Spider-Man 2

It's time for me to review the superhero sequel. Does he continue to do what a spider can? Or does he get washed down the plughole? Well, assuming you can't see my rating at the bottom, let's find out...

Spider-Man 2 (2004)

As great as 2002's "Spider-Man" was, I always had the feeling that it was let down by the fact that its villain had his face hidden most of the time. Plus, he was kinda cheesy, I admit. Thank Stan Lee then, for the character of Dr. Otto Octavius or "Doc Ock" as he's colloquially known.

"No, Uncle Ben. I'm just Peter Parker. I'm Spider-Man... no more."

The basic story follows directly on from "Spider-Man". Harry (James Franco) wants revenge, blaming Spidey for his father's death, M.J.'s (Kirsten Dunst) unrequited love for Peter (Tobey Maguire) starts to dwindle and Peter is finding it harder and harder to balance his normal life and his crime fighting life. Throw a great villain into the mix (Alfred Molina) and you've got a super sequel on your hands. It does everything a sequel should do- it continues the characters' stories without diminishing the work the original has done whilst also taking it to darker places- and oh boy, does it get dark.

Peter is basically tortured throughout the film. Mary-Jane has moved on, Harry resents him for not telling him who Spider-Man is and to top it off, he's losing his powers. Plus, there's a mad scientist tear-assing around town who only Spidey can stop. (Sigh) It makes me depressed just watching it.

"The power of the sun-in the palm of my hand!"

There are two scenes that really typify this film for me. The first is the operation scene where Doc Ock (or rather his metal tentacles) wipe out an entire room of surgeons attempting to remove them. It's damn disturbing and brilliant at the same time. Only the director of "The Evil Dead" could pull off such a scene in a mainstream film so effortlessly (there's even a cheeky reference to "Evil Dead II"). The second scene is the train fight where Spidey and Ock duke it out on, in and on the side of a speeding train. I really like the way a frustrated Ock grabs to innocent passengers and lobs them away carelessly. Such a bastardly thing to do- I love it!

Then there's another fantastic Jameson scene and another hilarious Bruce Campbell cameo. The music is even better than that of the first too, with Danny Elfman adding a more complex, accomplished sound to the familiar Spidey themes. "Spider-Man 2" just does everything right. It's the perfect sequel and definitely the best Marvel superhero film. As for all time best superhero film? It's a tie between this and "The Dark Knight"* Yeah, it's that good.

*Review coming soon!

Spider-Man

Six whole days without an update? That's a lifetime in internet terms! Better make it up to you then. Join me on a web-slinging journey through the "Spider-Man" trilogy. First up- er..."Spider-Man"

Spider-Man (2002)

I've made no secret that I'm a Spidey fan. I've read the comics since I was an ankle-biter and watched the Saturday morning cartoon religiously. Debatably, I've grown up since then but a love of the adventures of Peter Parker and his arachnid alter-ego has stayed with me.

"Who am I? You sure you want to know? The story of my life is not for the faint of heart..."

The basic plot follows the life of high-school science geek Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire). During a school trip to a genetics lab, Parker gets bitten by a genetically modified spider (as opposed to the radioactive spider from the comics) and gains superpowers. I can't really say anything against the plot, as silly as it may be, because it's part of my childhood. It's as classic as they come in my book.

I never really bought Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker/ Spider-Man in the first film. He just seemed miscast against the brilliant Willem Dafoe (playing Norman Osborn/ The Green Goblin) and the passable Kirsten Dunst (Mary-Jane Watson). Maybe this is what the director was going for however, a type of misfit. That's not to say I have a problem with Maguire, he just wasn't Parker in my eyes. You can't mention good casting without mentioning J.K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson. It was like the character burst out of the comic pages and onto the big screen. Fantastic.

"Spider-Man" in general is a great film. It stays faithful to the comics whilst taking certain artistic liberties with the comic. I always wondered why they chose the Green Goblin as the main villain though. As a character, he's probably one of the hardest of the Spidey villains to make believable, but I suppose the mask and suit work well enough, the only downside being that you can't really see Dafoe emoting behind the permanent sneer of the mask. Still, the glider is cool.

