There is a new Spider-Man movie coming out perhaps you’ve heard


If films are the modern day myths and legends and highest forms of storytelling, then the same stories are probably going to be passed down year by year, generation by generation. Especially if there’s already some source material. Whether it’s super heroes like Spidey or Supes or Batman, or something going so far back as Robin Hood. How many damn different versions of Robin Hood are there? We all know the basic outline of the Robin Hood tale. It’s been told many different ways. It’s been extended upon in episodic form, it’s been traced to its purest possible historical origins, it’s been altered, parodied, etc., etc. But I guess since it’s not a geeky franchise not that many people will bitch about it. Nevermind, I guess a lot of people bitched about the 2010 Ridley Scott version of Robin Hood. Can’t please everybody.


Superman, not unlike Jesus, died for our sins, and was resurrected after defeating his cyborg doppleganger.


The Amazing Spider-Man seems to be telling Peter Parker’s origin story once more, which was already portrayed in the 2002 film by Sam Raimi which for some people feels like last Thursday. It looks to be a little different than before, seems darker, more serious in tone, and will probably add a little bit more regarding Peter Parker’s parents. We’ve just seen the teaser. This could occupy 15 minutes of the movie, or it could occupy 45. I don’t know. We’ll have to wait and see.



I understand why people aren’t being won over too easily by the notion of rebooting a franchise whose dead body isn’t even cold yet. Yes, it feels a little too early. And when you compare it to the Batman series’ reboot, it doesn’t feel as necessary. Batman’s origin was not part of any movie. In Tim Burton’s 1989 version, Batman already existed, ready to fight crime. Nolan’s films started from the beginning in every sense and gave the story the darker edge it deserved.


The 2002 Spider-Man film was…okay. I never thought it was all that great. The only thing I thought it did very well was the origin, which it nailed perfectly. They took their time with it and set up everything we needed to know about Peter Parker, his gift, and his curse as Spider-Man. When it came to the second half of the movie, though, I don’t know. It failed to deliver. Willem Dafoe was born to play a comic book villain, and Norman Osborne was a perfect role for him. But despite pulling off a good job he was given very little to work with. The action and situations were pretty generic, even by comic book standards, and the design of that Green Goblin suit- dear God, it was fucking dreadful. Really. What the fuck?



But it set up the groundwork and made way for the second film, which some regard as one of the best comic book films ever made, and others who say it’s pretty much on par with 1 and 3. You can put me in the former category of people. I think it is one of the best comic book movies ever. Why? I don’t know for sure exactly why, but maybe it’s just because it’s actually¬†about¬†something. It’s not just formula. It’s not obligations. We have the standard stuff, like mad scientist and experiments going wrong and becoming evil and putting the city in danger and OF COURSE taking the girlfriend hostage. But I think it was less fantastical elements that really struck a chord: the average kid trying to survive, dealing with school and part time jobs and unrequited love, and all that super hero crap getting in the way of his life, seriously struggling with whether or not he should embrace his powers. It didn’t constrict itself to a basic formula, it roamed free and let us observe Peter a little bit. So many people bring up the fact that it was completely pointless that they had a scene where he eats cake with his landlord’s daughter. Well, why the hell not?


Then we had Spider-Man 3 and the series imploded into itself and instead of gracefully steadying after the fumble they just went back to the drawing board and went for the reboot.


Am I really going to have watch Peter get bitten by a radioactive Spider again? Am I really going to have to see Uncle Ben die again? Is it really going to be yet another science experiment going wrong and a genius becomes a monster? So be it, that’s comic books for ya. If it’s good, then it’s good. And if it’s good, it would be downright moronic of me to complain. It’s not as if it erases what I liked about Raimi’s films. And hello, Denis Leary FFS.




But yeah looks like they may be going for gritty and realistc much like Batman. I GUESS. I mean, I don’t know for sure. I’ll bet there’ll be a good amount of humour in it. But again it will just follow the origin story. It will have all the obligations and it will follow them and it will try to keep within a fairly reality-based environment. As great as Nolan’s Batman films are, they may actually be a bad influence. Come on, gritty is nice, but I want to see Spider-Man fight giant fucking robots and explore alternate dimensions or some other crazy comic book shit like that. There’s more to Marvel’s Sci-Fi than simply “SCIENCE GONE AWRY!”


That’s what I actually liked about this year’s Thor. It was Sci-fi fantasy to the max. Space vikings. Ice creatures. Travels through time and space. Oh, and hey- giant fucking robots. Neat-o.


But since film is still a fairly new medium (at least compared to those paper things with words on em) then I’m sure we’ll have dozens of different incarnations down the road, well beyond our lifetime, provided the world doesn’t end 6 months after the films release, and the film series will be classified by their eras, and certain people will like certain series better- just like with the comics. I hope within my lifetime though, I get to see Spider-man fight a Spider Slayer Robot on the big screen.


