SPIDERMAN HOMECOMING; Full-Tilt Review

“Can't you just be a friendly neighborhood Spider-Man?”

Tony Stark

"With great power..."

Synopsis:

Following on from the events of Civil War, well-meaning high school student Peter Parker excitedly awaits his next mission with the Avengers, unaware that he has been essentially 'shelved' from the most dangerous assignments because Tony Stark isn't confident he's ready for the big-leagues. Elsewhere, salvage specialist Adrian Toomes is all but put out of business by Stark Industries, and so turns to selling illegal weapons created from alien technology to support his family. When Parker stumbles across Toomes' operation the stage is set for a super-powered battle of wills with far-reaching consequences.

For your consideration...

Spiderman Homecoming does not exist within a vacuum. Most will realise that this is the third reboot in 15 years (that's a reboot every 5 years for the slow of math). I've always maintained that re-boots not only deserve to be, but in all fairness should be, considered alongside previous incarnations. After all, if you don't feel confident that you can improve on what's already come before, then why are you rebooting something? The first of Sam Raimi's Spiderman films was a film for adults pretending to be one for children (complete with an attempted rape, a bone-crunching final and a hero who fails to 'get the girl'). His second Spiderman was a children's film pretending to be for grown-ups (featuring a villain who 'learns the error of his ways' and redeems himself saving the hero, as well as some sickly-sweet soul searching). Raimi's third entry failed in just about every way, but by now Raimi had proved once and for all that superheros could be big business. Marc Webb's (oxymoron alert) 'Amazing' two efforts somehow turned everybody's favourite unassuming teenager into a prick; there's more to updating a character than giving him a skateboard and an attitude (he was more of a Bart Simpson than any Peter Parker). It was therefore with a mixed reception that Marvel finally managed to buy back Spiderman's rights from Sony and announced yet another reboot by launching the character into it's expanding MCU (the Marvel Cinematic Universe). There were those who were happy to see the character back in safer hands, those who were upset that they would never see the close of Marc Webb's announced trilogy (idiots mostly), and those who thought a third reboot was simply too much too soon. Even Kirsten Dunst,Raimi's leading lady, waded in to the debate. "We made the best ones, so who cares?... They’re just milking that cow for money.". It was a fair comment, and in most instances she'd be dead right; the first 2 Raimi films would be hard to top, but let's not forget the movie business is still a business and I'm sure she's taken the odd job 'for the money'. However, on this occasion Ms. Dunst may have to eat those well chosen words... The first thing that needs to be said about Spiderman Homecoming is this; it's by far the best Spiderman movie to date, and one of Marvel's strongest entries. Secondly, it's very, very funny. Most of the Marvel films to date have been an entertaining combination of whip-smart banter and explosive mayhem, with Guardians of the Galaxy thus far being the most humerus. However, Spiderman goes one step further to the extent it's probably first and foremost a comedy and a super powered adventure second. That's certainly no bad thing... I once said the time for a perfect Spiderman has come and gone, but I was (as the scores might suggest) dead wrong, although I do feel vindicated in the accuracy of some of my points. I said Marc Webb's Nolan-esque take on the character was a step totally in the wrong direction, and for a character like Spiderman it should sway more into the comedic realms of Kick-Ass (which in so many ways essentially was a Spiderman story). Homecoming is EXACTLY that, thanks to a terrific script credited to no less than 12 writers, which would normally result in disaster. Read-on, Spidey fans...

Script: 1/2

Despite the fact that the script is incredibly entertaining, there's no disguising the fact that, so far as the plot is concerned, it's pretty silly. However, that said, you're not watching a Spiderman film for the plot, right? By placing Spiderman into the Marvel universe (a God-send in so many ways), it does mean having to embrace some of the more 'wild' elements of that franchise, including alien technology. But with Marvel's favourite son back on home ground and in safe hands, it's a very small price to pay... On another note, it always bothered me how anybody was supposed to overlook the fact that a teenager on a low to modest income could afford to create the Spiderman outfit and web-shooter tools (a point that became laughable in Marc Web's gritty attempt). In Tony Stark the Marvel universe finds it's answer, and it's at once such an obvious and shrewd move. Naturally, Stark is responsible for essentially bankrolling Peter Parker and providing him with the tech, and it becomes suddenly believable that the suit would be blue and hot-rod red (this from a flashy and extravagant billionaire who designed himself a gold suit). Minor grumble; too many gadgets for my liking, but it feels a reasonable fit for the MCU. Wasn't overly sold on the suit's internal-voice, but it proved a great way of keeping the character talking and provided the occasional laugh.

Pace: 2/2
While I was watching the film I always felt like we were moving from scene to scene with such speed and efficiency that by the time it ended it had felt like a relatively short experience. I was surprised to read that actually the film was just over 2 hours in length. While I adamantly stand by my opinion that most stories can be told successfully in 90 to 120 minutes, Homecoming obviously stands as proof to the fact that a well told film will justify it's length. Thankfully, none of this time is spent wasted on an origin story (not even Civil War bothered). The Marvel head-sheds, quite wisely, have figured out most people know the whole 'uncle Ben thing' pretty well by now, and instead just get on with telling the story at hand.

