Film the Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

brace yourselves, True Believers, for the upcoming Spider-Man franchise reboot in the Amazing Spider-Man! sadly Donald Glover's (of Community bad ass rapper-fame) viral campaign to portray Peter Parker in this movie came up short; but Andrew Garfield (see above) appears to swing in a solid performance as the titular role

I'm with the majority when they say that a reboot is not needed, but still, if this movie is above above-average, I will welcome it into my heart. of all the superheroes out there, I think I empathize the most with Spidey. he's a guy that struggles with problems that all of us young people struggle with... you know, school, work, girls, family - it's just that he also balances out epic duels with Rhino, Venom, and the Lizard as well

where Tobey Macguire's Parker was heart-on-his-sleeve earnest, apparently Garfield's Spidey is teenage angsty, cheeky, and whip-smart. the latter part of my sentence was actually the most assuring bit I've read about this upcoming movie, because Spider-Man/Peter Parker, at his core, is a guy who does what's right despite holding in more teenage angst than a My Chemical Romance concert. Raimi's movies were good, but Raimi's Parker was a bit too pathetically "emo" for my tastes... what makes Spider-Man, Spider-Man is his (over)use of proclaiming cheeky one-liners to the unlucky villain that is trying to squash that bug, once and for all! I hated how Raimi's Spidey told NO jokes - Raimi's Spidey WAS the joke

that being said, Raimi did a lot of things well in his three movies. his best Spider-Man effort was hands-down Spider-Man 2, as Doctor Octopus was a fantastically tragic villain (and very visually appealing)... which brings me to the baddie in this film...

the Lizard as done by Rhys Ifans


the Lizard is a good, classic Spidey villain who also uses a bit of the "tragic villain" trope. Dr. Curt Connors is a seminal mind in the field of limb regeneration, and he studies lizards to hopefully benevolently serve humanity by realizing a serum that will regrow lost human limbs. all is well with this Doctor, until it doesn't... as a bad guy I've seen reviews that describe the Lizard's use as no more than this film's sort of Godzilla, and while the Lizard is a decent enough villain all-in-all, he just can't compare to Spidey's most impressive, the aforementioned Doc Ock

this film has earned heaps of praise with showcasing Parker's human relationships. a star-studded cast shows off Sally Jane as Aunt May, and Dennis Leary as George Stacy, the Police Chief Who Wants to Bring Spidey In. most notably, Emma Stone will be Parker's original love interest in Gwen Stacy. at first, it was reported that both Gwen Stacy and Mary Jane Watson would be in this film, but later Mary Jane was 86ed. I can't wait to see Emma Stone as Stacy, although I hope Parker doesn't get too comfortable with her, and I do hope that the young couple diligently avoids all routes that utilize bridges



the Spidey costume looks okay. I think that the web shooters look perfect, but Spidey's yellow bulging eyes kinda "bug" me. also, I get a Spider-Man 2099 vibe from this get-up, but I doubt most of you even know what I'm saying here (or are even paying attention by this point)

but director Marc Webb (500 Days of Summer) seems to have done a well enough job here. although he loses points for doing a Spidey remake that wasn't necessary, and for coming up a bit short with his antagonist (comic book movies have to go ALL OUT with villains!) - Webb seems to have spun a decent enough inaugural Spidey tale, that captures the mood of an angsty-and-cheeky Peter Parker, while also excelling at Peter's interactions with his human friends. Webb seems to have answered the question of WHY does Spidey do the things he do as a super-hero, the best here

I can't wait to watch!

yeah he stylistically does look a bit 2099ish, i think it is how shadowy the images are and how thin he looks (and the big eyes).

i will check it out, probably not in the theatre, and i most certainly can wait. i hope they faithfully recreate mcfarlane's "torment" story arc, i recall enjoying it as a good comic book reboot simply called "spider-man".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torment_(comics)

man, i remember hunting down standard, gold and the elusive platinum covers of the first issue (succeeding too)

classic image, it is the spidey template used for the centre position of my back tattoo (even though amazing fantasy #15 is still imo the best cover art ever).

