Reviews by Kyle Ellis

Of the four films of M Night Shyamalan's that are panned as bad- The Village, The Happening, Lady in the Water and The Last Airbender- I thought The Village(having just finished re-watching it yesterday and was not sure what to make of it at first) was the least bad of the four, to me the other three are as bad as they're said to be.

I wasn't expecting to like it after so many uncharitable things both here and elsewhere and by how it was marketed, but I sort of did. It does look great with beautiful scenery and brooding cinematography and the score is very haunting, eerie quality about it. There are also some genuine jolts and poignancy in the first half, and The Village with a great concept does start off intriguingly.

The best thing about it though is the cast. William Hurt is nuanced and intelligent and Joaquin Pheonix is wonderfully stoic, but the biggest surprise was Bryce Dallas Howard, who was fantastic and quite moving here. There were however a few disappointments, and I say this as I consider these actors the most accomplished generally of the cast. Sigourney Weaver and Brendan Gleeson are great actors but underused and Adrien Brody comes across as wasted in a rather nothing role.

What let The Village down and from stopping it from being more than it had potential to be was that while M Night Shyamalan can have films where he is a master-storyteller(The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable) or where he is sloppy(2nd half of Signs, The Happening), he comes across as rather over-ambitious here. The story is so interesting at first, but the second half is let down by too many ideas, and some of them are wonderful ideas but underdeveloped.

Consequently the pace becomes more drawn out, the dialogue becomes clunky and apart from Howard I found myself indifferent to the characters by the end. And to top it all, the ending is ridiculous. All in all, not that bad but has a lot wrong with it in my opinion. 6/10 Bethany Cox

The Pagemaster in my opinion, was a wonderful film, and I do think the 4.8 rating is too low. I have seen much worse movies, that are rated higher than that. Sure it's not Disney, but it is a good family film that I guarantee if you give it a chance that the whole family will love. The animation is not so bad, perhaps a little dated and rushed, but I've seen worse, and the dragon was excellent. The music by James Horner was beautiful, very fitting with what was going on on screen, very reminiscent of Land Before Time and Once Upon a Forest, and Whatever You imagine was amazing. The story tells of a young boy named Richard, who is serious and fearful of everything, until an unexpected visit to the library changes his life forever. I loved the story and the clever and diverse references to the literary giants, like Treasure Island, Jekyll and Hyde and Moby Dick, and the message of the film about facing your fears that doesn't preach. Macaulay Culkin is excellent here as is Christopher Lloyd, and Patrick Stewart (rousing and witty), Whoopi Goldberg (sugar and starch) and Frank Welker (in a fine Igor impression) expertly bring the snappy screenplay to life. I loved the witty banter between Adventure and Fantasy, and the librarian's rant about the different literary genres. And I don't think it is Macaulay Culkin or Christopher Lloyd's worst film, Culkin's was Richie Rich, Lloyd's was My Favourite Martian. All in all, a terrific film, with a 10/10. Bethany Cox

Just for the record, I am not a Shyamalan detractor, nor am I a fan. I loved The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, and there were good things about Signs and The Village, even if the films were deeply flawed. It's just that to me after The Village, the rest of Shyamalan's resume ranged to strange to dire. Whether I loved his first couple of films and didn't care/hate the rest has nothing to do with racism, contrary to some of the threads I've come across on his message board.

It's just that it is sad that such a promising director, who showed that he could tell a story effectively had either become sloppy or had tried to do many things at once and consequently the respective film buckled(which was the case with The Village). Lady in the Water is not Shyamalan's worst, for me that's The Happening with The Last Airbender not far off, but having seen all his films I do think it is his strangest.

Lady in the Water does have its good things though. The score is suitably haunting, Paul Giamatti is a wonderful actor and while deserving of a stronger character and less contrived script he does give his all into the performance and it shows. But the best thing about Lady in the Water was the beautifully done animated prologue.

However, that is all the praise I can give. The rest of the acting is either unimpressive or awful. Bryce Dallas Howard was fantastic in The Village and she is good as an actress, but while like Giamatti she tries her best her character is nowhere near as poignant or as interesting as that of hers in The Village. Jeffrey Wright and Bob Babalan are wasted, and Shyamalan himself makes an appearance that feels very thrown in and at the end of the day is just a form of annoyance.

