Film Reviews by RP

Based on the first volume of Vera Britain's autobiography published in 1933, the film tells the story of how a gifted girl from a well-to-do family lost her fiancé, her brother and his close friend to the First World War. It shows her experiences as a VAD nurse and how the loss of so many young men turned her into a campaigning pacifist.

Writing this with the book in front of me I like how the film follows the book quite closely - and that perhaps is its shortcoming. The book is an autobiography rather than a history and the attempt at turning it into a drama is well meant but, in my opinion, unsuccessful.

Although the slaughter of so many was dreadful, it is a myth that England lost a generation of the best and brightest. Vera Britain experienced that because it was the young public schoolboys that she knew who volunteered early and left their school OTC for the front - clearly that affected her deeply, but I found the film - while it has its moments - strangely uninvolving.

I was rather looking forward to seeing something of Buxton, my home town, and where Vera lived from 1904 (when she was 11) to 1915 (when she left to become a nurse), although for much of this time she was away at boarding school. I know the addresses where her parents lived - 'Melrose', 151 Park Road, has a blue plaque on the gatepost - but it's a large semi set among many other similar houses rather than the isolated detached house pictured in the film. Buxton has many splendid buildings - but none are shown, and the country walks depicted are unlike any that I know nearby. Vera started her nursing at the Devonshire Hospital, one of the town's most striking buildings, but again this is not shown. Ah well...

The film is beautifully photographed and well acted - in particular Vera's parents are well portrayed by Emily Watson and Dominic Cooper (forever trying to escape the typecasting of 'The Wire'), but confess that I found Swedish actress Alicia Vikander a somewhat unusual choice as Vera, although she was fine (as she was as Caroline Matilda in the Oscar-nominated 'A Royal Affair').

I like Vera Brittain's writing. I like her political leanings. I admire her daughter, Shirley Williams, for her political determination (even if she was jointly responsible for the disastrous SDP), and I quite like this film. The two most moving moments for me were Mr Brittain's reaction on learning of the death of his son, and the view of the Étaples hospital as the camera moves upwards to show the rows of dead and dying.

But 'quite like' isn't very strong, is it? I found the film uninvolving and I felt detached, as if I were an observer, a bystander, as if the film were trying too hard to be 'worthy'. It's not bad, it's worth seeing, but could have been better. I'll give it 3/5 stars.

Clint Eastwood is one of my favourite actors and directors. I like the way that he has matured as an actor from macho roles where he does little other than squint and curl his lip into what might be described as 'experienced old man roles'. As a director he has an easy, direct touch that can be quite subtle.

But 'Heartbreak Ridge' is anything but subtle - it's a macho, US-Marines-are-wonderful, old-men-can-show-young-whippersnappers-a-thing-or-two, highly clichéd movie.

And yet I like it. It's direct and unpretentious. It is what it is - popcorn entertainment where Korean veteran Clint knocks a platoon of unruly recruits into shape and makes men of them - you know the kind of thing. Plenty of f-ing and blinding, ribald jokes, poking of fun at over-inflated military egos, and Clint's trademark disrespect for authority. All routine stuff.

There is one thing that grates on me as a Brit. The film is set against the background of the remarkably heavy handed 1983 invasion of Grenada by US troops - and Grenada is a Commonwealth country. Frankly, that's not the right and friendly thing to do; indeed it's a violation of international law, however much you dislike the regime - but if the gung-ho attitude shown by the military in this film is in any way accurate (what, a Hollywood movie accurate?) then perhaps it's not surprising.

'Heartbreak Ridge' has not been without controversy as it shows a number of incompetent officers and NCOs. But they're there really to allow Clint's character to show a 'Dirty Harry'-style disrespect for authority, so nothing really new there. Despite that and the dodgy Ronald Reagan invasion of inoffensive little Grenada, I find the film an amusing diversion.

I'll give it 3/5 stars - amusing it may be, but frankly it's no Oscar winner and deserves no better.

Yes, it's another blockbuster comic-book all-action superhero movie from Marvel Studios. Yes, it owes the majority of its appeal to superb CG FX. Yes, the acting is a little wooden and the script sometimes clunky - but hey, that's not what it's about. And yes, I enjoyed it!

