Film Reviews by PV

I do not usually watch documentary movies. I do watch some on the music business because I have had connections with it.

We all know the music biz is a shark-infested ocean, and new artists have to sign contracts which are often pretty exploitative - the alternative is walking away and going back to working in MaccyD's or whatever. So you sign. Then later, if successful, you regret it. Some try to make it good and fail (George Michael). Contracts are contracts.

Frank Farian is a fascinating character. Born 1941 (died 2024) his father was killed in the war. He was a small-time pop star in Germany in 1960s THEN blossomed as a svengali figure, the brains behind Boney M in 1970s who sang on several of their massive hits (I have a soft spot for Ra ra Rasputin). he created the band from dancers who did not sing on the records. I hear reports a couple of the women sang but here it says they did not, so not sure.

Anyway, amazing no-one wondered re Milli Vanilli lip-synching considering the Boney M history. This cautionary tale is tragic indeed for some (though how much they were damaged anyway before joining one will never know) though I liked the end of this film and story, which was full of hope.

Some great old film and TV clips here. And this is ALL pre internet in late 80s of course - kids now think life without it is impossible, but there was TV and MTV, and magazines. so no need for smartphones or the internet to create hype. This made me research the story and characters further, the 2 band members and Frank Farian and Boney M.

One sore point: some here make the claim it is black artists who are exploited by white record companies and producers. That is a typical race-fixated American take on things. The fact is EVERYBODY is exploited and manipulated by record companies and producers - the skin colour does not matter (and more a socio-economic class issue anyway).

4 stars.

I watched the first movie of this director - RAW - and gave it 2 stars. I give this the same. Not sure why she gets such praise. Or that tedious Hollywood film THE SUBSTANCE.

Watch SICK OF MYSELF - Norwegian film about similar themes.

This is so pretentious, confused, like some director with too much funding and not enough editing could do whatever they want. It ends up being boring.

It starts well. The first act is great. Until the car bit...

No spoilers BUT if you want to watch a great film on genderbending and trans, watch GIRL (Flemish film from the director of CLOSE).

But if you like firemen, then you'll be in heaven. I have not seen to many firefighters since I watched LONDON'D BURNING on TV in the 1990s.

I am not even slightly offended by repulsive, violent, gruesome scenes - I liked them in seriously excellent disturbing movie UNDER THE SKIN. The scifi element in this was surprising and just went on TOO long in a confused random way. Meandering is the word. Self-indulgent is another.

There are some gruesome bodyshock scenes BUT I was not shocked or moved by them. Nope. Rather, as I watched I thought to myself "they're gonna have a heck of a job getting that stain out of the carpet..." But that's just me.

2 stars, JUST. Really, watch SICK OF MYSELF (2022 Norway film) or UNDER THE SKIN (2013 UK film). Avoid the awful 2022 film MEN, yet another birthing carpet stain drama...

This film starts so well - I'd give the first half 4 or even 5 stars. Apparently based on a non-fiction book of a true story, so one can forgive the plot, I suppose as it is all true (or BASED on a true story - how much, I do not know).

Sadly then, especially in the third at, it seems to morph into a bit of a pc lecture - about how all men are monsters (and responsible for any violence/murder a tiny % of awful men to) and all women are angels (yeah right). This sort of stuff is on trend now, just see what gets nominated for Oscars, but it is tedious in the extreme, and sexist, bare misandry. More importantly, in storytelling and film-making terms, it is BORING. Preachy sermons and lectures always are.

So a shame this very watchable French crime thriller turns into that. The last part of the film wilts, and risks becoming boring - and the ending (NO SPOILERS) will not satisfy (but if based on a true story, so be it). Watchable nonetheless.

I really enjoyed the banter between the male cops, confidence, insecurity and trauma dripping from every word and laugh. I yawned at the rather predictable scenes on sexism/racism in the police all told through the cipher of the 2-D tickbox woman of colour...

