411mania.com: Chad Webb

Home

SPOTLIGHTS

MOVIES/TV
// Marisa Miller and Miranda Kerr Sex Up Victoria’s Secrets Fashion Show

MUSIC
// Katy Perry's Always Sweet Cleavage

WRESTLING
// The Rock Could Host RAW In January

POLITICS
// 411 Politics RoundTable: Thoughts On The Ft. Hood Massacre

MMA
// Top 10 Possible Ultimate Fighter Coaches

BOXING
// 411 Roundtable Preview: Kessler vs. Ward

GAMES
// Top 10 Action Role Playing Games

SYNDICATE

411mania RSS Feeds

Follow 411mania on Twitter!

Add 411 On Facebook

411mania » The 411 » Chad Webb

Picture:
Name:	Chad Webb
Email:	chipdiamond@hotmail.com
Current Roles:	Movie Zone Editor, News Columnist, Film Critic, DVD Reviewer, and host of 411mania Movies Feedback.
Past Roles:	Hosted the Top 10 B-Movies feature, the Top 5 Christmas Movies, and the Movies Roundtable.
Other credits:	Creator of "The Best Movies of the Alphabet", Straight to Video Nightmares, and Nether Regions.
Quote:	"Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in getting up every time we do." --Confucius
History:	Chad applied to be a writer at 411mania after his friends suggested he be a film critic. Since he displayed his brief thoughts on new releases in his AIM away messages for friends, Chad joined 411 and had no trouble fitting in. Having this position has been great, and has given him an excuse to finally leave the criminal justice field for something ten times better.

Blog

Buttons, Goats, Humbugs, and a Late Education... - 11.14.2009

The Box - This is Richard Kelly's third strike, and in my book, he's out. I've never been a fan of Kelly's work. I think each of his films ultimately suffers from the same problem. They rely on confusing the audience to win praise. Kelly leaves just enough plot holes and includes just enough perplexing elements that few will end up understanding all that occurred. People defend it so intensely because they don't understand it. That's not good filmmaking, it's lazy. I have the same problems with some of David Lynch's efforts. It is possible to make a complex film that one cannot understand fully during the first sitting. However, the goal of the filmmaker is to convince the viewer that he had a specific plan and intention in mind for every aspect. Charlie Kaufman is a master at this. That is not the case with Richard Kelly. I honestly don't think he knows why he includes half the absurd ingredients he does. The first hour of The Box sets up a nifty and gripping thriller. As I sat there, I thought "Damn, I'm gonna end up liking this." I thought that too soon because Kelly throws that monkey wrench in there, and like a house of cards, it all collapses onto itself. What a shame. An intriguing premise is ruined because of Kelly's inability to craft an accessible piece of work. He does have talent, but he has yet to prove to me that his films deserve respect. He has a knack for establishing chemistry with actors that I never thought would possess it as a pair. One of the few enjoyments of Southland Tales was that the Rock and Sarah Michelle Gellar worked well together. The same can be said of James Marsden and Cameron Diaz, who lend wonderful performances. Frank Langella is also terrific as Arlington Steward, and his CGI face looks appropriately computerized and creepy (especially from the side). I discovered from a Q&A after the film that The Box contains a hefty portion of autobiographical portions from Kelly's life, and you can tell what those are if you look closely because that material is effective. The foot deformity, the relationship of the family, and the child’s involvement all seem organic. Unfortunately, Kelly thinks he must add his spin on an already riveting story, and that almost totally devastates things. He includes a lot of weird scenes with liquid, and a pool acts as a portal of some sort. He calls that the super swimming pool. That was his name for it. The end tries to redeem what happened previously, but when you think about it all, Kelly's sci-fi additions did not need to be there at all. If we were only supposed to end up at the final image, why did he tack on all that nonsensical sci-fi? He also has a way with music. The score is provided by members of the superb band Arcade Fire, and many of the songs that play naturally during the storyline are well placed. He said he wanted to make a Hitchcockian thriller, which makes me laugh because this was a total failure in that regard. I think people give Richard Kelly way too much credit and assume he is so smart, but I'm here to tell you that is not the case. Final Rating = 5.0/10.0

