The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies Trailer

I'll be honest, when I first saw this, I was in the middle of some movement, I was getting used to a new area where I was working, (Still Army stuff) and I barely had time to get a quick look at the teaser trailer for the new Hobbit movie.

My first reaction was, well this is going to Desolation of Smaug part 2 and I'm not really gonna like it. In case, you missed my Desolation of Smaug review or you're unsure on my thoughts of the Hobbit movies, basically, I loved the first one. The second one, I liked but it wasn't quite the movie I expected. It was more of a filler instead of an adaptation of one of my favorite novels of all time. They added in Kate from Lost and I just wasn't wild about the added in stuff.

The thing about The Battle of the Five Armies is that this movie is going to be 75% filler. The Battle of the Five Armies basically takes up a chapter in the Hobbit. If we were tracking how many pages left of the book we have left in this last movie, I'd be surprised if it was more that 50 pages.

And Peter Jackson expects to give me a three hour long movie about Kate from Lost falling in love with a Dwarf, Smaug fucking shit up, and a Battle where a couple people die.

The point is, I know now for sure that the Battle of the Five Armies is going to be a filler movie.

That being said, I watched the trailer for the second time and suddenly I see something, an opportunity if you will.

This is the Hobbit's last chance to really make an impression.

Let's go back to An Unexpected Journey. The awesome thing about this movie was that this movie depicted some of my favorite reading material in the world.

I was crying at the end of this movie because it just had a lot of heart and it rang true to the source material.

It wasn't the epic that the Lord of the Rings movies was but that's not what the Hobbit was when it was a book. To me, the Hobbit is more of a Fairy Tale rather than a Fantasy epic. And that's why I loved An Unexpected Journey so much.

The Desolation of Smaug on the other hand seemed to me like they were trying to get back to the Fantasy epicness they achieved in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Legolas was shoehorned in there so fast it didn't make any sense and they just glanced over the introductions and importance of characters like Bjorn (man bear... bear). Instead they went for special effects and over the top action.

Knowing that the Battle of the Five Armies is probably going to be more like Desolation of Smaug rather than An Unexpected Journey should bother me, but it doesn't.

The trailer starts with Bilbo saying maybe I'll remember everything, who lived and who died. This really cements the fact that Bilbo is not actually the center of this story. In reality, Bilbo is more of the observer, watching the things that happen around him. However, this does not mean that he's not a character. The first thing I would hope for is that The Battle of the Five Armies focuses a little bit more on Bilbo. Maybe he's not the center of why the Battle of the Five Armies happens but there's still something to be said about the things he's seen.

If you give him more of a character and development in the next film, it will actually show how these events have effects Bilbo and you can give credit and omage to the older interpretation of Bilbo from the trilogy. Isn't that the point of prequels?

So if they are going to spend 3 hours on maybe 4 chapters and 50 some pages, take some liberties that work and develop your characters Peter Jackson!

So that's my first hope for the new film.

Secondly, I want to talk about Kate from Lost.

Kill her off.

She doesn't exist in the books, the love story between her and Fili, or Kili or whoever it is isn't going anywhere, kill her off.

That being said, make it worth something. Make her character have a point.

If Evangeline Lily was just in this movie to be a female Legolas, kill her off right away and don't waste my time. But if you actually want to utilize her correctly, make her a little more complex and have her character mean something. You have 3 hours Jackson, do something with it!

I am under the impression that she will die. There are a lot of characters who will die in this next movie from the book, I think because she is not from the source material. This makes her a perfect candidate to die.

And finally, Bard.

I know what you're trying to do Jackson. You're trying to make Bard your Aragorn character. You're trying to make him the tall dark and handsome outcast thrown into a position of greatness.

Don't make him Aragorn!

Aragorn was his own character with his own set of circumstances. The reason his character was good was because they were original circumstances and you had three movies to develop it.

Bard has maybe a movie and a half. While that's not that much time, take some freaking time to develop him as a character. Make him different than Aragorn. This whole copy and paste thing it kind of looks like your doing with Bard has been done before.

Remember these guys? Yeah nobody does.

These two were suppose to be the replacements of Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightly in the most recent Pirates of the Carribean.

Nobody remembers them because they were just copy and paste from the previous films.

Mr. Jackson, do not do this with your characters in The Hobbit.

Bard is a character you can develop, make him something totally different instead of just a hesitant outcast turned leader. Use some originality and make the Hobbit stand out as a film.

