The Amazing Spider-Man

The Amazing Spider-Man, 2012
Directed by Marc Webb
Starring Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, and Rhys Ifans

We all know the story of Spiderman. Nerdy high school boy Peter Parker, bitten by radioactive spider, gains superpowers and becomes Spiderman. Best known in the movie forms that starred Tobey Macguire and Kirsten Dunst, in the form of 3 films.

Well, here we are in 2012, only 5 years since Spider-Man 3 came out. It's a "whole new origins story", now starring the critically acclaimed Andrew Garfield, and the new comedienne Emma Stone. While I remember being extremely skeptical when this "reboot" was announced, I slowly warmed to the idea when I saw the first trailer, and saw Andrew as Peter.

It's not secret that I have a huge celebrity crush on Andrew Garfield and love his acting. He was particularly phenomenal in Never Let Me Go, and I personally thought he deserved an acting nomination over Jesse Eisenberg in The Social Network. However, I digress.

While the trailer and commercials and posters have promised an origins story for Peter and his alter ego, I'd say that was a little more of a let down. There's wasn't too much origins, though it was more of a relationship/personal movie than an action one, which I respect.

I haven't watched any of the Spider-Man movies for a very long time, so I can't really remember how well they resemble each other. Obviously, there were various things that happened that also happened in the Raimi version, such as Uncle Ben's death, the idea of the responsibility to do the right thing should you have the power to do it and, obviously, getting bitten by a radioactive spider and developing his costume and persona.  However, these things had to happen, and they did it in a different way than the original Raimi versions did.

Peter's reaction to his gaining of superpowers was extremely well-done, I thought. It was done in a realistic way, a way that I could imagine myself reacting. Breaking everything, being very confused, and just trying to ignore they happened and move on. The sequence in the bathroom and in his bedroom after that was well done. Additionally, once Peter had finally officially suited up and was roaming the streets for his Uncle's killer, we got a smart-talking Spider-Man, which was very fun. He had some fantastic lines, and made the whole thing quite amusing without overdoing it too much.

While the sequences with Peter were very good, it takes quite a bit into the movie for the Lizard to finally appear. It's not until about halfway through (which is at least an hour in) that Dr. Curt Connors finally turns into the Lizard. And if there were any plot-holes that I could complain about (and there were a few), it'd be more with the Lizard than with Peter or Peter and Gwen. While some the fighting sequences looked amazing (possible Oscar attention for Visual Effects? I'd say it's very possible), there were too many times when the Lizard has him in his grips and doesn't really do anything to Peter. Sure, tell me that villains like to torture their victims or whatever, or the director tried to make it suspenseful, but I thought it was a bit lazy.

In fact, while I enjoyed the movie, I felt like the Lizard was kind of the last thing planned in the story, as though it was decided they were going to do a Spider-man movie, and would do Gwen Stacy and be all comic-book, and oh yeah we need a villain. The Lizard sound ok? While it was an okay villain, it felt like it was way less planned out that Peter's story was, and while I understand this movie was an 'origins' story, I would've liked the villain to make more sense.

Overall, I enjoyed the movie. However, this is probably due to the fact that Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield were fantastic and I feel like I probably wouldn't have liked the movie as much if they weren't in it. Andrew Garfield is a solid actor and has done some good work thus far, and, I find, to be very under-appreciated. He gave a great performance in this film. Though he's about 29 years old, I thought he was able to strike that teenager attitude well. While he didn't exactly look 17 (I'd say he looked about 21, which isn't too bad for a high school movie if you really think about it), he captured the typical walk teen guys have, and had great chemistry with Emma Stone (duh), and really pulled off the cutesyness well. I just really like Andrew Garfield here, okay guys?

Overall, I enjoyed this reboot. It was fun, it was funny, quirky, cute, with some good action sequences. I'd even hazard to say it's been my favourite Superhero movie of the year thus far (okay, there's only been two, but I didn't like the Avengers, so there you have it.) though I know that'll change in a few weeks time when Batman is released.

7/10
(no, I didn't love it, and yes my favourite superhero movie of the year so far gets a 7)

The Amazing Spiderman (2D)

A reboot to early or a money making scheme used by the studios to cash in on the superhero crazy which seems to be at its pinnacle right now; these are the two things that come to mind when I think about The Amazing Spiderman starring a brand new cast of Andrew Garfield (taking over the honors from Tobey Maguire), Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, and Martin Sheen as Uncle Ben.

