"EVERY GAME HAS A WINNER AND A LOSER..."

Dick Jones (Robocop)

OK, as you should be able to tell by the pictures accompanying, this isn't a Robocop post, but it's an apt quote...

Looks more like a computer game graphic, right? But no, this is the MCU Spiderman. Official.

The internet has recently been set ablaze by the new MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) interpretation of their favorite son: Spiderman. The response has been overwhelmingly positive from what I can tell. I've been meaning to write about this since I heard the casting, but to be honest life's been a little bit hectic.

Months ago, Marvel announced Tom Holland as their replacement to Garfield in the role of Peter Parker / Spiderman. "Good choice" I thought, "it will make a nice change to have a character of genuine (or near as damn it) high-school age." And Holland looks the part as well; unassuming, a bit nerdy, and not the too-cool-for-school good looks of Garfield's Parker. Also, after the last two failures, I was actually glad to hear that MCU had cut a deal with Sony to get the character back on home turf. "If anyone can do that character justice, it's Marvel" I thought. After all, superhero films may be ten-a-penny these days, but even the worst of Marvel's output has generally stood head and shoulders over most other action films (and let's be honest, what's a superhero film if not an action movie where the hero wears a tight suit?). So, rather excitedly, I waited for the 'grand reveal'...

To get right to my point, I watched the new Captain America: Civil War trailer today. I'm not the biggest Avengers fan, but Civil War looks to be a cool film. Rather than the typical hero vs giant threat, Civil War turns hero against hero (before DC jumped on that particular bandwagon as well) and I'm confident it'll be one of Marvel's most dramatic and most exciting yet. But... To be absolutely frank- MCU's Spiderman is SHOCKINGLY AWFUL!

It gives me no joy to fly in the face of public opinion on this one. I grew up on Spiderman, and it never crossed my mind the MCU would botch this, but they really have dropped the ball. What we got was some of the worst CGI I've seen in  a major blockbuster for the last 5 years (perhaps even 10); little definition or texture, no weight or physicality. Sam Raimi's much criticised CGI in the first of his Spiderman films is by far superior.

On that note, where possible Raimi opted to use a 'guy in a suit'. Oddly, the MCU revealing final shots could easily have been enacted with a 'guy in a suit'- so not only is the CGI for MCU's Spiderman poor, but worst of all, also poorly employed! I hope the character won't be entirely rendered this way, but sadly this may be the case!

...And as seen in The Amazing Spiderman 2.

As for the design? It's the worst Spiderman's ever looked! I felt like, what with the MCU Spiderman essentially being bank-rolled and kitted out by Tony Stark, at least that nagging "how did he make a suit like that at home?" issue would be nicely sidestepped, but it's a hideous suit! It's so bland with an almost military aesthetic (the V design near the shoulder like a soldier's rank, the design of the pouches on the belt). That may be in keeping with the Avengers setting, but I dislike it immensely. But going back to "bland", compare the fine detail to characters like Ironman, Thor, Cap, Antman- their outfits are all beautifully textured and detailed; leathers, rubbers, belts, buckles, straps, padding, armor, etc. Spiderman's outfit is just, well, plain ol' spandex...

And the eyes? What the fuck is that all about? Animated eyes that change shape, used to employ expression as in the cartoons (and, more recently, the Deadpool film). I'm sure Stark will have fancy 'tech talk' as to why Spiderman's eyes do that, but it feels so at odds with the an aesthetic that leans towards realism whenever possible; Ironman, Thor, Cap- all of them have a faithful yet gritty re-imagining for the silver-screen. Spiderman, by comparison, looks like he was designed and rendered by a teenager in his bedroom. I was so underwhelmed on first seeing the outfit my first reaction was "must be another fake". Holy shit, it really is official. Whatever my complaints were about the Amazing Spiderman 2, I have to admit that was one hell of a suit! It's a poor start for the MCU Spiderman if my first overwhelming thought is "the Amazing Spiderman 2 design was better"...

Still, judge for yourselves, but for my money- a rare miss for the Marvel camp.

However, for every loser, as Dick Jones informs us, we must also have a winner.

Enter Ben Affleck's Batman.

It's like a goth version of the YMCA

I still insist his inclusion in a Superman crossover is a bad idea, but credit where it's due, Affleck really impressed me in the trailers (I imagine he's shut down many of the neigh-sayers by now), and his suit is a gorgeous bit of design reminiscent of the Frank Miller material. I've already said as much, but I really prefer this stripped-back look to the Nolan / Bale armored design. And the way he takes out the warehouse full of thugs in the final trailer? Well, it actually has me excited enough that I may risk a trip to the cinema for it. I hate to pat myself on the back (who am I kidding, of course I do), but if you reread some of my earlier posts concerning Batman, and what I wrote in the review to Oldboy, this really is a Batman like I said it should be done...

