Reviews by Kyle Ellis

Of course John Carter is a long way from flawless, but it is also not that bad but you wouldn't think so looking at its box office failure, its reputation and also how terribly marketed it was. Sure the plot is thin as ice in places with scenes that go on for far longer than they needed to, and it is also predictable and with the odd convoluted part, with the many logical lapses not helping in its favour. Particularly at the end, which gave off a sense that the film didn't know how to end itself. The script is uneven too, a fair bit of it is actually quite intelligently handled with some entertainment and suspense but there are other points where the dialogue does make one cringe and you do wish you learnt more about the characters and that the romance wasn't so disjointed and forced. John Carter however does look incredible, the backdrops and scenery are bursting with colour and detail and don't look fake at all and the special effects are equally impressive and not cartoony at all, they are at least well modelled and move easily. Michael Giaccino's music score is outstanding being full of bombastic energy and sweeping intensity, doing all that while fitting with the action and not swamping it. There is plenty of action and it is action that is a feast for the eyes and choreographically is very well-executed, the best of them dazzlingly so. Of the characters, the most enjoyable one was Woola, a very cute and very funny dog creature- the CGI for the character is very well done and some of the best of the film actually- that children and adults alike will take a shine to. Andrew Stanton, considering that his field is more in animation and that the crew for John Carter is so huge, had a very daunting task and does so bravely, though with the odd understandable occasion where he seemed out of sorts with the live actors. While the story may not be the greatest, John Carter shouldn't be taken too seriously, it was intended to be harmless family fun and is so and it has an earnest, old-fashioned approach that works and in keeping with the source material. The performances are not bad at all, Taylor Kitsch does start off for a while ill at ease and over-serious but once he relaxes he does make for a likable hero. Lynn Collins is both feisty and human, and the supporting cast all make an effort to make much of little with Willem Dafoe, Mark Strong(in a role that suits him to a tee) and Ciaron Hinds being the most successful. In conclusion, not flawless by any stretch of the imagination but far from a disaster either. 7/10 Bethany Cox

'Snow White and the Huntsman' did have potential. The trailers looked decent, and Charlize Theron, Chris Hemsworth and all the actors playing the dwarfs have been responsible for great work in their careers.

However, although she has given good performances outside of 'Twilight', this reviewer doesn't care hugely for Kristen Stewart (though she is not a detractor either) and cares even less for the 'Twilight Saga'. So expectations prior to seeing the film, a live-action re-imagining of the classic fairy tale, were mixed.

Watching it finally at a film night with friends, 'Snow White and the Huntsman' wasn't as bad as feared and does have a good amount going for it, but it should have been much better than it was.

First and foremost, starting with the good assets, the best things about 'Snow White and the Huntsman' are the production values and Charlize Theron. The film is very beautiful to look at, with luscious but also atmospheric photography, Gothic but also elegant and rustic set and scenery design and lavish costumes (Ravenna's are a knockout). The special effects are mostly fine too. Ravenna is the one character that 'Snow White and the Huntsman' properly tries to develop (and it does so reasonably, but there are parts that could have been elaborated upon more), and Theron positively sinks her teeth into the character, giving a very enjoyably hammy (sometimes), sinister and also tragic interpretation.

James Newton Howard's score complements very well, it's beautifully orchestrated, rousing, elegiac, atmosphere-enhancing and very involving. Hemsworth is appropriately stone-faced and brooding as the Huntsman, displaying charisma and emotion. Sam Claflin does well too, though with an underwritten character.

Was mixed however on the dwarfs and Rupert Sanders' direction. The dwarfs are very enjoyably characterised, with all of them displaying much needed character, humour and charm, more so than their material deserved. Ian McShane is particularly noteworthy. However, they are written in a very glossed over and bland fashion, almost like they were written as an afterthought. The decision to scale down the actors may not work for some people, those who feel that casting real-life dwarfs would have fared better, personally enjoyed the performances but felt it would have been better if Warwick Davis played all of them. Sanders' direction exudes confidence visually, but in the chemistry between actors, direction of some of the actors and direction of the drama he seemed ill at ease.

