I'm just a guy who loves stories, whether they be past, present, future, movies, TV Shows, video games, whatever. If you came to get an average guys thoughts on film, you've come to the right place.
I really wish I could have done more posts this month, despite being one of my more productive months, I feel like some of my promises were not kept and my hopes didn't quite make it to fulfillment.
I will be away until the 15th of August. I have obligations for the US Army I need to fulfill and won't have much time to watch movies let alone write reviews.
Thank you for all the support and views.
I promise I will come back with a vengeance in August, especially with that "What if Spider-man 3 were good?" post I promised. But until then, keep enjoying the stories, let me know if there's any movies I need to see and I'll put them at the top of my list when I get back.
Let's, again, rewind to a time when Spider-man 3 was the most anticipated Superhero film coming out. It was a year prior to Iron Man's premiere and all my friends and I were interested in seeing, was the next chapter in the Spider-man trilogy.
And the result? As a kid, I really enjoyed it.
Spider-man 3 not only presented another installation of the franchise that could do no wrong in my mind, but it was introducing not one, not two, but three villains. It was the Revenge of the Sith of Superhero films (that being a good thing when I was a kid) as it brought full circle the fall to the dark side of Harry Osborn. It brought forth two totally new villains in Venom and Sandman.
Not only that, but it put Spider-man in a new suit. How could this not be anything but great?
To my surprise, a lot of people, even my friends who went with me were very disappointed with the film. As a 15-16 year old kid, I don't think I really understood why they were so disappointed. It was a Spider-man film. It had the action never seen before, it had the villains never seen before. What else could you ask for?
But the more and more I watch Spider-man 3... the more and more I realize why my friends were so critical.
Spider-man 3 essentially starts out in the exact opposite way Spider-man 2 did. In 2, everything was going to shit for Peter Parker. In 3, things are looking very up. Don't ask me how it magically turned fantastic but a lot of it has to do with the fact that Peter and Mary Jane are together now.
Mary Jane now knows that Peter is Spider-man and things seem to be going well for both of them.
So much that Peter feels its time to move the relationship to the next level and ask MJ to marry him.
While this is happening, a meteor hits the earth and a symbiotic organism crawls out of the crater and attaches its way back with Peter to his home.
Also, Harry has emerged from the cave of his father's old equipment and looks as though he's about to start doing some Spidey murdering.
On top of that, a convict by the name of Flint Marko (played by Thomas Haden Church) has escaped prison and is looking for a way to help his sick daughter.
After a conversation with Aunt May about the moral Peter will have to learn about himself and his relationships, Peter is on his way home and is attacked by the New Goblin, Harry.
Peter defeats him though and Harry is wounded. When he comes to... he has amnesia...
Sigh...
Along the way there is trouble between Peter and Mary Jane due a lot of instances of miscommunication and really badly written drama.
All the while, Eddy Brock (played by Topher Grace) is a new face to the Daily Bugle and works to oust Peter of a staff position he's been working for for a while.
And then they figure out that Flint Marko was the man who actually killed Uncle Ben.
And then the symbiotic organism melds its way onto Peter, creating a black suit that increases Spider-man's skills but amplifies the emotions and feelings Peter has towards his problems in the world.
I think I've pretty much covered the major plot points in this film, and by god, there are a lot of them.
I saw a Confused Matthew review of this film that really summed it up nicely. There are so many plot points in this film that its written in a way that the writers write one plot point into a corner and only come back to it when it is convenient to the script. And unfortunately its very true.
The best example of this is when Harry gets amnesia.
Harry geting amnesia doesn't serve the plot in any way. It doesn't serve as a moral dilemma that Peter faces, it doesn't put any conflict into Harry when he comes out of it. The only reason Harry gets amnesia is because they needed to find a way to suppress the New Goblin until they introduced all the other plot points and they had time to deal with it.
So if there were so many plot points that they needed to put others aside until they could get to them, why didn't they get rid of some of those plot points.
I know I've said in the last few reviews that I think Harry is probably the best cast character and the development they have him go through finally reaching this point was very good. But the way that it was executed in Spider-man 3 was just horrible. And therefore the real conflict of having Peter Parker's best friend turn against him is so completely rushed.
The movie itself is just a mess.
I would start talking about Marko Flint... but there's not really that much to talk about with him. He's bland, he's boring, he really didn't need to be in the film. Making him the guy who actually killed Uncle Ben was dumb and it just added to the bullshit that muddled this movie.
I will say however...
This scene was good. For about 30 seconds you see an actually heartfelt moment and not a word is spoken. Its very effective... but short lived.
The effects for the sandman are actually pretty good considering, but the character is so bland and so boring that when you take away all the action sequences and special effects, it really falls short. I have to give the movie credit for trying to squeeze in 3 villains in a movie because that is quite a feat, but I think this movie would have been at least a little bit better, and a lot less crowded if the entire storyline following Flint Marko and the fact he killed Ben Parker just... went away.
And that leads me to the black suit stuff that falls from space.
The black suit created a very interesting concept for Spider-man. What if he took that great power and fulfilled his great responsibility through bad means. Spider-man has always been the straight laced hero but what if he suddenly became an anti-hero.
Unfortunately, they do not get even close to that. Everything that Peter does that is considered "bad things" is something he would have done as regular Spider-man. The only difference is he tries to kill Flint Marko and I'm sorry, spraying him with water isn't exactly a great way to say, I'm a badass now.