Acting: 2/2
Not sure how else I can put this, but Tom Holland IS Peter Parker. He's perfect; he's nerdy, he's self deprecating, he's enthusiastic, he's innocent, he's witty, he's good natured while never being a goody-two-shoes. He's not wet like Toby McGuire was (his moping got tedious after a while), and he's not too-cool-for-school like Andrew Garfield. And, shock-horror, he's pretty close to actually being of genuine high-school age- that's a first and it makes a huge difference. McGuire and Garfield were both clearly adults, adults in peril. Holland looks like a kid, sounds like a kid, acts like a kid- he's just a kid doing the right thing in the face of real danger, and all the more braver for it. That's what Spiderman should be about!... In Raimi's first Spiderman, Willem De Foe chewed the scenery with relish and gusto, and made for the perfect Green Goblin. There will never be a better Goblin, why try? Wisely, Marvel didn't bother. Instead, they've found a perfect foil in Michael Keaton, and rather than dial in a zany Beetlejuice-styled performance, Keaton again proves his range by making Adrian Toomes a very nuanced character. He's ruthless but not an entirely unlikable, he's a character that started with honest intentions and, true to life, found himself on a slippery slope. He's justified his crimes (he has a family to support), he had the opportunity (the alien technology from his clearance days) and he had the motivation (forced out of work by Stark Industries). Ruthless but not cruel, nothing he does ever feels for the sake of causing suffering, although he's clearly dangerous. It all comes from an honest emotional place, who hasn't at some point felt like they're put upon by 'The Man'? And, in a refreshing turn, Toomes, AKA The Vulture (although in the film nobody ever calls him this) is one of the few villains in the Spiderman rouge's gallery who isn't the result of a failed science experiment.

I don't think it's saying too much to point out that, once again, the villain learns of Spiderman's secret identity (after all, it's only happened in every film so far; Green Goblin, Doc Ock, Harry Osborne, Venom, Sandman, Lizard, Hobgoblin). So naturally, Parker also learns who Adrian Toomes is (in one HUGELY shocking twist which I did not see coming). In the scenes that follow with Holland and Keaton sans-masks, the air is electric and both actors show the standard of their game; Holland looks genuinely heartbroken and terrified all at once, and because he's (importantly) "just a kid" he looks all too vulnerable. Keaton is totally conflicted- all seething rage and reluctant adoration. It's a Hell-of-a scene, and sets up the dramatic tone for the remainder of the film. On that subject, like Ant Man before it, Homecoming's stakes are relatively small. There is no doomsday bomb, no city-sprawling gas-cloud, no alien invasion. Ant Man (while not the best film in the Marvel cinematic franchise) was, in the end, a man trying to save his daughter from a maniac: as an audience we can relate to those stakes much easier than, say, the Avengers saving the world from aliens. Spiderman's stakes concern an attempt to steal a shipment of powerful weapons, but that's about it. But, given the smaller-scale, and Spiderman's relative inexperience and the terror he feels confronting the Vulture, that's significant enough. This is about bravery, loyalty and dedication, and what is at the end of the day (super powers not withstanding) "just a kid".

Other mentions; Robert Downey Jr is always a delight as Tony Stark, although his long-suffering assistant 'Happy' Hogan, as played by Ironman director Jon Favreau, has more screen time in his function as Parker's minder. Marisa Tomei gets a few laughs as a MILF-style aunt May, and Disney heartthrob and teen model Zandaya is a 100 miles from her usual glam image as one of Parker's fellow students (I dare not say more). Laura Harrier plays Parker's popular but sweet natured love interest Liz, while Jacob Batalon is a joy as Parker's nerdy best friend; he and Hollander have a warm and believable chemistry which the film does well to exploit.

Aesthetic: 2/2
The effects are (despite earlier misgivings) all good, and the suit design has grown on me some. The Vulture (never my favorite villain) here has a cool makeover, and the scenes where he's flying around while fighting Spiderman are all serviceable. Most of this sort of action we've seen a lot by now, no matter how good this reboot is there's no denying a strong sense of deja vu in the visuals. What makes it different this time round are the characters and situations at play. That said, the film does include a few novel touches; by moving much of the climax to very high-up in the air (beyond the 'playground' of buildings seen in most of the other films) there's a genuine sense that Spiderman is out of his element and in great danger, and it's also funny to see Parker suffer from a bout of vertigo, a joke that works all the better for Holland's youth. In fact, his relative inexperience is a cause for many of the funniest moments- it's refreshing to see that, just because he has the suit, this doesn't make him the fully-fledged and capable hero that McGuire and Garfield instantly became (although I admit things on occasion did go wrong for McGuire). But yes, the budget and effects are well utilised, and the smaller scale means that the spectacles somehow feel more grounded in reality.

