Review: Wanted
Director: Timur Bekmambetov (Night Watch, Day Watch)
Writer: Michael Brandt, Derek Haas, Chris Morgan
Comic book: Mark Millar, J.G. Jones
Producers: Jim Lemley, Jason Netter, Marc E. Platt, Iain Smith
Starring: James McAvoy, Morgan Freeman, Angelina Jolie, Terence Stamp, Thomas Kretschmann
MPAA Rating: R
Running time: approx. 118 min
Last year Timur Bekmambetov surprised the hell out of me by entering my top ten list of the year with his sequel to Night Watch, entitled Day Watch. It’s so refreshing to walk out of a theater in the heat of the summer blockbuster season having just seen a CGI-rich, comic book-esque film and think about how great it was and how hard it is to resist the impulse to yell from the top of the highest building that “this is the SFX blockbuster movie you should be paying to see this summer!” As it turns out, Day Watch was no fluke for director Bekmambetov. I’m thrilled to climb to the top of this cyber-building and scream out, “this is the SFX blockbuster movie you should be paying to see this summer!”
As part of his dreary, daily life existence, Wesley Gibson wakes up to a nagging girlfriend, an empty bank account and a work life very reminiscent of Peter Gibbons in Office Space. Until one day a mysterious sexy vixen named Fox let’s him in on the secret that he’s actually the target of a super-assassin and that Wesley too has the potential to become a super-super-assassin and join an elite “fraternity” - like his father. Reluctantly Wesley decides to take Fox up on her offer and through a series of action packed sequences learns their extraordinary (or super-natural for lack of a better term) ways of combat at a secret facility in the middle of somewhere, led by Sloan (Morgan Freeman). To go further would be coming close to spoiler territory. But the fact that there even is a spoiler territory in a “summer blockbuster” movie is a good, nay extraordinary, thing.
The extraordinary abilities mentioned above must be touched on. Realize first of all that not only is this an action picture, but also a bit on the fantastical. Bullets can turn in midair or actually be “thrown” about; completely defying any known physics. This physical barrier-breaking refers to pretty much everything in the movie: cars flipping safely in mid air for traffic evasion, people can jump unrealistic distances and a few other fun surprises. Obviously this requires a certain amount of belief suspension that some people won’t get or care for. But the rules are set up right away and like the Watch series of films, you learn to just go with it and even enjoy it… in fact, enjoy the hell out of it, because it’s a load of fun.
While normally I complain about movies that take too long in their set up, the set-up for Wanted is actually some of its most thrilling and interesting aspects. Checking my watch, I noticed that nearly an hour had passed and Wesley was still only in training mode and the meat of the plot had barely even been glanced at yet. But that’s okay. Not only is the training interesting and even nail-biting at times, it becomes fairly important to the plot and we’re introduced in a deeper way to the many assassins that are a part of the fraternity. We learn a bit more about each one and their importance, rather than them being portrayed as just a bunch of thugs with guns. We also delve a bit deeper into Wesley’s psyche and learn more about the fraternity and what drives them.
Like The Last King of Scotland and Atonement, it’s McAvoy who shows the most talent. While Whitaker was the Oscar winner for Last King, McAvoy was truly the unsung hero. Standing next to big shots Angelina Jolie and Morgan Freeman (and a couple other “surprises”), McAvoy not only holds his own, but show true acting chops and outshines them all. Besides the actiony stunts and usual dramatic moments, McAvoy’s comedic timing throughout was balanced and focussed and kept the audience thoroughly entertained with his Simon Peg-like antics. Yes it’s true that this young lad will most certainly be a highly sought after, A-list actor in the very near future (if he’s not already).
So yes, there’s a fair bit of well timed comedy here. The movie is not played for yucks or farce, but there are just enough chuckle worthy moments to keep the audience engaged and to keep the film a little lighter than one might expect. The office keyboard scene alone is worth the price of admission.
Which brings me to style. No CGI action movies today can compare with the unique style of Timur Bekmambetov. The Wachowskis patented it for their Matrix movies, but soon their gimmick became a tired toy and they were never able to expand it or unleash more of its potential. While you certainly see quite a bit of their influence with Wanted, Bekmambetov makes these effects ideas his own with interesting twists and using them in great locales. He takes what might be a fairly generic chase scene through a bunch of train cars and constantly introduces a new set of circumstances to up the energetic ante and keep the stakes that much more complicated. And oh yeah, it looks great too.
As I mentioned in the opening paragraph: “refreshing.” It’s a great feeling to come out of what would probably be, coming from any other director, a pretty stale actioner and instead look back at a perfect blend of style, substance, comedy, acting and action. Not hokey in the slightest, but a deeper storyline than one might imagine; with possibilities and plenty of food for thought (but not an over abundance that admittedly convoluted his first Night Watch movie). It’s got a different look that doesn’t overindulge with CGI garbage and maybe most importantly makes everything else look fantastic. Pile on the polar opposite of stiff acting (what the summer CGI movies are usually bogged down by and easily prone to) and Wanted is what you get - a film that I am very happy (and relieved) to find will very likely be entering the year end top ten list.
Click “play” to see the trailer:
Links:
IMDb profile
Official Site
Flixster Profile for Wanted
Comment by Andrew James — June 18, 2008
Sadly I think most people out there won’t care about this film.
Comment by swarez — June 19, 2008
Comment by Rusty James — June 19, 2008
But you and everyone else knows that when I use the term, “comic book” movies, I’m generally referring to Marvel/DC super-hero comics (Spiderman, X-Men, Hulk, Iron Man, Fantastic Four, Superman, Batman, etc.). In other words, the same boring movie over and over again to show off how over-used and flat CGI can be when that’s all a film has going for it.
