Three Years Later, Disney Repackages Its Last Weird Success With Oz The Great And Powerful

The Good: Decent special effects, Good pacing
The Bad: Predictable plot, character arcs, and themes, Relies far too much on spectacle over effect.
The Basics: Cinephiles and actual witches will have plenty to complain about when Disney repackages its 2010 film Alice In Wonderland as the astonishingly similar and familiar special effects-driven Oz The Great And Powerful.


Coming out of the yearly cinematic doldrums of February (one of two times of the year where movie releases go to die), March inevitably kicks off the big-budget films that the studios release early so they will not have to compete with the ultra-blockbusters released during Summer Blockbuster Season. Unfortunately, March is not known for releasing truly great films, just big films that are in a better market position than the February releases. This year is, of course, no different. However, it is hard not to feel like audiences are being taken as suckers this particular March with the release of Oz The Great And Powerful. Disney is releasing Oz The Great And Powerful to be the first big blockbuster of the year and it is a tactic in 2010 when they released Tim Burton’s vision of Alice In Wonderland (reviewed here!).

Disney is, no doubt, hoping that people will not notice the similarities in release date (Alice In Wonderland was released on March 5, 2010, Oz The Great And Powerful will break to the public on March 8, 2013), merchandising push and attempts to tap the virtually identical fan-bases. No doubt, Disney publicists are pushing talking points for all of the talent should any of them be asked about Oz The Great And Powerful and Alice In Wonderland (you can pretty much bet that within the first five interviews of actors/directors/producers/etc. someone will very pointedly note that Alice In Wonderland was a reimagined sequel, while Oz The Great And Powerful is a prequel to the previously-established The Wizard Of Oz. It is important for the producers to make that distinction; they need the audience to believe they will be watching a different movie.

It is, alas, all window-dressing. Oz The Great And Powerful is essentially Disney’s Alice In Wonderland set in Oz, where the protagonist is not struggling to remember herself and her past, but rather to grow into a man who will lead a very different future. Both are very obvious stories about a hero in the process of becoming, both rely heavily on spectacle over strong storytelling and both made reviews utterly pointless to 90% of the potential audience. Oz The Great And Powerful will be a smash success for Disney, just like Alice In Wonderland was, not because of any inherent quality of its own, but rather because it comes with such a massive fanbase that it cannot be anything but a success.

That said, Oz The Great And Powerful is not unenjoyable, but it is thoroughly obvious and it is, at best, a popcorn movie that seeks to entertain and overwhelm as opposed to telling a story that is worthwhile or compelling.

Starting in Kansas, Oscar Diggs is a simple illusionist. He entertains at the carnival, but he is a magician who is engaged in slight-of-hand and simple science, not one who calls upon any magical forces. So, when his balloon is whisked off in a funnel cloud, he is shocked to awaken in a world where magic is very real. After quickly determining that he is not, in fact, dreaming, Oscar is told where he is by Theodora, a woman who treats the magical Land of Oz as mundane. Theodora takes Oscar to her sister, Evanora, who believes she can use Oscar against her enemies.

Quickly seduced by the potential of the vast wealth of gold, gems, and treasures found in Oz, Oscar slowly comes to realize that Theodora and Evanora are not exactly who they claim to be. When he learns of the plight of most of the citizens of Oz through Glinda, Oscar must choose a side and raise an army to stop the oppression of the people of Oz, in the process becoming the great man – and a man of substance – that he never was before.

First, the good: Oz The Great And Powerful is as visually amazing as fans and cinephiles would hope it could be. Disney has, apparently, used the last three years exceptionally well. While Alice In Wonderland had moments that looked exceptionally like one was watching an awkward animated movie, Oz The Great And Powerful does not; it looks like a true, real setting. The 3-D is incredible and the creatures look like they match the real-world (which is mostly CG in Oz, though the actors are, largely, real). While some of the creatures look derivative – one of the earliest creatures seen in Oz bears a striking resemblance to the Tooth Fairies from Hellboy 2: The Golden Army (reviewed here!) - Oz The Great And Powerful tries hard to make the sense of magic and wonder match The Wizard Of Oz while employing the latest technology to push the envelope of what can be done.

As well, the pacing in Oz The Great And Powerful is good. The film is long, but it does not feel long, it moves at a decent pace, establishing wonder and reversal with a very steady sense of movement.

Unfortunately, where the movie is going is hardly original . . . on pretty much any front. One of the key battles between Glinda and the Wicked Witch was shot in a way that reminded me a great deal of the final battle in Dark City (reviewed here!). Everything else just seemed like it was plotted out from Alice In Wonderland, though Oz The Great And Powerful does not belabor Oscar whining about whether or not Oz is real (unlike Alice’s prolonged whining in the other film), which is nice. Heroes in the process of becoming are familiar stories and it is tough to do something new with that, especially in a single movie, but Oz The Great And Powerful does not even try; it goes with an obvious, formulaic progression as Oscar is tempted, learns the truth, learns a deeper truth, and digs into his soul to take the obvious high road. Hell, in true Disney form, he goes with the blonde!

