The Amazing Spider-man (2012) **½ /5: As a definitive interpretation of the Spiderman mythos this film misses the mark

The Spiderman film legacy has officially been muddled by inchoate pseudo- scientific explanations and a mish mash of facile commentary futilely seeking to be absorbed within the superhero film canon. Did you get that? Well it’s the same feeling you will get when you encounter the mysterious formulas that propel the story of  this film The Amazing Spider-Man up until its lazy climax. You should not worry however for these formulas mean nothing and amount to mere twaddle.  The film does have engaging set pieces and the 3D stereoscopic images do enhance the scale of the picture on display although artificially. It is unfortunate however that the film was not able to supersede the original Spider-Man (2002) as well as Spider Man 2 (2004). It will go down in history as a farcical version of its predecessors by trying to engage the audience with a script that would be more suitable within the context of Frankenstein and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde rather than in the Spiderman universe. Peter Parker also seems to be a tortured beautiful mind (reference to the film A Beautiful Mind (2001)). I say that it is unfortunate because this film makes it clear that gaps were indeed left by Raimi and his crew such as the mystery behind who were Peter’s parents etc. It borrows shamelessly from the precepts developed in its predecessors as well as a plot influenced significantly by Christopher Nolan’s Batman Begins (2005). The main villain’s plan in The Amazing Spiderman (2012) is similar to the one orchestrated by Ra's Al Ghul in Batman Begins where he attempted to spread fear toxins throughout Gotham city. The main failure of this film therefore is that it failed to supersede its predecessors as well as other superhero films. It has therefore contributed nothing new to our understanding of what it means to be a superhero in the mythical fantasies that have gripped the imagination of film goers. The film has good moments that are not elevated sufficiently to the point where the premise would soar into that great creative void of filmdom. The inability of the screenwriters and the directors to flesh out a premise therefore reveals the struggle in the final scenes of the film to achieve the emotional release it sought in the retelling.  These final scenes seem to be tacked on mercilessly as the filmmakers make it apparent that they are seeking that moment where the emotions or the imaginations of the various audience members will rally around this misunderstood hero.  The wrong approach was taken in this film where the elements of  Raimi’s first two efforts were seemingly absorbed within the space of 2 hours and change which is the duration of this film. The emotional release of Spider-Man 2 was understandable considering the build up and restraint exhibited in Spider-Man. The teen angst of Peter Parker is understandable but his exploits as Spiderman clearly question whether or not it is heroic. He appears to be so brow beaten and weathered by despair, infatuation and a desperate urge for retribution that you begin to realize that he is merely acting out a teenage fantasy. Raimi took the smart approach by avoiding all that unnecessary drama because now this new interpretation seems to be swamped in a state of bathos. In other words Spiderman himself is not amazing although the film is amazingly lackluster. One wonders if Sony should not have sought to retell the story in a more progressive manner. It is admitted that Spider-Man 3 (2007) suffered more by trying to continue after the emotional release experienced in Spider-Man 2 (which is still the most satisfying dramatic offering from marvel studios. Iron Man (2008) was mere spectacle which would account for the current crisis of facile interpretations of the subject) than the perception that it was such a terrible film. Love it or hate it the film had the right elements although much of it was jumbled. Whatever the perception of that film the right idea was still there as Raimi and crew sought to move forward with the story. Sony wasted a lot of money on this endeavour by acting so regressive. As the star is 28 years old have him play an older Peter and reinterpret from there instead and keep the series moving forward and have him delve into his past from there.

This film is about Spiderman/Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) discovering the secrets of a shady aspect of his past involving his parents and their longtime friend Dr. Kurt Connors (Rhys Ifans).The deeper Parker delves the more superficial the story becomes as the longtime friend of his parents, based on a pseudo scientific formula provided by Peter, creates a chemical that allows for the transference of animal DNA into humans as a means to heal disfigured limbs or for general purposes of regeneration and security against health hazards. After a crisis at work Dr. Connors in desperation uses the chemical on himself and he is transformed into a giant lizard that becomes the new terror on the block. Peter must now account for the consequences of his failure as well as he seeks to stop the giant lizard that has formulated a diabolical plan which is sure to endanger the citizens of New York City despite the best intentions of the poor doctor.

What’s good about this film?

