Showing posts with label Sam Raimi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sam Raimi. Show all posts

Thursday, July 6, 2017

In Defense of the 'Amazing Spider-Man' films

Image result for The Amazing Spider-Man series

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.

Image result for Sam Raimi Spider-Man

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.

Image result for andrew garfield and emma stone spider-man

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.

Image result for emma stone spider-man

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.

Image result for dr. connors amazing spider-man

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.

Related image

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.

Image result for amazing spider-man 2

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.

Image result for amazing spider man 2 sinister six

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!

Image result for tom holland andrew garfield spiderman

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. 

Image result for amazing spider-man peter and gwen


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.

Saturday, April 26, 2014

Comparing Spider-Man (2002) to The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)


So, with ‘The Amazing Spider-Man 2’ coming out, I was looking into what I could possibly do for a Spider-Man related post for this site in time for its release. But, I found that I didn’t really have much options seeing how I’ve already done full reviews for all four films back in 2012 when the first reboot came out. But I finally found an idea for a post based off of another post that my friend Matthew Goudreau had just done. So today, I’ll be doing something along the lines of the Nostalgia Critic’s ‘Old vs. New’ videos and will be comparing the first of Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man films, 2002’s ‘Spider-Man’, with Marc Webb’s ‘The Amazing Spider-Man’. Now this is something that I normally don’t do because when it comes to film franchises and their reboots, I feel that it’s a little unfair to compare a reboot to the original film because I think that it should be looked at as its own thing and that is certainly the case with the ‘Spider-Man’ reboot. Still, I thought it would be fun to do this as these two are actually my personal favorite entries in the Spider-Man film franchise. So let’s us begin…

BEST PETER PARKER

Winner: THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN


Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield did phenomenal jobs as Peter Parker, both of whom came off as being very sympathetic, charming, and likable. But if I had to choose which one of their performances I like the most, I prefer Garfield’s take more than Maguire’s. And I’ve heard a lot of people complain about how the character was portrayed in the reboot, not by Garfield’s performance but through the writing; how he is sort of stalking Gwen Stacy, how he treats Uncle Ben and Aunt May like crap, and how he doesn’t really do much to hide the fact that he has powers. Well, I view his behavior in this film in a different way… he’s being a teenager. Admit it folks, we’ve all been through that rebellious phase, haven’t we? That’s how I interpret Peter’s actions in this film. I mean, with the Raimi films, Peter graduates from High School right after Uncle Ben’s death so by that point I feel that he’s already matured past his rebellious phase, whereas the Peter in the reboot is still in High School so it’s understandable that he hasn’t really matured yet.

And as for the thing about him not really keeping his identity secret… well, this happened a few times in the first Raimi film too, so it’s not like this hasn’t happened before. Like remember when Peter accidentally launched a web at a lunch tray, something that apparently no one nearby actually saw? This is a case where both versions of Peter Parker haven’t done the best job of hiding their big secret. Now, I was still in High School at the time this film came out so I found myself relating more to Garfield’s Peter. But even now that I’m out of High School, I still find that Garfield’s Peter is a little more defined of a character. After all, the reboot has the advantage of adding in the plotline about Peter’s parents and we can certainly see how much of an impact their departure has had on him. The scene where he’s arguing with Uncle Ben and says “Where’s my father?” is pretty damn heartbreaking. So, while I do think Maguire did a great job in the Raimi trilogy, overall I feel that Andrew Garfield was the better Peter Parker… but there’s more to this role than just being a great Peter Parker.

BEST SPIDER-MAN

Winner: THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN


Again, just like with the last category, I do that Maguire was also great as Spider-Man, but this is a character that is known for being a very wisecracking superhero and I hate to say it, but I don’t think that Tobey Maguire really got that part of the character down that well in the Raimi films. A lot of his wisecracks (what few there were actually, now that I think about it) were rather mediocre. Plus, as we saw from ‘Spider-Man 3’, sometimes the humor got a little bit too goofy. Garfield, on the other hand, really got the wisecracking aspect of the character down perfectly and I’m not just talking about the scene where he’s dealing with the carjacker (“You found my weakness… it’s small knives!”). There were a few other instances of his wisecracking nature, like when he’s fighting the Lizard in the High School (“Someone’s been a bad Lizard!”). I just feel that he just made it work much better. Plus, as shown in the trailers for ‘Amazing Spider-Man 2’, it’s clear that Garfield is continuing to maintain that attitude (“I was cleaning the chimney…” “We have no chimney…” “What???”). So, overall, going back to what I said earlier, while I do like Maguire in the Raimi films, I feel that Garfield is the superior lead.