I am glad though that many of the characters including the locals and suspects as well as the police officers are well-fleshed-out three-dimensional characters, not cartoon characters, so that is well done.

And if you like cycling you'll probably like this. I do not. I would have cut all those scenes BUT the mountainous landscape is glorious to look at anyway! Not sure precisely where it is set, but it all looks lovely anyway,. I may well pay visit sometime...

For those who do not know France, understand that they have 3 police forces - the gendarmes (local police, traffic etc); the city police (criminal stuff) and the CRS (riot police, skinheads. wear blue jumps suits).

Anyway, overall, I would recommend it. 3.5 stars rounded down.

This reminds me a bit of MEMENTO (2000) in its often baffling, confusing, swerving plot, and dark themes of memory and identity.

It also reminds me of the classic 2009 Argentinian film THE SECRET IN THEIR EYES (do not bother with the later US remake).

Very violent, often sexually explicit, sometimes confusing, even repulsive in the famous octopus scene (I am no seafood fan but know that in the Far East they can and do eat some things I just could not - see the videos online....)

It is certainly unforgettable, and many people (esp men) seem to love it and rate it as one of their all-time fave films. It is almost fantasy really, a Mafia drama, a Far East Sopranos redone as a cheese dream...

Me, not so much, but I am glad I watched it. A well made movie which requires commitment and concentration from the viewer, and even then some things may confuse (like MEMENTO which has websites explaining the plot, even now).

So 4 stars.

This got some pretty mediocre reviews on release but I actually really liked it. Not perfect, for sure, but 3.5 stars.

A great cast including Michael Sheen and of course Simon Pegg & Nick Frost whose film company made it. The film does remind me a lot of their SHAUN OF THE DEAD.

Filmed at Stowe School where posh director and co-writer Crispian Mills went (mum Hayley Mills, grand-dad Sir John Mills, and Crispian's father was on of the Boulting brothers, film directors). He later formed pop band Kula Shaker. Also filmed at Windsor Great Park and Chislehurst Caves.

Yes, silly in bits, but some fun lines, OTT monster horror - but why not? A good budget here. Watch CANARIES (Welsh low-budget film) to see how comedy horror can be done on a fraction of this budget.

3.5 stars rounded down.

OK so, if this film were written/directed/produced by men and NOT based on a non-fiction non-fiction book about the true story, it could be classed as softcore lesbian porn, and no doubt attract the ire of feminists. But it is based on a true story as revealed in a book, but a female author. Phew!

‘Immodest Acts: The Life of a Lesbian Nun in Renaissance Italy’ by Judith C. Brown, a detailed account of the life of Sister Benedetta Carlini, who has mystic visions, and her affair with a fellow nun, Bartolomea. The book covers n Sister Benedetta’s life and her confrontation with the provost of her order, especially very detailed explicit transcripts of the inquests. It is a rare lesbian affair recorded in history, this from early 17th C - there are many more records of male sexual activity and often brutal punishment including execution. Worth mentioning too that nuns like these had it easy compared to many women and men in society of the time.

The ending is fictional: the revolt of the citizens, and the attempt to burn Benedetta at the stake is borrowed from the story of Joan of Arc. He has also stated that the dildo was required to be "historically accurate", because apparently to be burned at the stake it required that an "instrument" was used...Which is handy then, if you want to get some heretical girl-on-girl dildo action into a movie... For art's sake, bien sur...

It can be a wordy story, and it helps to know a bit of history re 17th C counter-reformation Papacy and inquisitions. Also it is maybe overlong esp with erotic scenes lingering. But it was not boring and had enough twists and turns, and action, and lesbian sex if they is your thing, to maintain interest. Visually impressive too. Well acted.

It is really a political drama, where power and faith mingle, with a series of vicious power struggles – first with the Abbess (Charlotte Rampling), then with the nuncio, a papal envoy from plague-ridden Florence. Benedetta has visions of Christ and bears the bloody marks of the stigmata, but speaks her proclamations in words deemed too lascivious to be the word of God. is she a faker? Probably, but... but... People always WANT to believe. So a bit like the X-Files then...Do you BELIEVE? or not.

