What's Worth Watching This Summer

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is sort of stupid (08/23/14)
This new version of the childhood classic tale of turtle brothers mutated into ninja city defenders, lacks the semi-gravitas of the original and the wacky fun of the second. It's a collection of scenes with underwhelming CGI interrupted by nicely staged action and dialogue that is stupid enough for me to shake my head several times during the movie. Megan Fox is a terrible actress and remains so which takes away any hope of the human stories in the movie capturing our attention. The voice casting is also off. Johnny Knoxville as Leonardo doesn't sound like a confident leader and Donatello comes off sorta autistic. I will admit the ending has an entertaining sequence followed by a surprisingly poignant confession scene that makes me wish both of those were in a better movie. The whole thing was just stupid. FINAL GRADE: C
The Expendables 3 deviates from its proven formula with mixed results (08/23/14)
The Expendables 3 tries to bring in "fresh blood" to replace the old, which is mystifying to me because the "old blood" is sort of the whole point of this franchise. But it's all done in service of the story, where Stallone decides he doesn't want to see any more of his friends die and goes after bad guy Mel Gibson with a bunch of fresh recruits. That makes sense in a way, and this is the first movie in the series to have a character arc that halfway succeeds so I forgive the heavy handidness. If only the new Expendables were anywhere near as interesting as the old (or in some cases REALLY old) ones. You will find yourself waiting for Snipes and Stathem to come save the day which of course they do. The final scene is over the top action that rivals 2012 in its ridiculousness so the movie ends on a high. Next time, don't bury the lead and stick with the old gang. FINAL GRADE: B-
Let's Be Cops only made me chuckle (08/23/14)
There's a good movie somewhere on an L.A. editing room starring Damon Waynes Jr. and Jake Johnson. Unfortunately, the "Let's Be Cops" I saw shows only signs of brilliance. It attempts to tell a story and have themes, however simplistic, so that I respect. The pairing of Waynes and Johnson is also inspired, and they have good chemistry. It's just not that funny. I found myself chuckling at times and I didn't hate the flick but it all adds up to a disappointingly mediocre experience. I'm in if these guys try again though. I have hope next time they could nail it. FINAL GRADE: C+
Guardians of the Galaxy is the best Marvel movie since The Avengers (08/10/14)
Guardians of the Galaxy is the best Marvel film since the Avengers. It combines the fun of that already-classic flick by invoking the found family theme. The same thrill you got by seeing Hulk and Iron Man team up is present here when a talking Raccoon bonds with a beefed up blue alien and they blow some sh** up. The movie accomplishes this through James Gunn's confident direction as well as his funny script which fills the screen with enough eccentricities to make you feel what you're seeing is original without overwhelming you, being weird just for weird's sake. Part of the secret of the script is that it gets to have it both ways. This is a superhero movie but plays more like a sci fi adventure. It's light on origin story and heavy on space battles. That means we don't spent 45 minutes of the running time showing how the hero adapted to his/her powers. The movie takes off almost right away and gets progressively better, peaking at its surprisingly emotional finale. It says something that you end up feeling so close to the motley crew that most of us knew nothing about going in. For this to be accomplished, the casting has to be spot on. Zoe Zaldana and Dave Batista are effective and have fun in their warrior roles. Bradley Cooper and Vin Diesel give amazing voice performances which impresses me because Cooper doesn't really sound like Cooper and Diesel only gives various line readings of the same 3 or 4 words. The best of the best however is Chris Pratt. He gives a performance full of such charisma that he's bound to be overexposed and in every single movie you want to go see for at least the next 18 months. Go watch this and I'll guarantee you'll leave with half a dozen memorable lines stuck in your head and eager for the Guardians of the Galaxy to return, as the end titles promise. FINAL GRADE: A-
Get On Up needs to sit back and calm down (08/10/14)
