Reviews by Kyle Ellis

Found myself enjoying the first 'Happy Death Day' quite a bit, though it did have its flaws. It had a very interesting concept which it made the most of but could have done even more with it. This sequel when hearing of it intrigued me with what it would do with its concept and it looked pretty cool but part of me felt nervous, questioning its neccesity, how it would hold its own, whether it would do anything new or be too much more of the same.

'Happy Death Day 2 U' to me was a watchable sequel that doesn't exactly disgrace the first film, while with room for quite a fair bit of improvement. It is not too more of the same and tries to build upon what we saw before, but also could have been fresher and not tried too hard in the story execution. It is not amateurish, is appealingly played and has enough amusement and atmosphere, at the same time it is not near as focused as the previous film.

Will start with the good. The photography is stylish rather than slapdash, the editing has suitably unnerving moments and the lighting is atmospheric. Christopher Landon never lets it get too heavy while not diluting the fun or scares, and the at times haunting and at others times funky soundtrack adds a lot.

There is a lot of humour, more so than scares actually, and again generally it's knowing and firmly tongue in cheek. There could have been more scares and suspense but when they were there there was some creepiness, or so to me. The acting is solid, but Jessica Rothe is great and one of the main reasons to see 'Happy Death Day 2 U'. The character chemistry is appealing and not forced.

As aforementioned however, although seldom dull the story was much more focused before and slicker. The second half especially, thought the film started off great actually and held my attention, tries to do too much and can get over-complicated. The time dimensions stuff, focused on a little too heavily, could have had more clarity. Neither the comedy or horror feel as fresh. Some staleness in some of the gags and as said the scares and suspense are not enough.

Despite the solid acting, the character writing is superficial. It was in the previous film too but before it felt more self-aware and acknowledgable of that, didn't get as much of that sense here. 'Happy Death Day 2 U' does get increasingly silly in the plotting on top of lack of sense and logic towards the killer reveal. Once again the killer reveal underwhelms, hugely underdeveloped, rushed and confusingly head-scratching.

In conclusion, enjoyed the first but this sequel left me conflicted. 5/10

Saw 'Happy Death Day' as somebody who was fascinated by the concept, found the advertising interesting and good enough to warrant a view and who appreciates horror when done well. Seeing it just before Halloween as part of my Halloween celebrations, will admit to not being as bowled over by the film as would have liked but enjoying it a good deal.

As surprisingly interesting as the advertising was (and there has been some dreadful advertising this year, a notable recent example being the completely mis-marketed 'Geostorm'), it is also misleading. One would expect a truly frightening film judging from the trailers, but actually 'Happy Death Day' happened to be much more than what was indicated and wasn't what one would call terrifying or sleep-with-the-light-on-for-a-week. The good news is that 'Happy Death Day' actually makes the most of its concept, refreshing having seen films recently that had concepts that they didn't do anywhere near enough with. The not so good news is that as enjoyable as it was it did feel like something was missing.

It is easy to see why lots of people will like, and have liked 'Happy Death Day'. It is just as easy to see why it will be, and has been, a let-down for others. My opinion has shades of both, leaning towards the former. 'Happy Death Day' may be somewhat standard (while the concept is a pretty unique one, some of the story elements aren't), superficial (other than the lead character, the characters are developed very flimsily) and some parts don't make as much sense as they could and feel unfinished.

Was expecting more from the killer twist reveal, which is not as clever and surprising as one would like and the whole ending felt rather silly and rushed to me (the killer's motive also came over as really trivial for an elaborate set-up). A little slow to begin with too, it's once the concept kicks in when 'Happy Death Day' properly comes to life and maintains that energy for the rest of the film.

For all those faults though, 'Happy Death Day' is also refreshingly self-aware, almost very much aware of its standard-ness and superficiality and acknowledges it, and manages to be lots of fun, creepy-suspenseful and surprisingly thought-provoking. Gruesomely funny sums it up very well.