Anupama Chopra, one of India’s leading film critics, suggests that we should go into the movie without thinking about the earlier franchise. While that would be the optimal approach to The Amazing Spiderman, I cannot help but compare the two at every level and for that very reason I find this reboot more and more unnecessary.

The angst that Maguire's Peter Parker brought to the franchise was something more relatable. Garfield, while doing justice to the costume, comes across as cockier and not so much of a "loser" as his counterpart from the earlier films. Unfortunately, as a result, the transformation into Spiderman has a much stronger impact and effect on Maguire's Parker than on the one portrayed by Garfield. The same is also visible in the actual transformation. While Maguire goes through a number of issues trying to discover his powers, Garfield almost eases through this process in a small ineffective montage. Spiderman, in both cases, at heart, starts off as a vigilante trying to avenge his uncle's death but it is his realization into a superhero that is once again brought together marvelously in Raimi's version whereas Marc Webb gives The Amazing Spiderman a more comic-bookishness in this new rendition.

The obligatory aspects of the Spiderman story; being bullied in school, death of Uncle Ben, are all present in The Amazing Spiderman. Unfortunately they feel repetitious due to the proximity of the film to Spiderman. The film also lacks memorable dialogues that were omnipresent in the earlier films. Who can forget "With great power comes great responsibility"? Furthermore, with nothing to compare the iconic upside-down wet kiss of Spiderman with Mary Jane, the new feature adds almost no memorable aspects to its story or characters.  

As directors both Raimi and Webb bring completely different visions to the film. While Raimi's version is more story oriented focusing on the numerous emotions of Peter Parker, Webb, besides taking too long to get the story going, is more visual in trying to wow the audience with special effects. Granted there are scenes that are amazing to look at, but I have always found Spiderman to be more about the characters than just the look of the film. We also have to keep in mind the addition of the 3D aspect, which is always pointless in my view, in The Amazing Spiderman; something that was missing earlier, and something I was thankfully able to avoid this time as well.     

The love interests of Peter Parker/Spiderman are different in both the films and that allows for the audience to look at them separately. Although, the fact remains that as love interests both the characters bring about a certain maturity to the story which is comparable. While the universally likeable Emma Stone, Playing Gwen Stacy, might be the best part about the entire film, she is unable to compare herself with the depth and conflict faced by Kirsten Dunst's Mary Jane Watson in the earlier films.Mary Jane is a more complex character facing family issues, a want to make a name for herself in acting, and of course discovering love in the most unusual of places. The love triangle in the previous films form an intrinsic part of the story and the on-off relationship between Mary Jane and Peter Parker added an entirely new dimension, something that was missing from this film. It's also pertinent to note that due to the structure of the film, The Amazing Spiderman misses out on the Peter Parker - Harry Osborn friendship aspect which took the dynamics of the previous franchise to a whole new level. 

One thing that superhero films of the past have taught us is that the villain is almost as important as the hero. This is where The Amazing Spiderman gets squashed by a rolled up Daily Bugle. William Dafoe as the Green Goblin had such a strong presence in Spiderman that no matter how hard Rhys Ifans tries to regenerate himself as the Lizard, he falls short in comparison. Furthermore, The Green Goblin has been one of the few iconic villains which are known to non comic book readers, whereas The Lizard is someone relatively unknown to the same people.

The Amazing Spiderman could have worked much better had it been released maybe a decade in the future. Right now, the public that is going to view this film has in most cases already seen Spiderman and its sequels and thus this reboot feels forced, unless Marvel has plans to add Spiderman to its already successful Avengers lineup. Maguire's Parker was much grounded, something I appreciated in Spiderman. Garfield’s Spiderman is a comic-book hero with panache and takes away the innocence that forms an fundamental part of this teenage hero entrusted upon with a superpower unexpectedly.

With news of The Amazing Spiderman being developed into a trilogy, I honestly can say that my interest now lies in seeing Spiderman only as part of Avengers and not as a separate franchise.        

Rating 2.5/5

THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN

THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN
Written by James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent and Steve Kloves
Directed by Marc Webb
Starring Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans and Denis Leary

Spider-Man: Hey! Watch it! I’m swingin’ here! I’m swingin’ here!