Frankly, some of these recent Marvel Studios movies have left me cold - I really didn't like the 'Thor' or 'Avengers' films, nor 'Guardians of the Galaxy', popular though they all are. But although this one is seriously over the top, it makes up for a typically silly comic-book storyline (thawed out super-enhanced WWII veteran rescues SHIELD from infiltrating ex-Nazi conspirator baddies Hydra) with the usual running, jumping, fist-fighting, shooting, explosions, car chases, hanging-on-by-fingertips shenanigans that we have come to expect - and it is rather well done, even if it is a bit long at over 2 hours.

Chris Evans is suitably muscular as Captain America, Scarlett Johansson gives her trademark good-looking but otherwise wooden acting performance as the Black Widow, and there are roles for 'proper' actors Samuel L Jackson and a somewhat elderly-looking Robert Redford. Brit actress Jenny Agutter gets a bit part and there's a cameo appearance by great comic-book author Stan Lee.

But all that is a bit too analytical. Sit back and revel in the crash-bang-wallop effects and general mayhem. It's great fun, even if it is a bit earnest in parts, so I'll give it a generous 4/5 stars.

Way back in the late 1960s through to the mid 1970s The Weather Underground was a student-led militant anti-war protest movement, aimed at stopping the Vietnam War by violent direct action after years of ineffective peaceful protest.

'The Company You Keep' is set some 40 years after these events, and is a fictionalised account of how a group of young activists have disguised their past, growing old and respectable, hiding in full view in mainstream society - while still wanted for murder after the death of a guard in a bank robbery. All has gone well with their lives, until one of their number turns herself in to the FBI.

Robert Redford looks suitably craggy (but has a ridiculously young 11 year-old on-screen daughter) as current-day left-wing lawyer Jim Grant with a hidden past. Shia LaBeouf plays a young newspaper reporter out to make a name for himself, and a whole panoply of well known actors have small parts (Susan Sarandon, Nick Nolte, Sam Elliott et al). Julie Christie has a bigger part as Mr Redford's old flame.

I've never liked the work of Shia LaBeouf, but here he is quite well cast as the reporter, who doggedly unearths not only Jim Grant's dodgy past, but tracks down other Weathermen involved in the bank robbery. Robert Redford goes on the run, meets up with Julie Christie, LaBeouf follows him, it all ends happily...

What seemingly starts out as a political thriller with a few nods to the problems of print journalism in an on-line age, degenerates into a run-of-the-mill chase thriller. Complicated by a cast of grey-haired actors who all seem to look alike so that it's difficult to tell who's who, the film begins with an interesting premise then descends into something only just above average.

I had recently seen Julie Christie in her break-through role in 'Billy Liar' and wanted to see what her recent work looked like. Now I know - and it's not as interesting as the part she played in the last film of hers I saw, 'Away From Her'.

Robert Redford not only has the lead role but also directed and co-produced. It's a competent film and I'll give it 3/5 stars - not bad, but not quite good enough for 4 stars.

I've watched a number of Australian films of late, and here's another...

It's a modest, unassuming tale of the how the TV broadcast from the 1969 Apollo 11 moon landing was received by a radio telescope in rural New South Wales. Not with any flashy fanfare, but with laid-back Aussie professionalism and more than a few touches of humour.

Nothing flashy, no car chases, no crash-bang-wallop - just a story told straight, and with Sam Neill in it, which can't be bad.

I liked it - 4/5 stars.

[Aside: it's worth looking up "Parkes Observatory" on Wikipedia]

I came late to watching 'Game of Thrones' and overdosed on the box sets of Seasons 1, 2 and 3 one after the other. I didn't watch any of Season 4 on TV and deliberately waited for the set on disc so that I could immerse myself again. And I have [although, perhaps as it's just been released (February 2015) there were gaps of a few days between mailings from Cinema Paradiso to receive the complete set] - the same format as before of 10 x (approx) 1 hour episodes. So, does it continue the high standard of the earlier seasons?

