Yes, it's true. Raimi and Maguire have left the building, and Sony is rebooting the franchise under the direction of Marc Webb (500 Days of Summer). How do we feel about that? What do we want from the reboot?
Aside from despair at the lack of originality (Spidey 1 isn't even a decade old yet, do we really need a reboot so soon?), I'm not that fussed by this. Raimi did a decent job on the first two films, but number 3 was a mess; while I concede that this was due in part to studio interference, his personal plot thread was poor as well. Retconning the death of Uncle Ben is a bold move, but it didn't really work, to my mind. It was a shame, as the scenes with Sandman were some of the best of the film, but c'est la vie. And the less said about 'evil' Peter the better.
So, a change in direction isn't necessarily a bad thing. Webb is best known for romantic comedies, and Sony want to take the franchise back to high school, so we're probably going to get a lighter, more humourous film. Nothing wrong with that - one of the major flaws of the series so far is that Spider-Man hasn't been cracking jokes left right and centre. It's part of the character, and in the right hands, can be done well. The fact that it's been given a budget of $85million will cut back on the spectacular action as well.
So, less action, probably more humour/character scenes. Fair enough. There are other questions though. Will this be an origin story? It's been done well, and not long ago. I think an 'Incredible Hulk' style approach to this would work - a quick montage over the opening credits, before straight into the meat of the film. Most of the audience would know what was happening anyway, if not all of them. What about villain? Green Goblin is the obvious one, as Spidey's nemisis, but we've had three films with Goblins of one sort or another in, so something different would be nice. Venom? He was handled badly in the last film, but there's potential there. He'd probably work better in a sequel though. Seeing Eddie Brock and having some rivalry in the first film would work though. Doctor Octopus has been done, and recently, same for Sandman. There's potential in the Lizard; good for brawls, and he's got the brains to create a serious threat to the city as a whole, if I remember rightly. Plot scenario: an altered version of the Ultimate plot thread. The Lizard starts causing chaos, Norman Osborn tries to track him down to experiment with the serum he used for the super-soldier scheme. Not too complex, not too expensive.
My main request for a reboot would be Brian Michael Bendis doing the script. His Ultimate Spider-Man is probably my favourite Marvel series, full stop, and it would fit Sony's requirements rather well. That aside... Less relationship angst. I know Spidey isn't always the most cheerful of characters, and has a lot of baggage, but would it kill the film to not have him constantly moping over MJ? There are other aspects to his life. I'd like to see Black Cat, for a whole host of reasons. Finally, don't copy things like The Dark Knight. It's a fine film, but that approach won't work for Spider-Man. There isn't much more room for Nolan to make the Batman universe realistic, never mind the Spider-Man universe.
Huh. The more I think about this, the more excited I get. Shame that it probably won't live up to my dreams, but no matter.
Saturday 23 January 2010
Thursday 21 January 2010
Film Review: The Book of Eli
The Book of Eli:
Dir: the Hughes Brothers
Starring: Denzel Washington, Mila Kunis, Gary Oldman, Michael Gambon, Frances de la Tour, Max von Sydow
This seems to be the month of post-apocalyptic dramas, doesn't it? 'The Road' and 'The Book of Eli' in a short space of time. Truly, we are blessed... Kinda.
'Eli' tales the story of broody drifter Eli, walking across America in the aftermath of a nuclear holocaust, heading West with only a massive machete, an iPod, and a mysterious book to his name. Naturally, this quest is complicated by nefarious survivors, not to mention the standard lack of supplies and shelter.
For a start, I should mention that the film is rather beautiful, with the action set against a stark, bleached landscape that evokes the wild west, post nuclear fallout. It's not conventionally pretty, but it is different, which is always to be applauded - although this doesn't extend to the 'city' where a fair chunk of the action takes place; it's a generic shanty town, and the same can be said of the scenes on the road and the Golden Gate Bridge - been there, seen the car strewn road, got the t-shirt.
Still on the positive side, there are sporadic bursts of stylishly brutal violence, with Eli demonstrating some formidable blade skills, and revealing himself to be a pretty good shot as well. We even get some pretty decent performances - Gary Oldman's villainous mayor is a role he could probably play in his sleep, but he's typically good, and Michael Gambon and Frances de la Tour provide a touch of humour as redneck cannibals for a couple of scenes.
Sadly, Denzel Washington as Eli is a rather dull lead, given little to do except brood and kick arse. To be fair, Washington does this well, but as the heart and soul of the film, Eli leaves you feeling cold during the first half of the film. Indeed, at times he comes across as being as bad as the people he spends so much time fighting. And if you're anything like me, you'll spend the second half trying to work out how he can be so ridiculously tough to worry about the fact that you're not engaged with him. Similarly, Mila Kunis as Solara, Oldman's stepdaughter, is restricted to token spunky female - who is dressed in curiously modern fashion for a character born maybe twenty years after a nuclear war. It's comforting to know that skinny jeans will still be around in the final years of the human race, I guess (and iPods, despite being notoriously fragile. The product placement in this film is immense.)
My main problem comes with the film's message: that the world can be saved by faith in God. I don't object to the message in principle, but the way it was delivered left a sour taste in my mouth. For one thing, faith in God here appears to mean you get badass ninja skills and immortality (which would probably do a lot of good for congregation numbers...), with the moral aspects of it rather sidelined. This becomes a plotpoint, true, but nevertheless. Following several scenes of Eli moralising to Solara, the final shot - of the Bible being placed on a shelf - felt like the Hughes brothers were channelling a televangelist, which was deeply irritating. It wouldn't surprise me if the film attracts flak for focussing on Christianity over all over religions. I don't think it would deserve it, but it wouldn't surprise me. Again, it's the final scene more than anything. The Bible is placed next to copies of several other religious texts, but it is bigger and rather more impressive than those copies. It may not have been the intention, but it felt like a conclusion saying "Christianity beats these religions hands down. Forget them." I'd have preferred them not to mention other religions at all; it's an American film, and America is a predominantly Christian country. Why not focus on Christianity? The acknowledgement felt condescending though.
Ultimately, I can't really recommend 'Eli'. It annoyed me more than anything else, and when you find yourself summarising the story by referencing other films, you have to worry. Disappointing.
Dir: the Hughes Brothers
Starring: Denzel Washington, Mila Kunis, Gary Oldman, Michael Gambon, Frances de la Tour, Max von Sydow
This seems to be the month of post-apocalyptic dramas, doesn't it? 'The Road' and 'The Book of Eli' in a short space of time. Truly, we are blessed... Kinda.
'Eli' tales the story of broody drifter Eli, walking across America in the aftermath of a nuclear holocaust, heading West with only a massive machete, an iPod, and a mysterious book to his name. Naturally, this quest is complicated by nefarious survivors, not to mention the standard lack of supplies and shelter.
For a start, I should mention that the film is rather beautiful, with the action set against a stark, bleached landscape that evokes the wild west, post nuclear fallout. It's not conventionally pretty, but it is different, which is always to be applauded - although this doesn't extend to the 'city' where a fair chunk of the action takes place; it's a generic shanty town, and the same can be said of the scenes on the road and the Golden Gate Bridge - been there, seen the car strewn road, got the t-shirt.
Still on the positive side, there are sporadic bursts of stylishly brutal violence, with Eli demonstrating some formidable blade skills, and revealing himself to be a pretty good shot as well. We even get some pretty decent performances - Gary Oldman's villainous mayor is a role he could probably play in his sleep, but he's typically good, and Michael Gambon and Frances de la Tour provide a touch of humour as redneck cannibals for a couple of scenes.
Sadly, Denzel Washington as Eli is a rather dull lead, given little to do except brood and kick arse. To be fair, Washington does this well, but as the heart and soul of the film, Eli leaves you feeling cold during the first half of the film. Indeed, at times he comes across as being as bad as the people he spends so much time fighting. And if you're anything like me, you'll spend the second half trying to work out how he can be so ridiculously tough to worry about the fact that you're not engaged with him. Similarly, Mila Kunis as Solara, Oldman's stepdaughter, is restricted to token spunky female - who is dressed in curiously modern fashion for a character born maybe twenty years after a nuclear war. It's comforting to know that skinny jeans will still be around in the final years of the human race, I guess (and iPods, despite being notoriously fragile. The product placement in this film is immense.)
My main problem comes with the film's message: that the world can be saved by faith in God. I don't object to the message in principle, but the way it was delivered left a sour taste in my mouth. For one thing, faith in God here appears to mean you get badass ninja skills and immortality (which would probably do a lot of good for congregation numbers...), with the moral aspects of it rather sidelined. This becomes a plotpoint, true, but nevertheless. Following several scenes of Eli moralising to Solara, the final shot - of the Bible being placed on a shelf - felt like the Hughes brothers were channelling a televangelist, which was deeply irritating. It wouldn't surprise me if the film attracts flak for focussing on Christianity over all over religions. I don't think it would deserve it, but it wouldn't surprise me. Again, it's the final scene more than anything. The Bible is placed next to copies of several other religious texts, but it is bigger and rather more impressive than those copies. It may not have been the intention, but it felt like a conclusion saying "Christianity beats these religions hands down. Forget them." I'd have preferred them not to mention other religions at all; it's an American film, and America is a predominantly Christian country. Why not focus on Christianity? The acknowledgement felt condescending though.
Ultimately, I can't really recommend 'Eli'. It annoyed me more than anything else, and when you find yourself summarising the story by referencing other films, you have to worry. Disappointing.
Film Review: Avatar
Avatar 3D:
Dir: James Cameron
Starring: Sam Worthington, Sigourney Weaver, Zoe Saldana
On the distant planet of Pandora, inhabited by the Na'vi, the human race is trying to mine the valuable material unobtanium. Unfortunately, the largest deposit is right underneath a native colony. Paralysed marine Jake Sully (Worthington) is recruited for the Avatar project - an experiment in placing human minds in Na'vi bodies - so that he can persuade the Na'vi to leave. He soon finds that his mission will not be as simple as he thinks...
'Avatar' arrived in a storm of publicity and hype; James Cameron's first film in ten years, a cinematic revolution, the film that will justify and perfect 3D technology, the greatest action film of the decade. Indeed, it has just been awarded the Golden Globe for Best Picture. Does it succeed? As always with this question, the answer is a little from column a, and a little from column b. In this case though, the answer is weighted in favour of no.
However, in the areas it succeeds in, 'Avatar' is a triumph. Technologically speaking, this is a genuine revolution. I'm not ashamed to admit that I spent the first twenty minutes of the film quite literally staring at the screen with my jaw dropped. 'Avatar' is a beautiful film. Pandora feels like a genuinely alien world, and the creature designs are stunning. The horse and eagle equivalents will get the most attention of the indigineous wildlife, of course, but my personal favourites were the little bugs that started spinning away when touched. And of course, the Na'vi are superbly realised. Not quite photo-realistic (nothing in the film is) but still beautiful. Furthermore, the 3D is well used - this is not a gimmick, with no trick shots of things flying at the audience. This is a fully developed, subtle 3D world. It's astonishing.
Sadly, this does not extend to...well, to any other aspect of the film. For a start, the script is shockingly derivative. There has been much made of the plot similarities between 'Avatar' and 'Fern Gully' and 'Pocahontas'; but there are innumerable scenes and characters that are straight out of other films. The big finale, for instance, is essentially an amped up version of the battle between the Ewoks and the stormtroopers in 'Return of the Jedi'. Cameron even filches from his own films; the corporate villain, Parker Selfridge (Giovanni Ribsi), is essentially Carter Burke from 'Aliens', and Michelle Rodriguez's Trudy may as well have been given a heavy machine gun and renamed Vasquez for all the difference it would have made in characterisation.
But of course, characterisation isn't the main issue here. The cast are largely required to play archetypes - Jake is the flawed hero, realising what's really important, Trudy is the rebellious jock pilot, Weaver's Dr Augustine is the gruff doctor more interested in her work than anything else, and Stephen Lang's evil colonel is the bigoted psychopath who only wants to kill his enemy. None of the cast deliver a bad performance, per se - it's simply that they have nothing interesting to work with. Saldana's Na'vi princess, Neytiri, is the only stand out performance, appearing truly alien.
The script is unmemorable, with the exception of one line near the end, and due to the fact that we've seen most of the story before, it doesn't really hold interest. There is far more attention paid to the themes, whichh would be fine were they not so badly handled. To be fair, there's nothing wrong with the messages themselves - collaborations between corporate interests and military organisations are bad, and it is important to know who you really are, and what is really important. But the idea of the military being a bad thing is somewhat undermined by the fact that this is a James Cameron film. Anyone seen 'Aliens' recently? Or either of the first two 'Terminator' films? This is made worse by the care and detail lavished on the military hardware, just as impressively designed as Pandora and its inhabitants (although much of it is a "homage" to the walkers of 'Matrix Revolutions'), and the fact that the two biggest threats of the film are destroyed by Jake climbing on top of them and blowing them up. The plot plays out like a gorgeous video game. The final straw is the religion of the Na'vi, which while fine in theory, comes across as ludicrous on screen.
Truthfully, 'Avatar' is not a bad film. It is just that with the exception of the technoligical and artistic sides, there is nothing special about it. The script is average at best, the acting is fine, the plot is predictable. It is entertaining, to be sure, but far from deserving of the praise that has been heaped on it.
However, Cameron does deserve a great deal of credit for his innovations in cinema technology. 'Avatar' may be an average film, but it is an exceptional tech demo. If this is the future of cinema, then the future is bright. But next time, can it be tagged to a decent film please?
Dir: James Cameron
Starring: Sam Worthington, Sigourney Weaver, Zoe Saldana
On the distant planet of Pandora, inhabited by the Na'vi, the human race is trying to mine the valuable material unobtanium. Unfortunately, the largest deposit is right underneath a native colony. Paralysed marine Jake Sully (Worthington) is recruited for the Avatar project - an experiment in placing human minds in Na'vi bodies - so that he can persuade the Na'vi to leave. He soon finds that his mission will not be as simple as he thinks...
'Avatar' arrived in a storm of publicity and hype; James Cameron's first film in ten years, a cinematic revolution, the film that will justify and perfect 3D technology, the greatest action film of the decade. Indeed, it has just been awarded the Golden Globe for Best Picture. Does it succeed? As always with this question, the answer is a little from column a, and a little from column b. In this case though, the answer is weighted in favour of no.
However, in the areas it succeeds in, 'Avatar' is a triumph. Technologically speaking, this is a genuine revolution. I'm not ashamed to admit that I spent the first twenty minutes of the film quite literally staring at the screen with my jaw dropped. 'Avatar' is a beautiful film. Pandora feels like a genuinely alien world, and the creature designs are stunning. The horse and eagle equivalents will get the most attention of the indigineous wildlife, of course, but my personal favourites were the little bugs that started spinning away when touched. And of course, the Na'vi are superbly realised. Not quite photo-realistic (nothing in the film is) but still beautiful. Furthermore, the 3D is well used - this is not a gimmick, with no trick shots of things flying at the audience. This is a fully developed, subtle 3D world. It's astonishing.
Sadly, this does not extend to...well, to any other aspect of the film. For a start, the script is shockingly derivative. There has been much made of the plot similarities between 'Avatar' and 'Fern Gully' and 'Pocahontas'; but there are innumerable scenes and characters that are straight out of other films. The big finale, for instance, is essentially an amped up version of the battle between the Ewoks and the stormtroopers in 'Return of the Jedi'. Cameron even filches from his own films; the corporate villain, Parker Selfridge (Giovanni Ribsi), is essentially Carter Burke from 'Aliens', and Michelle Rodriguez's Trudy may as well have been given a heavy machine gun and renamed Vasquez for all the difference it would have made in characterisation.
But of course, characterisation isn't the main issue here. The cast are largely required to play archetypes - Jake is the flawed hero, realising what's really important, Trudy is the rebellious jock pilot, Weaver's Dr Augustine is the gruff doctor more interested in her work than anything else, and Stephen Lang's evil colonel is the bigoted psychopath who only wants to kill his enemy. None of the cast deliver a bad performance, per se - it's simply that they have nothing interesting to work with. Saldana's Na'vi princess, Neytiri, is the only stand out performance, appearing truly alien.
The script is unmemorable, with the exception of one line near the end, and due to the fact that we've seen most of the story before, it doesn't really hold interest. There is far more attention paid to the themes, whichh would be fine were they not so badly handled. To be fair, there's nothing wrong with the messages themselves - collaborations between corporate interests and military organisations are bad, and it is important to know who you really are, and what is really important. But the idea of the military being a bad thing is somewhat undermined by the fact that this is a James Cameron film. Anyone seen 'Aliens' recently? Or either of the first two 'Terminator' films? This is made worse by the care and detail lavished on the military hardware, just as impressively designed as Pandora and its inhabitants (although much of it is a "homage" to the walkers of 'Matrix Revolutions'), and the fact that the two biggest threats of the film are destroyed by Jake climbing on top of them and blowing them up. The plot plays out like a gorgeous video game. The final straw is the religion of the Na'vi, which while fine in theory, comes across as ludicrous on screen.
Truthfully, 'Avatar' is not a bad film. It is just that with the exception of the technoligical and artistic sides, there is nothing special about it. The script is average at best, the acting is fine, the plot is predictable. It is entertaining, to be sure, but far from deserving of the praise that has been heaped on it.
However, Cameron does deserve a great deal of credit for his innovations in cinema technology. 'Avatar' may be an average film, but it is an exceptional tech demo. If this is the future of cinema, then the future is bright. But next time, can it be tagged to a decent film please?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)