Western Wednesdays: The Return of Ringo (1965)

     The Return of Ringo was released in 1965. It is directed by Duccio Tessari and stars Giuliano Gemma, Fernando Sancho, and Lorella De Luca. In it Union Captain Montgomery "Ringo" Brown (Gemma) returns home from war only to find that his home has been ravaged by Mexican bandits, lead by the Fuente brothers, and he must set things aright.

     Tessari drew inspiration from the final chapters of Homer's The Odyssey in writing the screenplay for this film. Like Odysseus, Brown returns home from war after many year only to find that it has been taken over by greedy opportunists. His wife Helen (Hally Hamond), like Odysseus', is engaged to marry one of them and he must determine if she has remained faithful. Disguising himself as a Mexican peasant and taking a job with the local florist, Morning Glory (Manuel Muñiz), he begins to investigate the Fuentes doings. He eventually discovers that his wife has borne him a daughter in his absence and that she is being used by Paco Fuentes to make Helen compliant.

     Giuliano Gemma gives perhaps his best performance as the tortured Montgomery Brown. He really conveys the character's despair when he learns of his wife's supposed treachery and the psychological trauma he goes through in trying to restrain himself from revealing his presence sooner is palpable. He is clearly pained by what his wife has been forced to do and deeply frustrated by his inability to stop it. The scene where he finally reveals himself to Helen is particularly effective. Antonio Casas is also effective as the cowardly Sheriff Carson, who eventually takes courage and comes to Captain Brown's aid, as is Rinaldo Zamperla as the Mexican prostitute whose loyalties are unclear.

     Tessari fills the movie with memorable imagery: Gemma emerging at the entrance of the church in the middle of a sandstorm, like a ghost returned from the grave; the "wedding" between Helen and Paco, surrounded by caskets which, unbeknownst to Paco, contain his men who Ringo has slain. The action is decent, though Tessari use quick cutting a little too much for my taste rather of letting the action play out in longer shots. The score, by the now legendary composer Ennio Morricone, really helps to bring out the sadness in Gemma's character and lends a melancholy air to the film.

     Though occasionally a little cheesy (the less said about Gemma's Mexican "disguise" the better) and somewhat lacking in the action department, The Return of Ringo is still a really solid Spaghetti Western, featuring a psychologically driven story, told chiefly through the visuals, and a great performance from Guilano Gemma.

Score: 8/10

Musical Mondays: The Phantom of the Opera (2004)

     Andrew Lloyd Webber's The Phantom of the Opera is, perhaps, the most successful theater musical of all time. It's been on Broadway since 1988 and the West End since 1986 and has grossed over $5.6 billion. Despite this, critics have often dismissed it as empty bombast. I'd liked to think there's more to it then that. While it's true that this story doesn't really have a lot of depth on paper it does work on a raw emotional level and, if properly cast, the performances can add depth to otherwise thinly drawn characters. In other words, The Phantom of the Opera succeeds or fails mainly because of the quality of its production, or lack thereof.

     This brings us to the 2004 film adaptation of the play. Directed by Joel Schumacher and produced by Andrew Lloyd Webber himself, this film casts Gerard Butler as the mysterious Phantom of the Paris Opéra House who develops a dangerous obsession towards young soprano Christine Daaé (Emmy Rossum). It follows the plot of the play pretty much scene for scene.

     The Phantom blackmails the owners of the opera house (played by Simon Callow and Ciarán Hinds) into giving Christine the lead role in their production of Hannibal. He believes that no one can ever truly love him because of his scarred appearance. Because of this, he tries to coerce her into a relationship by exploiting her love for her long dead father. Christine at first believes that the Phantom is the spirit of her father while Raoul (Patrick Wilson), the opera's patron and Christine's childhood sweetheart, does not believe that he exists at all.

     When the Phantom kidnaps Christine in the films climax, she rejects him not because of his scarred appearance but because of the terrible acts he has committed. When he threatens to kill Raoul, who has been captured by the Phantom in his attempt to rescue her, Christine finally relents. She shows him real love and compassion and decides to stay, not just to save Raoul but in hopes that she can save the Phantom's humanity as well. This awakens the man inside the monster and he decides to let her go.

