'The Hangover Part III' review by Captain Raptor

'The Hangover Part III' review by Captain Raptor

Personally, I consider the second Hangover movie to be thoroughly underrated. People commonly and admittedly correctly point out that it follows the precise formula of the first film, but for me that doesn't overshadow the fact that the shocks of 'what the hell did we do last night' being revealed were still blind-siding and the comedy was still funny. So, I was looking forward somewhat to a third round of eye-widening if simplistic mayhem with Bradley Cooper and co. 

Not being formulaic might actually be the crucial flaw in this lamentable third instalment. There's no drunken antics, no sense of 'anything could happen next' craziness; the plot doesn't actually lend itself to comedy: this time round, the Wolfpack are roped into tracking down their erstwhile associate/antagonist Mr Chow, or the gang's superfluous fourth member Doug will be killed. The joy in the other films was the unveiling of the ludicrous actions on the night before, and with that removed Part III flounders for its full runtime without ever really knowing what to do with itself. Ed Helms and Bradley Cooper's characters aren't designed to be funny, so Zach Galifianakis is left to provide the entirety of the film's comedy, a duty at which he fails spectacularly. Galifianakis' Alan has evolved over the course of three films from lovable misfit to an asshole of Machiavellian proportions. Previously, his actions were misguided but all in the effort of making friends, now he just treats strangers, friends and family alike as pieces of dirt, turning a character who was previously both funny and almost adorable into an intolerable prick, who couldn't raise a laugh with personal comedy tuition from Bill Murray, Richard Pryor and Colin Mochrie. Worst of all is the moment in the middle of the film where they try to give Alan an honest-to-God moment of sentimentality and character growth which, aside from feeling completely alienated in a movie such as this, has no effect on either the audience (who aren't going to start sympathising with a hitherto utterly obnoxious character because he momentarily looked glumly at a toddler) or the character, who continues to act as he had been for the rest of the film.

There's a whole sense of nothingness to the film. Very few jokes are actually made, and the plot is so much more complex and serious than the guys are used to that it feels like they've written themselves into a corner where there's not enough time to be funny. John Goodman gives what would be an entertaining performance in a more serious film, but it's yet another part of the film that isn't even intended to be funny (admittedly he may have gained one of my few genuine laughs at an offhand Big Lebowski reference). Ken Jeong's insane criminal Mr Chow returns and manages to entertain, but he has a much larger role in this film and he becomes grating towards the end. There are a couple of needless callbacks to the earlier films, neither of which are funny and both remind you of when the series was much better (Hey, remember when Stu married a sex worker? Good times) and make Part III look even worse by comparison. 

The Hangover Part II faced a tidal wave of criticism for being too similar to the first film, and in an attempt to fix the problem, Part III has removed or changed everything that was good about either film and left us with a comedy containing no humour. If anything this highlights why formulas exist in the first place: it's much easier to colossally screw up in uncharted territory. The attempt to strain itself and to evolve as a franchise should be admirable, but the result is so catastrophic that I can't bring myself to congratulate it on any grounds. Dazzlingly poor show. 

'The Great Gatsby' review by Captain Raptor

'The Great Gatsby' review by Captain Raptor

After starring in a biopic about a troubled President, his future role in The Wolf of Wall Street, and now playing one of the most iconic roles in American literature, I've reached the conclusion that DiCaprio is now just picking rules that seem likely to earn him the Oscar which has notoriously eluded him these past years. The Great Gatsby is the film adaptation of F Scott Fitzgerald's classic story of love and materialism in post-war New York. As well as DiCaprio, the film also sees Tobey Maguire's return to the limelight after what could generously be described as a dry spell. 

