Reviews by Kyle Ellis

It's a Wonderful Life is something truly special, and along with Scrooge, the original Miracle on 34th Street and Home Alones 1 and 2, it is something I watch every Christmas. Why? Because I love this movie, seriously I do. Looking through my 1000 or so reviews here, I couldn't believe I hadn't reviewed this movie; I have seen movies that I have loved and cherished since childhood and I have seen movies that belong at the bottom of the garbage. It's a Wonderful Life belongs to the former, although I am 17, I appreciate a good movie when I see one. This is more than a good movie, it's a timeless masterpiece, that holds up on repeated viewings and never loses its magic.

It's a Wonderful Life could have easily been overly-sentimental and clichéd, but the quality of the direction and the screenplay that others have summed up perfectly assured it was a beautiful, heart-warming and somewhat poignant film. While there are some funny parts, not bursting-your-gut funny but funny in a subtle sort of way, other parts are close to heart-rending. The direction from Frank Capra is excellent, sensitive and nuanced, and Capra shows even more talent as a screenwriter having penned one of the most honest and touching scripts ever in a film. Casablanca, All About Eve and The Shawshank Redemption all had wonderful scripts, but the script here has a lot to say about community spirit and shows that this film is much more than feel-good sentimentality. There is the element of feel good here, no doubt about it, but it doesn't overpower what the film intends.

Visually, It's a Wonderful Life is a wonder. I don't think it is dated at all, the cinematography is crisp, the black and white looks beautiful and the pristine Christmas scenery really does take me back. Some of my favourite ever memories was of Christmas, whether it was watching nostalgic Christmas videos, eating Christmas dinner or singing carols under the Christmas tree. Another thing I have to mention is that the movie is richly and beautifully scored, Dmitri Tiomkin's music here is absolutely gorgeous, lyrical, whimsical, nostalgic and most importantly it never felt intrusive in the more integral parts of the film. And I have to mention the story, never in my life(and I genuinely mean this) have I seen a movie where it communicates such a strong message and so well too. The story of a suicidal man who is shown the value of his life by his guardian angel is an effective, timeless one, imitated perhaps but never equalled.

Finally the acting is wonderful. James Stewart, and I seriously don't give a damn whether he was a racist or not and neither should you, is absolutely superb as George Bailey, a truly complex character who goes through such a lot to get to where he is at the end of the movie. George Bailey is like Mr Deeds, John Doe and Mr Smith rolled into one, and in my opinion only James Stewart could have given justice to a character that has self-doubt gnawed at his essential decency. Also the character change, like that of Alistair Sim's Scrooge at the end of Scrooge, was heart-breakingly believable. Donna Reed is radiant and charming as his wife, who is like a caring lover, devoted wife and dedicated mother, while Thomas Mitchell gives one of his more memorable performances as Uncle Billy. Henry Travers is a revelation as Clarence the guardian angel, but there is another performance I think is worth of mention. For a good morality tale, you need a good villain. Well in the name of Potter, you have one. Who better to portray him than the great Lionel Barrymore acting at the peak of his powers?

Overall, a timeless classic with a true and heart-rendingly poignant ending. 10/10, one of the easiest perfect scores I have made recently. Bethany Cox

Christopher Nolan has always struck me as a very talented film-maker, and most of his films are ones that have impressed me a lot. Even weaker efforts, where his ambition can get in the way, have a good deal to admire. His films are all impeccably crafted technically, and often entertaining and thought-provoking, also knowing how to get good performances out of talented casts.

'Memento' was not his first film, having directed 1998's 'Following', but has been considered by many the film that rose him to fame and brought the world's attention to him. Cannot disagree with this, and also that not only is 'Memento' his first great success but seventeen years later it gets my vote as his best film. It really makes one think hard about what is happening, crucial in a film where a lot of concentration is needed, without being treated like you are an idiot or dumber than you are. It is also one of the few Nolan films where it was difficult to find anything to fault.

As always with Nolan, 'Memento' is a wonderfully made film. The cinematography is slick and the production values in general are suitably gritty and audacious , with some scenes strongly reminiscent of film noir (as a fan of film noir that was great to see). David Julyan's synthesised (something that could have sounded tacky but actually adds a lot to the atmosphere) score makes very clever and dynamic use of distinct sounds, oppression, yearning, loneliness and loss having a haunting but also affecting vibe, the feeling of being lost adrift being perfectly captured.

Nolan directs impeccably, not letting his ambition get in the way of the storytelling, while the script is smart, thought-provoking and intricate without trying too hard and treating the audience with respect. The pacing is taut while deliberate, and the length, after seeing some later efforts that have suffered from over-length and over-ambition ('Interstellar'), was ideal.

