"DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT YOU REALLY ARE?"

Curt Connors (The Amazing Spiderman, 2012).

I watched the new Spiderman film.

Well, I didn’t just ‘watch’ it; I bought it on its DVD release date. See, the thing is I’d gotten quite excited by the hype, and it was always my partner’s intention to take me to the cinema to see it for my birthday in August. Unfortunately, that didn’t happen, we literally missed it by two days, and I’d been going crazy to see it since then. It was on sale for £10, and I thought to myself “it’s going to be at least £6 to hire, and I don’t live anywhere near a DVD rental store, so may as well just buy it.”

Long story short, know anybody who wants to buy The Amazing Spiderman on DVD? Watched once.

It was an unusual film for several reasons, from the relatively short time between its production and Raimi’s films (the first being 10 years ago, the third being just 2007), the legal implications of the studio holding onto the franchise, and the departures made from the previous efforts. I’m not giving anything away by saying I found it a below par film (the review is already posted), but I wanted to take the time to explain some of the highs and lows of the film… Now, I realise that every film should be judged on its own merits, but a comparison between this new film, by aptly named director Marc Webb, and Sam Raimi’s origin film is unavoidable: any reboot (especially one this close to the previous effort) will always be compared to what has came before, it will be the yard stick by which its success will be measured. I don’t find that unfair, it’s the pitfall of rebooting any franchise.

Anyway, I’m not here to ‘rag’ on The Amazing Spiderman, my review has already done that; instead I’m here to explore the differences and similarities of both Raimi’s and Webbs versions of Spiderman, and offer my insights (as they are) into where they either hit or miss the Marc (couldn’t help the pun). To help make things easier, I tackle each subject separately, and as evenly as I can. As a warning, there may be spoilers, especially for those of you out there who aren’t nerds and don’t read comics. You have been warned.

Hope you find it at the very least ‘a little bit interesting’, and as always I welcome debate.

Don’t be a stranger…

Missing Parents

So, the first departure Webb makes from Raimi’s take is quite significant, and probably the largest change in the entire film. The shame is that, so far as this first instalment goes, it’s a largely unused plot device- clearly something that will be fully explored in the sequels.

In the Raimi film, Parker’s parents are out of the picture, and nothing more is made of the subject. Such is life Peter, get over it. Webb’s film, however, tantalisingly links Peter’s deceased parents, both cutting-edge scientists in the field of genetics (aka; creating superhumans), with Oscorp- and ultimately its shady director Norman Osborne (who for the unenlightened will become Spiderman’s biggest enemy Green Goblin). No denying that it’s a smart step into new territory, and one I expect could pan-out well. I kind’a like the idea that the Oscorp tower could become ‘bad guy central’ and be responsible for a whole host of genetically engineered supe- villains.

So, in this respect, Webb’s film comes up on top, although that may be a little unfair seeing how Raimi took his background directly from the comics. But who said life was fair?

Webb 1, Raimi 0.

Uncle Ben & Aunt May

Whereas Raimi takes his cue for these loveable ‘old timers’ straight from the comics, Webb (in keeping with his attempt at a more gritty take) bravely breaks with tradition. Gone are the folksy and quaint Ben and May, and instead we have a more young-at-heart and modern relationship.

Webb’s Ben is savvy and protective of his wife, and even has the brass to get in a full-on argument when he and Peter don’t see eye-to-eye. A real highlight is Ben’s relationship with; his head is screwed on well enough to realise he’s being bullied at school, and he displays real guilt at Peter’s discovery of his father’s science notes. May, a far cry from the sickly sweet white-haired Raimi version also has sass, and when the inevitable death occurs genuinely behaves like a woman in mourning.

So, again the points have to go to Webb. It’s a very promising start.

Webb 2, Raimi 0.

Bitten By The Bug

This is where Webb’s attempt at realism starts to go wobbly, like a fat chick on a bouncy castle. I know what you’re thinking “Paul, it’s a superhero in red and blue spandex, how real can things be?” but that’s not my issue. Instead, with the discovery of his father’s Oscorp ID, Peter bluffs his way into a high security facility. Not only that, but he manages to sneak away from the tour group to secretly shadow an important company executive, and despite his poor eyesight manages to see (from quite a distance) the exact code used to access one of the most fortified units in the building. Even if I accept all of that, which I did (I was willing to suspend my disbelief), I drew the line at super-smart Peter snooping around inside a bio-hazard room, after watching two guys leave in bio-hazard suits. You just wouldn’t do it, not at the risk of boiling the skin off your bones, or giving yourself Cancer.

