When the Cheshire emerges...

My venture to the cinema on Thursday night was different to most other weeks. I had unexpected but lovely company, and I finally saw the trailer for The Hunger Games: Catching Fire which was awesome. I can't wait. Great excuse to read the books again if I have the time.

Now to the review, a film long awaited and carrying mixed views from reviewers elsewhere. I rather liked it. And yes, I have read the book.

The Great Gatsby (M)

Your bonus this week is Al Pacino cop classic Serpico (1973). A New York love affair in the week of Independence Day for the stars and stripes...

The Amazing Spider-Man 3D (M)

WHEN the news came out in 2010 that Sam Raimi had decided not to continue with the Spider-Man franchise after his third venture was released in 2007, it was thought to have spelt doom. Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst had long said if Raimi was out, so were they, and they stayed true to their word. But Sony Pictures had other ideas, taking Raimi’s idea of developing the alter ego of scientist Dr Curt Connors, and rebooting the story to when Peter Parker was first exposed to the super spiders.

Their major focus would seem to be taking it back to essentially forget the trilogy that made up the bulk of Marvel’s top-grossing films. Peter (Andrew Garfield) is a nerdy teenager in love with Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), living with Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and Aunt May (Sally Field) after his parents mysteriously left them in his care as a kid. From there it changes as Peter finds himself looking for answers to his father’s past, finding Dr Connors (Rhys Ifans) and the theories of cross-species genetics. Enter spider bite.

There’s a lot to like with the new elements of the story, particularly seeing more of Peter as a teenager. If only in that respect, it feels like a prequel as he bumbles through his days, unsure of himself when talking to Gwen or trying to stand up to Flash Thompson (Chris Zylka). His hunger to discover why his father was so secretive leads him to a hidden formula that could unlock the key to genetic regrowth. Now that’s heavy stuff for a senior.

But Peter Parker’s life has always been that - constant heaviness on his shoulders as he burdens the guilt of Uncle Ben’s death as well as the responsibility he’s been given with his newfound abilities. This time around it’s Gwen he confides in, and their relationship, although awkward at first like that of many teenagers, grows within the story’s short timespan.

The Lizard, Dr Connors’ alter ego, is a creature just as hurt as any other lost, desperate soul. He’s not really evil, he just believes in creating a perfect world. But the mutation gets the better of him and it all falls on Spidey to fix what he contributed to breaking. It’s all a bit unfortunate really, and there’s never a definitive answer for Peter on where his parents went.

As the first Spider-Man film in 3D, the effect serves it well, director Marc Webb (500 Days of Summer) making sure Peter’s sticky stuff is particularly shown off to effect. Garfield, with expectation burdening on his own shoulders, plays Peter/Spider-Man as naïve as he should be, a teenager coming to grips with what’s out in the big bad world. Even Maguire purists should appreciate his interpretation; Garfield’s more youthful looks are a benefit to this story of Spider-Man’s origin.

Stone is a Gwen just as unsure about life and boys as any other teenage girl, and works well with Garfield and Denis Leary, her stern father Captain Stacy. With a big A-list cast, it all falls together nicely. It’s only the story itself that will unsettle most previous fans.

James Vanderbilt’s story would be more than agreeable had there not already been a film that already addresses half this story’s content. The concept of this reboot is more confusing than anything else because this film won’t stand as a straight prequel - but the idea of starting a new franchise and dismissing three of Marvel’s best productions is incomprehensible to the majority of moviegoers. Although some of the 136 minutes are stretched out, there’s no doubt the film works as a stand-alone. But where this new franchise leads when some of the hero’s biggest nemeses have already been explored is uncertain.

Rating: 4/5

*Published in the Daily Liberal (Dubbo), Western Advocate (Bathurst), Parkes Champion Post and Midstate Observer (Orange) from Saturday 7/6/2012


***

Serpico (1973)

Sidney Lumet directed Al Pacino twice before his death in 2011, the first of those Serpico, a true story about an honest cop who couldn’t stand to see the corruption in the New York Police Force continue. The film came out after Pacino had made his name in The Godfather and the streets of New York were becoming a big Hollywood focus.

