Film Reviews by RP

Hmmm... I liked the original 2006 film '300', directed by Zack Snyder and adapted from one of Frank Miller's graphic novels. But like so many sequels, this is yet another that fails to live up to expectation.

This time the director is Noam Murro who doesn't have Mr Snyder's track record of bringing comic-book / superhero / graphic novels to the big screen - and it shows. And I don't think the actors are well suited for their roles, either.

This episode of Greek history (well, dramatised historical events anyway) and characters is so complex that the story is told by voiceover. And although the two strong female roles are played by well-known actresses Eva Green and Lena Headey (who both provide the voiceovers) neither comes across as a 'proper' leader and neither has a particularly strong voice. This failing isn't confined to the women - the lead male role, that of Themistocles, is played by Aussie actor Sullivan Stapleton, who I remember from 'Animal Kingdom'. But a Greek war leader he is not. And NZ actor Callan Mulvey has a main role - he's not Greek either. Just to pick one other at semi-random, Jack O'Connell gets to play a role as a newly blooded young warrior - yet I know full well he's from Derby and has made his name playing young, violent, lower class tearaways. He's just not a Greek :(

The CGI effects are excellent, the blood flows freely, the violence and the visuals have a proper stylised graphic novel feel about them - but overall it feels like a weak effort.

I didn't dislike it, I was just disappointed - it could have been a lot better. I'll give it 3/5 stars and that's being very generous.

This is a rather good, low budget horror film. Rather good because it is claustrophobic, effective, well acted, well photographed, well directed film - and low budget because it was achieved with a reputed figure of only $60k.

The storyline holds no real surprises for a film in this genre - normal New Yorkers get bitten by virus-carrying rats, mutate into flesh-eating rat-like creatures, and attack. There are few survivors. Err, that's it.

So it's a bit of a creature-feature too - and there are no zombies. Quite where this UK DVD title came from I'm not sure - the original title was just 'Mulberry Street'.

The director is Jim Mickle who I first came across in the 2014 film 'Cold in July'. Jim Mickle shares writing credits with the lead actor, Nick Damici. Nothing like keeping it in the family: Jim Mickle's sister Beth is credited as Production Designer and has gone on to work on major films including 2011's successful 'Drive'.

If you're a fan of the genre, see it. I'll give it 4/5 stars - given the budget, it's above average for this kind of film.

I have always found Clive Owen to be a 'wooden' actor - and this film is yet another example. Here he plays an Interpol agent [Aside: I thought Interpol was an information clearing house and liaison organisation that didn't have 'agents'?] working with Naomi Watt who plays an Assistant DA, investigating the dodgy activities of an international bank.

Nominally based on the real-life activities of the BCCI, here it's the IBBC whose financial muscle topples governments and finances arms deals. But it all seems a bit far-fetched and the human scale of the actors contrasts with the architecture of the amazing buildings used as backdrops. That's clearly a directorial trick - and it is the direction (by German director Tom Twyker, who I first came across in 'Run Lola Run' and more recently as joint director of 'Cloud Atlas') together with the architecture that are the real stars of the film.

The buildings used as backdrops are quite extraordinary, varying from the Berlin Hauptbahnhof, the Autostadt in Wolfsberg, the rooftops of Istanbul to the Guggenheim Museum. The Guggenheim was reproduced as a giant set for the rather good shootout sequence.

Brit actor Owen and Brit/Aus actress Watts are, quite frankly, poor. Watts fakes a unconvincing USAnian accent and as I mentioned, Owen is just wooden, despite feeble attempts to become animated.

I really wanted to like this, but after watching it I shrugged my shoulders and said 'So what'. This just might have been an amazing film - but isn't. 3/5 stars - very average.

It's a rom-com starring Meg Ryan and Billy Crystal. It's popular, it's supposed to be amusing - but I didn't like it. On the other hand, my wife thought it really good, so who am I to judge?

The film has one supposedly memorable scene + famous one liner (to be fair, it did make me smile) but apart from that I found it old fashioned (it's some 25 years old), too American - and I have to say it, boring.

So despite SWMBO enjoying it, I'm going to rate it 2/5 stars. It's an overrated film.

Private eye Philip Marlowe is called in to investigate the gambling debts of a rich man's daughters and uncovers - and of course resolves - a maze of gambling, blackmail and murder.

Humphrey Bogart stars with Lauren Bacall in this superb 1946 film noir. Bogart is superb in the role of private eye Marlowe - tough, wisecracking and a bit of a ladies man. The much younger Bacall is sexy and wisecracking in return and the two spark off each other in a memorable film directed by Howard Hawks.

