*Spoilers on the off chance you haven't seen it!*
The final chapter in the Christopher Nolan directed Batman trilogy is here. The Dark Knight Rises had an impossible task: follow up THE greatest superhero movie of all time. The Dark Knight made gobs of money, was loved critically, and even won Academy Awards. It's snub for a Best Picture nomination changed the way the Oscars are done, expanding the nominees from five to ten the next year to include more fan friendly films. With all that being said, The Dark Knight Rises meets all expectations and more.
Eight years after Batman took the fall for Harvey Dent's crimes at the end of the last film, Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) is now a hobbled recluse. The streets of Gotham are relatively clean and all is well. But a string of events started by Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway) and the rumor of a more sinister evil, Bane (Tom Hardy), brings Batman back into the fold. Bane has come to Gotham to finish the work started by Batman's mentor, Ra's al Ghul (Liam Neeson, seen only in flashbacks) by bringing the city to its knees.
Tom Hardy had an impossible task. He is charged with playing the next villain in the Batman series after Heath Ledger turned in a performance for the ages in The Dark Knight. Ledger posthumously won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor. Ledger was incredible. He was sinister, darkly funny, and completely insane as the Joker. Many had a hard time recognizing the actor under his makeup and voice. The Joker is one of the best movie villains ever put on screen, and Ledger's performance will likely never be matched, at least in a superhero film. Even with the ridiculous bar Ledger set, Tom Hardy does as well as anyone could with a follow up. Bane is an incredible presence on screen. With his most of his face covered by a mask, Hardy had to sell the character with his voice and body language. He most certainly delivers. Bane's voice is scary, even if it is garbled and hard to understand at times. His stare and hulking frame intimidate all who cross his path. In short, Bane is a scene stealer that is a worthy successor in the Batman trilogy to the Joker.
At two hours and forty-five minutes, TDKR is the longest movie of the three, but the pace is so brisk I hardly recognized the run time. Length is all about pace. There are ninety minute movies that seem to go on forever, and there are three hour movies that fly by. The sign of a great film is one that can engross you at all times. You don't feel the need to look down at your watch or pull out your phone because you are sucked in. TDKR most certainly does this.
I thought that Bruce Wayne's arc was the best of the three films. We see Bruce at the first of the film jaded and alone. After leaving Batman behind, with his love Rachel dead with him, Bruce seemingly has nothing to live for. As Alfred (Michael Caine) says to him, he is merely existing. Kyle is the one who seems to pique his interest. Kyle is bad, but you can understand her desperation. She's looking for a fresh start, and in today's world, that is hard to come by. Today, there is an iPhone app to publish pictures of those in county lockup, advertising their shame to the world. Kyle has led a life of crime and the walls are closing in. Wayne takes a liking to her. I especially liked the scene where she and Bruce share a dance at a charity event. Definitely some major chemistry there between Hathaway and Bale. When Bruce puts the cape back on, it is all about himself. He realizes he misses Batman, and that it will take his tortured mind away from his loss of Rachel. After losing a battle with Bane, Bruce is locked away in a torturous prison filled with despair. It is here that Bruce realizes the real reason he is Batman: to give himself to the city that his parents built.
The last forty five minutes of the movie are where it really shines. Bane has taken over Gotham and has threatened it with the explosion of a nuclear bomb (doing so at a football game, with some cameos from many of the Pittsburgh Steelers). All the while Bruce is stuck in the desolate Middle Eastern Prison that Bane sent him to, in order to witness the destruction of the city he loves. I got chills when Batman lit up the flaming bat signal on the bridge, and made his triumphant return. I wanted to get up and fight with the charging police officers in the battle scene between them and Bane's "people". The ending is action packed and full of intensity, and I was having to remind myself to blink.
