Free Willy: Escape from Pirate's Cove

Before I conclude “Free Willy month,” I want to apologize for not posting my review yesterday for I was out the entire day and came back really late. As to make up for it, I will post the review today.

After how bad the third movie in the Free Willy series was, filmmakers decided to give Willy one more chance in the final installment, which was a direct-to-video remake in 2010, “Free Willy: Escape from Pirate’s Cove.”

When her father (Kevin Otto) gets into a serious farming accident, Kira (Bindi Irwin) is sent from Australia to South Africa, to be taken care of by her grandfather who has a serious gambling addiction, Gus (Beau Bridges, the older brother of Jeff Bridges). Making a living inside a rundown amusement park “The Pirate’s Lair,” Kira finds it difficult to socialize, watching as Gus cons guests out of all their money. Then everything changes when an orca named Willy arrives in the nearby lagoon, instantly becoming Kira’s friend and finding a way for Gus to gamble for money more. Willy becomes the new attraction at the amusement park, and Kira helps Willy return to his pod by helping Willy sharpen his echolocation skills. Even though Gus likes the money he makes from people coming in to see Willy perform his new tricks, he’s hesitant to see Willy return to his pod. What Kira doesn’t know is that Gus is working with the owner of a competing theme park, played by Stephen Jennings, to sell Willy to his park for a huge payday.

“Free Willy” was a great family movie hit when it was released in 1993, giving the family to fall in love with and feel sympathetic for the film’s main star, Keiko. With the two sequels that came out that was only insignificantly successful and after Keiko passed away in 2003, it looked as though the series would never have another sequel since it went with Keiko.

“Escape from Pirate’s Cove” can be called a reboot, since it puts together a similar tale of captivity for the main orca, only here the story is taken away from the main place of the Pacific Northwest to South Africa, exchanging spectacular oceans for sun-kissed beaches. The new star, Bindi Irwin, is making her feature film debut in here (also strapping out a tune for the end credits) after a few years of conveying the same message that her father, the late Steve Irwin’s message of animal appreciation on the famous television show, “Bindi, the Jungle Girl.” Irwin is a beginner, but she does a very pleasing innocent impression in this film, positioning her natural cheerful personality to best match her huge co-star. Nothing too tiring in the acting department is asked of Irwin, making her performance thankfully free of very small seriousness.

Brian Orndorf said in his review of the film, “Irwin's a polite presence in a film that could use more of her, with director Will Geiger often turning on the cartoon afterburners to make a quick impression on younger viewers.” “Escape from Pirate’s Cove” is a friendly family movie, but it doesn’t have the same naturalistic weight the original film delighted itself on. Even though the messages on animal captivity is completely clear as day, Orndorf says, “this "Free Willy" adventure retains a plastic quality, a fact emphasized in Willy himself, who's either a semi-paralyzed animatronic figure to best interact with the performers or he's a slick CGI creation for underwater shots.” Any hope to see an orca in a natural shot is lost when the film goes into animated mode.

When Willy is reduced to a bad effect, the South African shots are beautiful, offering Irwin plenty of opportunities to interact with a vast amount of animals and connect in coastal monkey business. Orndorf even admitted, “I also enjoyed the film's insistence on education, as Kira devours all the information she can find to best decode Willy's predicament.” Maybe this film isn’t an overwhelming display of educational truth, but the little ideas add up here and there, hopefully inspiring younger audiences with an appreciation for animal life.

In the end, go see this remake; it’s definitely worth the watch, especially if you didn’t like either two or three or both. I personally think the first two are better, but I think this is a good movie for the entire family to sit down and watch.

Thank you for joining in with me on “Free Willy month.” I hope that I have given everyone an insight on sea life and you will now save the whales. Stay tuned for more of my reviews coming very soon. Take care.

Free Willy 3: The Rescue

I’m not looking forward to today’s review. Honestly, I am not. This is one of the worst sequels I have ever seen, period. How could anyone have thought up of the idea to make a movie like this? It’s so mean, hateful, rotten, and clearly not to be seen by any child. Sadly, like all of the other bad sequels that I have reviewed over the year and a half that I have been blogging; I have to give you my thoughts since I seem to like subjecting myself to such torture. Let’s take a look at the 1997 sequel, “Free Willy 3: The Rescue.”

“Something just occurred to me,” says the oceanic research scientist hot in pursuit of the illegal whalers. “When we find them, what are we going to do?” Just like the formula script of “Free Willy 3: The Rescue,” she does not think ahead. John Mattson, the writer of “Free Willy 2: The Adventure Home,” again connects the dots to give us basically the same movie plus one.

A couple of small details have changed. Jessie has aged. To show that he is growing up, Jessie first is seen driving along, getting the attention of a car with girls in them, and listening to rock n’ roll. Once he is done with that, he goes back to being a 17-year-old who plays a part that is better for a different actor. The script tries to balance by giving him a job as a research assistant and by providing him with a younger sidekick.