BEST VILLAIN

Winner: SPIDER-MAN (2002)


Rhys Ifans was really good as Curt Connors AKA ‘The Lizard’; he’s one of those villains who were actually a bit sympathetic given the whole situation with his goal of trying to regenerate limbs because he himself lost an arm. But, at the end of the day, you just can’t top Willem Dafoe’s performance as Norman Osborn AKA The Green Goblin in the first Raimi film. Sure, it’s incredibly over the top, but it’s just a very fun and entertaining performance and Dafoe really gets into the role. Plus, I do think that Dafoe’s role was better-written than Ifans mainly because there was apparently scenes cut that featured his family. This would have really helped when it came to making him a more sympathetic villain. It’s still there in the final film, but this would have helped convey that just a bit more. This is actually a rather close decision, but because of that material that ended up on the cutting room floor, Willem Dafoe as the Green Goblin is the better villain, not the best in the entire film franchise (see Doc Ock in ‘Spider-Man 2’ for that), but still a very entertaining one.

BEST LOVE INTEREST

Winner: THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN


There really isn’t any contest here. It’s nothing against Kirsten Dunst, as she did do a really good job as Mary Jane in the Raimi films. But as Gwen Stacy (a part that’s done much better here than in ‘Spider-Man 3’, I might add), Emma Stone was just the superior female lead in almost every way. She wasn’t just the ‘damsel in distress’; she was very charming and likable but also very smart. When New York is being infected with the Lizard’s chemicals, she helps develop the antidote for it. When the Lizard confronts her in Oscorp, she wards him off with fire. And when Peter tells her ‘he can’t see her anymore’, she immediately realizes that it was because her father made him promise to ‘keep her out of it’. Thank god this character turned out the way she did, not just through the writing but from Stone’s performance in the role. Of course, she also had terrific chemistry with Garfield, making them one of the best superhero film couples of all time whereas Maguire and Dunst’s chemistry was a bit forced at times. In fact, I’d say that her character, and performance, might just be the best aspect of the film.

BEST SUPPORTING CAST

Winner: THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN


Both films have terrific supporting casts, so this was a tough decision. The first film had Cliff Robertson, Rosemary Harris, James Franco, and of course, the man behind everyone’s favorite hot-headed publisher J. Jonah Jameson, J.K. Simmons. The reboot has another really great supporting cast; Martin Sheen, Sally Field, Ifans, and Denis Leary. So why do I prefer ‘Amazing Spider-Man’s supporting cast over the original? Well, I just like the characters in the reboot more, not just this version’s Peter and Gwen. I also liked some of the qualities of these interpretations of the characters when compared to the Raimi films. I liked how Sheen and Field’s versions of Uncle Ben and Aunt May were a bit more authoritative, which you really didn’t see from Robertson and Harris in the original film. Don’t worry, they’re still the loving surrogate parents, but I liked that they were a bit strict at times, and that’s because they care about Peter and they’re worried about him (we’ll get to a certain aspect of Uncle Ben’s role in both films in a bit). I also like that they gave George Stacy (Leary) a much more substantial role than he was given in ‘Spider-Man 3’; Leary had such a great presence in the role and when his character died, it really sucked. So again, this one was rather hard to pick, but because I prefer one movie’s characters more when compared to the other film, I have to go with the reboot’s cast.

BEST SCORE

Winner: SPIDER-MAN (2002)


Believe it or not, this was closer than you think; I actually think that James Horner’s score for the first ‘Amazing Spider-Man’ is actually a bit underrated. I really enjoy it, especially the two motifs that Horner did for the film. The first is a more somber tune that plays during the sadder parts of the film and the other is a very heroic melody that I feel really fits the character well as he swings through New York (both motifs are used to perfection in this track from the score: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze3HwnWWJ-s). But, let’s be honest, just like with Hans Zimmer’s music for the ‘Dark Knight Trilogy’, as good as it is, it just can’t beat the original which, in both cases, was done by Danny Elfman. Elfman also had a great motif that he used for the Raimi Spider-Man films and as much as I like the motifs from Horner’s score, Elfman’s motif, which I’ve heard is referred to as the ‘Responsibility’ theme (which is a pretty fitting name (here’s the link for those who may not be familiar with it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_pkajOdsIA)), is just straight-up iconic and I’ll admit that Elfman’s score was just a tad bit more memorable than Horner’s score, which as I said I do like, but in the end I have to go with Elfman’s score. You just can’t beat that motif.