Speaking of the "people", there was a very interesting subtext to TDKR. In many recent months the political climate in the U.S. has been surrounding the so called "99 percent vs. the 1 percent", and the supposed uneven dispersion of wealth in this country. Bane comes to Gotham preaching that he is going to take the city away from the fat cats and give it back to the people. When the "people" are put in charge, all hell breaks loose. I interpreted this to be a representation of how those with wealth make the economy run. The wealthy are the ones who employ people. People who work hard (or in rarer cases than people think, are born into it) are the ones with money, and that should be an applauded position and not a villainous one. Bane is like the leader of this movement. He truly isn't willing to be "just like everyone else" and give up the trigger to the nuclear weapon, just like our Congressman tell us that a government healthcare plan is good enough for us, but they won't use it. In such a liberal dominated Hollywood, it's very interesting to see Nolan take the opposite side. And the mere fact that I am writing about political subtext in a superhero film is ridiculous. It just goes to show that these movies are so much more than mere superhero romps. They are powerful dramas that will be remembered for a long time.
In my opinion, there are three trilogies that are the gold standard: Indiana Jones, Star Wars (originals, duh), and The Lord of the Rings. The Batman trilogy is up there with all of these. That is how good they are. TDKR is more like Return of the King than Return of the Jedi. Both were charged with following up incredible films; RotK exceeded or at least met its predecessors, while Jedi was clearly not the best of the three. Personally, I like TDKR better than TDK, but it is splitting hairs. I could watch all three Batman movies in succession and love every second of it.
I could write way more about all that is going on in this film. Joseph Gordon-Levitt's cop John Blake that is groomed to be Batman's successor. Gary Oldman's underrated performance as Commissioner Gordon. Bruce Wayne's love interest turned enemy in Miranda Tate, or as she is revealed to be, Talia al Ghul. Bruce Wayne and Alfred's reconciliation in the last scene. And so much more. The bottom line is that this movie is clearly the movie of the summer, and it completes a trilogy that will be remembered with the all time greats. Go see it in IMAX, as I was able to. It is stunning!
5/5
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Saturday, July 14, 2012
(500) Days of Summer
*Spoiler!* Don't read if you haven't seen it!
(500) Days of Summer is my favorite romantic comedy, bar none. For the most part, I hate romantic comedies. Every single one follows the exact same formula. The girl meets the guy, they flirt, they have some jokes and misunderstandings, and then they end up together. Granted I realize that romantic comedies are not directed towards my gender, but I've still seen quite a few in my day. (500) Days of Summer is totally different. The story is told out of order. The couple doesn't end up together. The male is the lead character, as opposed to the female. The narration tells us from the start that "this is not a love story". The movie is such a great look at relationships, love, and how us males are so different than females. Maybe my judgment is clouded because I have good feelings attached to this movie, as I saw it on a really great date. The relationship didn't work out, but I always think back to seeing that movie as one of the good times. The male lead is frequently clouded by the "good times" from his relationship with the girl, a major part of the movie.
(500) Days of Summer follows Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and his 500 days of infatuation with Summer (Zooey Deschanel, one of my favorite actresses). The movie tracks his original feelings for her, their time together, and his time getting over her, much of which is told out of order.
Since the story is told from Tom's perspective, there are so many moments that I could relate to. Tom incorrectly reads Summer so many times. Early on, Tom and Summer share and elevator ride. Summer says that her weekend was "goooood" (emphasis on the good), which Tom interprets to mean that she spent it with some other dude. He immediately dismisses any further chance with her. I've totally been there. If a girl doesn't text back within a certain amount of time, or sounds less than excited in a response, I immediately think she's not interested. Most of those times it's a stupid misreading and a total overreaction, but this is how people think. Dating is most certainly a game. Women think that women over analyze their interactions with men way more than men do, but the truth is that men do the same thing but won't admit it.
Much of what people don't like about this film is that Summer comes off as playing Tom. They date and grow really close, yet Summer never commits to him, and eventually ends up with someone else. I disagree in that Summer plays Tom. Summer says to Tom in their first meaningful conversation together that she does not like relationships. She says she is too young to be tied down, relationships are messy, and she wants no part of it. Tom, being the hyper romantic that he is, thinks in his heart that he can change her feelings. He believes that if given the chance, he can be the one to tame Summer. Yet throughout their time together, despite how close they become, Summer maintains her independence. She never says she wants to be his "girlfriend", never thinks they are more than friends. Essentially, she enjoys being with Tom, but doesn't see a future. Tom puts his blinders on and refuses to believe this. He enjoys so many things about her (their same taste in music, her quirkyness, and her looks), that he glosses over something that is extremely important to him. Tom is looking for a wife, and Summer makes it clear she is not it. Yes, she does act in some occasions that she wants more, but will never change her mind. It's so important to know that you cannot go into a relationship wanting to change someone. It's naive to think that you can make someone else do what you want and fit into your box. Yet people, myself included, do it all the time. We overlook the things that we don't like about a person because of the great things in them. Things that maybe are very important and things that we really need in a mate, we shirk because of infatuation and romantic feelings. Tom shirks the fact that Summer never wants to get serious with him because he loves the way she makes him feel.