The biggest problem with 'Snow White and the Huntsman' is Stewart (an opinion this reviewer well before reading the reviews for the film, so this is own opinion talking), she gives a very wooden, expressionless and one-note (constant surprise and "sucking on lemon"-like) performance that makes identifying and sympathising with Snow White incredibly difficult. A shame because her younger child counterpart was very believable. The story has moments (mainly with Theron), but flounders from a lack of chemistry in the pivotal relationship between Stewart and Hemsworth, a particularly dull middle act and stuff brought up but barely explored giving an incomplete and jumpy feel to the storytelling.

Action is episodic and lacking in tension and excitement generally, while the script clunks badly and the characters are bland with the exception of Ravenna. They do start trying to develop the Huntsman but the development is forgotten about once he becomes protector and lover.

Overall, looks great but fails to engage narratively. Not awful, not great, wildly uneven more like. 5/10 Bethany Cox

This film I see has had a mixed reception. I am inclined to think that while it is flawed it was an entertaining and above average film. As I've said, it is flawed, the film is rushed sometimes, I personally would have liked more room to breathe, the script does have its weaknesses, some of it could have been more witty and less wordy and banal though there are some funny moments, and while I don't think Gemma Arterton is a bad actress-she was brilliant in Tess of the D'Urbevilles her chemistry with Gyllanhaal is rather dull and her character was quite vapid.

However, the visuals, cinematography, costumes, special effects and sets are all excellent, as is the rousing music and exciting action sequences. The story has some nice nods to the games but is essentially a stand-alone which I didn't mind at all, and for me it was a not-too-predictable and fun story. The direction is serviceable enough, and the acting apart from Arterton is good and the characters if slightly unoriginal and under-developed fun. Jake Gyllanhaal is a handsome and likable lead, Ben Kingsley is excellent and Alfred Molina steals the show.

In conclusion, I thought it was entertaining albeit with flaws. 7/10 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'. Personally actually loved 'The Force Awakens', despite the vitriolic hate it's got.

The latest 'Star Wars' entry, which is somewhat of a prequel, 'Rogue One' is a worthy prequel but seems to be intended as a standalone chapter and it actually fares even better in this regard. 'Rogue One' is not as good as the original trilogy, not being as much as a genre landmark or as influential but is certainly better than any of the prequel trilogy films combined and along with 'The Force Awakens' one of the better 'Star Wars' films since 'The Return of the Jedi'. With this being said, 'Rogue One' is going to be reviewed as if considered a standalone chapter.

'Rogue One' has so many good things, even if the film didn't do much for me it would have gotten a 4/10 at least. For one thing, the production values (with a couple of exceptions) are amazing. Particularly good are the special effects, which are not only of outstanding and astonishingly real quality but actually drive and enhance the story and helps provide some great visual story-telling. It's wonderfully shot too, the cinematography being some of the most memorable and beautifully composed and transitioned of the year. 'Rogue One' similarly boasts a rousing, sometimes dream-like and atmospheric score from the always dependable Michael Giacchino, one misses John Williams of course and having a different composer takes some getting used to for someone who grew up with Williams' iconic themes, but Giacchino is a worthy replacement.

Also impressive is a script that treats its audience with respect, rather than talking down, being bland and soulless or so dumbed down that it lacks brains. Tension, humour, action and pathos are beautifully balanced, the references and nod a delight for any 'Star Wars' fan and written in a way that is affectionate rather than shoe-horned. The story never felt dull (to me), maintaining a snappy pace and with a lot of heart and tension. There is a great combination of what made the original trilogy so great, something that Gareth Edwards fully understood, while having its own identity, this is not a re-hash yet there is an affectionate nostalgia reminiscent of the original trilogy's spirit. It makes sense, and is darker, more poignant and richer than the whole saga has been in a long time.

