While watching "The Amazing Spiderman", there was this voice inside my head saying "You've seen this before" and replied "Yes...and I liked it the first time I saw it". I must of had deja vu in the theatre. I swear I saw this before, 10 years ago. When 2002's Spiderman blew peoples mind. As uneeded and unessicary this "reboot" is (I don't like calling things "reboots" it sounds cheap. I'd much rather call it "Another adaptation")It still manages to bring home some web-slinging action. Some. Even though I spent the first 30min-1hr rolling my eyes in "Oh great...the origin story again". Not joking. This movie repeats the same exact origin story as 2002's Spiderman. But it seems more...shallow and longer. But I do reward it for giving the audience more of a reason for Peter Parker to become spiderman. But, I thought the first movie did fine doing that as well. Now, lets go to the main lead, Andrew Garfield as Spiderman. He is slightly older than Toby Maguire when he stepped into the suit, but it doesn't show TOO much. But the fact that he is supose to be in High-School? Yeah. Sure. Right. The only way he could look like that is if he repeated. About 4 times. Andrew's charm, for some reason, dosen't hit home for me. It seems like he's saying "Look, I'm trying to do what Toby did, but more edgy." Sorry Andrew. You're a nice kid, but I can't buy you as Spiderman. He dosen't look the part much, he dosen't sound like him, but the kid can act fairly well. Emma Stone is Mary Jan-- I mean Gwen Stacy. Sorry. Even you will get confused. Since there dosen't seem to be a difference in the two. The next hour is just, again, a repeat of Spiderman vs. the Lizard. I do enjoy Rhys Ifans performance as the Lizard, but I don't like the green reptile himself. He's as bland as they get. There is supose to be this whole "DR. Jeckel, Mr. Hyde" kind of thing with him. How? DO lizard talk to themselves? Why? Is it needed? Ugh. I'm being very mean at this movie and I don't know why. It does well. It has a nice cast, a nice new direction and more depth than the Sam Rami films. Perhaps its the sudden epiphany of "Why release a reboot of a series of films only made a decade ago"?. If this is going to be a trend, I quit.
Pros: Nice new leads. Great new direction from Marc Webb. Surprisingly a bit more depth and realism from a Spiderman movie (yeah, you heard right). Good action.
Cons: It is basically a rehash of the first Spiderman. The pacing is off. The jokes fall flat. There seems to be no charm or heart. Plot points are not explained, hoping a sequal will answer them (yes, it's that type of film) There is good action...all 3 scenes of them.
Overall: An enjoyable summer flick. But as a spiderman movie, I dosen't reallt stand out as anything new. If you were to put the films back to back and tell me which one was better, I would choose Sam Rami's Spiderman. This reboot seems seems cheaper, a bit shallower and not as exciting as the amazing set-pieces in the Sam Rami Spiderman series (Good lord, I'm praising the old Spiderman like Citizen Kane. The old one was flawed too, but not noticable)
It's harsh, it's unforgiving and it's reality.
That sentence sums up the classic adaptation of Tennessee William's play "A Streetcar named Desire". It also reflects the mentality of the film's main character, Stanley Kowalski. No other film in history has truly captured drama and real-life in such a prolific way. Southern belle Blanch DuBois (Vivien Leigh) stays with her sister, Stella (Kim Hunter), who lives in New Orleans. Little did Blanche know about the big, buff, barbaric brute that Stella married named Stanley (Marlon Brando). Stanley, who is curious about Blanche's fidelity, goes out of his way to tear her life apart and shatter her illusion of fantasy in contrast with his gritty realism. Such a serious and topical film should not be avoided. Vivien Leigh gives her intentional over-the-top performance for such an over-the-top character. But, it is Brando who steals the show and bursts out the most famous line of the whole film: "Hey Stellllllaaaaa!...Hey Stelllllllaaaaa!".
Pros: Great script, famous performances, great atmosphere, great direction.
Cons: I suggest reading the stage-play before watching the film. You will grasp some ideas about the film better that way.
Overall: "I've always depended on the kindness of strangers". A must see.
"The Avengers" is the most fun I've had in the theater for a long time. It's almost like last year's "Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol", its more than a mindless action movie. It's an action movie with (gasp!) STORY and ACTUAL CHARACTERS! Well, its a simple story. A supernatural demi-god wants to rule the world. But, mere-mortals can stop him. We need a team of heroes. The thing that really shines here is the interaction between the star-strutted cast. Downy Jr. is at his best, Samuel L. Jackson is as bad-ass as ever, Scarlett Johanson is as appealing. Everyone gives great performances. They really gave it their all. And yet, whats surprising to me (much like "Ghost Protocol)is how witty and funny the film is. There are more than action one-liners. Their are in-jokes for geeks, personal jabs at each of the heroes, sarcasm, action-related humor. This film DOES NOT take itself seriously, which is a BIG problem of mine for action movies. All in all, its a must see and I won't feel ashamed putting it as one of the best films of the year. Now it's time to wait for "Dark Knight Rises"...
Pros: Great script, smartly written and coherent. You will never have a "wait--what? What's happening?"" kind of moment. Great performances, really good for a Marvel movie. Amazing action sequences. Does not suffer from "Comic-book movie logic". Everything is well explained and fleshed out. Hulk is just bad-ass in this movie. So is Iron-Man.
Cons: Don't like marvel? Skip then. It's almost marvel-porn. Music score is rather...dull, but exciting. Story maybe a little silly to some.
Overall: A good comic-book movie. Almost reads like a comic-book. A good movie to get you pumped up for Nolan's upcoming "The Dark Knight Rises".
What really shocks me is the nerve. The nerve that writer/director Michel Hazanavicius would really make a silent, black-and-white film in an era where we know that the average popcorn audience does not enjoy. The nerve. "The Artist" is a time machine back to the 1920's-30's. It's a love letter to the silver age of film-making (much how Martin Scorsese's Hugo is a love letter to film in general). It's the story of a famous actor who laughs at the idea of talkies and the story of a pretty-faced actress who wants to make it big and does. We've heard them before. We all know what happens. But "The Artist" makes it shine as if they are new. It looks like a silent film, It feels like a silent film, it's not a modern attempt to make a silent film, it simply is a silent film. Every single solitary detail looks like it came stright from the 20's. The cinematography, the acting, the musical score, Heck, even the slightest transition! "The Artist" is no doubt a modern masterpiece that does not try to be pretentious or tedious, but simply tell a story with no sounds.
Pros: A great premise, concept and atmosphere. Loveable characters, especially the main characters George Valentin and his dog. Main actress is beautiful as well as charming. Great acting. Superb music score. Very entertaining, funny and charming. A great feel good movie.
Cons: If you don't like silent/ black and white films, you mind as well skip....But, your missing a lot. It maybe very outdated to people, especially in this age of film-making.
Overall/Final Verdict: 2011 best. Hands down. A bold daring step into film-making in a world where it is loud and The Artist is silent.