'Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues' review by Captain Raptor

'Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues' review by Captain Raptor

Almost ten years ago, a simple, lighthearted and idiosyncratic film about a dumb newsreader ascended the steps leading to cult comedy status. It launched several careers and its seemingly inexhaustible supply of quotable lines must have kept about a thousand t-shirt companies in business. I'm in a conglomerate of many when I say that Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy is one of 21st century Hollywood's greatest comedies, but was a belated comeback such a good idea?

Well, despite how long the gang have been away, they are for the most part still on-form. Steve Carell is absolutely fantastic once again as the impossibly stupid weatherman Brick; he's the opposite of deadpan, mugging and screaming at regular intervals as well as blurting out with the hilariously nonsensical quips for which his characters is known. He stands head and shoulders above the rest of the cast, although David Koechner has managed to improve his delivery. Unfortunately, Will Ferrell's performance has turned a little overbearing and weaker over the years, but he's still got the spark that originally ignited Anchorman's flame. The old elements work just about as well as they used to - the group dynamic is as strong as ever and the exclamations and one-liners are still gleefully daft and unpredictable - but most of the sequel's new ingredients simply don't work. There's no comedy to be garnered from James Marsden's slick antagonist or from a brief, almost entirely needless Harrison Ford cameo, and there is one truly awful scene which essentially just consists of Ron being inadvertently racist for a grueling five minutes. There is one brand new addition that works, and that is Kristen Wiig as a female equivalent and love interest of Brick, because it is very hard for anything pertaining to Brick to be anything less than side-splitting.

There are some fantastic new lines ("chickens of the cave" is a phrase destined to be parroted on forums and t-shirts for a good few years) but there are no scenes of laugh-out-loud hilarity, and a couple of jokes have been transplanted from the original into the sequel. It's a hit-and-miss affair, more a sequence of loosely related scenes than a fully-fledged film, and a lot of the components (a blindingly unsubtle satirisation of Rupert Murdoch and sensationalization in the media, an abundance of jokes about hair, the aforementioned race relations debacle) just fall flat on their face. Maybe it was deliberate or maybe Ferrell and Adam McKay just ran out of ideas, but by the end things have descended into total chaos, and the final twenty minutes feature numerous explosions, cameos by a veritable pantheon of celebrities from Liam Neeson to Kanye West, and Ron going blind in a lighthouse whilst trying to raise a shark as his own. Some of these parts are funny, but the incoherence of it all does not escape unnoticed, and the lines between enjoyably daft flight of fancy and plain stupidity through overkill become incredibly blurred.

Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues could have been absolutely terrible, and maybe it's an impressive enough feat that it wasn't. It's a fully watchable and genuinely very funny movie, but it can't match up to its predecessor and a lot of the material is quite simply just bad. It's still good enough to not be disappointing and if you liked the first film then I suspect that you'll like this one too. Maybe it couldn't equal the brilliance of what came before it, but it's entertaining and worth a watch. Looks like Ron Burgundy stayed classy after all.

'The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug' review by Captain Raptor

'The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug' review by Captain Raptor

An Unexpected Journey was good enough to make my top ten of the year by the skin of its teeth (although by this point, having seen more films released in 2012 on DVD, it's probably somewhere around 14th) but still left a lot to be desired. However, this film was to contain most of my favourite moments from the book, had extra Benedict Cumberbatch and my favourite films from franchises tend to be second one (Lord of the Rings, X-Men, Christopher Nolan's Batman, Pirates of the Caribbean... the list goes on), so expectations were still high.

For the first forty minutes or so, the film totally delivered. Bilbo and his dwarfish entourage are still entertaining, and two equally great but contrasting setpieces - a mostly silent and thoroughly atmospheric interlude with giant spiders, and a brilliantly fun and fast-paced piece of what can only be described as barrel warfare - marked a strong step in the right direction. These scenes weren't done perfectly; it's still hard to care about all of the dwarves when about 5 of them have don't any resemblance of character, and the spider scene, my personal favourite segment from the original book, is done far too briefly, but they're the still the strongest parts of the prequels thus far. Also good is Tolkien newcomer Evangeline Lilly as elven warrior Tauriel, who kicks ass like she's being paid in direct proportion to how much orc blood she can spill. However, whether the film ran out of steam or I just ran out of patience, eventually everything just became dull. The main cause of this is Luke Evans, who fails to display much more than a drop of either charisma or pathos in his role as Bard, which while he may be an important character, is not worth spending an hour with when said hour could feature more dwarves, wizards, goddamn giant spiders or, y'know, fantasy. Lee Pace is adequate but still uninspiring in a role that could have been cut almost entirely and is similarly dull to Evans'.

I don't even want to talk about Smaug. Someone has clearly put in a lot of effort in the wrong direction, because I cannot fathom how one could make a dragon with the voice of Benedict Cumberbatch feel boring. There are numerous other disappointments too, but really they all stem from one problem: trying to recreate Lord of the Rings. The Hobbit is fundamentally a lighter, sillier and (arguably most importantly) shorter story, but this goes by the wayside. Legolas is needlessly brought back, and it's not even that much fun because the canon necessitates him being an asshole. Smaug is stripped of any and all distinctive traits and the talents of Benedict Cumberbatch buried beneath voice modification in order that he might a far more simplistic villain, like Sauron. Rather than concentrating on the fun, light-hearted idiosyncratic tale and set of characters it has at hand, The Desolation of Smaug instead focuses on attempts at moodiness and epicness, and despite the outstanding visuals and thrilling action that it possesses by the bucketful, the end result is somewhat half-baked.

It's such an abundant criticism that it hardly feels worth mentioning, but The Hobbit films are just too long for their own good. There's a 90 minute film that's highly above average somewhere within The Desolation of Smaug, buried under stuff that could have or arguably should have been more heavily edited.  The most interesting parts of the film (yes, I'm still annoyed about the giant spider thing) are whizzed past whereas the duller parts (namely almost everything that happens in Laketown) seem to stretch on for countless minutes, yet despite all that there's enough charm and fun to keep you entertained for the majority of the film's duration. The review doesn't really sound like I enjoyed the film (I did) but that's because it was so easy to see where it could have been better, if only Peter Jackson (who I instantly feel awful for criticising) could maybe, just maybe, learn when enough is enough.

'Scrooged' review by Captain Raptor

'Scrooged' review by Captain Raptor

I expect a few of you are already sick and tired of the ubiquity of Christmas on the internet at the moment, so in that respect I'm sorry for the subsequent festive review. Counter-productive as it might be, this next review is dedicated to you - those called Scrooge and Grinch on a daily basis, who roll their eyes at the inundation of Christmas jumpers and who will most definitely be receiving a stocking full of coal. Not only shall I assess Scrooge's quality, but I'll assess its appeal to your misanthropic sensibilities.

What better antidote could there be for over-earnestness than Bill Murray, man of a thousand smirks?  Updating the classic Charles Dickens parable to the modern day doesn't really sound like the most amusing of concepts (because it isn't), but I'm willing to give anything with Bill Murray a try. He does his usual schtick with the customary charm, but that's pretty much all the film's got going for it. The script is mostly just dull attempts at wit, only improved by Murray's delivery, and the gaps are filled in either by pop culture references - which normally I'm in favour of but given that they're from 1988 it went more than a little bit over my head - or lazy slapstick. Scrooged is funny in parts, but it feels dragged down by an overly sentimental concept and a desire to balance snark and sweetness that wasn't effectively carried out. On the plus side, this keeps the film from being overly saccharine and the cornier parts are closer to pleasant than irritating. On the negative side, the lack of conviction leads to a boring film that's neither charmingly cheesy nor subversively dark.

It's not a simple case of writing bad, Murray good. The lead actor does almost totally carry the film, but it's not a particularly energetic performance and he's made more of lesser roles before. The film has a few engaging, if not particularly entertaining, side characters, and the final scene in which our modern day Scrooge learns his lesson and speaks on the true meaning of Christmas is actually quite well done. The supporting cast isn't spectacular, and although there's nobody that actually gives a poor performance, maybe the film wouldn't drag on so much if Murray had some above-adequate back-up.

So, Scrooged isn't particularly good, but nor is it overwhelmingly poor. It's entertaining enough to be passable but you shouldn't expect too much from it. Now, for our less than enthusiastic about Christmas viewers, this film is far from being as nauseatingly sweet or as unabashedly stupid as some Christmas films can be, but it's still pretty focused on tidings of comfort and joy. It's inoffensive and enjoyable to a degree, but it's not a film worthy of much praise.

'The Great White Hype' review by Captain Raptor

'The Great White Hype' review by Captain Raptor

For the benefit of those of you who haven't heard of it (namely everybody), The Great White Hype is a comedy about a dishonest boxing promoter, played by Samuel L Jackson, attempting to drum up interest in the undefeated champion by pretending that an untrained amateur is a legitimate contender. The reason I decided to watch it starts and ends with the fact that it stars Samuel L Jackson, and no amount of critical apathy could put me off. Which is good, because there was a lot of it.

It's an apathy that I share. Samuel L Jackson is all smiles and smirks in a performance that completely charms, but is let down by a script that can't supply the dialogue to match his combined menace and charisma. The concept combined with the film's talented cast (Jeff Goldblum, Jamie Foxx and John Rhys-Davies, amongst others) is basically enough to carry it, but the film doesn't really manage to marry these two concepts. There's such a wide range of characters all attempting to be played with some degree of likeability that the film spends too long introducing them all that they barely get any opportunity to be funny, and some of them are just dropped from the film. The performances are all good enough, apart from Damon Wayans, who seems completely opposed to putting any sort of energy into his act. There's a lot of components and a lot of them had some great potential - Samuel L Jackson as a roguish, over-the-top fight promoter, the attempts at a satirisation of boxing culture ("He's white. In boxing, that means he's Irish"), the Coen-esque feel of' 'get a strong cast and outlandish characters trying to double-cross each other' - but it ultimately comes to no avail.

