When Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) acquires the powers of a symbiote, he will have to release his alter-ego “Venom” to save his life.
REVIEW
Even after the terrible usage in SPIDER-MAN 3 and the licensing of Spider-Man from their studio to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Sony decided to continue with their “Spidey-Verse” with the release of VENOM - a solo venture featuring one of Spider-Man’s more famous foes and resident anti-hero of the Marvel Universe in general. While the lack of Spider-Man involved in Venom’s origin left me feeling less than motivated to watch, the casting of Tom Hardy as Eddie Brock did leave me intrigued as I’m a fan of his work. But you know me - I’m going to watch any comic book related movie in a theater, so VENOM was always going to be on my radar. I wasn’t expecting much out of the film and the bad reviews didn’t help to persuade me that I was going to waste my money watching this. And while VENOM is definitely mediocre and forced at times at what it’s trying to accomplish, I couldn’t help but enjoy myself throughout. It definitely has serious issues, but I thought VENOM was more fun than it had any right to be.
The main reason VENOM may be worth a recommendation for superhero genre fans is for Tom Hardy as Eddie Brock. Hardy seems to be really enjoying himself in the role, acting like a schizophrenic with an alien voice in his head while doing some cool stunt work. He also plays Eddie like a human being, flawed and all, wanting the big scoops as an investigative reporter that end up costing him not only his job, but the love of his life in the process. The human moments for the character seem to be where Hardy thrives the best, creating a three-dimensional character that we can identify with and support throughout the film. And when he actually becomes Venom, his behavior becomes more erratic and he has hilarious dialogue with his alien counterpart. Hardy could have phoned it in for a paycheck, but you can tell he’s one-hundred percent invested in giving us a great performance and to lead a franchise. He definitely made me forget about Topher Grace’s unfortunate performance from eleven years ago.
And while the screenplay isn’t anything to write home about and the direction as generic as they come when it comes to this genre, at least both aspects are memorable enough to be entertaining. Whether it’s in a good or a bad way, that’s up to the viewer. But I friggin’ had a blast at the cheesy dialogue, the silly action sequences, the better-than-expected special effects [Venom and the symbiotes looked cool], and the hammy acting by everyone involved. It felt like a B-movie from a different era and I was more than okay with that. Sometimes I don’t want to think while watching a film, and VENOM allows that in spades.
VENOM is nowhere close to perfect though. The story itself is totally contrived and cliche, the dialogue is ridiculous a lot of the time, and the villain is stereotypical as hell [the idea to recreate the world in his own image like a God] even though he starts off more interesting than he how he ends off. Things just randomly happen without explanation, leaving one feel that there was more to this film but was edited off for some reason. As I later learned, over 40 minutes of footage was cut - I guess to save later for a blu-ray release. You can really tell, since VENOM does feel disjointed every now and then, making for a strange pace that still kind of works for some reason. And the final act is pretty weak to be honest, even if the action element was pretty okay.
I also thought some of the actors, especially Michelle Williams, seemed to be forcing her performance. I didn’t really buy her all that much and seemed to try too hard. She didn’t feel like a real character to me, but rather an archetype of the love interest that had to be inserted to give Eddie Brock some motivation. She’s definitely a better actress than what she portrays in VENOM, as she seems to having trouble trying to keep up with the comedy and with Tom Hardy. Maybe it was the material she was given. Maybe she just did the film for a paycheck. Either way, she stood out a bit because I don’t think she took the role seriously enough for most of the movie. Some of the other actors had a similar issue to varying degrees, but Williams was the most high profile.
THE FINAL HOWL
Even with its issues, VENOM turned out better than it had any right to be. Yes, it’s not a good movie. Yes, the story is cliche, predictable, and really dumb. The obvious edits create some pacing issues and most of the actors seem to be forcing it and trying too hard. And it’s weird not having Spider-Man be part of the character’s origin, as he should be honestly. However, VENOM still manages to be an entertaining film that never bores you, regardless of its problems. And Tom Hardy is excellent as Eddie Brock, finally giving the character the portrayal we all wanted since 2007. It looks and feels like a B-movie and I had fun with it. And with the $200 million-plus worldwide gross the film has already received, we’re definitely getting more of this universe - with a long anticipated villain that will hopefully be done justice to. Not the superhero film of the year, but still worth a watch if you want something silly and dumb for two hours.
This section of the blog is due to me being lazy, I mean swamped with watching so many films that I want to discuss on this blog. But I don't really have the time, so I decided to quickly [well as much as I can really] to review films I don't really want to focus too much time on. You'll be seeing these more often than not. Time for the reviews!
Directed By:Edgar Wright
Starring:Ansel Elgort, Jon Bernthal, Jon Hamm, Eiza Gonzalez, Lily James, Kevin Spacey, CJ Jones
Genre:Action, Crime, Music
Running Time:112 Minutes
Plot From IMDB:After being coerced into working for a crime boss (Kevin Spacey), a young getaway driver (Ansel Elgort) finds himself taking part in a heist doomed to fail.
Review: Edgar Wright continues his hot streak of crafting entertaining and well-made movies with BABY DRIVER. A dream project for Wright since the mid-90s, Wright has managed to merge a crime-thriller with the element of music to create fleshed out characters, exhilarating car chase scenes, and a cute love story that will likely become a cult classic for years to come.
