I realize that I
haven’t been faithfully reviewing articles for a while, and for that I
apologize. With my exit from the military, my ratings coming through, and my
relocation to Colorado, my life has been hectic, but I promise I plan to return
to regular film reviews in the near future. In the meantime, contemplate this
article while I plan my return.
Be warned, this
article is VERY spoiler heavy.
A lot of people are angry at JJ Abrams, there’s no way
around it. Strangely, this anger seems to stem from a very unlikely source, lying
about a character in his film.
Let’s start from the beginning. The world was greatly
anticipating the release of Star Trek: Into Darkness (STID) this last
summer, so much so that when nerd favorite Benedict Cumberbatch was cast as “Main
Antagonist” the internet went into a fizzy about who he was going to play. The
big theories were that he was going to play Trek favorite Khan or Gary
Mitchell, which would have been the first time in the new Trek universe that
these famous stories were explored from the new universe standpoint.
So imagine everyone’s surprise when JJ Abrams announced that
Cumberbatch would be playing… some guy named John Harrison. Everyone scratched
their head, called Bravo Sierra, and were treated to Abrams swearing up and
down the spectrum that this new villain would NOT be Khan. Eventually everyone
moved on and saw the film, only to have Abrams “surprise” us all with a big “AHA!
Gotcha!” reveal that this was indeed Khan after all. Nerds were up in arms
about this reveal, and eventually Abrams issued a flat out apology saying that
he was wrong to lie and he should have just said who it was from the beginning.
But... should he have had to apologize?
Let’s face it, the world of film has changed a lot in the
last twenty years. It used to be that the announcement of a big film, be it an
original work or a sequel, warranted a complete blackout of information on all
the details of the film, since there was no medium to spread speculation or analysis
of the film on a worldwide basis. Fast forward to today and it’s nearly
impossible to keep all the details of a movie a secret. All the non-disclosure
contracts and script control in the world can’t stop a teenager from emailing
aintitcoolnews.com to say that the new Avengers is filming by his
apartment complex and he overheard one of the sound guys mention Deadpool.
The point is that STID was Abrams child, his
creation, and if he wanted to keep the reveal a secret, then he shouldn’t have
had to apologize later for lying about the big secret. Keep in mind that this
actually happened in The Dark Knight Rises as well this year when Nolan lied over and over that
Miranda Tate was NOT Talia Al Ghul, and this reveal actually DID bug me because
her last minute plot reveal kind of tarnished the character of Bane for me. The
big difference however, was that no one seemed to care about this lie.
So where is the middle ground in all of this? Personally I
believe that lying to keep a reveal secret should be fine, especially
considering that just a few years ago trailers seemed to be giving away massive
plot points left, right, and sideways. Remember the trailer to Lord of the
Rings: The Two Towers that totally showed the biggest surprise of the book
by having Gandalf front and center through the whole trailer? Or how about the
trailer for Even Almighty, a film that revolved around whether or not
there would really be a flood, showing a flood tearing through the city?
Now obviously I have a problem with trailers lying about
what TYPE of film you were going to
see, like when Watchmen was advertised as an action heavy comic film
when it was actually a commentary about the Cold War and the Human Condition.
Or how about Sweeney Todd, a grisly film about a serial killer, being
touted as a lighthearted musical about a misunderstood weirdo? But when it
comes to keeping a secret, DKR and STID were just trying to keep the
main twist of their movies intact. Could you imagine how awesome a film could
be if it had been able to keep a plot twist that completely surprised the
audience?
Imagine seeing trailers for a film called Prey, which
focused on a group of soldiers and mercenaries waking up in a forest and being
picked off one by one by some unseen force. You don’t think much of it, but you
decide to give it a chance since it looks like a decent action romp in the vein
of The Deadliest Game. You go with some friends to see it, thinking it’s
pretty entertaining, when halfway through the film you find out that the characters have actually been transported to an alien planet, and that the unseen force hunting
them down is actually this love-able feller.
This was Robert Rodriguez’s original plan when he began
working on his film Predators, but he had to abandon this entire
marketing campaign because as soon as he acquired the license the internet was
abuzz with the news that “Robert Rodriguez is making a new Predator movie!!!”.
Love or hate Predators, you can’t deny this would have been one hell of
a surprise for the movie going audience. Luckily, there’s hope on the horizon
in terms of secrecy. Against all odds, Shane black was able to keep the big
Mandarin twist in Iron Man 3 a secret, and Joss Whedon has stated that
while the audience is all but right about Coulson being a Life Model Decoy, he
has also respectfully been tempting us with the real story behind this plot
point.
It’s understandable to be upset about being lied to,
especially when it involves a film franchise as recognizable and beloved as Star
Trek or Batman, but remember that the directors are trying to keep the surprise
a secret to convey genuine shock to the audience. Instead of thinking that the
trailers and directors are lying to you, try adjusting your brain into thinking
the director is keeping the plot a secret the same way a parent is trying to
keep a child’s Christmas present a secret.
A long hiatus, I can’t think
of a single person who doesn’t need one every now and then. After taking off so
much time however, I was faced with the dilemma of how I should jump back into
my next review… more specifically, how I would justify it. I decided that maybe
a post-summer movie rundown would be best, after all, with the exception of Iron
Man 3 and The World’s End there wasn’t really anything this summer
that really popped, noting I was REALLY excited about seeing, so maybe judging
everything else on the same playing field was the best way to handle this.
Then I saw Pacific Rim…
and I decided that I would be breaking this idea model after all.
Pacific Rim is the newest film from
Guillermo Del Toro, the Oscar winning director of such fantastic pieces of
cinema as Pan’s Labyrinth, and The Devil’s Backbone. As great as
these films are however, it’s his work in American film that he is best known
for, such as Blade II and the Hellboy films. Now there are some
people out there who really hate the Hellboy films, I mean REALLY hate
them, but I believe them to be some of the best character driven comic films
out there. Are they simple? Yes. Are they effective? Very. Are they impressive
features of film featuring some of the best creature effects and modeling in
the business? Absolutely.
And right there we have the
first trait in the essence of what makes Del Toro, his first class creature
designs and effects. Del Toro has never been one to skimp on monsters, which is
fantastic because hearing him talk about monster movies is like hearing a small
child talk about their Halloween candy hauls, there’s nothing in their voices
except unbridled passion, love, and admiration. This adoration translates well
into his films, creating monsters that are believable and real not by using CG
like everything else in Hollywood these days, but by using practical effects
and models. After all, when you can make creatures that translate into film as
seamlessly as this…
or this…
or this…
then why wouldn’t you
be proud to display them at every possible moment in a movie. Hell, you could
cut out story entirely and have a kick-ass film based on kick-ass monsters.
Now this is where most of
you would cry “But Kyle! All you do is slam films that rely more on special
effects than on story!” and yeah, you would be totally right. BUT…
there are some very important distinctions between a film like Pacific Rim
and a film like Transformers 2.
First of all, Del Toro went
into this film with the intention of making a modern day monster film that
focused more on the monsters than the characters. With that mindset in place,
and a total disregard for deep characterization more or less on the back
burner, he STILL managed to make a film with characters in
it that I cared about and became emotionally invested in. Does he rely on old
tried and true tropes to do so? Oh my goodness, yes, but the sad fact is that
in this modern day Hollywood most action movies don’t even bother with simple
tropes and tactics to get us to connect with the characters. All these films
seem to be interested in is connecting action scenes with the thinnest thread
of story possible. The fact that Del Toro is able to transcend these films so
easily shows how effortlessly Del Toro can create a human drama in the middle
of an action film.
