The Amazing Spiderman (2012)

I really don't care too much about Spiderman. It's not that I don't like him, I just don't really care that much. He's got sweet powers and he's funny and he swings around like whoa, and that's cool and all, but I guess I'm just a Batman guy at heart. Maybe I just like a superhero who's just as crazy as the villains he's fighting. Or maybe I'm a sucker for Michael Keaton. At least I'll take The Keaton over Toby McGuire any damn day of the year. All that considered, Spiderman has never really done much for me.

On the plus side, he's not Superman. Nuts to that boring Boy Scout.

It's a weird thing, however, to have a reboot of a series that is still so relatively new, like they did with "Spiderman." The Sam Raimi trilogy isn't even old enough to ride all the coasters at Ceder Point yet, so it's quite off-putting, and some would say insulting, to start from scratch again so quickly. Of course, some might also say that after "Spiderman 3" the only possible option was to throw everything out and start again.

Personally, I was unsurprisingly neutral on the issue. I liked the first "Spiderman," and still consider it a darn fun movie. I never understood the big deal about "Spiderman 2." What I got out of that movie was basically the feeling that I had just watched the first movie again with Willem Dafoe's parts and the origin story all cut out of it. It wasn't bad, I was just bored with it. And while I didn't have the searing fanboy fueled hatred of "Spiderman 3" that everyone else had, I didn't think it was necessarily good, just OK. Oddly enough I think I actually got more enjoyment out of the third film than the most likely objectively better second one. Go figure.

Betrayal!!! Everyone knows Venom had 275 teeth! NOT 319 like the movie had! This movie sucked!

So clearly my taste in the whole Spiderman issue is suspect from the very beginning. For that reason, feel free to take whatever I say next with a grain of non-fanboy flavored salt. That isn't to say that "The Amazing Spiderman" is about to get a scathing pounding from me, because it's not. It wasn't bad. It just wasn't that great.

First off, I'll start with what the movie does best, because what it does well it does very well, and most of what it does well is the cast. Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker is leagues, miles, continents, planets, parsecs, GALAXIES ahead of what Toby McGuire did for the role in the previous films. There really isn't a moment in the entire film that he isn't completely convincing. And he has a voice that fits the character as well, which is important when he's Spiderman because obviously, we're not seeing his face. Garfield also has a great sense of comedic timing which helps turn in some really funny lines that we would come to expect from Spiderman.

He also looks like a high schooler, something that Toby McGuire never convincingly pulled off. I don't know, to me Toby McGuire always looked like someone had artificially aged a toddler to be 26 by the time he was 2, but the equation wasn't quite right so his body never caught up to his giant head.

In fact, I'll just go down the list and say the rest of the cast was also great. There really was no weak link at in the entire film, even though I got the feeling that Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy was...how should I put this...not necessarily wasted, but given a kind of boring character. It's not her fault, and she does fine, but there really wasn't much to her besides "love interest." At least they didn't pull the damsel in distress thing.

God, I miss her with red hair...

Denis Leary was great as Gwen's dad, although the years have not been kind to him. Dude's aging fast. Rhys Ifans as the villain, Dr. Conners aka The Lizard plays your standard well-meaning-but-still-making-dumb-mistakes-by-making-himself-the-test-subject-because-they'll-shut-him-down-otherwise scientist, but he does it well. He does have moments of some pretty intimidating menace make him a fun villain, although at times you do start to wonder why he's continuing doing what he's doing considering that each time he does it he turns into a giant destructive lizard. Really, dude? Does it really look like it's working as you originally planned?

"It's science, you wouldn't understand..."

For me though, the guy who stole the show apart from Garfield was good old Martin Sheen as Uncle Ben. Good god was he awesome. He is so real in that way that only a true pro like Sheen can pull off. You wonder at times if he's even acting at all, considering that I'm sure he's had many a conversation raising kids that were probably identical to the talks in this movie. It was also nice to see Sally Field again as Aunt May. I can't even remember the last time I saw her in anything.

Apart from the cast, the action in "The Amazing Spiderman" is really good. Spiderman moves in a very organic, almost animalistic way that makes sense when you consider his powers, and he integrates that into combat in a very cool fashion. It was also nice to see his "spider sense" kick in more often, and in a (generally) more subtle way than the slow-motion, over the top way the previous films flaunted it. All this made the action really good...

...when the movie decided to have it.

My biggest problem with "The Amazing Spiderman" was that honestly, it's kind of a boring talk-fest. It's not that there isn't good stuff being said, it's just that Peter Parker gets way, WAY more screen time than Spiderman. And even though that's normal for the first part of a superhero origin movie, by the halfway point it starts to get a little annoying, especially since the action that is in it is so good. The could have spent a little less time on Peter dating, and a little more time on Spiderman kicking some Lizard butt.

