Reviews by Kyle Ellis

That said, Anaconda is not bad enough to be one of the worst movies ever made. The tropical scenery is splendid, the snakes are impressive and the premise while daft was at least interesting. However, if I were to coin the phrase "absolute poppycock" I would give it to Anaconda. The story was interesting in its concept but it is very predictable with some unbearably silly scenes. Anaconda is also quite poorly paced, sometimes it drags, sometimes it feels rushed. The script is very cheesy and clumsy, and the characters are shallow. The direction is rather murky, and the acting is pretty dire. Jennifer Lopez is very bland in her role here, while Jon Voight is annoying and just awful with a very poorly written character, complete with a horrendous accent(not quite Superbabies:Baby Geniuses 2 horrendous, but still it was dreadful). So overall, it is not good. 3/10 Bethany Cox

What drew me into seeing Hancock in the first place was its idea, which I found one of the most interesting for a film in a while. I am in all honesty not a big fan of Will Smith, but he has given some solid performances so I thought why not.

I have to say that I didn't think Hancock was a bad film as such, it was somewhat underwhelming and I'm sorry to say I do understand the criticisms against it.

Hancock does have a fair number of good points. It is stylishly filmed, with some well above average special effects, the music is dynamic and the directing is solid. The best asset about Hancock is the acting of the three leads.

Will Smith is very commanding, with a lot of subtlety amongst all the wisecracks/gags that don't feel forced(ie.flying under the influence). Charlize Theron shows a glowing presence while also showing a sympathetic side, and Jason Bateman's dry humour contrasts perfectly too.

However, Hancock is a very uneven film. I loved the first half, it was well paced, the script was witty and fresh and the scene where the titular character brings a speeding train to a halt as he can't be bothered to lift the car up from its path is one of the better and relevant scenes of the film.

It is in the second half where Hancock is less than successful. Here the film starts to drag, the script becomes soapy and heavily melodramatic and the film has one of the daftest twists of any film not to have M Night Shyamalan's name on it.

The story's tone isn't the only asset to feel uneven, the script is too, it has wit and freshness in the first half, but becomes mawkish in the second. I also felt that there were only three likable characters(Smith's, Theron's and Bateman's) and the others I barely noticed, with the villain especially flat.

So all in all, an uneven film but not a necessarily bad one. 5/10 Bethany Cox

Warning: Spoilers
That's personal opinion of course. The first X-Men was well made and enjoyable and X2 was an example of a sequel being better than its predecessor with a bigger and darker approach that built on what was introduced in the first and made them more interesting. The X-Men series did however take a big step backwards with X-Men The Last Stand, but while it is the weakest of the series considering the stuff that has been said about it it was better than expected. X-Men The Last Stand boasts great special effects and a visual style that is both flashy and dark, both of which though in an effective way. The photography and editing is slick and you can at least see what's going on. The action scenes mostly come off very well, thrillingly choreographed and passionately performed, and it is at least edited coherently. One particularly striking moment was with Magneto manipulating San Francisco's Golden Gate Bridge to become a highway to Alcatraz.

John Powell's score is not as good as Michael Kamen's or John Ottman for the previous two films and it's not one of his best works either but it is rousing and haunting and in harmony with the story and action. There are some solid performances, as seen with Hugh Jackman whose Wolverine is full of charisma; Patrick Stewart is reliably cool(some not-so-good dialogue but he makes the most of what he has) though deserved more to do; Ian McKellen is wonderfully menacing; Anna Paquin makes a real effort to bring out Rogue's feistiness; Rebecca Romijin-Stamos brings sex appeal and iciness to Mystique, and Kelsey Grammar is a big surprise as Beast(his make-up looks fantastic too), giving a fair amount of depth to the character with wonderful aplomb. The interaction between Iceman-much more comfortably played this time- and Pyro has some genuine tension as well.

X-Men The Last Stand's final action sequence was mixed. Spectacle-wise the final action sequence really delivers and it's very eye-popping but don't go looking for sense and for me it wasn't quite adrenaline-pumping enough. Ratner shows that he is completely comfortable in the action where he directs with a lot of style and technical proficiency but with the non-action parts he does fail to keep the momentum. The main problem really for X-Men The Last Stand was that while it impressed on the action and visual front, the depth, emotion and what made the first two as good as they were(especially the second) is lost. The sharpness of the dialogue that the first two films had is not really present here, the humour's corny, the exposition which the film is relatively heavy in just lumbers and doesn't go anywhere often and the emotional/darker parts feel forced, things that the first two films avoided(the second film being particularly successful). The film is too rushed and tries to incorporate too many interpersonal story lines and too many characters.

