Spider-Man 3 (2007)

Today, we'll discuss the final Spider-Man film in the Sam Raimi trilogy: Spider-Man 3 (2007).  But this is not the end of my Spider-Man marathon.  Stay tuned for more Spider-Man film reviews after this one!  Warning: some spoilers ahead.

SYNOPSIS:
All is going very well for Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) until an alien symbiote crashes to Earth and bonds with him.  It gives him improved strength while also boosting his confidence and enhancing his emotions.  But who is really in control, the man or the symbiote?  Meanwhile, an escaped convict who actually killed Ben Parker falls into a particle accelerator and becomes the powerful Sandman (Thomas Haden Church).  Peter Parker has to deal with his emotions over his Uncle Ben all over again as the Sandman runs amok in New York.  Peter also has to contend with Eddie Brock (Topher Grace), an amateur photographer who is competing to take Peter's job at the Daily Bugle.  And finally, Harry Osborn (James Franco) has discovered his father's Green Goblin experiments and is preparing himself to take on Spider-Man as the New Goblin.  If all this wasn't enough, Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst) and Peter Parker are having some serious relationship troubles.  Looks like Spider-Man's schedule is about to be very busy...

REVIEW:
Here is the epic conclusion of the Sam Raimi trilogy!  Sam really wanted Dr. Curt Connors/The Lizard to be the villain in this film, which he had been building up to in the previous two films.  But audiences had been demanding Venom (the alien symbiote) make an appearance in a live-action film, so Sony decided to go with the fan-favorite villain.  This film is chock-full of villains this time around, though!  Venom, Sandman, and the new Green Goblin all make an appearance, leading up to a full roster and a lengthy runtime.

This film was almost split into a two-part story, but they decided to trim it down and keep it to one film.  Splitting a finale into two films hadn't quite become a trend just yet.  Spider-Man 2 (2004) was re-released as Spider-Man 2.1 with deleted scenes added back in and fans have called for a similar treatment for Spider-Man 3.  But so far, no extended or director's cut has ever come.  Originally, Sony planned to produce six Spider-Man films!  But due to creative differences between Sam Raimi and Sony, this ongoing series ended after only three.

One of my favorite scenes is when Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church) is transformed into Sandman and has to learn how to fully form his body again.  It's a wordless scene with beautiful music, showing the struggle to reform and the frustration Sandman feels as he's trying to become human again.  They made Sandman a very sympathetic character. In the original Spider-Man comics, he started out a generic villain who eventually, over a very long time, became a sort of antihero.  In this film, they showed him as a misunderstood character who only did bad things to help his dying daughter.

The CGI to render all the living sand effects did not exist when production started on this film, but through a lot of hard work and tight deadlines, programs were developed that were able to simulate the effects.  I remember being absolutely floored by the visual quality of it in theaters, and it holds up especially well, even today.

Stan Lee actually got a speaking role in his cameo this time!  He showed up to spout some advice to Peter Parker on the streets of New York.  His two previous cameos were so quick, you had to be looking carefully to see them.  This would be the start of his more direct cameos in Marvel superhero properties.

Bruce Campbell, Sam Raimi's friend and former star of his Evil Dead trilogy, also made another cameo in this film.  He played a French host at a fancy restaurant Peter invited Mary Jane to.  Peter planned a proposal to Mary Jane, which the French host was very excited to help with.  He got a more involved and silly role this time, which helped undercut the serious conversation between Peter and Mary Jane.

While Peter Parker is having a good time, settling into his role as the beloved superhero of New York, Mary Jane spends the film dealing with nothing but bad luck.  She loses her acting career and catches Spider-Man giving Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard) a public upside-down kiss - the kiss that defined Mary Jane's relationship with Peter in the first Spider-Man film.  Every time she tries to talk to Peter, he dismisses her frustration and then turns the conversation back on himself without properly listening to her.  Their relationship is a mess throughout this film because they just don't communicate with one another!  Not only is Peter not listening to Mary Jane, but Mary Jane is just shutting down and not making an effort to effectively communicate back. It's very frustrating to watch.

Gwen Stacy, a fan-favorite love interest for Spider-Man, is introduced in this film as a damsel in distress, saved by Spider-Man.  She's the daughter of the chief of police and happens to be dating Eddie Brock; although she ends up leaving Eddie for Peter later on.  When she presents Spider-Man the key to the city, there's a full parade going on and you hear the old 1967 cartoon Spider-Man's theme playing from a full band nearby the stage.  Finally, a complete Spider-Man theme in a live-action film!

Did I mention that Peter is VERY egotistical in this film?  Tobey Maguire plays a very socially awkward and cringey Peter Parker, but he dialed it up to 11 for this particular film. All right, let's talk about it: the embarrassingly cringey dance scene with "emo Peter."  As I re-watched this awful scene, I noticed that girls are cringing away from him, not impressed or wowed by him.  I think what makes the scene especially awkward is that there's no music playing in the scene itself, it's just emo Peter dancing to - supposedly - music in his head.  We, the audience, can hear it, but in the scene itself, he's just dancing to nothing.  If there was a street performer playing some music that he was dancing to, it would be at least 50% less cringey to watch.

For the longest time, I just hated emo Peter in this film, but upon watching it again now, I realize it's the Venom symbiote that's enhancing his negative emotions and making him a jerk to everyone.  When he finally realizes what's happening, he ditches the symbiote and becomes the superhero we recognize from the previous films.  So I'll give the extra-cringey Peter Parker a pass.  As bad as he is normally, "emo Peter" was not his fault.

In the comics, it was Marvel Super Heroes Secret Wars #8 (1984) where Spider-Man got his new black costume on an alien ship in space.  But several Amazing Spider-Man issues later, he discovered it was an alien symbiote trying to bond with him and he managed to ditch the suit before it took hold of him.  It bonded with Eddie Brock as well, who became the villain known as Venom.  He really became popular with audiences in Spider-Man: The Animated Series (1994). In this film, after Peter ditches the symbiote, we see it immediately bond to Eddie Brock, giving us the final form of Venom from the comics.

