Search
Search results
Richard Curtis recommended Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004) in Movies (curated)
Veronica Pena (690 KP) rated The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) in Movies
Apr 29, 2020
There's a lot to love about this film and a lot to hate. I think this film does the best job of allowing you to live through Peter more than any other film. Some of my favorite shots throughout the whole movie are the ones where it looks like we're in Peter's perspective as he traverses New York City. I love Andrew Garfield in this role. Even though he's 27 in the film, he played a high school kid fairly well - at least I think so. I love Emma Stone too. As a blonde, I feel like she has this innocence that she doesn't have as a redhead.
Truthfully, I like Andrew Garfield's Spiderman and Tom Holland's Spiderman way more than I like Toby McGuire's. I think this film is entertaining and a good watch. You definitely get hooked in on Peter and are rooting for him. The only thing I didn't like were some of the effects. It's clear that there was more effort or money put in some scenes than others. Maybe that's just my opinion, but those small details can really pull you out of the world the film creates.
The other detail I appreciated is Gwen. When we think and talk about Spiderman, unless you're a die-hard fan, you think of Mary Jane. And she's great. Don't get me wrong. Kirsten Dunst in Toby McGuire's and Zendaya as M.J. in Tom Holland's, but Gwen often gets forgotten. I like that in this series, Gwen is the love interest instead of Mary Jane.
Overall, I really enjoyed this film. I think I still like Tom Holland's Spiderman better, but I think the fact that he's in the MCU plays a part in my love of him. I would recommend both of these films just to say you watched them.
Truthfully, I like Andrew Garfield's Spiderman and Tom Holland's Spiderman way more than I like Toby McGuire's. I think this film is entertaining and a good watch. You definitely get hooked in on Peter and are rooting for him. The only thing I didn't like were some of the effects. It's clear that there was more effort or money put in some scenes than others. Maybe that's just my opinion, but those small details can really pull you out of the world the film creates.
The other detail I appreciated is Gwen. When we think and talk about Spiderman, unless you're a die-hard fan, you think of Mary Jane. And she's great. Don't get me wrong. Kirsten Dunst in Toby McGuire's and Zendaya as M.J. in Tom Holland's, but Gwen often gets forgotten. I like that in this series, Gwen is the love interest instead of Mary Jane.
Overall, I really enjoyed this film. I think I still like Tom Holland's Spiderman better, but I think the fact that he's in the MCU plays a part in my love of him. I would recommend both of these films just to say you watched them.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Midnight Special (2016) in Movies
Jul 21, 2017
A Modern Sci-Fi Classic
This movie really impressed me. Michael Shannon is, as always, fantastic in his performance and he showed a side of character here that we don’t normally get to see from him. He plays a compassionate and loving father on a mission and he will stop at nothing to succeed. Joel Edgerton is also typically brilliant in the film. He plays an old fried of Shannon’s character helping him on his quest and again is different here to any other role we have seen him in so far. Frankly I think these two actors are two of the best working in Hollywood today and this movie showcases their diversity, talent and ability to totally vanish into a role and sell their performance effortlessly. However, the real star of the show is the young actor Jaeden Lieberher, who plays Alton Meyer, the extraordinary boy that the plot revolves around. When I first saw his performance I thought he was extremely good for a child actor, but reflecting on it again, it is just a fantastic performance regardless of his age. His chemistry with the other actors was spot on and he carried this movie flawlessly, which left me very impressed. Kirsten Dunst also makes an appearance as Alton’s mother and again gives a stellar performance, she is tired of having to constantly be on the run and although she sometimes doubts her husband’s plan, she sticks by him until their mission is complete. Adam Driver is the scientist working for the government who are after Alton and he puts in a decent performance as the pseudo antagonist of the movie. I should really stop here though as you are better going into this movie with as little previous knowledge as possible. In summary, this is the movie that Super 8 wishes it was, essentially it’s ET for grown ups and it is definitely worth your time and money.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Spider-Man (2002) in Movies
Jun 30, 2019
" With great power comes great responsibility"
One of the first movies to pave the groundwork for modern superhero flicks, Spider-Man is an incredibly fun & endlessly entertaining action-adventure that brings its web-slinging hero to life on the silver screen in a truly fascinating manner after spending nearly a quarter of a century in development hell and, with its record-breaking box office performance, acts as a precursor to an era when superheroes would dominate the summer box-office.
Based on the Marvel Comics character of the same name, the story of Spider-Man follows Peter Parker; a high-school kid who after being bitten by a radioactive spider at a genetic laboratory begins to develop spider-like abilities and puts his new powers to good use by turning to crimefighting. Meanwhile, Norman Osborn experiments a power-enhancing drug on himself as a desperate attempt to preserve a military contract critical for his company's survival.
Directed by Sam Raimi, Spider-Man has all the ingredients of a summer blockbuster plus it benefits a lot from Raimi's dynamic filmmaking style that doesn't dwell on a single moment for far too long, keeps the story fresh, light-hearted & action-packed for the most part, plus never loses its initially-gained momentum. David Koepp's screenplay is no slouch either for it packs in a compelling plot & few interesting characters and the whole story is cheesy but well humoured.
The technical aspects are all brilliantly executed. Camerawork is excellent for the most part for the chosen angles, swift movements, slow-mo shots & warm colour palette are correctly employed. Editing provides a frenetic pace to its narrative, each moment has a role to play, and its 121 minutes of runtime simply flies by. Visual effects team makes use of both CGI & practical stuntwork and it's amazing just how well it has aged when compared to other effects-laden movies released back then.
Coming to the performances, Spider-Man packs in a very interesting cast in Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, Willem Dafoe, J.K. Simmons & others, and many of them are pretty convincing in their given roles. Maguire does a terrific job under Raimi's supervision, Dafoe plays Norman Osborn with finesse but that Green Goblin suit is extremely off-putting, Simmons is a near-perfect rendition of J. Jonah Jameson from the comics while both Dunst & Franco do a fine job as Mary Jane Watson & Harry Osborn, respectively.
Also worthy of admiration is Danny Elfman's outstanding score that captures just the right tone & feel of your friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man's universe and brims with tracks that seamlessly integrate into the story. On an overall scale, Spider-Man may not seem as impressive today as it did back when it made its debut on the silver screen but it still remains one of the best offerings of its category and delivers a roller-coasted ride that's enjoyable, entertaining & highly satisfying. Spider-Man is a summer popcorn extravaganza right on the money.
Based on the Marvel Comics character of the same name, the story of Spider-Man follows Peter Parker; a high-school kid who after being bitten by a radioactive spider at a genetic laboratory begins to develop spider-like abilities and puts his new powers to good use by turning to crimefighting. Meanwhile, Norman Osborn experiments a power-enhancing drug on himself as a desperate attempt to preserve a military contract critical for his company's survival.
Directed by Sam Raimi, Spider-Man has all the ingredients of a summer blockbuster plus it benefits a lot from Raimi's dynamic filmmaking style that doesn't dwell on a single moment for far too long, keeps the story fresh, light-hearted & action-packed for the most part, plus never loses its initially-gained momentum. David Koepp's screenplay is no slouch either for it packs in a compelling plot & few interesting characters and the whole story is cheesy but well humoured.
The technical aspects are all brilliantly executed. Camerawork is excellent for the most part for the chosen angles, swift movements, slow-mo shots & warm colour palette are correctly employed. Editing provides a frenetic pace to its narrative, each moment has a role to play, and its 121 minutes of runtime simply flies by. Visual effects team makes use of both CGI & practical stuntwork and it's amazing just how well it has aged when compared to other effects-laden movies released back then.
Coming to the performances, Spider-Man packs in a very interesting cast in Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, Willem Dafoe, J.K. Simmons & others, and many of them are pretty convincing in their given roles. Maguire does a terrific job under Raimi's supervision, Dafoe plays Norman Osborn with finesse but that Green Goblin suit is extremely off-putting, Simmons is a near-perfect rendition of J. Jonah Jameson from the comics while both Dunst & Franco do a fine job as Mary Jane Watson & Harry Osborn, respectively.
Also worthy of admiration is Danny Elfman's outstanding score that captures just the right tone & feel of your friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man's universe and brims with tracks that seamlessly integrate into the story. On an overall scale, Spider-Man may not seem as impressive today as it did back when it made its debut on the silver screen but it still remains one of the best offerings of its category and delivers a roller-coasted ride that's enjoyable, entertaining & highly satisfying. Spider-Man is a summer popcorn extravaganza right on the money.
Darren (1599 KP) rated All Good Things (2010) in Movies
Jan 21, 2020
Verdict: Lacks Focus
Story: All Good Things starts as we see David Marks (Gosling) the son of a property tycoon Sanford (Langella) who meets Katie (Dunst) who eventually becomes his wife, only for the perfect marriage to take a turn when Katie learns David doesn’t want to have kids.
The marriage continues to spiral out of control after Katie gets pregnant, with her disappearance being the reason why David sees his own life come under the spotlight, with people believing her murdered her and he doesn’t help his case.
Thoughts on All Good Things
Characters – David Marks comes from a property tycoon family who could have walked into any job for his father, he decides to go away from this lifestyle, dating a woman before marrying her, which shows a darker side to his nature, or is he just cold, he are never let into see if he is a calculated person or just somebody dealing with the issues bought on from his mother’s suicide. Katie is the woman David marries, she does give up her career and after learning of his own life decision, spirals out of control with drinks and drugs, before disappearing without a trace. Sanford is the father of David who wants him to remain in the wealthy lifestyle following in his footsteps over anything else. We do see many other people who are involved in the lives who have been involved in the lives even if the names have been changed.
Performances – We have a brilliant cast on paper here with Ryan Gosling in the leading role, where he really doesn’t show his skills, Kirsten Dunst does the most with her character, only it seems we don’t get the right outlet for the character, where we also seem to waste Frank Langella too.
Story – The story follows a heir to a successful business that marries a women his family don’t approve of, only for her to go missing, with him being the prime suspect in the disappearance. The problems mount up quickly in this story because we do spend way too much time focusing on the early relationship and not enough time on the investigation to what might have happened, this is clearly the more interesting side of the story that we need to get watching before needing to care that much about their relationship as a hole.
Crime/Mystery/Romance – The crime is more about if, buts or maybes, with no concrete evidence to what might have happened, which shows in the mystery not being solved in the film, while the romance starts strong before showing why it might not have worked out.
Settings – The film uses a couple of settings which shows us the luxury lakeside house the couple have, while showing how they interact with people on a social occasion in the big parties.
Scene of the Movie – Strange new friendship.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not enough focus on the disappearance investigation.
Final Thoughts -This does feel like a film that gets caught up following the wrong part too easily, we don’t seem to get any clues to what did actually happen, just following the man’s life for large parts both before and after the disappearance.
Overall: Disappointing mystery.
Story: All Good Things starts as we see David Marks (Gosling) the son of a property tycoon Sanford (Langella) who meets Katie (Dunst) who eventually becomes his wife, only for the perfect marriage to take a turn when Katie learns David doesn’t want to have kids.
The marriage continues to spiral out of control after Katie gets pregnant, with her disappearance being the reason why David sees his own life come under the spotlight, with people believing her murdered her and he doesn’t help his case.
Thoughts on All Good Things
Characters – David Marks comes from a property tycoon family who could have walked into any job for his father, he decides to go away from this lifestyle, dating a woman before marrying her, which shows a darker side to his nature, or is he just cold, he are never let into see if he is a calculated person or just somebody dealing with the issues bought on from his mother’s suicide. Katie is the woman David marries, she does give up her career and after learning of his own life decision, spirals out of control with drinks and drugs, before disappearing without a trace. Sanford is the father of David who wants him to remain in the wealthy lifestyle following in his footsteps over anything else. We do see many other people who are involved in the lives who have been involved in the lives even if the names have been changed.
Performances – We have a brilliant cast on paper here with Ryan Gosling in the leading role, where he really doesn’t show his skills, Kirsten Dunst does the most with her character, only it seems we don’t get the right outlet for the character, where we also seem to waste Frank Langella too.
Story – The story follows a heir to a successful business that marries a women his family don’t approve of, only for her to go missing, with him being the prime suspect in the disappearance. The problems mount up quickly in this story because we do spend way too much time focusing on the early relationship and not enough time on the investigation to what might have happened, this is clearly the more interesting side of the story that we need to get watching before needing to care that much about their relationship as a hole.
Crime/Mystery/Romance – The crime is more about if, buts or maybes, with no concrete evidence to what might have happened, which shows in the mystery not being solved in the film, while the romance starts strong before showing why it might not have worked out.
Settings – The film uses a couple of settings which shows us the luxury lakeside house the couple have, while showing how they interact with people on a social occasion in the big parties.
Scene of the Movie – Strange new friendship.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not enough focus on the disappearance investigation.
Final Thoughts -This does feel like a film that gets caught up following the wrong part too easily, we don’t seem to get any clues to what did actually happen, just following the man’s life for large parts both before and after the disappearance.
Overall: Disappointing mystery.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Power of the Dog (2021) in Movies
Dec 7, 2021
Deep and Layered
If the movie you are watching has a long shot of wheat blowing in the wind, then you are watching a character drama. If that same film also includes a 5 minute scene of someone braiding rope, then you have THE POWER OF THE DOG.
Written and Directed by Jane Campion (THE PIANO) and based on the best-selling novel by Thomas Savage, THE POWER OF THE DOG tells the tale of 2 brothers, talkative and charismatic Phil (Benedict Cumberbatch) and quiet and contemplative George (Jesse Plemons) who are tending their cattle ranch in Montana in the mid-1920’s. As horses give way to horseless carriages, George falls for a widow (Kirsten Dunst) who has an effeminate son (Kodi Smit-McPhee) and this relationship makes Phil face his own feelings - and a changing world.
In the hands of Campion, this film is a quiet, introspective look at how a hard-drinking, hard-living Cowboy deals with a changing world - and his own pent up emotions - and it works well. She weaves a fascinating story that takes its time unfurling it’s pages and the time that the audience takes in steeping themselves in the story and the characters is time well spent, indeed.
This is because the great Benedict Cumberbatch (TV’s SHERLOCK) is on-screen for 95% of the film as Phil and he commands the screen every moment that his presence is known. It is a bravura - though eerily quiet and introspective - performance by Cumberbatch. Campion and Cumberbatch create a memorable character that fills the screen not because he is wide or high or showy, but because he is deep and layered and the film spends most of its 2 hour and 6 minute running time peeling back the layers and digging deep into this character. It is an Oscar-worthy performance and is a shoo-in Oscar nominee and would not be surprising if Cumberbatch finally wins his Oscar for this role.
Plemons and Dunst (who played a couple in the first season of the TV series FARGO) are the catalyst that set the film - and the discoveries - in motion, but, though they are good, they have very little to do besides react to Cumberbatch’s characters’ moves.
Surprisingly, the character that does stand-out and the actor who does go toe-to-toe with Cumberbatch’s Phil is Peter, the son of Rose and played by Kodi Smit-McPhee (NIghtcrawler in X-MEN:APOCALYPSE) who is (at first) befriended by Phil as a joke and becomes closer and closer to him as the film progresses. It is through Peter that we dig through the layers of Phil - and it is a fascinating journey.
This is a gorgeous film to look at - Cinematographer Ari Wegner (THE GIRLFRIEND EXPERIENCE) is a shoo-in for an Oscar nomination as well - and this is good, because Phil (and the audience) spend long stretches looking out in the wilderness, contemplating the world - and change.
Not the fastest moving film you will ever encounter, but if you are in the mood for this sort of thing and can get caught up with discovering the layers of Phil, then you will be rewarded with a layered and deep experience.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Written and Directed by Jane Campion (THE PIANO) and based on the best-selling novel by Thomas Savage, THE POWER OF THE DOG tells the tale of 2 brothers, talkative and charismatic Phil (Benedict Cumberbatch) and quiet and contemplative George (Jesse Plemons) who are tending their cattle ranch in Montana in the mid-1920’s. As horses give way to horseless carriages, George falls for a widow (Kirsten Dunst) who has an effeminate son (Kodi Smit-McPhee) and this relationship makes Phil face his own feelings - and a changing world.
In the hands of Campion, this film is a quiet, introspective look at how a hard-drinking, hard-living Cowboy deals with a changing world - and his own pent up emotions - and it works well. She weaves a fascinating story that takes its time unfurling it’s pages and the time that the audience takes in steeping themselves in the story and the characters is time well spent, indeed.
This is because the great Benedict Cumberbatch (TV’s SHERLOCK) is on-screen for 95% of the film as Phil and he commands the screen every moment that his presence is known. It is a bravura - though eerily quiet and introspective - performance by Cumberbatch. Campion and Cumberbatch create a memorable character that fills the screen not because he is wide or high or showy, but because he is deep and layered and the film spends most of its 2 hour and 6 minute running time peeling back the layers and digging deep into this character. It is an Oscar-worthy performance and is a shoo-in Oscar nominee and would not be surprising if Cumberbatch finally wins his Oscar for this role.
Plemons and Dunst (who played a couple in the first season of the TV series FARGO) are the catalyst that set the film - and the discoveries - in motion, but, though they are good, they have very little to do besides react to Cumberbatch’s characters’ moves.
Surprisingly, the character that does stand-out and the actor who does go toe-to-toe with Cumberbatch’s Phil is Peter, the son of Rose and played by Kodi Smit-McPhee (NIghtcrawler in X-MEN:APOCALYPSE) who is (at first) befriended by Phil as a joke and becomes closer and closer to him as the film progresses. It is through Peter that we dig through the layers of Phil - and it is a fascinating journey.
This is a gorgeous film to look at - Cinematographer Ari Wegner (THE GIRLFRIEND EXPERIENCE) is a shoo-in for an Oscar nomination as well - and this is good, because Phil (and the audience) spend long stretches looking out in the wilderness, contemplating the world - and change.
Not the fastest moving film you will ever encounter, but if you are in the mood for this sort of thing and can get caught up with discovering the layers of Phil, then you will be rewarded with a layered and deep experience.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Spider-Man 3 (2007) in Movies
Jul 1, 2019 (Updated Jul 3, 2019)
"None of that matters now, you're my friend"
After the worldwide success of the first two "Spider-Man" films, director Sam Raimi and the cast decided to take a break. The first two had been shot almost back-to-back, with very little "down time" in between. So, in late 2005, about 18 months after the release of "Spider-Man 2", Raimi began fleshing out ideas for a third storyline. For this chapter, the director wanted to teach Peter Parker about forgiveness; to do so, he'd need a villain with personal ties. The problem was that, besides the Osborn family and Otto Octavius, no villains in the comics had such a huge connection. Raimi didn't want to contradict a well-established character, so he sought one out whose backstory had never been fully realized: the Sandman, whose literary incarnation was little more than a random thief. Connecting the character to the death of Ben Parker gave Peter a huge obstacle that needed facing. Wrapping up Harry Osborn's story was also necessary, since Marvel wasn't sure if James Franco would agree to more chapters in the franchise. The addition of Gwen Stacy (who in the comics, was Peter's first love) was done mainly for the fans, and to create a conflicted love triangle with Peter & Mary Jane. Satisfied with his concept, Raimi told his plans to Marvel Comics; the result was less than expected.
Therein lies my biggest problem with "Spider-Man 3". I liked the Venom character as a kid, but in all honesty having 4 villains in the same film (Harry, Marko, the black symbiote itself, and eventually Venom) was just too much at once. From the standpoint of a fan, I'd have preferred that Venom be saved for a future entry, so he could have taken center stage. By having him alongside both Marko and Harry Osborn, the story became rather confusing for many fans, and the film's box office suffered as a direct result. Overall, this film made less money across the board than its predecessor...all because of corporate greed.
That being said, I still enjoy the film on many levels, but knowing what caused the multi-arc story makes some moments bittersweet. The actors clearly enjoyed this ride, but something in general seemed a bit lacking. Looking back, I realize it was the Venom character. The fact of it essentially being forced into the narrative only made the tale confusing and hard to follow. It became one of those films many people have to watch more than once, just to understand it...and these days, audiences don't have a lot of patience for films with too many angles. Rightfully so, in my opinion.
Tobey Maguire, slipping into the spandex suit for a third try, really shows his acting range here, even more so than his diverse performance in "Spider-Man 2". From intense love to seething hatred (and everything in between), he really brings his game up to a whole new level. Kirsten Dunst shines again as Parker's star-crossed love, Mary Jane Watson. I liked her performance very much, and her singing in the film is beautiful. She's less helpless than in either prior entry, and far more confident. Bryce Dallas Howard (daughter of acclaimed director Ron) makes her first apearance in the franchise as the bubbling, exuberant, and gorgeous Gwen Stacy. I liked her character, but felt she didn't have much to do in the long run.
James Franco does an equally-remarkable turn, finally completing the journey that began at the end of the original film. He gives Harry a blend of jealousy, mystique, and severe determination. He also revisits the lighter tones of his role, for the scenes where Harry has amnesia. And in the finale, he shows that in his heart, Harry was truly a hero. Thomas Haden Church gave Marko both sentiment and menace, and turned what was originally a two-bit thug into a far more interesting character. Topher Grace played the "creepy" card as Venom, and gave Eddie Brock a know-it-all arrogance that makes you almost feel disgusted.
Aside from the criticisms surrounding Venom, I honestly didn't have a lot for this entry. Mary Jane is no longer in a water-drenched position (thank God!), so I was very relieved. I guess my main concern was that there were too many villians should of just stuck with Harry and Venom or Harry and sandman. And for anyone who asks why i haven't put the dancing scenes as a negative. I get a kick out of them what can i say?
Therein lies my biggest problem with "Spider-Man 3". I liked the Venom character as a kid, but in all honesty having 4 villains in the same film (Harry, Marko, the black symbiote itself, and eventually Venom) was just too much at once. From the standpoint of a fan, I'd have preferred that Venom be saved for a future entry, so he could have taken center stage. By having him alongside both Marko and Harry Osborn, the story became rather confusing for many fans, and the film's box office suffered as a direct result. Overall, this film made less money across the board than its predecessor...all because of corporate greed.
That being said, I still enjoy the film on many levels, but knowing what caused the multi-arc story makes some moments bittersweet. The actors clearly enjoyed this ride, but something in general seemed a bit lacking. Looking back, I realize it was the Venom character. The fact of it essentially being forced into the narrative only made the tale confusing and hard to follow. It became one of those films many people have to watch more than once, just to understand it...and these days, audiences don't have a lot of patience for films with too many angles. Rightfully so, in my opinion.
Tobey Maguire, slipping into the spandex suit for a third try, really shows his acting range here, even more so than his diverse performance in "Spider-Man 2". From intense love to seething hatred (and everything in between), he really brings his game up to a whole new level. Kirsten Dunst shines again as Parker's star-crossed love, Mary Jane Watson. I liked her performance very much, and her singing in the film is beautiful. She's less helpless than in either prior entry, and far more confident. Bryce Dallas Howard (daughter of acclaimed director Ron) makes her first apearance in the franchise as the bubbling, exuberant, and gorgeous Gwen Stacy. I liked her character, but felt she didn't have much to do in the long run.
James Franco does an equally-remarkable turn, finally completing the journey that began at the end of the original film. He gives Harry a blend of jealousy, mystique, and severe determination. He also revisits the lighter tones of his role, for the scenes where Harry has amnesia. And in the finale, he shows that in his heart, Harry was truly a hero. Thomas Haden Church gave Marko both sentiment and menace, and turned what was originally a two-bit thug into a far more interesting character. Topher Grace played the "creepy" card as Venom, and gave Eddie Brock a know-it-all arrogance that makes you almost feel disgusted.
Aside from the criticisms surrounding Venom, I honestly didn't have a lot for this entry. Mary Jane is no longer in a water-drenched position (thank God!), so I was very relieved. I guess my main concern was that there were too many villians should of just stuck with Harry and Venom or Harry and sandman. And for anyone who asks why i haven't put the dancing scenes as a negative. I get a kick out of them what can i say?
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Spider-Man 2 (2004) in Movies
Jul 1, 2019
"There's a hero in all of us"
One of the finest sequels ever made and still counted amongst the greatest superhero flicks in existence, Spider-Man 2 is a remarkable follow-up to its already-impressive predecessor that skilfully builds upon the solid foundation provided by the first film, presents significant upgrades in each filmmaking aspect and beautifully balances all its elements to succeed as not just a de-facto standard of its genre but also as one of the best films of its year.
Set two years after the events of the first film, the story of Spider-Man 2 finds Peter Parker struggling to balance his personal life & his obligations as Spider-Man. His love interest is engaged to someone else, his grades have been steadily declining and he also seems to be losing his powers. Meanwhile, a brilliant scientist named Dr. Otto Octavius transforms into a supervillain with four robotic tentacles fused to his spine after his effort to sustain a nuclear fusion reaction goes horribly wrong.
Directed by Sam Raimi, Spider-Man 2 is a far more mature effort from him in comparison to his previous venture and presents the director in sublime form for this sequel picks up the story right where it was left off the last time despite the 2 years span, progresses the arc of its reprising characters amazingly well while giving a proper introduction to the new ones, and also does an outstanding job in balancing its storytelling elements with moments of action in a seamless manner, due to which everything about this sequel just works.
Alvin Sargent's screenplay is worthy of praise as well for the story takes a darker approach than the last time yet packs in enough humour to prevent it from becoming too bleak, and although the cheesiness of the first chapter isn't reduced, the narrative flow is much more stream-lined than before. Production design team comes up with bigger, more refined set pieces, Cinematography preserves the vibrant camerawork but has a firmer grip on it this time while Editing is definitely one of its strongest aspects for there isn't a dull moment in the picture.
Visual effects is much improved as well and by not overdoing its CGI elements, it keeps the artificiality of its universe at bay for the most part. Sure a number of moments are over-the-top but most of them still fall under the realm of on-screen believability. Last but not the least, Danny Elfman delivers again with a splendid soundtrack that stays true to the original film's score, works as a wonderfully evolved successor, and captures the darker tone with finesse just like it did the last time. Even the existing songs used in the picture are nicely chosen & help compliment the respective sequences.
Coming to the performances, Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco & J.K. Simmons return to reprise their respective roles of Peter Parker, Mary Jane Watson, Harry Osborn & J. Jonah Jameson and do a better job than before. Maguire builds up on his earlier input to impress once again and what he lacks in star presence, he makes up for it by chipping in a complex performance. Simmons is hilarious as before, Dunst & Franco are still on base level but it's Alfred Molina who impresses the most in what is a sympathetic rendition of Doc Ock, thus making him a classic foe in every way.
On an overall scale, Spider-Man 2 delivers everything one can expect from a sequel. It goes bigger, better & more action-packed than before yet stays completely true to its origin, plus finishes on a high with enough open choices for where it can be headed in later instalments, something that Sony failed to take advantage of. Sam Raimi has weaved a magical web yet again that tightly grasps on to every necessary ingredient to come up with an incredibly fun, highly enjoyable, wildly entertaining & thoroughly satisfying extravaganza that promises yet another high-flying, web-sligning roller-coaster ride and effortlessly delivers it.
Set two years after the events of the first film, the story of Spider-Man 2 finds Peter Parker struggling to balance his personal life & his obligations as Spider-Man. His love interest is engaged to someone else, his grades have been steadily declining and he also seems to be losing his powers. Meanwhile, a brilliant scientist named Dr. Otto Octavius transforms into a supervillain with four robotic tentacles fused to his spine after his effort to sustain a nuclear fusion reaction goes horribly wrong.
Directed by Sam Raimi, Spider-Man 2 is a far more mature effort from him in comparison to his previous venture and presents the director in sublime form for this sequel picks up the story right where it was left off the last time despite the 2 years span, progresses the arc of its reprising characters amazingly well while giving a proper introduction to the new ones, and also does an outstanding job in balancing its storytelling elements with moments of action in a seamless manner, due to which everything about this sequel just works.
Alvin Sargent's screenplay is worthy of praise as well for the story takes a darker approach than the last time yet packs in enough humour to prevent it from becoming too bleak, and although the cheesiness of the first chapter isn't reduced, the narrative flow is much more stream-lined than before. Production design team comes up with bigger, more refined set pieces, Cinematography preserves the vibrant camerawork but has a firmer grip on it this time while Editing is definitely one of its strongest aspects for there isn't a dull moment in the picture.
Visual effects is much improved as well and by not overdoing its CGI elements, it keeps the artificiality of its universe at bay for the most part. Sure a number of moments are over-the-top but most of them still fall under the realm of on-screen believability. Last but not the least, Danny Elfman delivers again with a splendid soundtrack that stays true to the original film's score, works as a wonderfully evolved successor, and captures the darker tone with finesse just like it did the last time. Even the existing songs used in the picture are nicely chosen & help compliment the respective sequences.
Coming to the performances, Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco & J.K. Simmons return to reprise their respective roles of Peter Parker, Mary Jane Watson, Harry Osborn & J. Jonah Jameson and do a better job than before. Maguire builds up on his earlier input to impress once again and what he lacks in star presence, he makes up for it by chipping in a complex performance. Simmons is hilarious as before, Dunst & Franco are still on base level but it's Alfred Molina who impresses the most in what is a sympathetic rendition of Doc Ock, thus making him a classic foe in every way.
On an overall scale, Spider-Man 2 delivers everything one can expect from a sequel. It goes bigger, better & more action-packed than before yet stays completely true to its origin, plus finishes on a high with enough open choices for where it can be headed in later instalments, something that Sony failed to take advantage of. Sam Raimi has weaved a magical web yet again that tightly grasps on to every necessary ingredient to come up with an incredibly fun, highly enjoyable, wildly entertaining & thoroughly satisfying extravaganza that promises yet another high-flying, web-sligning roller-coaster ride and effortlessly delivers it.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) in Movies
Jul 20, 2019
"You know in the future if you're gonna steal cars, don't dress like a car thief man"
So Sony had two choices, either sell the Spider-Man rights back to Marvel or press the reboot button on the Spider-Man franchise, so we got this and I see a lot of mixed opinions about this film, some love it, some don't, I think it's a good film but it's not as good as Sam Raimi's 2002 classic Spider-Man.
After Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) is bitten by a genetically altered spider, he gains newfound, spider-like powers and ventures out to solve the mystery of his parent's mysterious death.
The action scenes in this film are enjoyable, especially the High School fight scene between Spidey and the Lizard and make for an enjoyable film, Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone have better chemistry than Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst did, seeing as Garfield and Stone where dating at the time which made for a better on screen relationship between the two.
I do like Gwen Stacy more than Mary Jane thanks to Emma Stone seeing as Gwen is useful in this film and doesn't always need rescuing, also I like how they gave Spidey some quips to dish out in the film but it was only done for one scene.
There are a lot of problems with this film, I personally don't like the photographic style of the film, it's too dark and grainy for a Spider-Man film and I prefer the style Raimi used, speaking of Raimi, the director Marc Webb repeated a lot of stuff Raimi did in the first film, I'd much rather he had added something new to the blend.
I didn't really like Garfield as Peter Parker, he was just bland and I couldn't care for him due to bad writing, he is alright as Spidey but he's not the best, Rhys Ifans does a decent job as Dr. Curt Connors / The Lizard but he is just a forgettable villain, you can see the writing isn't up too scratch along with the story, the story isn't that good sadly and because most of the scenes where rushed characters suffer as a result along with the emotional and powerful scenes.
I can see why people might prefer this to the Raimi trilogy because of it's darker approach to Spider-Man but I prefer the light hearted approach Raimi took, overall I did like The Amazing Spider-Man, it's a good film but it was done so much better by Sam Raimi 17 years ago.
After Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) is bitten by a genetically altered spider, he gains newfound, spider-like powers and ventures out to solve the mystery of his parent's mysterious death.
The action scenes in this film are enjoyable, especially the High School fight scene between Spidey and the Lizard and make for an enjoyable film, Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone have better chemistry than Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst did, seeing as Garfield and Stone where dating at the time which made for a better on screen relationship between the two.
I do like Gwen Stacy more than Mary Jane thanks to Emma Stone seeing as Gwen is useful in this film and doesn't always need rescuing, also I like how they gave Spidey some quips to dish out in the film but it was only done for one scene.
There are a lot of problems with this film, I personally don't like the photographic style of the film, it's too dark and grainy for a Spider-Man film and I prefer the style Raimi used, speaking of Raimi, the director Marc Webb repeated a lot of stuff Raimi did in the first film, I'd much rather he had added something new to the blend.
I didn't really like Garfield as Peter Parker, he was just bland and I couldn't care for him due to bad writing, he is alright as Spidey but he's not the best, Rhys Ifans does a decent job as Dr. Curt Connors / The Lizard but he is just a forgettable villain, you can see the writing isn't up too scratch along with the story, the story isn't that good sadly and because most of the scenes where rushed characters suffer as a result along with the emotional and powerful scenes.
I can see why people might prefer this to the Raimi trilogy because of it's darker approach to Spider-Man but I prefer the light hearted approach Raimi took, overall I did like The Amazing Spider-Man, it's a good film but it was done so much better by Sam Raimi 17 years ago.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Spider-Man (2002) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
Spider-man, starring Tobey Maguire, came out on 14th June 2002. Co-starring Kirsten Dunst, James Franco and Willem Dafoe. My god doesn't every one look young!
It's the classic story, boy meets spider, spider bites boy, boy gets super-human powers.
Okay, so I'll be serious... Awkward high school student Peter Parker gets bitten by a genetically modified spider while out on a school field trip. It isn't adolescence that's changing him though, it's the spider bite, and his new found spider-like abilities come in handy when he decides to fight evil while wearing spandex, after a tragedy hits his family.
Watching Maguire climb a wall is truly cringe-worthy (the effects were terrible). He has this wide-eyed look of insanity. And when he's trying to shoot web intentionally for the first time I half expect a nerdy friend of his to be standing in the background saying "laaaaaame, I knew you were full of shit, Parker."
Spidey learns a harsh lesson about holding grudges after he lets the armed robber go when he gets stiffed for prize money at the arena. Something you also learn in this film, evidently if someone is bleeding you don't need to apply pressure to a serious wound to try and prolong their life while the ambulance gets there.
We learn many important things from this film... best friends can be arseholes. "Oh you like that girl do you, well guess what, I'm going to date her and let you find out by accident."... Oh, and that people running in terror are oblivious to people ripping open their shirts to reveal a Spider-man costume (although the same is true for Superman and Supergirl sometimes too.)... Mary Jane is an idiot, she doesn't recognise her own friend's voice (maybe because he's dressed in spandex and she was distracted) and she doesn't get the hint that "he was in the neighbourhood."... And Willem Dafoe does evil really, really well.
The effects really are terrible, there's no denying that technology has developed a lot since this film was made, but I always find it really awful watching things that are so obviously generated... that hideous artificial looking outline of the green screening. Speaking of green things, Green Goblin's outfit is reminiscent of an over the top Power Ranger villain.
Between the terrible effects and the overacting, I'm honestly not sure what this film was going for. It had too many "funny" bits to be a serious film, and it had too many "serious" bits to be a funny film. I'm left thinking of Batman Forever as a comparison, the only difference being that BF was just over the top enough to be funny.
It's the classic story, boy meets spider, spider bites boy, boy gets super-human powers.
Okay, so I'll be serious... Awkward high school student Peter Parker gets bitten by a genetically modified spider while out on a school field trip. It isn't adolescence that's changing him though, it's the spider bite, and his new found spider-like abilities come in handy when he decides to fight evil while wearing spandex, after a tragedy hits his family.
Watching Maguire climb a wall is truly cringe-worthy (the effects were terrible). He has this wide-eyed look of insanity. And when he's trying to shoot web intentionally for the first time I half expect a nerdy friend of his to be standing in the background saying "laaaaaame, I knew you were full of shit, Parker."
Spidey learns a harsh lesson about holding grudges after he lets the armed robber go when he gets stiffed for prize money at the arena. Something you also learn in this film, evidently if someone is bleeding you don't need to apply pressure to a serious wound to try and prolong their life while the ambulance gets there.
We learn many important things from this film... best friends can be arseholes. "Oh you like that girl do you, well guess what, I'm going to date her and let you find out by accident."... Oh, and that people running in terror are oblivious to people ripping open their shirts to reveal a Spider-man costume (although the same is true for Superman and Supergirl sometimes too.)... Mary Jane is an idiot, she doesn't recognise her own friend's voice (maybe because he's dressed in spandex and she was distracted) and she doesn't get the hint that "he was in the neighbourhood."... And Willem Dafoe does evil really, really well.
The effects really are terrible, there's no denying that technology has developed a lot since this film was made, but I always find it really awful watching things that are so obviously generated... that hideous artificial looking outline of the green screening. Speaking of green things, Green Goblin's outfit is reminiscent of an over the top Power Ranger villain.
Between the terrible effects and the overacting, I'm honestly not sure what this film was going for. It had too many "funny" bits to be a serious film, and it had too many "serious" bits to be a funny film. I'm left thinking of Batman Forever as a comparison, the only difference being that BF was just over the top enough to be funny.