Film Review - The Amazing Spiderman

"Spider-man, Spider-man, friendly neighborhood spider-man, spins a web, anytime, catches thieves, just like flies, watch out! Here comes the Spider-man"...And in The Amazing Spider-man that's exactly what he does.

It's only been ten years since the 2002 release of Sam Raimi's Spider-man so the immediate question that sprang to mind when they announced this remake was "Is it too early?" and now that I have watched the film I have my answer. Although it seems pointless that a remake of Spider-man has been created rather than an entirely new film, I must say, The Amazing Spider-man delivers something that the 2002 version never did; style. 

The story for The Amazing Spider-man follows suit of the 2002 version almost perfectly. With only a few differences (Lizard instead of Green Goblin, Gwen Stacey instead of Mary-Jane) it is almost impossible to tell the two films apart. However, I believe that Marc Webb (how coincidental) has created a better spider-man than Sam Raimi. My reason for this is simple, Marc Webb's portrayal of Peter Parker is more accurate than that of Sam Raimi. I always remember Spider-man as a cocky, arrogant and loveable teen who has snappy one-liners and sarcastic comments that squeeze a laugh out of almost everybody. It is this version of Spider-man that I see in Andrew Garfield rather than the wining Tobey Maguire. I especially enjoyed the scene just after Peter Parker has been bitten by the radioactive spider and a montage of Parker destroying things and getting used to his powers plays out. Smashing Alarm clocks, squeezing an entire tube of toothpaste in one gentle push and flinching accidentally from his "spidey-sense" all come together to produce some funny moments. However, that isn't to say the new film completely out swings the old one.

I'm a fan of Rhys Ifans, don't get me wrong, but the Lizard just isn't that scary compared to the green goblin. Raimi's Spider-man managed to create a connection between Spider-man and his foe, the Green Goblin, that this film just does not re-create. There's almost the feeling that Spider-man couldn't care less about stopping the Lizard, and would rather just swing around the city "woohooing" at any opportunity. Include the fact the action scenes are few and far between and you start to feel that the film is more about Parker than Spider-man. This isn't a bad thing, as I said, Garfield plays a great Parker, but it's an action film, I was really expecting a few more explosions.

Emma Stone is great as the female counterpart. I much prefer her over Kirsten Dunst, who also seems to mirror Tobey Maguire's misery in their portrayal of their characters. I found myself caring a lot more about the relationship between Parker and Gwen Stacey than I did for Parker and Mary-Jane. Maybe it's just because I find Emma Stone a whole lot more attractive, I guess I shouldn't be so bias. As mentioned earlier, The Amazing Spider-man somehow seems more stylish than the 2002 version. It might be the updated CGI, character portrayal and direction that creates this. However, I feel it isn't more stylish because these things have been updated, but it's more stylish because these aspects blend together so well. Certain elements of the film don't stick out individually, they all mold together to create one final, cool product. I feel it is this that gives this re-imagining a stylish feeling that the other spider-man just never achieved. Take some CGI of a man swinging through a city, add a swarve teen and throw in some fantastic camera angles that don't confuse the shot and you have The Amazing Spider-man wrapped up in it's cool, stylish package.

In conclusion I enjoyed The Amazing Spider-man, but to answer my previous question, Yes, It probably was a little bit to early to remake the first Spider-man. I mean if this film came out in another ten years, it would be even better. I wouldn't be drawing so many parallels between the two films, and I would have just enjoyed it for what it was. But with Raimi's version still lingering in the back of the mind, it's hard not to make the comparison and judge the differences, especially when the time gap between the two films is so small. All in all I would recommend The Amazing Spider-man solely for Garfield's fantastic portrayal. With the next film due out in 2014 all I can hope is next time, Spider-man spins a stronger web. 

