'Brick' review by Captain Raptor

'Brick' review by Jake Boyle

The great Bo Burnham has a joke about phrases that have never been said before, such as "peanut butter tribadism" or "hold my fanny pack while I have sex with this human woman". I'm sure that prior to 2005, the same could have been said of "high school noir". It's not the most obvious choice of genres for a crossover, but Rian Johnson and Joseph Gordon-Levitt's later team-up Looper would prove to be an intuitive and mesmerising event, so I was eager to trace their partnership back to the source.

Brick really does go for the noir with both barrels - it's dark, it's serious, nobody trusts or even particularly likes one another - the only difference is that it's high school students filling in for world-weary gumshoes and gangster's molls. It's played entirely straight-faced, showing you a world full of backstabbing, crime and violence, and it takes a little while to be seriously convincing but once you do buy into it, it's fantastically atmospheric. There is one scene where the mother of a drug dealer is fussing about getting the faux-mobsters orange juice, but mostly the balancing of tone is done by a certain self-aware wryness, such as Richard Roundtree's principal, the spitting image of a disgruntled police chief. There's a few scenes such as these that are very important plot points and wholly serious, but are still made funny by the Johnson's whip-smart semi-pastiche of the genre. The mystery at the centre of the film's narrative was suspenseful, although it comes to a somewhat muddled resolution. The way the story is told though, is smart, with mostly no direct exposition and the audience having to make the connections alongside the protagonist.

 Joseph Gordon-Levitt is, predictably, great. His stoic manner and expressions make you forget how young and totally unimposing he looks, and he makes a great demonstration of his range when he shows desperation and pain (more physical than psychological) in the film's later, more emotional moments. The rest of the cast are all on-form, but nobody else particularly jumps out - it's definitely Gordon-Levitt's film. An overacting Brian White does put something of a damper of a proceedings, but he only has a few scenes, so the damage he does to the tone is limited. The whole film is sured up by some sharp cinematography, giving a bleak impression of the world by using wide shots filled with empty space. The jumpy effects used when JG-L gets into fights, repeatedly getting knocked down then standing right back up, were also particularly eye-catching.

All things considered, your enjoyment of Brick is mostly dependant on how seriously you can take its relocation of a classic detective narrative to a high school. It's well-acted, well-written, well-shot, but if you can't buy into the premise of all these teenagers trading stony-faced barbs and engaging in power play over drugs and information, you'll presumably find this film laughably po-faced. I wouldn't know. I really enjoyed it, but I can see a lot of reasons why other people might not.

'Non-Stop' review by Captain Raptor

'Non-Stop' review by Jake Boyle

It's weird remembering both a pre-Taken and post-Taken Hollywood. Aside from Liam Neeson's more-than-incongruous overnight transformation into an action star, it opened the floodgates for the following onslaught of 'geriaction' movies. I haven't seen Taken and thus can't comment on its quality, but it's not impossible that had it not been successful, we wouldn't have The Expendables, or Grudge Match, or whatever else Stallone's planning on doing, which doesn't best endear me to either that particular film or the entire sub-sub-genre that is elderly Liam Neeson hitting people.

The thing is, Non-Stop doesn't quite qualify as an action movie, or at least not by my standards. There are a few combat scenes, which were competently and entertainingly done, but for the most part this film pans out as a thriller. It's sort of like Murder On The Orient Express but on a plane, with a murderer among the passengers picking them off, with a dashing of Die Hard With A Vengeance, as the ransom-seeking terrorist taunts our troubled and hard-boiled hero via telephone. If mixing those two pieces together sounds like a bad idea, you'd be right. Somewhat. Non-Stop veers between grittiness and warm familiarity like a drunk driver, which might serve as a warning as to why you don't hire the producers of reality TV shows to write a claustrophobic thriller with references to 9/11. Scenes in which Neeson comforts a lonely child or flirts with Julianne Moore (in a very humourless, po-faced fashion) are at total odds with his character (the fantastically monosyllabically named Bill Marks) shoving, bullying and often assaulting the passengers during his investigation. The moral dubiousness of this is discussed just enough so that Bill becomes less likeable, but not so much that the film actually does any exploration of morality, or even appears to try to make Bill an antihero or otherwise murky and not just 'the good guy'.

One thing I will say in Non-Stop's favour is that the killer's identity was not obvious or apparent to me, which is an important element in a whodunnit. This is partly because their reasoning turns out to be pretty stupid, but this isn't exactly the kind of film where stupidity feels out of place. Neeson was good enough in his role, bringing needed gravitas to the film that went some way to making me take things seriously. The passengers themselves are all characterised (if loosely) and performed perfectly adequately, but none of them are worthy of extolling much praise, which is a shame when talented actors like Lupita Nyong'o and Scoot McNairy are involved. The possible exception is Nate Parker, who just seems to have a little more flair than everybody else.

