Argo Review

    Ben Affleck's fourth directorial film Argo is a great historical thriller about the "Canadian Caper" that occurred during the Iran Hostage Crisis.

 

    The first time that I heard of the film was when I watched the trailer on YouTube. It looked interesting especially when the trailer used Aerosmith's "Dream On". So me and my Mom watched the movie and unanimously agreed that the film was great. Eight years later, the film still holds up but I have some complaints about it.

    Since it is based on an actual event, the movie had an ingenious way to show with storyboards how the crises began. It was educational for one thing as well as showing how Iran's ayatollah came into power and had an influence among the Iranian revolutionaries who wanted the country to revert back to a conservative Islamic state. What I liked is when in the beginning of the film it bounced back and forth from the archival footage from a civilian to the reenacted dramatic siege of the American embassy. It got intense by showing just how the embassy got invaded and inter splicing shots of the workers who were attempting to destroy data that they had. Near the end, there are six workers who escaped and go to the Canadian embassy.

    So throughout the film, we follow Tony Mendez who is played by Affleck. From what the film makes it to be seemingly true is by having him be the one to come up with the plan of using a fake Hollywood movie to get the remaining six Americans out of Iran. The moments where Mendez is in Tinseltown to meet makeup artist John Chambers and Alan Aarkin's character is the best. There is something about Goodman and Aarkin's blunt vibe that stole the show in that instance. Especially Aarkin's Lester Siegel who is a washed up producer has a great moment where he sounds off on another producer over financing "Argo". He is hilarious and off kilter which made me a fan of his character. More so when he created the rally cry of "Argo Fuck Yourself".     

    I should also want to elaborate on the scenes in Hollywood by saying that Affleck did a great job in recreating the feel of late 70s early 80s look of the town. I was not aware that the Hollywood sign was in a decrepit shape. It is emphasized in the credits when stills of the movie are put next to the actual photos of the Hollywood sign in disrepair. One detail that the film has is a very grainy look, suggesting that it was either shot in a 16mm or had an effect. When I got up to get a glass of water, I noticed little grains in the footage which could be an artificial effect. Compounding it is the film opens with Saul Bass' Warner Bros. logo.

    Now, for as much as I love the film, there are problems with it that I feel hamper the story of the "Canadian Caper". Reading more into how the operation had actually happened, I would have liked if we saw scenes between US and Canadian intelligence communicating how exactly to bring the six Americans out of Iran. Another thing was just how the Iranians were being portrayed when Tony was in the Iranian country. The film makes it seem that all of them absolutely hate Americans or have a blood lust. Moreover, the movie amplifies the danger by having none of the remaining workers attempt to step out, for fear of getting captured. 

    Amongst the other inaccuracies that the film has, my opinion on movies taking historical moments should at least be authentic to a point. I can understand when a director should take creative liberties to make the movie engaging, but I feel that for such a subject like this one I feel that only the ending should have some creative liberty. The moment when Tony and the six embassy workers board the plane, a few revolutionaries charge for the plane to try to stop it. That moment was heart racing since I wanted the Americans to escape. It still worked on me years later.  Aside from that, I think that the film can be a doorway for audiences to look into the "Canadian Caper" since the film omits sections of what happened. Attached below is the "Wired" article about the mission as well as the book the movie used as a basis. 

    Overall, Argo is one of Ben Affleck's best movies where he both directed and acted in. Some discrepancies hamper the storytelling of a risky rescue where lives were at stake. 

    Argo gets a 4 out of 5. 

Wired: https://www.wired.com/2007/04/feat-cia/

Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Master-Disguise-Secret-Life-CIA/dp/0060957913/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Review

        I hate this movie. I don't know why I liked it when I walked out of the theater actually enjoying it. Maybe it was blatant fan service and the final shot made me like the movie. Now having grown up and watched this stinker reinforces the belief that this is the worst Spider-Man film. So let's break it down.

