Film Reviews by RP

If you want to watch a moderately tense action thriller along the lines of a 'Bourne' film crossed with '24', then this may be just the thing for you. On the other hand, if what you are looking for is a thoughtful, technically detailed film where an analyst is suddenly placed in a position out of his depth - in other words, a 'proper' Jack Ryan film, them you won't find it here.

Jack Ryan is a character in a series of novels by the late Tom Clancy - there have been a dozen or so books and five films have been made. The first four 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. This latest film is a reboot of the franchise after a gap of 12 years, this time with Chris Pine in the role.

Chris Pine has done good work in the latest reboots of the 'Star Trek' franchise so perhaps it seemed a good idea to use him here. Unfortunately, he becomes part of the problem - too good looking, too young - and when coupled with the lightweight Keira Knightley putting on a fake American accent and the 'wooden' and now somewhat elderly (for a CIA field man) Kevin Costner it all becomes a somewhat unlikely mix.

The storyline is new and not based on any of Tom Clancy's work - but when I say 'new' I mean newly written, because frankly it's a mish-mash of rehashed old tosh. A Russian oligarch is planning the downfall of the good ole USA via economic disaster caused by (1) first, buying up dollars (2) causing a terrorist attack on Wall Street (3) dumping the currency in the immediate aftermath. It takes young Jack Ryan - and (of course) only him - to notice this dastardly plot, to fly to Moscow to confront the baddie, break in to his offices, steal computer data, have a high car chase round Moscow and defeat a sleeper-cell terrorist attack back home in New York. He does this (of course) single handedly while Ms Knightley screams prettily and Mr Wooden Costner moves stiffly (well, he is approaching 60) as a backup action man.

Kenneth Branagh, who also takes a role as the Russian baddy, directed it. Sir Kenneth is a 'proper' actor - and in comparison to the rest of the cast, it shows. He is head and shoulders above the other players and makes an excellent baddy. But even he - and his directing skills - can't save the film

If you sit back and let it all wash over you, then you might think its good, all-action, stuff . But for me it's not thoughtful, not analytical enough, with too many silly action sequences, ridiculous technology, and a ridiculous plot. My favourite Jack Ryan is Harrison Ford, who both looks and acts the part. Whatever his other qualities, Chris Pine doesn't.

I'll give it 2/5 stars - it's OK, but I found it quite disappointing. I was hoping for better.

I found this film unexpectedly moving. It's a documentary film directed by Ken Loach that tells a (quite partial) social history of Britain focussing on achievements of the post-war Atlee government and its creation of the NHS, the nationalisation of industries left rudderless after the war effort, and a major house building programme. It then contrasts this with the incoming Thatcher government in 1979, seen as a marker for the end of the political post-war consensus, followed by the dismantling of much of the welfare state.

The film is told through interviews and personal accounts and without commentary and I found it both powerful and moving. Ken Loach is well known as being 'on the left' and his films often have a clear socio-political message, usually to the effect that the working man is a victim of 'the system' - and this is no exception.

Clearly the world has moved on from the post-war years but much of the privatisation of the once-nationalised industries is rightly regarded as a bit of a mixed bag and with some suspicion, from the now even more heavily subsidised railway operators, the partial privatisation of the NHS with the increased inefficiency of a silly 'internal market', through to what is perhaps most disastrous of all: the complete lack of any coherent future energy planning - not everything can be left to 'the market'.

This is a film that bears the stamp of the director's political viewpoint. What it does attempt to do - and I think it succeeds - is to put the point that we achieve more by consensus and working together than we do by our own individual efforts.

The film is a timely reminder of what we once had and how the country has changed - and not necessarily for the better. 4/5 stars. Highly recommended.

I remember taking a group of young lads to see this at the cinema way back at the end of 1998 - and they loved it. And that was the last time I saw it - until now. And lo and behold, today's group of young lads - grandchildren, now - also loved it!

