I've seen it before!
It was only 10 years ago that Marvel brought Spider-Man to the big screen starring Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst, and only five years since Spider-Man 3 which was, admittedly, a bit too filled up having two villains on the scene.
In their wisdom, Marvel decided to do a 'Batman Begins' on the Spider-Man franchise and here we are with Andrew Garfield taking over the lead role.
Mary Jane has been brushed aside and we have Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), a character which was in Spider-Man 3 played by Bryce Dallas Howard, as the major love interest.
We kick off a little differently in the 2012 reboot learning that Peter Parker's father was working on a top secret project with Dr Curt Conners (Rhys Ifans) involving spiders which was hoped would help people who have lost limbs (like the doctor).
He disappeared shortly after leaving Peter with his aunt May (Sally Field) and uncle Ben (Martin Sheen).
After sneaking into a intern visit at Oscorp (yes, owned by Norman Osborn) to visit Dr Conners, Peter is bitten by a genetically enhanced spider and pretty soon starts discovering all these weird and wonderful powers.
The following things happen as they did in the first Spider-Man: Peter allows a criminal to get away with robbing someone and then the robber kills uncle Ben; the Dr, just like Norman Osborn, experiments on himself and is transformed into the villain (in this case The Lizard); Peter has a fight with the school bully Flash; Peter decides he needs a mask to fight crime and is tagged 'Spider-Man' by someone else; he's seen as a bad guy this time by the town police chief (Denis Leary), who is also Gwen's father; there's a major fight with the villain on a bridge; there is a funeral at the end.
What is done differently is the character of Spider-Man in that he's a bit more of a teen than Maguire's and seems to enjoy it more and makes more sarcastic comments.
The action scenes aren't particularly new or even very different from the 2002 version which is odd given the improvements in CGI.
Anyway, we all know the story. What this one does well is develops the characters a little better, though Garfield's Parker didn't seem to change physically after being bitten as Maguire's did. That said he was possibly a bit more likeable.
The Lizard was about the same as the Green Goblin and he even talked to himself like that character did.
Overall, I have to say it was a good movie but I'm certain it isn't the definitive Spider-Man film. It wasn't any better than the 2002 version which also had Willem Defoe and James Franco in the cast.
Having said that it will be interesting to see where they move now for the sequel (there will be a sequel, the scene during the credits would confirm that) because if the Green Goblin is the next villain, or Dr Octopus for that matter, then it's a bit of a cop out.
I'd have preferred them to move forward with Spider-Man, I don't know why they felt the need to go back to the start so soon.
It's good but if you've seen the 2002 film and its sequels you'll definitely have the same deva vu feeling I had with me for the two hours or so. My expectations weren't high, right from the time I heard they were making a new series, and it was pretty much as I anticipated.
I think I gave the original trilogy 9s or thereabouts, this one gets a 7 out of 10.
1 comment:
I review this in my podcast later this morning on ComicRelated.com or zone4podcast.com.
I get what you're saying, and I agree with a lot of it. It does have many of the same elements the 2002 film did, but with a much better cast (disregarding Willem Dafoe, who was awesome in the 2002 film) that really nailed their roles for the most part.
This version felt less campy and hokey than the others, and I appreciated that. I liked a more sarcastic Spider-Man too.
I didn't have high hopes either, and I thought it was way too soon for a reboot. But I came out actually liking it better in many ways than the 2002 film, and I think a lot of that had to do with the cast and the writing.
Post a Comment