Reviews by Kyle Ellis

Considering the cast, the critical acclaim and accolades 'The Deer Hunter' garnered, and still does garner, part of me was expecting much more. It is a long way from a bad film, in fact it's good and often very impressive, but it's also uneven in places.

'The Deer Hunter' is by some way director Michael Cimino's best film, and it contains his best ever directing. That's saying a good deal, considering that only a few years later he would go on to direct the notorious flop 'Heaven's Gate' and his career never really recovered. 'The Deer Hunter' is considered by some one of the finest Vietnam films (don't quite agree, to me there are far better examples), but it is also perhaps the most controversial. Either viewpoint is very easy to understand.

Despite its many impressive, outstanding even, elements, 'The Deer Hunter' is uneven. It is a bit too long (and no before anybody sneers, there have been films of similar length and even longer that still manage to be great films, a few among the best ever made), and would have been solved by tighter editing and a little less time on the lengthy wedding sequence, which is compelling with some strong character development but could easily have been trimmed.

Parts are disjointed too, with some abrupt scene shifts and a heavy-handed patriotic ending that felt incredibly tacky against the rest of the film. There are deficiencies in the sound quality on top of all this.

On the other hand, editing aside, 'The Deer Hunter' is an exceptionally well made film. The cinematography is quite magnificent and the attention to detail in the settings and the rest of the production both sumptuous and rich in atmosphere, the authenticity also remarkable. The music haunts the mind and is very beautiful, the mournful guitar theme unforgettable.

Cimino is at his best in the director's chair, while the script provokes thought and the story is often incredibly powerful and moving. The highlight is the justly acclaimed Russian Roulette sequence, which today is genuinely harrowing and will stay with you forever.

Robert De Niro has seldom been more restrained and gives an affecting performance. Even better is Christopher Walken, who has never reduced me to tears before and he really wrenches the heart here, making his character a compellingly real one and the most relatable one. John Savage, John Cazale (in his last film before his ultimely death) and a young Meryl Streep are sterling in support.

In summary, uneven film but often very impressive with much to admire. 7/10 Bethany Cox

I have enjoyed Danny Boyle's work, though I found myself let down by Sunshine, so naturally I was all for seeing 127 Hours. I thought it was excellent and very interestingly done. I think the movie could have been a tad longer, but that in mind, 127 Hours is a superb-looking movie, definitely one of the best-looking and impressive movies of 2010 in my eyes. I just loved the wonderful cinematography and landscapes and also the kinetic editing and visual effects. The story is compelling and well paced, beautifully put together by well staged and thoughtfully thought out flashbacks and hallucinations. The music is fitting and dynamic, the conclusion is harrowing and I think heart-wrenching and a lot of effort is taken into making the audience empathise with Ralston. Other than the technical aspects, what really stood out about 127 Hours was Boyle's superb direction, it is wonderfully tight throughout, and the mesmerising tour-de-force that is James Franco's lead performance. All in all, excellent. 8/10 Bethany Cox

Not a terrible film by all means, but one where it is easy to see why it would polarise viewers (as evident in the user reviews here) and why there are those considering it a lesser Steven Spielberg film.

'The Terminal' is not Spielberg's worst film, to me 'The Lost World: Jurassic Park', '1941' and 'War of the Worlds' (which had a very good first half and completely fell apart halfway through and never recovered) are worse. Ranking it in his filmography, it is nowhere near close to being one of his best and while not rock-bottom to me it is lesser Spielberg.

Starting with 'The Terminal's' merits, the production values are top-notch and Spielberg regular Janusz Kaminski's cinematography is once again beautiful and a major plus. While not some of his best work, John Williams' score is pleasantly understated and slick without over-emphasising the mood.

Of the performances, which mostly are good, Tom Hanks makes a valiant effort in the title role and does an excellent job on the most part and Stanley Tucci clearly enjoys himself as Dixon. Hanks and Tucci's chemistry is where 'The Terminal' is particularly strong. The supporting cast are good, and Kumar Pallana is quite a scene-stealer (though the wet floor stuff does get over-used and repetitive).

'The Terminal' starts off well. The story is intriguing, there is a razor sharp satirical edge to some of the comedy and there is an affecting whimsy.

However, 'The Terminal' is hurt by the second half being nowhere near as interesting and Spielberg himself (regardless of his technical mastery) playing it too safe with a subject matter that should have been executed in the film more sharply and harshly. There is too much emphasis on the airport-terminal-as-microcosm-of-society angle and it just doesn't work because of how tentatively and safely the subject is approached.