Wright, who also wrote the screenplay, uses real songs to create character depth. This is especially true with the lead character Baby - a young man who suffers from tinnitus due to a car accident from when he was a child. Constantly listening to multiple iPods that have songs that reflect his mood, his actions, or how he feels about the world around him, it gives Baby a ton of personality without the use of dialogue [which Baby doesn’t really have much of in the film]. It also builds upon the action sequences, as Baby is listening to music as he drives or gets away, as if he can’t live without a soundtrack motivating him. The visuals of these action scenes of car chases and shoot outs are already kinetic and thrilling. But the music adds another layer, as if you’re watching a Grand Theft Auto game come to life. The best part is that, unlike the FAST AND FURIOUS series [which you know I love], the action is all practical with no real special effects in sight. It’s easy to follow and sort of seem like a throwback to films like THE FRENCH CONNECTION. There’s nothing over-the-top about the soundtrack, or the direction of the action, which I greatly appreciated.
Speaking of the soundtrack, tracks by Queen, T. Rex, and The Commodores just highlight how magical classic music was before it became a soulless brand and product. Watching Baby dancing around to music that reflect his mood, or watching him walk away dejectedly to a ballad is so simple, yet expresses so much about his character and how he sees the world around him. The soundtrack, in a lot of ways, is the most important character of BABY DRIVER.
The actors are just fantastic. Ansel Elgort has been impressing for a few years now, but BABY DRIVER is his crowning achievement so far. Without saying a whole lot throughout the film, he comes across as an actor who would have been a huge star during the 50s era of Hollywood. Elgort has a ton of charisma and the camera loves him. He has a wonderful presence on film that proves he’ll be a leading man in no time. The supporting actors are just as great. Some are stronger than others, especially a captivating Kevin Spacey as Baby’s boss. He’s having fun in a role that lets him be a menacing force. Jamie Foxx also shines, as the bad seed of the crew who has to challenge everything with a swagger and sarcasm that has been missing in his recent performances. Jon Hamm and Eiza Gonzalez play a modern-day Bonnie & Clyde, portraying a nicer side before proving how dangerous this couple-in-love really is. And as Baby’s love interest, Lily James is cute and sweet as Debora. I wish she had a bit more to do and was fleshed out more beyond being the stock girlfriend, but James and Elgort have a lot of chemistry with each other. You definitely root for the two to make it out of all this happily ever after.
BABY DRIVER is a film I had wanted to see once I watched the first trailer for it, and it exceeded my expectations. It’s a stylish film that has purposeful substance in terms of its presentation and it’s story. It has an energy most modern films which they had - scenes with a purpose, actors who are confident in their roles and in their director, and a director who finally got to make his dream movie and not screwing it up. Not only are you invested in our main character, but you’re drawn into the lives of the characters that surround him. With action and drama that you will remember for a long time, BABY DRIVER is one of 2017’s must see films.
Directed By:Jon Watts
Starring:Tom Holland, Michael Keaton, Robert Downey Jr., Marisa Tomei, Jon Favreau, Zendaya, Donald Glover, Jacob Batalon, Bokeem Woodbine, Laura Harrier, Logan-Marshall Green, Jennifer Connelly (voice)
Plot From IMDB:Peter Parker (Tom Holland), with the help of his mentor Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.), tries to balance his life as an ordinary high school student in New York City while fighting crime as his superhero alter-ego Spider-Man when a new threat (Michael Keaton) emerges.
Review: I’m not going to lie to you - I wasn’t excited one bit for SPIDER-MAN: HOMECOMING. The second reboot for this film franchise, the idea of it wasn’t thrilling. The trailers didn’t do much for either, making the film look more like an IRON MAN spin-off rather than a new SPIDER-MAN film. I actually loved Tom Holland’s new take on the character in CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR, but did I really need a new trilogy with a different actor in the role?
Surprisingly, HOMECOMING ended up being a lot more fun and Spider-centric than I was expecting. With no origin story this time around [thank God], the screenplay was allowed to get straight into the action and the characters after-the-fact. In fact, I enjoyed the John Hughes take on the mythos, bringing Peter Parker back to a teenager who struggles with balancing between his love for being Spider-Man and his frustration for having to be a normal teenager. I got a kick of watching the events of CIVIL WAR through his eyes, as he gives funny commentary about stealing Captain America’s shield or taking down Ant-Man. I also embraced Spider-Man actually enjoying being a superhero, especially at a time where superheroes have become serious and sort of gritty and bleak at times. Counter this with Peter acting like a total dork in front of his classmates, especially Liz - the girl he’s into romantically. He also struggles keeping secrets from his worried Aunt May, while doing everything in his power to impress Tony Stark by trying to take down the bad guys on his own. HOMECOMING was written by six people believe it or not, yet it still clicks for the most part, flowing pretty seamlessly from beginning to end and getting me excited for the next installments.
I think the best part of HOMECOMING for me is how they treated the Vulture. I’m not going to lie - the Vulture is probably a C-level Spider-Man villain at best, even though he is one of the character’s earliest foes. But unlike a majority of the villains in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, the Vulture is treated as an actual character with genuine motivations that you can relate to on many levels. In fact, he’s probably the best villain in the MCU since Loki in my opinion. Instead of an old man battling cancer while trying to regain some sort of fountain of youth, Adrian Toomes is a city worker who’s feeling slighted by the city he works for after years of doing their dirty work to clean it up. He’s anti-establishment and anti-corporate, stealing alien technology to run his own lucrative business within the black market. He’s also Spider-Man’s true first test as the Vulture, whom the film gives a grittier and more updated look that is more than flattering on the big screen. He never overshadows the film as many other villains do, only popping up when necessary to move the film along. But the character has a bigger presence than I had expected. He’s probably the best big screen Spider-Man villain since Doctor Octopus in SPIDER-MAN 2.