BEST COSTUME

Winner: SPIDER-MAN (2002)


I’m not going to lie… I am not the biggest fan of the costume they gave Garfield for ‘The Amazing Spider-Man’. I mean, I don’t think it’s a bad costume, but there’s a certain part about it that I just can’t get over. When the first image of the costume, minus the mask, came out, I thought it looked really good. And then a pic of the suit with the mask was released on the internet… and I just couldn’t get over the eyes. I mean, I’m fine with having it look different than the costume from the Raimi trilogy, but I just couldn’t get over how the eyes looked on the costume. I can’t really explain why, but I just felt that it looked a little off when paired with the costume as a whole. So this round goes to the Raimi trilogy costume; I literally don’t have anything bad to say about it… it just looks terrific. Although I have to say, I really love the new look of the costume for ‘The Amazing Spider-Man 2’. Now that suit looks awesome. But, of course, I’m not comparing that version of the costume to the original film, so I’m still sticking with the Raimi version.

BEST PORTRAYAL OF UNCLE BEN’S DEATH

Winner: THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN


Now this is a pretty darn tough one as both death scenes were handled very well in both of these films, but in the end, I give the edge to ‘The Amazing Spider-Man’ mainly for the reason that we actually see it happen onscreen whereas in the original film, Uncle Ben was shot off-screen. I feel that this makes the reboot’s death a little more impactful especially considering that in this film, it happened while Uncle Ben was out looking for Peter and not only that, but he went out in a fairly heroic way, actually trying to stop the thief that ended up shooting him. Both scenes are real tear-jerkers and as they were followed up in both films, you can definitely see the guilt that Peter has about it, as he regrets how, in both movies, he was rather rude to Uncle Ben the last time he talked with him. I mean, maybe the one in the Raimi film is a bit more meaningful, but in the end, I found myself shedding more tears when Martin Sheen’s Uncle Ben died because I was more emotionally connected to the characters in the reboot and while Cliff Robertson was terrific in the first ‘Spider-Man’ film, I feel that Sheen’s take on the character felt more ‘fatherly’ in tone.

BEST PORTRAYAL OF ORIGIN STORY

Winner: SPIDER-MAN (2002)


Now this isn’t because the reboot, being a reboot of course, had to basically tell the same story again. I mean, in a way, I think that the reboot’s origin story is a bit more substantial given that it adds in the storyline of Peter’s parents and their sudden departure… too bad they don’t really delve into that much. For what was probably the biggest selling point of the actual marketing, they don’t really do much with it. From what I can tell, all that they do with is flash a newspaper article stating that they died in a plane crash and not much else after that. Just like with Dr. Connors and his family, it feels like this aspect of the story ended up getting cut in post-production. But like I said earlier, despite this not being very relevant within the film itself, you could still see the impact that their absence in Peter’s life has had on him which again is why I find Garfield’s Peter to be more sympathetic. You find yourselves wanting to know what happened to them just as much as he does. Ah well, hopefully we’ll see more of that in ‘The Amazing Spider-Man 2’. But, because this element of the origin apparently ended up being cut, I do have to give this point to the first Raimi film, as it really did handle the origin story really well from all aspects from Peter’s talk with Uncle Ben, where he says his famous line, ‘with great power comes great responsibility’, to Peter’s eventual decision to become a vigilante in memory of Uncle Ben. Still, for what it’s worth, the reboot at least did a good job at handling those aspects of the origin as well.