The film does make a good case for the reinterpretation of Spiderman’s origin story. The extent which the filmmakers and Sony were able to achieve its objective is debatable. Firstly, not much is known of Peter’s parents and the film attempts to address and should be commended although the story is rather shady and is not clearly resolved. Secondly it is acknowledged in the comics that Gwen Stacey was the first girlfriend of Peter Parker and the film adheres to this tradition instead of making her an afterthought as was done in Spider-Man 3. It will be interesting to see how Mary Jane is portrayed in this series of films. She will probably be portrayed as the more mature type however that remains to be seen. In any case Stacey is portrayed with the customary verve associated with Emma Stone and does play a significant role in defeating the villain. She does seem distinctive as a character and does set herself apart from the dominant Mary Jane figure that the audiences are so accustomed to. One wonders whether she will be the perennial girlfriend for this series of films. Her father, Captain Stacey (Denis Leary), as a high ranking police officer does provide a significant contrast to Spiderman as a man that represents the hypocritical bourgeois code of ethics. The debate between himself and Peter at the dinner table does expose the infantile perceptions of Peter Parker and his delusions of grandeur. He keeps calling himself a hero and up until then did not realize that he had not done enough to justify calling himself a hero of the people. One crucial element in that discussion was the reference to organized crime. Peter having thought that he captured a car thief as spider man is informed by the police chief that the car thief was linked to crime bosses. He is also exposed as a superhero that leaves an easy trail to follow and this naiveté is found out by the Lizard. I have always thought that a serious discussion about Spiderman’s role as a crime fighter was important because although Spiderman does keep the streets safe he has never really demonstrated that he can go after the top crime bosses who launder money or who deal in the lucrative drug trade or the brutality of gang warfare. In the Raimi films, as well as this one, he only handles small timers such as petty robbers and then goes home and whines about the burdens he has to bear as a crime fighter. In this film he is a major whiner and so they never improved on this idealized quality of peter parker who is merely a petty bourgeois living in a bourgeois world trying to become a professional scientist and aid in the growth of labour productivity so that capital can be better served. Parker has not demonstrated in any of the Spiderman films that he can interact with the dark side of New York. As a so called hero he is pretty one dimensional. It is no surprise that his main villains have been scientists like himself who have veered down the dark side of capital as they desperately seek to have their scientific discoveries embraced by the populace so that capital will continue to shine and dazzle the weak minded. Most people should be aware by now that most of the discoveries in science are in service to capital.  He would have to go on anti-depressants if he took on the caseload of the batman who goes deep into the heart of crime. In such a case it will be good to see if the creators introduce Kingpin as a major villain in this series because he alone of all Spiderman’s villains is closely linked to organized crime.

The context seems to be more extensive in this film and is less colourful than the Raimi versions which were so bright that even when Spiderman went to the dark side it was only for a short while and never altered dramatically the overall cheerful mood. Peter parker in this current release does seem more grounded in reality. The technology is up to date and one wonders why parker uses Bing instead of Google as a search engine; does it have anything to do with competition or the inability to come up with the sums sufficient to pay for the right to broadcast the image? Who knows what goes on behind closed doors when it comes to discussions between these giant corporations? Oscorp looms as the bastion of scientific knowledge in this film and one hears the name of Norman Osborne mentioned a lot which suggests that he will come to play a major role in the next installments. The edgier tone does make Peter parker seem like a geek/nerd from the real world for based on how he acts I have seen people who act in a similar fashion. This peter parker does stand up to the bullies and only lacks the physical strength to become a significant force although that all changes when he is bitten by a radioactive spider and becomes feared by his peers. The presentation of the film makes one wonder whether or not Peter parker is just an ordinary nerd acting out his fantasies as he seeks to punish those who have dared to cross him. A lot of juveniles that have experienced or are experiencing bullying will readily identify with the parker trials and how this bullying can create a powerful imaginary effect in the minds of the oppressed that focuses on what one would do against these bullies if only he or she had the power. I would get suspicious when a nerd is suddenly able to dunk a basketball and shatter the glass in the process.

The film does deal with a specific period of Peter’s life: his late teenage years. There is therefore a lot of teen angst in this film as peter comes to accept that he must become responsible before he can call himself an adult. The Raimi versions which stayed true to the comic books brushed aside these teen years. Even the early comics do not provide a suitable explanation of Peter’s teen years. This film tries to ground itself deeply in this period. It could be said too deeply because by the end it fails to achieve the release it was looking for i.e. making spider man imprint (this is no reference to twilight) himself on the imagination of movie goers. I can say with certainty that this spiderman will not be tolerated by some moviegoers. 

There are a bucket loads of tears in this film which would highlight that this is more  a serious dramatic film  as opposed to the more fun loving Raimi versions.

