The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Review

I feel bad for this movie, everyone hates it, and I mean everyone, and I feel bad for it because I got the feeling that regardless of the circumstances, the people involved really wanted to make a good movie, not the people at Sony mind you, but the director and cast, they all wanted to make something good and they listened to the criticisms of the previous film and apparently it's even worse now, no matter what, people are always going to hate on this franchise no matter what they change or what they do, everyone complained about the "dark tone" in the first film so they made it more light hearted and then those same people complained that the film was a different tone from the first film. So according to these people, even if a film has made a mistake, they'd rather they continue with that mistake rather than correct it, it's called constructive criticism people, you complain and they fix the problems, if you're still going to complain then you're nothing more than a bitch, fuck you.

Whatever, let's just get this over with, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014) has the cast & crew return from the first film but now with Robert Orci & Alex Kurtzman writing the script along with Jeff Pinker. The story is that Gwen & Peter have graduated from school and Gwen will be heading off to England for university, meanwhile Peter's former best friend Harry Osborne has returned home needing Spider-Man's help or else he will die. Also Electro is there as well and hates Spider-Man.

Okay so I want to start by saying, I understand the problems with this film, it's chocked full of them, mostly with the villains, they don't get the proper amount of focus and a lot of their development is rushed, again, Spider-Man villains suck, I don't care if these ones suck. Except I feel like people's problems with this film are greatly exaggerated, because there are plenty of stuck up fanboys of the Raimi films who never even gave these films a chance so they took every problem in the film and exaggerated how bad it is by about a billion. Fact is, Sony fucked up, they asked for too much from Marc Webb and frankly he did the best with what he had to, because that's the problem, a lot of stuff that is in this film is because he had to, he had to have these villains in there because Sony says so, they have full control over this film so he doesn't have a choice. Let's start with Rhino seeing as he gets very little screentime...that's what I wanted, when they announced Rhino was in this I hoped he was going to be a small time villain and given more focus in a sequel, and that is exactly what I got, I got what I wanted, so I'm happy.

Then there is Electro, the biggest problem that people have with him is how rushed he is, he instantly loves Spider-Man and then he instantly hates Spider-Man, this is still a problem, but it's a developed problem. Even before he becomes a villain they establish how obsessive and strange he is, Spider-Man saves him and he thinks of him as his best friend, Gwen remembers his name and he instantly is attracted to her, Spider-Man steals his thunder (Yes that was a pun) he instantly hates him, when Harry says he needs him he instantly is friends with him. Fact is considering what Webb had to work with he did a great job of setting up this character, would it have been better if they had properly set him up? Yes but I think the development was very well handled for what cards were in their hands.

Then there is Green Goblin...oh boy do I not like the Green Goblin, first of all I love Dane Dehaan and his portrayal as Harry was great, but his turn into the Green Goblin was so rushed and so forced with no foreshadowing and came down to a number of plot holes and conveniences, like how he just so happened to be where the Goblin suit is and how he instantly knew how to use it or that it just so happened to fit him. Also the design of the Goblin is terrible, he looks ridiculous, and not in a good way.

But overall I think the villains were much better handled than in Spider-Man 3 and for one very important reason, they are all connected through an established theme, and that theme being abandonment. Electro feels abandoned by Spider-Man and society and Harry feels abandoned by Spider-Man and his father, they both have an actual connection established, unlike Spider-Man 3 where it was just two bad guys teaming up because...they're bad guys! Hell, this theme is even connected to Peter and how he feels abandoned by his parents and soon Gwen will be leaving him, so at least the movie is capable of focusing on something, that's definitely and improvement over the last film. And yes I know the Rhino doesn't fit this theme but he does jackshit in the movie anyway, I give it a pass.

Furthermore this film has without a doubt the best Spider-Man in all 5 films, like I said before, Andrew Garfield is spectacular (no wait, wrong Spider-Man series) he's amazing (there ya go) as Spider-Man, he has the personality and appearance of Spider-Man and you can tell Andrew Garfield is loving this role, also the design of the suit has greatly improved from the last film. But I think what I love most about this portrayal is how Spider-Man is represented as a hero, I've heard people complain about how he tells jokes rather than stopping the villains but after rewatching the film that literally only happens in one shot, the rest of the time he always takes his job seriously and the most important thing to him is making sure people are safe, whether it be stopping a bus, walking a kid home from school or talking a dangerous person out of a bad situation, he'll always confront the problem without necessarily resorting to violence, and that's the thing, in this film Spider-Man will always try to solve a problem with his words first and his biggest priority is making sure other people don't get hurt, even when he has to go out of his way, which is why in the end you see how big of an impact it is for him to quit being Spider-Man but also his return to Spider-Man, with great power comes great responsibility, and instead of wasting an entire movie having him relearn this lesson *cough* Spider-Man 2 *cough* he accepts it within the span 5 minutes of screen time and put his grieving in a montage, which makes sense. I don't like it. But it makes sense.

Then there is Gwen's death, oh boy is this gonna be a doozy...now I've heard people complain about how this moment was handled and how ineffective it was do to the circumstances, that being that Spider-Man does everything in his power to prevent Gwen from dying so the fact that she dies anyway and Peter goes on this big guilt trip and quits being Spider-Man. So this is why I think this moment works really well, first off, the fact that she dies anyway despite Peter doing everything in his power to prevent that is why it's so affective, because no matter how hard he tried it's something that he wasn't strong enough to prevent, but with that being said, that doesn't instantly cure him of any guilt from the situation, after all he's the reason why Gwen was even with him at the time and just put yourself in his shoes, you're a superhero, you're job is to save people, you do it on a daily basis, so when you can't even protect the person you love more than anything, of course that's going to come with a big burden, you're obviously going to feel guilty about it as if you failed and this is the price you pay, so that's why I think it's an affective moment because he now carries the weight and guilt of three dead people (Uncle Ben, Gwen's dad & Gwen) that's gonna have a big impact on you...that is until 5 minutes later when he's Spider-Man again...man fuck that montage.

So my final rating for The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (As controversial as it might be) is a 9/10.

So those were my 5 reviews for the 5 Spider-Man films, I hope you enjoyed and don't disagree with me too much, but hell, we all love Spider-Man so CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG!?

-Danny

The Amazing Spider-Man Review

Y'all ever notice this? I mean this has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the review but, it's weird man...anyway Amazing Spider-Man, let's review it.

After the critical failure that was Spider-Man 3, the state of Spider-Man had yet again returned to limbo, you see a Spider-Man 4 was in pre-production, both Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire wanted to return to the project, not Kirsten Dunst because she got sick of being nothing more than the damsel (right on!) but both of them were tied up with other projects at the time when Sony wanted to get the movie going, so rather than wait so Raimi could return to the project they scrapped it all together and rebooted the franchise...after 5 years. Why did they need to reboot it? Because if Sony doesn't make a Spider-Man film within a certain amount of time the movie rights revert back to Marvel, which means if Sony weren't greedy money grubbing pigs then yes, we could have seen Spider-Man with The Avengers. Point is we got a new Spider-Man franchise only a decade after the last one began, but while I do bring this up because it's important to know why the movie is made, I'm not going to be using this against the film, nor shall I focus on the atrocious marketing campaign, because that's judging the production of a film, not the actual quality of the film itself, with that being said, let's get into the film already.