Intention: 2/2
Homecoming is the first film that nail's it's target audience, in the purest sense. It's a film about a teenager, for teenagers. But, by extension, teenagers being the middle-audience, there's something here for everybody. It's funny (very funny), it's sweet natured (while never saccharine) and it's exciting (especially if you're too young to remember the first 3 films). Familiar themes and characters are given fresh overhauls, but are never so different that they're somehow offensive to long term fans. As a child I grew up on Spiderman, and I personally thought the changes were not only made with good intentions but entirely necessary; I've seen Aunt May as doddery, I've seen MJ as the perfect cheerleader type, I've seen Flash Thompson as the mindless brute, I've seen Harry as the best friend. I honestly didn't have high hopes for Homecoming, like a lot of people I thought it was a film the world didn't need, even if Marvel would likely do better than Marc Webb (I really, truly, hated those films). But, happily, I was wrong. Another feather in Homecoming's cap is how it essentially stands alone. Sure, it references events from Avengers Assemble and Civil War, but in such a way that, even if you have no prior knowledge, the film feeds you this information easily. Sure, it also features Tony Stark, and 'Happy' Hogan, both to great effect (Stark's relationship with Peter is particularly poignant in parts, hysterical in others, not to mention an excellent way to introduce Spiderman into the MCU) but, again, it's set-up in such a way that anyone can enjoy this film without an encyclopedia-like knowledge of all the other Marvel output. This didn't feel like a 'tent-pole' film; it wasn't there just to set-up more cross-overs, an issue that plagues many of the Marvel films. Nor does it suffer from the twin plagues of too many characters and establishing too many plots. No, Homecoming is Homecoming, it's that simple. Refreshingly, anyone can enjoy this on it's own merits.

Final Word: 9/10

Let's hope “friendly neighborhood Spiderman” is less a disparaging remark and more of a statement of purpose for the wall-crawler's future films, because it's this smaller scale which is one of the films most vitalizing and promising strengths. Will something be lost in seeing Parker transform from a well-meaning but fledgling hero into a sure-footed mega-hero on par with the other Avengers, as it was in the dreadful Kick-Ass sequel? We will have to wait and see, but the future is looking bright. It was very brave for the studio to have the entire climax of the film take place without use of the iconic Spiderman suit, (for reasons I can't discuss just yet), but like Tony Stark chastises “If you're nothing without the suit, then you shouldn't have it”. And with those words, Marvel invest everything they have in the character of Peter Parker and not the cash-cow image of Spiderman, a conviction that pays off in spades. I've heard Homecoming described as "Harry Potter meets Avengers", and while that's not entirely inaccurate it also fails to capture the films level of success or significance: Homecoming didn't try and rework that old line "with great power comes great responsibility"; it lived it. Homecoming isn't just the title, it's the Marvel welcome the character deserves. A joy from start to finish. Kudos Marvel, one right out of the park.

"I SUGGEST YOU DON'T WORRY ABOUT THINGS LIKE THAT..."

Continued from title... "And that goes for you, too!"

Basil Exposition, Austin Powers International Man Of Mystery (1997).

'What's he banging on about now?' you're probably asking yourself (except that you're not because nobody reads my blog). I'll tell you anyway.

Ever see a film where it occurred to you that what you're watching doesn’t add-up? More than once I'm guessing. Well, the following are the worst instances I can think of; some of these films I like and others not-so-much, but all have committed heinous crimes against logic and common sense. If you can think of others then feel free to add to the list.

‘Wait’ I hear you cry, ‘why don’t you get off your high horse Paul and just except films are a bit of fun, and it doesn’t really matter so long as we enjoy ourselves?’… Believe it or not, it’s a valid point, but here’s why I disagree.

These people and I’m chiefly looking at directors and screenwriters (without mentioning producers) are the individuals most responsible for the final product, are paid THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of pounds to do their job. Money the likes of which you or I will probably never see in our lives. Some scripts sell for as much as seven figures, directors always earn more.

When we’re talking sums of money this big, then I expect to see people at the top of their craft doing their best, and I’m sorry, but some of these mistakes are amateur at best and an absolute slap-in-the-face at worst. ‘I’ll take your money’ they laugh, ‘but I can’t be fucking bothered with what the film actually looks like when it’s over! I’m just here for the cash, pass me another beer!’

If I can see a mistake, and you can see a mistake, then I’m sure the ‘professionals’ know they’ve made it too! Most of the time, and this is perhaps the most irritating part about it, these things can normally be rectified with just a little bit of thought (as with Battle Royale)… Other times, we’re talking about a serious and funder mental problem with the script. In these instances, the projects should never have even been ‘green-lighted’ (like Avatar), but hey, they don’t care. Rush out any crap, get enough media attention, and wham! Money in the bank, who cares if it makes any sense?

I do. And, hopefully, you do to. Because you should. We’re paying for this shit.

Anyway, rant over.

Spoilers ahead. Lots of spoilers.

Alien Resurrection

So, in what is intended to be a fairly realistic film, a group of desperate survivors are forced to swim through a submerged corridor. Sounds intense, and ironically it's where the film looks like it's going to pick up, but wait- how long did they all hold their breath? Seriously, sit and watch it and draw a breath with the Ripley character. Even without exertion that's a pretty long breath, now imagine having to kick as hard as you can while doing it. Isn’t going to happen...

A small gripe, I know, but an irritating one. Easily remedied, just show them coming up for pockets of air, or edit the scene to be shorter. It’s not rocket science!

