Reviews by Kyle Ellis

Steve Jobs was a fascinating, though complex, individual, so having a film based on him was always going to peek interest. Then there is the talent involved in 'Steve Jobs', director Danny Boyle who has made some very good films, one of today's most talented script-writers Aaron Sorkin and Michael Fassbender and Kate Winslet as the leads.

Found 'Steve Jobs' to be a good and interesting film, albeit not one that will appeal to all viewers as can be seen from the polarising reviews. There is a lot to like here, and the good points are actually excellent. At the same time, considering the involvement of such fine talent and subject matter, 'Steve Jobs' also had potential to be, and perhaps should have been, more than good, great even. There are also a few issues here, and fairly sizeable ones, though there is much more good than there is bad.

There could have been more complexity to Jobs himself, difficult to do for a perfectionist who was very difficult to work with. Can definitely understand the criticism of 'Steve Jobs' being a pretty one-dimensional portrait of the man that magnifies his flaws. For something featuring heavily, his personal/family life could have been better explored and delved into more, there is heart with the relationship between Steve and Lisa but the final fifteen minutes or so to me came over as contrived rather than emotional and although Katherine Waterston does a good job her role is underwritten.

At times, the film is jumpy and also could have shown more of the launches themselves and showed how they were received rather than being told afterwards, for a film so heavily reliant on the backstage/behind the scenes aspects. Actually really liked the script on the most part, it is though talk-heavy and with scenes having a lot to take in there are instances where it's not easy keeping up. Also didn't buy Jobs/Scully's final scene together, which went against what was seen with their acrimonious confrontations before.

However, 'Steve Jobs' is very well made visually. It's unfussy but never cheap, actually it is very slick. It may feel like a filmed play, which is also down to the structure of the film, but for me it wasn't a problem. Boyle directs in a restrained fashion, while showing plenty of engagement with his material. The music is both low-key and lively when used.

While not perfect, Sorkin's script is one of the high points of 'Steve Jobs'. It's thought-provoking, intriguing smart and rapid-fire, with plenty of wit, intensity and snappy put-downs. The story, following an unconventional yet fascinating three act structure dealing with three different launches that Jobs revolutionised, goes at an energetic pace and is kept afloat by the intensity of the characters (especially Jobs and Joanna). Things move quickly and there is plenty to be interested by, one just can't help feeling that some aspects could have been delved into more. Jobs and Joanna have plenty of intensity in their chemistry, while Woz's final scene and the big scenes between Jobs and Scully are especially powerful.

Other than Sorkin's script, 'Steve Jobs' best asset is the acting. Fassbender may not look like Steve Jobs but he is nonetheless terrific and is an incredibly compelling presence. Winslet's performance is tense and deeply felt. Michael Stuhlbarg steals scenes in his not large screen time, while Seth Rogan demonstrates why he should do more dramatic roles and films and Jeff Daniels has not been this good in quite some time. Waterston does well with limited screen time and her role underwritten.

Concluding, good film but not a great one. 7/10 Bethany Cox

That 'Revolutionary Road' was directed by Sam Mendes (who directed the brilliant 'American Beauty' nine years earlier) and that it reunited two immensely talented actors Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet after 1997's 'Titanic' were reasons enough to see it.

'Revolutionary Road' may not be "revolutionary" and it is not perhaps a film that will be re-watched over and over by me. This said, there is so much to appreciate, there is no denying that it's incredibly well made and superbly acted. And to me and many others (though it is an understandably polarising film, the dark and unpleasant subject matter is not for everybody) it is a powerful and moving film, and one of the most realistic and truthful depictions of a struggling marriage on film.

Visually, 'Revolutionary Road' is wonderfully shot, bleak but also sumptuous, while the scenery and 50s production values are evocatively and handsomely rendered. Thomas Newman's music score is hauntingly hypnotic, achingly melancholic and at times ominous.

