Expendables 2

I love action movies. I grew up watching Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis, Jean-Calude Van Damme and Chuck Norris with my dad, so imagine my excitement when all of those men teamed up for the Expendables 2. I was a fan of the first Expendables, but I was especially excited for the sequel due to the expanded cast.

As IMDb explains: “Mr. Church reunites the Expendables for what should be an easy paycheck, but when one of their men is murdered on the job, their quest for revenge puts them deep in enemy territory and up against an unexpected threat.”

For those who don’t know, Mr. Church is the character played by the aforementioned Willis, who had a brief cameo in the first film. Likewise, Schwarzenegger, who plays Trench, only appeared for a minute in Expendables. Lucky for everyone, they were back in greatly expanded roles.

Now it’s important to remember that why this is an action film, but you have to take it with a grain of salt as it’s sort of a satire on the entire 1980-2000s genre. Sure, it’s a movie that takes itself seriously and has some merit, but it wouldn’t be the film it is without the over-the-top dialogue, body count, and of course the cast.

Admittedly, if the film starred a bunch of no names, it’d be terrible. The story is cliché (plutonium in the hands of a terrorist), but given the context of the film it’s brilliant and entertaining. With that said, the keystone of the film is the cast. Stallone was back as Barney Ross, while the Jason Statham, Dolph Lundgren, Terry Crews, Randy Couture and Jet Li all reprised their roles. They all did a great job, but weren’t featured as prominently as they were in the first film; in fact, Li’s character, Yin Yang, was only in Expendables 2 for about the first 15 minutes of the film before promptly disappearing. I was also disappointed to see that Mickey Rourke, who was Tool in the first film, did not appear in the sequel.

Instead, more attention was paid to the film’s new additions like the aforementioned Willis and Schwarzenegger. The two weren’t prominent in the film, but they had plenty of screen time and even swapped some memorable lines (i.e. “I’m back” and “Yippie kay yay”) while kicking some major ass in a tiny car.

Another new addition was Liam Hemsworth, the brother of Thor’s Chris Hemsworth, who played Billy the Kid, a young sniper recently recruited by the Expendables. His character was still relatively young and innocent, at least by comparison as his compatriots, and he served as a reminder to the old guard of a life gone by—which helped fuel the film’s plot.

For me, the real draw to the film was bringing Norris and Van Damme into the mix. The latter was offered a role in the first film but turned it down because he thought it had little chance of success. Obviously he was wrong, so Van Damme agreed to play the film’s villain, Vilain (gotta love the names). It’s been a long time since I’ve seen Van Damme in anything respectable, so it was nice to see him here. Stallone has said that he enjoys helping reinvigorate stagnated careers, much like his own was a few years back, and I hope Van Damme's will benefit for his role in Expendables 2.

As far as Norris is concerned, he has to be the fan favorite. The 72-year-old wasn’t in the film too much, and at one point I thought his appearance might just be a cameo, but let’s just say he returns when it counts. Norris even poked fun at the legend he has become. When asked by Stallone’s character whether or not it was true he had been bit by a cobra, Norris character replies, “Yeah, and after five days of agonizing pain, the cobra died.” Norris hadn't been onscreen since 2005's lackluster The Cutter, but he lit it up and left me with a big smile in Expendables 2.

The film isn’t going to win any Academy Awards, but it was a lot of fun. Go in with some snacks and an open mind, and you’ll enjoy yourself. I was a little worried about the movie at times, but it finished strong and brought most everyone together for the climactic firefight. The only thing that could have made the Expendables 2 better was the addition of Steven Segal—but I guess they need something to complete the trilogy (fingers crossed).

Buddies Forever Movie Club Rating: 71%

Follow us on Twitter at Buddies4everMC, like us on Facebook, & find us on Google+ for all the latest and greatest movie reviews.

The Campaign

Prior to leaving the country for a few weeks on business, I made it a point to go see the new comedy, The Campaign, starring Will Ferrell and Zach Galifianakis. I’ve been a fan of both for quite some time, and their team up seemed like a guaranteed comedy success; not only that, it starred my favorite actor, Brian Cox, so for me it was a must-see movie.

For those who don’t know much about Jay Roach’s latest comedy, IMDb describes the premise of The Campaign: “In order to gain influence over their North Carolina district, two CEOs seize an opportunity to oust long-term congressman Cam Brady by putting up a rival candidate. Their man: naive Marty Huggins, director of the local Tourism Center.”

