'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. 

'The Great Gatsby' review by Captain Raptor

'The Great Gatsby' review by Captain Raptor

After starring in a biopic about a troubled President, his future role in The Wolf of Wall Street, and now playing one of the most iconic roles in American literature, I've reached the conclusion that DiCaprio is now just picking rules that seem likely to earn him the Oscar which has notoriously eluded him these past years. The Great Gatsby is the film adaptation of F Scott Fitzgerald's classic story of love and materialism in post-war New York. As well as DiCaprio, the film also sees Tobey Maguire's return to the limelight after what could generously be described as a dry spell. 

 The most immediately striking thing about The Great Gatsby is the astounding visuals. A reappearing billboard with a huge picture of a leering pair of eyes has a brilliantly ominous tone, but it's the less subtle elements of the film's design and visuals that have the most effect. Sweeping shots of the New York skyline, fantastically fancy costumes and lavish party scenes with such an amalgamation of noise and movement; the lifestyle of the eponymous Mr Gatsby is perfectly presented. However, much like Gatsby's parties, all the glitz and glamour is a cover for a severe lack of emotion. In a film with a runtime of of 140 minutes, it's two hours before any characters show any dimensions to their brash facades and we can actually start to sympathize with them. The length may be what really kills the film: the book is under 200 pages and the story itself isn't particularly complicated, so the film is far longer than it needs to be, without engaging enough dialogue or characters to enjoyably pass the time between plot developments. It's a full 30-40 minutes before DiCaprio makes his first real appearance; the idea being to create an heir of mystery around the character which completely fails due to Leonardo DiCaprio's face being front and centre in all trailers and posters for the film. Tobey Maguire's innocent stockbroker Nick becomes a secondary character in his own story, which works in a book because the reader still gets his insights and description of events, but once Gatsby finally appears in the film, Nick quickly becomes bland and pointless, barely speaking or making his presence known upon the movie. Maguire actually gives quite a convincing performance, but his poorly characterized role starts to irritate once he is no longer needed as a window into the world of Gatsby. 

It probably goes without saying that DiCaprio gives a strong performance. As the sole interesting character, he has a ball as the confident and charismatic Gatsby during the party scenes, but it's the few scenes where we see Gatsby begin to crack that his talent really shines through. When he's allowed to convey Gatsby's anger or depression, DiCaprio really managed to captivate me, but too often the scenes are overly restrained and dull, with no showcase of emotion. A huge problem with the film's side characters is that they're all too balanced to actually enjoy. The nominally 'good' characters are either too flawed or too lacking in personality to root for, whereas the antagonists are portrayed too repulsively to obtain the audience's sympathy, but with enough rationalization they they can't entertain us as villains either. The music score is similarly caught awkwardly between two options: the soundtrack is an ill-fitting compilation of modern hip-hop and old-timey jazz, which suits neither the raucous, modernized party scenes nor the 1930's vibe of the rest of the film. 

It's a shame that an invigorating performance by DiCaprio and such stunning visuals are wasted on a film with such little life as this. An interesting story with one fantastic character is instead turned into an overly long experiment in tedium and poor storytelling with occasional flashes of brilliance. I'd like to see this film remade, still with DiCaprio in the lead, with a suiting runtime of 90 or so minutes, which skimps the exploration of the rest of the cast of non-characters to tell the darker, and less uncertain story of a truly great Gatsby. 

'Star Trek Into Darkness' review by Captain Raptor

'Star Trek Into Darkness' review by Captain Raptor

What I find most interesting about Star Trek Into Darkness is how it relates itself to the initial Star Trek series. There's no real way to satisfy the hardcore Trekkies (if you change too much it's sacrilege, if you don't change enough it's cheesy), but Into Darkness hits what I feel should serve as a proverbial sweet spot, with enough references to older installments to feel like a labour of love by a genuine fan, but changes enough to escape the trappings and shortcomings of the original version. I say 'should serve' because predictably the fanboys are up in arms, but there comes a point where you have to sit them down and shout 'The writing was hackneyed, the acting had no subtlety and we are moving on'. 

