Posts Tagged ‘Sam Raimi’
9 items.
Part of me wishes I could have done this strip Monday to commemorate the DVD release of Spider-Man, but I was on such a role inserting Cami into the strips, why kill a good thing?
Besides, this leaves room for me to do a whole week of Spider-Man strips. I’ve got some ideas, so stay tuned for those.
My love for all things Spider-Man knows no bounds. I’ve been reading the comics since I was about 8. I’ve since had to let it slide for financial reasons and, admittedly, the clone storyline of the late 90’s did a lot to sour my expectations of my favorite friendly, neighborhood wall-crawler. But the initial appeal and awe of Spider-Man will never wane. He’s the best super hero hands down in my book.
What a relief after almost a decade of legal wrangling that Sam Raimi didn’t screw it up when he brought ol’ web-head to the silver screen. Sure, there were moments of camp and, in certain parts of the web-slinging screamed “YOU ARE WATCHING A SPECIAL EFFECT”, there is a lot of love and admiration of the character in the film. Because of it, I respect it.
Shameful as it is to admit, I didn’t wait in line overnight to pick up my copy of the movie when it came out on Friday. This time of year is often nebulous and frustrating because since I have both my birthday and Christmas in December, I can’t go out and buy some of the movies or CD’s I want.
I talk so much about the new releases that I can’t be sure someone hasn’t already gone out and purchased something for me as a gift. So from the beginning of November until the end of the year, I’m caught in a self-imposed media lockout. I realize that if I end up getting a second copy of a movie, I can just take it back, but it’s never worth the hassle. Have you ever tried returning something to Target without the receipt? Plus, if someone is going out of their way to get me anything at all, it’s too heartbreaking to tell them “Sorry, I already have this” Everyone wants to feel like they put some thought into their gift giving. I can’t bear to bring that disappointment in their lives because I can’t display a little self-restraint.
But don’t think it doesn’t tear me up to see those Spider-Man displays everywhere I turn…
[ No Comments ]
Jun28
HE CAN’T STICK TO WALLS, BUT HE CAN IMPROVISE!
June 28th, 2004 |
(10 votes, average: 9.00 out of 10)
Care to guess what today’s incentive sketch is about? Tom as Spider Man, of course! You’d have to be a blind man not to see THAT one coming! Click here to see it anyway…
Today’s comic is not a singularity in the Theater Hopper universe. Tom has put on a Spider Man mask before. I only had to wait 18 months to dust off the old chestnut and put the joke back into rotation!
Clearly this week will be all about Spider Man 2, and if you can’t go along for the ride, well, what’s wrong with you?
Advance reviews for Sam Raimi’s sequel have been overwhelmingly positive. This is a good thing. It would appear that the franchise is going to avoid the dreaded sophomore slump.
I’m trying to keep my expectations reasonably low so that when I go into the theater on Wednesday I can see the movie with fresh eyes. But it’s been hard avoiding all this hype! I’ll just say that I would rather go into the movie expecting nothing than expecting it to be twice as good as the first (which is what I’m hearing). My fingernails? Bitten down to the cuticle in anticipation for this one.
Say – real quick – if you’re in the market for some Spider Man AND Theater Hopper goodness, you should check out the current ORIGINAL art auction I have going on over at eBay. Swing over to the listing now and place your bid. This is a ONE OF A KIND piece of art that will see NO printed reproduction. If you win the auction, you own it free and clear.
Plus, I’m throwing in stickers to the one who walks away with it. EVERYONE loves stickers!
At any rate, the auction ends this Friday, so get bidding!
Cami and I actually sat down this afternoon to watch the original Spider Man on DVD. Cami was kind of dragging her feet at the idea of watching the sequel, but gamely suggested that we re-watch the original after admitting she had SLEPT THROUGH it when we saw it in the theater!
Hold on. Hold on. Before you start slinging tomatoes, keep in mind this was around the time that we first brought Truman into our lives as a tiny, tiny puppy. We were just getting around to leaving the house again, but Truman wasn’t giving us much sleep at the time. We’d often wake up with him two or three times a night. Nodding off in a dark movie theater isn’t totally out of the question.
Regardless, we sat down together and watched the DVD, filling in any holes that Cami may have missed in her intermittent slumber. When it was all said and done, she said she enjoyed the movie and was looking forward to Spider Man 2. This was a VAST improvement from our previous status.
When I watch Raimi’s original, it’s easy to see why it was such a record-breaker at the box office. It stayed true to the characters (well, except for the organic web-shooters… GRR!) but still had a healthy dose of tongue-in-cheek humor (“Up, up and away, web!”)
