Movies You Should See: The Creative Frustration Of “Chasing Amy”

Movies You Should See is a new weekly series of essays covering movies that aren’t recommended but everyone should see if they are serious about seeing great films. Some of these films you likely heard of, some may have been before your time but can easily be found on physical media or streaming and some are more obscure than they deserve to be. Either way, these are films I feel you very much should see if you are serious about being a viewer of film as both a artform and a important medium. That doesn’t mean there won’t be films on here that aim to be nothing more than entertainment, but the films like that in this series aim to be great entertainment, and not just a time killer on a screen. With the current situation concerning the COVID virus, and my ability to go to the theaters cut short, I will start this series. However, I plan to continue it even after I get vaccinated.

Before Maximax fell apart, way back in the 90s, the studio was a powerhouse of independent films. Maximax discovered a lot of great filmmakers, including such icons as Quentin Tarantino and documentary juggernaut Michael Moore. One of their most iconic discoveries was a guy from New Jersey named Kevin Smith, who made a low budget but ground breaking indie film on a very low budget, called “Clerks” in 1994. A movie anchored by dialogue and mostly one setting, the film evolved around Dante Hicks (Brian O’ Halloran), Randal (Jeff Anderson), their girlfriends, their consumers, and two mysterious drug dealers who hung outside the convenience store they worked at, Jay (Jason Mewes) and Silent Bob (Kevin Smith, himself). The following year in 1995, Smith made a higher budget follow up that was released by a bigger studio, Universal, called “Mallrats”. These movies were tied together by the presence of Jay and Silent Bob and the universe Smith had created of his characters running into each other in the state of New Jersey. The name of Smith’s cinematic universe is called the View Askewniverse. It wasn’t until his third film, however, that people started to see deeper issues than smart slackers and working-class joes talking “Star Wars”, smut and comic books, and that 1997’s “Chasing Amy”, again going back to a release by Miramax.

“Chasing Amy”, like most of Smith’s films during this era, has a unique way of capturing the counterculture of the time. Punk music and comic books were very much considered counterculture in the 90s. It didn’t quite have that mainstream appeal yet that we saw later on. It existed, but it wasn’t quite billion movie franchises or the basis for a whole hit sitcom like “The Big Bang Theory”. However, Smith added an extra element of this kind of culture in this film, which plays a role in the doomed love story. Holden McNeil (Ben Affleck), and his friend, Banky Edwards (Jason Lee), are comic book artists, and best friends, working in a rented space above a record store in New Jersey. The film opens with them at a comic book convention, pushing their publication. While there, they meet up with a friend of theirs, a African American comic book artist named Hooper (Dwight Ewell), who sells his comic books by pushing a fake persona of being a black revolutionary. In reality, he is a gay man who just wants to sell his comic books, and turns off the act when potential readers aren’t around. They also meet a young woman and fellow comic book writer named Alyssa Jones (Joey Lauren Adams) and her partner, as they are pushing their own comic book series at the convention in New York City.

While Holden and Alyssa start to spend more and more time together as friends, with Holden having the knowledge she’s unavailable from the get go, he can’t help but have feelings for her. Now a lesser movie would have not played up the gay angle, and found a more convental reason standing in front of Holden. Smith also adds an extra layer to his movie which plays up with the fact Holden is also in a way, jealous of her history, which is more active than he ever was. It’s a double sword, and they even at some point, do try to be a couple, sorting through confusion of the whole situation. Add to the fact that Banky is showing hints that this whole relationship he is having with her will ruin their friendship. However, there’s also pauses in the film that makes us think Banky feels even more than friendship for Holden. Smith is a really good dialogue writer, and Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel took note of that in their 90s review of the film on their TV show, commenting that Hollywood screenwriters should study this film for a basis of how people talk, instead of the fake way they write people as talking.

