Am I not supposed to have what I want? What I need? What am I supposed to do?

No 411 – Spiderman 2

Director – Sam Raimi.

Disclaimer – I wrote all my notes and then I put my notes in a bag and then my friend went home with the bag and now I don’t got my notes or nuffink.

So yeah….

There is a moment in Spiderman 2 which gets me excited. The great scientist Otto Octavious has been experimenting with something which is either a precious ore called Tritium or an ore called PreciousTritium (I just can’t tell.... every one says Precious Tritium…). The experiment has backfired. Giant robot tentaclaws have fused into his spine. Bugger.

Doctors begin to operate, trying to prise the wires from the connections they’ve made in the Scientist’s nervous system. The claws flicker to life and all hell breaks loose. It is here that one thing becomes evident. Sam Raimi should be making lighting fast, visceral horror. The claws are such a clear homage to his Evil Dead days. We have POV shots which echo the insane skateboard mounted shots of his first film, we even have a chainsaw…. and there isn’t usually much need for one of those in a operating theatre.

However, Spiderman 2 is most definitely not a dark and visceral horror. It is a solid case of ‘more of the same’ with some nice little touches. The first touch being the wonderful Alfred Molina as Doc Ock. Again, we have a victim who is being manipulated by an external force. Here it is the slightly bonkers explanation that his ‘helping hands’ have overpowered his brain and taken control of him.

Doc Ock is not insane in the same way as the Green Goblin and Molina gets some surprisingly powerful moments as he acts against a series of CGI clamps.

The rest of the film remains fairly similar.

J K Simmons is still the best thing in the franchise – even though at one point he gets mopey…. However, thankfully, it lasts less than a scene before he is yelling out ridiculous demands again.

Tobey Maguire remains quite unexciting as Parker.

MJ is possibly duller than she was – however, it seems she has stopped wearing a bra. Kirsten Dunst’s nipples are often the most prominent part of a scene.

We even have the exact same set up for the final act. Villain dangles MJ off of an object and puts some other people in peril. Spidey saves the people.

The people all have a wonderful ‘We’re on your side Spiderman’ moment that is meant to be all heart-warming. But instead just makes you feel a little bit sick.

The main thread running throughout the film is the idea of identity. This is the film in which Spidey repeatedly fails to keep his identity secret and where Parker struggles with HIS identity (is he Parker or is he Spidey)… Whilst it is fun to watch Spiderman fall off things, I’m mostly annoyed by this development as it moves Aunt May from ‘annoying boring character who is mostly in the background’ to ‘annoying boring character who is pivotal to the plot and forever giving long long boring speeches about shit….’.

We also get the first glimpse of Peter Parker’s weird little strutty dance-walk he does when he is feeling good.

Of course, it isn’t a patch on the bollocks of Spiderman 3…. But it is a taste of things to come.

You do too much - college, a job, all this time with me... You're not Superman, you know.

No 437 – Spiderman

Director – Sam Raimi

Spiderman. Spiderman. Does whatever a spider can.

Ah Spiderman – a film which manages to flirt with greatness but also have a violent sexual relationship with being really really cheesy.

The thing is that cheesy kind of suits the story of Peter Parker. He isn’t the bleak dark reality of Nolan’s batman – he lives in the same (Marvel) world as Tony Stark. Bright, brash and stupid with a wisecracking hero zipping about. From the first tinkles of Danny Elfman’s marvellous score (not his best work, but all is work can surely be classed as ‘samey but magical to listen to’) we know we’re in a cartoon world – we’re here for a laugh.

The film does help create some wonderful moments. Once Parker has been bit by the genetic super spider we open a world full of great touches. There is the simple – yet brilliant – way that Parker’s new found Spidey Senses work – showing his reactions by slowing everything down, there is the humour in Spidey’s wisecracks (here, more than either of the sequels he is the sarcastic hero from the cartoons and comics), there are the wonderful supporting roles.

Ah the supporting roles, and the cameos. Let us start with the Spidey stalwart… Mr Bruce Campbell. His cameos stay funny throughout the trilogy, but I think he seems most at ease. Cocky, garish and decked in Gold, he swaggers and plays the crowd like a poor man’s Elvis. And Campbell plays Elvis exceedingly well.

Then we have Willem Dafoe as Norman Osmond aka The Green Goblin. I love how Raimi’s villains have to struggle with duality. They aren’t evil; they’re always overcome by some for of destructive influence. Here it is the super soldier serum which unleashes one of the greatest ‘crazy faces’ I have ever seen.

Dafoe plays the Green Goblin with an obvious relish. He is a cackling OTT panto villain. He isn’t grounded in reality, he’s not anywhere near it. But, for that very reason, he is an absolute delight to watch. The second best thing in the film.

As the Spiderman trilogy is made roughly 62% more enjoyable by three massive Js. Written in letters which tower over New York. J JONAH JAMESON.

Hell yes.

J K Simmons’ portrayal of the Daily Bugle’s editor in chief is one of the most perfect things ever put to celluloid. He is brash, he is angry, he is absolutely ridiculous. There are times when he makes Dafoe look restrained. He is exhaustingly good fun.

But this is important. We need an exciting villain and a bonkers minor character. We need them to keep the energy up. Because, alas, Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst don’t play Peter Parker or MJ as the most exciting people in the world. They’re a bit mopey. A bit quiet. A bit insecure. A lot dull.

I spent my time waiting for Parker to don the mask and become a crap CGI Spiderman swinging through the city…. As at least that is something to watch.

Meanwhile, Mary Jane’s big contribution to the film (besides that award winning kiss) is to dangle off of a bridge as the Green Goblin gives his ultimatum – Save the girl or Save the carriage of children.

Ah, Spidey’s choice.

Of course Meryl Streep never had web slinging powers or it could have all turned out differently.

Spidey saves them both, and the film’s cutest most cringiest moment happens.

Spiderman was released shortly after 9/11 – which meant this original teaser trailer was scrapped pretty promptl

Shame, as it’s cool.

But it does mean that the film lapses into cringe-worthy patriotism as the citizens throw litter at the Green Goblin in a “You mess with Spiderman, you mess with New York” moment.

This theme echoes throughout the film until the final shot where Spidey leaps triumphantly in front of a slowly billowing American flag.

Spiderman – FUCK YEAH!

Do you find us beautiful, magical? Our white skin, our fierce eyes? "Drink" you ask me, do you have any idea of the thing you will become?

No 281 - Interview with the Vampire
Director - Neil Jordan

I like the way the cinematic vampires are varied beasts. The punks of The Lost Boys are nothing compared to the monsters of From Dusk Till Dawn. There are the strange bat like Nosferatu or the incredibly human Eli. Even Dracula himself has flitted through different versions and completely different styles.
There is no definitive vampire, but I find them fascinating - for me, the most fascinating is the Anne Rice vampire. I love the passion, the glamour and he danger of her vampires. It has been said time and time again that the Vampire story is a thinly veiled allegory for sex. Nowhere is that more evident than in Interview with the Vampire.

The vampires in this film are beautiful creatures that bristle with a dangerous sexual lust. Their skin is white and smooth and their eyes are fierce and unnatural. Almost feline. Maybe it plays to the part of me which yearns to be a dandy, but they are just fabulous. If I were to create a vampire myth, that is the direction I'd have taken.
Our protagonist for this story is Brad Pitt's Louis de Pointe du Lac, a plantation owner from New Orleans who develops one hell of a death wish and who is turned into a vampire by Tom Cruise's Lestat de Lioncourt. We then follow Louis' story as he becomes used to being a vampire and as he lives out a life of endless youth.

Louis is our 'in' to the vampiric world. He is the character that we follow, he is the character that we see as both mortal and immortal, he is our narrator. However he is not the most interesting of characters. Despite having been a vampire for almost 200 years (by the time we meet him in the early 90's) he is not happy with his lot. He doesn't feel comfortable killing people and frequently complains.
No, the most interesting and fun characters are those that relish in the bloodshed. Those that are truly callous and wicked. That is why I love Lestat so much. His character is a lavish and decadent evil. A man who has embraced his demonic blessing and ran with it. He cackles maniacally as people attack him. He flits and he flys, he maims an he kills but always with a smile and an appreciation of the finer things in life.
Lestat killed two, sometimes three a night. A fresh young girl, that was his favorite for the first of the evening. For seconds, he preferred a gilded beautiful youth. But the snob in him loved to hunt in society, and the blood of the aristocrat thrilled him best of all.

Though, what I think I like best about Lestat is that it is Tom Cruise. I can only think of 3 films where Cruise has been an obvious good guy and one he was an arrogant prick that eventually mellow and the second is a comedy cameo. This is the only film (that I can think of) where Cruise is all out malicious, manipulative and horrible. He seems to relish it as well. Each sneer, each giggle, each time he spikes a wrist to drink the blood is met with a look of sheer enjoyment. Hell, the brief ominous sinister moments which he shares with (the beautiful beautiful) Thandie Newton's slave girl have more chemistry then their ENTIRE relationship in MI2.

It is with Lestat that we also see one of the films most striking features, the sexualisation of everything. It seems that blood is more than mere food for the vampires. It is a passion, a yearning, a physical torturous desire. Any exposed area of flesh becomes fetishised by the film. So we get long lingering shots of the rise and fall of a heaving bosom, or the curve of a neck, or a delicate exposed wrist. The sexualisation is continued with the kill, as it nearly always begins with a playful seduction. By the time the vampires are feeding it looks more like they are locked in a passionate and highly sensual embrace. Nearly everything in this film is somewhere on the sexual spectrum. It is either flirty and mischievous or dangerously erotic.

