Ensign Lestat's Film Log, 11/07/2012
Spider-Man was always a figure that lurked in the shadows of my knowledge. I never came across any animated series or read any comics (maybe a handful of single line comic strips in the papers from time to time), but nothing concrete.
When in 2002, Spidey reached the big screen viaSam Raimi's 'Spider-Man', I had my fingers crossed that it would crash and burn, so that my personal choice, 'Star Wars: Attack of the Clones', would do well. It didn't. AOTC crashed and burned instead, and with it every valiant acting effort of its new lead, Hayden Christensen. Pathetic.
I didn't watch the first Spidey film till much later, probably after coming across the second one. For some reason however, by the time Spidey 3 came out, I was most interested in James Franco, and a bunch of my friends and I went to the hall to watch the film. I liked the film a great deal, but have serious doubts about my intelligence/ state of mind/ overall sanity at the time. Keep in mind, I also convinced myself that I loved 'Pirates of the Caribbean 3: At World's End' that same year. (It was a notorious year that, threequels came out in droves, and they all successfully killed off/ maimed/ eternally damned my favourite characters.
[SPOILER ALERT] Spidey 3 killed off Harry Osborn (James Franco), 'X-Men: The Last Stand' finished off poor Cyclops (James Marsden), 'Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith' horrifically maimed Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) which was traumatic even though we all knew it was coming and lastly, 'POTC 3: AWE' damned poor Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) to an eternity as Captain of the Flying Dutchman. Right, and it's obvious now why these characters are my favourite. [END SPOILER]
I am neutral to the previous Spidey series now, I think - or, to be more precise, I just don't care for it any more. Come 2012 and we have a new Spidey series - 'The Amazing Spider-Man'. Directed by Marc Webb, and starring Andrew Garfield as the titular lead, Peter Parker, aka, Spidey. His love interest in this film is Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) as opposed to Mary-Jane Watson in the previous trilogy. Difference stated, now let's just do the same ol' thing again, shall we?
Or at least that's what it felt like to me. Seriously. We start off with a young Peter Parker being supposedly abandoned by his parents. The youngster turns into Garfield soon enough, but then it seems to tread a familiar path. Except, this time Parker wears contact lenses (thought the whole appeal of Parker was the dorky glasses). We come across love interest and love interest's boorish bully of a boyfriend, Flash Thompson (Chris Zylka, who I will get to in a moment) and then Parker's eventual transformation into Spidey. One positive during this is that Gwen Stacy has brains unlike MJ, who if I recall correctly, was a boring actress in the comics and the same in the films. I've never met Stacy in the few Spidey comics I've read, so I don't know of her original talents. We are also introduced to eventual bad guy, Dr. Curt Conners (Rhys Ifans).
I won't go into the story, because it's all been done before. This reboot comes around five years after Spidey 3 was released. New York still looks the same, and Spidey still looks like Spidey, because, no matter what one does with the shades of red and blue on his suit, it still looks the same. The new big bad feels oddly like the Green Goblin of Spidey 1 and Doc Ock of Spidey 2 put together.
But before I continue my tirade, let me dwell on a couple of positives. What attracted me to this film, especially nearer its release, was the slick look of the finished product. It looked clean and precise. I don't know if this was filmed using very different technology (barring 3D conversion I mean), but the feel was crisp.
I also quite liked the point of view shots of Spidey swinging and shooting the webs from his web-shooters. The first teaser trailer featured the POV exclusively, and it had a very video game-like feel to it. It fit in nicely in the final film, and was one of the more assertive departures from the previous trilogy. Good work on that.
The other thing was Chris Zylka. No, he didn't put in an Oscar-worthy performance, but his character was very interesting. Flash pops up at different junctures of the film (I don't believe he's there for more than a handful of scenes). [SPOILER ALERT] His character goes from big bad bully to likable. I don't know what Flash is like in the comics (I don't read Spider-Man unless an X-Man is in there) so I cannot comment, but in the previous trilogy Flash came and went. Here, he not only stops being a douchebag, but after Parker's family tragedy, appears to be the only one who has the courage to go up to him and give him his condolences. Flash also doesn't beat up Parker for effectively stealing his girl; doesn't pretend to possess Stacy in any form; plays basketball (not American football like every other film/ TV show I have ever come across); appears to become a very close buddy to Parker at the end, and is generally a nice guy. How odd![END SPOILER]
I've noticed with Zylka (in his short career so far anyway) that his characters are usually not what you expect. I first saw him in 'Shark Night 3D', pretty much the worst film ever, if not for a particularly ahem scene featuring the man himself. But even there, a character that seems like some self-obsessed douche turns out to be a fiercely loyal friend. His performance is valiant, if not good, as he tries hard not to reveal to his badly injured friend that his girlfriend has been killed. That was a rare positive in that film.