Nolan's Batman was so armored that he looked like a Goth take on Ironman...

On a final note, when the Hell did Batman Vs Superman Dawn of Justice become a film with Aquaman and Wonder Woman in it? The absurdity is mounting. My concern is this, the MCU pulled of its cross-over by sheer force of spectacle, novelty-value and a healthy dose of good humor. Also, every main character was given their own lead-in movie... Comparatively, the DC cinematic universe (DCCU?) is doing the whole 'muture thing' (read: dark and sulky), takes itself waaaaaay too seriously, and is piling in at least 4 big characters alongside Superman before any of them have their own film to shine. Pulling off an 'Avengers Assemble' with a cast full of scowls is probably going to be unintentionally hilarious, but unlikely the effect which DC will be hoping for, and the whole project has a whiff of jealous desperation about it.

To my mind, in both the comic world as well as the cinematic one, DC has always been the stiffer entity, muddling along in the footsteps of it's more lively and energetic rival, and I say that as a big Batman fan (although I can take or leave most of the other DC characters). The crossovers worked for Marvel (worked very well, actually), and now DC wants to prove that it can have the same success... And I always thought the green eyed monster was supposed to be the Hulk?

Anyway, we will have wait and see, won't we?

At the end of this round: Spiderman 0, Batman 1.

GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY; Carlisle's Final Word

"I am going to die surrounded by the biggest idiots in the galaxy."
Gamora

"What a bunch of A-holes"

Synopsis;

The long awaited and much hyped companion-piece to Marvel's Avenger series, and the first mainstream effort for fringe director James Gunn- the man who bought us both Slither and Super.
The plot follows Peter Quill, who as a child is abducted by a band of alien scavangers. 26 years later, he's adopted the alias of Star Lord and roams the galaxy as a petty outlaw. However, all that soon changes when he comes into possession of a powerful orb- an ancient artifact that the evil warlord Ronan the Accuser will stop at nothing to control. Along with two bounty-hunters, a deadly assassin, and an escaped convict, Peter becomes an unlikely hero- and the galaxy's last hope of survival...

"So here we are: a thief, two thugs, an assassin and a maniac. But we're not going to stand by as evil wipes out the galaxy. I guess we're stuck together, partners."

Peter Quill

Script Logic; 1/2

Let's not skirt the issue, the plot was never what this film was concerned with. But, as an affectionate love-letter to the absurdest sci-fi pulp novels of yesteryear, and as the backbone to string together an array of dazzling set pieces, the plot functions just fine. It's not high-concept, or breathtakingly original (on the contrary, it strives to be the reverse of that), but it serves its function nicely.
Having said that, I'm not opposed to the plot- it's the standard "big bad guy threatens the little guys, band of misfits to the rescue" deal in the mold of 'Serenity' and countless other sci-fi and westerns, including 'Avengers Assemble', and that's no bad thing. There are one or two holes in logic, but to be honest, you only start to realise this well after leaving the cinema- and by then you've been far too entertained to let it spoil your buzz.

"Peter Quill has a space ship and knows where Earth is, why did he never go home?... Why is Earth the only planet that doesn't have a clue whats going on in the galaxy?... Oh fuck it, I don't care."

In it's conception this owes more than a debt to Joss Whedon, which comes as no surprise how he's overseeing all the Marvel projects that tie-in with the Avengers.  So, no coincidence then that 'Gaurdians of the Galaxy' is very similar in tone to those movies; a strong focus on character, thrills and laughs, and as a result a very similar beast to Joss Whedon's own 'Serenity' (the cinema released resolution to the TV show 'Firefly'). Again, no bad thing.
For a film that takes great pains to appear scrappy, hap-hazard , all with an indie-sensibility, it's actually a very polished, studio-led project, with no one thing left to chance.


Pace; 2/2

At a brisk 120 minutes (a refreshing change to recent blockbuster behemoths) the story never lags. Not for a second. At points it even feels too fast, in a roller-coaster kinda way. In no time at all, Peter Quill is abducted from Earth, then an adult in space, ambushed on a barren planet, escapes in a space ship, attacked by an assassin and a pair of bounty-hunters and incarcerated in an intergalactic-Alcatraz; sounds like that should take the best part of half a film, but all this takes place in the first 15 minutes.


