The Amazing Spider-Man 2 - Review

There was a time in my life where I would have been overjoyed at the thought of a new Spider-Man movie. After all, I've been a massive Spidey fan since... well, pretty much as long as I can remember. I have fond memories growing up of collecting the comics, had tons of Spider-Man action figures, played pretty much every video game based on the character, and woke up every Saturday morning to watch the newest episode of the Fox Kids cartoon series. I still even vividly remember back when I was 13, seeing for the first time, one of my lifelong favorite characters being brought to life on the big screen in such awesome fashion by one of my all-time favorite directors, Sam Raimi. When the 2004 sequel hit theaters, I was pretty much on cloud nine. To this day, Spider-Man 2 is one of my all-time favorite movies and a strong contender for best superhero film ever made. The much-derided Spider-Man 3, however... while a far weaker follow-up to it's two predecessors, I'll forever maintain is a much better movie than for which it's given credit. It's flawed, messy, and uneven for sure, but it's positive traits are good enough to make it a decent film and certainly not the disaster people make it out to be. Then... the folks at Sony Pictures decided to hit the reboot button and Spidey got a massive overhaul. The result was 2010's The Amazing Spider-Man, a film that I labeled as "average at best." Actually, I took a lot of flack for giving that film such a lukewarm review, more than I expected. I didn't think it was terrible, but rather was just a generally average and soulless movie (mainly since it was rushed into production so Sony wouldn't lose the film rights). Still, a lot of people liked it, so I recently re-watched it to see if my opinion might have changed. To my surprise, it did! A film I once derided as mediocre, flat, and uninspired I now consider... pretty bad actually. The cast tries hard, but their efforts are ruined thanks to a half-assed retelling of Spidey's origin, non-existent character development, hit-and-miss special effects, misguided direction, and one half-decent action scene among a collection of terribly shot and erratically edited sequences that should have been exciting. So yeah... my expectations for the inevitable sequel were not so high, despite my love for (almost) all things Spider-Man. How does The Amazing Spider-Man 2 fare??? Well, let's just say that the true Amazing Spider-Man 2 already came out 10 years ago.

After graduating from high school, Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) attempts to live a double life as an average college student and the web-slinging crime fighter, Spider-Man. Living this double, however, becomes difficult when he reluctantly breaks up with his loving girlfriend, Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) after the death of her self-sacrificing father at the hands of the Lizard in the previous film. They both try to make a relationship work, but difficulties present themselves in the form of Gwen considering moving to London to attend Oxford and Peter facing a number of new deadly foes. The first of which is the nerdy Spidey-obsessed electrical engineer Max Dillon (Jamie Fox), whom after experiencing a near-fatal electrocution becomes Electro. Also present is Peter's former buddy, Harry Osborne (Dane DeHaan), heir to the Oscorp legacy who in a search to cure himself of a rare and fatal disease, becomes the Green Goblin (or is just a goblin... they never really say who he is). Also making a short appearance is Russian mobster Aleksei Sytsevich aka The Rhino (Paul Giamatti). Peter also digs deeper into his parents' mysterious disappearance, looking to discover what led to their tragic deaths and the research his father risked his life to keep hidden. Meanwhile, Peter's supportive Aunt May (Sally Field) struggles after Uncle Ben's death from the original while trying to keep up financially to support Peter and... OH MY GOD IS THIS PLOT CONVOLUTED!!! You know, people complained about Spider-Man 3 having too much going on (and it did, don't get me wrong) but AT LEAST you could follow what was happening. Why the filmmakers thought they could stuff so much into one movie is beyond me. This is easily the most difficult plot description I've ever written since there's simply so many barely (or not even) connected storylines with little resolution or development that it becomes an absolute mess. Ugh!

