goin to see it this weekend, i’ll let you know my thoughts. i have been excited about this reboot since it was announced, unlike many of those here on this site.
also they are finally giving Gwen the spotlight and not MJ, thank god for that.
Haven’t seen the movie yet and I’m prepared to like it, but I think this reboot trend is getting a bit out of hand. Do we really need to see the origin story again only ten years after Raimi told it quite well? Why not replace the actors and the creative team, just call it Spider-Man 4 and stake out new territory? Likewise the upcoming Superman and what I assume to the next Batman after this one.
I generally thought the same Brad. And in some ways the movie did not change my mind, but the relationship between Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy was so much stronger than anything in the previous movies. That change, thanks to the performances by Garfield and Stone, made it worth it for me.
@rgrimes: As Peter Parker, I think Garfield nailed the awkwardness but I’m not so sure about everything else. But I love his Spider-Man; the cockiness was perfect.
I’m giving the film 3 out of 5.
I would honestly say it has provoked the most conflicting reaction in me for the last couple of years. The film had many things going for it, some worked and some didn’t. It certainly did establish a new vision in the franchise, yet there were also simultaneously bold flaws that kept me from giving it a better grade.
SPOILERS ALERT!!!
On one hand, you have a refreshing visual style, well-accomplished by the newcommer in comic book films, Marc Webb (I was very impressed by his 500 Days of Summer). The depiction of New York is on top notch, so are many other elements, including the settings of high school and Oscorp and more symbolic aspects like the refreshing suit design, the texture of which well coordinates with the lightning choices. Webb’s focus on the delivery of the mood and atmosphere through the visual representation, as well as a skillful camerawork, make you believe in the film having its own world closely parallelable and relatable to ours.
The cast is also good and there is certainly strong chemistry between Garfield and Stone, although their romance does flow in a forced manner (mainly due to the script, though). I have to also note Sheen’s excellent acting as Uncle Ben, as he fully nailed it.
Nonetheless, the best thing about the film was certainly the portrayal of Spider-Man, which was given all the justice that more or less lacked in the previous trilogy. Aside from that, I would note improvement on humour and action scenes, while even some changes to the superhero’s canon (such as Peter’s failure to find Uncle Ben’s murderer) only contributed to the depth of the main themes.
My favorite scene was, of course, seeing the exhilarating fight between Spider-Man and the Lizard breaking down in the library and proceeding under classic music composition. That was easily the best moment in the entire film and just a vastly hilarious and epic scene!
I would also admit that Webb & Sony are doing a good job at directly tieing the film to the future sequels, creating a complete trilogy as one big story, one long journey of the protagonist.
On the other hand, I have to admit the film was heavily affected by its rough pacing and quite awful editing. These two were probably the weakest points of the film, along with its script. Unfortunately, neither first nor final acts seem to fit the rest of the story. Although I had no complaints about the opening scene of Peter as a child, once he becomes a teenager, the film’s pacing surprisngly speeds up in the quite rushed manner to introduce his life in high school and Queens. On the contrary, the sort-of epilogue, following the amazingly accomplished final battle, is heavily prolonged and lacks in effecient delivery.
Moreover, many storylines and characters are left unresolved in a way of being simply thrown out of the boat, and that is clearlly not deliberate. I particularly mean the following: Dr. Ratha simply vanishes after the bridge scene, Aunt May is almost left out from the third act and is pretty underused throughout the film, and, finally, the storyline of Peter’s parents is never given a hint (except for the brief interaction between Connors and Ratha) after the opening sequence.
The next big flaw is Dr. Connors as the Lizard. which is the overdone type of a villain that is well-familiar to us from the previous films. I am aware that Connors/the Lizard has always been portrayed that way in comics. However, if one of Webb’s primary goals was to distinguish his films from Raimi’s, then what was the point of choosing the villain that has alwaready been shown at least twice. Either they could switch to another one, or go with a different vision of the Lizard, instead of leaving him as a monstrous alter ego of an idealistic scientist, believing he could change the world.
In addition, I will be quite frank to say that the Lizard’s plan, although again straight from comics, looks rather ridiculous to today’s audience. I mean, what was the purpose of showing the SWAT team turning into lizards and then never shown again until the moment they are back to their normal state?!? There were many other minor issues I had with the film, such as Peter’s revealtion of hs secret to Gwen spontaneously, for no real or emergent reason, or small reptiles suddenly crawling all over New York without any explanation.
