The Amazing Spider-Man 2.

Review #2206: The Amazing Spider-Man 2.

Cast: 

Andrew Garfield (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Emma Stone (Gwen Stacy), Jamie Foxx (Max Dillon / Electro), Dane DeHaan (Harry Osborn / Green Goblin), Campbell Scott (Richard Parker), Embeth Davidtz (Mary Parker), Colm Feore (Donald Menken), Paul Giamatti (Aleksei Sytsevich / Rhino), Sally Field (May Parker), and Felicity Jones (Felicia) Directed by Marc Webb (#1780 - The Amazing Spider-Man)

Review: 

Okay, so maybe The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) had a few admirers for its ideas on the character (as originally devised by writer-editor Stan Lee and artist Steve Ditko for comic books). It was self-serious in a way that surely seemed distinct from those other Spider-Man movies from the first decade of the 20th century, well, as much as one can be when having a villain be someone named The Lizard. A sequel was pretty much right on the get go, complete with Webb returning to direct. This time, the screenplay was done by Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci and Jeff Pinkner, who had been hired to do a re-write of the first draft that had been done by James Vanderbilt (as such, each were credited for the story). Plans to set up further films by Sony to basically set up their shared universe involving Spider-Man related things such as, say the "Sinister Six" or Venom were in mind prior to the release of this film in May of 2014. The film was made at a budget that is probably more than the reported $290 million that attracted slightly fewer people to the theater than the last film (read: money, but money...).; amusingly, X-Men: Days of Future Past came out three weeks after this film (good lord, I actually remember seeing it in theaters) as a film made in the shadow of previous franchise films that hinted at the idea of a follow-up film to a different type of result. Of course, any plans with further Spider-Man films with Garfield as the star all went away in a flash in the span of roughly a year to where the next appearance of Spider-Man came with Captain America: Civil War (2016) and blah blah blah, you probably already know about Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021) and the return of certain folks with different costuming.  

Admittedly, there are a few elements worth appreciating, because even the lesser films had something useful to watch in the main lead, and Garfield does manage to carve out something worth watching for a film that is now a decade old. The charm exhibited between him and Stone is star-crossed enough to make the resolution something worth exploring in its impact in a sequel (in theory). They have useful chemistry together, even if some could have the caveat of "nice romcom, but this is a Spider-Man movie" right then and there. A good chunk of the movie is "in theory" when you send a few compliments its way, but there is no truly terrible aspect on the level of say, Blade: Trinity (2004). The action generally works out for those expectations one could hope for in a mid 2010s film that was at least trying to provide some sizzle alongside a moderate steak. And then you get to the film itself and realize that some movies just don't know when to stop. The first film may have been a bit lacking in its attempts to differentiate itself from a previous acclaimed trilogy, but it at least didn't have the gall to throw everything at the wall with a smirk on its face. Here I just find watching a competition of whether one can call it a poor man's Batman Returns (1992) or Batman Forever (1995) that was made by people who really thought they could get away with making a bloated sequel that could also set up something called "The Sinister Six" rather than picking one villain and sticking with it. Did the world really need bits and pieces of a "how did the Parkers die conspiracy"? I think they needed it about as much as they needed a blue Electro. If Spider-Man 3 (2007) was the byproduct of a studio wanting just a bit too much for their superhero sequel, Amazing Spider-Man 2 is the one that says, "hold my beer" and then some (this is a movie that casts B.J. Novak for a bit role that I guess is actually a "thing" in certain comics that for a film is about as interesting as the end of this sentence). Either have an Electro or have the weirdness of a man infused with the mode of a goblin, you really should pick one regardless of if it is a sequel or not (to say nothing of the attempt at setting up a bigger future threat in Giamatti and an "accent" that is completely unnecessary). It is bloated and average in all the frustrating ways possible, somehow being even more self-serious than the first one. 

