2 posts from May 2007

So, a lot of people on the internets are bitching about the new Spiderman movie.  Here's some of my favorite reasons why they think it sucks:

Venom is teh most awesome villain evar and should have been in more.  PS Topher Grace totally sucks!!!1!1

Okay.  So, judging by this sentiment, this is a contingent of 13-17 year old boys who haven't read any comics published before 1993.  Considering that Venom could have fairly easily been omitted altogether, they should be thankful for what they got--I'm given to understand by my personal army of nerds that Venom was a flat, monotonous villain born of the 90s desire for "edgier" comics. 

As for Topher Grace, it seems like no one criticizes his performance (in part because they haven't actually SEEN the movie, they just know why he sucks), just his size/appearance.  The kid turned in a great performance, and I'm pretty sure he could beat up most of his detractors.  However, if you did think he was a terrible Venom, why would you want to see more of it?

Sam Raimi and the producers are in it for money!

Uh, well, yes.  No one will ever confuse this movie with a sensitive indie flick about a young man (played by Zach Braff) coming to terms with responsibilities he didn't ask for and his fight to win and keep love.  It's DESIGNED TO MAKE MILLIONS, and even if it was an indie flick, I doubt any of those producers would say "oh no, we didn't make this film to earn any money, we just wanted to share our vision with the world."

Too many villains!

This one has some merit, mostly because there doesn't seem to be a lot of reason for  Sandman and Venom to be a part of THIS film.  It feels like they picked three villains out of a hat--they could just as easily made a movie around Electro and Vulture.  Harry does need to be in the film as the New Green Goblin, simply because it's a long story line in the films, but seems very underused.  The problem isn't too many, it's too unfocused. 

Kirsen Dunst sucks!

Okay, yeah, you got me there. 

Now, I've actually seen the movie, and it's the weakest of the Spiderman movies.  However, the recent trend for Comic Book Movies has been either Very, Very Good (Batman Begins, X2, both Spidermans), or Very, Very Bad (X-Men 3, Daredevil, Fantastic 4), and so I think most fans have a difficult time processing "average,"  simply because none of the recent films have been anything but extraordinary in one direction or the other. 

What made the first two of the films so unique was the personal treatment Peter Parker got by Raimi--his relationship with MJ, his progression from boy to man, and from a nobody to a somebody.  The conflicts, internal and external, were authentic and resonant.  In this film, they're largely contrived--his problems with MJ could be fixed with one good conversation, which I imagine goes like this:

Peter:  "Hi MJ, is something wrong?"

MJ:  "Oh, no, I'm, uh, fine I guess." 

(That, by the bye, is actual dialogue).

Peter:  "No, you don't look fine.  Tell me what's going on--I don't like to see you hurting."

MJ:  "Well, okay.  Thanks for being there for me."

Unfortunately, the Ballad of Peter and Mary Jane takes up waaaaaay too much of the movie, and doesn't do a lot to advance any sort of character or plot development.  Mostly, it plays like a high school romance.

Then, there's the Goo From Outer Space, which gives Peter the power to transform into Conor Oberst.  He just wants a lover he doesn't have to love, y'all.

And then there's the villains.  As I said above, it's not exactly too many cooks in one kitchen, but that none of the cooks are actually in the same kitchen.  Each has his own orbit, and up until the end it feels a lot like three separate issues of the comic slapped loosely together.  3 villains would have worked fine, if they didn't seem so randomly assigned.

Actually, in spite of all this, I enjoyed the film this weekend.  The only "bad" performance turned in was Kirsten Dunst (who did everything in her power to communicate "I think I'm better than this"), but hey, I've never liked her anyways.  Topher Grace, even though 17 year old boys are pretty much preprogrammed to hate him, rocked the house--the kid's got a lot of potential.  Bruce Campbell is, as always, hysterical, and overall the attitude on this film seemed to be "you know, let's have some fun and make a true popcorn flick."  Fans who want either emotional depth or real darkness are going to be let down, but let's face it--Spiderman's been pretty much outdone in both departments by Superman Returns and Batman Begins (which is so dark, you can't fucking see anything!).  

Also, the new Harry Potter trailer ran before the film--THAT looks to be a great summer movie.

If money were no object, which five luxury items would you rush right out and buy? 
Submitted by lorilyn.

1.  The biggest, flattest SED TV I could find.  We already have two 27" televisions, but hey, only one is HD-capable, and SED looks really promising as TV tech goes.

2.  An iPhone, duh.  I don't need it, the lack of 3G is a serious deal breaker, and I don't like to talk to people on the phone, but damn, it's cool.

3.  New game consoles.  I'd like to roll these together--if money were no problem, we might just get a Wii and a PS3 in a single shot (provided we could find a Wii).  Some of the titles coming to the Wii look really, really fun, and the PS3 has a lock on Tekken 6 (also, I'd love to play SSX 4 on the PS3...or on anything).  This would bring our total console tally to 9 (two Gamecubes, two DSs, a slimline PS2, a 360, and a PSP are all currently in the house...those are the working ones).

4.  A Nikon D80 with specialty lenses.  Currently, I'm gunning for a D40 at the $500 price point, and even though my current camera is about 4 or 5 years old (Nikon Coolpix 2500...the blue swivel camera), I've pretty much resolved I won't buy a new camera until I can afford to just go pro. 

5.  Construction Equipment.  I really want my own construction shop--I have visions of large countertops, toolboxes, and a sweet, glorious band saw set up in my garage.

Alternates:

-New stereo equipment.  This can take a variety of forms, but either a Bose surround sound home system or a networked home stereo system would suit me fine.

-A Squeezebox.  Why, yes, I'd love global access to my music, plus Pandora, on a dedicated stereo system.  There's even AM radio to satisfy my husband.