There are some great scenes too. I really like Osborn hearing the Goblin's laughter for the first time and vainly searching for it, only to be confronted by his own reflection. Creepy. I also love the montage of Peter designing the Spider-Man suit. I was glad to see that even with big Hollywood money and production values, Raimi was able to keep his trademark visual twists and turns. I was surprised at how violent the ending was too. You feel every punch and kick delivered to poor Peter. The image of the torn mask revealing both sides of Peter Parker is great too. Subtlety is always welcome.

" Can Spider-Man come out to play?"

So that's it. It's a great film. It's not as amazing as I thought it was when I first saw it in 2002, but it still holds up. Good stuff.

I Am Legend

After watching the crapfest that was "One Missed Call", it was decided that "I Am Legend" was the mouthwash needed to cleanse away the remnants of the shit sundae we had just consumed. Here we go then...

I Am Legend (2007)

As I mentioned in my "I, Robot" review, I'll watch Will Smith in anything and "I Am Legend" is no exception. In fact, it may be useful to keep "I, Robot" in mind for this review as there are some similarities (Other than both titles beginning with "I")

"My name is Robert Neville. I am a survivor living in New York City"

The basic plot follows Robert Neville (Smith), who is the lone survivor of a virus which wiped out the human race. He's not quite alone however, as there are thousands of vampiric creatures called "Dark Seekers" who come out at night in search of blood. Dr. Neville is also trying to work on a cure for the mutation in his lab at home, using captured "Dark Seekers" as test subjects. Er... and that's it for a good long while. He also has a dog named Sam who sweeps the Greatest Movie and T.V. Canine Awards (or the "Barkies" as they're also known). I really liked the feeling of isolation the film gives us. The huge, sprawling and incredibly noisy New York City is silenced and been taken back by nature. It's eerie and beautiful in equal measures. I like the fact Neville talks to mannequins and Sam throughout. It's a nice touch and a surprising insight into human behaviour as after thinking about what I'd do in the same situation, I'm sure I would be doing something similar if only to stave off insanity for another day.

So, time to check your play-at-home "I, Robot" checklist. So far we should have one tick next to "Man who is separated from society somehow". Done? Back to the review...

All goes well until about three quarters of the way through when the film decides that it should abandon all the well-crafted tension and melancholy it has built up and go for an all out action-y ending. If I was to pinpoint the moment where the film begins to soil itself it's when he meets Anna and Ethan. Yes, it seems Will Smith has some kind of "minimum number of lines" clause in his contract 'cos that's all the other people seem to be introduced for- as dialogue trampolines. (i.e. for Smith to bounce lines off, not to jump up and down on them- this was apparently too much to hope for.)

"Nothin' happened the way it was supposed to happen."

Back to the "I, Robot" checklist. Annoying kid? Check. Annoying woman? Check. All subtlety thrown out the window to appeal to the popcorn-munching 'tards out there? Double check.

The ending. Well, it's an ending, I suppose. If I hadn't read the book, I'd have probably liked it, but as I have, the ending angered me. Why? Well, it misses the entire point of the book and therefore we are cheated out of the real explanation of the title "I Am Legend". Let me elaborate. In the book, Neville realises that these Dark Seekers are the new human race and that after all his failed tests and experiments (which resulted in Dark Seeker fatalities) he is now a myth to them, a sort of "boogeyman" who captures and kills them. He is sentenced to execution (the beings in the book are capable of speech and are intelligent unlike the snarling, roaring beasties in the film) and the book ends on a very sombre note. In the film, he finds a cure and dies protecting it by blowing himself up in a huge fireball, taking the Dark Seekers with him. The film's explanation of the title is that Neville died to enable his annoying sidekicks to escape and spread the cure. Therefore, they are "his legend". So Neville went out in a blaze of glory and is now legendary because of it. Gawd Bless Americuh!

Luckily, there is an alternate ending on the Blu-ray which is more like the book's ending, but unfortunately it feels like too little, too late. The damage has been done.

