To say that this is the Twilight film I had been waiting for would be a grave overstatement. This is, however, the kind of complete story that both of the preceding Twilight films should have been. While there are still the usual filmmaking stumbles along the way that an objective observer would expect from a Twilight sequel, Eclipse provides a satisfying amount of character development and pacing.
After seeing her lover and her lackey dispatched in the first two films, the wicked Victoria (now played by Bryce Dallas Howard) finally sets her plot for revenge against Bella Swan into motion. Building an army of newborn vampires, she plans to manipulate her strong and blood-thirsty minions into destroying Bella and the Cullens. All is not lost, however, as Jasper Cullen knows exactly how to fight newborn vampires and trains his family as well as Jacob Black and some of his werewolf brethren for a vicious battle.
After two installments, audiences finally get a complete story. One of my biggest issues with the first two Twilight films was the way they fed us false starts, only to wander aimlessly until the final 30 minutes, when a sudden development yanks us at full speed to the final destination. Here we have real plot development and foreshadowing. The film never goes off an a tangent, always moving forward to the next cog in the machinery. Needless to say, this is a very welcome change.
Character development is also a welcome change here. Up to now, the characters Rosalie and Jasper were virtually one-dimensional. In Eclipse, we learn a little about both their pasts, as humans and vampires. Rosalie is no longer the raging vampire PMS queen and Jasper is finally given a personality of his own. Watching him stare at everything like a psychopath got old quick. While it’s hard to swallow some of Jacob’s pack mates joining forces with the Cullens to protect Bella, it does make for some humorous moments when Jasper teaches them all how to fight newborn vampires.
The visual effects and the acting are both still sketchy. It’s nice to see more color on screen now that most of the digital color grading has been abandoned. The Cullens are also just pale in complexion now, instead of super-pasty white. That helps you believe they could actually coexist in the human world without being gawked at 100% of the time. The werewolves still look lousy and the fight sequence was overdone.
I give credit to Nikki Reed and Jackson Rathbone for stepping up to the plate when their characters finally get some spotlight. It still boggles my mind, however, how Twihards still support Kristen Stewart. She just looks lost half the time and her delivery is horrible. Perhaps this is due to the source material but it just looks like she’s dialing this thing in. The intensity of the newborns is appreciated, even if they become comical by the time the big fight arrives. In short, the acting represents an overall improvement for the Twilight series but the bar was set really low to begin with.
To me, Eclipse marks a turning point in the Twilight films. It seems that the actors are finally comfortable in their roles (Kristen Stewart may be the exception). As someone who hasn’t read the books, I am now comfortable with the Twilight universe, flaws and all. Perhaps resigning myself to expect a deeply flawed film allowed me to be taken off guard by how complete the story of Eclipse actually is. Calling it my favorite Twilight film would be disingenuous but if you locked me in a room and told me that I had to watch one of the Twilight films, I would pick this one in a heartbeat.
This sassy, and at times catty, tale of black maids anonymously dishing the dirt on their wannabe Southern belle employers succeeds on a number of levels. It’s is simultaneously entertaining and thought-provoking. It also boasts snappy writing and terrific performances from the entire cast. The film may be a little heavy on the warm fuzzies but The Help is the kind of emotionally satisfying film you stop to watch when you come across it.
When Eugenia “Skeeter” Phelan (Emma Stone) returns home to Jackson, Mississippi from college with a degree but no husband, her local women’s circle try to take under their wing and find her a man. This is 1963 after all. Skeeter would rather focus on a career in writing, however, and lands a job for the local paper as a homemaking columnist. Not skilled in the subject herself, Skeeter seeks advice from Aibileen Clark (Viola Davis), the black maid working for a member of the local women’s circle. This leads the young and idealistic Skeeter to compile a collection of stories from the perspective of Aibileen and her fellow maids. Published anonymously, the book creates a firestorm of controversy and intrigue but the project’s anonymity only lasts so long.
The characters and performances in this film are wonderful. Many characters could have been very cookie-cutter in nature but they aren’t. All of the black maids have personality. They are not all bitter towards their white employers, nor are they pushovers either. Viola Davis and Octavia Spencer give exhausting performances that showcase the emotional duality of working a job where you are treated as if you don’t exist half the time and less than a person the other half.
