Showing posts with label Andrew Garfield. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Andrew Garfield. Show all posts

Monday, May 5, 2014

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)


Title: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

Director: Marc Webb

Cast: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Jamie Foxx, Dane DeHaan, Sally Field, Paul Giamatti

The Amazing Spiderman 2 was a great way to kick start the 2014 Summer Blockbuster Season; the season that many film buffs such as myself look forward to because it’s that time of the year when the biggest most bombastic films are unleashed. These films are meant to wow us, they are meant to be huge spectacles, and I have to say that The Amazing Spiderman 2 certainly falls into that category. Many moments during the film had me saying “amazing!”  out loud; so I think it’s safe to say the movie delivers where it’s supposed to deliver. What was so good about The Amazing Spiderman 2? And where did it fail?


This time around, Spiderman is having a great time being Spidey, saving the world, helping kids fight bullies, saving the world from rampaging villains, but he still has one dilemma, his promise to Gwen Stacy’s father before he died. If you remember correctly, fearing for his daughter’s life, Captain Stacy made Peter Parker promise him that he would leave Gwen Stacy out of his life.  So anyways, Spiderman tries to leave Gwen alone, but their attraction is too strong. At the same time, two villains are born: Electro and The Green Goblin, both of whom want Spidey dead, for their own respective reasons. Can Spider-Man be a hero and be in love at the same time?


I didn’t exactly love the first Amazing Spiderman movie. My big problem with it was the cgi; I didn’t really dig it. It made characters look too much like a cartoon, not real enough. This problem was especially evident whenever The Lizard appeared. I felt I was looking at some crappy cartoon. Not convincing in my book. The problem with a lot of these Spiderman movies has always been the CGI, which in my book has always been spotty. I was watching Spider-Man 3 (2007) the other day and boy, the CGI on that one was so obviously CGI, and when that happens, the film loses its grip on reality and falls apart in my book. And this is where this second film got things right, the CGI was excellent. When we follow Spidey as he swings through the city, well, he looks real enough in my book, you can see the ripples in his freaking suit, you hear the wind. An effort is made to make things convincing.


I was worried about the amount of villains, because not every director can handle a lot of villains properly, sometimes the end result is a Batman & Robin (1997) type of deal, where we have a bunch of villains and none of them are developed properly or treated with any dignity, the end result is a bunch of paper thin villains that aren’t brought to life in a satisfying way. The best example I can think of is Bane in Batman and Robin, and Venom in Spider-Man 3; both terrible renditions of important villains because both films where cluttered with way too many villains. Thankfully this doesn’t happen in The Amazing Spider-Man 2. For all intents and purposes this is Electro’s film and he looks and sounds kick ass. I loved the visual with all the blue fluorescent lightning bolts, it just looked freaking sweet. Mix that with the electric bass sound they put whenever Electro appears and we have a perfect marriage of sight and sound, the visuals and the sounds mixed like magic. The Green Goblins transformation was awesome…but I’m not entirely sure I love his overall look. In my book he still needs to be more monstrous, more demonic, like in the comics. Then we have The Rhino, but thankfully he is only used as a tease for the next film, which apparently will feature The Sinister Six, an amalgamation of some of Spidey’s deadliest villains.


The film did a fine balancing act between story, romance, kick ass action and mind blowing effects. In some ways it reminded me a bit of Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones (2002) because it had that thing where it went from romance, to action, then back to romance, then back to action again and so forth. Final words are that I can’t really bring myself to say anything bad about this movie. The only thing I can say didn’t really fit into the film was the tacked on “extra ending” with a scene that leads into X-men: Days of Future Past (2014), which will be premiering in the next couple of months. My problem with that scene was that it wasn’t even that good; it wasn’t a real grabber. And on top of that, it had absolutely nothing to do with The Amazing Spider-Man films. I would have preferred an extra ending that connected with The Amazing Spider-Man 3. But alas, it felt like a cheap way to promote X-Men: Days of Future Past. So yeah, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 was a step up from the first film, I recommend it if you want to start the 2014 Summer Season with a blast!