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) was directed by Marc Webb (Pun not intended) and was written by James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent and Steve Kloves and starred Andrew Garfield as Spider-Man. Now this is the first and best thing about this franchise is Andrew Garfield's portrayal as Spider-Man, if you remember my biggest problem with the previous Spider-Man films is that they never felt like Spider-Man, here, they nailed it almost right away. I've heard people complain that someone like Andrew Garfield can't pass as a socially awkward nerd because he's too: handsome, athletic, stylish & funny. Webb & Garfield's response to this is that Peter is an introvert by choice, because let's be honest, the reputation that nerds have these days doesn't instantly signify that you're uncool, so if they were to go that route then it would be too unrealistic, and I am completely fine with accepting Garfield's awkward portrayal because for me he does genuinely come across as someone who would be hard to get along with, at least at first. Also they get the comedy down pretty well I'd say, I mean not entirely, being honest a lot of the time when he's telling jokes (especially as Spider-Man) they're just sort in the background or people are talking over him, I would have liked that to get more focus.

But apart from that they nailed the most important aspect is the heroism of it all, Spider-Man is not the hero, Peter Parker is the hero, Spider-Man is just a mask that gives him the confidence to be who he really is, but the important thing to note is that Peter is the hero, and that is exactly what he is here. Even before he becomes Spider-Man, he's still not afraid to stand up for himself or for others, I mean granted he never actually wins, but the fact that he tries is important, what makes a hero isn't what they can do, but why they do it. So overall I love this Spider-Man, Andrew Garfield is without a doubt a much better Spider-Man than Tobey Maguire.


And then there is the love interest, Gwen Stacy played by Emma Stone...she's fucking awesome, I mean seriously a million billion times better than Mary Jane, absolutely incredible. Firstly, the chemistry between Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield is through the roof adorkable, you truly believe them as a real couple...probably because they are indeed a real couple. But more than that, her character is not just a damsel in distress, in fact I don't think there's a point in this movie where she becomes a damsel in distress. The only point where she's in danger from the villain, she get's herself out of the situation thanks to her quick thinking, because that's another thing, she's a genius, in fact she's smarter than Peter, she's the one that creates the antidote that defeats the villain. So she's smart, take's care of herself and has great chemistry with her love interest, you know, all the things Mary Jane didn't have!

And then there is the villain, Kurt Conners A.K.A. The Lizard, played by Rhys Ifans (thank god I don't have to pronounce that name) and uh...he's not very good. My main problem is STOP MAKING SPIDER-MAN VILLAINS CRAZY!! You should know by now I fucking hate this cliche, not every Spider-Man villain needs to be crazy, the Lizard shouldn't be treated like a split personality, it's more like a disease that plagues his life, like The Hulk to Bruce Banner, not the Green Goblin to Norman Osborne, DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT! Also his plan to change the entire city into lizards makes no sense, but it's okay because he's crazy...apparently? Also the design of the Lizard sucks, he's even worse than the 2014 Ninja Turtles, the face just looks all wrong. So not a fan of his motivation, personality or design, does this mean I hate the villain? Well no, not necessarily, after all, I've never been impressed with any of the Spider-Man movie villains, so this is just following that trend, though I will say the biggest let down is in the design, which the Spider-Man villains have always had great designs, this is the only exception.

Then there is the supporting cast, Martin Sheen as Uncle Ben and Sally Field as Aunt May. First of all, holy shit, how do you get two major actors like that in supporting roles!? That is fantastic casting. Also the relationships between the two and Peter are much better here, in the first film they had barely any screen time together and I said the relationship and drama was incredibly forced, here we get plenty more time of them acting like father & son, such as the two doing chores together, Peter getting in trouble at school and Ben disciplining him so when the eventual fight between the two and Uncle Ben's murder, the emotions are more justified and thus the moment is all the stronger because there relationship was better established, it didn't feel like a plot point that needed to happen because it's Spider-Man.

And Dennis Leary as Captain Stacy was also great, but I think what I love more than anything about his character and role in the film is the representation of the police force in general. Now it's no secret that in our modern society the American police force don't have the best reputation, and that is even worse in superhero movies where the police seem incapable of doing fuck all, so the fact that here the police are portrayed as skilled and competent makes for a nice change, hell they're even able to capture Spider-Man at one point. As for the rest of the supporting cast, well the Rajit guy that Conners worked with, he's completely forgotten about half way through the film, Flash is actually given some dimension here and isn't just a complete asshole like the bullies in the first film (Who are still complete dorks by the way). And finally Stan Lee...best-cameo-ever.

So those are the characters of the film, but the story of the film is something completely different, and by that I mean, it's very unfocused. First of all, the film pretty much retreads the origin story, which granted of course the origin is going to be the same but would it be so difficult to do something a little different? In fact that's how this film was marketed that it was going to focus on the "untold story of Peter's parents" which doesn't happen! They set it up that way at first but that's forgotten about pretty quickly, the same with Uncle Ben's killer, it's the macguffin that turns Peter into Spider-Man but it never actually gets a resolution! Or Rajit being hunted down by The Lizard, though there is a deleted scene for that, but if it's deleted then it doesn't count. So what I'm trying to say is this story is completely unfocused, badly paced and jumbled together without really knowing what it wants to talk about. So odd how opposite it is from the first film, there I thought the story was great and the characters were terrible, here I think the story is terrible and the characters are great.

Finally the visuals of the film, well the Spidey suit is...okay, I mean I get that they would have to make it different from the first series but the problem is that the Spidey suit looked perfect in the original films, so nothing they could do would look as good if they changed it up too much. As for the special effects, they're pretty good, I say pretty good because I do miss the practical effects of yesteryear and the cgi on The Lizard just doesn't look very good...at all, I'm always aware I'm looking at something that isn't really there.

Also the tone of the movie is something that a lot of people have criticized, that being that the tone is too dark and just copying off of The Dark Knight...first of all anyone that actually thinks this film is in any way like The Dark Knight, you can fuck right off, because this film isn't anything like The Dark Knight, not in tone, style or story, and no I don't even think it's trying to be like the Dark Knight, it is definitely trying to be a darker toned movie but there are more ways to tell a darker toned story than just The Dark Knight, seriously, it really pisses me off when people make that comparison THEY'RE NOTHING ALIKE!!! Sorry, mini-rant over, but actually discussing the tone of the film, it's odd, I get the feeling that they're trying to make it a dark toned movie but...they really don't, the only way how this movie feels dark is that a lot of the scenes take place at night, honestly if all the night scenes took place during the day I feel like the tone of the scene wouldn't be any different.

So that was my take on The Amazing Spider-Man, I love the cast & characters, the villain sucks but so does every Spider-Man villain, the story doesn't make a lick of sense and the tone isn't consistent with what they want vs what the get. As a film, it doesn't work very well, but as a Spider-Man film, it's fucking awesome.

My final rating for The Amazing Spider-Man is an 8/10.

If you disagree with me on this then boy are you gonna hate me when we talk about The Amazing Spider-Man 2, see ya then guys.

-Danny

Spider-Man 3 Review

Alright, let's talk about this film, Spider-Man 3, the movie that everyone hates, the one that killed the Raimi series and caused an entire reboot, people will stop at nothing when it comes to hating this film and send it to the bowels of hell and back just the repeat the process...I like it. I'm not kidding, I genuinely like this film, I've seen it the most out of all of the Spider-Man movies and you know something, I could watch it over and over again and never get bored, I freakin' love this movie...Let's begin.

Spider-Man 3 (2007) is the third and final instalment of the Spider-Man trilogy, pretty much everyone returned for this film from the previous instalments, now yes, this movie is filled with problems, but honestly no more than was in the previous movie, and there are plenty of things in this movie that work amazingly, even though Spider-Man won't be amazing for another 5 years (Bah Dum Tssh!).

So the story in Spider-Man 3 is that things are finally going Peter's way, when he discovers that the person who he thought killed his uncle wasn't actually the culprit (Why the police never told them this is beyond me) and the actual killer is on the loose and eventually becomes the Sandman. And while this is going on Peter discovers a symbiote suit that enhances his abilities while also corrupting his mind. And while that's going on Harry is trying to get his revenge on Spider-Man for what he did to his father. Meanwhile Mary-Jane and Peter's love story is on the rocks and ends up becoming one big triangle. Okay so can you see the big problem with the film so far? There is TOO MUCH GOING ON!

