In light of the disastrous team up of director Josh Trank and film studio 20th Century Fox, I wanted to rewatch the two films from ten years previously, also produced by 20th Century Fox and directed by Tim Story (a man who has since directed little more than the comedy Ride Along) and were generally panned critically.
The 2007 sequel killed the franchise as a financial flop, despite it being the best of the two. But with such newcomers as Transformers arriving and major comic franchises such as Spider-Man and X-Men in full swing, Fantastic Four was regarded poorly.
But despite all that, I remember finding the first two films at least entertaining and far, far better than Fox's recent disaster. So here are the three reviews for a new Remake Rumble review!
Fantastic Four (2005)
Back in 2005 when Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 2 and Bryan Singer's X-Men 2 were the biggest things in the comic book scene, Fantastic Four was seen as a bit of a misfire. Nowadays it is regarded with absolute disdain.
Four scientists are exposed to a energy phenomenon while on board a space station and are gifted incredible powers: one can fly and turn into fire, another can stretch his body impossibly, one can turn invisible and another had his body turned into rock. While they attempt to understand what has happened to them, a billionaire who had funded their project, Victor Von Doom, was also transformed in the accident...
Fantastic Four is a product of the time; it is campy, colourful and full of ridiculous detours that really have no place to further its own narrative.
It starts fast and strong though. No time for introductions lets get into space and get these superpowers already. It is barely what we would call an "origin story" by today's standards; things just occur and we have to roll with it. But what is it in a rush to achieve exactly? Some bold, stark character development as these people are turned into freaks... not quite.
The second act is a bit of a mess, comprising of little more than Sue Storm scolding her brother and Ben Grimm failing to pick up spoons over and over again. Rampant product placement as we get one of the team's many internal squabbles taking place outside of a stadium, and everything is played for laughs. How exactly is an invisible person going to have more luck getting the team through a crowd and police blockade than a normal person?
The third act feels a little segmented and somehow cumbersome. Victor has been very slowly evolving into the menace of Doctor Doom, but grievously too slow in my opinion. If the film wasn't so keen on showing Johnny Storm (played by lovable Chris Evans, pre-Captain America) snowboarding, stunt biking riding and numerous other needless distractions earlier we might have cared about what happens when Doom arrives. As it reaches its climax, the film feels rushed and quite careless.
But, that all said, I did find myself laughing occasionally. The film does have some good levity and humour, Chris Evans is having a riot as The Human Torch and the film embraces how ridiculous the whole premise is such as with their superhero names gifted to them through Johnny's obnoxious turn in front of the media's cameras. The cliches are rampant, Michael Chiklis' The Thing being loved by a blind woman, the lover's squabble between Reed Richards and Sue Storm, but it is all serviceable, if predictable and misfiring.
Overall it is as silly and random as I remember it, but with a team such as this I cannot imagine it being made much better. It isn't a good movie and it is overshadowed completely by its more savvy peers, but it knows what it is.
Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007)
The full cast returns for this sequel to the 2005 film, and although it became a critical flop upon release, this film actually has a lot more integrity than its predecessor.
When Reed and Sue are about to get married, a mysterious being arrives from space and terrorises the world. While the team try to uncover its motives Victor Von Doom also wants to capture the creature, yet the entity might only be the herald for something much worse.
Ioan Gruffud, Jessica Alba, Chris Evans, Michael Chiklis and Julian McMahon all return for what is a pretty competent interpretation of the Fantastic Four.
Once you get over the first quarter of the film being Reed and Sue's wedding, ooft. That is a lot of time considering the film is only ninety minutes long, do we really need a mindless bachelor party scene so we can have Alba's Sue Storm looking at her husband-to-be with disgust, only to drop the matter immediately?
Certainly the film starts off poorly, but when the titular Silver Surfer arrives and literally crashes the party, the film's pacing tightens up and it has a singular focus to drive towards. Something such a clustered story of multiple characters with multiple powers and personalities really needs. Von Doom is even better here, released from the shackles of being "a rich guy" and fully invested in being a monster to be reckoned with.
The Silver Surfer too is very well portrayed, director Tim Story doing a Darth Vader and having Laurence Fishburne voice the character but creature actor specialist Doug Jones (Hellboy, Pan's Labyrinth) playing the part on set. The effort pays off for this alien creature and the visual effects are still great. The chase between Johnny Storm and the Surfer is still awesome to watch.
There is a problem with a deux ex machina by means of Evan's Johnny Storm temporarily losing his powers after making contact with the Silver Surfer, then proceeds to swap powers with his teammates whenever he touches them. This isn't explained and makes for most of the film's comedy in the second act but also provides the team's solution... somehow... before eventually correcting itself, somehow. I can forgive it though, since it gives Chris Evans more to do; I feel as though they knew from the first film that he was the exceptional actor out of the four.
It feels as though it learned some lessons from its predecessor, although issues still exist (the first twenty minutes) there are some really decent action moments and the team has good chemistry (beyond The Thing being unable to pick up spoons!)
Fantastic Four (2015)
Fantastic Four’s 2015 reboot proves to be less than fantastic and more a victim of directorial and studio disputes, rendering it a completely mute, grey and uninspiring experience.
Reed Richards grew up from being a child science prodigy in his parents’ basement creating a working teleportation device. Hired by Professor Franklin Storm he completes the device and Reed, his best friend Ben, the professor’s son and daughter Johnny and Sue are sent through to another world. But when they do they gain superhuman powers, one’s limbs can stretch, another is now a beast made of rock, another can turn invisible and the final one can fly and turn into fire. While attempting to fix what’s happened to them, their other colleague, Victor, believed to be lost in the other dimension, returns…
This film has a good bit of talent behind it: director Josh Trank made waves with his debut film Chronicle, a gritty superhero found-footage film that graced my top ten of 2012; young actors including Miles Teller (Whiplash) and Michael B Jordan. Unfortunately what we get is not so much a mess, but a film without identity or story, or plot, or even decent editing or direction.