 Another thing that is noticed, and Roger Ebert pointed this out in his print review, is this film also shows the major flaw in a lot of standard romantic comedies. The idea that love isn’t a serious business. Ebert says Kevin Smith knows it is. We’ve seen so many romantic comedies with whacky and artificial setups of a guy having things in his way to get the girl of his dreams, but Smith turns that on his head, in two ways. One is the girl isn’t sure of who she’s attracted to, and second, the guy isn’t only confused about her orientation but is also concerned that if she does turn out to be straight, her history will make him not good enough to be with her. This is where Jay and Silent Bob come in. One of the great things about Silent Bob as a character is he often only talks if he has something profound to say, and he and Jay meet up with Holden in a diner, delivering a monologue about how he knew a girl named Amy, and how her experiences led her to want a guy as a person instead of a big past history, but the fact he couldn’t of gotten over that ended up being his problem and not hers, as she was ready to move on herself. Thus, he’s spent his whole life chasing a girl named Amy. This is a pretty head of the curve monologue for a movie in the 90s, which at the time treated romance as more whacky, and guy versus girl type humour. However, this also highlights the importance of independent film as a counterbalance at the time of mainstream film and humour.

Ben Affleck, Jason Lee and Joey Lauren Adams all give funny yet also pained performances in this film. The scene where Holden, Blanky, and Alyssa sit down in his apartment to try to dish this out is a memorable scene, with lots of hints about more complicated emotions than just simply fragile friendships and relationships, blurring the lines. However, in the end, they deal with this the only way they know how. They all make their experiences into comic books, and the fewer words spoken the better. Smith has credited this film with the one that showed he can write more than simply jokes. Smith’s films at times can be a mixed bag, but the best of his films are placed in the 90s, as they define the counterculture of that era, and leave us with great characters along the way who simply knew how to turn their frustration into their medium, just like their creator.

 

Movies You Should See: The Adult Mysteries Of “Hannah and Her Sisters”

Movies You Should See is a new weekly series of essays covering movies that aren’t just recommended but everyone should see if they are serious about seeing great films. Some of these films you likely heard of, some may have been before your time but can easily be found on physical media or streaming and some are more obscure than they deserve to be. Either way, these are films I feel you very much should see if you are serious about being a viewer of film as both an artform and an important medium. That doesn’t mean there won’t be films on here that aim to be nothing more than entertainment, but the films like that in this series aim to be great entertainment, and not just a time killer on a screen. With the current situation concerning the COVID virus, and my ability to go to the theaters cut short, I will start this series. However, I plan to continue it even after I get vaccinated.

Woody Allen is a dying breed of filmmaker. Not only is his work great art, great writing, and memorable stories, based for the most part in reality we can actually recognize, with a romanticized New York City that feels more honest than condescending, but he also made movies for adults. His stories are about adults dealing with adult situations , for an adult audience. We don’t see such maturity in many films anymore and that is a shame.

A good chunk of his best films are examples of real thoughtful films like Husbands and Wives, Annie Hall, Manhattan, Deconstructing Harry and the very underrated Another Women from 1988 starring Gina Davis. These films all deal with mature and thoughtful topics and one of Woody Allen's best examples of this is his 1986 film, Hannah and Her Sisters. 

Hannah and Her Sisters is a noteworthy entry in Woody Allen’s already overwhelmly noteworthy catalogue of works, from the structure of its screenplay to its memorable performances. Hannah and Her Sisters feels more like a good novel than a run of the mill screenplay. It’s structured with many stories, but all come back to a common theme.

Hannah’s name is in the title, but the film revolves around her two husbands, one currently married to and one ex-husband, who are both experiencing crises that have to do with getting older and figuring out what they really want. It also revolves around her sisters, played by Carrie Fisher, Barbara Hershey, and Diane West.

Unlike other films that have a focus on women, Hannah, played by Mia Farrow, isn’t presented as a neurotic woman figuring out her life. There’s no Oprah-like portrayal of a woman having to figure herself out. She’s the normal one. It’s her sisters and her current husband and ex husband who really have all the problems. Hannah herself just seems to want to live her life like any well-adjusted adult would. It’s a refreshing piece of writing to have the women in the title not have the major crisis of age.

Her current husband, Elliot, played by Michael Caine in an Oscar winning performance, is finding himself starting to obsess over Hannah’s younger and more artsy sister, Lee, played by Barbara Hershey. She represents to him a bit of something he doesn’t have. A part of him wants to leave the more stable and mature Hannah. One of the best scenes in the film is the part where Elliot and Lee go to a bookstore in Manhattan and he gives her a book with a poem by E.E. Cummings that he says reminds him of her. When she reads it alone, her narration shows the poem has a ton of feeling, and this poem is a hint to her that he has feelings for her.

In typical Woody Allen fashion, the other half of the movie almost seems like a separate film, as Hannah’s ex-husband, a TV writer named Mickey, played by Allen himself, has an existential crisis when he gets a clean bill of health. He found a lump earlier, and then when the doctor tells him it’s not cancerous, he starts to question what the meaning of life is, figuring out religion and the purposes of if there’s something more. The break up of Hannah and his marriage was his inability to have children, and though they were conceived by IVF, he still doesn’t feel he fulfilled much with his life. 

Woody Allen’s part of the movie brings more comic relief, while Michael Caine’s side brings more of a crisis. Yet, both pose serious questions about getting older and the relationships we have. Yet, there’s a third story in this already stuffed movie about Diane West playing Hannah’s sister, Holly, a former cocaine addict who is trying to settle on a career, but is pulled back into the world of showbiz when she tries to get a role in a play, facing off against a new friend she made who is also a actress. Hannah tries to get her to consider leaving showbiz. Then she writes a script herself that is based on the marriage of Hannah and Lee, which upsets them greatly. In the hands of a lesser writer/director, having some many storylines would make a movie break, and not work as a narrative flow, but in the hands of Woody Allen, that doesn’t happen.

Woody Allen’s Hannah and Her Sisters is a meditation on faith, life, relationships, manhood but most of all, being an adult, on the mysteries of being one in general. Allen conveys adulthood in a way few filmmakers, and writers in general, do today where the adults struggle with growing older and being mature, but still want that goal. His characters are honest with their flaws, but they are also real people trying their best, and having intelligent thoughts about their life, flawed or not, instead of silly moments where we are supposed to laugh at adults being wacky. We often laugh at Woody Allen films but they also make us think, and we are better for having watched them. Hannah and Her Sisters is a great place to start if you don’t really know Woody Allen’s work, as it’s a nice beginners guide to many of his themes.

“Rocketman” Is Not A Bad Biopic, but Still Kind Of Odd

“Rocketman”, which was directed by Dexter Fletcher, who is the true director of “Bohemian Rhapsody” after Bryan Signer dropped out half way through finally gets a musical biography picture he can put his name on. It’s “Rocketman”, a half good, half odd biography movie about the life of Elton John. In some ways, it’s odd to have a biography picture of Elton John, because he’s still active and well, still alive. Elton John, played in an over the top way by Taron Egerton, starts off the film walking in a flamboyant costume towards the audience, in what one would think was him going to perform in a concert. However, the truth is Elton John is in rehab, and he’s sitting with a group of other drug addicts. I’m sure they have stories too, but this is Elton John’s bio pic film and they have to listen to his story.

             What follows is a story that ranges from his childhood to his adulthood. Certain parts of Elton’s life the film really goes into and other parts of his life it condenses. As a kid, he imagines himself conducting a orchestra, even to the point with him as a nerdy looking kid with glasses, he is floating above his bed, holding the wand over a group of musicians. Of course, his reality is much different with a checked out mom and a disinterested dad in the suburbs of England. As his childhood doesn’t go well, he still can mesmerize his mom with his piano playing. He grows into a teenager, who then decides he should change his name from Reginald Dwight, which is his real name. He proclaims to a fellow band member that he is now Elton John. His band member says that’s his name. He responses yeah I know.

               What follows is a pretty typical rise, fall, than rise again of a rock star. He gets older, he struggles with his sexuality, he becomes a drug addict, he has dysfunctional relationships with his mom, his dad, his promoters and everyone else. Awkwardly, songs from Elton John are inserted into the film as the characters break out into them even before they are written in reality. It’s a wink to the audience. There’s a lot of melodrama throughout the film, and at times, it feels like a spoof of biography pictures. Elton John was involved in the making of this film, and sometimes it shows as for everything he does that’s terrible, there’s this sense of look at everything he’s overcome. I’m reminded of the great “Chapelle’s Show” sketch where Dave Chapelle talks about the movie Antwone Fisher, which was made into a 2002 film by Denzel Washington. Fisher actually wrote the screenplay to his own bio pic. Chapelle talks about how I would never be able to write a movie about himself without himself look like the greatest person ever even if it wasn’t true.

               And there are some scenes in “Rocketman” that kind of feel that way. It shows Elton at his best and his worst, yet some of it is kind of laughably ego driven. The biggest example of that is when the childhood version of Elton John shows up in rehab and the lights go out on the other people in the support group, and asks if his childhood self asked if he still wants to be Reginald Dwight anymore. Elton John gives his former self a hug, but not before everyone who doubted him shows up in the room to try to tear him down. He won’t be having any of it, because he’s a survivor. That scene felt more like a spoof of a biography picture, because it felt self congratulatory about the subject of the film, who happens to be the guy the biography picture is about.

               The only person Elton John seems to have a solidly good relationship with is his song writing partner, Bernie Taupin played by Jamie Bell. That relationship was actually very refreshing throughout the film. This wasn’t only Elton John’s songwriter, but he was his best friend, and he was a straight guy. He was never threatened by the fact Elton John was gay, and actually that friendship was nice to see in an era where a lot of people wouldn’t want to work with someone with a gay orientation, and not feel there might be something more there. He even comes to visit him in rehab. I liked that friendship.

               “Rocketman” is a bit of an odd film. However, the movie is okay. I guess you really have to like Elton John to like this film. You might find it inspiring. There was a gay sex scene that was much talked about before the release of this film, but it’s pretty tame. No big deal. This film wasn’t really made for me. I like Elton John’s music, as does most of the world. He has some classics, and this tunes are nice sounding. However, if you really want to get into this film, you really need to like Elton John. Okay, then, I’m okay with that great scene in Cameron Crowe’s 2000 classic “Almost Famous” where the band and groupies sing “Tiny Dancer” on the tour bus. That will do.

“Toy Story 4” is a Weeper, But Is That A Good Thing?

“Toy Story 4” isn’t made for kids. There I said it. I could hear my brother, who I went to see this with, saying oh crap when they give a flash back to the kid from the first three films, Andy, playing with Woody. I remember that well. It was like twenty some years ago. God, do I go to the movies for this? Okay, I need to put aside my feelings and talk about this film as a film. Yet, that is so hard, because this “Toy Story” film more than all the others beats you over the head with this feeling of this being the finale of your childhood. In fact, this is not the movie to introduce your kids to if they are new viewers. It’s kind of odd if you think about it. We are at an place in the movie world where even “Toy Story” is a epic universe. When did that happen?

               So, what’s the story? We start with a flash back to Andy playing with Woody. When the lights go out, the toys come to life, and Andy’s sister is ready to give up one of her toys, Bo Peep (Annie Potts). Woody, voiced by Tom Hanks, is shocked that his relationship is basically coming to an end, but as with all toys, their fate is controlled by the children, not them. Flash forward a number of years, and Woody, Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen) and friends are now owned by a little girl named Bonnie. Woody is concerned by Bonnie starting school, and basically, hides in her backpack. Being fearful, Bonnie creates a new friend out of a spork, and names it Forky. Forky, voiced by Tony Hale, comes to life and becomes a member of the family of toys.

               However, he wants to be trash. He wants to be thrown out and doesn’t know why he is alive. As Bonnie’s mom and dad decide to go on a special RV trip before the big school year starts, Forky keeps trying to escape as the toys come along on the trip. Forky jumps out the window, and keeps trying to make himself trash. However, it’s up to Woody to act as a father figure and teach Forky how to be a toy. This leads to some meta commentary on Woody being a father figure to Forky, which in turn, is how he feels about his first owner Andy. He comments on how wonderful it is to be a toy, and see the things Andy will go off to do. Yet, the twist is, being a toy, he won’t see those things. It’s a interesting commentary on parenthood and getting older, really.

               Buzz Lightyear isn’t given too much to do, as are the other toys. Buzz tries to find his inner voice and follow it. The voice acting between Tom Hanks and Tim Allen are charming as always. Tony Hale isn’t bad either. As Woody gets lost with Forky after he jumps out the window one time too many, he comes upon an antique shop where he meets a doll named Gabby Gabby (Christina Hendricks). At first she’s set up as a villain, than becomes not so much a villain as a toy who just wants her own kid to love. More importantly however, Woody reconnects with Bo Peep who now helps lost toys find homes.

               Meanwhile, Buzz Lightyear meets probably the two most two inspired new creations of this film. The  two new toys are Ducky and Bunny, voiced by Kaye and Peele, who provide something we have never seen before in a Pixar story. Not only are they funny, but they provide of couple cut away gags. When these two stuffed animals talk, they show in cut away gag styles their crazy plans to save the day. There’s a lot going on here, but mostly this is a roller coaster ride for people in their thirties.

               I’ve read some other reviews of this film before I saw it and basically a lot of film critics seem to have personal crisis’s while watching this film. It’s a well made film for sure. The animation, as usual, is beautiful. Yet the ending is a big moment for the Pixar universe, and hints this might be it for the entire story. I won’t give it away. Like “Harry Potter” before it, this is a film series that grew with the viewer. What makes things like “Toy Story” and “Harry Potter” different than “Star Wars” and the Marvel Universe is they don’t have enough characters to go on forever. Also, they aren’t as rebootable. So if this is it, it’s been a fun playtime.

“Tolkien” Isn’t Bad, But Lacks The Magic

Add caption

A lot of creators aren’t their creation. J.R.R. Tolkien wasn’t a wizard, as wizards aren’t real. Maybe I’m spoiled by Peter Jackson’s classic “Lord of the Rings” films, or even going back further, Ralph Bashi’s animated “Lord of the Rings” films. I know a lot of J.R.R. Tolkien’s life evolved around World War I. However, this film overdid it. J.R.R. Tolkien literally flashed back to his entire life in the pit of war torn battle. I don’t know what it’s like to be in war, but it takes a while to get to the writing of Lord of the Rings. He talks about it enough as a project he was working on, but it felt kind of in the background of a romance and a tragic life. As much as this is a bio pic, I wanted a bit more about his creative side, to make this film feel  less heavy handed with everything bad about J.R.R. Tolkien’s life.

               Creative people often have tragic lives. There’s something even weirdly tragic about those who write fantasy. They aren’t just writing stories. They are coming up with something insanely detailed and totally made up. It might draw from their real lives, but it’s masked by a totally made up world. J.K. Rowling, author of “Harry Potter” is a well known manic depressive. J.R.R. Tolkien was haunted by war, his childhood and a love he held onto. Some of this works in the film, yet some of it feels kind of oddly thrown in. For example, there’s a scene where he’s in battle and a CGI dragon randomly shows up and starts to fire. Yes, I get they trying to show his inspiration of “Lord of the Rings” through war, but it doesn’t feel quite like it works.

               Tolkien is played by Nicholas Holt, the kid who’s grown up a ton since the 2000s charmer, “About A Boy”, as J.R.R. Tolkien. The film jumps around from Tolkien as a adult who is trying to romance his childhood flame, Edith Bratt (Lilly James), and his childhood, where he is basically hanging out with a group of other tweens at a Catholic boarding school. As a kid (played by Harry Gilby), he joins a gang of other nerds, who love to talk about literature and other intellectual pursuits. While there, he falls for a fellow orphan, Edith (played as a kid by Mimi Keene). The film is a bit jumpy, going back and forth between his childhood and his adulthood and his war time experiences, and yet, I still wanted to know about how this all influenced Lord of The Rings. As I said, J.R.R. Tolkien talks about it, yet we are rarely shown moments of inspiration.

               Tolkien, one of the most important authors of the 20^th century, is given a straight forward bio pic, and in this case, it might of benefitted by being less of one. We are offered glimpses of inspiration like when Tolkien and Lily sneak into the back of a play they couldn’t afford to see and act like a scene which might have been out of “Lord of the Rings”. However, nothing is really given enough weight. We keep going back to him in a fox hole in War World I, and Tolkien also goes on a journey for a childhood friend he wants to believe is alive, Geoffrey Bache (Anthony Boil).

               Then there’s some things the film didn’t talk about nearly enough. We get glimpses of the influence Catholicism had on Tolkien, for better or worse, but not really enough. We also don’t get to see one of the most interesting parts of his later life, his friendship with C.S. Lewis, who wrote the “Narnia” books. I guess I’m nitpicking a bit, but there’s been a ton of books written on Tolkien, who wrote one of the best pieces of fiction ever.

               There’s nothing wrong with the performances, and Nicholas Holt is quite good. I also enjoyed his friendship with a eccentric professor later in the film. When Tolkien and professor Wright (Derek Jacobi) are walking through the woods, I could see a bit of how Lord of the Rings came to be. He was a linguistics professor and the scene of the trees with sun coming through them gave me vibes “Lord of the Rings”.

               Look, I might be unfair trying to make this film less of a bio pic, as so much of Tolkien’s life was influenced by his events to become “Lord of the Rings”. Just doing a straight up bio pic of his life with brief mentions of a fantasy world isn’t enough. I need to know what inspired him more than the horror. I also want to know about the wonder. I remember reading an essay by Tolkien in an old paperback of “Lord of the Rings”, with him moaning that hippies missed the point of his books. I think they probably did, but you can’t ignore what messages Tolkien sent out of hope and good over greed, and a simple bio pic wasn’t enough to convey that.

“Detective Pikachu”? Who’s Idea Was This?

“Detective Pikachu” was an odd idea for a film to start with. It was a 2016 video game, and I don’t think it was one of the more iconic of the games. It was for the Nintendo 3D3, and it was basically a cute little game which put a new spin on Pokemon, but considering how many games of Pokemon there are, it wasn’t an iconic one. It was a cute little game in a big list of them. So, considering how Hollywood is running out of ideas, they grabbed it and made it a multimillion dollar movie. The film is a bit mixed in its results. The trailer looked delightfully bonkers, and compared to the disaster of the trailer for the Sonic The Hedgehog movie, it looked like a good time. To a more seasoned film buff, it looked like “Blade Runner” for kids, and that itself is a blast of an idea. So, what’s the premise of this one? Tim Goodman (Justice Smith)  is 21 year old insurance adjuster, which compared to your usual main character, Ash, a plucky kid who wants to train Pokemon, is already kind of boring. His father dies and leaves him his apartment in Rhyme City, a city where people and Pokemon live side by side. A colorful place with cute critters and people.

               Never being close with his dad, he walks into the apartment, to be greeted by a yellow little creature with a lightening tail. It’s the iconic Pikachu. Except, this time he can talk! Voiced with the usual sarcastic voice by Ryan Reynolds, Pikachu is overjoyed that he can be heard. He’s not convinced that Tim’s dad is dead, and he knows this because he found a hat with Tim’s dad’s name on it. They walk into Rhyme City,  which as I said, looks like the city from “Blade Runner” and in a kids film, that’s pretty cool. Ryan Reynolds is a delight, as usual. Reynolds really found the role he was meant to play in the “Deadpool” movies. Now he brings the same energy to Pikachu. Say what you want about Ryan Reynolds, but the guy has brought a new energy to being a voice actor. He do not see him through the suit of Deadpool or Pikachu, but he know his voice. His voice more than even his actual presence is becoming an iconic one for the movies.

               The movie goes through the motions, as Tim and Pikachu team up, and their chemistry is fair enough. They are kind of like a kid friendly version of Mark Wahlberg and Seth MacFarlane’s vulgar teddy bear in “Ted”. They also team up with a young reporter named Lucy (Kathlyn Newton). She’s cute, and is the obvious love interest yet independent and I wouldn’t say fierce, but definitely gets some points for trying. They end up going on an adventure, where they meet other Pokemon, come in contact with Mewtwo, who is a genetically created Pokemon. They come together to solve the mystery and try to figure out the bigger conspiracy.

               The movie is harmless, and even kind of creative at times. As I said earlier, “Detective Pikachu” was an odd choice for a big budget adaptation because the video game seemed like an obscure entry in the “Pokémon” cannon. Yet I give them credit for trying to give this a new angle. The movie is directed by Rob Letterman, who’s last movie was the far superior kids flick “Goosebumps”, once again based on a nostalgic property. I will give Letterman credit as he’s trying to make creative kids films with a new spin based on older stuff. It’s not easy to do. However, “Goosebumps” pulled it off and I remember thinking that film gave it a lot more thought than it probably deserved. “Goosebumps” also had a ton of humor and twists. I was surprised I was surprised as a twist in a freaking “Goosebumps” movies.

               However, “Detective Pikachu” is a fun enough film, and though the middle chase scene goes on way too long, it has some charm. Yet, though, a part of me wonders if they made a film with a teenager Ash re-meeting the Pokemon from his childhood and going on an adventure, maybe this would have been more fun? Then again, do I really want adults weeping at a Pokemon film like they did when I saw “Toy Story 4”? Nope. Gotta catch them all, am I right? I give this film some credit. It wasn’t the best film, but it was fun enough, and I guess sometimes that’s all a movie should be. Oh, and somehow work Ash into the squeal, please.

“Spider-Man: Far From Home” Isn’t Far From Fun

It took a while for Marvel and Columbia Pictures to get the “Spider-Man” franchise right. First they had three films in the classic Toby McGuire led films, in the early 2000s, then they rebooted it randomly with Andrew Garfield in two films directed by “500 Days of Summer” director Marc Webb. Now they have the Tom Holland led reboot, which started with “Spiderman: Homecoming” in 2017. While I would argue that the Toby McGuire films are still the best, with “Spiderman 2” in 2004 being one of the best superhero pictures ever made, directed brilliantly by Sam Raimi. Yet, there’s still something charming about director Jon Watts’s version of the “Spiderman” movies. With a boost by the absolutely brilliant “Spiderman: Into The Spiderverse”, which won best animated picture at the Oscars, Columbia has proven that they aren’t ready to give up Spiderman to the now Disney owned Marvel Studios just yet.

               Tom Holland is wonderful as Spiderman. He does a great job portraying what makes Spiderman so charming. Spiderman is more Peter Parker than he is the superhero, Spiderman. That’s what always made Spiderman so different than the other superheroes in either the Marvel or DC universes. Holland is dough eyed, and looks like a young kid. However, the biggest change in this version of the “Spiderman” movies wasn’t so much that the characters come off more like John Hughes teenagers, or that Peter Parker is still a charming screw up, but some of the things that the new “Spider-Man” leaves out, and I like to talk about it before I talk about this film. One is Aunt May is more young and well, attractive, for lack of a better word. Marisa Tomei is fine as Aunt May, but have you ever visualized Aunt May that way? Another is the back story isn’t shown. It’s briefly mentioned in “Spider-Man: Homecoming”. I mean, Peter mentions he was bitten by a spider like it wasn’t a big deal.

               Also there’s the absence of Uncle Ben, who never says one of the most famous lines in the history of comic book and even would say, western pop culture history. Anyone who has read the comics knows that Uncle Ben told Peter Parker that with great power comes great responsibility. Never mentioned, nor is Uncle Ben ever mentioned. Odd. So, in this version, Peter Parker isn’t doing this Spider Man in memory of his father figure, Uncle Ben. He’s doing it to impress Iron Man, or Tony Stark, played by Robert Downy Jr. I know this is a long recap of “Spiderman: Homecoming” in a review of “Spiderman: Far From Home”, which is the squeal, but Marvel movies and comics are interconnected, and we need to talk about this. Now that I’m out of breath giving a overly long nerd rant, lets get to the review of “Spiderman: Homecoming”.

               We pick up right after “Avengers: Endgame”, where the events of that film heavily lie on this film. Peter Parker, fresh off his last adventure, where everyone has re-appeared after Thaos, the villain in the Avengers film, made everyone disappear and reappear. Some have reappeared as themselves, while others have reappeared older than their former selves. Poor Peter Parker, that nerd who just wants to impress MJ (Zendaya), who is now a Daria like goth girl, as opposed to the girl next door we know from the comics and older films. However, this isn’t a bad thing. It’s fresh. I can see the girl next door trope feeling a bit outdated, and there’s even a scene where MJ makes fun of this trope, after Peter tells her she is pretty.

               Well, Peter has some competition for MJ, as a new boy Brad (Remy Hill) has gone from little boy to new hot high school guy all the girls are after. He aged through the events of “Avengers: End Game”. However, at least Peter has his best friend, Ned (Jacob Batalon), who is a good new edition to the Marvel universe. Ned, named after a character who appeared as a supporting character in the Marvel Comics in the 1960s as a reporter at the Daily Bugle, is a overweight nerd. One of the best qualities I like about Ned is his total joy at being best friends with Spiderman. Even the danger that comes with this position makes him even happier. He could be anyone in the audience watching a Marvel film. He’s a nerd who finds this awesome.

               However, things go sour for Peter as their class trip to Europe begins. Peter just wants to be a kid, and have a fun time. He is already shocked at his aunt seeming to have a thing with Happy (Jon Fareau), who himself is reeling from the death of Tony Stark, AKA, Iron Man. He was his best friend and assistant. As Peter tries to make his vacation fun, it’s interrupted by two main friends and foes. Nick Fury (Samuel L Jackson) who needs Peter Parker to suit up and take on a monster attacking Europe. While the monster is attacking Europe, a new hero, or so we are led to believe, Mysterio appears and appears to be going after the bad guy. Mysterio is played by Jake Gyallenhaal with the nice guy persona Jake Gyallenhaal is so good at playing. However, something does seem a bit off about him, and even in the trailer, and if you haven’t read the comics, you can figure out something isn’t quite right.

               The death of Tony Stark hangs heavily after the film. Tony Stark was a major figure in the comics, but with the major success of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, he becomes even more iconic that he ever was before. A large part of that is due to the off the wall and surprise deep performances Robert Downy Jr has given this character over the years. We see that from the beginning of the film where the high school does a cheesy video tribute to him to the part where Peter talks to Happy.

               Something that is different about this film from every “Spider-Man” film is we really get into Spiderman’s head in this one, with a villain who really messes with his mind. Peter Parker, as I said, isn’t really Spider-Man. He’s really more of that insecure teenager from Queens. He is a bit lost with the death of Tony Stark, and the second phase of the Marvel cinematic universe, which this film introduces. Not only is Peter Parker lost without Tony Stark, but he is torn between being a normal kid and being something more. Peter always turned down being an Avenger, and opted to be your friendly neighborhood Spiderman.

               The visuals of Europe are nice enough in this film. There’s even a scene in the Netherlands which was basically put in there to have Spiderman stand in a rose garden. It’s a nice shot. However, one of the things that this film nails is how powerless Peter Parker feels having the double whammy of responsibility to fighting the bad guys and just being a kid. The last film fought with these themes too, but this even more so. The villain is a master at illusion, and thus really screws with Peter’s insecurities by creating tricks.

               This all leads up to a shock of an ending, and really sets the stage for the next chapter in the Marvel cinematic universe. Comic books and comic book films are always setting the next chapters, as they are really just never ending stories. Marvel movies are a blast, and Spiderman is my favorite of the Marvel characters. These Spiderman movies are fun. Yes, “Black Panther” film making wise, is still the best movie Marvel has ever made. Some say that “Avengers: End Game” might be nominated for best picture at the Oscars this year, but right now, it’s just “Black Panther”. However, what “Spiderman” movies and comics have that is special is sharing that screw up mentality with it’s own audience. A lot of comic book fans are screw ups, and Spider Man is there right along with them.