Ultimate Winner: THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN (5-4)



I loved ‘The Amazing Spider-Man’, and because of its rather rushed origins, I wasn’t really expecting to love it so much but I did. The big reason for this was that I really liked this film’s cast of characters more and I found myself really connected to them on an emotional level. I thought Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone were far superior leads compared to Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst, who for the record were both still really good, but I felt that Garfield’s Peter/Spidey was more relatable and sympathetic and Stone’s Gwen was the better female lead and not just a damsel in distress for Peter to rescue. Their chemistry was fantastic and they were both very likable in their respective roles. I also liked the supporting cast of the reboot more (even if they don’t have J.K. Simmons as Jameson) and felt that Uncle Ben’s death in the reboot was handled much better. Sure, this film will never escape the fact that it was a pretty rushed reboot. I mean, five years after the last Raimi film was just way too early to move on to a new franchise. But, in the end, I felt that ‘The Amazing Spider-Man’ truly was… Amazing! 

Sunday, October 20, 2013

Evil Dead series retrospective

With Halloween coming up in the next few weeks, I decided that it would be a good idea to do a retrospective on a horror franchise. However, I’ll admit that I’m not particularly a fan of horror films. Sure, I’ve seen some of these films, but not many and in that regard I haven’t really watched many horror franchises. In the end, it came down to doing one of two series; at first, I was considering doing a retrospective on the ‘Scream’ franchise, which was one of the few horror franchises where I actually did see every film in the series. But since the last ‘Scream’ film hit theaters two years ago, I decided to look at a franchise that had a more ‘recent’ film release; the ‘Evil Dead’ franchise. After all, its remake was released back in April and is now on Blu-Ray/DVD. Also, there are plans for a sequel to both the remake and the last ‘Evil Dead’ film, ‘Army of Darkness’, with further plans for a  crossover film after that. So, without further ado, it’s time to look back at the ‘Evil Dead’ franchise from the original trilogy to its recent remake.



THE EVIL DEAD (1981)

‘The Evil Dead’ served as the feature-length debut of director Sam Raimi (who has since gone on to direct the original ‘Spider-Man’ trilogy and ‘Oz the Great and Powerful’) and was made after Raimi attracted the interest of investors with a 1978 short film he made, ‘Within the Woods’. Filmed on a budget of around $400,000, the film was released in 1981 (the film was shot in 1979) and helped launched the careers of both Raimi and star Bruce Campbell. It has been more than 30 years since this film came out, and it still stands as one of the best horror films ever made. Sure, it was made on a low budget and to some extent some aspects of the film are pretty dated. Still, the movie is an effective horror film; it’s very suspenseful and utilizes its chilling atmosphere to the full effect. Bruce Campbell does a great job in the lead role of Ash and while the other characters are sort of more in line with the traditional characters we see in plenty of slasher films (though for the record, this is not a slasher film); the other four leads are good as well. While the following two films began to move away from horror, this one stands as a true horror film and as such, it’s a must-see in the horror genre.

Rating: 4/5



EVIL DEAD II: DEAD BY DAWN (1987)

After the success of the first Evil Dead, Raimi then began working on his next film, ‘Crimewave’. The film… didn’t turn out so well, but that was mainly due to studio interference, with Raimi being unable to cast Bruce Campbell in the lead role or even edit the film in post-production. So, in response to that and with their careers on the line, Raimi, Campbell, and producer Robert Tapert returned to the franchise that jumpstarted their careers with ‘Evil Dead II: Dead by Dawn’, one of the rare sequels that not only manages to be as good as its predecessor, but even better. That’s even more impressive when considering that the intro to this film pretty much redoes the whole first film again. The only difference here is that only two of the first film’s five characters return for this film and yet this film is not a remake of the original film.

So why is this film better than the first? For one thing, I actually consider this film to be scarier than the first film. The atmosphere and suspense is just as effective, but there’s just something about this film that makes it scarier, and I can’t explain why. But another thing that this film does very well is blending horror with comedy. My favorite moment is when Ash is forced to cut off his hand after it becomes possessed and the hand starts acting on its own, resulting in Ash trying to shoot it with a shotgun. Bruce Campbell goes through quite a lot in this movie (figuratively in the movie and also literally while filming it apparently) and once again, he and the supporting cast members are all great. You also have to appreciate the creativity present in this film, from the creature/set designs to the camera shots. That is why Evil Dead II is not just one of the best sequels ever, but one of the best horror movies ever made.

Rating: 5/5!