Tom is constantly wanting to be her "boyfriend", unless he says he doesn't because he thinks it will rock the boat. In my mind, if Summer was sure about him, she would have no problem with this label. "You never wanted to be anyone's girlfriend, and now you're someone's wife", Tom says to Summer after learning of her wedding to another man. The "boyfriend-girlfriend" label is a funny thing. Many people take it to both extremes. On the one hand, you have people who go on 3 dates, say they are dating, and instantly become a pretend married couple. They have to ask the others permission to do anything, they eat every meal together, and they spend every spare second together. In Christian circles (which by the way is where I run, and what my lens looks like), the couple is basically married save for living together, having different last names, and separate bank accounts. Then on the other hand, you have people that are totally averse to the idea of a label. They shun the idea of belonging to someone, being someone's "boyfriend" or "girlfriend". Unless there is a ring on the woman's finger, there is no commitment, and neither is tied down by the other. My thought is that if I'm going to err to either extreme, it's going to be towards the "no labels" couple. Pretend marriages are extremely dangerous. They can hurt feelings, bring on dangerous temptations, and alienate friends. This was Tom and Summer. However, I don't see the harm in using a label. It's a simple expression outwardly that you are exclusively dating this person, and moving towards the goal of marriage. Summer never wants the label with Tom because marriage was never her goal with him. He was interesting, but not husband material in her mind.
Tom mentions that "the movies and pop songs, they are to blame," while ranting about the fallacy of love. In a way, this is totally true. Movies and songs majorly romanticize the concept of, well, romance. They play up all of the great parts, the intense feelings, and living happily ever after. In truth relationships are not that simple. They aren't one big fairy tale where the guy rocks the woman's socks off by one insane romantic stunt after the other. While it's true that men should treat women with respect and like queens, and should romance them, the woman's expectations can't be what movies and music tell them they should be. Movie romances aren't real. This is why I love this film so much. The movie romance is so much more real than most movies are. A lot of times, you may feel really strongly for someone and they don't feel the same way. That's life. Tom's sister points out, "Just because she likes the same bizarro crap you do, doesn't make her your soul mate." Again, Tom is so whimsical about Summer at this point, he doesn't even hear it. Most people will have their "Summer" relationship. A person you are so sure is the one you should marry, but you don't. Early after the break up, you look back and think of all the goods times, but as time goes on your judgment is opened up. It takes Tom a ridiculous amount of time to do this, but he finally realizes that Summer and he were not meant to be. They had their time, he learned a lot, and now it's time to move on. Many think that the ending with him meeting a girl named Autumn is cheesy, but I think it's fun.
The "expectations vs. reality" scene is my favorite in the film (with the Hall and Oates musical number a close second). Tom and Summer briefly reconnect at a wedding after they have broken up, and Summer invites Tom to a rooftop party she is having. There are two perspectives shown side by side on screen: What Tom Expects to happen at the party, versus what actually happens. Again, this is so relate-able. Almost all of us have this expectation of what is going to happen in certain situations, and most of the time it doesn't match up. Tom thinks that this is the night he and Summer finally get back together, and all his dreams come true. In actuality, he finds out Summer is engaged, and storms off into the night. A lot of times our minds play up what we think is going to happen and insert what we want to happen, rather than living in the moment and realizing what is actually going on.
