Reviews by Kyle Ellis

Warning: Spoilers
The 'Obi-wan Kenobi' the limited series ignores basic canon. The series was created as fan-service, it delivers few memorable instances, and yet no one thought to include a director (or writers) who actually know the original story. The dialogue is terrible. The acting is laughable. The plot is garbage. I've seen low budget fan films that are more entertaining than this series. I'm a huge fan of the original 'Star Wars' film as well as 'The Empire Strikes Back'. It makes me sick to my stomach watching this nonsense.

The 1977 film 'Star Wars' showed the reunion of Obi-Wan and Vader. Every Star Wars fan can recite the line, " I've been waiting for you, Obi-Wan. We meet again, at last. The circle is now complete. When I left you I was but the learner, but now I am the master." It isn't easily forgotten. Yet in the new series Obi-Wan meets Darth Vader and almost dies in their battle. This isn't about some strict continuity issue, this is an outright failure.

In the 1977 film Princess Leia leaves that hologram message for Obi-Wan Kenobi inside R2-D2. AGAIN - I don't know anyone who can't recall her "Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi. You're my only hope." message... The complete line is a paragraph long, but it begins with, "General Kenobi. Years ago you served my father in the Clone Wars. Now he begs you to help him in his struggle against the Empire." Because Leia never met Kenobi, and needed him to understand who she was. The new series recreates the 1977 rescue of Princess Leia (who is currently10 years old) after she is captured by the Empire. Every fan watching this unfold hopes that this Leia will only know Kenobi as a man named Ben, but NO the director and Disney writers allow Leia full knowledge of Obi-Wan Kenobi as the man who saves her. It angered me to no end.

This whole series has angered me, because it doesn't showcase a Jedi at all. We all want the Jedi action, but Disney completely neutered Obi-Wan Kenobi simply to present strong female characters to pick up his frailties. Then why not just make a series about them? Why use a well-known character, generate so much buzz around this beloved character, and then not utilize the character at all? Why not revive the essence of Star Wars and showcase why it's so beloved after all of these years? Kenobi is a Jedi Master, not some novice kid like Luke Skywalker. This is a repeat of the exact problems we had with the 3 prequels... It's nothing like Star Wars and it's really really bad.

This is reverse racism of the worst kind, a film where all the white people are the bad guys and the black people are the good guys. How come racially-biased films like this are "politically correct" even though they reek of prejudice? All the white people are killed, too. Does make things better? Does that help race relations?

Add to that bigotry and very boring love story between Murphy and Angela Bassett and you have a film that was very disappointing. Murphy is a funny guy and someone whose films I usually enjoy....but this was ridiculous. This was a movie that didn't really know what it wanted to be: comedy, romance or horror. A good mixture would have acceptable but none of the categories were represented well here.

As other people point out, this started off strong but quickly lost itself and was a mess from that point. Where was the direction of this film? This was a real low in Murphy's career, which did plummet until recently. The once-box office star seems to have made a comeback, almost like rising from the dead. In that case, maybe NOW he should have played the vampire!

Persona 5 was the first JRPG I've played in my life and it pretty much changed my thoughts torwards the JRPG genre. First of all, the story is absolutely fantastic! It's extremely long, it takes at least 80 hours to finish but it's so well written and fun to go through! Gameplay-wise, it's quite challenging but very addictive! In fact, the whole game is one of the most addictive single-player videogames I've played in a while! I could play for 5+ hours straight and feel that it wasn't enough. The combat is turn based and you can control every character from your party. You can use various type of attacks, items, mechanics, powers and Persona attacks while spending HP or SP (stamina) with each one of the characters. Every ability is different though and applies different status effects (Physical/Fire/Ice damage, heal, burn, confuse, damage increase, evasion and many more). By the way, when you knock down all the targets, you can use an All-Out Attack, but you can also have conversation with the targets instead, in order to collect them as Personas (kinda like Pokémon) or steal their money. Those mechanics are wonderful! The cast is probably my absolute favorite in a videogame! Also, the soundtrack and the art style are absolutely incredible! Lastly, during free roam, you can basically do whatever you can do in real life in order to improve your social stats that affect your relationships you make with the other characters. However, the story has some pacing issues and the freedom you're given outside of the metaverse feels quite limited.