ARMY OF DARKNESS (1992)

When looking at the series as a whole, something that is clearly evident is a change in tone over the course of the original three films; we went from a straight-up horror film to a horror-comedy and then with the third film, it’s a whole different genre. ‘Army of Darkness’ is a mix of fantasy, adventure, and comedy with really little to no horror in the film at all. Because of this, some might consider this as ‘the black sheep’ of the franchise for not being an Evil Dead movie… but not me. In fact, this is my personal favorite film in the series. I guess that’s because I’m not really a big horror fan, meaning that this film appealed to me more. It’s incredibly entertaining, funny, and highly quotable. And now, here are some my favorite lines from the film:

“Well hello Mister Fancypants. Well, I've got news for you pal, you ain't leadin' but two things, right now: Jack and shit... and Jack left town.”

“Woah… Wrong book”

And of course, who can forget this classic…

“All right you primitive screwheads, listen up. You see this? This… is my BOOMSTICK!!!”

Those quotes come from good old Bruce Campbell, and really he’s the best part of this whole movie. The character of Ash has gone through quite a change over the course of these three films. In this film, he’s got an arrogant swagger that he didn’t really have in the last two films but yet he’s a doofus, forgetting the words (‘klaatu barada nikto’) that will help keep the dead from taking over. Sure, in the end, ‘Army of Darkness’ may not really be an ‘Evil Dead’ movie, but it’s still a great movie nevertheless and my personal favorite of the series.

Rating: 5/5!



EVIL DEAD (2013)


As far as horror remakes go, this new Evil Dead is one of the better remakes in recent years, but it still has some flaws. First off, the good; the writers actually give a legit reason as to why the main characters are going to an abandoned cabin in the woods, because the main character Mia is going through recovery from a drug addiction. Also, in this current age of horror remakes that utilize a lot of CGI, this film relies on practical effects, which look far better. But this new film suffers from a problem that a lot of current horror films have; it tries way too hard to ‘one-up’ its competition in terms of its violence to the point where it’s not scary anymore. Believe me, this film does succeed at doing that, but it lacks the humor and charm that Raimi’s films had, particularly the former. This is just a bleak film, not just because of the tone and atmosphere but because of the grisly violence which, like I said, is not really scary; it’s just disturbing. Also, character development is really lacking, aside from a pretty decent brother-sister relationship between the main two leads. The character of Natalie, David’s girlfriend, is completely unnecessary and could have been written out of the film altogether without having any real effect on the story. Jane Levy does a fantastic job in the lead role of Mia who, spoilers, basically serves as the ‘Ash’ of this ‘series’ (we’ll consider the Raimi trilogy and this new film as separate storylines for the moment). The rest of the cast is fine as well, but she is really the standout of the film and her performance is perhaps the best part of the whole thing. In the end, the new Evil Dead is not a bad film but it’s a flawed film. Still, to its credit, it does do some things right.

P.S. This film also has one of the worst post-credits scenes ever, which is even more disappointing when considering that Bruce Campbell returns as Ash for the scene.

Rating: 3.5/5

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Evil Dead (2013) review


Over the past few years, we have seen countless remakes of some of the most beloved horror films of all time, including Friday the 13th, Halloween, and Nightmare on Elm Street. Not only are most of these remakes clearly inferior to their predecessors, but a lot of them aren’t even necessary (but then again, pretty much every remake is unnecessary despite the few that are actually as good as the original). However, as sacrilegious as it may sound, there are some films that are worth remaking, like ‘The Evil Dead’, the 1981 horror classic which marked the debut of director Sam Raimi. This is mainly due to the fact that the original film is basically a low-budget B-movie and could benefit from a new reimagining. This new film, directed by Uruguayan film director Fede Alvarez, also has the distinction of being produced by not only Raimi, but also the original film’s star Bruce Campbell and series producer Robert Tapert. With that in mind, this new remake is one of the better horror remakes in recent memory. However, there are certain aspects of it that don’t really hold up when compared to the original.

Five friends; Mia (Jane Levy), her brother David (Shiloh Fernandez), Eric (Lou Taylor Pucci), Olivia (Jessica Lucas), and David’s girlfriend Natalie (Elizabeth Blackmore) head to a remote cabin in the woods in order to help Mia deal with a severe drug addiction. While there, they come across an old cellar, where they find a mysterious book titled ‘Naturom Demonto’. When Eric reads aloud a passage from the book, a demon is summoned and it immediately possesses Mia. When the group becomes stranded at the cabin because of a flood, the demon begins to possess each of them and they must now try to survive this demon as they are killed off one by one, until only one is left to defeat this menace.

