Soooo they went ahead and did it anyway!!
What am I talking about??
The inevitable rebooting of an already massively successful superhero franchise of course!
Oh, that.
Damn you Hollywood! You already have a series that spins more than enough money to keep your coffers full for a very long time, what more do you want??
Critical acclaim??!!
That and more money I guess.
So here it is, a decade after the first Spider-Man movie spun its way onto the big screen, a re-boot! Now imaginatively retitled 'The Amazing Spider-Man' it may as well have just been called 'Spider-Man Begins', because that's precisely what we have here, a film that lives in the shadow of Christopher Nolan's 'Batman Begins'.
Gone is the shy awkward and very polite Peter Parker of Tobey Maguire, in his place we have the edgey, moody and quite un-likeable skater-boy of Andrew Garfield, haunted by the disappearance of his parents (not unlike a young Bruce Wayne) and frankly quite ungrateful to his dear old aunt May and uncle Ben! (not unlike a young Bruce Wayne, oh wait, I said that already!)
There's a lot that's not quite right in this movie, but my major gripe has to be the reinvention of Peter Parker. The inoffensive nerdy Peter Parker of the previous films has been replaced by a moody skater-boy adolescent. True, were this real life, perhaps Peter Parker would be an un-likeable hoody wearing skater-boy. But if this was real life, he wouldn't be bitten by a radioactive spider either! It is still a radioactive spider right?? They don't really explain it in this film.. but there are loads of other similar spiders floating about in the same facility at Oscorp.. if only someone else was unfortunate enough to get bitten by one.
They've also done away with the simple, yet effective mantra 'With great power comes great responsibility', and left us with no clear moral or lesson that defines our hero. His motives for doing good are no longer driven by an over powering sense of guilt, but instead a rather bland 'do the right thing because it's the right thing to do' kind of sensibility.
The way the whole origin story unfolds is so diluted that you wish they just stuck to the basics, even if it was just a rehash of the 2002 Sam Raimi film. Better that than this weak unsubstantiated morality tale. Here, Uncle Ben could have probably survived and had the same effect on Peter.
As much as we enjoy watching Spider-Man do his webbed ballet over the New York skyline, what we really care about is Peter Parker's journey. Seeing the geeky guy get the girl, overcoming his insecurities and learning to be a hero (WITHOUT the mask) fulfils the secret desires in all of us.
Unfortunately we don't see any of that in this Spider-Man reboot, and that leaves us almost entirely unsatisfied by the end of the film.
Here Peter Parker is able to attract the girl BEFORE being bitten by a spider, so the extra confidence boost of being Spider-Man is completely unnecessary. He's sullen and pretty much always rude towards his aunt and uncle, inconsiderately coming and going as he pleases without remorse, which makes him plain unlikeable. Aside from being brainy and getting beaten up by Flash Thompson, he's not the Peter Parker we know and love... Something tells me that's exactly what the studio was going for, but I can't think why?
Oh wait, yes I can. Christopher Nolan has a lot to answer for!
And another thing!
In which universe does the hottest chick in school stand up for you against the bully? When I was in school, the hot chicks were even bigger bullies than the guys! But that's minor. The point is, a guy like Peter Parker should be invisible to the likes of Gwen Stacey, and part of his journey should be getting her to notice him and finally winning her over. Here, she already likes him, and that doesn't work as well, although to be fair, their blossoming romance is probably one of the better things about this film, and that's largely due to the director, Marc Webb, being in familiar '500 days of Summer' style relationship territory.
One of the worst thing's about Sam Raimi's Spider-Man was Kirstin Dunsts' bloody-awful Mary Jane Watson! Thankfully, Emma Stone's Gwen Stacey is affable, believable and waaay too good for Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker!
Then there's the film's setting. New York.. by night. Maybe the filmmaker's thought this would lend itself to a darker, grittier Spider-Man. Maybe they were right. But that's not what Spider-Man's universe is all about. Sure, it's not all sunshine and rainbows either, but I'm pretty sure he's not as nocturnal as say.. a bat?
The costume?
Yeah, it's more believable than the costume in the previous Spider-Man films, but it's still not as believable as a guy that wears body armour and dresses as a bat, nor is it as believable as a guy that walks around in a green scuba-diver outfit!
That's what we're dealing with here. The repercussions of more realistic superhero costumes in other films. But guess what? Nobody cares about that stuff! So why bother showing how Peter Parker fashioned it? More importantly, if no one cares, why am I discussing it??
Good point.
I'll move on.
Just for the record, I think the new Spidey outfit isn't that great looking, but I guess it does add more manoeuvrability.
How about Spidey himself?
Well, the good news is, he's actually as he should be. A wise cracking, cocky and funny tormentor of the bad guys. The bad news is, he does this like once or twice in the film. The rest of the time he's busy on a revenge mission that never gets resolved.. methinks the filmmakers purposely left MANY of the story threads open ended, just for the inevitable sequel. This doesn't make for a very satisfying movie going experience though.
