Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings176
joben-525-633946's rating
Reviews56
joben-525-633946's rating
Marc Webb's follow up to his rebooted Spider-Man franchise still leaves much to be desired but remains a worthy installment.
The film originates with a confused Peter Parker (Garfield) struggling with the morality of what is best to do for Gwen Stacey (Stone). Eventually deciding to stick to his promise to her deceased father (Denis Leary) of keeping her out of his business, he is soon thrust a further set of challenges when his sudden new best friend Harry Osborn (DeHaan) reveals he needs Spider-Man's blood to save his life, Jamie Foxx reeks havoc as the villainous Electro while trying to piece together his father's past.
While I commend Webb for trying, his efforts to strand all these plot points together hinders the film more than it helps. It's comparable to trying to cram twenty DVD's into a stack which hold 19, it just doesn't fit, unless you cut parts off the other DVD's to make space. This is exactly what Webb does. If you have viewed the trailers, you will realise already that many scenes did not make the final film due to the scenes being removed; this is most probably due to time restrictions on the duration. However, rather than delivering a complex and engaging story-line, Webb leaves us with numerous unfinished - some rather basic - plots and sub plots.
Expanding briefly on this point, I would like to commend Dane DeHaan's performance. An excellent young actor for sure, his lines and performance throughout gave his scenes gravitas, and were the engaging. In interviews prior to the release, he stated he "doesn't think I'll ever have a character that has this big of an arc (again)" and that Harry is "completely different" from at the beginning to what he is at the end. This is true however that character arc to me felt very rushed and not very complex at all; judging by the edited out scenes I'm guessing there was a beefier run through of his transformation which unfortunately as viewers, we were unable to witness.
Instead, Webb focuses on his hit-and-miss villain "Electro", the touching relationship between Stone and Garfield (on the screen, although maybe off also) as well as the dreary recollection of Richard Parker's past.
Let's begin with "Electro". To me, his inclusion feels like a CGI prop to be perfectly honest, for the most part, while Jamie Foxx doesn't really feel suited to the role of this flying electric ball (this is from someone who thinks he's a great actor, and loved 'Django').
The romantic scenes - as you may expect - are done remarkably well by Webb with his experience under the helm of '(300) Days of Summer' playing a key factor here. He also chose the cast for Peter and Gwen with great precision as the chemistry is clear for all to see. Both these factors deserve commending.
The sub slot however of his father and his dealings with Norman Osborn feels half baked. A James Bond style opening is followed by a rather uninteresting reflection on what makes Richard Parker such a good man.
One final qualm is the action sequences which feel labored and never particularly engaging. Battles with Electro are just an overloaded CGI frenzy while the Paul Giamatti's eagerly anticipated Rhino makes an appearance for about two minutes (in costume). Equally irritating is DeHaan's appearance as the Goblin being very short and its fair to say his transformation leading up to that was hardly detailed on the final cut.
However, having focused on the criticisms, the majority of the cast were first class and the on-screen chemistry between Stone and Garfield was a lovely touch. DeHaan steals the show with his performance as Osborn (which fills the cracks about his character development ever so slightly) whilst most importantly, I can look to the next installment with optimism. Optimism stemming from a cliffhanger ending, more DeHaan and a host of possibilities for Garfield to forefront.
The film originates with a confused Peter Parker (Garfield) struggling with the morality of what is best to do for Gwen Stacey (Stone). Eventually deciding to stick to his promise to her deceased father (Denis Leary) of keeping her out of his business, he is soon thrust a further set of challenges when his sudden new best friend Harry Osborn (DeHaan) reveals he needs Spider-Man's blood to save his life, Jamie Foxx reeks havoc as the villainous Electro while trying to piece together his father's past.
While I commend Webb for trying, his efforts to strand all these plot points together hinders the film more than it helps. It's comparable to trying to cram twenty DVD's into a stack which hold 19, it just doesn't fit, unless you cut parts off the other DVD's to make space. This is exactly what Webb does. If you have viewed the trailers, you will realise already that many scenes did not make the final film due to the scenes being removed; this is most probably due to time restrictions on the duration. However, rather than delivering a complex and engaging story-line, Webb leaves us with numerous unfinished - some rather basic - plots and sub plots.
Expanding briefly on this point, I would like to commend Dane DeHaan's performance. An excellent young actor for sure, his lines and performance throughout gave his scenes gravitas, and were the engaging. In interviews prior to the release, he stated he "doesn't think I'll ever have a character that has this big of an arc (again)" and that Harry is "completely different" from at the beginning to what he is at the end. This is true however that character arc to me felt very rushed and not very complex at all; judging by the edited out scenes I'm guessing there was a beefier run through of his transformation which unfortunately as viewers, we were unable to witness.
Instead, Webb focuses on his hit-and-miss villain "Electro", the touching relationship between Stone and Garfield (on the screen, although maybe off also) as well as the dreary recollection of Richard Parker's past.
Let's begin with "Electro". To me, his inclusion feels like a CGI prop to be perfectly honest, for the most part, while Jamie Foxx doesn't really feel suited to the role of this flying electric ball (this is from someone who thinks he's a great actor, and loved 'Django').
The romantic scenes - as you may expect - are done remarkably well by Webb with his experience under the helm of '(300) Days of Summer' playing a key factor here. He also chose the cast for Peter and Gwen with great precision as the chemistry is clear for all to see. Both these factors deserve commending.