It’s such an easy script issue to avoid. I could understand it if Peter had to hide in the room to avoid detection, without noticing the big danger sign pasted over the door. In fact, that makes the whole thing sadly tragic. But no, seems that Peter the boffin fancies himself as invincible even before becoming a superhero.

Raimi’s ‘missing spider’ may seem just as unlikely, but at least it’s through no fault of Peter’s, and the world Raimi constructs was never meant to be taken seriously; it’s an almost timeless homage to the golden age of comics and was never meant to reflect the real-world. When you embrace the fantasy then you don’t have to fight so hard for the realism.

With that in mind, Webb 2, Raimi 1.

Out On A Line: Web Shooters vs. Mutations

Surprisingly, despite Webb’s attempts to make the comic work in a real-world setting, he brings the character back to his comic roots with the invention of the web-shooters. An odd choice, when Raimi’s films neatly side-stepped the ‘how does a high school kid come up with something like that’ issue by having them develop as a mutation, a direct result of the spider bite responsible for all of Peter’s other arachnoid-inspired powers.

Sadly, where Raimi’s fantasy would almost allow for the suspension of disbelief required to pull this off, Webb’s does not, and it’s inclusion here confuses me- especially given the drastic changes made concerning Peter’s parents, uncle and aunt. Admittedly, the Raimi method did polarise hard-core nerds, but there is no disputing that it worked. Instead, we have a 17 year old high school kid constructing cutting edge tech in his bedroom (yes, I know the actual webbing is made by Oscorp, but he still had to make the web-shooters). I don’t truck with the hardcore nerds who can’t cope when something isn’t exactly how it is in the comics, sometimes change is necessary, mediums work in very different ways (books, comics, films, games) and I say this as one of the few people who actually preffered the ending in the Watchmen film over the one from the graphic novel.

Now we’re neck-a-neck, Webb 2, Raimi 2.

Peter Parker

A film can live or die by its lead role. Would Commando have worked without Schwarzenegger, or Groundhog Day without Murray? Even a bad film can be elevated by a charismatic lead (I point you to almost any Christopher Walken movie).

Raimi’s Peter may have occasionally been pathetic, but he was always likeable- and consistent, which is a big deal. Webb’s Peter is less defined, and swings between mean-and-moody skater dude with a cock-sure attitude (unafraid to stand up to the school bully in front of a crowd of people) and stuttering girl-shy dweeb.

Much has been said of Andrew Garfield’s attempt on Peter Parker, especially concerning his on-screen chemistry with Emma Stone (with whom he struck up an off-screen romance), but I have to admit I found him infuriating. Less the way he was written, because he gets some pretty funny lines and his Spiderman is a lot more wise-cracking than Toby Maguire. Unfortunately, and this could just be me, I found Garfield incredibly self-absorbed and slap-worthy, especially during the romantic scenes.

But that could just be me, and I guess it’s hard to be completely subjective. I’d give my points here to Raimi, but I’ll have to leave this one for you ‘”dear reader” (Stan Lee homage). By now you will have seen enough on the adverts and Youtube to know how you feel on the subject, alter the score accordingly.

I also have an eversion to hair that’s still immaculate on the removal of a skin-tight mask… Webb 2, Raimi 3.

School: It’s A Hard Knock Life

Highschool was never a big thing in the Raimi films, and it was nice that the whole of Webb’s film was set in those early years. It’s all pretty convincing and well handled, if you can live with the fact that these 17 year olds look a lot like they’re in their mid to late twenties.

Where I again have problems (and sadly I said the same thing in the Raimi film), is after Peter develops super powers. You’d think, with all the hype about Spiderman going round that someone would think to tie that with the guy in school who can jump ten foot into the air during basketball, or dent the American football goal posts by slinging a ball from the stands. It’s hard to explain that shit away. Similarly, you’d think Peter’s webbing-related fiasco in the school dining room in Raimi’s film would raise a few eyebrows…

So, I have to give the points to Webb on this one. Webb 3, Raimi 3.