 The most immediately striking thing about The Great Gatsby is the astounding visuals. A reappearing billboard with a huge picture of a leering pair of eyes has a brilliantly ominous tone, but it's the less subtle elements of the film's design and visuals that have the most effect. Sweeping shots of the New York skyline, fantastically fancy costumes and lavish party scenes with such an amalgamation of noise and movement; the lifestyle of the eponymous Mr Gatsby is perfectly presented. However, much like Gatsby's parties, all the glitz and glamour is a cover for a severe lack of emotion. In a film with a runtime of of 140 minutes, it's two hours before any characters show any dimensions to their brash facades and we can actually start to sympathize with them. The length may be what really kills the film: the book is under 200 pages and the story itself isn't particularly complicated, so the film is far longer than it needs to be, without engaging enough dialogue or characters to enjoyably pass the time between plot developments. It's a full 30-40 minutes before DiCaprio makes his first real appearance; the idea being to create an heir of mystery around the character which completely fails due to Leonardo DiCaprio's face being front and centre in all trailers and posters for the film. Tobey Maguire's innocent stockbroker Nick becomes a secondary character in his own story, which works in a book because the reader still gets his insights and description of events, but once Gatsby finally appears in the film, Nick quickly becomes bland and pointless, barely speaking or making his presence known upon the movie. Maguire actually gives quite a convincing performance, but his poorly characterized role starts to irritate once he is no longer needed as a window into the world of Gatsby. 

It probably goes without saying that DiCaprio gives a strong performance. As the sole interesting character, he has a ball as the confident and charismatic Gatsby during the party scenes, but it's the few scenes where we see Gatsby begin to crack that his talent really shines through. When he's allowed to convey Gatsby's anger or depression, DiCaprio really managed to captivate me, but too often the scenes are overly restrained and dull, with no showcase of emotion. A huge problem with the film's side characters is that they're all too balanced to actually enjoy. The nominally 'good' characters are either too flawed or too lacking in personality to root for, whereas the antagonists are portrayed too repulsively to obtain the audience's sympathy, but with enough rationalization they they can't entertain us as villains either. The music score is similarly caught awkwardly between two options: the soundtrack is an ill-fitting compilation of modern hip-hop and old-timey jazz, which suits neither the raucous, modernized party scenes nor the 1930's vibe of the rest of the film. 

It's a shame that an invigorating performance by DiCaprio and such stunning visuals are wasted on a film with such little life as this. An interesting story with one fantastic character is instead turned into an overly long experiment in tedium and poor storytelling with occasional flashes of brilliance. I'd like to see this film remade, still with DiCaprio in the lead, with a suiting runtime of 90 or so minutes, which skimps the exploration of the rest of the cast of non-characters to tell the darker, and less uncertain story of a truly great Gatsby. 

'Star Trek Into Darkness' review by Captain Raptor

'Star Trek Into Darkness' review by Captain Raptor

What I find most interesting about Star Trek Into Darkness is how it relates itself to the initial Star Trek series. There's no real way to satisfy the hardcore Trekkies (if you change too much it's sacrilege, if you don't change enough it's cheesy), but Into Darkness hits what I feel should serve as a proverbial sweet spot, with enough references to older installments to feel like a labour of love by a genuine fan, but changes enough to escape the trappings and shortcomings of the original version. I say 'should serve' because predictably the fanboys are up in arms, but there comes a point where you have to sit them down and shout 'The writing was hackneyed, the acting had no subtlety and we are moving on'. 

J.J. Abrams' 2009 Star Trek movie was handicapped by having to reintroduce characters and concepts to a new audience and as such lost valuable trekking time, but the sequel is now able to leap straight into the action and give us the movie we should have had 4 years ago. Star Trek Into Darkness is an engaging, energetic adventure movie, with matching strengths in dialogue and providing excitement. The references and recurring phrases from the TV show are for the most part clever, perhaps occasionally bordering on clumsy,  and there's an atmosphere of epicness surrounding the piece as they sail off, adventuring through the stars. The most effective new element that Star Trek Into Darkness brings to the table is Benedict Cumberbatch as John Harrison, a villain who is simultaneously impossibly threatening yet fully realised. A sufficient villain was one of the things the previous film was lacking, and Abrams has clearly responded to a lot of the flaws in his earlier film, such as a simpler but more comprehensible plot and allowing each character their own moment in the spotlight (although some crew members such as Chekov and Sulu seem unfairly sidelined). Abrams near-fetishistic fondness for lens flares persists though, and certain scenes are almost blinding to view, particularly ones taking place on the bridge of the Enterprise. The film's other glaring flaw is in its action, which is simply too fast and too overwhelming to actually appreciate: huge explosions, flying lasers and the grand scale of it all is shown with such breakneck speed, meaning you can't take in and enjoy any of it.

