The Life and Death of Spider-man

Spider-man is one of Marvel’s most famous and beloved characters, as such, we have seen plenty of him on the big screen over the years; with three series and countless other properties attached to the character. It is these series and the future of the Webslinger I would like to talk about today, trying to keep it impartial from the whole Marvel Studios vs Sony spat; as they are both a little in the wrong.
The Sam Raimi Trilogy is to many the best of the Spider-man films to date, just don’t mention Spider-man 3, this was the first big-budget, big-screen adaptions of the character and a lot of people were very excited for it. Raimi’s trilogy nailed many vital details of who Spider-man is and what he stands for, showing his relationship with his Aunt and Uncle and as the series developed his romance with Mary Jane Watson. As the trilogy went on the films got bolder and bolder, diving further into Spider-man’s Lore; with many classic villains adapted, to various degrees of success. Therein lay the problem, as the series reached the end it started adding too many elements to the story, having so many plot threads they couldn’t all be addressed; whether by studio mandate or, by a poorly written script, it was this that would end Raimi’s trilogy on a sour note, and continue to be a problem going forward.
Years later talks broke down with Raimi to make the much speculated about Spider-man 4 and, so the Mark Webb Amazing Spider-man series was born. Webb set out right away to make sure his series of films was tonally and visually very different than the Raimi films that predated it. The humorous goofiness of the Raimi trilogy was swapped out for a more edgy and mature tone; they also favoured the Gwen Stacy romance over the Mary Jane one; all to set it apart. Of the three series, this one has the worst reputation, but I genuinely believe the first Amazing Spider-man film was excellent, the romance between Emma Stone and Andre Garfield was quickly the best and most moving part of the films. Then the Amazing Spider-man 2 came out, and just like Raimi’s third instalment, it was marred by the overuse of familiar villain characters, most likely in a hamfisted way of setting up a Sinister Six film so they could spin it out into another franchise.
Then for the third attempt at a Spider-man on the big screen, the character was returned to the MCU, where he could rub shoulders with the likes of Captain America and Iron Man. Many would say that these were the best Spider-man live-action films, and though the humour was pitch-perfect and Far From Home made me tear up a little, these films weren’t without their issues. Many didn’t like how symbiotic the relationship between Tony Stark and Peter Parker was, finding that the latter was losing some of his identity in favour of being more like the former, there is a scene in Far From Home that confirms this.
Now at the time of writing Spider-man is currently between fought over by Marvel Studios and Sony, with each wanting him for their films. However, what the character deserves is the chance to shine for who he is, rather than have him be just another part of a larger whole. Similarly, he deserves to have his story told the right away and not have nonsensical plot threads stuffed into his films just as an effort to set up other films to make more money.
Ultimately a great Spider-man story can be told with just a handful of characters, and a bit of careful consideration and both studios would do well to remember that.