Acting; 1/2

First, let's consider the main cast. By now so much has already been written about how excellent all the lead performances are, but it's still worth repeating.
Chris Pratt shines in his douche-with-a-heart persona, liberally borrowing from Han Solo and Downy Jr's Tony Stark, all while channeling his inner Jack Sparrow ("but you have heard of me"). Zoe Saldana, with the unenviable task of playing the overly familiar troupe of emotionless-female-assassin, actually plays a blinder- her arc , and the revelation of her emotions and humanity are understated yet convincing. She turns what could have easily been a boring eye-candy role into a brilliant character. Former wrestler Dave Bautista has truly made this role his own and gives it his all, and surprisingly his avenging-Conan betrays a vulnerable sweetness- as well as having some of the funniest lines in the film (with a very dangerous line in "metaphors"). Finally, we have the voice talents of Bradley Cooper and the absurdly macho Vin Diesel- both of whom turn bat-shit-crazy concepts (a talking raccoon and a human-tree) into loveable, believable and fully realised characters- I kid you not. Vin's Groot is particularly loveable, a fungal reworking of his earlier Iron Giant.

The villains unfortunately let the side down a little...
Josh Brolin does what he can with his meager role as Thanos  (who will no doubt go onto becoming the ultimate villain in the inevitable Guardians & Avengers crossover), and while he's no doubt menacing he's in the film too little to make any real impact and simply feels shoe-horned in as foreshadowing- a criticism inherent of the films leading up-to Avengers Assemble. Djimon Hounsou feels similarly wasted in his part as, what is essentially, "lead thug". British TV's Karen Gillan has little time to develop her assassin character beyond "sadistic female assassin" and "jealous sister"- but her survival ensures her presence in future installments.
Lastly, we have Lee Pace as the film's chief villain, Ronan the Accuser. I'm not sure what to make of Ronan. Yes, he's sinister. Yes, he's intimidating. Yes, he has suitably villainy lines. But he's, well, sort of boring. there's nothing special or unique about him. To use Joss Whedon's work as an analogy (which would seem fitting)  Ronan the Accuser could quite easily be placed into an episode of Buffy the Vampire slayer, but as a one-show baddie rather than a series-long and charismatic opponent- which is damning criticism when the whole story to Guardians of the Galaxy hinges on how evil he is. Also, politically troubling in an otherwise light-heated film, Ronan the Accuser is a thinly veiled interpretation of a Jihad extremist; a religious fanatic who wants to bring his ancient code of tyranny to bare on a progressive mostly-white society for their perceived sins. His tactics include suicide bombings and even his facial warpaint resembled an Islamic beard! Ronan the Accuser; part Mortal Kombat's Shao Khan, part Osama Bin Laden.
It's not that any of the rouges gallery are poorly acted, not at all- just that they all felt either wasted or under developed by the script- and I can't help but feel maybe a different cast could have saved it?


Aesthetic; 2/2

Another of the film's many aces, Guardians of the Galaxy looks fantastic- like a pulp-cover made real. The film steers away from the gritty and grungy realism of most modern sci-fi in favor of an almost-cheesy,  gaudy and fantastical backdrop; space ships shaped like starfish and skulls, golden and green vapor clouds, shiny cities, and a hero who wears a hot-rod red leather jacket. All of this the product of the studio working closely with conceptual artist and sci-fi illustrator Stephan Martiniere (check him out). I don't think I've seen a world quite like it, and this helps give the film a much needed identity.



Originality & Intention; 2/2

Tongues were soon wagging at the prospect of James Gunn joining forces with Marvel studios. This was never going to be a mediocre film; either it was going to reach to reach the skies, or it was going to crash and burn (and with a budget this high, that's a lot of burning). Throughout it's journey from conception through production the public were bombarded with artwork, set reports, interviews with the stars and crew, trailers, trailers and even more trailers- all of which promised spectacular results, but could just have easily set the bar impossibly high, setting the stage for a colossal fall.  Luckily, Guardians of the Galaxy delivered the goods. No doubt this is the film its director, and Marvel studios, hoped it would be; loud, brash, flippant, absurd, nostalgic, funny, fast and thrilling.




