Film Reviews by PV

I turned this off after half an hour.

Beyond boring, also deeply precious and pretentious - the point at which a chair Bergman once sat in is worshipped was too much for me, and out came this DVD.

I suppose for deep fans of Bergman only.

Everyone else should avoid.

Maybe watch MISOMMAR instead - or old ABBA videos.

The USA does not DO poor - Hollywood films show magic, rich people, winners. The archetypal main character in British comedy is an Everyman little guy, often a loser (think Chaplin';s tramps, Frank Spencer, Pitkin, so many more).

So this sort of kitchen-sink film about poverty is unusual for the USA. A bit of a novelty therefore, showing a side rarely shown on TV drama (reality Tv is another matter) or in movies from Hollywood.

It juxtaposes a rent-by-the-week welfare/poverty motel which is right by Disneyland in Orlando - which many Brits go to for holidays (and a brit features too). No shock to us Brits as poverty and great wealth live side by side in London, But anyway, the point is hammered home here, in what can only be called a clunky way. Social issues are shoehorned into the stew throughout.

All a bit long-drawn-out and desperately stapling a plot on a 'poverty porn' which has very little in the way of story (a bit like the tedious NOMAD which I turned off after half an hour). I watched this to the end (though dislike the ending - NO SPOIILERS).

I suppose such films are necessary and unusual really for Hollywood, but I would not call it all that exciting or great entertainment, Largely a movie to be endured rather than enjoyed.

So 2 stars

I suppose I'd enjoy this more if I were from Chile. It takes place at a specific time, when a middle class woman is forced to see her own advantage in a Chile now ruled by a fascist regime - though to be fair, this was the Cold War, and the communist regimes around the world were just as brutal.

It brought to mind the superior Argentinian film THE SECRET IN THEIR EYES from 2009.

Also I could not help thinking of recent south American TV dramas like NARCOS about Pablo Escobar.

More like a TV drama than a film really. Worth a watch but probably only for fans of Chilean film or those interested in South American politics and history. 2 stars

The first thing to say is I loved the same director's second film CLOSE more than this. Both share a documentary feel, and are beautifully shot with lovely lush strings in the soundtrack too.

Maybe because I have zero interest in dance and ballet - I find it all so boring, as I did other movies like Black Swan etc. White Crow I gave 4 stars though.

One thing that is exceptional here is the casting of the main actor - see the interview with the director on the EXTRAS to see how that happened. He explains the film is based on the true story of a French boy who was trans which he read about in 2009.

It is a fascinating and very timely film as trans issues are very much live issues at the top of the agenda (though most kids who want to transition are apparently girls wanting to be boys, or were at the Tavistock clinic).

I suppose the anti-trans lobby will be triggered by this. Me, i see it in psychological terms (the direct mentions too how fragile some young trans actors he was seeing in auditions were). Ultimately, anyone born male cannot became female and anyone born female cannot become male - that is just biological fact. People can take pills, have hormone injections and have physical operations (or get mutilated as some would say) and for children and teens, that can often be seen as wrong as often these kids have autism of are just gay or think the grass will be greener as the opposite sex, THEN want to change back again. Maybe better not to give pills to children - i am sure many who believe they are trans are just common or garden gay anyway, coming to terms a nd being confused, and clutching onto false hope re trans-magic-fixes.

Anyway, I did see the ending twist coming (no spoilers). The issue of mental health features in the director/;s next film CLOSE too which I preferred, tbh.

So 3 stars, but I cannot fault the extraordinary performance of Victor Polster the main trans actor, though I do wonder where he/she goes from here.

OK so firstly, the animation here is brilliant. the MAKING OF doc on the extras is half an hour long and well worth a watch.

I have never read Terry Pratchet's Discworld books - I dislike fantasy genres like that usually. I know fans of it and him.

I do, however, like cats - and great cat books such as the A CAT CALLED DOG stories (no films of them yet sadly). The characters in those are, without wanting to offended Maurice, way funnier and more feline than his gingerness himself.

If you are OK with totally anthropomorphised rats and a cat using coins and money etc, fine. But that makes the characters people not animals. Maurice is not CAT enough for me - my favourite parts were when he was MORE CAT.

I suspect the plot of this is way too complicated for children - they'll be totally lost but will no doubt enjoy the colourful animation and chase/dance scenes etc.

I do have to say that this film did not make me laugh - once. I did roll my eyes rather a lot though.

As per usual with animation these days, this is a 'white male free zone'. What is the original novel like? Did that have a 'sassy' rude little madam female narrator and an Asian main character? For a European 15th C folk tale? This is what they do with ALL adaptations these days - why I vote with my feets, fingers, paws and eyes and not not watch them usually - I like cats and thus I wanted to watch this.

