Reviews by Kyle Ellis

Having been underwhelmed by the waste of great potential that was 'Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice' (not terrible but rather lacklustre) and seeing that critical reception was not particularly good, expectations for 'Justice League' were not very high.

Although it has major problems, 'Justice League' turned out to be better than expected. Contrary to the constant critic bashing, which to be perfectly honest has gotten out of control and extremely annoying fast for a while now, critics get a good deal of respect from me. Even when my opinions differ to theirs, which has happened a fair number of times, their appraisals and criticisms are very understandable and it is easy to see where they are coming from. 'Justice League' is a case of the film being much better than anticipated, considering the word of mouth and 'Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice' being so disappointing. Is 'Justice League' better than that film? Yes, by quite a bit.

'Justice League' does have its problems. Although the CGI is pretty good on the whole, there is an over-reliance of it and it doesn't always add to some of the scenes. The story has its fun and excitingly compelling moments, but a lot of it does feel rushed, which does see too many abrupt tonal and storytelling shifts, and some of the first half has a cobbled together and rambling quality. Am usually not one to carp about plot holes, much of the time it is a lazy criticism to me, but one can fit the Grand Canyon through some of them and some border on the ridiculous.

The rushed pacing does come at the expense of character development, which tends to be rather flimsy. Particularly true to this is the villain, there is nothing menacing or remotely interesting about him, he's basically a very dull just there sort of character. Ciaran Hinds is completely wasted, while Ray Fisher is somewhat dull. Not all the jokes work, some feel out of place, while the final battle could have had more excitement and Danny Elfman's music score is uninspired and forgettable.

On the other hand, most of the acting is very good. Ben Affleck brings a brooding intensity to Batman and he didn't seem that bored to me. Other bright spots in the cast are Jeremy Irons' very amusing Alfred, Amy Adams' feisty if somewhat underused Lois Lane, Jason Momoa's beautifully judged Aquaman and particularly Gal Gadot's positively show-stopping Wonder Woman. Ezra Miller is amusing, if at times slightly too introverted, as Flash and Henry Cavill looks much more comfortable here than he did in 'Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice'. Diane Lane and JK Simmons are also welcome presences.

Visually, 'Justice League' is beautifully shot, far more cohesively edited and its boldly dark and gritty look fits very well within the story. The script is less clunky and dreary and lightened by some nice quirky humour and some jokes are amusing, especially the absolute hoot that involves the magic lasso. The action is mostly nicely choreographed and fun to watch, some of the characters are interesting and the chemistry is great.

In summary, could have been much better but to me it wasn't that bad. 5.5-6/10 Bethany Cox

Warning: Spoilers
I personally really love the book, I enjoy the characters and their situations, even if the story is rather oddball and not easy to adapt. In terms of adaptations, the animated film is still my favourite, mainly because I have a lot of nostalgia for it. Coming from somebody who likes Tim Burton's work, I enjoyed this re-imagining of Alice in Wonderland, but I also felt it could have been better. Is it Burton's worst? I think not, that dishonour goes to Planet of the Apes, and I also preferred this over Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. But is it his best? No, not by a long shot- Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood and Beetle Juice are my personal favourites, while Batman(and its sequel, one of the better sequels to anything I've seen actually), Big Fish and Sleepy Hollow are also brilliant. I haven't seen Sweeney Todd all the way through, I am just wondering whether Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter are better than George Hearn and Angela Lansbury in the roles of Sweeney and Mrs Lovett. Anyway that's another story.

Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland does have a lot of virtues as well as faults. Starting with the virtues, the visuals are absolutely fantastic. The costumes, especially in the first twenty minutes are absolutely exquisite, the scenery is dark, colourful, lush and wondrous and the special effects and cinematography are well above average too, especially with the imposing-looking Jabberwocky. There have been some comments that didn't like Danny Elfman's score, while his score for Edward Scissorhands is better, I liked his score here, it was fantasy-like and atmospheric and better than his score for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, where the Oompah Loompah song especially really annoyed me. It also moves quite quickly, and I liked the references to the original story.

Technicalities aside, there were also some very good performances, as well as some disappointments. Alan Rickman was deliciously suave and dour as the Blue Caterpillar, even if his role was somewhat brief, while Stephen Fry was absolute purr-fection as the Cheshire Cat, with a cheeky smile and bagging some of the best lines such as "I never get involved in politics". Matt Lucas was funny as TweedleDum and TweedleDee, and Michael Sheen was very nice as the White Rabbit. The ever-exceptional Christopher Lee was appropriately menacing as the Jabberwocky, while Helena Bonham Carter is suitably shrill as the Red Queen, though expect the constant repetition of "Off with his/her head" every now and again. A big surprise though was Anne Hathaway, not only did she look stunning but she brought just the right touch of the sweet and the sinister, and Barbara Windsor as the Dormouse was an inspired casting choice.

