'Sin City: A Dame To Kill For' review by Captain Raptor

'Sin City: A Dame To Kill For' review by Jake Boyle

Spy Kids aside, Robert Rodriguez's career is practically defined by his close working relationship (and even closer similarities) to Tarantino; if this is indeed the case, then Sin City was his Pulp Fiction - interlinking stories told in a non-linear fashion, violent antiheroes (some of which are played by Bruce Willis) and a world where everybody is a criminal of some sort. Frank Miller's involvement, both as creator of the original graphic novel and as co-director, might be what elevated it to Rodriguez's (arguably) best work - sleek comic book visuals and a captivating setting made of equal parts twisted craziness and twisted darkness.

Sin City: A Dame To Kill For is concrete proof of the law of diminishing returns.  The returning characters are every bit as grizzled and tortured as they were (and Jessica Alba even has her turn at the rough-voiced bitter narration as Nancy descends into the vengeance-fuelled violence that seems to control all the citizens), but they just feel like they're going through the motions. Fan-favourite Marv is played with just as much gusto by Mickey Rourke and kicks just as much ass, but the majority of his presence in the film seems very forced, and this rubs off on how much his gruff bravado can be enjoyed. Bruce Willis reappears as a ghost (never mentioned as such, but that which we call a ghost would by any other name be as dead), and although there has always been some leftfield components in the mix (That Yellow Bastard, for example), introducing what seems to be supernatural is distracting and moderately confusing, especially when it's barely explained. The visuals are still spectacular, but to keep them interesting, the ante has been upped - more animated sequences, more flashes of colour amidst the monochrome surroundings - meaning that there's less of the stylish noir look that made everything look so good. That said, very few directors know their way around a camera like Rodriguez, and some sequences such as a rooftop massacre or a midnight swimming session are sharply, dynamically and even somewhat beautifully shot. 

Like its predecessor, A Dame To Kill For consists of three major plotlines with interwoven characters, and it's the one story about an original character that's the stand-out success. Joseph Gordon-Levitt gives a typically masterful performance as a cocksure gambler out to win big, acing both the highs (smug grins and sly one-liners) and the lows (grievous bodily harm and humiliation - the inevitable outcome of challenging Basin City's elite Roark family) with inimitable coolness. The story itself is the most intelligent, and consequently the most surprising - the ending is so wonderfully nihilistic, and reinforces all that we've come to know and love about this dark, seductive city. The new side characters to this one are also sublime - although they only have one scene each, a grumbling Christopher Lloyd and a barely recognisable Lady Gaga provoke more thought than all the returning 'heroes' combined, and provide just as much entertainment. However, not all the new elements are as successful - Eva Green's eponymous dame is such an exaggeratedly malevolent femme fatale that she feels like she belongs more in an Austin Powers movie. The recasting of many characters is a problem too - Dennis Haysbert gives a good performance, but he's incomparable to the sheer menace of the sadly departed Michael Clarke Duncan's screen presence; Jamie Chung fails to bring as much threatening stoicism as Devon Aoki did to the role of Miho; and as much as it pains me to say this, Josh Brolin was nowhere near as good as Clive Owen. The action is as pleasingly brutal as ever, and people mangle each other with the same level of enthusiasm, but the darkly funny nature of both this and the film in general has gently faded.

Although this review mostly contains criticisms, I did enjoy watching this movie; I just enjoyed the original so much more. Despite the brilliance of the Joseph Gordon-Levitt section, Sin City: A Dame To Kill For is inferior to its predecessor on every level. However, so are many other films, and if you remove the weight of expectation, this movie comes out looking pretty good. The main problem is that which plagues many prequels - we're moving backwards when we should be moving forwards. Marv, Hartigan, Dwight and Nancy are awesome, but we've already told the best stories they have to tell. Anything else is just disappointing, especially when Rodriguez and Miller prove that they're still capable of adding interesting characters to the universe. I'd like to see a third film where they've learnt from the mistakes and successes of this one, but I'm not entirely upset that the lousy commercial performance of A Dame To Kill For rules out that possibility. 

'The Expendables 3' review by Captain Raptor

'The Expendables 3' review by Captain Raptor

An appreciation for the past is certainly a positive thing, but Sylvester Stallone's levels of nostalgia borders on a psychological disorder. With Grudge Match, Escape Plan and sequels to Rocky and Rambo, his entire 21st Century career seems to be based around films he made decades ago. The Expendables has been the best result of this - although that's not saying much - partly because it is at least self-aware enough to mock itself before the audience does. While they've never exactly been astounding, the past two in the series have been reliably amusing forays into ridiculousness, in spite of everything. 

