WHILE NOT AMAZING, "THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN" IS EXTREMELY HUMAN

Conceptual reboots are tricky propositions as they attempt to "reinvent the wheel"; even if it seems that the wheel isn't broken. Some reboots are welcome and serve as a shot in the arm to a franchise that is on the verge of falling into irrelevance. The "Batman," "Star Trek" and arguably "James Bond" franchises fall into this category. However, there are some that seem to be exercises in nostalgia that bring nothing new to the table, a la A Nightmare on Elm Street. But, when a concept is rebooted so close to its last cinematic outing, it begs the question "is it really necessary"? Moreover, can it remain entertaining and accepted in the face of any reverence that is held towards the previous incarnation?

In the case of The Amazing Spider-Man, directed by Marc Webb, the battle is not that hard won. Spider-Man 3, the last of Sam Raimi's outings, had proven to be a box office success but a critical disappointment; a study in excess: too many villains, too many sub-plots, and actors that practically slept through their performances. With Sam Raimi refusing further studio interference (having the villain "Venom" shoved down his throat), he left the franchise, with Toby Maquire (the original cinematic "Peter Parker") walking with him. Given Sony's current arrangement with Marvel, the rights to further "Spider-Man" film production would revert to Marvel if Sony did not produce one in a sufficient time frame. Hence, the creation of The Amazing Spider-Man.

In all honesty, to compare the Raimi and Webb films is like comparing apples to oranges. Both are fruits, but each has its own, distinct flavor. Whereas the former filmmaker focused mostly on the action and used the quite moments as simply set pieces to get to the next fight or special effects scene, TASM skirts on being an indie film (not surprising, given that his last film was 500 Days of Summer) that happens to take place in a world where super-heroes and monsters exist. Family relationships and raw emotion are the centerpoint in this new take on a very familiar story.

The bare bones remain the same: Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield, The Social Network) is bitten by a radioactive spider and is given the proportional strength of a spider, the ability to walk on practically any surface, heightened spider-senses and extreme agility. However, unlike the dour, milquetoast version as previous portrayed by Maguire, this Parker is a smart-alecky whiz kid who loves to skateboard and is a nascent photographer for its own sake. The film focuses on his past more than any other, which includes the disappearance of his mother Mary and geneticist father Richard (Campbell Scott). It's the story of a teenager who is trying to find the truth about his parents' disappearance and, moreover, himself (a point Webb metatextually points out near the film's conclusion). In the meantime, Parker falls head over heels for blonde, assertive Gwen Stacy (played with a twinkle by Emma Stone) who so happens to be both the daughter of NYPD Captain Stacy (an authoratative Denis Leary) and lab assistant to Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), who was Richard Parker's scientific partner. He also lives with his Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and Aunt May (Sally Field) Parker, who try to raise the angst ridden teen as best they can. When Peter provides Dr. Connors, an amputee, with a formula that allows for cross-species spontaneous regeneration, circumstances cause Dr. Connors to use the formula on himself...with disasterous results.

The beats remain the same, only given a new coat of paint. For example, the circumstances surrounding the fateful spider bite that transforms Peter are completely changed. Uncle Ben's fate remains unchanged, but the events leading up to it doesn't (though the omission of a very important line from Spider-Man lore in especially egregious in this context). In terms of the story itself, there is nothing spectacular about it. But then, it is not the story that might make one forget the Raimi films; it's the performances.

As Peter Parker, Garfield is, put succinctly, amazing. One welcome change from the previous films is that Parker is a scientific genius in his own right; a point that is subtly made almost from the beginning. The first portion of the film is all about establishing the anguish and pent up frustration of young Peter. Garfield's Parker is a series of ticks and gestures hidden under a hoodie, but full of piss and vinegar in need of an outlet. He is an outcast but, incongruously and unlike his thespian predecessor, one that is wholly accessible, relatable and convincing as a teenager (Garfield is in his twenties). Garfield has previously extolled at press junkets about his love for the wall crawler, and it shows each time he suits up as Spider-Man. He's as snarky as the character is supposed to be and moves with grace and agility, with some poses and movements almost lifted from the comic panels. The suit, designed by Cirque Du Soleil, is a departure from the original in order to further cement the film's reboot nature. However, it's creation is much more organic than the space aged metal webbing that lined Maguire's suit. Also, this Spider-Man is not as experienced at the get go. He makes mistakes and leaves clues. Yet it is a natural progression for the character.

