Spidey Weekend Part III and conclusion
Okay, so I have noticed that as I have written these reviews they have become less and less enthusiastic, and I'm sure this one will continue that tradition. But before I continue with my lukewarm criticism, know that these films are good films...I just can't stand Tobey Maguire. Something about him...probably his whiny whispery voice because I kid you not, on both of the first two films I had to crank the volume to understand the voice overs. It could also be the style. While I appreciate the humor Raimi infuses naturally and the great story arcs and villains, I am slightly irked by the obvious attempts to tie Spider-man to NY and occassionally the cheesy iconography type cinematography. I have noticed this though, and I believe it whole-heartedly...if Sam Raimi could learn to include some crazier darker lighting and a little more slanted angles, Raimi would have been the perfect candidate to replace Tim Burton after he had finished Batman Returns.
Now Spider-man 3. The first half of the film is quite good and Raimi does an excellent job of including the venom symbiote into the storyline of Spider-Man's corruption to the dark side. Sure there are a couple of sequences, usually dance sequences that last a bit long and make me cringe, but on the whole it is really well paced and performed. The film turns its focus back to the issues between Mary Jane and Peter, which Raimi realized early on was the crux of everything. In fact, he has gotten it down to a formula. Add a pinch of love disturbance, a princess kidnapping, some egotistic stupidity on Peter's part, add in a villain and stir vigoruosly. Include one or two platitudes about life and a moral lesson for Peter and end with villain killed after finding out Peter's secret identity. Now, the first film had 1 villain, the second 1 had 2 and this one...well, it has three, sort of. And it reached its breaking point.
Despite the first half, the second half takes off and tries to suddenly include the entire arc of venom and Eddie Brock. Since the film takes off running for the finish line, many details pass by in a blur and are easily missed. Leading up to a gigantic climactic ending that's easy on the eyes but painful to the brain. I'm sorry, but Sandman doesn't spend as much energy as possible to kill someone to just apologize later and vanish...and of course, the tradition continues in that all the villains die, except Sandman because Raimi probably couldn't think of how to get rid of him. Also, I could understand Harry saving MJ maybe, but there is no reason Harry would have saved Peter after everything with half his face being blown off in a spat. Instead, what starts off as a promising trilogy with great lead up ends completely unsatisfactorily in every department except for maybe the MJ and PP line. But yea, that whole explosive showdown you felt promised since the first movie? Yea, forget it. Change of heart and all that ****. Raimi, stick to two villains at a time and make sure you understand the characters...all of them.
As for acting, Tobey Maguire does his Peter Parker thing and is especially funny to laugh at when he dons the dark "emo" Peter Parker look. Classic. Kirsten Dunst is great as a flailing actress and MJ. Plus, I have to admit that she has some really nice legs. James Franco does a great job as Harry...until the end because the ending is SOOOO f'd up. Other characters include Bryce Dallas Howard, Ron Howard's daughter, as Gwen Stacy who is essentially unneccessary although she does do a good job in her few scenes. Also, I remember Gwen being slightly more...daring? than MJ which never came across in the maybe two scenes. J.K. Simmons changes up his humor by playing it more low without yelling so much and he is still brilliant. Seriously, this guy makes the series worth watching all by himself...well he and Bruce Campbell who has his biggest and funniest cameo yet. Why isn't he cast in more big time movies? Oh well. Stan Lee has a speaking role for once, good for him. Now for the villains. Thomas Haden Church is wonderful as Sandman. He plays the tragic villain perfectly. Too bad the ending sucks. Topher Grace pulls off the Venom character better than I ever believed possible for such a skinny kid, but damn he got the character down well. Too bad he's dead and didn't find time to develop the character beyond one-dimension!! Hmm, as I write, the ending irks me more and more. Oh well, at least the venom story comes from the animated 90's series and I enjoyed how he killed Venom at least. The silly Eddie Brock storyline is handled pseudo well but of course, this film needed to end with the creation of Venom and then let the next one focus on Brock/Venom/PP. Oh well, too late now. The good news is that no one disappoints although I find the tonal shift in PP's landlord from Spidey 2 to 3 disturbing.
