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.

Yesterday Was Our Independence Day!

I admit that I make mistakes. I generally post reviews in the order in which I see them. It makes things easier to keep track of, and even if I'm backed up and can't review a movie for several days, I have some way of pacing my writing. The only exceptions are my Open Letters Monthly posts, which are almost always reviewed upon my watching them and don't get in line behind the rest. That being said, yesterday I reviewed the independent film The Bling Ring, about a bunch of kids who stole from rich celebrities. Realizing now that yesterday was July 4'th, how could I completely miss the obvious and not review the most patriotic film in theaters right now, White House Down?

The second of two "terrorists take over the White House" movies this year (the first was March's mediocre Olympus Has Fallen), White House Down has some serious advantages over Antoine Fuqua's strikingly similar Spring effort. For one, this film is from director Roland Emmerich, who before this has already blown up the building at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue (Independence Day) and crashed a tsunami into it for good measure (2012). It's safe to say that if anybody knows how to tell a story in which a paramilitary group (led by an excellent Jason Clarke) breaks into the White House to capture President James Sawyer (Jamie Foxx) and take a number of others hostage, while on the outside the public can only watch in horror. The country's only hope? Failed Secret Service applicant John Cale (Channing Tatum), a former soldier and present police officer who had tried for the job to impress his estranged, politically-inspired daughter Emily (Joey King). Now, with Emily numbered along with the hostages and the President's life in his hands, John must find a way to help Sawyer escape while also rescuing his daughter. Oh, yes, and stopping a global terror plot that threatens to derail the President's Middle East peace offer. So, no pressure.

This is the man who will save the planet.

Surprisingly for a Roland Emmerich film, however, the strongest aspect of the movie might be the casting. When Olympus Has Fallen came out, it's only strength was a cast headlined by Gerard Butler, Aaron Eckhart and Morgan Freeman. It was an excellent collection of actors who almost allowed that title to rise above it's idiotic story, but White House Down offers just as strong a group, if not better, led by the charismatic pairing of Tatum and Foxx. Tatum has seen a huge upswing in his career after an excellent 2012, and continues that trend here as an everyman who finds himself in an impossible situation. Some critics have taken to calling White House Down "Die Hard in the White House", and on more than one front they'd be right, as there's plenty of common ground between Cale and franchise favorite John McClane. It's obvious that Emmerich was inspired by that series, including many references and Easter Eggs hinting at his love of all things Die Hard. But that would mean nothing if Tatum couldn't live up to the comparison, and he does so with gusto, matching up nicely with the A-level 80's action star in physicality, humor and overall acting ability (not to mention his white tank top). In fact, the only thing missing from Tatum's arsenal is a witty catchphrase, so essential to McClane's sustained survival over the years. Still, it's been a long time since Tatum was a dry portion of an underwhelming GI Joe movie, and he shows here that he's not taking any steps backward anytime soon. Foxx as well shows his versatility, and while his character doesn't exactly speak to the power of the Presidency that we've come to expect from men such as Eckhart, Bill Pullman or Harrison Ford, he comes darned close, and even makes up for any weaknesses thanks to taking part in the action and an easy back-and-forth with Tatum. The cast is handily rounded out by government types (Maggie Gyllenhaal, Richard Jenkins, Lance Reddick) and villains (Clarke, Jimmi Simpson, James Woods), all of whom play cliched-enough parts but who are talented enough to overcome that deficit.

The one in the middle will have the best career.

But while the film focuses on Cale and Sawyer and they're attempts to evade capture, it's young Joey King who steals the spotlight. You might remember her wonderful appearance as the China Doll in the otherwise-uninspired Oz the Great and Powerful, and here the precocious kid becomes the pro-American heart of the movie. What could have been a throwaway part becomes arguably the strongest role in the entire film, and an actress who has had a slightly under-the-radar career the past decade is looking to perhaps be one of Hollywood's biggest stars by the end of the next. If 2013 is any indication (Oz, White House Down and soon The Conjuring), she's well on her way.

That's going to take time to clean up.

