X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014) ***½ /5: Very entertaining film but there is not much surprising or distinctive. The story left a lot of gaps in the franchise that need explaining. The ending is reminiscent of Inception in some respects.

This new X-Men film is very entertaining although very reliant on hackneyed plot devices to tell its story. While I watched it I was impressed by the direction in which the film moved and understood it for the most part. However they put all their eggs in one basket and so the film becomes predictable to a large extent. There is not much diversity to the tale and it seems to bring back lost characters and rebalances the series that ended with X-Men: The Last Stand. X-Men: First Class was/is a prequel to the original series and so it can only be compared when you bridge the gap because Wolverine has to go back in time in this film. Other than that there is a lot missing that still needs to be explained. The ending also reminded me a lot of Inception. This was another indicator that there is no original premise in the film apart from its message of hope.

This film centres on Raven/Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) and an important action of hers in 1973 that has doomed the mutant race to annihilation by the sentinel program of developed by Bolivar Trask (Peter Dinklage). In order to  correct it Wolverine/Logan (Hugh Jackman) is sent back in time from the distant dystopian future to convince a younger Charles Xavier (James McAvoy ) and a younger Erik Lensherr/Magneto (Michael Fassbender) to unite and reverse the actions of Mystique/Raven in order to preserve a future for the mutant race.

Positives

The primary positive of this film is its entertainment value. While I was watching the film I cannot say that I was confused or bored. The film tries to provide some level of suspense that will keep some people guessing until it actually ends. It is likely to generate some form of discussion about the plot’s premise on social media. This sort of discussion will be strictly limited to the fans of the series. The entertainment value however will go beyond just being a fan of the series even if you don’t understand the various plot strands or the characters involved. The introduction of a young Quicksilver (Evan Peters) is a hit and hopefully there will be more of him i.e. the character Quicksilver in future films. There are some comedic moments involving the bitter Wolverine and there are also some interesting if not groundbreaking action set pieces.  They also try and create some air of tension on the other side as the X-Men of the future try and thwart an impending sentinel attack that could jeopardize Logan’s mission. The main difficulty for Logan trying to alter the course of history is that the laws of time are supposed to be immutable and after a couple ripples it corrects itself. Will Logan and co. positively change the future by instilling some form of hope in Raven or are the laws of time immutable?

I liked the attention to historical detail particularly as Wolverine is sent back to 1973. You have the issues surrounding the end of the Vietnam War especially a conference at Paris. There is also the presence of President Richard Nixon and the presence of characters that have some bearing on events in the X-Men trilogy that ends with X-Men: the Last Stand. As this film corrects a lot that went wrong in the first series of films people should expect the return of familiar, endearing characters.

I also liked that time travel in this film was not simply a machine that sends the actual bodies back. It is the consciousness of the person that is sent back to a younger or more previous self. There is therefore no conflict with a future self and a past self colliding. The person being sent back will be the only one to remember that actual changes were made to the past.  This makes it more believable from the perspective of the comic book world although I am not sure how Kitty (Ellen Page) calculates how far to send him back with her mystical, and not scientific, measurements. Comic book logic = anything goes and so for people to question the logic of the premise need to hold on a bit.

Logan/Wolverine is clearly the star of the series and he conveniently has all the healing requirements to undertake all the arduous physical challenges necessary to provide a positive outcome for the team. This film, again, highlights the appeal of Wolverine above the rest apart from Mystique (because of Jennifer Lawrence) Magneto and Charles Xavier. He still remains the man who gets to the underlying secrets through discovery however and becomes a vital link in the chain. There are other X-Men who are more powerful but Logan is the key to this series. Quicksilver can also become a major star and it will be interesting to see how he is featured in The Avengers: Age of Ultron considering that here is not usually a cross over between the two in the film although the characters are a part of the same marvel universe. There are a lot of issues relating to the rights of various companies to certain characters. In any case Whedon has a lot to live up to with Singer making Quicksilver into a hit long before 2015. It remains to be seen how he will improve on the character.

Lastly, I like the contrasts developed between Magneto and Xavier. These two characters have demonstrated through the series of films why they are who they are and their difference in approach to the mutant problem is brought to the fore yet again in this film. It is still effective and they represent the ideological basis for the film’s momentum. 