Then there is the action, which is thrilling and has a real sense of purpose. The last forty minutes in particular are thrillingly epic. Nice to see footage of Peter Cushing and even more wonderful was seeing one of cinema's most iconic villains Darth Vader making an appearance magnificently voiced as ever by James Earl Jones.

Mainly the cast are strong, with a feisty and likable heroine in Felicity Jones' Jyn, terrific support from Diego Luna and especially Riz Ahmed and Ben Mendelsohn's sterlingly played villain. The best characters are K-2SO, the wisecracking robot played with terrific comic timing and gusto by Alan Tudyk, and Chirrut, beautifully realised and 'Rogue One's' most interesting character characterised splendidly by Donnie Yen.

Not without its faults by all means. Some characters are underused and underdeveloped, a few like Forrest Whittaker's (pretty wasted) Gerrera being pointless. Some of the pacing is jumpy and rushed which comes at the expense of making a cast of perhaps too many characters more consistently interesting.

Design and CGI for Tarkin is ropey and distractingly artificial. While it was nice to see younger Leia again, it was cheaply recreated and like Tarkin sticks out like a sore thumb compared to the rest of the visuals, which were otherwise amazing as said.

Overall, worthy prequel and a very good standalone chapter. A rebellion well worth saving. 8/10 Bethany Cox

Easily one of Ridley Scott's finest films, and one of the best of the sci-fi genre. Alien is simply wonderful, with imaginative production design especially and a magnificent score from Jerry Goldsmith. The pace is also right on the money with a purposefully slow build-up, the editing is great, Scott's direction is superb and the story is wonderfully structured with seldom a dull moment. The script is also thought-provoking, clever and well written, while the atmosphere is just spellbinding with a perfect mixture of false scares and genuine jolts. The acting is also top notch, Sigourney Weaver is amazing as Ellen Ripley, who is not only one of the most iconic characters in film history but a contender for Weaver's best ever role. It is a delight seeing fine underrated actor John Hurt, and he is great to watch as the curious crewman. Overall, defines the term sci-fi classic. 10/10 Bethany Cox

I really enjoyed the first film, despite its unevenness in the script, and its length. This sequel is almost as good as its predecessor, and for me one of the better sequels out there. If there is one thing that I do prefer over the original, despite the rather slow start, I do think this film has the stronger storyline. The script is in general very good too, but the only other real problem I have with this film is its length. Despite the flaws, it is a pretty darn good action sequel. Two things made this movie as wonderful as it was. One was that it was terrific visually and technically, with splendid special effects and jaw-dropping stunts. The final action sequence between Spiderman and Dr Octopus was in particular brilliantly staged. The cinematography is focused and makes the film even more a wonder to look at. The other was the villain Dr Octopus, superbly played by Alfred Molina. Dr Octopus is made into a rather complex villain, after the death of his wife Rosalie, and becomes a villain after being part of his own invention. The music was also dramatic and fun. The remainder of the performances were very good too, while not admittedly the most charismatic actors ever, (Sean Connery is definitely a contender for that) Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst still give believable lead performances. All in all, a very good sequel. 8/10 Bethany Cox

Warning: Spoilers
Ever since I first heard of this Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, I knew I wanted to see it. Primarily because of the cast, with Gary Oldman and John Hurt two of the best underrated actors today, Colin Firth a vast majority of the time delivering solid to marvellous work, Mark Strong who impresses me more and more every time I see him and Tom Hardy and Benedict Cumberbatch two of the most promising young stars working now.

Another point of interest is its source material and the 1979 version. At first, I did find the book somewhat a slow-burner and not to easy to get into. On repeat readings however, I do find it a compelling and very interesting piece of work. I had heard much about the 1979 version, and when I saw it I was more than impressed. It was tense, involving, I connected to the characters and Alec Guinness' performance in it for me was one of his most memorable and iconic of his very great career.

About this Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy it did have a lot to live up to, considering how great the book and the Alec Guinness version were. And I think it succeeds, it admirably condenses a very difficult book which I imagine is a daunting task, and does extremely well on its own merits too(which is how I will judge the film). At first, like the book it is a slow-burner to start with, but once the tension rises, the story gets going and more characters introduced the film becomes more absorbing. The ending I agree was a little rushed, but I personally didn't find it too convoluted.