Pros: + Amazing story + Very addictive gameplay + Phenomenal characters + Awesome mechanics + Gorgeous art style

Cons:
Pacing issues
Lack of enough freedom


Narrative: 9/10 Gameplay: 9/10 Content: 10/10 Characters: 10/10 Music: 10/10 Art Style: 10/10

Final Rating: 10/10
Masterpiece -
Persona 5 is a game full of style and confidence. The Phantom Thieves stole my heart and Persona 5 is one of the best videogames I've ever played!

Do I recommend it?: Hell yes! I recommend everyone to give this masterpiece a try.

I do not hate Pluto Nash because it was a box-office failure, even if it was, I don't consider that a valid enough reason to hate on a movie. I hate it because it is for me simply not funny and wastes a cast that I think are talented and deserve better.

Granted the special effects are elaborate and really quite good and I did like the music, however that is all I have to say that was good. Don't get me wrong I do like Eddie Murphy and his films, Beverly Hills Cop, 48 Hours, Trading Places and Shrek and classics and I liked Coming to America and Bowfinger too.

However, when it comes to talking about his films, the only movie of his I consider worse than Pluto Nash is the atrocity that is Norbit. Murphy is a funny and likable actor, but he is very bland here. He does make too much of an effort to stop his character from being bland and ends up over-compensating.

The rest of the cast are wasted. John Cleese phones in, Pam Grier is saddled with tired material and sadly it comes through loud and clear in her performance and Rosario Dawson struggles with a clichéd character in the form of a wannabe singer. Worst of all is Randy Quaid, who not only has some of the film's worst dialogue and gags but his performance is just awful.

The cast are not helped by a truly tired and unfunny script, lazy direction from Ron Underwood(was it really the director of Tremors and City Slickers?) and a rushed and predictable story that is filled with poor characters and trite and disconnected scenes.

So in conclusion, a very poor film and one of Murphy's worst films. 2/10 Bethany Cox

Warning: Spoilers
Willow was and still is one of my all-time favorite movies. 30+ years later, it has not lost its awe and wonder. The charisma and the chemistry. The arc of the heroes from one exciting scene to the next. The fantasy filled with fairies, brownies, and trolls. And, of course, the thrilling magic. It's such a great adventure even after all this time.

How did none of that get captured in this series? Nearly every actor is painful to listen recite their lines - moaning, whining, and complaining the whole time. At equal fault is the writers, though. They did not craft characters with charm or charisma. Even Warwick Davis, who I've always loved dearly, is given a script so generic he can't come across as genuine in nearly any scene. And they decided Willow did not gain any wisdom with age. He recites cliche "take all your anger, all your love, everything inside of you" guidance that could've been plagiarized from a fortune cookie one moment, then gets pissed that the girl who just found out her true identity a minute ago can't pull off a brand new spell the next. Is that really who Willow would become? Irritable and impatient? He's not even a powerful high Aldwyn of the Nelwyn village. He's a scamming court jester like the Wizard of Oz. Is that really who Willow would become? A lying fraud? The writers could not have missed the mark more to bring out the best Willow possible after 34 years.

Of all the biggest pain points, the deplorable script that reflects nothing of the era the show is set in may be the worst. How did the language of the land go from poetic and free of cursing (the movie) to shallow and loaded with s-bombs (the series)? The scriptwriter(s) deserve to be fired. Equally awful is the cast that was coughed up. Man, there is some unforgivable "acting" in Willow. I'm still in shock I was able to watch the whole season. Amazing how practically none of them were able to transport themselves into a medieval mentality, but instead acted as if they were on the set of Gilmore Girls. The only actor who looked like he belonged was Amar Chadha-Patel. In the beginning, he was looking to be a worthy successor to Madmartigan (I'm sorry, "Mads" as he's now called by Willow and Sorsha...riiiiight), but unfortunately his Boorman fell victim to the Riverdale script, too, and his heroism caliber thinned with each successive episode. And how did no one remind Joanne Whalley that Sorsha did not have an English accent?

