"Point me in the direction of whoever's ass I have to Kick!" Thor Ragnarok Review

Thor Ragnarok

1.5/5

Directed by: Taika Waititi

Rated: PG-13

           The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) is extensive, and it is slowly building towards its climax, Avengers Infinity War (2018). Within this franchise's nine years of existence, audiences have seen great heroes team up with unlikely allies, take on hordes of evil and laugh and cry all the way through it. In the MCU's new action comedy Thor Ragnarok audiences will receive more of the same...but worse. This sequence of events that appeared on a screen in front of a viewer's eyes, otherwise known as a movie, provides lack luster entertainment, unstimulating visuals and little to no impact.
           Thor Ragnarok's most entertaining element is its characters, or rather its collection of walking and talking warriors that have their own quirks. Thor, Chris Hemsworth, is a brazen and brutish battler who wants to save his kingdom from the evil Hela, Cate Blanchett. Loki, Tom Hiddleston, is a conniving and charismatic combater who defeats his enemies through tricks and fakery. Valkyrie, Tessa Thompson, is a fierce and frigid fighter who drinks to her heart's content and won't take back any insult or injury. The Hulk, Mark Ruffalo, is a hearty heavy lifting hothead who speaks in broken English and breaks his challengers' backs. Based on these descriptions, it is expected that audience's should spend the majority of their time watching these people fight each other and various bad guys. While this is somewhat true, as there is enough fighting in this movie to keep a person in their seat with their eyes open, every battle is against a CGI opponent. Since the bad guys our heroes are unleashing their might upon are mostly computer generated faceless mobs, the impact of every punch, slam, kick, slice and smash is nullified.
           Other than a few interesting moments in this movie, Thor Ragnarok is not fun. The movie's dialogue is at moments comedic, but its primarily unenthusiastic and bland. The visuals in this movie are colorful, but the production design's color palettes are not emotionally rich. The villain is overpowered and worthy of being defeated, but it comes to a point where it does not matter how she will be defeated. All that matters is when, because that will signal the end of the movie. In addition to this Thor Ragnarok's orchestral score is forgettable and the movie's pacing is choppy and might make the story difficult following. The most effort this movie put forth was in its action scenes, but they are all fake and poorly choreographed. It is difficult separating each battle from another or recalling how someone took down their opponent. For all this movie's physical traits, it lacks an emotional center and the mental competence to make the movie impactful and worthwhile.
           There can be some enjoyment had with this MCU entry, but it mainly comes through knowing the backstory and previous character development that occurred in earlier entries. To best understand Thor Ragnarok's basic plot audience members should watch Thor (2011), The Avengers (2012), Thor the Dark World (2013), Avengers Age of Ultron (2015), and Doctor Strange (2016). It appears impossible for any new MCU entry to be watchable in its own right. The MCU shall eventually crumble under its own weight, and when that time comes only this franchise's best titles will be remembered and revered. It doesn't seem likely Thor Ragnarok will be amongst the chosen. As Thor would say, this movie is "not worthy."

Verdict: Thor Ragnarok is a poorly executed semi coherent sequence of events about a group of hotheads who take on a CGI army, and the movie lacks emotional impact and worthwhile entertaining value.

"I Hope you're Satisfied with our Product." Blade Runner 2049 Review

Blade Runner 2049

2.5/5

Directed by: Denis Villeneuve

Written by: Hampton Fancher and Michael Green

Rated: R

           Writer's express their worldviews through genres, and science fiction is the most apt and malleable gateway for a writer's thoughts on the world around them. Through the technologically advanced worlds in science fiction, screenwriters have illustrated their thoughts on policies, social issues and generalized norms. In 1982 Hampton Fancher employed this genre, combined with film noir, and wrote the screenplay for Ridley Scott's critically acclaimed Blade Runner. 35 years later, Fancher and director Denis Villeneuve (Arrival 2016) have revamped Scott's vision to reflect their new worldviews. Based upon Blade Runner's science fiction themes and environment, Villeneuve's Blade Runner 2049 inhabits a new atmosphere with an original narrative tackling a wide variety of social issues and ambiguous situations.
           Blade Runner 2049's story is an unexpected narrative approach for a science fiction block buster. It is an investigative look at what defines humanity and what lies the world foolishly believes. Because the film's narrative does not have the gravitas of other science fiction block busters, Blade Runner 2049's story can feel sluggish and monotonous. Though the story covers a wide variety of topics and social issues, the film's narrative does not successfully interweave these concepts into a coherent ideology. This does not mean the film does not feature compelling scenes. The action sequences are unflinching, the romantic moments are sensuous, the dialogue is fascinating, and the story is intriguing, but the film's decision to treat all of the story's themes as ambiguous entities makes the film an overall unrewarding experience.

