Reviews by kyleslittlewor

I will never forget the first time I watched "Aladdin", I was with a group of friends waiting in the airport for the plane that would take us from Orlando to Paris at the time when "Aladdin" was the 'big thing' in the USA while some previews of "The Lion King" were starting to screen. "Aladdin" will forever be associated to that wonderful week I spent in Disneyland, and it's only fitting if the movie is my favorite Disney film, slightly edging-out "The Jungle Book".

I know I can get all rational in this review, analyzing what makes "Aladdin" such an appealing film and using the expected words of 'Disney Renaissance' and a comparison with the glorious Best Picture nominee predecessor. I can also talk about the animation, the music, the extraordinary multi-vocal performance of Robin Williams as Genie but I don't feel like getting rational. I love the film for personal reasons that are essentially due to the excellent timing of this film in its penetration of my pre-adolescent life. "Aladdin" took a forever cherished place as one of the last treasures that enriched my childhood even playing a pivotal role in the way I would start enjoying cartoons.

"Kid's day in the USA!" was the motto of the week that was celebrating the 65th birthday of Mickey Mouse, and for a kid who never traveled outside his country, going to Disneyland was the most unexpected destination, the most extraordinary trip I would never have dared to dream of. This is when I discovered "Aladdin", through the 'Prince Ali' fanfare endlessly performed during the parades, through the films' images aired on TV; something was strangely attracting me to the film. And I guess the fact that I knew the story helped a lot: I grew up with a French cartoon from 1969, titled 'Aladin and the Magic Lamp' recorded in an 80's videocassette, a movie I can recite (and sing) by heart, and there was also an obscure Manga 'Aladdin' film we watched at school before the summer holidays.

Needless to say I was already familiar with the story, and seeing it translated into Disney language was something I was excited to see. Would they talk about Aladdin's deceased father Mustapha? Would he live with his mother? What kind of roles would Genie play? Well one thing matters apart from these questions: I knew the story and I could understand the film even if I didn't speak English at that time it wouldn't have helped me anyway because the airport was very noisy, so I just sat on my luggage, eating some candies, and I could understand who was who and what was everyone's scheme: obviously, Aladdin wanted to be a prince to marry the princess and Jafar to marry the princess to become the prince, and between them, the Genie would come to fulfill their dreams. So, I saw the film and I loved it.

And for one year, before I would see it again, the music of 'Pince Ali' and 'A Whole New World' was the musical remembrance of that magical week in Disney World. And when I saw it again, it took another dimension: I finally understood the subtleties of the stories, I learned all the songs after repetitive viewings, and for months and months, I was transported by the 'Prince Ali' parade and its climactic conclusion and the romantic 'A Whole New World' and its beautiful opening, when Jasmine jumps on the carpet and the zoomed-out Rajah looks smaller and smaller, watching from the balcony. I saw the film so many times during my pre-teen years that I would never forget the first sensations it immersed me into, with an unexpected awkward one.

I must confess that Jasmine was one of my first movie crushes and my idea of the ideal woman as a kid, I don't know why but the way she looked during the 'love at first sight moment' hypnotized me and the moment where I always melt occurs in the carpet ride, when Aladdin gives her the apple, when you understand that she understood who the Prince Ali is, there are no words to describe how incredibly sexy she looks at that very moment. The crush didn't last of course, and as I grew older and was disappointed with the 'Return of Jafar' sequel and the TV series, my interest for "Aladdin" declined and it was reduced to 'kid's stuff I used to like'.

And then 10 years later, as a student, I saw the film again on my computer, eating a pizza, and something magical happened when the 'Whole New World' music started during the closing credits, my heart was inundated by a nostalgic torrent, so immense that I couldn't stop crying because it reminded me of the privileged place the movie occupied once in my heart. The magic was back, and whenever I was spending a good time with friends, we were having fun listening to these old Disney songs, and the clip of 'A Whole New World' was a must-see and how glad I was to discover that I wasn't the only one who 'liked' Jasmine.

