Essentials: Spider-Man 2

Year: 2004 (USA)
Genre: Action/Superhero Film
Directed: Sam Raimi
Stars: Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, Alfred Molina, Rosemary Harris, J.K. Simmons, Donna Murphy, Dylan Baker, Daniel Gillies, Aasif Mandvi, Willem Dafoe
Production: Columbia Pictures


What makes a truly great superhero movie? Is it the large spectacle of incredibly mind-blowing special effects? Is it about the character and their amazing gifts and abilities to overcome overwhelming odds? How about the implementation of a tangible love story, the introduction of a particularly nasty villain or the mythology formed from generations of stories told through a multitude of media.

How about slightly fascistic overtones?

If "all the above" is what you had in mind then you must conclude that Spider-Man 2 (2004) is the golden standard for superhero movie sequels and the modern gold standard for superhero movies in general. The movie has everything one would need to enjoy from a film genre that embraces popcorny-ness. It's sleek, stylish and has a tremendous villain in the form of Doctor Otto Octavius (Alfred Molina). Furthermore, the fact that Spider-Man 2 is a sequel, the story has the ability to open and expand the world of Peter Parker/Spider-Man (Tobey Maguire), our forlorn hero.

The film opens with Peter Parker trying to balance his personal and professional life with that of his secret life as the web-slinging wall-crawler. Late on his rent, fired from his job delivering pizzas, discovering the woman he loves (Kirsten Dunst) is about to be married to someone else, and slipping in his academics, the downtrodden Peter can't even catch a break on his Birthday. To top it all off his best friend Harry (James Franco) wants Peter's alter ego Spider-Man dead for killing his father and dear Aunt May (Rosemary Harris) is foreclosing on the house. How can things get any worse you ask? In comes Otto Octavius, a brilliant scientist who after a scientific breakthrough goes wrong gets four large mechanical arms with a mind of their own. Add to that Peter's web-slinging just isn't what it used to be.

The film asks many questions about Peter's fidelity to his masked persona. Life is hard enough without having to deal with every whack job, natural disaster and heavily armed bank robber in New York. Half way through the movie Peter eventually just says to hell with it and walks away from his supposed great responsibility for as we all know he has great power for.

Spider-Man 2 differs from its prequel and from most superhero films in that it has a very strong and apparent emotional core. The majority of the movie is spent with Peter Parker out of his Spidey-outfit just trying to keep his head above water. We have an emotional connection to his character to the point where we actually care and want to see him and Mary Jane get together and be happy.

What do you mean? Spider-Man 3 was great!

My only major gripe about Spider-Man 2 is its setup of Spider-Man 3 (2007). While there is a lot of controversy about whether the Sam Raimi directed trilogy (2002-2007) is better than the new Amazing Spider Man (2012) (You can read my thoughts here), we can all agree Raimi's third installment wasn't very good. Still by the end of Spider-Man 2 both Mary Jane, Harry and even Aunt May knew Spider-Man and Peter were one and the same. Add to that the fan boy crowd screamed at the top of their lungs for Venom so Sam Raimi kind of painted himself into a corner.

Ages ago Christopher Reeve dawned the cape of the Man of Steel which first planted the seed for a viewing public ready for breathtaking action and noble sacrifice. Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy gave way to the darker more brooding superhero films which expounded on larger themes about a hero's relationship with society and the greater good. In between those two moments, Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy laid the groundwork for superhero films loaded with modern special effects and old-school story-telling. Without the bankability of Spider-Man 2, there would be no Avengers (2012), Fantastic Four (2005) or Kick-Ass (2010). Additionally there'd be no standard to reach for or exceed.

Well maybe just a slightly lower standard

Final Grade: A

Essentials: A Man for All Seasons

Year: 1966 (UK)
Genre:
Directed: Fred Zinnemann
Stars: Paul Scofield, Wendy Hiller, Leo McKern, Robert Shaw, Orson Welles, Susannah York, Nigel Davenport, John Hurt, Corin Redgrave
Production: Highland Films

A Man for All Seasons (1966) is based off a play by the same name written by Robert Bolt. The plot concerns the last few years of Sir Thomas More (Paul Scofield), a humanistic writer, philosopher, statesman and Catholic martyr who stood up against King Henry VIII's divorce of Queen Catherine of Aragon. For those who don't know their history or didn't catch The Tutors (2007-2010) on Showtime, King Henry VIII (Robert Shaw) was a bit of a ladies man. So much so that he married six different women only one of which bore him a son. It was partially the fault of his second marriage that created a schism between the Roman Catholic church and what would eventually become The Church of England so he was a bit of a head case.