The time jumps in director Tate Taylor's "Get on Up" happen so abruptly that the first hour of the James Brown biopic feels like two. It's exhausting and confusing too. You'll feel puzzled as to why the story cuts from an important part of Brown's life to another stage performance. I suppose someone smarter or more pretentious (take your pick) could make the argument that the randomness is all part of the theme and embodies the eccentricity of the man the movie is based on, but whether or not that's true, the effect is the same. The lack of a linear path takes away from the movie and leaves the audience disengaged with whiplash, ready for the next time the story skips like an old LP on a turntable. The movie's saving graces are the performances. As Brown, Chadwick Boseman gives an electric performance. He doesn't mimic (as Jamie Foxx did in Ray) or reinterpret (as Joaquin Phoenix did in Walk the Line), he disappears. He does even though he's obviously lip synching, a testament to him understanding his subject. It's his best performance, light years ahead of his acting in "42." But because the movie is all of the place, many people may not realize it. In an unfortunate paradox, he gives a better performance in a much worse film. What a shame. Credit also Nelsan Ellis as Brown's beleaguered right hand man Bobby Byrd. Ellis doesn't try match Boseman in his eccentricities, instead he underplays beautifully. You'll end up wishing the movie was more about him and his relationship with Brown. That might have focused "Get on Up" and made the move the better for it. FINAL GRADE: B-
School Dance is much better than the name suggests (08/10/14)
I love technology. Without it I couldn't heat up my left over pizza to make it even more delicious, or type this sentence right now lying in best in my underwear. I also couldn't discover movies that I would normally never know existed as I did with "School Dance." This was on the Verizon VOD as "Exclusive before it hits theaters." This is becoming my favorite section to find entertaining smaller budget movies. School Dance fits into that category but just because its smaller budget doesn't mean it's any less fun. The movie is direction by Nick Cannon. Yes that Nick Cannon from "Drumline," America's Got Talent and Mr. Mariah Carey fame. It's a send up of teenage sex comedies like American Pie that is more homage then parody. It follows a high school student (Bobby J. Thompson) who is a just a regular kid. He fantasizes about his dream girl in school and yearns to be accepted into the school dance crew he idolizes. Naturally, he has to prove he's man enough for both (with the same day to boot) and hilarity ensues. It features a dazzling array of talented actors in cameo roles. No doubt Cannon called in a lot of favors to get the likes of, in no particular order: Kevin Hart, Kitt Williams, George Lopez, Mike Epps and Wilmer Walaflasdf (yes I know that's not really his surname but it's really hard to spell so that's the way I usually remember it). The movie is funny and over-the-top but it's meant to be. It doesn't have a greater agenda than to make you laugh out loud, which it succeeds at many times. The film does suffer a bit from Cannon's only so-so direction which can lead to awkwardly staged shots and an overall feeling of "cheapness" , the kiss of death for movies which are actually shot on a $0 budget. But those are nitpicks. The movie is a comedy that made me laugh. What higher compliment is there than that? FINAL GRADE: B
Life Itself is a beautiful celebration (07/05/14)
To call "Life Itself," the touching new documentary about the legendary film critic Roger Ebert, an ode to Ebert would be to miss the point. The movie is about "life itself," just as the title suggests, meaning it's an examination of a life, and more specifically of a life well lived. This particular case study has a more public central figure but one whose life was full of the same ups, downs, successes, failures, triumphs and tragedies as all our lives. Ebert began the documentary 4 months before his eventual death while he was undergoing rehab and doesn't shy away from the medical gruesomeness. His nurse comes in to suction the phlem, poking a tube right through where his bottom jaw should be but where only a flap of skin remains. He says it would be a misstep to not show everything and he's right but not because the documentary would be any less truthful. By showing everything, the film is showing an important part of life: sickness and dying. That's the ending of Ebert's extraordinary life and he acknowledges as much. Yet in the end, it's only a small part of it. The movie takes you through Ebert's humble midwestern beginnings, through his rebellious and misguided youth and then through his extraordinary run as one half of the most influential movie critic duo of all time. You see how he progresses, regresses and finds success first in work then in his personal life. All is recounted using photos and narration from his audio book as well as interviews with him and his wife Chaz. It's tough to watch, especially when Ebert, by his own admission, "fades" towards the end but it's a captivating and heartfelt journey. At the end of his life Ebert doesn't fear death. Instead, he lives by a motto popularized by Dr. Seuss which I will paraphrase here: don't cry that's it over, be happy that it happened. "It" in this case is his life and after watching this film you'll feel the same way and possibly a bit more reflective of yours. FINAL GRADE: A-
Snowpiercer has something to say (07/05/14)