J.J. Abrams' 2009 Star Trek movie was handicapped by having to reintroduce characters and concepts to a new audience and as such lost valuable trekking time, but the sequel is now able to leap straight into the action and give us the movie we should have had 4 years ago. Star Trek Into Darkness is an engaging, energetic adventure movie, with matching strengths in dialogue and providing excitement. The references and recurring phrases from the TV show are for the most part clever, perhaps occasionally bordering on clumsy,  and there's an atmosphere of epicness surrounding the piece as they sail off, adventuring through the stars. The most effective new element that Star Trek Into Darkness brings to the table is Benedict Cumberbatch as John Harrison, a villain who is simultaneously impossibly threatening yet fully realised. A sufficient villain was one of the things the previous film was lacking, and Abrams has clearly responded to a lot of the flaws in his earlier film, such as a simpler but more comprehensible plot and allowing each character their own moment in the spotlight (although some crew members such as Chekov and Sulu seem unfairly sidelined). Abrams near-fetishistic fondness for lens flares persists though, and certain scenes are almost blinding to view, particularly ones taking place on the bridge of the Enterprise. The film's other glaring flaw is in its action, which is simply too fast and too overwhelming to actually appreciate: huge explosions, flying lasers and the grand scale of it all is shown with such breakneck speed, meaning you can't take in and enjoy any of it.

The component of the film that really heightens its quality is a selection of spot-on performances from a cast who fit perfectly into their roles. With the exception of Kirk and Spock, most of the roles aren't particularly well-written, but the actors are essentially doing impersonations of the original cast (Simon Pegg's deliberately poor Scottish accent is brilliant), and Dredd's Karl Urban manages to both imitate and surpass the original portrayal of the character of Dr 'Bones' McCoy, and has basically stolen the role as his own. The only character that's taken in any different direction is Captain Kirk himself, who seems slightly more resolved and stalwart than the roguish, unpredictable Shatner incarnation. Except perhaps for Urban, the finest performance of all must surely go to Benedict Cumberbatch, giving a master-class performance in both uncontrollable rage and subtle intimidation that could possibly end up as the greatest villain you'll see this year.

My favourite thing about sequels is the chance to rejoin established characters and expand their adventures further, and Star Trek Into Darkness is a prime example of that. Familiar characters are invigoratingly brought to life with fresh relish, and while it's certainly no game-changer the film gives a cast on their A-game a chance to take us for a ride. Here's hoping for another installment, preferably focused on Bones single-handedly taking on an entire fleet of Klingons armed with only a phaser and fed-up attitude.

'Iron Man 3' review by Captain Raptor

'Iron Man 3' review by Captain Raptor

Much like the offscreen life of its roguish star, the Iron Man franchise has seen falls from grace and great redemption. The trilogy's opener was a pleasingly explosion-and-one-liner filled triumph, but an unremarkable and forgettable sequel leaves a paler impression, before an almighty return in the Messiah of superhero movies, Avengers Assemble. An established franchise then, but Iron Man 3 still has a lot to prove: to escape the drudgery of Iron Man 2 and to step out of the shadow of Marvel's pièce de résistance. 