Rating: 4 out of 5 


Thursday, July 5, 2012

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)



Title: The Amazing Spider Man (2012) 

Director: Marc Webb 

Cast: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, Denis Leary, Martin Sheen, Sally Field 


Many are saying that this new Spider-Man reboot has come to soon, that it’s too early for a reboot of the series, but you know what? Personally I don’t really care, this whole “too soon for reboot” theory is total boloney in my book, I’m happy to see a new Spider-Man film, happy to see an entirely different creative team behind it. Comic books do this all the time, they change creative teams, new writers and new artists mean a different take on the character. This offers us something refreshing and different, which is way better then getting same-o same-o all over again. So yes, I’m happy that Raimi isn’t directing and that it’s not Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst in the roles of Peter and Mary Jane. What this film offers us is a refreshing, new take on Spidey’s origin story. Whenever a new creative team is introduced the question is always “will they make it work?” What made this new Spidey film different? Were director Marc Webb, and actors Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone able to successfully bring these characters to life? Did they make a good Spider-Man film? 


Though the origin story is familiar, somethings are different this time around. For example, story wise we get to see Spidey’s origin all over again; we go through the beats that Spidey’s origin has to go through in order to get Peter Parker swinging from his webs through New York City, but this time around the beats are slightly different. This means we see him going to Oscorp and getting bitten by a radioactive spider, Uncle Ben’s death is what impulses him to become the hero, and we see Parker training to master the art of wall crawling and web slinging. Sure, we’ve seen all these things before in the old spidey movies, but on this one these events happen in slightly different ways; for example, Parker doesn’t end up going to a wrestling match. What makes this origin story a bit different is that they actually reference Peter’s parents in a way that involves them in the story. In Raimi’s Spiderman films his parents aren’t mentioned and we simply take for granted that Parker’s an orphan living with his aunt and uncle; on this one there’s some mystery behind Peter’s parents. Also, we get a new villain with ‘The Lizard’, a scientist who’s missing his left arm and therefore experiments with the DNA of lizards, to see if he can grow his lost arm back, same as a lizard grows its tail. 


Same as in the comic books, Spideys first girlfriend is Gwen Stacy, something that Raimi’s films overlooked and then tried to fix by introducing Stacy on the third film. On this one we start on the right track, with Peter and Stacy becoming romantically involved and hints of ominous events in their possible future together. The relationship angle between Peter and Stacy was not so schmaltzy; it felt a bit more real. I’m sure a lot of that has to do with Webb’s previous experience directing (500) Days of Summer (2009), a film that focused on relationships between young people. In this sense, choosing Marc Webb as this films director worked. He can handle performances and drama in a more realistic fashion than Raimi ever could, so that worked in this films favor. What worried me about Webb as a director was the fact that he’d never made a film with lots of action or effects before this one, but this all went surprisingly well. The action and effects were actually great, I had nothing to worry about. This film is surprisingly good when we take in consideration that this is Webb’s sophomore effort as a director. 


The portrayal of Peter Parker this time around is far superior to Tobey Maguire’s overtly sentimental Peter Parker in previous Spiderman films. You don’t feel as if Peter’s a weak cry baby; so congrats go out to Marc Webb and Andrew Garfield for making this Spidey more intelligent and more of a scientist which is the way he was in the comics in the first place. Also, I liked the fact that he was more sure of himself, just because Peter’s a brainy geeky type doesn’t mean he has to come off as a whimpy cry baby. There’s this dinner scene in which Parker has a discrepancy with Gwen Stacy’s dad, they are discussing Spiderman and Mr. Stacy says Spidey’s a vigilante, while Parker defends Spiderman. I liked how Parker was standing up for himself in that scene, defending his point of view. He wasn’t afraid of being defiant. In my opinion, Raimi’s mistake in his Spidey films was making the character just a bit too sentimental. On this film Spidey is inexperienced and still a geek, but his not a whino. I also loved the great supporting cast! Martin Sheen is incredibly likable as Uncle Ben, Sally Field's great as Aunt May, Denis Leary as Mr. Stacy, such a well rounded cast makes for a better acted film in my opinion.    