Credibility rapidly decreases and gets increasingly strained and too often replaced by the sentimentality going into saccharine overload. Really could have done without the romantic subplot, that was not necessary, felt like thrown in padding and was completely underdeveloped and featured far too much. The lack of chemistry between Hanks and Catherine Zeta Jones doesn't help, nor does despite her beauty Zeta Jones being so bland in a role that gives her practically nothing to do. The characters are also far too neatly black and white with stereotypes that won't bode, and actually hasn't boded, well with some.

Overall, wildly uneven that had potential to be good but doesn't ever fully convince. 5/10 Bethany Cox

'Boogie Nights' is more than a great film even, it's fantastic and more worthy of even more praise than it already gets.

What is immediately impressive after finishing is how it tackles the subject matters of pornography, disco and drugs, very difficult subjects to portray in any media without being too trashy or causing offence but 'Boogie Nights' manages to make a film that commits neither of those things (even with the sex and drug abuse being prominent, they all have their full impact without being over-the-top or trivialised) and instead make one that's interesting and entertaining as well as disturbing and emotional. Few films that include even one of these subjects have succeeded in doing that so well.

It looks stunning for a start, with an imaginative surreal touch to the lighting and kinetic cinematography (though also with the trademark long takes and tracking shots that is immediately distinctive of Paul Thomas Anderson) and audacious costuming. Visually the standout is the opening Steadicam shot, it's breathtaking and famous for very good reason. The disco soundtrack is a perfect fit, it's infectious, effectively sleazy, sometimes deliciously ironic and also makes one want to dance with the characters and nostalgic for the 80s.

The screenplay was nominated for an Oscar, and with its perfect balance of the hilarious, the poignant and the darkly disturbing it's a worthy nomination. Even with the huge two and a half hour length (it may be argued by some that the film is too long), there is rarely if at all a dull stretch in the story, which explores the adult entertainment industry and the American Dream in ways that are startling, hugely entertaining and poignant.

Anderson does a wonderful job directing, not just with the telling of the story and keeping the atmosphere consistent but also in making the characters compelling and in his direction of actors (some of the best of any modern-day director) and their interaction. The acting is one of the biggest reasons why 'Boogie Nights' works so well. Mark Wahlberg has never been better, anybody who doubts his abilities as an actor should see this, and Burt Reynolds is brilliant in one of his career's finest performances in his "comeback" role. There are scintillating turns from Heather Graham and especially Julianne Moore (along with Reynolds also Oscar-nominated, again worthy nominations and would have been even worthier winners), and also fabulous support from Don Cheadle, William H. Macy, Philip Seymour Hoffmann, a hugely entertaining John C. Reilly (even if the role occasionally threatens to strain credibility but thankfully it never does) and a gloriously unhinged Alfred Molina.

Overall, fantastic film. 10/10 Bethany Cox

Along with Interiors(in a way), Match Point seems to be one of Woody Allen's most divisive films and that's understandable. With me, it is good but not great, interesting but Allen has done better(much worse as well). The ending was surprising which wasn't a problem, but it was also much too rushed and ambiguous, at odds with the rest of the pacing of the film. Jonathan Rhys Meyers and the script also didn't come across as consistent to me. Meyers is handsome and does make for a creepy sleaze in some parts of the film but at other points he underplays so much that he comes across as one-note. The script does have a very neat and healthy balance of sporting analogies and psychological questions, beautifully observed in distinctive Woody Allen fashion, unfortunately there are some clumsy moments and some out-of-place mordant humour(if anyone disagrees that's fine, it's just personal taste). The London locations, it's entertaining spotting the familiar ones, look splendid though and the filming reflects the dark, gritty nature of the story very effectively. The score is haunting, giving an ominous tone to scenes in need of it, and opera enthusiasts will love the healthy dose of opera excerpts throughout(though you wished they had a grander approach). The story even with the clear influence of Allen's 1989 masterpiece Crimes and Misdemeanours(a much better film) is an absorbing one, despite much of it being a slow-burner. Especially in the second half which takes a more violent turn without feeling mismatched. The gritty atmosphere worked in the story's favour as did the neatly interwoven plot points and story layers(the romance did have some resonating moments), and the characters as ever with Allen had a fair amount of realism though Chris was not very easy often to root for. Allen directs with control and assurance, though he's at his best in comedy-dramas like a lot of his films from the late 70s all the way through to the early 90s. With the acting, while Rhys Meyers didn't always convince, the largely British do some fine work, especially Matthew Goode and Brian Cox- James Nesbitt has been much better though- and Scarlett Johnansson in sultry, compassionate mode is superbly cast. Overall, interesting film and a good one(at its best even very good), but not great, Woody Allen has done better. 7/10 Bethany Cox

I had been eagerly anticipating Midnight in Paris ever since it came out. The concept seemed interesting, the cast on paper were great and I loved a lot of Woody Allen's early work(Annie Hall, Manhattan and Crimes and Misdemeanours come to mind). And I wasn't let down at all.

