How soon is too soon to “reboot” a franchise? That seems to be the main talking point around The Amazing Spider-Man, after all it’s been five
years since the abomination that was Spider-Man 3 and here we are with a new cast,
crew and origins film. There was
eight years between Batman & Robin and Batman Begins. Seven years between Superman Returns and next
year’s Man Of Steel. Five years between
Hulk and The Incredible Hulk (arguably they follow on but The Incredible Hulk
does actually reboot the story). Is five
years too soon? No. Should they even be rebooting things anyway? Well, that's a yes / no answer.
The idea of the superhero has become deeply entrenched in today's entertainment, to the point where it could be
argued that the origin stories for certain superheroes (in particular Superman, Batman,
Spider-Man) have entered far enough into the lexicon of modern
culture to not need repeating. Yet I see
the appeal for a writer / director / actor when tackling such an established
character for the first time, they want to leave their stamp and make it their own version, so what better way to do that than starting at the
beginning? Especially if it’s to be the
start of a new run of films. I don’t remember
ire aimed at Christopher Nolan for going full on origins with Batman Begins
when Tim Burton had covered some of the same ground in his 1989 Batman. In fact what irritates me more is when these
films feel like they need to continuously fall back on the same villains,
especially when the original comics for most characters established such a wide pool of antagonists
to choose from.
The biggest mistake Spider-Man 3 made was bringing in too
many villains which it didn't know how to use properly, making the whole thing a mess. Fortunately The Amazing Spider-Man not only
keeps it simple with a single clear villain, but also uses one that was
absent from the previous trilogy of films (or the villainous alter-ego
was anyway), adding something new that doesn’t feel like a straight rehash. The villain in question here is Dr Curt
Connors, aka The Lizard, played by Rhys Ifans, who is perhaps a somewhat
unexpected actor to appear in such a blockbuster, but he plays Connors well. There’s an intelligence and sense of
benevolence there, but then he’s forced into a situation where things take a turn
for the worse, essentially leaving him infected with crazy (in quite an interesting way) and a new reptilian form.
Is it possible to make a film like this without it being
swamped in CGI? These days, no. If it wasn’t CGI heavy we wouldn’t get
impressive looking scenes of a man in a suit swinging precariously through the
streets and around the buildings of New York. But after a while and much repetition it does get boring watching
a digital figure flinging itself around like this. Better are the scenes of Peter Parker getting
to grips with his powers. So what
about the villain and what to do when it’s supposed to be a giant anthropomorphised
lizard? Why CGI of course! I have in a couple of recent reviews here expressed a growing
dissatisfaction with films overloaded with CGI, which seems a pointless
complaint because hell, it goes without saying most modern big budget films
will be digitised to death. Anyway,
the CGI Lizard is alternately menacing and rubbish-looking. It flat out does not work when it’s “speaking”,
but as a creature moving around it’s not so bad. Best of all the threat level is well pitched as
Spider-Man seems seriously outmatched by his foe, so there is a challenge. All in all though, a good choice of villain.
The best decision made around The Amazing Spider-Man was casting Andrew Garfield as Peter
Parker / Spider-Man. I’ll admit that
after seeing him in The Social Network and particularly Never Let Me Go (which I loved), I became a fan. It's still
early days in his career and taking this role was certainly a good choice for
him - he’s so damn likeable and plays the well-meaning, kinda cool but actually
totally nerdy loner well. In fact the
best scenes in the film are when there is no mask involved. Many of those involve Emma Stone as
Gwen Stacey, and she’s thoroughly sweet but perhaps not given enough to do
aside from standard love interest duties, but there’s a definitely palpable chemistry
there which makes all the difference. To
be fair the rest of the casting is decent too – I enjoyed Denis Leary as
the police chief whilst Martin Sheen and Sally Field are likeable as Peter’s aunt
and uncle, despite the inevitable bit of preachiness.
What about the choice of director though? As an established geek-friendly progenitor of one of the most
loved eighties/nineties genre trilogies, Sam Raimi was obviously ideal for the
previous set of films, but this time they went with what, a guy
who’d only directed one prior feature; an indie rom-com!? I recall a big hint of internet surprise to this
announcement, but good choice I say and kudos for its braveness. (500) Days of Summer is a great little indie
film that shows Marc Webb to be an interesting and creative director producing
something thoroughly interesting in one of the blandest genres out there. And to The Amazing Spider-Man he brings a
focus on the characters without feeling like this needs to be rushed over to get to the web-slinging. There is of course the whole "weight of the effects of your
actions" aspect, but also plenty of comedy (it’s generally a pretty good script) and successfully
suggests a burgeoning romance. The
action scenes are competently directed and fortunately it doesn’t feel overly dominated by them.
Time to address some key questions... Was it pointless doing another reboot “so
soon”? No. Is this a better Spider-Man film than Sam
Raimi’s 2002 version? Debatable, but having not seen
that film in years I refuse to be drawn into making a full comparison. Who is the better Spider-Man, Tobey Maguire
or Andrew Garfield? Garfield, without a
doubt. What’s the 3D like? No idea, I saw it in 2D, but considering how
fast some of the scenes were cut I can only image the 3D would look a mess. Would I recommend watching it? Sure.
Let’s be honest, The Amazing Spider-Man was never going to
be a film that would blow you away. The
character is only "amazing" in his biological / technical abilities, but Garfield
here proves why he remains a great upcoming actor to look out for. I want to see him in more, now. This is a Spider-Man film so you know what
you’re going to get and yes it is more of the same, but at least Webb forces
the film into a character based direction rather than pure dumb action. I liked the film, it kept me entertained and
I will now casually look forward to the next two films in this trilogy. But with the
recent influx of fantastic superhero movies since Spider-Man 3 came out - Thor,
Iron Man, Captain America: The First Avenger, The Dark Knight – I’m left wondering
if the Spider-Man character really offers enough now?
No comments:
Post a Comment