Well, it's more of the same - same / similar characters (there are of necessity a few new ones, previously ones having been bumped off), same plotting, double crossing and treachery, same nudity and bogus sex scenes, same f-ing and blinding. And of course the same fine variety of slaughtering, stabbing, axing, poisoning, flaying, burning, head crushing, general dismemberment and other assorted killings.

Much as in season 2 which had a mighty battle in episode 9, there's a rather good one here - also in episode 9. And episode 10 has a few surprises as old scores are settled, surplus characters bumped off, and (of course) ending on an intriguing hook for the next season.

However, some of the early episodes are more like a costume soap opera than medieval fantasy and the dialogue is simplistic and frankly, poor. The quality between episodes varies from below average to really excellent - given the high standard that went before, it must be difficult to keep it up.

The detail is amazing, the photography and special effects excellent, the production values high, the acting generally good and the storyline epic - overlong perhaps, but then so is the series of books. I enjoyed it, but this time there are a few weaknesses on show. If you enjoy epic medieval fantasy you should continue to enjoy it - there's yet more to come and I trust it's not running out of steam. Let's hope it doesn't degenerate into a simplistic, if adult, fairy tale...

I rated the earlier seasons 5/5 stars. I'll give this one 4/5.

I recently rented 'Live Another Day', perhaps best described as Season 9 of '24'. While I've missed a few, I remembered watching the first series way back in 2002 and thought I'd get it down from the shelf and watch it again.

In its day, '24' was innovative, following the action in 24 x 1 hour episodes, each covering a single hour of real time (well, approximately - we still need to allow for the inevitable commercial breaks) as the central character, counter-terrorist agent Jack Bauer (Kiefer Sutherland) bends and breaks all the rules to get the bad guys. It was tough, it featured leading edge technology (that might almost have been true) and used a split-screen technique to show different concurrent events with a shaky hand-held camera technique to give a pseudo-documentary feel

Viewed again some 14 years later (it was made in 2001) it's a bit dated - things have moved on, politically, technically and in film technique. It's now no longer a novelty to have a black US President, the mobile phones now look ancient and the 'shaky cam' technique has been done to death. I was however mildy impressed by the use of a PalmPilot PDA, much as we might use a phablet in 2015. And one major thing about the politics - this was made before the events of 9/11, so the baddies turn out to be Bosnian Serbs and not Muslims...

As far as the story is concerned it's yet another assassinate-the-president tale, mingled with the kidnap of Jack Bauer's wife and daughter, and the search for a mole in the department. It's actually quite good, and although it's pretty long (I calculate about 17½ hours of viewing) there are enough plot twists and red herrings to keep up the interest. But frankly there was too much teenage squealing from the girl, and building a story around daughter problems has also been done to death, for example in 'Taken' and more recently in '3 Days to Kill'.

Having said that, I enjoyed it - even the second time around. 4/5 stars.

Nerdy, obsessive loner takes up video news reporting and sells his footage to the local TV station. Err, that's it.

But this film is far more than that. It's a cross between a psychological thriller and a character study of a driven, disturbed, delusional, amoral individual, almost a con-man. The film follows Louis Bloom (Jake Gyllenhaal) as he decides that he can make a fast buck by ambulance / police car chasing and intrusively videoing assorted bloody events. He sells to a local TV station, desperate to improve its ratings. The veteran news director (rather well played by Rene Russo) is also desperate - to keep her job - and Louis uses this to blackmail her into sleeping with him.

So far, so average. But photographed against a noir vision of LA and with a pulsing soundtrack, we follow the rise of Louis Bloom from a man desperate for a job to a high earning freelance video newsman, desperate now for the next story - the bloodier the better. He finds it, and crosses the line from observer of a crime to invading a crime scene and withholding evidence that he then uses to create the next, even bloodier, crime scene.

I very much enjoyed Jake Gyllenhaal's previous film 'Enemy' and this is equally as good. From his early days when he played 'Donnie Darko' he has matured into an excellent actor. Rene Russo I remember playing opposite Clint Eastwood in 'In the Line of Fire' and as she is married to the writer/director of 'Nightcrawler', Dan Gilroy, I wondered if she was cast in a sort of vanity role. But no - she turns in a good performance, and spars well against Jake Gyllenhaal's character as he spouts his semi-comic distance-learned bogus management-speak lines.