Fascinating to learn about convent life then, when 'brides of Christ' AKA nuns or rather their families had to pay a huge dowry for them to enter a convent. Worth checking out Benedetta Carlini on Wiki or similar for background.

In French but not a a story from France - Pescia is in Tuscany, northern Italy, as is the always-beautiful city of Firenze/Florence (to see it in all its glory watch ROOM WITH A VIEW 1986 or HANNIBAL 2001).

I enjoyed this anyway. 4 stars.

I hated this film, Do yourself a favour and watch the truly great Norwegian film SICK OF MYSELF (2023) which covers the same ground in a satire way more classy and well-written than this dross, or AMERICAN MARY (2013) about cosmetic surgery taken to extremes. OR the 1970s class film from a classic satirical novel THE STEPFORD WIVES. Read it too, great book. As is THE PICTURE OF DORIAN GREY by Oscar Wilde, Same idea. This movie is SO derivative and not original even a bit.

HOW on earth did this dreadful drivel get nominated for Oscars, ditto with its sister-film Barbie? Politics, that is why. These are #metoo femifantasies which diss men massively, portray all men as repulsive evil man-monsters (only white Western me though). It is hare misandry, the opposite of misogyny, Imagine a film that showed such cartoon character repulsive women throughout.

No doubt the target audience of self-pitying self-absorbed teenage girls and babywomen will love this revenge fantasy BUT who runs TV? Women. Most producers are female and also run the magazine and fashion industry; the TV audience is mostly female too, 70-80% for reality TV and dance shows as portrayed here,. So STOP the manblaming and look in the mirror, sisters. VANITY THY NAME IS WOMAN indeed.

OTT special effects (similar to Britflick MEN) in a gorefest as the absurd main character heads for a predictable climax.

Substance has NO substance; it is style over substance from beginning to end. FAR better GRASS IS GREENER/BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR films.

French director whose only other movie is equally manblaming (issues much?) but at least REVENGE was watchable (in French). This is SO full of plot holes it could be a cheese - Swiss, of course. Too many to list.

BRAVE NEW WORLD did this cloning idea better, as did WESTWORLD 1973 movie and recent TV series, and the on-trend TV drama series SEVERANCE. Maybe HANNIBAL TV drama series too which is classy and stylish in a way this is not. This is total dross and dangerous dross at that - the systemic misandry, boybashing, manblaming in our society grows and grows. Why? Is this a good thing? Why? It is bare sexism and I call out the bigotry of it.

If you like manhating B-movie bodyshock horror films that are style over substance and make no sense and come from a bitter place, watch it,. Otherwise, avoid.

This reminds me of a stage play - I do not think it started as one. Maybe the writer came from the theatre. He - Franklin Ritch - also directs, produces and stars as the geek main character, and he also done da feem toon. Gosh.

Dangerous, that, esp for a new film maker - and the flaws caused but it show. Editing is badly needed, esp of the script - slice off the preachy flab, the lecture on AI. Improve clarity, date tags for the 3 parts (I,II, and III, which is very Roman...) would help too. Just 'X years later' for parts 2 & 3.

Part 1 is best imho. Interesting. Not sure where this would go. Subsequent parts jump the shark maybe. Depends if you like and buy the conceits in scifi, I suppose.

Maybe this was all done better with the high-budget glossy 'A.I.' in 2001. But then that was directed by Spielberg so...this wasn't.

It is arty, leftfield, low-budget and a useful contribution to the AI-movie canon. But it is mixed in quality, no more than mediocre. Part 1 scores 4 stars. 2 stars for parts 2 and 3.

3 stars overall.

Hmmm well, this film annoyed me. Why? Well I am no big fan of either of the actors Ewen M and Eva G - I find them smug and annoying, and they play such characters here.

