Reviews by Kyle Ellis

Don't get me wrong I do like Stephen King a lot, his writing is growing on me all the time, and I do like a vast majority of the adaptations based off his work. Sleepwalkers, alongside TommyKnockers and Thinner is one of the worst King adaptations for me.

Although most of the effects are corny, some of the transformation sequences are surprisingly neat and some of the cameos from King himself, Clive Barker and John Landis are fun to spot, even if they pointlessly come and go.

On the other hand, that's it. The film starts off shaky with a daft prologue and right up to the equally daft ending it never recovers. The pace is disappointingly dull, the dialogue is underdeveloped and reeks of cheese, the plot is thin and idiotic and there is no genuine atmosphere and jolts as a result. Apart from the fun to spot cameos, the acting unable to do anything with sloppily written characters is dire. Director Mark Garriss does try his best, but he is hampered by the mess that are the script, pace and story, so all the flashy gyrating camera work seems like a wasted effort in the end.

In conclusion, a mess and one of the worst films based on the work of Stephen King. 2/10 Bethany Cox

I like superhero movies as much as the next person, having grown up on the likes of Superman and Batman. Green Lantern is not the worst superhero movie, but far from the best either. For me it was just a mildly average and somewhat bland movie, that didn't live up to the potential it had.

Getting the good things out of the way, I did like the cinematography, settings and costumes very much, and while they weren't among the best or most detailed I've seen the effects were better than average apart from Parralex. The score/soundtrack by James Newton Howard compliments the film very nicely, Martin Campbell's direction is assured and there are classy turns from Mark Strong, Tim Robbins and Peter Sarsgaard.

On the other hand, Ryan Reynolds didn't quite work for me. Now don't get me wrong, I initially found him an ideal choice in the title role. The problem is not that Reynolds is bad, actually he is quite spirited in the role, it's just that the character himself like a lot of the characters in the movie is irritatingly bland. Blake Lively is cute and lovely, but her performance goes little beyond that. The story starts off well with an intriguing idea, being an origin story and all, but is bogged down by too many characters, tedious pacing and too thin a story for such a running time consequently some scenes seemed as though they were going on longer than they should've done. However though, these problems are pretty trivial compared to the script, which to put it kindly was an awkward, cliché-driven mess.

Overall, neither good or bad, but very average and bland. 5/10 Bethany Cox

The 'Predator' film series is a mixed bag, with the best being the 1987 film (a great film on its own) and its follow-up, the only great ones from personal opinion. Was actually really intrigued into seeing 'The Predator', despite hearing numerous bad things about it, and saw it anyway with an open mind. Just to make that clear in answer to the condescending accusations made by those defending the film without taking into account that those who didn't did see the film and simply didn't like it legitimately.

Can totally see why many were disappointed and share a lot of the criticisms directed against it. Didn't think it was that bad and it had its moments and decent assets, a 1-star film 'The Predator' isn't. Although towards the weaker end ranking films from 2018 seen, it is not one of the worst, being better than 'The First Purge' and 'Slender Man'. It's not a good film, hugely disappointing in fact, and has a lot of issues. As a Predator film 'The Predator' is a disgrace, but as a standalone film judged on its own terms it also doesn't work.

Before getting on to the faults, 'The Predator' has good points. It looks good, very slick and atmospheric with some of the effects being great and imposing.

At times, the action is fun and edge of your seat, contributing to the occasional glimpses of tension and excitement lacking elsewhere, with cohesive choreography and spectacular stunts. The film also begins promisingly, zippy in pace and quite thrilling.

When it comes to the predator, it is scary and imposing enough, as are the other creatures and their methods, and the gore does disturb and doesn't feel too gratuitous.

However, Shane Black's direction is constantly wayward and fails to generate much momentum, personality or clarity of storytelling. The character chemistry is not very natural and excepting perhaps Jacob Tremblay the acting doesn't seem very engaged or at ease. The characters are sketchy in development, are very difficult to get behind and their credibility is zero. There is effort to develop them, but through very clumsily written, superficially soap-operatic and blatant exposition that doesn't always feel necessary, adding nothing to the story or characters and failing to intrigue.

