'X-Men: Days Of Future Past' review by Captain Raptor

'X-Men: Days Of Future Past' review by Captain Raptor

I've outlined my thoughts on the X-Men franchise as a whole in my previous review of The Wolverine (check here if you haven't read it), and suffice it to say that Days Of Future Past has had me (as well as the vast majority of the geek community) salivating with excitement since its announcement. The return of Bryan Singer? All the popular and best-acted characters from the franchise thus far? The addition of Peter Dinklage? This couldn't be a more heavenly prospect. 

The inclusion of pretty much all of the franchise's major characters is both a blessing and a curse. It's pure joy to see them all next to each other, and everybody gets their moments to shine. It even repairs some past mistakes by giving Ellen Page's Kitty Pryde (which, in a more just universe, would have been my favourite thing in the world ever) some interesting and dramatic material. The problem with trying to squeeze everybody in is that great characters such as Beast or Ian McKellen's elderly Magneto really don't have much to do, and provide far less excitement and fun than we've come to expect from the characters. There aren't any bad performances, but there aren't any truly spectacular ones either due to everybody's limited screentime. It's telling that despite all the returning favourites, the highlight of the film is probably newcomer Evan Peters' hilarious performance as Quicksilver, either due to a lack of expectation or because he's a fresh new element. Speaking of fresh new elements, Peter Dinklage makes a welcome addition to proceedings, adding sprinklings of pathos and menace to what could have been a thoroughly bland role. The dramatic performances are all strong but the highest praise in that area deserves to go to James McAvoy, particularly for his first scene, showing great range in the time that he has.

The things that the X-Men films have always excelled at are just as good as they've ever been: the wit is on-point, the writers excellent employ their one permitted use of the word 'fuck', and the action is awesome in both senses of the word, incorporating jaw-dropping, large scale destruction as well as up-close-and-personal combat to full effect. The story and the logic that drives it is a little preposterous, but that really comes with the mantle of a superhero movie. As is the case with the better X-men films, the fantastical (but admittedly somewhat ridiculous) plot is undercut with messages about prejudice and acceptance, that whilst not being groundbreaking or complex still have the potential to be touching, or at the very least engaging. Singer's touch doesn't feel as definitive as it did in his earlier films, and a fair proportion of the film feels like repetition (the scene in which Mystique infiltrates the corporate building of her enemy feels like an almost exact duplicate of the similar scene in X2), but that's partially the consequence of being the seventh film in a franchise that's had five directors.

Considering the multitude of components that this film is trying to juggle, X-Men Days Of Future Past does a remarkable job of remaining straightforward and entertaining. That said, it could still do with being a little longer to allow the audience to indulge in a more vibrant or complex film. Aside from this, the film does very little wrong, and it's certainly the best X-men film for over a decade. It's every bit as funny and action-packed as I'd hoped for, even if it's a smidgen less epic and dramatic than I'd have liked. Strong performances abound from both the old and the new, and Singer easily demonstrates why he's a perfect fit for the series. It's truly wonderful to see the gang like this, all together and all thoroughly entertaining. This should enrapture fans on every level, and I should dare say introduce more than a few new ones to a wonderful, wonderful world.

'Memento' review by Captain Raptor

'Memento' review by Captain Raptor

In conclusion, Memento is an intelligent and masterfully executed film that will arouse every passion in your brain even if it evokes very little in the heart. It would have been nice to see stronger characterisation or more emotive performances, but Memento's unique storytelling methods and fascinating narrative are a real treat, rivalled by very little else that I've seen. It's not something to watch casually, and (you might see this as a good or a bad thing) it demands a lot more from the audience than most films, but it's a really rewarding watch.

All the other elements are functional, if not astounding. All the cast put in solid performances, but none of them are anything particularly special (although I was surprised to see the extent of the acting ability of Stephen Tobolowsky, Groundhog Day's own Ned Ryerson). Guy Pearce was convincing as the memory-lapsing lead, but this might have more to do with his naturally confused-looking face. The characters aren't hugely memorable, or very highly developed, but they all serve their purpose well enough. This isn't much of an emotive film, and the need to pay close attention to what's happening means that there isn't a lot of time to explore feelings. Speaking of which, I'm feeling this review coming to an end...

The movie's primary achievement lies in its triumphant storytelling. The protagonist's inability to form new memories means that, much like the audience, in every scene he doesn't know what's previously happened. We start not so much with unanswered questions but with no clear idea of what is happening. Then we get unanswered questions, and then we get confusing answers, and all in all the film is a wonderful, enthralling mix of intrigue, twists, lies and half-truths. It's trademark Nolan intelligence, framed well by his constant ally, director of photography Wally Pfister, especially in the opening scene that's played entirely in reverse. Things do get quite confusing, and I'd be lying if I said I was totally confident about what had happened, but that's undoubtedly intentional, and the challenging narrative just piques the viewer's interest.

