Monsters

I remember hearing about this movie when it came out. It was getting a lot of press for being a high concept movie about an area of Mexico where Alien lifeforms have popped up, but filmed on a very low budget. As such I figured that it was the kind of movie with a great idea but would probably be a badly executed and overly-long movie that sneaks in a few CGI monster shots for flavor. While this is mostly true, I actually really liked it.

For the most part the movie does relay on it's premise to make the story interesting while being almost completely about two character's just hanging out with each other as they travel through Northern Mexico. While it's a cool idea, it kind of brings the whole "This is a low budget high-concept movie" vibe up constantly. I don't know if its me, but it feels like the movie is really pleased with itself for coming up with a clever way to be about alien monsters, without having to show that many alien monsters. It is smart of them to do, but you go into the movie knowing that they are just going to be hinting at there being monsters around without ever showing them, making the movie kind of predictable. So though the movie is about these two character's getting to each other as they make their way through this dangerous territory, it's the actual dangerous territory that keeps you interested.

The story is about Samatha being in Mexico for some reason when some photographer dude is sent by her Father's company to help get her back to America. A NASA probe thing had discovered Alien life in the solar system, but wrecked over Mexico while trying to land, scattering lifeforms over half of the country. The first part of the movie establishes the atmosphere as we see them walk around Mexican villages and cities while talking about "the creatures." We see all kinds of "Warning" signs with gas masks on them and "Prohibited Area!" while having people talk about how dangerous the Infected Zone is because soon the monster's will be migrating this way. And the second part of the movie is them going into the infected zone, chilling out on boats or hiking through the forest, while only hearing the creatures from far away or seeing hints of them being in the river. Although this kind of plays into the pre-established idea that we aren't going to see the monster's that much, it works really well for the atmosphere of the movie.

 Though out of every conceivable name they could have called this movie, "Monsters" is admittedly pretty unoriginal

For one, we actually do get to see the monsters. At the very beginning, a little in the middle, and than a good deal at the end. So it's not like we go the movie without seeing them. It's pretty clear that they are real and the locations we visit alone show what a huge threat they can be. Which is pretty much what the heart of the movie is. It's realistic in telling us about these monstrous creatures that have been around for 6 years, but it doesn't just show us them outright. Their allusive nature makes them feel like real animals, and we spend the majority of the movie taking in the sights and sounds of the various beautiful locations affected by these things suddenly showing up.

And that's where the movie shines most. As a character study, we see these two people get to know each other as they depend on themselves to make it through this beautiful but dangerous area. And as a Sci-fi movie, the theme is more about the discovery and territory of a new animal species that's existence is ever present while being rarely scene. The movie is shot on real locations in Mexico, and despite it's low budget, does an amazing job of presenting a realistic atmosphere of disaster.

The movie also seems to benefit from other recent Sci-fi movies and their themes, specifically District 9 and Cloverfield. While Monster's has the Documentary "realistic" feel that Cloverfield had, without it actually being a Mockumentary, as it deals with the subject matter of monsters, it also shares the theme of District 9's "Alien's just showed up here and we are having trouble dealing with them" premise. The down and dirty realistic style helps make the movie feel like a good companion piece to either, although the two by themselves are quite different. It seem to promote these movies as a kind of new movement, and since I like all 3 of them, it makes me excited for whatever comes next.

Overall the movie does a good job of getting the most out of it's small budget and telling a compelling story. Though i went in looking to find problem in it thinking it was just another Paranormal Activity type deal, I can't really think of a reason to complain. The pacing is pretty slow, especialy in the first half where it takes a while to get started, but despite this usually being a big deal to me, I had no problem sitting through it. I doubt I'll watch it again anytime soon, but that doesn't make it bad. I've always dug sci-fi that felt realistic, and with movies like this and District 9, it's doesn't get more real.

Word.
7 out of 10

Spider-man Trilogy

In honor of the new Amazing Spiderman coming out, why not look at the original trilogy that helped send the comic book genre into the billion dollar blockbuster territory it's in today? There is no reason, so shut up.

Spider-man

It's possible the first X-men movie may have come out before this, making it the starting point of the latest Super Hero obsession in Hollywood, but I don't care enough to look it up, and considering the fact that Blade came out in the 90's, and Superman was huge in the 70's, it doesn't even matter. Regardless, Spider-man was a big deal when it came out, and was a lot better than stupid X-men, which is a pretty boring movie if you go back to watch it, that helped cement "dorky" super heroes as a marketable franchise while being critically hailed. As a big fan of both Spider-man and Sam Raimi, I was extremely excited to see it opening night, and since I was actually in High School at the time and could fully identify with Peter Parker's story, it left a pretty sizable impression on me. The class loser problem, the crush on the pretty girl that will never be returned problem, the ability to climb up walls problem. All staples of whats its like growing up, which is what led to the comic being popular for like a 100 years in the first place.

