It did not take long for me to figure out where this film was going from its very beginning. I've played and given my thoughts on the game, I own copies of the Raimi trilogy, and I've read the comics (albeit over a decade ago). So, like damn near everyone else, I knew what was going to happen. But as the end of the first act approached, even though I knew it would happen, I was still shocked and hurt when Uncle Ben died in the street. I don't know whom to credit for my reaction. Perhaps it's director Marc Webb's ability to throw an emotional punch. Maybe it was Martin Sheen's pitch perfect performance as Uncle Ben (whoever cast him deserves credit as well). Or it may have been the argument between Sheen's Uncle Ben and Garfield's Peter Parker, just before the incident, when Uncle Ben completely tears into Peter the way I could see my own father do to me when I was a teenager. Whatever the reason, I saw Uncle Ben die for what seemed to be the three-hundredth time in the past decade, and it still felt tragic and powerful.
Let me be honest here: I still think it's too soon for a Spider-Man reboot. Sure, the gritty real-world aesthetic of Nolan's Batman trilogy reinvented the way we think about superhero films, and, on the surface, it would seem that Webb strives for the same type of aesthetic. But Batman Begins released a decade after the visual abortion that was Joel Schumacher's Batman and Robin, and it's only been about half that time since Raimi's Spider-Man 3. I think Raimi's trilogy still holds up fairly well, though I'm willing to admit my own nostalgic connection to it. So it came as a bit of a surprise to me that Hollywood wanted to revisit the franchise so soon. Sony, it seems, pushed the movie out the door because they wanted to keep the movie rights, and they should, considering how they need the capital.
 |
| I know you do, buddy. I know you do. |
I'm obviously not an economist or a marketing pro, but I predicted they would sell the rights back to Marvel so they could roll Spidey in with the Avengers universe. I don't know if we'll ever see that happen now. Instead, the Webslinger will be subject to things like this:
 |
| Headline: J. Jonah Jameson Is a Jerk |
Anyway, here's the bottom line: Webb's The Amazing Spider-Man is much darker than Raimi's camp-fest; however, it is certainly no less fun. It's a much more patient movie, willing to build up the scenes with Peter and Gwen (played by the always charming Emma Stone) before delivering with the action sequences we all paid good money to see. Peter doesn't even get bitten until about twenty minutes into the film, and watching him develop his powers delivers some of the best entertainment in the whole movie. I think the first-person web-slinging section could have been a solid minute and a half because it was an absolute blast. And here's where I credit Webb's directorial skills. The movie is patient, but never slow. The characters are charming, but never impossibly cheesy. The action sequences are fast and acrobatic, but never so busy that it impedes the viewer from understanding the action. Stan Lee's cameo was hilarious, but not...eh I got nothing--it was pretty awesome. If I had not known going in, I would have never guessed that the same man who directed (500) Days of Summer also directed The Amazing Spider-Man. Webb really has an eye for clear, precise action scenes that I could not have predicted. I left the theater pleasantly surprised.
Returning to the question of acting, everyone seemed right for their respective rolls. Aside from Martin Sheen, Dennis Leary gives an excellent performance as Capt. Stacy. His gruff demeanor matched the character perfectly, and, even though I knew what would happen to him, his character arc served as, arguably, the most interesting. Rhys Ifans fit the Kurt Connors/Lizard's scales, but the villain had nowhere near the bombastic fun of Willem Dafoe's Norman Osborne is Raimi's 2002 incarnation. Garfield's Peter Parker outshines Tobey Maguire's, giving a bit more gravitas than his predecessor to the titular hero. He and Emma Stone really make the non-action sequences worth watching. Of course, in the great tradition of the information age, we all know where their relationship will inevitably lead.
The film does have one problem, though: it's an origin story. It's a well-told, well-acted, well-choreographed, and entertaining origin story--but it's an origin story, nonetheless. And we just got five (if you want to include The Incredible Hulk, which I am for emphasis, though I probably shouldn't) of those damn things from Marvel. Five. In the last three years. So, while I was watching the movie, I couldn't help but constantly challenge what I saw, demanding, "Convince me that you needed to be made and not tied to The Avengers." I don't think the film can validate its own existence, at least not for me. We don't need this movie because it offers nothing new. Crazed scientist due to chemical enhancement? Check. Teenage angst/love story? Check. Hero born from death of a father figure? Check. The real place this movie differs from Raimi's (besides it's darker tone) is the tension built between the NYPD (and Capt. Stacy) and the overall question of vigilantism. To be honest, I would have preferred more from this arc as it offered something new for Spider-Man. What's there is good; I just wanted more.
Overall, the movie deserves film-goers' attention. I left completely entertained, and I think I like it better than the originals (including the stellar Spider-Man 2). I also think the film will age well, maybe even more so than the Raimi trilogy, but it will have nowhere near the longevity of all the Avengers films. (That's another thing that bothers me; I can't talk about the film without using caveats and qualifiers. It's good, but... I liked the story; however...) As much as I enjoyed The Amazing Spider-Man, I can't shake this feeling of deja vu; I've seen it all before, it just happens to be better this time. I don't think that's enough to warrant making the film, but I'd be lying if I said it's not worth the price of admission--even if that means subjecting myself to watching Uncle Ben die one more time.
Cheers,
--David
Returning to the question of acting, everyone seemed right for their respective rolls. Aside from Martin Sheen, Dennis Leary gives an excellent performance as Capt. Stacy. His gruff demeanor matched the character perfectly, and, even though I knew what would happen to him, his character arc served as, arguably, the most interesting. Rhys Ifans fit the Kurt Connors/Lizard's scales, but the villain had nowhere near the bombastic fun of Willem Dafoe's Norman Osborne is Raimi's 2002 incarnation. Garfield's Peter Parker outshines Tobey Maguire's, giving a bit more gravitas than his predecessor to the titular hero. He and Emma Stone really make the non-action sequences worth watching. Of course, in the great tradition of the information age, we all know where their relationship will inevitably lead.
The film does have one problem, though: it's an origin story. It's a well-told, well-acted, well-choreographed, and entertaining origin story--but it's an origin story, nonetheless. And we just got five (if you want to include The Incredible Hulk, which I am for emphasis, though I probably shouldn't) of those damn things from Marvel. Five. In the last three years. So, while I was watching the movie, I couldn't help but constantly challenge what I saw, demanding, "Convince me that you needed to be made and not tied to The Avengers." I don't think the film can validate its own existence, at least not for me. We don't need this movie because it offers nothing new. Crazed scientist due to chemical enhancement? Check. Teenage angst/love story? Check. Hero born from death of a father figure? Check. The real place this movie differs from Raimi's (besides it's darker tone) is the tension built between the NYPD (and Capt. Stacy) and the overall question of vigilantism. To be honest, I would have preferred more from this arc as it offered something new for Spider-Man. What's there is good; I just wanted more.
Overall, the movie deserves film-goers' attention. I left completely entertained, and I think I like it better than the originals (including the stellar Spider-Man 2). I also think the film will age well, maybe even more so than the Raimi trilogy, but it will have nowhere near the longevity of all the Avengers films. (That's another thing that bothers me; I can't talk about the film without using caveats and qualifiers. It's good, but... I liked the story; however...) As much as I enjoyed The Amazing Spider-Man, I can't shake this feeling of deja vu; I've seen it all before, it just happens to be better this time. I don't think that's enough to warrant making the film, but I'd be lying if I said it's not worth the price of admission--even if that means subjecting myself to watching Uncle Ben die one more time.
Cheers,
--David
No comments:
Post a Comment