Reviews by Kyle Ellis

I honestly do think this is under-appreciated. I know it is more sombre in tone than the 1939 classic, but that's not a bad thing at all. The film does look beautiful, with lovely sets and costumes, and the special effects work is some of the best of its kind of any family film of the 80s or of any decade, Tick-Tock and the Nome King are brilliantly designed. Return to Oz, with its very imaginative storytelling- seen in memorable scenes like with the heads- and enchantingly dark atmosphere, also has enough magic to engage the viewer, well to me it does anyway. The climax is chillingly effective, though Nome King did seem to be defeated too easily. Fairuza Balk is excellent as Dorothy, charming, sincere and even adorable. Many have complained that Balk is too young for the character, but in the 1939 musical Judy Garland was nearly 17 when in the book Dorothy is about 12. I also loved the music score and the cinematography, which was both dreamlike and nightmarish. Another mention should go to Nicol Williamson in the duel roles of Dr Worley and the Nome King(who may be a bit too scary for young viewers, likewise with the character of Mombi), he did a truly wonderful job in both roles, particularly the latter where he was threatening in an understated way. Also to Pumpkinhead, who a number of times, came close to stealing the show, and Tick-Tock, whose personality is perhaps the most colourful of all. The only character I didn't care for was the chicken, who is annoying at times and not really that necessary. Overall, this is a truly excellent film, that I think deserves a lot more recognition. 9/10 Bethany Cox.

I honestly do think this is under-appreciated. I know it is more sombre in tone than the 1939 classic, but that's not a bad thing at all. The film does look beautiful, with lovely sets and costumes, and the special effects work is some of the best of its kind of any family film of the 80s or of any decade, Tick-Tock and the Nome King are brilliantly designed. Return to Oz, with its very imaginative storytelling- seen in memorable scenes like with the heads- and enchantingly dark atmosphere, also has enough magic to engage the viewer, well to me it does anyway. The climax is chillingly effective, though Nome King did seem to be defeated too easily. Fairuza Balk is excellent as Dorothy, charming, sincere and even adorable. Many have complained that Balk is too young for the character, but in the 1939 musical Judy Garland was nearly 17 when in the book Dorothy is about 12. I also loved the music score and the cinematography, which was both dreamlike and nightmarish. Another mention should go to Nicol Williamson in the duel roles of Dr Worley and the Nome King(who may be a bit too scary for young viewers, likewise with the character of Mombi), he did a truly wonderful job in both roles, particularly the latter where he was threatening in an understated way. Also to Pumpkinhead, who a number of times, came close to stealing the show, and Tick-Tock, whose personality is perhaps the most colourful of all. The only character I didn't care for was the chicken, who is annoying at times and not really that necessary. Overall, this is a truly excellent film, that I think deserves a lot more recognition. 9/10 Bethany Cox.

As 'Sleeping Beauty' is one of my favourite films, Disney, animated or otherwise, and Maleficent is a contender for the scariest and most memorable female villain of the Disney canon, despite the mixed reviews 'Maleficent' did maintain my interest.

Finally watching it after being very behind with film-watching, 'Maleficent' does have enough to salvage it from being a complete waste but largely it is really underwhelming.

The best thing about 'Maleficent' is the performance of Angelina Jolie. Jolie looks incredible in her knockout costume and make-up (which are spot on for the character), and she is sinister and alluring while also bringing some wit to some scenes. The film also looks gorgeous, it's beautifully shot with eye-catching and richly atmospheric set and costume design and the director's long-time experience in special effects work clearly shows in the film. The score is whimsical, haunting, hypnotic and beautifully orchestrated, as one would expect from James Newton Howard.

In terms of story, the highlight is the suspenseful and quite powerful Christening scene, that gave the film and Maleficent's character so much promise and set the tone brilliantly. Also loved the delectably witty and subtly dangerous rapport between Maleficent and her servant Diaval, played creepily by Sam Riley, it is by far the best-executed and believable of all the character relationships in the film.

However, part of the problem is that after how well Maleficent (film and character) is set up and after the character making such an impact as one of Disney's most iconic and scariest villains it just didn't seem believable no matter how much the film tried seeing her softened and more sympathetic. More problematic is that in the attempts to give Maleficent this dimension and origins story, most of the rest of the characters suffer, not just in being bland but in some cases being distorted. The worst case being King Stefan being made into a shockingly one-dimensional and underwritten villain. Prince Phillip is almost completely useless (Aurora's mother even more so), even for a plot device, and the three good fairies are irritating and their inept stupidity makes them far less endearing.

