Movie Review: Homefront

If your kid gets dropped in a fight at school, don’t call your drug-dealing brother to make things right. It will not end well.

If you read my Transporter review, you know I have some serious respect for Jason Statham. Easily one of the best action stars today, entertainment is always in the cards when it comes to Statham, which is why when I was scrolling through Netflix, Homefront jumped out to me. It’s Statham, guys! If you’re looking for a good time that doesn’t ask for too much from you as a viewer, a Statham film is always an option. Chances are you’ll have fun with it, although to what degree is something you’ll have to find out for yourself. On a rare occasion, you’ll enter a Statham movie you hate. For example, don’t watch this or this, especially the second one, although I might watch it again just so I can rail on it for your enjoyment (I did). Those are the only two I’ve regretted with Statham thus far and when your success rate with me is eight for ten, I’m going to keep watching.

Also figuring into the equation is Sylvester Stallone. Stallone and Statham have become good friends since the making of The Expendables and join forces again here. Stallone was Statham before Statham was Statham and I think that’s why they get along so well, because they seek the same type of roles and have the same attitude to their work. That being said, Statham’s got all the screen to himself on this shoot because Stallone’s responsibilities are as the screenwriter and producer. Scripts by Stallone are hit-or-miss but people continue to see his work anyway because of the icon he’s become. No one wants to miss a masterpiece that may or may not arise from the author of the Rocky and Rambo franchises.

My respect for these two guys is through the roof because of their work ethic, character and the roles they play. Easily two of my favorites right here.

All that being said, I did not pursue Homefront when it came out. It just didn’t look like that great of a film. I’ll always love Statham but I’ve discovered his movies are not usually ones worth seeing in theaters. They’re the ones you seek out the year after their release when they’re at Walmart for $5 or on Netflix, which I’m really happy I’m subscribed to now.

Statham’s movies don’t make barrels of cash at the box office and there’s a reason for that. I think people such as myself have realized they’re films worth waiting for. Other films you just can’t wait. For example, everyone is going to see Expendables 3 because no one wants to wait to see that (we should have waited). The bank deposit for that movie will be sizable.

Statham’s movies differ because while you probably won’t see them at the theater, you’re bound to see them eventually. I don’t know a lot of people who haven’t seen a Statham role-play. When you’re hanging out with friends and you’re scrolling through lists of movies to watch, Statham shows up with his British accent saying, “Hey, you wanna take a ride?”

Keeping all that in mind, Homefront highlights a few big names but doesn’t give them a lot to do. I believe Winona Ryder was meant to ascribe “visual quality” rather than her acting prowess. Kate Bosworth plays the venomous mother of the son who gets a beatdown in the playground and brews hate in the audience. She’s one of those parents who thinks she’s perfect and everyone else is wrong. I don’t like those people.

Statham is Statham and gives it his all, reveling in the spotlight while emanating a character I think is closely associated with himself. A simple life for a simple man is all Phil Broker wants for himself and his little girl but a face-off with a bully ascends to something much more than that, all because Kate Bosworth had to take things personally. The sad thing is this scenario is credible considering all the other dumb stuff people do these days. There is some page-turning tension here as you see events continue to unfold into bigger and badder things. With that being said, you wonder where this is going to go. Is there going to be some big explosive third act or is Broker just going to beat a couple of guys senseless and ride into the sunset? Advances in character are made while we wait to see what happens.

James Franco is our villain and does nothing for me….again. I just don’t get the flavoring, the sinister vibe from Franco here. He doesn’t seem interested in doing any of the dirty work, making him more of a weasel than a face worthy of standing across from Statham’s Broker. Some blame can certainly go to the writing of his character but Franco’s lackluster effort is also worth noting.

A subplot of romance is hinted with Broker but is never explored, something that would have distracted from the meandering of this plot at the halfway point. I wouldn’t have minded a little romance either because you don’t see Statham get emotional much if at all in his roles.

Frank Grillo provides what might have been a beacon of light for audiences given his aptitude but to our dismay is a false hope, playing an angry biker whose only meaningful line of dialogue is “Where’s the narc?”

The third act is sure to disappoint everyone and excite no one. The only success the third act can boast is anchoring this film rather than getting it off the ground, certifying Homefront‘s status as one of the forgettable films of 2013.

Once again, if you’re new to my blog,  I’ve always ranked movies on a scale of 0-100 (I don’t know why, I just always have). Here’s the grading scale.  