The sword fights never look of any prowess or peril. They're slow-motion stunts minced by an editor like garlic. The sets feel inorganic, cheap, and claustrophobic. The costumes mirror Hunger Games more than Willow. And the pop soundtrack...I mean...who made that incongruent decision? While the show is obviously written for the YA market, the series (remember, this is Willow) ends with Dire Straits' "Money For Nothing" from 1985. Wrap your brain around all that.

Another blaring inconsistency: WOW! Did they get the trolls wrong. Originally filthy, screaming, black-haired, monkey-crouched animals, they're now upright, white-furred, eloquent...well...humans in cosplay. I couldn't get over the shock. It's all the proof that production never actually saw the movie.

And the magic is of zero imagination. The only spell, no matter who the sorcerer is, is shooting a ray of color. That's literally it. 20 years later and Willow the sorcerer learned how to fire erratic fairy dust from his staff, and so did everyone else, and so can any eavesdropping noob with a flute.

Why the show is teasing Madmartigan seems pointless to me. We're all aware that Val Kilmer's unfortunate health keeps him from returning to one of his more iconic roles (blessing in disguise given how horrible this project turned out to be) so where could the writers, with the lame "story" they've drafted so far, go with him? It's a waste of time, just like the rest of the show. I couldn't find one good thing about it to warrant a 2nd star. It's simply that awful. But if you like watching whining, skill-less cosplayers walking from one set to the next saying the same lines as any episode of Gossip Girl then you'll love this.

Warning: Spoilers
Velma says that Fred has a weird sex van? What are you talking about? Wait the cockroaches in the school were having sex? Why is everybody naked? I guess this show is for adults (only)? I don't think kids should be watching this show. I thought Scooby Doo was a kid-friendly franchise. Velma and Daphne don't look or act the way I remember them in the animated episodes when I was a kid. A change like that makes them unrecognizable. Wait the police women want Velma's help to solve the mystery of who killed that girl? What? Why? Wow Fred sounds like a really dumb and ignorant character, self-absorbed and egomaniac. I don't remember him being this way.

Velma sounds very rude all the time, unkind and bad-tempered, it's sad. Wait why did Velma's dad's girlfriend got naked and started taking pictures for social media or something, what is going on? At the funeral they sing a song with lyrics about sex? That's so wrong, who thought this would be funny? Velma says she experiences hallucinations, does she suffer from schizophrenia? Who's Norville? Why is he dressed like Shaggy? Where is Shaggy? What is going on? Also no Scooby? That sucks. Velma eats food from the trash bin? Wait did Fred just cut off a guy's leg and everybody acts like nothing happened? Wow just finished the episode, what can I say?

It's like they kept (most of) the characters' names but it doesn't feel like a scooby doo show. Really bad writing, awful humor, annoying superficial characters and non stop use of nonsensical stereotypes. I won't watch any other episodes, one was enough for me. My rating is 1/10. If I could give it a 0 I would. Don't waste your time people.

Short Term 12 is one of those overlooked films that if you blink, it will be gone by the time you open your eyes. Being released in the last week of August doesn't help matters. Anyhow, this small indie is utterly fantastic and is the best film of 2013. The realism plays a huge factor and so does the excellent screenplay, acting, and directing. Maybe this film will open eyes to those who have little knowledge about abused children in who are sent to group homes. This film is about character and emotion, good and painful emotions.

This film is about life through the eyes of Grace, a twenty-something counselor at a group home who suffered from the same thing the children she takes care of does. She has a long-term relationship with a co-worker named Mason. But when one troubled girl named Jayden shows up, her life immediately begins to unravel.

The acting is fantastic, especially Brie Larson. She should have been nominated for Best Actress. She adds soul to her character and the film does a good job in showing her character's dark past piece by piece. The film does feature other fine performances, namely John Gallagher Jr. as Mason, but no one comes close to Brie's fierce performance.

Overall, Short Term 12 is an excellent film and a criminally underseen movie. This film is so realistic, one could almost view the movie as a documentary. But alas, this is the most powerful film of the year and that happens out of conversations and minimalistic action, which is a near impossible feat. Too bad this film was ignored by the Academy, because it deserved a boatload of nominations. I rate this film 10/10.

That review summary may sound very oxymoronic, but to me it applies to a film such as 'Room'. A film with a difficult subject, that is the stuff of nightmares, but tells it so beautifully with an interesting approach that works better than all the potential traps that films of its genre could fall under.