With the performances, the only great one is Jolie's (Riley's is also effective but his role isn't anywhere near as juicy). Elle Fanning is a very vacuous and at worst somnambulist Aurora. Say what you will about the Aurora in the animated film being a dull catalyst in her film, she is at least one of the most beautiful visually Disney protagonists, radiates in charm and her singing voice is one of the most distinctive and loveliest in a Disney film ever, which at least makes her memorable, all three attributes of which Fanning lacks with her Aurora. Sharlto Copley both fails to engage and over-compensates as Stefan, Brenton Thwaites is bland while Juno Temple and fine actresses Lesley Manville and Imelda Staunton are charmless and annoying, their slapstick comic relief falling as flat as a pancake.

Linda Woolverton's script is very lazy here, with clichéd and dreary dialogue and very clumsy attempts at being funny. Apart from the christening scene and the scenes between Maleficent and Diaval, the story is a mess of inconsistencies and half-baked ideas seen before in Disney films that executed them far better (notably 'Frozen'), not enough of it enchants and entertains and it is really hard to swallow Aurora being so forgiving as easily as that.

Overall, starts off great and has benefits of looking beautiful, having a wonderfully composed music score and a lead performance that couldn't have been more perfect. But it isn't enchanting or entertaining enough really, and the way the other characters are written and the flawed execution of the script and story hurt 'Maleficent' severely. 4/10 Bethany Cox

Warning: Spoilers
I love anything to do with The Wizard of Oz. The story is a classic, and the 1939 Judy Garland film is for me one of the best films ever made. And I liked the idea of having a prequel to this story, and Oz the Great and Powerful had potential to be great in the right hands. I was kind of intrepid though as well because I heard a lot of bad things about it, and while it was not as bad as I'd heard it was a disappointment. And this was including me taking into account that it is a family movie and that any film should be judged on its own merits.

Oz the Great and Powerful does have a fair few things that redeem it. I loved the visuals, I thought on seeing the trailer that they looked amazing and on seeing the film itself I still stand by that. The colours are truly beautiful to look at and the cinematography and camera angles don't intrude too much and allow us to properly enjoy the visuals. The costumes and sets equally fanciful, Michelle Williams in particular looks radiant, while the CGI effects have moments where they are generic, but on the most part they're fine. Danny Elfman's score doesn't have the whimsical, poignant magic that his Edward Scissorhands score has for example, but it is both sparkling and rousing and you really feel a sense of fantasy and adventure when hearing it. When it comes to individual scenes, the highlight was the expertly done and thrilling tornado sequence, it looked great and didn't feel dragged out too long. And there are two performances that are good. Coming off the best was Rachel Weisz who is deliciously sassy and seductive. Michelle Williams occasionally comes across as a little too airy-fairy, but she also makes a good impression, being wondrous visually and being full of charm and benevolence.

James Franco and Mila Kunis did absolutely nothing for me though. Franco I've liked before in other films, the finest example being 127 Hours, but I did feel that in perhaps an attempt to be quirky that he wildly overdid his part, his smirking- almost like he was stoned- grated really fast. Kunis unfortunately is bland personified, granted she was not given much worthwhile to work with but I just could not buy her at all as a Wicked Witch and there is no expression at all in her eyes. The voice acting is serviceable but never much more than that. Franco and Kunis are not the only let downs to the film. The script, story and pacing were really big issues in this regard. The script tries to incorporate too many things all at once and instead of doing this successfully it comes across as muddled and stilted instead. The story starts off well, but quickly becomes contrived, paper-thin and rushed with next to none of the enchantment, sense of wonder and emotional resonance that the story and 1939 film have. Relationships are introduced quickly and end even quicker than that. The overall pacing was rushed, but the lack of any genuine excitement also eventually made the film a sludge as it tries to stretch a very thin plot longer than it needed to be. The characters also are ones that we never learn anything about and consequently I didn't properly care for a single one.

All in all, has its good points and things to enjoy but this Oz is not as great or as powerful as it had potential to be. Not bad, but disappointing all the same. 5/10 Bethany Cox

This week I saw three things based on WW-II novels. The first was 'The Pianist' about the Warsaw ghetto in the war and the survival of a Jewish pianist in that ghetto. The second was 'De Tweeling', a Dutch film about two twin-sisters, separated in 1926. One of them grows up in Nazi-Germany, the other in The Netherlands. That movie shows us more of the common persons during the war, Germans and not-Germans. The third was 'Band of Brothers', a true story about combat in the war. All three things are great, the films I mean, and you definitely should see all three of them.