The black suit is suppose to exacerbate the anger and rage within Spider-man but all it does is turn him into a doofus jerk. He turns in Eddie Brock. Yeah he's an asshole about it but Eddie Brock was forging photographs, he was wrong. There wasn't anything good about what he was doing.
He goes and beats up Harry. Harry was being a dick and was trying to kill Peter. Before Peter throws a grenade at his face, its obvious that Harry has picked up the mantle as the goblin again so taking him out is just another thing Spider-man would do if he had his regular suit. Yeah sure he pulled out this line.
But beyond that, this is nothing Peter Parker wouldn't do, black suit or not.
And while we're on the Black suit.
Why is Emo the look they decided to go with to make Peter Parker look all badass. Tobey Macguire looks stupid. And it'd be one thing if he actually was doing "bad things" with this new haircut but he doesn't.
I guess they were trying to go with a darker tone with Spider-man 3 but it instead just comes off as silly.
I mean, look at this and try, just try and tell me that this is the best they could do to make Peter Parker become the anti-hero... just try.
I still to this day have no idea what happened here. Somebody had to have been looking at this and said, "Sure, its kind of silly that Tobey Macguire is humping the air, but aren't we trying to make Peter Parker somewhat of an anti-hero, maybe a bad guy. And we're doing this by having him dance?"
Tobey Macguire had to have been reading through the script and just asked the director, "So when you say I come out of the store and hump the air, you mean... I actually hump the air?"And its not just this scene.
Its this entire scene here.
I mean I get that Peter is trying to make Mary Jane jealous... but by god, what the hell happened here?
Peter Parker dancing in front of Mary Jane doesn't make him a badass, it just kind of makes him a jerk. He's a jerk in this film and maybe that's what they're going for, but he looks stupid doing it.
Its just an entire sequence that I have no idea what happened. Sam Raimi, I just don't get what was your function at the moment you penned, Then Peter Parker dances.
Its just another part of the film that doesn't make much sense and doesn't really add to anything. Spider-man 2 raised this question of what happens if our heroes just say fuck it and quit. Spider-man 3 was suppose to, in the way I see the approach, suppose to be about what if our heroes use the immoral means to bring forth justice. What if Peter Parker decides to kill his enemies rather than just stop them like he's been doing. I'm not asking for Dark Knight moral implications, but lets get a little deeper here.
Peter Parker dancing does not add to the story or help the plot... its just stupid.
Oh by the way...
This Gwen Stacy sucks. I don't really know what Bryce Howard Dallas has done, before or since. But the way the character is written, the character is awful. Especially in comparison with Emma Stone's version.
And finally, let's talk about Eddie Brock.
As you probably know, I am not a huge comic book fan. That being the case, I don't know what Eddie Brock was suppose to be like. From what I understand, it wasn't Topher Grace.
I like Topher Grace. But the minute I heard he was playing a super villain, I was skeptical. The guy from That 70's Show?
There are a lot of castings that people have been skeptical about. And there are a lot of castings that have turned out to surprise people. Topher Grace as Eddie Brock/Venom is not one of those castings that turn out in the end.
In fact I think Topher Grace cast as Eddie Brock is one of the reasons we become skeptical about castings like Batfleck, Heath Ledger, and others. For as many castings that work out, there are a lot of castings that do not work out.
But its not just the casting that bothers me. Its the complete lack of Venom in this movie.
They had a major opportunity with this movie. I'm talking outside of any comic book knowledge, any knowledge of how the Venom story is suppose to go. But thinking about what direction they were trying to head in this movie, Venom could have been what happens if Spider-man went fully down the path of evil. Venom could have become the antithesis of Spider-man in way never really imagined before.
But you know what he was. He was a villain that came out in the last half hour of the movie. A just down right truly awful villain.
Venom was just a waste of time, almost enough to say that they should have just left him out when all was said and done. Which is a bummer because there's a lot of potential for Venom. Maybe they'll make that solo movie they've been talking about. But until then, Venom will just be a sad 15 minute cameo.
The rest of the movie is still just a down right mess.
Mary Jane becomes a little bit more of a character but with the style that the Spider-man films have followed, it comes off as whiny. The two just don't really know how to have a relationship with each other.
I wanted to talk about the fact that Mary Jane's problems seem really convoluted, especially the fact she was fired from her show. Now I know what its like to be out of work. It sucks. But Mary Jane is in acting, she should know that its not always going to be Broadway acting and getting a job waiting tables is not a ridiculous move, at least until the next gig. Therefore I found her problems kinda silly and the script just makes Peter Parker so oblivious to the entire thing. In short, this was a relationship doomed to fail.
But what makes it stupid is that Peter Parker has been waiting so long for this relationship to happen and he's just a doofus about it. It goes in the face of everything the first two movies were building up for.
Thinking about this movie has made me want to do a similar treatment the popular, "What if Star Wars Episode 1 was good?" did on Star Wars The Phantom Menace. So I declare it, my next post will be a post speculating on "What if Spider-man 3 was good?"
But on the movie itself, Spider-man 3 is just a mess. Its too crowded, with characters, with plot points, with cheesy campy acting, with dumb characters dealing with their problems in dumb ways. Its just a mess. To give some credit, the action was good... I enjoyed it as a kid and I enjoy it now...
