The Invisible Man - Phil's Five Words for Film - 2020

What starts out as a solid, taut, psychological drama, soon descends in to a standard, thoroughly transparent, fun romp. It does have a great first half. However, ALL the major plot points are clearly signposted and visible and, for me, there just wasn’t enough horror for a horror, sci-fi for a sci-fi or drama for a drama. Written and directed by Leigh Whannell (Saw 2004/.Upgrade2018), it is a re-working of the H.G.Wells classic. There are some great moments within the film (nervy camera movements and background twitches ratchet up the tension) and the central performance from Elizabeth Moss is excellent but the ending of the film felt rushed and far from neatly tied up. As a fan of nearly all of Leigh Whannell’s previous work, this one felt incomplete, a bit mixed up, often out of control and  below par. It's taken a shed load of money at the Box Office though, so expect a #MeToo2 follow-up. Nervy but distracted by unseen forces.

5.5 out of 10
Cert 15 (UK)
2hrs 5mins
2020

Dad's Army - Phil's Five Words for Films

Dad's Army Nostalgia is not often a good enough reason to make a film of, or bring back, a much-loved classic. Re-inventing the 1970s TV series for the big screen was never going to be received well enough to work for older fans. Mess that up and you're doomed. For the younger audiences however, the nostalgia of the original characters holds absolutely no weight. So, stick to the tried and tested formula of the television comedy and hope for the best. This new version is basically a series of well-intentioned impressions of the beloved predecessors. Effort and attention being lovingly spent there, rather than developing new characters or a convincing plot line. Even though the cast seem to be loving their involvement, it all seems a little unnecessary. There is loads of British talent on show throughout, Toby Jones, Catherine Zeta-Jones and Bill Nighy taking centre stage. New characters are also a-plenty but mostly underdeveloped. 'Dad's Army' lovers will probably enjoy the film if they can get past the new versions of the previous cast - if not, they could find it too distracting. It is likeable enough but lightweight. There are some chuckles to be had but for me, there isn't enough laughter or emotion mixed in to the nostalgia. Younger and new audiences will struggle to find enough plot, humour or character to make it a lasting or worthwhile piece. The Home Guard bumble through with a stiff upper lip but there's not much fighting spirit here.

5 out of 10
Cert PG (UK)
1hr 40mins. 2016.

You're Next - Phil's Five Words for Films

You're Next When the Davison family descend on their secluded, country manner to celebrate the parent's wedding anniversary, they are in for a rotten weekend. One by one ( and in an entirely predictable order ) they are picked off by a group of mask wearing home invaders who have already taken care of the neighbours. Nobody, however, counted on there being a battling uber-aussie, Erin ( Sharni Vinson ), meeting the 'In-Laws' for the first time. Can she protect her new extended family and get them out alive? 'You're Next' is a straight up and down 'who-done-the-slashing-and-invading' movie, nothing really original or clever

Hanna - Phil's Five Words for Films

Hanna  For me, Hanna is such a wasted opportunity.  With some strong characters, a good opening and a nice central idea, it could have placed itself alongside films like the Bourne trilogy but was slowly pulled in too many directions and eventually felt messy and insubstantial.  It almost talked itself out of a sequel.  Trained to kill by her ex-CIA father ( Eric Banner ) whilst in hiding, Hanna ( Saoirse Ronan ) is a deadly 16 year old, ready to take on the world and the people that hunt her family ( Cate Blanchett ).  It is a violent fairytale that should have exploded on to the screen but unfortunately, everything about the film seemed a little misjudged. Without really knowing why or thinking about it for a second, Hanna has to press a button to alert her enemies to her location, starting an unnecessary game of cat and mouse.  Surely she was better off being below the radar?  The levels of violence were not really suitable for a 12 certificate audience but stopped short of giving the film any real edge or bite. The involvement of a family in a camper van was supposed to give structure and comic relief but just felt awkward and stilted. Even the locations used in the film felt like a tick-list of required settings. Don't get me wrong, the fight scenes were very well done and the characters were well portrayed but I thought that it missed or misjudged every bullseye. It could have been so much more stylish, dark and slick but instead it was a mixed bag of nice ideas with no real cohesion.  It is a shame because I really felt that the opening scenes were well handled and that there was enough interest in the main characters to carry a good series of films.  Hanna has been compared to the 1994 film 'Leon' ( 10/10 for me ) but lumbered with its 12 certificate and the lack of any real development, it is not in the same league. Shame.

5 out of 10.
Cert 12A ( uk )
2011.
 

