Reviews by Kyle Ellis

This 1940 film is not my favourite Pride and Prejudice, that's the 1980 and 1995 mini-series. However, I do consider it a good movie on its own terms(as an adaptation it is one of the least faithful adaptations of the story out there), though the costumes made my eyes hurt(very like Gone With the Wind meets the Victorian era) and the film is very rushed consequently the characters are not as empathetic and fleshed out in personality as in the timeless story. The script is on the whole witty and moving, but there are some noticeable(and quite distracting) anachronisms. However, the cinematography is truly lovely as is the scenery, and the music is of sweeping romanticism. Greer Garson is a beautiful and spirited Elizabeth and Laurence Olivier is a dashing Darcy(though I much prefer his Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights, he positively smolders in that). Their chemistry is enough to warm the heart. The support cast are even better though. Edmund Gwenn is a beautifully played and droll Mr Bennett and Mary Boland matches him perfectly as a sincere Mrs Bennett. Edna May Oliver is an outstanding Lady Catherine, Melville Cooper is an amusing Mr Collins and Frieda Inescourt is a splendidly withering Caroline Bingley. Maureen O'Sullivan is also good, though Jane was one of the characters who could have been fleshed out more. Overall though, I did enjoy it, I just don't consider it the ultimate Pride and Prejudice. 7/10 Bethany Cox

The book by Jane Austen is amazing, and deservedly one of the best loved books ever. Out of the numerous adaptations I have seen of this fabulous book, this one is what I call the most definitive of the lot. To sum up this adaptation in one word, sublime would sum it up wonders.

Everything was perfect, from the period detail, music, acting, direction to the scripting. The adaptation looks exquisite; the photography is crisp, the costumes are gorgeous and the scenery is breathtaking. I loved the music too, I look out for this all the time, and the music was so pleasant and soothing.

The direction is stylish, and the script is witty and intelligent while sticking true to the spirit of the book. And of course the performances, everyone involved did superbly. Colin Firth makes a fine Mr Darcy, handsome, dashing and intelligent, and Jennifer Ehrle is an attractive, witty and spirited Elizabeth.

Everybody else did just as well, even better in some cases. Particularly Anna Chancellor as Miss Bingley, an inspired choice and plays her like an aloof yet sophisticated sort of character. And Barbara Leigh-Hunt was outstanding as Lady Catherine. David Bamber and Harriet Escott also stood out.

Did I have a favourite scene? Not really, I was utterly captivated by it all, but I have to say the ballroom scenes were gorgeous to watch. In conclusion, I am running out of things to say about this adaptation. It was just delightful, and I got so much pleasure watching it. 10/10 Bethany Cox

I was completely mesmerised by Brokeback Mountain. It is such a beautiful and poignant film, that also benefits from being gorgeously shot and adeptly acted and directed. The film does move slowly of course, but I personally think that Brokeback Mountain was deliberately paced like that(I said very similar things about 2001 and The Godfather too, they are constantly criticised for being boring yet both had their reasons for being paced like that). The slow pacing allowed us to empathise with the characters more, and that paid off, because the characterisations are superb. As are the beautifully written and thought-provoking screenplay and gentle scoring. Ang Lee's direction is the best it's been here I feel, while the cinematography and scenery are simply breathtaking. The acting is excellent. Heath Ledger I think gives his best performance here(sorry Dark Knight fans, I loved him there, but he was beyond amazing here), while Jake Gyllanhaal is very believable, and Michelle Williams is heart-wrenching. Also Brokeback Mountain is quite emotionally affecting, it really makes you think and the sheer beauty of the visuals, acting and story are enough to make me cry, and I was in pieces after the ending. In conclusion, a mesmerising film. 10/10 Bethany Cox

