The Amazing Spider Man, and His Cougar Girlfriend

Synopsis:


A young man acquires unexpected abilities and discovers his calling when he seeks to right the consequences of his irresponsibility.


Review:


OK, so I am rocketing towards becoming an old man and it's interesting to survey my interests to see how many things I dabble in that would be considered childish. I still enjoy video games, drawing "cool stuff", and I find myself continuing to look forward to the super hero movies, based on comics I have, admittedly, mostly grown out of. Now, it's pretty obvious why I grew out of most of the comics I read. While the work of the more talented artists, with Rob Liefeld leading the vanguard of their antithesis, would continue to appeal to my aesthetic sensibilities and appreciation for the skill of the artists, the lion's share of the writing is quite juvenile. So, I rarely read comics any more but I continue to have a strange hunger for the celluloid genesis of many of the characters I can no longer stomach in print.


The Amazing Spider Man was the most recent itch that had to be scratched. I had grown to dislike Sam Raimi's Spider Man trilogy over the ensuing years for their 50's pulpy twists, like close-ups of women screaming into the camera with hands pressed to each side of their face. The horribly over villained 3rd installment removed for pure badness, the first two were too filled with a certain sense of geeky awkwardness that didn't come as much from Peter Parker but from the choices of the film makers who just piled bad choices on until the films became an overbearing pastiche of 50's schlock, self conscious comedy, and the very juvenile writing that ruined comics for me to begin with. Now, admittedly, any comic movie is going to have a large serving of juvenalia that has to be mentally suspended. It just needs to be handled in an intelligent, adult-like, manner. Now, Chris Nolan's Batman movies approach juvenile fantasy with an adult touch.


I was curious to see if The Amazing Spider Man could start over again with a little bit more of a grounded, real world, adult edge to it. First off, I really do dislike reboots. Taking chances on original ideas is just too much work, right? And, sitting through Spider Man's origin story, AGAIN, was pretty tiresome. It makes sense that the film makers need to put their touch on it, but it's such a waste to sit through a good hour, or about $8 in modern movie terms, of a repackaged re-run. There were a few tweaks here and there, but it's mostly the same. The big difference, in this case, is that I actually like Andrew Garfield, as Peter Parker, more than Tobey McGuire. He was awkward, but still brash, and was just more fun to watch. But, again, I wanted to see something truly different.


So, the first real difference in the origin story is that they chose Gwen Stacey to be Peter Parker's paramour instead of Mary Jane Watson. Not a real biggie, but here's where The Amazing Spider Man really bugged me. Emma Stone was chosen to play Gwen and, while Andrew Garfield pulled off playing a teen relatively well and without blaring red lights, Emma Stone felt like she was even more mature than her actual 24 years of age, let alone 17. Now, it's not entirely her fault, but let me lay it out for you, and this is where the juvenile unimaginative writing, that really messes up potentially cool stuff for me, comes into play.


See, Gwen is, as a 17 year old, the main antagonist's right-hand man/intern. She orients visitors to the ground breaking work her mentor is doing with the poise of a woman in her mid-20's, has complete access (24/7) to all of the top secret files and areas of the lab she works in, again as an intern, and understands how all of the sophisticated equipment in the lab works, like a seasoned PhD. It's actually maddening. It makes so little sense, and is so unnecessary to the story, that I want to strangle the writers so badly. How hard would it be to give her the same job, but instead of giving her unfettered access to everything she needs, purely to make her more important and to move the story forward, that she is just a bright intern, with real world access, who uses her basic knowledge of the facilities and what the equipment does to work with Peter, combing their smarts, to break into the lab and "hack" stuff to get the job done? I'm not saying that's super realistic, but don't make it so that your story only works because you magically gift a 17 year old girl with the responsibility, poise, and knowledge, of a woman twice her actual age... It's preposterous and stupid, and it makes Peter's relationship with Gwen feel really off. You look at her and you see a mature woman. You look at Peter and you kind of feel like he's actually a young man who doesn't know what to do around girls. What's that add up to? Gwen goes through the entire movie looking like a cougar instead of a teenager.


A lot of other stuff happened in the movie, but all I kept telling myself was, "she's not 17." There would be a really nicely done sequence of spider FX and then Gwen would appear, and my brain would scream, "she's not 17!" That took me out of the moment quite a few times.


