philipsavory's Reviews

X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)

6/10

25 May 2006

Dread filled me when I heard Brett Ratner was making this. But he actually has managed to deliver a decent movie that, admittedly doesn't match the first two but still feels part of the bunch. It's a little too short for my liking and I feel as though an extra 20 mins would have given the film that extra gravitas it was striving for.

First off, the film did seem a little rushed, the script could've done with some development, because some characters in principal have something to contribute but are left aside. A prime example of this is Angel, who has very little significance, in fact his Dad gets more screen time.

Beast was a welcome addition and Kelsey Grammar did a really good job and I'm also glad that they used make up rather than CG, it really makes a difference. On the other hand Juggernaut was a complete fowl up. Vinnie Jones is miscast and out of his depth, all his lines are terrible and I can't understand why he was chosen.

Wolverine is less the focal point this time, which is not so bad it's just that too often he comes across as comic relief because when he isn't wisecracking he's just whining about Jean Grey. Storm features a lot more than before, but Halle Berry is so ineffectual it makes little difference to her character. Cyclops is wasted once again (he really can't catch a break) but as usual Magneto and Professor X are superb.

The action was also quite good, perhaps a step up from the others, because Ratner seems more comfortable with it, whereas some of the exposition was a little clunky. I think some fans might bitch about it because it is flawed, but I genuinely enjoyed it because it just about does the job, which is more than I could have hoped for considering I generally don't like any of Ratner's other films and I had low expectations.

It's worth a watch if you like X-men, just don't expect it to be amazing that's all.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Da Vinci Code (2006)

4/10

You can't put a book in a film camera Ron...

24 May 2006

I think with this film they were trying to translate from page to screen as accurately as possible. However this approach not only bores those who've already read it, but those who knew nothing about it. Small changes are made just because it cuts a few corners and because the book was actually a sequel so Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) isn't greatly developed.

In theory the cast is really great but the character work is so paper thin(pun intended) they all look rather rather bored, Hanks especially who is bland and uninvolved. Jean Reno comes out OK as bullish detective Bezu Fache and Sir Ian Mckellan does well with what he has.

On a technical level and I don't know if it's just me but the focus pulling seemed really bad and the one action scene was totally botched through bad editing. Suspense was lacking, the pace the slow, despite the book being frantic until the last third and comically Tom Hanks seemed to have magic vision that allowed him to solve everything.

Silas the albino monk (Paul Bettany) was daft and useless, as he was in the book. If he'd have given the flagellation a rest until after work he'd have stood a much better chance. But that's just me I guess.

I was also disappointed in the mystery element to the film, there are so many puzzles, they're solved too quickly and it detaches the audience, plus the exposition is so arduous that it becomes dull and you wish Ron Howard would've had the balls to deviate from the book and rework it so that characters were developed better and suspense can be built. I think they should have been brave and created new scenes separate from the book and taken risks, but then it is Ron Howard, so middle of the road he should get his license revoked for bad driving.

To sum up, this film is not worth seeing if you've read the book, because you'll gain nothing, but you might want to give it a try if you know little about it. 4/10

1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

King Kong (2005)

5/10

King Wrong!

16 December 2005

Warning: Spoilers

Over indulgent, over-hyped, but the monkey looked good!

I wasn't too stoked about Kong initially, but a couple of weeks ago i began to get excited, the new trailer showed improved effects, the early reviews were glowing and I began to believe.

So opening night there I am, ready and waiting. The intro is cool, 30's retro and you can tell immediately the scale of this film is gonna be huge. New York looks gorgeous, with a 'sky captain' feel but better and the set up is decent, overlong but not dull. It takes a good while to get to Skull Island but it helps the anticipation. There is some good humour and you really begin to get into it. To be honest I wasn't waiting with baited breath for Kong but he looks amazing and is the highlight of the film by far.

Why 5/10? Because Jackson has created a film much like Kong himself. Massive in scale, a sight to behold, but prone to irrational decision and sudden uncontrollable outbursts. The film is a monster in itself in that you realise half way through that it's all too much.

You can tell Jackson Loves King Kong but he tries way too hard to impress, he delves too far into the psyche. One longing look from Kong would've been enough to validate the relationship between Anne and himself, Those who are aware enough would see and therefore empathise, but you see it time and again. There's NO NEED FOR SPOON FEED SENTIMENT UNLESS YOUR MAKING A FILM FOR IDIOTS! That is primarily where the film fails, for all it's pizazz and all the boasting about the emotions it just didn't do it for me.

