Tangled Web

You might remember the story of the curse of the Bristol Odeon - the gist of it is that every time I go to the Odeon cinema in Bristol the film I see turns out to be rubbish. Well every horror story needs a sequel I guess.

Last weekend I was in Bristol again and while there decided to take in SPIDER-MAN 3 at the Odeon. Yes, I know I should have learned my lesson and gone to another cinema, but it was really close to my hotel and I figured it would be reliable entertainment.

How much more wrong could I have been?

Where do I start when summarising how bad this film is? It's difficult. The internet is, after all, only so big.

First of all, there are too many villains. We already expected the return of the Green Goblin since it was set up in the previous encounters; to this mix we also add Michael Hayden Church as Sandman and a CGI rendition of Venom, an alien that clings to a host and brings out the worst in them.

Let's look at that latter point. Venom turns people nasty? Okay. What I don't understand is why the filmmakers felt the need to have it turn Peter Parker into not just a rather unlikable chap, but one who likes to strut down the street with a slightly different hairstyle and dance a lot. There are people who will tell you that the audience laugh with him at this point, not at him. From the audience I was with, I'm not so sure.

Talking of audience laughter, there's another thing. The so-called emotional scenes actually drew laughter from half the crowd I saw it with, such was the terrible writing and poor acting on display.

That whole love story was completely misjudged to be honest. I've already mentioned that Peter Parker gets turned into an arse. Well unfortunately the character of Mary Jane doesn't come over much better and I became equally sick of her whining. So when the pair become involved in a love triangle, of sorts, it's hard to care when it involves two people that are getting on your nerves and one person (Gwen Stacey, played by Bryce Dallas Howard) who has gone from being an iconic character in the original comics to being a waste of screen time in the movie. Seriously, I have no idea why they bothered introducing her for all the character was involved with the plot.

That's not just something that Howard suffered with either. Topher Grace (playing Eddie Brock, the man who will become Venom) is shafted, as is Church - though in the latter case, it's no bad thing. As criminally underdeveloped as the character is (and his story is left hanging), Church's performance is unfortunately all too fitting - he's like a stone.

The re-writing of a pivotal event in the first movie also comes across as rather too coincidental (not to mention cheapening the first movie) but probably isn't as laughable as the plot exposition courtesy of Harry Osbourne's (James Franco, also in panto mode) butler late in the film.

The sad thing here is that the usually reliable cast are all shown up by the bit part players. Bruce Campbell steals the show as always (this time he's a crazy French restaurant manager), JK Simmons chews the scenery to hilarious effect every time J Jonah Jameson is on screen and Topher Grace is actually the most interesting of the main characters in the film - except that the screentime afforded him means he barely qualifies as a main character.

The special effects are as cartoony as ever, with the final giant-sized Sandman appearance being the only real highlight; a slightly forced cameo from Stan Lee is more amusing (for us comic geeks at least) than most of Raimi's misjudged attempts at humour; I just can't describe how many things are wrong with this film.

There are too many plot strands, too many characters, too many attempts at humour that just end up embarrassing to watch - there's just generally too much going on, and not much of it is any good. It's like nobody learned any lessons from BATMAN AND ROBIN (aka The Worst Film Ever Made).

This one's been a success and won't exactly have killed the franchise - but a major rethink will be necessary for a fourth instalment. Or at least it will be if they have any intention of making a good film.

I've not forgotten about my recent trip to London or my promise to reveal that awful film I saw. Both will be covered soon. Apologies for the lack of updates, but I'm really lazy. Let's be honest about it.

Final round-up: Hot Docs 2007

Sorry, took longer than I anticipated to get round to this, not to mention to get over my jetlag. I'll try to be quick as I'm currently packing my stuff for yet another trip, this time to London - which I'm sure you'll hear about eventually.

WITHOUT THE KING scooped one of the awards at the festival and deservedly so. It's a look at the life of the monarchy of Swaziland and compares the luxurious life of its king with the hardships of its people. Stuck between the two is his young daughter who on one hand cherishes her country and her roots but on the other goes to university in the west and talks like she was taught English by MTV. There are some fascinating characters on both sides and the film does get you thinking, even if it's only to wonder how much longer the monarchy can avoid a bloody civil war of the kind that has ravaged so much of Africa. It's an excellent film and I feel the prize it picked up at HotDocs won't be the last recognition it receives.

