“…comes great responsibility.”
While that famous line is unfortunately never used in The Amazing Spider-Man, it is certainly a theme that applies to filmmakers when handling characters that are so widely known and loved by millions; the filmmakers have a responsibility to do the character justice.
Of course, the original Spider-Man trilogy only started 10 years ago and the last entry was only five years ago, so right from the start, a remake coming out so soon threatened to trivialize the franchise, rather than revitalize it.
In fact, many questioned whether the series needed to be rejuvenated at all. Director Sam Raimi had earned the trust of fans with his original Spider-Man trilogy, even if the third film was a bit of a stumble. You can partially blame the studio, Sony, for that; they were the ones who forced Raimi to cram the film with three villains. But few would say that Spider-Man 3 ruined the franchise. A well-crafted Spider-Man 4, which was the original plan, could have easily gotten the series back on track.
So why the remake? Well, as is usually the case, the deciding factor was money. Within the budget for a fourth film, the salaries for Sam Raimi and actors Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst would have easily cleaned out a cool $100 million, right from the start. New, up-coming stars are cheaper.
Plus, when Sony purchased the film rights to Spider-Man from Marvel, they legally agreed that if they did not produce a film every few years, the rights would revert back to Marvel. So we’ll be getting Spider-Man films long after they’ve outstayed their welcome. (The film rights issue is also why we’ll likely never see Spider-Man in an Avengers film.)
So, really, a remake, while perhaps not necessary, was inevitable. So if we had to have a Spider-Man remake, The Amazing Spider-Man is a decent one to have.
While that famous line is unfortunately never used in The Amazing Spider-Man, it is certainly a theme that applies to filmmakers when handling characters that are so widely known and loved by millions; the filmmakers have a responsibility to do the character justice.
Of course, the original Spider-Man trilogy only started 10 years ago and the last entry was only five years ago, so right from the start, a remake coming out so soon threatened to trivialize the franchise, rather than revitalize it.
In fact, many questioned whether the series needed to be rejuvenated at all. Director Sam Raimi had earned the trust of fans with his original Spider-Man trilogy, even if the third film was a bit of a stumble. You can partially blame the studio, Sony, for that; they were the ones who forced Raimi to cram the film with three villains. But few would say that Spider-Man 3 ruined the franchise. A well-crafted Spider-Man 4, which was the original plan, could have easily gotten the series back on track.
So why the remake? Well, as is usually the case, the deciding factor was money. Within the budget for a fourth film, the salaries for Sam Raimi and actors Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst would have easily cleaned out a cool $100 million, right from the start. New, up-coming stars are cheaper.
Plus, when Sony purchased the film rights to Spider-Man from Marvel, they legally agreed that if they did not produce a film every few years, the rights would revert back to Marvel. So we’ll be getting Spider-Man films long after they’ve outstayed their welcome. (The film rights issue is also why we’ll likely never see Spider-Man in an Avengers film.)
So, really, a remake, while perhaps not necessary, was inevitable. So if we had to have a Spider-Man remake, The Amazing Spider-Man is a decent one to have.
Everything in the film seems to have been trimmed down to look sleeker and more modern, a fact most clearly evidenced in the Spider-Man suit. And the cast brought in to recreate the franchise’s famous character are all very well chosen.
Andrew Garfield (The Social Network) as Peter Parker/Spider-Man is great. Gone is the flat, one-sided nerd of the previous series. Garfield gives Peter more depth and a believable awkwardness, making the high school experience in the film feel more real and less filled with stereotypes.
Emma Stone (Easy A) likewise gives a realistic performance as Gwen Stacy and gives audiences the very best love interest for Peter on film to date. Stone and Garfield have an engaging chemistry, creating a relationship audiences will truly care about.
Martin Sheen, Sally Field, and Denis Leary also contribute to the film.
A new set of films also allows the filmmakers to take the series in new directions, this time incorporating a mysterious conspiracy about the disappearance of Peter’s parents. How this unfolds throughout the coming films will be interesting to watch.
In fact, the plot makes a number of bold choices to deviate itself from the original films. Spider-Man’s webs are something Peter invents instead of being one of his superpowers. We never meet Harry Osborn or Mary-Jane or J. Jonah Jameson. Some characters die, while others discover Spider-Man’s true identity.
While these things all make The Amazing Spider-Man different, none of them (aside from the casting improvements) really makes the film better than the originals. Different, but not better. And in some cases, worse.
Andrew Garfield (The Social Network) as Peter Parker/Spider-Man is great. Gone is the flat, one-sided nerd of the previous series. Garfield gives Peter more depth and a believable awkwardness, making the high school experience in the film feel more real and less filled with stereotypes.
Emma Stone (Easy A) likewise gives a realistic performance as Gwen Stacy and gives audiences the very best love interest for Peter on film to date. Stone and Garfield have an engaging chemistry, creating a relationship audiences will truly care about.
Martin Sheen, Sally Field, and Denis Leary also contribute to the film.
A new set of films also allows the filmmakers to take the series in new directions, this time incorporating a mysterious conspiracy about the disappearance of Peter’s parents. How this unfolds throughout the coming films will be interesting to watch.
In fact, the plot makes a number of bold choices to deviate itself from the original films. Spider-Man’s webs are something Peter invents instead of being one of his superpowers. We never meet Harry Osborn or Mary-Jane or J. Jonah Jameson. Some characters die, while others discover Spider-Man’s true identity.
