Totally 'Amazing'

Now THIS is the type of summer action movie I like to see! Though there was no way it could be possibly outshine The Avengers, and there's a good chance it won't be quite as good as Christopher Nolan's conclusion to the Batman trilogy in The Dark Knight Rises, The Amazing Spider-Man was one summer blockbuster I'd been waiting months to see. Having seen so many big budget duds, I NEEDED something genuinely good to write about, especially with a July that sports only seven major film releases (I write about a dozen reviews a month; you do the math). Thankfully the superhero reboot directed by (500) Days of Summer's Marc Webb (I don't think his name had anything to do with the selection process) was exactly what both Todd and I needed, as both of us wanted something that came CLOSE to bringing back the giddiness of seeing The Avengers on screen.

As a film franchise, Spider-Man had hit on some hard times. Remember, the Sam Raimi trilogy of Spidey films were all released in the past decade, and most people going to see Andrew Garfield play their favorite web-slinging hero not only remember Tobey Maguire's take on the same role, but in fact bought tickets for it in May of 2002. But after Sony Pictures (supposedly) screwed up Raimi's vision of the series in 2007's second sequel, they're giving it the old sophomore try in the reboot. There's little question as to why Sony reset the series; the previous stars were getting old, Raimi wasn't on board, and if they didn't do something with the license the rights would revert back to Marvel, as well as all those box office dollars. That wasn't much of a problem when Marvel couldn't make a good movie if they tried, but now that they're owned by Disney...

Oh, Peter Parker; you nerd, you!

Well, it doesn't matter anymore. Despite any early reservations, both Todd (who doesn't miss a superhero movie if she can help it) and I loved The Amazing Spider-Man. This was a classically-told story executed so well that it mattered little if Webb and company didn't add anything significant to the mythology of the character. Peter Parker is the same loner, smart-ass high-schooler that the comics remember, trying to make it through his school years while living with his Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and Aunt May (Sally Field). A renewed search into the disappearance of his parents as a boy brings him to OsCorp, the scientific research company for whom his dad used to work. There he meets the one-armed Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), who had worked alongside Richard Parker on genetic research intended to cure diseases around the world. Peter also manages to get bitten by a genetically-modified spider, which somehow turns him into something more than human, with the proportionate strength of a spider, excellent reflexes and the ability to cling to walls and ceilings. Eventually the genetic experiments break down (as they invariably to at the cinema) and the newly-christened Spider-Man must protect the city from Connors, whose work has resulted in him have transformed into the rampaging Lizard.

He's just hangin' around...

Most Spider-Man fans know the major events that have shaped the unusual life of Peter Parker. First of course is the spider bite, the source of all his powers (when I get bitten, usually all that is involved is a lot of scratching). Others include the myriad of tragic deaths left in Spider-Man's wake, usually those close to him. I won't say who perishes for the sake of the dozen or so people out there who have somehow managed to escape all references to pop culture, but trust me on this one: Spider-Man is definitely the harbinger of death. But one thing I don't recall from any comic books was the loss of Parker's parents, or at least the idea that their absence is a major factor in his development. It is here where Webb makes his biggest divergence from the source material, and it is indeed a welcome change from what we already know about the teenage superhero. The character was never so driven in the original trilogy, and that change of focus does wonders for making this film fresh despite everything else remaining practically the same.

The sequel will feature Spidey vs. the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

Garfield is especially impressive in his first major leading film role. Throughout the movie, Peter Parker goes from smart-assed teen to super-powered bully and arrogant jerk (where I became worried would be his final resting place) to, finally, the wise-cracking, responsible superhero we know and love. I was so relieved than the creative minds behind Parker manged to perfectly emulate what was so great about the teenaged hero and get it so RIGHT. Garfield is simply amazing, bringing with him a darker, more brooding tone to the role and  actually taking the character on an emotional journey that changes how he sees the world and his place in it. Not to disparage Maguire's impressive (if somewhat campy) take on the part, but Garfield simply blows his predecessor's incarnation out of the water. It's a moment of celebration when Spider-Man finally attains that "hero" status from the city of New York, especially since he's no longer seeking approval for his actions, but just trying to do the right thing. This was a rushed process in Raimi's version, but Webb allows Parker to mature as a character over the length of the film, not something you often see in blockbuster movies.