I feel so concerned by this film and so deeply attached to it, that I don't want to spoil this review with critical or ecstatic reviews, the film is just thrilling, romantic, adventurous, and features certainly the greatest cast of supporting characters without it being the counterpart of a dull hero or heroine, there's not a single minute of the film that seems pointless and wasted and certainly not with a character like Genie. That's the best I could do to rationally 'explain' my love for "Aladdin".

But maybe because loving a film can also depend on external factors that influence your judgment, in the case of "Aladdin", everything contributed to make this my favorite Disney film ... for sentimental reasons yes, but who ever said they were wrong?

Of all the animation classics from the Walt Disney Company, there is perhaps none that is more celebrated than "The Lion King." Its acclaim is understandable: this is quite simply a glorious work of art.

"The Lion King" gets off to a fantastic start. The film's opening number, "The Circle of Life," is outstanding. The song lasts for about four minutes, but from the first sound, the audience is floored. Not even National Geographic can capture something this beautiful and dramatic. Not only is this easily the greatest moment in film animation, this is one of the greatest sequences in film history.

The story that follows is not as majestic, but the film has to tell a story. Actually, the rest of the film holds up quite well. The story takes place in Africa, where the lions rule. Their king, Mufasa (James Earl Jones) has just been blessed with a son, Simba (Jonathan Taylor Thomas), who goes in front of his uncle Scar (Jeremy Irons) as next in line for the throne. Scar is furious, and sets in motion plans to usurp the throne for himself. After a tragedy occurs and Mufasa is killed, Scar persuades Simba to flee, leaving himself as king. Simba grows up in exile, but he learns that while he can run away from his past, he can never escape it.

When viewing the film, it is obvious that "The Lion King" is quite different from its predecessors (and successors). This is an epic story that contains more dramatic power than all the other Disney films combined. While there are definitely some light-hearted moments, there is no denying the dark drama that takes up the bulk of the story. While it could be argued that Disney is the champion of family entertainment, this film is not for the very young. Some of the sequences are very dark and violent, many bordering on frightening, even for the older crowd.

The voice actors are terrific. Jonathan Taylor Thomas brings a large dose of innocence to Young Simba. He's mischievous, but also terribly naive. His older counterpart, voiced by Matthew Broderick, equals him. He's older, but no less mature. The voices are so similar that it's almost impossible not to believe that they are the same character at different ages. Perhaps no one could have been better suited for the role of Mufasa than James Earl Jones. His baritone voice gives the Mufasa a quality of great power and wisdom; there is no question that his role is king. As Scar, Jeremy Irons is pitch-perfect. The drawing of the character is villainous, but Irons' vocal work complements the animation to create one of the most memorable, and vicious, villains in Disney history. He's unquestionably evil, but he's also clever, which makes him all the more dangerous. Manipulation, not violence is his greatest weapon. Providing some much needed comic relief are Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella as Timon and Pumbaa, two other outcasts (a meerkat and a warthog), and Rowan Atkinson as Zazu. While there is definite fun from these characters, neither the actors nor the filmmakers allow them to go over-the-top and destroy the mood of the film.

Disney's animated features are known for their gorgeous artwork. Nowhere is this more apparent than in "The Lion King." Every single frame is jaw-dropping. The colors are rich, and the drawings are sharp and beautiful. One of the pitfalls of animation (both computer and hand-drawn) is that there is sometimes a visible distance between the subject and the background, making it seem as if the figure animation was cut and pasted on the background (this is obviously what happens, but it is up to the artists to make sure that it isn't noticeable). There is none of that here.

Throughout the Golden Age of Disney animation, the films have been musicals. "The Lion King" is no different, and the songs are brilliant. All of the numbers are standouts ("Can You Feel the Love Tonight" won the Oscar, but in my opinion, "The Circle of Life" was better). In the cases of Simba and Nala (Simba's girlfriend), both young and old, there is a noticeable difference between the speaking and singing parts (everyone else does their own singing and speaking), but never mind. It still works, and that's what's important.

"The Lion King" is not flawless, but on first viewing, they aren't noticeable, and it is likely that the young won't ever notice them. "Beauty and the Beast" was the first animated film to get an Oscar nomination for Best Picture (it lost to "The Silence of the Lambs"), and is thus far the only animated film to receive such an honor. That being the case, it's hard to understand why "The Lion King" was not given the same distinction. The two films are more or less equal in quality, and the nominees for the honor that year were not strong.