My guess is that calling the new Spider-Man reboot, “The Occasionally Amazing but Mostly Just OK and Reasonably Redundant Spider-Man” might not have been a slam dunk, marketing wise, so I get why they went with the shorter, THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN instead. The fact is, this latest film incarnation of everyone’s favorite web slinging superhero exists for one reason and one reason only. If Sony didn’t put out another film before a certain date, they would lose their rights back to Marvel, and one of their most successful film franchises would be finished. So they took a gamble and decided to start from scratch on a series that only finished five years ago, hoping that just enough time had passed for the next generation to claim Spidey as their own. As to whether that gamble pays off financially, which is of course the only way that really counts, that remains unseen. As for its critical success, my opinion is still swinging from side to side.

Under the direction of (500) DAYS OF SUMMER helmer, Marc Webb, who incidentally loses all trace of originality and personal voice as part of this massive machine, THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN takes us back to when our lovably geeky hero, Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield), was still in high school. It isn’t long before he is bit by a radio active spider when he breaks away from the group at a laboratory focused on cross-species genetics. And not long after that, Peter can just tell; something is not right from his spider bite. The problem here is that this whole spider bite bit has already been done, and not so long ago. Sure, everyone is entitled to their own different take on the tale but Webb’s doesn’t feel all that different than Sam Raimi’s 2002 version. You can’t really mess too much with an origin story, unless you want to enrage the fanboys (and girls), but that doesn’t leave today’s viewer, whose memory may not have entirely faded after just ten years, to feel like they’re watching something they haven’t already seen. By the time Parker loses his Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) in a senseless mugging, it feels like a plot point we just had to get past rather than the pivotal moment it truly is.

To overcome the more plodding details of the plot, Webb must differentiate his Spider-Man visually and through character. Garfield is a great Peter Parker. In his teenage form, Parker is very shy and befuddled around others. He has a strong moral compass but he hasn’t yet figured his whole self out so his motivations can occasionally be heavily influenced by his ego. And once he’s flying through the air as Spider-Man, Garfield continues to soar in the part. He is a more aggressive, more raw, more fearless Spider-Man than Tobey Maguire ever was. His cunning often caught me off guard and Spidey’s rumbles with The Lizard (Rhys Ifans) are some of the film’s more exhilarating moments. When it comes down to it, if you’re a fan of Spider-Man movies, THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN can be an incredible ride. I for one love flying through the air on nothing but a web and a prayer, but when this ride comes to its inevitable end, some may feel like they’ve already been on it before.

The Social Network

The Social Network, 2010
Directed by David Fincher
Won 3 Oscars: Best Film Editing, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Score
Lost BP To: The King's Speech
Up Against: The King's Speech, Black Swan, The Kid's Are Alright, Winter's Bone, True Grit, 127 Hours, Toy Story 3, The Fighter, Inception


Last year, I was a huge huge fan of the King's Speech, and rooted for it all the way. After the nominees came out for Best Picture, I decided I should probably see what the big fuss was about for The Social Network, it's biggest competitor. Whether it was bias, or because it truly didn't strike my fancy, I wasn't a fan. I didn't see why it was getting attention, though it was an average, kind of dull movie, and completely dismissed it.

Now, about a year later, I've decided to give it another chance. Why? Because I've become a fan of Andrew Garfield, having watched him in Never Let Me Go and the Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus, both of which he was fantastic. Also, having dismissed the Original Score as well, thinking How to Train Your Dragon should've won, I also picked that up again, and while I knew it was just okay on it's own, it probably rocked with the movie. Thus, I picked it up from the library and settled down and watched it tonight.


This is the story of Facebook, and the people behind it. Mark Zuckerburg is a computer genius, even before he started Facebook. He was going to Harvard, and was able to create websites in an evening, while drunk, that would gain 22,000 hits in one night, and crash the Harvard network. That's the kind of guy he is. When he's approached by the Winklevoss twins to program a website for them, Harvard Connection. It's an exclusive facebook/social network for Harvard University students. Mark initially says he's in, but then he deems their idea lame, doesn't tell them he's out for 6 weeks, and starts up his own social networking site, TheFacebook, for Harvard students with his best friend Eduardo Saverin.

The story revolves around Mark, obviously, and just how he rolls to the beat of his own drum. Doing things with Eduardo's money before asking him for said money, teaming up with Napster-creator gone broke, Sean Parker, moving to California to set up his business, and eventually betraying Eduardo. Mark is given to us a cold-hearted college student. The only person he really cares about is himself. And that shines through in every moment we see Mark. Though we know at the heart of the matter, Mark wants acceptance. And he does this through creating Facebook. It's an interest flip-flop, seeing this in the opening scene with Erica, and then the lawsuit scenes. In the end, you can't have worldwide acceptance, and keep your best friends, it seems.

