Film Reviews by PV

My favourite bit of this film was the setting, the buildings and sculptures of Rome and the Vatican.

As for the plot, well I could predict the film's end in the first half hour when the new character appears (NO SPOILERS) and the MAIn twist at the halfway point. It was obvious to me, really. And been done. Watch THE CRYING GAME (1989)

I like Robert Harris as an author esp his WWII/Nazi novels and esp his debit FATHERLAND though the TV movie of that from 1994 could be made better. MUNICH and V2 are worth a read too.

This, however, reminds me of RH's Roman novels, Pompeii etc, and I lose interest tbh. This is probably of interest to all of faith who liked the Da Vinci Code etc.

Me, I do not understand why the praise is being heaped on this movie, maybe it is the on-trend gender issues of identity politics? But, as I said, watch THE CRYING GAME or recent Flemish/Belgian film GIRL which is superb.

2 stars only. 1 of them for the lovely architecture and cinematorgraphy.

OK so minus the themes - the cause of the PTSD etc (NO SPOILERS) - this could be one of those fluffy romantic made-for-TV movies on Channel 5 of an afternoon. It really is a soapy women's interest drama, and I counted just 2 roles for white males, both baddies as per usual, so the DEI tickbox department's been on overtime then. Unbelievable mixed marriage of the week here, as per so many TV adverts now. It matters, for authenticity's sake, to convince an audience to willingly suspend disbelief.

Some massive plot holes - in the UK, no-one is ever disconnected for not paying an electric/gas bill, ever. The most the companies can do after many months if force entry and fit a key/card meter.

Another one is the absurdity that a debt of a few thousand is supposedly crippling for a family with a headteacher husband on £50-60k+ pa and a paramedic wife on what, £35k? Have these people ever heard of loans? The average student loan now is £40 and those in debt tend not to own houses even if on a mortgage. SO some big unbelievable stuff here.

It's all rather contrived and convenient, full of coincidences, as if the writer created the plot then dropped the characters as actors into it. As all writers know, the characters should drive the drama, not act as puppets in a contrived melodramatic plot which strains the patience with its incredulity and also features some real cartoon character baddies, veteran actress Hayley Mills is one.

It passes the time, but too long and contrived, a bit like those romantic fiction or mystery ebooks that female readers gush about on Goodreads and Amazon reviews. It's the sort of thing that'd sit well as a short story in a women's magazine, or one of those Channel 5 afternoon made-for-TV movies.

It passes the time but is contrived forgettable nonsense really, not a serious analysis of PTSD either (why I watched it at all as I am researching the condition).

2 stars

The more usual name for this film is STAMBUL GARDEN which is the name of the Young Adult Novel it is adapted from, by the author Finn-Ole Heinrich and another.

It is very soapy, really, a bit Hollyoaks or similar, with 18 year old characters ending school and pondering their futures.

What lets this down is a need to be gratuitous re sexual imagery - GRATUITOUS is the word. Many movies/TV drama now do this, show male nudity, includng arouses prosthetics - it is unnecessary and exploitative, The female equivalent would be sticking a camera between a woman's legs when she is naked and aroused. Never see that on film so why the need for this? #Metoo? Well stuff #metoo then, it is nothing but sexist abuse.

I am no prude at all, and do not mind ANY sexual imagery when the film/story requires it. This, however, is just exploitation and male nudity for its own sake, MAYBE if they balanced with an aroused female between the legs shot it would at least represent gender equality...

Without these unnecessary scenes, this could have passed for 15 or under and thus reached its target audience of teenagers.

The Turkish/ethnic/Istanbul theme ticks the usual ethnoboxes of woke, SO many children's and young adult books and films do the same now. But as this is German, with a huge Turkish population, that makes it unusual, for UK audiences anyway.

It becomes a travelogue really, a road movie in a way, an adventure abroad - like the INBETWEENERS but not funny.

One big issue for me is I did not believe the events portrayed OR the characters' reactions to them.

The subtitles also got stuck/jammed at one point, an issue I solved by rewinding a playing again, but it should not happen.

anyway, cut the gratuitous misandrist smut and end the film well, structure it better, and it could be 4 stars.

As it is 2.5 stars rounded up.

This is real B-Movie stuff, and very VERY NOW, in its woke casting - even authentic casting with Richard Attenborough's grandson and David's great-nephew Will who identifies as queer and his character has the best lines too!

Well let's hope that from now on only 18th century pirates play 18th century pirates in movies, because authentic casting SO matters. On the other hand, actors could try ACTING, y'know, pretending to be people they are not...

As unrealistic as it is predictable - I could guess who would survive (no spoilers). All very silly by the end and the Iraq War backstory of a Mary Poppins-type English old lady character is laugh-out-loud funny.