When you stop to think that most iconic motion pictures have one or two scenes that really stick with you, Spider Man had several. Peter Parker awakening to find his body transformed. The wrestling match with “Bonesaw” McGraw. The upside-down kiss. All of them are seared into my memory.
Can’t wait to see what SM2 has in store…
[ No Comments ]
May07
When you think about it, there was really nowhere to go but down.
After the success of Spider-Man 2 – one of the most note-perfect superhero movies ever – where else could director Sam Raimi go when he has the Sony breathing down his neck to deliver another installment of a franchise that has earned them nearly $2 billion worldwide? Make the best movie you can, throw all your marketing muscle behind it to put Spider-Man’s face on everything from a box of Mac ‘N Cheese to a pair of gym shorts and hope it rakes in another big pile of money.
Well, the money part is over and done with. Spider-Man 3 had the largest opening day ever – almost $60 million – and the largest three-day weekend ever- almost $150 million.
Unfortunately, Raimi might have lost his credibility in the process.
Reviewing a film like Spider-Man 3 is a difficult one for me. I have to wear two hats. One hat says “Objective Movie Critic” and the other hat says “Obsessive Fan Boy.” If the movie gets the details of the comics wrong, you can slap on the critic hat and dissect it that way. If the movie itself is poorly made, you can put on the fanboy hat and look at it that way.
Spider-Man 3 was so thoroughly wrong on both fronts, I wanted to take off both hats, burn them and bury them.
The largest contributor to Spider-Man 3’s failure is the meandering script by Raimi, his older brother Ivan Raimi and their screenwriting partner Alvin Sargent. The trio try to build on the foundation of the first two movies by raising the stakes in the conflict between Harry Osborn (James Franco) and Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) and it’s a good place to start. Unfortunately, after that, things get muddled.
Harry has undergone treatments similar to those of his father to avenge his murder. Retrofitting his father’s equipment into a “totally extreme!” air glider, he’s out for blood as the second Green Goblin and Spider-Man is his target.
Their battle is the movie’s first action set-piece. Too bad it looks entirely cartoonish. Like, “I can see the black outlines around the characters” cartoonish. The aftermath leaves Harry a partial amnesiac who remembers his father died, but not by Spider-Man’s hand. Convenient!
After that, we’re forced to endure Mary Jane’s (Kirsten Dunst) career letdowns as she’s dropped from a Broadway play after one performance. Spider-Man saves Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard)– a classmate and photocopier model (?!) in the film’s second (and best) action set-piece and he’s given the key to the city while MJ scowls in the background. Peter then tries to propose at a French restaurant where Bruce Campbell delivers his requisite cameo but botches it and – oh, yeah – there’s some background story about a new villain called the Sandman (Thomas Hayden Church) that can molecularly reassemble his body into an errant special effect from the Mummy movies to steal money for his sick daughter. Oh! Oh! And don’t forget Topher Grace as Peter’s new photographer rival at The Daily Bugle Eddie Brock! Most importantly, don’t forget that black tar alien slinky that crash landed in a meteorite and latched on to Peter’s scooter at the beginning of the movie.
Get all that? Oh, wait. There’s more.
The black goop from the meteorite is revealed to be a symbiote that amplifies aggression, bonds with Peter and gives him a new black costume. Good timing, too. Because now he can use his amped up powers to take on the Sandman, who he’s learned was the REAL triggerman in his Uncle Ben’s death. Again… Convenient!
There’s more, but it’s really not worth getting into. Basically, the movie is just a series of action pieces strung together loosely by non-organic plot elements that move the characters around like chess pieces to get them there.
Actually, chess is too generous an analogy. How about Candyland?
A big failure in particular is the use – or rather, lack thereof – of the black suit. Peter is probably in the suit a total of 10 minutes. We’re let to believe that it’s corrupting him. After his confrontation with the Sandman, we’re told his intent was to kill him but it looks more like an accident. Later, as we witness how the suit is affecting Peter Parker, Raimi treats it like a campy joke by having Peter strutting down the street like John Travolta in Saturday Night Fever. When he seeks to get back at MJ while she works as a singer/waitress in a jazz bar, he chooses to do so by… stealing the spotlight from her playing piano and dancing around the room?
How are we supposed to take this transformation seriously when they don’t take it seriously themselves?
