Film Reviews by PV

OK so this film can be hard work and a bit slow at first BUT it's the first Arab/Palestinian film to show real life like this, and got the director/writer condemned massively and even got her a fatwa from imams! That means it's worth watching.

If this were made in Britain, the assault scene would be used as a stick to beat all men with and the woman who suffered it would be destroyed; here in this society, she moves on. Says it all really.

Islam and preachers come out of this badly, and both women and gay people are shown living their lives in a place where characters say to each other 'Where do you think this is - Europe?'

However, this is not male attitude to women but MUSLIM attitudes - which include often very conservative and devout Muslim women who are the ones who organise forced marriage, oppression of wives and FGM.

Worth remembering that 10% of Israel's population is Arab and they enjoy the SAME rights as anyone else in law - and work in professions there too. It must be liberating for them, as is shown here.

Not great but interesting to watch at least.

First of all I would say I am no fan of Lady Gaga - she's derivative in the extreme, all style and no substance. Just gimmick. Yes, she can sing, but so can loads of other girls. No idea why gay men want to worship her.

Secondly, I know of this story filmed first in the 1930s, then the 1950s with James Mason then 1970s with Barbra Streisand and Chris Christofferson and I don't think I have seen any of them though suspect I'd probably prefer the 1970s version.

I just found this all so predictable and boring. Maybe more of a women's movie? It's basically a fairy tale.

I did like the main song and it deservedly won an Oscar.

2 stars - 1 star for the song!

One thing I shall say for the Sharknado films: they're mercifully short at 80 minutes usually.
The other thing I'd say is they are entertainingly silly movies - so bad they're good.
Lots of laughs, esp references to other films like ET and the Wizard of Oz and more.
The end promises a 6th outing for the sharks - which will seemingly be like Back to the Future with time travel, Yikes!
This Sharknado manages to travel the world (on film sets at least), starting in a very fake Stonehenge where its absurd plot starts, then London which is fun to watch as well - though the actor playing the Prime Minister has perhaps the worst British accent ever, and as for the Queen...
Then we go to Switzerland, Paris, Germany, Australia, Kansas, LA, Japan...
Total nonsense - but then so are so many Hollywood films which have no self-awareness.
Sharknado knows it's absurd - so bad that it's good - and that makes it fun.

It's often hard to think that the oppressive communism of the Soviet Union and its Eastern European empire lasted until 1989, though Gorbachev's Glasnost and Perestroika meant things liberalised after 1985 - I think Nureyev visited his homeland again in 1987/8, and then sadly died of AIDS not long after.

The monitoring and spying of the KGB was truly scary, and yet the suspicion of foreigners was always there in Russia and still is now. I visited Communist Russia in 1979 and saw it all first hand. Many problems later in Russia and still are, in what is really a dictatorship ruled by oligarch thieves BUT it could never be as bad as the Cold War days.

Some interesting back story here and well-played characters, though oddly, even though this may be more accurate, the version of the airport defection scene shown here is less effective than the one I saw in a TV drama documentary earlier this year.

But it's all enjoyable - and worth seeing how people like this dancer can shout #metoo too after abuse from powerful older women.

I am not a huge fan of dancing but the scenes here are truly spectacular.

Not perfect but 4 stars. I enjoyed it. Probably not for kids with the attention spans of puppies though!

I have no idea why people are praising this animation to the skies. YES the animation is top notch BUT the story and execution are not, and are often confusing - added to which, the frankly tedious 'floating' martial arts battle scenes which I find totally tiresome.

It's basic good versus evil fare BUT if you want to watch a really superior version of that then watch Sleeping Beauty, not this.

It's all set in Japan so tick the diversity boxes though with its giant set pieces is obviously meant to appeal to the Chinese market too, as that is what they love (and what has totally ruined James Bond movies!)

It's so-so but I found it ultimately boring and overlong - and I cannot see many kids having the patience with a lot of it, or understanding the confusing spirit-world plot.

2 stars for the animation

This is a fascinating and unusual film. Based on the diaries of the 2 German explorers featured - which describe some tribes now vanished forever. There's plenty of rainforest here, rubber barons, warring tribes and also tribal traditions, a 'Heart of Darkness' moment of 'Apocalypse Now' proportions.

This can be paired with APOCALYTO maybe. Also the true story THE LOST CITY OF Z.

