Tag: film (page 9 of 20)

Movie Review: Les Miserables

I’m one of those kids who grew up in the 80s, and along with a love of Transformers and a front-row seat for the growth of home computing from the Apple ][e to the iPad and Google Glass, like many kids in the 80s my soundtrack for road trips foisted on me and my sisters by my parents was those of Broadway musicals. One of the very best that was often asked for by both my sisters and myself was Les Miserables. The big broad tale adapted from Victor Hugo’s 19th century novel makes for a fantastic stage production. It has fantastic music, deep and complex characters, a fascinating backdrop… and it tries really, really hard to be one of the grandest films ever created.

Courtesy Universal Pictures

Our story begins with Jean Valjean, a convict of 19 years who finally gets paroled much to the chagrin of local constable Javert. After an encounter with a benevolent and deeply patient and understanding bishop, Valjean does everything he can reinvent himself as a good citizen. He becomes the owner of a factory and mayor of a small town, before one of his workers, Fantine, is shunned so hard out of the factory she turns to prostitution to pay the bills of her daughter, currently living with a corrupt innkeeping couple. When she dies, Valjean swears to take her daughter into his keeping. He raises her as his own, pursued by Javert, and becomes involved in the June Rebellion of 1832.

The scope of this tale and the involvement of the characters with real events poise it on the edge of truly epic territory, and the revolutionary zeal that permeates the third act definitely reinforces this status. Les Miserables is bent on demonstrating that people can be capable of great change, be it in themselves or for society, and gives examples of both success and failure. Add to this a memorable and moving selection of songs that run the gamut of emotion, from determined resolve to the first pangs of love to despair and loss, and it’s clear why this stage production of this novel has stood the test of time. And now we have a film adaptation of that stage production of the same novel, and unfortunately, something got lost along the way.

Courtesy Universal Pictures
The actors really do give their all.

I’m sure a lot of people would jump right into the most immediate flaw in the production, which is the delivery of the songs. Some new songs were added and others had their lyrics changed, which in and of itself can infuriate hardcore Les Mis fans the way the absence of Tom Bombadil from the Lord of the Rings trilogy enrages hardcore Tolkien fans. A good deal of a song’s quality, however, is in the delivery rather than the lyrics, and that means somebody has to sing them. For the most part the cast does an admirable job, with obvious standouts being Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway, and Samantha Barks. However, Russell Crowe presents a problem. He’s a great actor, and his singing voice is perfectly fine, even if his range seems a touch limited based on what we hear. The problem is, there are times when he has to transition from singing to acting, and you can almost hear an audible clunk like there’s something stuck in his gearbox. And Amanda Seyfried, lovely as ever, sounds almost nervous at times, in a way that has nothing to do with her character, as she tries to sing some of her lines. How much of this is actually on the cast, though? Let’s pull back and look at the film from a broader perspective.

Les Miserables was directed by Tom Hooper, late of his Oscar-winning direction in The King’s Speech. I like Tom Hooper – his work on the John Adams mini-series is exemplary – but something is just off on his work in Les Mis. He made the decision to have his actors sing on-set, with no dub-overs and (apparently) minimal sound correction. This leads to things like nervous actors (Seyfried), actors having to make odd transitions (Crowe), and some songs just not ringing as true as they could. A key moment in Jackman’s “Who Am I” feels undercut by what must surely have been a decision by Hooper. On top of this, most of the songs are presented with the camera directly in the face of the singer. While this does push the actors to emote in a believable way that evokes pathos, and both Hathaway and Jackman are clearly up to the task, it tends to rip the context out from under the songs. Instead of imagining these high emotional moments in the backdrop of the events in the character’s life, we get the moment encapsulated and isolated in a way that disrupts the narrative flow. As good as the music is, focusing this tightly on it causes the story to suffer and makes the issues in any song all the more glaring.

Courtesy Universal Pictures
You had one job. ONE JOB, JAVERT.

I’ll say again that I like Tom Hooper, and he still manages to present some excellent shots in Les Miserables. He does discomfort, tension, intimate character work, and historical atmosphere very well. However, the film never really clicked for me. I like the songs, but they didn’t have the punch they could have. I was moved to tears, but not as much as I could have been. This sort of film is very difficult to review because it both tries hard enough that I want to come down on the side of recommending it, but also makes more than enough mistakes to warrant giving it a pass. I’m sure there’s a song in there somewhere.