The timing of the film couldn’t have been better, intentional as it was, given the political subject matter and upcoming presidential election. In the film, the election isn’t for the Oval Office, but you wouldn’t guess it as the race for a North Carolina district is just as tense. The story concerning why the two must campaign is a little weak and not properly fleshed out, but the real reason people will want to see this movie is for the comedy.

In that regard, the film is like a tank half full—it’ll get you there, but not by firing on all cylinders. The Campaign has its fair share of laughs, and some good ones at that (i.e. an unorthodox maid with a funky accent), but it wasn’t the full-fledged comedy I was expecting. It wasn’t raunchy and outrageous like The Hangover, nor was it unapologetic like Anchorman and Talladega Nights; instead, it was on par with other Roach comedies like the Austin Powers, Meet the Parents/Meet the Fockers, and Dinner for Schmucks.

I really liked the Austin Powers flicks, but I didn’t care too much for Dinner for Schmucks. With that said, I would put The Campaign on the same level as Meet the Parents—somewhat serious at times, but riddled with comedic one-upmanship.

Ferrell portrays the aforementioned Brady and Galifianakis tackles Huggins as the two battle for political supremacy. Surrounding them are a varied cast of supporting characters rendered by Jason Sudeikis, Dylan McDermott, John Lithgow, Dan Aykroyd and of course Cox.

Both Ferrell and Galifianakis do a decent job delivering jabs and taking turns as heroes and villains. Ferrell was a little more mature than I’m used to, but it was satisfactory nonetheless. Meanwhile, Galifianakis, who shaved his trademark beard for the film, walks the fine line between annoying and adorable as Huggins.

On the other hand, the supporting cast was a mixed bag. Lithgow and Aykroyd were grossly underused as the brother CEOs fueling the mean-spirited campaign. Likewise, Sudeikis was way too straight-laced as Brady’s campaign manager.

On the flip side, McDermott hit it out of the park as Tim Wattley, a mercenary campaign manager brought in to make a winner out of Huggins—and later Brady. I like to give credit where credit’s due, and McDermott certainly deserves it as I literally laughed out loud at most of his scenes. Regarding Cox (pictured above), my opinion is that he was underused and should have played a more prominent role, but of course I’m going to say that given he’s my favorite actor. With that said, he played a convincing non-paternalistic scoundrel in his limited role as Huggins’ father.

I’ve always enjoyed political comedies; in fact, My Fellow Americans with Jack Lemmon and James Garner is one of my favorite movies. The Campaign didn’t make as big an impact as that film, but I did enjoy it and feel I got my moneys worth.

Buddies Forever Movie Club Rating: 67%

Follow us on Twitter at Buddies4everMC, like us on Facebook, & find us on Google+ for all the latest and greatest movie reviews.

Hope Springs

I’ve always been a big fan of both Tommy Lee Jones and Meryl Streep, and it’s for that reason alone that I decided to check out their new film, Hope Springs. The adult drama/comedy is definitely geared to an older demographic, but that didn’t discourage me from checking it out with my old man, who also happens to be a fan of both.

The premise of Hope Springs is simple. As IMDb explains: “After thirty years of marriage, a middle-aged couple attends an intense, week-long counseling session to work on their relationship.”

Obviously the couple is the aforementioned Jones and Streep as Arnold and Kay, who’ve fallen into a repetitious rut long after their two grown children moved away. The counselor who helps them work on their relationship is none other than Steve Carell, though you wouldn’t know it from his performance.

Before taking a look at the individual performances, which were superb all around, let me quickly address the story. As you read above, it is a relatively simple situation that no doubt affects hundreds of thousands of couples every year; in fact, I imagine that if my parents were still married, they’d have been in the exact same situation as Arnold and Kay. For anyone that’s been married for an extended period of time, you'll certainly relate to the material.

The story isn’t complicated by nonsense nor is it fluffed. It is merely two people examining their relationship and rediscovering what made them fall in love in the first place. The movie is quiet, and even a little slow at times, but it is honest and pure. It does a marvelous job of showing just how hard it is for some people to talk about the simplest of things, even after years of marriage. 