Comment by Andrew James — June 19, 2008
Comment by Marina Antunes — June 19, 2008
What is it like being Timur Bekmambetov? No artist should be confused too closely with his creations, but anybody who sits through “Wanted,” Bekmambetov’s new movie, will be tempted to wonder if the life style of the characters might not reflect or rub off on that of the director. How, for example, does he make a cup of coffee? My best guess, based on the evidence of the film, is that he tosses a handful of beans toward the ceiling, shoots them individually into a fine powder, leaves it hanging in the air, runs downstairs, breaks open a fire hydrant with his head, carefully directs the jet of water through the window of his apartment, sets fire to the building, then stands patiently with his mug amid the blazing ruins to collect the precious percolated drops. Don’t even think about a cappuccino.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — June 26, 2008
Comment by Marina Antunes — June 26, 2008
Even though WANTED is slicker, I’d take his Russian ‘WATCH flicks over this one. Heck, if I had to admit it, I thought “ULTRAVIOLET” was a better film.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — June 27, 2008
The new breed of film-watchers that haven’t seen the below films will think it’s the best thing since sliced cheese. (That’s right I said cheeese!!) .. Fight Club, American Psycho, Shoot ‘em Up, Equilibrium, I suppose ‘The Matrix’ will always get a nod for bullet time too.
Comment by _ram-jaane' — June 27, 2008
Along with There Will Be Blood (yes I count this as 2008 as the only place it was released last year was the US and it was 5 days shy of New Year’s anyway) and 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days, Wanted is my favourite film of 2008 so far.
Comment by Ross Miller — June 27, 2008
(WANTED doesn’t have the loopy love-letter fell that made Doomsday so darn fun or the ah fuck it attitude that Shoot ‘Em Up had, not that Shoot ‘em Up was anything special either…) and all the grit and grime of the ‘WATCH movies are is more or less gone (did I mention that ‘WATCH star the fabulous Konstantin Khabensky is also wasted here…?)
Although to a degree I do see where Bekmambetov was coming from when he said this is his in lieu of his Twilight Watch, the SFX strategy is pretty similar.
Oh, and lastly in comparison to Doomsday, can I also say that I’d have liked to see more of David O’Hara (The corporate/gov’t baddie from Neil Marshall’s film) whose opening salvo of killing started the movie off on the right foot…
Comment by Kurt — June 27, 2008
Yes I did get a vibe from it from all those movies (except for Highlander, which I’ve never seen (be gentle:P)) but I felt like they were paying respects to those movies rather than ripping them off. It brings up a certain fan nostalgia to see references or gets vibes from a brand new movie to older movies that you love.
I didn’t feel like there was a “been there, done that” thing going on at all. I felt a lot of the action sequences, although similar things, certainly, have been done before, were fresh or at least bringing a lesser known/seen, over-the-top style (from his Night/Day Watch flicks) to a wider audience. Hopefully this will encourage people to see those two films.
Wanted is 1000% time better than Doomsday, at least here the director had a focus in mind instead of having random elements scattered all over the place. If anything I thought Doomsday had a been there, done that thing going on more than Wanted had. Wanted had a great mythology and overall styoryline which allowed perfectly for all of this loopy, over-the-top stuff to happen without it feeling ridiculous and lame whereas a lot of Doomsday (and Shoot ‘Em Up, now that you mention it, after it got tiresome after the first hour or so) felt far too…I dunno…random(?).
Comment by Ross Miller — June 27, 2008
Comment by Ross Miller — June 27, 2008
You say that like that is a bad thing. Perhaps that is why I get so much flack around here for liking The Happening or Southland tales? Sometimes out-of-control batshit craziness is just the ticket. It’s certainly what makes me think that Doomsday is 10x the flick that Wanted is….
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — June 27, 2008
Well you have kind of made my comment null and void when you mentioned Southland Tales as a defence. Nice, man, nice:P I appreciated ST for the very reason it was random and scattershot. I guess you could say Donnie Darko is the more “fixed to a narrative” version of Southland Tales (not that ST has ANYTHING on DD:P). I think the difference is that Southland Tales, I feel, didn’t need to be controlled but rather worked better running free. Whereas with an action film like Dommsday (or Wanted for that matter) you need an element of control and sense for it to work.
Comment by Ross Miller — June 27, 2008
But this one is so soulless and brainless (even by popcorn standards) that even 100 minutes seemed a tad too long. In contrast, the ‘Watch flick could have each been an hour longer and I’d have been in heaven…
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — June 27, 2008
Comment by Ross Miller — June 27, 2008
(:P I can’t believe how much we disagree on this matter) I found that Wanted had far more in it than some brainless (and soulless) popcorn summer flick. There is a certain enthusiasm on display here by everyone involved and for me it is leagues above your average blockbuster-ish movie.
Comment by Ross Miller — June 27, 2008
Tomb Raider, Girl-Interrupted, Hackers, and The Good Shepard - ouch those are awful performances…..We’ll see if Mr. Eastwood can get more out of her than DeNiro did.
Timur captures the sass, the pain beneath the surface, and the sexy all at once. I like that she simply accepts what she is with a holy fervor that may be the only honest thing in the whole movie (not that honesty is a requirement, but it was sort of cool that that little bit managed to shine thru in such a weird place…)
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — June 27, 2008
Comment by Ross Miller — June 27, 2008
(I love everything Winterbottom has done, well, expect 9 Songs, see my CODE 46 Finite focus Piece)
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — June 27, 2008
The slow motion “Nooo!” was hilarious, the keyboard scene is worth ten bucks alone. The train sequence looked gnarly as hell. I liked where the story went. The characters were fun. THe whole idea around the training center was great fun.
Iron Man, Hulk, Spider-Man are “been there, done that.” Not Wanted.
Comment by Andrew James — June 27, 2008
Comment by rot — June 27, 2008
The Keyboard scene (although some of it shown in the Redband trailer) is my favourite scene in the entire movie. Leave it to Bekmambetov to come up with a great solution for the ’second u’ . I will concur to the awesomeness of that idea.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — June 27, 2008
Chronicles of Narnia and Wanted are the only two things (beyond trailers for the above mentioned) I’ve seen so far. I don’t like what I see so far.
If the HOBBIT (a silly movie idea to begin with) goes with the rumoured casting of him as Bilbo, I’ll be even more indifferent.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — June 27, 2008
Comment by Andrew James — June 27, 2008
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — June 27, 2008
Reeves is as wooden as they come but when given the right role in the right movie he is “fine” ie. The Matrix. However I submit with maybe the exception of the Bill & Ted movies, A Scanner Darkly sees him in his best role giving his best performance (:P funny how it took an animated style movie for any talent to shine through).
