Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021)

 "Gods don't have to choose. We take."

SPOILERS.

I've been waiting to see this film for a while, and it's a relief to have finally seen it. It is, after all, clearly quite big in being the first film (although Loki got there first, I believe) to establish ther multiverse. And it's bloody good.

For a film that literally links all the Sony Spider-Men and baddies to the MCU, quite an undertaking, this is a deeply witty and enjoyable film, chock full of actors, although they may have aged a bit. Alfred Molina has aged somewhat, but that's mitigated by the reaction of Peter, MJ and Ned to the name "Otto Octavius". Yet Jamie Foxx and Willem Defoe are awesome in their own right.

Tobey Maguire, though, and Andrew Garfield, deserve as much praise as Tom Holland and- indeed- Benedict Cumberbatch, who has conceded the title of Sorcerer Supreme to Wong by means of being dead for five years. That'll do it.

Despite the multiversal shenanigans, though, this is all about the characters. Spidey's reaction to May's death is heartbreaking, but not as heartbreaking as the fact that the conclusion has to revolve around everyone- including MJ- forgetting Peter. Ouch.

Yet, alongside the tragedy, and the blealk ending of everyone forgetting who Peter ids, threre's humour, which is very Spider-Man. And, while the late Aunt May is much nicer and much more relatable than in the comics, there's also J. Jonah Jameson, played superbly by J.K. Simmons, being a total ***. He's the real villain.

Yes, this probably won't stand up well to repeated viewings. But I love it.

All this and Matt Murdoch. So all them series are canon?

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

 "Um, did your traffic jam have something to do with the Russian mob?"

Ouch. This is a rubbish film, isn't it? I mean, Andrew Garfield is great. Emma Stone, too. Jamie Foxx is superb in a very different take on Electro, although Dane DeHaan misses the mark as Harry Osborn. Still, the cast is pretty good, although Paul Giamatti is absolutely slumming it in a part like this. So why is the film such utter pants? After all, nobody wants to make a bad film.

For a fair chunk of the running time I was expecting to be expressing the opinion that this was a good script ruined by bad direction. Marc Webb was ok in the film's predecessor but this instalment is shot much more obviously like a music video, and is frankly annoying with all that jiggery pokery with the POV of the camera. I don't mind creative camerawork, in fact I admire it. But when it draws attention to the artifice, as it does here, it fails.

But it's not just the camerawork. This film has Electro, a half-hearted Green Goblin with a rushed backstory, and an even more half-hearted Rhino. Electro is sidelined tooo much to be effective as a villain,whereas the whole attempt to replicate Gerry Conway's classic 1970s comics tale of the Green Goblin and the tragic death of Gwen Stacy is frankly an insult in how rushed it is. The entire conceit of Gwen's graduation speech, and how it seems to impart extra maning after her death, is the ultimate in faux profundity. It really is a pathetic waste of a storyline that could have been devastatingly good. 

I seem to be on a run of bad Marvel films. Can we have a good one, please?

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

"I'm having woman cramps..."

Meh. Is that it? That was decidedly, boringly average, but then this is 2012 and Sony have to crank out any old Spider-Man film every few years. Still, those of us who have seen Fox's 2015 Fantastic Four know it could be much worse.

Not that this is a bad film, you understand. It's well-shot, adequately plotted and scripted, Andrew Garfield is a good-enough Spider-Man in spite of being blatantly too old, and the whole "cross-species" thing is a clever way of tying together the origins of Spidey and the Lizard. No; what's annoying is that they're doing that damn origin again, and Sam Raimi made that film in 2002.

Oh, they try to make things different- there's an emphasis on Spidey's dead parents. We get Gwen Stacy and Mary Jane and there's a twist at the end where he seems to decide not to dump her for her "own safety" after a promise to her dad in which two men agree her future between them. Patriarchy much? Still, at least this time it's subverted, even if the trope of Peter Parker's girlfriend always being a character integral to the plot is becoming a little groanworthy. We also get a more streetwise, skateboarding Peter whose academic geekery is downplayed, in spite of the fact that this time we get actual web-shooters. But we still get that damn origin story again, and the whole thing feels so uninspired that even a hilarious Stan Lee cameo can't save this film from mediocrity.

Sugar Rush: Season One, Episode 6

"I am totally off men!"

Guillaume has not yet buggered off; Sugar is apparently off to Paris to be with him, until she realises exactly what he really meant by "putain". So she goes off on the prowl. For men. Poor Kim's love for her has never seemed more unrequited.