Non-Stop wasn't bad, but it wasn't really good either. The plot, while nutty, is kind of interesting and mostly stays unpredictable, and Neeson plays everything seriously enough that the film doesn't drown in its own daftness. There was a much better, darker and thrilling film lurking under the surface, and this is normally the type of thing I'd attribute to producers and studios playing it safe, but looking at the pedigree (or lack thereof) of the writers and director, I'm more inclined to believe that it's just been poorly made. It's decent entertainment and nothing about it is a bad experience to watch, but don't expect too much more than that.

'Dr Strangelove Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb' review by Captain Raptor

'Dr Strangelove Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb' review by Jake Boyle

Reviewing a classic is somewhat of a fool's errand - if you like it, you're another indistinguishable voice in the masses; if you dislike it, you've just annoyed a lot of people and open yourself up to cries of being a philistine. Maybe that's a little over-dramatic. Either way, I noticed that the oldest film I've reviewed on here was made in 1982, and while I certainly intend to focus on contemporary cinema, it's always a good idea to broaden one's horizons. Which brings us to now.

Nuclear war isn't the most obvious topic of choice for a comedy, but the silliness of the jokes are nicely complemented by the dark undertones, cancelling out the threat of becoming either too bleak or too jejune. The satirisation of Cold War politics works equally well, especially when the film reaches its loopy final scene. It's shot very atmospherically, with lots of murky darkness as a further reminder of the sombre subject matter amidst all the tomfoolery (although I'm open to the possibility that maybe I perceive it like this because I'm accustomed to high definition cameras, and, well, colour). Stanley Kubrick's penchant for the unusual, the unsettling or the just flat-out crazy can also be felt across the film, from character names such as General Jack D. Ripper to a running joke about Soviets trying to poison America's "precious bodily fluids". This all goes some way to heighten the experience but can't entirely compensate for a substantial flaw; a lot of time Dr Strangelove just isn't funny. It's a very witty film (I found it similar to Monty Python at times) with some truly funny moments, but they come in patches, and there are swathes of the film (particularly those set among Slim Pickens' B-52 crew) that can't really raise a smile.

That being said, whilst not always funny, for the majority of its duration Dr Strangelove is at the very least amusing or entertaining. In combination with a charming and well-written script, this is largely due to incredibly energetic performances by Peter Sellers and particularly George C. Scott (which Kubrick notoriously fooled them into giving). Scott's mugging and shouting is incredibly watchable at all times and works well with the occasionally farcical script, and Sellers performs so distinctly in his three different roles that it wasn't until the credits that I knew which ones he was playing. Dr Strangelove himself is probably the finest of the three, a remarkably baffling character who veers from funny to frightening with great ease. It's a very emotionally removed comedy, with little sympathy or heart to the characters, which is just as well or it would be hard to laugh at them leading the world step-by-step to nuclear annihilation.

Dr Strangelove Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb was a highly enjoyable film that's commendable both for its wit and its intelligence. At no point was it uproariously funny, but its a product of its time and as a satire it works splendidly. The absurdity of it all is highly amusing in and of itself, and Kubrick has managed to create a pleasing movie that's both dark and light-hearted at the same time. I wouldn't say that it's especially wonderful, and it's certainly not hilarious, but watching it was a positive experience and markedly different to most other films that I've seen.

'The Fault In Our Stars' review by Captain Raptor

'The Fault In Our Stars' review by Jake Boyle

When previously existing stories are adapted into new films, I try to judge the results by their own merits rather than by comparing them to the source material. This is an incredibly difficult thing to do when the story in question is my favourite book, bar none. If you want the comparison, it's simple enough to amend; every time I praise something about the film, simply add 'but not as good as the book' after it.

'Not a dry eye in the house' is a phrase that's used quite liberally, but it was the literal truth about my viewing experience - it was a small crowd, but I don't think I've been to a cinema and seen such universal investment. That being said, The Fault In Our Stars isn't an exceptionally good movie, but it does know exactly how and when to pull at the heartstrings. The movie's drama is sublime, especially in its heart-crushing crescendo of an ending. The comedy is perfectly fine once it builds up some steam (a few of the earlier scenes fall awkwardly flat), but the film bounces back between funny phases and sad phases without ever really being able to blend the two. Matters certainly aren't helped by a mawkish soundtrack that sounds as artificially uplifting and hollow as the sentiments the characters are repeatedly disparaging. While often cynical about comforting lies, the film does have a deep and genuine sense of warmth that, without wanting to sound overly sappy, is actually quite life-affirming. Despite crying for a consecutive twenty minutes or so, I left that cinema with joie de vivre in my heart.