Snow White and the Huntsman - Phil's Five Words for Films

Snow White and the Huntsman Another adaptation of a Grimm Brothers tale.  Despite some good performances and some well put-together action sequences, this film lacks any heart or soul and is merely a set up for a sequel in which Kristen Stewart  has to pout a lot and decide between two male suitors.  Good costumes, production values, special effects and set-pieces make it watchable but sadly, that is all there is.  The most meaningful moment in the film is between Snow White ( K.S ) and an angry troll ( impressive CGI ) and that is the films main problem.  There is no real chemistry on show between any of the main characters, nobody to really care about.  Even a poisoned apple fails to add emotion.  It is a mixed up bag of dark, Gothic fairytale, Joan of Arc heroism and Disney princess fantasy, never really sure where it wants to head.  Charlize Theron is nasty enough in her role as Ravenna, the evil Queen / Stepmother and Chris Hemsworth pulls his weight as the Huntsman but there's very little to work with.  The films weaker characters ( e.g the prince and the queen's brother ) and daft, revised story slow it down too much.  Kristen Stewart is her usual self and will bring a guaranteed audience to the film whilst the dwarfs ( British comedy actors CGI'd to fit the roles ) bring very little to the party.  The result is an average film that is confused, messy and feels every minute of it's over-long 2 hour run time.

5.5 out of 10
Cert 12A ( uk )
2012

The Awakening - Phil's Five Words for Films

The Awakening  Despite some solid performances and the type of backdrops you would expect from a BBC funded period drama, this British 1920's supernatural tale never really hits the mark.  Set at a time when millions of people had lost loved ones and were desperate to hold on to memories or contact the missing, Rebecca Hall plays Florence Cathcart, a Myth-busting investigator intent on exposing con artists claiming to be 'in touch' with the world of spirits.  Sent in to investigate a recent death at a Cumbrian boarding school and claims of ghostly sightings, Florence soon finds herself at the centre of the action. Along with Dominic West and Imelda Staunton, Hall does a credible job of drawing a little tension out of the storyline but the scares are few and far between and the plot twists are so ridiculous, leaving too many holes and unanswered questions.  There is a nicely handled 'Doll's House' device that worked well but on the whole, there are plenty of films in the same genre that have more to them.  If you want to see this film done better, then watch 'The Others', 'The Orphanage' or even 'The Woman in Black'.  Although not a bad film, there are too many holes, not enough atmosphere and ultimately it is relatively toothless and unsatisfying.

5.5 out of 10

Cert 15(uk)

2011.

Real Steel - Phil's Five Words for Films.

Real Steel  The best thing to be said about Real Steel is that the special effects are seamless and there are lots of robots hitting each other.  Hugh Jackman plays Charlie, a self-obsessed, washed up, ex-boxer who now buys / builds robots and controls them in the lower leagues of future-America's new favourite sport - Robot Boxing.  Due to some dodgy plot contrivances, Charlie finds himself broke and having to look after his estranged 10 year old son ( Dakota Goyo ) who is not only a genius robot builder but also a precocious fight promoter with a vulnerable side, desperate to believe in his new Dad.  Together they recycle a small sparring robot called 'Atom' ( not Adam, as I thought for half the film ) from a scrapheap and embark on a journey to defeat the World Champion robot - Zeus - a pantomime villain, built by the Japanese and owned by Russian mobsters.  Can the dysfunctional, all-American boys rally behind their underdog Atom and beat the nasty foreign people?  I will not give it away.  Transformers meet Rocky.  It's as daft as a bag of frogs but short enough and quirky enough to pass by harmlessly and even be good fun in parts.  Playing the "who paid most for product placement" game will help if you are struggling.  Silly fun for some of the family.

5.5 out of 10

Cert 12A (uk).

2011.

Paranormal Activity 3 - Phil's Five Words for Films

Paranormal Activity 3  The third outing for the P.A franchise is a pre-prequel, being set in the late 1980's and centring on the same sisters from the original film and follow up. ( P.A 1 + 2 reviewed here and here ).  We watch as the young sisters and their parents are subjected to the kind of haunting experience you would not forget in a hurry.  But it seems that they did forget and therein lies the main problem with the film.  Whereas the first two P.A films were nicely tied together, the third seems to have been tacked on in an attempt to justify another film.  Did the normal, well adjusted sisters of the original film really forget about this kind of childhood?  Me thinks not.  Something about brainwashing or amnesia was put forward but, for me it was a little forced.  Directed by Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman who brought us "Catfish" in 2009  ( reviewed here ), PA3 is more of the same uncomfortable silences, supernatural rumblings and loud bangs but has less tension and more comic edge to the shocks.  Having said that, there are a few good scares to be had and the roving VHS camera worked well as a tension building device.  If you enjoyed the other films and can ignore the holes in the plot, then PA3 has some good jumps and is worth a watch.  If you haven't been a fan, then I don't think there's anything new to help change your mind.