This was Bogart and Bacall's second film together - they had married in 1945 (he was 45 and she was 20) and remained married until Bogart's untimely death in 1957.

The on-screen relationship between them is almost tangible and with the tight direction, complex plot, small time gangsters, dark and wet locations, gunfire and fisticuffs this is a superb example of Hollywood art.

Highly recommended - 5/5 stars

When I were but a mere slip of a lad, I sneaked into the local cinema to see a viewing of the X-rated Japanese original. It was dreadful - not at all scary and the 'monster' was not at all monstrous. I remember being very disappointed - but then I was too young to appreciate its socio-political message.

Back in 1998 I quite enjoyed the remake although it was critically panned, but the roles of Matthew Broderick (too boyish) and Jean Reno (perhaps too closely associated with 'Léon') were just silly.

So I was looking forward to the 2014 remake. But it's disappointing stuff - how can you have a film titled 'Godzilla' without Godzilla? It's a 2 hour film, but he's only in it for the last few minutes!

The rest of the film is largely about a different monster - the MUTOs - who seem to like a nice warm, radioactive environment. One in Japan, one (of course) in the USA - and of course, when they get together they breed - and mankind is rescued by Godzilla and his fiery radioactive breath. Mankind may be safe, but LA does suffer a bit.

There are some well known actors here: Juliette Binoche (a bit part at the beginning), Bryan Cranston (from 'Breaking Bad' - a longer bit part at the beginning) and Ken Watanabe (a longer bit part as a Godzilla expert). No proper use is made of their skills and the cast who fill the main roles are pretty dreadful.

So, too long, silly acting, silly over-complex story, silly made-up MUTOs - is there anything good about it? Yes - Godzilla actually looks like the 1950s Japanese original :)

Disappointing stuff - 2/5 stars

Despite the poor reviews that this film received from the critics, I was hoping for something better. But no - this is disappointing stuff.

There are several big ticket names on the cast list, but the one who might at first appear to be the lead - Johnny Depp - is really only there for the first 20 minutes or so. So the characterisation is unclear. The end of the film - the downfall of modern computer / Internet based civilisation - is shown at the start of the film, so frankly there are no surprises. And the entire central premise of the film, that man is at risk from a powerful artificial intelligence, has been worked over so, so many times in pulp fiction from the 1940s and 1950s onwards.

The film was pretty to watch but overlong at just under 2 hours. And the technical issues dealt with in the film are frankly, quite silly. AI research? Silly. Nanotechnology? Silly. Computer viruses? Silly. Even the Faraday cage built at the start of the film was incorrect. Ah well - I suppose getting things 'right' might make for a boring film...

Nope, didn't like it - just too silly for me. 2/5 stars.

Now that I've watched Season 3 I've got withdrawal symptoms - I don't want to watch the series one episode at a time on TV, but to go for the whole immersive experience of a box set. And that isn't scheduled for Season 4 until early 2015. Can I wait that long?

Season 3 has the same format as the preceding two with 10 episodes of just under an hour each. Battles continue across Westeros, backstabbing and political intrigue abound, alliances are forged and broken, treachery is everywhere, new alliances are cemented by marriage. The most powerful man appears to be Tywin Lannister as he manipulates the cruel boy king Joffrey.

Be warned - don't get too attached to any seemingly leading characters because you could well find them unexpectedly bumped off! In addition to the action within Westeros there is more focus on Jon Snow, the Night's Watch and the wildlings and other beings beyond The Wall and on the Mother of Dragons as Daenerys Targaryen raises an army.

As the series has progressed it is clear that its commercial success has enabled HBO to spend more money on the production, so we have 'proper' armies with armies of extras as well as CGI effects. It all adds to this extravagantly realised epic fantasy world.

Great stuff - 5/5 stars.

Season 2 continues in the same vein as Season 1 - shedloads of blood (or should that be loads of bloodshed?), assorted stabbings, swordplay, f-ing and blinding, nudity and bogus sex scenes. Yes, 'Game of Thrones' continues - and if you like mediaeval epic fantasy, then this is for you. It's very, very well done - of its type.

10 episodes, just under an hour each - plenty of time to develop a complex tale with many (very many) characters. And if there is a criticism, that's it - so many characters to remember.