I've also watched Zylka in the television spin-off of '10 Things I Hate About You'. I watched the show only recently, and exclusively for him. He plays a jock, but not the typical kind (at least not in the stuff I've come across) - he's incredibly dumb, yes, but he also wants to be a male model (typically a role reserved to female characters), and is fiercely loyal (whoa, that again!) to his girlfriend(s). Again, he's a surprisingly nice guy, who also has talent.
Last of all, he appeared in the recently cancelled 'The Secret Circle'. His character in that series was a more extreme version of Flash, but essentially both characters go through a similar arc. However, the trouble with his Jake in 'Circle' was that some of his actions, to me at least, seemed irredeemable. But we needn't worry about that now, because, as I said, the show has been cancelled.
Noticeably Zylka appears bald in this Spider-Man film, and I don't know whose idea that was, because Zylks, I assure you, is infinitely better looking than Garfield, and I'm pretty sure he would've stolen Garfield's thunder, in the looks department at least, if he was allowed to wear his full head of pretty blond hair. But, that's just me!
Now back to our usual programming. The 3D sucked. In fact, for the most part there was no 3D at all. I don't get how they got away with such shoddy 3D conversion, because I felt robbed at the end of it. And I had to face my sister who I had convinced to buy the 3D tickets in the first place. Worst. Feeling. Ever.
Next, I don't like Emma Stone. I don't know how or why she receives plaudits for her work, because she's just not that exciting an actor to me. She doesn't bring anything new or different to her acting. And she looks like a fish. (So kill me).
Andrew Garfield. Hmmm... I get teased a lot because it got out that I sat through a two-part episode of 'Dr. Who' just for Garfield. Hey, he caught my eye! But fact is, attractive he may be, but talented? I haven't seen much of him, so I won't give an overall view of his abilities, but in this film, he, at times... uh, okay, most of the time, adopted mannerisms that just cannot be considered... normal. There was this particular head movement he kept executing that was beyond redemption. What was that? Why was that in the film? And what is up with that faux-lisp? Didn't I recently read that that is a huge turn-off, because it isn't appealing, or in the least bit indicative of ability? It's not annoying as such, just a bit jarring at times. He's fine, and then he just lapses into these... moments. They are just so peculiar. I'm not sure why the director let him do it.
But, my biggest grouse is that the writers and director appeared to be more interested in the romantic angle than in the story of Spidey. Webb rushes through those. There's a somewhat comical scene when he discovers his powers, but after that we literally rush through the rest. Parker grieving is hardly shown. Him feeling guilt isn't explored at all. Making the suit is also rushed through. The pivotal moment when he realises the unsaid tagline of Spidey - with great power comes great responsibility - is something of a throwaway, and badly acted to boot. The scene proves one thing though, Spidey'll be a great nanny! I'm mean, so shoot me.
I failed to see why the audience had to endure prolonged scenes between Parker and Stacy. Stacy is only ever shown in conjunction with Parker (except near the end, and only briefly), and isn't really that effectual. I somehow expected her to be like... ya know, the tech guy who helps out Street Hawk (don't ask me why I came up with that reference, but there you have it). Essentially she aids him in no way in his Spider-Man guise.
Comparisons between this film and its predecessor are inevitable. I, like many others, failed to see the point of rebooting Spidey after the cast and crew of the previous films left. The character needed some air, and if you don't want to give it any, go the whole hog and do something spectacularly different. The reboot of the X-Men franchise took on a completely new angle, and while I didn't like it one bit, it was still a novel approach, which didn't have that samey feel of its predecessors (except the re-enactment of the first scene).
