Movie Review: Sicko
Michael Moore’s latest documentary on the American Health Care system is both brutal and absurd. Brutal in what it shows the viewer and absurd in how bad the American Health Care system is when reflected against other countries’ medical care systems. Moore starts out his documentary with a few intimate tales of people and their hellish dealings with Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). The movie soon goes broad, showing you the birth of the current health care system on February 17, 1971 at 5:23 p.m. involving President Richard Nixon, his counsel and assistant John Ehrlichman and a report from Ehrlichman about his meeting with Henry J. Kaiser of Kaiser Permanente. The recording shows that Nixon liked the idea that Kaiser’s proposed system would profit off of HMOs offering less care to patients. Moore plays the recording of the Nixon meeting so that you can hear it for yourself. Its unbelievable how an administration elected by the people, for the people clearly understood how eschewed Kaiser’s proposed health care system was before implementation and still went ahead with it.
In Sicko, Moore actually gets the dead to speak. People that you think are living with a disease or aliment one minute you find out have died the next because of denials by HMOs. It’s really emotional stuff and like Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore pulls no punches. Keep in mind though that Sicko is not an unbiased film. During a graduate school class, I was shown a PBS show centered on Health Care and HMOs. It was very informative and showed the indulgence of physicians in the 80’s and how the introduction of HMOs curtailed excessive spending on their and the hospitals’ part. It also showed that by addressing one problem another major one was created in HMOs and how they make more and more money by denying more and more care to their clients. Moore brings up the latter in his film but completely ignores the former. If he had included this aspect of the health care story in Sicko, his film would have been more well rounded, informative and less biased against Health Maintenance Organizations.
Moore has an agenda with this film, a blatant one, shown in quick segment fashion during the opening credits of Sicko. That agenda is change. By showing HMOs in the worst possible light, he hopes to ignite a public out cry for change in the current Health Care system. Moore’s political champion in that regard is showcased in the same delicate and subtle way as the Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital sequence in Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11. That person is a she and may very well be the first elected female President in United States history, Hilary Clinton. Moore knows this as surely as he knew how releasing Fahrenheit 9/11 in 2004 might affect the Presidential election that year. He wants to remind Hilary and the American people of Hilary’s formerly ardent stance on Health Care for everyone in America. Moore aims to seduce and shame Hilary at the same time in Sicko. The seduction involves a montage where he refers to Hilary Clinton as “little lady” and “sexy”, culminating in clips of her campaigning for Universal Health Care while the shame aspect is multi-faceted and includes: Clinton’s Health Care bill being defeated, her political silence on Universal Health Care afterward and how she eventually became the second highest recipient of donations from HMO lobbyists in the Senate.
Like in Moore’s Bowling for Columbine, we are shown the Shangri-La-like realm (medical-wise) of Canada but this time around we are also shown its health care brethren in the European countries of London, France and in America’s mortal enemy, Cuba. If James Hilton was still alive to see Sicko, Lost Horizon may have been a very different reading experience. I won’t go into the abundance of Health Care advantages Europeans enjoy. It’s unbelievable. Moore can’t believe it. At one point in Sicko; he asks a French woman in an apartment: “Uh, what’re you doing?” and the woman replies “I am laundering the clothing the mother left me.” Why this “person” is washing cloths for someone else is something I’ll leave for the movie to explain. I will say this; new mothers have it extremely good in Europe and are looked after as if they were family members. One thing all of this brings to mind is that if you are a pregnant woman, have your child in a European country or Canada so that if they ever get sick or are in need of serious medical attention, they are a citizen of that country and will be able to go back and have access to that health care system whenever it is necessary. Another participant in Sicko did just that. She visited London, decided to stay and had three children there (under Britain’s National Health Service, NHS). If she came back to live in America, she would have to get medical coverage for all of her children and pay monthly premiums like every other responsible mother in our country. If any of them ever became seriously ill however, she has the option of simply putting them on a plane to England for free care.