Other than that, and the slightly problematic fact that the villain wasn't that compelling and his motivation, and the visualization of it (in one instance, bunches of tiny lizards multiplying on a computer screen like a computer screen from the 80's instead of 2012)... Wait, that's a pretty big problem. That's what made Iron Man not nearly as cool as it should have been and what made an already bad movie, Green Lantern, even worse. You have to make your villains more villainous... more human... more real. The motivation to do bad things has to be more compelling than a lame 2 minute monologue about how the world's not fair. Instead of spending half of the movie telling a story you've already seen, spend that time making the villain more villainous, so that the moviegoer really wants that man-lizard to go down hard, instead of just enjoying the fireworks of a kind-of cool fight scene.


Spider Man has some real motivation, which most of the people lining up to see The Amazing Spider Man already know about. He screwed up. His indifference caused a loved one to get hurt. He tries to make up for it, at first for himself alone, and then for everyone else. Whatever bad guy the film makers choose, usually disfigured externally or internally, it takes more than ugly bad guy costumes or wild ranting to make the hero's victory feel something more than empty flash. This film fails in that respect, too.


However, I still enjoyed good bits of The Amazing Spider Man. The special effects were more convincing than the first trilogy. I don't think it's only because of improved technology, but art direction and choreography really make a difference, and I think the guys who did Amazing did a better job. There were some really great scenes of Spider Man doing his thing which made the popcorn elements feel rewarding enough to outweigh the obviously bad storytelling elements. The Amazing Spider Man could have easily been much better but I still rate it a...


6.5 out of 10


So, how does my split psyche come out of this? My adult side wants to see more intelligent and compelling script-writing, but my kid side still enjoys the well done WOW moments.

Push

Push is a stylish and gritty take on the super hero genre


Synopsis:
A small group of people, with different psychic abilities, fight to free themselves from the experimentation and exploitation that has made their lives a struggle.


Review:I remember reading the reviews for "Push" last year and dismissing it completely. It has an aggregate score of 36 on Metacritic, and that's usually well South of a score that I would entertain giving a shot in my most cooperative, let someone else pick, movie mood. But, somehow, or other, I ended up seeing it at home and am really sorry I wasn't tricked into seeing it at the movies, because I would have walked out pretty happy. Now, I'm not saying it's some world beating cinematic tour de force, but it was well shot, has a clever story, and was much more compelling than I ever could have expected it to be.


Nick, our hero, has been running from the secret government organization that killed his father for 10 years. Before he dies, his father tells him to look out for a certain thing and, no matter what, Nick had to follow it through. Why was his father killed, and why is he on the run? Well, Nick is gifted with telekinesis, which allows him to move objects with his mind and the government uses people like him to find the path to unlock the potential of these extraordinary abilities. They do bad stuff to them to make it happen.


There are others out there with similar powers to Nick's. While he can move things, others can see the future, heal, manipulate sound, create illusions, or alter people's memories. As we see him at the beginning of the movie, Nick gets by on gambling and parlor tricks that use his abilities, and he's clearly trying to keep a low profile. But, he's soon found by the agency that killed his father, and they think he can help them find something very important that's missing. After they are convinced he can't help them, they leave with the promise they'll be watching. As he packs up to go on the lam again, Cassie shows up at his door with the call to adventure!


So, why doesn't "Push" deserve an aggregate score of 36? There's rarely a time when someone says to me, "you have to look at it for what it is... A popcorn flick," and I don't scoff. It's the same with kids movies. "Ratatouille" is a "kid's" movie, and it's a fantastic film. There's no excuse for crap like "Alvin & the Chipmunks, The Squeekquel." Movies can be for some random audience or other and still be good. "Sherlock Holmes," I imagine, would be justified away as a popcorn flick. It had action, quippy dialogue, some sort of love interest thrown in to spice it up, and it was plenty shallow enough for those with a short attention span. But, the action wasn't that great, there wasn't much going on to care about, the love interest didn't have much chemistry. So, it fails as a popcorn flick because it didn't do what it was supposed to do very well... entertain. "Push," on the other hand, succeeds as a popcorn flick because it does what it's supposed to do, and very well.


It's full of action and quippy dialogue. It has lots of beautiful people, thus, a sheen of shallowness. And, there's romance. Why does it work? First of all, it's very nice to look at. The bright colors of Hong Kong at night create a beautiful palette with which to compose great action scenes, and help reinforce the drama. It's mixed with a gritty style that makes everything feel very intense. Every shot seems very thoughtfully composed and it's edited in a rhythm that is quite appropriate for the style of the film.