However, there were one or two performances that weren't quite there. I am sorry to say I found Mia Wasikowska bland as Alice, she looks beautiful but she just didn't quite convince. Then again in her defence, Alice I have found one of the least interesting characters in the story, I always found myself attached to the Cheshire Cat, Queen of Hearts, Mad Hatter, The Mock Turtle and the White Knight myself. Speaking of the Mad Hatter, I was a little disappointed with Johnny Depp's performance. I liked the make-up and everything, but compared with his more poignant and more human characters(ie. Edward) I felt Depp overdid it with the accent and the eccentricity of the character. Crispin Glover I wasn't so sure about either, I can't put my finger on why, maybe it was because Stayne is a very slimy character and perhaps the sliminess was overdone but maybe that's just me.

Onto the cons of Alice in Wonderland, the story structure I found disjointed. It does start off really well, but it does meander, and then there are scenes that don't quite work especially the Futterwacken Dance, which was out of place and had the WTF? factor about it. Plus while I appreciated the references, the theme of madness is only briefly touched upon, and that was disappointing. While there are some nice funny lines here and there, the writing is clumsy and inconsistent in general, Alice's dialogue in particular is clumsily written at times and woodenly delivered, not to mention a part before the flashback with the Hatter, White Queen and Jabberwocky Hatter's rant sounded like that of a pirate. Burton's direction here isn't as innovative as it is in his earlier films, and some of the characters are devoid of depth and heart, some of them just come and go like a series of vignettes. I think these flaws could have been avoided with a longer film length by twenty minutes or so.

Overall, it is worth watching by all means, but it just lacks something. 6.5/10 Bethany Cox

Saw 'The Rise of Skywalker' just before Christmas with my sister, but it took me a while to gather my thoughts on it. Being not sure what rating to give it or how to express my opinion on the film. Will admit that when seeing it in the cinema, to me it was enjoyable but had a lot of faults. Since watching 'The Rise of Skywalker' then though, the more it has been thought about the more it has gone down in my estimations. My reservations felt back then still remain the same, as well as what struck me was good, while thinking of more since.

My opinions on the previous 'Stars Wars' films were much more definite, being a fan of the original trilogy and while the prequel trilogy had a lot of flaws to me they weren't that bad. Also thought 'The Force Awakens' and 'The Last Jedi' were better than expected (am aware that possible blasphemy has been committed here), but 'The Last Jedi' certainly had a lot wrong with it. 'Solo' was good fun on its own terms too. Absolutely judging it from an open mind, 'The Rise of Skywalker' left me very conflicted however and ended the trilogy on a whimper rather than a bang, it's not deserving of a 1/10 but it is not near deserving in my opinions of the 10/10s mostly given to counter the negativity in classic critic bashing style. Of the franchise, this was the one in all honesty that left me the most disappointed.

Will start with the good things with 'The Rise of Skywalker'. It is gorgeously shot and designed and the special effects are often a marvel. John Williams delivers yet another rousing score that has its own character but cleverly includes the well-known iconic themes from the previous films.

There are some great performances here, Daisy Ridley carries the film outstandingly, having become more confident with each film, and Adam Driver is menacing and conflicted. Carrie Fisher again brings nostalgic poignancy to Leia, while John Boyega and Oscar Isaac are charismatic and do their best with what they were given (which was quite weak in my view) and how great it was to see Ian McDiarmid again as Palpatine, again his material was not great but he does a good job with it. Chewbacca is as adorable and funny as ever and C-3PO provided a few amusing moments. Babu Frik was a nice new addition and there were a couple of touching and nostalgic moments. Some of the action is thrilling, namely the extended blaster battle and Rey and Kylo's force-based clash.

For all those good things, 'The Rise of Skywalker' has a lot of major flaws. With so little time to breathe in the story, the film feels far too rushed which made it very difficult to digest the more convoluted parts of the story. There is also too much going on so the film feels very cramped by the final act, and also too many characters. Some are fun but too many of them are underused or even pointless and tacked on, such as Lando and Rose Tico. Mark Hamill and Harrison Ford only seemed to be there for nostalgia purposes and are merely walk-ons.