What could have easily have been told in a lurid, gratuitous way (being inspired by the true-life case of Josef Fritzl) is instead told in a careful and restrained way. There is even an innocence in 'Room', due to its very fascinating decision to tell it from the viewpoint of a five year old, in this case Jack, one that comes off very movingly and gives a sense that there is a little ray of hope in a seemingly hopeless situation. The source material, equally brilliant, is to be thanked here, its author Emily Donoghue adapts it to screen here and none of its power is lost.

Really appreciated the careful and restrained approach to the storytelling in 'Room', and for me and many others it was something different considering the subject. It does though affect some of the pacing in the middle act, where a little of the tension seen in especially the first part is lost a little.

For my tastes too, though it probably did fit the film's younger and more innocent viewpoint it's told from, the music score does lay it on too thick with the treacle.

However, loved how the story was told and its approach. What 'Room' also strongly benefitted from being told this way was that the mother and son relationship was able to shine through and really resonate, which it may not have done as effectively with a heavier tone. And shine through it does, with great charm and poignancy. Also appreciated that none of the characters were painted too black and white, even Old Nick.

Production values are effectively claustrophobic and the nocturnal parts chillingly nightmarish. 'Room' is beautifully directed by someone who understood how claustrophobic thrillers worked, how mother and son bonds do in dire situations do and the ability to combine both to ensure a powerful experience. A directing job that's both unsettling and empathetic. Similarly 'Room' is written with effortless skill and deft thoughtfulness.

Can't find anything to fault the performances. The superb one of Brie Larson, that was a very worthy Oscar (Golden Globe and Bafta too) win in her category, is an obvious starting point, but one mustn't overlook the beyond-his-years turn of young Jacob Tremblay, one of the best child acting performances in recent years, and William H Macy and Joan Allen both giving some of their best work in years. Sean Bridgers also gives much more to what could have been a standard cliché role.

Overall, great powerful film but the somewhat fascinatingly unconventional (for the genre) way the story was told won't work for some. 9/10 Bethany Cox

The poster for "Smiley" boasts the tag-line "The New Face of Fear" and honestly I did find Smiley's appearance unsettling the first time I saw the trailer. However, all feelings even vaguely related to fear immediately began to disappear less than 3 minutes into the film (more on that in a moment). Still, I give the film one star to stand as a personal reminder for that one moment in time Smiley seemed promising.

"Smiley" is not only bad, but it's exceptionally bad to such a fundamental degree in both film-making and writing that every problem is encapsulated in the phrase: "BAD BLANK 101". Bad acting, pacing, atmosphere, dialog, characterization, direction, cinematography, editing, and sound are all astoundingly present as if "Smiley" was the meeting place for the reunion of elements in hack film-making.

As a film alone the characters are painfully flat; the acting is atrocious and the main character acts like a being from another planet; the dialog is so bad it smells; every single one of the "scares" are some of the cheapest jump scares in modern horror (that's saying something); the pacing is slower than a slug; during the long-drawn out scenes of fundamental philosophical waxing from the college professor (Roger Bart) that same slug is glued to the floor; I will not spoil anything here because the ending still remains an incomprehensible mess that started in less than 3 minutes.

Two minutes and thirty-two seconds into the film is a jump scare by a little girl that is simply a soft then LOUD noise made for no other reason than hack writing. Get used to that because those are the only kind of "scares" in the entire movie. The problems really begin as the audience and babysitter are told by the little girl about an urban legend killer, the titular Smiley, a mysterious killer (in that he's never explained, we're just expected to take the horribly shoe-horned exposition from the little girl that Smiley is a well-known urban legend, yet the audience doesn't know; Gallagher just expects us to blindly accept this). How does the little girl know this? Who is she? If Smiley is based around the NOT-Chatroulette then is it an international urban legend? All of these questions are just a few examples of what I kept asking the film which gave me nothing in return.

Then the awful writing comes into play as the audience learns of how "Smiley" is summoned beginning the long endurance test that was this movie. The Smiley killer is summoned (ala Candyman) by typing out the phrase "I did it for the lulz" three times to someone on Not- Chatroulette causing Smiley (dressed in Michael Meyers' one piece jumpsuit) to sneak up behind the person you typed the message out to then stabs them in the back (with Ghostface's knife no less). Let that sink in. The killer is summoned through Chatroulette.

