#like. this is the reason the James Franco casting is bad

[hawkogurl]

I genuinely earnestly do not have a fucking clue where that idea Raimi Harry Osborn is a playboy or a womanizer came from considering that there is somehow negative textual evidence. Within these movies, Peter is, comparatively speaking, more of one.

[jimmythejiver]

I don't have the citations and receipts to prove it, but I swear most creative decisions in the post-Eisner era of Disney has been fueled by the fact that their biggest rival Universal owned the rights to Wicked.

Think about the fact that they had Stephen Schwartz on Pocahontas and Hunchback of Notre Dame during the Renaissance and got him for their send up Enchanted with Idina Menzel in the cast) which like Tangled and Frozen would not be what they are without Wicked, from the stupid titling scheme to initially hiring Kristen Chenoweth as Rapunzel before replacing her with Mandy Moore and ultimately hiring Idina Menzel (again) for Elsa and deciding she ain't so bad after all and hell let's delete Kai and invent Anna the plucky contrast to her to really drive it home.

How about the fact that they bought and made a meh adaptation of Into The Woods, the original 'Kind is not Good' fairytale subversion broadway show. The okay that was a thing Maleficent movies where the king rips off her wings and Mal was misunderstood she was Briar Rose's real protector, see.

The fact that they sure love to market their villains, but boy do they not like to make new ones that aren't corrupted forces of nature that need their heart back to be good again or c.e.o.'s who gave us utopia only to find out he killing the planet oopsies or deceptive seemingly trustworthy Wizard-like authority figures who will stab you in the back in their best interest. A villain is either a twist to be subverted or is the hero you followed along, see. Something tells me the Mufasa movie is their half-apology or reasoning for why Scar is like that when the new Aladdin and Little Mermaid did shit for Jafar or Ursula but make them bland because they didn't have time to bake another uwu, babied misunderstood anti-villain so they made sure they can't chew the scenery or have too big of personalities to latch onto by children either, that be irresponsible.

Disney wants Elphaba and they're mad they don't have the special sauce that Broadway somehow wrangled out of a confusing book full of misdirection that pleased no one but the author and people who hate the Judy Garland film and would never read Frank L. Baum anyway to understand these characters are just different from that film and the shoes were not the Wicked Witch's birthright she wanted their power, it was not that deep, but so much of Maguire's decisions don't work once you account for Baum's that never accounted for the future MGM's art and costuming department, casting and script consolidations, but all Disney sees is, 'That Judy Garland movie should've been ours and fuck these people making sequels and prequels, those should've been ours.'

We see the root of this problem that existed before Eisner took over with Return to Oz under Ron Miller. As a company they've never forgiven anyone for having piece of the Oz pie. Oh, post-Eisner they swung their dick again and made that forgettable James Franco prequel, I almost forgot! A warning to Universal who guarded Wicked's movie rights for decades and the anger they have that Warner Bros. still owns the rights to the Judy Garland film while all of Baum's books are in the public domain before Eisner's lawyers could lobby with Senator Bono to extend copyright law in the 90's.

Eisner cooperated with Warner Bros. to license an Oz sequence with an advance for it's time Wicked Witch animatronic in the Great Movie Ride, in fact a majority of the films i. Thatbride came from WB's vault. Bob Iger let that ride get scrapped for Pirates of the Carribean's update for Red. You know what else Eisner didn't do that Bob Iger did? Not make a stupid Cruella prequel to explain why she's so misunderstood, just a straight live action remake of the cartoon and Jungle Book that was boring, and not a whole lot of these were as churned out in his era as there was bad sequels to the cartoons, but oops Iger's doing that too.

Real point is Wicked the musical premiered in 2003, Eisner stepped down in 2005. Eisner and his people couldn't figure out the Snow Queen as anything but a romantic comedy co-starring a villain love interest because he forgot Ariel existed as a misunderstood and manipulated hero who could have served as a template for another similar Andersen character. Under Iger's people they casted og Elphaba and decided halfway they needed to not make her a villain after all. Coincidence? I think not!

[linkspooky]

*comes crashing down from your celling*

I heard you like Spider-man, hehehe…

*pulls out whiteboard with all the spider-movies*

Got any opinions on the original trilogy? My fav from that trilogy is the third one due to how bat-shit insane it got. It’s always such a fun time to watch a burning train wreck, hehe.

What about the Amazing Spider-man movies? Opinions on the Tom Holland trilogy? I think the third one sort of dropped the ball character development wise but that’s probably just me.

Oh! What’s your opinion on “Into the Spider-verse”?! Personally that’s my favorite one out of all of them. Albeit, I am bias since I do have a soft spot for animated films.

*pulls microphone out of nowhere and points it at you*

Well?

The original spiderman movies are what got me into comics in the first place. I would probably be a normal human being if I never saw them.

Opinions on the original trilogy: These are going to be bullet points since I have a lot of them but no cohesive thoughts.

Kirsten Dunst's Mary Jane Watson is really good? People don't tend to like her, and I don't get why besides "she gets kidnapped." Well, sorry she's not a black belt in Kung Fu. Mary Jane is just the best comic book love interest of all time and the reason why is that she's her own person outside of Peter. Her life does not revolve around him. She is the girl next door, she is outgoing, she is confident, she's Peter's friend, but she doesn't just wait around for him. Mary Jane in these movies embody that because she is Peter's next door neighbor but has an entire life outside of him, her father is terrible and she wants to get out of the house, she wants to be an actor but she's bad at it, when Peter doesn't want to commit she dates other men. The upside down kiss is one of the most romantic scenes of all time you can't see this movie does a bad job of making their relationship work.

I think they should have cast someone else besides James Franco for Harry, but they also got the character right with how poorly his father treats him and how obviously Norman favors Peter.

Willem De Foe's Norman Osborne is perfect, the Green Goblin personality slowly taking over makes him such a compelling character but Norman wasn't even that great of a person to begin with he makes weapons for the military and yet he's super sympathetic as he loses his mind.

Otto Octavius is just the best. I honestly like the movie's take on Otto Octavius more than the comics one, and you can tell it had an impact because Insomniac's Spiderman game he's way more like movie Otto.

The Sam Raimi films are like the only marvel movie that actually feels like a comic book movie. Spiderman saves people! I don't understand why that's so hard to get right.

Venom sucks. I genuinely do not get why people like venom so much. If they had just let Raimi do the storyline with Sandman (the only compelling villain character) and Harry returning as Goblin we would have had a good movie. I also don't think the third movie is that bad, because the non-venom parts are good.

Tobey Macguire is the best spiderman. Spiderman is supposed to be unattractive and uncharismatic. I like Andrew Garfield too, but I'm like "This is not a kid who gets bullied in High School." They kept trying to make him younger and more hip.

Amazing Spiderman

This isn't the Spiderman I grew up on so I have less thoughts about it.

Andrew Garfield's spiderman is good no complaint there, but the whole trying to make a conspiracy theory about why Peter's parents died was just dumb. There's no conspiracy there the whole point of Peter Parker is he's just some guy.

Spiderman 2 suffers from the same problem as Spiderman 3. You just can't shove too many villains in the same movie, it loses all focus.

The villains aren't good. I think Jamie Foxx does a good performance though, I'm just not really into Electro.

Gwen Stacy, one of my other favorite comic book love interests (Gwen is a really good character she just dies) is done well in this one, and her chemistry with Peter is off the charts. There are people who think she should not have died, I think it was just rushed. If they wanted to make Electro the villain of the second movie they should have let their take on Green Goblin have his own movie. There's just so much rushed decisions in these movies they kind of feel like they were made so Sony could keep the license.

Spiderman Disney / Marvel Movies

The first two are just bad. Connecting Peter Parker to Tony Stark just doesn't work and ruins the character. He's the FRIENDLY NEIGHBHORHOOD SPIDERMAN what is this boy doing hanging out with the avengers? That being sad...

Zendaya's MJ is amazing. Proof you don't need a 1:1 adaptation of the character. She's just got charisma and she calls Peter out on his shit, and once again what makes MJ a good character is she is entirely her own person outside of Peter.

Ned is a really good friend to Peter too.

No Way Home is the only one in this trilogy I like, and surprise surprise it's a fanservice movie with fans of the previous movies and returning actors. However, this is the only one that feels like a Spiderman movie because it's all about the fact that Spiderman saves people. The whole conflict of the movie revolves around the fact if there is a chance to save his villains, Peter will take it. Also OTTO AND NORMAN OSBORNE. The ending scene of the movie where Peter chooses helping a sick man over taking personal vengeance against him is the only Marvel movie that actually feels like a superhero movie. Becuase one more time SUPERHEROES SAVE PEOPLE. I don't get why that's hard.

INTO THE SPIDERVERSE

I actually think these are the best too, but once again I didn't grow up on them, and Miles isn't my area of expertise (I stopped reading spiderman comics before he became a thing but I'm planning on picking them up soon).

Spidergwen x MIles Morales is my ship. There's so many iconic scenes in this movie, the leap of faith, the part where his father tells him about the spark (that literally had me crying).

I know spidergwen is a thing in the comics but this Gwen just goes to show that Gwen Stacy is a good character on her own. It's not even the superpowers, she's just spunky, has a lot of personality, self confident likes to tease miles but is still a teenager dealing with a lot of grief and loss (part of original gwen's character too).

SHE'S A SUNFLOWER, I THINK HER LOVE WILL BE TOO MUCH.

The nuance of Miles Morales as a character, he's literally just a mixed race kid in a special private school who doesn't really want to be there because it's a high pressure environment. He's a super complex character and that's where the emotional stakes of his character come from. THe fact he has super powers is kind of secondary.

Peter B Parker, Miles, and Spider-Gwen are all amazing characters. Though part of me wishes they wouldn't try to shove every single alternate universe spiderman ever in these movies, because I'm eternally worried the sequel is going to suffer from trying to keep too many balls in the air juggling. (Spiderham, spidernoir, and penny are already kind of pointless in the first movie).

KINGPIN!!! no comment there I just like him.

[mcmusing]

Now, for the ever controversial but inevitable reasoning as to why the Amazing Spider-Man 2012-2014 royally topples Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy.

Upfront, I don't have anywhere near the level of disdain for the Raimi flicks that I have for the X-movies. They're disappointing, but not completely twisted and mental health harming.

I'll be nice and say what I like about the Spider trilogy first. Unlike the Punisher, Daredevil, and Elektra films, the trilogy has a solid supporting cast. James Franco as Harry Osbourne, Willem Dafoe as his father, Cliff Robertson as Uncle Ben, Dylan Baker as Curt Connors, Daniel Gillies as John Jameson, Bill Nun as Robbie Robertson, Elizabeth Banks as Betty Brant, and oh yeah, the ****irreplaceable**** JK Simmons! He is to J. Jonah Jameson what Patrick Stewart is to Charles Xavier. The great trend ends in sm3 with the casting choices for Gwen Stacy and Eddie Brock being, what must have been, the first two young-ish people the director saw after forgetting to hold auditions for those comic book important roles.

Most of fandom is pretty unanimous about the greatness of the sm villains. In that regard, I must agree. As stated previously, Willem Dafoe is so good as Norman, despite me not being a Green Goblin fan (Joker types grate on me real fast with their chaotic randomness). Alfred Molina was absolutely wonderful as Otto Octavius and still who I picture when I think about my dear Doc Ock. Thomas Haden Church did really well as Sandman. Too bad that performance wasn't enough to NOT leave me livid when Doc Ock and Norman died horribly but Sandman got the all-clear to continue his criminal activity- more on that later, believe me.

Of course, I know the other reasons fandom prefers the trilogy. Special effects up the wazoo and fight scenes on top of fight scenes. It really shocks me how much shade is thrown at Michael Bay for his testosterone driven directing style when superhero fans are so obsessed with the action elements that the actual protagonists are pretty irrelevant. The titular Fantastic Four were perfectly casted in 2005 and got across the heart of the comic characters wonderfully, but low action makes those movies horrendous?!

With that, let's talk about the sm trilogy protagonists, Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst. They were not so much poorly acted but terribly written and directed. They both also had such lackluster presences, carried entirely by the supporting players with who they shared scenes.   

After being introduced to and starting my sibling connection with the famous web slinger through Spider-Man the 90s Animated Series, Tobey was an unimpressive surprise in the live action version. He fit the tender, more vulnerable side of Peter Parker well. I figured we would see his nerdy high school self then watch him grow from there. Not only did that never happen, Peter seemed to emotionally backtrack with every film. After seeing all three, it's clear Tobey had no personal investment and just saw the iconic hero as a job.

Tobey's scenes with Norman, Harry, Doc Ock, Uncle Ben, and Jonah were great. Again, the other actors carried that. Unlike watching Ben Affleck or Thomas Jane, Tobey solo scenes are either depressing or dull. Then, there are his scenes with Kristen Dunst, which are awkward and repetitive. Tobey is nothing but a guy filling the suit. He brought nothing special to the role. None of Peter's amazing humor and charisma came across.

I'm left to wonder why people consider the trilogy to be the corny, lighthearted Spider-Man series. I ask this a lot, but did we watch the same movies?! The first one was okay and Tobey even got to joke a few times. Despite the forced bittersweet ending between him and Mary Jane, it was a decent first installment. Then, help me, sm2. It had more engaging elements than the first one, but this flick couldn't have been more of a mood killer. Great Spider-Man fight scenes did not make up for the amount of misery heaped upon Peter Parker. At every turn, something awful happened to him. I know his bad luck is infamous in the comics, but it was taken to extremes here. He lives in a disgusting slum apartment, Aunt May loses her house/his childhood home, his relationship with Harry is strained, his 'relationship' with Mary Jane is supremely stupid, the older male he makes a connection with becomes a dangerous criminal and dies in the end (like Norman in the last one!), he has no one he can confide in, he's on the borderline of academic probation, and being Spider-Man is a guilt filled chore, NOT a calling. No, seriously. Except for a few kids admiring him, Spider-Man gets such bad press and it ruins every single thing in Peter's personal life. I can't see what pleasure he gets out of this chosen turmoil. Kids should want to emulate him because.... why? Sticking to walls and kicking super freaks?  Yes, that's sure the guy I connected with so many moons ago.

Did Raimi hate Kristen Dunst, Mary Jane Watson, or both? She is like the non-homicidal conglomeration of Erik Lehnsherr and Raven Xavier. None of her immoral deeds are ever properly addressed. With the exception of maybe Flash, she cheats on every single guy she dates. That undeserved iconic rain kiss is still referenced today. First, the upside down guy and right side up girl position looked uncomfortable and gross. Yes, what a romantic moment between two people betraying their boyfriend/best friend respectively. Since she has a phobia of being single, Mary Jane winds up engaged to astronaut John Jameson, despite being blatantly thirsty for Peter's standoffish self. After the amount of press that surrounded their engagement, it's supposed to be a 'happy' ending when she ditches John for Peter. On their wedding day. With all of John's friends and family present. Without formally breaking up with him first. John who had been nothing but kind to Mary Jane, even suggesting she invite Peter to the ceremony..... Is Tim Story the only Marvel movie director who showed up for Satisfying Conclusion Class?? Not to mention that course on How to Maintain Your Hero's Humanity.

Despite all of this, I eagerly looked forward to sm3. I thought with the bs drama finally out of the way, it would just be a fun adventure film with Peter and MJ in a secure relationship. Especially with the positive excited cast interviews. Alas, they're no semblance of Reed Richards and Susan Storm.

Sm3 started off promising. Peter finally found balance in his personal and Spider lives. He's also able to show up for Mary Jane's shows. She's fully aware of his crime fighting and that fact has made them cuddle, kissy close. Peter even woke Aunt May up in the middle of the night to tell her he plans to propose. Also, Harry got contrived amnesia and forgot about his blood vendetta thingy with Peter.

Of course, all of this falls apart. By a major new villain threat? Despite the number of villains this time around, no. Things come undone thanks to a series of romantic comedy cliches and baffling idiocy. Peter is genuinely happy being Spider-Man for once, which causes him insanity even before the symbiote attaches. He kisses Gwen Stacy for a publicity stunt, though he knew his potential wife is watching. Granted, Mary Jane's been cool with infidelity kisses in the past, but she got fired from her play and is currently mad at the world. She knows Peter's secret kept them apart, but she's not honest with him about her own issues. She dismisses any advice or reassurance he offers her as well. Mainly because she's envious of Spider-Man's long overdue recognition and popularity. It's nice that Mary Jane has her own life and concerns but boy, is the ginger snap petty.

Something else about her that warrants mentioning is that she's the full-blown manifestation of the damsel in-distress stereotype. Something I don't normally mind too much, but this trilogy abuses it to an absurd degree. After promising she would not get kidnapped again in sm3, Raimi didn't even have the spine to tell Kerstin he broke his word. I think that fueled a lot of her bitter portrayal of Mary Jane. Compare it to her child acting role like Jumanji, where Kerstin shows more energy and emotional range.

As for the rest of sm3, it was so long I fell asleep for like 20 minutes the first time I saw it. The villains were Venom, Sandman, and sorta Harry-Goblin. Harry realizes Peter didn't actually kill his father and suits up to join Spidey in battle. Their teaming up and affectionate quipping are the best part of the film and among the trilogy.... until Harry dies. Young grieving, misguided Harry dies. Young bitter, misguided Eddie Brock dies. Middle-aged murderer and active criminal Sandman not only lives but gets forgiven by Peter for killing Uncle Ben. He's let off the hook because he's commiting crimes for his sick daughter. So, the next inevitable manslaughter he commits, is entirely Peter's fault. Norman Osborne and Otto Octavius- two men Peter knew personally and who cared about him- suffered mental breakdowns and died brutally, but sound-minded  Sandman's sick kid just tugs at the heartstrings. But goody, Peter and Mary Jane reconciled until the next time their still active high school hormones get in the way.

This series owes a lot to the X-movies. Because without them, the sm trilogy would be the most morally bankrupt superhero franchise.

Side notes:

-Peter is still employed by Jonah?! After Mary Jane stomped all over the heart of his beloved son to get with his mildly tolerated freelance photographer?! WHAT?!!!!!

-I genuinely enjoyed the dance sequence. Yes, I dared to love the rare bit of levity and only time Peter Parker shows a trace of a backbone.

Finally, time to move on to the Amazing Spider-Man movies, which actually earn their title. They also prove that it takes a real Spider-Fan to portray Spider-Man.

When I read the magazine article about Andrew Garfield's reaction to being casted, my heart overflowed for him. A true once-in-a-lifetime dream made reality. And let me tell you, this guy did not disappoint.

Again, for fairness, I'll say what I didn't like about these movies first. I have never been so glad to see Uncle Ben die. Martin Sheen's version was an insufferable, obnoxious, self-righteous prick. He wouldn't stop busting Peter's chops at every turn. I can't believe he took Flash's side when Peter gave that antagonistic jerk a taste of his own medicine. Not to mention deliberately embarrassing him in front of Gwen just to be petty. And he died so idiotically! What unarmed civilian sees a gun wielding thief and chases after him as he runs from a store?? It's just money! He hadn't shot anyone until Ben tried to play cowboy like a daggon fool. Sm trilogy Uncle Ben was so patient, understanding, warm, and wise. It was easy to be angry at Peter for disrespecting him in their last conversation. I almost wanted Andrew Peter to punch his uncle. Thank God he thought about his deceased father later on more than big dumb Ben.

No JK Simmons or any J. Jonah Jameson at all. Additionally, while the plot was interesting, Rhys Ifans was such an underwhelming Curt Connors. Dylan Baker in the trilogy never even turned into the Lizard, but looked and acted exactly like Dr. Connors. Ifans' version looked absolutely nothing like him nor did he have his wife and son to add emotional weight.

Two things I didn't like in the sequel. One, the blatant foreshadowing of Gwen Stacy's death. I hated them breaking up, too because Gwen dying would have hit so much harder if they'd been in a strong relationship the entire time. Though it is nice that Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield have legit chemistry and those weird things known as morals.

All that aside, EEEEEEEE Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker/Spider-Man! Fandom- especially fanboys- tend to reject him because he's 'too cool' to be a nerdy outsider like the fanboys identify as. Uh, guys, in case you didn't know, Peter Parker is NOT a perpetual, blubbering pansy a la Tobey, either. No, Amazing Peter doesn't check all of the outdated cliche boxes of nerdome. This is what drew me to him. Someone can be a smart, relatively good looking, quiet outsider loner without being totally spineless and pathetic. He still faced bullying and socialized very little. I love how he showed his inner hero by retaliating against Flash over that girl Flash was messing with for no reason. After this lesson in humility, Flash is compassionate towards Peter after Ben dies and even friendly with him by the end. I love this because Flash Thompson is such a major in-universe Spider-Fan.

Emma Stone played Gwen Stacy great and I have very few qualms about her direction and writing. She was actually smart and useful, not merely an idealized pretty face who is really boy obsessed. Peter unceremoniously revealing his identity to her almost had me falling out of my theater seat. No will they/won't they secret bs?! What?!!!! I also loved her as Peter's primary confidant. This gave them a unique connection physically, emotionally, and intellectually that Peter has with no one else. I melted over that kiss Peter planted on her on the graduation stage. I hated that her father, Captain Stacy, died. I spent the first film waiting in dread for Gwen to die, so her dad legitimately dropped my jaw. Their family just suffered too much back to back loss.

That's something else the Amazing movies had, true human depictions and moments. Peter was not made into another on-the-nose Christ figure, doomed to suffer for the good of mankind. The scene where he nonchalantly removes his mask to reassure a little boy that Peter is 'just a guy' displayed this best. Peter was not a glorified stuntman filling a suit. He went through various emotions without needing to voice them. He experienced pain, injury, and sickness because enhanced abilities or none, he's as mortal as the rest of us. He did not just lurk from rooftops. He walked among and interacted with ordinary people. The ones he saved were moved and inspired to follow his example of goodness. Great power and great responsibility without cramming that, now nauseating, phrase down our throats every second.

Not only was he realistically vulnerable, Peter possessed an enormous amount of strength. No matter what setbacks or tragedies, I had no doubt that he would come back from them without losing himself. He is the Peter Parker and Spider-Man that makes you feel like you matter, that you are not alone, that you have worth, and he offers the audience the same sense of safety he gives to his protectorate. I know he enjoyed being Spider-Man and I definitely know why.

Sally Field is the best ever Aunt May. While Rosemary Harris acted well in the trilogy, her Aunt May seemed more like an overly fragile great-great grandmother. Sally's Aunt May does so much more with less screentime. She's a good 20 years younger than normally depicted and she wordlessly emotes like a champ. After Peter's parents have to leave and Aunt May wraps those protective arms around little Peter, she is shamelessly possessive over him from that point on. Ben mentions that anyone who has anything bad to say about Peter better not do so in front of May. One quiet look from her cements this as fact. Instead of being utterly helpless after her husband's death, Aunt May is able to keep the house and becomes a nurse to pay for Peter's college tuition. They're not rolling in money, but they're far from the soup line. I love how annoyed Aunt May could get when Peter focused on his parents. Bonus points that she's his aunt by marriage yet insists Peter is only her boy. Wonderful of Peter to reiterate his love and appreciation towards her.

As for other human emotions, I actually liked Jamie Foxx as Electro. Electro is a traditionally masked villain and not too well known so it didn't feel like race-swapping. With a big name like Jamie Foxx he was likely just the most qualified to audition. His Max character comes off like the cliche nerd- actually surprised that fanboys didn't fall in love with his Tobey-ish essence- but because of how Jamie played him, I honestly felt for Max's loneliness and mistreatment. With how ignored and/or emotionally abused he was plus the electric powers affecting his mind, I found his sudden rage against Spider-Man believable.

Here's a real shocker. I enjoyed Dane DeHaan, who is the exact opposite of James Franco, as Harry Osbourne. I really did not expect to from the trailers. However, Dane's performance in the sequel had this unique quality to it. His stage presence was a mix of intriguing, ominous, and if I'm being honest, a bit sensually provacative. His Goblin was straight-up goofy and shoehorned in, but his Harry sold me. Felicia Hardy is introduced and he aligns with her. I love Felicia/Black Cat and hate that she was showed but not given a chance to develop. Funny enough, part of me always envisioned her with James' Harry. I'd have taken Dane's, too.

I will never be over the rest of the Amazing franchise being cancelled after all the improvements and promises they made. I was ecstatic when they finally greenlit a Sinister Six movie only to pull the plug. I liked the mystery going on in Amazing and wanted to see how it all concluded. It was great to see Peter trying to unwrap the mystery of his father. He's so angry at him for leaving/dying yet he can't help loving and yearning for him still.

That's something else I, or rather a certain flexibly fantastic older male, will likely have to remedy 😉

MSU marches on!

[marvelvsmarvel]

Here’s the thing about Spider-Man movies. They introduced a whole generation to Spider-Man who weren’t comic book readers and at most watched one of the cartoons on Saturday mornings growing up. Tobey Maguire was the best thing ever in the role and as history and memes remind us Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man 1 & 2 were fantastic building from the first to second and then creative differences, Sony agenda, Tobey PR problems, etc. brought it all crashing down. They rush the money grab only 2 years later with the Amazing Andrew Garfield to no fault of his own. Emma Stone had become a firecracker leading lady and eventual Academy Award winner overshadowing his own great acting. Again Sony didn’t just rush a reboot but rushed the storytelling so they could get to the Sinister Six to compete with the increasingly bigger and better Marvel Studios films. It’s been known that Kevin Feige was hoping to have either Tobey or Andrew crossover with the Avengers but it just wasn’t in the cards. Years later we get Tom Holland and while he is much more a Peter Starker all millennial and techno-based his stories as told by Jon Watts in comparison are some of the best told, his villains easily cast and portrayed are among the best, and his involvement in the MCU continuity is priceless. We did it Mister Stark... WE F***ING WON... The thing is most of these casual comic book film movie goers who first met Spidey from “With great power comes great responsibility” are the ones who were hoping to see Alfred Molina’s Doc Ock and William Dafoe’s Green Goblin even though they’re canonically dead in the Sonyverse. They’re the ones going crazy after the trailer in hopes that Tobey and Andrew will still make cameos in the film no matter how big or small. The reasoning? Some sad social trauma that Spider-Man 3 and the Amazing Spider-Man’s abrupt end left on them... And so they found sanctuary for their nerdom in the MCU and the return of the Prodigal Bug is where this gaudy hope to rectify those franchises’ ends lies within rumored cameos in this film. Let Tobey and Andrew to go out in a kick ass way allowing us to forget the dancing emo-Peter meme and Gwemma Stone’s death. Give us the Sinister Six that we were promised so long ago only to have been teased with Easter eggs and then lived out through the PS4 game. That is why the hype is so out of control. This has been a longer thing coming than Thanos and the effects are mostly diluted. This one film can be it’s own 6hr Spider-Men Syndercut and it won’t make up the past mistakes. Instead the poor fans should just appreciate what was which were the peaks for actors like Tobey and Kirsten Dunst but launched the careers of James Franco and Bryce Dallas Howard and of course gave us JK Simmons as J Jonah Jameson. We should also enjoy the the Spectacular spectacle that otherwise stunted the mainstream stardom of the young and talented actors Andrew Garfield and Dane DeHaan but geez Marc Webb’s (500) Days of Summer and Gifted are literally some of my favorite films. Anywho Tom Holland’s Spidey wouldn’t be what it is today without the good and bad of those franchises and this film wouldn’t have the anticipation it has without them as well. And so again instead allowing the frenzy get to you because we all know how it is easy I think we should all just enjoy it as fans. What a time to be alive! This is crazy!

[musette22]

Hi loves! I've gotten quite a few messages about Pam and Tommy yesterday and overnight – too many of them to answer individually, in fact, since I’ve got a busy few days ahead, so I’m just going to make a general post addressing some of the points raised by people who have reservations about the show and those who are hopeful/excited about it, and once again explain my own thoughts on it. Since there’s only so much I can say about this without having actually seen the show or read the script, I’m not going to address it too much more after this until more info about the show comes out, because otherwise I'd just be repeating myself! I hope you guys understand, and I am very grateful for all your messages and appreciate you all sharing your thoughts and opinions <3

I’ll put the rest under the cut because it’s quite long!

First of all, let me say that I totally get having personal reservations over this role or this show. That's absolutely understandable. If this show is not your cup of tea or makes you feel uncomfortable or disappointed in any way, that's fine and you can totally choose not to watch it or engage with it! We all get to decide that for ourselves <3

But when it comes to the question of whether or not it’s objectively a good or bad career move for Sebastian, I still think a lot of people may be confusing/conflating 'I don't like this career move' with 'this is a bad career move.' So far, nothing has indicated that this show is actually a bad career move for Sebastian, and no one so far as provided any actual arguments for why it would be, apart from that they fear it will bring Sebastian a lot of negative energy/press because of who Tommy Lee is. I personally don’t think that’s going to be the case; first of all, people feared the same thing when I, Tonya was being made and we all know how that turned out, plus industry professionals and critics are very capable of making the distinction between actor and character and knowing that playing a ‘bad’ character/person doesn’t automatically mean you yourself are bad or you condone the bad person’s actions.

Of course, some viewers and fans might find it harder to make that distinction and might criticize Sebastian for taking up this role (in fact, they already have) or even his performance, but the majority of the audience will watch it for entertainment only, which means they won’t take it quite as seriously. And if the show is a) well-written/directed, b) entertaining and c) Sebastian gives a good performance (all of which remains to be seen, but considering the people involved in it and the distributer and the talented cast, including Sebastian, the signs are good), it will get good reviews from critics and audiences alike, which will only mean good things for Sebastian himself. The fact that some of his fans probably will find another reason to attack or attempt to cancel him over this show once it comes out is unfortunate, but negligible in terms of Sebastian’s career. Besides, if it wasn’t this, it would be something else.

As for the question of whether Pamela herself is against the show being made: as far as I know, all comments so far about it have come from either ‘insiders’ who sold their story to the Daily Mail which then got picked up by a bunch of other tabloids, or from Courtney Love (who’s a friend of Pamela’s), who later seems to have retracted some of her comments. So as far as I I’m aware, Pamela herself has not made any statements about it yet – not when she was approached at the very beginning of the process, and not now that the show is actually being filmed. Of course, I wouldn't blame her at all if she wasn't too happy with it, but so far I believe she hasn’t personally made her opinion known (correct me if I’m wrong, though!) 

And even if she had, the responsibility for the show being made lies with the producers and Hulu, rather than with the actors. Critics and industry professionals will be aware of this; they know that if these actors hadn’t played these roles, someone else would’ve (in fact, James Franco was initially cast as Tommy but he dropped out, so that just goes to show) so again, this wouldn’t reflect badly on Sebastian in the eyes of critics and industry professionals.

Whether or not we like the idea of this show being made/Sebastian playing this role, the fact is that it’s giving him the opportunity to once again show he's capable of (physical) transformation and playing complex characters, to work with a renowned director and top cast on a hotly anticipated show, get him lots of attention and exposure in the media (there’s already been a lot of that, with much more to come once the show airs) and also bring him to the attention of a whole new audience, which will mean he’ll gain a lot of new fans. Those are all objectively good things for his career. 

Again, if you’re not happy with this show/role, that’s totally understandable and fine, and it remains to be seen whether the show will actually be any good. But I personally can’t see any reason right now to believe Sebastian taking this role was a bad career move, and definitely not more so than a lot of the flopped indie movies he’s done in the past – which also haven’t actively hurt his career so far, by the way! 

For now, all we can do is wait and see! 🙏🏻

[wonderfulworldofmichaelford]

Psycho Analysis: Spider-Man Movie Villains

(WARNING! This analysis contains SPOILERS!)

Spider-Man, Spider-Man, he does whatever a spider can. And what do spiders seem really good at? Amassing huge quantities of hatred and animosity! True to the wily arachnids that inspired him, Spider-Man has quite the impressive gallery of foes, one that I might say rivals Batman as the greatest in comic book history with how colorful, crazy, and creative they are. Even villains derivative of one another, like Hobgoblin and Green Goblin or Carnage and Venom, manage to carve out unique niches that help make them fun and memorable.

And thankfully, these qualities usually translated pretty well to film! I’ve talked about how good Mysterio, Vulture, Kingpin, and Prowler are before, so now it’s time to cover the others all in one fell swoop! From the Raimi trilogy, we have Green Goblin, Doctor Octopus, Harry Osborn, Sandman, and Eddie Brock/Venom; from the Andrew Garfield duology, we have Lizard, Electro, Rhino, and Harry Osborn again; and leftover from Into the Spider-Verse we have Olivia Octavius, Tombstone, Scorpion, and that film’s brief take on Green Goblin! Oh, and why not throw in Riot from Venom while we’re at it, because he sucks way too much to get his own Psycho Analysis.

Motivation/Goals: A lot of villains are motivated by the classic motivation: revenge. All of the Green Goblins manage to have this as a main part of their actions, making them remarkably consistent and very easy to discuss. The Norman of the Raimi films wants to take out his anger at being frozen out of his own company, and his son wants revenge for his death, while the Harry of the Garfield films wants his vengeance because Spider-Man wouldn’t help cure him of his otherwise incurable disaease that would kill him (a fact made worse because Spider-Man is his actual best friend, Peter Parker, who is coldly condemning his pal to death). The only one who doesn’t really fit is the Spider-Verse take on Green Goblin, and that’s more because he has extremely limited screentime and spends all of it fighting Peter and being scary as hell.

Eddie Brock/Venom is a very interesting case as both halves of the character are motivated by different reasons. The symbiote half is, of course, motivated by the fact that Peter has tried to rid himself of it via using a church bell to kill it. Eddie, on the other hand, has the most absolutely hilarious motivation ever: He wants Peter Parker to die because Peter exposed him for submitting fraudulent pictures to J. Jonah Jameson. Eddie literally breached journalistic ethics but apparently Peter’s to blame for exposing his literal, actual crime! And he prays to God for Peter to die! This version of Eddie is cartoonishly hilarious.Finally, we have Max Dillon, AKA Electro, who is lashing out at a world that did nothing but belittle and demean him, giving him a far more sympathetic motive for revenge.

Kurt Connors is an interesting halfway point between the Doc Ocks and the villains above, because he is not really evil and his whole transformation came about for altruistic scientific reasons, as he tested his serum on himself because they were going to test it out on the public without consent. While the serum drives him mad, he initially only goes after those who were going to use his formula with people as guinea pigs.

Interestingly, the two Doc Ocks contrast each other. While both of them are doing evil deeds for scientific reasons, Otto Octavius is being forced by his tentacles and genuinely wishes to make the world a better place otherwise. Olivia, on the other hand, is a gleeful sadist who doesn’t care who she hurts as long as she can get some sort of scientific knowledge from it.

Sandman is interesting case because his motivations are entirely sympathetic and despite being the man who killed Uncle Ben, it was entirely accidental and he always regretted it. He only ever wanted to get money to save his daughter. It’s really hard not to sympathize with a guy who turned to desperate measures because the American health care system sucks even in a universe where a dude dressed in a bright red suit swings around New York.

Then there are all the rest. Aleksei Systevich, AKA Rhino, is just a criminal, and has barely any screentime to establish a motivation beyond that. This is especially hilarious because the ads really hyped this guy up, only for him to get maybe five minutes of screentime, with most of it at the very end of the movie before the credits (we don’t even get to see his final battle). Tombstone and Scorpion are basically just lackeys for Kingpin, with little established beyond that. Scorpion almost shows up entirely out of nowhere, just popping in for the fight at Aunt May’s house and then the final battle. And then there’s Riot, who just wants to start a symbiote apocalypse on Earth.

Performance: Willem Dafoe, Alfred Molina, and Thomas Haden Church as Green Goblin, Doctor Octopus, and Sandman in the Raimi trilogy are, in a word, iconic. Dafoe brings a gleeful, cackling hamminess to the Goblin that perfectly suits him and manages to steal every single with how delightfully, cartoonishly evil he is combined with some hilariously chummy moments with Spider-Man. Molina as Ock goes in the opposite direction of hamminess, where instead of making Octavius cartoonishly evil, he gives him this air of gravitas to the point where he somehow manages to make this villain with giant metal tentacles that are controlling his mind come off as sophisticated and serious as Hannibal Lecter. Church meanwhile just looks eerily perfect as Sandman, as if he were ripped straight from the comics and put onscreen, and then of course there’s how well he manages to sell the emotional moments of the character.

The Harrys are a rather mixed bag, sad to say. James Franco and Dennis DeHaan aren’t really bad actors, but they unfortunately have the problem of living in the shadow of the actor who played their dad (Franco) or being in a really awful movie with a terrible script (DeHaan). Franco at least makes up for this by being hilariously, cartoonishly evil to the extent of his dad in the third Raimi film, but DeHaan unfortunately falls rather flat. Topher Grace as Venom is a choice that seems baffling until you realize Raimi cast an actor like this on purpose because he hates Venom so much he didn’t want to give him any dignity.

Jamie Foxx as Electro seems odd at first, but I feel it’s actually a great casting choice, and despite how unbelievably stupid the script is, he’s actually able to do a fairly good job. If his character was in a better movie, he’d probably get a lot less flak (and he’ll be getting his chance soon enough, apparently). Overall, he’s the best part of the Garfield films. Rhys Ifans and Paul Giamatti as Lizard and Rhino are serviceable, but neither film they’re in really gives them much to work with. Giamatti at least gets to steal the show with his brief scenes by being an absolute ham, but Ifans is sadly a bit forgettable in his role (though not for lack of trying on his part).

Now onto the Spider-Verse ensemble! Considering how I gushed over her delightful performance as the Wicked Witch of Westview in WandaVision as well as the fact she is solely responsible for me resurrecting this series from its long hiatus, it should come as no shock at all that Kathryn Hahn as Olivia Octavius is just perfect. Controversial opinion, I know, might get some flak for this hot take. Jorma Taccone as Green Goblin, Joaquin Cosio as Scorpion, and Marvin Jones III as Tombstone all do well for what they’re given, but it’s clear most of the love among Kingpin’s henchmen was given to her (and Prowler, but he got his own review where I talked about how great he is).

Oh, right, Riot. I forgot about him. Riz Ahmed, who plays the human villain Carlton Drake I forgot to mention because he’s incredibly boring, is a really good (and sexy) actor. Unfortunately, he doesn’t get to be quite as good and sexy as an actor like him should be in his dual role. In an interesting subversion of how things usually go, he ends up being rather bland compared to the hammy, bonkers hero. This was Tom Hardy’s show, and no one was stealing it from him.

Final Fate: The Raimi films were all made during a time when, if your name wasn’t Magneto and you were a superhero movie villain, you were dying, a trend I’m certainly glad is finally starting to die off. Thankfully, Green Goblin manages to stick around and posthumously influence Harry, so in his case it’s not so bad. Harry and Doc Ock both manage to overcome the darkness in their hearts at the end and sacrifice their lives to help save the day, while Eddie dies after becoming such a simp for the symbiote he leaps into it while Peter is blowing it up. With Sandman, Peter actually has a touching reconciliation with Sandman at the end, forgiving him for the death of Uncle Ben before Sandman dissolves into dust and floats away on the breeze. And no, this is his power, not Thanos’ snap reaching across time, space, and dimensions; Sandman actually gets out of these films alive.

The other villains actually get off easier, as most of them go to jail. From the Amazing Spider-Man films, DeHaan’s Goblin and Rhys Ifan’s Lizard both end up in prison, and it’s safe to assume that the villains of Spider-Verse are going to jail alongside Kingpin. Octavius was hit by a bus, sure, but considering how popular she ended up being it would be really dumb to have that actually kill her. With Electro and Rhino though, it’s really ambiguous, the former because he’s made of electricity and the way he was defeated means it is possible he survived, and the latter because we never actually see the outcome of his battle with Spider-Man. If the film they were in was actually good and warranted sequels, we may have found out what their true fates were, but at the very least Electro is moving over to the MCU alongside Molina’s Doc Ock.

Oh, right, forgot Riot again. He dies.

Best Scene/Best Quote: I’m combining these this time just to make it easier on me, because in at least in a couple cases the two are the same.

Green Goblin has a lot to choose from, to the point where it’s easy to cop out and just say every scene he’s in is amazing. I’ve always been fond of his chummy chat with Spider-Man on the rooftop, or the scene where he terrifies Aunt May, or the scene where he attacks the parade and vaporizes the board of directors with pumpkin bombs.

Dock Ock is easy: the train battle. This might be one of the best action scenes in any superhero movie ever, and since he’s the villain in it, it almost goes without saying..There’s a reason this scene is singled out so often.

Eddie Brock and DeHaan Goblin actually have their best scenes also be their best lines. Eddie praying for God to kill Peter Parker and DeHaan!Harry screaming “YOU’RE A FRAUD, SPIDER-MAN!” after Spidey refuses to give him a life-saving blood transfusion are just so absolutely hilarious and memorable that you can’t hate them.

Aside from the powerful forgiveness moment at the film’s end, I think it’s really indisputable that the best scene from Sandman, and perhaps the Raimi trilogy as a whole, is the scene of Sandman’s creation. Words really can’t do it justice, so just watch:

Electro’s best moment isn’t even actually part of the movie, unless you want to count his rendition of “The Itsy-Bitsy Spider.” No, his is from a Tumblr post, proving definitively that Electro’s power can not be contained.

For Olivia, I’d say either of the reveals for her are great. You can go with the twist that she’s the Doc Ock of Miles’ universe, or the twist that she might have fucked Aunt May. Either way, you can’t really go wrong.

The rest of the villains… yeah, I’ve got nothing. At least with Rhino you can say his entire time on screen was fun, but the rest? Nope. They’re kind of just there.

Final Thoughts & Score:

Green Goblin

Where to begin with this guy? He is everything I look for in a great villain: he’s hammy and cartoonish, he can be terrifying and threatening when he wants to be, he has a ridiculous yet memorable costume, every word out of his mouth is hilarious and memorable, and he’s played by an amazing actor. It’s hard to dispute that Doc Ock is the best villain in Raimi’s trilogy, but Goblin is definitely the most fun. If you thought he’d get less than a 10/10, you thought wrong.

Doctor Octopus

Aside from Green Goblin, Doc Ock is Spidey’s most iconic and memorable foe, nd this adaptation of him does not disappoint. By making him a more tragic and somewhat anti-villainous figure and putting him in the hands of someone as awesome and talented as Alfred Molina, they managed to make such a cartoonish villain retain that comic book silliness while still being a legitimately imposing antagonist. I suppose it helps that a director who knows how to balance silly and serous like Raimi helps. It’s absolutely not a shock that the MCU wants to bring Molina back, because really, I can’t see anyone making the dubious doctor nearly as cool as the 10/10 performance Molina gave.

Harry Osborn

Franco’s Harry has an interesting arc, but one that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense under scrutiny. Frankly, his descent into villain is handled well but when he actually gets to be a villain in the third film, things fall apart.. But at any rate, he gets to be cartoonishly hilarious while he pettily ruins Peter’s life, so I think a 3/10 is warranted just for how goofy he is.

Eddie Brock/Venom

For the longest time, I hated Eddie Brock, but loved the Venom symbiote for its fantastic design… A design hampered by the fact Topher Grace keeps sticking his face through the symbiote and talking in his normal voice. But then one day I remembered Eddie literally prays to God for Peter Parker to die, and I realize that as crappy as this version of Venom is, he’s undoubtedly hilarious. A 3/10 mainly because of how hilariously bad he is, though the design of the symbiote is unironically great. Shame Grace kept sticking his face through and that Raimi hates the character.

Sandman

Sandman is a villain who deserved a better movie. Sure, Spider-Man 3 is fun and funny, but a character with this much depth and emotional weight deserved a film of the caliber of Spider-Man 2. At any rate, he adds a bit of class and dignity to the proceedings, and Thomas Haden Church really nails it. He’s a 9/10 for sure.

Lizard

Lizard is just a very boring villain, which is a shame because Lizard is not a boring villain in the comics and other media like the cartoons. I don’t really know if he was the best choice for Spider-Man’s first outing; I’ll at least give him that he’s a more inspired choice than doing the Green Goblin again, but that doesn’t score him higher than a 4/10. As boring as he ends up being, that library fight was pretty cool and had a great Stan Lee cameo, so I can’t say he’s the bottom of the barrel.

Electro

Electro is a villain who desperately deserved a better movie. While his backstory as a nerdy fanboy who got kicked around by the world is nothing new, or fresh, or original, Jamie Foxx manages to make the character work fairly well even though almost everything around him is unbelievably stupid. The fact he managed to make “Don’t you know? I’m Electro” sound cool and badass is a testament to his skill, and thankfully he’s coming back in the MCU in some way, so I guess Electro’s power can not be contained to a single movie. Still, this iteration only manages to get to a 6/10, because while all the elements of greatness are there, he’s hampered by the abysmal writing.

Rhino

Paul Giamatti certainly looks like he’s having a blast here. His attitude is almost infectious, but alas, his time is too brief to bring any great joy, and his jarring appearance out of nowhere at the end of the film certainly do him no favors. Still, Giamatti keeps Rhino from sinking any lower than a 5/10.

Harry Osborn

This Harry is just a joke. His arc makes no sense, his actions are unbelievable, and he ends up looking like a really poor Warwick Davis Leprechaun cosplayer. The only thing of note about him is that he’s a Harry who becomes the Green Goblin before his father, something that doesn’t happen very often, and that’s not enough to score this loser higher than a 2/10. Not even killing Gwen Stacy makes him any more impressive, and that’s a real shame.

Olivia Octavius

Olivia Octavius is widely beloved by just about everyone who sees the film.. myself included. This is just a really fun, clever twist on Doctor Octopus, and it’s the sort of character you really hope gets a Harley Quinn-level break into becoming an iconic character across multiple forms of media. Kathryn Hahn’s fun performance and the wonderful design and fight sequences really make Olivia a 9/10.

Tombstone

Tombstone is a villain you might actually forget is in the movie, which is a damn shame. He’s an albino black man, a badass bodyguard, and has a striking design, but he gets a single line of dialogue and is tasked with bodyguarding a man who not only has cyborgs under his employ, but who murdered Spider-Man with his bare hands. Tombstone ultimately feels really superfluous, which is a shame because around the same time Into the Spider-Verse came out he had a very memorable and well-liked appearance in the Spider-Man video game. It’s a real shame but I gotta give this version of Tombstone a 2/10.

Scorpion

Scorpion has a lot of problems of Tombstone above, but he makes up for a lot of his flaws by having a really cool and striking design. Does it really make him a great villain? No. He’s not particularly well-characterized and he’s really just there to look cool and give Olivia backup. He’s a 4/10 at best, saved from being lower only by his awesome look. Looking cool really can get you far in some cases.

Green Goblin

Out of all the really minor villains in Spider-Verse, this version of Norman might be the best. His role is tiny, only appearing during the scene where the Peter Parker of Miles’ universe gets killed, but his battle with Spider-Man is what sets the entire plot in motion. His cool and terrifying design definitely help make him stand out enough to earn at least a 6/10.

Riot & Carlton Drake

Look, there’s a reason I kept forgetting these guys. They’re not memorable in the slightest. Venom may be a fantastic work of art, but that’s because Tom Hardy kills it in his dual role as Eddie Brock and the Venom symbiote. Drake is just a boring corporate villain, the kind I hate talking about and the kind I’d only ever even bother mentioning in a review like this. And Riot is just a generic Big Gray CGI Monster for the hero to have a final battle with. Neither of these two are particularly interesting, and neither deserves more than a 2/10.

That’s it, right? There can’t be any more villains, I must have covered them all. Well, not quite. There’s one more character who is most certainly an antagonist and who I really, really want to talk about. And you’re absolutely not going to believe who it is.

You ready?

Psycho Analysis: Emo Peter

“Now wait,” you may be asking, “Emo Peter? Really? How does he count as a villain?” Well, as Schafrillas pointed out in his video on Spider-Man 3, Emo Peter is actually the antagonist for much of the second act. Peter, influenced by the symbiote, becomes a raging jackass and hurts and alienates everyone around him by being a colossal douchebag, not to mention how violent he gets as Spider-Man. This is very much an extreme case of the hero’s greatest enemy being themselves, because literally, Peter’s enemy in the chunk of the movie with Emo Peter is his own overinflated ego

Motivation/Goals: I mean, at the end of the day, it’s still Peter. He still wants to do the typical Peter Parker stuff, he’s just a jackass while he does it.

Performance: It’s Tobey Maguire busting loose and getting to act like an absolute doofus. There is literally nothing about this that isn’t amazing and I’m sorry if you can’t see it.

Final Fate: Peter eventually comes to realize that maybe the symbiote making him act like an egomaniacal tool is not a good thing, and so rebels against it, ultimately leading him to the roof of a church where Eddie Brock is praying for him to die and, well, the rest is history.

Best Scene:

Best Dance Move:

Final Thoughts & Score: Emo Peter has gotten a bad reputation over the years, but Schafrillas’ video really made me rethink why. As he puts it, Emo Peter comes off not as someone cool, but as what a loser thinks a cool person would be (which makes him still a loser). It seems fairly likely that the audience isn’t supposed to be rooting for Emo Peter or finding him cool, but instead finding him insufferable, ridiculous, and funny. We’re supposed to be laughing at Peter’s egomania, at his absurd and hammy showboating, not cheering him on and desiring to emulate him.

And that ultimately makes it more satisfying when Peter overcomes his ego and decides to rid himself of the symbiote. It might seem like I’m giving Spider-Man 3 a lot of credit here, but even Sam Raimi half-assing a movie wouldn’t leave things completely devoid of underlying brilliance. Emo Peter isn’t a villain in the sense that he’s some superpowered antagonist, he’s a physical representation of the negative impacts of fame and ego on Peter. This is Peter letting go of what makes him a hero and just reveling in being an absolute jerkwad to everyone around him.

I love the memes as much as everyone else of course, but Emo Peter is also a pretty clever symbolic foe. But even though I’m giving him an 8/10, we all know the real reason why he’s scoring so high:

Ok, but that’s it now, right? No more Spider-Man villains? Well, maybe for now. But don’t forget:

There’s gonna be Carnage.

[ececicioglu]

A Mini-Series That Broke My Prejudices: 11.22.63

First of all, even though it is a "mini" series, I can say that it tells more than many long series and it makes the audience more satisfied. I decided to watch it with the recommendation of one of my friend and of course, I researched this series before watching it. I learned it's science fiction, which is not my favorite genre. Secondly, I learned it is about John F. Kennedy’s death and unfortunately I'm not a history lover type. Thirdly, I have not read a single bad review in the comments I read, and I am generally biased (in a negative way) towards series that everyone loves MOST. Even though I am so biased towards 11.22.63, I love it very much and it is definitely one of my 3 favorite series! 

The first thing I like most about the 11.22.63 is that we don't just watch romance or just science fiction. The combination and balance of these two genres with each other is a big factor in the popularity of the series by different audiences. Also the tension and action scenes make the series more dynamic. 

The second most important reason why I like the series is that it is definitely a "mini" series. Don't you think it is much more difficult to focus on long series or long movies, especially nowadays when we are in quarantine due to Coronavirus? 11.22.63 is a series that does not bore the audience and also, we may sometimes miss it and we will want to return and watch the random one episode! 

The fiction and editing are absolutely awesome! Even one information that seems to be too "detail" is reminded to us in later chapters and shown to be important. 

Casting is very successful! I'm sure there have been many people who started this series for the sake of James Franco, but even someone who doesn't know James Franco is born as a James Franco fan at the end of the series. Of course, it's not just James Franco, but Sarah Gadon, who gave life to the character Sadie, has shown an unforgettable acting. They became a lovely couple. 

I generally like old era movies and TV series. I had watched Peaky Blinders before 11.22.63 and liked it very much as well. What I likened to the two was that the emphasis on decor and costume. In both, details are really recognizable. Care has been taken to be "nostalgic" or "retro" or "vintage" objects such as from a piece of jewelry to the cover of a book. Of course this is the success of the cinematographer and director of photography! 

Finally, 11.22.63 contributed a lot to me emotionally. While we have regrets and worries in our lives (maybe even those we want to go back to and fix), there is no need to worry about them. We have to admit that things are happening as they should happen. We shouldn't look for reasons for every error. Remember that everything is valuable and memorable when it happens in its own place and on own time! 

[sushiandmovies-blog1]

Pineapple Express

There was an era of comedy in the 2000s spearheaded by Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle (2004) where a lot of the movies coming out were centered around drugs. I was born and raised in a drug-free family (and never really had the desire to do it, despite attending a high school where it was pretty commonplace) and so I didn’t really seek out a lot of these movies for myself, only catching them every once in a while. 21 Jump Street (2012) for example had a very hilarious -- maybe even borderline cheesy, but probably accurate -- scene where Jenko (Channing Tatum) and Schmidt (Jonah Hill) get a taste of the drugs they’re undercover and trying to bust and they try not to appear super high in front of a staff member. I even remember sleeping over my older sister’s house as a teenager, borrowing her iPad for Netflix, and catching Mac and Devin Go to High School (2012, Snoop Dogg and Wiz Khalifa) and watching that to bed. 

It wasn’t very good, but at the time, I had a higher tolerance for good and bad movies, just kind of eager to consume anything to pass the time without worrying about what was high-brow. I strayed away from drug comedies as I grew up, and I don’t remember a lot of them coming out as I did. In fact, I can name only a few prominent ones off the top of my head that involved drugs as a comedy or plot device that I haven’t already named: The Hangover (2009), in which the whole crux of the movie is that the main cast gets drugged and has to retrace their steps, and We’re the Millers (2013) where Jason Sudeikis has to smuggle drugs out of the country. In small-time, Weeds (2005) on Showtime was doing quite well before the show ended in 2012. I watched and loved that show, despite, again, never having taken drugs my whole life -- and I was about 14 when it was on, so how could I even really know what these drug movies were about?

But last night, I tossed on Pineapple Express (2008), starring the iconic duo Seth Rogen and James Franco. I remember very vividly watching the MTV Movie Awards and seeing this movie win a couple of awards, and MTV showed a scene of the leading actors in a hilarious fight. But for some reason, I missed the movie. I was a little hesitant -- I didn’t know if I would relate enough to the comedy -- but I’ve been on a huge Seth Rogen kick the last couple of weeks, and I’ll watch anything he’s in (I remember watching The Interview, 2014, when it first came out and not understanding it) even if the subject matter’s a little juvenile. I had that back-of-your-head feeling that it was going to be good just because of who’s in it, and because I have a bad habit of looking at IMDB scores before turning anything on, but I didn’t know it was going to be that good. 

I’ve seen a couple of Rogen’s interviews and he’s talked about how Pineapple Express is kind of a testimony of how weird your relationship with your pot dealer can be. And remembering those interviews, I couldn’t help but laugh when Rogen and Franco’s characters first met -- the awkwardness of, “Hey, I got my pot, see you later,” and wanting to leave right away while Franco kept inching out in hopes of making a friend, hanging out with someone. I guess the pot dealer life can be lonely when you know everybody only wants one thing from you. I found myself feeling kind of bad for Franco, like he was a lonely puppy -- and I think that’s where Pineapple Express really shines, is in its ability to make you feel for its characters in a movie that’d otherwise be another hazy, predictable drug comedy.

Because, in a way, Pineapple Express’s skeleton is like that: Guy witnesses a murder and has to go on a run, and a very predictable chase ensues until it reaches its predictable end of the main characters claiming victory while the bad  guys get caught and go to jail. It’s a movie we’ve seen told in different genres, and yet Pineapple Express -- even, what, 12 or 13 years later -- feels like it was just sliced open. And you can thank Rogen and Judd Apatow’s writing for that. Apatow’s movies, while always offering something different each time, fell into kind of a predictable pattern there, of a loser-esque guy redeeming himself by the end over the events of the movie. And yet, I still love them. There’s something about that kinda immature, kinda loser-y character getting a good ending before the credits roll that just feels so good to watch, like at the end of The 40-Year-Old Virgin (2005) when Steve Carrell gets his virginity taken and the cast sings The Age of Aquarius in some totally random, but somehow very fitting music video. 

And it’s because the characters are so damn good. So that’s the key to making a good drug comedy, told by me, a straightedge person, almost a decade after the genre’s popularity’s smoke died. I loved the ending of Pineapple Express, in which Rogen, Franco and Danny McBride become fucked-up but endearing best friends. I loved the weird shining on Rogen’s character’s flaw, when he breaks up with Angie (a baby-faced Amber Heard) and tells her she’s immature for taking him back when he’s got a lot of growing up to do. And it’s those honest looks at the people who are taking the drugs versus the drugs themselves that made this relatable for me. So the laughs came from my belly and filled up the whole house. 

5/5

[ljones41]

"MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS" (2001) Review

"MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS" (2001) Review There have been more adaptations of Agatha Christie's 1939 novel, "And Then There Were None" than any of her other novels. That is quite an achievement. The only other novel that comes close to producing this number of adaptations is her 1934 novel, 'Murder on the Orient Express".

Christie's 1934 novel managed to produce four adaptations, as far as I know - two movie releases and two television movies. The least famous of this quartet of adaptations was the television movie that aired on CBS in 2001. This version is famous or infamous for one thing - it is the only one that is not a period drama and set in the present day. "MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS" made a few other changes to Christie's narrative. The television movie's beginning established a complicated romance between Belgian sleuth Hercule Poirot and a sexy younger woman named Vera Rossakoff. The number of suspects was reduced from twelve to nine. And the Orient Express was stalled by a mudslide due to heavy rain and not a snowbank caused from an avalanche. Due to the film's setting, some of the characters' backgrounds and professions had been changed to reflect the late 20th century and early 21st century setting. "MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS" begins in Istanbul, Turkey; where private detective Hercule Poirot had just solved the murder of a dancer at a local nightclub. After a brief quarrel with his lady love, Vera Rossakoff, Poirot sets out to fly back to London. But an encounter with his old friend Wolfgang Bouc, an executive with the the Compagnie Internationale des Wagons-Lits, leads Poirot to return to London via the famed Orient Express train. During the eastbound train journey, an American millionaire named Samuel Ratchett tries to hire Poirot to protect him from a potential assassin who has sent him threatening letters. However, Poirot refuses the job due to his dislike of Ratchett. During the second night of the journey, heavy rain causes a landslide, blocking the train to continue its journey. And Rachett is found stabbed to death inside his compartment, the following morning. Bouc recruits Poirot to solve Rachett's murder. I have a confession to make. I had disliked "MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS" when I first saw it on television all those years ago. My main reason for disliking the television movie was the fact that it had a modern setting, instead of one set in the 1930s. It was not a period movie. And for a story like Christie's 1934 novel, I resented it. However, I do believe the film's modern setting provided one major flaw for its narrative. Since the late 20th century, passengers for the Simplon Orient Express have to book passage on the train long before the date of its departure - six months to a year, more or less. The idea of Poirot managing to get a compartment aboard the Orient Express at such short notice in 2001 strikes me as pretty implausible. And when one adds to the fact that the train travels to and from Istanbul at least once a year, makes this narrative in a modern setting even more implausible. Another problem I had with "MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS" was it made the same mistake as the 2010 adaptation from "AGATHA CHRISTIE'S POIROT". They used the wrong rail cars. The 2010 television movie used the blue and cream Pullman cars for the journey from Istanbul to Calais. The 2001 movie used the brown and cream Pullman cars, usually reserved for the Orient Express from London to Folkstone, as the main train, as shown below:

Do I have any other problems with "MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS"? Well . . . yes, I have one further problem. But I will address it later. Aside from these problems, did I enjoyed this recent re-watch of the television movie? Yes, I did. More than I thought I would. Which is ironic, considering that I disliked the movie so much when I first saw all those years ago. I finally realized that I had automatically resented the film for not being a period drama. And over the years, I had erroneously believed that the movie was set aboard a modern train and not on a restored one from the past. It took my recent viewing of the television movie for me to realize I had been wrong. However, I did noticed that the sleeping compartments did look surprisingly bigger than usual. Despite some modern updating in the film's visual look, the characters' background and dialogue; "MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS" did a first-rate job of adapting Christie's novel. What many might find surprising is that screenwriter Stephen Harrigan and director Carl Schenkel did not inflict any drastic changes to Christie's plot, unlike some recent Christie adaptations from the "AGATHA CHRISTIE'S POIROT" series and one or two miniseries produced by Sarah Phelps. Harrigan and Schenkel did not drastically change the movie's narrative, aside from reducing the number of suspects and having the train delayed by a mud slide, instead of a snow drift. Yes, the backgrounds and professions of the characters were changed due to the modern setting. And characters also change nationalities - like Bob Arbuthnot, an American tech CEO (British Army colonel in Christie's novel); Senora Alvarado, a widow of a South American dictator (a Russian princess in the novel); Phililp and Helena von Strauss, a German or Austrian couple traveling the world (the husband was a Hungarian diplomat in the novel); and even Wolfgang Bouc, the Franco-German Compagnie Internationale des Wagons-Lits executive (who was solely French in the novel). This version of "Murder on the Orient Express" was not the first or last time when some of the characters' backgrounds and nationalities were changed. All four adaptations (including the highly regarded 1974 version) were guilty of this. But despite these changes, Harrigan and Schenkel stuck to Christie's narrative. And thanks to Harrigan's direction, this version proved to be a lot better than I had originally surmised. I certainly had no problems with most of the film's performances. "MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS" provided solid performances from Amira Casar, Kai Wiesinger, Dylan Smith, Nicolas Chagrin, Adam James, Tasha de Vasconcelos, and Fritz Wepper, who managed to create an effective screen team with star Alfred Molina as the investigative pair of Poirot and Monsieur (or Herr) Bouc. I thought David Hunt did an excellent job of conveying the aggressive, overprotective and slightly arrogant traits of American CEO, Bob Arbuthnot. I enjoyed Leslie Caron's colorful, yet autocratic portrayal of Senora Alvarado, the widow of a South American dictator. Meredith Baxter was equally colorful as an American character actress, traveling around Europe as a tourist. Her portrayal of Mrs. Hubbard reminded me of a younger version of a character she had portrayed in the 1980 miniseries, "BEULAH LAND" - but without the Southern accent. And I was really impressed by Natasha Wightman's performance as British tutor Mary Debenham. What really impressed me about Wightman's performance is that her portrayal of Miss Debenham was the closest to the literary character than any of the other versions. There was one performance that fell flat with me and it came from Peter Strauss, who portrayed the victim, Samuel Rachett. If I must be brutally honest, I found it rather hammy. Strauss, whom has always struck me as a first-rate actor in other productions, seemed to be screaming in nearly every scene. However, there is one scene in which I found his performance impressive. The scene involved Rachett's attempt to hire Poirot as his bodyguard and with a performance that permeated with subtlety and menace, Strauss reminded audiences of the excellent actor that he had always been through most of his career. I have never come across any real criticism of Alfred Molina's portrayal of Belgian detective, Hercule Poirot. Well . . . I did come across one article that discussed Molina's performance from Vulture magazine. But the critic seemed more focused on the movie's modern setting and Poirot's relationship with Vera Rossakoff, than Molina's performance. Personally, I thought the British actor did a superb job in portraying the detective. He managed to capture all of Poirot's intelligence, mild eccentricities, slight pomposity and talent for emotional manipulation. One thing I can say about Molina's portrayal is that his performance as Poirot was probably the most subtle I have seen on a movie or television screen. Whether someone would regard this as good or bad, is in the eye of the beholder. But I feel that this subtle performance suited Molina's style. Some have commented that Molina's Poirot was more "youthful" than other portrayals. Hmmmm . . . how odd. Molina was in his late 40s when he shot the television movie (perhaps 47 or 48 years old). Yet, Albert Finney was a decade younger when he portrayed Poirot in the 1974 film and his Poirot came off as a middle-aged man. David Suchet was five or six years younger when he began his twenty-four years stint portraying the detective for ITV's "AGATHA CHRISTIE'S POIROT". And during those early years, his Poirot also seemed slightly middle-aged. Because of this, I find this observation of Molina's Poirot as "youthful" rather questionable. It is a pity that the "official" opinion of "MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS" is so negative. I used to share this opinion until I did a re-watch of the television film with a more open mind. Like others, I had been dismissive of the 2001 version, due to its modern setting. I now realize I had been rather narrow-minded and prejudiced. Despite its flaws - and it had a few - "MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS" proved to be a lot better than I had originally surmised, thanks to director Carl Schenkel, Stephen Harrigan's teleplay and an excellent cast led by the superb Alfred Molina. I hope that one day, other Christie fans would dismiss their prejudices against the movie's setting and appreciate it for the entertaining production it truly is.

[praphit]

SM3: Nice Jerks are the Worst

I don't know about y'all, but I had big plans for 2020. Now, maybe those big plans will still happen, Idk. But, this was supposed to be our year! - that's what people say, right?? This was the year that you were going to go on that vacation. You were going to drop that dead beat spouse, leave that spouse with the kids, and run off to Mexico, right??!. You were going to start that business. Gain that weight. Come out of the closet. Finally tat that left butt cheek. You were going to stop doing hardcore drugs. Maybe this was going to be your year to start doing hardcore drugs. I'm not here to judge, only to ramble. 

But, 2020 quickly turned to shit. Now, we're all looking for someone to blame. Someone has to pay for our horrible haircuts or hairiness, our newfound hatred for our families, and for plenty of much more serious stuff.

I, personally, like to turn to movies for lessons about life. And I think I have the perfect movie to help us figure out who to blame - you guessed it "Spider-Man 3"

This first attempt at a motion picture SM was doing so well. We loved Spidey (though some didn't care for Tobey Maguire, playing him). 

Spidey and Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst) are adorable. Then, this thing showed up and everything turned to shit (not unlike Covid-19).

Let's look into what went wrong, and who is to blame.

First, let me say that I really liked the action in this movie. There are three villains in this movie: Venom (played by Topher Grace), that thing you see above. 

Green Goblin (played by James Franco), who is... a green goblin. 

And Sandman (played by Tommy Church), who has a body  that is now kinda made of sand - which seems silly if you pick it a part... though so does a man with the powers of a spider.

There was lots of action, and it was all shot well. There is one action scene where there is NO ONE around... I mean NO ONE. It's frickin NY. Peter Parker (not dressed as Spider-Man) and Green Goblin are causing all kinds of damage and making a lot of noise, and not ONE new yorker has anything to say about it? Unless you're a healthcare worker, I bet new yorkers are still cursing at each other from their homes. This was glaring, but Imma let it slide, cuz the action was good.

That's about all of the good I have to report:)

Quick plot recap:

1) MJ and Petey are on the rocks 2) James Franco is an asshole, trying to destroy Peter for killing his father (which he didn't) 3) Venom is trying to kill Spidey (what else is new??) 4) Venom, at one point, infects Peter Parker, to become "Black Spidey" - this, of course, is also when the people of the city started to hate him.

5) Oh, and Peter, mm! He's the worst. I've got something for him later.

There are two major reasons why people talk shit about this movie.

1st - Casting/Characters

Nobody is likeable in this movie

From the very first scene, MJ is singing to us, annnnd it's sooooo boring. I don't think it was supposed to be. Someone in the audience should have been booing. We can’t just allow entertainers to get comfortable, thinking that they can do whatever the hell that they want! - that’s how you end up with stuff like this 

 It was like, if Snow White were to perform a number for a large crowd.

Just Snow White - I ain't talking about no cute animals around or the suspense of menacing dwarves that might turn on Snow White at any moment. Not even a prince who might be gay (that’s the word on the streets). Just a long movie filled with songs from Snow White; that's what we're talking about. First, MJ bores me, then she's pathetically whining throughout the whole movie.

Sandman is cool (despite his love for striped shirts), but we don't really get to know him. 

Side note: He gets his powers by accidentally getting trapped in a science experiment. The scientists, btw, ( And Lord knows what they were up to) knew that something could have been trapped in there, assumed it was a bird, and kept on going. See, this is why certain people don't trust y'all.

James Franco is James Franco (an asshole). Not worth a pic.

Venom doesn't really have a personality (and his host... well, he ain't no Tom Hardy)

PLUS, Peter Parker is a dick (again, we'll get to that later).

The most likeable person in this film is JJ Jameson, and we're not really supposed to like him.

A person with that look shouldn’t be your most likeable character.

Look at this stage - 

Who is likeable up here? Fauci, maybe? But, betting by the amount of times that he puts his hands to his face, 

- there are things he's not allowing himself to say, so though perhaps likeable, if we can fully trust him. And as far as Trump...  Even Trump supporters can't HONESTLY say that they LIKE the man (I mean, if he weren't the prez, would you honestly want him around? - your family?). They certainly can't say that they trust him - though I guess the amount of people looking into ingesting cleaning products after Trump mentioned something along those lines, would beg to differ.

This is the group we're looking to for direction?!

And this is also a problem in the movie. I have to be able to like SOMEBODY! 

I need to be able to trust someone to stop the cheesy-written shit storm that is this movie.

"Cheesy Shit Storm" - how bout that for a visual? :)

2nd - dance numbers!

I actually didn't mind the first one, when Peter is dancing through the streets.

Ha! Wow, he is going for it. Come get it while it’ s hot, ladies!

It's odd, but it's supposed to be. It's supposed to be funny, and it kinda is. You ever dance a lil bit while you're out at a store? I know I do; especially now that we're wearing pandemic masks - no one knows who I am. NBD to dance a bit in public, but if you keep going passed a certain point, it just becomes annoying.

That's why the second dance number is bad. Plus, it doesn't make any sense.

At this point MJ and Peter have broken up. She's singing in a bar, and Peter interrupts her song with a dance number (while using his new girlfriend to poke at MJ). Now, While MJ’s songs of boredom deserve interruption, she didn’t deserve that.

Venom is like a drug. Venom brings out the worst in a person. You're telling me that Peter Parker, with all of the rage built up from Uncle Ben and villains and his life not being all that great; the best or I should say "the worst" that he can do is Jazz hands? With all of his superpowers, he should be out there slaughtering everyone in sight. I mean, he did slap the shit out of MJ though (by "accident"). That's when he snapped out of the evil dance number. I don't know what kind of message that sends. 

"MJ, it wasn't until I slapped the holy hell out of you that I realized the error of my ways, so... thank you? I'm just going to go on about my day now."

I see this misguided scene as a metaphor. Peter Parker is dancing around his issues:

His relationship with MJ has been bad. He's on that stuff (Venom). And honestly, MJ knows that he's Spider-Man. Why couldn't he have just explained to her what was happening? 

"Sorry, baby. I got possessed by an alien again, you know how it is."

And he was dealing with the fact that the person who killed his uncle is on the loose. Another side note: MJ, even though they had just broken up, still cares for Peter while he's dealing with the news about Uncle Ben's killer. That's a damned good friend right there! - especially the way Peter had been acting towards her.

We've got to deal with stuff, people! We can't just get bad haircuts, wear weird clothes, and do drugs! Eventually, that will lead us to slapping the shit out of someone that we love. There are a lot of realities that we're prob not facing at the moment (and some we prob have no intentions of ever facing). A lot of things that we could have done to prevent certain things from escalating, but... we were busy doing our typical dance.

Peter was warned about Venom and did nothing about it. He told himself, "I got this", and clearly he didn't. Honestly, the whole city was screwing up by not helping Spider-Man at all. At the end, when the big fight is happening, and MJ is near death, everybody is just watching all of this go down. Where were the cops?! The S.W.A.T?! Other superheroes? New Yorkers themselves! - they're bold! But, to be fair, Venom came from outer space, so... it was a bit unprecedented; people were prob scared. I'll cut them and Spidey some slack.

You know who I won't cut any slack - Tobey Maguire's Peter Parker!

Peter Parker is a jerk. I'm thinking that Tobey's Peter Parker has always been a jerk; a nice jerk, but a jerk. Have you ever met a nice jerk? They do all of the things that a regualr jerk does, but they'll rationalize their behavior, and look puzzled when you react to their awfulness. I didn't notice this in the 1st movie, cuz I was just happy to get Spider-Man. I didn't notice in the 2nd movie, cuz those kids were just too darn cute. But, his niceness was so annoying in this movie. And he treated MJ horribly : He never listens to her, he’s always late, he only talks about himself, he’s too damned nice, he never knows when they’re in a fight, he kisses other women right in front of her and then is like “What did I do?”

I kept wanting her to punch Peter out; he would have deserved it.

The foundation of the character of the 1st Spider-Man was a problem from the start! If the foundation is shaky, then - whew! I'm glad that we finally fixed it:)

Plus, he never said he was sorry. He did one of those "Well, I'm not perfect." things. She ain't asking for perfection, just quit being a jerk!

A better movie would have been if MJ had been infected by Venom. For starters, she would have given a better performance, in the beginning. Something more like this - 

She would have banged Peter's friends. She would have destroyed her critics. And most importantly, she wouldn't have taken any shit from Peter. That could have been the main plot. Instead of a convultued blend of three villains around the nice jerkiness of Peter, it would have been Spider-Man vs MJ - beatening each other up all throughout the city; though I guess that would be considered domestic violence. But, why dance around real issues out there! 

It could have been a family-friendly movie about drug abuse (Venom) and domestic violence... and possibly some make-up sex in the middle of the city. But, after that, one of them, if not both, are going to jail! We gotta deal with the problems, people!

Grade: an entertaining D+ 

I did enjoy it. It wasn't as bad as I remember it, and I'd prob watch it again. But, I can't deny that on a technical level, it's crap.

"Who’s to blame?" isn't really the question. It's more "Who deserves what percentage of the blame?" There's a lot of blame to go around here... even to us who enabled Peter's jerkiness in the first two movies.

I like the direction that we're going in now. 

A better Spidey A better MJ Better villains

And even a better Aunt May 

- looking all good with Tony Stark.

- imagine Tony aggressively flirting with the older one

[creativity-is-rebellion]

Top 10 Favourite TV Shows I Have Seen (So Far)

I’ve done a few of these lists for film and music now, so I thought I would turn my attention to the small screen. The funny thing about these lists is that they may not represent an entirely accurate picture of what they intend to illuminate upon, but rather what comes to one’s mind when they are being compiled. In saying that, all of the below TV series definitely stand somewhere on my lengthy favourites list. So, here we go:

True Detective, Season One (2014)

It’s been said by others before me, but Season One of True Detective is without a doubt a near-perfect blend of narrative, dialogue, and cinematography, arguably the best in the last 20 years or so of crime shows. The Southern Gothic and Cosmic horror elements are present in the decay of the surroundings, the extravagantly decorated victims, and the sinister antagonists. This is juxtaposed with the world-weary detective trope, which switches between present-day interviews with the show’s two protagonists and flashbacks to where the narrative of the season began back in 1995, with the discovery of a body that has been placed in some kind of ritual tableau. Both Woody Harrelson and Matthew McConaughey do a fine job playing the protagonist detectives on the case, but the complexity of McConaughey’s Rustin Cohle definitely steals the show, so much so that his performance re-launched his career (known at the time as the McConaissance). It’s a lot more terrifying than your typical detective series, borrowing a lot of concepts from philosophers, such as Nietzsche, and has an overall depressing and nihilistic vibe. But these elements, in my opinion, just add to its ingenuity and watchability. 10/10.

Dead Like Me (2003-2004)

Ok, so this show is now a cult classic, but at the time it didn’t get enough viewers, so there were only two seasons. I was one of the people who didn’t watch it until many years after its initial run. The renewed interest in the series even spawned a movie version in 2009, six years after the series came out. The premise is simple enough; a young, sardonic girl dies in an accident, and now she, along with a few other wrongfully-dead individuals, need to help a certain amount of people cross-over before being allowed to finally go through the pearly gates themselves. But the series approaches the plot in a unique manner, adding heart to the characters, and being appropriately funny, deep, and interesting when it needs to be. There is a reason it is now a cult classic. 10/10. 

Mindhunter (2017-2019)

Ah, the show that tells the story of how profiling at the FBI began, without naming any real-life FBI agents, but portraying hauntingly accurate versions of the serial killers that helped shape the system. I preferred the first season, even if Holden Ford, the main character, at times, appeared just as creepy as the monsters he was interviewing. The freaky-deaky sex scenes in the first season were kinda unnecessary, in my opinion, and took away from the main plot. It was enough to hear about the sexually-deviant acts of the sadistic killers being retold during interviews, and, even though it was meant to show the effects these stories were having on Holden, it still wasn’t needed. I also hated his bitch of a girlfriend. But other than that, the plot moves along at an interesting pace, with an adequate amount of foreboding that should be there when you fill up your days interviewing homicidal psychopaths. The second season took to long to appear in the world of Netflix, where audiences have the attention span of goldfishes, and was over-ambitious in its introduction of more serial killers than its predecessor, and jumping ahead too much in the timeline. I think that, since the first season, it has been interesting the way they start some of their episodes with the exploits of then-uncaught Dennis Rader, or the BTK (Bind, Torture, Kill) Killer, but, because there will be no more seasons, we will not see the ending of this plot. Also, in the second season, the plot about Bill Tench’s boy, and Dr. Wendy Carr’s love-life also took away from the plot. It seems that every time they delve into any of the main characters’ personal lives, they veer wildly off-track. They also could have found a more interesting serial killer to track than the Atlanta Child Murderer Wayne Williams, or could have done it differently. The audience agrees with this, obviously, because there will be no third season. Boy, it sounds like I was super-negative in this review, but I swear, I am a fan, if only for the interesting premise, excellent character portrayals, and creepy atmosphere. 8/10.

Dexter (2006-2013)

Fellow Dexter fans, repeat after me: We choose to ignore the ending. We choose to ignore the ending. We choose to ignore the ending. Sigh. Feel better? Good. Moving on. Dexter, the premise of a serial killer who only kills bad guys, as sketched out originally in Jeff Lindsay’s books (the novels for which the TV series was based upon), was, in 2006, a delightfully refreshing addition to Showtime’s prime-time slot set. In spite of what others thought, my favourite character besides Dexter was his sister Deb, played marvellously by Jennifer Carpenter. After Rita’s sadly horrific death at the end of Season 5 at the hands of the Trinity Killer (the best antagonist of the entire series), the quality of the show tumbled steeply downhill, but not enough for me to stop watching. 8/10.

American Horror Story (2011-Current)

I’ve enjoyed all nine seasons of American Horror Story, for its scares, and even for, at times, the sheer ludicrousness and campy acting. The best seasons, of course, include Jessica Lange, and no season to date has eclipsed the first two, but I like how there is a connected universe with each addition to the anthology. I am a person that enjoys a side-helping of Easter eggs and foreshadowing in my TV series, and AHS provides just that. Season 1 will always be the best for being the one that started it all, and Season 2 is a masterpiece. After that, my rankings are 5, 3, 4, 8, 6, 9 and 7. The latter seasons tend to follow a trend of peaking midway through, before skulking toward lukewarm endings. But the sheer existence of this show pleases the horror buff in me, so I will never tire of it. I can’t wait until October to see what they have in store for Season 10. 8/10.

Freaks and Geeks (1999)

Judd Apatow’s foray into the politics of high school in the early-1980s only lasted one season, but what a season it was. Freaks and Geeks introduced 16-year-old Lindsay Weir, who, after her grandmother’s death, is sick of being the brainy kid and wants to hang out with the freaks and finally be cool, sometimes with hilarious or heartwarming results. There is also her geeky freshman brother, Sam, and his equally awkward friends who run along as side-plots and occasionally provide the moral foil to the overarching plot of an episode. With a stellar cast, most of whom went on to even greater things, such as Linda Cardellini, Seth Rogen, and James Franco, Freaks and Geeks is more real than most teen dramas, and has rightfully developed a cult following in the years since the show’s cancellation. 9/10.

Twin Peaks (1990-1991, then again in 2017)

Ahead of its time, a pioneer 

American Gothic (1995-1996)

This is a forgotten horror gem of the mid-90s that kick-started Sarah Paulson’s career long before AHS, and Gary Cole was electric as crooked cop Sheriff Buck exerting evil supernatural influence over a small god-fearing town in the South. I first saw this show when I was 10, and it scared the crap out of me. The senseless murder of Merlyn Temple at the hands of Cole’s aforementioned sheriff haunted me years afterward.

Community (2009-2015)

In the first few seasons, Dan Harmon’s hilarious comedy, Community, starts off normally enough, centring around a lawyer (Joel McHale’s Jeff Winger) who is exposed as having a fake degree, and is required to attend community college to obtain the proper credentials to be re-admitted into the bar. When he forms a study group, initially with the goal to convince the girl he has a crush on (Britta Perry, played by Gillian Jacobs), to go out with him, they all become fast friends and partake in many crazy exploits while studying at Greendale, including a dark parallel universe, which has evil versions of each character. With a stellar ensemble cast, including Donald Glover of Childish Gambino fame, and Chevy Chase, who is still hilarious in his seventies, this show is must-see television. Stream it today. 10/10.

The Good Place (2016-2019)

The ending made me sad. 

[spaceorphan18]

Marvel Movie Night: Spider-Man 2

Something occurred to me while watching - director Sam Raimi really tapped into something with this first trilogy.  If the first film was an ode to the classic, Silver Age era of the 60s, than Spider-Man 2 is the beloved Bronze Age comics of the 70s and 80s.  Which means that Spider-Man 3 is really indicative of the bloated mess that the 90s brought and this whole metaphor works perfectly. And no, I don’t care if Spider-Man No More, the comic this plot was based on, was still Silver Age.  Let me have it. 

Also, it’s funny to me that this film, again, doesn’t feel like 2004.  Though I’m starting to suspect my memories of what 2004 were actually like.  Everything feels like 80s or 90s, though they do in throw in references to things like eBay, and it does feel a little more modern.  Anyway...

Spider-Man 2 is considered the classically-classic of all the Marvel films.  And, since doing this watch through of the Marvel films prior, I can totally see why.  And while X-Men 2 may be my favorite of these early films, that’s completely based on my preferences towards those characters.  This film is a delight, and not just because it’s coherent story telling.  

Is it the best Superhero film ever that it’s always heralded as?  It’s not as cheesy as the first film, the special effects are much, much better, the script is a lot tighter, the action is pretty decent, and the conflict feels genuine and organic.  And, especially after watching such bad films lately, it’s refreshing that this one does work.   While I understand why it remains beloved, the answer is no.  Though I do think it holds up better than many of the others in this pre-MCU world.

The nice thing about the film is that there’s one central story, about Peter’s dueling life of himself and Spider-Man.  I think the classic nature of being torn between responsibility and wanting something for yourself.  And of course, everything else kind of spirals out from that theme (like a web!), most of the other characters have similar struggles throughout the film, which is nice that it all ties together thematically. 

Funny, though, while I praise the script for having depth and emotion, for me personally, a lot of this film feels like a bogged down in its own seriousness.  And while, yes, there are a few moments of humor stitched within, the heaviness of the plot kind of weighs it all down, so much that, effectively, we’re all feeling the burden of being Spider-Man, too.  While I’ll be the first to note that it is a solidly, good film, it’s not one that I find joy in coming back to.  

So, Tobey Maguire is back as Spider-Man, and I feel the same way about him now as I do the other films in this trilogy.  He remains great at being Peter Parker, and showcasing that inner struggle that Parker always has in the comics.  The Spider-Man aspect.  Meh.  Not that Maguire has much to do while Spider-Man - a lot of that is CGI, but a lot of the fun parts of Spider-Man comics seems to be missing in these films.  

Meanwhile, the supporting cast from the first film are all back.  Kirsten Dunst is Mary Jane again, and she’s... fine.  Don’t get me wrong, the writing of MJ is pretty much spot on to what usually went on in the comics, and I love MJ, I just don’t like Dunst in the role (sorry!) - not that she gets to do more than screaming or angsting, nor do I like the tired trope of ‘rescue the girl’ that these films do all the time.  I’m really ready to move past that.  

James Franco is back as Harry, though has a much smaller role, and boy is Franco hamming it up.  Despite the revenge angle, it’s a pretty boring and somewhat forgotten side plot otherwise.  And Rosemary Harris is back as Aunt May.  Again, she’s fine - I feel about her here the same way I did back in the first film.  Consistency is nice.  

Rounding out the cast is Alfred Molina’s Doc Ock, which is one of the reasons this film is heralded so highly.  I do think he gives a good performance here, he’s got a better script to work with than Willem Dafoe did, and he does remarkably well since you know he’s acting with a bunch of green screen.  I do find it a bit hammed up myself, but it’s intentionally done that way to fit in with the tone of the rest of the film.  

The best part of the film, however, remains J Jonah Jameson, and the outlandish, nonsensical world of the Daily Bugle.  JK Simmons’s comedic timing is amazing, and I can’t say enough good things about it.  The scenes at the Daily Bugle are the one part of the film that doesn’t seem 

Other Thoughts

I don’t think MJ is once called MJ in the film, it’s always Mary Jane.  Which often makes it sound like they’re talking about pot, which is kind of funny to me. 

Speaking of MJ, her play is The Importance of Being Earnest, which endearing since it’s Oscar Wilde’s story about telling the truth. 

Daniel Dae Kim of Lost fame has a cameo in this film! Interestingly, he had a cameo in the Hulk film as well...  Coincidence?  I mean, yeah probably. 

Hey, there’s a Dr. Strange mention! It’s kinda weird when these films mention other Marvel properties.  

Shout out to the random horror film-esque sequence of Doc Ock becoming a thing.  There are some neat shots wrapped up in that sequence. 

Aunt May is paying a kid named Henry Jackson $5 to move all her shit.  I know she’s poor, but damn, that’s pretty nice of a nine-year-old.  

There’s a lady that plays the old 60s Cartoon theme on the violin.  I appreciate that. 

You know, I’ll admit, I like the cheesy ending of this film, with MJ just running from her wedding to Peter.  It’s ridiculous, but it’s the one scene of this romance story I really enjoy.  

Final Thoughts: Still a good film, and yes, best film of the ones I’ve seen so far.  It’s just so dreary though.  I’m getting ready for that classic MCU fun to kick in. 

Next Up: Oh, time to finish up that Blade Trilogy. 

[justforbooks]

Franco Zeffirelli dies at 96

Franco Zeffirelli, the Italian director and designer who reigned in theater, film and opera as the unrivaled master of grandeur, orchestrating the youthful 1968 movie version of “Romeo and Juliet” and transporting operagoers to Parisian rooftops and the pyramids of Egypt in productions widely regarded as classics, died June 15 at his home in Rome. He was 96.

A son, Luciano, confirmed the death to the Associated Press but did not cite a cause.

Mr. Zeffirelli — a self-proclaimed “flag-bearer of the crusade against boredom, bad taste and stupidity in the theater” — was a defining presence in the arts since the 1950s. In his view, less was not more. “More is fine,” a collaborator recalled Mr. Zeffirelli saying, and as a set designer, he delivered more gilt, more brocade and more grandiosity than many theater patrons expected to find on a single stage.

“A spectacle,” Mr. Zeffirelli once told the New York Times, “is a good investment.”

From his earliest days, he seemed to belong to the opera. Born in Italy to a married woman and her lover, he received neither parent’s surname. His mother dubbed him “Zeffiretti,” an Italian word that means “little breezes” and that arises in Mozart’s opera “Idomeneo,” in the aria “Zeffiretti lusinghieri.” An official mistakenly recorded the name as “Zeffirelli.”

Mr. Zeffirelli grew up mainly in Florence, amid the city’s Renaissance riches, and trained as an artist before being pulled into theater and then film by an early and influential mentor, Luchino Visconti. Mr. Zeffirelli matured into a sought-after director in his own right, staging works in Milan, London and New York City, where he became a mainstay of the Metropolitan Opera.

His first major work as a film director was “The Taming of the Shrew” (1967), a screen adaptation of Shakespeare’s comedy, starring Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton. But Mr. Zeffirelli was best known for the Shakespearean adaptation released the next year — “Romeo and Juliet,” starring Leonard Whiting and Olivia Hussey in the title roles.

He reportedly reviewed the work of hundreds of young actors before selecting his two stars, both of whom were still in their teens. With a lush soundtrack by Nino Rota, and with its equally lush visuals, the film won the Academy Award for best cinematography and was a runaway box office success. Film critic Roger Ebert declared it “the most exciting film of Shakespeare ever made.”

It “is the first production of ‘Romeo and Juliet’ I am familiar with in which the romance is taken seriously,” Ebert wrote. “Always before, we have had actors in their 20s or 30s or even older, reciting Shakespeare’s speeches to each other as if it were the words that mattered. They do not, as anyone who has proposed marriage will agree.”

In the opera, an art form already known for its opulence, big voices and bigger personalities, Mr. Zeffirelli permitted himself to be deterred by neither physical nor financial constraints. “Opera audiences demand the spectacular,” he told the Times.

Mr. Zeffirelli had notable artistic relationships with two of the most celebrated sopranos of the 20th century, Maria Callas and Joan Sutherland. But certain Zeffirelli sets seemed to excite the opera world even more than the performers who sang upon them.

One such example was his production of Puccini’s “La Boheme,” an extravaganza set in 19th-century Paris and famous for its exuberant street scene and magical snowfall. After its 1981 premiere at the Met, it was said that the audience lavished on Mr. Zeffirelli a grander ovation than the one reserved for conductor James Levine and the singers who played the opera’s bohemian lovers.

“For the first time,” Mr. Zeffirelli told the Times, “audiences will have a sense of the immensity of Paris, and the smallness of this little group’s place — the actual space of a garret. The acting is now intimate and conversational, which is exactly what Puccini wanted. Since the garret is raised, every whisper and gesture will come across clearly in the theater.”

His production of Verdi’s “Aida,” performed at Milan’s La Scala in 1963 with soprano Leontyne Price and tenor Carlo Bergonzi, featured 600 singers and dancers (including scantily clad belly dancers), 10 horses, towering idols, palm trees and sphinxes littering the expanse of the stage. “I have tried to give the public the best that Cecil B. DeMille could offer,” Mr. Zeffirelli told Time magazine, referring to the Hollywood director’s biblical epics, “but in good taste.”

It was sometimes said that Mr. Zeffirelli was beloved by everyone except music reviewers, some of whom disparaged his style as excessive to the point of taking attention away from the music. Writing in the Times, Bernard Holland panned Mr. Zeffirelli’s set for Puccini’s “Turandot,” set in China, as “acres of white paint and gold leaf topped by the gaudiest of pagodas” and quipped that “if the gods eat dim sum, they certainly do it in a place like this.”

In time, the Metropolitan Opera replaced some of Mr. Zeffirelli’s productions, although the modernistic newcomers — notably Luc Bondy’s dreary “Tosca” in 2009 — did not always prove as popular.

“It’s like somebody decides that the Sistine Chapel is out of fashion,” Mr. Zeffirelli told the Times. “They go there and make something a la Warhol. . . . You don’t like it? O.K., fine, but let’s have it for future generations.”

As for those who had criticized his direction of “Romeo and Juliet” for similar reasons, he retorted, “In all honesty, I don’t believe that millions of young people throughout the world wept over my film ... just because the costumes were splendid.”

Mr. Zeffirelli was born in Florence on Feb. 12, 1923. His father, Ottorino Corsi, was a Florentine businessman, and his mother, Alaide Garosi, was a fashion designer. Her husband was a lawyer, and he died before Mr. Zeffirelli was born.

His mother continued a fraught relationship with Corsi, once attempting to stab him with a hat pin. “The opera? My destiny?” Mr. Zeffirelli observed in a 1986 autobiography, “Zeffirelli.” “I think there is a case to be made.”

After the death of his mother when he was 6, he became the charge of an aunt. He recalled his upbringing in the 1930s in the semi-autobiographical film “Tea With Mussolini” (1999), which he directed and which starred Maggie Smith, Judi Dench and Joan Plowright as English expatriates in Florence who take in a parentless child during the era of fascist rule.

Mr. Zeffirelli attended art school before studying architecture at the University of Florence. His studies were put on hold during World War II, when he fought alongside antifascist partisans. His interests shifted more toward film, particularly after he saw Laurence Olivier star in the 1944 Technicolor film adaptation of Shakespeare’s “Henry V,” which Olivier also directed.

“The lights went down and that glorious film began,” Mr. Zeffirelli recalled in his memoir. “I knew then what I was going to do. Architecture was not for me; it had to be the stage.”

He met Visconti while working in Florence as a stagehand. Visconti, with whom he lived for a period, gave him his push into professional work, hiring him to work as a designer for an Italian stage production of Tennessee Williams’s “A Streetcar Named Desire” in 1949.

Mr. Zeffirelli soon began designing and directing at La Scala and later the Met. He designed, directed and adapted from Shakespeare the libretto for the production of Samuel Barber’s “Antony and Cleopatra” that opened the Met’s new opera house at Lincoln Center in 1966.

Mr. Zeffirelli said he found it invigorating to shift from one art form to another. His theatrical productions starred top-flight actors including Albert Finney and Anna Magnani. On television, he directed “Jesus of Nazareth,” an acclaimed 1977 miniseries with a reported price tag of $18 million and a cast that included Robert Powell as Jesus, Hussey as the Virgin Mary, Olivier as Nicodemus, Anne Bancroft as Mary Magdalene and James Earl Jones as Balthazar.

Mr. Zeffirelli received a best director Oscar nomination for “Romeo and Juliet.” (He lost to Carol Reed for the musical “Oliver!”) He also garnered a nomination for best art direction for his 1982 film adaptation of Verdi’s opera “La Traviata,” starring Teresa Stratas and Plácido Domingo, one of several such operatic film adaptations he made.

His other notable films included “Hamlet” (1990) starring Mel Gibson and Glenn Close. Less acclaimed was “Endless Love” (1981), starring Brooke Shields and Martin Hewitt in a tragic story of teen romance, which Mr. Zeffirelli admitted was “wretched.”

Politically, Mr. Zeffirelli positioned himself on the right, serving as a senator in the political party Forza Italia. “I have found it an irritating irony that those who espouse populist political views often want art to be ‘difficult,’ ” he wrote in his memoir. “Yet I, who favor the Right in our democracy, believe passionately in a broad culture made accessible to as many as possible.”

He described himself as homosexual, preferring not to use the word “gay.” In 2000, he adopted two adult sons, Pippo and Luciano, both former lovers, according to the newspaper the Australian. A complete list of survivors was not immediately available.

Looking back on his life and career, Mr. Zeffirelli once told The Washington Post that he was struck by “how much is risked to become something” — “to make something of his life,” he continued, speaking of himself in the third person. To show that “he’s not a bastard.” 

Daily inspiration. Discover more photos at http://justforbooks.tumblr.com

[andrewuttaro]

Spiderman: Far Frome Home - Film Review (SPOILERS)

<<<SPOILERS>>>

It’s time for a rare movie review on what is otherwise a sports blog! Yes, I like other stuff; especially movies. I consider myself an amateur film buff and watcher of the TV and Film Industries in general. Sometimes I like to not just be a consumer and give some thoughts back. I’m no expert critic, I’m very much a sucker. I’m a sucker for a good redemption story, a sucker for a good romance, good comedic vision and for a handful of actors. We all have our tastes.

I have been a fan of Spiderman the character for as far back as I can remember. I never read comic books; my entry point was the original Sam Remi Spiderman trilogy. Again: I’m a sucker. I know those films haven’t aged well but they established my feelings about movies. Tobey Maguire’s Peter Parker was the first movie character I related to on a personal level. Forgive me because as an adult I now understand what awful casting that was. Kirsten Dunst’s Mary Jane was the first movie character I was attracted to. Spiderman 3 was the first time I realized movies could be bad and, even worse, movies I like can be ruined. The train scene in Spiderman 2 when he almost dies was the first time I cried about a movie.

Yeah, this is all sappy stupid exposition, but it helps to know the reviewer, eh? If you couldn’t tell I am a little bit of an apologist for that original Spiderman Trilogy. I didn’t go to see the two Amazing Spiderman films out of protest. Yeah, I had some strong feelings at that time. I have since become an adult and given the Tom Holland Spiderman films a chance, but I still haven’t made the time to watch that Andrew Garfield crap… well I don’t know it’s crap because I haven’t seen that incarnation. Either way this isn’t about those films. While Spiderman into the Spiderverse is pretty clearly the best Spiderman film ever made in my opinion, I’m putting that aside for a moment in this review looking at live action Spiderman movies exclusively. Moreover, this is a review of Spiderman: Far From Home. So let me start by saying that in my heart Spiderman Far From Home is going to be right up near the top with Sam Remi Spiderman 1 and 2. That’s high praise for me. Let’s talk about it.

Sequels and Stakes

A good sequel heightens the stakes and adds complexity to the characters. This is often done by deepening the relationships between characters. That is certainly true in this movie. The best sequels in cinema history did this: Terminator 2, Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back and the like. Far From Home is difficult to think of this way because it’s a part of a rare property that has successfully executed a shared cinematic universe. I’m not going to go into depth about the MCU, better critics can do that. However I am going to consider how this Spiderman has grown as a result of other films he’s been in. I’m going to talk about the other films in the MCU Spiderman is in for building up this movie while also referencing Spiderman movies not in this universe. Let’s call this version of Spiderman Tom Holland Spiderman or TH Spiderman for clarity’s sake.

TH Spiderman has now appeared in five films, the most of any version of Spiderman. His first appearance in Captain America Civil War wasn’t about him but introduced us to his relationship with Tony Stark and the idea that this Spiderman would be teenage Spiderman. Let’s just all agree that TH Spiderman is a better Peter Parker than Tobey Maguire was if for no other reason than that youthfulness is a priority and a plot point. I think that is a pretty common opinion. Yes, Tom Holland actually looks like a teenager which Tobey Maguire never did; but I’m going deeper than that. TH Spiderman’s youthfulness is important to the plot and his character growth unlike any other cinematic incarnation. That’s all I really have to say about his role in Civil War. It was a fun reveal and it made me happy.

Spiderman Homecoming was revelatory. That movie did all the things you want from a Spiderman movie on the superficial levels: the suits, the action set pieces, the teen dramas and for the first time since William Dafoe’s Green Goblin, a fantastic very Spiderman villain. The reveal Peter Parker’s homecoming date is the daughter of the guy trying to kill him was next level stuff. Moreover, Homecoming set the bar high for TH Spiderman. This Spiderman is going to have a complex dad relationship with Tony Stark that proves to be unhealthy later and this Spiderman is going to trigger guttural emotions. When he’s trapped in the rubble crying out for help there is something so human and visceral in that moment that it still sticks with me. All this said, and this is a piping hot take: Homecoming isn’t better than Spiderman 3 for me. Calm down, I’ll circle back around to that.

TH Spiderman’s appearances in both Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame. Both are not really about him and rightfully so. However both those films advance his character by upping the stakes for his personal story dramatically. Tony Stark tries to protect Peter Parker at every turn and only includes him when circumstances force him to. When TH Spiderman turns to dust it’s much more a character moment for Iron Man than it is for him; but the trauma of that is felt in Endgame when the resurrected Spiderman needs to be pulled off of dying Tony Stark. I’ve never had to watch someone die thank God, but that event is felt very sincerely for Spiderman when we reach Far From Home now.

What we go to movies for

Spiderman Far From Home is one of those sequels that is better than the original. Far From Home is better than Homecoming. While Homecoming had real great popcorn moments, none of them elevated the film beyond the plot of Spiderman 3. Yeah, we’re back to that. Spiderman 3 is not a great film. I am willing to admit that. However, the way TM Spiderman (Tobey Maguire) continues to grow by way of the Daily Bugle conflicts and his relationship with James Franco’s Harry Osborne is real as fuck even if it wasn’t executed well. His relationship with Mary Jane was real shit that real adults have to deal with in their real adult relationships… well most of us don’t have to deal with getting kidnapped several times I suppose. Homecoming was about a teenager with daddy issues. To be fair, I’ve already stated youthfulness is important to the making of TH Spiderman, but I am not a comic book reader. For me you have to develop relationships better to be a worthwhile film and TH Spiderman is really the only three-dimensional character not named Tony Stark in Homecoming. Glad we got that out of the way.

Spiderman Far From Home is elevated above Spiderman 3 and maybe even the very first TM Spiderman film for me because all the characters around TH Spiderman are fleshed out far better in this movie and Peter Parker himself grows dramatically from start to finish. What TH Spiderman accomplishes in this film is bigger than what TM Spiderman has to overcome and accomplish in at least two out of three of the Sam Remi Spiderman films. I think that is true in both the execution of the plot itself and the character growth. TH Spiderman gets over his daddy issues when Happy Hogan explains to him even Tony Stark couldn’t really be Iron Man. Acknowledging your biggest role model had flaws is an incredibly deep coming-of-age theme. More than just that, Parker is overcoming survivors guilt he has about the whole blip thing and the events of the last two movies he was in. Through all of that he truly “finds himself” in this movie and decides he’s confident enough in the identity he just discovered to really trust himself, and another human being at that, in a romantic relationship. This movie was the moment when TH Spiderman and MJ surpassed TM Spiderman and MJ for me. In this movie their romance felt so real and very much earned. TM Spiderman earned the MJ relationship too but not like this. This is next level.

I came home to my wife after seeing this movie the first time and told her it reminded me of when I fell in love with her! I’m a sappy sucker, I admit it, but this is why we go to the movies! We go to the movies to feel shit! Let me repeat that: WE GO TO THE MOVIES TO FEEL FEELINGS! Video Games make me feel stuff too, but the narrative structure of movies is designed specifically to make you feel. I felt so much during the course of this film. The way Zendaya Coleman’s Mary Jane awkwardly responds to Peter Parker awkwardly trying to get with her brought me back to being in High School feeling those same feels. When their relationship works out, I felt that so hard! No kiss in a movie has affected me so much since… well shit, when Kirsten Dunst kissed the masked Spiderman all the way back in the Sam Remi films. Chills people, chills! Do go a step deeper: vulnerability is what makes the film work.

TH Spiderman is vulnerable with Jake Gyllenhaal’s Mysterio because he thinks he needs another father figure. When Parker hands Mysterio the EDITH glasses it is his weakest, most vulnerable moment and Mysterio knows it. Mysterio (Quinten Beck) by the way is an effects artist. His specialty is literally covering up the truth and it makes so much sense because he’s a deeply pissed off character who hates that he was taken advantage of by Tony Stark. MJ pushes people away because she doesn’t want to be vulnerable. Her getting over that fear is the origin of the trust needed to make her relationship with Peter work. Frigging Happy Hogan is struggling to be totally vulnerable with Peter about his complicated (?) relationship with Aunt May. Nick Fury is pissed off the whole movie because he feels vulnerable not knowing shit anymore. That specific plot point is explained in the post-credits scene with the skrulls in a fun way. Everyone who was blipped or not blipped kind of feels vulnerable because of that giant nightmare. This film is fundamentally about finding yourself by accepting and understanding your vulnerabilities and turning them into points of confidence.

That is the essence of why Spiderman in general is such a great character. The vulnerability of youth. The vulnerability of being somewhat working class. The vulnerability of “With great power comes great responsibility”. To that end, Spiderman Far From Home is probably the best live action Spiderman film I’ve ever watched. It does Spiderman the teenage boy near perfectly. So let’s get to what you came here for: the grade.

The Grade

What I haven’t mentioned is the cinematography, script and general story is also very good. We’ve come to expect that level of quality from MCU films haven’t we? I’ve heard criticism the first half is too slow, but I disagree in that it establishes all the vulnerability stuff I mentioned and all the teen drama subplots I loved in this movie. The last time I did one of these reviews it was an A to F scale. That’s not helpful. It’s all going to be subjective and fundamentally arbitrary anyway so how about we do this: a Five-star system. Five Stars is a top film of all time, go see it immediately. Four Stars is an instant classic worth your money in theaters. Three Stars is a middling film that is enjoyable but don’t strain yourself to see it in theaters. Two Stars is just ok, don’t waste your money on it and wait for streaming. One Star is garbage that maybe worth a drinking game. Zero Stars is hot garbage you simply should not watch.

Spiderman Far From Home is a Four-Star film for me. It’s an instant classic I will try to get on DVD after seeing at least a couple times in theaters. It’s a top 5 Marvel film for me but that is a super competitive bracket. Very few films will be Five-Star for me, and I got to really think if there is a film that good in the MCU. Again, this shit is all arbitrary as all reviews of art forms are. Don’t @ me about the grade, @ me about my Spiderman takes you don’t like. I love talking movies so make a kind discussion out of it, no need to be an asshole. As Spiderman Far From Home has taught us: vulnerability is a good thing not to be afraid of.

Thanks for reading.

P.S. If you want more movie reviews I can do that. You just need to let me know in numbers if you know what I mean.

[womeninfilms]

Mother, May I Sleep With Danger?

Year: 2016

Length: 1h 26min

Genre: Thriller

Language: English

Director: Melanie Aitkenhead

Starring: Emily Meade, Leila George, Nick Eversman, Ivan Sergei, Tori Spelling, James Franco, Amber Coney

Story: Leah (Leila George) is a young woman in college, who is interested in acting and spending time with her girlfriend Pearl (Emily Meade). When Leah is cast as the titular character in Macbeth, she becomes more confident and decides to introduce Pearl to her mother Julie (Tori Spelling). Julie isn’t too happy about Leah having a girlfriend and tries to sabotage the relationship when Bob (Nick Eversman), a guy who is obsessed with Leah, starts feeding her lies about Pearl. What no one knows, however, is that Pearl is actually a vampire.

Pros:

Sapphic vampires: Of all the mythical creatures I like vampires best, so a movie about sapphic vampires is the best thing that can happen to me. This movie is exactly about that. It’s about Pearl falling in love with a human and not wanting to bite her because she doesn’t want to condemn her to lead a cursed life as a vampire. It’s a similar story to all the straight vampire stories out there, which makes it such a great asset to the canon of vampire movies.

Reversal of roles: Leah is in a literature class where they discuss monsters in books and films and how the monster is often seen as “queer” and has to be killed to establish heterosexuality. The movie takes this notion and turns it around. The monster (Pearl) is the good person in this story, while those who deviate from the norm and have to be punished are men who abuse and rape women. Pearl only kills abusive men who deserve it while saving innocent women from a horrible fate. This is an exact reversal of stories such as Dracula.

Cons:

It might be a porn film: The first thing I noticed that was off with this movie is the music. Even when it tries to be suspenseful it still sounds like something straight out of a bad porn film. Which brings me to the sex scenes and what leads up to them. Pearl is a photographer and she takes lots of sexy pictures of Leah, and these pictures often lead to sex. However, there are no explicit sex scenes until the last third of the movie when Leah and Pearl make up after Pearl tells Leah she’s a vampire. They have sex in a cemetery and this scene looks and feels a lot like a porn film. A couple of things could have been handled better in this regard.

The whole James Franco thing: The story is by James Franco and he also plays the theatre director in the film. Every scene with him is just incredibly weird. When Leah auditions for the role of Macbeth, he is on the fence at first, but when he sees her interacting with another woman (who touches Leah’s stomach and chest), he is suddenly on board with the idea. Later during rehearsals, they go through the scene with the three witches and the director plays music, which sounds exactly like the soundtrack, and has the three witches sexily dance around Leah, obviously enjoying the whole scene in front of him. What makes it even weirder is that Leah doesn’t feel uncomfortable with having her sexuality exploited like this.

Over the top violence: There isn’t a lack of violence in this movie. There are two attempted rape scenes, you see in great detail how a man’s wrists are slit with a razor blade, Bob drugs Leah’s drink and then tries to rape her, you see lots of bitten necks, Bob’s head is smashed with a statue and so on. The movie is quite cheaply produced, but they made sure to include lots of violent scenes with vast amounts of blood, so please don’t watch it if you’re not a fan of violent movies.

It’s not a good movie: I hardly ever write about a movie’s overall performance on this blog, but I have to say that this isn’t a good movie. The acting is average, the music, as mentioned, would be better placed if this was a porn film, the script could have used some editing, there is no character development apart from characters doing something contrary to what they did the whole movie, and the ending doesn’t make sense at all.

Homophobia: 3/10 – Leah’s mother struggles to accept her daughter’s sexuality. It’s mentioned that she is quite conservative, so this fits with her characters description. She’s not outright homophobic, but she often mentions she wishes Leah would bring home a boyfriend instead. Bob, who is obsessed with Leah, can’t deal with the fact that Leah is in love with someone else and even calls her a freak for being in love with a woman.

Violence: 4/10 – There is no outright violence against characters because of their sexual orientation, there are no homophobic attacks, for example, but Bob, who knows that Leah will never like him because she loves a woman, drugs her and then tries to rape her. He also tries to sabotage Leah’s relationship for the same reasons. And, as mentioned above, the movie is just violent in general.

Ending: The ending is inconclusive. Julie is killed by Bob and Leah smashes Bob’s head in return while Pearl takes care of three vampires who bullied her the whole movie. Then Leah convinces Pearl to bite her. Pearl mentions once that if a vampire bites their one true love, they are saved from being damned and will stay with this person for eternity. Leah wants Pearl to bite her for that reason, hoping she can save Pearl. But the audience never learns if Pearl is saved. Instead, there is a cut to a scene one year later which shows that the three vampires and Bob are still alive and then the movie is over.

Sexual orientation: Both Leah and Pearl only show interest in women. Their sexual orientation is never discussed. However, Pearl is most likely a lesbian because she had another relationship before Leah with the vampire who turned her, and this vampire was also a woman. Leah is aware that Bob has a crush on her, but she would never return his feelings. It’s not clear if she’s just not interested in Bob or in men in general, but it can be assumed that she is also a lesbian.