'Happy Death Day' is a long way from amateurish visually, the photography is stylish rather than slapdash, the editing has suitably unnerving moments and the lighting is atmospheric. Christopher Landon never lets it get too heavy while not diluting the fun or scares, and the at times haunting and at others times funky soundtrack adds a lot.

When it comes to the script, 'Happy Death Day' is full of knowing humour and never removes its tongue from its cheek, instead keeping it firmly intact throughout which proved to come off really well. It also really makes one think. The story execution is not perfect, but it's never dull and has some neat twists and turns that stops it from being predictable and repetitive.

Jessica Rothe should become a bigger star after her excellent lead turn here, she has been acting a few years before this but this is the first time where she really held my attention and allowed me to take proper notice of her. Israel Broussard is also very believable and the two have great chemistry together. The acting on the whole is solid but essentially it's all about Rothe and she is one of the main reasons why 'Happy Death Day' is worth a viewing.

Overall, a long way from perfect but quite enjoyable. 6/10 Bethany Cox

The Meaning of Life is not for everyone. It is very tasteless, but it is often brilliant too. The film is uneven of course but it is very funny. It looks good, the direction is solid and the dialogue and gags are witty, unique and inspired. The acting and comic timing from Graham Chapman, Eric Idle, Terry Gilliam, John Cleese, Michael Palin and Terry Jones is impeccable too. And there are some genuinely funny moments such as the sequence in which a financial institution is boarded by swashbuckling pirates and Every Sperm is Sacred. However, some of the middle half borders on the dull side, while the war parody is overlong and the sequence in which a glutton explosively overeats is incredibly grotesque(one word of advice: don't watch this sequence while eating). Overall though, it is funny and clever. 7/10 Bethany Cox

This biopic on "the worst director of all time" Ed Wood Jnr is utterly brilliant from start to finish. From its exhilarating beginning, helped by Howard Shore's brilliant score and Jeffrey Jones's delightful turn as Criswell, it completely gripped me. For me it isn't only one of Burton's better movies, but also one of the better movies of 1994. Tim Burton's works are admittedly strange and offbeat, and while people mayn't like that, I do. And that is why I loved this film, it was funny, it was touching, it was strange(well sort of) and it was offbeat. It is gorgeously shot, with black and white photography that is really a marvel to the eyes, and Burton lovingly directs. The script is funny and poignant, and the restoration of Wood's productions are astonishing. It was even nice to see Plan 9 From Outer Space, I know that critics cite it as the worst movie ever made, but there are other people who consider it as a "so bad it's good" movie, the way I have heard people talk about the film, whether they love or hate it, is quite fascinating. And the performances are brilliant; Johnny Depp is amazing as Ed Wood, portraying him as an optimist and an "anguished cross-dresser", and Martin Landau is absolutely superb as Bela Lugosi. Sarah Jessica Parker and Patricia Arquette are alluring and convincing as Delores and Kathy, and as Bunny Bill Murray does well even if Bunny could've been developed a little more. Overall, gripping, funny, touching and brilliant. 10/10 Bethany Cox

I don't consider Casino Scorsese's very best film(Goodfellas is my personal favourite), but it is a fantastic film and definitely one to see. It is shocking, disturbing and unflinching in places, particularly the part where a head gets squeezed in a vice, but that added to the atmosphere rather than distracted from it.

Casino is brilliantly made too. I loved the setting, the cinematography and editing are outstanding and never take away from the atmosphere, and Martin Scorsese's direction is superb. The realism the film has is always absorbing, the subplots that form the story are intriguing and the characters are adeptly drawn.

The story for me has seldom a dull moment, not with the subplots as intriguing as they are, how well made it is, how good the characters and acting are. The characters also are deliberately less endearing than are seen with Goodfellas, making it perhaps a more even portrayal of unorganised crime, but the decision to do that paid off. The acting is equally impressive. Robert DeNiro the great actor he is is incredibly charismatic, Joe Pesci gives his best performance in one of his more meatier roles and Sharon Stone(who has never been this good or even sexy before) is a revelation in a very demanding role.