Avatar

 So, a heroic group of humans decide to rebel against a greedy corporation and lead the alien natives to victory. Sounds great, right? Except what happens after you win? The air isn’t breathable, and there aren’t enough Avatars to go round, so Chacon (the tough Latina chick) better have a good set of lungs on her. This woman is never going to see Earth again, none of these people will, don’t they have friends or family? Is everybody really that lonely and dead inside?

Gripe 2: Chacon disobeys a direct order to open fire on the natives during the siege on their spiritual tree. She turns her ship about-face and flies back to base. Surprising that Quaritch didn’t just order his men to blow her out the air, but even more surprising is that she didn’t even have to stand trial for court martial! Instead she’s left to roam the base and release captives! Come on, you don’t just disobey a direct order and get left to it like that, especially not by a villainous corporation light years from Earth with the financial-backing (and moral corruption) to ‘displace’ an entire alien tribe…

Remedy? None. It’s a fundamental issue with the story, go back to the drawing board.

Back To The Future

 So, Marty travels back in time only to be seduced by his mother while attempting to make his father more of a man. Uncomfortable when you think about it. Just explain to me this-When Marty returned to the present, having altered the  past, why didn’t his parents recognise him as the friend responsible for bringing them together? I mean, such an important chapter in their lives, and they can’t remember the person who had the biggest impact on their relationship? At the very least, you’d think the father would suspect the mother of infidelity…

Remedy? Nothing really to fix, aside from perhaps adding a brief comment from one of the parents? ‘Wait, he looks like… No, nevermind.’

Battle Royale

The film opens on a highly publicised ending to a previous Battle Royale contest- cameras flash, and an excited news reporter fights to remain in front of her camera-man while the crowds bustle around her. It’s like the end of the X-Factor, or Big Brother, and everyone’s heard of them. So why, when the class find themselves abducted, is the whole thing such a surprise? They don’t have a clue what Battle Royale is. It’s either a public spectacle or a secret government conspiracy, so which is it?

Remedy? Cut the opening scene, or cut the confused questions from the scene where the class wake up. Really the scriptwriter should have picked this up.

Blade

Right, so Frost was a man turned into a vampire, while most of the other Vampire leaders were born Vampires. I have a few problems with this idea. Firstly, shouldn’t the pure- blood Vampires be stronger or something, or how else are they in charge? And how does the aging thing work? Not so much a plot flaw, but just something I feel require a little more explanation, or why even mention it at all?

Gripe 2: The Vampire pure-blood leaders are gathered in the temple to act as sacrifices for the coming of the ‘Blood God’, and they’re clearly a requirement or why else go to the effort of abducting them (poor security incidentally). So why, after Frost’s girlfriend kills one of the leaders, does the magic still work?

Remedy? There is no point to the moment where the girlfriend kills one of the leaders! Why is it there? Just remove it. As for the whole ‘pure blood’ thing, that needs a re-write.

Blood Diamond

The main character Solomon is an abducted fisherman forced to work in a diamond mine, who happens across a priceless stone. During a raid on the mine, Solomon is able to bury it close to the river before escaping. Unfortunately, the villain in charge of the mine (Captain Poison- really, look it up!) knows that Solomon has stashed the stone and so he spends most of the film trying to track him down. At the films climax Solomon is bought back to the glade where he stashed the priceless stone- and there are three shallow holes in the ground! Just three! You expect me to believe that Poison knew exactly the glade where the stone was buried and dug just three fucking holes, about six inches deep, really? I’d have been there day and night digging holes everywhere, would seem like a much better use of my time than chasing Solomon across Africa. Or I could always take a handful of slaves to the glade and get them digging instead, just a thought…

Remedy? Would make more sense if Poison didn’t know the location of the exact glade where Solomon hid the diamond. Just show a scene of the guy forcing slaves to dig, but in the wrong location.

Cloverfield

So you’re a civilian recording all sorts of shit on your camcorder that the army would likely prefer didn’t go public. Makes you think they should have confiscated the camcorder at the field hospital, right?

Remedy? Hide the camera in a bag? Don’t go to the hospital? Re-write!

Ghost

 Just before the film’s climax deceased Sam is able to ‘get it on’ with his girlfriend Molly. The audience swoons, which is fine till you realise that in reality Molly is actually ‘getting it on’ with Sam’s medium ally Oda Mae (played by the famously sexy Whoopi Goldburg)- not so romantic now, is it?

Remedy? None required, just a little creepy.

In Time

 Considering most of these characters are living in border-line poverty, there’s a lot of people drinking cappuccinos and walking about with gym-bodies and salon-fresh hair. This all costs time/money currency unnecessarily, I’d be on a tap water and rice diet. Not many people looking 25 either… Gripe 2: the arm-wrestling scenario makes no sense either. It’s implied that the arm on top saps time from the arm below, so how can you win a contest from being on bottom?

Remedy. Shoot the script writer. Shoot the director. Shoot the stars. Burn the film.