The best we might say about the acting in Oz The Great And Powerful is that almost all the time, the performers interact with the virtual sets and characters flawlessly. Beyond that . . . James Franco is stiff and he plays Oscar as a man playing charming, as opposed to a character who is innately charming. This is, unfortunately, not the worst the film has to offer in terms of performances. Mila Kunis often seems like she is sleepwalking through the role of Theodora and Michelle Williams’s performance of Glinda is monotonous. Williams plays in a narrow sliver of emotional depth for the character – quickly illustrating deep pathos for the citizens of Oz, but opting for an optimism that seems utterly simplistic in this day in age. Rachel Weisz abandons all subtlety as Evanora the longer the film goes on and her performance lacks any genuine emotional depth.

Oz The Great And Powerful is a popcorn movie and for those who go for family-friendly, big-budget special effects films, the film will satisfy. It is solidly entertaining. Unfortunately, it is nothing beyond that; Disney aims for spectacle over meaning and they nail it perfectly for that with Oz The Great And Powerful.

For other Disney live-action works, please check out my reviews of:
The Odd Life Of Timothy Green
John Carter
Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
Tron: Legacy
Oceans
Prince Of Persia: The Sands Of Time
Old Dogs
G-Force
Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World's End
Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
The Chronicles Of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe
Pirates Of The Caribbean: The Curse Of The Black Pearl
The Princess Diaries 2: A Royal Engagement
The Princess Diaries
Tron
4/10

For other film reviews, please check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2013 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

The Coen Brothers Take Us To Miller’s Crossing, A Mildly Nostalgic Trip

The Good: Excellent acting, Interesting characters, Cinematography, decent DVD extras
The Bad: Convoluted plot that does not go very far, Slow and drawn out
The Basics: When Tom, a counselor to a lead gangster, finds himself on the outs with his employer, his bookie and his woman, the viewer is treated to a beautiful looking film.


Lately, I've been seeing some works I've been looking forward to for quite some time. Perhaps the most anticipated work that I've finally sat down to is Miller’s Crossing. This 1990 cinematic outing by the Coen Brothers (possibly best known still for Fargo) was largely neglected by the major awards and seems to have become something of a cult classic. I remember seeing a real compelling preview for it years ago (not the trailer that is on the DVD, which is one of those terrible trailers which virtually shows the entire movie) and I'd been looking forward to seeing it ever since.

Tom Reagan, Prohibition-era gangster advisor, finds himself in a world of trouble when the boss he counsels, Leo, offends a rising gangster named Johnny Caspar simply by not taking his desire to kill a bookie seriously. Caspar fixes fights and places bets with Bernie Bernbaum, who then sells the information on who Caspar is betting on to others, who flood money into the pool and effectively alter the odds so there will be no payout. Caspar wants to kill Bernie, who is under Leo's protection and Leo blows him off.

Sadly, Leo neglects Tom's counsel in large part because he is in love with Bernie's sister, Verna. Tom is involved with Verna as well and this sets off a string of problems for Tom that are compounded by his gambing debts. Rejected by Leo, he finds himself approaching Caspar, evading Bernie, and in a weird relationship with Verna. When Caspar's lieutenant, the Dane, suspects Tom might be double-crossing Caspar, Tom must figure out how to save his own life, which involves setting all his enemies against each other.

Miller’s Crossing is a beautifully shot film that reminds the viewer of just how important cinematography can be to establishing mood and setting. One of the few DVD bonuses on this disc is a conversation with Barry Sonnenfeld, who discusses his shooting philosophies and ideas for how Miller’s Crossing was framed and created. It's worthwhile, educational and highlights how much thought went into the look and feel of this gangster film.

And the result is a beautiful-looking film. Miller’s Crossing is inarguably a wonderful looking movie. Few films leap right to mind as being assembled so well that what the film looks like tells so much of the story. Indeed, I would be tempted to spend an evening simply watching the film without sound just to soak in the color contrasts, the murky forest that stands starkly against the sharp, beautifully appointed - almost opulent - rooms of Leo's various palaces. Directors Joel and Ethan Coen and Director of Photography Sonnenfeld have a wonderful sense of style that is virtually lost in films outside the art house's now.

Sadly, while the look of the film is wonderful, the feel is anything but. Almost homogeneously slow with characters belaboring the complexities of the plot which is universally based on the concept of which character is betraying the others based on their relationships. So, for example, the Dane has a prominent place in the movie as Caspar's lieutenant, who is having a homosexual relationship with Mink, who is involved with both the Dane and Bernie. Tom manipulates the Dane's love of Mink with Caspar to sew seeds of distrust between the boss and his closest advisor. The webs that are woven between the various characters are all similarly complex and much of the time on screen for the characters is simply spent defining who is relating to who or how someone is tugging at a character based on those relationships.