Now where it's going. Raimi has done the evil twin of Spidey thing with the Venom line. He's done the tragic line with Sandman and the perpetuated Simmons paper influnced public idea. The struggle to gain MJ's love, done. The fight to save his friend from his own darkness, complete. And in the process, Doc Ock, Sandman, Green Goblin, Hobgoblin, and Venom all dead except Sandman who just sort of left. So, next will be possibly the Vulture and The Lizard. The Lizard being the most obvious with the buildup of Curt Connors being in the last two films helping Spidey. Just too obvious. Maybe after that it could be Morbius and Kraven, or some other such nonsene. Someone else close to PP should be in danger, so maybe Gwen Stacy will come back or maybe the nice landlord's crazy daughter. But will they want to make it? Apparently Sony has already committed to making a 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th or as long as they can craft great stories for such a great character. Raimi? Well besides being preoccupied with the possibility of filming The Hobbitt, he has mentioned that he would like to film the 4th and probably the 5th and 6th if he was still as intrigued as he is now by PP after the 4th. Tobey? Dunst? Franco? Well, Tobey and Kirsten both say they are tired of it but they might come back provided Raimi does it again and they feel its a good story that naturally flows from the last one. Franco? Well, who cares, his character is dead now. Although Ben Parker died in the first film but they brought him back for the great flashback sequence in 3. Now here lies the interesting part. Rumors has it that the powers that be might want to do away with Raimi and Maguire and Dunst since if Raimi came back he would want too much control and Spidey 3 cost $250 million just to make. Plus, Maguire and Dunst would want a pay increase. Instead, they are thinking of recasting it and refilling it with new up and comers to keep costs down and to start up a new trilogy with a new great director at the helm. Honestly, I would be okay with a new director and a new spiderman and MJ as long as they kept the supporting cast and got a director and replacement actors talented enough to keep the stories good. Jake Gyllenhaal for Spidey, Rose McGowan as MJ (Both have porcelain skin) and maybe get someone else with a love of old creature films and a love of comics...like Guillermo del Torro or Alfonso Cuaron. Just not Ang Lee.
Conclusion:
Good casting as always. Some great pacing and acting i the first part with only a few cringe moments, some of which were planned. Unfortunately its followed with a web-slinging hodge podge of ideas and plans that leave too big a hole in the middle for any audience member to slip through without being caught and entranced. Good luck to Raimi and crew, but especially to the supporting cast who should always be there. Also, the whole butler thing for Harry is completely contrived, lame and crappily executed on all fronts. Bah, see it for some fun but don't expect a satisfying ending to the promise of the first two in the trilogy.
3.54 out of 5
Wannabe
Showing posts with label Sam Raimi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sam Raimi. Show all posts
Monday, May 14, 2007
Spider-Man 2
Spidey weekend Part 2
Alrighty, so in installment numero uno, we have Peter Parker struggle with his new found powers from a genetically engineered spider bite, his uncle's death at the hands of a thief that he let loose, and the descent into madness of his best friend's father while his best friend thinks his alter ego, spidey, killed his father. But not was all bleak, wait, yes it was. Since he gave up his true love Mary Jane at the end. Oh well, the first installment stayed true to the origins and story of Spider-Man. Also Stan Lee and Bruce Campbell had great cameos. Now, for part II.
Well, to start, Spiderman is now delivering pizzas which of course is great for a couple of chuckles while introducing us to the squalid and unhappy life of Peter Parker after High School. Almost two years since his uncle's death. Harry now runs Oscorp and is backing a brilliant scientist named Dr. Octavius who is trying to create a sustainable renewable energy source, aka, a small sun. Lots of family and relationship issues. Dr. Octavius has some fusion issues with a cool four armed toy and bang, we have Doc Ock and a steaming young Harry pent on revenge against Spider-Man. All superhero vs evil villain story aside, their really isn't much in this story regarding lasting changes to Peter Parker's life. But oh well. The story is still fun and it has some great stuff regarding Doc Ock's character.
Directing wise, Sam Raimi abandons his usual low-tech style in favor of more of a CG/wire approach to film making. This lends the film a more polished look, although the CG is still too rough to ever mistake Tobey Maguire as actually flying about the city as Spiderman. The choices made by Raimi regarding how to shoot Doc Ock are well done as his CG effects never actually get in the way of showing Alfred Molina, and thus making the character more believable. Also, he does the usual NY hearts spidey thing. My favorite bit though of his directing is the sometimes blatant ripping he does from other movies. It seems to me that the more I watch, the more I realize that Raimi is using the Spider-Man movies as a way to pay homage to his old favorite films. There's a great sequence that is made to be in reference to King Kong and another where Spider-Man rips his shirt in a similar fashion to the old Christopher Reeves Superman films. I'm not going to lie, but I think Raimi was probably slightly jealous when Bryan Singer got to direct the recent incarnation of Superman over him. I especially liked seeing Maguire dealing with the loss of powers and his struggle to give up completely and to have a normal life. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Raimi does the story and all of teh characters justice, although I think perhaps some more fleshing out Doc Ock's background and maybe a better reason for his "craziness". I'm sorry, it's not Molina's fault, its the writing. If someone's mind has been taken over by 4 apparently crazy killing metallic arms, then there really is no point in time where you can reason with them...ever.