The pseudo science on show here does seem more in depth and the actor seems more in command of what he is saying portraying a 17 year old. In the Raimi versions peter did not seem like an innovator in the field of science whereas in this new release he does seem to be able to hold his own with fantastically, yet meaningless, conjured algorithms which are hardly serious and must be classified as comic book science. The senior scientist in this film oohs and aahs when the mish mash of a mysterious algorithm is presented to him. Regardless of the pseudo science on display it does make the film seem grounded as we watch it progress and we see peter parker get more involved with the mysteries of science. I say pseudo science because most of the science on display should only be theoretical but in the world of comic books it comes alive.

The action was fairly well done although it does not add anything new to the franchise. The movements of Spiderman remain the same although they have opted for artificial web shooters as opposed to the self-generated, organic webs from the body of peter parker in the Raimi versions. Aside from this the movements of Spiderman remain the same when he fights and slings around the city. There are some movements that are taken directly from the Raimi versions. The 3D images however provide a first person point of view style of web slinging where we can imagine what it is like to be Spiderman. Eventually these actions only serve to bring back fond memories and this new series has yet to demonstrate that it will supersede the action seen in the Raimi versions.

 I liked that Jonah Jameson  the vulgar editor  in chief was absent. I suppose that you cannot rule him out for long.

What’s bad about this film?

The main problem that several moviegoers will have with this film is its inability to sufficiently reinterpret the Spiderman mythos i.e. not much will distinguish it from the Raimi versions apart from the edgier tone. This is because it still borrows from the previous Raimi versions. This reinterpretation probably came too early and so  there was not much time for Sony to clear its head. In terms of finding its own footing therefore it had to borrow from other franchises that experienced a similar revival. The most obvious example would be the batman franchise which started promisingly under Tim Burton in 1989 but crashed in ignominy with the fourth installment Batman and Robin (1997). Christopher Nolan, his brother and David S. Goyer provided a fresh interpretation with Batman Begins (2005) which was edgier in tone and would eradicate to some extent the camp and buffoonery of the 90s versions. The success of this new realistic interpretation was made evident with the worldwide success of The Dark Knight (2008). The writers for this film seem to be going for that formula to the extent where a rip off of Nolan’s approach to storytelling was evident particularly when it comes to the plot of the main villain which is a giant man lizard. It was a shameless knock off and quite obvious to the experienced moviegoer and the sad thing was that it was not necessary because the mad scientist rap has been extensive in this series with Norman Osborn and Doc Ock. They could have gone for a new type of villain such as a Kingpin who of all the Spiderman villains would fit in with the edgier tone here for no matter how edgy you become you cannot justify a giant man lizard in the real world. How effective would it be if the petty criminal he is looking for so as to avenge the death of Uncle Ben was linked to this imposing crime boss. The rip off of the Nolan approach does not even offer a new spin and even manages to vulgarize it in this farcical version where the solution to the main villain’s plan is simply resolved. The villain obviously is not noteworthy apart from his menacing physique which is good for the brief passages of entertainment but it is not sufficient when one considers that he does not resonate with the audience after the credits roll.

(Just a small note here: the Spider Man series developed by Sony does not necessarily have to borrow from Nolan's version because the Raimi versions set its own standards within the super hero canon. The Spider man universe is rich enough whereby it does not need  to borrow from Nolan's take on the batman series. Nolan himself is not original on all fronts. There are some elements in his films that were preceded by the Sam Raimi versions.)

 ‘The villain was this big lizard. I don’t really remember what he wanted. I think it had to do with his relationship with Peter. He kept saying poor Peter as if he was going to hug him.’

This reinterpretation is muddled by pseudo science i.e. science that remains only theoretical. I say again that pseudo science is something everyone can come up with theoretically. What if I could absorb the strength of an ant through a special chemical? I could then become ant man.  In this case the science project seems so futile in its approach to seem original that it only manages to look ridiculous particularly when peter gets involved and provides the mysterious solution. The experienced scientist who is the main villain and the friend of peter’s parents merely accepts this solution without critical analysis. He accepts but never offers a rigorous logical scrutiny to test its viability. What the screenwriters do is have the process simulated through a test of  the formula on the computer on  what would represent the biological makeup of a rat.  This is the only scrutiny it will experience and it is not even wondered that the success was too blinding. In Spider-Man 2 the explanation for Doc Ock’s demise becomes evident here although his scientific experiment was more realistic as it dealt with energy and not some warped biological experiment that has no precedence. The development of new energy sources has been a priority of man over the last two centuries. Elements from Doc Ock’s dementia are also shamelessly brought back in the makeup of this new lizard type of villain. It can therefore be said that this new villain who is supposed to test Spiderman’s resolve is hardly worth the ticket price. You can see it coming from a mile way when you first see him and hear of the experiment he is working on. He is so desperate that he relies on the advice of a junior scientist that stole notes from his father’s untested formulas. Spider-Man 2 was superior in the development of its villain. This movie rips off that approach and throws in the Nolan formula for good measure.

