Reviews by kyleslittlewor

Ranking 'X Men: Apocalypse' alongside the other X Men films, it's for me third weakest. Better than 'Last Stand' and 'Origins' (though even they had merits), but not in the same ball park as 'X Men 2', 'First Class' and especially 'Days of Future Past' (also preferred the solid if yet-to-find-its-feet-feel first film) and only just slightly under 'The Wolverine.'

There is a lot to like about 'X Men: Apocalypse'. It looks great, being very slickly filmed and photographed, production design being grittily atmospheric yet audacious, smoothly edited and with effective costumes and make-up. The special effects are of extremely good quality too, the much applauded big Quicksilver scene being particularly note worthy, and there is not an overload or underuse of them. John Ottman makes a welcome return to the series and his score is one of the more memorable and fitting (with that for 'Days of Future Past' getting first prize for the most) of the series since 'X Men 2'. The script provokes thought and doesn't make the mistake of rambling, while the action is dynamically choreographed, thrilling and emotionally charged on the whole.

For effective scenes, highlights do have to be a suspenseful and very arresting opening sequence and particularly Quicksilver's super speed life-saving scene, which is one of the series' most jaw-dropping. The story starts off really well and is very diverting with anything with Magneto. There are some terrific performances here, James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender (whose character writing is the meatiest here) especially apply here and they make keep the story on point and from completely derailing. Sophie Turner shows off Jean Grey's conflicts and flaws very effectively and touchingly, while Evan Peters steals every scene as Quicksilver, Nicholas Hoult continues to be fine as Beast and Hugh Jackman makes a ferociously charismatic cameo.

Was mixed on Oscar Isaac (heavily made-up and unrecognisable) and Bryan Singer's direction. Actually Isaac's performance as villain Apocalypse himself is pretty decent and effectively menacing, but it's the clichéd and underwritten way in which Apocalypse is written that prevents Isaac from doing anything that special with the character that stops me from feeling more. People have said that Apocalypse here is more Ivan Ooze-clone than the character of the comic book, and it's easy to see why they would think that, this said Isaac does do a good enough job with what he had. Singer is at home in the style and the action, but when it comes to making the characters and story completely interesting and giving depth to them he isn't quite as confident as he was before, competent and stylistically classy but a bit bland.

'X Men: Apocalypse' suffers from being rather too overcrowded, with a fair bit going on and with lots of characters but effectiveness of executions varies wildly. Some good characterisation and great scenes, but a lack of constant dread and urgency and too many characters given short shrift, though nowhere near as badly as in 'Last Stand' and 'Origins'. The pacing is diverting at first but starts to drag once the plot gets more rambling and more bogged down by content. 'X Men: Apocalypse' includes comic relief and romance and they don't come off well, the comic relief is very goofy and at odds tonally with everything else and the romance is completely under-developed.

Jennifer Lawrence clearly looks bored too in a complete waste of Mystique, and Olivia Munn is underused and basically just eye-candy in a role that has little depth to her if at all.

In conclusion, uneven but still decent. 6/10 Bethany Cox

The Wolverine is not as good as the first two X-Men films, which were very good and great respectively. But it does improve on Last Stand and Origins by quite a fair bit, neither are as bad as they're reputed to be but had a lot of glaring shortcomings. That is not to say that The Wolverine had no shortcomings either. There is some illogical scripting, the romance is a bit forced and the extended scenes that has it bogs the film down, the ending is a bit too rushed, some scenes dragged and were a touch repetitive and the Japanese characters were very under-written and not at all interesting. What The Wolverine does do that improves on Origins and Last Stand is that it isn't anywhere near as bad as trying to incorporate too many subplots and too many characters and then develop hardly any of them. The film looks great, the special effects improved over those from Origins, it's slickly edited, it's shot cohesively and it has a beautifully dark look that gives it both a grit and audaciousness. The music is suitably dynamic and while not completely action-enhancing it at least fits. The story is not perfect, but there was a dark intensity there, some unexpected twists and turns and I didn't have too much trouble following it, while the action is smartly handled especially the Throne of Blood-like ninja fight and the one on the superfast train. The funeral one was reasonably fun too but was over too quickly. James Mangold does valiantly and unlike Brett Ratner and Gavin Hood he is actually comfortable throughout instead of being good in one aspect(the action) and not in the other. The performances are fine, although Tao Okamoto's beauty is nowhere near enough to salvage her bland acting. Rila Yukushima's acrobatics dazzle and of the femme fatales Svetlana Khodchenkova is even better, slinky and formidable. But Hugh Jackman gives the best performance, a very powerful performance while being subdued, it was nice to see some depth to him this time when in Last Stand and Origins he was moody for the sake of it seemingly and not much else. The Japanese culture was very nicely done and gave the film some diversity. To conclude, a decent and quite enjoyable film that serves as a better but still not perfect origins story. 6.5/10 Bethany Cox

