Last night I finally went to see The Amazing Spider-Man. I knew the film was starting from the beginning again, but I didn't realise just how much it would be rehashing old events. This movie does in fact tell the story of how Peter Parker becomes Spiderman (he is, of course, bitten by a spider!), but only in a slightly different way than we saw with Tobey Maguire's character. And yes, when I say slightly I mean slightly. The same events are still there - the spider bite, the sticky fingers, the superhuman strength, the heightened hearing. It's all there...again.
I knew the movie was a reboot, but I've got to say I was a little disappointed. I found myself constantly comparing this film to the 2002 Spider-Man. In every one of Andrew Garfield's actions I couldn't help picturing Tobey and wondering how he would have behaved. To me the whole retelling-it-from-the-beginning thing was unnecessary and, if I'm honest, a bit of a cop out. Now, I haven't read the comics, but Wikipedia tells me that the Peter Parker character does grow up, goes to college, becomes a high school teacher and gets married. The studio had a lifetime of plots to make into a film! But they chose to tell us something we already know. A bit dull, guys!
It was only five years ago that we last saw Tobey in this role. This is too soon for me to have completely wiped his portrayal from my mind and make way for Andrew. Don't get me wrong - Andrew is great in the role. He's funny, he's cute and his chemistry with Emma Stone is intense (no wonder the two are now together in real life!). But I found the whole film redundant. When they rebooted Batman it had been sixteen years since Michael Keaton (and eight years since the disastrous George Clooney one) - long enough for Christian Bale to fly in and change how we viewed the caped crusader. Not only that - filming and special effects had changed a lot between 1989 and 2005, so the movie experience was better on so many levels. This is not so with The Amazing Spider-Man. Aside from added 3D (which, by the way, I don't like much), there isn't anything new or exciting happening stunt-wise in this film.
So, why not cast an older man and have Spidey coping with a career and married life? Why not just continue on from the three original films? In my mind, that would have made a lot more sense.
It wasn't all bad though. I had a great night at the cinema - one of my favourite things to do! :-) And as Emma Stone can do no wrong in my eyes, it was most definitely worth it to see her onscreen. Will I see the sequel? Of course. I just can't help myself. :-) Plus, the teaser at the end of the credits piqued my interest. I'll just have to finally say goodbye to Tobey Maguire's Spidey once and for all.
I knew the movie was a reboot, but I've got to say I was a little disappointed. I found myself constantly comparing this film to the 2002 Spider-Man. In every one of Andrew Garfield's actions I couldn't help picturing Tobey and wondering how he would have behaved. To me the whole retelling-it-from-the-beginning thing was unnecessary and, if I'm honest, a bit of a cop out. Now, I haven't read the comics, but Wikipedia tells me that the Peter Parker character does grow up, goes to college, becomes a high school teacher and gets married. The studio had a lifetime of plots to make into a film! But they chose to tell us something we already know. A bit dull, guys!
It was only five years ago that we last saw Tobey in this role. This is too soon for me to have completely wiped his portrayal from my mind and make way for Andrew. Don't get me wrong - Andrew is great in the role. He's funny, he's cute and his chemistry with Emma Stone is intense (no wonder the two are now together in real life!). But I found the whole film redundant. When they rebooted Batman it had been sixteen years since Michael Keaton (and eight years since the disastrous George Clooney one) - long enough for Christian Bale to fly in and change how we viewed the caped crusader. Not only that - filming and special effects had changed a lot between 1989 and 2005, so the movie experience was better on so many levels. This is not so with The Amazing Spider-Man. Aside from added 3D (which, by the way, I don't like much), there isn't anything new or exciting happening stunt-wise in this film.
So, why not cast an older man and have Spidey coping with a career and married life? Why not just continue on from the three original films? In my mind, that would have made a lot more sense.
It wasn't all bad though. I had a great night at the cinema - one of my favourite things to do! :-) And as Emma Stone can do no wrong in my eyes, it was most definitely worth it to see her onscreen. Will I see the sequel? Of course. I just can't help myself. :-) Plus, the teaser at the end of the credits piqued my interest. I'll just have to finally say goodbye to Tobey Maguire's Spidey once and for all.
Comments (0)
Post a Comment