You may have noticed I have hardly mentioned Harry Osborn (James Franco) much at all in my reviews, and that's because he hasn't really been all that important to the plot.  He's had a 3-film build-up for his character arc and it was... decent.  He was a great friend to Peter in Spider-Man (2002), even if he was secretly jealous of all the attention and affection Peter got from Harry's dad, Norman Osborn.  Then Harry spends all of Spider-Man 2 (2004) brooding over his dead father and blaming Spider-Man for killing him.  His hidden jealousy of Peter slowly starts coming out and he accuses him of protecting Spider-Man from him, assuming Peter knows who Spider-Man is because of the good Spider-Man photos Peter takes for the Daily Bugle newspaper. Upon discovering Peter IS Spider-Man, he swears revenge for his father.  He then finds his father's old Green Goblin lab and, in this final film, we see him turn himself into the New Goblin and take on Spider-Man face-to-face.  It doesn't go well for him, and when he's pretty much a depressed, hopeless mess, only THEN does his butler speak up and give proof that the Green Goblin killed himself.  Oh, thanks!  NOW you mention it, after Harry ruined his friendships and his life.  Still, the climax of the film with Harry teaming up with Peter to take on the villains was pretty cool and a satisfying conclusion to the Harry Osborn revenge arc.

RECOMMENDATION:
This was a decent conclusion to the original Spider-Man trilogy.  I would have been curious about the six-movie deal Sony had planned (they've toyed with the idea of a Sinister Six film - the team-up of famous Spider-Man villains from the comics), but I'm glad to leave Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man for other actors in the role.  At least, until I see Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021) in theaters, where I suspect Tobey Maguire will be making an appearance.  My next couple reviews will be on both of The Amazing Spider-Man films, starring Andrew Garfield.  See you then!

Spider-Man 2 (2004)

Continuing my Spider-Man movie marathon, today we're going to take a look at Spider-Man 2 (2004)!  Some small spoilers for Spider-Man (2002) ahead, so be aware!

SYNOPSIS:
Two years after the death of Norman Osborn (Willem Dafoe), his son Harry Osborn (James Franco) still blames Spider-Man (Tobey Maguire).  He has taken over his father's business and invests heavily in a local scientist named Dr. Otto Octavius (Alfred Molina), who is on the brink of developing fusion power.  In order to control the dangerous power source, Dr. Octavius designs four robotic arms, attached to his spine, which grant him mental control over them.  But when his public test goes dangerously wrong, the doctor decides he will go to any length to complete his life's work.  Even if it means teaming up with Harry to eliminate the meddling Spider-Man!

REVIEW:
This is probably my favorite of the Sam Raimi trilogy. The opening credits are accompanied with scenes of the first film flashed through a spider web, wordlessly telling the story of the previous film.  A very nice way to catch up audiences who hadn't seen the first film in a while.

Throughout this film, Peter Parker struggles to deal with his double life as Spider-Man.  He's constantly late to everything (if he even shows up), he loses his job, he loses his friendship with Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst), he's at odds with Harry Osborn, who suspects he's buddies with Spider-Man and protecting him from Harry, and of course, he's poor and struggling just to pay rent in his new tiny apartment.  Everything is falling apart in Peter's life, and the stress and anxiety causes him to start losing his powers.  He spends a good chunk of the film powerless, even giving up the Spider-Man suit in a tribute to the famous comic storyline "Spider-Man No More" from The Amazing Spider-Man #50.  Like in the comic, someone finds the suit and brings it to J. Jonah Jameson (J. K. Simmons), who declares victory over ending Spider-Man's "reign of terror" on the city.  But when Dr. Octavius sets his sights on those important to Peter, Pete decides he needs to summon the strength to continue as Spider-Man and stop the insane doctor.

Alfred Molina does a great job being a sympathetic villain as "Doc Ock."  Rather than being a narcissistic genius villain like in the comics, he's given a decent background story.  The failure of his work, losing his wife, and being "saved" and also "ruined" by Spider-Man is enough to drive a villain, but they added an additional detail as well: his robot arms are run by an AI, which he has mental control over.  That is, until the microchip keeping them in line is broken.  Suddenly, the robot arms are mentally communicating with him and driving him to extremes in order to complete the work they were designed for.  I like how we don't hear the conversation between him and his robot arms.  I think it would've been weird if we heard something like whispered suggestions in the background.  It would have definitely distracted from the villain.

A wonderful scene with Doc Ock is shortly after his fateful accident.  He's in a hospital, about to have his robotic limbs cut off, when the limbs come alive and massacre the hospital staff in a gruesome but PG-13 manner.  It was brilliant how Sam Raimi managed to slip in a horror scene in a family action film.  He did start his directing career making horror films (the Evil Dead trilogy), so it was incredible getting a taste of the horror genre in a place we never expected to find it.  If you want to see a fascinating but in-depth analysis, check out the Nerdwriter's YouTube video on this one particular scene.  At just under 7 minutes, it's brief, but gets to the point and walks you through the terrifying action.

A hidden comic book villain in this film is Dr. Curt Connors; a.k.a. The Lizard.  He was mentioned by name in Spider-Man (2002), but we actually get to meet him here. He's Peter Parker's physics professor, and true to the comic book character, Dr. Connors only has one arm.  In the comics, he experimented with lizard DNA in hopes of growing his missing limb back, but his experiments had a nasty side-effect: turning him into an aggressive anthropomorphic lizard.  Sadly, as much as Sam Raimi wanted The Lizard in his films, he couldn't convince Sony to include the villain ("Not an interesting enough character to market toys," they said), so small scenes with Dr. Connors are all we'll get in this trilogy.

Speaking of cameos, Stan Lee returns for a brief cameo again.  In a blink-and-you'll-miss-it scene, we see him pulling a woman to safety before debris comes crashing to the ground.  Also, Sam Raimi's buddy, Bruce Campbell, makes another cameo.  This time, he's the doorman at the theater Mary Jane is performing at - the guy who denies Peter Parker entrance because the show already started.