There are some laugh-out-loud moments along the way, but contrary to what you might think, they come from Jones and Streep, not Carell. In fact, the man known for his shtick and antics was subdued and straightforward. He was simply a counselor doing what he does. No backstory, no development, just a helping hand. It was a different type of role for Carell and some of his fans might be disappointed, but the fact of the matter is that he delivered in an uncharacteristic supporting role.

With that said, the real strength of Hope Springs, which is also the name of the town in which they stay for their weeklong counseling session, is watching Jones and Streep work their magic. I grew up watching the former in action films like Under Siege, The Fugitive, and Volcano, so seeing him in dramatic role was a welcomed change of pace.

As much as I hate to admit it, Jones has become an old man, but that made his ruff and tumble persona perfect for this role, especially when you strip away the inherent confidence and swagger you've seen from him in the past. The role of Arnold was originally offered to Jeff Bridges, who is a great actor in his own right, but it wouldn’t have been the same. This role was made for Jones, and in my opinion it was one of his best performances to date.

On the same token, Streep was spot on. Largely considered the greatest living film actress, Streep has a knack for bringing characters to life. She does an amazing job portraying a housewife desperate for change, and what she’s able to say with her body language and facial expressions is nothing short of spectacular. Streep has put in some stunning performances over the years, but from start to finish, her portrayal of Kay in Hope Springs is one of my favorites.

If you’re looking for whirlwind romance or slapstick comedy, this movie isn’t for you. On the other hand, if you’re a fan of fine performances and don’t mind a sincere look at a modest story, then Hope Springs is right up your alley. 

Buddies Forever Movie Club Rating: 84%

Follow us on Twitter at Buddies4everMC, like us on Facebook, & find us on Google+ for all the latest and greatest movie reviews.

Savages

I’m a fan of Oliver Stone. While I wasn’t overly impressed by a couple of his more recent films, like W. and World Trade Center, I have always enjoyed Any Given Sunday, Natural Born Killers and JFK, just to name a few. As such, I was excited for Stone’s most recent project, Savages.

For those who don’t know, IMDb explains the film’s premise: “Pot growers Ben and Chon face off against the Mexican drug cartel who kidnapped their shared girlfriend.”

It’s a simple story, and timely too as Mexican drug cartels are constantly making headlines. You would think the combination of a provocative director, up-to-date storyline, and interesting cast would make for an engaging film, but that wasn’t really the case; in fact, I found Savages to be quite bland.

Given the source material, I was expecting some hardcore sex and violence, perhaps something along the lines of Natural Born Killers, but what I got was more of an subdued look at what the relationship between a small pot operation and the cartel could be like. There were a few instances of violence, such as a beheading video and the burning of a man, but I’ve come to expect more from Stone.

The movie started off fine and it was on pace to be something special, but somewhere along the line it stalled and failed to regain momentum. Character development ceased, the plot wasn’t pushed forward, and everything became mired. 

While Blake Lively was lovely to look at, I was left shaking my head every time she opened her mouth. The first instance of this came via an ill-advised narration theme, while other instances of dissatisfaction accompanied her performance. It seemed as if Lively was trying too hard, which proved to be a big turn off that even her good looks couldn’t overcome.

It was also dispiriting to know that she wasn’t even the first choice; in fact, Jennifer Lawrence was originally cast as the leading lady but had to pull out to do The Hunger Games. Needless to say, it was a wise choice by her, and I suppose it could have been worse as Lindsay Lohan had expressed interest in the role.

In terms of the other performances, they were hit and miss. Taylor Kitsch and Aaron Johnson were the film’s other two main characters, all of whom were involved in a bizarre love triangle with Lively’s “O.” Both did a decent job, but neither gave what I would call a memorable performance. I will say that it was cool seeing Kitsch playing a different role than he did in John Carter and Battelship, namely former marine and current badass/enforcer, Chon.

On the flip side, some of the supporting roles were pleasing. John Travolta did a good job in his role as DEA agent Dennis. I’ve become accustomed to seeing Travolta as a confident hero or dominating villain, so it was satisfying watching him pull off a character that was weak, unconfident and a survivalist. His character had depth, and it did not go unnoticed.

Likewise, I enjoyed Benicio Del Toro and Salma Hayek as members of the cartel. The former just makes a great villain, and his character in the film, Lado, was intriguing; likewise, it was cool watching Hayek put on her wig and play the role of a villainous. Both of their characters could have been explored even more, but they were certainly among the most interesting in the film.