Michael Moore’s Sicko is not as gripping or as polarizing as his last two films but is a highly entertaining documentary that brings to the public forum a timely and much needed discussion of the United States’ Health Care system or lack therefore of. This film addresses the status quo, political back rubbing in Washington and how money, power and political influence can subjugated and thwart a social service the most powerful nation in the world should want for all of its citizens. (9 out of 10)
Movie Review: Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon
Scott Glosserman’s Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon is a horror movie slash (no pun intended) documentary that educates as it illuminates and scares. Leslie Vernon (Nathan Baesel) is an aspiring killer that lives in a world where Jason Voorhees, Freddy Kruger and Michael Myers are all real people and notorious serial killers. They are not creations of fantasy that inhabitant horror movies like in our world but legends among murderers and one of their biggest fans, Leslie Vernon, wants to be just like them. During his preparations for his first killing spree, he invites a newscaster Taylor Gentry (Angela Goethals) and her crew along to document him and his murderous exploits.
To look at Vernon you would never think he harbored a single murderous impulse which is the beauty of Glosserman’s casting of Baesel in the role. Vernon basically walks the news crew through the steps that went into making the classic slasher horror movie and what it will take to make his planned killing spree a reality. You might not realize this and neither did I before seeing this film but it takes a lot of hard work and surveillance to orchestrate a good spree. You have to pick a group of teenagers that hang out with each other, one of which should be a virgin. This is your heroine, your “survivor” girl. Examples of this would be Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) in Halloween and Nancy Thompson (Heather Langenkamp) from Nightmare on Elm Street. Once the “survivor” girl is chosen, you then begin your campaign of spooking her out, showing yourself to her in the shadows. By telling you all of this, I am not ruining anything but if I told you anymore about the preparations before a proper spree can take place, it would spoil some of the film. Also, you know how the killer is always seen walking and the person they are chasing is running yet the killer always seem to catch them. There is a reason for that and it’s explained in this film. It’s a funny explanation as well.
Through the course of Behind the Mask, we meet a husband Eugene (Scott Wilson) and wife Jamie (Bridgett Newton) who are mentoring Vernon on his quest. Eugene is a retired serial killer and Jamie was one of his former survivor girls. During the news crews’ dinner with the Eugene and Jamie, Eugene gives Taylor a brief history of Vernon’s chosen career path, referring to Michael Myers as Mike and Freddy Kruger as Fred. As I said earlier, these killers are alum of Eugene’s former field of work and he is apparently on a first name speaking basis with them. Eugene goes on to tell them all how Mike and Jay (Jason Voorhees) revolutionized slasher killing, how before them, a killer would strike once then leave but by returning time and time again, they became legends in the field and beyond. Like I said before, this movie is very funny.
Everything culminates in the third act of Behind the Mask. All of Vernon’s planning begins coming together and the news crew finally asks themselves the big, glaring question that had been hanging over them for the whole film: if they take part in what Vernon has planned, even if they only chronicle it, they will be accomplices to murder. Legally, they are already accomplices before-the-fact but I only know that because I’m a Law and Order junkie and besides, this isn’t Law School 101. There is a surprise in this part of the film, not a twist that turns everything on its ear like in Haute Tension, but a surprise. It doesn’t make you re-think everything that you’ve seen but calls on you to pay closer attention when seeing Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon for a second time. (8.5 out of 10)
Movie Review: Mr. Brooks
One of the better films I’ve seen this year and a great performance by Kevin Costner. In a rare dark performance, Costner raises what might have been a normal crime movie with a twist involving his id into a superior human horror film. Where this movie succeeds is that you care about the film’s sociopathic anti-hero, Earl Brooks, much in the same way we care about Richard B. Riddick in Pitch Black. Mr. Brooks is a film that has two story lines. One of those storylines succeeds while the other is shaky, eventually coming into its own but never reaching the first’s stature, even after the two storylines intertwine. That weaker storyline belongs to Detective Atwood (Demi Moore), who offers an effective performance but whose character is never given the room to breathe that Deputy United States Marshal Samuel Gerard (Tom Lee Jones) was given in The Fugitive.
When the antagonist is handled intelligently and is given intelligence, in most cases it benefits the film. One example of this is Hannibal Lecter in Silence of the Lambs while another is John Doe in Se7en. This is the mental situation with the main character in Mr. Brooks though this film is in no way on par with the two aforementioned movies. Mr. Brooks is good but it’s not that good. It does hold a minor position in their league though and approaches the level of satisfaction you have with those films. There is no great puzzle in Mr. Brooks as in Silence or Se7en but there are a few tiny ones that intrigue.
From its adverts, Mr. Brooks seems like a simple cat and mouse movie between a killer and a detective but it actually has multiple layers, one involving Earl Brook’s daughter, the second involving the witness to one of Brook’s crimes and the third involving a criminal Detective Atwood sent to prison who has escaped. The second layer is definitely the most effective storyline, while the first is the second most effective and the third is the third most effective storyline but is more entertaining than the first. I was very surprised at some of the story ingredients included: a box maker, a millionaire and steroid abuser and how they were integrated into the plot and nine times out of ten they worked. I’d like to go in depth about them but that would spoil them for anyone who hasn’t seen this film. Also this film has multiple special treats in its third act, including a Heat moment that would make even Michael Mann smirk.
Let me not forget the wonderful performance by Earl Brook’s id, Marshall (William Hurt). This is a part of Earl Brook’s mind that has been given its own name, physical appearance and personality traits that Brook’s identifies with, laughs with, plans with, a part of his brain. This is much like the situation with The Narrator’s mind in Fight Club when it came to Tyler Durden except in Mr. Brooks, Earl is fully aware that Marshall is a figment of his imagination but is nevertheless a welcome part of him. The difference in Fight Club is that Tyler’s army is fully aware of The Narrator’s splintered personality where as in Mr. Brooks, no one is aware of Mr. Brook’s or of Marshall’s existence. That is what is so great about when Earl and Marshall talk to each other. Brook’s is basically talking and arguing with himself about his wishes, fears and desires.
If you are a horror, crime or thriller lover, director Bruce A Evans’ Mr. Brooks is the film for you, especially if the disappointing quality of Hostel II, SAW III and the short-lived theatrical run of Grindhouse are still vivid in your mind. (9.5 out of 10)
Movie Review: Sunshine
From the director of zombie/horror film 28 Days Later, Millions and Trainspotting comes a sci-fi thriller entitled Sunshine. Fifty years in the future, Earth is freezing in a solar winter. The Icarus project is the last hope for the world. They must deliver a “stellar bomb with a thermonuclear payload equivalent to the mass of Manhattan” near the center of the closet star to earth, our Sun, creating a miniature big bang and a new star (re-ignition of the old star) in the process. One Icarus space ship has already been lost. This film follows the exploits of the second mission, the Icarus II.
Unlike Armageddon, The Core and The Day After Tomorrow, there is a total lack of goofiness, quirky, lovable characters in Sunshine and it is almost completely absent of absurdity. This is a film where characters have to make hard decisions, decisions that will affect the fate of millions, possibly billions of people. The cast of characters is comprised of the scientists and astronauts necessary to carry out the mission. They are: flight officer Cassie (Rose Bryne) and Mace (Chris Evans), ship’s psychologist Searle (Cliff Curtis), communications and first officer Harvey (Troy Garity), nuclear physicist Capa (Cillian Murphy), Captain Kaneda (Hiroyuki Sanada), botanist Corazon (Michelle Yeoh) and flight physicist Trey (Benedict Wong).
What is unfortunate about this film is the same thing that happened in the atmospheric Event Horizon. Something shows up in the third act of this film completely unnecessary, transforming it from a sci-fi epic into a sci-fi / horror movie with a clearly defined antagonist and protagonist. The trailer to Sunshine makes you think its something entirely different from what it actually is. If this “something” had been what it was alluded to be in the trailer, it would be easy to forgive its inclusion, as long as it was handled properly. But we are given the ordinary “something” in Sunshine, again.
If there are any complaints to be had about Sunshine, it is most likely because of this part of the film. The first question when this “something” appears is why? Why include this? The film was effectively offing the crew of the Icarus II without it. It just was not necessary at all. On an unrelated note, most people with a death wise, that really want to die, find a way to kill themselves. They don’t sit around and wait for it to happen naturally while imitating a devout Christian hermit. If you really want to communicate to God like you say, kill yourself. If you believe in God so adamantly, why not bring yourself into his/her presence immediately instead of talking on and on about the universe, star dust, angels and the End of Days? Also, would said belief really give you super-strength and pain/death immunity, discounting Hercules and Lazarus of course? I’m just wondering, being a blatherskite as it were and as I said earlier, these thoughts and questions are totally unrelated to the plot of Sunshine.