Tobey Maguire continues his awkward portrayal of Peter Parker/Spider-Man in this film.  Early on, he gets a tip from Dr. Octavius that you can win a woman's heart through poetry.  So he finds a bunch of books on poetry and makes a very cringey attempt to recite some to Mary Jane, at the worst time, which she rightly shuts down.  The relationship between the two is back and forth throughout this film, with Mary Jane pursuing Peter, and when Peter decides he's going to show his affection, suddenly she's no longer interested and dating someone else.

Mary Jane actually dates an astronaut in this film, who happens to be J. Jonah Jameson's son, John Jameson.  He's a character from the original comics, who eventually becomes the villain Man-Wolf, although nothing of his comic-book character is referenced in this film, besides his name and astronaut title.  My wife and I were saying that Mary Jane should've just stuck with the astronaut.  The back-and-forth drama with Peter Parker was just so toxic and cringey, and she'd have a pretty good life as the wife of an Air Force Captain and astronaut.  But Mary Jane Watson and Peter Parker were apparently destined for each other, so the audience has to sit through manufactured teen drama instead of adult conversations and real relationship struggles. Maybe we'll see better Spider-Man relationships in future films...

Twice in this film, we get to hear a street performer playing the original Spider-Man theme song, which was a more direct tribute to the old 1967 cartoon than we got in the first film.  Even if it's just a woman singing off-key while plucking a violin string.  Danny Elfman returned to perform the film's score.  In the previous film, I mentioned that the main theme song almost sounded like his original Batman theme music from the old 1989 film, before transitioning into a more unique melody.  Danny Elfman went a lot more heavy on the Spider-Man theme this time around, making it much more recognizable and impactful.

RECOMMENDATION:
If you're going to watch any part of the original Spider-Man trilogy, Spider-Man 2 (2004) is probably the best one.  You get a visual recap at the start to catch you up, you get enjoyable characters and story, and plenty of Spider-Man action with a more satisfying ending than the previous film.  As we'll see in the next film, there's far more interpersonal drama going on than actual Spider-Man action.  Stay tuned for the next review in my Spider-Man marathon!

Spider-Man (2002)

Hey! I'm back with another (relatively brief) movie marathon to finish out this year!  With the just-released Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021) film supposedly combining the Sam Raimi Spider-Man trilogy and the Amazing Spider-Man duology with the current Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) Spider-Man, I felt it was time to binge the old movies to refresh my memory of their story.  I will be binging ALL the modern films.  The Spider-Man trilogy, the Amazing Spider-Man duology, the Into the Spider-Verse animated film, and the current MCU Spider-Man Home trilogy.  Today, we're starting out with the film that made the superhero genre of films popular: Spider-Man (2002).

SYNOPSIS:
Peter Parker, a high school nerd from Queens, New York, is bit by a radioactive spider on a class field trip and develops amazing spider-like powers!  He can crawl walls, he can shoot webbing from his wrists, he has super-human strength and agility, and most importantly, he develops a "spider-sense" that warns him of incoming danger.  When Peter's uncle is murdered by a robber that he let get away, Peter is wracked with guilt.  He remembers the wise words his uncle left him with: "With great power comes great responsibility."  Peter takes it to heart and turns superhero, defending the citizens of New York from criminals.  But a powerful supervillain has also just arisen in New York... a science experiment gone wrong that creates the Green Goblin!  Spider-Man has to save New York from this dangerous menace!

REVIEW:
This film released at the beginning of the new century, so it was still trailing off the old '90s action films.  As such, the action is a bit cheesy and it has quite a few cringey dialogue moments.  Still, as a superhero film, I think it held up pretty well over the years.

This first Spider-Man film takes its origin story directly from the very first Spider-Man short story in the Marvel comic Amazing Fantasy #15.  Released in 1962, it tells of how a high schooler received spider powers, uses them for gain in boxing matches, then lets a robber escape, thinking it's not his problem, only to lose his uncle to the same man.  He chases down the crook and captures him for the police, but decides to take his uncle's lesson to heart and only use his powers responsibly.  The Green Goblin does not appear in the comics until The Amazing Spider-Man #14 (1964).  He was added to this film to give Spider-Man a supervillain to fight, as a simple story about learning responsibility was probably not appealing enough for the big screen.

I like Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst, but I personally felt they were terrible for the roles of Peter Parker/Spider-Man and Mary Jane Watson.  Tobey Maguire has always been very awkward in all his roles and I cringe every time he needs to have a conversation with someone.  His creepy, silent, wide-eyed stare makes me feel very uncomfortable and I hate seeing him trying to interact with people when he's not wearing his Spider-Man outfit.  This, unfortunately, did not improve with his later Spider-Man movies.  In this role as Peter Parker, it kind of works because Peter is supposed to be an awkward teenager, but being Spider-Man is supposed to improve his confidence and he's able to verbally spar with his enemies while fighting them.  Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man still sounds like an awkward teenager throughout the whole film, mask or not.

Kirsten Dunst always seems to have this tortured, broken look on her face, even when she's smiling.  She's mastered the art of the cold, dead eyes, absent of soul and warmth.  She's great in drama films, but in a family action/adventure film, she seems out of place.  Mary Jane Watson from the Spider-Man comics is a very popular, outgoing, energetic person.  The polar opposite of wimpy Peter Parker.  But film Mary Jane comes from a broken home, dates bullies, fails to go anywhere with her life, and is all-around a miserable person.  I feel like they were trying to make her relatable and realistic, but it just doesn't feel true to her original character.  Honestly, I don't think Mary Jane has ever been portrayed accurately on screen.

If there's anyone who nailed their character, it's J. K. Simmons, playing J. Jonah, Jameson, the head of the Daily Bugle newspaper.  He's loud-mouthed, fast-talking, talks over people, and makes demands of everyone.  He has an important business to run, and he does it well.  Stan Lee originally wanted to play the character, as he said J. Jonah Jameson basically mirrored his personality in his young Marvel days.  But he was proud of the way J. K. Simmons managed the role.  And Stan Lee got his first very small cameo - before it became an obvious nod in the Marvel films - rescuing a child from falling debris.