I don't want to give much away, but of all of the X-Men ever made, this is one of my favorites!

The additional cast was concerning, but overall actually added to this film.

Of course the rest of the usual cast were on point as usual, but what made this movie different than the others, was not the battle of good vs evil, but the timeline differences and the new cast's involvement.

A great addition to the X-Men franchise, and a 9/10 from me!

I liked this movie a great deal, while not as good as the first two movies it is an improvement on Wolverine. It is not among my favourite superhero movie but I can think of worse. It is not perfect by all means, while it was good to start with with a touch of atmosphere some of the music later on became rather generic and Jennifer Lawrence I had mixed feelings on, great looks and personality but sometimes forced delivery and her character being not as well developed as the rest. The visuals however are spectacular, with imaginative photography and editing and first-class special effects, costumes, lighting and settings. The story is mostly compelling with the action/thriller based moments genuinely intense and cracking while making way for some nuances on the social and political side of things. The script is well written too with some memorable lines, the film is well paced generally and Matthew Vaughan's direction is what makes the film so fresh. The acting is fine mostly, Kevin Bacon is a good and charismatic villain but James McAvoy and especially Michael Fassbender are terrific. Overall, very good and fresh. 8/10 Bethany Cox

Not that the first film was bad, because actually I still found it good, well-made fun for all its flaws. It's just that whereas the first X-Men film did feel like the beginning of a franchise that was yet to properly find its feet, it was found with X2. X2 isn't perfect either but still a very good film that is bigger and darker than the first and all the better for it. Again X2 is very well-made, with the dark visual style still maintained yet with a slightly grander look. The photography is beautiful and atmospheric, and the special effects are better here too, they were good in the first that they're slicker, bolder and eye-popping in the way that the first film didn't quite but almost did achieve. Whilst Michael Kamen's score in the first was fine, John Ottman's score here is an improvement being more in tune with the atmosphere and what's happening in the story.

The script is even sharper here and with more depth, the humour and comic one-liners are witty and genuinely funny, they are not cheesy or out-of-place nor are they too much. There is a melancholic tone too that is dark and quite poignant and the romantic elements are sweet but never too soap-opera-ish. The story is where the darker and bigger terms most apply, apart from a couple of parts that could have slowed down and explained themselves more you are glued to your seat almost the entire time and emotionally connect with scenes and characters too. The assault on the White House sequence is exciting and a brilliant way to start the film, and it is true that the climax here puts the climax of the first in the shade, it's not contrived in the slightest and you are biting your nails. X2 does a great job mostly with the characters, where they are more complex and relatable.

Although once again Storm and Cyclops are underdeveloped, otherwise Wolverine is a gritty and identifiable anti-hero, and of the other characters Nightcrawler was most effective. Though once again credit is due for making Magneto much more than a stereotypical villain. X2 is very well played by the cast, with the standouts being Hugh Jackman's charismatic Wolverine, Ian McKellen's menacing Magneto with shades of melancholy, Alan Cumming's camp yet affecting Nightcrawler and Brian Cox who plays Stryker with relish without falling into cliché territory. Also good are Rebecca Romijin-Stamos who continues to be sexy and icy, and her transformation sequences are among the visual highlights of the film and Patrick Stewart still is cool and fun though his screen time should have been longer.