If you weren't aware, Memento is a film that takes place in reverse chronological order. It ends with conflict resolution, and each succeeding scene shows the events leading up to the scene you just watched. It's directed by Christopher Nolan, because who else would make a non-linear memory-based ambiguous thriller? He's one of my favourite directors, even though I've only seen about half of his body of work, so I jumped at the chance to see another of his acclaimed movies, especially in advance of this year's Interstellar. So, on with the review.

'Bad Neighbours' review by Captain Raptor

'Bad Neighbours' review by Captain Raptor

A crude, partially improvised comedy wherein Seth Rogen plays a childish man. Must be Tuesday. By no stretch of the imagination is Bad Neighbours breaking open the idea bank, but something I learnt last year was that the road most traveled can often be the funniest one, due to We're The Millers' surprising surpassing of the more original but ultimately less entertaining The World's End and Rogen's own previous effort. An amusing trailer and positive press sealed the deal, and so onwards I went.

True to form, Seth Rogen is Seth Rogen, and whether you like or dislike him is unlikely to be altered by his performance here. I felt he was funny, but the highest praise must undoubtedly go to Rose Byrne, who gleefully ups the ante on the petty warfare between fraternity and family at every turn. Her delivery is impeccable and it's especially pleasing given the R-rated comedy genre's tendency to relegate all wives to nagging reactionary characters. Zac Efron is funnier than you might expect but he's nothing special, and he's somewhat undercut by strong support from secondary frat boys Jerrod Carmichael and Dave Franco. The cast gel together extraordinarily well and they're a joy to watch, but they're only enabled to do this by a riotous script from newcomers Andrew J Cohen and Brendan O'Brien. The comedy is provided far more by events than it is by dialogue, and while these events are often extremely lewd, there's enough of the film devoted to other elements (perhaps most pleasing is the scene involving a 'Robert De Niro party') that it never dissolves into pure puerility. 

Perhaps one of the things that make Bad Neighbours so enjoyable is that there's a genuine warmth behind the chaos and dick jokes. All the characters are presented as sympathetic, and the film fleetingly touches on the issues of growing old, stagnating relationships and fear of the future. Director Nicholas Stoller never allows this to interrupt the flow or put a dampener on the fun, but it adds some arguably needed intelligence to the backdrop as well as enabling the viewer to relate to the otherwise mostly one-dimensional characters that populate this film. With a firm base to start from, the anarchic back-and-forth of the escalating pranks has a sense of structure rather than just feeling like a set of sketches. It's not a perfect film by any means - it's quite slow to begin with, a few of the jokes are really obvious, and although Rogen and Byrne's baby acts as the major plot motivation, the script seems to pretty much forget it exists at times - but once it gets going it's consistently funny throughout, without ever really losing its sense of purpose.

Bad Neighbours is a very funny film, which ultimately overshadows any other flaws it has. It pulls no punches, and the filthiness is nicely blended in with other types of humour rather than being the sole arrow in the film's quiver. A strong, charismatic cast makes the most of the script's frantic fun, and Rose Byrne's spirited performance is a particular treat. It's quite silly, but unabashedly so, and the jokes have an occasional darker or smarter streak that prevent the more tried-and-tested material from stagnating. It doesn't break new ground, but it doesn't try to - its aim is a simple one, and it's one that it fully accomplishes.

'In Your Eyes' review by Captain Raptor

'In Your Eyes' review by Captain Raptor

The future is now. Tomorrow is today. From day one of general release, the Joss Whedon-scripted In Your Eyes was available for rent online for a small fee (from vimeo.com, if you're interested and also incapable of googling it).  From the man who recently made the third highest-grossing film in history, it's a surprisingly small and underground affair, directed by and starring relative unknowns. But any decent Whedonite knows to expect the unexpected, and a metaphysical love story can't really be considered anything but that.

The concept is without question the most entertaining thing about this movie. One day, for no established reason, two strangers, miles apart from one another, start to see, hear and feel what the other sees, hears and feels. And rather than leading to existential angst or sci-fi investigations, it mostly leads to flirting. It's a unique, fresh and - most importantly - incredibly interesting basis for a story. Admittedly, once you move past the science fiction element, a large amount consists of the tried and tested romantic drama clichés, but they do seem a little less tired when blended in with the weird stuff. The film goes for both laughs and drama in roughly equal amounts, and is fairly successful on both accounts. It's a very soft and subtle film, and it plays this card well, but to some degree it's missing the cleverness or darkness (much more the latter than the former) that often makes this technique work the best. As one would expect from Whedon, the dialogue is excellent, and the film's other major area of success is the cinematography, seemingly devoted to making everything look as pretty as possible.

