Reviews by Kyle Ellis

When I saw Transformers, I will admit I wasn't expecting much. And you know what I thought it was a good movie. It is far from the best movie ever made, but it is well worth watching for a number of reasons.

The best thing about the movie was the visual/special effects. They were absolutely mind-blowing, and the whole movie is worth the look just for them alone. And the robots especially Megatron were convincing enough, and the movements weren't jerky in any way. The sound is absolutely terrific, and the music is great. The storyline is original, fast-paced and gripping on the most part. There is some nice humour thrown into the mix, however the dialogue for me was a little too cheesy in places.

The performances are spirited and bring a sense of fun to the proceedings. Shia LeBoeuf brings some charisma and appeal to the title role of Sam, and Megan Fox is hot. John Tuturro has fun in his role, and Kevin Dunn and Julie White are both hilarious as Sam's parents. Hugo Weaving is superb as Megatron, and Peter Cullen makes the most of his character Optimus Prime. In fact, the only weak performance came from the talented Jon Voight, he just seemed out of place. And while there are plenty of visual thrills, I wasn't a massive fan of Michael Bay's direction, it just seemed as though the visuals, story and performances were doing the work and Bay was just there making sure it was all going to plan.

Overall, it is flawed but Transformers while not the best or worst of its genre is worth the look, especially if you are looking for terrific visuals, great sound and a good story. That way, if you overlook the flaws it does indeed have, you are in for a treat. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Loved the original 'Star Wars' films as a kid, still do. Especially 'Empire Strikes Back' while considering 'A New Hope' a genre landmark. Didn't think the prequel films were that bad personally, but they had a lot wrong with them and were a long way from great, especially 'Attack of the Clones'.

Despite seeing 'Star Wars: Episode VII- The Force Awakens' around the time it first came out (maybe a little after), there was a long time of being put off by the vitriolic hate it's gotten here and the practical war zone there is in order to review it (even when it was critically acclaimed). Finally mustering the courage, count me in as somebody who loved 'Star Wars: Episode VII- The Force Awakens'. A masterpiece? No. Better than the prequels? Absolutely, and although some may disagree this is saying a lot. The best 'Star Wars' film since 'The Return of the Jedi?' Yes.

'Star Wars: Episode VII- The Force Awakens' is not the most original plot-wise. It has been criticised for being a re-hash of 'A New Hope', understandably. However, instead of being done in a cheap and slap-in-the-face way, it felt like an affectionate and nostalgic homage. Exemplified by bringing back major characters from the original trilogy in supporting roles. JJ Abrams, and this may be considered blasphemy, does a much better job here than he did with his 'Star Trek' reboot films, here he keeps the original spirit of the original trilogy intact while giving the film its own identity at the same time.

While it certainly dazzles in spectacle and action, 'Star Wars: Episode VII- The Force Awakens' doesn't feel too big, too noisy or too chaotic at the expense of creating memorable characters, a fun story and brains and heart. The characters are memorable with easily identifiable leads, the original trilogy characters bringing a lot of affectionate nostalgia and a well executed if not iconic (not by Darth Vader standards anyhow) villain in Kylo Ren (unpredictable and dangerous but feeling he is morally justified).

The story lacks originality but more than makes up for it in energy, non-stop heart-thumping thrills and excitement, generosity, a cheerfulness that is positively space operatic, vibrant charm and a few fresh twists along the way. In many ways it is a celebration of the universe while also an expansion of it. It is sometimes sentimental but never overly so, one crucial death scene is just heart-wrenching (particularly Chewbacca's reaction) and doesn't feel like a slap in the face to the character in question.

Could the villains have been better written? Ren is fine but Snoke only just about works as a character thanks to the visual effects and especially the powerfully enigmatic with a touch of vulnerability performance of Andy Serkis, other than that the character is underwritten. Also felt that Gwendoline Christie's character was unnecessary, so limited was her screen time.

Visually, 'Star Wars: Episode VII- The Force Awakens' is a triumph. It is gorgeously shot and designed with Abrams' visual storytelling shining far more here than it has in other films he's done. The special effects are a dazzling 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. Thank goodness that the dialogue contains little to none of the cheesiness heard in the prequels, and it even has more layers than that of the original trilogy.

Acting also shines, with winning charismatic performances from John Boyega and particularly Daisy Ridley. Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher still have it, while Max Von Sydow shows himself to be a master of gestures and eye contact speaking louder than words. Adam Driver is a suitably menacing Ren and Serkis makes much of his somewhat underwritten character. Oscar Isaac gives a typically strong performance.

In conclusion, a great film, the best 'Star Wars' film since 'The Return of the Jedi' and one of the best of the saga too. 9/10 Bethany Cox