It is the story that makes 'Memento' Nolan's most fascinating film, with a unique non-linear, time-reversed structure with two converged time-lines. That sounds on paper confusing but with Nolan telling the story in an intricate, tense and atmospheric way (meaning that he takes his time telling the story) it makes perfect sense, with beautifully interwoven use of thematic motifs of memory, guilt, perception, self-deception and grief and a stunningly moving ending that one does not expect.

Guy Pearce is astonishing and give one of his career's best performances, don't think from personal view that he's been as good as this since. He gets excellent support from particularly Joe Pantoliano and even Carrie-Ann Moss.

Overall, a brilliant film and a contender (my personal vote certainly) for Nolan's best film. 10/10 Bethany Cox

The 'Leprechaun' films are ones that can be seen from either way. Some people will, and do, consider them guilty pleasures not to be taken seriously, most acknowledging that they are not necessarily great films. Others will, and do, dislike them for mostly being cheap, far from scary, too dumb to be entertaining and not very interesting.

Finally decided to see all the 'Leprechaun' films to see which above extreme they would fall under, being on a horror franchise roll recently. Even when genuinely trying to judge them for what they are and what they're trying to do, am going to agree with the latter. Disliked the first film as far as the previous three films go, and while the next two were marginal improvements they were not particularly good either while up to this point of the series the fourth film fares the worst.

'Leprechaun in the Hood', while a marginal improvement over 'Leprechaun 4: In Space', for me is among the weakest of the franchise. Apart from a few bright spots most of the film is poorly executed for reasons that are similar and even the same as the previous four films.

Once again, Warwick Davis is the best thing about 'Leprechaun in the Hood', like he was with the previous four films so that was not a surprise. He really does throw himself into the role and has enough moments of amusement and grotesque creepiness. The material is beneath him but he gives it his conscientious best and one of the few assets of the film that showed signs of trying.

Aside from Davis, there are a few mildly amusing moments and the idea was a weird but interesting one. That's pretty much it.

However, the production values look cheap, very sloppy and hasty looking and the special effects look as if they were made as a last minute afterthought with the small remainder of what was left of the budget. Can't say anything good about the music this time, it was repetitive and is neither well-placed, memorable or appealing to listen to. The rap song was abysmal as a song, with lyrics that try to be cheesy fun but instead are inane and grating, and was not necessary.

The direction has such an indifferent feel to it, and apart from Davis the acting is awful, struggling to do anything with lead characters that have no personality and irritating supporting ones behaving vaguely and idiotically. Ice-T came over as really out of place and was just annoying.

Very like as with before, 'Leprechaun in the Hood' is particularly undone by the script and story. There is nothing funny in the script, it was instead very crude and childish with forced moments of whimsy. Everything sounded so awkward and contrived. On top of not making sense to the point of incoherence, the story overdoes the dumb factor with an ending that is so over-the-top ridiculous it's laughable. It is also often uneventful, with some dragging on forever stretches that feel like padding. There is nothing scary or suspenseful due to the excessive predictability and no atmosphere. The kills completely lack creativity or anything unsettling, too many parts feel random and there are too many things added for no reason.

Concluding, not a well executed film at all. 3/10 Bethany Cox

The 'Leprechaun' films can be seen from either way. Some people will, and do, consider them guilty pleasures not to be taken seriously, most acknowledging that they are not necessarily great films. Others will, and do, dislike them for mostly being cheap, far from scary, too dumb to be entertaining and not very interesting.

Being on a horror franchise roll recently, after having more free time after such a lot going on professionally and personally, finally decided to see all the 'Leprechaun' films to see which above extreme they would fall under. Even when genuinely trying to judge them for what they are and what they're trying to do, am going to agree with the latter. Disliked the first film as far as the previous three films go, and while the next two were marginal improvements they were not particularly good either.

'Leprechaun 4: In Space' for me is one of the weakest of the franchise. There is far worse in the genre and overall, but apart from a few bright spots most of the film is poorly executed for reasons that are similar and even the same as the previous three films.

Once again, Warwick Davis is the best thing about 'Leprechaun 4: In Space'. He really does throw himself into the role and has enough moments of amusement and grotesque creepiness. The material is beneath him but he gives it all a good bash.

Aside from Davis, there are a few mildly amusing moments and the idea was a weird but interesting one. The music is not exactly memorable but it didn't jar or sound cheap.

However, that adjective is a good way to describe how the production values look, very sloppy and hasty looking and the special effects look as if they were made as a last minute afterthought with the small remainder of what was left of the budget. The direction has such an inexperienced or indifferent feel to it, and apart from Davis the acting is awful, struggling to do anything with lead characters that have no personality and irritating supporting ones behaving vaguely and idiotically.