'Band of Brothers' follows Easy-company from their training in England, through D-Day, the rest of France (including Bastogne), Holland (including operation Market Garden), Germany and Austria. This story is shown to us in ten different episodes. Every episode starts with the real men from Easy-company telling about their experiences and ends with a short written update of Easy-company. Between beginning and ending of episodes one of the best things I have seen on screen is presented to us.

The casting is amazing. Even David Schwimmer (from 'Friends') as the bitter Captain Sobel is great. Damian Lewis and Ron Livingston are superb as Major Winters and Captain Lewis Nixon. Every actor seems to be perfect for his character. The photography and direction is great also. I especially loved the direction of the episode done by executive producer Tom Hanks, possibly with some help from the other executive producer Steven Spielberg. 'Saving Private Ryan' was great for showing us the horror in combat, 'Band of Brothers' does the same thing but adds some other things. You really learn to know the characters (in 600 minutes you can do that), you sympathize with them.

If you have the chance to see this masterpiece, do so. It is long but you can spread the episodes over some days. But if you start watching it is very hard to stop. Definitely one of the best WW-II movies or series out there.

All three of his films that said, the other two being Summer Wars and Wolf Children, while neither without flaws(Summer Wars did have too many characters with some better-developed than others and Wolf Children had an at times rushed beginning and ended inconclusively) are great films and near-masterpieces almost as good as the best of Studio Ghibli.

The Girl Who Leapt Through Time did get a little too complicated at the end and the character designs lacked the sophistication and detail of the rest of the animation. Speaking of the rest of the animation on the other hand, it's fantastic(something that all three of Hosoda's films have in common) with its luscious watercolour-like backgrounds and beautiful colours. The animation in the time-leaping is so inventive and effortlessly drawn it leaves one breathless. The film also has a great music score(another thing that all three Hosoda films had), it's positively hypnotic and sometimes rousing and sometimes melancholic, I also much appreciated the use of unobtrusive piano scoring.

There is a thoughtful script that sounds remarkably natural(Japanese and American, dubs don't always translate well but it does fine here), complete with a deft balance of comedy and drama. The story is always engaging and not boring at all, it's funny, it's poignant, it's imaginative and it's thought-provoking, also using the time travel idea very effectively(one of the better films to do so). The messaging is well-handled and not laid on too thick. The characters are likable and interesting rather than being swamped by the time travel and the voice acting is good in the American dub(even if the title character's voice acting may be shrill for some, personally it wasn't a problem) and very good indeed in the Japanese version.

Overall, a great film, near-masterpiece status in fact. If you loved The Girl Who Leapt Time and haven't seen Summer Wars or Wolf Children yet, do so. 9/10 Bethany Cox

At first, I was not expecting much from Tinkerbell, but it was much better than I expected. While too short with some moments of insipid dialogue, Tinkerbell is a cute and entertaining movie that never tries to be anything more than it is.

The film looks surprisingly great, initially I was expecting something along along the lines of all gloss no depth, but the look is clean and quite warm with gorgeous colours and all the fairies look convincing.

The music I also loved. The score is somewhat Celtic-inspired, and it is really lovely and soothing and the tunes are memorable without being too twee. The story is very simple, but it is very sweet with a good message that doesn't feel forced or preachy.

The characters are really quite engaging. I have never hated Tinkerbell as much as others did in the Disney Peter Pan movie, which is not a Disney favourite but I like it very much for the music, but she is much more likable here and the fact that she isn't jealous or stubborn here will make her easy to relate for the younger crowd.

The voice work is on paper of high-calibre, and in the film they do do sterling jobs. Mae Whitman is very emotive and resourceful in the title role, but the standout for me was the immensely talented Anjelica Huston who is really quite excellent, also she is a presence that adults will thoroughly enjoy.