           What keeps this story somewhat engaging and worth watching is its main protagonist. Officer K. is a Blade Runner charged with the task of hunting down and retiring replicants, artificially made people. Ryan Gosling portrays this standout character with a brazen charm and razor sharp subtlety. This seasoned actor is able to show his character's thoughts and beliefs through the intensity and gentleness in his eyes. It is clear every twitch of his face; every curl of his mouth; every flare of his nostrils; every step he walks speaks K's inner emotional conflicts and mental competence as the lead hero of Blade Runner 2049.
           Accompanying Gosling's performance are actors and actresses Ana De Armas as Joi, Robin Wright as Lieutenant Joshi, Sylvia Hoeks as Luv, and Jared Leto as Niander Wallace. Though all of these performers suit their on screen personas, their line delivery and idiosyncrasies can become predictable and eventually unstimulating. These performers play their parts well, but their character's inert natures give them little room for exploration and discovery.

           Along with this considerably immobile cast of characters, Blade Runner 2049 is comprised of a vapid and tiresome atmosphere. While cinematographer Roger Deakins provides shots with adequate composition, they have little variety. His shots seldom include camera movement and only depict one shade of color. There are no hue gradients in Deakins' color pallet, and as such his shots feel lifeless and inactive. The best element in this film's visuals is its lighting design. It is wondrous watching character's slowly cross a massive corridor, as a golden light illuminates their path with each step they take. It is an impactful part of this film's aesthetic, and it does not attract attention to itself. However, an element that demands attention is this film's score. Hans Zimmer ,musical composer, tries to add energy to Deakins' devoid scenes, but he does so with overbearingly loud drones, inconsequential ethereal synthesizers and harsh bass drops. All of Blade Runner 2049's atmospheric pieces gives this film a unique look and feel, but make the film an unengaging experience that would be better watched on a home viewing screen.

Verdict: Denis Villeneuve's Blade Runner 2049 features a top notch performance from Ryan Gosling and excellent lighting design, but its slow paced story told through devoid images and stagnant color palettes and characters makes this film an ultimately unrewarding cinematic experience.

"I'm gonna put the Show back in Chauvinism." Battle of the Sexes Review

Battle of the Sexes

1/5

Directed by: Johnathan Dayton and Valerie Faris

Written by: Simon Beaufoy

Rated: PG-13

            On Thursday September 20, 1973, over 90 million people across the world tuned into to one sporting event. Men and women alike watched the game of the decade in the Houston Astrodome, where over 30,742 spectators gathered to watch former 1939 Wimbledon champion Bobby Riggs, 55, take on World no. 1 Billie Jean King, 29. The momentous match between the lobber and the libber was hailed as the "Battle of the Sexes." This incredible true story of friendly competition, the press's power, and people's desire to prove once and for all which is the better sex...is not in this movie. Battle of the Sexes is a hypocritical look at modern day USA through the perspective of a warped and considerably forgettable biopic.
           The only decent aspect of this film, and primary source of its humorous, dramatic, and relationally impactful scenes is Bobby Riggs, played by comedy genius Steve Carell. In real life Bobby Riggs was a gambling addict and a hustler who portrayed himself as a chauvinist pig on television. Steve Carell nails this role and Bobby Riggs' unique sense of humor. In his efforts to blatantly show how men are better than women at tennis, he plays with ridiculous handicaps, and dresses up in silly costumes. It is amusing watching this 55 year old play tennis with a frying pan, walking three large dogs, and wearing a little-bo-peep costume with his own herd of sheep.
           Billie Jean King is played by a soft spoken Emma Stone, and the camera intently shows off her spotless complexion. Billie Jean's theatrical portrayal is not characterized beyond her ability to play tennis, which is rarely shown on screen, and her relationship with her husband and the woman she is cheating on with him. The story does not take necessary time illustrating Billie Jean as a strong hearted and worthwhile protagonist. By the time the battle between her and Riggs begins, audiences may find themselves rooting for the misogynistic showman, which should be this movie's opposite intent.
           What greatly diminishes Billie Jean's chances for character development is her forced romantic infatuation with her hair dresser Marylin, played by a plastic Barbie doll faced Andrea Riseborough. These awful scenes seem to take up more than 75% of this movie's runtime, significantly diminish the plot's pacing, and appear to be constructed in a way that conveys unnecessary intimacy with as little effort possible.
           The directors chose to display Billie Jean and Marylin's sexual attraction, through psychological direction. The cinematography in their scenes consists of extreme close ups on make-up  covered faces, and provocative shots with free floating movement, but little substance. According to an interview with  "Ney York Times'" the directors' goal was to mimic what is known as "the autonomous sensory meridian response (ASMR). It's when people talk in a certain tone [and] elicit a sensual response." While these scenes have the ability to provoke uncomfortable arousal from audience members, they fail to create tenderness and deep rooted passion between the characters. Billie Jean and Marilyn's romance focuses on superficial biological desires, rather than greater unconditional love, the kind that makes a character heroic and noteworthy.
           In addition to these lack luster sexual scenes, this movie is hypocritical of its message. In Battle of the Sexes the obviously villainous Jack Kramer, founder of the Association of Tennis Professionals, claims women cannot play tennis as well as men, because they crumble under emotional pressure more than men do. This movie could have easily disproven the claim, by showing a heroic Billie Jean King overcome all obstacles and challenge Bobby Riggs with a level head and an optimistic spirit. Unfortunately the movie does not do this, and instead plays into Kramer's words. In the movie Billie Jean's unnecessary romance clearly messes with her head, and is shown as the main cause of her losses on the court and her emotional strife. Meanwhile Bobby Riggs' wife divorces him, he suffers from a gambling problem, and his oldest son does not appreciate him, yet Bobby Riggs plays tennis like a champ with a can do attitude. The film also deliberately points out that if Billie Jean left her husband and followed her misguided heart, then she would be able to win more tennis matches and be happy. If this movie was showing Billie Jean as a strong willed protagonist who did not let her romantic life get the best of her, then her domestic life would not have had a pronounced negative effect on her athletic skill or competitive attitude. It is sad that this movie puts supplemetary effort into heroically parading the male pig, and then tries to persuade audiences into believing that the writer and ditectors cared more about the hairy legged feminist just because she had the most screen time.
           Battle of the Sexes is one of the most appalling bait and switches in biographical cinema. This movie's advertising claimed the film would be a well directed and uplifting story about gender rivalry and its affects on the athletic environment. It is disgraceful how a story with such magnitude, popularity, and open power for change was mutilated into an unbalanced self righteous pat on the back for men and an awkward side hug for women.

