List Price: $95.99
Sale Price: $69.99
Today's Bonus: 27% Off
I read a lot of reviews for this movie before watching it myself. In the end, they all boiled down to a few basic criticisms, which I kept in mind as I made my own appraisal. Here are the major problems people seem to have had with Marc Webb's "Amazing Spider-Man", along with my responses.
1. The reboot was too soon.
This more or less depends on your point of view. True, the last Spidey movie was in 2007, a mere five years ago more than long enough to warrant another Spider-Man film; not exactly long enough to call for a complete reboot. On the other hand, I think a lot of people would agree that it's been more like eight years since the last GOOD Spider-Man film. I loved Raimi's work with the character, though I do criticize him on some minor points. But in the end, he really dropped the ball with Spider-Man 3, running a lot of good characters into the ground and painting himself into a corner with two hours of very messy plotting. In the end, whether a reboot was necessary per se is a matter of personal preference. But even if you think it wasn't necessary, is it fair to write off the new movie completely as a result? I don't believe it is.
2. We've heard it all before.
Yes and no. This is another interpretation of Spider-Man's origin story. But it's very different from Raimi's first Spider-Man film. More importantly, it's a well-done interpretation. At the heart of this "origin story" is Peter Parker's development from a somewhat geeky, trouble-making teen into a true hero. This transition happened far more quickly in Raimi's first movie, mainly because Maguire's Peter had a more strongly-developed moral compass to begin with. Neither version is objectively inferior in my opinion, but I do have a personal preference for the deep character drama achieved by Webb. The point is, yes, this is the spider-bite story again, but it's a good spider-bite story.
3. The hype about "secrets being revealed" was a big lie.
Yes, it was. This is most definitely not "the untold story". Significant-sounding lines from the trailers such as "Do you think what happened to you was an accident?" and "If you want the truth about your parents, Peter, then come and get it" didn't even feature, which I'll admit kind of annoyed me. That amounts to false advertising in my opinion. I was very happy with what I got, but it wasn't what I was promised. The thing is, there is some big mystery going on in this movie with Peter's parents. However, their story doesn't feature very heavily in this first movie. The elements of it that do were given away in the trailers. So don't bother watching this solely to find out more about Richard and Mary Parker. Their story will have to wait until the sequel.
4. The villain was weak.
My main problem with this film's take on Dr. Curtis Connors was that it diverged so heavily from the comics. The Connors I remember was an intriguing villain because he was a father and a husband who transformed himself into a monster in a quest for healing. Billy Connors and his mom aren't around here. Instead there's a bachelor, British-accented Connors who frequently runs the risk of going boldly where so many villains have gone before. Fortunately, Rhys Ifans' performance is good enough to prevent this happening most of the time. Connors' motivation makes sense overall, though little time is given to truly flesh it out. Perhaps if his mysterious connections to Norman Osborn had been explored in greater detail, he would have been more memorable.
5. The Lizard's design was flawed.
Most people who didn't care for the Lizard's look seem to describe it as "too human". The face certainly is. It wasn't really that scary. I've seen alternate designs which the production team ultimately abandoned which I think would have been a lot better. So basically I would agree with this criticism, but for me it was a minor quibble.
6. It had too much teenage angst and Twilight-esque drama.
Actually, it had none. The teenage interactions were more mature than I'm used to seeing in film or TV, with even Flash Thompson evolving from a typical bully into a likable character over time. There are a few moments of stereotypical rebellion from Peter, but they lead rapidly into the tragic events that change him, so they're quickly forgotten. Despite the early publicity saying that this movie would be "darker", I don't think I'd describe it that way. It's a little less cheesy and a little more gritty in parts, but there are enough moments of clever humor to give the viewer a break from the gradually building tension.