Kill Bill, Vol 1

 The ‘Bride’ comes out of her coma and kills two men, one a thug and the other an orderly. Ignoring for now that the thug who had his tongue pulled out didn’t manage to run screaming from the room, but instead was found 20 mins later by the orderly, who’s entire body became strangely paralyzed after having his heels slashed open, ignoring all that- the ‘Bride’ spent thirteen hours in the a dead man’s car trying to recover from her coma. Thirteen hours. You’re telling me that two murdered corpses weren’t discovered in a hospital after thirteen hours? Most shifts are either 8 or 12 hours long, nobody got suspicious when the orderly didn’t turn up for hand-over? Or that the staff on the next shift didn’t find the bodies? They weren’t hidden. And if the corpses were discovered, you’d think the police would be all over the scene, and that includes the dead orderly’s car…

Remedy? Tricky. Change the time that passes in the ‘Pussey Wagon’ from 13 hours to 6 maybe? Or don’t give a time at all?

Mad Max 2, The Road Warrior

Most fuel goes bad after 6 months. A little longer if it’s stored correctly, or in tanks. Unfortunate but true. So whenever you watch these Mad Max-like films set in the future, with people driving about in converted cars, it’s all false. The climax of The Road Warrior would look silly on push bikes.

Remedy? There is none. The facts completely work against the concept of the film.

Prometheus

 The android David is smart. He can decipher an entire alien language and its technology by comparing ancient languages, that’s pretty smart. So, when he discovers that the ‘Engineers’ were intent on destroying the whole human race, he still considers it a wise idea to introduce them to his ‘father figure’ Weyland? Mmmm. Don’t sound so wise to me, sounds like it could go quite badly actually. Gripe 2: why does Weyland have to travel in secret? It’s his funding, his project and his fucking ship. Surely he gets to call the shots?

Remedy? What with this, and all my other gripes, I’m of the firm opinion the script needs re-writing from scratch.

Spiderman 2

 Spiderman is a man with superhuman strength. Doc Ock is a fat old man, whose only ‘super power’ is a set of robotic arms so light that they don’t tip him over when they reach outwards. Who’s going to win a fight out of these two? Spiderman can tip over a truck and halt a speeding train, what do you suppose happens if someone that strong punches a fat old man in the face? That’s going to look like a shotgun blast. Also, Spiderman has the strength to grab one of them arms and sling Doc Ock about like a rag doll.

Remedy? Again, tough. Maybe not show Spiderman actually landing a punch?

Star Trek (Reboot)

So, imagine your family (no, entire planet) is accidentally wiped out. That’d piss you off, right? Hell yeah! Now imagine you come into possession of a strange substance that lets you travel back in time! Wow. You’d go back and either save your family, or maybe warn the people responsible that their actions will destroy your planet! Right? So what does the villain in this film do? ‘I will travel back in time to have my revenge on the person responsible! Ha ha ha!’. Dick.

Remedy? In the face of logic the whole premise of the story comes crashing down. Total fail.

Terminator 2

Imagine you are a sophisticated computer intent on destroying man-kind. You send a robot back in time to kill Sarah Conner, mother of the man who is defeating you in the present day, thus eliminating your foe. The plan goes wrong; there was too much technology around capable of being used to destroy your robot. What do you do? Try sending your robot even further back in time perhaps, to kill Sarah Conner’s mother, or maybe even her mother (when weapons were even more primitive)? Or maybe send a robot back to kill her while she’s pregnant and unable to either run or fight?... Or do you do exactly the same thing again?

Remedy? How about just explaining that you can only travel back so far, that anything further back than 1980 isn’t possible yet?

Terminator Salvation

Imagine (again) you are a sophisticated computer intent on destroying man-kind. It is your goal to kill John Conner, and leave mankind leaderless and unable to oppose you. Sending robots back in time doesn’t work. Then you realise that you’ve captured Carl Reese, the man who travels back in time and father’s John Conner. That’s too perfect right? Kill him and you’ve ended the war: like Sarah Conner, no Reese- no John! Nope, instead, what you do is hold Reese as bait for a trap to kill the man who’d cease to exist if only you killed the hostage to start with. Duh!

Gripe 2: If every Terminator is created with a tiny nuclear device inside it’s skull (as used to destry the base at the end of this film), then why didn’t the last 3 blow up?

Remedy? A big rewrite. A very big rewrite.

The Chronicles Of Narnia, The Lion, The Witch & The Wardrobe

When Mr Tumnus is arrested by the Witches’ police, they leave a signed note on the door. That’s pretty clever considering they’re all wolves. Sure, they can talk, but they can’t write (or hammer bits of paper to the door).

Remedy? You don’t need the note, the beaver turns up to explain the plot anyway.

The Dark Knight

Just a thought, and this applies to all the Christopher Nolan Batman films: Batman has a strict ‘no kill’ policy. How can he ever be sure that any of the criminals he knocks about don’t die? He’s thrown no end of people down stairs and off ledges, and even a punch to the nose can kill you. How many car crashes has he caused? Them things spin around and flip over all the time; I’d be surprised if there hasn’t been a fatality yet- and that mostly happens to the cops! Hell, even Harvey Dent uses a car crash to kill two people. Tut-tut, Batman you hypocrite.