     It seems like certain decisions were made to improve on the play, or perhaps to make it more cinematic, but very little thought was put into these changes and they end up making matters worse. A good example of this occurs in the scene where Christine is wandering through the grave yard and encounters the Phantom, who she still thinks may be the spirit of her dead father. Raoul shows up and shakes her out of her reverie. In the play he is taunted by the Phantom until Christine persuades him to leave with her but in the movie the two men have a sword fight and Raoul defeats the Phantom. This seems like it could be a good idea at first. It makes Raoul stronger, more assertive character.  But then Christine pleads with Raoul to spare the Phantom, who he has at his mercy, so he just leaves. Wouldn't make more sense to turn him in to the authorities?

The film version of "Masquerade" on the left and the play on the right

     In addition to this, Joel Shumacher direction robs the musical of much of its more hypnotic and eerie qualities. In the play, there's a certain shallow, garish sensuousness to the polite society that the Phantom is hiding from and a hypnotic and seductive quality to his underground lair. Christine's seemingly mad belief that the Phantom is her father makes more sense in this atmosphere. While the film does a decent enough job with the Phantom and his world, the set and costume design in the opera house and, later, the ballroom is rather dull and uninspired. As a result, the film completely lacks the unsettling quality that made the play work and fails to draw you in in the same way.

     The biggest problem this movie has, however, is the music itself. Gerard Butler, simply put, can't sing. He's rather tone deaf and struggles to even enunciate correctly half the time. Since he is featured in most of the major musical numbers, this is a huge problem. Emmy Rossum, though not a bad singer, is really not up to the task of playing a character who's supposed to have an amazing, angelic voice. Patrick Wilson has the best voice of the three but is wasted in a role that was underwritten in the first place and is even less likable in this film's script. The musical numbers are also staged lazily and Schumacher has the actor's awkwardly speak the lyrics instead of singing them in certain scenes.

     This movie does feature some cool sets and Webber's music is great when it's not being ruined by terrible singing but, in the end, this film version of The Phantom of the Opera is the shallow spectacle critics always accused the play of being.

Score: 5/10

Saturday Evening Cartoons: Superman, Volume 1: Son of Superman

     No character suffered more from DC's 2011 New 52 reboot than Superman. The main title went through six different writers over a five year period and Action Comics went through four. Some of these writers included Grant Morrison, author of the beloved miniseries All-Star Superman; DC Comics' new Chief Creative Officer, Geoff Johns; Greg Pak, of Planet Hulk fame; and George Perez, who was responsible for now legendary runs on Teen Titans and Wonder Woman. Throughout these various runs Superman often came across like a bitter loner, particularly during Gene Luen Yang's Before Truth story-line. His romance with and marriage to Lois Lane was removed from continuity and Superman was given a relationship with Wonder Woman instead. The Convergence crossover event in 2015 was the beginning of a change for the character. In this story-line a large number of DC characters are forced to fight each other by Braniac. Among these characters is the original, pre-Flashpoint version of Superman, who is married to Lois and now has a son. This Superman survives the events of Convergence and comes to earth with his family, continuing to use his powers to help people in secret and keeping his eye on this earth's version of Superman. The New 52 ended with Superman's death, setting the stage for the original Superman to return in DC's 2016 Rebirth relaunch.

     Peter J. Tomasi and Patrick Gleason, the same team who had handled The Final Days of Superman crossover, were assigned the Superman title for this relaunch. The first story arc in their run, entitled, Son of Superman, deals with the original Superman's struggles to establish himself and his family on this new earth after the death of its Superman. They settle in to their new home in Hamilton County and Superman is confronted by Batman and Wonder Woman, who are initially distrustful of this new Superman. Meanwhile, his son Jon must learn to control his developing superpowers.