Okay... so yeah, the movie's not that good, just going to get that out of the way first. It's not terrible in the sense that it's at least a SLIGHT improvement over the last film and it does have a few standout moments... but yeah you can add this one to another let-down in the Spider-Man film series. I was pretty heavily criticized for my negative comments toward the last film (which is fine, everyone's entitled to their own opinion) but what I didn't get was when people accused me of not giving these ones a chance simply because I'm a big Sam Raimi fan. I'll admit, yes I love most of Sam Raimi's movies, I'll admit that I think he did a better job directing the Spider-Man films than Marc Webb, and it's true that I didn't exactly go into this or the last one with particularly high expectations... BUT that doesn't mean I was hoping this one would be bad!!! On the contrary, I don't like seeing one of my favorite superheroes getting shabby cut-rate movies, and there's nothing more I'd love to see than another worthy live action Spidey film, so I can once again revel in that feeling of nostalgia-based glee of seeing some of my favorite childhood characters being brought to life on the big screen! But I'm sorry, seeing boring re-imaginings of Spidey's rouge's gallery of villains, turning Parker into what it essentially a Edward Cullen-knockoff, and rushed and convoluted narratives just doesn't do it for me. That doesn't mean there's nothing about this series I don't like, there are a few bits and pieces that I did find myself embracing, but not enough to come around.

Like I said, there are a few things I did like about the movie. Once again, the cast is the main thing that holds the films somewhat together. Andrew Garfield is a damn good actor and there are times in his performance as Peter Parker/Spider-Man that you can see his natural range shine through. I still don't really like the way his character has been written in this series, but this time, it ALMOST works. Where in the last film, he was basically a one-note douchebag with little to no character development, here they try to show him grow as a character, are there are times it actually adds some legitimate drama, and Andrew Garfield generally delivers. Emma Stone's Gwen Stacy is once again the standout, both as an actress and as a character (as in, she's the only person in this movie to have some element of depth) also bringing her natural dramatic and comedic abilities to the part. Plus, Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone do have a genuine chemistry, and that is a big help. Dane DeHaan's intense performance as Harry Osborne is another standout, conveying some truly intense dramatic weight to a surprisingly emotional character... though by the time he makes his Green Goblin transformation, he feels a little out of his element. Jamie Foxx tries hard as Max Dillon/Electro, but because of the questionable script choices and direction for the character, most of his efforts are completely wasted. Sally Field is at her Sally Field-est as Aunt May, which is mostly a good thing, even though she's basically pushed aside for most of the film. Paul Giamatti as The Rhino could not have been more enjoyable, but the massive disappointment stemming from him basically being a glorified cameo to setup future sequels pretty much ruined any potential there. I might have been more forgiving if he had SOME relevance to the story, but like I said, he was there only to tease future sequels, and that was a cheap, shallow, and lame use of an enjoyable character and actor. So yeah... it's a generally good cast, even if the script lets them down.

As for the look and feel of the film... actually it's not that bad this time around. Most of the effects are an improvement this time around and Marc Webb has gotten slightly better at directing action. The web swinging scenes are easily the best the series has ever had, with some really fast paced and thrilling sequences that are a total rush. I didn't see the film in 3D, but I kind of wish I did just for those sequences. Plus, the first Spidey vs Electro fight scene was another highlight for the series, featuring some creative staging, effects, and tricky camera moves that were admittedly quite awesome. Nothing in the series has topped the outstanding train scene from Spider-Man 2 yet, but there were times that the Electro fight could have offered some decent competition. The actual finale itself isn't exactly groundbreaking, but it works. Unfortunately, I could not have been more disappointed with the look of these characters. Taking a comic character as unique and creative (look-wise anyways) as Electro and basically turning him into homeless Doctor Manhattan is a disappointing re-imagining. The look of Harry Osborne's Green Goblin manages the impossible of looking even sillier than Willem Dafoe's plastic costume from the first film. Finally... the Rhino suit (for the brief moments it appears on film) being re-imagined as a generic mech suit just left me saying, "Were the filmmakers not allowed to express ANY creativity?" At least the new Spidey costume was admittedly awesome, possibly even the best for the whole series.

Unfortunately, despite the obvious efforts of a good cast and a (seemingly) interested director, it's the script that ultimately brings everything down. There's so much going on that character development comes off as forced, rushed, and sloppy. Electro's storyline in particular is the main casualty, as the film was setting him up as the main villain but instead just rushes through forced and confusing character beats, ignores him for most of the second act, and has him return for a underwhelming closing. His character was basically stolen from The Riddler in Batman Forever, only even more forced and non-nonsensical (honestly, when Batman Forever did something better than your film, you know there's a problem). The Harry Osborne plot has it's moments, but some confusing plot-holes and unexplained character decisions kind of ruined it. Gwen Stacy's main dilemma in the film could have been a genuinely emotional and moving bit of storytelling but the foreshadowing is so heavy-handed that it will surprise absolutely nobody. The bits involving Peter's disappearing parents are basically thrown in as an afterthought and culminate to a revelation that also had little to no surprises. Even Peter's basic story arc, while having the right idea, competes with so many underutilized subplots that it doesn't come together all that well in the end. It has trouble finding a proper tone as well. It appears to try and go for a more realistic and down-to-earth vibe (which is fine), but with villains this over-the-top, it feels sloppy. I'm not saying that campy or scenery-chewing characters don't work (the original trilogy is proof that they do), but it's best to choose a tone and stick with it. My main problem, however, is that film's main purpose felt like less to tell a story, but rather to set up a shit-load of sequels and spin-offs. There are SO many shout-outs and set-ups for the recently announced two more sequels and a Sinister Six spin-off (a Venom spin-off is apparently in the works too). I don't mind sequel foreshadowing, but it shouldn't be the sole purpose of the film.

So it should go without saying, but The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is not even close to amazing. Despite some decent effects, action, and actors, the sloppy and poorly conceived screenplay ruins any chance of the film coming together. If there's one thing the film wants me to take away from it... it's that I should be excited for the inevitable sequels... can't say I am though.

My Score: 2.5 out of 5!

Django Unchained - Review

When it comes to finding quality movies these days, you've got to wonder if there is a more reliable director than Quentin Tarantino. It's pretty incredible when you think about it, not just that the guy has directed eight awesome movies (yes that includes Death Proof, I don't care what anyone says, Death Proof is a damn good tribute to 70s exploitation films and contains one of the greatest car chase scenes ever filmed), but rather that Tarantino has struck a chord with nearly everyone. Think about it, how many other filmmakers have been able to appeal to not only critics, but audiences everywhere ranging from film snobs, the blockbuster crowd, elitist hipsters, action junkies, and well... pretty much everyone short of the moral vanguards who have objected to the often violent and/or risqué content often found in his flicks. Why is that? Well, one can offer many theories, but what ultimately has made me remain such an enthusiastic fan (other than the fact that he flat out makes good movies) is what seems like a borderline psychotic obsession he has for the art of filmmaking. I would imagine (or at least I would hope) that all filmmakers have an immense passion for this medium, but Tarantino is a guy who has taken this love to the next level. Not only is he a self-proclaimed cinephile, but just by watching the dude's movies or seeing him being interview, it's plenty obvious that this is a guy who doesn't just love movies, but quite frankly, lives off of them. From sunrise to sunset, this is a guy who lives, eats, and breathes movies. That kind of passion and respect for this medium has resulted in one of cinema's most creative and prolific filmmakers who hones the skills of cinematic artists who have come before him and created his own unique voice and style that continues to entertain. So... with all of that said, how is his new film, Django Unchained?

As Quentin Tarantino's first true western, the film opens in 1858, with Django (played by Jamie Foxx), a recently sold slave being transported en route to Texas. His caravan is approached by Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz), a dentist-turned-bounty hunter, who enlists the aid of Django in order to identify his next potential bounty. He promises Django that if he assists him with the bounty, he will receive a share of the profits as well as his freedom. Upon realizing that Django is naturally skilled in the field of bounty hunting, he takes him on as a full fledged partner for the winter bounties. Django only requests that after the season ends, that Schulz assists him in the rescue of his wife Broomhilda, who was sold to a  sadistic plantation owner named Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio) who infamous for his pitting his slaves in brutal fights to the death. As the two plan their voyage into Candie's estate, nicknamed "Candie Land" (what else?), a land where racism runs rampant, Django and Schultz brace themselves for the horrors they are about to encounter.

Whether or not you approve of Quentin Tarantino's blatant audacity, you have to admit that the guy has serious balls for making a movie like this. Tarantino has often payed tribute to both blaxploitation flicks and spaghetti westerns, but I don't think he's ever done it quite to this extent. Django Unchained includes all of his expected trademarks, including his witty dialogue, established character actors giving eccentric performances, and shout-outs to classic flicks (the most obvious of which is the title and main character being a reference to the 1966 film Django). This one, while not quite reaching the same level of depth as say, Pulp Fiction, nonetheless features some poignant character beats reminiscent of his earlier movie Jackie Brown... along with the gritty violence of Reservoir Dogs and the over-the-top gore of Kill Bill. There has been more than a little controversy surrounding this flick, some regarding the extreme violence, some about the story's themes, and some about the use of the N-Word. I'm not going to get too in-depth with the film's controversial elements, but there is one thing on which I will comment. In this day in age, with race still being a touchy subject, it's almost impossible to make a race-driven movie without attracting some kind of controversy. So, while I acknowledge that it's a damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don't situation, there's just been a way-too-common trend of racially-driven films short-changing or sugar coating either it's messages or subject matter (The Help being a recent example). Django Unchained's take on slavery and racism may not be "sensitive" per se, but it definitely takes it seriously and portrays it for what it is... evil, nasty, brutal, disgusting, and flat-out horrific. Slavery an unfortunate stain on American history that many like to pretend never happened... only it did happen, and it was a period that was significantly darker than many probably would like to admit. Django Unchained doesn't skimp on that front, it's brutal and shocking from start to finish.

I would love to know just how Tarantino directs his actors, because this guy has a knack for finding the perfect casts and getting just the right performances. Jamie Foxx has shown on many occasions that he's a talent to be reckoned with, though he hasn't done anything particularly memorable since 2004 (the year of his double-whammy in Ray and Collateral). That all changes here, as he once again brings his top acting chops to the role of Django. He starts off as somewhat reserved, but goes with the flow of his developing character, releasing his anger and hate, as the former slave sets out for revenge, resulting in one of his most dynamic and deeply emotional performances to date. Christoph Waltz reunites with Tarantino after the two collaborated together in Inglorious Basterds (for which Waltz won an Oscar). Waltz, once again, brings his enigmatic talents to another solid role, not only driving the story and bringing some mystery to his character, but also adding some nice touches of comic relief to such a dark film. Both Foxx and Waltz have a good chemistry, and work well enough to keep the audiences invested and wanting to see what will happen next. They're a good duo that I think most will enjoy.

As good as Foxx and Waltz are, there is one performance that managed to rise above pretty much everyone else... and that is Leonardo DiCaprio as the despicable Calvin Candie. It's kind of funny to think that back in 1997, myself and a lot of others couldn't stand the guy after, despite giving a very average performance in Titanic, Leo-mania hit the world. That said, he's really made a name for himself after, in what could have been his 15 minutes, he continued developing his acting chops and choosing damn good roles. I'll admit that I've become a fan, and his performance here is really something to behold. He is arguably the best villain of the year, and DiCaprio just owns every minute he's on screen. He's such a nasty and dick of a villain, and DiCaprio just sells every ounce of the dude's worst qualities. I would like to see all three of these guys come out with Oscar nods, but as far as I'm concerned, if the Academy doesn't recognize DiCaprio for this... then they really need to get with the program. I won't dwell too much on the rest of the cast since that would take forever, though will say that they were all quite good, and that does include one of Samuel L. Jackson's more memorable roles in recent years.

Tarantino is such a master of the craft, that it seems kind of pointless to even mention the guy's direction. What can I say? The guy knows his stuff, inside out. Hell, I imagine the guy could probably direct a movie blindfolded and it would still be cinematic gold. Few directors have a knack for spot on cinematography, action scenes, witty performances, and film pacing. Even with a near 3-hour runtime, the film was so engaging that is just flew by. The action scenes are all damn-near perfect, with some of the best shootouts to hit the cinematic world in I don't know how long. In addition to being flat out thrilling and suspenseful, they're also bloody as hell, with the aforementioned buckets of blood that he's known for dishing out. The camerawork is beautiful, the editing is perfectly timed, the sets look great, the whole movie is just awesome. As I mentioned before, Tarantino just knows how to find that perfect balance of honoring classic films while incorporating his own vision to create a unique and visceral style. I can't really think of anything bad about this movie, only that it may not be for absolutely everyone. The over-the-top violence and edgy subject matter will no doubt be too much for some. For someone whose no stranger to on screen violence, I'll even admit that there were a couple scenes that kind of disturbed even me (I won't spoil which ones, but I think you'll know when you see them). But honestly, the movie is just that freaking great, plain and simple.

In the pantheon of Tarantino's filmography, this may not quite be his best (Pulp Fiction is going to be insanely difficult to top), but it's nonetheless another cinematic gem worthy of his past achievements. The great performances, memorable action, and insanely compelling story make this a very strong contender for best film of 2012. So unless you can't stomach your screen violence, all I can say is that Django Unchained is an absolute must see! Don't wait... go to the theater right now and check it out!

My Score: 5 out of 5!