On top of that, the story, as well as being slight and at times sluggish, is far too complicated and busy which makes some of the film very hard to follow and at worst incoherent. There is lots of chaos and noise on the surface but no brains or soul underneath, while there is very little tension, suspense or surprises, relying on the action to make the film watchable which it marginally does. The atmosphere generally is bland and doesn't evoke enough scares, not enough to bite the nails anyhow. Nothing memorable about the music and the basic concept doesn't feel that much evolved, having not enough freshness, and it is too forgetful of what made the franchise at its best so great and too cheesy and bland to be a tribute or throwback.

It is the script that comes off the worst and nearly single-handedly brings 'The Predator' down, bad enough to warrant its own paragraph. It is far too talky in the exposition, it rambles often pointlessly and sometimes with not much cohesion, plausibility is as non-existent as the credibility, there is excessive sentimentality in spots and muddled moments and worst of all the over-reliance of humour. Next to none of the humour works which is a massive problem, it is eye-rollingly cheesy and not placed or timed very well too often, also being repetitive and distastefully vulgar.

Overall, not awful but mediocre. 4/10 Bethany Cox

David Cronenberg fascinates me, and his directing style and films are quite unique. Unique in how they really get under one's skin, explore complex and difficult themes not explored an awful lot by other directors without any sugar-coating or excessiveness and how many of them disturb and makes one feel uncomfortable. Films of his have shown some dark wit and have found myself connecting emotionally to others, primary examples being my favourites of his 'The Fly' and 'Dead Ringers'. His films are much more than horror.

As is evident with 2005's 'A History of Violence', which is as long away from horror as one can get. Instead a mix of thriller and drama, which for Cronenberg back then was pretty much completely different. As were the themes, those of violence and identity, explored again two years later in 'Eastern Promises' (which there is a marginal preference for). Although the audience reaction is evidently polarising, understandably too, 'A History of Violence' was critically acclaimed at the time and in my mind while it is not perfect rightly so. It is by some way one of Cronenberg's better and more interesting later films and towards the better half of his overall filmography. Do agree with those who say that it is one of his more accessible and mature films.

Not a perfect film, again from personal opinion. The first portion or so is on the slow side and doesn't draw one in straight away. Not everything felt necessary either, in particular could have done without the gratuitous staircase "hate sex" scene and the high school scenes which had very little tension or surprises and would have been more in place in a teenage comedy drama.

Heidi Hayes is very wooden and expressionless as Sarah. Some have slammed Ashton Holmes, personally thought he fared much better as there was more intensity and emotion from him and Jack was an infinitely more interesting character, at least the film actually tried to develop him whereas Sarah was more the stereotypical young daughter that contributes little to the story.

On the other hand, 'A History of Violence' as usual for Cronenberg looks great. The locations create a sense of foreboding as does the very atmospheric lighting and tight editing. In this regard though, the star is Cronenberg regular Peter Suschitzky's cinematography, which has the right amount of grimy grit and audaciousness. While there is a preference for more characters-of-their-own scores 'The Fly', 'Dead Ringers' and 'Eastern Promises' of his collaborations with Cronenberg, Howard Shore's score is still suitably dramatic and hauntingly ominous with no questionable placements. Cronenberg provides some of the most ambitious and tightest directing of all his later films, doing a great job pulling no punches and keeping the tension going, keeping it remarkably and uncharacteristically straight.

Some have criticised the script, personally found it thought-provoking, taut when needed, darkly satiric in places and subversively witty in others, failing only in the high school scenes. The story on the most part did grip me with its teasing tension and suspense in the atmosphere, loved the tension between Viggo Mortensen and Maria Bello, the unflinching and pretty frightening violence that really doesn't hold back and the unforgettable climax. Mortensen gives one of his best performances in one of his meatier roles and Bello brings a lot of heart to hers. Ed Harris chills the bone and to me he was more deserving of the Best Supporting Actor nomination than the still very good William Hurt who really livens proceedings up in his ruthlessly ripe turn.

Carnival of Souls may not be a personal favourite or a masterpiece, but it is an incredibly effective film and was an inspiration for many film-makers.

While Carnival of Souls generally doesn't look too bad, especially for the budget it had, there is an occasional crude and grainy look. The story is in places a little too thin and simple, with an abrupt ending with not much signs of a pay-off, and, with the exception of creepy Herk Harvey and especially touchingly vulnerable Candace Hilligoss (who allows one to completely identify with her even with just a telling glance), the acting is not that great with some of the minor players looking as if they weren't sure what to do with themselves.

