'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. 

'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.