And there is a very good reason why there is so much in this story, you see, this was the first instance of Sony's corrupting hand of the Spider-Man franchise, a trend that would get worse with each film in the series. Sony wanted to put Venom in the movie because he is Spider-Man's most marketable villain, Sam Raimi however didn't like Venom and wanted the focus to be on Sandman, so they compromised and put both of them in. This of course lead to neither characters getting the focus needed nor deserved, so I think we all know who the real villain of this series is, Sony...fuck you Sony!

So let's take a look at each of these plots individually, first of all the Sandman, he gets the most focus of the villains because that's what Sam Raimi wanted to focus on, he as it turns out is Uncle Ben's killer because every Spider-Man villain needs a personal connection to Spider-Man for some reason! He also has a very sick daughter who gets one scene in the movie, this makes it okay for him to steal stuff apparently. Now I will say Thomas Haden Church does a fantastic job in this film, he doesn't have the best material to deal with but man does he sell it. Also that first scene where he becomes the Sandman...fuck was that beautiful.

And then there is Peter getting the symbiote and then losing it and then it being given to Eddie Brock who then becomes Venom...this is the weakest villain. Eddie Brock's "motivation" for wanting to kill Peter makes no sense, he got him fired from his job (Because Brock lied and cheated!) he stole his girlfriend (Who he went out with once!) and this is apparently enough to want him dead...seriously? Most of Venom's time is developing Brock's rivalry with Peter and this is the best you can come up with!? Although I will say, for the time Venom is on screen, he is fucking incredible...he gets about 3 minutes of screen time, but he looks incredible. Also I never really had a problem with Topher Grace's casting, so overall, great potential, but absolutely ruined this character.

And then finally is Harry, who thankfully they didn't have to waste time developing this character because they had two other movies to do that so what do they do? Erase his memory completely erasing all that development! Okay well maybe this means Peter & Harry will become friends again and then when Harry gets his memory back it will create an emotional conflict and he'll finally forgive Peter an--yeah you already know this isn't what happened. Way to ruin 3 movies of development guys...Also Harry's death in the end is completely unnecessary and creates a lot of plot holes (If he can control the board then why doesn't he just order it back to him so Venom can't use it as a weapon?).

Then there is the relationship between Mary Jane & Peter...god fucking dammit, why is this still a thing!? I've made it pretty clear that I hate this relationship, not only because Mary Jane is FUCKING AWFUL! But this relationship was already put together in the last one, they're supposed to be together now and happy, she can still be kidnapped in the end, no need to break the two up just for them to end up back where they were before, come on movie! Especially considering that she is mad at him for not helping her through a bad time when she doesn't FUCKING TELL HIM SHE'S GOING THROUGH A BAD TIME!!!

So yeah, the story is really crap, but it doesn't really bug me because I think the story from the previous movie was really crap as well, but I will say this movie definitely has the best dialogue in the movies, no more "Jameson you slime!" (I swear to god I could do a montage of the bad dialogue in Spider-Man 1 and I would laugh my ass off). And like I said, there is plenty of great stuff in the movie that people always forget about. The visuals in these movies just got better and better with each instalment and in this movie...holy shit it is a fucking beautiful movie to look at! The CGI in this film breathtakingly good, some of the best I've ever seen, especially the swinging scenes and Sandman are amazing.

And I can't review Spider-Man 3 without talking about Emo Peter...I don't hate it. I mean a montage of Peter acting goofy and over the top, we also got that in the previous movie with the tune of Raindrops keep falling on my head. Also, are you surprised that a Raimi Spider-Man film is corny? And then there is the dance scene, it works as a good dance scene...if this was a scene from Chicago, but no, this is a Spider-Man movie (Supposedly) so of course it doesn't fit! But again, there was a scene just like this in the previous movie, and that being the hospital scene.

So everything awful in this movie I think was awful in the last two movies and everything great from the previous films are still here also, the score is the best it's ever been (Though Danny Elfman doesn't return sadly) Jameson is a god amongst men, all hail J Jonah Jameson! Action and costume design is top notch. Honestly this is one of the most visually impressive films I've ever seen. The lighting has also vastly improved, something I never talked about in the first film review is that I'm not a fan of Don Burgess as director of photography, the guy is great with framing but seems to have never heard of proper lighting to set a mood; Bill Pope (Who also did the cinematography for the second film as well) I think does an amazing job as the director of photography. And Tobey Maguire is giving his best and most versatile performance in the Spider-Man franchise. Fact is I've seen this film far too many times to not like it, in fact I kinda...love it, there is very little logical reasoning behind it, it's just one of those films that no matter how many times I watch it, I will never tire of it.

My final rating for Spider-Man 3 is a 9/10.

I know that may not be what you were expecting, but jeez, if you disagree with me on this one, wait until you see my opinions on the Amazing Spider-Man films.

-Danny

Spider-Man 2 Review

Continuing my spree of reviewing all of the theatrically released Spider-Man movies, it's time to talk about what people often consider to be the greatest Spider-Man movie ever made, Spider-Man 2. Now let's just get this out of the way...I think it's okay...that's it, it's not awful, it's not great, it's just okay, honestly I never understood how people thought this was the greatest Spider-Man film, let alone one of the best superhero movies ever made...let's just talk about it.

Spider-Man 2 (2004) the sequel to the smash hit Spider-Man, returning is Sam Raimi as the director however replacing David Koepp as writer is Alvin Sargent, who would go on to write Spider-Man 3 and The Amazing Spider-Man. So I'll just straight up say this, dialogue is SO much better than in the first film, still not perfect, but better.

So let's talk about the story, in the first film I thought it was a perfect origin story, so in this instalment, Peter is in college while trying to balance the life of a superhero and really nothing is going his way, meanwhile Otto Octavius, a scientist is involved in a horrible accident after a failed experiment but is obsessed with finishing his experiment, even if it results in the end of New York. Now I'll just say this is already starting to become an improvement over the last film, in which this actually feels like a Spider-Man story, the problem is, this means that the film repeats the themes of the first film. What was Peter's arc in the first film? Well that would be the theme present in all of Spider-Man, with great power comes great responsibility, even at times when he has to go out of his way, emotionally or physically, he knows he has to do the right thing. In this film, he quits being Spider-Man because...it gets hard, no shit, he should have already known that, he feels like life is difficult, he quits being Spider-Man, learns that he has a responsibility to the city to protect it so he becomes Spider-Man again, with great power comes great responsibility, yeah, we covered this in the first movie, you're just repeating yourself at this point movie, not very original.

What makes it even worse is the subplot of Peter losing his powers as Spider-Man (A story I have never been a fan of by the way in any Spider-Man medium) because this really loses the personal touch of this, it gets to that point where him quitting his job as Spider-Man isn't a choice, he has to quit because he doesn't have his powers, he has no choice thus the story loses all emotional weight. Even more so, how or why he loses his powers is never explained in the film, he loses his powers because he's really depressed, um...he was pretty depressed in the first movie, his powers didn't fluxuate then. I know I'm breaking my rule here by bringing up a future instalment, but in Spider-Man 3, why does everyone complain about the symbiote showing up out of nowhere but no one ever talks about how Peter loses his powers, again, out of nowhere!?

