Atomic Blonde (2017) review

Atomic Blonde is an action film that’s headlined by two of the genre’s biggest rising stars. The first is its leading lady, Charlize Theron. Of course, prior to this, Theron’s already had a long career in the film industry. She’s starred in several critical hits over the years and she also won an Oscar for Best Actress for her role in 2003’s Monster. However, she’s recently begun to make a name for herself as an action star, thanks in part to her iconic turn as Imperator Furiosa in Mad Max: Fury Road. The other big name on this project is its director, David Leitch. Like Theron, Leitch has been in the film industry for a long time; for most of that time, though, he’s mainly been known for his work as a stuntman/stunt coordinator. Since 1995, he’s worked in the stunt department on several big-name films, including Fight Club, Serenity, and The Bourne Ultimatum just to name a few. Only recently has he moved into the field of directing. He made his official directorial debut in 2014 as the uncredited co-director alongside fellow stuntman Chad Stahelski on the modern action classic, John Wick. And while he didn’t return to direct this year’s sequel, John Wick: Chapter Two, he’s already been lined up to direct some major projects, including the highly anticipated sequel to 2016’s smash hit, Deadpool. But first, we have his official ‘solo’ debut, Atomic Blonde. The film is based on the 2012 graphic novel The Coldest City by Antony Johnston and Sam Hart. And thanks to the combined efforts of Theron and Leitch, Atomic Blonde is an edgy/badass action thriller that features the same kind of incredible action sequences that made Leitch’s other directorial claim to fame, John Wick, such a success.

In the year 1989, Lorraine Broughton (Charlize Theron) is a top-level agent working for MI6. Around the same time that the Berlin Wall is set to come down, she is approached by her superiors, Eric Gray (Toby Jones) and ‘Chief C’ (James Faulkner), with her latest mission. One of her fellow MI6 agents, James Gasciogne (Sam Hargrave), who Lorraine happens to have had a close relationship with, was just murdered in Berlin. Stolen from his body was ‘The List’, a bit of microfilm containing the identities of all undercover operatives who are currently stationed in the Soviet Union. To protect the identities of her fellow agents, Lorraine is dispatched to Berlin to not only retrieve the list but to also take out the double agent who betrayed Gasciogne in the first place known only as ‘Satchel’. Once there, she is joined by her main contact, agent David Percival (James McAvoy), while also engaging in a relationship with undercover French agent Delphine Lasalle (Sofia Boutella). But in her efforts to obtain the list and take out ‘Satchel’, Lorraine finds herself embroiled in an increasingly complicated game of cat and mouse as she’s forced to act fast before ‘Satchel’ puts a target on her back as well. And as she soon finds out, some of her closest allies may not be as trustworthy as they seem.

As implied in the intro, Atomic Blonde does share some similarities with John Wick… at least, more than just the fact that they share one of the same directors. Both films center around a badass main protagonist who fights their way through a non-stop barrage of thugs to achieve their mission. They also share admittedly simple plots that still manage to be effective enough leverage for the events that transpire in them. And in the case of Atomic Blonde, this is primarily through its retro setting of Berlin near the end of the Cold War, which does provide a neat backdrop for this film’s main plot. With that said, though, Atomic Blonde does take a little while to get going, partially because it spends a considerable amount of its first half just setting up the plot. And really, the plot in this is mainly just a simple ‘cat and mouse’ plot with some predictable twists and turns along the way, which unfortunately makes it the weakest aspect of the film. But once Atomic Blonde’s second half rolls around, that’s when it truly steps into high gear as a highly entertaining action thriller. Leitch’s experience working in both the stunt industry and on John Wick translates perfectly to this film’s action sequences. Just like in John Wick, they are fantastically shot and brilliantly choreographed. Thus, Atomic Blonde easily features some of the best action sequences of the year, including an epic long-take fight sequence (about nine minutes (!), to be precise) that’s set in an old apartment building. This, for the most part, does make up for some of the film’s narrative shortcomings.

As for the film’s cast, Charlize Theron is truly the star of the show here. She’s more than proven herself to be a badass action star in the past, and that very much shows in this film’s incredible action sequences. And even though the film’s main plot is a simple one, Lorraine Broughton is still a fascinating main character. Her standoffish, no-nonsense attitude provides us with some interesting glimpses into her overall characterization as well as some entertainingly blunt arguments with her main associate, James McAvoy’s David Percival. McAvoy ends up getting a lot of the film’s best humorous moments due in part to the character’s roguish playboy personality. Another standout of the cast is Sofia Boutella as the seductive French operative Delphine. She has terrific chemistry with Theron and their characters share a solid relationship that’s more than just sexual, as Broughton basically takes Delphine under her wing when it’s established that the latter hasn’t had much experience out in the field. As for the rest of the cast, their roles in the film are minor by comparison but they are all solid in their respective roles and they work well with Theron in the scenes that they share with her. This includes, among others, Eddie Marsan as a defecting Soviet officer codenamed ‘Spyglass’, Til Schweiger as an enigmatic MI6 ally known only as ‘the Watchmaker’, and John Goodman as CIA agent Emmett Kurzfeld.

Under the direction of one-half of the duo behind John Wick, Atomic Blonde is just as badass as that film in terms of its impressive action sequences. My friend/colleague Michael Kaye of Geeks+Gamers said it best; Leitch’s experience in the stunt industry makes him a perfect candidate for directing action films. Like John Wick, this film features incredible action sequences, especially in the second half of the film. With that said, though, there are a few instances where the first half of the film drags a bit, namely to delve into exposition regarding set-ups for some admittedly clear-cut plot twists. Granted, also like John Wick, the plot isn’t meant to be the focus of the film; thus, it’s okay that this film’s plot is just a simple spy story and not much more than that. Still, it’s because of the simplistic nature of the plot that I admittedly don’t consider Atomic Blonde to be ‘as good’ as John Wick. However, I can’t deny that this is a solidly entertaining action thriller. It’s got a nice edge to it and, of course, it’s all highlighted by Charlize Theron’s excellent performance in the lead role. Now, for the record, I haven’t read the graphic novel that this is based on, The Coldest City, so I can’t really comment on how effective this was at adapting the source material. Though, from what I’ve heard, the graphic novel was a bit more focused on the espionage aspect of the story than its action sequences. Still, on a weekend where the internet is getting a bit too obsessed with a film that has gotten universally negative reviews (you know EXACTLY what film I’m talking about), thankfully this film is around to give audiences a good time.

Rating: 4/5

Dunkirk (2017) review

Ever since his feature-length directorial debut, Following, in 1998, Christopher Nolan has consistently proven himself to be one of the best directors in the business. His second feature film, 2000’s Memento, ended up earning him major critical attention, including an Oscar nomination for Best Original Screenplay. Ultimately, though, he really made a name for himself in 2005 when he resurrected the Batman film franchise after a nearly decade-long hiatus with Batman Begins. Effectively returning the series to its darker roots, he would then follow that up with a pair of billion-dollar grossers in the form of its two sequels, 2008’s The Dark Knight and 2012’s The Dark Knight Rises. The former of the two not only became a landmark of the superhero film genre but it also ended up being one of the most critically-acclaimed films of its time. And while Nolan has since moved on from the world of superheroes, he’s continued to produce top-quality films that have been defined by his reliance on old-school filmmaking techniques. For one thing, Nolan is a director who has been keen on the perseveration of the practice that is shooting on film, which has become less and less prevalent in the increasingly digital age. As a way of keeping the art of filmmaking alive, Nolan’s 2014 release, Interstellar, saw an early release where it was screened on 70 mm film in IMAX theaters. And he continues this practice again with his latest film, Dunkirk. This World War II epic tells the true story of ‘Operation Dynamo’, a full-blown evacuation of Allied soldiers from the beaches of Dunkirk, France. Dunkirk is very much a Christopher Nolan film and, sure enough, it’s a technical marvel that fully warrants a watch on the big-screen, especially if it’s in IMAX and via Nolan’s preferred method of film projection.

