Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021)

I rarely write about movies that have just come out, but Spider-Man: No Way Home just calls for me to discuss it. Be warned, this entry contains spoilers.

Having found almost every single post-Covid MCU entry underwhelming, I am happy to report that No Way Home is a splendid return to form for the Disney-owned cinematic franchise. The thing is that it is far from perfect, but almost all the big swings taken by it knocked it out of the park, and I was able to go along for the ride in the third Jon Watts-helmed Spider-Man movie.

Let's start with my gripes, which to be honest are quite a few.

My first issue is Peter Parker 's dependency on other characters. Despite the death of his mentor Tony Stark in Endgame, Spider-Man still relies on other superheroes, two entries later. I was hoping that he would be able to have his own adventure in his latest movie, but another major player is still featured in this movie; Doctor Strange, whose magical shenanigans drive the plot of this movie. I understand the producers inserting Iron Man in Homecoming in order to lure the fans by leveraging the popularity of the character that had made it all happen for MCU, but Spider-Man is a character that is more memorable for his solo arcs in the comic book source material.

My second complaint is on the recklessness displayed by Peter and Doctor Strange are in this movie, by toying around with dangerous spells. Character-wise, I kind of understand that Peter is just a teenager looking for an easy out from his woes, but Stephen is so blasé about the whole thing that it's almost out of character for him.

But these two objections that I have are quickly overwhelmed by the positives, of which there are many. What can I say? Again, massive spoilers contained in this entry! Many characters from previous cinematic Spider-Man adaptations featured in this movie, courtesy of Strange's magic, tying them up in the same 'multiverse'. The second act introduced Sam Raimi-era's Doctor Octopus, Sandman and Norman Osborne aka the Green Goblin, as well as Lizard and Electro from the Marc Webb-helmed adaptations. (Coincidentally, Raimi is directing the Doctor Strange sequel which is set to be released next year).

The third act meanwhile is when the big boys come out to play. The two previous Spider-Men (Spider-Mans?) make their entrances, portrayed by none other than Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield themselves, as they too have been transported into the Tom Holland Spider-Man's universe.

But to be honest, I sort of had already known about these characters' appearances in the movie, so the cameo that got me hyped up the most is of Charlie Cox's, as yes, Matt Murdock aka Daredevil himself. I had not come across any substantial rumours about his appearance, so seeing him at the beginning of the movie as Peter's lawyer was such a huge surprise. This also means that the Marvel series that made Netflix their home such as the Punisher and Jessica Jones are part of the MCU.

However, it takes more to make a good movie than just cameos and surprise appearances, and all the actors portraying the superheroes and supervillains bring their A game. Alfred Molina relishes every second of his return as Doctor Octopus after 17 years, while Jamie Foxx got to put a more delightfully devilish spin on his Electro, this time a more confident version antagonist who is unwilling to part with the sinister power that he has come to possess.

But the one who steals the show has got to be Willem Dafoe and his portrayal of Green Goblin. Norman initially misleads Holland's Spider-Man by painting himself as a tortured, confused villain, but later on reveals his deception in a terrifyingly deadly manner. Dafoe does not hold anything back when Goblin sheds his façade, and it is clear that the experienced actor had a terrific time returning as the character he first played all the way back in 2002.

But of course the biggest reveal in No Way Home is the Spider-Men themselves, with Maguire and Garfield reprising their previous takes on the web-head. It's a testament to how good the movie is, that amidst all these show-stealing performances, Garfield still manages to delight with his portrayal of a more neurotic Peter. He makes it evident that the problem with his earlier two Spidey movies lies not with the performances, but with subpar plot and the lack of a strong vision.

Maguire's performance may be a little subdued as compared to the two younger Peters, but it is the correct depiction as he is a more mature and calm version of the character we last saw in 2007. His is a Spider-Man who has made peace with his hardships, and even managed to carve out some semblance of balance, while imparting the wisdom of a big brother to the younger two other Peters.

Holland's Peter remains the naïve, wide-eyed character whose problems he take on are at the edge of his abilities, but in his third solo outing he has been allowed to show more of his depth and range as an actor, especially in the final act.

