Reviews by Kyle Ellis

This superb period drama has everything going for it, and I am saddened that it didn't get more awards.

For one thing, the whole film is splendid for the eyes. A lot of care went into the scenery, cinematography and costumes and it showed. The music score was absolutely beautiful, dramatic in some parts and poignant in others. The screenplay is quite extraordinary, and the story while perhaps historically inaccurate, is still intriguing. The direction, while the least impressive element of the film, was still solid. The performances were flawless; Cate Blanchett was above mesmerising as Elizabeth, and she is supported by an outstanding cast that include Geoffrey Rush, Joseph Fiennes, Christopher Ecceleston and Richard Attenborough. All in all, sumptuously filmed, and pretty darn good. 10/10 Bethany Cox

The novel is quite complex, and I think The Hours did a very worthy job of adapting it. One or two of the scenarios could have been more weighty and perhaps less clichéd and the pacing is occasionally a little slow, but overall The Hours is a stunning film, very elegant and beautiful. Not only that, it is a very poignant exploration of longing, desire and regret, conveying the lives of three women from three different eras.

The Hours looks exquisite- the film has amazing costumes, settings, cinematography and scenery. Even more impressive are the beautiful haunting score, magnificent screenplay, compelling story and strong direction. Not only that, the performances are marvellous. Nicole Kidman gives one of her best performances here, she is virtually unrecognisable as writer Virginia Woolf, the most developed and compelling character of the film. But Julianne Moore and Meryl Streep are also fantastic as the stifled 1950s housewife and the present-day lesbian book editor.

Overall, stunning film, where the pros well and truly compensate for the minor cons. 9/10 Bethany Cox

This movie is a very fine film with a lot of merits. The film does look great, with beautiful scenery and crisp cinematography and the lighting is very atmospheric and always fits perfectly with every scene. The music is wonderful, with the highlight being the excellent Everybody's Talking', the story is very strong focusing on the friendship of the two main characters and well-paced and the dialogue is thought-provoking and poignant. The direction is top notch using every trick in the book and wonderfully and the characters constantly captivate. And this is helped by the magnificent playing of Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffmann, especially Hoffmann who I personally think should have got the Best Actor Oscar that year. Overall, a truly fine film. 10/10 Bethany Cox

Easy Rider is not quite a classic, but what it is is a great movie. It does start off slowly, but when it picks up the film has very few problems if any. The production values are excellent, the soundtrack is inspired, the script is very effective and Dennis Hopper's direction shows perfectly that he was as good a director as he was an actor. The story is also very compelling with a purposefully depressing ending(certainly a refreshing change from the somewhat clichéd riding into the sunset ending) and although the start is slow the pace is solid on the whole. The acting is faultless, the three leads Peter Fonda, Dennis Hopper and Jack Nicholson are superb and work wonderfully together.

All in all, Easy Rider is a fine movie, while just missing out on masterpiece status. What's for sure though, it is one of the best road movies there is. 9/10 Bethany Cox

I heard a lot about how good this film was, and when I saw it myself I can completely see why. Rain Man is beautifully crafted; funny, moving and startling, sometimes all at once. The cinematography and scenery is beautiful, and the music is effective. The story never loses steam or feels boring, and the script is excellent while Brian Levinson directs absolutely beautifully. The performances from the two leads are brilliant. As fantastic as Dustin Hoffmann is, and he is, his character is one of cinema's greatest triumphs and Hoffmann adeptly is hilarious, unsentimental and completely and utterly believable, that is not to say Tom Cruise should be dismissed, because Cruise is every bit as good as a character whose emotional journey ranges from confused and impatient to understanding and protective. Overall, brilliant film elevated by the two leads and the direction primarily. 10/10 Bethany Cox

I had heard several great things about Election, and when I saw the film for myself I can totally see the praise for the film. It is filmed and directed beautifully, and the soundtrack is cool. The story is strong with a good structure without being too simplistic or complicated and doesn't fall into the predictability trap, and the humour is just great, there is some clever black humour but there is also some room for some quirkiness as well. The characters are engaging, even Reese Witherspoon's and I can understand where some are coming from when they say she is annoying. This is Matthew Broderick's most likable character since Ferris Bueller in my opinion. Both Broderick and Witherspoon give some of their best work here, and Chris Klein is a welcome presence without overdoing the humour or feeling out of place. All in all, a fantastic movie. 9/10 Bethany Cox

I saw this movie for the first time on television today, after being persuaded by the reviews I read beforehand praising it. Also I like Kirk Douglas. Although I am not directly familiar with Kubrick's work, a shameful admission I know. Out of what I have seen so far I loved Dr Strangelove and despite only seeing it once while flicking through channels liked The Shining too. Anyway back on target, Paths of Glory was brilliant in my opinion!

Winston Churchill famously claimed that it was this movie that was closest to evoking the atmosphere of WW1 and the military mind. And you know what, he is right. For one thing, Paths of Glory is gorgeously filmed, with relentlessly beautiful cinematography and nice costumes and scenery. The screenplay is sometimes humorous, sometimes moving and sometimes even haunting, either way it was some fine writing. The efficiency of Kubrick's direction is proof of a great man at work.