Finally, Sony definitely has put a lot of its cash into promoting the film as an ‘untold story’. Well, what I actually witnessed was a re-told story (except for the opening scene). It is indeed a clear re-telling of the same story. One can say that the story is actually updated, but here I question how effective the update is. If Spider-Man 1 had the whole story of Peter growing up from a high school nerd into a mastered superhero, while also including the Green Goblin’s arc and the triangle between Peter, MJ and Harry, all in not even two hours, The Amazing Spider-Man promised more, accomplished less, and still took much longer time.
In the end, I would say it is a certainly good start to a new trilogy. Nonetheless, I really hope Webb & Co will take in consideration the weak points of this film and try their best to avoid them in the following sequels.
I would say that Batman Begins and Nolan have really made the mark of the standard of what one has to done to make a reboot work; and in all honesty The Amazing Spider-Man doesn’t come close to achieving that; the film felt stale and flat and got bogged down in the same old re-telling of the origin story; and it’s certainly not in the same league as Spider-Man 2 or the first Raimi film.
There were moments that really disconnected me from the film altogether; Uncle Ben’s arc being one of the most obvious points as it was so laughable and didn’t carry any real true sense of emotion. And personally i felt that Emma Stone as Gwen Stacey, well she just played Emma Stone with an horrendous hair dye issue.
The POV sequences were just a bad decision also; it was like watching a cut scene/QTE from a video game; so bad.
Its certainly not the worst Comic Book film by any stretch of the imagination but considering it’s a reboot and what is required for something like this to work, The Amazing Spider-Man is a failure i’m afraid IMHO.
They definately allowed Peter Parker to be a true highschooler this time around. The question was asked as to why Peter would spill the beans to Gwen so quickly? He’s in highschool, name a highschooler who can keep a secret? Especially one deep in puppy love? Even Teen Wolf let a few people in on the secret? Buffy’s loose lips spilled the beans on numerous occasions!
As to the pacing and the editing of the film I would merely add to what “B the P” has already stated but simply say that this is a fulfilling reboot, plagued by the necessity of regurgitating subject matter for the sake of re-introducing us to a ‘new’ Spider-man universe. Even the movie go’er who sees but 5 movies a year, likely saw the spectacle that was Spiderman(2002) and now The Amazing Spider-man(2012) allows Gwen Stacy to tag in for MJ and adds a morsel of backstory of Peters father.
We the viewer have been here literaly 10 years ago. We know Peter isn’t popular, he gets bit by a spider, we know he’s quasi responsible for the death of his uncle. The first act in my opinion was for the studio an unavoidable neccesity to a reboot, however redundant.
7 infected lizard SWAT members who probably just layed eggs in Madison Square Garden for Matthew Broderick. . . out of 10
I will add however that they do allow Aunt May her ‘with great power coms great responsibility moment’ when they let her drop some perceptive wisdom on Peter. Something along the lines of "secrets are never free, not now, nor in the future’. Giving some forsight and substance to Auntie M who outlines the struggle of Spider-mans curse on Parkers romantic life.
This was a poor film, no way around it in my opinion – 2/5
“Convoluted, pointless, clumsy, campy without being fun, unintentionally funny, dated special effects, terrible villain; the list goes on. Garfield was a good Peter Parker/Spider-Man, but that’s literally about the only positive thing I can say about this movie. I don’t regret watching it, but you could tell it was only made so that Sony wouldn’t lose the rights to the character. And what happened to James Horner??”
That’s what I posted on the film’s page. This reboot was completely unnecessary, it just clunked along, retreading the exact same territory as Raimi’s first film, in a less effective way.
But what was up with the music in this film? I’m particularly sensitive to a film’s use of music and not only was Horner’s score here generic and bland, it was so poorly used that it actually distracted me at a few moments.
I agree with everything you said, Rgrimes.
I felt like this movie was certainly the most human superhero movie. No, it didn’t out-spectacle some of the others, but it didn’t try to. It focused on the characters and that’s why it worked so well.
And I loved that he immediately told Gwen. What teenage boy with superpowers wouldn’t immediately use that to get a girl? I mean, come on.
@ Drew:
I agree 100%. No teenage boy with those incredible powers is going to be able to keep that a secret from the girl he wants to impress. That scene rang so true…..I loved it.
