The Wife: The Amazing Spider-Man is getting a really undeserved bad rep. Unfortunately this comes with rebooting a franchise so soon. Spider-Man 3 just came out in 2007; I mean, that's not even really that long ago! I am very set in my ways and Tobey Maguire will always be MY Spider-Man. However, with as much criticism and reservations as I had about The Amazing Spider-Man, I have to say it was a pretty good movie!
Was it blow your mind awesome? No. But it was ENTERTAINING! Even though I said Tobey is my Spidey, I think Andrew Garfield did a great job in the role. His interpretation is very different and I feel bad for comparing him to Tobey, but again, you will get those comparisons with a reboot so soon. Emma Stone was great as the character of Gwen Stacy, who I personally prefer to MJ. I don't dislike MJ, I am just more of a Gwen fan. Stone is so likable anyways and her performance made me enjoy the character even more.
While the plot did leave me very much with a "been there done that feel" due to so many similarities to Raimi's 2002 Spider-Man, I still really enjoyed The Amazing Spider-Man. It was very well paced with great action sequences. It had depth, despite some of the ooey gooey romance scenes between Gwen and Spidey (I mean seriously is all teenage love these days so angst filled?!). There were some moments where I felt ill from all the swinging Spider-Man effects, but some would call that a positive because you really did feel like you were in the movie. I, personally, could have done without all the first person view swing sequences though.
Overall, I would recommend The Amazing Spider-Man. If you are set in your ways and really liked Raimi's Spider-Man series, then you may have some issues. However, to a new generation, I can see this Spider-Man reboot carrying the same weight as its predecessor. Like I said, the biggest issue with this movie is that it came out too soon after the other series, and comparisons will be made, perhaps even unfairly. I am going to go out on a limb and say as a whole The Amazing Spider-Man may even be better than the 2002 version. To each his own though. Either way, if you see this, try to enjoy it for what it is and take joy in the fact that a new generation is getting their Spider-Man fix!
Hobo Dan: Haven't I seen this movie before? Yeah, in 2002 there was a Spider-Man movie. Tobey Maguire was in it, and so was Kirsten Dunst and Willem Dafoe and that stoner from Pineapple Express. I remember it like it was yesterday. Plot points? All the same. The only difference seems to be that the 2002 version is lacking the ever present 3D effects. Can I go back to 2002?
The Mildly Entertaining Spider-Man. I judged it from the moment I heard they were doing a reboot only ten years after the Toby Maguire version. So? I am working really hard to judge this on its own merits, but lets face it, ten years is NOT long enough to warrant a reboot. They MUST be compared. The Amazing Spider-Man is a pretty decent movie; despite the fact it suffers from Home Alone 2 syndrome. All the actors are good and the new Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) is surfactant although far more emo than nerd. The story is your basic run of the mill hero origin story. Again I will stress it is taken almost exactly from the 2002 Spider-Man, but then again most superhero have that single set origin story that is always present in ever iteration. This one seems just a little too similar to 2002 for my tastes. Then again all the tweens this is apparently marketed towards may have never even seen the old version. The action is nice and the effects are on par with the expectations the year 2012 provides.
So why can't I like this movie? Well first, I paid three extra dollars to see this in 3D and noticed a total three 3D effects. A dollar an effect is a pretty steep price if you ask me. Maybe this has less to do with the film and more to do with the industry as a whole, but seriously, is anyone enjoying this price gouging? The teaser trailer for Despicable Me 2 had more 3D in it! Then there is the action itself. While this Spider-Man made swinging through the streets of New York look a little more terrifying, it also about made me vomit. Insert standard complaint about shaky cam (you've heard them all from me before, I won't bore you further). Then a few times the camera panned to a first person perspective and decided to be Halo or Call of Duty. No. No, no, no! Stop that. It's not cute, it's not awesome. It's giving me a brain tumor.
Every time Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy (yes nerds, Gwen not Mary Jane, no biggie in my book) were in a scene together being all twilight (my new word of interpersonal relationships involving teenagers; you like?), I wanted to bite my own tongue to fill my mouth full of blood. If this is how teenagers act towards one another these days, I'm not having kids.
Deep breath. This is a good movie. It may even be better than the 2002 Spider-Man we all seem to hold so dear. However, it is lazy. Only ten years later and we are already redoing Spider-Man, the film that arguably kicked off the Comic Hero movie craz? What's next a Green Lantern reboot after only two years? Okay, that is probably needed...
No comments:
Post a Comment