The ending of the film does open the door for many more installments. Is that necessarily a good thing? Probably until the series runs out of gas and one of the many films finally tanks at the box office. We seem to be moving into an era where superhero movies are more or less extended series instead of being definitive from the perspective of a particular story. It is just that one episode in these series still requires a high production budget when compared to a regular TV series. This film does not shake the episodic tag.

Negatives

The primary negative about this film is the lack of originality. Oh we are facing a problem let’s send someone back in time to correct it like those other time travel films. There is nothing distinctive about what this film is trying to say that would make it differ from previous films in the series. They had a good premise here but why could we not see an actual war with the sentinels instead of time travel. Why not present us with a future which could only be based in the world of the X-Men. Why not embed the hope in the current situation as opposed to resorting to desperation in order to link past selves with future selves. The time travel scenario is not as complicated as people are making it out to be. It is actually quite simple and predictable. It becomes predictable because they put all their eggs in one basket. No success in the past means annihilation for the last resistance.  Since they speak so much about hope in this film you know the outcome must be favourable. There is not much going for the film story wise although the actors and production crew do their part by allowing yourself to get lost in this world. The first two X-Men films had something distinctive to say about mutants and so on.  None of that is present here as characters who were never mentioned before are brought to the fore and are supposed to have played a pivotal role in the history of this franchise. Whatever happened to the sentinel program in the first  three films? How did the war come about? The film just does not create sufficient linkages to make it stand on its own and seems to be correcting the outcome of the final film in the trilogy so that everyone can be on board for the next film. The casting of Ellen page is no fluke because the ending of this film is similar in many respects to Inception even a situation where Kitty seems to be bleeding out which could impair progress in some form.  Nothing resonated with me thematically after the film ended although it was entertaining while I watched it.

There still remain a lot of gaps in the story. Why did the sentinels have to be this powerful or almost invincible?  I find that unbelievable in the world of the X-Men. The issue about the adaptation of the sentinels does not make much sense considering that there is no means of showing how they actually generate their powers through adaptation particularly from the perspective of being machines. Why is the actual development of the sentinel program not developed? one would imagine that there should be a film that speaks about the war with the sentinels.  The X-Men characters are more or less powerless regardless of how many powers they have.  They talk about hope in this film but in the future the situation is actually hopeless. Why is that? They literally go out of their way to make the situation hopeless for the future characters. All of a sudden Kitty has the power to send someone back in time. This is something never suggested in the previous films. Why not travel back in time from the onset of the war with the sentinels. Why wait?  I was not sold on the premise of this film and I hope this time travel bit does not alter the story of the first 3 films. Well we shall see when Xavier explains everything to Wolverine. You wouldn't want it to be like the trilogy was all for nothing. I am looking forward to the moment when all the effects of Logan’s trip in time are revealed.

The film goes for a lot of dramatic heft in this film but ultimately falls short because you would have to be really naïve to not guess the outcome particularly as they have all their eggs in one basket. All the crying and the moralizing and the talk about hope won’t affect the outcome in anyway. The story is more or less fatalistic for all its talk about freewill and choice. There are some scenes where  some X-Men are brutally killed in order to emphasize some sense of urgency; for past events to take hold and influence for the better but this does not resonate because of the very predictable elements. You will know deep down that everything is alright regardless of all this drama.

The resolution at the end of the film is too straightforward and cozy for my comfort. There is hardly any  sense of the bittersweet or the possibility of things to come although the next film is entitled X-Men: Apocalypse. The ending is too rosy. This time travel experiment opens the door for an invincible X-Men team. Have problems in the next film? Go back in time. This is why I liked the comic book versions better where cable and bishop were the time travelers from a distant future while the X-Men had to deal with their own problems in the present. I doubt Bishop even said a word of importance in this film. It would have been  a much better film if Cable or Bishop were the stars of this film because at least they would be able to play true to form. Also they could provide a more objective historical assessment of the X-Men and the position they found themselves. They would also  be better representatives of  the distant future even while keeping alive the activity of the X-Men in an underground fashion. Why? Because in this film it is only after the mutants are almost wiped out do the protagonists seem to understand why they need to go back. Very strange and that is more illogical than time travel. The first two Terminator films did a much better job in explaining the elements of the distant future coming back to the present to preserve or alter it. It is the present that should come alive and the representatives of the future should be true representatives.   The over reliance on particular stars to play certain characters will undermine the series eventually. If you’re going to have a film about the distant future why not encourage the younger stars to make it happen. Let them be the hope when they return to convince the legends of Xavier and Magneto of the perils associated with the future. The dependency on Hugh Jackman as Wolverine/Logan will not go down well in future installments especially if this series goes well into the future. 