@ Takaawesome:
I liked the Raimi trilogy (or at least the first two chapters) but it suffered from overwhelmingly vanilla and cloying characters….Maguire simply didn’t have enough range to make me care much about his Peter Parker outside the venue of when he was battling the Green Goblin or Doc Ock. Kirsten Dunst spends most of the time pouting throughout the three films. The one semi-intriguing character was James Franco’s Harry but, apparently, Raimi didn’t know what to do with him by the 3rd film….bad guy/good guy/bad guy/good guy again……and the Green Goblin and Doc Ock were much more interesting than any of the good guys.
Plus the Peter/MJ/Harry trilogy got old pretty quickly.
I’ll grant you that the Lizard was not the best villain but the focus should be on Peter Parker and Marc Webb got that part right. He should be the character we are most interested in…inside or and outside of the mask.
Andrew Garfield made me care about this Peter Parker. I am intrigued to see where this trilogy goes.
Andrew Garfield was the best thing in The Social Network but I can’t picture him as Spiderman.
But good for him and Emma Stone for making some big bucks, they’re both so likeable.
My thoughts on this disappointment were summarized quite perfectly in a podcast two other people:
http://www.geekscape.net/?powerpress_pinw=19265-podcast
Basically, this was not a faithful Peter Park/Spider-Man story. It was a generic action schlock that could have been any superhero.
I just saw this today; I’ll give some comments and go back to read the entire thread.
60/100 (and maybe a bit lower)
Grimes’ comments about the acting and quality of the drama got me excited about the film. I thought Andrew Garfield is a solid actor and well-cast for the role. Alas, maybe my expectations were too high, but I didn’t think the film handled the relationship between Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy very well. For one thing, I didn’t think the two actors had great chemistry (not the instant type; I thought Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dundst had better chemistry, actually. But I actually preferred Gwen Stacy and her relationship to Peter in the comic books over Peter and Mary-Jane.).
I also don’t think the film (script/direction) did a great job of establishing their relationship. Stacy ostensibly becomes interested in Peter when he stands up to Flash, but the film doesn’t build on this. After the basketball incident (if I remember correctly), Gwen just seems really interested in Peter. I thought there could have been scenes to show her interest growing, maybe show why she was never interested in him before(?).
Overall, I don’t think the script/concept warranted a retelling of the origin story (although the ending suggests that larger story isn’t complete yet). Brad S. mentioned that the filmmakers should have just made Spiderman 4, and this film hasn’t changed my mind.
One could argue that this film did some things better than the original film—although I think I mostly believe the first film did more things better. I didn’t think the story involving the Green Goblin or the fight sequences and action set pieces were all that great. I also didn’t like the plastic mask Dafoe used. But the story involving the Lizard wasn’t all that much better. I guess, the fight sequences were a bit better (although a bit too much cgi for my tastes), but the differences were mainly negligible. I liked the theme in the first film (“with much power, comes much responsibility”) and the way it expressed this theme, a lot more than in the recent film, too.
The filmmaking was pretty bland, as well (although I think most of the filmmaking in these super-hero movies are pretty bland and non-descript).
@Grimes
Andrew Garfield—-a superior actor to Tobey Maguire in every way.
FWIW, I don’t agree. I liked Garfield, but I also liked Maguire a lot. I can’t remember enough details of the Raimi version, so I can’t say if that film did a better job of developing the Peter Parker. But I loved Maguire in that role. (Basically, I think this is a matter of personal preference, though, so I can’t really make a case for Maguire being just as good as Garfield.)
Emma Stone—-she was a fully realized person…
If you mean, Stone’s screen presence and acting created a fully realized person, well, I can’t really argue with that—except that I don’t really agree. But I don’t think the writing or direction really create a fully realized person or a very well-established relationship with Parker. (If you’re saying that Stone and Garfield had great chemistry—to the extent that you immediately bought their attraction—then I really can’t say much, except I don’t feel that strongly.)
The hero is actually more interesting than the villain.
I don’t really get this. I’m guessing you mean you really liked Garfield’s performance. Again, perhaps I don’t feel the same because I was very satisfied with Maguire’s performance. Having said that, I don’t think he was particularly interesting as well (the writing and conception of the character isn’t very interesting or nuanced, imo. Personally, he’s likable or not likable—but not really interesting in a multi-faceted and nuanced way.)