Verdict: With its one good character being the showy antagonistic chauvinist pig, Battle of the Sexes is a hypocritical waste of an iconic historical event and box-office money.

"No Shark Attacks, while someone's on the Toilet." Netflix's Death Note Review

Netflix's Death Note

1/5

Directed by: Adam Wingard

Rated: TV-MA

           "Death Note" is a manga (Japanese graphic novel) written by Tsugumi Ohba and illustrated by Takeshi Obata. Releasing its chapters on a weekly basis in Shonen Jump magazine, the series began in 2003 and concluded in 2006. Upon its completion, studio Madhouse adapted the manga into an anime. By then, "Death Note" had a received critical praise, sold millions of copies, and became a national phenomenon. Years later, the producers at Netflix believed they could tap into this series' appeal, and so on August 25th, 2017, Adam Wingard's TV movie Death Note was released unto the world. It is, however, an appalling disaster.
           Netflix's Death Note is neither a meaningful adaptation, nor a memorable new story based on the limitless source material. While the first three chapters of the manga (or first three episodes of the anime) inspired a few of the movie's inciting scenes, the rest of Netflix's Death Note seeks to create its own original, although misguided, storyline. Light Turner, played by an uptight Nat Wolff, is an uninteresting loner in a high school in Seattle, Washington. One overcast day he finds a Death Note, a notebook with the ability to kill anyone whose name is written in it, as long as the users request follows all 100 plus of the Death Note's rules. With this new found power, Light decides to do nothing with it, until the death god, Ryuk, portrayed by an unnecessarily nasally Willem Dafoe, convinces Light to use the Death Note and kill his personal enemies. Afterwards, Light uses the Death Note to impress his cheerleader crush, Mia Sutton, played palely by an always moody Margaret Qualley. Together, after the two of them delight in some obligatory sordid high school fantasies, they decide to use the notebook to kill off criminals, terrorists, and convince the world that they are a god.

           While this may appear to be a somewhat enticing premise, the movie's execution is neither coherent nor entertaining. The screenplay is comprised of forgettable lines, and more than three lackluster plot twists. The movie cycles through a barrage of conflicting genres. It starts as an excessively bloody horror flick (similar to 2000's Final Destination), becomes an overbearing gothic romance, turns into an uninspired mystery, and ends as an over the top melodramatic comedy (this last one may have been unintentional). As the plot progresses, it feels inclined to invite a slew of characters. When characters are introduced, it is done without sufficient exposition. This makes what could have been an intriguing lineup of personas, into a string of flimsy one dimensional archetypes.

CGI Ryuk (Willem Dafoe)

           Along with the story's meager execution, the movie is atrocious from a technical standpoint. The editing is a grab bag of wipes, fades, and poor cuts. Gaffs, such as disappearing props, costume mistakes, and basic continuity errors, are visible throughout the movie's runtime. Most of these errors are obvious, and could have been easily cut from the finished product. Perhaps the editors thought these mistakes would go unnoticed, due to the movie's pitch black aesthetic. Scenes are poorly lit with a mixture of heavy handed neon glows and unflattering darkness. The costume designer also saw it fitting for characters to wear all black outfits. Often times, performers seem to be nothing more than floating heads. The only character silhouette standing out in this gloomy atmosphere is Ryuk. However, Ryuk's CGI physique is animated so poorly, the lighting is used to hide his cheap character design. He only appears feasible when he is obscured by shelves, or blurred out by the camera. The few moments featuring Ryuk's carelessly animated face, remind audiences of this movie's fakery and devoid world.

