Reviews by Kyle Ellis

I have seen many movies, and while The Untouchables is not the best movie of all of them, it is one I enjoyed enormously. There is so much to recommend it and I found it great to watch. The story is riveting and well constructed, and while he doesn't show off as such, a good thing in my book, Brian DePalma does let loose with some very inventive not to mention bloody set pieces. See the climax at the railway station for instance, while essentially a nod to the famous Odyssey steps sequence in the Battleship Potemkin, it was brilliantly done all the same. Speaking of DePalma, he does do a wonderful job directing.

That isn't the only reason why the Untouchables was such a hit with me. There are many more reasons. The dialogue is like crackling fire works, it is witty, intelligent and sophisticated, and some of it goes by surprisingly quickly. Ennio Morricone is one of the finest film composers ever, his score here is no exception, as it soars very like an eagle in full flight. And we have some truly sparkling production design, I love films with beautiful sets, scenery and costumes and The Untouchables scored highly in this area. Then we have very strong acting, Kevin Costner mayn't be to everybody's tastes but I think in his star-making turn he gave one of his better performances in this film. Andy Garcia joins the team with enthusiasm, and a plumped-up Robert DeNiro as Al Capone is wonderful as always. However, in my opinion, as the Irish cop who shows Costner the ropes, Sean Connery one of the most charismatic actors around gives the best and even perhaps most memorable performance here.

Overall, a wonderful film, with an awful lot to recommend it. 10/10 Bethany Cox

'Hitchcock' had real potential to be great, being a biopic on one of the greatest and most influential directors ever and with such a great cast. It could have been much better and is an uneven film, but is a better Hitchcock biopic than 'The Girl' from the same period.

It looks great for starters. The cinematography is sumptuous and colourful, and the costume, set and production design and scenery are both eye-catching and evocative. Danny Elfman's score has a lot of atmosphere but also a liveliness and whimsy, even including a chilling and very well used nod to the iconic score from 'Psycho'.

A very heavily up Anthony Hopkins makes a valiant effort as Hitch, and it is a spirited, gleefully relished and well-studied characterisation that is much more subtly written than how Hitch was written in 'The Girl' (though in that Toby Jones did do very well indeed with what he was given). Helen Mirren cuts an enigmatic and firm yet sympathetic presence as wife Alma. In support, coming off particularly well are Scarlett Johanssen's spot-on Janet Leigh and Toni Collette who is always good even in material beneath her. While under-used, the Anthony Perkins of James D'Arcy is also ideal casting.

Coming off less well are Danny Huston's pretty irritating Whitfield Cook, Ralph Macchio's too old and jarringly too modern-looking Joseph Stefano (kept seeing the Karate Kid rather than Stefano, which really took me out of the film) and Jessica Biel who also feels miscast as Vera Miles, a case of recognisable name and star quality over whether they fit the character or period or both (neither of which Biel does).

'Hitchcock's' storytelling is also uneven and unfocused, likewise with the direction which badly struggles with the balancing of plot strand and tone shifts. 'Hitchcock' fares well in the making of 'Pyscho' and Hitch's belligerent reaction to 'North By Northwest's' success, which is fascinating and there should have been much more of it, and in the strong and quite touching chemistry between Hopkins and Mirren.

It however underwhelms badly in the very unconvincingly written and unlikely love triangle, which sees Alma falling for Whitfield Cook, a big problem when that has more screen time than the story elements 'Hitchcock' does well in. And also in the tonally odd, padded out (they were clearly there for padding too) and out of place scenes with Ed Gein which was an attempt to bring a fantasy element to the film, and a ghoulish one, but it was woefully misjudged (a shame because Michael Wincott is eerily good as Gein, so much so that if a film is made about Gein in the future Wincott should be up for serious consideration to play him).

Some of the dialogue is clunky and not just underuses characters that would have made the film even more interesting (Perkins definitely should have been in the film longer) but the way Alma is written can be considered a character assassination, practically hero-worshipping her and while not vilifying Hitch necessarily there is the very strong and blatant implication that he was lazy, not as clever as he clearly was to make so many great films and that he would not have had the success he had without Alma. The way the characters are written are sketchy and one-dimensional, and despite so much promise one does question the film's point.

