Film Reviews by PV

First thing to say is this film is NOT multicultural. White (and black) people are, in effect, BANNED from all scenes - even though MANY whites and blacks live and work in China. Can you imagine a UK/US film with parties with ONLY white people? Those who say this is progress are clearly very ignorant or misunderstand the whole point of FAIR representation. Ditto all-black movies.

This film starts with a disgustingly racist scene - racist against white British people that is. According to this race hate movie, a posh London hotel in 1995 would be entirely staffed by bigoted racist nasty-wasty white British men who'd be so racist as to try and turn away a rich Chinese family who had made a reservation. This is pure race hate - and a manufactured lie intended to stir up mockery and hatred of the British (who actually created the most successful part of China - Hong Kong!)

The facts: Hotels in London - yes, even in 1995 - are mostly staffed by foreigners. Posh hotel clients are mostly foreigners too and usually rich Arabs, Africans, Asians. EVEN a century ago, posh hotels welcomed ethnic foreigners from all over the world. The UK never EVER had race laws unlike the USA or indeed China, with it's racist Boxers. That is why Motown musicians have such fond memories of the UK from their early 60s tour - NO racial segregation here and NO blacks using back entrances.

After that disgusting race hate scene, I could not enjoy this movie - despite some funny set pieces. The fact it has a Chinese cast does NOT make racism OK. Ditto all black movies. Take not, Spike Lee.

The worship of ostentatious material wealth here is also stomach-churning. Made me realise why people in the Far East wanted to be communist actually.

And basically it's all a silly Mills and Boon drivel drama for teenage girls anyway.

I actually think the UK/US should now make a movie insulting China and showing Asians as racist bigots, just for the sake of balance.

No stars. In the trash.

This film is NOT awful and I liked the Cat Stevens reference.

But my word, it's schmaltzy, saccharine, sentimental, tear-jerking stuff. So if you like a good cry and slush, you'll love this.

Personally, I always hate overtly religious references in movies and this film is stuffed full of it, which made me cringe. But no doubt will go down well will American audiences.

But hey, it's not awful and I have seen and read worse animal stories.

And good music so 2 stars.

Watch to the end to see the real stray dog and family - because this is based on a real early 90s story, apparently.

I really enjoyed this film (except the fizzled out ending - no spoilers) and have always liked ghost stories like this.

One major criticism is the main character using the word 'snuck' as the past of 'sneak'. That is a recent American import - the last 20-30 years - and would NOT have been used in the late 1940s, in provincial England. 'Sneaked' is what the character should have said. I do wish authors/screenwriters would be more careful to get language right and correct!

But this is a really enjoyable haunted house ghost story overall - with added tension of madness and murder, the first world war and the decline of the aristocracy and landed gentry.

So 4 stars. But oh what a shame about that ending!

I rented this film because I remembered watching it when aged maybe 10 or 11 on our black and white TV - the end scenes were SO memorable they stuck in my mind.

I love these old films - 1965 in this case - so liberated from the pc diversity obsessions of our modern pompous age!

Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee in this, and Bernard Cribbins! Plus hot totty in the form or Ursula Andrews.

Based on a Rider Haggard novel so lots of old school adventure in exotic lands and some hokum plot re Ancient Egypt.

And full-on African tribes - even #whiteface whiting up and authentic dancing - I'd love to know which tribe they are from because they are NOT African-Americans faking it and pretending to be Africans as in so many more modern movies.

I loved this. Loved it. 5 stars

This starts well - all about punk in 1976 and schoolboys.

Then it morphs into a wacky aliens in Croydon adventure which seems like a spoof of itself.

I am not really into scifi so I lost interest really then - I'd have preferred a film about punk with no weird alien plot.

BUT that isn't the fault of the film makers - it's all based on a Neil Gaiman story, so blame him!

Not that bad though. Maybe 2.5 stars out of ten so 3 stars.

This film started off well as a character study of a hitman living with his mother.