While these things all make The Amazing Spider-Man different, none of them (aside from the casting improvements) really makes the film better than the originals. Different, but not better. And in some cases, worse.
The villain is terrible. Rhys Ifans is fine as Dr. Curt Conners, but the design for the creature he turns into, The Lizard, is awful. Really, it’s just not good, with poor graphics making it look more like the Creature from the Black Lagoon combined with The Abomination from The Incredible Hulk than the classic Spider-Man villain it should be.
The musical score is also super weird. Indie songs mixed with sporadic, cross-genre orchestral pieces. Some moments flow subtly, only to be replaced the very next second by arrangements that sound like energetic composer Danny Elfman came back to score 5 minutes. A scene in which The Lizard hunts for Gwen is the worst, as the score reverts to a horror movie soundtrack, stopping just short of playing the Mike Myers/Halloween theme music. In the original series, Spider-Man had a recognizable theme (courtesy of Elfman). In this? Musical chaos.
And there are moments in the action of absolute cheese. The scene which first comes to mind, in which New Yorkers unite to help Spider-Man, is both corny and also highly unrealistic.
Overall, The Amazing Spider-Man is a fun film to watch. It looks cool and the casting is spot-on. But while some details are changed, you really have seen this all before, only this time with a villain that doesn’t even come close to comparing to Spider-Man’s Green Goblin or Spider-Man 2’s Doctor Octopus.
All that being said, I can’t say I’m entirely sure what to recommend. I almost want to say “Wait to rent it.” But just because The Amazing Spider-Man doesn’t stand out from its predecessors shouldn’t take away from the fact that it is an entertaining film. Plus, it’s one of those big summer blockbusters swarms of people will see this week, - it’s almost an event – so not seeing it puts you out of the loop. So I guess what I’m saying is…
The Final Word: Go buy a ticket.
The musical score is also super weird. Indie songs mixed with sporadic, cross-genre orchestral pieces. Some moments flow subtly, only to be replaced the very next second by arrangements that sound like energetic composer Danny Elfman came back to score 5 minutes. A scene in which The Lizard hunts for Gwen is the worst, as the score reverts to a horror movie soundtrack, stopping just short of playing the Mike Myers/Halloween theme music. In the original series, Spider-Man had a recognizable theme (courtesy of Elfman). In this? Musical chaos.
And there are moments in the action of absolute cheese. The scene which first comes to mind, in which New Yorkers unite to help Spider-Man, is both corny and also highly unrealistic.
Overall, The Amazing Spider-Man is a fun film to watch. It looks cool and the casting is spot-on. But while some details are changed, you really have seen this all before, only this time with a villain that doesn’t even come close to comparing to Spider-Man’s Green Goblin or Spider-Man 2’s Doctor Octopus.
All that being said, I can’t say I’m entirely sure what to recommend. I almost want to say “Wait to rent it.” But just because The Amazing Spider-Man doesn’t stand out from its predecessors shouldn’t take away from the fact that it is an entertaining film. Plus, it’s one of those big summer blockbusters swarms of people will see this week, - it’s almost an event – so not seeing it puts you out of the loop. So I guess what I’m saying is…
The Final Word: Go buy a ticket.
I dont think comparing the old(not really original) series is fair. Just because it has different villians doesnt mean it makes the movie terrible(but yes it could of looked better.) The music was random but it made the moment funny and intense. The actors made the chatacters actually come alive and realistic. Its probably better there were many differences then the OLD series because it would be terrible if it was the same movie.
ReplyDeletePlus the citizens helping out spiderman is as unreal as spiderman himself, just enjoy the movie
ReplyDeleteComparison is the basis for judgment, so it's stupid to think you can realistically judge a remake without thinking about the original. And you seem to be under the impression I didn't enjoy the movie, maybe you should reread the review and realize that I recommended it, not just to rent, but to buy a $10 movie ticket for! But that's not gonna stop me from pointing out flaws. You can "just enjoy" every movie, Mr. Anonymous; but I'm going to have standards.
ReplyDeleteYou do compare this to the original trilogy, which is okay, but you do it somewhat unfairly. Spider-man strayed from the original 2002 film, but towards the comics. Web-shooters? That's something that Sam Raimi changed from the comics, and Marc Webb changed it back to how it originally was. Remember, Sam Raimi didn't invent Spidey's origin. Gwen was Peter's first love, the characters that died were supposed to, and since he's in high school, that follows the ultimate Spider-man comics, so he shouldn't work for the bugle yet. Most of the differences you mentioned were in fact changes to make this movie the closest adaption of the comics yet. Also the Lizard wasn't awful. The design wasn't great, but Rhys Ifans was a great Curt Connors, who had character and depth. After his transformation we did lose a lot of the character, but not enough to be horrible.
ReplyDeleteThe score was interesting at first, but as a music student, I can appreciate it now. I've listened to it a few times now, and there is definitely a recognizable theme. The music just varies a lot, which for me was a plus, but I can see how some people wouldn't enjoy it.
This is still a pretty good review. You're going to get an email from me, because aside from some research issues, I like your content.
Well most of the differences were just that, different. Yeah, they were closer to the comics, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're better for the story being told (even Stan Lee has admitted that having web shooting as a superpower makes more sense). I didn't think the differences were worse than the other films, but they weren't better was all I was trying to say.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your review. These dudes need to chill.
ReplyDelete