There's been a lot of positive reviews coming through about the film, and I can understand why. This Peter Parker and Spider-Man are probably a lot truer to the original comics. While Tobey Maguire's Parker was very unsure and, if I recall correctly, felt his new abilities were equal parts a curse and a gift, Garfield's Parker is more confident in his skills as an academic, and as a photographer (which is briefly indicated). His transformation is down to his own unassailable surety and recklessness. His Spidey is also cocky and chatty. much like the Spidey from the Ultimate Spider-Man I read. I like these new attributes, they are a departure from the previous adaptation. But this Spidey almost appears remorseless about his role in his family tragedy (whereas Tobey's Parker was eaten up by it). At the same time, you can see how his new 'role' lets him live his life with gay abandon. Trouble is Spidey's character arc is told through fleeting scenes. As I said, too much mushy stuff, not enough character development.
I reiterate, if you want to reboot something that is nary five-years-old, do something extraordinary. But you can't, because essentially Spidey (from what I know anyway) doesn't have a radically different storyline, like, say, Frank Miller's Batman series, to give the reboot a fresh feel. Why is the new Batman series so popular - because it was a clear departure from what people had become used to. 'Amazing Spider-Man' needed that, desperately. They should have especially done away with the origin story, because seriously, 'tis done to death.
Even the introduction of Stacy and The Lizard did not make it feel new. Stacy should have been radically different. [SPOILER ALERT] While I appreciate Ifans' performance as the melancholic Dr. Connors, his transformation seemed a speeded up version of the transformations of all the other characters in the previous trilogy. Come to think of it, all the baddies in the four Spidey films appear to be the same, good guys turned bad by outside forces. Now, talk about shocking! This film really should have picked up a different kind of baddie. [END SPOILER]
So, did I enjoy this film? I suppose I did. Parts of it were definitely amusing. I love that Chris Zylka (looking smashing despite being bald) has a role in this film and I loved his character. It is rare to come across such a character in films, because they've usually very one-dimensional. I don't know if its an accurate representation of the comic book version, but it is a good inclusion.
I like Garfield, he's fairly good-looking, lithe, and due to his previous gymnastic abilities, carries this role well. But why he adopts those off-putting mannerisms is beyond me. They are cringe-worthy (you'll know what I mean when you see them). He has zero chemistry with his current girlfriend, Stone, who really has no work to do. But, thank our lucky stars, she doesn't spend any part of the film falling and screaming like a banshee. Rhys Ifans and Irrfan Khan were great to watch, but neither of their characters was explored fully, which is a huge disappointment.
If the producers hadn't been so quick to cash in on a good thing, and had taken the time to search out more interesting plots and storylines from Spidey's history, we could have had ourselves a great superhero film. This one falls short of its aspirations, unless of course its aspirations were about burgeoning teenage love, which has a very superficial wedge put through it. Actually, they fall short of that one too.
Spider-Man was always a figure that lurked in the shadows of my knowledge. I never came across any animated series or read any comics (maybe a handful of single line comic strips in the papers from time to time), but nothing concrete.
 |
| The Beauty and The Beast (in that order) |
 |
| Spider-Man vs. Attack of the Clones - we know who won, but I still love the latter. |
[SPOILER ALERT] Spidey 3 killed off Harry Osborn (James Franco), 'X-Men: The Last Stand' finished off poor Cyclops (James Marsden), 'Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith' horrifically maimed Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) which was traumatic even though we all knew it was coming and lastly, 'POTC 3: AWE' damned poor Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) to an eternity as Captain of the Flying Dutchman. Right, and it's obvious now why these characters are my favourite. [END SPOILER]
I am neutral to the previous Spidey series now, I think - or, to be more precise, I just don't care for it any more. Come 2012 and we have a new Spidey series - 'The Amazing Spider-Man'. Directed by Marc Webb, and starring Andrew Garfield as the titular lead, Peter Parker, aka, Spidey. His love interest in this film is Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) as opposed to Mary-Jane Watson in the previous trilogy. Difference stated, now let's just do the same ol' thing again, shall we?