If you haven't already, see "The Lion King." You won't be disappointed.

The Thing is not only a brilliant remake(which I was not expecting after seeing abominations such as Psycho and The Wicker Man) but it is also a brilliant film that seamlessly blends horror and sci-fi amongst other things.

The atmosphere is especially what makes the movie so good. To this day, very few other movies have shocked, haunted or unnerved me as much as The Thing. The scenery, sets and costumes are eye-popping and the effects are brilliantly designed and suitably grotesque without distracting too much.

There is also Ennio Morricone's most haunting score, a cracking script and a deliberately slow-paced but compelling story that is quite ahead of its time. Not to mention wonderful direction and credible and well-written characters. The acting is equally great, in my mind Kurt Russell has never been better, likewise with Keith David and Wilford Brimley has brilliant delivery of the lines.

All in all, a brilliant film and one essentials and its genre(s). 10/10 Bethany Cox

There has been a time that I wasn't really that fond of horror films, finding some had cheap excessive gore, bad acting and scripting and a lack of genuine thrills and suspense. I couldn't have been more wrong, some of the best of the genres are anything but these. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is one of the best, it screams horror classic from the character Leatherface to the many times it's been imitated/parodied but never equalled. I think the use of the documentary-style realism is masterful, and the fact it is low-budget makes no difference to me, in fact to me this adds to the gritty, harsh and creepy tone this film conveys. The gore is not at all excessive, in fact its count is quite low, and when it is used, it never feels cheap or gimmicky. The script is razor sharp, the story is compelling and Tobe Hooper's direction is probably Texas Chainsaw Massacre's strongest asset. I was fine with the acting as well, Leatherface is genuinely unnerving. In conclusion, a classic. 10/10 Bethany Cox

Just got back from seeing 'IT'. Expectations were that of great interest but also apprehension. Eight years ago, back when there was a personal unfamiliarity and ignorance of Stephen King's style and less appreciation for the book, there is the admission of saying don't bother with a re-make.

Couldn't be more wrong. This was a case where another adaptation was not only warranted but necessary. 'IT' is such a great story that deserves to be done justice and with one of the best trailers of the year this actually looked good. However, with the other King film released this year 'The Dark Tower' being such a disappointment, there was apprehension as to whether a film based on such a huge book would work.

'IT' as a book is one of King's best and one of the best of the horror genre. King's attention to detail, how he writes scenes with children and depiction of fear are unparalleled, with wonderfully drawn characters, one of the terrifying antagonists in literature and many unforgettable scenes, ones that burn long in the memory in how scary they are. The book is much more than just a horror story though, also with nostalgia, comedy, pathos and deep characterisation.

'IT' was previously adapted as a mini-series in 1990, which is remembered fondly by those who saw it as children and left them terrified but often derided by fans of the book. To me, it has a lot wrong with it with a vastly inferior second half and an anti-climactic let down of an ending with the infamously terrible effects of IT's true form. But it is nowhere near one of the worst King adaptations, it's not even the worst of the mini-series. Compared to the book it's very poor, as a standalone it's wildly uneven but has more to it than Tim Curry's unforgettably magnificent Pennywise. It has a great first half with strong performances from the child actors, some unsettling moments, a 'Stand By Me'-like nostalgia and a great music score.

This 2017 film adaptation is a big improvement and one of the best King adaptations in years. It does have changes, including the change in decade, not following the same structure, different IT encounters for some characters and another motivation for wanting to defeat IT. However, it is very loyal in spirit to the book that is apparent throughout. What makes it better are better production values, explanations and character motivations being more logical, Henry Bowers being more of a psychopath (and he is given a reason for why he came to be the way he is, when it was only implied once in passing previously), Beverly's father and the relationship between the two having more of a creep factor and even better child performances.

Not without its faults. Not all the special effects work, the fangs and the overdone Pennywise shaking look cheap. Mike is underused and underdeveloped compared to the others and the other bullies are pretty much given short shrift (Victor Criss practically anonymous).