If I do have issues, it’s with the love story between Peter and Liz. While it’s cute at times, I never felt genuine chemistry between Tom Holland and Laura Harrier at all in the film. I guess you can’t do steamier stuff with high-schoolers like you could with the original Peter/MJ dynamic, or the even more interesting Peter/Gwen coupling. But it felt a bit too Degrassi High/Afterschool Special vibe for me. Plus, the actors didn’t really share enough scenes for me to really care about this subplot. The only purpose of this angle was to lead into a twist that I surprisingly didn’t see coming. But other than that, I didn’t really care too much for it.
Speaking of twists, one of the final reveals in the film for a certain classic Spider-Man character left me a bit confused. I won’t spoil it, but I raised an eyebrow on it because the reveal seemed so different from what has been established in comics and in other films prior to HOMECOMING. I have no issue with the people involved in this reveal, as it’s definitely intriguing. I just didn’t buy it as a narrative piece, as it felt as something to shock fans rather than to confirm our suspicions. It just felt odd.
The direction by Jon Watts is fine. The use of a great soundtrack, plus vibrant colors and energetic transitions, created a nice visual presentation to reboot the franchise. It looked cute and felt younger than the previous films, which is the entire point of HOMECOMING. The special effects looked great for the most part and the action scenes are well done.
The acting is probably HOMECOMING’s greatest strength. Tom Holland, without a doubt, is the best Peter Parker and Spider-Man out of all the actors who have portrayed the character. He gets all of Peter’s quirks and nuances down to a tee, quipping cool one-liners with the best of them while still balancing how dorky Peter really is. Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield were both very good as Spider-Man, but Holland seems to understand the character and nails it to perfection. Even better is Michael Keaton as The Vulture. Not being able to escape playing characters with wings, Keaton manages to be both menacing and sympathetic as a man who wants to do right for himself and his family by doing bad things to get ahead. His chemistry with Holland is great and it was great to watch him in a superhero movie again after all these years. And I was extremely happy to see that Robert Downey Jr. wasn’t a huge presence in this film, as the trailers led us to believe. He’s probably in the film for 15 minutes at most, only appearing when it’s important and to mentor Peter. That’s all you needed it to advance Spider-Man’s Avengers storyline leading into INFINITY WAR. You never feel overwhelmed by Downey or Jon Favreau [as Happy Hogan] in HOMECOMING. It obviously belongs to Holland, and lets other supporting actors such as Marisa Tomei and Jacob Batalon [as Peter’s comic relief best friend Ned] shine along with him.
SPIDER-MAN: HOMECOMING really impressed me. I went in with low expectations, not caring much about another reboot. But it ended up being a fun time with good laughs, great performances, and cool action. Even if one of the final twists left me a bit irked, I’m still looking forward to seeing where they go next with the franchise once INFINITY WAR is over.
Directed By:Seth Gordon
Starring:Dwayne Johnson, Zac Efron, Alexandra Daddario, Kelly Rohrbach, Priyanka Chopra, Jon Bass, Ilfenesh Hadera, Yahya Abdul-Mateen II
Genre:Action, Comedy
Running Time:116 Minutes
Plot From IMDB:Devoted lifeguard Mitch Buchannon (Dwayne Johnson) butts heads with a brash new recruit (Zac Efron), as they uncover a criminal plot that threatens the future of the bay.
Review: For those who really know me, I’m a huge Baywatch fan. Yeah, it’s stupid. The acting is questionable. The slow motion scenes are exploitative. But I watched every episode of the main series, Baywatch Nights, and Baywatch Hawaii [as well as those TV movies] without any shame. I loved the dumb thing, even if it tried to destroy my brain cells while doing funny things to my groin area. So when a film adaptation was announced with Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson that would be similar to the style of 21 JUMP STREET, I was all for it. Too bad what I got was a film not even worth wasting CPR on.
I’m not going to make this review longer than it needs to be. All you need to know is that BAYWATCH is an awful television show adapted to film, but it’s just an awful film period. It’s amazing how SIX screenwriters managed to mess up an easy premise that could have worked if they understood what kind of film they were trying to make. Was it supposed to be a homage to Baywatch? Was it meant to be serious? Was this supposed to be a 21 JUMP STREET type comedy that turned a dramatic television show into a film comedy? In all cases, they failed big time.
The reason why 21 JUMP STREET worked is because the writers understood how to handle a tonal transition that actually paid homage to its source material, while keeping it within the same universe as the television show. The jokes were funny. The cast were game. The cameos made sense. Everything clicked.
BAYWATCH struggles with this. The writers have no clue how to make the jokes work. There’s a running gag on how the lifeguards take matters in their own hands, doing the work that the police should be doing. It’s a good joke because that’s exactly what the television was about most of the time, never really explaining why lifeguards had so much authority outside of their jurisdiction. I wish the gag was funnier in the film, but I appreciate that the writers were aware of this plot. And I enjoy the banter between Mitch and Brody, as both are Alpha males trying to one-up the other. But the actual jokes themselves fall flat and I barely laughed at any of this. Most of the time, BAYWATCH tries to hard making us laugh. It doesn’t help when it also wants to be a serious action film, clashing with the comedic tone in my opinion. I wish it were one or the other in this case.
