'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.