The Film Junkie

I realize I had huge expectations, but why shouldn’t I?  ‘Spider-Man 2′ (2004) is one the best comic book movies of all time.  It raised the bar and it stands beside ‘X2′ (2003) as my two all-time favorites of the genre.  Thus I went to the theatre this weekend expecting nothing less than brilliance from Sam Raimi…and he simply did not deliver.

The film follows Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) in the aftermath of Harry Osborn (James Franco) and Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst) discovering his secret identity.  Parker is happy that he can share this side of his life with Watson and he must now face the wrath of Osborn who blames Spider-Man for his father’s death.

The story becomes swiftly bloated with new characters from the Sandman (Thomas Hayden Church in an underdeveloped and sappy role) to Venom (Topher Grace does the best he can with a character designed as pretty one-note in what an asshole he is) to Gwen Stacy (the lovely Bryce Dallas Howard is criminally underused).  Raimi seems to be trying to employ every Spider-Man character all at once and ends up with a pretty empty film.

There are a few good action scenes, but none can compete with the great train scene in ‘Spider-Man 2′.  The fights are good, but the CGI stands out as not being as strong as before.

The most frustrating aspect of this film is how Raimi wastes the characters.  Maguire has a lot of fun playing Parker under the Venom influence, but he looks like Peter Petrelli from ‘Heroes’ doing an impression of John Travolta in ‘Saturday Night Fever’.  There is a ridiculous scene in a jazz club that had nothing to do with anything other than tarnishing the Spider-Man name.

Dunst tries her best with the broody MJ, but she comes off annoying and selfish for most the film, when she is not playing the victim, of course.

The ending is awful in its moralistic posturing.  I won’t give it away, but it left me completely unsatisfied and cheated.

Please don’t misunderstand me.  This is a good film, it is flashy and glossy and many of the things a great summer movie should be, but it falls far short of my expectations, especially the second half.

Grade: B-

A mesmerizing and hypnotic film about the tragedy of lost youth and the selfishness of innocence.

Sofia Coppola’s debut tells the story of the Lisbon sisters as seen through they eyes of four neighbour boys who become obsessed with them.  Through the mature voice of one of these boys we see the knowledge of one year 25 years ago when five sisters took their own lives.  Through this aged perspective we see how these girls behave but never who they were or why they did what they did.  For these boys would be haunted with those questions for the rest of their lives.

It is an interesting perspective to hear someone’s story told through a character we never really get to know.  We are kept at a distance throughout this film from the sisters, the boys, the time, place, all the reasons.  We can never know truly why the Lisbon sisters did what they did just as we can never really understand why someone would take their own life.

This film is moving, sullen and very feminine, unlike so many movies made supposedly ‘for women’ in Hollywood, this is actually a very female tale, despite being told by a man.

Kirsten Dunst gives a great performance as Lux, the over-sexed Lisbon sister, you understand completely why men are so drawn to her, but also the quirkiness of her character that keeps her apart from other girls.  The other Lisbon girls are quiet, shy and seem too smart for their own good, while Lux is the great equalizer.

James Woods and Kathleen Turner are also excellent as the parents who are trying their best but just can’t seem to understand what their daughters need.

A great film.

Grade: A

This is not the story of who Marie Antoinette was, but rather who she might have been. 

It does not claim to be a history, instead Sofia Coppola re-imagines the court of Versailles during the French Revolution through the eyes of a child of the 1980’s.  Both time periods are remembered as those of excess and decadence and I think Coppola’s prerogative works here.

Kirsten Dunst is charming as the young queen, she is an under-rated actress and I would like to see her take on more roles like this.  Jascon Schwartzman is great as ever is his small role as Louis XVII.  They have great chemistry as a couple thrown together in the name of polticial solidarity and as children uncomfortable with the responsibility of breeding and courtly life.

Coppola imagines Antoinette as a girl becoming a woman, delighted by cakes, shoes, dresses and nature, while distressed by tradition and life under complete scrutiny.  Dunst plays her well as she turns from the wide-eyed innocent into the weathered monarch.

This is not the complete story of Antoinette’s life, it takes her from her departure of Austria through her marriage and children to the point where she and Louis must adandon Versailles as they are bombarded by the Revolution.

This is a quiet and bright, sparkling film that works well only when one abandons one’s historic eye and uses instead one’s eye for self-fulfillment and self-definition.

A misunderstood achievement by the masterful Sofia Coppola.

Grade: A