This also leads into another problem I had, which was that I never felt a strong connection with what exactly Peter Parker's goals were. It's no spoiler that Uncle Ben gets killed by a robber that Peter lets go moments before that disaster strikes. That's a very well done scene, and Peter's resolve afterwards in finding the man who did it was honestly the most gripping part of the film for me, because he's using is powers, but not knowing what he purpose is with them yet. He's just a very angry kid, and it's pretty dark for a while there.

Then he gets a suit somehow (we never really find out where or how) and not too long after that, the whole "Uncle Ben's Killer" plot is just dropped from the story like he just up and forgot about it. For some reason, that whole "entire driving purpose behind his character" is forgotten, and he's like "Welp, guess I'm Spiderman now. Let's do this."

Excuse me? Didn't you have some unresolved issues? Couldn't you resolve them before just changing your goals? There is a scene on a bridge where he saves some people, and I suppose that's supposed to be his big realization moment that he needs to use his powers to help people, but the fact that the robber is never even brought up again really irked me a lot. I mean, it was kind of an important thing!

"Hey Uncle Ben. Hypothetical here, but if you got killed and I swore vengeance but kind of just forgot about it, how upset would you be?"

And also, I can't finish without bringing up something that really, REALLY bothered me: the last line of the film. Now, spoilers below, because to fully understand, I have to spoil.

At the climax of the film, Denis Leary's character is mortally wounded by The Lizard. After the fight is over, he tells Peter with his dying breath that he needs to stay away from his daughter, for her own sake. Peter promises him that he will, and later, breaks up with her.

This is a great scene. It's reflective of Peter's journey into a selfless, noble superhero who realizes that he must put the good of others before his own, because his late Uncle Ben taught him that he has a responsibility to use his talents to better serve the world. After all, even though the movie never actually says the immortal line that is the tagline and philosophical lynchpin of the entire Spiderman mythos (why they don't say it I have NO idea): "With great power comes great responsibility."

And then...we come to the last scene. Cue the class room. Peter comes in late. He says "Sorry I'm late. It won't happen again." The teacher looks at him, scoffs, and says "Don't make promises you can't keep, Mr. Parker."

Peter then takes a seat behind Gwen and whispers to her, "But those are the best kinds of promises." Gwen smirks, we cut to Spiderman swinging around New York, roll credits.

BULL. SHIT.

Way to make that whole emotional scene not three minutes beforehand mean absolutely dick. I mean, yeah, that's totally cool that you took a character who finally discovers that not everything revolves around him, who is on a journey to be a great hero, who just made a huge sacrifice to protect the person he loves, and did a complete backwards 180 to turn him into a selfish, lying douchebag.

If he truly loved Gwen, he would leave her alone. He has seen the effects of what his actions can have on other people. Stuff like, I don't know, her freaking dad DYING. I just can't believe that a noble sacrifice in a superhero movie was so promptly negated by a selfish action. Way to make me intensely dislike Peter Parker in the last 30 seconds of the film. What the hell.

Doooooooooooouche.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "The Amazing Spiderman" has some really good stuff in it. This has been compared a lot to "Batman Begins," and while it's nowhere close to as good as that, I can see where people are coming from with that analogy. It's dark, it takes itself seriously, and the acting is all top notch. However, it's just one of those weird "can't put my finger on it" situations where I walked away not overly impressed. Maybe I just really don't care about Spiderman. But if you at all liked the others, this one is the best since the first one, and at least in the acting department, better. Recommended for at least a rental.

Anonymous (2011)

The name "Shakespeare" can be intimidating. In fact, the very word tends to scare people off. In much this way, Shakespeare is not unlike Nicolas Cage. While difficult to understand at first, they are both much beloved by people versed in their body of work, and once you get past the at times cryptic exterior of the language and style, something wonderful emerges.

In much the same way that Hamlet displayed every man's uncertainty with the world, pondering and debating endlessly with his emotions and inner turmoil, only to act too swiftly and rashly in a moment of passion, thereby sowing the seeds of his own destruction despite maddening contemplation, so to does Nicolas Cage portray the duality of mankind when he punches a lady in the face while wearing a bear costume. It really makes you think.

Am I comparing Nicolas Cage to William Shakespeare? No, I have no idea where I was going with that analogy. I just really want to see Nicolas Cage play Hamlet.

"To be or NOT THE BEES!!!! AAAAAAHHH!!!!"

Hey, why not? Keanu Reeves did it.

(Seriously. Keanu played Hamlet. Look it up.)

I guess what I'm trying to say is - It's OK if you looked at "Anonymous," saw that is was about Shakespeare and said "Ew, no thanks." It's understandable. Shakespeare isn't for everyone, although everyone should at least give him a try, because it's actually really good stuff. And also, you look smart while you're doing it. So there's that, too.