The book by the wonderful Jane Austen is definitely better than the film, dealing with the consequences of love, and the social differences of the late 18th century. The film is certainly handsome looking, with some truly beautiful locations and costumes, with a nice script and some excellent performances from Keira Knightly as Lizzie and in particular Judi Dench as Lady Catherine. Donald Sutherland (yeah, you saw right) was quite charming as Mr Bennett if you put his awkward accent aside. I liked Matthew MacFadyen as Mr Darcy, with his handsome looks and all that, but I will say I do prefer Colin Firth's interpretation from the sublime 1995 mini-series, Firth seemed to adopt a more likable and sympathetic approach to the character. I liked the way the film dealt with the period look and the social differences, and while there was a lot of the pride I would have liked to have seen a little more of the prejudice. If anything, the film could have done with being twenty minutes longer, as I felt there wasn't quite enough content from the book. Then again, it's been a long time since I read it, so I could be wrong. Overall, a beautiful film, not quite as good as the 1995 film Sense and Sensibility with Kate Winslet and Emma Thompson, but worth watching for the detail that obviously took a lot of effort to get right. 8.5/10 Bethany Cox.

Now I like Baz Luhrmann, I loved Moulin Rouge! and Australia was a much better film than people give credit for. However, I was disappointed with this version of Romeo and Juliet. I really liked the 1968 film with Leonard Whiting and Olivia Hussey though that did have one or two problems.

Starting with the redeeming qualities, the film does look amazing. The cinematography is beautiful and the scenery is gorgeous. I also liked how the Capulet party was staged, all grand and lavish and Claire Danes's white swan dress was stunning. Harold Perrineau was perfect as Mercutio yes the singing wasn't great but it was for comedy, and Pete Postlethwaite was a noble and sympathetic Friar Lawrence. Miriam Margoyles is a fine actress and brought a real sense of maternal instinct to the role of Juliet's nurse. Regarding the character though, she could have been developed more, seeing as she was the main source of motherly affection in the play I would have liked to have seen that come across more. Also I would have liked to have seen more of Paris, a smaller role but a significant one. And Leonardo Di Caprio does have a boyish charm that compensates for any thoughts of whether he was too young. I liked how fast it moved too, it was almost exhilarating in pace, and I think the film makers did that purposefully to empathise how rushed Romeo and Juliet's relationship was. Plus the ending is very tragic as it should be.

However, there are other aspects that didn't quite work. I have no problem with a film that is updated, it worked in West Side Story, it worked in Carmen Jones, but it does feel jarring when the script is not modernised, with a poetic and archaic sounding script mixed by exhilarating non-stop action merging on screen it doesn't quite work. Plus when Benvolio says "Put up your swords" I personally felt "put down your guns"(as they were guns not swords here) would have been better. Baz Luhrmann's direction was also a disappointment, sometimes in the early scenes it was so over the top that I forgot I was watching a version of Romeo and Juliet and thought I was watching a flash cartoon. (I love animation don't get me wrong but that feel to this film doesn't bode well with me). The soundtrack I had mixed feelings about. I liked the music at the beginning and in the balcony scene, I liked the use of Mozart's Symphony Number 25 and I liked the use of Liebestod from Wagner's Tristan and Isolde sung brilliantly by Leontyne Price, however some of the more contemporary songs felt somewhat intrusive. Claire Danes looked gorgeous, but her acting was rather unconvincing in places, her crying for instance felt very melodramatic and (please don't take this the wrong way) reminded me of a spoilt rich girl who cried when she didn't get her way. Finally, I have nothing personal against John Leguizamo though I am not fond of him either, but I thought he badly overdid the character of Tybalt, too much of the tough guy attitude and not enough of the grace and coolness of the Tybalt of the play and the 1968 version.