Only three cast members don't quite work, and they were James Marsden who's even stiffer than he was in the first(not helped by his character not been used as well as he could have been), Halle Berry who looks bored and Shawn Ashmore does look awkward at times. Other than a couple of rushed, under-explained parts, a couple of characters given short shrift and a couple of performances that didn't quite make the grade the film is a touch overlength, but the film on the whole is very good and lots of fun in its own right. It compares extremely favourably to the first film and manages to be better than it. 8/10 Bethany Cox

Not one of the best Superhero films but a long way from one of the worst. While with imperfections and better was to follow in the franchise, X-Men is a good film and a solid start though with a yet-to-properly-find-its-feet feel. X-Men is well-made, the special effects while not mind-blowing are great, the film was slickly shot and edited and the dark, moody visual style worked wonders. Michael Kamen's music score had those grand, mysterious, rousing and haunting qualities that really add a lot to the film's atmosphere. Apart from the odd cheesy moment the dialogue is smart and taut with some subtle humour that thankfully did not feel out of place, and Bryan Singer shows that he does know how to direct an action sequence, tell a good story and not let the special effects overwhelm everything, a solid directing job indeed. The story, while simple compared to what was to follow in the succeeding films, is compelling and doesn't try and take itself too seriously or like a joke. The character exposition was nicely done on the whole and doesn't drag things down too much, Cyclops, Storm and Toad are underdeveloped but Wolverine and especially Magneto(who actually has depth to him rather than being a clichéd villain) are interesting characters. The relationships between the characters were also believable, Wolverine and Rogue's was a standout. And the story didn't feel like it was second fiddle to the action sequences, which weren't big and bold as such but were tightly choreographed and performed with spirit and passion. Admittedly though the Statue of Liberty climax while strikingly filmed is on the silly side at times, but it was fun too. The cast are mostly very good, apart from a stiff James Marsden(he and Famke Janssen's chemistry was very bland), a monotone Tyler Mane and Halle Berry and Ray Park also felt a bit bland. Hugh Jackman however shows great charisma as the lead character Wolverine and has a powerful screen presence, Rebecca Romijin-Stamos is a sexy and icy Mystique, Anna Paquin did bring a feistiness to Rogue and Famke Janssen is fine. Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen promise much on paper, and both of them deliver, Stewart brings a cool, classy command to the screen as Professor X but even better is McKellen, who is certainly menacing but gives Magneto a sympathetic edge. To conclude, a good film and a solid start to the franchise. 7/10 Bethany Cox

John Carpenter's 1978 'Halloween' is wholly deserving of its status as a horror classic. To this day it's still one of the freakiest films personally seen and introduced the world to one of horror's most iconic villainous characters Michael Myers.

Its numerous sequels were wildly variable, with 'Halloween H20' being the only above decent one for me (the fourth one was also watchable but not much more) and 'Halloween: Resurrection' being proof that the series shouldn't have been resurrected and that it should have ended at 'H20', a perfect place to stop. Something that was further felt in Rob Zombie's awful first 'Halloween' outing from 2007. His second 'Halloween' film, this one, is even worse and even more pointless than its predecessor.

The only real good thing here is the make-up which is pretty good. Brad Dourif comes off best in the acting department and does his best but he deserves better and has been better too.

Everything else fails...and not just by a little. Catastrophically. The rest of the acting is scarier than Michael Myers himself (at his least creepy here) in how bad it is. Scout Taylor-Compton, in an embarrassingly appalling career-killing performance, and Sheri Moon Zombie, who should be nowhere near in front of a film camera, are especially bad. The film also brings the worst out of Malcolm McDowell, actually a good actor wasted in a very poorly written and used role.

All the characters are bland, annoying or both, nobody is remotely likeable here or worth rooting for (even those intended to be) and the dialogue down there with the worst of SyFy and The Asylum, and worse. The production values are too gimmicky, Zombie continually seems to think taking a self-indulgent smug approach to his directing is being cool and the music is constantly at odds with the mood and the action, nothing atmospheric or appealing here and more outdated attempts at being cool.