It’s directed like a film from a different genre….Marc Webb directed this film in his indie style without succumbing to the temptation to be showy and outdo Sam Raimi. He spent time on his characters which created a lot of small moments…..delightfully small moments if you will.
If you can recall any specific examples, I’d be interested in hearing about this.
Hi Jazz…some of my responses to your points:
//FWIW, I don’t agree. I liked Garfield, but I also liked Maguire a lot. I can’t remember enough details of the Raimi version, so I can’t say if that film did a better job of developing the Peter Parker. But I loved Maguire in that role. (Basically, I think this is a matter of personal preference, though, so I can’t really make a case for Maguire being just as good as Garfield.)//
I don’t think this is necessarily personal perference….by judging on the sheer machinations of acting I think Garfield is superior. Look at the scenes in the original trilogy where Maguire had to show emotion or range…….he really fails…when he tries to cry he looks like a 10 year old pouting boy. When he tries to show rage he looks like a 10 year old tring to act tough….it’s really quite laughable. Garfield doesn’t look ridiculous when he shows emotional depth….in the scenes where he had to cry I didn’t want to double over with laughter. Better actor.
//If you mean, Stone’s screen presence and acting created a fully realized person, well, I can’t really argue with that—except that I don’t really agree. But I don’t think the writing or direction really create a fully realized person or a very well-established relationship with Parker. (If you’re saying that Stone and Garfield had great chemistry—to the extent that you immediately bought their attraction—then I really can’t say much, except I don’t feel that strongly.)//
I meant that Emma Stone was less vanilla than Kirsten Dunst. Dunst spends most of her trilogy pouting and being in trouble. Stone is self assured and confident. A believable heroine for the modern era. Not once does Peter Parker have to come to her rescue in the film……that’s unheard of in a superhero flick.
//I don’t really get this. I’m guessing you mean you really liked Garfield’s performance. Again, perhaps I don’t feel the same because I was very satisfied with Maguire’s performance. Having said that, I don’t think he was particularly interesting as well (the writing and conception of the character isn’t very interesting or nuanced, imo. Personally, he’s likable or not likable—but not really interesting in a multi-faceted and nuanced way.)//
I meant that the character of Parker was written in a more interesting way in this film. I cared more about him than I did about The Lizard. Usually the villains steal the thunder from the hero in these films. Not so here. Maybe because The Lizard is not that great of a villain…don’t know. As much as I loved The Dark Knight, Ledger owns that film…he has all the best lines. Here the focus stays on Peter Parker…..which was part script…and part Garfield as well.
//It’s directed like a film from a different genre….Marc Webb directed this film in his indie style without succumbing to the temptation to be showy and outdo Sam Raimi. He spent time on his characters which created a lot of small moments…..delightfully small moments if you will.
If you can recall any specific examples, I’d be interested in hearing about this.//
The overall feel of the film doesn’t feel epic…it feels like a small film with big moments. A particular scene is where Parker is in that warehouse and there is a song playing in the background and he is messing around with his super powers. That could have been any scene in a teenage coming of age/love story. I loved that moment. I loved the moment when Parker reveals who he is to Gwen. That rang true. It was a small moment but it’s exactly how a teenager would react…he wouldn’t be able to keep that secret from the girl he wanted to impress. Another scene is the one in the hall where he is trying to ask her out…..full of teenage awkwardness (again)……..I loved it.
To address an earlier comment you made about when Gwen became interested in Peter: My take is that Gwen was always kind of attracted to Peter but he didn’t have the confidence to acknowledge it or pursue it until after he got his super powers. The scene in the classroom where she assured him that she knew his name was kind of telling don’t you think?
I’m sorry that I got you unduly excited for the film…..and that you were disappointed.
I stand by my original statement that this is the best Spidey film of all…..and by the way….I enjoyed Raimi’s first two Spidey films significantly. It’s just that they pale to this one.
No messy Peter/MJ/Harry triangle to contend with…another plus to The Amazing Spider-Man.
I’m about to go see it.
Me, I don’t mind rebooting a series that has already had dozens of interpretations anyway, but I’m getting sick of origin stories. All they do is eat up 40 mins of screen time with information the audience already has before the main conflict can start.
4/10
Based on the rating you might think I dislike the film. That’s not quite right. It’s more I didn’t like it enough to rate it higher.
