(c)2014 Columbia Pictures

If you haven’t seen the “Amazing Spider-Man 2” yet, definitely make time to see this dynamic super-hero/action genre film. I’ve seen a lot of superhero movies, especially in the last decade, and none can quite compare to the ability of Andrew Garfield (Peter Parker/Spider-Man) and Emma Stone (Gwen Stacy) to capture the array of emotions in the way the characters were able to in this roller coaster of a movie. Although Director Mark Webb overstuffed the 2.5hr movie with multiple plot lines, villains, and changing sets, the chemistry between Garfield and Stone attempt to, and are successful at, giving this movie heart and soul.

Webb’s spring blockbuster is the sequel to the reboot of the movie adaptation of the original Marvel comic-books, which is another way of saying it’s a copy of a copy. But if the Spider-Man tale is about anything, it’s about gawky youth and surging powers. And the film-makers know this and keep the tone skittish and fresh. In this installment of the latest Spider-Man franchise reboot, Columbia Pictures (Sony) takes the audience on the ride of their lives. And, that isn’t even counting the experience one receives in the 3D version (for your information, I watched the standard definition version).

The movie opens, as supplemental installments in a superhero franchise often do, in the middle of a hot pursuit. No surprises there. Parallel to attempting to apprehend a foreshadowed villain, Spider-Man is close to missing his high school graduation and his girlfriend’s valedictorian speech. Coming of no shock, he is able to swing onto the stage just before his name is called to walk across it. In addition to the fast-paced, thrilling ride the audience experiences during the entire movie, Peter and Gwen experience an emotional roller coaster of their own. Facing his most powerful villain to date, Spider-Man must outsmart Electro (played by Jamie Foxx), a mutant who’s ability to control electricity makes him seemingly unstoppable. Everywhere electricity is, there is he. The origin of Electro seems reminiscent of Kathy Bate’s character in the classic Stephen King novel set to film “Misery.” Is Spider-Man able to outwit his nemesis? You will just have to watch the movie to find out. And, like any good orphaned superhero, Peter’s iconic Aunt May (beautifully played again by the accomplished Sally Field) finally tells his the true story about his parents’ death. During the third act of the movie, however rushed, we are introduced to one of the most famed villains in the Spider-Man franchise, the Green Goblin. The close of the movie will likely have you in tears. Honestly, I think this is the only superhero movie that caused me to cry.

New Yorkers can definitely appreciate the sequel for highlighting the metropolis that is so vital to the Spider-Man story. The “Amazing Spider-Man” (first one) felt confined too often to Peter’s bedroom, his high school and the Oscorp skyscraper, neglecting the city. Essentially this latest installment is one long series of postcards of famous NYC landmarks, one right after another; from the Williamsburg Bridge to Columbus Circle, even taking in forgotten subway stations once frequented by a certain US President. Until the third act of the movie, the majority of the scenes take place outdoors from Chinatown to Park and 56^th. For those who have not been to New York City, there is so much more to the metropolis than midtown, which is often all anyone ever sees of the city in movies.

In truth, none of the many subplots or action sequences, have as much combustible power as the scenes featuring Peter Parker/Spider-Man and Gwen, benefiting here as did the previous film from the fizzy, tangible chemistry between Garfield and Stone. It helps that they’re also individually such interesting performers, both nervous fidgeters who always seem so giddy in each other’s presence, even when Peter gets all worried about keeping his promise to dead Captain Stacy (Denis Leary) to stay away from Gwen for her own safety and tries to split up with her. Hence, the roller coast of emotions throughout the movie as I mentioned earlier. Unfortunately, the movie suffers from being overloaded with subplots that cannot be fully developed and executed effectively to the satisfaction of the audience in a timespan of nearly 2.5 hours. This is most evident in the origin and development of Green Goblin, whose story seems stuck in the middle of acts two and three, just to quickly introduce him in order to save time in the next film. And, as much fun as it is to see Paul Giamatti’s charismatic character on screen, he too should have been left out to fully develop in future installments.