90-100  It’s a great movie and definitely one worth buying. (Guardians of the Galaxy, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, Transformers: Age of Extinction, Jack Reacher, Godzilla)

80-89   It was a pretty good movie and definitely one worth seeing, but it doesn’t quite scratch my top ten percentile. (Tears of the Sun, Edge of Tomorrow, The Amazing Spider-Man 2, Young Guns, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2)

70-79   It’s okay but I’ve seen better. It has its moments, but it has its flaws, too.(Red Dawn(2012), Maleficent, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Transporter 2, Battle: Los Angeles)

60-69   It’s got plenty wrong with it but I still got enjoyment out of this one. (Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy, The Transporter, Speed, Godzilla(1998), The Incredible Hulk)

50-59   This movie isn’t intolerable but it’s not blowing my mind either. I’m trying really hard to get some sort of enjoyment out of this. (G.I. Joe: Retaliation, Vantage Point, The Starving Games, You’re Next, Thor)

40-49   This movie is just mediocre. It’s not doing anything other than the bare minimal, so morbidly boring that sometimes I’m actually angry I watched this. (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Billy Madison, A Haunted House, 300: Rise of an Empire, Cowboys and Aliens)

30-39   Definitely worse than mediocre, the 30′s ironically define the 1930′s, full of depression, lack of accomplishments, poverty and just so dumb. (Planet of the Apes, Stonados, Redemption, Pride and Prejudice, The Contract)

20-29   What did I just watch? Cliches, stupidity, nothingness, did I mention stupidity? Just…wow. (X-Men: Days of Future Past, Thor: The Dark World, The Sum of All Fears)

0-19      Watching this movie resulted in one or more of the following: seizure, loss of brain cells, falling asleep/unconsciousness, feel you wasted your time/day, accomplished nothing for you, left the movie knowing less about it then you did going into it, constantly asking yourself why you came to see this movie, or near-death experience. In short, staring at a wall was just as entertaining as watching this movie. This movie deserved a sticker or a label that said, “WARNING: EXTREME AMOUNT OF SUCKAGE.” (Watchmen, Clash of the Titans, A Haunted House 2, Open Grave, Alien 3)

My score for Homefront: 58.

Potential was there but Stallone does a poor job of utilizing it. The cast list may read nice but doesn’t come to fruition. Truthfully, the achievement that Homefront can boast the most is its ability to deceive and ensnare potential viewers into thinking it’s something more than it is.

Movie Review: Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, as good as it was, reminded me of this film’s existence. I didn’t have the fondest memories of it. Actually, I didn’t really have that much a memory of this one at all. If it weren’t for my want for review, I’m not sure I would have revisited this.

The Planet of the Apes reboot started back in 2011 with this flick, with James Franco at the forefront as scientist Will Rodman, who is attempting to find a cure for Alzheimer’s to help his ailing father and to keep his job at the biotechnology company he works at, Gen-Sys.

It’s being tested on chimps and when the testing produces a violent result, naturally the virus is blamed and the project and Rodman’s hopes are flipped on their head. Rodman finds out that’s not the case when he finds out the ape that went on a violent rampage was doing so because she had just given birth to a baby. For some reason, with all the scientific equipment and primate experts they have at Gen-Sys, no one knew that this ape was pregnant, but okay, whatever, guess this is one of those “just go with it” things. Insert grunt here.

So Rodman takes the baby, which is named Caesar by his intrigued father and our story begins.

Caesar inherits the virus effects from his mother and shows incredible intelligence, which Rodman tracks in hopes he can regain the funding from his project at work despite the fact that he has kept company property for the last few years, which would make any company executive infuriated but I guess the guy’s really desperate in his situation.

Caesar is this movie’s best character by a long shot as you see him begin to realize the situation he’s in, living with a family of humans and never interacting with his own kind, limited by his surroundings and his constant oversight by Rodman. He doesn’t hate the guy but he knows that it’s time to go home, his real home, in the wild. He can’t do a lot of the things that he wants to do in life, that we all want to do in life: make friends, find “the one”, roam free and do whatever comes to our minds. These are our desires and they’re things we can’t have if we’re cooped up in an attic 95 percent of the time. Facial expression, body posture and a couple hand motions from Andy Serkis will tell you all this as he continues to show he’s great putting on the gilly suits and flaunting them with style and precision. Showing emotions and intricacy through movement: check.

Then there’s the rest of this movie. The pacing is lackadaisical and the film as a whole is pretty uneventful until we reach the final third. Caesar’s mind is thoroughly explored but I can’t say there’s much else to look at here.

James Franco has slowly become one of my least favorite actors, electing to star in brainless stoner comedies instead of pursuing more engaging roles that drill into the minds of audiences like his Spider-Man 3 portrayal of Harry Osbourne, one of the few components critics can agree was enjoyable. It might be Franco’s personality as he does have an attraction to the spotlight but in the last few things I’ve seen him in, it feels like his mind is somewhere else. He doesn’t seem completely engaged. We all have our problems, Mr. Franco. However, you’re in an occupation where you’re paid millions of dollars to be someone you’re not and convince us that is the case.

The rest of them really aren’t doing anything else either. Freida Pinto is the actress from the overrated Slumdog Millionaire and her performance here shows she really doesn’t deserve all the attention she’s getting. So bland, so boring, so much theatrical emotion, just ugh. Please go away. Just walk around Hollywood, wave and smile. Gosh, she’s bad in this.

Finally, Tom Felton tries to do something other than be one of the most hated children ever, Draco Malfoy of the Harry Potter films and while he succeeds at being a total prick, he’s been doing that forever and he’s always going to be Draco Malfoy. No matter what he does, he’s always going to be that snotty little rich kid.

Once again, if you’re new to my blog,  I’ve always ranked movies on a scale of 0-100 (I don’t know why, I just always have). Here’s the grading scale.

 90-100  It’s a great movie and definitely one worth buying. (Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, Transformers: Age of Extinction, Jack Reacher, Godzilla, Secretariat)

80-89   It was a pretty good movie and definitely one worth seeing, but it doesn’t quite scratch my top ten percentile. (Tears of the Sun, Edge of Tomorrow, The Amazing Spider-Man 2, Young Guns, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2)

70-79   It’s okay but I’ve seen better. It has its moments, but it has its flaws, too.(Transporter 2, Battle: Los Angeles, Skyfall, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, 300)

60-69   It’s got plenty wrong with it but I still got enjoyment out of this one. (The Transporter, Speed, Godzilla(1998), The Incredible Hulk, Disaster Movie)

50-59   This movie isn’t intolerable but it’s not blowing my mind either. I’m trying really hard to get some sort of enjoyment out of this. (The Starving Games, You’re Next, Thor, Full Metal Jacket, Alien Resurrection)

40-49   This movie is just mediocre. It’s not doing anything other than the bare minimal, so morbidly boring that sometimes I’m actually angry I watched this. (Billy Madison, A Haunted House, 300: Rise of an Empire, Cowboys and Aliens, Serendipity)

30-39   Definitely worse than mediocre, the 30′s ironically define the 1930′s, full of depression, lack of accomplishments, poverty and just so dumb. (Planet of the Apes, Stonados, Redemption, Pride and Prejudice, The Contract)

20-29   What did I just watch? Cliches, stupidity, nothingness, did I mention stupidity? Just…wow. (X-Men: Days of Future Past, Thor: The Dark World, The Sum of All Fears)

0-19      Watching this movie resulted in one or more of the following: seizure, loss of brain cells, falling asleep/unconsciousness, feel you wasted your time/day, accomplished nothing for you, left the movie knowing less about it then you did going into it, constantly asking yourself why you came to see this movie, or near-death experience. In short, staring at a wall was just as entertaining as watching this movie. This movie deserved a sticker or a label that said, “WARNING: EXTREME AMOUNT OF SUCKAGE.” (A Haunted House 2, Open Grave, Alien 3, Dark Fury, Midnight Cowboy)

My score for Rise of the Planet of the Apes: 73.

This score likely will not hold up well and over time I’ll likely wish I could redo this critique. The costume design and CGI is state of the art as is Caesar as a character but the human counterparts as well as the story arc leave this tale void of suspense or any drive to push it forward. It’s just a bland product. If I have to pick between this and Dawn, Dawn without hesitation.

Movie Review: Spider-Man 3

The Spider-Man saga didn’t end with a bang like everyone was hoping and so we take a visit to the third and final film to see where it all went wrong. I would like to mention that what I want to talk about may involve some plot points, but all spoilers will be left in the spoiler’s edition as always.

The severely underrated cast returns with its mainstays of Maguire, Dunst and Franco, but also welcomes some new faces with Bryce Dallas Howard as Gwen Stacy, Topher Grace as Eddie Brock, and Thomas Haden Church as Flint Marko/The Sandman.

Spider-Man and Peter Parker have finally gotten to where they want to be in life. The media and public have finally embraced him as the protector of the city and Parker has finally gotten the love of his life by his side. The only problem is that his best friend Harry Osborn knows that Peter is Spider-Man and believes Spider-Man killed his father.

We’ve got new villains in Eddie Brock/Venom and Flint Marko/The Sandman. As I discussed in my review of Spider-Man 2, these films rely so heavily on its characters that it’s essential they give our villains complexity and depth and they succeed in doing so somewhat. Eddie Brock is a guy who’s life never goes his way, which is more due to his poor character and life choices than on luck. He’s a guy hellbent on revenge and that’s really all there is to it. Grace doesn’t create a stench of lackluster acting by any means but it’s also a character that I’ve seen far too many times. It requires an actor who can sell me on his originality and unique qualities as well as dialogue that aids him in the endeavor. With Brock, we don’t really get a lot of that and I don’t really feel that sorry for the guy because most of the pain and embarrassment he suffers is of his own making.

Marko on the other hand is a different story…slightly. Church has some broad strokes to his character that allow some depth but not as much as I was want. Marko’s daughter is sick and he’s trying to get the money to pay for her medical bills. Its emotional appeal hits on some points and misses on others, something I feel is accredited to the fact that this character didn’t come out of a cauldron of creativity. Once again, it’s a role I’ve seen before and while Church has his moments, I’m not persuaded.

The action scenes continue their steady incline of progress although they’re not that much better than Spider-Man 2. Comedic lines were more prominent, which was much appreciated.

