Reviews by Kyle Ellis

Not one of my favourite war films, like 1930's 'All Quiet on the Western Front', 'Paths of Glory', 'The Thin Red Line' and 'Apocalypse Now', but exceptionally well made and incredibly powerful.

It has been said about 'Hacksaw Ridge' that the second half is better than the first half, something that is agreed with by me. Not that the family/character study stuff is bad, far from it, it's beautifully filmed, even better acted and paints Doss as a very fascinating character that it's easy from the get go to identify with his wants to succeed against all catastrophic odds.

Just that the first third does take time to get going with a pedestrian pace, the dialogue is corny (in fact, to me the dialogue is the least good thing about 'Hacksaw Ridge' in general and the element that rings true the least) and the sentimentality is laid too thick (this is also particularly true in the slightly underdeveloped romance).

However this is made up for by the entertaining yet hard-hitting training scenes and in particular the truly jaw-droppingly brutal war/battle scenes that soar in nerve-shredding intensity and raw emotion, giving the first 30 minutes of 'Saving Private Ryan' a run for its money and perhaps making it tame in comparison (high praise for a film with one of the most gut-wrenching first 30 minutes on film, though to me the rest of the film isn't quite as good).

Throughout 'Hacksaw Ridge' has exceptional production values, in particular the cinematography in the battle scenes, and Gibson directs like his life was depending on it. Rupert Gregson-Williams' score has the right amount of pulsating energy and nuance, and the sound effects in the war/battle scenes have a terrifying authenticity.

For a vast majority of the time, the story is very compelling and makes the most of mature and very easy to relate with themes. It has a wide range of emotional impact, being for the second half intensely powerful, much of the film being poignant, some of it sardonically amusing (without it being out of place) and also all of it inspirational. Rather than straying from the facts for dramatic license, Gibson is surprisingly respectful this time round.

Andrew Garfield has yet to give a better performance than his astonishing turn here (though he is splendid too in Martin Scorsese's 'Silence'), and Gibson similarly brings the best out of Sam Worthington (often a charisma-free actor but here doubts were cast aside) and Vince Vaughn (at his sardonic best while also touchingly subdued, proof that he can be good if the material serves him all which too often in his career it hasn't but it does brilliantly here). Hugo Weaving is terrific, also giving some of his best work in some time. Teresa Palmer makes the most of her role.

In conclusion, a near-triumphant come-back. 8/10 Bethany Cox

Yes The Talented Mr Ripley is slow at times, but to me it is always absorbing and very rarely boring. The scenery is simply dazzling and really quite exotic, and the costumes and cinematography are gorgeous too. The music is superb, as is Anthony Minghella's direction. The story is very compelling with a number of interesting and well-handled scenes, while the script is both intelligent and thoughtful. The acting is excellent, Matt Damon does wonderfully in a difficult and perhaps controversial role, and Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow, Cate Blanchett and Phillip Seymour Hoffmann are equally terrific. Overall, quite an excellent film. 8/10 Bethany Cox

When people think of 'Man on Fire', they think of this 2004 film but some probably don't realise it's a "remake" of a less critically well received 1987 film.

If asked which from personal opinion is better, it would be a hard choice. As an adaptation of the source material, author AJ Quinnell would choose this easily. It is easy to see why that is the case, there are more lines in this version lifted from the source material and more of the spirit is there, apparently Quinnell intensely disliked the 1987 film going as far to saying that he couldn't recognise any of what he wrote in there. On its own terms, it is not an easy pick. Both films are uneven but both films are also very worthwhile (yes, will admit to liking the 1987 film despite it not being a great film), they have a numerous amount of strengths but both have quite a few faults.

Talking about this 2004 film, it's uneven with some things that stop it from being as on fire as its lead performances. As said above though there is a lot to like and enough to make it more than watchable. Visually, 'Man on Fire' has its moments. The locations are both stunning and gritty and there is evidence of a slick atmospheric stylishness and director Tony Scott providing a few inventive touches. The film is hampered quite severely however by Scott excessively going overboard on the visual style, too much of it is more gimmicky and self-indulgent than it is clever and imaginative which is a real shame.

'Man on Fire' has a haunting and cool music score that really adds to the film and drives the action well. The script has wit and tension.

Storytelling, like with the production values, is more problematic. It is very successful in the first half, the central chemistry between Denzel Washington and Dakota Fanning is truly heartfelt and beautifully written. Really liked that the care and trust were realistically gradual and not evident straight away. In the more action-oriented and thriller-like second half, the action is well-choreographed and suitably uncompromising, it's fun and suspenseful and it makes more consistent sense than the 1987 film.

It is let down sadly by the pace being drawn out in places while the ending is more logical, more exciting and more emotional in the 1987 film, it's a bit of an illogical fizzler here. The film is sadly rather too overlong too by about twenty minutes, this could have been cleared up by tightening the pace in the second half.