Bryce Dallas Howard is equally excellent as the scheming racist ringleader of the town’s young women. She could have been your stereotypical Southern belle who doesn’t understand the depths of her racism but she is so much more. Here is a power hungry woman bent on wielding whatever influence she has to keep those she finds inferior on a lower rung of the food chain. In today’s era, she would be a nightmarish politician.
Emma Stone’s character, though the facilitator of the whole thing, is actually the weakest in the entire story. She is very much your stereotypical young adult Baby Boomer full of idealism about social change and challenging the norm. Without the stellar mix of characters driving the story around her, The Help would descend into cliché. Had the story focused too much on Skeeter and put her up on a pedestal for her boldness in writing the book, audiences would have gagged. White liberals have trumpeted their work for minorities for decades so another dose of ‘see, we care!’ would have left everyone wanting more.
The Help does leave you wanting more though. It leaves you wanting more movies with acting as fabulous as you find here. This film shows that women in Hollywood do not have to settle for being a second-tier attraction. With the right story and the right talent, women can carry a film that matters and moves you. The Help does both. It may give in to a few too many heartwarming moments for its own good but we’ve almost come to expect that from movies about Baby Boomers and social justice. If you like great acting and uplifting stories, this one’s got them both in spades.
Spider-Man 2 was on the cusp of greatness. The writing and acting were superb; it had the right amount of cheeky humor inherent to the Spider-Man comics; and the digital effects, though pretty dated and mediocre looking now, were adequate. Spider-Man 2 left me with high hopes for the third and (supposedly) final installment to the series.
Needless to say, I was let down. And none too gently. While Spider-Man 3 does grow in some areas, it falls short in too many other aspects to be considered a worthy installment in the series.
Some of the characters have matured and show more depth and range of emotions. For instance, Mary Jane Watson is no longer just a starry-eyed, melon-breasted girl missing the obvious affections of her pal Peter Parker. This time around, she and Peter are struggling to keep their relationship afloat. She has real needs, desires and demands.
Peter, on the other hand, has selflessly devoted most of his life to being Spider-Man and helping out the cops fight crime in New York City. He’s grown more adept at balancing his studies and scratching a living off photojournalism as well. Unfortunately, Peter has unwittingly let being Spider-Man go to his head and it is slowly destroying his relationship with Mary Jane.
MJ has become an up-and-coming starlet of the stage and struggles with feelings of inadequacy, especially with having her every move and nuance scrutinized by relentless critics that will either make or break her young career. Peter, being the nerdy guy that he is, attempts to help his girlfriend cope with all this by comparing it to how he is scrutinized as Spider-Man.
To be honest, I thought it was initially a very good comparison. Of course, up to that point we had seen very little of Peter Parker’s selfish and conceited behavior outside of putting on a show kiss as Spider-Man with the police chief’s daughter during a publicity event. Herein lies the first problem of the movie-
The filmmakers should have established Peter’s internal conflict as a more innocent battle against his own ego. Instead of shedding a bad ego, Peter/Spider-Man should be entering a new phase of growth in dealing with his dual roles in life. The problem truly is innocent at first- Peter, being the nerd that he is, just gets excited and embraces all his ups and downs as Spider-Man to try and help out. It’s the only part of his life that allows him to even be able to compare with Mary Jane’s quest for stardom, but she doesn’t even want to hear it.
Hearing one talk about their alter ego all the time would be annoying, but Mary Jane (and all women as well) need to be reminded that men are not psychic. If you’re having issues and the way we’re trying to help you cope isn’t working, tell us. Don’t leave things for us to try and infer based on a mopey face, teary eyes and a warbling voice. It just goes to show you that communication issues can plague any couple. Superhero/wannabe celebrity couples doubly so.
From here, the film descends into blandness. While the decision to make Peter and Mary Jane’s relationship struggles one of the centerpieces of the overall story (a pretty good idea in my opinion), it ultimately takes over too much of the film’s running time. New characters like Gwen Stacy, Sandman and Venom aren’t developed enough to make them anything but momentary distractions and obligatory subplot inclusions, as a stand-alone fractured romance tale would draw nothing but ire from comic book fanboys and those who have enjoyed the series thus far. Even series regular James Franco’s Harry Osborne/New Goblin role seems underdeveloped and misused.
The overall plot is Peter and Mary Jane’s relationship issues, but of course things just have to get in the way. A freaky alien symbiote falls to earth during a meteor shower and it follows Peter and latches onto him. It alters his mentality and his emotional status. He becomes even more arrogant and aggressive. He eventually rids himself of it, which results in a man named Eddie Brock becoming the next host and turning into the evil character Venom. He and Sandman cause a ruckus and Spider-Man ends up teaming up with the New Goblin, his former best friend Harry, to save the day.