And another thing that I am not a fan of is the villain of the movie, Otto Octavius A.K.A. Dr Octopus, I don't understand why people love this villain so much, they say it's because of the emotional connection Peter had to the character, what so one scene together is enough to count as a personal connection? Or they say it's because he's so relatable, who the hell relates to a super genius who can create a miniature sun and has 8 limbs!? Having a wife makes him relatable? Is that all it takes? Also why the fuck is Doc Ock crazy? He wasn't crazy in the comics, why have they done it here? Would it be too out of the realm of possibility for him to just be a dick? It made sense for the Green Goblin to be crazy, not Doc Ock.

Also I absolutely despise the hospital scene, you know the one where Doc Ock kills a bunch of doctors, now look I know Sam Raimi made his career from being a horror director, but this scene pretty much scarred me as a kid, and it is so out of tone with the rest of the film, if you saw this scene out of context would you ever think it's a Spider-Man movie? And in comparison to the rest of the film it gives this film a pretty mixed tone, I mean keep in mind that the two scenes below me are both from the same film.

Okay so what do I like about this film? Well one massive improvement from the first film is the special effects and choreography; one of my biggest problems with the first film is that the action was very slow paced and the special effects were shody, here that is the complete opposite, the action is fast paced and well choreographed and the effects and cinematography look incredible. And I think you all know what scene I'm talking about, the train scene. The train scene in Spider-Man 2 is one of the most creative, well shot and action packed fight scenes I've ever seen in a feature length film, I mean, it is just incredible, my jaw drops everytime that scene comes up.

Apart from that, everything that I liked about the first one (Directing, cinematography, costumes, score, Jameson is our reborn jesus) are all back in this one, while everything I didn't like about the first one (Characters, dialogue, corniness) are also back from the first one.

My final rating for Spider-Man 2 is a 6/10

I know a lot of people might hate me for that but I gotta be honest, I thought Spider-Man was badly adapted in the first one but overall I still thought he was a good character. But here, if this wasn't Spider-Man and a completely new hero, I still wouldn't like him. Mix that with the bad story, weak supporting characters (MJ is even worse this time round) and poor villain, I can't find myself to enjoy it more than the first. It still carries over most of what was good about the first and improves on the visuals, but the characters are still its biggest flaws.

So if I didn't love Spider-Man 2 like everyone else then you're probably expecting me to rip into Spider-Man 3 seeing as everyone hated that...we'll talk about this tomorrow.

-Danny

Spider-Man Review

So here's something different I'm going to be doing, I'm going to be reviewing all five of the Spider-Man films for the next few days here on this blog, this is normally something I would do entire videos on but I frankly can't be bothered to do videos on them, so instead I'm going to be discussing the good & bad of my personal favourite superhero, because I think it's important to get this across: NO SPIDER-MAN MOVIE IS PERFECT! It seems like this is a statement that people don't seem to realise, they either love a movie without acknowledging the flaws or they hate a movie without acknowledging it's strengths. Now for the sake of these reviews I'm not going to be drawing any comparisons to future Spider-Man material, just past material of the time, no more blabbering, let's discuss the original Spider-Man film.

Spider-Man (2002) is an adaptation of the classic Marvel comic book character, the film was directed by Sam Raimi, written by David Koepp and starred Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker/Spider-Man. Now when this movie came out I was only 7 years old and a HUGE fan of Spider-Man, so I was very excited to see this film and it was the first ever live action superhero film I ever saw, so it was a big deal to me and I absolutely loved it, just like everyone. But now that I'm older, more critical of these films and have been exposed to a lot more Spider-Man content, does it hold up that well? Honestly...yeah, I still really like it.

First of all let's talk about Sam Raimi's directing of the film, it's fantastic, you can tell that this is a man who had a lot of passion and respect for the source material and put everything into making this film, his direction and cinematography is incredible, even something as simple as watching Spider-Man swing around the city is still incredible to see, yes there is some over the top and comic-book style cinematography which I imagine for some people will look ridiculous but I personally don't mind it. For nothing else from a visual standpoint, this is Spider-Man, however delving any deeper than that and you start to see the problems of this film, mostly through the writing. 

Now that's not to say the writing is terrible, in fact there are a lot of great things about it, in fact I would say this is the best origin story film for a superhero I've ever seen. The problem with most origin films is that it almost always feels like they end just when the good stuff is about to begin, even in something like Batman Begins, while a fantastic film, I remember very little of Batman in that film, just Bruce Wayne. But here, the story is so well paced that they get the origin stuff out of the way without feeling rushed or dull, just perfect. My problems with the script are with the dialogue, the dialogue in this film is awful, everything feels like it's from a 70's comic book, especially the romantic dialogue, which is cringe-worthy from how bad it is. After all how can a movie with the lines "You're taller than you look" "...I hunch" and consider that to be serious romantic dialogue? get the buckets ready. Now what people tell me when I make this criticism they say "but it's a comic-book movie, shouldn't it feel like a comic book" yeah, but it's a comic book-movie shouldn't it also feel like a movie, also what comic books from the 2000's have you been reading? My point being, the story is great, the dialogue is utter shit. And the bullies at school are laughably stupid, there the type of bullies that would never be cool in reality, they'd be the ones getting bullied, oh movies.

Now let's talk about the actual characters of the film, and I think it would be appropriate to start with the titular character: Spider-Man. I don't like him; I mean don't get me wrong, I love Spider-Man, I just don't like this Spider-Man. From an adaptation stand point it's not very good; Spider-Man is a socially awkward genius that cracks jokes struggles to manage the superhero life mixed with his school life. Now yes, this variation does follow the socially awkward bit...and rocket launches over the shark with it. The biggest problem with that being is that he may be socially awkward and a nerd but we never see him do that much nerdy stuff, he talks about how interested he is in science but we don't see him doing anything an actual genius would do, so really he's just awkward and nothing more. 

As for the sarcastic and humorous persona of Spider-Man....well he tells a couple jokes while wrestling, but that's about it; hell he's not even technically Spider-Man at that point. But the worst part is that there's no balance, the guy is so socially awkward and has such low confidence that you almost don't believe that he would actually become a superhero if you didn't see it with your own eyes. And as for the balancing school life and the superhero life, well he graduates from school half-way through the film and he's only just become Spider-Man at that point so there's no real conflict there.  As for other changes such as the webbing being organic rather than him building the web shooters, my only problem with that is the web shooters was a great way to show Peter's intelligence; but with that being said it still makes sense for them to be organic. So overall I just don't like this portrayal of Spider-Man, and I would say this would be a mixture between Tobey's portrayal and David's writing, two bad products combined to make a bad character.

Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane...this is my biggest problem with this movie and franchise overall, now there is nothing wrong with Kirten's performance, she is doing everything she can to create a character here, but again, the problem is with the script, the dialogue choices and her purpose in the film is just terrible, making her one of the worst superhero girlfriends of all time. But first a nitpick, how the hell do you live next door to someone, go to school with them for years & years and not even know his name!? But apart from that, what does she do in this movie? Nothing, she's there as a MacGuffin, someone for Peter to admire over and eventually rescue and win her heart with bad dialogue trying to count as developing their relationship. Again, all the scenes are there to build a relationship, but the dialogue is so bad that it just doesn't work "Aunt May, Aunt May, is that an angel?" oh jesus...

Really the only definitive personality trait she has is that her and her father don't get along, but that's never explored into detail or given a resolution, it's just...there. Also is it me or does she make out with half of the men in this movie? Boy, a slut and has daddy issues? Freud would have a field day with her. And just like Spider-Man, this is not an accurate portrayal of the character, MJ is fiesty, tough and a diva, when she says the line "face it tiger, you just hit the jackpot" you genuinely believe that, here, what's the jackpot? And again, she's nothing but an object to be rescued, I have no problem with damsel's in distress as long as that's not all they are, but Mary Jane is that.