Based on the biography by Peter Maas, Frank Serpico (Pacino) enters the police force and immediately makes an impact in his division. But his desire to become a detective becomes thwarted as he continues to be kept patrolling the streets undercover, creating a lonesome, unapproachable persona that only alienates him from his colleagues further when he refuses to accept their payouts from local thugs.

With producer Dino De Laurentiis and composer Mikis Theodorakis’ heavy score it’s a very Mediterranean affair. Serpico has the temperament of an Italian but the grooming abilities of someone much different, embracing his inner hippie as he goes through lovers and people he discovers cannot be trusted. It’s essentially a one-man show from Pacino that takes you through his rapidly deteriorating emotional state.

The film creeps along for its 130 minutes, increasing the suspense on whether the exposure Serpico seeks on the corruption will ever come to the fore. Lumet gets Pacino at his best, and you feel the frustration of the honest guy. It’s a gritty turn from Lumet, so good with hitting the hard line, and no doubt set the boulder rolling for future productions of a similar nature.

*Published in the Mailbox Shopper (Dubbo) from Wednesday 4/7/2012

 

Those two words, that consequently make a name, give me chills of excitement whenever I hear them. Out of all the superheroes I followed as a kid and into adulthood, Parker's alter-ego is the one that struck a chord with me the most (and my brother I'd say, although I can't truly speak on his behalf).

I'm pretty big on superhero movies. Not so much the comics themselves though, although I did read Watchmen and all the Sin City novels before the adaptations were released (the graphic novels are more my thing).

But we had toys of Spider-Man as a kid that were still found lying around years later battered. My brother had the DK definitive guide with descriptions of all the bad guys. Heck, I stole his poster of the first movie after he (stupidly) decided to take it down (his loss, it's still above my bed with others in my room back home). I also refused to give my cousin's badge from his fourth(?) birthday back to him when he'd given it to me and then after having it on my high school backpack for some time was devastated to lose it. Geek much?

Though as the Sam Raimi films have entered our psyche over the last 10 years (my goodness, that's scary), for me it's been more about the discovery of Peter Parker and who he is. As such, I've met every new film with that little more anticipation than other crusaders and their adventures... I'd go as far to say that Peter Parker is probably my favourite character. As in of all time.

I don't know what it is. Maybe it's that he's the nerd-turned-cool but remains irresponsible, or his genuine naivety comes from teenage cluelessness; there are so many hints given to him about how he must face his challenges through Uncle Ben and Aunt May but it takes him an age to figure it all out. Either way he's all the cliches in one - a charmer, geek and has that 'it' factor. He just seems so much more relatable than any other hero - just a normal guy, and one that we are given so much information on to feel like we know him (not as mysterious as say, Batman). I'd take one-on-one time with Parker anyday.

***

The latest release was somewhat different - I hadn't heard about as much of the hype, only to read about casting at the time after Raimi, Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst et al decided to be dominos and let the franchise fall. But seeing Andrew Garfield strut his way through his classroom hallways, camera (and skateboard here) in hand, the shivers of excitement inside whenever I see (a) Peter Parker made their way back.


Garfield has that young look about him to fit the role of Parker just about perfectly. And this is coming from someone who has adored Maguire's hot nerdness forever before. As such, that's the only problem I have - that half of The Amazing Spider-Man HAS been done before. If this was a prequel where chunks of the first Spider-Man didn't exist, it would've been much easier to accept. The Garfield films, however many there may be, could've easily been segued into Maguire's dramas with the bigger guys and Mary-Jane.

Where they go from here I don't know. A part of me still wishes so much that the original franchise had never gone to pieces (in my mind there's always hope of them coming back for another; remember, the collapse wasn't on bad terms), but at the same time I'm glad to see a younger-looking Parker in action.




I'm a bit torn really.

*Read my full review of The Amazing Spider-Man on Saturday.