Kurt have you really not seen The Last King of Scotland? Oh man that movie is fantastic, and I think that and Atonement will convince you he has some serious talent. And Whitaker in that movie is PHENOMENAL. It’s almost a shame that he was so good that now McAvoy’s performance get kind of forgotten about.
Comment by Ross Miller — June 27, 2008
Last King of Scotland is one of these, The Last Samurai is another, I usually skip them, regardless of how many awards they so often win…
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — June 27, 2008
Okay I’ll give you The Last Samurai but with The Last King of Scotland I don’t think it’s as guilty of that as some. I think it’s just to give you a contrast to the country the film is set in (Uganda).
Comment by Ross Miller — June 27, 2008
Did you not notice the film was a beat for beat remake of The Matrix? If they weren’t both WB I think there’d be a lawsuit. I like Macavoy but not in this film. It was nice to see Terrence Stamp but I guess, yeah he was wasted. I thought the final act pretty much carried the movie.
But that’s not what I wanted to comment on. Andrew, somehow I missed comment 4, probably because I avoided this thread until I saw the film. I appreciate that you don’t want to be held to every single opinion you’ve ever made in writing. But in fact you refered to comic books as “trashy” in your review of Jumper and that’s why I’ve been giving you a hard time. Since you’ve clarified the statement I’ll leave you alone about it.
I saw Wall-E too. Oh my god the first 30 minutes or so are amazing.
Comment by Rusty James — June 28, 2008
I am so-so on Night Watch and Daywatch, and think they are a lot clumsier than Andrew’s past reviews of them. I actually certainly disagree when Andrew said they were better than the sequels and summer blockbusters put out last year. For all the SPiderman 3 bashing I still think its a hell of a lot better than either of Daywatch or Night Watch.
So if my friends’ and Andrew’s Wanted reviews are naturally following that line, I am guessing for me Wanted will be a 3 or 3.5 out of 5.
Comment by Goon — June 28, 2008
yeah, that’s about right.
Comment by Rusty James — June 28, 2008
McAvoy is the main reason I’m seeing Wanted tomorrow. I genuinely think he’s one of the most charming things going on in movies now.
Comment by Goon — June 28, 2008
Comment by _ram-jaane' — June 28, 2008
:O…………………I am speechless…..
Comment by Ross Miller — June 28, 2008
and i mean. every. single. aspect.
its not shocking, to me its barely opinion. i consider it pretty much a fact
Comment by Goon — June 28, 2008
Comment by Ross Miller — June 28, 2008
What I think of those films is kind of like this: Take a so-so to shitty North American movie, like I am Legend, replace the actors with Russian nobodies and subtitle it, and then make money as a foreign blockbuster. The end result is an ‘underground blockbuster’ that honestly, I think film snobs are more eager to get behind and make apologies for, because they don’t make money or have big studios and overpriced stars in them. I think a lot of people make a lot of sorry sorry excuses for Nightwatch and Daywatch.
Even the soundtrack in Nightwatch and Daywatch is inferior. Vastly inferior in fact. Shitty nu metal riffs galore.
I wont get into my long defense of SM3 again, I’ve done it enough times, however I use peoples reaction to the dance sequence as a litmus test to ones sense of humor. If you dont like that scene, I will never trust that persons opinion on any comedy. ever.
Comment by Goon — June 28, 2008
Comment by Goon — June 28, 2008
better than Night/Daywatch. Seriously. The reason I like those movies in spite of their problems is the director, who is the only one showing any promise. That’s why I look forward to Wanted, I want to see what happens when he gets a more truly professional team surrounding him. That’s what I think will make the difference, because the team around him in Night/Daywatch are frankly, kind of amateurs IMO, who I think a ragtag group of Canadian filmmakers normally assigned to CBC dreck like Little Mosque on the Prairie, could outperform.
Comment by Goon — June 28, 2008
As randomly inserted as they may seem, and again that is part of the weaknesses of both films, they still are imaginative and creative none the less. Take the scene in Day Watch, for example, where the car rides up the side of building before crashing through the window and drives down the hall of the hotel (which, btw, should give you a hint of what to expect from Wanted) - that is more creative than anything in Spiderman 3 and a scene no genuine Hollywood made blockbsuter would even take the risk on having in it.
I agree that people (critics especially) would be a hell of a lot less inclined to defend Night and Day Watch if they were done in America by a Hollywood studio (same with The Host and Casshern as you mentioned). It’s a simple fact on it’s own. But the reason that they pan stuff like Pirates 3 and, yes, Spidey 3 is because they are genuinely worthy of being bashed.
@”I use peoples reaction to the dance sequence as a litmus test to ones sense of humor. If you dont like that scene, I will never trust that persons opinion on any comedy. ever.”
Well looks like you will have to go ahead and do that with me as that was one of the prime examples of why Spidey 3 stunk to high heaven. I couldn’t actually believe that that scene was actually in this near $300 million movie (which, btw, is a disgrace that they would spend so much money on just one movie. Think how many films that they could have made with that money!), even as a deleted scene and simply the very FACT that they even used up valuable, costly tape to film is mindblowing.
@”But the prime example I’d apply it to is a film called Casshern, which had so much hype and everyone telling me its the best blockbuster never released in america.”
I will have to agree with you somewhat on that. I mean I still liked the film but to me it was just a hair’s length over “above-average”. The visuals are simply stunning and there’s a cool sci-fi sotry at it’s core but I thought it was a Hollywood flick dressed up as a more arty film. But I would take it over the American blockbusters that came out last summer (Pirates 3, Fantastic Four 2, Tranformers and….Spiderman 3) any day of the week.
Comment by Ross Miller — June 28, 2008
To me that scene is pure Raimi, played to perfection, excellent performance and execution. top notch. I found a lot of people are so protectionist about Peter Parker, forget that he’s a nerd, were expecting some bad ass killer in the black suit, and think that flipping your hair makes you emo, even if you’re jazzwalking to disco music. Spiderman 3 to me was the ultimate nitpick movie by frankly, fanboy nerds.
“The visuals are simply stunning”
Everything ’stunning’ was in the trailer. Really a lot of the movie looks pretty cheap as a matter of fact. It would be hard for me to take Transformers over it, but of that short list here Fantastic Four 2 is probably better than it. I’m not fully on board with Jay C’s defense of FF movies as kids films, but to me they better acheive what they set to do than Casshern did.
