Return to Form - Movie Review of "Spider-Man Homecoming"

Before SPIDER-MAN HOMECOMING, the last time fans had seen Spidey in his own movie was 2014’s THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2. While that movie had some amazing chemistry between its leads and some decent character development, the movie suffered from a bloated budget, unfocused story, difficult actors, and more. The movie barely grossed more than its budget and with the mediocre box office combined with the Sony email hack eventually forced Sony to negotiate with Marvel into sharing the character as part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. That was probably the best thing that could have happened for Sony, Marvel, and Spider-Man.

Unlike the first films in the other film versions of the character, SPIDER-MAN HOMECOMING doesn’t backtrack and provides no origins tale of Peter Parker becoming Spider-Man. The movie begins on the assumption that the audience already knows how Peter Parker became Spider-Man; that he feels responsible for his Uncle Ben’s death; early struggles with powers, etc. That’s not to say that the movie doesn’t involve any origins. However, instead of explaining the origins of the hero, this movie explores the origins of its key villain: the Vulture, portrayed by Michael Keaton. The movie actually begins after the events of the first Avengers movie. Parts of New York are a mess after the intergalactic conflict between the extraterrestrials and the Avengers. Keaton’s Adrain Toomes is a working man with a clean-up crew hired to help remove the rubble. But, as is the case in real life for many people, the government comes in and Toomes and his crew are dismissed from the work site without any compensation. Toomes later learns that Tony Stark is responsible for what happened to him and that knowledge combined with an unexpected surprise changes Toomes’ life. He becomes the Vulture not as a way to bring about evil, but to make money to support his family.

We first meet Peter Parker and Spider-Man in this movie through a video diary Peter made when he was brought to Germany during the events of CAPTAIN AMERICA CIVIL WAR. Audiences get to see a few behind the scenes moments from that movie. This segment ends with Tony Stark dropping Parker off at his home, just days after the events of CAPTAIN AMERICA CIVIL WAR (referenced later when one character says of Captain America, “I think he’s a war criminal now”). Parker truly feels like he’s really a superhero now and is excited at the prospect of leaving his ho-hum high school existence behind and joining The Avengers full time. However, Stark doesn’t think Parker is ready and keeps encouraging him to continue to be involved locally; to be the “friendly, neighborhood Spider-Man.”

Parker tries, but while doing so discovers that there’s a group of people selling illegal weapons built with alien technology in his neighborhood. These weapons are dangerous and threaten the lives and livelihoods of the people Peter cares about. The arms manufacturer/dealer has to be stopped and he’s determined to do whatever he can to make sure that happens. In the midst of all this, Peter is also just a regular sophomore boy in high school attempting to keep his grades up and dealing with his feelings towards girls.

While SPIDER-MAN HOMECOMING is definitely a Spider-Man movie, a comic book movie, and a movie that’s a part of the larger MCU, it’s a movie that even casual film goers can enjoy. The script is focused (although it gets rather lengthy in the final act), the acting top-notch, and the effects superb. There’s some great acting and the chemistry between the characters and the character development of those characters is amazing. Michael Keaton is the best villain in the Marvel Cinematic Universe since the introduction of Loki in THOR. Like Loki, Toomes isn’t a completely evil person. Make no mistake, he does some pretty horrible things during the course of the movie. However, he doesn’t always act like a villain and sometimes his intentions are not only understandable, but almost honorable. I really hope that we see Vulture again and not just in another Spider-Man movie.

The other lead actor in the film is Tom Holland as Peter Parker/Spider-Man. Holland gives an impeccable performance. There are a lot of nuances to the role and Holland has just the right balance of humor and lightheartedness (something that Andrew Garfield’s incarnation lacked) and grounded grit (something that was lacking in Tobey Maguire) required of the character. I look forward to seeing him portray the character for years to come.

SPIDER-MAN HOMECOMING is a great movie. While the film is deeply indebted to previous Spider-Man incarnations (there are lots of references in this movie to earlier incarnations) and is heavily tied to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, it is a movie that also stands well on its own. It’s fun, entertaining, and exciting. It’s good to welcome Spider-Man home and I hope all of his cinematic adventures from here forward are as well developed.

Back to the Beginning - Movie Review of "Alien Covenant"

In 1979 director Ridley Scott shot to stardom and made sci-fi/horror mainstream with the release of ALIEN. The movie was so successful in birthed a sequel  (ALIENS) which was even more popular and a franchise was born. However, since the release of ALIENS, the Alien franchise has had some serious missteps, beginning with ALIEN 3, one of the most nihilistic mainstream films made.  After years of toying with the idea, Ridley Scott finally returned to the Alien franchise with PROMETHEUS. That movie was a prequel to the Alien franchise that is both a sci-fi/horror film and a piece of philosophical pondering that examines the mythology of the Alien universe as well as human metaphysical questions. Scott has again returned to the Alien universe with the release of ALIEN: COVENANT, a sequel to PROMETHEUS.