Because I'm the fucking pope now!

I tell you all this because without these little factoids at your disposal you probably would be completely lost watching Fred Zinnemann's second Best Picture winner. I also tell you this because

Some people just don't like their history

unless you know and love your history you probably would hate watching A Man for All Seasons. The film has the virtue of being deliberately paced and largely free of violence, sex, nudity, drug use, and all the other wonderful things that make modern audiences go agog.

What the movie does have going for it is the innate ability to create and sustain tension using little more than a principled man challenged by an authoritarian monarch. Indeed the whole movie hinges on the question of whether or not More will submit to Henry's demand to recognize his marriage to Anne Boleyn (Vanessa Redgrave). More, armed only with his wits, uses every logical trick he can to avoid expressing a view one way or another until the bitter end.

would you recite for us the facts of Hawkins versus McGee?

A Man for All Seasons probably resonates with me more so today than it did years ago when I first saw it in college. It was fun discovering the play in my Drama as Literature class, then quoting it for my Renaissance to Reformation class. It even helped me conceptualize the idea of common law for my Intro to Legal Studies class. Yet today A Man for All Seasons carries a much more substantial personal weight.

When you graduate college and take on the responsibilities of adulthood, people's expectations and impressions of you suddenly matter much more. You can show up two minutes late to your part-time work-study job at the rec but you try that in the professional world you might as well kiss that promotion goodbye. More's superior, while Lord Chancellor was the king. Mind you he was never docked for being late but his personal political views (spoiler alert) ultimately cost him his life. Thank goodness we no longer cut your head off for disagreeing with your boss yet I'd imagine the foreboding air of the figurative big ugly axe looming in the shadows feels about the same.

When you become an adult, your heart dies...

I felt that feeling very recently, working as a temp doing a job that was beneath me. I never admitted this, even to my closest co-workers and certainly not my boss. It's only now that I can because I have nothing to lose. In an interconnected world where our social structure allows and encourages free

So what's this I hear about you handing out leaflets?

expression while our corporate culture guarantees retribution the best strategy is self-censorship to the point of parody. A month ago if my closest friend asked me how things are going at work I'd just say "fine" for fear that any doublespeak that got back to the borg queen would lead to deactivation.

My only regret is that I never got to go in such spectacular fashion as Sir Thomas More. When More realizes he's going to be convicted of high treason largely due to a duplicitous act of perjury, he outright tells the court exactly what he thinks of them, the proceedings and the king's decision to split with the Church. It's an awe-inspiring moment that Paul Scofield shapes with dignity and grace. My ideal exit likely would have been far less dignified but given the circumstances I did what I thought was the most adult. Thanked them for the opportunity and walked away.

I guess having the ability to walk away from a job so as not to compromise your principles is a luxury not many have nowadays. But unlike England in 1535, you can still walk away alive and well. I played the game of parsed words and minced meanings and lost this time but the old cliché is true; whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Plus if I do get tired of the rat race I can always take More's advice to scurrilous social climber Richard Rich (John Hurt), "Why not be a teacher? You'd be a fine teacher; perhaps a great one."

Bueller?...Bueller?

Final Grade: A

Essentials: Love and Death

Year: 1975 (USA)
Genre: Comedy/Screwball Comedy
Directed: Woody Allen
Stars: Woody Allen, Diane Keaton, Feodor Ardisson, Georges Adet, Harold Gould, Jessica Harper, James Tolkan
Production: Jack Rollins & Charles H. Joffe Productions


Woody Allen is a revered and maddening figure in my world. Revered because he is an absolute genius; maddening for the same reason. Even if you have never seen a film he has written and directed, you have no doubt heard his one liners: "Don't knock masturbation, it's sex with someone I love." "I'm not afraid of death, I just don't want to be there when it happens." "I'm not really the heroic type, I was beat up by Quakers." His jokes have a delivery that mocks the greats like Rodney Dangerfield and Bob Hope yet Woody Allen's unique onscreen persona imposes at least a superficial level of earnestness and faux-intellectualism. It's especially maddening to think he's so freakishly prolific! Since 1969 he has written and directed at least one film a year. Not all of them cinematic gold but considered he has been nominated for an Oscar 18 times for writing, directing and producing I'd say a good chunk of his filmography is pretty darn good.