The only reason BAYWATCH doesn’t totally fail is the acting. The screenwriters and director Seth Gordon [who may have dealt with studio interference in terms of his vision] aren’t 100 percent committed to the tone of the film. But Dwayne Johnson does the best with the material he’s given, making the most out of playing Mitch. He plays it mostly straight, which works because he doesn’t seem in on the joke. I wish the film was more comedic, because Johnson’s serious performance would have stood out more. Zac Efron is also pretty damn good as Brody, Mitch’s more comedic rival. He has great chemistry with Johnson and seems to be having fun. I hope they co-star in another film that knows how to use their talent. The other actors play their parts well, especially Jon Bass as Ronnie - the overweight lifeguard that gets embarrassed in almost every scene. But it works because Bass is game for anything and has scenes that actually made me chuckle. Plus, it was nice to see David Hasselhoff and Pamela Anderson in cameos.
But other than that, BAYWATCH disappointed the hell out of me. I was expecting more since I enjoy the television show on a superficial level. But the film fell flat for me. Dwayne Johnson, Zac Efron, and other others tried their best with this sub-par material, but they couldn’t save it all the way through. I’m sure it made enough money for a sequel, so hopefully the next one will actually balance the action and the humor better.
STARRING Andrew Garfield - Peter Parker/ Spider-Man
Emma Stone - Gwen Stacy
Jamie Foxx - Max Dillon/ Electro
Dane DeHaan - Harry Osborn/ Green Goblin
Colm Feore - Donald Menken
Paul Giamatti - Aleksei Sytsevich/ Rhino
Sally Field - Aunt May
Campbell Scott - Richard Parker
Chris Cooper - Norman Osborn
Genre - Action/Adventure/Fantasy/Comic Books
Running Time - 142 Minutes
PLOT Recently graduated from high school, Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) is still struggling with not keeping his promise to Captain George Stacy (Denis Leary) when it comes to staying away from Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone). As the two struggle with their relationship, a disrespected employee of Oscorp named Max Dillon (Jamie Foxx) has a work accident, getting electrocuted and becoming Electro - a being who needs to absorb electricity to unleash on those who are in his way. When Spider-Man tries to stop him from hurting anyone, Electro - who was Spidey's biggest fan - sees him as a fraud and looks to destroy him. As this goes on, Peter's best friend Harry Osborn (Dane DeHaan) returns, now suffering from a fatal illness that he believes can be cured by Spider-Man's blood. When things don't go his way, Harry decides to suit up as the Green Goblin to get revenge on the Web Crawler as well.
REVIEW
After being a huge fan of the first two Sam Raimi films, 2002's SPIDER-MAN and 2004's SPIDER-MAN 2, I was deeply let down at the mess known as 2007's SPIDER-MAN 3. Too many characters, not enough focus, and the treatment of evil Spider-Man was pretty criminal. Then in 2012, Sony decided to reboot the franchise with Marc Webb, Andrew Garfield, and Emma Stone in THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN. I still feel the reboot happened way too soon, but it was a decent effort and was better than SPIDER-MAN 3.
Now two years later, we have THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2 - a sequel I was pretty worried about due to all the villains involved, something that most comic book films have trouble maintaining in a single film. And while it wasn't as bad as SPIDER-MAN 3, I still felt that too many characters pretty much brought this film down a couple of notches. However, this film is getting a ton of hate on the internet, which I don't fully agree with. Yes, it has massive issues. But it's not the BATMAN & ROBIN of the SPIDER-MAN franchise. But it is the BATMAN FOREVER though.
Let's get all the good stuff out of the way - the acting is pretty great in this sequel. Sorry Tobey Maguire fans, but Andrew Garfield is a better Peter Parker/Spider-Man than he ever was. Garfield was a bit awkward in the first film, but he's fully comfortable here - as he cracks jokes and just moves more like the comic book version of Spider-Man. By the way, the Spider-Man suit looks great here - probably the best it has ever looked on screen. Anyway, Garfield carries the film as well as he can, and his chemistry with Emma Stone is smoldering. Speaking of Stone, she does well as Gwen Stacy, not feeling so much like a damsel-in-distress girlfriend, but a smart and sexy sidekick for Spider-Man who helps him when he needs it the most. It makes you forgot how bad Kirsten Dunst was in those previous films. It's really the chemistry between Garfield and Stone that keeps the movie afloat.
If there's any other great performance, it's Dale DeHaan as Harry Osborn. I'll get to how his character is treated later, but DeHaan is fantastic as the desperate best friend of Peter Parker. It's really unfair to compare him to James Franco since Franco had three films to build up his character. But DeHaan is a definitely highlight, being both sympathetic and sinister as the film progresses. As for Jamie Foxx, he's good as Electro, but the script doesn't really do him justice. Still, I didn't hate his performance and he made the most of it. All the other actors, like Sally Field and Paul Giamatti, were fine in their limited roles.
I also enjoyed the action and the special effects. I felt the sequel had more exciting action sequences, with Spider-Man really feeling like his comic book counterpart as he swings through the city and battles bad guys. The Times Square sequence was pretty cool, and I enjoyed the final battles with both Green Goblin and Electro. I thought Goblin looked interesting, but at least it was better than that stupid helmet from the first Raimi installment. And Electro looked like a hipster Mr. Manhattan from WATCHMEN, but it didn't bug me. I thought the electricity marks on his skin was a nice touch. And the Rhino suit from the Ultimate Spider-Man version looked cool in the short time we see it. I had no issues with the visual presentation. I thought Marc Webb handled the action much better here than he did in the first film.