Overused and a vast majority of the time gratuitous expletives, artificial gore and sickeningly brutal violence completely get in the way of a coherent or engaging story, that's instead paper-thin, unintentionally silly, nonsensical, dull and contrived. As well as tension, suspense, chills or terror (none in sight). The whole Deborah and white horse stuff was not needed, felt completely misplaced and just added absurdity to the story, while the ending is as slap in the face a joke as it comes.

In summary, awful and had no point to it whatsoever. 1/10 Bethany Cox

I have nothing against remakes in general, some are great, some are good, some are quite, some are both awful and pointless. The remake to the classic Halloween(1978) isn't only awful, as a remake and on its own merits, but like the Psycho, Nightmare on Elm Street, Wicker Man and Stepford Wives remakes it is also pointless.

Not only is it awful, pointless and not scary at all, but it is the complete opposite of the original in every way. Sorry about the comparing, but in this case it is inevitable.

The film is not cheap as such, but just not atmospheric. The camera angles do get obvious after a while and the editing gets a little frenzied. Some of the music was nice, but the cues like the camera angles seemed obvious in how they were placed and it isn't successful at enhancing the mood of the film.

Halloween(2007) does also have some awful dialogue, particularly in the Loomis and Myers scenes that are ridden with clichés. The story is just not very interesting this time round, it is timeless in notion for sure but not in execution. The film feels more like a very dodgy homage and Rob Zombie fails to re-create what made Halloween work so well(the primal fears, the truly demonic characterisation of Michael Myers and how the scares are used). Also the film does take too long to set up and the sexual talk gets too much and disturbing after a while.

Also disappointing is how Halloween(2007) incorporates its scares. Instead of the suspenseful atmosphere and genuine jolts that the original had, this remake does something that the original cleverly avoided, using excessive gore and treating it in a cheap fashion.

I didn't care for the characters either, all of them are badly-underwritten, especially McDowell's Loomis. The character of Michael Myers also disappoints greatly, it is not demonic enough with the potentially unnerving characterisation completely stripped bare and I agree contradictory in an attempt to explore his background.

The acting is pretty awful. Malcolm McDowell is a great actor and has saved a not-so-good-movie more than once, but seeing how weak his character and dialogue is, not this time. Scout Taylor-Compton can't do anything with her role either, and while I blame the script more than anything else Tyler Mane comes more as a badly-written greasy-haired psychotic killer rather than a personification of terror. The less about Sherri Moon Zombie the better, for my money she can't act if her life depended on it.

In conclusion, pointless and very disappointing. 1/10 Bethany Cox

A retiring Detective and a young rookie are hunting down a serial killer, a killer with a dark MO, murdering his victims using the seven deadly sins.

As I watch this, it's coming up to its thirtieth anniversary, and it's as fresh now as it was back in 1995, it's an intensely macabre take, crimes that are infinitely macabre and depraved, and intensely twisted.

The combination of Freeman and Pitt is incredible, they work immensely well together, we have the fresh zest of Mills, and the unshakable, but battle weary Somerset. Paltrow and Spacey are excellent in support.

Two hours flashed past, there is no lull, no moment to switch off and boil the kettle, the intensity is immediate, the pacing designed to keep you glued.

I have always thought there is a shade of Alfred Hitchcock about this movie, such is the intelligence of the plot.

Very good visuals, the macabre and gruesome bodies look shocking still, nothing is spared or hidden away.

10/10.

I'm starting to think that everything that Speilberg touches turns to gold. This is probably considered one of the greatest movies of all time and it is directed by Speilberg. The movie is incredable. The beginning was horrifying. I couldn't believe how accurate it was and painful it was to watch. When I studied WW2 in high school, I thought no one could ever re-create the Beach of Normady. But Speilberg did. I felt like I was there with the soldiers. I felt their fear, pride, and love for their country. I couldn't believe how much dedication our armies put into fighting and winning the war. And whenever I go to visit Washington D.C., I have more American pride then ever. I am more than proud to give this movie a

10/10