Snowpierecer is the rare action movie that tries to say something. It takes place in a post apocalyptic future where the world has frozen over. The only living people left inhabit a train consisting of dozens of cars. In the back are the poor people, in the front the rich. The treatment is disparate with the back of the train basically resembling something out of slumdog millionaire. When the back of the train people plan a revolt, they attack and slowly move forward in the train, killing anyone who will stop them. The class struggle depicted here is nothing novel but the story has an urgency that makes it feel original and a bit more weighty than say a transformers movie. Other not-so-original but still well done touches include the claustrophobic action which has shades of Tarentino and "Oldboy" (the original, not the remake). The movie is entertaining but I warn you, it's not for everyone. This is a violent, bleak flick with a scary future that may resemble parts of our present (how we treat the less fortunate, for instance). Many people don't want to think about that when they pay 13.00 dollars for admission. This isn't fun escapism, that's for sure. Yet, it's well directed and up into the end (which goes long by about 10 minutes), it's fast moving. The movie has something to say and although it may not accomplish all it sets out to do, I admire it for trying. FINAL GRADE: B
Transformers: Age of Extinction sets the series back on course (06/28/14)
I have a memorable history with the Transformers series. I was cold on the first one, finding it exceedingly mediocre and I was stunned I seemed to be the only one not enjoying it. The second one I skipped in the theatres and while my friends said they were disappointed with it, I watched it on TV and I had a good time. Then came 2011's Dark of the Moon, the oddly titled and spectacularly mishandled 3rd installment. It was the first movie I took to see my then-new girlfriend and she never will let me forget it. Stupid, boring, weird, and badly directed, Dark of the Moon was, in my mind, the end of my Transformers adventures. But since it made a billion dollars, a sequel was inevitable. When I saw the preview earlier this year it looked...not bad. I begin wondering out loud: could this be good? I couldn't convince the girlfriend to join me for "Age of Extinction," and I'm okay with that. She doesn't like loud mindless action, but I do when it's done well. I'm happy to report "Age of Extinction" is much better than the last movie. A sequel / reboot that does away with all previous human characters, the movie feels fresh (or at least fresher than the last 2 movies). Shia is replaced by Marky Mark and he's likeable as always. But the biggest asset is that he's actually an action star so when he mixes it up with the evil Transformers, it doesn't look like a scared kid running for his life. The action is well staged and better directed. I could actually tell which alien robot was punching which other alien robot. The movie is also better written. No, it isn't well written. I said BETTER. The writers wisely up the stakes by making Transformers outlaws and the humans their hunters (at least at the beginning). This adds danger and some nice character development for lead Autobot Optimus Prime, who is pretty sick of the human's crap at this point. The film is also a bit less goofy, something that is made apparent early with the surprise death of a "comic relief" character that in prior installments would've annoyed me until the end. The 3D is amazing and I recommend seeing it in IMAX. Of course this being Michael Bay it's long by about 30 minutes and the plot gets really dumb by the end, but this is an enjoyable ride. The story is also sequel ready which I am in for. Finally, the series is back on course. FINAL GRADE: B
Jersey Boys is the opposite of energetic (06/28/14)
In my review last year of "The Wolf Of Wall Street," I marveled at how fresh the film felt. It had energy and passion, something I didn't expect from 70-something Scorcese. It felt like it was directed by a much younger person. For contrast, we now have "Jersey Boys," based on the nearly-decade long broadway hit musical. This feels EXACTLY like it was directed by an older person so it will surprise no one to learn Clint Eastwood is behind this film adaptation. That's right, Dirty Harry made a musical. Except he didn't, and therein lies the problem. He took a story that was meant to go hand-in-hand with the flourish of musical theatre, and ripped out all of the guts. This movie isn't a musical but a drama. What's left feels like an empty shell that only resembles the source material. I say this not having seen the play but by being able to identify glimmers of the heart of the story that must have existed in the original show. Examples abound but none better than these 2: When the characters speak into the camera, the movie comes alive as they wink at us and express how they truly felt at that moment. Those energetic moments are few and far between. After they say their piece to the audience, the fairly uninteresting drama continues. Yet at the very end, they break out into song and the movie awakens once more. Too bad all that's left by then is the closing credits. Eastwood's choices aren't all bad however. While the casting is anything from age appropriate, the performances are spot on. The music that does make it into the film is catchy and the tunes will stick in your head for days after. Too bad the rest of the movie won't. FINAL GRADE: C+