Miller’s Crossing is a big film about relationships. The problem with it is that almost all of the dialogue belabors that, it is spent defining and explaining the relationships rather than illustrating most of the relationships. So, there is a vast amount of time of the movie spent with characters talking about other characters and musing on how they related. The result is a movie that feels like watching a house of cards being assembled where the person building the structure is belaboring what card is being placed now and what cards it is atop and proximate to.

Fortunately, it looks so good. But also, the characters are interesting. Despite a plot that is dependent on all sorts of character exposition in order to be even remotely sensible, Miller’s Crossing is populated by interesting characters. In one of the other extras, clips of television interviews (sadly, there is no commentary on this version), Marcia Gay Harden - who plays Verna - speaks about her joy at playing a very different female character. She is in a period piece, but playing a strong female character who is not the hooker-with-a-heart of gold, but rather a very independent, strong woman who is running her own game.

And Tom Reagan makes for a wonderful protagonist. Tom is an anti-hero, a gangster who is in deep debt from gambling who will not allow his boss to simply make good on his debts for him, despite the peril it puts him in. Indeed, Tom's big problem is his integrity on some level; he gives Leo good advice, which Leo simply ignores, and he is honest with Leo about his relationship with Verna, which puts him on the outs with his boss and plunges his life into real peril.

The peripherals and supporting characters are all easy to watch and enjoy. Indeed, Mink appears on screen only once and is stunningly memorable for his brief appearance. Bernie Bernbaum is deliciously manipulative and at moments utterly pitiable. Leo and Caspar both have the bearings of genuine leaders and the Dane is a surprisingly strong supporting player on a very full tapestry.

The joy of Miller’s Crossing has to be the acting. All of the performers in this film bring their "a game" to the movie. Gabriel Byrne is Tom and he plays the role unlike anything I've ever seen him in, though he does have a coldness to him that he played in subsequent roles. J.E. Freeman is brilliantly pokerfaced as Eddie Dane. Indeed, one of the coolest moments of the entire cinematic experience involved the Dane's using Verna as a human shield while taking out two bodyguards. Freeman uses his body fluidly and brilliantly in such a way that seems effortless and stylistically wonderful, yet utterly real and a part of the world created for this movie.

Marcia Gay Harden, who I loved in The Spitfire Grill (reviewed here!), once again illustrates her complete range of talent by providing a performance that is strong and opposite almost every other film I've seen her in. Here she is a major player and she holds her own in a very manly movie. She and Byrne have great on-screen chemistry which sells their relationship perfectly.

The one to watch, though, is Jon Polito. I was familiar with Polito before this film solely from an episode of Millennium called "Omerta" from its third season (reviewed here!), where he played a quirky reformed gangster. The role was wonderful and weird and when Polito opened Miller’s Crossing, he was instantly recognized by me. Usually, I judge an actor and their performance on how different it is from their established cannon of works. Polito wonderfully and expertly plays essentially the same character I had seen before in Millennium in a very different context. He manages to balance humor and efficiency wonderfully and despite the similarities in characters and performances, Polito steals every scene he is in.

It's just enough to recommend this film. As someone who has watched hundreds of movies in the last year, it's hard to find something I still find new and intriguing and I suspect if I had less experience with films, I would have enjoyed Miller’s Crossing a lot more. It's an enjoyable film, but it belabors itself because it is complicated, but not long, though it feels long in parts. It is beautifully shot, with a wonderful score and interesting characters. The performances are great, but most of the work was done in the casting; this movie has a truly great ensemble and is likely to delight those who are tired of giant a-list heavy films. This is a rather manly film, but it is not brainless guy fare and may be accessible to women who like a good gangster film that is a bit quirkier than the average drama.

But it's not for the faint of heart; this is a bloody movie obsessed with relationships and how messy they can be. I'm glad I watched it, finally, even if I did find myself wishing for more.

For other movies with gangsters, be sure to check out my reviews of:
The Godfather
The Whole Ten Yards
The Untouchables

6.5/10

For other film reviews, please be sure to visit my index page on the subject by clicking here!

© 2012, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

With Spider-man 3, Sam Raimi Gets Strike 3 - He's Out!

The Good: Thomas Hayden Church/Flint Marko, James Franco/Harry Osborn
The Bad: The Sandman, Most of the other characters, acting and plot, Special effects
The Basics: Outside a few moments where James Franco and Thomas Hayden Church are given the screen and enough script to work with, Spider-Man 3 is a dud.