Finally we return to the "I, Robot" checklist. Add a tick to "Wasted potential" and "Maltreatment of the source novel" and you're done. Congratulations. That was completely pointless.

I'm going to give "I Am Legend" a four star rating despite the crappy third act. This is because it has a great concept, some really affecting scenes and (although ignored in the latter part of the film) a fantastic undercurrent of tension and malice which you just don't see these days.

One Missed Call

Against my better judgement, I sat down to watch this film with some mates (the better judgement was about the choice of film, not the mates. Although...)I feel like I should let you know that the Horror genre isn't exactly my favourite of all the genres out there. I'm not sure why, but I am seldom scared by them - and if you can't be scared by a horror film, what's the point? It's like not laughing at a comedy.There are good horror flicks out there though, I was impressed by "The Descent" and I recently was seen wetting my pants whilst watching "[Rec]". However, "One Missed Call" isn't one of these few, exceptional films.

One Missed Call (2008)

Horror and I have never got on. I think it was when I watched and was subsequently scared shitless by "The Exorcist" when I was about 11 that the change happened. I remember watching the original "Halloween" a few years later and finding it stupid whereas my friends were terrified. As far as I was concerned horror could suck my balls. That was until tonight when "One Missed Call" completely changed... nothing. It's awful. Just really, really bad.

"That's not my ringtone..."

The basic plot is that people start getting answerphone messages (from their future selves) which include the day, date and time of their deaths. It's a passable idea, but it's executed very, very poorly. As for criticising the rest of the film, where to begin? It basically reads like a rip-off catalogue from every successful horror film in recent years. For example, there's a heavy influence from "The Ring" (or "Ringu" originally if you're being pedantic) with a bit of "Final Destination" thrown in. There's a scene where a corpse slowly comes back to life whilst our heroine, Beth (Shannyn Sossamon) is inside some air ducts. To me, it seemed like a bit of a rip-off of the vastly superior scene in "Pan's Labyrinth" where Ofelia meets the Pale Man. That's the thing though, even if the similarity wasn't intentional you get the feeling that everything you see in this film has been done somewhere else and also been done better.

"Now this will only hurt a little..."

You know a horror film is bad when it crosses the state line into Unintentional Comedy Valley. An example? How about a scene concerning the exorcism of a mobile phone? Not convinced? How about after dragging a poor woman to her watery grave in a backyard pond, some ghostly hands shoot up to grab the family cat too? It's ridiculous to the point of being farcical. The only good point in the film for me was the lovely Shannyn Sossamon who, whilst not being given the greatest material, seems to be the only one who can actually act in this damn mess.

So there you have it a nice, short review for a horrible, overlong film. Sorry, Shannyn!

The Longest Yard

I know what you're thinking-"Where the flying hell are The Godfather reviews?". Well, I'm actually taking my time with them for one very good reason. I want to do them justice. Not because they're all good ('cos they're not) but because they have a combined running time of 9+ hours and I don't want to miss out something important. Either that or "Jurassic Park III" broke my spirit. Anyway- "The Longest Yard".

The Longest Yard (2005)

I'm a firm believer in the theory that you can tell a lot about a film merely by the cast list. "The Longest Yard" has Adam Sandler, Chris Rock, Nelly and about 3 or 4 professional wrestlers in it. Make of that what you will. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not the biggest Adam Sandler fan. It's not because he isn't funny- 'cos he can be, it's because he seems to "phone it in" a lot of the time. "The Longest Yard" is a prime example of this. So much so in fact, that after watching this film and then trying to remember something memorable he did, I couldn't think of anything. Surely it's not too much to expect something memorable from the lead actor?

"Now, listen here, Mr. Frodo, don't get short with me."

The basic plot follows disgraced American football player Paul Crewe (Sandler) after he is jailed for three years. It turns out that the Warden (James Cromwell) is organising a football game between the guards and the cons and wants Crewe to be the new quarterback. It's basically the same plot as the original 1974 film "The Longest Yard" (known as "Mean Machine" over in good ol' Blighty, which in turn was remade with a British angle in 2001 starring (sigh) Vinnie Jones).

