Not signed in (Sign In)
  1.  (10691.1)
    I saw "Amazing Spider Man" today. I thought it was terrible...and LONG!!! The first 45 minutes dragged and for movie with the word "Spider Man" in the title, there wasn't enough Spider Man in it. Terribly directed action scenes and an oddly sparce feeling NYC. I also thought the movie had no heart or humanity to it either. Stone and Garfield were alright, but there was little for them to work with here and there was no chemistry between them.
    •  
      CommentAuthorD.J.
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2012 edited
     (10691.2)
    I thought Spider-Man was okay. I definitely had quite a few issues with it, but I actually thought the fight scenes were rather well done. It was nice to see Spidey using his webbing for some tricks. Might go into detail a bit later.

    I still really dislike the new costume.
  2.  (10691.3)
    I finally saw Cosmopolis last week and thoroughly enjoyed it.

    Pattenson wasn't a revelation or anything but he wasn't annoying - previously, I've found him a distracting on-screen presence that's either a void [Twilight] or a strange unfocused space, Water for Elephants.

    The film's definitely not for everyone and felt much more like a play than even A Dangerous Method but, for me, it easily ranks as highly as that.

    Right from the start you can tell its themes are concerning reality, authenticity, simulacra, money, replication, mechanization, and the inorganic, all of these things are called to mind within the first 10 second - so far, so Baudrillard.

    Coming out of the film though, I couldn't help compare its structure to a Ulyssean-episodic one with various elements of Cosmopolis appearing to me like Ulysses. Not so much a direct retelling but using elements of it - I quipped to my friend that it's 'The Great Ratsby' [sic] - and this morning I've Googled and found a page that pretty much puts it all into perspective. I love it when the internet does that.

    For me, this is another fine Cronenburg. Though there are some amazing elements in there that are similar to his other works, especially certain tones of speech and reveling in irony, it's a very different Cronenburg from how we've seen him before.
    • CommentAuthorflecky
    • CommentTimeJul 7th 2012 edited
     (10691.4)
    I wish I'd gotten to see Cosmopolis, I really do :(

    William Friedkin's Bug is one of my favourite films. It was based on a play, and I love the claustrophobic feel of a film set in a limited location - most of it takes place in a motel bedroom. It had great performances in it, especially from Michael Shannon, who was also well-weird in David Lynch/Werner Herzog's My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done.

    Anyway, I was wondering if anyone had seen Friedkin's new film, Killer Joe?

    Not long for the new Dark Knight. Hopefully, I'll go and see it on the day it's released here.
  3.  (10691.5)
    Thank you Ben Gwalchmai

    I am also seymourblogger and I am up to almost 90 readings of Cosmopolis so far.
  4.  (10691.6)
    I write about post modern thinking if I can label it that through media. I also have http://moviesandfilm.blogspot.com so I would be happy if anyone visited me. I do like so many comments here.
  5.  (10691.7)
    I see on another page someone was discussing God Bless America. What an amazing experience seeing that one was. I still wonder how it got a daring enough distributor to take it. It is a marvelous critique on western culture, the US in particular. Reading it through Baudrillard and Zizek it is about our rush into simulation - let's hurry so we can all get to Virtual Reality folks! - and one man's total resistance to the whole shtick. And funny. And true.

    Hunger Games anyone here discussing. Our future I think.
  6.  (10691.8)
    Pattenson wasn't a revelation or anything but he wasn't annoying


    Think I'll give it a miss.
  7.  (10691.9)
    I am furious at Cronenberg for messing it up. It could have been great. I am glad the box office is handing him his .........
  8.  (10691.10)
    ^^ My son, my son, what hath thee done?

    ***

    Yesterday, I took my nephew to see The Amazing Spiderman for his birthday and I'm confused as to where all the hate for it has come from. Checking The Guardian this morning, I'm glad to see Peter Bradshaw offering a sensible review. It's an enjoyable watch, that much is irrefutable to me.

    Don't get me wrong, I wasn't emotionally moved beyond all end, it didn't shatter my world but it wasn't so bad it was offensive. It was professionally done and I admired various parts of it as a craftsman admires various parts of another's craft.

    ***

    Since I first saw him in The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, I knew that Andrew Garfield was, is, and will continue to be a good actor. For me, he really got the Spidey shtick - that smart-alec, self-effacing kind - while combining it with the awkwardness of a teenager. I even thought his time on screen with Emma Stone was enjoyable - who hasn't thought about Spidey getting a first kiss like that?

    The subway-train revelation of his powers was really enjoyable in a very comic-book like way. It's a stand-out scene for me.

    There are other stand-out scenes: I liked Rhys Ifans' first appearance, he was as engaging and warm as Dr. Connors should be.

    I must admit, though, that at points I found myself laughing at the operatic nature of the storytelling. The part where
    the cranes all align so Spidey can get to Osbourne Tower to defeat The Lizard after being shot in the leg
    was a little too hammy for me to swallow so I found myself laughing even though I didn't want to.

    I also felt that a good deal of the first hour was rushed: the camera itself didn't want to cut away from certain scenes - especially any with Uncle Ben, Aunt May, or Gwen Stacy - and yet the director made it. Perhaps, in order to focus again on the absence of Spidey's father, this was intentional but unfortunately it simply gave the impression of trying to cram too much in.