On the count of 3, you will forget all about Paul Reiser...

In fact while my exposure to his filmography is less than complete, there's truly not a film I wouldn't see again. The worst I've seen was a little known box office bomb by the name of Curse of the Jade Scorpion (2001) with a post Mad About You (1992-1999) Helen Hunt. It felt like a failed TV pilot but nevertheless was entertaining enough to slug through. If it were on TV about as often as The Mummy Returns (2001) I'd probably watch it again if nothing else were on.

The best Woody Allen film I personally have seen is 1975's Love and Death. Like Curse of the Jade Scorpion it wasn't nominated for anything of significance. It didn't curry much favor with audiences either making just north of $20 million and while the critics enjoyed Love and Death it still remains one of Woody Allen's lesser known films. Yet while it's lesser known it's certainly not lesser loved. Vincent Canby of the New York Times calls Love and Death one of Allen's "most consistently witty films." It enjoys a 100% Fresh rating on Rottentomatoes.com and most "early Allen" enthusiasts swear by the Russian literature satire.

Woody Allen's sixth directorial effort starts and ends centered on the life of Boris Grushenko (Allen), an impertinent yet cowardly Russian scholar who isn't too fond of going to war with the French and Napoleon. "She's [Russia] not my mother. My mother's standing right here, and she's not gonna let her youngest baby get shrapnel in his gums," Boris cries as he has pushed by his stout-hearted family to join the war effort. Once he's thrown into the fray, hijinks ensue in a Marx Brothers meets War and Peace kind of way. But while faced with the insanity of war, all Boris can think about is his lovely cousin Sonja (Diane Keaton) who he's had the hots for since childhood.

Morality is subjective, subjectivity is objective…wah?

Love and Death evokes memories of Duck Soup (1933) and The Great Dictator (1940) only with less political satire and more philosophical and humanistic satire. One of the reoccurring jokes involves Boris and Sonja taking inopportune moments to argue philosophy using jargon literally lifted from the existentialist writings of G.I. Gurdjieff and P.D. Ouspensky. Philosophy gets skewered along with the thick tomes of Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy, the historical significance of the Napoleonic wars and the films of Sergei Eisenstein and Ingmar Bergman. Who knew you could cram so many high-minded material into an 85 minute movie who's big battle scene involves Woody wearing a cheerleader outfit and a guy walking around yelling "get your red hots."

While Allen has fallen out of favor since his heyday in the 1970's and early 80's (much of which is credited to his tumultuous personal life), his movies still create a blip on the cultural radar every once in a while. Friends my age were introduced to his comedic work through Midnight in Paris (2011). A movie that brought to mind another favorite of mine, The Purple Rose of Cairo (1985). His latest Blue Jasmine (2013), while closer in mood to Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989) is nevertheless a stupendous film.

I think most, if not everyone could find a Woody Allen film they'll enjoy. Perhaps there's a Quizilla that will assign you one based on your personality. Or perhaps you should just watch as many as possible and pick your favorite. That's what I did!

What does this movie say about you?

Final Grade: A

Essentials: Dial M for Murder

Yea, I can see your mom liking this...she cray!

Year: 1954 (USA)
Genre: Drama/Suspense
Directed: Alfred Hitchcock
Stars: Ray Milland, Grace Kelly, Robert Cummings, John Williams, Anthony Dawson, Leo Britt
Production: Warner Bros.


Alfred Hitchcock is a genius. There is no getting around that fact. I'm not saying this to placate the film school dropout we all know and hate to watch movies with; I'm not saying this to please your fifty-year-old mother who is a fan of his movies but still views Along Came a Spider (2001) as a guilty pleasure. I'm saying this because it's a fact. Vertigo (1958) is his enduring critical gift to the art of cinema while Psycho (1960) is his pulpy gift to the masses and in-between the two greats, sits 52 other spellbinding films in addition to the much beloved Alfred Hitchcock Presents (1955-1961). Everyone's got a favorite and while some may get their kicks from North by Northwest (1959) or Rope (1948), my personal favorite has to be 1954's Dial M for Murder.

Best contract killer money can buy!

Dial M centers on a single question that many people find themselves asking out of morbid curiosity; how do you plan the perfect murder? If it were someone close like say your wife, how would you do it? Maybe you can hire someone to do it for you. Perhaps someone you can blackmail and functions outside of your social circles. Someone compliant enough to be exploited and use laundered money to pay them for their services.