Film Review - John Carter

 

"No good movie is too long and no bad movie is short enough" - Roger Ebert

People should stick to what they are good at. I am a strong believer in that. If you're a ballerina, don't try wrestling, chances are, you might get yourself destroyed. I feel this goes the same for the movie industry. Let's take Disney for example. They create exceptional pieces of animation. The Lion King, Snow White & The Seven Dwarfs and Tarzan are examples of the sheer brilliance that leaks out of Disney at times. So when it comes to creating films Disney should stick to their animation genius. Enter John Carter. A live action film made by Disney, based on a book, about a man that gets zapped to Mars. Disney have quite a few live action films under their belt, but I'm not a massive fan of most them. I found their adaptation of Prince of Persia was rather poor, so I was wondering how John Carter would shape up. Read on to find out. 

Let me just start by saying John Carter isn't the worst film of all time. I read some reviews that destroy the film. Some rating it 2/10, which I think is quite harsh. John Carter isn't good at all. I feel it was one of the most disappointing films I have ever seen, but that isn't to say that the film doesn't have its strong points. I'll talk about all the bad stuff first, that means we can leave the post on a positive note. 

John Carter has a weak story, and that is it's biggest downfall. The film stars John Carter, a 30 something year old man, who we first see in the rainy streets of New York, sending some mail to who we soon find out is his nephew. Upon his Nephew's arrival to his manor, he hears the sad news that his uncle, John Carter, has suddenly passed away. When the reading of the will commences, his nephew, Ned, finds that all of John's property has been left to him, including his unread journal. When Ned begins to read his journal we are transported to the middle of the 18th century when John is on the run from the civil war, and simply trying to find gold. From here John takes part in a series of complications with the south side which sees him end up in a cave where he runs into a mysterious man that has appeared in the cave from thin air. After a brief fight John is transported to Mars and then the real story begins. The story is basically a civil war, but on Mars. Two cities fighting for control of the planet, which the resident's of Mars call Barsoum. Carter is thrown into the mix, but on neither side. He is found by a tribe of aliens who keep him as a pet. But then after that he becomes one of them, but then he is exiled, but then he is their saviour. It's this kind of nonsensical story telling that creates confusion and a sense of emptiness with the audience. The story is simply too huge. If the story was concise and focused on a subject it would be brilliant, but it's trying to cover too many bases, with too little effort.

I wont go on about the story line too much. You should know that whilst the story line is confusing you, so is the script. The language of the planet is used in context very often. City names, People's names and even Religious acts. The fact that the audience is given name after name in such a quick fire way, it becomes hard to create any connection between the characters, places and people. Again, everything becomes confusing, and the only real connection I found I could make was to John. The one character who doesn't have any confusion about him. Simply a man that wants to get back home. Actually, come to think of it, John as a character is quite complex. He has a back story that is slowly revealed to the audience, and a man who is full of pain, which is shown through his anger and hate towards war. He becomes a lone warrior who simply wants nothing to do with the planet's problems  and the audience find out why in a scene which is actually the best in the film. Cleverly shot in terms of camera angles, camera distance and cutting. The scene which reveals John's tragic past is actually quite brilliant.

The CGI and special effects in John Carter are fantastic. The fact the film had a huge budget is evident in the presentation. The film is sharp, the colours are bright and beautiful and everything just looks nice. Even from the giant white apes, to the smallest boulder of the planet. Most of the scenery is quite dull, being set on mars there is always a desert scenery, but that makes all the colours, if anything, stand out more when they do appear. You appreciate the moments of blue, red and green which pierce the screen. It's just a shame that these colours only appear in the action scenes, and the action scenes themselves are few and far between. 

white apes of mars.