Emotions aside, the stand-out thing about The Fault In Out Stars is Shailene Woodley, who gives a quiet but in no way reserved performance that hits all the dramatic high notes while perfectly delivering the wit-laced dialogue. The same can't quite be said of the other lead, Ansel Elgort, who gives a great performance in the third act but before that is quite two-dimensional and I think is one of the main reasons that the tragedy and comedy can't seem to blend together. With Woodley, there's always the sense that she's on the verge of tears when she laughs or smiles, but Elgort, while passable, never really seems to feel much behind the smirk. There is great support from the rest of the cast however, particularly Nat Wolff in one scene where he just smashes the props and set to smithereens - the latter of which was elegantly and appealingly designed, so praise be to set designer Merissa Lombardo.

The Fault In Our Stars, while occasionally a little trite, is an engaging and genuinely moving film. It manages to be tragic and uplifting simultaneously, whilst still retaining a good sense of humour, which is no small feat. It's taken to an even higher level by Shailene Woodley, whose masterful range and subtlety might make her performance here one of the best of 2014. It could do with shedding a layer of Hollywood sheen, and allowing the funny and the sad to flow into and through one another rather than compartmentalizing them. But it's well-written, emotional and captivating, and I think it should delight all but the most cynical of moviegoers. 

'22 Jump Street' review by Captain Raptor

'22 Jump Street' review by Jake Boyle

21 Jump Street was a comedic gem that came out in 2012 but managed to elude me for a year, thereby missing out on its a deserved place in the hallowed Captain Raptor Top Ten Films Of The Year. Phil Lord and Chris Miller (who must have been working non-stop in order to bring this sequel, The Lego Movie and Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs 2 all to the silver screen within 9 months) had achieved a rare feat: a remake (well, in this case a reboot, but it's much a muchness) that's widely regarded as superior to the original.

22 Jump Street lives up to stereotypes of sequels by trying to recreate the first film but with more attention paid to the most popular elements. However, nobody is more aware of this than Lord and Miller, mocking both themselves and the film industry in general with numerous asides about repetition and a lack of originality. This is best seen when Nick Offerman delivers lines like "As if throwing more money at things would make them better" looking almost directly into the camera (ironically, Offerman and his fourth-wall-breaking comments are one of the fan favourites that the sequel places more emphasis on). It's done with all the subtlety of a wrecking ball but more often than not it pays off. A further example of what's either self-deprecation or double standards within the film - I'd opt for the former out of loyalty to the consistently excellent writers - is the blend of common contemporary Hollywood comedy (read: Judd Apatow and associates) with something smarter and more socially aware: there's more than a few (admittedly funny) scenes that hinge around Schmidt and Jenko getting mistaken for a couple, but there's also a pivotal scene in which we're supposed to root for Jenko when he blows both his cover and the investigation due to his outrage over homophobic language. There's typically few female characters, but the film's fight scenes are interrupted by lines such as "if you saw me as a person instead of as a woman". It's having its cake and eating it, but I found it intensely satisfying to have a film, especially a frat-pack comedy, attempting to make a genuinely important point whilst still being light-hearted, and, more importantly, funny about it.

Writing aside, there's still a lot to like about this film. Channing Tatum is absolutely fantastic, both in high energy scenes (running around Jump Street screeching and laughing) and low (his brilliantly appalling Mexican accent). Ice Cube's thundering and berating is also endlessly entertaining, so strangely enough it's Jonah Hill, the performer with the comedy background, who is the least amusing. There's a lot more of the self-aware, parodic humour in this instalment, and while it's definitely amusing, there's a certain warmth that it lacks. This is true of the story and side characters also, neither of which are as interesting or original as last time round. Plus, Hill and Tatum attempting to pass off as college students is nowhere near as funny as them trying to pass off as high school students.

22 Jump Street won't be Lord and Miller's funniest film this year, because of The Lego Movie. Hell, it's not even the funniest college-based comedy featuring Dave Franco and Craig Roberts in supporting roles, because of Bad Neighbours. It's nothing spectacular and it wasn't as good as the first one (as Nick Offerman will so readily remind you), but it's still a hugely funny and enjoyable movie that's definitely worth watching. Additionally, it's nothing if not admirable - by making fun of its own existence it's automatically challenging itself to be better,and through gelastic fake trailers for Jump Streets 23-42, savvy humour and a one or two messages about representation, it's challenging Hollywood too.

