'Welcome To The Punch' review by Captain Raptor

'Welcome To The Punch' review by Captain Raptor

I come to this review with a slight bias towards the film's star James McAvoy because he was born in Port Glasgow, which is relatively near to my hometown, and because nobody else of any note was born remotely near us, he's a great source of local pride. But any man deemed worthy to play the great Professor Charles Xavier is surely amazing in their own merit, and I was drawn to this London-set crime thriller by the rest of its strong cast too, including Kick-Ass' Mark Strong and The Walking Dead's David Morrissey. 

Despite its London setting,  Welcome To The Punch has the sensibilities of a classic American cop story: a loose-cannon policeman with a grudge (McAvoy) is given one more chance to catch the criminal (Strong) who evaded and made a fool of him several years ago. This clichéd premise wins no awards for storytelling, but the two leads give very strong performances. McAvoy's cockney copper Max is more Serpico than Lethal Weapon, meaning the darker side of the maverick law enforcer is more prominent, and Strong's villain isn't portrayed as a cackling madman but as a quietly determined man with a moral code. A realistic sense of ethics as opposed to simple 'good vs evil' gives the film a solid grounding, as does Max's leg wound - one shot to the kneecap three years ago is enough to cause him to limp around crime scenes and struggle with running. This weighted sense of accuracy is then tossed on the ground and stamped on by the action scenes, where everybody wields high calibre machine guns apparently set to 'constantly fire in every direction' mode, and the film's final set-piece involves several dozen armed mercenaries rappelling down from the sky.

The action itself is mildly entertaining, caught awkwardly between being either tense and minimal or thrilling and explosive. The performances are all strong and delivered with pathos, but the characters are underdeveloped and generic. As previously mentioned, the plot is unoriginal, but this prevents it from making any mistakes. The whole film smacks of mediocrity, but this doesn't necessarily make it a bad film. All the parts are in working order, and there's nothing that's particularly bad about the film - it's never dull, it's never idiotic, it's never ridiculous. I'd also like to launch a complaint about what appears to be a current trend in movies, in which the talented character actor Jason Flemyng gets cast in an action movie (X-Men: First Class, Clash of the Titans) and only has about 120 seconds of screen time. This isn't as much of an issue here due to the litany of excellent performances by the rest of the cast.

Welcome to the Punch is moody, gritty, entertaining and utterly forgettable. I'd recommend it for pretty much anybody, as it contains enough of both action and drama to sate most audiences, and it's definitely a worthwhile experience. It contributes nothing new to the world of cinema, other than a chance to give James McAvoy more exposure as an excellent leading man. Not that I'm biased or anything.

'Evil Dead II' review by Captain Raptor

'Evil Dead II' review by Captain Raptor

Because I'm such a professional, today I'll be reviewing a sequel to which I've never seen the predecessor. Again. However, my sources tell me that Evil Dead II is essentially a remake of the first Evil Dead movie but with a higher budget, so I don't think I'll be missing any context. Besides, how could I pass up the opportunity to watch the film that inspired Joss Whedon's practically perfect The Cabin in the Woods? Evil Dead II chronicles the dramatic tale of a young man's slow descent into insanity in an isolated cabin after the death of his lover. Oh, and there's also some stuff about slaying the undead hordes with a chainsaw. 

The most immediately noticeable thing about Evil Dead II is how dated all the special effects are. However, that's not a complaint. I understand the film didn't exactly have a lot of funding, and it was made in 1987. So, yes, the CGI looks about as convincing as Pamela Anderson's breasts, but if anything this adds to the film's psychedelic charm. The movie is a head-trip through and through, combining nonsensical humour, anarchic and gory violence and sense of unpredictability unrivalled by any other film I've seen. The film's loose plot of 'people attempting survival in a forest full of the dead' allows director Sam Raimi to fill the screen with lunacy and enough fake blood to drown a giraffe. It's really hard to eloquently capture the insanity of Evil Dead II, reaching ridiculous levels of overwhelming madness while mostly sticking within its simple cabin setting. Despite the over-the-top exuberance that dominates the film, there's also some really intelligent directing present, in particular the tense scene where protagonist Ash is chased by some unseen creature, shot entirely from the point of view of the monster.

Speaking of Ash, I would like to congratulate him on being the most capable character in horror movie history. There's no hesitance, no confusion, no running around shouting 'OH NO WHAT'S HAPPENING', Ash just gets shit done. Within 5 minutes of being on screen he's happily beheading the possessed body of his girlfriend and drenching himself in blood. Bruce Campbell deserves his cult hero status for his brilliant performance as the semi-deranged badass; there's no doubt that he's overacting, but the way he half-laughs half-screams when being covered in blood or mutters a taciturn 'Groovy' when loading his shotgun fits in perfectly with the film's schizophrenic manner. The film's other characters are all forgettable and bland, but they're only there to serve as fodder for the various fiends lurking in and around the cabin. The only flaw I can think of is that the film doesn't spend enough time with Mr Ashley J Williams - the best section of the film is the 20-30 minutes in which we see Ash survive a night in the cabin being tormented by all manner of evil, during which the film never fails to provide laughs with black comedy (probably cinema's funniest dismemberment) or shocks with gore galore. When the other characters arrive later and things start murdering them, it's neither as funny nor as entertaining.