In late May of 1940, over 400,000 Allied soldiers find themselves stranded on the beaches of Dunkirk, France. Driven there by the German regime during the Invasion of France, the soldiers anxiously await to be evacuated back home across the English Channel before enemy forces can close in on them. However, due to the enemy’s heavy presence in the area, the chances of survival seem to grow less likely with each passing moment. The film mainly focuses around three separate parties, all of whom endure the wide range of incidents that occur during this period. On land, young soldiers Tommy (Fionn Whitehead), Gibson (Aneurin Barnard), and Alex (Harry Styles) frequently attempt to get off the beach on whatever ship they can get on to varying degrees of success. Things get a bit more complicated, however, when the primarily silent Gibson is questioned over his true allegiance. Meanwhile, as the Royal Navy commissions civilian boats to help evacuate the soldiers, one mariner named Mr. Dawson (Mark Rylance), along with his son Peter (Tom Glynn-Carney) and assistant George (Barry Keoghan), heads out on his own accord to aid in the evacuation. Along the way, they manage to rescue a soldier (Cillian Murphy) who has just survived a devastating U-boat attack, although this then proceeds to cause some problems for them as they attempt to reach Dunkirk. Finally, in the skies above, Royal Air Force Pilots Farrier (Tom Hardy) and Collins (Jack Lowden) provide air support for the troops in their Spitfire aircraft.  

Dunkirk primarily focuses around three main storylines that are set on land, at sea, and in the air, respectively. The land storyline takes place over the course of the week that the event occurred. Meanwhile, the sea storyline encompasses a single day of that week while the air storyline only covers a single hour of the entire stretch of time. Nolan, true to form, combines these three storylines together in a non-linear narrative. And while it may be a bit confusing at times when the film jumps between storylines that don’t always share the same timeframe, there’s never really a point where you’re lost completely as to what’s going on. There are instances where the characters from different story lines interact with each other, which helps to showcase how they’re all connected to the larger plot that is the overall evacuation. But at the end of the day, the key to the whole film is that Nolan does succeed in crafting a suspenseful war film without ever going overboard with violent action. Whether it’s thanks to things like Hans Zimmer’s pulse-pounding score or scenes that are set within claustrophobic locales (e.g. a sinking ship that’s being fired upon by the Germans), this film will have you on the edge of your seat throughout. Not only that, but Nolan also manages to achieve this without ever showing a single German soldier. Well, okay, some do appear at the very end, but for the most part, the enemy is primarily unseen. And even though you never see them, their presence is always felt, making the situation even more stressful given that they’re inching closer and closer to the beaches of Dunkirk. Of course, the film also benefits from another thing that you can always expect from a Nolan film, high-level production value. Real ships and fighter planes, some of which were even from the actual event, were used to recreate these intense war situations, and these sequences are filmed excellently by Nolan’s cinematographer on Interstellar, Hoyte van Hoytema. These shots look even better when seen on a giant IMAX screen, especially those that showcase wide landscapes out on the open sea.

The other thing to note about Dunkirk is that it relies more on visual story-telling than plot or dialogue. Thus, you shouldn’t go into this expecting a lot of character development. That’s not to say that the characters are bland and underdeveloped, but at the same time, they’re mostly just a bunch of faces in the larger crowd. Ultimately, though, it was perhaps for the best that this part of the writing was minimal. Because after all, setting up backstories for a select few out of the 400,000 soldiers on the Dunkirk beach probably would’ve bogged the film down considerably. Instead, we just get tiny but effective glimpses at the varying dynamics between the characters who make up each of the three storylines. Still, as is the case with Nolan’s other films, Nolan did manage to assemble a solid ensemble cast made up of both recognizable faces and general newcomers to give reliably good performances. Those that make up the former category, like Mark Rylance, Kenneth Branagh, Cillian Murphy, and Tom Hardy, take on supporting roles in the larger narrative but they’re all solid as usual. Of the film’s main ensemble, newcomer Fionn Whitehead arguably gets the most screen-time, and overall, Whitehead does make a solid first impression as a young soldier who, like his fellow men, is just trying to survive. On that note, I should probably address the elephant in the room that is the casting of One Direction singer Harry Styles in one of the lead roles. Given that Styles is obviously known more for his musical career (this is his first major starring role, after all), some have questioned Nolan’s decision to cast him. However, I thought that he did a solid job in the role that he was given. Granted, this isn’t a film where the performances are meant to be the focus, but Styles does slip naturally into his role as one of the many soldiers stranded on the Dunkirk beaches.

There was a bit of controversy prior to this film’s release for one main reason; its PG-13 rating. Despite Nolan’s insistence that the film was more about the tension than the violent side of war, the announcement that Dunkirk would be rated PG-13 didn’t go over well with some people given that most war films tend to be rated R, thereby highlighting the true horrors of war. However, at the end of the day, Nolan did, in fact, succeed at making a war film that didn’t rely on gruesome violence. Instead, he crafts a story that’s minimalistic in nature but is still full to the brim with tension. This also translates well to the film’s narrative, one that doesn’t stop to focus in on a few main characters in the larger story; instead, it just puts them through the same kind of grim and intense situations that their fellow soldiers are going through. In other words, this is more of an ‘experience’ than it is a ‘story’. But, through it all, that never once takes anything away from the film’s greatest strengths. After all, Nolan truly is one of the best in the business when it comes to a film’s technical aspects. With all this in mind, Dunkirk is an absolute must-see in theaters. And if you can, see it in IMAX in 70 mm. At the risk of sounding like an old goat, this already great-looking film looks even better when projected in its classic format. Nolan’s persistence on keeping this style of filmmaking alive has provided modern audiences with some great cinematic experiences that help prove why big films like this are worth seeing in theaters. And if you ask me, IMAX is quite arguably the best outlet for screening films this way. 

Rating: 4.5/5

War for the Planet of the Apes (2017) review

It’s safe to say that one of the most surprisingly effective revivals in recent years has been with the Planet of the Apes series. Of course, as we all know, the franchise first started back in 1968 with the original Planet of the Apes, a film that became a landmark entry in the sci-fi genre thanks in part to its groundbreaking makeup effects and its iconic twist ending. It was then followed by a string of sequels in the 70’s that varied in terms of overall quality. After that, the original film got a remake in 2001 directed by Tim Burton. However, unlike the original, the remake’s twist ending went over horribly with audiences; thus, due to the film’s mixed reception, plans for a follow-up ended up getting nixed. It wasn’t until a full decade later when the series was revived again, albeit in a much more successful manner. In director Rupert Wyatt’s Rise of the Planet of the Apes, the ape characters were portrayed via motion-capture instead of the traditional makeup process. It was all led by the king of motion-capture performances himself, Andy Serkis, in the role of genetically enhanced ape Caesar. And thanks to Serkis’ outstanding performance, as well as its groundbreaking visual effects, Rise ended up being one of the surprise hits of 2011. Three years later, director Matt Reeves stepped in to direct the sequel, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. And overall, many felt that it was one of the rare instances of a sequel that far surpassed its predecessor. Not only were the motion-capture visual effects majorly improved upon, but Reeves also took the strong emotional depth of Rise one step further. In other words, ‘style over substance’ this was not, effectively making it one of the best summer blockbusters of that year. And now, here we are again three years later with the third entry in the new PotA series; War for the Planet of the Apes. Reeves is back to direct and Serkis is back once again as the mighty Caesar. And even after the impressive benchmark that was Dawn, War once again delivers exceptional visual flair that buoys a strongly written story centered around equally strong-written characters.