However, anything that the two men do is easily overshadowed by Claudia. A vampire taken as a child. Therefore with the immortal, never changing body of a child but with the mind of an adult killer. It must be tough being Kirsten Dunst, knowing that you played your greatest role aged 11. She is phenomenal in this. I was 9 when this film came out so I don't know of the controversy, or even if there was any, however the idea of a child being so cruel, so sensual, so wicked is a bit uncomfortable.
She isn't a young vampire like Eli, who is much more sage, practical and world-weary. She relishes in the carnage. She makes me think of the few clips I've seen of Chloe Moretz in the upcoming Kick Ass.

Claudia's defining moment is when she realises she will never become a woman. That she is doomed to be a child forever. Here you see the oddest part of the vampire curse. Their bodies will stay the way they are forever. You can't even cut your hair, as it will instantly grow back. Her attempt to rebel against this involves 'killing' Lestat and fleeing - and this is where the film changes completely. It takes a step back from the fripperies and opulence that I so adore and becomes something a bit darker.
I always thought this movie was really long (it isn't, it is under 2 hours) but I think that stems from the fact that is changes, into a second film when they arrive in Paris and meet Antonio Banderas' Armand.
- Before I speak about the next bit, I just want to say that if you take Armand, and trickle in a splash of Zorro you have all the evidence you need to prove that Banderas would make an EXCELLENT Gomez Addams (much fucking better than Tim Curry).

Armand's show - Theatre Des Vampires is fabulous both in its post modernism (vampires pretending to be people pretending to be vampires) but also in how brazen it is as the show's grand finale is the killing of a woman live on stage - which, I assume, everyone thinks is part of the act.
The entire Theatre Des Vampires troupe are just dark. Far more feral and violent (and at times insane) than the refined Lestat, Louis and Claudia. It is here that a lot more dark and savage stuff happens which truly and deeply affects Louis and leaves him hollow and empty for the final parts of the film. Though the montage of cinematic sunrises, and the way the effect Louis as he goes to see them (having not seen a sunrise in decades, if not centuries) is beautiful and brings us up to date.

And then it ends.
This film doesn't really have a conclusion as Louis' story is in no way concluded. It has just reached modern day. He will continue and his story will continue.

We just leave, much like Christian Slater's interviewer, fascinated, transfixed and scared. Lucky to have met such wonderful and dangerous characters. However briefly.

No one could understand how Mrs. Lisbon and Mr. Lisbon, our math teacher, could produce such beautiful creatures

No 262 - The Virgin Suicides
Director - Sofia Coppola

Let us continue, in reverse chronological order, with my journey through Sofia Coppola. Continuing the theme of upset young women and with an incredibly dark tale.

The film begins - wonderfully setting the tone - with Cecilia, the youngest of the sisters, slashing her wrists and going to hospital.... here she is told by a complete idiot of a doctor that life will only get worse. At least the amazing (and far too brief) cameo of Danny De Vito dressed as professor Robert Winston helps to put things in perspective - 'let your daughters meet other children of their own age' he essentially says. This is the main moral of a very bleak story. You see, the Lisbon girls do not get much of a chance to socialise, and this is not a good thing...

I don't know quite what the film is trying to say. It seems to imply that if you are a strict and over zealous christian parent you will probably lead your children to kill themselves. I don't think this could be a very popular message, so I'm not 100% confident on how likely it is....
What we are faced with though is the story of five sisters who are living their lives in American 70's suburbia and who eventually all off themselves (that isn't a spoiler - seeing as it is the film's BLOODY TITLE)
However, the film spends very little time dwelling on the deaths. It is more about the lives of the girls - and focusing on their unhappiness. In fact, for the majority of the film, the only death is Cecilia' quite horrific impaling on a spike on a fence. We're then briefly faced with the aftermath but mostly deal with four girls being driven crazy by their repressive parents and the few times they're allowed to rebel.

The protagonist of this is Lux, played by Kirsten Dunst at (I think) her most overtly sexual. By the way, Lux is 14 (though... importantly... at the time, Kirsten dunst wasn't). She is the nearest this film has to a lead, being the most outgoing and least repressed of the sisters. For whilst the majority of the sisters seem to shrink back and be very very awkward round people. Lux is a complete hussy - and probably the only exception to the use of the word Virgin in the title. As the most outward of the sisters, it is she that acts as a force, drawing in ALL the local boys. Because, as this film is about teenage girls - it is about dating.
And where the majority of the girls get random blokes (including one, Chase, who appears to be 7 and gets off with the 16 year old sister) Lux, gets Trip.
Both share stupid names and both are uncomfortably overtly sexual for their age.
and.... Trip is none other than Josh Hartnett. The entire film is told in flashback, and the scenes with Trip are the only ones which flash to the modern day and 'interview' the older Trip.

In fact - this film is a bit like It's a Wonderful life, in that the main crux of the story is to build up the characters. That way, when they do get to the point of suicide, you really really feel for them. And where George Bailey didn't jump, here the sisters do (figuratively.... I won't spoil the end for you). Which makes it all the more completely and utterly tragic.