Not So Amazing

People don't like to think about it, but the Spider-Man franchise NEEDED that reboot. After Sam Raimi's disastrous 2007 finale to his to-that-point beloved trilogy, Sony needed to get people excited about the franchise again, and reminders of "Emo Peter Parker" were not going to work. And so while the 2012 reboot The Amazing Spider-Man was not universally loved for rehashing the character's origin story, it WAS a well-crafted, superbly-performed summer blockbuster that succeeded in washing away the stink of Raimi's failure. The question now was whether the first sequel in this reborn series could maintain that momentum, especially with at least two sequels and two spin-off films planned for the future. It's a lot to place in the lap of director Marc Webb, whose only experience before 2012 was the indie sleeper hit (500) Days of Summer. Could an inexperienced filmmaker with one monster hit under his belt be counted on for another slam dunk? If you read the title for this review, you have probably already guessed that no, he did not.

Suit up!

To be fair, not everything that is wrong with The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is Webb's fault. In continuing the story of Andrew Garfield's maturing superhero and his relationships with those closest to him, there were bound to be hiccups along the way. The sequel sees our hero during the summer after his graduation from high school, unsure how to pursue romantic interest Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) without putting her in danger, as he has made a name for himself cleaning up the streets of New York City. But he's also dealing with the fallout of mega-company Oscorp, whose CEO has just passed away, leaving son (and Spidey's childhood friend) Harry Osborne (Dane DeHaan) in charge of the corporation, and also accidentally birthing supervillain Electro (Jamie Foxx), whose obsession with the superhero turns deadly. On top of that, there are dozens of additional characters, plot threads, foreshadowing and aimless cameos (Hi, Paul Giamatti! Bye, Chris Cooper!) that keep the plot rumbling forward. And if you used that last sentence to sum up what was wrong with this film, you would be pretty spot on.

The romance!

You see, Sony - who owns the film rights to the character of Spider-Man - is trying desperately to compete with the "cinematic universes" which have become trendy among those studios out there powerful enough to be in the business, with Disney (The Avengers), Fox (The X-Men and Fantastic Four) and Warner Brothers (The Justice League) banking on those continuous, interconnected stories to fuel their respective franchises for years, if not decades, to come. Sony however has less to work with; they own the rights to one hero, one or two anti-heroes and a slew of imaginative villains. While Spider-Man is already a cash cow for them, they would love to make a bundle off of Venom, Sinister Six and The Black Cat if it was at all possible. And The Amazing Spider-Man 2 definitely drops breadcrumbs in those diverging paths, setting up not only future sequels, but what they hope will become new franchises. But that's also what holds this sequel back, as the story itself suffers from a serious lack of focus due to all the clues that are cool on the surface, but detract from the primary plot.

The bro-mance!

So how does a film franchise transform from a refined storyteller to the rambling drunk down at your local pub? My money is on screenwriters Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci and Jeff Pinkner, who replaced the first movie's James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent and Steve Kloves. Kurtzman and Orci are certainly talented scribes, however their projects seem to swing the divide between fun and exciting (the recent Star Trek films, TV show Sleepy Hollow) and terrible (Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen) with alarming regularity, and with little middle ground. Their strengths (and presumably Pinkner's, from working with them on Fringe) tend to be bombastic, action-filled sequences fitted around frenetic bursts of character development. While that in itself is fine, their style feels woefully inadequate to properly represent Peter Parker, a character who is not so much about macho action (though he's no slouch) as he is about inner turmoil and conflict. I hate comparing a sequel to the first movie, but Webb and his previous screenwriters had an EXCELLENT understanding of what made their characters tick, while here the new team seems more interested in fueling new franchises than allowing their movie to stand all on its own. The Peter/Gwen romance is hastily constructed, poorly written and painfully trite. The Harry Osborne character - while excellently acted by DeHaan - feels tacked on and undeveloped, not given enough time for non-comic fans to ascertain his motivations. There are WAY too many secondary characters with too many shallow, unfulfilled storylines, and Webb isn't even allowed to address the dangling threads he left open in the FIRST movie, such as the hunt for Uncle Ben's killer. But worst might be the way the film treats Jamie Foxx's villain, whose origins and rationale are about as cliched as comic book bad guys get. For a the sequel to a film that helped usher in a new age of superhero flicks, this followup is definitely a bit too safe and familiar for fans to rally behind.