I kept getting the feeling that to appreciate this film, I needed to be about 12 years old and high on sugar. After all, it has a funky hip-hop soundtrack, Nelly, Adam Sandler (who I gather is a "comedy genius" to the under-15s), violence, gay jokes and a fuckload of WWE wrestlers. Bargain. The thing that really got to me is I know that the two leads can do better. As I've said before, Sandler can be funny as can Chris Rock. However, in this film they both seem "watered down" to appease the PG-13 certificate. How I fucking hate that certificate.

"I'm glad you're back, now I don't have to stab you"

Having never seen the original, I can't comment on the widely held view that this film doesn't have enough dark humour to be a proper remake. However, I can comment on the tone of the film which seems to be all over the place. We have the usual juvenile Sandler humour (gay jokes and slapstick physical humour) mixed with darker instances (such as savage beatings and the death of a major character). My main criticism of this film is that it doesn't seem to know who it's aiming at. I've said this before, but it seems to me that a lot of films have this trouble. My guess is they're shooting to appeal to everyone (y'know, to make more money) and failing. Having said all that, it is entertaining and never outstays its welcome. Whilst it won't set your world on fire, I can think of worse ways to waste an hour or so.

Jurassic Park III

It's time for me to finish the "Jurassic Park" arc (Jurassic Arc?) with my review of the threequel mystifyingly not called "The Shittening: Jurassic Park". You may want to put the young'uns to bed- this isn't going to be pretty.

Jurassic Park III (2001)

After "Jurassic Park", I thought I would never be unafraid of dinosaurs. After "The Lost World: Jurassic Park" I mentally slapped my younger self for being so naïve but conceded that at least I'd never get bored of them. Guess what happened after "Jurassic Park III"...

"I read both of your books. I liked the first one more. Before you were on the island. You liked dinosaurs back then."

The film kicks off with two people- a man and a boy, parasailing over Isla Sorna or "Site B". Surprise, surprise, something goes wrong and both people go missing. We are reunited with Dr. Grant (Sam Neill) from the first film, who is shanghaied into rescuing the two missing persons. To be honest, the plot was constantly put on the back-burner in my mind under the constantly repeated thought of "Is this what they're calling Jurassic Park these days?"

The plot in general is absolute balls. At least with "The Lost World" it pretended that the plot was something more than just an excuse for the dino money shots (I double dare you to Image Search that...). What makes it worse is that they bring Dr. Grant and Dr. Sattler (Laura Dern) in again from the original "Jurassic Park". However, instead of adding to this film, it detracts from the original as we learn that Sattler and Grant broke up and Sattler has a family of her own. This is so irritating as surely the Jurassic Park experience taught the character of Dr. Grant to be good with kids and turned him into a willing father (two things he was against at the start of the film and the source of a possible future rift between the two characters). This is the equivalent of creating something everyone loves, then putting out a piss-poor imitation of it and burning the original. So, so irritating.

The film in general feels like it was just cobbled together from the deleted scenes of the first two films. Funny, as when I was watching the extra features on the DVD (vainly searching for some kind of apology) they mentioned that many of the action sequences were ideas they had for "The Lost World" It shows too. Yes, the Pteranodons were O.K. but they should have been in "The Lost World" and then forgotten about. Talking of dinosaurs- the Spinosaurus. Who's smart idea was that? It is presented as the new king of the dinosaurs and is meant to be scarier than the T.Rex. In fact, just in case we were fucking morons (which is a safe bet thinking about it, 'cos after all people were paying money to see another Jurassic Park film after "The Lost World"...) there's a scene where Spiney takes on Rexy in the biggest Dino Douchebag contest and wins. Sorry, but why kill the anti-hero merely for some new pretender to step up? It's stupid beyond belief.

"On this island there is no such thing as safe."

In fact, messing with the dinosaurs seems to be the theme of this film. The T.Rex is castrated and the raptors look like they're turning tricks to make some extra money on the side. Want proof? Okay:

Above: A Velociraptor from "Jurassic Park"


Above: Some Velocirhookers from "Jurassic Park III"

See?