But those are my thoughts. What did you think of Spider-man 3? Is there anything I missed? Are there some redeeming qualities to it besides the action? Comment and discuss below.
I'll leave you with this. I'm sure I miss a lot of things that were wrong with Spider-man 3. I think one of the best videos pointing out things wrong with it is How It Should Have Ended. This is actually one of their best. Enjoy!
Stay tuned for my "What if Spider-man 3 was good?" post. Coming soon!
As you know, Spider-Man was the first superhero franchise I actually was an avid fan of. When I saw Spider-man for the first time, I got actually very excited. I wanted to see the hero win, I wanted him to defeat the bad guy and get the girl. Is Spider-man the best comic book movie ever? In my book, no. But then I think, what was it going for? Again, the Spider-man trilogy fell right on the cusp of a turning point for comic book movies. It had the feeling of comic book but live action, a style that many movies tried at the time, but many failed, DareDevil, Fantastic 4, Catwoman, Hulk, the list goes on. So in a way, Spider-Man really does capture a real comic book movie, a movie trying to give a live representation of a comic book. That all changed with The Dark Knight, but I'll get to that in another review.
So here comes Spider-man 2.
Essentially, Spider-man 2 starts out with everything just gone to shit for Peter Parker. Nothing is going his way. He loses his job, his best friend can't stop obsessing over Spider-man who he blames for the death of his father, Mary Jane is still in love with him but can't wait around for him to finally get his shit together and be with her. He doesn't have a dollar to his name, neither does his aunt, he's failing his classes in college and to top it all off, the very person he works for is making Spider-man look like a menace and a lot of people think that Spider-man is a menace.
In short, life really sucks for Peter Parker.
Now I said in the last review that Mary Jane is not that great of a character. Taking a few days to think about that, I start to think maybe that was a little bit of an over exaggeration. She's still no Gwen Stacey from the Amazing Spider-Man, but she does have a bigger purpose in these movies then I give her credit for.
Mary Jane is the dream. The reason Peter Parker does all these things. The very reason he becomes Spider-man in the first place is to win money to impress her and win her love.
I still stand by the statement that she's not really that great of a person and I'm still not sure why Peter Parker is so smitten with her, but she does serve a purpose.
And in this movie, it does seem like the love is reciprocal. Mary Jane does want desperately to be with Peter Parker. How she goes about doing that is a strange way. Now I don't know too much about the relationship between Mary Jane and the son of Jonah Jameson, I don't think anybody really does since it was such a underwritten character and relationship. So to me, it kind of just seems like she's dating and agrees to marry John Jameson (played by Daniel Gillies) all to make Peter jealous and try and get him to love her. Overall, Mary Jane is still kind of a cardboard cutout of a character in Spider-Man 2.
The real great part of the movie is Alfred Molina as Dr. Otto Octavius, or Dr. Octopus.
Octavius is a scientist on the verge of discovering the creation of sustainable fusion energy. He is funded by Harry Osborn, who has taken over Oscorp and financed the scientist, thinking it will bring them both great profits.
Before the accident, Peter is introduced to Octavius and a really great dynamic is created between the two. Octavius gives Peter great advice about brilliance and applying ones self to their work.
But when Octavius's experiment goes wrong, his wife is killed, his work gone and all he has is four mechanical arms with an AI whispering evil thoughts in his head. Unfortunately, once again, we have a schizophrenic villain.
But on top of that, you see the effect this event has on Harry. For the two years between the first two movies, Harry has blamed Spider-man for the death of his father. This experiment was suppose to be the way that Harry was going to honor his father's memory, and with that gone, Harry puts it simply, that he's ruined. He throws a lot of money at this experiment and it went all wrong. Now all he has to honor his father, something he was never able to do when he was alive, is avenge his death by killing Spider-man.
Its this movie that kind of makes me wonder why the corruption of Anakin Skywalker was so horrible, but the corruption of Harry Osborn was done just so well.
I stand by my belief that James Franco was probably the best cast member of the Spider-Man trilogy. This movie just cements that belief. Granted the third movie kind of ruins everything that the first two movies created... but we'll get back to that in the next review.
So there's your plot. Spider-man has to deal with the balance of being Spider-man and his personal life, he needs to fight a vengful scientist, all while dealing with his best friend who wishes to destroy him without knowing it. And it leads to something that at the time, was really well done.
Peter stops being Spider-man.
He begins to lose his powers unexplainably and he hangs it up. He sees it as a decision, between the life he wants, and the life he feels his "Great responsibility" is calling him to.
This is absolutely fantastic. It shows the fact that being a Superhero isn't all its cracked up to be and at one point, Peter just can't handle it.
And that what I think made the second Spider-man stand out at the time. It was a situational comic book movie where the hero puts up his arms and says, "Fuck it, I'm done". Its something that hadn't happened in a comic book movie before and it was great to see that transition and development.
And from a certain point of view, you understand why he does it. You obviously don't want Peter to just throw away his costume and quit being Spider-man but you understand why. Peter Parker is just a kid, and even if he wasn't, why would you want to put the safety of an entire city on the shoulders of one person? Especially if that person is dealing with personal issues that the public of New York have no idea are affecting him. Its really an interesting plot line and development of Peter Parker.