Although the action has its moments, too much of it doesn't rouse like it should do and is in a way forgettable. The big reveal that has been much discussed here made absolutely no sense (the atmosphere felt at that part in the packed auditorium in the cinema was like a uniform "what the heck?") and really convoluted the storytelling later on, leading to a conclusion that felt rather too anti-climactic and made a waste of the characters involved in it. A long way from a bang. Morever, the dialogue is as bad and even downright laughable than the worst of the prequel trilogy's with far too much exposition and unrealistic conveniences.

Overall, have seen far worse but a big disappointment. If some people liked it, good for you. It just didn't work for me and many others, for reasons that are valid, and it is inexplicable as to why people have an inability to accept that, and not just for this film but for almost every film here. 5/10

Having enjoyed a vast majority of Marvel's superhero output (more so than most) without worshipping them, 'Ant-Man' is a minor effort from them but there is still a good amount to like about it.

'Ant-Man' manages to be a better film than expected. The character is not exactly a household name and is always tossed aside in favour of other superhero characters like Spiderman that have had longer longevity and perhaps have more compelling origins and stories, hence why they are adapted more. Also wasn't sure what to make of the trailer, which made the film out to be rather bland and too reliant on humour.

Seeing it for myself finally a year on, 'Ant-Man' could have been better. While the humour mostly works wonders, there are a few instances where it's not so funny and not very well placed, like in emotional scenes that are actually quite poignant and then interrupted by a joke that is not only forced and unfunny but also not belonging in the scene. The family scenes are a mixed bag, sometimes they are sweet and touching while at other times they're a little flat and predictable, contributing towards a few rare dull stretches. Corey Stoll also goes through the motions as the rather generic and under-characterised villain.

On the other hand, 'Ant-Man' is a great looking film, it's beautifully shot, very atmospheric, is very slick and the special effects, mostly the rapid size-changing and with the ants, are clever and of the usual high-quality Marvel standards. The music avoids being over-bearing, one-note, too quirky or too bombastic, fitting well tone, mood and pace-wise. Direction is more than competent, keeping the story going at a solid pace and the telling of it interesting enough, though maybe a little more flavour may have been more welcome. While the action is not as much as most Marvel films, it is fun, thrilling, nicely choreographed and tautly shot and edited, especially towards the end. Admittedly there are a couple of cheesy parts towards the end too, but kind of in an endearing rather than jarring way and it doesn't jar with the rest of the film.

There is some very smart and hugely entertaining scripting and dialogue here in 'Ant-Man' too. While it doesn't work completely seamlessly, 'Ant-Man' is one of Marvel's generally consistently funniest films, and the film doesn't take itself too seriously or too much of a joke either, instead not being afraid to embrace the silliness and humour while ensuring still that the subject matter is treated with respect. It is especially good with the title character's deadpan quips and Luis' fast-talking patter. The story is mostly diverting, it's narratively simpler than most Marvel outings and less risks here are taken than most Marvel films but it always makes sense, moments of dullness and jarring are few (while not being completely absent either), it's fun and it doesn't try to do too much or try to insert too many characters while not playing things too safe either.

While not complex as such, the characters are mostly engaging and are not too one-dimensional, only the villain could have had more done with him. Paul Rudd is a strong and hugely entertaining lead, while Michael Peña's hilarious in a role that could have been really annoying. The seasoned support of Michael Douglas adds hugely too, and Evangeline Lilly gives the film some much needed heart. Anthony Mackie is good too.

Overall, minor Marvel but good Marvel. Well-made and a lot of fun, but there is a personal preference to the Marvel films that took bigger risks with more and often richer characters, bigger bolder action and more going on in the story. 'Ant-Man' executes a vast majority of its components really well indeed, just that Marvel has done even better before and since. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Wanted to see 'Black Panther' for a while, one of my most anticipated films of this early half of 2018 and as somebody who likes to loves most of Marvel's films. The idea was interesting as was what the film was hyped up to be, the trailer looked great and the high ratings and critical acclaim promised even more.

My thoughts were that 'Black Panther' was a decent and intriguing film with a lot of very well done to great elements, but it didn't blow me away and left me disappointed after the hype. As indicated, far from hated it, didn't love it. Actually saw 'Black Panther' on opening weekend in a sold out showing (it was touch and go as to whether a ticket could be gotten), but had to properly form my thoughts for a while and was nervous seeing the very divisive IMDb reaction and the condescension on both sides (mostly negative), which has slightly died down since to feel less nervous.

