. That means (of course) that it's clichéd - experienced older man, takes naïve young man under his wing and teaches him how to survive as they travel together toward some distant goal, having assorted adventures and avoiding hazards on the way. In 'Stake Land' vampires and religious fanatics provide the hazards and the distant goal is 'New Eden', a semi-mythical vampire-free land. Err, that's it.

I had recently seen director Jim Mickle's earlier film 'Mulberry Street' (re-titled as 'Zombie Virus on Mulberry Street' for its UK DVD release) and Mr Mickle again does a good job as both director and co-writer, with Nick Damici as co-writer and filling the 'experienced older man' role (referred to only as 'Mister') and Connor Paolo as the young man who is taught how to fight vampires. Kelly McGillis plays an older woman - a nun, referred to only as 'Sister' - they rescue on the road. I hadn't seen her for years, not since 'Top Gun' and 'Witness'. The director's sister, Beth Mickle gets a nod as Production Design Consultant - she went on to do the production design for 'Drive'. The budget for 'Stake Land' is reported to be $650k, so the director must have attracted funding well up from the miniscule $60k of 'Mulberry Street'!

There are a few nice touches - the town sign for Pottstown, Pennsylvania, at the beginning is the director's hometown. There is the necessary gore and the minor shocks expected in a vampire film but it's not overdone and while the film is clichéd the direction, the photography and acting are good. Of its genre, it's rather good and I enjoyed it.

4/5 stars, although that does seem a little generous. Well worth a watch.

I waited to write a review for this film until I'd watched 'Mulberry Street' and 'Stakeland', also directed by Jim Mickle and which came highly recommended. While formulaic (respectively, nasty virus turns normal Americans into flesh-eating rats, road movie with added vampires) I quite enjoyed them - they were well done, for their budget and within their budget. So, would Jim Mickle succeed with this crime thriller genre film?

In a word, no. It's not the fault of the direction, which isn't at all bad - it's the storyline, which is frankly, silly, unbelievable tripe. But unfortunately Mr Mickle shares writing credits for the script.

I haven't read the novel on which the film is based, but the storyline of the film goes like this: Central character shoots intruder. Intruder's father seeks revenge. Local cops try to kill intruder's father by leaving him on train track; it turns out that intruder was someone entirely different, and the father's real son is a nasty individual involved in porno snuff films and all the time hidden within the witness protection programme. Confused? You will be.

The central role is played rather well by Michael C. Hall, who manages to get us to feel a little sympathy for a weak and somewhat unlikeable character. And that's about it - the story is so ridiculous that the other actors (Sam Shepard, Don Johnson and the director's sidekick Nick Damici) simply cannot make their characters appear anything other than silly.

I really liked the two other Jim Mickle films I have seen but this was a great disappointment. There's plenty of violent shooting and bloodshed, but although it has a twist or two it's more silly than thrilling. Of course, mutant viruses and vampires are silly too, but that's to be expected - with a crime thriller there has to be something realistic to relate to. And there's nothing here, except perhaps the initial 'fear of intruders' - after that it's downhill. Sorry, Jim.

2/5 stars - below average, and it's all down to the ridiculous storyline.

Based on the Stephen King novel of the same name, this is perhaps the first of director David Cronenberg's films with big-ticket Hollywood actors. Until then Cronenberg's horror-genre films had been low-budget affairs with (usually) unknown actors [Aside: Although his immediately preceding film, 'Videodrome' did feature Debbie Harry of 'Blondie' fame].

Christopher Walken (who won an Oscar for his role in 'The Deerhunter') plays schoolteacher Johnny Smith, who develops psychic powers and has visions of the past, present and future when physically touching a person. And he can also change the future by his actions.

Martin Sheen plays an evil far-right wannabe US Senator, Tom Skerritt plays the local sheriff, Brooke Adams (whatever happened to her film career) plays the love interest, and Herbert Lom is cast against type as a sympathetic doctor, rather than as a mad scientist.

Filmed in Canada, there's plenty of snow. And the rather good actors deliver a rather good film. Yes, the 'psychic powers' theme has perhaps been a bit overdone now, but the acting is good, the script is good, the score is good, the directing is good - it's a good film, well worth a watch.

4/5 stars - recommended. This 30+ year-old-film deserves to be seen more.

It's the great summer blockbuster of 2014, it's had some excellent reviews and most people seem to like it. So I was looking forward to it and sat down with two other 'big boys' with refreshments to hand. It was *DIRE*.

I grew up in the 1950s and 60s when US comics were expensive and (relatively) hard to come by, when what was on offer here in the UK was Beano, Dandy, Topper, Hotspur, Eagle etc. The US comics were full of colour, full of amazing characters having amazing adventures. I loved 'em and consumed them avidly.

This film is full of colour, full of amazing characters having amazing adventures - and I hated it. All three of us hated it. Yes, the effects are good, there's a few amusing wisecracks and some old-style music that's not bad. But the storyline is awful (silly I can accept - after all it is comic-based) and the 'acting' is embarrassingly bad. A dislikeable wisecracking CGI raccoon - is that supposed to be original? A butt-kicking female - is that supposed to be original? Baddies trying to dominate the universe - is that supposed to be original? Men in rubber suits and silly make-up pretending to be aliens - is that supposed to be original?

The only positive thing I can say is that Vin Diesel was well cast, for a 'wooden' actor - as a tree, whose lines consisted almost entirely of "I am Groot". Great acting, Vin.

Given the number of people who seem to have enjoyed it I'm probably well in the minority, so it's perhaps one of those films you either love or hate. I'm definitely in the latter camp, so I'll give it an over-generous 1/5 stars.

I was watching 'Game of Thrones' in which Charles Dance plays a major role and wondered what else he had done recently - and found this. It's a low budget, subsidised Australian production so quite how Mr Dance was persuaded to act in this 'mad scientist' movie we'll never know. Maybe he needed the money?

Mad Scientist experiments (of course) on creepy comatose patient in creepy private clinic. Naughty Nurse tries to stop him. Patient gets revenge (of course) via telekinesis. Err, that's it.

Charles Dance is the best actor by miles, but Sharni Vinson (late of the Aussie soap 'Home and Away') plays a reasonable role as the Naughty Nurse. I did see Ms Vinson in the 'masked intruders' movie 'You're Next' which was far more gory than this one.

It's mildly creepy and psychological rather than a horror movie, there aren't any real shocks or gore, but there are a few bare chests. Quite why it got an 18 certificate I'm not certain - I've seen more shocking 15 cert films.

In the UK I think it was shown at a film festival then went straight to DVD. The title was originally just 'Patrick' and quite why it was changed for the DVD release we can only guess - it's also a remake of the 1978 film 'Patrick'. There are a few nods to the 1978 original - nurse's boyfriend is called Ed Penhaligon (Susan Penhaligon played the original role), the actress who originally played Patrick's mother gets a bit part...

At best it's average, not to mention very corny, so I'll give it an 'average' rating of 3/5 stars, although that's being generous.