Seeing as 90% sharks in the world's oceans have disappeared in the last 35 years thanks to overfishing and the Chinese demand for shark fin soup, I'm amazed any sharks were still living in the ocean where the DEI hires crashed.

Oh well, just coincidence I suppose, just like that fact not ONE straight one man is amongst the cast surviving in the plane underwater (as stated in the blurb so not a spoiler).

In fact, the only straight white males here are the sharks! Maybe they couldn't find black or gay ones eh?

2 stars...

Well, I have seen 'X' but some time ago so my memory is vague, that was a slasher horror film set in the 1970s porn industry and watchable enough, with authentic fashions etc. BOOGIE NIGHTS is way better though.

This moves on to 1985 with the same character apparently though it means nothing to me, as I cannot remember the first film 'X'. I see the second film 'Pearl' is recommended by others as better than this so may watch that.

I see the director has done loads of horror films, with lots of gore, and there is definitely a big market for them - and he'd adapted and gone with the 'strong main female character' trope which is now a real cliche to be honest - does any movie (or children's book) NOT have a strong main female character, often of colour too?

What I liked: the 1980s setting and music. And it all started well, act one.

What I disliked: the OTT convoluted plot, and the gore - not shocking, just boring.

I was going to give it 3 stars but the last third was really very boring, to be honest.

SO one for the slasher horror films really, or a Friday night horror-fest with mates and food and drinks...

It is what it is, 2 stars.

I hated this. I suspect if you're a Gen Zee Teen you'll find the explicit sex and violent and psychedelic drug dreamscapes fresh and new and dangerous; for anyone over 25, it's a case of SEEN IT ALL BEFORE.

I did not believe it, not a bit or the characters - their motivations, make-ups, reactions.

One thing that annoys me re this and MANY new movies and TV dramas is how female characters force themselves on men and boys, kiss them, grope them, sexually assault then AND worse, these male characters always comply, give in to the forceful female forcing herself on him and is shown to be passive and to enjoy being sexually assaulted, used, abused, even raped (by legal definition). Not on at all.

I see it SO much now, incl in READY PLAYER ONE and other movies, where a woman or girl forces herself on a man or boy to kiss or worse, and he passively agrees ALWAYS.

CAN YOU IMAGINE it the other way round? Male characters forcing women and girls to have sex? And the females shown as passively complying and enjoying sexual assault?

I do not care about the sexual imagery - but it is GRATUITOUS and MISANDRIST here and in many modern movies, that is my problem, And if you want sex, watch hardcore porn, Plenty online and on DVD.

Also, use of prosthetics has been demeaning to men - the equivalent is a camera shoved between a female character's legs, right up there, showing everything. Well if this abuse of males and femihypocrisy is what the #metoo mob mean by gender equality, mighty I suggest they get a dictionary for Winterval next year?

Reminds me of other over-rated and unbelievable recent sci-fi movies such as OLD, US, and TRIANGLE OF SADNESS. I have them 1* too.

For a decent horror film in the same vein, I'd recommend MIDSOMMAR. Not this.

1 star

Instantly bringing to mind the British case of the ENFIELD POLTERGEIST as depicted in a TV miniseries (2023) of that name and also THE CONJURING 2 (2016) as well as the infamous 1992 TV show GHOSTWATCH.

This is maybe more sexual, possibly salaciously so - though this was released in 1981 it has that 1970s feel.

Genuinely scary, made me jump, though perhaps the last act jumps the shark a tad. BUT if that is what happened in the supposed real story... but who knows? I suspect the production team wanted desperately to use the new special effects at their disposal...

I really loved the thumping pumping soundtrack - it was different and minimalist in its effectiveness.

I suspect the 1982 Spielberg film Poltergeist was influenced by this, just as ET was influenced by 1978's the Cat from Outer Space, Hey ho.

Solid stuff, a tad long maybe esp at the end, 4 stars.

There have been many movies about disturbed men (usually) on a mission to cleanse society of, often, female prostitutes. So far, so derivative. But this is different enough to work, and it is well-acted (the main actress won the Cannes award for that and the film was on the Oscar shortlist), well-filmed, well-written and authentic.

It is closely based on a real case: the true story of Saeed Hanaei, a serial killer who targeted street prostitutes and killed at least 16 women from 2000 to 2001 in Mashhad, Iran who was hanged in 2002 aged around 40 so younger than the killer here, though he was a construction worker, was married with 3 kids and had been in the Iraq-Iran war. He was called the "Spider Killer" by the press for the way he lured his 16 prostitute victims back to his home before strangling them. It was a controversial case as some religious extremists expressed support for his self-described fight against "moral corruption" at the time.