The set-up and early scenes of the film, while not particularly amusing in and of themselves, gave a promise of something madcap and comical that was yet to come. Really, the most impressive thing about the film was that I never felt bored or frustrated. The complete misfiring of all the film's promising elements should really make for an incredibly jarring experience, which was not the case, although that might be more related to the sub-90 minute runtime. It's not funny. The more astute of my readers might recognise this as a major flaw in a comedy film, and what do you know, they'd be right. I laughed maybe a total of four or five times throughout the whole film, mostly at the outbursts of John Rhys-Davies' absurdly racist boxing coach, which is a very cheap and easy way to get laughs. The most enthusiastic I ever got about the film was in the final fight scene where I noticed that both Method Man and Peter Dinklage reared their heads, and if the best thing about your film is a chance to notice some of your favourite cult icons in the background, then something has gone horribly wrong somewhere.

Watching The Great White Hype was not a bad experience. At no point was I actively bored. It technically qualifies as entertaining and it was probably more fun then doing nothing. So, yeah, it wasn't bad, but it's not a great indication of quality that those are the most positive things I have to say about the film. This is also taking into account that I am predisposed to enjoy something with Samuel L Jackson in about 50% more than I otherwise would have. I definitely wouldn't suggest that you go out of your way to see it, and it's not a film that's worth actively avoiding either. It's a brief, unexciting exercise in distraction. Let the good times keep on coming.

'The Hunger Games: Catching Fire' review by Captain Raptor

'The Hunger Games: Catching Fire' review by Captain Raptor

If you've been reading these rambling scrawls I portend to be 'reviews' for a while, you'll have noticed by now that I have a thing for dystopias, teen dramas, and action. So, obviously, I thoroughly enjoyed the first Hunger Games movie, and it ended up being one of my favourite films of the year. The second instalment had quite a high bar set for it, but on the whole it's a been a good year for blockbuster sequels. 

The hardest thing about writing this review is trying to praise all the deserving performances with any degree of brevity. I want to write paragraphs and paragraphs about the sublime way that Elizabeth Banks blends subtlety and exaggeration, about how Woody Harrelson delivers every line with a confidence that transcends mortal bounds, and most of all about Jennifer Lawrence. I don't even know if there's any point going into detail, it's practically a universally accepted fact that she's amazing. The first film was more emotionally restrained, especially when it came to Katniss, but the reigns have been loosened this time around and Lawrence gets to give an excellent demonstration as to why she's one of the biggest and best stars around. Bad guys Donald Sutherland and Philip Seymour Hoffman are really quite bland, despite being the most experienced and acclaimed performers involved in the film, and I still don't really get the fuss about Liam Hemsworth, but apart from that it's top-notch performances across the board, even from people with less than ten seconds of screen time. There's less focus on Katniss and more attention to detail, which serves the fantastic dual purposes of making the film's created world feel bigger and more realised and allowing Lawrence to shine even more when the focus actually is on her.

The tension and the inventiveness of the Hunger Games themselves are just as good as they were before, perhaps slightly less interesting now that we're more familiar with the concept. The plot's increased concentration on socio-political issues is cleverly done, and provides some great contrast with the brutality of later scenes. The only area I can really think of that could have been improved to any great degree was dialogue - it wasn't a major issue, and there were some clever lines worked in at various places, but a lot of the dialogue just seems to exist to fill space. There were some great moments of silence, where it was recognised that nothing needed to be said or explained and the audience could just concentrate on the immediate emotion of a situation, but maybe Catching Fire could have been a little bolder with how often it played this trick.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is subtle, tense and intelligent without sacrificing on entertainment or spectacle, and there's very little else you could want from a blockbuster. It would have been enough of a success for it to have merely equalled the first film, but in most ways the sequel has surpassed it (although not by a huge degree). It's dark and it's moody, so don't go in for popcorn flick, but other than I think that not only is this is a great film, but one that will appeal to most cinemagoers. 

'Ghost World' review by Captain Raptor

'Ghost World' review by Captain Raptor

Although it's not really a defined subgenre, I've always greatly enjoyed 21st century comedy-dramas about snarky alternative people; be they factual (The Runaways) or fictitious (High Fidelity), be their differences subtle and barely mentioned (Pitch Perfect) or one of the integral parts of the film (Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist), be they Ellen Page (Juno) or also Ellen Page (Whip It). So, naturally, upon hearing of Ghost World, something in a similar vein, I resolved to watch it.

The problem with Ghost World is that it's got the snark, just without any heart. The protagonist of this tale, Enid, is so unbelievably disillusioned and bitter, so convinced that everybody that surrounds is her is so stupid and unworthy of her time that it was really, really hard to sympathise with her. She goes through character development as the movie goes on, but until the very end it's all played so deadpan by Thora Birch that it still doesn't feel like she's actually changed; I'm down with feelings of alienation and resentment in a character, but lines like "He better be careful or he'll get AIDS when he date rapes her" is the exact opposite of endearing, and I felt that there should have been a more defined transformation or evolution. All the film's characters are either are aggravating as Enid or otherwise entirely dull, meaning that excellent actors, namely Steve Buscemi and Scarlett Johansson, are wasted on parts that none of their talent and charisma can install much life into (although Johansson does come close to entertaining at various parts). There's no poor performances at all in the film, in fact Birch is very good in her part, it's just that the way the characters are written makes them almost fundamentally wearisome.

The rest of the film is as apathetic as its characters. There's around a dozen patronizing lines from various characters all expressing as well as championing a haughty and over-simplistic dissatisfaction with modern society and people in general, and it really gives me the impression of either the author of the original comic book or the screenwriter being terribly conceited. Anti-establishment I could get behind but the whole film just seems bored by everything, including itself. At one point a lecherous record collector played by Arrested Development's David Cross states that "It's physically impossible to score a home run without taking a swing" which is a philosophy clearly not shared by the writer, who barely makes any attempts to be funny, let alone any successful ones. There are some briefly amusing interludes in the interactions between an irritable convenience store proprietor and a redneck with nunchucks, but there's very little comedy that possesses the intelligence that is so highly valued in all the film's dialogue. There's a little more on offer in the drama department, but because the comedy failed in endearing me towards Enid, I struggled to particularly care about the issues she faced.

Ghost World was a total disappointment for me and might even be one of the worst films I've ever seen. A truly abominable script really is the central issue, and all the subsequent faults such as an unlikable protagonist and a lack of either charm or heart in the film's tone are caused by this. A strong cast tried hard to resurrect what had the potential to be subversive, sarcastic and smart, but their efforts can't save what I found to be a vapid film with a patronizing and over-inflated opinion of its own intelligence.

'Don Jon' review by Captain Raptor

'Don Jon' review by Captain Raptor

I reserve the right to be suspicious of any actor who writes a film which they then star in. I especially reserve the right to be suspicious of an actor who writes and directs a film in which they have numerous sex scenes with a variety of attractive women. Joseph Gordon-Levitt has been one of my favourite and one of the most reliable actors of the past few years, so I was interested to see how well he fared behind the camera as well as in front of it.

A well-earned tip of the hat to Gordon-Levitt for his bravery if nothing else; for making such a challengingly risqué film as his debut and for stepping out of his comfort zone. His performance is up to his usual standard, and he manages to strike a balance that makes his character (picture Mark Wahlberg in Pain & Gain being relocated to the Jersey Shore and you're pretty much there) just likeable enough that we genuinely care what happens to him but enough of a douchebag to let the events of the story unfold. I think that as a director he also did a pretty good job. His use of repetitive sequences and camera angles made a surprisingly strong impact on the film and he manages to coax good performances out of the rest of his cast. As a writer, well, that's more of an issue. It's certainly intelligently written, and there are a few good lines, but the script is definitely lacking some spark, and at times the film felt marginally lifeless. There's nothing explicitly bad about the dialogue, but all the film's best moments come without words - Jon's face when he learns of the concept of 'internet history' is priceless, and Gordon-Levitt's physicality in a more general sense is just brilliant. Whether he's leering at girls by the bar or swaggering through the halls of his gym, he's always totally in control of his character, although I suppose it would be easier to get into a role if you wrote it.

The only pressing issue with Don Jon is that it doesn't quite offer enough. It's neither funny or dramatic enough that either element would be close to substantial when stood alone. There are two things in the film which are truly great: the confession scenes where Jon absolves his sins (where Gordon-Levitt manages to be as close to mature in his writing as one can be in when making jokes about masturbation) and Tony Danza is his role as Jon's loud-mouthed father. Everything else is mostly still functioning, but nothing to write home about. Julianne Moore's performance does feel slightly wasted when some of her dialogue is so overtly preachy that it overrides a lot of the brilliant sarcastic sensibility displayed in the rest of the film, as does the sentimental and idealistic ending, but ultimately there's very little that's wrong with Don Jon, it just never fully takes off.

Don Jon is a very smart film, both in concept and in execution, held together by solid performances from Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Scarlett Johansson, and it truly comes alive when Tony Danza is allowed to brighten up the screen. Some scenes are wickedly clever or just straight-up funny, but there's a pronounced sparsity with the film's drama and the comedic are somewhat inconsistent. Everything that the film tries to do it at least succeeds in, and overall it was completely entertaining and well executed. A promising debut from Gordon-Levitt, I look forward to any future films as well as recommending this one.