Overall, hugely compelling and underrated. 10/10 Bethany Cox

Not one of Martin Scorsese's best films by a long shot (though he has also done worse). This said, as said in my review for 'Hugo', even when Scorsese was not at his best the films in question were still better than the worst films of most. This is also coming from a director who when at his best, like with 'Goodfellas', 'Raging Bull' and 'Taxi Driver' for examples, gave some of the best films out there.

'Cape Fear' is a remake of the 1962 film with Gregory Peck and Robert Mitchum. While the remake may be slicker visually (the earlier film is still very well made instead, but Scorsese's film is gorgeously audacious) and be bigger and more expansive in its themes and character complexities, there is a vast personal preference for the more atmospheric, creepier and more eerie earlier film, one that didn't need excessive violence, gore or profanity to deliver the shocks, with an ending that was a masterclass in sexual tension and quivering fear and Mitchum unforgettably burning into the memory as how to haunt one's nightmares wile doing it in a much more subtle way.

This is in no way denouncing Scorsese's film though. It is not as good (often very good though with major problems, while the 1962 film to me is a near-masterpiece let down only by the female characters not being as interesting) and perhaps not necessary. However, compared to how a lot of remakes have fared, which has seen abominations like the remakes for 'Psycho' and 'The Wicker Man' that should never have been made in the first place, it isn't halfway bad and hardly an amateur project.

Where Scorsese does score over the 1962 film is in two things. One is the more expanded upon relationship between Cady and Danielle, which is genuinely disturbing and effectively makes the skin crawl as ought, it also further added to what was an already sadistic human monster (or shall we say psychopath?) like Cady. Even more so of an improvement is the portrayal of the Bowden family, instead of being humble and neatly black and white like it could have been (not knocking the 1962 film here) each member were portrayed as flawed characters with strengths and vulnerabilities, and much more of a family falling apart at the seams.

Visually, 'Cape Fear' looks fantastic, the use of cinematic techniques not only dazzling in technical beauty but also adding a lot to the horror-like atmosphere rather than distracting. That is not surprising considering that it is the work of the great Freddie Francis, achieving great success with the likes of Amicus and Hammer. The film cleverly utilises Bernard Hermann's wonderful score from the 1962 film, arranged and conducted by Elmer Bernstein, there was the worry as to whether it would sound melodramatic, exaggerated and anachronistic in this particular film when it worked so brilliantly in the 1962 film, but it actually succeeded in giving the film a real eeriness and dramatic thrust and tension.

A good deal of 'Cape Fear' is hugely entertaining. The first half in particular is rich in dreaded suspense and genuine entertainment. There are too scenes that chill the blood, like the scene between Cady and Lori and that between him and Kersek. Scorsese directs adeptly, often with a visual mastery, a knack of suspense and compelling character interaction.

Robert De Niro's performance has been praised for being terrifying but also criticised for being over the top to the point of being a cartoon, both valid opinions. To me, while there is a much bigger preference for the creepier but more understated Mitchum and there are times where De Niro does fall into overdone parody, it is a very powerful and often scary performance in a fascinating, chilling and larger than life role, apart from the unstoppable Terminator-like traits in place bordering on the cartoonish. Nick Nolte does a very good job, bringing intensity and empathy to a morally ambiguous character that is written as much more than a heroic sort of role.

Juliette Lewis' performance has also polarised viewers, again to me she was compelling in her rebellious attitude and sexual curiosity but also in the ability to think straight. Joe Don Baker is the standout in support and a casting highlight, a very strong performance. Having Peck and Mitchum (and Martin Balsam) in cameo roles the anti-thesis of their 1962 'Cape Fear' characters was a masterstroke.

However, was not crazy about Jessica Lange, a very good actress. She didn't have an easy character to play, one with not a lot to do and one who seems to be in permanent shock and terror, but Lange both overdoes it and phones it in to the point that the character is annoying. While absorbing most of the time, especially in the first and second acts, a few of the Cady character building scenes did drag and go on for too long, 20-25 minutes trimming may have made things better.