This time round, the dwarf Tyrion Lannister (well played by Peter Dinklage) takes a leading role as he moves from the butt of jokes to an effective leader. The cruel, capricious, vicious child-king Joffrey Lannister sits on the iron throne, manipulated by his mother, the Queen Regent. With the deaths in Season 1 of King Robert Baratheon (Mark Addy) and his right-hand man Eddard Stark (Sean Bean) the houses of Baratheon and Stark rise against Joffrey. Battles rage across the realm and culminate in Episode 9 in a mighty seaborne invasion, where Tyrion's strategy wins the day but is overshadowed by the arrival of an army led by his father, Tywin Lannister (Charles Dance) - who has a poor opinion of most of his own family. Alongside these events, the Mother of Dragons has assorted adventures as does Jon Snow serving in the Night's Watch. The season ends with the revelation of the White Walkers beyond The Wall...

Confused? You will be, but sit back and immerse yourself in this fully realised fantasy world and it becomes an alternate reality. It's great stuff - just remember there's a real world out there and step away from the screen for a while.

On the other hand, you might become addicted to what is essentially a mediaeval soap opera, with the dodgy characters and dodgy dialogue that all soap operas suffer from :)

Great stuff - 5/5 stars.

If you found the recent 'Hobbit' films too twee, then this might be the perfect antidote: an epic mediaeval fantasy with kings, queens, princes and princesses, knights in armour, plots and backroom machinations for the throne - and much swordplay, throat slitting, head chopping, buckets of blood, all laced with nudity, sex scenes and much f-ing and blinding. If that sounds like your thing, read on...

Based on George R. R. Martin's heavyweight fantasy book series 'A Song of Ice and Fire' whose 6 volumes run to well over 5000 pages, there is a rich amount of material available and - perhaps like 'Lord of the Rings' - the scope and scale is mind boggling. It is quite astonishing that it has made it onto the screen at all, let alone as a TV series. And it really is remarkably well made.

Set principally in the country of Westeros, whose seven kingdoms are ruled by a king who sits on the iron throne, the geography, language, people and customs are detailed, their history and heraldry fully realised. And outside the civilised (?) boundaries of Westeros lie other countries and regions and again their peoples, language and customs are fully realised. It really is surprisingly well done. If you enjoy fantasy you should watch this - 'epic' just doesn't do it justice.

Season 1 is more than an introduction, it is a fully-fledged and rounded adult adventure story that deserves its BBFC 18 certificate - it's not a kid's tale. 10 episodes, just under an hour each and I watched it in two sittings - great, gripping stuff. It is set against the background of the waning powers of king Robert Baratheon as his scheming queen plots to consolidate the power of House Lannister and place her young son on the throne, overthrowing the king's right hand man, Eddard Stark. This Season belongs to Sean Bean as Eddard (Ned) Stark but covers so much ground that you may have trouble keeping up with the characters and family names. And it has a surprise ending...

Of course, you might dismiss it all for what it is - fantasy - but then this is what cinema deals in and the advantage of a major TV series is that it has the time to devote to such a complex tale, rather than within the constraints of a 2 hour film.

Filmed in N Ireland with locations in Malta, Iceland, Spain, Morocco and Croatia, the actors speak 'proper' English (rather than American) and even this is well realised, with recognisable northern accents for people from up t' north. And if you're overwhelmed by the characters, among the extras on the discs is fairly comprehensive background material together with details of the geography.

This is astonishingly good stuff - at least, for the boys among us! 5/5 stars.

Many of the classic Disney films have been based on fairytales - and here's yet another, this time an updating of 'Sleeping Beauty'.

'Sleeping Beauty' has been retold many times, from Charles Perrault's original, via the Brothers Grimm and Disney's 1959 animated version - which I found more than a little twee.

But this version is rather well done - in my opinion much better than Disney's earlier effort. I'm not a great fan of recent Disney films, but here the animation / live action technique is very good and (surprisingly for me) I quite enjoyed it.

Perhaps it's me, but I do find the Americanisation of European fairly tales more than a little annoying - but that's not overdone here and a veritable bevy of Brit actresses get good parts, so the accents are often more British than transatlantic.

I watched it with a couple of grandchildren and they enjoyed it, which is of course the ultimate test.

I'll give it 4/5 stars - much better than I was expecting.

I remember seeing 'The Graduate' in the cinema way back in 1968. I enjoyed it, but what I remember most was the introduction it gave me to the music of Simon & Garfunkel.

I've just watched it again after a gap of over 45 years - and I can now appreciate it as one of the classics of 1960s cinema. It tells the tale of new college graduate Ben Braddock (Dustin Hoffman) who returns home for the summer vacation, uncertain of his future.