I really love this movie's soundtrack. Regina Spektor plays beautifully over the introductory credits and the "expectations" scene. The Temper Trap's "Sweet Disposition" is interposed as the film's main theme. Spoon, The Smiths, and Wolfmother are also prominently featured, and the music vibes so well with the tone of the film. Tom and Summer discuss what their favorite Beatles song is, a great moment for me as such a huge Beatles fan. Summer says her favorite Beatle is Ringo, which is ridiculous, because let's get real, the only correct answer to that question is Paul. The music is perfectly matched with the film.
In the end, while I think that Summer could have been more honest with Tom, I don't think that she is the villain. Tom needed to figure out things for himself, and Summer doesn't have to be who he wants her to be. (500) Days of Summer is one of my favorites. Guys, if you are ever on a date, pop in this flick as one that you and your date will both love!
4/5
(500) Days of Summer is my favorite romantic comedy, bar none. For the most part, I hate romantic comedies. Every single one follows the exact same formula. The girl meets the guy, they flirt, they have some jokes and misunderstandings, and then they end up together. Granted I realize that romantic comedies are not directed towards my gender, but I've still seen quite a few in my day. (500) Days of Summer is totally different. The story is told out of order. The couple doesn't end up together. The male is the lead character, as opposed to the female. The narration tells us from the start that "this is not a love story". The movie is such a great look at relationships, love, and how us males are so different than females. Maybe my judgment is clouded because I have good feelings attached to this movie, as I saw it on a really great date. The relationship didn't work out, but I always think back to seeing that movie as one of the good times. The male lead is frequently clouded by the "good times" from his relationship with the girl, a major part of the movie.
(500) Days of Summer follows Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and his 500 days of infatuation with Summer (Zooey Deschanel, one of my favorite actresses). The movie tracks his original feelings for her, their time together, and his time getting over her, much of which is told out of order.
Since the story is told from Tom's perspective, there are so many moments that I could relate to. Tom incorrectly reads Summer so many times. Early on, Tom and Summer share and elevator ride. Summer says that her weekend was "goooood" (emphasis on the good), which Tom interprets to mean that she spent it with some other dude. He immediately dismisses any further chance with her. I've totally been there. If a girl doesn't text back within a certain amount of time, or sounds less than excited in a response, I immediately think she's not interested. Most of those times it's a stupid misreading and a total overreaction, but this is how people think. Dating is most certainly a game. Women think that women over analyze their interactions with men way more than men do, but the truth is that men do the same thing but won't admit it.
Much of what people don't like about this film is that Summer comes off as playing Tom. They date and grow really close, yet Summer never commits to him, and eventually ends up with someone else. I disagree in that Summer plays Tom. Summer says to Tom in their first meaningful conversation together that she does not like relationships. She says she is too young to be tied down, relationships are messy, and she wants no part of it. Tom, being the hyper romantic that he is, thinks in his heart that he can change her feelings. He believes that if given the chance, he can be the one to tame Summer. Yet throughout their time together, despite how close they become, Summer maintains her independence. She never says she wants to be his "girlfriend", never thinks they are more than friends. Essentially, she enjoys being with Tom, but doesn't see a future. Tom puts his blinders on and refuses to believe this. He enjoys so many things about her (their same taste in music, her quirkyness, and her looks), that he glosses over something that is extremely important to him. Tom is looking for a wife, and Summer makes it clear she is not it. Yes, she does act in some occasions that she wants more, but will never change her mind. It's so important to know that you cannot go into a relationship wanting to change someone. It's naive to think that you can make someone else do what you want and fit into your box. Yet people, myself included, do it all the time. We overlook the things that we don't like about a person because of the great things in them. Things that maybe are very important and things that we really need in a mate, we shirk because of infatuation and romantic feelings. Tom shirks the fact that Summer never wants to get serious with him because he loves the way she makes him feel.
