Honest
Hi!
- 11,676
- Posts
- 15
- Years
- Age 28
- New York City
- Seen Sep 30, 2023
In 2002, a new superhero had hit the movie theaters (I'm not counting the 1977 release). Or, rather, he swung into the theaters. The year 2002 marks the release of the first Spider-Man movie, then starring Toby Maguire as Peter Parker/Spider-Man, Kirsten Dunst as MJ, and James Franco as Harry Osborne. The movie was a success, as many superhero movies are, and warranted two sequels, fittingly named Spider-Man 2 and 3. A Spider-Man 4 had been in the process of being made, but multiple issues made that impossible, notably Toby Maguire unwilling to play a character who would go back to high school and the heated arguments between Sony Pictures and director Sam Raimi. However, just after ideas for Spider-Man 4 had fallen through, Sony Pictures announced a reboot of the iconic webslinger's story, talking about Peter's life in high-school. This movie was "The Amazing Spider-Man"
The new cast consisted of Andrew Garfield (The Social Network, Never Let Me Go) as the webslinger, Emma Stone (The Help, Easy A, Zombieland) as Peter's love interest Gwen Stacy, and Rhys Ifans (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1, Hannibal Rising, Enduring Love) as the movie's primary antagonist, Doctor Connors/The Lizard. The movie made it's premier on July 3, 2012, and while I missed the original screening, I finally was able to see it a few days ago on DVD, and I must say, I like what I saw.
Comparatively, the original Spider-Man and this reboot are similar. Both entail Peter's life before he was Spider-Man, the life of a shy and rather quiet boy in high school. The reboot doesn't exactly portray Peter in the geeky way the original did. Garfield did a good job in terms of acting, arguably better than Maguire did, but he seemed more outgoing that his 2002 counterpart. He skateboarded, he stood up for a bullied kid, and most of all, he looked too sexy. I mean, Maguire looked good too, but he was able to pull of facial expressions and in general act younger and more awkward. I'd think someone as good looking as Garfield would get all the girls. But that's not important.
This movie did a great job of relaying to us what happened to Peter's parents, something the original barely focused on at all. The secrets Peter's dad left behind ultimately would be the powderkeg for the rest of the movie, as that secret ultimately creates The Lizard. The mystery behind Mr. and Mrs. Parker also contribute to Peter's realization that "with great power comes great responsibility" While the famous quote from Ben Parker in the original movie isn't repeated in his counterpart in the reboot, Ben Parker in The Amazing Spider-Man does undergo a similar fate as his original did, albeit more heroic. All of this stems from Peter's parents, which I found well written and well done.
There are two plots to the movie. One is that Peter unwillingly creates The Lizard, and has to defeat him. The second deals with Peter's love life. Peter falls in love with Gwen Stacey, the daughter of the Police Captain who believes Spider-Man to be a thug. Both stories intertwine very nicely into a grand fight where fatalities occur. The cinematography in this final scene, along with the rest of the movie in general, was top notch, and I was fairly impressed with most of it.
There are some bits of the movie I thought was sort of weird, though. I get that the movie can be comedic, as most Marvel films are. But sometimes it was a little to much, especially with the one scene where Peter throws the football. I'm not going to spoil what happens, but I'd think that people would ask questions. Still, small technicalities for an otherwise good movie.
Final Review: The Amazing Spider-Man doesn't stray too far from it's name. While this movie wasn't "amazing", it certainly was a great movie, and a must see for comic book/superhero fanatics. Do I believe it was better than the original? That's a harder question to answer for a multitude of reasons. The original seemed more tragic, while the reboot didn't. The original was also, in my opinion, subtle when it did drop a joke, while this movie was more focused on the comedy. Still, I wouldn't say the original was better. Maybe I need to see it again, but I believe the original and this movie are equal in terms of brilliance. They aren't the same beast; both movies have strengths and weaknesses in different areas. Set side by side, however, and those differences set as a foil for each other, making each movie great in its own right. Regardless of whether you're comparing this movie with it's 2002 counterpart, or you're just looking to pass the time by watching a movie, either way you'll leave the theater (or I guess take out the DVD or exit Netflix) feeling satisfied.