Light Yagami and Ryuk (Takeshi Obata)

           Beyond all of these glaring flaws, Netflix's Death Note fails to capture the heart and blackened soul that made Ohba and Obata's manga an engaging page turner, protagonist Light Yagami. In the manga, Light is an acknowledged genius, placing first in national exams. He is a gifted individual, with two loving parents and an adorable sister. He is also bored. When the Death Note falls into Light's possession, he uses its power to kill thousands of the world's criminals, through unnatural heart attacks, and in time people begin hailing him as a god, Kira. "Death Note" hinges on Light's cunning plans, talent at dodging suspicion, and moral aptitude to use and dispose of his close allies. He is a corrupt antihero, and one that millions of people unnaturally root for and read about countless times. His abandoned morality begs readers to question their own sense of justice, and ask themselves what they would do if they found a Death Note.

Light Turner (Nat Wolff)

           Director Adam Wingard answered this hypothetical question with Light Turner. This unimpressive high schooler uses his Death Note to impress a girl, and force people to believe he is a god. He also delights in writing unique and grotesque murders in his Death Note. While this makes Light out to be an edgy and disturbed teenager, he also exhibits traits contradicting this viscous side. In frightful moments, Light immaturely panics, childishly screams, and makes impractical demands of those around him. The movie wants to amend this by showing off Light's potential brain power. It does this through flashbacks showing how Light improbably predicted a fatal scenario, and showing what he wrote in the Death Note in order to run away from his fate. This makes Light's few moments of supposed planning into to tropic dues ex machinas (an unexpected power or event saving a seemingly hopeless situation, especially as a contrived plot device in a play or novel: Oxford Dictionaries) It is hard to root for this obnoxious protagonist. The majority of viewers will hope Light meets a fate similar to the gory deaths he has inflicted on others. Considering the movie follows his exploits and character development (or in this case lack of), the story's impact rests on him. Regrettably, Light Turner lets the movie fall, crashing down like an over bloated CGI Ferris wheel.

Verdict: With flat characters,  a hollow screenplay, unflattering camera work, and poor execution of an ingenious premise, Netflix's Death Note is an ungodly adaptation of a brilliant manga.

"You can practically see it from here, Home" Dunkirk Review

Dunkirk

4/5

Directed by: Christopher Nolan

Rated: PG-13

           British director Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk is an unprecedentedly realistic depiction of the British forces' treacherous evacuation from Dunkirk beach. It is about the soldiers' struggle for survival on the beaches, the civilian yacht sailors' attempts to rescue them, and the spit fire pilots' dog fights against incoming German bombers. Audiences are thrust into this situation with minimal exposition. There is one shot of opening text, and then the film continues, and it does not stop. This impending ticking clock is exemplified within the film's soundtrack, as the musical motif of a pocket watch's ceaseless second hand. Time is not on the soldiers' side. They cannot waste a single moment, or it may be their death.
           What makes Dunkirk a realistic depiction of these events is the director's choice to not use computer generated air planes, ships, or locations. Nolan shot the majority of the film on Dunkirk beach and the English Channel. All of the air planes in the film were working replicas and restored WWII fighter planes. Most of the ships used in the film were the real life ships that made the perilous journey to those beaches in 1940. According to an article on the Evening Standard Nolan casts over 6,000 extras and supplemented the rest of the people using cardboard cutouts. Because Dunkirk utilizes realistic special effects, vehicles and locations, it features some incredibly haunting audial art. The pervasive overbearing sounds of gunfire, motor engines, whizzing bullets, crushing tides, and soaring fighter planes immerse audiences in Dunkirk's claustrophobic war zone.
           Though there are a few well known actors in the film, Tom Hardy, Fionn Whitehead, Harry Styles, Cillian Murphy, Mark Rylance, and Kenneth Branagh, Dunkirk's humanity shines through its hundreds of thousands of unnamed terrified faces. There is no overarching romance or character drama to pacify audiences from this experience. Nolan places audiences in the mindset of the 400,000 soldiers desperately attempting to escape their faceless enemy in the skies. The only protagonist is life, and its antagonist is impending death. Survival is victory.
           Much like Nolan's previous films Dunkirk has a unique chronemic structure. Dunkirk relays time's passage through three separate narratives. Each story in the film begins with the start of the film, but they each take place over a different amount of time. The narrative concerning the soldiers on the beach covers the span of one week. The narrative of an old father on the sea covers the length of a day. The scenes depicting spit fire air planes in mid air combat spans an hour. Though the jarring transitions between these three interwoven time lines may be enough to momentarily jolt audiences out of the film, it is not enough to overcome the wave of sights and sounds that make Dunkirk an unforgettable cinematic experience.