Tom is constantly wanting to be her "boyfriend", unless he says he doesn't because he thinks it will rock the boat. In my mind, if Summer was sure about him, she would have no problem with this label. "You never wanted to be anyone's girlfriend, and now you're someone's wife", Tom says to Summer after learning of her wedding to another man. The "boyfriend-girlfriend" label is a funny thing. Many people take it to both extremes. On the one hand, you have people who go on 3 dates, say they are dating, and instantly become a pretend married couple. They have to ask the others permission to do anything, they eat every meal together, and they spend every spare second together. In Christian circles (which by the way is where I run, and what my lens looks like), the couple is basically married save for living together, having different last names, and separate bank accounts. Then on the other hand, you have people that are totally averse to the idea of a label. They shun the idea of belonging to someone, being someone's "boyfriend" or "girlfriend". Unless there is a ring on the woman's finger, there is no commitment, and neither is tied down by the other. My thought is that if I'm going to err to either extreme, it's going to be towards the "no labels" couple. Pretend marriages are extremely dangerous. They can hurt feelings, bring on dangerous temptations, and alienate friends. This was Tom and Summer. However, I don't see the harm in using a label. It's a simple expression outwardly that you are exclusively dating this person, and moving towards the goal of marriage. Summer never wants the label with Tom because marriage was never her goal with him. He was interesting, but not husband material in her mind.
Tom mentions that "the movies and pop songs, they are to blame," while ranting about the fallacy of love. In a way, this is totally true. Movies and songs majorly romanticize the concept of, well, romance. They play up all of the great parts, the intense feelings, and living happily ever after. In truth relationships are not that simple. They aren't one big fairy tale where the guy rocks the woman's socks off by one insane romantic stunt after the other. While it's true that men should treat women with respect and like queens, and should romance them, the woman's expectations can't be what movies and music tell them they should be. Movie romances aren't real. This is why I love this film so much. The movie romance is so much more real than most movies are. A lot of times, you may feel really strongly for someone and they don't feel the same way. That's life. Tom's sister points out, "Just because she likes the same bizarro crap you do, doesn't make her your soul mate." Again, Tom is so whimsical about Summer at this point, he doesn't even hear it. Most people will have their "Summer" relationship. A person you are so sure is the one you should marry, but you don't. Early after the break up, you look back and think of all the goods times, but as time goes on your judgment is opened up. It takes Tom a ridiculous amount of time to do this, but he finally realizes that Summer and he were not meant to be. They had their time, he learned a lot, and now it's time to move on. Many think that the ending with him meeting a girl named Autumn is cheesy, but I think it's fun.
The "expectations vs. reality" scene is my favorite in the film (with the Hall and Oates musical number a close second). Tom and Summer briefly reconnect at a wedding after they have broken up, and Summer invites Tom to a rooftop party she is having. There are two perspectives shown side by side on screen: What Tom Expects to happen at the party, versus what actually happens. Again, this is so relate-able. Almost all of us have this expectation of what is going to happen in certain situations, and most of the time it doesn't match up. Tom thinks that this is the night he and Summer finally get back together, and all his dreams come true. In actuality, he finds out Summer is engaged, and storms off into the night. A lot of times our minds play up what we think is going to happen and insert what we want to happen, rather than living in the moment and realizing what is actually going on.
I really love this movie's soundtrack. Regina Spektor plays beautifully over the introductory credits and the "expectations" scene. The Temper Trap's "Sweet Disposition" is interposed as the film's main theme. Spoon, The Smiths, and Wolfmother are also prominently featured, and the music vibes so well with the tone of the film. Tom and Summer discuss what their favorite Beatles song is, a great moment for me as such a huge Beatles fan. Summer says her favorite Beatle is Ringo, which is ridiculous, because let's get real, the only correct answer to that question is Paul. The music is perfectly matched with the film.
In the end, while I think that Summer could have been more honest with Tom, I don't think that she is the villain. Tom needed to figure out things for himself, and Summer doesn't have to be who he wants her to be. (500) Days of Summer is one of my favorites. Guys, if you are ever on a date, pop in this flick as one that you and your date will both love!
4/5
Saturday, July 7, 2012
Moonrise Kingdom
I hate kid romances in movies. Most of the time they are portrayed as if no one has ever met a kid in real life. Kids are hardly even interested in the opposite sex. In my experience, the only way they even express that they are interested in the opposite sex is by hurting each other. I could never understand this as a kid. I remember Natalie in 4th grade mercilessly kicking me in the shins, which according to others was her way of telling me she liked me. Why couldn't she have written me a note or something? Notes are awesome. Kids would come up to me all the time when I worked at the Boys and Girls Club and tell me that some boy or girl hit them. I would always tell them that it's "because they like you", at which point I would hear a healthy response of "ewwww!!!!!" Granted I realize that movies are movies for a reason, and they aren't supposed to be real, but I need something for me to buy in. Plus it really hurts us guys whenever the 10 year old from Love, Actually is way more romantic than any guy could ever be, and expectations are shot to unrealistic proportions. Kids don't know romance and have no need for it. They're kids and I for one want them to act that way.
Having said all this, it really surprised me that I liked Moonrise Kingdom quite a bit. Granted I am a Wes Anderson fan, but a movie that centers on a kid romance would normally turn me away. Moonrise Kingdom is about Sam and Suzy, two 12ish year olds who decide to run away together. Sam and Suzy both are outcasts; Suzy is misunderstood by her parents (played by Bill Murray and Frances McDormand), and Sam is an orphan fleeing the Khaki scouts (including scout master Edward Norton). The movie is about the two fighting to be together, and the rest of the town trying to stop them. Bruce Willis is excellent as the police chief of the small island where the film is set.
What is endearing about Sam and Suzy's story is that they find acceptance in each other. This is not exactly a new concept, but Wes Anderson does a great job of making their relationship quirky and fun (wow, a review of a Wes Anderson film that didn't use the word 'quirky' until the third paragraph). They still act like kids; Suzy reads her books she stole from the library, and Sam chews Suzy's ear off with his knowledge of camping and the wilderness that he learned from scout camp. Everyone is looking for that person that will love them despite all their faults and all their crazy, which is what the two find in each other. I found myself rooting for them, despite how normally cynical I am towards kid romances. A great moment in the film is when Sam's fellow scouts agree to help the pair out. Jason Schwartzman has a few particularly hilarious moments on screen aiding the couple.
Forbidden romance is one of the oldest stories in the book. Throw obstacles between lovers and their is instant sympathy from the audience. But just because a romance is forbidden it is not necessarily compelling. Moonrise Kingdom does the forbidden romance angle in an engaging way. The soundtrack is perfect for the mood and lulls you into this state of feeling about the movie. I'm not even sure what that last sentence meant, but it's really the only way I know how to describe it. It was, uh, good and stuff. I guess.
This movie is pure Wes Anderson. The offbeat characters, the iconic shot of a large group of people staring into the camera, Bill Murray, the dry humor, and the lighthearted feeling in whatever circumstance. Fans of Wes Anderson will not be disappointed. I will say, his films are not for everyone. They have a very distinct hipster-esque style that is off putting for some.
Moonrise Kingdom is another great Wes Anderson movie. I feel like a director is pretty good if he can take subject matter that I am normally opposed to and make me like it. In the midst of comic book movies galore this summer, I found Moonrise Kingdom to be a well needed change of pace.
3.5/5
Having said all this, it really surprised me that I liked Moonrise Kingdom quite a bit. Granted I am a Wes Anderson fan, but a movie that centers on a kid romance would normally turn me away. Moonrise Kingdom is about Sam and Suzy, two 12ish year olds who decide to run away together. Sam and Suzy both are outcasts; Suzy is misunderstood by her parents (played by Bill Murray and Frances McDormand), and Sam is an orphan fleeing the Khaki scouts (including scout master Edward Norton). The movie is about the two fighting to be together, and the rest of the town trying to stop them. Bruce Willis is excellent as the police chief of the small island where the film is set.
What is endearing about Sam and Suzy's story is that they find acceptance in each other. This is not exactly a new concept, but Wes Anderson does a great job of making their relationship quirky and fun (wow, a review of a Wes Anderson film that didn't use the word 'quirky' until the third paragraph). They still act like kids; Suzy reads her books she stole from the library, and Sam chews Suzy's ear off with his knowledge of camping and the wilderness that he learned from scout camp. Everyone is looking for that person that will love them despite all their faults and all their crazy, which is what the two find in each other. I found myself rooting for them, despite how normally cynical I am towards kid romances. A great moment in the film is when Sam's fellow scouts agree to help the pair out. Jason Schwartzman has a few particularly hilarious moments on screen aiding the couple.
Forbidden romance is one of the oldest stories in the book. Throw obstacles between lovers and their is instant sympathy from the audience. But just because a romance is forbidden it is not necessarily compelling. Moonrise Kingdom does the forbidden romance angle in an engaging way. The soundtrack is perfect for the mood and lulls you into this state of feeling about the movie. I'm not even sure what that last sentence meant, but it's really the only way I know how to describe it. It was, uh, good and stuff. I guess.
This movie is pure Wes Anderson. The offbeat characters, the iconic shot of a large group of people staring into the camera, Bill Murray, the dry humor, and the lighthearted feeling in whatever circumstance. Fans of Wes Anderson will not be disappointed. I will say, his films are not for everyone. They have a very distinct hipster-esque style that is off putting for some.
Moonrise Kingdom is another great Wes Anderson movie. I feel like a director is pretty good if he can take subject matter that I am normally opposed to and make me like it. In the midst of comic book movies galore this summer, I found Moonrise Kingdom to be a well needed change of pace.
3.5/5
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
The Amazing Spider-Man
*minor spoilers!*
I just had no idea how to approach The Amazing Spider-Man. Spider-Man with Tobey Maguire came out in 2002. The absolutely wretched third installment came out just 5 years ago in 2007. Now the franchise has totally been rebooted, despite the fact Spider-Man 3 made a bajillion dollars. Such a short time between reboots seemed kind of odd. But that is the way of the wind in Hollywood today.
Superhero franchises are way too valuable to just sit on. Everyone hated Ang Lee's Hulk in 2003? Just totally re-do it with The Incredible Hulk in 2008. Batman and Robin (1997) totally crapped on everything that was good about Batman? Cast Christian Bale and tell a different story in 2005. What I'm starting to wonder is when will this trend will end? When Batman gets rebooted again (Christopher Nolan has said that The Dark Knight Rises is the final film for his story, and trust me, it will be rebooted) in 2017 or so, are people going to buy into the third different telling of the same franchise? When Mark Ruffalo gets his own Hulk movie, are people going to buy in to a third guy playing the Hulk in less than 15 years? Box office receipts would say yes, but you wonder how long it will take before superhero movies become stale. Movies have only been around roughly a hundred years, I wonder in a hundred more years how many remakes we will have of The Lord of the Rings? How many more soul-crushing Star Wars prequels will George Lucas (or maybe an android with his memories) make? Only time will tell. People like things they have already seen before, so seeing the same franchises re-done and the same stories told over and over wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.
Ok, back to Spider-Man. Having heard that it was being directed by Marc Webb, the same guy who did (500) Days of Summer (one of my favorites), I had some hope that it could be good. Casting Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker and Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy were also great moves. This installment is certainly much better than the 2000's films, but it takes a major misstep in treading much of the same ground.
The film tells the origin of Spider-Man, slightly modified, once again. Peter Parker is a nerdy teenager trying fit in at school. He is bitten by a genetically enhanced spider that gives him super powers. You know all the rest. The first 45 minutes of the movie are the origin of Spider-Man, and all I found myself doing was trying to find the things it did that were just like the origin of the older films. While I do admit that this version does it better, the older movies are still so fresh in my mind. I can still clearly remember seeing the first movie in theaters with some of my summer baseball teammates.
The villain is certainly better than any in the other installments. The Lizard actually has some motivation and a purpose, and most importantly he doesn't look like a Power Ranger like the Green Goblin did (credit to my cousin for pointing that one out to me). His character design looks pretty cool, and you really feel for Dr. Curt Conners, who is transformed to become him.
The strength of the movie, somewhat unsurprisingly given the director's pedigree, is the romance between Peter and Gwen. Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield have great chemistry together. Emma Stone is just so stinking cute and likeable, it's ridiculous. Her and Garfield have a lot of great scenes together, and you can really get behind them as a couple. Peter reveals who he truly is to her about halfway through the movie, which was a great move on the filmmakers part. It helps strengthen their connection and it was easy to root for them by their attitude of being in things together. Did I say how cute Emma Stone is? Yeah, definitely worth mentioning again. Not just in her appearance, but in everything she does.