There are a lot of characters in the new Hobbit films that need work, especially the dwarves. But the good thing is that the storyline of the dwarves is pretty laid out. Just don't try and copy and paste from things that were done in previous film and use what you can from the original material and you should be fine.

The things I do like about the trailer is the beckoning back to the original trilogy. I kind of lost it when I heard Billy Boyd's voice from the Return of the King singing to a sequence of battles and just all around badassery. Jackson had to have known that this was the movie that was the closest to Return of the King as he could make it. What I will say to that is, do what you can to beckon back to the original trilogy. It will get people into the theaters and enjoy that old vs new factor.

But for god's sake. Don't try to make this film Return of the King.

Don't try to make The Battle of the Five Armies as epic as the Battle of Middle Earth was. Its not going to get to that point. We're just going to be a little bit disappointed because you're making the key players of this movie people we barely know, like Bard, Legolas and Kate from Lost, and Legolas's Father. And while Thorin is in that mix as well, its still not enough to make the stakes as high as they were in Return of the King. Don't try.

What you can do, Mr. Jackson, is make this movie about how this conflict is effecting these characters and give them legitimate character development.

Now its a trailer, but what I saw from it is a bunch of reaction shots from the key players of the war. What I hope is that this is pointing towards the effects this battle/war has on character like Bilbo, Bard and Thorin. I want to see the conflict of Bilbo choosing exactly what side he wants to fight on. I want to see the corruption of Thorin as he comes into power. Luckily, Mr. Jackson, you have 3 hours to do that. Don't screw that up.

My point here is, make Battle of the Five Armies different. Its what you did with An Unexpected Journey and for me, it worked. Stop trying to make Lord of the Rings again, you're just going to end up with disappointed fans.

Since starting this review, I've watched the trailer about 5 times more. Needless to say, I like the trailer. I think it promises a lot. At least this time, I know I'm going into a movie that will not be following the source material 100%. While I'm hesitant about that, especially with my thoughts on The Desolation of Smaug, and how they may have changed since I wrote my review. I am optimistic that Jackson is going somewhere with this. I think Jackson just has to have a solid script and make use of the 3 hours he has. He has to make a compelling story, drawing from again, about 50 or so pages of source material. Hopefully it works out. But more importantly, its the characters he needs to focus on. Hopefully that works out as well.

I'm hesitantly optimistic about this movie from the trailer.

But what do you think? What are your thoughts on the trailer. I know I'm a little bit behind but what're your thoughts on the direction the movies are going and how do the Hobbit movies compare with the Lord of the Rings Trilogy? Leave your thoughts and comments below.

I'll leave you with this. In case you haven't seen it, here is the trailer. Take a look and let me know your thoughts. Enjoy!

First Look at Wonder Woman!

So in case you haven't been tracking, I have been off doing training for the past four weeks and this blog has been very inactive. However, things changed a little bit and I was able to get a computer and an internet connection here in sunny Fort Jackson. I will have to see how long I have this internet connection and I still have some training that I need to do, so my reviews may be a little spotty.

However, I do have an entire day to myself and a lot of time to kill. While I do have paperwork I have stuff to do, I wanted to write at least one review, partly because I wanted to put at least one up for July, but also because the first thing piece of news I saw when I had access to a phone was this.

This is very real, this is the new, and first ever real costume of Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman.

And I... Don't really know what I think.

First off, I'm a little disappointed that she's in costume, if you've read my earlier post about Wonder Woman, the one I wrote when it was first announced, I basically said I don't want Wonder Woman to appear. I want Diana Prince to show up and hint at the idea of being Wonder Woman, or discover her powers as a teaser for the Justice League movie, but I don't want to actually see Wonder Woman.

After this, I'm pretty sure Wonder Woman is going to show up in this film. Which isn't the worst thing to happen... as long as its done right.

As far as the costume goes, its pretty good.

Personally, I was hoping for, I guess the word is, conservative look for Wonder Woman, similar to the look she had in the #600 comics. I've never actually read it but I've seen this look in Injustice and I actually really like it.

While the Amazon armor is the traditional look and I understand why they went with it, I think we don't necessarily need to make the most recognizable super heroine so scantily clad. Maybe go for a classy look instead of automatically going to a sex object.

That's probably not the direction they were meaning to go, but I've seen Sucker Punch...

There are great videos about the strange sensation that women warriors need to be scantily clad when they go into battle even though it makes no sense whatsoever. I would be one to be in the camp that says, they don't need to be that way. I think #600 was a great way to portray the character, at least visually. I would have been a little happier.