Now here's a quick lesson to future horror writers and filmmakers: if you want to create a new horror icon then its important to remember that often timelessness trumps modernity. Sure, technologically based horror movies can make some of the best in the genre (Ringu, Videodrome, Kairo, Christine, Poltergeist, etc) and there's nothing wrong with being hip to the now (if done right), but the technology has to age well and be recognized as being a staple of everyday life with the majority of the public and Chatroulette has not aged well at all. In fact, Chatroulette is stale and by having the killer revolve around such an unbelievably dated concept severely hurts the potentiality for the character only speeding along its inevitable fade into obscurity.

Smiley might as well have been summoned by wearing a haunted pair of Crocs. Of course Smiley might have appeared more if the characters were wearing haunted Crocs because Smiley rarely appears in his own film. The rest of the film is just awful acting, horrible dialog, and one middle- finger of an ending.

What else is there to say? Smiley is just all-around bad in every single way possible regarding filmmaking and writing dumbing down or ripping off intriguing concepts from far superior horror films to create a poorly-stitched together amalgamation of first year philosophy, general science, and psychology. The only amusement is watching Roger Bart trying to make "I did it for the lulz" sound ominous and if you want to see that I'm sure Youtube will provide for you.

When it comes to comedy, have a particular appreciation for the witty and sophisticated kinds, of which there are many classic examples out there. The same can be said for comedies that take a broad approach without being too juvenile or crass, am far less keen on those kinds of comedies and too many of them today overdo to puerile effect. There are many instances of silent films/comedies, seen with Charlie Chaplin, prime Laurel and Hardy and with Buster Keaton.

Have always considered Keaton one of the greats, as do a great many. It is a shame that he didn't transition as smoothly into the sound era from the silent as Chaplin and Laurel and Hardy, because in his prime (the 1920s) he was every bit as great, as funny and as likeable. His daring physical comedy and stoic deadpan expressions, that earned him the nickname of "The Great Stone Face", were unique and ahead of its time at the time and still amaze and are distinct now, plus he was a bigger risk-taker with bolder material and immense courage that most wish they could have. This was apparent in 'The General'. It is also every bit as apparent in his last fully independent film 'Steamboat Bill, Jr', one of his last "great" films and one of the crowning achievements of his whole career.

'Steamboat Bill, Jr' may not quite be the technical achievement that 'The General' is/was, but it still does look great. It is beautifully shot and designed but it's the effects and how they're used that stand out, it should be used as an example of how to have effects that still look good and like a lot of effort and care went into them and also use them properly, rather than overusing and abusing them to gratuitous effect with varied at best success as seen frequently now. The direction keeps things moving with control and balances everything beautifully.

In terms of the humour, 'Steamboat Bill, Jr' is a funnier film than 'The General'. It is never less than very funny, hilarious at its best, and the timing is spot on. The hat and jail cell scenes are the comedy highlights. Making more of an impression was the action and stunts, remarkably bold, leaving one in jaw-dropping awe and just exciting to watch. The cyclone, which still looks pretty impressive today, and house falling down on Keaton sequence sees Keaton stunts at their most spectacular and daring, a sequence that is justifiably famous and impossible to forget once seen.

Like 'The General', the story in 'Steamboat Bill, Jr' is a winner. It is easy to criticise its slightness and the slow start, they weren't issues for me actually because everything else that followed stick in the memory much more. There is a tender understated quality that is very surprising and the romantic element is genuinely charming without being sappy. The film also has a story that's easy to follow and at the same time is logical and interesting, indicating a film with brains as well as soul that treats the viewer with respect rather than getting irritated by credibility straining and logic lapses. Keaton as to be expected is superb here, not only is his comic timing on point but he once again provides a character that's endearing and worth rooting for. His physicality and how he copes with the stunts is awe-inspiring and he is one of not many to make deadpan interesting and entertaining because he still makes it very expressive and nuanced. Ernest Torrence is particularly good in support.

Overall, another Buster Keaton masterwork and one of his best. 10/10 Bethany Cox