The influence of Earth's Mightiest Heroes doesn't quite escape the film. Lovably brash Tony Stark undergoes something of a crisis in confidence after the explosive events of Avengers Assemble whilst facing up to the looming threat of international terrorist The Mandarin. This does lead to the incongruity of 'If Tony's emotionally distressed and we have a whole unit of other superheroes, why does he have to deal with this?', which is never fully addressed, but the film does manage to create a believable sense of isolation for Mr Stark, who begins the second act stranded in the middle of nowhere with no armour and no plan. This section of the film, which features very little else apart from Tony being irritated, shines the brightest, as Robert Downey Jr continues to absolutely nail his role, bringing a needed sense of likability to a character who by rights should be downright irritating. Very few actors could seem as charming as he does while telling a small boy "not to be a pussy". Downey Jr has always been the crowning jewel of the franchise, and he feels more comfortable than ever in the role this time round. Other performances are variable: Don Cheadle and Jon Favreau still provide solid support, and Ben Kingsley's Mandarin starts off shaky but becomes a much more entertaining character as the film progresses. New to the franchise is Guy Pearce, giving a performance that's passable at best as slimy scientist Aldrich Killian, although the dullness of the character could possibly be the fault of the script rather than Pearce. Gwyneth Paltrow's Pepper Pots is left with very little to do this time around, and the wit she displayed in the previous films seems to have deteriorated.  

The action is competently done, and while there's nothing new or inventive about it, it's perfectly entertaining. Iron Man's strength has always been its comedy as opposed to its action, which the third installment provides in spades. Director Shane Black is confident enough to insert pauses in the action sequences with which to gain laughs, such as a henchman who gives up in the middle of a gunfight because "Everybody here is really weird". The plot never really comes to much beyond 'there is a bad man. Stop the bad man', but a character revelation midway through the film shows that Iron Man 3 is still unafraid to play with the formula. The combination of Stark's magnetic personality and the film's emphasis on dialogue steers the film away from cliche, or at least highly noticeable cliche, and even the finale in which our beloved hero must save both his girlfriend and the President feels relatively fresh when it's accompanied with all the humour and style that this film provides. 

Nothing about Iron Man 3 is game-changing or revolutionary, but it isn't formulaic either. Ultimately, plot takes a back seat to allow Robert Downey Jr to continue giving an outstanding leading performance, and the film's blend of smart humour and dumb action makes it a worthy follow-up to the events of Avengers Assemble. There's a tendency for the third film to let otherwise enjoyable action franchises stagnate (Pirates of the Caribbean, Men in Black), but Iron Man 3 evolves slightly, giving more depth (albeit not much) to the characters and becomes one of the few 'threequels' to be the best in their own saga.

'Evil Dead' review by Captain Raptor

'Evil Dead' review by Captain Raptor

I've been training for this review for a while, it would seem. Over the past months I've watched Evil Dead II and an assortment of other 80's movies, the idea being to give me a better understanding of the culture the film comes from and what it is to be compared to. That seems to have been a waste of time, as the new Evil Dead is an entirely different beast to what I have already seen. The threadbare plot is still the same, and there's a couple of things they've kept in from the original (would it really be an Evil Dead film without a tree-molestation scene or a chainsaw?), but tonally this film is almost unrecognisable.

The thing is, the new Evil Dead is a horror movie and nothing but. Its predecessors blurred the line between what's so horrific it's frightening and what's so horrific it's hilarious; it was a horror-comedy in the truest sense. Fede Alvarez's latest version has no humour to offer up whatsoever, choosing to go the full horror route. It keep some of the original films's successes, like the intense POV shots, although filming it with a high-resolution camera kind of ruins the atmosphere. The cinematography is very crisp, very effective in all other circumstances, however. The other positive similarity is that both films use the savagery of the demons sophisticatedly. A lot of horror films are content to scare the viewer simply by making them jump, whereas Evil Dead has greater ambitions: any fear comes from a sheer sense of dread, as the tormenting demon does increasingly disturbing damage to both its own and its victim's bodies. It veers on becoming torture porn, but it's nice to see a horror movie attempt to mentally scar the audience rather than merely cause them to twitch. The atmosphere of the film is near-perfect: a foreboding pre-credits scene gives you an idea what to expect from our hellish antagonist, and as you watch the teens innocently use various sharp and electrical appliances at the beginning of the film, you can immediately start to see how badly things are going to go.