It's unbelievable, and I mean the characters. Would a posho English rose fall for a chef? Not usually.

Then there is the unbelievable plot and the annoying narration, which has the sort of pretentious tone of so many European films, and this is Scandinavian-made. This is the sort of thing that would probably work better in a novel, to be honest. I could not willingly suspend my disbelief here and kept asking WHY WHY WHY about so much that happened. It clearly THINKS it is a groundbreaking clever film. It is not.

This sort of thing has been done FAR better elsewhere. For example in THE GIRL WITH ALL THE GIFTS or Soderburgh's realistic SARS/Covid pandemic origin story drama CONTAGION. THE BAY is another. And THE DAY OF THE TRIFFIDS did it better even in the early 80s TV series.

2 stars

Very annoying characters here BUT the movie gets away with it and some other absurdities because it is well made.

Would such a tower by still up and usable? Why? Would no-one notice?> Really? As experienced climbers they'd tell people where they were going surely?

It seems these days all these sort of films have to have young female leads (all strong and independent women of course), like so many shark movies, The Shallows, 47 Metres down, and so many more. It's almost as if #metoo made a man-ban real. Ironically, what we have now is a new sexist stereotype and a real cliché. How tiresome. I hope the pendulum swings back soon so both male and female actors can play such roles.

Also, I watched a documentary on the super scary spot of free climbing (as in the start of this film but worse, NO safety ropes AT ALL there) - FREE SOLO (2018) won the best documentary Oscar even. In that, there is NOT ONE female free climber. They are all me. Every one, And mad mental bonkers, every one too! Many die. Of course. See what they do. WATCH that doc and also THE WALK (2015), the movie which I loved, and watched through my fingers, and documentary.

Moreover, a quick glance at the credits reveal this film was written, directed and produced by men and a man even did the music. So the women are, for want of a better term, eye candy. What great progress for feminism,. YAY!

Could have been 2 stars but the writer does a great job in mixing it up, increasing the jeopardy as per the scriptwriting template, but in imaginative and very 21st century ways. The husband/boyfriend issue is interesting.

Yes, it's a B-Movie - but a good one! I enjoyed it.

Some here did not like the twist - I did though I usually dislike how calculated and tricksy such plot tricks are (watch 47 METRES DOWN which is maybe where the writer here got the idea from).

3 stars

I enjoyed this. It's a clearly well-written character piece with a standard chalk and cheese pairing, this time of 2 Jewish New York cousins who could not be more different.

Jesse Eisenberg shows he is bright enough to write an intelligent script like this (unlike many actors who are really not that bright - why screenplays have to SPELL EVERYTHING OUT and never use jokes or irony, because the aforementioned actors will not get it... trust me). Jesse E always directed, no easy task and one which often goes wrong for those attempting writer-director-actor trick in a film.

The acting is believable even if the tolerant reactions of all the people are not. I did like the 'prodigal son' type envy at the end, no spoilers, even if it is not really credible. Jesse E does his usual nerdy neurotic act, even mentioning Xanax and ADHD I think.

In my mind, Will Sharpe as the northern English tour guide steals the show though, and boy that character has the patience of a saint and tbh I do not really believe the reaction of him and other tour members to the deeply annoying and loud potty-mouthed insulting Benji.

I liked seeing Poland and hearing the tour guide info too.

In my view, Jeremy Strong should have won the best supporting actor for The Apprentice, not Culkin here (the association with Trump may have done for Strong's brilliant portrayal of The Donald's reptilian amoral gay mentor from the 1970s). BUT that is usual for me, I often disagree with Oscar choices,

4 stars.

I loved this. It's an imaginative and original, and very entertaining, take on the vampire myth, Dracula, Nosferaturu, The Vampyre, whatever.

The characters are great, the juxtaposition of the foppish 18th C courtier and the peasant family in some unnamed part of central Europe - a map is shown at some stage which gives a vague location. Transylvania? But they all speak French anyway...