Another excellent casting was Willem Dafoe as Dr. Norman Osborn/Green Goblin.  He was absolutely brilliant!  He was super creepy in the role, but I think that just enhanced it even more.  It's too bad they used a goblin helmet for his suit. The original Green Goblin from the comics wore a rubber mask that made him look like an actual goblin, and Willem Dafoe could have used that to dial his character up to 11 (not that he doesn't try anyway).  If there's anyone I can't wait to see in the latest MCU Spider-Man film, it's the Green Goblin played by Willem Dafoe.  They teased his presence in the trailers, which has me super excited!

Danny Elfman did the score for this film, which became the running theme for this live-action trilogy.  As the film was starting though, I got serious Batman vibes.  The music was very similar to the soundtrack he scored for the Tim Burton Batman films in the late '80s/early '90s.  But it had its own unique flair to it that makes it recognizable as Spider-Man.  We did not hear the familiar Spider-Man theme from the classic 1967 Spider-Man cartoon TV series, but there is a scene with a street performer singing his own Spider-Man song that has some familiar lyrics.

Sam Raimi directed this original trilogy of films.  He's well known for his other trilogy, the Evil Dead films (Evil Dead (1981), Evil Dead 2 (1987), and Army of Darkness (1992)).  He is close friends with Bruce Campbell, the star of that trilogy, so he got Bruce a cameo in his Spider-Man trilogy.  In this first film, you see him as the announcer at the boxing match - the guy who messes up "The Human Spider's" name and instead names him "Spider-Man."

RECOMMENDATION:
This is a classic superhero origin story that created the modern day superhero genre. We have this film to thank for every superhero film we've seen in the past 2 decades.  It may be from another generation and it might be a bit cringey and campy, but despite it all, it stood the test of time pretty well.  Spider-Man has always been my favorite Marvel character, so seeing him on the big screen was a dream come true, and I'm glad he has continued to grace the screen in one form or another these past couple decades.  This is a must-watch for all superhero enthusiasts out there.

No Time to Die (2021)

I promised I'd review No Time to Die (2021) back when I did my James Bond review marathon, and today it finally released!  A year and a half later than it was supposed to (which was technically already a 3-year delay from their first announcement), but better late than never.

Unfortunately, I have to mark this review as having HEAVY SPOILERS because there's no way I can talk about this film without discussing the massive elephant in the room that is the central plot and its ending.  Interestingly enough, I've had to mark the entire Daniel Craig era of films as having spoilers, since they're all one continuous storyline that build off one another.

SYNOPSIS:
James Bond (Daniel Craig) has resigned from active duty and is living a new life with Dr. Madeleine Swann (Léa Seydoux).  But the past catches up with the pair, and Bond quickly finds himself thrust back into the fray.  His fellow CIA friend Felix Leiter enlists Bond's help in tracking down a missing scientist, which leads to a dark plot of global destruction!

REVIEW:
The film opens with a glance back at Madeleine's childhood, where the masked assassin Safin (Rami Malek) infiltrates her home to kill her parents, but ends up sparing her.

In the present, shortly after the end of SPECTRE (2015), Bond has quit MI6 and is trying to live a quiet, yet passionate life with Madeleine... until it blows up in his face (literally!).  He finds himself running from SPECTRE assassins and blames Madeleine for being a spy, leaking their location and plans to the organization.  Bond abandons Madeleine, swearing she'll never see him again.

I just want to note here that during Bond and Madeleine's romantic holiday, I caught a modern variation of the familiar song "We Have All the Time in the World," originally by Louis Armstrong, playing in the background.  At this moment, I got real tense because the last time we heard this song was in On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969).  It was a common theme of that film, and also the line James Bond said about his new wife, Tracy, shortly after she was murdered by SPECTRE.  So obviously, Bond quitting the service and starting a new life with a woman... I'm starting to see a familiar plot developing here!

Five years later, Bond is now living in a lovely home in Jamaica.  It's very reminiscent of Goldeneye, the Jamaican estate that Ian Fleming, the original James Bond creator, lived in while writing his famous novels.

But one day he runs into his old CIA buddy, Felix Leiter (Jeffrey Wright).  Felix informs Bond that a scientist has gone missing and he needs help in tracking him down.  Bond turns down the offer to get involved, until he runs into Nomi (Lashana Lynch), the new 007!  Bond's old number has been reassigned to a new 00 agent, and she informs Bond of Project Heracles, a dangerous nanobot project formerly commissioned by M and now in the hands of the missing scientist.

Nomi, the new 007!

Determined to put a stop to this dangerous plot, Bond teams up with Felix Leiter to track the scientist.  He meets up with the lovely Paloma (Ana de Armas), a new recruit for the CIA who is nervous/excited to be on her first field assignment.  But what she lacks in confidence and experience, she makes up for in skill, keeping up with James Bond when the action gets heated.

The gorgeous and highly-skilled Paloma

Upon finding the scientist, Bond discovers he's fallen into a SPECTRE trap!  Orchestrated by none other than Ernst Stavro Blofeld (Christoph Waltz) from his prison cell.  Gas is released with the Project Heracles nanobots in it, but much to Bond and Blofeld's surprise, it kills all the SPECTRE agents instead!  The scientist switched out the DNA profile in the nanobots, killing off all agents of SPECTRE, save Blofeld himself.  A scuffle ensues, and Bond makes it out with the scientist.  But another twist!  The scientist was operating on instructions from Safin and is "rescued" from Felix Leiter and Bond.  Felix is mortally wounded in the ensuing fight, and Bond is forced to leave him to ensure his own survival.

This is the second time in Bond history that Felix has been taken out of the story permanently.  The first was in License to Kill (1989), where Felix and his new bride were captured and fed to sharks.  Felix alone survived - at least initially; his ultimate fate was never mentioned - but he was missing some of his limbs, and we never saw him again, at least not until the Daniel Craig era rebooted the franchise.

Bond is reinstated as a 00 agent with MI6 and goes to meet with Blofeld to learn more about his involvement in Project Heracles.  Much to his surprise, Madeleine is also attending the visit!  Turns out the good Dr. Swann, a psychology doctor, was the only person allowed to visit with Blofeld in the past.  But Safin has infected her with deadly nanobots and blackmailed her into using them against Blofeld, the last remaining SPECTRE member.  Bond unknowingly infects himself with the nanobots while speaking with Madeleine and accidentally transmits them to Blofeld, killing him.  But not before Blofeld revealed that it was his plan to set up Madeleine and turn Bond on her 5 years ago.