Garfield and Stone were good, I like Parker’s emotional arc and I liked seeing a love interest who wasn’t useless. Rather, if she hadn’t refused to be a useless valuable Spiderman would have been dead twice over. I also found the combat scenes very well choreographed.
The thing that made the film miss the mark for me is the inconsistency of theme. For instance, at the beginning Parker was acting genuinely like a psychopath, taunting and torturing his victims and feeling entitled to. Then because one bad guy showed up who was supernatural and gunless enough for Spiderman’s powers to be more useful than normal police work, the cop is all turned around on the issue and thinks vigilante justice is awesome. They opened up all kinds of interesting themes that diverged from normal superhero mythology then immediately abandoned them.
I also thought the parts with CGI looked so radically different from the live acted parts it broke the illusion.
@ Jirin:
I felt the parts with Parker “torturing” his victims (as you put it) were pretty consistent with what a teen would behave like in that situation…this is a kid who was bullied and tortured himself. Psychopath is rather strong language. Parker gets sobered up rather quickly when he faces off against the Lizard…part of his growing process….and the realization that he needs help from others.
I don’t think that Stacy felt that vigilante justice was awesome but when Parker tells Stacy that his daughter is in danger the tables turned…he knew Peter could get there faster (although he needed a few crane operators to help).
The CGI was not the best, I’ll grant you that…..but it was serviceable.
I don’t know what’s everyone’s beef about the Lizard. Sure he’s not as flashy, bloodthirsty, or maniacal as supervillains like the Green Goblin, Venom, Joker, or Doc Ock, but why should all these villains be so evil anyway? Spidey has a few enemies that are not all that bad and I think the Lizard is the best example of those people because he’s a more tragic character and I thought Rhys Ifans gave his best at playing the broken side and the monstrous side. The animation of the Lizard was very astonishing and the expressions and voice he delivers are so demonically twisted and bad-ass.
People keep thinking you should start a superhero franchise with the most popularly evil villain of all time, like the way Burton’s Batman begins with Joker, Raimi’s Spider-Man with Green Goblin, or Donner’s Superman with Lex Luthor. There are plenty of bad guys out there who are good enough without being too charismatically evil or irredeemable and this time this movie didn’t kill off the villain. We rarely see any superhero films where the hero just sends the villain to jail or an insane asylum, which is what they are usually supposed to do, at least in the comics and animated shows. This movie took it’s time giving more attention to Peter Parker and Spider-Man and his performance rather than focus a majority on some big-shot actor playing a flashy villain who was going to get too much attention like Heath Ledger’s Joker did. Lizard was fitting for this kind of film because he fit in as a character who was going through tragedy and trauma just like Peter and helped maintain the somber mood of the film.
Andrew Garfield’s deep emotions and wit made him more convincing as Spider-Man than Tobey Maguire, who made him seem too innocent and soft most of the time. Whenever Tobey was playing Spider-Man, he didn’t give the masked alter ego much of a personality to grab our attention, he was just a guy in a mask swinging around and speaking all these quick cheesy lines that are not that memorable. Garfield gave Spider-Man a lot to say and express in his body movements that brought out both humor and vulnerability, depending on what the situation was. His tall lanky stature may not be as muscular as Tobey’s, but it still looks well-built for a superhero, especially since most incarnations show Peter as being tall.
As to Gwen Stacy, she might not have spent enough time on screen to show how she was into Peter, but the way he’s awkward and nervous around her shows how much he’s attracted to her and her sympathy for his loss of Uncle Ben and the bullying he’d gone through shows how easy it is for her to bond with him at a good pace. She’s even more bewitching than Kirsten Dunst’s Mary Jane with those sharp eyes, those big lips, and that deep voice as someone who is a dream girl to be enchanted by. Mary Jane just looked too girlishly cute and behaved too girlish all the time that I found it hard to see what made her so fascinating for Peter, Harry, and Flash to be around. Emma Stone also did better than Bryce Howard, who just made Gwen into another perky ditzy blonde who’s flirting and giggling all the time and showing off her vanity. This time, Gwen didn’t have to be a wailing damsel in distress who always needed to be saved and got to show more intelligence and action as a heroine. Flash Thompson was also given more personality this time; he was just another burly intimidating bully in Raimi’s world with very few qualities when he’s supposed to be one of the most memorable characters in the Spider-Man saga. This time we see his trademark admiration for Spider-Man and his potential friendship with Peter, something they go through in the comics, and his ability to show some heart other than being another punk. He never matured at all in Raimi’s world, he’s still acting like a juvenile bully when he’s in college with Peter.