One issue with these sorts of films is they often idealise native cultures as being Utopian and ideal in harmony with nature and peaceful, when they were anything but - as scenes in this movie make clear.

This maybe too slow for some but I enjoyed it and the black and white photography.

I enjoyed this, though it was really like a TV soap or drama. Canadian film.

The talking hamster technique works, oddly, and I thought that was fun.

It's fairly forgettable but also rather pleasant and fun, though tries to hide to push the trauma element - it's stronger when just having fun.

3 stars

This is an odd film - it starts as though it'll be a thriller, a search for a killer, then morphs into a study of mental illness and fantasy really. I get tired of these post-modern tricksy scripts. Ditto with SHUTTER ISLAND etc and JACOB'S LADDER. Post-modern muppetry bores me and is not nearly as clever or original as it thinks it is (read TRSITRAM SHANDY or SWIFT).

The older man playing the shrink steals the show. Can't remember his name.

Alice Lowe (who wrote, directed and stars in the weirdly funny PREVENGE) has cornered the market in playing nutty psycho women, but here plays relatively normal.

It's interesting, to a point, but does get very slow and lacking in action - there's only so much of watching a man sit on a bed with his head in his hands that one can take.

Maybe 2 stars therefore. It's just not cinematic enough and after grabbing the attention in the opening scene, fails to maintain its grip.

I always thought the original film, TRAINSPOTTING, massively over-rated, often by Scots who felt a patriotic duty to overpraise it. I always disliked the glamour shown connected with hard drug addiction too - which is certainly not funny if you've ever seen addicts, alive or dead, as I have. It all stops being funny then.

This movie I enjoyed far more and Danny Boyle can, as ever, turn a slim idea into a cinematic experience via some clever pop-video type techniques (using real CCTV shoplifting footage, for example) and a kicking soundtrack used well (most film directors are very weak at using music and just tag it on, thinking film is a visual medium and forgetting it is half a SOUND medium, not merely visual, and always was, even in the socalled 'silent' era).

Anyway, I dislike McGregror but he's well cast here as are other actors. The flashbacks will be nostalgic for some, but not me.

Funnily enough the 'Welsh trainspotting' TWIN TOWN also has a sequel soon, to be called 'TIN TOWN', I think.

Most sequels are rubbish; this isn't. I enjoyed it and the soundtrack is unusual and brilliant - I am always glad to be introduced to new music, even if not precisely to my taste.

4 stars

Slugs and snails puppy dog tails - what boys are made of, according to the sexist nursery rhyme (which feminists fail to complain about lol).

Here, however, girls are made of boys, or rather become them after they find some magic beans (yes this needs massive suspension of disbelief) and grow a magic boy-making sex-change plant overnight.

The first act is the strongest here - it's all based on a book so I presume the rest of the film is loyal to it, but it sags badly at times later on.

The casting is perfect - the boy versions of the girls really do look like them.

I suspect teens would love this film, though the ending fizzles out and the transgender propaganda will not be to all tastes.

But I enjoyed it. 3 stars.

When I read the blurb about this movie, my heart sank - it seemed like a usual Brit flick state-subsidised bore-fest or maybe a manhating mob free-for-all.

But no, it's genuinely funny, esp if you like dark humour as I do.

Sure, it feels more like a TV sitcom at times, along the lines of NIGHTY NIGHT by Julia Davies.

And the baby voice takes some getting used to - though is it all in the mad murderess's head?

It loses some momentum as it goes on, but the early scenes are highly entertaining. It did fizzle out, rather, at the end - but I enjoyed most of it anyway, which is more than I can say for most British films funded by the BFI and lottery.

One criticism: it was a tad confusing at times, esp re 2 bearded men who look similar, and still not quite sure re that BUT plenty of Hollywood movies are confusing too.

4 stars.

Why must they make such long movies? This was fine at 2 hours - the last 20 minutes and the silly plot developments there really annoyed me as they were just not necessary and make a ludicrous thriller way too worthy.

This is based on a feminist fantasy novel, so maybe the fault lies with the author - but cuts are good! Kill your darlings and make a neat efficient thriller, not one that overstays its welcome!

This starts off really well - the first act is great as is the first half of act 2, and then, right on the button half way through the movie there is an 180 degree turn (which tells, doesn't show) the true nature of the characters (no spoilers here!).