This movie moves back and forth from the past (creation of Facebook/Harvard) and the present (lawsuits). It's almost as though this film is a supplement and evidence in the cases. We see the scenes as they come up in the suits, sometimes with description and narration from Mark or Eduardo. And we are taken, linearly through the process of the creation of Facebook. The "stealing" from the Winklevoss's, the creation and programming of TheFacebook, with Mark and Eduardo, the college celebrity phase, the move to LA and teaming with Sean Parker, and the Business Deal. It's well told, with not too much narration (but a sufficient amount), and not too much back and forth between the two (though, again, sufficient, that we don't forget about it, and it keeps us wondering what went wrong with Mark and Eduardo).

The screenplay, written by Aaron Sorkin, is whip-smart, witty, and just so geeky. It is said that the opening scene between Erica and Mark was 8 script pages long, and took 99 takes to get right. And I believe both those facts. Aaron Sorkin's screenplay was really great. He has such a talent for turning okay subject into really great movies (see Moneyball).

Additionally, the movie was well acted, and it garnered Jesse Eisenberg a Lead Actor nomination. Though, if anyone should've been nominated, it should've been Andrew Garfield. He's a really strong actor, and that's also true for this film. He has so much passion, and you can see it in every line he speaks in this film (with a wonderful American accent to boot). Of all the acting in this film, I'd say he was definitely the strongest, especially with his moment of confrontation, at the end, with Mark. He plays that so perfectly.

Overall, the film was good, but not Best Picture worthy. I understand the nomination, but still agree it shouldn't have won. It was a well told film, with an interesting(ish) story, but I don't think it'll stand the test of time well, since it's such a modern piece. Not that modern is bad, or that Best Picture's need to stand the test of time, but it's a very here-and-now movie, and while it was good, it wasn't amazing.

7.5/10

2012 Anticipated Films

Here are some trailers from upcoming movies I'm looking forward to. Taking a break from the Awardsy movies, and sharing some films I'm looking forward to this year!

The Hunger Games- March 23rd 2012

The Amazing Spiderman- July 3rd 2012

The Dark Knight Rises- July 20th 2012

Brave- June 22nd 2012

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

December 14th 2012

Special mentions: Les Miserables, Salmon Fishing in the Yemen, The 5 Year Engagement, Seeking a Friend for the End of the World, The Great Gatsby, Gangster Squad, Gravity

TIFF Review: NEVER LET ME GO

Written by Alex Garland

Directed by Mark Romanek

Starring Carey Mulligan, Keira Knightley and Andrew Garfield

Famed music video director, Mark Romanek, takes on Kazuo Ishiguro’s much loved and heavily praised novel, NEVER LET ME GO, as his second venture into feature filmmaking. It is a daring challenge indeed given the underlying questions about the value of human life but Romanek takes the challenge head on. I have not read the novel but, from what I understand, he gets the tone just right. That said, if the tone is meant to be one of cold disassociation, than perhaps it was never meant to be a film to begin with.

NEVER LET ME GO is a hybrid of science fiction and romantic drama. The prologue to the film tells us that a medical breakthrough discovered in 1967 has increased the life expectancy of human beings to over 100 years but does not tell us how. We are then introduced to Kathy, Tommy and Ruth (Carey Mulligan, Andrew Garfield and Keira Knightley, respectively) in 1978 at a boarding school called Hailsham. There is clearly something special about this school and the children that go there and it is our job to piece that together bit by bit. While that is happening though, a love triangle develops between these friends that is meant to be this great affront to love. It seems secondary to the mystery awaiting us and therefore never feels meaningful even after the mystery is solved.

When a younger Kathy sits on her bed, listening to fictional singer, Judy Bridgewater, sing, “Never, never, never let me go,” she cries quietly to herself and yearns to know what that feels like. She looks human, she emotes like a human but she knows she isn’t like everyone else. Watching the film, NEVER LET ME GO, is perhaps best exemplified in this scene. Like the little girl, it too wants to be held and cherished, for its beautiful imagery and solid performances, but whether or not that is even possible is up for debate. Again, like the little girl, the film too might be lacking a soul.