All-in-all, “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” will thrill audiences everywhere, even the ardent comic book fans who line up every Wednesday morning for new comic book day (this is a shout out to my friend Derek). Although it is nearly impossible to expect a 2.5 hour movie, or even a trilogy (or more) to be all inclusive of the information in the comics, Webb appears to do an excellent job at combing the best of what the comic books offer with the additional elements to tell a story visually on screen.

Check out this article I had published on “The Artifice.” Click the link! The name of the article is Why “Sunset Boulevard” Still Captures the “Eyes of the World” Today

(c)2014 Fox Searchlight

One of the most enjoyable movie experience of the year! “The Grand Budapest Hotel” has something for everyone. From highbrow quirky humor to brutal murders; from mystery to romance. Surface level, you have a classically written whimsical caper, in the vein of “Clue;” but beneath the surface lies excitement and adventure! The story is about hotel concierge Monsieur Gustave (Ralph Fiennes) who teams up with his newly hired lobby boy Zero Moustafaone (Tony Revolori) to prove his innocence after he is framed for the murder of one of his wealthiest regular guests.

His eighth feature, this latest Wes Anderson film will delight nearly anyone who chooses to darken the doors of the theatre auditorium. Yes, even those who are inclined to grumble at his whimsical cinematic style, both in terms of dialog and cinematography. The movie has a way of charming even the most incorrigible creatures–probably that date you brought. Throughout the movie, there are many situations in the plot that are so ingenious that you will likely roll you eyes at the conceit and lavish imagination that has been woven so intricately into every nook and cranny. However, you will chuckle to yourself, if not laugh out loud a few times. Probably one of the funniest, and uniquely Wes Anderson, moments in the movie is when the prison inmates are using tiny tools smuggled in by way of decadent pastries to tunnel out of the Alcatraz style prison in the Alps.

Probably the most striking element of the movie is the distinct visuals that only a Wes Anderson movie can provide. The art direction and cinematography are two of the elements that stand out the most. His cinematographic style of storytelling is very consistent, filled with very tight shots with plenty of interesting angles. Many shots, he chooses to use, are densely packed with characters and set dressing; and at times, the camera appears to glide along with the characters. Most of the shots in the movie are very static. Ordinarily, this can create a staleness or boredom in a film; but, now with this one. He carefully crafts each shot to give you so much to look at that you forget the shots are not tracking or moving as they do in many films. Interestingly enough, the 4:3 ratio was the primary format used to tell the bulk of the story. I cannot remember another movie that chose to do the same thing for artistic reasons. There are also more classic elements of cinema magic, such as: stop-motion, matte paintings, and rear projection. It’s a brilliant amalgamation of old and new-style cinema to create a unique movie experience for the audience.

Ordinarily, I do not care for a movie where two people sit around, while one of them tells the story that is essentially the movie. And, this one takes that cliche to a whole new level. We start out by witnessing a little girl reading a book that comes to life. We encounter the author of the book who then proceeds to tell the story to his son. Wait, the layers aren’t over yet. Can anyone say “Inception”? Two characters in the story, that is being told by the author, who’s book is being read by the little girl, begin to tell yet another story–the story of the movie you are watching. Did you get all that? I’m not even sure if I did. However, like Jon Avnet, director of “Fried Green Tomatoes,” Wes Anderson is able to create an interested listener in the character who becomes the author of the story of “The Grand Budapest Hotel.” Very few director/writers have been able to accomplish the whole story being told within a story, without it turning out sub par. Under most cirumstances, there is no reason to have two people telling the story which is essentially the entire movie–just tell the main story and be done with it. The dialog is smart and sensible, and each line moves the plot along. Unlike the setting of the movie, the dialog is oddly contemporary–even American. There is no time wasted in the film; moving at an excellent pace, the screenplay keeps your attention the whole time.

This movie is certainly not for everyone–especially those who are already predisposed to disliking Wes Anderson’s style. However, I urge you to try it out. Even the curmudgeon couple sitting next to me laughed along with the movie. The slapstick comedy with an edgy twist to it, will delight and endear the audiences out in the dark. Before you know it, you’ll be laughing at the hijinks and your mouth will water at the very sight of the decadent pastries that are displayed for you. But, don’t forget that you’re actually witnessing a ghastly tale unfold before your eyes. There are many allegorical references and visuals throughout the movie that make it a dynamic cinema experience.