Final Score; 8/10

While it skillfully avoids the twin pitfalls of having too much studio-interference while never becoming too "out-there" to appeal to mainstream audiences, it does make some concessions to the Marvel franchise; too many characters, too many loose ends. Aside from that small grumble, Guardians of the Galaxy is a huge gamble that paid off, thanks in no small part to a witty script and some fantastic performances. The film itself is still 'fringe' enough to cater to cult tastes and die-hard Gunn fans who are more accustomed to his harder-edged films, while still having the gloss and budget to complete its director's singular vision. Sure, aspects of the Act 3 are a bit overly-sentimental, but hey, it's a kids film- get over it.



Final Word;

Soundtrack is something I don't normally cover in great detail during these reviews. I know what I like, and I know what I think works well. I'd just like to say that initially I believed the use of 80's music in the film would be a joke that soon wore thin, but I was surprised by just how much mileage there was in the idea of retro kitsch tunes juxtaposed with the film's neon-galaxy setting. The end result is oddly touching, dramatic and very funny- and most importantly has a strong dramatic root in the story, rather than simply being a throw-away gag.
I expect to see the downloads for these songs go throw the roof...

"Why would you want to save the galaxy?" 
 Rocket   

"Because I'm one of the idiots who lives in it!"

Peter Quill

PUNISHER, WARZONE; Carlisle's Final Word

 "This is just the beginning."

Frank Castle.

Traditionally, table dancers are topless.

Script Logic; 1/2

Pace; 1/2

Acting; 1/2

Aesthetic; 2/2

Originality & Intention; 1/2

Final Score; 6/10

Final Word: Unfairly mauled by critics who called this "overly-dark", "overly-violent" and "depressing", I considered this not only a worthwhile reboot of the Marvel comic's character, but also a fairly honest (and gutsy) portrayal of an otherwise poorly served franchise. Sure, it's a pretty murky experience, like getting a blowjob from a $5 stripper- but that's the Punisher all over. Forget the catastro-fuck-aphy of the Thomas Jane and John Travolta outing, here the material is better served by the grim-faced Ray Stevenson and the always-watchable Dominic West, on manic form as the antagonist. But even for a comic book adaption some of the other acting is crap, and even West's mania can't disguise the fact that his character is a second rate Joker ala Jack Nicholson, but the film is held together by it's garish aesthetic, hilariously over-the-top violence and balls-to-the-wall absurdity. Similar in many ways to Dredd, but the Punisher is (simply put) just not as charismatic a character. Still, if you're after Paul Verhovan style excess, only sans the smarts and satire, then this won't disappoint.

"HOW DID YOU COME UP WITH THIS?"

Dr. Curt Connors (The Amazing Spiderman, 2012).

Here's the new outfit, which has already cropped up a fair bit around the web.

 

My first thoughts were "a backward step in terms of the realism that the first film seemed intent on gunning for" but on reflection I think I quite like it... 

Admittedly I did like the first rebooted suit, but it's actually kind of fun to see something closer to the comics, and does this also mean that the next film will play tonally different- perhaps lighter? Will our next Spiderman film feel more like Marvel's ultra-successful Avengers film? Perhaps, and no bad thing.

On closer inspection, gone are the basket-ball textures of the first and instead we are given a more spandex-based leotard, more along the lines of what would readily be available to a typical high school kid.

It only seems like a few weeks ago that I was covering the lead up to The Amazing Spiderman, how time flies?

"YOU'RE A WANTERD MAN, PETER PARKER..."

Gwen Stacey. The Amazing Spiderman (2012)

Oooooh, a 4 minute trailer!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtdgzQWmQFg&feature=relmfu

Just some thoughts on the content.

Obviously, watch the trailer first.

BAD
Meh, getting the feeling I've seen this bridge scene before somewhere? Oh wait, I remember, wasn't there a moment almost exactly like this in the first Raimi Spiderman film?... And giving the kid his mask, I'm not feeling it- forced sentimentality is the worst. And what is it about this guy? He seems to be whipping that fucking mask off every chance he gets! You're wearing the bloody thing to hide your identity- keep it on or don't bother wearing it!

GOOD
I like this costume actually, and I think he moves well in it. Certainly a leaner Spiderman than in the Raimi films, truer to the comics. I like the shape of the eyes too, and 'love it or hate it', he has his web-shooters back.

BAD
Why are the police actually shooting at Spiderman? They don't look like rubber bullets judging by the damage to the wall. Seems a little excessive, no? Considering he's not actually killed anybody or knocked off a bank. Do the police in New York city not have anything better to do with their resources? five hundred men IS excessive, I doubt that many went out looking for the Reservoir Dogs.