Peek-a-Boo!

Webb did a great job in surrounding Garfield with exceptional talent, both on the acting and creative sides. Most notable is the fantastic Emma Stone as legendary Spidey girlfriend Gwen Stacy, as she and Garfield together possess excellent chemistry, far more than Maguire and Kirsten Dunst (as Mary Jane Watson) ever boasted. Gwen is the kind of seemingly unattainable girl we've all known at one point or another; beautiful, smart and driven, but without the bullish attitude that often accompanies those qualities. She has very strong feelings on right and wrong, and with a police Captain for a dad, it's easy to see from where those good qualities came. It feels like Stone has been around forever, though it's easy to forget that she made her big screen debut AFTER Spider-Man 3's launch in 2007. Her rapid ascent has been her legacy, and she has quickly garnered quite the impressive list of credentials. Her inclusion here is the perfect example of casting done right. Other examples include Sheen and Fields, whose character's no-nonsense goodness exemplify the Golden Age of Comics in being bright lights in otherwise dark surroundings. The always-strong Dennis Leary also impresses as George Stacy, where his unique personality (I like to call it "Charismatic Rage") fits perfectly with the perpetually-stressed and high-strung officer of the law. Ifans is another actor who has really turned it up a notch of late, with his excellent turns in Anonymous and The Five-Year Engagement. The Lizard is one of those Spider-Man villains I had not been familiar with, and I was afraid that The Amazing Spider-Man would turn into a "monster-of-the-week", doing little but prep you for a more plot-based sequel. Thankfully (as Todd later related) Curt Connors has always been a strong villain, and continues to be so here. He's really a tragic character in fact, trying desperately to use his new-found formula for good, only to change his tune and turn into a fearsome creature when things go horribly wrong. Ifans plays a good (ish) man forced into an evil destiny because he was pushed one time too many, and it's easy to sympathize with his plight. It makes for a great tale, and along with the rest of the cast really sets the standards for the whole theatrical experience.

Dramatic pose... and GO!

The best things about The Amazing Spider-Man were all the little things that Webb and company got right. Gone are the "organic webbing" that Parker could somehow (and conveniently) excrete from his wrists in the Raimi films, replaced with the gosh-darned web shooters we knew we always wanted. I loved how Parker, while top-of-his-class smart, used technology derived from OsCorp designs to develop his shooters and web fluid, as even a genius-level student designing those from scratch would have been a bit of a stretch. Speaking of OsCorp, I loved how corporate head Norman Osborn's presence was felt but never overtly shown, even in the post-credits "reveal." They're taking their time with Osborn, which is great since the character is easily Spider-Man's nemesis in the comics, even more so than the popular Venom. I loved how the ending left a number of things in the air, not forcing itself to resolve every little conflict in Parker's life in just 136 minutes. I loved the special effects, which felt both realistic and breathtakingly spectacular all at once. Even early scenes of Parkour are excellently conceived and pulled off, though they're all but gone once Parker finally dons the famous red and blue spandex.

"I'm going to throw you out the window, now."

Sure, Spider-Man has a few blemishes, but that was mostly in the visual department. Maybe it was just because we were late getting to the show and the only central seats left were in the front row (damn you, MBTA!), but the action scenes were often shot much too close to what was happening, obscuring any details. It's a common problem in even great action films, and for a first-time action director like Webb, it's unsurprising that he would fall into that trap. Also, as I stated earlier, there was little beyond the focus on Peter Parker's parents that mark this as anything but a typical Spidey film, and so the director has little to actually call his own when all is said and done. Still, The Amazing Spider-Man is a well-cast, well-made and ultimately "amazing" movie, and easily the 7'th best film this year. It contains by far the best Stan Lee cameo of any Marvel movie, and is one of the best superhero films in recent years, better even than any of those released in 2011. I know it's easy to get excited for the new Batman film on July 20'th, and don't think this excuses you from not having seen The Avengers, because you really need to do so. But this was a pleasant surprise while I await other things, and if you'd be doing yourself an injustice if you don't take the time to check out this worthy reboot.

