The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014) – Review

Review: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 accomplishes essentially what it sets out to do (be entertaining and move the story forward), but it lacks any real meaningful punch (even though it does try quite hard). The film follows the events of The Amazing Spider-Man. Peter Parker (Spider-Man) still struggles with why his father and mother left him as a young boy. This loss is only compounded by his Uncle Ben dying, which leads Peter to break-up with Gwen, believing that she will be safer if she is away from him (he both cannot lose her like he feels he has lost everything else in his life and he made a promise to her dying father to leave her alone). Meanwhile, Harry Osborn has returned to New York to take over Oscorp in the wake of his father’s death, reconnecting with Peter and renewing their friendship. Also meanwhile, Oscorp employee and electrical engineer Max Dillon leads a life of solitude, feeling invisible to the world. During one of Peter’s many patrols as Spider-Man, he rescues Max (and Max becomes obsessed with Spider-Man). Things start to get complicated and fall apart when Max has a devastating accident turning him into Electro. His mind is warped and he believes Spider-Man has betrayed him in some way and he seeks vengeance, as well as power over all those who ignored him his whole life. Peter’s relationship with Harry too becomes frayed when Harry believes that Spider-Man’s blood is the key to helping him ward off the same genetic disease that killed his father, now present in him; yet, Peter is reluctant to help, thinking it will cause more bad than good. And finally, Peter’s relationship with Gwen continues to be complicated. He wants to keep her safe, but their connection is so strong that he cannot seem to stay away.

This review will contain spoilers so see the film first if you do not want to be spoiled. The concern, initially, with The Amazing Spider-Man 2 was that there were too many characters and thus the narrative would be too complicated and muddled – characters not being given time to develop. Director Marc Webb does do a decent job, overall, managing his many characters and the narrative (considering that the script is pretty terrible). He keeps the narrative moving forward more or less with only a few moments that feel slow. The main issues with this film, really, end up being the same issues that the first had, only compounded. The motivations of the characters all feel very forced and contrived as if they are merely plot devices instead of natural and organic. Things seem to happen for no good reason. Character emotions explode without necessary development. The audience is only ever told that the characters feel or are a certain way, but it never takes its time to show the audience why, as thus the audience is never really emotionally invested in the characters or the story.

The biggest offender of this is again the main villain. Max Dillon/Electro is very poorly developed. Basically, he is just a crazy person who suddenly has access to great power. This is all fine and well, except he takes up a big chunk of the film; and, Webb tries to imply that there is some emotional connection between Spider-Man and Dillon and that Dillon does have a redeeming humanity to him, yet none of it works. He is just incredibly boring, nothing he does means anything to the audience, and his whole narrative just wastes everyone’s time. I think he was only included to allow for more cool action sequences involving a flying blue man.

All that said, Electro’s narrative could be forgiven if only Peter and Harry’s relationship worked. Electro is more or less just a henchman by the end anyway, easily dispatched without anyone caring. One of the key elements to this whole film, and maybe the whole series depending on what happens next, is Peter’s relationship with Harry. Webb forgets that cinema is chiefly a visual medium and that viewers need to be emotionally engaged to really care about what is going on. He only ever tells us in regards to Peter’s relationship with Harry. There is no time to develop Harry as a character, so things just escalate because the need for more action sequences demands it and no one is all that interested. The audience needs to feel and see that Peter and Harry are good friends, that they really do mean something to each other. That way, when Peter decides not to help Harry, his heartbreak and the weight of Peter’s decision is palpable and resonates with the audience. As it is now, these decisions exist merely to push the plot forward and really have no actually emotional fortitude (when they really should). Peter having to fight his “best friend” should mean something to the audience and not just exist as mindless spectacle. Harry is also criminally underdeveloped (because so much time needed to be spent on Max Dillon for some reason).

In the first film, Gwen and Peter’s relationship was not particularly managed all that well, succeeding mostly on the chemistry and strength of the actors. This is again mostly true, except this film goes for a very big emotional moment between them and it sadly falls a bit flat. Their relationship is all over the place. Peter is torn between what he believes is his responsibility and his feelings for Gwen. It is clear from their chemistry (despite how hard the script tries to make the audience not like them) that they cannot really bare to be apart; although, Gwen seems to be trying to move on, but Peter cannot let her go (even though he tries). Peter also seems to treat the relationship very one-sided. Everything is about him and not Gwen. Fans of the comics know that Gwen is a doomed character and I applaud Webb for actually going through with her full narrative arc (as most Hollywood films would have side stepped it in some way – for example, in the MCU a character has died in each of the last four films, a character whose death emotionally affects the main characters of the film, only to be brought back and revealed as not actually being dead). This is a transformative moment for the series and for Peter as a character, and yet for the audience it is sad because a character and actress they like is gone but the full devastation that Peter feels is never fully transferred, and thus the moment is wasted. Stemming all the way back to the first film, their relationship is just never really developed in a manner that creates a strong emotional connection with the audience; and so, this film is hollow and nothing more than spectacle. This is something that Webb must get right with Peter and Mary-Jane Watson in The Amazing Spider-Man 3.

Setting the narrative flaws aside for a moment, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 does feature a few very good action scenes. I particularly enjoyed the prologue scene, detailing what happened to Peter’s parents. It is probably the most engaging scene in the film. Although, it too is problematic, as it further disconnects the audience from Peter. Because Peter’s search for the truth is one of the central elements to the series, the audience should discover things as Peter discovers them. Telling the audience information before Peter knows just deflates his discovers dramatically and emotionally.

The best aspect of the film is its tone. Webb really does a good job getting the tone and visual style right, carrying over from the first film. It feels like a Spider-Man film, which is probably the most important aspect for creating an enjoyable experience (I just wish that more care was also taken with all the characters).

The film sets up the future of the series well too. In many ways, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is more of an origin story than the first (but, this also lessens its ability to function as a standalone film – something all the best super hero films do well, including Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2). It sets up Sony’s Spider-Man universe, laying the groundwork for The Sinister Six. Plus, the events of the film really propel Peter Parker into the hero becomes in the end. Before this, Spider-Man was sort of just for fun (in a sense, it is all just a game) without real dire consequences, and thus not as heroic. Now, Peter must move forward having experienced loss directly because of his actions as Spider-Man and with greater villains who know how to hurt him in a more personal way. And thus, there is promise that despite the first two entries being letdowns (in comparison to the original Spider-Man Trilogy and the high standards that those films, or two of them at least, and The Dark Knight Trilogy set for superhero films) the future of the franchise is ripe with potential and may yet produce a good to great film.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Marc Webb was a gamble when he was hired to direct The Amazing Spider-Man, having only previously helmed (500) Days of Summer and a few music videos. It seemed like a savvy choice at the time; and while Webb has done okay with the franchise two films in (somewhat tripped up by awful scripts and character development, but as the director that is still mostly on him), I would not be opposed to Sony changing things up for part three (even though that seems very unlikely, as both films have succeeded at the box office). It also seems that Sony and the Spider-Man producers have still not learned the lesson that if the film is going to have many characters it needs to have a very strong narrative structure balancing each character appropriately. This is was the flaw of Spider-Man 3 (among many others, including Sony and company thinking they knew better than Sam Raimi) and it has continued to carry over to each film since. The writing is just substandard and that desperately needs to change going forward (but will it? Probably not considering these films are all very successful monetarily).

The Amazing Spider-Man 2, however, is visually magnificent. Cinematographer Daniel Mindel and production designer Mark Friedberg have created a world that is vibrant with color and yet still grounded. It is playful yet rooted in a world that the audience can relate to, very much capturing the spirit of Spider-Man the character. Composer Hans Zimmer created a super group to score the film, primarily featuring Johnny Marr and Pharrell Williams. I cannot decide if I liked the score or not, though. On one hand, it is bombastic and exciting in all the right ways, accentuating the action and drama of the film. But on the other hand, some of the choices feel odd and there seems to be a lack of an iconic theme for any of the characters (something superhero films should have). There is really almost nothing to like about Electro in the film, and the score connected to his character may bare part of the responsibility (though a very small part) as it just does not seem to fit at all (both in terms of fitting the character and the tone of the rest of the film and its music).

Even though The Amazing Spider-Man 2 seems to treat its characters as secondary elements of the film, the actors who play them are all mostly good (in the face of having to work with clunky dialog and little to no character development). That said, many good actors are wasted (maybe none more so than Felicity Jones, who basically just shows up as a bookmark, so that everyone can come back to her in a future film in the series). Paul Giamatti and especially Chris Cooper are very good with limited screen time. Dane DeHaan is also very good as Harry Osborn. His character is paper thin (despite being a crucial element to the film universe) and yet DeHaan brings so much to him. Harry is privileged and entitled, but with major abandonment issues. In some ways, he is a cracked mirror reflection of Peter Parker. Jamie Foxx does his best with Max Dillon, creating a very nerdy crazy person. But he, like the script and director, never really invites the audience to care about Max in any way, shape, or form. Foxx is a good actor, but there is nothing to like about Electro. Emma Stone is good again as Gwen Stacy. She is very charismatic and that translates very well for the audience, doing a lot of the narrative’s work for it. Regardless of her character’s development, Stone’s charm is enough to make her likable and engage the audience (at least superficially). Andrew Garfield is also again good as Peter Parker. His version of Peter Parker has a lot of fun as Spider-Man and seems to have a strong moral grounding, but the complications of his personal life as Peter wear him down. He does not seem to know what he wants exactly (but who does). His chemistry with Stone is the best aspect of the series so far. It is sad that there will not be more from these characters together as their story never really got going in any real meaningful way (despite what the films might have you believe); but at the same time, I am interested to see how Peter grows as a character in the wake of the tragic events and how his relationship develops with MJ. Emd of spoilers.

Summary & score: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is all flash and no bang – that is to say, it looks wonderful, has some good action, but again seems to miss the mark when it comes to creating characters that the audience can care about in any real way. 5/10

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) – Review

Review: The Amazing Spider-Man is a mixture of things that work and things that do not work. The film is about Peter Parker, an orphaned high school student who gains spider-like superpowers after being bitten by a genetically engineered super spider. His powers are put to the test when a scientist, Dr. Curt Connors, tries a trans-species genetic experiment on himself and turns into The Lizard, who wreaks havoc on New York City. Peter also finds love in the form of classmate and fellow nerd Gwen Stacy. Being that this film has nothing to do with Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man Trilogy, I am not going to compare and contrast them, rather I am going to just let this new version stand on its own. Starting with the elements of the film that work: director Marc Webb gets the visual style for Spider-Man right. His suit is dirty and lived-in, not everything is glossy and clean. And the same goes for the world Peter lives in, it feels realistic, which helps ground the spectacle and fantasy of the film and its characters. Webb does a great job with Peter and Gwen (in terms of garnering great performances and the tone of each character). Their characters and relationship are the most compelling aspect of the film. Peter is cocky and wisecracking as Spider-Man but shy and somewhat reclusive as Peter and Gwen is confident and intellectually right there with Peter, making them a good match. First-love is something viewers can relate to and has a powerful nostalgic charm, and thus the audience relates to Peter in this respect. The action set pieces are well done and build throughout. Stan Lee has probably his best cameo to-date (both being very funny and seamlessly fitting into the narrative). And finally, Webb gets the tone of Spider-Man right (for the most part). The film is fun and entertaining firstly, but he also gives Spider-Man grave situations and consequences that he must deal with and that shape him. The film is light enough to have funny moments, but serious enough to allow the more dramatic moments to have weight and significance. Now the things that do not work: The principle issue with the film is that the motivations of the characters are not strongly detailed for the audience (if at all). Why does Gwen seem to really like Peter right off? Is it because he stood up to Flash Thompson? Is that enough for her to seemingly be completely infatuated with him, even though he speaks to her for the first time ever moments after standing up to Flash (and it somewhat seems like she does not even know his name)? Webb does not give the audience enough dramatic character development for their relationship to really feel organic and honest. As is, the audience accepts it because that is how it is in the books or the movie-marketing told them they are romantically linked. Yes, their relationship is the best aspect of the film, even without the strong character development, because the chemistry is great and the performances are great. The audience understands why Peter likes Gwen. Webb visually shows them that he does (a picture of her is his desktop wallpaper, for example) and has from afar for some time, but Gwen’s motivation for liking Peter back immediately and so strongly is not clear (and does not really make sense). Continuing with the issue of characters’ lack of motivation, what causes Connors’s sudden change of heart from wanting to stop Ratha from delivering his formula to Osborn for it to be tested on V.A. patients because it turned him into a lizard to wanting to turn everyone in NYC into a lizard like him? It made no sense. Webb uses a very sloppy scene in which Connors seemingly has two personalities that are fighting each other (one that is timid, Connors, and one that craves power, the Lizard) to try to explain why Connors decides to turn everyone into lizards – done with competing voice-overs (signaling that this was probably added and done in postproduction – also, random side-note, how did Connors build a new office/lab in the sewer? How did he get internet and access to the power grid down there? He is a scientist specializing in reptiles, not an electrical engineer – oh boy, this is getting off track). The problem is that this scene just randomly shows up. There is no set up for Connors internal struggle. Webb does an awful job with Connors overall. There is little to no character development, and thus his motivations are unclear, which in turn removes all dramatic tension from his actions. The audience does not care about him or anything he is doing, and thus their stake in the outcome is diminished. This is only worsened by the fact that Webb does not give Peter and Connors enough character development together either. Connors is merely some guy that used to work with Peter’s father, and Peter only relates to him in as much as to try to discover the truth behind why his father disappeared. Yes, Peter feels responsible for giving Connors the equation that made his transformation into the Lizard possible, but they never really have a true connection, which again removes the tension from the action scene in which Peter is trying to stop Connors and lessens the audiences’ stake in the outcome even more. The audience is watching it more so to see what happens and to partake in the cool action set pieces than a much more engaged and visceral experience in which they are right there with the characters and truly care about what happens to them (which makes more a much more enthralling and lasting movie experience). This is almost a completely debilitating flaw in the film. The characters are just sort of secondary to the action and special effects, propped up by good performances. Even Uncle Ben’s death is handled in a drama reducing manner. Peter is not directly the cause. Sure, he could have stopped the eventual killer maybe, but it is done in such a way that Peter is really only slightly indirectly involved, and thus again Webb has let potential character development and real emotional drama slip away. Without being the cause of Uncle Ben’s death (in as much as Peter is the cause in the books), how will he learn responsibility for his actions? Something that greatly shapes him as Spider-Man. Thus, Webb leaves us with a film that is spectacular in many ways, but without a strong adversary for Peter, no clear motivations for the Lizard (or Gwen) and very weakly drawn characters The Amazing Spider-Man is nothing more than a fun summer blockbuster, one that does not standup to the great comic-book films that drive audience expectations.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Marc Webb, coming off the indie hit (500) Days of the Summer, has shown that visually and performance wise he is a very competent Hollywood director, able to handle big budget action/adventure films. However, and this could be attributed to the film having three different writers credited (each scripting a different daft) and/or the film seemingly having a condensed runtime at the expense of some the characters (especially Connors), he certainly needs to work on his ability to craft a more efficient and strong narrative structure, particularly pertaining to strong characters. If he directs the sequel, he should have an easier time without all the Spider-Man origin stuff to get through putting a time constraint on the rest of the story. I suspect that the sequel will be much better as a lot of the important pieces are in place (i.e. a good cast and crew). James Horner delivers a good score that has a different vibe to it than most comic-book/superhero film compositions. That said, it did not have an iconic theme for Spider-Man, something that is needed in such a film as this (though, I did like this piece a lot). John Schwartzman’s cinematography is also very good. Schwartzman has a grand scale to his visuals that work well in the action set pieces. He also gives the film a grittier ‘lived-in’ look and feel, complementing Webb’s vision. J. Michael Riva’s production design (he is a carryover from Spider-Man 3) is great in a few places. Peter and Gwen’s rooms fit their personalities very well (the Rear Window poster is an awesome piece of set decorating), and the Oscorp tower in its entirety is fantastic. Webb did do a good job with his cast. Martin Sheen is quite good as Uncle Ben (Peter’s surrogate father). He has warmth to him, while exuding the principles of a strong moral code. Sally Field’s Aunt May is sort of a deer in headlights. In her eyes, Peter is a troubled youth (and yet it seems as if she knows he is Spider-Man at the end and that reconciles her feelings). Field is fine, but her character is not very well written. Denis Leary is fantastic as Captain Stacy, bringing energy to the film and stealing scenes. Rhys Ifans has a very difficult part. As shown in the film, Connors is very under written and lacking lots of needed character moments. But, Ifans does bring humanity to Connors even so. Emma Stone is brilliant as Gwen (maybe even stealing the whole movie). The audience gets why Peter likes her, because they like her. She is cool and sweet, but capable of fending for herself. She does not need to be rescued (which is refreshing). Andrew Garfield plays Peter well. He is a loner, who is going through a lot of tough emotional stuff, dating back to his parents’ death. Yet, Spider-Man is almost like an emotional release for him, something that allows him to finally experience pure joy. And, Garfield is able to covey that well.

Summary & score: The Amazing Spider-Man is a fun enjoyable superhero film and good first chapter to potentially a new trilogy, but pales in comparison to the great films in its genre. 7/10

LeapBackBlog 2010 Film Awards – Part 2: Supporting Performances

Film in 2010 was fantastic, full of great performances, great directing and great work behind the camera (or in post-production). More so than the last few years, 2010 had a greater number of excellent films, which made choosing the best films, performances, directors, and technical achievements very difficult. The LeapBackBlog Film Awards are comprised of what I think were the best and most interesting films, the strongest performances (taking into consideration who the actor is and what else they have done, and 2010 features a lot of amazing breakthrough performances), the narrative style that drew me in (best directing), and exquisite craftsmanship (best technical achievements). But really, these are lists of my favorites from the year.

Part 1: Technical Achievements
Part 3: Directors
Part 4: Leading Performances
Part 5: Films

Supporting Performances:

Christian Bale – The Fighter

Bale is a fantastic actor, becoming the characters he portrays. In The Fighter he does not so much play a role or portray a character, rather he is Dickie Eklund. It is the performance of the year (along with Claire Danes in Temple Grandin). What makes it so good, aside from Bale’s uncanny ability to transform himself completely into each character, is that we sort of root for Dickie even though he can be thought of as one of the film’s villains (in a sense). Dickie sort of becomes the hero of the piece due directly to Bale’s brilliance and the empathy he elicits.

Helena Bonham Carter – The King’s Speech

Carter is known for her whimsical and dark characters. She is, however, very versatile. In The King’s Speech, she is very restrained and modest, but still inserts a bit of her mischievousness into the character, though subtly. It is my favorite supporting actress performance of the year. Carter had a good year, also giving great performances in Harry Potter in the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 and Alice in Wonderland.

Marion Cotillard – Inception

Cotillard is beautiful, and she uses her allure well in her performances. In Inception, she plays the villain, but a sympathetic one – her performances plays as tragic and powerful, a difficult mix. The film has wonderful performances and characters throughout, but her performance is the most important as it is the emotional core driving Cobb’s decisions, and Cotillard plays it amazingly well.

Andrew Garfield – The Social Network

What a year for Garfield! He starred in two of the best films (The Social Network and Never Let Me Go), was amazing as the lead in Red Riding: 1974 and won the role of Peter Parker in the new Spider-Man film. But it is his performance in The Social Network as Eduardo Saverin that stands out. The character is an unfortunate one, getting betrayed and left behind. Garfield plays the role as soft and heartfelt, a real likable guy, making the deception and villainy of Sean Parker and Zuckerberg all the more powerful. He, along with the amazing performance by Rooney Mara in the opening scene, provides the catalyst for all the other performances, especially Jessie Eisenberg’s, to build off of, resulting in it being a great film (and I have to say Armie Hammer was fantastic in the film too).

Rebecca Hall – The Town

Hall plays her characters to be sweet and loving, but there is still a strong woman in there too. This comes out in The Town. She is traumatized by what happens to her in the beginning, but is strong enough to not only overcome it, but actively stand up to other strong characters and performances in the film. Hall has the brunt of the emotional work to do in the film, while also needing to have the audience fall in love with her, as the main character does. She does all these things flawlessly, making the film all the more better and emotionally impactful.

Tom Hardy – Inception

Hardy has a breakout performance in Inception. He plays his role as Eames, the forger, as if he was James Bond, and it is brilliant. His bravado mixed well with the array of characters and acting talent. The interplay between his character and Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s Arthur is funny and a bonus to a great action-thriller. Director Christopher Nolan must have thought his performance was great too, casting him in his next film: The Dark Knight Rises.

Sean Harris – Red Reding: 1980

Harris is deranged and downright scary in Red Reding: 1980. This is the kind of role he plays exceptionally well (as can also be seen in Harry Brown). His Bob Craven is a crooked cop that is slimy, squirrely and just despicable. Yet, he commands the attention of the viewer, as he is like lit dynamite – you are nervous and anxious watching, but cannot look away as the devastation it will leave in its wake fascinates you.

Melissa Leo – The Fighter

Leo completely transforms into her character in The Fighter. She is strong and sort of awful, yet still emits compassion and love. She will make the viewer hate her and in the next moment symphonize and then hate her again. What makes the performance all the more impressive is that she holds her own against very strong performances from Christian Bale and Amy Adams. Just like with Frozen River, Leo distinguishes herself as one of the top actresses in Hollywood (though, she typically sticks to indy films).

Jeremy Renner – The Town

Renner has been acting in tons of stuff for years, but it was 2009’s The Hurt Locker that put him on the radar of movie-goers and industry professionals. In The Town, he is excellent. He has such an edge to him in the film that anything seems possible at any moment. His performance alone will keep the audience enthralled and on pins and needles. Many who saw the film complained that there was not enough of him in it – certainly a complement to his talent.

Ellen Wong – Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

Wong probably is not going to make too many 2010 “best of the year” lists I suspect, but she should. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World represents her first major acting role and she is simply brilliant as Knives Chau. Her spunk and adorableness make every scene she is in better. The film features great work from an ensemble cast, but Wong and Kieran Culkin are the standouts. Director Edgar Wright liked her performance so much he adapted the ending of the movie as to not leave her character hurt (emotionally). Personally, I look forward to her future work.

Never Let Me Go (2010) – Review

Never Let Me Go is haunting, heartbreaking and seemingly against human instinct, and yet upon deeper reflection illuminates a truth about humanity – none of us has enough time, so we should make the best of it (which is much more poetically done in the film, versus the cliché I just wrote). While the film does have sci-fi overtones, director Mark Romanek and screenwriter Alex Garland do not try to warp their story into a sci-fi thriller (something that very easily could have been done, and something I suspect some audiences were hoping for), rather they are interested solely in their characters and their specific narrative, which benefits the film. Romanek made a very subtle film in that nothing is exaggerated or flamboyant – the look of the film and performances are restrained, the visuals are more and more dismal tonally as the film progresses as the characters come to terms with their stations in life. Though, despite the bleak tone that the film has, there is a beautiful quality to the visuals and the simplistic nature of the characters. They are to an extent completely innocent, though somewhat corrupted by the agenda of the outside world. They are raised in a utopian controlled society (though I would call it dystopian given the full narrative), groomed for a specific purpose only, one that is utterly horrific (the absolute disregard of the outside world for these people is best shown in Ruth’s last scene, they are considered soulless) and foreign to us, but they accept it and even take pride in it as noble work. A common reaction is why do they not try to escape, but they know nothing else. Sure, some very well may try to flee (as chaos is always evident even in the most controlled system), but that is a different story. We (and seemingly especially Americans) want to take charge and influence the outcome of our lives, rebel in a sense, which is why Kathy and Tommy’s acceptance is hard to swallow. But really, it is no different than what we do everyday. We make do with what we have. We often accept our circumstances. And in many cases, it is out of our hands, and even so we still find meaning and take pride in our work and lives. At its heart, this is a love story and about friendship. It is clear, even as children, that Kathy and Tommy should be together. But life gets in the way, as it often does for all of us. The little time they do get is a reminder to the viewer to take stock of what they have and what they want. Notwithstanding the sad tonality of the film, messages of love, friendship and redemption resonate deeper and have a lasting impact on the audience. The film is very powerful, as it stays with the viewer long after the credits role. Though as beautiful and engaging as the film is, it is not for everyone. Being more concerned with the characters’ emotions, thoughts and experiences, leaving the outside world to the imagination, the film does not have much action (leaving action seekers to feel bored). It is built on a structure of three times that these characters interacted. The audience sees the transition of the relationship of the characters, but again the film is not superficially over dramatic (as is the case in many Hollywood films), it is subtle, nothing is telegraphed, the viewer empathizes with the characters (especially Kathy) based on emotions the film evokes in the viewer organically (aka, the score does not exaggerate the drama, and the narrative does not explicitly pull on the audiences’ heartstrings for a artificial influenced reaction). Yet, the delicate approach that Garland and Romanek take can be lost on some viewers (specifically those not inclined for this type of film). Never Let Me Go may be a film full of sorrow, even shockingly grim, but underneath the narrative speaks to themes of love, loyalty, redemption, and the lasting message of seize the day, make the most out of your life and try to be happy.

Technical achievements: director Romanek and writer Garland have made an exceptional film based on what was commonly referred to as an un-filmable novel by Kazuo Ishiguro. The script and direction are sparse in that they only gives the viewer the essential pieces and do not linger – something that is quite difficult to do well. Romanek and Garland took the novel and adapted it to tell their particular story and did not try to recreate everything in the book or be overly ambitious with their narrative focus – things that often make for not so great film based on good novels. The film, while being a take on the novel, is its own entity, completely separate and should be viewed that way. Romanek also succeeded greatly in putting together his cast and crew as they are all phenomenal in their work. Production designer Mark Digby does a wonderful job of both portraying the coldness of the outside world (Kathy’s apartment is so barren and sad), but also capturing the warmth of the characters. Cinematographer Adam Kimmel does standout work on the film. His photography is a treat and stunning. The score by Rachel Portman is also exceedingly good. She is able to deliver music that captivates the audience. The cast of the film is first-rate. The adult actors have small roles in the film, as the narrative is almost completely exclusive to Tommy, Ruth and Kathy, but Charlotte Rampling, Sally Hawkins and Nathalie Richard are all quite good. The film also features child actors, who needed to be just as good as their older counterparts for the narrative to fully resonate. Romanek is able to get very good performances from his young actors with the standout being the work of Izzy Meikle-Small. She is able to do the heavy emotional lifting effortlessly. The film’s three main stars are fantastic. Carey Mulligan and Keira Knightley are both very good, but Andrew Garfield is amazing. He is so hopeful and innocent that his seems to be the most tragic of the three.

Never Let Me Go is an aesthetically magnificent film, full of great performances, but it is not a film for everyone, exploring the end message of live life to the fullest through a heartbreaking story of love and friendship. 9/10

Stars to Watch: Part 1 – Movies Spotlight – October 2010

Cinema constantly has new talent each and every year, making good films and opening audiences’ eyes to new characters, stories and worlds. Six such newcomers in particular are having a breakthrough year – Chloe Grace Moretz, Andrew Garfield, Rooney Mara (Part 1), Emma Roberts, Aaron Johnson, and Gemma Arterton (Part 2), each with a new film coming out in October.

Chloe Grace Moretz:

What She’s Been In:

Moretz, 13, got her start when her family moved to LA in 2003 and she was cast in a role in the series The Guardian, appearing in two episodes. Her first film role came in Heart of the Beholder. In 2005 she got her next film role in The Amityville Horror remake earning her first Young Artist Award nod (of four). She continued to appear in TV shows and films for the next few years before her first breakthrough role, highlighted by Desperate Housewives, My Name is Earl, Bolt, Dirty Sexy Money, and My Friends Tigger & Pooh.

Breakthrough:

In 2009 Moretz had her first breakthrough performance as Rachel Hansen in (500) Days of Summer, a role in which she seemed to be wise beyond her years offering advice and reconciliation to heartbroken Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Then in 2010, she burst onto the scene as Hit-Girl in Kick-Ass, garnering the attention of cinema goers and practically stealing the show. Her performance is wonderfully comedic and perfectly charismatic, oh yeah and subversive. As the credits play, everyone in the theater knew a star had been born.

October Film:

Moretz follows up Kick-Ass with this month’s Let Me In, a film in which she gives another fantastic performance. The film tells the story of a young lonely boy, Owen, who is bullied at school and ignored at home. He befriends a young girl, Abby, who has just moved into his apartment complex (Moretz) – and she also happens to be a vampire. It is a great horror/romance/coming-of-age film. Go see it.

Upcoming:

With great performances in Kick-Ass and Let Me In this year, Moretz is in high demand (she has seven films currently on her slate). Next up she has a role in Untitled Comedy, a feature film composed of short comedy segments. Then she is in Martin Scorsese’s first 3-D film (really, even Scorsese is buying into this) Hugo Cabret about an orphan living in 1930s Paris in a train station trying to solve a mystery involving his late father and a robot. She has another four films scheduled for 2011 and then Kick-Ass 2: Balls to the Wall in 2012. If anything, she certainly has a bright future and some cool films coming up.

Career Highlights:

1.) (500) Days of Summer (2009) – supporting [Blu-ray/DVD/Rent]

2.) Kick-Ass (2010) – supporting* [Blu-ray/DVD/Rent]
3.) Let Me In (2010) – lead* [Blu-ray/DVD/Rent]

*Editor’s picks

Andrew Garfield:

What He’s Been In:

Garfield, 27, got his start after graduating from England’s Central School of Speech and Drama in 2004 appearing in local youth theatre productions. He won the MEN Theatre Award for his performance in Kes and later the Evening Standard Theatre Award for outstanding newcomer in 2006. Having made a name for himself on the stage, he changed his focus to film. He first appeared in a number of British TV series, including Doctor Who, before getting his first big roles in Boy A and Lions for Lambs. Boy A in particular was well received by critics and his performance was noted as being very good. He also had a brief cameo in The Other Boleyn Girl.

Breakthrough:

Garfield’s first breakthrough performance came in 2009’s the Red Riding Trilogy. He stars in the first part – Red Riding: In the Year of the Lord 1974. The film is the best of the series and Garfield’s performance is one of the best of the year. He also got a role in Terry Gilliam’s The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (featuring Heath Ledger’s last performance) and the co-lead in the critically acclaimed festival favorite Never Let Me Go also starring Keira Knightley and Carey Mulligan. These two films being distributed in the U.S. along with the Red Riding Trilogy’s release on DVD and streaming on Netflix.com garnered him exposure with American audiences leading to him landing the lead in Sony’s flagship franchise (to be discussed below).

October Film:

This month Garfield co-stars in The Social Network about the founders of Facebook. This film is excellent, directed by David Fincher and written by Aaron Sorkin. It is certainly one of the best of the year and a must see for those a part of the online social experience as the film is about you, in a sense. Garfield’s performance in the film is great, and probably the best of the film, again further establishing him as one of the best young actors today.

Upcoming:

Earlier in the year with Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man 4 falling apart, Sony Entertainment announced they would be rebooting the franchise with a new director and cast. The new Spider-Man film will be directed by Marc Webb, hot off the success of last year’s (500) Days of Summer, based on the script by Zodiac writer James Vanderbilt. Garfield won the lead role of Spider-Man and now Emma Stone has been announced as Gwen Stacy. With a number of very good performances under his belt, Garfield can now look forward to worldwide fame with the release of the film in 2012.

Career Highlights:

1.) Boy A (2007) – lead [DVD/Rent]

2.) Red Riging Trilogy – lead* [Blu-ray/DVD/Rent]

3.) The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus – supporting [Blu-ray/DVD/Rent]
4.) Never Let Me Go – lead* [Blu-ray/DVD/Rent]
5.) The Social Network – supporting* [Blu-ray/DVD/Rent]

*Editor’s picks

Rooney Mara:

What She’s Been In:

Mara, 25, started her career with a small role in the direct-to-video horror sequel Urban Legends: Bloody Mary in 2005. She was inspired to get into acting looking up to her older sister and actress Kate Mara. She then got bit roles in a number of TV shows including Law & Order: SVU, Women’s Murder Club, The Cleaner, and ER. In 2008 she was cast in her first feature to be distributed, Dream Boy, following it up in 2009 with small roles in indy films Dare and Friends (With Benefits). She got some more mainstream exposure with roles in 2010’s Youth in Revolt and The Winning Season, though still only being cast in small parts.

Breakthrough:

Mara got her first leading role in 2009’s Tanner Hall, though it only received very limited distribution. Her first breakthrough came with this year’s remake A Nightmare on Elm Street. She played a co-lead among a few better known TV actors all being hunted and terrified by Freddy Krueger (Jackie Earle Haley). While critics were not overly impressed with the film, many listed the performances of Mara and Haley as the highlight. It was also her first film to receive a wide release finally getting her name and face out there.

October Film:

She also stars in this month’s The Social Network – though in a limited by very important role. She is incredible in her scene opposite Jesse Eisenberg that opens and sets up the whole film. The film really serves as her second breakthrough as not only is she fantastic and memorable, but also it will likely be an Oscar Best Picture contender which will only bring more acclaim and awareness her way. 

Upcoming:

Up next for Mara, and what should really serve as her coming out party, is David Fincher’s remake of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo in 2011. She plays co-lead Lisbeth Salander, a computer hacker who helps Mikael Blomkvist investigate a mystery involving a missing girl. Mara stars opposite Daniel Craig as Blomkvist. She won the role, which was highly coveted among many of Hollywood’s best young actresses, due to her great work with Fincher in The Social Network. He obviously saw something special in her, and if you see The Social Network (and you should) so will you.

Career Highlights:

1.) The Social Network – supporting* [Blu-ray/DVD/Rent]

*Editor’s picks

The Social Network (2010) – Review

The Social Network is smart, funny, engaging, interesting, and so much more than anyone could have ever guessed a film about Facebook would be (and yeah, the overall truthfulness of the story depicted is irrelevant to me). Right from the first scene (and what a brilliant scene it is, probably the best I have seen this year, to date) it is clear that this is a special film. The interplay and fast-moving pointed dialog between all the characters is beyond top-notch and is something that is missing in most Hollywood films. What makes this scene so good, and many in the film, is that right from the beginning the audience completely understands the characters, the film and the magic of what is about to happen. Only to be followed up with a scene that completely revolutionizes how technology can and maybe should be portrayed to the masses. While what Mark Zuckerberg is doing is complicated, director David Fincher and screenwriter Aaron Sorkin design the scene to be completely and somewhat universally understood. Sure there is technical jargon throughout the film, but it does not matter or hinder the viewer’s overall understanding. However, this is not what makes the film great. The film is a tale about a young man that is completely alone and sad. He is brilliant, but that does not translate into his ability to make friends – which is ironic given the subject matter (and really the premise of Facebook – are your Facebook friends actually your real life friends). Fincher is able to capture a character and promote him in such a way that he should be the protagonist, but does the audience like him – probably not. But he is not an antagonist either, not really at least. Zuckerberg is trapped in what he imagines is the way things are and should be and that influences his attitude, persona and decisions. But the problem is that his perception is altogether flawed and really more of an ideal than an actuality, which isolates him even more and fundamentally disconnects him from humanity and reality. He does not have any friends, because he does not actually understand what it is to be or have a friend. And thus the story is sad. The viewer could hate him, as he is kind of a jerk, all the time, but he does not know any better or even have the capability to know better as he seems to have no basis for real human interaction, which is why he is so drawn to the social internet experience. His one true goal is too be esteemed and respected – which influences his behavior (stemming again from what he thinks he should act like to garner these attributes from others). When others succeed because of inherent wealth alone, he is jealous and spiteful. He champions self-made, bottom to the top, types (because that is what he essentially is). The film is on the surface the interesting story of the founding of Facebook, but really Fincher and Sorkin are more interested in the character of Zuckerberg (or one like him). Facebook is a backdrop and could be anything. It is not the point. The point is to look at what our society has become, as Zuckerberg is an amalgamation, and maybe exaggeration, of the culture of the modern computer-social man – alone and disconnected from real meaningful experiences. He longs for real interaction, but he just does not know how, and yet he creates the most successful social network ever. The story carries the audience, as there is no character that they can get behind and root for, which would often be the downfall of a film – if the viewer does not care about the characters, then they do not have a stake in the outcome and thus are not full engaged in the narrative – but Fincher is able to look at his characters, society and culture in an earnest manner while substituting story for protagonist. It is risky, but he does it masterfully (though, I wonder how well the film plays upon multiple viewing – now that you know the story and are left with the characters, does it still work? I think it does because again, Fincher and Sorkin substitute protagonist with wonderful dialog and scenes and perfect performances that intrinsically emote the needed emotions that influence the viewer, regardless whether there is a likable character to take stock in). The Social Network works because Fincher is a great director and knows how to structure a complicated film with mostly unlikable characters.

Technical achievements: as stated at agony above, director Fincher and writer Sorkin are masters of narrative storytelling and this film basically succeeds on their talent (in lesser hands this would just be a stale film with limited interest based on each viewer’s appeal in knowing the story of the founding of Facebook – i.e. more than likely it would not be good). The film is also very good aesthetically. Cinematographer Jeff Cronenweth (and Fincher movie veteran) collaborates well with Fincher allowing the camera be fluid and moving, yet focus on what is most important. The color scheme, like many of Fincher’s films, is dark with brown and earthy colors making for a kind of depressing overtone to the film, but given the character and subject matter it is quite fitting.  The editing by Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall in film is great, which it needed to be to precisely capture the wit and interplay of the scenes, characters and dialog. Donald Graham Burt’s production design is good, fitting the feel of the scenes well. The score by Atticus Ross and Trent Reznor is outstanding. While it is subtle in places, it captures the loneliness in the story (I loved what I think is Reznor’s rendition of In the Hall of the Mountain King). The cast is great in the film; all are very suited and give good performances. However, there are a few that are just amazing. The film’s star, Jesse Esenberg, perfectly encapsulates the character (though it is on-type for him, but still it is a wonderful performance). Andrew Garfield is among the best young actors working today, and he shows it with his performance. He is just a kid, naïve to the ways of the world desperately trying to be an adult. Justin Timberlake plays his role as we imagine he is like, yet behind the wow is a tragic figure akin to Leonardo DiCaprio’s Howard Hughes. The two breakout performances in the film belong to Armie Hammer and Rooney Mara. Nether is given lots of screen time, but they are mesmerizing in what they have. Hammer is hilarious, while Mara needed to be perfect, as her performance launches the whole narrative (and she is). The film has a difficult narrative structure to derive a great film from, being that there is no real protagonist or character of any sort to cheer for or get behind, but Fincher, cast and crew do just that – make a great film.

The Social Network lives on its wit, performances and irony. It challenges the audience to engage themselves in a study of a flawed and lonely character, and they do – enjoying every bit of it. 9/10