The characters, while being attractive in that typical popcorn flick way, all seem to have a weight to them that makes you care a little bit. Dakota Fanning, as Cassie, does a good job of being a girl way past her age that, under a veneer of toughness and bravado, barely contains her fear of the future that she sees. Nick genuinely seems to care about her as the film goes on. The characters convincingly work together because it really does seem like something's on the line. While all of the main characters have these special abilities, they are also very human, and it's shown quite well that they are relate-able. So, everything that happens has a little more emotional weight behind it.


The love story is reinforced by the events that surround it. Things happen to the characters that show the viewer that they have a real history that means something. We're not just told that they have a history and expected to build some believability around it in our own heads... the filmmakers went through some effort to convince us.


And, the action! Yeah, the action is cool. Maybe not everyone likes to see people with special powers, but this kind of escapism is perfect for the popcorn flick label, and I'm all for it as long as it serves a good story. There are all kinds of psychic pyrotechnics that add an excitement to the story that really drives it forward, and can put you on the edge of your seat. Nick's powers are cool to watch as he starts to get better at using them, and the penultimate showdown is very cool. And, none of them had to be wearing silly costumes to do it.


Finally, the story is executed in a way that keeps you guessing a bit how it will all work out in the end... an actual mystery of sorts. Everyone's powers work well in the story to make it happen, and that's rewarding to see play out to make it all work. The dialogue never seems like it's meant to be telegraphing what's happening, which is also a welcome relief. Sure it's pretty flashy, but the artistry and brains are there, and I like it.


I still can't get why it got such low reviews. Some of the critics seem to turn off their fun meter for things that deserve it, and turn it on for things that are irredeemable. "Push" is a clever, well shot, wolf movie draped in straight-forward action, lamb's wool, celluloid. I hope it makes it to some sort of cult status, cause I think it deserves it.

The Crazies: Inhumane, Unempathetic, Disposable

What makes a good story? The Hero's Journey is often cited as the ultimate study of the blueprint for one. The story starts with what is known and comfortable to the hero. Then, a trans-formative situation occurs which presents a challenge. The hero then faces the growing challenge until the darkest hour is at hand. He must be reborn/transformed and overcome the challenge to finally restore the world to its rightful place. This archetype is powerful enough to be found at the heart of many successful films.


Now, "The Crazies" may not be the Hero's Journey exercised to its fullest, but it has plenty of it. The hero lives in an idyllic town where the grass is really green, the sky is really blue, and the whole town comes out to cheer the high school baseball team. But, something happens and the town is transformed into hell on Earth. The hero must overcome and save his pregnant wife and, at least in an effort to, deliver his family back to a normal life which had been so totally destroyed.


Everything that happens is horrible. Humanity unravels in a span of 48 hours and it becomes a fight for survival that seems all too distant to the hero. He is trapped and there seems to be little way out. We watch as the struggle plays out over 90 minutes and we see many terrible things. I found myself watching, and... well, that's what I was doing... Just watching. I cringed at the shocking visuals on screen and jumped at the scares, but that's all. I didn't care. I was just reacting. I thought about the elements of the story that would fit into the Hero's Journey... the destruction of what was "right" before, the struggle, the darkest hour, the ultimate destruction of the roadblock to the hero's escape. The pieces were there, but something key was missing.


And, the problem with "The Crazies" seems to be the same piece missing from many films... humanity. There was nothing in the film that was worth caring about beyond what the script may have told you to. They tried for the first 5 minutes but, after that, you just had to remember that they seemed nice enough in that first few minutes. For the other 85+ minutes, all I saw was: Good looking sheriff. Good looking wife. She's sort-of pregnant when it's convenient to the story. They're both smart... She's a doctor after-all, and he puts all the pieces together instantly. So, I guess we're supposed to give a shit based on a checklist, and a half-hearted stab at character building in the intro? If you don't even care enough about the main characters to dread their deaths, what's the point? This film was full of unsympathetic, poorly fleshed out caricatures... a town full of them. I won't care because I'm told to; I need to be compelled to. Cut the bullshit Hollywood and tell me a story I actually care about. In comparison, "The Road" was also a terribly bleak, and scary, film, but I was compelled to fear for the characters' loss of life and their humanity.


Ultimately, "The Crazies" is a shell of a story with a distinct lack of the humanity it takes to make it compelling. If you want to see mannequins running for their lives for 90 minutes, knock yourself out.


Synopsis: A small Midwest town is devastated by a biological weapon accidentally released into the water supply. The sheriff, and several others, struggle to survive as town-members fall victim to a virus that turns them into enraged killers; while the military moves to contain the incident with a heavy hand. This film is a remake of George Romero's "The Crazies," which was originally released in 1973.