Now I've said multiple times that Spider-man was one the cusp of the campy, comic books being made at the time. And Spider-Man 2 is really no different. While it does have little bit more going for it than the original did, what with the relationship between Peter and Doc Ock, and Peter giving up being Spider-man, the dialogue is still really cheesy and campy. And thus, what used to be seen as a compelling story arc, now just seems like Peter is whining about how his life is so hard.
And its not just Peter, Harry, while I still remain true to the fact he's probably the best part of the first two films seems really whiney about how Peter is more loyal to Spider-man than he is his best friend. Mary Jane seems really whiney about Peter not being emotionally available and being her boyfriend.
Its still really good in my book, but Spider-man 2 used to be considered one of best Superhero films to ever come to the big screen. But that was in 2004 and so many movies have done so much better and developed characters in such better ways. Now that's not to say that Spider-man 2 isn't good, you just have to go into it without comparing it to new and more developed superhero movies, and that's difficult, especially since there's a whole new Spider-man reboot that has come out within ten years of this film coming out.
So overall, I still think Spider-man is still a really good film. Just compared to the standards of superhero movies today, I think one might have to reconsider if this movie is all it was hyped up to be in 2004.
All that being said, its an improvement on the original and that's what makes a good sequel. Its a fun film and its done well, especially considering the time it came out. Definitely worth checking out.
But those are my thoughts on Spider-man 2. What do you think? Do you think Spider-man 2 has held up as a really great Superhero film or has it been lost in the new and improved Superhero films that have come out recently? Comment and discuss below!
I'll leave you with this. Here's the original theme song to the Spider-man cartoon. Its a catchy song, even Michael Buble did a cover of it that is really good. Enjoy!
This movie really came out of left field for me. I had seen the trailers, I had heard the reviews, and throughout it all, I thought "Meh, maybe I'll see it." It was not really a movie I had high on my list of things to see.
Well suddenly a friend of mine wanted to go see a movie. He initially suggested 22 Jump Street. As you can see, I've already seen 22 Jump Street but I wouldn't mind seeing it again. But I took a minute to think about what other movies we could see. Edge of Tomorrow came into my mind, yet I was still very cautious. I wasn't quite sure what I was getting into and if I would enjoy it or not. But the ticket was relatively cheap and I started up the new Tom Cruise adventure.
Now I've reviewed a couple movies starring Tom Cruise. The fact of the matter is, I like the guy as an actor.
I won't judge the guy personally because frankly, its his business what he does with his life. He wants to believe that aliens live inside our bodies from a distant planet, as long as he's not hurting anybody, he can do what he wants.
But I always go into his movies with a little bit of caution. Again, he's a good actor, there are just parts I don't really see him in from what I see in the trailer. Jack Reacher is a great example of this. I don't see Tom Cruise as a Military Police Investigator. However, I really enjoyed Jack Reacher so I was wrong there. And with Edge of Tomorrow, I was very wrong.
Tom Cruise plays an American Major in a not so distant future where the world has been invaded by an alien race. Major William Cage (Cruise) is an officer who has never seen combat in his life. He joined the Army through ROTC, he's made his way through the military as a Public Affairs officer, selling the strength of the military to the public and gaining recruits for the fight against the aliens.
But when his commanding officer orders him to the front lines, Cage refuses and ends up forced to the front lines as a private just hours before the invasion.
This is one of the two problems I have with this film, and they are very small. To begin, I get that they needed to get Cage on the front lines for the entire story to happen, but he goes from a Major to a private in a matter of hours, all because Mad Eye Moody said so.
This was a weird way to start off the film. Again, I know they need to get Cage on the front lines but having him start off as a Major didn't really make sense to me. I happen to know a little bit about military ranks and while Mad Eye did out rank Cage, it was just strange and little silly that he sent a Major, a Major who has done a very good job at what he's been doing, to a front line battle when he has no combat experience whatsoever. The logic behind that decision really doesn't make any sense whatsoever. So while I understand Cage needed to be in these certain circumstances, the way they brought him there just seems a little odd and scotch taped together.
But that was soon forgotten when Cage is thrown into battle. The first battle, he doesn't know how to use his equipment, a giant metal exoskeleton with heavy weapons attached to it.
At first I wasn't wild about the design of the exoskeleton but the machinery and futuristic technology is just brilliant in this film.
So the invasion is met with more resistance then they expected and Cruise dies within 5 minutes of the start of the battle.
However, he awakens at the same moment he did the day before. Everything happens the same way it did before and he is reliving that day.
Suddenly Cage can relive this day over and over and over again but every time he dies, he is just brought back to the same time when he wakes up on the same day.
Essentially its Groundhog Day... but with aliens and robot armor.
In case you haven't seen it, Groundhog Day is a movie with a very similar plot. A man wakes up on Groundhog Day and keeps reliving the same day over, and over, and over, and over again. The difference is, Groundhog day was a comedy staring Bill Murray.
Edge of Tomorrow instead, is a sci-fi thriller with Tom Cruise. And there is a distinct explanation as to why he keeps reliving the same day, as opposed to Groundhog Day... I think... I'll be honest, I've never actually seen that entire movie. I just thought it kept going and going and going.
Then Cage meets the down right gorgeous Sergeant Rita Vrataski (played by the absolutely stunning Emily Blunt) Rita explains that the phenomena that is happening to him, happened to her. It happened during the battle that made her a hero, because she was able to relive the day over and over again until they won the battle.