Scripting-wise Lady in the Water all feels very contrived and overly-silly, the pacing becomes increasingly sluggish in the second half which further suffers from trying to do too much and the characters consist of either stereotypes(the film critic tenant, the kid who could decipher codes from cereal packets and the philosopher of future importance) or fantasy "mythological" clichés with grass-haired werewolves for scrunts and twig monkeys for the tarturic that have no depth to them. The scenery and lighting are okay if not exactly dynamic but the camera angles look slip-shod and lazy, with over-use of half-face shots and focusing on nothing.

But it is the story that sinks Lady in the Water. The premise was actually interesting, but the execution feels very muddled. I didn't find anything interesting about the nymph's story, it suffers from trying to cram too much and the mythological characters are rather daft. After watching the film, I was saddened at how the director of a thought-provoking and atmospheric movie like The Sixth Sense could've gone to a artificial and self-indulgent movie like this one. By all means, Shyamalan has done worse, but this is definitely not his finest hour. 3/10 Bethany Cox

M Night Shyamalan is one inconsistent director, with films that have fallen on both extreme sides of the film spectrum. The great films being 'The Sixth Sense' and 'Unbreakable' and the terrible films (especially) being 'The Last Airbender', 'The Happening' and 'After Earth'. It was frustrating to see a director start so promisingly and fall downhill and showing few signs of learning from his mistakes.

The good news is that his latest film, 'The Visit' is Shyamalan's best film since 'The Village', which mostly was a decent film let down badly by the twist. However, judging from what had been said to me prior to watching, expectations were to see Shyamalan making a return to form. Instead, 'The Visit' was a film that is certainly better than all his previous films post-'The Village' (and that is saying volumes, due to that the least bad of his "panned" films 'Lady in the Water' was still poor), it is worth visiting and about mid-spectrum Shyamlan along with 'The Village' and 'Signs' but not a patch on 'Unbreakable' and especially 'The Sixth Sense'.

Starting with the good things, 'The Visit' does boast a mostly deft mix of chilling tension, genuine scares that really unsettle you and wonderfully weird comedy. The performances are very good. Not since 'The Sixth Sense' has there been more natural and compellingly real child performances in a Shyamalan film (in this regard he has also varied, achieving brilliance with Haley Joel Osment in 'The Sixth Sense' but also abominable depths with Jaden Smith in 'After Earth'), Olivia DeJonge and Ed Oxenbould do a truly great job here. Even better are Peter McRobbie and particularly Deanna Dunagan, chilling as the grandparents.

Production design, lighting and effects have a real eeriness that adds hugely to the atmosphere. The story is mostly deliberate but with enough to absorb because the creepiness is so effective often. The use of music doesn't jar at least and Shyamalan does more than capably building up and on the scares and tension.

On the other hand, the twist is not that hard to guess (and to me guessable early on) and not only is the execution of it contrived but it is revealed too prematurely which does affect some of the momentum of the last 30 minutes. Shymalan's films, even his bad films, mostly have good production values to their merit, but the cinematography in 'The Visit' looks cheap, almost amateurish. It adheres to the self-filmed documentary-like style but the excessive shakiness of the camera does exhaust, irritate and nauseate the viewer.

While delivering on the atmosphere and enough of the story, the script is sloppy at best and often toe-curlingly weak. There is a lot of forced melodrama, frustrating character decisions and inconsistencies (the mother), overexposed, irritating and quite frankly often pointless and out of place rapping and the children talking like wannabe university students (am aware that there are children in existence who act and speak beyond their years, speaking as one myself a decade ago but not in this awkward-sounding a manner).

On the whole, worthwhile and not a bad film but not the return to form that was expected. This said mid-quality-spectrum Shyamalan is infinitely more preferable to the four awful films that he directed before it post-'The Village'. 5/10 Bethany Cox