The obvious element the film is lacking is one Ashley J motherfucking Williams. It would be nice to see more from our wide-eyed, amputated friend, but all things must come to an end. The real error is that a franchise that produced one of cinema's coolest heroes was incapable of producing a single memorable character. I accept for a 90 minute horror film that characterisation isn't exactly a priority, but I left the cinema only remembering one character's name, and there were times when I could not care less about what was going to happen to somebody because they were so bland. The worst of the bunch is Eric, played by Lou Taylor Pucci. He's the irritating one who accidently summons the ancient hellspawn, because somebody has to (although all I could think of were the wise words of The Cabin In The Wood's Marty: "I'm drawing a line in the sand. Do not read the fucking Latin") and he then has the audacity to criticize the other characters for failing to deal with the situation appropriately. The dialogue is awful, and the decision to treat the film with complete seriousness makes it look foolish, both because it's painfully unoriginal and particularly because they could have drawn some excellent black comedy out of mistaking demonic behaviour for heroin withdrawal symptoms, a key part of the plot treated entirely straight-faced. The characters commit the same clichéd acts that all teenagers in horror movies do, which gives the film a feel of repetitiveness and redundancy.

Some interesting set-pieces aside, Evil Dead brings nothing to the table, and it might have been better to let the franchise rest in peace. The characters are infuriating; you might start rooting for the demon because at least it's interesting, and all the gore in the world (the film uses an astonishing 25,000 litres of fake blood) can't compensate for the ensuing boredom when the film starts acting predictably. Evil Dead is a film with some good intentions that falls flat on its feet, but badly made horror is still watchable. In terms of films about mutilating young adults in the woods, it pales in comparison to the original Evil Dead films and The Cabin In The Woods, but there are jaw-dropping moments and the atmosphere that runs through the piece is enthralling enough to at least make it better than Cabin Fever.

'The Breakfast Club' review by Captain Raptor

'The Breakfast Club' review by Captain Raptor

Due to the upcoming remakes of Evil Dead and Robocop, I've recently taken it upon myself to get to grips with other classic 80's movies. Perhaps the most quintessential film of the 1980's is John Hughes' The Breakfast Club, watermarked by its Human League soundtrack, casual use of homophobic slurs and references to Barry Manilow. This film marks the pinnacle of my voyage into a decade of leg warmers and Rubik's Cubes. 

A lot about the film is incredibly simple: there's no complicated cinematography, the plot is essentially 'five people go to a room', and the characters are deliberately stereotyped. However none of this is detrimental towards the film in any manner as Hughes has chosen to make the film about dialogue and emotion rather than storytelling. The five teens that comprise the titular Breakfast Club are 5 high school stereotypes (The Jock, The Beauty, The Geek, The Recluse and The Rebel) to which everybody should relate to at least one of, and it's remarkable the way the in which film seamlessly develops from having the five sit in silent contempt of each other to bearing their heart and soul completely. It's a great teenage movie, championing the idiocy and individuality found in adolescents, and the film comes to an emotional climax that simply involves the five characters sitting in a circle and being completely honest about their feelings towards themselves and their parents. The corniness of the film's message that deep down we are all alike is overruled by the intelligence and surprise with which it is revealed, as seemingly socially harmonious individuals show astounding insecurities and people whose problems appear to be minor are shown to be a worthy of sympathy as anybody else. 

The film's sense of drama and emotion lends it a lot of credit and is done to near perfection by a superb script and cast. The comedy doesn't quite reach the same high level, particularly in the earliest stages of the film, but there are funny moments, mostly provided by the kooky goth Allison (Ally Sheedy) and socially inept nerd Brian (Anthony Michael Hall, playing the same role he always did in those days). Even when its not funny, the dialogue is still entertaining, littered with hints about the backstories and lives of the wonderfully developed and realised characters. My only real problem with the film is the damp squib of an ending, which despite a touching voice over by Brian feels a little anti-climatic - after an hour and a half of arguing and bonding, I don't feel the ending has any real sense of closure, but I suppose leaving me wanting more is a sign of the film's success. My other irritation (skip to the last paragraph to avoid spoilers) is that while most of the characters learn a lesson of accepting others and being proud of themselves, poor gothic Allison's resolution is to completely change her appearance and attitude to win the affection of another, which comes across as 'Oh, we're all good people really. Except you. You have to change' which would seem to be an exercise in self-defeat in relation to the message of the film.

