The Amazing Spider-Man 2 - Review

There was a time in my life where I would have been overjoyed at the thought of a new Spider-Man movie. After all, I've been a massive Spidey fan since... well, pretty much as long as I can remember. I have fond memories growing up of collecting the comics, had tons of Spider-Man action figures, played pretty much every video game based on the character, and woke up every Saturday morning to watch the newest episode of the Fox Kids cartoon series. I still even vividly remember back when I was 13, seeing for the first time, one of my lifelong favorite characters being brought to life on the big screen in such awesome fashion by one of my all-time favorite directors, Sam Raimi. When the 2004 sequel hit theaters, I was pretty much on cloud nine. To this day, Spider-Man 2 is one of my all-time favorite movies and a strong contender for best superhero film ever made. The much-derided Spider-Man 3, however... while a far weaker follow-up to it's two predecessors, I'll forever maintain is a much better movie than for which it's given credit. It's flawed, messy, and uneven for sure, but it's positive traits are good enough to make it a decent film and certainly not the disaster people make it out to be. Then... the folks at Sony Pictures decided to hit the reboot button and Spidey got a massive overhaul. The result was 2010's The Amazing Spider-Man, a film that I labeled as "average at best." Actually, I took a lot of flack for giving that film such a lukewarm review, more than I expected. I didn't think it was terrible, but rather was just a generally average and soulless movie (mainly since it was rushed into production so Sony wouldn't lose the film rights). Still, a lot of people liked it, so I recently re-watched it to see if my opinion might have changed. To my surprise, it did! A film I once derided as mediocre, flat, and uninspired I now consider... pretty bad actually. The cast tries hard, but their efforts are ruined thanks to a half-assed retelling of Spidey's origin, non-existent character development, hit-and-miss special effects, misguided direction, and one half-decent action scene among a collection of terribly shot and erratically edited sequences that should have been exciting. So yeah... my expectations for the inevitable sequel were not so high, despite my love for (almost) all things Spider-Man. How does The Amazing Spider-Man 2 fare??? Well, let's just say that the true Amazing Spider-Man 2 already came out 10 years ago.

After graduating from high school, Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) attempts to live a double life as an average college student and the web-slinging crime fighter, Spider-Man. Living this double, however, becomes difficult when he reluctantly breaks up with his loving girlfriend, Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) after the death of her self-sacrificing father at the hands of the Lizard in the previous film. They both try to make a relationship work, but difficulties present themselves in the form of Gwen considering moving to London to attend Oxford and Peter facing a number of new deadly foes. The first of which is the nerdy Spidey-obsessed electrical engineer Max Dillon (Jamie Fox), whom after experiencing a near-fatal electrocution becomes Electro. Also present is Peter's former buddy, Harry Osborne (Dane DeHaan), heir to the Oscorp legacy who in a search to cure himself of a rare and fatal disease, becomes the Green Goblin (or is just a goblin... they never really say who he is). Also making a short appearance is Russian mobster Aleksei Sytsevich aka The Rhino (Paul Giamatti). Peter also digs deeper into his parents' mysterious disappearance, looking to discover what led to their tragic deaths and the research his father risked his life to keep hidden. Meanwhile, Peter's supportive Aunt May (Sally Field) struggles after Uncle Ben's death from the original while trying to keep up financially to support Peter and... OH MY GOD IS THIS PLOT CONVOLUTED!!! You know, people complained about Spider-Man 3 having too much going on (and it did, don't get me wrong) but AT LEAST you could follow what was happening. Why the filmmakers thought they could stuff so much into one movie is beyond me. This is easily the most difficult plot description I've ever written since there's simply so many barely (or not even) connected storylines with little resolution or development that it becomes an absolute mess. Ugh!

Okay... so yeah, the movie's not that good, just going to get that out of the way first. It's not terrible in the sense that it's at least a SLIGHT improvement over the last film and it does have a few standout moments... but yeah you can add this one to another let-down in the Spider-Man film series. I was pretty heavily criticized for my negative comments toward the last film (which is fine, everyone's entitled to their own opinion) but what I didn't get was when people accused me of not giving these ones a chance simply because I'm a big Sam Raimi fan. I'll admit, yes I love most of Sam Raimi's movies, I'll admit that I think he did a better job directing the Spider-Man films than Marc Webb, and it's true that I didn't exactly go into this or the last one with particularly high expectations... BUT that doesn't mean I was hoping this one would be bad!!! On the contrary, I don't like seeing one of my favorite superheroes getting shabby cut-rate movies, and there's nothing more I'd love to see than another worthy live action Spidey film, so I can once again revel in that feeling of nostalgia-based glee of seeing some of my favorite childhood characters being brought to life on the big screen! But I'm sorry, seeing boring re-imaginings of Spidey's rouge's gallery of villains, turning Parker into what it essentially a Edward Cullen-knockoff, and rushed and convoluted narratives just doesn't do it for me. That doesn't mean there's nothing about this series I don't like, there are a few bits and pieces that I did find myself embracing, but not enough to come around.

Like I said, there are a few things I did like about the movie. Once again, the cast is the main thing that holds the films somewhat together. Andrew Garfield is a damn good actor and there are times in his performance as Peter Parker/Spider-Man that you can see his natural range shine through. I still don't really like the way his character has been written in this series, but this time, it ALMOST works. Where in the last film, he was basically a one-note douchebag with little to no character development, here they try to show him grow as a character, are there are times it actually adds some legitimate drama, and Andrew Garfield generally delivers. Emma Stone's Gwen Stacy is once again the standout, both as an actress and as a character (as in, she's the only person in this movie to have some element of depth) also bringing her natural dramatic and comedic abilities to the part. Plus, Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone do have a genuine chemistry, and that is a big help. Dane DeHaan's intense performance as Harry Osborne is another standout, conveying some truly intense dramatic weight to a surprisingly emotional character... though by the time he makes his Green Goblin transformation, he feels a little out of his element. Jamie Foxx tries hard as Max Dillon/Electro, but because of the questionable script choices and direction for the character, most of his efforts are completely wasted. Sally Field is at her Sally Field-est as Aunt May, which is mostly a good thing, even though she's basically pushed aside for most of the film. Paul Giamatti as The Rhino could not have been more enjoyable, but the massive disappointment stemming from him basically being a glorified cameo to setup future sequels pretty much ruined any potential there. I might have been more forgiving if he had SOME relevance to the story, but like I said, he was there only to tease future sequels, and that was a cheap, shallow, and lame use of an enjoyable character and actor. So yeah... it's a generally good cast, even if the script lets them down.

As for the look and feel of the film... actually it's not that bad this time around. Most of the effects are an improvement this time around and Marc Webb has gotten slightly better at directing action. The web swinging scenes are easily the best the series has ever had, with some really fast paced and thrilling sequences that are a total rush. I didn't see the film in 3D, but I kind of wish I did just for those sequences. Plus, the first Spidey vs Electro fight scene was another highlight for the series, featuring some creative staging, effects, and tricky camera moves that were admittedly quite awesome. Nothing in the series has topped the outstanding train scene from Spider-Man 2 yet, but there were times that the Electro fight could have offered some decent competition. The actual finale itself isn't exactly groundbreaking, but it works. Unfortunately, I could not have been more disappointed with the look of these characters. Taking a comic character as unique and creative (look-wise anyways) as Electro and basically turning him into homeless Doctor Manhattan is a disappointing re-imagining. The look of Harry Osborne's Green Goblin manages the impossible of looking even sillier than Willem Dafoe's plastic costume from the first film. Finally... the Rhino suit (for the brief moments it appears on film) being re-imagined as a generic mech suit just left me saying, "Were the filmmakers not allowed to express ANY creativity?" At least the new Spidey costume was admittedly awesome, possibly even the best for the whole series.

Unfortunately, despite the obvious efforts of a good cast and a (seemingly) interested director, it's the script that ultimately brings everything down. There's so much going on that character development comes off as forced, rushed, and sloppy. Electro's storyline in particular is the main casualty, as the film was setting him up as the main villain but instead just rushes through forced and confusing character beats, ignores him for most of the second act, and has him return for a underwhelming closing. His character was basically stolen from The Riddler in Batman Forever, only even more forced and non-nonsensical (honestly, when Batman Forever did something better than your film, you know there's a problem). The Harry Osborne plot has it's moments, but some confusing plot-holes and unexplained character decisions kind of ruined it. Gwen Stacy's main dilemma in the film could have been a genuinely emotional and moving bit of storytelling but the foreshadowing is so heavy-handed that it will surprise absolutely nobody. The bits involving Peter's disappearing parents are basically thrown in as an afterthought and culminate to a revelation that also had little to no surprises. Even Peter's basic story arc, while having the right idea, competes with so many underutilized subplots that it doesn't come together all that well in the end. It has trouble finding a proper tone as well. It appears to try and go for a more realistic and down-to-earth vibe (which is fine), but with villains this over-the-top, it feels sloppy. I'm not saying that campy or scenery-chewing characters don't work (the original trilogy is proof that they do), but it's best to choose a tone and stick with it. My main problem, however, is that film's main purpose felt like less to tell a story, but rather to set up a shit-load of sequels and spin-offs. There are SO many shout-outs and set-ups for the recently announced two more sequels and a Sinister Six spin-off (a Venom spin-off is apparently in the works too). I don't mind sequel foreshadowing, but it shouldn't be the sole purpose of the film.

So it should go without saying, but The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is not even close to amazing. Despite some decent effects, action, and actors, the sloppy and poorly conceived screenplay ruins any chance of the film coming together. If there's one thing the film wants me to take away from it... it's that I should be excited for the inevitable sequels... can't say I am though.

My Score: 2.5 out of 5!

The Amazing Spider-Man - Review

Alright! Before I write this review for The Amazing Spider-Man, I need to get something off my chest. Now, that Christopher Nolan has finished his Dark Knight trilogy, can superhero films please stop trying to copy the Batman formula! I get it, Nolan's trilogy was awesome. I loved the movies, you loved them, everyone loved them, but come on people! Batman is NOT the only superhero around, and not every flick to feature a costumed crime-fighter has to be about some dark and brooding anti-hero. I mention all of this, because for the last few years, I've seen so many movies guilty of this, though the recent reboot of the Spider-Man film series, is arguably the worst offender. I can only assume that the filmmakers were trying to distance this particular film from the previous trilogy, and they figured a much looser interpretation of the Spider-Man mythos mixed with not-so-subtle "elements" (ie, a nicer way of saying ripped off) from Batman Begins and character beats reminiscent of Twilight was the way to go. Oh yeah... btw, the film takes a good dose of "inspiration" from Twilight too... my God what have they done to you Spidey???

*As per usual, I'm going to avoid spoilers when I can, but in this review, there might be a few story details I'll be discussing that may or may not be considered "spoiler-ish." That said, most of what I'll be talking about is familiar territory and should come as no surprise to anyone who's seen the 2002 film. I'll say this much, I promise that I won't reveal anything beyond the first act. Take that as you will.

The Amazing Spider-Man is a retelling of Spider-Man's of-told origin story. As a young boy, Peter Parker was left in the care of his Aunt and Uncle, Ben and May Parker (played by Martin Sheen and Sally Field respectively), after his parents inexplicably left and never returned. The story fast forwards years later to the now teenage Peter (Andrew Garfield), who has become a shy outcast among his high school peers. Curious to discover why his parents abandoned him, Parker digs up his father's old briefcase, which reveals that he was an Oscorp scientist working alongside the one-armed Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans) on a top secret project that could merge human and animal DNA. Determined to learn more, he visits Dr. Connors at his lab to discuss his past. It is here, where Parker gets that fateful spider-bite from a scientifically enhanced bug that gives him his superpowers to become Spider-Man. Meanwhile, Dr. Connors, in an attempt to regrow his lost arm, injects himself with a serum composed of reptile DNA. While the serum manages to replace missing arm, it brings forth the unfortunate side effect of turning him into a human-sized and reptilian monster known as The Lizard. With a homicidal Lizard loose on the streets of New York, Spidey takes to the streets to stop him before it's too late.

I'm going to do something I don't normally do right here. Typically, I don't consider it really necessary to discuss my feelings or history for a series like Spider-Man. That said, every time I've had a discussion with someone about this movie, I've been called a Sam Raimi fanboy or comic geek that either is too in love with the previous trilogy, too attached to the comics, and/or doesn't appreciate change or modern interpretations of these characters. So I'm just going to get this out of the way and let you all know exactly where I'm coming from. Yes... I have always been a huge fan of Spider-Man. I was a casual reader of the comics growing up (though I haven't read one in years), enjoyed the shows, liked most of the video games, and was a fan of the previous three movies. I loved the first film, really loved the second (my second favorite comic book movie behind Dark Knight), and thought the third was decent despite a few really stupid moments (say what you will folks, but I don't think Spider-Man 3 is as bad as it's been let on). Do I think it's kind of lame that they're retelling the origin story with the previous flicks still so fresh in people's minds... yeah kind of, but not enough to not give this film a chance. Do I hate modernizing comic book properties or re-imagining characters to fit a new theme... of course not, as long as they're done well. It can be kind of frustrating when properties are re-imagined to a point where they barely resemble their source material, BUT as long as they work in a narrative sense while honoring the themes and ideas of the original material, I'm cool with that. So I don't mind reinventing the character... in fact, I encourage it. So yeah, just wanted to get that out of the way.

So after all of that, what did I think of The Amazing Spider-Man? To be honest, I found it to be pretty damn average. It's not bad in the strictest sense as there are a number of things I did genuinely like, but there was just too much about it that I found forgettable, overly-familiar, or just plain bad. To be fair, the film boasts a great cast, promising director, and a couple of pretty cool action scenes. Unfortunately, they're all serving a narrative that is problematic from start to finish. I have no problem with the decision to set this film in high school and it's pretty cool that they decided to make Gwen Stacy the love interest instead of Mary Jane Watson (Gwen came before MJ in the comics). None of that makes up for a script full of plot holes, pacing issues, and problematic characters.

That last point I mentioned is really the biggest problem with this flick, the characters don't work, especially the lead character. I'm not critiquing the cast so much right now, but just the characters from a narrative perspective. In an effort to differentiate Andrew Garfield's Peter from Tobey Maguire's version, this flick downplays the science nerd aspects of the character and instead turns him into... actually kind of a cipher. That's not inherently a bad thing, as it can add a level of mystery to the character that might keep the story engaging as it unfolds. Unfortunately, the best way to actually describe him is something like Edward Cullen meats Bruce Wayne (as in, Bruce before he became Batman)... and no, that's not a good thing. His character is so inconsistent that we never really get a feel for who he is as a person... except that he's kind of a douchebag. At times he's an emo, at times he's a skater, and at he's a manic depressive. None of that would bother that much if they took the time to make the character likable in some way, shape, or form, but they really don't. Throughout the film, Parker is, quite frankly, kind of an asshole. The theme of his "character arc" (I use that term loosely because there's next to no character development) is less about "With great power comes great responsibility" but rather "When you get superpowers, try not to be a douche." I hate to compare this flick to the previous 2002 movie, but since the film goes out of its way to remind you of it, I can't help but think how much better it was done in the first. Take for example the scenes where Peter's Uncle Ben is murdered. In the original, Ben is killed because Peter refuses to take down a thief who robbed a guy that cheated Peter out of 3000 dollars. It was an irresponsible move on Peter's part that led to his Uncle's death, and it suddenly puts things in perspective of what Uncle Ben meant when he said "With great power comes great responsibility." He takes up the Spider-Man mantle as a means to honor his Uncle's death and his wisdom. That's a great start for a superhero and it really makes you root for the character. In this flick, Uncle Ben dies because Peter refuses to stop a thief from robbing a convenience store after the clerk refused to sell Peter a chocolate milk for being a few pennies short. Do I even need to explain why these two don't compare? To make matters even worse is that Parker created the Spidey mantle as a way to avenge his uncle's death. A movie can survive a lot of things, but a bad lead character is a tough hurdle to overcome, and unfortunately this movie struggles because of this.

Now, if there's one way to make up for a weak hero it would be a decent villain and The Lizard was a promising choice for Spidey foe. He's a Jekyll and Hyde kind of villain, an otherwise decent person who turns into an evil reptile when testing an experimental serum to regrow his lost arm. This, in it of itself, is a good setup, and Rhys Ifans is a good choice for the part. Unfortunately, the character suffers thanks to odd structure and strange motivations. Once he turns into the actual Lizard creature, he inexplicably also turns him violent and evil... a bit strange but I can buy that. Where it gets confusing is when he periodically changes back to a human and for some odd reason still retains his evil qualities. As the movie progresses it only gets more absurd. Eventually, the lizard serum not only makes him evil but also turns him into something of a "reptilian fascist" with a mission to create an all lizard society. None of this really adds up or makes much sense, especially when you consider that his only real motivation in the first place was to fix his missing arm. Once again, a promising villain totally wasted. There are a whole bunch of little plot holes and inconsistencies in the script that detract from the movie's quality. Everything from abandoned sub plots and pointless characters are here. Plus, the other major thrust of this narrative was to explore why Peter's parents disappeared, which is only barely explored and left unanswered to presumably be examined in the inevitable sequel. You can basically sum up the screenplay with this statement, promising material ruined thanks to sub-par execution.

From a technical perspective, the film is hit and miss. Spider-Man's new costume is a bit over-designed but unmistakably recognizable as Spider-Man. Fortunately, it gives Garfield the ability to move around in what are some admittedly decent action scenes. There are a couple of enjoyable hand-to-hand combat segments along with some exciting web slinging moments. From a pure geek perspective, I do have to admit that it's cool to see Spidey using the mechanic web shooters instead of the organic ones from the previous trilogy. The settings were a bit odd though. Why they had to set so many scenes in lens-flare saturated nighttime shots, I don't know (well, I guess they were trying to emulate The Dark Knight) but I don't have too many complaints on that front. Unfortunately, I do have some majors issues with the cgi used to render The Lizard... my God does he look terrible. The design is problematic, as he looks like a cross between The Lizard and those goombas from the Super Mario Bros movie. It's not helped that the cgi itself looks like a cut-scene from a mediocre video game. Their efforts to find creative angles to film him in order to make him look less awful were commendable but none managed to remedy just how awful he turned out. You know, a lot of people complained about the Green Goblin's goofy looking suit in the first movie, but I'd rather have a cheesy looking practical effect any day as opposed to sub-par cgi. If there was one thing a summer blockbuster like The Amazing Spider-Man has to get right, it's decent action and production value, and despite the Lizard, it's more-or-less mission accomplished.

Finally, we come to the cast. For the most part, I don't have much to say about the chosen actors, none were great but none were bad either. Andrew Garfield has done some great work prior to this, namely as Eduardo Saverin in The Social Network, and as Parker he does a commendable job working with such a flaky script. Emma Stone, once again, gives another strong performance as Gwen Stacy, who is both the love interest, but also manages to contribute a bit to the plot as well. Rhys Ifans does what he can as The Lizard, and despite the weird motivations, looks like he was having some fun hamming it up a bit as the villain. Martin Sheen and Sally Field were a bit on the nose as Uncle Ben and Aunt May, but they do their usual good job. The only real stand out to me was, believe it or not, Dennis Leary as Captain Stacy, Gwen's police chief father. Leary is primarily known for his comedic roles, so seeing him do a role somewhat against type worked to his advantage. He's a strong character who cares deeply for his family as the safety of New York's citizens, and at first approaches Spider-Man as a dangerous vigilante. While we know Spidey isn't evil, he nonetheless acts somewhat reckless and kind of a dipshit, so it's understandable why Stacy would be reluctant to trust him, and Leary does a good job personifying that kind of character. Overall though, I can't complain too much about the cast. Most did a solid job and managed to somewhat elevate the film.

Overall, The Amazing Spider-Man is hardly what the title implies. It's by no means amazing and not even that particularly good. It's just pretty average when you get down to it. I know this film was plagued by a rushed schedule and frequent re-writes, so hopefully the sequel will improve on this front. Overall though, I wasn't that impressed but not overly disappointed either. If it's still playing in theaters and you've managed to miss it, keep on doing that or wait for a DVD rental.

My Score: 2.5 out of 5!

The Social Network - Review

You know how you know that a director is talented? Its when he or she can take a movie that consists mainly of a bunch of people doing nothing but talking and typing, yet still making it entertaining. Granted the quality of the dialogue plays a huge role too, but its the director who has to bring it all together. Of course its not like David Fincher had to prove himself for The Social Network. With a resume of quality flicks including Fight Club, Se7en, Zodiac, and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Fincher has certainly made a name for himself (so much so that one can easily overlook Alien 3). So with Fincher tackling a movie about the creation of one of the biggest pop culture icons of all time, how does it turn out?

The movie is based on the true story of Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg, played by Jesse Eisenberg, who would go on to become the world's youngest billionaire. The story starts in 2004, when Zuckerberg was a student at Harvard. Along with his good friend Eduardo Severin (Andrew Garfield) and a few others, Zuckerberg begins development of a Harvard-exclusive social networking site known as TheFacebook. The sites becomes a hit and prompts the team to expand the site to other schools. As the site continues to develop, the team begins to face a number of problems including strained friendships, unstable business partners, and numerous lawsuits.

First off, The Social Network boasts one of the most entertaining scripts of 2010. That's quite a compliment when you consider that the movie is mainly comprised of a bunch of nerds talking to each other and writing computer code. When that said formula consists of interesting and dynamic characters, a flashback story-arc, and some of the best dialogue I've heard in a movie, its easy to see why The Social Network is so entertaining. The way in which the story develops can be a bit predictable at times and there are no huge plot twists, but there were enough surprises along the way to hold my attention. It is an interesting story that happens to be based on fact. With a true story this intriguing, its easy to see why such a seemingly thin premise works so well. Its not so much a movie about Facebook, or even its founder, but rather a character study of greed, power, and betrayal among passionate and intelligent individuals.

Jesse Eisenberg leads in a pool of very talented actors. I was first introduced to Eisenberg in 2009's surprisingly excellent Zombieland. Here, he once again shows some serious acting chops as Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, bringing what will likely become his trademark eccentricity. He can be hard to read sometimes, but that works to his advantage. Zuckerberg is reported to be a gifted computer whiz and a very peculiar person, something Eisenberg has down to a tee. Andrew Garfield also delivers an excellent performance as Facebook co-founder and Zuckerberg's best friend, Eduardo Severin. He shows some talent as well, which is good to know considering that in two years we'll be seeing him don the red tights of Spider-Man in the 2012 reboot of the series.

The rest of the actors brings their own charms to an enjoyable and entertaining cast, but there's one more actor I need to address. Justin Timberlake... he really surprised me. I remember watching Black Snake Moan a few years back expecting him to be a terrible actor, but I was wrong. Now, with his role as Napster founder, Sean Parker, he's really shown that he has some extremely impressive acting abilities. His charisma, delivery, and overall demeanor made him the perfect choice for the role. Timberlake is a damn-good actor, I would have never guessed that a few years back.

A great script and great talent just isn't enough for a movie like this. The Social Network also boasts some of the most impressive camerawork and editing I've seen in quite some time. In order to make a movie that is essentially nerds writing code, some stellar technical work is crucial. The editing is quick, every shot is perfectly placed, and the great musical score only adds to the enjoyment. It kind of reminded me of the the 90s techno thriller movie Hackers, only not as over-the-top, colorful, forced or silly (despite the fact that Hackers is one of my all time guilty pleasures).

Unfortunately, the movie isn't perfect. As I said, the script is great, but the ending comes off as a bit abrupt. It only barely wraps up the few story without providing all the necessary closure. Not to mention it came off quite over-dramatic, which is a huge red flag that the movie wasn't 100% truthful. A few parts could have been explained a bit better too. For instance, they barely mention exactly how Facebook differed from other social networking sites. Yes, it was the first one made specifically for schools (or rather just Harvard at the beginning) but in a time where Friendster and Myspace were huge, they never really explained why Facebook was so revolutionary.

Most of the complaints I have about The Social Network are very minor. This is easily one of the most entertaining, intelligent, and dynamic movies of the year. If you're on the fence about seeing this, I seriously recommend checking it out. Its definitely worth the price of a movie ticket, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see this one get some Oscar nominations.

I give The Social Network 4.5 out of 5!