More problematic was that the thicker the story got the more excessive it got too. Especially suffering is the ridiculously unintentionally funny and illogical scene where Kersek's body is found and an ending that is ludicrously overblown and missing the suspense, sexual tension and quivering fear (plus that masterly improvisation touch with the egg) conveyed so unforgettably in the 1962 film. The violence did disturb a good deal, but at numerous times it didn't feel necessary, sometimes less-is-more and more atmosphere is better, and felt over-the-top, cartoony and more at place in a graphic cartoon or something.

All in all, inferior but still surprisingly well done despite being a long way from perfect. 7/10 Bethany Cox

David Cronenberg may not be one of my all-time favourite directors, but do admire him greatly. Even he is not a personal favourite, he is for me one of the most interesting and unique directors out there, his directing style, his themes and how he explores them and how he manages to get the best out of talented actors. He may be one of the originators of the "body horror" genre, but his films are much more than just full on gore and horror, a good deal of his films are disturbing and weird sure but there is humour and emotion in his films too.

All of this is exemplified in 'Dead Ringers'. Do consider it one of his best films and one of my favourites of his too, one of his finest triumphs and also Jeremy Irons' (have said a couple of times about loving him as an actor, one who is deservedly lauded but also deserving of more credit due to a hit and miss filmography, even in the misses he is more often than not a redeeming quality but even then he has been generally deserving of better material for a while now) biggest triumph. Some people might find it weird and slow, from personal view 'Dead Ringers', loosely based on a true story, left me transfixed and from the first time of seeing it it became a personal favourite. It is one of the most disturbing and wonderfully strange films seen by me, but it is also one of the Cronenberg films that connected with me emotionally too (some may disagree with this) and by Cronenberg standards to me it is one of his most accessible.

'Dead Ringers' is one of Cronenberg's best looking films, showing his mastery of visual accomplishment and special effects. Not just looking sleek and stylish, but it also features some of the cleverest and most complex camera work of any Cronenberg film, primarily in the use of split screen when Elliot and Beverly are on screen at the same time and that of travelling matte, done so seamlessly with no obviousness at all to the point of being undetectable. The use of computer technology for positions of the split and camera is also ingenious and still looks great now, it is not over-utilised and certainly not abused, any obviousness is not here either.

Howard Shore's, a Cronenberg regular, score adds a lot. It is hauntingly beautiful, understated in places and unsettling in others as well as melancholic in a slightly dark way. When one hears the score on its own, which then is wonderful in its own right, and then reads of the film or its synopsis (far creepier than the music indicates perhaps), one may think do the two go together and would the score feel at odds. To me the two did go very well together, really liked and appreciated that Shore didn't go for the obvious jump scare in a sudden instrumental sound, ominous bass line, effectively shrill strings or synthesised touches. Instead he goes for fitting with the story's emotional core, not something you expect for a film of this type, and the longing quality makes it a surprisingly poignant score. It does heavily contribute as to why the opening titles sequence, which is also truly beautifully designed with the drawings and design of the instruments seen being quite ominous, is one of my favourite opening title sequences ever and this is meant seriously.

Cronenberg's direction is a big star here. He manages to make the atmosphere very unnerving without being over-reliant on gore, some in sight but appropriately muted yet still creepy in its own way, instead of overtly grisly, and as ever shows a mastery of visual style and effects. He still manages to maintain enough momentum in the story's deliberately reserved first portion to still make it compelling. The script has a good deal of talk, especially in the first portion, but didn't feel overly heavy on it, while also being thought-probing. A lot of meat here, and meat that is lean and without fat or parts that are unintentionally funny (even the dialogue in the opening scene).