At the end of Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, genetically-enhanced ape Caesar (Andy Serkis) managed to regain his control as the leader of his group of similarly enhanced apes from his traitorous lieutenant, Koba. However, because of Koba’s actions in that film, tensions between the apes and the humans who had survived the widespread ‘Simian Flu’ virus caused by the experiments that had been done on several of the former (during the events of Rise) were greatly increased. Thus, as War for the Planet of the Apes begins, Caesar and company now find themselves hunted by an elite para-military squadron known as Alpha-Omega, led by a vicious Colonel (Woody Harrelson) who is hell-bent on wiping out all apes so that humanity can regain its place as the dominant species on Earth. Meanwhile, the apes continue to do their best to try and survive in this increasingly hostile world. But when the conflict between the two sides ends up crossing a very personal line, Caesar, along with his loyal lieutenants Maurice (Karin Konoval), Rocket (Terry Notary), and Luca (Michael Adamthwaite) head out to confront the Colonel and his faction before they can kill any more of their kind. Along the way, they also come across a young orphan girl (Amiah Miller) who they begin to take care of. But as Caesar and his comrades approach Alpha-Omega, they soon find themselves embroiled in a violent and deadly conflict that puts the lives of them and their fellow apes in jeopardy.

As was the case with its predecessors, one of the biggest selling points of War for the Planet of the Apes is its impressive visual effects. The motion-capture visuals for the ape protagonists are better than ever, and just like how its immediate predecessor Dawn upped the ante from 2011’s Rise, War is easily the biggest Planet of the Apes film to date in terms of its scale. Matt Reeves’ direction is just as great as it was in Dawn, providing us with fantastic action sequences that are highly benefitted by the effects and excellent cinematography. But, of course, this film is way more than just pretty visuals. As many others have pointed out, these recent Planet of the Apes films have gone above and beyond in the realm of blockbuster filmmaking when it comes to its story and characters. This very much feels like a natural follow-up to Dawn. Case in point, it only takes place two years after the events of that film whereas Dawn was set over a decade after the events of Rise. Sure enough, the consequences of what happened in Dawn are still felt throughout this film. In fact, a lot of Caesar’s characterization in this film comes from him being haunted by what he did at the end of Dawn when he allowed Koba to die after everything that Koba did to him despite the number 1 rule of their society, ‘ape not kill ape’. Thus, all throughout this film, Caesar constantly grapples with the possibility that he’s starting to act exactly like Koba (i.e. vengeful against humanity). Because of this, War for the Planet of the Apes is easily the darkest entry in the trilogy by far. Through it all, though, we are still given a highly sympathetic bunch of main protagonists to follow as well as a sinister but layered antagonist that ties it all together.

Of course, leading the charge in the film’s great ensemble cast once again is Andy Serkis as Caesar. It’s been said before time and time again and I’ll say it here as well; his turn as the great ape is just as awards-worthy as all the other great performances from this year. All those impressive visual effects never once take anything away from the pure emotion coming out of Serkis’ performance, and as alluded to earlier, this film features what is arguably Caesar’s biggest character arc to date. Thus, it can also be argued that this might just be Serkis’ best performance as Caesar in the entire trilogy. And because of everything that Serkis has done in the business of motion-capture performance work, we also have excellent performances from the rest of the film’s ‘ape’ cast. Of course, there are the series regulars, like Karin Konoval as Maurice and Terry Notary as Rocket, the only two members of the cast (apart from Serkis) who have played the same roles in all three films. But then you also have newcomers like Steve Zahn as ‘Bad Ape’, a former zoo ape who ends up joining Caesar’s group on their journey. ‘Bad Ape’ ultimately provides this generally grim sci-fi war story with some much-needed moments of levity. As for the film’s human characters, this series once again does an excellent job of making them just as well-developed as their ape counterparts. Woody Harrelson’s ‘The Colonel’ is easily the most villainous human antagonist that this series has ever seen. And while he’s not exactly ‘sympathetic’ like Gary Oldman’s character Dreyfus from Dawn was (hell, even Koba was more sympathetic by comparison), he’s still a fascinatingly complex character, thanks in no small part to Harrelson’s excellent and steely performance in the role. Finally, there’s newcomer Amiah Miller in a breakout role as the young girl that Caesar and co. end up adopting. And as it turns out, her character happens to be one of major significance to this franchise; thus, it’ll be interesting to see if she plays a part in possible future installments.

Well, I’ll be damned… it looks like we have a new contender for the best film trilogy in recent years. After Andy Serkis and Rupert Wyatt surprised us all in 2011 with the well-layered sci-fi drama that was Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Matt Reeves then surpassed that with Dawn of the Planet of the Apes in 2014. To some, that might seem like an extremely tough act to follow. However, that didn’t stop Reeves and Serkis from damn near reaching that exact same mark with this year’s War for the Planet of the Apes, which might just be the best ‘third installment’ of any trilogy ever (and, yes, I know that’s not really saying much but still…). It’s a natural follow-up to its predecessor, with a storyline that’s tied perfectly to the events of Dawn. This, in turn, further develops the character of Caesar in what ends up being a satisfying conclusion to the overall character arc that he’s had in this trilogy. Pair all this with the reboot series’ greatest strengths, both visually and narratively, and you have yet another summer blockbuster where the writing is just as complex as its visuals. But while they are promoting this film as the end of a trilogy, I’d be interested to see them try and continue from here. Because without giving anything away, they’re inching closer to closer to the scenario that was played out in the original Planet of the Apes, where an astronaut unknowingly crash-lands on Earth after the apes had become the dominant species on the planet. And if they do decide to do another one, hopefully with a lot of the same crew that worked on these last three films, I bet that this hypothetical new take on the story that is Planet of the Apes would be fantastic. Because that’s exactly what this recent PotA trilogy has been… fantastic.

Rating: 5/5!

Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) review

It could be argued that Spider-Man is Marvel Comics’ most popular character. His characterization as a regular high-school student from New York who finds himself immersed in the larger Marvel universe has made him an incredibly endearing character to audiences young and old. This has also translated well to the web-slinger's time on the big-screen, as Spider-Man films have grossed over $3 billion worldwide. Of course, it all started with the trilogy of films directed by Sam Raimi and starring Tobey Maguire in the lead role, which ran from 2002 to 2007. The first film was one of the three major releases, alongside Bryan Singer’s X-Men and 1998’s Blade, that helped revitalize the superhero film genre after the low point that it experienced in the late 90’s. It was then followed by an even better-received sequel in 2004… and then an extremely polarizing third installment in 2007. That would ultimately be the final installment of the series, as Raimi backed out of directing the impending fourth installment when he felt pressured by the studio into getting it done by 2011. Thus, just one year later, Sony decided to reboot the Spider-Man franchise, with Marc Webb taking over as director and Andrew Garfield cast as the new Spidey. However, the short amount of time that had gone by since the Raimi series ended, paired with the fondness that many had for those films, ended up having a majorly negative effect on the Amazing Spider-Man films. While the first Amazing film managed to hold off a decent amount of the skepticism that had been surrounding it, the second Amazing film ended up being even more polarizing than Raimi’s third film. It was also the lowest-grossing Spider-Man film to date, barely grossing over $700 million worldwide.