As a result, a lot of the story felt plodding and incomplete and what is done with the characters has disappointed many and in my mind was where the film fell down hard. Angel is just useless here and Jean Grey/Phoenix had real potential but she was very underwritten. Cyclops, Colossus and Xavier are all short-shrifted as well and when the most memorable of the Mutants(Juggernaut)- excepting Magneto- is not very interesting either you know there's something wrong. The main characters are either out of character or distorted, Wolverine is moody for the sake of it here whereas he had a good amount of depth as an anti-hero previously and Magneto now has been reduced to a one-dimensional villain. With the Mutants the film never goes into detail about how they became to be and why, you just get the sense that they are evil for the sake of being so. And there are performances that don't come off, Famke Janssen actually does do her best but how Jean Grey/Phoenix is written works severely against her, Vinnie Jones is one-note and annoying as Juggernaut and while Storm is more prominently developed Halle Berry's performance is even blander, didn't think it would be possible, than in the first two where Storm was one of the least interesting characters. The rest don't have enough to work with to make an impression, it was saddening really for Angel to be such a wasted opportunity and for three major characters to be killed off so indifferently.

Overall, not terrible but disappointing and I do have to agree with the consensus that it is the weakest of a mostly very good series of films. 5/10 Bethany Cox

I don't think that this is one of Mel Brooks' finest hours, but it was reasonably entertaining, though as far as Brooks' films go The Producers and Young Frankenstein are more entertaining and I think more watchable. The story is very thin, the pacing is somewhat uneven feeling rushed or draggy, the gags are hit and miss(in the timing some of the time as it is all very manic humour wise) and there are some very silly and unfunny puns scattered in the course of the film. However, the visuals are great, the music is quirky and some gags are funny especially the speed scene which was both ludicrous and hilarious and Spaceballs has a great cast. It is always a delight to see Mel Brooks(who also directs decently), John Candy, Rick Moranis(who gets the best moments) and Bill Pullman, and they all give good performances. Overall, noisy and uneven, but it is entertaining thanks to the cast. 6/10 Bethany Cox

I agree Indianna Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is the weakest of the series and has a lot of flaws. But it is not a bad movie. The story is not as well-thought out and paced, the script lacks that extra wit and energy, the film can get too slow and Cate Blanchett is wasted with a rather unexceptional character. And the film is perhaps a tad too long too. But.. it does look great, the costumes, sets and cinematography are still truly fabulous, and the music score is rousing enough. The action is often breathtaking, such as the motorcycle chase through a university campus, the pursuit through the Amazon Jungle, the giant ants, the secret passageways and even the alien visitors, and I liked the old school stunts. Harrsion Ford displays a good amount of world-weary charm, and Shia LaBoeuf is likable enough. Overall, it lacks excitement but it is not a bad film by all means. 6/10 Bethany Cox

While it was not a perfect series (William Shatner's overacting, less than great production values and an iffy Season 3), the original 'Star Trek' series was a genre landmark and hugely influential and ground-breaking, also a mostly great series in its own right especially for the characters, the relationships and Leonard Nimoy's Spock.

The films based on the original series were a mixed bag. A few great ones with 'The Wrath of Khan', 'The Voyage Home' and 'The Undiscovered Country', one in-between film with 'The Search for Spock' and disappointments with 'The Motion Picture' and particularly 'The Final Frontier'. There were ten 'Star Trek' films before this 2009 reboot, four being based on the 'Next Generation series where the only outstanding one was 'First Contact'. 'Generations to me was another in-between film and 'Insurrection' and 'Nemesis' were two other particularly problematic ones.

'Star Trek' (2009) is neither one of the best of the films or one of the worst, if anything it's another in-between effort while being marginally better than the other two in-between films. There are a lot of impressive elements and some major flaws that stop it from being the great prequel that it had potential to be.

Visually, the film mostly looks great. Particularly good is the set for the Enterprise which not only amazes visually but one of the elements that sticks close to the original series. The special effects are mainly fantastic and leave one in awe, while there is audacious and suitably moody cinematography and atmospheric lighting. By all means it is not perfect visually, there is the distracting overuse of lens flares that was in serious need of a toning down, it was a technique that was abused somewhat, didn't feel necessary in some scenes and is not particularly comfortable sometimes to look at.

Michael Giacchino delivers another winner of a music score, don't remember ever being disappointed by this man. Sure it is familiar, but it fits very well with the film and its mood and is unmistakable Giacchino, a beautiful score to listen to and has a lot of atmosphere.

