'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.

'Kiss Kiss Bang Bang' review by Captain Raptor

'Kiss Kiss Bang Bang' review by Captain Raptor

I've been yearning to watch Kiss Kiss Bang Bang for a long time, not least because the leading double act of Val Kilmer and Robert Downey Jr is the closest we'll ever come to seeing Iron Man and Batman together on the silver screen. After my near-complete infatuation with the most recent team up of star Downey Jr and director Shane Black on Iron Man 3, I finally made the time this weekend to sit down and view the modern cult classic.

I was not at all let down by the viewing experience. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang seems like a composite of the best features of films that were later released, containing the knowing deconstruction of Hollywood and crime movies from within a Hollywood crime movie present in Seven Psychopaths; the mercilessly funny and whip smart black comedy of In Bruges; the witty and very deliberate subversion of tropes as seen in Serenity. Given it's fairly meagre commercial success it's unlikely that Kiss Kiss Bang Bang inspired these films, rather Shane Black's utterly brilliant screenplay is one the prime showcases of modern cinema techniques. The plot is an ideal mix of accessibility and complexity, as Downey Jr's naive and motor-mouthed thief-cum-actor Harry teams up with Kilmer's surly hardman detective Gay Perry and Michelle Monaghan's struggling actress Harmony as they all become further and further involved in a murder-mystery scheme. The performances from the lead trio are all outstanding, but the one most particularly worthy of a mention is that of Val Kilmer, showing comic timing I had no idea he possessed as the sardonic professional exasperated by Harry's amateurism. Other highlights include Harry's fourth wall breaking narration, during which he shouts at on screen extras and complains about the film's ending, and the various sharp shocks of black comedy that come out of nowhere, giving the film a real sense of insanity and unpredictability.

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is wickedly funny, but the film's appeal goes further than that. The plot takes on some dark undertones at various points, and the story moves along at such a pace that by the time you've recovered from one surprise, a second one jumps out at you. It's a film of intelligence, both in the sense that the dialogue and plot are very witty and savvy, and in the sense that it's a film that doesn't babysit its audience, the implications are there and its up to you to fill in the gaps for yourself. The film's protagonist Harry Lockhart is also one of the most enjoyably complex characters I've ever seen in an action comedy: he's laid-back and sarcastic yet clearly vulnerable; he believes in chivalry but it borders on judgemental, and ultimately he is a good person coerced into theft, conspiracy and murder. It all leads to excellent characterisation that's held up by Downey's excellent performance, making Harry the best accidental detective since The Big Lebowski.

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang balances intelligence, comedy and action in a way that's rarely seen, giving each element its moment to flourish and intertwining the three expertly. If, like me, you enjoy snarky and self-aware pop culture like Community or The Cabin In The Woods, then Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is simply a must-see. To everyone else, there's still a lot to be gained from this viewing experience: a near-perfect action comedy with extra doses of gallows humour and intriguing noir appeal. 

'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.