In the end The Amazing Spider-Man has two ways of being viewed. If you strictly view it against its predecessors, this iteration exceeds them in every way. Spider-Man 1-3 are awful compared to The Amazing Spider-Man. Then again Spider-Man 1-3 are awful period, but that's beside the point. Now if you view it as strictly stand alone, it's pretty run of the mill. It's good but not great. You'll walk out of the theater saying you liked it, but won't have a huge desire to see it again. I'm glad I saw it in the theater, and you should too, but I'll be ok if I never saw it again.
3/5
I just had no idea how to approach The Amazing Spider-Man. Spider-Man with Tobey Maguire came out in 2002. The absolutely wretched third installment came out just 5 years ago in 2007. Now the franchise has totally been rebooted, despite the fact Spider-Man 3 made a bajillion dollars. Such a short time between reboots seemed kind of odd. But that is the way of the wind in Hollywood today.
Superhero franchises are way too valuable to just sit on. Everyone hated Ang Lee's Hulk in 2003? Just totally re-do it with The Incredible Hulk in 2008. Batman and Robin (1997) totally crapped on everything that was good about Batman? Cast Christian Bale and tell a different story in 2005. What I'm starting to wonder is when will this trend will end? When Batman gets rebooted again (Christopher Nolan has said that The Dark Knight Rises is the final film for his story, and trust me, it will be rebooted) in 2017 or so, are people going to buy into the third different telling of the same franchise? When Mark Ruffalo gets his own Hulk movie, are people going to buy in to a third guy playing the Hulk in less than 15 years? Box office receipts would say yes, but you wonder how long it will take before superhero movies become stale. Movies have only been around roughly a hundred years, I wonder in a hundred more years how many remakes we will have of The Lord of the Rings? How many more soul-crushing Star Wars prequels will George Lucas (or maybe an android with his memories) make? Only time will tell. People like things they have already seen before, so seeing the same franchises re-done and the same stories told over and over wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.
Ok, back to Spider-Man. Having heard that it was being directed by Marc Webb, the same guy who did (500) Days of Summer (one of my favorites), I had some hope that it could be good. Casting Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker and Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy were also great moves. This installment is certainly much better than the 2000's films, but it takes a major misstep in treading much of the same ground.
The film tells the origin of Spider-Man, slightly modified, once again. Peter Parker is a nerdy teenager trying fit in at school. He is bitten by a genetically enhanced spider that gives him super powers. You know all the rest. The first 45 minutes of the movie are the origin of Spider-Man, and all I found myself doing was trying to find the things it did that were just like the origin of the older films. While I do admit that this version does it better, the older movies are still so fresh in my mind. I can still clearly remember seeing the first movie in theaters with some of my summer baseball teammates.
The villain is certainly better than any in the other installments. The Lizard actually has some motivation and a purpose, and most importantly he doesn't look like a Power Ranger like the Green Goblin did (credit to my cousin for pointing that one out to me). His character design looks pretty cool, and you really feel for Dr. Curt Conners, who is transformed to become him.
The strength of the movie, somewhat unsurprisingly given the director's pedigree, is the romance between Peter and Gwen. Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield have great chemistry together. Emma Stone is just so stinking cute and likeable, it's ridiculous. Her and Garfield have a lot of great scenes together, and you can really get behind them as a couple. Peter reveals who he truly is to her about halfway through the movie, which was a great move on the filmmakers part. It helps strengthen their connection and it was easy to root for them by their attitude of being in things together. Did I say how cute Emma Stone is? Yeah, definitely worth mentioning again. Not just in her appearance, but in everything she does.
In the end The Amazing Spider-Man has two ways of being viewed. If you strictly view it against its predecessors, this iteration exceeds them in every way. Spider-Man 1-3 are awful compared to The Amazing Spider-Man. Then again Spider-Man 1-3 are awful period, but that's beside the point. Now if you view it as strictly stand alone, it's pretty run of the mill. It's good but not great. You'll walk out of the theater saying you liked it, but won't have a huge desire to see it again. I'm glad I saw it in the theater, and you should too, but I'll be ok if I never saw it again.
3/5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)