Tuesday, July 29, 2014

The Amazing Spider-Man 2

TAKE 1: One Mans Opinion
…because film is largely subjective

by Frederick William Springer III

 
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 in 3D
Release Date:  2 May 2014                                                                  Runtime:  142 Minutes              
Review Date:  29 July 2014                                                                  Rating:  3.5 (of 6)

      As I sat watching The Amazing Spider-Man 2, I often found myself thinking I could be better spending my time.

     What little charm the initial reboot had was missing from this outing.  The beginning (and some other parts) felt very corny.  The appearance of the Harry Osborn character felt inorganic, suddenly thrust in the story, the filmmakers literally saying, "oh, by the way, Peter knew him when he was younger."  (And James Franco was better in the part in the Raimi trilogy.)  I think it would have worked better if there had been no previous relationship, though that would screw with other plot points in the story.

     ***POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT (I don't remember how much of this was revealed in the first installment)*** I also find it quite absurd that Peter Parker's father was a scientist that created the radioactive spiders and that, coincidentally, 10 years after his parents' death, Peter happens to be visiting the corporation his father had previously worked for and then bitten by one of those spiders, spiders that are specifically programmed to only interact with Parker DNA.  Way too convoluted and unrealistic that these stars would all happen to happily align.

     On the other hand, the physical parameters of the Green Goblin make more sense.  I think I would have preferred to have seen more of him--the film did a really slow origin story with his character--rather than Electro.

     The downfall of the narrative may or may not have something to do with the writers of the last film being pretty much ousted in favor of the (now former) writing duo of Alex Kurtzman & Roberto Orci along with their buddy Jeff Pinkner.

Sunday, July 13, 2014

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

TAKE 1: One Mans Opinion
…because film is largely subjective


by Frederick William Springer III


Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
Release Date:  11 July 2014                                                                  Runtime:  130 Minutes              
Review Date:  13 July 2014                                                                   Rating:  5 (of 6)

     Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is a worthy installment in the franchise, though not as succinct or poignant as its predecessor.  There, chimpanzee Caesar really was the focus; it was his story and we often found ourselves in his shoes.  Here, it feels like more of a human story and none of these humans are as well developed as those in Rise of the Planet of the Apes, a disconnect between them and us.  It's not till we get closer to the end that it becomes more of a movie about the titular apes.  (However, to be fair, the focus of the first 2 movies in the original series were the humans, the apes taking a back seat.)

    The lack of a strong emotional connection with either side is probably how the marginal magic was lost, but where along the lines it fell by the wayside in this outing is anyone's guess.  The writing team of Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver, who single-handedly resurrected the franchise, returned, though it appears a new writer, Mark Bomback, was brought on board to do rewrites.  The original director, Rupert Wyatt, was set to return but bowed out when Fox set a release date he found to be too soon to do a competent job.

     (Now this new director, Matt Reeves, and writer are set to helm the next installment, Reeves pulling double duty as a writer, too.  Meanwhile, Jaffa and Silver who had originally envisioned a trilogy for their reboot won't be on board for the third outing other than in the capacity of producers, currently entrenched in the Jurassic Park and Avatar franchises.)

     Neither here nor there, the titles should be reversed, the "Dawn" being the beginning and here the ape population growing or on the "Rise".

     RANT: Unfortunately, my viewing was impaired by a major distraction and therefore my enjoyment, perception and rating may have been affected.  I had read that this was one of the rare movies that were supposed to be really good in 3D, receiving really high marks (I recommend using http://www.cinemablend.com/3d yourself), so that's the route I went.  By the time the film called for glasses, the theater was pitch black dark.  I opened the package and put them on.  Something wasn't right, the picture often looking blurry or objects were doubled, except in the close up (but sometimes even then).  I didn't know if this was the actual movie, this particular projection or a problem with the glasses themselves.  I noticed if I closed my right eye when the focus got really bad, it would rein the picture in a little but this was no way to watch a movie!  However, I couldn't go out to Customer Service because then I'd miss what was going on and the next viewing wouldn't be for another 5 hours, time I didn't have.

     I was rather astounded because the 3D had gotten a rave review and here I wasn't experiencing it at all.  When the film concluded and the house lights came on I discovered the problem when I removed my glasses--THEY WERE MISSING THEIR RIGHT LENS!!!  I was rather annoyed as I had been waiting a long time for this film's release, the only one I'd been anticipating since the disappointing Lego Movie.       

     But more annoying is this whole scam with the $2 or $3+ surcharge for 3D movies' accessory glasses.  I have a 3D TV, I have my own glasses that I take good care of and know that work, why do I need to buy glasses every time I go to the theater?  It's an absurd rip off, especially when you take into consideration that they then expect you to return the glasses at the end of the film so they can "recycle" them.  If you have your customers doing that, why not give them their deposit back, like some states do with bottles and cans?  I don't want to wear someone else's repackaged glasses, thank you, and then be ripped off by being charged each time.

 
 

Sunday, July 6, 2014

Captain America: The Winter Soldier


TAKE 1: One Mans Opinion
…because film is largely subjective

by Frederick William Springer III
 
Captain America: The Winter Soldier in 3D
Release Date:  4 April 2014                                                          Runtime:  136 Minutes              
Review Date:  6 July 2014                                                            Rating:  4 (of 6)

      Captain America: The Winter Soldier is better than its predecessor, though that doesn't necessarily say much as I found the original to be the worst entry in the Marvel Studios' superhero films.  Here the story is improved as is the pacing.

     Other strengths are that the new character of Falcon (played by Anthony Mackie) is enjoyable, Robert Redford's performance in his role as Alexander Pierce is top notch and Samuel Jackson's acting in this installment seems a little more believable than it had in his latest Marvel appearances.  In contrast, I still don't buy Cobie Smulders (of How I Met Your Mother) as an agent.  Standing there, yes, okay.  But once she speaks, it's all over.  However, other TV actors jumping on board, Revenge's Emily VanCamp, Lost's Alan Dale and Community's Danny Pudi, were all welcomed additions (the latter's cameo probably a nod from the directing brothers--Anthony and Joe Russo--both being Producers on that show, one having also directed).

     Surprisingly, this installment was written by the same guys that wrote The First Avenger and, for better or worse, they're on board for the next one, too.  As are the Russo brothers to direct again, hopefully to help continue steering the ship in the right direction away from the wreck of the original.

     Neither here nor there, while not too distracting, it is very apparent that Chevrolet it a sponsor of the film.  The 3D isn't distracting either but, that said, it does very little to enhance the experience and warrant that particular format.

     The chosen title is a little misleading because the movie in no way revolves around the Winter Soldier.  To be sure, he is present but in very small quantities.  I could easily pick a half-dozen better suited subtitles, some of which would give more of the plot away than I wish to do, others more subtle but still more appropriate.

     Take from that what you will.