A Beginners Guide to Anime

Anime typically describes Japanese Cartoons; these can come in all different varieties and genres, some appealing to kids, some to teenagers and some to adults. In many ways, this carries on from my previous post about the animation stigma over here in the west; said stigma being that cartoons and animation can only be enjoyed by kids; an untrue statement and one that is proven wrong by the existence of anime. A lot of anime, or at least the ones I’ve seen, deal with quite heavy, mature themes the sort only an adult audience would understand; that is because in Japan cartoons are seen as something everyone can enjoy.
Anyway, rant over, the subject of today’s post is how to get into anime, now I know for a lot of you who want to start watching anime it can be quite daunting, there are thousands of different ones to choose from and some of them have been going on for longer than you have been alive.
Worry not because it’s never too late to start, all you need to do is find one that sounds interesting and start watching it; you can even put dubs, (A different language voice-over), on if you don’t want to read the subtitles, but I don’t want to have that debate here.
Don’t be perturbed if it is a long-running series that just gives you more of the show you like; I like to watch shorter animes, but that’s just me.
I think everyone should at least try and get into anime because it is so superb, there are worlds and character that you have to see and meet and ones that could only exist in anime. Everything from a dystopia where giant humans called ‘Titans’ are attacking the last bastions of humanity and its down to a brave group of teenagers to fight back, to a magical academy where exorcists are trained to fight back against demons, with the lead character being a demon, and son of the devil himself. It’s not all fantasy though, and there are plenty of other genres of anime for you to enjoy as well, these include science fiction, comedy and so much more.
I think not to give anime a chance is reductive, as you are shutting yourself out of this whole other culture, with stories and characters that can really affect you; and that is incredibly stupid.
One final point I would like to address is that I believe anime is sometimes unfairly painted as this pervy thing, but this idea comes from a lack of understanding and, just straight ignorance. Some animes might be a bit on the spicy side, but so are some films and comics it doesn’t mean that they are all like that, as such it shouldn’t be a stereotype that is applicable to all; for again that is just incredibly reductive.
So I challenge you all who read this, to go online, or to Netflix and find an anime you’re interested in and give it a go, I bet you won’t regret it. As for me, I’m going to start season 2 of Blue Exorcist on Netflix now.

Have we abused 80’s Nostalgia

The 1980’s as a period is fascinating, so many things we know and, love came from this decade and, many events that would shape the course of history; especially pertaining to ‘Pop Culture’ happened herein. In the year 2019, the 80s are long over. No one seems to know this better than film and television executives, who seem all too happy to cash in on the nostalgia and fond remembrance people have for this part of the 20th century. Though a statement of fact it is not intrinsically a bad one, as due to this 80’s nostalgia we have Glow and Stranger Things, two outstanding shows in their own rights.
However, as I was sat watching the recently released third season of Stranger Things, I began to think have we seen enough from this decade? I’m starting to think we have. Somewhere around the 30th reference to some obscure 80s trend, I realised the entertainment industry needs to find a new decade to mine. The popularity of decades come and go we’ve had 60’s and 70’s phenomenons before that have for the most part come and gone, and in time the ’80s will do that as well. That said, Hollywood has used the 80’s, and more specifically, the nostalgia of this period for as long as almost 20 years. Freaks and Greeks the hit Jud Apatow series that kicked started the career of a lot of famous actors today was the first example of a show that harkened back to that period, though little over 10 years later. So this trend of glorification has been happening since the late 90s. Since then we have had 100s of projects that have been inspired by the period, with everything from Red Oaks to Wet Hot American summer. I think nostalgia can work well, in small doses, but when done to an obscene degree can become not only tacky and cheap but a hallmark of bad writing. A reference to something popular in the 80s can be easily thrown into a script to both pad a shows runtime and also force the audience to feel some emotion. To that end I think this is no longer working, the reasons for this are two-fold, one people are starting to wise up to these blatant tugs on the nostalgia cords and secondly a considerable part of the movie-going public wasn’t alive in the 80s so can’t relate and don’t understand the references. So with all that said I think we need to move a decade later and start milking 90s nostalgia instead. Now I’m not saying that shows like Stranger Things and Glow need to end, just that with new and upcoming shows maybe they should lean away from the 80s because it’s tapped out. To an extent, we can see this generational shift happening around us, mainly in comic book action films like Venom, with the titular symbiote being a mainstay of the 90s, add to this that Captain Marvel is set for a large part in the 90s and you can see the change coming. Ultimately to answer the questions I posed at the start of this post, yes I think we have overused the 80s, and we do need to move on, but at the same time the period a film is set in should help to sell the world, the time period should never be the main focus to the extent it takes away from the story. We need films about characters, not time periods.