It then descends into an unbelievable plot about politician organised abuse of underage girls, intercut with flashbacks from the main character's abusive childhood.

Too violent for my taste AND what with the number of guns in the USA, it seems incredible that a hammer-wielding hitman would survive very long or escape arrest.

Obviously influenced by movies like NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN and TAXI DRIVER, this is a so-so effort so 3 stars.

This comes from a novel and it shows - it tries to cram in way too much: an unbelievable spiritual 'seer' plot; 11th century England; 11th century Iran; Muslim history; Jewish history, Christian history; the expected romantic subplot...

BUT good in parts though historically inaccurate - there WERE hospitals and doctors in 11th century England and well before that too. Even Stonehenge is now recognised as a healing place. The Dark Ages are misnamed and only named so in later centuries when historians and philosophers wanted to show how advanced they were compared to their forebears.

Of course, the medicine of the Islamic world drew completely on work done in Ancient Greece then Rome - and the part re radical Islamists wanting to destroy everything is true: by 1100 Islam ossified and that is still having effects today, as Islam has had no reformation. At this time the Muslim hordes burnt down the great library at Alexandria which contained many Aristotle texts - HOWEVER now wonderful technology is allowing researchers to read scrolls that are nothing more than carbon.

The idea 11th century 'doctors' knew nothing of body parts or medicine is simply untrue - people in the British Isles were using medicines from nature for centuries, including willow as aspirin to treat headaches and pain; and copper oxide to treat wounds; and gold and silver too. Plus plants - some of which worked!

Apparently this was originally a German TV movie in several parts and probably worked much better that way.

I hated the cod-spiritual seer/healer/premonition sub-plot and the romantic element was predictably boring. I preferred the medical and religious parts THOUGH one does have to bear in mind that all Jews were expelled from England under Edward I (I think) but then readmitted by Oliver Cromwell in the 17th century.

NO subtitles at all though is a great weakness especially as some of the cod-Persian 11th century accents are barely understandable!

3 stars. Just.

This is a reasonably funny movie with the expectedly absurd plot, and some glorious set-pieces by visual comedy genius Rowan Atkinson.

I got a bit sick of the CGI stuff, to be honest - but was prepared to go along with the ridiculous plot and Clouseau-like disasters for one reason nd one reason only: IT'S FUNNY. Simple, yes, but just funny in a child-like way. And sometimes that's enough. I get so weary of supposedly funny BBC 'comedies' with tricksy postmodern sneering etc. Yawn. That is not funny. This is.

Lots of silly dancing and James-Bond-spoof tropes and some glorious visual gags - a few plants in the script early on give away the plot (to me anyway). But the writing is sharp - and some great lines in this, especially from the female prime minister.

Good clean fun which I enjoyed a lot! 4 stars

The first thing to say about this film is that it's too long at over 2 hours, like so many Hollywood movies.

This has got rave reviews but I found it tiresome the longer it went on. It's al a dream fantasy really and desperately tries to squeeze in too much incl racial politics (yawn!), cult leaders like Waco, the FBI, an armed robbery backstory, feminism, child abuse, Motown, Viet Nam, religion, and even a hinted-at JFK element. Too much really. This could and maybe should have been 2 movies - the cult scenes later on could be a different film, frankly.

It's watchable and does have surprises and plot twists aplenty. But what it reminds me of really is an Agatha Christie whodunnit. And the end is pure Hamlet. Reminds me too of that Tarantino movie set in a hotel with vampires.

So-so. So 3 stars.

This is a necessary film about a serious subject - the deliberate Ukrainian famine of 1932-33 in which Stalin and the Soviets deliberately starved to death 7-10 million people. And people still wonder why Ukraine wanted so badly to be independent (and why some sided with Nazis against Soviets in WWII). Watch this and learn.

Yes, it's low budget - but I disagree with the 1 and 2 star reviews here which are too harsh. The film is well-plotted and hangs together well - yes, the romance part is silly BUT I'd say ALL Hollywood movies think they have to have this to appeal to the female audience. Expect more of this as more women's movies get made (which I won't watch).

