I saw Spidey 3 over the weekend and mostly I enjoyed it. The usual stuff was there: Tobey and Kirsten, lots of leaping and swinging (all good, clean fun), thrills, chills, and spills. The special FX are awesome, as usual, though I’ve heard some hard-to-please critics say that there’s nothing new—which is a real problem for me, I have to say. Why must there always be something new? I mean, sure, it would be nice, but it doesn’t seem like a valid criticism to me to say that this movie pushes boundaries, visually, that other movies don’t even dare attempt, but it doesn’t outdo itself. It’s like saying Wayne Gretzky scored 80 goals one year, but, like, he didn’t score any on his back or while flying through the air and knitting an afghan. Good is good. If you feel like you’ve seen it before then, well, geez, buddy: it’s Spiderman THREE! Did you not read the movie poster? It’s a sequel. Read: more of the same.
Anyway, was the movie any good? I’d give it a 77 (those of you who know my grading system will appreciate what that means—it’s not good enough for an A, but it’s still really enjoyable). It is a bit long. There were several fight scenes that just seemed repetitive and pointless and could have been shaved by a minute or so each. I liked all of the characters, but there were just too many conflicts going on at once. If they had removed the one with the Sand Dude, then the movie would have been tidier and probably gotten better reviews. They just went for too much, possibly for fear that there wouldn’t be a fourth movie. There could be another Spiderman movie, and I would definitely go to it. But given the cool reception from critics on this one, it’s unlikely Sam Raimi will want to climb back up on that particular horse for a while, if ever. I’d definitely recommend seeing this one, though, if you’re near a theater. Big screen is always better for any almost any kind of movie. You know what they say: go big or go home. The do say that, don’t they? Whoever “they is”.
Speaking of monkeys (I’m sure someone was), I read on the weekend that Austrian activists are seeking human rights for chimpanzees. That’s hilarious. First of all, they must already have the right to vote. Otherwise, how would George Dubya Bush be elected president? TWICE! Or what hope would Stephen Harper have for a majority government in the next election. Giving monkeys the right to vote is the obvious way to go if you’re a right-wing politician. It’s guaranteed votes. That is, until the monkeys are given the right to an education, which only makes sense. What good are rights unless you’re educated on what those rights are and how they should be used. Once monkeys learn to read and think for themselves, the Republicans and Conservatives might find themselves out of luck once again.
How much time do these activists have on their hands anyway? Not only in Austria, but in Brazil, and several other countries are considering this as well. I understand that they don’t want to elevate chimps to the status of people (at least not most people). They say that they just want to make sure the apes are free from torture and killing, or whatever else science does with them.
I mean, realistically, when you look at them, don’t they look like little people? Those big eyes that look like they’ve seen too much, like they could be your best friend if only you’d give them a chance. Of course, they can’t talk and, as far as we know, they can’t read or think or figure out a Rubik’s Cube. Granted, I have days when I can’t do any of those things either. I’m sure we all do.
While we’re at it, I think we should grant monkeys the right to legal abortion. We should also give them fishing licenses and the right to bear arms. They have the right to defend themselves too. In fact, if this goes through, it might eventually come down to human rights versus chimpanzee rights: if a person hurts a chimp, how will the person be punished? A fight to death, maybe. Or a bake-off. Or maybe a challenge to a banana-eating contest.
But wait a minute: don’t we already have animal rights? Can’t people already be prosecuted for animal cruelty? I don’t know for sure, but it seems to me that the Western World already protects critters as much as possible.
Giving them rights under the law just seems to be taking things a bit far. But that’s just my opinion. I’m sure Amnesty International will shift its focus accordingly. Leave people to fend for themselves: we’ve got chimps who are misunderstood, seals who barely have a say, and mosquitoes who are facing genocide at an alarming rate in many so-called civilized countries. Who speaks for the humble mosquito?
It’s not that I condone cruelty to animals. I don’t. I love animals, especially furry ones that don’t look at you as if you were food. And I do think we need laws to protect them. But to extend “human rights” to that which is clearly not human seems nonsensical. We are the only species which has the ability to effectively legislate itself right out of existence. Why? Because we are the only species with the ability to understand the difference. If you change a monkey’s rights, it doesn’t know and doesn’t care. If you change the definition of a human, then we all know and feel it. It would seriously damage our sense of identity and distinction. Are the animals progressing at our expense? Are we progressing so that we embrace all as one? Or are we too smart for our own good?
It’s enough to make you feel like an endangered species some days.
Gerard
No comments:
Post a Comment