Dora and the Lost City of Gold

Dora and the Lost City of Gold is a family action and adventure film based, of the Dora the Explorer kids TV program. The plot revolves around Dora, (Isabela Moner), going to the city after her parents go away on an expedition. Once there she meets her cousin Diego, (Jeff Walhberg), who she has not seen in 10 years and tries to adapt to high school; then through a strange series of events ends up being shipped back to the jungle to try and track down the titular Lost City of Gold, Diego and plucky group of friends in toe. Now before I get into it, the main reasons I wanted to see this film was that it looked hilariously bad and, because it hit me with a lot of nostalgia from my childhood. I wasn’t disappointed the film overall is very funny, there are laughs that both children and adults will find amusing, these range from fart jokes as they walk through quicksand, to self-referential jokes about the nature of the show, mainly Dora talking to the camera and saying, “now you say”. The comedy works greatly as Moner plays it mostly straight, seemingly unaware that what she is doing is weird, or odd.
Furthermore, her father played by Micheal Pena is also a standout of the film making for some hilarious scenes. To continue on the thread of funny scenes, I would be remiss if I didn’t talk about the drug-induced hallucination scene. Said scene takes place towards the film’s third act, as the gang are running through a field of flowers that all release spores, these spores make the characters view each other and the world around them, in the same art style as the TV show, this scene is a masterstroke, as it shows audiences what they know and love and was easily my favourite of the whole film. This film doesn’t just appeal to children there is also a lot for adults to like especially the high school sequences which have a lot of culture clash humour, which is a welcome twist on the show. The animated characters of Boots and Swiper easily steal the show, Swiper is funny and likeable while also being threatening and believable as the villain. Benicio Del Toro’s captures the character perfectly he’s memorable as the character, and I would like to see him reprise the role in further films. Danny Trejo voices Boots Dora’s pet monkey which she claims can talk and in one hilarious scene he does, and Trejo milks it for all its worth; being one of the films best scenes. The adventure of the film is rather standard it never really does anything that any other movie hasn’t done before, so if you’re going for novelty or originality, this may not be the film for you.
Overall, Dora and the Lost City of Gold might not be anything new, in terms of adventure films, but it is fun wholesome fun for the whole family, it captures the spirit of the show and adds something new to it with a self-referential take. There is a lot to love about this film, and it is one that both parents and kids can enjoy together.

4/5
Luke

Hobbs and Shaw

hobbs-and-shaw-poster Hobbs and Shaw is the latest film in the Fast and the Furious universe, and the first film to not be a numbered entry in the series; instead being a spinoff. The film revolves around the characters of Luke Hobbs, (Dwayne ‘the Rock’ Johnson), first introduced in Fast 5 and Deckard Shaw, (Jason Statham), first introduced in Fast and the Furious 7, as they try and stop the outbreak of a deadly, world-ending virus. This film capitalises on the ridiculous over the topness of the last few Fast films; it is not tied down by seriousness or reality, portraying a world of glorious dumb spectacle- worth the ticket price alone. Best shown in a third act car chase where Hobbs uses his sheer strength to keep a helicopter tethered to a truck only to pull said helicopter to the ground mere moments later in a fiery explosion of testosterone. This film is dumb popcorn fun to the fullest extent, it does not require you to think even for a moment, and in many ways that is the best thing about it, the escapism, however, it becomes a problem if your mind does find itself questioning the plot because then it all falls apart utterly. Personally, I found myself more in the former than the latter. What truly is the unexpected highlight of the film is the delightfully, surprising cameos that are peppered in throughout, with both Ryan Reynolds and Kevin Hart giving memorable, funny performances; which do deliver. Whats more the female members of the cast are given far more to do than in previous Fast entries, with Hattie Shaw, (Vanessa Kirby), Deckard’s younger sister, being the standout character in the film. Her characters struggle, which I’m not going to get into for spoiler reasons, drives the film and is very compelling.
Moreover, she has some of the best fight scenes in the whole movie with an early fight between her and Hobbs being particularly good. Kirby has a very believable physicality, so her character’s abilities are all very convincing and impressive. Sadly the same praises can’t be aimed at Eiza Gonzalez’s Madam M who until I wrote this I had no idea what her name was, she is that underdeveloped, really just being included for the gaze of juvenile men and teenage boys, but maybe future installments in this spinoff series will prove me wrong.
The dynamic between Hobbs and Shaw is everything you would want it to be, with the barbs traded back and forth between the two being consistently funny and entertaining. The ending of the film sets up this side of the Fast universe with it teasing a big bad for the upcoming movies; several post-credits scenes further highlight this. The bad guy for this film is Brixton, (Idris Elba) a former MI6 officer who jumped ship and has a past with Shaw. Brixton is by far the worst part of this film, with his character being entirely forgettable and his motivations being a mystery to everyone, maybe even him. Elba is equally as forgettable with the role easily playable by many other actors with no real difference in quality. Overall, this film is excellent for what it is a dumb fun popcorn movie; it knows what it is and has fun with it; which is infectious. Despite some of the weak characters weighing the film down slightly, Hobbs and Shaw still manages to not only step out from the shadow of The Fast and The Furious but also become better than it; seeding the groundwork for what could be one of the best action-comedy series of recent memory. A must-see for the escapism alone.
4/5
Luke

The Nun

The Nun is the latest film in the Conjuring Universe, fleshing out the character of Valak, the Nun, who first appeared in the Conjuring 2.
The plot of the film is a Valak origin story, set in a Romanian convent during the 1950’s. Following Sister Irene, (Taissa Farmiga), Father Burke, (Demian Bichir), and Frenchie, (Jonas Bloquet), as they investigate a suicide at the convent; which is much more than it appears.
The Nun is not a horror film at least I didn’t think it was, yes it does have jump scares, more on that later, but on the whole, it felt akin to a Gothic adventure film, not too far from the likes of Crimson Peak. The reason for this is the horror the film presents.
The jump scares, though well done, are predictable, so the film is left to rely on its atmosphere; which is not constantly menacing, like many other horror films are, instead it is gothic in it’s purest form. The non-horror nature of this film is a hard thing to describe; the closest parallel I can draw is to the Hugh Jackman staring Van Helsing film, yes there are horror elements, but it is an adventure film first and foremost.
Why the film chose to structure itself like this is anyone’s guess, but evidence for it comes from the protagonist’s quest to find the blood of Jesus, even some of the shots in the film are more in line with the Brother Grimm as opposed to something like Insidious.
That said, I liked the atmosphere and, the film itself.
The actors themselves do their best with the material they have, Farmiga, in particular, is very good. However, despite this, they are all underdeveloped, outside of the role they play in the narrative; which is a shame as they could have been so much more. Frenchie, in particular, proves my earlier point, he is the comedy relief of the film. Without him, the film would be a lot darker, a lot more like a traditional horror film, but his oneliners and, demon zombie killing shotgun prowess make the tone of the film similar to something like last year’s the Mummy, neither wholly action or horror.
To conclude if you like jump scares this film won’t let you down. However, if you like well-crafted horror films it will. With a tone similar to that of the Dark Universe this film is more gothic action adventure than horror. A strange film in many ways, but crucially not a bad one.
3/5
Reviewed by Luke.

Upgrade

Upgrade is an action horror film, produced by Blumhouse, of Insidious fame, being the companies first venture into the action genre. The plot follows Grey, (Logan Marshall-Green), as a man who loses his wife and his ability to move at the hands of a group of armed men. When all seems lost in steps, Eron Keen, (Harrison Gilbertson), with a device called Stem, that can give him both the ability to walk again and, the tools for getting revenge. What follows is a surprisingly deep dive into the symbiotic relationship between man and machine, revealing a collection of harrowing truths.

This film has some much to praise, such as merging the action, horror and dark comedy genre; to an outstanding effect. The film’s action feels very real and weighty, with there being some incredibly gory sequences; which are surprisingly effective from a narrative standpoint. The only issue is that there isn’t enough of it, after the very slow build at the beginning, the delivery is superb yet sparse. The action scenes are fantastic but, they are too few. The film’s horror is incredibly strong, perhaps the best element of the film. It all derives from a conversation about technology, can it be trusted and what has it done to earn our trust? The answers the film gives to these questions are both harrowing and fascinating. Said themes and ideas serve to show the complexity of the narrative; with a lot going on beneath the surface. The comedy of the film is pitch dark, and spot on near every time, never failing to make you shudder as much as you laugh.

The performances in the film are a mixed bag. Marshall-Green sells every scene he is in, conveying a wide array of emotions in a few facial expressions. His performance is much more layered then you would expect from an action film leading man. However, the supporting cast doesn’t get any near the same level, with Cortez, (Betty Gabriel), being a clear example. Cortez is a frustrating character, even sometimes annoying, but this is no fault of Gabriel as her lines are weak and uninspired. Cortez has no development, the scenes she is in you are left asking why she’s there. The main issue with her weak narrative is that it deflates the film’s emotional climax, cheapening it somewhat.

Overall this is a surprising success, very deserving of all the praise it is getting, yes it has some minor issue, but on the whole, it is superb. A must see for the message alone. Another hit for Blumhouse.

4/5

Reviewed by Luke

The Spy Who Dumped Me

The Spy Who Dumped Me is a comedy spy film, focusing on Audrey, (Mila Kunis), who after breaking up with her boyfriend later learns he is a spy. Hijinks ensue. The premise alone is not terrible, though it does feel oddly dated, it does seem like there are some laughs to be had here- there is potential. However, it is never fully implemented. The film is a mostly meh affair, being serviceable but not a whole lot more.
The script is weak, with the character work being likewise. The characters lack any motivation and, the film itself has very weak stakes. You never really care about the characters; even to the extent that you will remember their names when you leave the cinema. Kunis gives the best performance of the whole film, being the only likeable character; the rest are variants on either bland– or incredibly annoying. That brings us nicely to the other main character Morgan, (Kate McKinnon). Morgan does have some funny lines, let that be said, however, for the majority of the film her character is irritating. She is needlessly over the top and, a vast amount of her jokes don’t land. This poor character work is also present in Drew, (Justin Theroux). Drew is the titular spy, however other than a few brief sequences, some of which are devoid of any real meaning, he is absent. What’s more Theroux character is also very unlikeable, primarily because once again he is another annoying character.
The main positive of the film is the stunt work and the action choreography, both of which were far better than I was expecting. Said sequences aren’t on par with the likes of Bond or Mission Impossible, but they are still impressive in their own right.
Conversely, the film’s comedy is a collection of hits and misses, far more of the latter than the former. With the humour often being cringey and woefully off the mark.
To conclude, this film is, in essence, a complete waste of potential. It is never either good or bad, instead quite content in being meh. Additionally, the likeability of Kunis is tarnished and, eventually destroyed by the plethora of irritating characters.
2/5
Reviewed by Luke

The Equalizer 2

The Equalizer 2 is an action film and sequel to the 2014 film. This entry takes place sometime after the events of the first film, and other than a few minor supporting characters returning doesn’t connect. The main plot this time around focuses on Robert McCall, (Denzel Washington) as he investigates the death of his last remaining friend Susan, (Melissa Leto). What follows is a mostly predictable mystery. You will realise who is the villain about 20 minutes before the film reveals it; it is that obvious, in that, we are shown the main issue with the film- the writing.

The film’s first act is painfully slow; there are a few teases for things to come, and some very well-choreographed action sequences, but on the whole, there is nothing of substance for the first 30 minutes. As well as this we are introduced to a lot of supporting characters, all of whom have nothing to add to the main story, outside of showing that Mr McCall still helps people. As you can imagine they are all paper thin; serving as little more than filler.

Moreover, the film’s villain Dave York, (Pedro Pascal), is about as bland as they come, with his motivations never rising above the generic,” I’m doing it for the money”, his character also seems woefully insignificant when compared to McCall; making it hard to believe they are supposed to be on the same skill level.

That is another thing about this film, McCall’s skillset seems to vary wildly throughout the film, sometimes to almost a superhuman degree; being at points more than a little unbelievable. This film if you think about it too closely makes little sense, but that’s a good thing. In this case, a lot of the enjoyment comes from the cheesy, nonsensical things that happen, such as the strange almost at times out of place editing; at one point in the film as McCall walks down a street the camera flips upside down for no real reason. It is in these moments that the film shines, becoming something more akin to a cheesy action B movie, revelling in the weird and the bizarre. However, these moments are few and far between.

Denzel Washington gives a superb performance always elevating every scene he is in; being by far the best actor in the film.

To conclude there are moments where this film shines, where the B movieness slips out. However, the rest of the film rots within the confines of a generic action thriller. Featuring the most needless supporting characters possibly ever.

2.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

The Meg

The Meg is a film that could have been the goofy fun blockbuster of the summer, sadly though it never lives up to that billing. The plot focuses on Jonas Taylor, (Jason Statham), a diver tasked with manning a rescue mission to a new and previously unexplored part of the ocean, wherein a terrifying threat lurks- a prehistoric Megalodon. That premise alone suggests a dumb B movie esque action thriller, but in actuality, this film is just another generic blockbuster. My praise for this film is all based around its lead, Statham. The Meg has Statham in an unusually charming role; with it being obvious he is enjoying every minute of it. Furthermore, the interactions Statham’s Jonas has with the other characters are also quite amusing. Shown in Jonas’s surrogate father role to Meiying, (Shuya Sophia Cai), who, unlike most other child actors, is always a welcome presence.

However, even with Statham’s likeability in the role, the romantic subplot between Jonas and Suyin, (Li Binging), is dead in the water. There is no chemistry between the two characters, making their romance feel forced throughout. What’s more, in a bizarre script idea, Jonas ex-wife Lori, (Jessica McNamee), is also at the station. Lori amounts to little more than a plot device; and the star of more than a few awkward scenes. Sadly, though McNamee’s character is just one of many paper-thin characters; whose removal would not have an impact on the film overall. By the time the credits roll you will be lucky if you can remember a single character name, that is how developed and memorable they are. A clear example of this is Jack Morris, (Rainn Wilson), who starts out as the billionaire investor and main comedic relief character, but then for no explained reason turns into a maniacal almost supervillain in the films third act. Therein lies the film’s biggest and most egregious problem- it’s script.

The script doesn’t seem to know what it wants to be, serious action film, or a dumb pulpy B movie. To the former, the film takes itself very seriously in many of its scenes, which is why when it tries to include humour in certain places it doesn’t work. To the latter, there are ridiculously over the top spectacle sequences; that end up coming across as eye-rollingly dumb as opposed to fun in any way. An example of this would be when the crew has one of its many fights with one of the Megs, during this sequence people needlessly keep falling into the water, but no one seems to notice. Furthermore, at one point in the film, the crew are trapped on a sinking boat, during which time they don’t know how to escape; somehow, they ignore the escape raft that is right in front of them- in a groan-inducing moment of stupidity.

More to the disservice of The Meg’s script, the dialogue is horrible. At its best, it is corny and cliched, at its worst, it is annoying and cringey. Some examples include a cringey rap song, the whole character interactions between Jonas and Dr Heller and perhaps worst of all the line, “it’s not about the people you lose, but the people you save”. Additionally, the humour in the film always feels out of place; in my opinion, added as an afterthought.

Finally, the film suffers from severe pacing issues, with the first act especially being boring and uninspired. Ultimately, boring and uninspired sum up acutely what this film is. Not even likeable performances from Statham and a charming Ruby Rose can save this film from sinking with the ship.

1/5

Reviewed by Luke.