Stuff I Liked: 19th century France never felt squeaky clean or over-produced. Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen make great Thernadiers. Costume design was good. As I said, Hooper presents some fantastic shots here and there.
Stuff I Didn’t Like: The constant close-ups were at first unnerving, then annoying. A little editing of the songs could have smoothed over a lot of issues. Russell Crowe feels misdirected in places, which undercuts an otherwise exemplary performance. Marius and Cosette’s romance feels a touch ridiculous as presented and much of the third act seemed a bit rushed.
Stuff I Loved: Jackman and Hathaway are absolutely fantastic. For all of the faults in his performance, Crowe does a great job with the complex and compelling character of Javert. Despite their changes and presentation, many of the songs still have their emotional weight and power, especially “I Dreamed A Dream”, “Bring Him Home”, and “Empty Chairs at Empty Tables”.

Bottom Line: I wanted to like Les Miserables. What it manages to accomplish is admirable. But, unfortunately, it stumbles too much and makes too many mistakes to earn a strong recommendation. You would have just as good an experience listening to the soundtrack from either the film or the musical, and nothing will compare to seeing it on stage. Granted, the film version is cheaper, but this is truly a case of you get what you pay for.

Movie Review: The Boondock Saints

In the past, before the likes of Schwarzenegger and Stallone changed the action hero scene with big muscles and borderline incoherence, there were men like Charles Bronson and Clint Eastwood, men who were neither bodybuilders nor loud, boisterous speakers, who carried action movies. Rather than undertaking their murderous rampages for something like patriotic duty or survival against alien beings, their quests tended to be more personal, and while the aforementioned beefcakes did occasionally embark on a journey towards revenge, by the time they did Bronson and his ilk had entrenched themselves in the hearts and minds of young men, like Troy Duffy, writer/director of The Boondock Saints.

Courtesy Miramax

Our heroes are fraternal twins Connor and Murphy McManus, seemingly your typical pair of Irish Catholic young men living and working in South Boston. When Russian mobsters show up to close their favorite bar on Saint Patrick’s Day, however, things go awry. The next morning, the Russians are dead in the alley behind some illegal loft housing, the brothers are wounded, and FBI special agent Paul Smecker is interviewing them. While clearly a case of self-defense, the items on the mobsters collected by the brothers and an odd experience in the night convince them that they’ve been put on a path of righteous vengeance, seeking justice for the victims of those who believe themselves above the law. It only gets worse when their friend, a low-level package boy for the local Mafia don, finds himself caught up in their quest.

The Boondock Saints was, at the time of its release, not terribly popular. Troy Duffy had a great deal of trouble getting along with Miramax, and word around many a Hollywood campfire was that the former bartender and bouncer was a pain to work with. The film was only in theatres for five weeks, with most established critics panning it. It was compared unfavorably to Tarantino’s work, and some claimed that Duffy was trying too hard to ape the auteur. It was accused of being all style and no substance, strung together with a threadbare plot, so on and so forth. And yet, the film has a strong cult following today, and its popularity has spawned a theatrical sequel, comic books, and many a young person of the 21st century reciting Catholic prayers. Why is this?

Courtesy Miramax

Part of the appeal that keeps the movie fresh in the minds of its fans is the chemistry between the brothers. Sean Patrick Flannery and Norman Reedus have a very natural cadence and rhythm with one another, moving easily between sibling rivalry and deadly penitence and back again. It’s very difficult to not find their relationship and antics endearing, in a way. While their characters never delve into deep philosophical issues or much existential angst, they do exhibit emotional complexity and intelligence, as well as being more than capable of dispatching armed goons of organized crime. Their characters may be somewhat stripped down (especially in one of the deleted scenes), but their straight-forward nature works given the context of the film.

There’s also the character of Smecker, played excellently by Willem Dafoe. A complex and brilliant man, he is also tortured by his own nature and questioning the rightness and wrongness of what he wants, be it a relationship with a man or to support the McManus brothers. David Della Rocco balances the competence and intelligence of the brothers with his well-intentioned bumbling, and the rest of the supporting cast fleshes out the city of Boston extremely well, from the imaginative but somewhat oblivious detective Greenley to Doc, the Irish bartender with Tourette syndrome. Duffy puts all of these elements together rather well, and while the end result has some weaknesses, it’s clear that it’s worthy of the cult status it’s gained, and remains a favorite St. Patrick’s Day tradition for many, including myself.