No, wait, forget the bro-mance...

All this isn't Webb's fault, though he's hardly free from blame. His actors all acquit themselves nicely - which in addition to the ones I've already named also include Sally Field, Colm Fiore, Felicity Jones and Marton Csokas - lending to the fact that Webb is indeed an actor's director. Standing out, Garfield and Stone share some excellent chemistry, and even Garfield and DeHaan feel like genuine old buddies, despite the failings of the screenplay. And the action-packed fight scenes are well-done, though the special effects accompanying them don't look quite as impressive as they did two years ago. The 3D is especially disappointing - even by the low standards I've come to set - so I definitely don't recommend paying the extra cost to view it that way. But what Webb does most wrong is wilt under pressure, both from his corporate overseers (who doubtlessly demanded all the script's added nonsense) and from those who were disappointed in his work the last time out. While The Amazing Spider-Man carved its own image into the big screen, the sequel feels reminiscent and even derivative of Raimi's popular entries, from the bright colors to the cartoonish characterizations, diverting sharply from what we've seen before. And then he can't even get the pacing down, as whole storylines hinted at in the trailer are never even mentioned, no doubt edited out in a mad dash to meet deadlines and satisfy executives.

Explosions are much brighter this time around.

There are moments in The Amazing Spider-Man 2 that live up to the pedigree that the first film afforded, but those are sadly few and far between. I'll give Webb some credit: this movie had lofty goals in mind, from its role as the catalyst to Sony's new cinematic universe to its adherence to the important Spidey stories fans grew up with. This man pulled his cast and crew together and collectively they did their best to turn a script with zero focus into something both entertaining and emotional. That they got as close as they did is primarily due to the talent in the director's chair. However, this is a spectacle that tries too hard to do too much and falls far short of even modest expectations, becoming easily the most disappointing superhero flick of the past decade. Whether this puts a hiccup in Sony's future plans of course cannot be known, but hopefully the next Spider-Man entry will be a step back up for a studio with their ambitions, because if The Amazing Spider-Man 3 is not a major step up from this mess, the future of the franchise is in serious trouble.

Movie Monday: Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter

This Movie Monday is for a film both Todd and I have been looking forward to since trailers first aired, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. Based on the "What If?" historical novel by Seth Graham-Greene, this movie is the type of peanut butter/chocolate mix of historical drama and bloodthirsty monsters that looked to go well together. We both enjoyed ourselves, and while it's not Top 10 material, you might still enjoy it if you like violent films like Underworld, Night Watch or Wanted.

After his mother is murdered by a monster in the night, young Abraham Lincoln plots revenge, which opens his world to the knowledge that Vampires are real and fighting for power in the United States. Trained by a secretive Vampire hunter, he learns that the Vampires rule the south and use slavery as a means to obtain cheap food and labor. With this information, Lincoln's ascent to the Presidency is meant to not only end slavery, but break the Vampires' hold in the United States and send them away for good.

Directed by Timur Bekmambetov, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter stars Benjamin Walker, Dominic Cooper, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Rufus Sewell, Anthony Mackie, Jimi Simpson, and Marton Csokas. It is also produced by Bekmambetov and Tim Burton.

Click here to check out the whole review at Open Letters Monthly.

A Debt Replayed

For so many people who claim that remakes are inherently a bad idea, many have no idea what they are talking about. Forget about all the films that are obviously remakes, films sharing their origins' titles of The Fly, Ocean's 11, True Grit or The Thing. Not only are the remakes of these classics all quality films, but some would argue better than the originals. However, remakes aren't always named after their inspirations. Arnold Schwarzeneggar and Jaime Lee Curtis lit up the screen in 1994's spy film True Lies, based on the French comedy La Totale! Classic westerns A Fistful of Dollars and The Magnificent Seven were originally acclaimed filmmaker Akira Kurosawa samurai dramas. And the Martin Scorsese Irish gangster movie The Departed, which won the director his coveted Academy Award, was a remake of the 2002 Hong Kong film Internal Affairs. My point is that people put this catch-all negative statement on remakes when more than half the time they don't know one when it's staring at them from the big screen. For instance, you probably didn't realize that the recent film by John Madden, The Debt, was originally an Israeli film of the same name released in 2007. That film was never released in the United States, making it ripe for Hollywood to pounce on and make into their own. The only question was upon which side of the quality line it would eventually fall: on the side of obvious charlatanism and inferiority, or into the realm of quality film-making no matter the source.