The tagline for the poster referred to this movie as ‘the most terrifying movie you’ll ever experience’. That may seem like a little pompous, but believe it or not, the original ‘Evil Dead’ did the same thing too. This film does deliver on something else however; being a very bloody film. Like the original (which was actually rated NC-17), this film certainly does push the R rating. Also, in an age where a lot of horror films use CGI, this film mainly consists of practical effects, which is obviously much more effective than CG jump scares. The remake also does manage to distinguish itself from the original in terms of tone but that’s also its biggest flaw. The first ‘Evil Dead’, while still being a horror film, had an underlying comedic tone to it because of its ‘B-movie’ nature. This film is much more brutal but because of that, it falls victim to the problem that most horror films now have in that the filmmakers are trying to push the envelope in terms of violence and gore.


Aside from that, the characters aren’t really that interesting. There are some good ideas implemented into this movie, like the relationship between Mia and David and the whole scenario with Mia being a former drug addict (giving the characters a good reason for actually going to an old cabin in the woods instead of just going there to party), but like a lot of horror films, the characters do a lot of stupid things, and the character of Natalie is quite pointless (I’m guessing this is supposed to resemble the original film because Ash had a girlfriend, but it’s not the same here). Even Eric, who is probably the only one of the five to notice when things start to go wrong, is responsible for the whole mess happening in the first place. But while the characters are a little flat, the acting is solid all-around, especially from Jane Levy (who, SPOILERS, is pretty much the ‘Ash’ of the film) and Lou Taylor Pucci.

In the end, this new ‘Evil Dead’ is a bit of a mixed bag because there are both good and bad things in this movie. The acting is solid, the film succeeds at producing scares with the use of practical effects, and it manages to distinguish itself from ‘The Evil Dead’. However, it lacks the underlying humor of the original film and while there are some good ideas in regard to character development, some of the characters in this film aren’t that interesting. It ends up falling victim to one of the problems plaguing a lot of horror films today by trying to outdo its competition in terms of violence. To its credit, it’s one of the better horror remakes in recent memory because of its positives, but the negatives keep it from being as good as the original. But, to be fair, I would be interested in seeing how this ‘remake’ series will continue, seeing how it’s actually supposed to be set in the same universe as the original films and Alvarez and Raimi are planning sequels to their most recent entries in the series. Just make sure that you guys do something better than the crappy post-credits scene in this movie, where Bruce Campbell (as Ash, of course) appears, says ‘groovy’, and turns to the camera. That's it.
 
Rating: 3.5/5

Sunday, March 10, 2013

Oz The Great and Powerful (2013) review


We all know the classic that is 'The Wizard of Oz', the 1939 masterpiece starring Judy Garland as Dorothy Gale, a young farm girl who is whisked away to the magical world of Oz by way of a tornado. There have actually been multiple adaptations of author L. Frank Baum's 'Wizard of Oz' series. In fact, there were 10 other adaptations that came out before the one we all know and love and there were many more after that. In 1985, Disney made a 'sequel', 'Return to Oz'. While the film was neither a critical or box office hit, it has since gotten a cult following due to its much darker tone. Now, Disney is back with another 'Oz' film, 'Oz: The Great and Powerful', a prequel focusing on the Wizard of Oz and directed by Sam Raimi. Does Raimi's take on the story succeed? Yes, it does. Not to sound cliché here, but 'Oz the Great and Powerful' is really a great movie, with terrific visuals, a superb cast, and a well-written story.



In Kansas, a magician in a traveling circus named Oscar Diggs (James Franco) dreams of becoming a great man like Thomas Edison or Harry Houdini, even though he's really nothing more than a womanizing con-man. One day, as Oscar escapes from an angry circus performer via hot air balloon, he is caught in a tornado and winds up in the magical land of Oz. There, he learns that the people of Oz have been waiting for a 'Great and Powerful' wizard who will save them from the evil of the Wicked Witch. Oscar takes up the job, despite the fact that he's not exactly the Wizard Oz has been waiting for, and soon gets caught up in a conflict amongst the three witches of the land; Glinda (Michelle Williams), Theodora (Mila Kunis), and Evanora (Rachel Weisz). Not only must Oscar prove to them that he truly is 'the Wizard', but he must also prove it to himself as well.