Bond and Madeleine have a tense discussion after 5 years apart

Seeking reconciliation (and a lead in this new development), Bond tracks Madeleine to her childhood home in Norway, only to discover she has a 5-year old daughter!  Little Mathilde (Lisa-Dorah Sonnet) has the same piercing blue eyes as Bond, and he suspects she's his daughter.

But before they can get too comfortable, Safin seeks them out, capturing Madeleine and Mathilde!  Bond, through MI6's resources, manages to track them to an island in the Pacific.  There, Safin is mass-producing his Project Heracles nanobot poison, with the goal of infecting the world and playing god in a horrifying game of eugenics!  Bond and Nomi team up to infiltrate the island, rescue Madeleine and Mathilde, and shut down Safin's operations for good.

WARNING: The end of the film is spoiled beyond this point.  This is your last chance to walk away!

So here's where things get a little crazy.  I have heard that "We Have All the Time in the World" theme at least twice now and I'm getting really nervous, waiting for it to become highly plot relevant.  Also interesting is the song "Good to Have You Back," by Hans Zimmer. It's on the soundtrack for this film, but it's basically a somber version of the main theme for On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969).  Another chilling callback to that old film where Bond loses someone he loves dearly.

So far, everyone close to Bond has been dying off in the Craig era.  Vesper Lynd in Casino Royale (2006), the original M (Judi Dench) in Skyfall (2012).  Now in this film, Blofeld (and all of SPECTRE) are gone, Felix Leiter is dead, and now we're in the final moments of this film and I'm expecting something awful and dramatic to strike.

Bond succeeds in rescuing Madeleine and Mathilde and gets them on a boat off the island, as Safin plans his own escape.  To ensure Project Heracles is put to an end before it leaves the island, Bond calls a missile strike on the island.  With only minutes to spare, Bond races to open blast doors to ensure the underground bunkers are fully destroyed by the missiles. He has a run-in with Safin and through a scuffle, ends the villain, although not until after Bond is infected with a special strain of the nanobots - ones that will kill Madeleine and Mathilde if he ever touches them again!  He asks Q (Ben Whishaw) if there's a cure for it, but as Q had stated earlier in the film, once they're in your system, they're there forever.

Unable to ever again see his love and his new-found daughter, and completely out of time, Bond finishes opening the blast doors and then radios to Madeleine to let her know he won't make it.  As the missiles come down on the island, we see Bond on the roof, willingly sacrificing his life so his love and daughter can live.

Bond and Madeleine, in love

This was a ballsy move!  I know Barbara Broccoli, the producer (and head of EON Productions), had said that this film would be a definite finale to the Daniel Craig era of James Bond, but I didn't imagine they'd actually kill him off! I stayed through all the credits, just to make sure they posted the classic "James Bond will return" line at the end.  Fortunately they did, so the franchise is not dead.  Which means the next film will likely be yet another reboot of the series, with a new actor.  I wonder if this is the future of the franchise - each actor runs their own era of films.

I honestly don't know how to feel about this ending.  In one sense, it was a perfect end to a classic character.  The odds were always stacked against him and it was always assumed that people in Bond's profession rarely lived to see old age.  He went out at the top of his game, literally saving the world in the process - the perfect hero death.

But part of the intrigue with James Bond is knowing that, no matter how dire the situation, he'll always find a way out.  He's notorious for being impossible to kill, so sticking him in a no-hope situation and having him play the self-sacrificing hero just feels wrong.  It was a very emotional ending, don't get me wrong.  But I just feel like it was a dark turn to take for our immortal hero who's lasted through the decades.

I do kind of like how he went from the cold, heartless "the bitch is dead" assassin in Casino Royale (2006), to eventually learning to love again.  And they even hinted at him possibly having a normal, happy family life.  But in the end, his service to country came first, especially if it meant protecting his family.

I personally see two future outcomes for the franchise after this - either 1.) This micro-story of the Daniel Craig era is over and the next James Bond will be a complete reboot, with new actors and a new story.  Or, 2.) Bond is recovered from the wreckage and somehow still alive, but horribly disfigured.  After reconstructive surgery, he's given a new face - the face of the next Bond actor!

Honestly, #2 would be awesome.  It would not only continue this current Bond reboot without having to start all over again, but it would also be another subtle nod to On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969).  You see, when James Bond was recast from Sean Connery to George Lazenby, the script for the new film had a sub plot where Bond went undercover by getting facial reconstructive surgery.  But the plotline was dropped at the last minute, leading to an awkward continuity error where Bond and Blofeld don't recognize each other, even though they just met face-to-face in the previous film.

The theme song for this film, "No Time to Die," was composed and sung by Billie Eilish.  Surprisingly, the somber and subtle theme song works very well with the theme of this film.  I was hesitant when I heard Billie Eilish was picked to make a Bond song, but it's actually quite beautiful!  You can hear it here:

RECOMMENDATION:
This was a thrilling send-off for the Daniel Craig era.  Very emotional, very action-packed, and a fitting finale for this James Bond.  My recommendation is to binge the entire Daniel Craig series of films for the full effect, now that his story is complete. Or at the very least, watch SPECTRE (2015) for a little backstory to lead into this film.

The Mummy (1999)

Happy Halloween month, everyone!  I don't have the energy this year to do a full Halloween movie marathon, but I do plan to watch and review some films this month.  Starting with a classic: The Mummy (1999)!  I've reviewed the Tom Cruise version of The Mummy (2017) and I've reviewed the original Universal Studios monster film The Mummy (1932). But somehow I've missed the classic '90s action/adventure remake of the classic.

SYNOPSIS:
In 1926 Egypt, a librarian named Evelyn; A.K.A. Evie (Rachel Weisz) and her sticky-fingered brother, Jonathan (John Hannah) stumble across a map leading to Hamunaptra, the lost "City of the Dead."  Expecting the archaeological find of the century, they recruit Rick O'Connell (Brendan Fraser), a man who claims to have been to the lost city, as their guide.  But during their expedition, they accidentally awaken the 3,000-yr old mummy Imhotep (Arnold Vosloo), a very powerful immortal creature who brings the plagues back to Earth.  Rick, Evie, and Jonathan must find a way to end the mummy's curse before he regains his strength and brings devastation to the world.