The story is structured beautifully and while deliberate at times it never felt dull to me, the reserved, subtle feel of the early parts of the film, where things were setting up and developing, is not something one associates for the genre or if thinking of Cronenberg but is beautifully done and was appreciated, the relationships between the characters (especially between the brothers and the sibling rivalry) well established and interesting. The more the film progressed the more unsettling, in a devillish sort of way, and quite disturbing it got. Some have said the first half is better, for me the more complex Beverly and Elliot became and the atmosphere became more intense that's when 'Dead Ringers' got even better. It's one of not many films etc. that put me off fertility clinics forever, while the frighteningly gruesome dream sequence and the truly disturbing yet also emotionally devastating last third (namely the operating theatre scene, well everything to do with the operating theatre actually, which to me is one of the most memorable scenes in a Cronenberg film) have long stayed with me whenever watching. The gynecological instruments are also suitably nightmarish. Yet, 'Dead Ringers' is much more than full on horror, Beverly's depression is portrayed very poignantly.

Genevieve Bujold gives an intense and deeply felt performance, it may be easy to forget talking about her with such big impressions left by Cronenberg and Irons but one really shouldn't. She and Irons have a subtle but always believable chemistry. Other than Cronenberg, 'Dead Ringers' biggest star is Irons, magnificent in his career best performance for the ages in two roles, the most challenging and most courageous role(s) of his career, even more so than Humbert Humbert and Claus Von Bulow. Two increasingly complex roles and what was remarkable was how Irons took two characters identical to each other and made them completely different and individual in personality and how they look and behave, doing it with intensity and nuance without overdoing it or making either character too passive (even when one is deliberately stronger in personality than the other). Many say that his performance here was more Oscar-worthy than the performance that got him an Oscar in 'Reversal of Fortune'. Actually think that his win for that performance was a more worthy win in a strong category that year and that he was terrific in that film, but he does give the better performance here in my mind and that he was not even nominated for the big awards (namely Golden Globes and Academy Awards, am aware that 'Dead Ringers' scored big with the Genie Awards but the film and Irons deserved even better than not) is one of the year's biggest and most inexplicable oversights. If asked what the best performance in a Cronenberg film is, Irons' is a very strong contender and in the top 3 if to rank.

Overall, a brilliant film and one of Cronenberg's best and most interesting films. 10/10

David Cronenberg and a vast majority of his films are fascinating and unlike any seen before. As said before, he was/is a pioneer of body horror, but on top of being disturbing and making one feel intentionally uncomfortable the best of his work (the likes of 'Dead Ringers' and 'The Fly') entertain and stir emotion. They are very well made and more often than that boast great performances, with great music scores (mostly Howard Shore) and tackle daring themes in a way that is so unmistakably Cronenberg.

'Scanners' is an early film of Cronenberg. For me, it is not one of his very best or one of my top favourites of his, other films of his were more refined technically somewhat (a few innovative even, like 'Dead Ringers with the split screen) and tackled their themes deeper. It is though one of his best early films, one of his most ambitious early films in terms of themes and concept and perhaps the first "great" one. Ranking it among the rest of his filmoragphy 'Scanners' again from personal opinion is towards the top half.

While not quite one of his best looking films overall, 'Scanners' still does look impressive. Looking much better and more technically advanced than his previous films. There is a lot of atmosphere in the way 'Scanners' is shot and lit and the special effects blend well surprisingly and look much less cheap than a lot of horrors made later. Shore's score is suitably eerie, without ever being obvious, and adds a lot to the unsettlement, if not quite among my favourites of his Cronenberg collaborations. Prefer slightly when he went for the story's emotional core like he did wih particularly 'The Fly'.

Cronenberg's direction is accomplished enough, balances the ambitious (for this early period) expertly and how he depicts the body and how difficult it is to control it is one of 'Scanners' most intriguing assets. The script avoids being too cheesy or clunky and the story is much better than full on horror, which does genuinely disturb and surprise without being gratuitous, but there are elements of sci-fi, which intrigues and thrills, and thriller, where there is just about the right amount of suspense.