The harsh reception to Amazing Spider-Man 2 put a lot of pressure on Sony, who have owned Spider-Man’s film rights since the 80’s. Clearly, their plans at the time to develop their own ‘Cinematic Universe’ a la Marvel Studios were not going over well with critics and audiences. And so, in 2015, they decided to strike a deal with Marvel Studios who, due to Marvel’s initial handling of their characters’ film rights, were originally unable to use some of the company’s biggest heroes for the first few years of the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s existence. This new deal, which was made official in February 2015, would allow Sony to hold onto Spider-Man’s film rights while also giving Kevin Feige and his team at Marvel Studios creative control over future films, thereby allowing everyone’s favorite neighborhood web-slinger to finally appear in the MCU. However, this also meant that the series would see another bit of rebooting for the second time in five years. Tom Holland, breakout star of 2012’s The Impossible, took on the role of Peter Parker and officially made his MCU debut in last year’s Captain America: Civil War. And overall, his turn as Spidey in that film was well-received by critics and audiences, proving that he was more than ready to take on the lead role in his own film. And so, here we are now with Spider-Man: Homecoming. General newcomer Jon Watts takes on directorial duties for this collaboration between Sony and Marvel Studios. To reiterate, because Sony still owns Spider-Man’s film rights, this is a Sony release, unlike the other MCU films which are distributed by Disney. However, given the involvement of Kevin Feige and co., it’s also the newest installment of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Thus, with the involvement of the studio that has continued to deliver top-quality hits time and time again, I’m pleased to say that good ol’ ‘Underoos’ is indeed back and, more importantly, is better than ever in his latest on-screen adventure.

During the events of Captain America: Civil War, teenager Peter Parker AKA Spider-Man (Tom Holland), who gained spider-like abilities after being bitten by a genetically-altered spider, was recruited by billionaire Tony Stark AKA Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.) to aid in the Avengers’ internal conflict in that film. Afterward, Tony gives Peter the new and improved suit that he had made for him but also tells him that he’s not yet a member of the Avengers. Thus, Peter returns home to Queens, where he lives with his Aunt May (Marisa Tomei), and his life as a ‘regular’ student at Midtown High while continuing to fight crime around town under the ‘supervision’ of Tony’s long-time bodyguard, Happy Hogan (Jon Favreau). But despite this, Peter is still left wishing for an opportunity to do more than just deal with minor incidents. He eventually manages to find a chance to prove himself when he starts to come across criminals that are using new and dangerous weapons that have been crafted from the Chitauri remains of the Battle of New York in the first Avengers. This soon leads to him coming into conflict with the man in charge of these recent criminal operations, Adrian Toomes (Michael Keaton), who uses a mechanical wingsuit to become ‘the Vulture’. However, the intensity of the situations that Peter soon finds himself in also gets him into trouble with Tony, who wanted him to maintain a more ‘grounded’ lifestyle. Thus, Peter now finds himself being pressured into proving that he’s capable of dealing with the kinds of threats that the Avengers face on a regular basis.

In the months leading up to its release, the filmmakers promoted Spider-Man: Homecoming as a high school film that was reminiscent of the classic 80’s films written and directed by John Hughes. And overall, the film does deliver on being just that, from its greater focus on the younger members of its cast to its various homages to films like Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. But, of course, at the end of the day, this is still a ‘Marvel Cinematic Universe’ film, so it also has all the great things that you’d expect from the MCU at this point. The action sequences are excellent, which in turn are backed by solid visual effects, and there are plenty of humorous moments that never take away from the more emotional moments of the story. And because this film is centered on a superhero who’s still in high-school, the advice that his mentor gives him (‘Stay close to the ground’) applies nicely to the overall scope of the film. Instead of being one of the high-level Avengers films, this is just a nicely scaled solo film that sometimes verges into the larger-scaled escapades of other MCU films but never once diverges from its high-school setting. I mean, if I had any sort of issue with this film, it’d be that it admittedly feels a bit overlong. Now, to be fair, this film is only about two hours and ten minutes long, which is on par with most of the other ‘solo’ MCU films. Heck, this isn’t even the longest Spider-Man film to date; The Amazing Spider-Man 2 was a little over two hours and twenty minutes long. Still, this film’s second half is made up mostly of its biggest action sequences, so it sometimes feels like the film never ends. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that there were any points where the film dragged or anything, but perhaps it could’ve benefitted from some better pacing.

As noted before, this film focuses heavily on its younger stars, and all of them do excellent jobs in their respective roles. Of course, leading them all is Tom Holland who, as we already saw from Captain America: Civil War, is a great fit for the role of Peter Parker/Spider-Man. Not only does he have Spidey’s trademark quips down perfectly, but he’s also given a great overall arc in which he finds that he must prove himself within the larger world of the MCU. In some ways, it’s a lot like the arc that Tony Stark went through in Iron Man 3, in which he realized that his suit didn’t define who he was. And in this film, the fact that Tony knows himself well enough to not want Peter to go down the same route that he went truly goes to show how effective the MCU has been in terms of developing its characters in a consistent manner with each new film. Meanwhile, Holland is backed by some memorable supporting characters, including Jacob Batalon as Peter’s best friend Ned, who ends up learning about Peter’s big secret. And thanks to Batalon and Holland’s terrific camaraderie with each other, Ned proves to be one of the great MCU sidekicks, up there with the likes of Luis from Ant-Man and Wong from Doctor Strange. Another standout is Zendaya, who plays one of Peter’s classmates, Michelle. Her role in the film is a minor one but she does get some great lines of dialogue thanks to her hilariously dry wit. Rounding out the main ‘youth’ cast is Laura Harrier as Peter’s main love interest Liz Allan, who has solid chemistry with Holland, and Tony Revolori as Flash Thompson. It’s a different Flash than the ones we’ve seen in the previous film incarnations of Spider-Man but he still serves his purpose as a constant pain in Peter’s side.

As for the film’s adult leads, there was some controversy surrounding the casting of Marisa Tomei as Aunt May due to Tomei being the youngest actress to date in the role. However, Tomei does prove to be a great fit as the MCU version of Peter’s loving aunt. She works well with Holland while also getting one of the best humorous bits in the entire film right at the very end. Meanwhile, Jon Favreau gets to work with what is easily his biggest role in an MCU film to date (outside of directing, of course) as Happy Hogan, characterized excellently here as Peter’s begrudged liaison between him and Tony Stark. On that note, I’m aware that a lot of people were worried that Robert Downey Jr. was going to hog the limelight in this film to the point where it’d practically be Iron Man 4. Trust me, though, when I say that this isn’t the case. Tony’s only in the film for about 10 minutes and is used perfectly, both in terms of being the goofy genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist that we all know and love as well as being an effective mentor for Peter. And, of course, there’s the main villain, Adrian Toomes AKA the Vulture. Is he another one of Marvel’s ‘mediocre’ villains? No, not at all… in fact, I’d dare say that since the start of Phase 3, Marvel Studios has improved quite a bit when it comes to their villains. Michael Keaton is excellent in the role and the character is set up solidly as a former salvage operator who got screwed over by Stark Industries after the events of the first Avengers. This effectively continues the series’ tradition of having Spider-Man’s adversaries be more ‘sympathetic’ than just pure evil. And then, if that wasn’t enough, there’s one big twist surrounding the character that makes him even more of a personal threat for Peter.