The visual effects are great on this film; the sequences in which Spiderman is swinging through the city were very effective because the action doesn’t happen so fast that we don’t understand what the hell is happening. Webb slows things down and speeds things up just right. The visual effects dealing with Spiderman were great in my book. The weak link in the film for me was the villain; I personally don’t enjoy characters that are entirely computer generated, so I didn’t really enjoy the way the lizard looked. It’s not horrendously bad, but it wasn’t great. Rhys Ifan’s the actor who portrays Dr. Connors, was nothing to write home about either, he didn’t steal the show, like say Jack Nicholson in Burtons Batman (1989). Whatever happened to those bigger than life villains in comic book movies? They tried portraying Dr. Connors as a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde type of character, hearing interior monologues and the such which by the way was a technique used with The Green Goblin character in the first batch of Spidey films; but the performance of the character itself wasn’t all that special. Spider-Man 2 (2002) remains the best Spider-Man film ever made, and not only that, one of the best superhero films ever made period; still, this new Spidey film is really damn good. I’m looking forward to what this new creative team has in store for future films. By the way, stay seated after the credits, there’s one of those extra ending things that hints at the inevitable sequel! 

Rating: 3 out of 5


Wednesday, December 15, 2010

The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus (2009)


Title: The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus (2009)

Director: Terry Gilliam

Cast: Heath Ledger, Johnny Depp, Jude Law, Collin Farrell, Christopher Plummer, Andrew Garfield, Lily Cole, Verne Troyer

Review:

When we watch a movie, most of the time we filter, interpret, and syphon it through the experiences we have lived through during the course of our own lives. We don't ever just "watch" a movie, we see it through our own lives. We give whatever meaning we want to the characters and situations we are watching, usually those meanings or interpretations are a mirror of ourselves. This is one of the main themes that Terry Gilliam's new film, The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus plays with. Our imaginations represent us. They are like a calling card to who we are inside. Heavy stuff, considering Gilliam usually gives a very light tone to most of his films. But its obvious that Terry Gilliam is a man who is not happy with the way things are being run in the world, he has always, through most of his body of work retained an anti-system mentality towards things. This hate towards "the system" can be seen through the frustration of his characters with the way things are established. In Brazil, the main character cant deal with the fact that his life is so redundant and boring, so he escapes to another world where he is a hero. In 12 Monkeys, the government is using Bruce Willis to investigate our past, but really, they don't know what the hell they are doing, or even if they are doing it right. In Gilliam's films, this hate for the way things are, this hatred for the reality of things is being fought not with swords or guns, but with our imaginations.


Started out kind of heavy there with my review. But this was the latest Terry Gilliam film, and I am a huge Gilliam fan. So just keep in mind, this review comes from someone who loves and admires Gilliam's films a great deal. I have always admired how Gilliam escapes to these fantastical wonderful worlds. In many ways, Gilliam escapes from reality through his films, but at the same time, since we are talking about art here, Gilliam addresses certain issues, he needs to express. Like any good director, Gilliam criticizes and satirizes society through his movies. And in my opinion, society and the way things are deserve it. Screw it, what can I say? I agree with the guy. Things are fucked up. Gilliam is saying through his films that things are so messed up, so depressing that we need to escape to another imaginary world to be alright. Isn't that what films are all about? The "great escape"? And what better way to escape, then with this new Terry Gilliam film? What can I say about The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus? Well, that its a Gilliam film through and through. This isn't Gilliam restrained by corporate douche bags like in The Brothers Grimm, nope this is Gilliam once again cutting loose, still trying to amaze and wow us, and still commenting on the world we live in. With a touch of insanity and zaniness for good measure.