While at times stagy, the dialogue is insightful, making one really think about what it's saying (it has much to say and knows how to say it without preaching) and for many will wrench the gut and induce floods of tears. There is a little levity provided by Kathy Bates, that could have been ill-fitting but is pitched well. The story is deliberate, but the atmosphere is brilliantly evoked and there are many parts that have huge power and are emotionally devastating, especially in the latter parts.

Sam Mendes keeps things at an assured pace, keeps the atmosphere alive and doesn't undermine the chemistry between DiCaprio and Winslet in any way. DiCaprio and Winslet embody their roles, which are intentionally not the most likable, are very complex and very much compellingly real, and their chemistry is both tense and affecting. Winslet has the more complex one of the two and her performance is a heart-wrenching emotional roller-coaster, while DiCaprio gives an explosive turn especially in the fever pitch latter parts.

Michael Shannon proves himself to be a scene stealer as the brutally honest crazy nut, and Kathy Bates brings well-timed levity.

Overall, a powerful and moving film that is highly appreciated in many ways. 9/10 Bethany Cox

Words cannot describe how good this film was. This is easily one of Peter Jackson's best films, and I think his most emotional and in many ways. Heavenly Creatures is disturbing and shocking, but it is also very beautiful, haunting and quite thoughtful as well, as well as having a masterly mix of nostalgia, menace and innocence. It looks beautiful, with the cinematography simply stunning, and the score is both haunting and beautiful. The story is interesting and the dialogue makes you think and even more than that. Peter Jackson directs wonderfully, and boasts superb performances not only from Kate Winslet and especially Melanie Lynksey- who is mesmerising in the more controlled and I suppose meatier role- but also from Diana Kent, Clive Morrison and Sarah Peirse. Overall, brilliant and one of Jackson's best. 10/10 Bethany Cox

The Magnificent Seven has everything going for it, a near-perfect cast, a truly magnificent score and the fact it is very exciting as a western. Maybe not as good as Seven Samurai, but boy it is by far one of the better remakes out there. If you want a bad remake, see Psycho, starring Vince Vaughan or The Wicker Man, starring Nicolas Cage, in my opinion they should never have been made. The Magnificent Seven is an example of how a remake should be made, it was one of those pleasant surprises for me of as soon as the first note of the score blared I knew hey this is great stuff.

The plot is simple, but I like simplicity, sometimes simplicity is good, but it is a great concept and very well constructed. It really helps as well that the action sequences are tremendously exciting, and that the landscapes are truly dazzling. Elmer Bernstein's score has a lot to do with The Magnificent Seven's success I think as well, it is rousing, triumphant and bombastic and very like the score for Lawrence of Arabia it sticks in the mind for a long time afterwards. If I were to choose to which score I preferred over this and the Great Escape, I think this score, The Great Escape was great but I have always found that whenever I hum both tunes people are less annoyed by The Magnificent Seven.

The screenplay is focused, humorous and wise, maybe a little stilted on occasions but it develops the characters well and has heart. And the actors are wonderful. Yul Brynner is the epitome of coolness here, I do think he was better in The King and I, where he was absolutely magnificent, but he does a great job here. Eli Wallach is suitably slimy as the villainous Calvera, who is more than a cardboard cut-out, and Steve McQueen, James Coburn, Charles Bronson and Robert Vaughn are all great. Overall, this is a great film, very exciting, great to look at and has a magnificent score. 9.5/10 Bethany Cox

I really liked this movie, and it is true, too many people compare it to the Peter Jackson films. Even more impressive was that they fitted two books into one film, many people consider that a mistake and that things were missed out, when actually considering the books aren't very easy to adapt, I thought this film wasn't too bad an attempt. The animation was very impressive, a little dated by our standards, but bear in mind people it was made in the 70s and that it is lower budget than that of Disney or Pixar. The music was very well done especially the orks' march to Isanguaard, very haunting indeed. Though speaking of the orks, a very young audience will find them very frightening, and will be deterred by the sight of blood. The film is also overlong and a bit slow, but anyone who's seen the Peter Jackson films will argue that they have the same problem. The voice talents are exceptional, standouts being Christopher Guard as the idealistic Frodo, William Squire as the wise Gandalf(very good but Ian McKellan was better but only marginally) and John Hurt's brave Strider/Aragorn. Some of the scenes in this film are very hard to depict, like the scenes with the Black Riders(the scene in the inn was genuinely creepy), and I must say, that in general, the execution of those scenes were well-above average. In conclusion, despite the flaws, this film is nowhere near as bad as people say it is. My dad and my brother are both die-hard LOTR fans, and they say that this film was very well done. 7/10 Bethany Cox.