There was quite a lot of backlash surrounding this film prior to its release, from its ‘allegedly spoiler-y’ trailers (personally, I didn’t think that they gave away too much) to its admittedly subpar main poster (though, seriously, how does a poster impact the quality of the film that it’s for?). Thankfully, though, that didn’t stop Spider-Man: Homecoming from becoming yet another satisfying entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, as well as a much-needed win for Sony after their last few attempts from this franchise fared poorly with audiences. Sure, this is still technically the second time in half a decade that Spider-Man has seen an on-screen reboot, but the filmmakers wisely avoid going down many of the same routes that the character’s previous incarnations went. Jon Watts’ direction is solid and the film finds a nice mix between the high-school antics that its young protagonist deals with on a regular basis and the grand-scale adventures within the larger MCU. And thanks to its terrific ensemble cast and the continuously great atmosphere that one can always expect from the MCU films, Spider-Man: Homecoming is a fun new spin on this beloved character. Now, with that said, I’ll admit that I’m still a little bummed about how the previous incarnation of Spider-Man, the Amazing Spider-Man series, was rather unceremoniously tossed aside after only two films. Yeah, I know I’m in the minority when it comes to liking those films, but why couldn’t they have just been given the opportunity to continue but through the way that they’re doing now and have Kevin Feige and his team come in to fix things up, allowing Andrew Garfield’s Spidey to be a part of the MCU? Still, I won’t lie… after his appearance in both Civil War and now this film, I’m fully onboard with Tom Holland’s portrayal of Spider-Man and, therefore, any future films featuring Marvel Studios’ version of the friendly neighborhood web-slinger.

Rating: 5/5!

In Defense of the 'Amazing Spider-Man' films

This weekend sees the release of the next installment of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Spider-Man: Homecoming. This new film is a collaboration between Marvel Studios and Sony, the latter of whom still hold the rights to the character as they have had for many years now. However, thanks to a deal that they made in 2015 with Marvel Studios, Spider-Man: Homecoming is very much a part of the MCU, with the webslinger having made his long-awaited series debut in last year’s Captain America: Civil War. It’s also worth noting, though, that this is the second major reboot that the character has had in half a decade. Some may express a bit of concern about this happening as often as it has in this timeframe, but based on its current critical reception, it looks like Spider-Man: Homecoming will turn out to be another big success for Marvel Studios and their legendary Cinematic Universe, while also serving as a bit of redemption for Sony and their own Marvel output. However, today on Rhode Island Movie Corner, I’d like to make an argument in defense of the previous film incarnation of Spider-Man, the one that ended up putting a major dent in Sony’s reputation when it comes to their handling of the character. I’m, of course, referring… to the Amazing Spider-Man films. Obviously, this first attempt at rebooting the Spider-Man film franchise did not go over too well with audiences, especially after the second entry in the series was both a critical and commercial underperformer. And, basically, that’s exactly why we now have this second reboot; the first one was that big of a disaster amongst critics and audiences. However, I still have a soft spot for these two films, despite them now being mostly remembered by the internet as nothing more than a failed attempt to copy Marvel Studios’ success.  

But before I get into the films themselves, let’s start with a little history. Of course, as many of us know, the friendly neighborhood webslinger’s first major outing on the big screen was Sam Raimi’s original Spider-Man trilogy. Prior to this, there had been several attempts at a Spider-Man film, even one directed by James Cameron. Finally, Raimi was brought in by Sony, who had bought the film rights to the character in 1985. The first installment of this new series, simply titled Spider-Man, was a huge hit when it was released in 2002. It was the first film ever to gross over $100 million during its opening weekend at the U.S. box-office. Thus, it is now generally regarded as one of the major catalysts in the modern-day resurgence of the superhero film genre, alongside 2000’s X-Men and 1998’s Blade. Two years later, Raimi and his crew returned for a sequel; Spider-Man 2. And while it didn’t outdo its predecessor at the worldwide box-office, many viewed it as a superior sequel and, thus, it became one of the most beloved entries in the superhero genre. It was then followed by Spider-Man 3 in 2007 and… well, you already know what happened with that one. While it was another box-office success for the franchise, even to the point where it became the highest-grossing entry in the trilogy, it only did ‘okay’ with critics and was mercilessly SAVAGED by audiences for its mishandling of the famous ‘alien symbiote’ storyline from the comics, which saw Peter Parker adopt a darker persona. Said storyline is also known for the creation of one of his most infamous adversaries, Venom, who in the film was ultimately relegated to a minor supporting role after being written in by studio demand. Still, despite the polarizing reaction, plans were still in place for a fourth film. However, in 2010, it was announced that Raimi was stepping down from the project because he felt pressured by Sony into getting it done by a 2011 release date.

Thus, in 2012, Sony decided to instead reboot the Spider-Man franchise. Director Marc Webb, who was fresh off 2009’s critically-acclaimed romantic drama indie (500) Days of Summer, was brought in to direct the first installment of this new Spider-Man series, The Amazing Spider-Man. Andrew Garfield, fresh off an award-nominated performance as Eduardo Saverin in The Social Network, was cast in the title role while Emma Stone was brought in to play Peter Parker’s original love interest from the comics, Gwen Stacy, who had previously appeared in a minor supporting role in Spider-Man 3 played by Bryce Dallas Howard. Upon release, the film did manage to hold off most of the skepticism that had been surrounding it; it did fine with critics and it grossed over $750 million worldwide. Still, there were some dissenters out there, and part of the reason why is admittedly understandable. Because to be perfectly blunt… The Amazing Spider-Man is basically just a retread of the original Spider-Man. It’s the same general story of an unpopular high-school student who gains superpowers after being bitten by a radioactive spider. His uncle dies, he falls in love with one of his classmates, a close colleague of his becomes the main villain, and the film ends with Peter having to sever any chances of a romantic relationship with his love interest. Sure, the film adds in the plotline of Peter’s parents, skirts around Uncle Ben’s famous ‘With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility’ line, and the part where Peter breaks off his relationship with Gwen does go differently than before because she immediately realizes why he’s doing this. But at the end of the day, this origin story isn’t that different from the 2002 film’s origin story. I mean, to be fair, that was just an unfortunate side-effect of this film’s status as a reboot that came out only a decade after the release of Raimi’s first film. On that note, thankfully the new series with Tom Holland has decided to skip past the character’s origin, which is good seeing how we’ve already seen it twice now on film since 2002.

Still, I’d argue that this film does just enough to differentiate itself from Spider-Man’s previous onscreen incarnation. I mean, if anything, it’s not like this is a direct ‘carbon copy’ of Raimi’s film. The biggest change comes with the increased role of Peter’s parents, Richard and Mary Parker. Having only been mentioned in the Raimi films, the first Amazing film opens with Peter’s parents leaving him at Uncle Ben and Aunt May’s while they go off on an important business matter, only to never return. Thus, most of the film’s plot revolves around Peter learning more about his parents’ secrets and why this led to their disappearance which, in turn, ultimately leads him on the path to becoming Spider-Man. Now, admittedly, despite what I just said, the film doesn’t really focus too much on what happened to Peter’s parents save for a brief flash of a newspaper article mentioning that they were killed in a plane crash. Afterward, it basically just turns into a Spider-Man story that only occasionally ties everything back to Peter’s past. However, it does seem like there was initially going to be a greater focus on Peter’s parents based on the film’s several deleted scenes. These scenes include, among other things, some additional character development for Dr. Curt Connors, Richard Parker’s colleague, and an expanded role for their seemingly sinister superior, Dr. Kafka, who straight-up disappears from the film after the big action sequence on the bridge. Some of these scenes even appeared in the trailer, only to then not appear in the final cut. As we’ll soon see, that’s basically one of the biggest dilemmas with these films. Clearly, a lot of material was left on the cutting room floor, perhaps so that it could be saved for the sequel. On that note, thankfully, the plotline with Peter’s parents returned in the sequel and was given more attention there than in the first film.