        The story is all over the place. It continues from the previous film about Peter's missing parents. We're shown what happened to them. Albeit, it goes too long, the action is okay but overall it shouldn't be the beginning of the film. I was confused as to why they opened the film with the death of the Parkers. It would've made sense if it was shown when Peter finally found out what made his Dad have Peter live with his aunt and uncle. 

        Another sub plot is Gwen and Peter's break up and eventual make up. In the previous film, Captain Stacy explicitly told Peter to stay away from Gwen as he was dying from wounds that was brought on by The Lizard, which led to them splitting up. Confusingly they are still together in the sequel. In the scene where Peter meets Gwen by a dim sum restaurant, they finally break up, for a little bit. Subsequent scenes show Peter as Spidey follow Gwen in the city. I never really understood why he did that. I can understand him having a hard time adjusting but it makes him act like a stalker. They eventually make up when they are on a date.

        They notice that Time Square is being electrically fluctuated.  The breakup scene backs up my claim that Garfield is the worst Spider-Man since he is way too emotional in this moment. Just his performance is all over the place. He's not grounded in the least bit. He has a lot of mania that it undermines Gwen's death later in the film, I'll talk about that later.

        ANOTHER sub plot focuses on Harry Osborn realizing that he has a degenerative disease that is slowly killing him when it's revealed by his dying father Norman. He reunites with Peter which they hang out once in the film. It's frustrating that there wasn't any mention of Harry in the last movie. I can understand that they don't want to retread the first Spider-Man but by showing Uncle Ben's death a second time undermines how this series tries to be different. Eventually they meet again to discuss that their fathers working on a project involving spiders when they were at Oscorp. Harry believes that Spider-Man's blood can help cure him. He asks Peter to find him and to bring Spider-Man to Harry. I feel like the entire subplot does not make the least bit sense, which is saying a lot. Like honestly, here's the reasons why this one makes no sense:

        1. Why is Oscorp tracking Peter? It's established in that same scene that the company is keeping tabs on Peter, why? I thought about it for a long time, but I realized that the screenwriters also wrote the first two Transformers films. 

        2. How sure is Harry willing to use Spider-Man's blood?  Like, is he really banking on this not realizing that it could kill him or make him look like a crack addict.

        3. I hate this movie so much it's a bullet point. Let me elaborate on that, this movie is poopoo.

        Moreover, I feel that this should've been the main story. Peter's attempt to fix a failed friendship and to juggle with the idea of responsibility. But no, there needs to be more villains, setups for spinoffs that never come to fruition.

        The final (thank god) subplot involves the main villain of the film, Electro. You would think that being the face in the advertising that he would be complex or at least adequate. You're stupid if you thought that. This villain, is one of the worst comic book villains that has ever unfortunately graced the silver screen . He starts out as an introverted worker named Max Dillon who is an electrical engineer at Oscorp who is bullied by a coworker.  During the opening of the film, he is rescued by Spider-Man when he is chasing down Aleksei Systevich who is The Rhino in the comics and in this turd. The rescue made Max be obsessed with Spider-Man. An accident occurs which made Max into an electrical being by genetically altered Eels. The effects look impressive, but it reminds me of Dr. Manhattan in Zack Snyder's Watchmen. During the fight in Time Square, he hates Spider-Man due to him taking the spotlight away from Max. 

        Oddly enough, he starts to have a god complex when he is captured and put in Ravencroft which is an Arkham Asylum type place in the Marvel Universe. He is tortured by a Dr. Kafka who is so batshit insane that he plays classical music while torturing Electro. It contributes to the overall inconsistent tone of the film. 

        What do I mean by that, well typically tone means at its basic just the overall vibe of the movie. This one borders on, dramatic, comedic, action oriented, and goofy. For instance, how do you transition from Harry receiving terrible news that he is close to death? By having a scene where Max becomes Electro. It doesn't work since the movie is inconsistent in terms of emotional investment. You can argue that Raimi's Spider-Man Trilogy had a goofy, campy vibe. What offsets it is the level of drama since it was intentional. Those films were being based on the early issues of Spider-Man when he was just brand new. As well as the director having a very kinetic sense of film making.