Courtesy Miramax
Say it if you know the words…

Stuff I Liked: Connor’s tendency to think in action movie terms, and Murphy’s frustration with this idiotic thinking. Rocco’s antics. The build-up and reveal regarding Il Duce. The trio of Boston detectives. Doc.
Stuff I Didn’t Like: A few scenes feel overly long. Duffy does the occasional camera trick that doesn’t quite fit. And that poor cat.
Stuff I Loved: The brothers. The endlessly quotable lines. The creativity of the kills. The way the action scenes are cut together with Smecker reconstructing the scene. Smecker in general. The family prayer.

Bottom Line: The Boondock Saints is proof that box office success does not always coincide with the quality of the film. Other more successful action movies are less interesting, funny, and intelligent than this. It may not be the best action flick ever made, but it’s definitely up there, and if you find appeal in normal men moved to vigilante justice, you’ll find this one right up your alley.

Movie Review: Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter

According to Wikipedia, the 16th President of the United States was the son of a farmer and carpenter who went into the practice of law and later entered politics, prompted at least in part by the ongoing presence of slavery in the country. He had a talent for writing speeches and legislation, struggled to keep the country intact when the Civil War threatened to split it in half, and was assassinated soon after that war’s conclusion. Most of his life has been well-chronicled up until this point. However, one of the most recent tales of his days came in the form of a novel by one Seth Graeme-Smith, author of somewhat kitschy niche work Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, that goes the title Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. Tim Burton picked it up for production as a major motion picture, which brings us to this review.

Courtesy Lionsgate

In this version of Abe’s life, his mother is killed by a vampire over a debt owed by his father. Fueled by a righteous need for vengeance, Abe comes across a mysterious stranger who offers to teach him the ways and means of hunting the undead. Abe agrees, and soon becomes something of a daytime hitman for his mentor. It soon becomes apparent that the vampires, settled mostly in the south, are planning something major and Abe must do something to stop it. The vampire’s plan is to found their own nation where they can enslave and devour the population in peace, and to respond, Abe rises through the political ranks and fights back against the denizens of the night with more than just a trick axe and some good moves; he goes to war against them, the proper way, with an entire army at his command.

You may have noticed that this premise is, on its face, just a touch on the silly side. And it easily could have been played up for laughs or dressed up in the sort of high-octane camp that would set it up for eventual cult status. However, director Timur Bekmambetov (Wanted) shoots the subject in an entirely straightforward fashion, the nature of the tale’s premise an undercurrent instead of an overt feeling. This results in a movie that, while sounding silly on paper, comes across in a very earnest way. Much like the members of Monty Python’s Ministry of Silly Walks takes their jobs as seriously as any public officials would, and Mel Brooks’ vile race known as the Spaceballs go about stealing atmospheres in an incredibly impractical way, Abraham Lincoln accepts the nature of his nocturnal world on its face and remains honest and upright in his quest. In this case, the delivery of the story is just as honest-seeming and upright. If the film’s tongue is in its cheek, it’s really buried in there. It plays out as an extended exercise in deadpan humor as well as thinly-veiled social commentary.

Courtesy Lionsgate
Pre-dating Blade by at least a century.

“Slavery is vampirism” gets about as blatant an allegory as you can get. However, like the potential for humor, none of the greater tragedies of the day or our perspectives on the practice of keeping people as property inform the actions of the film. The film does not suddenly become maudlin over the sacrifices made to help the United States become more enlightened or melancholy in pausing to deliver a message on how vile such practices are. Instead it sticks to its guns (and axes), moving forward through the story without taking overlong to comment on any of the peripheries. The story, as it stands, is relatively straightforward and follows Lincoln’s life and events, and the actors never stop to wink at the audience or make shop-stopping speeches. The makers of the film are aware that most nuances and commentary would be lost on at least a portion of the audience and thus opt more for a straight-forward supernatural action flick than anything else.