Godzilla (2014) ***½ /5: Interpretation of the Godzilla character not radical (or extensive) enough. Godzilla should not have a moral compass if he is a force of nature. Glad that they acknowledged Godzilla's roots in parts.

Godzilla has gone back to his roots in this current release and it is for the better. I wanted to like the film more than I actually did because of the buildup however there were times when this felt like just a visual upgrade of the mighty king of the monsters. As a monster movie however there is none better out there at the moment however this film does not surpass Peter Jackson’s King Kong (2005) which is/was an upgrade and remake of the 1933 original. It is/was a much better film or a better monster movie. I refer to Jackson’s remake because it was released in the modern era. The 1933 version will not appeal visually to a majority of the 21^st century generation. With that said this film, Godzilla, is well made and promises a lot in terms of sequels. The main element here, as in all other monster movies, is that Godzilla is a force of nature. The monsters he battles are also forces of nature. Godzilla is sent to maintain natural balance or order in the face of destruction. Is he a savior or just a beast pursuing his prey? The movie is caught in two minds here.  The character of Godzilla is not developed sufficiently to give us an accurate picture about his intentions as an individual. What we do get, however, is a human story and so Godzilla is drawn based on how humans would perceive him. This makes sense because you won’t be clamouring for grand exclamations about his birth or his family. It is a matter of perception and how do you fit the pieces together to get a more accurate description of this monster who seems to only appear when some great bat like or insect like, radioactive feasting monsters decide to mate and lay a nest in the middle of San Francisco. This great monster then returns to the ocean when all is said and done. 

This film is about people coming to terms with the fact that there are monsters that roam the earth from the underground. Two bat like or insect like radioactive feasting monsters, both male and female, are seeking to create an area in San Francisco to nestle their offspring. They are called MUTOs.They can only be stopped if the legendary Godzilla can restore the balance by killing them so that he can remain king. The human story, which is a mere sideshow, centres on Ford Brody (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) whose mother (Juliete Binoche) was killed in Japan (where his parents worked as engineers) when a nuclear power plant was mysteriously destroyed from underground when he was young. It haunts both him and his father, Joe Brody (Bryan Cranston), who spends 15 years trying to unravel the mystery behind the plant’s destruction even though he is considered crazy. When the mystery is unraveled it’s monster time.

Positives

The primary positive is the mystery surrounding the gigantic forces of nature that come into contact with minuscule humans that are so reliant on technology to survive. This is not a unique theme and it has been developed before in other great monster movies such as King Kong (1933 & 2005). The forces of nature also correspond to the deep natural history of the earth we live in. We all know that there were dinosaurs but could we really come to grips with seeing such giants face to face. The earth can come to grips with these animals because it will outlast us as human beings regardless of our grand structures that are designed primarily for our benefit.  These large animals came from the earth and are its natural embodiments whereas in our world it is not necessarily so although we too are products of nature. Monster movies like Godzilla reminds us of nature’s strength and depth although they are mere exaggerations. These films seem more like a reaction to our dependence on technology and in order for nature to assert herself in she must come back in larger and in more grotesque forms  as a reminder. I admired the film for trying to remind us in dramatic fashion about the forces of nature although there are constant reminders in the forms of earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, etc.