The Amazing Spider-Man does have flaws. But in my opinion, its good points are so good that they cancel out the missteps. Andrew Garfield brings the wisecracking, geeky, sometimes mischievous Peter Parker from the original comics to life better than anyone I've seen (or heard, in animation) thus far. He nails the sense of humor that was frequently lacking from Maguire's Spidey. I had my doubts about Emma Stone as Gwen, but her acting was superb as well. She and Garfield have great chemistry on screen, which bodes well for the future. Really all the main cast was terrific, but I must make a special mention of Dennis Leary's Captain Stacy. He truly did a fantastic job. The special effects in regard to Spider-Man's web-slinging and other stunts were breathtaking, and clever cinematography draws the audience into the action effortlessly. The music was forgettable for the most part, but served its purpose in the more dramatic scenes (much like the soundtrack to The Avengers).
In short, watching this movie was a delight for me as a long-time Spider-Fan, even with the memory of Raimi's better efforts fresh in my mind, and I'm very much looking forward to the sequel (teased at the end of this movie by an intriguing mid-credits scene). Worth buying, worth watching, and worth re-watching. It's a fun, engaging superhero film, and deserves to be judged on its own merits, which are considerable. Please don't let the unfair amount of negativity surrounding this movie scare you away from it. If you give it a chance, you won't be sorry.
Click Here For Most Helpful Customer Reviews >>
After watching the first five minutes of The Amazing Spiderman, I knew I was gonna like it; after the first hour (which includes a lot of exposition without being tedious) I actually preferred this one to the Raimi versions mainly cuz I think it possesses an intensity and believability that the previous films lacked.Marvel seems to be producing more mature, rebooted versions of all their super-hero series and I actually prefer this variation on the Spider Man story as well, especially the disappearance of the pointless Mary Jane obsession (which always made me respect Spidey a little less). I suspect that a more scientifically savvy audience appreciates an ever evolving origins story and I also enjoyed the initial dealing-with-new-superpowers interlude which was very amusing and again just seemed a much more realistic reaction from Peter Parker to his new abilities. Exceptional performances for Peter and Gwen are what truly make this production stand out from every other action-packed big-budget flick out there, not to mention a truly scary and menacing super-villain causing some sequences to play a little like a horror film. The tragic loss of his uncle is intensely emotional making the motivation for becoming a vigilante seem more credible, while the use of fantasy tech to supplement his powers added to this as well. love Martin Sheen as uncle Ben, never been much of a Sally Fields fan but apparently the producers were looking for star power to offset the use of mostly unknowns in the starring roles (which I think was a stroke of brilliance by the way).
The FX action sequences are seamless, gorgeous, captivating and again convincing (hitting on this alot I know but I think it's an essential factor). It's the details that make the difference, like while on the job at dizzying heights getting a call on his cell from aunt May reminding him to pick up eggs on his way home. The wise-cracking Spidey is not only back but actually funny with flawless comedic timing throughout and the gratuitous Stan Lee cameo was priceless. This is a new Spider-man, a better one, one whom you will be emotionally invested in by the dramatic ending which brilliantly wraps up an all-around excellent, excellent film! :o)
Best Deals for The Amazing Spider-Man (Limited Edition Four-Disc Combo: Blu-ray
There are only so many ways you can tell a superhero story, especially through a movie and you have the dodgy task of taking a popular superhero with the elements of his story try to breathe new life into it and adapt it to the big screen in a way that can reach a wide audience; families, kids, teenagers, adults and generations while at the same time making it appeal to the die hard superfans and collectors. This is the hard task that the 2012 reboot of the Spider-Man franchise The Amazing Spider-Man is attempting to achieve.Superhero films have received a revival in interest new since the first decade of the new millennium and throughout the 2000's to the current day. It's become a popular trend in Hollywood and already we've seen plenty of superheros head to the big screen; some with great mainstream success at the box office (X-Men, Spider-Man, Batman) and some poorly received (Daredevil, Superman Returns, Green Lantern). Spider-man is one of those superhero characters that caught on most as a movie franchise and was successful enough to spawn two sequels. The trilogy of Spidey films of the 00's was mostly well received but when attempts of re-singing actors for a fourth title failed there was only two options: 1) Give up on making more Spider-Man films in the near foreseeable future or 2) Get some fresh faces to replace the already established actors and come up with an alternate take on the story of one of the greatest Marvel characters and superheroes of all time. This reboot is a different Spider-man altogether and in this case it's actually a good thing. Garfield as Spider-Man was what was going to make or break this movie and his Peter Parker is a fresh one with slight twists that I think audiences will approve of. The retelling of the Spiderman story works here because they did an actual reboot, using the same characters and comic universe but it's a different take it's obviously not a remake yet it's not a re-imagining either being that this character has already plenty of history to chose from. If you watched any of the 3 previous ones you will be able to tell that the angle and tone they have here are very different. The back story already is quite different, they explain more about Peter Parker's parents, in this one his love interest is Gwen Stacy not Mary Jane Watson (and very different from the Gwen Stacy we saw in 2007's Spider-Man 3 too), the villain (Dr. Curtis "Curt" Conors/The Lizard), the way the events happen (how Peter gains his powers etc.) is not quite the same and the way its presented is unique which is all a plus in my book.