Though the effects and story telling may not match up with the more recent efforts in the genre by comparison, its hard to argue this movies achievement in defining the genre. Still, some problems still exist, such as the stories lack of re-watchablity, mainly on account of it being an origin story, the melodramatic love triangle, and Tobey Maguire as Spider-man.The Green Goblin custom didn't really help either, and it's not like you didn't always know what was going to happen next.

 What kind of dumb name is Tobey?

With all that said, I've probably seen it a million times, that most likely being the real reason I can't sit through it in one watching anymore (making my previous statement bullshit) and years of watching day time television and Hong Kong movies has made it easier to stomach melodrama. But Tobey Maguire is still really hard to buy as Spider-man, though I guess its not impossible if you don't think about how much better pretty much anyone else would have been. In the end Raimi's direction gives the movie a lot of heart, and, in the end, it gives the movie a feeling of being a classic. Or maybe that's just because I saw it in high school.

Spider-man 2: The curse of Buddha

Then Spider-man 2 came out and everyone thought it was the best superhero movie ever, until X-men 2 came out, if it hadn't already (X-men 2 was amazing). Building on the conclusion of the last movie, with the will-they-won't-they relationship of Pete and Mary Jane, the fact that Harry thinks Spider-man killed his dad for no reason, and the whole J. Jonah Jameson hating Spider-man thing, this movie hits the ground running. Actually it doesn't. I should have said swinging, but it doesn't do either. Though this may be me always having to find something wrong to complain about in every movie other people like, I remember having a lot of problems with this movie, despite actually enjoying it. So while it's probably better than the first one, the action is awesome, I remember being somewhat indifferent towards it.

So it should have hit the ground running, but instead opens with Spider-man saying "Hi, I'm Spider-man" and then punches us in the face with example after example of ways Peter Parker is a useless human being. He looses his job, he can't pay the rent, he's about to flunk out of school, Mary Jane is going to marry some other guy, Harry hates Spider-man, Bruce Campbell won't let him see Mary Jane's play, he can't get a single thing to eat at a fancy party, and also his powers stop working for pretty much no reason. Also the bad guy is really a nice guy that turns bad probably because Peter jinxed him. Also also J. Johan still hates his guts. So he quits. What a great movie.

Spider-man 3: Put a Venom in it

 No one likes this movie. Like X-men last stand, the third of this trilogy is pretty well known for coming off the tracks in such a disastrous wreck that it fucked up the whole franchise. With X-men they decided to just start making prequels, but this piece of crap lead them to just reboot the whole series from scratch. And it probably would have been a shock if not for the fact that this movie was so dumb, making us not really care about such a weird move.

The problem with the movie supposedly came from the studio, surprise surprise, wanting to cram venom into the movie, which Raimi didn't like until later when he did because he didn't really have a choice I guess. So we have 3 bad guys, with Harry becoming the new Goblin, Venom randomly coming from the sky randomly, and randomly having some random convict get completely weird random sand powers. There's just TOO MANY BAD GUYS, guys! The weird part is that Sam actually wanted stupid Sandman in the movie and had to be convinced to shoehorn Venom. The movie ends up being a clusterfuck of nothing really being important on account of so much going on, but I can't help but feel that the "dark Spider-man" story line was the only thing giving the movie a purpose, despite how cheesy it was done, like we needed more angst, while the Sandman story was completely pointless and way out of whack with the reality the previous movies had established. Harry as Goblin mock II was pretty sweet though. I think his fight with Peter is one of the best in the series, probably because they had been building up to it through the first two movies. Too bad it ends with Harry getting dumb plot convenient amnesia. His story then becomes pointless, Sandman all of a sudden becomes a big deal because they retcon it to him being the one that killed uncle ben before he becomes pointless, and then Venom really never has a point to begin with. The story just isn't there.

 Why's he so broody anyways? He gets to be Spider-man.

You have one thread that is the end of a character's entire arc through out the last 2 movies that has to serve as the beginning and then put on hold, some random occurrence where "something" falls from outer space and makes the main character a dickhead for half the movie before becoming a different character, the same melodrama with Mary Jane now that this time she's the one down on her luck so now they can't be together, and the most random story of some guy we just shouldn't care about who is written in in such a clumsy way that it does retro damage to the first movie, all woven into one story.

Overall the first two movies are seen as classics, although I never agreed that the second one was the best. They were an important part of  bringing superhero movies up into the light to be seen as blah blah the third one ruined it... surprise surprise...