As Parker's first comic book girlfriend, Emma Stone shines as Gwen Stacy. She is more capable and assertive than the version played by Bryce Dallas Howard, yet despite her above average intellect, is portrayed as a vivacious, fun loving girl. Unlike the pairing of Maguire and Kirsten Dunst, Garfield and Stone crackle with an onscreen chemistry that is rare to find in cinema these days; and like all the acting greats, it is more of what is not said than said that carry the scene. It is easy to believe that these two would be lovers. Their relationship is eased and natural, not forced.

The film is bolstered by the veteran actors that support the leads. Sheen's Uncle Ben has only slightly more screen time than Cliff Robertson ever did, but he makes the most out of that time. He is the moral center of the erzatz Parker family and when his time comes, you feel it. Sally Field's slightly younger Aunt May is as doting as her comic counterpart but is by no means a wall flower. And in some of the quiet moments, her acting leaves one wondering whether she has figured out the truth of her nephews comings and goings, but it is left up to the viewer to decide. As Dr. Curt Connors, Ifans is both likable and threatening; a dichotomy that works. While purists may take umbrage at this version of "The Lizard" looking more like a background extra from "V" than the actual comic design, Ifans imbues him with a ferocity that almost makes up for the visual deviation (somewhere, Dylan Baker is gnashing his teeth). Leary's Captain Stacy is a principled law enforcer who is out to capture Spider-Man, a suitable albeit temporary substitute for J. Jonah Jameson. Leary has come a long way from the comic rapid-fire verbal stand-up who made his cinematic debut in Demolition Man over twenty years ago. Like Sheen and Fields, he helps to anchor the fanciful proceedings with humanity. 

The special effects are no revelation. They are similar to those of the previous Spider-Man films save for the majority of the web swinging work actually being performed by either Garfield or stunt men rather than an over-reliance on CGI, and it works. There are some inconsistencies in presentation, however (play close attention to a broken window that is miraculously repaired when circumstances dictate it shouldn't) but these are minor hiccups in a film that is extremely organic. I use that word because there is a flow to this film. The film clocks in at over two hours but it doesn't seem that way. Whatever slow spots it has is buoyed by the performances of the actors. Also, it borrows a couple of beats from Raimi's first Spider-Man (2001), including a scene near the climax where New Yorkers aid a wounded Spider-Man.

Webb's direction is tight and leaves little by way of filler. Every scene is advanced by the one before it and he deftly balances humor and pathos, tragedy and triumph. The mood is also heightened by composer James Horner, who foregoes both the quirkiness of Danny Elfman/Christopher Young's Spider-Man scores and goes for a more lyrical, yet quieter, heroic theme. Yet, despite the benchmark signatures of his previous scores, Horner's take is no more than servicable. It fits the proceedings quite nicely, yet nothing really stands out. But perhaps that is the point, given that the music is in service to the story and not vice versa. Regardless, his music is appropriately rousing when called for, and romantic when needed.

There are a couple of dangling sub-plots that are obviously meant to be developed in future films (this is the first of a planned trilogy). This would be annoying if this film were to underperform, thereby precluding the resolution of those plot threads. However, this film is in no danger of that. Whether future sequels will rise to the occasion remains to be seen. However, The Amazing Spider-Man is an auspicious re-do in this franchise and one that is well worth watching. Here is a Spider-Man you can root for and believe in.

NO NEURALIZER NEEDED: MEN IN BLACK III Is A Return To Form

It has been fifteen years since Agents "J" (Will Smith) and "K" (Tommy Lee Jones) suited up in black and carried their neuralizers and rounded up a giant roach in the original Men In Black and ten years since the inevitable but half-hearted and sorely deficient sequel Men In Black II. The duo and director Barry Sonnenfeld return for Men In Black III, which finds Agent J going back in time to 1969 to prevent both the onset of an alien invasion and the murder of his still taciturn partner (played in 1969 by Josh Brolin).