Too Long a Wait

Last weekend, the much-awaited (by yours truly, at least) comedy The Five-Year Engagement was released to theaters. With only one week before the rise of eventual juggernaut The Avengers, the film's producers obviously thought they could make a quick cash grab with a strong romantic comedy and make out like thieves before the Marvel Comics' movie could simply take everybody's money. On paper, everything looked more than solid. Judd Apatow was producing, and Apatow's career seemed to be going upwards after he bankrolled a little film last summer called Bridesmaids. The film also reunited director Nicholas Stoller and star Jason Segel, whose former collaborations were the popular and successful Forgetting Sarah Marshall and The Muppets. Add rising star Emily Blunt to the mix, and what you should have is a hilarious romantic comedy that excels on all levels.

Well, let that be a lesson as to just how unpredictable this industry really is.

Audiences largely ignored The Five-Year Engagement, and in hindsight it's easy to see why. Its attempts to cling to the Bridesmaids's coattails were obvious ploys, as nothing in the trailer indicated that there was anything connecting Engagement to the 2011 box office giant whose popularity alone caused it to flirt with Best Picture nomination at the Academy Awards. Secondly, there was already plenty of romance in theaters when the film released, especially two titles released the previous weekend (the Nicholas Sparks adaptation The Lucky One and surprise hit Think Like a Man both dominated Engagement at the box office in their second weekend), and nobody really cared that a new romance film was available to see. What at first glance seemed like a slam dunk became anything but, and to add insult to injury, critics seemed to agree with our collective apathy. Were they right? Is The Five-Year Engagement deserving of its failures? I was still too intrigued by the title's premise to completely ignore it.

Look at the happy couple. What can we do to change that?

The film starts with lovebirds Tom Solomon (Segel) and Violet Barnes (Blunt) in San Francisco on New Years Eve, the night Tom proposes, and Violet of course says yes. While the pair are planning their upcoming nuptials, Violet, a psychology PHD graduate, gets a job offer for a post-doctorate program. The problem is that she did not get into a California program, but one at the University of Michigan, which puts the couple's plans on hold since they want to marry in California with their families present. Because the program lasts two years, Tom moves up with Violet, leaving his sous chef position at a popular restaurant and confident that he can "cook anywhere". Things get complicated in Michigan however, and as Violet's career surges forward, Tom is left behind, and the prospective wedding date gets further and further away. Soon it becomes a question of if, not when, the pair will ever tie the knot.

Tom just realized he's not wearing any pants. Violet just realized the same.

If there's one thing The Five-Year Engagement does well, it's that it establishes right from the beginning that these two people are absolutely perfect for one another. From the start, this is a couple that remember the moment they met one another, make each other laugh, and genuinely love one another in a way that communicates to every character in the film and every member of the audience that these two are meant to be together. It was a good call then to bring together Segel and Blunt, as the two share a chemistry that by itself nearly carries the whole movie. Segel is of course in his usual teddy-bear adorable mode, the one that makes women love him and men wish they were him. Segel defies the romantic lead stereotype in such a refreshing everyman way that it almost seems as though he can do no wrong. Blunt is also a hit, and her demeanor is more relaxed (and less "British") than I've seen in any of her other work. The pair obviously work hard to make this film a hit, but sadly it's due to forces outside their control as actors that hamper the title's effectiveness.

What they never say about weddings: all that free cake!

As you can probably guess, it's the story that is the main culprit in Engagement, and the blame for that falls squarely on the heads of Segel and Stoller. Yes, I did say that Segel was blameless, but only in an acting capacity. Unlike The Muppets, which the duo previously penned, this script has none of the wry wit and bursting humor that made Kermit and crew's return such a fun time. It would be easy to blame this on simply not having a female perspective, but it's plainly obvious that these men cannot describe exactly what it is that makes relationships work. As a movie, Engagement lacks subtlety, and the film's funniest moments are when the scenes are almost trying too hard to stand out. Too often does the movie rely on the comedic talents of its actors to make something much funnier than it actually is, and the result is a mishmash of drama and occasional spurts of laughter that doesn't quite pay off.

The couple we wish the movie had been about.