The set pieces in 'Scanners' are stunning and suitably churn the stomach. Much has been said for the exploding heads, deservedly so as it is one of the most memorable in any Cronenberg film, but the final apocalyptic battle is a sheer delight. When it comes to the acting, Patrick McGoohan is a welcome sympathetic presence, McGoohan did this trait very well, and Jennifer O'Neill does a lot with her role. The one that stuck out to me though was a deliciously evil Michael Ironside.

Only Stephen Lack's very "lacking" (sorry) acting is a drawback, so painfully limited.

Lack aside, 'Scanners' is otherwise a great landmark genre near-classic. 9/10

There were two main reasons for seeing 'The Dead Zone'. One was for one of the most interesting and unique directors David Cronenberg, who may have pioneered the body horror genre but a good deal of his films are far more than that. The other was for Stephen King, who in my mind is the quintessential "horror" writer, not all his dialogue writing is great and some of his books have bloated moments but his characterisation is so vivid and meaty, the atmosphere of much of his work thoughtful and terrifying and his attention to detail for horror literature is unparallelled. Consider Christopher Walken a great actor too.

As far as Cronenberg, King and Walken films go, 'The Dead Zone' is one of the must sees, even if not perfect. It is one of Cronenberg's most restrained, and mostly conventional, films, especially for back then in his career when his body horror pioneering was being established, being a deliberately paced psychological drama/thriller with a few horror elements. And in a good way, Cronenberg has shown more than once in his career that he can do restrained while still being disturbing well, 'Dead Ringers' (one of his very best in my opinion) is another prime example of this.

It's, 'The Dead Zone' that is, among the best King adaptations too. King adaptations are very hit and miss, there are some outstanding adaptations like 'The Shawshank Redemption', 'Stand By Me' and 'Misery' but also some dross such as 'Children of the Corn', 'Tommyknockers' and 'Sleepwalkers'. Again, by King standards 'The Dead Zone' is pretty restrained and more psychological than full on horror, again done really well. Consider the film version to be one of not very many King adaptations to be better than the source material, most of the time taking a King adaptations on their own terms is in order to avoid severe disappointment at lack of fidelity. It is one of the most faithful King adaptations in detail and spirit, which will delight King fans, while also being very good and nearly great as a standalone and making the dialogue and story tighter for the better and necessary.

Did feel that 'The Dead Zone' is a little too short, would have given it 20 or so minutes more. There is a lot of content packed in, some of it needing more explanation and time (namely in the middle) meaning the film jumps about structurally a bit and abruptly too.

Those are my only problems, though they are quite big. Problems that are vastly outweighed by the good and great things. 'The Dead Zone' is a very well made film, beautifully and creepily shot especially and the lighting also enhances the atmosphere. Michael Kamen's haunting music score is hard to forget and adds so much to the atmosphere, in the horror, thriller and psychological elements. One of my favourite scores in a Cronenberg (whose regular composer was Howard Shore and wrote many great scores for his films, especially 'The Fly') and King film.

Scripting is thoughtful and is tighter and more natural in flow than some of the book's prose. The story has its problems, mainly structurally, but it disturbs (the horror elements inserted not feeling predictable at all) and moves emotionally as well as provokes thought. The thriller has genuine tension. 'The Dead Zone' starts beautifully and compels straightaway but it is the ending that has the most staying power, man that was unsettling. All of this is helped by meaty characterisation and perfectly pitched performances. Best of the bunch is a mesmerisingly vulnerable Walken, one of his best and most subtle performances and one of the best for any Cronenberg (in a list that includes Jeff Goldblum, Jeremy Irons, Viggo Mortensen and James Woods) and King (Morgan Freeman, River Phoenix, Kathy Bates and Tim Curry) film. Brooke Adams is suitably sympathetic and Martin Sheen is both hammy and terrifying.

Concluding, a very good film and towards the better half of Cronenberg's mostly solid but not without its disappointments filmography and one of the best King adaptations. If you are fans of either, 'The Dead Zone' is a must see. 8/10