The Men Who Stare at Goats - This comedy was marketed in a most brilliant way. They made this seem like it was a comedy from the Coen brothers. In truth, it is far from that because the humor here does not possess the intelligence, the edge, or the timing that the Coens usually provide. Quickly you realize that what sounded like a genius premise on paper is a failure in execution because it is S-T-U-P-I-D. You're watching, and it hits you like a ton of bricks. This is lame. What goes on has no point, and a plot with no point does not necessarily mean it will be poor, but in this case, it is. That can go either way. Aside from a lack of meaning, the jokes are interchangeable, as if they are distracting us from the fact that the main story has no trajectory. It reminded me of Family Guy in this way, which is funny on occasion, but from a writing standpoint, it is weak. A handful of sequences induce chuckles, but not nearly enough. There is no witty way to criticize this film. Most of it is just plain and simply not funny. Plus, much of the time, Director Grant Heslov is unsure on what type of humor he wants to focus on. You have one-liners, slapstick, screwball, and even some dark stuff, and none of it really sticks. George Clooney has inherent comedic abilities, but they are not taken advantage of here. His character should be fascinating, but he's not. How true the story is, I do not know, or care, but watching Ewan McGregor follow this loony around without ever questioning him is silly and retarded. McGregor tries really hard here, but seems lost because the script is unbalanced. Jeff Bridges plays a character that is more like The Love Guru than the Dude (from The Big Lebowski), which is certainly what the studio wanted us to think. I almost feel sorry for Bridges. Kevin Spacey can be very funny at times, but he is bogged down with a cartoonish villain role. One scene has him talking about how much he loves Twizzlers, but it means nothing. He just says that for no reason. This is Heslov's mainstream debut, but he does have some other directorial credits. I got the feeling he was relying on the talented cast to win over the audience with their status rather than supplementing that with smart writing and adept timing. This shows you need a strong General behind the scenes controlling the troops, and Heslov is not that at all. I was shocked when I saw the running time because it felt as if it dragged so slowly. The ageless music from Boston does not belong here. The best parts were Clooney's non lethal weapon and the bit of trivia on how most soldiers do not shoot to kill, but other than that, this is a gigantic letdown, and it has one of the worst final scenes of the year. Final Rating = 4.5/10.0

A Christmas Carol - We have seen well over 50 adaptations of the story by Charles Dickens. So many different thespians have thrown their hats into the ring to play Ebenezer Scrooge, and I am sure many more will in the future. The best version will always be the 1951 adaptation starring Alistair Sim, but this time Robert Zemeckis tackles the tale with Jim Carrey as Scrooge, and many other characters, including the ghosts. Zemeckis reunites with Disney for the first time since Who Framed Roger Rabbit?. This is also in 3D, which I cannot avoid since my nearest theater now uses it. Luckily Zemeckis understands 3D as good, if not better than, everyone else. The 3D was a nice bonus here, but not needed. Zemeckis infuses this universe with brilliant visuals, and his motion capture technology has a come a long way. If you see this and still complain about the eyes, then this technology just isn't for you because it looks outstanding here. What makes the Zemeckis spin on Scrooge a bit different is not just the visuals, but the attention to action, which is the primary focus. Each visit with a spirit is filled some truly spectacular and thrilling sequences such as a tour through Scrooge's childhood village, a Heavenly scan of the town in a floating room, and finally a creepy glimpse at his grave. The action mixes with the drama very well. Zemeckis knows that he must lay the ground work so we despise Scrooge before his journey. When his experiences are over with the spirits, it really makes the happy ending a lot funnier. Since this is Jim Carrey, you will have some humor, but not an excessive amount. Carrey disappears into each character, especially Scrooge, and his trademark shtick is not the focus. Carrey is perfect for Scrooge. He has the quirky mannerisms, the frame, and the face. Normally the part is given to any old actor, but Carrey is easily one of the best in the role. Gary Oldman is a wonderful Bob Cratchet, Colin Firth is solid as Scrooge's nephew, and you also have Bob Hoskins, Robin Wright Penn, and Cary Elwes in multiple roles each. Zemeckis takes this classic story and injects his masterful visual touch that really makes it stand out. This is a haunting, riveting, and even moving film that I greatly enjoyed. It's not perfect. The ghosts are bizarre, and I'm not sure how positive or negative that is. This is not an emotionally charged drama, but it does have some poignant areas. The most important goal was to make sure this version was distinctive and memorable apart from the rest, and Zemeckis succeeds, while also supplying an entertaining effort for the holidays. Final Rating = 8.0/10.0

An Education - What we have here is a performance movie. If the acting was half as good, An Education would have come and gone with barely any recognition. The plot is formulaic, and in the end, everything wraps up nice and tidy. It is this familiar structure that prevents the film from achieving anything close to a four-star status, but in truth, I enjoyed watching An Education from start to finish because the efforts of the cast were so immersive and exemplary. Carey Mulligan is a sensation as Jenny, wonderfully sinking into this coming-of-age tale. A little spunk can go a long way, and Mulligan takes that ball and sprints with it. Jenny is smart as a whip, and is not afraid to talk back to her folks, but she is a child at heart. That is crucial so we believe it when she is drawn in by David. Peter Sarsgaard is an under appreciated talent who occasionally chooses mediocre scripts that fail to accentuate his strengths. That is not an issue here as David is one hell of a smooth operator, and Sarsgaard turns the charm way up so the viewer can be seduced by him as well. The other notable performance is from Alfred Molina, grabbing a thin father role and making it a three-dimensional, profound, and towering piece of work from an actor that is customarily a joy to watch. Cara Seymour, Dominic Cooper, Sally Hawkins, Emma Thompson, Olivia Williams, and Rosamund Pike are all solid in their supporting capacities, but it is the top three who give the picture its power. John de Borman’s cinematography, Odile Dicks-Moreaux’s costume design, Andrew McAlpine’s production design, Ben Smith’s art direction, and Anna-Lynch Robinson’s set decoration are all so exquisitely detailed, vivid, and magnificent. The hard work those men and women put forth are important because it all augments the mediocre premise. That does not mean Director Lone Scherfig goes without credit. She captures the nuances of the time and place marvelously, which are important to the story in more ways than one. She also does a superb job of shaping the acting. Mulligan is exactly the sort of actress that should have a long and healthy career. The buzz surrounding her contribution is to the point where it is not too intense, nor too weak. The use of jazz and French music is adept, and to distract us from the obvious twists and turns concerning David, the film glides under a very optimistic guise throughout the running time. When a person like David sweeps you off your feet, one must face this statement: “If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.” Unfortunately Jenny doesn’t do that, and it’s a situation we’ve seen many times previously. The characters must be gullible, but remain so on a level that does not seem ridiculous to the audience. For the most part, An Education succeeds in this area. It is a fun little film where merely relishing in the performances is satisfying enough. Mulligan’s Jenny is the center, and she shines bright enough for a recommendation. Final Rating = 8.0/10.0