In conclusion, a cute and fun little movie. 8/10 Bethany Cox

[Link removed - login to see]
The natural question ,we have to wonder about when watching this film, in its new splendor after restoration, is whether Orson Welles did not try to make a movie about himself. He sure did. I would even say it is a posthumous autobiography in prospective expectation. It is an American film about America and the Americans. The grandiose grandeur of those who are dreaming America into being and the petty narrow-mindedness of those who are only defending their own interests. Which tribe is most important? No one can know. The dreamers get isolated and lonely, at times in the golden heart of wealth and money. The self-centered ones just cut the cake and are very careful to give a very thin slice to others and an enormous slice to themselves. Then they all die sooner or later and only the dreamers survive. The others disappear in the darkness of hell, the underworld of forgotten anti-history. But this film reveals, and at the time it was probably scandalous, the power of the press as for building public opinion and the absurdity of the Americans as for forbidding politicians to have a normal private life, I mean the right to have a private life of their own and only their own. The tragic dimension of this character is that he is trapped by the very first, the power of the press he had used tremendously and had even boosted up in incredible proportions, with his very private life. Then the rest is only vanity and vain pretence: he tried to prove what he did not have to prove and he used other people to do so, particularly his second wife, which led to the end of the dream that had turned into a nightmare with a brain stroke and death. One can only prove what is really real and not what is virtually eventually maybe possible. Then of course we have to admire the technique of this film and the marvelous black and white finish and gloss. We also have to point out the film is renewing the genre of the biography of a great man by creating some mystery around one word, "rosebud", which probably has no value at all and is there to make us look at the pictures and images with a more attentive eye, as if we were supposed to be private eyed sleuths. Some say this film is a masterpiece and they must be nearly right. They would be totally right if they said it is one of the few masterpieces of the war years, the years that needed some boosting of the Americans and America. Orson Welles did it with a big tongue in his vast cheek, but probably had more positive effect than all the propaganda films that were filmed by second grade "directors", if they can be at times called directors at all.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines

[Link removed - login to see]
The natural question ,we have to wonder about when watching this film, in its new splendor after restoration, is whether Orson Welles did not try to make a movie about himself. He sure did. I would even say it is a posthumous autobiography in prospective expectation. It is an American film about America and the Americans. The grandiose grandeur of those who are dreaming America into being and the petty narrow-mindedness of those who are only defending their own interests. Which tribe is most important? No one can know. The dreamers get isolated and lonely, at times in the golden heart of wealth and money. The self-centered ones just cut the cake and are very careful to give a very thin slice to others and an enormous slice to themselves. Then they all die sooner or later and only the dreamers survive. The others disappear in the darkness of hell, the underworld of forgotten anti-history. But this film reveals, and at the time it was probably scandalous, the power of the press as for building public opinion and the absurdity of the Americans as for forbidding politicians to have a normal private life, I mean the right to have a private life of their own and only their own. The tragic dimension of this character is that he is trapped by the very first, the power of the press he had used tremendously and had even boosted up in incredible proportions, with his very private life. Then the rest is only vanity and vain pretence: he tried to prove what he did not have to prove and he used other people to do so, particularly his second wife, which led to the end of the dream that had turned into a nightmare with a brain stroke and death. One can only prove what is really real and not what is virtually eventually maybe possible. Then of course we have to admire the technique of this film and the marvelous black and white finish and gloss. We also have to point out the film is renewing the genre of the biography of a great man by creating some mystery around one word, "rosebud", which probably has no value at all and is there to make us look at the pictures and images with a more attentive eye, as if we were supposed to be private eyed sleuths. Some say this film is a masterpiece and they must be nearly right. They would be totally right if they said it is one of the few masterpieces of the war years, the years that needed some boosting of the Americans and America. Orson Welles did it with a big tongue in his vast cheek, but probably had more positive effect than all the propaganda films that were filmed by second grade "directors", if they can be at times called directors at all.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines

Princess Mononoke is one of the best animated movies I have seen in a long time, and is up there with Studio Ghibli's best along with Spirited Away. I will say I am probably biased, as I am a huge Studio Ghibli fan, and love all of their films, I even like Cat Returns, which along with PomPoko is considered as one of the weaker Ghibli efforts. The animation in Princess Mononoke is absolutely stunning, with rich detailed backgrounds and brilliant character animation. The image of the Stag actually made my jaw drop. The music is fantastic as well, and although environmentalism is a subject matter very difficult to get right, what the filmmakers succeeded in doing was making a highly intriguing story that was not only original but succeeded in not being preachy at all. The film is also helped by the high calibre vocal talents of Minnie Driver, Claire Danes, Billy Bob Thornton et al (voicing quite remarkable characters) and a strong script. True, some of the images like the Demon Worm, may frighten younger viewers, but it is fair to say they were very powerful. All in all, Princess Mononoke is breathtaking and I recommend it highly. 10/10 Bethany Cox