     Tomasi and Gleason really get Superman. He is presented in this story as an assertive hero and a wise father. This is clearly a character who has been through a lot. He died at the hands of Doomsday only to come back to life, he married Lois Lane and had a son, and he survived the destruction of his entire world and must now make a new home for himself and his family. But through it all he retains that sense of optimism that is so essential to the appeal of the character. They also bring a much welcome family dynamic to the series that is just the breath of fresh air the character needed. Seeing Superman struggle to be a good husband and father really humanizes him in a way I haven't seen before. Gleason, along with inker Mick Gray really convey this grounded yet soaringly optimistic felling through their art. It's always really vibrant and graceful and Gleason handles the transition between action driven superheroics and intimate family drama with ease. The plotting is also spot on. Gleason and Tomasi really know the right time to deliver a stunning large panel or splash page and there are a lot of interesting layouts, yet its always clear where my eye is supposed to go next.

     There are some major problems with this arc. For one thing it's a little bogged down in continuity. This is most apparent in the first chapter (originally published as a one shot) where Superman and Lana Lang try to bring the New 52 Superman back to life. Superman believes that this version of himself will come back to life just as he himself once did, but finds that this is not the case. This opening to the arc exists to catch the reader up with the continuity changes brought about by Convergence and Rebirth. It does a decent enough job but, unfortunately, this also means that it takes a while for the story to really get going. Indeed it's not until the end of chapter 3 that the main villain of the arc, Eradicator, is introduced. Eradicator is a good villain for this story as it forces Jon to come to terms with his duel heritage and also allows Kal El to come face to face with his ancestry. The remaining four chapters are basically an extended fight between Superman and Eradicator which its stretched a little thin at times.

     My other problem with this arc is the inconsistent artwork. While Gleason and Gray's art is, as I mentioned, fantastic, nearly half of the book features art by other people, including Phil Jimenez and Doug Mahnke. While there art is fine on its own it doesn't mesh well with Gleason's style. The color pallet is much more subdued and the facial work generally more realistic and less expressionistic.

     Despite some of these challenges (which are really quite common to the Rebirth relaunch as a whole) Son of Superman is a strong start to Tomasi and Gleason's run. If they can work out some of the kinks moving forward, I think we're in for something really special.

Score: 8/10

Spider-Man: Homecoming Review (Spoiler Free)

     Spider-Man: Homecoming was released on July 7th, 2017. It is directed by John Watts. In it Peter Parker (Tom Holland), with the help of his mentor Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.), tries to balance his life as an ordinary high school student while fighting crime as his superhero alter ego Spider-Man.

     Spider-Man is finally a part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and has his own movie. The good news is it's pretty solid. The bad news? Well, we'll get there. The humor works really well and is done in a more situational style in contrast to the more quipy, self-referential humor usually found in Marvel movies. The writing in general is on point and Peter goes through a pretty decent character arc here. Essentially he must learn to take things slower and not to neglect his studies, or his social life, in order to play superhero, something which, after the events of Captain America: Civil War, he's developed a tendency to do. It also features the best villain in a Marvel movie since Loki and the best Spider-Man villain since Doctor Octopus in Spider-Man 2. Micheal Keaton is really great as the Vulture and, though I'll always have a soft spot for Tobey Maguire, one could easily argue that Tom Holland is the best on-screen Spider-Man. He is certainly the most age appropriate casting choice we've gotten so far and is also the only of the three actors to use an authentic Queen's accent. It also has one of the more memorable musical scores of any MCU film. Micheal Giacchino is one of my favorite modern composers and he doesn't disappoint here.

     In the opening of Spider-Man: Homecoming the Vulture's backstory is shown. This is followed by a recap of Spider-Man's involvement in Captain America: Civil War. It's ten minutes before we are caught up to the present day and the actual plot of the film can get started. As a result, this film feels unnecessarily bogged down by the continuity of the MCU. It also, like many of its MCU counterparts, has problems in the last act. There's a major revelation that I like, as it further humanizes a certain character, but it can't help but feel contrived. In addition to this, the climax lacks the personal, emotional stakes of earlier action scenes and falls a little flat as a result. There's an iconic moment lifted from the comics, but it feels like a misstep, as it lacks the same emotional weight. There's also a little too much adult humor in this film for my comfort. This seems to be a trend in recent Marvel movies and, while I can accept it in a movie like Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, its frustrating that I feel uncomfortable taking my younger siblings to see a Spider-Man movie. But my real question is: where's Uncle Ben? It's really odd that, after his brief appearance in Captain America: Civil War and a whole movie about him, it's still not clear why this version of Peter Parker became Spider-Man in the first place.