I barely read any kind of comics, but I vaguely remember looking over a cheap reprint of a Spider-Man comic with Electro in it that had him in a green and yellow outfit that looked about on par for the 1960s that thought it would be cool to do crime when he got struck by lightning on a power line. Obviously one can see that the blue present here had inspiration from less older renditions of Electro, but I imagine that having a blue look also helps when it comes to making spectacle filmmaking. They really thought they were cooking with this character, but all they managed to do was cook up a really amusing look to go with characterization that absolutely cannot hold water with Foxx there to try and play a "nobody turned into a somebody". Of course, it probably isn't nearly as clunky as trying to set a fast one in having Garfield and DeHaan look like old reunited buddies prior to tragedy, which really seems to come off as if one was watching part three of a five part plan that actually is being held up by duct tape. His stuff seems almost studio note'd away with the parts that actually seem like a descent into madness (with the transformation sequence anyway). Field described in an interview after the release as one with troubles when it came to depth as if trying to put "10 pounds of [expletive] in a five-pound bag". This is a pretty accurate way to describe her characterization in terms of having exactly one remotely interesting scene (involving her and Garfield sitting and talking about one's parent). Hell, by the second film of the Rosemary Harris version of Aunt May, it had her finishing prayers to annoying goblins and seeing bank robberies up close. All you get with Field and her characterization is, um, being a nursing student to help with bills that get the sidelines because hey, got to get all this other stuff in about a secret abandoned station or ghost Denis Leary showing up at the most, um, interesting times. It is entirely possible that if you combined the amount of screentime of Scott/Davidtz between the two films as the Parker parents, you might actually finish neck and neck with Field, and only one had the distinct pleasure of being in the start of a film for some reason (the answer for that probably has something to do with the reasoning for wanting to ask exactly who asked about who the Parkers were to an audience that still has "with great power comes great responsibility" stuck in their head). When it comes to comparing bloated movies like say, a Pirates sequel to this, that one has it beat because it at least looks like it is having fun doing things. In general, this is a muddled movie that is all "in theory" - the chemistry of Garfield and Stone work in bits and pieces for a movie that is bloated with too many villains and not nearly enough structure to hold it up beyond the bare minimum of average. There are good comic book movies and bad ones, and this one (ten years standing) achieves the goal of straight average disappointment. 

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Army of Darkness.

Review #2141: Army of Darkness.

Cast: 

Bruce Campbell (Ash Williams / "Evil Ash"), Embeth Davidtz (Sheila), Marcus Gilbert (Lord Arthur), Ian Abercrombie (Wise Man), Richard Grove (Duke Henry the Red), Timothy Patrick Quill (Blacksmith), Michael Earl Reid (Gold Tooth), Bridget Fonda (Linda), Bill Moseley (Deadite captain), Patricia Tallman (Possessed witch), and Ted Raimi (Cowardly warrior/Second supportive villager/Anthony, the S-Mart clerk/Skeleton voices) Directed by Sam Raimi (#611 - Spider-Man, #1296 - The Evil Dead, #1483 - Evil Dead II, #1495 - Darkman, #1695 - Spider-Man 2, and #1779 - Spider-Man 3, and #1840 - Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness)

Review: 

Sure, it is easy to say that the third film of a series just can't compare to the first two films. And you would be right in a variety of those scenarios, even with something as curious as the Evil Dead series, which retained the same director in Sam Raimi and lead presence in Bruce Campbell for each of them that had a sense of evolution from film to film. The gory mayhem of the original film (1981) that was shot for a low budget in a cabin in Tennessee, combined with the efforts of producer Irvin Shapiro, resulted in a cult classic. Six years later, Evil Dead II, basically a "re-quel", came under the hands of Dino De Laurentiis to a cult hit that may or may not be better than the previous film within its comedy-horror aspects. Now, in 1992, here we have a medieval-themed film that actually was proposed and rejected for the second film due to cost. There were various influences that came into the script as done by Sam and Ivan Raimi, such as A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court and Jason and the Argonauts. The film was made in a deal that saw De Laurentiis fund the film while Universal Pictures serve as distributor.  This is the kind of film that somehow has more than two versions: the original theatrical cut runs at 81 minutes (those studio yokels actually thought they could get a cut for PG-13 and failed anyway), while Raimi's preferred version, with the original intended ending, runs at 96. Other versions were done to go with International audiences and television viewers that each went 88 minutes. The four-disc Blu-ray I purchased included three of these versions, but I went with the director's cut for the sole reason that edits are no fun. A "re-imagining" feature of the series that shared the name of the original came out in 2013 before a continuation series of the third film came out with Ash vs. Evil Dead in 2015.

Sure, it's easy to say that the first two films shine more than this one when it comes to horror. But so what? I actually found this one to be a pretty good movie on its own goal of injecting action comedy into the mix to make a distinct venture that is quite entertaining. We are talking about a film following the lead of the last one in a lead character who had a chainsaw for a right hand, nothing surprises me here. Why would I be mad that the film goes in its own direction with Ash when it is evident the filmmakers want to go this way? (okay, maybe the theatrical cut might not have been coherently focused but screw the editor). This is basically the Return of the Jedi of the series, are you surprised by this? Of course, it's such a funny time with this oddball lead character that has to run the gamut of growth as a hero even when confronting the horrors of being stuck in the Dark Ages (with Deadites and other odd things, no less). When it comes to quips and goofy humor, I think Campbell handles it with good gusto that is interesting for those who like some slapstick humor. The lines of parody and spectacle are enjoyable in his hands because, well, that is what I am here for, particularly with the little Ashes sequence. Having to do cues and fight beings that would be added in as stop motion is no small feat. The other actors play it mostly to form (you've got some Deadite goofiness, of course), but again, the films are lifted mostly with Campbell up there first. If one is to go out with a bang, going out with stop motion and gusto is ideal. Personally, I'm fine with either ending of the film (after checking the obvious choice of the director's cut, I looked over the other disc for a moment). You either get a darkly amusing punchline or a heroically amusing punchline, it really is up to you. As a whole, the last two Evil Dead films are like sides of the same coin in horror misery that would've made it hard for any follow-up to top, but Army of Darkness, now with the passage of time and the availability of a director's cut, proves that even a third-best effort can still be a really good time anyway.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