Despite a few satisfying performances, Savages ended up being a fairly boring affair. I never felt a connection with the lead characters, the action/violence was tame, and what could have been an enchanting storyline proved to be uninspiring. I also despised the endings of the film, which definitely left me wanting. Savages wasn’t over-the-top in the least, and I’ve read more interesting cartel stories in the newspaper; as such, I recommend you skip this movie altogether. 

Buddies Forever Movie Club Rating: 50%

Follow us on Twitter at Buddies4everMC, like us on Facebook, & find us on Google+ for all the latest and greatest movie reviews.

The Dark Knight Rises

Comic films seemed to dominate the summer of 2012. The Amazing Spider-Man and The Avengers were two great successes, but there was no greater excitement than that which surrounded The Dark Knight Rises, the third and final chapter in Christopher Nolan’s revered trilogy. It was a must-see, and the only question was whether or not it could live up to the standard set by 2008’s The Dark Knight.

As I’ve stated many times, I’m a fan of comics books. With that said, I’ve always been more of a Marvel man as opposed to DC, but I still know my fair share about Batman lore. Plus, I enjoyed Batman Begins and thought The Dark Knight was amazing and should have won an Academy Award for best picture.

For those who don’t know about the latest installment, IMDb explains: “Eight years on, a new terrorist leader, Bane, overwhelms Gotham's finest, and the Dark Knight resurfaces to protect a city that has branded him an enemy.”

People have been hailing The Dark Knight Rises as an Oscar contender, but I don’t agree. It was a good movie and highly enjoyable, but it wasn’t nearly as good as The Dark Knight. It’s hard for me to imagine Rises could win either Best Picture or Best Director when the middle movie didn’t. That’s not meant to be a dig on the new chapter, but rather a compliment to The Dark Knight.

Getting back to business, The Dark Knight Rises was better than good, but fell short of being great. It was a great continuation of the story and a satisfactory capstone to the trilogy, but it didn’t have the same mind-blowing performances (i.e. Heath Ledger as the Joker—which earned him a well-deserved posthumous Oscar) and dark storyline that made The Dark Knight so great. As Nolan has stated, the new installment features “Pain” as a theme; whereas, Batman Begins centered on “Fear” and The Dark Knight on “Chaos.” For me, watching “Chaos” is the best, but “Pain” trumps “Fear;” in other words, The Dark Knight Rises is better than Batman Begins but not as good The Dark Knight.

Christian Bale once again portrayed Batman, and he did an awesome job as always. Likewise, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine were back in their respective roles, and each delivered brilliantly. New additions to the cast included Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Gotham City Police Officer Blake; Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle/Catwoman; Marion Cotillard as Miranda Tate/Talia al Ghul; and Tom Hardy as Bane.

All of these actors delivered engaging performances, but it was the main villain of the film that impressed me. Thanks to my love of comics, I was aware of Bane, but a lot of people weren’t familiar with the character. To put it bluntly, Bane is pain incarnate. He experiences it (his tricked out mask keeps it at bay), and dishes out even more. I really enjoyed watching Bane in action, and contrary to many, I was a fan of his voice, which was based upon Irish traveller and bare-knuckle boxer Bartley Gorman (1944-2002). It certainly takes some getting used to, but I thought it brought a touch of class to a bad-ass villain. A nice job by Hardy.

On the other hand, the addition of Catwoman seemed a bit frivolous. The character, while a big-time player in the Batman universe, didn’t add much to the film and it almost seemed as if she was added to appease fans. I’d have like to have either seen her character's development expanded or tied into the storyline more intimately, but to be completely honest, it’s not easy to fill the shoes left by Ledger’s Joker. Bane is just a step behind, but Catwoman failed to bring the duo into the upper echelon of villain.

As I said before, while they may not be at the same level as Ledger’s Joker, the performances in The Dark Knight Rises did not leave me wanting. In fact, my only qualms involved the story. Whereas The Dark Knight was a tight package, The Dark Knight Rises was more of a sieve, able to hold it’s own but with a few holes.

One of those holes was glossing over some lingering questions. I respect Nolan’s decision to avoid talk of the Joker, who is neither mentioned nor referenced in the film, out of respect for the late Ledger, but there were some situations introduced that warranted clarification. For instance, Bane ends up taking Gotham City hostage for many months, but the timeline surrounding it wasn’t exactly clear as it seemed events were taking place over a couple days/weeks as opposed to months.