Now the villain of the movie is one of my favourite parts, Willem Dafoe as Norman Osborn A.K.A.Green Goblin. This guy is so over the top, so comic-booky that it's impossible not to love him, but what makes it so great is that this is clearly intentional. He's not deep, he's not complex, he's just a big ball of evil fun. That being said, as much as I love how silly he is, his plan makes absolutely no sense. I mean what is the Goblin's overall goal? Kill his fellow board members, okay, he achieves that on his first outgoing, what's his plan after that? Kill Spider-Man so he can't stop me! Stop you from doing what? You've already achieved your goal, what's next in the master plan? If you don't have a plan yet how can Spider-Man stop you!?

As for the other characters, here are my quick thoughts on them: Uncle Ben, jesus was this guy underused, him and Peter share only one scene together and it's the whole cliche "You're not my father!" argument that has been done to death with no development to their relationship before hand and because of this I just can't bring myself to give a shit when he dies (Though I will admit this is Tobey's best performance in the film). Aunt May: great performance from Rosemary Harris, character doesn't do much in the movie. Harry Osborn, does fuck all in the movie. J Jonah Jameson Jr (Try saying that 5 times fast) oh...my...god...JK Simmons as Jameson is probably the best casting of anything in the history of the universe, I'm just gonna say this right now, Jameson is the best thing in the entire series.

And as for the score of the film...Ho-ly-shit, tell me that this theme doesn’t get you excited? Out of all the superhero themes out there none of them perfectly represent the character like this theme, and that’s saying something, Danny Elfman is one of the kings of superhero composures, he also did the original Batman theme, and while that one kicks ass, there’s no toping this. It has the prefect pacing between suspense and action, it gives you a sense of anticipation, danger, adventure and heroism all in one song, pretty much everything Spider-Man. When I first heard this theme in the theatres I knew we were in for something awesome, and that is exactly what we got. Let this be a lesson to you Hans Zimmer, stop trying to follow in Elfman’s footsteps, you just can’t top the guy.

I also really like the design of Spider-Man's costume, i-i-it's Spider-Man! Even if he doesn't act like Spider-Man it's fucking Spider-Man! He looks perfect! Amazing! James Acheson designed the costume and it is some of the best costume work I've seen in a superhero film, bravo to you Mr Acheson! Also I appreciate the film's use of practical effects, although with today's movies obsessed with green screening everything, practical effects always look impressive. Although I do have to say the CGI in the movie isn't very good, I mean the shots of Spider-Man flying through New York look great but that's about it, things like Peter running on top of buildings look like Qwop rather than a real person, and stuff like that happens a lot in this film, so I can understand why they would stick with practical effects, it just looks better. However not all of the practical effects look great, a whole lot of the fight scenes look like a lame stunt show at Disney world, the fight scenes in this movie are just really silly, I mean, come on, it's so obviously choreographed and even at that, it's badly choreographed, just...just no.

So overall, this is a great superhero movie, the story pacing, cinematography, score and overall feel like a comic-book and effort put into this film make it a great superhero film. But as a Spider-Man film it is just terrible, the characters are poorly adapted and the action scenes are poorly choreographed and the dialogue is just lame & stupid. I can't call this a good Spider-Man movie but I appreciate the effort and style given to it and I would be lying if I didn't say I've seen this film more than a dozen times.

My final rating is a 7/10

Join me tomorrow for my review of the ever beloved Spider-Man 2, And do I love it like everyone else?...See ya tomorrow.

-Danny

So 2 Months On...

I've been writing in this daily blog for 2 months and this is the first time that I've had absolutely nothing to write about, hm, how about that, in all honesty this post is just so I can fulfill my daily quota, god knows what I'll write about tomorrow, maybe some inspiration will come to me, oh well, cya tomorrow.

-Danny

This Was Totally Posted Today

No I didn't just change the schedule time & date or writing this to a day early because I forgot to post anything yesterday, shut up! Wait a min-aww shit...

...(What am I gonna write for today's post?)

-Danny

Why Clara Sucks

It's not secret that Doctor Who has been mediocre in the past few years, and while this is connected to multiple reasons, rehashed storytelling, predictable plots, uncreative creatures, unoriginal themes, it's all just been one big blob of boring. But I think one of the biggest issues would be Clara, Clara is the worst companion we've had since New Who (2005-) began, why? Because she is bland, she is the blandest companion we've had since the show came back. Rose, while I personally think was a bad character (Especially to begin with) she was still memorable, Martha while some consider bland, I would still say had a unique perspective on the show and was a good parallel from Rose as well as having a lot of good episodes in her season. Donna was just straight up fucking awesome, whitty, sassy, aggressive, funny, she was awesome. River, also awesome, able to match and counter the Doctor's child like optimism with her own pessimistic and saucy attitude. Amy while also beginning horribly soon became the most unique character in the bunch thanks to her demanding demeanour yet with a lot of respect and dedication to her loved ones. They all had clear personality traits while Clara is...nice...that's it...she has about a well of a defined personality as Kelly from Saved By The Bell.

Everything that Clara is or does isn't part of her personality, it's part of the companion's personality, the certain roles and positions that the companion has to fill, they need to ask the questions, they need to be the Doctor's friend and they need to be able to keep him grounded. These are all things that Clara does...but without bringing anything new to the table. Everything about her is just a role to fill that every other companion could easily fill, she has no new perspectives, to defined relationships and no clear goals, she's just there. The companion originated to be the eyes of the audience, the problem is, we eventually got to a point where we didn't need a companion to become the eyes, we had become close enough to the Doctor himself and so familiar with this world that we already knew who he was and what he does. So around the Donna-era the companion was no longer the outsider looking it, they were the second part of a double act, the one to counter The Doctor's remarks and ideologies and to give him a brand new perspective, Donna challenged The Doctor's position as a leader of the human race, River proved to him that he's not alone in the universe and Amy gave him that sense of family that he needed. Clara doesn't do that, she doesn't conflict with him, she just goes along with everything he says and does without question, this is a complete step backwards on what the companions are supposed to be. She's not a companion, she's an assistant.

And even more so, she doesn't fulfil the role right, the companion is supposed to keep The Doctor grounded, yet there's nothing keeping her grounded. All of the other companions have someone to keep them humble or a home, like a family or a goal. Clara isn't given that for a very long time, in fact we don't actually meet her family properly until the end of her second year on the show, and even then we're given almost no time to get to know them either, and by this point it's made pretty clear that she doesn't have a strong enough connection with them to visit on a regular basis. Everyone else had something, Rose had her mum and boyfriend, Martha had her family and her job, Donna had her mum & grandad, Amy had Rory and the dream to start a family, these were all established within their first official appearances as the companions, yet Clara didn't have that.

Clara is nothing more than a blank slate that fills the role of the companion without adding anything new to it or memorable. And the show has been trying so hard to make her important, even dubbing her "The Impossible Girl" by trying to make a point that her and the Doctor were destined to meet no,Donna already did this; stop trying to make Impossible Girl happen, it's not going to happen.

-Danny

How Good Can Videogame Stories Get?

One of the biggest topics in gaming over the past few years is the evolution of how videogames are becoming more like movies, some see this as a positive because it shows the evolution and progression of gaming, while others see it as a negative saying that it represents a culture that is trying to change itself into something it isn't. I personally see it as a positive, but I don't think videogames are changing in the way people think they are. Games aren't becoming more like movies, they're just adapting elements from that medium to improve themselves, movies are atmospheric and have deep and complex characters and beautiful imagery and morals and themes that reflect society, gaming saw that and said "hey, why don't we do that? But let's do it better". The average movie is around 2 hours long, 3 hours at a stretch, any more than that and you're definitely pushing your luck, but story cantered games are usually around 8-12 hours long, while RPG's and other gameplay & exploration focused narratives can go beyond that, and likewise games that are made just for simple fun or to pass the time can be much shorter, the point being, videogames don't really have a limit on their narrative time span, they can take as long as they want to explore whatever they want. Movies have 2 hours to introduce our characters, give them a personality, give them an arc, do this with several other characters, give us a plot and exposition and depending on the genre it might also have to throw in some action scenes just to keep the audience invested, movies have just too much to tackle in a short time span, this is why we're in a renaissance of television and gaming, because the narratives and quality can expand more allowing for a more detailed and enriching world and characters.

