Saturday, July 7, 2012

"The Amazing Spider-Man" (2012) film review

Hello, web-heads!

The latest Spider-Man film is out, and it's a reboot of the previous 3, which were directed by Sam Raimi. Let's see how The Amazing Spider-Man compares to the Raimi trilogy, and how the new look Spidey works in general.

Here's some film details before we get into my nitty, gritty opinions.

About

Director: Marc Webb
Main Stars: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, Denis Leary, Campbell Scott, Irrfan Khan, Martin Sheen, andSally Field
Genres: Action, Adventure, Fantasy, Superhero, Thriller
UK Release Date: 3 July, 2012
Running Time: 136 minutes

Brief Plot

Peter Parker is trying to figure out who he is and how he got to be the person he is today, as well as find his way with his first high school crush, Gwen Stacy, and together, they struggle with love, commitment, and secrets. As Peter discovers an item that belonged to his father, and he begins a quest to understand his parents' disappearance - leading him directly to Oscorp and the lab of Dr Curt Connors, his father's former partner. As Spider-Man is set on a collision course with Connors' alter-ego, The Lizard, Peter will make life-altering choices to use his powers and shape his destiny to become a hero.
[Click for the Trailer] - YouTube video

Review

5 years since the last Spider-Man film, Spider-Man 3, we see the Marc Webb reboot of the greatly enjoyed Sam Raimi Spider-Man trilogy. So the big question: how does it differ from still such a reasonably fresh franchise (the first Spider-Man only releasing in 2002 (just 10 years ago) and remains at the forefront of thoughts of the majority. It will however be easier to appreciate The Amazing Spider-Man considering how poorly received Spider-Man 3 was.

Key differences that will also make the films more easier to distinguish (cast aside) include the different styles, predominantly, the way the film flows through, with less comedic elements derived by amusingly filmed out-of-place situations of Raimi's style, to relying on well spoken dialogue in Webb's film. Interestingly, the film focused at least half of the 2 hours and 16 minutes of the film on Spider-Man's coming to-be, considering how well Raimi seemed to have covered it in his first film - but Webb applied the origins very well by taking strong cues surrounding the obvious 'radioactive' spider-bite from the Spider-Man comics by including Gwen Stacey as the first love of Peter Parker, and having his quirky speech and intuitive need to make helpful tech. They also used some Ultimate Spider-Man cues like Peter being bitten at Oscorp, and more deeper Parent-related themes.

If there is a film to compare Spider-Man to more, I would actually feel Batman Begins has closer comparison with it's brilliant depth and character development, while trying to make it as real-world as possible. Webb's film however relies on the audience's love for Spider-Man and respect of his villain-roster by giving more fantastical elements to create the Lizard, Dr Curt Conners' alter-ego, performed well by Rhys Ifans, and appreciated by me. Ifans did very well in his role, although I felt almost every other actor was at there pinnacle in acting, upstaging a good piece of acting.

L-R: Ben Parker (Martin Sheen), May Parker (Sally
Field), and Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield)
I truly appreciated the enjoyable way the cast had me drawn in to the new take on Spider-Man, and Garfield did a brilliant job of drawing me in as a more believable and enjoyable Peter than Tobey Maguire's take, `who looked the part but came across as a bit too emotional - something Garfield had very well without letting it give the character a sense of 'too much'. As Spider-Man, I feel he was a better written character, with greater emphasis on Parker's genius as well as his humour, although it could be improved funny one-liners at times. For such a great hero though, an equally great villain is needed, and I love the use of Dr. Curt Conners - someone teased by Raimi for the bigger part of his franchise - as the Lizard, used in a very personal way which upped Parker's personal involvement.

However, Lizard was a weakness at the same time with his small-town desires, not that Spider-Man is notable in his universe outside of New York. Also, for some reason, the unchanged voice used by Ifans didn't sit well with when Lizard talked, making me think away from the film and losing the involvement. Maybe, as the Lizard, he needs a few hisses? I don't know. It is nit-picking though, but little touches make a bigger, finer picture. There was also a lacking depth in why Lizard is initially such a huge menace, which relies a touch too much on public acceptance of him being a villain, rather than how he becomes villainous.

That aside, the story is very well written, and it has great or interesting relationships between all characters, but you can't help fully appreciate the film as Spider-Man in full, knowing a large portion focused on developing the titular character, and less on Spider-Man doing spectacular things. This will probably shine in sequels though, in my opinion, with this film leaving plenty opportunity for greater Spider-Man spectacles, aided by fantastic CGI and well-used 3D, as well as full film use of Spidey along with nice little hints in this first film for what could come.
L-R: Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), Dr. Curt Conners
(Rhys Ifans), and Captain Stacy (Denis Leary

3D

Worthwhile for the Spider-Man and action scenes, but it barely makes up for half of the film.

End Credits scene?

Yes, mid-credits.

Overall Rating

The film as a package is a truly enjoyable journey, a great re-telling of Spider-Man's origins, containing intriguing and well-produced elements not previously shown. An open letter first film of a franchise, it feels incomplete in moments which I am confident (if done wisely) will be filled in nicely to make a greater connected franchise in the sequels.

8/10

Watch if You Liked...

  • Spider-Man (2002)
  • Batman Begins (2005)


Anything additional you'd like to know? Seen the film and had other thoughts? Or maybe you just wanna chime in with some greater points? If you would like to add anything at all, drop a comment freely!

-Harish, out


2 comments:

  1. Nice review Harish. This movie definitely had plenty of fun and exciting moments and characters that we could feel something for. For some reason though, I just kept on thinking about the Sam Raimi original movies and yes, I know they aren't masterpieces by any means, but I still loved them and it just seemed like this whole film was unnecessary, but fun.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Dan! Thank you for your feedback. I must admit I have a sweet soft spot for the Raimi series too, after all; he turned my boy-hood superhero favorite into a fantastic on-screen feast for the eyes. I feel this film is good, but could be more appreciated in another 5-10 years, and when looking back in 20, people fay just prefer this film to the first Raimi Spider-Man film.

      Delete