Gripe 2: Let’s assume that Batman is comfortable with the concept of ‘accidental death’ (as covered in the small print of his ‘no kill’ policy). That explains why he was able to morally justify leaving Ra’s Al Ghul to die at the ending of the first film. I have no issue with that… However, why does he then feel the need to save the Joker at the end of the second film? After all, that could have easily been seen as another accident, like with Harvey Dent.

Remedy? How could I do this to myself, I love these films, but fair is fair. It’s not one rule for some and another rule for others... The first gripe is a general conceit in many action movies, but the second gripe is inexcusable. How do you fix an issue like that? Perhaps you could argue that Batman only saved the Joker to prove that his theory about the ‘good people of Gotham’ was wrong? Sound’s plausible, let’s go with that…

The Lord Of The Rings, The Return Of The King

Let’s take the wise words of Family Guy’s Chris Griffin: “Erm, do you know in Lord Of The Rings, when the big eagle comes to rescue Gandalf…how come they do not just fly the eagle to Mordor and drop the ring into the volcano, instead of spending three movies walking there?” Like the man says, sometimes you have to sacrifice spectacle for a coherent plot. One of Chris’ more lucid moments, and I can’t put it any better than that myself.

Remedy? Cut the eagles from the film, perhaps let Frodo and Sam die on the mountain (makes for a shorter ending). OK, perhaps not that, but you need to loose the eagles. Maybe some of the other characters ride to the mountain, and Sam and Frodo outrun the lava?

X-Men, Last Stand

Imagine you’re a general tasked with protecting a very special child- one with a power that renders other mutants unable to use their abilities. Oh no, now an army of angry and dangerous mutants is attacking your post. What do you do? Try and fight them off bravely, even though they can deflect your bullets and claw you to death with terrifying ease?... Or, do you take that kid outside, stand him behind the first wave of your soldiers (perhaps behind a blockade for safety), and thus defusing the abilities of the oncoming mutants, and gun them down like so many jobless hippies? I know what I’d do. Plus, didn’t they have the cure in injection form? I’d issue that to each soldier as a form of close-combat side arm.

Remedy? This is getting depressing now. Another big rewrite, the climax just doesn’t work.

Finally, just as an added bonus...

Star Wars, The phantom Menace

For one thing, none of the new Star Wars films really tallies up with the original. For one thing, Jedi Masters stop fighting like ninjas on Speed and start fighting like old men. But the thing that always bugged me was; why does Darth Vader not remember building R2D2 and C3P0? He meets them again in Cloud City. AND, why don’t they remember him? AND another thing, why are there 100s of them if they were scratch built by some sprog in the arse-end of the Galaxy?

Remedy? Maybe they already covered this, I don’t know. I didn’t bother watching Attack Of The Clones or Revenge Of The Sith. That's why this is something of an 'Easter Egg' than an actual inclusion. Maybe I shouldn’t have included it in my blog at all, but what the Hell, I’m betting it’s still a loose end.

Well, there you have it. These are the films that grind my gears.

Looking forward to hearing yours…

"BLESSED IS HE WHO EXPECTS NOTHING, FOR HE SHALL NEVER BE DISAPPOINTED"

Alexander Pope

Warning: due to the passionate nature of this post, it features worse language than what is normally found in this blog, and I’m not talking about split infinitives…




In this article I’d like to take the opportunity to let rip about some real disappointments.

Bitter disappointments.

I’m not even referring to the common-place buzz around the larger blockbusters (take that with a pinch of salt), but about the good-old-fashioned and ever-reliable word of mouth. The type of films your most trusted friends and movie critics tell you “man, you really have to see this!”. And I don’t mean films that were ‘meh’, I mean films that had me literally screaming at the television screen, or ringing up my friends shouting “why the hell did you recommend that piece of shit?”.

In no particular order, these are my ‘ten most’. Enjoy (if that’s the right word in this context).


28 Days Later
Danny Boyle, 2002.
Alright, so we technically have a lot to be thankful for with this. The atmospheric set-up, the nightmarish vision of  a deserted London (we’ve gotten used to seeing such things in America, but here on home territory it’s enough to turn the blood cold), some nicely developed characters- and who can forget: this is the film that made Zombies scary again! Holy shit, they can run now! Suddenly every film and comic geek had to reassess the skills necessary to survive the Zombie apocalypse.
So you may well be asking me ‘why are you so down on it?’. I’ll admit, it’s inclusion here may be a little unwarranted, and I enjoyed the first half of the film, but by God does the second half suck cock. End of the day; it was a good opening and a new take on the zombie myth, but it buckles during the second act and becomes an entirely different film in the third.
I’m in the minority with this view, I do realise that, but for all the hype this film received (and in my view Danny Boyle has always been hugely overrated) I’m looking for something really special, and to disappoint with such a weak climax is criminal. By all means break with some of the conventions, but you can’t go breaking all of them!
How can you have a ‘zombie movie’* without a zombie attack at the end? All we get is about five of them staggering around in the front garden (without having any impact to the story) and one (just one!) on the loose inside the mansion. For a bunch of squaddies who survived the worse of the outbreak, they sure fucked things up at the end, didn’t they? I mean, come on, how many of them were there? And they had fucking guns. And am I supposed to believe that a bunch of squaddies left to their own devices after less than 30 days, with no reason to assume the virus has decimated anywhere else in the world besides England, suddenly turn into hostile rapists and pedophiles? The T.A maybe, but not squaddies...
28 Weeks Later, now that was awesome.