So then we ask the question, how good can videogame stories get and how far can they go? Well given that they don't have a specific time span, they also don't follow a basic narrative structure, for example a 3 act structure, though some do follow this, they normally encompass a lot more than your usual 3 act structures. Take for example The Last of Us, a roughly 14 hour long story and has two main characters and seven supporting characters, all of which are used to reflect the ideologies and arcs of our main characters, for example Tess represents Joel's dark side, Bill is a reminder of why Joel always finds something to fight for and Tommy is a shadow of his former life. Given the time span this is a story that could have worked very well as a book or mini-series, but it is at its best as a game, and the reason why is very simple.

You can try as hard as you want to make us connect to the characters, give them detailed personalities, deep stories, relatable ideologies, there's a lot you can do and will most likely succeed. But the simplest methods sometimes work the best, and it's something only games can do, give the viewer control. (spoilers ahead) at the start of the game the first person you control is Joel's daughter Sarah, that means our instant connection is made with her, we latch onto her and then see the world through her eyes, after she hurts her leg we then take control of Joel, we now see things from his point of view, his goal is to protect his daughter, thus, this is our goal, so by the end of the first level when Sarah has died, we feel depressed on two different levels, one because it's like a part of us is gone with her and because we feel like a failure for being unable to keep her safe, it's a double knockout and you can't get this from any other medium.

But it's more than just story & exposition to developing characters, but it's also the downtime you spend with them, a story can't always be on point, there needs to be some point where you just sit down and talk with the characters without their lives being in immediate danger or any development is made to the plot, because these scenes aren't about enriching the story, they're about enriching the characters. For example in Terminator 2 in between the fight scenes we get John Connor trying to teach the T-800 how to behave more human. In Zombieland we have characters telling us their backstories while playing a board game, in The Incredibles we see Bob interact and play with his family. It's because of scenes like this which what makes us so connected to these characters and these are normally the best scenes to try and develop them, so can videogames achieve this? Well, yes & no.

Not every story offers the chance to have a sit down and talk with the characters, in games or movies, but usually games have a lot more opportunities to do this. The sit down scenes take place in-between all the action, and what scenes take place in-between the action in videogames? Cutscenes, this is the point where we can relax which also gives the characters a chance to relax, like in Uncharted for example or Halo, they aren't always used to give us the sit down moments, but they are the easiest place to do it. Another great location is the HUB, especially in RPG's this is when the sit down moments come up a lot, mostly because you choose what you want to talk about, learn more about a character's history or their opinions on certain subjects, the topics are in your control for the optimal sit down experience, like in Mass Effect or The Walking Dead or X-Men Legends.

So overall, how good can videogame stories get? Well considering that they're better paced, have more opportunities for development and have taken all the best elements of movies and improved on them to a level that they never could achieve. Combine this with the level of connection that you have for your characters that you can only get in gaming, as far as I can tell, storytelling in gaming can only get better from here on out.

-Danny

Alarms Are Pointless

Alarms seem to never fulfill the purpose that they were made for, that purpose being that you hear an alarm, you react to it, for example, you hear a car alarm go off, that means a car is being stolen, you call the police. But that's not the case, you hear a car alarm and your reaction isn't that it's being stolen, but there's a glitch, or it was set off by mistake, this is the case most of the time that it pretty much becomes a boy who cried wolf story, one of these days a car will be stolen, the alarm will go off and no one will actually think it's being stolen. I bring this up because I've noticed that this situation is starting to get worse. Recently, my nana moved into a retirement home, so we've been moving out all of her stuff from her house and yesterday we finished the job and shut off the power, or so we thought, either we glitched something or forgot something but the next day we got a call from the house's next door neighbours saying that the house alarm had been going off all night. Firstly, thank you to those neighbours who were polite enough to wait until morning to call us so not to wake us up, that's what British manners are all about. Secondly, sorry that you nor anyone else on the street got any sleep last night.

But here's my big problem with this scenario, apart from the neighbours who knew my nana had moved out, everyone else on that street wouldn't have a goddamn clue what was going on, so they all hear an alarm going off all night and no one does anything to react to it!? The middle of the night, alarm bells ring and alert the entire neighbourhood, they find out that the alarms are going off in an old woman's home, after a while, you would think they would have gotten suspicious that she hadn't turned them off, or at the very least annoyed to the point to investigate. For all they knew something could have been terrebly wrong and no one calls the police!? I mean I know us British are polite but we're not that polite. I would have thought that if an alarm was going off all night then someone would have gone out to investigate, or are we just living in that ignorant of a society?

-Danny

Ratchet & Clank - Original vs Future Trilogy

Ratchet & Clank is one of the few games to have been able to extend two generation consoles. Spyro tried and had a bunch of games but they weren't as praised as well as the PS1 era. Sly Cooper had a decent attempt but it wasn't as good as the original trilogy. But Ratchet & Clank managed to achieve this, the original trilogy on PS2 are still awesome, they're insanely fun to play. And the sequel trilogy (Also known as the future trilogy) was still awesome, while not as awesome as the original trilogy, I still highly recommend it. The future trilogy, not only has beautiful graphics but is able to continue the great gameplay of the series and also is able to go deeper into the story and characters then ever before.

But with that being said, I don't think its better than the original trilogy, the original series had far more creative weapons and gadgets to use, basically putting it, it was a lot more fun. And these are games that most definitely based around gameplay more than story, and while the future trilogy tries to create more parallels and a deeper story, the thing that has always made Ratchet & Clank special is the creative gameplay and perfect mixture between platforming and action, and in my opinion nothing will ever top the original trilogy for that, in fact the second trilogy was somehow less creative than the first trilogy. So, the winner is definitely the original trilogy.

And now, ranking every innuendo in the franchise titles from worst to best: Tools of Destruction, Crack in Time, Up Your Arsenal, Quest for Booty, Full Frontal Assault, Going Commando & Size Matters...teehee.

-Danny

What Does The End of Teen Titans Mean?

Going to the other end of the spectrum from yesterday's post where we discussed one of the best endings of all time, now let's talk about what a lot of people refer to one of the worst endings of all time, Teen Titans. For the record I am a big fan of the original Teen Titans cartoon, I grew up watching it and I still think the series holds up pretty damn well today (Except for season 3, what the fuck was going on there?) But the one thing that most fans hate is the ending of the series.

(Spoilers Ahead)

In the final episode titled "Things Change" the Titans return home and find that their old town has started to change, their favourite hangout places are shutting down, new stores are showing up, they even have a brand new villain in town, all of this to emphasise the fact that well...things change. But among all this chaos, Beast Boy sees Terra in a nearby school. This being a big surprise as Terra was killed off in the second season, so when Beast Boy goes to greet her, she claims that she has no idea who he is. And this is pretty much what goes on for the rest of the episode, Beast Boy tries to convince Terra of who she is but she straight up denies it, the episode ends Beast Boy finally letting Terra go and going back to join the Titans in fighting crime.