Acting wise, Tobey does his nerdy Peter Parker impression with less fire this time out and his whispy voice is sooo annoying he almost makes me hate Peter Parker. Almost. Kirsten Dunst does a great amount of flirting and changing boyfriends...figures. J.K. Simmons is Hi-larious! Dear God! If someone thinks they could play J. Jonah Jameson better, give them five dollars and make em disappear. This guy is great! Aunt May is still strong and sweet. Alfred Molina and James Franco are the ones who really tear up the screen. Maybe its the second movie curse to be the one that prominently features the villains and their stories, Empire Strikes Back anyone? But Molina brings a believability that surpasses the excellent acting of Willem Dafoe in the first movie. Franco begins to have more fun with his character by getting into the dark side and ordering a hit on him. Harry's such a troubled and yet ennabled character that he borders on tragic. Very nice gentlemen. It's just too bad that Molina was killed in this film since he is definately a great villain. Sadly, Stan Lee's cameo was much smaller in this film. But thankfully, oh sooo, thankfully, Bruce Campbell's was bigger and hilarious. I maintain that the best actors in the series so far are Campbell, J.K.Simmons, and Molina. He's just too good with the little bits offered him.
Conclusion:
A very good tale and a worthy sequel to Spiderman, the newer more polished look of the Spiderman series is not as much fun to me and the story when trimmed down leads to very little actual character development for those still standing at the end. Although, what does change, changes in a necessary way that arranges for the third film to occur. Because of this, I think it is barely not as good as the first if only for the wider character arc in the first and the better acting of Tobey Maguire in that one. Unfortunately, Alfred Molina turns in an incredibly well polished and distinguished Doc Ock and James Franco shows he's more than just a troubled face. So next time you see this film, remember to eat your spidey popcorn, with your spidey coke, oh and don't forget your spidey glasses to keep you from being blinded by the Spidey sun, and...
4.2 out of 5
Wannabe
P.S. I LOVE the opening artwork obviously painted by the very taleneted Alex Ross. Maybe a Kubert or two in there, but it looked mostly to be Ross' work. And if you don't know who he is, go buy the coffeebook from DC featuring all of his cover artwork and be amazed! This guy is soo good, he does comic book covers for a living...just the covers!
Alrighty, so in installment numero uno, we have Peter Parker struggle with his new found powers from a genetically engineered spider bite, his uncle's death at the hands of a thief that he let loose, and the descent into madness of his best friend's father while his best friend thinks his alter ego, spidey, killed his father. But not was all bleak, wait, yes it was. Since he gave up his true love Mary Jane at the end. Oh well, the first installment stayed true to the origins and story of Spider-Man. Also Stan Lee and Bruce Campbell had great cameos. Now, for part II.
Well, to start, Spiderman is now delivering pizzas which of course is great for a couple of chuckles while introducing us to the squalid and unhappy life of Peter Parker after High School. Almost two years since his uncle's death. Harry now runs Oscorp and is backing a brilliant scientist named Dr. Octavius who is trying to create a sustainable renewable energy source, aka, a small sun. Lots of family and relationship issues. Dr. Octavius has some fusion issues with a cool four armed toy and bang, we have Doc Ock and a steaming young Harry pent on revenge against Spider-Man. All superhero vs evil villain story aside, their really isn't much in this story regarding lasting changes to Peter Parker's life. But oh well. The story is still fun and it has some great stuff regarding Doc Ock's character.
Directing wise, Sam Raimi abandons his usual low-tech style in favor of more of a CG/wire approach to film making. This lends the film a more polished look, although the CG is still too rough to ever mistake Tobey Maguire as actually flying about the city as Spiderman. The choices made by Raimi regarding how to shoot Doc Ock are well done as his CG effects never actually get in the way of showing Alfred Molina, and thus making the character more believable. Also, he does the usual NY hearts spidey thing. My favorite bit though of his directing is the sometimes blatant ripping he does from other movies. It seems to me that the more I watch, the more I realize that Raimi is using the Spider-Man movies as a way to pay homage to his old favorite films. There's a great sequence that is made to be in reference to King Kong and another where Spider-Man rips his shirt in a similar fashion to the old Christopher Reeves Superman films. I'm not going to lie, but I think Raimi was probably slightly jealous when Bryan Singer got to direct the recent incarnation of Superman over him. I especially liked seeing Maguire dealing with the loss of powers and his struggle to give up completely and to have a normal life. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Raimi does the story and all of teh characters justice, although I think perhaps some more fleshing out Doc Ock's background and maybe a better reason for his "craziness". I'm sorry, it's not Molina's fault, its the writing. If someone's mind has been taken over by 4 apparently crazy killing metallic arms, then there really is no point in time where you can reason with them...ever.
Acting wise, Tobey does his nerdy Peter Parker impression with less fire this time out and his whispy voice is sooo annoying he almost makes me hate Peter Parker. Almost. Kirsten Dunst does a great amount of flirting and changing boyfriends...figures. J.K. Simmons is Hi-larious! Dear God! If someone thinks they could play J. Jonah Jameson better, give them five dollars and make em disappear. This guy is great! Aunt May is still strong and sweet. Alfred Molina and James Franco are the ones who really tear up the screen. Maybe its the second movie curse to be the one that prominently features the villains and their stories, Empire Strikes Back anyone? But Molina brings a believability that surpasses the excellent acting of Willem Dafoe in the first movie. Franco begins to have more fun with his character by getting into the dark side and ordering a hit on him. Harry's such a troubled and yet ennabled character that he borders on tragic. Very nice gentlemen. It's just too bad that Molina was killed in this film since he is definately a great villain. Sadly, Stan Lee's cameo was much smaller in this film. But thankfully, oh sooo, thankfully, Bruce Campbell's was bigger and hilarious. I maintain that the best actors in the series so far are Campbell, J.K.Simmons, and Molina. He's just too good with the little bits offered him.