The setup for this sequel to the “Free Willy” trilogy has the oceanic researcher, Drew, played expressionlessly by Annie Corley, seeing that the Orca population is down by 10% and that it is their job to find out what has happened. Besides Jessie and the ship’s captain (Matthew Walker) and mate (Roger R. Cross), Randolph is back who is, once again, the most animated of the characters.

Among the best and worst parts of the plot are the villains. The head of the whalers is a third generation whaler named John Wesley, played by Patrick Kilpatrick. John is the only complex character of the story. In easily the most refreshing part of the film, the film explores briefly the other side of an environmental issue. Hollywood long ago decided that when it comes to the environment, there is only one defensible position. The script, on the other hand, explains John’s life as a whaler with some pity to his confessedly illegal job. John tells his son Max, played by Vincent Barry, that his grandfather proudly collected the whale oil that was used to light the lamps around the country. (Max ends up getting close to Jesse and the whales and going against his father’s work although not really against his father as such.)

The problem with this formula is that it becomes hard to hate a bad guy who seems trapped in his profession and who is such a good father. Without an adequate villain, the show lacks much credible tension.

TV director Sam Pilsbury’s film feels like a direct-to-video production, which is how “Free Willy 4” ends up becoming. Steve Rhodes says, “As a two dollar rental that only the kids watch, the movie becomes a more palatable proposition. Within the confines of a theater, Pillsbury's lethargic pacing and the script's paucity of ideas become all too apparent.”

Rhodes goes on to say, “The dialog is full of the platitudes one might find in a substandard third grade reader.” Typical is John’s lecture to his son. “Whales aren’t people,” he argues. “They don’t feel. They are fish.”

The only reason to see the movie are the playing whale sequences, which are nicely shot by the rugged mountains of the Pacific Northwest coast. As the whales go around the deep blue waters, the sun is shining on the ocean’s surface. The most remarkable moments are the shots underwater, which show close-ups of the people and the whales making direct eye contact with one another. Willy is as naturally at home there as the people are amazed to be sailing in front of his mouth. Still, a half hour short film of just these scenes would have been better than a feature length film padded with the recycled material from the previous two movies.

I hate it for the fact that it keeps moving back and forth between the two ships, which gets old and annoying really fast. On top of that, where are Jessie's foster parents? Where is Elvis? Where's Randolph's daughter? Did they not want to return for this sequel? I wouldn't blame them, but why is there no mention of them anywhere in this film? Also, John is a cruel, heartless man who thinks that animals are put on Earth just for people to hunt, kill, and eat. No, people have household pets and farmers are still around to this very day you man that doesn’t deserve to be out at sea! Plus, by the end of the movie, Max forgives his father, which makes me go, “WHAT!?” If John was my father, I would have disowned him for animal cruelty. Somebody call PETA on this guy!!! 

You want to know what the surprising thing is. People actually liked this one better than the second one. No kidding, it holds a 44% on Rotten Tomatoes. Then again, I do have to reiterate what I said last week, this is all opinion based. For me, I felt tortured watching this one.

If your kids want to see this film, try to confess to them that they don’t want to subject themselves to such a cruel, heartless flick. Maybe after a good while, they will have forgotten about this film, and you can suggest a much better movie from the library or NetFlix instead.

Well that’s a relief. In the end, I say that you should avoid this movie like the plague. You will get sick for a good while, and it will take a long time for the illness to go away. Believe it or not, they actually remade the series, which I will have to admit, was needed. Stay tuned next week when I close out “Free Willy month” with the final installment.

Free Willy 2: The Adventure Home

Now we come to the sequel, “Free Willy 2: The Adventure Home,” released in 1995. This for some reason has been criticized as being worse than the first movie, and the worst in the series, currently holding a 36% on Rotten Tomatoes. In my opinion, I thought it was better than the first one. Here are my reasons why:

In this sequel, Jesse finds out from the cop from the first movie, played once again by Mykelti Williamson, that his biological mother has passed away and that he has an eight-year-old half-brother, Elvis, played by Francis Capra, who is coming to live with Jesse and his foster parents. Despite that Elvis is a fast talker, he says very little about their mother’s passing, and at first, Jesse does not want to consider himself related to Elvis, especially since Elvis can be a real nuisance. This is probably the reason why a lot of hate went into “Free Willy 2,” and in all honesty, I can see that. However, Jesse was very unstable in the first movie as well, and you might say that Elvis is worse, but remember, if you have younger siblings, they were probably a lot of trouble for your parents as well. Think of it from that point of view. Also, almost all of the original cast returns, minus Lori.