        I could go on about the many overlapping subplots, such as Peter discovering that the spiders his Dad was working had his blood. Just briefly, I hate that scene so much that it completely invalidates the idea of Peter being an ordinary teen who's been bit, but a predetermined accident that grants him powers. I think it's best to just to talk about bits and pieces of just how cluttered the story is. I believe it's now appropriate to discuss the one scene that really summed up this brief franchise's failure. 

        Near the end of the movie, Spider-Man beats Electro through the power of science and having a smart girlfriend. All of a sudden, Harry arrives at the electric grid, looking like a bad cosplay of the Green Goblin. A hilarious moment occurs when he puts together that Peter and Spider-Man are the same person when he spots Gwen. Another fight occurs this time at a clock tower as Harry abducts Gwen as a hostage. We just got through one, now here's another one. Peter manages to get her and put Gwen on top of a spinning gear. The fight feels too much since we already seen a fight sequence just moments earlier. With Harry defeated, Gwen falls due to the gears being destroyed from the fight. As she inches closer to the ground, Spider-Man spins a web that looks like a hand reaching out, it makes the oncoming emotional moment subtle by comparison. 

    

        Nevertheless, Gwen dies and Peter gets teary eyed. This scene is the worst part of the movie, we only knew Gwen for just two movies. Killing her off feels unearned since in context with the comics, readers knew Gwen for ISSUES before her death at the hands of the Green Goblin. The death scene could have worked if it was developed further into the film series. Thus making her death be even more tragic considering just how much she meant to Peter. Regardless, the death of Gwen Stacy makes Peter quit being Spider-Man temporarily. 

    

        This one scene sums up the entire franchise due in part that it felt rushed. It's a recurring thing for studios to catch up with Marvel Studios since they want to have the same box office numbers that an Avengers movie makes.  Not knowing that the investment has to be with the characters being relatable and worth giving a shit instead of stuffing the movie with so much that it becomes forgettable.

        

        In the end, the same shaded figure that visited Dr. Connors in the first film visits Harry at Ravencroft and asks him about joining a group of villains to terrorize New York now that Spider-Man is gone. So that shaded figure named Gustav Fiers goes to Oscorp with Harry's permission to see the tech that the company has such as: four mechanical arms, a wing suit, and a Rhino suit. Peter in his depressed state decides to be Spider-Man after watching Gwen's graduation speech. Interspersed with shots of Rhino robbing a bank. The movie ends prematurely when Spider-Man is going head to head against the Rhino. 

        Overall, this is one of the worst superhero movies I have ever seen. There are terrible ones that are just incompetent, but this one is so personal to me since it sucks having your favorite superhero be butchered for gross financial profit. So who's fault is it? Well you can point to the director, writers, producers and Sony Pictures. Though I believe that there is equal fault in those specific positions since I can assume that there was no one to really comment on just how big of a clusterfuck this movie was. Like, no one said "Hey, looking at this script, there's a lot of overlap, we should probably trim this before it becomes bloated." 

    

        The ultimate irony is that it took another studio to reinvent Spider-Man to be a bigger part of an expanding cinematic universe. So much so, that it had the guts to kill Peter Parker in his third appearance and to have his resurrection feel emotional. 

        So with all that being said, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 gets a 2 out of 5.

    

The Amazing Spider-Man Review

   

        In 2002, Spider-Man was the first time that I watched a superhero film on the big screen. I came out of the theater very happy with just how fun it was, considering I was a kid. Little did I know there was a contract in place between Sony and Marvel which states that the film studios that own the rights to Marvel characters have a span of 5 years to create a film based on the heroes. Once the time has been used up, the rights revert back to Marvel. It was then that in 2012 Sony rebooted the wall crawler with a different actor, love interest, and origin story. For better and worse. 