This film has some of the worst editing and continuity blunders I’ve seen in a long time, including example moments such as: Jordan’s Johnny Storm having a broken arm one scene, before he is suddenly welding metal one scene cut later, no broken arm in sight. Or our capital villain, Victor Von Doom, miraculously gaining a green cape from absolutely nowhere.
The list of errors and problems goes on, and this isn’t me nitpicking. The film has no structure; it is an origin story without character arcs, or conclusions. Again take the “Human Torch” Johnny Storm as an example: he is considered a rebel, not a team player, “he doesn’t take orders well”; this trait is established but never followed through, there is no conclusion for him as a character! And replicate that for every, single, character.
So for what happens, as a story, you don’t care a single iota for these characters, there is nothing to care for. The climax is rushed, the film is short at 100 minutes, there simply isn’t anything to hold on to.
The film is getting panned left, right and centre (apart from the seven-year olds) and deservedly so, I don’t suggest you pay money to see this.
But part of me is sad for Fantastic Four in light of the hatred being thrown at it. In my mind, Trank is a good enough director from Chronicle alone. He was even shortlisted to direct a new Star Wars movie because of it! But just recently… coincidentally… he has been pulled from that project. He has even been quoted to have had a better version of Fantastic Four a year ago… suggesting that 20th Century Fox pulled the rug from under him at the last moment and took matters into their own hands. Either that, or Trank simply wanted to mimic his first film and Fox, somehow, didn’t realise this when they took him on board.
It isn’t a good film, it is a disaster, there’s no chemistry and no sense of fun or intelligence, but there is a concept buried beyond recognition under so much rubble like Jamie Bell’s character; Trank had an idea. The only scene that strikes me as unique or even inspired, is the team’s transformation into their superhero personas. Trank was quoted to have used David Cronenberg films as reference, and these scenes are clearly such. These aren’t heroes being born; these are innocent people being turned into freaks, and though (one assumes) Fox twisted the film somehow into the bland, uneventful filler that now remains, that concept is unique and would directly counter the earlier campy Fantastic Four movies. A team of brilliant scientists reduced to monsters and how they can or cannot cope…
But, the film doesn’t do that, it doesn’t do anything, and will be forever remembered like theAmazing Spider-Man films, if not even worse than that. I feel terrible for Trank, if for creative differences he lost this and a Star Wars film, but for you filmgoer: you will want to skip this one.
Additional Marshmallows: And no Stan Lee cameo??
In final verdict, The Rise of the Silver Surfer is the best of the three existing films, although credit where credit is due, Trank's reboot has more convincing characters. Despite them being too young (something Trank likely championed) I did see them as scientists, were as in Tim Story's films I mostly saw glamorous actors and actresses "playing" scientists. This is due to Trank actually trying to build up an origin for Reed and Ben, unlike the 2005 film's total lack of backstory for anybody.
The visuals on Ben Grimm's The Thing also looked better in 2015 than ten years before... but that isn't wildly surprising.
But, in terms of film making... Tim Story's films are actually well constructed, albeit campy and light-hearted. They actually have character development, regardless of how cliche it is, and three act structures. Plus they know what they are; they are designed to be lighthearted and fun.
And Doctor Doom actually looks threatening in the earlier films (especially in Rise of Silver Surfer's climax)
None of the films are spectacular though, and all hit a remarkably balanced response of "meh" across the board, the second film being an exception merely because it rose a little higher at times. It is clear that The Fantastic Four team is so diverse that making a decent film out of them is like spinning multiple plates and will take a writer/director more akin to Bryan Singer or Joss Whedon to make it light but intelligent.
Or a better studio. Cough, cough.
Fantastic Four’s 2015 reboot proves to be less than fantastic and more a victim of directorial and studio disputes, rendering it a completely mute, grey and uninspiring experience.
Reed Richards grew up from being a child science prodigy in his parents’ basement creating a working teleportation device. Hired by Professor Franklin Storm he completes the device and Reed, his best friend Ben, the professor’s son and daughter Johnny and Sue are sent through to another world. But when they do they gain superhuman powers, one’s limbs can stretch, another is now a beast made of rock, another can turn invisible and the final one can fly and turn into fire. While attempting to fix what’s happened to them, their other colleague, Victor, believed to be lost in the other dimension, returns…
This film has a good bit of talent behind it: director Josh Trank made waves with his debut film Chronicle, a gritty superhero found-footage film that graced my top ten of 2012; young actors including Miles Teller (Whiplash) and Michael B Jordan. Unfortunately what we get is not so much a mess, but a film without identity or story, or plot, or even decent editing or direction.
This film has some of the worst editing and continuity blunders I’ve seen in a long time, including example moments such as: Jordan’s Johnny Storm having a broken arm one scene, before he is suddenly welding metal one scene cut later, no broken arm in sight. Or our capital villain, Victor Von Doom, miraculously gaining a green cape from absolutely nowhere.
The list of errors and problems goes on, and this isn’t me nitpicking. The film has no structure; it is an origin story without character arcs, or conclusions. Again take the “Human Torch” Johnny Storm as an example: he is considered a rebel, not a team player, “he doesn’t take orders well”; this trait is established but never followed through, there is no conclusion for him as a character! And replicate that for every, single, character.
So for what happens, as a story, you don’t care a single iota for these characters, there is nothing to care for. The climax is rushed, the film is short at 100 minutes, there simply isn’t anything to hold on to.
The film is getting panned left, right and centre (apart from the seven-year olds) and deservedly so, I don’t suggest you pay money to see this.