What differentiates this film from the previous two entries is the lack of a "gee whiz" factor. Where are "blink and you'll miss it" shout outs to the first two films, this time around the aliens and technology take a back seat to the relationships in the film. The plot borrows heavily not only from other similar time travel stories but also from another Steven Spielberg produced franchise, Back To The Future. Like that film series, the first two films center on Will Smith's fast talking Agent J. However, like BTTF III (and despite Will Smith's top billing and the fact that he's almost in every scene of the film), MIB III shifts the focus to Agent K, who is the target of Boris the Animal (Jemaine Clement, looking like a cross between the late Randy Savage and the "Lobo" character in DC Comics). In the present day scenes, Jones is even more gruffly crotchety than ever before. However, his character has even more nuance than in previous portrayals (especially in the second film, wherein he seemed to be phoning his performance in from Bermuda). This performance makes for an uncomfortable first act (complete with an extended sequence in a Chinese restaurant that gives one pause to enter one again).  However, once Agent J literally time jumps to 1969 does the movie kick into high gear.

This film would fall apart if not for the uncanny performance of Josh Brolin as the younger Agent K. Reportedly, during their filming of No Country For Old Men, Brolin would study then mimic the mannerisms of fellow Texan Jones to the amusement of cast and crew, including Jones himself. This mimicry serves in good stead as Brolin becomes Jones in every gesture and nuance, verbal and non-verbal. He walks a tightrope that could easily fall into caricature and succeeds in maintaining a perfect balance.* His performance alone is worth the price of admission.  His K is much lighter, witty and romantic which leaves the audience asking why K turns out to be such a sour puss in the film. The film poignantly provides the answer. "Poignant" is not a word one would ascribe to this film series, but then this is not a run of the mills, paint by numbers sequel. Though there is some serious retconning going on, the film brings the series full circle in a satisfying manner.

The performances are entertaining. Outside of the aforementioned trifecta of Smith, Jones and Brolin, Clement as "Boris" is perhaps the most ridiculous yet menacing MIB villain to date. He is sadistic vengeance and the character's interpretation is appropriate to the stakes at risk in the film. Emma Thompson as new MIB director "O" shows an adroitness with deadpan comedy, though her character's inclusion is more than just a replacement for an unavailable Rip Torn. This is "K"'s film, and she adds to it. Also of note is Michael Stuhlbarg as "Griffin", a soothsaying human unicorn (don't ask), who is the key to keeping both the Earth safe and K alive. His character is a catalyst for the action as well as both prophet and doomsayer. His innocent and cryptic declarations ratcheting up the suspense to the point that one wonders whether either one of the MIBs will survive. The climax, which takes place at Cape Canaveral during the launch to the moon, is suspenseful but, as filmed by Sonnenfeld, also captures the hope and wonderment of the day, even if it is marred by tragedy; one that explains why Agents J and K are partners in the future.

Men In Black III is a return to the quality of the first film. While the concepts is no longer a novelty, the time travelling element gives it a fresh twist that allows for more depth than ever and, ultimately, a worthy conclusion to the series. If this is the last MIB film, it is wrapped up in a neat little bow and, unlike the second film, you won't want to subject yourself to a neuralizer to forget it.

*A non-sequiter aside: In graduate school I once wrote a paper arguing that "No Country for Old Men" (both in prose and film) was a modernized revisitation of the themes of William Shakespeare's "Hamlet", with the cinematic representations of Jones and Brolins' respective characters as "King/Father" and "Hamlet/son" archtypes; especially due to their passing resemblance to each other. Nice to see that MIB III gives unintentional credence to the theory.

Memorial Day

Given the weekend, I'd like to call your attention to this post included last year to mark the occasion:

http://americanculturecritic.com/2011/11/two-simple-words.html

"DARK SHADOWS" IS MORE MURKY THAN DARK

It used to be that one could think of Johnny Depp and Tim Burton as human representations of a candy bar slogan: "Two great tastes that taste great together." Cinematically, their collaborative efforts have produced varying degrees of great taste:  Edward Scissorhands, Sleepy Hollow, Sweeney Todd, and the like. However, in their latest cinematic foray together, Dark Shadows, the taste has gone a tad stale like an Oreo cookie left out too long.

Based on the soap opera created by the late Dan Curtis, the story follows Barnabas Collins (Depp), the son of a fishing magnate who has a torrid affair with one of the family servants, Angelique Bouchard (a very vampy Eva Green, Casino Royale) though he focuses his true romantic affections for Josette Du Pres (Bella Heathcote, who also plays the governess Victoria Winters later in the film). Unbeknownst to Barnabas, Angelique is a witch who does not take being scorned lightly. Thus she both kills Josette and transforms Barnabas into a vampire, the latter of whom is taken by the townspeople of Collinswood and entombed for almost two hundred years. Barnabas is inadvertently released in the year 1972, where he discovers that the grand estate of Collinwood has fallen to disrepair and his descendants have fared no better. Among the Collinwood clan are family matriarch Elizabeth Collins Stoddard (Michelle Pfeiffer, looking almost as pale as Barnabas); her rebelliously problematic daughter, Carolyn (Chloë Grace Moretz, who brings her "Hit Girl" attitude to the fore); and Elizabeth's conniving brother Roger Collins (Jonny Lee Miller) who neglects his son, David (Gulliver McGrath), a boy who claims to see his dead mother. To his dismay, Barnabas finds that his once proud fishing empire has been destroyed and supplanted by a company owned by the seemingly immortal Angelique.  With the aid of his family (and groundskeeper Willie, played by a slightly amusing Jack Earle Haley, Watchmen), Barnabas attempts to return the fishing empire to its former glory.  Yes, you read right. The milieu is a Gothic horror setting replete with vampires, witches, and sundry creatures of the night, and the crux of the story is the resuscitating of a business? But then, this is a tongue-in-cheek reinvention that is emblematic of Tim Burton's quirkiness; a quirkiness that once made Batman Returns practically unmarketable to the action figure buying set.

The film’s visuals are starkly stunning; bright, often garish colors contrasting the Gothic bleakness of the setting. Yet for all that, the film seems strangely self-indulgent. Scenes that show Barnabas' loquacious eloquence juxtaposed against modern (by 1970s standards, anyways) dialect seems to go much too long; as if Barnabas, and Depp by extension, wax poetic simply to hear the sounds of their collective voice. The “stranger in a strange time/land” shtick is marginally amusing but, in all honesty, has worked better in other films.

The series upon which this film was based was filmed with the intention of being serious but was unintentionally campy. This film works in reverse; unfortunately, the reversal doesn't quite work. The actors, particularly Pfeiffer, deliver their lines in over the top fashion, even at the more subdued, seemingly poignant scenes which only works to dilute the impact of those scenes. Each character is instead a caricature, including Depp. As far as delivering the comedic bits, they are executed well; which may work for a series of vignettes but not as a movie on the whole. The only ones who seem to embrace the campiness of the proceedings are Burton’s nepotistic mainstay Helena Bonham Carter as Dr. Julia Hoffman, and Green as Angelique, who, with the aid of the cinematographer, has the remarkable ability to turn her beauty into something grotesque. Her villainy would be more effective in a truly horrifying film but, in truth, it’s wasted here. The film is too genteel in story and presentation to be anything worth of note. While some would argue that the series had the same deficiency, at least the show’s actors and narrative compelled one to watch the next installment (perhaps in the hopes of something better the next episode). Here, Burton's direction fails to do even that.

This is not to state that if the film had been treated straight it would have been better. Ben Cross starred in a 1990s reboot of the show, which was basically a cliff notes version of what had already gone before. Unlike the original, it was treated completely straight and died a quick death. Here, Burton has gone the other way and it unfortunately does not satisfy either. As a whole, Dark Shadows is a whole lot of dull. The few moments of humor does not offset the overwhelming sense of ennui over the proceedings. This version of Dark Shadows is sure to alienate the die-hard fans of the show. However, it is so pedantically plodding that it is sure to do the same to the non-fans as well. This film is like a Reese's peanut butter cup way past its expiration date. It just goes to show that not all steady collaborations have a perfect track record.

NO ASSEMBLY REQUIRED: THE AVENGERS Is A Masterpiece.

There may be small spoilers...be warned.

The road leading to the Avengers is like making love to a woman. First, there's the initial kiss, the tease...the unexpected thrill. This came in John Favreau's Iron Man (2008), where in Samuel Jackson appeared in the post credits teaser as (Ultimate) Nick Fury of S.H.E.I.L.D., hinting at an "Avengers Initiative."  Then came the caress in Louis Leterrier's The Incredible Hulk starring Ed Norton, wherein Tony Stark (Robert Downy, Jr., Chaplin, Back to School, Air America) brings the initiative to the attention of General "Thunderbolt" Ross (William Hurt, Body Heat). The caresses get bolder in 2010 with the release of Iron Man 2 where the Avengers Initiative becomes a full blown subplot and the greater presence of S.H.E.I.L.D. in the forms of Fury, Natasha Romanov/The Black Widow (Scarlett Johannson) and fan favorite Agent Phil Coulson (Clark Greg). In Kenneth Branagh's Thor (2011) the embraces begin in the form of the continued participation of Agent Coulson and another post-credits teaser hinting at a MacGuffin. Penultimately comes Joe Johnston's Captain America: The First Avenger, which, while a powerful stand alone film on its own, is the "point of copulation" as it's final moments directly lead into the events of The Avengers. After almost five years of foreplay, Marvel Studios and director Josh Whedon had a lot at stake; a house of cards that could rise or fall. After such a long build up, does The Avengers lead to a disappointing amount of nothing?

No.

Far from it.

The Avengers is a powerfully orgasmic cinematic feast.

It is also perhaps the best translation of a comic book to silver screen...yes, even better than Superman: The Movie, which will always be my seminal favorite, but honestly not since Christopher Reeve's portrayal of the Man of Steel has any actor, much less actors, so epitomize their comic book counterparts as the cast in this film have done.

Director Josh Whedon obviously knows his comics. Not only has he written "The Astonishing X-Men" for Marvel Comics, he has also been the driving force behind Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which is essentially a superhero concept (simply exchange "Slayer" for "Super hero" and "Vampires" for "Super villain"). His pedigree is such that this film was his to fail. And he does not. He presents the material as it should be...straight. His screenplay, written in conjunct with Zak Penn, presents the story in four acts that follow the tropes of classic "Marvel Bullpen" storytelling:  The establishment of the threat; the meeting of the heroes; the misunderstandings that lead to the heroes throwing down against each other; the classic infighting, the sacrificial lamb, and the overriding of differences to meet the threat (note to Bryan Singer:  This is comics storytelling done RIGHT). Whedon moves the story along briskly with very little by way of slow spots; but when the story slows down in terms of the primary plot, Wheadon uses the time for what he is best known for: character development.

And what characters there are:  At this juncture Robert Downy, Jr. is to "Tony Stark" what Sean Connery is to "James Bond". The role fits him like a familiar tuxedo and should those series of films continue beyond Downy's participation, he will still be the standard to which all future torchbearers will be compared. His Stark is the charming arrogant rogue, presenting himself as the smartest man in the room. Chris Hemsworth is "The Mighty Thor", as forthright and unbeguiled as he was in the eponymous film, but this time tempered with an understanding of consequences. Scarlett Johannson returns as "Black Widow" and given more character development than in Iron Man 2. With her character, Whedon references his Buffy roots by bringing developing a character that can stand toe to toe not only with Ms. Summers but perhaps a certain raven haired Amazon from the "Distinguished Competition".

Just as noteworthy are Chris Evans' "Steve Rogers/Captain America", a Super-Soldier out of time who finds himself woefully out of place compared to the world he's awoken; and, of course, there is Jeremy Renner who as "Clint Barton/Hawkeye" shows a Daniel Craig-like looks and charm as a tortured marksman in his own right (the comparison being more palatably felt with his starring turn in the forthcoming The Bourne Legacy). Being the most human of these characters, they serve as the audience's surrogate. But perhaps the most stand out performance comes in the understated, affable form of Mark Ruafflo as "Bruce Banner/The Incredible Hulk" (the latter role he shares in this film with the vocal participation the original live action "Hulk", Lou Ferrigno).  Apologies to Eric Bana and Edward Norton, but this is another example of Whedon's understanding of the medium. Under Whedon's direction and Ruafflo's talent, they bring a Bruce Banner that works...one who's template is not only akin, but honors Bill Bixby's portrayal of (then David) Banner. Not since the television series went off the air has a live action Banner been presented as a fully, fleshed out three-dimensional human being. One whose emotions run the spectrum (not just "tortured"). His Banner is a delight to watch...but The Hulk steals the show.  This is the best CGI rendering of The Green Goliath ever. He is not John Woo's "Gumby Hulk." This Hulk has weight and presence. And he has some of the best moments of screen time in both action AND humor. Plus, one of the highlights of the film (especially for any comics fan) is seeing an offshoot of the battle between Hulk v. Thor from "Journey Into Mystery" #112 realized...and leads into one of the better comedic moments. 

But the confrontations are not simply physical. Whedon uses chess master precision to use the characters as foils of the each other, bringing out the central conflicts and doubts between them, some of which are character arc carryovers from the previous stand alone films: Stark's aversion for the military and discipline; Rogers stalwart patriotism being a result of chemical enhancement, Thor's demi-god status and his filial loyalty to the film's main villain, Fury's camaraderie with his nascent team at odds with his patriotic duty; Romanov and Barton's respective needs for redemption; Banner's war with "the other guy"...The beauty of Wheadon's direction is how the elements gel. The humor is organic and interwoven into both the story and the characters. It is one of the few films that the laughs are not forced or contrived; better than some of those in the comedy genre. The character arcs progress and, unlike other superhero productions where the heroes revert to a gestalt state, these characters grow and evolve...discovering aspects of themselves that they would not have without the reflection provided by their foils. In the comics, The Avengers are more than just a team. They are a family; a dysfunctional one, but a family none the less. More than any other director since Richard Donner, Whedon gets it.

The growth is not simply epitomized in the protagonists. Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is a much more credible threat than the petulant, neglected second son he was in Thor. While no match for Terrance Stamp in a scene that was clearly evocative of Superman II, this is villainous demi-god to be reckoned with; one made more so by one pivotal, heart-wrenching scene. He is a super-powered "Simon Legree" and when he gets his comeuppance, it is supremely satisfying. The true heart of this film, however, comes in the form of Agent Phil Caulson, who despite being beyond the age of innocence and everything he has seen, still believes in heroes (especially Rogers) and provides the "push" the team requires; in essence, he is an unacknowledged Avenger.

The film comes together in the third act, which makes the climatic Metropolis battle from Superman II (a template for this sequence) look like a child playing with Tinker Toys (though one moment in the climax cribs heavily from that of Independence Day). The CGI is interwoven with old fashion stunts and pyrotechnics and the action, accompanied by Alan Silvestri's powerful (though not as evocative as his previous Captain America effort) score.  Like a marathon lovemaking session, it pounds the senses until the battle's final moments and, when the credits roll (and be sure to stay through all the credits), one really needs to have a post-coital cigarette.

Yet all throughout, the material is treated straight. There is no hint of condescension of the source material. There is one scene involving Captain America that skirts towards that territory, but instead reasserts why Captain America (jingoism aside) as a character is a source of inspiration. Not since 1978 has a symbol for patriotism and morality seemed more, put succinctly, bad ass.

Unabashedly, I have been a comic book fanatic since the age of five. Understandably, my view of this film may be a bit biased. But then, Marvel has admittedly not been my company of choice. I wish I could be as effusive of praise on DC Comics' more recent cinematic offerings. Yet to try to be otherwise would be disingenuous. The fact remains that as a comic book movie...as an action movie...as a science fiction movie...as a movie, period, The Avengers works! It balances action and character exposition, humor and pathos, deftly. Any other critics who see this as a popcorn film are missing the moments of characterization and the evolution they go through. If I am too effusive in my praise, it is only because this film truly merits it; not many films have engendered such a reaction in me. It has been a long time since I have enjoyed a film based on a comic book this much...and that includes The Dark Knight. The film is enjoyable for the average moviegoer but also respectful shout outs to the hardcore fans as well (Captain America's instruction to The Hulk is especially "geektasmic"). The film is, in effect, a masterpiece of genre filmmaking.