Helen Mirren makes scars sexy

In the 1960's, the Isreaeli intelligence agency Mossad sent a cell of young operatives into Nazi-occupied West Berlin on a secret mission. Rachel Singer (Jessica Chastain), David Peretz (Sam Worthington) and Stefan Gold (Marton Csokas) are on the search for Nazi war criminal Dieter Vogel (Jesper Christensen), the legendary "Surgeon of Birkenau", who performed experiments on Jewish prisoners during the Second World War. The mission ended in success, and though Vogel was never properly extracted from the city, Mossad was happy with the man meeting his end in the streets of West Berlin. Thirty years later, the exploits of the cell has been popularized in a book written by Rachel Singer's (Helen Mirren) daughter, and the three live apart from one another as national heroes, never talking about their mission. At least that is until Stefan (Tom Wilkinson) presents Rachel with some disturbing information. A secret they have kept hidden for thirty years has against all odds reared its head, forcing her to confront a truth the three had kept hidden from everyone, even those they loved.

The Debt takes a hard line against its critical dissenters

As you can gather, the cat-and-mouse spy story is the meat and potatoes of the film's level of quality. It is a well-paced, character-driven tale that takes you from beginning to end and beyond, with clues left in plain sight to allow anyone to follow along with ease. Unfortunately, this also cuts both ways, as there are no "OMG" twists to make the relatively slow pace more rewarding to the audience. You can pretty much guess what the big secret is before it hits, making sitting through waiting a bit like waiting for Gallagher to bust out with his watermelon; you know it's coming and making you wait for it is just pissing you off. Still, this is only a minor criticism, as the basics of the story are flawless and well built, creating a largely enjoyable atmosphere for the viewer.

Young Sam Worthington... handsome... pretty, almost

That atmosphere is helped by an acting core that really reach for higher levels with this film, especially the cast of the 1960's. Jessica Chastain has really taken off in her career, appearing in six films released or scheduled for release in 2011. I've seen three now, and between this, The Help and The Tree of Life, I've really become entranced by her talent and awestruck as to how she's come out of seemingly nowhere to become one of Hollywood's most sought-after stars. She's proving herself to be a serious artist, and more roles like this will get her some true recognition in the future, if not sooner. Sam Worthington is a surprise, an acclaimed Australian actor who wowed some with his role in Terminator: Salvation but otherwise hasn't been a major force since breaking through, especially with his somewhat bland performance in Avatar. The Debt allows him to show off in a legitimate acting role and show what his doubters have decried as not being there. And Marton Csokas ties the trio together, his arrogant and serious cell leader playing beautifully off of Worthington's humble and driven operative and Chastain's brilliant but emotionally-starved intelligence officer. And Jesper Christensen is also brilliant with the material he's given, playing smart doctor and smarmy villain with equal precision. He's the unspoken hero of The Debt, at least on the performance side of the equation.

...and Sam Worthington in 30 years? Scary

Unfortunately, I was somewhat underwhelmed with the way the story worked in the current day, and the quality of the story given the actors. Most of the film takes place in the sixties, and that's where the best moments and story sequences take place. In the present day there are some good moments, but in comparison it pales noticeably. Helen Mirren is of course amazing, but that comes as no surprise to anyone who has EVER seen her perform. As someone with a wide range of talents ranging from drama to comedy, Mirren can do just about anything, and look good doing it. Less impressive are Tom Wilkinson and Ciaran Hinds as the current day Stefan and David. It's not that they're BAD, only that they don't distinguish themselves from what we usually expect of them. In the current-day storyline, only Mirren stands out, and despite her best efforts, it's not enough that even she can make up.

Future Academy Award winner?

As a modern spy drama, however, The Debt is a great performer that could have been an excellent one but stutters a bit too much at the end. It does work as a character driven thriller, especially with the acting talents of Mirren, Chastain et al. While the theaters are packed with big name films flexing box office muscle, explosions and laughs, The Debt is a world away as a subtle, clever remake that introduces a unique story to an American audience that didn't get the chance to see in the original. As remakes go, it's one of the good ones, coming in at #10 for 2011. Maybe not a must-see for the genre, it's still a "should-see" as it's difficult find a title so well story-driven in this age of CGI, 3D, and action sequences that exist in a realm completely outside the real world.