Davao Mar 14 2003

Miss Potter

Rating:	★★★
Category:	Movies
Genre:	Drama

These days, when we think of children’s books, a certain Quidditch playing boy wizard comes to mind. Through all of the success of J.K. Rowling and her “Harry Potter” series, a lot of us forget that before Harry, there was Peter… Peter Rabbit that is. For the better part of the twentieth century, author Beatrix Potter’s creation of Peter Rabbit and other fellow anthropomorphic animals were the most popular children’s books. Ms. Potter didn’t just write the stories, she also meticulously painted and colored them.

In the film “Miss Potter”, we are introduced to Beatrix (Renée Zellweger), her imaginary characters, and her struggle to gain acceptance in a time not quite ready for such a unique character. In the early 1900s, English women were merely expected to marry, take care of the household, and produce heirs. However Beatrix was an independent thinker, and with the support of her father Rupert (Bill Paterson), she hones her artistic skill. Even as her mother Helen (Barbara Flynn) wants her to marry rich, Beatrix is quite content in her painting. When she gets her first work published, she is surprised to find herself falling for her publisher Norman Warne (Ewan McGregor). What follows is Beatrix’s attempt to balance both a burgeoning literary career, love, and desire to be independent.

That last line might seem typical of “women empowerment” films and the like, but what makes “Miss Potter” stand out is that it happened to a real person, and that it happened at the turn of the 20th century. Beatrix Potter really had to establish herself in her mid-30s as someone of considerable artistic and literary talent, even while most of the “civilized” world thought women like her should be confined to the household. To struggle against society, let alone one’s own mother, Beatrix really had to be made of stronger mettle. SPOILER WARNING!!! Coping with Warne’s death and a near-fall into madness must have made her ordeal all the more difficult. Yet she rose above that, and with the money she earned through her books, became a staunch conservationist as well.

In my mind, Texas-born Zellweger once again putting on a British accent isn’t such big news anymore. After two “Bridget Jones” films, she’s practically a Brit already. Yet her Potter is quite different from her Jones, particularly in terms of the neuroses of each. Whereas Bridget was insecure, overate, and alienated those close to her, Beatrix was actually confident, artistic, and conservative. Yet both are shown as passionate people, especially in terms of love and loving. It might be a bit jarring to see Beatrix cope with loss in such a muted manner at first, however her attempt to return to normalcy weighs heavy once director Chris Noonan shows the scene where all her characters seem to be running away from her.

Though this was first and foremost Zellweger’s film, I believe Emily Watson as Norman Warne’s sister Millie should also be given credit, since she also portrayed a particularly strong female in that constricting period. Barbara Flynn’s Helen Potter also served as an amusing counterbalance to Beatrix, and my annoyance with her only gave weight to how effective her acting skills were. And even though in the end, McGregor turned out to have quite a limited role, his character was crucial in the progression of the story and of Beatrix’s personality in her later years.

Perhaps my main quibble with the film is that, despite showing up in the flashback scenes, Beatrix’s younger brother Bertram was never shown as an adult. In fact, I told Jo at one point that I thought he might have died a gruesome death. Yet it was later revealed (as a mere footnote) that he had run off and married.

Admittedly, a film like this can drag a bit and leave you a bit sleepy, what with all the dialogue and the prim and proper English and their stodgy clothes. Also, you have to be of a certain mindset (i.e. wide awake and curious about “Peter Rabbit”) to enjoy it. However, Zellweger and company still manage to present a coherent story of one woman’s independent spirit and intelligence shining through in a time when these were such a rare occurrence. Happily, I believe more and more Beatrix Potters exist today. Yet “Miss Potter” is still a nice reminder of the first woman who fought the good fight.

Spider-Man 3

Rating:	★★★
Category:	Movies
Genre:	Action & Adventure

It is probably the most anticipated movie of 2007. Since it was announced over two years ago, people have been salivating for it, awaiting what director Sam Raimi and company can do to top the last one. The international box office has been quiet the last couple of weeks because everyone feels that it will rule once more, just like the first two films in the series. “It” is of course, “Spider-Man 3”.