For Jesse and Elvis to bond, the family goes out on a camping trip, where Jesse is reunited with Willy. Another familiar face that pops into the movie is Randolph, who now is a whale spotter and has located where Willy is with his mother, sister, and brother. Also, Jesse finds love with Randolph’s daughter, Nadine, played by Mary Kate Schellhardt, who is impressed with Jesse and Willy’s friendship and how Jesse trains Willy. Then disaster strikes when a tanker, played by Jon Tenney, arrives onto the reef and decides that is the place for his company to dump oil into. After seeing this, everyone, including Elvis, puts their heads together to find out what they can do in order to save the whales and rid the oil company from this reef.

Frederic and Mary Ann Brussat said it very nicely in their review, “Free Willy 2 is fine family entertainment laced with ecological ideals.” The storyline teaches the younger audiences that they should fight for the relationship between animals and humans. Willy and Jesse grow closer to one another in this movie with both of them performing heroism. What I mean is that they both save one another from near-death experiences. The message in this movie is that all creatures are fellow travelers and spiritual companions. Also, with the environmental message in this movie to save the whales, and showing you why, I found to be stronger than in the first movie. I liked the message a lot, and I think the situation was high at the time for the filmmakers to put that in “Free Willy 2.”

Also, when you get the DVD, it includes behind-the-scenes features, Michael Jackson’s music video to “Childhood” (which plays when Elvis runs away and the family tries to find him), and theatrical trailers to all three “Free Willy” movies.

In the end, I say to give this movie a chance. I personally like this one over the first, but that’s just my opinion. I’m not saying that I’m right and everyone else is wrong, no. Remember that this is all opinion-based. However, since I have an online blog, that automatically means that my opinion is better than yours (Nah-nah-nah-nah-nah). Wait, are you all leaving? I was only kidding, please don’t leave. It was just a joke. Ok, good, now I’m feeling better.

Stay tuned next week when I talk about “Free Willy 3.”

Free Willy

For this month, I would like to take a look at the “Free Willy” movies. It’s nothing special, since the story is what we’ve heard so many times before. A boy bonds with an animal and the entire movie is focused on them getting closer. What was new was that it hadn’t been done with a whale before. Anyways, let’s take a look at the first “Free Willy” movie, released in 1993.

“Free Willy,” as I mentioned already, is about a boy and a whale, which for certain people, sounds like an awkward adaptation of the old tale about a boy and his dog. Whales are not as charismatic as dogs, not as easily trained, and cannot be hugged. Yet “Free Willy” works around the physical reality of the animal lead, which made it one of the summer’s best family pictures.

The movie stars Jason James Richter as Jesse, a 12-year-old orphan who is going through the rebellious, adolescent years of his life. He moves into a foster home, and even though his foster parents (the great Michael Madsen and Jayne Atkinson) are patient and loving, Jesse still acts rebellious towards them. He’s uncontrollable, insulting, distant, and disappears for hours at a time.

One day Jesse is caught spray-painting at the broken down “Adventure Park” near his home and is ordered to clean the graffiti as punishment. While cleaning away the mess he made on the walls of the aquarium, he meets Willy, an orca whale who was recently captured. One night, when Jesse has run away from home and is sitting under the moonlight near Willy’s tank, he notices that Willy reacts whenever Jesse plays his harmonica.

That’s where their friendship starts. Jesse and Willy both feel homeless, broken away from their real families – Willy because he has been captured; Jesse because his birth mother abandoned him and he cannot believe that she will come back for him.

Eventually two friendly workers at the aquarium, a trainer named Rae (Lori Petty, who voiced Livewire from “Superman: the Animated Series”) and a handyman named Randolph (August Schellenberg) see that Willy will only pay attention to Jesse. Overnight, Jesse now becomes the new trainer for Willy.

The scenes with Willy are very convincing. The filmmakers used a combination of a real whale and a handful of animatronic whales to create a flawless illusion. The part where Willy saves Jesse from drowning is impossible to see whether that whale is the actual whale or an artificial whale. The film also puts in the effort of giving Willy a personality. Actually, it does go a little too far. The late Roger Ebert said, “by the end of the movie, Willy spontaneously figures out how to nod his head for "yes" and shake it from side to side for "no," skills that I suspect a real orca would have little interest in developing.”

The plot involves the cunning, villainous owners of the park (Michael Ironside (who always plays a villain, doesn’t he) and Richard Riehle), who first want to use Jesse and Willy’s friendship, and then want to kill Willy for insurance money. That sets into motion the predictable, but no less effective, conclusion, in which the aspects of the boy, whale and family, are brought together nicely.