Think Like A Man Too is too long (06/22/14)
Prepare for more Kevin Hart in this sequel to the 2012 hit based on the Steve Harvey Book. Generally speaking that's not a bad thing and I'm glad to say the trend continues. Hart works very hard, narrating and playing the emotional center of the movie. Unfortunately, his character is the only one that ISN'T given a satisfying arc. He regresses from last go around which is funny but doesn't necessarily fit within the rest of the story. The rest of the story is very similar to the last movie as the couples experience their own up and downs. It ends exactly the way you think it does so why does it take so long to get there? If the movie was 20 minutes shorter, it might be more enjoyable. As it stands, it's a passable follow up to the superior original. FINAL GRADE: B-
Chef has a recipe for a great movie. See what I did there? (06/22/14)
Chef stars Jon Faverau in the central role. He's a talented chef whose creativity is being stifled at his current gourmet restaurant. After an epic meltdown out against a food critic captured on video and put on the Internet, he attempts to regain his mojo by starting a food truck. The story isn't much more complicated than that but it's also deceptively simple. It's about communication. The Chef doesn't know how to talk to anyone. He only has a relationship with food. He joins twitter, facebook, vince, etc., other means of communication which doesn't necessitate actually talking to people. At the same time he has a son who loves what he does and spending time with his dad and he doesn't how to speak with him. It's only when he strips away all the extra stuff in his life does he really see that. Metaphorically he goes back to the basics, read: the food truck, before being able to get himself back. It's a funny, well directed and written little movie. Go see it. FINAL GRADE: B+
22 Jump Street is a sequel and won't let you forget it (06/22/14)
I've always said that when a movie / tv show starts being self referential, it's the death kneel. The Jump Street movies, however, have been that way from the start. Hell, Johnny Depp made a surprise cameo in the first one reprising his role from the 1980's original tv show. So it's not necessarily a bad thing that 22 Jump Street makes fun of itself, referring many times to how redundant it is and how the plot is exactly the same. The winks, however, become excessive and the movie threatens to drown in its own cleverness. The plot IS exactly the same and the few changes it does have aren't very satisfying. You also get the idea that they're sort of winging it this time. They practically admit that they're going through the motions. The saving grace is Hill and Tatum who have real chemistry with each other and make a good comedy team. They make up for the thin writing and lack of plot twists. The movie is not bad but nowhere near as good as the original. It does end on a high note. Stay through the credits for "scenes" from the future sequel because it's hilarious. It makes me wish for a sequel, just one that isn't exactly the same. A little familiarity is okay but too much can bore. FINAL GRADE: B-
X Men: Days of Future Past Fixes Past Mistakes (06/19/14)
X Men: Days of Future Past is about fixing past mistakes. The movie will have believe that has to do with stopping the creation of mutant-killing weapons called Sentinels but let's be honest. This is about fixing the abomination that is X Men: The Last Stand. If you don't remember, count yourself lucky but if you're like me and a glutton for punishment then you will recall it's a terrible piece of crap that abandons all character development and kills any goodwill X men and X2 built up. Days of Future Past gives the filmmakers to undo this in an exciting way by sending future Wolverine (post "The Wolverine) back in time to the 1970's to stop the creation of said Sentinels. The movie is fun, smart, exciting, well acted and well directed. If it doesn't get to the heights of X2 then it gets close and you'll leave fully entertained. They say this is the last episode with the original X-Men. I hope that's not the case. The younger versions are fun and all but I have a soft spot for McKellan and Stewart who absolutely kill it. FINAL GRADE: B+
Maleficent bored me (06/19/14)
Maleficent tells the "Sleeping Beauty" story from the perspective of the Villain. This being the 2000's, gone is the reliance on Prince Charming as the agent of motion replaced by a not-really-evil-just-kinda-pissed Maleficent. It's interesting but not very captivating. There's just not enough plot to go around. Once Maleficent cast the spell, in the original telling she does very little. Here we see her realize the error of her ways but we knew that was going to happen since Maleficent isn't really an evil person. What follows are repetitive scenes of her falling out of darkness and Sleeping Beauty's father obsessing over being the cause of her daughter's eventual misfortune. This entertained me for about an hour but after that I was looking for the exit. Skip it, to avoid my fate. FINAL GRADE: C