Nowhere is this effective
character/audience relation more apparent than in the Hellboy films.
While the films certainly have a few problems sprinkled throughout them, I
absolutely loved each and every one of the characters, and I have often
described the movies as “A human drama about a monster”. Hellboy, Abe, Liz, and
Professor Broom are such deep, interesting, and likeable characters that the
sometimes simple dialogue doesn’t tarnish their strong connection with the audience.
There is a scene in the second film where Hellboy and Abe get hammered and
start singing Barry Manilow that is so funny and so heartfelt that it just
plain makes you feel good watching it, no matter how ridiculous it looks or how
silly it comes off.
Now I mentioned that Del
Toro sometimes has a small problem with dialogue, but notice how I said simple
and not poor, or weak, and I think I know why Del Toro sometimes has this problem. I have noticed that a
lot of times there seems to two types of writing when it comes to Guillermo Del
Toro. The first type is the man who caught Hollywood’s attention with deep,
moving gothic character films such as The Devil’s Bacckbone and the
phenomenal Pan’s Labyrinth. The second type of Del Toro is the audience
favorite who makes wide appeal monster action films such as Hellboy and Pacific
Rim. Now while the former type is the one who always gets Oscar nods and
awards for their writing and characters, these films also happen to be foreign
films, and it should also be noted that English is Del Toro’s second language.
Do you see where I’m going
with this? Del Toro’s English speaking films are always the films that are
dinged for writing that sometimes comes across as “overly simple”. I think this
simplicity is due mostly to Del Toro’s language barrier, but really… when you
think about it, is simplicity really a problem in writing this type of film?
Larry King has had a thirty year career that many attribute to the simplicity
of his questions after all. Simplicity in a film like a monster movie can keep
the audience engaged no matter what age or demographic they fall into. Remember
again that there is a big difference between simple writing and immature/stupid/ insulting writing.
Unrelated video
Now even though there is a
bit of a problem with the writing, the acting of some of the main characters
was also a bit of a mixed bag. On one hand, we had a slew of actors who handled
their roles masterfully, from seriously grounded (such as Idris Elba) to
necessarily manic (such as Charlie Day). On the other hand, the two male leads (Charlie
Hunnam and Robert Kazinsky) felt pretty flat and emotionless, not at all helped
by them both pulling off accents that neither one of them had any right doing.
The lead character seemed to be having the most trouble in the group though,
which is surprising considering how amazing I thought he was in Django
Unchained and Inglorious Basterds.
Wait… they’re different people? No joke?
So anyways, young Christoph
Waltz didn’t really seem to have any emotional commitment to his role and felt
underwhelming. On the other hand we have Charlie Day and Bern Gorman hamming it
up like pros as delightfully cheesy eccentric “mad scientist” archetypes that are
a most welcome addition in an original science fiction monster film such as
this. I particularly loved Day as a manic scientist obsessed with the Kaiju, going so
far as to have the defeated ones tattooed all over his body.
Simple writing, bad acting,
you’re probably wondering what’s so special about this film by now, so let me
just get it out of the way by saying “Fantastic awesome monster smashing robot
fights!”. Now yes, as a student of film I know I’m supposed to look past action
sequences and absorb a film for its deeper meanings, but sometimes action is so
unique, original, and exceptional that it transcends the shallow depths of
other aspects in the film.
The key to these riveting action scenes is that, like many other Del Toro
films, there is a lot of heart and personal feeling injected into the action
sequences. This is a far cry from the sterile and emotionless action scenes
that seem to permeate the landscape of most Hollywood action films. With this
film we get the sense that every single action scene advances the story in one way
or another, it’s not just an action scene for the sake of having an action
scene. Once again I’m going to pick on Transformers 3, which I know is
getting old, but when you have so many good examples of bad examples it
would be negligent to not use the case studies Mr. Michael Bay has provided us.
So one thing that really boils my blood in action films is the long, drawn out
action scene that doesn’t advance the story whatsoever. For example, in Transformers
3 there is a long car chase on a freeway with robots weaving, exploding,
and shooting their way through a freeway.
It’s a pretty little scene to be sure, but just think that five
whole minutes have passed in a film with absolutely no plot advancement,
character development, or even significant dialogue. This scene alone was bad
enough, but to make matters worse the finale is almost an hour long and follows
the exact same criteria of not advancing
the story.
Now you may say “Well how come you like the finale in The
Avengers so much?” and the difference is that The Avengers spent an
entire movie masterfully flushing out all of the main characters of the film. Every
single scene in Transformers 3 that doesn’t revolve around action feels
so rushed and condensed that I felt like I was going insane, and then once the
action scenes started the story would come to a screeching halt. A story should flow
through both slow, methodical, expository dialogue and well shot action scenes in
equal measure, action being used to advance critical key elements of the story
(the destruction or acquisition of something important to the story, the death of a character,
etc.). Imagine the storytelling of The Avengers and Pacific Rim
as a smooth, carefree drive through the countryside, while the story in Transformers
films is more like a jerky, shuddering stop and go drive through congested city
streets, and on top of it the driver is learning to manually shift.
Pacific Rimfollows
the same format of using action scenes to punctuate important moments of the
story. Not a single Kaiju/Jaeger fight occurs without the destruction of a key
component, an important character moment, or the advancement of a critical plot
point. These action scenes are also crisp, well shot, and deliberately paced
while managing to be exciting and action packed. For example, instead of cars
racing at each and smashing into things in slow motion every second of the
fight, it may take a Jaeger (giant robot) several minutes to close the distance
between himself and a monster. Also, each haymaker, each kick, each blow
delivered on screen is a long windup that you feel every ounce of energy behind
as opposed to the super fast and snappy punches delivered by wisecracking
racist robot cars.
So why break the silence of my summer films with this
review? Well, I think it’s just really important to spread awareness of an
original film to the general audience, especially when the film isn’t getting
half of the recognition it deserves. This film is getting pretty ignored by
general audiences, and while it is still barely eeking out a top 10 spot in the
box office I think it is word of mouth that is keeping it alive. Is is the
greatest film ever made? Not by a long shot. However… it is a
film that has something for everyone, and you would be hard pressed not enjoy
the experience this film delivers.
7 OUT OF 10
I like
directing my readers to other works they may enjoy, and for a great listen give
the gentlemen on the podcast Reel Junkies a shot. A great and funny poscast
featuring knowledgeable insight into film.
A lot of people are going to hate Iron Man 3. There’s
no way around this fact. Sometimes when you see a film you can tell in
the first ten minutes that it's going to polarize its audience, especially sequels such as The Hobbit or Die Hard 2: Die Harder. On the
other hand, a lot of people will be able to look past the "flaws" of the film and
love this movie for the exciting change of pace it brings to the table. So
which side of the fence do I fall on? While there are certainly a few things in
this movie that I didn’t quite like I can safely say that I really enjoyed this
film.
Right from the beginning of this film we know that Shane Black
is about to turn this franchise upside down on us. The typical storytelling of
Jon Favreau has been replaced by Shane Black’s sharply written Christmas narrative
style mixed with his affinity for flashbacks. As a result we begin the film
with a flashback to Stark meeting Yensin (as mentioned in the first Iron Man
film) at a 1999 engineering convention. We are also introduced to two other
characters who will shape the events of the film: Dr. Maya Hansen and Dr.
Aldrich Killian. While their meeting is brief and seemingly unimportant at
first, Tony lets us know right away that he had just “created his own demons”.