You can take it at face value: high tech toy soldiers (the Commando Elite, sort of like Action Man) and their sworn enemy toys (the Gorgonites, somewhat gentler) are fitted with military grade electronics and miniature mechanisms, and programmed to (respectively) fight and to lose. The Commando Elite are ruthless and utilise all sorts of domestic hardware as weapons, but young teenager + girl next door help the Gorgonites escape.

That story outline makes it sounds ridiculous - and I suppose it is - but the animation, puppetry and CGI is pretty good and it's great fun.

Or you can look behind the action you'll find many film references and 'in' jokes (the director is Joe Dante, who directed 'Gremlins') and read the credits and you find that the Commando Elite are voiced by Tommy Lee Jones + cast members from 'The Dirty Dozen' and the Gorgonites by the cast of 'Spinal Tap'. There are a few other nice satirical touches, including using music by the Spice Girls as psychological warfare.

There is a certain amount of mild swearing at the beginning, but apart from that the film is great for boys of a certain age - including me :)

4/5 stars - great stuff.

While this second series of 'The Killing' is very good, it's not quite up to the exceptionally high standards of the first series. And I think that's down to the storyline - it doesn't have the realism, the raw impact of being something that we each recognise and empathise with, in that case, the killing of a young girl.

The second series has similar components to the first: the almost obsessive investigation by the Sarah Lund character, the political angle, and above all the many red herrings and false trails to mislead us until the final denouement.

It's a lengthy series with 10 episodes (in Danish with subtitles) but this gives time for good in-depth characterisation. This time, there is a plot to kill off all remaining survivors of an action during the Afghanistan war. Is it Islamic militants? Is it home grown terrorists? Is it the military themselves? Is it a political plot? Is it an attempt to cover up a war crime? Sarah Lund is called back from the lowly job she has been banished to and leads the investigation...

The acting and the script are excellent throughout - but the underlying storyline is more far-fetched and for that reason less involving. It's still great stuff and we watched this day and night until we had consumed it all...

4/5 stars. Excellent - but just not quite as good as Series 1 so I've marked it down by 1 star, though that does seem a little mean.

The fifth and last of the 'Dirty Harry' cop films, made 17 years after the original and with Clint Eastwood at a respectable 58 years old - and frankly, he should have retired as a cop before then. The film includes the by-then hackneyed features: Clint plays the hard-nosed cop, says the customary one-liners, shows his customary disrespect for authority, and single-handedly foils a dastardly plot, shooting many baddies in the process.

The elderly actor, the worn-out formula - all that would be fine but for one critical thing: the story is far-fetched rubbish. There is a betting competition going to see which of a list of celebrity / newsworthy characters dies. Clint's (well, Harry Callahan's) name is on the list (of course), so he's also under threat. Err, that's it.

Far-fetched, not very interesting, with well-worn jokes and scenarios, including the usual rookie cop - here he's a Chinese-American with martial arts skills - is there anything good about it at all? Well, if not good, there's an early appearance by one Jim Carrey who plays an actor playing a heavy metal singer, miming to a Guns 'n' Roses' song. Oh yes, Liam Neeson gets a role as a director of horror films - and it is (of course) a caricature of a Brit-in-Hollywood director, despite the fact that he's Irish.

Clint is one of my favourite actors and directors, but this is really below par stuff. Watch it only if you're an Eastwood completist. 2/5 stars.

This is an excellent, understated film that explores the trauma that afflicts the men who endured the inhuman treatment meted out by the Japanese to prisoners of war during the Second World War. Because it is so understated, with no crash-bang-wallop, no thriller or action element, it won't be everybody's cup of tea. But I liked it.

It is based on the experiences of the real life Eric Lomax and more specifically his autobiography, also titled 'The Railway Man', published in 1995 when he was 76 years old. And having read the book, the problem that I have with the otherwise excellent book is what it leaves out - and what it leaves out is the magnificent detail of Mr Lomax's life, his highly varied and rich career, his long first marriage, his children and the welcoming step-family he gained on his second marriage. The whole story has been compressed (for perhaps valid dramatic purposes) and even the characters' lives are compressed - for example, when he first met his second wife in 1980 Mr Lomax was 61 and not the sprightly chap portrayed by Colin Firth. The tale of how he first learned what had become of the Japanese interpreter Nagase Takashi starts on page 238 and takes up 39 pages of the paperback copy of his autobiography. The film even leaves out that Lomax had read the book that Nagase had written of his experiences from the 'other side'.