     Despite my reservations I still really enjoyed Spider-Man: Homecoming. It may not be the best Spider-Man movie (at this point I doubt that Spider-Man 2 will ever be topped) but its easily the best one since 2004.

Score: 7/10

Saturday Evening Cartoons: Top 10 Stan Lee Steve/Ditko Spider-Man Stories (Video)

Well I missed another week...

     This week I present another video. I've been working on this for the past few months in anticipation of the release of Spider-Man: Homecoming. 

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Review

     The Amazing Spider-Man 2 was released in 2014. It is directed, once again, by Marc Webb stars Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Jamie Foxx and Dane DeHaan. In it Spider-Man must face a new super-villain called Electro (Foxx) while also trying to figure out his relationship with Gwen Stacy (Stone) and his old friend, Harry Osborn (DeHaan). Meanwhile, he also continues to investigate the mysterious disappearance of his parents.

     In my review for Spider-Man 2 I said that it's one of the few sequels that increases the stature of its predecessor. The Amazing Spider-Man 2, by contrast, actually makes the first film worse in retrospect. The mystery of Peter's parents death becomes even more confusing in this film. What's worse is that this film, rather than trying to put more emphasis on Uncle Ben's death and its impact on Peter, instead focuses more on the promise Peter made to Gwen's father before he died. Captain Stacy's death actually seems to have a bigger impact on Peter than his uncle's does.

     Even disregarding these issues, this film is really just a mess. There is no discernible plot or theme holding the film together, rather it feels like a series of disconnected events that cause consternation for Peter. It's also tonally inconsistent both in relation to the first film and on its own merits. Sometimes its more gritty and grounded like the first movie and other times its really over-the-top and campy. Just look at the films two main villains. Jamie Foxx's Electro starts out as an exaggerated nerd and then becomes this really crazy, unhinged villain while Dane DeHaan's Goblin is a maladjusted rich young man who slowly descends into madness. One feels like they belong in a Saturday morning cartoon and the other like they walked out of a poorly done horror movie.

     There are a few things I like in this movie. Andrew Garfield is still good as Spider-Man/Peter Parker as is Emma Stone as Gwen. Sally Field's Aunt May feels like the only really grounded character in the movie, which I appreciate. There are also some genuinely affective and even inspiring moments. The scene where Aunt May tells Peter the truth about his parents is actually pretty heart-wrenching and there is a sort of subplot involving a young boy that Peter defends from some bullies that hearkens back to the bridge rescue from the first film. There are also some pretty entertaining action scenes and I do really like the new costume.

    The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is a pretty bad sequel. It makes many of the same mistakes as its predecessor and actually compounds some of that film's problems all while failing to capitalize on its strong cast or to satisfactorily expand on the mythos. In my opinion this is the worst Spider-Man film.

Score: 5/10

Western Wednesdays: Day of Anger (International Version)

     Day of Anger was released on December 19th, 1967. It is directed by Tonino Valerii and stars Giuliano Gemma and Lee Van Cleef. In it Scott Mary  (Gemma), a street sweeper in Clifton, Arizona, becomes the pupil of aged gunfighter Frank Talby (Van Cleef). Talby's efforts to take over Clifton set him at odds with the sheriff (Giorgio Gargiullo) and Scott's old friend Murph Allan Short (Walter Rilla).