The Breakfast Club contains so much 80's culture that it should feel alienating, but the story of teens lacking self-confidence is so universal that it resonates just as strongly in the modern world as it did back in the day. There's some laughs, and a few tragic implications, but the main thing I've taken away from this genuinely beautiful and moving film is that we're all the same on the inside. That and some awesome dance moves.

'Jack the Giant Slayer' review by Captain Raptor

'Jack the Giant Slayer' review by Captain Raptor

It's not a sterling sign of success that Jack the Giant Slayer has made so little money that it might possibly bankrupt Digital Domain, the production company that financed it. I wouldn't have gone to see it myself if the director of the first two X-Men films Bryan Singer wasn't helming the project. It's stuck in a profit-making dead zone; a little too much violence and the occasional swearing means it isn't a kids film, but the childish premise means that it can't be marketed as a full-on blockbuster either. But a film's profit does not denote its quality, and I'm definitely willing to give a Singer/Ewan McGregor team-up a chance.

Saying that, Jack the Giant Slayer is stupid, lazy and incredibly clichéd. Following the age-old plotline of 'man saves princess from monsters' means the film isn't off to a great start, and the strongest part of a fairytale is supposed to be its narrative. Characters take courses of action for no justifiable reason (in particular Stanley Tucci's villainous Roderick, who kills an ally without motivation just in case the audience wasn't capable of grasping the fact that the man dressed entirely in black who sneers at everyone is in fact the bad guy), and in various instances contradict themselves entirely. An early scene shows the princess Isabelle getting frustrated that she is treated different because of her gender and says she wishes people would let her be independent. This would all be well and good if the character didn't spend the next hour and a half screaming, getting repeatedly captured, crying for help and literally not helping anybody in any way at any point. It's also hard to root for our hero Jack, as the script tries to make him so ordinary and everyman that he's totally lacking in any personality or charm. There's a saving grace in Ewan McGregor, hamming it up to perfection as the noble warrior Elmont, quite possibly the poshest character in the history of cinema, but one enjoyably overacted performance is not enough to compensate for an entire cast of poorly written characters. Even the nominally badass one-liners after giants get slain are limp and laughable.

So, as is too often the case with major movies, storytelling, dialogue and characters are sacrificed to showcase action and set-pieces. The giants themselves look and act as you'd expect - stupid and ugly creatures, with a lot of childish humour about their bodily functions, but they get the job done and certainly feel like a viable threat. The action is routine, with nothing interesting or inventive enough to warrant specific mention, although I would like to point out the scene where a metal bell collides with a stone wall to cause an implausible explosion. In a similar notion of calling the film's stupidity, there is a bald character whose name is Bald, and this disproportionately irritates me. The film's not entirely without its positives: the large-scale destructive rampaging of the giants is an impressive sight to behold, and there's a wisp of humour gained from McGregor's Trainspotting co-star Ewen Bremner as an idiotic manservant, but none of this can elevate Jack the Giant Slayer any higher than 'OK' at best. 

 My regard of Bryan Singer has fallen considerably after watching this film, and I thank God for Ewan McGregor to alleviate what would have otherwise been a truly grating experience. Jack may slay giants, but this comes at the cost of boredom, sexism, clichés and stupidity. A more enjoyable final act does not pardon the blandness and lack of thought seen in the film's first hour and a half, and frankly it feels like poetic justice that this film is making such an enormous loss.