But part of me is sad for Fantastic Four in light of the hatred being thrown at it. In my mind, Trank is a good enough director from Chronicle alone. He was even shortlisted to direct a new Star Wars movie because of it! But just recently… coincidentally… he has been pulled from that project. He has even been quoted to have had a better version of Fantastic Four a year ago… suggesting that 20th Century Fox pulled the rug from under him at the last moment and took matters into their own hands. Either that, or Trank simply wanted to mimic his first film and Fox, somehow, didn’t realise this when they took him on board.
It isn’t a good film, it is a disaster, there’s no chemistry and no sense of fun or intelligence, but there is a concept buried beyond recognition under so much rubble like Jamie Bell’s character; Trank had an idea. The only scene that strikes me as unique or even inspired, is the team’s transformation into their superhero personas. Trank was quoted to have used David Cronenberg films as reference, and these scenes are clearly such. These aren’t heroes being born; these are innocent people being turned into freaks, and though (one assumes) Fox twisted the film somehow into the bland, uneventful filler that now remains, that concept is unique and would directly counter the earlier campy Fantastic Four movies. A team of brilliant scientists reduced to monsters and how they can or cannot cope…
But, the film doesn’t do that, it doesn’t do anything, and will be forever remembered like the Amazing Spider-Man films, if not even worse than that. I feel terrible for Trank, if for creative differences he lost this and a Star Wars film, but for you filmgoer: you will want to skip this one.
Additional Marshmallows: Also, no Stan Lee cameo??
One of Marvel's main characters is one of the harder sells, and while Ant-Man isn't a game changer it has risen above the criticism and difficulties during its development.
Hank Pym, a scientist for Shield developed a super particle that compresses the space around atoms, allowing objects to be shrunk down. But when Howard Stark and others wanted to use this science, Pym hid it away. Now though, to stop others developing their own weaponised version, Pym needs someone younger to become the Ant-Man.
I will be the first to admit, I had little hope for Ant-Man. Not only does it (to my un-geek-cultured, non-comic-reader mind) sound ridiculous, but a favourite director Edgar Wright (Scott Pilgrim Vs the World and Hot Fuzz) dropped out of the project midway through to be replaced by Peyton Reed who has a much less credible resume (Yes Man, The Break-Up, Bring it On) and that is isolated from the fact that Ant-Man has also been in development hell since 2006!
There was every reason to believe that Ant-Man would be either laughed off stage or for it to take up the mantle: "When Marvel lost it".
But while the scope of Ant-Man feels more like the first Iron Man film than recent sprawling Marvel flicks, perhaps in result of its long development time, this retro feel actually works in its favour. Paul Rudd stars as Scott Lang, a father and ex-husband just released from prison for robbery, a man struggling for cash and is approached by the legendary Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) to train and become a superhero thief.
That's right, Ant-Man is Marvel's heist movie! Scott Lang's friends are a trio of streetwise thieves, including Michael Pena in a comedic turn, while Pym's fiery, headstrong daughter Hope is played by Evangeline Lily (redeeming herself completely from the stupidity of Tauriel from The Hobbit) and there's a great sense of bigger things going on but this story is a slice of life. It has a great moment where Lang, when faced with impossible odds, yells: "Why don't we just call The Avengers!?"
With a small scale but frankly excellent acting from our heroes (especially Michael Douglas) Marvel hammers home with a lot of fun and humour. There were a couple of real laugh-out-loud moments, and not just that one from the trailer. It is a well known fact now that Marvel makes comedies, but you know what... after the depression that was Terminator Genisys, Ant-Man was great levity!
I will say though, once again Marvel's formula strikes again with a film that knows how to develop heroes but cannot make a decent villain. Much like Iron Man with Obadiah Stane, Darren Cross is little more than a dark side of Hank Pym's brilliance. Marvel have had twelve films now, twelve, and Loki is the only one people can argue is memorable.
That and, by its very nature, Ant-Man is extremely CGI heavy, perhaps more than even Guardians of the Galaxy? Not to say it is bad CGI (in fact it is great to see him shrink and grow!) and I cannot suggest an alternative, but it does become a bit of an ocean of computer effects at times.
There's lots of good performances, a great sense of fun and adventure as well as a little bit more world building for Marvel's Cinematic Universe. It isn't a game changer, but it isn't the train wreck people are afraid it might be.
Conquering heroes The Avengers return in their second outing as an ensamble cast. This time they must defend Humanity against a peacekeeping AI developed by Tony Stark after it goes rogue.
Is it wrong to say anything negative about a Marvel property these days?
*Cinema Cocoa brings up the blast shields*
Okay so it is fair to say that the sequel has less limitations than its predecessor Avengers Assemble, since all the characters are established now and the story can give us both barrels, but is it possible that during the revelation that Avenger films work Marvel has become... overconfident?
Age of Ultron could be evidence to support this.
Now I am not saying it is bad: action set pieces are incredible; peaking at the Hulk Vs Hulkbuster fight, the humour is still top notch; everyone gets a go, even Jeremy Renner's Hawkeye and Ultron himself!
Speaking of Hawkeye, he is probably the best character for development. The poor guy starts out the movie getting injured and out of commission again, but miraculously Renner is given character material to work with that some of the lead cast haven't had! Well done, Marvel.
Ultron himself is cool, voiced by a gravely James Spader, here's a villain Marvel has been looking for. Malicious, calculating and born from all of Tony Stark's worst traits.
Another boon for the film is its heavy representation of our heroes saving civilians. It is worth remembering that Avengers Assemble had been directly compared to DC's Man of Steel as being the better representation of superhero justice. One can't deny that this feels like a direct attack on DC's property.
But telling you this film has great dialogue and great action is a no brainer. I think people would have left half way through had those things not been present; this is an Avengers film, if you even remotely like the first one you will find enjoyment here.
But...
This film feels sloppy. It feels rushed, and more importantly it feels utterly careless with what the non-Marvel fandom audience can consume. In an effort to outdo the first film, Ultron cuts narrative corners, makes unreasonable logic jumps without explaining it and possibly the worst offender for me: random exposition dumps.
