AdSense to Search

Custom Search
Showing posts with label critique. Show all posts
Showing posts with label critique. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 2, 2014

The Amazing Spider-Man review (2012, Action/Thriller/Fantasy, Marc Webb, Columbia Pictures)

 

Sam Raimi's reign of terror ended with the flop that was Spider-Man 3, and I'm all the more grateful for it. 'Twas an overrated series of films, with the flaws of the entire series culminating in one grand display in the final, abhorrent installment. I was hoping that in the future, someone would give the web-head a more deserving film treatment than the Evil Dead director gave us (not to slag off on that series of films at all). For the most part, I felt that The Amazing Spider-Man accomplished that.

Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker/Spider-Man is down-to-earth, likeable, understandable, and has a mischievous streak with a bit of hidden genius thrown in. He compares, in my mind anyway, quite favorably to the insufferable Tobey Maguire portrayal of the hero. Garfield approached his role in a human way, and wasn't so hyper-fixated on his love interest (Emma Stone's adorable & likeable Gwen Stacy) like the borderline stalker that was Raimi's Peter Parker. It's a plus that no one plotline takes almost complete precedence over the others, aside from the main plot where Peter inadvertently drives an ambitious scientist with a chip on his shoulder to become the Lizard, and that he has to stop said villain from turning New York into his twisted new science experiment on a grand scale. 

There are also a few funny scenes in this film, also driving home the down-to-earth approach. In one, Peter Parker one-ups Flash Thompson as the latter continues his minor role as the bullying jock in school, with a triumphant conclusion to the scene. In another, as he's spending time with Gwen Stacy on the high school bleachers, a football flies in his direction. He grabs the football effortlessly (because, you know, he's Spider-Man) and casually tosses the football away, which ends up denting the field post for all to witness. Little scenes like this remind you that you're watching an adaptation of a comic book, the likes of which are not always dark and brooding and, ugh, realistic affairs.

Tangents aside, The Amazing Spider-Man does miss a few notes, or seemingly lose sight of previously established ideas. His spider-sense ability is just short of non-existent throughout the film's duration; he's strong with his arms but isn't the most agile superhero I've seen (Raimi's Spider-Man, while insufferable, seemed a bit more powerful in this regard); the quantity of action is strikingly lacking. In some ways it is a more faithful adaptation of the comics than the Raimi films, but in others it is not. Yet at the same time, it appears to follow some of the same threads as said films. If I just confused you, then we're in the same boat.

The lead-up to Spider-Man's inception in the film differs only slightly from that of the previous installments, and the film gets dragged down a bit by this. One should consider that the first Spider-Man film was no less than ten years before this film, and that most audiences have not forgotten that film's plotline, so this is definitely an unnecessary re-hash. Or it could be that it takes up too much of the film's duration and starves it of its own potential for outstanding action sequences. The brief plot, whenever it props up, regarding his parents' disappearance is a new angle that is not unwelcome, but it gets tossed in the backburner by some point in the film for a more engaging storyline for casual audiences.

One could conclude that because the film is a little more than half of a retread of a film that hardly warranted a remake in the first place (only some adjustments were necessary, such as the overtly melodramatic tone, the excessive 'romantic' plotline, and the daft handling of the Green Goblin villain & his costume). The film needed more of its own identity; more to set it apart from the considerably still-young originals. In spite of this, The Amazing Spider-Man held up just fine.

B-

 The Good:
+ A very moving chemistry between the two leads.
+ Andrew Garfield nails the role
+ Our hero isn't obsessed with his love interest to the point of being a creep.
+ A few funny scenes
+ Slightly more dedicated to its source material

The Bad:
- Retreads so much of what we saw in the 2002 original.
- Disappointing villain
- It makes little sense that the entire city hasn't spread the word on Spider-Man's identity by the end of the plot, considering he revealed himself & his abilities multiple times to many people.
- Rather low-quality CGI.
- Squanders its run-time for the retreaded origin story, thus depriving the viewer of what could have been fantastic action sequences.
-/+ Its sequel...what the hell?







Sunday, May 19, 2013

Absentia review (2011, Horror/Mystery/Thriller, Mike Flanagan, Fallback Plan Productions/Blue Dot Productions)


Seventy-thousand dollars, and we get this hidden gem.

Granted, that is an estimate as far as the web (IMDB's "Box Office" section for the film notes this) is concerned, but if there's a significant grain of truth in that number, then it's quite something. But you may be wondering just why I am harping on this point instead of getting to the point?

The point is that this film is remarkable given its barebones budget. Just think about it: George Romero produced the 1968 horror classic Night of the Living Dead on a $114,000 budget. I don't know what that figure is when you adjust for inflation, but it's quite a bit more than what Mike Flanagan, the director/writer of Absentia, had to work with, and this was done in 2011.

Regardless, the film excels in so many ways in spite of that heavily-restrictive budget. For one, it's a far cry from the typical cheap scares & tricks of the genre today. Instead, the film has a slow, but deliberate pacing to it, building the tension for you to experience throughout the film. When any "in your face" horror does appear, it is appropriate and not forced just to try and get a rise out of the audience.

There's also a bit of drama to experience as well. The premise is that Tricia (Courtney Bell, also involved in the production of the film), eight months pregnant, has nearly finished grieving over the loss of her highschool sweetheart & husband seven years prior. Or so she hopes to believe. When she has to declare him legally dead (in absentia), her guilt comes to haunt her. Her guilt takes on the form of an emaciated, ghoulish-looking image of her husband. As for the reason she's seeing him, it is left up to the viewer's interpretation. As for her situation that may be causing her emotional duress, she's pending delivery of her unborn baby, and creeping unease is haunting her over the course of the film; could she feel guilty for having slept with a man while her husband was still missing? Does she feel that her husband, her teenage-sweetheart, should have been the father? Or could she truly be over the grieving process regarding her loss? That's for you to decide.

In the meantime, her younger sister Callie (Katie Parker) has returned from her status as a drifter searching for answers as to the meaning of life, among other things. Apparently recovering from drug abuse and trying to cope with her own problems through prayer, Callie nonetheless reignites the sister-sister bond with Tricia in their respective times of need. Supportive of her sister when she needs her most, Callie is an important piece of the puzzle in the plot of the film.

However, as time goes on, disappearances occur in their immediate neighborhood, and old cases open up anew, bringing tingling questions with them. To go on further, though, would be to spoil the film unjustly.

First of all, there's no elaborate special effects to be found throughout the film. If you're one of those viewers who needs spectacular visual displays to occur at one point or another, then you're going to be gravely disappointed in this one. Also, as I've mentioned, the film has a deliberate, prodding pace, and it may bore the less attentive of viewers quite a bit. Unlike most horror films ever made, Absentia presents the horror elements through tense buildup, and rather clever release (monsters showing up & other engaging scenes) sparsely.

You're also likely not going to feel like the film has been resolved. What really happened by the end of the film? Did people really disappear without a trace, or did they run away for a life anew? Is there a message, a theme overlying the plot of the film that could explain the rash of people in absentia? What about the thing in the tunnel?

Admirably, the plot is actually rather semi-linear, in that it presents alternate threads throughout the events that unfold. Some may take this as the filmmakers lacking confidence in the storyline they were writing, but I think the filmmakers were rather trying to give the audience the means to come to their own interpretation(s). It's something that is sorely lacking in this overburdened genre that lacks true tension and creativity. Remember when horror was both stunning and surprising? Yeah, it's been a long ass time.

I enjoyed the minimalistic soundtrack as well. There's a low, downbeat dark ambient tune that plays throughout most of the film, and it helps establish the mysterious mood that permeates its duration. A few scenes break what could have been a monotonous soundtrack with light rock songs, cleverly integrated into the activities the characters are actually engaging in (in one scene, Callie is jogging while listening to a track on her MP3 player; a little later, she takes off her headphones and the song dies down). 

Couple the intelligent brand of horror, the open-ended plotline, the down-to-earth characters, and the minimalistic but appropriate soundtrack, Absentia is a showcase of what to do with a horror film, no matter the budget & personnel limitations. Those latter two elements of film-making are not good excuses for churning out recycled crap that generates so much mockery of this genre that possesses enormous opportunities.

B+

The Good:
+ Down-to-earth, obscure actors present believable, at-times sympathetic performances.
+ In spite of the miniscule budget, there seemed to be a very natural, stress-free approach taken to the film. Nothing is overly forced or hammy.
+ A subtle breed of horror that builds tension, then shocks the audience without abusing such things for spectacle sake.
+ Open-ended, semi-linear plotline that is open to interpretation.
+ No overt special effects.

The Bad:
- May leave some viewers unsatisfied with the ending.