I liked the explanation about the origins of the species which Godzilla belongs to and the idea that the level of radioactivity on the earth was much higher than it is today. It is believable because there was a time when, it is claimed by science, where there was no grass on earth. It was a more barren environment. With this decline in the levels of radioactivity they retreated to the depths of the ocean closer to the planets core. He responds to nuclear radioactivity although it is not clear how he feeds otherwise. I don’t know any natural animal that feeds solely on radioactive energy. It seems more like a creation of man than one of nature.  They also tried to tie in the actual history of nuclear testing to say that these were attempts to kill Godzilla in the 50s. It is interesting especially when these creatures are tied into the various nuclear plants around the world or our history of nuclear development. The focus is primarily on Japan,  Hawaii, San Francisco, California and Nevada. Godzilla and these other mega monsters seem to be tied only into our nuclear history. There does not seem to be anything beyond that apart from a few sightings. This seems to be in keeping with the origins story of the original Japanese version of Godzilla which is tied into nuclear warfare; the only known use of nuclear bombs in war was by the US military in WW2 when they dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I liked that they went back to the origin stories of Godzilla although they did not apply extensively to Godzilla and focused more on the MUTOs. The 1998 version was trying to do away with the history of the character and so revamp completely without a foundation. This film modernizes Godzilla yet acknowledges the influence of the Japanese creators particularly with the roar. The role played by ken Watanabe as Dr. Ishiro Seriwaza is no fluke. He is a Japanese representative amongst the various white (and black in one case) scientists, engineers and military personnel. Why couldn’t the Brody’s be Japanese? Well that would be an interesting answer.

Another positive about this film is the human element. We must understand that the perception of Godzilla in this film is how we would perceive the character as human beings. How would we react if we saw this giant lizard rampaging through a city fighting giant bat like or insect like monsters? The human element does distract from Godzilla as the epicenter and is content to let him remain a legendary figure. The question remains can such a larger than life lizard remain the epicenter of a film when there is not much to him apart from fighting other large monsters? Such a creature cannot really be explained. When the actual monster fights do come there is nothing much in it really. If Godzilla was to be the epicenter they would not have the MUTOs. Godzilla would be the rampaging behemoth. This is a problem with the film because they seem to want to portray Godzilla as some sort of savior while at the same time portraying him as a force nature. The two are not compatible on a moral basis.

The special effects were good and the destruction was epic in scale.  The fights were not as remarkable however.

Negatives

The primary negative is that Godzilla is not the epicenter of the film. While watching the early scenes of the film, having not watched any trailers, I thought that the discoveries of 1999 were tied into Godzilla. I was surprised that the big reveal were these bat like or insect like behemoths  called MUTOs and not the King himself . I was disappointed from then on and so the movie became a drag as I watched these MUTO’s rampaging across the world. It was not remarkable to watch.  Making Godzilla the epicenter would not necessarily mean you have to explain his origins as a beast to any great extent but those patterns and discoveries associated with the MUTO’s could have been applied to him instead and would not take away from the mysterious nature. It could also go back to the original premise regarding Godzilla as a product of our nuclear activity although the species itself existed from the time of the dinosaurs. He would have been mutated by various nuclear activities and would act as a reminder or a warning about our nuclear agenda. Whatever does not kill you mutates you. This is what the 1998 film was trying to achieve but fell flat in its execution because it ignored its foundations and went too far in trying to sensationalize the product. Anyone looking at Godzilla would know that he is some hybrid of various reptilian creatures and is so designed to achieve mammoth proportions. Why not stay true to that. The explanation about his species is acceptable but Godzilla himself needed to establish more of a presence to resonate apart from his famous roar and fire breathing potential. He must be the only creature in history that can breath fire and this must be as a result of his exposure to nuclear energy. How does he feed? Are there more Godzillas out there? Is he the last of his kind like King Kong?

The mystery of Godzilla should have been the starting point for this reboot of the series. By the end even with him standing tall he is still just appears as a visual upgrade and nothing more. What a thing if they could have tracked his  movements by simply placing a tracking device on him. The mystery from the beginning should have led to the big structure we see before us. A testament to man and nature. If he was created from nuclear energy then he would be a tortured animal coming to grips with his own existence. The movie should have been a discovery so that towards the end we would know more about him and not treat him as some legend from the depths of the ocean. He was not designed that way. You see Godzilla in flashes however you are supposed to see him emerge in  such a fashion that we are the observers, the creators and the potential destroyers.  The primary role was the one played by Godzilla in his many incarnations: Godzilla vs….. it seems the next sequel will have to find another big monster to fight and then another until box office receipts make it clear that it’s time to wrap up. The human element would not be lost because a love hate relationship between Godzilla and brody could have been developed if Godzilla was the main cause of his mother’s death. I thought that was how they were going to tie Godzilla to the main characters. He would have been the first signed up to kill it. The rise of Godzilla would be a more fitting title.