Beyond acting, though, there's plenty of action in White House Down, thanks especially to Emmerich's experience in blowing stuff up and the significantly larger budget he puts to use. There's no doubt that this film feels much smaller in scale to his past works (even his Shakespeare conspiracy Anonymous had an epic quality to it), but that doesn't mean things won't explode in spectacular fashion when those situations are called upon. Explosions are loud, gunfire is constant, vistas are gorgeous, and unlike the ultra-violent Fuqua film, you never get the feeling that the director is upping the violence just because he's going for shock value. There might be tons of unnecessary violence in this movie, but never is it dull or completely without reason (the opposite of Man of Steel). Emmerich is of course a master of this particular craft, and his movie ripples with aftershocks from every explosive moment, keeping the film moving forward and the audience members on the edge of their seats

Just don't get on his bad side.

And while the story itself is quite dry and predictable (partly because this has been done before, partly because patriotism won't allow certain events to occur in a Hollywood script), the script never overtly preaches its allegiances or stretches itself beyond it's capabilities. It's a simple a popcorn film that happens to take place at the White House, and places Tatum's career firmly on trajectory to emulate that of Bruce Willis in his heyday. It's a lot of fun, and if studios were smart they'd plug Tatum right back in the hole and build a franchise around this character, as there's plenty of growth to be had. It would be way more fun than a continuation of the Die Hard series, whose recent trip to Russia was a mission to forget. White House Down, meanwhile, is an excellent way to spend a couple of hours this Independence Day weekend, and I just wish I'd thought to tell you that yesterday.

Black Panther

I have not always been a fan of Quentin Tarantino. These days, he's known as one of the most influential directors in Hollywood, but for the longest time I didn't quite get it. Sure, Pulp Fiction was pretty good, the nonlinear storytelling was certainly unique and interesting, but to this day I can't stand Reservoir Dogs; I just don't understand what it was is that people saw in that mess. It wasn't until I finally caught Kill Bill on DVD that I gained any interest in the incomparable director, who borrows heavily from his favorite sources yet still manages to create an experience all his own. I was even more fond of his portion of the 2007 double feature Grindhouse. Sure, my friend Kiki may never forgive me for dragging her in, but even she has to admit that Death Proof was a lot of fun to behold.

But it was 2009's Inglourious Basterds that might be remembered as Tarantino's best film. The director's WWII-inspired vengeance tale had it all: Femme Fatales, orgies of violence, excellent acting (and an Academy Award for newcomer Christoph Waltz) and an excellent, vengeance-filled story. Best of all, gone was possibly the worst and most-telling sign of a Tarantino movie; the unnecessary conversation. Every previous flick of his had them: long, arbitrary dialogue meant to express the filmmaker's opinion on one topic or another. Usually they had little or nothing to do with the plot of the movie, and often were the dullest aspects of his work. Basterds was surprising in that it largely rid itself of them, and the result was a clean, uncluttered film that retained all of Tarantino's creativity and imagery and none of his self-indulgence. It's as if the years of experience had finally matured into a sense of focus, and he no longer needed to add these elements out of mere amusement.

Just don't call him "Sundance"...

That maturity is what made Django Unchained such a desirable destination this Christmas Day, though to be fair I saw it only because Les Miserables was sold out until late in the evening. It seems like all I see on Christmas lately are dark, violent movies (Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, True Grit), and I confess I had hoped for a more uplifting tale this time around. But, Les Mis will wait, and I was certainly going to see Django anyway. As many film aficionados know, Tarantino's is not the first Django flick, which began as a violent 1966 spaghetti western directed by Sergio Corbucci and starring Franco Nero (who makes a cameo here), and spanned dozens of unofficial (and one official) sequels. The new movie slightly resembles those older ones if you squint and turn your head to the side, but while the new Django (Jamie Foxx) doesn't drag his own coffin around behind him, he does cut a patch of bloody vengeance through the pre-Civil War south as a former slave freed by bounty hunter Dr. King Schultz (the returning Waltz) to rain terror and lead on bad men. Seeking out his abducted wife Broomhilda (Kerry Washington), he and Schultz must discover a way to rescue her from the plantation of the charismatic. ruthless, and evil slaver Calvin J. Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio).

Yup, that's some hammer.