To me Midnight in Paris is Allen's most sustained and most enjoyable movie in about 15 years. I personally would've loved for it to have been a tad longer, however with that there is much to like about Midnight in Paris.

Starting off so promisingly with a gorgeous opening montage, one of my personal favourite beginnings to a Woody Allen movie actually, Midnight in Paris with its striking locations/scenery, beautiful colours and skilled cinematography is a very well made movie.

Also, its soundtrack has a nostalgic and appropriately romantic feel to it. And the story is always interesting, it is splendidly dotty in its construction which ensures it is never overly-comic or overly-serious, but what made the story interesting for me were the literary and painterly references, it helps to know some of them but even those I didn't know were done in an informative rather than heavy-handed way.

The characters like with many other Allen movies are examples of those you are not sure whether you would like, but learn to by the end. Owen Wilson's character is particularly true to this. Allen's direction is always assured, but aside from the opening montage and the references Midnight in Paris's remarkable selling point was the script, the comedy is savvy, the romantic elements are yearning and the questions asked are done in an affectionate manner.

I don't have much to criticise the acting either. Owen Wilson in the central role was unexpected casting for me, but it was unexpected casting that paid off for he is delightful here. Rachel McAdams is suitably shrewish and Marion Cotillard is alluring and intelligent. Michael Sheen and Kathy Bates are rock-solid as usual.

Overall, a wonderful movie. 9/10 Bethany Cox

I will admit I like Tim Burton, and have enjoyed a vast majority of his films, Edward Scissorhands, Beetle Juice, Batman and Ed Wood. Big Fish is I think one of Burton's better movies in my personal opinion, maybe not his very best, but it is a very sweet, imaginative and moving film. Here Burton delves into familiar territory, a strange place between reality and fantasy, dream and nightmare. The story is really sweet, and while slow at times, does have a poignant ending. The visuals as pretty much always in a Tim Burton film are gorgeous, not Gothic here like in Sleepy Hollow and Edward Scissorhands but evergreen and picturesque. The scenery was beautiful and so was the cinematography, and Danny Elfman's score is stunning. His score for Edward Scissorhands blew me away, but the lyrical, sensitive and hypnotic themes used here make it a score that is truly special. The screenplay is well crafted, and has a bittersweet feel to it. Sentimental yes, but also bittersweet. The acting is remarkably good, with Ewan McGregor making for a handsome yet somewhat charming young Edward Bloom, and the wonderful Albert Finney a revelation as his older self. Billy Crudup is excellent as the son who is intent on exposing his father, and sets out to learn the truth, and Danny DeVito is great as the shape-changing circus ringmaster. Jessica Lange is beautiful and alluring as Sandra and Helena Bonham Carter is almost unrecognisable as the Witch. Then there is Alison Lohman, Marion Cottilard, Robert Guillaume and Matthew McGory(as Karl the Giant) and they are very good as well. Overall, I loved this film, it is moving and very imaginative. 9.5/10 Bethany Cox

I have to admit I didn't think much of the first, though I have to give it kudos for its original concept and some of its stylistic touches. Human Centipede II fared much worse. If there was anything I slightly preferred, it was marginally grittier than the first which I kind of liked. However, the concept is nowhere near as the original, and not only does it have the same mistakes as the original but it makes more along the way. It still has the stock characters, the bad, cheesy dialogue, the dull acting and the medical errors the original had. I had no problem that this film was perhaps more disturbing than the first, the problem was there is no subtlety to it and it is low on the suspense meter. The amplified flaws come from two primary things. I do have to agree that the ending is one of the most rushed endings recently in any film. The other is the villain, in the original the villain did have many moments where he was genuinely chilling, this villain is so cartoony and over-the-top it is hard to feel any pity or such for him. All in all, although I was not a fan of the first movie, the awfulness of this film actually made me appreciate it. 1/10 Bethany Cox