today's poll: closed, open, or with tongue?

two reviews, one low price

It's funny how things work. Since Alex was born 7 months ago, I haven't been able to see a movie at the theatre. And yet this week, I made it to the big screen twice.

The first one I took in was earlier in the week while on training for work. We had a free evening, it was cheap night at the show, so a group of us got together and made our way into town. The movie I wanted to see was Hot Fuzz, but it wasn't playing at the theatre in question, and the ultimate decision by the group was to see Next. The general consensus was that if nothing else, it had Jessica Biel in it.

It had nothing else.

The basic premise is that Nicolas Cage is a precognitive who can see the future. But only his future. And only two minutes. Except in the case of Jessica Biel's character. He can see further where she is concerned. The FBI are tracking a group of terrorists who have smuggled a nuke into the country and are going to blow up Los Angeles. Julianne Moore is an FBI agent who thinks Cage is the key to finding the terrorists. Apparently, the terrorists also think this. These are superstitious times.

The entire plot for this movie is absurd. To believe that the FBI would abandon traditional investigative measures in a time of crisis to chase after an alleged precog who wants nothing to do with them requires an unreasonable suspension of disbelief. Add to that the fact that the minute the terrorists hear the FBI is looking for Cage, they decide they need to find him first?

The characters are revealed in such a two dimensional nature that it is almost impossible to feel anything for them. Cage is creepy and uncharismatic. Julianne Moore, who I generally enjoy, is completely ridiculous as an over the top FBI agent. The terrorists are....possibly French? It's hard to say, since it's never really revealed who they are or what their motivations are. The whole terrorist plot appears to be just a vehicle to have Julianne Moore chase cage down, and then team up to take out the bad guys.

I've heard that the movie wasn't screened for critics. It seems the people behind the movie could see into the future as well.

Next.

This afternoon, we took advantage of Alex's Aunt Sheri and had her babysit while we went out to see Spiderman 3. I had been eagerly awaiting this release for the better part of the last year. I've always been a big Spider-man fan, the first two films were excellent, the black Spidey suit is one of the greatest storylines in comics, same cast, same director. What could go wrong?

Everything, it would seem.

At least X-Men: The Last Stand was able to blame it's craperific-ness on a new director. Spider-man 3 has no such scapegoat. The writer's completely pooched the story. As I watched this 2 1/2 hour train wreck, I kept asking myself how they could possibly get things so wrong. I could list the problems.....in fact I will:

1. The retcon of Uncle Ben's death.
2. The convenient and unexplained arrival of the alien symbiote.
3. The strange and mind-boggling experiment responsible for creating the Sandman.
4. Mary Jane singing.
5. The fact that edgy Peter just came off as comical......and looking like Crispin Glover.
6. Peter dancing.
7. Uninspired action sequences.
8. The Twist. Literally.
   
9. Peter being so geeky the geeks would make fun of him.
10. Strange butlers who come out of nowhere to completely alter the storyline.

I'm sure there is more, but I've already started to wipe this traumatic experience from my memory. The one good thing I have to say is that Bryce Dallas Howard was well cast as the lovely Gwen Stacy.

Too bad she should have appeared and died in the first film.

'Nuff said.