Final Grade (out of 5): *** 3/4
I had the option of reviewing either this movie or The Dark Knight Rises, and I flipped a coin to decide who'd win. Take a guess as to who did. Sorry Live. :c My next movie is a toss up between Perks of Being a Wallflower or the Hunger Games. Stay tuned! This is Dipu, sounding off.
The new cast consisted of Andrew Garfield (The Social Network, Never Let Me Go) as the webslinger, Emma Stone (The Help, Easy A, Zombieland) as Peter's love interest Gwen Stacy, and Rhys Ifans (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1, Hannibal Rising, Enduring Love) as the movie's primary antagonist, Doctor Connors/The Lizard. The movie made it's premier on July 3, 2012, and while I missed the original screening, I finally was able to see it a few days ago on DVD, and I must say, I like what I saw.
Comparatively, the original Spider-Man and this reboot are similar. Both entail Peter's life before he was Spider-Man, the life of a shy and rather quiet boy in high school. The reboot doesn't exactly portray Peter in the geeky way the original did. Garfield did a good job in terms of acting, arguably better than Maguire did, but he seemed more outgoing that his 2002 counterpart. He skateboarded, he stood up for a bullied kid, and most of all, he looked too sexy. I mean, Maguire looked good too, but he was able to pull of facial expressions and in general act younger and more awkward. I'd think someone as good looking as Garfield would get all the girls. But that's not important.
This movie did a great job of relaying to us what happened to Peter's parents, something the original barely focused on at all. The secrets Peter's dad left behind ultimately would be the powderkeg for the rest of the movie, as that secret ultimately creates The Lizard. The mystery behind Mr. and Mrs. Parker also contribute to Peter's realization that "with great power comes great responsibility" While the famous quote from Ben Parker in the original movie isn't repeated in his counterpart in the reboot, Ben Parker in The Amazing Spider-Man does undergo a similar fate as his original did, albeit more heroic. All of this stems from Peter's parents, which I found well written and well done.
There are two plots to the movie. One is that Peter unwillingly creates The Lizard, and has to defeat him. The second deals with Peter's love life. Peter falls in love with Gwen Stacey, the daughter of the Police Captain who believes Spider-Man to be a thug. Both stories intertwine very nicely into a grand fight where fatalities occur. The cinematography in this final scene, along with the rest of the movie in general, was top notch, and I was fairly impressed with most of it.
There are some bits of the movie I thought was sort of weird, though. I get that the movie can be comedic, as most Marvel films are. But sometimes it was a little to much, especially with the one scene where Peter throws the football. I'm not going to spoil what happens, but I'd think that people would ask questions. Still, small technicalities for an otherwise good movie.
Final Review: The Amazing Spider-Man doesn't stray too far from it's name. While this movie wasn't "amazing", it certainly was a great movie, and a must see for comic book/superhero fanatics. Do I believe it was better than the original? That's a harder question to answer for a multitude of reasons. The original seemed more tragic, while the reboot didn't. The original was also, in my opinion, subtle when it did drop a joke, while this movie was more focused on the comedy. Still, I wouldn't say the original was better. Maybe I need to see it again, but I believe the original and this movie are equal in terms of brilliance. They aren't the same beast; both movies have strengths and weaknesses in different areas. Set side by side, however, and those differences set as a foil for each other, making each movie great in its own right. Regardless of whether you're comparing this movie with it's 2002 counterpart, or you're just looking to pass the time by watching a movie, either way you'll leave the theater (or I guess take out the DVD or exit Netflix) feeling satisfied.
Final Grade (out of 5): *** 3/4
I had the option of reviewing either this movie or The Dark Knight Rises, and I flipped a coin to decide who'd win. Take a guess as to who did. Sorry Live. :c My next movie is a toss up between Perks of Being a Wallflower or the Hunger Games. Stay tuned! This is Dipu, sounding off.