How To Train Your Dragon 2 is a beauty to behold but isn't as good as the first (06/19/14)
I found myself staring at, of all things, one of the back of the character's necks somewhere toward the beginning of the sequel. I'm not into animated characters I swear, I just could not get over how detailed the animation was. The look of Dragon two is fantastic and I saw it in 3D which added a little bit to it. The plot, however, doesn't meet up to the technology. Here Hiccup is having doubts about being the leader of the dragon loving village he created. He broods from the beginning and the movie barely takes a breath but just because it's moving doesn't mean it's going in the right direction. The plot meanders, taking many wrong turns, the worst of which is the introduction of Hiccup's Mother. Her character is not fleshed out enough to be relatable and in the end, it's almost not important that she's there. Her use in the movie is mainly to help the plot along (including a surprise death) but she ends up being distracting. The end is better and Hiccup and Toothless kicking ass is awesome to see , but it gets nowhere near the original in terms of overall quality. Still fun to watch, however. FINAL GRADE: B
Blended is Not As Terrible As I Thought It Would Be (05/25/15)
Let's get this out of the way: Blended is not very funny. I laughed out loud twice and chuckled half a dozen more times. However, there's an inherent sweetness to the movie that I wasn't expecting. When I saw the previews succinctly explain the plot (Barrymore and Sandler have a bad date then through some screwball way are matched up again when both their families take a vacation to Africa), I thought 'here we go again.' I assumed this would be just another horrible Sandler movie only with lions in the background and I even thought it might border on offensive (seeing Terry Crews as the African musician smiling as he danced for the rich white people gave me some douche bumps). But there's more story than I expected and the movie's mission is to be more heartwarming than provocative. It helps that Sandler's co star is Barrymore who is a much better actress and can handle scenes that require real emotion. In the end, "Blended" falls somewhere behind "Just Go With It" on the Sandler Movie Spectrum (which include the extremes of Happy Gilmore and That's My Boy). It's not terrible and I don't regret watching it. Then again, I only would pay matinee prices. FINAL GRADE: C+
Million Dollar Arm is Worth Watching (05/25/15)
When Million Dollar Arm bombed in the theaters, my first reaction was "I'm okay with that since Jon Hamm already has too much going for him." Is that a bitter response birthed from my own feelings of inadequacy ? You betcha and it's sometimes good to seethe tall handsome guy who gets paid millions of dollars humbled. Now that I've seen the film, I'm stepping back from my comments a bit. Million Dollar Arm isn't bad and Hamm is quite good in it. He plays a sports agent trying to save his failing agency. His solution? Scout for baseball players in the only place that has yet to be mined for talent: India. Sounds Crazy/Stupid? Well, it's a true story which I knew going in. That helped me buy in to this slightly schmaltzy sports mentor movie. Hamm is likeable and does what he can with an only-OK script. He makes the movie watchable even when it's over the top cheese (this being Disney remember there has to be a happy ending and someone has to learn something). I enjoyed the movie for what it was, and especially Hamm as the lead. He deserves another chance to open a movie. FINAL GRADE: B-
Neighbors stars a grown up Seth Rogen and makes me laugh (05/25/15)
A lot of people get Seth Rogen mixed up with Jonah Hill. I can see why they get confused, they're both chubby comedy actors who use sarcastic line delivery to make you laugh. One however is growing up and taking a lot of risks and the other is Jonah Hill. Hill may have 2 oscar nods (none of which he deserved by the way) but Seth Rogen consistently makes me laugh and releases a variety of comedies that avoid falling into the trap judd apatow is now falling into: they don't all feel the same. This is The End was a very funny movie last summer about the end of the world and this year we get Rogen as a young father taking on the neighboring "young" college kids who threaten his domestic bliss. Yes Rogen is old enough to play a father and even more amazing he recognizes it. Where Hill is releasing a movie where he essentially plays a college student (I know he's older but he gets to be in that environment and make jokes about how stupid the kids are so it still counts), Rogen is growing as a comedic actor. Neighbors has fine performances from him and Rose Byrne (playing his wife), as well as, surprisingly Zac Efron. Comedy is mined from Rogen trying to be a kid but finding he's no longer very good at it and more to the point, he's okay with that. He's growing up and that means what's fun changes as adult responsibilities abound. The movie isn't great and there were many moments where I only chuckled but its entertaining enough and offers both smart and potty humor so everyone wins. FINAL GRADE: B