It's a little cheesy, not particularly scary, and the visual effects are more outdated than a ZX Spectrum, but I implore you to watch this film, unless you have an aversion to blood, in which case you'll hate it. It's a madcap romp, an insane blend of ridiculous gore and smart humour. It's highly revered amongst the horror community, and serves as the masterpiece of director Raimi and star Campbell. Rarely have I had such an invigorating and memorable experience with a movie. 

'Midnight in Paris' review by Captain Raptor

'Midnight in Paris' review by Captain Raptor

Midnight in Paris is about one man's appreciation for the past, which ties in nicely with my current theme of not reviewing new films. It's certainly an interesting concept for a film - a struggling writer on holiday finds himself whisked away to 1920's Paris and meets various historical figures, like a time-travelling Forrest Gump - and it comes with a great deal of talent working on it, most notably the renowned writer/director Woody Allen and the Oscar-winning actress Marion Cotillard. On a separate note, it also stars Owen Wilson. I'll state from the start that a lot of my problems with this film probably stem from the fact that I am totally unfamiliar with the majority of the culture and famous figures that make up the crux of the film. I've never read Hemingway or spent much time looking at Picasso, so you could say that this was a poor choice of film for me, but we'll dive right in.

The crucial error that this comedy makes is that it doesn't seem to attempt to be funny. It isn't unfunny in the same way as something like Year One, where gags are thrown at you constantly to no effect, there's just very little here that could actually be considered an attempt at humour. I guess it's trying to seem as sophisticated and dry as its subject matter, but surprisingly a lack of jokes leads to a poor comedy. The opening sequence is the worst of all. For the first two or three minutes of the film we are treated to what is essentially a slideshow of the Parisian streets - no dialogue, no movement, not even any credits to look at. I understand that Woody Allen made this film because of his personal love of Parisian culture, but to an outsider the film's constant enamoured gushing at French architecture and the reiteration of history feels like a particularly uninteresting museum lecture. Aside from the obsession with its subject matter, the film is also poorly written, or at least relatively poorly for a man of Allen's stature. Owen Wilson's character has to resort to speaking his thoughts out loud when he's alone to communicate his reactions and emotions on various occasions,  which is jarring and unnatural. Of course, this may be compensation for the fact that Owen Wilson has the same ability to emote as flaccid watercress.

The film's cast is impressive and expansive, as one should expect from a Woody Allen film. The quality of the parts they were given is however incredibly variable. There are terrible roles (Martin Sheen playing one of the most irritating characters to ever grace the silver screen. The character is intentionally aggrivating but that doesn't make him any more pleasant to watch), needless roles (Why bother casting Kathy Bates if you're not going to give her a chance to act?), and the occasional great role (Adrian Brody's spot-on and amusing portrayal of Salvador Dali - the only figure in the film that I actually know much about - is my highlight of the film). Aside from Dali, the film's other saving grace comes in the form of the Fitzgeralds: Tom Hiddlestone's unstoppable natural charisma shining through as the infamous author and Scott Pilgrim's Alison Pill as his audacious wife. Again, they have no particular comic material to work with, but their sheer magnetism as performers elevates them above the rest of the cast, forced to try and wring out some comedy from a lifeless script. The film's sense of whimsy and the stylish 20's visuals are certainly enough to make the film watchable, but rarely does it actually qualify as entertaining. The film's best scene by far and away is the only scene in which Brody's magnificent Dali appears; Owen Wilson describes his absurd situation of being lost in another time period to a group of surrealists in a café, who thing he's being interpretational and proceed to plan works of art based on his supposed metaphor.  It allows Wilson to showcase that exasperated look of confusion that is his one emotion, gives Adrien Brody the chance to be completely ridiculous as Dali ("I see... a rhinoceros" is a line so well-delivered you'll forget it isn't actually funny) and it's one of the few times the film tries to actually have any fun with its subject matter, as opposed to basking in its glory.  

Like history, the film repeats itself. You slide comfortably into the pattern of 'Owen Wilson is in the modern world and hates it, Owen Wilson is in the 1920's and loves it' like an aggressively dull version of Groundhog Day. Overall, this is definitely a film for the specialists - if you're an expert on the culture of the 1920's you'll have a ball, and some of the most loyal Woody Allen fans may be able to trick themselves into thinking they're enjoying the experience, but for everybody else, I'd recommend you avoid this like the plague. Because if this film isn't terrible, the only alternative option is that I'm too much of a philistine to appreciate it, and we all know that's impossible.