I was expecting a more radical interpretation of Godzilla than the tame one that is presented here. Imagine a scenario when nuclear energy has created several monsters who fight it out in order to see who remains supreme. It would be a series of events when the world would be on the brink of destruction and the world of man would be driven underground because of nuclear radioactivity and the only individuals that can coexist on the surface are these mega monsters.  The humans would still be only witnesses however their primary role would be to coax Godzilla into being a force for their cause in defeating all of the elements associated with nuclear energy especially the other monsters.  Godzilla would be on the human’s side because he was someone’s pet before he mutated. It sounds like B movie  material but it would be much more exciting for me because man would be truly subject to the domination of nature in a more grotesque form. One could also imagine Godzilla as a true force of nature who destroys the world of man as he goes along. We would try to stop him but are instead defeated and so he reigns supreme. The main issue being look at what we have created. The chickens have come home to roost sort of thing. We would be forced to destroy him. Godzilla in this case would have be a force of nature and not necessarily a villain. He would not be defeated but merely retreat to the ocean floor making people wonder whether or not they will see him again. Other questions could then be asked if this nuclear energy created Godzilla who is to say more monsters are not out there. This would tie into a sequel.

Those were my b movie alternatives however in this film the interpretation is too tame because a moral nature is not compatible with a force of nature. Nature restores balance because one force must be cooled by another however one force is the basis for the other one. They are both compatible and incompatible. There is therefore an unequal exchange where one must benefit or thrive at the expense of another.  The reason why there is such a balance is because each force of nature is compatible or incompatible with the next. One is a positive and the other is a negative and vice versa. They must be  elements of the whole. Godzilla does not make sense as a savior of humanity. The film seems to be stuck in two minds. At once he is perceived as a force of nature and in the other he is seen as a savior. In one scene he even shares a look with Brody in order that people can become sympathetic. In reality, however, Godzilla should be capable of the destruction wreaked by the MUTOs . He should have been in their place. If he was a force of nature he would not hesitate to attack the ships that initiated an assault. Just like a tornado does not ask for sympathy  Godzilla should not be presented as any heroic figure despite being a force of nature. A force of nature does not have any sympathy for humans it does not know or identify with. If there is one Godzilla there should be others. The original films understood this; it is not right to portray him as some omnipotent being. He only maintains balance by satisfying his own need not because he sees or senses other monsters.  It is by satisfying our own specific needs that we come into contact with other satisfying their own needs. This leads to conflict or conciliation based on the situation.  In nature various species come into contact violently  for various reasons not just to maintain balance. Nature is not as equal as people presume and it is prone to be very unequal.  What nature does acknowledge however is that anything too extreme will not reappear as often as lesser beings. Godzilla is probably such an extreme being but he exists now and so do you preserve this creature or seek to destroy it. There must be others of his kind if he is a product of nature and has survived since the age of dinosaurs.  

Lastly, I understood why they acknowledged the fact that Godzilla originated in japan but it is a flimsy acknowledgement. What a coincidence that the leading engineer who is on to something happens to be a white, American engineer in Japan. Why could it not be discovered by Japanese scientists and so forth? It only should become international when Japan enlists the aid of other nations or it is recognized that these monsters cannot be tamed by local forces. Why does the story happen to be centred on a white American family? Why would the MUTOs not go to Russia but go to Nevada? In other words why does it have to be so American centric? There is an aside where a Japanese boy goes missing and is reunited with his parents; that could easily be at the heart of the story instead of a white, American  bomb disposal expert seeking to reunite with his family. I suppose who funds the project must get due recognition.

Why Batman and Robin (1997) is a very influential film?

                                         (Joel Schumacher apologizes for Batman and Robin)

Batman and Robin has been universally condemned i.e. the critics and the regular moviegoers did not cherish the film. Yet from this condemnation was borne new fruit when Batman Begins (2005) was released and so ushering unprecedented success at the box office with the release of the sequels The Dark Knight (2008) and The Dark Knight Rises (2012). These three series of film offered a more gritty take on the  batman universe as opposed to the camp of the previous series directed and produced by Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher: Batman (1989) (directed by Tim Burton), Batman Returns (1992) (directed by Tim Burton), Batman Forever (1995) (directed by Schumacher) and Batman and Robin (1997). If Batman and Robin (directed by schumacher) was so bad then how can it be deemed influential?

