Reviews by Kyle Ellis

My apologies, but this review is going to be a bit frantic due to my brain being so oxygen-starved by the novel’s breath-stealing gorgeousness that I'm feeling a bit light-headed. So please forgive the random thoughts.

First: Mary Shelley…I love you!!

Second: Dear Hollywood - you lying dung pile of literature-savaging, no talent hacks…you got this all wrong. Please learn to read and get yourself a copy of the source material before you FUBAR it again.

Third: My heart shattered for the “monster” and I haven’t felt this strong a desire to “hug it out, bitch” since reading Grendel and Crooked Letter, Crooked Letter. The “wretch” is so well drawn and powerfully portrayed that he form the emotional ligament for the entire story. He is among the finest creations the written form has to offer.

Fourth: As surprised as I am to be saying this, this novel has ousted Dracula as my all time favorite of the classic horror stories…sorry Bram, but the good/evil, sad, desperate loneliness of the orphaned monster trying to find a purpose and to define himself in the world trumps The Count.

Five:
No one can conceive the variety of feelings which bore me onwards, like a hurricane, in the first enthusiasm of success. Life and death appeared to me ideal bounds, which I should first break through, and pour a torrent of light into our dark world. A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me. No father could claim the gratitude of his child so completely as I should deserve theirs. Pursuing these reflections, I thought that if I could bestow animation upon lifeless matter, I might in process of time (although I now found it impossible) renew life where death had apparently devoted the body to corruption.
As gorgeous as the prose is, I thought it a crime not to include at least one quote.

Six: The “non-explanation” for the process that Victor uses to create the monster is thing of genius. No other approach could have possibly conveyed the majesty and significance of the achievement, because we would have known it was bullshit. Shelley did it perfectly…which leads me nicely into…

Seven: The corny, slapdash lightning scene is entirely a work of Hollywood? There’s …NO…lightning…scene? Are you kidding me? Even Kenneth Branagh’s supposedly “true” adaptation had electric eels providing power to the “it’s alive” process. All of it bunk. I’ll say it again, Hollywood is a bunch of useless tools. . LIARS!!!

Eight: Speaking of tools, Victor Frankenstein is a giant one. As far as I am concerned, he is clearly the villain of the piece. However, what I found so squee-inducingly magical about Shelly’s writing was my degree of vacillation when it came to Victor’s character. I liked and even admired Victor in the beginning of the story and found his personal journey compelling. He was a genius driven by his desire to unlock the secrets of the universe and had that manic, “mad scientist” focus necessary to the accomplishment of such a lofty goal. However, once the “birth” of the monster came, I found myself waffling back and forth throughout the rest of the story. Ironically, his moment of success and his reaction to life he had conjured was when he began to lose his humanity in my eyes.

His treatment of the monster was abhorrent. Despite this, Shelley was able to get me to see over my disgust and appreciate Frankenstein’s position and understand why he was so unwilling to continence the existence of “the wretch.” Not enough for me to forgive his lack of compassion, but enough for me to see him as a tragic figure. Huge propers for Shelley as that is excellent writing.

Nine: I would place the monster among the finest literary creations of all time. This singular manifestation of humanity’s scientific brilliance and callous indifference to the consequences thereof is masterfully done. Frankenstein’s “wretch” became the prototype of the literary outcast and every “misunderstood” creature since has been offspring from his loins. His character profile is phenomenal, and just as Victor’s actions garner sporadic moments of understanding for his cruel treatment of the monster, so the monster’s wanton acts of vile cruelty severely test our compassion for him. Tested, bent and stretched, but, for me at least, never broken. I understood his pain…I understood his anger…I understood.

Ten: No spoilers here, but the final resolution of the relationship between Victor and the child of his genius was…stellar. Everything was reconciled and nothing was resolved. The final reckoning occurs and it is both momentous and useless.

Eleven: I expected the prose to be good but, having never read Shelley before, I was still surprised by how exceptional and ear-pleasing it was. Her writing really resonated with me and I loved her ability to weave emotion, plot momentum and a high literary quotient seamlessly together. Good, good stuff.

Twelve: The novel is structured as an epistolary nesting doll using the frame story of Captain Walton corresponding with his sister about his expedition to the North Pole. While at the top of the world, Walton finds Victor Frankenstein stranded. This sets up the dovetail into Walton relaying Victor’s story which takes up the bulk of the novel and includes within it the incredibly poignant story of the “monster” in the creature’s own words. It is superbly executed and I thought the framing device was very effective.

Thirteen: Despite my trashing of the movie versions earlier, there was one scene that I thought was handled far better on screen than in this story. Kenneth Branagh’s portrayal of (view spoiler) was far more chilling than Shelley’s more subdued recounting. I actually anticipated this segment being far more shocking and I was a tad let down as a result. This is probably my only gripe about the book.

Fourteen: On my list of all time favorite novels. The writing, the story, the characters, the emotion, the imagery, the power…all off the charts.

6.0 stars. HIGHEST POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATION!

P.S.(or Fifteen:) I listened to the audio version of this read by Simon Vance and his performance was extraordinary, especially his portrayal of the “monster.” Definitely check it out if you are a consumer of audio books.

I personally have no real problem with 3D, as long as it is done well and has a good story and characters. Sadly, that's where The Adventures of SharkBoy and Lava Girl fails. I like Robert Rodriguez and thought his first two Spy Kids movies were very enjoyable and while mediocre I actually thought the third Spy Kids film was better than this too. I will give some credit, the moral is decent if hardly original and there is some energy. But everything else falls flat.

People might say the art direction was colourful and pleasing to the eye. Sorry, for me it was very tacky, gaudy and brash. And as for the 3D, it is actually some of the worst I've seen, it needed more clarity and sharpness and sometimes moved too fast. Also I found it distracting in alternative to enhancing. The soundtrack is rather plodding, generic and unmemorable too.

The script is absolutely awful too. Any parts that tried to be funny made me roll my eyes to be perfectly honest with you, while the story is unevenly paced and very weak and predictable. The characters are just as weak and bland too, the two main characters have their likable moments but there is little chemistry between them and the audience while the supporting characters fare even worse suffering either from being underused or overacted. Overall, the acting is very uneven and way too broad in some cases.

Other disappointments are the poor pace and plodding direction from Rodriguez. So in conclusion, the result is a pretty awful, overstuffed and disappointing effort of a family film. 1/10 Bethany Cox

The 1973 film for me while slightly missing out on the classic status was very effective and well done, very bizarre and disturbing when it needed to be and elevated by a brilliant Christopher Lee especially. Anyway that is enough, for I am not going to try comparing the film to this dross. Both this and the Psycho remakes were completely unnecessary and awful on their own terms, but if I had to edge out which was worse, Psycho but that is not saying much.

This remake of The Wicker Man may be glossy, it may be expensive, but guess what? In my opinion, it was completely and utterly pointless as well. It was hilarious but for all the wrong reasons, whether it is the meaningless plot change about Nicolas Cage's character being allergic to bees or the finale, which was way overdone in the sense I couldn't stop laughing.

The film certainly looks glossy and expensive, but that's the thing, they overdo it with the visuals as well so it all looks flashy with no sense of melancholy or menace underneath. And I can't count the number of scenes that were dumbed or dulled down, even the pagan May Day rituals weren't that convincing, not to mention the plot, dull, thin and meandering. The script is sorely lacking as well the dialogue at worst was absolutely laughable, as is the direction, and I was not impressed by the acting either. Nicolas Cage is an uninspired lead literally sleepwalking through his role, while Kate Beahan and Ellen Burstyn(who was so brilliant in Requiem for a Dream) can't do anything with their characters, no surprise seeing as the script leaves them little to work with.

Overall, a real mess of a remake with next to no redeeming qualities. The bottom line is give it a pass and watch the far superior original instead. 1/10 Bethany Cox

I didn't see Jaws:The Revenge until recently, after hearing so many bad things about it. And I do wish I left it alone, this has a reputation on the whole as being one of the worst sequels ever, and as far as I'm concerned that reputation is deserved. Steven Spielberg's Jaws is brilliant, not only one of his best films but also the very movie that made me afraid to go into the sea.

Jaws:The Revenge didn't have that effect on me whatsoever. In alternative to giving genuine scares and thrills, the whole film is laughable. Especially in the plot, which is really quite inept, and in the climax, which is the epitome of WTF? Jaws:The Revenge also has some embarrassingly cheesy dialogue and poor pacing. Then there's the direction, Spielberg's direction was one of the many things that made the 1975 film so good, but the direction here from Joseph Sargent is incompetent.

The production values don't fare much better. The locations are quite nice but the cinematography and lighting are altogether unexceptional. The music is also disappointing, whereas the music was what made Jaws so unnerving in terms of mood, it was way too gimmicky here. The less said about Bruce the shark the better, he is not menacing at all, instead he is one of the many laughable assets of the film. Also he is not used well at all, and there is little to no build-up or suspense whenever he appears on screen. The acting is atrocious, the only actor who tries and the only redeeming quality is Michael Caine who deserves better. Lorraine Grey is annoyingly neurotic, while I was shocked that the talented late Judith Barsi would participate in such a mess, and her talents aren't even put to good use. Don't get me started on Mario Van Peebles, him, his character and his comic lines are annoying and get old fast.

Overall, a terrible film and one of the worst sequels I've seen and I have seen a lot. 1/10 Bethany Cox

Jaws 3-D is not as bad as Jaws:The Revenge, which for me is one of the worst sequels ever, but it is the complete anti-thesis of the masterpiece that is Spielberg's original film. Even the second film was better, and while I would hardly call that film a masterpiece, it was watchable.

One major problem with this film is that it's dull, in my opinion that is. I wouldn't have minded so much the sluggish pace if the suspense and plot were up to par. Sadly, neither are. The plot is both unoriginal and close to being a non-event.

The suspense, tension and thrills were what made the original so memorable, there is next to none of that here. The music and direction do not help. The music feels very predictably placed sometimes which spoils the mood of the scene, and the direction feels pedestrian and tired.

The locations are pretty good, they're not what makes the film so dull and cheap visually. That's the fault of the slip-shod editing and the rubbish effects, with the shark completely lacking menace and feeling incredibly gimmicky. Jaws 3-D also has some cheesy and trite dialogue and superficial characters that you don't care for at all.

The acting is poor. Dennis Quaid has a badly-written character, and sadly in his performance he lets that show. The other actors are either bland or annoying.

So overall, while not as bad as Revenge the film is a big mess. 1/10 Bethany Cox

I will say this, Jaws 2 is much better than the abomination that is Jaws:The Revenge, but at the same time it lacks the qualities the original did have. The original film is a masterpiece and one of Steven Spielberg's best movies. Not only was it brilliantly directed and wonderfully scored, but it was genuinely atmospheric too. In fact, Jaws was the film that made me afraid to go into the sea.

What let Jaws 2 down pacifically was the narrative and story, too predictable and sedate for my tastes. The dialogue also lacks polish, with some of the more tense moments not quite coming across as believable and the more humorous moments feel forced. The direction is lacking in tension too, which is disappointing considering that was one of the main reasons why the original worked so brilliantly, while the film is not as efficient pacing-wise with one or two scenes feeling rather overlong.

However, the production values are far from cheap, in fact with the crisp enough cinematography and editing and authentic locations it is quite striking. John Williams' score is still as thrilling as ever, another component that made the original so genuinely atmospheric, the shark attacks are well done with enough suspense (though it could have perhaps been a little more) and the shark is adequately menacing. The acting is fairly good, all the characters are likable enough, and the actors seem to be having fun in alternative to looking and sounding bored.

All in all, acceptable while lacking. 6/10 Bethany Cox

I am neither a Twilight fan or a Twilight detractor. This said, I am indifferent to the franchise. As far as the movies, I still think, coming from someone whose knowledge of the books only comes from my sister being a fan and me reading a chapter of one and putting it down, that the best is Eclipse(not saying much) and New Moon the worst. But that is not a consolation really. Breaking Dawn: Part 1 is not quite among the worst of the year and nowhere near among the worst ever, however it suffers from some major problems that I will get to later in the review.

So what was it that got me seeing Breaking Dawn: Part 1 in the first place? The answer was its director, Bill Condon. I am familiar with his previous films and find him a promising director and writer, finding his films well written, observed and acted. Gods and Monsters is amazing and one of my favourites, Kinsey was interesting and Dreamgirls elevated by the soundtrack and cast was quite decent. Did Condon do a good job directing? For me, I am not sure. I'd say of the four Twilight movies so far Breaking Dawn: Part 1 has the most cinematic feel to it, on the other hand there is not much here that made Condon's previous films so good and I'd go as far to say it is the film of his that engaged me the least.

Are there any redeeming qualities to this instalment? I think so actually. Although there are moments of sloppy editing, I did like the look of the film. At some points it was quite Gothic, and at others it had either an evergreen or autumnal feel to it. The scenery often does look stunning, the effects are okay I guess and the cinematography especially with the close-ups of the back of the wedding dress and the final shot is some of the best of the franchise in my opinion.I also liked Carter Burwell's score. I like Burwell a lot, his music has a hypnotic and quite hauntingly beautiful quality to it. For my tastes though some of the pop tunes are on the insipid side, however the score itself was pleasant with a lot of what I like about Burwell evident.

Much has been said about the sex scene. In all honesty I was expecting it to be of hilariously cheesy quality, but somehow Condon brought a little more subtlety than I was expecting. The last thirty minutes was perhaps the most exciting Breaking Dawn: Part 1 got, as some of does have purpose and intensity, which was something that the first half of the film did not have.There are also two good performances, Billy Burke and Michael Sheen, the latter being another point of interest. Burke as always is amusing with some of the better lines of the film(though is that saying much do you think?), while Sheen, ever the great actor, adopts a menace and magnetism as Aro without overdoing it too much. Ashley Greene is also quite good, if not great.

I have to say I still don't think much of the acting of the central trio. Kristen Stewart is much better than she is in New Moon, with much less of the moping and dead pauses, but some of her line delivery is still awkward and her facial expressions for my tastes are lifeless. It doesn't help though that Bella is a rather dull character.Robert Pattinson has more to do than he did in New Moon and is less hammy than in the first film(the looking into the camera moments brought moments of unintentional laughter when I first went to see Twilight when it came out). As a matter of fact this is perhaps his best performance of the series and he is certainly the best of the central trio, but like Stewart some of the line delivery could've been more inspired.

Taylor Lautner on the other hand is getting worse and worse. He is hunky to be sure, but does that alone make you a good actor? Not to me. I will give credit and say he is better than he was in this year's Abduction, where both the film and performance were awful, but the more dramatic moments from him felt forced and overplayed, and throughout there was a very stilted nature about him. A lot of the problem is to do with the writing. The dialogue in the Twilight franchise never was particularly good, saying this though in terms of written quality this is Twilight at its most banal, its most clunky and its most cheesy. The characters are clichéd and underdeveloped too, and at the end of the day you don't care for anybody. Oh, and the talking wolves were poorly done and unintentionally funny.

The story is very bland and unengaging, not to mention thin structurally and in content. The whole of the first half reads little more than ponderous melodrama. Was the wedding lavish? Yes it was. But it was also plodding and over-extended. The second half fares better, still with the clunky dialogue, uneven acting and cheesy, underdeveloped plot points and characterisations, but as I said the last thirty minutes or so serves as the highlight of the film. But for me what killed the film was the pace. Mind you, I have seen movies with slow pacing, but they are often paced deliberately and with strong meanings, great acting and dialogue and identifiable characters. With little of that here, Breaking Dawn: Part 1 not only is dull and plodding but also uninteresting and without bite.

Overall, despite my admiration for Condon and Sheen, this didn't work. The ending is highly suggestive of a continuation, which I understand is happening. If so, I do hope it will be better than this. 4/10 Bethany Cox