So let's delve deeper into this ending and try to see if it's a good ending or not. First of all, let's take a look back at the theme of this episode, change. Beast Boy has always been madly in love with Terra, and one of his biggest regrets was not being able to save her. In this episode, it is never actually confirmed if Terra actually does know who she is, it is entirely possible she genuinely thinks she's a different person, or even more so she could be an entirely different person. Fact is, throughout the whole episode, no one interacts with her except for Beast Boy, for all we know she might not even exist, this could all be in his head and be just one giant metaphor that things change, people change, we can't stop it and we have to accept it, and that is exactly what Beast Boy does, he accepts it. On one hand this is a fantastic ending, especially for a kids show it is really deep and makes you think and delivers a good message...

...But on the other hand this is total shit. First off, the theory of it being in his head does seem strong if it wasn't for the fact that he visits her grave in the episode and she is gone, someone wanna explain that? And also this wasn't wear the show was supposed to end, the creators were hoping for another season but the show was cancelled (god knows why, because everybody loved this show) so this entire plot could have easily been one giant cliffhanger hoping to engage audiences enough to get the show renewed for another season...but it didn't work...fuck. Also while this theme works great as a metaphor for the show, from a story stand point it doesn't work, you just potentially brought back a major character from the dead, you can't go ahead and leave something like that open ended, especially when you delve into the mystery even deeper by having Beast Boy investigate Terra's grave. If that one scene was removed then I would be okay with that, if it was just a metaphor, but the fact that they try to turn it into a mystery is what ruins it, you can't have an open ended mystery plot, those two things don't together!

So overall, is the ending to Teen Titans any good? Well, originally I, like most people, hated this ending, but overtime it really has grown on me, and I think it was a very deep and very mature ending for the series and it didn't treat us like little kids, because like the title says, things change. Oh and Teen Titans Go! Can Teen Titans go fuck itself.

-Danny

Why The Ending of Malcolm in the Middle is Perfect

Malcolm in the Middle is one of the greatest TV shows of all time, it is hilarious, loveable and it's able to make its characters despicable but not hateable, that is a very fine line to walk. In the late 90's and early 2000's the big TV sitcom was the low middle-class family of America, the ones that had to struggle to get by and didn't have all the big luxuries in life and didn't always get along. After the big boom of LOOK HOW RICH WE ARE in the late 80's and 90's, we started to get sick of all of the sitcoms that we had to admire and instead went for the ones we could relate to, the ones where things aren't always perfect and sometimes things don't go the way you want, in fact they rarely go the way you want. But the problem with this is the ending of these shows is normally disappointing, we loved these characters because they were the relatable losers, but conventional sitcoms states that they would get a happy ending, and in all honesty we want the characters to have a happy ending, they deserve it. However once they finally win they're suddenly unrelatable, they're not what we fell in love with. Take Roseanne for example, another low middle-class family of America that everyone loved, in the final season, they won the lottery and were rich, and suddenly, we didn't like them anymore, they weren't what we remembered, then of course the final episode which I wont spoil was total shit.

But this brings me to Malcolm in the Middle, this show got it right, they gave us the ending we deserve but also the one it needed. It's not a happy ending, it's not a depressing ending, it's a bitter sweet ending, everyone gets something good but it comes with a price, they're not happy, they're contempt, they've accepted that their good situation does have a downside, and they're fine with that. Malcolm has gone off to university, but he also works as a janitor, Reese has moved out of his parents house but lives with annoying Craig and has a low income and thankless job (which he adores). Dewey now has all the power as the older brother in the house, but that also means he gets most of the punishment. Francis is still arguing with his mother and has a simple boring job, but his life is now together and functioning normally. Hal & Lois have gotten rid of most of their kids, just to turn pregnant with another one. Everyone gets something good and something bad, they know this, they've accepted this and they're happy.

This is how the low middle-class family of America sitcom should end, not with a happy ending, but with a bitter-sweet one. And it is perfect.

-Danny

We Hate Our Own Future

It seems every movie you see these days that is set in the future everything sucks, poverty everywhere, environment destroyed, dictatorships rule with an iron fist, basically, life sucks. Here as just a handful of movies from the past few years that depict a bleak & dystopian future: Looper, Dredd, The Purge, Elysium, Avatar, Edge of Tomorrow, Children of Men, X-Men Days of Future Past, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, The Hunger Games, Divergent, The Matrix, Oblivion, A.I., Wall-E, yes, even the fucking kids movies are depicting a horrible future. What happened to the days when we looked at the future with positive eyes? Star Trek, Back to the Future II, back in the days when we thought the future was gonna be awesome. And remember, the ones I listed are only the more recent dystopian films, we could go further back and make that list 10x bigger.

-Danny

A World Without The Simpsons

The Simpsons is one of the greatest shows of all time, everyone has watched The Simpsons at some point in their life, we know the characters, the jokes, everything. I'm sure we can all agree that the quality has dipped in the past...decade. But that doesn't change the fact that we all love it, but I'm sure we're all expecting it to die within the next few years, but that's what gets me thinking, what would the world be like if The Simpsons stopped airing? Even if you don't watch the show anymore you still could, you could watch all the new episodes and catch up, there have always been new episodes of The Simpsons to watch...but soon there won't be. The Simpsons was created as a short in 1987 and then a full TV series in 1989 and has been on air since, that means this show is older than I am, it has been around since birth. I don't remember a point in my life when I didn't watch The Simpsons, it has always been there, so when the day finally does come where it ends...that just seems strange to me, it is strange to picture a world without The Simpsons. Hell, it's even stranger to picture a world before The Simpsons, that means in 1985 there wasn't a person on the planet who would know the names Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa & Maggie have any kind of connection to each other, but nowadays those are household names (Which begs the question why Homer & Marge still aren't common names). The Simpsons have always been there in my life, and regardless of their current quality, the day they leave is not a day I will be happy about.

-Danny

Why Do People Love Boba Fett?

Star Wars is one of the greatest trilogies of all time, there is no denying that and it has so many characters in it that are memorable and loveable, it is awesome, but one character that I've never understood the hype behind, Boba Fett. Boba Fett is considered to be one of the coolest characters in Star Wars but I never really understood that, I mean...the guy doesn't do anything! He has less than 15 minutes of screen time in the trilogy and less lines than that, the guy is so inconsequential to everything going on, he has very little to do in the franchise, think about it, what does he do? Well he's on Bespin when Darth Vader shows up and Han gets frozen...but he's not responsible for either of those things he just happens to be there for them. He then takes Han to Jabba's Palace so that's a thing he did! Then what did he do at Jabba's palace? Well he hung out for a bit and then fell and died in the sarlac pit. And for those of you saying he didn't die in the sarlac pit due to the extended universe, yeah well your stories aren't canon anymore, nah nah nah nah nah nah. Fact is the guy doesn't do anything, he doesn't have a personality, there's nothing special about him at all, so I ask yet again...why do people love Boba Fett?

-Danny

Tie-In Songs Rant

Usually whenever a big film is coming out they have a tie-in song released by a famous pop artist and the two cross-promote each other, people buy the song and learn about the film, people buy the film and learn about the song, the actual practise itself I have no problem with, my problem is the lack of commitment the song has to the film. Some recent examples are 'I See Fire' by Ed Sheeran for Desolation of Smaug or 'All Of The Stars' by Ed Sheeran for The Fault in Our Stars or...okay so studios really seem to love Ed Sheeran. My point is, these songs don't really market the film the way they should. They're really more of in that area of "yeah it fits for the tone of the film but it's also vague enough that you can listen to it on the radio without knowing about the films existence". Why? Why bother making a tie-in song if you're not going to...tie it in! And no, the fact that both the song and the film have the word "stars" in the title is not actually tying in. Take for example Ghosbusters, you can't think of the song without thinking of the film and vice-versa. And if you think that making your tie-in song actually tie-in means it's going to cut out of a large portion of listeners who don't see the film, first of all: it's clearly failed to do its job then if people don't see the film, second of all: considering most of the pop songs in the top 40 are lyrically constipated I seriously doubt people are going to care if they don't understand the lyrics in the song. And not to mention sometimes the tie-in song is completely pointless, like the tie-in song for The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug...few problems with this, one: why do you need a tie-in song to market it? It's the fucking Hobbit, the story is more iconic than the bible! How can you have trouble marketing that!? And if you're hoping to reel in the hipster fangirl crowd by getting Ed Sheeran involved in the project, you already have Benedict Cumberbatch, you've got that market down. And finally, how dare you play a goddamn Ed Sheeran track instead of the Lord of the Rings score! Howard Overman's score for The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit is a masterpiece, it plays at the end of every film, and you replace that with Ed-Fucking-Sheeran!? Fuck you studio!