My major gripe with the sequel was that the screenplay wasn't solid enough to be good. Sure, some of the dialogue was funny and the story had some good moments - like the dubstep paranoia going through Electro's brain, Spidey's wisecracks [which felt really true to the comics], and the love story aspects between Peter and Gwen. But there was just too much going on here, and none of it really resonated once it was over. It's hard to watch a film that has to balance three villains, a love story, the mystery with Peter's parents, Harry Osborn's disease, and other stuff. There's no real focus in THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2, except for planning for a Sinister Six film - when in actuality, this sequel should have been its self-contained story while building stuff for the future in a more subtle, logical way.
Any superhero film with multiple villains is a tough sell. Some films can do it right, while others just get overwhelmed by the amount of characters. THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2 is no SPIDER-MAN 3. The villains are better used here than they were in that film. Yet, this is a sequel where one main villain should have been the focus, while setting up potential villains for the future. Rhino, who is used for maybe ten minutes, is a good use for the character. You have him appear, give him a reason to become a supervillain against Spider-Man, and save the main confrontation for a later film. I had no issue with how Rhino was used. But Electro and Green Goblin got the shaft in my opinion.
Electro reminded me of The Riddler from BATMAN FOREVER - a nerdy scientist type who admired the hero of the film, until they gained enough power to make them feel they were better than the hero. The only problem is that The Riddler was a more developed character than Electro because he was given more screentime. I thought the scenes with Electro were good, but I wish there were more of them. I wish he had been the sole villain and given a stronger arc. Same with Green Goblin, who is given the Venom treatment of SPIDER-MAN 3. I get that you want to set up arcs for future sequels and spin-offs. But the Goblin himself gets shoehorned into the last 10-15 minutes of the film and doesn't do a whole lot. The Harry Osborn disease thing is interesting and deserved a slow build, rather than a rush job just for fan service. The reason why the Peter-Harry dynamic worked in the comics and in the Raimi series is because it was slowly built up for a potential confrontation. You understood both sides and why they would end up becoming rivals. You never get that in this film. It's as if we're supposed to know already that they're buddies and that eventually it would all go downhill from there. I think Harry should have been a minor character in the first film, a bigger character in this film to set up his future as the Goblin, and then in the third film, make him the main villain. I don't get why it's so hard to do that.
It doesn't help the situation when the hero himself is going through multiple threads. His love life is a roller coaster, which takes up a lot of the film's time. Then we have the whole "What really happened to Peter's parents?" subplot that finally gets a resolution. Then his arc with Harry just feels forced and rushed. There's too much going on, all trying to share equal screen time, which meant less focus and less characterization for the villains. It felt like watching 2 films at once, which is a shame since both films had the potential to be great if they weren't crammed into a 150 minute movie.
THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2 really felt like an advertisement for what's to come, rather than what's currently happening. It's great Sony has a plan for this franchise. But it shouldn't feel forced. It just felt like things had to happen in order for these spinoffs to take place, rather than these elements coming across naturally. There's a good story here, if only they had focused on Electro and kept the other subplots to a minimum that would tease you enough to want to watch the next installment.
THE FINAL HOWL
People either love or hate THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2. The sequel to the reboot has issues when it comes to cramming too much story and too many villains to set up future installments. But I enjoyed some of the humor, the special effects, the action sequences, and even the acting for the most part. So I guess I'm sort of torn about how I feel about this sequel. I liked it, but I didn't love it. But I don't think it's as terrible as many have reviewed it to be. I've seen a lot worse comic book movies than this one. But Hollywood needs to learn that less is more. Yes we want all these beloved villains to appear in these films as some sort of fan service. But we also want good films as well. So if we can't have a certain villain, knowing it'll bring down the quality of the film, then it's a sacrifice we'll just have to live with. I wish THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2 followed that philosophy. Still as a Spider-Man fan, I'll probably see what comes after. I guess that's the sacrifice I'll just have to live with.
STARRING Andrew Garfield - Peter Parker/Spider-Man
Emma Stone - Gwen Stacy
Rhys Ifans - Dr. Curt Connors/The Lizard
Denis Leary - Captain George Stacy
Martin Sheen - Ben Parker
Sally Field - May Parker
Irrfan Khan - Rajit Ratha
Chris Zylka - Eugene 'Flash' Thompson
Campbell Scott - Richard Parker
Embeth Davidtz - Mary Parker
C. Thomas Howell - Jack's Father
PLOT
At a young age, Peter Parker's parents leave him in the care of his Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and Aunt May (Sally Field) after someone breaks into Peter's dad's office. Years later, Peter (Andrew Garfield) is in high school and his parents are believed to be dead. This creates angst and bitterness to boil within Peter, as he doesn't understand why his parents would abandon him. He also has to deal with being called a nerd [due to his high level of intelligence, especially in math and science] and is constantly bullied in school by Flash Thompson (Chris Zylka), one of the school's popular jocks. However, Peter has an admirer in fellow classmate Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), who Peter has feelings for as well.