A film such as this would no doubt get condemned by the usual prissy pofaced metoo feminist activists in the UK/US for making all victims young women and showing graphic detail of murders (and sex too). Thing is, this is absolutely necessary and not gratuitous, so fine, esp as it is based on a true story where the victims were young women, many of them heroin/opium addicts (as many men are in the region too).

What makes this different is how the director shows how women can be devoutly religious and so approve of someone cleansing the streets of prostitutes, NO western TV company would ever do that - they'd just blame men, set the MANBLAME default as per usual, So the film is different for that truth.

I loved this Danish-Iranian director's film BORDER so recommend that too as 5 stars.

This is 4.

Worth watching this with the 2016 film THE KING'S CHOICE about the same events, but more of a drama not a high-octane cat-and-mouse chase.

Gold Run is an action movie, as per the directors'/producers' previous films, so aims to fit that template with the constant upping the ante, increasing jeopardy, as taught on all screenwriting courses. Sometimes however that gets a bit tiresome - and predictable.

But I enjoyed it, even if it can be a bit cartoon character at times. The true biographies at the end were informative.

Watch the 1942 film THE DAY WILL DAWN to learn about the now-forgotten shortlived British/Norwegian liberation of the town of NARVIK from the Nazis in April 1940. Symbolic really. The Nazis were allowed to march 2 million soldiers through 'neutral' Sweden (which made a fortune from selling iron ore and more to Germany in 2 world wars in one century) to invade Norway - the main reason was to take the port of Narvik which was crucial as during winter no land route is possible from Sweden to Germany so they needed that port for maintain iron ore exports to the Fatherland.

Good derring-do action movie stuff and interesting, based on a true story, 4 stars.

Hmmm well. I see this is largely funded by BBC film Lotter, FilmFour and of course as all they fund these days it has to tick the diversity boxes bigtime, re race or here, gender, with a female-focused film with a largely female writing/directing/producing team. So many #metoo movies like this have been made now, and most tank at the box office.

I looked up the novel which does seem female-interest, so if you like that sort of thing you'll like this more than me maybe.

I found it very long, meandering, silly and unbelievable. Think WATERWORLD. Reminded me of the Great Floods of 1707 no doubt caused by climate change too. LOL the very idea a few days of rain can sink a city is absurd. Flooding happens and always has, but not this. AND 2 words for the writers: THAMES BARRIER. Two more: DRAINS and SEWERS though there is no doubt with our swelling population esp in London the system is under pressure like never before - THAT is the issue. So in a way, this is another of those green propaganda lectures preaching doom re climate change...

I really like Joel Fry though he a bit wasted here as the focus is always on the women, including his often-irritatingly dizzy girlfriend and more.

If you like doomscrolling, watch THE GIRL WITH ALL THE GIFTS or maybe 28 DAYS LATER. Or Waterworld if you must - at least that had the budget.

This could and should perhaps have made a 45 minute radio drama, not a film - there is just not enough here to carry it. And the meagre special effects let it down badly. Watch The Day After Tomorrow for what it should be maybe.

SURVIVORS the 1975-8 TV series was also scary. This is not. It's just wet. Very wet. As wet as Cumberbatch's pointless cameo - really, if a scene does not move story of character forward, but it out, esp the unlikely coincidences in an unbelievable disaster movie. BUt do that here and you'd cut out half the film, literally.

2 stars. Just

Hmmm, although this is just 90 minutes, it feels much longer. It seems slow, somehow, just very flat - and the genres seem mixed and confused. Is it a romance? A murder mystery? A biopic? The focus is blurred.

This is from a novel called Curtain Call - I have not read it but the synopsis online is quite different to the very unlikely story we see here. I did not really believe in the characters, not the critic and what he does, or the actress, or the newspaper tycoon, or his daughter and her husband. The 1934 art deco designs are fab though.

I also wonder if, in the novel, the partner is 'of colour' (remember there were just 6000 black people in the UK in 1939, of 44 millon population) and this is set in 1934. The stench of boxticking thus hangs over it all, especially with the random minor inclusion of the British Union of Fascists - an inclusion which pads the play out but which leads nowhere.

I'd recommend watching the wonderful GODS AND MOSTERS, another film where Ian McK plays a theatrical confirmed bachelor called Jimmy...

2 stars. Theatre fans may well love it (I'd recommend watching the film CHAPLIN to them).

The director of this did BORDER - a brilliant film 5 stars - and the woeful computer game TV series/movie THE LAST OF US. So I did not know what to expect.

The screenwriter has form writing about Murdoch and big media players like Fox News, so that is the same highpowered media/money world.