Then there's the bad guy: The Lizard!
Or Rhys Ifan's English accented Dr. Curt Connors if you prefer. It's all a bit 'meh' to be honest. No fiendish masterplan to raze Gotham City to the ground or anything like that.. Just a guy that wants to.. nah, don't worry, I won't spoil it for you, but it does involve vaporising a gaseous substance into the atmosphere.. now where have I heard a crazy idea like that before..?
The Lizard himself is your usual generic CG monster. What is there, a template for these guys that comes free with Adobe After Effects??
We've seen it all before, and there's nothing to wow us here. He doesn't even make an appearance until the last third of the film anyway, so the climax all seems a bit forced. A spectacular finale pretty much out of no where, just because that's how these films are supposed to end!
Again, it's clearly set up for the sequels, and if you know anything about Spider-Man comic book lore, you know what happens to Gwen Stacey, and where all that leads. Yes, that's all going to happen; we can see it coming from miles away thanks to all those untied loose ends!!
So all in all, where does this stand in the grand pantheon of super hero movies?
Not very high I'm afraid.
It re-jigs the classic Spider-Man origin formula and does pretty much everything worse than how it was done before. Even the music pales in comparison! I was astounded when I read in the end credits that the music was done by James Horner! ...Braveheart would be turning in his grave.
This film has less scope, or breadth (New York never felt so small!) than it's previous incarnations. It has waaay less humour (where was J. Jonah Jameson and all the fun he brings to the party??), and unforgivably even less heart.
That's the main thing.
We're dealing with a reboot that is inferior to it's predecessor in almost every way that matters. Sure, the graphics are souped up, and the way Spidey moves and fights is better. But that's all superficial. We expect that from a big budget super hero film these days. The bar has been raised by more recent fare like Iron Man and The Avengers, as well as the Christopher Nolan's Batman films, so we expect better characters and a better story too. I'm afraid that bar has been set a little too high for this particular wall crawling effort.
Which begs the question, why do it??
I think I touched on that in the first paragraph. Money. There's nothing wrong with that. All Hollywood movies are driven by that goal, but this is just too cynical. There was no need for it. Another Sam Raimi effort would have been much preferred.
That said, I did hear many fellow film goers leave the Cinema totally blown away by what they had seen, so maybe it's just me.
After the disappointment of Prometheus and now this, I'm just hoping The Dark Knight Rises can live up to it's title, because The Amazing Spider-Man was anything but!
It's not crap.
It's just a three star film in a five star town.
Roll on July 20th.
What am I talking about??
The inevitable rebooting of an already massively successful superhero franchise of course!
Oh, that.
Damn you Hollywood! You already have a series that spins more than enough money to keep your coffers full for a very long time, what more do you want??
Critical acclaim??!!
That and more money I guess.
So here it is, a decade after the first Spider-Man movie spun its way onto the big screen, a re-boot! Now imaginatively retitled 'The Amazing Spider-Man' it may as well have just been called 'Spider-Man Begins', because that's precisely what we have here, a film that lives in the shadow of Christopher Nolan's 'Batman Begins'.
Gone is the shy awkward and very polite Peter Parker of Tobey Maguire, in his place we have the edgey, moody and quite un-likeable skater-boy of Andrew Garfield, haunted by the disappearance of his parents (not unlike a young Bruce Wayne) and frankly quite ungrateful to his dear old aunt May and uncle Ben! (not unlike a young Bruce Wayne, oh wait, I said that already!)
There's a lot that's not quite right in this movie, but my major gripe has to be the reinvention of Peter Parker. The inoffensive nerdy Peter Parker of the previous films has been replaced by a moody skater-boy adolescent. True, were this real life, perhaps Peter Parker would be an un-likeable hoody wearing skater-boy. But if this was real life, he wouldn't be bitten by a radioactive spider either! It is still a radioactive spider right?? They don't really explain it in this film.. but there are loads of other similar spiders floating about in the same facility at Oscorp.. if only someone else was unfortunate enough to get bitten by one.
They've also done away with the simple, yet effective mantra 'With great power comes great responsibility', and left us with no clear moral or lesson that defines our hero. His motives for doing good are no longer driven by an over powering sense of guilt, but instead a rather bland 'do the right thing because it's the right thing to do' kind of sensibility.
The way the whole origin story unfolds is so diluted that you wish they just stuck to the basics, even if it was just a rehash of the 2002 Sam Raimi film. Better that than this weak unsubstantiated morality tale. Here, Uncle Ben could have probably survived and had the same effect on Peter.
As much as we enjoy watching Spider-Man do his webbed ballet over the New York skyline, what we really care about is Peter Parker's journey. Seeing the geeky guy get the girl, overcoming his insecurities and learning to be a hero (WITHOUT the mask) fulfils the secret desires in all of us.
Unfortunately we don't see any of that in this Spider-Man reboot, and that leaves us almost entirely unsatisfied by the end of the film.