Comment by Goon — June 28, 2008
And yes, I will also apply that point to the Indy 4 whiny reactions.
Comment by Goon — June 28, 2008
Spiderman 1 was nitpicked but forgiven for everything from the fact that wrestling was real, to the Goblin mask design, to the Macy Gray cameo. If the things people didnt like about Spiderman 3 and Spiderman 1 changed sides, you can bet that people would be calling for Raimi’s head for the Gray cameo, for ruining their childhood with the mask design, and for the shot with the flag.
Oh wait, the USA flag shot is in both Spiderman 3 and 1. People who attacked SM3 for having it seemed to forget that they forgave it, or even liked it, the first time. Seriously, I dont think SM3 is better than SM2, but its probably better than the first movie. X3 gets trashed, but its more fun to watch than X-Men 1. I’m telling you, sequels simply bring out the nitpickers who feel betrayed and angry about things they otherwise would have liked before. When the first movie happens they’re just happy someone did a competent job of it. Again, just wait till Iron Man 2 or 3 comes out, where people are now used to seeing the cool tricks and heart blasts, take them for granted, and instead write lengthly angry screeds about how the choice to make War Machine say 12 lines of dialogue instead of 15 is an affront to god.
Comment by Goon — June 28, 2008
Another SM3 thing again, since you attacked the acting. Whats the diff between Dunst in this movie and the others? Nothing. Is she a good actress? not really, but she seemed to be given a pass the first 2 movies for the same performance. again, nitpicking. I heard Campea say once that she’s in it way more than the other 2. lie. just flat out untrue. In fact she’s probably in it less. Diff between Aunt Mae in this and the other 2? none. Diff in Franco in this and the others? Some, because in fact Franco is better. Each one of his shit eating grins is awesome. So what if Venom and Sandman arent as developed as Doc Ock or Goblin I. Big fuckin deal. People expected more simply because of marketing - people have seen harry before, they want to have some promise of some new characters. The real secondary character is Goblin II and has been building there the whole time. The way it was resolved to me, was perfect.
So in summary, I have a defense for jsut about everything in the movie, and the things I don’t to me weren’t important enough to get upset about.
Comment by Goon — June 28, 2008
The perfect point against that scene is the very scene itself, in it’s entirety. It was embarrassing. It was laughable. It was out…of…place. I simply can’t see how you can look at that scene and say “Okay, I can accept that.” To quote Tim Blake Nelson from this year’s Hulk film, “It’s beyond my comprehension.” (:P)
@”Really a lot of the movie [Casshern] looks pretty cheap as a matter of fact.”
Keep two things in mind - they didn’t have a bazillion dollars to make the movie with. I think they did a very impressive job with the no doubt small-ish budget they had. And also I think the look they were going for was accomplished (at least in relation to the budget they had to spend ie. making the best with what they have), perhaps not in the fight scenes but c’mon, for example,; that scene with the guy standing up next to the pole and everything is shrowded in blue/black moonlight. Just astonishing.
@”I really don’t get how Transformers got such a free pass last summer when it has pretty much everything wrong with it everywhere, including having to wait even longer for the main villain to arrive which was a common SM3 complaint.”
Looking back at my own review of Transformers on my website I don’t know what I was thinking with a lot of it. I gave it 3.5/5 and it’s more like 2/5. I guess I was just caught up in the sumemr buzz last year that I tended to forgive or even fail to see balatant flaws. I totally agree with you now about Transformers.
Also I am one of those people that is not really a fan of the first two films in the Spidey franchise. I admit that the second one was the superior of the three but they are overrated as hell.
Dunst is HORRIBLE in ALL THREE of the Spiderman movies. But personally I found how horrible-ness just seemed to be more predominant in the third one. I agree that people are wrong when/if they say that she’s on-screen more in the third as I’d say it’s equal or less but I think the dialogue etc just accentuated how bad she is.
The Sandman was one of the very few redeeming aspects of Spidey 3, the effects of the sand was astonishing. But that’s only because they spent about two thirds of their budget on it so it comes as no surprise. Same as with Transformers - to me the effects in that are pretty much the only good thing about it and it’s an example of special effects in top form but again that’s only because they spent most of the budget on that aspect.
@”So what if Venom and Sandman arent as developed as Doc Ock or Goblin I. Big fuckin deal.”
It IS a big “fuckin” deal. How can they spend tons of money on the first two and yet still mamnage to develop the villains more. With Spidey 3 they pulled a Batman & Robin and tried to cram too much, most noticeably the villains, into the one movie resulting in a complete mess amongst many other very negative things. It physically hurts me to even THINK about Spider-man 3(:P).
Comment by Ross Miller — June 28, 2008
Also goon. There was a point in this Wanted movie where Macaboy gives some pretentious heavy handed speech to his boss for being fat. It made me think about the dancing in S3 and how everyone who complained about it were all fuckers.
Comment by Crusty Lames — June 28, 2008
Comment by Crusty Lames — June 28, 2008
Why? See, you’re not doing anything to help. I justify it in the story as Raimi’s ORIGINAL handling of the Parker Venom suit. People expected some dark Parker that really would rough people up and bark at the moon. Instead all it did was amplify the nerd that Peter Parker actually is. Perker’s handling of his super powers is to become a cheeseball jazz dancer. Now that’s fucking brilliant, and I thought it was hilarious as well. The second Parker starts to move from that stage to the more angsty black suit spidey who sits on top of buildings looking dark and disturbed, he gets rid of the suit.
“Keep two things in mind - they didn’t have a bazillion dollars to make the movie with.”
I can appreciate when something does a lot with a little, but at the same time I look at something and its good or it isn’t. When I hear apologies on the podcast being made for small genre flicks that they dont like big budget movies get away with, I cringe. I don’t care if it was made with less money and gets played at fringe festivals that you love. It’s either good, or it’s not. if you don’t have the money to make full blown effects, find another way around it instead of making shitty effects and expecting people to say “well they only had X budget”.
“Dunst is HORRIBLE in ALL THREE of the Spiderman movies. But personally I found how horrible-ness just seemed to be more predominant in the third one.”
