The Amazing Spider-Man trailer debuted during the week and it was… kinda okay, I suppose. Nothing too shocking or gripping or incredible, and nothing to push it too high on a “must see” list that includes The Dark Knight Rises and The Avengers as two massive hits for my superhero fix. However, I was surprised at the rather immediate response from relatively mainstream sources to “emo Spider-Man.” Even non-geeks seem to have picked up on the fact that Peter Parker in a hoodie hunched over a text book is not a good sign. Surely Spider-Man III taught us that “goth Spider-Man” is not a good idea?
Shelteris a horror with an intriguing original premise. However, it’s also packed with tonnes of other premises, some of which are remotely interesting, while others are quite mundane. It’s an uneven film, which actually works best when it paces itself more as a thriller or a mystery than an out-and-out horror, but there are weaker choices out there.
Well, blockbuster season is really kicking into swing at the moment. Next week will see the release of X-Men: First Class, which will be the second major superhero movie of the summer, following Branagh’s superb Thor. There are two more due to touch down before the end of the blockbuster season, Green Lantern and Captain America: The First Avenger. It’s fascinating how large the superhero genre has grown in recent years, to the point where one might legitimately argue that it has subgenres. Part of me wonders if this particular blockbuster fad is approaching its climax – if the superhero movie might out-stay its welcome, and go the way of the Western.
I’m of two minds about Insidious, the latest entry in the “haunted house” horror subgenre. On one hand, I definitely respect its attempts to return to the roots of these types of films without dwelling on gore for the sake of gore. On the other, it doesn’t seem like the film is entirely certain what to show you when it can’t fill the screen with fountains of blood and guts erupting. Film is obviously a visual medium, but horror is very much an exception to the old maxim “show, don’t tell.” The problem is that Insidious shows too much.
Return of the Living Dead is a fairly strange beast. Something of a black comedy spin-off from George A. Romero’s Night of the Living Dead, the film is a ridiculously campy exploration of trashy low-rent horror… and yet somehow has been picked up and embraced by popular culture. After all, this is the movie that introduced the idea that zombies weren’t just satiated by consuming large quantities of meat (most often from humans) – this was the film which introduced the idea of zombies stumbling forward, repeatedly droning “braaaaains!” It’s a concept which has been so throughly incorporated into pop culture’s definition of zombie (although it’s rarely the case, we still expect it and recognise it), so it seems strange that it came from a spoof.
Spider-Man III has a lot of problems. I’ll get to a couple of them in a moment. However, the single biggest issue with the movie seems to be that nobody seems especially interested in making it. It’s a feeling that it’s hard to back up with substantive evidence, but there’s just this general sensation that the film wasn’t the product of the same love and enthusiasm that made the first two films so refreshing. It almost seems like the movie was made out of a sense of obligation, rather than because anyone wanted to be there. It seems that they didn’t really care.
It’s interesting how concrete the shift in genre is between the original Evil Dead and the final part of the trilogy. It’s grown from a bona fides video nasty into a dark age comedy I actually wouldn’t have too much trouble watching with my family. I think I’m significantly fonder of the third instalment in the series than most other reviewers are, but it’s a film which is solidly and consistently fun – pure, random, non-sensical fun.
I’m still, to be honest, entirely speechless. I picked up the Best Pop Culture Award at the Irish Blog Awards earlier this month, and I’m still delighted and humbled and honoured and all those things. I know I don’t blog to win awards, but I really feel motivated to try even harder to justify the huge vote of confidence that it represents.
Other than that, there was tonnes of stuff. I’m currently blogging along with Things That Don’t Suck‘s “Raimi-fest”, which is a blast. Always a joy to be asked to take part. March also had some fairly decent films – with two brilliant films in Source Code and The Adjustment Bureau, along with a slew of quite good films to go along with it. So that was pretty fantastic. Although maybe I’m just a big softie.
I don’t think there’s ever been a movie quite like Evil Dead II. Although you could argue that Raimi’s unique stylings are evident in the original Evil Dead, they don’t really come into their own in quite the same way that they would for the sequel. Although the movie is obviously indebted to any number of sources, the film has a crazy energy all of its own. It rockets along at such speed that the audience is caught a little off guard. It’s refreshing and more than a little zesty, which are certainly among the film’s charms.
Watching all three of Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man trilogy back-to-back, it becomes increasingly obvious that the director harbours an honest and genuine affection for the source material. In fairness, it’s hard to believe that the cult director seemed like a safe option for a multi-million dollar movie franchise, but it worked out remarkably well – just look at the box office figures and the critical acclaim (of at least the first two films). So what is it about Raimi that really “clicks” with Spider-Man? How does the director get the character so well?
the m0vie blog 