GOOD
Nice to see Spiderman getting a bit lippy with the criminals now, rather than the wet-blanket approach of the previous films.

BAD
What the hell have they done with the Lizard? It looks more like the Hulk. Actually, more like the thing that the Hulk fights at the end of the Edward Norton version (was it Abomination?), or even Thing from Fantastic 4. That's disappointing. I can see why they've upped the scale, it certainly looks different to anything in the previous films this way, and it looks very dangerous, but the face just looks a bit, well, 'wrong'. I miss the long crocodile mouth of McFarlane's artwork. At least we see it in a ripped lab-coat for a few moments.

GOOD
Mmmmmm, hello Gwen Stacy. She was always a better love interest than MJ.

BAD
Put away the skateboard you fucking Emo.

WTF?
What the hell was the giant cloud-explosion on top of the tower? Is that plot related?

VERDICT:
Still out. I think this film is on shaky ground, but I'm hoping for the best.

Did you know? For the first Spiderman films, which were eventually handled by Sam Raimi, directors approached for the job include James Cameron and David Fincher. Fincher?!? Now THAT would be a film worth seeing!

"HEY, WEB HEAD!"

 "Commencement: the end of one thing, the start of something new." 

Green Goblin. Spiderman (2002).

OK, so anyone I've spoken to before now knows I wasn't exactly over enthusiastic at the talk of a re-boot. I mean, come on, it hardly seems that far back that we got the Raimi films, does it? And in the early release pictures the new suit looked, well, a bit camp (the red looked pink for a start), and why hire an English actor in his mid-twenties to play an American teenager?...

I don't often change my stance on things like this, but I'm actually looking forward to this now.

1/ First off, the suit no longer looks pink, thanks to the on-set tendency for dark lighting. And anyway, end of the day, it's a body tight red and blue gimp suit- it's always going to look a little camp. I'm glad to see a leaner body shape too, and I was never all that impressed with the outfit in Raimi's films anyway- what was with all the silver?

2/ As much as I think Defoe nailed the Green Goblin (the ultimate Spidey villain- bonkers suit or not), my personal favorite has always been The Lizard. While I'm not really an Ifans fan, I have nothing against him and look forward to seeing the final reveal of the creature... I'm hoping to see the more feral McFarlane style monster, so long as they don't drop the ball with the CGI.




3/ Let's face it. On re-watching them the Raimi film's weren't actually all that good were they? Sure, it was nice to see Spiderman on screen, and compared to the benchmark it really didn't have much superhero competition. Times are different now, so maybe it's not such a bad time for a serious re-boot after all?

4/ The parent mystery. Seems a strange place to take the Spiderman origin story, but I'm game. I don't want a remake, I want something different.

I realise I'm probably just writing this for myself. That's OK.



Don't get me wrong, there is still plenty of opportunity for disaster.

I dislike the guy in the lead, Garfield, I don't think he's up to much and I thought his breakout role in Never Let Me Go (or whatever it was) was amateur level. And casting agents- for God's sake, hire an American for an American role! While you're at it, stop paying people in their late teens to play high school kids! If you want to tell the high school years, cast younger, or alternatively (originality, shock horror) Just tell the story of him as an adult, everyone already knows the origin! For me, I quite liked the kid in Kickass, he'd have made a fairly decent Parker- and let's face it, he basically was.



The Lizard (as yet still under wraps despite some grainy leaked test footage) could look awful, and that would sink it. Harsh but true. The CGI for Spiderman leaping around could also prove to be shockingly bad...

Is the girl playing Gwen Stacey (the love interest) going to be irritating? Are they going to stay true to the comic and kill her off, or will she perhaps live to the inevitable sequel?



Why complicate things with the Web-shooters? Yeah, they're in the comic, so what? They were a stupid thing, (controversially) well side-stepped in the Raimi films. In a realistic world, how does that work? And how will they explain Parker's funky new costume this time round? That rarely holds up to scrutiny.

On a final point, thanks largely to Nolan's Batman re-boot, the mood for superheros seems to be dark & edgy, I just hope this dosn't follow suite, but unfortunately that seems to be a very likely possibility, judging by the trailer. While realism and grit is all fine and good, let's not forget that this is Spiderman, not The Crow. Dark worked for Batman because Batman is dark, not all characters need that treatment- just look at the balance struck in the first Ironman film, that worked a treat.

Anyhow, them be my thoughts on the subject, feel free to express yourselves. I'm now down on record as officially excited and you can all tell me how wrong I was if this thing falls flat.

So long, web-heads!