What may surprise and possibly reassure you if you were on the fence about seeing it, however, is that like Shakespeare's plays, "Anonymous" is not as intimidating as you may fear. Since the plays themselves aren't a main feature of the run-time, "Anonymous" is less a study of the plays of Shakespeare and more of a fast-paced thriller set to "Ye Olde Englishe Royale Intrigue" that doesn't require a great deal of knowledge of Shakespeare, or of the time period to comprehend.

For the most part.

It does not start out like that, though. The beginning of the film is pretty scary with the amount of English history thrown at you. There are names galore, lines of succession to the throne, and all kinds of places and events about things that you think you may have remembered hearing about way back in high school but you can't be 100% sure. You'll probably spend the first bit of the film trying to keep names straight and trying to remember what the hell an "Earl" is. But by the time the main hook of the plot is set, and the names start coming easier, "Anonymous" starts getting really fascinating.

The main hook of the film is that William Shakespeare never wrote any of his plays, and were in fact the works of Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford. It's a conspiracy theory that's been around a while, and is understandably a touchy subject amongst scholars. Is it true? I don't know, but the movie makes a pretty convincing case for it.

Not all men can get away with the frilly collar.

De Vere is played by Rhys Ifans, who does a fantastic job in being both wounded, cocky, and quietly intimidating. He's a fascinating character, and also tragic, because he knows that his works will never be attributed to him, and he is not a character who is content to sit on the sidelines. No, this guy is a mover and a shaker. He's the guy you hated back in school - the 4.3 GPA honors classes, all-star quarterback who leads the football team to a 14-0 season while also perfectly playing the lead in every play the drama club put on, all while having the most smoking hot girlfriend in the school. We all hated him. Except for the massive circle of friends he had. But everyone else hated him!

In general all of the cast was quite good, making this historical mystery really speed along at a nice, brisk pace. Vanessa Redgrave plays an older Elizabeth I with wonderful dignity and is quite regal, and Joely Richardson does a great Vanessa Redgrave impression as a young Elizabeth in one of the films many flashback segments. Rafe Spall also deserves mention as the actor who takes on the identity of William Shakespeare. I wasn't quite as taken with him as I was with the rest of the cast, since out of all the characters, he is the biggest ham.

And once again, thank you to Russell Brand for forever ruining any man with a higher-pitched voice and London accent. First you overshadow Nigel Tufnel, and now we won't be able to look at Shakespeare without imagining you in your tight leather pants. Jerk.

"Wot's dis, ey 'guv? Yew fink Oy'm copin' Oo's stoyle? Oy'm foyve 'underd years oller 'en 'em, 'ey wot!"

I think there were only two big issues I had with "Anonymous." The first was that it really become a taxing movie to watch at times, due to the constant flashbacks that seem to occur every five minutes with no warning. It doesn't help that a younger version of certain character in flashback looks a lot like another young character in the present time, which leaves it momentarily confusing whether or not we are in a flashback or not, until someone says their name. For that reason, chronology kind of goes out the window a bit.

Another complaint I had was the very beginning and end. It begins with Derek Jacobi getting on stage and announcing the play, "Anonymous" that is about to be performed. I'm not joking - the play is called "Anonymous." It's right up there on a marquee. Try to wrap your head around that. You sit down to watch a movie, the movie starts, and the first thing you see is people sitting down to watch the movie you just sat down to watch. Cosmic.

They did the same thing in "Beastmaster 2." You stay classy, movie.

And when it ends, people just file out of the theater as the credits roll over it, because they apparently were watching the play of what we just saw a movie of. My mind has been officially blown. Why that weird shattering of the fourth wall? It served no purpose and was just jarring and distracting.

Those two issues aside, the highlights of the film were, unsurprisingly, the performances of the plays. Since this movie is not for strictly hardcore Shakespeare scholars, the selections had to be gentle and recognizable. So we have the standards: "What light through yonder window breaks," "Now is the hour of our discontent made glorious spring by the son of York," "If we shadows have offended, think on this and all is mended," "To be or not to be," you know the drill. It would have been nice to see something other than those standards that everyone knows by heart at this point, but despite that, they were very well done. Seeing a full production of a Shakespeare play with that cast would have been amazing.

What is most notable about "Anonymous" to me is that fact that it single-handedly validated director Roland Emmerich's career. This is far and away the best film he has ever made, and in what has to be a total coincidence, it's the first movie he's done that didn't involve blowing up the world. I always used to say that as juvenile as Roland's films were, the worst Roland Emmerich movie was way ahead of the best Michael Bay movie, but now that analogy doesn't even work, because I'm calling it right here, right now:

Roland Emmerich, you are no longer to be compared to Michael Bay. That is now beneath you. Congratulations!

THE BOTTOM LINE: I really liked "Anonymous." It was thrilling, mysterious, beautifully shot, and has one hell of an ending that really left me floored. Is the conspiracy theory true? I have no idea, but it's a fun ride. Grab your tin-foil hat and enjoy. Highly Recommended.