I can accept, barely, characters literally jumping from place to place between cuts, but having the Avengers (our lead team of superheroes in the Marvel Cinematic Universe) learning about the crucial Infinity Stones through some ridiculously contrived illusion/dream/prophetic vision of Thor's, that's unlocked by newcomer Scarlet Witch's powers, and distilled by standing in some underground pool.... No.
We know what Infinity Stones are: Star Lord and friends had them explained really really well in Guardians of the Galaxy, don't make it look like you are laboured in finding a place to tell your main protagonists this incredibly important information. Especially when your screenplay is so heavily invested in explosions and battles.
Another very unnecessary addition were "The Twins", introduced in Captain America 2's end credit stinger, Quicksliver and Scarlet Witch. While they aren't in any way bad, and I can see how the franchise wants to move forward, for this film they are completely unnecessary.
A final note that almost slipped by me, Ultron's final act does little for the female characters; the usually strong and capable Black Widow is randomly imprisoned. I have no idea why, and it is so brief that I almost forgot about it.
Oh dear, that's a lot of negatives isn't it?
Avengers: Age of Ultron is an excellent showcase action movie, it has a quick fire pace and really does have some great moments between the characters. It feels like a reunion party with Don Cheadle's Warmachine helping out among others, and an early drunken scene of "Who can lift Thor's hammer?" is memorable. Many quips too, Captain America absently saying to himself: "If the hammer is in an elevator, the elevator isn't worthy," all give a great chuckle from me.
Marvel need to be careful. Bonanza is all well and good, spectacle will bring the crowds for a short while, but you are trying to tell a story, a narrative, over hours and hours of film. So tell it.
Don't get stuck in a formula (which you already have, in my opinion) otherwise I will become less intrigued by Avengers milestones and more intrigued by new properties ala Guardians.
Just, write good.
Big Hero 6's poster boy, the robotic Baymax, is the sole reason you need to see this film!
Young tech prodigy Hiro Hamada and his brother build robots, one of which is called Baymax, designed to be the best in the field of medical care. But disaster hits the city of San Fransokyo when a masked villain steals experimental technology from them. Hiro must group together his friends to battle the menace.
Unless you have been living under a rock you should be aware that since Avengers Assemble in 2012, Disney has owned Marvel comics film studios, and as a result Big Hero 6 is the first reciprocation of this agreement. Marvel makes its live action films with Disney funding, while Disney make Marvel property into cartoon movies.
Big Hero 6 is one of the more obscure franchises in Marvel's universe, but you don't need to be too concerned: the similarities between this and comics are mostly in name only!
The film however is a lot of great fun; a bouncy, bright and fast paced. It is gorgeously rendered, designed and animated with characters that really pop and become instantly familiar. Hiro and his friends are geniuses and wizards with technology (except maybe Fred, who is a comicbook geek) and their team behaves like some sort of Marvels junior ensemble.
But easily the greatest thing about the film, as if you need me to tell you this if you have seen the trailers, is the robot Baymax. Designed to be a caring, nurturing medic, the teenage Hiro immediately finds himself with not only a clingy and protective parent, but also a bumbling and slow servant. He has armfuls of personality, the running jokes, sight gags and slapstick are all masterfully done and hilarious. He had the whole audience brought near to tears with laughter, myself included.
But (and there is always a but) this hilarity with Baymax only makes the opening half of the movie, and as good though it is, things get a little bit samey after the team is assembled. Yes, this is a superhero film and complaining that it does the usual antics is a bit far fetched but... there are still problems.
Our team isn't that fleshed out: we have tech they like and names assigned to them and colourful, distinct designs but really nothing else. The villain too, as with so many Marvel films (it is actually getting frustrating now) isn't very interesting and motivations are vague at best. Hiro's parents had died when he was three, but they are never explained or referred to beyond that, we never know who they were or any sense of real relationships. All of this makes the second act quite laborious compared to the amazing opening.
The third act is what you expect, spectacular action sequences that likely work well in 3D (see How to Train Your Dragon) and was very well implemented.
Overall I had a lot of fun with Big Hero 6; it is a "forget your troubles" sort of experience, a comedic, bright, action-driven cartoon that should have the whole family entertained.
Additional Marshmallows: Just don't go researching the comic for any more understanding... you only get more questions!
Consider this a very good four star rating. It would have gotten 4.5 had there been a little more work done on the supporting characters, and a five had the villain been given more to work with.
(I'd like to say that this is the first time on Cinema Cocoa that I got the image for this review months before. I just love that poster!)
So in one grasp Marvel Studios attempts to draw all the loose ends developed over their Cinematic Universe so far together. What we get is Guardians of the Galaxy, a wayward child with so much energy and brash enthusiasm for itself it forgot to explain anything.
Peter Quill was abducted by aliens when he was a young boy in the 1980s and now, living among the stars and with alien races, his only solace is his old Walkman music player. This awkward, out of place man finds himself part of a ragtag team of fugitives and mercenaries (most with their own agendas!) roped into defending a civilization from total destruction!
You might think from my initial comments that I didn't enjoy Guardians, but it is quite the contrary: I really enjoyed it! It feels like a long time since I watched anything like this, and as a sci-fi fan I saw a lot of Star Trek, Star Wars and other space opera influences; Peter Quill's (aka Starlord) casual flings with pink, green skinned girls is unmistakably James T. Kirk, for example. It is wonderfully designed too with incredible, unqiue colourful visuals. Sets are full of life and energy or mystery, space ships are grand and have exciting technology to make you look on in wonder. That, and some very quotable dialogue that had the whole audience laughing out loud!
But this is Marvel taking the most liberties with its franchise I have seen yet. While Guardians is a hell of a ride, boys-with-toys, action comedy romp with all the great witty dialogue we come to expect from the likes of Tony Stark, it never goes into details.