I refuse to see this movie in boycott of the nonstop comic book movies. I love the new batmans, the xmens are good, but as a whole I'm fucking sick of this shit! This is getting out of hand!

^a very valid point.

plot:
-origin good guy
-origin bad guy
-good guy activities with background characters
-bad guy does something which put them in conflict with good guy
-good guy uses element from activity with background characters to defeat bad guy
-good guy ends up hurt, but stronger.
-new potential bad guy hinted at for sequel marketing

lesson: fighting and killing solves everything.

fighting and killing solves everything

Click to expand...

Naturally, because we all tend to fire semilethal projectiles from our outstretched hands (or wrists, or eyes, or Bat Feature-kit, or whatever) from time to time in order to resolve conflicts and settle disputes. In light of this fact, why wouldn't we look to superheroes for our moral and social inspiration?

I think it's about time that some professional critic considered offering the alternative perspective that comic books are simply way too over-the-top ridiculous to be believably transposed into film without making the material unintentionally humorous, if not shockingly stupid. The Iron Man franchise may try to duck this charge by being overtly self-referential, but now that it's been effectively subsumed by this whole Avengers shindig, it can't really joke its way out of its own outlandish super-pratfalls anymore. Am I alone in my incredulity wrt the 'mythology' of superheroes and the movies they repeatedly spawn? Recall that we have been presented with no fewer than three different cinematic Hulks (which character, mind you, is a human male who literally morphs into a disgruntled, indestructible green muscle monster whenever he is emotionally compromised - what the fuck?) in only ten years. Is my expectation of realism in movies that purport to be about something happening in (someplace resembling) the world of today too rigid or unreasonable to be met? When so challenged, fans often appeal to the deeper metaphorical significance of superhero comics and movies, which always comes across to me as a florid rationalization of an unparallelled brand of fan fetishism, which is what this industry is all about, really...upgraded with copious 'action' violence and CGI explosions, that is. How many more derivative comics labelled 'Special Edition' must be mass-produced before the fanatic flame dies out? How many more hapless pedestrians bustling about the busy streets of [Metropolis, New York, etc.] must be detonated to gratify intended audiences? The extent of the industry's glib cynicism is baffling.

Also, am I the only one who doesn't consider The Dark Knight to be the apex of cinematic achievement?

PA I agree with you that The Dark Knight was way overrated. I did love the Batman Begins, looking forward to Dark Knight Rises, but I couldn't of wrote a better critique if I tried. There is way too much of this entertainment, I know this isn't the 90s or nothing, but the 90s blew away the 2000's, I mean this decade has had great small films and some big ones, but this summer extravanganza of special effect supermen falling and jumping around is just a bunch of masturbation to me, fucking grow a big one. Are there no more good writers in Hollywood or are they just not getting work b/c of the sess pool trying to make money? Or have they given up? I dont know, somewhere though this has to stop. Let's get back to making movies, not stupid shit!

P A, yuo had me until that last line. the three nolan films do (well, the first two at least), in my opinion, exactly what you describe you long for.

the three nolan films do exactly what you describe you long for

Click to expand...

Are you serious? I cry out in need of cinematic realism and un-sensationalized violence, and you give me Batman?