The spiderman legacy has therefore been muddled in its attempt to appear distinctive. It tried to offer a new interpretation but upon closer inspection it is clearly a rip off of better films that were not so burdened by satisfying the corporate urge for new profits. When the films by Raimi and Nolan came to the fore their stories were fresh and had no precedent although each borrowed one way or the other but its own distinctive context made the telling acceptable to the audience. Spider-Man was the first major film about the hero and likewise Nolan’s approach to batman reversed the one offered by the franchise of 90’s. The burden of the legacy on this new film seems to be too much and comes down heavily and smothers it with its weight and therefore makes it difficult to supersede and become distinctive or walk on its own two feet. This is not helped because it borrows so heavily from the previous Raimi versions that made Spiderman distinctive. This new version does not make Spiderman seem distinctive at all and not even the 3D first person point of view shots help significantly. If it wanted to escape the burden of legacy it should have gone for a different approach as to how Spiderman fights crime. He is supposed to take responsibility for creating a giant lizard.

This is why I suppose they focus on the teen angst of Peter Parker as opposed to the Spiderman as a distinctive hero. Peter Parker is portrayed as downtrodden punk trying to make a difference. He has all the attributes of the nerd and is burdened by his past because his parents deserted him over a phony science project. There are a lot of tears in this film on his part as he loses his adult mentors particularly Uncle Ben. He still has the interest of Gwen Stacy which  feeds his infatuation. The love story is hardly memorable however for the kiss between Mary Jane and Peter in Spider-Man and the finale of Spider-Man 2 were much more memorable. In this film the two actors attempt to act younger than they really are and it is so sad. The romance seems more adult than teen and here Raimi was a success for he highlighted the various transitions from teen to young adult etc. In this film the two seemed burdened by the world. It is not memorable and will be forgotten let’s leave it at that. The burden that Peter parker feels as an outcast is translated in his approach to playing Spiderman. He tries to sound clever but he does not pull off most of the jokes and it is too bad because Tobey McGuire from the Raimi version was much more relaxed in his demanour and it was reflected in his delivery. In this one peter parker seems too burdened and Spiderman wades around like a drunken man in some cases and does seem like a lost teenager who is not really a hero. In the final shots when you see Spiderman slinging around it does not seem as if you are watching a definitive superhero. It seems as if the filmmakers were trying to make him appear hip and iconic when he is not in this case.

Lastly this burden felt by the teenage peter parker sees the filmmakers try to evoke some emotions but this falls flat and must count as a failure. They burden parker and the audience so much with the teen angst that you can see the need for an emotional release. It seems as if they tacked on several final scenes with the hope that the audience will be left wondering. This is not the case here because the more scenes at the end suggest that the filmmakers missed the mark. They were too desperate for that final flourish that would make spidey seem iconic and it appears as if the tragedy of the franchise continues.   They shamelessly tried to absorb the themes of the first two Raimi films that the casual moviegoer may not realize, but should, that this is overkill and that they are being burdened unnecessarily. This is why most audience members will not feel as if the film resonates with them after the credits roll.

All in All a mediocre film but as a definitive reinterpretation it misses the mark. It should go down as a good try.

The Social Network (2010) ****/5.

Justin Timberlake as Sean Parker and Jesse Eisenberg as Mark Zuckerberg


( I did this review in 2010. I am posting it here to commemorate Facebook's first IPO on the Nasdaq stock exchange. This film remains relevant because it explains the origins of this global soft ware empire)


The Social Network (2010) is a good film. The taglines for the film which interested me were 'Punk, Genius, Billionaire'. I was expecting the film to explain all three particularly why he is a genius. It's because he is supposed to be a genius why the facebook server can maintain so much traffic on the web (500 million). The film does explain to an extent why he is a genius although years will have to pass before we can see the true significance of his breakthrough i.e. how it can be applied to other fields of computer science and how this will encourage the development of new programming techniques. It is clear however that this is one of the year's best films: good writing, editing, musical score and, most importantly, good acting and direction are all there. The film centres on the development of the popular social networking site facebook. Whereas the film speaks of how it grew into existence it is more concerned with the developments at the top i.e. with those who founded it and issues relating to copyright or whose idea it really is.  There are two civil lawsuit cases in the film. One is very insignificant (he is being sued by he Winkle voss twins. This is a good performance from Armie Hammer Jr.) Although it does explain certain issues whereas the other civil suit provides the catalyst for the film's dramatic moments (Zuckerberg is being sued by his best friend and business partner Eduardo Severin(Andrew Garfield) ). It is from the court cases that we get glimpses, through flashbacks, of the process of facebook's development. The majority of the story is not told from Zuckerberg's (Jesse Eisenberg) perspective but by those who either testified against him or are suing. As the civil suits are against Zuckerberg he does not say much and instead demonstrates his unwillingness to answer questions. He tries to be clever by trying to evade the questions thrown at him. This is a source of clever jabs etc but that does not distinguish him as a genius. Some of the dialogue is typical sarcasm and intellectual snobbery nothing elevating.

