![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
the amazing the amazing spiderman
4 Aug 2012 11:54 pmYes, you did read "the amazing" twice (well, thrice, now).
The great thing about having low expectations for something is that the probability of being pleasant surprised increases.
Does The Amazing Spiderman rank up there with the two behemoths of superhero movies released on either side of it? Of course not, but I don't think it ever tries to be.
I don't remember much of Sam Raimi's Spiderman trilogy, only that I didn't like much of Tobey Maguire. After thinking about this for a long time (and rewatching a few old Spiderman clips) I realised that he reminded me of a less stunned Frodo, and he was too pretty for the everyteen role.
Garfield passed much more easily as a teen, not just by virtue of a messy mop of hair and a boyish face, but he just hits the notes much better. He's much more convincing being the awkward teen, being brash, being vindictive, being sulky, being thoughtless, revelling in his new found prowess and striking out in misdirected sentiments. On the other hand, Maguire has such a cautious nerdy face that watching him play an outgoing kid is like watching Kame trying to flirt with a girl (oi). If there was a flaw, Garfield's version of Peter Parker was just a little too self-assured and very smart-ass when he's in the suit, which I suppose is why I've seen some reviewers call his version a douchebag. Then again, I thought that was supposed to be his character trait (as opposed to Tony Stark, who's resting mode is effusive sarcastic narcissism).
Reading through the Wikipedia description of Spiderman, it seems this movie stuck truer to its origins. Spiderman gained mainly physical prowess - improved senses, greatly increased strength and agility, and the ability to stick to objects. The web had always been an exogenous invention of his own.
What it lacked in The Avengers' knack for momentousness and The Dark Knight Rises' sense for multilayered drama, it made up for by being a much more personable and personal film. It owes a lot to its actors, who held together the very loose script. Peter's journey from socially awkward to sulky self-pity to anguished recklessness, and to finally, slowly, come to his own realisation of how he must wield his powers - in the way the script leapt from one teenage emotion to another, in anyone else's hands it would have been disjointed and discursive.
Unlike Maguire, Garfield has the amazing ability of not making you want to slap him senseless when he cries (not to mention his irresistibly broad grin). Emma Stone (loved her in Easy A) was equally at ease with her role, the nervous interactions between Peter and Gwen some of the funniest and most (cringingly) realistic in the movie. I also loved the interactions between Peter and Aunt May, the scenes easily brought out the best in both actors.
The plot is quite messy in many ways, one flaw being The Lizard being a rather unspectacular villain. However, I liked how it handled Peter's reaction to Uncle Ben's senseless death. He didn't immediately springboard into a defender of the good and innocent: he remained just a kid, enraged and embittered and using his abilities in all the wrong ways to search for a personal justice. I liked how it was Captain Stacy's words that prodded him, and I liked how defensive he became about his motives - the best sign of admission. I wish that thread (his hunt for the robber) was tied up though, because it felt too important a thread to leave hanging and yet - surely - does not have the longevity to carry into a sequel.
It's a much darker film than the previous Spiderman (or as I recall them), but I think it fits the character well. He reminds me of Hamlet, if you take the high culture out of Hamlet - just a kid who had too much crap happen in too short a space of time, and the way he reacts is not at all surprising. It doesn't define Peter as the moral good, because he's still learning for himself what he should be.
I may not necessarily rewatch this movie (though I might, because Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy are so unnecessarily adorable, damn it), but I would definitely watch a sequel with the same actors.
And there'll be a lot of extremely happy fans if Sony and Disney shook hands and put Spiderman in The Avengers 2.
The great thing about having low expectations for something is that the probability of being pleasant surprised increases.
Does The Amazing Spiderman rank up there with the two behemoths of superhero movies released on either side of it? Of course not, but I don't think it ever tries to be.
I don't remember much of Sam Raimi's Spiderman trilogy, only that I didn't like much of Tobey Maguire. After thinking about this for a long time (and rewatching a few old Spiderman clips) I realised that he reminded me of a less stunned Frodo, and he was too pretty for the everyteen role.
Garfield passed much more easily as a teen, not just by virtue of a messy mop of hair and a boyish face, but he just hits the notes much better. He's much more convincing being the awkward teen, being brash, being vindictive, being sulky, being thoughtless, revelling in his new found prowess and striking out in misdirected sentiments. On the other hand, Maguire has such a cautious nerdy face that watching him play an outgoing kid is like watching Kame trying to flirt with a girl (oi). If there was a flaw, Garfield's version of Peter Parker was just a little too self-assured and very smart-ass when he's in the suit, which I suppose is why I've seen some reviewers call his version a douchebag. Then again, I thought that was supposed to be his character trait (as opposed to Tony Stark, who's resting mode is effusive sarcastic narcissism).
Reading through the Wikipedia description of Spiderman, it seems this movie stuck truer to its origins. Spiderman gained mainly physical prowess - improved senses, greatly increased strength and agility, and the ability to stick to objects. The web had always been an exogenous invention of his own.
What it lacked in The Avengers' knack for momentousness and The Dark Knight Rises' sense for multilayered drama, it made up for by being a much more personable and personal film. It owes a lot to its actors, who held together the very loose script. Peter's journey from socially awkward to sulky self-pity to anguished recklessness, and to finally, slowly, come to his own realisation of how he must wield his powers - in the way the script leapt from one teenage emotion to another, in anyone else's hands it would have been disjointed and discursive.
Unlike Maguire, Garfield has the amazing ability of not making you want to slap him senseless when he cries (not to mention his irresistibly broad grin). Emma Stone (loved her in Easy A) was equally at ease with her role, the nervous interactions between Peter and Gwen some of the funniest and most (cringingly) realistic in the movie. I also loved the interactions between Peter and Aunt May, the scenes easily brought out the best in both actors.
The plot is quite messy in many ways, one flaw being The Lizard being a rather unspectacular villain. However, I liked how it handled Peter's reaction to Uncle Ben's senseless death. He didn't immediately springboard into a defender of the good and innocent: he remained just a kid, enraged and embittered and using his abilities in all the wrong ways to search for a personal justice. I liked how it was Captain Stacy's words that prodded him, and I liked how defensive he became about his motives - the best sign of admission. I wish that thread (his hunt for the robber) was tied up though, because it felt too important a thread to leave hanging and yet - surely - does not have the longevity to carry into a sequel.
It's a much darker film than the previous Spiderman (or as I recall them), but I think it fits the character well. He reminds me of Hamlet, if you take the high culture out of Hamlet - just a kid who had too much crap happen in too short a space of time, and the way he reacts is not at all surprising. It doesn't define Peter as the moral good, because he's still learning for himself what he should be.
I may not necessarily rewatch this movie (though I might, because Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy are so unnecessarily adorable, damn it), but I would definitely watch a sequel with the same actors.
And there'll be a lot of extremely happy fans if Sony and Disney shook hands and put Spiderman in The Avengers 2.