One must bear in mind that influence can be both positive and negative. The positive normally emerges from the negative and likewise the negative emerges from the positive. This is done through several stages of mediation or transitions to the negative. When the negative emerges the positive state is negated and ceases to function in a positive light. This negative must be transformed into a new positive or it will fester. The importance here is the synthesis that emerges in the new positive. It will take on elements from the previous positive and the negative elements of the previous system are a means of reinforcing the new positive or the new direction. What I am saying is that in order to know that you are on a positive new direction you must have passed through the negative.

Batman and Robin, therefore, represented a negative direction for the series of Batman films that emerged in 1989. It reinforced the negative of the positive elements of the first 1989 film. This suggests that the path on which these films began naturally culminated with Batman and Robin. Batman and Robin was not a standalone effort. It was merely building on its own foundation which found a formula for success way back in 1989. It merely enhanced the contradictions in the positive. When people talk about being only positive it means that they are denying the contradiction inherent in such a premise. The contradiction is represented by the negative. So when Batman (1989) was released one can identify the elements that would lead to the downfall of the franchise with the release of Batman and Robin.

The primary contradiction or negative that began with Batman and culminated in Batman and Robin must be identified for this to make any sense. The primary negative of the original Tim Burton film was the exaltation of the character of the villains over the main protagonist that was Batman. There was the Joker in Batman and then the penguin in Batman Returns, the Riddler and Two face in Batman Forever and, lastly, Poison Ivy, Mr. Freeze and Bane in Batman and Robin. The exaltation of the villains over the hero stunted the development of the Bruce Wayne/Batman persona as he was rendered as a sideshow or, at times, a mere spectator.  The primary highlight of batman was the advanced technology at his disposal.

It was a success originally because the camp associated with Batman on tv, particularly, the television show of the 60s, was significantly reduced in favour of a more gritty reality. This gritty element was taken up by Nolan over a decade later. This was the  primary positive of Burton’s original film: the change in context. The exaltation of the villains being the primary negative.

Now when you have a successful formula you must abide by it until it fizzles out in the negative. As it begins to fizzle out the primary sign that things are going wrong or entering a state of the negative is the extravagance. When you have a formula of success you want to expand it, tweak it (not twerk), or refine it to perhaps make it better. In your mind you are doing the best you can to make that particular formula for success even more attractive. There is nothing wrong with this approach because those who support you come to depend on that successful formula and the extravagance that goes with it. Batman and Robin did fairly well at the box office internationally and if you adjust it according to ticket price inflation, it would not have done poorly in the US domestic market today. In terms of ticket price inflation, for instance, Batman Forever would have done very well by today’s standards. Batman Forever grossed $184 million+, domestically, in 1995 and when it is adjusted for ticket price inflation, according to box office mojo, that would equate to $336 million+ today. This means the amount of tickets sold would put it on par with a lot of the successful films today, in the top 144 according to Mojo. Batman and Robin made $107 million+ domestically or $77 million off its predecessor.  At 1995 prices it would be more like $83 million off. By today’s standards it would have made about $186 million according to Mojo. That is not too bad; better domestically than Thor (2011), $181 million, and almost as good, domestically, as Thor: the Dark World (2013), $206 million.

When you look at the franchise as well Batman and Robin would have added a significant amount to the series as a whole. This film however was suffering more from a qualitative point of view and this is where transitions normally take place. The quantity has bearing on quality because the quantity is generated on the basis of the qualitative shift or the successful formula that begun in 1989. The quantity was being generated although the quality was burdened by the weight of the quantity. It is just like squeezing as much out of a device even though you have to keep patching it and knocking it in order for it to work. The quantity influenced the quality in the case of Batman and Robin because of the many additions in the form of villains and support cast which was a means to generate more revenue. The original positive formula still remained however although it was now being overwhelmed by the negative elements.