Before I give my bottomline on Spider-man 3, let me tell you how much I was looking forward to it. I didn't get into the whole cinematic Spider-man phenomenon the last few years as the film franchise began. I relented the last day Spider-man (reviewed here!) was at my local theater, just to see what all the fuss was about. Then, nothing. When buzz about Spider-Man 3 began, I saw an image of Thomas Hayden Church and I said to myself, "he looks just like the Sandman!" See, the weird thing is, I don't remember ever seeing an episode of anything with Sandman in it, but I saw the striped shirt and I knew who he was supposed to me. Time passed. It leaked that Venom was going to be in the film, my interest was piqued. Topher Grace was announced as Eddie Brock, Jr. (who transforms into Venom) and my thought was "That's brilliant casting!" Brock has to have the same gravitas as Peter Parker, they are foil characters and Topher Grace struck me as an ideal foil to the bland, wholesome Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker. So, I began to get excited. I saw the first trailer and I was excited up until the moment I saw the first images of the Sandman and my heart fell. Nevertheless, I knew I was going to be one of the geeks out for the midnight showing, so I decided to let my love of actor Alfred Molina take over and I recently watched Spider-man 2 (reviewed here!). Having just now returned from the midnight showing of Spider-man 3, I'm prepared to render my bottomline verdict right here at the top: if you haven't purchased your tickets yet, don't bother.

This is, at best, matinee material. Had I known it would be as bad as it was, I would have waited until it came to my local library on DVD and watched it for free. Seriously. And I was generally looking forward to this installment! Come with me, I'll show you where it all goes wrong.

Following quite immediately on the heels of its predecessor, Peter Parker is very much in love with Mary Jane Watson and after a visit with her to her Broadway opening and a night in the park, Peter tracks some alien goo home. Because it's good, sedate goo, it waits for Peter to be attacked by Harry Osborn, who knows he is Spider-man. Incapacitating his former best friend, Peter wounds Harry and Osborn loses his memory. While Harry recovers, Peter neglects Mary Jane Watson some and finds himself in a competition at his job with a new photographer named Eddie Brock. When Spider-man is attacked while getting the key to the city - for saving the police commissioner's daughter from a random crane - by a sentient pile of sand, Peter becomes lost to his inner demons.

Returning home, Peter falls victim to a very real demon, the patient black goo, which causes him to become more aggressive by picking a fight with the Sandman, who he has learned is Flint Marko, the thief who killed his uncle. Defeating the Sandman with a train and water, the transformed Spider-man/Peter Parker begins to become more aggressive, picking fights with Eddie Brock, pushing away Mary Jane, strutting pointlessly around New York City, and ultimately engaging in a big dance number with Gwen Stacy (I wish I were joking, people). Following this incident, which culminates in even more violence, Parker rejects the black goo, Brock gets slimed by it and everything comes together in a big, ridiculous hostage situation/battle that is as silly and frenetic as it is predictable.

Let's start with what is done well, because there is so little here. First, Thomas Hayden Church does well as Flint Marko. I'm making a point to delineate here. Flint Marko, sympathetic cat burglar who is after a whole lot of cash for his ailing daughter is lightyears ahead of most villains in this type of movie. Marko has a purpose and he generally goes after that purpose. Thomas Hayden Church is remarkably well cast and he has good gravitas in the role. Indeed, when he delivers his classic line "I'm not a bad man, I've just had bad luck," it could have come out sounding canned, dull and cliche, but he sells it. While Church is Marko, the character works. That means in the beginning and the end. When Church is playing the Sandman . . . we'll get to that in a moment.

The other bright spot is James Franco as Harry Osborn. Franco is an acting heavy and here he comes into his own like I've known he eventually would. Franco held the screen with Robert De Niro in City By The Sea and here he shows the same level of acting ability in playing the tortured and tormenting Osborn. When he's angry, we believe him, when he's calculating, we buy it. When he's hurt, he makes us feel like he is diminished. He is the one to watch this film.

I wish I could say the same for Topher Grace. Grace was well cast to be a foil to Tobey Maguire. The problem is Eddie Brock is so poorly written that Grace has virtually nothing to work with. Brock is an accessory to the Parker storyline and he is added in at such judicious intervals that the viewer sits and wonders why they bothered. If they were going to plague us with a Spider-man 4, he ought to have been saved for that. As it is, Brock appears in only one scene without Parker and Venom comes into the film so ridiculously late as to belay sensibility.

The other draw is Bryce Dallas Howard as Gwen Stacy. I don't begrudge her from taking airtime from Kirsten Dunst, but the part is a pretty weak one. Despite the fact that Gwen Stacy has one of the few genuine moments of character in the entire movie - when she realizes that the possessed Peter Parker is using her in the big dance number solely to hurt Mary Jane, Stacy apologizes to her - most of the time Howard's role is to play Gwen Stacy as a damsel in distress and a toy to be tossed between Brock and Parker and then away.

To finish off the subject of the acting, both Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst continue to underwhelm as Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson. Maguire is bland and dull and when he is supposedly having his character conflicts, he plays Parker as bland, with a strut. There's no energy, there's no aggression, there's no hurt or determination. He's just dull. Similarly, Dunst failed to impress me in a single scene she was in. As Mary Jane Watson, she does not appear stung when hit, seduced when kissing, even angry when spited. Worst of all when Watson, damsel in distress that she is, is literally hanging for her life, Dunst does not play her with any realistic amount of fear.