Rita tells Cage to keep coming to her each day to train. All in an attempt to find the mother ship of the aliens and end the war.
This movie, was just brilliant. There's a lot of things I left out, mainly because this movie is a movie you really do need to see.
It has that feeling of Groundhog Day where Cage tries to alter his destiny. He tries to work his way out, he tries so many different attempts and eventually he can say verbatum exactly what people are going to say, what they're going to do and he can use this knowledge to either beat them in fights or persuade them to do what he says.
But a lot of the reason this movie is so good is because you see the effect living the same day over and over again has on Cage. He sees the same person die over and over again no matter how many times he tries to save her. And of course, since they're the main male and female roles, obviously Cage begins to fall for her.
But the chemistry between the two is actually really freaking good. But I would never call this a love story. Sure there's a romance but it is only an element of the formula that makes this movie really great.
The action is great. The effects are great. The acting is superb. I just a little bit of half-way through the film and I took a second and just realized, this movie was incredibly good. I was amazed because I haven't seen an action/sci-fi, or any original film this good for a long time that wasn't a comic book movie, or a movie definitely going for an Oscar.
Its still very early, its only been about an hour since the movie ended. I'll have to get back to you on this but this movie might be one of the best movies I've seen, not only this summer, but this year.
Edge of Tomorrow plays a perfect balance between the action, the sci-fi, the drama, even a little bit of comedy is thrown in there and its just a down right fun time.
If you have the chance, go see it.
I mentioned 2 things that bothered me about the movie and that was the beginning and it was the end. This movie has a great climax that really accentuates the circumstances these characters find themselves in. Its dramatic, its just down right epic, but unfortunately, it leads to a bit of a confusing ending. Its an ending I'm still not quite sure about. Similarly to the beginning, it just kind of turns out in a way the script wants it to, not necessarily something that makes a lot of sense. So the ending isn't great.
The rest of the movie, however, really makes up for problems I see with the beginning and the end.
Edge of Tomorrow was just good. Very, very good.
But that's my thoughts on Edge of Tomorrow, maybe a little bit too fueled by the effects that movie had on me but those are my thoughts, what did you think? Have you seen Edge of Tomorrow? What did you think? Comment and discuss Below!
I'll leave you with this. Its movies like this that make me wonder why there isn't a Halo movie. I think it could definitely be done. Here's a live action clip of Halo. I don't know if its for an actual movie or if its fan made, but its really darn good. Enjoy!
Whelp, I avoided it for as long as I could, but I can no longer fight it. I'm back in Superhero mode.
And why not start off this, probably short lived, mode with the movie I actually credit to being the first superhero movie I ever saw. Yes there were plenty of superhero movies before this Spider-man movie, but for some reason, this one peaked my interest about superheroes. Not long after, the Dark Knight trilogy started. Then I figured out about X-men. Then I went back and discovered the first Superman movie... then I discovered its sequels... Then Man of Steel came out! And the tumbler of love and inspiration just continued and I credit a lot of it to this film. While it can't take all the credit for rejuvenating the comic book movie for everyone, (I think X-men may have beaten them by a couple years) it can for me.
But how good is it?
Well Spider-Man tells the story of Peter Parker (played by Tobey Maguire). He's an unpopular, social outcast who is in love with the girl next door, Mary Jane Watson (played by Kirsten Dunst).
At a school field trip to a science lab studying spiders, Peter is bitten by a radioactive spider and is granted incredible powers.
With those powers he tries to make some money to get a car to impress Mary Jane. So he joins an amateur fight. Well he wins the fight but is conned out of the money. Shortly after, the man who conned him is robbed and Peter lets the robber get away.
Unfortunately this results in the carjacking and murder of Peter's uncle and father figure, Ben Parker. Peter had just gotten into an argument with his uncle who had just tried to tell him that will great power comes great responsibility.
Thus giving us probably the most hilarious crying scene in all of comic book history.
From that point on, Peter vows to become a masked vigilante and serve the city of New York, fighting crime and rooting out evil.
Meanwhile, Peter's best friend, Harry Osborn (Played by James Franco), moves in on Mary Jane after high school and they begin dating. Honestly, Harry doesn't play a huge role in the first movie besides being Peter's best friend.
It is instead Norman Osborn (played by Willem Defoe) who is a more substantial part of the story.
Norman has been developing a new serum for human performance in his company Oscorp. His work has made him distant from his son. But in reality Norman connects more with Peter Parker than he does his own son.
When Norman's funding for his serum is at risk of not being funded anymore, Norman goes forth with human testing himself and becomes incredibly powerful, but at the same time, goes just a tad crazy, dawning the Green mask and armor, becoming The Green Goblin, wreaking havoc over New York City.
Now when I was a kid, I thought the Green Goblin was actually kind of terrifying. I mean its Willem freaking Defoe. Even when he wasn't in the weird ass costume, he was just freaky. And Defoe is actually pretty good at acting freaking insane.
And that brings me to the costume design for the Green Goblin.
What the hell?!?
You cast Willem Defoe as the Green Goblin, a villain shrouded by demons and illusions of evil and you put a giant mask on him? A mask that looks like a bad power ranger villain?
That being said, Willem Defoe, in my opinion, rocks it as Norman Osborn.