     Day of Anger feels more in tune with American Westerns then most of its Italian counterparts. It makes explicit references to Doc Holiday and the gunfight at the OK Coral, a frequent reference point in the American western but not so much in the Spaghetti western. The story is also more psychologically driven than most Spaghettis, with Scott searching for a father figure throughout the film. At the beginning Murph, himself a former gunfighter, serves as a sort of father figure for him. Scott is tormented by the people of Clifton, who treat him as an inferior and Murph is the only person who shows him kindness or offers him support. He taught Scott how to use a gun but he discourages him from pursuing a life as a gunfighter, which alienates the angry young man. When Talby rides into town Scott finds someone who is not afraid to assert himself and to use violence to get what he wants. He is seduced by this and basically "adopts" Talby as his new father figure, supporting his bid to take over Clifton and putting himself in a position of power over the people who formally ridiculed him. When Murph decides to stand against Talby, Scott is forced to choose between the two men.

     Tonnino Valerii directs this film with much gusto. He creates a contrast between the colorful and affluent town of Clifton and the more desolate desert landscape and run down towns outside of it. The action is filled with energy, particularly the duel on horseback in the middle of the film and the climax. The jazz-infused score, by Academy Award winner Riz Ortolani, gives the movie a really unique feel. The performances are also strong. Lee Van Cleef mixes the sense of charm and style that he showed in For a Few Dollars More (1965) with the more sadistic tendencies of Angel Eyes in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly in his role as Frank Talby. We can understand why Scott finds his way of life attractive but, at the same time, we are put off by his moral apathy. Giuliano Gemma, who had made his mark two year earlier in A Pistol for Ringo, brings his usual sense of boyish charm to the role of Scott Mary. He really sells the characters inner conflict and desire to assert himself.

     Two different versions of this film exist, the original Italian cut, which is 114 minutes, and the international cut, which is 95 minutes. Amazon video had the international cut so, unfortunately, that's the version I watched. I say unfortunate because, while I really liked this movie, it was poorly edited at times and I would imagine that the original cut alleviates this problem to some extent.

     Day of Anger is one of the stronger spaghetti westerns I've seen. It features strong performances, stylish direction and a really cool score. I'd highly recommend it, though you should probably track down the original Italian cut.

Score: 8.5/10

The Amazing Spider-Man Review

      The Amazing Spider-Man was released in 2012. It is directed by Marc Webb and stars Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, and Denis Leary. It tells the origin story of Spider-Man (Grafield), a nerdy teenager who is bit by a radioactive spider and receives superpowers. You all know the rest of the story at this point.

     I used to think The Amazing Spider-Man was a pretty solid reboot. It stuck closer to the comics then the Raimi films in certain areas and generally improved on some of those films weaknesses. Five years later my view has changed. Looking at this film purely on its own merits and without the context of the comics or the Raimi films really hurts it. While I appreciate the fact that the writers try to give Peter a longer learning curve after Uncle Ben's death (he initially seeks vengeance instead of learning the lesson about responsibility immediately after his uncle dies) as this gives them the opportunity to give Peter a longer and potentially richer character arc, they unfortunately miss this opportunity.

     When Peter's uncle is murdered he decides to use his new powers to pursue the killer. He's racked with anguish and guilt because he had an opportunity to apprehend the criminal before he shot Ben. He transfers these negative feelings onto the killer, ignoring his Aunt's grief and shirking his responsibilities. Its only when he is confronted by Captain Stacy, a man he seems to look up to, that he reconsiders what he is doing. He realizes that, although he has apprehended many criminals in his quest for vengeance, perhaps this has actually hindered the police's ability to fight crime rather than helped. Then the Lizard, a creature he helped to create, attacks innocent people on the Williamsburg Bridge and Peter decides, for the first time, to try and use his powers to help people instead of for selfish reasons. This Peter Parker doesn't become a superhero because he is haunted by his uncle's death, which is something I originally just took for granted when watching this film. Rather, he is a person who has let go of his desire for vengeance to pursue a greater good. The arc is still there but it's not as resonant or powerful.

