Bug - One of the scariest movies I have ever seen

Bug is a surprisingly fantastic thriller that left me guessing the truth until the end and is one of the scariest movies I have ever seen.  When a lonely bartender meets a war veteran, their lives intertwine and create a terrifying gradation.

(This movie is extremely hard to describe without giving away the ending, so I suggest watching a trailer after reading my meager attempts at a plot explanation.  The visuals in this movie are just as important as the plot points.)  Slightly self destructive and lonely Agnes (Ashley Judd) is a bartender at a local lesbian bar.  She lives in a tiny room in a rundown motel.  One night her friend R.C., (Lynn Collins) brings by Peter (Michael Shannon) for an evening of partying.  Agnes allows Peter to spend the night and their relationship blossoms.  Agnes and Peter start finding bugs all over their room and eventually begin to put the pieces together of where the bugs came from.  The audience and the characters spend the majority of the movie questioning their own sanity.

Director William Friedkin and writer Tracy Letts do a great job of making the characters’ ambiguous emotional status as mesmerizing as a ten car pileup.  You can’t believe what you are seeing, you know you should look away and yet you can’t.   In every scene, the characters’ motivations are clear and yet, the audience has a difficult time understanding the characters completely.  Much of the drama of the movie is wondering if what Agnes and Peter are experiencing is real.  All of the characters have two personality traits that are not only diametrically opposed but mutually exclusive.  It makes these simple people complex and is really freakin’ scary. 

The cast is limited, with only five characters.  Each of the performances is more disturbing and mesmerizing than the next.  William Friedkin should be commended for not only finding such a great cast, but a cast who has such great chemistry together.

Agnes is a complicated character with emotional depth and rich development.  Ashley Judd does a remarkable job of making Agnes pitiful and strong; sane and insane.  Agnes easily, under a lesser actress, could have become a wayward bunglement of emotions.  Judd makes her a perfect mess.  Near the end of the movie I wanted to hug her to comfort her and slap the sense back into here.

Michael Shannon can best be described as innocent and creepy as Peter.   During the entire length of the movie you can tell he isn’t a bad man, but you wonder if he is badly designed.   He is so scary without being malicious that the two sides of your brain have a hard time rectifying the dichotomy; in a good way.

The other three cast members are perfect seasoning for the incredibly delicious dish Judd and Shannon created.    R.C. (Lynn Collins) is softness, wildness and sanity.  Collins’ short performance is incredibly controlled.   Jerry Goss (Harry Connick Jr.) is crazy, abusive and loving, in a demented way.  Connick’s performance is frightening because he only almost loses control.   Dr. Sweet (Brian F. O’Byrne) lends credence to either of the theories of the characters and highlights the mental misfiring of the characters.  O’Byrne made a chill run up my spine because he never, ever, gets rattled. 

My hat goes off to the writer and the director for understanding the speech patterns of people in Oklahoma.  Usually when a movie takes place in a region outside of California the screen writers don’t bother to make the dialogue regionally appropriate.  Letts and Friedkin do not overlook this important detail.

The end of the movie has visually distinctive scenes that create deeply haunting moods.  The use of light is the most unique and imaginative I have seen in years.  The lighting alone is enough to tell us we should be in a state of paralyzing dismay.  Not only does it lend exactly the emotion necessary for the scene, it doubles the effectiveness whenever another character enters the room.

This movie snuck up, lulled me into a false security, kept moving so I never got my footing and then broadsided me with a Mac truck.  I was astonished, bewildered and the more I think about the movie, the more I love it.   Don’t miss this movie if you love to be scared.

IMDB
Official Site

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End is chalked full; full of action, full of sub-plots, full of mistakes and full of fun.  It reminds me a little of when I was 12 years old and ate an entire chocolate bunny.  I didn’t regret how yummy and delicious it was, but the stomach ache didn’t feel so good. 

After promising his father he would save him from servitude to Davey Jones, Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) sets forth a plan to save him.  At the same time the council of pirate lords needs to convene to save pirates from extermination.  Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp), sentenced to suffer in Davey Jones’ locker, is one of the pirate lords and therefore must be saved so the pirate council can be called.  There is much back stabbing, personal motivations and tons of attempted plot twists.

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End has an endless number of betrayals.  There are several negotiation scenes, especially at the beginning of the movie, which are confusing, and who is doing what to whom is unclear.  The negotiation scenes are convoluted and I could smell the gears in my head starting to smoke as they continued on.   The confusing nature of the bargaining left me wondering who I should be rooting for in the movie.

There is a great amount of computer effects in the movie and often the effects are wonderfully believable.  Davey Jones’s face, with the exception of his eyes, is completely computer generated.  It is hard to make a mystical creature seem realistic but the animators made the kraken face not only believable, but magical.

Even though some of the effects are wonderful there is a great deal of problems, as well.   In many of the scenes the real characters are surrounded by computer generated characters.  I haven’t seen effects of this quality since the Brownies in Willow.   It is a big part of the movie and they should have spent a little more time and money to make the extra characters look better and more believable.

The actors in Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End didn’t shame themselves, but they didn’t make it into LaRae’s Book of Fantastic Acting, either.   Often, the writing makes the scenes downright trite, and the acting is the only thing that saves it from being monstrously stupid.  The acting, equally, can make a well written scene of eye rolling quality.

Johnny Depp perfectly revives Jack Sparrow.  The always nearly-drunken state Sparrow wanders around in as he spouts wild wit walks the fence between brilliance and clown school.  In At Worlds End, Depp often falls on both sides of the fence and sometimes both at once.   Many of the scenes he is in feel like set ups for dumb jokes, and if those jokes are good enough one time, they are good enough twice (a problem throughout the movie.)  Depp has a hard time pulling off the second joke as easily as he did the first, or giving it that something special that makes it rise above the first gag.

The secondary characters have a lot more face time in At World’s End and they make great use of it.  They may be what lengthens the movie, but I laughed more at them than I did at the main characters.

By far, the best character in the movie is Jack.  Not Sparrow, Monkey.  Jack the Monkey may have been a cheap gag, and I don’t care.  He is adorable and every scene he is in made me laugh.   There is a scene where he is sitting next to two of the secondary characters and I couldn’t see them because I was so focused on how cute he was. 

For all of its faults, the end of the movie finally gets to what we really wanted to see, swashbuckling goodness.  There are sword fights, cannon fights, and banter.  What is a pirate movie without explosions and stabbings, really?  Finally, the betrayals are explained, characters make choices, and lives are changed.   It almost makes the rest of the movie worth seeing, almost.

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End is way too long, has way too many subplots and there weren’t enough laughs or action to make it a must see but the problems don’t make it a must miss.

IMDB
Official Site

Severance - A Horror Comedy Corporate Holiday

Severance: the movie that tells us what happens when you take the characters from The Office, send them on a team building holiday and throw in some eastern European serial killers.  A little quirky, and even though the humor/horror mix is just a little off, Severance is still a pretty fun movie. 

International contractor, Palisades Defense, sends seven of their employees on a team building excursion in Eastern Europe.  When the road is blocked, on sage advice of the boss, the employees abandon the motor-coach and head down a heavily wooded road to find their luxury lodge.   Little do they know a killer is waiting around the corner, bent on killing each of them.   In proper British style, victims die with a stiff upper lip and killers kill in ridiculous ways.   Don't worry though, not everyone rolls over and accepts their fate.

Severance's biggest problem is that it can't really decide if it is a dark comedy or a horror movie with brief moments of levity.  There are a lot of bloody scenes but I can't think of an explicit death scene.  Just before the death, the camera pulls away and sometimes returns just after the death, so it doesn't feel like a strict horror.   There are a lot of attempts at comedy but only a few will leave you laughing out loud, so it doesn't feel like a sinister comedy.  Director/writer Christopher Smith and writers Toby Stephens and James Moran would have benefited from having an accomplished comedic writer there to touch up the scenes that were attempting humor.

Severance isn't completely void of humor.   There is a scene that will redefine the expression "Heads will roll."  Later in the movie, there is a scene that made me laugh so hard at the misfortunes of the killer.  The end of the movie made me laugh with reckless abandon.  The scene that takes the cake involves a mini-fridge, a shoe and slippery fingers.  I didn't want to laugh, because it was just wrong, but I couldn't help it!  After the movie is over, stick around for the credits; they are brief but the character names of the bad guys are funny enough to make the credits worth watching.

Andy Nyman, who plays Gordon, was my favorite male character.  Gordon is an annoyingly optimistic character, much to the chagrin of the other Palisades employees.  He tries to make every negative a positive.  I wanted to strangle him about three minutes into the movie.  I think he was fantastically written.   I believe that the writers were trying to make him painfully cheery and they accomplished their goal with flying colors. 

There is a moderate amount of creativity in the kill scenes.   They took all of the instruments of death they could think of, threw out the quiet ones, tossed the ones that wouldn't create a mess, and scrapped the Plain-Janes, and were left with a collection of mercenary style implements of doom!  Sure, there are knives and guns, but the kill scenes that use the classics aren't done in the same-old ways.  There is a scene where hundreds of people are killed and I snickered, rolled my eyes and finally gave into the laughter pushing its way up!

I wish there had been a little bit more attention to the actual deaths of the characters.  As I mentioned above, I can't remember a single scene where you actually see someone die.  I feel a little funny saying this, but it's a horror movie, show us the money.  I can't believe that someone is actually dead unless we see them dead.  In the horror movie rules it goes, 1. Never say "I'll be right back." 2. Never investigate a weird or strange noise, especially alone, and 3. Don't assume they are dead unless you see them dead, and maybe even not then.  How can I believe that the killers actually killed the victim if you aren't following the rules?

As always, I love it when there are bad ass bitches in horror movies that refuse to wait for some man to save them and Severance has its share of whoop-ass women!  Not all the women survive but their attempts at survival are memorable and commendable. 

This movie would benefit from a re-visitation by someone a little more skilled at finding the proper mix of humor and horror.  This may be the only time you hear this from me but I can't wait until an American film maker finds the time to remake this movie.  Even still, Severance is worth seeing, flaws and all.

Shrek the Third

Shrek the Third is the latest in the Shrek series of movies. A cute, fluff, 3D cartoon, Shrek is a good find for five year olds.

When King Harold (John Cleese) of Far Far Away is on his death bed, he asks Shrek (Mike Myers) if he will take over as ruler of Far Far Away. When Shrek wavers, King Harold offers an alternative, Fiona's Cousin Arthur (Justin Timberlake). Shrek, Donkey, (Eddie Murphy) and Puss (Antonio Banderas) head out to find Arthur. Just as he is pulling out of the harbor, Fiona (Cameron Diaz), tells Shrek that she is pregnant. While Shrek is off to find the next king of Far Far Away he attempts to come to terms with the news that he will be a dad. Prince Charming (Rupert Everett) attempts to take over Far Far Away while Shrek is gone. He brings with him all of the fairytale villains.

Shrek the Third is packed with entertaining little scenes. There is an amusing scene where the gingerbread man recounts his life. Pinocchio has a very funny scene where he steals the show. There are also several scenes where the fairy tale princesses refuse to wait for rescue and take it upon themselves. Any scene with the fairytale babies will make you go "Aaaah." The dragon/ donkey children made me smile every time they are on the screen.

There is a character you meet later in the movie who I think steals the show. The character used to teach Arthur but has gone a little crazy. Everything he does is just plain off kilter. I expected him to start singing "What a lovely bunch of coconuts."

The quality of the animation in Shrek the Third is surprisingly inconsistent. The scenery, the lighting and shading is marvelous. There is a scene with a horse that made me want to reach out and stroke its hind. The textures of all of the characters and scenery makes them look rich with depth and beautifully sensory. Dreamworks obviously made the way the characters look a priority. They did not, however, make the way the characters move a priority.

All of the characters that walk upright have a rigid stiffness that makes believing they are real a little challenging at times. The characters move like wooden artists models, unnaturally swinging from the joints in a way that would probably hurt a human being. Their steps are labored, lumbered, and even for Shrek, heavy. If they put half as much effort into the way the characters move as they did the way they look, the movie would have flowed considerably better.

When I saw Shrek the Third, the theater was packed full of children, some too small for elementary school. I was surprised that there was nearly no fussing, crying or screaming through the movie. Most of the children were completely enthralled by the movie.

Shrek the Third attempts several morals of the story. Shrek needs to embrace fatherhood, the women are all about taking care of themselves, there is talk of how one becomes a villain, violence is not the answer, and the moral that runs most through the movie is "you are the only one in your way." I think most of the themes will be easy enough for a child to grasp except Shrek's trek to fatherhood. Being a father should be the last thing on a five year old's mind.

The double edged sword with any movie packed with celebrities is that their celebrity is a distraction. The movie has a smorgasbord of recognizable voices. At times the myriad of familiar voices distracted me while I tried to place where I had heard them before. Especially difficult for me to place was Rupert Everett and as a consequence, every time he was on screen, I was trying to figure out where I had heard the voice before.

There is nothing particularly impressive about Shrek the Third but I didn't find anything monstrously awful either. This movie is definitely not one that parents will enjoy watching over and over again but then again it is a movie for children. As a children's movie, I think it is just fine.

IMDB
Official Site

LaRae Meadows

28 Weeks Later- A good zombie movie

28 Weeks Later is the sequel to 2003's 28 Days Later. 28 Weeks Later accomplishes the rare sequel feat of being an interesting movie on its own and still having the essence of the first movie.

Tammy and Andy are sent to repopulate Britain and reunite with their father Don, after the people infected by the rage virus die of starvation. An unfortunate break in security causes a re-infection and the re-inhabitants are left to try to survive. Many of the character's past and current situations haunt them during their quest for survival. Meanwhile, the American military, which has been charged with the well being of the people who are repopulating, is making decisions about their lives without their permission.

I was impressed that 28 Weeks Later could stand alone as a movie. 28 Weeks Later's antagonist is less the zombies and more the interpersonal and policy problems. Dad, mom, son, daughter, military, and humanity all struggle against each other to find the proper balance and to figure out the most humane solution to the infection problem. The writers' (Rowan Joffe,Enrique Lopez Lavigne, Jaun Carolos Fresnadillo and Jesus Olmo) decision to abandon the characters in the previous story line and pick up with new characters makes it easy for a viewer who missed Days still understand Weeks. For those of us who had seen Days, Weeks did not forsake its predecessor. Weeks uses many of the storytelling elements of the previous movie. The music, some of the themes and a lot of the visuals are taken directly from the previous movie. It has the proper mix of novelty and familiarity.

Robert Carlyle plays Don, the dad, with an emotional precision unusual to zombie movies. Don's character is multi-faceted, with surprising depth. There is an apology scene when he must essentially beg for forgiveness from someone who probably should not forgive him. His admissions are heartfelt and his emotions honest. He leaves you wondering what you would do in the same situation; another feeling you almost never get in a zombie movie.

The writers also did a great job of figuring out how work in British people who had never been in contact with the infected. Sent away on a school trip, the children, Tammy (Imogen Poots) and her little brother Andy (Makintosh Muggleton) had no exposure to the infected or the horrors they caused. It was a fantastic way to introduce characters who would be horrified and have no jading.

Imogen Poots is remarkable as Tammy because of her ability to go a little bit crazy and also to stay strong in the face of what they to endure to survive. There is a scene in the dark near the end of the movie that could have gone a little cheeseball if Poots wasn't able to restrain her emotions to a controlled frenzy.

For sheer pinchability, Jeremy Renner takes the cake. Renner plays Doyle, a soldier in the protecting American Army. His character faces a unique moral dilemma in the film, first be a soldier or first be a person. For a soldier he is incredibly tender and sweet. I wanted to cuddle him.

Like in all zombie movies, there is a great deal of "what the heck" moments. As my friend Eric says, "The military treats every problem like a nail because they only have a hammer." The short sided policies of the military are stunning and they do a great number of downright stupid things. In one scene they lock the front door but don't lock the back door. In the military's defense, no one else in the room encouraged the closing and locking of the back door either. People succumb to the infection much faster than in the first movie. The "twist" of the movie can be figured out if you understand foreshadowing and can count to three. The flaws weren't enough to make 28 Weeks Later unenjoyable.

I had real fears that this movie would try to play too much on the heart strings, using the children for false suspense or drama. Much to my surprise and glee, 28 Weeks Later did not put its predecessor to shame.

LaRae Meadows
laraemeadows@gmail.com
FilmFanatix
The Movie Insider
Monsters and Critics
Movie Pulse
Premier Movie Reviews
Associated Content
Spout
Writers's Cafe
Livejournal
Myspace Profile
Myspace Blog
Vox
Blogger

Delta Farce - I love you enough to see this movie

Delta Farce is the spring cinematic monstrosity spectacular. It strives to answer, "What happens when you have inconsistent characters, no character development, drinking, the army, no decision on type of humor, fart, food, discomfort and gay jokes made into a movie smoothie?"

Three dirt-for-brains, rednecked idiots serving in the National Guard are dispatched to serve in Iraq. Seriously unfit for duty, a Sergeant takes it upon himself to, over a weekend, get these three soldiers ready for their trip to Iraq. After their extensive re-training they are put on a plane on the way to Iraq. During the flight they are accidently dumped from the plane in their sleep. When they wake up they don't realize they aren't in Iraq; they are in fact in Mexico. In full soldier mode, they begin to treat the citizens as if they are in Iraq. They go as far as to attempt to stop "insurgents." Oh the trouble they get into.

Comedies that strive to pop the top of convention by being incredibly outrageous can sometimes make you laugh at things you thought could never be funny. Comedies that strive to pop the top and instead poke holes in the bottom leave you feeling every filling in your mouth. Delta Farce is the latter.

The characters in Delta Farce have incongruent personality traits. They all are dumb as a sack of rocks; the only difference being the weight of the sack. Yet, they all can spit out specific legal language or something remarkably smart. It isn't used as a tool of humor; it occasionally just spills out of their mouths as naturally as their gay jokes. There is one scene where arguably the stupidest of the group can recite the Geneva Convention language. I was left shaking my head.

I thought evolution favored the stronger and smarter. When I watch Delta Farce it makes me wonder if there is a god because there is no way that evolution could pop out the cast and crew stupid enough to make a movie as laced with such should-be evolutionary rejects. The writers, Bear Aderhold and Tom Sullivan should have their index fingers removed so they can never type out such a horrific cinematic mutation again. Director, C.B Harding, should have his eyes gouged out for having seen this movie in production, pre-production, post-production and still not fighting tooth and nail to have it shelved. If I hear him say he is proud of the movie, I may have to encourage more serious punishment. Bill Engval, who plays Bill, DJ Qualls, who plays Everett, and Larry the Cable Guy, who plays Larry, should be sent to Iraq to serve the terms of duty as set out to their characters. Might I suggest the human mine sweeping job or the suicide bomb tester? Either one of these jobs would be a great use of these human resources but also good for the human gene pool.

Producers Alan C. Blomquist and J.P. Williams need a lecture from their mothers about acting morally. The discussion should go something like "Son of mine, I believe I have taught you well enough to consider other people when you make decisions in all aspects of your life. When you make the choice to produce movies, you should consider the audience's well being. I think you should pay for the dental work for everyone who saw this movie because you knew what you were putting out when released it. I am ashamed that you hired a cast, a crew, and post-production staff for this movie. You put all of their careers in jeopardy because they worked on this movie. You also are helping with the stupefaction of the human race by hiring hairy-knuckles Oakies that should have starved to death long ago. Don't you know that fart, gay and redneck jokes have all been done before and no one finds them funny anymore. I don't know if you should come to Christmas anymore." Maybe they will listen to their mothers.

It is impossible laugh when all you can think about is calling your dentist. There is not one redeeming quality in this movie. The bad guys, the good guys, the military, the main characters, the story, the cinematography, etc, makes me wonder why movies like Idiocracy go strait to video but Delta Farce gets wide release. I need to raise Darwin from his grave; he has a lot of 'splaining to do.

LaRae Meadows
laraemeadows@gmail.com
FilmFanatix
The Movie Insider
Monsters and Critics
Movie Pulse
Premier Movie Reviews
Associated Content
Spout
Writers's Cafe
Livejournal
Myspace Profile
Myspace Blog
Vox
Blogger

Jindabyne- A movie gem

Jindabyne tries to grey the areas of good and bad. An Australian setting is a beautiful backdrop for this remarkable story.

Four men, Stewart (Gabriel Bryne), Roco (Stelios Yaikmis), Carl (John Howard), and Billy (Simon Stone) set off on their annual, no girls allowed, fishing trip. Much to their chagrin, on Friday a murdered dead girl floats up in their section of river. Not to let a tiny thing like a murdered woman spoil their trip, they tie her to a tree, floating in the river and continue their weekend fun. On Saturday night, Billy aka "the kid" tells the older men in the group he's leaving to get help for the girl, even if they don't come. So on Sunday all the men finally pack up and head back to their car to call for help. The media and their wives learn of the terrible choice they make to leave the dead girl while they fish and their relationships with the town, their spouses, each other and themselves is monumentally altered.

While the men are away on their annual fishing trip, the women are home to sort some emotional and family things out. Claire (Laura Linney), Jude (Deborra-lee Furness), Carmel (Leah Purcell) have dinner and talk about the past. Claire, wife of Stewart, learns she is pregnant, which is very bad news.

When you first meet Stewart and his wife Claire Laura Linney, she comes across as a loving yet a little unstable wife and Stewart a distant yet stable husband. As the movie progresses it is obvious that Stewart is the unstable one and even though she has a history, Claire's behavior is rational.

Jindabyne is a beautifully written story about the monsters that reside in the hearts of seemingly average men and women. The inaction of these perfectly average men feels like a passive endorsement of the murder of this innocent woman. It leaves the audience to wonder what they or their fathers, brothers and husbands would do if faced with the same situation. The story is even more troubling because they weren't faced with a true moral dilemma. There was only one right thing to do and they didn't do it. Does this one bad decision make these men bad men or is it just plain stupid and heartless this one time?

The men aren't the only ones whose morality is ambiguous. The women in their lives responses range from outrageous to understandable. The one woman of the group of spouses who attempts to apologize for her husband and her friends is outcast by the rest of the group. One woman defends her husband ferociously, even against the other women. The morally correct response is less clear for the women. It left me to wonder if I would stay with my husband after they did something so disgusting or if I would be bothered by it at all. When the women don't punish their husbands, are they also lending passive endorsement to the murder?

The settings in the movie are beautiful and very special. The town where the men live is very small and full of character. The river where the woman is found is majestic. The calming settings make the behaviors of the men even more unsettling. Amidst the calm and beauty are these minor demons and an innocent victim.

Jinbadbyne is a true movie gem.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0382765
http://www.april.com.au/home.html

LaRae Meadows
laraemeadows@gmail.com
FilmFanatix
The Movie Insider
Monsters and Critics
Movie Pulse
Premier Movie Reviews
Associated Content
Spout
Writers's Cafe
Livejournal
Myspace Profile
Myspace Blog
Vox
Blogger

Spiderman 3 - Cinematic Chinese Food

“Spiderman 3” is the Super Villain packed installment of the Spiderman series. This movie reminded me of Chinese food; looks great, tastes great, sadly never makes you full and does bad things to the end result.

Director Sam Raimi did a great job of preserving the comic book feel of the movie. Many of the fight scenes, the looks on the bystander’s faces, and bad guy close ups screamed comic book to me. There is a scene where Sandman is going through a transformation that struck me as perfectly comic-ish. Raimi did a good job of keeping the lighting bright but not making it feel sterile.

The special effects were exceptional. Honestly, there isn’t much more to say on the subject.

There are a series of scenes in the movie where Peter Parker lets his hair down and becomes a different man. He looked like Willard (From “Willard”) or Le Chiffre (“Casino Royale”) and has the personality of a used car salesman. Even with the dreadful beatnik look dawned by our hero friend, the transitional scenes are funny. They probably would upset true fans of Spiderman, but I found them a charming addition.



There is no wonder that Kirsten Dunst seems cold to the idea being Mary Jane Watson in another Spiderman movie. Her part could be done by taking the raw footage from movies one and two, and changing the green screen background. There is a terrible scene where she is being jostled in a car, where she is going one way and the car is going another. She is flopping herself about wildly. Still, Dunst’s acting (aside from her attempt at stunt work) is pretty solid. Her sadness, love, frustration and anger are not unclear. An actor is only as good as her script and Dunst’s is a lead weight around her ankle.

Topher Grace’s performance disgraces his last name. If I were in charge of the English dictionary, the entry for annoying would have the word spelled “T-O-P-H-E-R” and there would be a full color picture of him as Eddie Brock and Venom. Right next to the picture would be a caption reading “Professional photographers do not use plastic cameras and actually use the viewfinder.” Grace’s (should we even call him that anymore?) is so unrestrained, he seems like his arms should be waving about wildly at the shoulders when he talks.

Tobey Maguire’s is pretty fun as Spiderman. For some men, the crying might get a little bit much but I was impressed by how easily and naturally the tears flowed from Maguire. There is nothing special about Maguire’s performance as compared to the other movies. I speculate that it is less because of Maguire’s skills and more because of the quality of the script.

There is an endless supply of bad guys and drama in “Spiderman 3.” It seems that with every change of scenery there is an introduction of a new villain or melodrama. There are no less than three villains. The movie does not give them super villain names but my extensive research has uncovered their names as “Venom,” “Sandman,” and “New Goblin.” Also making a brief appearance is the un-credited Creepy, Black Asteroid Goo. That is just the bad guys. There is Peter and Mary Jane drama, Peter and Harry drama, Harry’s personal drama, Venom’s personal drama, Sandman’s personal drama, Mary Jane and Harry drama and Peter’s self drama. “Spiderman” three tries to pack too much plot into this comic book movie. Each of the bad guys would have been a fine movie unto themselves. For some reason, not apparent to anyone with sense, they thought one bad guy wasn’t enough. Would Spiderman really be any less bad-ass if he only fought one super villain at a time or any less human if he only had one or two dramatic incidents to deal with? Do people demand so much from the wildly popular “Spiderman” series that a super hero can’t just be super; he has to be super duper?

I want to know why no one puts two and two together. Mary Jane Watson keeps getting kidnapped by the bad guys and no one in the media or in the entire world is smart enough to put two and two together? For a great deal of this movie, Spiderman has his mask off, sitting in costume on a roof, overlooking the city. Does no one have a telephoto lens? Does no one see him when he webs up there? Are the people of New York in Stan Lee’s world really that stupid?

It takes a great deal of skill to create movie after movie about the same characters and make it feel like a new movie with familiar characters. Even though I found “Spiderman 3” reasonably entertaining, I left feeling unimpressed. I could hear the sizzle from the kitchen, I was hungry, but there was nothing in the pan.

IMDB Link
Official Site



LaRae Meadows
laraemeadows@gmail.com
FilmFanatix
Associated Content
Spout
Writers’s Cafe
Livejournal
Myspace Profile
Myspace Blog
Vox
Blogger