These shortcomings aside, the film tells how a victim of torture comes to terms - over a period of many years - with both himself and his enemy, and is a powerful story of both suffering and reconciliation.

The real history of the prisoners working on the Burma-Siam railway is forever overshadowed by the film 'The Bridge on the River Kwai' - I do recommend that you see this film, then read Eric Lomax's book. Frankly, the book is far, far better than the film - but I'll still give the film 4/5 stars. I found it very moving.

[Aside 1: my father, a now very elderly veteran of the Second World War, to this day refuses to have any Japanese-made item in the house. I gave him a copy of Eric Lomax's book when it was first published - he read it, but it didn't change his opinions.]

[Aside 2: (changing the topic almost entirely) Pierre Boulle, the French author of 'The Bridge over the River Kwai', also wrote 'The Planet of the Apes'.]

This is the third of the 'Dirty Harry' series of films, made 5 years after the original. Clint plays Clint playing 'Dirty' Harry Callahan, this time with rookie cop Tyne Daly tagging along. Ms Daly went on to play a cop in the long running TV series 'Cagney and Lacey', so perhaps her experience here wasn't wasted.

By now, the storyline of the 'Dirty Harry' films was becoming fairly hackneyed and this is no exception: Clint plays the hard-nosed cop, says the customary one-liners, shows his customary disrespect for authority, and single-handedly foils a dastardly plot, shooting many baddies in the process.

The plot is more than a little silly: urban revolutionaries arm themselves with LARS shoulder-mounted rocket launchers and submachine guns, kidnap the mayor and hold him to ransom with a climax on Alcatraz Island. Clint survives; the baddies perish; authority is made to look foolish. Err, that's it.

It's a great romp, but if this is routine police work and what life on the streets in California is like then I'm a banana. If you want to see the grim reality of drug-fuelled crime and the over-use of guns, then watch 'Training Day'. Clearly that doesn't show what the typical rookie has to undergo, but the dangerous environment of the streets is vividly portrayed. Let's just say that it doesn't involve urban revolutionary terrorists...

That said, 'The Enforcer' is a great, violent, 1970s cop romp. 4/5 stars.

Clint Eastwood is one of my favourite actors and directors and I've been viewing again some of his films that I haven't seen for a long time - and having now seen 'The Rookie' after a gap of close to 25 years, I now remember that there's a good reason that I've not seen it a second time in that period.

This is an awful film. I think it's supposed to a comedy cop/buddy/action movie, but the plot is so ludicrous, the script poor (there are some abysmal one-liners and far too much f-ing and blinding), with ridiculous stunts and silly 'action' sequences, the acting half-hearted, and the introduction of half-baked sex scenes is just embarrassing. And that's without mentioning spraying half of California with enough bullets to kill an army - but not, apparently, Mr Eastwood. And it's not funny.

This film falls between the period just before Clint settled down into his 'grumpy old man' roles (he was 60 when this was made) and is maybe an attempt to reprise his success with the 'Any Which Way...' films. If so, it is an abysmal failure.

Sorry Clint, but this one is so dire that I can only give it 2/5 stars - and that's being generous.

It's worth outlining the storyline of this film so that you're aware of what you may be about to watch:

Rickie and JT bunk off their high school class and go exploring the basement of an abandoned psychiatric hospital. They discover a naked girl chained to a table, more dead than alive. Over the next few days/weeks, JT and his mates then proceed to use her as a sexual object and subject her to assorted physical abuse, discovering that she cannot be killed. Rickie saves his attentions for his childhood sweetheart JoAnn, but gets nowhere until she is bitten by the girl, who is (of course) a zombie.