The Sandman is Flint Marko, played by Thomas Hayden Church. He is an escaped convict that falls into a sand pit being used for some bizarre physics experiment, the purpose of which is never actually explained. The result is a complete alteration of his body’s composition, reducing him to nothing but particles of sand and silica dust which he can move and mold into any shape he wants. He can also control any other loose sand or dust in his vicinity. His goal is to rob banks so he can provide money to treat his terminally ill daughter. This creates a unique villain for the series, as he is not being selfish in his law breaking.
The one aspect of Sandman that I was concerned about is the slight retconning the history and making Marko responsible for the death of Peter’s uncle in the first film (a flashback reveals he was partners with the robber Peter let escape. That turned out better than I had thought it would, and in the end, Sandman and Spider-Man have a sort of heart-to-heart chat, in which Peter forgives him for his uncle’s death and he even lets Sandman go free. An interesting mutual understanding of troubled men with superpowers indeed.
Venom, however, is treated less admirably. Topher Grace plays Eddie Brock, a rival photojournalist to Peter Parker. Brock delivers seemingly incriminating photographs of Spider-Man robbing a bank, but Peter exposes his photos as fraud and Brock is fired. Later on, Brock sees Peter out on a date with Gwen Stacy, whom Brock was sweet on. This pushes him over the edge and when the symbiote attaches to him he goes on a frenzied rampage, hell bent on destroying Peter Parker and Spider-Man. This just seemed silly to me. I can see how he’d be miffed for being exposed as a phony, but the jilted lover twist was over the top.
I did some research and found that, in the comics, Brock turns evil over seemingly minor things as well. This still isn’t good enough for me though. The Green Goblin was psychotic and Doc Ock’s appendages had taken over part of his mind, so Venom needed to come about over more than just a few minor offenses. Or, the filmmakers should have shown us more of Brock’s instability, perhaps having his hatred for Peter develop over a few films instead of the first hour of this one. Also, the effects to create Venom’s toothy, grinning mouth weren’t all that great. He just didn’t look real enough. (Sandman suffered from this as well).
Speaking of visual effects, they just weren’t up to snuff this go around. There is a scene in which Harry, as the New Goblin, chases Peter Parker (sans Spidey suit) down a series of impossibly long and narrow alleys at high speed on his hover jet board. During this chase sequence the two periodically fight. There are plenty of jump cuts and fast action, leading to a lot of CGI work that failed to impress me. At times, everything on screen was computer generated, reminding me of the Smith vs. Neo CGI fest in Matrix Revolutions. I came to see a movie, not a video game, thank you. Also the flow and look of Spider-Man while swooping through the city has finally become passé. He looks to computery against a real skyline and even more fake when the skyline is digitally souped up.
Another major issue with the film is a matter of excessive goofiness. Spider-Man has always been a bit nerdy and the films have always included a dose of cheeky, silly fun, but Spider-Man 3 goes too far. Many dramatic sequences are ruined by a heavy-handed slap of silly that pulled me right out of the mood. For instance: after Mary Jane is fired from her acting gig she lands a spot as a singing cocktail waitress in a local bar. Peter (under the influence of the evil symbiote) decides to take the lovely Gwen Stacy to that bar specifically so he can rub it in MJ’s face since she dumped him not too long ago.
This scene is a brilliant concept and also kind of cliché at the same time. The fact that the symbiote is powerful enough to affect Peter’s better judgment and morality is fine too. But when Peter dons an emo/goth haircut and magically knows how to perform a saucy, naughty tango like a ballroom master, the film jumped to Ludicrous Speed. Some things just don’t belong in a Spider-Man film. A Latin dance number is one of them (but at least it’s not as bad as putting nipples on the batsuit).
I was also a little peeved about this misuse of the Gwen Stacy character. In the comics, Peter develops real feelings for her. Here, she is simply used as a piece of arm candy for revenge. Bryce Dallas Howard is both beautiful and talented as an actress and was severely misused in this film. If they do make a Spider-Man 4, I would hope they would bring her back and straighten out her role in Spidey’s world.