But, of course, what does it matter? She's a woman after all. Women in Spider-Man 3 are either helpless damsels in distress (Watson and Stacy), objects to be leered at (the many women of Parker's strutting sequence) or crones who pop up with wisdom after everything has already been made clear (Aunt May). And the less said about the women in the background of crowd scenes the better. When Spider-man is announced as he comes to get the key to the city, some of the supernumeraries in the background are hamming it up something fierce with their "I see the Rapture" performances.

The only thing worse than the bulk of the acting and the utter lack of genuine character (outside Flint Marko and Harry Osborn) are the special effects. Special effects ought to be . . . wait for it . . . special. They can enhance great acting, they can make the impossible real and they can create realities that simply would be otherwise difficult or expensive to make. But most of all, the key to visual effects is something simple:

You have to be able to see it.

Any truly great special effect stands up because it can be seen. The best effects integrate with reality and meld with actual live human footage seamlessly. The result is the creation of a new reality on screen that makes the impossible real and the best effects make that clear. In The Lord Of The Rings trilogy, Gollum becomes believable because he is lit perfectly, he moves like a human and because the audience can see him and evaluate him as a part of the reality on the screen.

The first battle of the movie, wherein Harry Osborn as a New Goblin gets into a big, aerial fight with Peter Parker, the special effects are anything but special. Everything happens with such dizzying speed that nothing is comprehensible. Nothing in the scene is real because it happens on a giant screen at a speed that is so fast that nothing sinks in. To wit, Harry whips out something green and starts beating Peter with it. Is it a lightsaber? Is it a baton? It is a letter opener? It is an inanimate carbon rod? Who knows? It's not shown clearly until far, far later in the movie. In order for special effects to work, they have to be real and the speed here cheats reality in such a way that the scene becomes a big, blurry mess.

Moreover, the use of CG characters for Peter/Spider-man, Harry/Goblin and later Venom and the Sandman are almost all universally sloppy. They look animated most of the time and it's unfortunate because robbing the scenes of their reality pulls the viewer out of the experience in a very horrible way.

Which brings me to the Sandman. The Sandman is presented essentially two different ways. At times, he is in the very human form of Flint Marko. Those scenes are great because it's mostly Thomas Hayden Church in a striped shirt. Sometimes, the Sandman is just a big hunk of . . . you guessed it, sand. The formation of the Sandman wherein the sand first tries desperately to coalesce into the man works well, especially considering much of it is done without the ability to emote through the eyes. That works.

What did not work was virtually every other scene where the Sandman appeared as sand. Leaping out of a full truck of sand, appearing as an apparent mountain of sand and even the final disappearance of the Sandman featuring a wind that only blows sand (not anyone nearby's hair . . .). The whole Sandman portion of the film suffers from the "Hellboy Villain Problem." In the cinematic version of Hellboy the movie suffers because the villain simply continues to get bigger and bigger (physically). Flint Marko works, initial Sandman works, Big Fist Sandman is an embarrassment and by the time we get to Skyscraper-sized Sandman (seen in many of the trailers!), the effect is so far out of reality that the movie is long dead. The effects buried it.

Of course, the poor effects might have been the final nail in the coffin of a movie that lopped off a leg with a lack of character, took the other leg off with bland acting, and tied both hands behind the back of the film with a crummy script. Spider-Man 3 was bound and gagged by extended self-referential bits. I like the Marvel movie's "Where's Stan Lee?" bits. They can make even the worst Marvel outings have two seconds of pleasure. In Spider-man 3, that moment is longer. So, too, is the "cameo" by Bruce Campbell. Don't get me wrong; I like Bruce Campbell, but his extended appearance in this movie as the maitre d' is just an homage to Campbell and it pulls the viewer out of the narrative. I will not even write about the supposed comic relief involving J. Jonah Jameson. This sort of self-congratulatory, acknowledging the film series as a film series just stuffs a big, sweaty sock in the mouth of our already wounded movie.

But what shot this poor, dumb movie in the skull between the eyes? The big dance number. You've no idea how much I wish I were making up the idea that after strutting around a la Saturday Night Fever, Peter Parker shames Mary Jane Watson by dancing manically. And as I watched this scene, I became more and more sick to my stomach. I realized why with surprising speed; the scene was familiar to me. I had seen this type of ridiculous, exaggerated dancing before. Where? The Mask. You know, the Jim Carrey movie? Peter Parker with black goo becomes Jim Carrey in a zoot suit.

The film does not come back from that. It doesn't matter how arguably cool looking Venom is when he finally emerges. It doesn't matter how debilitatingly predictable the movie becomes in relation to Peter Parker and Harry Osborn, the movie is dead the moment Tobey Maguire is seen at the piano. It's dead. Period.