Although I am not a big fan of the decision to bring Doctor Strange into this movie, it's not because of I don't enjoy this character. His inclusion does bring over one of the aspects that I enjoy immensely in his solo movie; the mind-bending spectacles. MCU movies' overreliance on CGI is a fair target of criticism in my opinion, but the freaky reality-warping powers he possesses and displays are one of the most gorgeous and artistic work in the franchise, and they are taken to even crazier heights in No Way Home, in the chase scene involving the two superheroes. I wish the studio would put more thoughts into making their CGI effects more visually stylistic in their coming movies.

I'm not a big nerd, but for me this movie did fan-service better, that these moments are more impactful here than even in the really strong Avengers: Endgame. Perhaps because No Way Home characters have been around on screen and in pop culture for longer, seeing them again in the movie made the movie not just an enjoyable experience, but also a nostalgic one. It works on an emotional level too.

But most crucially, I rate this movie highly because of something that we rarely see in these MCU movies; impactful consequences. On top of a major character's death, it ends with Peter being literally forgotten by everyone who had known him, including his friends and his Avenger acquaintances. He's literally all alone in the world and he has no big brother Iron Man or Doctor Strange to back him up anymore. More than simply as an interesting plot point, this plot decision will allow him to be portrayed in his next 'solo' movies more closely to his original comic book depiction, a down on his luck young man who is always trying to do good using the powers he has, despite the setbacks in his private life. I mean, only in the third Holland appearance as the character, Spidey was already flying off to space and socking it to Thanos. It's kind of weird that it takes three solo movies for us to get the more authentic Spider-Man, but better late than never I guess.

Ultimately, No Way Home is a return to rip-roaring form for MCU post-Covid, after their underwhelming Black Widow, Shang Chi and Eternals, as well as their television releases. Where will they take the character next? Will Marvel Studios and Kevin Feige continue to helm it, or will Sony take over once again, to feature him with their Venom and Morbius cinematic interpretations?

My VERDICT: 9/10

TRIVIA: I read somewhere that Maguire's Spider-Man was supposed to die at the end after being stabbed by Green Goblin at first, but they reshot the scene so that he survives it. I can't say I enjoyed the jokey way he was able to brush off the attack, but ultimately I think him surviving was the right call. It's just too cruel and a little superfluous, considering that a major character has already died earlier.

Face/Off (1997) needs a TV series remake

The view that Hollywood has been cynically reliant on adaptations, remakes and retellings of prior intellectual properties (IP) in recent decade is not without merit, and to a certain extent I agree with this. But some time ago I finally decided to watch John Woo's Face/Off (1997), and I've come away from it feeling that this action flicks is ripe for a television series adaptation.

Don't get me wrong. I can't even say I enjoyed the movie. It's just...ok, despite the critical accolades and financial success it picked up over two decades ago, I suppose? Maybe I would have enjoyed it more had I watched it when it first came out. It's a balls-out, bonkers action movie, but I could never be sure whether the action sequences were played out straight or ironically.

Anyway, I'm not saying that Face/Off needs a TV remake because the movie is good. No, it's actually because there are several acts of the movie lends itself well to being retold as a thriller series.

As a brief recap, the plot revolves around arch nemeses FBI agent Sean Archer and sociopathic career criminal Castor Troy, who swap their faces using a high-tech transplant. Nicholas Cage plays Troy and Archer-as-Troy, while John Travolta stars as Archer and Troy-as-Archer.

A part of the first act has Archer-as-Troy disguising himself as a prison convict in order to trick Troy's brother and lackey Pollux into giving up information on an imminent bombing attack. Unfortunately I don't remember much about the plot points (I didn't enjoy the movie that much, mind you), but I recall that Archer had to utilise subterfuge in order to trick Pollux into revealing the locations of the bomb. Furthermore, I found the whole prison sequence to be a little short; he was in there for what felt like only days, when I feel realistically it should have taken him weeks or months.