The film is not without its charms, but most belonging to Tom and Violet burns out quickly. Eventually a shitty situation turns the happy couple against one another, and as the audience we just wish that we could stop focusing on this pair until they can get their act together. Best friends to the rescue! Community's Alison Brie and Parks and Recreations' Chris Pratt are easily the best parts of the film as Violet's sister and Tom's best buddy, respectively. Besides being the funniest actors in this comedy (no, I agree that's not saying much), Brie and Pratt act as a calendar of the world outside our main pairing, and their development as characters is the one thing that works amid a sea of poor film pacing. Also standing out is Animal Kingdom's Jacki Weaver as Violet's wickedly fun mother, who says what's on her mind and to hell with the consequences. I really wish Weaver had been used more, but her effectiveness is sadly restricted to the film's opening half-hour. The cast is rounded out by Rhys Ifans, Mindy Kaling, and Kevin Hart, and if the talent here doesn't prove to you just how poorly the script fails the movie, nothing will.

Don't worry, big guy... you know you're getting the happy ending.

What we are left with at the end is a barely funny, overly-long (at two hours, I shouldn't believe that) movie that wraps itself up way too quickly to be believable. While the film does have a few funny bits, I'm hard-pressed to remember any single one. It DOES however contain one of the more memorable wedding scenes in cinema in recent memory. The Bridesmaids comparisons may ultimately have been what killed this film, as it was probably impossible for most people to imagine this title one-upping that modern classic. It's a shame, as with a few changes behind the scenes The Five-Year Engagement could easily have been a funny, competent and engaging romantic comedy. Instead it's barely humorous, and there can be no doubt that it deserved all those empty seats opening weekend. This might seem like small fries after I watched The Avengers twice in the past three days, but Engagement was one of more looked-towards titles this past spring, and I can't help but feel a moderate level of disappointment in its failure.

Cinematics Anonymous

As Sir Derek Jacobi reminds us in his opening monologue for the feature film Anonymous, William Shakespeare is the most well known and successful writer of all time. With a written library consisting of some 38 plays, 154 sonnets, two epic poems and a multitude of other works of poetry, Shakespeare is without peer in just about every literary regard. Everybody knows his name. All high school teens are tasked with reading his works. The most famous lines by characters such as Marcus Antonius, Romeo Montague and Prince Hamlet are remembered (and on occasion misremembered) my millions. But why have no manuscripts of the bard ever surfaced? Why are we to believe that the son of a glove maker with a supposedly limited education was able to pen such beautiful poetry that we still absorb today? That has been a question posed over hundreds of years since his death, and there does seem to be an ample lack of evidence to prove that Shakespeare was indeed the author of those titles attributed to him. While lack of evidence is not evidence in itself, this has not stopped historians and others from naming Shakespeare as a pseudonym for politician Francis Bacon, fellow playwright Christopher Marlowe, and the Earl of Oxford Edward de Vere. It is de Vere's potential authorship of these legendary plays that inspires Anonymous, the newest film by Roland Emmerich. Yes, that's right; Roland Emmerich directed a political thriller ripe with intrigue. This is the same guy whose greatest cinematic triumph was the orbital destruction of the White House, way back in 1996. At first learning that he was in charge of a period drama, I admit that I had serious doubts, even while taking his brand of historical accuracy with a grain of salt. Still, as a potential dark horse in this year's awards race, I would be remiss to avoid this film, which still looked interesting despite its potential flaws.

Eavesdropper's Anonymous

During the reign of England's Queen Elizabeth I (Vanessa Redgrave), several factions are vying to name her heir as her final days approach. Her royal adviser William Cecil (David Thewlis) and his son Robert (Edward Hogg) believe that rightfully the next ruler should be James, the King of Scotland. However, there are other claimers to the throne, such as the Earl of Essex (Sam Reid), supposedly a bastard son of the Queen. The Lord of Oxford Edward de Vere (Rhys Ifans) supports Essex's claim, but urges a bloodless push for the crown. To that end, and having learned how easily the theater can influence a crowd towards a particular way of thinking, de Vere turns to his outlawed craft - the Puritan Church believes theater and art to be the Devil's work - and taps young playwright Ben Jonson (Sebastian Armesto) to produce de Vere's own plays under Jonson's name, using the stories to silently provoking the people of England to hate the Cecils and towards a monarchy under the Earl of Essex. Jonson however is hesitant to be part of this, and because of this, prospective actor Will Shakespeare (Rafe Spall) steals the limelight, assuming credit for de Vere's work and altering the very course of history in the process.