Starting with the good/great things, 'Black Panther' is mostly impressive visually. The special effects were variable, but there were some spectacular ones, while it's beautifully and stylishly shot, slickly edited and sumptuously costumed. It's the extraordinary production design that was most note-worthy. Loved the use of technology, which was really cool. The music has the right amount of haunting intensity, energy, dignity and pathos, so a fine score on its own but not always utilised right in the film, a few ill-fitting moments mood-wise.

Much of the action is exciting, though there could have been more, and there is a good deal of thought-provoking script-writing with some nicely injected humour. One is immersed in the world of Wakanda, which is a fascinating world in thematic terms. The story does grip once it gets going and doesn't feel as confused and jumpy, with timeline and location changes needing to be clearer, like it did to begin with and a lot of it even when turning our everyday struggles on their heads is surprisingly relevant.

Personally thought that much of the acting was good, with a very charismatic lead performance from Chadwick Boseman, Michael B. Jordan bringing a self-loathing conflicted edge and swagger to Killmonger and Andy Serkis relishing his role with aplomb. The women are just as good, with a dignified Lupita Nyong'o, regal, no-nonsense and feisty Danai Gurira and particularly a funny and endearing Letitia Wright. While his role is small, Daniel Kaluuya is great fun in it. Direction is above competent, if not innovative, and really appreciated the film making Killmonger more than the standard Marvel villain, here one with questionable personal motives but one where one can see his point of view and empathise. Although his actions are inconsistent and don't always make sense and he could have been more threatening, generally he is one of the better Marvel villains and the most developed character in a film too full of stock ones (the titular character being the other exception).

'Black Panther' has faults however. Most of the characters are stock and clichéd, while some of the first half is too talky, the film is a little slow-going and confused to start with and some of the political elements are laid on too thick. Adding to the general feel that, even with the splashes of humour, the film takes itself too seriously and with the amount of predictability it has doesn't do enough new with a novel concept.

There are exceptions to the cast. Forrest Whittaker is wasted as a non-developed character with too short screen time, on top of the scene being rushed his final scene has no impact as a result. Martin Freeman is too fish out of water as well.

Although some of the effects are spectacular, others are very ropy. Especially in the final action scene between Black Panther and Killmonger which resembled a very early days/years video game. That scene also felt rushed, sometimes vaguely choreographed and anti-climactic, though the whole climax felt over-stuffed and too busy.

Overall, decent and interesting but was expecting more. Personally don't think it's the best Marvel film, while a long way from bad let alone terrible, for me it's one of the weaker ones. 6/10 Bethany Cox

Having enjoyed a vast majority of Marvel's superhero output (more so than most) without worshipping them, 'Ant-Man' was a minor effort from them but there was still a good amount to like about it. Despite being positively received by critics, 'Ant-Man and the Wasp' as of now has received also heavy criticism from fans and some Marvel non-fans, so was conflicted in seeing it.

'Ant-Man' and its slightly superior follow-up 'Ant-Man and the Wasp' managed to be better than expected. 'Ant-Man and the Wasp' to me was not as great as critics are saying, but it is also nowhere near as bad as people here have said, while sharing a few of their criticisms. Do like the character of Ant-Man. He is not exactly a household name and is always tossed aside in favour of other superhero characters like Spiderman that have had longer longevity and perhaps have more compelling origins and stories, hence why they are adapted more. Also wasn't sure what to make of the trailer, which made the film out to be rather bland in story and too reliant on humour while being very well made, directed and acted with thrilling action and funny and clever moments.

Seeing it for myself, 'Ant-Man and the Wasp' could have been better and has its faults, ones that are somewhat the same as the first 'Ant-Man' and somewhat what was expected from watching the trailer. The script is mostly fine, but has patchy moments, namely the overly-wordy and sometimes over-complicated jargon and inconsistent humour. While the humour mostly works wonders, there are a few instances where it's not so funny and not very well placed.

Such as in emotional scenes that are actually quite poignant and heart-warming (more so generally than 'Ant-Man')and then interrupted by a joke that is not only forced and unfunny but also not belonging in the scene, though more sporadically thankfully than before. The family scenes are a mixed bag, sometimes they are sweet and touching, the chemistry is more believable here, while at other times they're a little flat and predictable, contributing towards a few rare dull stretches in a film that generally is appropriately lighter in tone and faster paced.