Up steps an older married woman (Mrs Robinson, played by Anne Bancroft. We never learns Mrs Robinson's first name) who seduces young Ben - leaving him even more uncertain of his future. His unsuspecting parents push Ben into a date with Elaine (Katherine Ross), Mrs Robinson's daughter. Ben falls for her, rousing Mrs Robinson's wrath. Elaine returns to college, Ben pursues her, but Elaine is persuaded by her parents into a hastily arranged marriage with another student. Ben arrives at the church too late to stop the ceremony, but elopes (if that is the right word, since she's already married to another) with Elaine, making good their escape on the rear seat of a bus.

The film is in two clear halves: the first is a comedy of manners, in which an experienced older woman introduces Ben to sex (although given the age of the film, nothing is explicit). The second half of the film is a romance, where Ben (slightly creepily?) stalks Elaine and finally tracks her down.

The film is set in a peaceful, perfect, white, middle class America - a world soon to vanish. None of the troubles soon to come (Vietnam, the civil rights movement etc) are visible. Is it too pretentious to imagine that the final scene is taking the two young people away from their parents' lives towards an uncertain future?

The storyline is somewhat hackneyed, the acting is good (Anne Bancroft is excellent) even though the age of the actors doesn't quite match with the characters, and the film is amusing and enjoyable even after 40 years.

It's an iconic 1960s film so I feel I must give it 5/5 stars - but that does seem a little high...

Michael Caine plays Jack Carter, a London gangster who comes to Newcastle to investigate - and then avenge - the death of his brother. Caine's character is hard and uncompromising as he wreaks vengeance on all around. The only emotion he shows is when he sees what has been done to his niece (?daughter?).

With gritty locations, gritty characters and a gritty story, I remembered the film as shot in black and white. It is in fact in colour - but back and white is still how I see it, so bleak is the storyline.

The acting is excellent. It's certainly one of Caine's best roles, and the boss baddy (Kinnear) is well played by the renowned playwright John Osborne.

The film is now some 40 years old and yet it doesn't seem dated. Certainly there isn't the bloodiness of more recent gangster films, but the tension builds throughout helped by Caine's portrayal of a cold, relentless, ruthless man. The ending is unexpected (and I won't spoil it here), but well in keeping with the bleakness of the film.

'Get Carter' is a classic amongst British gangster films. 5/5 stars - highly recommended.

I rented this because Paddy Considine appears in it - he's one of my favourite Brit actors, but along with some excellent stuff he's also done some less-than-excellent things. And this is one of them - he plays his part to perfection (a psychic/mystic/new-age con?man) but he doesn't have a central role and his performance is let down by a film that overall has a below par script.

The film is yet another low budget Brit coming-of-age / rites of passage drama of the kind we've seen so many times before - introverted central character, trouble at school, trouble at home, first love, first sex, teenage angst. It felt to me like an updating of 'Gregory's Girl' to approximately the 1980s/90s (phone boxes were still in use) along with a bit of modern f-ing and blinding.

All the performances are good, it brought a few minor chuckles and a smile or two, and I liked the use of the seashore in several scenes.

I'll give it 3/5 stars - shows promise.

It's in Hebrew with subtitles, but once you're over that minor hurdle you're in for a treat.

You really need to watch Season 1 first as that sets the scene - three Israeli soldiers captured in Lebanon, held prisoner or 17 (!) years, then released - two (Nimrod and Uri) alive, one (Amiel) dead. We follow Nimrod and Uri as they try to come to terms with their much changed families, with society, and with the torture they have undergone. And in the final episode they find discover that their supposedly 'dead' friend is in fact alive...

Season 2 continues to follow Nimrod and Uri through their changed family relationships and also focuses on the hunt for Amiel and the attempts to bring him back to Israel. Has he been converted to Islam? Is he really now the leader of a jihadist organisation? And in the process we unravel the threads that so closely link the characters and their captivity.

'Prisoners of War' is a cross between a soap opera, a thriller and a psychological drama. While there is certainly more action here than in the earlier Season, it's all fairly slow moving. There are tense moments, but don't watch this if you're looking for fast moving action. Do watch it if you're looking for an intense and personal introduction to the inner tensions in Israeli and Syrian society.

[Aside: it was made before the uprising in Syria against President Assad, the civil war in the country, and the rise of IS/ISIL. I guess this is one of the perils of basing a fictional series against a background of current events...]

I rated Season 1 as 5/5 stars - and I'll do the same for Season 2. Great stuff.