My biggest problem with the plot was how it abandoned very quickly Peter’s investigation behind his parents since first off it begins with his father acting so alarmed and having to leave Peter at Ben and May’s house for the rest of his childhood and nothing really digs much into that. Maybe Webb wanted that to be a storyline that could carry on through the sequel and keep a franchise going with an arc to follow, but the way he suddenly breaks off with that storyline just as Peter is trying his powers and working Connors on the whole rat experiment and doesn’t dig any more into the secrets of his parents. The best way I can think to justify that whole plot hole is that Connors is disinclined to tell Peter the truth and too caught up in his own problems. If Peter knew everything in this movie, then the sequel probably wouldn’t have much more to explore on his parents, so the mystery is worth it if we’re to see what will happen in the next film. The Raimi films just kept on focusing on the whole romantic triangle as an arc to follow that it lost touch with exploring a more serious arc relating to Peter and his alter-ego that it felt more like a soap opera. The mystery makes this new franchise seem promising for dealing with superheroes in the way they have to work hard like detectives, which is something Spider-Man has been put through before, but not on film.
The look of the film also looks more believable than Raimi’s version, which made New York City always looking sunny and colorful as to resemble some idealistic vision of the modern world, but not one that looked convincing as a place for crime and superheroes to clash in. It looked too satirical most of the time, especially in how the characters dressed and their hairstyles, that it was hard for me to take it seriously throughout the whole campy style. Webb made New York City look more shadowy and cloudy, which is what I remember the city looking like when I last went there, even though he probably shot a lot of scenes in Los Angeles as that’s where the studio of Sony Pictures is based. The school, the labs, and the houses look more believable and less picturesque as they did in Raimi’s films; they were the kind of places that look more easily encountered in today’s world.
It would have brought my estimation of the film up to a 5 or a 6 if he had said “You should work with the police, not on your own” instead of “Go on and keep being a vigilante, the city needs crazy vigilantes!”
He kept throwing webs at them after they had already been disabled. Maybe that is realistic behavior for a kid who’d been bullied and now has the power to bully, but that doesn’t make it okay, and they kind of dropped that angle and made him immediately into a saint.
It’s like in the first hour they were making ‘Spiderman Begins’, and in the second hour they were making ‘Spiderman and Robin’.
I think the film was good but the first spider man was on another level, there’s nothing really important or emotional happening on the screen (which is the problem with most big budget movies these days) and even the action scenes weren’t that exciting, still one of the best superhero films in a long time
@ Jirin:
I don’t think the film is any way saying that it was ok for Peter to bully in return for being bullied. That is simply the progression of his character….and Peter never makes it into saint mode…where are you getting that from?
“You should work with the police, not on your own”….really? You think that’s a good line of dialogue?
@ Cody:
Those were good insights……I believe the mystery surrounding Peter’s parents will be spread out over the 3 films so we probably won’t get the complete answers until the 3rd film in the trilogy.
You are right on about the more believable atmosphere of this film as opposed to Raimi’s continuously sunny world….what version of New York City was that anyway? I’ve been to New York City several times and trust me….it looks way closer to Webb’s version than Raimi’s.
…and yes, as I mentioned above the romantic triangle between Peter, MJ and Harry was distracting and over dramatic.
I still, after reading through this topic, can’t comprehend how people thought this was a good movie. The two positives I keep coming across are – a) people loved Andrew Garfield (and he was fine) and b) people loved the romance/cutesy moments (the former being extremely underdeveloped).
I mean, I guess if you were moved or thrilled by this film that’s great, but there’s no way I can relate. I think we, as audiences, need to raise our standards for blockbuster/comic book films if THIS is what’s considered great or even satisfactory.
The Avengers (to use a recent example), while supremely overhyped, was a much better film on every level.
@ Takaawesome:
The Avengers was a perfectly good comic book movie. I was really entertained by it and I enjoyed it. However, it did not reach the standards of movies like Dark Knight or Amazing Spider-Man….why?
Quite simply, The Avengers had not real sense of menace or threat….it was just a good time watching all those super heros beat the crap out of each other and Loki….nobody even got bloody. It was super hero comfort food almost on the level of a comedy. It was darn fun though.