Wild Things, Dynamite, Flying Females, and MJ... - 11.10.2009

Michael Jackson's This Is It - If you ask me, this was exactly what it needed to be. Kenny Ortega focuses on the music, the dancing, and the stage presence of Jackson instead of delving into his personal life, which was beaten to death by the media. I'm also glad he never addresses the death because I did not pay a ticket to see a funeral. This was a celebration and tribute to his music and what he gave the world. This is a standard and fairly straightforward concert movie, and that's what I enjoyed about it. If people label it merely a “Making of”, I’d agree, and say that can still be fascinating. It's not the first film to take this approach, and it won't be the last. Considering how this man was dragged through the mud in the media for so many years, it is a good thing it stuck to the music. I mean, we've heard so much about him, his quirks, and his death that if you paid a ticket wanting to hear about that stuff, then you should have flipped on the TV during all those endless weeks of coverage. I feel that veering off into other areas of his life would have distracted us from the importance of his music and infused a more depressing mood. It would have been too morbid. It also would have opened up a can of worms, which I feel would have been tough to control.

Here we have a performer who is not frail, sickly, or on his last leg. Here we have a man who is filled with energy, passion, and a strong heart for putting on the best possible show for his fans. I don't think this should serve as a surprise. If it does, then the media fooled you like they did many others. You do not get to be the "King of Pop" by being an idiot. Michael Jackson is revealed to be a perfectionist that was highly intelligent when it concerned his shows and his music. I think we saw a lot in watching him work behind the scenes, and as a result, many memorable moments were formed. My favorite two were the "Smooth Criminal" opening sequence with Rita Hayworth and Humphrey Bogart, which was very cool. Jackson and Ortega were prepared to use a lot of neat videos for the concert that would have made the live experience fabulous. The other moment I cherished was watching Jackson sing "I'll be There" from his Jackson 5 days, and profess his love to his parents and brothers. That was a touching moment and the fact that he was ready to sing songs from that era is wonderful. The interviews of the crew members gushing over working with him were fine and well placed, and I think This Is It leaves you with the best image of Jackson, standing in the spotlight soaking in the admiration from his fans.

Many critics who were not enthused have made statements like "Fans will love this, and non fans will see this as a dress rehearsal for bad songs." Duh. Way to state the obvious. Why would non-fans want to see this anyway? It makes no sense. The only things I think would have helped this is what made the previous concert films great which is a full arena of fans. It would have been terrific if Ortega had interviews with Jackson I guess, but it's hard to criticize the film for that because he...you know, he died. So it is impossible to have a Tyson like portrait. If we had seen interviews with others discussing his personal life and so forth it would have ended up being precisely what we all bitched about in the media, which is another gossip rag about a misunderstood individual. As it stands, this will be remembered as a superb document to Jackson's talent, the fact that he could still go right up until the end, and the fact that 10 years from now, no one will care about anything except the music because that is ageless. The rumors and theories will fade away. Final Rating = 8.5/10.0

