Terminator Genisys (2015)

"Bite me!"

"That is a very immature response."

Ok, I started off resenting this film for its retconning earlier films, some of which I liked, and for Jason Clarke not being great as the future John Connor. And the first ten or fifteen minutes are seemingly just a version of the first film, as amended by its events:the beginning of the film hardly impresses. And yet it wins me over. Hugely.

Why? Simply put, it wears its timey-wimeyness lightly and has fun ith it and, most importantly, it has heart. And that's not something one would necessarily expect of a Terminator film.

The film starts to turn around as soon as the leather jacketed Arnie turns up,,, and kills his naked future doppelganger sent by Skynet. And we get a witty script where Arnie ("Pops") gets to insist that he is "old, not obsolete"- a delightful touch. And I love how Kyle Reese is sent back in  time to a 1984 which has already been changed by a Terminator being sent to kill Sarah Connor eleven years earlier. Interestingly, we never do get told who sent "pops" back.

Wonderfully, there's a constant theme of the helpless fatalism of living on  set path in a future that's already been written versus living in an unwritten future- and we get a happy ending, where Sarah and Kyle get to live and be happy together, and yet Sarah still has a kick-ass metal dad who will literally murder Kyle if he hurts her. As a father of a daughter, I find this the happiest possible ending. plus, we get a (bizarrely) American accented Matt Smith (credited as "Matthew") as Skynet. Best Terminator film since 1991, despite the cheeky recon.

Spider-Man 3 (2007)

“Where do all these guys come from?”

The critics didn’t like this film; I went in knowing that. So I’m left wondering what parts low expectations had in what I made of the film, but I liked it; perhaps more so than Spider-Man 2, and that certainly isn’t what you’re supposed to think.

We’re told this film is an overcrowded mess with too many villains. Well, it isn’t. Both Sandman and Venon are tied in well to Peter Parker’s character development and play important roles, as does Harry Osbourne.  Gwen  Stacy plays an important role too; the film packs a lot in but doesn’t feel rushed. Instead, it actually justifies its long running time.

The core of the film is, of course, the symbiote as a symbolic representation of Peter’s dark side- the arrogance, the selfishness, the temptations that lurk within us all. From a situation of seeming perfection at the start of the film- things are going well for Peter in his love life, studies, work and Spider-Man is insanely popular- we immediately know that the bubble is bound to burst and, importantly, Peter starts to show some neglect for MJ’s work problems before the symbiote even affects him, but as soon as he puts in the dark costume (it’s a shame they didn’t use the proper version of the costume, as Benom looks pretty similar, but heigh-ho...)

Yes, Venon gets relatively little screen time, but a version of Eddie Brock is well used, Harry (whine, conveniently, we already know) is well used and Flink Marco (Sandman) is given a tragic backstory and an important role into being (rather crudely) retconned into Ben Parker’s killer. He’s well portrayed by Thomas Gaden Church and, while both he and Venom have limited screen time, I liked the way both were used. This isn’t a Joel Schumacher Batman film; all the characters are properly developed, however minor, including May, Jonah and the rest of the supporting cast.

So ignore the criticisms; this is a fine film. It also has a top cameo by Bruce Campbell as a snooty French maitre d’, and the CGI with both Sandman and Venom deserves an awful lot of praise. It’s sad that this is the last of the Sam Raimi films; I wish they had more of a wisecracking Spidey, but the trilogy is excellent on the whole, and ends on a high.

Spider-Man 2 (2004)

"And it rides up in the crotch a little bit too."

Hmm. Still not entirely enamoured with Sam Raimi's take on Spider-Man in spite of having to admit that it has to be considered, objectively, as a very good couple of films so far. It's stylish, well-directed and acted, a faithful recreation of the style of the early comics from Stan Lee and Steve Ditko with a student Peter Parker. And yet... where are Spidey's funny quips?

At least this is the sequel and therefore not another bloody origin story; it's nice how scenes from the first film are used during the opening titles but this is a film which is, yes, about Doctor Octopus (Alfred Molina is very good casting), but really about both Peter's roller-coaster relationship with MJ and the increasing disintegration of Harry Osborne- and the fact that Peter may be a hero but he and his Aunt May are struggling with very real poverty, which is brave to show. It's 2004, but Peter must use a pay phone because he has no mobile. We even get a funny cameo from Sam Raimi perennial Bruce Campbell and, of course, a blink-and-you-miss-it appearance from Stan Lee. And, indeed, a minor role for Daniel Dad Kim, who plays Gavin Park in Angel. J. Jonah Jameson is awesome ("Guy names Otto Octavius ends up with eight limbs. What are the odds?") to the point that J.K. Simmons was surely born to play him.

Ok, it's a good film. Very good, in fact. The central romance is brilliant and, yes, it's faithful in many ways to the source material. Not being an origin story allows this film to breathe and grow, and it lacks a lot in without ever feeling too long. But... where are those quips?

Spider-Man (2002)

"You're not Superman."

I'll be generous; this film is well-made, well-acted, looks good, has a decent plot and it was amazing at the time (unbelievably the first ever Spider-Man film was released as late as 2002) to see Spidey on-screen. Tobey Maguire is a good Peter Parker and the film faithfully translates the comics well, particularly visually. But... even at the time it was a little disappointing that the film was so serious and totally lacking in Spidey's signature quips.

Now? Well, several years of witty, cool Marvel Cinematic Universe films make this film seem stuff and awkward. It's quite good, but forgettable, and feels like a relic of a different era. The most interesting thing about it in 2016, sadly, is that Cliff Robertson, who plays Uncle Ben, also played Shame in the 1960's Batman series.

Still, there are lots of things to praise, from the costume to the realisation of Spidey's web swinging to the casting of J.L. Simmons as a perfect J. Jonah Jameson. Doing an origin story for a superhero film is generally not a good idea but they get away with it; nice to see the radioactive spider being updated to a genetically engineered one. And Willem Dafoe makes a splendid Green Goblin.

It's just that, well, these days we expect our superhero films to be a bit less serious. Not a bad film, but surprisingly dated..

Juno (2007)

"Thundercats are go!"

OK. I'm a little biased. I was all snuggled up with my loved one when I watched this film and that's probably biased me in its favour a bit. (She doesn't even mind me taking notes for my blog when we watch films together, or even watching with subtitles- she's one very special lady!) Still, about the actual film.

It is, obviously, brilliant. Juno uses humour to fully explore the very serious subject of teenage pregnancy and all the stuff that surrounds it. It doesn't shy away from big emotional moments, and works superbly as a drama, but it leaves you smiling, and not only because of (SPOILER ALERT!) the happy ending. The humour really works in counterpointing the serious themes, and the whole thing is perfectly judged.

The film is full of wickedly wonderful dialogue, most of it from Juno herself (the excellent Ellen Page) and sounding almost Whedon-esque in its wit and pop culture savvy. It's also a brilliantly shot and structured movie; fast cutting is often used to advance the story or reveal a character point. The camerawork is as witty as the dialogue, and the seasons are used nicely to indicate the passage of time without being too heavy-handed.

The whole look of the film is great. There's a definite '90s slacker vibe in the clothing, general attitudes and pop culture references, which extends to the brilliant animated opening sequence and the amazing soundtrack. Everything oozes class, in a very Douglas Coupland sort of way. If you read and enjoyed Generation X, this film should be right up your street.

I suppose it can be said that Mark's reluctance to be a father, and his basic incompatibility with Vanessa, is pretty much obvious from the first scene (although the pregnancy fetish, er, isn't!!!), and it's no surprise when he bails out and rejects his marriage, the chance of fatherhood and adulthood itself for a Bohemian lifestyle that he's too old for. Also, his sell-out job pretty much tells us that he's a wrong 'un. I don't think the film means to imply that loving rock 'n' roll (especially Sonic Youth and the Melvins- cool!) makes you immature, mind. Plus, the Stooges, the Runaways, Patti Smith and Mott the Hoople seem to be endorsed by no less a figure than Juno herself. Let's just say that '77 and '93 were both excellent years for music. Who'd like to choose between Marquee Moon and In Utero?

Juno is very, very, funny, not too heavy, but managing to put across its central message without too much soppiness. It's always the women who are literally left holding the baby, and all too often this biological fact leads men to deny their responsibilities; not exactly something my own gender can always be proud of, sweet though the rather dim Beeker is here. Perhaps the film, with its supportive male characters, is a little rose-tinted in this regard, especially when it comes to teenage pregnancy. But it's a wonderful, wonderful movie.