Anyway, I guess the whole point of this rant is, doesn’t The Dark Knight Rises look awesome!?











A Nightmare On Elm Street (2010) Review

Like it or not, A Nightmare On Elm Street 2010 speaks to a new generation. This is a sad generation of repression and apparent Attention Deficit Disorder, with sad, stupid parents, who would rather pump their kids full of pills than confront any issues head-on, and would rather burn an alleged pedophile to death than, you know, even think about calling the police or anything like that. It’s a stupid movie about stupid people, and I couldn’t have possibly cared any less what happened to any of them.

We learn that this Freddy Krueger fellow was a gardener who lived in the basement at a preschool (as most gardeners do), and he may or may not have molested the kids. Spoiler alert: he did. Surprised? The parents tracked him down and burned him to death without any evidence or police involvement whatsoever, they somehow got away with it scott-free, and as the years went by, the kids not only forgot all about Krueger, but also forgot they even knew each other. As we all know, repressed memories can come back to haunt you in terrible ways, and this case is about as bad as it gets because Freddy Krueger comes back as a ghost or something with the ability to kill them in their dreams for some reason. I suppose he wants revenge. His plan is to pick off all the kids that he molested in the past. Does he enjoy it, does he get some kind of satisfaction out of it? What does he do in his off-time? What will he do once his mission is complete? I haven’t the foggiest idea.

There’s a lot of problems with this movie. Mainly with the script, which is desperately adapted from Wes Craven’s original (ahem) HORROR MASTERPIECE of the same name. Strange, arbitrary changes are made to the Freddy character which immediately strip him of any mystique (an impressive misstep when you think about it, it usually takes about 3 or 4 sequels to do that), key moments from the original are reassembled out of context and make little sense and feel forced (God forbid they’d try to come up with their own iconic imagery), and the dialogue is so full of exposition, it would have Bond villains shaking their heads in disbelief.

There’s very little I liked about A Nightmare On Elm Street 2010, though I did like Jackie Earle Haley as Freddy, and when you get right down to it, the only reason you’re seeing a ‘Nightmare’ film is for Freddy anyway, and an interesting plot with likable characters would probably only serve as a bonus, so, in that respect, they got the job done with the casting of Haley alone. I’m not the kind of person who would whine that Robert Englund is the only person who should play Freddy, though I know he planted the flag and he will always be the best, but he and Wes Craven helped create a character that became much bigger than the actors who portray him, so I couldn’t think of a better choice than Haley to temporarily fill the shoes. He does a great job as Freddy. He very obviously put a lot of effort and respect into the role; it’s apparent every second that he’s on the screen. It’s just too bad the movie was lousy.

There’s always the temptation to get a little nostalgic when it comes to all these remakes, but I’m not a purist, I was actually very excited about this movie but was ultimately let down. I can remember sitting there in that dark theater, trying to convince myself that what I was viewing was really good. I lost that battle. It wasn’t good. Remake or not, sometimes a bad movie is just a bad movie. The original 1984 film was limited by its budget, so maybe the special effects don’t hold up spectacularly well by today’s standards, but you could tell the movie had heart. Wes Craven made a film that delved much deeper than the average slasher flick. Surely the concept of dreams wasn’t just an interesting gimmick for new ways to kill teenagers: they were used as an arena where the dreamer is left completely alone, forced to explore and confront their deepest fears. Here we have the polished 2010 update, with all the money in the world a film with such imagination could hope for, and it’s really just content to pop up and yell, “boo!” How disappointing.


A Nightmare on Elm Street, coming soon

On April 30th, Freddy Krueger joins the remake club.

Yes, that’s right! In just ONE MONTH, the remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street comes out. I never thought I’d see the day that I was actually looking forward to a remake, but I have to admit, I’m pretty excited about this one. There hasn’t been a Freddy movie in nearly a decade (2003’s Freddy Vs. Jason), and man, I am stoked.

I wonder if there’ll be a midnight screening. You know, where a bunch of fans get together, some even dressed up, and treat the movie like it’s a hockey game. Yeah, Robert Englund isn’t back as Freddy, but the legendary character survives and I have a feeling Jackie Earle Haley will do a great job filling his shoes.

I’m currently going through all the Nightmare on Elm Street movies on DVD, having a little bit of a marathon to tide myself over…and I’m hoping to put up a video review of them on Youtube. Everybody does those little video reviews on Youtube, and there are some good ones out there, but it’s just something I’ve never felt the need to do until now.

My hope is to do one long review of the entire series, but it may take a while. Fingers crossed I will have it ready in a week or so.¬† I’m writing up little bits on all the films so I actually have something prepared to say instead of just making it up on the spot. And I hate videos like that because it’s mostly just explaining the plot…explaining the plot…”um”…”um”…”uh”….”uh”….etc.

I’m in the middle of writing thoughts on part 5 so I should be ready soon. Stay tuned.