There are usually two major sides to any Tarantino film. The first is the humor/violence aspect. Yes, I know it seems odd to pair two seemingly disparate themes in the same discussion, but when these elements seem to go well in hand with this particular man behind the camera. Even with such serious themes as American slavery and the thin line between law and crime, Tarantino makes sure to have fun with his characters, whether through visual gags or legitimately funny dialogue and contexts that he puts them in. That extends to his famously violent scenarios as well, as often he makes positively grisly carnage appear light-hearted and fun. There's nobody in the industry who loves squibs more than Tarantino, and he puts on arguably his bloodiest display of violence and depravity for the amusement of his audiences. Following Django as he kills white men for money is genuinely cathartic as well, tickling that portion of your brain you don't often get to use in a world that tries to be politically correct, especially when it comes to the slavery issue. Here is a cinematic hero that attempts to right the wrongs of the era, and it's absolutely entrancing to watch.

Yes, that's Samuel L. Jackson. Yes, he's awesome.

The other aspect is the darkness Tarantino often embraces. Like Basterds, Django focuses on a grim era in human history, substituting the pro-slavery Deep South for Nazi Germany. While certainly not historically accurate (also like Basterds), the director certainly does his absolute best to capture the horrors of being black in the mid-1800's. The result is definitely powerful, as we see just some of the horrors and atrocities happened upon people at the time, down to even the casual use of the "N" word (hey, I'm white; I have no desire to say it) to emphasize just how bad things were. To that point, he also deftly forms his cast with some of the better actors in Hollywood, with Foxx ably leading them with a dry wit, a thousand-mile stare and just enough crazy to be believable. While I would have loved to see The Wire's Michael K. Williams in the role (early reports had the excellent actor as a favorite), Foxx puts forth one of his better performances, followed closely by the blessedly consistent Waltz, Samuel L. Jackson and a creepily effective DiCaprio, who just seems to get better with each performance. My only complaint is Washington, whose potentially interesting character is reduced to a damsel in distress. Tarantino has created a number of strong female characters in his films (Jackie Brown, The Bride, Zoe Bell in Death Proof and Shosanna in Basterds), and the lack of one here certainly feels like a step back. Putting it in historical context, I guess it makes sense, but considering his willingness to revise history I would have loved to see more strong females, especially when Washington has enjoyed better roles in the past.

You don't say anything bad about Django's dress code.

It's a tough call to name Quentin Tarantino's best movie at this point. I still say his best is Basterds, but I can definitely understand the argument that puts Django Unchained on top. It's a strong, fun, enjoyable adventure that includes some of the director's best work behind (and of course, occasionally in front of) the camera. It feels like forever since I've updated the list, but Django Unchained finishes off as the #3 movie of 2012. Tarantino has grown so much as a director that it's impossible not to be drawn into the world he has created, whether you are sickened by the time or entertained by the exploits. You definitely won't be bored, that's for damned sure.

Every Worker's Fantasy

That's right! Even though I'm a little behind on the new releases, Mr. Anderson is back in theaters! Anyone else as excited as me? Hello?

I'll take the cricket chirps as a sign of support.

Anyway, my return to the big screen begins with a film I didn't even know I'd be seeing this year. As I transcribed the comprehensive Summer Movie Preview back in May, Horrible Bosses was barely a blip on my radar. Sure, I knew it starred Jason Bateman, Colin Farrell and the amazingly-talented Kevin Spacey, but there wasn't much more information available than that. No trailers (that I could find) had been released. Sure, it was getting a wide release, but so did Dylan Dog, and look what happened to that one. It wasn't until June that things finally began to come together, and Horrible Bosses actually became a film I wanted to see in theaters, and not just put off for DVD like so many Cedar Rapids. After all, how many of us have had desire for bad things to happen to our less-than-perfect bosses? Sure 99% of us would never do anything about it (I'm watching you 1% closely, you hear?), but here is a film that lets you - even if only a little - see what that experience would be like.