Even without the "Jurassic Park" moniker this would have been a bad film. The fact that the Jurassic Park name is right there in the title is an even harder kick to the groin. Apparently, the Jurassic Park team have never heard of the phrase "flogging a dead horse" and a fourth installment is in production for 2010. (Sigh) Anyway, since "Jurassic Park III" is more dino-shite than dynamite (please excuse) it gets a lowly:

The Lost World: Jurassic Park

With no time to pause for breath, it's sequel time. Therefore, I humbly present my findings on a film mystifyingly not named "Jurassic Park II" but "The Lost World: Jurassic Park"

The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)

I always thought that "Jurassic Park" showed just enough of the dinosaurs to keep them suitably fresh and scary/awe-inspiring. Any longer and I feel that the film wouldn't have been as good as it was. Imagine my thought process going in to see "The Lost World: Jurassic Park". In fact, you don't have to imagine- here it is:

1) Why the hell isn't it called "Jurassic Park II"? Especially when it has feck all to do with the Arthur Conan Doyle book. I know the book sequel was called "The Lost World", but if you have to segue that in there why not call it "Jurassic Park II: The Lost World"?

2) I bet they'll amp up the dino-action in a vain attempt to out-do the first one.

3) Goddamn my brain is nerdy. Is this why I suffer from crippling loneliness and girls shriek and run away from me?

The basic plot is that after the events of the first film and the park being abandoned, it comes to light that there is another island where the dinosaurs run free- "Site B". Blah, blah, blah evil nephew of the ailing John Hammond (Richard Attenborough) takes over the business and for some reason wants to take the dinosaurs from Site B and open up a Jurassic Park in San Diego, of all places. I honestly felt a bit insulted as the subtlety and (for lack of a better word) grace the first film won me over with were slapped out of my mouth with the glove of cashing-in. I don't mind sequels at all, some of them rock the shit. But in the case of "The Lost World: Jurassic Park" all the dino stomping in the World couldn't have taken away the nagging feeling that this was anything more than a wallet raping.

"Oh, yeah. Oooh, ahhh, that's how it always starts. Then later there's running and screaming."

If I sound more hurt and sarcastic than normal, it's 'cos I am. The one thing that really gets to me (apart from all the other things that really get to me) is when bad sequels are made to great films and somehow the stink of the newer bastard filmic child manages to tarnish the original. I'm sure by the time you've finished reading this sentence you'll have been able to think of at least 5 instances of this.

I can't think of a nicer way to phrase this question but when did Spielberg lose his balls? (I'm not talking about his actual testicles as I've been informed by CelebNadNews.com that they're fine...) I'm talking about his guts that he displayed in "Jaws" and the like. For instance, in "Jaws" a small boy gets mercilessly munched by the shark, whereas in this film- a girl of a similar age is set upon by small dinosaurs. We assume she's a goner as the camera cuts away but we are needlessly told later she's fine. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see children hurt or killed on screen, but if you do want to make a point, don't wimp out at the last minute. At least the boy's death in "Jaws" actually meant something and drove the plot.

"Taking dinosaurs off this island is the worst idea in the long, sad history of bad ideas-and I'm gonna be there when you learn that."

There are many silly moments in the film too. The one that instantly comes to mind is Ian Malcolm's (Jeff Goldblum) gymnastic daughter swinging off poles and kung-fu kicking a raptor out of a window onto a spike. Sorry- are these the same raptors that took down an experienced game warden in the first film and an entire field of "redshirts" (Star Trek analogy- look it up) in this film? Surely the best thing to do would be to have the impaled raptor to realise he's actually got balls and savage the little, flippy kid to death.

There are some good moments in the film though. I liked the tension-filled scene where a trailer is hanging over the edge of a cliff (the slow cracking of the glass is great). As cheesy as it is, I also liked the T.Rex running amok in San Diego. However, these moments are few and far between. I can't really say it's a shame though as I was pretty sure a sequel to "Jurassic Park" wouldn't work from the beginning. I'm not playing a game of "I was right" or anything though. Really. But if we were, I so fucking am.