No. I quite like Nolan as a director of blockbusters and/or scifi, but those movies were among the silliest and most overrated that I have ever seen, right up there with Spiderman, Star Wars, and ET. Need I explain why or how I found the 'villain-terrorist threat' subplot of Begins to be twee and corny, as per standard comic book convention? Must I lavish detail upon my impressions of the way Batman looks, talks (!), and behaves throughout both films? What spell has Nolan cast upon his target audience that gives him such prestige (no pun intended) among directors of big, dumb action movies? Inception was great, but Batman? Sorry, but no matter how 'dark' or frenetically-paced these movies will get, they will always be about one thing: A wealthy vigilante maniac in a deadly-but-toyetic Halloween costume that hugs his manhood like an athletic cup running around a strangely isolated, presumably American city engaging men endowed with pseudo-scifi (i.e., magical) superpowers and horrible physical disfigurations in mortal combat. Are you really going to attempt a cogent explanation as to why such a hammy premise shouldn't make a grown man smile?

it's not the premise, but what he did with it. you've described batman canon to a tee. these things are fundamental to batman, and can't be taken as a critique of any adaptation. those elements are the same in all batman live action work, from the camp tv series to burton to nolan. however, nolan's work created a far more compelling universe than the others. the scripts were damn near perfect. batman begins created the scenario of the start of the batman absurdity you describe in a way which was incredibly effective. even as a life long comic book fan, it exceeded all that i thought was possible with the franchise.

it's not the premise, but what he did with it

Click to expand...

these things are fundamental to batman, and can't be taken as a critique of any adaptation

Click to expand...

Even if I conceded that Nolan's Batman franchise was written/directed so impeccably as to allow even the most skeptical viewers some modest room for enjoyment (which I don't), that fact does nothing to amend my critique, by which I still firmly stand despite your misgivings to the contrary.

One of the most fundamental questions a filmmaker (or any artist, really) must repeatedly ask him-/herself is "Why, exactly, am I doing this?" It behooves me to inform you that when it comes to 99.9% of storytelling, in any medium, premise does matter. There are no two ways about this. The principle reason that I included my (seemingly accurate) artlessly frank descriptions of Hulk and Batman was to underscore the numbskull essence of their respective 'mythologies,' which, as you know, serve as the sole basis upon which their 'canons' are founded. And while it is certainly true that the worst of premises can infrequently be transformed by exceptional artistic talent into narrative masterworks of redemptive excellence, such a phenomenon is by and large the exception to one of the top ten rules of storytelling: Share only a story that is clearly worth telling.

No matter how vociferously the fans will clamor in his favor, Nolan, like every other comic book film director to date, has failed at square one. It is the premise, and it is the source material that defines the essential merit of a story from the very beginning. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and no semantic wordsmithing or clever direction will change the fact that Batman, no matter the medium into which he is transposed nor the grace with which he is handled, is and will always be Batman in all his deadly-codpiece glory. Garbage in, garbage out. My principle difficulty with this goofy-but-cynical phenomenon is the readiness with which people accept the strangest of premises as though they are to be taken for granted or at face value - I simply contend that they are not. Nothing about the superhero lore with which I've come into regrettably intimate contact (a few comic books, >9000 movies) has ever convinced me that underlying its basic stupidity is anything other than the same old cynical 'entertainment' bilge. In other words, why should I rightly give a fuck about the giant green muscle monster when seemingly no one on Earth can properly inform me as to what ultimately redeems the ludicrous nature of his story, let alone coherently explain why his story matters to them without recourse to treating 'The Hulk' or 'Batman and Robin' as dubious artistic axioms? Because, contrary to your implication, Batman is absolutely not a comprehensible first principle for anyone other than a diehard fan.

To me, the Batman movies manage to be fun but not totally brainless. The thing that most people say to defend the lackluster stories in most comic book movies is "Who cares? It's fun". I don't think Nolan was looking to make "story worth telling" so much as a "movie worth seeing" - a big-budget, blockbuster film that doesn't rely solely on explosions and one-liners to drive its plot, and in that sense I think he has succeeded.

ugh, well if you changed the premise like that it wouldn't be batman, then would it?

if you changed the premise like that it wouldn't be batman, then would it?

Click to expand...

No, you're absolutely right, it wouldn't. It would be something less ridiculous and perhaps worth seeing.

I don't think Nolan was looking to make "story worth telling" so much as a "movie worth seeing" - a big-budget, blockbuster film that doesn't rely solely on explosions and one-liners to drive its plot, and in that sense I think he has succeeded

Click to expand...