No such praise for REVOLUCION, however, which manages some equally scary stuck-in-the-danger zone moments in its examination of life under Chavez but its attempts to be some kind of guidebook to revolution aim far wider than the film achieves. Certainly worth a look if you're interested in South American politics though.

COLD RUST was a short experimental film combining a voiceover and old home movie footage to touch on a girl's memories of her murdered father and is a memorable, haunting effort that deserves wider exposure. It paired with the slightly longer, but not quite feature length, FORGIVENESS: STORIES FOR OUR TIME, a documentary examining how four people from various parts of the world saw their lives torn apart by murder and terror and how they coped. Forgiveness, reconciliation, call it what you will, they are tales that are awash with sadness and yet reverberate hope. Another prizewinner, this was another real gem of the festival.

THE UNDERGROUND ORCHESTRA, playing as part of a Heddy Honigmann retrospective, examines the impact of immigrants on the Parisian busking scene. Some of the stories are incredible, such as the Bosnian orchestra violinist reduced to playing on the French streets after being driven from the Balkans. Ultimately though, the film disappointed me because it offered a lot of stories that crossed over without ever interacting or heading towards any kind of conclusion. I realise that's just a kind of storytelling that you like or don't - it's just not my thing. I prefer a direction of some sort, which this film doesn't really offer.

HOLY WARRIORS was an okay effort about Russian soldiers adopting various religions but was more notable for the characters involved requesting that it not be shown in Russia than for anything in the film. This short documentary played with IN MEMORIAM: ALEXANDRE LITVINENKO, which uses interviews with friends, family and the deceased himself to paint a picture of the kind of man he was and the kind of country he left. Putin admirers might want to avoid this one.

WINGS OF DEFEAT is an interesting look into the lives of Japan's surviving kamikaze pilots. What went through their mind, why they did it and many other questions are all investigated with the aid of a handful of surviving kamikaze pilots.

It wasn't anywhere near as harrowing however as the next film I saw, which also looked at Japan's activity during World War 2. NANKING combines eyewitness accounts with readings (by a cast including Woody Harrelson and Mariel Hemmingway) of letters and communications from the time and, most shockingly, archive footage including some rarely seen aftermath footage. It all comes together to paint a horrifying picture of Japan's invasion of China and its infamous, and still controversial, attack on the city of Nanking. This was one of the most stunning films I saw at HotDocs but I do not advise it for the squeamish.

A lot more fun was CITY IDOL. For those unfamiliar with the concept, as I was, there was an AMERICAN IDOL-style competition arranged in Toronto for people to try their hand at politics, with the winner being encouraged to stand in the next council elections. A handful of the more successful entrants, including the eventual winner of the competition, are followed throughout, as the film contrasts the idealised politics of these hardy souls with the antics of Toronto's elected officials and election hopefuls.

It's an entertaining effort and while I think its appeal will be limited outside of Toronto it at least deserves points for showing politics in a fun way, for exposing such a great idea, and for reminding us that occasionally you'll get an aspiring politician who isn't either lazy, crooked or both. It's currently election day here in Scotland and man; I wish some of the candidates had the integrity of the City Idol participants. Desmond would have got my vote.

Compare CITY IDOL with ELECTION DAY, the next film I saw, and CITY IDOL would win this particular vote. ELECTION DAY follows a group of people on American election day (including a poll monitor and an ex-con voting for the first time) but to be honest none of the stories are that interesting. There are moments of humour but it's not a classic.

Finally, THE LAST DAYS OF YASSER ARAFAT is literally that. An Australian documentary filmmaker tries for months to get an interview with Mr Arafat. Eventually she does. Shortly afterwards, he dies. She may have got the last ever interview with him, but it doesn't contain anything of substance and the film doesn't shed new light on any of the events or characters it portrays.

All in all though, I loved this festival and I loved Toronto too. I might just pencil it in for next year too.

Next trip: London, this weekend!