Birdman (2014) – Review

Review: Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) is to some extent sheer madness. Also, it is a very funny and incredibly ambitious drama.

The film is about Riggan, a former movie star who came to fame through his portrayal of the superhero Birdman in the early 1990s. Now, Riggan is a washed up has-been. He is not satisfied with his dwindling career, however, engaging in a revival by way of writing, directing and starring in his own adaptation of a classic stage play. With the play just days away, Riggan begins to feel overwhelmed with everything, as the tumultuous play begins to resemble his own life and vice versa. Meanwhile, his Birdman character begins speaking to him. At first, Riggan just ignores this inner voice, but then he starts listening, as things just spin out of control.

The first thing that needs to be said about Birdman, and I would guess Michael Keaton was cast for this role because if the character’s similarity to his own background (in addition to Keaton being just right for the part), is that the character of Riggan is like an exaggerate version of Keaton, who played Batman for two films (Batman in 1989 and Batman Returns in 1992 – and really, Batman…Birdman…come on). Keaton is also known for playing his characters on the verge of a complete mental break (sometimes over the edge, in the case of Beetlejuice). Keaton, too, is looking for a career resurgence. He is brilliant in Birdman, hopefully spring-boarding his comeback.

The next thing that needs to be said about Birdman is just how insanely ambitious and aesthetically magnificent it really is with its long takes and ultra-kinetic style. It is utter madness, yet works wondrfully. Writer-director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu has made something truly special with the film aesthetically. The film should be among the awards favorites in terms of directing, cinematography, and production design.

One last thing to say really quickly before diving more into an analysis of the film, Inarritu captures many of the best performances of 2014 in Birdman. It is a film that excels principally as art in many ways. The kinetic, yet highly structured shooting style seems to breathe so much life into the performances, allowing the actors to live in the moment, having the freedom to just perform without all the cuts. It is electric to watch (and it must have been incredibly stressful and difficult to produce). The whole film is made up of a series of long takes, in-between which time jumps forward, as the narrative progresses.

One reading of the film might see it as Riggan’s decent into madness. He is already on the edge as it opens, but as the narrative plays out he is pushed out further and further until he has no choice but to jump. Inarritu plays with his audience in this regard as well, making Riggan feel like he is on the precipice of suicide – that he could just end it all at any moment. This makes everything feel a bit tense. On top of that, Riggan is delusional, a bad husband, a bad father, a bad boyfriend (to his new girlfriend), a bad director, and probably even a bad actor. He begins to realize each of these things as he also realizes that he has no control of his own life. The play is everything to him. He has put everything he has and is into it in the hopes of sparking new life and it is a disaster. As he begins to accept he has no control, he gives up trying to fight the madness growing inside him, instead reveling it, encouraging the madness to come in and hand-in-hand leading it to the precipice, taking it all in.

Inarritu plays with parallels in the film: shared imagery or feelings that are later expressed visually. At one point Riggan is shown to jump off a building (playing on the feeling the audience has that he might commit suicide at any moment) only to soar through the streets of New York City unhurt, flying all the way back to the theatre (although, it is then revealed that he really just took a cab back). There is a similar moment later in the film that plays off this. In the play Riggan is putting on, there is a line of dialog early on about how Riggan’s character in the play cannot even commit suicide properly, shooting himself in the mouth but messing it up and not dying. This comes back into play again as well. All these similar images begin have the audience questioning what is real in the film.

Birdman opens with Riggan levitating in his dressing room. He is also able to move things telekinetically. Yet, Inarritu undercuts these presumed superpowers, that the audience always sort of questioned anyway, by showing the cab as being what really returned Riggan to the theatre instead of him flying. But, does he really have superpowers? The film makes you think that it is all in his head, easily explainable. No other character sees him do anything incredible. But in the end, the audience is asked to question what they believe. Can Riggan actually fly? Is he really Birdman?

Another interesting aspect of the film is its commentary on contemporary Hollywood filmmaking, which is ruled by big franchises, mostly feeling like superhero sequel after superhero sequel, endlessly, crushing and minimalizing good work. The system is rigged to only make films that make money and appeal to the average theater-goer, who are often viewed as the lowest common denominator by the industry (based on the terrible, mindless stuff that is put out there in mass, and often does well; they probably are not wrong). The characters of highly acclaimed theatre actor Mike and theatre critic Tabitha represent this distain for what cinema has become, studios betting on franchise blockbusters and squashing originality, art and true emotional/dramatic resonance in favor of noise, explosions and mindless frantic entertainment. While this is not universally the case, as auteur filmmakers continue to thrive within the system making excellent work (Birdman is in part funded by New Regency Pictures, which is a medium sized studio and has a distribution deal and is owned in part by 20^th Century Fox, for example). Many of the stars of the film have successful careers in Hollywood and themselves have starred in blockbuster franchises and big Hollywood films (as well as made superhero films) themselves (Emma Stone is in The Amazing Spider-Man series; Zach Galifianakis is in the Hangover series; Naomi Watts is in King Kong; Andrea Risenborough is in Oblivion; Ed Norton is in The Incredible Hulk; and Amy Ryan is in Green Zone). Thus, their condemnation of Hollywood feels hypocritical. But, like the film itself, these personas are much more satires of theatre snobs than a serious feeling of contempt for Hollywood. Yes, Hollywood churns out terrible films, but they also make spectacular films (the superhero genre alone has seen many brilliant releases lately with Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight trilogy and Marvel’s strong output during their MCU Phase II).

As aesthetically ambitious and narratively unique as Birdman appears on the outside, in many ways it is simply a film about a man having a mid-life crisis that has been jazzed up with aesthetic bells and whistles. It is a film of relationships that Inarritu weaves together and in and out so well with his interlocking long takes. Riggan is at odds with his daughter, maybe still in love with his ex-wife, finding it challenging to be completely there for his girlfriend, and is completely overwhelmed by his play, especially managing an egotistical dramatic actor. Riggan has a hard enough time just taking care of himself. All the chaos in his life seems to push him over the edge, letting the madness consume him (yes we may have come full circle on this review). Although, it is also probably safe to say that he is already on the edge, ready to jump, before we even meet the character. Structurally, the film finds Riggan as a man who had everything and then lost it. Now he is trying to get it all back. But like many mid-life crisis narratives, he realizes that he cannot have it back – that the past is the past and everything has changed in the present; he cannot go back; he can only move forward – which means that he might just begin listening to the Birdman character voice in his head, for better or worse. Everything around him has changed, now he must embrace it and acknowledge that he too must change (or already has changed), or not and end it all rather than face the truth. Yet, the film’s ending seems to only raise more questions and can we even trust what Inarritu is showing us?

It might be too easy to just place this film into a nice neat narrative box. Inarritu plays around with fantasy to such an extent in the film that it begins to blend with reality. The film could all be a fever dream. It seems just as likely. How much of Riggan’s life is delusion? What is real? These are the questions that begin to populate the conversation when a narrative’s protagonist is unreliable. These questions also ultimately make Inarritu’s narrative all the more interesting.

Even with everything that works so well, Birdman is not without some minor faults. The first act is especially kinetic, aided by a score of nervous jazzy drumming that if nothing else builds tension, as Inarritu sets up the narrative and the character relationships. It is so flashy and vital as the camera floats effortlessly around the often claustrophobic theatre that when things become a bit more dreamlike in the second half of the film and the score becomes much more classical, losing the drums for periods of time, some of the narrative’s moment is lost. These slower moments take the viewer out of what is otherwise a very rich drama. As much as I love the aesthetic style of the film, in these slower moments it seems like it all suddenly collapses on itself. The great characters, tension and narrative flow keep the viewers engaged, despite this grand artifice being constructed around them; but in the slow moments, the artifice suddenly becomes much more apparent and even distracting.

There is also no real resolution between Riggan and Mike (who is maybe his greatest antagonist, though one might say that Mike’s nemesis role switches to Tabitha at the end of the second act). Mike is the element of chaos that seems to have finally pushed RIggan over the edge; yet in the end when our hero is revealed as such, the audience is never given closure to Riggan’s conflict with Mike (as we are with Tabitha). Thus, the ending feels ever so slightly incomplete, but then again that is life.

All in All, Birdman is a masterfully made film. It features many of this year’s best performances and is aesthetically one of the most magnificent things I have seen (in some ways it reminded me of Joe Wright’s Anna Karenina, another film I found to be aesthetically highly compelling). It is one of the few must-see film of 2014.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu is part of the ‘Three Amigos’ with Alfonso Cuaron and Guillermo del Toro – three auteur Mexican directors that came up together. Inarritu made his debut with the critically acclaimed Amores Perros. He has since tried to live up to the praise of that film with his work in Hollywood and then in Spain (21 Grams, Babel and Biutiful). While each is a good film in its own right, none quite reach the same level of cinematic excellence as Amores Perros. With Birdman, Inarritu has seemingly made his first comedy, or at least film that actively tries and succeeds at being funny. It is a very funny film, on top of being a great character drama. This change of pace seems to have given him new life, so to speak, as Birdman feels alive and vital. It is his best work in my opinion. The ambition and brilliance of his direction also reaffirms his place not only as an auteur but also as one of the best filmmakers currently working.

Newcomer composer Antonio Sanchez supplies Birdman with a score that is very different than what is typically found in such films. It is mostly made up of jazz drumming that seems to insistently be building towards something and thereby creates this sense of tension, only forwarded by the tension felt between the characters. The sound design also plays a role in this as well, as Inarritu uses a ticking clock at times to add an extra layer of tension to the film. Cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki seems to be on a mission to shame all other photographers with his work. Birdman has wonderful long takes (a specialty of Lubezki – who is a frequent collaborator with Cuaron, by the way) and Lubezki’s hand-held camera work is practically flawless as the camera seems to seamlessly drift between hand-held and crane shots. The technical quality of this film is maybe its chief achievement (though, its performances are a very close second). Lubezki’s lighting is also just right, as the film flutters between reality and fantasy. Kevin Thompson’s production design is also top notch. His theatre set is superb, as it mirrors many of the dramatic themes and emotions at play in the narrative with its claustrophobic hallways, dingy side rooms and rooftop that has beautiful view on the city.

As stated many times above, the performances in this film are astonishing. Lindsay Duncan and Merritt Wever are very good in small supporting roles. Amy Ryan is good as Riggan’s ex-wife Sylvia. She is very supportive and sweet, playing the victim of his past antics well. She is also his strength to go on, however. Andrea Riseborough is lost in the mix a bit playing Riggan’s actress girlfriend Laura. She does have some fantastic vengeful gazes when he says something despicable though. Naomi Watts plays Lesley an actress who always dreamed about being on Broadway and has now finally made it. I remember thinking that Watts was very good, but she too is a bit lost in the mix, especially since her character is not that interesting by comparison to all the deeply damaged people wandering around in this film. Zach Galifianakis plays Riggan’s lawyer and co-producer of the play. He has great comedic timing (something we all already knew) and some of the best lines in the film. His back-and-forth with Riggan reminds me of the shouting matches between Orson Welles and John Houseman (played by Angus Macfadyen and Carey Elwes) in Tim Robbin’s under-seen Cradle Will Rock. Edward Norton is extremely good as Mike, Riggan’s nemesis of sorts. He plays an actor who can only feel real on the stage, caring little for everything else. Norton is absolutely electric. He demands attention whenever he is on camera. It is the best performance I have seen so far this year. Emma Stone is also excellent, giving us her best work to date playing Riggan’s damaged daughter Sam, who has recently been released from rehab. Without Stone’s top performance, the film does not work. She is a key part to understanding Riggan’s current state and her wondrous eyes sell the final moment. And finally we have Michael Keaton playing Riggan, which could be called a warped version of himself (or at least a warped version of his public persona). Keaton is a master of playing characters on the verge of losing it. I am not sure anyone could have played this character better. The wild look in his eyes during the film makes everything believable, even as thing start to spin out of control and the narrative feel more fantasy than real. I will be shocked if Keaton, Stone and Norton miss out on Oscar nominations.

Summary & score: Birdman is just about everything a cinephile could want from a film: brilliant and ambitious aesthetics and directing, as well as an ensemble cast of excellent actors putting forth some of their best work, that all comes together in a dramatically interesting and challenging narrative. And, it is funny too. 8/10

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

Crazy, Stupid, Love. (2011) – Review

Review: Crazy, Stupid, Love. is heartfelt, poignant, funny and mostly on target as a good romantic comedy/drama. The first thing that stands out about the film is how directors Glenn Ficarra and John Requa structured the narrative. It is very atypical with multiple connected stories arcs and character arcs that start and stop outside the normal three act structure – though Cal’s arc very much follows the normal rom-com structure. This interesting structure across all the main characters arcs gives the film a real-life feel, which most films in the genre never even begin to approach. Ficarra and Requa have a very good handle on playing drama and comedy together. The drama in the film feels very real, but at the same time some of the moments are fairly devastating for the characters, making the ending feel very cheap and tacked on ultimately hurting the film a lot, as it does not fit. The pacing is also a bit funky due to different character arc starting and stopping at different times and not following the main narrative structure. It is a brave choice for the directors to make the film in this way, and it works for the most part, but not completely. Ficarra and Requa do great work with their characters too, but Emily feels very underdeveloped and sort of left out (as really with six main character stories going on, this was bound to happen to one of them). As for the comedy aspect of the film, the jokes are funny but the overall tone is fairly sad (as it opens with Cal’s family falling apart) and with all the major dramatic moments, it does not feel like a happy-ending type typical rom-com (which is good, but again makes the happy ending, while accustom to the genre, feel all the more fake). All in all, Crazy, Stupid, Love. works and is an interesting take on the rom-com genre, but it is too bad that the directors (whatever the reason may be) did not fully commit to their ‘real-life’ narrative and allow the film to take a more natural course. They allow, like most of this genre’s films, love to be overly idealized, which is fine in other cases but does not fit this narrative.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Directors Glenn Ficarra and John Requa were successful screenwriters, and now with two good comedy/dramas under their belts, they can be expected to make good films and be called good directors going forward. The music composed by Christophe Beck and Nick Urata goes well with the drama and comedy at play in the film, while Andrew Dunn’s cinematography is quite good for a rom-com. I really liked William Arnold’s production design, his set for the bar and especially the contrast between the characters’ homes and what that said about where they were at that stage of life. However, the film’s success is almost completely dependent on the performances of the actors – and they were very strong. Liza Lapira is very funny in her supporting role. Julianne Moore is a great actress, but is not really give too much to do in this film – though she is still good. Jonah Bobo and especially Analeigh Tipton are fantastic (Tipton giving a breakthrough performance). Emma Stone is funny, tough and sweet all at the same time. Ryan Gosling is really good playing his role as a typical douchebag guy but completely venerable. And Steve Carell, who is so great at playing a sad but comedic nice guy, is good yet again (he also served as a producer on the film, finding a good role for himself).

Summary & score: Crazy, Stupid, Love. could have been great, but does not quite get there. That said, it is still one of the best romantic comedies/dramas of the year. 7/10