Tag Archives: spider-man

‘Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse’ is Creative and Colorful

Unrelated fact: Tobey Maguire is the best Spider-Man we’ve ever had and the Sam Raimi trilogy is the best superhero saga ever put to film. Ok. On with the review.

“Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse” is an animated telling of the titular character (the ninth in many a year). It features Shameik Moore as Miles Morales, a Hispanic/African American teen in Brooklyn who is bitten by a freaky spider and soon discovers his universe has merged with others, resulting in multiple different Spider-Men. Hailee Steinfeld, Mahershala Ali, Jake Johnson, Liev Schreiber, Brian Tyree Henry, Lauren Vélez and Lily Tomlin also star, while Bob Persichetti, Peter Ramsey and Rodney Rothman direct.

The film is animated like nothing I’ve really seen before; basically, it looks like a comic book. To achieve this look, the filmmakers took rendered 3D character models and placed them over 2D backgrounds, and added dot pigments to the frame. Most of the time the film comes off colorful and alive and their goal is realized, but there are a few instances where the shot is straight-up out of focus, as if you’re watching a 3D movie but the kid at the counter forgot to hand you the glasses.

As Miles Morales, Shameik Moore (great in his breakout role in 2015’s “Dope”) conveys the mixture of anxious, confused and scared as he begins to discover his powers, and cracks a few one-liners, too. Jake Johnson takes on this universe’s version of Peter Parker, playing the “grumpy old hero who no longer believes in what their image stands for” that we’ve seen from Bruce Wayne in “Batman v Superman,” Luke Skywalker in “The Last Jedi” and Logan in…well, “Logan.”

The rest of the cast is perfectly assembled, from John Mulaney voicing Spider-Ham, a Porky Pig-type Spider-Man, to Hailee Steinfeld as Gwenn Stacy (who here is her own Spider-Man and isn’t getting her neck broken) and the perfect Nic Cage depicting a noir Spidey. There are also a few fun surprise cast members, and you’ll play everyone’s favorite animated game “dammit I know that voice” until you see their names in the credit.

Where the film falters is that while these are characters and an animation style we’ve never seen before, the plot is been there-done that. There’s nothing new about seeing a young teen struggle to figure out his new spider-like powers or him yelling at his mentor that he is ready to take on the big bad guy even though he isn’t. The film throws some quips in there and a few fun Easter eggs for fans, this is co-written and produced by the guys behind “The Lego Movie” after all, but they’re mere momentary distractions from a rinse-and-repeat plot.

Also, the climax goes on for a little too long and by the end is essentially nonsensical, full of colors slamming into each other without much rhyme or reason.

“Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse” is basically like a cover album of all of the highlights from the previous eight takes on the character, packaged in a pretty box with a stylish bow. The soundtrack is at times infectious and the voice performances inspired, which are at times enough to keep you entertained when the plot is not. There have been better Spider-Men films before and there will be after (especially if some of these characters get their own spin-offs) but as far as December entertainment goes, you can do a lot worse than this.

Critic’s Rating: 7/10

‘Venom’ is a Mess of a Disappointment

I don’t know what else I expected from a studio like Sony…

“Venom” is the second film to feature the titular antihero (following 2007’s “Spider-Man 3”), and follows Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) as he is exposed to the alien symbiote and gains superpowers. Michelle Williams, Riz Ahmed, Scott Haze and Reid Scott also star as Ruben Fleischer directs.

A Venom film had been in the talks for years, both before and after his appearance in “Spider-Man 3,” and this rendition was finally confirmed in March 2017 as part of Sony’s new “Marvel Universe” (different than Disney’s Marvel Cinematic Universe, but that is an entire different can of worms). It was promised to be rated R, sticking to the dark and violent nature of the character, but just a few weeks before its release Sony announced that it would be rated PG-13 in order to possibly accompany a cross-over with Spider-Man in future films (something Marvel and Disney have strongly implied they won’t allow). Combine this with the fact star Tom Hardy went on record (before backtracking) that his favorite 40 minutes of the film were cut and there were alarms going off all over the place. And where there is smoke there is fire, and it turns out to be of the dumpster variety.

I am a fan of Venom. I never read many of his comics but growing up I always liked it when he showed up in a Spider-Man show, and didn’t hate Topher Grace’s portrayal of Eddie Brock in “Spider-Man 3.” So when it was announced Hardy, fresh off an Oscar nomination for “The Revenant,” would play the character I got excited. And Hardy is (mostly) the only thing in the film that actually works.

