"The Amazing Spider-Man"

Directed by Marc Webb, written by James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent, and Steve Kloves, starring Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, and Rhys Ifans - Rated PG-13

The pointlessness of this film (much like the pointlessness of Bruce Banner's dad as a villain in Hulk) is just too much for me.

When I first heard about the reboot of Spider-Man, I reacted the same way many fans did: I wondered what the point was.  After all, it had only been ten years since the superhero franchise had started and it had been a mere five years since the last entry in that trilogy.  Why on earth would they need to tell this origin story again?  As the hype built and footage was released, I started to lighten up.  After all, the Batman franchise had rebooted eight years after the last entry.  Maybe this Spider-Man (with the vastly different title, The Amazing Spider-Man) would try to reinvent the hero and tell new stories in a different style.  As it turns out, my initial fears were legitimate.  The Amazing Spider-Man is extremely similar to the Tobey Maguire-Sam Raimi film in terms of plot and action.  It truly felt like a less fun remake rather than a daring reimagining. 

Is it really fair to judge a movie based on whatever form of a “re-“ it is?  I suppose not, but how can you ignore how pointless it all is?  Sure, people were upset with the third Spider-Man film, but did they need to start over and tell the exact same origin story?  I’ll try to judge this film on its own merits as much as possible, but this film kind of has to be judged in comparison to the original. 

Origin stories in general are a little boring, especially when you already know what’s going to happen.  Look at the popular consensus of the latest Batman, X-Men, and Spider-Man films.  The first films are well-received because they are necessary.  Even though most people know the backgrounds of these decades-old heroes, we accept that they must be introduced.  The second film in all of these franchises has been regarded as the best because we can just enjoy the character and not have to deal with that first hour of the character figuring things out.  The point of all this is that Spider-Man didn’t need to be introduced again.  It hasn’t been that long so people could probably handle the idea of Peter Parker already being Spider-Man. 

The Amazing Spider-Man hints at telling a new story only to devolve into identical territory.  We get glimpses of Peter Parker’s parents, but it’s a missed opportunity.  Instead of delving into the mystery of his parents, we see Peter in high school…again, taking pictures…again, getting bullied…again, and…well, everything you saw ten years ago…again.  Why?

The Amazing Spider-Man would also have you believe that this is a different, darker Peter Parker.  Nothing against Andrew Garfield; he makes for a fine Spider-Man, but the character isn’t written differently.  Sure, the tone of this film is a bit darker, but it’s not a major shift.  Peter still has moments of depression, anger, and happiness.  If anything, I thought Peter was a bit quicker to get over death in this version, which is odd. 

Okay, so the story and the tone are not different enough, then what about the action?  Once again, the small changes simply don’t warrant the existence of this film.  Sam Raimi did a fine job of filming Spidey as he swung throughout New York City.  Director Marc Webb dabbled with some first person point of view sequences for this film.  But even though an early trailer contained a full first person sequence, the final film only used bits and pieces.  Perhaps that was because the early footage was awful and looked like a subpar videogame rather than a big budget film. 

All of the above complaining is not to say that this is terrible movie, though.  Just a pointless one.  The acting is fine, though no one really stands out.  The film has some intense sequences and a few laughs, including the best Stan Lee cameo yet.  Honestly, if this film had been released back in 2002, I probably would have really liked it.  But compared to the film that did come out in ’02, it is definitely the lesser effort. 

This film pales in comparison to the original for many reasons.  First, the villain.  It’s all well and good to bring out the Lizard in the first film, especially since he was only hinted at in the previous films, but there’s a reason he was never truly introduced: he looks goofy…and he’s downright ridiculous when he talks.  The Lizard might work in the comic books, but he’s just too cartoonish for film. 

Next, the romance.  I kind of bought the chemistry between Peter and Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), but it is paper thin.  They basically get together in this film because they are both awkward around each other and just have a “feeling.”  That seemed lazy to me while the Peter and Mary Jane relationship in the original had a bit more meat to it.

 

Finally, the tone.  This film wants to be the darker, more realistic of the two franchises, but it just ends up being messy.  Peter goes from funny to depressed to vengeful to righteous in about ten minutes.  At least the original knew what it wanted to be and it was all the more fun because of it.

You may read this and completely disagree with me.  Maybe I am wrong and people really wanted a new Spider-Man.  If that’s the case, enjoy it while I just put in my Maguire-Raimi Spider-Man DVD.  I think quite a few of you will agree with me, though.  I would tell you to avoid this obvious studio cash grab, but it doesn’t matter.  The film has already made plenty of money (including some from me).  Maybe you can find solace in the fact that you’re not alone in disliking this film.  Or better yet, you actually did skip it and I’ve just confirmed your fear that this movie would be pointless.  I hope that’s the case, then at least I can feel some satisfaction from having sat through this unfortunate movie.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

Just to ease up a bit, this movie isn't bad, it's just so unnecessary.  I was glad to see that they didn't attempt to bring a new Jameson, since J. K. Simmons was so great in that role.