In films like Spider-Man and Dark Knight a real sense of menance was prevalent throughout the films. In Dark Knight Batman (SPOILER WARNING) fails to save his girlfriend from death….that was a shocking, dark moment that brought the heroics down to earth and made us realize that the hero can’t always save the day.
In Spider-Man, Parker gets bloodied, wounded and fails to save everyone SPOILER WARNING (Gwen’s father). He often needs help. He’s vulnerable.
That’s what separates films like Avengers from Spider-Man. One’s in the tradition of cartoony good times and one’s in the tradition of Shakespearean tragedy. Peter Parker is almost a Hamlet like hero.
It confounds me further to hear The Amazing Spider-Man mentioned in the same breath as The Dark Knight (or Batman Begins for that matter). In my mind, The Dark Knight is head and shoulders above any other comic book film, so much so that I don’t even consider TDK to be a comic book film in my mind, but rather a damn good film in general.
But back to Spider-Man territory – I am baffled that you’d consider this Spider-Man film to be something “in the tradition of Shakespearean tragedy,” seriously? It ends up being more cartoonish than the The Avengers because it takes itself seriously and is still cheesy on top of that. The Avengers is completely self-aware and legitimately witty about what kind of film it is whereas The Amazing Spider-Man half-assedly attempts these moments of gravitas that just fall completely flat for me. I felt NO sense of menace throughout the entirety of this Spider-Man film. Beyond that, I didn’t feel any visceral thrill during any of the action sequences, nor did I care when Dennis Leary died.
I get more of a thrill listening to Danny Eflman’s opening credits score for Raimi’s 2002 film than I did during the entire 136 minutes of Webb’s version.
Anyway, I’d come up with further, specific criticisms but really it just comes down to a difference of taste/opinion (like everything). In this specific case, however, I am just wracking my brain trying to see things from your point of view (and anyone who dug the reboot).
“The Avengers was a perfectly good comic book movie. I was really entertained by it and I enjoyed it. However, it did not reach the standards of movies like Dark Knight or Amazing Spider-Man….why?”
Haha, that’s like saying Reservoir Dogs (self-aware multicharacter romp… also crime movie) did not reach the standards of Chinatown (dark depressing and seminihilistic paean… also crime movie) or The Big Lebowksi (funny quirky cult character… also crime movie)…. why?
—PolarisDiB
@RGrimes
Not that line exactly, but a more cinematic paraphrasing of it would be a better line than the staunch law and order devoted cop saying “The city needs loner vigilantes who take the law into their own hands”.
I don’t think the character development justified a 180 degree turn from taunting and torturing petty thieves to being a paragon for justice. Or rather, the movie first makes the distinction between the two, then completely discards the distinction.
The Dark Knight is one of the better films that came from the comic book genre, but it had too many plotting issues for my taste.
@Grimes
I don’t think this is necessarily personal perference….by judging on the sheer machinations of acting I think Garfield is superior. Look at the scenes in the original trilogy where Maguire had to show emotion or range…….he really fails…when he tries to cry he looks like a 10 year old pouting boy. When he tries to show rage he looks like a 10 year old tring to act tough….it’s really quite laughable. Garfield doesn’t look ridiculous when he shows emotional depth….in the scenes where he had to cry I didn’t want to double over with laughter. Better actor.
But, see, if I said I disagree with this, what you would say (besides that I’m clueless. ;)? Honestly, I had a completely different reaction to Maguire’s performance, and, if I had to choose, I might choose him over Garfield (which partly has do with the overall films). I don’t think I can really say to rebut your claim, but I don’t think you can say much more to rebut mine. Hence, this is mostly a matter of personal preference.
I meant that Emma Stone was less vanilla than Kirsten Dunst. Dunst spends most of her trilogy pouting and being in trouble. Stone is self assured and confident. A believable heroine for the modern era.
Stone’s Stacy does seem more capable, but does the film do a good job of establishing this? I don’t think so. (I was actually hoping the film would establish the intelligence of both Peter and Gwen—but the film did very little, except for things like getting an internship at Oscorp) Bottom line for me is that both MJ and Gwen weren’t really developed all that well. I would say both films are depending on the screen presence of the actors—and it works on this level—but it’s not very well-developed or nuanced creations, imo.