Indeed the supposed murder planned by Tony (Ray Milland) is set up like a beautifully played game of chess. As Tony coldly explains his plan to murder his wife Margot (Grace Kelly) to Swann (Anthony Dawson) his hired assassin, every angle is thought through. Every movement is calculated and timed, every detail addressed. Unfortunately for Tony, Swann and the rest of the principle characters, "the best-laid plans of mice and men oft go astray."

Tank, I'm going to need a quick exit.

Dial M for Murder is my personal favorite Hitchcock film primarily for three reasons. Firstly, the film is shot almost entirely on one set, in one room of one domicile. There is a short scene in a jailhouse, one in a theatre and one in the bedroom of the flat but every important plot point and reveal takes place in the den of Tony and Margot's apartment. Limiting the space like that can be an advantage in that it heightens tension though very few directors can truly do such a thing well. To my recollection the only modern example to come close to chamber-proximity sustained suspense like Dial M was Joel Schumacher's Phone Booth (2002).

Calm yourself, I'm under authority of the Queen

The second reason I enjoy Dial M for Murder is its unabashed British-ness. I mean this in two ways; The characters are Torrie upper-crust types who always have a snobbish one-liner to spare. Additionally British movies of the era expect audience investment and even participation in the intrigue. Modern sensibilities tend to favor simple action centered plots we can all easily follow. Modern studios do this largely to cater to international audiences who don't want to be bogged down with subtitles and Americans who want to fiddle with their phones, fold their laundry and check their Facebook all while watching Bad Boys II (2003). I find myself doing this from time to time while watching movies but never with Dial M.

Well no I don't think we even have Comcast Xfinity...

The third and most important reason why I love this movie is because you know exactly how it's going to end. Not in the "know how it ends" kind of way of say every stupid, pointless, unoriginal, mediocre horror movie ever made, but rather in the way of we know Tony (spoiler alert) gets his comeuppance, we just don't know how. The characters Margot, her "friend" Mark (Robert Cummings) and Detective Pearson (Patrick Allen) are left in the dark for most of the movie. Only the audience is privy to all the dirty details of Tony's deceit and yet the question is left; will he get away with it? On that level the movie gives you a artfully done suspense thriller without a sub-par mystery cheapening the story.

Alfred Hitchcock is said to be the master of suspense; a title certainly worthy of such a giant figure. His films have a complexity that leaves many to fervidly comb his filmography for interpretation. Whether you're a fan of a psychoanalytical approach to Hitchcock, a post-modernist or auteur theory habitue, you have to admit Dial M for Murder needs more credit than its been given which, up until today has been seen as a "lesser work". Don't be taken in by those in the supposed "know". Check out Dial M, and while you're at it, check out some of Hitchcock's other "lesser works" like Lifeboat (1944) and I Confess (1953).

Final Grade: A

Brothers Bloom

Year: 2008 (USA)
Genre: Crime Comedy/Romantic Comedy
Directed: Rian Johnson
Stars: Rachel Weisz, Adrien Brody, Mark Ruffalo, Rinko Kikuchi, Robbie Coltrane, Maximilian Schell, Ricky Jay, Nora Zehetner
Production: Weinstein Company

Rian Johnson's follow up to his teen-noir flick Brick (2005) is a throwback to classic capers, love stories and a host of other influences from early cinema. "The Brothers Bloom" (Mark Ruffalo & Adrian Brody) are confidence men who are in for one more score, a reclusive and eccentric heiress (Rachel Weisz) who eventually falls in love with the younger of the pair. Told with style, and set in a multitude of exotic locations, this movie keeps you entertained and brings new life to predictable themes. All the major players in the piece of cinematic treasure the is The Brothers Bloom manage to make the most of their roles. Both Ruffalo and Brody do admirable jobs as the cocky Steven and the sensitive Bloom. Ruffalo manages to show a deep love for his brother and his character's need to pull off the "perfect con" comes off effortlessly. Brody can come off a little too whiny at some points but his scenes with Weisz are electric. Rinko Kikuchi even manages to make the most of her role as the Brothers' mute explosives expert. You can almost make out exactly what she's saying through her facial expressions and body language, making the adage "sometimes silence is more powerful than words" seem true. The real draw here however is Weisz. As naive as she may appear at times she manages to keep up with the Brothers every step of the way, causing Bloom to exclaim "sometimes I think she knows everything". Elegant, kind, eccentric and smart Rachel Weisz's Penelope is one of the most original female characters to come out of modern Hollywood.

As opposed to this character!