There are loads of characters, and I mean loads. We have our five leads, we have at least four villains as well as two or three contending factions at war with each other, we also have numerous planets as well as the overarching Marvel story to elaborate! The film is a carpet-bomb of narrative chaos!
The definition of this, for me, is the inclusion of Benicio Del Toro's "The Collector", a shady individual seen in the post-credit sequence of Thor 2: The Dark World. Now I don't know the comics, but I know this man is important... But Guardians doesn't do anything with him! He has one scene and that's it. I want exposition Marvel, I want to learn more! Guardians hurls so much at you that if you aren't "with it" you will be left behind.
Luckily, I was with it, and forgave the shortcomings of narrative. What does make sense here is a stereotypical space opera; you know what's happening and what will happen in the broader narrative, actual surprises are with the character designs themselves rather than the plot.
I enjoyed it a lot! It is a throwback to classic, pulpy blockbusters before movies had the requirement to be "realistic" or pretentious. I would definitely see it again for the colourful characterisation, the sense of fun, the music, and the dazzling visuals and tech. In fact I regret not seeing this in 3D, not to say this film is gimmicky, but I believe some scenes would be even more dazzling.
Sony Entertainment's reign of average, acceptable film making continues. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 shakes off its predecessor's shackles of the origin story and has some great moments, but suffers from some old, overriding problems.
Peter Parker has his work cut out for him protecting the city of New York from criminals, but when a fan of his named Max Dillion suffers a terrible accident inside Oscorp tower and becomes Electro, a being of pure electricity, his greatest challenge emerges. Meanwhile, Peter searches for answers about why his parents left him.
I'm going to say it... and it isn't a pleasant thing to say, but this film reminds me of Spider-man 3 (minus the jazz club dancing).
Oh snap I've done it now!
The Amazing Spider-man 2, as cliche as it is to say in a review, suffers from having too many villains. I'm sorry but it is true. We have an angry Russian who nicknames himself Rhino, we have Harry Osborne summoned into the series after his absence in Part 1, and we have Max "Electro" Dillion. Why is Rhino an angry Russian? Because he is Russian... and he is angry.
Max, played by Jamie Foxx, is excellent though and desperately wants to be the core focus of the film, and if it weren't for Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield maintaining their good performances, he might have stolen the show. One of the film's greatest moments is when Max finds himself with his new powers and face to face with his idol, Spider-man; it is a unique scene that challenges the way we perceive heroes and villains and even starts to weave a different relationship between our hero and his nemesis. It is truly remarkable.
It is a shame that Electro's character never returns to this purgatory of self... once he goes into the deep end of villainy the screenplay never allows him to resurface again.
Why? Because we need to push Harry Osborne into the story. Played by Chronicle's excellent Dane DeHaan, Harry unfortunately feels rushed and not enough of the film's ridiculously long 140 minute cycle is given to his development. We must accept that Harry and Peter are life-long friends, why, the film gives us a whole entire scene for it!
Here's my problem. A villain inspires and challenges our hero to change and to adapt their personality, but here, everything is so crammed with stuff (most of it deemed only for sake of convenience) that nothing feels connected or genuine. Plot threads are just tossed at us: Oh yeah, Peter works for the Daily Bugle now, that's his job now (which he's never actually shown doing, ever, we never see the Daily Bugle). Oh, without any outside influence, Peter is going to go crazy and start looking for his parents suddenly. Oh, because we have the city under threat (100 minutes in) we need to establish that Aunt May is in fact, a nurse at a hospital.
They have all the characters doing what they should be doing, but there's no setup, there's no build up to anything, its like watching a magician pull a rabbit out of his hat without showing the rabbit disappear first!
Harry Osborne is the definition of this issue... he gets no build up outside of a single scene, and when a story starts doing these things you find yourself not watching characters but watching the gears and gizmos controlling them.
Sigh. I really wanted to like this film more, but in today's over-indulgence of superhero films you have to start looking for uniqueness, or at least integrity. The special effects are very good, Spider-man's suit actually looks superior in this film compared to all previous films (I think its the white eyes) and Electro does bring a lot of gravitas to the proceedings.
There are scenes that are extremely good, Electro should have had the film all to himself, but once again... a film studio that isn't Marvel Studios feels like its rushing to get stuff done.
Additional marshmallows: The 3D of the film is almost entirely during the web-swinging scenes, everything else is regular 2D near enough. If you are a fan of Rhino, you will be disappointed; he may as well have been cut from the film.
MOST of the action sequences Sony released in the millions of trailers feature in the last fifteen minutes. I'm not even kidding.
I love movies. Comics I've never given time to, and as far as Spider-man is concerned you'll have to forgive some of my ignorance; I've heard a lot of theories and followed lots of arguments about why Spider-man needed a reboot or about why the reboot ruined everything.
I can only give you my opinion, as someone who loves film, storytelling and creativity first and foremost... with a little dash of nostalgic traditionalism.
(I don't care whether or not Spider-man has organics or web-shooters.)
It was great fun to watch the old Sam Raimi movies, and honestly I have to insist people watch them again! Spider-man came out twelve years ago. TWELVE. Even if you are eighteen when this post is made and claim The Amazing Spider-man is better, try to remember that you were six when it came out originally! Go and watch it again. Right now. Then watch Spider-man 2.
With that said, a message to Sony:
With Great Franchise Rights, Comes Great Responsibility.
Spider-Man (2002)
(pause for a moment: this film was released twelve years ago... oh god, I feel old)
Back in the days when films could be under two hours long, they could be bright, exciting and have pop songs associated with them, Sam Raimi's Spider-Man remains to this day a pulpy, comic book romp that is both entertaining in its goofiness and its theatrics.
Young teen Peter Parker is bitten by a scientifically created "super spider" and becomes the athletic, web-shooting titular hero. While he struggles over his affections for Mary-Jane, the love of his life, his best friend's father Norman Osborne becomes corrupt through a dangerous military experiment and becomes Spidey's nemesis the Green Goblin.