Budding Romance: Gwen Stacy vs. Mary Jane Watson

Anyone who reads the comics will know the real love of Peter Parker’s life is Gwen Stacy, whose life is tragically cut short during a confrontation with the Green Goblin, while MJ was the silver medal. Raimi decided, for whatever reason, to merge Gwen and MJ into the one character, and this worked fine for his films- you get both the high-school sweetheart angle and the red-head model. Talk to any nerd, and you’ll find a divide between the ones who fell for Gwen’s innocent charm and those who drool over the feisty curvaceous MJ.

I’ve always been more partial to Gwen, and in the Raimi film MJ shared her more sweet-natured traits which makes her more likable in my eyes (MJ’s first appearance in the comics portrays her as a bit of a diva- she becomes a more likable character as the comics go on). So, the prospect of seeing a real version of Gwen Stacy was very appealing, and from the promo she looked the spitting image of the comic character. So it’s with a heavy heart that I write that I found her ‘mumble-can’t finish sentences’ relationship with Parker hugely irritating. No doubt it was meant to be sweet, quirky and hip, but (for me at least) it missed the mark. Having said that, the three-way relationship between Peter, Gwen and her father (played by the ever-gruff Denis Leary) was entertaining, and without giving too much away it’s a shame it won’t continue into the sequels.

On balance, Raimi’s MJ is more engaging and more sympathetic than Webb’s Gwen (who just also happens to be the villain’s intern at Oscorp- not bad for a 17 year old, huh?). Having said that, she looks the part and it’s nice to see her in the film, even if it’s in a flawed way. Webb 3, Raimi 4.

A Death In The Family

OK, so I don’t think I’m giving too much away by telling you that (shock, horror!) Uncle Ben is killed, and that Peter Parker had it in his power to prevent it. This time around, the death is related to a simple liquor store robbery, with the whole absurdist wrestling scene removed (eluded to later). Personally, I wasn’t a fan of the wrestling scene in the Raimi film, and the sudden brutality of Webbs scene in the street just rings so true in today’s age. No final words, no gasping, no holding hands. All the cliché’s of storytelling are stripped away, and instead we are left with just a simple death, and that’s so much harder to watch. And where is the killer? Already 2 blocks away, lost in a concrete city maze…

Webb 4, Raimi 4.

The Vigilante Days

After the death of Uncle Ben both Webb’s and Raimi’s Peter go in search of revenge. For Raimi’s Peter, luckily he was able to apprehend the criminal on the very same night. Webb’s Parker, as fitting for a real world scenario, is denied his justice- which will no doubt be addressed in the sequels.

I quite like Webb’s approach to this, but again it hardly seems fair to hold it against Raimi for sticking to the source material. You can’t help but feel that this wasn’t necessarily an intuitive move for Webb, but an attempt to make his film different.

Webb 5, Raimi 4.

The Villains: Curt Connors vs. Norman Osborne

Curt Connors, aka The Lizard, was always my favourite Spiderman villain. He appealed to me because he was actually monstrous (and looked like a dinosaur), whereas most of Spiderman’s foes were simply people in suits. I was particularly a fan of the Todd McFarlane drawing, with the long snout full of crocodile teeth. Again, I was very interested to see how this translated to the screen, and the news that Rhys Ifans was due to play the character was interesting. Willem DeFoe’s Norman Osborne was ham-fisted scenery-chewing villainy at its best, and would always be a hard act to follow (I honestly don’t think even Raimi managed to top this), so the odds were already stacked against the reboot…

Shame then that Ifans (a usually interesting actor) was given no chance to shine in a role that was both underwhelming and poorly developed, despite a promising revelation that linked him to the disappearance of Peter’s parents (and is then never revisited)! The CGI of the beast-form was also unconvincing, and without the ripped lab coat and feral mouth the design was also bland- it looked more like the Abomination from the end of Edward Norton’s Hulk sequel than the reptilian creature from the comics. A real missed opportunity.

Webb 5, Raimi 5.