Amelia - One of the reasons Martin Scorsese’s The Aviator worked so well is because we left the theater really feeling as if we got to know Howard Hughes. It had style, but it was also about character. In Amelia, Director Mira Nair chooses style over substance and the result is that this film does not make the same wise decisions that Scorsese and company did. This biopic is way too cautious and basically sticks to the cold hard facts, which may work for some people, but it struck me as the Wikipedia version of the Amelia Earhart story. Hillary Swank gives a solid performance as the titular figure. I say solid, but not Oscar worthy for sure. She is good, and possesses Amelia’s looks and passion for flying adeptly. I would even say Swank brings the little depth to the person that exists in the movie. Nair is more interested in beaches and breathtaking vistas, or close-ups of sensitive touches on the ear lobe and so forth. Richard Gere is George Putnam and Ewan McGregor is Gene Vidal, and both are fine, but are not given enough meat to sink their teeth into. Gere is probably the better of the two because Amelia was married to him, and also pulled most of the strings in her career. The costumes, set decoration, art direction, etc. were all spectacular, but in focusing on that side of the filmmaking, Nair missed what counts. This skims over the most important and potentially engaging facets of Amelia’s life. For instance: her status during the Depression, her recklessness, and how some viewed her more as a celebrity than a pilot. These are referenced, but it does not go beyond mere mentioning. I know a fair amount about Amelia Earhart, and one of the goals of a biopic is to teach the viewer something. This fails to do that, and as a matter of fact, the Unsolved Mysteries special on her was more educational and riveting, but then again, that had Robert Stack. Nair elects to start with her final flight and visit her life via flashbacks, which was unnecessary. You also have black & white news footage laced in reminiscent to the way they handled it in The Babe with John Goodman. This aim here seems to be conveying a dreamlike quality to her life instead of delving under the surface, and that left me very disappointed. I felt as if I didn’t need to really see this movie at all. I have most of the same questions about her that I did before paying for the ticket. The biggest thing for me was the ending, and how they dealt with it. We all know she’s dead, but how did she die? I hated the way it was done here, regardless of some cool photos of the real Amelia, which only highlight Swank’s performance. Hollywoodland was not a perfect film, but it took a chance at showing us all the theories on how George Reeves died. Amelia took no risks, and had no extra flair to speak of, which makes it plain and forgettable. Final Rating = 5.0/10.0

Where the Wild Things Are - Reviews for this film seem to be polarized. Some are very passionate, while others were turned off. First I will say any talk of "honoring" the book is silly because the book is 338 words long. Being faithful is not an issue. This picture did nothing for me. I was surprised because I never expected to leave with that reaction. I've glanced at quite a few reviews, and many make mention of who the target audience is, and that you need to look beneath the surface to grasp things. Honestly, I do not think the target demographic is young kids. I think it is fans of the book, but that is another story. The insinuation that there is more here than what we see on the surface is ridiculous. Nothing happens in this movie. Let's call it what it is: A bunch of kids playing around. The "wild things" are "kids" just like Max, and that should not be a shock. Furthermore, there was no connection with Max, or any of the other characters for that matter. I wanted to feel for Max by the time he was with the "wild things", and I didn't. He's a regular kid, but I hadn't yet formed a bond with him. The most important factor though is the story. Yes, this film has a lot of imagination, and yes a few sequences looked great, but I'll say again, nothing happens. Sometimes, not having a point can work with sharp dialogue and minor sub-plots, but in this case, Max messes around with the "wild things" and goes home. This is Director Spike Jonze's first film since 2002. He is known for his visually impressive efforts, and initially this is eye-opening, but it doesn't change much from the tans and browns. It was too bland, and I expected more. Leonard Maltin said "They focus on atmosphere and emotion", which is half true. The atmosphere is definitely the concern, but the reach doesn't extend much farther. One criticism I had upon viewing the trailer was the voice cast, but in truth, I got used to that quick. You recognize James Gandolfini's voice, and a few others, but they disappear into the bizarre costumes quickly. And let's say you've seen this and disagree with my points. The final one in my mind is irrefutable, which is that the film drags, and seems dull. They have taken super short book and made it into a 1 hour and 45 minute film. Max Records, Catherine Keener, and Mark Ruffalo do fine in terms of acting. Records has no trouble acting like a kid, but it was Spike Jonze's job to make us respect him, and I do not think he succeeded. Some might say this has a Dark Crystal vibe in terms of creepiness, but that movie had a coherent story. I sincerely believe that they want this to be a hit with kids instead of adults. This was a major disappointment for me, and it is receiving a lot of awards buzz, and if it is nominated for Best Picture, it will be the most boring movie since The English Patient. Final Rating = 5.5/10.0

Black Dynamite - This is not the first spoof of the blaxploitation genre. Other films have tried to do it in various ways. I didn't care for Undercover Brother, and I certainly didn't care for Pootie Tang, but I absolutely loved this movie. A Serious Man tackled Jewish humor, and now this focuses on black humor, which was an odd two-week comedy transition, but both are hysterical. Michael Jai White co-wrote the screenplay, and stars as the titular character. His career has been a series of ups and downs with B-movies, television, and the occasional mainstream film. This will be one of his most popular roles. I'm going to try and not spoil too much of the film because I really want everyone to experience it for themselves. It does help if you've seen a few blaxploitation movies to pick up on some of the more subtle jokes. I could not stop laughing. This blends satirical comedy with action, while at the same time, leaving you with a feeling that makes you want to see more blaxploitation films. The costumes from Ruth E. Carter, the production design from Denise Pizzini, and the set decoration from Antonia Nunez are so faithful to the spirit of thos cheesy films it’s like jumping in a time machine. The grainy picture, rough staging, and accurate music from Adrian Younge help too. If it seems like the film is making a mistake, it does so intentionally, which is a key thing to remember when watching this. It has some of the best names for characters in quite some time with Cream Corn, Tasty Freeze, and Sweet Blackmeat to name a few. To be honest, if I tried to explain some of the funny sequences, I wouldn't do them justice, so I won't. Many people have said this wouldn't have been made without Tarantino's Grind House, but I disagree with that. Plus, this is different. It contains every racial slur you can think of, some neat cameos, and even an animated sequence. This was directed by Scott Sanders, and it is not his first film, but he does an outstanding job taking blending nostalgia with entertainment. The camera movements, the gritty style, and the editing are all just right for this movie. Do yourself a favor and see this. Final Rating = 9.0/10.0