Denzel Washington excels in the lead role as does a charming and beyond her years mature Dakota Fanning. Their chemistry is one of the highlights of 'Man on Fire'. The supporting cast is more uneven, with a fun if underused turn from Christopher Walken and a strong Radha Mitchell but Mickey Rourke especially is wasted in a role little more than a throwaway. The villains too could have been more threatening. Scott's direction succeeds in the action and direction of the actors but is really messy visually.

Overall, worthwhile but not the on fire film it could and should have been. 6/10 Bethany Cox

The best film in the 'Pirates of the Caribbean' franchise will always be the first, which is still a terrific film fourteen years later (has it really been that long, feels like only yesterday when first seeing it when it first came out).

Its sequels are not on the same level, and while they are a long way from flawless none of them are awful films either. They have their flaws, 'Dead Man's Chest' did get too frenetic sometimes, 'At World's End' was overlong, bloated and needlessly bloated and 'On Stranger Tides' (which has been dumped upon by many here but to me it was a very enjoyable film, one of the better sequels, and much better than given credit for, which is not going to be a popular opinion) had an underdeveloped and forced romantic subplot and too much filler that could have been trimmed in some places. They all have great merits, namely great visuals, exciting action, Hans Zimmer's music, Johnny Depp, Geoffrey Rush and Bill Nighy.

'Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar's Revenge' has its defenders but has also been met with underwhelmed disappointment by critics and most fans. Personally am on the fence with 'Salazar's Revenge' and consider it one of the weaker entries generally of the series, with only 'At World's End' being weaker. It is a decent and fun enough ride, but it could have been so much more and has some glaring flaws.

It is easy to say forget the story, however this is a strong case of being very hard to do so when there is so little to it. It takes a while to get going and there are some real pacing problems in the final act, which has its good points but generally is very tedious. It is very thin for the running time and feels overstretched and bloated, giving the impression the film is too long. The script has some droll and witty quips every now and again, but mostly it is very weak with far too much of a rambling, improvisatory and random feel, it just doesn't feel that well structured. There is also a very bizarre exchange with Depp and Paul McCartney (whose presence is rather jarring).

Brenton Thwaites and Kaya Scodelario are vastly inferior to Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley, they lack presence and come over as bland and dare one say deadweight. The music score is rousing enough and creates some nostalgia, but can be overly bombastic and is too much of a retread from the music of the previous films. There is an overload of CGI effects, which standard-wise are mostly splendid though with some artificial ones too.

With all this being said, there are obvious merits here. Once again, the production values are impeccable, the cinematography is skillful and full of beauty and atmosphere, the costumes, sets and period recreation is authentic and sumptuous and the effects are superb. As aforementioned the special effects are splendid quality-wise.

'Salazar's Revenge's' action is a lot of fun too, being coherent and exciting, especially the very scary one with the undead shark and the ending, which also does a good job clearing up loose ends. There are some great and suitably light-hearted comedy set pieces, like Jack being dragged by a building and clinging onto the guillotine.

Jack not being the central focus but still being essential to the plot proved to be a good move. 'Salazar's Revenge' succeeds in bringing a sense of nostalgia. Loved Barbossa's story arc, inarguably the film's most interesting which allows Geoffrey Rush to really sink his teeth and give a fun and moving performance. His revelation and his farewell was heart-breaking in its emotion.

Contrary to what some have said, apart from the newcomers to the franchise Thwaites and Scodelario as well as McCartney, the acting was fine. Although Johnny Depp's performance has been criticised, to me he still has the enthusiasm, sense of fun and swagger. Geoffrey Rush does a great job as always, while an unrecognisable Javier Bardem (very impressively made-up) is simply brilliant and clearly having a whale of a time as perhaps the franchise's most sinister villain (if not the best, that title still belongs to Bill Nighy's Davy Jones).

Summing up, decent and fun enough ride that could have been so much more. 6/10 Bethany Cox

As far as the Pirates of the Caribbean movies go, On Stranger Tides may be lacking in the rollicking fun of Curse of the Black Pearl, which I absolutely loved, though it's closer in spirit to it than those of the two movies before, but I think it is better than Dead Man's Chest, which had great effects and a brilliant Bill Nighy but felt overlong and ferentic sometimes, and At World's End, which had the cast giving their all, great visuals, score and final battle but rather convoluted and bloated on the whole.

On Stranger Tides isn't perfect. I did feel it did have perhaps have too many moments of exposition and clichés, though the story if slightly rickety in places here is less bloated noticeably and better paced than the film released before it which is a good thing. I also felt the romantic subplot(s) felt underdeveloped and forced, and while there are some droll, bizarre and witty quips particularly with Depp, Rush and Cruz there is a bit of filler that could have been excised.

However, despite these complaints, On Stranger Tides is a worthy instalment. Once again, the production values are impeccable, the cinematography is skillful, the costumes, sets and period recreation is authentic and the effects are superb. The opening twenty minutes is an example of the writing being at its funniest and wittiest, and the scenes with the mermaids are beautifully shot and intriguing.