There is the usual cocky 'sassy ('arrogant' over-confident rude) female narrator which is now something of a cliche in middle grade fiction and animation (Disney, Pixar). This is the new normal - it is convention. It is Not radical or different - a white male character would be that,. but as per usually all white males here are presented as either useless buffoons or baddies JUST like in most movies and (UK) TV drama - which I avoid now (see how the SAME thing ruined the TV adaptation of Professor Branestawn which was trying so hard to be Mathilda). Just got to a bookstore and look at the main characters of middle grade children's books - they either female or of colour of both. It is pure politics and deliberate woke propaganda SO I advice parents to check out the archive of great kids' books for their kids., before it was ruined by woke/pc/identity politics propaganda.

This no criticism of Himesh Patel, BUT would he be happy if white blond actors were cast to play characters from Asian folk tales set in the Middle Ages - the Pied Piper of Hamelin is 15th century Germany, and I suggest that BAME and Asians and black villagers were pretty thin on the ground back then. want colourblind casting - fine, then BE CONSISTENT and stop demanding 'authentic casting' for any Asian/African story. I look forward to white blond male actors playing Zulus and Indian Maharajahs and Chinese Emperors too, and Ed Sheeran playing Nelson Mandela, soon.

I shall stick with the A CAT CALLED DOG books (which also have a wonderful dancing cat!).

2.5 stars

I usually love dinosaur films and have watched them all - but this? It's not even a B movie or a C movie or a D movie, Keep going, if you must - I could not ad turned off halfway through.

Just awful. HOW can a movie about dinosaurs be so mind-numbing boring? They must have put a great deal of thought into how to achieve that.

Instead watch THE LAND THAT TIME FORGOT (1974) and the VALLEY OF GWANGI (1969) from which the final scene of Jurassic Park is lifted The T-Rex focus which is NOT in the novel actually, just the superb screenplay by David Koepp).

I do even like low-budget dino films like THE DINOSAUR PROJECT (2012). Though no doubt there are some turkeys i have not seen,.

But this is beyond bad. 1 star, Just.

This is a great film about male friendship. Very original and brave, in this hysterical age too ( this film could NOT have been made in the UK or USA).

It is so well-acted too - many cast are amateurs such as the two boys themselves who are perfect.

It is also well shot and looks beautiful, with colour schemes reflecting mood, especially of the flower-growing family, so lots of bright colours in summer becoming brown, earthy and dead and events occur.

Watch the two interviews with the director and his fellow writer on the EXTRAS. They are illuminating. About the casting especially and how much time was taken to do that and film through the seasons.

Personally, I'd say boys of that age 12/13 (year 7 or 8 UK schools) would tend not to behave like these do - certainly not my memories. Maybe younger boys, aged 8/9/10 who had a very close friend the same age, often with a power imbalance - one boy older/stronger/bolder. That is the age when children fantasise when playing too - that is all over by 12/13.

SO I am not sure I believe the story or the acceptance of two boys that age sharing a bed (having been a 12/13 year old boy, I know that would not have been seen as OK in the UK; maybe Belgium is different?). I remember such close male bonds at age 8/9/10 and then they slip away. By secondary school and puberty.

I was a bit annoyed the backstory of one boy and his mother was not explored more - no spoilers. Maybe it is meant to be vague, re bathroom door lock etc. A scene when one boy plays at a concert is central re his sensitive personality.

This could also be classed as a film exploring mental illness too. Some may say what occurs is a bit clunky and melodramatic, but not necessarily.

Some dreadful clunky subtitles at times - clearly NOT translated by a native English speaker into English - and they stick at one point. Why not get a native speaker to do them perfectly?

Anyway, as another reviewer says the first half is the strongest part of the movie. It can drag a little in the second half. A small criticism though.

Overall this is a great film and I enjoyed it way more than another recent film of 2 boys of 12/13 'ARMAGEDDON TIME' (3 stars).

One of the very best coming of age films ever. I watched it twice in 2 days.

4.5 stars rounded up.

I was ;looking forward to watching this film, which I had not realised existed - after watching a superb TV documentary about this discovery of the bones of Richard III, I was delighted to find out there was a film about it too.

I needn't have bothered. It is truly awful. I could not stand it any more and turned off halfway through - did not make it to the end of the battle (a bit like King Richard III at Bosworth then eh?)

I am not a fan of Sally Hawkins and Steve Coogan can be uber-irritating. BUT they are not the problem here/ The woeful script is - it misfires all the way.

1 star

This is a coming of age story of two 12/13 year old boys BUT it is not a patch on the BRILLIANT Belgian film CLOSE which explores the same theme, happily without the racial blm politics showhorned into the script in a tickbox preachy woke way (sadly the way in SO many US and UK movies and TV dramas now).

OK this is New York, so racially mixed in 1980 in a way the UK really was not except in inner cities. I was the same age as these boys in late 1980 near London and all I can say is my experience of life - and pop music - was so completely different from this. No black people in London suburbs for a start - some Asians. Not many, Pop music was New Romantic stuff or Ska or heavy metal - not the Sugar Hill Gang or rap.