     This is my main issue with this movie but it's not the only one. There is an entire subplot dedicated to the disappearance of Peter's parents and his obsession with this. It's this obsession which leads him to Oscorp, where he gets his powers. But an incredibly contrived set of circumstances take place to get him there. By trying to tie Peter's origin to his past and make it the result of his own choices rather than a random accident, this film unnecessarily complicates what was a pretty compelling story in the original comics and the plot is rather contrived as a result. The villain of the film, on the other hand, feels rather simplistic and one-dimensional. Curt Conners is pressured by his superiors at Oscorp to test his regenerative formula on himself, which turns him into the Lizard and drives him insane. Though he's not really a bad guy, Connors lacks the sympathetic nature of his comic-book counterpart, who was made more sympathetic by his wife and son's dismay at his change. Nor is he someone who has paid the price for a reckless science experiment, as this decision was forced on him. He basically just a victim, someone who was turned into a monster against his will. Finally, the film's climax is really generic, with the Lizard trying to turn everyone in New York into lizard creatures via a giant sky beam.

     There are a lot of things about this film that I like. As I said, I can appreciate the fact that the writers were trying to create a more grounded and complex origin, even if they ultimately failed. I also think the film is cast really well. I really like Andrew Garfield in this movie. He sells the nerdiness and awkwardness of Peter Parker and the cockiness of Spider-Man really well. He also has a limber and sinewy physique that resembles Steve Ditko's early renditions of the character. Emma Stone is also really great as Gwen Stacy, imbuing the character with a lot of natural spunk and intelligence. She and Garfield have great chemistry together. I also like Martin Sheen and Sally Field as Uncle Ben and Aunt May. They feel like a real couple and its easy to understand why Peter is so socially awkward as they are both a little old fashion and clearly weren't prepared to have Peter thrust on them. Yet their love for each other and for Peter is always apparent.

     The score, by the late, great James Horner, is quite good. It's more of a traditional, orchestral kind of score than is typical for modern superhero films. The main theme is really stirring  and the music accompanying Uncle Ben and Captain Stacy's death add the appropriate amount of dramatic heft to those scenes. The film itself, despite its darker, grittier exterior, has some of really inspiring moments, and generally feels more old school in its approach to superheroes, which I appreciate. There is one scene in particular, where Peter takes his mask off and gives it to a young boy he's rescuing in order to give him courage, that may be one of my favorite scenes in any Spider-Man movie. I only wish it was surrounded by a better film.

     In the end, The Amazing Spider-Man strengths are not enough to overcome its flimsy plot and the mishandling of Peter's motives for being Spider-Man takes away too much from the emotional weight of his hero's journey for me to really forgive.

Score: 6/10

Spider-Man 3 Review

     Spider-Man 3 was released on May 4th, 2007. It is directed by Sam Raimi and stars Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, Thomas Haden Church, and Topher Grace. In it an alien entity bonds with Spider-Man (Maguire), who must also contend with a new villain called the Sandman (Church), all while trying to balance his life as Spider-Man with his personal life and relationship with Mary Jane Watson (Dunst). Meanwhile Harry Osborn (Franco) plots revenge against Peter for his father's murder.

    Spider-Man 3 is a text book example of an overly ambitious sequel. Originally, Raimi's plan was to pit Peter against his friend Harry in order to conclude Harry's story. He brought in Sandman because he thought the character was visually interesting and added the background of him being Uncle Ben's killer in order to challenge Peter's simplistic sense of morality and give him an arc of forgiveness. He then decided he wanted another villain and was considering using the Vulture but Producer Avi Arad convinced him to use Venom instead. According to one article "so many plot strands piled up that at one point, the story broke into two films ... (this idea) collapsed when nobody could find a satisfying intermediate climax." As a result of this there are just way too many subplots for any one to really resonate emotionally and the whole film feels cluttered.

     To start off, the whole venom subplot is really rushed and contrived. Rather then trying to set up the alien symbiote in an organic manner, they just have it arrive on a meteor which happens to land near Peter. The way the symbiote affects Peter isn't really handled any better. I actually don't mind the infamous montage where Peter does the emo dance while walking down the street as it mirrors the Raindrops Keep Falling on My Head scene from Spider-Man 2. It's not really how I'd want this material to be adapted but this is Raimi's film and it fits his sense of humor. With that said it is overused and there are not really enough darker emotional moments to offset it. Peter also gets rid of the symbiote way to easily, accidentally banging into a church bell, the vibrations of which weaken the symbiote allowing him to free himself. Of course Eddie Brock, who has a major grudge against Peter just happens to be in the same church as Peter when this happens, resulting in the symbiote latching onto him instead.