While not perhaps original, and not among his best, I did very much like Hans Zimmer's score, which was rousing and brought some much-needed energy. The characters are not the best developed, but they are fun and there aren't too many of them to interrupt the flow of the story, a big problem I found with At World's End, while the action sequences are both exciting and nail-biting on the whole.

I wasn't so sure about Rob Marshall as director, but he does a far better job than expected, and the film is livelier in pace than Dead Man's Chest and At World's End. The acting is good enough for what it was. Johnny Depp plays lovable rogue Jack Sparrow with a voluptuous swagger and sly humour and nails it again, while the idea to omit Kiera Knightley and Orlando Bloom here proved a good one, without them for my money the whole adventure carried less of a dead weight.

Instead we have Penelope Cruz, who proves a perfect match for Depp. She is feisty, beautiful, foxy and sexy, and also likable and fun. I was wondering what they would do for villains without Bill Nighy, but I needn't have worried. Ian McShane is a worthy addition as Blackbeard, who is charming in a grizzly way while committing acts of great evil. Geoffrey Rush is underused in a way, but he does have some great lines and a fun presence so he isn't a complete waste.

In conclusion, On Stranger Tides is not a perfect film, but as an instalment to a decent enough franchise it is a more than worthy one. And you know, what I've said about this movie was not something I thought I would be saying, because judging by what I'd seen of the advertising/trailers, it looked as though it was going be the worst of the series, but actually for me it wasn't. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox

I will say I absolutely loved Curse of the Black Pearl, it's one of my all-time favourite movies. Dead Mens Chest was enjoyable and lively, if overlong. At World's End is certainly not a terrible film, far from it, I just found it rather disappointing that's all, plot-wise being the least remarkable of the three films. I will say there is a lot to recommend it, namely the art direction, and the special effects weren't too bad either. The cinematography was impressive, there is some lovely period detail and I thought there were some very well staged battle sequences. The music by Hans Zimmer, one of my favourite film composers, was outstanding, very rousing and dramatic. And the performances weren't so bad either- Jack Sparrow is still the lovable rogue we have come to know and love, and Johnny Depp played him marvellously. A very talented actor, Geoffrey Rush, sinks his teeth into the part of Captain Barbosa, I particularly loved the line, "I'm a bit busy at the moment." And Bill Nighy was delightfully villainous as Davy Jones. However, the film does have flaws that prevents it from being the rollicking film it had the potential of being. The plot did take a while to get going, and sometimes became unfocused and convoluted, like Elizabeth and Will declaring their wedding vows in the middle of a big fight. Also there are a lot of characters, and one or two of them served no real purpose to the plot, and a lot was crammed into the long running time, so at the end of the day, it felt a bit bloated. The script was full of existing jokes, not necessarily a bad thing, but overall it lacked freshness, and the humour and fun, that made me love the first film so much. Overall, it is certain performances, fantastic music and some well-staged battles that salvage an otherwise bloated and disappointing second sequel. 6/10 Bethany Cox

This film is a little too long, and doesn't quite have the charm of the predecessor. But it is solid entertainment, with a good plot, and consistently good acting, as well as the whole production looking stunning. Johnny Depp is as lovable as always as Jack, and Kiera Knightly is as lovely as ever. Orlando Bloom, while less charismatic than he was in the first movie, is still charming. Jonathan Pryce and Jack Davenport also delight, as does Stellan Skargaard as Bootstrap Bill. But an unrecognisable Bill Nighy almost steals the show as the rather creepy Davy Jones. The special effects and the stunts were very impressive especially with the very scary krakon, so was the outstanding music score and although the script lacks the sparkle of the predecessor, this is a resoundingly entertaining film nonetheless. Oh, and be prepared for a surprise at the end. 8/10 Bethany Cox.

The story has a tendency to get on the tenuous side, but this is essentially a very enjoyable fish-out-of-water comedy. It is a one-joke concept but it does that rare thing, the whole film works. It is nicely filmed, the music is good, the direction is skillful, the film does move at a comfortable pace and the script has a lot of nice and funny touches. Beside these things some memorable scenes and the acting made me enjoy Twins even more. I especially loved Arnie's awkward attempt at romancing Kelly Preston, that was a real comedy highlight. Acting wise, both leads are on top form, Danny DeVito is hilarious as the dim-witted scuzzball and Arnie is endearing and handles the comedy well as the intelligent and naive genetically-engineered brother. The two teamed up again in Junior, that film wasn't as good or as entertaining, but I personally enjoyed it even with its problems. Twins for me will be the better film, because while it is one-joke and occasionally tenuous in terms of story(loved the concept I will admit and on the most part it did work very well) it is very enjoyable with great lead performances in particular. 8/10 Bethany Cox