After seeing her in My Fair Lady, I wanted to see more of Audrey Hepburn's work, and Breakfast at Tiffany's was the film that almost everyone I spoke to about her recommended. After seeing it for myself, I found it delightful, it does have its problems but a lot compensated. One is that it is really nice to look at. The cinematography and settings are really elegant, and Audrey's black dress makes her look amazing and svelte. Henry Mancini's score is also superb, full of sweet, poignant and jaunty melodies, and I have to say the song Moon River for its sublime melody and meaningful lyrics has to be one of my favourite songs of all time, it is so beautiful and romantic. In terms of performances, while George Peppard looks handsome and acts sweetly, it is Audrey's movie as she pretty much epitomises the film on her own. Her Holly Golightly, like Sigourney Weaver's Ellen Ripley, Vivien Leigh's Scarlet O'Hara, Bette Davis's Margo Channing and Ingrid Bergman's Ilsa, is very iconic as a character, like the film she is elegant, charming and enchanting even with her character flaws we still love her. In terms of comedy highlights, the early party scene really does stand out. However, despite all this, there are problems with the film, Mickey Rooney being at the top of the list. I have nothing against Rooney, but his Japanese landlord felt stereotyped and unnecessary despite one or two mildly amusing moments, and I felt Rooney overacted. While the dialogue is witty in spots, it is also very fluffy and sugary, while the story is uneven in places, and meanders as well. Lastly, the ending felt somewhat tacked on, sweet yes but you couldn't help thinking "I want more" and it could've done with being less unambiguous. Overall, despite the flaws, it is engaging and delightful. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox

'New Year's Eve' just happened to be on television on New Year's Eve, and my younger sister and this reviewer mutually decided to make it our film of choice. Despite having talent like Robert De Niro and Michelle Pfieffer and have also liked some of Gary Marshall's other films (even thought the still highly uneven 'Valentine's Day' wasn't that bad), expectations were not high having heard for a while nothing but bad things about it from trusted friends and sources and often heard it described as one of the worst films of the year.

Both of us were bitterly disappointed and intensely disliked 'New Years Eve', having watched it anyway because it intrigued conceptually, there were some good ideas and the talent sounded too good to resist, and we are not always on the same page when it comes to opinions. These feelings were felt by both of us very early on, and we did consider turning it off when we were still not finding ourselves getting into it half an hour in. We didn't because the premise was intriguing and the individual story-lines sounded like they could be amusing and moving if done well. Almost everything fell flat and almost everything was wasted. Complete share the dislike from most and while not among the very worst of that respective years it is in the lower end of the spectrum rather than the higher end or in the middle.

There are a few good things. New York looks lovely, then again when did it not. The photography is nice.

Michelle Pfeiffer is the cast highlight, she had the most interesting character for me in the film and she seemed very committed. Jessica Biel has amusing moments.

However, the rest of the cast do not work. There is an uncomfortable mix of over-compensating (Katherine Heigl and Sarah Jessica Parker) and blandness (Zac Efron and especially Ashton Kutcher, actually forgot that Kutcher was in it after finishing the film and that is not a good sign). Robert De Niro might not as well have been there because he was practically wasted, while Jon Bon Jovi's cameo is one of the most pointless and redundant ones in existence in a subplot that was far too low-key and could easily have been cut. One of the worst assets was the flabby script, which was also flimsy in development, completely banal and stilted with some heavy-handed moralising. Didn't care for any of the characters pretty much, pretty much all of them were underdeveloped cliches (with the most developed one being Pfeiffer's) and neither interesting or likeable. Some were unpleasantly neurotic too, especially Heigl's, Parker's and Swank's. Also there were far too many of them, which is the reason why all those problems happened.

Just like there were too many subplots, pretty much all neither interesting or emotionally investable and are instead a mix of contrived, dumb and overly schmaltzy. Even half an hour in, one feels hit with too much going on in characterisation and storylines with neither properly growing that it bogs down the pacing, pacing so dreary that it makes the length longer than it is, the sentiment really gets too much and it takes itself far too seriously. The various storylines give an episodic hodge-podgy feel, the constant back and forth confuses and is choppy and they don't really connect together at the end and resolved too conveniently and predictably. De Niro's subplot, weightier than the rest of them, sounded poignant and relatable on paper, the problem sadly is that it felt out of place with the rest of the film and fits uncomfortably with everything else (as well as having a lack of credible motivation), like there was an attempt to devote time to it while underdeveloping the rest of the subplots. Marshall's direction is never in control and struggles to balance everything together.