Ebert commented in his review, “"Free Willy" has a kind of gentle sweetness that I found very appealing.” It is about change – a young boy finding out who he is – and about adventure. The subplot involving “save the whales” makes it more than just an adventure, or an escapade. The screenplay is written intelligently. If you look at the relationship between Jesse and his foster parents, it has the ring of truth. The movie does appeal to the younger audiences (they may find it more accessible and definitely less frightening than “Jurassic Park”), and it’s smart enough to keep the adults attention as well.

Also, make sure to watch the credits. Michael Jackson’s “Will You Be There” plays. I find it strange that the Nostalgia Critic believes that the reason why “Free Willy” was such a hit was because of Michael Jackson singing the movie’s theme. However, the one thing that everyone harps on about is Willy jumping over a pile of rocks and not a net. I do say that I am with everyone in thinking why Willy didn’t do that. Maybe it was to build suspense if Willy could really do it and needed Jesse’s encouragement, but if Jesse did that earlier, than Willy could have leaped over the net.

In the end, watch this movie. It’s not terrible, definitely above average, but not really “that” good of a movie. Still, it’s watchable if you have little children with you.

Thanks for joining in on the first installment of “Free Willy Month.” Stay tuned next week when I talk about the sequel.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2

Now it’s time for the finale of “Spiderman Month.” Let’s wrap things up with “The Amazing Spider-Man 2,” which came out (as I said when I started this month) on the 2nd.

Emma Stone had said that “The Amazing Spider-Man” was going to be the first in what was going to be the start of the new series. Columbia Pictures said in March of 2011 that writer James Vanderbilt was contracted to write “The Amazing Spider-Man 2.” By April of 2012, Sony had Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci, and Jeff Pinkner under contract to re-write the sequel.

In August of 2011, which was roughly a year before “The Amazing Spider-Man” was going to be released; Sony announced that the release date for “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” was going to be May 2, 2014. Not too long before “The Amazing Spider-Man” was released, Andrew Garfield said, “If we do [a sequel], I hope I can do it — I hope they'd let me do it. ... They already have a release date for the second one. But no script! So we have our priorities in order.” On September 14, 2012, Garfield was confirmed to return for the sequel and Marc Webb would come back as director.

J.K. Simmons also expressed interest in appearing in this series as J. Jonah Jameson. However, he doesn't appear in here, and there are only a couple of mentions of the Bugle.

On October 10, 2012, Shailene Woodley was announced to have the role of Mary Jane Watson. It was confirmed that Woodley would play Mary Jane Watson, but it would be a small role, and the role would be bigger in the third movie. However on June 19, 2013, it was announced that Mary Jane was taken out of “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” in order to streamline the story and focus on Gwen and Peter’s relationship.

Jamie Foxx was in “early talks,” on November 1, 2012, to play the role of Electro in “The Amazing Spider-Man 2,” and later it was confirmed that he would be playing Electro. It was also revealed on November 16, 2012 that Harry Osborn would be in the sequel. Marc Webb then announced on December 3, 2012 that Dane DeHaan was going to play Harry. In February 2013, one of the funniest actors, Paul Giamatti, was revealed to play Rhino, and another great actor, Chris Cooper, was going to play Norman Osborn.

Now here is what I thought of “The Amazing Spider-Man 2:” All the Spider-Man fights were awesome and, best of all, Spider-Man was funny! There are some humorous lines from Garfield, DeHaan, and especially Stone.

But the love story got old really fast. I don't mind it too much because I always like it when Garfield and Stone are together, but it always goes back to Peter and Gwen saying they can't be together, then they get back together, then saying that maybe they are not destined to be together, then getting back together. Why are you wasting our time with this? Peter is trying to protect Gwen because of his promise to Captain Stacy before he died, but Gwen is always trying to come in and help Peter out because she is a strong love interest.

Uncle Ben's death apparently means less to him than Captain Stacy's, which is stupid. Anytime Aunt May brings up Uncle Ben in the movie, Peter is completely expressionless. It's like it doesn't matter to him about Uncle Ben dying, which I get really annoyed at. This is why I prefer Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man movies because he always went back to Peter feeling sad about Uncle Ben’s death, and feeling responsible for it. Also, Uncle Ben and Aunt May are the main reasons why Peter became Spider-Man. He was irresponsible and did not listen, so his actions caused him to feel bad for not listening to Uncle Ben, which is why he decides to become Spider-Man. Also, Sally Field is given more screen-time, but Webb doesn't give her enough to do, which is why she doesn't do as good of a job as Rosemary Harris. In "Spiderman 2" when Peter finally confesses to Aunt May about what happened to Uncle Ben, they aren't on speaking terms for a while, and then she says she forgives him and is glad that he told her the truth. Why isn't there anything like that in here? Why doesn't Peter just tell Aunt May what happened the night Uncle Ben was shot? Peter is begging Aunt May to tell him about his father since he wants to know why his father left him with Uncle Ben and Aunt May, which I like, but Aunt May should demand Peter to tell her what happened the night Uncle Ben got shot. I understand that they didn't have time to do all of that, but they could have filmed the wrestling match, they could have given more time for Uncle Ben and Aunt May so that Peter always was inspired to stay as Spider-Man. You might have the same complaint for "The Dark Knight Rises" where Alfred is absent throughout a good majority of the movie, but at least he said to Bruce that he wasn't going to help him anymore. I also understand that they can't get Martin Sheen to come back and do cameos as Uncle Ben, but why can't they let Martin Sheen be in this movie as a small cameo by having Uncle Ben appear in Peter's thoughts and dreams, which continuously inspires Peter to stay as Spider-Man? It can be done! This is what Marc Webb lacks is the story following a traditional three-act structure.