The problem with this is that the action is not incredibly inventive. Oh, it looks cool as hell to see Honest Abe axe-murdering creatures of the night, but only a few of his kills feel like something original. There’s a neat scene that takes place during a horse stampede and I was curious how much of his training was influenced by something like kung fu, but most of the action is the sort of well-shot but empty entertainment that is more the norm than the exception. This lack of originality coupled with a dearth of real narrative punch or interesting character turns leaves the whole film feeling dry and, pardon the pun, a touch bloodless. It rattles along towards its conclusion with most of its twists and turns easily spotted by viewers who haven’t fallen asleep, and many of the circumstances of the events feel at least somewhat contrived.

Courtesy Lionsgate
Oh, Ramona, I can’t stay mad at you.

However, with all of that said, I came away from Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter feeling like my time had not been completely wasted. Sure, it was a light popcorn flick, but it felt like it was trying its best to rise above that classification to become something at least slightly more. And while it doesn’t quite rise above the baseline set by other action movies, the effort made does make a difference in terms of how much it can be enjoyed and for what reasons. It’s not a bad move by any stretch of the imagination. It’s well-assembled, cleanly shot, the actors are all fine, above average, or even good in their delivery, and the movie is not overly wrong. It may not be the best film ever made, but it does plenty of things right that others do wrong, and it could have been much, much worse.

Stuff I Liked: The action was well-shot and never confusing. The little touches of historical facts and figures lent some authenticity. The aging effects later in the film are neat. Blatant as it was, I dug the allegory.
Stuff I Didn’t Like: There was no real complexity to the plot; most of its twists could be seen from a mile away. The fights can get a touch repetitive as the film goes on. Sticking to a largely historical narrative leaves the plot with few overarching surprises.
Stuff I Loved: The story never takes itself too seriously nor goes completely camp; it walks a fine line very well for its entire run, it never stops being earnest and even-handed in its delivery, and the actors are selling the hell out of it.

Bottom Line: Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is an amusing exercise in historical fiction that puts in the right amount of effort, doesn’t overstay its welcome, and opts for being oddly earnest in its social commentary rather than having its tongue in its cheek. It does have a fair amount of contrivance and some of it is fairly predictable, but that’s balanced by its presentation and the go-for-broke performances of everyone involved.

Movie Review: Total Recall

In the spirit of things, let me take you back to one of my better IT CAME FROM NETFLIX! entries, Total Recall. The temptation was to execute a remake of that post, as this movie is a remake of a previous movie (which is itself a Philip K. Dick adaptation), but I unfortunately ran out of time. You’ll see why tomorrow, as it has to do with my latest theorycrafting obsession. There was day job stuff too, but that’s boring. Let’s get on with the review. Wait, what am I reviewing? Huh… I can’t remember.

Courtesy Columbia Pictures

WAIT! I remember now. Phew.

I feel like a rehash of the plot is a bit redundant, but here we go regardless. In the not-too-distant future, Earth is in a bad way. Chemical warfare has done horrible things to most of the continental landmass. The well-to-do live in the British Isles, and everybody else makes do in Australia, also known as The Colony. Travel happens via The Fall, a building-sized elevator that connects the distant islands through a shaft drilled through the planet. Our hero is Dennis Quaid, who lives in the Colony and works on the robotic police that maintain the peace. He’s having trouble sleeping and odd dreams, and to try and alleviate these problems, he goes to Rekall, a company that fabricates memories and experiences, and picks the ‘secret agent’ scenario. Before you can say, “Get your ass to Mars,” he’s taking out entire squads of police and running from his formerly affectionate wife as he is sought by both sides of an impending conflict.

The elimination of Mars from Total Recall eliminates two problems the previous film had. First, it ensures that the overall story and especially the third act is more grounded, even if it is still definitely a sci-fi tale. Moreover, it presents writers and producers the opportunity to hew closer to Dick’s original text. They didn’t do that, unfortunately, but they did craft a story that didn’t include things like off-world colonies and improbable mutants. While there’s still plenty of trappings of futuristic life that might also work in Mass Effect, their implementation feels, for the most part, more realistic. This is a kinder way of saying the filmmakers axed the camp.

Courtesy Columbia Pictures
Clearly, Quaid chose the “Jason Bourne” scenario.