5.5 out of 10.

Cert 15 (uk)

2011.

War Horse - Phil's Five Words for Films

War Horse Somewhere between 'Saving Private Ryan' and 'Babe' is where you will find Steven Spielberg's latest war epic. When you do find it, it will be sitting in the middle of an orchestra pit covered in treacle and dusted with sugar, trying too hard to make you laugh and cry and then running off to talk to someone else. I may not be the target audience for this film but I just found it too broken up, too bitty to care about and utterly predictable. The book is apparently told from the horse's view point and maybe that helps keep some continuity, but the characters in the film come and go too quickly. John Williams' score lets you know in advance when it is time to say goodbye to a friend or laugh at a goose and the whole thing is shot in glorious, sickly Emotivision. The battle scenes are huge, epic and well done but fall short of being classic and the emotion-by-numbers approach just left me feeling manipulated - and not in a good way. More sad looking horse close-ups than a SJP film and too many sugary cliches for me. I'm not a horse person but I expected to care more than I did. Just go the whole-hog and make the horse speak. Over-sentimentalised.

5.5 out of 10 ( mainly for the huge production )
Cert 12A ( uk ).
2011.

The A Team - Phil's Five Words for Films -

The A-Team Completely over-blown remaking of the classic 80's tv show. There are plenty of explosions, leaping cars, gunfights, flying tanks and plane rides as the boys try to clear their names after a crime they didn't commit but ridiculous action sequences and brain dead set pieces can only hold your attention for so long. There just isn't enough in the film to stretch to a 2 hour run time and by the end I just didn't care any more. How about a smaller budget and a run of hour long TV episodes? The main characters are quite well cast and I'm ( sadly ) sure that we will see them again in 'A-Team II' but I pity the fool that stumps up full ticket price for that one. Some nice stunts here and there but the over-reliance on CGI, ludicrous plot and poor script really drag the film down. The 80's tv show was tongue-in-cheek fun on a shoestring budget. This latest Hollywood remake is loud, crass, soulless nonsense with too much money to burn. The plan just doesn't come together.


5 out of 10

Cert 12A (uk).2010.

Adventureland - Phil's Five Words for Films -

Adventureland A basic tale of love, summer jobs and the pains of being an awkward adolescent. Although the characters and storyline are fairly good, the film just seems to plod along at an even pace all the way through. There was no real highs and lows, no real empathy with any of the characters and their bleak situations, no true comedy to lift you up or drama to grab you. The story just kind of washes over you and, by the end, you realise that you are exactly where you expected to be without much having happened. It is a nice enough film to pass a couple of hours but I doubt that it has left a lasting memory in my head. Standard boy-meets-girl stuff set in a fairground with a lively eighties soundtrack. Some nice moments, the attention to 80's detail really gives it a period feel and the characters, desperate yet hopeful and warm, are well played. Light on comedy, light on drama - there is nothing wrong but nothing new, it just didn't 'Rock Me Amadeus'.

5.5 out of 10.
Cert 15.(uk).2009.

Alice in Wonderland - Phil's Five Words for Films -

Alice in Wonderland (Seen In 3D) As more and more films seem to be hitting the big screen in 3d, it sometimes feels like the format is just there to take more money, having been crowbarred in at the last minute and the prices cranked up. This is definitely the case here. Tim Burton has created a lovely looking film but it doesn't really gain anything from being in 3D. In places, the 3d effects are rough round the edges and distract you from the action and body of the story. It does look good as a Tim Burton film, but he has made better films and this is nothing amazing. It looks ok in 3d, but there are better examples in cinemas right now and here, it is nothing amazing. It is a good version of the 'Alice' story, but... nothing amazing. In short, it is just an average film that left me feeling, well, nothing much at all. There is a great collection of famous voices on offer but no real character development and much of the talent is under-used or wasted. Mia Wasikowska, Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter all do a good job with their parts but, nothing amazing. You get the idea?. Everything about it was OK and I can't really say much more. See it in old fashioned 2d because you won't miss much, maybe wait for dvd for the same reasons. It just lacked a little something in every department. Just average all round.

5.5 out of 10
Cert PG (uk).2010.