His dynamic with the Venom character is often fun, as it is a voice in his head that only he can hear. Much like this summer’s “Upgrade” (one of the year’s better films, please seek it out!), Eddie is hesitant to hurt people so when Venom takes control of his body and begins to use humans as a baseball bat on others he is confused and outwardly apologizes to his victims. There are some laughs and some creative fight sequences, although you can tell some of the Venom kills (namely when he goes to bite off a character’s head) were cut and clipped to get that bloodless PG-13 rating. And the fact Sony made this PG-13 (especially after saying it would be R) is almost infuriating since it was done simply with the dollar sign in mind, yet we’ve seen the R-rated “Deadpool” films each make over $700 million.

Every other actor here is either wasted and/or trying their best, but the script is so clunky and reliant on exposition that they feel like cardboard cutouts. The evil head of a sketchy corporation? Check. The ex-girlfriend who comes back into the frame when her new boyfriend tries to help our main character? You know it. The member of the bad guy’s staff who has a sudden change of heart? Oh you know she’s in here. But none of the dialogue is engaging and the narrative just jumps from plot point to plot point with little flow (Venom doesn’t even appear for the first hour of this hour-42 minute film).

The special effects are mostly not all that special, with some of them actually looking straight-up like a PlayStation 3 cutscene. This was made on a “modest” $100 million budget (the average superhero film costs between $150-200 million nowadays) but this film really does look and play like it should have come out in 2007, before “The Dark Knight” and Marvel changed the superhero game.

“Venom” has occasional moments of intrigue or amusement, and Hardy and Venom’s dynamic and interactions are just good enough to make me want to see more of these “Marvel Universe” if they can get a script (and tone) that fits the character. But much like Tom Cruise’s “The Mummy” last year, a film that was supposed to kick off the “Dark Universe” for Universal, “Venom” just feels uninspired, bland and all-too-often is ugly to look at. The tagline for this film is “the world has enough superheroes” and after seeing this I think we have enough antiheros, too.

Critic’s Grade: C–

Sony

‘Spider-Man: Homecoming’ a Welcome Return-to-Form for the Character

Leave a reply

Much like Kevin Spacey, I always seem to forget how much I love Michael Keaton until I see Michael Keaton pop up on screen.

“Spider-Man: Homecoming” is the second reboot in five years of the character, and features Tom Holland reprising his role as the titular hero from last year’s “Captain America: Civil War.” This time we skip over all the origin stories and Uncle Ben’s death and get right into Peter Parker trying to be a friendly neighborhood Spider-Man, until a new supervillain named Vulture (Keaton) threatens New York City with dangerous weapons. Jon Favreau, Jacob Batalon, Marisa Tomei and Robert Downey Jr. also star as Jon Watts directs.

I love the character of Spider-Man. He’s no Batman (duh) but when done right there is something about a sarcastic teenager in red, white and blue spandex that is just impossible not to find enjoyable. Sam Raimi’s first film back in 2002 redefined the modern superhero genre (and literally changed the start date of the summer movie season from Memorial Day to first weekend of May) and “Spider-Man 2” is universally accepted as one of-if not the-greatest superhero films of all-time. The third film then had a mixed response while the Andrew Garfield reboot series (if you want to call two films no one liked a “series”) were a colossal misfire that resulted in Sony negotiating a deal to give the character back to Marvel, and it will be interesting to see how history remembers those two outings. But enough Spidey history, let’s get talking about this latest rendition.

Just like in “Civil War” Tom Holland shines here. He is just so darn charming, innocent and likable, and that’s just as Peter Parker. His Spider-Man has all the quips that Garfield’s was missing (saying “wait a minute, you guys aren’t the real Avengers!” to a group of bank robbers in Halloween masks) and he is just so much fun and it is clear that Holland himself is having a blast in the role of a lifetime.

The supporting cast are all great, too, with Robert Downey Jr. reprising his role as Tony Stark aka Iron Man, acting both as a bridge for the Marvel Cinematic Universe and this reboot series as well as Peter’s father figure since we don’t get an Uncle Ben this time around. Downey isn’t in the film all too much (every scene he has is in the trailer) but he is as sarcastic and witty as one may hope. Marisa Tomei has some genuine moments as Aunt May, and chooses to make this version of the character a little more nerdy and “try hard” (and clearly younger) than Rosemary Harris’ elderly, always worried take.

Michael Keaton is arguably one of the better villains that the MCU has seen, although that bar isn’t set too high. A blue-collar worker screwed over by a rigged system, Keaton doesn’t want world domination he just wants to make money while getting back at the elites. He gets some scenery to chew and has one genuinely tension-filled scene but overall he feels slightly underused, but it was still great to see him in a villain role, and continuing his mini-career renaissance of his.