'Mystery Team' review by Captain Raptor

'Mystery Team' review by Captain Raptor

These are dark days for fans of American cult comedies. Community breathed its last breath a couple of months ago, and Parks And Recreation is gearing up for its final season. Wouldn't it be nice to go back to a time before NBC started getting axe-happy with our favourites? A time like, say, 2009, when both these shows premiered and two of their stars (Donald Glover and Aubrey Plaza) co-starred in Mystery Team, a comedy about former child detectives who never grew up.

A lot of the film relies on the charisma of those two to pull it through. Plainly put, Mystery Team is dumb, mainly reliant on crudeness and shock factor for humour. At times it does do these things very well (in particular an outrageous encounter with an over-friendly office worker played by Matt Walsh) but often the deciding factor in the funniness of a scene is Donald Glover's delivery, which for the most part is decent enough but on a few occasions can be too exaggerated and kill what was an already weak joke to begin with. The premise of the man-child has been done to death in recent years, but by dragging its protagonists through strip clubs, murder investigations and grieving families, their naivety is tinted with higher levels of inappropriateness and callousness, the darker edge helping to extract more comedy out of the proceedings. There are certainly funny parts, and the film does boldly go for both-barrels rather than restraint - a perk of independent film-making that's definitely worth utilising. For a childish comedy film made on such a shoestring budget, the camerawork is impressively engaging, often opting for sweeping and moving continuous shots rather than alternating between static camera angles.

Glover's undoubtedly the funniest and does show a relative amount of range in his performance (although the more sentimental scenes are so awkward and tangential they feel as if they were added in with a crowbar), but the rest of the leading cast are a mixed bag. Dominic Dierkes is good for a few laughs but severely lacking in energy as the dumbest member of the crew; Aubrey Plaza is fine and makes an admirable effort but her role isn't interesting enough to allow her to do much, and D.C. Pierson is the weakest link, giving an over-the-top performance that lacks sufficient charm (or a script with sufficient nuance) to counter-balance. The darker elements of the film's plot do add some humorous contrast to the affairs but when considered by themselves they are ill-explained and nothing original.

Getting down to the brass tacks of judging a comedy, Mystery Team is funny in parts. More often than not it's something simple like a foul-mouthed eight year old, but the confidence and unabashed goofiness makes up for some of the shortcomings that stupidity provides. It's a decent, watchable film with a substantial number of amusing moments, but it's not essential or even particularly recommendable viewing, and given some of that people involved it's a little disappointing. 

'Edge Of Tomorrow' review by Captain Raptor

'Edge Of Tomorrow' review by Captain Raptor

Edge Of Tomorrow is all about repeating the past (as Tom Cruise always seems to be trying to do) and learning from your mistakes (as the producers and marketers seem to have done with the title change from the clunky 'All You Need Is Kill'). Well, strictly speaking it's about a soldier fighting a war against aliens who gets stuck in a loop of dying in battle and waking up on the day before. But come on, it's nice to take away a lesson.

Edge Of Tomorrow is a hodge-podge of great science-fiction movies that have come before: most obviously Aliens and Groundhog Day, but the fingerprints of The Matrix, The War Of The Worlds and many others are all very evident. While it takes inspiration liberally from across the board, the trial-and-error approach to warfare and high octane action sequences give the film a more distinctive, video game type quality. Any staleness is further prevented by the addition of a good sense of humour, some of which is a little darker than one might expect. Fast-paced montages of William Cage's various demises set to his cries of irritation are well met by some witty dialogue and great reactions from the supporting cast when confronted with Cage's apparent craziness. The concept is well carried out, as Cage learns day by day (and death by death) how to fight better and the safest routes to take, although things do get more clichéd by the end of the film, which bends all sorts of logic to give a happy ending.

While they're not astoundingly original, the film's humour, plot and action would make it eminently watchable, and the intelligence with which these elements are carried out is only a further bonus. What elevates the film to even higher levels is strong performances from the cast. Tom Cruise is at his charming and likeable best, quite possibly because he's playing a more flawed and interesting character than his typical two-bit action heroes. There's strong support from Emily Blunt's cold and collected war hero and from Jonas Armstrong's (BBC Robin Hood? Anybody?) confrontational grunt, but by far the best is Bill Paxton, managing to maintain a dryly funny air of subtlety as he bellows put-downs. The crew definitely know what they're doing too - it's a very nicely shot film, and the special effects are absolutely fantastic.

Edge Of Tomorrow is derivative but highly enjoyable, both in premise and in execution. It's got the wits and charisma to more than get away with it, and while I was mildly reluctant to see it at first I was much more reluctant for it to finish. A disappointing ending and needless succumbing to cliché (still, at least we've moved on from 'pointless romance subplot' to 'pointless implication of romantic feelings') are minor but not insubstantial flaws in what is otherwise an entertaining and well-crafted sci-fi shoot 'em up with brains in roughly equal measure to bullets.