Athos, Porthos and Aramis they ain't

Three friends, Nick (Jason Bateman), Dale (Charlie Day) and Kurt (Jason Sudeikis), hate their jobs. More accurately, they hate their bosses, who do everything in their power to make their lives miserable. Nick, who slaves for insurance company President Dave Harken (Kevin Spacey), is passed over for a promotion that he rightly deserves, with Harken taking the job himself. Kurt actually used to love his job working at an industrial warehouse under Jack Pellitt (Donald Sutherland), but when Jack dies from a heart attack, Kurt is stuck working for his son Bobby (Colin Farrell), a lazy, cocaine-addicted good-for-nothing. Dale is engaged to be married, but constantly faces sexual harassment from his man-eater boss Dr. Julia Harris (Jennifer Aniston), who has some compromising photos taken from a time when Dale was drugged into unconsciousness. With the option of getting new jobs not available to the three, they hatch on a plan to murder their evil superiors. Hiring local criminal "Motherfucker" Jones (Jamie Foxx) to consult them on the fine art of assassination, the three embark on a mission many have considered, one few would actually follow through.

Everybody say hey! Everybody say ho!

Obviously Horrible Bosses is meant to be fantasy; that much is obvious. What isn't necessarily obvious is how funny attempted murder can actually be. Seeing Nick, Dale, and Kurt somehow bungling their way through this caper is hilarious, almost feeling as if the cast made it up as they went along. Any good comedian will tell you that great comedy is in your timing, and the direction of the film by Seth Gordon and a great screenplay come together to quickly and unexpectedly derive laughter from the audience with that very skill. Sure, there are the expected jokes that the trailers prepared you for, but thankfully the best stuff wasn't saved for preview audiences, as you're just as surprised by the cracks as you are by where the story goes. While the film goes on a few potty humor binges, it's encouraging that minor themes such as unemployment and sexual harassment are explored to some degree along the story's course. Sure, I don't expect much more than a cursory look, but that it bothers at all is a surprise and does the film all the better.

Don't you hate when Jennifer Aniston does that?

The cast is also a big part of why Horrible Bosses works so well as a comedy, as both heroes and villains have essential roles to play in the film's events. The good guys all have sympathetic goals. Bateman's Nick just wants a fair shake for all the hard work he's done, and while this role isn't a stretch from Bateman's recent work (Paul being an exception), he's still supremely qualified for this role, and makes a good frontman for the film to settle on. Day has wowed some good friends of mine on his FX show It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, but this was the first chance I've had to see him in a leading role, and that his character of Dale just wants to live in a "rape-free" workplace is unusually endearing, especially since most films would have had Dale as a female character with an overly-amorous male boss. This reverse positioning is really thinking outside the box, and Day makes the character all the more fun with his quirky attitude. Sudeikis is surprisingly good as a straight man, with his more quirky characters (like that in last year's Bounty Hunter) making him look like an extension of his Saturday Night Live career. Fortunately, he makes use of his comedic background while not coming off as a complete caricature in the process, his Kurt just hoping for a return to the workplace that he once loved.

Would you trust this man? They did.

As I mentioned before, the bad guys did some great work, too. Spacey of course was as amazing here as he is in just about everything he's ever done. Sure, he plays no Verbal Kint or Lester Burnham, but he still kills as a jealous, power-hungry psycho, and the film does well situating him as the main villain of the story. Farrell is also good as a smarmy lout, and the actor apparently had a lot to do with the character's creation, to his credit. Farrell is often overlooked when naming great modern actors (not entirely his fault, but hey he tries) but this smaller role is yet another good one. Jennifer Aniston is really the only disappointment, but that's not the actress's fault. While it's great seeing her change pace and take on a completely unlikable character, the role doesn't have as much to do with the main story as Spacey's or Farrell's. This results in an unfortunate imbalance among the film's foils, with Spacey taking up most of the time from Farrell and Aniston, whereas the three good guys have more or less equal playing time. Jamie Foxx slums it up as "Motherfucker" Jones (which leads to some hilarious dialogue). I guess now that he's won that Oscar, he doesn't care quite as much about what roles he takes; still, he does a good job here as his character advises the others how best to murder their enemies.

Mr. Anderson never condones a comb-over

Let me be the first to say that Horrible Bosses is one of the few 2011 titles that has had me laughing from beginning to end. I can't even say that about Bridesmaids, though that film made up for it by having much more heart. Still, there was nothing wrong and a lot right with this modern workplace fantasy, which took great actors, gave them a good script and good direction and let them run with it. The result is pretty amazing, and there's every chance that Horrible Bosses could wind up as the most gut-busting film this summer. Do yourself a favor; if you haven't already seen this title, don't wait for the DVD release. You'll just be postponing one of the funniest experiences this year, and who wants THAT?