I also liked that they went with the web pellets rather than making it a weird bodily secretion.

And finally, this movie does look better, but only because it's ten years later, not because the filmmakers were more skilled.

"The Social Network"

**The first thing you might notice is yet another "Vader" review (I believe it's number four after Scott Pilgrim, Inception, and My Son, My Son). This doesn't mean I'm lowering my standards it just means I really enjoyed these four films. And as I posted in my top fifteen list earlier in the year, the "Vader" doesn't represent the perfect film (even though I claim that in the description). I do intend on changing that description on the side someday.

The Social Network - Directed by David Fincher, written by Aaron Sorkin, starring Jesse Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield, Armie Hammer, and Justin Timberlake - Rated PG-13

"We don't know what it can be, we don't know what it will be, we know that it is cool."

The Social Network, aka “The Facebook Movie,” seemed like a joke when I first heard about it. Okay, a popular website that seemingly everyone uses is getting its own movie. Sounds like a gimmick. Then I read that Aaron Sorkin was writing it and David Fincher was directing it. How quickly gimmick turns into entertaining art.

The creation of a social networking site may not sound like ripe material for a movie, but in this case, the “true” story actually contains plenty of dramatic possibilities. I put “true” in quotations because it’s not really known how much of this film is factual. A lot of the film takes place during legal depositions, and much of the script was based on documents from these meetings. But regardless of what is or is not true, the film packs in plenty of drama in the form of revenge and betrayal.

The story goes like this: Harvard undergrad Mark Zuckerberg gets dumped one night and goes back to his dorm to drink his sorrows away and denigrate his ex on the internet. He decides to take his anger out in the form of creating a site that allows people to rank female students side by side. This attracts the attention of the Winklevoss twins, who ask Mark to program a social network for Harvard students. Mark agrees, but creates Facebook on the side with his own crew, including his best friend, Eduardo Saverin. It becomes very popular and the legal action begins.

It’s all a bit more complicated than that, of course, but you get the idea. This isn’t really a movie about “what happened?” anyway. This is a film about Zuckerberg as a character. What is his motivation? Why does he betray his friends when there seems to be no real benefit? Zuckerberg seems to be operating on a different plane than the rest of the characters in the film. He certainly talks on a different level…or should I say levels? Zuckerberg talks a mile a minute and seems to be in the middle of three simultaneous conversations. It’s exhausting to listen to at times (a fact a character points out early on), but it’s always entertaining. Sorkin’s script contains some of the wittiest and smartest dialogue this year.

The dialogue is one thing, the delivery is another. Jesse Eisenberg (who hopefully will no longer be confused with Michael Cera after this) is the perfect choice for the speed talking, sarcastic Zuckerberg. I get the feeling that you’re supposed to hate the character at least a little, but I found myself rooting for him, because Eisenberg, while portraying a socially awkward, childish jerk, is still very charismatic and even likable in a strange way. I hope that Eisenberg is recognized this year come award season because as of right now, his is my favorite performance of the year.

The supporting cast is rounded out quite well. Andrew Garfield (recently cast as the new Spider-Man) stands out as Eduardo. I may have liked Zuckerberg a bit, but I felt complete sympathy for Eduardo and that is due to Garfield’s earnest performance. Armie Hammer as the Winklevoss twins (his likeness was digitally added to a body double in post production) was entertaining as well, especially since the twins provided quite a bit of comedic relief. And entertainment Renaissance man Justin Timberlake is amusing as Napster founder Sean Parker.

The acting and writing is great, but this is still a David Fincher film. Fincher has yet to make a film I don’t like (yes, I enjoy Alien 3) and his streak is alive with The Social Network. This film has all the visual flair one would expect from Fincher and there are segments that are just amazing (the regatta scene is definitely a standout). The dim lighting of the film worked for me as well. It created a cool atmosphere. The decision to go with Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross for the score was pitch-perfect too. It’s hard to imagine the film without the techno-infused music blasting throughout.

There is much to be said for the editing of the film as well. It all pieces together so coherently even though the story could potentially be very complicated. This is a film that delves into techno-babble concerning computer programming and whatnot and at times you just have to let it wash over you and stop trying to understand it all, which is how you should enjoy the entire film.

Don’t trouble yourself with questions about whether or not this film “defines a generation” like the commercials claim. For the record, I don’t see how we can think in terms of generation this or that in the internet age. Everything has become so diverse because of the internet you can’t even lump people together by their age anymore. I guess the story about the birth of a site that is helping to bring about the end of “generations” may in fact define the era. Maybe we should say that The Social Network is a film that “defies” generations.

The Social Network doesn’t need all the hyperbole that is surrounding it anyway. It’s a film that knows just how cool it is. Now you just need to check it out, not because it’s a statement on this or any generation, but because it’s smart, funny, and it is one of the best films of the year.