And we're rolling... - 05.24.2007

We live in a world nowadays where blockbusters are torn apart and scrutinized beyond belief by the internet community. It has become more difficult than ever before to hide plot details, character appearances, and other secrets. Every fanboy with a computer has the ability to travel the forums and message boards and type away his thoughts. He is able to spill his guts on some of the most anticipated movies of the year. Comic book adaptations are the primary victims of this situation, and no other superhero better fits as an example than Spider-Man. For months upon months, the public has been reading articles, and admiring pictures of Spider-Man 3. Rumors have flown, and behind the scenes gossip has been divulged. Little was not known when this sequel arrived. Nonetheless, Sam Raimi’s critically acclaimed box office behemoth is one of the most disappointing films of 2007.

What is my opinion though? I am only an internet critic. Not counting mainstream critics, thousands of other loyal followers have posted and written about their thoughts. How do we separate and organize everyone’s reviews? Truth be told, my views might not be any more reliable or intelligent than the rest, but I refuse to hold back. Here we go, a blunt and relentless take on this third installment. I realize that the millions of people who adore this franchise are extremely passionate and defensive about any and all harsh comments directed towards our web slinging friend, but reality must set in at some point. Spider-Man 3 is bad. Plain and simple. I respect those who admit it is cheesy, but shrug off the disapproval and maintain that, to them it was entertaining, but to outright defend it at all costs will only result is a battle that cannot be won.

Explaining the storyline could be as lengthy as a standard review on its own. Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) is one fortunate soul these days. After pushing aside the events that unfolded in Spider-Man 2, the city of New York absolutely loves his alter ego of Spider-Man. He is everywhere, on billboards, in newspapers, and in the hearts of children. Spidey is even going to be awarded the key to the city. In the meantime, Peter is preparing to propose to his girlfriend, Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst). Of course, this bliss cannot last too long. Since Peter is so wrapped up with being a hero and all, he is unaware of MJ’s problems regarding her theater career. Peter’s popularity has overshadowed MJ’s universe. In addition, when Spider-Man is seen taking a smooch from Gwen Stacy, Parker’s lab partner, MJ cannot handle it, and demands time apart. As for his status at the Daily Bugle, Peter’s position is being threatened by a cocky new photographer by the name of Eddie Brock.

What would a comic book extravaganza be without villains? Harry Osborne has finally decided to get revenge due to the death of his father Norman. His fury is halted when he receives a devastating head wound in a skirmish with Spider-Man. His amnesia prevents him from remembering his unadulterated hatred for Parker/Spidey. At the same time, a convict named Flint Marko is discovered to be Uncle Ben’s real killer. Marko has his own issues though. As an escapee from prison, he immediately tries to visit his daughter, but his ex-wife does not want him spending too much time near the house. While fleeing from authorities, he winds up in a plant, and gets trapped in a pit that displaces his molecules, and turns him into a creature that is half sand and half human. Finally, Parker is oblivious to the fact that a mysterious black substance has landed on Earth, and attaches to Peter one night in bed.

Whew! I’m out of breath already. I don’t know where to start. The black goo from space is called a symbiote. It changes the color of Spider-Man’s disguise to black and grey, instead of blue and red. It increases his powers, but alters his mood and attitude. Peter turns into a darker, self-absorbed prick. One would think that Raimi and company would execute this makeover wonderfully. What occurs is one of the most annoying sequences of the film. Peter struts down the street snapping his fingers, dancing, and acting like a fool in a jazz club. This was equivalent to the pointless chocolate cake scene in Spider-Man 2. What the hell were they thinking here? Some may say the intention was comedy. Ok, were you laughing because the entire theater erupted and you got sucked into the atmosphere, or were you laughing because it was legitimately humorous? It was funny for 2 seconds, and then they went overboard, way overboard where he impersonates John Travolta in Saturday Night Fever, Jim Carrey in The Mask, plays the piano, and all sorts of silly gyrations. Wasn't he supposed to be menacing and evil? I don't care how cool he tries to be. I was waiting for a disturbed Spidey, and instead he turned his geek meter up to the max.

The more I read other reviews, the more faults I found. Fellow 411 staff member George H. Sirois brought to my attention the absence of John Jameson. He is an astronaut, and in the cartoon, and maybe the comics (I don’t know), the symbiote ventured to Earth because of his mission. He was not even mentioned in this sequel. The black stuff flies toward our planet on a meteor, and just happens to land right near Peter and MJ in a forest. This is what I refer to as an “eye-rolling scene.” My guess is Jameson will remerge in Spider-Man 4, but one never knows for sure.

Aunt May, played by with top notch dullness by Rosemary Harris, is still the smartest person of this entire group. I am sick and damn tired of her monotonous, Full House type speeches to Peter. She still plays this aggravating game where she might know his identity, and she might not. Boy oh boy, I need to learn from Aunt May’s wisdom. I wish I had an aunt that knew exactly the right words to say to me whenever something was going wrong in my life. Give me a break.