Extravagance is normally a sign that the seeds of decay are being sown or that the elements of decay are already present. Extravagance is reflective of success in some particular field or area and so how do you continue to generate that success when the formula stops to work? The formula will not work forever and this is why it becomes a negative although initially very successful.  The extravagance will then become a sign that decay is ever present from a qualitative basis although the negatives are being amplified in extravagant form by the quantity. The negatives will then become a sign that the extravagance is loathed or derided. Batman and Robin by all accounts was dubbed an extravaganza. The ailing health of Alfred in that film was a clear sign.

I already spoke of how Batman and Robin, which amplified the negatives of the original formula, influenced the direction taken by Nolan with his films. However, with regard to other franchises their downfall was also echoed by the direction this film took when it was decided to focus on the negatives. We saw the downfall of the Spider-Man film franchise associated with Sam Raimi with the film Spider-Man 3 (2007) which was an extravaganza. It exalted all that made the first two great but amplified the negatives, the ghosts of Peter Parker’s past and his new found celebration of life that occurred at the end of Spider-Man 2. The first two were also very comic book in tone and context which explains all the randomness that came with the third. These negatives all contributed to the great extravaganza.  The final scene in that film was one half hearted way to tone down the extravagant elements that could be seen from a mile with the preceding film. It was still a better film than Batman and Robin because it acknowledged the extravagance and the decay inherent in it. This was why the final scene was so unspectacular and less celebratory. With Batman and Robin they persisted with the spectacular even while sinking.

Batman and Robin acts as a reminder to all franchises. Marvel comic films are doing well at the moment but are the seeds of decay being sown as we speak. That is for another time but all will be revealed with the release of The Avengers 2: the Age of Ultron. Nolan learned from its failure and rightly stated that he will not do another Batman film. Knowing when to pull out before the extravaganza gets to your head is a good start. I am not judging because when anyone finds a successful formula they are going to use it, exalt it and amplify it. We will sow the seeds of our own destruction without even realizing it because of the extravaganza that is generated by our success.

The Amazing Spiderman 2 (2014) ***/5: Marginal improvement over the first film but there are too many story webs. There is a great story here but not fully developed.

The Amazing Spiderman 2 is a marginal improvement over its predecessor. With that said a marginal improvement for this film does not place it within the elite of the superhero canon. I was not sure which story they wanted to tell and so a lot of elements are either convoluted or tacked on to ground the film. By including many elements it does not remove the fact that these elements are still superficial. If they focused on one of the many story threads that have been woven into this film it would have been more of a success.  Also the film carries on from its predecessor by trying to overwhelm us with emotions but I was not overwhelmed and was cringing most of the time. It also did not learn from the first two spiderman films directed by Sam Raimi (which started the golden age of superhero movies) by showing a bit of restraint. Sam Raimi let it all go in Spider-man 3 but I believe that there was pressure from executives which must be factored into that overloaded film. I also think it is the same here because one has to generate ticket sales and the best way to do that in a superhero film is to jack up the action.  I will disagree with the critics that say that the romance between Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) and Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) is a standout. The romance was hackneyed and you are not clear which direction they were taking it apart from kissing and saying ‘I love you’. The real standout, for me,  was the character of Gwen Stacy.

This film basically carries on from its predecessor with Peter parker going into his first year of college. He still has to grapple with the death of Gwen’s father and this makes him wary of his relationship with her.  His responsibilities as spiderman vs. his more realistic duties as friend, nephew and boyfriend come into contact with various characters. The main villain here is Electro/Max Dillon (Jamie Foxx) (I remembered his name). Also the death of Norman Osborne, head of Oscorp, brings Harry Osborn (Dane dehaan), heir to the throne, into the spotlight. The main connecting thread here is the mystery surrounding the peter’s parents.

Positives

The primary positives have been carried on from the first film. The first being the updated look that contemporary audiences can relate to and this serves its purpose up until a certain limit. The contemporary vibe is welcome whereas in the Sam raimi versions the aesthetic seemed more comic book in nature and did not include contemporary references etc. I have no issue with the raimi version only to say that the aesthetic was limited to how it was presented in the comics.

Another positive is that this series of spiderman films are more faithful to comic book version. This is clear with the amount of time spent with the development of the relationship between Gwen Stacy and Peter parker. In Spider-man 3 she was an afterthought. Also parker creates his own web shooter here and a lot of time is spent on these particularly as he has to adapt after a duel with electro. There is a lot of physics involved. As peter parker Andrew Garfield seems more at ease with the scientific jargon than Tobey Maguire did when he played the role under Raimi. Garfield does seem more at ease as spiderman in this film particularly his attempts at smart mouthing.