You Pay $12.50 for View with Obstruction When Watching Godzilla (05/17/14)

You get more of a view here of Godzilla then you do in the movie

    Godzilla is 1/3 of a really good movie that frustrats rather an entertains.  Much like he did in his feature debut 2010 Monsters,  Gareth Edward's effectively stages jaw dropping scenes of gigantic creatures galavanting in our world, with exciting sequences set in Hawaii, Japan and San Francisco.  However, much as he did in 2010 Monsters, Edwards is obssessed with not showing too much.  This probably has to do with trying to establish tension, saving the big reveal of the monster for the apex of the movie, but Edwards continues this annoying stylistic choice long after he needs to.  In his 2010 feature you could blame the budget for the lack of, well, monsters in Monsters but not here.  Edwards doesn't reveal enough, showing frustatingly little of the beasts, a lot of the last 1/3 of the movie's action happening in the background of Aaran Johnson's Ford arc about trying to detonate a bomb.  The highminded amongst us might say this is because "Godzilla is not really about the monsters it's about us" but bulllllllshit.  We want to see a knockdown, dragdown rumble and we are promised it, again and again.  Ken Watanabe, who spends the whole movie staring off into the distance and looking concerned,

even utters the line "let them fight!"  Then it cuts too...more humans scrambling with the camera firmly focused on the ground level while the monsters tussle in the distance.  The result is the last 1/3 of the movie experience feels like someone in the theatre is standing in front of the screen ,preventing you from seeing what you want.  I wanted to yell, "down in front" so I can get a good view of the action but no such luck with a movie where the camera placement is simply odd.  To be clear, I'm not saying 'show us the monster now or your movie stinks' but once the cat is out of the bag, let us enjoy what we came to see.  For his next project perhaps Edwards should only direct the first half of the movie because he can effectively set up tension.  Then bring in Joss Whedon or, I can't believe I'm writing this, JJ Abrams to finish off the flick and leave us satisified.  FINAL GRADE:  C

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is Amazingly Mediocre (05/04/14)

If he runs out of web, he can always slow them down with his tears.