Likewise, Bane imprisons Bruce Wayne in an “ancient place” somewhere in the world, whichappears to be somewhere in the Middle East. Inexplicably, the time it took to get Wayne to the prison, and his subsequent return to Gotham City are glossed over. Not a big deal, as any competent viewer can fill in the blanks, but it was still a blank that needed filling in, something you didn’t see much of in The Dark Knight.

There were a few other instances like those above, and they did not go unnoticed. They didn’t sink the ship, so to speak, but they were a few loose ends that could have made the film better had they been tied; although, the film did clock in at 164 minutes, the longest of the trilogy, so I supposed they couldn’t explain everything in great detail.

In regards to the ending, which many have found polarizing, I won’t say much as I don’t want to reveal any spoilers. However, I will say that it was a satisfactory ending. I liked the twist with Gordon-Levitt’s character, and was hit or miss with what they did to Batman. If this is really the last film for Nolan, I might have avoided the route they took, but then again, no one likes to see the hero die. Plus, while Batman lives, there’s always a chance for a fourth film, which no doubt sits well with studio executives.

All in all The Dark Knight Rises was on par with what I was expecting. This review might come off a bit negative or lackluster, but let me be clear—it was a very good movie and I enjoyed it. If you liked the first two films, you’ll enjoy the third.

Buddies Forever Movie Club Rating: 82%

Follow us on Twitter at Buddies4everMC, like us on Facebook, & find us on Google+ for all the latest and greatest movie reviews.

Ted

Let me start off by saying that, initially, I wasn’t planning on seeing Ted. The idea of a vulgar teddy bear chumming it up with Mark Wahlberg didn’t really appeal to me. Then, after being released for a week, I began to hear great reviews via word of mouth. “It’s the funniest movie ever,” a few of my friends said, which inspired me to give it a chance. I wouldn’t say it was the funniest movie ever, but it was friggin’ hilarious.

For those who don’t know, IMDb describes the premise: “As the result of a childhood wish, John Bennett's teddy bear, Ted, came to life and has been by John's side ever since - a friendship that's tested when Lori, John's girlfriend of four years, wants more from their relationship.”

It sounds a bit corny, but thanks to the comedic genius of Seth MacFarlane, the movie really comes to life.  For me, it was like watching a real-life episode of Family Guy, but with different characters. There were hilarious flashback scenes, daydreams, raunchiness, uncomfortable scenarios, and everything in between. Simply put, if you’re a fan of Family Guy, you’ll definitely be a fan of Ted.

If you’re not familiar with Family Guy, fear not, Ted still has plenty to offer. The first thing you’ll need to know though, is that this is an R-rated comedy. While there is a teddy bear involved, this movie isn’t for kids. As I mentioned before, there was a lot of raunchiness, which turns out can be quite funny coming from a stuffed teddy bear.

Not only did MacFarlane write and direct the film, he voiced Ted and even donned a motion-capture suit to portray him. By doing so, he injected some life and enthusiasm, turning a computer-generated character into something more. Without a doubt, Ted is the star of this film.

With that said, he receives some complimentary performances throughout. For instance, Wahlberg does a great job breaking from action flicks and tackling a comedy role. I tend to be hit or miss when it comes Wahlberg’s performances, but in Ted he hits it out of the park as John Bennett (coincidentally that’s the same name as my ex-girlfriend’s fiancé). It’s hard to imagine Wahlberg as a grown, irresponsible, and innocent man-child, but he pulls it off with flying colors.

Likewise, Mila Kunis does a great job as Bennett’s girlfriend, Lori Collins, who believes Ted branching out on his own is best for everyone. Obviously this causes some friction, and ultimately sets up some pretty funny situations. It couldn’t have been easy to convince two Hollywood stars of Kunis and Wahlberg’s caliber to star in a film about a talking teddy bear, but kudos to them both for taking the risk.

Kudos are also in order for Giovanni Ribisi and Joel McHale for delivering on their supporting roles, as well as Patrick Stewart’s narrating duties and cameo appearances by Tom Skerritt, Norah Jones, Alex Borstein and Sam J. Jones as Flash Gordon. It never ceases to amaze me how MacFarlane can take a stagnant career, like those of Skerritt and Jones, and seemingly revive them simply by featuring them as an extreme caricature of themselves.