You know, looking back at this film, you can harp on about what's wrong with it; Raimi has a very distinct style in his movies and it isn't always going to agree with some people, but gosh darn it I like this movie. I really do. Why? Well, principally, it's fun! God, remember when films were just fun? They aren't murky and loaded with grim subtext and don't feel like franchise machines? Raimi did what few directors manage: bring a comic book to life with a unique creative vision.
I like Toby Maguire as Peter Parker, I like the film's heavy roots in family values and how the screenplay twists this into a cruel destiny for him and those around him. Parker's family is almost wiped out, and Norman and Harry Osborne are like brother and father to him respectively (tell me, how often do you see a hero and arch nemesis sitting around a thanksgiving table??) and this becomes wonderfully complex as the film develops. I love the heart this film has, asides from the clear family values, I love how it sparks a community spirit; Spider-Man protects the people, and the people give back in kind. YES, I liked the part were New Yorkers start throwing things at the Goblin. Forget any possible subtext, I think it's rewarding to see in a genre that's so dark and depressing now.
And how can you not like Willem Dafoe as Norman Osborne? He tears the scenery apart, virtually born for the role. Or J.K Simmons as the Daily Bugle editor Jonah Jameson, instantly memorable and instantly entertaining!
Okay, okay, there are problems with it... Kirsten Dunst's Mary-Jane is pathetic; she's kidnapped or attacked, literally, every thirty minutes, so that's a lot of screaming she belts out in 110 minutes. It gets old really fast. The rooftop talk between masked Goblin and Spider-Man is a little hard to take seriously... but even Raimi himself said it was hard to make completely convincing.
The CGI is not great, neither are the composite shots; give this film five more years and it will be unbearable to watch. But you have to understand, Spider-Man came out in 2002, a lot of this was revolutionary at the time.
What with the reboot out, I insist this version not be forgotten about! I maintain that Sony have done nothing but spin money and forget some actual gold they already made. Raimi gave us a memorable, colourful and characterful Spider-Man. Dare I say this film is like Spider-Man's answer to Tim Burton's Batman!
(but was that a Macy Gray cameo? ... Okay? I guess? Films have changed a lot!)
Additional Marshmallows: I couldn't help but sense parallels with other future films while watching this. Remember Batman Begins, Bruce Wayne doesn't get the girl at the end? Funny, Spider-Man did it first. Iron Man proclaiming to himself that "He is Iron Man" all the time? Spider-Man got there first. Makes you think.
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
Sweet, delicious consistency. I love it.
Harry Osborne takes up his father's mantle and funds a scientific project of one Doctor Octavius to develop a fusion reaction, but there is an accident and the good doctor is infused with his mechanical arms, turning him into a delirious villain of the city. Meanwhile, Peter Parker struggles with the duality of his life, so much that his powers begin to waver and fail. He will lose everything if he cannot decide on the course of his life.
Spider-Man 2 remains one of my very favourite comic book movies, even more so than the first and mostly because of Alfred Molina's portrayal of Doctor Octavius, aka Doc Ock. I simply love the good guy-turn-evil premise (see Harvey Dent also) and not only is Molina excellent for the part, but the filmmakers did an excellent job bringing the character to life; the CGI and (more importantly) the physical effects with the mechanical arms remains especially good! Sure, there's a few shots with an uncanny valley CG-Molina, but it is in forgivable action sequences.
Speaking of which, asides deja-vu with a burning building scenario, the action sequences are incredible! Unlike the first films rather "staged" feel, this film has battles on the sides of buildings and a prominent battle on top of a moving L-train. Everything feels dynamic and high speed.
Kirsten Dunst as Mary-Jane is more bearable now; at least she is only captured once an hour instead of every twenty minutes. Though the constant back and forth "will they, won't they" between her and Peter gets old after a while; Peter's overriding guilt about Uncle Ben's death is more than enough fuel to keep the development afloat (as well as the growing anxiety with Harry Osborne!) without bleating over and over with their relationship.
I love how much they involve Aunt May in this film too. She gets entangled with the action and had a lot of moving words of wisdom to share with not just Peter but with the audience too.
The film feels better paced and more consistent than the first film, Doc Ock provides all the momentum it needs to progress without getting in the way of our lead characters' developments. James Franco's Harry Osborne stews and seethes in the background, his character perhaps loses out; a foreboding of things to come...
Honestly there's so little I find wrong with this film. But I'd say Sam Raimi's Evil Dead style shows a little too much here and there... what is with all the screaming women?? Seriously, I thought it back in 2004, and I still do now. Way too many screamers, as much as I like the ridiculously dark scene of Doc Ock awakening in the hospital.
Clocking in still under two hours, with an excellent villain (I love my villains) and maintaining its great entertainment and bright theatrics, great soundtrack, Spider-Man 2 promises the franchise will run and run.
Oh... if only it did...
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
Oh boy, I sense a big review coming up.
A complacent and over-confident Peter Parker, his life seemingly perfect with a city of Spider-man fans and preparing to marry the girl of his dreams Mary-Jane, finds himself under the influence of a parasitic organism from space that corrupts his suit. In the meantime, a fugitive named Flint Marko is changed by a freak accident into The Sandman. Peter soon realises that Flint had something to do with Uncle Ben's death...
Funny how the film to introduce the black suit Spider-man would be the black sheep of the franchise, but having only seen it once before (in cinemas) I have to admit there's a lot to dislike about the film, but reluctantly so; there's all the makings of a good final act... buried deep down.
First off, the screenplay is completely shattered beyond repair, all of the consistency and integrity of the first two movies is blown out the window. Not only do we have the black suit (aka Venom) appear first and then disappear until later, not only do we have the Sandman's ridiculous origin (Flint falls into a particle physics experiment by accident, seriously?) and the resurgence of Uncle Ben's death (I'll get to that) but we also have the anticipation of Harry Osborne's ascension as the New Goblin curbed by him being immediately concussed and forgetting everything that happened to him!