My final qualm is with the handling of the New Goblin. Sure, Harry has been plotting his revenge against Peter/Spidey for a while now, but it comes on so randomly in the movie it threw me off balance in a bad way. Then, as soon as it the assault starts, Harry nails his head on a pipe, leaving him with amnesia. For much of the film he gawks and smiles like a half-idiot, not remembering much from the last five years. Eventually a well-timed vision of his father (kudos to Willem Dafoe for coming back) sets him off again. But only briefly. He ends up joining sides with Spidey and sacrifices himself to stop Sandman and Venom. It’s all just a bit too chaotic and bi-polar to be very believable.
Overall, Spider-Man 3 does provide plenty of the effects and action that summer crowds tend to drool over, but it seems like the filmmakers gave up on making Spider-Man films stand apart from the rest of the summertime ilk. Spider-Man started out as a boldly smart superhero series but by this third installment, our friendly neighborhood web slinger has given in to convention. Comic books fans will find it more enjoyable than most due to the enormous amount of allusions to events and people from the comics, but for us regular folk, it’s a lukewarm melodrama with too much going on.
You’d think that there is nowhere to go but up with a potential sequel on the distant horizon, but I seriously have my doubts if a Spider-Man 4 could rise from the ashes of this marginally disappointing tale.
I absolutely love M. Night Shyamalan’s work as a director and a writer. His films have all been intriguing and well made, so I was dismayed when I heard so much negative press about this film. The critical consensus was that Lady in the Water was a dud and an ‘exercise in arrogance and self-indulgence’ on Shyamalan’s part. I went into this film with mixed feelings, hoping that one of the more brilliant filmmakers of our time hadn’t truly blown it.
Fortunately, he hasn’t. I can see why people may not have been impressed with Lady in the Water, as it is a departure from Shyamalan’s twist ending thrill fests. Yet I see no reason for the critics and moviegoers to slam the director in the way they did. It seems to me that most critics responded with viciousness to Shyamalan’s depiction of a film critic character as a cold, unfeeling jerk who thinks he knows everything. It was tongue-in-cheek and I got a good laugh out of it, because it is in fact largely true. Film critics, for the most part, do not live in this plane of reality. Something about film school and “proper training” ups the ego on some of these folks, and it is apparent that many of them couldn’t take a joke.
As for the movie, it isn’t as good as any of Shyamalan’s previous major releases (though I have yet to watch Unbreakable). That much is true. But it’s not bad, and I shudder to declare it Shyamalan’s worst film. I look at it as his weakest film, because I still enjoyed it. It’s based off of a bedtime story Shyamalan wrote for his children, but this version is more detailed and more frightening than the bedtime version.
As it is based off a bedtime story, intended for children, Shyamalan takes a unique approach by moving the players and events of the story in the same manner of innocence, naïveté and simplicity that story book characters always possess. This means that the viewer has to figure out that they should be approaching Lady in the Water with a sort of childlike view, hearkening back to the fairy tales and Disney movies that filled our younger days. It’s challenging, because people are used to these kinds of stories being animated kid stuff. The live action adult actors and PG-13 setting makes you want to assume it’s supposed to be a standard-issue thriller. However, if you are able to put yourself into the proper and intended mindset, you will get this film.
So I guess I shouldn’t be surprised to see how many people are incapable of thinking like a kid again, now that the current generation of computer animated “kids” films incorporates adult humor so the parents don’t have to think like a kid again to enjoy it. It’s really kind of sad. The story is about a water nymph who is on a mission to meet someone, but whom exactly she does not know. Once meeting this person their life will change and they accomplish great things, leading to future restoration of the long-severed ties between human and water nymphs. The nymph in question happens upon a troubled apartment superintendent. He and eventually many of the folk living in the apartment complex end up being players in the puzzle to allow the nymph to accomplish her task and return home.
Shyamalan took heat from critics because he plays the important character the nymph is supposed to meet. I thought he was fine in the part, because while the character is important in the grand scheme of things beyond the end of the film, he doesn’t really do much during the course of the film. Shyamalan wouldn’t have been a fit for any of the other supporting cast and it makes sense for him to play a struggling writer trying to make sense of his place in the world. Critics just need to lighten up.
The visuals are decent, though there is some not-so-good-looking CGI involved. The biggest problem is that the action is all confined to one set piece- the apartment complex. We’re trapped there, and never get the sense that there is a world outside of this one, but that is also part of the storybook nature of it all. When all is said and done, my appreciation for Shyamalan is still strong. With Lady in the Water he dares to be different. While many critics and moviegoers couldn’t appreciate his craft, I could.