A little bit of a disclaimer, I don't read comic books. I don't really know how Norman Osborn or The Green Goblin was suppose to be, but I really like this version of Norman Osborn. I really like Willem Defoe as an actor and this was actually the first time I was ever exposed to him. He's freaking nuts, but he's good at what he does.
Overall, this is an origin story. Its how this version of Spider-man came to being, how he became a hero.
As far as origins stories go, this one is very very good.
As far as individual performances go, its a pretty good cast, considering the times.
Tobey Macguire is... an interesting choice for Peter Parker.
A few years ago, I would have said he was perfect for the role, and a nostalgic part of me still thinks he's the better Spider-man.
He definitely pulls off the social outcast element of Peter Park really well. I think the brilliant nerd is a very good representation of Peter Parker, a direction they didn't really take in the new Spider-Man films from 2011.
I think as a Peter Parker, Macguire nails it. As Spider-Man, he's... alright.
Peter Parker is suppose to be a social outcast and introvert, but when he becomes Spider-Man, he's suppose to be extroverted and cocky, almost unlikeable. Macguire however brings that awkward shaky voice to whatever he does. I think he's kind of funny, especially with the style of the movie, which I'll get to later.
I really like Macguire. I'll hopefully get to a review of comparing the Sam Rami Spider-man films to the Marc Webb films, but for now I'm just talking about the film.
Then you have Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane...
She's just... awful.
Especially in comparison with Emma Stone as Gwen Stacey (I know I want to just focus on this movie but bear with me here) Gwen Stacey is just written as a better character. Its not necessarily a comparison between the two, its more how they're written.
Gwen Stacey does things with her life, she's smart and helps Spider-man in his fight against villains. Mary Jane is just kind of there. She's the dream and she's the damsel.
And to be fair, that's not totally Kirsten Dunst's fault. She was given a horribly written character and was expected to make a well written character out of it. She does play that dreamy girl next door part well, but you just start to wonder, why is Peter Parker so smitten with her. There's nothing to say she's an incredibly good person and in this film, she really only thinks of herself and just kind of gets swept away with the things happening to her. She gets saved by Spider-man and suddenly she's in love with him. She dates Harry until its no longer convenient for her. In short, she's not that great.
Speaking of which, let's talk about Harry Osborn.
Unfortunately, I know how he ends up in Spider-Man 3... and we'll get that that. But as far as Spider-man one goes, I don't think there was ever a better choice for a comic book character than James Franco as Harry Osborn.
You can imagine that Peter and him would be friends. He plays off that look as though he hasn't quite blossomed yet into a real good looking man, but as we know in Spider-Man 2, he actually really does.
I think this was a brilliant choice of casting. Unfortunately, it is just executed horribly as the movies go on. I thought the ending of Spider-Man was brilliant and set up for a great motivation for Harry Osborn. A motivation that was not written well as the movies went on but it was a good start.
There are a couple of other castings worth mentioning. Ben Parker (played by Cliff Robertson) still is, to me, the Ben Parker I'm used to. Rosemary Harris as Aunt May is kind of a mixture of Harry Osborn and Mary Jane. In the end, not really that great of a character but starts off pretty good and slowly, as the movies go on gets worse.
And then there's JK Simmons as Mr. Jameson, the Chief editor of the Daily Bugle. Simmons is one of the best parts of this film just because he's such a character. He's so animated and really darn funny.
I kind of wish they would use him in the new Spider-Man films but this Mr. Jameson really accentuates the style these Spider-man films were going for.
I mentioned this a little bit in my GI Joe: Rise of Cobra review.
But Spider-man was made in a time when Comic book movies were still pretty new. They weren't just taking material from comic books, they were trying to recreate comic books in live-action movies. Its almost a distinct style, with stylized angles and cinematography. Its the kind of filming that if you took a screen shot and edited it, you could put these screenshots in a comic book.
Its really a style of comic movie that is slowly dying out.
The dialogue is cheesy and campy. The action is almost that that you would put POW and WHAM on if it were in pictures.
I think this style mainly came from the fact that Superhero films were still so new when this movie came out. Sam Rami is still one of the pioneers of the wildly accepted Superhero films and he did what he knew, and that was the comic books. Why wouldn't he base the cinematography and script off of what they were suppose to be adapted from.
Its interesting because this Spiderman seems to be a mixture of the times. It seems to be calling back to the campiness of Joel Schumacher's Batman and Robin but at the same time, embracing new effects and technology that X-men had started. It also started the actual storytelling that became suddenly more sophisticated the minute Batman Begins started up. So Spider-man 1 is a little bit of a mixed bag. At the time it was a stellar visual candy store with awesome action
There was an interesting blog post that I read that had an interview with Joss Whedon, the man behind The Avengers and a lot of the Marvel Universe. He started talking about how much things changed when the Dark Knight Trilogy began. I'm probably going to do a blog post on that in the next few days, but it fits well, especially seeing where Spider-man was, and where it is now. It creates the question, are these movies suppose to be adapting comic books into movies or making movies from the subject of comic books.
That question will be answered in another post but as for the entirety of the movie...
Its a fun ride. Yes its cheesy. Yes it has outdated effects and stiff action. But Spider-man still to this day stands as a symbol for me, as one of the first great superhero films.