The film is about a traveling theater group. These guys go around town doing their little show, presenting "The Great Dr. Parnassus". They offer you great and wondrous things but only if you walk through the mirror to see it. Thing is, Dr. Parnassus is going around collecting souls, once they enter his mirror, they re-emerge happy and full of life. With new energies to face the darkness of the world. You know, the same way movies do. Anyways, Dr. Parnassus played by Christopher Plummer is an aging man, who just so happens to be immortal. He sold his daughter to the devil for said immortality. The deal being that when she turned 16 she would immediately become The Devils property. Of course, now that his daughter Valentina is 16, Dr. Parnassus wants nothing to do with that deal and is looking for away to break with it. Oh by the way, the devil is played with exquisiteness by the one and only Tom Waits. So anyhow, Parnassus is on the run. He goes around doing his little show, living in poverty with his daughter and theater group. In comes Heath Ledgers character, Tony. A man trying to forget who he once was and escaping his reality as well. He joins the theater group and helps them run the circus. Will the devil get his due? Will Parnassus escape the clutches of the devil and retain his daughter? And will Tony ever remember who he once was?


Speaking of Heath Ledger, I thought that he was going to be in the film a lot less, but apparently, he had filmed a lot! He of course, did a great job of portraying the two faced main character, Tony. The liar who enters the theater groups life, by playing an amnesiac. I always admired Ledger for wanting to back up Terry Gilliam as a director. Its quite obvious Ledger connected wit Terry Gilliam's artistic genius and decided to participate in this film. Same reason I respect Johnny Depp for doing the same, for being on Gilliam's films as if saying "this guy is great! Come see his films!" Johnny Depp's participation on this film is brief, but much appreciated in my book. Same goes for Jude Law, who has one of the coolest scenes in the movie, where he is going up these extremely long ladders that reached all the way to the clouds. Collin Farell did the best of the three. Farell actually acted as if he was Heath Ledger. Of the three invited actors who were chosen to fill in the gaps that Ledgers unfortunate departure inflicted upon this film, Farell was the one who embodied Ledger the best. Right down to his mannerisms and facial gestures. Lily Cole as Valentina -Dr. Parnassus's daughter- was a great casting choice on Gilliam's part. She has a strange kind of beauty. Like Christina Ricci, but even more otherworldly. Its an odd kind of beauty, but fits quite perfectly in a movie like this one. Cole looks like she would fit quite well in any fantasy film that would feature fairies or elves. She sure wasn't hard to look at thats for sure.

Speaking about the films themes I can say that it addresses many. I for one really thought that Gilliam was talking a lot about being Terry Gilliam. An aging director, and old fantasist whom nobody cares about anymore. Gilliam sees himself as the aging Parnassus, trying to bring his creaky old theater and stories to the people for their enjoyment. He wants audiences to transport themselves into his mirror worlds. His films. I of course am not one of those who doesn't care for Gilliam's films, I love them and welcome each one like a gift from the fantasy movie gods. I have always given Terry Gilliam props for being such an escape artist. He really loves to dive deep into that world we call "imagination", often bringing back the biggest and fattest imaginary fish in the pond. On this film, every time we go into Dr. Parnassus's magic mirror, every trip is different. You see, the world you find inside the mirror will reflect your own imagination, the things you like, the things you fear. I thought it was a wonderful allegory for how films mirror society, and how we should see ourselves in them. The film tries to shows us how we can see what we need to change about ourselves and the world we live in through films. How films both entertain and enlighten us. I think it was a great idea for Gilliam to work with Charles McKeown on this films script. McKeown has been actively working on fantasy films for some years now. He was responsible for writing The Adventures of Baron Munchausen and Brazil, both two of Gilliam's best films. Knowing that the writer of Baron Munchausen wrote this film makes perfect sense because The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus has many things in common with Munchausen. But more on that later. This paring of two great fantasist in one film, rejoining forces once again was a match made in heaven.