My final post mortum is this: the writers of this movie insulted me time and time again and one of the most blatant insults was the idea that no one working on this film seems to know what short term memory is. When Peter and Harry engage in their time-lapse opening battle, Harry - the viewer is told - loses his short term memory. This includes him not knowing Peter Parker is Spider-man and how his father died, an event that occurred two years prior. Two years ago puts the damage in long term memory. Short term memory is like a flash drive, maybe fifteen minutes worth of information before it is archived into long term memory. Damage to short term memory is debilitating for forming new memories, as portrayed in the fabulous film Memento. My point here is that this is information that is widely known, a mistake like this up front is just insulting. It was bad enough my senses were assaulted, I didn't need my intelligence insulted as well.

If you feel like you must see Spider-man 3, heed my advice (well, my strongest recommendation would be "don't, until you can do it for free!") and wait for a matinee or for it to come to the dollar theater on its way out of town. Between trying to cram too much in, underdeveloping what is there, suffering through performances by the same bland actors and special effects that are more cartoon-like than reality, Spider-Man 3 is a bust.

For other movies based upon the Marvel comic books, please check out my reviews of:
Captain America: The First Avenger
X-Men: First Class
Thor
Iron Man 2
The Incredible Hulk
Fantastic Four: Rise Of The Silver Surfer
Blade: Trinity
Elektra
Daredevil


3.5/10

For other film reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

A Step-Up Sequel, But Still Not Quite There: Spider-man 2

The Good: Harry Osborn's character, Acting
The Bad: Most of the character, Special effects, Plot
The Basics: When Peter Parker questions his decisions, he decides to let mayhem rule by giving up Spider-man, which gives him the strength to make the same decision he made before in Spider-man 2.


Spider-man 2, no subtitles, was a close call for me and in the pantheon of terrible superhero movies I have been subjecting myself to lately, well, this does not apply. However, were it not for the string of really bad superhero movies I've seen lately, I would likely be a bit more harsh on Spider-man 2. As it stands, the only real crime this movie exhibits is being average. It's a remarkably average superhero movie. By that, I mean that it does some things well, it does some things poorly and the result is a movie that ends up thoroughly in the middle of the road.

Roughly two years after the events in Spider-man, Peter Parker still longs for Mary Jane Watson, Harry Osborn still pines over his dead father and Spider-man is still considered ambiguously between a hero and a menace. Peter Parker finds himself fired from his day job, struggling at school and failing to make ends meet when he comes in contact with the brilliant scientist Dr. Otto Octavius. Octavius is working to create a power source that is reminiscent of cold fusion; a near-unending supply of energy harnessed from a very tiny amount of tridium (in this case).

To assist him, he has built four nearly indestructible metal arms that can work in environments too hot for human flesh (the fusion reaction Octavius is experimenting with essentially becomes a miniature sun). In the test, however, the experiment goes awry, Octavius' wife is accidentally killed and the scientist is transformed into a monster who is controlled by the arms, except when he isn't.

Spider-man 2 suffers from having circumstances that are entirely dependent on the plot. Spider-man begins to suffer from a form of performance anxiety akin to impotence that thwarts him for a time, then disappears exactly when he needs it the most. Similarly, Dr. Octavius immediately seems tortured by the decisions and actions of the arms when they take over. Indeed, early on after the transformation, the arms move Octavius around. However, that concern and humanity disappears until almost the final act when Octavius simply exerts his will once again.

It makes little sense on a character front either. Octavius starts the movie as a scientist and altruist. He is a man reluctant to be funded by Osborn's corporation because he wants the energy source he develops to benefit the entire world, not just make a few people very rich. Unfortunately, the moment the arms begin to exert influence, Octavius is sunk. Indeed, it does not take any real convincing on the part of the arms to influence the scientist. They engage with him in a discussion with the logical simplicity of Quagmire convincing Peter Griffin to not feel bad about lying to his wife and drinking beer in the pilot to Family Guy, when Quagmire says, "Don't feel bad." Similarly, Octavius' instinctive reaction to the influence of the arms is brushed aside when they apparently tell him to keep working on the fusion source.

Come to think of it, what kind of mo builds super powerful mechanical arms and gives them intelligence? I understand giving them programming to function, but what possible use could debate skills serve robotic arms outside taking over their human master? That's just stupid. Add to that, after the initial exchange, where Octavius is clearly not in command (note his body language), there are no scenes of reinforcement where the arms illustrate that they continue to control him. From that point on, Doc Ock is a willing participant in the mayhem.