The setting is beautifully realised however, being both dream-like and appropriately nightmarish and there is some very inventive and atmospheric(like being part of a surreal dream) photography that is somewhat reminiscent of Val Lewton's style. The organ music is incredibly spooky, and doesn't feel overused or too intrusive at all, instead it adds to the atmosphere. The story may not feel like there is much to it, but it is elevated significantly by its atmosphere.

Because where Carnival of Souls most succeeds is how it works amazingly as an atmosphere and mood piece. Throughout there is a genuinely eerie and nail-bitingly creepy quality, and as a shocker Carnival of Souls is legendary for a reason, the shocks delivered so unexpectedly and chillingly, with no signs of cheapness, in a way that few modern horrors today have managed to accomplish. It goes at a nice pace and doesn't ever feel dull, and Harvey's directing is credible, especially in how he managed to maintain such a great sense of mood and dread without being forced or cheap and there is some decent technical skill here. The characters are not the most well-developed but neither do they detract from the story either, heroine Mary is actually surprisingly easy to relate to.

Overall, far from a flawless film, but even with its limitations still manages to be an eerily effective and entertaining film that still shocks today and has influenced many. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox

'Alien' is still to this day a tense, shocking suspenseful and frightening masterpiece, one of my favourites of the genre. The bigger and bolder 'Aliens' is one of those rare sequels that is every bit as good as its predecessor. Both are two of my favourite films and the character of Ripley is one of the most iconic female characters in film. 'Alien 3' and 'Resurrection' had their issues but to me weren't that bad, while 'Prometheus' had some fine elements while also some major flaws.

My thoughts on 'Alien: Covenant' is fairly similar to my ones on 'Prometheus'. Not as bad as led to believe (having read reviews that were mostly mixed to negative), but could have been much better considering the brilliance of 'Alien' and 'Aliens'. With a good cast, and with the involvement of a hit and miss but talented (especially visually) director Ridley Scott, 'Alien: Covenant' could and should have been far better. Some undeniable strengths here, at the same 'Alien: Covenant' also commits the same faults as 'Prometheus', and makes even more of the mistake of having little point to it other than providing a few necessary answers to loose ends from 'Prometheus'.

Lets start with 'Alien: Covenant's' strengths. Even when the writing and story weren't up to snuff, Scott's films always looked visually beautiful. 'Alien: Covenant' is not an exception. The settings look tremendous, of sheer beauty and with a real eeriness, the cinematography complements it perfectly and is often powerfully arresting and most of the special effects (apart from the disappointingly cheap-looking ones for the xenomorph) are a feast for the eye. Scott's direction has moments where it is superb, if more in the visuals and spectacle than the narrative.

Jed Kurzel's music score is hauntingly unsettling and recalls one fondly of the music in the original film by Jerry Goldsmith. There are a few scary moments (though this doesn't come consistently) and credit is due for providing much needed answers to questions that were on people's lips after watching 'Prometheus'.

Of a pretty good cast, considering what they had to work with, Michael Fassbender's commandingly and intensely acted dual role is the standout. Katherine Waterston brings steel and vulnerability, yet another performance demonstrating why she is one to watch, and surprisingly Danny McBride succeeds in trying to fully form his character rather than be annoying or looking stoned. Billy Crudup also tries his best with little to do.

However, genuine tension and suspense is replaced by monster/alien action and attempts at character motivations. Sadly too much of the monster/alien action is not that exciting and only sporadically scary, cheapened by at times excessive and gratuitous gore (by far the goriest and bloodiest of the 'Alien' franchise and the approach felt a little out of place). On top of that the characters (in a film where there is too many of them in the first place) are very thinly sketched rather than fully formed and of the lot only Tennessee, Walter and David properly raise above forgettable, David especially being pretty splendidly drawn actually. The constant frustrating decision making from most of the characters also prevents one from properly connecting to them.

Script is also often very weak, even more rambling and cliché ridden than that of 'Prometheus', with philosophising and thrown in references to the likes of Wagner and Michaelangelo that gives a sense that the film wasn't sure of its identity. The story suffers from dull pacing and from being over-stuffed of too many ideas not done enough with. By the time the big reveal came it leaves one with a so what feel, due to it being so obvious too early on, and there is far too much of a you have seen it all before vibe.

In conclusion, tries hard and there's no doubting that a lot of work went into the visual aesthetics and the acting but 'Alien: Covenant' should have been much more. Certainly not awful but a disappointment. 5/10 Bethany Cox