The three main characters of Peter, Mary Jane, and Harry are not just running, but sprinting in circles. Tobey Maguire has always been relatively convincing as Spider-Man/Peter Parker. He is a dork, and Maguire accurately and comically exposes that personality. On the other hand, I can only deal with so much absurdity and nerdiness. Take the moment where he is watching the citizens of New York worshipping Spider-Man. Like a little school girl, he giddily exclaims “They love me!” Spider-Man 3 has also confirmed how stupid Peter really is. He loves MJ, and wants to marry her, but what man, who has all these benefits, would want the woman portrayed here? Moreover, when Peter and Gwen lock lips at the “key to the city” ceremony, he already knows MJ is watching him. Only an immature middle school student would be so ignorant of their companion’s feelings. Was he really striving to impress the crowd, or is he just an idiot?

Kirsten Dunst is almost torturous as Mary Jane. It isn’t just that she looks miserable performing on screen, but the character is painful to endure. She is a whiny, cold, and unattractive woman who flip-flops constantly between Harry and Peter. This is a girl who has no clue what she wants, yet has no quandaries toying with the emotions of her two boys. As a man who has gone through ordeals where a girl is unable to choose between two different men (and has lost friends because of it), it is hard to believe that Peter can put up with so much vacillating and dithering. I ask you Peter, is a woman who does not know what her agenda is, really worth the effort? Plus, Gwen is hotter. Dunst has one nice scene as MJ, and that is when she sings in the theater. After that, it is a downhill spiral. Dunst has outgrown this role.

James Franco has completed some tremendous flops in Flyboys and Annapolis, but has shown his talent admirably in The Great Raid and Tristan and Isolde. I don’t mind Franco as Harry Osborne. He is not irritating, and he has natural charisma. It is sad then that Harry’s legs were swept out from under him with the testing amnesia angle. Look no further for proof that the plot was convoluted and stuffed to the limit. The filmmakers must have said "How can we get rid of Harry so the other enemies develop? Amnesia! Perfect." This was just retarded. Apparently, this memory loss also made Harry a kinder and more jovial person. The amount of smiling goes into overdrive. This also gives me the opportunity to make note of the other dancing scene in which MJ and Harry do the twist. I thought I was going to vomit.

Thomas Haden Church was a breath of fresh air to this ill wind. As Flint Marko, he evokes the troubled soul underneath the rough surface of this man’s exterior. His depiction is mesmerizing from the very beginning. When his body is distorted and transformed into the Sandman, the most expertly executed scene in all 140 minutes materializes. The special effects were extraordinary, the camera movement was exciting and arousing, and every second was a triumph. That ended the encouraging aspects of Sandman. His distinct effects were expressed in spurts from then on, and Mr. Marko converted into a two dimensional villain who pops in intermittently, steals money, and wreaks havoc with sand. In all honesty, the extents of his powers are never made clear, and they could have been with some slight adjustments. During the conclusion, he becomes a mix of the Stay Puffed Marshmallow Man from Ghostbusters and the shitmonster from Dogma. Although, his final declaration to Spidey was pretty touching.

Bryce Dallas Howard is stunning as Gwen Stacy. This is a character that could have easily abused, but that does not happen. Howard conveys her range brilliantly with each and every minute she is on screen. However, in order to make room for the all important dancing, Gwen has no chance to stretch her arms and show the audience how intriguing she is. Alternatively, she is found hanging and screaming from skyscrapers, when she could have been explored in depth. One of the indisputable highlights is Bruce Campbell, in a small role as a French maitre d’, but he is just hilarious. Once again, he let’s the world notice how underrated he is. J.K. Simmons also never fails to satisfy or amuse as Daily Bugle boss J. Jonah Jameson.

Topher Grace was left with the job everyone would be evaluating. As Eddie Brock, the conceited and deceitful photographer, Grace was spot on and excellent. That facet of the task was easy, but as we all know, Eddie Brock tails Peter one night as he is ridding himself of the alien symbiote. Brock is exceedingly jealous of Parker’s success and his relationship with Gwen. After the substance is ripped from Spidey, it then glues to Brock, and creates the vicious Venom, one of my favorite villains. Once he had the sharp teeth, long tongue, and overwhelming strength, it was evidence of poor miscasting. Maybe I'm crazy, but Venom is supposed to be scary in some way, but when you hear Topher Grace's voice underneath that muscular and grotesque exterior, the outcome is ridiculous and hysterical. I understand that Director Sam Raimi was pushed to insert a third foe in Venom, and maybe he should have stood his ground, but notwithstanding, this was still an enormous error.

It seems whenever I tell someone a movie exceeds the 2 hour mark; they cringe, and instantly grow hesitant on going to see it. This does not apply to everyone, and definitely is not an issue for most folks when you are referring to Spider-Man 3, which could have been 5 hours long and still raked in millions. To this reviewer, it actually felt long. Juggling the various portions was next to impossible for Raimi, hence the structure emanates a sense of multiple films crunched into one big heaping mess. Generally, the CGI was shaped with precision care, and looked beautiful, but I did notice some flashes where one could tell the computer generated image was not camouflaged or polished adequately.