    Which isn't to take away from the professionalism of the camera-work, that was indeed well done. The action scenes that flowed as weirdly, as gangly as I've always imagined Spiderman to be were also well done.

    Well done, however, doesn't make for moving.

    Though I was unmoved - except by sterling, small moments of Andrew Garfield's - my nephew was both elated and moved.
    Sat next to him, I could feel the shudders of him crying and the deep breaths of awe when Spidey's fights won out. I am 27, he turns 15. Perhaps, to him, the cinematography didn't feel rushed - perhaps it felt too slow - because when I asked him how he felt about it afterward, he said "It was AWESOME. I want to see it again." I could tell there was something he didn't want to say - probably about how moved he was - and it must be a generational thing.

    To those critics who've damned it - take your nephew.

    To those that have loved it - calm your spurs...it is only a well-made work, it's too bulky to be a true Spidey.

    We've another 2 films to find out if Marc Webb can spin as a spider should, yet.
    •  
      CommentAuthorD.J.
    • CommentTimeJul 8th 2012
     (10691.11)
    My hope for the next Spidey is that they get some real talent for the script. I don't think Webb was the problem with Amazing.
  9.  (10691.12)
    ^^ That may be troublesome for you, DJ - the news is that they've signed the same writer.

    [Sorry to be the bearer.]
    • CommentAuthorflecky
    • CommentTimeJul 8th 2012
     (10691.13)
    hmmm, I'll probably give Spidey a miss. Those blooming Avengers have spoilt me with their super-heroics.

    My son, my son, what 'ave you been doing in the back of the cinema with 'er that looks that Gwen Stacy?
  10.  (10691.14)
    I don't get the hate with the Amazing Spider-Man film: great buildup and pacing, good actor work & casting and action that didn't suck even in 3D. Got to say that I liked this far more than the previous trilogy. For a offing change a superhero flick didn't feel like it had to rush through things.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAlastair
    • CommentTimeJul 9th 2012
     (10691.15)
    my whole problem with it was that it didn't seem like peter parker. good spidey but the confrontational, skateboarding doesnt-really-care-about-school peter just felt so wrong to me... bah

    and the cranes! oh god!
    •  
      CommentAuthorD.J.
    • CommentTimeJul 9th 2012
     (10691.16)
    Dude, Spider-Man skatesboards all the time...


    Thinking on it some more, my biggest problem with the film is it just didn't really feel fun. Most of the film suffered from a serious case of the grimdarks, both in mood and palette, and when they tried to lighten the mood it just came off as really hammy. The basketball scene is a good example of just trying too hard, and while I get what they were going for, it just really didn't work. And related to that, wasn't there anyone who found it odd that suddenly the school nerd is breaking everything he ever touches? And why is it that as soon as you get super-reflexes, everyone gets a case of the throwsies and the dropsies? I suppose Bendis has just spoiled me.
    • CommentAuthorOxbrow
    • CommentTimeJul 9th 2012
     (10691.17)
    About on a par with Spider-Man, well below Spider-Man 2, well above Spider-Man 3.
  11.  (10691.18)
    I go into more details here, but in short Peter Parker reminded me a lot of Harry Potter in the beginning of book five when he got all emo and rebellious. A lot of ppl reading that for the first time were wrong-footed by the change. His anger at being orphaned didn't feel earned. The film tries its best but I just didn't respond to that version of Spidey. I may be wrong, but was Peter Parker in the comics ever that hung up about the death of his parents? I thought it was more just a fact that leaves him with no family and having to look after an elderly aunt, i.e. the set-up for him having to deal with responsibility (that all-important theme) at a young age.

    Anyway, I was essentially hoping for a film version of Bendis's Ultimate Spidey and didn't get it, so the film left me a bit disappointed. It's competent, but doesn't really capture the magic of the character, I felt. Plus Aunt May was close to lobotomized and Gwen Stacy felt weirdly blank. We only see her through Peter's eyes and he didn't seem all that interested in her. Andrew Garfield is good, tho. Hopefully he'll be put to better use in the next one.

    Also jumping on what @Oxbrow just said: Mark Kermode (an influential UK film critic) made the point that a new Spider-Man film that was merely ok, or on a par with the old Spider-Man film, fails anyway, since there is little point of a remake of a film that's only 10 years old if it doesn't dramatically alter or improve it.
    •  
      CommentAuthorStoto
    • CommentTimeJul 9th 2012
     (10691.19)
    Sorry for being a bummer Whitechapel, but I seem to be having trouble having fun at the cinema these days.

    I liked Spider-man about as much as I liked The Avengers... I like Rhys Ifans a lot, but I found his accent kind of jarring.
    I actually thought the scenes with Aunt May were some of my favourites.

    Cabin in the Woods reeally bummed me out. I was so excited about seeing it, but in the end it simply didn’t move me in any way.

    I liked Prometheus loads. I was glued to the screen the entire movie.

    Now, Midnight in Paris. I didn't expect anything from this, not a big Woody Allen buff, but it was the most I’ve laughed and smiled at the cinema in ages.

    The new releases at my local cinema are a bit off. This week I’ll try to see Haywire, The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel and Limitless. Think I’ll pass on The Raven.
    • CommentAuthorStefanJ
    • CommentTimeJul 9th 2012
     (10691.20)
    Anyone else see Moonrise Kingdom? It is starting to leak out to non-arthouse theaters.