The second act is also ripe for adaptation. While Archer manages to leave the prison, Troy-as-Archer also succeeds in infiltrating Archer's work and family lives, which means more deceitful shenanigans. Troy still has to work to allay Archer's wife Eve's aspersions, while winning over his superior in order to maintain his after-hours criminal activities. And at the same time, Archer is trying to return to his family and somehow convince Eve that he is the real thing, while having the appearance of her husband's mortal enemy.

I think there is also another plotline from the movie that is fit for adaptation as part of a thriller series, but for the life of me I can't recall it any longer, and I have no plan to rewatch it.

Extend the prison sequences into one season, the movie's second act into the next two, then add the plotline which I've forgotten, and boom, you've got a four-ten-episode-season Amazon Prime thriller series. If they were able to stretch The Hobbit into three movies and The Handmaid's Tale into five seasons (so far), why not Face/Off? God, I hate Elizabeth Moss's stupid face so, so much.

I'll take my proposer's fee in the form of Mars colony shares, Bezos!

Surviving the Blip, succumbing to Covid: MCU in 2021

Say what you want about the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) movies, but I find them thoroughly enjoyable piece of entertainment. Sure, they are by no means peak art by most definitions and are oftentimes formulaic, but the best of them are breezy, pulpy, character-driven power fantasy that feature highly-likable protagonists and snappy dialogue, and at their worst, they are a half-decent CGI-fest that tie up well to the larger lore in the franchise, which the fans are already familiar with.

Not simply satisfied with their success on the silver screen, MCU head honcho Kevin Feige then decided to bring a few of their characters to television, obviously as part of the strategy to market the new Disney+ streaming service. While shows such as WandaVision, The Falcon and the Winter Soldier (FAWS) and Loki had originally been slated for 2020 premiere dates, the worldwide Covid-19 pandemic in the end delayed them by one year.

It's also worth noting that although there have been other shows that were nominally made under the MCU banner using Marvel comic book properties such as Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D and Netflix's Daredevil and Jessica Jones, in recent years they have increasingly been considered non-canon or not part of the official lore, although Feige himself has been reluctant to clarify the matter outright. But I digress.

With the MCU coming at a crossroads, story-wise, due to the conclusion of its Infinity saga arc in 2019, only to be followed by a year-long absence of any release due to the pandemic, understandably the hype was huge in 2021. Fans, me included, want to know the future direction of the franchise.

Unfortunately, all the MCU releases this year have been misses for me.

I'm not going into specific details on why I haven't enjoyed Wandavision, FAWS and Loki, but they all share the same problem; the shows are all essentially movies that have been stretched thin to turn them into television shows.

From my observation, each episode of these MCU shows, which may run between 30 and 40 minutes minus the recap, intro and end credits, has only 10 minutes of plot points that are 'crucial' to the story. The rest is fluff. So how do they pad the running times? By having the characters engage in lengthy conversations that don't really serve the plot.

MCU movies are good at utlilising slower-paced exchanges between the characters to either let the plot breathe between set-pieces, or as character development, but the dialogue in the shows are simply ponderous, unnecessary interludes to the more important scenes.

The longer running times have also made it harder for me to suspend my disbelief, and I believe that I am not alone in noticing this. The believability of the flicks mostly hinge on the fact that they are not dissimilar to good magic tricks; sleights of hand that are performed just slowly enough to wow the audience, but still quickly enough that the spectators don't start noticing the secret compartment in the magician's wand. With the shows paced rather slowly and their sleights sloppy, I've been noticing more plot holes and inconsistencies in the characterisations. For example, who is Falcon and Winter Soldier's superior? Is it the army? SHIELD? The United Nations? Why do they seem to abandon their mission towards the end of the series? And what the hell is that speech in the final episode?

Sad to say, the shows are all stinkers for me, and that they are merely a marketing tool to sell Disney+ subscriptions (the fact that each episode of the show is released weekly instead of Netflix's method of releasing all episodes at the same time seems to corroborate this).

Even with the disappointing shows, I had thought that at least I still had the Black Widow movie to look forward to, which as a film, presents an MCU story in a medium that suits it the best. Surely it would be enjoyable.

