![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
"The Amazing Spider-Man" review
Jul. 9th, 2012 11:38 pmMy boyfriend, Michael, finally had a Saturday off after almost a year, so we decided to go to the movie and see the new Spider-Man movie. I'll try not to give too much away but spoilers will be mentioned. So don't read if you don't want to know anything going in.
I've never read the "Spider-Man" comics. Other than Betty & Veronica I've never read any comics. But I did see the original Tobey Maguire/Sam Raimi Spider-Man trilogy and was a fan of it. I'm even in the minority that didn't hate the third one. I could see why that movie was problematic, but I still liked it for the most part. So, I wasn't too keen on the idea of a reboot, especially so soon. I walked away from The Amazing Spider-Man having enjoyed it, but still holding onto my original opinion that a reboot was pointless.
Don't get me wrong, there's definitely some things that are improved upon. I think Emma Stone is not only a better Gwen Stacy than Bryce Dallas Howard was, but her character is more well-rounded than Kirsten Dunst's Mary Jane Watson. I think I like that, unlike Mary Jane not knowing until the end of the second movie about Peter being Spider-Man, Gwen knows already. It gives Peter someone to talk to and removes the worry about when she's going to find out. I like that there's no lame triangle. There's a really great pay off towards the end having to do with an earlier bit of heroism on Peter's part. Denis Leary does a really good job as the Chief of Police and Gwen's dad. Martin Sheen and Sally Field as Uncle Ben and Aunt May just feels right. The chemistry between Stone and Garfield was pretty great. Their interactions were very natural and cute. But I thought the same thing of Maguire and Dunst.
But while there are some changes, there's so much that's similar that it really feels that it's the same movie as the first "Spider-Man" in 2002. How Uncle Ben dies is tweaked but pretty much the same. The setting and circumstances are different but how Peter gets the bite doesn't feel that different. Peter experimenting with his new powers isn't very different. Curt Conners/The Lizard feels very much like a repeat of Doc Ock with a bit of The Goblin thrown in(right down to a scene where he argues with himself in a creepy voice.)Michael and I were talking about it and he was confused about why there was no continuity with the other Spider-Man movies. I explained that was because it was a reboot, like Batman Begins and X-Men: First Class. But he was like those are basically continuations of the other movies, we just got backstory. This was a completely new re telling. It didn't real have anything new to say about Spider-man that we saw before(there's a bit of backstory about Peter's dad but that's not enough.)
One thing I know is that Michael will seemingly never be happy with who they choose as Spider-Man. We were talking about Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man awhile ago. And I think he complained that he thought he was too normal looking and geeky. I laughed and told him "Well, Peter Parker is supposed to be a geek." And when we saw the trailer for The Amazing Spider-Man he said that he wasn't impressed, thought Andrew Garfield was too good-looking. After we saw the movie on Saturday he said that he thought AG looked too much like a preppy, and that Peter Parker was supposed to be a geek. I laughed again and reminded him that was what I told him about Tobey's Spider-Man. Even though I laughed, my opinion is kind of similar to his. I really loved Tobey Maguire in the role, but his Peter was a little too sweet and mellow. Garfield's Peter feels a bit more multi-dimensional. And yet I don't like that he feels less like a geek but a loner. And he's a bit too cocky.
So good movie, but too much deja vu.
Stacey
I've never read the "Spider-Man" comics. Other than Betty & Veronica I've never read any comics. But I did see the original Tobey Maguire/Sam Raimi Spider-Man trilogy and was a fan of it. I'm even in the minority that didn't hate the third one. I could see why that movie was problematic, but I still liked it for the most part. So, I wasn't too keen on the idea of a reboot, especially so soon. I walked away from The Amazing Spider-Man having enjoyed it, but still holding onto my original opinion that a reboot was pointless.
Don't get me wrong, there's definitely some things that are improved upon. I think Emma Stone is not only a better Gwen Stacy than Bryce Dallas Howard was, but her character is more well-rounded than Kirsten Dunst's Mary Jane Watson. I think I like that, unlike Mary Jane not knowing until the end of the second movie about Peter being Spider-Man, Gwen knows already. It gives Peter someone to talk to and removes the worry about when she's going to find out. I like that there's no lame triangle. There's a really great pay off towards the end having to do with an earlier bit of heroism on Peter's part. Denis Leary does a really good job as the Chief of Police and Gwen's dad. Martin Sheen and Sally Field as Uncle Ben and Aunt May just feels right. The chemistry between Stone and Garfield was pretty great. Their interactions were very natural and cute. But I thought the same thing of Maguire and Dunst.
But while there are some changes, there's so much that's similar that it really feels that it's the same movie as the first "Spider-Man" in 2002. How Uncle Ben dies is tweaked but pretty much the same. The setting and circumstances are different but how Peter gets the bite doesn't feel that different. Peter experimenting with his new powers isn't very different. Curt Conners/The Lizard feels very much like a repeat of Doc Ock with a bit of The Goblin thrown in(right down to a scene where he argues with himself in a creepy voice.)Michael and I were talking about it and he was confused about why there was no continuity with the other Spider-Man movies. I explained that was because it was a reboot, like Batman Begins and X-Men: First Class. But he was like those are basically continuations of the other movies, we just got backstory. This was a completely new re telling. It didn't real have anything new to say about Spider-man that we saw before(there's a bit of backstory about Peter's dad but that's not enough.)
One thing I know is that Michael will seemingly never be happy with who they choose as Spider-Man. We were talking about Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man awhile ago. And I think he complained that he thought he was too normal looking and geeky. I laughed and told him "Well, Peter Parker is supposed to be a geek." And when we saw the trailer for The Amazing Spider-Man he said that he wasn't impressed, thought Andrew Garfield was too good-looking. After we saw the movie on Saturday he said that he thought AG looked too much like a preppy, and that Peter Parker was supposed to be a geek. I laughed again and reminded him that was what I told him about Tobey's Spider-Man. Even though I laughed, my opinion is kind of similar to his. I really loved Tobey Maguire in the role, but his Peter was a little too sweet and mellow. Garfield's Peter feels a bit more multi-dimensional. And yet I don't like that he feels less like a geek but a loner. And he's a bit too cocky.
So good movie, but too much deja vu.
Stacey