This is a seriously unwholesome film - but it does contain some interesting ideas. It's not a horror film - there are a couple of gory bits, but it's not too over the top and there are only a couple of quick shocks. It's not a rape/sex film - while it's quite obvious what's going on, there isn't anything too explicit. There are also episodes of humour - the filling station scene being the obvious one - and there is a lot of f-ing and blinding.

I suppose it could be classified as a stereotypical coming-of-age / rites-of-passage film - it has the central nerdy, introspective character (Rickie), an unattainable love interest (JoAnn), a confident, outgoing character (JT), a love rival high-school-jock (JoAnn's boyfriend, Johnny), and a central event which brings all of them into contact and conflict. But perhaps that's over-analysing it a bit too much...

It's a low budget production and it shows - the sound on the DVD is very muddy and the acting varies from the very good (even 'deadgirl' is good, despite not saying a word) to the very bad, and given the budget, good use is made of the location.

While I can't say I 'enjoyed' it (I don't think I'm yet ready for zombie sex) it does give a new twist to the same old, tired old zombie / undead genre so I'll give it a fairly high rating.

4/5 stars - just don't watch it with your granny, and keep it out of reach of the kids.

I like B-movie sci-fi 'creature features'. I like so-called 'comedy horror' films. I enjoy parody. I like films that pay homage to great movies of the past. Perhaps this film tries too hard - or maybe it's just pure rubbish, because I disliked it intensely.

The plot is (of course) somewhat familiar - meteorite falls on smalltown USA bringing alien life-form, which promptly infects local inhabitants who either (1) mutate into squid-like thing, or (2) eat meat and explode, releasing zillions of nasty slug-like creatures, or (3) are chased by said slug-like creatures who enter via the mouth and take over the brain, turning them into zombies. Err, that's it.

The acting and story are deliberately (I think?) cheesy, the attempts at humour are unfunny and seem to consist entirely of inappropriate f-ing and blinding.

There is no humour, there is no horror, there is no comparison to other modern rather good 'creature features' such as 'Tremors' - this is unspeakable rubbish.

1/5 stars - avoid this film like a plague of alien slug beasts.

A few days ago I watched the 2012 French TV series 'The Returned' (Les Revenants) and found it great, compelling TV drama - so I thought I'd watch the 2004 French film of the same name from which the series was derived.

All I can say is that it's quite different - perhaps the only thing that is similar is the young boy Silvain who would appear to be the basis for Victor in the TV series.

As to the storyline, I suppose you would call it a zombie film - except that here the risen dead - all 70 million (!) of them, 10 years worth, with 13,000 in the featured French town alone, are clean, peaceful, slow moving, slow thinking, not needing much if any sleep, dressed in light summer clothes and apparently healthy, with no signs of the disease / wounds / whatever that caused their death.

The town has to make arrangements for their re-integration into society - a somewhat tricky task as their relatives are not always keen and the massive exercise is a drain on the resources of the community and makes heavy demands on the personal resources of the relatives. The story focuses on a small number of characters who persevere in trying to regain a relationship, only to find that their loved ones try to escape at night, making for a series of underground tunnels. Err, that's it.

The film is good enough to get you thinking about what would happen to oneself if a loved one - your wife / husband / child - 'returned' and of the impact of such a phenomenon on wider society.

I think I've been spoiled by watching the TV series. I gave that 5/5 stars - the film isn't bad, despite many unanswered questions and loose ends, so I'll give it an average 3/5 stars. It's worth seeing to gain background on the TV series, but if you're looking for a zombie flick or expecting it to be as compelling as the TV series then you won't find it here.

At last! A 'proper' zombie film, hordes of shambling, flesh biting, entrail ripping creatures. A few tense bits, a couple of scenes to make you jump, all photographed against a beautiful African backdrop.

The story - such as it is - goes like this: a zombie plague is sweeping Africa. The last flight out (a decrepit Douglas DC3) crashes with a single survivor. He starts off across country, meets up with a local soldier searching for his son and together they make their way to a military base where hopefully the son is to be found. Along the way they must avoid or kill many zombies. Err, that's it.

