Reviews

When Spider-Man came out I was pleased to see that Sam Raimi handled the superhero story competently and delivered one of the better superhero films. Then he went above and beyond and gave us Spider-Man 2 which is a good candidate for the best superhero movie ever. The first Spider-Man gave us the line 'with great power, comes great responsibility' which was a good foundation for what the film was about. Spider-Man 2 had some much better and more thought-out themes - what is important in life, ambition, suffering. Sam Raimi had set the bar pretty high for anyone who wished to make a superhero movie. Apparently the bar was too high for even Raimi.

Everything that was special about the first two Spider-Man's seems to have been taken for granted in Spider-Man 3. I loved some of the humorous border-line gags that were present; they did a wonderful job of showing Spidey's pain and dedication and they certainly helped relieve some the dramatic tensions. But here, Raimi doesn't even take the characters seriously to begin with. Nearly every scene has some kind of cheap joke or reference that has you scratching your head. When Peter Parkers starts becoming more aggressive from the black goo Raimi never scares us or makes Peter even remotely threatening. Instead, it's a joke. We see Peter strutting down the street, acting cocky with a swagger that looks more pathetic than tempting. I understand that whole 'it's good to be bad' dynamic that Raimi is going for, but have some respect for the audience, geez. I would have been excited to see an angry, menacing Peter Parker for a few minutes and that would have made it all the more dramatic when he bounces back as a good-guy. Instead it leaves you groaning.

The script has managed to make every single character as one-note as possible. We've seen all these actors before, and they have had impressive roles, but here they are hollow. Dunst gets to be mopey and whiny, Franco gets to be a grinning doofus, Howard is pretty and nice. Part of that is Raimi's fault for reducing every scene to it's basics. You know you're in trouble when James Cromwell gives a poor performance. Maguire is passable as Spidey, but he too has very little to work with. The theme of revenge is there, but it's never touched upon in a convincing manner and so Maguire manages to pout, and cry and get angry - but never to any effect.

And that is what leads me to Spider-Man 3's biggest downfall. The Sandman. Ugh. Nothing against Thomas Haden Church - it's a good performance considering what little he had to work with. But there is nothing to the character. There is so little in fact that story elements from the first film are re-introduced just to give us something more about him. Other than that this guy is robbing banks to get money for his sick daughter...that's it. Considering that Spider-man was up against Harry and Venom, did we really need this extra stuff? The effects are some of the best I have ever seen in, but that doesn't make up for the feeling that this character is just filler.

Then we get to the good stuff; Venom. After watching an hour and a half of obnoxious characters and poor writing Raimi delivers a knockout scene in a church where we are introduced to Venom. It's a dark, violent scene and it's what Spider-Man 3 needed. Sadly it only lasts a bit and we're back to the standard damsel in distress/take on the villains finale that is so overblown and hokey - it's painful to watch.

Spider-Man 3 makes it very clear that everyone in the world loves Spidey. It is shoved down our throats so much - complete with a Spider-Man parade and a shot of Spider-Man oh-so patriotic in front of the flag - that the contrast would have been very effective. It would have taken some skill (and balls) to pull off a dangerous, evil Spider-Man and make us root for him still. But Raimi is never up to the task and as a result Spider-Man 3 is full of jokes...making it one big mediocre joke.

Raimi never has his eye on what matters. He is more interested in noisy/chaotic action scenes and poorly conceived attempts at humor than he is at developing characters and themes. I would have loved to have Sandman eliminated entirely from the film and just have Peter Parker explore his inner demons - and give more screen time to Venom. He manages to under-use every good thing about the Spider-Man 3, and give us way too much of everything that is filler.

It would be a shame to end the series on this low-point. Here's to hoping that Raimi acknowledges his mistakes and gives us a better (not bigger) Spider-Man 4.

The video box for 'Joyride' says "starring second generation superstars", and one can't help but feel sad. Granted, Melanie Griffith has gone on to bigger and better things...but who cares about the rest of the cast? So with that being the pathetic attention grabber on the box I was foolish enough to purchase the film for a dollar thinking I would be in the land of 'so-bad-they're-good 70's films' Eh, not so much. While so many aimless 70's youth films (or plain ol' 70's films for that matter) tried so hard to say something deep and meaningful, 'Joyride' doesn't even try. It's just aimless. It is devoid of any interest whatsoever. Each character is so poorly conceived that it's no wonder these actors look so listless.

In a nutshell the movie is about three 20-somethings who go to Alaska to start a business, but instead get robbed and then have to find work. They get beat up, eat dog food, steal cars, rob banks. It's all very typical but on top of that it's executed in the most mundane way possible. There are no surprises and the flow is so bad, and the actions of the characters so ambiguous that you can miss several scenes and not mind at all.

But if you're a fan of Melanie Griffith's breasts - then this is a must-see. That's still not enough to get this above the lowest rating I can give.