Sadly, these aren’t the only demons haunting poor Tony, as
he has been thoroughly shaken to the core following the events of The
Avengers. Tony is battling with a massive case of the superhero yips which
have plagued him with self-doubt, hallucinations, mania, insomnia, and
crippling panic attacks. As a result the man has resorted to building suits of armor full time, culminating in creating a total of 42 suits, most of which he deems
as useless. I don’t understand why the studio is so against exploring Tony Stark's legendary status in the comic world as an alcoholic (it would be a perfect way
to deal with his anxiety in this film), but this new interpretation of the post-Avengers
stresses is certainly a suitable way to show the audience an inventive version
of his human weaknesses.
To compound all of these problems, a new terrorist named
“The Mandarin” has begun bombing American targets, working his way towards what
he calls his “Final Lesson for America”. Fans of the comic will recognize the
Mandarin as the closest thing Iron Man has to an arch-nemesis, and his
appearance has been hinted since the first film with the appearance of the Army
of the Ten Rings (Mandarin’s power stems from his use of ten alien rings).
While I can guarantee that this film’s incarnation of the Mandarin is going to
cause a lot of controversy in the movie going community (more on that later),
one thing that any viewer can agree on is that Ben Kingsley knocks another
performance out of the park.
Kingsley’s performance isn’t the only strong suit of the
film, because he’s accompanied by a fantastic cast including Rebecca Hall, Guy
Pearce, William Sadler, and a criminally underused Jon Favreau. But as great as
the entire cast is, the two heroes of the film are what really make this movie
shine. Don Cheadle is fantastic as James Rhodes, and while it was a little sad
to see Terrence Howard abandon the role in the second film I am glad that
Favreau decided that if he was going to trade him out, he might as well trade up as well. At this point I really shouldn’t
need to point out how great Downey Jr. is in the titular role of the film, but I
really need to make a point of it because he is just sooooooo damn good at it. He has taken a legendary character and
managed to make it all his own, just like Heath Ledger managed to do with his
famous portrayal of the Joker.
Shane Black brings a breath of fresh air to a film that felt
dangerously close to becoming stagnant. As much as I love Jon Favreau both as
an actor and a director (any director who relies on practical effects over CG
gets a star in my book), repeated viewings of Iron Man 2 have left me
with an increasing feeling that the film could have been so much more. While
moments of Favreau’s Iron Man brilliance shine through in many parts of
the film, it felt like he may have had to push aside some of his greater
ambitions in order to begin incorporating elements of the upcoming Avengers
film.
While I certainly don’t blame Favreau for the weaknesses of
the second film, I couldn’t have been happier with the arrival of Black to take
over the franchise. Black has been one of my favorite screenwriters for years
with his ability to tell a story better than almost anyone else in the
industry, and his trademark narrative style is evident in the opening seconds
of the film. One of my favorite overlooked films of the last ten years is his
comedic masterpiece Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, and as huge as Robert Downey Jr.
has become in Hollywood due to the Iron Man film I believe his true
comeback was kick-started by his performance in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.
Luckily, Black hasn’t lost a step for taking on this
blockbuster franchise. His talent for witty and touching dialogue pushes
the writing of this film into the stratosphere. This is important because of
the three films this one is probably the lightest on the action, and Tony only
dons the famous armor for maybe ten to fifteen minutes cumulatively throughout the flick. By forcing Tony
to face this new adversity without his armor we have a chance to see the
resiliency and brilliance that is inherent in Tony Stark, and as a result, this
is easily the most human and emotionally connective story of the trilogy. This
simple transition allows the audience to not only see why Tony is a hero, but
also gives the audience a reason to believe that only Stark has the right to
decide who should or shouldn't wear his suits of armor.
Tight camerawork is also key in the film, and the solid
direction mixed with the smart writing gives us a film that never lags and never
feels like the two and a half hour film we are treated to. Best of all, this
flick comes off as sort of an “anti-Michael Bay” action flick, a movie that
does not feel like the overproduced and empty shells that Bay films have become.
True, it’s not as action packed as Bay’s films are, but I would rather have
well flushed out and realized characters over the near eighty minute final
action scene in Transformers 3 that left no lasting impressions in my
mind.
Luckily, when the film does deliver action scenes it
delivers them in spades. This film contains some of my favorite action set
pieces of the last ten years, including an exhilarating mid-air rescue, an epic
confrontation at an oil production facility, and my favorite, a gunfight between
mercenaries and a partially armored Tony Stark at a manor. Fantastic humor and one-liners
are sprinkled through the action scenes, one of my favorite involving a
clueless Tony keep trying to give Rhodes his pistol magazines because he doesn’t
understand that magazines aren’t universal between different models of guns. The talented Black has
a knack for delivering humorous action pieces that are both unique and familiar
for this beloved franchise, and it’s one of the main reasons I think this hand off
between Favreau and Black was such a good idea.
Unfortunately, there are problems with the film, and
I am about to seriously delve into spoiler territory so if you haven’t seen the
film please scroll down past the large END
OF SPOILER TERRITORY banner for my final thoughts and score.
SPOILER TERRITORY
SPOILER TERRITORY
SPOILER TERRITORY
One of the largest problems I had with the film was the role
of Mandarin, or rather, the absence of him. In a nutshell, it’s revealed in the
middle of the second act that the Mandarin was a made up threat so that Aldrich
Killian could disguise his accidental explosions as terrorist attacks. It’s a
brilliant tactic in storytelling, and I’m amazed that the studio was able to
keep this game changing plot point out of the public eye the way they did. It
kind of reminds me of the trick they initially wanted to pull with Predators,
which in my mind could have been one of the greatest marketing campaigns in
Hollywood history had it worked out.
But these guys succeeded, and as a result we are going to
have a film that a lot of people are going to complain about. Personally I think
it was a brilliant move, but my only issue with this plot point is that
Mandarin is sort of a big deal in the comics, in fact he’s more or less the
closest thing that Tony has to an arch-nemesis in the comics. Pulling a bait
and switch like this on a major character in the film is one thing, but to do
it to what is essentially a villain that they have been building towards since
the very first Iron Man film sort of feels like a cop out.
As a reference, imagine watching the Harry Potter franchise
from the beginning. Imagine all the tension and all the excitement you felt rising
during all those years they built up for the final showdown between Harry and
Lord Voldemort. Now imagine you go to see the final film Harry Potter and
Deathly Hallows: Part 2, and about thirty minutes into the film Voldemort gets
shot in the face by this asshole…
… and now the film revolved around a final showdown between
him and Harry. You’d probably be a little pissed off right? Now imagine you’re
a lifelong fan of the comic, and you’ve been waiting forever to see a
confrontation between Mandarin and Iron Man, but surprise! Bait and Switch!
What makes this even more of a travesty is the fact that it
almost feels like The Avengers perfectly set up the story for the
Mandarin to appear. In the comic the Mandarin received his powers from ten
rings he found on a crashed alien craft, and if you would have put that in the
first or second Iron Man film it would have felt out of place in this
relatively grounded comic property. But now since the failed alien invasion
from The Avengers left plenty of crashed alien craft lying all over the
floor of the Earth it seems like this storyline could finally be realized.
BUT… as much as I may not like this small detail, I can
absolutely say that I did not see this plot twist coming, and it’s one of the
few films that has been able to pull the wool over my eyes in quite a while.
Plus, when you think about it, this could be seen as just a different view on
the character of Mandarin since Guy Pearce brought it up on several occasion
that he was the Mandarin.
