Review: 3.5 out of 5.
I have reviewed a track record of superhero films in the past and 2 shows on TV with similar themes. In this day and age, it is cool to watch. Due to economic decline and strict guidelines, this genre may shift ever so closer to budget restraints.
Despite the lackluster Spider-Man 3 of the Sam Raimi series, there was high anticipation for a new Spider-Man film. When I heard they had restarted the franchise with another Director and completely different cast, I slipped from eagerness - curiosity as to know how Marc Webb would bring his own vision of the Web Head to the surface - as well as frustration. I mean does this story really need to be retold? After Spider-Man 4 was cancelled due to creative disputes and no commitment to fulfill the target release date for Sony, a safety measure was in place in case this happened.
Written by James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent and Steve Kloves, directed by Webb and produced by Avi Arad, Laura Ziskin and Matt Tolmach for Columbia Pictures. The untold story followed a young Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) who is trying to find his place in life after his parents Richard and Mary Parker (Campbell Scott and Embeth Davidtz) mysteriously left him as a child. Bitten by a genetically modified spider while he searched in OsCorp Tower for Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), he now evolved and found purpose after the fall of his Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) as Spider-Man and now protects New York City from danger.
Good:
First of all, the 3D is spectacular and appears very real and comes out the screen to astonishing quality. Visually and down to aesthetics, this reboot did exceed some of my expectations. Arguably, the tone was a lot darker in themes and the producers aimed for a Batman Begins feel. Garfield did a great job as Peter Parker/Spider-Man, however, I can't say I love his portrayal. I'll get more into that later. Parker and Gwen Stacy, played by Emma Stone, had a lot of chemistry, perhaps more than even Tobey Maguire's Parker and Kirsten Dunst's Mary Jane Watson in the Raimi Spidey trilogy. The storyline was great, but felt rehashed and was not the best interpretation of the origin story.
Nevertheless, the performances from the rest of the supporting cast was ecstatic. Stone gave a brave, spunky, life to Gwen that can be memorable. Unlike the past female love interests on the screen in this mythology, Stone's Gwen was less of a damsel of distress and more clever and assertive than Bryce Dallas Howard's Gwen. I grew accustomed to the new suit the studio made and was impressed with the stunts and I felt the CGI animation throughout were just as fluid as the previous 2 installments of the last series. Flash Thompson, in this movie, was more brutal and Chris Zylka pulled this off well. In addition, a wise-cracking hero is what had been missing in Raimi's run-through.
Bad:
The Amazing Spider-Man had some good points but the rating only just scratched a half way point between number 3 and 4 out of 5 stars. I was ill at ease by the pacing of the story. It did not deserve the way over 2 hour running time. Garfield did well as the superhero in the leading role but not so great as the character's alter-ego, Parker. I do not like the Emo Parker, I mean you might as well call him out as a Goth. I see they were trying to aim for an Ultimate Spider-Man rendition of the character from an imprint of the comic book series that re-imagined the web-slinger in the 21st century. Good move but not a better enough product with sustenance.
Another thing is bad about this movie is it lacked drama. Although there were excellent action scenes, there was feelings of emptiness in parts between some of the interaction of the characters. Not that it was down to them being flat, but it was more the actor's handle of the role. In one instance (SPOILER ALERT) the scene where Uncle Ben is infamously taken down by a lone gun from the supermarket, Garfield's acting was off. The same can be said to another character who sadly (SPOILER ALERT) passed away. An idea of the Lizard being the main villain wasn't bad, with him being an only threat, not good. He would more perfectly fit the role of a henchman. It needed someone other than him from the Marvel universe to fill his shoes and do the job.
Overall:
With a crispy, hot, production thanks to Sony, a firm script, sweet quips and amazing performances from Garfield as Spider-Man, Stone's Gwen and Ifans' portrayal of the slithery Lizard; the reboot had some flaws from the decision process, but it was rigid enough to stun us with great special effects and action scenes. Webb's version neither outshined or backtracked Raimi's version.
- Written by Kbon
Good:
First of all, the 3D is spectacular and appears very real and comes out the screen to astonishing quality. Visually and down to aesthetics, this reboot did exceed some of my expectations. Arguably, the tone was a lot darker in themes and the producers aimed for a Batman Begins feel. Garfield did a great job as Peter Parker/Spider-Man, however, I can't say I love his portrayal. I'll get more into that later. Parker and Gwen Stacy, played by Emma Stone, had a lot of chemistry, perhaps more than even Tobey Maguire's Parker and Kirsten Dunst's Mary Jane Watson in the Raimi Spidey trilogy. The storyline was great, but felt rehashed and was not the best interpretation of the origin story.
Nevertheless, the performances from the rest of the supporting cast was ecstatic. Stone gave a brave, spunky, life to Gwen that can be memorable. Unlike the past female love interests on the screen in this mythology, Stone's Gwen was less of a damsel of distress and more clever and assertive than Bryce Dallas Howard's Gwen. I grew accustomed to the new suit the studio made and was impressed with the stunts and I felt the CGI animation throughout were just as fluid as the previous 2 installments of the last series. Flash Thompson, in this movie, was more brutal and Chris Zylka pulled this off well. In addition, a wise-cracking hero is what had been missing in Raimi's run-through.
Bad:
The Amazing Spider-Man had some good points but the rating only just scratched a half way point between number 3 and 4 out of 5 stars. I was ill at ease by the pacing of the story. It did not deserve the way over 2 hour running time. Garfield did well as the superhero in the leading role but not so great as the character's alter-ego, Parker. I do not like the Emo Parker, I mean you might as well call him out as a Goth. I see they were trying to aim for an Ultimate Spider-Man rendition of the character from an imprint of the comic book series that re-imagined the web-slinger in the 21st century. Good move but not a better enough product with sustenance.
Another thing is bad about this movie is it lacked drama. Although there were excellent action scenes, there was feelings of emptiness in parts between some of the interaction of the characters. Not that it was down to them being flat, but it was more the actor's handle of the role. In one instance (SPOILER ALERT) the scene where Uncle Ben is infamously taken down by a lone gun from the supermarket, Garfield's acting was off. The same can be said to another character who sadly (SPOILER ALERT) passed away. An idea of the Lizard being the main villain wasn't bad, with him being an only threat, not good. He would more perfectly fit the role of a henchman. It needed someone other than him from the Marvel universe to fill his shoes and do the job.
Overall:
With a crispy, hot, production thanks to Sony, a firm script, sweet quips and amazing performances from Garfield as Spider-Man, Stone's Gwen and Ifans' portrayal of the slithery Lizard; the reboot had some flaws from the decision process, but it was rigid enough to stun us with great special effects and action scenes. Webb's version neither outshined or backtracked Raimi's version.
- Written by Kbon
No comments:
Post a Comment