Ultimately, though, the main reason why I liked these films more than the Raimi films (which, to be clear, I still like by the way) is that I just liked the characters in this series more, especially Peter and Gwen. While I do feel that both Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst were solid in the Raimi films, Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone totally have them beat when it comes to chemistry. I mean, after all, these two were a couple in real-life, and that is indeed apparent in the several scenes where they’re together. As for Andrew Garfield’s performance in the role of the iconic webslinger, I much preferred his take on the character over Tobey Maguire’s. And, for the most part, it seemed like most critics were happy with Garfield’s take on the character as well. However, there have been some who felt that he wasn’t that good when it came to portraying Peter outside of the suit. They argued that he was whiny and that he didn’t look the part of a high-school nerd. And I’ll admit that, yes, Tobey Maguire was perhaps better when it came to conveying Peter’s nerdy qualities when he wasn’t in the suit. However, I don’t really agree with the ‘whiny’ argument, which in the first film mainly comes into play when Peter argues with Uncle Ben in the scene before his death. And the main reason why is one that gets brought up by several cast and crew members in the film’s behind-the-scenes material; at the end of the day, Peter is just being a teenager. At that age, teenagers will often find themselves lost at times and, thus, make questionable decisions. And that’s exactly what Peter does at times in this film, as a lot of his inner turmoil is, of course, based around him not knowing why his parents left him at such a young age. In short, I fully appreciate how this new version of Peter was characterized overall, which I would argue makes him more sympathetic than Maguire’s Peter.

But if there’s one clear thing that Garfield did indeed do better than Maguire, it’s being Spider-Man. Spider-Man is a character who is well-known for the comedic quips that he spurts when he’s fighting crime, and Garfield had that part down perfectly. Sure, some may argue that he didn’t do this that much in the first film save for the scene where he confronts the carjacker (“You’ve found my weakness. It’s small knives!”) but at the very least, things only got better in the sequel, where Garfield truly shined in the role. By comparison, Maguire never really got the chance to use Spidey’s trademark quips. I don’t know whether it was because of Raimi or the screenwriters, but Maguire’s Spider-Man was much more serious in tone. Thankfully, there were a few instances here and there where Maguire did throw out some quips at his enemies. It’s just that they really were few and far between. The first instance of this that I can recall came in the second film when he’s fighting Dr. Octavius at the bank. When Octavius remarks that Spidey is getting on his nerves, Peter then proceeds to joke that “he has a knack for that”. The other major instance that I can think of comes in Spider-Man 3, during his first fight with Flint Marko AKA the Sandman. When he first confronts Sandman, he informs him that he’s ‘the sheriff around these parts’. Then, after the fight, he goes to the roof of a skyscraper to empty out the sand in his costume, where he poses the question, “Where do all these guys come from?”. I will say that, at the very least, Spider-Man 3, which was co-written by Raimi and his brother Ivan, did allow Maguire to be more comedic in the role of Peter. However, considering that part of this included his infamous ‘emo’ phase (which really wasn’t as bad as the internet constantly puts it out to be; if anything, it was far from being the film’s biggest problem), that’s up for debate. Garfield, thankfully, never went ‘that far’ when playing the character.

The real standout of these films, though, was Emma Stone in the role of Gwen Stacy, who is hands down the best on-screen love interest that Spidey has ever had in these films. Again, nothing against Kirsten Dunst, as she had good chemistry with Tobey Maguire and even a solid character arc in the second Raimi film as she navigated through her complicated love life. But at the end of the day, Mary Jane Watson was mainly just a damsel in distress who was constantly being saved by Peter. Gwen, meanwhile, was by no means a ‘damsel in distress’. Sure, she got cornered a few times by the Lizard in the first film and was captured by the Green Goblin during the finale of the second film, but she also played an active part in helping Spider-Man defeat his enemies. She helped to develop the cure for the Lizard’s mutagen in the first film and helped make Peter’s web-shooters resistant to Electro’s attacks in the second film. Heck, during a scene in the first film when she’s confronted by the Lizard, she straight-up wards him off with fire. But easily one of her most defining moments in these films came at the end of the first film which, like the ending of the first Raimi film, had Peter breaking off his current romantic relationship with her. Except in this instance, instead of it ending with Peter just walking away, Gwen immediately realizes why he is doing this; during the final battle, her father, Captain George Stacy, is killed by the Lizard. With his dying breath, he makes Peter promise to ‘leave Gwen out of it’, knowing that he’ll make many enemies as Spider-Man in the future. However, by the end of the film, it seems as if Peter and Gwen’s relationship might not be over after all. Though as we’ll soon see in the second film, this relationship becomes quite complicated.

The two are backed by an excellent supporting cast. Denis Leary is a major standout as Gwen’s father, George Stacy. Given his status as a New York City Police Captain, he provides a nice contrast to Peter’s actions as Spider-Man while also getting some of the best lines in the film, from “38 of New York’s finest versus one guy… in a unitard” to his response to when Peter tells him about Connors transforming into a giant Lizard (“Do I look like the mayor of Tokyo to you?”). And I won’t lie… I teared up quite a bit when he died. Sure, his role in the sequel was odd, to say the least, as he mainly appeared as a vision of Peter’s, forcibly reminding him of the promise that he made to him. Still, he was easily one of the best parts of the first film. Meanwhile, Martin Sheen and Sally Field are both fantastic as this series’ iterations of Uncle Ben and Aunt May. Their takes on these classic characters are a bit more authoritative in tone compared to Cliff Robertson and Rosemary Harris’ performances in the Raimi films. They still are the loving surrogate parents in Peter’s life but they do take on a stricter parenting role whenever he gets into trouble, especially Uncle Ben. And on that note, while it is pretty much the same as the scene from the first Raimi film, Webb does do a good job when it comes to handling Uncle Ben’s death in this film. Heck, I’ll even admit that perhaps I found this one to be just a tad bit more heartbreaking seeing how this happened while Ben was looking for Peter after an intense argument between them. And as for Sally Field as Aunt May… well, recently she’s distanced herself from these films, stating that it wasn’t ‘her kind of film’ but that she did it for her friend, producer Laura Ziskin, who had also produced the Raimi films. The Amazing Spider-Man would ultimately be one of the last projects that she worked on before her death in 2011. Field also stated that she felt that there wasn’t much depth to the character; a shame, really, because I’d argue that she gave it her all in the role, especially in the sequel.

As for the main villain, Dr. Curt Connors AKA the Lizard, I think that he was the series’ best ‘sympathetic’ villain since Dr. Octopus in Spider-Man 2. After all, that’s a common starting point when it comes to some of Spider-Man’s adversaries in these films; not all of them are just straight-up ‘bad guys’. In fact, almost all of them have a personal connection to Peter in some way, shape, or form. In this instance, Dr. Connors was a close friend of Peter’s dad who worked alongside him at Oscorp. And when we first meet him, we learn that he and Peter’s father were experimenting with cross-species genetics to try and find cures for diseases along with other potential scientific breakthroughs, including the possibility of humans being able to regenerate limbs. Connors himself only has one arm, hence why he’s fully determined to make his experiments work. While there was some material with Connors that was cut from the final film, including a scene where we see that he has a son, Rhys Ifans does a great job in making Connors a sympathetic character who’s trying to heal himself as much as he wants to heal the world. But, after one failed test, he becomes a diabolical creature and his goals become corrupted as he works to turn all of New York into lizard beings like himself. Dr. Connors had previously appeared in the Raimi films as well, played by Dylan Baker. Sadly, for Baker, he was never given the opportunity to become the Lizard, though, apparently, he was being set up to do so in the unmade fourth film. Thankfully, we finally got to see this character fully realized on the big screen in the first Amazing Spider-Man, and I think that it was also good that they started out with him instead of re-doing a villain from the Raimi films. Obviously, they re-did Green Goblin in the second film but, again, that was the second film. At that point, I’d argue that it was okay for them to try and do a new take on a previously seen character.