Some nice twists here, the members of the 'strange family', the feminine cross-dressing brother, the wife, and the father of course... I suspect UK/US films would not dare show what happens to the child character here (no spoilers) though the new NOSFERATU movie also shows child victims I suppose. Anyhow, I enjoyed this modest film more than that bloated one (watched it last week).

Some 'grand guignol' horror here and black humour which i enjoyed. The SFX are fun, CGI or puppet.

And a fun ending too, no spoilers.

A hidden Gallic gem. 4 stars.

I was not expecting much from this and often dislike Matt Damon esp in the action movies.

But this slowburner was really good. Be patient and stay with it. It simmers slowly with devastating results.

Reminds me a bit of Argentinian class THE SECRET IN THEIR EYES.

A nice moral undertone to this story and the characters, about betrayal, and truth and lies, and...well, watch it.

OK the story if a tad unbelievable but...

4 stars. A solid film.

This just squeaks a 3 stars, though to be fair I did select the DIRECTOR'S CUT version not the shorter THEATRICAL RELEASE.

Very slow and ponderous, visually impressive, great caste BUT it somehow lacks heart, despite all the emoting. It is a little anaemic, perhaps...

The absolute classic 1922 Nosferatu was a film version of the novel (and then stage play) Dracula by Bram Stoker. After complaints of copyright infringement, the film makers altered some details BUT Stoker's widow still sued - a court ruling ordered all copies of the film destroyed. Luckily, a few prints of Nosferatu survived THANK GOODNESS, and thus the film came to be regarded as an influential masterpiece of cinema and the horror genre.

This movie made 102 years later by the rather over-rated director Robert Eggers (I see I gave 2 of his other films 2 stars) is a curiosity piece really, an addition to the genre but not a patch on the classic 1922 Nosferatu directed by the great German expressionist director FW Murnau, written by Henrik Galeen.

Then there is the classic late 1950s Christopher Lee DRACULA and he IS Dracula. Before my time was the 1930s Bela Lugosi version and shown so brilliantly in GODS AND MONSTERS and also ED WOOD.

This is an addition to the genre, watchable, dark, explicit in parts, no doubt some will find it scary. The main innovation seems to be to give a female character agency which is so 21st century but is also so obviously tacked on.

3 stars. Just.

I loved the director's HEARTSTONE. This is not quite as good, just a tad bloated and overlong esp in 2nd half and 3rd act.

As ever, I could do without the cod spiritual stuff - I always think that's a bit of a cop-out, a way for film makers to try and spice up a story, but it actually has the reverse effect.

This film starts brilliantly, exploring the bullying dynamic of a teenage boy gang - the amateur actors here do so well, utterly believable and naturalistic performances by all the boys. Not sure I believe some of the plot strands but...

But gosh, is Iceland really all druggies and criminals, the deranged, the sex pest perverted, not to mention the level of mental illness! And the colourful painted wooden houses all look so pretty. Instead it's a hotbed of abuse and madness. It's probably eating all that fish that does it. And remember in 16th century Europe, Iceland was actually stated as the geographic entrance to hell itself (see VIKINGS).

Flawed and overlong, but a decent film about the dynamics of teenage boys, their friendships, loves and hates. And all done without the silly boybashing manblaming moral panic of the very feminised media and TV/film industry in the UK, and our feminised politics getting hysterical about the socalled manosphere and 'toxic masculinity' socalled, words and concepts invented by misandrists maybe?

CLOSE is another films (this time Flemish/Belgian by Lukas Dhont) which nails it. WAY better than anything any Netflix/UK TV drama has done re the same subject. This writer/director really GETS teenage boys with sympathy and lived experience no doubt. Could not be different from the unpleasant boybashing attitude of the moralising movies and TV dramas made on the same subject, and the ensuing pofaced prissy moral panic of politicans and manblaming feminists.

4 stars. Maybe 4.5