The Writer's Poke

What is interesting to me is how little time passed between franchises. The Amazing Spider-Man came out in 2012, just five years after Spider-Man 3. (Even less time would pass between The Amazing Spider-Man 2 and Spider-Man Homecoming -- 3 years). My impression is that it would make sense to allow more time to pass between franchises, or as a viewer, I'm naturally going to compare one franchise with the other. Now, since I'm watching them on DVD, I'm basically watching all the Spider-Man franchises back-to-back-to-back, but still...  This franchise does a few things differently. We have the backstory of Petere's parents, which is nice. Peter himself still comes off as pretty nerdy, but Andrew Garfield isn't quite as geeky as Tobey Maguire. You can at least imagine that he has a chance with Gwen (Emma Stone).  Since it's the first movie in the series, we go through the origin story (again). We watch him make his first suit (again) and learn how to shoot his webs ...

A busy movie. We have three villains this time, as well as Peter (Tobey Maguire) dabbling with the Venom himself.  Peter as Venom. What can I say? They make him look emo. He's basically the Spider-Man version of Chris Gaines. Is there any way to make Tobey Maguire look cool? Doubtful. The weird thing is, most of New York realizes he's a douche when he looks emo, but for some reason when he goes to the club with Gwen (Bryce Dallas Howard), the people there seem to like him.  What kills this franchise for me? Well, no, I don't like the casting. Maguire is 30 years old in this film. They are still painting him to be dweeby. Even in college, the guy behind him is hitting him with spit wads. And Kirsten Dunst. Not a fan of her as Mary Jane, but I also don't like this Mary Jane. It's tough to like a movie when you find the main characters -- and/or the actors portraying them -- to be annoying.  The whole relationship between Peter and Mary Jane is beyond annoying. Have th...

Sometimes you re-watch a movie and think, "That one holds up." It's a weird idea: That something can be "good" at the time but maybe less good later. Can a movie really depreciate over time, like a car? Is it normal for movie depreciation to happen, and what causes it to happen? In the case of Spider-Man 2, for example, it's the second movie in the first Spider-Man franchise. A 2026-viewer will naturally compare the movies from the first franchise against the movies from the second and third Spider-Man franchises. Any viewer will also compare a sequel or the continuation of the story against the movie that came before it.  When I was re-watching Spider-Man 2, I found myself more interested in assessing it against Spider-Man (2002), a movie that I had some questions about -- one being: Why are Harry (James Franco) and Peter (Tobey Maguire) friends? Unfortunately, Spider-Man 2 simply assumes they are. It does nothing to strengthen the case. Peter is still work...

Maybe the oddest relationship to think about in this movie is the friendship between Peter (Tobey Maguire) and Harry Osburn (James Franco). What exactly makes them friends?  I guess I'm wondering this because they come from two different social classes, and they haven't exactly known each other for that long. Peter isn't the most popular kid in school, and yet here he is hanging around a rich kid who probably would have his pick of friends -- both because of his background, but also because of his looks.  Peter and Harry end up being roommates, which is convenient for the movie's plot, but how much does an apartment in New York run, and is Peter actually paying half the rent?  In terms of "friend values," why does Harry think it's okay to date Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst)? He must know it's not okay, as he keeps dating Mary Jane a secret from Peter. Only when he knows Peter knows does he offer the cop out: "Well, you weren't making a move." ...

I recently watched A Chorus Line (1985), and maybe I put off watching All That Jazz because I thought it might be the same sort of story. Not at all. Yes, Joe Gideon (Roy Scheider) is a Broadway director, and there is a little bit about that and his work with dancers and putting on a show. But there's a lot more about him and his race toward death. Much of the movie is the "delusions" he experiences. I'm not sure "delusions" is the right word. Maybe what we get is Joe experiencing his life flashing before him, plus the "bonus content" that his brain creates while he's lying in his hospital bed. Not sure how to explain it. Suffice it to say, Joe smokes too much, womanizes too much, works too much. His daily routine is to shower, take his meds, put eye drops in his eyes, and yell "It's Showtime!" into the bathroom mirror. Except for the womanizing, he doesn't come off as a bad guy, really. He has a daughter and seems to be a goo...

Maybe I'm the only one, but I'm currently watching Natalie Wood films, and so I re-watched this one not for James Dean, but for Natalie.  The timeline bothers me. This is a lot to happen in a 24-hour period. If Jim's family just moved to this new location, how does the house already look like they've lived there forever? If this is Jim's (James Dean) first day at school, has he already given Plato (Sal Mineo) his address? For that matter, how exactly did the bad boys know that Jim and Plato and Judy (Natalie Wood) were at the old, abandoned mansion? Anyway, I'd like the timeline to expand a little. Let's see the relationship between Jim and Plato grow. Let's give Judy a chance to move from the "bad kids" to Jim's side. And so on.  Let's unpack the stuff that's implied. I know it's a 1950s movie, but I need some help understanding what's really going on with Judy and her father. I read that it's an "Elektra complex,...