END SPOILER TERRITORY
END SPOILER TERRITORY
END SPOILER TERRITORY
This film was a fantastic new look at an already solid film
franchise. With a fresh perspective on the property, solid writing, fantastic
direction, and outstanding performances all around, Iron Man 3 sets an
early standard for this summer that I find hard to believe any other film can
top.
9.25 out of 10
I like directing my readers to other works they may enjoy, and for a great listen give the gentlemen on the podcast Reel Junkies a shot. A great and funny poscast featuring knowledgeable insight into film.
In a lot of ways, my rewind articles are my favorite to
write. They expose the reader to great films they may not know about while at
the same time give exposure to a great film that a lot of people don’t know
about. What makes this entry so special though is that it’s the first entry for
a film that’s based on a true story, even though the true story itself is so
insane that even Ripley’s Believe it or Not would find this far-fetched.
The World’s Fastest Indian tells the charmingly true
story of Burt Munro’s legendary 1967 record attempt at the Bonneville Flats.
For those of you unfamiliar with the story of Burt Munro his story is one of
the greatest in the history of sporting, right up there with Olympic “Miracle
on Ice” and the Ali vs. Liston fight. It’s a truly inspiring story about a man
who set his mind on accomplishing the impossible, and spent over forty years
working towards just that.
First, some history on the event. One week a year an event
is hosted at the Bonneville Flats called Speed Week. It’s a big deal in the
racing community because the expansive salt flats are a perfect track for
setting records and many speed records have been set at this event. It’s a
place where the best and brightest drivers in the world show up with top of the
line vehicles capable of incredible speeds. So imagine one day when this sixty
eight year old man from New Zealand walks into your race…
And he’s trying to do it with this vehicle…
Oh wait, sorry, I meant this motorcycle…
A 1920 Indian Scout, a motorcycle that was never intended to
go faster than 30 miles per hour, and Burt was trying to top 200 miles per hour
with it. To top it all off, the man was bats**t crazy, removing entire segments
and safety features of his bike in favor of smaller, lighter components. Things
like shocks, brakes, and forks were removed or weakened to the point of
breaking, and Munro didn’t have a single safety feature necessary for the flats
such as a parachute or fire extinguisher. He didn’t do this overnight, in fact
he spent 47 years of his life modifying his motorcycle for the event, getting
into countless crashes and accidents along the way while perfecting his craft.
How was he allowed to race? Well, he was intensely lovable
and friendly, making him a truly unique character in record-setting history,
and he just sort of charmed his way into racing. It was also a different world back
then, an America that was willing to take chances and explored the idea of
thinking outside the box. If Burt Munro had shown up today with his motorcycle
he would have gotten his ass kicked right out of the race It’s an incredibly
interesting story about an incredibly interesting man set in an incredibly
interesting time in America, and making his long journey into an accurate and
faithful adaptation is a great idea that pays off big time.
The big draw of the film is seeing Anthony Hopkins act the
hell out of his role. It got to the point where friends and family of Munro
said that even though Hopkins didn’t look a thing like Munro they still thought
it was him reincarnated, the same kind of praise that was given to George C
Scott for his portrayal of General Patton. I’ve always been a huge fan of
Anthony Hopkins (who isn’t these days?), but I’ve noticed that lately he hasn’t
really gotten many roles that require him to be anything but Anthony Hopkins.
So imagine my delight when I see Hopkins in a role so utterly different and
unique that you forget that it’s Hopkins at several points.
The direction and story telling elements of the film are
basic, but solid, offering a lot of interesting simple moments in an already
interesting trek across the US by a foreigner. It’s a funny story even without
the stuff that happens to the poor man along the way. Stories like this don’t
need a lot of padding, so the writing and direction are perfectly what they
need to be for the audience to get emotionally attached to the character of
Burt Munro. It may seem like a simple film, but the neat story of Burt Munro
and the solid writing never let the story and film feel like they are lagging
before they get to the events at Bonneville.
Something else I really liked about movie was the way they
portrayed the other American racers once he got to Bonneville. Most adaptations
of a sports film would have them be a bunch of dicks as soon an Burt showed up,
taunting him with things like “Hey old man, you expect to win this race with that thing?” followed by a round of
dickish high fives and guffaws at the expense of the old man. It’s the easy way
to get the audience to root even more for the protagonist, make him the
underdog against a bunch of jerks like Daniel-san in The Karate Kid. It’s
not even bad film-making to pull this kind of trick, it’s cheap and
manipulative yes, but it’s effective as well because it strengthens that
emotional connection we have with the character.
As much as I loved Steven Spielberg I’ll be the first to
admit that he really over-relied on this tactic during his films. How do we
make Chief Brody more likable in Jaws? Make him the lone dissenting
voice amid a sea of dickish politicians. How do we make the characters in E.T.
more relatable to the audience? Make the government agents trying to find him
(agents who are doing this for national security mind you) unnecessarily cruel
and cold. Yeah, Minority Report is really good, but how can we make the
audience side with Tom Cruise even more? Make the agent tailing him a shallow
and unlikeable career-hungry asshole instead of taking the time to create a well
developed character.
Not the case in World’s Fastest Indian however. Once
Munro finally gets all the way to the Bonneville Flats the film goes out of its
way to talk about how great the other racers were to him, going out of their
way to get around regulations so he could drive, setting him up with living
arrangements (he had been living out of his car until that point), and
generally doing everything they could do get Burt entered into the events. The
film doesn’t resort to tropes in order to establish a stronger connection, and
the movie comes out stronger for it.
The World’s Fastest Indian is a great example of a
film that can go miles just by following incredible events that happened in
real life without resorting to clichés. The surprisingly awesome Disney sports
film Miracle followed this same blueprint and as I just mentioned, it
came out surprisingly awesome. Sometimes real life truly is stranger and more
magnificent than fiction, and this film does a great job of reminding the
audience of the wonderful things that can be accomplished if you just stop
being so afraid of taking risks like Burt Munro.
9 out of 10
I like directing my readers to
other works they may enjoy, and for a great listen give the gentlemen on the
podcast Reel Junkies a shot. A great and funny poscast featuring knowledgeable
insight into film.
The Pirates! A Band of
Misfits-For those of you who love swashbuckling pirate adventures like
the first Pirates of the Caribbean, but hate horrible films like the
last three Pirates of the Caribbean movies, you may want to switch gears
in favor of the infinitely superior Aardman comedy Pirates! A Band of
Misfits. While it wasn’t exactly one of the highest grossing films of last
year, it was certainly one of the most enjoyable.
The film focuses on the exploits and adventures of the main
character Pirate Captain. Right off the bat this film gets an A+ for accuracy,
since there is no way you are going to see a movie about a guy literally named
Pirate Captain and not know what type of flick it is. The film offers the
voices of countless talented actors such as Brendan Gleeson, Jeremy Piven,
Martin Freeman, Hugh Grant, and my personal man-crush David Tennant.
What makes this film great is the combination of the two
types of comic delivery I discussed in my Arrested Development review last year
(http://www.gump-o-rama.blogspot.com/2012/02/toothpick-tv-arrested-development.html):
gags and setups. While the film makes frequent and excellent use of both visual
and recurring gags (falling gags are kept blissfully minimal), setups are also
used to elicit the higher brow laughs that are usually so hard to find in
family films like this. Where the film really shines however, is the idea of
creating a setup joke that usually pays off with the use of a gag. It’s a hard
trick to pull off in film, but proper use of this device (which Aardman has
mastered with the Wallace and Grommit works) can lead to the highest
forms of comedy, and in this movie they nail it.
This film is a great example of a family film that actually
appeals to the entire family, and I’m happy to report that this is a trend in
Hollywood that has steadily become more frequent. It used to be that a family
film was typically loved by kids while being loathed by adults, but since films
like Shrek, Toy Story, and How to train Your Dragon have
come along it’s good to see that parents don’t have to be resigned to films
like Baby Geniuses just for the kid’s sake.
9 out of 10
Wreck-it Ralph-Video
game movies have had a despicable history in Hollywood to say the least. When
you can say that the best examples of video game films are Max Payne and
Prince of Persia, then you know you have problems with your genre. This
is why as a gamer, I’m happy to report that Wreck-it Ralph is a film
finally made by gamers, for gamers, that everyone can appreciate.
This film perfectly encapsulates the magic of a loaded
arcade, from the diversity of games to the diversity of the players themselves.
A real treat for children of the arcade generation, the movie does a great job
developing characters that feel unique to both a Disney film while letting them
feel like they belong in an arcade from the glory days. One of my favorite
things about this film is the constant references to arcades and games of the
past, something that the studio had to pay a great deal for. Everything from
appearances by characters such as Ryu, Bowser, and Q-Bert, to a tiny gag from
the Metal Gear Solid franchise, the references were great to see in the film
because they are quick and simple, and not just overused pop-culture referenced
easy jokes that are so prevalent in Seth McFarlane works. I also loved the
subtle reference to Walter Day from Twin Galaxies, and fans of King of Kong
will get a kick out of his “appearance” in the film.
One thing I wish they had explored more in this film was the
idea of jumping from game to game. I loved seeing the fully flushed out and
beautiful worlds of the games in this film, complete with real characters and
built in rules that are fitting for an arcade. For example, you always
regenerate if you die in your arcade,
but if you visit another arcade and die, it’s permanent. But then after they go
to the effort of creating these amazing worlds and locations, the second and
third act take place in a world that looks like a glorified version of
Candyland and it just feels like they settled on the least interesting place
(despite the numerous brilliant candy themed puns). How great would it have
been to see more of these game worlds in the film? Even if they did it in a
collage like the door factory scene in Monsters Inc.
Luckily this is one of the only complaints I had about the
film. A stellar lead by John C Reilly is vaulted to the front of a great
supporting cast, with a special mention for Jack McBrayer as Ralph’s Frenemy
Fix-it Felix Jr. The story of an anti-hero trying to change for the better is
handled well for a family film, and kids and adults alike will love the well
written jokes. The film will resound most with gamers and children of the
arcade, but is good enough to be loved by anyone watching it.
9.25 out of 10
The Hobbit-Let’s
get something straight, despite the polarized audiences out there The Hobbit
was an incredibly enjoyable film. Now true, it doesn’t stack up to the original
trilogy, and at times feels like having a burger after finishing your filet
mignon, but you know what, sometimes nothing hits the spot like a good burger.
And true, it may not technically be a “Family” film, but it’s tame and fun
enough for people of all ages to enjoy.
While it doesn’t quite have the “oomph” of the Lord of
the Rings trilogy, there is still a lot to like about this film thanks to
the talented direction of Oscar winning director Peter Jackson. One scene in
particular (which I included in my best of 2012 list) of the dwarves singing a
song about their lost home in front of a roaring fire is worth the price of admission
alone, and the battle scenes still have a lot of great things working for them.
Peter Jackson has a tendency to inflate action scenes larger than they were
originally intended, but in this film the scenes never feel overly long or
bloated. The final scene in the goblin mines was particularly impressive.
Sir Ian and Martin Freeman do an admirable job in their
roles as Gandalf and Bilbo, with the rest of the relatively unknown supporting cast
bringing in strong performances. I also enjoyed seeing Sylvester McCoy (AKA the
seventh Doctor) in his role as Radaghast the Brown, and Christopher Lee (while looking
quite worn) was still commanding and intimidating as Saruman. Something I’ve
always loved about these films were the sweeping landscape shots, and while
they were still beautiful and plentiful in this film they felt much more
processed and computer generated than the original films. One thing in this
film that everyone can agree was truly amazing however was Andy Serkis’ return
as the literary and film icon Gollum, and he was just as fantastic in this film
as he was in the previous trilogy.
This newest incarnation of Middle Earth may not be as
impressive as Jackson’s first foray into that world, but anyone who says this
film is terrible is truly ignoring all of the great film work going into this
movie. Likeable characters, strong storytelling, interesting arcs, and
beautiful cinematography make this a strong film regardless of past works. If
you can get past the small problems in this film, then you can enjoy a truly
well made fantasy adventure film.
An animated Batman property without Kevin Conroy is a crime,
something of a travesty. The man has voiced the iconic detective so long and in
so many properties that in many ways he has become the very personification of
Batman, and at this point he could masterfully voice him in his sleep.
Furthermore, A Joker who wields a gun and is dressed down to the point of
almost looking normal is a foreign concept to me, and somewhat tarnishes the
over the top persona of the Clown Prince of Crime. This film has both of these
odd elements, so right off the bat (ha ha) this movie has two strikes against
it.
That being said, this movie is f**king awesome.
The Dark Knight Rises comic was written by Frank Miller in
the eighties, telling the story of an aged Bruce Wayne coming out of retirement
to don the cowl once again and rescue a nearly anarchic Gotham City. I recently
commented to a friend that not only did I believe this comic to be the best
comic to come out of the eighties, but one of the greatest things to come from that strange period in time as well. The comic
is so well written, so masterfully drawn, and so brilliantly narrated that many
regard it as the best Batman story arc ever written, and even started relative
newcomer Frank Miller down the path to becoming a comic legend.
But no so much a
directorial one…
The recent Bat-Bale film The Dark Knight Returns used
many of the tropes used in the comic as well as it did from Knightfall, such as
the idea of Batman coming out of retirement, age beginning to get the better of
Bruce, and Batman making his big reappearance in the middle of a high speed
pursuit. The film even goes so far as to include several of the comic’s more
iconic lines (“You’re in for a show tonight kid”) in the film, and the moments
hold up just as well in the film as they do in the comic property. Each panel
of the comic is a work of art, and any given panel is oftentimes better than
entire comic arts of other properties. It was so perfect that it should never
be touched again, unless Miller himself returned to continue the story himself
in the way only he could.
Oh Christ, I take it
back!
With such high praise for the comic you would think that
there was no way the film could follow on the heels of such brilliance, and you
would be right. BUT… that doesn’t
mean film doesn’t come damn close enough to capturing the magic to make it into
a fantastic full length movie.
The story takes place over two films, and while I was
initially disappointed to think that this was being split up into two parts for
a fast cash grab like every other major property in Hollywood these days (Twilight,
Harry Potter, Hunger Games, etc) it turns out that in this case
the choice is justified, especially since both parts are so radically different
from each other. The first film focuses on Batman’s struggle to eradicate the
Mutant gang that has been overrunning Gotham, and while this film is handled
perfectly and is outstanding as a standalone film we still get the feeling that
everything happening in it is just small potatoes for what this story is
leading up to in the next film. We are shown glimpses of what’s around the
corner, public discord and praise
beginning to polarize citizens on Batman’s purpose, the government growing
weary of the Bat’s defiance, and the re-emergence of the Joker at the end of
the film.
Other than that small gripe there isn’t a whole lot to NOT
like about this film. The direction is quiet and deliberately paced while
managing to be exciting and action packed at the same time. It’s a unique style
of direction for an animated feature, and feels much more fitting for a live
action adaptation (which I would NOT be opposed to seeing). At many times the
quality film-making reminded me of something I would see out of a Kathryn
Bigelow film, quiet and simple while maintaining a taut atmosphere. The writing
is solid as well, but when you are following a piece of near perfect comics
panel for panel it’s kind of hard to miss the mark. The one thing I wish I
could have seen in this film was more of Batman’s awesome inner dialogue from
the comic, but in this film and in these circumstances it may have felt out of
place.
There are so many scenes in the first film that I loved that
it’s hard to even think of just one that I didn’t. From the first high speed
chase, to the fight in the city dump, to the battle in the mud pits, every
single significant moment in the film is handled with the atmosphere and
excitement that it deserves. One thing I should bring up in the film is Robin,
and while I have never been a fan of Carrie Kelly in the comics I was really
surprised how much I actually didn’t hate
her in this movie. Sure, she has the occasional awful line such as…
“Whoa, instant
pizza!”,
But compared to what I thought I was going to get I actually
didn’t mind her, and in a lot of parts, I actually liked the character. Keep in mind that this character would have
been sooooo freaking easy to make awful, but the film knew it was handling
sensitive materials, so it went out of the way to ensure she didn’t suck.
Even elements I thought I wouldn’t like ended up winning me
over in the end. The voice acting stands out as a prime example of this, and
for those of you who don’t know even the greatest actors in the world can be
utterly lost when it comes to voice acting. Casting a talented actor for a
voice over when they are used to live acting can backfire horrifically, mainly
because these people are used to emoting themselves fully using two mediums
(facial expressions and vocal inflection) and they have now been limited to
just one. This is why most video games have moved away from casting big names in
the roles because they come across as being out of their element. Sure, once in
a while you get a winner like Ray Liotta in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City,
but most of the time a seasoned voice actor will blow a regular actor out of
the water in the role.
This is not the case in this film, as pretty much everyone
nailed their roles in the end. The biggest voice that took getting used to in the
film was Bruce Wayne himself, now voiced by the always enjoyable Peter Weller.
While I mentioned that the absence of Kevin Conroy was a big potential chink in
the armor of this film, the legendary Robocop actor does a tremendous
job of conveying the power and authority of an older and more world weary Bruce
Wayne than I believe even Conroy could. There are the odd occasional moments
where you get a flat line and feel like Weller is conveying his point with a
facial expression behind the scenes, but those moments are few and far between,
and his delivery of the best lines of the film always come across strong. One
more voice worth mentioning is Mark Valley as Superman, who does such a great
job in the role that I believe he could even replace Tim Daly should he ever
decide to walk away from the role.
As much as I liked the first film though, the second is
where all the buildup and promises from the first pay off, and holy crap, does
it pay off. The second film revolves around two main points, the first being
Joker re-emerging to challenge his old foe once again. I thought the way they
handled his looks in the film was a little… strange to say the least. In the
comics his appearance was much tamer than most others, but it’s even more so in
this film than the comics, just a relatively normal looking pale guy in a white
suit and green hair. Luckily the talented Michael Emerson (best known as Ben
Linus from Lost) picks up the slack his appearance drops, and in the end he
helps to turn in one of the most disturbing incarnations of Joker we have seen.
There are a lot of great moments with Joker in the film,
mostly where we see him delighting in the pain and suffering of everyone around
him. There’s a really great and twisted scene in the film where Joker is
running through a packed carnival just causing mayhem wherever he can, shooting
people at randomand punching young
girls in the face, all while quipping things like “pardon me, coming through,
excuse me ma’am” and laughing like the lunatic he is. As horrible as it is to
see though, there is a darkly humorous hint buried in his style of violence (he
literally kicks a woman in the ass
out of a love boat while cackling), and in that small moment where you crack a
smile and remark something along the lines of “Oh s**t!” you catch a glimpse
into the mad humor that must be running through the Joker’s mind all of the
time. It’s a strange connection that this moment made with me, but then at the
same time I’m a dark, screwed up weirdo so others may not enjoy it as much as I
did.
There’s a whole lot to love about the second film, but one
part that really stood out to me was the way the film handled the relation
between Batman and the police after Jim Gordon retired. It was neat seeing a
full fledged battle between the Dark Knight and police, especially seeing
Batman’s brutality mixed with his will to not take an innocent life. As great
as the first part of the second film is though, it isn’t until the second act
that the film begins to really shine as the jewel of the entire work. The
second part of the film more or less revolves around the government’s hatred of
the Dark Knight coming to a head, and after something happens where they
believe Batman goes over the edge they decide to send Superman after him to
stop him… using any means necessary.
What really blew me away about this storyline was that out
of all the fights and battles from the comic, the one that I was looking
forward to seeing the least (The Batman vs. Superman Fight) was the one I ended
up enjoying the most. It’s not that I didn’t like the fight from the comic,
it’s just that the whole idea of a Batman vs. Superman fight is so
over-referenced and debated that at this point it has sucked the fun out of the
idea. For years there has been a clamoring to bring a Batman vs. Superman
film to the big screen, and there was even a poster for it in the disappointing
adaptation I Am Legend. It’s a neat idea in general, but when you think
about it there’s no way Bruce could practically stand up to Clark Kent, and
even in the comic I believed the one area that it slightly faltered was making
us believe that Bruce could actually
take on Clark Kent.
But… then this film comes along, and while the comic
never really sold me on the idea of Batman being able to stand toe to toe with
Superman this movie makes me believe in the impossible, that Bruce has a
fighting chance against the Man of Steel. Superman is a force of nature, an
unstoppable juggernaut, and even though he may not be God, the president at one
point even calls him “the next best thing”. How can anyone, even the god damned
Batman stand up to someone like this for more than a second in what is
essentially a battle of ideologies? The short answer… is sheer brutality.
I can’t go too deeply into how this is possible without
giving away some of the story, but there was so much to love about this fight
that it stands up there as one of my favorite fight scenes of all time, despite
its short run time of about five minutes. This fight is fought with two sides
of the coin of honor, on one side we have Superman fighting with dignity,
restraint, and poise, using every ounce of his humanity to bring Bruce in
alive. On the other side of this coin we have Batman, fighting with such a
sheer ferocity and unbridled anger that even Superman can’t anticipate what
he’s going to do. Batman fights with no restraints, no inhibitions, using dirty
tricks and cheap shots at every available moment. He fights like a man with
nothing to lost.I loved seeing this
because it reminds me of how Han Solo would fight in the same situation, and we
all know what I think of Han Solo.
(Swoon)
The only problem I had with the fight was that there was a
slight lack of emotion throughout it. The fight could have done with a few more
moments of human anguish and exertion, and while this may seem like a small
complaint even a little of this can go a long way. I talked about this in my Dark
Knight Rises review, but the first fight between Bane and Batman in the
sewers stands as one of my favorite moments in comic film history because of
the emotion behind it. There’s a scene about halfway through the battle when
Batman realizes he’s losing where he stands up and lets out a gut-wrenching
scream. It’s so unexpected and twisted because it’s something you never
expected to happen to the hero in a comic film, and hearing the Batman scream
in anguish like that is something you never want to see, like seeing your Dad
crying or something.
On the flip side, a fight without any emotion would suck.
For example, why else do you think that all those fancy, choreographed, pretty
lightsaber battles in the Star Wars prequels are so strangely boring?
Because the actors don’t make a single grunt of exertion, not a single remark
of anguish, or anger, or fear until the last few moments in the last fight in Revenge
of the Sith. Compare those scenes to that awesome scene in Return of the
Jedi where Luke flips out on Vader for bringing his sister into things and
just plain goes berserk on him. It’s my favorite moment in the original
trilogy.
The point is that while the Batsy/Supes fight in The Dark
Knight Returns is amazing, just a few more moments of emotion could have
put it over the top and made it perfect. No matter what though, it’s still a
work of art, and it’s worth it all just to hear that line at the end of the fight, the line that fans like me have
been waiting to hear since the comic, and fans of the comic will probably know exactlywhat line I’m talking
about. I don’t want to ruin it for those of you who haven’t seen it, but it
starts out with “In all the years to come…”, and out of all the lines in the
film I’m happy to announce that this
is the line that Peter Weller nails with perfection.
These films perfectly encapsulate everything right about
Batman by faithfully following a comic that encapsulates everything right about
Batman. These comics were so well regarded that they began a movement towards
darker comics from both major comic companies. The Dark Knight Returns
is a treat for both fans of the comic and newcomers alike, and will satisfy
every craving you may have had to see an even darker, grittier Batman than even
Christopher Nolan could deliver.
I mean, just look look at that!
9.25 out of 10
I like directing my readers to other works they may enjoy, and for a great
listen give the gentlemen on the podcast Reel Junkies a shot. A great and funny
poscast featuring knowledgeable insight into film.
I refrain from comparing new adaptations to existing
properties in film, I consider it unfair and pointless because the director’s
visions are wildly different and shouldn’t be compared to each other. After
all, I never compared Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy to Burton’s film, and
while I did include references to Batman and Robin it was only for
humorous purposes. I only bring this up because I plan on doing it for the
first time today, and let me tell you why.
In 2002 acclaimed director and pioneer of cinematography Sam
Raimi gave the world the first real film adaptation of Spider-Man that
didn’t turn out to be a colossal joke.
Oh for Christ's sake...
Casting talented actors in well written roles, injecting his
usual brand of humor and brilliance, and even creating a new film-making method
to properly convey the style of Spider-Man’s signature parkour fighting style
and web-slinging, Sam Raimi brought a film to life that was a perfectly
balanced story of superheroes and human drama.
Raimi followed this up with two highly successful sequels: Spider-Man
2, which in my mind rates up there with X-men 2 and The Dark
Knight as the best comic book films to date, and Spider-Man 3, which
was… less impressive. Spider-Man 3 is a lot like George Romero’s Day
of the Dead for fans like me, it was a subpar film compared to the first
two, but no one really holds Sam Raimi accountable for its failures. The amount
of production interference in the film is now legendary, forcing Raimi to make
changes to the film such as making Flint Marko responsible for Uncle Ben’s
death, including scenes that in no way belonged in the film, and forcing his
hand in telling the story of the symbiote. They even went so far as to make him
include the villain Venom, which Raimi fought against vehemently because he
even stated that he didn’t understand the character and didn’t want to do him
an injustice.
Afterwards Raimi was looking forward to redeeming himself
with Spider-Man 4, but before he could get too far the studio cancelled
his project and began to develop a new darker, more realistic Spider-Man
film to follow the success of Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy. Raimi’s films
were never completed, and the only pause between the conclusion of his films
and an unnecessary reboot was the breath the pitch manager had to take between
announcing the end of Raimi’s films and the upcoming reboot. All this film is
trying to do is make a quick cash grab while Spider-Man is still fresh in people’s minds, and for that
reason I am going to absolutely hold it to the same standard as Raimi’s film
legacy.
I can’t really say I hated The Amazing Spider-Man, in
fact I can’t even really say The Amazing Spider-Man was a bad movie. It
wasn’t a great movie by any means, but I’m sure a lot of people liked the film,
and as I’m going to cover later there were even several parts of the film that
I actually enjoyed myself. But the biggest thing that this film also isn’t is a Spider-Man film, and
we’ll discuss why.
The biggest problem I had with the film was the
mind-bogglingly bad choice of tone. Now for those of you not as invested in
film as I am (also known as healthy, normal adults) tone is the overall mood or
feeling of a film, and can usually be established very early on in a film
through the use of shading, direction, music, and atmosphere. For example,
compare the feeling you had while watching Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy
to that of Joel Schumacher’s Batman Forever, or worse, Batman and
Robin. Nolan’s films perfectly convey the feelings of dread and dark
atmosphere that are such a staple of the Batman universe, while Schumacher’s
films convey a feeling of something you would see in a clown academy or a
circus. Tone is the most important thing to establishing how the audience
should feel while watching a film, and with some decent directing it can make
you feel anything from happy, to scared, to tense, and one of the best examples
of properly setting a tone can be found in one surprisingly awesome scene from
the surprisingly awesome CW show Supernatural.
First, some back story to the scene. Lucifer has been freed
from Hell and has released the four horsemen of the Apocalypse, calling on
Death to unleash a massive storm that will wipe out the city of Chicago. Our
hero Dean Winchester has been tasked with using Death’s legendary scythe to cut
the ring from Death’s finger and stop Lucifer from beginning the Apocalypse
(this is probably the coolest sentence I have ever written) when this happens:
This scene resounds even more emotionally with fans because
this is the first time we ever actually see Dean legitimately scared. The man
has faced down demons, ghosts, vampires, and even Satan himself, and he always
faces death with a quirk or a grin, but this scene is the first time we actually
see him worried, speechless, and flat out scared of the man he is dealing with
when he brings up the idea that one day he will have to kill God.
He has reason to be scared as well, but even though this is Death we are talking about Death
never really tries to intimidate the man who was just trying to kill him. He
lets his past and his future tasks do the talking for him, and even after going
out of his way to tell Dean that he has no intention of killing him the way he
does this makes Dean even more frightened of his abilities. The writing in this
scene is so good that Death never relies on clichés to make him sound
terrifying, it just comes across naturally in the dialogue and with the actor’s
subtle nuances and annoyance at being Lucifer’s pet.
Now onto the scene construction itself, notice how the
framing, lighting, shading, and blocking all construct a sense of light versus
dark, good versus evil. Dean is always shown in good lighting and contrast and
his face is always visible while Death’s face is always partially in the
shadows, almost like he is one with them like Colonel Kurtz in Apocalypse
Now. The only time we really see his face well lit is when lightning
strikes, which is always during poignant points in his speech, and I don’t know
if this is Death’s intention or a personal touch from the director himself, but
either possibility is absolutely brilliant in terms of filming.
The music is pitch perfect to setting the tone as well, a
dark piece of work that conveys a sense of tension at what is happening on
screen. Notice how Dean’s dialogue is always nervous and naïve, a subtle
reference to the naïve nature of innocence as opposed to Death’s knowledgeable
and often angry tones, often times disgust bordering on hatred. One final note
is that in almost every scene Death is in he is fond of eating junk food, a
reference to the Freudian theory of the “Death Drive”, a theory that states in
order for a human to sustain life, he must create death (i.e. destroying the
food he is eating). You probably didn’t even notice these touches while
watching the scene but then again that’s the whole point of setting a proper
tone and making allusions, your brain is absorbing this information to
establish what is going on in the scene even if you aren’t aware of it.
Now, if the C-freakin’-W channel can construct proper tone
in a scene as brilliantly as this, then how the hell can a film with such a
massive budget completely miss the tone of what Spider-Man is all about? I
don’t really know which is worse, choosing the wrong tone like in this film, or
having a flat, boring, vanilla tone like the stupid Twilight films, but as much
as I hate those movies, they never come across as a comedy, which is the
equivalent to how wrong these films feel. How could they screw this up so
badly? Quick answer… riding the coat tails.
