Film Reviews by Pete W

I'm glad the blurb about the film told me it was a comedy - I would never have known otherwise. No idea what the point of the film was.

Well I never knew that a conscientious objector in WW2 won the equivalent of the VC - and deserved it. Yes the battle scenes are very graphic but I expect the real Battle of Okinawa was pretty graphic too. Elements of Saving Private Ryan and Gallipoli appear in this film and kudos to Desmond Doss for resisting attempts to film his life story earlier as it wouldn't have been accurate - apparently Audie Murphy wanted to get his hands on the film rights - but there are some throwback elements to the war films of the 1950s here. The Japanese are all untrustworthy suicidal maniacs and no questions are raised at their barbecuing at the hands of the American flame throwers. The film would have benefited from being cut by about 20 minutes and there is a sudden jump from initial training, with Doss suffering at the hands of his officer, NCO and fellow GIs, to the battle of Hacksaw Ridge where he is revealed to be a hero. But a film worth watching for the story it reveals.

Excellent film. In the first half, we see how a 5 year old child can get lost in India and almost overwhelmed. The child is rescued from dire conditions on the streets of Calcutta and in a Dickensian orphanage and brought up in Australia, but as a young man becomes increasing driven to find his way back to his village and mother in India. Google Earth turns out to be his means of achieving this. Good acting by Dev Patel as the young man and Sunny Pawar as the child. Others have found the film too long but I didn't. It gripped me throughout. Make sure you watch the final section of the film to see the real life characters on which it is based and to find out exactly how the boy Saroo came to be lost.

They knew how to make war films in the 1950s - even if they are black and white and pre-CGI. I found this a grave disappointment. Hardly any acting to speak of and horrendously unrealistic. The RAF seems to consist mainly of Tom Hardy in a Spitfire with unlimited supplies of ammunition and the ability to glide around over Dunkirk without power and still shoot down Stukas. Similarly, Ken Branagh plays the Royal Navy single handedly. Not a very inspiring tribute to all those who were involved at Dunkirk.

A rather familiar storyline very much based on Brokeback Mountain and some of the scenes and motifs are a direct lift - strip down washes in a bucket, skinny dipping, left behind clothing - but I don't think this detracts from the story. Unlikely to do much to encourage people to take up farming in Yorkshire amongst the racists in the pub, it is a touching story of how an emotionally repressed young farmer gradually realises that he needs help and support from an immigrant worker with whom he has developed a relationship more meaningful than the quick shags in the back of his trailer or in pub toilets. Good performances from the two leads but strong support too from Gemma Jones as a grandmother who knows more than she lets on and Ian Hart as father incapacitated by a stroke.

Really struggled to get through this. I have no idea how it won so many awards. The music is totally forgettable (ever heard anything from the soundtrack album?) and the limited dancing doesn't get anywhere near Gene Kelly standard. Even Frank Sinatra could dance better than Ryan Gosling. Horrible schmaltzy storyline which almost parodies one of those old Rock Hudson/Doris Day films. Girl meets boy; girl hates boy; boy pretends to hate girl; girl starts to have second thoughts; bedroom scene. Avoid.

The film depicts gay life in West Berlin in the pre Aids era. On one hand, it is a realistic story about the relationship between two men. One is fairly conventional, the other (on the face of it a respectable primary school teacher) is driven by the need to seek promiscuous sex which undermines the relationship. Amusing at times it is also graphically sexually explicit, but not in a pornographic way.

I've generally enjoyed Tony Palmer's films about composers but this one left me cold. You get about 10 minutes of sketchy detail about Hindemith's life - mainly to prove that he's not one of those horrible Nazis. Then John Gielgud reads (very beautifully) relevant excerpts from Bunyan's PIlgrim's Progress against film footage of Germany under the Nazis and what I take to be tableaux vivants based on the medieval altarpiece which Hindemith used as the inspiration for the opera Mathis der Mahler. All this is accompanied by music which one can only assume is by Hindemith. Only at the final credits do we find out that the music is indeed from Mathis der Mahler. Surely there is more to be said about Hindemith than this and more of his music to be heard?

No matter how much you admire the cinematography, the storyline is unpleasant and racist. Native americans are portrayed as murderous rapists, justifying their wholesale slaughter and the desecration of their bodies. The occasional attempt at humour falls flat against the "White cowboy - Good. Red indian - bad" moral of the story.

Welles has some interesting ideas on Macbeth. Not all come off. The Scottish accents employed by the cast make the whole thing sound like a particular violent episode of Dr Finlay's Casebook. Good black and white photography - mainly black. Welles' costume at the end of the film makes him look like the Statue of Liberty. I don't think this is the version for you if you don't already know the play.

It must be difficult to take such a gripping and moving book as Testament of Youth and turn it into a mediocre film, but this is what has happened. Obviously some episodes and characters have to be omitted, but why include Winifred Holtby at all if you are just going to show her for 5 minutes and not explain her influence on Vera Brittain after the war. Kit Harington is badly miscast as Roland Leighton - Colin Morgan who is excellent as Victor would have made a much better job of it but presumably doesn't have the drawing power of a Game of Thrones star. I recommend that you seek out the BBC TV version of the late 1970s - much closer to the book and a better all round effort.

It's a shame Orson Welles wasn't allowed to do a proper job of making this film. He is very watchable as Falstaff but the fact that he had next to no budget for this film shows. Poor quality sound and some pretty obvious use of stand-ins are symptoms of this. But put these to one side and there are some classic scenes here, directed by a master.

A film about two killings, examined in forensic but unemotional detail. A teenage boy gratuitously and cruelly murders a taxi driver for reasons which are never very clear to us (and perhaps not to the boy either). The murder is shown in a lengthy sequence which is very disturbing. The film then moves very quickly to the next killing - the execution by hanging of the murderer by the state. This too is harrowing. The film's power derives from its almost documentary approach to two horrific acts of killing. The film is difficult to watch but, once seen, you won't forget it.

A film that (for those of us old enough to remember it) makes you reflect on the role of the Army in Northern Ireland in the early 1970s. Very difficult to decide exactly who are the heroes and villians in this scenario. Jack O'Connell is good in the leading role of the soldier left behind by his patrol in "enemy" territory and hunted by all sides for differing reasons. In some respects, the film reminds me of that 1940s classic "Odd Man Out" in which James Mason was on the run in Belfast.

Shakespeare's version of a revenge play is certainly full of gore and horror. Murder abounds, three hands and one tongue get hacked off, two characters get fed to another in a pie and I almost forgot the rape. As with the majority of the BBC Shakespeare, the settings are quite theatrical but there is a strong cast overall. Trevor Peacock and Edward Hardwicke as the elder Adronici are very good. The 100% evil character Aaron the Moor is suitably over the top as portrayed by Hugh Quarshie.