Now let’s get down to business and talk about what’s really wrong with this film: Peter Parker. It’s not Tobey Maguire although I was occasionally ranting at the television as if it was his fault, but truly it isn’t and I send Mr. Maguire my sincerest apologizes. The symbiote known as Venom makes his entrance and really from there the film goes downhill. For those of you who still haven’t seen this (how dare you), that’s like 10 minutes in. You see, the problem is the screenwriters got too antsy about turning our beloved Spider-Man into an egotistical bigot before he actually interacted with the symbiote, causing Parker to do things that he wouldn’t do. I’m basing this off of my knowledge of the character. Obviously, this is a subjective concept, so I’m not right or wrong, this is purely opinion. Parker is a caring, intelligent and selfless guy, someone who puts others before himself, and so on and so on. Can we agree that this is a basic sketch of who Parker is? If you can, great. If you can’t, bear with me.

Mary Jane’s acting career isn’t set in stone just yet and whenever she tries to confide in Peter how she feels, he just relates everything to himself or Spider-Man. This is before he connects himself with the symbiote. Now, does this sound like something a selfless person would do? He accepts the key to the city and decides to take the special moment that only he and Mary Jane had, the Spidey-hanging-from-a-roof kiss, and do the same thing with Gwen Stacy. Mary Jane isn’t happy with this and I wouldn’t be either. Does this sound like something a caring and smart person would do, someone who knows how Mary Jane takes things?

Before we move on, we must address the purpose of the symbiote as well as what it actually does because Jon and I had a disagreement regarding it yesterday and so I want to explain what my viewpoint is so you know where I’m coming from.

Jon kept saying that once Parker interacted with the suit that he no longer had control of himself or could be held responsible for his actions, which I disagreed with. If you google “define symbiote”, it will explain that they’re a fiction parasite from the Marvel Comics and that:

“The Symbiotes envelop their hosts like costumes, creating a parasitic bond through which the host’s mind can be influenced.”

Notice I bolded the word influenced because that is the important word. It does not say control or manipulate. It says influence, meaning it tries to persuade Parker to do things but the choice is his. It gives me the impression that Parker is in the frame of mind of a person suffering from some sort of addiction or intoxication. He keeps giving in to temptation and wants to continue to do it, not fully understanding the consequences of his actions. He’s still making the decisions. As further proof, he takes off the black suit at one point in the film, voluntarily and without any problem at all. If the symbiote was controlling him and he had no control of what he was doing, do you think the symbiote would have let it be separated from Parker? No, that wouldn’t make any sense. The more he wears it, the stronger the coercion and power it gives him, making it harder to break the “addiction” as in real life.

Because of this, everything that Parker does in this film as both himself and Spider-Man he is responsible for. He does have outside forces interfering with how he would do things but he still is capable of choosing the right course of action. Parker fails to do the right thing again…and again…and again…and again…and again…and again, so much so that I got to the point of hating the character on the screen. Spider-Man is my favorite superhero and I was disgusted with the guy. Spider-Man has perhaps the highest moral compass of any of the more popular superheroes, so if anyone would be able to resist the temptations of the symbiote, it would be Spider-Man, but instead he proves to be just as bad as the average joe, doing things so uncharacteristic of himself that I didn’t even think I was watching Spider-Man anymore. It felt like I was watching M. Night Shyamalan take a dump on the character we all know and love and turn him into the ugliest filth humanly possible. Pretty hard to root for someone like that.

Once again, if you’re new to my blog,  I’ve always ranked movies on a scale of 0-100 (I don’t know why, I just always have). Here’s the grading scale.

 90-100  It’s a great movie and definitely one worth buying. (Mission Impossible, Mission Impossible II, Mission Impossible III, Spider-Man, Spider-Man 2)

80-89   It was a pretty good movie and definitely one worth seeing, but it doesn’t quite scratch my top ten percentile. (Basic, The Other Guys, The Lego Movie, Non-Stop, Divergent)

70-79   It’s okay but I’ve seen better. It has its moments, but it has its flaws, too. (Escape Plan, Captain America: The First Avenger, Dawn of the Dead, Flyboys, 300)

60-69   It’s got plenty wrong with it but I still got enjoyment out of this one. (Pacific Rim, The Long Kiss Goodnight, Disaster Movie)

50-59   This movie isn’t intolerable but it’s not blowing my mind either. I’m trying really hard to get some sort of enjoyment out of this. (Aliens, Alien Resurrection, Full Metal Jacket, Thor, You’re Next)

40-49   This movie is just mediocre. It’s not doing anything other than the bare minimal, so morbidly boring that sometimes I’m actually angry I watched this. (Pitch Black, Alien, Serendipity, Cowboys and Aliens, 300: Rise of an Empire)

30-39   Definitely worse than mediocre, the 30’s ironically define the 1930’s, full of depression, lack of accomplishments, poverty and just so dumb. (The Contract, Pride and Prejudice, Redemption)

20-29   What did I just watch? Cliches, stupidity, nothingness, did I mention stupidity? Just…wow. (The Sum of All Fears, Thor: The Dark World)

0-19      Watching this movie resulted in one or more of the following: seizure, loss of brain cells, falling asleep/unconsciousness, feel you wasted your time/day, accomplished nothing for you, left the movie knowing less about it then you did going into it, constantly asking yourself why you came to see this movie, or near-death experience. In short, staring at a wall was just as entertaining as watching this movie. This movie deserved a sticker or a label that said, “WARNING: EXTREME AMOUNT OF SUCKAGE.” (Midnight Cowboy, Dark Fury, Alien 3, Open Grave)

My score for Spider-Man 3: 82.

The blame for the collapse of this trilogy may fall on the shoulders of Maguire and Dunst, but truly belongs to the developers of the script. A film that tried to show us a darker side ended up creating a whole different movie and along with some cornyness towards the end of the film, caused Spider-Man fandom to leave the theater disgusted. Despite all of that, I still find the film tolerable and above average because of the merits of cast and crew. It’s sloppy though and infuriating because you know they were capable of so much more.

*SPOILER ALERT* IF YOU DON’T WANT THE MOVIE SPOILED, STOP READING!!!

*SPOILER’S EDITION*

When Harry threatens Mary Jane and tells her that if she doesn’t break up with Peter, he’s going to kill him, why does she do what he asks? I mean, he’s Spider-Man. Meet him at the bridge like you said you would and then say, “Hey, Harry’s got his memory back and says if I don’t break up with you, he’s going to kill you.” There’s no way Harry can hear their conversation that far away from the bridge and so there’s no risk in telling him that. From here, you also have quite a couple of options of what you can do. 1) Mary Jane could “fake” break up with him and make it seem like Harry got what he wanted, Mary Jane goes unharmed and then Peter beats him up. 2) Peter and Mary Jane walked across the bridge to Harry and try to get him to stop being stupid and if not, Peter beats him up. I don’t think Harry would try to kill Mary Jane. 3) You walk away and do nothing. While an option, I wouldn’t consider it. 4) Mary Jane can actually break up with him, causing Peter to go into a bout of depression, destroy Harry’s crib and blow half his face off, which then results in Peter becoming an egotistical, self-absorbed prick and so on and so on. Mary Jane chose option 4, probably the worst option on here aside from option 3, although if she had picked 3, I probably would have been happier.

Finally, the romance between Mary Jane and Peter is left with a cliffhanger, which is just mean. They hint that they could be back together but they don’t come right out and say it either, not to mention that how she could give him a second chance I don’t know because he doesn’t deserve it. It’s just a movie that makes me very angry to watch, but not because it’s one of the worst ever seen.

Movie Review: Spider-Man 2

The sequel to the 2002 Spider-Man start-up, the whole cast and crew returns along with director Sam Raimi. The new face on the set is Alfred Molina and he gives an enthralling performance as Doc Ock/Dr. Otto Octavius. His character, in my opinion, is more complex than the Green Goblin although Molina doesn’t make it seem that way on the screen. He’s shown to be a guy who’s spent his whole life trying to sustain fusion power, which if successfully retained, could be an indefinite source of energy for the whole world. It’s the type of discovery that could literally change the world. However, when the experiment goes wrong and his wife is killed in the chaos that ensues, Dr. Octavius has lost everything. The loss is too much for him to take and so he decides to continue to pursue the one part of him he still can: his work, controlling and sustaining fusion power despite the life-threatening capability it has shown to have if done wrong. He’s not the worst of the worst, he’s just a guy that’s plagued by stubbornness, pride, and loss. Because of his desperation he’s willing to do whatever it takes to make his dream become a reality, even if that means killing a couple of people along the way. His robotic arms only spur his desperation further, detracting him from the reality that all the other experts have come to: it’s just not possible.

All of this is not stuff that I’ve read or heard from friends. It’s all stuff that Molina is able to tell the audience through the dialogue he’s presented with. He’s a more relatable villain. I’m not saying that villains need to be, because they don’t. Some villains are just sick and twisted individuals who need to be put in a mental asylum but in this case, a film that is so strongly based on its characters, I think it’s important the villain have some sort of humanity to him even if it’s the smallest portion. In this film, Doc Ock shows much more than that. I sympathize with the guy but his situation doesn’t warrant his actions.

We got Rosemary Harris as Aunt May once again, who is very caring, generous and sympathetic. Her acting is sincere and genuine and is so much more memorable than Sally Fields in the new one, which is a shame because if the filmmakers gave her the material, I’m sure she could pull it off. I’d like to mention once again how much I like J. K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson in these films. He’s so spot-on with the character. He’s flippant, facetious and erratic. Just really fun to watch.

Franco’s not lighting up the screen with Harry Osborn but he’s doing what’s required of him. His time comes in Spider-Man 3. Until then, we’re going to keep looking at Kirsten Dunst and Tobey Maguire showing audiences how to transfer love stories from paper to the screen. Dunst retains the role of Mary Jane Watson and deservedly so because her encompassing of Parker’s sweetheart is very convincing and believable. For all the critics who cry foul about these films not following the source material, I ask them to look at the characters and tell me what’s wrong with them. Based off all you know about Spider-Man, is this not the Mary Jane you’ve read about for years? If you say no, we both know you’re lying to yourself.

Finally and most importantly, Tobey Maguire swings in the Spider-Man film once again. His overly fulfilling and touching consummation of our famous Peter Parker in the first film deserved the utmost applause and does so even more here. Parker’s so selfless and here viewers see how his overwhelming need to obey the moral right and his conscience interferes with his day-to-day life and his relationships. He struggles to get to school on time, to see Mary Jane’s play and to stay in touch with Harry and Aunt May. He’s always busy and he never has any time for himself and eventually he starts to wonder if there will ever be any time for him. It’s a great directorial direction from Sam Raimi and one that presents us with a theoretical and philosophical premise. Can you really blame Parker for wanting to hang up the suit? He’s such a selfless guy but I would hope the individual viewer would be able to see the amount of stress this type of responsibility can have on someone. It’s a great idea and one that comes to life with Maguire at the forefront. He’s so talented as is Kirsten Dunst in her role. It makes me wonder if it hadn’t been for Maguire and Dunst’s bouts with depression and drug use, how far their careers could have gone. For now, I’m just going to enjoy the masterpieces they showed they were capable of giving.

Once again, if you’re new to my blog,  I’ve always ranked movies on a scale of 0-100 (I don’t know why, I just always have). Here’s the grading scale.

 90-100  It’s a great movie and definitely one worth buying. (The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, Mission Impossible, Mission Impossible II, Mission Impossible III,  Spider-Man)

80-89   It was a pretty good movie and definitely one worth seeing, but it doesn’t quite scratch my top ten percentile. (Basic, The Other Guys, The Lego Movie, Non-Stop, Divergent)

70-79   It’s okay but I’ve seen better. It has its moments, but it has its flaws, too. (Escape Plan, Captain America: The First Avenger, Dawn of the Dead, Flyboys, 300)

60-69   It’s got plenty wrong with it but I still got enjoyment out of this one. (Pacific Rim, The Long Kiss Goodnight, Disaster Movie)

50-59   This movie isn’t intolerable but it’s not blowing my mind either. I’m trying really hard to get some sort of enjoyment out of this. (Aliens, Alien Resurrection, Full Metal Jacket, Thor, You’re Next)

40-49   This movie is just mediocre. It’s not doing anything other than the bare minimal, so morbidly boring that sometimes I’m actually angry I watched this. (Pitch Black, Alien, Serendipity, Cowboys and Aliens, 300: Rise of an Empire)

30-39   Definitely worse than mediocre, the 30’s ironically define the 1930’s, full of depression, lack of accomplishments, poverty and just so dumb. (The Contract, Pride and Prejudice, Redemption)

20-29   What did I just watch? Cliches, stupidity, nothingness, did I mention stupidity? Just…wow. (The Sum of All Fears, Thor: The Dark World)

0-19      Watching this movie resulted in one or more of the following: seizure, loss of brain cells, falling asleep/unconsciousness, feel you wasted your time/day, accomplished nothing for you, left the movie knowing less about it then you did going into it, constantly asking yourself why you came to see this movie, or near-death experience. In short, staring at a wall was just as entertaining as watching this movie. This movie deserved a sticker or a label that said, “WARNING: EXTREME AMOUNT OF SUCKAGE.” (Midnight Cowboy, Dark Fury, Alien 3, Open Grave)

My score for Spider-Man 2: 96.

The sequel just edges out the first one for my favorite of the superhero trilogy. The action is slightly better, especially if we consider the incredible special effects that are done with Doc Ock’s tentacle arms and I like the plot a lot more, which had a larger range with what it could do since it showed us the superhero’s origin in the first one. These films in my opinion are so underrated and if you’re as big a fan of Spider-Man as I am, you love every second of it.

Movie Review: Spider-Man

Before I start this review, I’m going to go off on a little tangent because I’m feeling it.

If I hear one more person bash a superhero film because it doesn’t go along with the comics, I am going to legitimately flip out. If you care about the comics, then please, read the comics!!! Don’t expect directors to make the story exactly like the comics because it’s not going to happen. Directors and anyone involved in Hollywood are there because they are creative people who are good at making stories come alive. At least most of them are. Their job is NOT to take a comic and make it into a film with all of the dialogue, characters, action and conflicts coming word-for-word from the comics. Their job is to creatively alter the story in a way that demonstrates appropriate respect for the comics while introducing a new look to the story. You know what’s really boring? Watching a film where we already know what’s going to happen down to the phrasing of the characters. You know what’s not? Giving a director free rein to take a story and give it some originality and flair that separates it from the adaptations done before it. If you are judging a movie purely based on the fact that it doesn’t align itself with the comics, you’re not giving the film a fair chance, not to mention you’re being completely ignorant to what the film is trying to depict.

Thank you for allowing my rant and please feel free to comment on the insert as well as your standing on the subject in the comments. I love reading what you guys have to say.

Now, Spider-Man the original trilogy starts off with this 2002 masterpiece, and yes, you read that correctly. The acting duo of Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst is exceptional in these films. Dunst gives us a vivacious depiction of Mary Jane Watson, providing the audience with a basic framework before illuminating the many strings attached to that character, mainly her insecurities and apprehension of what the future holds in store for her. She’s charismatic and charming, caring and flirtatious, but eventually comes to the realization that maybe it’s time to stop flirting with every guy and start looking for “the” guy. Her performance still had a little room for improvement but is by no means mediocre. It’s Dunst’s most noteworthy performance and after viewing this, it’s not too hard to see why.

James Franco’s career didn’t fully get going until he was Harry Osborn in the Spider-Man saga. He demonstrates apprehension for the future as well, but unlike Mary Jane, his instability is created by the fact that he’s not sure where he belongs. His dad, Norman, owns his own company, Oscorp, and is a recognizable public figure. He’s an established scientist and businessman and so Harry is constantly living in his father’s shadow. It’s a father-son relationship that is not unfamiliar with the theatric screen, but in this blockbuster separates itself from the sketches before it. Franco demonstrates the behavior of an upper echelon citizen, someone who at times looks down at others although doesn’t mean to do so.

Willem Dafoe is tenacious as Norman Osborn and his acting is especially impressive during the scenes he utilizes the personalities of Norman and the Green Goblin. It’s a visual representation of the internal conflict that Norman is dealing with and while not stellar or the best of the best, it is something to be admired.

Finally, we have Tobey Maguire. Oh, Tobey. He’s so good as Peter Parker and displays his humility, compassion, and wisdom through his actions. In so many ways, the character of Peter Parker reminds me of myself that the resemblance makes me wonder if we are twins. He doesn’t have a lot of friends at school (check), gets picked on (check), thrives in academics (check), relies on his family for support (check), has banks of potential but is not always the most responsible (check). He’s so easy to relate to and yet he’s such a unique character. With a character that is so down to Earth and so admirable, this is the best type of superhero for me. This is the Spider-Man that I like to see, one who holds himself to the highest values and standards and fights for the moral right, who’s willing to risk his life for others because of the selfless person that he is. He’s not cocky or arrogant or completely irresponsible. Talking about you, Andrew Garfield.

Once again, if you’re new to my blog,  I’ve always ranked movies on a scale of 0-100 (I don’t know why, I just always have). Here’s the grading scale.

 90-100  It’s a great movie and definitely one worth buying. (The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, Mission Impossible, Mission Impossible II, Mission Impossible III)

80-89   It was a pretty good movie and definitely one worth seeing, but it doesn’t quite scratch my top ten percentile. (Basic, The Other Guys, The Lego Movie, Non-Stop, Divergent)

70-79   It’s okay but I’ve seen better. It has its moments, but it has its flaws, too. (Escape Plan, Captain America: The First Avenger, Dawn of the Dead, Flyboys, 300)

60-69   It’s got plenty wrong with it but I still got enjoyment out of this one. (Pacific Rim, The Long Kiss Goodnight, Disaster Movie)

50-59   This movie isn’t intolerable but it’s not blowing my mind either. I’m trying really hard to get some sort of enjoyment out of this. (Aliens, Alien Resurrection, Full Metal Jacket, Thor, You’re Next)

40-49   This movie is just mediocre. It’s not doing anything other than the bare minimal, so morbidly boring that sometimes I’m actually angry I watched this. (Pitch Black, Alien, Serendipity, Cowboys and Aliens, 300: Rise of an Empire)

30-39   Definitely worse than mediocre, the 30’s ironically define the 1930’s, full of depression, lack of accomplishments, poverty and just so dumb. (The Contract, Pride and Prejudice, Redemption)

20-29   What did I just watch? Cliches, stupidity, nothingness, did I mention stupidity? Just…wow. (The Sum of All Fears, Thor: The Dark World)

0-19      Watching this movie resulted in one or more of the following: seizure, loss of brain cells, falling asleep/unconsciousness, feel you wasted your time/day, accomplished nothing for you, left the movie knowing less about it then you did going into it, constantly asking yourself why you came to see this movie, or near-death experience. In short, staring at a wall was just as entertaining as watching this movie. This movie deserved a sticker or a label that said, “WARNING: EXTREME AMOUNT OF SUCKAGE.” (Midnight Cowboy, Dark Fury, Alien 3, Open Grave)

My score for Spider-Man: 95.

Those who prefer the newer version to the original most likely do so because of the fact that the newer ones are closer aligned with the comics, an unfair and unprofessional reason for preferring one over the other. The visuals and battle sequences are choreographed well and the characters are all memorable, even J.K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson despite his incredibly short screen time. The cast is better, the dialogue is better and the character development wins by a mile and then some. Even if I weren’t comparing the two films, Spider-Man on its own is a great film in and of itself. If you’re a fan of Spider-Man, you gotta watch this.

Movie Review: Flyboys

James Franco leads a cast of unknowns in a story of the Lafayette Escadrille, an air squadron composed of American volunteers who wanted to fight in World War I before the U.S. entered the war.

Franco stars as Blaine Rawlings, a Texan whose family ranch is foreclosed. Rawlings goes to a movie theater after letting his anger out on the banker’s face and the sheriff says he’ll give Rawlings a half hour before he serves the warrant for his arrest. The last thing Rawlings sees before he leaves the movie theater? A commercial about the boys flying over seas. Rawlings figures he’ll give it a shot.

The film does a good job of introducing all of his fellow airmen to the party and for the most part each one is distinguishable from the others. The cast gets us to care about their individual characters but I don’t really connect with them as people. They’re too clichéd. There’s the guy who wants to bring honor to his family, another who wants to say thanks to his country, the guy who comes from a family of soldiers, the guy who can’t do anything right. .. try to tell me you haven’t heard of these characters before. If you haven’t, you’re either a liar or you’ve watched like ten movies in your entire life. Franco’s taking on of Rawlings’ personality is the one thing holding the film together and he’s not doing anything over the top to do so. He’s just playing his part better than everyone else, which sad to say isn’t saying much.

Through a series of unfortunate events he discovers an attractive French girl named Lucienne and falls for her despite the obvious language barrier. Their romance is sluggish at times but eventually becomes something worth caring about.

The film shifts between the romance and the dogfights in the sky, which are probably the most well-done part of this film. The action’s realistic and while not the most intense dogfights I’ve watched, at least I care about them, which is more than I can say for some of the dogfights I’ve seen in films. I also enjoy the music in this film.

However, where this film drops the ball and prevents it from being a better-than-average movie is the character depth and the dialogue. As I mentioned earlier, there’s no depth to these characters and even with Rawlings it feels like we’re just scratching the surface of something that could have been so much more if there had been a better script and if there had been better actors behind those scripts. The dialogue can be strained at times and at times it feels like exposition comes from the same character over and over, as if he’s just hanging in the background waiting for Rawlings to mention something just so he can explain what it is to us, something I have a hard time seeing a soldier doing. Once again, when the romantic part of this film involves two people who have trouble even communicating with each other, that also doesn’t help. I don’t think it’s unfair when I say it’s hard to believe two people can fall in love when their conversations can barely pass the third grade language barrier. Just doesn’t seem very plausible to me.

Once again, if you’re new to my blog,  I’ve always ranked movies on a scale of 0-100 (I don’t know why, I just always have). Here’s the grading scale.

 90-100  It’s a great movie and definitely one worth buying. (Scrooge, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, The Green Mile, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King)

80-89   It was a pretty good movie and definitely one worth seeing, but it doesn’t quite scratch my top ten percentile. (Poseidon, Iron Man, Lone Survivor, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, The Next Three Days)

70-79   It’s okay but I’ve seen better. It has its moments, but it has its flaws, too. (The Usual Suspects, 21 Jump Street, Escape Plan, Captain America: The First Avenger, Dawn of the Dead)

60-69   It’s got plenty wrong with it but I still got enjoyment out of this one. (Pacific Rim, The Long Kiss Goodnight, Disaster Movie)

50-59   This movie isn’t intolerable but it’s not blowing my mind either. I’m trying really hard to get some sort of enjoyment out of this. (Aliens, Alien Resurrection, Full Metal Jacket, Thor, You’re Next)

40-49   This movie is just mediocre. It’s not doing anything other than the bare minimal, so morbidly boring that sometimes I’m actually angry I watched this. (Patriot Games, The Great Gatsby, Pitch Black, Alien, Serendipity)

30-39   Definitely worse than mediocre, the 30’s ironically define the 1930’s, full of depression, lack of accomplishments, poverty and just so dumb. (The Contract, Pride and Prejudice, Redemption)

20-29   What did I just watch? Cliches, stupidity, nothingness, did I mention stupidity? Just…wow. (The Sum of All Fears, Thor: The Dark World)

0-19      Watching this movie resulted in one or more of the following: seizure, loss of brain cells, falling asleep/unconsciousness, feel you wasted your time/day, accomplished nothing for you, left the movie knowing less about it then you did going into it, constantly asking yourself why you came to see this movie, or near-death experience. In short, staring at a wall was just as entertaining as watching this movie. This movie deserved a sticker or a label that said, “WARNING: EXTREME AMOUNT OF SUCKAGE.” (Midnight Cowboy, Dark Fury, Alien 3, Open Grave)

My score for Flyboys: 73.

Flyboys isn’t throwing any punches that we didn’t see coming a mile away nor performing any unique or creative tricks with its plot, but it’s still an entertaining watch when it all comes down to it. I’ve got it on DVD for the occasional watch.