Set over ten years after the events of PROMETHEUS, ALIEN: COVENANT follows the crew of the colony ship Covenant.  All  of the ship’s passengers and crew are kept in stasis, except for the android Walter who monitors everything during the seven-plus year journey. An unexpected phenomenon while the ship is re-powering causes the death of several passengers as well as the ship’s captain. While undergoing repairs, the ship receives an audio transmission from a nearby, but unknown planet. Despite objections from the second-in-command (and the former ship captain’s widow), the new captain, Oram (Billy Crudup) decides to investigate the signal. Initially, the planet seems better suited for colonization than their original destination. However, when two crew members are infected with alien spores, things begin to go horribly wrong. The crew of the Covenant seems to find some sanctuary when they are rescued by David, an android survivor from PROMETHEUS. But in space no one can hear you scream and on an alien world, things are definitely not what they first appear to be.

As a sci-fi action film, ALIEN: COVENANT is a better movie and an improvement over PROMETHEUS. There’s not as much mythology and metaphysics and more action and violence. While the movie is a sequel to PROMETHEUS and contains characters from that movie, a person unfamiliar with the Alien universe can watch the movie and enjoy it on its own merits; familiarity with the Alien universe isn’t a necessity for ALIEN: COVENANT.

However, with that said, the film does answer some questions that were left unanswered in PROMETHEUS. In addition, it illustrates the origin of the xenomorph creatures audiences first saw in ALIEN.

In terms of acting, the standout performance in the film belongs not to Katherine Waterson, but to Danny McBride. McBride is mostly known for his comedic roles. However, even in those tv and movie comedies, McBride often shows a glimmer of a more serious actor who can actually act and in ALIEN: COVENANT those talents are in full display. The movie is a piece of sci-fi/horror, but McBride helps ground the film in human sentiment and reality. He’s not the story’s central protagonist, but he might as well be because without his presence, the movie becomes uneven and would falter beneath its more unrealistic elements.

While ALIEN: COVENANT is a good movie, it does have a couple of flaws. First, it suffers from the flaw of bipolar pacing. The opening segments of the movie move as slowly as most of the scenes in PROMETHEUS. Other scenes move as fast the best scenes in ALIENS. This flipping back and forth never stops. I realize that the movie is trying to copy a technique used in many horror movies, but it just doesn’t work very well in this film.

The second flaw of the movie is how unrealistic most of the characters act. Take Oram and Daniels. While trying to decide whether to investigate the radio signal, Oram explains why they should investigate. His reasons are completely legitimate. Daniels, on the other hand, is completely against the idea. At this point, it’s understandable why Daniels doesn’t seem logical: she just lost her husband. The movie makes a point to try to get the audience to agree with Daniels and illustrate she is right, but it’s actually Oram who is correct during this discussion. However, after this point, Daniels can do no wrong and everything that happens during the rest of the film is supposed to be vindication of her disapproval of visiting the planet near the beginning of the movie. On the other hand, after his correct decision to check out the signal, everything Oram does is either a mistake or set-up to make the audience feel that he was in the wrong at the beginning and should have listened to Daniels. Oram, who at the beginning was the most logical of the characters, makes one decision after another that are clearly mistakes and not like his character. This inconsistency of characterization happens with all of the characters, including Danny McBride’s Tennessee: women go off alone to wash up; couples copulate in showers almost immediately after major skirmishes with aliens; people lose their loved ones and attempt to endanger the lives of other crew members because of that, etc.

Overall, ALIEN: COVENANT is a better movie than PROMETHEUS. It walks the middle ground of the metaphysics of that movie and the sci-fi/horror elements of ALIEN and ALIENS. For fans of the Alien franchise, it does answer some questions (while offering more unanswered questions) from previous films. It’s also a movie that a person unfamiliar with the franchise can watch and enjoy.

Sharing Isn't Always Caring - Movie Review of "The Circle"

THE CIRCLE is based upon a novel by Dave Eggers who also co-wrote the screenplay. The movie stars Emma Watson as Mae Holland. Mae is a twenty-something who supports herself by working at horrible customer service temp jobs. She loves to spend her time kayaking and it is hinted at that she also enjoys other adventures in the great outdoors. She drives a run-down used car that has seen better days and she dreams of working at a regular full time job where her talents and ambitions can be fully utilized. Her life changes drastically and apparently for the better when her friend Annie (Karen Gillan) gets her an interview at the hi-tech company The Circle. Mae is interviewed and hired and soon becomes swept up in the improvements in her life that occur as a result at working at The Circle (a company that appears like a combination of Facebook, Google, and Apple).

Mae works hard and becomes a great Customer Experience representative. However, Mae is a bit of an enigma to her co-workers at The Circle. As she jokes around with an attractive stranger she meets at one of The Circle’s parties, it seems like everyone has drunk the Kool-Aid who works there.  She goes home and visits her parents on the weekends. Her father (portrayed by the late Bill Paxton) is suffering with MS and it is increasingly becoming a burden upon her mother and she feels she needs to be there. She also enjoys partaking in the things that give her joy, but alone and on her own time. Her co-workers are worried that during the weekends Mae hasn’t participated or posted anything at all in the social media of the company and that she spent so much time alone. In the spirit of getting along, Mae attempts to participate more in the “non-required” activities The Circle offers.

However, when her life is apparently “saved” because of one of the new gadgets that The Circle is beta-testing, Mae drinks the Kool-Aid like everyone else and she doesn’t just drink a glass, she drinks the whole pitcher. She becomes the new wunderkid and face of the company and agrees to become the first worker of the company to become “transparent”, broadcasting every part of her life (except 3 minute bathroom breaks) to the world 24-hrs a day (think the movie ED-TV, but without the comedy and on steroids), 7 days a week. This decision affects Mae’s relationships with her parents, friends, and pseudo-boyfriend. She not only spouts the company’s mantras (“Sharing is caring;” “All that happens must be known;”  “Secrets are lies;” etc.) but believes in them wholeheartedly and pushes for more and more control, presence, and surveillance of The Circle in everyone’s life. Then something traumatic happens and Mae reflects and questions all that she has allowed to happen.

In terms of pure cinema, THE CIRCLE is not a great movie. However, it does offer some treats for filmgoers.  Bill Paxton plays Mae’s father who is stricken with MS. The role is basically a bit part. However, Paxton really brings the character to life and is one of the few characters in the film that helps to humanize Mae and keep her from being a complete cardboard cut-out.  Tom Hanks stars in the film as Eamon Bailey, one of the founders of The Circle and its current leader and spokesperson. Hanks is always a joy to watch on the screen. He’s a genuine nice guy and often is typecast in the roles of an Everyman and the Hero. In THE CIRCLE, Hanks gets to use his likeable charm to portray a character who for all intents and purposes seems and appears to be a likeable and nice guy, but who is actually a villain. Also enjoyable in the movie is Karen Gillan as Annie Allerton, Mae’s friend. Gillan steals many of the scenes she is in, reminding me of why she was such a valuable part of DOCTOR WHO when she was on that series.

Despite these fine performances, there are two huge reasons that THE CIRCLE largely fails as a movie. The first is its star, Emma Watson. Emma Watson is a fine actress. However, in this movie, she really doesn’t feel believable.  She’s fine in the role until about halfway through when  Mae becomes a convert to the agenda of The Circle. Mae is supposed to swallow the company propaganda hook, line, and sinker. However, Watson is not at all convincing that Mae is a true convert. One gets the feeling that instead of a convert, she is instead a spy and promoting a product she has no real belief in. There should be a transformation of Mae’s character and while it happens on the surface, it never occurs any deeper.

The other big negative with THE CIRCLE is that it is written as a realistic sci-fi thriller. Unfortunately, there are no thrills in this movie. There is never any sense of danger for the protagonist. Mae breaks into rooms, has secret meetings with an enemy of The Circle, and opens her life to the world. However, there is never any indication that she is risking anything. Even during the scene when Mae almost dies and is “saved” because of The Circle technology, she isn’t risking anything and doesn’t seem to be in any real danger.  Instead, her rescue feels more like something that was staged for convenience. For a thriller of any kind, there actually has to be some thrills and there isn’t any in THE CIRCLE. It’s far too safe.

Yet, while THE CIRCLE is only an okay movie that fails as a thriller, it does succeed as a piece of social commentary. There are so many scenes in THE CIRCLE that are eerie in how accurate they mirror what is happening in our society. The culture of the society of The Circle is one where people share everything (“sharing is caring”) and if you believe in privacy and attempt to have some privacy, you are the outcast. The culture of the workers of The Circle is one where not only is your entire life under surveillance, but it is something you do willfully. Just look around and see how much people share on social media today and you see that we really aren’t that far away from the type of society that the leaders of The Circle want us to live in. In that regard, THE CIRCLE is more akin to Ray Bradbury’s short story “The Pedestrian” than it is to Orwell’s 1984; it’s no longer a piece of science fiction but a piece of real-time social commentary.  In a couple years from now, it might be able to pass as a documentary.