There's a fine car chase leading to a perhaps inevitable conclusion that demonstrates beyond any doubt that Louis Bloom is a morally vacant person. If there is a flaw in the film, it's the final scene with Louis briefing his new employees. It's as if the writer/director didn't really know how to wrap up the story. That apart, I found it both gripping and slick - this is one of the best films I've seen so far in 2015.

Great stuff - I enjoyed this. 5/5 stars.

In today's politically correct society it makes a refreshing change to watch again a film so brim full of scathing satire, so deliberately and outrageously offensive - and so side splittingly funny - as this. Whenever I watch it, it never ceases to amaze me.

By now you'll know the plot - pair of dodgy theatrical producers plan scam to raise lots of money for a play so bad that it will immediately fail, upon which the producers keep the cash. But things go disastrously wrong...

And the reason they go wrong is that a musical so offensive as 'Springtime for Hitler' with jackbooted, goose-stepping chorus girls and lines like 'Don't be stupid, be a smarty. Come and join the Nazi party' is so outrageous and yet as funny today as it was for the audience within the film. This is a film that pokes fun at so very many segments of society, at so many socially unacceptable practices, and even at today's 'politically correct' attitudes - although the film was made almost 50 years ago.

Written and directed by Mel Brooks, it won an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay. Watch this for the first time and feel your jaw drop. Watch it again and rejoice in this satirical masterpiece. Superb stuff - 5/5 stars.

Look, it's OK to suspend one's expectation of reality when watching a thriller - things happen that we never experience in real life, bizarre situations, adventures, explosions, coincidences, superhero cops, incompetent cops, evil baddies etc etc. You name it, we see it and run with it all in the name of entertainment.

But once in a while along comes a film that is so ludicrous in its proposition that it becomes laughable, so unfunny that it's not even a black comedy. That film is 'Gone Girl'. Not only is the storyline ridiculous (wife in failing marriage develops detailed plot to frame her husband so that he is sentenced to death for her murder, but after slaughtering another man she returns to her hubby, so entrapping him for ever and ever), but the acting is truly dreadful - and yet this awful film has been repeatedly praised.

Now, it may be that my tastes are out of kilter with the rest of the world, but so be it. Frankly, this is one of the most dire films I have ever seen. Nor did I like the excessive f-ing and blinding, nor the bogus rough sex.

I was expecting something rather good from a David Fincher film, who after a somewhat hesitant start with 'Alien 3' has directed some pretty reasonable films, including 'Se7en', 'Fight Club', 'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button', 'The Social Network' and even the unnecessary US remake of 'The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo'. But I didn't expect this...

I made a serious error of judgement watching this over-long pile of manure. 1/5 stars - and that's being generous.

It's a dull wartime romantic drama with added bogus Frenchmen. Err, that's it.

The cast is fine, with Cate Blanchett in the lead, romantic interests Rupert Penry-Jones and Billy Crudup, Michael Gambon to add a bit of gravitas, and Anton Lesser as the local baddy / collaborator. The photography is fine with excellent background shots of the Scottish highlands and the French landscape. And there's nothing really wrong with the story, although it does seem a tad silly for an infatuated young woman to parachute into Vichy France in search of her airman boyfriend who's been posted missing. That aside, she then joins up with the local Resistance and has assorted not very exciting adventures...

So what's wrong with the film, then? It's a combination of the script (not very good) and the director's decision not to have any foreign language (apart from a few words in German). France without anyone speaking French? Not even a French accent? Really?

While it clearly isn't necessary for the actors to speak in funny voices like the cast in 'Allo 'Allo, the decision to have them speak in perfect English made it too much for me - and you can add to that the comically bogus Scottish accent adopted by Ms Aussie Blanchett, but only when back in Blighty. Ms Blanchett does wear a beret well, though.

I was also disappointed by the two subplots, the deportation of the Jewish children and the supposed British (or was it the Gaullists?) betrayal of the Resistance members because they were communists, both of which were naive and lazily, weakly and clumsily handled.

The film was directed by fellow Aussie Gillian Armstrong, so I blame her...