The component of the film that really heightens its quality is a selection of spot-on performances from a cast who fit perfectly into their roles. With the exception of Kirk and Spock, most of the roles aren't particularly well-written, but the actors are essentially doing impersonations of the original cast (Simon Pegg's deliberately poor Scottish accent is brilliant), and Dredd's Karl Urban manages to both imitate and surpass the original portrayal of the character of Dr 'Bones' McCoy, and has basically stolen the role as his own. The only character that's taken in any different direction is Captain Kirk himself, who seems slightly more resolved and stalwart than the roguish, unpredictable Shatner incarnation. Except perhaps for Urban, the finest performance of all must surely go to Benedict Cumberbatch, giving a master-class performance in both uncontrollable rage and subtle intimidation that could possibly end up as the greatest villain you'll see this year.

My favourite thing about sequels is the chance to rejoin established characters and expand their adventures further, and Star Trek Into Darkness is a prime example of that. Familiar characters are invigoratingly brought to life with fresh relish, and while it's certainly no game-changer the film gives a cast on their A-game a chance to take us for a ride. Here's hoping for another installment, preferably focused on Bones single-handedly taking on an entire fleet of Klingons armed with only a phaser and fed-up attitude.

'Iron Man 3' review by Captain Raptor

'Iron Man 3' review by Captain Raptor

Much like the offscreen life of its roguish star, the Iron Man franchise has seen falls from grace and great redemption. The trilogy's opener was a pleasingly explosion-and-one-liner filled triumph, but an unremarkable and forgettable sequel leaves a paler impression, before an almighty return in the Messiah of superhero movies, Avengers Assemble. An established franchise then, but Iron Man 3 still has a lot to prove: to escape the drudgery of Iron Man 2 and to step out of the shadow of Marvel's pièce de résistance. 

The influence of Earth's Mightiest Heroes doesn't quite escape the film. Lovably brash Tony Stark undergoes something of a crisis in confidence after the explosive events of Avengers Assemble whilst facing up to the looming threat of international terrorist The Mandarin. This does lead to the incongruity of 'If Tony's emotionally distressed and we have a whole unit of other superheroes, why does he have to deal with this?', which is never fully addressed, but the film does manage to create a believable sense of isolation for Mr Stark, who begins the second act stranded in the middle of nowhere with no armour and no plan. This section of the film, which features very little else apart from Tony being irritated, shines the brightest, as Robert Downey Jr continues to absolutely nail his role, bringing a needed sense of likability to a character who by rights should be downright irritating. Very few actors could seem as charming as he does while telling a small boy "not to be a pussy". Downey Jr has always been the crowning jewel of the franchise, and he feels more comfortable than ever in the role this time round. Other performances are variable: Don Cheadle and Jon Favreau still provide solid support, and Ben Kingsley's Mandarin starts off shaky but becomes a much more entertaining character as the film progresses. New to the franchise is Guy Pearce, giving a performance that's passable at best as slimy scientist Aldrich Killian, although the dullness of the character could possibly be the fault of the script rather than Pearce. Gwyneth Paltrow's Pepper Pots is left with very little to do this time around, and the wit she displayed in the previous films seems to have deteriorated.  

The action is competently done, and while there's nothing new or inventive about it, it's perfectly entertaining. Iron Man's strength has always been its comedy as opposed to its action, which the third installment provides in spades. Director Shane Black is confident enough to insert pauses in the action sequences with which to gain laughs, such as a henchman who gives up in the middle of a gunfight because "Everybody here is really weird". The plot never really comes to much beyond 'there is a bad man. Stop the bad man', but a character revelation midway through the film shows that Iron Man 3 is still unafraid to play with the formula. The combination of Stark's magnetic personality and the film's emphasis on dialogue steers the film away from cliche, or at least highly noticeable cliche, and even the finale in which our beloved hero must save both his girlfriend and the President feels relatively fresh when it's accompanied with all the humour and style that this film provides. 

Nothing about Iron Man 3 is game-changing or revolutionary, but it isn't formulaic either. Ultimately, plot takes a back seat to allow Robert Downey Jr to continue giving an outstanding leading performance, and the film's blend of smart humour and dumb action makes it a worthy follow-up to the events of Avengers Assemble. There's a tendency for the third film to let otherwise enjoyable action franchises stagnate (Pirates of the Caribbean, Men in Black), but Iron Man 3 evolves slightly, giving more depth (albeit not much) to the characters and becomes one of the few 'threequels' to be the best in their own saga.