First things first, I have yet to read the book, but my brother absolutely loves it and says it is so worth the read. While the film could have been much better, there are redeeming qualities. Also, I do not think it is the worst fantasy film ever, that dishonour belongs to Dungeons & Dragons.

Starting with the redeeming qualities, the film is very assured visually and technically. The sets are wondrous and the costumes are very nice. Plus the cinematography was excellent, as was the sweeping score. The acting is uneven, but there were some good performances. Jeremy Irons, a great actor, does a good job as Brom acquiring a dry sense of humour, much better than he was in Dungeons & Dragons, somehow his overacting in that film managed to further bring it down. Also John Malkovich chews the scenery with glee as the tyrannical King Galbatorix, and Robert Carlyle is decent as Durza. The best thing though was the dragon Sapphira, very well designed with expressive voice work from Rachel Weisz, and the flying scenes and the CGI effects are a delight.

However, there are many things wrong with Eragon. One is that the film is too short, consequently the characters feel thinly sketched. This could be a reason why the relationship between Eragon and Sapphira came across as unconvincing. The story was a great idea, but due to the running time primarily it meanders all over the place and is unevenly paced(sometimes feeling rushed and sometimes it drags). Ed Speleers is rather bland as Eragon, handsome yes but bland. It is pretty much the same for Sienna Guillory, gorgeous but unconvincing. The actors though are burdened by a very hammy and lacklustre script that could've done with more intelligence and wit and there are parts where the direction is flawed.

Overall, not unbearably awful but I don't necessarily recommend it. 5/10 Bethany Cox

Loved the original 'Star Wars' films as a kid, still do. Especially 'Empire Strikes Back' while considering 'A New Hope' a genre landmark. Didn't think the prequel films were that bad personally, but they had a lot wrong with them and were a long way from great, especially 'Attack of the Clones'.

Found myself loving 'The Force Awakens', which to me was the best 'Star Wars' film since 'The Return of the Jedi' and more an affectionate homage and universe celebration than the re-hash some have criticised it for. Seeing 'The Last Jedi' with quite high expectations, judging from the positive critical word of mouth, and despite enjoying it and finding a lot to like, the fans' disappointment is understandable (though some of the hate has not only been disrespectful but vitriolic). 'The Last Jedi' is not as good as the original trilogy, not even close, or as 'The Force Awakens', but it is better to me than the prequels.

As said, the disappointment is understandable and some of the problems fans had with it are also shared by me. 'The Last Jedi' would have been an even better film with less new characters (with variable effectiveness) and less subplots because while it was never dull it did feel at times too busy and bloated.

This would have been solved with not having the rushed and pretty unnecessary romantic subplot, which seemed more an excuse to introduce a new character and give an older character more depth, and doing much more with the villains. With the exception of Ren, the film's most interesting character along with Rey, all are underwritten, especially the missed opportunity that was Snoke. He looks good and Andy Serkis portrays him beautifully but he is criminally underused and even more wronged by a far too easy and anti-climactic defeat.

Can also understand the outrage at the rather one-dimensional and out of character, even with the self-doubt, torment and regret, treatment of Luke. Despite Mark Hamill objecting to this treatment, it does not show in his nuanced performance that ranks among his best recent work. As well as some of the humour, some of it was forced and out of place in being placed randomly at less than appropriate times.

However, for all those faults, there is also a lot to like about 'The Last Jedi'. It does have enough to satisfy the nostalgic while, like 'The Force Awakens', having its own identity. While it certainly dazzles in spectacle and action, 'The Last Jedi' doesn't feel too big, too noisy or too chaotic (fans will disagree with this and that's fine) at the expense of brains or heart. Of the characters, Rey and Ren are especially well realised and it is their subplot that is particularly successful of the storytelling.