Electro and Harry both started great, but by the end they jammed all the villains together and didn't really finish their stories properly. It's handled worse here than in "Spiderman 3" because I love Paul Giamatti since he is a funny actor and is magnificent in everything he is in, but they don't give him enough screen-time. He's only in the beginning and in the end. It's like we had completely forgotten about him, and the main focus was on Electro. I thought that Jaime Foxx did an excellent job as Electro, even though they made him exactly like Edward Nygma in "Batman Forever" and made Electro too pathetic, but Dane DeHaan as the Green Goblin was nothing new. I had seen this done before. Osborn goes crazy because he wants more power, takes the injection, and becomes the Green Goblin. He's dying over a disease, which Norman told Harry it must be genetic, and he's crying that he's going to die. Harry, your dad was like in his 40s before he died, I think you at least have some time before Peter tests out everything before he gives you a sample of his blood. But no, he's in a rush to get a sample of Peter's blood so that he can live, which eventually leads him into being crazy because of him being impatient. He's only Green Goblin at the end before they lock him in a penitentiary, and Harry talks to the shadowed man to bring together a team, which must lead up to the Sinister Six. You could compare that to Venom in "Spiderman 3," but I would like something new with the Goblin. Also, they say Norman Osborn died in here, but I think that's a smoke screen and they'll bring him back. Why are you going to say that Green Goblin and Rhino are going to be in the movie when they don't play that big of a part?

But the end was really emotional. Gwen's death was perfectly done, and the final scene with the Rhino and the little kid, played by Jeremiah Burch III, was everything I want from Spider-Man, pushing through his grief to help the people of New York. I thought with Peter giving up being Spider-Man because of Gwen’s death was stronger than in Spider-Man 2. Not wanting to be a superhero because of feeling responsible for a loved one’s death is much more effective than the stress of being a superhero. Not to say that I thought Raimi didn’t do a good job with that in “Spider-Man 2,” but I think it worked better here. Also, as I had mentioned last week, I knew going in that Gwen was going to die. I wasn't surprised when I found out that I was right when I saw the movie not too long ago. Remember that in the comics, Gwen was Peter's first girlfriend before she was killed and Mary Jane entered in. What really made the scene sad was that Peter was extremely close to saving Gwen, but came up just a tad short. Also, with the little kid, it's very similar to "Spider-Man 2," when Aunt May says that the neighborhood kid missed Spider-Man and was wondering where he went and wanted him to come back. It's very similar in this movie with that little kid because in the beginning of the movie, the little kid gets bullied by some kids and they destroy his science project. Spider-Man comes in, scares the kids away, he fixes his project, and walks the kid home. That little kid gets inspired by Spider-Man that he decides to walk in the middle of the street and stand up to Rhino, which takes a lot of guts, before Spider-Man flies in, thanks the kids, says that he'll take over, and high fives him.

Both Captain America and Spider-Man shows me the heroes I want, unlike Superman, because they were shown as superheroes who cared about people, they weren't whiny, and they had a sense of humor. They were serious without losing their sense of humor and good nature. Also, they showed that they had inspired little children or other citizens to be like them. As much as I like "Man of Steel," I do acknowledge the flaws, one of them being that Superman is completely expressionless and emotionless. That wasn't the case with this movie and "Captain America The Winter Soldier."

In the end, I think that this movie is better than the first one, but the original two Sam Raimi ones will never be topped. I liked that Marc Webb cleaned up the humor, making it funnier, gave us a better Peter Parker and a better love interest, and best of all, great action scenes, but he should give us more of a story, make Aunt May and Uncle Ben have more to do than he is giving them, and work more on the villains. Plus, the pacing problems in this movie has really hurt the film a lot and Marc Webb should fix that. Definitely check this one out if you haven’t already, because I believe it won’t be in theaters for that much longer.

It has been confirmed that there will be a third and fourth movie in this series, a Venom spin-off, and a Sinister Six movie. This would be great. Andrew Garfield’s contract is only for three movies, but I think he should keep reprising his role as Spider-Man because he does a fantastic job. Then again, it is up to him if he wants to keep reprising the role since in the end, it is the actor’s decision and not the fans or filmmakers. We’ll see, but I think he’ll keep playing it for right now.