What do you mean I wasn't nominated again?!

There is a scene early in the movie where Weisz and Brody have an enlightening discussion about pinhole cameras. Weisz remarks that through certain lenses even the most mundane of objects can look obscure and interesting. These few short snippets of dialogue reveal director Rian Johnson's Modus Operandi. Through his eyes we are taken into a fantastical world within our own where larger than life characters con and swindle not for the money but for the art. This movie does indeed have it all. It's funny, intelligent, thrilling and even sad at points. With good directing, writing, acting and themes, this movie transcends entertainment to become storytelling artistry. Even the dialogue was phonetically mesmerizing. I would recommend this movie to anyone and everyone.

Even you Nick

Why was this film not advertised more during its theatrical release? Shown in only four theaters and expanded to less than 200 weeks later, this film was nothing but a blip on the radar. With a well known cast and a marketable plot, not to mention a young director with excellent credentials, this movie should have at least been pushed as fall Oscar bate. No such luck.

Final Grade: A

Essentials: Casablanca

Year: 1942 (USA)
Genre: Drama/Romantic Drama/War Drama
Directed: Michael Curtiz
Stars: Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman, Paul Henreid, Claude Rains, Conrad Veidt, Sydney Greenstreet, S.Z. Sakall, Peter Lorre, John Qualen
Production: Warner Bros.


In preparation to write a review for a film considered one of the best ever made, I read snippets of reviews and glanced though numerous history books looking for that crumb of objectivity that can excuse my love for the Hollywood film named after a Moroccan city. A semblance of greatness that can give even the most flippant a moment of pause and appreciation for the world created by director Michael Curtiz and cinematographer Arthur Edeson and populated by Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman.

Alas my mind and eyes are not as well trained as the myriad of critics, actors, directors and industry specialists who call Casablanca (1942) the end-all be-all. I can’t convince the average filmgoer that a black-and-white movie made and 1942 can change your life; even though If I were responsible for world's viewing education I would force people to watch Casablanca at least once.

All I can do is explain, in my own words, and through my own experiences why to me, Casablanca comfortably sits on my list of Best Movies ever made as well as any other list goodly enough to feature it. Casablanca means so much too so many generations of people. During its initial run, its popularity was goaded by America’s participation in WWII. Rick’s changing of values and heart is the same change of character that American’s faced i.e. one of isolationist, laissez-faire shruggery to one of sacrifice and honor.

The next generation of Americans enjoyed the TV boom which Casablanca was a universally prime choice for consumption. It was made almost entirely in a studio and its fine acting and episodic plotlines made it ideal for pan-and-scan TV unlike say the large and majestic Lawrence of Arabia (1962) or the colorful animation of Disney. At one point in the 80’s Casablanca was the most syndicated movie on television.

Here's to looking at you kid.

I first watched Casablanca on VHS around the age of seven or eight. My mother, always the movie musical buff sat me down around that age to watch Singin’ in the Rain (1952), Hello Dolly! (1969) and The Sound of Music (1965). They were all magnificent and all in Technicolor. They were bright, funny and exuberant which is exactly what kids that age should be watching (take heed parents). Then she introduced me to Casablanca; a darker though still syrupy love story set in WWII. It wasn’t like going from What Women Want (2000) to Eraserhead (1977) but it was a pretty big jolt for an eight-year-old.

My first reaction to Seven Brides for Seven Brothers

Memory around that time is fuzzy but I believe Casablanca was my first full-featured black-and-white movie. I had seen the grittiness of 35mm black-and-white before while watching Frank Capra war shorts spliced with narration and veteran testimonials on the History Channel. Without that exposure Casablanca probably wouldn't have had such an impact; primarily because I’d be without context. Without exposure to the History Channel I would have been absolutely confused by Captain Renault (Claude Rains), a French man accommodating for Nazis. I would have been confused by Ugarte and the discussion about the Visas (though in retrospect those details I probably ignored). Thank goodness there is a such thing as the History Channel to give context to the world as at was and the world as it currently is.

Did I like the film at first? Well I didn't dislike it. The memory of the story stuck with me until I saw it again a few years later, then again a few years after that. In fact over the course of my life time I must have seen Casablanca at least ten times; each time building a layer of understanding and subtext. There is universality to Casablanca the shines through no matter who you are or how old you have become. Anyone willing to give it a try will at the very least will be entertained by it, if not moved by it. Surly one of the most accessible films pegged as one of the greats.

Final Grade: A