The reliance on The Clash on the soundtrack is odd BUT they were big in the USA. The only punk band to break through.

The racial themes are like a sermon, with clunky scenes of what no doubt is said to be 'white privilege' portraying all whites are racist (and adding a Trump connection too in this staunchly pro-democrat film. I just find it all boring). MAYBE feature some privileged black people - they did exist in 1980 even. Plenty exist now - visit ANY tope public (private) school in the UK and see they are 20-30% BAME; and see how white working class boys are THE least advantaged and most discriminated against group.

I almost turned this off as it seemed at times an advert for racial theory I believe to be fake and victimhood-craving posturing. I lasted until the end.

I suppose this is personal to the director as it is autobiographical BUT I do wonder how much was added to tick the blm/race/woke boxes which ALL movies from Hollywood must do these days, sadly - because it is making movies preachy woke sermons and lectures WHEN a movie should ONLY be about 'TELLING A GOOD STORY WELL'. The end.

So meh. 3 stars. Good to see Welsh boy Anthony Hopkins and the kid actors do well. But watch CLOSE instead.

Gosh well, this is apparently from a story by gay nationalist Japanese writer MISHIMA - so maybe watch the 1980s film of that name first to get it more, as he was a literary author, some would say pretentious and all about ideas.

Totally unbelievable story and characters too, esp the CHIEF boy. remined me of a Graham Greene short story (and TV film) The Destructors. Or maybe Lord of the Flies (the old film is MUCH better).

Made in 1976 the same year as The Omen which does nasty child much better! Also the same time as JAWS.

I disliked the scenes of animal torture BUT the credits assure us no animals were harmed.

I liked the nice scenes of Devon.

Borderline horror movie and a tad odd.

I love these old horror films, many by Hammer, often with great casts of British character actors and an arch sense of fun. very camp and weird.

They often have portmanteau structures, lots of small stories with an over-riding theme - here it is the plagues of Egypt, Done MUCH later with US movies like SE7EN of course.

I enjoyed this, but the ending does let it down (no spoilers) so 4 stars.

Not sure why this film is listed twice - look up THE ABOMINABLE DR PHIBES to see several reviews - this is the same film. Maybe this was the US release? Who knows?

I smell the stench of blm bandwagon on this and so many new movies besides. Written by a white male writer who knows which way the woke wind is blowing and then a black man (Brit) hired to direct of course. They each have a record in macho action movies.

It is an all-black movie, except for one early lawyer boss character, so one wonders why nobody noticed the complete lack of colourblind casting here - usually people yell and scream when all actors are one colour, non-BAME, that is. So all white is racist but all black is non-racist. Errrr.... THIS IS NOT PROGRESS.

It's a so-so derivative tale, a slice of hokum with several old horror tropes shackled together. The Others, people in old century-old photos, comes to mind, And of course MISERY, an effective man-kept-captive story - one of many though; and then we have spells, magic, cannibalism, the usual. The classic 1970s movie DELIVERANCE is the bar to reach though. WRONG TURN is better too. RITUALS is another great film.

My favourite part of this is how this movie shows social class/money divide BETWEEN black people in the USA. I always tell anyone who listens there is NO SUCH THING as white privilege; there are many privileged people who are not white or male too. The socio-economic class is what divides and the endless focus on identity politics and skin pigment is both harmful and, actually, racist.

Still, this is good enough - a Friday Night horror. Completely unbelievable but...

3 stars

Anyone interested in where cinematic ideas come from needs to watch this.

Not only do we have an alien landing on earth, but he is befriended by ELIOT - in this case an old man professor not the boy of ET.

The alien can communicate only using muted musical sounds - an idea lifted by Spielberg for Close Encounters of the Third Kind,

A 1951 independent film, shot from an original screenplay in 6 days in December 1950, low budget, all studio sets, and I think decent ones and spaceship models - and the alien man's face is impressively scary. Even now!

This is great to watch with THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL which was based on a 1944 short story and finished filming 56 months earier.

It was a time of cold war fear mutating into fear of aliens, though the over-hyped War of the Worlds radio play was late 1930s by Orson Welles.

This is a classic of the genre and so influential AND just shows what an independent film shot on a budget of pennies with some old cardboard and string can do!

5 stars.

The fine actor Anders Denielsen Lie (from a very privileged Norwegian family) who often plays troubled men is in this (and he was great in the BEST drugs movie ever made, OSLO AUGUST 31st, a 2011 film) . BUT he does not have much to do, except mooch about alone in an apartment block for minutes.

This is in English but very much a French film in that it is bloated, pompous, pretentious and SLOW. And boy we can do without the drums.

I believe this is based on a French graphic novel - and it probably works better as a story in that form.

For a truly great zombie movie watch 28 DAYS LATER or the bafflingly-ignored THE GIRL WITH ALL THE GIFTS. or for comedy SHAUN OF THE DEAD.

This could all fit into a half hour TV drama, frankly. In a word, it is boring. Paris is pretty though.

2 stars