In terms of visuals, 'Oz The Great and Powerful' is one of the best looking films I've ever seen. Out of all of Disney's recent $200 million March releases, this is miles better above the rather dark and grim lands in 'Alice in Wonderland' and the bland Mars landscapes in 'John Carter'. This is also one of those rare instances where it is worth it to see the film in 3-D, as the world of Oz is a visual treat for the eyes. But visuals aren't everything; what about the story? Well, the writing is actually really solid, most notable in the portrayal of 'the Wizard'. He has a solid story arc, as he changes from the womanizing con-man, who's also kind of a jerk, that he was at the beginning of the film to the kind and noble 'Great and Powerful Wizard of Oz'. Even by prequel standards, Raimi doesn't go the cheap route and instead makes subtle nods to the original film which work out much better than some other prequels.



There's also not a single bad performance from anyone in this film. Even those who some were saying gave the movie a 'high-school' vibe, namely James Franco and Mila Kunis, did really good jobs. Admittedly, Kunis probably is the weakest link out of the whole cast, but that's more when her character Theodora transforms into a certain character (one that the internet already spoiled but I won't do the same here) but she still does a great job. Franco also does a great job as 'the Wizard' and does bring the right attitude for the role of Oscar. The two standouts here would have to be Rachel Weisz, who's clearly having a lot of fun in the role of bad girl Evanora, and Michelle Williams, who perfectly captures the sweet and kind personality of Glinda. Finally, we also have solid performances from two of the side characters; Zach Braff as Finley the flying monkey, who gets some of the best lines, and Joey King as the China Girl, who's just cute as a button.



So, in the end, is 'Oz the Great and Powerful' as great as the original 1939 film? Probably not, but do I even need to explain how much of a classic that film was because I'm pretty sure we all know that by now. For what it's worth, Sam Raimi delivers what is easily the best Oz film since that film. Even amidst the breathtaking visuals, the story is still solid, the cast is terrific, and Raimi doesn't cop out when it comes to the film being a 'prequel' to the original film. It's also one of those rare films where it is worth the extra money to see it in 3-D because Raimi utilizes it much greater than most films that are just converted to 3-D in post-production just because studios want to make more money. Critics have been rather split on this film, but as for me, this is the first film this year that I highly recommend because in all aspects, it is a well-made film.
 
Rating: 5/5!

Saturday, March 2, 2013

2013 Preview: March

Welcome back to the year-long preview into the many films that are set to come out in 2013. This is Part 3 of 12 and today we'll be looking at the schedule for films in the month of March, which from the looks of it seems to be the first big month of the year after two rather slow months in regards to the films that have come out so far.


*The first weekend of the month sees four new releases hitting theaters on March 1st. The first is a comedy film, '21 and Over', which is written and directed by Jon Lucas and Scott Moore, the writing team behind 'The Hangover'. The film follows three friends who go out for the 21st birthday of one of them, a straight-A student, on the night before an important school interview. Chaos ensues.


*Also coming out that weekend is 'Jack the Giant Slayer', the latest film from X-Men/X2 director Bryan Singer, and his first since 2008's 'Valkyrie'. The film is also one of the many delayed films of the year, as it was pushed back from an original June 2012 release date in order to have more time for post-production and marketing. Nicholas Hoult stars as Jack, a farmhand who accidentally opens a gateway from the human world to a world occupied by giants. Eleanor Tomlinson, Stanley Tucci, and Ewan McGregor co-star.



*In 'Stoker', which is notably the last film made by filmmaker Tony Scott before his death in August of 2012 (the film is also produced by his brother Ridley through their production company, Scott Free), a young girl named India (played by Mia Wasikowska) and her mother (Nicole Kidman) both become drawn to India's uncle Charlie (Matthew Goode) following the death of her father.



*The final release on March 1st is 'The Last Exorcism: Part II', the sequel to the 2010 film 'The Last Exorcism'. Unlike the first film, it is not presented in a found-footage format. Ashley Bell reprises her role of Nell Sweetzer, the daughter of a farmer who was possessed by a demon in the previous film. As she begins to start a new life, the demon returns.