Sure things have gotten larger and more extreme, but its good to every once in a while go back to the roots of things and see where things began.
Its a film series that had its ups and downs, I think when all is said and done, Spider-Man 1 was one of Sony's ups when it came to the Spider-Man franchise.
Now hopefully, this has opened up a small series of me watching all the Spider-man films and giving my take on them. If you're an avid reader of my blog, you know that I'm not that great with film series. I lose interest, I can't find good copies of the film if I don't have it or its not on Netflix. It can be a little bit of hassle. But I'll do my best to get out as many Spider-man films as I can before I have to take a hiatus for the summer. I just finished Spider-Man 2, that review will be coming up soon.
So that's my thoughts on Spider-man. Have you seen it? What do you think about it? Leave your comments and thoughts in the box below.
I'll leave you with this. Apparently James Cameron (my favorite psychopath) almost directed Spider-man. There was a very different Spider-man about to hit the screens if it hadn't really worked out. Thank You Sam Raimi. Enjoy!
I try not to do reviews of movies that I've seen extensive reviews about. There are several critics that I watch and some of them do in depth reviews of movies, taking them almost scene by scene and tearing them apart.
I, unfortunately, don't have the time or the technology to do such an endeavor. Therefore, I give you an overarching review, pointing out as much good and bad things of the film as I can.
So that being said, I've seen an extensive review of Congo before done by The Nostalgia Critic.
But I did sit through this movie, why shouldn't I give at last a little bit of a review of it. It might be short, but here it is.
Congo follows the story of a team of people going to the Congo in order to return a captive gorilla to her home in the wild, and find a team of scientists who had gone missing.
The movie focuses mainly on Dr. Peter Elliot (played by Dylan Walsh) and Dr. Karen Ross (played by Laura Linney). Elliot has developed a way to teach gorillas how to talk. The gorilla he's done the majority of his testing with is a gorilla named Amy. And when I say gorilla, I mean an obvious guy in a gorilla suit. Its actually really funny the dynamic between these two. In many ways, Elliot treats Amy as a child but there's a weird dynamic that the movie awkwardly creates. I don't know, its just kind of strange. They're obviously trying to give off the father daughter relationship but it instead comes off as a guy who's into gorillas.
On the other hand, you have Karen Ross, who works for the CIA? Or some lazer company?... or something...
Mainly her goal is to go looking for her ex-fiance as his team was testing a new technology of lasers and they lost communication with them.
Along the way, they pick up more and more companions. One being Ernie Hudson (from Ghostbusters) who happens to say everything in probably the coolest voice ever in the world. I don't know why, but Ernie Hudson makes his way as probably the coolest person in this entire movie.
Also Tim Curry is in the movie as a rich Romanian who funds the expedition. Frankly, this is just Tim Curry playing Tim Curry with a Romanian accent.
He of course is a little weird and doesn't add a whole lot to the movie but he's a lot more entertaining than a lot of this movie.
Now I'll be fair. There are actually some fun moments in this movie. Its set up as an action adventure feeling, exploration of the jungle and that whole stuff. There actually is a little recollection to a sort of Indiana Jones style, but its not nearly close to it at all.
This movie instead is more funny in ways its not actually suppose to be. The gorillas, a random laser gun near the end, Ernie Hudson's awesome voice.
I don't know. There's not too much that I can say about this movie that hasn't been said before by Nostalgia Critic or someone else. There's something to be said that I watched this movie back to back with Sharknado.
This movie is just down right funny. Its go campy and cooky effects, the story is really complete crap.
The individual performances really aren't the worst things ever. Ernie Hudson of course just has fun with the role because he probably knew it was crap. I've never been a fan of Dylan Walsh, and Laura Linney was probably the best, and that's not saying much for her performance.
I think its a movie thats really funny just to watch with friends when you don't really want to think and instead want to just make fun of a film.
Don't expect too much out of this film and you'll enjoy yourself a lot more. Its really not good and should only be watched if your drunk or have nothing else to do with your time.
I told you I was going to keep this short. That's my review of Congo. Have you seen it? What did you think of it? Comment and Discuss below.
I'll leave you with this. This is probably the only scene that is mildly entertaining from this movie where our heroes are fighting a horde of evil gorillas. The Scene is called, "Put Em on the Endangered species list" That is actually pretty badass. Enjoy!
Now when The Great Muppet Caper came to Netflix, it took a whole 2 hours before I pressed play and had that playing. With Muppet Treasure Island, it maybe took ten minutes. I'm pretty sure the VHS this movie was on was broken by the time I was done with Muppet Treasure Island. It was a movie my parents saw as a good movie for me to watch and it was about swashbuckling pirates. Why wouldn't I, as a young adventure loving child not love the adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson's classic.
After a musical number showing the fate of the infamous Captain Flint's crew after they buried his treasure, the movie opens up on young Jim Hawkins (played by Kevin Bishop) and his friends, Gonzo and Rizzo the Rat.
In the tavern they work in, they house a sailor by the name of Billy Bones (played by Billy Connolly) He tells the story of Captain Flint and the secret treasure. He also has the treasure map and is being hunted by pirates of Flint's former crew.
After Billy Bones dies of a heart attack or something, (I thought this was suppose to be a kids movie!) Jim takes the map and goes off to seek adventure and find the treasure.
Before I move on, I'll get this out of the way. Kevin Bishop... dear god.