There really isn’t too much action here to speak of, a lot of the film focuses on Peter trying to balance high school and being Spider-Man, and he isn’t always punching men in big flying monster suits; more often than not he’s stopping bike thieves and helping give old ladies directions. When the action does hit it is as clean and fun as any film with a $175 million budget and the Marvel brand slapped on it can expect to be, and is all the more impressive coming from a director who had only made small indie dramas (see Watts’ “Cop Car” if you haven’t).

What holds this back from the levels of Raimi’s first two films is a bit of a sloppy narrative here and there. The film isn’t always focused on Vulture and his plan, it just cuts back to him every now and again for a while to remind you that eventually we’re going to get to a big confrontation with him and Spider-Man. There were six screenwriters on this and it’s clear, sometimes the balance between big-budget superhero blockbluster and coming-of-age comedy are seamless, other times they’re jarring.

The film’s trailers also ruin *a lot* so if you have managed to avoid seeing the four of them up to this point, try to keep it that way. Scenes will be going on and suddenly you’ll realize you know exactly how things are going to play out because the trailers all spoil it.

“Spider-Man: Homecoming” is a welcome return to form for the titular character and a nice little side-entry into the MCU. When I saw “Spider-Man 2” in theaters as a 10 year old it was the first time I was ever truly left speechless by a film’s greatness; and although “Homecoming” isn’t perfect, it does bring me joy knowing that today’s kids finally have a Spider-Man worthy of being looked up to and enjoyed, because leaving them with Andrew Garfield’s would have been a travesty.

Critics Rating: 7/10

Sony Pictures

Reaction to Spider-Man/Marvel Announcement

Leave a reply

In the late hours of Monday night, Sony Pictures and Marvel Studios announced a deal that will allow Spider-Man to appear in the Marvel Universe, while Sony will still produce his individual films.

This sent fanboys around the internet into a frenzy of happiness.

Basically, this is long overdue, and while it is fantastic and exciting news (one could say the news is…amazing [high fives self]), it does make me think of a few things.

First things first, this is likely the signal of the end of the Andrew Garfield-led “Amazing Spider-Man” franchise. When we last saw his Spidey, he was swinging a manhole cover at Paul Giamatti’s Rhino and the screen cut to black. If that ending was frustrating and ambiguous back in May 2014, imagine how it is now conceived as the end of a franchise.

Variety

I’m going to assume that Rhino killed Spider-Man and that is why we didn’t see the actual battle, and why there will be no 3^rd film. It is the only thing that will make that ending make even a little bit of sense moving forward.

In 10 years, who will care about these two movies, much less even remember them? Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man trilogy already has cemented its place in cinematic history. Not only is it one of the best superhero series of all-time, if not movie trilogies, period, but it harkened the beginning of superhero films as we know them today. “Spider-Man 2” remains arguably the best superhero film ever made.

What about “The Amazing Spider-Man” 1 and 2? By December of last year most everyone had forgotten ASM2 was even a thing. There was just so much it got wrong and so little it did right. I personally marked it as one of my biggest disappointments of 2014.

The franchise itself isn’t *bad*, but it is just two “meh” films that seemed to ask fives questions for every one answer it gave.

Speaking of, assuming this is the end of the franchise, there are so many questions, plot holes and storylines left untouched.

What ever happened to Uncle Ben’s killer? (this is really a question you could ask after the first film, seeing as Peter gives up searching about halfway through)

So, is Peter’s dad alive, or is that deleted scene showing him having survived the plane crash just going to be an acknowledge misstep?

What is Oscorp’s evil plan? (not even the writers know this one)

We’re never going to know the answers to any of these questions, and honestly I don’t think we will care.

Variety

The other thing that the Spider-Man/Marvel deal means is the subsequent recasting of Peter Parker. Andrew Garfield, who voiced his distain with the second film and has been publically scapegoated by Sony for it, is out.

Sony is sticking with their 2017 release date for the new Spider-Man standalone film. However whoever is cast in the role will likely make his first appearance in 2016’s “Captain America: Civil War”, where we will see Cap and Iron Man face off (there’s a whole post-Avengers story-arc involving Spider-Man that comic book fans know a lot more about than I do). So this recasting has to be done relatively quickly, as that film begins shooting in April.

Whoever is chosen, I hope and pray that their standalone film is not another origins story. Like, seriously. If the five years between “Spider-Man 3” and “The Amazing Spider-Man” seemed too short, just imagine how only three years between ASM2 and whatever the title of this new Spider-Man is would feel. If I see Uncle Ben get shot one more time, I’m going to lose it, and not because I got the feels (you try watching the scene from “Spider-Man” and tell me it isn’t beautifully done).