Thanks for joining in with me during “Spiderman month.” I hoped you enjoyed these reviews as much as I did making them. I will see you all next month.

The Amazing Spider-Man

After the bad reception of Spiderman 3, Sam Raimi left the series, even though he was planning on making a fourth movie. This is where Marc Webb came in to direct the remake, “The Amazing Spiderman,” released in 2012.

Now the basic story of this movie is that Peter was left with Uncle Ben and Aunt May by his parents, Richard and Mary Parker, played by Campbell Scott and Embeth Davidtz, when he was 4 (the child actor is Max Charles). He does not know where his parents are and why they left.

The things I liked about this movie are that it looked amazing, it had terrific action, which was a lot better, and the web-slinging is more colorful and vibrant and it looks much better here than in the Raimi movies. The fight scenes are amazing, but it doesn’t blow you away like a lot of the other comic book movies. I was told by my cousin that the 3D looks great, but I didn’t see it in 3D since I try to avoid watching movies in 3D. I don’t hate 3D, but it just strains the eyes.

Andrew Garfield was spot-on. He did a much better Spiderman than Tobey Maguire, in my opinion. He “is” the Peter Parker audiences have been wanting for a long time. He gets the nerdy, geeky character down pat, but he isn’t a show off. All the while he is also humorous and adventurous. These are all done very well. Garfield embodies Peter to the fullest. He is a relatable character, and internet reviewer LazerDude99 said that, “he doesn’t feel like a character out of the 70s, he feels very much like a kid from nowadays, and the High School scenario feels very much like a nowadays High School, where the past Spiderman film it didn’t feel like a ‘real’ High School. It felt a little bit cartoonish. Here it feels like a real High School.” Garfield really does a good job transitioning from Peter Parker into Spiderman and everything in between.

Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy sure is purty and eye-candy though! Peter and Gwen have a lot of chemistry between them, and I believe people are saying Garfield and Stone are (or were) a couple. Marc Webb went in the direction where Gwen Stacy is a smart but attractive girl, which I believe worked. Unlike Mary Jane, who was always your typical damsel in distress, here Gwen actually makes herself useful by doing something to further the plot and story instead of being held captive by the villain and holding her while fighting Spiderman. If you remember, Peter’s first girlfriend was Gwen Stacy before she died and Mary Jane came into the picture. However, I get the feeling she’ll get killed in “The Amazing Spiderman 2,” but I have yet to see that.

Don’t you feel that Peter told Gwen Stacy that he was Spiderman a little too early into the relationship? Especially since Captain George Stacy, played by one of the funniest comedians, Denis Leary, wants to arrest Spiderman. What makes you think that Gwen won’t tell her father? Captain Stacy is handled alright in this film.

When Peter gets back at Flash Thompson, played by Chris Zylka, by humiliating him (he doesn’t beat him up like in the original), Uncle Ben does discipline him by saying Peter cannot go around doing stuff like that.

However, I still liked the original better. Uncle Ben's death was straight out of a Bollywood movie, which made it ridiculous. Both Martin Sheen and Sally Field were wasted and practically irrelevant. This is where the story lacks. Martin Sheen and Sally Field were just there in the film and didn't really have much emphasis put on them. Instead, Gwen Stacey has the more focus. The story is where the original trilogy really shined, because a lot of it was there. Martin Sheen and Sally Field cannot be Ben and May because they are Martin Sheen and Sally Field. The original actors disappeared into the roles, and they were perfect. Some people may have found Rosemary Harris corny, but she was the heart of the movie. Sally Field is great, and there was some potential there when you see how Ben is so protective of May, so you could have shown how she comes into her own and overcomes her grief to become both father and mother to Peter and be his inspiration, like she was in the Ultimate Spiderman comics. But, we got nothing. Even though Aunt May was in the story, she wasn’t involved. When Peter is going out every night to find the man who shot Uncle Ben, we don’t see how much it hurt her to know that Uncle Ben was shot and how she feels. Uncle Ben and Aunt May were a huge part of the Spiderman comics and Marc Webb just shoved them aside like they had nothing to do with the story.

Besides a TV clip of the Daily Bugle news channel, we didn’t have any newsroom scenes of the Bugle at all. What's a Spider-Man story without J. Jonah Jameson? Peter could have totally been an intern at the Bugle! That's how he was in the Ultimate universe. He went in to be a photographer, like in the 616 reality, but instead of playing against type, he instead becomes their web programmer. That was easy.