This ends Halloween The Week After, Year Five. Over the course of October 1 to today, a grand total of 48 horror films (and one other exception) were covered by Movie Night. It only seemed funny to close November 7th the same way that I ended the first of the Week Afters with an Evil Dead film, much in the same way that a Ring film has been there the last three years. There were a handful of films that just missed the cut for timing or other reasons, such as: I Know What You Did Last Summer, The Return of the Vampire, Trog, The Old Dark House (1963), Color Out of Space, The Student of Prague (1926), The Monster, Quartermass 2, Frankenstein 1970, Misery, Beau is Afraid, The Fog, The Fly II, you get the idea. Next year probably won't be all-out like this year, but one never knows where the Month of Horror takes you. Now then, onto other things.

The Amazing Spider-Man.

Review #1780: The Amazing Spider-Man.

Cast: 

Andrew Garfield (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Emma Stone (Gwen Stacy), Rhys Ifans (Dr. Curt Connors / The Lizard), Irrfan Khan (Rajit Ratha), Denis Leary (Captain George Stacy), Martin Sheen (Uncle Ben), Sally Field (Aunt May Parker), Campbell Scott (Richard Parker), Embeth Davidtz (Mary Parker), Chris Zylka (Flash Thompson), Embeth Davidtz (Mary Parker), C. Thomas Howell (Jack's Father), Jake Keiffer (Jack), Kari Coleman (Helen Stacy) Directed by Marc Webb.

Review: 

"I wanted it to be more grounded and more realistic and that went for the emotion of the scenes, the physical action and wardrobe. It's less based in Steve Ditko world and probably closer visually and more influenced by "Ultimate Spider-Man" but it is also very much a world of our own devising."

Did you know that five years passed between Spider-Man 3 (2007) and this film? Well, I guess I should be surprised, but I really am not. Honestly, it is weird that I finally got around to this film just before it turned ten years old, and yet here we are nearing six decades since the creation of the comic book character. Admittedly, it made sense to try to re-invent a new interpretation of the comic book character. After all, this is the first one to feature artificial web-shooters (like in the comics), and it follows the tradition of casting lead actors playing "teenaged" superheroes while nearly pushing 30 years old. The film was written by James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent and Steve Kloves (you would recognize the middle name as the writer of last two Spider-Man films). At the helm to direct was Marc Webb, best known for his debut feature in 500 Days of Summer (2009), and he would do the subsequent sequel two years later.  I suppose we've gone from "dorky" Peter to "outcast" Peter, complete with a full-fledged dive into the high school experiences of the friendly neighborhood Spider-Man and the perceived mysteries of his parents (for which some of this is taken from the Ultimate Spider-Man comics, which had begun in 2000).

It isn't a bad thing to be a mediocre movie, but it is a weird thing to make a mediocre superhero movie that basically serves as a retread of the 2002 Spider-Man that to me suffers the distinct quality of self-serious sickness. Maybe each film reflects the growing trend of the decade they were made in, but I found it to be a movie that is practically straining to pull off its tricks (new and old) that only succeeds in making the average comic book movie "amazingly" average because I only care to a certain point about the attempts at a "darker" interpretation of this hero. The memory of the old films lingers hard here, and it is confounding that it never manages to even rise above Spider-Man 3 despite having less clutter when it comes to villain composition or storylines (although with a 136-minute run-time, at least it isn't quite as long as it could be). Really if you think about it, the best way to keep the ball rolling with superhero films when changing actors might as well just follow the James Bond route and just roll with things with whatever mood you want to go with (such as going from A View to a Kill (1985) with The Living Daylights (1987), if you get my drift). Heaven knows one doesn't need another sequence of a bunch of New Yorkers rising up and helping Spider-Man.