Things don't go to plan. Kim intends to go to see Sugar and declare her love, but instead she shags Tom the stalker. Oops. But she goes all out to sabotage Sugar's date, right up to the point of dog kidnapping.

The ending, with Sugar trying to comfort Kim, is something of a turning point: she jokingly says "Well, maybe you like me then" only to realise that, yep....

Oh dear. What next? This series is gripping, and shows a complete mastery of tone.

Sugar Rush, Season One, Episode 3

"Are you on something?"

"No."

"Then why are your hands on my tits?"

The tension now ramps up with both it strands- Stella's affair and Kim's unrequited passion for Sugar, and things start to get seriously uncomfortable. There's a change of tone, and a fair bit of non-linear storytelling.

There's a more serious tone. We learn that Sugar's mum tried to kill herself "when Dad pissed off". There's real darkness beneath the chirpy exterior, and sex is cheap for her: she's always "too pissed to remember." This does not indicate a particularly filling sex life.

We see plenty more of Stella's mid-life crisis affair with Dale, with spliffs, wine and cunnilingus. Matt has an accidental overdose. But the episode ends with the tension unresolved.

Sugar Rush: Season One, Episode 1

"Nice tits!"

"Die."

It's entirely possible you haven't heard of Sugar Rush. Well, it was on Channel 4 from 2005, with just ten short episodes for each of it's two series. It's a delightfully irreverent lesbian coming-of-age story set, naturally, in Brighton, and based on a series of novels by everyone's favourite controversialist Stalinist Christian veteran of the punk era music press, Julie Burchill. And yes, I'm still fully commited to all my ongoing series. Tell you what, I won't start anything new for a bit, ok?

This was a favourite of my then-girlfriend, now-wife and we recently (ish) watched the whole thing together. I had no preconceptions, but I found the whole thing to be superb. The first short episode gives first impressions of being very, very mid-2000's with the opening titles, and the first person narration from Kim which gels well with the directorial style. It reminds me, visually, of Nathan Barley.

Kim is a teenage closeted gay virgin, just moved down from London. Her family is middle class, slightly bohemian and probably takes the Guardian. Her mum Stella is having a mid-life sexual crisis while her dad, Nathan, is a wet drip. She calls them both by their first names, naturally. And her brother is... eccentric.

The best bit is Nathan's unintentional double entendres after Kim has seen Stella banging the decorator, but there are many funny moments. It a smart, snappy kind of humour. 

The point of the episode, and the series, is Kim's infatuation with the alluring, fascinating yet rather direct Sugar- seemingly completely straight and, in spite of her near-RP accent, rather more working class than Kim is. This latter point will remain a constant, unspoken subtext.

This is a nicely done introduction to the characters and the premise, and it even has a young Andrew Garfield as Kim's hopeless male stalker Tom. And the toad on the hole metaphor for sexual orientation is magnificent!!!

The Social Network (2010)

“Your best friend is suing you for $600 million dollars…”

Like everyone else, I’m trapped on Facebook. It’s socially impossible not to be on there- I’d miss out on everything- but the whole thing is a constant battle to defend my privacy against that bastard Mark Zuckerberg. All of us users of Facebook need to realise that it is not we who are the customers, but the entities that pay for access to all of our personal private stuff. And this film, scripted by the great Aaron Sorkin, purports to show how it all started.

I say “purports” not to diss this excellent film  but to recognise that it’s a fictionalised version of real events, a very different animal to an actual depiction of real events. This film isn’t the absolute “truth” and doesn’t make any such claim; how could it? The broad details of how Facebook came to be are known, but the finer details are murky, shrouded in legalistic fog, and highly disputed. Sorkin, quite rightly, has to a large extent decided to print the legend.

This film is superb. The script, as one would suspect, is excellent: a non-linear narrative, with scenes framed by later court scenes in which facts are disputed, and with all of Sorkin’s trademark wit. The soundtrack, too, is excellent, as one would expect from the great Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails. But the film rest on three superb performances from Jesse Eisenberg as the insufferable genius himself, flanked by Andrew Garfield and Justin Timberlake (yes, Justin Timberlake) as the rogueish, washed-up founder of Napster.

It’s tempting to wonder how close the real Mark Zuckerberg is to the highly annoying, focussed, borderline Aspergers business genius depicted here; it’s tempting to conclude “quite a lot”, but the real Zuckerberg is a mysterious figure. Rather hypocritically, he guards his privacy jealously. Interestingly, the film presents him unsympathetically part of the time, but also allows him to be sympathetic at times; as viewers, we’re rooting for him against those insufferable Winklevoss brothers.