Good thing Spiderman has gone on a sabbatical. Peter Parker decides between his web-slinging impotence and his desire to stop disappointing Mary Jane Watson, who is now affianced to another man, he will give up being Spider-man. Because nothing says "You impress me" to a woman like giving up being heroic. The message here is clear; without the outfit, normal people are lethargic and will actively avoid doing anything remotely inconvenient, much less heroic. We are meant to believe that a man who has spent two years as a vigilante, who has sacrificed the love of the woman he has wanted for over a decade to fight the wrongs of the Earth, would see a young person getting beaten up in an alley, who calls out for help, and would walk away. No need to call for help, Peter Parker.

That is the sort of inane level of character that Spider-man 2 sinks to that prevents me from recommending it. And I feel bad on that front, because some of the actors are pretty incredible. Alfred Molina, the sole selling point of the movie for me (I did not enjoy the first Spider-man, reviewed here!), is a great actor and when the film uses him, he works well. The problem is, Molina is an actor who could give the role depth and a great deal of perspective. Instead, between the role that is written and the sheer number of special effects shots that Doc Ock is a part of, Molina is not given a chance to shine.

And on the special effects, I was largely underwhelmed. Director Sam Raimi is clearly trying to wow the audience with shots that treat walking on the sides of buildings like walking down the street for Doc Ock, but almost all of the shots using the CG Doc Ock (and the various characters he grabs with his mechanical arms) lose the human element to the character. The film is so concerned with throwing around massive pieces of brickwork, concrete and bags of money, that it loses the subtlety of human expression. That works with Spider-man, being that his face is in a mask, it doesn't with Doc Ock or the supplementals.

The actor who manages to sell us on his character and whose character continues to be both interesting and worth watching is James Franco as Harry Osborn. Franco continues to milk the sulking son who has lost a father character arc which he portrays through a seething vengeance. Franco is great at that. We believe his character is obsessed with finding and destroying Spider-man. That works.

Unfortunately, Franco's role and Osborn's story are almost lost amid the threads of Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson, Peter's aunt's money problems, and the raging battle between Spiderman and Doc Ock. So, while Spider-man 2 is certainly better than Spider-man, it's not enough to recommend and it's not enough to return to.

Fortunately, for those who missed the first movie and who do not want to subject themselves to it, the opening credit sequence to Spider-man 2 tells the essential story so far to catch viewers up. Thank goodness for small favors.

For other movies based upon the Marvel comic books, please check out my reviews of:
Captain America: The First Avenger
X-Men: First Class
Thor
Iron Man 2
The Incredible Hulk
Fantastic Four: Rise Of The Silver Surfer
Blade: Trinity
Elektra
Daredevil

5.5/10

For other film reviews, please visit my index page on the subject by clicking here!

© 2011, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

Return Of The Blockbusters, Without The Quirky Brilliance: Spider-Man

The Good: Moments of acting, Moments of story, Moments of character
The Bad: Special effects, Much of the acting and character, Way the plot is underdeveloped
The Basics: When bitten by a radioactive spider, Peter Parker develops into Spider-man and combats a mentally-ill scientist who is blowing up everything. Sigh.


I consider the moment Tim Burton's Batman made its debut in theaters to be the moment that superhero movies crossed over into the mega-blockbuster range. Batman, even more than the Superman movies of the late '70s offered viewers something different and a superhero viewing experience they seemed willing to see repeatedly. Indeed, I once worked at a camp with a person who had watched Batman on video almost every day for a year and had thus gone through two VHS tapes. Admittedly, he was a loser, but the point here is that with Batman, the market exploded for big-budget, mega-grossing super hero movies. The summer blockbuster season has become hinged on them.

With Spider-man, we have an origin story and whatever problems the movie has are not necessarily in the story itself, but rather how it is presented.

Peter Parker, high school student and budding photographer, is bitten by a radioactive spider which mutates him into a young man with some fairly extraordinary abilities. Among them, he finds himself able to scale surfaces (like brick walls) which would normally be impossible for humans, he can move faster and is stronger and he develops what can only be assumed is a glandular disorder that allows him to shoot webs from his wrists. Paralleling his mutation story, industrialist Norman Osborn, head of Oscorp, is infected by a nerve gas that causes him to develop an alternate persona of his own, the Green Goblin. So, as Peter Parker develops Spider-man, he finds himself in conflict with the Green Goblin, who is the father of his best friend.

It is a pretty standard superhero origin story. We need to know who the characters are, how they develop and equally important, why. Peter Parker is heavily influenced by his uncle, Ben Parker, who encourages him toward fighting for good. And, for the most part, that works (it becomes a problem in Spider-man 2) here. And we may even be able to excuse the obviousness of Norman Osborn's transformation; he essentially becomes plagued with a mental illness, so we can understand how a businessman becomes a heartless killer and begins doing unprofitable things (whenever a brilliant scientist and/or businessman betrays their character so completely, we need a real decent explanation).