REVIEW:
This film is absolutely wonderful, expertly combining so many genres in an enjoyable way.  There's action/adventure, romance, comedy, and a touch of horror, all wrapped up nicely in a family-fun package.  All of the characters are well-written and play off each other so well.  You would expect Jonathan to be the bumbling comedic foil, but despite his comedic antics, he's actually very intelligent and slick, and helps to save the day more than once.  Evie is a brilliant librarian with an amazing knowledge of history and archaeological studies.  She may be a bit clumsy/ditzy at times, but she's rarely a damsel in distress, despite Rick trying to treat her as one.  Even Rick is surprised at times when she's able to hold her own.

Rick is our swashbuckling hero, jumping into more than he can handle and half the time escaping death by pure luck.  He does not have a heart of gold; rather, he's more of a gold-seeker, pursuing archeological finds for what treasure he can collect.  But when the chips are down, he always does the right thing.  When the mummy is released, his first instinct is to pack up and get out of town.  But when Evie is in danger, he abandons everything to seek her out and protect her.

A former friend of Rick's named Beni (Kevin J. O'Connor) fills the role of the sleazy coward, taking the easy way out every chance he can.  He holds no loyalties to anyone but his own, abandoning others to save his own skin wherever possible.  From the first moment he's on screen to the last, he's only thinking of himself and how to best to protect his own selfish interests. There's never been a more pathetic, punchable character in film that I can think of.  He's the type you love to hate and I enjoy every scene he's in.

Imhotep is probably the most tragic of the characters.  Despite playing the villain of the film, he's actually a former high priest of the dead who fell in love with the pharaoh Seti's mistress, Anck Su Namun (Patricia Velasquez).  In a plot to be with her, the two murder the pharaoh and then Anck Su Namun kills herself, expecting Imhotep to resurrect her so they could be together again.  But the pharaoh's bodyguards stopped the ritual, instead condemning Imhotep to the darkest curse they knew.  Upon resurrection, Imhotep's goal to resurrect his love becomes his primary focus and he's only the villain because of the extremes he's willing to go in order to complete that ritual.  It's very "Romeo and Juliet."  Two lovers forced to spend eternity apart.

Some interesting trivia: In the original 1932 Mummy film, Imhotep takes on the name Ardath Bay to blend in with other mortals.  In this 1999 Mummy film, "Ardeth" Bay (slightly different spelling, to become an anagram for "Death by Ra") is a separate character, the leader of the Medjai who watch over and protect Hamunaptra to ensure the mummy stays dead.

RECOMMENDATION:
I cannot recommend this film enough!  It's the perfect blend of family-fun action, adventure, fantasy, comedy, and romance.  The story keeps you well engaged and the characters are fun to watch.  This is truly the best Mummy film out there, and one of my favorite Brendan Fraser roles.  It's also my wife's favorite film of all time, and she has a habit of re-watching it several times a week. She never gets sick of it!

If you plan to watch the sequels, I'd recommend seeing The Mummy Returns (2001) and The Scorpion King (2002).  And nothing else.  The third Mummy film (The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (2008)) falls flat. They replace Evie's actress, Rachel Weisz, with Maria Bello, who does a generic "British clumsy girl in distress" role.  She had absolutely no chemistry with Brendan Fraser's Rick O'Connell and just made the film uninteresting to watch. Not to mention, the plot felt very forced.  Not creative and fun like the other films, but just going through the motions.  Also, there are 4 straight-to-video sequels for The Scorpion King.  They're pretty low quality and not really worth checking out.  Although Dwayne Johnson is producing a remake of The Scorpion King right now, so keep your eyes peeled for that.  No word on if he'll be reprising his role as the Scorpion King himself or if he's just producing/directing.

Fear Street, Part Three: 1666 (2021)

Here it is: the finale of the Fear Street trilogy!  Ending today with a review of Fear Street, Part Three: 1666 (2021).  Again, this review is spoiler-free, but there will be spoilers for the previous film: Fear Street, Part Two: 1978 (2021).

SYNOPSIS:
In the year 1666, Sarah Fier, a colonial woman in Union (the original settlement of Shadyside), is promised to Solomon Goode, a kind gentleman from a powerful family in the village.  But Sarah's heart belongs to another - Hannah Miller, the local pastor's daughter.  When the pastor murders all the children of the village and plucks out his own eyes, the men of the village convene to find answers.  Assuming witchcraft, they turn their suspicions toward the impropriety between Sarah and Hannah.  The girls must find a way to escape the village mob, before they're hanged as witches!

REVIEW:
We're finally given the origin of all the paranormal activity in Shadyside!  And what a tale!  In the previous film, Deena believes that uniting Sarah Fier's lost hand with the rest of her bones would settle her spirit and stop the supernatural serial killers roaming the town.  But upon touching Sarah's bones with her own blood, she's given a clear vision of Sarah's life.  And so begins the final film, 1666.

An interesting choice for this film was in recasting actors from the previous two films to play the main colonial characters.  For instance, Deena plays Sarah Fier, her girlfriend Sam is playing Sarah's love interest, Hannah.  The sheriff Nick Goode is playing Solomon Goode, etc.  It was an interesting choice because we had built up emotional connections to these characters.  So seeing them again as different characters, but in similar roles to their modern-day personas, helped to establish our relationship with them without having to spend film time character building from scratch.

It also made for one helluva cliffhanger in the previous film, as Deena touched Sarah's bones and suddenly found herself in Sarah's body in 1666.  I didn't know if she was magically transported to 1666 or if she was just re-living Sarah's past life.  It wasn't until this third film started that it became clear we're seeing a flashback, with familiar characters filling in the main roles.

I was impressed with the accents all the actors adopted for this film!  I can't vouch for the authenticity of their accents, but it was pretty impressive hearing actors speak American English in the first two films, then switch to "Colonial English" for the final film. A difficult acting feat for a single actor, but to have your entire cast switch accents?  Definitely impressive.