The film begins with Zuckerberg as the typical undergraduate punk at Harvard who wants to do well. He is also an intellectual snob and this affects how he interacts with people in the film. Doing well at Harvard means being accepted to one of the elite clubs. Zuckerberg has his eye on the phoenix club. It is, as is always the case, elitist and quite exclusive. In order to be initiated one has to go through several grueling rituals as Eduardo discovers when he is given the call. It is worth a digression here to say that Eduardo's acceptance seems to become a source of ire between him and Zuckerberg. In order to get accepted you have to gain the attention of the club. Zuckerberg gets the motivation after he breaks with his girl in the opening scene and trashes her on the internet and creates a site (no spoilers here only to say that the site revolves around the women on the campus) on the internet through the Harvard network that gets people's attention. The film does explain why Zuckerberg feels he has to get accepted to these clubs. Not only because they are exclusive but because the people in those clubs normally end up in the top positions in American society. As the club is presented in the film it is not clear why he would want to get accepted as it is the typical bourgeois set up which is prone to libertine excesses that border on sodomy. It's no wonder corruption is acceptable or seen as the norm in the great United States of America. Zuckerberg's fanaticism about getting into the club eventually leads him to get involved with the WInklevoss twins who approach him with the idea of developing a site for social networking. Zuckerberg takes up the idea as his own, along with Severin, (the facebook) and this becomes the source of the lawsuit filed by the Winklevoss twins. This case is significant in the film for it highlights Zuckerberg's genius as a programmer.

Genius is hard to grasp nowadays it seems. Whereas the Winklevoss twins may have come up with a basic idea of what the site was to be about they never developed the actual program that Zuckerberg used to get facebook started. The Winklevoss twins are intellectual hacks with no real sense of originality. Their behavior is characteristic of the typical sycophantic bourgeois who give the proletariat the impression that they are smart and worthy to be their rulers when in fact their thoughts are based on existing facts. If they have any original thoughts it is baseless. Harvard however has a high intellectual standard and they must have been able to engross the existing facts pretty well like the rest who are there, not because of their connections, but their intellectual abilities. They would perhaps stand out in spheres with a low intellectual standard where the man who can master the existing knowledge is the genius and is praised highly for his intellect. This man however will never make any real breakthroughs of his own.   The development of a site like facebook with its unique program could not have developed from such sycophantic personalities as the film highlights to its credit. The basic genius of facebook is its ability to manage such a large flow of traffic on the internet and this distinguishes it from other social networking sites such as MySpace.  It seems the Winklevoss twins were determined to follow the similar lines of those sites. The only difference was that they wanted it restricted to Harvard only. Only those with the Harvard server address could enlist.  Also the breakthrough by Zuckerberg makes one understand why he would not need to finish Harvard in the first place. A cameo by Bill Gates probably illustrates the point well. With Zuckerberg's breakthrough, which opened many doors and created a new soft ware empire, he would not need a degree from Harvard to validate how smart he is. There are the average people who use the degree as a crutch to advance in society for they will never possess that idea that will have them soar over the heads of the PHDs etc; or the idea that will fuel an entrepreneurial venture that inevitably leads to a fortune. In this case it's the multibillion dollar empire of facebook.

Zuckerberg best friend Eduardo is portrayed as the unceasing social climber who is prepared to be the typical sycophant who rises by kissing asses and would perhaps prefer to contribute to the value of another man company rather than having the insight and determination to form his own path. This is where the billionaire factor of facebook comes from and why Sean parker (Timberlake), founder of the now defunct napster, comes in. He is the idealist who contrasts with Severin's realism and kiss ass philosophy. His idealism, although reckless at times, does contribute to Facebook's growth into a multibillion dollar empire. This is a good performance by Timberlake as he is able to reveal all the nuances of the character as delineated by the screen writers. His paranoia is the negative feature of his character. If Severin had not pointed it out in his testimony on the character it would be hard for viewers to see beyond the veneer of his suave calculating persona. His paranoia obviously becomes more evident by the end but it cannot be denied that when you first see him he is probably the coolest person on earth.  You then get to understand how he is able to weave his web around Zuckerberg.  People might be glad to see Parker in his less than stellar moments but it is clear that his idealism catapulted facebook into the great tomorrow which is now: 500million users. He is the one who takes Zuckerberg to meet new investors so that he can expand his business. He and Zuckerberg do share a common belief, which contrasts with the short sighted Severin, that in its initial stages facebook is just a fad and that you should not be in too much of a hurry to be demanding money from the consumers. Eduardo, who tries to contend with Parker, naively tries to freeze his initial investment of $18000 (which kept the company going initially) to try and teach Zuckerberg a lesson. In fact when Eduardo is forced out of the company because of his kiss ass philosophy, which allows him to be taken advantage of, it is then we see him seizing the moment and suing Zuckerberg for 600 million. It is even probable that Severin by freezing the account in which the initial capital of the company lay could actually be seen as the motivating factor for Zuckerberg and parker to alienate him. The film illustrates his kiss ass philosophy well in a scene that involves his Asian girlfriend (Brenda Song). It is clear that she is determined to control him and it's only after she burns a gift that he gives her because his relationship status is single that he has the courage to be assertive with her. If it was a different man who was more in control she could not speak down to him as she does. The filmmakers used that scene well without it seeming superfluous. It is an important scene that highlights the weakness of Severin's character. It is only after that scene that he starts to take charge. By showing his weaknesses the screenwriters were able to effectively demonstrate that with him facebook would not have gone very far.  The film, therefore, cannot be called bias. Yes it was unfair of Zuckerberg and Sean, who was president at the time, to do what they did but the film does demonstrate why they did it. Don't be too quick to cast judgment.

All in all everything is on point in this film. This is one of the year's best films. It should do well at the Oscars. The reason why it is good is because it's not biased for as was said before the civil lawsuits are where the film is centred; the rest is just primarily flashbacks. As a judge in a civil suit you have to be objective and listen to both sides and determine who was right or wrong. Yes you should not be surprised by the outcome as it's supposed to be based on fact but the screenwriters gave you the opportunity to judge on your own because the motivation of each character is clear and is conveyed well by each actor. There is no clear cut means of determining who was right or wrong. Where the characters erred was in their inherent personality. Sean Parker is paranoid, Zuckerberg is an intellectual snob and Severin is a sycophant. That is the source of the drama in the film: how these personalities collide not only with each other but with others. It is the credit to the filmmakers that they were able to convey this without being biased in favour of any individual. It still remains to be seen the extent of his genius i.e. how far the programme used to create facebook can be applied to other spheres of life. The filmmakers have, however, given you the basic reasons for his individual achievements which  should be enough as only time can tell what are Facebook's limits however its still 500 million and going.

Again this is one the year's best films.

Delay

To all those that read my blog the rate at which i post on this site will be affected because I am currently writing a dissertation for my phd. I will still post but at a slower rate.

The Avengers (2012) ****/5: Good film for its entertainment value. The film revels in its superficiality

This film is good despite its limitations. It is good solely as popcorn entertainment and one can imagine the discussions between groups of teenagers and tweenagers (those in their early  twenties) that will ensue in the couple of weeks. ‘Did you see the hulk smash?’  or ‘the visual effects were awesome’ ‘the movie was really funny. I liked that scene between Hulk and Loki.’ ‘the action was worth the money. I came to be entertained and so I was. I would go and watch it again with friends.’ ‘What are you doing tonight? You want to go and watch the Avengers?’ Discussions of the sort will swirl for the next couple of weeks because of the genuine entertainment value of the film. This film is hardly profound and is very predictable however it does have moments of humour that compensate for the lulls and whenever there is doubt the filmmakers ratchet up the action be it with a brief confrontation or a couple aliens invading Manhattan. The film is clearly American centric and hardly encompasses the worldwide struggle.  The Avengers are not Earth’s greatest heroes they are America’s greatest heroes. The political inspiration for Americans or backward nations within its sphere of influence that incessantly kiss ass, is clear to outsiders that are not too thrilled by the film. The 3D effects do add some dimension and it is utilized effectively at points when it comes to the viewpoint of the audience as well as the scale of the action that takes place in the final battle. I must admit that the visual effects are pretty impressive when one considers the scale of the action. In the end however the battle is not as climactic because you eventually realize that it takes place within a pretty confined space and even nuclear bombs are brought into the fray. It would have been good if the film had some residual effect apart from the avengers themselves which would demonstrate that the struggle continues. The end of the film reminded me of other team movies with the most recent popular hit being The Fast and the Furious 5 (2011). In The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001), to which a reference is made by the all pervasive Tony Stark, the team clearly had a much wider struggle which required three movies however in The Avengers everything is wrapped up conveniently and so by the next film it will be another alien threat and massive action. It would have been more impressive if the main villains in the film were not so inept at tackling the Avengers particularly from a physical perspective. The use of Loki raises some doubts about actually testing the resolve of these mighty heroes apart from the army which appears flimsy. Even then the movie concludes pretty simply and one realizes that it is not necessarily about the story or making the film worthwhile or relevant for the years to come but about putting these superheroes together and have them wage battle thereby showcasing their power. That will always be good for the visual effects team. Also there is no restraint on the visuals and the action towards the end clearly gets out of hand simply because it has no meaning since anyone with common sense will be able to predict the outcome. There is no reason to cheer apart from when the Hulk gets going.