Vitally for a romance, both the lead performers are immensely likeable and their definitely have chemistry. Zoe Kazan gives a nicely nuanced performance, and Cloverfield's Michael Stahl-David nails his one-liners and comedic scenes. There's not much in the way of supporting characters, as they mostly seem to exist purely for plot advancement, but Steve Harris' few scenes as a weary parole officer are worthy of praise. It's not exactly ground-breaking, but the class difference between the two potential partners is done nicely, especially with the visual contrast - Kazan mostly exists in a world of whites and silvers, whereas Stahl-David is surrounded at all turns by different shades of brown. Certain elements of the plot don't really hold much interest, especially when the familiar tread of the storyline allows you to predict what happens next fairly accurately. A few scenes go for comically awkward, and while they mostly hit the mark, at times they're just uncomfortable to watch without any amusing pay-off.

In Your Eyes isn't moving, hilarious or exciting in any particular way. However, it's a very assured film that makes the most of its attention-grabbing central premise, as well as being damned funny when it wants to be. The drama isn't superb, but it's good enough to entertain, and despite the obviousness of it all, I did find myself getting heavily invested in the will-they-won't-they romance at the heart of the film. Long-time Whedon fans should enjoy it, but not as much as his other work, and the way the film deals with its premise alone makes it definitely worth watching. 

'The Amazing Spider-Man 2' review by Captain Raptor

'The Amazing Spider-Man 2' review by Captain Raptor

Here it is at last. The mildly anticipated sequel to 2012's most average film. Although admirably trying to stamp out independence from Sam Raimi's webslinger saga, this film's predecessor was nothing special, and I found it was really only held together by the charm and chemistry of Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone. Conversely to a lot of blockbusters, it was an awesome romantic subplot with dull and distracting obligatory action sequences.

Marc Webb's second Spider-Man film feels markedly different. The action's improved, with a brilliantly fun chase scene at the beginning of the film and several superpowered smackdowns throughout the film (in particular a flashy and acrobatic battle in Times Square) that both amaze and entertain. However, at the same time, Peter and Gwen's relationship is neither as funny nor as interesting as it was first time round, often reverting to cliche and angst as opposed to the wit-fueled repartee that made the first film tick. The humour is absent for a lot of the film, although that's not through a lack of trying. Jamie Foxx's villain-to-be scientist babbles crazily and flounders awkwardly but fundamentally has nothing funny to say, and Spidey's quips are just as prevalent but lack the same level of sarcasm as before. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is an entertaining ride, but it's too long and tries to do too much at once - there's origin stories for three different villains, development in Peter's relationships with his girlfriend and his aunt, investigations into the disappearance of his father (his mother disappeared in the same incident but apparently he's not really interested in her), and a personal tragedy, all on top of the main story and lengthy action sequences. It's packed to bursting and while most if not all of these elements are interesting, none of them really get enough attention to be anything more than that. 

The new and improved action isn't the only improved addition. Dane DeHaan makes an excellent Harry Osborn, at once more likable and more unpleasant than James Franco was in the role, and probably gives the film's best performance. Although Electro isn't exactly a spectacularly written character, Foxx gives excellent energy before the transformation and radiates menace afterwards. The special effects are top-notch and well-utilized, and the film's visuals as a whole are all great. It's really just the writing that's taken a knock; the dialogue is worse, the villains aren't made interesting enough (Paul Giamatti's role is so far beneath him that it may as well be in the Earth's core) and aside from a surprisingly dramatic ending, nothing hugely new or unexpected happens.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 does multiple things both better and worse than the first film. However, the worse things are slightly worse and the better things are significantly better, so the sequel undoubtedly comes out on top. An exciting and entertaining film is somewhat marred by a decline in humour and dialogue, but all the other components work, and Webb and Garfield's second outing with Spider-Man is a perfectly respectable and enjoyable affair. Here's hoping for a funnier and more heavily edited third outing, with more drive and focus (ideally on Dane DeHaan). 

'The Perks Of Being A Wallflower' review by Captain Raptor

'The Perks Of Being A Wallflower' review by Captain Raptor

The journey from beloved young adult novel to moving picture is an unstable one, fraught with danger. To your left, the bubbling lava pits of alienating the original fans and the core audience. To your right, the gaping chasm of failure to attract new viewers and of being too niche. As good as any attempt can ever be, it's much like making a Star Trek film in that the moaning and decrying will be endless no matter which route you take. The upcoming Divergent and The Fault In Our Stars are this year's major YA contenders, but before those days arrive upon us, let us see what's regarded as one of the more successful adaptations.