Avartar
James Cameron 2009.
You’ve heard all the jokes, you know, the ones like Dancing With Smurfs. I wasn’t so much bothered by the obvious nods to other films, but by the sheer laziness of the story. A knowingnod here and there is expectable, and a few similarities is to be expected in any film these days, but this clichéd mess? “Isn’t that tough Latin soldier a lot like Vasquez? And that slimy corporate guy, that’s Carter Burke!” It doesn’t matter if they’re your own films Mr Cameron, it’s still fucking lazy! This, from the guy who’s capable of Terminator 2, Aliens and the Abyss? James Cameron, I know you can write, and that just makes this even more inexcusable! Don't even get me started on Unabtanium! Real subtle.
And, the ‘crowning turd in the waterpipe’, all that bullshit “game-changer” talk. How is it exactly a game changer Mr Cameron? Because it features cutting-edge CGI, which will be outdated before the year is out? Because it’s in 3D, a method first pioneered at the dawn of cinema? Because of the originality of your ideas (ahem)? Because it’s over 2 hours long, like every other fucking film these days? It certainly isn’t because of the complexity of the writing or the quality of the acting!
Game changer my arse. Despite all that, it wasn’t even any good anyway.




Casino Royal
Martin Campbell, 2006.
First of all, I’d like to point out that this is the director who recently bought us Green Lantern. Just saying...
I’m not a Bond fan, which I realise may put me at something of a disadvantage to reviewing a Bond film, but I went to the cinema expecting that to work in my favour. After all, this was supposed to be a radical reinvention of the character. Instead I was lumbered with this sad-sack of an film, watching the most unsympathetic, misogynistic, self-centered unlikeable prick of a hero scowl and strop from one short-lived action scene to the next. And to top it off, Bond doesn't even kill the main antagonist. Oh no, that honor goes to some guy you barely meet in the film's set-up. I'm normally quite astute in films (I didn't see what was so complicated about Inception at any rate), but I had to nudge the guy next to me and ask "who the hell was that?". Imagine it: a Bond film where Bond doesn't beat the bad guy? No, Bond get's some twat that nobody remembers, in a scene that felt like it was tacked on. Talk about an anti-climax. I assumed the guy faked his own death to trick Bond into releasing the code to his love interest, but he really was dead.
In screenwriting and story telling, they always teach 'don't take the climax out of the hands of your protagonist' because it's hugely unsatisfying and leaves the main character looking redundant. Something else to bare in mind; 'Deus Ex Machina (or 'god in the machine'), a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly solved with the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability, or object. Or another villain suddenly bursting in and saving the hero from torture...




Cloverfield
Matt Reeves, 2008.
Behind the mystery and the found-footage gimmick is a blatant knock-off of Godzilla, only less fun and more whiney. They told us it was a ‘post 9/11’ movie. Well, sure if by that you mean it was made afterwards, that’s a no-brainer. If by that you mean ‘edgy’ because you’ve used a faux documentary style reminiscent of the news coverage on the day the planes hit the Twin Towers, then I’d like to point out that footage of horrific events like this have ALWAYS been in the public domain, you just never heard about them because you’re fucking American! That’s not a racist statement I assure you, but as a country you need to wake up and understand that things like that have happened across the globe, try asking the Jews all about it. Making a film that intentionally brings to mind a horrific occasion in modern history for the purposes of entertainment isn’t ‘edgy’, it’s just distasteful.
On a lighter note, it’s a dull film with lots of spoilt yuppies running around in the dark panicking, and that whole found-footage thing is boring and headache inducing! Plus, who’s actually still be running round filming all that? Sure, to start with perhaps, but if you’re in the middle of all that then NO! And even if you were that stupid, the army would have snatched that off you in a heartbeat in the field hospital scene…
And what sort of a title is Cloverfield? Is that a subtle attempt at irony?
I once bought a shatter proof mobile phone. I dropped it onto gravel in the first week and it broke. My new phone has a battery on it that lasts around two days, if I don’t actually make any calls or send any texts. Modern technology isn’t made to last. That may sound like an unrelated comment, but whatever those yuppies paid for that camcorder was worth it! It’s battery lasted for 12 hours straight, and it didn’t break (or even switch off) when it was dropped from the monsters mouth. They should put that on the advert!
It's a duff creature design too! If you have to wait almost the whole film just to get a glimpse of it, at least make it worth while. It looks like something from an old episode of Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles.