I meant that the character of Parker was written in a more interesting way in this film. I cared more about him than I did about The Lizard. Usually the villains steal the thunder from the hero in these films. Not so here. Maybe because The Lizard is not that great of a villain…don’t know.
Well, you hated Maguire so I think you’re not going to find his Spiderman more interesting than the villains in those films. But, imo, those villains weren’t that interesting, either. In fact, I would say that Ledger’s Joker is the exception, not the rule. I actually don’t think the superheroes are written in a very interesting way—they’re either likable/characters you care about or not. Largely, I think that rides on the casting, not the writing (as the writing is mediocre in terms of characters).
The overall feel of the film doesn’t feel epic…it feels like a small film with big moments.
I haven’t seen the original Spiderman films, but I don’t really think there was a big difference.
_ I loved that moment. I loved the moment when Parker reveals who he is to Gwen. That rang true. It was a small moment but it’s exactly how a teenager would react…he wouldn’t be able to keep that secret from the girl he wanted to impress._
I guess I just didn’t think the film really handled the relationship all that well, especially in terms of establishing it.
To address an earlier comment you made about when Gwen became interested in Peter: My take is that Gwen was always kind of attracted to Peter but he didn’t have the confidence to acknowledge it or pursue it until after he got his super powers. The scene in the classroom where she assured him that she knew his name was kind of telling don’t you think?
Yeah, but why is she interested? I don’t think we know enough about either Gwen (the type of person she is), Peter or their previous interactions to answer this, and if the film showed scenes revealing the reasons, that might have helped.
I’m sorry that I got you unduly excited for the film…..and that you were disappointed.
Well, don’t be. I hope you don’t feel like I’m blaming you or anything. I’m honestly not annoyed at you (I just disagree strongly. ;) I don’t think I would have liked the film even if I didn’t hear your comments, if that helps. :)
Prewitt
I’ve seen quite a bit of criticism leveled at the new Spider-Man film already. I suspected this would be the case as people were waiting with talons bared to shred it…..I don’t really think the film had a chance. I thought I’d start a thread to discuss why I think it’s the best Spidey film ever (and one of the best superhero films ever).
1. Andrew Garfield—-a superior actor to Tobey Maguire in every way. Garfield showed real emotion in the role and gave Peter Parker layers of personality heretofore unexplored. Maguire attempted to show genuine emotion but when he cried it looked fake and made me want to break out laughing. When Garfield cried onscreen it stirred me emotionally because I believed the pain. There were nuances to his performance that Maguire never brought to the role…Maguire thought being nerdy was putting on a pair of glasses…Garfield created nerdy by ticks in his personality, awkwardness in his speech and a general unease that lept off the screen.
2. Emma Stone—-she was a fully realized person and not just an excuse to give the hero something to do or someone to rescue. When was the last time you saw a superhero film where there isn’t one scene requiring the hero to come to the aid of the damsel in distress? You can’t name one because it’s never happened. She was plucky and brave….and makes us realize how absolutely vanilla Kirsten Dunst was after all.
3. The hero is actually more interesting than the villain. Yes…the Lizard is not that intriguing of a villain to begin with but for once the star of a superhero film is actually the superhero…go figure.
4. It’s directed like a film from a different genre….Marc Webb directed this film in his indie style without succumbing to the temptation to be showy and outdo Sam Raimi. He spent time on his characters which created a lot of small moments…..delightfully small moments if you will.
5. This superhero is fallible. He needs help…he needs Gwen to help him, he needs Captain Stacy to help him, he needs some crane operators to help him….heck…when he’s rescuing a kid he needs the kid to assist a little bit. I loved that.
Marc Webb directed a film that is as grounded in the real as a film like this is gonna get. The backlash against it is unfair in my estimation. The criticism is unfounded…yes it’s too soon for a reboot but it’s here and it’s darn good. Also, remaking a film so soon is not unprecedented in Hollywood history. The Maltese Falcon (1941) was filmed a mere 5 years after Satan Met a Lady (1936) which was an earlier version of the tale. Waterloo Bridge (1940) was released a mere 9 years after the original (1931). So that “too soon for a reboot” really doesn’t fly.
Don’t get me wrong…the Raimi Spider-Man films are fun and well done (except for the abysmal 3rd installment) but, like The Dark Knight, The Amazing Spider-Man transcends it’s genre and because of that, it is one of the best of all superhero films.