For all its unevenness and reservations about it trying to do too much, that it is a richer and more elaborate experience, with a deeper and darker perspective on space fantasy allegory and the condition of humans and aliens, than the previous 'Star Wars' films was appreciated.

Visually, 'The Last Jedi' is a triumph. It is gorgeously shot and designed and benefits with some very imaginative and energetic visual storytelling. The special effects are a dazzling marvel. John Williams delivers yet another rousing score that has its own character but cleverly includes the well-known iconic themes from the previous films.

Enough of the dialogue is thought-provoking and entertaining, while Rey's journey, Ren's conflict, the scenes between Rey and Luke and the Rey and Ren subplot are handled very well. The action is thrilling, particularly the knockout final showdown.

When it comes to the acting, despite not liking their characters' treatment there is no fault to be found with Hamill and Serkis as aforementioned. Daisy Ridley gives another winning performance and is more comfortable this time round. John Boyega is charismatic and Carrie Fisher's final performance has a nostalgic poignancy. With Ren being even more of a conflicted villain than in 'The Force Awakens', Adam Driver brings more menace and conflicted edge.

In summary, good but not amazing. 7/10 Bethany Cox

The trailer was a mixed bag, one where the production values, music script and acting really impressed but it was also one that gave away too much and gave the impression that it was going to be too faithful to the 1950 animated film. This viewer found this film to be absolutely wonderful and easily the best of the live-action Disney classic make-overs.

It also compares extremely favourably with the animated film, with every ounce of its charm, heart and magic, which was my first Disney film and one of my most watched as a child. Still very fond of it now but is not a personal favourite anymore. The two versions have things that are done better than in the other, with the animated film having a quite creepy introduction(other than at the start) for Lady Tremaine, Cinderella's reaction to being locked in the attic being much more believable, the stepsisters being more loathsome and the hilarious interaction between the duke and the king and this film having less filler(a common criticism of the animated film), more back story for the characters and the characters being more expanded, especially the Prince who has much more to do and more of a personality and the beginning with Ella's parents. Both have huge amounts of charm, heart and magic, the characterisation of Lady Tremaine is about equal and the transformation sequence, which has always been my favourite part of the story, are brilliantly done in both versions, that in the animated version is one of Disney's most iconic scenes and here it is just magical.

Under review here is the 2015 live-action film. It's no surprise what's going to happen and how it's going to end if you're familiar with the original fairy tale and Stellan Skarsgard while funny and sinister felt a little underused. Other than that, it is a wonderful film with very little to complain about, it's also perhaps more accessible for most. The most obvious merit is the production values, the whole film looks absolutely exquisite, with beautiful photography, colourful scenery that are as delicious as a box of chocolates and while it's a bit early in the year to say it would be a hard act to follow for a film to have even better costume designs than the ones in Cinderella. Ella's blue ball gown is jaw dropping in how gorgeous it is. While I may slightly prefer the music in the animated film, which contains some of Disney's best, most memorable and best-known tunes, Patrick Doyle's music score matches the film's whimsical tone perfectly with a sparkling whimsy of its own without going overboard with the sugar and sweetness.

Cinderella(2015) has a witty script, with Lady Tremaine having the best lines and the story is beautifully told, faithful in detail and spirit to the story and the animated film but with some refreshing new touches of its own like the pre-ball encounter, what's done with the glass slipper and some of the climax that prevent it from being too faithful or like a carbon copy. The back-stories added a great deal with none of it feeling like filler, letting us to get to know the characters and bringing a psychological element in places. The highlight for me was the transformation scene, which was visually enchanting and enthrallingly done. The ball scene was great as well, with the opulent gowns and rich colours. Kenneth Branagh gives some of his best directing in some time, directing with classy style while bringing deep understanding and depth to the story and the film is very well acted, with the standouts being Lily James, with the charm and poignant emotion she conveys the role of Ella suits her like a glove, and an exceptional Cate Blanchett. Richard Madden is a dashing Prince, a role that you get to know much more than in the story and the fairy tale where he gets little to do, Anastasia and Drizella while perhaps a little too attractive look like they're having a lot of fun, Helena Bonham Carter has a ball as the Fairy Godmother and Derek Jacobi is very touching as the King. Oh and the animals are adorable, especially liked the goose.