Or at least that's what it felt like to me. Seriously. We start off with a young Peter Parker being supposedly abandoned by his parents. The youngster turns into Garfield soon enough, but then it seems to tread a familiar path. Except, this time Parker wears contact lenses (thought the whole appeal of Parker was the dorky glasses). We come across love interest and love interest's boorish bully of a boyfriend, Flash Thompson (Chris Zylka, who I will get to in a moment) and then Parker's eventual transformation into Spidey. One positive during this is that Gwen Stacy has brains unlike MJ, who if I recall correctly, was a boring actress in the comics and the same in the films. I've never met Stacy in the few Spidey comics I've read, so I don't know of her original talents. We are also introduced to eventual bad guy, Dr. Curt Conners (Rhys Ifans).
I won't go into the story, because it's all been done before. This reboot comes around five years after Spidey 3 was released. New York still looks the same, and Spidey still looks like Spidey, because, no matter what one does with the shades of red and blue on his suit, it still looks the same. The new big bad feels oddly like the Green Goblin of Spidey 1 and Doc Ock of Spidey 2 put together.
But before I continue my tirade, let me dwell on a couple of positives. What attracted me to this film, especially nearer its release, was the slick look of the finished product. It looked clean and precise. I don't know if this was filmed using very different technology (barring 3D conversion I mean), but the feel was crisp.
I also quite liked the point of view shots of Spidey swinging and shooting the webs from his web-shooters. The first teaser trailer featured the POV exclusively, and it had a very video game-like feel to it. It fit in nicely in the final film, and was one of the more assertive departures from the previous trilogy. Good work on that.
The other thing was Chris Zylka. No, he didn't put in an Oscar-worthy performance, but his character was very interesting. Flash pops up at different junctures of the film (I don't believe he's there for more than a handful of scenes). [SPOILER ALERT] His character goes from big bad bully to likable. I don't know what Flash is like in the comics (I don't read Spider-Man unless an X-Man is in there) so I cannot comment, but in the previous trilogy Flash came and went. Here, he not only stops being a douchebag, but after Parker's family tragedy, appears to be the only one who has the courage to go up to him and give him his condolences. Flash also doesn't beat up Parker for effectively stealing his girl; doesn't pretend to possess Stacy in any form; plays basketball (not American football like every other film/ TV show I have ever come across); appears to become a very close buddy to Parker at the end, and is generally a nice guy. How odd![END SPOILER]
I've noticed with Zylka (in his short career so far anyway) that his characters are usually not what you expect. I first saw him in 'Shark Night 3D', pretty much the worst film ever, if not for a particularly ahem scene featuring the man himself. But even there, a character that seems like some self-obsessed douche turns out to be a fiercely loyal friend. His performance is valiant, if not good, as he tries hard not to reveal to his badly injured friend that his girlfriend has been killed. That was a rare positive in that film.
I've also watched Zylka in the television spin-off of '10 Things I Hate About You'. I watched the show only recently, and exclusively for him. He plays a jock, but not the typical kind (at least not in the stuff I've come across) - he's incredibly dumb, yes, but he also wants to be a male model (typically a role reserved to female characters), and is fiercely loyal (whoa, that again!) to his girlfriend(s). Again, he's a surprisingly nice guy, who also has talent.
Last of all, he appeared in the recently cancelled 'The Secret Circle'. His character in that series was a more extreme version of Flash, but essentially both characters go through a similar arc. However, the trouble with his Jake in 'Circle' was that some of his actions, to me at least, seemed irredeemable. But we needn't worry about that now, because, as I said, the show has been cancelled.
Noticeably Zylka appears bald in this Spider-Man film, and I don't know whose idea that was, because Zylks, I assure you, is infinitely better looking than Garfield, and I'm pretty sure he would've stolen Garfield's thunder, in the looks department at least, if he was allowed to wear his full head of pretty blond hair. But, that's just me!
 |
| The Beautiful! The Bald and the Beautiful! The Main Guy! See what I mean? |
Next, I don't like Emma Stone. I don't know how or why she receives plaudits for her work, because she's just not that exciting an actor to me. She doesn't bring anything new or different to her acting. And she looks like a fish. (So kill me).
Andrew Garfield. Hmmm... I get teased a lot because it got out that I sat through a two-part episode of 'Dr. Who' just for Garfield. Hey, he caught my eye! But fact is, attractive he may be, but talented? I haven't seen much of him, so I won't give an overall view of his abilities, but in this film, he, at times... uh, okay, most of the time, adopted mannerisms that just cannot be considered... normal. There was this particular head movement he kept executing that was beyond redemption. What was that? Why was that in the film? And what is up with that faux-lisp? Didn't I recently read that that is a huge turn-off, because it isn't appealing, or in the least bit indicative of ability? It's not annoying as such, just a bit jarring at times. He's fine, and then he just lapses into these... moments. They are just so peculiar. I'm not sure why the director let him do it.
 |
| Presenting Andrew Garfield as The Amazing (or not so, as it were) Spider-Man! |
I failed to see why the audience had to endure prolonged scenes between Parker and Stacy. Stacy is only ever shown in conjunction with Parker (except near the end, and only briefly), and isn't really that effectual. I somehow expected her to be like... ya know, the tech guy who helps out Street Hawk (don't ask me why I came up with that reference, but there you have it). Essentially she aids him in no way in his Spider-Man guise.
Comparisons between this film and its predecessor are inevitable. I, like many others, failed to see the point of rebooting Spidey after the cast and crew of the previous films left. The character needed some air, and if you don't want to give it any, go the whole hog and do something spectacularly different. The reboot of the X-Men franchise took on a completely new angle, and while I didn't like it one bit, it was still a novel approach, which didn't have that samey feel of its predecessors (except the re-enactment of the first scene).
There's been a lot of positive reviews coming through about the film, and I can understand why. This Peter Parker and Spider-Man are probably a lot truer to the original comics. While Tobey Maguire's Parker was very unsure and, if I recall correctly, felt his new abilities were equal parts a curse and a gift, Garfield's Parker is more confident in his skills as an academic, and as a photographer (which is briefly indicated). His transformation is down to his own unassailable surety and recklessness. His Spidey is also cocky and chatty. much like the Spidey from the Ultimate Spider-Man I read. I like these new attributes, they are a departure from the previous adaptation. But this Spidey almost appears remorseless about his role in his family tragedy (whereas Tobey's Parker was eaten up by it). At the same time, you can see how his new 'role' lets him live his life with gay abandon. Trouble is Spidey's character arc is told through fleeting scenes. As I said, too much mushy stuff, not enough character development.
I reiterate, if you want to reboot something that is nary five-years-old, do something extraordinary. But you can't, because essentially Spidey (from what I know anyway) doesn't have a radically different storyline, like, say, Frank Miller's Batman series, to give the reboot a fresh feel. Why is the new Batman series so popular - because it was a clear departure from what people had become used to. 'Amazing Spider-Man' needed that, desperately. They should have especially done away with the origin story, because seriously, 'tis done to death.
Even the introduction of Stacy and The Lizard did not make it feel new. Stacy should have been radically different. [SPOILER ALERT] While I appreciate Ifans' performance as the melancholic Dr. Connors, his transformation seemed a speeded up version of the transformations of all the other characters in the previous trilogy. Come to think of it, all the baddies in the four Spidey films appear to be the same, good guys turned bad by outside forces. Now, talk about shocking! This film really should have picked up a different kind of baddie. [END SPOILER]
So, did I enjoy this film? I suppose I did. Parts of it were definitely amusing. I love that Chris Zylka (looking smashing despite being bald) has a role in this film and I loved his character. It is rare to come across such a character in films, because they've usually very one-dimensional. I don't know if its an accurate representation of the comic book version, but it is a good inclusion.
I like Garfield, he's fairly good-looking, lithe, and due to his previous gymnastic abilities, carries this role well. But why he adopts those off-putting mannerisms is beyond me. They are cringe-worthy (you'll know what I mean when you see them). He has zero chemistry with his current girlfriend, Stone, who really has no work to do. But, thank our lucky stars, she doesn't spend any part of the film falling and screaming like a banshee. Rhys Ifans and Irrfan Khan were great to watch, but neither of their characters was explored fully, which is a huge disappointment.
If the producers hadn't been so quick to cash in on a good thing, and had taken the time to search out more interesting plots and storylines from Spidey's history, we could have had ourselves a great superhero film. This one falls short of its aspirations, unless of course its aspirations were about burgeoning teenage love, which has a very superficial wedge put through it. Actually, they fall short of that one too.
Comments