Overall, watchable but disappointing. It could be worse though, you could be watching that animated film with seals taking the roles of the Shakespearean characters, that did a much worse job at respecting(more like disrespecting) the material. 5/10 Bethany Cox

The film may start off a little on the slow side, but essentially it is a truly chilling and effective period horror film, with just the right chills and thrills. Superbly directed and brilliantly written, "The Others" hits all the right boxes. Then there is an atmospheric music score and truly stunning cinematography and period detail(the house especially was fantastic). The story is an original one, very rarely gets confusing and goes along at a good pace. And the performances are wonderful, Nicole Kidman without a doubt gives one of the best performances I have seen her give in years, it was a performance of true intensity. Alakina Mann and James Bentley are outstanding as her children, and Christopher Ecceleston is effective in a small role. Asides from Kidman, Fionnula Flannagan is truly sinister and chilling as the housekeeper. Like Mrs Danvers in the Hitchcock film "Rebecca" while she is merely a secondary character, she does so much to enhance the story. All in all, this is a great film, and I recommend it highly. 9.5/10 Bethany Cox

Decided to re-watch both 'The Conjuring' films, with memories of really liking both, after watching, and not liking all that much, 'The Nun' (which was watched as part of my watching as many films of 2018 as possible quest) very recently. Just to see whether they held up, as good as remembered and whether they succeeded where 'The Nun' didn't and didn't make that film's mistakes.

On re-watch, 'The Conjuring 2', like its very good predecessor, does hold up very well and actually just as good as remembered. It succeeds splendidly in where 'The Nun' failed and has none of its mistakes. 'The Conjuring 2', like its predecessor, is not a perfect film, but it is very atmospheric, well made and genuinely scary, or at least to me it was. It is a very familiar premise, done to death actually, but the atmosphere stops it from being too predictable and there is enough freshness. As a sequel, it fares very well and one of not many to actually be on the same level as its predecessor.

'The Conjuring 2' is overlong, which is its biggest issue. This would have been rectified by 20 minutes being trimmed and the pace of the first act, with a beginning that doesn't attention-grab or unsettle as it should have done, tightened up.

Other than those, 'The Conjuring 2' is very good. It looks great, especially for horror films released in recent years (too many of which have looked like they were made on the schlocky cheap). It looks slick and stylish while having a spooky setting and suitably nightmarish lighting. The music is haunting and not over-bearing, recorded in a way that is not overly loud or obvious that it spoils the atmosphere (which was great because many horror films seen recently failed in this regard).

Script is not too awkward and is structured coherently, with nothing cheapening it like sluggish exposition or cheesy misplaced humour. The direction is meticulous in detail and clearly shows an engagement and ease with the material. The story takes time to unfold but doesn't get dull once it gets going, while the ending is leagues better, much more momentum and the resolution didn't feel rushed. As said too, 'The Conjuring 2' yet again is genuinely scary, with actual tension, suspense and dread, in a palm-sweating and heart-pounding sense at its best, while not relying too much on jump scares (they are there but have build up and were surprising).

Found myself liking the characters more than expected. The leads were ones worth caring for, didn't get frustrated with them, wish for more personality or annoyed by them. The antagonist was frightening, was neither over-used or under-utilised and didn't look cheap. The acting also comes off well, especially Vera Farmiga who is superb, Patrick Wilson is even better here, while also impressed with how Frances O'Connor coped with a role that on paper seemed limited.

Summarising, very good. 8/10 Bethany Cox

It took me a while to watch 'Insidious' and its follow ups, with so much going on with my studies and commitments and with an ever growing watch and review list. Decided to finally watch them all, with the intent of reviewing the latest film as part of my quest to see as many 2018 films as possible and wanting to see how it compared with the previous outings. Also with an appreciation, if not quite undying love, for horror.

Having seen 'Insidious', it is not a horror classic, or at least to me it isn't, and it is understandable as to why people don't like it. Especially if over-familiarity, strangeness and silliness are not for you. Personally, 'Insidious' was, warts and all, worth the too-overdue wait, and it is not hard to see why it has appealed to others. There are a lot of merits executed very well.

For one thing, 'Insidious' llooks great, especially for horror films released in recent years (too many of which have looked like they were made on the schlocky cheap). It looks slick and stylish while having a spooky setting and suitably nightmarish lighting. The music, when used, is haunting and not over-bearing, recorded in a way that is not overly loud or obvious that it spoils the atmosphere (which was great because many horror films seen recently failed in this regard).

Script is not too awkward and is structured coherently, with nothing cheapening it like sluggish exposition or cheesy misplaced humour. The direction is meticulous in detail and clearly shows an engagement and ease with the material. The story takes time to unfold but doesn't get dull, actually really admired the restraint of the first half, meaning that the film started off incredibly well. 'Insidious' is genuinely scary with a great atmosphere, with actual tension, suspense and dread, in a palm-sweating and heart-pounding sense at its best, while not relying too much on jump scares (they are there but have build up and were surprising).

Also liked the characters more than expected. The leads were ones worth caring for, didn't get frustrated with them, wish for more personality or annoyed by them. The ghosts may be overused but have eerie presences and didn't look that cheap to me. The direction is assured and the performances are strong from particularly an intense Lin Shaye and Patrick Wilson handling his character growth believably. Rose Byrne is also as professional as ever.

On the other hand, the restraint does decrease later on and things get a little too over-the-top in some of the second half, very unsubtle over-stuffed kitchen-sink-like. Things do get silly at this point too and less logical, making the sense go out the window. The second half is still intriguing and creepy, the film just worked much better when restrained.

It has been said that 'Insidious' is derivative. Definitely agree with this, the over-familiarity from running through as many modern-haunted-house clichés as can muster and having parts similar to other horror films is all over the film and makes one wish there was more freshness.

Will admit that the final twist is a shock, but instead of being unnerving of ingenious it came over as out of kilter wacky and not easy to take at face value. The whole ending in fact felt rushed.

Summing up, enjoyable and effective but the divisiveness is understandable. 7/10 Bethany Cox

I love the books and the TV series, and although I was very dubious of seeing Horrid Henry:The Movie, especially after hearing it had 3D and Dick and Dom, part of me was eager to see it. So I did, expecting an entertaining enough movie on its own terms.

What I got was a real disappointment. It wasn't horrid, but overall it was the weakest films I've seen so far this year and one of the most disappointing. The only good things for me were Theo Stevenson's spirited performance and the jaunty soundtrack.

Firstly I didn't like how the film looked. It was certainly colourful but also in a sense over-saturated. Horrid Henry:The Movie was quite badly edited as well, constantly it felt very awkward and rushed.

The costumes are also rather cartoony in style. I wasn't happy that Horrid Henry:The Movie would have 3D effects, I frankly didn't think it needed it, and after seeing I still wasn't happy. I still think they were unnecessary, and the lack of clarity and sharpness in the effects themselves cheapened the film for me.

The story was another minus, overall I found it very rushed and predictable with little of the charm and simplicity that the books and TV series had. The only thing I liked about the story was the lack of the over-sentimental(or it can be) "I love you son" sort of ending.

The writing was messy, the dialogue is often weak and the laughs feel forced. When I saw it the closest the audience came to laughing were a couple of barely audible giggles. Kids either had a sort of amused expression or a sense they weren't sure whether they were supposed to laugh but a lot of adults looked as though they wished they had a triple detention instead.

The cast are talented, but at least to me the film just seemed like an excuse to bring in as many British or TV personalities as possible. Many of them try hard and overdo it, Richard E.Grant definitely applies here, or are wasted, Jo Brand, or don't try, Matthew Horne.

I know they deliberately exaggerated Miss Lovely's character, or so it seemed, but the characterisation was a little too over-eager and sugary for my tastes. Anjelica Huston fares better, she is a wonderful actress and while she overdoes the accent she clearly seems to be enjoying herself. If I had to ask myself what was the most painful bit about this movie? I'd say aside from the poor writing and the unnecessary 3D, it has to be the abysmally unfunny appearance of Dick and Dom.

All in all, a real disappointment. 3/10 Bethany Cox