Skull Island was cool, although the action showed great imagination on a technical level at times it looks ahead of itself with certain cg shots looking extremely ropey. The film really take a turn for the stupid at the end of the Skull Island sequence before Kong's capture and becomes unintentionally funny from there. People say that you should suspend your disbelief but there are some cracks you just can't paint over such as:

How did Kong get to New York? Why applaud 'Chrome Steel' instead of Kong? What time was that show anyway? Why does she climb the ladder? How does she know where Kong is? Why can nobody find Kong afterwards?

So overall King Kong, is entertaining but sometimes for the wrong reasons. A two hour version could have easily been crafted that would have been more subtle and more tightly paced. But I'm sure that I'm in the minority and everyone will love this film and It'll make a billion worldwide, so I guess I'll be proved wrong.

31 out of 59 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Starship Troopers (1997)

8/10

strange beast...

17 November 2005

I vividly remember buying this on VHS when it came out and I really enjoyed it. However after years passed no one really shared my opinion. Maybe I was misguided? No it does in fact rock! Sure the acting is crap (besides Verhoeven regular Michael Ironside), and it's typical Verhoeven (sex!violence!boobs!guns!sex!boobs!), yet still i feel it's charm in the same way I feel about Robocop. I can't help but enjoy it. The effects are superb, it's tightly paced, not too demanding yet it does have war connotations underneath if you scratch the surface.

There are some unintentionally funny moments, Rico's interview, and a bizarre funeral service.

I think that many see this as a guilty pleasure, like 'Demolition Man' but i strongly recommend it as a good, solid piece of sci-fi.

1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Wonderful Days (2003)

5/10

just the English Dub

17 November 2005

I had high expectations coming into this and was left feeling somewhat underwhelmed. I've heard that the Korean dub is much better and i wouldn't be surprised because the English dub is woeful. The voice acting is stoic and you can't help but feel that they needlessly manipulated the dialogue to the point where the films tone and message are obliterated. The movie felt cold, I couldn't get involved with any characters, they were well animated, but lacked expression and personality.

However the films saving grace is the animation, an interesting blend of styles that apparently took 7 years to perfect. The backgrounds are stunning, but I think they pushed themselves so far in making it work that they were limited in where they could take the story. I feel that the concept was good but it would have worked better as a series. The characters were under developed and the film felt short and insubstantial considering its ambitious themes.

Despite my disappointment I am eager to see the Korean Dub to see if their is an improvement, but i don't recommend the English Dub.

4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Die Another Day (2002)

4/10

watch another bond

14 October 2005

This has to be one the worst Bond films in recent memory, perhaps second to 'View to a Kill' and 'Octopussy'. Everything the film promises falls flat. Brosnan tries to save it but the script puts pay to his efforts. Halle Berry is pointless, well in a narrative sense and she drifts in and out of the film without any real effect.

Die Another Day is supposed to be a nod to all the films of the past but ends up feeling like a tired rip-off.

Still on the plus side it was nice to see Bond in an Aston Martin and a fine one at that and John Cleese has settled into Q's lab-coat quite nicely.

Now onto the films biggest mistake. A poke in the eye for whoever came up with the idea of using copious amounts of CGI, almost completely casting aside the superb stunt work that separates Bond from all the other blockbusters of today. Alas this film is merely a cynical exercise in pandering to the lowest common denominator and one can only hope that an auteur or more reputable director can steer the franchise in another direction. However by the sound of Casino Royale the jury's out.

3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Machinist (2004)

8/10

'I haven't slept in a year'

16 August 2005

This is a very good thriller that deserves a watch, It's best that you know as little about it as possible, so I won't give any spoilers.

Christain Bale is superb in this, his physical state is remarkable, especially when you consider he had to put all the weight straight back on and get into shape for Batman Begins. It doesn't overshadow his acting though and I'm surprised that he never got a look in during the awards season. After all Oscar loves a gimmick.

The cinematography is very nice and dark and the plot keeps you guessing, allowing you to figure it out rather than being flung around and confused. Director Brad Anderson deserves credit for not trying too hard to impress and surprise, he plays it out to a natural conclusion that brings everything together.

Give it a try if you're looking for a dark thriller that makes you think.

2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Belly of the Beast (2003 Video)

8/10

Belly of the Seagal

16 August 2005

Contains Spoilers. (Like it matters) Steven Seagal is a miracle. Somehow he has made a career making the same film over and over and this is no exception.

In my opinion he is a comic genius and a shrewd businessman, he's so good he has everyone thinking he's an action star. He is master of hypnotism. When you see a DVD of his on the shelf you are always drawn to it. You read the blurb. Ex CIA agent (John/Jack/Jake, or my favourite Forrest Taft) seeks revenge on everyone for kidnapping/murder of family/environment/hostages/nuclear weapons.

You inevitably rent it and proceed to cry with laughter. In this film Seagal, jumps through a train, fights a Ladyboy(!), beats 5 ninjas just by turning around a lot and best of all slicing an arrow clean in half with a sword.

Although this film deserves special praise for giving Seagal some nookie and the chance to find a secret message hidden on a woman's breasts.

After years of trying he may have finally made his masterpiece something to rival Under Siege 2 and all those films that had three word titles, for example; Out For Justice, Hard To Kill, Above the Law, On Deadly Ground and Fire Down Below.

This is comedy to rival Chaplin, Keaton and Jean Claude Van-Damme.

29 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Island (2005)

4/10

oh not again...

16 August 2005

Warning: Spoilers

Dark gritty, sci-fi thriller it began. Daft, no-brain action it inevitably turned out to be. This film is basically a chainsaw disguised as a dictionary. The concept is great, but predictably Michael Bay just couldn't keep his hand out of his trousers and proceeds to blow it all over a series of over-edited action scenes, that are visually nice, but they feel unnecessary and sloppy. Bay done it all before and it shows, this was supposed to be a break from the Bruckheimer mould but ends up as the same thing.

The film begins quite well. Ewan Mcgregor plays Lincoln-Six-Echo a 'product' of Sean Bean's not so evil plan to prolong human life. He's not even a bad guy when you think about it, just a fool with a god complex, which is repeatedly established at needless points. Anyway Lincoln discovers 'The Island' is a fraud and does a runner with Jordan-Two-Delta(Scarlett Johansson). It is at this point that Bay, inexplicably removes the elements of intrigue that could've formed a good thriller. The moral ideals of cloning are never truly explored, nor is the idea of cloning being integrated into society.

The Island's vision of the future is unfocused. By 2019 we have floating trains and bikes, but no cars and buses. we can clone but wear the same design Puma's and drive the same kinds of cars (At one point I spotted a regular Volvo) What about fuel? Global Climate? This film is sloppy, because it took the audience for idiots (which we aren't, mostly) and aimed below the standards it could have achieved, which is what disappointed me the most.

Don't get me wrong I love action, but it's like Orange Juice, it's much better smooth and pure, than processed and stagnant.

Oh and look out for a dead clone who magically reappears at the end during one of Bay's many panning wide shots.

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Weird Science (1985)

10/10

Butter my muffin

3 July 2005

One word: Hilarious. In my opinion Weird Science is one of the funniest films ever made. Just as long as you suspend your disbelief and enjoy the ride.

Gary and Wyatt are too high school losers dreaming of the respect of their peers and being popular. Somehow they create a sexy computer genie lady and much craziness and laughter ensues. It's so good you can't even count the laughs on a centipede.

This film riffs on Frankenstein and various eighties film clichés but uses really great dialogue and original comedic situations, whilst dealing with all the issues an unpopular teenager has.

Anthony Michael Hall is a genius who sadly faded, and John Hughes has also fallen by the wayside but this will forever be their finest achievement and I urge you to catch it on region 1 DVD, because it's difficult to get anywhere else.

Bill Paxton is also great and you will also notice a early appearance from Robert Downey Jr.

1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Garden State (2004)

9/10

Scrubs up nicely

3 July 2005

This is a very mature, deep and thoughtful film from Zach Braff, who displays the talents to direct many a great film to come.

His script is razor sharp, it avoids sentimentality and yet has great warmth and many great character moments.

He also gives a restrained performance and captures a sense of loss and the frustration of dealing with his own emotions.

His direction is also very restrained camera movements are minimal and the actors are all allowed room to breathe and there are some very nice visual touches and lighting and editing techniques that look great without overshadowing things.

I thoroughly recommend this for those who like great American drama like Lost In Translation and American Splendor.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Batman Begins (2005)

8/10

Holy Good Movie Batman!

3 July 2005

I Love Batman, and I have been digesting every scrap of information on this film since it was announced. Promises were made and mostly kept and we are left with a great Batman movie, although still not the definitive article.

+ POINTS Christian Bale is terrific, in a different way to Keaton, Bale's Wayne is less enclosed because we spend more time with him and discover how he becomes the Dark Knight. Liam Neeson also deserves a special mention.

The Batmobile is awesome, and hopefully they'll get an Oscar on the sound design for that, because it really roars. By far the best batmobile.

Batman is very well interpreted as a symbol of fear, and director Chris Nolan uses shadow and illusion to good effect, with Batman often just a blur in the background. The Batsuit looks great too.

The look of the film is very original and beautiful, although i prefer the Gothic style from Batman '89. Still kudos for making it look distinctive and a believable environment that does not make Batman look out of place.

Points There are some small negatives. The action is often over edited and it would've been nice to see more wide shots of Batman fighting, especially during the final battle.

Michael Caine was good as Alfred although I felt that he tried to hard to be funny when a look would've been more effective than a one liner. Commissioner Gordon also gets a woeful line late on.

Although the villains should take a back seat it would've been nice to spend a little more time on the Scarecrow, as he was very menacing but underdeveloped

I think this is a really good film and deserves to make a lot of money, just for being dark and bold and for the most part very clever. I think it's a very good way to set up Batman and hopefully they will be able to make a sequel that will surpass this and possibly form what could be a daring and classy franchise.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

War of the Worlds (2005)

9/10

Wow

2 July 2005

Warning: Spoilers

This movie rocks big time.

I would say it's probably Spielberg's best film since Saving Private Ryan, in terms of being just a blistering assault on the senses.

Spoilers start here: The movie kicks into gear immediately with the first tripod appearing about 15 minutes in and it just does not let up. The CG is brilliant and not overused,(wait till you see the death rays blasting everyone in sight). There are also some powerful moments too involving Dad's desperation to protect his kids and Cruise really nails this role and is very believable. He is certainly no action hero in this, he's just as helpless as everyone else, at times he just seems confused and afraid.

What makes this film works is that is avoids the obvious army versus the aliens cliché over and over, it sticks right with the Ferrier family and I only remember seeing jets and tanks in one scene and the odd soldier in a few. It also has great acting, great camera-work (check out the freeway shot) and very inventive set-pieces that put tension and fear before flashy visuals.

The only drawback is that the opening hour is so great it can't be topped in the second and unfortunately the end feels flat, although the same goes with the book, so I'm just nitpicking really. Overall I would call it one of the best blockbusters you are likely to see, and probably up there with Sin City in terms of being the best film this year.

Go see it you owe it to yourself.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)

5/10

On the cusp of greatness...

20 May 2005

Warning: Spoilers

George Lucas, has a brilliant creative mind. However he must be completely unable to filter good ideas from bad ones and that is exactly the problem with this film.

The opening shot is an absolute belter, recapturing the thrill of the death star tunnel run, and then revealing the mother of all space battles which we then barely get to see instead we get daft r2-d2 fighting stupid dismantling robots. This inconsistency carries on throughout the film. There are some brilliant visual touches, but then there are points where a potentially great moment is overcooked to the point where you cannot tell what is going on.

Top marks go to John Williams for another excellent score but I have to give Hayden Christensen the thumbs down. I have heard he is brilliant in Shattered Glass, but I just sense awkwardness in his acting, as if he is restricted from being emotive, his mannerisms are over obvious and he only really begins to show signs of life when he confronts Obi-Wan towards the end. Ewan Mcgregor spends another two hours honing his Alec Guiness impression, even down to the chin stroke, but even he fluffs multiple lines in soap opera style. Natalie Portman also suffers at the hands of Lucas'woeful dialogue skills.

General Grievious is utterly pointless and his lightsaber skills leave a lot to be desired, he is a feeble villain and nowhere near as badass as I would have hoped.

Ian McDiarmid is the embodiment of evil and it was nice to see him as the emperor, even if I had to endure his lame CG lightsaber fights, and Yoda seems to have become comic relief since episode two delivering awful one-liners and bouncing all over the screen like a toy commercial.

Plus has anyone noticed that half the screen time throughout the prequels has been of ships taking off and landing as if we have to see every character arrive and leave everywhere they go? And why CG random Clone Troopers in pointless places when extras in suits cost less and are actually real!

The much hyped Anakin/Obi-Wan duel is at times breathtaking and yet often confusing. My favourite point is when their lightsabers clash and plumes of lava explode behind them. However I couldn't help but wish they'd just talk things through, I actually would have preferred some extended dialogue between them instead of lightsabers swishing in the dark. The fight is good but not as good as Luke vs Vader in ROTJ or Maul vs Qui-Gonn/Obi-Wan in TPM, WHICH IS THE BEST LIGHTSABER FIGHT EVER SIMPLY BECAUSE LUCAS HAD THE SENSE TO USE WIDE SHOTS! Vader's creation is awesome up until an unforgivable cliché that completely ruined what should have been a classic scene.

To summarise, I would recommend this to prequel fans and nobody else, as an old school Star Wars fan I feel anger, which leads to hate and in the end suffering. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Troy (2004)

3/10

A Greek Tragedy

4 March 2005

Warning: Spoilers

It had all the makings of a mediocre epic, big budget, Orlando Bloom, and every British thespian warner bros could find. (Brendan Gleeson is the new Pete Postlethwaite, he's in everything!) Yet it all went horribly wrong, as if Sean Bean wasn't bad enough the way in which the Trojan horse is devised is laughable. Eric Bana is the only one to emerge with any credit although his accent is poor. However it pales in comparison to Achilles "cousin" Patriclus who looks and sounds as though he is auditioning for Malibu CA, yet took a wrong turn and ended up in Wolfgang Petersen's office. Orlando Bloom cannot be taken seriously unless he has pointy ears.

2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Collateral (2004)

9/10

ruddy brilliant

4 March 2005

This film rocks......period. The cruister deserves an Oscar for this piece of exquisite genius Jamie Foxx was great too although why he was nominated for best supporting and not best actor is beyond me Kudos to Michael Mann for getting of his ass and doing something a little more exciting. Sadly this film will be overlooked at all the award ceremonies despite it clearly being the best film of 2004.

I never used to be a fan of Tom Cruise but recently he has won me over with great films like Mission Impossible, Minority report and The Last Samurai. He truly is one the coolest dudes in Hollywood, next to Don Cheadle of course who was robbed at the Oscars!

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Passion of the Christ (2004)

7/10

Perhaps the most important film of 2004

6 May 2004

This is without doubt one of the most curious films i have ever seen. It has taken me several weeks to even formulate an opinion on this because it like nothing you can ever see or imagine, and for that Mel Gibson deserves praise. The Passion of the Christ generates emotions I have never felt before, I felt uncomfortably compelled by Christ's struggle and also I was frequently questioning whether I was actually enjoying it. I also felt detached because i'm not religious, so i'm basically soulless.

To be honest I'm still undecided and as a 'film' I'm not sure how well The Passion works structurally, The flogging is an exceptional scene as is the crucifixion, yet the carrying of the cross seemed to drag on (no pun intended). Although it goes perfectly with the message Mel Gibson is conveying it doesn't make for entertaining cinema.

The acting is impressive and the cast handle the burden of their roles well and claims of it being anti-semitic are not entirely unfounded but then different religions depict events in different ways so it is not a simple case of right or wrong.

Overall The Passion of the Christ is an extremely important film because it divides opinion in a whole new way, whether you like this film or not depends entirely on your religious standpoint. It is not for the squeamish (It is extremely violent but it feels necessary) and you have to be 'ready' to see it but it is well worth a watch. ?/10

3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Narc (2002)

9/10

An overlooked gem

6 May 2004

Narc is an overlooked gem, a superb cop movie that delivers excellent characters at the expense of needless action.

Jason Patric is an actor I never really rated but he blew me away in this he looks haggard and haunted, you can understand his character completely just from one look in his eyes. Despite Patric's efforts he is surpassed by a career best turn from Ray Liotta, who is menacing and cool at the same time.

Kudos for Joe Carnahan for balancing style with substance perfectly, and the opening to the film is one of the best i've ever seen. This film exudes purity and class, and Carnahan directs with no pressure. I look forward to his next film.

I don't wish to reveal anything on this film because it's best that you just see it cold but fans of Copland or Dark Blue should love this. 9/10

53 out of 62 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Moulin Rouge! (2001)

1/10

I hate this!!!!!!!!!!

6 May 2004

This is pure bilge. This barely constitutes as a film. To begin with I was enthusiastic about this film, I was expecting a visual tour-de-force and some show-stopping tunes. Instead I got lots of flashing lights, a bunch of diabolical cover versions and Richard Roxburgh!

This movie makes me angry, it frustrates me more that this film is so popular. Why? I haven't heard one good explanation yet. The story is pants, I knew the conclusion from reading the back of the video case, save yourself two hours and do the same.

I have nothing against Baz Luhrmann, I thought Romeo and Juliet was quirky and stylish, however watching this made me want to extract my eyes with ice cream scoops and replace them with extremely hot billiard balls. Contrary to popular believe Ewan Mcgregor CAN NOT SING! HE'S SINGING ONE NOTE THE WHOLE TIME FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!

Anyway if you find yourself with two hours or so to live and want to pass the time, don't watch this, you could go out on a high by watching True Lies or Aliens. YOU OWE IT TO YOURSELF AND JAMES CAMERON!

(Too angry to give any rating)

3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

philipsavory

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed