Alright my geek brothers and sisters... now that marvel has announced their movies, who should play T'Challa (Black Panther) and Carol Danvers (Captain Marvel/Ms. Marvel/Warbird/Binary)?
Supposedly, a relative unknown, Chadwick Boseman, has already been cast as T'Challa (who will be introduced in the third Captain America movie, due out in 2016 I believe). Frankly I've seen the guys work and I'm not impressed thus far.
Marvel has been known to recast... I can see them doing so here, so the game is open on both characters.
First, Black Panther.
If he wasn't already Heimdall, I'd have said Idris Elba was the perfect T'Challa. Similarly, Don Cheadle and Djimon Hounsou are already in the Marvel cinematic universe, or I'd say either of them would be decent possibilities.
You've got to have someone who is physically impressive (not necessarily big, though most artists have drawn him that way; but definitely fit and with great physical presence) yes... but more importantly, you've got to have someone who can project the same air of genius that Benedict Cumberbatch (Dr. Strange), Mark Ruffalo (Bruce Banner), and Robert Downey Jr. (Tony Stark) have. T'Challa is supposed to be the intellectual AND emotional AND spiritual superior to almost all in the marvel universe. He's specifically noted as the "eighth smartest man in the world", and is wiser, and more spiritually connected than any of those who are his equal in intelligence.
There aren't a lot of actors who can pull that off... and as I said, most of them are already playing characters in the MCU.
Maybe Chiwetel Ejiofor? He can do it physically, and emotionally, and intellectually. Hell, he's even an ethnic Igbo (his parents were Nigerian, though he was born and raised in England).
How about Captain Marvel?
Carol Danvers is actually much tougher.
First thing is, you can play around with looks a bit... but you can't completely change her entire physical presence, it's actually very important to the character.
Carol is a VERY BUSTY LADY... Even by comic book standards.
Not only that, but she's not some willowy little thing. She's tall (in universe she's 5'11"), and she's muscular, and she's STURDY.
She's bigger, taller, stronger, and tougher, than almost all of the male heroes, even without her powers (with her full powers, she is by canon, the most physically powerful Marvel hero. Only Hulk is more physically strong and damage resistant, and he doesn't have the energy powers that she has). Think of a near 6 foot tall womens fitness competitor... not a tiny little gymnast or hollywood actress type. That's really very important to who she is.
Basically, she is the second biggest (and second bustiest), of the main human (or human-ish anyway... it gets complicated...) female heroes in the Marvel universe (both behind Jennifer Walters, AKA She-Hulk... and actually in "human" form, Walters is shorter than Danvers by 1"... Though if you want to count Psylocke as a main hero, she's pretty much exactly the same size as Danvers, and some artists draw her just about as busty... The asgardian women are taller, but they're aliens... and Valkyries... so... you know...)
Note: If you think Marvel are ridiculous about their female heroes breasts, DC are FAR FAR worse... Four words: Power Girl Boob Window.
Yes, really, it may seem shallow and sexist, but honestly her physique really is an important part of her character, as is her sexuality. In particular, the fact that she was a tall and good looking but not either ridiculously muscular nor super busty woman before she was transformed and received her powers; and that her transformation made her into this "turned up to 11" body, as well as changing her personality (and these changes took her years to integrate and resolve, and accomodate)... it's really important to her character, her personality, her emotions, her psyche etc... and they are very relevant to the stuff that happened to her over the course of her career as a hero.
Importantly, she's incredibly competent, capable, and well trained; a veteran of the Air Force, NASA and SHIELD (sort of... it gets weird...), even before she received her superpowers.
Emotionally and personality wise, she's tough, she's hard in many ways, brittle in some, and insecure in many ways. She can be quite cruel and heartless, but she can also be overly emotional and irrationally sentimental... and VERY funny, sometimes in a cynical, sarcastic, and biting way, sometimes in a goofy way.
Most importantly by far though, is that she is VERY VERY BADLY DAMAGED.
Carol Danvers is one of the most screwed over women in the history of comics... and that's REALLY saying something. I won't go into it here because... really I couldn't... it takes too long to explain and is way too screwed up... but trust me (look up her full back story and the various controversies therein if you want to know).
This a woman with PROFOUND PTSD... for VERY GOOD REASON
Oh and she's a (just barely) recovering alcoholic on a scale so epic that TONY FRIKKEN STARK thought she was hitting the bottle a little too hard.
So... who the hell can play that?
Honestly... I'm not sure who I'd pick... I suppose the most important variable is what age they decide to make her at introduction.
If they go for a younger Carol, either an origin story, or relatively recently come into her powers... Canonically, that would make her 31 years old or thereabouts.
Maybe Yvonne Strahovski?
She's still too small (only 5'9-1/2" and very fit, but not very muscular, and she's quite slim), and she has the "look" except being a bit too small breasted (not an insurmountable problem in hollywood). but I think she's got the chops for it.
If they went a little older, Julie Benz would be nearly perfect if she wasn't so small. She's only 5'4" though she's actually quite fit and muscular (and rather busty for her size).
Both play tough and competent very well, and both play badly damaged very well.
Charlize Theron might be good. Maybe Anna Torv.
Jeri Ryan, Peta Wilson, Tricia Helfer, Lucy Lawless, Dianne Kruger, Kristianna Loken, Abbie Cornish, Ali Larter... all physically right, but not right as actresses.
Lots of folks like the idea of Katee Sackhoff, who I love... but she just doesn't feel right for Carol Danvers to me. Also a lot of folks are speculating about Emily Blunt, who I also love... but again, she doesn't feel right to me.
Really, without knowing how old they want to go, it's impossible to figure out the right casting choice.
So... drop dead choices?
I'm gonna go with Yvonne Strahovski, and Chiwetel Ejiofor... but I'm really iffy on both. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.
Showing posts with label Comic Book. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Comic Book. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
Monday, March 21, 2011
Another aspect of the constant DC vs. Marvel holy wars
Ok, I'm going to warn you right now, this one is for hardcore geeks only. Hardcore comic geeks in particular. I'm going to be using terms, and speaking in a context and frame of reference that is going to pass right on by anyone other than a comic book geek.
That said, I'll try to keep it understandable for anyone not a deep geek on this topic (believe me, when you get into the details of this, you are only barely speaking english).
Okay, forging onward.
So, yesterday, in another forum I frequent, someone asked about the measurements of the character Power Girl... a notably pneumatic character, even more physically unrealistic than most comic book characters, and as the years go by her art gets less and less connected to anything resembling a human woman; and even though she is a core DC universe character, she's really rather boring, and generally poorly written.
There aren't a lot of Power Girl fans, excepting those who just like the big boobed art basically.
The thing is though... that situation isn't unusual for DC... and it is for Marvel. I'm not a mainstream DC universe fan. Their core continuity mostly bores me, and there's a very significant reason why (which we'll talk about in a minute). I am a mainstream Marvel fan, and their core continuity doesn't bore me.
On the other hand, DC has published many of my favorite books... as alternative comics, mini series, specials, short runs, and graphic novels.
Contrasting, Marvel really hasn't done much out of the core continuity that made much of an impression at all.
The whole thread got me thinking about DC and Marvel, and how they handle their mainline continuity and core books, vs. their side imprints, alts shortruns, minis, and GNs.
To my mind, DC has been an absolute master at the non-core books; but they've really done nothing particularly interesting with their core. In fact, whenever they wanted to do anything interesting, in order for it to be GOOD, it had to be handled as an alt, a mini or a GN. Dark Knight being the canonical example.
But with Vertigo and other alt and non core work, DC really did some amazing things.
Basically the entire catalogs of Alan Moore, Neil Gaiman, Warren Ellis, James Robinson, Garth Ennis, Frank Miller, Tony Harris under DC were great. Almost all the Vertigo books were great...
Transmet, Preacher, Watchmen, Dark Knight, Hellblazer, Hitman, Sandman, Starman... these are all among my favorite comics ever... In fact among my favorite storytelling of any format.
On the other side of things, Marvel has done much worse with non-core; but has done a lot better with their core books.
Marvel just has more interesting, and better written characters and storylines in their core books, but can't seem to do the same with their non-core.
Aside from the multiple continuity issue, and canon timeline/continuity holes problem (which both majors have but are much worse at Marvel); they just seem to write their core books better than DC. More importantly, they seem to care about, understand, manage, and write about their core characters better than DC.
Look at what Vertigo put out, vs. what Icon put out... Icon basically has Marc Millar, and that's it (of course Vertigo is pretty much dead now, but it had a great run). CrossGen and Epic never really worked (though neither did DC's Helix). Edge was a 1 year farce. Razorline same thing...
Now, looking at the cool stuff DC did with Vertigo, alts, minis etc... did they do anything comparable in the core except the several reboots, gimics, and stunts in Batman and Superman? And they manage their core characters really badly.
Even superman and Batman have been really really bad for extended periods of time; never mind Flash, Green Lantern, or god help us, Aquaman. Bad in a way that Marvel would never allow for their core characters (except Spiderman, who hasn't been properly managed since the mid 80s, because they can't let themselves accept the Whedon paradox e.g. "when Buffy is unhappy, the show is good. When Buffy is happy, the show isn't good").
Marvel on the other hand did some really great things in the core: god loves man kills, the entire weapon x arc, most of the phoenix saga, demon in a bottle, Silver centurion, Armor Wars, Frank Millers time on Dare Devil, etc... etc....
Most critically, Marvel continues to manage their core characters (other than the aforementioned multiple continuity/timeline issues) very well... other than Spiderman anyway (really, make up your damn minds. Is he a pussy or not. Does he get pussy or not).
Some have said it's because DC let their great writers and artists run free with characters of their own creation; and to an extent that's true, especially with the graphic novels (Watchmen being the canonical example). However, when those exact same artists and writers worked for Marvel, they worked within the comparatively rigid structure of the core continuity and core characters, and still produced really excellent work.
So, any ideas as to why that is? Or does anyone want to prove my core assertion wrong?
That said, I'll try to keep it understandable for anyone not a deep geek on this topic (believe me, when you get into the details of this, you are only barely speaking english).
Okay, forging onward.
So, yesterday, in another forum I frequent, someone asked about the measurements of the character Power Girl... a notably pneumatic character, even more physically unrealistic than most comic book characters, and as the years go by her art gets less and less connected to anything resembling a human woman; and even though she is a core DC universe character, she's really rather boring, and generally poorly written.
There aren't a lot of Power Girl fans, excepting those who just like the big boobed art basically.
The thing is though... that situation isn't unusual for DC... and it is for Marvel. I'm not a mainstream DC universe fan. Their core continuity mostly bores me, and there's a very significant reason why (which we'll talk about in a minute). I am a mainstream Marvel fan, and their core continuity doesn't bore me.
On the other hand, DC has published many of my favorite books... as alternative comics, mini series, specials, short runs, and graphic novels.
Contrasting, Marvel really hasn't done much out of the core continuity that made much of an impression at all.
The whole thread got me thinking about DC and Marvel, and how they handle their mainline continuity and core books, vs. their side imprints, alts shortruns, minis, and GNs.
To my mind, DC has been an absolute master at the non-core books; but they've really done nothing particularly interesting with their core. In fact, whenever they wanted to do anything interesting, in order for it to be GOOD, it had to be handled as an alt, a mini or a GN. Dark Knight being the canonical example.
But with Vertigo and other alt and non core work, DC really did some amazing things.
Basically the entire catalogs of Alan Moore, Neil Gaiman, Warren Ellis, James Robinson, Garth Ennis, Frank Miller, Tony Harris under DC were great. Almost all the Vertigo books were great...
Transmet, Preacher, Watchmen, Dark Knight, Hellblazer, Hitman, Sandman, Starman... these are all among my favorite comics ever... In fact among my favorite storytelling of any format.
On the other side of things, Marvel has done much worse with non-core; but has done a lot better with their core books.
Marvel just has more interesting, and better written characters and storylines in their core books, but can't seem to do the same with their non-core.
Aside from the multiple continuity issue, and canon timeline/continuity holes problem (which both majors have but are much worse at Marvel); they just seem to write their core books better than DC. More importantly, they seem to care about, understand, manage, and write about their core characters better than DC.
Look at what Vertigo put out, vs. what Icon put out... Icon basically has Marc Millar, and that's it (of course Vertigo is pretty much dead now, but it had a great run). CrossGen and Epic never really worked (though neither did DC's Helix). Edge was a 1 year farce. Razorline same thing...
Now, looking at the cool stuff DC did with Vertigo, alts, minis etc... did they do anything comparable in the core except the several reboots, gimics, and stunts in Batman and Superman? And they manage their core characters really badly.
Even superman and Batman have been really really bad for extended periods of time; never mind Flash, Green Lantern, or god help us, Aquaman. Bad in a way that Marvel would never allow for their core characters (except Spiderman, who hasn't been properly managed since the mid 80s, because they can't let themselves accept the Whedon paradox e.g. "when Buffy is unhappy, the show is good. When Buffy is happy, the show isn't good").
Marvel on the other hand did some really great things in the core: god loves man kills, the entire weapon x arc, most of the phoenix saga, demon in a bottle, Silver centurion, Armor Wars, Frank Millers time on Dare Devil, etc... etc....
Most critically, Marvel continues to manage their core characters (other than the aforementioned multiple continuity/timeline issues) very well... other than Spiderman anyway (really, make up your damn minds. Is he a pussy or not. Does he get pussy or not).
Some have said it's because DC let their great writers and artists run free with characters of their own creation; and to an extent that's true, especially with the graphic novels (Watchmen being the canonical example). However, when those exact same artists and writers worked for Marvel, they worked within the comparatively rigid structure of the core continuity and core characters, and still produced really excellent work.
So, any ideas as to why that is? Or does anyone want to prove my core assertion wrong?
Thursday, June 03, 2010
Apparently Mighty Thor is Mighty Gay....
No... not gay... Just a cross between a Twilight character, a pro wrestler, and a professional brooding consultant....
Of course, 70's cartoon Thor looked pretty much like a gay muscleboy... so maybe this is an upgrade.
At least Mjolnir looks pretty cool... Plus, totally rockin boots and cape.
I'm still somewhat reserved about the notion of Kenneth Brannagh directing a comic book movie... I mean I love Brannaghs work in general, but I can't quite see Thor staring out at the audience and saying "There's a double meaning in that..."...
...Though... thinking about it... Damn, Thor really does look a lot like an idealized muscly version of a young Brannagh here... He's Benedick THE MIGHTY!!!!
At least Mjolnir looks pretty cool... Plus, totally rockin boots and cape.
I'm still somewhat reserved about the notion of Kenneth Brannagh directing a comic book movie... I mean I love Brannaghs work in general, but I can't quite see Thor staring out at the audience and saying "There's a double meaning in that..."...
...Though... thinking about it... Damn, Thor really does look a lot like an idealized muscly version of a young Brannagh here... He's Benedick THE MIGHTY!!!!
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Say it aint so Stan!
Disney to acquire Marvel for $4 billion
Aug 31 09:10 AM US/Eastern
LOS ANGELES (AP) - The Walt Disney Co. says it is acquiring Marvel Entertainment Inc. for $4 billion in cash and stock, bringing characters like Iron Man and Spider-Man into the Disney family.
Under the deal, Disney will acquire ownership of 5,000 Marvel characters.
Disney said Monday that Marvel shareholders will receive $30 per share in cash plus 0.745 Disney shares for every Marvel share they own.
It said the boards of Disney and Marvel have both approved the transaction, but it requires an antitrust review and the approval of Marvel shareholders.
I can't imagine any circumstance where this will not end badly for any real Marvel, real comic, or real superhero fan.
The mere thought of Disney owning say, the silver surfer... There's a puker right there.
Let's just say I forsee a lot more "Howard the Duck", and a lot less Deadpool.
Oh and for you anal comic books guy types: yes, I know, I could have been even more quote appropriate, since Joe Quesada is the actual Editor in Chief at Marvel; but most people associate Stan Lee with Marvel.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Comic Books, Superheros, Lovem or Hatem, See Dark Knight
Because it's just a damn good movie.
I'm not going to be able to write much of a review here without spoilers, so I'll keep it brief. I've heard people saying this is the best comic book movie ever, or the best superhero movie ever... and I disagree with both of those (those are a tossup between "Sin City", and "300"; and "Iron Man" respectively) but only just off the mark in either case.
The important thing to note though, is that whether you like comic movies and superheros, or hate them; if you like good movies (as opposed to "fine cinema") you're going to like Dark Knight.
Note perfect performances; the only problem being, there are so many great characters there, that there isn't enough screen time for any of them (including the two leads by the way)... In fact I'd say the real star of the pic is Gery Oldman as Gordon, rather than Christian Bale.
There were only two plot devices, one that showed up twice, the other just once; that made me hit my suspensions of disbelief wall... which for a superhero movie is pretty damn good by the by. One was simply overly and unnecessarily complex and elaborate, and unnecessary to use when they did (being cool for coolness sake is somtimes OK; this time it didn't work); and the other made me yell out in the theater "Damn... physics just got made batmans bitch".
There are some DAMN good twists... not exactly completely unpredictable (especially if you know the comic), but very well executed.
Oh and a semi-almost-kinda-littlebitofa spoiler here for just a second. For those of you upset about a particular twist... Remember, there was no body, and the joker is twisted enough to have done any sort of thing... so don't count on what you saw being what you saw.
So, seriously, just go see it. At two and a half hours, it was still too short. I could've at for another half hour and not cared... maybe another hour... it was that good.
I'm not going to be able to write much of a review here without spoilers, so I'll keep it brief. I've heard people saying this is the best comic book movie ever, or the best superhero movie ever... and I disagree with both of those (those are a tossup between "Sin City", and "300"; and "Iron Man" respectively) but only just off the mark in either case.
The important thing to note though, is that whether you like comic movies and superheros, or hate them; if you like good movies (as opposed to "fine cinema") you're going to like Dark Knight.
Note perfect performances; the only problem being, there are so many great characters there, that there isn't enough screen time for any of them (including the two leads by the way)... In fact I'd say the real star of the pic is Gery Oldman as Gordon, rather than Christian Bale.
There were only two plot devices, one that showed up twice, the other just once; that made me hit my suspensions of disbelief wall... which for a superhero movie is pretty damn good by the by. One was simply overly and unnecessarily complex and elaborate, and unnecessary to use when they did (being cool for coolness sake is somtimes OK; this time it didn't work); and the other made me yell out in the theater "Damn... physics just got made batmans bitch".
There are some DAMN good twists... not exactly completely unpredictable (especially if you know the comic), but very well executed.
Oh and a semi-almost-kinda-littlebitofa spoiler here for just a second. For those of you upset about a particular twist... Remember, there was no body, and the joker is twisted enough to have done any sort of thing... so don't count on what you saw being what you saw.
So, seriously, just go see it. At two and a half hours, it was still too short. I could've at for another half hour and not cared... maybe another hour... it was that good.
Friday, August 10, 2007
Go See Stardust RIGHT NOW
I'm not going to even try and write a full review because I don't want to ruin any moment of it for you. Let me just say that this is the best movie I've seen in years.
Neil Gaiman is a frikken genius; and the performances in the movie are utterly brilliant.
Oh and they're even funnier if you're a fan of British comedy.
The movie is just about perfect... the only way it could possibly have been better is if there were more of it.
There hasn't been a better fantasy movie since "The Princess Bride" (which is the best live action fantasy of all time, and my favorite movie), and this is nearly as good (though not nearly as quotable).
Go, see it this weekend so it gets huge buzz and ensures that everything Gaimans ever done gets made into a movie.
Neil Gaiman is a frikken genius; and the performances in the movie are utterly brilliant.
Oh and they're even funnier if you're a fan of British comedy.
The movie is just about perfect... the only way it could possibly have been better is if there were more of it.
There hasn't been a better fantasy movie since "The Princess Bride" (which is the best live action fantasy of all time, and my favorite movie), and this is nearly as good (though not nearly as quotable).
Go, see it this weekend so it gets huge buzz and ensures that everything Gaimans ever done gets made into a movie.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Your Friendly Neighborhood All Singing All Dancing Spiderman
So, we saw Spiderman 3 last night.
I really liked the movie; but...
I think having what is possibly the most expensive movie ever made may have gone to Sam Raimis head. Of course it grossed $60 million yesterday alone, so maybe not.
Why do I say went to his head?
Well, for one thing, the entire movie was made as kind of a 1930s through 50s Hollywood style screwball comedy; mixed with a pulp action movie of the same era.
WHICH IS AWESOME!
Seriously it's SOOO cool for the geek in me to see that. Pretty much Raimi was given an unlimited checkbook and told "Go make the movie you've always wanted ever since you were a kid".
...and he did it.
I like it, but it is a BIT much, even for me in some spots.
So, an illustration of what I'm talking about (very slight spoilerage. Skip the next three paragraphs if you don't want to know)
In the middle of the movie Raimi sets up an extended song and dance number, including a street dancing montage a la "saturday night fever"; followed up by Spidey doing a Gene Kelly dancing on the tables bit in a jazz club (It's a reference to a mid fifties movie that I can't remember the name of right now).
No, really.
And then theres the screwball set piece with Bruce Campbell as a Maitre D' in a french restaurant... BRILLIANT!!!
Not to say the movie was all comedy and style. There were some great action set pieces. The pacing in the action sequences was really solid; and they managed the transitions from plot and character into action pretty well.
The only real problem I had (other than the heavy stylization; which like I said is cool, it's just a bit much), was that there is too much movie here.
There are so many different side plots, and vignettes, and plot threads; that the whole thing is a bit too busy, and a bit overwhelming. I would rather have seen the movie simplified a bit.. thinned out maybe; and more time taken to develop those individual threads.
Theres probably three movies worth of really good stuff here, packed in and cut into one (admittedly long at 2hrs 20 minutes) movie.
Okay, lets break it down...
The good:
Thomas Hayden Church was excellent. He played the "dumb comic book villain with a heart" perfectly. Yes, he was chewing on the scenery, but they ALL were, this is a comic book movie.
Tobey Maguire was much less irritating than I usually find him. Or rather, he was less inappropriately irritating (believe me, his character is SUPPOSED to be irritating in this one). Peter Parker is supposed to be an emo-boy pussy, so I get it; it's just one of the least appealing aspects of Spider-Man as a whole for me.
Topher Grace gets a royal ass whipping of epic proportions; and also delivers a decent performance as a comic book villain (not what I'd like to see for Venom honestly, but still good).
Spidey gets MAULED. I mean absolutely pummeled; and shows it. That's the way it should be.
The screwball comedy aspects of the movie are brilliant. J.K. Simmons as J.J. Jameson is spot on again; and played for great comedy. Tobey actually gets to exercise some comedy chops here, as do the supporting cast. The dialogue in these scenes is snappy and fun and very Howard Hawks/Billy Wilder.
The entire 30s-50s (it's a bit of a mashup) hollywood feel that permeates the film is wonderful. If "Superman Returns" could have felt this way it would have been hailed as one of the best movies of the last ten years.
The effects are spectacular; in fact the entire visual design of the movie puts it near the top of all effects movies ever.
If they don't see a best visual effects oscar I'd be amazed, even with Pirates 3 coming out in a few weeks. I just don't see how Pirates is going to be able to do a better job than this. Their effects may be bigger and more overwhelming (though that would be hard to do as well), but theres no way they'll be able to integrate them as well into the full live action, and complicated daylight cityscape exteriors that are in this movie.
You can see where the $265 million went, believe me.
Oh, and a funny thing for FX geeks; the movie opens up with what seems to be a bad CGI shot; and then pulls back to show you it's a TV screen in times square that Peter Parker is watching spidey on. Neat little inside joke there for the VFX artists.
The Bad:
Too much movie. Too many plot lines, too much stuff unexplained, and too many opportunities left unexplored in general.
This also means that the wrapups on a lot of the plotlines were either non-existent, or a bit too neat
The entire Gwen Stacey character was wasted here. Even though it's completely out of the comic canon*, I'm hoping they'll use her more in the next one, Bryce Dallas Howard is worth watching.
* the scene in the other movie where Spidey saves MJ from dropping 20 stories was actually Gwen Staceys death in the comics - and should have been used at some point for Spideys character development in the first or second movie... May still be in the fourth one, who knows.
Maybe the stylization was a bit too much. I liked it, but it might be jarring on folks who aren't big 30s-50s movie fans. Also, with the huge number of plot threads involved, that stylization adds "size" to the movie that a lot of folks might feel makes it too much to swallow.
Like eating too big a meal if you know what I mean.
Sandman got a decent bit of character development; but Venom was little more than introduced in this one. He SEEMS to be killed at the end, but any comic fan knows, if there isn't a body (and sometimes even if there is one), then he aint dead; so I'm guessing that opportunity will be taken for the next movie.
The Ugly:
Well, Tobey Maguire, Topher Grace, and Kirsten Dunst are still irritating as all hell. There's nothing that can be done about that; they are just irritating people.
Special mention for Topher Grace... (spoiler alert) whoever gave this guy a career needs to be painfully eviscerated. He's tolerable as Eddie Brock, but once he gets infected and becomes Venom his inherent suckitude cannot be overcome.
I said above he makes a decent comic book badguy, and he does. He at least gets the slimy smarmy conman aspect of Eddie Brock (though not anywhere close to the physical aspects) but as Venom he just sucks. Venom is a sarcastic, hyper agressive, smartassed, obsessive, badass; Topher Grace is the pussyboy from "That 70s show".
Also, 2 hours and 20 minutes... The move would have been better served if he took 1:45 cut half the plotlines and subplots out of this one, and used them in the next one.
The Conclusion:
Seriously, it's a really good movie. It's fun, it's funny, it's fast, it's furious, it's feeling... Yes I'm doing this deliberately as an homage to the classic Hollywood feel of the movie, I'll stop now.
Go see it; I think you'll like it.
From Mel: (to be added later)
I really liked the movie; but...
I think having what is possibly the most expensive movie ever made may have gone to Sam Raimis head. Of course it grossed $60 million yesterday alone, so maybe not.
Why do I say went to his head?
Well, for one thing, the entire movie was made as kind of a 1930s through 50s Hollywood style screwball comedy; mixed with a pulp action movie of the same era.
WHICH IS AWESOME!
Seriously it's SOOO cool for the geek in me to see that. Pretty much Raimi was given an unlimited checkbook and told "Go make the movie you've always wanted ever since you were a kid".
...and he did it.
I like it, but it is a BIT much, even for me in some spots.
So, an illustration of what I'm talking about (very slight spoilerage. Skip the next three paragraphs if you don't want to know)
In the middle of the movie Raimi sets up an extended song and dance number, including a street dancing montage a la "saturday night fever"; followed up by Spidey doing a Gene Kelly dancing on the tables bit in a jazz club (It's a reference to a mid fifties movie that I can't remember the name of right now).
No, really.
And then theres the screwball set piece with Bruce Campbell as a Maitre D' in a french restaurant... BRILLIANT!!!
Not to say the movie was all comedy and style. There were some great action set pieces. The pacing in the action sequences was really solid; and they managed the transitions from plot and character into action pretty well.
The only real problem I had (other than the heavy stylization; which like I said is cool, it's just a bit much), was that there is too much movie here.
There are so many different side plots, and vignettes, and plot threads; that the whole thing is a bit too busy, and a bit overwhelming. I would rather have seen the movie simplified a bit.. thinned out maybe; and more time taken to develop those individual threads.
Theres probably three movies worth of really good stuff here, packed in and cut into one (admittedly long at 2hrs 20 minutes) movie.
Okay, lets break it down...
The good:
Thomas Hayden Church was excellent. He played the "dumb comic book villain with a heart" perfectly. Yes, he was chewing on the scenery, but they ALL were, this is a comic book movie.
Tobey Maguire was much less irritating than I usually find him. Or rather, he was less inappropriately irritating (believe me, his character is SUPPOSED to be irritating in this one). Peter Parker is supposed to be an emo-boy pussy, so I get it; it's just one of the least appealing aspects of Spider-Man as a whole for me.
Topher Grace gets a royal ass whipping of epic proportions; and also delivers a decent performance as a comic book villain (not what I'd like to see for Venom honestly, but still good).
Spidey gets MAULED. I mean absolutely pummeled; and shows it. That's the way it should be.
The screwball comedy aspects of the movie are brilliant. J.K. Simmons as J.J. Jameson is spot on again; and played for great comedy. Tobey actually gets to exercise some comedy chops here, as do the supporting cast. The dialogue in these scenes is snappy and fun and very Howard Hawks/Billy Wilder.
The entire 30s-50s (it's a bit of a mashup) hollywood feel that permeates the film is wonderful. If "Superman Returns" could have felt this way it would have been hailed as one of the best movies of the last ten years.
The effects are spectacular; in fact the entire visual design of the movie puts it near the top of all effects movies ever.
If they don't see a best visual effects oscar I'd be amazed, even with Pirates 3 coming out in a few weeks. I just don't see how Pirates is going to be able to do a better job than this. Their effects may be bigger and more overwhelming (though that would be hard to do as well), but theres no way they'll be able to integrate them as well into the full live action, and complicated daylight cityscape exteriors that are in this movie.
You can see where the $265 million went, believe me.
Oh, and a funny thing for FX geeks; the movie opens up with what seems to be a bad CGI shot; and then pulls back to show you it's a TV screen in times square that Peter Parker is watching spidey on. Neat little inside joke there for the VFX artists.
The Bad:
Too much movie. Too many plot lines, too much stuff unexplained, and too many opportunities left unexplored in general.
This also means that the wrapups on a lot of the plotlines were either non-existent, or a bit too neat
The entire Gwen Stacey character was wasted here. Even though it's completely out of the comic canon*, I'm hoping they'll use her more in the next one, Bryce Dallas Howard is worth watching.
* the scene in the other movie where Spidey saves MJ from dropping 20 stories was actually Gwen Staceys death in the comics - and should have been used at some point for Spideys character development in the first or second movie... May still be in the fourth one, who knows.
Maybe the stylization was a bit too much. I liked it, but it might be jarring on folks who aren't big 30s-50s movie fans. Also, with the huge number of plot threads involved, that stylization adds "size" to the movie that a lot of folks might feel makes it too much to swallow.
Like eating too big a meal if you know what I mean.
Sandman got a decent bit of character development; but Venom was little more than introduced in this one. He SEEMS to be killed at the end, but any comic fan knows, if there isn't a body (and sometimes even if there is one), then he aint dead; so I'm guessing that opportunity will be taken for the next movie.
The Ugly:
Well, Tobey Maguire, Topher Grace, and Kirsten Dunst are still irritating as all hell. There's nothing that can be done about that; they are just irritating people.
Special mention for Topher Grace... (spoiler alert) whoever gave this guy a career needs to be painfully eviscerated. He's tolerable as Eddie Brock, but once he gets infected and becomes Venom his inherent suckitude cannot be overcome.
I said above he makes a decent comic book badguy, and he does. He at least gets the slimy smarmy conman aspect of Eddie Brock (though not anywhere close to the physical aspects) but as Venom he just sucks. Venom is a sarcastic, hyper agressive, smartassed, obsessive, badass; Topher Grace is the pussyboy from "That 70s show".
Also, 2 hours and 20 minutes... The move would have been better served if he took 1:45 cut half the plotlines and subplots out of this one, and used them in the next one.
The Conclusion:
Seriously, it's a really good movie. It's fun, it's funny, it's fast, it's furious, it's feeling... Yes I'm doing this deliberately as an homage to the classic Hollywood feel of the movie, I'll stop now.
Go see it; I think you'll like it.
From Mel: (to be added later)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)