The film is basically about the avengers defending Manhattan from aliens associated with Loki, the brother of thor.

It is still a good film and it is clearly too big to fail however the lack of profundity paves the way for the other side associated with The Dark Knight Rises (2012). SO there is the side that is more inclined to watch The Avengers with all its thrills and spills and the other side that intends to delve beneath the surface with The Dark Knight Rises (2012). Each film has its own niche market and it is clear from my discourse that I side with the dark knight however I know those that will explicitly prefer The Avengers for its entertainment value as opposed to the profundity and sparseness of The Dark Knight Rises. I say sparseness because it is clear that in this case the action has to be one with the story from a realistic point of view and so it cannot exist unless there is justification for it and the whizz bang cannot occur extensively without sufficient reason. To each his own and the struggle continues.

What’s good about this film?

Hulk Smash; the gadgets of Iron Man; the might of Thor’s hammer; the leadership skills of Captain America; the archery of Hawkeye (not Legolas); and the cunning of Black Widow. When the director Joss Whedon focuses on their particular quirks or what makes them definitive the film is quite impressive on a dramatic scale and the choice of Loki seems evident in this regard when one considers that he is the god of mischief and tries to play them off against one another. Much like in The Lord of the Rings where the fellowship was threatened by the corrupting power of the ring that threatened the cohesiveness of the group. The parallel is quite evident here and undermined the film although the reasons for it were clear in the attempt to build a film solely through characterization. The film does hold dear with these particular quirks by having the so called heroes show of their powers sometimes in duel with one another as well as in the final battle with aliens that clearly did not have a strategy apart from ushering forth gigantic mechanized millipedes. The filmmakers clearly sidestep some issues by bringing unfathomable mystical sources into play: the tesseract (is that spelt correctly) which was featured in the some of the films leading up to this extravaganza. In Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) the Red Skull wished to use its energy for world domination and in Thor (2011) it was stolen or disposed (I can’t recall). This was  very good despite its bloated nature because the filmmakers clearly understand that energy is power. Energy from whatever source, be it oil or the sun keeps mankind’s economies going and I wish this issue was made more apparent on a more earthly scale apart from the interest of galactic terrorists. This debate about energy makes the film timely although it is sidestepped too often. When we are first introduced to Tony Stark as Iron man, who represents capitalism, his first lines speak to Stark industries working on creating clean energy sources through the arc reactor technology. This is good and so with the tesseract at the heart of the film (literally and figuratively) as its energy source the film, despite its superficiality, does score high marks especially as it is energy that powers the universe. Having such energy concentrated in a single nation or individuals does bring the notion of power into question.

The visual effects are superb particularly for  the scale of the final battle and a massive destroyer that can fly. America’s economy is booming in this film lol. The visual effects however are so pronounced and obvious there are not many unique shots. The most unique would come from the 3D shots where the audience is engaged by the final battle. We get a POV when a car is rolled over by an explosion for instance. When Iron Man is being pummeled by knocks we understand the stress of being attacked all round without being aware of the direction from which the blows are raining.

The humour will keep some of the uninitiated from detesting the film.

It is good to see Iron Man/Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) show a more heroic side because it was his lack of heroism and selfishness that ruined Iron Man 2. Maybe they will emphasize this in the third installment. The Hulk is clearly the star, along with Iron man, and he has some hilarious moments particularly one with Loki and in others where his simplicity and ultra testosterone come to the fore. The Hulk is truly for the testosterone driven male audience. It is no surprise that Tony and Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) get along so well especially as the two are scientifically inclined. It was also good that they included Black Widow (Scarlett Johannsen) to diffuse the ultra testosterone on set.