    

        The first time watching The Amazing Spider-Man, I enjoyed the new interpretation of Peter's origins, as well as seeing Gwen Stacy being integrated. Knowing for a fact that she has to die since it happened in the comics, it made me interested to see how she was going to be incorporated. Now years later and seeing TWO Peter Parkers, Andrew Garfield is the weakest of the Spider-Men. For one thing, he's not nerdy or aloof as depicted in the comics. I believe that Garfield is representing the contemporary Peter Parker where he is more confident and has a full time job which is a far cry from when readers saw Parker. This take is more hipster oriented, by having him use a skateboard for two scenes. Why they decided to implement the thing is beyond me. It gets to a point where I wondered why exactly could the studio not draft someone who is younger. Aside from that, Andrew Garfield does an okay take of Peter Parker, he keeps to himself and tries at first to establish a connection with Gwen Stacy.

        Most of the romance between Peter and Gwen works well. Considering the fact that both of them were dating which makes the intimacy between them feel real. It really is romantic and sweet just seeing them talking. Additionally, Gwen does more than just be the damsel in distress in this film. Such as helping Peter figure out how exactly to beat The Lizard. To be honest, I would pick her over Kirtsten Dunst's Mary Jane.

        This interpretation of Spider-Man is slightly realistic. One of the best moments is when we see him assembling the web blasters. That moment feels grounded since what Peter has lying around are used watches and computer skills along with science. It's refreshing than seeing spinnerets being on Parker's wrist as shown in the original Raimi films, we'll get to those eventually. The overall suit is okay, like the web blasters, it attempts to be grounded in reality by having it something where anyone can put it together. There's literally a moment where Peter is looking for spandex and looks up skiers and bobsledders. One detail I like is Peter putting on sunglasses lens on the mask. It's ingenious. The whole body reminds me of the Lee & Ditko run on Spider-Man.

        Having him be fit but a bit lanky, or skinny makes the movements be more dynamic. One of the downfalls is that during the early trailers, there is a one shot take of Spider-Man running in a first person point of view which resulted in him web swinging across the city. It reminded me of the video game Mirror's Edge, I assumed that most of the moments we follow Spidey would be in this point of view. Alas, it's not so, what could have been a visceral display is just a cobbled together edit that looks choppy than smooth. 

        So what's the story about? One of the posters touted that it would be an untold story of Peter Parker's origins. When the movie opens, the Parker's home has been robbed. Specifically, Peter's dad Richard has his office looted. Knowing the gravity of the situation, the Parkers take Peter to live with his Aunt May and Uncle Ben. It's not until he goes into Oscorp and meets a scientist Dr. Curt Conners, who helps figure out a formula to help Connors. Since he only has one arm. In the comics, Curt turns into the villain The Lizard when he takes an experimental drug he created. This is one of the first good things I believe that is fresh for Spider-Man by having him be responsible for his unintentional creation of his villain. Aside from that, the overall mystery of his parents is nowhere to be seen. Just a heads up, it does not go anywhere in the sequel. 

        I feel that the movie just feels off, most of the action involving the wall crawler takes place at night. It's an odd choice since most and every Spider-Man action sequence in any medium has it during the day. Like, we never see the Spidey costume in normal daylight. To be fair, we see it once in the high school fight and that's really about it. I think because it just looks weird under sunlight. The red and blue don't pop under the sun and it's slightly muted. The only time where it is effective is at night by having most of the colors be overexposed to make the colors pop. As well as give it a stylized take. Although, the direction feels more akin to Batman than Spider-Man. 

        The ending is a pretty standard superhero cliche. Spider-Man beats The Lizard, while the villain attempts to unleash a dangerous gas that would turn New Yorkers to lizard men. Captain Stacy attempts to help but dies from The Lizard when it stabbed the captain with its claws. There contains a mid credits scene, where a mysterious man visits Dr. Connors and asks him if he told Peter what happened to his parents. As what happens with Peter's parents, the man in the shadows goes nowhere in the sequel.