What????
Let's pull back a second. Spider-man 2 was about Peter and Mary-Jane's struggling relationship, the back and forth and its resolution, but here we are right back to square one; Harry is back to normal and going after Mary-Jane. Why? Just to add some tension onto Peter. Flint/Sandman's plot exists solely to aggravate Peter's story too. Why then do you need both of those disparate story elements? Harry's story flips halfway through the film too; he reverts back to being evil and hurts MJ and Peter all over again. Why then did you need to have him concussed? To give Peter more reason to feel complacent? He already IS complacent! Just have Harry evil and playing our two heroes against each other! There's no need for continuous backs and forths!
The screenplay is horribly convoluted, and every single character suffers from it. Harry's resolution feels haphazard with the way he yo-yo's from one alignment to the other. The Sandman comes across as completely unnecessary and could have been cut from the film entirely, while Venom (probably the most interesting aspect for developing Peter's character further) is bloated with... with Peter's "emo" fringe and crazy bump-and-grind dance moves.
Okay! I have to address this, since I've mentioned it. The film has a lot of silliness in regards to Venom's influence on Peter as a person, but viewers should remember it is stated that the parasite causes the very worst in the host's personality to come out. Peter is a geek, a goof. Isn't it fair to assume then that if he were "influenced" he might act with absolute selfishness? Especially since he is at a high point in his career as Spider-man?
Honestly, the emo fringe flicking aside, the film's overall mess of a screenplay is a much greater sin.
It is a sad mess of a movie, because the soundtrack is still great, the visuals are still great (the Sandman is a walking testimony to visual effects!) but it could have been a much, much simpler and far more effective conclusion! Peter, Harry and Mary-Jane are your main characters! Don't confuse it all with Gwen Stacey, Eddie Brock and Flint Marko!
There was a lot of production disagreements between Sony and Sam Raimi, and it shows. But despite all of that, Spider-man 3 was the highest grossing film of 2007. That's up against Transformers and Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. Not too shabby.
But worst of all... Spider-man 3's legacy is a general public opinion that Sony's rebooting of the entire franchise is valid. As haphazard as Spider-man 3 was, there's never validity to rebooting a series only five years after its supposed finale. Especially when you have so little creativity to give such a reboot...
Speaking of which.
The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)
Five years after the original trilogy we have a reboot of the franchise, critics claim it is Sony's desire to hold onto the rights after Marvel Studios conception and success and... when you get down to it, I agree with them. While there is future promise from this film, the film itself is overall lazy and uncreative.
It
is back to the beginning: we see a recluse and mumbling Peter Parker
begin his journey trying to learn more about his parents and why they
left him. His journey directs him to on of his father's work colleagues, Oscorp's Dr Curt Conners, a
scientist researching gene splicing. Specifically looking into reptile and human DNA...
There's a lot I like about this film, but there's a lot I dislike too, which makes it hard to explain (unlike the universally unlikable Spider-Man 3 or the highly favoured Spider-Man 2). Andrew Garfield takes over as the lead role, and bends into Parker/Spider-man as well as the script allows him to, but Emma Stone as Gwen Stacey is dynamite; frankly she's the one thing this new film gets right over the original series ten times over. I feel as though there's a lot of potential with these two and the overall look and effects provided to this film. The sequels have a lot to live up to!
But, if there's one thing that this film irks me most on... is its nature as an origin story. It almost feels labored with it! The first act is dull as dish water; unlike Raimi's colourful, honest and memorable experience that rattles by with energy, this film drags its heels through the not With-Great-Power-And-Responsibility speech again. It goes through the same motions as the Raimi film: "Quick reflexes"; "Did you humiliate that boy?"; "You could have stopped him!", "That's not my policy", not only does it lack the first film's heart (its focus on family and respect) it uncreatively rehashes scenes.
While watching it again I found Curt Conner's visual transformation into The Lizard more appealing, it is still a lame villain (up there with the first Iron Man and Hulk films) if the film hadn't been an origin story and just continued the franchise, The Lizard could have been fleshed out to the level of Doc Ock from SM2. Or... if the script wasn't so mindlessly cliche and completely unmemorable.
You might think I'm exaggerating, but just compare the Raimi films scripts to this one, this one is boring; relying on cliche and convenience to get where it needs to go.
As someone who clearly has issue with the film, there's a lot I do like. If I treat this as a continuation of the franchise (like it could easily have been) it promises a lot for the future; Spider-man as a character is still intact, the mystery about his parents is intriguing, the effects are amazing and the action sequences are still gripping. Battles between him and The Lizard are creative and exciting!
But it just sits in this unhappy place in my heart; a place that screams "Sony wants money and the franchise rights, so they'll just repeat everything!"
A very generous 3 cocoa cups; mostly for special effects, future promise and Emma Stone!
Additional
Marshmallows: As someone working in a cinema when this released, I remember hearing a boy talking to his mother when the first posters for the film appeared. The boy, only about nine years old, wasn't impressed by the idea of a reboot: "But I already know what happens with Spider-man", he argued.
Give that boy a cookie.
This Marvel train ain't stopping for anything! The Winter Soldier is quite possibly one of the best entries into the film series yet!
Captain Steve Rogers tries to find a sense of place in the modern world working for S.H.I.E.L.D. But when Nick Fury is targeted by a mysterious assassin, Rogers discovers that his patriotism could just be used as a pawn for corrupt political forces.
Captain America, as a singular character in the current Avengers team, has the most groundwork and the most to build upon in a sequel. There's a lot to work with! Tony Stark and Thor had mostly completed stories when going into their sequels, but the Captain did not; he's been left untouched since his debut in 2011. This is a great boon for The Winter Soldier.