Of course, this peril is somewhat navigated in the instance of The Perks Of Being A Wallflower, given that it is written and directed by the author of the original book. Good thing, too. The film is made with a gentle and emotional sophistication that one might typify more of a book than of a film. There's great amounts of drama and characterisation, but it's done with maximum subtlety and often without even many words (which is good both for additional dramatic effect and because dialogue isn't a major strength of the film). Massive revelations about abuse, suicide and other traumas are dropped into the dialogue almost casually, keeping the film's tone electrically dramatic, because you soon realise that something jaw-droppingly upsetting could be just around the corner. The revelations themselves are also improved by this lack of fanfare, allowing the moments to be moving without ever venturing near melodrama. There's a balance between heartwarming and heart-wrenching that underlies the events and in particular the relationship between social outcast Charlie and his cool, confident new friends. There is some cliché in the conveyed message that friendship can fix everything, and it's to be found elsewhere, such as Paul Rudd's obligatory cool guy teacher, but these elements are played with enough soul and charm that at worst they're passable. Stephen Chbosky's subject matter of high school angst and self-doubt is far from trivialised, but it's also kept in check by the presence of far darker demons in the character's lives.

 The writing and tone of the movie is excellently brought across by Logan Lerman, who plays the lead role. His performance is low-energy and understated, brimming with emotion - perfectly matching the film in every other regard. His character is wonderfully developed and Lerman plays him expertly. Much the same can be said about Ezra Miller's performance as Patrick, who is the high-energy, quotable, quick-witted counterpoint to the mumbling and sunken-eyed Charlie. The other performances all range from the high end (Mae Whitman, Johnny Simmons - both Scott Pilgrim Vs The World alumni) to the low end (Emma Watson, Dylan McDermott) of good, but there aren't any seriously weak links in the chain. The musical score can be sometimes ill-fitting, but there's every possibility that was intentional, and the mood is stabilised by the slightly murky cinematography, so the impact that might have had is dampened.

The Perks Of Being A Wallflower is touching and charming in equal measure. A minimalistic but powerful story often told more with sights than it is with words, the writing is superb and Lerman does it more than justice with a subtle yet astoundingly emotive turn. There are flirtations with both the pretentious and the overly-earnest, but it's captivating and heartfelt from beginning to end, and there are times where Chbosky can move you more in ten seconds then some writers and directors can in entire films. A quiet and restrained yet still enthralling movie, I recommend this particularly for the fans of The Breakfast Club and Submarine as celebration of teenage angst and isolation.

'Good Will Hunting' review by Captain Raptor

'Good Will Hunting' review by Captain Raptor

Cards on the table: there's not a review of anything new this week because I'm going to watch The Lego Movie again instead of seeing something else. In an attempt to regain a modicum of pretence of professionalism, I thought that I should watch a modern classic, some sizeable gap in my knowledge of cinema. Good Will Hunting is certainly regarded as such, and I've also never seen any of Robin Williams' more serious work, so therefore it was thus. 

I don't mean this in a malicious way (or at least, not wholly maliciously), but it's very obvious that this film was written by actors. The major characters all have one individual scene where they're at their most emotional, and where the performer in question is given material tailor-made to allow them to showcase their abilities. The problem is that outside of their allotted scene, most of them have very little to do. It's equally down to weakness in both writing and acting, but to me this film felt largely devoid of life. The drama is simply not there in the script for a large proportion of the film's runtime, nor is it in Williams or Matt Damon's generally lacklustre performances. At times, Matt Damon's attempts at a stoic or troubled expression are nearly comically bad, and the two leads seem incapable of emoting at first. As aforementioned, in certain scenes they are explosive, this blankness still remains a problem throughout the film. Stellan Skarsgard and Minnie Driver provide some more consistent support, but this too is scoured by the presence of Ben Affleck's obnoxious, nigh insufferable character. 

The story isn't much to be celebrated either. Aside from being riddled with clichés, the plot is also threadbare, and the finished result feels more like a succession of scenes than something resembling a narrative. It does possess a nice sense of balance; it shows the flaws in its protagonists and the better qualities of the less sympathetic characters. Interesting characters might be the main strength that the film has to offer, but the positive impact of this is lessened somewhat by wobbly performances and dialogue of a substandard nature (I am genuinely perplexed as to why anybody thinks the famous "How do you like them apples" line is anything more than awkward-sounding, appalling trash"). The cinematography is clumsy and feels amateurish, which takes a toll on the film's atmosphere. 

I was thoroughly underwhelmed by Good Will Hunting. A weak script and inconsistent performances lie at the root of the problem, and maybe I'm cold but the film was nowhere near as uplifting or heartfelt as it seems to think it is. Within the mess though, there are moments of excellence, and Minnie Driver manages to remain commendable throughout the film. Cutting down on the runtime might alleviate Good Will Hunting of some of its burdens, but ultimately this is a highly flawed movie. How do you like them apples?