Verdict: Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk is an unprecedented haunting retelling of the British evacuation from Dunkirk beach, and it submerges audiences in a world of sound, fear, shock, and survival.

"Peter, You're Young. You don't know how the World Works." Spider-Man: Homecoming Review

Spider-Man: Homecoming

3/5

Directed by: Jon Watts

Rated: PG-13

           The latest installment in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) is here, and with it comes a familiar face, but a whole new adventure. Spider-Man: Homecoming is the coming of age story about a boy, Peter Parker. He's a nobody at his high-school. The girls ignore him, the bullies don't even think he's worth their time, and he is a big science geek. Aside from all this, Peter is running around the suburbs of New York, as the one and only Spider-Man. He's not a noteworthy hero, though, like his mentor Iron Man, as Peter mainly stops small crimes, and casually helps out the people of New York. Seems like Peter has little to do and worry about, until one fateful day, when trouble ruptures the city. Brave Peter steps in to help out and save the day, but he might be too far out of his league on this one. Can this kid man up in time to save Manhattan from a new threat, or will Peter's attempts at herodom have him fall flat on his face?

          Spider-Man: Homecoming's story is complemented by its fascinating characters. Tom Holland gives a spectacular performance as the Marvel character, Spider-Man, and also offers a heartfelt and vulnerably human portrayal of Peter Parker. The screenplay does a good job letting viewers in on the growing pains of his life and the gradual changes of his mindset. It makes audiences want to root for him, see him develop as a character, and hope everything turns out well for him in the end. Additionally, Michael Keaton gives a gritty and terrifying performance, as this movie's main antagonist, Adrian Toomes. His onscreen presence screams danger, and yet Adrian remains composed. Because of the pure antithesis between these two characters, they play incredibly well off of each other, and it's thrilling when the two of them are together onscreen. Aside from these two, there are plenty of high-school characters in this movie. Accompanying Peter Parker is his one good buddy Ned, played by Jacob Batalon. For how uncool Peter is, Ned makes him look cooler than a frozen Captain America. Some viewers may find Ned is a hilarious addition to this movie, while others may see him as unnecessary and overbearing. As is the case with the majority of the jokes in this movie, the audience's amusement depends on their sense of humor and expectations.

          What separates Spider-Man: Homecoming from other Marvel movies is the age of its main characters. The movie primarily takes place within Peter Parker's high-school, and centers around the characters and relationships he creates there. The school in the movie gives an accurate impression of a modern high-school, and can give people who have been through senior high a sense nostalgia or dread. The scenes within the high-school are mostly comprised of inside jokes, which high-school students should supposedly understand. Along with this primary location, the age range of the main characters lowers this movie's maturity level. Aside from featuring few low brow jokes and vulgar insults, Spider-Man: Homecoming's immature nature detracts from this movie's potential impact. This movie does not offer a great amount of substance or depth. Even the movie's action scenes have been toned down to accommodate for Peter's teenage years. He is not an adult, so he will not deal with any adult themes, suffer from any unchangeable consequences, or perform many heroic feats.

           Beyond all of this, there is a big problem audiences may have with Spider-Man: Homecoming and also future installments in the MCU. This cinematic universe has become akin to a TV series, instead of a film franchise. It is nearly impossible for a new entry in the MCU to be a stand alone film. Each next movie in the MCU not only requires that audience members watch the previous movie, but are also aware of the lore around characters and events in the MCU. To fully appreciate and understand Spider-Man: Homecoming audience members will have to see Iron Man (2008), The Avengers (2012), Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015), and Captain America Civil War (2016). There's a lot of enjoyment to be had watching Spider-Man: Homecoming, but not without first doing the required homework.

Verdict: Spider-Man: Homecoming is a fun movie, if a bit immature, with two great lead performances, and it gives audience members in on its jokes and lore a sense of satisfaction.

"With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility." Thoughts on the Spider-Man Movies