Wrong again. 

Although it is a film, I find that it makes the same mistakes that the three shows above make. Too little going on, uneven pacing, banal dialogue and protracted running time, on top of the odd story and characterisation choices. Towards the end of the thriller, I was not even able to enjoy the CGI action sequence.

Perhaps the whole Infinity saga arc of the MCU franchise is lightning in a bottle, and coming up with enjoyable, financially successful action-fantasy movies that are also marginally believable is much harder than we've been made to believe.

Or alternatively, maybe Covid-19 is too strong, even for the mighty heroes who once survived and then overturned the Blip, and my fondness for brisk, colourful popcorn entertainment has been tainted forever by living through a global pandemic in one of the worst-hit countries.

Or maybe, just maybe, my taste in film has grown as a mature man to the extent that I can no longer enjoy a genre whose source material was originally aimed at children.

My VERDICT: 

- Loki 6/10

- WandaVision, The Falcon and the Winter Soldier, Black Widow 5/10

Gangs of Wasseypur (2012)

While Indian films are rather popular in my country, for me it had been awhile since I last watched one. The song and dance routine is just not my cup of tea, unfortunately.

But recently I managed to watch Gangs of Wasseypur, and goodness, what a breath of fresh air the movie (or rather, movies) is.

The crime/gangster flick follows three crime families in the neighbourhood of Wasseypur, in the Indian city of Dhanbad over decades, as they clash for dominance and control over the production of coal.

Even before watching it, you get the idea just how ballsy it is by looking at the duration. The whole thing runs for five hours and twenty minutes, and it is actually split into two parts; parts one and two. Indian cinemas reportedly had been reluctant to show movies with such a long running time, so director Anurag Kashyap had to compromise by splitting his film into two. When I watched it, I was feeling rather adventurous and did it in one sitting all through the night.

What makes the movie memorable is just how high-octane everything is, from the editing, the performances, as well as the music. Jaideep Ahlawat, Manoj Bajpai and Nawazuddin Siddiqui are Indian stars whom I unfortunately am not familiar with, but they each chew the scenery as successive patriarchs of the Khan family. The supporting cast too pull in their weight in their energetic turns, decorating the Wasseypur of the movie with eclectic side characters. (There are characters literally named Perpendicular, Definite and Tangent in this film.)

The combination of the script and the characters that carry the movie also reminds us of Quentin Tarantino's films, especially one particular exchange between Khan family goons, on the digestion of one of their would-be victims.

With songs and dance a major part of popular Indian movies, Kashyap's movie also incorporated them, but the way it is done ensures that they do not distract from the story, for the most part. The songs are all featured as being performed during events (weddings, political rallies) that are attended by the characters or as part of montages, and this method aids the suspension of disbelief of viewers like me. And to their credit, the soundtrack is equally energetic and eclectic, and I can't help but hum some of the tunes for weeks after watching the movie. Just listen to this particular song and try to deny how catchy it is!

My VERDICT: The performances, combined with the snappy dialogue and editing as well as the lively soundtrack, made the five hours fly for me. 8/10

Returning to Chicago (2002)

Growing up, I used to think that musical movies were rather silly. Why would these people break into song and dance all of a sudden? Wouldn't it be easier to just say what they mean? I remember never finishing The Sound of Music the numerous times it was shown on the children's slot on television, much less the numerous Hindi movies shown on the same channels, many of them with running times of over four hours.

I'm not quite sure how I developed this myopic view of the genre, but in the end my aloofness towards it thawed when I was in university. I got involved in theatre, and was shown the musical Chicago. I instantly loved it, despite my initial hesitance towards musical movies. A big reason behind my being able to enjoy it was thanks to its ability to suspend my disbelief, by having the characters either sing and dance 'in their head', or actually perform on stage.