Garfield, at the very least, makes a definable mark on the lead role that shows a touch of angst to go with loneliness and cockiness that shows the potential in a vulnerable hero. For the most part it works out, with likely the most interesting scene being one where he says just what his name is when saving a kid on a bridge (see, not every moment a masked hero taking off his mask is eye-rolling). Granted, the quips might take time to get used to, but at least he seems comfortable with the role and all that comes with having to follow the tradition of pretend-normal high schooler. Stone basically weaves her way through a role that would have weighed down a lesser actress (i.e., this could have been a role of mush). Regardless of if one knows the character or not, she makes it work with plenty of patience and charm that results in palatable chemistry with Garfield (your milage may vary, of course). In theory, the Lizard is an interesting villain to put on screen (the character, not the alter-ego, was in the last two films). However, he only is interesting when it is Ifans on screen as himself, not so much when he is turned into that CG render that looks like a silly slug. Sure, trying to strive for perfection without weakness can be interesting to ponder for a villain, but seeing it come out of a slug makes it hard to reconcile with the urge to snicker. Think about it: you have a guy going around as a lizard that at one point comes out of the toilet of a high school right before he delves into a plan about spreading gas around to turn people into lizards (well, "reptilian" would also be a suitable word to use, but either word is still funny to say out-loud).

The strangest thing is that the weak link among the supporting cast is Field (Khan doesn't count, since he is more a victim of the "comes-and-goes" box). She has admitted to not particularly enjoying the role, doing it more as a favor (specifically to friend and producer Laura Ziskin) that described it as one that you "can't put ten pounds of shit in a five-pound bag." (as quoted in 2016, which I guess applies to both features). Again, not to beat the dead horse of "the previous movies", but the role-from-five-years-ago had a bit more to really do when it comes to interacting with the lead character. Here, she pretty much has a handful of sentences that don't go anywhere that Rosemary Harris had done three films ago. Sheen is engaging for what is needed in patience (basically saying that quote about responsibility and power without having to just say it). There is probably something to be said about featuring Scott and Davidtz in its opening that seemed to hint at something "mysterious" when it comes to the parents of Spider-Man, but I'll be damned if I can give one single iota about it. Leary breezes through cliches with strange ease (one doesn't try to picture him suddenly break out into "standup", at least). As a whole, the movie is the equivalent of taking a few years off between going on an amusement park ride: sure, maybe something is different, but in the end it is just familiar motions to varying effect. There are certain times when the effects for showing the web-slinging ride can work out to interesting effect (no points for wondering how it looked in 3D), and the action sequences are decent for what is needed, which means that Webb basically managed to make a safe film that does the minimum and doesn't stumble. In that sense, that is probably the best endorsement one can make for a curious viewer.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Schindler's List.

Review #351: Schindler's List.

Cast
Liam Neeson (Oskar Schindler), Ben Kingsley (Itzhak Stern), Ralph Fiennes (Amon Göth), Caroline Goodall (Emilie Schindler), Jonathan Sagall (Poldek Pfefferberg), Embeth Davidtz (Helen Hirsch), Małgorzata Gebel (Wiktoria Klonowska), Mark Ivanir (Marcel Goldberg), Beatrice Macola (Ingrid), Andrzej Seweryn (Julian Scherner), Friedrich von Thun (Rolf Czurda), and Jerzy Nowak (Investor) Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168 - Raiders of the Lost Ark, #169 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, #170 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, and #302 - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull)

Review
This is a polarizing film. This is a film that blends into any time period, managing to have shock and horror, but not disgusting you to the point of leaving. It keeps you in, managing to work for all with Spielberg obviously wanting to do this project, and to do it right, and for good reason. Films usually don't always touch us, some are for entertainment, some are for art, some are for others, but this is for many, many people, as a tribute, which works to the film and to the people. It is a reminder, it is a sad tale, with the black and white working especially well. The acting is good, especially from Neeson, who manages to leave an impact on you. It's been twenty years since this film, and even so it still works very well. It is what most call a masterpiece.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Matilda.

Review #179: Matilda.

Cast
Mara Wilson (Matilda Wormwood), Danny DeVito (Harry Wormwood/Narrator), Rhea Perlman (Zinnia Wormwood), Embeth Davidtz (Miss Honey), Pam Ferris (Agatha Trunchbull), Brian Levinson (Michael Wormwood), Paul Reubens (FBI Agent Bob), Tracey Walter (FBI Agent Bill), Kiami Davael (Lavender), and Jacqueline Steiger (Amanda Thripp) Directed by Danny DeVito.

Review
This film was based of the book Matilda by Roald Dahl, who we have covered before (#131 - Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory). Anyway, this film is has some changes to the film from the book, but what book to film doesn't have these problems? The acting is decent, especially from Wilson, Ferris, and DeVito. Speaking of him, the directing is decent, but what I find a bit odd is the occasional close up shots. They only work if you have something to show, these are just plain weird by any standards. The film has charm that while being a bit off at points is still an entertaining film.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.