For a comic book geek like me, the surge in superhero- and comic-based films has been a delight. After all, there was a time when I thought my favorite superheroes were doomed to reside merely within the confines of “the funny pages”. Luckily, technology, audience tastes, and Hollywood realized what I have known for so long: there’s a gold mine in comics just waiting to be tapped. Perhaps there is no bigger comic-movie adaptation franchise than the “Spider-Man” series. Since the first Spidey film broke box office records in 2002, there has been a true comic-to-movie boom, with the wall crawler as the biggest star.

In the latest installment of the franchise, life is actually good for Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire). He’s in a relationship with his longtime crush, Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst). New York finally appreciates his efforts as Spider-Man and shows him love. Even his job at the Daily Bugle isn’t as bad as it used to be. However, things are never quite perfect in Spider-Man’s world. Old friend Harry Osborn (James Franco) still blames Peter for the death of his father Norman (Willem Dafoe). Escaped convict Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church) is discovered to be the real culprit in the death of Peter’s Uncle Ben (Cliff Robertson) and becomes the villainous Sandman. And a strange gooey substance of alien origin is about to change Peter’s attitude about a lot of things.

Let’s get this out of the way right now: I loved the first two “Spider-Man” films. For the first time in a long time, Raimi captured what Stan Lee and Steve Ditko created in comic form and successfully translated it into living, breathing three-dimensional characters. Both had all the pathos and conflict that are eternally consuming the lives of Peter Parker and his supporting cast in the comics. For once, movie audiences saw a superhero with numerous faults and doesn’t necessarily earn a “happily ever after” ending. With villains like the Green Goblin and Dr. Octopus, you had malevolent menaces who did everything to put Spider-Man through the ringer.

My anticipation of “Spider-Man 3” stemmed for the most part for the big screen debut of the villain known as Venom. A Spidey villain from the 1990s, Venom was an alien symbiote who once acted as Peter’s black costume, but tried taking over his mind by bonding with him. Once Peter defeated the costume, it bonded with disgraced photographer Eddie Brock, and both set on destroying the Web-Head through various means. Venom was one of the most popular Spidey villains, but Marvel Comics overexposed him and had him appearing in too many titles. The popularity eventually waned and Venom became a symbol of what was wrong with comics in the last decade.

I however still enjoyed Venom. With a great character design stemming from the old black Spidey costume, a toothy grin with a disgusting tongue, and a buffed up physique for Brock when he bonded with the symbiote, Venom was a great counterbalance to Spider-Man. In this film, I believe Topher Grace played a great Brock and Venom. He was as sneaky and lacking in morals as the character should be. Church proves that you can have great acting in a superhero film. As the Sandman, he lends weight to the role of a villain who didn’t want to go down this path, but would do anything for his sick daughter. Franco finally gets some serious screen time in his third Spidey film. As the “New Goblin”, he actually gets in on the action and is also allowed to flex his considerable acting muscles.

Perhaps that last paragraph is also why I didn’t enjoy “Spider-Man 3” as I did the first two flicks. It just felt that, at times, there was too much going on at the same time. SPOILER WARNING: You had Peter’s selfishness versus Mary Jane’s insecurity. There’s Harry’s short term memory loss. There’s Eddie Brock’s sleazy personality and his hate for Peter. There’s Sandman’s sick daughter and sudden revelation that he’s Ben Parker’s real killer. There’s the new black costume that came from outer space. That’s a lot of plots and subplots to fit in a 2 and ½ hour long film.

Don’t get me wrong, I loved seeing Venom and Sandman translated so well on the big screen. It’s just that I kind of felt that there were certain compromises made to force what could have been two motion pictures into just one. It really bugs me that Raimi and company made Flint Marko Ben Parker’s real killer. Maybe my comic purist tendencies are coming out, but that’s just me. I also felt that they made both MJ and Peter a little too whiny in this film. I mean they’re flawed and all, but they don’t have to be such selfish little prisses, do they?

I would still recommend “Spider-Mann 3” to everybody out there. Please, draw your own conclusions! It’s just that this comic book geek can’t help but feel that this film could’ve been way better than what was the end result.