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.

Life of Pi.

Review #1564: Life of Pi.

Cast:
Suraj Sharma, Irrfan Khan, Ayush Tandon & Gautam Belur (Piscine "Pi" Patel - age 16-17, adult, age 11-12, age 5), Rafe Spall (The Writer), Tabu (Gita Patel), Adil Hussain (Santosh Patel), Ayaan Khan, Mohamed Abbas Khaleeli & Vibish Sivakumar (Ravi Patel - age 7, 13-14, and 18-19), Gérard Depardieu (The Cook), Wang Po-chieh (Sailor), Jag Huang (Sailor), Andrea Di Stefano (The Priest), Shravanthi Sainath & Mythili Prakash (Anandi - age 17 and adult), and Raj Patel (Ravi) Directed by Ang Lee (#1525 - Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon)

Review:
"I thought this was a pretty impossible movie to make technically. It's so expensive for what it is. You sort of have to disguise a philosophical book as an adventure story. I thought of 3-D half a year before 'Avatar' was on the screen. I thought water, with its transparency and reflection, the way it comes out to you in 3-D, would create a new theatrical experience and maybe the audience or the studio would open up their minds a little bit to accept something different."

This is the 12th feature film of Ang Lee, who certainly could be found doing distinct experiences that captivate an audience with distinct layers, whether that involved his Taiwanese "Father Knows Best" trilogy or the wuxia classic Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000) or varying levels of Hollywood filmmaking in dramas like Brokeback Mountain (2005) or Lust, Caution (2007), with this also happening to serve as an adaptation of a previous work. This is based on the 2001 novel of the same name by Yann Martel (a Canadian author of French Canadian descent), one that he stated was important in finding direction in his life (which he once described as equally being not finite like pi) that dealt with faith within a tale involving man and tiger together on a lifeboat for several months together; David Magee served as the writer to bring the novel onto the screen. There had been plans to develop the novel into a feature for nearly a decade, with directors such as M. Night Shyamalan and Jean-Pierre Jeunet thought at separate times to direct the film before Lee was brought in to do the film, and he found it suitable to direct the film in 3-D with the fact that most of it would take place in water that could help in reaching audiences by disguising philosophy into an adventure story. The effects sure help in that regard, in the sense that one could probably believe there really was a tiger on a boat with someone in the ocean (imagine the film in any different time and there might be a big pane of glass between them), complete with a big water tank on a soundstage. Rhythm & Hues Studios (R&H) surely did a well-done achievement for themselves and certain members of their crew, although an Academy Award for Best Visual Effects did not help the crew from being let go when the company filed for bankruptcy after the release of the film (as is the case with such competition around the world for generating visual effects for films that desire it).

At any rate, I was fine with the film. It isn't too much of a shaggy tiger story, mostly because it does try to make a case for itself in inspiration with the human spirit in devotion beyond oneself, storytelling, and beyond. Whether the film achieves that is up to the viewer in how much ultimately resonates with them in the end, particularly with its last little turn of the screw after the climax involving the story as a whole (ambiguity can only go so far when we are talking man vs. nature). There are three distinct parts of the film that work differently in effectiveness in building itself to usefulness within something wrangled in spectacle and thoughts about what makes a person who they are in nature with belief and survival. To some it could provide a building block towards understanding said beliefs and the will of higher power, while others might just see it as Cast Away (2000) on the sea. At least there isn't a sense of preening on the pulpit to the choir because one could wonder themselves about how they would be when faced with immeasurable tests of oneself or when faced with the company of the wilderness - this is likely the most strange time in life to think about a film that makes you face the facts of life with only yourself to reflect upon for 127 minutes, really. One starts with the initial set-up duo between distinguished Hindi/British/American cinema presence in Khan, who is useful for what is needed in careful story settling to go with a useful bounce-off man in curiosity - in other words, good folks to follow with storytelling. Sharma proves dutiful as the man for oneself, generating interest in self-growth and curiosity in solitude with a tank of water and surrounding effects that runs the gamut in fear and search for enrichment that is worthwhile for those who follow into it. Others do fine in small presence, such as with Tabu and Hussain in useful parental influences. In any case, the star of the show is what the effects can provide with intrigue to go with a mostly effective story in finding one's persistence in spirit for life that works for those who enjoy said goals without finding it overextended or vague in its lasting words about deciding between reality and what is not in terms of truth, perception and belief that Martel found suitable that makes this a fair achievement in Lee's career.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Slumdog Millionaire.

Review #1547: Slumdog Millionaire.

Cast: 
Dev Patel (Jamal Malik), Freida Pinto (Latika), Madhur Mittal (Salim K. Malik), Anil Kapoor (Prem Kumar), Irrfan Khan (Police Inspector), Saurabh Shukla (Police Constable Srinivas), Mahesh Manjrekar (Javed Khan), Ankur Vikal (Maman), with Ayush Mahesh Khedekar and Tanay Chheda (child and teenage Jamal), Rubina Ali and Tanvi Ganesh Lonkar (child and teenage Latika), Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail and Ashutosh Lobo Gajiwala (child and teenage Salim). Directed by Danny Boyle.

Review: 
"I don't want to make pompous, serious films; I like films that have a kind of vivacity about them. At this time of the year you think about awards and if you want to win one you think you should make serious films, but my instinct is to make vivacious films."

Sometimes you just have to have a bit of lively entertainment to go along with interesting British cinema, or at the very least one that makes a name for themselves with certain audiences. With a variety of subjects covered in thirteen career films over a career that has spanned over 25 years, I'd say Danny Boyle has made quite a name for himself. He grew up in a working-class family that emphasized faith, but he found himself going towards drama instead of the seminary as a teenager (while becoming interested in movies as a kid with stuff like 1965's Battle of the Bulge), and he studied drama and English at Bangor University. He did a bunch of work in the theatre (where he honed himself as a director along with teaching him about the benefit of loving actors) before going along to television for the BBC. His debut film chance came when approached for the script for what became Shallow Grave (1994), which became a hit with British audiences; his next film however was even more well-noticed - the black comedy crime film Trainspotting (1996), which the British Film Institute found to be one of the best British films of the 20th century. Boyle has done a variety of genres in his career, whether in adventure (The Beach), horror (28 Days Later), or sci-fi thriller (Sunshine). In regards to this film, he was not interested initially in the idea of doing this film at first because of what he perceived to be about the show Who Wants to be a Millionaire? (which production company Celador had owned for a couple of years since its start in 1998 of British origin - I actually didn't know it started there before being adapted subsequently to America). However, he changed his mind when approached with the script done by Simon Beaufoy (writer of The Full Monty (1997), a favorite of Boyle and many others) that made him change his mind. Beaufoy had been approached to do a script based on Vikas Swarup's novel Q & A (which he described as "vibrant, sprawling"). Q & A was inspired in part by the scandal involving the show and British Army major Charles Ingram, who had won the top prize but was found guilty of "procuring the execution of a valuable security by deception" and lost the prize that led Swarup to the idea of if an major could be thought of as a cheater perhaps a kid from the slums could be accused of it too. There were quite a few characters lost in adaptation, most notably with the lawyer character along with a few others in the youth storyline. It was Beaufoy's yearning to shift the structure towards one unwavering narrative besides just focusing on the game show and money that led him to travel to Mumbai. It was in his visits to the slums that he found the idea to do a love story as the true crux to the film (it should be noted that Loveleen Tandan also proved a part in the film as a "co-director", going from a casting director to helping out with the sequences in India).

Sometimes the feel-good yarn just wins out. After all, who can resist such charming energy in its inevitable yarn towards hope that seems familiar without being the 200th different pastiche of rags-to-riches? What exactly is different about the type of film this is than something like Rocky (1976, also a winner of the Academy Award for Best Picture)? After all, that was a film that dwelled in a bit of rough living and someone being plucked to have a chance at making something for themselves while dealing a chance at romance and the struggles of just getting to the big event (there are obvious differences yes, but hopefully you get what I mean). Technically speaking, that film is actually less predictable than this one (at least for one who literally pretends to not think about subsequent films), but in general underdog stories are the straw that stirs the proverbial drink for those into its mood (Miracle (2004), has been watched on one particular night in February two years running precisely because of that). Maybe it is a case of the ordinary for some being quite extraordinary for others. Is it a film that deserves its various praises or critiques that range from being a riveting sort of fairy tale to patronizing, or is there something different on the surface? The way I would go by it is pretty simple: It's only a movie. Did I like what I saw in the long run of something that lasts exactly two hours? Sure, I guess I can say that. But I'll be darned if I can find much reasoning for it to be anything other than just fine that explains what all the hubbub is about. It appeals to anyone having an interest in wanting to see a feature with a type of view of a different country along with featuring Hindi dialogue for a time. Of course it also just happens to be a film that has built itself as a global phenomenon of clichés, one that seems so strangely predictable with its building of contrivances and flash of imagery that can only go so far. At least one can say there is determined actors here to make it worthwhile. Patel (known for his year-run on BBC's Skins with no prior film experience) shows himself well in resilience that makes easy to follow along with in his telling of a story/playing for something a bit different than money while basically spending a good chunk of the film sitting down. Pinto (a model who had auditioned for other films without success before drawing luck with this) doesn't exactly fare too well, although that is more because she doesn't really have much to really do besides inspiring a shadow of chemistry with our lead - it all relies on seeing the child actors to build upon the stuff that follows it, since it can only build up to the idea of a kiss for so long anyway. Mittal does fine with what is given in a rough edge that reflects the underlying foundation from earlier with some conviction, although it is up to the viewer if his last scene really sells with whatever philosophy is meant to be shown here. I found more interest with Kapoor in his arrogance and attempts with humor that bounce off Patel with thorns, even if it only could be a section of the film rather than the whole. Khan makes a fair observer to those framing sequences needed from him with patience. The child actors do fine, in that it never seems like I'm watching a maudlin story wind itself up, but it always seems like I could be watching a film about children living through tough circumstances somewhere else (Los Olvidados, perhaps for another time). It is one of those films where circumstances are the real adversary rather than just one main figure, but there never really seems to be a shadow of doubt in any conflict it tries to show because it is like a wind-up toy that goes back and forth to the points drawn out on the map. It seems way too sweet in its trail of tourism, but I see why it made the impact it made in bright charm with feel-good ambition to show a slice of life of folks trying to live without losing one's sense of self or others. Objectively, it does just enough with holding itself together without collapse, so it can be recommended for being just greater than the sum of its parts to win out in the end, for better or worse.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.