Max Dillon: I don't get what the appeal of his character is, just like I didn't get Tobey McGuire's appeal in Spider-Man (2002). He's supposedly nerdy, because he has unstylistic hair, from the WB which probably took 20 hours in makeup to do that way for whatever reason completely wasting Academy Award winning actor and Quentin Tarantino collaborator Jamie Foxx's talent. He was probably supposed to be a foil for Peter, a failed one at that.
Peter and Max are different races. Why? Is there supposed to be drama because of that? Is it supposed to show equality from that? It doesn't.
Peter and Max have different hair cuts. Why? It's not Jamie Foxx's natural hair cut so there has to be a reason.
Jamie Foxx is turned into a ball of energy. Why? What is the point of having Jamie Foxx on your crew, if you don't intend on showing his face to demonstrate that he is in your film as a major draw? A point that made Richard Donner's Superman and Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy noteworthy.
Again, he seems to be a made up minority stereotype that isn't true. And he's been heavily featured in the film as a major draw for the film. For who?
No comments:
Post a Comment