The First Five Spider-Man Movies

2002-2007 Directed by: Sam Raimi, 2012-2014 Directed by: Marc Webb

SPOILERS

Spider-Man

3.5/5

            15 years ago Marvel Studios released an origin story for one of the greatest heroes of all time, Spider-Man. The Web Head has always been my favorite comic book super hero, and in 2001 I was thrilled to hear that he was going get his own movie. I did not see it in theatres, but I would borrow it from the library and from friends' houses every chance I got. I couldn't get enough of it, until I discovered the wonder that is the special features on disc two. Spider-Man was the DVD that taught me how films are made.
            Spider-Man's mainstay is lead Tobey Maguire's likable performance as the intelligent dork, Peter Parker, who became the most infamous and distraught super-hero New York City has ever seen, Spider-Man. He is funny, abrasive, cool, careless, powerful, and dynamic, and it makes his transition from dork to hero that much more compelling and enjoyable. Accompanying Tobey Maguire's spectacular performance are the two father figures in his life, Norman Osborne and Uncle Ben Parker. Both offer impactful and emotional performances, but for different reasons. Willem Dafoe's Norman is an obsessed businessman whose goal is to be the best and let nothing get in his way. Dafoe also portrays the villainous Green Goblin with over the top creepiness, and a haunting and visible internal struggle. On the other hand, Cliff Robertson's Uncle Ben wants to raise Peter to be a man of honor and courage, but also one who takes responsibility to protect those who cannot protect themselves. It's great seeing the contrast and similarities between these two father figures, and how their worldviews will shape Peter Parker into the man he will grow up to be.
            I have one gripe with this film. The pacing slows down in the second half, and the story almost comes to a complete halt during the dialogue scenes in the hospital. The characters restate things the audience already knows, it belabors Peter and Mary Jane's possible romance, and it has little comical appeal.
            The pacing, however, picks up during the film's final action sequences. The climax is filled with grit and volatile destruction, as the Green Goblin and Spider-Man fist fight to the death. Punches impact, blood spews, and dust fills the screen. By the end of the battle the two men look as if they were in a war zone.
            Before the film was released, its main tagline was "go for the ultimate spin," which meant this film would feature web swinging through New York with Spider-Man. Each one of these sequences is still fully engaging. Without a moment of hesitation, the camera seamlessly follows Spider-Man through the city, and twists and turns with him around buildings and over street cars. Even though the CGI is rather dated and looks like rubber, the unique movement, fluidity, and speed of the camera still sells the feeling of web swinging freely like Spider-Man. There is also a one minute web sequence at the end of the film, and it is a fantastic way to conclude the first chapter of the amazing Spider-Man's first film.

Spider-Man 2

4.5/5

            Two years after Sam Raimi's first Spider-Man movie, he released an all new and reenergized sequel. I was excited to see this film in theatres, but that, unfortunately, did not happen. I still enjoyed seeing this film when it was released on DVD, but I find I appreciate it more nowadays. This is a marvelous stand alone film, and one that stands up to the quality and excellence of Marvel Studios' most recent movies.
            The first prominent element in Spider-Man 2 is its phenomenal score. The film opens with an opening web credits sequence, accompanied by Danny Elfman's iconic theme from the first film. The credits are a series of comic book illustrations, by Alex Ross, and they retell all of the great scenes from the first film. It is a terrific beginning, and one that will get any audience member, even Marvel newcomers, in the mood for watching some Spider-Man.
            Tobey Maguire is back as the one and only web head, and his life could not be worse. The screenplay does an incredible job of showing how much is against Peter, and how impossible of a task it is for him to maintain a job at the Daily Bugle, pass his classes at college, take care of his dear Aunt May, try to impress the girl of his dreams, and be Spider-Man.
            The new villain in town is the once proud minded brilliant scientist, Doctor Otto Octavius. Portrayed tremendously by Alfred Molina, the genius doctor goes mad once his fusion experiment becomes a horrific failure, and the fierce metal claws attached to his spine become sentient and manipulative monsters. It is fun watching him battle with Spider-Man, but because of how immensely powerful and psychopathically inclined he is, I find myself dreading when and where he will appear next. He's not onscreen as much as the Green Goblin was in Spider-Man, but when he is, he makes the most of his screen time, with an unnatural charm and a fiendish mind.
            Another amazing character in this film is the fuming head of the Daily Bugle, J. Jonah Jameson. Portrayed exceedingly well by J.K. Simmons, he blends downright abuse and childish insults in a way that remains fresh and wholly hilarious thirteen years later. As a side character, he supplies laughs with a side of anger in a way that compliments the film's narrative.
            Sam Raimi's direction spans a myriad of genres in this film. It's a drop dead farce, to a tragic romantic comedy, into a nightmarish horror fest, and then an ultimate action thriller. As a comedy the jokes are not limited to the dialogue. Most of them are done through sight gags and unique line delivery. As a horror film, it uses suspense to its maximum and delves into some terrifyingly graphic imagery, though this imagery is heavily implied. As an action thriller, it pulls no punches, and fully immerses audiences in its incredible action sequences, complimented by their intricate and fully utilized complex sets. The film portrays all of these different genres with finesse, and the genres do not appear to clash or distract from the story. This not only makes the pacing smoother than the last film, but it also makes Spider-Man 2 far more enjoyable, as the audience is enthusiastically wondering where the film will take them next.
            What distinguishes Spider-Man 2 from other comic book movies is its strong emotional core. This is prominently illustrated through Kirsten Dunst's beautifully charismatic performance as the gorgeous girl next door, Mary Jane Watson. Her romance with Peter Parker does not feel like a cliché "will she, won't she" scenario. It is clear she is searching her heart for what she truly wants, and desperately seeking what is right and pure for her. It is this conflict's resolve that capably concludes this film. As Spider-Man web swings off into the sunset, the film closes with a shadowy atmosphere and raises the question of what things are yet to come.