There are some thought-provoking moments in the script and it doesn't feel too talky which is true in spirit to the original series. Where it doesn't fare so well is the comic relief, there is a little too much of it and some of it wasn't particularly funny and seemed superfluous as well.

Regarding the story, 'Star Trek' (2009) evoked mixed reactions from me. It is rich in atmosphere and has some thrilling moments and truly exciting action, while the interplay between Kirk and Spock is brilliantly written and makes one feel quite nostalgic. Most of it is easy to follow. Less good are some bogus science, some parts that are convoluted and could have benefited from more explanation and Nero's plan and motivation being underdeveloped, confused and inconsistent. It is also too big and noisy in spectacle and could have quietened down to give room for more characterisation. One of the original series' strengths too was the characters and how they were developed and interacted, other than Kirk, McCoy and Spock there wasn't enough of that with most of them like Nero being far too one-dimensional.

Casting is mostly good but with a couple of misses. Zachary Quinto in particular nails it as Spock with huge shoes to fill, capturing perfectly what was so iconic about the character in the first place. Another great contribution is a suitably cantankerous Karl Urban, who remains loyal to DeForrest Kelley's interpretation without being an impersonation. Chris Pine did very well and is certainly more subtle than William Shatner, the character isn't likable at first but evolves and Pine brings that out. Zoe Saldana is fiery and sexy and Bruce Greenwood is good fun. It was nice to see Nimoy again as Old Spock and brought a nostalgic and affectionate element. Bana has some menace and does his best, but there are admittedly far more interesting villains in other 'Star Trek' films.

Not everybody works. Simon Pegg, who is usually a very entertaining guy, is beyond irritating comic relief with Scotty coming over as a caricature. Anton Yelchin has also given much better performances, he badly overdoes it as Chekhov.

In conclusion, fun and impressive often but with some major flaws at the same time. Nothing comes over disastrously though. 6.5-7/10 Bethany Cox

'Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice' was not as awful as reputed, but was a huge disappointment. With the cast it had and the characters it was going to have in it it had the potential. It is such a shame that, despite some bright spots, Zach Snyder badly bungles its execution.

The best things about 'Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice' are the final battle and Ben Affleck. The final battle, which takes up much of the final 40 minutes, is explosively thrilling, dynamically choreographed, passionately performed and beautifully shot. That's true of all of the action actually. Am usually not a big fan of Affleck, but he does do a surprisingly great job as Batman. The casting could have been disastrous but Affleck gives a brooding intensity to the character and more range than he usually exudes. Other bright spots in the cast are Jeremy Irons' very amusing Alfred, Amy Adams' feisty if somewhat underused Lois Lane and particularly Gal Gadot's positively show-stopping Wonder Woman.

Visually, 'Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice' mostly looks good, with the sole exceptions of some very jumpy editing and the rather artificial-looking Doomsday. It's beautifully shot however and boldly dark and gritty look fits beautifully within the story. Hans Zimmer's music score has many moments of sheer power and beauty, one of his more dynamic and involving scores in recent years.

These great things are unfortunately outweighed by the bad. The weakest asset of 'Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice' is the story, which only really comes to life in the last forty minutes. In the meantime it takes seemingly forever to get there with a particularly ham-fisted, rambling and dull first hour. Another big problem with the story is that it's overstuffed, from trying to insert so many ideas, subplots and characters, and too often under-cooked dramatically, from too many of the characters being given short shrift and from too many of the subplots being underdeveloped, discarded or at the end of the day unnecessary. Half an hour's trimming at least would have made it far better already.

Snyder is great in visual style and in the action, but in the drama, which is a mess of overwrought and undercooked, and storytelling he does flounder badly here. The script is at best clunky and dreary, with few moments that evoke thought, very few moments resonate emotionally and the funnier quirkier scenes apart from with Irons seem misplaced. Pacing is all over the place, with some parts feeling jumpy and then most parts in serious begging of a steroid shot. While there are some bright spots in the cast, too many of the performances don't come off well. Jesse Eisenberg is the biggest problem, his manic and almost comical Lex Luthor belongs in another film entirely, while Henry Cavill is stiff and ill at ease this time round as Superman complete with limited expression. Laurence Fishburne tries his best and has moments but he doesn't blend as well as he could have done. And to say that the film makes a complete waste of Doomsday, who was non-threatening and pretty pointless actually, is an insult to the word wasted.

In conclusion, the potential was high but despite some bright spots 'Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice' misses the mark. 4/10 Bethany Cox