     In my 2012 review of "The Amazing Spider-Man," I admitted to a change of heart on the film days after I first viewed it.  The wishy washy-ness didn't sit well with me, but I had to be truthful in saying that I liked it before I didn't.  Well, thank god for the return of clarity.  The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is not a good film:  poorly written, oddly paced and often badly acted, this sequel to the pointless reboot manages to be even more pointless.  That's saying something about a sequel.  The movie's only redemptive qualities lie in the scenes between stars Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone, who have very real chemistry and go beyond the shallow script to create a romance on screen you root for.  They're the definiton of the actors rising above the material.  Since I'm in a no b.s. kind of mood let's  breakdown the rest of the movie into the Good and the Terrible

Good:

 1) Okay, this isn't the worst move every.  There were some high points.  I've already mentioned Stone and Garfield.  Dane Deehan also deserves credit for making a sympathetic character out of Harry Osborune.  He's oozing with pain and pathos, conveying more in one single look than James Franco did in 3 movies.  That's a good thing too because the script does him no favors.  Since he wasn't in #1, he has about 60 minutes to develop a character, of which he is on screen maybe 15.  But Deehan does it and he does it so well I was siding with him more than Spider-Man. In the movie, Parker is given a chance to help his best friend and his motivations for not are very muddled. In fact, he kind of comes off like a d***.  Deehan's actions after are understandable, as misguided as they are.  You feel for Deehan and want to see more of him.

  2)  The action sequences, of which there are not enough of, are cleverly staged and all the new technology and money spent on Spider Man is evident on screen.  It wasn't the best I've seen or even great, but they were entertaining.   

3) Then there's the ending.  No spoilers, but it wasn't a cheat.  What happens and the emotions you see on screen feel earned, due in large part to how well Garfield and Stone interact with each other.

Terrible  

1) Jamie Foxx's acting is always either good or terrible, a sign of a bad actor.  Here he gives his forgotten Oscorp electrician Max the full "Mr. Freeze" treatment, complete with over the top line readings and terrible puns.  If you told me a 200 million dollar Spider Man movie would have the phrase "Don't you know who I Am? I'm Electro!" in it, I would have told you to hand over you're keys because you're obviously drunk.  But it's here and boy does it remind me of Batman & Robin. Yikes.

2) The "mystery" behind Peter Parker's parents is boring and pointless. It's supposed to add to the emotion but it all feels like "deleted scenes" left in the movie by mistake.  There is no reason they're in the film, except maybe to establish other Oscorp shenanigans. 

3) That brings me to my last point: the cash grab that is the "Sinister Six."  If you don't know what that is don't worry, Sony will make sure you're educated in the coming years.  To give you a basic idea: They are 6 "super villains" who team up to fight the might of...The Avengers?  Nope.  Peter Parker.  You know, the same Peter Parker who cries at the drop of hat.  He's apparently very formidable.  Not only does everything pertaining to Oscorp's "special projects" feel forced into the movie, it gives off a smell of desperation.  Sony really want to make an expanded Universe so they can print money from hungry Fanboys who can't believe their luck they're getting more Superhero movies.   The problem is they only have Spiderman to work with and Peter Parker is just not interesting or threatening.  So light are they on material that they're taking the unusual step of making the villains the stars of their own movies.   So, a good 20 minutes of the Amazing Spider-Man to is to tee up future terrible movies.  Yeah....?

FINAL GRADE: C (wait for Redbox)

| Reply

Latest comments