This is just the kind of apologetic wordsmithing to which I was referring above. All this means is that Nolan's uncharacteristically low aims and ambitions as a director were fully realized by their end result and the subsequent paycheck that he received. You may consider this to be an estimable quality, but I don't. At the end of the day, Christopher Nolan has proven himself no different than any other blockbuster director of his time, which, to be honest, is kind of a disappointment. I guess I expected that the peak of his career would be remembered for something other than some silly story that he lifted from a comic book and pandered to a large target audience (near-solely, it would seem) for money. Which brings me to another matter: Why are Nolan's fans so hellbent on convincing everyone else that his work on Batman is in any way imaginative or original? Aside from Ledger's Joker, what exactly has Nolan created in these movies to which anyone could honestly refer as 'new?' Even within this thread, the conversation has been skewed by a misrepresentation of the Batman story arc as a 'premise' when it is, in truth, no such thing. It is a well-developed narrative prototype, a skeleton script at the very least. Every detail has been more-or-less there from the beginning. There has been no re-imagining (no, not even with the Joker, admirably performed though he may have been), no reinvention, and, most importantly, no deviation from anything we already knew about Batman. Part of the reason I find the Nolan Batman craze so exasperating is that this tired horse has already been beaten to death ten times over, then beaten ten times more for good measure. Batman isn't a premise, nor even a story, really - he's a prepackaged, mass-produced, fully (and repeatedly, tiresomely) fleshed-out character - so why must we pretend that he isn't? Like it or not, Batman comes ready-made right off the shelf, to be dusted off for the tenth or eleventh time and recycled again for the next attempt at cash-cow status, which is just what Nolan happened to achieve this particular go-round. This, I believe, is the real reason for his severely skewed public reception. He made a stupid concept and a stupid, derivative story look halfway passable on screen and made a hell of a lot of money for doing it. Do I think that there's anything wrong with making money? Of course not. I consider Inception to be a smart, well-made movie, but a blockbuster nevertheless. In fact, the aforementioned film serves as proof positive that Nolan can do far, far better than he has with Batman to date.

And all of this goes without saying, but The Dark Knight was poorly paced, strangely casted (Gyllenhaal?), cobbled-together in structure, and toyetic beyond belief. It's Batman and Robin with a gratuitous CGI and $$$ upgrade, a one-note, scene-stealing performance, and an unintentionally humorous Batman voice. Oh, and it was 'darker,' or something.

Anyway, back to Spider-man, I much much preferred this one to any of the Raimi films. It felt slow in parts, but I was pretty impressed with the acting, which is probably why it felt 'slow' compared to the other films, as it focused on the drama of the characters a little more and was very well done anyway. Just enough Spidey action to balance it out. Some say it was probably second best to 'Spiderman 2', but not for me. I'm not really into superhero movies these days. But this was one I could relate to more.

^good review. this movie's appeal just went up one notch for me. i am getting sick of simple fixed combinations of action sequences.

It was good. I certainly liked it better than the first Raimi Spider-Man, but not the second. This Peter Parker fits the character much better than Raimi's, as well; the humor this go-round is also superior. And Emma Stone...drool. The film's great Achilles' heel, though, is that it feels too much like a remake of the first Spider Man, rather than a film that even wants to stand on its own.

Belisarius said:

The film's great Achilles' heel, though, is that it feels too much like a remake of the first Spider Man, rather than a film that even wants to stand on its own.

Click to expand...

That's because the only reason this movie was made was so that Sony didn't lose the Spiderman rights back to Marvel.

MrGrunge said:

That's because the only reason this movie was so that Sony didn't lose the Spiderman rights back to Marvel.

Click to expand...

Yeah that's something the reviewers seem to leave out when mentioning how unnecessary a reboot was. It wasn't wholly for the sake of it. Still, glad they made it. Didn't blow my head off. But I liked it.