The problem is, removing the camp and playing this story absolutely straight means that anything that is even marginally ridiculous all the more jarring. Without the pervasive feeling of tongue-in-cheek playfulness that’s intrinsic to all of the work of Paul Verhoeven, the core of the film feels cold and remote. As much as the screen is full of slick technology, rapid action, and happening lens flares, there isn’t a whole lot going on at any particular moment in terms of story development or the exploration of ideas. The one moment the film spares for the head-game portion of the plot causes everything else to come to a screeching halt, and while in the first outing there were hints and teases throughout both before and after that twist, in this version it feels more like a box on a checklist waiting for its tick so we can get back to the gunfire and CGI vehicle chases.

In addition to lacking any real character in its plot, Total Recall from 2012 also lacks actual characters. Our hero feels more like a bland Jason Bourne knock-off IN SPACE than the put-upon everyman that Arnold managed to portray (and how embarassing is it when you get out-acted by Arnold??), Jessica Biel’s character feels like a bare-bones outline of a character rather than a person of any dimension, both Bill Nighy and Brian Cranston are saddled with little more than a name and a position of either idealism or capitalist fascism respectively, and Kate Beckinsale shows some potential in being interesting in her switch from devoted wife to cold-blooded assassin but she’s no more fleshed out than Miss Biel, at least in terms of character. At this point we have no serious plot points to speak of and no characters to root for or despise… so what do we have?

Courtesy Columbia Pictures
Aww, just in time for Valentine’s Day!

For all of its insubstantiality, the production values of Total Recall are rather high. The movie has a very clear visual style, its action scenes are well-shot without things like shakey-cam or confusing jump-cuts, and the implementation of the technology we see, from covert phones to The Fall itself, is far more interesting than the characters we see using those technologies. In fact, it feels like a lot of the ideas that made it to the screen were a collection of ‘cool ideas’ from the design team than anything that came from the original short story, the previous film, or any new ideas on characters or themes from the minds of writers. A few of the visuals feel geared towards “universal appeal”, meaning they look like things born of futuristic first-person shooters, but hey, at least it’s something, right? I mean, you can’t just make a movie about nothing! Unless you’re M. Night Shaymalan, that is.

All in all, I’d call this new Total Recall competent, well-assembled, and it’s not intellectually offensive even if it is somewhat empty. It is not, by any measure of action movie assembly or modern blockbuster composition, objectively bad. However, it also isn’t good. This leaves it with the unfortunate and uncomfortable categorization of “average” or “mediocre”. You can use whichever term you feel is more appropriate and hurts the least amount of feelings. Of course, if you think mediocrity is a bad thing, you can use far more colorful language.

Stuff I Liked: The palm-phones were a really interesting idea that was well-implemented.
Stuff I Didn’t Like: No major plot changes made while the existing plot is pared down, no characters of any real depth or drive, an overall feeling of austerity and emptiness unseen since The Expendables.
Stuff I Loved: I didn’t feel strongly enough about this movie to love anything about it.

Bottom Line: Total Recall sacrifices the camp of the original film adaptation for a darker, gritter tale that’s heavy on a modern, universal aesthetic and some potentially engaging concepts while being light on character and charm. It’s not bad by any stretch, competently assembled, and clips along at a good pace, but it misses some of the vital parts that make for a good & lasting impression.

Movie Review: The Amazing Spider-Man

In the wake of The Avengers, it seemed like Marvel could do no wrong. And, since Iron Man 3 won’t be out for another few months, the jury is still out on their record. However, given the critical and commercial success of the studio’s flagship project, and the resurgence of the X-Men label under the skillful hand of Bryan Singer (seriously, if you haven’t seen First Class yet, FIX THAT.), Sony Pictures suddenly got a lot of attention, as it had held onto Spider-Man after Sam Raimi left the character behind. People were likely crossing their fingers when The Amazing Spider-Man was released, hoping not only that fans of the original trilogy would like it, but also that Marvel wouldn’t ask for its favorite wisecracking web-slinger back.

Courtesy Sony Pictures

Being a reboot, we drop in on science student Peter Parker during his awkward teenage years. His parents, rather than simply being absent, abandoned him when he was young, leaving him in the care of his Uncle Ben and Aunt May. Peter’s only clue is that his father worked for the major pharmaceutical and scientific research conglomerate Oscorp. He discovers that lovely fellow student Gwen Stacy interns there, and her mentor is one Curt Connors, a one-armed biogeneticist who worked closely with Parker Sr. It is while wandering around the Oscorp building that Peter gets bitten by a genetically enhanced spider that, in turn, gives Peter super-powers. Peter’s background with his father’s work helps Connors perfect a formula to regrow his arm that also makes him become the Lizard, Gwen’s father is a police captain who despises vigilantes, Uncle Ben is shot by a carjacker Peter needs to track down, and it was at about this point in the film I found myself asking a new question every five minutes, only a few of which got answered.

The plot of The Amazing Spider-Man is, to put it simply, a mess. Multiple plotlines are nothing new in narratives, and some tales do benefit from some of them going unresolved within the course of a given story. However, in those cases, one or more plotlines either become superfluous or get completely resolved before the end of the tale. Here, all of the plotlines remain active and ongoing until the very end of the film, and all of them needing to share screen time causes the story to feel disjointed and meandering. It’s like all of the writers wrote up scripts separately without ever meeting one another, and director Marc Webb shuffled the pages together into something resembling a cohesive narrative and tossed it at his cast of characters.

Courtesy Sony Pictures
Much as I rag on him, this isn’t entirely his fault.

This leads me nicely into the other major problem here: Peter Parker. Not Andrew Garfield, though, I didn’t mind him. What struck me is that Peter feels very little like his own character, but rather an amalgamation of popular teen affectations. Peter is something of a loner even in the comic books, but the lengths to which he goes to convey that feels like overcompensation. Peter demonstrates that he has a brilliant mind, a creative way of thinking, and a determination to do the right thing, yet he chooses to wrap all of that in Abercrombie and hair gel and skater gear. I don’t know if this was Garfield’s intention, but it feels like Peter is already intentionally wearing a disguise long before he gets bitten. And after he gets bitten, aside from his powers, what changes about him? He continues to act as he does before the bite, and after Uncle Ben’s death, he simply has another task ahead of him. His final line demonstrates that he’s learned nothing about responsibility, continuing to act however he likes no matter what authorities say or experience has taught him. He fails to grow. He has no real arc. He falls flat as a character, and without him feeling realized and sympathetic, the rest of the movie fails to connect.

That’s actually a shame, as there are some really talented people involved. Like I said, I didn’t mind Andrew Garfield. In full-on snark mode he approaches the modern take on Spider-Man I’ve seen in the pages of the Avengers. As much as I loved the original pair, Sally Field and Martin Sheen have good chemistry as Aunt May and Uncle Ben, hinting at a genuine, long-standing, and affectionate relationship. Rhys Ifans does some remarkable work as the Lizard, his own face and eyes conveying emotion through the green scaly lens of advanced motion capture. Denis Leary is actually pretty solid as Captain Stacey, and as for his daughter, I could watch Emma Stone reading out of a phone book and be happy. But I’m probably a touch biased. She and Garfield do have decent chemistry of their own, and if Peter had come across as just a little less insufferable and a little more endearing, I probably would have enjoyed this more.

Courtesy Sony Pictures
This is definitely not her fault.

The Amazing Spider-Man is a study in failed ambition, misfired potential, and squandered goodwill. There are glimmers, here and there, of something better that could have been made with this cast and this atmosphere. It’s a dark film, about as dark as you can make an adaptation of one of the oldest heroes born of the House of Ideas, and some interesting ideas come and go during the running time. A few visual moments really stand out, and as I said, the actors do bring their A game. But between setting too many plotlines in motion and borrowing too many ideas from Batman Begins and Twilight, instead of interest and excitement, one is left with a lingering feeling of disappointment. And that’s not how you want your plea to hold onto your super-hero franchise to end.

Stuff I Liked: Spidey did have some good lines. May & Ben were good. I always like seeing Denis Leary. The realization of the web-shooters was a cool little touch, and the scene in the sewer making use of the web was a nice change from some of the other inane decisions being made.
Stuff I Didn’t Like: Peter felt a little too much like a hipster douche, and looked a bit too much like Robert Pattinson. Too many plot points go unresolved to actually build much mystery or suspense. Very little of the film actually feels all that tense or exciting.
Stuff I Loved: Emma Stone. Also, Stan Lee’s best cameo to date.

Bottom Line: I have seen worse super-hero movies in my day, and hardcore Spidey fans may enjoy this far more than I did, but the degree to which I am disappointed in The Amazing Spider-Man is… wait for it… amazing.

Older posts Newer posts

© 2024 Blue Ink Alchemy

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