Finally, one of the other major things that I think the Amazing films do better than the Raimi films is its action sequences, namely whenever Spidey is swinging through the city. Admittedly, the first Raimi film has become rather dated in terms of its effects; you can clearly tell whenever a digital double of an actor is used during a fight scene. Thankfully, the Raimi films did improve from an effects standpoint as they went on. Thus, by the time that the Amazing films came around, Spider-Man’s web-slinging became more fluent than ever from a visual perspective. The second film, especially, featured some of the best Spider-Man swinging sequences ever put on film. With that in mind, I do think that Webb managed to improve as an action director the same way that Christopher Nolan did between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. In Nolan’s instance, while Batman Begins was a great return to form for Batman on the big screen after almost a decade, its biggest shortcoming was its poorly edited fight sequences, which I attribute to it being Nolan’s first big action film. Thankfully, Nolan stepped up his game three years later with some exceptional fight sequences in The Dark Knight. Now, for the record, I’m not saying that Webb pulled off a Dark Knight-level leap in quality when it came to the second Amazing film. But, like Nolan, this was a case where the first Amazing Spider-Man was his first big action film. And while the action was solid enough in the first film, Webb managed to take it one step further in the sequel. For one thing, the sequel has action sequences that are set during the day instead of at night like in the first film. Seriously, the only major daytime action sequence in the first film… was one that took place within a school.

On that note, now it’s time to talk about that infamous sequel, 2014’s The Amazing Spider-Man 2. Like Spider-Man 3, it experienced an extremely polarizing response from critics and audiences that leaned more towards the negative. And while it was one of the top-grossing films of the year, with over $708 million worldwide… it was ultimately the lowest-grossing Spider-Man film to date. Thus, the following year, Sony made a deal with Marvel Studios to co-produce a second reboot franchise, which would allow the character to finally make his long-awaited debut in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. This also meant that all of Sony’s plans at the time to continue the Amazing series ended up falling by the wayside. But as for me, I was in the minority of people who did like The Amazing Spider-Man 2. And after re-watching it again as research for this post… I found that I still liked it. Hell, scratch that, I love it. As I noted before, it improved upon its predecessor in terms of the action sequences and visuals, effectively becoming the best-looking Spider-Man film to date. And just like its predecessor, it benefitted greatly from the lead performances of Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone. Garfield fully embraced Spidey’s comic persona while Stone’s Gwen continued to be his best on-screen love interest. Sure, the two do spend most of the film apart from each other after they break up due to Peter’s guilt over not sticking to the promise that he made to her father. But when they do share romantic scenes, boy are these two cute together. The scene where the two rekindle their relationship on top the Brooklyn Bridge is especially heartwarming… though also a bit gut-wrenching when you know exactly what’s about to happen to them. But I’ll get to that later…

Remember how there was quite a lot of material left on the cutting room floor with the first film? Well, it’s an even bigger problem with this one. Once again, several scenes that were even featured in the trailer ended up being removed for various reasons, and in this instance, it does indeed impact the overall narrative. This includes a scene where Peter’s best friend Harry Osborn (Dane DeHaan) informs him that his father’s company, Oscorp, has been watching him and his family for years and, in what is perhaps the most notable (or ‘infamous’, depending on your point of view) deleted scene of the bunch, Peter is reunited with his long-lost father, who is revealed to have survived the plane crash, which we see happen in the film’s opening sequence. There were also a few scenes featuring Shailene Woodley as Mary Jane Watson, but her scenes were cut because Webb wanted to focus more on Peter and Gwen’s relationship instead of the one that would obviously occur between Peter and MJ. But unlike the previously mentioned deleted scenes, these haven’t been released yet, and now that Sony has moved onto a new series, it’s unlikely that we’ll ever see them. To me, this film feels very much like Iron Man 2, which also tried to set up a lot of material for future films to the point where it ended up being detrimental to its main plot. But whereas Iron Man 2 didn’t do ‘terribly’ with critics and was part of the continually-developing Marvel Cinematic Universe, Sony didn’t have the same kind of leeway with the Amazing films. Thus, several big-name actors ended up being vastly underutilized in roles that were clearly meant to be expanded upon in future films. This includes Felicity Jones as Harry’s assistant Felicia, who would’ve become the vigilante Black Cat from the comics, and B.J. Novak as scientist Alistair Smythe, who was well-known in the comics for creating robots known as the Spider-Slayers.

Ultimately, though, the film ends up facing the same dilemma as Spider-Man 3; a narrative that featured several main villains, three to be specific. However, while I do think that both films clearly bit off more than they can chew by having all these villains in one film, I still think that Spider-Man 3 was more problematic when it came to it having ‘too many villains’. And that’s because, after about 2-4 viewings of that film, I’m still unsure as to who the main villain of that film was. At first, it seemed like it was going to be Harry Osborn AKA ‘New Goblin’, but he’s put out of commission for a bit due to a sustained bout of amnesia. Then, there was Sandman, and for the most part, he was the ‘main threat’ of the film, especially given the big personal connection that he has with Peter as it’s revealed that he was the one who killed Uncle Ben. But then, like Harry, he too exits the film for a decent amount of time before coming back at the end. And then, of course, there’s Venom… who’s only in it for like ten minutes or so before he’s killed off. Amazing Spider-Man 2, at the very least, was a bit clearer as to who the main villain was; Electro. Sure, there’s a point in the film where he’s taken into custody for a bit, but by the end, he’s still ultimately the big threat for Spidey to stop. As for Harry, he slowly but surely changes into the Green Goblin by the end of the film; in other words, he was clearly meant to be one of the ‘big baddies’ in future films, though he does play a major part in this film’s finale. And as for the film’s third villain, Rhino, he was only meant to be a ‘book-end’ villain, first appearing at the beginning of the film and then returning at the end. I mean, to be fair, while Spider-Man does have a wide array of adversaries in the comics, not all of them are big enough to be ‘main villains’. And it seems like Spider-Man: Homecoming is doing a similar thing; Michael Keaton’s Vulture is the main villain while the film will also feature characters like Shocker and the Tinkerer in smaller roles.

And overall, I was fine with the villains in this film. Paul Giamatti was delightfully hammy in his brief appearance as the Rhino; again, a brief appearance, but it did result in a fun opening sequence and ending, even though the latter cuts to the credits before the fight gets underway. As for Jamie Foxx as Electro, the film continued the series’ tradition of sympathetic villains who weren’t ‘bad guys’ just because they’re evil. In the case of Electro, he starts out as a lowly Oscorp employee named Max Dillon who is led to believe that he’s Spider-Man’s best friend after Spidey saves him one time. After transforming into the electrically-powered being Electro, Max is confronted by Spider-Man again, and even though Peter attempts to peacefully subdue him, this fails and the ensuing battle leads to Max’s opinion of Spidey being forever tarnished. Sure, maybe this happens rather abruptly… that and Foxx’s take on the character is very reminiscent of Jim Carrey’s portrayal of Edward Nygma AKA the Riddler in Batman Forever, complete with a whole subplot that focused heavily on the fact that his transformation occurred on his birthday. In fact, there are a lot of overly goofy moments in this film, more so than just anything that Electro does. Thus, one of the major criticisms of the film was its tendency to have some noticeable tonal shifts. I do see where people are coming from with this, but it ultimately didn’t bother me that much. Plus, going back to what I said before about how this film had some of the best Spider-Man action in any film to date, the creation of Electro does lead to some awesome electricity-based visuals and action sequences. And I also don’t mind the changes that were made to Electro’s overall design. I mean, to be fair, I don’t see how they could’ve put Foxx in a green and yellow spandex suit complete with a lightning-bolt shaped mask; that would’ve made things even sillier if you ask me. And finally, with Dane DeHaan as the new Harry Osborn AKA Green Goblin, I thought that he was an interesting new take on the character, as we see traces of both his long friendship with Peter and his eventual descent into anarchy. If he had been given another film to work with, I think his take on the character would’ve become even better.