All in all, intriguing enough but very uneven. 5/10 Bethany Cox

Hopefully, as a heterosexual female student in her mid twenties, saying this before the male critic hating and age generalisations continue, with a love of film that spreads across all genres and decades, this will come over as a fair assessment of a film that genuinely did nothing for me. Very like what was said with the first two 'Fifty Shades' films.

As was said before, my main reasons for seeing 'Fifty Shades Freed', wanting to see as many films of this year and of the latter half of 2017 (some released in my country this year) and that it just happened to be the film choice of a friend cinema film outing. General consensus of the group for the record being indifference and passionately hating it. Not because of wanting to hate it (have always aimed to be a fair and perceptive reviewer), following the crowd (have been known to go against the grain) or being someone who hates everything (generally am a positive reviewer and try to see the good in even awful films). And yes, am telling the truth about seeing it, have never reviewed a film without watching it.

Oh and the whole "why did you even watch it" rubbish, from those who denounce anybody who dislikes the film as trolls for having a different opinion, needs to stop, because it comes over as ignorant and disrespectful. People are allowed to judge whatever they want and the two most common reasons for seeing a film is completest sake (if trying to see as many films of the year as possible) and family and friend film nights and cinema outings, so that answers that question.

Which is the case here in 'Fifty Shades Freed'. Am not going to give it the lowest rating on IMDb, this is an extremely rare rating for me these days and reserved only for incompetently made films with no effort put into them. 'Fifty Shades Freed' has very little good with it, but there are also a few things good. It is the best of the 'Fifty Shades' trilogy, as there is a little more plot than the previous two, sadly this is not saying much.

Some of the soundtrack beguiles, it has a soothing nostalgia and appropriately amorous quality. Those lovely moments in the soundtrack, which should have been maintained more consistently, is the best thing about 'Fifty Shades Freed'.

It also looks good, nice use of scenery and very nicely shot. There is one acting bright spot, which is Marcia Gay Harden who does very well with her role and is too conscientious an actress.

However, the same flaws are all here. Other parts of Danny Elfman's score are one-note and repetitive, as well as too derivative of his recent work. He has composed some wonderful stuff ('Edward Scissorhands' is magical) but this is really not his best work. The same goes with director James Foley, whose direction is far too mannered and ill at ease, he has done some great stuff like 'Glenngarry Glenn Ross' and 'House of Cards' and when you compare his work on those and that for his contribution to the 'Fifty Shades' films it's like somebody else entirely.

Regarding the cast, only Harden is good. The rest fail to register in one-dimensional and in many cases underwritten and under-utilised roles. Eric Johnson phones it in at some parts and overdoes it in others as the painfully clichéd villain. More problematic once more are the two leads, and the chemistry is next to zero once more. Understated can be a lovely quality to acting, as long as it also becomes nuanced and with believability given to the dialogue. Dakota Johnson, especially in the first third, is too understated that it feels more like there is a lack of personality or emotion. Jamie Dornan looks uncomfortable throughout, delivers his cringe-worthy lines awkwardly and is just bland as dishwater with no charisma whatsoever. Chemistry is non-existent.

Again, the dialogue does no favours, dialogue so bad that absolutely nobody (even the best actors and actresses) can do anything with it. It would even be beneath actors and actresses who can't act to save their lives, and there is just as plenty of those around. It causes unintentional laughter throughout, is embarrassingly clunky and is pure smut. Then there is the story, even though it is the film with the most plot it still is so thin structurally, heavy in repetition, so badly plodding and without style or atmosphere that the film feels twice as long. Even with attempts to give more raunchiness and kinkiness, as well as edge, none of what goes on comes over naturally. Everything is horribly contrived and silly, with a climax that feels out of place and conflict that lacks tension and is instead unintentionally silly. The sex scenes are passionless and less than erotic.

Concluding, while very marginally the best of the three 'Fifty Shades Freed' pretty dreadful still. It is very early on in the year but my prediction will be by the end of it the film would still be one of the worst of the year. 2/10 Bethany Cox

Hopefully, as a heterosexual female student in her twenties with a love of film that spreads across all genres and decades, this will come over as a fair assessment of a film that genuinely did nothing for me.

Like as was said in my review for 'Fifty Shades of Grey', have not read the books, though have heard conflicting opinions that has mostly been intense dislike. The reason for watching 'Fifty Shades Darker' was not due to wanting to hate on it, being a negative person, curiosity but for the reason of being at a film night with friends (who liked the books) recently and 'Fifty Shades Darker', like with 'Fifty Shades of Grey', happened to be the film choice. Just for the record, the general consensus ranged from indifference to hating it with a passion.