The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus is a film that speaks about the whole process of making a film. Yes my friends, this is yet another film about making films. And it comes as no surprise that Gilliam should want to address this subject matter. After all, he has been making complex and artistic films through out his whole life. Why shouldn't he make a film that summarizes everything he has learned through out the course of his directorial career? So in essence, Parnassus, is Gilliam. He wants to entertain us with his magic theater show. But what happens? People just aren't that interested anymore. They want something hip, something new, something edgy. And Gilliam even addresses this as well. The keeping up with the technology and the audiences ever changing interests. What should we sacrifice for our art, and for the pleasing of the audience? Tony, the "liar" looked to me like he was the young producer trying to present Gilliam to a new generation of audiences. Trying to update Gilliam's style and true nature.


In this film, Gilliam takes a stab at using computer generated images once again, same as he did in The Brothers Grimm. Gilliam has always been an "old school" filmmaker. He prefers to use mate paintings and miniatures to conjure up his fantasy worlds. Its been interesting to see Gilliam accept and use the tools of modern filmmaking on his films. Gilliam, very reluctantly has begun using CGI on his films. My own personal take on things is, I prefer the old Gilliam, with his miniatures and his paintings. But such is the modern world of films, computers have taken over. Gilliam has realized this and has decided to adapt. In The Brothers Grimm (the only Terry Gilliam film I can honestly say I dont love) the CGI was a complete disaster in my book. It brought the movie down because it wasn't beautiful. It wasn't even good. The CGI imagery in that particular Gilliam flick didn't work for me. Dr. Parnassus is Gilliams second attempt at using this new tool to tell his tale. I have to say that I see a great improvement. We get to see Gilliam's giant brooding castles, reminiscent of those we saw on Time Bandits. But in some of the imaginary worlds, the computer animation isn't all that great. Its on and off, I wouldn't say the effects were perfect. They were pretty to look at, but sometimes not all that realistic. They go more into the cartoonish side of things. More like something Gilliam might have cooked up during his animation days with the Monty Python group, but hey, its not bad for the kind of film were in, where we are going deep into the imagination, where anything can happen.

Hey, look! And old fantasist, a little girl and a theater group! Is it Imaginarium? Nope, its The Adventures of Baron Munchausen!

The only criticism I have for the film, and its not really that big of a deal is that the film is very similar in plot and situations to Gilliam's The Adventures of Baron Munchausen. Here are the similarities:

- The film centers around the theater group, the actors and what happens behind stage - This is something we see in many of Gilliam's films. The hassle and the franticness of the world behind the stage. It is featured most prominently in Baron Munchausen.

- The film is centered around a little girl as the main character - Again, something Gilliam loves to do. We saw it Tideland, Baron Munchausen and now in Dr. Parnassus.
- The little girl is always pushing the old man not to give up the fight - In Baron Munchausen, the little girl is always pushing Munchausen not to fall asleep, not to give up, to continue the fight, the journey till the very end. Same happens here with Dr. Parnassus and his daughter Valentine.

- The old fantasist tells a tale, and the audience is pulled into it with him

- An evil character dressed in black follows the main character around. In Munchausen it was death, in Parnassus it was Tom Waits as TheDevil.


Those Terry Gilliam fans out there will notice the similarities with that film. But, same as Tideland, this new Terry Gilliam film has a darker side to it. Theres not so much comedy to the film, its bleaker. Darker. Again, the film mirrors its artist, so Terry Gilliam is a dark soul, who doesn't want to let go of that childlike wonderment he gets from fantasy and the use of his imagination. But I miss that time when Gilliam would put a lot of humor into his fantasy tales. But I guess we all change, we seldom stay the same. We evolve, and more often then not, when we grow and learn about the way things really are, we become just a little darker and sadder inside. The world can be a dark place, with dark experiences, but it can also hold great beauty. it all depends on how you look at things.

Rating: 4 out of 5

The ultimate fantasist himself, Terry Gilliam taking a break in between scenes

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails