Spider-Man 3.

Review #1779: Spider-Man 3.

Cast: 

Tobey Maguire (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Kirsten Dunst (Mary Jane Watson), James Franco (Harry Osborn / New Goblin), Thomas Haden Church (Flint Marko / Sandman), Topher Grace (Edward "Eddie" Brock Jr. / Venom), Bryce Dallas Howard (Gwen Stacy), James Cromwell (Captain George Stacy), Rosemary Harris (May Parker), J. K. Simmons (J. Jonah Jameson), with Theresa Russell (Emma Marko), Dylan Baker (Dr. Curt Connors), Bill Nunn (Joseph 'Robbie' Robertson), Elizabeth Banks (Miss Brant), with Willem Dafoe (Norman Osborn), and Cliff Robertson (Ben Parker) 

Directed by Sam Raimi (#611 - Spider-Man, #1296 - The Evil Dead, #1483 - Evil Dead II, #1495 - Darkman, #1695 - Spider-Man 2)

Review: 

"Where’s Peter Parker again in the second picture as a human being? He’s a kid in all these stories. They’re kind of coming of age stories and he learns aspects of growing up. Different life lessons in each of these films and often times, the comic books."

You know, it is entirely possible to make a third film of a trilogy that closes the narrative of its story with the right kind of balance and entertainment value that doesn't seem quite cluttered. Of course, doing so for a superhero trilogy is especially interesting to consider, if not for the fact that the expectations can sometimes reach grand heights. With this film, Sam Raimi was the first director to have helmed an entire superhero film trilogy. Spider-Man (2002), if you remember, was pretty well-made for the time and effort it took to get it on the screen, complete with a director that obviously had reverence for the source material that managed (for the most part) to generate warmly interesting entertainment. Spider-Man 2 (2004) continued that path while managing to be even better than its predecessor, both in its hero and villain story, and a third feature was immediately set for 2007. The story was done by Sam and Ivan Raimi, while Alvin Sargent (one of the writers of the second film) did the screenplay with the Raimis. Of course, it seems every sequel superhero film needs more than just one villain. With this one, there are three of them, distinct from the previous film (well, at least, if you count Harry as a villain in the second film). Raimi intended on just a story that was focused on the primary three folks from the first two films (Maguire, Dunst, Franco) and the Sandman (as played by Church). One of the producers suggested adding the character of Gwen Stacy, while Avi Arad (former president of Marvel and a fellow producer) suggested adding the character of Venom (introduced to the comics in 1984), with his argument being that the character had a strong appeal to fans (particularly since Raimi had made two features with his favorite villains); of course, before that happened, there had been plans to have the Vulture as one of the villains, so there is that. The film, while a hit with audiences, was the last Spider-Man film for five years, as plans for a fourth feature stalled because of Raimi's doubt over the viability of maintaining an intended release date of 2011 with a suitable script.

At the time of its release, it was actually the most expensive movie ever made, having been made for $258 million. It also was the longest of the three films at 139 minutes. I'm sure it goes without saying that this isn't a great movie to close the series down by any means. But hey, it has nearly been fifteen years since this film has come out, and six (five live-action) further Spider-Man movies have followed in its wake. Honestly, the movie is okay (besides, making a third feature involving an inverted hero already happened once with Superman III (1983), which was worse). Sure, it has a few little moments that could be made fun of (scrutiny, mockery, or whatever), but as a whole it at least manages to have some entertaining moments along with perspective on redemption that at least makes for a solid average movie. But of course, a movie that had considerable hype just can't be average now, can it? Undeniably, the big problem is that it has just one too many villains to go along with not being able to land all of its sticking points by the time it all ends. It is a messy movie, one that tries to fill itself on spectacle and drama that try to maintain the balance set by the previous two features that makes a good case for why it was good to just cap the series with three films. Maguire and Dunst maintain the sincerity in their chemistry that made for two curious (and interesting) features, but it probably doesn't help that their fragmented story here is the only one among all the other loose webbing that sticks out. Seeing their web tangle and untangle itself is the endearing aspect of the series, pure and simple. In that sense, Maguire does what he can, moving onto the next step that comes in the full-fledged stages of being an adult: finding forgiveness along with dealing with the pitfalls of pride (i.e. normal Peter Parker and symbiote Peter). He is earnest enough to make things such as "dancing" work where it could have been really silly to sit through. Dunst does just as well with matching up with withered patience (since her next step is not so much ego as it is "having a life"), doing what is needed as everything basically comes full circle with these two to useful effect. 

Franco has the weird dilemma of being a key side of the villainous triangle while having a segmented part of his time spent with "amnesia"; besides, one of the resolutions presented (i.e. next time check the wounds) is incredibly convenient in all the weird ways. Haden Church (who by virtue of graduating from Harlingen High School gets "Valley credits" from me) seems to be drawing his character from films such as The Wolf Man (1941), which works to a degree. While I understand the changes made to the character from the original origin (one that I remember because I actually did read one of those stories distinctly as a kid), I think it basically ties the story (and to an extent, Haden Church) in a knot that is way, way too convenient. Grace, best known for his role on That 70s Show, which I freely admit to watching too much of for years...does not exactly fare as well. While he does make an interesting reflection upon Maguire, it is hard to escape the inevitable "Yes, but Venom..." when it comes to actually seeing him on screen. I'm not saying the role needs a "bodybuilder" type, but it just never clicks together all the way with Grace, who almost seems a step away from making a quip more than anything (the less said about the actual lead-in to Venom, the better). Besides, having another costumed character present that likes to put on and then take off their mask is a step too far (keep it on!). Howard and Cromwell are there for segments that work right until you start to remember they disappear by the time of the climax (Harris has what she needs in the usual patience expected from her role anyway, while Simmons is sorely lacking in time). 

The contrivances that come with trying to tie it all together aren't swayed so easily with its climax (which is fine). Simply put, the dilemma of figuring out what it means to be a hero suddenly with sins that only thought in black-and-white is an interesting one, but the movie seems too mired in trying to pack in as much as possible in its frenzied focusing that it nearly loses sight of what the films meant in the first place. They were interesting movies with earnest charm and atmosphere (case in point this film seems lacking with the folks in the actual city that the film sets its action) that made it the first important group of superhero films of the new 21st century. While it may not be a great closing film by any means, it pulls off just enough tricks that keep one's interest on the level without churning into a pit. In other words: being just okay might not be the best thing to say about a highly anticipated movie but time generally shows that a movie being fine works out in the end.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: The Amazing Spider-Man (2012). Must be a coincidence.

Spider-Man 2.

Review #1695: Spider-Man 2.

Cast: 

Tobey Maguire (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Kirsten Dunst (Mary Jane Watson), James Franco (Harry Osborn), Alfred Molina (Otto Octavius / Doctor Octopus), Rosemary Harris (May Parker), J. K. Simmons (J. Jonah Jameson), Donna Murphy (Rosalie Octavius), Daniel Gillies (John Jameson), Dylan Baker (Dr. Curt Connors), Bill Nunn (Robbie Robertson), Elizabeth Banks (Betty Brant), Elya Baskin (Mr. Ditkovitch), Mageina Tovah (Ursula), Ted Raimi (Hoffman), with Willem Dafoe (Norman Osborn), and Cliff Robertson (Ben Parker) 

Directed by Sam Raimi (#611 - Spider-Man, #1296 - The Evil Dead, #1483 - Evil Dead II, #1495 - Darkman)

Review: 

“I just tried to get even more in touch with the things that I loved about Stan Lee’s great character Spider-Man, and a lot of writers throughout the 40 years at Marvel have contributed to Spider-Man. All the things that I loved about all of their stories, I tried to really get deeper into and connect on a deeper level with the actors, and make it more about the characters and their interaction with one another. I tried to get to the core of what I loved even more.”

It must be amazing to think of an era where superhero movies did not in fact rule the Earth, really. But the dawn of the 21st century shows that they merely lurking in the shadows of entertainment, when you think about it. There is not a long line to get from something like this film to Iron Man (2008) when it comes to adaptation of something from the world of Marvel Comics, much less when it comes to movies beyond just an one-off. Spider-Man (2002) was the sixth feature film adapted from a Marvel character (as created by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko in 1962), coming off the heels of previous works such as Blade (1998) and X-Men (2000), which like this film came from years and years of development (among quite a few scripts); naturally, this film follows along the sequel line among those aforementioned movies (Blade II, X2), and it likely stands as one of the best superhero sequels of its time. It is interesting to note that the first film actually had the character of Doctor Octopus as a secondary villain before Raimi dropped him in order to focus more on the dynamic between the title character and the villain. At the helm for the screenplay was Alvin Sargent (near the end of a lengthy career of writing, which included un-credited work on the first film) while the story came from Michael Chabon, Alfred Gough, and Miles Millar (the latter two are mostly known for their development of the show Smallville; obviously, the movie is a hodgepodge of ideas from each writer - Chabon's proposed script apparently had a love triangle involving Doctor Octopus). 

Most superhero sequels generally tend to raise the stakes by adding villains to the pile for the hero to fight that make the challenge seem tighter (i.e. more than one villain, which was present in more than a few superhero films beyond the Marvel line, such as with the Batman series). And yet, here we are with a movie that has quite a controlled focus with consistent stakes and drama that improves on the original without being as hamstrung by the little things as had been the case with the original Spider-Man (which was a pretty decent effort from a director who clearly appreciates the material). It carries itself with enough weight in responsibility to deliver entertainment with meaningful power and meaningful moments to see and hear. Of course it isn't just an effects show, even though one can be impressed by the crew of John Dykstra, Scott Stokdyk, Anthony LaMolinara and John Frazier (among others) when it comes to the tentacles for its villain that prove a blend of computer effects with puppetry (alongside a harness of course) that definitely serves an improvement when compared to the sequences involving the Green Goblin from before. Maguire (who was nearly replaced by Jake Gyllenhaal because of a near-serious back injury) leads the cast with worthy presence once again, maintaining the sincerity and vulnerability depicted before without seeming generic in his charm or being overshadowed by others too much (heroes get overshadowed by the villain in a handful of films anyway). Dunst matches well with snappy chemistry that balances scenes spent either with Maguire or Gillies.  Franco works with the gradual moments with bitter righteousness that still seems like a worried child when it comes to obsession and taking the mantle his father held (which I guess works pretty well in its little imitation of Hamlet, but seeing Dafoe again is a worthy bonus). Molina proves a worthy adversary, one struck by fate that is quite sardonic in his menace that draws you in from the very first moment with him on screen (at least if you compare him with his scenes spent with Murphy with his time with the AI arms); in other words, he makes for a fun villain that improves upon the dynamic seen between the lead and the adversary from before in terms of showing the nature of power and responsibility. Closing out the cast is a few brief-scene wonders from before with the bright nurturer in Harris and the wonderful blustering comic relief in Simmons. At any rate, the film proves efficient at 127 minutes in balancing its spectacle with effective characterization that draws upon the comics without being beholden to too much cheese or being a show for overdrawn spectacle - Raimi honed his craft with the hero film in Darkman and he has merely improved upon the human aspects of what makes a thrilling and poignant movie that happens to have folks in costumes that builds on the curiosity left by its predecessor while setting its own stage for another adventure without too much trouble.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Sausage Party.

Review #830: Sausage Party.

Cast
Seth Rogen (Frank), Kristen Wiig (Brenda Bunson), Jonah Hill (Carl), Bill Hader (Firewater), Michael Cera (Barry), James Franco (the Druggie), Danny McBride (Honey Mustard), Craig Robinson (Mr. Grits), Paul Rudd (Darren), Nick Kroll (Douche), David Krumholtz (Kareem Abdul Lavash), Edward Norton (Sammy Bagel Jr), and Salma Hayek (Teresa del Taco) Directed by Greg Tiernan and Conrad Vernon (#162 - Shrek 2 and #651 - Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted)

Review
Not to understate this too much, but this isn't a movie for everyone (hence the R rating, a first for a CGI animated film - by the MPAA, anyway), especially not for kids, obviously. It's definitely a different kind of animated movie, and I'm sure there's even plans (or new inspiration) to do more of these kind of films. As ridiculous as this movie was, it at least was an adequate in terms of quality and length (88 minutes). There is a semblance of plot in this movie, with regards to the food and a "Great Beyond" outside the store, amidst a bunch of easy jokes that are either funny for some, or just stupid. For me, it was a bit of both, but it works on such an absurd level of ridiculousness that fit fine enough. The opening minutes feature a song, no less, with about as much absurdities as one would expect (let's not forget about the song by a meat loaf). Here's how I would put this movie: I laughed numerous times, with barely an ounce of shame to that laugh.

The ending to the movie is certainly a strange one, and to explain it would sound downright weird. But it works on an absurd level of lunacy for me, even if it's not really exceptional at animation, but it certainly works better that if it had been in live action. Rogen is a well enough lead, and anybody who's seen him in a film before will know what they think about the movie. Wiig is also decent, and the supporting cast is pretty quirky enough, with Krumholtz and Norton having some interesting chemistry with each other, and Kroll being a fair enough villain. Hader is also a fine highlight. Animated movies are somewhat thought of as a kid's market, so the idea of one for adults isn't too terrible, considering the amount of ones made for the lowest common denominator. They both pander, but this one has some sort of goal in its potty mouth. It has its moments of entertainment, It's exactly what you expect, so take it for what it's worth. It also might be better with a friend or two, so you can comprehend the weird crudeness for yourself. I can't recommend it for everyone, but anybody looking for a quick time of something a bit different might like it. They might also look at their food a bit differently afterwards, however.
Okay, if you scroll over this text, here's the climax: The food murder people in the store and have sex.
Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Rise of the Planet of the Apes.

Review #615: Rise of the Planet of the Apes.

Cast
James Franco (Will Rodman), Freida Pinto (Caroline Aranha), Andy Serkis (Caesar), John Lithgow (Charles Rodma), Brian Cox (John Landon), Tom Felton (Dodge Landon), David Oyelowo (Steven Jacobs), Tyler Labine (Robert Franklin), and Karin Konoval (Maurice) Directed by Rupert Wyatt.

Review
I admit, maybe I should've watched and reviewed this movie earlier in the year, or even earlier, but mistakes happen, so here's my chance to rectify that. So how's the movie? You know who makes the movie better than just good? Andy Serkis as Caesar. It is just more than performance capture, it's watching Serkis just disappear into the role, you forget about the fact that it's a person's movements being captured and later being turned into looking like an ape. It's fun to watch Serkis act in a sense without speaking, though he does have lines near the end, which genuinely surprised me, especially his last three: "Caesar is home", which is really touching to me for some reason. Maybe it's because his plot line closes smoothly, and the movie works best when focused on the apes. That's not to say the human cast is bad, but Serkis steals the show. Franco does fine admittedly, and his scenes with Serkis work well. Pinto is okay, but she doesn't really get much screen time to do anything, even Lithgow has stuff to do (though my praise of Lithgow is 90% due to his performance and 10% because you don't see Lithgow much anymore, unless you capture a Third Rock from the Sun rerun or watch Shrek), but at least the cast is enjoyable at times. The effects are good, it's fun to watch the apes when they march on the Golden Gate Bridge. The story is alright, I suppose, the movie is entertaining enough, and the end scene is brilliant and just makes you want more, like a sequel, which came out yesterday. This is a movie that while not as good as the original Planet of the Apes, is at least a good origin story.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Spider-Man.

Review #611: Spider-Man.

Cast
Tobey Maguire (Peter Parker/Spider-Man), Willem Dafoe (Norman Osborn/Green Goblin), Kirsten Dunst (Mary Jane Watson), James Franco (Harry Osborn), Cliff Robertson (Ben Parker), Rosemary Harris (May Parker), and J. K. Simmons (J. Jonah Jameson) Directed by Sam Raimi.

Review
No matter the weather wherever you are, today's going to be a beautiful Independence Day, so I'm going to review something that's been on the waiting list for a long time, the (can't believe I'm saying this) original Spider-Man film. Speaking of which, how is the film? It's pretty good. For all of its quirks, the movie does a good job at putting Spider-Man onto the screen and be entertaining for the most part. The cast is well rounded, it's even fun to see J. K. Simmons as Jameson because his bombastic nature to everyone is just fun to watch, even if it's brief. Maguire and Dafoe have a good dynamic together, and while Dafoe may have some odd scenes (though I guess talking to a mask is normal if you go insane), he is pretty menacing. Maguire is a good hero, I think my favorite scene is when he's being introduced to the ring against a guy named Buzzsaw (played by the late great Randy "Macho Man" Savage), and he asks to be called "The Human Spider". I don't know why, but there is something funny about trying to make your own name and come up with something a 1950's b-movie would reject as a title. The dialogue is okay, though Robertson's line about "with great power comes great responsibility" is a defining line for the film. Is it a great movie? No, but it at least is a good flick for anyone curious on how the first movie about Spider-Man is. Happy 4th, everyone.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.