Here Peter Parker is able to attract the girl BEFORE being bitten by a spider, so the extra confidence boost of being Spider-Man is completely unnecessary. He's sullen and pretty much always rude towards his aunt and uncle, inconsiderately coming and going as he pleases without remorse, which makes him plain unlikeable. Aside from being brainy and getting beaten up by Flash Thompson, he's not the Peter Parker we know and love... Something tells me that's exactly what the studio was going for, but I can't think why?
Oh wait, yes I can. Christopher Nolan has a lot to answer for!
And another thing!
In which universe does the hottest chick in school stand up for you against the bully? When I was in school, the hot chicks were even bigger bullies than the guys! But that's minor. The point is, a guy like Peter Parker should be invisible to the likes of Gwen Stacey, and part of his journey should be getting her to notice him and finally winning her over. Here, she already likes him, and that doesn't work as well, although to be fair, their blossoming romance is probably one of the better things about this film, and that's largely due to the director, Marc Webb, being in familiar '500 days of Summer' style relationship territory.
One of the worst thing's about Sam Raimi's Spider-Man was Kirstin Dunsts' bloody-awful Mary Jane Watson! Thankfully, Emma Stone's Gwen Stacey is affable, believable and waaay too good for Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker!
Then there's the film's setting. New York.. by night. Maybe the filmmaker's thought this would lend itself to a darker, grittier Spider-Man. Maybe they were right. But that's not what Spider-Man's universe is all about. Sure, it's not all sunshine and rainbows either, but I'm pretty sure he's not as nocturnal as say.. a bat?
The costume?
Yeah, it's more believable than the costume in the previous Spider-Man films, but it's still not as believable as a guy that wears body armour and dresses as a bat, nor is it as believable as a guy that walks around in a green scuba-diver outfit!
That's what we're dealing with here. The repercussions of more realistic superhero costumes in other films. But guess what? Nobody cares about that stuff! So why bother showing how Peter Parker fashioned it? More importantly, if no one cares, why am I discussing it??
Good point.
I'll move on.
Just for the record, I think the new Spidey outfit isn't that great looking, but I guess it does add more manoeuvrability.
How about Spidey himself?
Well, the good news is, he's actually as he should be. A wise cracking, cocky and funny tormentor of the bad guys. The bad news is, he does this like once or twice in the film. The rest of the time he's busy on a revenge mission that never gets resolved.. methinks the filmmakers purposely left MANY of the story threads open ended, just for the inevitable sequel. This doesn't make for a very satisfying movie going experience though.
Then there's the bad guy: The Lizard!
Or Rhys Ifan's English accented Dr. Curt Connors if you prefer. It's all a bit 'meh' to be honest. No fiendish masterplan to raze Gotham City to the ground or anything like that.. Just a guy that wants to.. nah, don't worry, I won't spoil it for you, but it does involve vaporising a gaseous substance into the atmosphere.. now where have I heard a crazy idea like that before..?
The Lizard himself is your usual generic CG monster. What is there, a template for these guys that comes free with Adobe After Effects??
We've seen it all before, and there's nothing to wow us here. He doesn't even make an appearance until the last third of the film anyway, so the climax all seems a bit forced. A spectacular finale pretty much out of no where, just because that's how these films are supposed to end!
Again, it's clearly set up for the sequels, and if you know anything about Spider-Man comic book lore, you know what happens to Gwen Stacey, and where all that leads. Yes, that's all going to happen; we can see it coming from miles away thanks to all those untied loose ends!!
So all in all, where does this stand in the grand pantheon of super hero movies?
Not very high I'm afraid.
It re-jigs the classic Spider-Man origin formula and does pretty much everything worse than how it was done before. Even the music pales in comparison! I was astounded when I read in the end credits that the music was done by James Horner! ...Braveheart would be turning in his grave.
This film has less scope, or breadth (New York never felt so small!) than it's previous incarnations. It has waaay less humour (where was J. Jonah Jameson and all the fun he brings to the party??), and unforgivably even less heart.
That's the main thing.
We're dealing with a reboot that is inferior to it's predecessor in almost every way that matters. Sure, the graphics are souped up, and the way Spidey moves and fights is better. But that's all superficial. We expect that from a big budget super hero film these days. The bar has been raised by more recent fare like Iron Man and The Avengers, as well as the Christopher Nolan's Batman films, so we expect better characters and a better story too. I'm afraid that bar has been set a little too high for this particular wall crawling effort.
Which begs the question, why do it??
I think I touched on that in the first paragraph. Money. There's nothing wrong with that. All Hollywood movies are driven by that goal, but this is just too cynical. There was no need for it. Another Sam Raimi effort would have been much preferred.
That said, I did hear many fellow film goers leave the Cinema totally blown away by what they had seen, so maybe it's just me.
After the disappointment of Prometheus and now this, I'm just hoping The Dark Knight Rises can live up to it's title, because The Amazing Spider-Man was anything but!
It's not crap.
It's just a three star film in a five star town.
Roll on July 20th.
RSS Feed