Eventually, Peter realizes that he doesn’t like what the symbiote is doing to him, so he sheds the alien creature in a church where Eddie Brock has found refuge after he was exposed doctoring a photo of Spider-Man to paint him in a bad light.
In record time, the symbiote bonds with Brock and they become Venom – ANOTHER villain for Spider-Man to contend with.
Venom’s addition feels totally tacked on and if I were Topher Grace, I’d be asking myself “I left That 70’s show for this?” Venom ends up enlisting Sandman’s help to kill Spider-Man using MJ as bait to draw him out. Spider-Man enlists the “on good terms again” Harry Osborne and a big bru-ha-ha ensues. A couple of people die and I leave the theater not caring about any of it.
Typing this review was like pulling teeth for me because deep down, I WANTED to like it. But a bad film is a bad film and I can’t help but wonder if Raimi has lost his touch.
The movie suffers from Batman Forever syndrome. Throwing more villains at Spider-Man doesn’t make him more interesting. It’s always been Peter Parker’s real-life problems that made him interesting. The filmmakers could have easily gone with the conflict between him and Harry as the centerpiece of the film and left it at that. It would have been a lot less interesting to look at – especially considering Harry’s choice of a paintball mask for his “costume,” but at least it would have been authentic.
Or, instead, focus on the symbiote and the Venom character. Illustrate more clearly how Eddie Brock is the polar opposite of Peter Parker. What a real snake-in-the-grass would do with that level of power instead of someone who is at their core decent like Parker.
Anything involving Sandman could have been thrown out the window. His story adds nothing to the movie except for commentary about revenge and forgiveness. But, like the original Batman movie before it (where the Joker is revealed as the man who killed Batman’s parents and is then killed), a great disservice is done to the character of Spider-Man by allowing him to confront the man who killed his Uncle and forgiving him. It strips Peter of his guilt for not saving his Uncle when he had the chance. THIS IS HIS ENTIRE MOTIVATION FOR BEING A SUPER HERO!
Ultimately, it appeared as if the filmmakers totally lost touch with the characters. For a franchise that presented both sides of a super hero so well, it’s probably the deepest cut that they apparently stopped caring. I could go on with this review, but I’ve stopped caring myself.
Spider-Man 3 is the worst of the franchise and certainly did not live up to the hype.
[ No Comments ]
I know today’s comic is a little on the dry side. But when a new Nicolas Cage movie leads the box office with a $7.8 million take reflecting the lowest returns in five years, that’s a pretty clear indication not much is going on. Anyone unfamiliar with Tom and his Spider-Man mask throughout the years can view references here, hereand here.
Back to Nic Cage for a minute, does anyone remember that Nicolas Cage was an Academy Award winner? Anyone?
Something that has seemed to capture the imagination of the blogosphere, however, was the news that Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire have been signed to Spider-Man 4 and Spider-Man 5. Apparently, the studios are going to try and film them back-to-back, citing the difficulty of bringing everyone back together every few years or so.
I’m kind of on the fence about this one. On the one hand, I’m excited for anything Spider-Man related. The more Spider-Man, the merrier, I always say.
But, at the same time, if someone had told me they were going to give it a rest after Spider-Man 3, I would have been okay with that. I found the third movie to be extremely uneven and I still haven’t bothered to add it to my DVD collection years later. Remember that you’re talking to the guy who owns about 300 issues of Amazing-Spider Man.
What I find craziest about the news that’s been leaking out about the deal is that studio bosses were talking about potential replacements for Tobey Maquire up to a few weeks ago, but had no ambitions for replacing Kirsten Dunst.
Now, there is no deal in place for Dunst to return. But I take this to mean one of two things: Either they plan on moving ahead without her (which would be weird considering Peter and Mary Jane are now married in the film’s continuity) OR… they have such conviction of her talent, they simply can’t imagine another actress filling the role.
Please note the sarcasm dripping off that last statement. I can literally think of about two dozen more capable actresses for the part. Alica Witt, line one, please! Hey! She wouldn’t even have to dye her hair! We’re already saving money!
Odds are Dunst will sign on because she has nothing else happening for her career-wise.
Not much else for me to report today. But be sure to tune into The Triple Feature tonight at 9:00 PM CST. We took last Monday off for the Labor Day holiday, so we have a bunch of movie to go over tonight.
Oh – and because we care about you, the listener. We devised a much easier way for you to remember the URL where you can listen to and download the podcast every week. Just type http://www.thetriplefeature.com into your address bar and you’ll be magically redirected to our page over at TalkShoe.com! Cool, huh? Easy to remember, too! Tell your friends!
Talk to you later!
[ No Comments ]
Continuing my exploration of all things Up, today’s sketch is of Russell, of the Wilderness Adventurers. My version of Russ seems a little more awkward than what’s presented in the movie (if that’s possible). Consider this a version of Russell that’s maybe a few years older than his on-screen counterpart. I tried to stay loose with the sketch, but didn’t quite get the proportions right. To see the sketch, vote for Theater Hopper at Top Web Comics.
Incidentally, Theater Hopper has been slipping down the list a little bit over at Top Web Comics and I’m wondering if it has any relation to the kind of sketches I’m doing.
In the past, I would draw sketches that were a continuation of the joke in the comic. Lately, I’ve been drawing more stand-alone pieces. Renderings of characters from movies. Is this a factor in your voting? Let me know in the comments below and be mindful of Monday, June 1 when the Top Web Comics counter resets. If we can get in the Top 10 early on, there’s a greater likelihood we can stay there! I’m going to need everyone’s help, so I’m putting the idea in your heads now.
As you know, both Up and Drag Me To Hell come out today. During Monday’s recording of The Triple Feature, Joe pointed out that the family-friendly film in competition with director Sam Raimi’s return to horror was great counter programming.
I felt like I was onto something when I commented that not only were the two movies at the opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of their content, but also in terms of the geography they explored. Up floating among the clouds and Drag Me To Hell lurking in the depths of the Underworld.
I shared my observation to Cami and she said it was “quite profound.” She may have been humoring me, but it was enough for me to try and figure out a way I could work it into the comic.
As for the answer to Tom’s quandary in today’s comic, I don’t think it would surprise anyone that I’m more interested in seeing Up. Cami and I are seeing it tonight. But my interest has been piqued by the strong reviews Drag Me To Hell has been getting. I guess Joe from Joe Loves Crappy Movies saw an early screening of it and was over the moon about it. Critical response has been strong, too. 95% positive at Rotten Tomatoes. I guess Raimi still has the old horror touch!
I’m not a big fan of horror, but I respect Raimi a great deal. It goes without saying how awesome the Evil Dead trilogy is. But those films have a low-tech charm. I don’t know if I could stomach full-blown Raimi sitting in the middle of a booming surround-sound theater.
One thing Raimi is particularly adept at are “loud noises” scares – frightening reveals you can see a mile away, but punctuated by piercing musical shrieks. I HATE those kinds of scares. I do better with movies that employ this tactic when I’m at home and can control the volume.
I’m very curious to know what Raimi has up his sleeve, but I think this one is going to have to be a rental for me. I’m too much of a weenie otherwise.
What about you guys? Are you feeling up to the challenge of seeing Drag Me To Hell in a gigantic booming theater without peeing your pants? Or are you like me and going to chillax with Pixar and Up for two hours instead?
Leave your comments below!
[ 21 Comments ]
Jan13
People are kind of losing their minds about Sony announcing plans to cancel Spider-Man 4 and going with a straight up reboot instead. But as much as I love the first two Spider-Man movies, I’m not really bothered by it.
I mean, it kind of sucks that Raimi won’t have a chance to redeem himself after Spider-Man 4. But watching a 37 year-old Tobey Maguire run around as Peter Parker seems kind of disingenuous to me. Maguire still has his baby face, so maybe he could pull it off. But that little factoid would be gnawing at the back of my brain.
I certainly won’t miss Kristen Dunst as Mary Jane – one of the worst casting decisions I’ve ever seen. The less said about her, the better.
What I find kind of annoying is Sony’s emphasis on “rebooting” the franchise. The first film came out in 2001. It doesn’t really NEED a reboot. It’s not like any of us forgot Spider-Man’s origin story, or anything. It just seems like a waste of film to go through ALL of that exposition of the origin story again.
Frankly, I wish they would just recast the part and go about telling NEW Spider-Man stories. I hope they just go full-bore into the story like Superman Returns did and not bother telling us about Peter Parker, his Uncle Ben, power and responsibility all over again.
Similarly, I hope they cast an unknown to play Spider-Man like they did with Brandon Routh and Superman. I don’t think the Spider-Man needs a “name” actor like it did in 2001 to help get the franchise off the ground. Experiment a little bit. Just don’t cast Zak Efron or else I’ll have to torch my collection of Spider-Man comics and never look back.
What do you guys think about Sony’s decision to reboot Spider-Man? Leave your comments below!
[ 24 Comments ]
I know I’m a little bit behind the curve on this, but let’s talk about it anyway.
On Monday, Sony released a brand new, official promo image of Andrew Garfield in costume as Spider-Man in director Mark Webb’s reboot of the franchise.
The film’s official title was also announced – The Amazing Spider-Man.
There have been plenty of photos of Garfield in costume from outdoor sequences the crew has been shooting around Los Angeles. I will state for the record that I haven’t been impressed by those shots. But I reserved judgment until we saw something official from Sony.
Now that we have something concrete, I can say… ehhh… I don’t hate it.
Sony originally released a photo of Garfield sans-mask looking pummeled and forlorn a few months ago. Aside from the aesthetic changes they made to the costume, that shot didn’t mean much to me. Without the mask, the jury was still out.
Now that I’ve seen the mask, I’d say they did a pretty good job. It still has the Oakley lenses similar to the costume in Sam Raimi’s version, but the webs on the mask are thinner and horizontal across the forehead and scalp. To my eye, it looks more like the old Steve Ditko version of the costume (comic book nerds will know what I’m talking about) and I think that’s a good thing.
Even though I think there’s too much blue in the costume – and unnecessarily textured – the colors are bright and poppy. That, in combination with the decision to title the film The Amazing Spider-Man leads me to believe that the film will have a lighter, bouncier feel than the angst-ridden Raimi films.
Don’t get me wrong. Peter Parker’s life sucks. That’s what makes the character relatable. But when he puts on the mask, he’s free – almost jubilant. That’s something that Raimi’s films never fully captured. I have my fingers crossed that Webb’s Spider-Man will be much wittier and quicker on the take.
This reboot will live and die by the tone it establishes. If it’s not different enough from the originals, the 5 year span between the last movie and this relaunch will make the film feel perfunctory. Here’s hoping they pull it off.
[ 16 Comments ]
Originally the word on the street was that the trailer for The Amazing Spider-Man wasn’t supposed to hit the web (ha!) until Thursday. Conventional wisdom placed it ahead of Captain America: The First Avengers when it launches in theaters on Friday.
But lo-and-behold! It’s here a day early! Enjoy!
I’ll say that the trailer hits a couple of different notes with me. Some work, some don’t.
Meeting the young Peter Parker at the beginning plays a little too much like Harry Potter to me. Then, fast forwarding a few years to the present day, we’re confronted by Andrew Garfield’s wild haystack of hair and I get a distinct Twilight vibe.
But after that, I think the trailer shapes up very nicely. Right away, you can tell that Marc Webb’s version is grounded a little more in reality. At least in terms of casting Peter as the outsider. Garfield barely even utters a line of dialogue. Mostly he keeps his head down like a beat dog. I find that kind of endearing. It’s certainly a stark contrast from widdle Tobey Maguire’s wounded puppy-dog routine in Sam Raimi’s original.
I’ll also give credit to Webb’s use of the first-person in Spider-Man’s sprint across the city rooftops.
The cynic in me could honestly have done without everything leading up to that moment in the trailer. I think if we were only give the first person shot, it would have taken the audience to catch on that we were actually seeing the city through the eyes of Spider-Man. Then, when his reflection is revealed, I think people would have gone through the roof. But maybe that’s just me.
What’s your take on this trailer?
[ 7 Comments ]
It’s been a couple of days since it hit the web, but I feel like we should take a moment or two to talk about the new trailer for The Amazing Spider-Man.
I’ve been a little bit reluctant to post the trailer only because I’m still trying to wrap my mind around Sony’s decision to relaunch the franchise five years after Spider-Man 3 left theaters.
I think the talent they have lined up for this thing looks phenomenal – particularly Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker. I think he has the right gangly build for Spider-Man. Much moreso than Tobey Maguire. But I feel like the foundation of the movie is kind of cynical.
It can’t be bright and cartoonish like Sam Raimi’s films, so this version has to be dark and gritty instead. Raimi’s film were pretty much straight up superhero action films. Marc Webb’s version has to have mystery and angst.
The one thing I DO like about the trailer is that they seem to have captured Spider-Man’s trademark wit a little better than Raimi’s films. The scene with him in the backseat of the car hits exactly the right tone.
But overall, I’m still a little skeptical of the film. I want the film to be fun. Right now, that’s not what they’re communicating. This movie couldn’t be more desperate for legitimacy if it wore a sign that said “SERIOUS FILM” around it’s neck.
What’s your reaction to this new trailer? Leave your comments below!
[ 10 Comments ]