Best Line: "Jesus, everything is biology with you." * out of ****

It's easy to see why American Dreamz flopped when it was released last year. It was marketed as an 'American Idol' film where the President makes an appearance. The 'American Idol' fans aren't going to dish out ten bucks to see a fake Kelly Clarkson when they can see the real Kelly Clarkson for free in the comfort of their home. Not to mention that politics and teen-movies don't always mix – see 'Dick (1999)' which flopped big time too. That's to say nothing of how good the movie is, but man it must be hard to market a movie like this! With that said; I had very low expectations for American Dreamz. But, I also had no idea what to expect. And while I struggled through the first twenty minutes after seeing what Hugh Grant would do as a Simon Cowell-type and watching Dennis Quaid pull off a quasi-GW Bush impression I found myself getting comfortable shortly after. This credit is due to Paul Weitz who manages to strike a good comic tone early on and never stray from it, even when things could get a little more severe. Take for instance a plot line involving an sincere and aloof Arab terrorist who comes to the states and by accident is entered into the American Dreamz contest, only to have his mission be to blow up the Prez on live television. A lesser comedy would have made the character an outright villain, but Weitz sees comedy in this and makes him the funniest character in the film – and the most real. That's right – the most real and moral person in the film is a terrorist in training. Bravo, American Dreamz for having the balls to pull that off right! I think many people will find mostly characitures here; not characters. I was concerned at first too, but the problem with characters like these is that most everyone is slimy and underhanded – it's hard to make you care about them. Bad people are often perceived as one-note, but as the film progresses even the minor characters are so dead-on (albeit exaggerated sometimes) that they are effective and credible, even if they are totally immoral. American Dreamz manages to hit upon almost every element of what's wrong with the United States and it's culture – and it's damn funny too. It's no wonder that a film like this didn't find an audience. But, if you're open to it, it's a little lite, goofy satire that manages to pull off a few little twisted moments here and there. *** out of ****

The original title of the film was going to be 'Sexual Perversity in Chicago' from David Mamet's stage play that this is based on, and the name change is understandable. Sexual Perversity is an intriguing name but it's also a bit too harsh. My biggest guess as to why the name was changed is because the film itself is nowhere near as intelligent or perceptive as a film with that risky a title should have.

About Last Night explores the meeting of 20-something's Demi Moore and Rob Lowe and their relationship that follows. Moore is an advertising executive just getting out of a relationship with her boss. Lowe is working in a warehouse that ships restaurant goods. They meet during a baseball game and then again at a bar. Lowe invited Moore back to her place and they have sex and fall for each other, blah blah blah. Lowe's best friend (James Belushi) doesn't like this 'broad' - a phrase spoken constantly throughout; and Moore's roommate (Elizabeth Perkins) - is a cold hearted, selfish, cry-baby.

Yes, that whole synopsis was mundane for a reason. About Last Night is not an interesting movie. We've seen how relationships form and progress and fall apart - so what does this film have to offer that's fresh and new? Well it's certainly not perspective. What we get are four young actors who whine, shout at each other, deliver bad one liners, and plain aggravate the audience.

Who cheers for these people? There is no intelligence to these characters as in a scene when Lowe starts yelling at Moore because she won't throw her tampons away which 1 minute later results in Moore storming out of the apartment. Who acts like this?! Granted, I'm sure there is an audience for this movie as it currently has a 5.8 rating. I myself found no redeeming qualities in the characters, their actions, or in the film itself.

I'm sure there are people out there in the world who act this petty and childish - but it's awfully hard to put up with these people for so long. The film itself clocks in just shy of two hours. There are not one, not two, but SIX montages. Including;

The 'We're falling in love!' montage.

The 'We're moving in together!' montage.

The 'Our relationship is becoming deep and meaningful and full of sex clips' montage.

The 'I'm Robe Lowe and where did I go wrong?' montage.

There are two more. But I don't want to give away too much, although I'm sure most of you will be able to pick up on every little thing that will happen plot-wise after the first twenty minutes.

And for those of you who have seen About Last Night there are many scenes that had me scratching my head saying "Why is THIS scene in the movie?"...The scene with Elizabeth Perkins reading to the children in her kindergarten class and then discussing sex briefly...That scene is just plain awful. Enough to make me see what other horrific moments this film would put me through. An excruciatingly annoying film filled with repellent characters. Lowe and Moore are pretty to look at, and if that does it for you, rent it. If not, avoid at all costs.

There's not denying that Bernardo Bertulucci is a talented filmmaker. There's proof of that with 'The Last Tango in Paris' and 'The Conformist'. There's no denying that Robert DeNiro is a terrific actor. There's proof of that with 'Taxi Driver' and 'Mean Streets'. There's no denying that a film with a running time of nearly 4 hours can be astounding. There's proof of that with 'Lawrence of Arabia' and 'Gone With the Wind.' So why is it that '1900' manages to make one doubt each of those points? How is it that a film of such oppressive length can have so little to say? How can a fine, Oscar-winning actor like DeNiro totally botch up a performance of this caliber? To know the answer you'll have to park yourself in front of a TV for a good portion of the day and watch a big mess of a movie.

There are many memorable moments in '1900' but not enough to sustain a 4 hour plus movie. I think Bertolucci knows this because he decides to put in a few shocking scenes just to spark our interest once in a while. There's a scene where two young boys examine each others genitals. There's a scene where a prostitute masturbates both DeNiro and Depardieu. There's a scene of a pig graphically being ripped apart. Why? Because the story is so thin and the points so familiar that this is the only way we'll endure this long, tiresome film.

This is however a beautifully photographed movie, and the performances of both Depardieu and Sutherland are very watchable (Sutherland does go a bit overboard at times but he is still a commanding actor). But most of the good is in the first hour and a half of the movie. After that all the characters turn into statements and nothing is quite as compelling as the when the film opens.

**1/2 out of ****