Spider-Man 3

2.5/5

            Three years later, in 2007, Sam Raimi released Spider-Man 3. With the promise of a darker Spider-Man story, complete with the symbiote suit and Venom, Spider-Man 3 looked like it was going to be the best Spider-Man film, yet. I almost had a chance to see this one, but I had a previously scheduled outing, while my other friends and family saw it. They later told me I was the lucky one, as this movie is unfortunately average at best.
            From Peter Parker's immediate extra campy opening monologue about how perfect his life is, it is evident that the atmosphere from the first two haunting and thrilling films is going to be more lighthearted and comical. This frilly fun keeps a hold on the story, until Harry Osborne shows up demanding revenge, another accomplice in Uncle Ben's murder is revealed, and Spidey turns into a black web suited arrogant abomination. This balancing act of being super family friendly, while trying to tackle darker themes gives Spider-Man 3 an unsteady pace and a nonsensical storyline.
            Spider-Man 3 is the most ambitious of all the Spider-Man movies, trying to take on the challenge of having three main villain characters. This results in multiple exposition and dialogue heavy character introductions. One of these villains is the Sand Man, an escaped convict who wants to save his daughter but accidentally turns himself into a bad guy made of sand. His goals are noble, his luck is rotten, but his character's tender hearted conclusion is justified. The most over bloated and nonthreatening of all the villains in this trilogy is Venom. He has a scary face that he refuses to wear, he cries for no reason, and he is a CGI pile. The last villain in this movie is Harry Osborne, as the "New" Goblin. While his story arc does not feel like a proper conclusion for his character, at least he got two good fight sequences.
            The screenplay never takes itself seriously, which allows audiences to be in on the joke of this movie's more outlandish moments. These moments are separated by this story's juggling act of an unnecessarily large amount of sub plots. It is hard to tell what the primary story is. The film's supposed inciting incident, the symbiote suit's arrival, does not occur, until an hour into this movie. The drama in Spider-Man 3 is illustrated, through melodramatic performances and some bizarre facial expressions. The comedy in this movie is considerably forced, but there are still a few moments offering earnest chuckles. One of them is Peter's emo dance sequences. They are cringe worthy, but they make me smile every time I watch them. His dance in the jazz club is even a great choreographed number, it's just in the wrong movie.
            A bad part of this movie is its use of side characters. J. Jonah Jameson, hilariously famous for his angry outbursts, is relegated to a running gag about keeping his temper down and lowering his blood pressure. It is funny, but it would have been better if his character had at least one angry outburst. Another bad side character is Harry's droll butler, Bernard. He gives a stilted performance, and he did not have a grip on his lines (this is seen in his multiple bloopers). He may also be the worst butler ever, as he chooses to hold onto crucial information that Harry has needed for one and a half movies, who killed his father. He releases this information, but only after Harry's life has been irrevocably ruined. I would fire him.
            Another big issue in this movie is the CGI. Spider-Man appears to have only been matted over shots of New York, instead of web swinging from building to building. Sand Man looks like a character model from The Polar Express (2004), instead of a man made out of sand. The destruction from buildings looks like video game rubbish, instead of deadly debris. These dull special effects bog down the action sequences in this movie, which is a feat all its own, as Spider-Man 3 features some of the most outlandish fight scenes in the trilogy. The big action climax features Spider-Man and Harry Osborne teaming up and taking down the Sand Man, and Venom, and saving Mary Jane. It might not be as exhilarating as other climaxes, but it certainly looks cool.
            Spider-Man 3's poor writing, overdramatic acting, and lack of natural humor will deter certain audiences from even looking in this movie's direction, but with its selection of amusing scenes, decent payoff, its sense of spectacle, and campy emo Peter Parker moments (the infamous jazz club sequence) this movie has its own unique, if unflattering, charm.