Again, the movie was unnecessary and did two things wrong for everything it improved on the original. I didn't feel Ben's death or any of the other deaths. Peter and Gwen spent most of the movie whining about how these things affected their love life! He even becomes Spider-Man out of pure revenge and thrills, Ben's death meant almost nothing to him, or at least that's how it felt. I just didn't feel it. I understand that the makers of this film didn’t have the time and didn’t want to tell the story of Peter fighting the wrestler in a cage fight, and instead had Peter storm out of the house mad at Uncle Ben after having an argument. Peter goes to a Convenience Store to buy a Chocolate Milk, but the cashier, played by Michael Barra, says that Peter is off by two cents so he can’t buy the drink. Then the burglar, played by Leif Gantvoort, robs the Convenience Store, throws the milk to Peter, and runs out of the store. When the cashier yells at Peter to stop the burglar, Peter says it’s not his problem. Uncle Ben runs into the burglar, who drops the gun, making Uncle Ben go out to reach for the gun, but the burglar gets the gun and shoots Uncle Ben. Peter runs up to Uncle Ben, who dies and then it cuts to him at home with Aunt May and the police and doctors. I feel as if the filmmakers just brushed it aside too quickly and didn’t feel it was important to the story, which it was. It wasn’t like in the original where the criminal ran out with the money, ran into Uncle Ben and shot him. This was a burglar who shot Uncle Ben when he was out looking for Peter. This is more realistic, so it should have been followed up more.

Dr. Curt Connors, who tests a serum out on himself to get his arm back and instead turns into the villain known as The Lizard, played by Rhys Ifans, is a lame villain because he has no personality. How about having a scene where he shows some dark humor, something, anything, to make him more than a punching bag for Spider-Man? Also, is this a split personality, has he gone mad with it, is it a Jekyll and Hyde thing? What is it? I didn’t really understand this villain. Another YouTube reviewer, JeremyJahns, said that he wouldn’t have cared if the Lizard had died, which I completely agree with him. I was really confused about how I should feel for the Lizard because they should have developed him more. Even though he was a part of the story, they didn’t do a good job with handling the Lizard.

The ending is good as well. It leaves things up in the air as you don’t know what to expect from the sequel. All you see is (spoilers) Dr. Connors in the prison cell when a shadowy man, played by Michael Massee, comes in and asks Dr. Connors if he told Peter anything about his parents. Dr. Connors says “No” and demands the man to leave Peter alone.

In the end, I think that this film is better than Spiderman 3, but I still prefer the first two original Sam Raimi movies. They just had a better story structure and villains compared to this one. However, that doesn’t mean that this film is bad. I believe that this is above average, but not one of the best superhero movies I have seen.

Stay tuned next week when I review “The Amazing Spiderman 2.” Now I have to pick a day when I can go to the theaters and watch it.

Spider-Man 3

Hi everyone. Now it is time for Spiderman 3, released in 2007. It is a great film and it earned over $800 million at the box office, and it got quite a lot of positive critical reviews, but many critics and fans were very hateful of it. I don`t see why, it is really underrated. The film perfectly continues the stories, character development and themes of the first two films. It shows Peter Parker finally being successful, the blockbuster called this unearned, but it is based on the happy ending of Spiderman 2. We see he is finally with Mary Jane, is doing well in school, is doing better as a photographer and he has finally won over New York. This is a nice new fresh take on the series, and it shows he gets parades held for him, is more relaxed and is considering to marry Mary Jane.

You know that the third Spiderman had to be bigger. The third movie in a franchise goes for broke.

Spiderman 3 is bigger, if not better. It’s overdone, overlong, and overplotted. It’s all over the place.

This does not mean that Spiderman 3 is a bad movie, but an entertaining one. It is basically limited by its size and capacity.

One of the strongest traits of the first Spiderman was that Peter Parker was naïve and innocent. He was shocked and amazed after being bitten by the radioactive spider and was given superpowers. He basically acted exactly how a kid would act if he found out that he had superpowers. The movie was genuine.

The second Spiderman movie turned big and heavy – Doctor Octopus was part machine. The movie became part machine. It was an even better movie.

Now the third Spiderman movie transforms into competing effects, and characters that won’t stop. There are two Spidermen, two Harrys, two Flint Markos, and two Eddie Brocks: Dualities asunder. They play musical chairs with their characters. He’s good, then turns bad, then turns good again. It makes your head spin as if you got caught in one of Spiderman’s webs – or just a very inconsistent script.

Just like a few of the Batman movies, this movie has three villains. These villains just keep coming back to life.

The plot is a fight between revenge and identity confusion. Spiderman is now a celebrity, and it looks as though it has gotten to his head, like how it happens with all celebrities. Sadly, Sam Raimi doesn’t really do much with this theme. His satire is usual.

The good thing is that Sam Raimi is back directing this third installment, but Raimi has a dull streak.