'Donnie Darko' review by Captain Raptor

'Donnie Darko' review by Captain Raptor

Moody teenage drama combined with apocalyptic science-fiction? Sign me up. Donnie Darko is a film I've been intending to watch for a long time, primarily for the reason I just outlined, but given the high level of praise given to the film by critics (I was also amused at the prospect of seeing young Seth Rogen and Fran Kranz in minuscule roles) and its near instant cult classic status, it's been on my cinematic 'to-do' list for a long time, so the film had a lot of expectations to meet.

It more or less met them, but I wouldn't say that it greatly exceeded them. Jake Gyllenhaal's breakout performance as the mentally damaged and possibly prophetic teenager is truly amazing. He manages to portray the full spectrum of human emotion and can make the same smirk and tilt of the head seem threatening in one context and charming in another; he makes Donnie seem simultaneously so ordinary and yet so special. He's not immediately sympathetic from the start but he quickly grew on me, in no small part due to Gyllenhaal's multifaceted performance, but also because I like a character who can say "They just want to see what happens when they tear the world apart. They just want to change things" and "What's the point in living without a dick" with equal amounts of sincerity. The film is however a character study, and everybody else really only exists to reflect an aspect of Donnie or to advance the story, which doesn't allow any of the film's other cast to shine, which I feel that a few of them might have done (particularly Patrick Swayze's faux-inspirational speaker) if they were only allowed the screen time. But it's not all about actors, and some of this film's standout features are the result of the oft-forgotten people behind the camera - an emotive if somewhat overly dour soundtrack and some beautiful cinematography (courtesy of Stephen Poster) throughout the film gave it a gently cerebral quality.

Donnie Darko certainly is a strange film, and I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like it. So much happens and yet so little happens, like a gloomy metaphysical Seinfeld where Kramer is a rabbit. On the surface the film mostly deals with Donnie stumbling through everyday life whilst on occasion being briefly tormented by apocalyptic visions. Highly dramatic and shocking things happen but they're dealt with on such a low-key level that the emotion doesn't come through, and I while I think that I enjoyed the subtlety a lot (it's absolutely crucial for the film's atmosphere) I can't help but feel that it made various parts of the film feel underwhelming. Similarly, the complex ideas and themes (time travel, morality, transdimensional rabbits) at the heart of the film are treated with the same level of importance as high school politics and other comparatively trivial and mundane minutiae. Does writer/director Frank Kelly do this to make a point or does he do it to create a laid back yet chilling atmosphere? I don't know. Does doing this make the film wonderfully unpredictable and entirely different in tone to anything you've seen before, or does it make it self-sabotagingly vague and difficult to invest in? I also don't know. Either way, a film unique enough to raise these sorts of questions is a rare thing indeed and worthy of praise simply for taking the risks that it did.

Donnie Darko is many things. Dark, mysterious, original, confusing, ponderous, languid, pretentious, dramatic, unconventional and thought-provoking. It's a strange experience, with drama and tension that's both present and not present, and I really can't describe it very well myself. I would urge you to watch it, not just because I think that it's fiendishly clever and generally very good, but because more than any film I've ever seen it's something so totally different that I think everybody should see it just to pass judgement. I don't use this term lightly, and the accolade isn't entirely based around its quality, but Donnie Darko is a genuine must-see.

'Pacific Rim' review by Captain Raptor

'Pacific Rim' review by Captain Raptor

Science fiction was invented so that distant fantasies and improbabilities could be rationalized and explored through a dramatic lens whilst reflecting our own existence and place in the world. Pacific Rim is a film about giant robots punching giant sea monsters. We've come a long way, and a world in which films with premises like this can be made is exactly the kind of world I want to be living in. So in theory, Pacific Rim had me excited to my core, but did it deliver?

Director Guillermo Del Toro is famed for his creativity in designing creatures, but he takes things far beyond aesthetic in Pacific Rim. Make no mistakes, the robots and particularly the kaiju (the aforementioned giant sea monsters) look absolutely fantastic, but where Del Toro has really excelled is in creating a whole world. Through news footage, subtle inferences and a whole host of invented concepts, technology and terminology, Del Toro and co-writer Travis Beacham have manufactured a detailed and immerse world that I could quite happily watch a film about that contained very little robot-kraken smackdowns. This, combined with the immensely large scale and thoroughly satisfying action that comes with the territory of having gigantic titans fight each other, was definitely the major strength and what kept the film ticking. The other perk was some confident performances from the film's charismatic cast: Idris Elba was in his element (i.e. he would speak very quietly and then suddenly shout at things. Brilliantly) as leader of the last stand Stacker Pentecost (as well as amazing visuals this film also has truly amazing names), and Charlie Day stole the show as a frantic biologist, as well as making a nice double act with Burn Gorman.. Perhaps even more impressive is the presence of so much flash and spectacle but still being able to maintain heart and drive. Add in a cameo from Ron Perlman as the world's most outlandishly dressed man, and everything is looking great thus far.

As appealing as giant robot fights are, Pacific Rim has unfortunately little else to offer. Despite the best efforts of Gorman and Day, the film isn't as funny as it needs to be, nor are any of the characters sufficiently nuanced than we can gain entertainment from that area. The plot is a total nothing, a lot of the non-comedic dialogue is fairly stunted (although I do have a fond place in my heart for the line "We are cancelling the apocalypse!"), and the biggest issue I have is that of Charlie Hunnam. He plays the film's totally bland protagonist, devoid of any charisma or likeability, and is pretty much just a large stone dragging the film down into the depths of mediocrity. It's lucky he's got such great support to lift the film back up, and I can't help but feel that the film should have focused on Rinko Kikuchi's eager but amateur robot pilot Mako, a more interesting and immediately sympathetic character. The great things about Pacific Rim are things that are unique to it, but by following the traditional route and making the stereotypical ruggedly handsome man the lead, Pacific Rim has shot itself in the foot a little bit.

Although the last paragraph might not suggest it, I had a brilliant time with this film. At worst, it's a bland but functioning sci-fi action film, but I personally saw it as something that managed to be creative and charismatic while still maintaining massive amounts of spectacle. It fails in a couple of key areas, namely protagonist and plot, and this isn't without negative impacts on the film, but overall, Pacific Rim is fully enjoyable if not fully functioning movie.

'Thor: The Dark World' review by Captain Raptor

'Thor: The Dark World' review by Captain Raptor

Swapping out theatrical luvvie Kenneth Branagh for the predominantly television based Alan Taylor (Game of Thrones, Boardwalk Empire and The Sopranos, so the man's clearly earned his stripes) to direct the second installment of Thor was a move that enticed me: Branagh's film was fantastic (although to me that seems more like excellent writing than direction) and he's a dab hand at the theatrics but I was surprised that his lack of expertise in anything remotely similar to Thor's genre didn't leave an impact on the first film, so I had my doubts about him being second time lucky. Coupling that with a plot reminiscent of X2 (long time frenemies teaming up to fight a greater evil), I was considerably excited to see Thor swinging back into action.

The Dark World takes a while to get started, but it's worth it once all the pieces are in place. The set-up period is far too long, because the spark in Thor's character is the amusing way in which he deals with mortals, and it's about 20-30 minutes before there's any crossover between the realms. Thor actually gets relatively few chances to interact with the human characters, which substantially weakens the comedy that elevated the first film to such a high level, and overall Chris Hemsworth's performance is neither as charismatic nor as nuanced as it has been in his previous two outings. Luckily, the supporting characters up the game, with Kat Dennings over-compensating for everybody in the comedy department, the always superb Idris Elba being wonderfully stoic and badass (he has the film's greatest moment in which he takes out a spaceship using a knife), and of course Tom Hiddlestone stealing every scene he's involved in. Hiddlestone is still undoubtedly the best thing about the franchise, and most parts of the film that don't have his presence noticeably drag. The biggest disappointment however is Christopher Ecclestone as major villain Malekith, who's just so bland and unremarkable from start to finish. Iron Man 3 played the 'generic and dull bad guy' but then flipped the switch and made things interesting with it halfway through, whereas Thor: The Dark World seems content to have one of the simplest and least interesting villains in the Marvel movie canon.

If Thor disappoints in the comedy department, then at least it keeps things running smoothly in the action department. Hammers fly and buildings crumble, and the Dark Elves have an awesome (in both senses of the word) weapon in their grenades that create miniature black holes. However, again, these elements aren't hugely prominent in the opening of the film. All the audience is given at the start is Thor and Jane both moping (although Thor deals with his in a more screen-friendly, smashing-stuff kind of way) and Anthony Hopkins continuing his surprisingly underwhelming performance as the not-even-close-to-likable Odin. Once all the elements of Thor blend together, it all starts to work significantly better, and by the end I was definitely enjoying myself a lot. With Branagh out of the way, the film can be more minimal and at times is much better for this, such as the various instances of Kat Dennings just messing about in southern England (admittedly her love interest/counterpart Ian the Intern is pretty dull), and a really brief and simple cameo by Captain America had me more entertained than almost all of the film's setpieces.

Thor: The Dark World is nothing to write home about, but it's still worth seeing. The latter half of the film is funny, fast-paced and thoroughly enjoyable, but a few errors throw it off kilter. The major issue is that the film just does not engage the audience from the start, predominantly due to issues with pacing, and underusing its finest cast members (namely Elba, Hiddlestone and to a lesser degree Dennings; Zachary Levi is also squandered in his role but given that he's taking the part over from a different actor I can understand why). If you can get past the opening dreariness (which is partially eleviated at points) then there's a lot of fun to be had, and even including everything Thor: The Dark World is still a solid film.