Ted was a great first outing for MacFarlane, and I look forward to his future endeavors in the feature film realm. Surprisingly, his animation-comedy techniques translate well to the big screen, and Ted had me laughing non-stop; in fact, I had tears in my eyes from laughing so hard, and I can’t remember the last time that happened. If you enjoy a good R-rated comedy, then Ted is a must.

Buddies Forever Movie Club Rating: 75%

Follow us on Twitter at Buddies4everMC, like us on Facebook, & find us on Google+ for all the latest and greatest movie reviews.

The Amazing Spider-Man

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I’m a comic book fan; in fact, the highest rating I’ve ever given in this blog was to comic-book movie, The Avengers (though that was based more on its merits than the genre). With that said, I was still a bit apprehensive with The Amazing Spider-Man, Columbia Picture’s reboot on the franchise.

It was just five years ago that Spider-Man 3 was released, the third installment of the popular franchise. While the general consensus, of which I agree, was that the third one was subpar compared to the first two, wasn’t it too soon for a reboot with a new director to replace Sam Rami and a new star to don the suit in place of Tobey McGuire?

I had my hesitations, but of course I was going to give it a shot. For those who don’t know, the new film goes back to the beginning, when Peter Parker becomes Spider-Man while in high school. As IMDb explains: “Peter Parker finds a clue that might help him understand why his parents disappeared when he was young. His path puts him on a collision course with Dr. Curt Connors, his father's former partner.”

It was nice to see that The Amazing Spider-Man didn’t traverse the same territory as its predecessors. Sure, there were a few similarities between the films, but they were always essential to the story (i.e. Spider-Man’s origin). Otherwise, the new installment brought a lot to the party.

First and foremost was the new man behind the mask, Andrew Garfield. Best known for playing Eduardo Saverin in The Social Network, Garfield seemed a curious choice to play Peter Parker. He beat out such actors as Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Taylor Lautner, Michael Cera and Anton Yelchin for the role, but even so I had my reservations.

Once I learned that he got the blessing of Maguire and was a bit of a comic geek, I felt a bit better, but it ended up being his performance that blew me away. I’ve read Spider-Man comics for a long time, and Garfield is exactly how I picture Peter Parker. His mannerism and wit was spot on, and he had the lean, slender build that has always characterized Spider-Man (I always thought Maguire was a bit too beefy).

The only drawback for Garfield is that it’s hard to imagine him as an unlikeable geek in high school. He’s just got the look, attitude and inherent confidence that goes against it; in other words, he’s just too smooth and cool to be looked down on. On the flip side, Garfield accomplished something Maguire was never able to do, he brought the character to life. Maybe it was just me, but I always though Maguire’s portrayal lacked conviction and enthusiasm.

Another thing that I liked was the new villain. There are a few iconic antagonists in the Spider-Man universe, many of which have been featured in previous films. It was important for the filmmakers to bring a new character into the fray, which they did with the Lizard, played brilliantly by Rhys Ifans. While I’d have preferred the movie-version Lizard to have a snout like in the comic books, I must admit I found the character intriguing, visually appealing (great CGI) and an all-around badass.

The addition of other new characters like Captain Stacy and Gwen Stacey, was also a pleasant spin on the story. Both have had big roles in the Spider-Man universe, and the filmmakers did a good job shying away from the Mary Jane Watson love story to that of Peter Parker’s first love, the blonde bombshell Gwen Stacey, played superbly by the very-talented Emma Stone. Interestingly, Stone had to change her hair from red to blonde to play the leading lady, while years earlier Kirsten Dunst had to go from blonde to red.

I’d also be remiss if I didn’t mention Sally Field and Martin Sheen as Aunt May and Uncle Ben respectively. They had limited roles, but they lit up the screen when they were on, especially the latter. I liked these two characters in the first Spider-Man film, but I loved them in the reboot.

I will admit that, at times, The Amazing Spider-Man felt a lot like it’s predecessor, but truth be told I like the new version better. It was more modern, Garfield proved to be a great Peter Parker, and overall it generally felt more true to the comics. I had an awesome time at the film, despite not being able to see it in 3D because of a sold-out theater, and I have no doubt it will inspire an enduring and successful franchise. Kudos to director Marc Webb, who has an appropriate name for the film.

Buddies Forever Movie Club Rating: 85%

Follow us on Twitter at Buddies4everMC, like us on Facebook, & find us on Google+ for all the latest and greatest movie reviews.