Conclusion:
A very good tale and a worthy sequel to Spiderman, the newer more polished look of the Spiderman series is not as much fun to me and the story when trimmed down leads to very little actual character development for those still standing at the end. Although, what does change, changes in a necessary way that arranges for the third film to occur. Because of this, I think it is barely not as good as the first if only for the wider character arc in the first and the better acting of Tobey Maguire in that one. Unfortunately, Alfred Molina turns in an incredibly well polished and distinguished Doc Ock and James Franco shows he's more than just a troubled face. So next time you see this film, remember to eat your spidey popcorn, with your spidey coke, oh and don't forget your spidey glasses to keep you from being blinded by the Spidey sun, and...
4.2 out of 5
Wannabe
P.S. I LOVE the opening artwork obviously painted by the very taleneted Alex Ross. Maybe a Kubert or two in there, but it looked mostly to be Ross' work. And if you don't know who he is, go buy the coffeebook from DC featuring all of his cover artwork and be amazed! This guy is soo good, he does comic book covers for a living...just the covers!
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Spider-man
Part I of Spidey Weekend
Many of you have probably heard of it, and if you haven't, you probably heard about one of its two sequels at this point. If you still haven't, then you are probably in a casket and unable to read this blog...sad. Anyhow, even though part 3 came out last weekend, I still have yet to see it. so to prepare my wife who has never seen any of them and to refresh my spidey movie lore, we've set out on a 3 day spidey trek where each day we watch one of the spidey movies. Now, as a general caveat, all three films are directed by Sam Raimi and star Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane, Tobey Maguire as Spider-Man/Peter Parker, James Franco as Harry, and Bruce Campbell and Stan Lee in some small part at random points in each film. Whats great, is I definately think Bruce does a better job than most of the actor in the series, but with that said, lets delve into numero uno.
When I first saw Spiderman, I was big fan of the comics but I never read nor got into the scary Green Goblin saga. I was always involved in Kraven the Hunter tales or Hobgoblin who I know most fans feel is a cheap ripoff of green goblin...but man he was cool! So I was glad that when I saw the first film to finally see and get what all the buzz was about Green Goblin. The best part is after seeing the film realizing how well the film stands on its own while easily setting up for the next two sequels. It's incredibly hard for a film to set up two more films well. Pirates and The Matrix come to mind, mostly because they were one good to decent film followed by two contrived sequels...even though the second Pirates sequel hasn't come out yet. It's also amazinghow well this film was made and how it was able to satisfy Spidey fans and the general public alike during a time in which comics were considered mostly untappable by Hollywood for any sort of box office performance. The two exceptions were the Tim Burton's Batman series and the old Superman series. What makes it even more surprising is how well Sam Raimi, a cult/genre director was able to translate Spiderman to screen while upholding his own stylistic traits. Other Raimi movies include the great Evil Dead series featuring Bruce Campbell as Ash and the terrible Quick and the Dead starring Russell Crowe and Sharon Stone. The transaltion of Spider-Man and all of his trouble is well done in this first film and I will try to hold off on old judgements of the second film until my review. Raimi has always had a penchant for lots of silly corny moments to allow the audience to laugh some and connect with the main character. The best example is when Spiderman is just learning his powers and he is trying to figure out how to shoot a web out of his hand. The different hand movements are great! Also, Raimi allows us to see Peter Parker at his dorkiest in High School and allows us all to understand his plight and obvious issues in tempering his powers. As a fan, I did have some gripes including having Peter Parker be able to shoot his own webs, but it makes sense to have him be an ACTUAL Spider man instead of a super kid whose smart and makes his own stuff to imitate a spider man. The feel of Sam Raimi is present throughout all of the shots and the great mix of low-tech shots mixed with the great CG shots makes the fillm fit nicely into Raimi's style and grounds the film firmly in the corny feeling that Spiderman always infuses into his jokes. It's just corny enough to offset the grim and gritty background origin story letting everyone love Peter Parker despite his loser background. Good job this go round Raimi...this round...
As for the actors, well the Kirsten Dunst does a pretty good job of playing Mary Jane, although her flirtatious nature and constantly changing list of boyfriends, (Flash Thompson, Harry, etc.) makes me wonder just how faithful she could be in a relationship. I bet she never told Harry that she kissed Spiderman. I also found her dysfunctional home background to be an extremely interesting story for her and I would be interested in seeing that play back into the series later. Tobey Maguire does look like a weasley Peter Parker and he gets the nerdy high school stuff down well. James Franco plays an interesting dynamic of being Harry and having a hard relationship with his father where he tries to make his dad proud while at the same time trying to just fit in and downplay his money. He's a little too sulky, but he is quite the sympathetic character. Perhaps the best job of casting ever is J.K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson, the fast talking jerk-a-holic that runs the newspaper. He's perfect...absolutely perfect and if they do make more anymore Spider movies without the original cast, I implore Sony to continue to hire him. Also quite nice is Willem Dafoe as Harry's Father/Green Goblin. His turn as the slowly going insane father is quite nice considering the entire sequence into the mirror was shot in one take or so and wasn't filmed as two different sequences and then put together in editing, thus showing off his acting chops. Unfortuanately, at times he comes across as a little too...much. But usually Dafoe is right on the spot when portraying the dual nature of the good doctor. But man, those performance enhancers must've been god stuff to let him be able to hold an entire trolley full of kids in one hand and a struggling woman in the other. It's also amazing just seeing how well each of these actors nail their character's relationships between each other. The relationships and the dialogue is so vibrant and well done, even if at times it seems a little obvious someone wanted to convey a message. Ben Parker and Aunt May are perfect and lovable and old and remind me and probably everyone with great grandparents of their own. Kudos to the casting director.
Conclusion:
Sam Raimi's style fits quite well into this great introduction of the tales of Spider-Man and the cast for their first go around do the characters justice and earn their paychecks. The plot is laughable at times, but then again it's not exactly great social commentary either. It is however a fun mindless blockbuster flick. The CG is at times very bad, but you have to remember that when the film was made it was very good CG. Also, it is hard to make CG stylistically fit with someone whose technique requires low-tech shots that ground the film in the corny fun natre of Spider-man's humor. It's sad that Ben Parker won't ever come back, nor will Randy "Macho Man" Savage be able to return. But this film is great as a standalone and the kiss at the end is great and even better when Raimi stays true to the origin and keeps Peter away from her. It's sad and frustrating, but it's supposed to be. Great film and an excellent comic-book film. A definate must for anyone who likes blockbusters. Also interesting, is the obvious grounding of the film in New York, making the recent announcement of the New York annual Spiderman week much more understanding. Thumbs up!
4.45 out of 5
Wannabe
Many of you have probably heard of it, and if you haven't, you probably heard about one of its two sequels at this point. If you still haven't, then you are probably in a casket and unable to read this blog...sad. Anyhow, even though part 3 came out last weekend, I still have yet to see it. so to prepare my wife who has never seen any of them and to refresh my spidey movie lore, we've set out on a 3 day spidey trek where each day we watch one of the spidey movies. Now, as a general caveat, all three films are directed by Sam Raimi and star Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane, Tobey Maguire as Spider-Man/Peter Parker, James Franco as Harry, and Bruce Campbell and Stan Lee in some small part at random points in each film. Whats great, is I definately think Bruce does a better job than most of the actor in the series, but with that said, lets delve into numero uno.
When I first saw Spiderman, I was big fan of the comics but I never read nor got into the scary Green Goblin saga. I was always involved in Kraven the Hunter tales or Hobgoblin who I know most fans feel is a cheap ripoff of green goblin...but man he was cool! So I was glad that when I saw the first film to finally see and get what all the buzz was about Green Goblin. The best part is after seeing the film realizing how well the film stands on its own while easily setting up for the next two sequels. It's incredibly hard for a film to set up two more films well. Pirates and The Matrix come to mind, mostly because they were one good to decent film followed by two contrived sequels...even though the second Pirates sequel hasn't come out yet. It's also amazinghow well this film was made and how it was able to satisfy Spidey fans and the general public alike during a time in which comics were considered mostly untappable by Hollywood for any sort of box office performance. The two exceptions were the Tim Burton's Batman series and the old Superman series. What makes it even more surprising is how well Sam Raimi, a cult/genre director was able to translate Spiderman to screen while upholding his own stylistic traits. Other Raimi movies include the great Evil Dead series featuring Bruce Campbell as Ash and the terrible Quick and the Dead starring Russell Crowe and Sharon Stone. The transaltion of Spider-Man and all of his trouble is well done in this first film and I will try to hold off on old judgements of the second film until my review. Raimi has always had a penchant for lots of silly corny moments to allow the audience to laugh some and connect with the main character. The best example is when Spiderman is just learning his powers and he is trying to figure out how to shoot a web out of his hand. The different hand movements are great! Also, Raimi allows us to see Peter Parker at his dorkiest in High School and allows us all to understand his plight and obvious issues in tempering his powers. As a fan, I did have some gripes including having Peter Parker be able to shoot his own webs, but it makes sense to have him be an ACTUAL Spider man instead of a super kid whose smart and makes his own stuff to imitate a spider man. The feel of Sam Raimi is present throughout all of the shots and the great mix of low-tech shots mixed with the great CG shots makes the fillm fit nicely into Raimi's style and grounds the film firmly in the corny feeling that Spiderman always infuses into his jokes. It's just corny enough to offset the grim and gritty background origin story letting everyone love Peter Parker despite his loser background. Good job this go round Raimi...this round...
As for the actors, well the Kirsten Dunst does a pretty good job of playing Mary Jane, although her flirtatious nature and constantly changing list of boyfriends, (Flash Thompson, Harry, etc.) makes me wonder just how faithful she could be in a relationship. I bet she never told Harry that she kissed Spiderman. I also found her dysfunctional home background to be an extremely interesting story for her and I would be interested in seeing that play back into the series later. Tobey Maguire does look like a weasley Peter Parker and he gets the nerdy high school stuff down well. James Franco plays an interesting dynamic of being Harry and having a hard relationship with his father where he tries to make his dad proud while at the same time trying to just fit in and downplay his money. He's a little too sulky, but he is quite the sympathetic character. Perhaps the best job of casting ever is J.K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson, the fast talking jerk-a-holic that runs the newspaper. He's perfect...absolutely perfect and if they do make more anymore Spider movies without the original cast, I implore Sony to continue to hire him. Also quite nice is Willem Dafoe as Harry's Father/Green Goblin. His turn as the slowly going insane father is quite nice considering the entire sequence into the mirror was shot in one take or so and wasn't filmed as two different sequences and then put together in editing, thus showing off his acting chops. Unfortuanately, at times he comes across as a little too...much. But usually Dafoe is right on the spot when portraying the dual nature of the good doctor. But man, those performance enhancers must've been god stuff to let him be able to hold an entire trolley full of kids in one hand and a struggling woman in the other. It's also amazing just seeing how well each of these actors nail their character's relationships between each other. The relationships and the dialogue is so vibrant and well done, even if at times it seems a little obvious someone wanted to convey a message. Ben Parker and Aunt May are perfect and lovable and old and remind me and probably everyone with great grandparents of their own. Kudos to the casting director.
Conclusion:
Sam Raimi's style fits quite well into this great introduction of the tales of Spider-Man and the cast for their first go around do the characters justice and earn their paychecks. The plot is laughable at times, but then again it's not exactly great social commentary either. It is however a fun mindless blockbuster flick. The CG is at times very bad, but you have to remember that when the film was made it was very good CG. Also, it is hard to make CG stylistically fit with someone whose technique requires low-tech shots that ground the film in the corny fun natre of Spider-man's humor. It's sad that Ben Parker won't ever come back, nor will Randy "Macho Man" Savage be able to return. But this film is great as a standalone and the kiss at the end is great and even better when Raimi stays true to the origin and keeps Peter away from her. It's sad and frustrating, but it's supposed to be. Great film and an excellent comic-book film. A definate must for anyone who likes blockbusters. Also interesting, is the obvious grounding of the film in New York, making the recent announcement of the New York annual Spiderman week much more understanding. Thumbs up!
4.45 out of 5
Wannabe
Monday, March 5, 2007
The Quick and the Dead
'The Quirky Dead'
I love bargains. I tend to be suckered into them usually. Case in point, I was in a Shop Rite recently when I came across an old childhood favorite in the 2 for 10$ bin. I had trouble choosing a companion piece to this film, so I perused the few other films in the bin and eventually ran across a movie that looked like a decent Western, which I haven't seen in a while. Upon further investigation, I found out that the film was a remake that starred Sharon Stone, Gene Hackman, and a young Leonardo Di Caprio and early career work of Russell Crowe. It became even stranger when browsing the back of the case I found out the movie had been directed by the esteemed Sam Raimi of Evil Dead and Spider Man fame. So, having found this weird rare movie, possibly a gem, I settled and walked out buying The Quick and the Dead and The Adventures of Milo and Otis...don't you dare laugh...stop it...stop! *draws gun and fires two rounds*
There, now anyway, The Quick and the Dead is one of the bigger early works of Raimi and is based on a script by John Sayles. Apparently it was more of an indie flick which makes sense that was co-produced by Sharon Stone who personally paid for Leonardo Di Caprio and who insisted and got Russell Crowe his first main role in an American film. The movie is based on another movie by the same name made in 1963 and itself looks pretty promising, which was based on a famous Western novel by the great Western genre creator Louis L'Amour. I have no idea is actually based on or pays homage to previous versions of the film, but I hope it is the story because it is a damn good one.
The premise of the movie is a familiar one of revenge, except the person seeking it is a female. Add to it that she comes into town right when the town is beginning to host a shootout tournament. What makes this film great is that every character has a definite personality and calling card, giving each duel a sense of fun, as if watching a great wrestling match between two pros, except they both have guns and gold teeth. Unfortunately, the duels become fairly hum drum too quickly as it is incredibly easy to see who will win and who will lose on the way to the climax. There is a good twist, but it can be predicted as well. The other problem with the story is either the actors cast of the ridiculous dialogue. Sometimes, the actors shine as in Hackman and Crowe's character, at other times you want to groan from the stereotypical lines and old styled delivery. Also, the whole thing is so sad because it shows such great potential, especially in creativity, but then it collapses for a more generic plot. Also, and this could be partially due to the commercialized aspects of Sharon Stone producing or Sam Raimi's uneven directing, but the beginning and end of the movie are clunky and don't hold up as much as they should. Seriously, the town explodes and no one gets upset or questions the hero's about this? Yay dictator dead and who cares about where we live? Whatever. If only they remade this movie to be a giant tournament showdown with a more ensemble approach so anyone could die at any moment, really adding a sense of What if? before and after each fight. Ah well, sie la vie.
As for the acting, as mentioned before it is very uneven. Russell Crowe as the former criminal turned reverend/being forced to fight for his life, does a really good job. Not as good as his other future Academy award roles, but a great turn nonetheless. If anyone wants to know his secret, its his eyes. His eyes can be more penetrating, soft, or whatever is necessary than anyone else's I've ever seen. That and he also does a really good job of preparing himself for roles. Hackman, the workaholic actor that he is also puts in a brilliant turn as the sadistic villain governor oppressor. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Sharon Stone. For some reason the film feels like a giant look at a pissy Sharon Stone in hot stylish western clothes. It is sad because there are moments where she becomes believable as her character, but those quickly vanish like dust in the noon day sun. The other smaller roles are interesting usually and sometimes painful, but there is a couple of good turns such as the one by Keith David or the one by Gary Sinise. Overall, I would say the acting is decent for most of the movie, its just a shame that most of it should fall on the shoulders of Sharon Stone who quickly becomes the weakest link in the movie.
As for directing, well, Sam Raimi is a venerated director who has openly discussed his obsession and love of Hitchcock. In this film he does several great things and several really silly things that seem to balance each other out. For one thing, he takes a page from the chapter of High Noon and does an excellent job of making the town clock a character in the film in its own right. It is never left out of any fight. It oppresses the characters and reminds them of the game they are forced into playing, so it is only fitting it be destroyed later. Another thing that Raimi does quite well is he manages to make each duel fresh and interesting despite knowing the outcome. He rarely repeats shots from the duel sequences and uses reveals in such a way that would easily make the audience question the outcome if only the script wasn't as predictable. Lastly, he does a great job of capturing the poor, down and dirty feel of the movie. This is completely necessary since the film is really a symbol of the depravity of man and the possibility of forgiveness and restoration to grace. The problem of Raimi directing this film is I think he enjoys the cheese. Several really cheesy one-liners and lots of cheesy scenes put together in an awkwardly edited way detract from the intensity and caring of the characters. This seems to be a general thing among his films and it always annoys me except in Army of Darkness in which the entire script is based around this sense of humor. His other problem is that he likes to film everything too bright and he enjoys using some really cheap special effects when possible. I admire that, a man on a small budget using his trade effectively, but he does it in every film usually. The film is too bright which is a mistake on his part because it makes it harder to take the depravity of man seriously. I would have to say, that even though I like him, his best films to date are A Simple Plan and Army of Darkness because they get the mood and dialogue just right in combination with the cinematography and actors.
Conclusion:
The film is interesting if approached from a Brechtian angle and its well worth seeing some first timers going up on screen against some seasoned pros. The movie is also very entertaining and Raimi always has a great sense of excitement and fun in his camera work. Unfortunately Sharon Stone is a real drawback and the story comes across with Raimi's direction at times being too hokey and ridiculous. If you like Westerns or just want to see an interesting film, then definately check it out. If you are only interested in seeing the great films in the world, then feel free to pass it by and pick up, say, The Adventures of Milo and Otis? That's it! *Draws gun, fires through reader into glasses at the bar behind him and slowly walks out the corral. His boots clinking with each step as his stirrups hit the floor. He stops and stares back at the slowly sinking reader, grasping at his chest and rocking back and forth in a mock attempt at breath* I told you not to laugh. *With that, he's gone and disappeared into the hazy bright background from which he came, leaving a small playing card behind on which is scribbled*
3.4 out of 5
Wannabe
I love bargains. I tend to be suckered into them usually. Case in point, I was in a Shop Rite recently when I came across an old childhood favorite in the 2 for 10$ bin. I had trouble choosing a companion piece to this film, so I perused the few other films in the bin and eventually ran across a movie that looked like a decent Western, which I haven't seen in a while. Upon further investigation, I found out that the film was a remake that starred Sharon Stone, Gene Hackman, and a young Leonardo Di Caprio and early career work of Russell Crowe. It became even stranger when browsing the back of the case I found out the movie had been directed by the esteemed Sam Raimi of Evil Dead and Spider Man fame. So, having found this weird rare movie, possibly a gem, I settled and walked out buying The Quick and the Dead and The Adventures of Milo and Otis...don't you dare laugh...stop it...stop! *draws gun and fires two rounds*
There, now anyway, The Quick and the Dead is one of the bigger early works of Raimi and is based on a script by John Sayles. Apparently it was more of an indie flick which makes sense that was co-produced by Sharon Stone who personally paid for Leonardo Di Caprio and who insisted and got Russell Crowe his first main role in an American film. The movie is based on another movie by the same name made in 1963 and itself looks pretty promising, which was based on a famous Western novel by the great Western genre creator Louis L'Amour. I have no idea is actually based on or pays homage to previous versions of the film, but I hope it is the story because it is a damn good one.