All in all, a wonderful film that should please anybody who loves the fairy tale and the animated film. 9/10 Bethany Cox

Am a huge Disney fan and have been for pretty much my whole life, 'Cinderella', 'Peter Pan' and 'The Lion King' being my first Disney films (still love all three, especially 'The Lion King'). 'Aladdin' is one of my favourites from them as well as being one of my favourite animated and even overall films. Great animation, songs, characters and one of Disney's best voice acting performances ever in Robin Williams. Will admit to not being overly excited hearing that there was going to be a live-action remake and was a bit mixed on the trailer.

Have nothing against remakes, or at least try not to, and have liked a few of Disney's previous live-action remakes. The best being 'The Jungle Book' and 'Cinderella'. Will Smith when he has good material is a likeable actor and still have fond memories of watching 'The Fresh Prince of Bel Air' when younger. Although not a fan of Guy Ritchie, there is no bias against him either. Decided to see 'Aladdin' with mixed expectations, due to being such a big fan of Disney and after hearing from a few friends that it was good.

Do sadly have to agree with those that were disappointed and this is even when judging 'Aladdin' (2019) on its own merits. There is a lot of spectacle and most of it is great, but the magic and soul were missing. Again, like as was said for the recent version of 'The Lion King', there has always been an effort to not excessively compare and judge something on its own, but when one version is so great and another fails badly in comparison it is hard not to.

There are good things with 'Aladdin'. Although very Bollywood-ish (am not saying that as a bad thing, just an observation), the costumes and sets are big, colourful and quite lavish. Some of the photography dazzles. The music that still has the involvement of Alan Menken, songs and score (the music being one of the main reasons as to why the animation is the classic that it is), is a sheer delight. The likes of "Friend Like Me" and "A Whole New World" being classics. Here the older songs are re-worked and there are a couple of new ones, complete with some equally dynamic new scoring. "Friend Like Me" and "A Whole New World" are very nicely done, and also really liked the more ambitious re-working of "Arabian Nights" and "Speechless" (the better of the two added songs) adds such a lot to Jasmine's character.

Really liked what was done with Jasmine's character, who is by far the most interesting and most developed character in the film and her development is richer than in the animated films. The performances were mixed, with Naomi Scott sparkling like a true diamond as Jasmine and Will Smith makes a very game and spirited effort filling giant shoes and brings a lot of charisma and freshness to Genie. Mena Massoud isn't as strong but is appealing as Aladdin.

However, Guy Ritchie came over as the wrong director. Did think even hearing about it that he was a strange and potentially disastrous choice for the job and his style just doesn't gel and was in serious need of more subtlety. There is some dazzling photography but too much of it is a bit too overblown and gimmicky. The film could have done with having fewer special effects and they tend to not be all that great, felt even from the trailer that Genie looked weird and my feelings haven't changed. The script could have done with more freshness.

For me too the story was in need of more charm, energy and soul. It doesn't quite suffer as badly as 'The Lion King' from being too faithful and not having enough of its own identity, but what comes over faithfully does not have the same impact or feel anywhere near as fresh. The additional content mostly doesn't add as much as ought and bloats the film, which could have been 15 minutes shorter (which was a fairly similar problem too with 'Beauty and the Beast'). Marwan Kenzari is a complete non-entity as a pretty one-note Jafar, whose back-story was laudable on paper but wasn't particularly compelling somehow. Abu, Iago and Rajah don't make anywhere near the same impression either, though Abu has his moments (helps too that Frank Welker is back, Iago however sounded odd without Gilbert Gottfried who voiced the character for the original and its two sequels and the television show).

On the whole, lacklustre but has its moments. 4/10