John Carter could have been so much more. It's a shame really. The film was directed well, acted well, and the CGI was amazing, but it was just the story of the film and the script that is in a bigger mess than a student house. The fact that some elements, like the script, are not given much attention, creates a distance between the story and the audience. Some things are mentioned once, then brought up again hours later, doing nothing but confusing the audience. I would of actually preferred that the film would be split into separate films to allow for more elaboration on the points and themes, and if anything some of the Mar's language that is used. It would of also been nice if the 3D effect was dropped, as it's rather unnoticeable throughout the film. That would of saved Disney some money. The film is apparently set to be one of the biggest flops of all time, which is actually a shame as it does have it's strong points (click here to read more). I wouldn't recommend John Carter if you have another film you want to see in mind, but if you have nothing else to do, and there's a 2D version playing at a cinema near you, then it might be worth, giving it a chance.

Album Review - Dry The River

Shallow Bed has more biblical references than Ned Flanders on sunday.

"I pray for your health, and I tell myself, it's the chambers and the valves that pump the sentiment around, but I swallow the words, and I close my mouth" - Dry The River

If you have read my 'Take A Chance On: Dry The River' post then you will know that Dry The River are already in a good position, in my opinion, for this review. I have genuinely fallen in love with this band from the get go because of the tracks they have released through their singles and E.P's. With the release of the album on the horizon, I was in a little bit of a nervous disposition. Would the Album deliver like the singles? Or had Dry The River released their best stuff early to set us all up for disappointment. 

Well, thankfully, my fears were laid to rest immediately when 'Shallow Bed' played through my headphones. The album was a complete joy to listen to and so far, since it's release, I haven't played anything else. It's mix of slow and upbeat tracks, biblical and sentimental lyrics and luscious rhythm and orchestral sounds completely took my breath away. Dry The River have struck gold with their debut album and capture your attention from the very first note. 

Track Listing:

1. Animal Skins
2. New Ceremony
3. Shield Your Eyes
4. History Book
5. The Chambers & The Valves
6. Demons
7. Bible Belt
8. No Rest
9. Shaker Hymns
10. Lion's Den
11. Weights & Measures
12. Family

The album starts with an upbeat three tracks. Animal Skins, New Ceremony and Shield Your Eyes start off with such a beautiful and energetic start, you almost wonder if it's worth listening to the rest. (It is, I assure you). New Ceremony in particular demonstrates Pete Liddle's incredible vocal range as he starts off with a slow wispy voice, to belting out notes that would blow a roof off a church. The Album, after working up your appetite, soon calms you down with the more mellow songs such as History Book, Demons and Bible Belt. Which show the bands ability to craft beautiful melodies and intuitive sentences. The blend of folk-rock instruments mixed with biblical sounds and orchestral influence creates an innocent and powerful melody that the band portrays differently in each song. The lyrics nestle in your head, whilst the large sounds run through your blood as you tap them out subconsciously. The band hold your attention with their simplicity in making the beautiful sound seem as delicate as snow flakes. You simply feel like the music flows right through you. 

Shallow Bed, at it's core, is a folk-rock album that manages to capture the attention of all that listen to it. For a debut album, Dry The River have really managed to make something thoughtful and fantastic. The songs seem patient and un-rushed, as if the band really thought about what they were doing, rather than just being eager to produce an album, which is refreshing to see. I have high hopes for Dry The River, I'm off to see them in Nottingham in April, and I'm sure I'll write something about the performance soon after. But I feel I could be watching them perform in a church, organist at the ready, let alone a small dark room. Yet there's something about the band that leads you to believe they would fit right in to both scenarios. Dry The River are one of those bands that you are always going to want to come back to, simply because, you realise, as you you listen to their songs, they are much more beautiful than the last time you listened to them. 

'Shallow Bed' is available now on iTunes for £6.99

Take A Chance On: Dry The River

"Music is ... A higher revelation than all Wisdom & Philosophy" - Ludwig Van Beethoven

There's something very satisfying about finding a new band. It almost becomes your best kept secret, something you do not wish to share with others. However, In this technologically advanced age, the secret becomes harder to keep. Places like Facebook and Youtube create a medium for bands, a stage if you will, to get their foot in the door. It was this way that I discovered Dry The River, and let me say, I'm glad I did. I know that this band are going to be huge, and if you take once chance, on one band this year, please let it be Dry The River, they will simply blow you out of the water, or the river, if you will.

So far, Dry The River have released two singles, "No Rest" and "The Chambers & The Valves", and one four track E.P titled "Weights & Measures". They are due to release their album on March 5th 2012, and I can seriously say I am waiting with bated breathe. If the remaining tracks on the album are anything like the ones they have previously released, I would safely bet my entire life savings on the album being phenomenal. Have a listen yourself:

As you can guess, Dry The River's sound is pretty unique. It is Incredibly gutsy and full of heart. Their lyrics are fantastic, and the lead singer belts out some massive notes, especially in "Weights & Measures". The melodic rhythm somehow blends a slow stillness with a fast upbeat pace, and the result is beautiful. There is something so mesmerising about Dry The River the songs seem to penetrate the soul and relish in the heart. I first listened to the "Weights & Measures E.P" and from there, bought the "No Rest" single. When "Chambers & The Valves" was released the other day, I was over the moon at the sound that played through the headphones.  Their music is almost angelic, something I could easily imagine filling a church.

I'm going to be buying tickets to see this band live in Nottingham, because I know this might be their only small tour. I could see this band selling out Arenas, and I hope they do. I can imagine they'd put on a hell of a show. Believe me when I say Dry The River don't waste time making an impression. They hit you hard and fast, and their music will be something to remember. It'll definitely be something that I'll be listening to, for years to come. 

I'll be reviewing the album on 5th March, when I know I'll be in complete awe at it's brilliance. 

Vault #1 - Trains

"Time goes faster the more hollow it is. Lives with no meaning go straight past you, like trains that don’t stop at your station." - Carlos Ruiz Zafon

I must admit, this idea might be a slight re-imagining of another. Basically, Room 101 is on the television and it got me thinking, what would I put in Room 101? What things annoy me in life more than other things? Which stuff coherently manages to frustrate me to the point where I want to scream at the top of my lungs? Well I've decided to make a segment on my blog, titled "Vault", where I can write about all the things in life that annoy me, and the first to make it's appearance in the "Vault" are Trains.


First of all, I should say that not all trains annoy me. I mean some trains are highly reliable, competent and do the job. It's just a shame that none of these trains seem to be in this country. That's right, England, I feel, has the worst train service in the world. Sure, I've only caught the train in a handful of countries, but in those countries, everything was handled so much more fluently and efficiently. I spent three months in Japan and in those three months I probably used thousands of trains, not one of them was late, or cancelled. It amazed me because in England, this is most likely the case when you catch a train.


There are reasons beyond that of lateness to be annoyed. The overpricing of tickets is another issue I feel that is overlooked. I wouldn't mind paying so much to go to London, but sometimes the service is so dire I feel like crying.  Trying to get as much as a smile from the ticket attendants is like trying to draw blood from a stone. Sometimes there is so much misery in the staff, I wonder how they got into a public service job in the first place. Add to this the over crowding. Some of these trains, the Leicester to Birmingham one for example, are so rammed I'm constantly being rubbed by strangers, and no, that is not a good thing. I mean, the company knows the train is busy in the morning so why more carriages aren't added is an idea that I cannot get my head around.


I am sure there are reasons to why some of these things are not remedied. Maybe it's to do with financing, but when ticket prices rise each year, and the only difference you see is a fresh coat of paint on a station's stair case, well, you start to wonder what it is you are paying for. Sure I've moaned a lot, but I guess there are things to be grateful for in trains. They are the fastest means of travel. The country is also becoming more and more accessible, meaning you can usually get from one place to the other via a train. Also, it beats driving where you have a lot more idiots on the road. I guess what I am getting at is there are positives, and we shouldn't forget those when we decide to have a moan about something. But unfortunately, there are too many small "fixable" issues with our rail service that leave most of us wondering, "why the hell don't we just walk? we'd probably get there quicker"

Review - The Woman In Black

"Give them pleasure. The same pleasure they have when they wake up from a nightmare." - Alfred Hitchcock

I finally got around to watching The Woman In Black and I was genuinely quite pleased with it. First of all, I was shocked that the film was rated a 12A. I know if I was twelve, and I was watching that film, well, I might not have left the cinema screen with my heart still beating. I found the film to be horrific in every sense. Dark, scary, and taking every opportunity to scare the audience where possible. At one point I even let out an audible "yelp", which I'm certain the entire cinema screen heard. I wasn't embarrassed however, the film was genuinely scary, to the point where I even struggled with sleeping last night, well, a little bit anyway. 

The film has all the ingredients that make up a classic horror film. Tormented main character with a troubled past. Village in the middle of nowhere, where the villagers refuse to speak to the newcomer. Scary house on the marsh that seems to creak and moan at every turn. Chuck in a lot of darkness, night time scenes and a scary woman dressed in black and, you've guess it, you have The Woman In Black. However, what appears on the surface, isn't all the film has to offer, there are issues of troubled relationships, skepticism and even a little love & loss. 

The Woman In Black is based on the novel of the same name by Susan Hill. The book has seen a few adaptations ranging from a TV film, to even a stage show, that if anything made the book as popular as it is today. This film, the newest adaptation, varies a little from the book and the stage shows in terms of content and material, but just because it steers away from the book's story does not make it any less brilliant. The film starts with Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliffe) leaving London to visit a small village where it is his job to deal with an estate that has been left by a woman that recently passed away. Arthur soon learns on his arrival that no one really wants to talk about the 'House on the Marsh' and are trying to usher Arthur out of the village before he has a chance to delve into it's history. As Arthur starts to unravel the mystery behind the house things start to darken as the appearance of the Woman in Black becomes more frequent, and more accidents throughout the village start to occur.

The Woman in Black herself, is terrifying. She always appears off at a distance, and because she hangs in the shadows, she only seems visible when she moves. Like a camouflaged demon, waiting to scare the hell out of the audience in such a calm way. There's something disturbing about a motionless woman, whose facial features aren't quite clear, staring at the main character, un-moving. It is quite horrible. Daniel Radcliffe plays the lead role very well, and I must admit, I never thought, "that's Harry Potter" whilst I watched Radcliffe throughout the film, well, I didn't think it often. There are moments when you feel for Kipps who, thanks to Radcliffe, is visibly scared throughout a lot of scenes.  The other thing that this film has stored in it's arsenal are wind-up toys. There are a few scenes where the toys just randomly spring into life, and they look horrible. There's something very eerie about a still room, no sound, nothing...then. BANG! A monkey toy starts shacking maracas. Rather horrible. 

Where the film let's itself down is the cast. Frankly the Woman in Black and Arthur Kipps are the only two characters that are any good. The other characters are your generic, stereotypical horror film rolls of demented ex-mothers,angry village folk and skeptical, stubborn gentlemen. There's a feeling of "fake-ness" to the rest of the characters, like the village is nothing more than a cardboard cut out- and the house on the marsh is the only real place in the scene. Also sometimes the story get's lost in translation, there's a lot of mystery surrounding the village's past and particularly what happened to the Woman In Black. They kind of clarify things in one-scene, and it almost feels like they rushed the meaning behind things, just so they can have more time to scare you, which I guess is always an issue with horror films.

The Woman In Black is one of the best horror films I have seen in a while.  It's a 12A and it scared me more than some 15 and 18 horror films I can think of. It's full on, and has a nice pace to it, that starts off slow, but leaves you praying for the finish towards the end. Daniel Radcliffe prevails as a lead character, and if anything, the flatness of the other characters only strengthen's his role. The Woman In Black, like I said earlier, has all the classic ingredients for horror film success, and the film delivers scares by the bucket full. Be warned however, The Woman In Black, has nothing to do with Men In Black, and if you go into the film expecting to see some slick-talking Will Smith, you might be left a little disappointed.