I did find that Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy was very well made. The period recreation was wonderfully evoked, and even better than that it was authentic. The cinematography was also impressive, perhaps grainy, but it did suit the gritty, menacing tone of the film and atmosphere very well. The music is electrifying, it does play a subtle part in some scenes but also adds to any scene that is tense or shocking. The direction consistently is assured and don't fall into the trap of being too artsy.

The script is thoughtful and has the basic feel of the prose of the book. The story as I have said is slow to start with, and it is a good idea for those who haven't read the book or seen the 1979 version to have a good enough idea of it before watching, but the number of shocking scenes such as the killing of Hardy's love interest and Firth's character's demise and the atmosphere throughout kept me interested and thrilled. Also the part where Ciaron Hinds' character hums the George Formby song, it was terrifying in a way that they'd been listening in but Cumberbatch's face was a picture! The pace is solid, alive to nuances and doesn't plod so much as for me to call it dull or something like that.

Characterisation wise, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy isn't as good as the 1979 version or the book even, but in many ways I can understand. The 1979 version did have more time and room to delve more into the characters. That said, I do commend the film in doing what it could to make the characters interesting and perhaps complex and I think any "slow" pacing helped with this rather than hindered it. I also loved that the emotion in this film is very under the surface rather than hard hitting. The acting is excellent.

Gary Oldman is superb, George Smiley is perhaps one of his more subtler performances, but nonetheless it is still commanding and one of my personal favourite performances of his. Of the support cast, the standouts are Tom Hardy, whose character apart from Smiley was the film's most interesting, and Mark Strong whose charisma and intensity still captivates. Benedict Cumberbatch I initially wasn't sure about in regard to age, but the acting was so great I forgot about any worries. Colin Firth gives his usual solid performance, Toby Jones also excels and Kathy Burke does well in a hard role. John Hurt gives his all into what he's got, which goes to show how good an actor he is, he's got some good lines and excellent delivery but the character isn't as developed well or as natural as the rest.

Overall, a very interesting and well done movie. It was one of my most anticipated movies of the year, and it ended up being one of my favourites too, which is saying a lot seeing how hit-and-miss so far 2011 has been for movies. 9/10 Bethany Cox

This movie had a lot of potential. While technically impressive and very enjoyable with some genuinely funny moments, for some reason it falls short. Of course there are redeeming qualities, such as the fun music score by Danny Elfman, one of my all time favourite film composers and an amusing turn from Robin Williams. Also the special effects are greatly improved from the effects in the Absent Minded Professor, and Flubber who is so cute steals the show. The performances from Clancy Brown, Ted Levine and Marcia Gay Horden are entertaining, and Jodi Benson (who voiced Ariel in the Little Mermaid)is a delight as the voice of Weebo, whose death is absolutely heart-rending. However the story is very predictable, and offers few surprises, and the physical comedy was better than the patchy script which in places felt uninspired. That saying some of the physical comedy has strong hints of deja vu, and is rather hit and miss. Of course kids will lap it up, but adults probably won't like it as much. The second half of the movie is more meandering in quality compared to the first half, very little of interest happens and some of the situations come across as ridiculous. All in all, somewhat forgettable, but for a kids movie it is pretty entertaining. 6/10 Bethany Cox

Forget the mediocre Steve Martin remake, this film is the Cheaper By the Dozen to see. Jeannie Crain is a little too old for her role as the oldest daughter that I have to agree with. The rest however is delightful entertainment. There is nothing hilarious here, but some lines and scenes are funny and very pleasant, plus some moments are touching. The film looks great, has a beautiful soundtrack and a story to warm the heart, and it has a script that has its humorous and sweet parts. The film is short but not too short, and it is snappily paced. The children are very believable, Myrna Loy doesn't have as much to do but is suitably warm and sympathetic and Clifton Webb is absolutely wonderful. All in all, still a joy. 8/10 Bethany Cox