One could argue that they are rebooting Batman only four years since his last film (2012’s “Dark Knight Rises” to 2016’s “Batman V Superman”), but BvS isn’t (hopefully/assumingly) going to feature an origin story.

We know the hero, and we know that some father figure got killed in front of him so he has a sense of purpose driving him. We don’t need to spend half a film beating the audience over the head with these facts.

Andrew Garfield is going to be fine. He’s currently working on a Martin Scorsese project and is only 31 years old (you know, because 31-year-olds can pass for high schoolers all the time, right, Sony?). I doubt that not making another passable Spider-Man film is going to derail his career.

I also doubt there are many people crying that this series is done. It was a fun enough ride while it lasted, but by 2025, when Marvel is actually beginning to enter the reboot-phase and films from the 1990’s are started to get remade, no one is going to remember “The Amazing Spider-Man” even happened. It will be the answer to a Trivial Pursuit question, and you’ll be like, “oh yeah, those were a thing”.

I’m excited to see Spider-Man sharing a screen with Iron Man and Captain America, and I’m also cautiously excited to see what a rebooted franchise could mean. Let’s just hope they get the villains right this time.

‘Spider-Man’ Sequel as Mediocre as First

Every now and again a film comes along that has a lot of potential but just can’t quite reach the levels it is striving for. “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” is such a film. A follow-up to the unnecessary 2012 reboot, this sequel follows Spidey (Andrew Garfield), as he struggles to deal with his emotions towards Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) while at the same time battling a new supervillain known as Electro (Jamie Foxx). Marc Webb directs.

The first “Amazing Spider-Man” was simply alright. There were a lot of creative ideas and potential, however it was weighed down by numerous similarities to the Sam Raimi Spider-Man trilogy, as well as a very underwhelming villain. This sequel manages to fix some mistakes that bogged down the original film, however many issues still linger.

First things first, Andrew Garfield is a very good Peter Parker. He nails Spider-Man’s sarcastic attitude, even in the middle of conflict, and has solid chemistry with Stone, as well as Sally Field, who plays Aunt May.

Speaking of character chemistry, that is by and far the strong point of “Amazing Spider-Man 2”. Marc Webb, who directed the rom-com “500 Days of Summer”, is very good at directing emotional scenes, making them feel genuine and human. The film has plenty of funny pieces of dialogue, and there are a few lump-in-the-throat inducing moments as well.

Unfortunately, the film did not learn from the first go around in the villain department. The Lizard was underdeveloped and lacked any real motive in the first film, not to mention his design wasn’t too impressive either. Here the film goes 0 for 3, missing with Electro, Rhino (Paul Giamatti) and Green Goblin (Dane DeHaan). All three have no true motives for their actions, are underwritten and not one of them affects the plot; I’m not even kidding, except for the end battle, the movie would be completely unchanged if none of the villains were in the film.

A superhero film should be driven BY the villain, not simply FEATURING one. Look at “Spider-Man 2”: Peter has his own issues and is fighting the choices he has to make, but Doc Ock is featured as a fleshed-out character and is ultimately the reason Peter decides that he has to be Spider-Man. None of that is present here. Rhino is essentially a cameo, Electro is cliché (think of Jim Carrey’s Riddler story arc from “Batman Forever”) and the Goblin is shoehorned in to fill a plot point and set up a spin-off film. I also wasn’t a fan of the design of Goblin and Rhino, but that is purely personal opinion.

The battles are well-shot (although most every action scene is shown in the trailer) and the interactions between Gwen and Peter are entertaining, but “Amazing Spider-Man 2” cannot overcome the cluttered plot and indecisive narrative. I almost feel bad for kids who have this as their staple Spider-Man. When the Raimi films came out, I remember how much everyone in my school loved them, and I distinctly remember seeing “Spider-Man 2” and being blown away (it’ll be the 10 year anniversary next month). Unfortunately there’s just nothing awe-inspiring or memorable about this new series.

“The Amazing Spider-Man 2” is at its best when Spider-Man isn’t on screen, and in a film with the word “Spider-Man” in the title, I’m not sure how much of a positive that is. The film is entertaining, for sure, and I was never bored, but at more than on occasion I was sitting in my seat thinking “why does this movie exist?”. There’s a point in the film when Electro says, “I will show everyone what it’s like to live in a world without Spider-Man”. If only he could actually make that happen…

Critics Rating: 6/10

The Reel Deal

Movie reviews from David Palmer