One day after school, Peter finds a satchel that belonged to his father with secret documents hidden inside a compartment. The documents reveal a special equation for an unfinished formula that Peter's father was working on with Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), an one-armed scientist at Oscorp who is an expert on cross-species genetics. Connors also happens to be Gwen's boss as well. Wanting to know more about the documents, Peter sneaks into Connor's lab during an internship orientation. He finds a chamber of genetically-engineered spiders, with one biting him on the back of his neck.
Peter soon discovers that the spider has given him superhuman abilities, like heightened senses, better agility, and super strength. Struggling with his powers and feeling his personal life is crashing around him, he gets into it with Uncle Ben and runs away. As Uncle Ben searches for him, a robber that Peter encountered at a corner store fatally shoots him. Feeling guilty, Peter creates a disguise and begins hunting down the robber. Never finding him, Peter decides to teach all criminals a lesson, gaining notoriety in the press which catches the attention of Captain George Stacy (Denis Leary). Feeling he can do what the police could not, Peter creates a costume resembling a spider, along with wristbands that will shoot synthetic webs - becoming Spider-Man.
Meanwhile, Peter gains the respect of Dr. Connors by finishing the formula Connors had started with Peter's father - a formula that would regenerate cells like those of a lizard. Feeling pressure from Oscorp, Connors decides to inject the formula into his amputated arm. While the arm regenerates to his delight, Connors also becomes a lizard-like monster. Realizing that Peter is Spider-Man, The Lizard attempts to stop him before he could turn the entire city of New York into a lizard lounge.
REVIEW
HITS
- The retelling of the origin. It took me a while to review THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN for a number of reasons. One, plans to watch it sometime during the week fell through. Two, so many other people were talking and reviewing it - so I wanted to stay quiet until talk died down a bit. And three, I just wasn't all that excited about it. After all, this franchise started quite strongly in 2002 due to Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire giving life to the character, followed by two sequels that ended up at the opposite ends of the quality spectrum [2 was fantastic, 3 was meh]. SPIDER-MAN 3 was released in 2007, so I felt it was too soon for a reboot five years later. But after watching the Raimi films, I realized that the story told in those films was pretty much done, so Sony Pictures and Marvel had no choice but to restart the franchise. Plus, the trailers looked pretty good and I decided to give the film a shot. After all, Warner Brothers and DC Comics rebooted Batman brilliantly with BATMAN BEGINS [eight years after 1997's BATMAN & ROBIN]. So why couldn't Marvel do that with Spider-Man?
And while the origin story being redone didn't really engage me into watching this new version of Spider-Man on the big screen, at least THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN presents it well. Sure, it's a bit of 'been there-done that' [BATMAN BEGINS was praised because Batman never really had a full origin story done on film], but it accomplishes what it needs to do and sets up what's coming in the next two sequels well. Everything that needs to be in a Spider-Man origin story is in place - Uncle Ben getting killed due to Peter's carelessness, Peter getting bit by a genetically engineered spider, Peter trying out his powers for the first time, the making of the costume, dealing with Flash Thompson and high school, and falling for Gwen Stacy [and vice versa]. But in THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN, the origin is done in a more realistic, and darker way. And I liked that, to be honest, as it's a different interpretation and gives the characters and the story an edge that separates it from the original trilogy.
I felt the origin here was definitely more faithful to the comics than the Raimi origin was. We finally get web-shooters. Gwen Stacy is the first love interest, not Mary Jane Watson. And The Lizard was one of Spider-Man's earlier villains, even before Green Goblin. THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN explores the origin in more detail, which probably wasn't needed but I didn't mind it too much. I especially liked the Uncle Ben/Peter dynamic [an improvement over the original films, which made Ben's death more powerful here]. Peter's need for vengeance against Uncle Ben's killer felt more real to me because the two characters spend a lot of time together before the incident happens. I also liked the mystery as to what happened to Peter's parents, which has been touched upon in the comics [especially during the 1990s]. This sets up the entire trilogy, which is great because at least there's a foundation for what's to come. The love story had proper build [even if there wasn't enough drama to it] and Peter's guilt about Connors turning into The Lizard made sense, due to Peter constantly feeling guilt about his parents leaving him and his Uncle Ben getting killed.
Honestly, I liked the origin retelling more than I thought I would. Was it necessary? No. I'm sure you could have started this film with Spider-Man already in costume in the first shot and people wouldn't have cared, since the origin has long been established. But the screenwriters turn it into an interesting character study of Peter Parker in a way, letting the audience sympathetic with him during his trials and missteps as a costumed crime-fighter. Peter matures from a conflicted young man into a strong and confident hero, which is the right way to go. I felt everything before Peter actually becomes Spider-Man was very strong and more interesting than what came after it, even though the last half of the film wasn't terrible.
- The acting. The best part about THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN, without a doubt, is the acting by a very good cast. Andrew Garfield, who's probably best known to many for his portrayal of Eduardo Saverin in 2010's THE SOCIAL NETWORK, does a fantastic job as Peter Parker and Spider-Man. Without Garfield, this film would collapse on its own ambition. While Tobey Maguire played the character very nerdy and sensitive, Garfield gives the character an edge. Garfield handles the dramatic moments more believably than Maguire ever did, making me feel for his pain and frustration more than the Raimi films ever could. His one-liners are delivered well [I wish they were funnier though]. He also has great chemistry with everyone in the cast, as he's charismatic and a presence on screen. He may be a bit too handsome to play the role, but Garfield takes it and never looks back. I really liked him more than I thought I would in the role. I look forward to seeing him grow more confident as Parker/Spider-Man in the sequel.