Many moviegoers offer the argument that certain areas of the film were in the original comic books, and others were manipulated, and never appeared in the comics. This always agitates me. I recognize and appreciate that many prefer that a comic adaptation be true to the source material, but Spider-Man 3 is not a comic book. It is based on a comic book. Specific plot elements must be altered, for many different reasons. Additionally, if a certain scene was in the comics, it is possible that it will look bizarre or brainless. The point is that films are the duties of the director to decide what course is best. In the case of Sin City, the motion picture was faithful to graphic novel, and it was outstanding. In the case of Tim Burton’s Batman, a few key factors were changed, yet it was still extraordinary. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule, but I rarely cite closeness to the comics as a mistake. In my mind it is irrelevant.

One compliment to this sequel is the amazing fight sequences. About 90% of them were moving, captivating, and exhilarating. I thought the final showdown was a bit overdone and showy, but the rest were fantastic. Unfortunately, the close calls which require Spidey to save his women are a bit too convenient and too exaggerated. I hate to rip and tear Spider-Man 3 to shreds because Sam Raimi is the individual in the director’s chair, but I have no choice. The blemishes grow into complaints, and assemble into a tornado of justifiable faults. The minor grumbles were plentiful as well. The inevitable cameo and in-joke with Stan Lee felt forced and prolonged. The landing in front of the American flag was excessive and unnecessary. I could go on. I’m sorry, but it’s true. Raimi’s technique for this adventure was just sloppy. Perhaps he was under too much pressure, but I have to call it like I see it.

Christopher Young’s score was suitable, solid, and swelled at the appropriate time to supplement the action. The cinematography by Bill Pope was not imposing, or striking, and it could have been considering that Spider-Man can fly all over the Big Apple. Bill Murawski’s editing lacked fluidity, and was choppy in a way that the plots gave impressions of divided television episodes (as Arnold Furious stated) with an ending where all the elements just sort of run into one another head first. Sam Raimi is a much better director than he is a screenwriter. Many films on his resume reveal that. Spider-Man 3 has endless amounts of dialogue that over emotional, sappy, and melodramatic garbage. A great chunk of it comes from Kirsten Dunst. Sam was aided by Ivan Raimi and Alvin Sergeant, and in all seriousness the quality and delivery of the lines depended on the strength of the performances. It was up and down.

I could rattle off more paragraphs listing how they could/can improve, but I won’t do that. What’s done is done, and I just hope and pray that Spider-Man 4 is not a Batman & Robin affair. I have stated before that I was not fond of Spider-Man 2, when everyone else thought it was a masterpiece. Having reiterated that, I was anxious to see Spider-Man 3. It might be hard to believe after reading this rant, but I too was caught up in the hype with video games, posters, commercials, and so forth. I bought my ticket and watched with an open mind, I swear. I am happy when so many people are enthused about cinema, and I can sympathize with those who wanted this to be a masterful franchise, but that is a rare phenomenon. My rating has gradually decreased over the weeks since its release. Spider-Man 3 is almost embarrassing to the franchise. It is campy, bizarre, and foolish. The truth hurts.

And we're rolling... - 01.31.2007

How does one film the ecstasy of scents? It goes without saying that the audience is unable smell anything but nachos and buttered popcorn during a movie. The task of conveying a scent properly enough so that viewers connect with storyline seems insurmountable, but Perfume: The Story of a Murderer has achieved that feat brilliantly to result in a masterful work of pure rapture and genius. This was released at the very end of 2006, but I failed to see it before I compiled my top 10 list. This would have positively changed my final cut.

In Paris, France Jean Baptise Grenouille (Ben Wishaw) barely entered this world after his mother basically discarded him for dead after previously experiencing numerous still births. From the beginning, Grenouille was different. After being sent to an orphanage, his superior sense of smell evolved into something extraordinary. His life continued to grow more horrible as he was sold to work for a grotesque man as a slave. However, it was working for him that Grenouille discovered a perfumer named Baldini (Dustin Hoffman), whose business was suffering because of a lucky rival. After meeting each other, Baldini becomes awestruck at the unique talents of this young man. He teaches Grenouille in depth lessons about perfuming, oils, preserving scent, and dissecting the chords. Baldini’s store is instantly transformed back into a thriving business again with Grenouille as his protégé. Grenouille seeks how to preserve the scent of humans, and this desire turns him into cold blooded murderer. After leaving Baldini, he continues his search for a way to contain human scents, eliminating every beautiful girl that comes in his way.

As Jean Baptise-Grenouille, Ben Wishaw will likely receive little credit for his performance, but he has really deserves more. He has few lines in this role, but that richly adds to the enigmatic qualities of Grenouille. With the dirt covering his face, his skinny appearance, and the rags he wears as clothing, a remarkably creepy character is formed. He sniffs and pecks his way through the dark streets, hunting his prey with a powerful beak in order to complete his ultimate goal. His skeleton like walk and the twitches of his neck inform us that this phenomenon is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but a dangerously evil and unbeatable murderer. He can be pictured by some as a God, and others the Devil. He is both a blessing and a nightmare. Wishaw is haunting and mesmerizing in his depiction.

