Day 151: The Hangover, Part II (2011)

R, 1 hr. 42 min.  Directed by: Todd Phillips.  Release Date: May 26, 2011.

Today represents my first entry for my Examiner blog.  Once I get all the details, I'll link my pages back and forth.  Today, the two entries are identical, but that won't always be the case.  

The folks in charge of making The Hangover need a brief lesson in semantics.  When you make a “sequel,” the audience expects certain similarities, such as the same or mostly the same characters, and a similar plot line.  The underlying theme of the sequel can be similar.  In some cases, a “sequel” will continue to tell a story that was left unfinished in the prior movies.  When you come back a few years later and recycle the same old crap, but put a spin on it visually, make changes to the setting, or subtly alter the storyline from the original, you have a “remake,” or if the people are being charitable, a “re-imagining.” 

The Hangover 2 is undoubtedly a remake, rather than a sequel.  The sense of déjà vu is powerfully strong, so strong that audience members can get up and leave for twenty or thirty minutes, and still be able to follow the story if they saw the original.  Except for moving the story from Los Vegas to Bangkok, and the addition of a new, honorary member to the “wolf pack,” there are few differences between the two films.  Worse than that is that the dialogue continually makes references to these infamous friends “doing it again or “knowing the drill” once they’ve recovered from their clouded night of debauchery.  Poking fun at your own shame is embarrassing for others, not funny.

That’s not to say that the movie isn’t occasionally, almost accidentally, funny.  In particular, the scenes surrounding Ken Jeong are hysterical, even if they’re woefully short.  The man plays the inept criminal perfectly; the role should lead the movie-going audience seeing more of him, although the joke is that you could hardly see more of him, since he’s appeared fully nude in both Hangover films. Zach Galiafianakis plays the only card in his deck, and it was funny two years ago, but seems less funny now.  Bradley Cooper and Ed Helms try real hard, which is all that really matters.

Save yourselves the $7 entry fee and check out the original Hangover on DVD, or streaming if your service has it available. 

Day 150: Phone Booth (2003)

R, 1 hr. 20 min.  Directed by: Joel Schumacher.  Release Date: April 4, 2003.  DVD Release Date: July 8, 2003.

I’ve noticed something about people who liked this movie, but I don’t know why it’s significant in the scheme of things.  I have yet to find a movie talker who found this interesting.  I went to see this with two movie talkers, neither of whom I speak to anymore.  They talked incessantly about absolute nonsense… it was like being trapped in an episode of The Hills, but without the awesome background setting.  I, being a devout non-movie talker, thought this was a pretty decent thriller.  Not perfect, but certainly worth watching on this short-feature time line.

That pattern has held true over the years:  folks who find it inappropriate to talk during a movie seem to like it, folks who talk during the movie don’t.  I have to wonder if it’s because of the short run-time in combination with the simple story and the lacking attention.  I know the two people I went to see this with didn’t have a clue why things were happening, and I think there’s a fairly clear, if unrealistic, cause-and-effect line throughout the story.

Phone Booth is the movie that made me sit up and take notice of those movies that either happen in a single space, or in an enclosed space.  I thought it was an awesome concept that really shows you who can work a story and who can’t.  To keep my interest for 80 minutes in a grimy New York phone booth (especially now that phone booths are extinct) borders on the miraculous.  

I have little to complain about in Phone Booth.  The cast is at the top of their game, the direction and scenery was pretty spot on, and there are even a few attempts (which may be unintentional) at levity:  the first I know was intentional.  The first, um, “escort” who appears to harass Colin Farrell in the phone booth is hysterical.  She should have won some sort of cameo award, because she was totally brilliant in a Jerry Springer way.  The second is a single line during the confessional scene where Sergeant Jona grabs his mic (but seems to forget to hit the talk button) and asks “can I get a 20 (location) on that Pam,” referring to Katie Holmes.  The scene starts the closing actions of the film, and it just cracked me up that he couldn’t figure out which women Farrell’s character points to when he introduces his wife to his would-be, unknowing mistress.

If I have a complaint, it’s in the motives of this serial sniper.  Not that any such motives are abundantly clear when seen from a rational mind, but in this case we get a bit of a running explanation of past victims, which include a child pornographer and an executive who sold his stock options in his company just before the bottom fell out (what up, Enron reference!).  Then we have a Stu Shepherd.  He’s a rude, selfish, lying publicist with a penchant for cheesy, cheap-looking Italian suits who has been contemplating cheating on his wife.

Really?  He couldn’t find someone worse?  In New York City?  Did someone disband the Mafia?  Did SVU do such a good job there are no serial rapists or pedophiles on the loose?  It’s a major problem in the story.  Stu should have been cheating on his taxes and maybe molesting his intern Adam.  SOMETHING.  

I guess my recommendation for this hinges on your ability to shut your trap for 80 minutes.  If you can do that, you’ll probably find something of merit in this movie.  If you can’t, well, there’s other, flashier movies out there to keep your attention while you yammer on about something totally uninteresting and inconsequential.

Day 149: Amelia (2009)

PG, 2 hr.   Directed by: Mira Nair.  Release Date: October 23, 2009.   DVD Release Date: February 2, 2010.

In 1989, my school required every sixth grader to write an essay on a remarkable woman, alive or dead.  I remember it was for a contest for National Women's History Month, or something to that effect.  I remember I wasn't surprised when the top ten entries were picked and they were all girls.  Even then, there was a jaded edge to my soul that just would not be denied.  My remarkable woman was Amelia Earhart, but I don't know why I picked her out of the myriads of women to choose from.  I remember a little bit about the research I did for the essay, and I believe wholeheartedly that she was an amazing woman who led an amazing life.

Only half of that translated out to film, which does everything but surround Hillary Swank's appearances with shiny Photoshop fairy sparkles in the desperate attempt to prove that she was a trailblazer in more than one way.  The late Ms. Earhart's amazing life didn't translate out so well.  None of the excitement over the places she went and the things she did translated into excitement for the audience.  I expected to feel a certain sense of awe and reverence; to get the slightest touch of what she must have felt like when she was breaking records, traveling around the world, and living her amazing, exciting life.  What I felt was boredom.  

I love biopics.  That should be obvious considering some of my most beloved movies over the last few years.  I love a movie that tells a story that actually happened in such a way that it feels fresh and new, even if it isn't.  In this case, most of us know how the story ends, in the same way most of us knew how Titanic was going to end.  In this case, just like in Titanic, I was more than a little ready for the end to come, tragic as it was.  

Hillary Swank, as always, performed beautifully.  I'm always amazed how she looks so different in nearly every role, and how she manages to pick perfect parts for herself in movies that tend to be unpopular ones.  There was criticism that this movie represented a blatant attempt at an Oscar grab, and I suspect there's some of that intention.  While this movie wasn't successful in its goal or purpose, I'll remember it every time there's more news of found clues of the Electra, Earhart's plane.

Day 148: The Great Muppet Caper (1981)

G, 1 hr. 35 min.  Directed by: Jim Henson.  Release Date: January 1, 1981. DVD Release Date: July 10, 2001.

A few weeks ago, I put the basic touches on my response to Fandango Groover's query to the movie blogging community.  Most of us could name our favorite films of 2011, but what about years that were further back in our life?  Fandango's challenge as issued was to pick a favorite movie for each year of your life, based on the release date of the year.  If the rest of the participants were like me, some Wikipedia research had to happen before we knew WHEN half the movies we'd seen were made, but once that was done, I thought my list came together fairly quickly.

The Great Muppet Caper stole my heart.  Conceptually, it might have been funnier if it stole my wallet and watch, but it has a good start.  It was my pick for my favorite movie made in 1981, the year that I was four.  When I was a kid, up until I was about eleven, I used to spend Sundays with my bio-dad, not to be confused with my long-time stepdad, who was the source of inspiration for me watching The African Queen.  My dad mostly ignored me, dumping me in a room where I watched endless (and mostly bootlegged) movies on a huge screen using a machine that projected the film using three different lamps:  red, blue, and green.  To this day, I have no idea what the machine was.  Most Sundays, I completely checked out mentally, escaping the boredom and misery of this time "with" my dad.  I suspect it's the reason that I use movies to escape when my life gets a bit too real on me to this day.  

This was one of my favorites in his "kid friendly" collection, which included everything Disney had released up until about 1982, Charlie Brown movies, the Muppet films released to date, and everything he could find on Elvira.  Yeah, because a nine-year-old needs to be watching that.  It was rare that I didn't watch this at least twice a month.  

Is this the perfect Muppet movie?  No, it actually feels a bit off keel, like the Muppets aren't quite doing the things they're supposed to.  Does it make sense that Miss Piggy would try and roll her game out on Charles Grodin?  No.  It makes even less sense that they'd do a spoof scene of an Esther Williams movie, although, to be fair, I'm not sure how those swimming movies were ever popular in the first place.  But, I love how this combines the innocence of the Muppets with something that's just a little smarmy.  It's kid smarmy, but still.  The real life characters ham it up a bit and the Muppets get to work in tandem to prevent something bad from happening.

Even as an adult, this makes me smile.  As a kid, this would have been gold.  I'm going to say "see this," but you should read it as "see this with a kid."  I may try to have this available when my nephews come to visit next month.  I'm not entirely sure they're not too old for it, but I figure it's always worth a shot.  I should probably add this to my collection anyway.

Day 147: Bridesmaids (2011)

R, 2 hr. 5 min.  Directed by: Paul Feig.  Release Date: May 13, 2011.

I realized there was WAY too much sci-fi this week, for which I apologize.  Normally, I spot that kind of problem and move stuff around (or create a mini-project out of it, since I already have two of those scheduled for later this year), but I didn't realize that was going on until I wrote the review for Episode 1 yesterday and took a look at my calendar.  So... today's movie was going to be something as far off the sci-fi mark as I could get.

The folks who read this who know me personally will no doubt be giving me some grief about this choice, but I’ve promised to include a few more chick flicks as a part of this process and it was either Bridesmaids or Something Borrowed, and only one of them was playing at a convenient time today.

I was surprised how funny this was, because in general, I struggle to find the funny in comedies aimed at a female audience.  I don’t know why, although I suspect that I don’t have a common frame of reference with most of the movies.  Here, I was able to empathize with the main character because my life sucks almost as bad as hers does, which was oddly comforting.  Also unusual for a chick flick, I actually LIKED all the characters and the casting.  Everything felt… natural and vaguely girly, but in a way I could see happening in real life.  This movie has confirmed my belief that should I decide to get married, that I’m eloping.  To hell with all that crap I saw here. 

Two people described this to me as a woman’s answer to The Hangover.  In some ways, I think this was better than that, because while it was silly, it wasn’t over the top silly.  The women get in to some shenanigans without breaking 50 million laws and endangering their lives.  They fight, they cry on occasion, and they drink a lot… which isn’t as hot as you might expect.  The comedy is a bit more sophisticated here, but there is a food poisoning scene that’s right out of the worst kind of raunchy comedy, except for that part where I laughed.  Melissa McCarthy and Kristen Wiig made this movie for me, although I think the latter’s delivery style hasn’t changed since the first time I saw her in something a few years ago.  

These guys get major points for not having Zack Galifianakis… whom I’ve learned to despise, although McCarthy is the equivalent, and she’s funny without being obnoxious.  They also get points for not copping out and telling the actual backstory in the end credits.

Bridesmaids loses a few points for having a live Wilson Phillips performance (come on guys, it’s not 1993 anymore), not once, but TWICE.  I’m still trying to block the lyrics of “Hold On” so they don’t get stuck in my noggin.  Also, I’m deducting points for the mushy crap and “feelings” discussions at the end.  But, my final pronouncement is positive, and I’d see this again in a cold minute. 

Day 146: Star Wars Ep 1, The Phantom Menace (1999)

PG, 2 hr. 11 min.  Directed by: George Lucas.  Release Date: May 19, 1999.  DVD Release Date: October 16, 2001.

I got some unexpected news today.  I'm going to be a movie critic professionally at least part time as of later this week.  I got accepted to be the Lima, OH area movie critic on Examiner.com, although I'm not sure if I'm THE critic or A critic for Lima.  I guess I'll find out next week, when my new gig starts rolling.  I won't get rich doing this, I don't think, but it would be awesome if I made enough to cover my movie expenses.  Once I get set up, I'll link my Examiner page so you can see what I have going on there.  The posts won't always be the same.  

If you’re the sub-species of geek that lives, breathes, eats, and sleeps Star Wars, you waited for this movie for a long time, and you probably felt a little cheated.  I, being more a geek of all trades, had a more mixed opinion of this movie.  Visually, I thought it was beautiful, although it initiates the question as to how the Rebellion managed to bring DOWN the average tech level and quality, as time passed, as the original films used what appeared to be jury-rigged equipment and tech, and the stuff we see here is slick.  Phantom sets a good story for its half of the dual-trilogy, but I have more, questions that aren’t answered by the films to come… or the ones that have gone before.  The movie is about as action packed as anything you can imagine coming from something from the Star Wars universe.  I especially like that this is the point in time where we're introduced to the Jedi that looks like green calamari.  Awesome.

If you’ve been reading me for longer than a few months, you’ve probably noted that I’m hard on prequels.  They have a hard job to do and more often than not, they fail to manage at least 50% of the jobs on their plate.  A good prequel will not only work as a standalone, it will support the “facts” from the original as well as movies that are set in the franchise’s future story line.  Phantom leaves one big gaping hole that none of the movies really come out and answer for me.

What in the nine rings of hell happened to little Ani to turn him into the whiny, spoiled, sociopath that we see in Episodes 2 and 3?  This trilogy nicely transitions Anikin Skywalker to Darth Vader, but the little boy we meet in this film should have been the hopes and dreams of the Jedi, not their ultimate undoing.  The time gap between… say 8 year old Ani and the appearance of what must be 18 year old Anikin played by noted d-bag Hayden Christensen is absent, but not without literary precedent.  The Bible handles the life story of Jesus in a similar manner and makes me wonder what’s happened in the intervening years.  So, what happened to little Ani?  I’m sure it wasn’t just hormones and a high count of those little microbes at work.

The other problem I have is the one EVERYONE had.  Jar Jar.  I get what they were going for.  A little levity, a character who was a hero despite himself, but that’s not what developed.  Jar Jar is a nuisance, a bug in the ear of this entire half of the Star Wars tale.  It’s no wonder he’s the only part of the new trilogy not even made mention of during the original trilogy.  I suspect Mr. Lucas lost a bet or something to that effect.

Slick special effects and a fair-to-middling job at setting the story for the entire pre-trilogy make this worth watching, especially since I thought Eps 2 and 3 were brilliant.  The character work needed lots of tweaking, and with the exception of Jar Jar, the filmmakers manage that fairly well throughout this new saga.

Did anyone else ask the question as to why all the bad guys (by which I mean the Trade Federation) all sound Korean?

Day 145: Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)

PG-13, 1 hr. 57 min.  Directed by: Stuart Baird.  Release Date: December 13, 2002. DVD Release Date: May 20, 2003.

My sixth grade year, circa 1989, my parents moved me from the LA ‘burbs to San Jose.  I found myself in public school for the first time.  It was a hard year, full of me being forced to changes that I didn’t particularly want.  But, it was at Monroe Middle School in San Jose that I met the guy who was probably my last best friend.  Or at least, the last time I could name my “best” friend without having to quantify the concept.  In the decade we were in touch, Justin shaped my life in a lot of ways, although I suspect he never realized it, because I didn’t until I thought about it while writing this entry of The Great Movie Project.  Every day, Justin’s mom would pick us up from school and I’d hang out at his house until around 6.  We’d watch movies or TV, sometimes do homework, and drink a lot of soda.  He is probably single-handedly responsible for my ridiculous Coke(a-Cola) habit that survives to this day.  He helped shape my love of movies in general and of science fiction in specific.  He also introduced me to Star Trek: The Next Generation, which was probably in its third or fourth season at the time.  I learned to love Trek in a way he never did, which was completely and intellectually.  I love the political modeling used to make the show and its fifty bazillion (and increasingly sucky) spin-offs a little better than they might otherwise have been.  I love that the show handles subjects that no one else will touch, even if the presentation is a bit silly and removed.  Star Trek made television history for showing us the first interracial kiss, episodes have been written that criticized racism, homophobia, corruption, have promoted personal honor and responsibility, and dealt with more social issues in a single season than most shows handle in a lifetime.

I have immense respect for the various casts and crews of Star Trek, but, I’m going to be honest, I get into a bit of nerd rage about this movie.  I was always more of a Trekker than a Trekkie; I didn’t do conferences or ears, but at one time I thought Marina Sirtis was one of the most beautiful women alive, and I still want to hang out with Patrick Stewart, but in my heart, I believe that this movie deserved better than it got.  More than any other TNG movie, this felt like a really long episode.  In fact, it felt a bit like the Borg two-parter that happened in the middle of the show’s run.  Once again, the Enterprise is the ONLY ship in the quadrant… which happens to hold the majority of the neutral zone that serves as border between the Federation and its oldest enemy.  Even the Canadian-American border has stops now, so I’m finding that part hard to believe.  We have a bad guy that is supposed to resemble a young Patrick Stewart, although he looks nothing like the pictures we’ve seen of Jean-Luc Picard in his Academy days.

And let’s talk about the bad guy, whose wardrobe appears to have been co-designed by a ringwraith and Lady Gaga while high.  Seriously?  I’ll probably never forgive Brent Spiner for the ending of this, which shocked me so much at the time that I felt the blood drain from my face.  If you haven’t experienced that cold, sick feeling, it’s not fun.  Also.  Please give up on Stellar Cartography and it’s “uplink to Starfleet Cartography.”  Yes, we get it.  Someone over there developed a cool star chart and it’s a reference to Google Maps.

But, at its core, Nemesis is a total Trek experience.  Our favorite members of Starfleet go head to head with one of their biggest, baddest adversaries.  Ever.  There’s political intrigue, a hell of a lot of shenanigans, and a pretty amazing fire fight with the Enterprise and two Romulan ships on one side, and a supership on the other.  The special effects are exactly what we’ve come to expect from Gene Roddenberry’s brain child.   

Unlike some of its predecessors, there’s plenty of action, although not all of it is on a ship-to-ship level.  The premise is very strong… although like much of the details, it also violates existing Trek cannon.  I can get over that.  I don’t go see one of these movies because it exactly mirrors every episode, every published novel and fanfic (I swear I don’t read those.  Really.) and every other movie made to date.  I like the idea of story cohesion, but if that story is interesting enough, it can deviate from the existing plot lines.  This could have been a great movie if it had not only generated that amount of interest, but managed to successfully changed the path of Trek history.  As it is, Nemesis is a better than mediocre movie.  There are a lot worse ways to spend two hours, like Star Trek V, which is so terrible I can’t even remember what its subtitle is.

Day 144: Underworld Evolution (2006)

R, 1 hr. 46 min.  Directed by: Len Wiseman.  Release Date: January 20, 2006. DVD Release Date: June 6, 2006.

On a very basic level, this isn’t that great of a movie.  Several cornerstones of any movie seem to be lacking or even absent, such as a real story.  If Underworld had been a TV series, this would have been a multi-part episode at best.  At worst it would have been one of those really long episode-movies, you know, like half of the Star Trek franchise.

What this movie lacks in substance, it makes up, in part, for style.  “Visually appealing” are the words that I would probably use to describe the efforts here, although that feels like a bit of an understatement.  This movie just looks cool.  I tend to think of it as a really hot, but really dumb blond (forgive the use of the stereotype, but it works) as soon as your brain clears from the hormonal haze, you realize just what lurks under the surface, and that isn’t nearly so attractive.

Evolution doesn’t really add anything to the franchise, a trait that it shares with the third installment, which works as centuries of prequel to the original.  I complain a lot about movies that feel like they’re missing back story; I’m going to have a slightly different complaint here: a movie that spends a massive amount of time on back story (for a previous movie) that doesn’t really answer any questions I’ve had about the franchise.

Do I still think the mythos is cool?  Yeah, I do.  And this does confirm my suspicion that 1:1 a lycan is far more powerful than a vampire… which seems to be a problem given that the vampires rose to the top.  Well, I guess so did the Hiltons.  But, I’m still wondering how Viktor managed to find himself higher in rank than the most powerful (and original) vampire.  I’m still holding the bag on how this whole immortal thing happened genetically, and why being bitten by animals seems to have triggered off shoots.  What happens if a Corvinus is bitten by like, a shark?  I’m also wondering why the Corvinus clan seems to be the only line that take on traits of more than one immortal species.  With any luck, that will be answered by the fourth installment due out in early 2012.   

However, I have a hard time not admiring the action sequences.  If you liked what you saw in the original film, you won’t be disappointed.  And, while the story is hole-riddled and weak, it’s moderately entertaining, and after all, that’s my primary reason for going to the movies in the first place.

Day 143: Minority Report (2002)

PG-13, 2 hr. 24 min.  Directed by: Steven Spielberg.  Release Date: June 21, 2002.  DVD Release Date: December 17, 2002.

For science fiction, the hardest part of making an effective story, be it on film or in print, is the suspension of disbelief.  The rational part of my brain rejects the very concept of putting precognitive human who foretell the future of violent crimes into slavery, and thus ending crime in the D.C. sprawl.  The rational part of my brain yawns and rolls its eyes at the thought of every city in the country finding MORE precognitive humans and doing the same thing.  The rational part of my brain goes into absolute REBELLION at the mere thought of being incarcerated for something you haven’t actually done yet.  And yet, somehow, the rational part of my brain never engages in this engaging piece of near-future sci-fi.   

What we have is a pretty slick piece of science fiction.  Once I abandon my rejections of the various irrational incidents that occur, I can’t find many problems.  The technology we witness is a semi-logical outgrowth of existing technology.  I’ve actually worked with a computer “virtual touch” monitor that worked with gloves to allow you to interface with various software systems in lieu of a traditional keyboard and mouse.  It wasn’t all clear with transferable inserts that let you exchange data more quickly than you can with modern thumb drives, but still.  The actions sequences are really nice, and the special effects help to make everything a little more effective.

I also like how the movie depicts America with two separate classes:  those who live in the sunlight and those who live below the tracks in those neighborhoods that are probably nice today.  There’s a bit of cultural commentary to be found:  some on the disparate tendencies of economic classes in the United States, some on the invasion of government into our personal lives, and some on the nature and impact of technologies that we use.  I’ll probably be alive to see this “time” happen, and I’m wondering how close they’ll come to predicting the truth (with the exception of the precognitives).  

But, my favorite thing is how tragic a hero John Anderton is.  He does what he does because he’s been wounded, and his entire life is an effort to make up for what happened to his son.  Anderton is terrifically flawed, and in the way of life, no one around him can see what he’s doing to escape his own pain.  It’s a very well-written character that is one among many in Minority Report.  

If you haven’t seen this movie, it’s probably time to check it out.  It’s a quick summer blockbuster.  There’s some stuff for the thinking man and some stuff for those looking for mindless entertainment.

Day 142: Iron Man (2008)

PG-13, 2 hr. 6 min.  Directed by: Jon Favreau.  Release Date: April 14, 2008.  DVD Release Date: September 30, 2008. 

The simplest way to say it is this:  Iron Man revitalized the superhero movie in the same way that Avatar revitalized science fiction.  Now for purposes of me making any kind of sense, you’re just going to have to accept superhero movies as a distinct and separate sub-genre of science fiction.  If you can’t, nothing I’ve written to date has made any kind of sense.  Don’t get me wrong, I think Spider-Man and X-Men brought some mean competition and inspiration, but what we see here blows all the rest of the comic book movies to date out of the water.

I used to joke that Robert Downey Jr. was a better actor on blow than he is off blow, but well, everything he’s done in the last few years with the exception of Due Date just proves me wrong.  He’s good normally, but his portrayal of Tony Stark is brilliant.  I think the rest of the cast is well placed with the exception of Gwyneth Paltrow.  I’ll complain about this forever, but I just don’t think she’s…. sultry enough to do Pepper Potts any justice.  Ms. Paltrow is a beautiful woman and a fine actress, but she doesn’t radiate sex appeal… or any appeal.  I would have liked this part better if it had gone to someone with a bit more of that to her.  I actually would have approved more if Paltrow and Leslie Bibb switched roles, even though Leslie Bibb isn’t half the actress.

I’m not a huge fan of the Iron Man comic, but I loved this movie.  For a superhero flick, I thought the dialogue was sharp and entertaining.  The story didn’t feel overburdened with plot holes (explained by decades of comic books I haven’t read) or with back story.  You throw this into the DVD player, sit down, and the movie hits the ground running.  The story is mired enough in what were (and kind of still are) current events that it gives the movie a sense of relevance and the really outstanding cast almost makes you wonder how seriously these guys were taking this project.  

  

And then, there are the special effects.  Before Avatar, I would have said the special effects were amazing.  Now, they’re not all that amazing, but it’s still a solid effort.  I have similar feelings about the action sequences, with one exception where I think they do an outstanding job.  Finally, we have a Marvel (that was released prior to Thor) that has a really good flying superhero.  The aerial shots not only look realistic, they almost feel realistic, too.  I say that because I know more than one person who reported feeling a bit motion sick while watching the movie.

This is one of those movies that everyone should see once.  You don’t have to know anything about Iron Man.  That’s actually been a character trait all of Marvel’s movie adaptations have had in common… you don’t really have to know anything about the characters because all the movies provide you with the introduction.  I think of it as superhero networking, like Facebook with capes.    

Day 141: Pirates of the Caribbean, On Stranger Tides (2011)

PG-13, 2 hr. 17 min.  Directed by: Rob Marshall.  Release Date: May 20, 2011. 

Since I'm here to write, and I haven't seen any signs that the world ended approximately 2 hours ago, I'm going to start this entry to my blog.  Fearing the end of the world, I drove to my local (and crappy theater) to see this latest installment in what has been one of favorite franchises made in the last five years or so.  I'd already read a bunch of reviews, and I had steeled myself for disappointment.

Strangely, I wasn't.  There are a few things I've learned to look for from a Pirates movie:  (1) Johnny Depp in a quirky and (for some reason I haven't yet fathomed) strangely effeminate role, (2) a few cheap laughs, usually in response to Depp's prancing antics through the film, (3) some sweet action scenes and (4) a little bit of swashbuckling.  You can kind of throw in (5) some mystical element, but that really isn't something I look forward to.

All of those things were delivered, and I thought very well.  I still have nothing but love for Cap'n Sparrow and what's left of his ragtag band.  I still think Geoffrey Rush is good, but should be spending his talents elsewhere.  I'm wondering how Penelope Cruz got dragged into this.

I'll address some of the general criticisms I saw when doing my research:  (1) the story is without focal point (or mindless).  There's a lot of truth to this.  While they try hard to give this some sort of point and direction, there were too many factions in this race for the Fountain of Youth and they spent so much time bouncing between the different factions that I found it a little hard to really root for any of them.  One of the factions was so vague in their purpose that when they finally addressed it I had to wonder where that goal had come from.  (2)  The movie's too long.  Yeah, no argument there.  (3)  They're just drawing out the franchise.  Yup, I'm on board with that, but I've mostly felt that way since the release of At World's End.  

I have one more criticism to add.  While I get that the absence of Keira Knightley and Orlando Bloom left a romantic hole in the story, the romance(s) that do appear leave a little bit to be desired.  They're too brief, flare too quickly, and don't even attempt to make the relationships progress for what might pass as normal under the circumstances.  Mostly, I just think romance + action = fail.  Even if there's some humor to lighten things up.

Day 140: Knocked Up (2007)

R, 2 hr. 12 min.  Directed by: Judd Apatow.  Release Date: June 1, 2007.  DVD Release Date: September 25, 2007. 

This is really the only Seth Rogen film I’ve really enjoyed to date, at least, it’s the only Seth Rogen comedy that I’ve enjoyed to date.  I suspect it’s because of the supporting cast, but I also have this inkling that it’s funny because this is really what his life is like, even after his stardom.  In 2007, this was probably the funniest movie I’ve ever seen, and I still enjoy it, but some of the allure has gone out of the movie.  It’s just not as funny as it used to be, and I don’t know if it’s because comedies from later years have blown this out of the water, or if it’s because successive introductions to Mr. Rogen have just left me cold to the whole experience.

Now, the element of this movie that I enjoy the most is that this is a ridiculous comedy, where people are acting crazy and it seems unreasonable at first, but then you come to the realization that some of this actually happens to people.  The supporting cast is really where the money is in this movie:  Paul Rudd, Jay Baruchel, Jonah Hill, even a cameo by James Franco that’s totally worth watching… the list just keeps rolling on.  Each is funnier than the next, and they give the supporting cast enough time to bring some slapstick and/or offbeat humor to the show, even though this is a “relationship” movie and you wouldn’t expect it.  Certainly, the contribute to some of the funniest scenes in the film, like the pregnancy test scene, which is always fun to watch.  Granted, they do seem to be picked largely from a cast of Adam Sandler production rejects, but they’re good here.

The two major themes are pretty played out:  the surprise post-one nighter pregnancy and the odd couple situation.  We’ve seen them before, and frequently together.  It’s a very rare thing where we don’t see a romantic comedy where the couple gets together despite all odds, in fact, I’ve seen Katherine Heigl play in that exact kind of relationship on at least two other occasions that I can think of without working too hard at it.  This is probably the oddest of the odd couples that I’ve seen to date, so much so that I’m wondering how this would have worked out in a realistic environment:  I suspect a lack of follow-up contact and a quick trip past the picketers at a Planned Parenthood clinic.

Basically we have a common arrangement for both the stars:  Seth Rogen plays a total loser who’s hopped up on weed and Katherine Heigl plays a woman who is wound WAY too tight, and they end up in some unlikely relationship.  If you haven’t seen it, Knocked Up is worth watching once.  Repeat viewings can cause problems with your enjoyment.  I suspect there’s a ceiling, like maybe 5 or 7, and from there it all goes downhill.

Day 139: The Others (2001)

PG-13, 1 hr. 45 min.  Directed by: Alejandro Amenábar.  Release Date: August 10, 2001.  DVD Release Date: May 14, 2002. 

Sputtering candlelight, deep shadows, an old manor house in disrepair set in some remote, fog-ridden part of the United Kingdom.  It’s the stuff that horror movies were originally made of.  If there had been quirky organ music and ochre-toned film, I would have suspected that this had been made long before its time.  

The Others was a remarkable effort at a ghost story.  They seem to be hard to pull off on film, and this is a stellar example of how the whole process can (and probably should) work.  There are folks who call it a horror film… and when I was scheduling out my movies for this project, I considered adding it to the list of films for the mini-project of horror flicks I’ll be doing in October; but at the end of the day, sitting through a few scenes with a racing pulse and a gloomy setting isn’t horror.  It’s moody, and suggestive, but this doesn’t really promote fear so much as suspense and a bit of confusion, so I left it out, although I did include a few other films in that Halloween preparatory that I think will be… controversial.

The details in this film are pretty outstanding.  The setting is perfect for a gloomy ghost story, the kind of story that people have been telling around campfires for the dawn of time.  Once you’ve watched this, you’ll probably come to the same realization that I did:  that with a bit of editing, this could be a really sweet ghost story to tell at a camp out in some dark woods.  It has some elements of an urban legend:  be wary of who you let in to your homes, and that old classic about how women should be watchful of the children.

If I have a complaint with the movie, it’s that there are too many obvious red herrings.  The conveniently random appearance of the husband, his subsequent departure, the side conversations among the servants, and the children’s discussions of “that day” all seem to hint at entirely different things.  I think that it would have been better to focus on the servants, who seem to know more about what’s going on that the rest of the characters combined, even though it’s only the family that really knows what happens.

If you’re looking for something to give you a little case of the creeps, this is an enjoyable way to pass the time.  The cast is excellent, although I thought it was funny how few of the casted actors are actually British.  I think the build-up is a little slow, which is traditional for British-styled mysteries, so shorter attention spans may need to apply themselves elsewhere.

Day 138: The Man With the Golden Gun (1974)

PG, 2 hr. 5 min.  Directed by: Guy Hamilton.  Release Date: December 18, 1974.  DVD Release Date: October 22, 2002.

I’ve complained about plenty of the Bond movies starring Roger Moore.  He’s stiff and awkward in the action sequences, even more awkward in the love scenes (notice how I skillfully failed to use ‘stiff’ again?), and even early in his tenure as Bond he was kind of… old.  Somehow I’m just less impressed by a superspy that has turkey waddles around his throat.  Just sayin’.  

That being said, I kind of love this movie.  Is it my favorite of the classic Bond flicks?  No, but it’s easily in the top three. It isn’t in my top three for the reasons you might expect.  Golden Gun is a total farce, and not just because of Roger Moore.  It has a complicated story structure that doesn’t seem to lend itself to the characters or the situation, which I actually think would work better in a modern context than it did in 1974.  They think THEY had an energy crisis?  Pfft.  As.  If.  Granted, we’re not lining up at the gas pumps again, but who knows where the next year or so will send us.  I like that this Bond movie is a bit ahead of its time, at least in terms of theme.  But then, I have this thing for the Bond movies where the bad guy isn’t working for the good of anyone but him or herself. 

I liked that there’s a bit of silliness in this plot… well, purposeful silliness in the scene that takes place at the martial arts school.  Bond moves like an arthritic man in his eighties and still manages to beat up a bunch of baddies before getting some help from two Sailor Moon-looking girls, complete in schoolgirl uniforms.  Awesome.

There are plenty of things I think are terrible in this movie.  There’s rampant racism and sexism, even by Bond standards, which aren’t too high to begin with.  Apparently, if you’re of Asian descent in the Bond world, chances are even money that you’re also part ninja.  Worse still, is that the entire story plays to these “isms,” to the extent of bringing back the greatest “ism” character in the Bond series, Sheriff J.W. Culpepper of Louisiana in less than likely circumstances in Bangkok.  If I had to listen to him make one more ethnic slur, I’d probably have eaten a gun.  They also have one of the Bond girls spend approximately half her time in either a swimsuit or lingerie and seems to prove that in 1974, women’s rights had a long way to go.

This is a classic Bond for a reason.  I try not to be one of those people who says it sucks because it didn’t have Connery in the starring role, but Moore does feel like a step down.  I’d actually like them to remake this movie at some point with modern sensibility and (maybe) Daniel Craig… who I’d like to stay on as Bond but there seems to be a lot of mixed rumors on the internet, which I take with a grain of salt.  I’m keeping my fingers crossed that he stays on.

Day 137: The Duchess (2008)

PG-13, 1 hr. 49 min.  Directed by: Saul Dibb.  Release Date: September 5, 2008.  DVD Release Date: January 27, 2009.

Yet another night of tossing and turning led to me making this happen about six hours earlier than I'd normally get around to posting this.  Hope you enjoy and hope I get some sleep soon.

I watched this movie on a whim when it appeared on my Netflix streaming recommendations.  I suspect that after a long run of movies circling the British nobility, it’s become almost a necessity to throw these films my way.  Add Keira Knightley into the mix, since she’s dominating this corset-wearing, period drama genre the way Sandra Bullock rocks out cheesy romcoms, and this was destined to show up at some point.

My initial impressions were a bit of a yawn.  This is yet ANOTHER appearance of Keira Knightley playing some spoiled British aristocrat.  But I softened a bit on that line, even though I have condemned other movie stars for making the same choices.  Unlike most of those others, Keira Knightley plays these roles nearly faultlessly and once I watch her, I can’t think who they’d replace her with.  At this point in her career, it’s almost impossible for me to think of her without some big flouncy dress, petticoats, and some goofy-looking hat on her head.  On some stars, I’d call it ridiculous, but on her it just seems to fit.

While this was entertaining, it was entertainment that was tinged with equal parts of disgust and horror.  The movie portrays a woman who would have been an amazing, politically energizing figure even in the modern day.  The same film portrays a woman whose personal life was the stuff of nightmares, despite her lavish surroundings and lifestyle.  There are movies about spousal abuse that don’t cover all the awful things that Georgiana Cavendish survived at the hands of her husband and occasionally with assistance from her mother.  This story is, of course, propelled along by the talent of Ralph Fiennes and the supporting cast, none of whom I’ve ever laid eyes on our heard of.  Fiennes’ deadpan delivery of some truly terrible words like “Please put out Her Grace’s hair” and “No, that’s not how she put it” bring some much needed humor to this otherwise dark tale.

The only thing I struggled with in this movie (which is a common problem for me in these sorts of movie) is that there is a TON of characters to figure out and get all sorted.  Some of them only appear for a few minutes before disappearing back into the ether again.  Worse, some disappear and then come back a half hour later and I’m left to determine who they are.  Duchess isn’t light viewing, and I wouldn’t suggest you watch it when you can’t pay attention, but I doubt there’s anyone who couldn’t get something from it.  I watched this movie in the morning and by midday I had my own copy, that’s how much I enjoyed it.

Day 136: The Black Cauldron (1985)

PG, 1 hr. 22 min.  Directed by: Ted Berman, Richard Rich.  Release Date: January 1, 1985.  DVD Release Date: October 3, 2000.  

I was six when my Aunt Sharon, arguably tied with my grandparents in the race to be my favorite person when I was a kid, took me to see this in the theaters.  Watching this movie is one of the few memories I have of her from when I was young, although I do know she took me to the arcade at our local Golf ‘N Stuff (made famous by the date scene in The Karate Kid) on a semi-regular basis.  Unfortunately, this was also one of the last times I saw her in a truly positive light.  By the time I hit a double-digit age range, I knew that she had problems that she wasn’t up to solving on her own, and no one in the family could actually seem to figure out a way to fix the problem.  I guess the bottom line is “say no to drugs,” and I’m not going in to further details on this.  Just.  Say.  No.

People hated this movie.  A lot of people still do.  There’s a reason.  This is decidedly not a Disney movie.  Not everything in this movie is light and pretty.  The bad guy is ridiculously scary if you’re a child, and the discussion of conflict is frank and a bit of a fear generator for Disney’s usual target audience.  While I think the original series of books this was based upon was the Harry Potter of its day, the books were aimed at older kids, whereas the Disney brand name attracts a typically younger audience.  I actually like The Black Cauldron because it ISN’T like the other Disney movies.  The Horned King, the antagonist of this piece, is easily the most disturbing of Disney’s villains.  He’s no beautiful witch, or deviously attractive bokor.  This guy is BAD.  His goal isn’t vague, like world domination.  He wants to raise every dead soldier and use them to conquer the world.  And here you thought someone else started the zombie horror craze.

In many of the details, this is a typical Disney flick of its time piece.  The animation is colorful and without the shadowing effects you see in the classic Disney movies.  Backgrounds are beautiful woodsy or pastoral settings, and the supporting casts of characters helps balance a bit of the e-vile that is the Horned King and his purpose.  The adaptation of the book is fair, in many ways better than Disney’s traditional performance, although they did have more than a few pages to work with this time around.  I really, really like that this movie didn’t have all the action-consequence dichotomies that we expect of traditional fairy tales taken out of it.  While I don't have children of my own, it seems ridiculous that we have a generation coming of age that doesn't seem to realize that their actions might (and usually do) have consequences.  Makes being an adult that much harder.

If you’re going to have problems with excessive use of magic or a frank discussion of what evil might be… avoid this.  Buuut, if you want something kind of unusual from a really good group of filmmakers, check this out.

Day 135: Cursed (2005)

PG-13, 1 hr. 20 min.  Directed by: Wes Craven.  Release Date: February 25, 2005.  DVD Release Date: June 21, 2005.

People hate this movie.  I’ve never been able to figure out entirely why.  By far, it’s not the best movie ever, but I’ve always found it a joy to watch.  It feels like Craven and Kevin Williamson worked to create a comedic-horror piece with a werewolf theme, like Scream with fur.  It also feels like the powers that be at the studios interfered with that vision… because the result ends up being too mish-mashed.  There are obvious attempts at comedy throughout the film.  In fact, the entire final scene at Joshua Jackson’s club is a mix of horror images with slapstick to form something not unlike the best result of a Williamson-Craven pairing: the aforementioned Scream.  But the movie can’t seem to decide how seriously it’s going to take itself.  Ever.  There are moments that are straight out of the werewolf horror film history, then you turn a story corner and we’re watching werewolves in training talk about their maker’s fat thighs or Jesse Eisenberg’s sparing a few seconds in an emergency to check out Shannon Elizabeth’s chest while she hangs upside down.  Understandable, but still.  Muddled is a good word to describe Cursed.

One of my favorite parts of this movie is the interplay between the various cast members, many of whom have somewhat mixed success in their chosen profession, regardless of what their box office takes are.  This is my favorite Jesse Eisenberg movie to date, although it’s also his worst performance ever.  I’m glad that he’s gotten better over the years and I suspect if he manages to survive aging out of his traditional computer geek role, he’ll have a decent career.  I also didn’t hate Joshua Jackson, but admittedly, he had a short part, which must have helped.  Judy Greer was funny, but her role in this movie was a bit too much like her role in Jawbreakers for my taste.  I didn’t love Christina Ricci in this, which is unusual, because I’ve enjoyed most of her work, and especially since this is the last part she plays where appears to be fresh-faced.  After this, everything seems to get all Black Snake Moan and uncomfortable.

I don’t expect horror movies to be “good” movies, which is the largest single complaint I saw from sites like Flixster and Netflix.   I’m looking for entertainment, pure and simple.  If I want education or substance, I’m probably going to be watching something like Pride & Prejudice or some documentary.  When the word “werewolf” enters the film description I’m only looking for a few things:  (1) a good werewolf mythology, even if it’s unfamiliar, and a lack of telepathy, (2) an awesome transition from human to whatever form the werewolf takes and an even better final form, (3) a few tense moments, and (4) some blood.  I don’t expect to hear about the movie again when it comes time for the Academy Awards… although I guess An American Werewolf in London did take home an Oscar.  In that, I think Cursed delivers most of these, with the notable exception of the final man-wolf form, which kind of sucks.  The facial features on their wolfmen are pretty cool, but the rest seems awkward.  I also don’t like how one of the werewolves’ hair matches their dye job and not their actual hair color.  Sometimes the details make the movie, and the details in this one were usually performed in an awkward, haphazard style that didn’t help them any.

Day 134: Priest (2011)

PG-13, 1 hr. 27 min.  Directed by: Scott Stewart.  Release Date: May 13, 2011.

At some point around eleven today, we had our two thousandth visitor stop by TGMP.  That means traffic to this blog has exceeded traffic to the two years I worked on my old blog. I hope that means I've done something right this time around and thanks for reading!  If you notice any spelling or grammar errors, I'm trying to submit through my phone, and the process is a bit sloppy.

Because of my late efforts to go see this, reviews abounded online and I'd already seen a few reviews on Priest before I went to the theater... which were, shall we say, less than stellar. But I've had a rough week and needed a bit of a break from my life, so I trudged on with this as I planned.

There are a lot of positive things to say about this movie. The setting is vividly graphic... we're introduced to a  gritty world struggling for life after narrowly avoiding an apocalypse. While it's not pretty there is something breathtaking about this vampire-filled world; something primal and raw that reflects just a touch of our own reality, although the treatment of priests in the movie and it's reflections on the way veterans were treated after Vietnam was a bit thin. 

The action sequences were beautifully done but were nothing I hadn't seen before. In a post the Matrix world there just isn't that much action flicks can do to separate themselves from the seminal film of the genre.

However, this movie had a lot of problems that I'm going to blame on the adaptation of the priest graphic novel. The vampire mythology sucked, seemingly what we know about vampires with what we know about termites and those big mister from mimic. Throw in several people born in every generation to fight the vampires and forces of evil and you have what sounds a not like the final episode of Buffy...  which was entitled "all your slayers are belong to us."  Actually, this felt like an episode from that last season of Buffy... any episode that didn't have to do with Anya, that is.

Follow that up with the action film trifecta of bad dialogue, bad acting, and bad character development and I was left with more than a few questions regarding what is just seen.  I may have to check out the graphic novels this was based on at some point.

This will probably go down in my little book as a meh. Not great, but nor terrible either. Check it out as a matinee or wait for DVD. There didn't seem to be any reason to watch this in 3D or anything but the regular formatting.

- Follow up notes:  It's been a few days and I'm reading through this in response to a comment I received.  Apparently it's a bad idea to write these from my phone.  Damn you, AutoCorrect.

Day 133: Great Expectations (1998)

R, 1 hr. 51 min.  Directed by: Alfonso Cuarón.  Release Date: January 30, 1998.  DVD Release Date: December 31, 1998.

There are two major parts to this story:  the chance encounter that changes your life forever, which we actually see twice in this Dickens classic, and falling for someone who is absolutely toxic.  It’s the latter aspect of the story of this movie that makes me feel like this was a timeless tale, something that manages to be relevant and even of interest more than a century after it was written.  I think we’ve all been there at least once.  Met some woman (or man) who took our breath away, and then cut us so deeply that nothing afterwards was the same.  Some of us plunged headlong into that relationship, as Finn does, knowing that the end result will be disastrous, wanting only the rush of emotions on both ends of the relationship.  This adaptation, which has been transported a century forward and across a huge ocean still feels real, still feels as if it should matter within the framework of my own life and experience. 

In many ways, Great Expectations is a true adaptation of the story that inspired the film… or I guess I should say “films” because there have been at least two renditions of this tale set to celluloid that I know of.  But, I do feel as if so many of the details of the story have been pared down that it would have been hard for me to understand the motivations of the character if I hadn’t read the novel.  The one aspect of the novel that doesn’t transcend in the movie is how far up the class structure Finn jumps when he is contacted by his anonymous benefactor, because the class system in the United States is far more malleable than the Victorian class structure of Dickens’ day. 

This is kind of an example of a film where style trumped substance, but unlike a large number of films, substance was not totally subverted in the search for “cool.”  The style is a bit dated, but folks who came of age in the 90s, or who otherwise enjoyed the decade, will be able to appreciate it.  The cast is a great blend of popular actors of the day who actually had talent and a supporting cast of no-names who also seem to make mountains out of their parts.  I particularly enjoyed the work of De Niro and Bancroft, although I’m a little bummed that neither of them have more than supporting roles to the more… tame performances from Hawke and Paltrow.  I have to question the abundance of green costumes, which abound early on in the film, but are never totally abandoned as we watch the two man characters, Finn and Estella, grow up.

If you’re a fan of classic literature, I’d recommend this, because I think the adaptation to the modern United States is pretty outstanding.  However, if you’re one of those folks who mouths the dialogue as the cast runs through their lines, such as the troll who sat next to me when I watched Lord of the Rings in theaters, you’re bound to be disappointed.  But, I think any fan of “chic” 90s drama should add this to their “watch” list.

Day 132: A League Of Their Own (1992)

*** Reposted 5/13 due to the Blogger crisis***

PG, 2 hr. 7 min.  Directed by: Penny Marshall.  Release Date: July 1, 1992.  DVD Release Date: September 9, 1997.

This movie always reminds me of an old friend, Jennifer Wagner.  We saw this movie together in what must have been our sophomore year of high school, probably in the massive complex of Century theaters next to the Winchester Mystery House in San Jose.   After we graduated, Jennifer and I lost touch, and I learned in college that she had some health issues and had dropped out of Gonzaga.  Two years ago, I learned that Jennifer had lost her fight with cancer.  It was the first time I had thought about her in a few years, and the news kind of punched me like a fist, which I wasn’t prepared for.  I felt her loss acutely, but other than passive wondering about when she was going to get on Facebook with the rest of our high school group, I hadn’t given her much thought over the years and since she passed, I think of her a lot.  This one’s for Jennifer.  I miss ya, bud.

It’s hard for me not to like this movie, although it’s a bit of an odd situation.  I realize that the AAGBP was a real phenomenon, lasting for slightly over a decade, and I’ve known people whose grandmothers were players; several friends of mine have mentioned in passing that their grandmothers played professional baseball at some point.  I thought the women in baseball angle would be discomfiting, and it isn’t, although now one of my good friends plays professional football in the women’s league for the Sacramento Sirens, so I’m very accustomed to women’s sports.  This movie shows that, contrary to Futurama’s insistence that women’s sports means the players have to concentrate on the fundamentals because they lack the ability to do anything showy, this league was possessed of a number of exceptional athletes.

People can say a lot about this movie.  It’s two hours of Rosie O’Donnell running her mouth, which is true, although this is the last time I actually found Rosie to be winsome.  It’s two hours of Madonna acting brash and slutty… which, let’s face it, is a drop in the bucket of the total time Madonna’s run around acting brash and slutty.  Geena Davis looks freakishly tall and has huge gums, Lori Petty plays a character from Oregon with a decidedly east coast accent.  Tom Hanks is stupid good.  He’s had better performances than this, but not many, and he got award nominations for those.

A lot of me thinks that most of the charm comes from the bit players:  Penny Marshall’s husband, who rarely fails to make a cameo during his wife’s directing projects, is all kinds of funny, as is Jon Lovitz in a scene-stealing role.  The more I watch, the more people I “spot” in the cast, most recently including someone who is obviously a Cusack because she looked like a hybrid of the more famous Cusacks, and Tea Leoni.  

I’d have a hard time figuring out why people wouldn’t like this movie.  It’s a bit long, which can be a problem.  It’s got a fairly wholesome message and is generally appropriate for most of the family, but leave the younger kids out of this one.  If you have girls in your house who play baseball, they’ll doubtlessly love this one.

Day 131: Spider-Man (2002)

PG-13, 2 hr. 1 min.  Directed by: Sam Raimi.  Release Date: May 3, 2002.  DVD Release Date: November 1, 2002.

There are lots of movies that I can tell you where I saw them first.  There are few where I can provide as many details as this one.  I was in my second year in the Navy, still serving in Monterey, California.  I was in the intermediate Arabic course because I, like three other members of my class, was still waiting on the security clearance that would let me move forward in my training.  The movie’s release was big news, even in my Arabic class, and Saber, one of our professors who had designs on being an actor decided we should read about the film release write-up that had appeared in Al-Jazeera.  That day, right after class (and I mean as soon as we could get ourselves out of uniform and off post) two members of my class and I saw this movie.  It was the first and only time I watched a movie with either MJ or Jorge, but I still remember the excitement in the air when the house lights dimmed and the opening credits started.

Spider-Man delivered everything we could have asked of it.  It is the beginning of what should be one of the crown jewels of the superhero movie genre.  I’m not even a fan of the Spider-Man comics, and I think this adaptation is nearly perfect… although the red and blue “super spiders” were a bit of a turn-off.  I’m generally a fan of Sam Raimi’s movies, so it comes as no surprise that I enjoyed this one, but this script felt so strong that it could have been directed by just about anyone.  The dialogue is pretty tight, and lacks the usual campy feel that seemed to be so common to the genre before Marvel seriously upped the comic book movie bar with this project.  The special effects are brilliant, and I don’t doubt that what we saw in Spider-Man inspired most, if not all, of the superhero movies to follow… even those made by the competition (DC Comics).  

Most of what I love about this movie is the action sequences.  The CGI, or blue screen, or whatever magic these guys used to show us how Spider-Man got around New York City and fought crime is incredible.  Even while Peter Parker is transitioning into his new alter ego, we’re treated to lots of pretty cool features, and it doesn’t appear that any details were ignored.  I love watching the tiny spider hairs growing from his hands and allowing Parker to adhere to walls.

Spidey also gets credits for putting two actors on my radar:  Tobey Maguire and James Franco.  Franco’s gone on to a pretty prestigious career, most especially in the wake of his 2010 Best Actor nomination for 127 Hours.  Maguire puts on solid performances, but I think he’s a bit under-exposed.  I would have had money on him as Best Actor for Brothers in 2009, but no such luck.  I’m hoping each has a long career.

If there’s anything I could have done without, it was Willem DaFoe, who DID bring some of that campy badness into this movie.  His performance was so consistent and his track record is good enough that I’m assuming he was directed to do his role like that; it just wasn’t really the way I might have gone.  It was great that the movie managed to take itself seriously, and I think the way the Green Goblin is performed detracts from that a bit.  Not enough to wreck my enjoyment of the film, but it’s something I notice every time I watch the movie. 

If you've managed to go the last decade without seeing this, crawl out of your hole at some point and take a look.  Tell me if you get all wrapped up in Aunt May, who may just be the best casting decision ever made.  After three Spidey flicks, I want her to be MY Aunt May.