One Smart Kid: Nerd vs. Genius

To begin with, I assumed that (in Webb’s film) when Peter gives Dr Connors the formula required to complete his experiment successfully that he’d found it in his father’s paperwork. My girlfriend told me that I was wrong, that “Peter obviously figured it out on his own” while sitting on the roof of his house with his head stuck in a book on genetics. Naturally I told her that was ridicules, “he’s just a high school kid, how could he possibly fix a leading scientist’s equations by spending the afternoon reading a book?” We’ll see I told her, in my usual smug way. Guess who was wrong?

Me.

Turns out that his father’s seemingly important paperwork had nothing to do with the plot of the film (I expect that comes into the sequels), and yes, Peter Parker, high school dweeb, cracked the formula Dr. Connors spent fifteen years of his life attempting to perfect. Am I the only one who finds that hard to except? Why do this if you are trying to ground your story in reality? Oh wait, I forget, this is the same kid who builds himself web-shooters…

Peter Parker was never meant to be a genius. He’s just a very, very smart kid (emphasis on the word kid), something Raimi understood. He could follow other people’s theory’s, but he wasn’t up to correcting their mistakes!... Having said that, in Webb’s film he did kind’a cause Connors to become a monster, so maybe he isn’t all that smart after all- but that’s beside the point.

Parker is a boffin, not a genius. Webb 5, Raimi 6.

Aesthetics

Something about Raimi’s Spiderman suit always bugged me; could be the eyes, maybe even the silver web treatment on the suit. Whatever the reason, it always ‘felt’ more like a toy to me than an actual character. Webb’s Spiderman suit (despite the pointless little changes to the layout of the red patches that are barely noticeable, and probably only there to put more distance between the films) actually ‘feels’ real. Webb’s Spiderman also seems able to pull off the character’s more supple and bendy poses, which may only be down to Garfield’s more slender frame. Whatever the reason, I actually prefer Webb’s take on the suit.

When it comes down to the rest of the design, I’m torn. Both largely achieve what they set out to accomplish. Raimi’s timeless suburban neighbourhoods look like they leapt straight out of the pages of the comic book, while Webb’s gritty urban streets and towering skyscrapers set the stage to a more real life tale a’la Nolan’s Batman reboot (forgetting for now that the script fails to deliver on that promise). I can’t honestly choose one setting over the other as both feel just as important and relevant to me.

I would point out that the pointless 3D moments in Webb’s film add nothing to the narrative, and the effects, while not terrible, lack the wow factor you would hope for in a blockbuster whose main character is a guy who can swing high through the city on ropes. Aside from a little more ‘weight’, they don’t really stand much better than those in Raimi’s film, now ten years old.

As I’ve already pointed out, I feel a crushing disappointment at how badly they translate the Lizzard to the screen, although there can be no denying it’s fun to see Spiderman grapple with a character so large and powerful (most of his foes till this point have been at least human in scale and form), and the fight through the school is undoubtedly the film’s best action set piece. I realise there was a small sub-set of fans that were disappointed by the Green Goblin’s suit in Raimi’s films, but that still felt more faithful than Webb’s Lizard- and the casting of DeFoe was masterful and pitched perfectly.

When it’s all said and done, I like aspects from both films, but I’d have to award Raimi’s film the points. His world is more unique and better crafted, and his use of CGI has aged pretty well (considering).

Webb 5, Raimi 7.

Soundtrack

Can you remember the Raimi Spiderman soundtrack? Yes, no, sort of? Some can, others can’t, and I appreciate that. I really liked it. Trust me, nobody will remember the new Spiderman soundtrack. It’s all clipped indie songs, low bass and ambient noise, nothing you’ll ever hum to yourself in the car or tap your feet to. In a superhero film you need a theme, something bold and swelling- especially when you’re lead character is in a red and blue suit.

Final score? Webb 5, Raimi 8.

So that’s pretty much where I stand on the subject of comparison. I don’t touch on just how dull the second act is, or how disappointed I was in the third; all that after a promising start. It’s one of them films that, no matter what I say, if you want to see it you’ll see it anyway. Actually, I recommend you do because it’s probably best described (like so many of Spiderman’s foes) as a ‘failed experiment’, the proiduct of an intelligent mind close to success, but corrupted in its core…

My advice to Mr Webb? Not that he'll read this I'm sure, but here goes... To quote Webb's own Ben Parker "You owe the world your gifts. You just have to figure out how to use them"...

"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

"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!