Dustin Hoffman is simply spectacular as the Italian perfumer Baldini. The expressions on his face as he watches Grenouille mix his oils into a magnificent perfume in seconds are worth the admission price alone. He is a bright man, who lives quaintly on a medieval bridge, and only acknowledges defeat in private. I had doubts about Hoffman’s accent from viewing the trailer, but it sounds fabulous. Alan Rickman holds an equally as marvelous minor role as Antoine Richis. As chaos in the city escalates due to Grenouille’s repeated slaughters of young women, Antoine represents every father who wants nothing more than to protect his children at all costs. His daughter, Laura (Rachel Hurd-Wood), is among the most gorgeous females in the city, and Antoine knows that this murderer will come for her. Contrary to most of his roles, we are sympathetic to Rickman’s character. This is a captivating portrayal by Rickman, who stirs up his villainous Professor Snape mannerisms with great effect.

Among the directors considering this project were Stanley Kubrick, Ridley Scott, and Martin Scorsese, but all passed or dismissed the story as unfilmmable except Run Lola Run filmmaker Tom Tykwer. His vision is unparalleled from the first drop of perfume to the last shocking scene, which leaves such a lasting impression. With Tykwer’s meticulous crafting of the setting, the cast responds to the intended scent or stench so wonderfully and appropriately. The picture is shaped so that the audience understands the smell, and almost experiences the elation as if it is right beneath their noses. Ykwer captures the stink and disgust of the streets and houses, while leaving plenty of room to admire the beautiful land surrounding Grasse, the place where every aspiring perfumer must visit.

The narration of John Hurt is such an invigorating, comforting, and vivid tone to this inimitable tale. He speaks when Grenouille does not. His voice over is deliberately spread out so the audience is left wanting more of it. This was a perfect choice because had more narration been utilized, some might have said it was excessive. Hurt’s incomparable and lucid pitch suits the time period of the plot immaculately. A better selection for this part would have been impossible. Many filmmakers shy away from narration, and think of it more like a curse, but Tykwer is fearless, and with Hurt, fills in the necessary details faultlessly.

I must address the arguments and complaints made. A.O. Scott of The New York Times, and Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun Times discussed how ugly this film was. The year and setting for the movie was not exactly paradise. Unpleasant, dark, and grubby are all words that could accurately describe 18th century France. If my memory serves me correct, deodorants, etc were not used. Perfumes were used to cover the body odors. Perfume is not colorful and clean like Marie Antoinette. This is about a cold-blooded killer, hence “ugliness” should be anticipated in many forms. They also talk about how Tykwer expected us to smell what was on screen by holding the camera on that object for a certain length of time. What was he supposed to do? This is a matter of opinion. Personally, I thought this technique was ideal, but some might not fully appreciate this skillful method.

The smells would not have seemed real and present, if not for the virtuoso score provided by Tykwer, Reinhold Heil, and Johnny Klimek. This facet holds almost as important a responsibility as the cast. If the music is not entrancing, the movie seems ludicrous. At the precise seconds in each compulsory scene, the music is cued so the items on the screen resonate (in our own imaginations) the aroma intended, whether it be oysters or roses. Not every person bought the system Tykwer and company employed, but it was the best way, and in my opinion, it succeeded superbly.

Mr. Roeper also carped about how on Earth this killer could place his victims in broad daylight without being seen. First of all, some of them were found during the daytime, but who knows when he disposed of them. If he was intelligent, it was most likely at night that he got rid of them. I remember the girls being exposed in relatively creative hiding spots. Secondly, he does have those distinctive nostrils, which enables him to know when a human draws near. Many scenes show this. I assumed that he got rid of the bodies at night, at weaved through the streets with his power guiding him away from witnesses.

The climax towards the end requires its own paragraph. In the television show featuring A.O. Scott as a guest critic, he ignorantly spoiled this scene for everyone listening or watching. They even showed clips. This is a pet peeve of mine. What a shocking and mesmerizing sequence this was though! As it begins, the crowd starts hugging and kissing, but as they start undressing your mouth drops in amazement at the mass nudity and love making. This could have easily looked preposterous, but instead, Tykwer crafts it so gracefully that at that instance, Perfume transforms into a film like no other. I am looking forward to the DVD extras in hopes that someone sheds some light on how this scene was filmed.

The absence of Roger Ebert was felt for this film. On his website, he gave it a four star review, and his thoughts would have been welcomed on the show. Grenouille is indeed a super hero broken from a different mold, but perhaps he is also an antihero? Watching his gift grow from a talent to a weapon is fascinating. Perfume was an ambitious, precarious, and ultimately triumphant accomplishment. It is so sickening and filthy, yet so spellbinding, sumptuous, and brave. This is not a fragrance to sample. Buy the entire bottle and revel in its grandeur. Perfume evokes whiffs of perfection.

full blog