Emma Stone is also fantastic as Gwen Stacy. She plays the girl-next-door quite nicely, while maintaining a strong sense of independence that makes her character likeable. Stone never plays Gwen for weak, displaying a lot of depth for the stereotypical superhero's girlfriend role by giving Gwen spunk and intelligence. Stone also has explosive chemistry with Garfield, which doesn't surprise me since they're dating in real life, helping their love story angle a whole lot. Stone is a great actress and really erases any memory of how Gwen Stacy was portrayed in SPIDER-MAN 3 by doing the character justice. It's nice to see a female love interest portrayed as a human being rather than an object.
Rhys Ifans does well as Curt Connors. He brought a bit of class to the film and did what he could to flesh out an underwritten character. The split personality deal was a bit too 'Green Goblin' for my tastes at times, which reminded me how much better that villain was, but Ifans did his best with what he was given. Martin Sheen plays a better Uncle Ben than Cliff Robertson, only for the simple fact that he gets more screen time. Sally Field is a feistier Aunt May, but is underutilized unfortunately. Rosemary Harris is still Aunt May to me, though. Denis Leary is great as Captain George Stacy, bringing some dry humor and snarkiness that was much needed in the film. The other actors fit their roles well. I liked the cast a lot here, as you can tell they genuinely cared about the story they were trying to tell.
- The direction. Marc Webb's first foray into a big budget motion picture, after directing a few musical videos and the great 2009's (500) DAYS OF SUMMER, is pretty much a success visually. I didn't see this in 3D, as I heard it wasn't all that great [surprisingly since this film was actually filmed with 3D cameras], but I liked the tone and look of the film. While Raimi had a much brighter and more energetic film, Webb is much bleaker and subtle. Webb's best moments come from the quieter, human moments where the characters are able to explore their relationships with each other, themselves, and the world around them. The first hour definitely defines that, as I felt it was the stronger half of the film.
That's not to say that Webb has no grasp on the action sequences. As a matter of fact, I'm surprised as to how well he managed them. When Spider-Man swings and moves, it's exactly how I feel Spider-Man should swing and move. I thought Webb did the costumed character more justice than what Raimi had managed to do in three films. I also loved the first-person POV shots as Spider-Man swung through the city, plus some vertigo shots that are great during the final act. The highlight of the action happens when The Lizard invades Peter's school to attack him when he's least expecting it. It felt like it came out right from the comics, truly feeling like a real Spider-Man moment. I also loved the scene where Gwen is hiding from The Lizard in Oscorp, actually managing tension.
The picture looks nice and the pacing is pretty good as well. The editing had its off moments, especially when the CGI effects would lead into real-life action, but it was fine. Webb did a good job on his first blockbuster film and I hope he continues with the second film. I'm sure it'll be better now that he's more comfortable directing a film of this stature.
- The chemistry between Garfield and Stone. Let me just get it out of the way: the way Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy get together for their love story is pretty weak. They're already attracted to each other, with barely any drama. Not even being together for much time, Peter easily tells Gwen that he's Spider-Man. Gwen, surprisingly, takes it really well and actually doesn't find it strange. At least it took two films in the original Raimi films for Mary Jane to sort of realize that Peter was Spider-Man, although she pretty much figures it out by the end of the first one without saying so. The whole thing just felt way too easy and way too convenient, now that I think about it.
However, Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone have such powerful chemistry with each other that you don't really care about the flaws in the love story. You want these two to be together because they heat up the screen with their cute interactions and magnetic appeal for each other. You can just tell the two actors really like each other just through their body language and the way they interact. I never really felt that with Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst [especially in SPIDER-MAN 2 and definitely in SPIDER-MAN 3]. Garfield and Stone's attraction for each other gives their love story depth and bite. Plus they both played characters I could imagine meeting in real life, as they were three-dimensional. You believe these two kids want to be together, so you don't really care how they get there. That's some great acting because if the two actors had forced this angle, THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN would have been a total failure.
- CGI for Spider-Man. I thought the CGI was a mixed bag. But when Spider-Man was involved, I liked it. With Garfield actually doing mannerisms that resembled how a spider would move, the CGI helped it along during the action sequences. I thought the CGI for the character resembled the effects from SPIDER-MAN 3, looking pretty realistic and not so much as a cartoon like 2002's SPIDER-MAN. Practical effects are a hard sell for a film like this, so I'm glad the computer generated effects did the character justice.
- Stan Lee cameo. Probably his best one and pretty damn funny to boot. 'Nuff said.
MISSES
- The Lizard in general. I really hate putting The Lizard on the negative side of the review, because he's one of my favorite Spider-Man villains. The Lizard is one of Spider-Man's most classic foes and has a pretty simple backstory. THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN gives him a good backstory and how Curt Connors evolves into The Lizard is more than fine. Connors never comes across as evil until his metamorphosis takes shape. He also has lizards helping him, which is also a great nod to the comics and the 90s FOX cartoon [The Lizard was actually the villain in the pilot episode]. I thought The Lizard would be the perfect first villain for a new SPIDER-MAN franchise.
Unfortunately, I ended up being disappointed with how he was portrayed. Not that The Lizard was a terrible villain. He was alright. But he's just not that interesting and doesn't really add a whole lot to the main story other than being a typical villain for a superhero movie. The Lizard has a split personality with Curt Connors, which reminded me of Norman Osborn/Green Goblin [couldn't help but compare the two], but you never really saw it enough to become invested. Also, I like the idea of The Lizard wanting to create an army of mutated lizard-men like himself. But the angle never goes anywhere and I forgot about it until I saw the resolution for it. Plus, he doesn't get a whole lot of screen time to be honest. I felt more tension between Spidey and Captain Stacy more than I did between Spidey and The Lizard.
