Having grown up on director Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy, I was apprehensive at the sight of 2012's reboot, The Amazing Spider-Man. But after giving the film its fair day in court, I was pleasantly surprised to find a new way of looking at the characters and story that I had come to love. So, when the sequel, The Amazing Spider-Man 2, rolled around, my experience was reversed: expecting enjoyment, and receiving disappointment.
The story follows Peter Parker (The Social Network's Andrew Garfield) in his continued search for answers about the mysterious circumstances of his parents' disappearance. While unearthing clues at Oscorp (New York's mega-corporation in charge of all things obscurely evil), Peter is faced with a barrage of enemies, including Electro (Jamie Foxx) and the Green Goblin (Chronicle star Dane Dehaan). What sounds like the adventures of a child's Spider-Man toys brought to life is just that, and that can go both ways. On one hand, the action is exciting and fast-paced, and is only complimented by the film's dazzling special effects. On the other hand, the story is there as an afterthought, a device to propel the audience from one dizzying action sequence to the next. Also glossed over are the characters, particularly the villains. Foxx and Dehaan are both confident in their respective roles, but are given very little to work with following their introductions. Foxx plays Oscorp scientist Max Dillon as an outcast altered by a lab accident (possible opportunity for a character parallel with Spider-Man?). Foxx employs just enough enjoyable eccentricity to evoke Jim Carrey'Carrey's wacky performance as the Riddler in Batman Forever, but once he shines blue with electricity, Max loses all of his personality in exchange for the straight-lined smug of a snarly bad guy. Dehaan is much the same (a product of Oscorp physically transformed for the worse), except with more of an emotional connection to Peter. Apparently, the two were close friends in their early elementary years, and are now reunited. Again, while this could be an opportunity for an emotional foundation for the character, it feels rather like a potentially moving performance that deflates after its setup, since his relationship with Peter doesn't convincingly follow through. Surprisingly, the romance between Peter and Emma Stone's Gwen Stacy couldn't have been done better. The onscreen chemistry shared between the couple is so genuine that you'd swear they were the stars of the best romantic comedy you've ever seen, and this Spider-Man business was just written around them. Some people claim that the film is crippled by an abundance of characters, but for me, the problem isn't that the quantity, but rather the quality of the bunch. The majority are just too underdeveloped, much like the shambling story itself. In the end, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 offers a variety of colorful designs and action pieces, but not enough plot or character to hold it together. And if the franchise was rebooted altogether by the overwhelming critical discontent with the now-infamous trilogy capper Spider-Man 3, how long before TASM 2 proves to be the bane of this new series?
0 Comments
Guardians of the Galaxy is superior to The Avengers. There, I said it. Why? Not because it manages to blend action and humor flawlessly. Not because it resembles Star Wars. But because whereas the Avengers are the all star team that wins every game, the Guardians of the Galaxy are the underdogs. And this is their big win.
The story follows Peter Quill (Parks and Recreation's Chris Pratt), a young human abducted from Earth in the late 1980s. Fast forward to the present, and Quill is now spending his days scouring the stars for artifacts he steals and sells to intergalactic buyers, under the employment of the blue-skinned alien Yondu (The Walking Dead's Michael Rooker, playing the same role he's always played, and having a blast with it). But when he unknowingly steals an orb wanted by the dangerous Ronin (Lee Pace), Quill becomes one of a group of misfits out to protect the orb and prevent Ronan from using it to...well, you already know. Pratt is killer as Quill, whose smug confidence and sense of leadership evoke elements of Han Solo and Captain Kirk. He also has great taste in music. The film's soundtrack comes from the tunes of Quill's Walkman, containing hits straight out of the '60s and '70s. Also rounding out the dynamic cast is Zoe Saldana as the green-skinned assassin Gamora and WWE's Dave Bautista as the muscular Drax the Destroyer, out for vengeance after Ronan murdered his family. But the highlight characters are a sarcastic racoon named Rocket (voice of Bradley Cooper), and a walking tree named Groot (voiced by Vin Diesel). Both are computer-generated, but are never any less endearing than their human costars. A part of this is credited to the exceptional visual effects, and partly to the free-flowing script. They hit the emotional scenes right, and nail their comedic lines with pitch-perfect accuracy. And then there's Ronan. When I first watched the film, I didn't much care for Ronan, as his stalwart stance and dour demeanor made him seem to exist in another movie entirely. But upon my second viewing, I saw that it was that very state of being oblivious to the rest of the film's zaniness that adds to the comedy of the character. During his final confrontation with the Guardians, he's so thrown off by their antics that underneath all of that makeup, you can tell Pace is trying not to choke out a laugh. Guardians of the Galaxy is a really oddball film, filled with bizarre aliens and a unique sense of humor. But before you dismiss it based on its trailers, I ask that you give it a fighting chance. If you're into Marvel, Star Wars, or just great comedies, you won't be disappointed. I'm giving it three and a half stars. In the book of Genesis, just after God accomplished the feat of creating the universe in a week's time, there is a verse that reads, "and it was good." Nothing else needed to be said to summarize the goodness of the situation. It was good. In the same way, Noah was bad.
Now, having already alluded to the Bible, I'm not about to go on a rant about how this movie disgraces the vision of its source material. Oh, don't get me wrong, I'll definitely address its religious offenses (and there are plenty). But first, I think it's only fair to judge the film solely as a film. With that said, it's still not good. Russel Crowe stars as the titular character, who recieves a message from God (excuse me, "the Creator," as he's now referred to) that the end of the world will come in a powerful flood. To survive the flood, he is asked to build an ark to ensure the safety of his family and two of every animal. He does so, with a few extra shenanigans thrown in, courtesy of Hollywood. Crowe is shockingly one-note, rarely emitting any emotion. When he finally does snap aboard the ark, whether it be by his own insanity or extreme loyalty to God, the audience feels very distant, as he was never captivating from the beginning. The rest of the cast offer little hope. Noah's adolescent offspring (one of which being played by Harry Potter's Emma Watson), are all single-minded in their obnoxious pursuit of promiscuity, a son named Ham (The Perks of Being a Wallflowler's Logan Lerman) being the worst example. Sadly, the best character is Noah's wife, Naameh (Jennifer Connelly), given that she's off the screen before she's had enough time to leave an impression. Now to cross off those religious offenses. It's evident that director Darren Aronofsky wanted to pay homage to the Bible, but he relies on far too much material to know what to do with. When evolution gets thrown in, it just feels like a misguided recap of the whole book of Genesis condensed to one story. But the worst, and most controversial detail, is presence of the stone giants. Apparently, they were fallen angels that were cast out of Heaven and banished to Earth (so technically, they're demons that help Noah build the ark). The other reason this doesn't work is that while this could be an opportunity to experiment with themes of philosophy and repentance (albeit a farfetched practice at this point), the dull monsters are just used for entirely out-of-left-field action scenes that, to be honest, don't even look that impressive. In the end, Noah is an unpleasant experience no matter which way you look at it: religious viewers will find it blasphemous, while everyone else will be put off by slanted acting and poor writing. I give it one out of four stars. |
|