If you like the genre, you should like this. It's clearly a low budget production but is vastly better than enormously more expensive and disappointing films such as 'World War Z'.

Recommended - 4/5 stars.

Just catching up with a few Clint Eastwood films that are either rarely seen nowadays or that I only saw many years ago - 'The Beguiled' fits both these categories.

Set near the end of the American civil war, Clint play a wounded Union soldier who is taken in and cared for by a small girl's academy in a Confederate state. Clint's character is a handsome charmer who has a devastating effect on all the women - and the young girls. Handsome he may be, but he is an accomplished, manipulative seducer and the jealous rivalries that ensue lead to his downfall and eventual demise.

This is a great film - a small, intense story and a small cast with convincing performances from all. The director is the renowned Don Siegel who not only made the original 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' but several films with Clint, including the very different 'Dirty Harry' in the same year as 'The Beguiled'.

Recommended. 4/5 stars.

Spooky, mysterious, compelling - it's a sort of ghostly revenge drama, although the 'supernatural' elements aren't overdone. Yes, it's in French with subtitles - but please don't let that put you off: this is great, compelling TV drama.

The story goes something like this: as the series opens, a coach load of school children swerves and goes off the road. This is four years ago - cut to the present, and one teenage girl, Camille, climbs back over the barrier, walks home and starts to resume her life almost as if nothing has happened. Not unexpectedly, this causes her parents and (now older) sister some anguish. It gradually emerges that there are others like Camille, both young and old, returning from the dead and seriously affecting their families and loved ones who had grieved and moved on - only to be disturbed by 'the returned'. Just to add to the mix, there is a grisly serial killer on the loose who specialises in knifing young women and eating their internal organs. The series follows a number of characters and their families over 8 episodes, each slow moving and thoroughly enthralling.

The final episode is something of a cliff-hanger with no clear answers (as, of course in all the best non-Hollywood dramas) and there is a second series in the offing.

I suppose that 'the returned' are sort of zombies, but there isn't any shambling or entrail ripping (well, excluding the serial killer, that is) - they try to return to their former lives and pick up where they left off. Of course, that does proves a bit tricky...

The locations and photography are magnificent, the soundtrack (music by Scottish band Mogwai) is eerie and atmospheric, the acting really good. This is great stuff and it gets 5/5 stars from me. Highly recommended.

Is this Clint Eastwood's final film as actor? There's been a four year gap after 2008's excellent 'Gran Torino' so what can we expect from this iconic actor?

Well, Clint plays Clint in yet another 'grumpy old man' role - one that he has honed to perfection since 1992's 'Unforgiven'. But here he's not playing one of the age inappropriate roles that he has sometimes attempted but a real 'old man' part, gradually losing his sight from macular degeneration. He needs perfect sight in his job as a baseball scout but struggles on regardless using his vast experience - and eventually accepts help from his estranged daughter, played by Amy Adams.

As a Brit I can't get too excited by baseball, perhaps unfairly regarding it as a game of rounders played for money, so I didn't feel involved in the sport itself. But the film works quite well despite many clichés (experienced older man threatened by young upstart, obnoxious sports star, a complete unknown turns out to be the better performer, romance with member of the opposition, lazy Hollywood too-perfect ending etc). And this modest success is entirely down to Clint - his acting ability and the way he manages to dominate every scene where he's in front of the camera.

The supporting cast is a bit of a mixed bag: John Goodman was OK, Justin Timberlake OK as a likeable love interest for the weak Amy Adams. Ms Adams is the weakest link in the chain as Clint's on-screen daughter, a high-flying lawyer with an encyclopaedic knowledge of baseball. Unfortunately she didn't manage to convince me of either of these - and nor was I convinced by any of the other roles I've seen her in, for example as Lois Lane in 'Man of Steel'.

It's an undemanding film, a bit of a feelgood factor, but a weak effort for one of Mr Eastwood's offerings. 3/5 stars - it's not unlikeable, just very average.