Plus, the CGI was okay at best for the character. I understand that practical effects would have looked worse, most likely, but The Lizard looked like he could have been in a SyFy Channel movie and not look out of place. It wasn't all that special really.
Like I said, I liked the choice of the villain. But I think more focus on The Lizard would have benefited the film greatly.
- The score. James Horner is a great film composer. He's done so much great stuff on TITANIC, ALIENS, FIELD OF DREAMS, and a couple of the earlier STAR TREK films. The man has a great body of work. Unfortunately, he's no Danny Elfman.
I think a lot of the reason why I felt a disconnect with THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN is due to Horner's score on the film. For a film that demanded dramatic cues and an edgier soundtrack, Horner's score was too subtle and quiet. And in a lot of scenes, I felt like the music didn't really match up to what I was watching, making me feel as if something was off. When I watch an action scene, I expect music that will be dramatic and energetic to enhance the visuals. Instead, all I got was muted music that belonged to some scene where a character would feel some sort of emotional connection to something or someone. How do those two things match? It was so odd. It was too soothing to get anyone into the scene. This isn't a romance movie like TITANIC. This if freakin' THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN. This film needed some strong composition to match up with the strong visuals.
It also didn't help that I heard cues from STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN without a single note being changed. That's just lazy, dude. It also made me wish I was watching that movie instead of this one on the big screen. James Horner has natural talent for this and should have done a better job than he did. I think his soundtrack ruined any feelings of excitement that I had for THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN. I just couldn't get into it and I believe this is why.
- Certain subplots. I thought the screenplay handled well what it needed to accomplish. However, I felt certain subplots were either rushed, or just ignored without any sort of resolution. While the mystery of Peter Parker's parents is the foundation of this new trilogy, it seems, I felt the film could have used more moments between the three of them. We don't really know the extent of their relationship or how close they were. They are glimpses shown, but I felt more could have been done. I hear a lot of those scenes were actually cut from the film, making me wonder how much of a focus Peter's parents had in earlier plans of the movie. I guess we'll find out more in later sequels.
The issue with the robber who murdered Uncle Ben also was a bit off to me. Peter was so hell bent on capturing this guy and beating the crap out of him, that he interrupted any crime that was occurring, just to see if this specific robber was involved. And while this subplot lasted a little over ten minutes, there really was no resolution for it. The guy never gets caught and Peter never gets justice for what this man did to his beloved uncle. I guess one could say that Peter realized that this sort of vengeance was wrong and needed to use his powers in a much better way, which is why he adopts the Spider-Man identity full time. But part of the Spider-Man mythos is Peter finding his uncle's murderer and realizing what his careless and selfish actions had led to. "With great power comes great responsibility." By the way, that very quote is never used in the film [it's said in a much different way with less impact] and the robber gets away with his crime. Huh?
I also had issues with how Aunt May was used. Instead of being Peter's moral compass, she didn't do much of anything once Uncle Ben was murdered. She scolded Peter and watched the news, worried about things. That's it. Even when Peter would come home every time with bruises and cuts, she looked concerned but didn't really dwell on it. Maybe in this trilogy, she realizes that Peter may be Spider-Man. I don't know. But it just seemed weird. At least have Aunt May offer to take Peter to the hospital or something.
Also, what happened to Rajit Ratha, one of Norman Osborn's suits? He had the regenerative serum [which was meant to cure Norman Osborn of some illness supposedly], planning to go to a Veteran's Hospital to test it out on amputees. But The Lizard stops him before he could do that. However, Ratha is never seen again. Obviously, he didn't go to the hospital since no one else turned into giant lizards. Maybe he gave the dose to Norman Osborn? It wasn't really clear.
Also, The Lizard's plan to turn people into lizards like him went absolutely nowhere. He turns several cops into lizards, and I'm thinking they'll be his army or something. But it never happens and only appear again when the effects where off. So what's the point then? It's cool that The Lizard's plan would have worked if Spider-Man and the Stacys didn't stop him. But why tease us like that and not go anywhere with it? It felt like an afterthought.
Obviously, there were a lot of ideas in the script that never got fleshed out for whatever reason.
THE FINAL HOWL
Man, I really wanted to like THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN more than I did. Spider-Man has been my favorite superhero since I can remember and I will watch, read, and support anything related to the character. And while THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN was a big improvement over SPIDER-MAN 3, it lacked the fun factor of SPIDER-MAN and the overall epicness of SPIDER-MAN 2. The score, the unfinished story arcs, and a generic villain let this film down. But with great acting [and chemistry between Garfield and Stone], a capable director in Marc Webb, and an origin story that keeps it closer to the source material while giving it a modern touch, THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN is still a good start and a decent enough foundation for a much better second installment and hopefully a worthy conclusion.
For those who are still against the existence of this film, I do believe a reboot was needed. Did it have to be this soon? That's debatable. The film wasn't as unnecessary than I thought it would be, but it didn't blow me away either. Stuck in between THE AVENGERS and THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN got the short straw. Still, I have a feeling it'll lead to some good things in the franchise's future. We'll find out in 2014.