     Harry's rivalry with Peter is handled at least marginally better then the Venom stuff but its also the most disappointing and frustrating of the three subplots. At the beginning of the movie Harry, who now knows that Peter is Spider-Man, is hellbent on exacting revenge against him for the murder of his father. But then he gets amnesia during their first battle, which's allows the writers to essentially ignore this subplot for a good chunk of the film. When he eventually recovers he decides to attack Peter psychologically by stealing Mary Jane away from him. He threatens to kill Peter if MJ doesn't break up with him and for some reason she agrees to do this even though she knows that Peter is Spider-Man and can take care of himself. Compounding this problem is the fact that it's never made clear how much MJ knows about Peter and Harry's rivalry, or even if Harry has been enhanced by his father's formula. Perhaps we're supposed to believe that she actually wants to leave Peter because she feels jealous of his success (this is made clear earlier) and is beginning to question how much he really cares about her. Unfortunately that subplot is really contrived and feels like a departure from the character's arc from the previous films in favor of cheap drama.

     Finally, when Harry decides to help Peter during the climax he is told by his butler, Bernard, that Norman's wounds were self inflicted, essentially absolving Peter of his death. Why Bernard withheld this information for so long is anyone's guess. In any case, this revelation makes Harry reconsider his fixation on getting revenge and he decides to help Peter rescue MJ from Venom and the Sandman. Not only is this contrived, it also feels really anticlimactic. This conflict between Peter and Harry had been built up throughout the first two films. To see it come to an end so abruptly is really disappointing.

     Of the three subplots Peter's need for vengeance against Sandman probably works the best. This is largely because Flint Marko is a really sympathetic character. We can understand why Peter wants revenge against him but we also suspect that he doesn't really deserve everything that has happened to him. It also is better integrated with the Venom plot then the Harry/Green Goblin stuff is as Peter's desire for vengeance is the main thing fueling his dark side and allowing the symbiote to take over. With that said, it feels wrong to subvert Peter's big mistake in the first film by shifting the blame for Uncle Ben's death onto different character.

     With all that said there are moments in Spider-Man that work really well. Peter realizing, with horror, what the symbiote has made him into is pretty effective and Harry's sacrifice also feels like a fitting end to his arc. But neither of these scenes feel supported by the piece as a whole. There are some pretty cool action scenes, particularly the initial battle between Harry and Peter and the effects all hold up quite well. Although Danny Elfman had departed from the series due to disagreements with Raimi during the production of the second film, Christopher Young does an admirable job filling in, building on Elfman's material from the first two films and creating new, memorable themes for Venom and Sandman. The returning cast members all do a good enough job with the material they are given. Thomas Hayden Church puts in a really solid performance as Sandman. Topher Grace, on the other hand, feels a bit miscast as Eddie Brock while Bryce Dallas Howard and James Cromwell are wasted as George and Gwen Stacy.

     Despite all this I still find Spider-Man 3 immensely entertaining for the most part. Even when it's bad, which is often, it's charmingly so. This doesn't change the fact that it doesn't really do much for me emotionally and is a bit of a mess plot-wise. Ultimatly, Spider-Man 3 is a massive disappointment for me, even if it's an entertaining one.

Score: 6/10

Saturday Evening Cartoons: Civil War II (Video Review)

     

     I didn't really have time to do a review for the last couple of weeks. So, instead, enjoy this overlong and repetitive rant about Civil War II that I made a while back...

     For the sake of clarity, Civil War II is an event comic and ostensible sequel to Civil War (2006). It is written by Brian Micheal Bendis with art (mainly) by David Marquez and Justin Ponsor.

Just for the heck of it.
Score: 5/10