It's not a bad film, but the direction just didn't work for me. I didn't dislike it and I would like to give it 3/5 stars because it's a fairly average romance even if it is pretty dull, but I'm going to have to mark it down. 2/5 stars.

This is the film that introduced - and bumped off - PC George Dixon (Jack Warner), later resurrected for the long running TV series 'Dixon of Dock Green'. In its day, it won a BAFTA for Best British Film - so, has it stood the test of time?

The answer must be Yes. It's a gentle film, showing a style of policing that is now long gone, the era of the honest, kind hearted bobby-on-the-beat, knowing everyone on his manor and expecting - and receiving - co-operation. Here, that works well as (nowadays a cliché) an experienced older cop takes a rookie under his wing, shows him the ropes and welcomes him into his home.

But this comfortable existence ends as young tearaway baddy Dirk Bogarde goes in for a bit of armed robbery - and shoots that nice Mr Dixon. There follows some nicely observed detective work, then one of the first police car chases in a British film, and a finale at White City dog track where that nasty baddy is trapped using tic-tac men to signal his whereabouts.

There is a wealth of period detail: cobbled streets, boys in short trousers, girls playing hopscotch, fishing in the canal, a range in the kitchen heating flat irons, trolley buses, police cars with bells, police call boxes, the general lack of traffic, the street detail around Paddington and the Edgware Road, Two Ton Tessie O'Shea, the actual Paddington Green police station - and of course, bobbies on the beat, helping old ladies cross the road and directing traffic.

I have two minor niggles. The first is the actress who plays the 17-year-old runaway Diana - she was 25, and frankly, looked older and screamed far too much. The other is more serious, although it still applies in today's films. Serious violent crime, in this case gun crime and the shooting of the police, is 'talked up' and there was supposedly a crime wave of young hoodlums roaming the streets. Except there wasn't - and the shooting of a policeman is a rarity. There was one such shooting in the Metropolitan Police area in 1948 (the year before the film was made) that of PC Nathaniel Edgar, and that was the first for 26 (!) years. The next one was the shooting of PC Sidney George Miles in 1952 in the notorious Derek Bentley case. Shooting of the police is a pretty rare event - George Dixon must have been very unlucky :(

Putting that aside, this is a good period police procedural drama, very well done, with lots of human touches, in particular the restrained grief of Mrs Dixon.

If you're of a certain age and can (fondly?) remember 'Dixon of Dock Green' from the mid 1950s through to the mid 1970s, watch this. And if you can't remember Dixon, watch it anyway to see a style of policing and a world that now seems so long ago.

4/5 stars. Recommended.

I recently saw the 'Essex gangster' film 'Rise of the Footsoldier' and although I had seen it before, was quite shocked by the brutally realistic fight scenes between rival football hooligans shown in the first 15 minutes of the film. I decided to have a look at how the football hooligan plague of the 1980s has been depicted in film. I have watched (in release date order) 'The Firm' (1988), 'I.D.' (1995), 'The Football Factory' (2004), 'Green Street' (2005), 'Cass' (2008), 'Awaydays' (2009), 'The Firm' (2009 remake) - and this film, 'Casuals: The Story of the Legendary Terrace Fashion' (2011).

It's a documentary and covers the style of dress adopted by young football fans of the day, partly as a kind of tribal uniform, partly to differentiate themselves from an older generation of fans, partly as a kind of youth subculture, partly to differentiate themselves from fans of rival teams. The irony of course is that as the fashions spread, fans of rival teams became almost indistinguishable...

Based on high priced designer sports clothing brands (Adidas, Fila, Tacchini, Diadora, Fred Perry, Stone Island, Lacoste, Ellesse, Pringle etc) fans would spend a small fortune to get 'the look' - and if they were involved in crowd violence, were more concerned about damage to their expensive clothing than to themselves.

This move to 'casual' clothing also helped to make the hooligans less visible to the police - until of course, the police got wise, so in part leading to the demise of the style.

As a documentary it isn't at all bad, and anyone interested in 80's fashion could learn a lot from the history of how the style evolved from earlier 'mod' fashion and came to be adopted by football fans. The film was part written, part produced by Cass Pennant, once a member of West Ham's notorious InterCity Firm, so with his input it ought to have that accuracy that is often missing from film dramas about the era.