So, there are obvious points to get out of the way first: the characters and plot are threadbare, pathos and emotion are kept to an absolute minimum, it hasn't a single original thought in its brain and the whole affair displays as much intelligence as a squashed grape. But these are the predictable gripes about a series that's never tried to succeed on these levels. The surprising thing is that The Expendables 3 fails at the things it's supposed to be good at. The action is appalling - at first I wondered why the camera angles changed so frequently that you couldn't see what was happening, but after a while I noticed that nothing was happening. The first act has a lengthy action scene in which very little action actually occurs - few bullets are fired, the enemy's casualty rate is almost as low as the film's paltry box office intake, and the whole sequence mostly entails the eponymous mercenaries running away whilst spouting bizarrely nonsensical bravado. The second act is even worse and is one of the most grueling trials of patience I've ever had to endure. Stallone's character kicks out the rest of his team and goes on a recruitment drive, and is taken on a tour of characters who are so boring and undeveloped they can't even qualify as generic. There's literally no set-pieces or action here aside from a few momentary alleyway scuffles, so we're left with something truly god-awful - Stallone delivering dialogue.

This is so awful for two reasons, the first being that the dialogue in this film is absolute garbage. Gone are the ridiculously cheesy one-liners, the angry yelling and the testosterone-fulled repartee, that while all being hit and miss, at least they occasionally contained a hit. They've been replaced with banal, humourless statements that primarily seem to exist purely to take up space. The few attempts made to engage in that style of banter are weak - lines like "But you're still an idiot" are delivered as if they were some sort of cutting insult. The other reason the second act is so resolutely miserable is Stallone himself. He delivers every line as slowly as he can, possibly in a misguided attempt to make it sound more measured and serious. Combined with his signature mumbled register, the actual effect it has is turning an already dull line into a world-class example of  how to bore a viewer into frustration. One of the tiny, minimal redeeming features of this film is a different performance; Mel Gibson's moustache-twirlingly evil villain adds a few moments of spark and panache that livens things up a bit. Credit should also go to Antonio Banderas for being the only other cast member to summon up any energy or vigour, even if he isn't given the material to do anything worthwhile with it. In terms of other things that aren't awful, the final battle of the third act is the only other one I can think of - the action reaches a more substantially entertaining level, and the larger scale makes it easier to forgive all the grating dialogue. 

The Expendables weren't exactly at dizzying heights to begin with, but this third installment has still fallen a remarkable distance. All the expected flaws haven't been improved upon - the repetitiveness, the caricatured characters, the nationalism and other casual bigotry, the self-aggrandizing nature and the general stupidity - but to an extent these can be worked around with good enough action and humour. Unfortunately, both of these aspects are unmitigated failures. An action film can be many negative things and still be enjoyable, but it's unforgivable for a movie so brainless to also be so unrelentingly tedious. The Expendables 3 isn't just bad; frankly, it's pathetic. 

'Hercules' review by Captain Raptor

'Hercules' review by Jake Boyle

Deciding whether or not to see Hercules was no easy task. It was a matter of pitting my innate fondness and trust in Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson against my distaste and resentment of director Brett Ratner, the man who royally ruined the conclusion to the initial X-men trilogy. However, like he always did in the ring, The Rock won in the end, and besides, the film's fairly low concept doesn't leave that much that Ratner could screw up.

The concept in question, of Hercules actually being a simple mercenary who spreads fanciful tales of his own mythology to make himself seem more impressive, is peculiar in some regards. It shows a deliberate move towards realism, and in combination with several other elements such as Hercules' (attemptedly) moving backstory, there's clear attempts to make this version of the Hercules story a grittier affair. This is totally at odds with the rest of the tone of the film, which is an all-guns blazing (all-crossbows, maybe?) action throwdown, low on drama and high on muscles. This contrast does balance out and it all works perfectly fine, but I definitely get the impression that very few, if any, of the creatives involved had a particular idea of what they wanted to do. What they did end up doing, however, is perfectly pleasing: the action is blistering and done with both supreme confidence and glee, and there's enough variety in the methods by which our heroes dispatch their foes that it remains interesting and exciting from start to finish. This is partly down to a smart, compact running time, meaning that the film doesn't have much padding. Aside from exposition and PG-13 violence, the only other thing on display is comedic banter from Hercules' entourage of warriors. A limited range, admittedly, but all in working condition and highly enjoyable.

It's the performances that really make Hercules worth watching. Johnson is everything I hoped he'd be - charismatic, slyly funny, and punching things with as much force as humanly possible. There's strong support from Hercules' band of merry men, in particular a droll Ian McShane, the only element of this movie that shows any subtlety, and Rufus Sewell as what must surely be one of the most sarcastic characters in the history of film. John Hurt hams it up so much that it's fairly obvious he think he's above this (although to be fair he might be). A few reoccurring jokes about McShane's character trying (and failing) to embrace his death and Hercules acting humble about his totally false achievements add a sprinkling of comfortable humour to the film, the latter especially improved by Johnson's well-practised eyebrow raising technique, which would undoubtedly win Oscars if such a category existed.

Although it greatly pains me to say it, Ratner's come good on this one. Hercules, while incredibly generic and excelling at nothing in particular, is a bundle of joy and giddily entertaining. The action and the humour all work and it's all performed with confidence by Johnson and a good supporting cast. It's fun and enjoyable, and very little else, but for 90 minutes of pure satisfaction, it's worth a watch.