The film ends, in a scene shot in the real Facebook offices, with Zuckerberg symbolically alone in front of a screen. He’s wealthy, successful, but in contrast to the free-spirited Sean Parker he seems unable to enjoy the fruits of his success. Doesn’t your heart bleed for the poor billionaire?

I enjoyed this film hugely. If you’re a fan of Sorkin, witty dialogue, or good writing, or also trapped on Facebook, then so will you.

Doctor Who: Daleks in Manhattan / Evolution of the Daleks

Daleks in Manhattan



“I know some guys are just pigs, but not my Laszlo.”

This story just brilliantly evokes the New York of 1930, from the soundtrack to the show tunes to the men working on girders hundreds of feet up. It’s a fantastic setting, with iconic sights and loads of atmosphere, and the Depression setting is powerful, in fact much more so given the events which have happened in the years since this was broadcast. It’s not just Hooverville, the poverty, and the appalling pay and conditions the desperate need to accept if they want work; Tallulah’s words to Martha on having to soldier on and perform every day, even with a broken heart, just to pay the rent and keep going gives a horrifying sense of the abyss that lies beneath ordinary people.

Oh, and I just adore the Bugs Bunny accents. I have no idea how accurate they are but how could you possibly dislike anyone who talks like that?

The Cult of Skaro is back, of course, and their straitened circumstances have made them somewhat more philosophical than usual. The Dalek’s musings to Diagoras as they look out over the city hint at a slight resentfulness for the human capacity for growth and survival, but this also implies an acceptance of Dalek failures. This is something the story goes on to develop at great length. These Daleks are interesting, already showing signs of dissent against Sec from quite early on.

Solomon’s a great, charismatic, dignified character who manages to earn the Doctor’s respect as few guest characters do, actually getting an apology from the Doctor after being given a glib response. Tallulah’s wonderful, too. I love the line about musical theatre. I’m not sure about the portrayal of the Doctor, though. He says of the Daleks that “They survive. They always survive, while I lose everything.” This kind of self-centred bitterness is one of this otherwise great Doctor’s less appealing qualities.

The cliffhanger should in theory be great, and certainly has potential for exploring some interesting ideas, but visually I’m not sure that a human Dalek quite works.



Evolution of the Daleks



“New York City… If aliens had to come to Earth- oh, no wonder they came here.”

This story’s title suggests a homage to a certain story from the ‘60s I could mention, even to the point of involving the “Human Factor”. I don’t think the parallel quite works, though; the Daleks’ motivation here is desperation rather than power and they’re acting far more reluctantly, and the Doctor’s role is entirely different. It’s sort of exploring the same concepts, though, and concludes in a kind of civil war between Daleks with the “Human Factor” and without.

All this has knock on effects, of course. By far the funniest thing about this episode is the gossiping Daleks sharing their doubts over their leader, one of them even looking around with its eyestalk to make sure it’s not overheard! But these concepts are not always handled well or consistently, and there’s a certain lack of focus about themes and characterisation here.

Solomon’s speech to the Dalek before being exterminated is a powerful scene and the centrepiece of the episode, but the Doctor angrily goading the Daleks to kill him feels awkward and wrong. There’s nothing which suggests to me that the Doctor is in any way bluffing, so I have to conclude that the Doctor does indeed have a momentary death wish here. This is not a good thing, to put it mildly. If for no other reason, what about Martha, potentially trapped in 1930? For the second story in succession the Doctor’s being horribly cavalier about her fate. And Martha even has to prompt the Doctor to ensure the lives of the people of Hooverville are spared. All of this is terribly misjudged.

Oh, and the atom had been split before 1930.

All that aside, though, it’s not a bad episode, albeit lacking in a certain polish. Martha gets some good scenes, doing a bit of Doctoring, flashing the psychic paper and coming up with a clever plan to use lightning against the pig slaves. The humanised Dalek Sec is great, too; his gradual move away from Dalek thinking and the growing rebellion against him are well developed throughout, and his insistence that Davros, in relation to removing certain emotions from the Daleks, “was wrong” is genuinely shocking. Unfortunately, this prompts the other Daleks to go all Nyder on him, but in the meantime it’s fascinating that the Doctor agrees to help. His dialogue to Laszlo indicates he doesn’t really expect any of this to happen but he has to try.

The genocide of the human Daleks would have made for a downbeat ending, so it’s appropriate that we end with the Doctor’s saving of Laszlo.



I was quite impressed with this, although the problems with the Doctor’s characterisation and a certain lack of polish mean it only gets a 3/5. A promising start on Who proper for Helen Raynor, though.