Spiderman 2 is one of the best comic book movie's ever made. It is more focused, more interested in itself and just generally a better movie than it's predecessor. It knows what to do and when. It feels like the movie director Sam Raimi wanted to make but couldn't because he had to get that pesky story of the radioactive spider out of the way. Did I mention this movie is great?
I think the best example of how Sam Raimi seems so more assured here is during the hospital sequence with Doc Ock. Raimi uses lots of camera and visual effect tricks that not only harken back to his Evil Dead days but also reference the film's source original, comic books. Zoom shots, silhouettes and close ups are all used brilliantly. And because of this we get the sense that Raimi is just having a great time with this, making our experience more fulfilling.
But it's not just that, in general the film is just better. The increasing trials and tribulations of Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire, Pleasantville) are pulled off with more ease, it doesn't seem forced. Mary-Jane (Kirsten Dunst, crazy/beautiful) is a person this time, not just a love interest. And a wild collection of supporting characters including the wonderful Rosemary Harris and J.K Simmons make up a real universe. Not to forget Alfred Molina (Frida) who works wonders as one of comic book film's better villains in a long time. Spiderman 2 is a joy to watch! A-
I'm sorry, but The Day After Tomorrow is a breath of fresh air! In a time when summer blockbusters are either legitmatelly well-made film's (see Spiderman 2, above) or idiotic overblown drivel (see below) it's nice to know that there are some films that believe they can have the best of both worlds. No, this is not a particularly excellent disaster flick, but it has a decent enough message without sending it into preachy territory. How does it do this? By destroying things in mind-boggling fashion.
The screenplay is, admitted, a ham fest. But it's refreshing to see a summer film at least attempt to say something. But the film's main purpose is to see well-known places in ways we've never seen before. LA ravaged by tornadoes? Why, yes, they're here. New Dehli covered in snow? That's here too. And New York under water? Trust me when I say there's definitely plenty of that. That these scenes actually evoke any for of emotion other than "awesome, man" is a sign that this film is a slight notch above past disaster movies.
It does have it's cake and eat it too. It goes into silly territory with a subplot involving wolves and medical supplies but the film doesn't suffer because of these. It knows you can't have a movie of complete destruction set sequences. Overall though, this movie is a hoot to sit through but it doesn't disappear from your memory straight away. It sticks. B+
I didn't like the first two Harry Potter movies, and I havn't read the books. So maybe it's the good ol' "third luck is the charm" trick, or the introduction of a new director (and direction), or whatever, but this third entry in the Harry Potter saga is a blast from start to finish.
What was annoying and cloying in the first two installments is now given a fresh twist from Mexican director Alfonso Cuar�n. Everything just feels different. The darker tone of the film as a whole, as well everything from the sets, the costumes, the dialogue and the action sequences. Were these the same sets used in the first film? Because they feel different. As if they serve a purpose, not just to please fans of the books. Did Alfonso's cinematographer go to summer school? Those night scenes are wonder to watch. Simply stunning. And the special effects? Well, those imports from Eight-Legged Freaks in the second movie don't reappear, thankfully and are replaced by some truly magical effects.
And that, I suppose, is the difference here. This film has magic. Not in the literal sense, because the first two had that. But The Prisoner Of Azkaban actually creates a world that comes alive with magic. I was flying along with every minute of it. B+
Or go home. :-(