Danny Boyle’s latest film is an end of the world sci-fi movie tackled with intelligence, real people and science whose third act practical undoes everything intellectual that came before it. You will have a good time with this film but if you look closely you will see the greater time that you could have had. (9 out of 10)
Movie Review: 28 Weeks Later
28 Weeks Later is the rare sequel that is actually better than the film that preceded it. Bloodier and more vicious than 28 Days Later, Weeks doesn’t fall apart in its third act the way Days did. 28 Weeks Later picks up almost exactly where Days left off, though there is a graphic novel produced by Fox Atomic Comic called 28 Days Later: The Aftermath which details what happened between the two movies and the Rage virus as well. At 28 Weeks Later’s beginning, we meet a group of people hiding out in a boarded-up house from the Rage infected. Everything soon goes to hell but it is during Hades that the viewer first realizes how improved Weeks is in comparison to Days. In Weeks, the audience is given someone to care about, a family in fact, whose father Don (Robert Carlyle) is the most sympathetic and “real” character in the entire film. He is forced to make a hard decision early in the film, a very human decision, the only logical one available to him. The one all the people in the boarded up house are there for. Self-preservation. This theme is what both films are about, staying alive, but Weeks in its second act soon becomes about keeping two very unique individuals alive.
Unlike Days, 28 Weeks Later has a military element that is integral to its plot. Helicopters, fighter jets, highly trained snipers and scientists all inhabit this film and are effective to varying degrees. Week’s story is simple. The Rage virus has been contained, part of England has been quarantined 27 weeks after the initial outbreak and on the 28 week, re-population into a “safe zone” is commencing. Two of these re-populating people are Don’s children, Tammy (Imogen Poots) and Andy (Mackintosh Muggleton). The United States military are gatekeepers and regulators of this quarantine and inexitably, that quarantine is breached.
This is where 28 Weeks Later falters second. I’ll get to where is falters first later. The father, Don, is a maintenance worker of some kind and logically has a pass-key that lets him into certain areas of the quarantine complex to keep things running. That’s fine, but why and how in God’s (or an awake screenwriter’s) name is he given an access key to every door, everywhere. Yes, that’s right. A civilian with no military clearance whatsoever is given an access key that gets him into top secret, highly sensitive and dangerous areas freely. There are no security monitors and no guards in the areas he walks into. Nothing. It makes no sense. None. No wait, actually it makes the same sense as when a 6’2, 200+ pound, black leather, sunglass wearing Terminator walks into the Skynet military complex during a time of crisis in the third act of “Terminator 3″ with machine and grenade gun in hand, isn’t stopped at the gate or by guards anywhere and isn’t every questioned. Just walks right in with another person (John Connor) who has absolutely no security clearance during a top secret situation affecting computers throughout America. Or when John Anderton still has access and walks right back into police headquarters after he is declared a fugitive in “Minority Report”. Yes, I’ve got it now. That is the sense that it makes. There is another infection rampant in 28 Weeks Later besides the Rage virus. Plot idiocy.
The plot fault in “Minority Report” can be forgiven because it is its singular plot hiccup. The ones in 28 Weeks just keep escalating. Don’t get me wrong though, I am one of those people that can see the forest through the trees. I see the great zombie/horror/action movie underneath all faults and I see what this movie achieves in its genre(s). Speaking of faults, let me get back to the first one. I won’t mention the identity of the person or the circumstances surrounding them but it was almost like a cop-out, an invalidation of what transpired in the film’s first fifteen minutes. That aside, this person has been bitten by the Rage infected and hasn’t turned into a killing machine like everyone else. This person seems to have a natural immunity to the Rage virus. I say seems because the first fault is about to occur. You have a potential cure for a deadly virus staring you in the face and what does Scarlet (Rose Bryne), the ranking officer with concern to the virus, do? Nothing. She mentions it to the commander of the quarantine; Stone (Idris Elba) one time then drops it. What’s she been dreaming about since she got to Europe and the infected zone, the answer to all of the death and rotting corpses in the buildings and streets surrounding the safe zone and she doesn’t: call her scientific boss in the U.S. about her discovery, go over Stone’s head and inform his boss, put in a emergency call to Washington, inform the press, take a massive amount of living samples from the carrier/host for storage and analysis (for possible synthesis and duplication) or send a single email informing someone of the value of the person she’s discovered. Hell no. The military doesn’t even put cameras on the carrier to monitor them or extra guards around the observation cage. There is one guard for the most valuable, unique human in the entire country. That’s it and that is almost completely forgiven (almost) because of the gruesome R, NC-17 death that occurs because of these Bizzaro World (Htrae for the uninitiated) security measures and complete lack of primate intelligence. Let me tell you, it’s one of the most intense death scenes since “the trailer scene” in the remake of “The Hills Have Eyes” and approaches (but not quite) the sadism and viciousness of the first semi-kill in “Wolf Creek”. I was surprised and impressed. This and some of the scenes that followed raise this “zombie” movie above the likes of the disappointing “Land of the Dead”, the “Resident Evil” franchise up to this point, “Shaun of the Dead” (though that was a horror/comedy), “Undead”, the “Day of the Dead” remake and others I am probably forgetting as well.
Case and point, the sniper sequence. This scene is fantastic. You see the snipers at the beginning of the film and think they’ll never be used. They’re used alright and quite effectively I might say. But how do the Rage infected get themselves all the way up through a building, in some cases, thirty to fifty floors up, and attack the snipers? Don’t think about that. Turn your brain off. Why would a highly trained sniper break orders and abandon his post (that’s desertion and dereliction of duty by the way, Court Marshallable offenses) only to descend from his relatively safe perch into the belly of the beast? Does that make sense career or situation-wise? Don’t think about that either. Just enjoy the scene and the carnage.
Other plot faults pop-up like why don’t the soldiers communicate with each over their radios and identify themselves so that they are fired upon but at a certain point you stop questioning and just go with the film because its so well shot by director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo, the tension is never fully released and there is always something happening or about to happen. People die in 28 Weeks Later whom you don’t expect to die and in manners that are well worth the price of admission, benefiting the film as it keeps you guessing, making you realize that no one is safe. This is an achievement since you can usually tell from the actor playing a character in certain movies, like Jessica Biel in the remake of “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre”, who has been ear-marked as the “survivor” guy or the “survivor” girl (thanks “Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Veron”).
28 Weeks Later could have been a film that successfully crossed many film genres (family drama, horror, et cetera) and went down in film history as one of the all-time greats like Romero’s “Dawn of the Dead”. Because of plot faults and holes greater than its predecessor however, it is merely a great zombie movie, a superior entry in the genre and a highly entertaining film. (8.5 out of 10)
Movie Review: The Hoax
The Hoax revolves around the legendary Howard Hughes in the 1970’s and a writer’s desperate attempt at fame and fortune through deception and lies. That ambitious writer is Clifford Irving (Richard Gere), whose latest book gets demolished by critics before it is published, causing his publishers to pull the book before it is every released. In a fit of desperation, Irving bursts into his publishers’ office during a meeting and says his upcoming book is the most important book of the twentieth century. The book in question is an autobiography of the reclusive millionaire Howard Hughes. The offices of McGraw-Hill, Irving’s publishers, are instantly electrified by the news. Irving proves he is a far better writer and creative mind than anyone imagined as he begins manufacturing correspondents from Hughes that are actually forged so well they are authenticated by handwriting experts.
Irving soon enlists his best friend and background/detail man Dick Suskind (Alfred Molina) to help him write and gather information for the autobiography. It is Suskind’s character that provides the most comic relief in the film, showing how versatile an actor Molina really is. The information gathering sequences are where the most tension and the most humor is found in The Hoax but it is in the writing of the autobiography’s pages that Gere flexes his acting muscles. In order to write about him, Irving and Suskind investigate Hughes to the point where Gere can virtually channel him in the recording/writing sessions for the autobiography.
As the film progresses and the book nears completion, the legal consequences of what Irving and Suskind are doing begins to mount. They are not simply pulling the wool over McGraw-Hill’s eyes; they are risking jail time, their careers and most important in the literary world, their reputations. Even with threats looming over their heads, they push forward with the autobiography as anxiety rises and their personal lives begin falling apart, causing them to drink and do things they wouldn’t normally do. Irving and Suskind are also forced to get more inventive with their fallacious book and their conspiracy. This is the section of the film that truly shows how deep their imaginations are but also their growing desperation to keep their payday, a one million dollar check written out to Howard Hughes by McGraw-Hill. This desperation leads them to conduct a brilliant and successful operation involving the roof top of the McGraw-Hill building and a helicopter.
In The Hoax’s third act, what Irving had counted on never happening in his wildest dreams happens: Howard Hughes voluntarily comes forward after ten years of seclusion and publicly denounces Irving and his book on live television. The interview is over the phone but thanks to Irving and Suskind listening to recordings of Hughes during the autobiography’s creation you know it’s him. At this point, the house cards comes crashing down and everyone starts running for cover.
The Hoax is a film that houses Richard Gere’s best performance in years. He reminds you why he is part of Hollywood’s top tier of actors. Gere doesn’t just act cool and replicate himself in his character as in some of his other films or like William Shatner’s Denny Crane on television’s “Boston Legal”. He acts, much like Stallone acts in Rocky Balboa, though Balboa is a great film while The Hoax is simply an entertaining one. (7.5 out of 10)
Movie Review #2: Spider-Man 3
With the potential to be the best of the three, at the film’s end, Spider-Man 3 turns out to be the franchise film with the weakest third act. It all begins with Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church), whose back story is so well drawn it is the first of the two plot lines in Spider-Man 3 that deserved its own film. Marko is easily simplistic and you feel sorry for him, his situation and his home life. Next is Eddie Brock Jr. (Topher Grace), shown as ambitions yet inhuman from the start. This inhumanity (maybe he’s a sociopath) is illustrated in his first scene where he watches with a smile on his face, a camera in hand and jovially quips with the Captain Stacy (James Cromwell) as his daughter Gwen, played by Bryce Dallas Howard, hangs out of a window sixty floors up. In addition, Stacy just happens to be Brock’s girlfriend, a plot situation completely undeveloped. It’s in name only and exists solely to give some depth to Brock’s eventual hatred for Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire). There isn’t an ounce of fear on Brock’s face for Stacy as she faces death, a death he may be forced to witness along with everyone else that has gathered around the building. Brock never tries to get into the building to save her. Neither does her father for that matter but that’s not the point. Even Adrien Brody in Peter Jackson’s King Kong tried to use his own two hands and help the woman he loved. And guess what the worst part of this situation truly is. Brock is not a sociopath or inhuman in the slightest. This scene and his character in general were just terribly written. His character was given no core and no reality. He is a screenplay element, nothing more, nothing less. His personality was an after thought, something written on the last day before the screenplay was turned in. Brock doesn’t react because he was given nothing within himself to react with. His character is a void. This is why he, like Marko, deserved their own separate Spider-Man movie. Brock would have been given what he lacks, a personality, three-dimensionality and a character arc (a good and fulfilling one I mean, not the left-overs he was saddled with in this film).
Spider-Man 3’s first two acts are pretty flawless, some eclipsing those found in Spider-Man 1 and 2. Many of those well-written scenes involve Spider-Man newcomer Flint Marko. As I said earlier, his character was given layers and a motivation any family man can understand. His past is cleverly melded to the ethos of the previous Spider-Man films, giving his character more depth than is actually there. Though not given much to do but be in peril and be a possible love interest, Gwen Stacy’s few scenes in Spider-Man 3 are memorable, adding to the film and benefiting it. But since there is so much going on in Spider-Man 3, her character is never developed and her storyline comes to an end by the end of the second act, taking all of the sexual tension and the Parker/Watson/Stacy love triangle with her. But while it lasts, this section of the film does raise Spider-Man 3 past Spider-Man 1, even though it is hampered by a badly acted scene on a bridge.
This section of the film is also when major questions start to arise. Why would a superhero want people to know exactly where he is at any given time? If nice people who want to celebrate you know exactly where you are, so will all of your enemies. You say you want to protect those you love and with great power comes great responsibility. Is it responsible exposing yourself to danger like that? You’ve basically put a bull’s eye on your chest and endangered every spectator that has come to see you. And why would you let someone at this event touch your mask? They could easily rip it off your face, showing your true identity to the world. These points are somewhat explained by Parker’s growing vanity and not being able to see past himself, his desires and Spider-Man to reality. But still, common sense screams privity and modesty when it comes to the population of New York City, whether they are fans or not.
Then we have another section of the film where Spider-Man 3 excels past its predecessors. It is when Parker is corrupted and goes bad because of an extraterrestrial symbiote and its aggression magnification. This is hands down the most interesting section of the Spider-Man 3 and almost the most entertaining. The best part about it is that it has nothing to do with special effects of any kind. It’s psychological and what happens to Parker’s personality because of the suit, which he begins wearing more and more often underneath his clothing. I have read a few complaints on the internet about the “Rain drops falling on my head” sequence in Spider-Man 2 and its awkwardness. I felt something along those lines the first time I saw it also. In Spider-Man 3, there is a sequence that not only parodies “Rain drops”, it makes it a thousand times better, is more entertaining (you will laugh or chuckle at least twice) and illustrates how negative, testosterone-filled and self absorbed Parker has become because of the symbiote. This is why Parker, Stacy, Brock and the symbiote should have been in their own Spider-Man movie and Marko and possibly Osborn in another. There was more than enough material there (Parker, Stacy, Brock and the symbiote) without having to squander storylines and condense them.
Speaking of squandered storylines, after Parker “takes off” his new costume (the symbiote) and Brock and the symbiote are joined, why does Brock believe he needs someone else to fight Spider-Man with him? He has not even faced him alone yet (another reason why Venom should have had his own movie). How does he know he can not take Parker by himself? Plus, it’s already two against one: Brock and the symbiote. Aren’t they supposed to be a team, feeding off of one another? Oh, wait, wait, that’s just in the comic book, which is why Brock, after his joining in Spider-Man 3, does not eventually refer to himself as “we” instead of “I”. Character details like that would have really bogged down this film’s special effects finale, are truly not important and would not have added to the Topher’s Venom at all. Neither would the fact that the symbiote, because of his prolonged joining with Parker, knows all of his secretes and tells them to Brock in the comic book. That wouldn’t have made Venom a more interesting villain either. Venom in Spider-Man 3 is not scary or intimidating in the slightest (very strange considering Sam Raimi’s pedigree: Evil Dead 1 and 2 anyone? Army of Darkness?) and is A-Okay for children of all ages, assisted by the fact that he gets only around nine minutes of screen time in the entire film. If Venom was destined to hog all of the movie like that, Raimi should be less obvious about it next time.
The third act of Spider-Man 3 that screenwriters Alvin Sargent, Ivan Raimi and Sam Raimi came up with is actually down to earth and most likely where the majority of the film’s budget was sunk. Brock and Marko commandeer an entire high-rise construction site but not before Brock somehow finds Marko (who is trying to remain off the grid and whom none of the city’s police force can locate, people actually trained in finding criminals) out of a entire city filled with people, mysteriously learns all about Marko’s family situation before their encounter, a certain someone is kidnapped (again) and then Spider-Man is challenged to a tri-duel in front of an entire city on national television. Like I said, down to earth. This overly elaborate and unnecessary scheme surely makes the likes of Mark Twain proud. I mean, the screenwriters could have just had Venom show up at Parker’s apartment door as Brock, have Brock lull Parker with a made-up story for why he’s there (one of Brock’s core competencies) and then have Brock try to kill Parker once he was in his apartment alone with him. He could have used his elongated teeth and claws on him, spraying Parker blood all over the walls and ceiling. What if that helpful neighbor girl heard the commotion and walked in on it. Uh-oh, no more neighbor girl. But alas, Spider-Man 3 is PG-13 so no claw attacks, tearing and no teeth bites.
In Spider-Man 1, it took Parker a decent amount of time to learn all of his abilities and how to control them without killing himself. Marko and Brock master their newly given gifts within a matter of minutes. How they establish the mind/ability connection so quickly is not even broached. They are savants of their disciplines, no questions asked, almost instantly. This is what happens when three villains are thrown into one film. Everything is rushed and compromised. Because of the machine he fell into, Marko is technically not human anymore and Brock has a parasite that feeds off of his aggressive feelings and that communicates with him (not included in the film). Does the film deal with Marko’s loss of humanity, Brock having an alien attached to his body and what that means for the remainder of his life? No to both of these questions. All they can see is Spider-Man and his death at their hands, with some exception to Marko.
It is unfortunate that Marko’s storyline ends up going nowhere, spurting and disappearing into the wind of Spider-Man 3’s landscape. What happened with his daughter and her needed operation(s)? Who knows, who cares. Why should we? The screenwriters obviously didn’t since they did not resolve the issue either way. And since when does a person that can de/re-materialize into sand particles have the ability to control nature and summon wind gusts at will? Is he related to Storm of the X-Men? It’s most likely one of those things we are not supposed to think about.
By the end of Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man 3, you are just sitting there watching special effects with no feeling involved whatsoever. You can actually feel the film slide from where it brought you with Peter Parker and the symbiote, trip and stumble over too much in one film and fall because of the over-the-topness of its finale. Once again, Mary Jane is in peril and Spider-Man must save her. The same end formula re-used in three films with no originality except this time, unlike the two times before it, there is not even a base level of emotional involvement. None of the three villains ever thinks to go after Parker’s only living family member. Why not go after Aunt May, the person that raised Parker and whom he loves even moreso than Mary Jane? That is his heart, his true heart, the person he goes to for advice and guidance. The one who will love him no matter what. I guess we’re not supposed to think about that obvious truth either or the fact that Venom is never given time to breath and be Venom. He is a throw in, much like Bane was in Batman and Robin. You may or may not have noticed that I only mentioned Harry Osborn (James Franco) in passing and did not mention J. Jonah Jameson (J.K. Simmons) at all in my review. The latter has his expanded part from Spider-Man 2 shortened to a few scenes and comic relief moments and the former’s eventual character arc is very um… plot convenient. Well, there we have it. Spider-Man 3, a movie that could have been a lot better but also far worse. It could have been as non-sensical, character-flooded and badly scripted as X-Men 3 or as back-birthed (yes I love Firefly) as The Fantastic Four. (7.5 out of 10)
Movie Review: Bridge to Terabithia
Gabor Csupo’s Bridge to Terabithia is a children’s film with substance that has been masqueraded and advertised as a special effects fantasy movie. The “other world” aspects of this film are, in actuality, very small. The film’s main focus is the family and school life of the film’s two central characters – Jesse Aarons (Josh Huterson) and Leslie Burke (Anna Sophia Robb). Jesse is the son of a hardware store employee, Jesse Aarons Senior (Robert Patrick) while Leslie is the daughter of fiction novel writers, Bill Burke (Latham Gaines) and Judy Burke (Judy McIntosh). Jesse’s daily life consists of house chores, drawing, homework and bullies at school. The only thing Jesse has to look forward to is a big race which he loses to the new girl in school, Leslie.
Though annoyed and taciturn, Jesse eventually becomes friends with Leslie, an act that fills friendship voids in both their lives. As this friendship develops throughout the first two acts of the film, each discovers in the other a creative kindred spirit. One is a talented painter/drawer with no formal training and the other is a fledgling writer with a fervent imagination. It is Leslie’s imagination, not Jesse’s drawing skill, that begins their secret imaginary kingdom of Terabithia. Terabithia is a place where they are safe from the outside world, an empire they derive strength and courage from. They use the adventures they find themselves in and create within Terabithia’s borders as life lessons for the real world. If they can defeat grotesqueries in Terabithia, they soon realize they can face obstacles outside of its domain with the same vigor and determination.
It is when tragedy strikes in the real world of the Bridge to Terabithia’s third act that the gained fortitude is stressed, stretched and put to the ultimate test. An emotional and physical loss, the kind most children are fortunate enough never to have to deal with, occurs. This is what sets Terabithia apart from many of the fantasy films that came out after the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Though advertised as one of these films, it is this part of Terabithia that elevates it past the likes of Eragon, The Chronicles of Narnia and Dungeons & Dragons. This is the Bridge to Terabithia’s heart and soul and what makes the film relevant to every age category, no matter how skeptical they may be about “another fantasy film knock-off”. From this point on in the film, you feel for the characters, especially when they try to hide their emotions from others.
Bridge to Terabithia is film about how people, young and old, deal with adversity in their lives. It’s about loss and a small slice of the human condition as it pertains to fantasy and mortality. There are many disposable films in Terabithia’s genre, empty films that say nothing, effects films, dazzling, senseless films. Terabithia is not one of them. It transcends its genre because it says something pertinent to all of us when dealt a smashing blow – Nothing Crushes Us. (9 out of 10)
Follow Us
Support Us
Click here to buy posters!