Contagion
Steven Soderbergh, 2011.
Films that rely on so many big-stars are rarely worth the time to watch. It’s called ‘stunt casting’, and it’s there for either one of two reasons. Either to attract attention to an otherwise uninteresting project, or to counter the fact that the film has no time to develop proper characters (“hey look, it’s Kate Winslet! I like her, she’s always nice, I know where I am now”). I’d say this film needs ‘stunt casting’ on both accounts.
It comes across less like a film and more like a lecture. It’s 28 Days Later, without the Rage Virus. It’s like getting a lettuce sandwich: sure, you can eat it but it’s definitely missing something important… Like the fucking filling!
Yes, I like Laurence Fishburne, I like Kate Winslet, and I even like Jude Law and Gwyneth Paltrow. I wouldn’t even describe their roles as cameos…




Inglorious Basterds
Quentin Tarantino, 2009
I’ll cover this in more depth another time, as I have a Quentin Tarantino post coming soon, but for now I’ll just cover the basics.
It’s a bit shit.
More to follow...




Spiderman 2
Sam Raimi, 2004.
It’s the best of the Sam Raimi Spiderman films, if you believe what your friends tell you. Yet, if like me, you have a slightly better memory, you’ll realise that this is almost exactly like the first Spiderman film!
Peter Parker is trying desperately to woo the girl of his dreams, but due to his shy demeanour and the constraints of a double life he keeps dropping the ball. He is befriended by a nice scientist who becomes a sort of father figure to our hero, except trouble is on the horizon- the nice scientist is working on an experiment that could benefit human kind, but after a slight miscalculation (you’ve guessed it) the scientist is transformed into a vicious villain!
You tell me, is that a description of Spiderman 1 or 2?
Alright, so it’s Spiderman, you’re limited as to what you can change, so why pick a villain with such a similar background? I know it was played well, but it felt a little tame after Willem Defoe’s scenery chewing turn as the Green Goblin.
On a final moan, Doc Ock weilds these giant arms, which are quite powerful, but he himself is just a podgy fella, while Spiderman is strong enough to flip cars punch through walls. So why is it that whenever Spiderman punches Ock in the head he just shakes it off??? Excuse me but no, if Spiderman punches a normal guy in the head then that fight is fucking over. End of. It will also require an 18 certificate.




The Godfather
Francis Ford Coppola, 1972.
Oooooooo. Controversial! The film that makes every critic’s top 10 is in my garbage pile. Truth is, no film will ever live up to that amount of hype, and I was bored watching it. Too many plot strands, unsympathetic characters, and a disjointed and badly-dated style just left me feeling like I’d seen better.
It would seem fair to say that it’s unfair to hold aging badly against it, but not every film out of the 70’s is that rambling or passé. And it’s not impatience before you ask, I’m a patient guy, I enjoy slow films, so long as they go somewhere and keep me involved- my mind isn’t ruined by the fast editing and explosions of modern cinema, it was just a dull film. I was under-whelmed, and given all the hype, that’s a crime enough to warrant it’s appearance in my list. Catchy tune though, and I suppose a film now responsible for so many dyed-in-the-wool cliches had to be influential in its day...




Titanic
James Cameron, 1997.
Poor Mr Cameron, you made the list twice.
Well, the sinking ship may have been impressive enough (I’m not going to be picky about bendy fences and the like), but the over-blown romance at the centre of the plot was, well, over-blown. It was engineered to appeal to simpletons and teenage girls, the sort who use glitter, love pink ponies and still have MySpace pages.
Not an awful film, but is it worth all the hype? Does the Box Office success reflect the quality of the film? No. I think, between this and Avatar, it just goes to show that Cameron is a master at playing the marketing game, and we’re all still stupid enough to fall for it. Myself included.




True Grit (remake)
Ethan & Joel Coen.
“Zzzzzzz… Wait, what did he say? Is that even a language?”
Do I like the Coen brothers, those eccentric and ecliptic purveys of the bizarre and the cultish? I’m really not sure where I stand on this, and no, this isn’t a set up for a gag. Sometimes I love their films, other times I think they produce some of the worst kind of crap. I think they clearly suffer from something of an ego.
For me, this and The Big Lewbowski are at polar ends of their output; True Grit being among their worst, and the other among their best. I wasn’t even that impressed with No Country For Old Men, which like this, took a long time to say very little. We all know that ‘violence begets violence’, it’s a fairly old maxim, and I’m sure I’ve seen it in better films than this self-important piece of conceited critic-fodder.







*A note to Danny Boyle.

Yes, despite your argument to the contrary, 28 Days Later IS a zombie film. You believe, wrongly, that because the infected are not technically ‘dead’ that they should be omitted to appease your pretentious reservations, but here’s why you’re wrong: have you never heard of the zombie slaves in Africa, strongly associated with the Voodoo culture? Although slightly revised, this is a snippet from an article by David Wong that explains my point in greater detail:

This baffling phenomenon has scientifically been explained by the use of poisons that slow your bodily functions to the point that you'll be considered dead, even to a doctor. The victims are then be brought back under the effects of a drug like datura stramonium (or other chemicals called alkaloids) that leave them in a trance-like state with no memory, but still able to perform simple tasks like slave labour.

These ‘zombies’ are, factually speaking, still alive, but are definitively recognised as zombies in their own culture, and ours. Just because you explain away mysticism doesn’t mean your film is any less a zombie movie, so stop being so arty and just accept that you made a zombie movie; one with a promising beginning and a shit ending!

“If I am to meet with a disappointment, the sooner I know it, the more of life I shall have to wear it off.” 

 Thomas Jefferson