While Dunst isn’t that good, I disagree that she’s outright horrible. I really don’t see what’s so outright bad. Likewise I don’t see what is outright bad about Katie Holmes in Batman Begins, and although I hate Jessica Alba, the way she is attacked in the Fantastic Four movies. Fact is, these female characters in cartoon movies in my opinion are unfairly judged, moreso by comic fanboys. If Jay C shows up he could give an extended lesson movie to movie of how babyish fanboys have been with the female characters.
“The Sandman was one of the very few redeeming aspects of Spidey 3″
The shot of Sandman rising from his pit is more beautiful than anything in Transformers, and unless I remember anything, probably any other summer movie from last year.
I was unimpressed with the Transformers effects. It’s the compositing that was the big deal, not the robots themselves. But Bay went and fucked all that up with his editing, hiding everything behind debris, and making everything look like a pile of steel just rolling around.
“It S a big “fuckin” deal. How can they spend tons of money on the first two and yet still mamnage to develop the villains more.”
I can admit, and Raimi does as well, that Venom was forced into the script. That is one of the things I simply feel isn’t important, because while some fans shit on it because a Venom movie is what they wanted (again - reviewing what they wanted instead of what was there), a movie simply vs. Venom would suck ass because frankly, Venom is shitty character. Sandman was underdeveloped as well, but again, I don’t get upset about it because like i said already, Goblin II is the real villain. It’s blatant through screen time and how the other villains are actually tools to further the main storyline between Peter Harry and Mary Jane. There is a main focus in Spiderman 3. It’s there. It’s right everyones fucking face. The black suit is more important than Venom is , because it effects the relationship of the three of them. Sandman is a test of Parker handling his anger brought on by the suit, which he fails. The two come together for Peter to set right, and Raimi’s script in my opinion, is very original that it turns Goblin II good again to help Peter rather than making the inevitable big facedown between the two of them that another director would have taken. And then when its down to Parker and Sandman, he forgives him. That pissed people off big time, but again - logical to the overall story of this film and its originally done. I swear man, Spidey 3 overcame the challenge of having Venom thrown into the script better than I could have imagined.
But again, people were used to Harry being around as the side character and expected Sandman and Venom to be the focus, and treated them as such instead of actually following what was happening in the story. In my opinion they had blinders on the new people approved by marketing instead of the actual focus of the movie. Can you blame the studio for not marketing the film honestly as Spiderman vs. Goblin featuring Sandman and Venom? Be my guest, but I don’t think Raimi has anything to apolgize for whatsoever.
One more thing I’m gonna raise:
X-Men 3 and Spiderman 3 are pure examples of a big thing I hate about fanboys. When the earlier ones come out they’re like “Ooh i cant wait until they bring in Beast, Gambit, this guy, that guy, etc” - they beg to have their mutant population larger and larger. Then when the studios actually try and please the fans, they get pissed off because Rogue only gets X amount of screen time, and blame the studios for giving them exactly what they asked for. Man, after X3 people were STILL mad that even more mutants werent in it - Wheres Gambit? Why couldnt we get more Nightcrawler and Cyclops? Why couldnt they develop all those evil mutants more?” Jesus fuck there is a downside to that wealth of source material. Fucking fanboys.
Comment by Goon — June 28, 2008
http://host94.hrwebservices.net/~drockwo/blog/2007/05/07/another-spider-man-movie/#more-20
selected quote:
“I’d say it’s ironic that the New Goblin story arc is the heart and sould of this movie and the only part that consistently works. And it’s not just because the Goblin vs. Spider-Man fight scenes are perhaps the best of the series either. The character is just intriguing; he’s charming while dangerous, he presents the most palpable danger to our hero, his fight scenes are the most visceral and there’s a psychological edge to Harry / Goblin’s adversarial relationship to Spider-Man because we’ve got two films worth of history. Franco plays nearly the entire film wearing the same shit-eating, school boy grin that manages to work both as endearing or sociopathic, depending on what the scene calls for.”
Comment by Goon — June 28, 2008
Comment by Crusty Lames — June 28, 2008
Comment by Crusty Lames — June 28, 2008
Yes. Yes it WAS hilarious. But because of how lame and all out bad it was. Even if it was Raimi keeping in tune with how nerdy Peter Parker actually is (in the comics etc) it doesn’t stop it being laughable (in a bad way). Here’s another example to prove my point - when people found out that Galactus from Fantastic Four 2 was going to be a storm cloud there was an outrage, an understandable one. But if the director had stuck to the comic exactly then Galactus would have been a huge man with a purple helmet flying through the universe eating planet’s and that would have looked RIDICULOUS. So even if it works in the comics (the actual physical thing or the feel of it) you have to change it if it doesn’t work in the movie and that dance-walk scene in Spidey 3 was the very definition of something not working in a movie. Again it was so, so bad.
@”if you don’t have the money to make full blown effects, find another way around it instead of making shitty effects and expecting people to say “well they only had X budget”.”
But the effects weren’t shitty. I agree that if you don’t have enough money then find a way around it but only with certain types of movies. Are you saying that they could have made Casshern without any special effects? IMO the effects were very cool, not the greatest but good enough.
@”The shot of Sandman rising from his pit is more beautiful than anything in Transformers”
I will wholeheartedly agree with you %100 on that point. Whenever someone asks me for any examples of something positive about Spidey 3 I ALWAYS describe that scene. It was one of the bright spots of the film, seeing Sandman trying to stand up and then braek down and so on. It’s amazing they were able to get so much emotion from the character across when there’s not an actor in sight.
@”But Bay went and fucked all that up with his editing, hiding everything behind debris, and making everything look like a pile of steel just rolling around.”
I could not agree with you more. The special effects were there but we couldn’t see them for shit flying in the way and the camera being far too close. I just wanted to call up Bay and shout, “You know that zoom out button on the camera? It’s in perfect working order!” :):P
@”simply Spidey vs. Venom would suck ass because frankly, Venom is a shitty character.”
Venom is one of the greatest characters in the Marvel universe. And perhaps one of the coolest looking characters in any comic book series, Marvel or otherwise. They should have had Goblin II and Sandman in the third, then made a fourth and had Spider vs Venom. The latter needs a movie of his own (as the villain) to allow the audience to soak him in, instead of cramming him into the ass-end of the third one.
@”And then when its down to Parker and Sandman, he forgives him. That pissed people off big time, but again - logical to the overall story of this film and its originally done.”
Yes it DID piss people off, including me. It wasn’t the worst element of the film but that scene with Sandman crying and then floating off around the building at the end was laughable. And don’t even get me started on the way they got rid of Venom; I think that was the thing that pissed me off the most.
@”Can you blame the studio for not marketing the film honestly as Spiderman vs. Goblin featuring Sandman and Venom?”
No I can’t blame them, it means more asses on seeats. But it brings it back to the fact that they shouldn’t have had so many villains in it in the goddamn first place then they wouldn’t have had to make the decision to not admit what the film is really about.
I am one of the people who really liked X3. I admit it didn’t have the character depth that the first two had but it’s admittedly the most purely enjoyable of the three. I personally don’t see people’s major problems with that film and why they’re so harsh on it. I admit it had it’s fair share of problems but not the amount and to the extent as it’s reputation suggests.
Comment by Ross Miller — June 28, 2008
Unless you can explain how it’s lame in a bad way and out of place, which I dont think you can do, I’m just going to continue believing its awesome. which it is. your comparison to Galactus doesnt fly with me because you’re comparing a giant metal man to a guy dancing. When the hell did people start taking Spiderman so seriously?
“But the effects weren’t shitty.”
Some are not. A lot are. They took care of the big shots, but the more average stuff they wisp in and out all the time looks like ass.
“Venom is one of the greatest characters in the Marvel universe.”
This is where your Galactus reference becomes relevant. I can take Venom in small doses, but lets be honest. Raimi’s Spiderman is not Venom-friendly. He’s a character that is too dark and evil for the Spiderman world that Raimi is building from. Likewise, Carnage wouldn’t be a good fit in the new Spiderman movies either. Even Rhino would be ricockulous.
“They should have had Goblin II and Sandman in the third, then made a fourth and had Spider vs Venom.”
Again we’re back to should vs. what is. They forced Venom into this movie, it is what it is, and I’m happier with Venom as a minor character than a full on Venom movie. If they do Venom again, it should be in a somewhat revamped Spidey movie with a different director and cast.
“It wasn’t the worst element of the film but that scene with Sandman crying and then floating off around the building at the end was laughable. And don’t even get me started on the way they got rid of Venom; I think that was the thing that pissed me off the most.”
Again, we go back to expectations from marketing as if its all about them and they deserve bigger endings than that. Ultimately, Sandman and Venom are Tokka and Rahzar to Goblin II’s Super Shredder. They are the side dish and that was fine by me.
“No I can’t blame them, it means more asses on seeats.”
Precisely.
But it brings it back to the fact that they shouldn’t have had so many villains in it in the goddamn first place then they wouldn’t have had to make the decision to not admit what the film is really about.”
I may have liked less villains. I don’t know. That film doesn’t exist. Without the black suit something else would have to make Parker a different person to fuck up the Goblin three way dance. I refuse to bash based on a hypothetical.
“I am one of the people who really liked X3. I admit it didn’t have the character depth that the first two had but it’s admittedly the most purely enjoyable of the three. I personally don’t see people’s major problems with that film and why they’re so harsh on it.”
I think the Cyclops and Prof X shock hit a lot of people hard and they didnt accept anything afterward. It actually could have benefited from being a little longer. People didnt like Rogue supposedly losing her powers. But when you look at the script and the idea of a standoff, and the way these characters really are in the movies - 1. Rogue is pretty useless in a battle situation. she doesnt fly. 2. if Mystique had kept her powers she would have been into that facility and have killed that kid a half hour earlier 3. if professor x was in that fight it would have been over right away. time stoppage thanks. I mean seriously, people wanted a final fight, its the largest battle sequence you can do with that many characters, but if certain pieces are on the chessboard, there is no game. knowhutimean?
A friend of mine was just plain pissed at no Nightcrawler return and death of Cyclops. Alan Cumming simply couldnt take the makeup routine anymore and opted out, and Marsden took off with Singer to do the Superman movie. I have no idea why, but that ruined his schedule. Tough shit kids.
I mean theres little things I could go after, and I really do wish I couldve seen a full on sentinel. Id love to see the guy who plays Sawyer on Lost cast as gambit, but oh well. The Wolverine movie is directed by the Tsotsi guy so it should be okay.
Comment by Goon — June 28, 2008
X1 Storm sucks. X2 and X3 Storm is just fine.
Comment by Goon — June 28, 2008
Personally Ross, that’s exactly the audacious visual sort of idea I’d like to see more of in movies, especially in this sort of genre.
I keep hearing how things like giant galactus won’t work in a movie but what are they basing that on? It’s just some arbitrary notion that everyone has settled on. Galactus looks ridiculous in the comics too and people love it.
Comment by Crusty Lames — June 28, 2008
Comment by Goon — June 28, 2008
It keeps coming back to stepping back and looking at the scene itself. I just can’t see how you can’t see how bad that scene is. It’s embaressing. Maybe I can’t give a definitive, dictionary-style definition of why it’s bad but, to me anyway, it just….is. I guess I can’t explain what I feel about it very well. I don’t think it CAN be explained:P.
@”your comparison to Galactus doesnt fly with me because you’re comparing a giant metal man to a guy dancing.”
I am not comparing them as physical things, or ideas or whatever but the principial and point I am making is the same and is valid - things that work in a comic book may not work in a movie version so you shouldn’t have them in there if they don’t.
@”Again we’re back to should vs. what is.”
I am not just saying what SHOULD have been but also what it IS is crap. The fact that they crammed Venom in was a huge mistake on their part and my saying that he should have been in a movie of his own is as a result of what is.
@”If they do Venom again, it should be in a somewhat revamped Spidey movie with a different director and cast.”
I agree that perhaps Venom is a bit too dark for the Spidey world that Raimi created and that under different supervision, with a different cast etc, it would work a lot better but again then they shouldn’t have tried to cram him into the last part of the third movie. Now I realise this was down to pressure from fanboys etc but still…
@”Again, we go back to expectations from marketing as if its all about them and they deserve bigger endings than that.”
So why were they in the movie in the first place if it wasn’t about them? If they have them in there, with significant screentime etc, they need to make them important and give them a satisfying sendoff, whether that be death or whatever.
@”I may have liked less villains. I don’t know. That film doesn’t exist. Without the black suit something else would have to make Parker a different person to fuck up the Goblin three way dance. I refuse to bash based on a hypothetical.”
You can’t always use that as an excuse, that you can’t say something shouldn’t have been done this way or that way etc. Of course as an attack someone (in this case me) is going to say things SHOULD have been a certain way. But okay I’ll go with your way of thinking - does that mean we have to just accept the crap stuff just because “that’s the way it is”? In any movie, not just the discussed Spidey 3?
Anyway Goon hasn’t this little back-and-forth gone on a bit long? I mean it seems we’re never going to find a common ground. So agree to disagree?
Comment by Ross Miller — June 28, 2008
I’m sorry but him as a character, the way he is drawn in the comics would look bloody ridiculous in a movie. Even going along with having him how do you even show that on-screen in relation to the people on earth? They wouldn’t even see anything, just a purple sky. You see?
Comment by Ross Miller — June 28, 2008
Galactus is not that big. But that’s not really the point.
one of my favorite issues of FF is a John Byrne story where the FF meet a giant alien the size of a planet (not Ego, though he’d be cool in a movie too) and it abducts the moon.
Sci-fi used to be all about tackling huge unwieldy absurd concepts like that.
Comment by Crusty Lames — June 28, 2008
“I am not just saying what SHOULD have been but also what it IS is crap. The fact that they crammed Venom in was a huge mistake on their part and my saying that he should have been in a movie of his own is as a result of what is.”
All I can say is from the way you and others describe it to me, at the very least the opinion of what it should be is clouding your opinion of what it is..
“I agree that perhaps Venom is a bit too dark for the Spidey world that Raimi created and that under different supervision, with a different cast etc, it would work a lot better but again then they shouldn’t have tried to cram him into the last part of the third movie.”
I honestly don’t think Venom would work in anything but a drastically different Spidey film. Perhaps a CGI animated version.
“So why were they in the movie in the first place if it wasn’t about them?”
In many good comic movies, the villain is there not just to be defeated or to be explored, but to reveal or push out something about the hero. In SM3’s case we have Parker starting out the movie successful and loved and for the first time everything is going great. The suit amplifies his personality to the point he has to address his own issues all over again. With Sandman its purely about letting Ben go and moving on, which is why the forgiveness thing works for me completely - with Venom is purely about eliminating what causes his crisis in the first place, and the temptation to crawl back into it. But again, they are almost like ’sub bosses’ to the Goblin stuff, however since Goblin turns good by the end people maybe dont realize it.
“You can’t always use that as an excuse, that you can’t say something shouldn’t have been done this way or that way etc. Of course as an attack someone (in this case me) is going to say things SHOULD have been a certain way. But okay I’ll go with your way of thinking - does that mean we have to just accept the crap stuff just because “that’s the way it is”? In any movie, not just the discussed Spidey 3?”
Perhaps I dont explain myself properly. With every movie there’s ways you can suggest to improve it, however in movies where theres so much source material, people jump in with complete 180s, complete revamps of what it should be, and thats a bit much as far as Im concerned. Then we’re getting into annoying fanfic territory. A friend of mine, a successful comic writer actually, after hating X3…
COMPLETELY REWROTE THE SCRIPT and said he ‘fixed it’. It was a completely different movie in every way. I actually yelled at him for doign something so asinine.
“Anyway Goon hasn’t this little back-and-forth gone on a bit long?” Yes, but at least it hasnt devolved into the way things usually end between me and say, Henrik.
Comment by Goon — June 28, 2008
PS - comment #53 is hilarious.
Comment by Andrew James — June 28, 2008
Comment by Rusty James — June 28, 2008
Comment by Goon — June 28, 2008
I like Night/Day watch films for their Russian-ness, it gives them a grit and otherworldliness that makes the ‘cliche’ parts more forgivable for me. I’ll be the first to admit that they both have problems in the narrative department, but I’m curious as to what versions folks have seen of those two films, the Russian (longer) cuts or the American (much shorter). The Russian one is still dodgey in the narrative dept, but much less so then the truncated US versions.
And all the ‘been’-there done that Matrix/Fight-Club/OfficeSpace/Highlander elements of Wanted had me yawning. I like the Third act a lot, but have trouble forgiving the sheer wastitude of Terrance Stamp in the film, I hate when folks get Stamp and have him around only as a glorified cameo. Hell, maybe the guy just wants a few paychecks here and there, I don’t know. He is truly fabulous in THE LIMEY though, perhaps his last major role in a film (??)
Overall, the novel use of special effects is the 90% drawing point of the film. It delivers in that department, but this far into the summer, it is easy to be burned out on visuals; even when they are so well used….
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — June 28, 2008
I hated every fuckin’ minute of that film. And remained baffled that I was the only one in the theatre who wasn’t going nuts for it. Weird.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — June 28, 2008
You obviously weren’t in the theatre with me. I felt the same way, passionately… wholeheartedly.
Comment by Jonathan — June 28, 2008
congradgulations Kurt, you’ve united us all again.
Comment by Rusty James — June 29, 2008
Comment by Ross Miller — June 29, 2008
Comment by Goon — June 29, 2008
Comment by Goon — June 29, 2008
Not really. I’ve stated before that in retrospect, yes the star rating is too high, but if you read that review it’s not exactly a ringing endorsement of Transformers. It pretty much says everything that was said in comment #71 above. Excerpt:
“the movie by and large sucks, that Megan Fox was horrid, that there wasn’t enough bots fighting or personality, etc. I find with the fans they will agree and agree and agree but will end with “…but it was awesome.”
Comment by Andrew James — June 29, 2008
if you changed your mind, fine. But don’t parse some ridiculous distinction.
Comment by Rusty James — June 29, 2008
Comment by Rusty James — June 29, 2008
Comment by Rusty James — June 29, 2008
Comment by Kurt — June 29, 2008
Comment by Rusty James — June 29, 2008
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — June 29, 2008
Well when a film is made by, what was the charming phrase Goon used oh yes “amateurs”, it should cost much less then high priced quality filmmakers like those used on said films.
Comment by Matt Gamble — June 29, 2008
Certain changes were clearly for the better (the notorious 4th Wall Break/Audience Fuck You at the end of the comic makes even Haneke look genteel by comparison), while others do not (reducing the super villain aspect to imperceptable levels).
I must admit I am a bit suprised that turning Welsy Gibson from a being of pure evil into more of a semi-likable douchebag actually kind of works. I’ll credit that to McAvoy, though I don’t think he is capable of playing Wesley any other way.
Also I think Kurt is a bit offbase claiming the Day Watch car driving across a building scene would never appear in a mainstream big budget film. Bekmambetov pretty much one upped that scene with a car flipping onto the side of a bus, then flipping the bus over, only for the car to drive off the bus into the sunset set piece in terms of sheer visual insanity in a mainstream film. And that was before he cranked The Matrix 3rd act up to 11, a scene which itself was already a set piece cranked to 11.
I mean some of the things Bekmambetov depicts onscreen I thought only existed in Mulcahy’s wet dreams.
Comment by Matt Gamble — June 29, 2008
http://moviepatron.com/moviereviews/t/transformers.html
then I guess there’s nothing else I can say and we live in different worlds. I mean other than one paragraph in which I praised the effects, every single paragraph/sentence in the review is pointing out something bad.
But for the last time, I DO regret the 3.5 star rating (should be probably 2 or maybe 2.5 at the very best). But I’m not going to go back and change it.
Comment by Andrew James — June 29, 2008
Comment by Andrew James — June 29, 2008
Comment by Goon — June 29, 2008
and for the last time, it’s fine if you changed your mind. But don’t try to play it off like it never happened. In the podcast about it (i just listened to it at Kurt’s behest) you refered to the movie as “awesome”. It’s fine that you thought that then, it’s fine that you changed your mind, I don’t think you came off poorly in the episode (kurt seems to have re-evaluated his opinion slightly as well). But you can’t have it both ways.
Comment by Rusty James — June 29, 2008
And for the record, though I’m sure I’ve said it before, Spiderman 3 was my favourite of the franchise and all because of the dance and song sequence.
Comment by Marina Antunes — June 30, 2008
Comment by rot — June 30, 2008
Comment by Matt Gamble — June 30, 2008
Really? so you didn’t like the film? I thought it was fine but has no lasting importance, its practically forgotten by me already.
as you are a fellow mixtaper thought I would plug my latest one to you… the music of Wong Kar-Wai reimagined by myself:
http://www.thepaganagenda.com/2008/07/01/the-lost-wong-kar-wai-mixtape/
I admit some failure on this one, usually my mixes are at least ten if not twelve songs… and I looked for months, I couldn’t find what I was looking for. Let me know what I am missing.
Comment by rot — July 1, 2008
And even though they watered down the source considerably, I’m still trying to wrap my head around how they got this film through focus groups. I can’t imagine it tested well at all.
And I look forward to testing out your mix. I certainly like the theme you are using, but I can see why it might pose a challenge.
Comment by Matt Gamble — July 1, 2008
I think your’e giving this film a little too much credit here. Sam Raimi played with frame rates with much greater success in his earlier work, and the whole trend of ramping speeds has been annoyingly overused in just about every action film I can think of in the last 8 years.
Comment by Jay C. — July 1, 2008
Comment by Rusty James — July 1, 2008
Comment by Andrew James — July 1, 2008
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — July 1, 2008
“Yeah but Jay, the way it’s done in other movies is tired. Bekmambetov does it with refreshing flare and in interesting ways and locales.”
That’s subjective, so I can’t really comment on that other than by saying I didn’t really find anything about the film to be refreshing.
Comment by Jay C. — July 1, 2008
What a shitty movie. I mean, it’s shitty the same way Shoot ‘Em Up was kind of shitty. It wanted to be cool and wanted you to relate to the humdrum McAvoy character, but was so distant from everything, and really it was a lot less creative then Night/Daywatch. I found it actually played a lot more conventional and clear than I expected, and because of this, frankly…
the movie is boring. I don’t particularly recall much about it anymore just hours after leaving the theater. Crappy soundtrack, really crappy McAvoy performance - one of the more forced accents I’ve ever heard, extremely shitty use of narration, and its derivitive in the worst way. I couldn’t care less if it ripped off bullet time or the Fight Club angry-regular-joe theme, I really don’t - what I do care about is when you do it so poorly that all i can think of is how superior those other films are beyond their gimmicks and tricks. I find myself not angry the way I can normally get about bad films, but simply tired and woosy for having to sit in a dark theater watching something I didn’t get into for one minute. I might as well have been waiting for a bus out in the hot sun. 0.5/5
Comment by Goon — July 1, 2008
Comment by Ross Miller — July 1, 2008
Really? You can’t think of any films that use the ramping of speeds better than Wanted? I can think of a few:
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
Be Kind Rewind
Three Kings
Fight Club
Boogie Nights
Bringing Out the Dead
Hellboy
Those are just a few off the top of my head.
Frankly, I’m pretty surprised that Matt actually thinks this film is breaking any ground with this effect.
Comment by Jay C. — July 1, 2008
Comment by Rusty James — July 1, 2008
And Good, please. Stop being so melodramatic. The movie isn’t THAT bad. I’d watch this ten times in a row before watching The Incredible Hulk again.
Comment by Andrew James — July 1, 2008
oh.
Comment by Andrew James — July 1, 2008
BUT, I gave it a 2 out of 4 in the same way that I gave The Condemned a pass; because I was laughing the whole way through. In terms of artistry, meh.
As for ramping of speeds…essentially when a shot changes frame rates. So something will go from normal motion, to slow motion, to fast motion all in one shot.
Comment by Jay C. — July 1, 2008
(name change natch) - I’m not sure I’m being melodramatic. Like I said, sometimes you hate a movie, and sometimes something sucks to a point where you don’t really feel any emotion about it, and treat it sucking as if it were an objective fact. That’s the case with me here. You can love it all you want, but I don’t get on any level where the love for this is coming from - I can honestly say its one of the most boring action movies I’ve ever seen, period. In the case of Hulk vs Wanted, I’ll take somewhat boring over completely boring.
Comment by Good — July 1, 2008
Comment by Good — July 1, 2008
And for frameskipping I recommend Braveheart by Mel Gibson.
Comment by Henrik — July 8, 2008