-Danny

Puella Magi Madoka Magica's Opening is Weird...

Japanese culture is very different from western culture, I am very familiar with this, I also know the age of consent in Japan is 14, which explains why the Sailor Scouts in Sailor Moon are so overtly sexualised that while it's fine for them, it sure is awkward for me when I get aroused by 14 year old animated girls who have boobs the size of airbags. But the opening to Peulla Magi Madoka Magica has this one moment during the opening that you see above me. Now the characters in the show are in middle school, which means that they're young teens, and considering they're not very sexualised (Or at least in comparison to Sailor Moon) I'm just gonna assume they're maybe 12-13ish. But there's this one clip in the opening that really creeps me out. The main character Madoka has a fantasy of her become her superpowered self and the way they do it is by having her normal self and magical self combine. And the weird part is...they're both naked and the way how they combine is by...hugging each other and touching each other...

Look at that! Do you see what is going on there!? I feel violated for them! This is some weird stuff, their boobs are literally being squeezed together...it's really creep.

But apart from that it's a pretty good anime.

-Danny

Are exclusive games a risk?

So with the recent announcement from Gamescom that Rise of the Tomb Raider (What a stupid name) will be an Xbox One exclusive, a lot of people have been raising questions about this, more than anything is why this game is an Xbox exclusive when the previous instalment was cross-platform? Well it's simple, Xbox has paid Square Enix a large sum of money to release the game for Xbox only, the reason why Square Enix accepted this is because the previous instalment under performed apparently, despite selling nearly seven million copies, so this is where a lot of people are puzzled. The game underperformed so you're now going to ignore 2/3 of your potential audience by leaving PlayStation and PC gamers high and dry? Yes from that perspective it does seem to be a bad move, but then when you dive into the economics of it all. Microsoft purchasing a franchise like Tomb Raider is going to cost a lot of money that then goes to Square Enix, and not to mention manufacturing the product is considerably cheaper by only producing 1/3 of the original product, so as long as the Xbox version still turns a profit and the Microsoft money helps them break-even with the money they would have made with Playstation and PC then this will have been a successful move, risky, but successful. While for Microsoft, Xbox One hasn't sold as well as PS4 so having a big name like Tomb Raider will hopefully be a game good enough to buy a console, so it's a win-win situation.

But a lot of people have been skeptical about how long this product will be an exclusive, after all this wouldn't be the first product that was initially an exclusive turned cross-platform *cough* Mass Effect *cough* and Square Enix isn't a first party developer, in fact very few Microsoft first party developers become massively successful, especially in comparison to Sony, so we will most likely see this game come to Playstation and PC (almost guaranteed a PC version eventually) within a few months of initial release.

-Danny

A Tribute to Robin Williams

Robin Williams is one of the greatest comedians of all time, this man was able to do it all, stand-up, acting, improv, impressions, the man was telling a joke a mile a minute. If you gave the set up for a joke then he would have thought of 5 different punch lines before you even finished the set up. This is a man that was so good at what he did, that when he provided the voice of The Genie from Aladdin he improvised most of his lines and the studio had over 16 hours worth of content from him. Williams was able to make the most depressed individuals feel happy, even if it was just for a moment, the man had a gift that no one else has, his infectious smile, his optimistic personality, Robin Williams is a man that we all wish we knew. But not only was he a comedic genius, but was all round a brilliant actor, we always knew he could comfort us with laughter but in films such as Good Will Hunting he was able to comfort us through drama, to show us that we have a choice in our life, we're not who other people say we are and we don't have to blame ourselves for the mistakes in our life...Everyone has that childhood film that we all remember for being the one that introduced us to Williams, for me it was Mrs Doubtfire as I'm sure it was for a lot of people.

Robin Williams was the man who took us on adventures in Jumanji, he taught us the importance of family in Mrs Doubtfire, he showed us that we all have an inner child in Hook, he was the friend we never had in Aladdin and he comforted us and assured us that it wasn't our fault in Good Will Hunting. He's a man that shall always be remembered and always loved and always cherished...and we can only hope that he knew that.

Robin Williams

1951-2014

The Jesus Metaphor

You may have come across this at some point during a film or a review of a film, and that would be The Jesus Metaphor, a character or a character arc in a film franchise is actually reflecting or sharing similarities of that to Jesus Christ. Now this is a common convention in movies that honestly has never really bothered me that much, mostly because the metaphor normally always goes over my head Nothing goes over my head! My reflexes are too quick, I would catch it Sorry, I saw Guardians of the Galaxy a couple weeks back and I've been quoting it every chance I get. My point is, I never noticed it, not even when it is insanely obvious, say for example...Man of Steel. Man of Steel is not very subtle with its Jesus symbolism, not only does he do "the pose" several times in the movie, but there is even a point where he literally goes to a church and the priest there tells him of the responsibilities of a saviour...subtle? Not at all. Did I notice it? Same Answer.


Now look, this isn't the first time that Superman has been portrayed as a Jesus metaphor, I mean he's a man who fell from the heavens and and became the saviour of our planet, the dude has a lot of Jesus goin' for him. But the reason why I never saw the two like that is because apart from that very vague backstory, the two are nothing alike. Superman came from an alien planet that blew up so his parents sent him here where he flies, shoots lasers and beats up bad guys, I don't remember Jesus ever doing that. I've never actually read the bible but I'm just taking a guess.

The same with other characters like Robocop, Anakin or even E.T. Yes, E.T. is a Jesus Metaphor, fell from the heavens, heals the wounded, dies for our mistakes just to be reborn, the dude is one big Jesus Metaphor. Are the two similar in any detailed manor? Absolutely not, Jesus wishes he was like E.T.

However, there is one fairly famous Jesus Metaphor out there that has always bugged me, just for being the least subtle Jesus Metaphor there is, and that would be: Neo.

Now look, as bad as the symbolism is in general just for being absolutely pointless, at the very least no movie ever came out and straight up said I AM JESUS! I mean sure Man of Steel and Phantom Menace weren't exactly subtle about it but they never literally said they were Jesus. But in The Matrix I shit you not they literally refer to Neo as "My own personal Jesus Christ"...wow...that is without a doubt the worst symbolism I've ever seen, when you genuinely refer to your leather wearing, kung fu fighting, computer geek as Jesus Christ...are-you-fucking-kidding-me?

And being honest, I never understood why movies need to keep putting the Jesus Metaphor in, and why audiences keep on making that comparison. It's such a vague metaphor that it really doesn't have a place in the entertainment industry or be classed as a metaphor, if that's how metaphors work then can I compare Star Wars to Monty Python and the Holy Grail? Because they both use swords and have white people in it? Or how about comparing Uncharted 3 to L'Age Dor because they both take place in France and have a romance. Hey if the Jesus Metaphor can be so vague then why can't I!? Also, no offense to Christians out there...well...a little offense. But Jesus wishes he was as cool as Superman or Robocop. I don't know about you but I'd rather be Kal-El or Officer Murphy over Jesus any day of the week.

-Danny