I was at times amazed they got away with some scenes - especially with the litigious Trump team. BUT maybe such scenes are already in the public domain in biographies and memoirs etc, maybe from the ex wife Ivana?

The actors are great - very hard to portray such a famous face well as viewers will always compare BUT I believed this portrayal of the young Trump, in his twenties mostly, learning from the odious Roy Cohn (lawyer who worked when young with McCarthy in the 1950s red menace purges). The three rules here and how much the young learned from Cohn seem relevant and timely to today and the dealmaker Trump's MO. Jeremy Strong as Cohn is superb, the star of this film.

What I hated was the very weird supposedly Scottish accent of Trump's mum. And some phrases that were not around 50 years ago (think out of the box; he's spicy etc).

But all in all this Canadian-Irish coproduction is a decent film on Trump's formative years in business and made me want to know more about his family, esp his older brother (an alcoholic who ended up as a handyman working for his younger brother in their properties).

This is a solid, entertaining, watchable, timely film about the new (again) president of the USA.

4 stars.

This got bad reviews. I preferred it to the first JOKER movie - Joaquin Phoenix is brilliant again.

I actually actively dislike musicals. I am no fan of the perpetually over-rated Lady Gaga either (AKA Stefani Germanotta from a privileged upper-middle-class background).

However, this is all surreal with set pieces reflecting the fantasies, delusions and mental state of the characters. I liked that AND the class songs (most songs in new musicals are R&B and not for me!) This is old school and sticks to the hits, which is great!

Nice to hear songs like THE JOKER and GONNA BUILD A MOUNTAIN, music, and lyrics by Leslie Bricusse and Anthony Newley. Also FOR ONCE IN MY LIFE not written by Stevie Wonder, but by Ron Miller and Orlando Murden for Motown Records' Stein & Van Stock publishing company, first recorded in 1965.

It sags a tad at times, the grim prison scenes and the talky courtroom ones, and I predicted the end.

I have forgotten the first film almost completely - it is referenced a lot here so I should maybe have watched it again before this.

But I liked it, the darkness, the music, the oddity of it,. So 4 stars

OK so it must be hard to make a film which is ultimately about a war that is still going on!

The timeline here is from 2014 when Russia rolled into Crimea and 2018 with fighting in the Donbas, the east of Ukraine, where many are Russian-speaking as in Crimea, and then in Feb 202 when Russia invaded Ukraine proper.

Most people may not know this, but in 1860s a British Welsh industrialist was invited by the Imperial Russian Government to pioneer industry in the Donbas region of Ukraine and he did as founder of the city of Donetsk, originally named Yuzovka (Hughesovka, Russian: ??o???) or Yuzivka (Ukrainian: ??????) after Hughes, ("Yuz" being a Russian/Ukrainian approximation of Hughes).

This is basically a revenge drama, though the training bits reminded me of Rocky or similar little guy against the system wins in the end stories.

The end is a thriller, which is exciting and like an action movie. Some sadness here too, Tbh, the genre is mixed - from romance, to tragedy, to revenge drama to action movie - which is maybe confusing and I thought the transformation of a peacenik hippy teacher was a tad far-fetched.

Anyway, worth a watch and very timely of course. 3 stars

This is 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, and thus the film came to be regarded as an influential masterpiece of cinema and the horror genre.

This is 90 minutes not 60 minutes as stated on the sleeve. It is divided into 5 acts with INTERTITLES between scenes as in old silent movies.

What makes this special is 1) the attention to detail - the skeleton clock, the shrouded horses, the atmosphere always and shadows of course; 2) the main character Nosferatu who despite his name Count Orlock is Dracula and is terrifying, his eyes, fangs to the front incisors not canine here, and those long, clever, sinister fingers clawing at the screen! 3) the film sticks loyally to the novel too, simply swapping Whitby for a German coastal town so is well-structured, even having its first plot point at minute 24 just like modern movies!. 3) the acting is superb - exaggerated as per silent films which came from stage acting BUT perfect for horror - and the still camera lingers over it which makes it worse - but better cinematically!

The soundtrack is a version of the original, apparently. Sometimes is jarred, the panpipes etc, but hey ho...

This is 1922, when silent films were either comedy shorts from Chaplin etc or the 1920s romantic epics of Rudolf Valentino playing a non-authentic non-pc Sheikh, the silent Ben Hur, various shorts - romance, crime etc. So this though only seen by German audiences was special and groundbreaking.

Watch the same director's silent films, and first sound film M a brave film about a child abuser which made Peter Lorre a star.

I also recommend another German silent films by Fritz Lang, Metropolis of course but especially Woman in the Moon (Frau im Mond) 1929 which is excellent.