The drug abuser theme continues!  Some of Sarah's friends (played by Deena's drug abuser friends from the first film) snuck into an old widow's hut out in the woods and stole some berries that induce hallucinogenic effects. They brought them to a drink party in the woods, where they distributed them amongst the younger crowd.  I'm not positive that some of the murdered children were also at this party, taking hallucinogenic berries, but with the film trilogy's thirst for justice against drug abusers, I wouldn't be surprised.  Without spoiling anything, I'll say that this visit to the widow is the catalyst for all the horrible events in this film, and throughout Shadyside's history.  Really beating home that "drugs don't pay" theme.

What is interesting is this film's focus on gay persecution.  I thought it was odd that the first film focused on two women in love with each other in the '90s.  I grew up in the '90s, and whereas gay culture was starting to have more of a public presence, it was still taboo in most places.  Heck, people still used "gay" as a derogatory slur back then.  And I don't recall any of the Fear Street books having gay couples (although it's been over 20 years since I last read them so I might not be remembering them well).  It just wasn't culturally appropriate at the time; a mindset that is fortunately changing in more modern times.

I thought the concept was just added as a modern-day spin on a '90s tale, as their relationship is not viewed negatively by anyone.  Except for Sam's mother, who doesn't outright say anything anti-gay, but still insists that Deena stay far away from her daughter.  And interestingly enough, Sam's mother also played the pastor's wife - mother of Hannah, who also wanted Sarah to stay far away from her daughter.  The relationship between two women becomes a central conflict in this final film.  They live in a time when that's not acceptable, and leads to suspicion and anger and violence from others.

It also added to the tragedy of the story.  We're told throughout the other films that Sarah Fier was hanged for witchcraft in 1666, but we didn't know the exact story or how it played out.  And this film keeps you on your toes, wondering if an innocent girl will be hanged or if she'll turn to witchcraft as revenge against the village, as the legends claim.  Seeing her motivations (her love for Hannah) helped you relate to her and understand the depths she'd go to in order to protect the person most important to her.

I thought it was cool that they focused on the red mossy crown Sarah made for Hannah, and they even focused real hard on where it landed when it fell off her head.  That same spot was where Cindy was cleaning a red moss infestation at camp in 1978, complaining about the stuff growing everywhere.  The red moss is sort of a symbol of Sarah and Hannah's undying love, persisting in that area over 300 years later.

My wife was upset with Sarah in this film.  She claims that the film was too focused on pushing a modern acceptance agenda to understand relationships of the 17th century.  She said, in that time, Sarah should've (and would've!) been more discreet about her affair with another women.  It's not right by today's standards, but my wife thinks Sarah should've just married Solomon Goode and then continued her relationship with Hannah on the side, in private.  Especially since her suitor knew about their affair and seemed to be cool with it.  But by turning down Solomon to pursue another woman, she made herself a target in the public's eye.  It may be sticking to your morals by today's standards, but in that era, that was literally a death sentence.

And so concludes this film trilogy.  If you're unfamiliar with the old Fear Street novels, you might not understand why the films are called Fear Street when there's not really a Fear Street present in the film.  The story of these films is an original tale, although based loosely on the Fear Street universe.  There was a Sarah Fier in the books, but she was a very different Sarah Fier from these films.

RECOMMENDATION:
This was a fantastic conclusion to a three-part story, nicely wrapping up the tale with some good twists and turns to keep you engaged. I was afraid it wouldn't be as interesting as the other two modern day horror films, but it definitely kept my interest.  If you've watched the other two films, you might as well conclude the story with this final tale.  It comes highly recommended by me!

Fear Street, Part Two: 1978 (2021)

Welcome back for part two of a three-part story!  Today we're reviewing Fear Street, Part Two: 1978 (2021).  The review of this film will be spoiler-free; however, there will be some spoilers for Fear Street, Part One: 1994 (2021), as it's a direct continuation of that film's plot.

SYNOPSIS:
Deena had succeeded in stopping the supernatural serial killers who were after her girlfriend, Sam.  But now Sam is possessed and out to kill Deena!  Deena turns to the only person in town who successfully survived a Shadyside serial killer spree: a recluse known as C. Berman.  Hoping to uncover how to save Sam, Ms. Berman recounts her horrid tale, taking place at Camp Nightwing in 1978...

Prim and proper Cindy Berman and her wild, rambunctious sister, Ziggy Berman attend camp in the summer of '78.  But some of their fellow campers find a map with the infamous Shadyside witch, Sarah Fier's name written on it nearby the camp.  They sneak off to explore the location, until one of them becomes possessed and starts murdering campers...

REVIEW:
Like the previous film, this one draws a lot of inspiration from the old horror films; specifically, the Friday the 13th films of the '80s.  Except we know the killer this time.  This is the only one of the supernatural serial killers we get to know well in this film trilogy, as the others are only explained via news articles or word of mouth.  Or in the case of the first film, killed right away before we've gotten to know them.

We also discover a whole cave network under the camp that stretches on for a ways. Our heroine, Cindy, spends most of the film down here, trying to find a way to escape while people are being murdered above ground.  She's more than a pretty face; they gave her a bit of decent backstory. She dresses and acts better than her fellow Shadysiders because she hopes to one day escape the awful town.  Her sister, Ziggy, has instead embraced the town and lives by her own set of rules; a source of contention between the two sisters.

In the first film, we met the sheriff of Shadyside, a guy named Nick Goode.  He seems to be the only one in town who believe the teenagers when they say there's a supernatural killer out to get them.  In this film we see that he and Ziggy started getting close at summer camp back in 1978.  So he dealt with a possessed serial killer up close and personal in the past, which explains why he's so willing to believe the teens in 1994.

Like I said in yesterday's review, R.L. Stine does not make an appearance (or even a mention) in these films, which are based on his popular Fear Street novels from the '90s and '00s.  But there are several direct references to legendary horror author Stephen King in this film.  Specifically, one of the campers decides to "Carrie" another camper.  This is in reference to the famous novel/film of the same name (which came out in '74/'76, respectively, close to the setting of this film).  In that story, a girl, Carrie, is doused with pig's blood after being crowned homecoming queen.  That was also a supernatural serial killer story, as Carrie has a psychotic (and psychic) break from being doused in blood and she ends up murdering most all of her classmates with her mind.