Thanks to the Rob Marshall-helmed musical, I eventually learnt to appreciate more conventional musicals, as well as musical films in general. Over the years, I've enjoyed West Side Story, the Producers, Les Mis, Hairspray, Dreamgirls, Grease! Rocky Horror Picture Show and many more (funnily enough, I've never finished watching The Sound of Music) I've also gone to watch the Puteri Gunung Ledang show, as well as the touring productions of Chicago and Jersey Boys.

Last year, with the pandemic confining my wife and I to our home, we spent our time watching movies. One day I decided to rewatch Chicago (she'd never watch it). To my surprise, that rewatch has ended up changing my opinion of the musical.

Now I'm not saying I no longer enjoy it, I still do. But rewatching it having grown to appreciate the genre, Chicago now seems as if it was ashamed of its primary method of story-telling. The same tactic employed to make it's catchy numbers more believable to philistines like me; to have them sung 'in their head' now seems like a method that was employed by its makers because they agreed yes, it doesn't make sense for these people to suddenly break into song and dance.

I remember thinking to myself when one of the first songs in the movie came on, 'Funny Honey' I think it was, just how much better the song would have been instead had Roxie Hart sung it in the middle of the police interrogation of his hapless husband. Alas, this nagging feeling remained with me until the final credits.

I suppose I should be happy that this method never turned into a trend, and that most American musicals that came out post-Chicago have been conventional musicals.

I'm now waiting for the new West Side Story. At first I had thought that the remake was rather superfluous, considering that the original movie was perfect to me. And Spielberg? A musical? But then the trailer came out and I ended up loving the energy bursting through. Maybe I'd underestimated it after all.

My VERDICT: Despite the slight change in my opinion towards it, Chicago still gets a solid 8/10 from me due to the strength of the performances. And I don't think there's another musical out there with a song roster as catchy as Chicago's. 

Biopics

Over the past year, a number of biopics on musical entertainers have been released, the most famous being the one on rock band Queen and its vocalist Freddy Mercury; Bohemian Rhapsody. Although it won British actor Rami Malek an acting Oscar for his portrayal of Mercury, I've seen reviews of the movie which described it as by-the-book and sterile. The other one, Rocket Man, portraying the life of Elton John, came out a little after Rhapsody.

I'm not planning on watching either of the two films, as I find biopics a little formulaic. I've watched the one on country music legend Johnny Cash, and the most recent one I saw was the one on some Indian mathematician, played by Dev Patel; The Man Who Knew Infinity. Oh, Gandhi too of course. Even Gandhi, which I enjoyed due to its production value, suffers from its predictability. Public figure catches public attention for their raw talent, they face challenges or personal demons that they need to overcome, before bouncing back to win the public's adulation once again in the later stages of their life, corresponding with the movie's third act.

One reason for the whitewashing of the biopic subjects, especially if they are musical entertainers, is that the movies need to use the songs composed or made popular by the subjects, and they need the subjects or their estate to sign off on the songs. So they have to acquiesce to the demands made to maintain the biopic subject's reputation. Hence why if the singer was once caught diddling a child, this particular part of their life won't be touched in the movie.

However, I've come across two biopics which I admire immensely, if not outright adore, for the risks they take.

I can't say I enjoyed watching the first one, but I admire the makers for going down the road less travelled. It's on the legendary folk singer-songwriter Bob Dylan; I'm Not There. I can't even say I understand what went on half of the time, but I respect the story-telling choice of having multiple actors and actresses portray differing facets of the folk singer. It's been a while since I watched it, but I remember him being portrayed by Cate Blanchett, Heath Ledger, Richard Gere and a black kid, among many others.

The other one, the one I enjoyed, was the one on Apple co-founder Steve Jobs. The eponymous movie has Michael Fassbender playing Jobs just a few year after the latter's death, and boy he looked nothing like Jobs, if I'm being honest. But that's about the only complaint I have about it. Instead of going down the familiar route of trying to replicate the important events from Jobs' life, instead it tries to portray the effects of his single-mindedness on those closest to him. I guess verisimilitude takes a back seat to good story in the film, and I believe this decision serves it well in the end.

I've also been meaning to watch another recent biopic, the one on John F Kennedy's wife; Jackie.