The film opens with a very stealth driven action sequence with the Captain and Black Widow taking on a terrorist takeover at sea. This is heralding more to come; the film's entire storyline is about espionage, spy networks and ambiguous political intent. The story is intelligent and interweaving, frequently summoning up ghosts from Steve Rogers' past, but in no unlikely manner, in fact the linkage with The First Avenger is were a lot of the film's intensity comes from. That and its not-so-heavy-handed social and political subtexts.
Of course, it isn't all talking and mystery (though I was surprised at how moody the film became) there is still plenty of action. The Winter Soldier himself is an excellent addition to the Marvel mythos, the soundtrack adding to the foreboding atmosphere around him and the film shows how deadly he really can be. The Captain too gets a much better sense of strength here too (I'm sure I'm not the only one who felt he was a little underpowered in Avengers Assemble) being thrown about, running through walls, using his shield in such marvelously silly ways. It is greatly entertaining when the bullets and punches start flying.
It is also a surprisingly brutal film. With Captain America's origins and current story trapped in comparatively realistic settings (we are dealing with countries, governments and spies, not gods and space aliens) even to Iron Man standards, the action is intense and scenes get quite dark. People are shot, often viciously, they are wounded, they bleed, even tortured. A clear sign that Marvel aren't only delivering more mature content, but are confident in doing so.
That said, there's a healthy sense of humour in there too. Maybe not as riotous as some of Tony Stark's adventures, but it is there.
I have trouble thinking of what's wrong with the film. The action scenes sometimes fall into a lot of shaky camera work, again, but other times it is fine. This could be due in part to the 3D, which I had no time for; just see the film regularly, the 3D does nothing. Some of the plot might seem predictable, but I imagine the younger audiences will be totally captivated.
All in all a great movie, and it stands alone and as an Avengers continuation very well! What is remarkable is that Marvel is successfully giving each of its character's movies a distinct theme and mood. Like reading the different comics, there is a difference. You know you are watching Marvel, but the heroes have their own presence and strength to give.
Additional Marshmallows: As if you need to ask, yes there's two extra clips during the credits! Like with Thor 2, there's an important, longer clip after the initial "graphical credits" (connotations to Avengers 2: Age of Ultron!) and then a shorter, slightly less important clip after the regular credit role. However, the credit role isn't too long.
A fantasy adventure film with plenty of energy and excitement, and keeping with its subtitle it has some surprisingly dark undertones and visuals! Lightning strikes twice today.
While Thor does battle across the Nine Realms to restore order, scientist Jane Foster discovers an anomaly on Earth that acts as a doorway to a long forgotten artifact. Upon finding this power the Dark Elves and their leader Malekith, who have lived since before light's creation, seek it out. Thor must protect Jane and all Nine Realms, but he going to need unlikely allies to do it...
You know what, I was one of the people mocking and hating on Thor originally (I didn't even see the first film in the cinema!) as a Marvel concept it seemed utterly redundant. Nowadays though I can't help but enjoy myself watching this increasingly interesting story unfold!
I imagine this is due to the sequel's total immersion into the Nine Realms (rather than strictly focusing on Earth) and the creativity this lends to design, characters and mythos becomes fascinating. It is very much a fantasy movie first, where as Iron Man and Captain America are strictly science fiction stories.
The humour is still here, wonderfully, since that was what kept the first film afloat. Thor is his powerful self with no human weakness, but they still spend time on the goofy humour, lightening an otherwise bleak storyline. Loki returns and is diabolical as ever; the film's heart lies with these two characters and how they are evolving since the events of Avengers Assemble. The film has some incredible moments later on, I wouldn't dare allude to anything here.
I don't know if its just me, but the film reminded me of Superman 2 in an uncanny way. It has a classical film vibe about it, no excessive plotlines or redundant twists, and there's plenty of people being tossed through buildings and mountains during the action sequences!
It is a very simple story (all of its complexity lies with Thor and Loki's relationship) our villain Malekith (Christopher Eccleston) really isn't done justice and acts more like a typical boogeyman; he lurks in the background and forces the plot along when need be. I never saw him as more than just an embodiment of evil. If he had been given more time, I might have rated this film higher.
I enjoyed Thor - The Dark World a great deal, probably more than the original! It has some plot conveniences and Thor never feels at risk (but those around him certainly do!) but take it for what it is, a big exciting and visually interesting fantasy film, and you'll see so much more lying underneath.
Additional Marshmallows: And, because most of it is set within the Nine Realms, you don't get the problem of "Why doesn't he call on the Avengers!?" like a certain Mr Stark...
Hey, hey guys, you want to see my Thor review? Sure, I'll copy it here for you! (it is a short review!)
Thor (2011)
Kenneth
Branagh, more known for his Shakespearian adaptations,
uncharacteristically directs this rather uncharacteristic Marvel
superhero blockbuster, to match the other three "avenger" superhero
movies.
Thor, the Norse god of thunder is brash and big-headed, and his
overconfidence has him banished from the realm of Asgard to live among
mortal humans. While there his brother Loki, god of mischief, vows to
surpass Thor's past glory.
I have a huge difficulty (as someone unfamiliar with comics) taking Marvel's Thor
with credibility; to me they have merely taken an existing myth and
made it their own. I have trouble putting him beside Iron Man and the
Incredible Hulk! As such, having watched the film, I am still uncertain.
However, all of these films continue to surprise me with an insane level
of charisma, you can't not like them. I laughed a decent number of
times here. The mighty Thor falls to Earth, only to be immediately
knocked unconscious by a small woman's taser! Plus seeing how well they've depicted the mythology here is nice to see.
It is extremely CGI heavy, but the actors all look like they are
enjoying themselves - Kenneth Branagh himself openly stated he was a
huge Thor comic book fan, and I think it shows.
It doesn't take itself seriously, and that is a blessing. It isn't
terribly intelligent, and I might say its the weaker of all the
"avengers" heroes so far, but it was certainly enjoyable!