I'll give the guy credit I give most actors. He's done more with his acting career than I have.
But dear lord, this kid was annoying. His voice is probably the highest pitched voice in the world. When he sings, its a male soprano voice. Its so high and you can't hear what he sings when he's singing.
Its difficult because Bishop finds himself in a position where he's the main focus of the film. In the Great Muppet Caper, or the Muppet Movie, the Muppets are the focus and the humans just live in the same world. But in movies like this one and Muppet Christmas Carol (another one of my favorites) the humans are the main focus. The difference is, the Muppet Christmas Carol had Michael freaking Caine in the main role, this one has a kid that nobody has heard from since.
As a kid, there wasn't a huge problem with his voice because my voice was that high as well. But today, he just seems like a horrible actor who can't really hold the movie on his shoulders. But there's more to the movie so I'll continue for now.
Jim finds someone willing to finance the voyage and hire a crew. Its actually Fozzie Bear playing Squire Trelawney. He's actually described as "the half-wit son"of the real Squire Trelawney and this is one of the jokes I never got as a kid. That Fozzie in this movie is just kind of an idiot. He doesn't know what the ocean is, he has a man living in his finger, he's giving a boat to a kid with a map. This is an example of the jokes that kids usually won't get but makes the movie fun for parents.
So they get a ship, they get a crew, all first mated by Sam the Eagle playing Samuel Arrow, and led by the Captain Abraham Smollett, played by Kermit the Frog.
Its a really great set up, by itself and thats not including the last big name of the movie. Again, its a story where the Muppets provide a background for the human characters. I think it makes perfect sense for the film, especially with the last big name of the film that I've been alluding to this entire time.
The infamous Long John Silver is played by none other than Tim Curry.
I know that Tim Curry is in more than this movie but for the longest time, this was the only thing I knew Curry from. And it was a great role.
Dear god, Curry just steals this entire show. He plays up the villain role like no one I've ever seen and yes he's charming. There's a friendship that grows between him and Jim that plays very well for the entire movie.
Its unfortunate because Kevin Bishop is just not that great of an actor. But I think if they needed to find anybody to overshadow that acting flaw, its Tim freaking Curry.
I found a picture online that really explains this movies circumstances.
Isn't that the truth.
And speaking of singing. The people they get for these Muppet movies to do the music are just incredible. Like The Great Muppet Caper, these aren't songs that will blow your mind but they work for the film. They're a mixture of genres, styles. One minute there's tribal music, then its a caylpso dance music, then there's a power ballad.
And I swear, this song.
While not my favorite song from any muppet movie, is one catchy song. And that's another thing that needs to be added about the uniqueness and brilliance of Jim Henson, his son, and everyone that has worked with the Muppets.
There's always a few songs in Muppet movies that, regardless of how great of a song, they are not complete without the Muppets singing it. Its the case for Love Led Us Here, and its true for a lot of other songs.
The best example I can think of is One More Sleep Till Christmas from The Muppet Christmas Carol.
There's something about Kermit singing that song that gives it so much heart. And thats not just the case for the Muppets. So many movie musicals make these songs that come out in the movie, Let it Go, etc. And the problem I see with these songs is that they try and recreate the song with pop artists. Demi Moore did it with Frozen, and someone did it with Love Led Us Here. Its just not as good and it bums me out.
Its not a huge deal but the movie versions are always the better versions.
An interesting thing about Muppet Treasure Island is actually how dark it is.
Let me be clear. I don't think movies need to have darker edges to them. In a lot of cases, it doesn't work. I think I kind of made it seem like darker and edgier would make a movie like That Thing You Do better. I don't think thats true.
The fun part about Muppet Treasure Island is that they're facing a subject that is actually kind of dark. Pirates, in reality, are not great people. They pillage and are just down right criminals. Muppet Treasure Island rides that line very well of making it glamorous and dark at the same time.
Look at the design for a lot of the new muppets. They're not like anything you would see in The Great Muppet Caper or the Muppet Movie. I don't even think we've seen Muppets this creep since. The Muppets (2011) had a couple of redesigned muppets to give them a more evil look, but I still think the Muppet from Treasure Island are scarier. Also, people flat out die in this movie. I'm not saying a lot and even at one part when you think someone is dead, it turns out they were never alive to begin with.
And I think that's what makes this movie very very good. You take a little bit darker of an approach, lighten the mood with the regular muppet humor and top it all off with the weirdo of all weirdos, Tim Curry. How can you go wrong?
So putting them together, Muppet Treasure Island and The Great Muppet Caper are two incredibly fun films. They have that charm and fun aspects o them that only come from movies with the Muppets. I love them both. I may say that Muppet Treasure, because of the subject matter is really as fun but they're still incredibly inventive and funny movies.
Again, you really can't go wrong with The Muppets. I haven't seen a bad movie from the Muppets. I don't know if there is one but I've never seen one. The Muppets are just an icon worth celebrating.
If you haven't seen Muppet Treasure Island, its a fun flick regardless of your age. Obviously its aimed at kids but its still something anybody can enjoy.
Those are my thoughts on Muppet Treasure Island. What do you think of the film? Let me know and discuss in the comments below.
I'll leave you with this. Here's the Muppet Singing Oh Danny Boy... nuff said. Enjoy!
.jpg)