The first 15 minutes of the movie are dull and lacking energy. That is not the right way to treat Spiderman. When Raimi is shooting the parts where the crowd is cheering on for Spiderman and his uses is painfully one-dimensional.

If it weren’t for J.K. Simmons, who, as always, is a joy to watch as J. Jonah Jameson, there would probably not be a comic relief. Spiderman should have a rhythm to it, but it does seem absent.

The cast are great, but they look as though they are sandwiched by the special effects. Actually, that seems to be the case with today’s movies all of the time. Thomas Haden Church and Topher Grace (famous for playing Eric Forman on "That '70s Show") improve their villains (Flint Marko/Sandman and Eddie Brock/Venom, respectively) when they aren’t dodging the special effects. Church does seem to indulge a lot in sand. James Franco does follow up very well as the New Green Goblin, with losing his memory and then getting it back. Ron Howard's daughter, Bryce Dallas Howard is charming as Gwen Stacy. Dylan Baker as Dr. Curt Connors isn’t really used as much, as is James Cromwell as Captain Stacy, the police chief. You could say that a lot of their footage was taken away to add more to the special effects, but the time that they were on screen, they were handled pretty well. Also, Bruce Campbell has a cameo as one of the restaurant waiters.

Kirsten Dunst just keeps plugging away as Mary Jane. She is now a Broadway actress. We do see for Mary Jane as an actress for one scene, but she always seems to get herself caught by the villains. Sometimes you feel as though there are parts missing where she has motivation and continuity because she changes moods very quickly, but it does add on to the love story, doesn’t it? Remember that her and Peter are having relationship problems, like all relationships do, so it does seem realistic.

Tobey Maguire now plays Peter as going through a dark tunnel, which shows when he becomes Venom for a good majority of the movie. He is still in distraught over Uncle Ben’s death, which is good that they keep going back to that since we never forget the loss of our loved ones, especially if we think we’re to blame for them being gone. Especially since Peter finds out that Sandman is the one who is responsible for killing Uncle Ben. This makes Peter vengeful and wants to get at Sandman for losing a person that was more of an uncle to him and was like his father more than his uncle. Watch the movie if you want to find out what happens between Spiderman and Sandman, and if Spiderman kills Sandman in vengeance or not. There is a love triangle now going on with Peter, Mary, and Gwen, and with Peter, Mary, and Harry.

The best moments of Spideman 3 are obviously the parts with the cast. The affecting climax is emotional.

My only complaint with this movie is that Venom was not used very much. I found out that Venom was thrown in last minute, which I could see, but if Marc Webb decides to bring in Venom in the next Amazing Spiderman movie, then he should utilize him better. Also, the parts that people thought were dumb, I wasn’t affected by them. When Spiderman jumped in front of the American flag, I didn’t really notice it very well. Maybe it was because I didn’t really pay attention that much when it happened, so that’s why I wasn’t bothered by it like a lot of the other people were. Like I had stated before, when Peter turned into Venom and he started to become more “Emo,” if I may, I thought it fit in with the character because he is now in a dark tunnel and he must fight his sadness to get out of the tunnel. Remember, characters that are sad (like Luke and Anakin) are likeable characters and do grow overtime, which Peter did do. Once he fought the darkness inside of him, he did rise up like all superheroes do. Also, I understand that the dance part halfway into the movie was out of place, but once again, I wasn’t bothered by it because I didn’t really delve into nitpicking it as much as other people did. I agree with everyone about Venom, but other than that, I was fine with the movie.

You could argue that this film failed because of some lame villains, and a weird and annoying story with Harry getting amnesia. Remember though, Sandman is linked to Spiderman, which would make sense, and Sandman turns out to be the interesting character. Venom is given as much of a story that he deserves, and the Peter/Mary Jane conflict over their successes and failures, and the pressure of them being a couple is played out in a mature way. The fight scenes are where the movie really shine. When Harry turns to heroism at the end is really nice, and it feels like a Spiderman comic where we don't know if Peter and Mary Jane will work out their relationship. That is, until we see the fourth one, which I will get into next week.

A good majority of the movie plays games with the plot because of the fight with the special effects, instead of having a convincing, coherent story. I understand that it has the same problem that people complain with "Iron Man 3:" trying to cram so many things together into the movie. By doing that, the many subplots will have people complaining about the plotholes, which everyone has to pay extra attention to in order to see. However, I think that in both movies, they tied up all loose ends very well, even though I agree that the pacing problem is the film being all over the place. Then again, that's just my personal opinion.

Overall, I like this movie, not as much as I do maybe the first two, but I do say that you should give this one a chance. It’s still a good superhero movie. Maybe not one of the best, like how I would put the first two movies, but it’s still one that you should check out.

Thanks to reviewreviewer1 for starting off this review, and stay tuned next week when I talk about the Amazing Spiderman movies.