Showing posts with label Martin Sheen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Martin Sheen. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 3, 2012

Night Write After The Amazing Spider-Man: Define BEST...


If someone asks you, “What is the BEST movie ever made?”, does that question infer that you entail a personal opinion, an allusion to your favorite movie or does it in fact question the subject’s opinion as to what movie has all the right stuff that would empower the film to be considered the BEST by previously established standards? 
          I, personally, would take the latter route to answering the question because if the person had wanted to know my favorite film he/she would have been better suited being more direct by simply specifying they were inquiring about my personal favorite film.  No, to ask, “What is the BEST movie ever made?”, the questioner is implying the need for careful consideration of all film pieces that have ever been created.  In doing so one will pick up certain themes, motifs, and characteristics that have made films memorable (basically what set them apart from the films created during their time period, what made them stand out), successful, and in some cases pushed the artistic creation into the rarely treaded territory of transcendence.  To meet the questioner’s desire, we must find one film that embodies the very idea of film.  A film that has utilized all materials available within said medium to effectively accomplish the goals they set out for.  A film that forced the hand of progression by pushing the boundaries of the medium to its breaking point.  The film opens doors for those who follow because the film explored new ways of encompassing feeling within a fake portrayal of human life or ideas sprouting from the human imagination.  The film, being a moving picture, captures a scene but unlike just a picture it has the most difficult task (in most cases) of supplying dialogue that must sell the realness attached to what the viewers see.  If I asked, “What painting, sketch, or piece of music is the BEST ever made?” one must take into account the time period it was made in, the limitations associated with that time period, and if and how the work reflects historical events of the time and do they do it effectively.  BEST can be defined as the highest quality or standard or the most excellent type.  Because Art is about conveying feeling and fabricating feeling in its viewers it becomes both a subjective and aesthetic driven endeavor.  Art will forever adapt and change its intent to its surroundings as it is a product of human observation and imagination.  Though one would be better suited to accept the latter route in attempting answer the original question, it is a painstaking venture that involves research and the study of time periods and the Art of film.  It is impossible to entirely remove bias from study as it is a natural human tendency, we like what we like, however when inquiring as to the BEST film ever made we look to the established standards previously set by knowledgeable people on the topic. In doing so, we place our trust in a checks and balances type of system that is intended to adapt to the Art of the future while keeping intact the main established ideas believed to hold the standards of greatness. 
          I have brought you into an argument that can in fact not be won; no one can solemnly state what the BEST film ever made is without evoking a fiery rebuttal from millions.  However, standards need to be established so that Art can react, adapt, and force change.  Forcing people to create within the confines of established standards unintentionally breeds destructive characters.  Like forest fires, destructive characters are necessary to rid us of an existence that is decayed and smothered by the multitude of minds obscured by conventional acceptance and in the destruction set the stage for new growth.  Art movements often go unnoticed when looked at within the vastness of human history, but progression in human expression owes a great deal of thanks to the numerous destructive characters that forced change by challenge the banality of mainstream acceptance.
          Moral of the rant, The Amazing Spider-Man was CRAB-rific, but fell short of the CRAB-tastic.  Experience it for yourself and form your own opinions.  Upon opening Rotten Tomatoes has certified it fresh with a 74% overall rating and and audience rating of 84% so far. 

Have a Crabby Day ya’ll and remember to use the term BEST with caution,

-DiCrabrio

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Amazing Spiderman



Hey all,
Caught a glimpse of the Amazing Spiderman trailer last night from the guys at IGN.com, if you haven't seen it click on the title of the post, its a link to the trailer. This makes disappointing back-to-back super hero trailers; leaving me, a superhero buff, quite melancholy. By the looks of it, I'm not feeling the reboot for the following reasons : Actors chosen, costume, and plot (I'll explain).

Actors: I can't stand the idea of seeing Andrew Garfield pick up Tobey's costume and being the new Spiderman, most likely a top 3 favorite hero amongst the American people. The kid is a good actor, don 't get me wrong, he just isn't spiderman. You can say I'm judging too early, or that I'm biased because I liked the first 2 Spiderman movies so much (3rd? Nope), but I'll tell you what I think. Garfield is that whiny loser guy in The Social Network. He did a great job as that clown and now all I can muster up in my head is that he's depressed that Zuckerberg was better than him so he went out, purposely got bitten by a radioactive spider, and became spiderman (that sucks). Not to mention he's as skinny as a rail with a neck longer than a snapping turtle lunging to bite this guy. Plus I hate the idea of the "new age" spiderman. I guess he appeared in the late 90's or 2000's but he's way too thin and scrawny. I supposed that it the spiderman they were looking for here? Rather than the legit Spiderman that is definitely not un-legit like Garfield? Even when he "bulks up" like Tobey did he's still looking like a hungry young adult. Oh well, you can't always get what you want.
I would also like to comment on the castings of Emma Stone, Martin Sheen, and Sally Fields. Love them all, like none of the castings. I hate when they try to make big name actors into minor characters. Stupid, and distracting. The first 3 spiderman's did it perfectly. And actually I lied a little because I do not like Emma stone, something about her annoys me.
Moving on...
Costume: Not big on the costume because once again, it's just not comic book accurate enough for me to enjoy. Spiderman is a ridiculous far'fetched idea as it is, might as well keep the costume accurate. Its not like Batman where it could happen and so they didn't give him the pull over underwear in the movies, nah mean? Don't like it.

Plot: The plot is easy to judge based on the trailer. Comic book origin, love story, and villain. Hate the idea that there is no Mary Jane Watson, honestly its not Spiderman without Mary Jane. Mary Jane is always going to be Dunst to me because I love those movies. Also, I do sort of like the idea of making Lizard the first villain, but the Goblin is necessary because of Peter and Harry's relationship. Is he in the reboots? This Amazing Spiderman movie should just ..., because we don't want any.


Have Crabtastic Voyage, PACE! - J.G.
And the Spidey to the left, sucks, the one above, is good.