Overcompensator's Anonymous

The first thing to get over when it comes to enjoying Anonymous is the fact that any historical data is misunderstood at best, and outright false at worst. Obviously we can't assume that the main idea behind this film is true or false since the whole thing is speculative by nature. However, all one has to do is scroll down to the bottom of the film's Wikipedia page to see even a small number of inaccuracies that we DO know for fact. This is no surprise when you consider that Emmerich has always been a director that has emphasized the impact of the film on the audience, and would never let silly things like truth get in the way. Once you get past this notion that everything should be exactly like it was in real life and you realize that you're watching a MOVIE, you can appreciate how Emmerich has created a thrilling political drama with enough layers of narrative to be worthy of one of Shakespeare's originals. When  you compare it to critically overrated films like The Ides of March, there's really very little wrong with the director's execution of his intent when it is done so perfectly. 

Greenskeeper's Anonymous

Emmerich also defies expectations by avoiding particularly well-known actors in his pursuit of this film's cast. With the possible exception of Vanessa Redgrave, who's as top-tier as this film gets, most of the people cast here are recognizable from one or two major movie stints or have never made much of an impact before now. Redgrave herself is regal and dynamic as the legendary monarch Queen Elizabeth I. Walking a tightrope of many conflicting emotions, Redgrave really embodies everything that the character demands, and I wouldn't be surprised to see her nominated for some awards in future months. This would be yet another nomination for a Queen Elizabeth actress, following Dame Judi Dench and Cate Blanchett, fine company for an artist of Redgrave's caliber (I know she already is at that level, just give me that one). Welsh actor Rhys Ifans is a wonder to behold; as his calculating, emotional take on de Vere is simply amazing, with a mere glance more than adequate in conveying his entire portion of a conversation. When he does open his mouth, every word of every sentence is strained into the perfect form for your listening pleasure. Ifans proves here that he's an untapped resource, ripe for his role in next year's Spiderman reboot. Sebastian Armesto is our moral compass as Ben Jonson, watching both halves of the major narratives play out while being tugged one way and the other by those around him. Armesto does a great job, with an acting performance that is sadly out-shined by most surrounding him but would be more than adequate in any period piece. Rafe Spall on the other hand is absolutely delicious as the false bard William Shakespeare. Playing the poet as a clever, greedy and vengeful tyrant, Spall is fresh as one of the film's more charismatic villains. The other main villain, played by Edward Hogg, is far less charming but intentionally so, as Robert Cecil is so obviously supposed to be evil that he in fact is physically deformed. Hogg is still very effective, in fact overcoming the obvious oversimplification of his character to be a real menace, one with which to be contended. Finally, while an entire section of the movie devoted to flashbacks of young romance between de Veres and Elizabeth is in fact unnecessary, acting by Camelot's Jamie Campbell Bower and Redgrave's daughter Joely Richardson is at least welcome as that section's true highlight.

Bodice Anonymous

The film does have some minor flaws, even in pure entertainment mode. Some characters aren't explicitly defined, and when people are referring to the Lords of Southampton or Essex, it's not entire certain which performer corresponds to that name. While much of the plot and tale is properly introduced so that the audience can easily follow along the main story's path, I can't help but feel that there was much in the way of inside humor that only Elizabethan historians or enthusiasts could have properly understood. And despite being intrigued by Jacobi's acting, his introduction to the story as being a stage play in itself is a bit underwhelming, as unappetizing and unnecessary as the aforementioned flashbacks. If he's simply narrated over a blank screen to begin the film, I could have been more appreciative of his inclusion. Finally, the ending doesn't quite make sense, or it would have if it had been better constructed. Instead we get a shallow, half-finished finale that doesn't precisely explain how the idea of de Vere writing Shakespeare's plays is supported by any existing evidence. We're reminded that this is mere speculation, and while this is probably more realistic than say, Shakespeare in Love, it has no more basis in historical fact than that earlier Oscar winner did.

Poet Laureate's Anonymous

Still, as a filmmaker Emmerich really knows how to push an audience's buttons and evoke a response of pure enjoyment from what he produces. A clever-if-unfeasible study of one of history's bigger mysteries, Anonymous tucks itself in as the #7 movie of 2011. Great acting, a well-told story and more tales of the Bard than you would normally see under any roof other than that of the Globe Theater, this is that rare example of anything and everything working out much better than it probably should have Definitely worth a look.