But overall, I do like it. I'm really glad they have finally come out and said this is the exact look for Wonder Woman. I have to keep reminding myself this movie is still about 2 years away and they're being pretty gracious giving us all this information for a movie that has a lot of time

It still doesn't totally sell me on Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman because just the way someone looks doesn't necessarily mean that its going to be great. But does she look good?

Yes.

On total face value, Gal Gadot does look pretty cool as Wonder Woman. I'm still very ignorant because I still haven't seen the Fast and Furious movies she's been in, I haven't seen anything else that would give me a real indication of her acting and whether or not Wonder Woman is going to have an Israeli accent or not. However, with photoshop, and cool effects, she does at least make me interested in her portrayal of Wonder Woman.

As far as other news I've heard about Batman v Superman, I've seen some extra pictures.

Of course there's this one.

But Snyder recently released this one.

Now to me, this is still a question mark. Every picture of Batman that has been released from this movie hasn't had that touch yet, that feeling of actually being Batman in a cinematic movie yet.

Even the teaser shown at Comic-con, a teaser that is only available in bootlegged copies that will probably be taken down the minute I post it, still make it look like one of the Arkham games, not the next cinematic Batman.

The only thing that would suggest that the picture to the right is Ben Affleck, is his chin. I'll hold my breath before making any judgments as to what I am thinking about Batfleck still yet.

However, the teaser shown at Comic-con, and the make up of the costume really suggest a influence the comic, The Dark Knight Returns has on this movie.

For those who haven't seen the clip. Basically, its Batman pulling the cover off an old worn out Bat symbol that looks as though it hasn't been used in years. Its a rainy night and the lightning serves as the light for the scene. He flips the switch, sparks fly but the new Bat symbol illuminates into the sky.

Not far, you see the flying figure of Superman hovering in the sky, looking down at Batman. His eyes glow red.

Then it turns to Batman looking up, his eyes glowing. The lightning illuminates his suit. Its a bulky mechanized suit. He looks as if he's ready to do battle.

Its really a great sequence and I hope they actually release it to the public, because it got me really excited for the movie.

While I'm not really wild about the design of the Bat suit, as I am not a fan of the suit of armor that just makes Batman look bulky and kind of fat, the use of it makes total sense and I'm willing to wait and see how it looks on the big screen to pass final judgement.

As if there was any before, there is no doubt that there is going to be an epic fight between Batman and Superman and its going to awesome. Theories are just racing through my head, why will they fight? Is Superman angry, hence the burning eyes? Why is the Bat symbol covered? Is Batman retired? Is there someone else fighting crime for him? Why Ben Affleck?

The point is, this sequence and pictures that have come out of it are just pointing at Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice being as epic as Zack Snyder can make it. It me, the movie has a different feel to it.

Its the same feeling I had when I first saw the trailer for Man of Steel. The movie just has a different feel to it then any comic book movie we've seen before.

While what I've seen from this film, it does have a little bit more of a comic book feeling than Man of Steel did, it still is setting itself apart.

There's something about it that feels epic instead of campy, dystopian instead of hopeful. Some might say that thats not the feeling that needs to be had in a Superman movie, that's what they said about Man of Steel anyways. But I'm looking forward to it. Hopefully this movie will take the approach that the Dark Knight Trilogy started up and take it to a whole new level.

Overall, there's been a lot of things reported about Batman v Superman that I've been curious about. Casting Ben Affleck, Gal Gadot and Jesse Eisenberg were not my ideal choices. But all that aside, the pictures and teasers to this film have only made me excited. Again, all of it will come down to what happens when it comes out, but until then I can just get excited and wait.

I wish I could give more insight, but unfortunately, I have limiting information and again, there's 2 years until this thing is out. We'll just have to wait and see.

But what do you think? I've basically put all the photos of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice out for your viewing, what are your thoughts? What do you think of the description of the teaser, or what do you think of it if you've seen it? Any theories on how the story is going to go, how Jesse Eisenberg's Lex Luthor is going to fit in? Comment and discuss below.

I'll leave you with this. There was a film that was suppose to come out in the 90s called Superman Lives. It was suppose to be Tim Burton's take on Superman. I'm not totally sure its fate and how it came to fail but it still looks like a super bizarre movie and one I'm actually kind of bummed didn't happen. Here's the trailer for the documentary all about that film. Enjoy!

See you in August!

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.

Thanks again.

C ya'll! And God Bless!

Spider-man 3

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!

Spider-Man 2

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!

Edge of Tomorrow

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!

Spider-Man (2002)

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.

Here's that 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!