Some people have said that 'IT' is not scary. Personally disagree, finding it one of the scariest films seen in a long time. Not many films recently made my heart jump, covering my eyes, biting nails or stifling a scream. The Niebolt Street, bathroom, George and Pennywise and photograph/slideshow scenes especially are absolutely terrifying, and there are beautifully timed jolts, real tension and eeriness and suspenseful lead-ups, aided by atmospheric intricate lighting and clever effects for IT's forms (that leper!).

With that being said, 'IT' is much more than a horror film, and is more successful in its other elements. It has comedy, and it's hilarious especially with Richie and Eddie. There is an affectionate nostalgia, reminiscent of 'Stand By Me' and 'The Goonies' and reminding one of how good King was at writing scenes with children and childhood adolescence, which the writers understood and it translates brilliantly on screen. There is pathos, like with Ben's poem and the two most heart-wrenching moments are in the frightening, heart-tugging and triumphant climax. The characters are written very well on the most part, particularly Bill, Beverly and Ben, while Pennywise is evil-incarnate.

Production values mostly are terrific, not just the lighting but also the beautifully realised Derry setting (Niebolt Street is a standout), taut editing and cinematography that's both stunning and unnerving. The effects mostly are not bad, the make-up is superb and how Pennywise is made up has a creepier effect. The music score is truly haunting, "Oranges and Lemons" has never freaked me out this much.

Andy Muschietti directs with suspense, potent realism, confidence and affection, while the writing has a great balance of hilarious comedy, touching drama and pathos, references to the time period, King and history of Derry and nostalgia. The story, even with the change of time-line and structure, is cohesive and logical, rich in suspense and emotion but it's the chemistry between the children and the sweet and surprisingly real relationship between Beverly and Ben that resonate most.

One couldn't ask for better performances. The children are uniformly wonderful, especially a vulnerable Sophia Lillis, a hilarious Finn Wolfhard and a relatable Jeremy Ray Taylor. Jaeden Lieberher handles Bill's dramatic arc very touchingly while Jack Dylan Grazer is very funny. Mike and Stan are well cast. As for Pennywise, it is a very difficult feat filling the iconic Tim Curry's giant clown shoes, but Bill Skarsgard does so superbly, providing a different interpretation that never feels like a copy and has just as much chilling menace, nightmarish air and dark twisted amusement. Curry's laugh is creepier, but Skarsgard's is closer to that described in the book.

All in all, brilliant and if the second film with the adults happens please have the same writer, director and Skarsgard on board, and use this as a model rather than the mini-series' second half with better cast adults and a far better ending. 9/10 Bethany Cox

What a load of tripe! Even though I didn't expect much I was hoping against hope that there might be something fresh to this request. Absolutely rubbish. Regurgitated and pathetic dialogue, poor screenplay, terrible acting (seriously bad), full of cliches, with nothing new to offer. Towards the end I was like get it over with already! Courtney looks aged and tired. Both her and Neve have hardly anything to do. The young 'actors' are ridiculous and sad. Overall a huge pathetic disappointment. They should have left this alone a long time ago. But heck, if it's making money then this won't be the last time I'm sure. Much like all the Halloween and Friday 13th ones. Just goes from bad to worse.

The very beginning was intriguing, but this is where it ends. The only moderately interesting character is Sam (and I'm being generous by saying the word 'interesting'). At least she has some semblance of internal struggles and has to overcome her demons, but that can barely pass for character development. Pretty much everyone else can be easily replaced with cardboard figures. Seeing and hearing the character called Mindy, on the other hand, is like someone scrapping a blade over a chalkboard every time she appears on screen and opens her big mouth. I'm not even surprised they had to force her into Scream 6 as well. You got rid of the beloved character of Dewey in part 5, for the shock value, and this is what you have to offer in his place? Pathetic.

The villains are so badly-written and portrayed it hurts.

The only scary thing in this film is Sam's eyebrows. Congratulations? You've pulled that off, if that was your plan.

Wow, just wow. I didn't expect anything good after seeing Scream 5, but not even my lowest expectations were met. I can honestly confess that I watched this film for free. This is a small consolation at least. People who keep piggybacking famous franchises and turning them into this sort of rubbish don't deserve a penny of my money.

Where have all the talented people gone?

Cowboy Bebop is the best anime ever. I'm 21, don't tend to be fanboyish, and have seen plenty of others. And it's the best anime ever.

What other anime features a mix of the best choreographed/energetic/ kick-ass fighting scenes - hand-to-hand, hong-kong gun fights and air-space battle?

An unbelievable mix of comic, tragic, violent and fairy tale style episodes...

An incredible sound track - Yoko Kanno is a genius that can do memorable and emotional jazz, blues, classical, fantasy-style, j-pop and even heavy metal. I wouldn't even consider buying the soundtrack to any other anime.

It quite literally oozes "cool" - characters (Spike is probably the coolest - not awsomest, but stylishly coolest) music, action and narrative.

Hell, it's the only show that has both a "cute animal" character and a "cute annoying kid" character that I don't wish a horrible death upon. And if that doesn't convince you, then nothing will.

For a movie to be even better than a good book is no small feat. Yet, that's how I felt after watching this film. It really impressed me. One of the reasons is the fantastic cinematography. Man, this is a beautifully filmed and, at 142 minutes, there are a lot of great scenes to admire.

Sean Penn directed and Eddie Gautier was the Director Of Photography. I can't stand Penn as a person but fair-is-fair and I think he's great as a director, having seen his work in "The Pledge" and "The Crossing Guard." The main actor, Emile Hirsch, who plays "Chris McCandless" (a.k.a. "Alexander Supertramp" reminded me of Leonardo DiCaprio with his looks, build and voice inflection. He is very credible as the young guy who wants nothing to do with materialistic society and dreams of living in the wilds of Alaska. The problem was that he was unprepared and underestimated what he was up against.

Two people who fascinated me the most in here were two extremes, age-wise - Hal Holbrook and Kristen Stewart. It was really great to see the veteran Holbrook ("Ron France") again. He was about 82 when he made this film and hadn't acted in a film in a few years. He was terrific, too. He had some of the most memorable scenes in the story. Meanwhile, teenager Stewart was captivating as "Tracy Tatro," who had a crush on "Alex." This young woman is on her way to stardom.

Brian Dierker and Catherine Keener also were really, really interesting as the aging hippie couple, "Rainey" and "Jan." I kept thinking, I know this guy when listening to Dierker's voice, finally guessing it was Jeff Bridges underneath all the beard....but it Dierker, a guy who rarely acts in films.

Knowing the book, the only part of the film that caught be off-guard was the young Swedish couple. I don't remember them in the book but I'll never forget this in this film!! One could debate the pros and cons of Chris McCandless for hours, so no sense going into that here. I thought the film was pretty kind to him. You read more in the book about how he hurt a lot of people with his silence. Either way, it's a a fascinating story and a beautiful film.

I have seen many movies, and while The Untouchables is not the best movie of all of them, it is one I enjoyed enormously. There is so much to recommend it and I found it great to watch. The story is riveting and well constructed, and while he doesn't show off as such, a good thing in my book, Brian DePalma does let loose with some very inventive not to mention bloody set pieces. See the climax at the railway station for instance, while essentially a nod to the famous Odyssey steps sequence in the Battleship Potemkin, it was brilliantly done all the same. Speaking of DePalma, he does do a wonderful job directing.

That isn't the only reason why the Untouchables was such a hit with me. There are many more reasons. The dialogue is like crackling fire works, it is witty, intelligent and sophisticated, and some of it goes by surprisingly quickly. Ennio Morricone is one of the finest film composers ever, his score here is no exception, as it soars very like an eagle in full flight. And we have some truly sparkling production design, I love films with beautiful sets, scenery and costumes and The Untouchables scored highly in this area. Then we have very strong acting, Kevin Costner mayn't be to everybody's tastes but I think in his star-making turn he gave one of his better performances in this film. Andy Garcia joins the team with enthusiasm, and a plumped-up Robert DeNiro as Al Capone is wonderful as always. However, in my opinion, as the Irish cop who shows Costner the ropes, Sean Connery one of the most charismatic actors around gives the best and even perhaps most memorable performance here.

Overall, a wonderful film, with an awful lot to recommend it. 10/10 Bethany Cox