        Now, I might have left out some characters such as Aunt May and Uncle Ben. As well as Captain Stacy since, they really are just there. They do an okay job. 

        Overall, The Amazing Spider-Man is just an okay retooling of the wall crawler. Most of the shortcomings mostly come down to Sony trying to do the same thing to keep the hero relevant. It reeks of desperation since the film has the same story beats as the first one. It doesn't do anything unique in terms of direction for Spider-Man which leads it to be just okay. 

The Amazing Spider-Man gets a 3 out of 5.

*Next time, I review the worst Spider-Man film, which happens to be the sequel to this one. 

2001: A Space Odyssey Review

   

    During these extraordinary times of a pandemic and police reforms, I have decided to review my entire Blu-Ray Collection. Since I have received my Film Studies minor, I think it is best to put it to good use. For instance, when I am in a predicament in my life, a knowledge of different camera angles can't bail me out for avoiding a speeding ticket. Regardless, the first film to review in this new endeavor is Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey.

    

    This film, along with Fritz Lang's Metropolis are the quintessential science fiction movies to really put the genre into the mainstream consciousness. The classic theme to the film is used in any television show or commercial to emphasize the grand and scale. Nevertheless, without the films that I have mentioned, many ambitious directors would not create the sci-fi classics that are beloved such as Star Trek and Star Wars.

    What is particularly interesting about the film is that it feels like an anthology. Three separate films standing alone but while maintaining a bridge or in this case a monolith to keep the narrative tied. Overall, the main plot of the film is to show humans advancement into space exploration. Given the fact that it was made during the Space Race between the United States and the former Soviet Union, the film might be a propaganda film or a celebration of human achievement. 

    The first section details early hominids having a turf battle with a rival group. The hominids that we see are visited by a black monolith. What I love about this sequence is that the hominids are afraid of the object and they gradually get closer to it where they feel comfortable. Eventually, the idea comes up that using an animal bone as a weapon makes the hominids feel evolved. From there, the classic shot where one of them flings the bone to the sky and the shot cuts to a satellite. I love that it cuts to years in the future where we finally achieved space flight. 

    The second sequence is such a depressing view of how much space exploration has now become. In an ideal world, there would be cooperation between nations where they would put aside their differences for the greater good but alas, it's not the case. It still highlights that there are divisions between the United States and Soviets when there is a monolith being discovered on the moon. I feel that out of all three sequences, this might be considered the weakest since there is way too much going on. Such as the gaslight by the two countries, the monolith discovery and showing just how luxuriously boring space flight has been. It could have just been about the monolith as the framing story.  Which is since the scientist see it as a photo op which prompts the object to emit a high pitch sound that hurts the astronauts.

    Lastly, the final act is the one that is prominently featured in every promotional advertisement for the film. The main star for the film is without a doubt HAL the supercomputer. This piece of artificial intelligence is the most scariest antagonist ever put into film. More so is that the shape of HAL mirrors the monolith, albeit with its one ever seeing eye apparatus. What makes the program so intimidating is that it is willing to kill just to meet its objective. Since another set of astronauts have received orders that another monolith has been spotted on Jupiter. It feels that it is worthy to make first contact with the object. I feel that the tone of the sequence changes when the astronaut Dave decides to take control of the ship away from HAL. 

    I feel that the moment where Dave makes contact with the monolith is the most visual stunning and otherworldly experience where you absolutely have to see it in the biggest screen.

   

    Overall, the film is easily one of the best Stanley Kubrick films, I find it a shame that when his name is uttered the only films he is known for are The Shining and Full Metal Jacket. I can understand that it is not a standard science fiction film, but a thorough quest to see what happens when mankind exceeds the means of space travel to a point where we encounter an alien object. Sometimes the plot in the other two acts are bloated but I feel it is to build a hypothetical world where tensions from the Space Race is still relevant in the future. 

The rating I give the film is 4 out of 5.

*Every review will be coming out every Wednesday!