One of the things that bothers me about this film is that the campers play a sort of "capture the flag" game that lasts way into the night.  I've attended several summer camps growing up and if there's one thing camp counselors don't want, it's kids hiding in the woods after dark.  Sunset is when they start rounding up kids and doing accountability.  I feel like this was just an excuse to get a bunch of people running around outside at nighttime.  A summer camp murder spree isn't as interesting if everyone's just sleeping in their bunks.

Something interesting that I noticed in the first film is that the people who abused drugs (either using or peddling them) did not survive the film.  Even attempting to use drugs was met with consequence; Sam attempted suicide by taking a handful of pills, but was unsuccessful, as she just vomited them back up.  And she survived the film, but ended up possessed by the end anyway.  I made an off-hand comment to my wife that the film was making a subtle statement about "drugs are bad, mmkay?"  But again, in this film, we see drug abusers get their "comeuppance" as well.  I think we have a running theme for this trilogy: drug abusers don't succeed in life.

RECOMMENDATION:
As with the previous film, this one left off with a cliffhanger ending, forcing me to watch the finale for resolution.  But 1978 told a decent story on its own. The majority of this film took place in 1978, giving us some much-needed exposition to help along our 1994 heroine, Deena.  It was a great sequel, seeing a modern-day camp killer horror flick.  Go check it out on Netflix, after seeing the first film in the series of course.

Fear Street, Part One: 1994 (2021)

Boy, it's been a over a year since I did a review!  But my wife and I just watched the Fear Street trilogy on Netflix and it was so good, I felt I needed to talk about it.  I will post a review for each film, one a day, so come back tomorrow for the sequel! But today, we're checking out Fear Street, Part One: 1994 (2021).

SYNOPSIS:
The town of Shadyside, Ohio is known for brutal serial killings every few decades.  A random citizen of town will randomly go nuts and murder a handful of people before they're killed themselves (or commit suicide).  Local lore blames it on possession by a witch named Sarah Fier, who swore revenge on the town before she was hanged for witchcraft in 1666.

But for local high schooler Deena Johnson, the only drama in her life is her girlfriend, Sam Fraser, moving to Sunnyvale, the perfect town next door.  That is, until Sam experiences a vision of a witch.  Suddenly, a former serial killer in a skeleton mask - who's supposed to be dead - shows up, tracking Sam everywhere she goes and trying desperately to murder her.  It's up to Sam, Deena, and their friends to discover the secret behind this supernatural stalker before he succeeds in taking Sam's life.

REVIEW:
Notice: This review is spoiler-free, but I can't guarantee the next two films will be without spoilers, as I will eventually need to talk about plot points from this film and the next.

I used to read R.L. Stine's Fear Street books when I was a teenager.  They're young adult horror stories, a bit more mature, gory, and violent than his famous Goosebumps series.  So you can imagine my excitement to discover that there was a trilogy of Fear Street films releasing a couple weeks apart from one another!

At first glance though, the story appeared to be moving in reverse.  The first film was titled "1994," the second "1978," and the final film "1666."  So I assumed we'd get three unique stories set in different eras piecing together a full story arc.  Nope - it's all the same story with plot details creatively revealed through the past.  So if you watch one film, be prepared to sit through all three if you don't want cliffhangers.

This film takes place in the era that Fear Street was mostly written, the 1990s.  In the opening scene, we're in a mall bookstore (remember those?) in 1994.  There's a whole display of horror books by Robert Lawrence on sale.  A lady is buying one of the books, but comments how it's trash; low brow horror that she's only buying for her stepdaughter.

I immediately recognized the book covers.  They're Fear Street books!  And Robert Lawrence, as you can guess, is R.L. Stine's first and middle name.  Sadly, this is the only reference to R.L. Stine in the trilogy.  He doesn't even make a cameo!  He made a cameo in the Goosebumps movie, where he plays a teacher named Mr. Black and greets Jack Black, who plays R.L. Stine in the film.  That kind of meta humor is what I love from my horror genre.

Also missing from this trilogy is Fear Street itself (except for a brief establishing shot of "Fier Street" in the third film).  In the books, Fear Street was where most of the supernatural horrors that plagued Shadyside came from.  But these films instead chose to focus on the witch Sarah Fier, the source of all the horrors in the town.  She was also the origin of supernatural happenings in Shadyside in the books, although she wasn't the sole cause of them all.  There were various other types of horrors that cropped up throughout the books (some of them not even supernatural!).  Sarah Fier was just the original horror in the town.

I'll admit, it took me a while into this film before I came to the conclusion it was a supernatural story.  I know the Fear Street books (usually) dealt with the supernatural, but the way this film played out, you couldn't tell if it really was paranormal happenings or if it was just a psyche out with a guy in a mask or something.  It didn't help that the serial killer was literally a guy in a mask.  It wasn't until a good ways in that we saw some legit paranormal activity that couldn't be mistaken for "smoke and mirrors."

Honestly, that was one of the things I loved about supernatural horror stories when I was younger.  The fear of the unknowable made it that much more frightening for me.  Yeah, zombie viruses made the zombie plague realistic and that was frightening... at first.  But now it's just another obstacle to overcome in those kind of films.  Find a cure and you're good!  Build a fortress to keep the zombies out and you can live a happy (fenced-in) life again.  But supernatural horrors are so much more scary for me because there's no way to know if you're safe or not.  Ghosts can walk through walls.  They can suddenly appear in the room with you.  Bullets can't stop them.  You have to always be on your toes.

RECOMMENDATION:
This film was an excellent throwback to '90s horror films.  You have a masked serial killer stalking our heroines, you have a supernatural mystery to solve, and you have plenty of blood and gore to supplement the genre.  Even the opening scene was a nice homage to Scream's opening scene.  Yes, this is very much an adult film; put the kiddies to bed before you start this one.

If you enjoy supernatural horror, this is a superb tale to fill that hole in your life.  Go check it out!  It's a Netflix exclusive.