Very like as with before, 'Leprechaun 4: In Space' is particularly undone by the script and story. The script is crude and childish in humour, nothing funny here, and everything sounded so awkward and contrived. On top of not making sense to the point of incoherence, the story overdoes the dumb factor, is often uneventful, with some dragging on forever stretches, and there is nothing scary or suspenseful due to the excessive predictability and no atmosphere. The kills completely lack creativity or anything unsettling and there is a good deal of randomness and things added for no reason so it feels gratuitous.

Summarising, another weak instalment. 3/10 Bethany Cox

It took me a while to get round to watching the 'Leprechaun' franchise, with so much going on and having a long watch and review list. Saw the films mainly for curiosity to see whether they would be guilty pleasures or deserving of their dubious reputation. Also appreciate horror, and ones with splashes of comedy, and had gotten into watching a few horror franchises that had interested me for a long time.

Watching 'Leprechaun', while understanding why people would find it a guilty pleasure it didn't do it for me. The second film was a marginal improvement but just as flawed with the same flaws. Saw the sequels as a franchise completest (just in case why anybody is wondering why if the first film didn't it for me why the rest of the films were watched too). While it was still not a good film 'Leprechaun 3' for me up to this early stage of the franchise the best of the three films while containing pretty much all the faults that the previous two films had.

Davis is the best thing about the film. He is both amusing and creepy and does do the best he can, successfully, with an again goofy look, some terrible lines (though actually they are funnier and more twisted than in the first two films) and less than tasteful horror which must have been hard to do and shows how conscientious and talented he is.

There are sporadically mildly amusing moments that don't come anywhere near enough, the answer to the health insurance question did make me laugh. The second half does have entertaining moments and with a bigger budget the film looks less cheap than the first film with a more expansive location and slicker photography, while still not being exactly high art because the effects are weak.

On the other hand, the rest of the cast is very poor, with insufferably bland leads and an assortment of irritating supporting roles. The characters display very little personality when they aren't being insufferably annoying with their dumb antics and illogical decision making, the character of Scott being the worst example of both extremes.

'Leprechaun 3' is still lacking in the story and script. The dialogue is pure repetitive childishness, with an overload of cheese and nothing funny, and the humour and whimsicality are forced. Having gratuitous gruesome gore was not enough to cover up for the complete lack of scares and suspense, nothing bit my nails, nothing made my heart pound or skip, nothing made my palms or forehead sweat, nothing made me jump. It's not just because it is so intelligence insultingly dumb, excessively predictable and unintentionally comical, but the story, while picking up a little in the second half, is very thin with a very dull first half. The kills are neither creative or scary, a few distasteful, and the direction is pretty leaden.

Summarising, mediocre third instalment. 4/10 Bethany Cox

It took me a while to get round to watching the 'Leprechaun' franchise, with so much going on and having a long watch and review list. Saw the films mainly for curiosity to see whether they would be guilty pleasures or deserving of their dubious reputation. Also appreciate horror, and ones with splashes of comedy, and had gotten into watching a few horror franchises that had interested me for a long time.

Watching 'Leprechaun', while understanding why people would find it a guilty pleasure it didn't do it for me. Saw the sequels as a franchise completest (just in case why anybody is wondering why if the first film didn't it for me why the rest of the films were watched too). While it was still not a good film 'Leprechaun 2' for me was a marginal improvement, with a couple of assets done better while containing pretty much all the faults that the first film had.

Davis is the best thing about the film. He is both amusing and creepy and does do the best he can, successfully, with an again goofy look, terrible lines and less than tasteful horror which must have been hard to do and shows how conscientious and talented he is.

There are sporadically mildly amusing moments that don't come anywhere near enough. It starts off relatively unsettlingly, again not enough to be a redeeming quality. Where the second film improves is in the pacing, the second half is nowhere near as uneventful or draggy, and with a bigger budget the film looks less cheap with a more expansive location and slicker photography, while still not being exactly high art because the effects are weak.

On the other hand, the rest of the cast is very poor, with insufferably bland leads and an assortment of irritating supporting roles. The characters display very little personality when they aren't being insufferably annoying with their dumb antics and illogical decision making.

'Leprechaun 2' is just as lacking in the script and story as the first was. The dialogue is pure repetitive childishness, with an overload of cheese and nothing funny, and the humour and whimsicality are forced. Having gratuitous gruesome gore was not enough to cover up for the complete lack of scares and suspense, nothing bit my nails, nothing made my heart pound or skip, nothing made my palms or forehead sweat, nothing made me jump. It's not just because it is so intelligence insultingly dumb, excessively predictable and unintentionally comical, but the story, while an improvement, is still thin and meanders in the latter stages. The kills are neither creative or scary, a few distasteful, and the direction is pretty leaden.