The Amazing Spider-Man

1/5

            Not even ten years, since the original trilogy finished, was it forcefully rebooted for a new audience. It is, however, an unjustified and forgettable reboot that was clearly only made to produce money. I avoided this movie, until I watched it in preparation for seeing the sequel in theatres.
            The Amazing Spider-Man is a shoddy, choppy, and off putting mess, and it pretends to be cool and original. Peter Parker starts the movie off learning about his powers through accidents and three different Bing searches. Then he goes on a revenge streak to find his uncle's killer, while a super villain is being created somewhere. After a while, Peter stops looking for his uncle's killer, never bothers to look for him again, and decides to solve mysteries, and save New York City. Only in the last thirty minutes of this movie do any action sequences happen, and they are not even choreographed or directed well. They also do not look convincing, because they are made of 100% fully fake CGI.
            The characters are a bit of a jumble. Andrew Garfield portrays Peter Parker as a punk who gets dates, skateboards, and still gets picked on. Also, Andrew Garfield unnecessarily stutters through all of his slightly romantic lines, and ruins his attempts at having some appeal. Portraying the role of Peter's lover is Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy. It's understandable why Peter likes her, but, she is not dynamic. The relationship between her and Peter is not cinematically interesting, and it never goes past "I like you, because you're Spider-Man, and I saw you shirtless" status. The worst character performance in this movie is Martin Sheen's lack luster portrayal of the most famous dead uncle, Ben Parker. He does nothing noteworthy, while he is alive, and he is inadvertently killed by Peter's secret love for chocolate milk, and the unfortunate coincidence of conveniently getting shot. I don't miss his character, and I don't think his death added any emotional weight to this movie. In addition to this, the main villain, the Lizard, is not consistent or intriguing. He starts off as an obsessed scientists who wants to regrow his arm and help humanity, but then he becomes a megalomaniac who wants to turn all the people of New York into lizard people. This is an unjustified and contrived conclusion for his character arc.
            The weirdest part of this movie is how it attempts to feel edgier than the first three Spider-Man movies. Instead of one radioactive spider getting on Peter, it's a whole swarm. Instead of having fun discovering his powers, Peter begins to shake and moan as a series of spiders jump scares assault the audience. Instead of having Peter be a dork, he's a social recluse who skateboards and picks on bullies (which makes him a bully). Instead of having Peter fight the Lizard in a super villain showdown, Gwen spends more time running from him in what appears to be a scene from Alien (1979). Instead of honoring his promise to Gwen's father, saying he would leave Gwen out of his life for her own safety, he betrays this promise, and even tells Gwen the best kind of promises are the ones "you can't keep." He basically told her, if we get married, it's not going to be "till death do us part."
            Beyond all of this The Amazing Spider-Man is not fun. There are no decent web sequences. All of them are choppily edited, and make the audience feel separate from Spider-Man, instead of in on the action. This is not how a Spider-Man movie should feel. The pacing is all over the place, and logic and clear motivations are often disregarded for the sake of pursuing what would be more popular in the early 2010's. In theory this movie reboot should work, but not without good direction, interesting performances, an enjoyable screenplay, or a sense of comic book fun.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2

2/5

            Out of all five of these Spider-Man movies, this is the only one I saw in theatres, and I regret that it was my first. When I saw it I found moments that I liked, moments that were disappointing, moments that should not have been in this movie, and moments that would not work in any movie.
            Starting with the positives, a genuine improvement this movie has over its predecessor is its use of music, provided by Hans Zimmer. As the movie progresses various characters develop themes that change with them as their character transitions. None of the orchestrations are memorable, but at least they are distinct from each other. While some of the music choices in this movie are distracting and off putting, such as Electro's dubstep, at least they are attempting to convey the characters' inner psyche.
            This movie has three different villains within it, and a later promise of four more in the next (inexistent) movie. There is the Rhino, Electro, and the Green Goblin (but it's Harry, instead of Norman). Less villains would have not only streamlined this movie, but it would have also made the featured villains far more compelling and potent. Jamie Foxx's Electro is a horrendous super villain. While his motivations and background are obvious, they do not explain why he has a sudden desire to be evil. The movie wants to make audiences believe that his motivation makes sense, but once one thread in the tapestry of his character is reasonably questioned, all the other threads follow and unravel on the floor. The best villain in this movie is Dane DeHaan's twisted performance as the Green Goblin. His transformation from sudden businessman and Peter's closest friend, to warped human being and insidious killer is clear, fascinating, and one of the few things worth seeing in this movie.
            The screenplay is still a mess, but it is an enjoyable mess. There are one too many unnecessary sub plots in this movie, such as Gwen and Peter's contrived relationship troubles, and Peter finding out about his parents' secret service work in an underground subway station via secret coins in the back of his dad's old calculator. If these scenes were taken out of the movie, the plot would remain relatively unchanged. It would also be shorter, and therefore better. Similar to this movie's predecessor, logic is ignored, but it is not done to pursue what is popular. It is done to pursue what is fun and cool to look at. This is especially beneficial in this movie's action scenes. While two of them are mainly a hodge podge of super powers and CGI, the last battle features a unique set piece, the clock tower, and well done combat acrobatics. It is good payoff, after everything else this movie throws at audiences.
            The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is not a good movie, but it has some good moments. Aside from Dane Dehaan's scenes, there are good comedic moments. Andrew Garfield and sally Fields, who plays Aunt May, have some good back and forth banter, where Peter is trying to hide his identity. There are also heartfelt moments between Spider-Man and this kid who might be his biggest fan. These few and far between scenes make this train wreck watchable, but only if it's running in the back of a room, while something else more productive or worthwhile is happening.