'Slither' review by Captain Raptor

'Slither' review by Captain Raptor

For all people complain about them, Hollywood executives do sometimes learn their lessons and adapt. Exhibit A: after the risky appointing of Joss Whedon to helm Avengers Assemble paid off in both critical and commercial dividends, Marvel have elected to appoint another cult writer/director to make one of their upcoming movies; namely one Mr James Gunn. Being an enormous fan of his 2011 subversive superhero comedy Super, I sat down this weekend to watch his directorial debut Slither.

Slither is, at heart, a composite of about 30 other different horror movies. Most obviously it's riffing on The Blob, Alien and the Romero zombie flicks, but if you look closely enough you can see that most of what's here is from somewhere else (I counted Shaun of the Dead, Psycho and Evil Dead, amongst others). It blurs the line between inspiration and plagiarism at times, but there's enough wry humour and inventive gore that I don't begrudge it my approval. The first twenty minutes of the film are completely devoid of humour, just about held together by an impressive performance from Michael Rooker as the Patient Zero of a parasitic alien invasion, but slowly the film picks up the pace and gets funnier as it goes along. The characters have as much originality in them as the rest of the film does, and it's a blessing that Gunn managed to obtain the ever-fantastic Nathan Fillion to play the lead role or else things really would have fallen apart. He charms his way along as he always does, and it's a treat to see him in a role where he's more explicit than his normal TV persona (plus, as a Browncoat, it's immensely comforting for me to hear him speak in a Southern accent again).

The really irritating thing about Slither is how run-of-the-mill it is. Super subverted your expectations left, right and centre, and Nathan Fillion has a tendency to add an air of self-awareness or parody to whatever he's in, but Slither is pretty much just your average B-movie. There's a decent supply of funny moments, and there are flashes of boldness here and there (the creatures kill children and dogs like nobody's business, one of the entertainment industry's big faux pas), but the film's just too damn predictable and familiar. The usually first-rate Elizabeth Banks is pretty much flaccid here, although that may just be due to her poorly written character, because we can't all be Nathan Fillion and dazzle no matter what script is put in front of us. Visually, the film is very appealing, both in the simple but effectively repulsive design of the alien creatures (and the remains of their victims) and in the dark, dingy small town setting that did manage to create some faint atmosphere. 

Slither is neither as funny nor as shocking as a good horror comedy should be. It's funny in parts, the action is competently handled and it's a lot of dumb fun, but ultimately it is far weaker than the sum of its parts. I think its greatest value might have been to gain Gunn the experience he would later use to make Super, but Fillion still hits every note and if it's worth watching for anything then it's Michael Rooker's performance. It's definitely enjoyable and I wouldn't call it a poor film per se, but there's other films in a similar vein that are more worthy of your time.

'Filth' review by Captain Raptor

'Filth' review by Captain Raptor

2013 has been a really good year if you're a fan of James-McAvoy-starring-crime-dramas; Trance, Welcome to the Punch, and now an adaption of Trainspotting author Irvine Welsh's novel Filth, a tale of police corruption in Edinburgh, allowing McAvoy to drop the mockney accent he's been practicing this year. It's a lovely story about a man working hard to try and win back his family's love at Christmas (by using manipulation, adultery, violence and any other nefarious means he deems necessary).

Right off the bat, the important thing to understand is that Filth is dark. Relentlessly dark. Pitch black, really. The usually pretty and charming McAvoy plays Bruce Robertson, a psychopathic perverted coked-up bigoted back-stabber, who just so happens to be one of Edinburgh's top policemen. The rest of the cast are all on perfectly good form (in particular Joanne Froggatt's trembling widow and Eddie Marsan's nebbish accountant) but Filth really is McAvoy's show. He gives a career performance, flitting back and forth between leering bully and terrified lunatic with complete ease, and in his saner moments hitting every comedic note as he smoothly corrupts and manipulates everybody who surrounds him. There's some excellent work visible by writer/director Jon S Baird - a fantastic sequence comes midway through the film where Bruce goes on a sex and drug fuelled nightmare in Berlin and it's shot on some terribly low definition cameras, capturing the turmoil, mind games and schizophrenia of a bad trip as Bruce stumbles about amongst glaring neon lights. The script is full of some fantastic monologues, such as the Chief of Police explaining why he couldn't possibly promote a gay man or Bruce sizing up his opponents and internally weighing up the odds that he'll defeat them, but it's the situations rather than the words that really deal out the laughs.

Filth's got a fantastic story to tell - not just because it covers pretty much every taboo you can think of (underage sex, Hitler, the Masons and erotic asphyxiation all come under the radar to name but four), but it's a wonderful character arc of a nasty, crazy man getting nastier and crazier by the day. Bruce Robertson is one of the most well-rounded and intricately written antiheroes that I've ever seen, and it's a testament to McAvoy's talents that he managed to make me care even a little about a man who by all rights I should find totally repugnant. The intensity of the film is remarkable; not a minute goes by without something shocking or attention-grabbing taking or just cinematically powerful place. Filth isn't flawless: despite an adequate performance I feel that Jamie Bell was miscast, and there's a few too many subplots that are never concluded, but in a film where even the soundtrack can have such a huge (if momentary) impact on the audience's feelings (the cover version of Radiohead's Creep towards the end gave me chills, and cheerily playing Love Really Hurts Without You over the end credits of such a morbid film is stroke of genius) then any complaints really fall by the wayside.

So there you have it: a subversive powerhouse of a drama with a wonderfully twisted sense of humour and one of the finest lead performances I've seen in a long time. Filth is absolutely fantastic, it's intense, it's hilarious, it's moving, it's harrowing and at a few points even frightening. A strong contender for best film of the year. It's not for the faint-hearted or the easily offended, but barring that Filth is one of the few films I would genuinely describe as a must-see. 

'Untouchable' review by Captain Raptor

'Untouchable' review by Captain Raptor

A French drama based on a true story about a young inner-city black kid who forms an emotional bond with a quadriplegic high-society aristocrat. I'd call it Oscar gold but for whatever reason it didn't even warrant a mention at the Academy Awards. Either way, Untouchable seems to have been one of the most warmly received films of recent years, receiving showers of accolades and reviews singing its praises, so I decided to check it out.

Interestingly enough, it's the comedy of the film that I appreciate more than the drama. The drama at the heart of the story isn't really anything new. The presentations of poverty, of family drama and of illness are fairly standard of the genre and if this was the majority of the film's content then I'd describe it as wholly unremarkable. However, the characters treat the serious subject matter with enough flippancy to be funny without ever going so far that in borders on mocking or to detract from the film's emotional impact (which is just as well as there isn't much of one anyway). Even when spoken in an entirely different language to the viewer's, Omar Sy's assured delivery is clearly impeccable, and it's just refreshing to hear jokes about the issues of race, disability and poverty done so well, without any attempts at controversy or edginess. The script is very well-written, being both extraordinarily funny for a drama and providing genuine sympathy for characters who could have quite easily been very lazily written and still achieve our sympathy, given their respective situations.

There's a few niggling problems I have with the film -  an ending that's a bit of a non-event, a little sprinkling of casual misogyny here and there - but ultimately the main issue with Untouchable is simply what it's not: it's not an emotionally packed powerhouse of a drama, it's not a hilarious idiosyncratic comedy, it's not an uplifting, warm, feel-good movie, much more it's a hybrid of the three. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that this makes the film in any way bad, but with the overwhelming amount of positivity that people have expressed about this movie, I was kind of expecting it to provoke an extreme reaction within me. It's very witty at times and there's some incredibly funny moments, and the two leads are excellent in their roles, but it's neither as intense, as funny or as moving as I feel it could have been.

Untouchable isn't really what it was hyped up to be, but my no means does that make it a bad film. It's certainly above average and worth a watch. It's enjoyable, very humorous and in some respects very individual and a breath of fresh air. Everything that's present works; but there could have been more than what is present. Not disappointing, but it's certainly no worthy of it's ranking on IMDB as 61st best film ever made.

'High Fidelity' review by Captain Raptor

'High Fidelity' review by Captain Raptor

Reviewing a film based on a book can be a tricky matter, because the things you like/dislike about it may simply be an intrinsic part of the original text. Having not read Nick Hornby's novel, I cannot know what dialogue and characterisation should be credited to him, and which should be credited to the cast and crew of the movie, so if it seems like I'm doing Hornby a disservice by only praising the film and not the novel, then I'm very sorry.

High Fidelity really grabs you from the beginning, which is remarkable for such a low-key film. Rather than have information conveyed via narration and voice-over, John Cusack's protagonist Rob Gordon looks and speaks directly into the camera to express his thoughts, most of which are about music and women. A funny and quotable opening monologue ("Do I listen to pop music because I'm miserable or am I miserable because I listen to pop music?") gives a great character introduction and introduces you to to the film's only quirk by having Cusack talk about life and love to the audience, pausing occasionally to continue his break-up with his girlfriend. Rob really ticks every box on the Indie Comedy Protagonist checklist; he works in a record store, he's self-centred but in a very likeable way (although no force on Earth could ever prevent Cusack from being likeable), he's unlucky in love and at one point he screams angrily in the rain. Jack Black co-stars and does his Jack Black thing, being energetic and overbearing whilst cracking jokes about rock music. It's the same thing you've seen him do in half a dozen dumb stoner flicks, but when relegated to a side role he comes as an amusing burst of energy rather than as the idiotic irritant he often becomes when he's forced to carry a film. Despite starting in the midst of a break-up, the plot is a fairly typical romantic comedy, albeit with far more pop culture references.

What it lacks in originality, High Fidelity makes up for in, well, everything else. A charismatic cast play a series of well-developed characters who can be entertaining, hilarious and realistic simultaneously and they're supported by a script packed with dry wit and clever observations. John Cusack's constant direct interaction with the audience is the highlight for me; something that should be jarring and break the flow actually makes the movie run more fluidly and engages the audience, and gives a lot of comedic opportunities, which Cusack takes full advantage of, his dialogue a mix of sarcastic humour and total honesty with perfect delivery. The main characters all share an obsession with alternative culture and particularly music, so The Clash, Evil Dead II and Massive Attack all being name dropped, and even a brief appearance from Bruce Springsteen himself, acting as one half of Rob's internal dialogue. If, like me, you're a fan of these things, it adds a whole other layer of coolness and charm to the proceedings, as well as making Rob even more relatable.

High Fidelity is funny, clever, cool and honest. It's an excellent study in characterisation, and one of the few films I've ever seen that manages to make every character seem both relatable and interesting. It's a film that celebrates being ordinary, and being a misfit, and being a fan. Every ingredient works, it's poignant without being serious and it's hysterically funny. In short, it's the best film that I've seen in a long, long time.

'Pain & Gain' review by Captain Raptor

'Pain & Gain' review by Captain Raptor

Okay, so I think it's fair to say that nobody reading this is expecting Pain & Gain to be the new Casablanca. It's simply not that kind of film. So to give this a more fitting review, the level of quality it should be roughly aiming to equal is that of Michael Bay's gold standard (and arguably his only half-good film) Bad Boys, a perfectly capable and enjoyable action-comedy.

The problem is, even when you've lowered the bar, Pain & Gain still doesn't really succeed. Michael Bay does two things really well - outrageous action scenes and quips - and everything else just really isn't his forte. It's possible to make a good film out of these two ingredients and little else (which is why Bad Boys was such a good film), but Pain & Gain contains a lot else. Yeah, some of the jokes stick, and there are some cool action scenes, but Bay's attempts to build characterisation or to make some quasi-satirical point about the American dream are poor at best. One of the major flaws of the film is that there's nobody to really root for; the three main characters are either too obnoxious to like or too foolish to feel sorry for, their victim (Tony Shalhoub) is an asshole, and the private detective brought in to wrap up the story (Ed Harris, who should really be embarrassed to be here) has about as much personality and charisma as Crawley. There's Michael Bay's usual disregard for women; all the primary female characters are either naive wives (although Rebel Wilson does bring some charm to the role) or strippers. The audience is reminded at several points during the film that 'This Is A True Story', as if that somehow makes it funnier or smarter.

Pain & Gain does have one feature that works without a hitch, however. Something that dominates the screen, both due to its entertainment value and its sheer size. I'm talking about Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson of course, putting in the best performance of his acting career. He delivers every line he's given like a champ (which he was, WWE King of the Ring in the year 2000), manages to evoke a lot of genuine emotion and, in his own words "knocks people the FUCK out" to the best of his ability. Whether he's barbecuing human hands or being cajoled into committing vehicular homicide, he gives a funny and surprisingly nuanced performance. Other talented performers who have been roped into the film (the aforementioned Wilson and Harris, Ken Jeong and Rob Corddry) are all given very little screen time, so the film is mostly spent watching Mark Wahlberg sweat for two hours (which is way, way longer than the film needed to be). The action, Michael Bay's speciality, isn't really up to par and the film repeatedly tries and fails to create some tension. It's too dry for its target audience and too dumb for anybody else.

So, yeah, Pain & Gain isn't exactly fantastic, but did anybody really expect it to be? Large parts of it are fun when it stops taking itself so seriously, and Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson is genuinely fantastic in his role. Ultimately, this film would have been good had it been dumber (more explosions, stupid quotes and just generally more fun) or smarter (there's an interesting plot and character dynamics buried beneath the multiple layers of machismo and ignorance) than it was. As it stands, it's caught awkwardly between The Rock and a hard place. Bad Boys it ain't.

'Elysium' review by Captain Raptor

'Elysium' review by Captain Raptor

A part of me thought that Elysium might have turned out to be my favourite film of the year. First and foremost, it's written and directed by Neill Blomkamp, the man responsible for the 2009 work of genius District 9, and it's another left-wing science-fiction parable set in a dystopian future, an idea which is (to use the technical terminology) the motherfucking bomb.  

Unfortunately, Elysium just isn't as well put together as it's predecessor. It's got all the same ingredients - realistic and unflinching looks at social issues via an awesome sci-fi metaphor, ostentatious action scenes, intelligent and subtle exposition - but it really doesn't blend together this time. Whether through poorer scripting, or a lack of focus, nothing Elysium says or does has any great impact. The actions scenes are intense, but it's nothing you haven't seen before (it's even got the Lara Croft belief in 'if one thing looks good in slow motion, then so will everything'). It's trying to make a point about the class divide and social injustice in modern society, but never says anything more advanced than 'rich people don't really care about poor people'. The one aspect where Elysium undoubtedly succeeds, however, is in the creation of its own world. The locations and design of the upper class' shiny, clean spaceship and the regular Earthlings' horrible, cramped, dusty surroundings are perfect, creating an excellent atmosphere, and the sci-fi technology that Blomkamp puts into the film (machines that can cure any disease, USB sticks that you can plug into your brain) adds a lot of intrigue. I found myself at times becoming enveloped and fascinated with the futuristic Earth, so I really think it's a shame that nothing better or more inventive was done with such an interesting backdrop.

When the plot of a movie, or the ideas behind it, amount to little more than zero, this is where characterisation and dialogue are supposed to swoop in and save the day. This doesn't even slightly happen. Matt Damon's Max is supposed to represent the common working man, and we all know that 'everyman' pretty much translates to 'boring and uncharismatic' in cinema. The film's other big star, Jodie Foster, is given a fairly good character who looks like she's going to be the main villain, but when the film starts to reach its apex she's just dropped out of the plot for no discernible reason. The only character that was entertaining in and of themselves was Sharlto Copley's temperamental assassin Kruger, but that's mostly just because he gets to do all the badass murdering - his dialogue is the most bland villain talk you'll ever hear ("If you want to save the girl, you'll have to go through me"), and had it been spoken by anybody else than Copley (who, having starred in District 9, probably has complete faith in Blomkamp's writing) he would be a thoroughly forgettable character.

Elysium crafts a fantastic world that contains brilliant visuals and some wonderfully original thoughts. Aside from that, the film's nothing like I hoped it would be. There are plot holes aplenty, and I strongly suspect that there's been a lot of studio tampering and interference to dull down any criticisms of the wealthy that Blomkamp included in his script. There's none of the nuances of District 9, nor any of its wry humour and excellent deconstruction of society. Despite some gripping action scenes and bright ideas, Elysium is ultimately as dull and uninspiring as the wasteland they filmed it in.

'We're The Millers' review by Captain Raptor

'We're The Millers' review by Captain Raptor

I had a big ol' bag of mixed feelings before seeing We're The Millers. I was underwhelmed by Jason Sudeikis and Jennifer Aniston's previous team-up Horrible Bosses, but it also stars British child actor Will Poulter, who has a habit of being absolutely brilliant in awful things (School of Comedy, one of the later Narnia films), so I was fairly sure that I would at least see one entertaining performance. 

We're The Millers is the type of movie Judd Apatow wishes he was still making. It's undeniably crass, but infused with heart and still contains a number of more intelligent jokes. It's leftfield enough to stand out from the crowd, but not so much that it becomes niche or inaccessible. For such a manic and energetic film, it's very precisely made. In short, I think that We're The Millers is a total comedic triumph. It lessens my opinion of The World's End and This Is The End, because they were comparatively patchy and had less amusing sections, whereas this film is funny start-to-finish. Jason Sudeikis is so often lumbered with an unfunny 'nice guy' part, and it's refreshing to see him play a character that has some bite. The entire cast nail their parts, in particular Poulter and Sudeikis, and Aniston gives her most entertaining performance in years. Nick Offerman makes a pleasing appearance, essentially playing a slightly weirder version of his character from Parks & Recreation. The film starts with very little sentimentality, and as the characters traded acidic barbs and at times bullied each other (and by 'each other' I mean Will Poulter's hopeless and endearing simpleton Kenny) I laughed and laughed and laughed. 

By the end of the film, this has descended into sugary sweet declarations of affection. I'm on the fence about the issue - the characters are all very likable and I found myself genuinely wanting their cliched happy ending, but it still wasn't very funny, and it was refreshing to see a comedy that wasn't too afraid to be mean. Ed Helms' drug lord is funny on occasion, but it's such an exaggerated character that when the jokes don't stick it becomes kind of irritating. Aside from those gripes, I had pretty much no problems with the film. I guess it can be a bit simplistic at times, but damn, when a cast is as spot-on with delivery and timing as this, it doesn't really matter.

We're The Millers isn't revolutionary, and it's not what you'd call intellectual. However, it's an excellent 90 minutes, with a great cast and script and enough new ideas and humour to please any crowd. Most of the best comedies these days contain an extra element - over-the-top action, or something fantastical like a talking bear or superheroes or the apocalypse - and it's pleasing to know that there are still people who can provide plentiful laughs with just four misfits and an RV (and a metric tonne of weed). Do I recommend We're The Millers? Only if you have a pulse. 

'Kick-Ass 2' review by Captain Raptor

'Kick-Ass 2' review by Captain Raptor

Kick-Ass is a film very close to my heart. The blend of ultra-violence and all-out comedy whilst never sacrificing intelligence was so spot-on that it stands shoulder to shoulder with The Dark Knight and Fight Club as one of my all time favourite films. But part of what made Kick-Ass so great was how unexpected it was - you wouldn't have predicted a film about a foul-mouth purple-costumed murderous tween girl fighting crime alongside Nicolas Cage pretending to be Adam West. Now that we know all its tricks, could round two be just as much of a knockout?

The opening training scene is a callback to one of the early scenes of the original, giving a vibe of 'more of the same', which I would definitely have been willing to see. However, having already established their characters, the sequel decides to focus a little more on emotion. Around twenty minutes into the movie, Hit-Girl (unanimously agreed upon to be the best thing about the film) decides to hang up her boots and cape and try to live the life of an ordinary teenage girl. While Chloë Grace Moretz nails the emotional scenes (as should be expected from somebody who seems incapable of giving a sub-par performance) as she is variably rejected and accepted by a high school clique, it's still not a particularly entertaining sub-plot, being neither as funny or dramatic as it could have been. On top of that, the absence of seriousness in the first film just made those one or two emotional gut-punches hit even harder, so spreading out any attempts to show character depth merely weakens it. Some truly awful stuff happens in the course of Kick-Ass 2, but it was nowhere near as upsetting or as dramatic as it might have been. Only the comedy is derailed by these proceedings, and I'm happy to say that the sequel's action is just as bloody and blackly funny - lawnmowers, shards of glass, 'gravity poles' and even sharks come into play, and there are still plenty of the shocking moments that induce a mixture of laughing and gasping that we saw last time around. 

As I mentioned previously, the comedy has also suffered. The over-the-top violence still has its amusing charm, but in the narrative scenes there's not much that's worthy of an audible laugh, let alone the hysterics that various parts of Kick-Ass would have you in. Aaron Taylor-Johnson's titular hero has already undergone his character transformation from 'Dorky wannabe' to 'Dorky badass, sort of', and he's no longer the wonderfully hopeless underdog, especially when teaming up with all the film's new heroes. The new additions to the cast are on-form, in particular wife-and-husband duo Remembering Tommy (one half of whom, Monica Dolan, I dismissed less than seven days ago as forgettable in my Alan Partridge: Alpha Papa review), a brilliantly out of place suburban middle class couple. Jim Carrey is better than I thought he would be at convincingly portraying a vigilante, (although he's still not quite as badass as the rest of the characters seem to think he is) and the ever-likeable Donald Faison charms his way through the underused role of Dr Gravity. Although my review does appear to be strongly negative, it's only because of the high standard set by the first film. All the criticisms I have with the film essentially come down to a few issues with the script and a failure to fully capture the unpredictable nature of the original. 

While Kick-Ass 2 fails to escape the shadow of its predecessor, it's still an enjoyable display, combining all the winning ingredients of Kick-Ass, just to a lesser effect. I guess that ultimately I was disappointed by the film, but an inferior version of Kick-Ass is still better than a lot of the competition. Moretz and Mintz-Plasse entertain about as much as they used to, the fight scenes are still phenomenal and the film was probably much, much better than this review gives it credit it for. Following up something as brilliant Kick-Ass is no easy task, and in this respect, they didn't really succeed, but as a film in its own right, Kick-Ass 2 is definitely worth your time.

'Alan Partridge: Alpha Papa' review by Captain Raptor

'Alan Partridge: Alpha Papa' review by Captain Raptor

Knowing me, Captain Raptor, knowing you, Alan Partridge, aha. After putting chat among the pigeons and bringing quality broadcasting to the TV and the radio, Alan Partridge takes his first step into big school - the silver screen. TV characters moving to movies is nothing new, but can a littler-than-life character such as Alan be transferred successfully? Partridge has been consistently funny over the years, it's written by Armando Iannucci, who managed to put The Thick of It in cinemas effectively as In The Loop, and it's got the best title of any film this year, but I still had a few doubts.

The 90 minute runtime definitely makes the film seem stretched, but overall Alan Partridge translates well over to the big screen. Steve Coogan's performance is as fantastic as ever, and the large list of quotable lines courtesy of Alan Partridge grows even larger. The script is for the most part excellent, maybe suffering from necessary padding in the middle to extend the runtime, but is full of the mildly offensive and stupid non-sequiturs we've come to expect and a plot that excellently highlights the egotism and strange likeability of the character.  One concern about adapting Partridge to film was that his previous escapades have all been very low-key and even minimalist, but Alpha Papa keeps this (to a lesser extent). There's no huge set-pieces, no litany of celebrity cameos and no exotic location. It's just one guy in a radio station. With a gun toting madman. Colm Meaney's performance as the radio DJ gone postal Pat Farrell  is commendable for adding a fair degree of pathos and even drama without disrupting the flow of the film, and still acing the comedy scenes as the deadpan wall for Alan's jokes to bounce off. Further great reactionary support comes from Sidekick Simon (Tim Key), and recurring characters Lynn (Felicity Montagu) and Michael the Geordie (Simon Greenall) add some laughs of their own. Ultimately though, the film is all about Alan Partridge, and Coogan had me enthralled from start to finish with his now highly-polished act.

It's not all perfect - there's a boring love interest which never really makes an impact, and it does feel like putting such a great character in such an insane situation could be just a little funnier. Aside from this, there's very little not to like about Alpha Papa. The parodies of the action genre are funny, but there's also plenty of comedy to be found in its own right. It keeps the irreverent sense of humour and sprinkles some lightly larger and more farcical elements onto the mixture. It's the same type of jokes used in the old shows, which should please the fans, but there's enough that's fresh and more accessible that newcomers can enjoy this just as much as anybody else. The joke rate is high, so while there's only a couple of genuinely hilarious moments (most of which come through a truly brilliant scene in which Alan tries to evade Pat by running around and hiding on a pier), there's very rarely more than a twenty second gap between laughs.

Alan Partridge: Alpha Papa is a very funny film that should please longtime fans by managing to both keep the spirit of the previous shows and change enough that it's not an attempt to repeat past glories. Those unfamiliar with Steve Coogan's Norfolk people's hero may not completely warm to the movie, but there's definitely plenty there to keep them entertained. A good supporting cast, a fantastic script, and one hell of lead performance, Alpha Papa deserves to stand shoulder to shoulder with Knowing Me Knowing you et al. 

'The Wolverine' review by Captain Raptor

'The Wolverine' review by Captain Raptor

The X-Men films have a unique progression of quality: 'good-great-bad-awful-good'. It's interesting because although The Wolverine comes as the sixth installment of a wealthy and established franchise, it's still got a lot to prove - the sideburned stabber's first solo outing misfired on all cylinders and First Class, the franchise's revitalization  featured Wolverine for all of six seconds, so it's been 10 years since audiences last saw a fully entertaining starring Ol' Wolfy. Something must be done.

And something has been done. Admirably, The Wolverine is almost a complete re-invention of the series. Gone are the one-liners, gone are the litany of appearances from other secondary Marvel characters (there are a few, but certainly no fan favourites or big names), gone are the destructive and adrenaline-packed showdowns (at least comparatively); The Wolverine is almost certainly the smallest-scale X-Men film to date (No saving the world this time, just some vengeance and desperation), and definitely the moodiest and most serious. It's a total change from Origins: Wolverine, and in this respect it works spectacularly. Hugh Jackman slips into his role like a comfortable and well-worn shoe, providing a strong foundation to allow the change to occur, and the darker and far less comical nature of the film never feels jarring when anchored by Jackman's solid performance. There are a few attempts at humour, but half of them fall flat, and the other half are about stabbing, so they don't really lighten the mood. Because Wolverine is a melee fighter, all the action is up close and personal, which coupled with his new-found vulnerability makes for much more tense and engaging fight scenes.

The seriousness of the film is both a hindrance and an improvement. By getting darker, The Wolverine manages to stay fresh and avoid the trappings of some previous installments, but it also lacks the humour (and in some senses, the fun) that elevated the good films (in particular First Class) to greater heights. Wolverine is clearly left, right and centre in this film, and the only returning character (apart from an unmissable post-credits scene) is an ethereal Jean Grey, who never really impacts the film that much. This is a more plot-driven venture, but most of the new characters are only OK, not great, and the actress playing the Viper is going a bit overboard in her performance. Hugh Jackman certainly gives his most dramatic portrayal of Wolverine in this film, and he completely succeeds in carrying the film on his shoulders and gives a really subtle performance (we all know that Logan isn't much for speaking his feelings, but Jackman makes them perfectly evident through some great delivery of lines and grunts). The film moves along at a slow(ish) pace, which works here in a more serious film to build the tension and add more drama to the proceedings. The design department, particularly costume, has done a good job, and despite some of the new characters being a tiny bit bland, they are for the most part well presented and well acted.

I've very few complaints to make about any area of the film - everything is done competently, and the film entertains from start to finish. However, there's some spark missing. The lack of humour and over-the-top action strays it away from classic comic book fare, which shows confidence and makes for an interesting change, but nothing has really been supplied in replacement. Regardless, The Wolverine is a tense and fully enjoyable action film, with Jackman continuing to ace the part, and it's certainly a step in the right direction for the upcoming Days of Future Past.

'The World's End' review by Captain Raptor

'The World's End' review by Captain Raptor

First, they tried to save a few mates. Then they tried to save a sleepy English village. This time, they try to save the world; the stakes are higher but the faces are the same as ever as the trio behind two of this century's greatest films reconvene for the final installment of The Cornetto Trilogy, one last round of pubs, violence, nerdiness and the savviest blend of intelligence and silliness to ever hit cinemas. With the possible exception of Avengers Assemble, I don't think I've ever walked into a cinema with higher expectations. And Wright, Pegg and Frost certainly didn't let me down. 

The World's End has quite a slow start and takes a while to get going -  manchild/scoundrel Gary King isn't introduced as efficiently or as entertainingly as Pegg's characters in the first two installments, and his begrudging band of ex-friends don't immediately appear to be very funny. Pegg and Frost have swapped round in their traditional placement as straight man and buffoon, which keep things fresh but in the early scenes of the film neither fully occupies their role. At this point the film is mildly amusing but nowhere near the dizzying heights of Hot Fuzz or Shaun of the Dead. All of this rapidly changes about 15-20 minutes once the higher concept of this film has been established and we encounter our first robot. Immediately everything changes, the film picks up speed and the hilarity begins. All the supporting cast do a great job, but ultimately it's Frost and Pegg's film and they steal most of the best moments and lines. The World's End borrows Shaun of the Dead's 'panicking people arguing in pubs covered in blood' and Hot Fuzz's 'nice ordinary village folk are secretly murderous' (and a pleasing callback with the recurring fence-jumping joke), but there's still a lot of original material and comedy present, as Pegg, Frost, Paddy Considine, Eddie Marsan (in some rare but spot-on comedic roles) and Cornetto Trilogy constant Martin Freeman try and desperately fail to act nonchalant in the face of almost certain death. The backstory of the reunited school friends who don't hang out anymore gives the group a really interesting dynamic, and once the carnage begins and all the characters become increasingly inebriated, Pegg and Frost play their parts with all the confidence and expertise we've seen before, and they return to the business of being hilarious.

As is befitting of a closing chapter, The World's End is the most sentimental of the trio's films, with a couple of characters revealing some personal tragedies in their lives. It adds some nice depth to the characters and it's done briefly, enabling the revelation to be more shocking and allows them to avoid killing the mood. The sentimentality can also be found in the dialogue, which contains a few interesting (but funny) points about what it means to be young, or even to be human. Don't get me wrong, the film is still as chaotic and blood-splattered as Shaun or Fuzz, but there's a slightly more thoughtful edge to it this time, probably because they all knew it was the end of an era. It's also certainly the most frantic of the films, once the action starts. Almost all of the film's fighting is done hand-to-hand, which allows for some much more frenzied combat scenes, and if seeing Nick Frost splitting Pierce Brosnan's face open with a headbutt doesn't amuse you, well, you're a bad person.

The World's End is the worst of the Cornetto Trilogy, but only marginally. The slow start does allow the sudden change in pace to be all the more amusing and exhilarating, but it still does suck some of the fun out of the film, and Gary King certainly isn't as much of a classic comedy character as Shaun or Danny Butterman. Minor flaws aside, The World's End is a phenomenal movie that expertly balances familiarity with inventiveness, and acts as a fantastic closing act filled with all the humour and genre-bending you could have hoped for. 

'30 Minutes or Less' review by Captain Raptor

'30 Minutes or Less' review by Captain Raptor

I would have seen 30 Minutes or Less ages ago were it not for the consensus of the critics that it wasn't very good. The talent involved is phenomenal (Ruben Fleischer and Jesse Eisenberg teaming up again after the near-flawless Zombieland, with support from stars of two of the best TV comedies of recent years, Aziz Ansari and Danny McBride), but sure-fire combinations have failed me before (such as McBride's fantastically cast but abysmally unfunny spoof Your Highness) so I never made the effort to see it in cinemas.

I find myself both cursing my own cynicism and perplexed by the negative opinions of the film-loving community. 30 Minutes or Less had me thoroughly entertained from start to finish. Jesse Eisenberg isn't as funny here as he was in Zombieland, but he's still perfectly good in the comical role, and he manages to act with realistic terror and anguish in the early scenes where the bomb is first strapped onto him without ever killing the mood. There are a couple of action scenes, which strike a perfect balance between being low-key and infrequent enough not to disrupt the comedy and being visually impressive to still dazzle the audience. What surprised me about the comedy is that is wasn't anywhere near as dark as you'd expect from a film about bank robbery, bombs and hitmen. There's the occasional crudeness (this is to be expected; Danny McBride's in it) but more than anything else it's a buddy comedy about Jesse Eisenberg's slacker and his on-the-up former best friend played by Aziz Ansari. Aziz brings a lot of likeability to the role and prevents him from ever coming across as boring or nagging when he berates Eisenberg. The ups and downs of their friendship feel entirely authentic and the two leads share some fantastic chemistry, particularly during the bank robbery scene itself. There are a couple of decent side characters, such as Michael Pena's insecure mercenary (who bags a couple of the film's best lines when trying to give himself a pep-talk) but the combination of Eisenberg's mumbling God-of-all-slackers and Ansari's likeable and genuinely funny straight man is by far the best thing that 30 Minutes or Less has to offer.

Like last week's review of Now You See Me, the film is held together by an on-form cast; however this time round they're underpinned by a stronger script that would be entertaining in its own right. Surprisingly, the film comes complete with a full plot and character arcs which provide a lot of energy and interest to the film. I'm particularly fond of the antagonist's convoluted plan - strap a bomb to a pizza boy and force him to rob a bank so I can get the money to hire an assassin to kill my Dad so I can inherit enough money to run a tanning salon that's a front for a prostitution ring - which is the greatest/worst evil scheme since Hot Fuzz. Unfortunately, Zombieland (quite possibly the best film of 2009) casts a looming shadow over the whole affair. Not one bit of the film is good enough to be even comparable to the film that put Eisenberg on the map in the first place, and 30 Minutes or Less is lacking all the madness and fast-pace possessed by Zombieland that would be a welcome addition (perhaps even a necessary improvement) in this film.

30 Minutes or Less isn't a classic or a must-see, but I feel it's certainly worthy of far more than the dissatisfied reaction it was greeted with. Fleischer and Eisenberg can't quite recapture the brilliance of Zombieland, but it's a perfectly enjoyable comedy with little to no weak moments. Ansari and Eisenberg put in excellent performances and the plot is different and crazy enough to entertain. Even the soundtrack is awesome. 30 Minutes or Less is funny, verging on hilarious, another feather in the cap of the various cult stars who worked on it and overall the film has been unfairly maligned.

'Now You See Me' review by Captain Raptor

'Now You See Me' review by Captain Raptor

I tend to keep abreast of film news, so Now You See Me was the rarest of treats for me; a film I hadn't heard a word about until the trailers hit the silver screen. It seems like a magic trick in itself that a film with such serious star power has inexplicably slipped under my radar (and nobody else's, it would seem). 

Now You See Me is essentially a film about trickery and deceit, similar to how the film uses incredibly talented actors to trick you into thinking that it's funny and interesting. The script itself is devastatingly bad, mostly devoid of wit and intelligence, but it takes a while for you to notice this because every single actor present is having a field day and hitting each line with precision delivery. The entire cast charm the audience throughout the film, but if you take a moment to think about what they're saying, it really is vapid. The screenwriters were so pleased with the line 'The closer you look, the less you can see' that they inserted into the film around half a dozen times and plastered it onto all the promotional material too. The plot isn't anything special, and while the various tricks and heists that the magicians pull are interesting, not that much happens that's worth speaking about. The scriptwriters seem to think that being confusing counts as being clever, so the story leaves a lot of unanswered questions. The film goes out of its way to reassure the audience that the illusionists are not in fact magic by having Morgan Freeman explain it all (which, incidentally, is how all movies should do their exposition), but then it makes it look like the writers are pulling stuff out of their ass when they don't explain a trick, like when Isla Fisher flies inside a giant bubble or when three people jump off a roof and transform into a pile of  exploding money in plain sight. This type of thing really requires an explanation.

A lack of focus also chains the movie down, and there's no clear protagonist, with all four magicians, Morgan Freeman and Mark Ruffalo's surly FBI agent all vying for the audience's attention and sympathy. Dave Franco's humbler and less famous street magician would seem like the obvious choice for the main character, but he's pretty much dropped about 10 minutes in, and never really seems to assist in any of the team's heists or magic shows (although the film's best sequence might be a short scuffle in which Franco comically evades Ruffalo with a few basic party tricks), so he is essentially superfluous - which might be quite fortunate because he doesn't seem to share any of his brother's charisma. Now You See Me would best be viewed as a demo reel - casting directors should watch this to see a bunch of actors at the top of their game.

Although the great performances keep the film watchable and even with a worse cast the film wouldn't be awful, I strongly recommend you don't watch this film because there are simply so many better alternatives. If you want an amazing cast doing clever things with magic, watch The Prestige. If you want a crime-comedy about charismatic thieves coolly liberating money from the rich and powerful, there are 5 fantastic seasons of Leverage on DVD. A good concept and an even better cast are wasted on a drab, styleless 90 minutes that hasn't been thought through at all. 

'Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life' review by Captain Raptor

'Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life' review by Captain Raptor

The problem with reviewing this film (other than the long title which is a bloody inconvenience to repeatedly type out) is that virtually any criticism can be stomped out by the phrase 'It's not supposed to'. The dialogue has no originality: 'It's not supposed to'. The plot is moronic and doesn't intrigue me at all: 'It's not supposed to'. The film provides little else than flash and spectacle: 'It's not supposed to'. There's setting the bar low and then there's digging a ninety-foot trench to lower the bar into. Still, a film with low aspirations can hardly be expected to receive anything better than damning with fake praise and other weak defences.

As you may have guessed from the above paragraph, Cradle of Life is not a good film by any definition. It's not the same as something like Transformers of The Expendables where no matter how bad everything else is, the action is done with perfect competence as a flipside. Somewhere in the editing process things got a bit out of hand, and Cradle of Life contains enough slow-motion to convince you that your TV must be broken. Even fairly mundane actions such as rolling or lying down are given the slow-mo treatment, but in terms of the action it stops looking cool around twenty minutes in after we've already seen close-up/slowed-down footage of sharks, jet-skis, avalanches and submarines. Surprisingly, the special effects aren't good either, which tends to be the main thing that action films have going for them. The budget seems to be have been entirely invested in locations, from Kenya to Hong Kong, as Angelina Jolie and Gerard Butler swan about all over the world and encounter oversized guns, conveniently inaccurate henchman and surprisingly co-operative locals. 

The irritating thing is, despite being an action film with mostly terrible action, Cradle of Life does contain a few enjoyable saving graces, mostly in the performance department. I've never been a fan of Angelina Jolie (she's the worst thing in both Beowulf and Alexander, which is saying something) but she's never been more likeable than as Lara Croft, combining her own natural charisma with a script catered to her specific strengths. Both her and Gerard Butler give charming and sometimes even engaging performances here individually, but the two have very little chemistry together and a lot of the conversation between them feels awkward and forced. The villain is so spectacularly overdone and knowingly (hopefully) exaggerated that it's hard not to smile, and Inglourious Basterd's Til Schweiger does a fantastic job in the thankless task of Chief Henchman. Unfortunately, the film is not in any way focused on any of the characters, who would be the icing on the cake in a fully-functioning action adventure with better stunts, effects and set-pieces, none of which this film possesses. 

Lara Croft Tomb Raider: Cradle of Life is the sort of film that should only be watched at about 2AM on a Saturday. Even in a genre where dialogue and plot going by the wayside is the industry standard, those elements are particularly appalling here. The action itself is too low budget, and while the scenery and locales the film is set in certainly are impressive, it might have been wiser to spend the money on better effects. The occasional flashes of brilliance from Jolie, Butler and Schweiger in no way compensate for a shoddy film that is almost as bad as Angelina's English accent.

'This Is The End' review by Captain Raptor

'This Is The End' review by Captain Raptor

Out of all three of this year's upcoming apocalyptic comedies, This Is The End is the one that I've been the least excited about. I'm over-the-moon in anticipation about the The World's End, the conclusion to Wright, Frost and Pegg's Cornetto Trilogy, and I'm dying to see the amazingly cast Rapture-Palooza, despite the ominous ratings and lack of widespread distribution, but for me This Is The End was the neglected middle child of the three. It's from writing duo Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg, who wrote 2007's Superbad, a near perfect combination of sex and booze played for laughs, but their recent track record of The Green Hornet and The Watch doesn't exactly install any confidence.

One thing that This Is The End should be commended for is its ballsy concept as numerous actors and comedians (of severely varying degrees of fame) play themselves trying to survive the aftermath of the apocalypse. There's a lot of self-parody and self-deprecation from the six leads (James Franco, Jay Baruchel, Seth Rogen, Craig Robinson, Jonah Hill and Danny McBride) and the rest of the celebrities who start the night at a hedonistic party at Franco's house before the Earth opens up to swallow them and fire reigns down from the sky. It's mildly funny to see action star Channing Tatum pretend to be cowardly and submissive or Franco mock the somewhat pretentious arty nature he's known for, but by far and away the film's standout star is famously timid Michael Cera playing himself as a repulsive cokehead bully. He steals every scene he's in, whether he's slapping Jason Segel or gleefully blinding Christopher Mintz-Plasse. If all this name-dropping and self-awareness is bothering you, then This Is The End certainly isn't the film for you, as it has two methods it uses to obtain laughs, one of which is by taking the piss out of Hollywood's comedy elite. The other is sheer childish puerility, which sometimes works (Franco and McBride angrily discussing ejaculation is far, far funnier that it should be, showing Goldberg and Rogen's mastery of their wonderfully immature craft) but when it doesn't, it's groan-worthy and makes you feel bad about paying for the privilege to see it.

Although the film is mostly about goofball comedy, a fair proportion of it is devoted to the action and special effects bonanza of the titular 'End', and the scene in which the apocalypse interrupts Franco's house party features more gore and death than any section of a similar length from this year's Evil Dead remake, during which around 15 to 20 well-known comedians (and Rihanna) meet their bloody end. Up until this scene, the comedy has been steadily building, but the carnage is so intrusive that it takes the film a while to get back into the swing of things. The remainder of the film is a mixed bag, and features almost nobody apart from the six actors I mentioned above (one or two other survivors crop up throughout the rest of the film). For a supposedly tight-knit group of friends, the cast don't actually seem to have that much chemistry together, and Franco, Rogen, Hill and particularly Baruchel (who acts as the outsider to Hollywood and the audience's window, but also highlights the precise reasons he hasn't had as much recognition as the rest of the cast) really aren't as funny here as they need to be to carry the film. Craig Robinson manages to deliver every line perfectly competently, but it's Eastbound and Down's Danny McBride who really has the most fun, playing an monstrously exaggerated version of himself: an asshole whose unbelievable arrogance repeatedly worsens an already terrible situation.

This Is The End is unbelievably childish and occasionally uncomfortably bloody and self-referential. It's also moronic, taking a fairly high-concept film and treating it with overwhelming simplicity. The cast aren't always pitch perfect, and an above-average knowledge of the American comedy scene is required to fully appreciate all the jokes and references. There's certainly a lot here that could put a viewer off. However, ultimately, the film can be extraordinarily funny at times, which for all the other flaws is the main purpose of a comedy, and even when the jokes do fall flat it's below average at worst and the lapses in entertainment don't last for long. I came out of the cinema having thoroughly enjoyed myself with what I consider to be a goofy and inventive success. The person I saw it with described it as "a self-indulgent mess". This Is The End certainly doesn't possess mass appeal, so if you require a film to be intelligent, calm or coherent to be enjoyed then you'd better look elsewhere. To everybody else, switch off your brain (apart from the segment required to understand in-jokes and recognize references, you'll be needing that), strap yourself in and enjoy one hell of a ride.

'Man of Steel' review by Captain Raptor

'Man of Steel' review by Captain Raptor

Okay, cards fully on the table: I loathe Superman. As a concept, as a character and as a franchise I have always found it to be boring, tiresome and idiotic. Where's the joy in watching the man who can do everything? It took the triple threat of Zack Snyder (director of Watchmen and 300), Christopher Nolan (director of The Dark Knight and Inception, seen here on production duty) and Russell Crowe (the god that walks among us) to motivate me to see this movie, and even then I was sceptical going in. Right up until I saw the first scene.

The opening ten minutes of Man of Steel is one of the most astounding scenes I've seen this year. Russell Crowe, in all his bearded glory, runs around a beautifully animated Krypton (the finest looking and best used CGI since Avatar) as their society begins to crumble. It's near perfect in terms of visuals and really hooks the audience in from the start. The problem is that it's really too good - when your opening sequence features Russell Crowe riding a dragon through an exploding spaceship, where do you go from there? The brilliance of the beginning sets a standard that the rest of the film can't come close to equaling. Not that Man of Steel is bad - I've kinda-sorta changed my mind on the Superman front - because the masterful fingerprints of Christopher Nolan can be felt all over this film. It's a remake that attempts to shine in its own right rather than pay homage to the original, much like his Dark Knight trilogy, so there are no references or nods to the films of Richard Donner. Perhaps it's due to the compromise between Nolan and Snyder's individual styles, but at times Man of Steel feels indecisive and becomes somewhat overly restrained as a result- is it attempting to be a dark and moody re-imagining of the Superman mythos or an over-the-top, action-packed spectacle? The styles don't merge as well here as they have in Nolan's past, but neither can we feel Snyder's wizardry and control over the fight sequences to the full extent that was evident in 300 or Sucker Punch. 

The action sequences are a mixed bag. The first time you see Superman barrel into his opponent at a million miles an hour and send them flying across the landscape it's entertaining, but he doesn't seem to have any another fighting moves. The finale sees General Zod attempting to level the city of Metropolis, and the level of destruction is so unbelievably high that it makes what New York went through in The Avengers look like a walk in the park. Whether or not this is overwhelming to the point of being indistinct or simply breathtakingly awesome is a tough call. Speaking of Zod, Michael Shannon has been getting quite a lot of praise for his performance in this film, which while I don't feel it's necessarily undeserved it does confuse me as to while they single out him in particular. Everybody's performances are on an equal level of perfectly believable but nothing special, from relative newcomer Henry Cavill to screen icon Costner (I loved Russell Crowe's subtle and grounded performance, but I highly suspect that this is due to my own hero-worship). Nor is there fantastic characterization, and at times the dialogue is downright awful ("There are two ways this ends - either you die, or I do" was such a bland and self-evident thing to say that I almost burst out laughing), reminding me partially of The Great Gatsby - an visually appealing but fairly emotionless experience, although this works out considerably better for an action film like Man of Steel. It should be celebrated, however, that this incarnation of Superman is a lot more relatable and sympathetic than the Last Son of Krypton has been in the past. Cavill's Superman is decidedly less super, who seems to have limits to his power and his fear of rejection by humanity makes him a much more endearing character.

Man of Steel probably won't live long in my memory. I doubt people will be wearing quotes from the film on t-shirts anytime soon, or praising the excellent performance of any actor. However, the film provides some truly jaw-dropping moments of spectacle, and I would recommend seeing it if only for the fantastic opening. A fully confident and enjoyable superhero movie, and the first time that Superman as a character has been of any interest to me, Man of Steel certainly deserves praise and is worth watching, but let's just say that I'm not waiting for the sequel with bated breath.