Like many people here, also found the villains underwhelming. Burch is especially pointless and forgettable and only really there because there seemingly needed to be an obligatory villain when actually there could have been just one. 'Thor Ragnarok' and 'Infinity War' only had one major one, and they, especially Thanos were the best villains in the Marvel canon. Ghost fares a little better and is an improvement over Corey Stoll's under-characterised villain in the first 'Ant-Man', her problem was that her back-story was very rushed and didn't feel developed enough. Michelle Pfeiffer is wasted in a very underwritten plot-device role.

On the other hand, 'Ant-Man and the Wasp' is a great looking film, it's beautifully shot, very atmospheric, is very slick and the special effects, are clever and of the usual high-quality Marvel standards. The music avoids being over-bearing, one-note, too quirky or too bombastic, fitting well tone, mood and pace-wise.

Direction is more than competent, keeping the story going at a solid pace and the telling of it interesting enough, though maybe a little more flavour may have been more welcome. While the action is not as much as most Marvel films, it is fun, thrilling, nicely choreographed and tautly shot and edited, especially towards the end. The stuff with sizes was clever visually and interested and entertained while the film is better than a lot of sequels in being consistent in the continuity.

There is some very smart and hugely entertaining scripting and dialogue here in 'Ant-Man and the Wasp' too. While it doesn't work completely seamlessly, 'Ant-Man and the Wasp's humour when it works is some of the funniest stuff of all Marvel films, and the film doesn't take itself too seriously or too much of a joke either, instead not being afraid to embrace the silliness and humour while ensuring still that the subject matter is treated with respect. The truth serum and the feminine side being brought out parts were hilarious.

The story is mostly diverting, it's and the first 'Ant-Man' film are narratively simpler than most Marvel outings and less risks here are taken than most Marvel films but it always makes sense, moments of dullness and jarring are few (while not being completely absent either), it's fun and it doesn't try to do too much or try to insert too many characters.

While not complex as such, the characters are mostly engaging, with the reservations being with the villain and Pfeiffer's character. Paul Rudd is a strong and hugely entertaining lead, while Michael Peña's hilarious in a role that could have been really annoying. The seasoned support of a distinguished Michael Douglas adds hugely too, and Evangeline Lilly and Abby Ryder Fortson give the film some much needed heart. Hannah John-Kamon does command the screen and Walton Goggins has an oily presence that is more than what the forgettable and useless character deserved.

Overall, not one of Marvel's best and has its flaws but a good sequel and film with many great things. 7/10 Bethany Cox

No matter how much 'Avengers'/Marvel detractors go out of their way to suggest that those who legitimately like the 'Avengers' films and Marvel's output are wrong and invent ridiculous conspiracy theories without proof, this reviewer loved 'Avengers Assemble' while acknowledging that it wasn't perfect.

'Avengers: Age of Ultron' is a solid sequel, though not as good as 'Assemble' and not without its flaws. There are a few longueurs in the pacing, as a result of a few overlong scenes that don't go very far (as admirable as it was to do more with Hawkeye's character, the farm scene did grind the film to a halt somewhat), parts that were not as developed as one would have liked or didn't add much to the film and some of the many characters are more interesting than others.

While one does admire that more was attempted to be done with Hawkeye, he still felt underwritten and not always necessary. Ultron, despite a cool appearance and chilling voice work from James Spader, is an underdeveloped, not very interesting and one-dimensional villain and doesn't pose enough of a threat. And while most of the comedy is funny and witty, there are moments that jar too much when the scene is serious or intense and it spoils the mood.

However, 'Avengers: Age of Ultron' looks fantastic, very slickly shot and edited with sumptuous and atmospheric set and costume design and quite spectacular special effects. The music avoids being overbearing or over-bombastic, as well as avoiding being too quirky or one-note. Joss Whedon ensures that the fun and tension rarely slips and that a good deal of the characterisation is interesting, visually and stylistically there is nothing to fault here.

Furthermore, the film is wittily, cleverly and intelligently scripted with a good deal of the tonal shifts handled well with only some jarring humour disappointing. While not perfect in execution, the story is absorbing, there are plenty of fun moments, thrillingly choreographed and executed action scenes (especially the earth-shattering climax) and while it could have been developed a little more and could have been less forced when introduced Hulk and Black Widow's relationship is given admirably sensitive treatment here.

The film's characters are mostly interesting and engaging, not complex but that wasn't expected. The acting is impeccable, Robert Downey Jnr, Chris Hemsworth and Chris Evans really excel in roles tailor made for them, while Scarlett Johansson gives a fearless intensity to Black Widow and Mark Ruffalo is by far the best and most layered live-action Hulk. As said, James Spader is chilling as the voice of Ultron, and one does wish that more was done with the character, Paul Bettany and Samuel L. Jackson are great value and Aaron Johnson and Elizabeth Olsen play the newcomer roles with plenty of fire. Jeremy Renner does what he can.

Overall, a solid sequel if not as good as 'Avengers Assemble'. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Do bear in mind that this is a sequel to one of the weaker Disney movies of the 90s. Don't get me wrong, its predecessor is a very good movie, that was compensated by beautiful songs and gorgeous animation, but let down by weak secondary character development. It is a direct to video sequel, and it wasn't as good as the original, and I honestly wasn't expecting it to be. Also the very poignant ending of the first film was suggestive of a sequel. The sequel is definitely blander, I thought Uti was unnecessary, the dialogue was awful mostly and the editing could've been better. The animation isn't as stunning as the original, but my advice to all of you is to watch it with low expectations,as there is a beautiful ballroom scene, even if the rest of the rest of the film lacks detail and precision. The songs are not as spectacular as the original, but they aren't horrible, I loved the one over the end credits, and where do I go from here. It was a huge advantage having Judy Kuhn back on board, as she did a fantastic job with Pocahontas's singing voice. Billy Zane is a good singer, can't say the same for his acting. The plot wasn't that original, but it was attempting to stay close to the legend. There was a bit of humour, but not much, and I liked the fact that Ratcliffe was more villainous, and that they kept Pocahontas the same, apart from some rather ludicrous dialogue. I also think, it was a wise move replacing Mel Gibson. I didn't really like the ending that much though, it ruined the love story of the first film. All in all, fairly watchable, but watch with low expectations. 6.5/10 Bethany Cox

Being a fan of musicals and admiring admiration for a lot of the cast, as well as hearing nothing but good things about it, watching 'Hairspray' (which has been on my to see list for a while, having been behind with film watching and reviewing) was a must.

After seeing 'Hairspray', it left a huge positive impression on me and is a simply wonderful film all round. One of the better musicals in recent years and the most fun personally had for some time. It filled me with joy and uplifted me, it was such irresistible fun and a few elements left me pleasantly surprised. It is essentially a remake of the 1988 comedy and very much a worthy one.

The cast are one of 'Hairspray's' biggest strengths. John Travolta's performance has divided audiences, count me in as someone who found him delightful. Christopher Walken is enormous fun and very likable, have heard him sing before with wildly variable success having been a disaster in 'Peter Pan Live' and rather out of place in the live action remake of 'The Jungle Book' (an excellent film otherwise) but in this regard it's one of his better vocal performances.

Michelle Pfeiffer and Amanda Byrnes also enjoy themselves and Nikki Blonsky makes a stunning debut. The teens are also on top form, even Zac Efron is good.

'Hairspray' is audaciously designed and film and is buoyantly directed. The musical numbers are catchy and infectious, as well as performed with enormous enthusiasm. They are also slickly choreographed.

Script is very funny, sometimes even hilarious, and the story is filled to the brim with energy and easy to follow.

Overall, irresistible and joyous fun. Well worth catching, in fact a must. 10/10 Bethany Cox

I watched Robots wondering whether I was going to love it or hate it. In the end, I liked it, but I couldn't help feeling disappointed too. The computer animation was definitely the best element to the movie, it was stunning with plenty of colourful, advanced and inventive visuals. I also thought the soundtrack was more than decent, I liked the premise and there are some characters that are endearing. The film does have a good message about following your heart. Not to mention a great voice cast, with Ewan MacGregor his usual charming and earnest self as Rodney, Greg Kinnear a nice surprise as Ratchet and Robin Williams wonderfully electric(and funny). There are some heart warming moments with Rodney and his family.

However, as Bigweld Mel Brooks did disappoint; surprisingly there wasn't much to his character and Brooks sadly couldn't do anything with what he was given. While it was an enjoyable film technically, the story while constantly inventive and original takes a while to get going, and there is little character development. Also I got more the impression that Ratchet's mother Madame Gasket was more the villain than him. Speaking of Madame Gasket, I couldn't believe Jim Broadbent voiced her, totally unrecognisable and quite possibly the biggest casting surprise of the movie. The biggest flaw though was the script. I will admit I did laugh a few times, but that wasn't enough. Robin Williams did a great job and some of what he said was funny. However, the in-jokes weren't as funny as they should have been. It could have done with more wit and irreverence perhaps.

All in all, I liked the movie. It is nice to look at and technically accomplished, and the voice cast in general do well, but the script wasn't sophisticated enough. 6/10 Bethany Cox