AJCFP – Cluster #2: Criminally Great Movies

Adam: Hello again, everyone! I know, I know, I’m a little bit behind on these clusters…but I’m gonna do it, I swear!

This particular cluster focuses on movies about crime, criminals, justice, and things of that nature. We have breaking-and-entering robbers, cowboys, “idea theft,” double-agents, rogue cops, and a whole lot of guns, greed, and good times. Enjoy.

-

AJCFP – Cluster #2: Criminally Great Movies

Panic Room (dir. David Fincher, 2002)

Finally, a movie in this project that I’d never seen beforehand! As a huge fan of Fincher’s work, I was eagerly looking forward to watching this, and I have to say that, although I wasn’t disappointed, I certainly was not blown away upon my first viewing. When I saw Fight Club, The Social Network, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, Se7en, or even The Curious Case of Benjamin Button for the first time, I was left obsessing over what I had just seen for weeks (and in some cases, years). With Panic Room, this did not feel like it would be the case when the credits rolled, but the reason had nothing to do with Fincher’s directing. The cinematography and directing are still strikingly early Fincher, but in my opinion, the story is far weaker than any of his other films that I’ve seen to date. Or so I thought.

This “micro-thriller” was written by David Koep (one of the most successful screenwriters in Hollywood). It focuses on a recently single mother (Jodie Foster) and her little boy—I mean girl (Kristen Stewart), as they move into a big ol’ new place in New York City. In said new dwelling, there is a safe room (or “panic room” WHOA THAT’S HOW THEY GOT THE TITLE) which, unbeknownst to our protagonists, is concealing a hefty sum of money. The first night they spend in the new house, a break-in occurs and the story takes off. The mother/daughter team hides in the panic room while the three men try to break into it, and the tensions rise. Now, if you watch this as a break-in thriller, it’s a solid movie. And that’s what I did the first time I watched it. However, the more I thought about it (mixed with reading a few reviews and such online), I realized there is much more going on here. It gave me immense relief knowing that beneath the above-average thriller surface, there lies a complex statement about feminism, technology, isolation, greed, and perspectives of different people. I’m really looking forward to rewatching it with these things in mind next time.

Overall, I recommend this specifically for any fans of the thriller genre that missed it back in 2002, and of course for any fans of David Fincher’s work. In terms of his filmography, Panic Room and Zodiac kind of bridge the gap stylistically between his earlier work and his most recent work, in my opinion. Fight Club obviously looks and feels far different than The Social Network or The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, which is partly because of the camera/equipment he used to film it, but also because of the way the cinematography feels. He changed quite a bit, for better or worse, and I think that this growth is a very important part of—anyway, before I turn this into an essay on Fincher, I’m going to go watch The Social Network for the first time since I fell in love with it in theaters.

The Social Network (dir. David Fincher, 2010)

When I first saw The Social Network in 2010, I loved it immediately. I had recently gotten into David Fincher, really dug Jesse Eisenberg’s acting (especially in Zombieland), and was already a raging fan of Trent Reznor’s music (he’s the mastermind behind Nine Inch Nails, if you didn’t know). Not to mention, I was (and am) part of the flock of people under the rule of online social networking sites, especially Facebook. When the Oscars came around that year, The Social Network was nominated for eight awards, including Best Picture. Considering it captured everything about where we were as a society in 2010, naturally I pulled for it to win. It did not. In fact, it lost to The King’s Speech, which is a solid but safe historical drama. It’s in no way a bad film, but it did not deserve Best Picture at all. I will never recover from this injustice. (Pardon my melodrama.)

But this review isn’t about my bitterness toward those particular Academy Awards. This is about the film that, upon rewatching, I realized is one of the most important and overall best films of the past ten years. I will venture to say it is David Fincher’s best film in the latter half of his career. From the cinematography (every shot is gorgeous) to the writing (quick, sharp, brilliant work from Aaron Sorkin) to the acting (Jesse Eisenberg and Andrew Garfield gave performances of their careers) to the score (for which Reznor won an Oscar), this entire film is an absolute work of art. When I started it, I was going to make a pizza after the first conversation (which has become something of an iconic scene), but couldn’t look away from the screen for a straight half hour. This movie has a staying power that I did not expect. To be honest, after it came out, I assumed it would lose its potency after a few years since it was such a great snapshot of 2010. This is not the case. In fact, in the past four years, I’ve actually lost interest in the “accuracy” of the film in terms of factual events, which brings out the real truths of the film: friendship, reliance on technology, pliancy of society through trends, greed, popularity resulting in notoriety, the underdog overthrowing the majority…this thing is chock full of brilliant statements that are still relevant, and maybe even more so as time progresses. It’s still where we are, and it’s still where we’re going.

I could make this a novel-length love letter, but I won’t. Suffice it to say, if I had to make a list of the most important films of the past decade, The Social Network would be in the top three, hands down. If you haven’t seen this movie, you are truly missing something vital. Watch it. I cannot recommend it more highly.

Fargo (dir. Joel Coen, 1996)

Sometimes it’s easy to forget the power of a good story. I’m not talking about a grandiose statement about society or the love story of an age. I’m talking about just a good, entertaining, suspenseful, funny, interesting, well rounded…just a good story. And that’s precisely what the Coen brothers’ Fargo is.

Some would categorize Fargo as a thriller (as the DVD case suggests), others as a comedy. Personally, I get a dark comedy vibe from it, because it’s definitely a blend of the two. The story shows how one’s desire for money, as well as some terrible miscommunication between untrustworthy people, can cause one’s life to spiral out of control. It’s that simple. No bells and whistles. And yet, the characters are so fleshed out and believable, the performances are so strong, the dialogue is so memorable and funny (oh, geez), and the setting captures winter so much better than almost any other film I’ve ever seen (I say almost, because…oh just wait until the next cluster…), that it’s impossible to miss why this movie is so dang good. Seriously, watch it.

Fargo is rightly described as an American classic, and if you haven’t seen it yet, you’re missing out…and you clearly don’t laugh darkly whenever you see a wood chipper.

The Big Lebowski (dir. Joel Coen, 1998)

The Coen brothers’ follow-up to Fargo is anything but the simple crime story of its predecessor. If you haven’t seen The Big Lebowski, this is going to be a really strange description and review, and for that, I say…just go watch this movie.

The Big Lebowski is one of the strangest, quirkiest films ever made, with a plot that is far too complex, dream sequences that make almost no sense, a lot of yelling, far too many characters that also don’t make any sense, and bowling. But the best part is: none of that matters, at all, and yet this is a film with a rabid cult following, quotes that never get old, and even a religion (go look up “Dudeism”…it’s a real thing). How is this possible? I don’t know. I just know I can yell, “Mark it zero!” and anyone who has seen the film will join in for a quote-a-thon of hilarity. I’ve often laughed until I cried because of quoting this thing with other people. It’s so strange.

But just like any film that isn’t supposed to make sense, sense can be made if you look hard enough. For instance, this movie has really important and brilliant points to make about politics, religion, belief and non-belief, hypocrisy, greed, sexism, communication, death, and tons of other things that I can’t even remember or care to list. This movie is smart, but disguised as an absurd, pointless, and utterly hilarious story of a man who just wants to take it easy and get compensation for his soiled rug. It really tied the room together, man.

True Grit (dir. Joel Coen & Ethan Coen, 2010)

The Coen brothers return again with something the same as, and entirely different than, everything else they’ve done. True Grit is an adaptation of the novel, and not a direct remake of the classic film, and I think that’s a good part of why this one is so good. Told through the eyes of fourteen year-old Mattie Ross, this revenge tale is probably the most “mainstream” thing the Coen brothers have done. It’s basically a straight Western vengeance movie. A young girl wants revenge on the man who killed her father, and hires two horse-riding justice-men to help her. But what seems simple on the surface is actually an expertly crafted cautionary tale of the ultimately frivolous pursuit of revenge, a study of brute force vs. law-abiding justice, and a parable packed full of religious symbolism.

Here’s a taste of what I’m talking about: the two men that go with her (Jeff Bridges and Matt Damon, both giving excellent performances) each represent a different incarnation of the justice Mattie seeks. For instance, Rooster (Bridges) is very unorthodox in his methods and has no problem pulling a trigger (the anger and brute rage she feels) and Matt Damon is a Texas Ranger who follows all the rules, all the time, no exceptions (her religious conscience). Watching the film through this lens makes her motivations clearer, and it makes the end very satisfying.

-

(SPOILERS: she loses her arm because of a snake bite she gets after she falls down a hole…which happens after she exacts her revenge. It’s a religious metaphor if there ever was one.)

-

True Grit was one of my favorite films when it came out in 2010, and I’m happy to say it holds up nicely. I recommend it very much if you, well, like movies. The only people I wouldn’t offer this to would be people who explicitly don’t like Westerns. But that’s about it. So unless you hate cowboys and dust, you have no excuses. Watch this movie.

The Departed (dir. Martin Scorsese, 2007)

For the past seven years, I’ve had to put up with the same slack-jawed reaction to my answering of the question: “Have you seen The Departed?” The second I say no, the asker will gasp as if I’ve just admitted to killing an entire orphanage worth of babies. Don’t get me wrong: I love when people are passionate about films. And despite what many people may think, I actually really enjoy hype. I love when people hype up movies or music or books or anything because it means people are actually passionate about a certain type of art, and that’s never a bad thing…well, almost never. This is exactly what happened with The Departed, and I’m sorry to say…it actually impacted my viewing of this movie.

See, when I went in, I expected a film that would change my life, alter my views on crime movies, and otherwise blow me away in every aspect that would leave me reeling and obsessing over the writing, story, cinematography, performances, etc. What I got was one of the best crime films I have ever seen (arguably the best one since Goodfellas, like a lot of critics claimed) and…yeah. That’s it. It met my expectations, and then it was over. Leo was totally great, Marky Mark was a well-played douche, Matt Damon proved his chops once again, Jack Nicholson was terrifying, the soundtrack was awesome, the directing was great, some of the shots were really beautiful, and the story was complex but totally brilliant. It was exactly what I’d come to expect from the hype, and that was a fantastic movie.

So yes, The Departed is a really great film, and one of the best crime movies of the past 10 to 20 years…but you already knew that. And so did I. And I guess that’s why I felt disappointed. If I had watched it when everyone else did for the first time, I’d be right there with you. Mortified when someone hasn’t seen it, as the orphanage burns in the distance.

Sin City: Recut, Extended, Unrated (dir. Robert Rodriguez & Frank Miller, 2005)

When I first saw Sin City, it was in my mother’s living room on a DVD that I obtained for free from a coworker’s dad. He wanted to get rid of it since his young son kept sneaking around to watch it, and I gladly took it off his hands. I sold that copy when I purchased the “recut, extended, unrated” version a few years later. The special edition contains both the theatrical cut and an extended cut (which is what I’ll be reviewing here), as well as the first volume of Frank Miller’s graphic novel, which is shown almost shot-for-shot in the film (along with volumes three and four, I believe).

The way the “recut” version is set up, however, is in those separate parts. Basically, the recut version is four short films you can watch in any order you choose, which initially kind of bothered me…until I started watching it. Now, I watched them in the absolutely incorrect order, because they aren’t numbered (except in the booklet…which I didn’t notice until after I freaking watched three of them), but it didn’t bother me. In fact, it’s easier to see how the four storylines intersect without the “mashed up” editing of the theatrical cut, and next time I watch this movie, it will be in the correct order. Each of the parts is extended too, so we get a total of almost 20 more minutes of footage (I think) and a very smooth and satisfying storytelling experience.

If you don’t know anything about Sin City, by the way, it’s a neo-noir film set in a filthy fictional city with crime, booze, sex, and absolutely no absolutes. There is no right and wrong in Sin City…only broken people with good hearts, or successful people with rotten ones. The style isn’t for everyone, nor is the story, but I absolutely love it. Sure, it can be a tad cheesy from time to time, but that’s what it’s supposed to be.

If you’ve never seen the movie before, I’d recommend starting with the theatrical cut. After that, give the recut version a go for an even more thrilling and expansive ride.

Adam’s January Clusterfilm Project (AJCFP) - Cluster #1: A Super, Saucy Beginning

Adam: Hello, everyone! Believe it or not, I ran into an issue in the very first cluster. One of the films I was going to watch (The Apartment, the Best Picture winner from 1960) didn’t work in my DVD player or my laptop. I borrowed it from a friend, so technically it’s not mine anyway, but I needed to watch it before sending it back and now I can’t. This setback should put me at 30 films instead of 31, but luckily I realized I hadn’t watched my copy of the “bootleg director’s cut” of Sam Raimi’s Army of Darkness, so I’m back at 31! Hooray!

Now, let’s get reviewing. I wanted to start things off light (though my Spider-Man 3 review is anything but brief), so here’s the first cluster of films and reviews. Feel free to skip any you aren’t interested in reading. The way this project is set up is so you can take little review-shots, or just down the whole thing. Here we go!

The theme of this cluster: superheroes and saucy comedies.

-

Adam’s January Clusterfilm Project (AJCFP) - Cluster #1: A Super, Saucy Beginning

Army of Darkness: The Official Bootleg Director’s Cut

Zack and Miri Make a Porno

Spider-Man

Spider-Man 2

Spider-Man 3

Easy A

Army of Darkness: The Official Bootleg Director’s Cut (dir. Sam Raimi, 1992)

My first review is the “official bootleg edition” one of my favorite films, and the third in the classic Evil Dead trilogy. This is the film where Bruce Campbell, as Ash, is sent back in time to a medieval land, and must venture to find the Book of the Dead in order to return home to modern times and rid history of the Deadites and all of their evil. In this particular version, which is 16 minutes longer than the theatrical cut, we get…pretty much just more of what we already know and love. The action scenes are a bit longer, but other than that, there really isn’t a whole lot of new material that I noticed. Well…except for the alternate ending. But said ending is actually not as good as the theatrical one, despite being the original ending, because we don’t get the legendary “hail to the king, baby” line that has become a staple with fans of the series (and fans of Showbread, my favorite band). So when it comes down to it, I’ll probably still watch the theatrical version (which I also own) as opposed to this one.

But listen up, you primitive screwheads! All that aside, this is still the hilarious, creepy, campy film we know and love. I laughed aloud again and again, even though I’ve seen this movie more times than I can count. The quotable lines still got me (“This…is my boomstick!”/”Yo. She-bitch. Let’s go.”/”You found me beautiful once!” “Honey…you got reeeaaaal ugly.”) and the stop-motion and prosthetic effects still hold up against CGI, despite the campy 80’s-90’s feel. Overall, this is still one of my favorites and the original Evil Dead trilogy still ends with the silliest, and somehow still most epic, of the three films. If you haven’t seen it yet, I’m always down for an Evil Dead marathon. Hail to the King, baby.

Zack and Miri Make a Porno (dir. Kevin Smith, 2008)

If you’ve never heard of this movie and are taken aback to see such a title, then yes, you read it correctly. This comedic gem, and one of Kevin Smith’s most overlooked films, is actually one of the sweetest and most realistic romantic stories I’ve ever seen. It follows penniless lifelong friends and roommates, Zack Brown (Seth Rogen) and Miri Linky (Elizabeth Banks), as they realize they have no other options to raise money for their bills than to make a pornographic video and sell it. So they find a producer, camera operator, and of course, actors, and begin their quest to, as the title supplies, make a porno. (At this point, I feel the need to mention how silly and easily offended American audiences can be, and that the people who can’t see past the title and “vulgar” premise resulted in the title being shortened for the DVD release to simply Zack and Miri. Just…just stupid. The title is Zack and Miri Make a Porno, because that’s what the movie is called. Zack and Miri dumbs it down to a diluted safety, and that’s silly.)

Now, I know you’re probably thinking, “…you said this was realistic” and you’re right. ‘Common people making pornography because they feel they have no other means of income’ isn’t that common of a situation. But the realistic nature to which I referred earlier is actually about the relationship between Zack and Miri. They grew up as best friends who harbored feelings for one another and could never actually bring them out. And watching this lifelong secret force its way out is adorable.

Okay, enough about the story (normally I’d never say that, but I’m on a space crunch with these reviews). I need to address how absolutely fantastic Smith’s use of music is in this film. The scene where the on-camera porn-sex between Zack and Miri is supposed to happen has one of the best uses of music in a comedy I have ever seen, and the dialogue of the climax (ha) of the film is heartstring-yanking, and another reason why Kevin Smith is a dynamite writer.

Overall, I highly recommend this film if you enjoy the output of Kevin Smith, Judd Apatow, or any of “those kinds” of comedies. If you can get past the high amount of vulgar language, sex jokes, and nudity, you will find that Zack and Miri Make a Porno, like all of Kevin Smith’s films, has a sensitive center under its signature profanity, and a big, beautiful heart. But if you cringe every time you hear the dreaded “f-word,” then skip this movie. The message won’t mean anything to you if language is your main concern. But I think that’s why Kevin Smith has such a unique style: he makes films for the people who enjoy crude humor but want something more with the message. And that is exactly what Zack and Miri Make a Porno is.

Spider-Man (dir. Sam Raimi, 2002)

I’ve been looking forward to rewatching this trilogy for years, and when I finally started it, I noticed an entirely new film within the familiar lines and shots and sounds. It’s probably been close to five years since I’ve seen any of the Spider-Man films from the early 2000’s, and in those five years I’ve learned a lot about reading film, the way the movie business treats blockbusters, and I’ve become a Sam Raimi/Bruce Campbell fanboy. All three of those things radically changed the way I saw this film, and I must say I love it even more than I did in 2002.

Now, I know a lot of the die-hard Spider-Man comic book readers are upset with Raimi’s adaptation, and I respect that. But as a standalone superhero film (before superhero film was a genre that saturated the market) it’s totally great. The writing is strong and brings a lot more subtle things from dialogue full-circle by the end of the film than I remember (the “don’t tell Harry” line actually got me to raise my eyebrows). The direction is an almost night-and-day “blend” of Raimi’s campy, creepy, cartoony style and Sony’s early-2000’s blockbuster (including two wretched songs during the end credits…), yet this somehow doesn’t seem inconsistent with the tone, and I love that. Both styles are present and balanced. Danny Elfman’s score is quirky, yet heroically epic. The effects are sort of dated, but it doesn’t hinder the enjoyment of the overall package. Maybe I’m just nostalgic for a time when there weren’t expanded cinematic universes for every comic book character ever, but this took me back to a simpler time, when I could watch a superhero movie and just be stoked that I was watching Spider-Man fight baddies.

One thing that I simply must address is the fact that this film has the unique history of being filmed before and released after the 9/11 tragedy, especially being set entirely in New York City. There were a few scenes (specifically the parade bombing) that shocked me with the fact that I don’t remember an uproar happening around the release of the film, besides some trailer and poster recalls. I do, however, remember people lining up to see this movie multiple times. Perhaps America was drawn to a NYC-centric superhero, and perhaps this explains the abundance of American flags and other such imagery in the other two films. Either way, the effect September 11^th, 2001 had on film absolutely fascinates me, and Sam Raimi’s first Spider-Man film is such a vital part of that study.

Anyway, to wrap this review, I just want to say: Spider-Man is awesome. Watch it again, quote along, and remember a time when superhero movies were special instead of dime-a-dozen. Plus, with cameos by Stan Lee and Bruce Campbell, you really can’t go wrong. I am so excited to watch Spider-Man 2 now…

Spider-Man 2 (dir. Sam Raimi, 2004)

Widely considered the best of Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man films, Spider-Man 2 tones down the silliness and amps up the character development and thrills in this action-packed sequel. Where the first film is a little awkward (since the actors are supposed to be in high school, but totally look 25), this one starts two years after the first concluded, so everyone looks a little more natural. Peter Parker bounces between jobs when he’s not web slinging through the city, Mary Jane is a successful actress (a dream she revealed in the first film), and Harry Osborn has taken over his father’s empire…and eventually, his villainous persona. The growth of the characters, even Aunt May and J. Jonah Jameson, all feels very natural and real. But the main reason why this film is considered so superior is our new villain, Doctor Octopus. He begins as a well-intentioned scientist, out to change the world with renewable energy, but when his dream and the love of his life are taken from him in the same moment (and with the help of some sinister mechanical arms), madness overcomes him. In this way, he becomes the best-motivated and most sympathetic villain in the entire series, especially compared to the Green Goblin in the first film.

In terms of overall filmmaking, this is superior to the first, since it aged much more naturally. (I also realized while watching it that it came out the same year as my favorite film of all time, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, in which Kirsten Dunst also acts.) It’s the easiest to watch of the three (you can tune in at any time for any amount of time and be entertained), the action scenes are bigger but not laughable (the scene with Doc Ock on the train is still just as thrilling as it was ten years ago), and the blockbuster feel is much more confident. However, the overt Sam Raimi-isms are less noticeable, which as a fan of Raimi was slightly disappointing. It makes up for it during the operation scene, which has all the classic attributes of a Sam Raimi films: continuous punch-ins, cheesy screams, weird shots and angles, and terror. The best part is when the surgeon reaches for the chainsaw…if that’s not a direct reference to Evil Dead 2 then I don’t know what is.

So, as a blockbuster, Spider-Man 2 is much better than its predecessor. But as a Sam Raimi film, it’s less quirky, campy, and comical. That said, Bruce Campbell’s cameo in this one is much better than the first, and when it comes up in conversation, I still side with the people who claim this film is better than the first effort. Personally, I don’t know which of the first two I would choose as superior, but I do know that I’m about to watch Spider-Man 3, and my expectations have never been lower. My Spidey-sense is tingling.

Spider-Man 3 (dir. Sam Raimi, 2007)

I’ll open this review with a statement that will either make you question my entire opinion on film and make you stop reading anything I write about movies ever again, or it will make you want to read the rest of this review (which is what I hope). Here it is: Spider-Man 3 is one of the most misunderstood, and one of the best, superhero movies I have ever seen. I’m not kidding.

In case you don’t know why this statement is a big deal, let me catch you up: Spider-Man 3 is regarded by the general public, most film critics, and the majority of Spider-Man fans, to be one of the worst superhero films of all time. People often rank it up there with X-Men Origins: Wolverine in terms of how bad it is, supposedly. Well I’m here to tell you that these people are, well, not wrong but simply are watching this film with a perspective that will actually make you hate it (except for maybe the Spider-Man comic book readers…those guys ‘n gals are always gonna hate it).

The reason Spider-Man 3 is so misunderstood is the same as it is with most other misunderstood films (Sucker Punch, Spring Breakers, and Cabin in the Woods to name a few), and that reason is simply the perspective of the moviegoer, as well as the public’s own viewpoint. If you watch Spider-Man 3 with knowledge of the source material, or high expectations for a sweet long Venom fight, then you are going to be sorely disappointed. And that is precisely what happened when this movie hit theaters. I know this because I was one of them. I’ve spent the past seven years (yes, it’s been that long since it came out) trashing this movie because of what I remembered about it: a lame Venom story, too many villains, a total miscasting of Eddie Brock, liberal deviation from source material, and everyone’s favorite, Emo Peter Parker. But the problem was I looked at the film not as what it was, but what I wanted it to be, and I didn’t bother scratching beneath the surface. If I had, I would have realized that this is not your usual Spider-Man blockbuster. So strap in, suit up, and throw everything you know about Spider-Man out the window, except for what you know about Sam Raimi’s first two Spider-Man films. You need that stuff.

The rest of this review is pretty much entirely spoilers, so skip ahead if you haven’t seen this movie yet.

The movie opens with Peter Parker telling us how great his life is as Spider-Man; the people love Spider-Man, he’s got a steamy shawty (that means girlfriend, if you aren’t hip like me), and life is good in the world of Peter Parker. At first glance, this seems cheesy and overall just awful. It’s presented so poorly, or so I thought, and a set up for a surely wretched viewing experience. I was so wrong. What’s actually happening here is setting up the entire basis for the beginning of Peter Parker’s character development in this film, which is an obsession with celebrity ego. Peter has become a celebrity through Spider-Man, and he is soaking it up. Who wouldn’t? Especially someone who’s been a socially avoided “nerd” his whole life? This parasitic attitude rears its ugly head as Venom, a symbiotic material that crashes to Earth, right next to Peter and Mary Jane sharing a tender moment at the beginning of the film. What a freaking metaphor, guys.

This celebrity ego builds until Spider-Man is awarded the key to the city, presented by Gwen Stacy (his lab partner, and a much bigger role in the comics than in this film, which is why you needed to throw that stuff away for this one since she’s not that important here). Mary Jane, Peter’s girlfriend (and potential fiancé, as we find out his plans to propose early in the film), is at this event, and Peter knows this. However, when Spider-Man is awarded the key to the city, the crowd cheers for Gwen to kiss Spider-Man, and Peter succumbs to what the crowd wants despite what Mary Jane will feel. This places much tension on their relationship, for obvious reasons. Then we have Harry Osborn, who has had his memory temporarily erased from a Green Goblin fight with Spidey at the beginning, which warms him up again and makes him far friendlier to Peter and Mary Jane (proof that lust for revenge can blind you to your friendships). When Peter starts to shut Mary Jane out, Harry moves in as a friend to support her, and a connection is remade from when they were together in the first film. Add to all of this a photography rivalry between Peter and Eddie Brock, Gwen’s boyfriend, as well as a big reveal of Uncle Ben’s actual killer, a man named Flint who becomes The Sandman after being caught in some radioactive sandbox after a prison break at the beginning. This is when Peter’s ego starts to get too big, and also when the Venom parasite takes over Spider-Man.

See, in this film, Venom represents human nature’s lust for revenge and selfishness. When things go wrong in our lives, oftentimes the first response is revenge, and this film is a beautiful example that this response is simply wrong. Peter succumbs to Venom and a string of horrible and strange events follow. The first being Spider-Man’s attempt to murder Flint, Uncle Ben’s killer, out of revenge. When Spider-Man thinks he has succeeded, he tells Aunt May, and she’s not quite as happy as he expected, because she’s a moral rock who knows revenge and wishing death on another person is morally wrong. Peter begins pushing Mary Jane away, and when Harry regains his memory, as well as his own lust for revenge, he kidnaps Mary Jane and forces her to break up with Peter. This is the catalyst for the infamous Emo Peter bits. Peter completely lets Venom take over him, and terrible things happen. He reveals Eddie Brock’s photography as fake, steals Gwen Stacy’s affection only to use it against Mary Jane, beats the tar out of Harry, and has an utterly terrible hairstyle. In the story, these parts are heartbreaking. In the movie, these parts are hysterical. They are so much fun to watch. Ridiculous, sure, but fun to watch, just like the other two Spidey flicks. It ends with Peter actually hitting Mary Jane, which resulted in me involuntarily saying some things at the screen. Oops.

Just when everything seems at its lowest point, and Mary Jane is lying on the floor, she asks, “Who are you?” and Peter says, “I don’t know.” In this moment, he realizes he has been wrong all along, and flees to a church to fight the Venom. The bells ring and he rids himself of it. However, Eddie Brock is in the very same church, praying for the death of Peter Parker and succumbing completely to his own revenge. How appropriate that in this moment the Venom falls to him now, and he becomes the Venom that everyone wanted to be awesome but felt disappointed. However, when watching it with this perspective, it makes perfect sense. Heck, even the casting doesn’t bother me anymore. Topher Grace did a great job.

This is where we build to the climax. The Sandman wants revenge on Spider-Man for foiling is plans to help his sick daughter (which made him sympathetic, kind of obviously) and Eddie as Venom wants revenge on Peter for ruining his life. Peter apologizes to Harry and asks for his help to face off against the two other villains. All of this leads to a huge fight in the middle of New York City, and a rebirth of Spider-Man as a hero, and as an icon, and the rebirth of the villain of the film actually being revenge, ego, and pride. The icon rebirth is hilariously represented by Spider-Man jumping in front of an American flag all patriotically, which is important since these films could be read as making statements about Americans’ attitude towards 9/11 and the wars that followed, and how we as the public often need an icon to rally behind. Hence: Spider-Man, an imperfect but well-intentioned hero.

The fight rages on in big ol’ Hollywood blockbuster fashion, for a really long time and with splashes of comedy from J. Jonah Jameson. Towards the conclusion of the fight, Peter realizes that Venom doesn’t like noise and pries the Venom from Eddie (after telling him about how revenge is wrong, appropriately), but right before Peter throws one of Harry’s Goblin bombs to destroy Venom, Eddie jumps back into the Venom and dies as well, meaning of course that the pursuit of revenge and pride will result in one’s downfall and demise. Oh, and Harry is stabbed by his own glider (like his father in the first film) which is another revenge metaphor. Mary Jane tends to Harry while Spider-Man faces the Sandman, or more importantly Peter faces the man who killed Uncle Ben. Peter forgives Flint, and he disintegrates into sand, the both of them finally free. Harry dies in Peter and Mary Jane’s arms after forgiving Peter and vice versa.

In the end, the messages in the film are as follows: revenge is wrong, forgive your enemies, and put others before yourself. These three messages are the most blatantly anti-American, transparently Christ-inspired, and politically/religiously ballsy things I’ve ever seen in an American superhero film. With the dissipation of the Sandman, we are getting Peter forgiving the man who essentially drove him to become a hero, which makes Spider-Man even more of a hero, but also if we read Spider-Man as America and The Sandman as the people who attacked New York, it becomes an even more poignant moment, as the dehumanized villain (war) falls away into sand with an act of forgiveness to the seemingly unforgiveable, and the only way for us to move on as a country is to forgive and stop the violence. But hey, maybe that’s just my own personal beliefs getting in there. Anyway, as the film ends, everyone forgives everyone who wronged him or her, except Eddie who died because of his pride and need for revenge, and Harry, who shows the ultimate sacrifice of love by laying down his life for his friends. It’s beautiful. The film ends with Peter reconciling things with Mary Jane, not with an overblown Hollywood proposal, but a simple dance between lovers who overcame their differences. Credits.

End spoilers.

Do you see what I’m saying here? This is hardly a Spider-Man film in the comic-book-based sense, but it is a movie about heroism unlike any other. For these reasons, I’m begging you to give this movie another shot if you don’t like it. Seriously. It might be my favorite in Raimi’s Spider-Man trilogy, and is definitely redeemed from the unfair perspective and opinion I’d given it before. This is, without a doubt, one of my favorite superhero movies of all time.

My apologies for the length of this post, but this right here is why I write about movies. Film can truly change one’s life and perspective about the problems and feelings they have toward other people, and that’s what matters in the end.

Easy A (dir. Will Gluck, 2010)

This nice little teen comedy showed up at the best possible time for it to do so. Emma Stone’s career was really taking off thanks to Superbad (which Gluck also directed) and Zombieland specifically, and some less-successful ventures like The Rocker and The House Bunny. People were talking about her, yet everything she was in that was worth watching was rated R. With the release of Easy A, moviegoers could enjoy the witty, adorable, and endearingly awkward brand of humor that Emma Stone is known for, yet didn’t have as much of the raunchiness or gore that the first two I listed have. This movie exploded. The humor is along the vein of Mean Girls and Pitch Perfect, both of which are films that spawned a massive cult fanbase, and Easy A fits alongside both of them nicely.

If you haven’t seen it, it follows a high school girl named Olive who feigns losing her virginity to satisfy her friend’s pestering, but then it spirals out of control into “Olive’s a slut” all over school, especially after she fakes having sex with a bullied gay boy to cease his torment (which is actually a really good statement about how society tells us that having meaningless sex with a girl makes you “more of a man” than being a gay man, as well as how high on a pedestal we put a woman’s purity until she seemingly “loses” it, and then she becomes of less value. Stupid society). It’s a really funny, and actually quite a smart little comedy. Emma Stone is all kinds of charisma here, which doesn’t seem out of place when we see her parents, wonderfully played by Stanley Tucci (the man is a king, I tell you) and Patricia Clarkson. Amanda Bynes plays a hyper-religious girl who carries a really great and unexpected statement about religion that this movie makes almost effortlessly. Ultimately, it has a very sweet cliché ending, despite tackling some very serious issues (homosexuality, divorce, religion, STD’s, unfaithfulness, sexism), and this film isn’t going to change the way future filmmakers make comedies or anything, but it’s an entertaining, adorable, funny, quotable ride that is absolutely worth seeing. Especially if you’re an Emma Stone fan like I am. And I really am. Oh look, she’s in a corset. Bye.

-

Thanks for reading, everyone! Tune in next week for the second of my five-part film project, Adam’s January Clusterfilm Project!

Adam's January Clusterfilm Project

Adam: We aren’t dead! I just don’t have internet and Riley lives an hour away now. The film blog still lives. And to prove it, I’m starting a new project for the month of January!

For the past couple of years, I have accumulated a multitude of DVDs. I cannot resist a good deal on film, and when I had expendable cash, I would often buy many at once without much time to watch them. Well, thanks to talking with a coworker the other night at work, I realized that I should watch one DVD per day in January, and post clusters of “mini-reviews” for each film throughout the month. For instance, once a week or so, I’ll be posting a cluster of 5-7 films that I watched that week, for the entire month of January.

My reason for doing this is partially because I need to watch these dang movies, but part of it is because I don’t have as much time to stay up to speed on current film lately. I work at a second-run theater now, which means we get the movies a few months after they are released (we still have the freaking Butler…), and it’s hard for me to get to a first-run theater multiple times a week to stay up to speed, let alone find time to write reviews of said films. Thus, this project was born!

Before I begin though, I need to point out something about these 31 films. Of the 31 movies I plan to watch, I have already seen 25 of them. However, I have not watched the DVDs of these films since I purchased them, meaning a lot of these are movies I watched a few years ago and loved enough to buy, but haven’t had time to rewatch. For instance, I’ve seen The Fantastic Mr. Fox like four or five times, but the DVD I own is still in the cellophane. Therefore, I will rewatch it (since it’s been a few years anyway) and write a mini-review (maybe a paragraph or two) about my thoughts on it, such as if it holds up as well as it does in my memory or what new things have I discovered about it. These films vary in length and genre, as well. I’m talking vampires to superheroes to teen pregnancy to mobsters to the apocalypse. This should be fun.

So without further ado, let Adam’s January Clusterfilm Project begin!

The Spectacular Now review

Riley:

And here comes a movie that reminds me why they are made in the first place.

But first, a disclaimer. I have had a long, fruitful conversation with Adam about movie reviews and criticism and I know how I feel about them. I can discuss a movie out loud and in person better than I can write about one. Yet here I am, so I’ll keep it as short and sweet as I can. I’ll try to not speak too much about the content of the story, as far too many film critics do (cough cough, those at The New Yorker), often oversharing elements of it that movie-goers just have to go and experience themselves. Anyways, now, “The Spectacular Now.”

To begin, here is a plot summary I snagged from its IMDb page:

“Sutter Keely lives in the now. It's a good place for him. A high school senior, charming and self-possessed, he's the life of the party, loves his job at a men's clothing store, and has no plans for the future. A budding alcoholic, he's never far from his supersized, whiskey-fortified thirst-master cup. But after being dumped by his girlfriend, Sutter gets drunk and wakes up on a lawn with Aimee Finicky hovering over him. She's different: the "nice girl" who reads science fiction and doesn't have a boyfriend. While Amy has dreams of a future, Sutter lives in the impressive delusion of a spectacular now, yet somehow, they're drawn together.”

“The Spectacular Now” propelled me into the stars with its breathless introduction and it kept me suspended there over the course of its running time. It was during the final eight minutes - plus the brilliant choice of music as the ending credits appear - that I felt like I was thrown to the moon. Most of you will possibly react differently to the film, as there is such a wide variety of things to relate to. Nonetheless, I would be very interested in talking with you if by the closing credits you weren’t wiping your eyes or feeling some sort of emotional weight in the pit of your stomach or in the trenches of your heart.

Sutter Keely (played so damn well by Miles Teller) could perhaps be my favorite movie character of the year thus far. I have never responded to a character like his before; obnoxious, thoughtful, reliant on alcohol, warm, genuine, loud, sensitive. He’s incredibly well-rounded for a young male lead in a coming-of-age tale. The film itself features a roster of characters that could so easily be mishandled and have been mishandled in other films of the same nature. Every character in “Spectacular” has been a caricature elsewhere; party-girl ex, jock football player, preppy older sister, bookish girl, etc. But here, they are given the rare chance to individually breathe in their own shoes. And in doing so, everyone feels sympathetic, understandable, recognizable. Early on, Sutter asks Aimee Finicky (played with equal ferocity by Shailene Woodley) what single characteristic defines her. Aimee responds to his question by posing one of her own: Why do we have to be defined by a single characteristic? As the movie suggests, we’re all so deeply full of a multitude of personality traits, emotions, aspirations, and ideas, and we’re constantly changing our minds, adapting to unexpected revelations and dreaming new dreams that a single word simply does not justly define us.

This is a movie with a big heart. I love movies with big hearts. Cynicism can be fun and thought-provoking in certain cases, but nothing speaks louder than a story that celebrates the goodness in the world or the powers of optimism, respect and encouragement. “The Spectacular Now” frequently resists the temptation of predictability and dishonesty. I am reminded of a scene that first appears like it will be headed in one direction - a fight. Instead, the words that the characters consciously choose to exchange move the scene in the entirely opposite direction. And the implication of Sutter’s reliance on booze refreshingly avoids a trite moral conclusion. That’s not what this film is about.

There are shades of “Good Will Hunting” throughout, including what appears to be a brief homage towards the end as we watch a car drive down a highway. Saying anything more would spoil the fun. “The Spectacular Now” is not without its flaws, but I’ll leave those up to you to determine on your own.

*For those of you interested in a more expansive examination of “The Spectacular Now”, I’m going to go against my disclaimer and direct you to the late, great Roger Ebert’s review - one of his sweetest, and one of his last.

Link:

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-spectacular-now-2013

The World's End review

Adam: I know Edgar Wright’s brilliant comedy The World’s End has been out for a couple weeks now, but a friend requested I write a review of it, and having seen it three times and being unable to stop thinking about it, I simply had to oblige. So here it is. Enjoy.

--

A Review of Love Letter to The World’s End

It would be impossible to review this film without at least mentioning the other two films in the loose “trilogy” (dubbed the Three Flavours Cornetto Trilogy or The Blood and Ice Cream Trilogy, if you haven’t heard by now): the flawless living dead satire Shaun of the Dead and the spot-on action spoof Hot Fuzz. Each of the three films, though not connected through plot or characters, are written and directed by the same people (written by Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright, directed by the latter), and often include the same actors. Not to mention, there are subtle tropes specific to these three films, including but not limited to: intense editing cuts, giving away important plot points through seemingly unimportant dialogue, sound effect gags (like the pinball machine), a running gag of jumping over/into a fence when attempting a “shortcut,” and most importantly, the appearance of Cornetto ice cream treats.

I was fortunate enough to see the trilogy in its back-to-back-to-back glory on the big screen, and even though I have seen Shaun of the Dead countless times, I still found myself picking up on things I hadn’t previously noticed. This trilogy of films rewards repeat viewings more than almost any film(s) I have ever seen, which is a testament to Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg’s tight, obsessively detailed writing, and The World’s End did not disappoint in that regard (or any, for that matter). But don’t feel like you can’t see any one of them without having seen the others; each of these films can stand alone without losing any comedic potency.

The third and final installment in the Three Flavours Cornetto trilogy, The World’s End, is about a group of childhood friends who return to their hometown to complete a legendary pub-crawl called The Golden Mile. The Golden Mile consists of twelve pubs, each with names ranging from sort-of-normal (The Hole in the Wall, The First Post) to utterly outlandish (The Famous Cock, The Two-Headed Dog). But, as I mentioned earlier, the writing is so good that nothing happens without a purpose, and if the viewer pays attention to the names of the pubs, said viewer will also notice that the plot parallels their titles. Take for example the third pub, The Famous Cock. Simon Pegg’s character (the unforgettable Gary King) is barred from this bar because of his raucous teenage actions. Hence, Gary King is a famous cock. That’s just one of the more overt references. I won’t give away any more because half of the fun is figuring out the event-parallels for yourself. Not to mention, the amount of pubs is important considering the back-story of a certain character…but this is a spoiler-free review, so I shall refrain.

Anyway, as the story progresses, tensions rise between the friends, specifically the aptly named Gary King and Andy Knightly (a refreshing change from Nick Frost’s usual slacker persona), but even the rich, believable back-story between the two of them is only the main course. The audience is treated to a full plate of character depth (what a weird comparison…) with not a single primary character being anything less than well-rounded and believable. And as if that wasn’t enough, the posse of old mates discovers a secret about the town that throws this tale into a full-blown apocalyptic science-fiction epic.

That’s all I’ll say in terms of synopses, but I’ll write now about what a success this film is on every level, from the directing (Edgar Wright is a genius) to the acting (Simon Pegg and Nick Frost had me almost in tears, both from laughter and sadness) to the writing (better than almost every single film I’ve seen this year). I’ve seen The World’s End three times thus far, and I would not be opposed to seeing it again soon. I find myself quoting funny lines constantly, even just to myself, and I simply cannot stop thinking about the character of Gary King. He is fascinating. But no matter how obsessed with him I am, I also find myself thinking about Martin Freeman’s character often, or the woman who plays his sister, Sam, as well as the man who is in love with her. This film is truly something special, and I believe that if you write this off as “just another British comedy,” you are robbing yourself of one of the best film experiences of the year.

The one and only complaint I’ve heard about this movie is that the ending is rushed and “too much.” I’ll admit, I felt the same after my first viewing, but the second viewing cleared that right up and now I see this movie as near perfect. Like I said before: this series rewards repeat viewings.

This film is currently sitting pretty in my top five best films of 2013 thus far. If the prospect of a British sci-fi comedy with brilliant writing, jokes with staying power, and a warm emotional center sounds good to you, do yourself a favor and go see The World’s End immediately.

Critical Hit: A Discussion of Critical Cynicism, The Effects of Negativity, and Why We Go See Movies in the First Place

Adam: If you haven’t noticed, it’s been quite some time since I have posted a movie review. There is a reason for that. It is not that I have been too busy, because I am always too busy, but rather it has been an intentional absence. Starting in September, I will return to writing reviews on a more regular basis, but as for now, I’ll leave you with this explanation.

--

Critical Hit: A Discussion of Critical Cynicism, The Effects of Negativity, and Why We Go See Movies in the First Place

This Summer at the movies began like any other: a superhero movie jumped the gun in April and kicked off what was sure to be a slew of successful, expensive franchise films, sensational sequels, and the occasional origin story. My apatite for Summer blockbuster fun at the movies was already raging after the fantastic Evil Dead sequel, and considering the fact that I cannot resist soaking up the overdose of glossy, plastic pop culture that Summer brings every year, I jumped on the chance to see Iron Man 3 a night early (thanks to my job at a movie theater). If you read my review, you know that I loved it. Many critics, however, did not.

I didn’t flinch at this, since Iron Man 3 did deviate from the source material enough to anger the fanbase as well as confuse a few casual moviegoers. Not to mention, it was extremely character driven and comic-y, unlike the two action-driven previous efforts in the series (a change I attribute to Shane Black’s direction). I was certain the upcoming Summer treats would be better received.

The month of May saw the release of Star Trek Into Darkness, which was a smashing success with fans new and old, and critics alike. On a smaller scale, Baz Luhrmann’s adaptation of The Great Gatsby was hit or miss, depending on the audience member or critic (not uncommon for Baz). Apart from that, we had blockbusters like Fast & Furious 6, The Hangover Part III, After Earth, Epic, Now You See Me, and The Purge, all of which receiving some negative critical response, both deserved and undeserved. Again, I ignored it. I loved Epic, but didn’t care for Now You See Me and didn’t see any of the others (though I heard FF6 was good). I stayed optimistic.

June begins the bulk of what I would like to discuss here. The abysmal reception of Snyder’s brilliant Superman film Man of Steel got the worst of it, but Monsters University and Despicable Me 2 each got torn to shreds by some major critics, though the latter was quite successful with audiences, but neither of them got the credit or praise they deserved. They were both accused of lacking the heart of the originals to which they were sequels, when this was simply untrue of both films. The Heat, This Is The End, and World War Z were each well received in their own way, but the fact that World War Z was better-received than Man of Steel or Monsters University hurt me personally. More on WWZ later.

For some reason, I was still optimistic. This is probably because I hadn’t yet disagreed with critics any more than I usually would when it comes to, well, anything, but the final straw was about to be pulled, and I had no idea.

Enter The Lone Ranger.

[Okay, I’m about to go on a wicked-long rant here. I delve into a lot of crucial points of this post, but if you want to skip them and get to the REALLY important stuff, I put more bolded brackets down there.]

Gore Verbinski’s Western-action-adventure movie went way over budget for Disney, but they clearly assumed Johnny Depp had the star power to make up for dipping into the Mouse Wallet a little too deeply. They were wrong. The movie flopped at the box office, costing Disney an estimated $150 million, and for some reason, The Lone Ranger became the movie everybody loved to hate.

I would hear it at work daily: “Wow, that movie sucked.” “What a waste of time.” “Johnny Depp has lost it. He always plays the same stupid character.” (or my personal favorite) “Um, that was incredibly racist and not a kids movie.” Now, I’m not going to turn this into a defense of The Lone Ranger post, but I would like to clear a few things up.

Firstly, The Lone Ranger was never meant to be a “kids movie.” Did you notice the PG-13 rating? It is on par with the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise in terms of darkness, though Ranger does not have nearly the charm Pirates has.

Secondly, racist? Really? So World War Z, the poorly written, over-budget, all-white movie about a “world” war where a white man saves his white family and the rest of white humanity (with a few tourist stops in foreign countries) from zombies (they weren’t zombies) was fine? Or the racially diverse but totally sexist Fast & Furious franchise is just something to brush off because of the mostly-male fanbase, right? It’s supposed to be sexist, right? And let’s not even get a little irked over the sexist, racist, and oh-so-homophobic Adam Sandler classic Grown Ups 2, which went on to be a huge success! Nope. The problem lies on Johnny Depp’s shoulders alone, as he plays (with respect and purpose) the sidekick Tonto, who is a (pretty obvious) character statement representing both the horrific Native American history in this country, as well as an attempt to make amends with how the character has been received in the past, as well as lightening up a dark movie, by making him more fun by telling it in an occasionally loopy flashback. Is it perfect? Not even close. But to throw accusations of racism around so brashly while ignoring many other instances of racism in other films is just another example of American culture’s habit of latching onto something minor, ignoring every other more relevant example or piece of information, tearing down a (complex and expensive) work of art for said minor grievance with a biblical fervor, and then forgetting about it a week or two later as if it’s nothing while the creators of said piece of art are left to pick up the pieces of their hard work.

This trend of unleashing a truckload of hatred on a piece of art of which one has had no involvement in the creation is childish and toxic. And thus, I begin discussion of the main theme of this post: the cynicism of critics, its effect on audiences, and why the public feels the need to tear down some pieces of art (but not others) and forget why we come to the movies in the Summer in the first place (hint: it’s to have fun, escape, be entertained, and maybe even feel something more).

Okay, if you’ve read this far, I want to thank you personally. Because it’s about to get messier.

The theory that critical reaction to a film can make or break said film has a certain amount of truth to it, but there are just as many examples to prove otherwise. For instance, this Summer alone, The Lone Ranger was destroyed by critics, tanked at the box office, and was altogether widely considered a failure. However, World War Z had a decent critical response (despite being worse than The Lone Ranger on every conceivable level) and Grown Ups 2 was ripped apart by critics, and yet were both incredibly successful with audiences and dollar signs. Clearly critical reaction didn’t play too big of a role in the destruction of The Lone Ranger, right? Here is my response to that: the reason The Lone Ranger failed and the other two did not partially has to do with how vocal critics were about The Lone Ranger and not about the other two, and partially to do with what the critics were criticizing.

Critics focused on Johnny Depp’s “acting failure,” claiming that he has lost his touch. Combine this with his past few “identical characters” that people always complain about, and naturally the public will agree with critics that he has lost his star power. Conversely, Brad Pitt is still hitting home runs in his career, both in blockbusters and arthouse films. I mean, he’s great. I love the guy. But since his character in World War Z was flat and boring, he didn’t have to do much acting to carry the movie, now did he?

Critics also honed in on the aforementioned “racism” complaint. You read my response to that earlier, and why World War Z was actually just as racist, if not more (racist-er?), but I’m going to elaborate further, so brace yourselves.

Racism is bad. We all know this. Nobody sides with a racist except other racists, and if someone claims you side with a racist, you’ll do everything in your power to convince them otherwise. This is what happened with The Lone Ranger. Critics accused it of being racist, and since some people can’t evaluate and interpret art for themselves (The Lone Ranger was not racist) and don’t like associating with things publicly called out as racist, they trashed it for being racist. I said racist a lot there, but I’m trying to make a point: if the American public associates racism with something, even if they can’t back up the accusations, they will hate that thing blindly.

The same thing happened when a small but loud group of critics claimed Star Trek Into Darkness was sexist because of a scene with Alice Eve. Yes, some of what they said made really good points, but if you want to go after and expose sexism in film (which we absolutely should do), go after more than just one really well-known and relevant example, and don’t back down a week after the movie opens. Doing so has a counter-intuitive effect, and can make people more numb to sexism because it doesn’t seem like that big of a problem. Into Darkness was still a massive hit despite this hiccup accusation of sexism.

Am I making sense at all?

My point is that critics can have an effect on the public’s perception of a film, but not because of their overall opinion of it. If multiple critics point out a fatal flaw like racism, whether or not it is founded on fact, it can bring a film’s reception down significantly.

I am not saying The Lone Ranger is one of the best films of the year, or even the Summer, but I am saying that we as moviegoers need to actually take in what we are watching, use our amazing brains (seriously, the human brain is mind-blowing, pun intended), and decide for ourselves if what we are watching is well-crafted, beneficial to society or ourselves, culturally relevant, artistically beautiful, or even just plain ol’ fun entertainment. If a critic says a film is sexist, see it for yourself and think, “does this really oppress other genders or show gender minorities in a negative light?” and then discuss it with others who have seen it. If a critic says a film is racist, see it for yourself and think, “does this really oppress other races or show other races in a negative light?” and then discuss it with others who have seen it.

But most importantly, if a critic says that a film is bad, in any way, shape, or form, and you want to see it, see it anyway and decide for yourself if you agree. If you don’t want to see it, don’t see it, but don’t bash on it either. (I fall victim to that pitfall a lot.)

Cinema is a beautiful art form with the power to change hearts, minds, and the world. Don’t let another human being decide your opinion on a certain film for you.

[START READING HERE IF YOU SKIPPED THE LONE RANGER BIT.]

So what does all this have to do with me not writing reviews? Well, it all comes down to the power of negativity on a positive person. When I write reviews, I write them because the film I saw made me feel something that I want to share with everyone, and maybe, just maybe, someone else will want to go see the movie and feel something of his or her own too.

When someone tells me they saw a movie solely because I recommended it, and then go on to tell me that they loved it and wouldn’t have seen it if I hadn’t mentioned it, it gives me a feeling akin to approximately 503 hugs from the best-smelling person anyone has ever met. I am not joking. It is great.

So when I spend months hearing negative remarks and snarky criticisms, where movies that have made me feel hope, love, fear, curiosity, happiness, relief, melancholia, courage, or any number of emotions get reduced to “well, that was a waste of time” because the person who made those remarks didn’t give the piece of art more than two seconds of surface-level thought, it is disheartening. It is discouraging to the level that I simply didn’t want to write about any film I loved for the rest of the Summer.

I could have written a glowing review of Monsters University, and its shocking anti-college message or its fascinating look at twenty-something “real life” fears. I could have discussed the beautiful coming-of-age story of The Way, Way Back and how it was like a perfect snapshot of the best Summer of your life. I could have delved into the unexpected equality themes, awesome originality, and staggering scope of Pacific Rim. I could have erupted with how much I believe Before Midnight to be one of the best films of the year, and lamented about how it hasn’t reached the audience size it deserves. I could have written posts and posts praising or constructively critiquing the ever-changing and always-beautiful art of cinema that has brought my life so much joy and meaning.

But I didn’t.

I chose, instead, to watch everything I could and enjoy it within my own head and heart. Sure, I posted little “review shot” statuses that were but a few sentences long, and talked about them with coworkers and friends, but I couldn’t help but feel impotent any time I sat down to write at length about a film that I loved because I couldn’t shake how much unfounded hate I had heard about it. I felt as though my positive voice in a sea of negativity would go ignored or even ridiculed.

Don’t get me wrong: I did not take this break from reviewing films because of some fear that my differing opinion would invite criticism I could not take, tolerate, or debate. I took the break because I needed a breather. I had spent so much time and energy, both in person and online, defending films I loved, only to have my defense laughed off because to many people, they are “just movies.” I couldn’t bring myself to invite more immature eye-rolls by writing more reviews. I see the beauty and worth in almost every single film I watch, and if expressing that just results in a complete disregard for what I am saying, I will rest my vocal chords a bit. But I will never be silenced. I will always speak my opinion to those willing to listen and share their own with me.

My point here is not to refrain from criticizing, or even teasing and light-heartedly bashing, any and all movies. Be a critic if you want. Take in what you see, chew it over, and give an opinion. My point is that when you do make a criticism or comment, make sure you can back up what you are saying. I mean, I tore World War Z a new one before I even saw it (thank you to my friend Jake for making me see it anyway, even though I totally was right about it =P), and that was wrong of me. I didn’t care for Now You See Me, I was bored with The Bling Ring, and I loathed The Kings Of Summer. But I can back those opinions up with legitimate complaints, desire to discuss my criticisms with others, and am willing to maybe even change my perspective and opinion.

But I never aimed my disdain toward a person who got something out of those films. Sure, they didn’t speak to me personally, but maybe they spoke wonders to someone else.

And that is what matters.

Here’s to the future. My apologies for my absence, and for the length of this post.

Let’s watch some movies.

lovelovelove,

Adam

Man of Steel review

Adam: Wow, was the last review really Iron Man 3? My apologies. Um, let's do them really fast: GO SEE STAR TREK AND MUD AND THE GREAT GATSBY AND EPIC AND THIS IS THE END!! (And probably Frances Ha, The Kings of Summer, The Purge, and pretty much anything that's out right now. It is blockbuster season and quirky indie season, you know.)

Below is my review of Zack Snyder's Man of Steel, which opened tonight at midnight. I've already had the pleasure of seeing it twice, once in 3D and once in 2D, both in IMAX, but quite frankly I'll probably go again this week at least once more. I am a little worried about how it will be received with the casual moviegoers (which I talk about in the review), but perhaps I just need to have more faith in the American public. Go see it, decide for yourselves, and enjoy the review!

--

Man of Steel

When I finished watching Man of Steel, Zack Snyder’s submission to the Superman films, I knew I needed to chew it over and certainly see it again. After a second viewing the following night, it was confirmed: I loved it, but I’m scared that the general blockbuster movie-going public will not. My reasons for this fear are that the saturation of Marvel’s happy, easily digestible, often silly-humored superhero movies along with the conclusion of Nolan’s Batman films have turned people off to a superhero movie that would take itself seriously (which Man of Steel certainly does), and that this film might go over some audience members’ heads because it doesn’t spoon-feed the story like most summer blockbusters. Man of Steel is a work of art that demands multiple viewings, more than just casual focus, and an open mind. This could either lead to its downfall or make it a classic, all depending on the reception to its release this weekend.

Man of Steel is the origin story of Superman, a being from another planet who is sent to Earth and raised as a human, but also wields incredible strength, heat vision, and the power of flight. As someone who has never seen a Superman movie (except Superman Returns), nor had any exposure to Superman besides what is already common knowledge in society (as well as a few hours put into the mediocre Superman game for Nintendo 64), Zack Snyder’s vision of Superman was completely new to me. I did not have a base knowledge pool to go off of, and therefore watched Man of Steel with fresh eyes. That being said, I can review the film as such.

Firstly, as a huge Zack Snyder fanboy, I must say I loved seeing "Slow-Motion Snyder" shake it up a bit by shooting this movie handheld and with an almost complete lack of the slow motion stylistic effects that have proven to be such a signature of his. Man of Steel is probably his most realistic film to date (which is kind of funny considering it’s about an alien sent to Earth and chased by another alien who threatens to destroy the planet). The special effects and fight scenes are top-notch, and the flashback scenes (which I’ll mention later) are some of the most gorgeous cinematography I’ve seen this year. As a Snyder film, I’m not sure where I’d rank it with his others, but that’s only because it’s so radically different from anything he’s ever done, and I love that.

Secondly, the casting was spot-on and the acting was great. Henry Cavill plays Superman with a distant humanity that the viewer can relate to while still feeling as though he just isn’t from around these parts (you know…Earth). Amy Adams was born to play Lois Lane, and Michael Shannon will haunt your dreams as the furious General Zod. Not to mention the strong performances of Superman’s two dads, Russell Crow and Kevin Costner. Their influence on the young Kal-El/Clark Kent is apparent throughout his journey to discover his purpose and save the planet.

Thirdly, and here’s where it gets bumpy, I want to talk about the plot. What at first seems jarring and off-putting, the “jumpy” structure (jumping from past to present without the usual “oh hey, this is a flashback” cues) is actually the most beautiful and artistic way I’ve ever seen a superhero movie told. It’s honestly like a poem about Superman in film form. I know that sounds weird, but that’s how it seems. The first half of the movie or so (before the journey becomes about stopping Zod instead of figuring out who Clark is as a person with powers) jumps back and forth between present action and flashbacks, with very few hints that it is happening. The flashbacks, however, provide an abundance of background character detail on Clark Kent and his Earth parents, as well as his problems fitting in and reconciling his ability to save lives with his struggle to remain hidden. They are truly beautiful little poems of exposition, but they will not work for everyone. They are distancing in a way and can make the casual audience member wonder why they are even happening. The way the story is told is the main reason why I fear that many people will hate this movie, because it's so untraditional for a blockbuster. I can only hope that the Superman fans will love this movie, as well as the casual moviegoer, and my fears are unfounded.

Oh, and Hans Zimmer’s score deserves its own paragraph. It was powerful and memorable, but quirky enough to not get lost in the slew of generic superhero scores, and this film wouldn’t be what it is without it. I might even purchase it to make my drives a few notches more epic.

I know this review has seemed like a love letter, so let me mention some “negatives” to this movie. First off, it takes itself seriously. Like, really seriously. This didn’t bother me, but it might bother others. I found it refreshing, but I know a few of the people who saw it with me didn’t feel that way. Secondly, some of the 3D was sort of unsettling. Since the cinematography is mostly handheld, the post-conversion to 3D made the effects a bit dizzying. This doesn’t really ruin the movie…unless you have to close your eyes to recover for a moment. I really can’t think of any more negatives off the top of my head other than the fact that I’m not watching it a third time right this instant.

Overall, I highly recommend that everybody who has any interest in this year’s big summer movies go see this (which I’m sure you already have, tonight at midnight, right?), as well as fans of Zack Snyder, and, honestly, anyone who finds the story of a lonely-loner-turned-super-savior inspiring (as I certainly do). Go see Man of Steel whether it be in IMAX, DBOX, 3D, 2D, or whatever other format there is. Just see it, and prepare to see something super.