The last good thing was the main dramatic moment in the film devoid of superficiality. It is because of this dramatic moment that the team of Avengers Assemble and it involves a character that has been ever present in the previous films leading up to this and so it delivers in this regard. The moment is callously manipulated by Nick Fury (Samuel Jackson) and so we go back to square one however it does seem like a real turning point.

The film moves by pretty quick.

What’s bad about this film?

The overwhelming superficiality and bloated entertainment values are the film’s strongest and weakest points. The film seems to rely too much on spectacle to keep going and so it becomes more about the characters and how their powers can enhance the action rather than a story that would encompass a wider struggle apart from the narrow minded American isolationist diatribe about it bearing the burden of the world through its security apparatus. The struggle takes place solely in America and one wonders whether the film will serve as a rallying cry for America to regain its global dominance for at the moment China looks like it will be the dominant national economy in the not so  distant future. One also wonders whether the aliens represent the Chinese; the US has always been concerned about China stealing its technology through spyware etc and it is no wonder the company shield is in charge as opposed to the army in times of war. That issue about China is pure speculation on my part but the film is so American centric that, as a realist, I will be seeking parallels in the everyday at every turn. The film clearly lacks a dramatic impetus for they spend the entire film concerned about Loki and then dramatically switch to the Alien invasion. This film should have had a proper build up so as to anticipate the climactic battle but it is all so hastily done that it just seems to come and go with no apparent residual effect i.e. there is no bittersweet taste left in your mouth.  The film is self contained and does not permeate the real day to day living thereby making you reflect on your place in the world.The Avengers survive the day so all is right with the world. There were some issues addressing the hypocrisy of Shield but that too is watered down after the significant dramatic moment that occurs in the film. It is all watered down as people forget all about such zany dialogue about those who serve and protect being corrupt hypocrites. Who cares about that let’s see some action. It is all water under the bridge anyway.

There are some irreconcilable moments with regards to the detective work of the characters particularly when it comes to discovering the true intentions of Loki. One can just imagine how Stark came to his conclusion about Loki and where he would be located. Loki himself is not as profound and pretends to be mysterious but his encounter with the Hulk completely abases him and makes him seem so insignificant it makes one wonder about the reason why he was chosen as the main villain. We see him interact with some higher order but their intentions should have been clearer apart from ruling the universe. It is clear that they are in control of Loki but eventually he assumes the titular villain role. The aliens eventually seem like power hungry zombies with no real control over their thought processes.  Batman Begins (2005) did this well when it came to the hierarchy of villainy. They do not have an actual plan apart from getting their hands on the tesseract. It is all flimsily done but there is too much going on to focus on such frivolities right. We need to see Hulk Smash some more. The film runs true to comic book fanfare and exaggerations. There is no real investigation into whether or not Loki was just a pawn or not. He is merely humiliated and by the end we do not get a sense of what is really out there; in the next film about the Avengers it clearly does not matter which aliens are invading.

The film exaggerates some things which are relatively puny. The final battle that is so impressive in its scale takes place only in Manhattan and is not as significant because as Earth’s mightiest heroes one would think that it would be more of an international struggle. The Avengers always seem in control of the battle and one never worries about them losing. It is shocking that the Council instructs Fury to release a nuclear bomb on tiny Manhattan.  It would have been more interesting if the battle was more  extensive thereby forcing the military to intervene alongside the avengers  and so nuclear bombs might have to come into play. Imagine the alien ships actually coming through the portal and there now be a genuine threat to America.  The battle is not as great which is why it would have been good if it was a case where the battle had commenced early thereby giving the aliens sometime to become entrenched in the city of New York and from there make their advance across U.S cities. In the mix could have been thrown in some philosophy about the inferiority of the earth’s citizens or the inherent superiority of the force at hand and the example it intends to set for other planets which it will conquer. All these things are mentioned by Loki but without the means to back it up he is humiliated. The heroism of the avengers would not seem so flimsy for when they do arrive on the scene after a few days or months of occupation then it would resonate. But we cannot have that so the attack is rapid and the aliens without a plan are bamboozled by the avengers and do not seem effective for as drones they are not impressive. This has been the failure of most of Marvel’s films of late and it is sad that they have to assemble the heroes to create something meaningful. Individually one wonders how the movies for the individual heroes will hold together. Who is Captain America going to fight? Or Thor? It all seems so frivolous for the sake of shallow entertainment.

Also how in tune with reality is this film. America is now going through a debt crisis and the economy is not growing yet Shield is allowed to build a massive naval destroyer that can fly. Wow. It is good for special effects and fantasy but what about reality. This is why the energy question should have been explored more effectively. No wonder America has such high levels of debt. Most of the characters are not as significant although there is now the call for arrows to be put back into production thanks to hawkeye.