Altogether, a marginal improvement but still below average. 4/10 Bethany Cox

It took me a while to get round to watching 'Leprechaun' and its numerous sequels, with so much going on and having a long watch and review list. Why were they seen in the first place? Mainly for curiosity to see whether they were as bad as reputed or whether they would fall into the guilty pleasure category. Also appreciate horror, and ones with splashes of comedy, and had gotten into watching a few horror franchises that had interested me for a long time.

Watching 'Leprechaun', while understanding why people would find it a guilty pleasure it didn't do it for me. Being someone who wanted to go against the consensus on this front, as it did have a good concept and that it had talented Warwick Davis involved going for it, it does genuinely regret me to say that. Didn't think it was that terrible and have seen far worse films, but found myself agreeing with the criticisms it had, and still has, directed at it and thinking it a bad film.

Davis is the best thing about the film. He is both amusing and creepy and does do the best he can, successfully, with a goofy look, terrible lines and less than tasteful horror which must have been hard to do and shows how conscientious and talented he is. Pre-'Friends' Jennifer Aniston is likeable enough as pretty much the only tolerable character in the film, and that is saying a lot.

There are sporadically mildly amusing moments that don't come anywhere near enough. It starts off relatively unsettlingly, again not enough to be a redeeming quality.

On the other hand, the rest of the cast is risible. On one side of the acting spectrum there is a completely lifeless and uncomfortable-looking male lead performance from John Sanderford. On the other there is Robert Hy Gorman in for me one of the most obnoxious child performances ever. Mark Holton's attempts at humour also grated, so much so it was very difficult to sympathise with him considering the character was disabled. The characters display very little personality when they aren't being insufferably annoying with their dumb antics and illogical decision making.

'Leprechaun' is severely lacking in the script and story departments. The dialogue is so childish and repetitive as well as heavy in the cheese, nothing is funny and any attempts at humour or playfulness are forced. Having gratuitous gruesome gore was not enough to cover up for the complete lack of scares and suspense, nothing bit my nails, nothing made my heart pound or skip, nothing made my palms or forehead sweat, nothing made me jump. It's not just because it is so intelligence insultingly dumb, excessively predictable and unintentionally comical, it's also because the second half especially drags so much, is so uneventful and so repetitive and anything trying to be scary on top of being un-suspenseful and gratuitously gory suffers from tastelessness (the silver shoe buckle laceration especially).

In conclusion, bad in almost every way. 3/10 Bethany Cox

I am 17, and I absolutely love animation, when it's done right. I love all the Disneys and almost all of the Don Bluth films(though I had mixed feelings about Troll in Central Park and Rock a Doodle Doo), and I will say that this is right up there as one of the best, along with Secret of Nimh, Anastasia and American Tail. This happens to be the first movie that introduced me to dinosaurs. The animation and visuals are stunning, a similar style to American Tail and in some way the Rescuers. In terms of colour, it is quite dark, but it does need to be, as it is quite a dark and very poignant film. I realised as I watched it, that the beginning reminded me a bit of the dinosaur segment in Fantasia. The music by James Horner is gorgeous, haunting in some parts, and then so heart-rendingly sad in others. This is the composer who brought us the music for American Tail and Once Upon a Forest(both of which made me cry). Land Before Time made me cry too, because Littlefoot's mother's death is one of the saddest deaths ever portrayed in an animated film. I also thought the narration was very thoughtful and factual, I actually learnt things from the narration alone. The voice talents were exceptional, Judith Barsi a standout as Ducky(sweet and funny at the same time), voicing engaging and memorable characters. I was appalled when I read that Judith Barsi was murdered not long after she voiced Anne Marie in All Dogs Go To Heaven, because she was a very talented actress, the characters she created were both likable and sweet, and it is such a shame that something that dreadful would happen to her at an early age. Littlefoot is also very sweet, nothing like how they portray him in the countless sequels. People have argued that there isn't much of a story, but this is an example of a character-driven animation, and there was plenty of character here. I personally think that this is the most poignant of the Don Bluth movies, and if I had a minor criticism, it is just that children may find the sharp tooth too frightening, but that was the intention, as the characters are afraid of it. Also it is a tad too short. Anyone who hated this, do bear in mind that it is vastly superior to all of the sequels, which range from good to unwatchable. In conclusion, a beautiful and poignant film, that is definitely one of the better Don Bluth movies. 9/10 Bethany Cox.