Man of Steel is not the disaster as others claim and it is certainly much better than Superman IV: Quest for Peace(almost anything is) but for me in a number of ways it was underwhelming. Granted the special effects are absolutely great, the climatic action sequence is the most genuinely thrilling the action gets and makes that of Avengers Assemble(which on the whole had much better-executed action and was a vastly superior film) seem tame in comparison, the flying scenes are cool and the scene of the sensory overload causing his powers is interesting. There are a few good performances, the best coming from Russell Crowe who plays Jor-El with dignity, Kevin Costner whose performance is very heartfelt and Michael Shannon who makes for a legitimately fierce villain. Henry Cavill is also very well-cast, he looks the part and is very reserved yet charismatic, he does a good job at showing Superman's pain. The rest of the cast are not as impressive, Amy Adams very shockingly is a blank as Lois and she is not helped by that she has nothing to do. Laurence Fisburne and Chris Meloni do their best but their characters are almost pointless, and while Diane Lane is charming she also has little to do. While the special effects are great the cinematography and editing are not, often having a dizzying and overblown effect with excessive shaking, in-your-face close-ups and abrupt zooms. Zack Snyder's style is not for everyone but his directing is leaden here and his style doesn't really come through. Hans Zimmer's score is disappointingly pedestrian and rather one-note mood-wise, very over-serious and with an attempt to be epic but never soaring. The sound is loud and noisy and often is so much that it induces a headache. And while I do like superhero films and action when done right, Man of Steel is a case of too much action that on the most part is too long-winded and rather repetitive in execution. There is a complete lack of emotional connection(even in Jonathan Kent's father's death), the romance is contrived, the characters are standard clichés with little personality or development and much of the dialogue is forced. The story is filled with overlong exposition, as admirable as showing Superman's origins are in flashback it does cause the film to lose momentum, and is so scattershot in structure and jumps around so much it is not always easy to decipher what's happening. All in all, not a terrible film but a long way from super. 4/10 Bethany Cox

The general reputation for films based on video games is not a good one. From those seen, it is not surprising that they generally have not been well received and that as a films-based-on-video-games group the reputation is dubious.

Saw 'Tomb Raider', despite some apprehension because the critical reception was fairly lukewarm and so were the reactions from friends (whose opinions are ones that are always respected and often agreed with), as someone who likes Alicia Vikander and although it's been years as someone with fond memories of the games. Although it has also been years since seeing them, am familiar with the two 'Tomb Raider' films with Angelina Jolie. Remember quite liking the first, while also not caring for the second and being pleasantly surprised by Jolie.

'Tomb Raider' (2018), while far from perfect or one of the year's best films (far from being one of the worst too), turned out to be worth the while. Another case of liking it more than the critics did, while seeing where they're coming from.

Will agree with anybody who didn't find the script great. It's not terrible, it does intrigue and the tone at least is clear. Too much of it though is clunky, especially in the more exposition-oriented parts that are not as interesting or resonant as ought generally and veer on the banal.

Story similarly is flawed. Again, a long way from a disaster as it was taut and fun and kept me engaged with some nice clever nods to the games. It is not an original one, some of it even is pretty derivative, and it is not always logical. Mostly am not one to criticise a film for having plot holes, find it to be a very lazy and unfair reason to criticise a film for (especially when it is the only thing that some reviews for certain films mention), but will briefly mention without spoilers that they are there and they are pretty big. The ending is not really a surprise at all, actually as predictable as one would expect.

Characters tend to be one-dimensional and too neatly black and white. The father-daughter relationship and story does have heart, and the closest thing to development, but for instance Daniel Wu's character didn't fit very well, out of place actually, and Wu didn't look very comfortable.

However, 'Tomb Raider' is far from a bad film. It does what it said on the tin, knew what it wanted to be and who to aim it for and kept me entertained and engaged throughout, even with its issues. There is fun and intrigue, and also a taut pace. The film starts promisingly on a gritty note and the action is exciting and energetically choreographed, with some jaw-dropping stunts and extravagant and not over-used or abused special effects that looked like a lot of time and effort went into them.

On a visual level, 'Tomb Raider' looks great. Beautifully shot, with lots of audaciousness and grit, editing that is slick and lively and wonderfully exotic locations. Plus the effects. The most striking and arresting visuals are the Devil's sea storm, the underground pagoda tomb and the remains of the crashed airplane. The pulsating, without being overbearing, music score gives 'Tomb Raider' a lot of life, as does Uthaug's suitably muscular direction. There are brains and a heart here, as well as good thrills.

Other than Wu, the cast do a great job. Alicia Vikander's performance is a committed one and a more than worthy successor to Jolie, also a great lead performance in its own right, doing her best to have Lara as more than an action hero. Kristin Scott Thomas and Derek Jacobi are as ever dependable with not an awful lot to do. Dominic West is a compassionate presence. The best performance though comes from Walton Goggins, terrific as the villain.

All in all, worthwhile. 7/10 Bethany Cox

I liked the first Lara Croft movie, but I found this sequel awful on the most part. Angelina Jolie is great at the stunts, the stunts by the way were fine and actually one of the three redeeming qualities to this, but her acting was below par, lacking warmth and charisma. Another redeeming quality is some of the locations. Ciaran Hinds hams it up, a term I try to avoid using, as the villain, Doctor Jonathan Reiss, and one of the better actors in the movie, he was pretty entertaining, despite his senseless dialogue. Gerard Butler and Jon Voight have little to do, and came across as useless. The script was largely unfunny and lacked conviction, and the plot, about the search for Pandora's Box, makes little sense mostly. All in all, not absolutely abysmal, and may be entertaining for die hard fans, but this sequel for me was a misfire. 3/10 Bethany Cox

This is actually a pretty entertaining movie, flawed it is, but mildly enjoyable. It is yet another case when I have disagreed with the critics, who dismiss it as mindless, nonsensical and pointless. Not true, yes the story is convoluted, it does drag at times and the script is weak at times, but it does have great action and some well chosen locations. As Lara Croft, Angelina Jolie does what she can, and she is fine, even in films with her in that are mediocre at best, she is usually one of the redeeming qualities. Noah Taylor and Jon Voight provide good support. All in all, not at all bad, flawed but entertaining for its worth, better than its sequel anyway. 7/10 Bethany Cox