Yes, it's all absurd and silly - but so are most movies and novels too, when you think about it. Just enjoy the ride - it's the best bunny boiler movie for years.

Some genuinely funny scenes, though the plot is so full of holes it could be a Swiss cheese.

Good to compare with another study of female as disease evil, in the recent Brit flick LADY MACBETH (based on a Russian novella).

Just a shame about that unnecessary final 20 minutes - the movie would have been far better if the edit had dispensed of the loose-ends tie-up then. Better perhaps even to change the ending totally from that in the novel, as is usual in movies from GREAT EXPECTATIONS to many MANY more. There were opportunities to end at the 100 minute mark - and the plot does 'jump the shark, rather in the final act.

SO 3.5 stars rounded up to 4.

I've been watching a lot of British films lately - many from 2016 or thereabouts and all utterly uncinematic (they'd be better as TV dramas or even radio plays) and all totally state-funded by BBC films (which our licence fees pay for), the Film council (ditto) and the lottery (funded by poor people's wishful thinking).

As Alan Parker rightly said when commenting on RATCATCHER, this is the kind of film that can only be made with state subsidy coz no-one wants to watch such stuff, except luvvies in film schools. Utterly uncommercial, utterly uncinematic.

Plot is SO predictable - you just KNOW what the old drunk farmer and guns will come together. Lots of cows and an opening scene with near-nakedness (ooooooo Missus!) and a daft splatter shot too to show the director is arty, probably. Yawn.

I didn't believe the main character - a seeming cipher for all female hurt, and two-dimensional in that feminist role.

Some deeply pretentious shots of animals in water add padding to fill out a flimsy story to just over 80 minutes; but really it should be a 40 minute TV drama on PBS or a radio drama. There is NOTHING whatsoever cinematic about this dross, so why waste scarce movie-fund money on it? Time for a cull at BBC Films, the BFI and lottery funding committee methinks.

It's all like The Archers but much MUCH more boring - but hey it's diverse with lots of women making films so it must be good. No, luvvies - talent does not work like that. I cannot help wondering how man really talents white men with decent movie ideas have been kept down to overpromote mediocrities like the ones who made this borefest. No stars.

Watch APOCALYTO to see how movies set in the natural world can be done. You need a plot and tension, and more than a weepy victim feminist character whingeing at how unfair life is, and a 2 dimensional bad father to ram home the point about how useless men are.

If this is the future of British cinema, I suggest putting it out of its misery asap.

OK so this film is educational - it shows what happens in Jehovah's Witness churches or whatever they're called - one is down the road and the Jehovies are always out recruiting by the local shops. I remember a girl at primary school was one too - no Christmas, so she left the main hall whenever there were carols sung.

But really, why is this a film for cinematic release? The funding is from our taxes via the BBC and Film England and the lottery. But this is ideal TV drama territory really - it reminded me of the old TV Play for Today, where writers such as Dennis Potter started out.

All interesting up to a point, but no further. It's just not cinematic! 2 stars

Based on an 1865 novella by Nicholai Leskov which was published originally in a magazine run by Dostoevsky, then turned into an opera, this is a strong story which sticks in the mind (nothing to do with the Shakespeare play by the way).

It's more or less a character study of a sick and twisted evil woman - though no doubt she's seen as a feminist hero by some.

It's slow, all very Brit arthouse, and predictably state-funded by BBC and lottery money. Static camera, repetitive shots, lots of silence - which all screams state subsidy! Enjoy it - our taxes paid for it!

It's set in Count Durham in 1865, so it's rather baffling that half the main characters are black; now, people may applaud the colourblind approach but it's so absurd, I cannot - it's as daft as casting white ginger persons as Zulu warriors! People really have to get real and ditch the pc virtue-signalling. It made the whole thing unbelievable, frankly. No race issues mentioned either which is absurd for the day - as if it wouldn't be relevant. This is `1865 in Durham, for goodness sake! A real place in real time; play colourblind diversity doughunts with more abstract stories, fine; but do not try to rewrite history according to modern pc prejudices - unless you want your audience to scoff and shame their weary heads at being lectured to by box-ticking casting.

With more accurate and realistic casting and a less pretentious approach, with the focus on telling the story not scoring pc diversity/feminist points, this could have been a great film; as it is, it's a 2 star effort.PC