I also liked that they delved deeper into peter’s past surrounding his parents. This was always a sore point of the Raimi versions. It does help to explain a lot about why peter parker was allowed to become spiderman. Won’t spoil it here. It is an important connecting thread and gives the film a distinctive feel as opposed to merely being in the shadow of the Raimi versions.

They bring a lot of star power to this film that anchors some of the many absurd premise. Jamie Foxx makes the quirky character of max Dillon believable especially when he becomes electro. A lesser actor would have bombed. Sally field as aunt May provides some nice touches particularly with the emotional scenes. It is a good sign for comic book films that serious actors are coming on board on a regular basis. Superhero films are the best action films out there right now. It is now a great vehicle for an actor to improve their ratings with the public. Films like this benefit from having experienced actors because they keep the character grounded.

The action is ok but it is not jaw dropping. What the 3d does for the film is that the scale of it is expanded. Also one other improvement is the specific nature of spiderman’s special sensory ability. This is demonstrated in his first encounter with electro. There are more physical demands on spiderman in this film although they are yet to top the train stopping scene in Spider-man 2.  

The visual effects are well done and seem very organic or well integrated into the context. A lot of the fantastic CGI is explained scientifically to make it seem even more plausible although the main villains emerge in a very strange manner that no science can explain.

The villains, however, are a clear improvement over the first film. Big improvement. The lizard in the first film was a joke and I already stated why in my review of the first entry to this series.

The main standout character for me was the character of Gwen Stacy. Very involved in the action just by using her initiative and this contrasts with Mary jane from the Raimi pictures that acted helpless most of the time.

Negatives

The main negative here is the story. There are too many threads woven in this web created by the producers. There are several story lines here with each being a film in their own right. I don’t have a problem with the abundance of characters but it is clear that not everyone can play a major role. It should have been established from earlier on who the head honcho is however they only acknowledged that by the end in anticipation of  part 3. In this film however each storyline could have been a movie on its own. The harry Osborne story alone would have been enough; even electro could have carried a movie. It is because of all these threads I was not sure what story they wanted to tell. At first I thought it would be about some experiments relating to peter’s parents; then I thought it would have been about electro; then I thought it would be about harry Osborne; and I thought they would devote a section to rhino (paul giamatti).

Apart from the storyline related to the parents which could have been linked with Osborne there does not appear much that is really necessary. The connection between electro and spider man is flimsy. Max Dillon is obsessed with spiderman but that should not be the only connection. He could have been his own villain but he is merely represented as a power surge for all his tough talking. He does not represent anything that could alter how we understand the world of spiderman. There are some superficial moments, such as two passenger airlines on a crash couse with each other,  that are entertaining tidbits but do not necessarily explain anything or move the story forward. Electro wants attention and that’s good but there is not much more to it.  When Harry becomes the goblin it would only make sense if his father was the green goblin before. Sam Raimi understood this well and this film never established the connection from the first film. How did Harry become so proficient using advanced weaponry? The best superhero films demonstrate that the villain is always related to a more general trend in the particular world which they reside. The Oscorp politics provided the basis for such an exposition of the villains in this film. It seems it will only play that role for par 3 but it is not clear why Oscorp has to resort to villainy. Is it because of their experiments? Probably. Harry Osborne would not have to resort to becoming the goblin to be a major player in this film. Instead the power plays are done by anonymous characters that are of little consequence.

They have a great story here but it needs to be clearly highlighted who is the one controlling all the strings. Here it is more like everyone finding their way and so the film comes together somewhat by the end. It comes together but it makes it clear that a villain like Electro was not necessary. Rhino would have been a better fit based on the role he plays towards the end.

I thought the romance was hackneyed. It didn’t offer much apart from I love you etc. I understand the issue with the father but when the film starts they are happily in love and then he suddenly breaks up with her; then he follows her around; then they try to be friends; and when there is supposed to be a clean break they say I love you again only for it to end in tragedy.

There was too much crying and teen angst in this film that did not have much of an impact on the film. They were trying to build up towards a release that never occurred apart from the sentiment attached to Gwen stacy. Peter you don’t have to cry for everything.