You may have noticed this trend in Hollywood that is getting
flat out annoying at this point… the gritty reboot. It started with some
properties that benefitted from the realistic approach such as Casino Royale,
Batman Begins, or True Grit. Adapting an established property to
an appropriately darker tone can be a great way to remind everyone of what the
property should be. James Bond was
originally known as an amoral and dark secret agent instead of a suave and
campy playboy, and Batman was always legendary for being the darkest and
broodiest of well established comic heroes.
But in the last five or six years gritty reboots and
re-imaginings have gotten so far out of control that it’s f**king annoying. In
fact I’ve brought this up before, but between 2007-2010 over 95% of all
Hollywood films were either reboots, re-imaginings, prequels or sequels. A few
years ago I made a crack about how they were going to eventually make a gritty
reboot of Hansel and Gretel, but things have gotten so out of control that they
recently did just that and now I almost feel bad about it, like someone who
picked on the retarded kid on the playground. The point is that now Hollywood’s
“Hey, me too!” attitude has decided that Spider-Man, the happy, comedic, most
feel-good comic on the Marvel roster needed the Dark Knight treatment and
made it into a dark film as well. This is such a bad choice in direction, not
only did it completely undo everything Spider-Man is about, but the tone and
atmosphere through the whole movie are tainted with this new approach.
As if this wasn’t bad
enough, they decide to completely undo this baffling decision with an even more
baffling choice in villain. The film goes out of its way to make this film
darker and more realistic, which I don’t like, but I can kind of understand
because it’s the hot ticket in Hollywood right now. But then they completely
ruin this approach by having Spider-Man fight a giant dinosaur. At least in Sam
Raimi’s films (until we hit 3 at least) the villains seemed like they were
distantly possible due to science gone wrong. After all, enhanced gene therapy
(which created the Green Goblin) and cybernetic nanotechnology (which created
Doc Ock) have been in development for years with DARPA, so these characters
seemed a lot more believable than the Lizard ever was.
To top this off, they also made the Lizard a boring as
boring and uninteresting as possible, making his only motivation wanting to fix
his missing arm. In the comics Kurt Connors was always riddled with guilt over
his transformations, often leading to him attempting suicide on many occasions.
Here however, he seems to revel in the role of evil, and goes out of his way to
be a prick for no reason to be evil than for the sake of being evil.
Horrible choice in atmosphere aside, there were plenty of
other things to dislike about this film. One of the biggies was the director
trying to make Peter Parker more relatable to kids through a myriad of terrible
changes to the character. Peter Parker was created in a time when nerds were
universally unacceptable to be associated with in high school, this is why for
nerds like me growing up Spider-Man resounded so deeply. It was a story of
heroism despite the fact that the world had more or less turned his back on
him. It was also the first time (besides Revenge of the Nerds of course)
that the nerd was made out to be a hero, but most importantly, it was a story
about personal problems first and being a superhero second. But now this movie
doesn’t even give a crap about the characterization anymore, and this weenie on
screen is unrecognizable as Peter Parker, and in a lot of ways unlikeable.
Whenever I joke about a studio making a character more
appealing to kids the biggest joke I crack is always a stuffy producer saying
“Give him a skateboard, kids like skateboards”. It’s humorous because it’s so
stupid and out of touch with kids that it’s something that only a person with
no finger on the pulse would propose, but in this film they actually make Peter Parker skateboard! It’s just
another example of how this movie is just another soulless, heartless ,
assembly line film as opposed to the predecessors. Say what you will about
Raimi’s trilogy, and it certainly had its list of flaws (especially the third),
but no matter what you say about them you can at least tell that Sam Raimi
interjected a lot of heart and soul into the film. He put a lot of himself into
the cinematography, the music, and the story of the film, making it truly his vision and as a result, films with
heart to them.
This is especially true in the second film, and what made it
so magical was that not only was it so thoroughly Sam Raimi through the use of
some of his signature techniques (especially the legendary “Sam-O-Cam”, but it
was the best film to date when it came to capturing the essence of Spider-Man
by making it a human story first, and a superhero story second. Remember Uncle
Ben’s death in the first Raimi film? How powerful it was and how it resonated
with both you the audience and Peter? It taught Peter the importance of using
his powers responsibly through personal pain, hence the catchphrase “with great
power comes responsibility”. Compare that scene with the completely emotionless
death scene in the new film, and how it not only didn’t teach Peter anything about responsibility, but turned him
into a bloodthirsty, revenge driven vigilante.
The last thing that really bugged me about the film is
relatively small, but still irritating to me on a personal level, and you may
not have even noticed it. In my X-men First Class review I made a stink
about how lame Professor X and Magneto’s namesake was brought up in the film,
just sort of thrown out in a kind “Meh, how about this name?” sort of way.
Namesakes and creations are a big deal in the comic world, remember Bruce
Campbell’s booming announcement and introduction of “The Amaaaaaaaazing Spider-Man!”
in the first film?
How about Christian Bale’s legendary first delivery of “I’m
Batman” from Batman Begins?
They’re great, standout scenes that establish the character’s
names in a neat and unique way. How does this introduction go in the new film?
Man: Who are you?
Spider-Man: Um… Spider-Man.
Not exactly the same feel as the previous two examples eh?
Now believe it or not there were a few things about this
film that I actually liked, the first and largest of which was Dennis Leary’s
outstanding turn as Captain Stacy. Bringing a perfect balance of good cop and
cynic to what could have been a thankless role, Leary really made this
character shine, and presented the first real, believable reason of why a
person may distrust Spider-Man to the films. Distrust of the webhead was always
given to J Jonah Jameson in the original trilogy, and as much as I actually
loved JK Simmons’ portrayal of him in the films they never really flushed out
any reason of why he hated Spider-Man
so much other than it sold newspapers. Here however, Stacy’s disapproval is
explained in detail, and he views it as more of a disruption to justice than a
personal vendetta of any sort.
I also liked how in the film they went out of their way to
explain the origin of Peter’s webslingers as well as opposed to just having it
as a part of the mutation. It was neat to kind of see him put these together as
well as the rest of his costume, and even though it was a hamfisted attempt to
do so I also appreciated how they went out of their way to explain what a
scientific wunderkind Peter really was. Having him solve complex genetic
equations that the best minds in the field couldn’t solve was a bit too much,
but I at least appreciate the effort. Finally, I actually liked the quips and
one-liners Spidey delivered in costume, as they seemed much more organic and
real than the well written and rehearsed lines Tobey often used in the first
trilogy. The one-liners in the new trilogy really seemed more fitting for the
moment, and there were a few times where they actually had me chuckling at
their use.
At the end of the day The Amazing Spider-Man isn’t really
that bad of a film, but knowing the
politics that went on behind the scenes, having the original trilogy still
fresh in my head, and seeing this new soulless lifeless interpretation compared
to the vibrant, colorful, and lively Sam Raimi films puts this movie in a negative
light for me. Honestly, if the first three films had never been made I think I
may have hated this film a little less, but since the studio decided it was so
stinking important to push out another film as fast as they could the amount of
care they put (or didn’t put) into the film is incredibly evident. Tell me that
I’m seeing this movie with rose tinted glasses all you want, and you’re
probably right, but in this case I think it’s only fair that these films should
be held to a higher standard.
5.5 out of 10
I like directing my readers to other works they may enjoy, and for a great listen give the gentlemen on the podcast Reel Junkies a shot. A great and funny poscast featuring knowledgeable insight into film.