The sub slot however of his father and his dealings with Norman Osborn feels half baked. A James Bond style opening is followed by a rather uninteresting reflection on what makes Richard Parker such a good man.
One final qualm is the action sequences which feel labored and never particularly engaging. Battles with Electro are just an overloaded CGI frenzy while the Paul Giamatti's eagerly anticipated Rhino makes an appearance for about two minutes (in costume). Equally irritating is DeHaan's appearance as the Goblin being very short and its fair to say his transformation leading up to that was hardly detailed on the final cut.
However, having focused on the criticisms, the majority of the cast were first class and the on-screen chemistry between Stone and Garfield was a lovely touch. DeHaan steals the show with his performance as Osborn (which fills the cracks about his character development ever so slightly) whilst most importantly, I can look to the next installment with optimism. Optimism stemming from a cliffhanger ending, more DeHaan and a host of possibilities for Garfield to forefront.
Ben Stiller stars and directs James Thurber's short and interesting story about a day dreamer who escapes his life through constant day- dreams composed of heroism, romance and action.
Stiller has an impressive portfolio as both an actor and director but his adaption of Thurber's tale doesn't quite excel in the way it could have done.
By no means is this a bad film. You really feel an empathy for Stiller's characterised take on Walter Smith - he does a fine job. But this film requires a little more meat, ambition and . The fact is - even though it is humorous in parts - it just doesn't feel like it should have been set up as a comedy. 'The Secret Life of Walter Mitty' is as its best in its most heartfelt moments and during an incredibly journey. The drawback from the latter is that its only brushed around the edges; its all very bland as feels like an unexplored journey rather than an explored one.
Stiller is part however of a very good cast which all perform amiably. I'm not sure its really worth the time and effort to view it at the cinema however you could see far worse. My suggestion is that you buy the DVD when it arrives if its something you have an urge to see.
Stiller has an impressive portfolio as both an actor and director but his adaption of Thurber's tale doesn't quite excel in the way it could have done.
By no means is this a bad film. You really feel an empathy for Stiller's characterised take on Walter Smith - he does a fine job. But this film requires a little more meat, ambition and . The fact is - even though it is humorous in parts - it just doesn't feel like it should have been set up as a comedy. 'The Secret Life of Walter Mitty' is as its best in its most heartfelt moments and during an incredibly journey. The drawback from the latter is that its only brushed around the edges; its all very bland as feels like an unexplored journey rather than an explored one.
Stiller is part however of a very good cast which all perform amiably. I'm not sure its really worth the time and effort to view it at the cinema however you could see far worse. My suggestion is that you buy the DVD when it arrives if its something you have an urge to see.
My first review of a horror for a while as I caught up with Guillermo Del Toro's piece in my return to the genre which I laid to rest for a couple of months. Oh dear, what a turn off!
Guy Pearce and Katie Holmes are cast as the loved up couple trying to redecorate an old house and base camp their with Alex (Pearce) bringing Sally (Bailee Madison) - his daughter - against her will. But suddenly, Sally begins to see and hear things in the house and it soon becomes clear to Alex and his girlfriend that Sally is not living in a fantasy land.
First of all, having seen many horror flicks in my time, this is arguably the worst. Full of clichés, a laughable antagonist, questionable acting from some parties and a dreadful story-line, a director of Guillermo Del Toro stature should be tearing his hair out at participating in this drivel.
The main key to a memorable horror is for it to be first scary and second engaging - this is neither. Not once did it grasp my attention for more than a couple of minutes nor was it even in the slightest particle frightening. This was due to a non existent build up of tension, the frights being built around obvious clichés and finally, the villain(s). It really was an catastrophic, cataclysmic effort because quite frankly, I felt more intimidated by 'The Muppets!'
Katie Holmes and Guy Pearce are amiable with the script they have but in all honesty, you cannot see any other reason why they would take up the roles other than a big, fat pay packet coming their way afterwards.
One positive note, young actress Bailee Madison performed quite well and has been described as a diverse young actress. She already has quite a number of lengthy stints as an actress on the television and is a promising star of the future.
Guy Pearce and Katie Holmes are cast as the loved up couple trying to redecorate an old house and base camp their with Alex (Pearce) bringing Sally (Bailee Madison) - his daughter - against her will. But suddenly, Sally begins to see and hear things in the house and it soon becomes clear to Alex and his girlfriend that Sally is not living in a fantasy land.
First of all, having seen many horror flicks in my time, this is arguably the worst. Full of clichés, a laughable antagonist, questionable acting from some parties and a dreadful story-line, a director of Guillermo Del Toro stature should be tearing his hair out at participating in this drivel.
The main key to a memorable horror is for it to be first scary and second engaging - this is neither. Not once did it grasp my attention for more than a couple of minutes nor was it even in the slightest particle frightening. This was due to a non existent build up of tension, the frights being built around obvious clichés and finally, the villain(s). It really was an catastrophic, cataclysmic effort because quite frankly, I felt more intimidated by 'The Muppets!'
Katie Holmes and Guy Pearce are amiable with the script they have but in all honesty, you cannot see any other reason why they would take up the roles other than a big, fat pay packet coming their way afterwards.
One positive note, young actress Bailee Madison performed quite well and has been described as a diverse young actress. She already has quite a number of lengthy stints as an actress on the television and is a promising star of the future.