Interesting and well worth a watch. 4/5 stars.

It's quite a difficult trick for films from the so-called 'swinging sixties' to appear anything other than, at best, very dated - yet 'Billy Liar' manages not only to retain its humour but also its social relevance.

19-year-old Billy Fisher (Tom Courtenay) has a steady clerical job at an undertakers, but dreams of being a comedy scriptwriter. He doesn't get on with his father (radio presenter Wilfred Pickles), has managed to get engaged to two girls, the prudish Barbara (Helen Fraser) and the outspoken Rita (Gwen Watts), but really fancies the free spirited Liz (Julie Christie). Apart from his girlfriend troubles he's in trouble at work - and escapes from all this into a make-believe dream world, where he is a heroic war leader and president of Ambrosia. And Billy tells lies in a forlorn attempt to evade and avoid the truth.

To say that Billy is immature would be obvious - and while his character is amusing he's also not very likeable, evading his responsibilities, and mocking those around him. Yes, there is humour here, but the film treads the borderline between poking fun at the old and outright disrespect, for example dancing down the steps of the war memorial.

The era is the cusp of the swinging 60s (yes, it has reached the North by 1963) and is emphasised by the demolition of old buildings and new construction, and by the bubbly personality of Billy's true love, Liz. Julie Christie only appears in the film for a few minutes but her character really lights up the screen. Despite his dream of being a scriptwriter having been shattered, she persuades Billy to come with her to London - but (of course) he misses the train. As he returns home to his parents' house, will his character be redeemed by having to face up to his responsibilities rather than running away? We can but hope...

The film still retains the freshness it had over 60 years ago, although it is beginning to show its age. It is helped by the quality of the writing (it had previously been a novel and a stage play) and the quality of the acting, helped along by Leonard Rossiter, Rodney Bewes, Finlay Currie, Mona Washbourne et al. If I have a quibble it's that Tom Courtenay looks too old - Billy is supposed to be 19, Tom Courtenay was 25 when this was filmed in 1962 but looks older.

The film is a strange mix of social reality / kitchen sink drama and comedy, but one that works well. The accents are authentic too, proper Yorkshire (with the occasional Lancashire thrown in for good measure) unlike many other films where the accents are a bit suspect. Also a bit suspect - but a proper part of the film - is the character of Liz, best described as a 'free spirit' but who has just returned from Doncaster and (wow) has worked at Butlins!

[Aside: I enjoy trying to spot locations in films. While most of the location shots are in Bradford, Julie Christie can be seen walking past the construction site of Piccadilly Plaza in Manchester - the roofline of the (now demolished) Bernard House is unmistakeable]

Well worth watching - there is much humour here, and as Julie Christie's breakthrough film role it really should be seen. I'll give it an over-generous 5/5 stars to encourage you :)

For some unknown reason, I re-watched this the other night. It's at best run-of-the-mill, but it is one of the better 'Essex gangster' films dealing with the events around what are known as the Rettendon murders (look 'em up on Wikipedia). It's not a great film, so why I watched it again I'm really not sure...

The film is adapted from the autobiography of one Carlton Leach and is told in a pseudo-documentary style, with voiceover commentary from the actor playing Leach. He started his career of violence in the 1980s on the terraces of West Ham, as one of the hooligan members of the notorious InterCity Firm, so called because they took the regular train to away matches, where they met rival firms (=hooligan gangs) from the opposing team for brutal punch-ups.

He graduated from that to running a firm of club doormen, then to other 'muscle' jobs, to drug using, to drug wholesaling, fell in with Essex gang leaders, finally being on the inside track to knowing the truth (?) behind the Rettendon murders. The film shows three possible scenarios for the killings, one of which was that used to convict two men of the murders.

A couple of well known 'hard man' actors (Craig Fairbrass, Billy Murray) get parts.

It's not a great film, but the first 15 minutes dealing with football hooligans does have some of the most brutally realistic fight scenes that I've seen on screen - it makes other films dealing with the 1980s hooligan firms look like kids' stuff.

I'll give it 2/5 stars, then raise it to 3 stars because of the dreadfully realistic first 15 minutes.