Long story short: Go See The Damn Thing! And one last thing...what the hell is Marvel going to do for an encore?!

HEARD AFTER THE KNOCKING, RAPPING AT MY CHAMBER DOOR: "WATCH THE RAVEN; IT'S NOT A BORE!"

Hollywood has a history of repeating success and/or capturing lightning in a bottle (or, as an oft-used Hollywood saying goes “nobody wants to be first, but everyone wants to be second”).  For example, when Star Wars became a success, Star Trek: The Motion Picture was shunted from Paramount Pictures' television to movie division, with inferior offerings such as Battle Beyond the Stars rushed into production. Raiders of the Lost Ark launched the less successful likes of Doc Savage and Allan Quartermain and the City of Gold. John Millius’ Conan the Barbarian inspired the lackluster Lou Ferrigno Hercules films, and so forth. With the advent of the mammoth success that has been Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes franchise, another Victorian era actioner was bound to happen.  In this case, however, it is not a Victorian fictional character at the forefront, but an actual historical figure in the form of Edgar Allen Poe (John Cusack, Say Anything, Hot Tub Time Machine) in the final, destitute (and historically nebulous) years of his life.

The premise of the film is simple: a serial killer who stalks the streets of Baltimore utilizes Poe's stories as a basis for each murder, places Poe's resourceful lady love Emily (the lovely Alice Eve, the forthcoming Men In Black III and the currently filming Star Trek sequel) in mortal danger and challenging Poe to solve his clues to rescue her. Upon first glance, James McTeigue (V for Vendetta, Ninja Assassin) The Raven seems like a blatant attempt to cash in on Holmes' coattails.  However, this film could not be further than it's "inspiration". Where the Holmes films were fast moving, action oriented fare punctuated with moments of humor, The Raven is a dark, atmospheric methodical horror procedural which takes itself perhaps a bit too seriously. The settings, even in the daytime, are as dark and forboding as Poe's attire, the only hint of light epitomized in Emily's golden tresses and bright mode of dress. This is a humorless world which is as stark as any story the real Poe ever wrote; the shadows cast in the scenery are all pervasive, touching upon the characters themselves, such as Detective Fields (Luke Evans, The Three Musketeers), the constabulary who engages Poe in the investigation, and Captain Hamilton (Brendan Gleeson, the Harry Potter series), who loathes Poe for trying to romance his daughter. All of the actors bring in top notch performances, but especially Cusack as the title character. Gone are the "Cusackisms" that infuse his previous characters. This is one of those rare efforts where an actor buries himself so completely in the part you forget the person playing the role. He and McTeigue deftly avoid the cliché of turning Poe into an action hero. He's not. In truth, he is the furthest thing from. He is a man hounded by personal demons and past glories, and it leads to a satisfactory character arc from beginning to end.

This is also a risky film, because it goes against American movie going conventions and expectations. To say more would enter into spoiler territory, but suffice it to say that it contains disturbing elements that would turn off most viewers and goes against the grain of conventional movie storytelling. What little gore in evidence is explicit and the battle between good and evil is not so cut and dry even at its conclusion. However, the film is not without its flaws, most especially in the reveal of the murderer. Say what one will about Ritchie's Holmes series, clues are laid out in full view of the public throughout the films. Here, The Raven cheats. Again, more cannot be said without spoiling the film, however, once seen this complaint will be understood. It is understandable to want to surprise the viewer with the killer's identity; it is another thing to do so at the expense of the audience's intelligence and rob them of the opportunity to properly figure it out. The final scene seems almost a tacked on afterthought to appease the general public; one that is oddly dissatisfying.

Despite this, The Raven is a good film, on par with From Hell starring Johnny Depp. The film's tone matches the works of the character it is based, so bear that in mind when watching it. Do not expect sunshine and rainbows. You can expect good performances and evocative atmosphere. It is worth a viewing.

THE DORIAN GRAY OF ROCK 'N ROLL IS GONE.

Dick Clark. R.I.P.

Thank you for your immesurable contributions to the American pop/music culture landscape.