Good endings are bad for you - Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016) and La La Land (2017)

Most recently I've watched two movies. Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016) and La La Land (2017). They're both popular movies so I won't be reviewing them in detail here, but I want to write about their similarities. The topic concerns their endings so be warned that things are going to get SPOILERIFIC up in here.

My main point in this write-up is how these two movies, which flirted with mediocrity by the halfway point, were saved by their downer endings, and improved my opinion of them by the time the credits rolled.

Rogue One

I'm not really a Star Wars fan. I always thought of them as soaps, as family drama in space, a reputation that George Lucas made worse (at least to me) with the prequel trilogy. But somehow I've always managed to catch them in the cinema when a new one comes out. I am a child of capitalism, after all. I watched The Force Awakens when it came out in 2015, and was left underwhelmed by it. It was more of the same, with plot points practically ripped from the pages of A New Hope script.

I still decided to go watch Rogue One when it came out, and by the halfway point I found it not too dissimilar from the previous ones. Another family saga, another abandoned child, Stormtroopers who can't shoot for shit while they get picked off by the protagonists. Yawn.

But then the ending came, and it completely changed my mind! Why? Because almost all of the main characters died, blown to smithereens by the Death Star on that beach planet!

That's honestly very refreshing! For so long we've seen the heroes surviving battles and assaults in the previous movies, and for once they decided to go with a downer ending!

And it's not just a matter of my cynicism being satisfied, I like it because it shows the cost of war and the sacrifices that the grunts, these practically expendable Force-less, non-Jedi grunts, have to make in order to assist the Rebellion. There's no medal presentation ceremony and big smiles at the end, only the grim acceptance that the job was completed at a massive loss of lives.

And no other scene showed this better than the one towards the very end. Darth Vader himself boarded an escaping Rebel ship that was carrying the blueprint of the Death Star, and he mowed down a dozen of officers who could do nothing but hope that the time he would take to hack all of them down to death would be just long enough for the data to be smuggled to safety.

It was a brilliant effort by English director Gareth Edwards, who last directed Godzilla (2014), which I enjoyed immensely, although the receptions to it were split down the middle.

It also scored bonus points with me as it achieved one other thing; explain a major plot hole in A New Hope. How could a major weapon of mass destruction, the crown jewel of the Empire, be designed in such a way that a critical flaw can be accessed externally? As it turned out, the flaw was included by its reluctant chief engineer, the father of the movie's protagonist. Brilliant.

La La Land

I've been wanting to watch this musical ever since the first time I heard that catchy song in its trailer. It also stars my favourite actor and actress, Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone as two star-crossed lovers.

But boy was I in for a surprise. I had expected something of a more conventional, costume-and-choreography, song-and-dance Broadway-style musical. I was let down as early as the first song, despite it being perhaps the most conventional number in the musical.

First of all, it's the music that turned me off. Gosling's character is a jazz musician, and almost all of the tunes are jazz ones. And while most stage musicals, and those adapted to the screen, are set in exotic historical settings, La La Land is set in the present time (I had thought it was set in the 1950's or 60's Hollywood from the trailer).

I suppose this is a more of a European/French-style musical? Think Umbrellas of Cherbourg (1964), which I actually haven't seen at all.

Honestly, I would have left the cinema halfway through, if not for the fact that I was there with a girlfriend, and she was leaning against my shoulder asleep. And Gosling and Stone's singing, they have not been classically-trained which I expected from actors in movie musicals.

But just like Rogue One, La La Land's ending turned my opinion on its head. Simply put, the two lovers do not end up together, which is shown in a bittersweet revelation. I respect that commitment to showing what is most likely to happen in real life, that there is no happy ending, even when there are two or three scenes preceding the ending that tease the audience into believing that they both will end up together again.

And when the movie ended, it turned out that the two songs I heard in the trailer were literally the only songs I like from the whole movie. Cheeky bastards.

My VERDICT: Rogue One gets a 7.5 from me, while La La Land has landed itself a 7/10 rating.

On an unrelated note, I should really look into talking to a therapist.