A lot of us were wondering how Andrew Garfield (The Social Network) would fare as the lead role compared to Tobey McGuire (as if there weren't going to be any comparisons) and that it would directly make the biggest impact on the fate (and perhaps sequels) of this reboot. I must say I was impressed. MacGuire was cast for the trilogy of Spider-Man films from 2002-07 and I think most would say Tobey pulled off the job really well, came off as likeable and people tend to identify him in his role of the spandex web-slinger. Looking back McGuire was suitable and a good choice for the role but Garfield brings something else to the table, portrays the role different with more flair, more attitude. Not as shy and innocent as Macguire's portrayal of Spidey. Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man you can sense from the get-go is in ways better or improved on MacGuire's if comparisons must be made. He doesn't look as weak, is a bit more like the High-Schooler you would imagine, has the smart comments, is more aggressive and is taller and fills the suit better. Enough has been said, Garfied makes a rather convincing Peter Parker, student and Peter Parker as the masked hero. Those are both different Spider-Man overall, different takes on the same character and each have their positives but in the end I think I'd take Garfied over McGuire any day (no disrespect to Tobey intended I thought his take on the role was excellent and certainly put his stamp on the character). Emma Stone was very believable as Gwen Stacy and has that edge of the character she portrays and she looks the part, she has actual chemistry with Garfield and although we know her more for her comedy acting roles (Superbad, House Bunny, Easy A and others) she has no problem playing a more serious role and I could well see her do more of this type of acting. Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and Aunt May (Sally Fields) were nicely cast although I had grown very fond of the actors who played them in the trilogy of Spidey films and thought they were more effective than they are here. Rhys Ifanswas fantastic as Dr. Curt Conors/The Lizard and although there are lots of special effects for his transformation to being the Lizard I thought the human counterpart was played quite well and made his background story come through nicely. Also notable was Denis Leary as Captain George Stacy, Gwen's father.
The fighting and action scenes are probably the greatest improvements over the first 3 titles. Not that it was bad in any of those films but the way they captured the action in this one was fantastic and simply superior and are bad-er and mean-er. Those sequences were well executed which is important in a superhero movie. The stunts came off looking somewhat less surreal yet amazing to watch. Instead of the hero shooting web from his wrists they go back to the original story with the artificial web-shooters which was a good idea. We even manage to feel something for the villain and the Lizard's backstory was always one of my favorites and the character looks fantastic on the big screen with details and texture; this is one cool looking villain, I cannot imagine Lizard being done better. I was very happy when they chose Kurt Conors as the villain and the result turned out fantastic, at least they didn't take one of the previously seen villains for this first chapter in the cinematic saga. Not that I'm against using a previous bad guy again but someone else was a good choice to begin. Something that I thought was particularly great is that we saw Peter Parker as a child a further glimpse at what made him who he is. In fact the first few minutes are of an "origin of Peter Parker" scene that gives the viewer more insight on the character. What they did with the story, the hero, the villain, the romance, the stunts is commendable, especially considering that this is taking an already successful movie franchise and trying to revive and do something different yet interesting with it that would keep fans an moviegoers excited about it.
On a quick note I don't have much to say on the film's 3D probably because while it's not bad, it's not a big presence and the focus was mostly on the story and as a result there are very few times when the 3D stands out in any way.
There are similarities between this film and the original Spider-Man but there is plenty of differences too (there's only so much you can change) and it doesn't come off as watching the same movie twice this series is moving forwards. Ultimately the fans will decide how this film will go down in movie history (and superhero movie history). All I have to say is I got my money and time's worth with The Amazing Spiderman, I was certainly not disappointed, I was pleasantly surprised and found it very enjoyable; definitely worthy of the "Summer Blockbuster" title. It think it's safe to say that the "amazing" in the title very well reflects the viewing experience as a whole and that this is one that fans and non-fans will enjoy. The highest rating, highest recommendation. *****
Honest reviews on The Amazing Spider-Man (Limited Edition Four-Disc Combo: Blu-ray
I suppose, in a world where douchebags rule (Basically Parker goes to Douchebag High School) the thing you have to remember is anything better than selfish aggression.Is this a re-telling? More like a re-hanging. In fact, if you haven't already seen a Spiderman movie, you won't know what is going on. There is no scene where we get an idea that Peter Parker is anything special until we see some ridiculously high-tech remote control door lock. Up to that point he is just a loner with an army jacket and a hoodie. He's also a stalker (which of course seems to excite and intrigue teenage girls who only wear knee socks). Every time there's a question, it's covered by assuming you already know the story and are watching the divergent moments for orientation.
Personally, I believe in a shady fight promoter willing to cheat Parker on a technicality far more than I believe in a surly clerk who won't let Amazing Parker take a penny from the counter. It's a belief that comes from the exposition behind the ethics of letting the thief escape. A clerk who won't let a penny from the "take a penny" cup isn't doing something that is deserving of justice. The truth is, the clerk has a real point (if there was a clerk on Earth that would even look up at this transaction) and nothing to gain or lose by his treatment of Amazing Parker. On the other hand, the shady fight promoter profits both by Parker's win, and inflates his profit by cheating him, in the original genesis story. The Amazing Parker is just petty. Petty in his revenge against Flash, and then petty in his revenge against the clerk. With the clerk Amazing Parker is an accomplice "Not my problem" here means "I got mine" with his milk in hand, instead of "Why should I help you after you ruthlessly cheat me for a profit that is not yours."
If you want to reach for a way in which this movie has any merit, it is the way that Amazing Parker functions as a stand-in for white male privilege. Consider the scene in which he attends the Oscorp tour. He takes a badge meant for the Rodrigo Guevara. Even as Parker and the woman at the counter seem to make a joke of the badge he chooses, he gets a pass. Moments later, the real Guevara (played by Milton Gonzalez) who looks and sounds like he matches the name is dragged away by security. Everybody laughs. Ha ha, look at the Latino, fussing and fighting, as he's dragged away by uniforms. Don't that let that happen to you boys. Ok, back to my knee socks.
Amazing Parker is further afflicted by the work of his father, an easy metaphor for privilege passed on even in the absence of his parent. Certainly, this Parker is not our accidental hero, born out of side effects of science. He is created by his father's work. Even once recognized as passing himself off as something he is not, Gwen has no problem with security's detention of the wrong man, she furthers her complicity with selfishness as well ("don't get me in trouble?" Can you get more vapid?). This of course is typical of the societal support that privilege finds in the world.
Truth is this re-telling is only a flimsy framework for some special effects that aren't all that special. It's a framework completely hinged on the work done by three other movies, and the comic book series. Without that, you are lost because there is no character development within the film. The original Parker is interesting, because he is chosen by science and fate and must claim responsibility for what he does with this power. The Amazing Parker is just a selfish child, bent on revenge, revenge for his father's death, revenge for his uncle's death, and revenge for his not being able to spend two pennies from the penny cup. It's not really a re-telling at all. Perhaps it is a(what should be insulting)misinterpretation of the story marketed at young audiences. More likely it is a complete misunderstanding of the Spiderman myth and what made it so goodParker's struggle with being a vigilante in the first place without damaging justice. Just because you dress the kid like Travis Bickle crossed with Ted Kaczynski doesn't convince me that you understand the Spider Man.
My review is better than this movie.
No comments:
Post a Comment