Sweeping cinematography, stunning visual graphics, brilliant editing, powerful acting, and anthropomorphic rock creatures??? Darren Aronofsky’s “Noah” is an adaptation of the Biblical account of the flood as recorded in the book of Genesis. Or is it?

Knowing that the Biblical account is not very lengthy, in order to make a 2+ hour movie out of it, it is necessary to elaborate on the story in order to develop a movie around it. The way an adaptation, cinematically speaking, should be conducted, is starting with the most visual elements and going from there. After all, a movie is mostly visually driven, where as a play is dialog driven, and a book is internally driven. A successful adaptation keeps the skeleton of the story in tact and creates a visual story around it. Very little of the Biblical account remains in the movie, except for the main event. Whether or not you believe the story is history or a legend, you can easily assess that Aronofsky essentially made up his own version of what happened–ignoring most of what little there is, to begin with, in the account in Genesis–and opted for a world of fantasy.

Visually, the movie is fantastic! The beautiful cinematography is enhanced with the spectacular visual effects; combine that with a moving score, and you have the makings of a great movie. Right? Well, maybe. It’s almost as though Aronofsky never even read the story he is adapting for the screen. Regardless if he believes the story or not, he still should have stuck more closely to the text. Not for reasons of proselytizing or preaching the Bible, but for the sake of the integrity of the story. It’s like taking Shakespeare’s works and adapting them into stories so far removed from the original text, that Shakespeare would roll over in his grave. Respect of the source material should be key when adapting a story. Even within the realm Aronnofsky created, elements do not make sense. For instance, the anamorphic rock creatures known as the “Watchers” were defined as fallen angels that cared for Cain following the murder of his brother. According to the widely accepted definition, fallen angels are demons. So, why would fallen angels help mankind? That doesn’t make any sense. And since when is Mesopotamia, where the Biblical account takes place (as well as the “Epic of Gilgamesh”), a barren wasteland? And furthermore, where does Methuselah get his powers? There is much that goes unexplained in the movie. Ignoring the Biblical text all together and simply evaluating the movie in and of itself, there are still problems with the narrative. But, he did show the rain from the sky and water bursting from the earth in a powerful sequence that is closer than other movies have been with the same event.

Now, you may argue that Aronofsky did nothing more than what James Cameron did with “Titanic.” And, most everyone loves or loves to hate the 1997 blockbuster. These are two stories that are easily compared. We don’t know much about the sinking of Titanic, except what is recorded in survivor’s testemonies. And even then, no one will ever know exactly what happened on board or even how the ship split into two pieces. We certainly have no idea if there were a “pair of star-crossed lovers” on board. BUT, there certainly could have been. It is not so difficult to believe that a shipboard romance could have blossomed. After all, shipboard romances blossom on modern-day cruises. Cameron creates a story that is entirely possible, maybe unlikely, but possible. Aronofsky created a story that abandon’s most of the source material and draws radical conclusions of the drama that transpired that do not even make sense within his story. Women don’t become pregnant with the touch of an old man, rocks don’t come to life, and an entire forest does not pop up like a daisy in snow. On the plus side, Aronofsky shatters the idea that the animals came aboard the Ark in a nice orderly fashion 2×2. His depiction of the animals entering the ark is more likely what happened. And, I appreciate that he showed Noah’s family as one that had struggles like any other and probably dealt with fears and apprehensions during the process.

Now, Aronofsky did stick to the text in his sequences about creation, original sin, and the wickedness of man prior to the flood. So, if he could stick to the text with the more controversial issues (creation theories, origin of man, and original sin), how come he could not even come closer to the original text in terms of the story of Noah (which never describes Noah as going all homicidal)? There may not be much there, but what little is there could have easily been included. What we have here is a technical masterpiece of Aronofsky’s account of what he feel may have happened. It’s a visually beautiful story that leaves the audience empty at the end. The plot is like a bucket with holes that cannot hold water. But, the bucket is stunning to behold.