In conclusion, weak film and very disappointing. 3/10 Bethany Cox

Warning: Spoilers
There are a few assets that drew me into seeing The Woman in Black in the first place. One was to see if Daniel Radcliffe had grown as an actor and whether he would acquit himself well in a cast-against type sort of role. And there is also the support cast, Ciaran Hinds, Janet McTeer, Roger Allam and Shaun Dooley are quite a cast don't you think, and especially that I loved the book, the 1989 TV version and stage play so much. I went to see The Woman in Black a few days ago with my 3 sisters, but I wanted to think about in depth what I thought about the film before writing about it. It was a film that I still can't get out of my head and even just yesterday my sisters and I were having this big discussion about what we liked and comparing it to its other mediums.

Regarding this 2012 film, all of us thought it was very good. It wasn't perfect, no, and it has received and perhaps continue to receive inevitable comparisons to the book which has many engrossing and telling chapters, the stage play which is the most chilling thing I've seen on stage since seeing The Mousetrap and especially the TV version which I regard very highly for its atmosphere and unforgettable conclusion. On its own though, it is a very solid and worthy film and adaptation. For one thing, The Woman in Black is very handsomely mounted. The Victorian period is very evocative in detail with beautifully tailored costumes and meticulous-looking scenery and settings and genuinely effective in atmosphere with the dark old house, spooky sea fog, foreboding marsh and faces at the window. The camera work is also very good with the close-up shock cuts particularly good, and the lighting is dark and atmospheric while never being too dark you can't see what's going on.

The music score I also took to, there is a haunting and hypnotic quality to it that suits the film's tone very well. Likewise with the sound effects mostly, the sudden loud noises and the starting quiet and crescendoing contributed much to the best scares of the film, though the earlier ones were a little obvious and predictable and had the audience laughing rather than biting their nails. Dialogue-wise, it is solid, staying loyal to the period generally and it kept me engaged with Arthur's predicaments and the mystery of The Woman in Black. After my viewing of the film I did have some questions such as why the Woman in Black still took revenge even when the body of her son was returned, but having the discussion with my sisters really helped.

When it comes to the story, it is a timeless one with a chilling atmosphere. The Woman in Black(2012) does a much better-than-expected job with adapting it in a short running time, a vast majority of scares are very atmospheric advantaged by the purposefully glacial pace, more the making-you jump kind than the gory kind, with the Woman in Black gliding down the corridor, the screech at the window, the hanging and the brief glimpse of the woman in black in the creaking rocking chair faring the best of them. Of the children's deaths, the most effective was that of the Fisher Girls, especially in a choreographic sense, just look at how perfectly in time their walking is and how their eyes absolutely make you believe they are in a trance. McTeer's "momentary mental instability" scenes were also very intense and heart-breaking.

Only two scenes weren't so good for me, other from one or two earlier predictable jump scares. One was the death of Lucy, while tragic in circumstance it was clumsily staged and lacked the magnetic quality the choreography of the very first scene did. The other scene, and I think the biggest let down of the film, was the ending. In a sense it was grim but there was also something uplifting and bittersweet to it, for me it juxtaposed too much with the film's overall tone and it was nowhere near as satisfying or as memorable as the conclusion of the 1989 version.

I also think two scenes from the book could have been added, making the film even better, Alice Drablow's funeral which introduced us to the Woman in Black and was one of the book's more telling scenes, and the Whistling scene which is the single creepiest and atmospheric scene of the book, just how it is written is enough to make your heart go in your mouth. This film was fine enough without them, it's just that I was wondering how incredible those two scenes would have been if they were included. The characters engage, Arthur Kipps is likable enough, but I found the Dailys and Woman in Black the film's most interesting characters, Sam Daily is so sympathetic and the Woman in Black is evil incarnate even evoking fear in the scenes she doesn't feature in.

The acting is very good. Daniel Radcliffe while I initially had reservations of whether he was too young for the role acquits himself quite nicely as Arthur, a role that is very cast-against- type, showing melancholy, sensitivity and genuine fright throughout, and this is in the facial expressions alone. Ciaran Hinds is excellent as Sam, and Janet McTeer gives a very moving performance. Roger Allam, Tim McMullan and Shaun Dooley are good in small roles, but other than Hinds and McTeer I was most impressed by Liz White as Jennett/Woman in Black, in a role that is so evil and so omnipresent whether in scenes where she's featured or where she is talked about or in thought White is absolutely terrifying.

All in all, a very good film, not perfect but atmospheric, scary and more than stands its own even if the book, TV version and stage play are superior. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox