July 2012

Photographer's Direction: "Look kind of constipated."

            12 Days ago a delusional ego maniac walked into a Colorado movie theatre and shot 12 people dead and injured many others.  It was a shocking act, not just because of the loss of human life because it occurred in a place where most people go to escape the violence of every real life and live vicariously through fictional heroes and heroines.  But at the moment real life crept into this sanctuary, and everyone was reminded just how truly F-ed up the real world is. 

             In the real world, the lines between right and wrong can be awfully blurry, and there's no intimidating costumes to distinguish a villain.  Sometimes the most evil acts are committed by the most mundane of people.  "He seemed normal" or "I had no idea" are frequent comments you hear from friends, family, neighbors, and acquaintances of persons who commit random acts of violence.  And more than likely they are normal...until they're not.  Such a capacity for destruction from a seemingly ordinary person prompts the most introspective of us to think: could this be my co-worker, my neighbor, that person sitting in the metro? And under different circumstances, at different times, could it have been me? 

            That question is something the new Oliver Stone film, Savages, wants us to ask as it plunges us into a world full not of heroes and villains, but of morally ambiguous characters.  The story is pretty simple: Chon (Taylor Kitsch) and Ben (Aaron Johnson), independent and very successful pot manufacturers, are offered a deal they cannot refuse: join forces with the Mexican cartel or face a litany of terrible and painful consequences. 

     Neither option seems attractive and after heated conversations, which involves the more violent Chon suggesting murdering their would-be partners/masters, they decide to retire instead.  They're all set to run until the savvy Mexican villainess Elena (Salma Hayek) hits them where it hurts; She kidnaps O (Blake Lively), the women they both are in love with, and share emotionally and physically in a sort of hippy commune Bohemian way. 

     On the surface the good and bad is set up in standard way, yet its hard to figure out who to root for.  Stone’s complicated and violent film is less an After School Special, where good triumphs over bad, and bad is punished, and more an exercise in moral relativism.  In short, it’s a cluster**** that dares you to enjoy the clusterfu****, and ask yourself why you’re doing so.

            In the film, there’s really no one character who is all the way “right” or “wrong.” Whatever differences separate the mass murdering Mexicans and the seemingly more benign Ben and Chon, start to evaporate as the two go to extraordinary lengths to get O back. Plot wise they are “pushed” to this, but the film repeatedly argues that our two protagonists are not that much better than the Cartel they are fighting.  Both are in an illegal business and use intimidation and violence to make themselves wealthy.  Once the their way of life is threatened, I’s natural for them to respond violently (savagely) just as the Cartel does.   The excuse of O in danger, is just that, an excuse.  Turning to murder to get their way was inevitable because as Chon reminds Ben, you can’t show weakness so in order to show strength you must kill.

      As more blood is spilled the movie proves it has no interest in traditional morality as it fleshes out its “bad” characters with feelings and motivations we can understand and even sympathize with.  Elena is a killer but she only inherited the business as widow of a former drug leader. She’s a woman in a man’s world but she needs to keep it going to provide for her daughter, who she fiercely protects but is often ignored by.Travolta’s corrupt cop Dennis is only trying to beat a corrupt rigged system, and as he’s beaten and blackmailed, it’s only natural for him to lie to try to protect his job and family; Even Benicio del Tor’s despicable murderer Lado is just a middle management lackie who dreams of being something more as he abused physically and mentally by her boss Elena.  Then, understandably, he starts to consider other employment.  Yes, they are all savages, but they have human sides just like Ben and Chon, or more appropriately, you and I.

       The movie unleashes a schmorgesborg of torture, murder, mayhem and much more I won’t spoil here.  We go along with this speeding train even as we admonish ourselves for how much fun we are having through it all.  The acting is solid with Johnson and Kitsch making suitable, if not spectacular leads. Hayek, Del Toro and Travolta all seem to be having fun chewing the scenery as they match the high level of intensity around them with their (purposeful) over acting.

The weakest is Lively, who never manages to make O as alluring as she’s supposed to be.  She also has the unfortunate job of delivering cringe-worthy voiceovers that are neither well written nor necessary. 

         But the biggest issue with the movie is that as much as the film asks the audience to relate to all the characters, and ask ourselves why we’re able to do that, it makes an error with its over-the-topness. The more savagely everyone acts as the film progresses the less we do relate to them.  This has a lot to do with the film’s “kitchen sink” plot which has people blown up, burned alive, and blinded within the same 10 minute span.  There’s just too much.

          Another reason we don’t relate to them is more interesting; it’s a form of self delusion. We want to shield ourselves from any thinking that we could be like them.  “They’re savages,” we assure ourselves “I would certainly fight back and protect who I love but I wouldn’t take it this far, that’s nuts.”  A more skillful film with more nuanced characters and writing would have challenged that thinking, but this isn’t it. 

            The less we relate and understand the characters, the less we care about their fates.  We watch the film in the most literal sense of the word, as we step back from their world spinning out of control, and enjoy it the way an Anthropologist might watching primitive tribal warfare.  The audience finds themselves watching the film dispassionately, waiting curiously and excitedly for whatever craziness is coming next for the sheer ‘Wow’ of it, but never fearing for the death of anyone in particular.. The exception that proves this is O. We should care about her but as an entitled rich kid participating in hedonism few in the audience understand or approve of, we don’t care, or at least not as much as we’re supposed to.

            And then the end comes and the film does one last attempt at connecting with us, and damn it if doesn’t almost succeed.  It creates an ending that manages to humanize our 3 main characters one last time.  At that moment we allow ourselves to feel.  But then the film cheats, taking back what it had accomplished, all to embrace an ending that is just as wild and senseless as its title suggests.

      In the end as the credits roll and we are left to reflect on it all, we are able to stand back relieved that we were unable to relate to the characters. Instead, we leave self assured that what the film says is untrue: we’re not like them at all. We’re more civilized, more sophisticated…better.    Whether or not that is true is up for debate, but the film makes the point, it’s worth the discussion.  Ultimately, however, it does so less successfully that it wants to and because of that we put that out of our minds.  That is of course until a coward walks into a crowded area and kills innocent men, women and children.  Then we start asking ourselves tough questions all over again.

FINAL GRADE: B

The blackness and clouds are symbols in case you didn't know.

                    I would like start this review by saying a big “F-You” to Entertainment Weekly for committing a major pop culture party foul.  A few months ago a peep of mine recommended I check out a show he was really enjoying: The Killing.  For the un initiated, THE KILLING is an AMC television series which charts the first 25 days or so of a murder investigation of a young girl, Rose Larson.  It centers on the two lead detectives investigating the murder, the suspects being investigated (including current political leaders and political hopefuls), and the grieving parents of the victim.  It’s a classic whodunit so the identity of the killer is a pretty big deal.  Two weeks ago as I was sitting on the can flipping through my EW, I come upon a big picture of the guilty party with the headline “The Killer on ‘The Killing’ killer.”  Seriously!?  What the fu***?  Classless.

           I was only 4 episodes into Season two when I saw the article and for the next 8 hours of the series I found myself trying to justify why this person may or may not have been the killer, how possible or impossible it could be and how I wish I could delete that piece of information from my brain.  After all my theorizing and justifying, the thought that permeated the most, however, was whether my knowing the killer should matter. Yes, it ruins the surprise factor but shouldn’t  “who” did it, not be as important as “why?”  Shouldn’t The Killer not matter as much as everything else that occurs around The Killing?

          The answer to those questions really boils down to how successful The Killing has been as a drama and what the show cares most about.  As with the Rosie Larson murder, the answer is complicated.

          The first thing to know about The Killing is that even though the premise is very ordinary, this is not an ordinary show.  In a television landscape full of TNT, NBC, and USA police procedurals where character development and smart plotting take a back seat to the need to find resolution within 44 minutes, The Killing is unique.  The show takes it time to not only solve the central mystery but explore the aftermath of the horrendous crime on a multitude of complex characters with their own motivations, obsessions, weaknesses, and yes, secrets. It’s ambitious which is a welcomed change, but ultimately it succeeds in some areas better then others. 

          One of the areas in which it excels is with the family of our murdered victim.  The show takes it time showing the impact the murder has on Rosie’s parents, aunt and brothers.  By digging deeper into this trauma, the audience is allowed to experience with the family their complete journey: From initial shock, to dealing with the loss, to then attempting to rebuild, and then finally starting to take steps (however small) to move on with their lives.  

            Watching may not be action packed but its gut wrenching to watch it all in such agonizing detail.  You feel like you’re spying on a real family as we feel every emotion with the Larson family and form a strong emotional connection to them.  Credit the strong writing of the series in this aspect, and the acting of leads. Brent Sexton and Michelle Forbes, who in their quieter but still-engrossing scenes, make us forget all about the mystery because we are glued to the TV set watching them go through their stages of loss.  The identity of the killer is really not important here because we are paying attention to the emotional journey they’re taking, which is ultimately divorced from the whodunit question.  What really matters is the devastation they feel with Rosie being gone, not who has taken her away.

          However, in an effort to include the family in every episode, the series sometimes gets off course, introducing subplots that ring false (Michelle Forbes' Mitch is temporarily dispatched in a way that will make you go: Really?) or which only serve to conveniently connect back to the main murder story line in, at times, clumsy ways. And while the grieving process is given time to be fully explored, I would have appreciated more character development with the individual family members. Not enough of time is given to who Mitch and Sal are as people, not just grieving parents. 

         Sufficient character development is something that also is missing from Sarah and Holder, the two detectives who lead the “action” of the series, as they chase down leads to solve Rosie’s murder.  As protagonists Sarah and Holder are set up as intriguing: One is an obsessed commitment phobe who prioritizes her work over her personal life which includes the well being of her moody son; the other is a self-destructive former drug addict and a current unspectacular detective, who seems more at home in slummy alley ways smoking cigarettes then in police stations interviewing suspects. Mireille Enos and Joel Kinnaman do fine work playing off this premise but the set up is better than the execution. 

Given that the series covers roughly one day per episode, I don’t expect great soul bearing reveals from the two new partners (especially the tightly wound Sarah), but what we get leaves us wanting more. 

     During the course of the series I kept waiting for the audience to be let into Sarah's emotional pain. There are hints of something no being right from the beginning. She spends season one frantic and angry but, why? Then Season Two has her on the verge of a breakdown, frantic to the point of being manic.   Given that it takes place only a week after season one, we must assume she wasn’t all together in the first place.   But we only get limited information about this from interactions between her and her son which feel repetitive and don’t reveal much, and her relationship with Holder which never evolves enough for her to truly confide in him.  It’s frustratingly hard to pin Sarah down and that doesn’t help the audience which is trying to understand and care about who she is a person.

          Holder comes of better;  We know he has a history as a screw up and problems with addictions, and a sister who doesn't think too much of him. But these developments we get only in small bursts and any and all big emotional reveals are cut short for the sake of keeping the mystery going.  Who has time to consider why Holder almost kills himself when his attempt comes at a time when Sarah has found yet another clue in the case, and they both have to chase it down?  So under- developed is Holder that by the end of Season One where it is hinted that he could actually be "dirty" and working against Sarah, the audience accepts it immediately as possible, if not likely.  If we knew him better, we would have been able to call "bullshit" with more confidence.

          But does knowing who killed Rosie effect the quality of this aspect of the series?  Insomuch that the development of the Sarah and Holder characters are sacrificed to keep the plot going, then I would answer a resounding ‘yes.’  If what they’re doing is more important than getting to truly know them, then what they’re doing better be pretty freakin’ gripping.  And it is…that is unless you know how it ends, then it loses a lot of the intended suspense. With that what you have to fall back on is our familiarity with our characters and here that major part is lacking.

          It’s not that the show doesn’t have any character development, but the show is shows certain aspects of Rosie’s murder more fully than others so the development comes off weirdly imbalanced.  Proof of this can be seen with the most developed character in the series which is not the grieving parents of Rosie Larson or even the brave detectives determined to solver her murder; No, it’s the possible murderer, Politician Darren Richmond.  What’s intriguing about this is that as expertly as Billy Campbell plays Richmond (and his effortless combination of sincerity and deceit deserves great praise), at first Richmond starts just as the other characters.  We don’t know anything about him besides the fact that he’s running for political office and seems to want to win very badly.  What we learn of the course of the series however, changes how we perceive and understand who he is. 

           As his back-story is told and we get to see how Richmond reacts to what happens around him, we get to know him more closely than anyone else.  What’s even more amazing is that by design, Richmond is originally cloaked in mystery because you can’t have someone as a suspect if he doesn’t at leastseem like he’s hiding something.  So if this character, originally not fully developed on purpose can ultimately emerge as a character with a fully realized arc, why can’t the same happen for Sarah, Holder, etc. all?   Certainly their story is equally as important to our enjoyment of the series given that we spend the majority of time with them.  By not extending this same (or at least similar) character development to more of the key players, the series does not fully succeed in helping the audience understand our protagonists, a major flaw.

      The last example of this actually harkens back to the beginning: the murder of the young Rosie Larson.  Nowhere is the lack of development more prevalent than here.  Throughout the course of the series we are given different peeks into Rosie Larson before her death. Most of these are courtesy of the friends who knew, we are told, the “real”her.  But the “real” her seems to change week to week, as the character of Rosie morphs to satisfy the plot twists of the central mystery of who killed her.

           Was she a typical angst ridden teenager with dreams of running away from home?  Was she a young savvy escort-in-training who used her charms to get what she wanted from men?  Was she a naïve teen girl infatuated with her teacher?  Was she one half of a reckless couple who hid her relationship from her parents because she felt distant from them?   Which one is true doesn’t seem to be the show’s central concern but I would argue who Rosie Larson is is as much important as who killed her.  Given that, I get even angrier when I think back to a few weeks ago when I was scanning my Entertainment Weekly and the killer was revealed to me.  It did matter that I was told prematurely because theshow made it what mattered the most.  In the end the title of the series may be a bit misleading with the focus placed on the Killer rather than the Killing.

FINAL GRADE: B 

I wonder how many haters there are in this city?

Phillip : So that Spider-Man Review was super long, no matter how many badly inserted pictures you put in it

Me: I know, I know.  But I was proud of it, and I'm working on the formatting; Give me a break I'm new at this.  Plus this review I'm doing now will be done in interview form for maximum efficiency.

Phillip: What does that mean?

Me: It's shorter.

Phillip:  Thank Jeebus.

 Okay, so you're reviewing The Dark Knight Rises, whats the scoop?

Me: Whoa, whoa stop the clock.  Let's start with a little foreplay before we get down with the getting down. 

Phillip:  Is that your version of sexy talk?

Me:  Unfortunately, yes.

The Dark Knight Rises takes place 8 years after the events of the Dark Knight. During that time, Gotham has seemingly reformed and rejuvenated itself, all built on the myth of the heroism of Harvey Dent, Two Face of the previous film (or more accurately, of the previous last 25 minutes of the previous film).  It's all a lie, the film reminds us immediately, and one that can not, and perhaps should not, be sustained.  And with that set-up we are thrown into this highly anticipated last chapter of the Christopher Nolan tragedy.  To the film's credit, it wastes no time as everything I just said is summarized within the first 4 minutes of the film along with its first "action" sequence.

Phillip: Oh, oh. Why the quotation marks? Is there sarcasm behind them?

Lewis: There surely is. But let's not go there quite yet.  There's bigger pescado to fry. So, the first "action" sequence is the one from the trailers where they rescue Bane from a plane mid flight, Executive-Decision style and it is during this first sequence that the film's problems surface; Mainly, the plot goes at such a break neck piece that the audience sometime doesn't know what's going on, and even when we do we don't get to fully absorb it as scenes are cut seemingly in half, and sometimes in thirds, all for the sake of forward motion. We don't know who Bane is and we certainly don't know why he is in the plane, and by the time we start to piece it together, it's over.

To be fair to Nolan the film has to do this because it has so much ground it has to cover, as it muses about the good and vengeful nature of man, redemption, the validity of institutions, the meaning of symbols, economic disparity, terrorism, and the importance of truth.  To be fair to us, however, Nolan tackles too much, and the movie suffers because of it.

Phillip : But The Dark Knight was "epic" too and super long. I distinctly remember me having to leave to pee in the middle of it.  What the difference, Debbie Downer?To be fair to Nolan the film has to do this because it has so much ground it has to cover, as it muses about the good and vengeful nature of man, redemption, the validity of institutions, the meaning of symbols, economic disparity, terrorism, and the importance of truth.  To be fair to us, however, Nolan tackles too much, and the movie suffers because of it.

Lewis: In a word: clarity. There are so many themes, embodied by so many characters, the audience gets whiplash just keeping up with the 4 or 5 mini story-lines enveloped in the larger ones, and figuring out what exactly everyone stands for, and ultimately, what it all means.  The Dark Knight, for all its length (and I did think it was too long as well), didn't have that problem.  Think about it.  Batman, Alfred, The Joker, and Two-Face all had different motivations, but whatever each one believed, it all accompanied what the film was trying to say quite nicely. You came away with a sense that you understood everything, and because of that you were able to feel everything, whether or not you agreed with the thesis presented.  That emotional connection with the audience is lost here.

Phillip: Hate, hate, hate, hate.  Give us more examples.

Lewis: Catwoman: Her story-line covers the nature of man and redemption piece of our tale, as she is forced to choose between being the selfish thief she presents to world or, something more.

 In total her screen time is probably 35 minutes and as competent as Hathaway is at playing the character, it comes off as superfluous.  Her arc can be described as "rises" as well, but there's so many better examples of that (the symbol of Batman, Bruce Wayne, Gotham itself), there's really no reason for her to be in the story-line; Well, except for the last wordless scene which I won't spoil here.  But mostly, she feels shoehorned in here.

Another character that suffers a similar fate, is unfortunately, a favorite from the previous film, Commissioner Gordon. His arc covers the theme of the importance of truth, specifically in salvation.  That in itself is heady stuff and I'm all for it, but the Gordon we find at the beginning of the film is so much different than the righteous idealist from the previous film we barely recognize him. Something has happened for sure, but we don't see it; instead we almost immediately get a slightly unhinged and depressed Gordon.  The film doesn't have time to show us why and the audience feels like they're missing something. His arc, therefore, lacks impact because in order to care about where a character goes, we have to understand where he starts and be along for the journey.  The journey here we watch and we may cerebrally understand, but we certainly don't feel it.

Phillip: So you hated it? On a scale of 10 to Tyler Perry, how bad was it?

Lewis: You mis understand, my passionate picking apart of the film does not take away from my overall enjoyment of it, and there is much to enjoy.  Let's start with Bruce Wayne's arc in the film: I love it.  Where he starts is perfect from where we saw him last, and as he rehabilitates, missteps, falls, and eventually rises, the audience is emotionally involved every step of the way.

Here the length of the film probably works in Nolan's favor because we are able to see him change over the course of months. I loved this, and Batman's arc.

Phillip: You already said that.

Lewis: Oh, no, my imaginary friend.  I talked about Bruce Wayne's arc.  The Batman, the symbol of heroism, hope, and justice for Gotham City, that goes through its own arc, and it makes perfect sense. Remember the film is called The Dark Knight Rises, not Bruce Wayne Rises.

Phillip: *cough* pretentious *cough*

Lewis: Okay, okay. Other stuff I liked: John Blake. Like Bruce Wayne and The Batman, his arc, exploring the validity of institutions,  is crystal clear, and is allowed to develop fully in spite of all the loud things that are going on around him.  In fact, he is the character you will leave the theatre thinking of, and is the one who's motivations the audience may identify with the most.  Oh, and I totally called the ending for his specific arc.  Just saying.

 Phillip: What about all the others?

Lewis: First off let me say the acting is top notch.  There are no weak players here. No matter the film's flaws Michael Caine, Marion Cotillard, Joseph Gordon Levitt, Morgan Freeman, Tom Hardy, Gary Oldman, etc...that's a dream cast.  Whether or not you emotionally connect with the character's is the film's fault, not there's.  But, Michael Caine is sidelined here, limited to a handful of scenes, and a very contradictory monologue which actually pretty much describes the problems with the movie. I won't do spoilers here, but when you watch the film you'll know what I'm talking about. It doesn't really make all that much sense.  

Cotillard's characters is not developed and ultimately useless save for a final plot complication that is a let down because, like many things in the movie, there's no time to do anything with it.  I've already spoken about Levitt and Oldman's characters, and Freeman always had a small role so I'm okay with how he was used here.  That only leaves Hardy...

Phillip: Dots!?? I don't like dots. Not even the candy. I'm against it. Why use them?

Lewis: Because as good a job as he does, he actually suffers the worse fate of all the actors, through no fault of his own. You see, Bane comes off as a huge wimp. Physically, he doesn't look particularly threatening, even when beating on Batman.  He looks like a somewhat muscular but short guy who does a lot more talking than hands-on killing. And, I could only understand about 70% of what he said thanks to his mask which muddles his words and along with it, the impact he has.

Phillip: Bullshit, Bane is a bad ass. He almost kills Batman! He's strong. Blasphemer!

Lewis:  Well, this is a good time to return to the sarcastic quotations around ACTION.  Nolan has never been a particularly good action director.  The camera angles he chooses, the physical set ups of the characters and props, the sound effects, the lack of catharsis at the end of his action sequences, all are sub par. This is a noticeable problem that we saw in Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. But in 2010, a small miracle happened: Nolan released a superb original film called Inception whose action sequences were so unbelievably spectacular and epic in scope that I thought he finally had mastered it.

In The Dark Knight Rises however, he regresses.  The action in the move is just not exciting. Punches come off as weak, the martial arts as slow and choppy, and the audience is never left with the sense of wonder that should accompany such a film.

 As much as Nolan's movies are about big ideas, this is still a Batman movie and the ass kicking should be legendary. Here it comes off as second rate, and it actually takes you away from the film.  If the punches landed a bit harder, the audience's connection to the movie would be a bit stronger.

Phillip: Wow, you've said much, most of it bitching.  So after everything, how do you feel?

Lewis:   In these 3 batman films, Nolan, has pulled off creating and playing in a universe that is unique; one grounded in reality, featuring complicated characters living and dying in a world that's psyche reflects ours at this specific moment in time.   He has told the stories he wanted to tell, filled with questions no other movie, let along a comic book movie, would dare explore. These films will be re-watched and debated for years to come, and that is a major accomplishment.  If The Dark Knight Rises ultimately is not as satisfying as expected, it is because of all the previous greatness.  I more admire movies that are ambitious and whose results don't quite match those ambitions, versus those that over perform in their mediocrity.  For this reason, I have to award the movie extra points along with my respect; certainly, it has earned it.

While this is the ending Nolan wanted to complete his vision, I don't want this to be the final film.  It would be a shame to reboot everything at this time, losing all the rich foundation laid down.  It is now time for Nolan to pass the torch to some other storyteller, and let the characters and world he has created evolve in their own way.   In the end, I hope the franchise does as Batman did in the film, rise and continue to do so, perhaps next time high enough to clear the bar that was set so high.

FINAL GRADE: B

If we go with this "reboot math," are we only 6 years away from re-living the Twilight Sage? Shudder.

           Spider-Man has not aged well.  I'm not referring to the character, who has been around for fanboys to geekgasm over for decades. I'm not even talking about the 2002 film version which gave us a dopey and downbeat Tobey Maguire as our friendly neighborhood do gooder.  No, I'm actually talking about this incarnation, the "Amazing Spider-Man."  In the week or so since I've seen the movie, its weaknesses have become all too clear to me, and I actually find myself flip flopping from my position of originally recommending it.  I would be troubled except for the fact that I'm an adult, and as such I am allowed to re asses my feelings and come to a different, but equally as valid, conclusion.

          And that's where, regrettably I now stand with this recent reboot of our favorite radioactive spider bit teenager.  I don't hate it but I kinda don't like it. But why the change?  Well, let's start with how I felt at first:  As I first watched the film I found myself overtaken by a all the seemingly positive aspects of the new James Webb direct version.

            First off: Back story; It never quite jived with me that Peter Parker's parents warranted only a brief mention in the Sam Rami trilogy.  Wouldn't you be affected by the deaths of your parents if you were a moody teenager? Wouldn't you want to know more about who they were?  These questions I would answer in the affirmative and when I saw Campbell Scott show up as Peter's father, I got excited. Finally, I thought, they're going deep into Peter's psyche. While Parker certainly does not have the issues of Bruce Wayne, there's still fertile ground there to explore for great drama.

             Next:  The de-emofication of Peter Parker; One of my chief complaints with the original films (and it still feels weird to say "original films" as if they were made 30 years ago), is that Peter was too much of whiner. He whined about not getting Mary Jane, then he whined when he had her, then he whined about not being special, then when he became special he whined about not having enough time to be normal.  So, I was very excited to see Andrew Garfield's interpretation was more eccentric acerbic social outcast then debbie downer loner.  

           Also: No Norman Osbourne.  Yes he's still in the mythos but he's an unseen figure versus the central focus.  Why was this good? I just didn't feel like re-living the father figure betrayal between them and the slow building rivalry between Parker and Harry Osbourne. What's the point, I figured?

    And Then: Emma Stone; Yup she's hot but not in an unbelievably inhuman way like aessica Biel, but in a "hey, I think I could get her" sort of a way. Plus, she can act. She's the best thing about many of the movies she's in.

    Lastly: Lizards.  Yup, I liked Spider-Man fighting a Giant Lizard.

     And at first, my analysis of the movie reflected my satisfaction at seeing what I most wanted to see. As I walked out of the theatre I said to myself:  I'd recommend it. But I'm here to say, I WAS WRONG. I was wrapped in my own web of self deception! (see what I did there? Puns are amazing).

     No friends, technically I got everything I wanted but none of it was even close to the level of quality of the original trilogy.  Yes, there was plenty of backstory but what came of it?  No spoilers here but that "Untold Story" the good people at Sony Marketing kept promising us is missing; trapped in it's own web of self deception..(okay, it didn't work so well that time.)

     With Peter's parents, a possibly interesting story line is teed up but not followed through on, and we are left knowing nothing more about Peter's thinking then we did if his parents were not mentioned at all.  

     Yes, Spider-Man was less mopey but in its stead we got a quiet, more closed-off Peter who still was prone to outbursts of emotion.  But given his good-natured normal state, this outbursts feel like they come out of nowhere.  It reminded me of the Star Wars Prequels where Anakin Skywalker exploded in anger, seemingly at random time.  Yes, Peter is sad and angry but the 'why' is never explored any further then "his parents died."

      No, Osbourne was not seen but the villain that replaced him, Dr. Connors, is a cipher, a non entity in his human form.  Dr. Connors knew Peter's parents (its even even that he was somehow involved in their untimely demise), so why doesn't the film do anything with that unique-to-this-version plot point? Why don't Connors and Parker really bond beyond a few geeky conversations about science, fleshing out both characters in the process, and creating a bond that would be more exciting to see tested when they become enemies?

      Yes, we get Emma Stone but she is given nothing to do.  While more savvy, smart, and altogether hotter than MJ, at least MJ had an arc. Emma Stone's Gwen Stacey is there only to react to Peter Parker. She's likable but that's all Stone; Very little is on the page.

     Yes, I got a Giant Lizard, but it was an all-CGI weakling who seems more nuisance than threat.  It just doesn't convey the menace of the Green Goblin or Doc Ock. In fact, It kinda looks like a "Koopa Troopa" from the live action Super Mario movie.

     Here, I have to take a step back however, and realize that I'm comparing this film to another and that is not all together fair considering this is a reboot, not a sequel.  Given that, I do want to mention the good things:  

     The Cast; no matter how little their given to do, or how poor their characters come off, this is a standout cast full of real actors giving it their all. Their commitment to the film transfers on screen.  

     Also, the last 30 minutes is really strong stuff: the camera angles, suspense, the action, and even the ending I liked, and it's the ending that really gives me hope for the franchise because it dares to be different then the Rami original.

    In this version, our less-taciturn Spidey realizes that while great power comes with great responsibility, it should not be at the expense of living his life... And here in lies that salvation of the series going forward:  This Peter Parker LIKES being Spider-Man and the film hypothesizes that there's nothing wrong with that.  That will keep the series fun, which is something the Spider-Man series needs to remain. Yes, Peter won't always be happy, and part of the fun of fiction is making our protagonist alternatively content and miserable through triumphs, obstacles and tragedies; that's just good drama.  But, with Spider-Man it doesn't need to be that heavy.  

     An upbeat ending the film has earned lets most viewers forgive many other flaws. Except for some miserable a-holes. They'll say they like it, then afterwards slowly dissect the film and say they don't. Damn flip floppers . I hate those sort of people. Don't you?

Final Grade: C+

Monkey, C

     There's a character in Ice Age 4 that's a shy, weak, scared semi-loser who pines for Ray Romano's daughter while stuck in the Proterozoic Era version of the "Friend Zone."  The little rodent's name?  Louis.  

    For this reason alone I should hate this movie because everyone knows anyone named Louis is super awesome in a far out sort of way to quote Greg Brady.

     But no, as I sat in a theatre full of loud children and their suffering parents, I ignored  this gross inaccuracy and kept the faith because on the whole, I'm a fan of the series.

 Unfortunately my namesake is an example of what is wrong with the movie.  To put it succinctly: Characters; There's too many of them.  There's the main 3 then Manny's wife (Queen Latifah), then her rodent brothers (because she thinks she's a possum, remember? Well, I kinda didn't but okay I'll go along with it), their daughter, her crush, his friends, their families, then Sid's mother and father, and then his grandmother, and then Diego's love interest (Jennifer Lopez), then the band of pirates she's with, of which at least half a dozen have speaking roles, as they're led by a monkey of some sort (Peter Dinklage) who in turn is defeated with the help of some other small mole like animals, and then... holy crap I'm tired.

    With all these distractions Ice Age 4 turns into X Men 3 (seriously you kill Cyclops OFF SCREEN.  F*** you, that's terrible), and by giving a little screen time to everyone, the whole becomes less than the sum of its parts.  All this could be forgiven if not for the barely-there plot which seems to be stuck on repeat as Manny, Sid, and Diego are lost, fight pirates, escape, then become lost again.  Seriously, that's basically all that happens.

     Not that it's all bad.  Leguizamo, Romano and Leary still play our three heroes very well and the usual laughs are had as the three unlikely family members bicker with each other.  Wanda Sykes also has some fun with her granny role and Scrat continues to kick all sorts of ass as he entertainingly chases that nut he'll never get (and yes I realize how dirty that sounds but that's actually what happens).

    I'm not a hater, though. I'll give them this mediocre one and sign up for the sequel. I have faith they can fix what's wrong and win me back.  Either that or just reboot it with Sid's Parents or something.  Ice Age: First Class.

GRADE: C

"Louis" spelled incorrectly. It should be L-E-W-I-S