'Fifty Shades Darker' is a small improvement over its predecessor but not by much. The flaws are still the same but it's not as quite as near-irredeemably bad, and it at least tries to give some raunchy edge while not exactly succeeding.

Once again, the beguiling soundtrack, that has a soothing nostalgia and appropriately amorous quality, is the best thing about it. It also looks good, nice use of scenery and very nicely shot. There is one acting bright spot, which is Marcia Gay Harden who does very well with her role.

However, the same flaws are all here. Like 'Fifty Shades of Grey', Danny Elfman's score is one-note and repetitive, as well as too derivative of his recent work. He has composed some wonderful stuff ('Edward Scissorhands' is magical) but this is really not his best work. Despite the change of director, the directing style feels too mannered and there is a real sense that the director was ill-suited to material that is beneath him, after all he's done stuff like 'House of Cards' and 'Glengarry Glenn Ross'.

The rest of the supporting cast fail to stand out, with Kim Basinger having little to do, next to nothing actually. More problematic once more are the two leads, and the chemistry is next to zero once more. Understated can be a lovely quality to acting, as long as it also becomes nuanced and with believability given to the dialogue. Dakota Johnson, especially in the first third, is too understated that it feels more like there is a lack of personality or emotion. Jamie Dornan looks uncomfortable throughout, delivers his cringe-worthy lines awkwardly and is just bland as dishwater with no charisma whatsoever. Chemistry is non-existent.

Again, the dialogue does no favours, dialogue so bad that absolutely nobody (even the best actors and actresses) can do anything with it. It causes unintentional laughter throughout, is embarrassingly clunky and is pure smut. Then there is the story that is so thin structurally, heavy in repetition, so badly plodding and without style or atmosphere that the film feels twice as long. Even with attempts to give more raunchiness and kinkiness, as well as edge, none of it comes over naturally, feeling horribly contrived. The rest of it is done far too tamely and the BDSM portrayal is still deceitful. The characters are little more than ciphers.

Overall, a small improvement but still pretty dreadful even when giving it a fair chance. 2/10 Bethany Cox

Hopefully, as a heterosexual female student in her twenties with a love of film that spreads across all genres and decades, this will come over as a fair assessment of a film that genuinely did nothing for me.

Have not read the books, though have heard conflicting opinions that has mostly been intense dislike. The reason for watching 'Fifty Shades of Grey' was not due to wanting to hate on it, being a negative person, curiosity but for the reason of being at a film night with friends recently and 'Fifty Shades of Grey' happened to be the film choice. Just for the record, the general consensus ranged from indifference to hating it with a passion.

There are two minor pros. The best thing about 'Fifty Shades of Grey' is most of the beguiling soundtrack, that has a soothing nostalgia and appropriately amorous quality, this is all for the song choices though. 'Fifty Shades of Grey' also looks good, nice use of scenery and very nicely shot.

On the other hand, Danny Elfman's score is one-note and repetitive, as well as too derivative of his recent work. He has composed some wonderful stuff ('Edward Scissorhands' is magical) but this is really not his best work. The direction has slickness but overall is too mannered which really affects the film's tone and pacing.

Regarding the acting, none of the supporting cast are of note, including Marcia Gay Harden, but a larger issue is the two leads and their complete lack of chemistry. Understated can be a lovely quality to acting, as long as it also becomes nuanced and with believability given to the dialogue. Dakota Johnson, especially in the first third, is too understated that it feels more like there is a lack of personality or emotion. Jamie Dornan looks uncomfortable throughout, delivers his cringe-worthy lines awkwardly and is just bland as dishwater with no charisma whatsoever. Chemistry is non-existent.

'Fifty Shades of Grey's' dialogue does them absolutely no favours, dialogue so bad that absolutely nobody (even the best actors and actresses) can do anything with it. It causes unintentional laughter throughout, is embarrassingly clunky and is pure smut. Then there is the story that is so thin structurally, heavy in repetition, so badly plodding and without style or atmosphere that the film feels twice as long, with the sexual elements done far too tamely and the BDSM portrayal deceitful. None of the characters are engaging or interesting, practically ciphers.

All in all, a very poor film with two minor pros and the rest of the film massively flawed. 2/10 Bethany Cox