The performances were superb. As the general who orders the hopeless attack on the German position, Adolphe Menjou's character is perceived as a villain not because of being an officer adhering to the letter, but that he is seen as "the arrogant aristocrat" because of his fear of the working classes than his hatred of the enemy. Among the cast, Timothy Carey and Kirk Douglas especially were outstanding. And the music? That is one rousing score I can tell you. Great movie. 10/10 Bethany Cox

Warning: Spoilers
F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby is a great, no, wonderful book, a beautiful story and just as brilliantly written and one of those books where you can read in one sitting and not feel bored at all. In my reviews of the previous three versions it was said that I wasn't entirely sure as to whether it was one of the all-time literary greats. After reading it again in preparation for this film- considering that it is based on a great story though it's also by Baz Luhrmann(whose style you either like or dislike)- it does deserve this distinction as well as a contender for the best American novel.

Before seeing this films, I saw the 1974, 1949 and 2000 versions. All had good things but also a fair number of flaws, neither really doing the book justice. That is not saying at all that this film is 100% perfect because it isn't, and it doesn't completely do justice to the book. However despite some questionable stylistic touches the spirit of the book and prose as well as of the Jazz Age are here in the way that the other three versions didn't really do so well. It is easy though to see why people criticise the latest version of The Great Gatsby.

The first 20-30 minutes are very rushed and overblown with editing that is so dizzying it could induce a seizure. There are a couple of nice moments in the soundtrack, like some of the background music and a bit of Gershwin(the use of Rhapsody in Blue was clever), but the hip-hop/rap was overused, overbearing and anachronistic(I confess also that I detest that style of music so there is some bias). The CGI was overdone and not needed, it also looks a little too cartoonish. Tobey Maguire is the weakest of the Nick Carraways(the best being Sam Waterson), the observer and the glue of the story, he's too wide-eyed and too much of a blank and doesn't really convey the dignity, carelessness and social awkwardness.

On the other hand, the film on the most part looks great, it is beautifully shot and the lavish costumes and sets are never short of exquisite. The party scenes generally have the glitz and glamour any party of the 20s would do. Also period-detail wise it's the most authentic to the 20s period, like for example Daisy's clothing and cropped hair. Where The Great Gatsby(2013) scores the best of the four adaptations is in the depiction of the Jazz Age, it is glitzy but there is also the sense of fun, danger and excitement that weren't there before. While there is Luhrmann's style written over the spirit of the story is essentially there.

Nick's narration has a lot of lines directly lifted out of the book and much of the dialogues are the same(the old sport utterings get too much though admittedly). The story has the life, emotion and passion that the 1974 film as a consequence of being too faithful did not have. And the structure and essence are present with Gatsby still an enigma(always was part of the book's allure, 2000's ruined that quality by revealing Gatsby's background and who he is far too early). From the first 20-30 minutes there is a real temptation to turn the film off, but if you stay with it it does slow down and becomes a huge improvement to what was seen before. Some won't like the sanitarium stuff, actually Nick telling the story in retrospect to someone else was not too bad a storytelling device and did better than how the 2000 version did it.

As with the acting, it is very good and is the most consistent cast of the four versions. Only Maguire didn't across as well as he ought to have done. Leonardo DiCaprio lives up to his character's greatness. There is a sense of him paying homage somewhat to Robert Redford's mannerisms but instead DiCaprio is much more charismatic in the role and there is much more of sense of mystery, more charm, more yearning and a sense of arrogance. This is also the only one of the four adaptations where I found myself really liking and relating to Gatsby. Carey Mulligan is also the best of the Daisys, a character that wasn't played very well at all previously. With Mulligan she is pretty and doesn't play too blandly or stridently, there is a charm and spirit about her but she doesn't make us forget that Daisy is shallow and selfish as well. The chemistry between the two is more convincing than that of the other versions, in a way it is somewhat cold but it is in keeping of the sense that their love is incompatible.

Joel Edgerton is the second best Tom after Bruce Dern. He resembles the character better physically, but is the only actor after Dern to actually get the attitude and mannerisms of Tom exactly right, he is a real hard-edged brute but with a glimmer of tenderness instead of being too suave or too soft. Jason Clarke is good as George, he does show a tormented side but also a sense of not being the brightest bulb on the block. Elizabeth Debicki is beautiful and witty and brings depth and assurance also to Jordan, despite being somewhat underused, and Isla Fisher is appropriately conniving as Myrtle if not as much a sleaze as Karen Black. Luhrmann does direct efficiently with much of the drama being allowed to breathe while bringing his own style to it, though there are scenes with it being too much. The pacing is rushed to begin with but when it slows down there's not much of a problem.

Overall, not the great motion picture it could have been, but I found it very enjoyable and the best of the four adaptations. The best version will always be the book though. 6.5/10 Bethany Cox