I'm not one to complain about ambition, I like ambitious films. It's tough to do an ambitious superhero story that does justice to all the necessary plotlines. It's doubly tough to make an origin story that focuses both on the origin of the hero and the origin of the villain. To return to the Batman example, part of what worked so well is that the story mortgaged much of the superhero origin story for the villain origin story; Batman is more about the life and death of the Joker than how Bruce Wayne became Batman. Tim Burton and company included just enough of the Wayne to Batman origin to serve the character needs and to further the Joker plotline. Spider-man, by comparison is either too ambitious - too many plotlines - or not ambitious enough (not long enough to properly develop the various threads). So, Peter Parker is dealing with his transformation, his love for Mary Jane Watson, the conflict that raises with his best friend Harry Osborn, his family problems, and a new job as a newspaper photographer. This is not to say that the threads don't interweave, but they often feel like they are not fully served.

This problem is exacerbated by the Green Goblin origin story. Perhaps only Unbreakable (reviewed here!) has attempted to do a superhero origin story without creating a supervillain, but back in the day, that's how most of the stories began. The first issues of Superman, Superman is rescuing cats from trees for the neighbors, not turning back time by spinning the world backwards. So, like Batman, Spider-man (the movie) might have been better served by being sparse on some fronts and focusing on the origin story it truly wanted to tell.

One of the immediate plotlines I would have cut would have been the Mary Jane Watson storyline. It seems every superhero movie needs a romantic subplot (I've been watching a lot of them lately and all the Marvel Comics movies have it), but here it feels somewhat forced. Peter Parker lives in one of the biggest cities on Earth. There are a LOT of women there. He's fixated on Mary Jane Watson. Fine. Why? That's not explored so much and Watson's character never comes through in a way to encourage his single-minded devotion. Moreover, with her dating his best friend, one might assume given the mores of our time and place, Peter Parker would take several big steps backward. Even if they were to break up, once the best friend has dated someone, she's pretty much off-limits. But, apparently that's not the case for someone who has pledged himself to Good. Maybe vigilantism excuses the violations of the lesser social mores.

Similarly, at the Daily Bugle, where Peter Parker becomes employed, the character of J. Jonah Jameson is just plain annoying. I can see how the character might work in the pages of the comic book, bellowing out orders all the time, but in film it fizzles. Jameson becomes an argument against that old-fashioned management style of sitting in the office yelling at the workers. He just does not work.

And the shame of it is, that the cast is not bad. Outside Kirsten Dunst, who just seems to be here as an accessory (read: eye candy), this is a talented cast. James Franco takes what is essentially a bit role as Best Friend and Son of Villain and makes it his own. Franco is eminently watchable and he rules the few scenes he is in in the movie. It's easy to see how his talents have continued to get him decent roles (watch City By The Sea!).

Willem Dafoe gives a great performance as Norman Osborn. In the process of the transformation, Dafoe does a good job of portraying the torment that comes from the voices in his head. Unfortunately, the moment the Green Goblin begins to dominate, all the acting in the world from Dafoe does not matter (see comments on special effects below). So this becomes an instance of a talented actor trapped in a role that does not make effective use of this abilities.

And then there is Tobey Maguire. He's dull. I'm sorry, I know that's not chic to say. Maguire is playing a shy character who longs for something different and he never convinces me that he's not an actor playing the role when he's Peter Parker. And, to be fair to the actor, part of the problem is in the presentation. The film opens with Parker doing a monologue that sets up for immediate disappointment. Parker basically sets up for excitement and the extraordinary, but the movie takes way too long to get there. That is, he starts the movie by claiming his story is not for the faint of heart. His story can take people with any heart condition; he's a generally normal guy who gets super powers. Norman Osborn's story is not for the faint of heart; he's rushing toward the top of the world when he is stricken with a malaise. The point here is that Maguire is not given much to work with and what he is given, he doesn't sell convincingly.

But even more than Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace, Spider-man relies on special effects and the use of computer generated characters for much of the action. While The Phantom Menace used CGI to the extreme with the character of Jar Jar Binks, an annoying supplemental character, Spider-man's battles use CG imagery extensively and the effect is overall quite poor. The battles are stylized and look, well, computer generated.

And yes, I'll be the one to raise the annoying nitpicky point; the difference between the film Spider-man and the comic book(s) is that the conceits are revealed for their weaknesses on the big screen. Spider-man shoots webs from his wrists. Neat concept that works in comic books. On film, this just becomes ridiculous; Spider-man ultimately shoots out what has to be at least twice Peter Parker's mass in webs throughout the movie (probably that much in the climactic scenes alone). The effect on screen is ultimately silly.

Spider-man is trumpeted as a triumphant movie, but it falls short on enough levels that I cannot recommend it. It tries for too much (or, again, not enough) and ends up feeling unsatisfying.

For other movies based upon the Marvel comic books, please check out my reviews of:
Captain America: The First Avenger
X-Men: First Class
Thor
Iron Man 2
The Incredible Hulk
Fantastic Four: Rise Of The Silver Surfer
Blade: Trinity
Elektra
Daredevil

4.5/10

For other film reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.


| | |