*A pair of films hit theaters on March 8th. The first, 'Dead Man Down', is the latest film from director Niels Arden Oplev, the director of the original adaptation of 'The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo' (before David Fincher's 2011 American version). Colin Farrell stars as an enforcer named Victor, who works for a crime boss (played by Terrence Howard) who was responsible for the deaths of his wife and daughter. As Victor seeks revenge, he is blackmailed into helping a woman named Beatrice (Noomi Rapace (also from the original 'Girl with the Dragon Tattoo')), who also seeks revenge against his boss.


*The other major film that weekend is 'Oz: The Great and Powerful', the latest adaptation of author L. Frank Baum's 'The Wizard of Oz' series. This new film, directed by Sam Raimi, follows the man who will eventually become the famous 'Wizard of Oz', a small-time circus magician named Oscar Diggs from Kansas (James Franco) who is whisked away to the land of Oz where everyone has been waiting for a great wizard who will set things right. Michelle Williams, Mila Kunis, and Rachel Weisz co-star as the three witches Glinda, Theodora, and Evanora.


*The first of two new releases for the weekend of March 15th is 'The Call', a thriller film produced by WWE Studios. Halle Berry stars as a 911 operator who must work to save a girl from a killer. For the wrestling fans, wrestler David Otunga stars in the film.



*Also debuting that weekend is 'The Incredible Burt Wonderstone', a comedy starring Steve Carell as the titular Burt Wonderstone, a successful magician who must reunite with his former partner (played by Steve Buscemi) when an up and coming street magician (Jim Carrey) looks to steal his thunder. Alan Arkin and Olivia Wilde co-star.



*Another crowd of films hit theaters on the 22nd. 'Olympus Has Fallen', directed by Antoine Fuqua ('Training Day') is one of two movies coming out this year based in the White House (the other being 'White House Down', directed by Roland Emmerich). In this film, Gerald Butler stars as a secret service agent who must rely on his inside knowledge to help retake the White House when terrorists take it over. Aaron Eckhart stars as the President while Morgan Freeman, Melissa Leo, and Angela Bassett co-star.



*In 'Spring Breakers', four friends (Selena Gomez, Vanessa Hudgens, Ashley Benson, and Rachel Korine) rob a restaurant in order to finance a trip to Florida during Spring Break. When they are arrested, they are bailed out by a drug dealer named Alien (played by James Franco) who hires them to do some of his dirty work.


*The final release of the week is Dreamworks Animation's first project of the year, 'The Croods'. The film follows a prehistoric family who are forced to leave their home and go out into the dangerous world to find a new one. Nicolas Cage stars as the patriarch of the family and Emma Stone plays his eldest daughter. Ryan Reynolds, Catherine Keener, and Clark Duke co-star. The film is co-directed by Chris Sanders, who created Disney's Lilo and Stitch and Dreamworks' How to Train Your Dragon.



*Four films close out the month on the 29th. The first, 'G.I. Joe Retaliation', is the sequel to 2009's 'The Rise of Cobra'. As I've mentioned before, out of all the delayed films of 2013, this one is probably the most intriguing to talk about. Originally scheduled for a June 2012 release, the film was pushed back nine months to its current release date. While the official report has stated this delay was done in order to post-convert the film to 3-D, there are other reports saying that the real reason was for re-shoots to give more screen time to Channing Tatum, whose character Duke was apparently killed off in an earlier cut.


*In the wake of the Twilight series comes 'The Host', also written by Twilight's Stephanie Meyer. In the film, aliens called 'souls' invade Earth and begin to inhabit the minds of humans. Saoirse Ronan stars as Melanie Stryder, who is one of the humans whose mind is taken over by one of these 'souls'. The film is directed by Andrew Niccol (Gattaca).



*'Temptation: Confessions of a Marriage Counselor' is the latest film from director Tyler Perry based off of his play of the same name. In the film, a marriage counselor falls in love with one of her patients after being neglected by her husband.



*'The Place Beyond the Pines' reunites director Derek Cianfrance with star Ryan Gosling after they previously collaborated on the 2010 drama 'Blue Valentine'. Gosling plays a motorcycle stunt rider who turns to a life of crime in order to support his family. Bradley Cooper plays the cop that Gosling's character comes into conflict with.

And that's the lineup of films for March 2013. Check back in next month for Part 4.