On that note, what were the plans then if the franchise hadn’t stalled out with this film? Well, obviously, there would’ve been a third (and maybe even a fourth) Amazing Spider-Man film, once again directed by Marc Webb and starring Garfield and DeHaan. But perhaps the most notable planned follow-up was a spin-off that focused on Spider-Man’s most notorious group of adversaries from the comics, the Sinister Six. The film was set to be written and directed by Drew Goddard, to the point where he even dropped out of handling show-running duties on Daredevil to work on this film. And the lineup for this gang of villains was directly teased in the credits of Amazing Spider-Man 2. This included, of course, returning characters Green Goblin and Rhino along with two characters that were teased in the film itself during a scene set at Oscorp that showcased their technology; Doc Ock and Vulture, the latter of whom will finally make his big-screen debut in Spider-Man: Homecoming. Finally, the other two confirmed villains were Kraven the Hunter, who would’ve debuted in the third film, and either Chameleon or Mysterio as implied by a bright-white mask. Ultimately, though, as we all know, this film, along with a planned Venom spin-off (that, apparently, is now back in development with Tom Hardy set to star in the lead role), were both canceled after the Marvel Studios deal was made official. It’s a shame, really, because I was interested in seeing both these films. Sure, it probably would’ve been difficult to try and make a film based around villainous characters and not superheroes, but I’m sure that it could’ve been done. Instead, we ultimately got our first big villain-centered comic book film in 2016 with DC’s Suicide Squad. And while that film also didn’t fare too well with critics, I still think that we’ll eventually see a good supervillain-led film in the future.

Anyway, back to Amazing Spider-Man 2… amidst all the goofy moments in this film, there are also some genuinely brilliant moments as well. Early on, there’s a scene where Peter saves a young kid from bullies and then proceeds to befriend him, complimenting his wind turbine science project and so on and so forth. This kid, Jorge, later returns at the end of the film where he dresses up as Spidey before the real Spidey comes back after being on a brief hiatus. In short, this was arguably the greatest on-screen instance of Spider-Man being the kind of role model to younger audiences that he’s always been known for. There’s also the scene where Peter talks with Aunt May about his father’s secrets which, as noted before, is a prime example of how Sally Field was truly giving it her all in the role despite her eventual thoughts on the films. Finally, of course, there’s the tragic finale in which, like in the comics, Gwen dies after sustaining injuries from a long fall. Say what you will about the rest of the film, but this moment is handled perfectly, thanks in no small part to Garfield and Stone’s excellent performances. Sure, it’s not exactly like it was in the comics, where the Goblin drops her from the George Washington Bridge, but we already got a scene like this in Raimi’s first Spider-Man film (with thankfully less tragic results). Instead, it occurs within a clock tower, and there’s even a neat little Easter egg where the clock stops at 1:21; #121 is the issue of Amazing Spider-Man in which Gwen died. Simply put, this was a truly emotional and heartbreaking scene that, along with all the other previously mentioned ‘brilliant’ scenes, is why I take issue whenever someone says that this is one of the worst superhero films of all-time… far from it. This is NOT the 2015 reboot of Fantastic Four, even though both films were clearly affected by hasty studio interference. And this is also NOT Batman and Robin, even though both films do have plenty of corny moments in them. Now, for the record, I do understand if some consider this to be a ‘middle-of-the-road’ entry in the genre, but worst? No way!

Which is why I’m still a bit disappointed that this series had to end with a whimper by being replaced just like the Raimi films were. Now, don’t get me wrong, while I do prefer Garfield’s take on Spider-Man over Maguire’s, I did love Tom Holland’s portrayal of the character in Captain America: Civil War. Like Garfield, Holland had Spidey’s comedic quips down perfectly, and I also loved how this new take on the character is really focusing in on his high-school years, more so than Maguire and Garfield’s iterations combined (“I can’t go to Germany… I’ve got homework!”). And again, it looks like Spider-Man: Homecoming is shaping up to be the best Spider-Man film since Spider-Man 2, thanks in no small part to the influence of Kevin Feige and his team at Marvel Studios. But I must ask… why then couldn’t they just continue the Amazing films but do what they’re doing right now and have Feige and his team brought in to rework things so that the series could continue at a smoother pace? After all, as I’ve noted numerous times, Feige and his team clearly know what they’re doing. The Marvel Cinematic Universe wouldn’t be where it is today, in the middle of Phase III and building up to what will surely be an epic conclusion to the current age of the franchise in Avengers: Infinity War, without them. Now, I’ll admit, maybe they figured that the plans for future Amazing films were just too messy at that point to be salvaged, but given how many characters have been ‘redeemed’ through their roles in the MCU, I bet that they could’ve saved it. But, of course, that didn’t happen, and it does make you feel bad for Marc Webb and Andrew Garfield, both of whom are talented at what they do. It’s a shame, really, that both were ultimately hindered by a pair of films that were severely affected by studio influence. 

Well, even though the internet has mostly forgotten about them by now, I still really enjoy the Amazing Spider-Man films. In fact, I won’t lie… I have a stronger personal connection to them than I do the Raimi films which, again, I do still like. For one thing, the Amazing films were the first Spider-Man films that I ever saw in theaters. Yes, I’ll admit that I didn’t see any of the Raimi films in theaters, mainly because I was too young for them at the time. I did catch a few glimpses of the first Raimi film back in 2002, but that was at the drive-in and it was a situation where my dad and brother were seeing it while my mom and I went to see another film. The Amazing Spider-Man was my first true Spider-Man film seen in theaters. In fact, that instance was a special one for me as it was the first time that I ever went to an early screening. One of my local radio stations had a contest where they were giving away tickets to an IMAX screening of the film in Providence to those who called in and correctly named a film that the hosts used an audio clip from. And as fate would have it, I won on the day that the audio clip came from Marc Webb’s first film, (500) Days of Summer (how fitting!). And I remember this because my mom called it in for us (I had just been dropped off at school) and when she told the hosts that I gave her the answer, one of them joked that the film was rated R… even though it wasn’t. And I guess that part of the reason why I loved Amazing Spider-Man 2 so much is that I saw it at one of those ‘perfect times’. It was the last day of my freshman semester at college and the film was exactly what I needed after a rather rough second semester. In conclusion, yes, I know that I’m in the minority when it comes to liking these films. But remember, film is subjective; thus, it works in different ways for different people. Case in point, a lot of people my age are still very fond of the Raimi films, which in turn impacted their thoughts on the Amazing films. And, heck, I’ll even admit that back then, I was as skeptical as most people were about these films when they were first announced. But at the end of the day, I was surprised to find that I really connected with these films, more so than I ever did with the Raimi films.