Anyone who thinks Socialism leads to Utopia should watch this movie which shows what happens when the state has all control. Disaster! Oppression! Dictatorship!

It made me laugh when one Soviet butcher accuses a Ukrainian of being 'reactionary' - well, that is a favourite term of abuse used by leftwing academics, aimed at anyone who states opinions they disagree with. That speaks volumes.

A flawed but excellent film. 4 stars.

There are SO many movies like this these days. They start with a concept: WHAT IF...etc. Then follow an absurd fantasy plot, with loads of CGI car/train crashes, shootings, fights ALL to directly appeal to the Chinese market which demands such set pieces (look how that has RUINED Bond movies).

The BEST thing about this movie if the end credits which are brilliantly designed.

Otherwise it's utter hokum and nonsense - some fantasy of movie executives. AND all that CGI gets utterly tedious in the end. The plot was probably written on the back of a beer mat too (or maybe a vegan menu).

I enjoyed this film. Yes,, it's slight and yes, we know the ending because it happens as the news story was famous (in the UK anyway).

But it's a nice enough watch, with some old con characters played by loads of white men (which I enjoyed in this age which activetly discriminates against them and parachutes in women and ethnic minorities in absurd roles).

Michael Caine must be 85. Tom Courtney 80. Others here like Paul Whitehouse and Ray Winstone only 60.

They use footage from their old movies a bit near the end, which is fun.

However, the film SEXY BEAST is way superior - it also features and heist and also features Ray Winstone, and Ian McShane who wouldn't have fitted in here too.

SO my advice is to watch the 2 movies back to back. This first, then the 5 star SEXY BEAST.

This is 3.5 stars rounded up.

Chekhov always gets massive praise as a playwright and a short story writer - I have tried reading the latter such as 'The Lady with the Little Dog' but must admit I don't really get him as a writer. It's all about subtle shifts in relationships with Chekhov, I think.

This is a slight film which is pretty local to the play EXCEPT the Americanisms in the text (eg 'smart' for intelligent or bright) which I disliked. I can just about put up with the US accents.

Some interesting characters but all spoilt rich people navel-gazing really, something I hate about so much modern cinema and drama.

No wonder there was a revolution in Russia with all these spoilt rich people obsessed with their own happiness! Maybe they should have tried being serfs and peasants eh.

3 stars. Just.

I watched 20 minutes of this THEN thankfully the DVD got stuck. I decided not to get a replacement.

Those 20 minutes showed me that 1) Ian McEwan may well write pretty prose and deal with big themes in his novels BUT he does not an exciting tale write; 2) Novelists should NOT write screenplays from their own novels - that was disaster lies.

This is just awful - typical state-funded British film-making. Our taxes and lottery funding paid for this, folks.

I heard the same novel serialised on the radio. Not a great novel - all about a newly married couple so shy they don't know what to do in bed on their wedding night (and that, folks. is the plot). Mildly interesting and with McEwan's trademark pretty prose. But thassit! This is NOT a great story or even a story at all - more a character piece, For radio or theatre, fine, NOT for film.

I do not care if they 'did their best' - imagine anyone else messing up getting that let-off! Oh the bus driver drove off a cliff - but never mind, he did his best, The teacher lost 3 kids on the outing who then drowned - but never mind, she did her best.

This film is AWFUL - tedious, pretentious rubbish. Only watch if you are tired of life.

I had low expectations of this film, based on the blurb and description - however, I found it an utter revelation.

THIS IS A BRILLIANT FILM. The writing, characters, direction, acting, the lot. Should have won an Oscar.

The way a man (talented, intelligent, educated, youngish, not poor) reevaluates his life and realises he just cannot go back to square one and start again is heart-breakingly captivating. You'll rarely see a character as complex or true in any Hollywood movie.

If I had my way, this film - not some OTT Hollywood drug morality tale movie, should be shown to every teenager in the world.

Just brilliant. Best movie I have watched this year. 5 stars - with bells on.