The premise of the movie is a familiar one of revenge, except the person seeking it is a female. Add to it that she comes into town right when the town is beginning to host a shootout tournament. What makes this film great is that every character has a definite personality and calling card, giving each duel a sense of fun, as if watching a great wrestling match between two pros, except they both have guns and gold teeth. Unfortunately, the duels become fairly hum drum too quickly as it is incredibly easy to see who will win and who will lose on the way to the climax. There is a good twist, but it can be predicted as well. The other problem with the story is either the actors cast of the ridiculous dialogue. Sometimes, the actors shine as in Hackman and Crowe's character, at other times you want to groan from the stereotypical lines and old styled delivery. Also, the whole thing is so sad because it shows such great potential, especially in creativity, but then it collapses for a more generic plot. Also, and this could be partially due to the commercialized aspects of Sharon Stone producing or Sam Raimi's uneven directing, but the beginning and end of the movie are clunky and don't hold up as much as they should. Seriously, the town explodes and no one gets upset or questions the hero's about this? Yay dictator dead and who cares about where we live? Whatever. If only they remade this movie to be a giant tournament showdown with a more ensemble approach so anyone could die at any moment, really adding a sense of What if? before and after each fight. Ah well, sie la vie.
As for the acting, as mentioned before it is very uneven. Russell Crowe as the former criminal turned reverend/being forced to fight for his life, does a really good job. Not as good as his other future Academy award roles, but a great turn nonetheless. If anyone wants to know his secret, its his eyes. His eyes can be more penetrating, soft, or whatever is necessary than anyone else's I've ever seen. That and he also does a really good job of preparing himself for roles. Hackman, the workaholic actor that he is also puts in a brilliant turn as the sadistic villain governor oppressor. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Sharon Stone. For some reason the film feels like a giant look at a pissy Sharon Stone in hot stylish western clothes. It is sad because there are moments where she becomes believable as her character, but those quickly vanish like dust in the noon day sun. The other smaller roles are interesting usually and sometimes painful, but there is a couple of good turns such as the one by Keith David or the one by Gary Sinise. Overall, I would say the acting is decent for most of the movie, its just a shame that most of it should fall on the shoulders of Sharon Stone who quickly becomes the weakest link in the movie.
As for directing, well, Sam Raimi is a venerated director who has openly discussed his obsession and love of Hitchcock. In this film he does several great things and several really silly things that seem to balance each other out. For one thing, he takes a page from the chapter of High Noon and does an excellent job of making the town clock a character in the film in its own right. It is never left out of any fight. It oppresses the characters and reminds them of the game they are forced into playing, so it is only fitting it be destroyed later. Another thing that Raimi does quite well is he manages to make each duel fresh and interesting despite knowing the outcome. He rarely repeats shots from the duel sequences and uses reveals in such a way that would easily make the audience question the outcome if only the script wasn't as predictable. Lastly, he does a great job of capturing the poor, down and dirty feel of the movie. This is completely necessary since the film is really a symbol of the depravity of man and the possibility of forgiveness and restoration to grace. The problem of Raimi directing this film is I think he enjoys the cheese. Several really cheesy one-liners and lots of cheesy scenes put together in an awkwardly edited way detract from the intensity and caring of the characters. This seems to be a general thing among his films and it always annoys me except in Army of Darkness in which the entire script is based around this sense of humor. His other problem is that he likes to film everything too bright and he enjoys using some really cheap special effects when possible. I admire that, a man on a small budget using his trade effectively, but he does it in every film usually. The film is too bright which is a mistake on his part because it makes it harder to take the depravity of man seriously. I would have to say, that even though I like him, his best films to date are A Simple Plan and Army of Darkness because they get the mood and dialogue just right in combination with the cinematography and actors.
Conclusion:
The film is interesting if approached from a Brechtian angle and its well worth seeing some first timers going up on screen against some seasoned pros. The movie is also very entertaining and Raimi always has a great sense of excitement and fun in his camera work. Unfortunately Sharon Stone is a real drawback and the story comes across with Raimi's direction at times being too hokey and ridiculous. If you like Westerns or just want to see an interesting film, then definately check it out. If you are only interested in seeing the great films in the world, then feel free to pass it by and pick up, say, The Adventures of Milo and Otis? That's it! *Draws gun, fires through reader into glasses at the bar behind him and slowly walks out the corral. His boots clinking with each step as his stirrups hit the floor. He stops and stares back at the slowly sinking reader, grasping at his chest and rocking back and forth in a mock attempt at breath* I told you not to laugh. *With that, he's gone and disappeared into the hazy bright background from which he came, leaving a small playing card behind on which is scribbled*
3.4 out of 5
Wannabe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
