I wasn't more than moderately entertained - though, on the other hand, never really bored. What I thought there was a shortage of was humour, only occurring in two short scenes, the second such, very brief. To carry off comic-book heroes successfully, I think there has to be a large tongue-in-cheek element. When it takes itself too seriously it all becomes rather ponderous.
Andrew Garfield was at least adequate for the part. Everyone says he makes a better go of the portrayal than Tobey Maguire did, and I wouldn't disagree. Pity that the estimable Martin Sheen, rarely seen on the cinema screen now, should have his character disposed of so early in the film. But Sally Field as his widow was good - as was Rhys Ifans. Shame also that the film seemed to degenerate into a Spiderman v Godzilla-type monster for so much of the final part, with all the expected technical effects thrown at the screen, to which I can only say "So what?".
Btw: Was it just me or did I miss it? Was a major strand of the plot left unresolved - or was that being kept back for the next instalment? Maybe my attention wavered at a critical moment.
All in all, not too bad, but not really a film to lodge long in the memory.
So, with that heavily-qualified endorsement, I award this Spider-Man a score of................5/10.
A fair review, I think - and similar to my own thoughts on the subject, although I may have appeared harsher at the time: http://oneexwidow.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/review-amazing-spiderman.html
ReplyDeleteI only missed your blog on this, Andrew, because it appeared during the one week in the year when I'm away. But now that I've read it I'm quite amused (and pleased) by how our views coincide, though you go into greater detail on the content of the film's story. I didn't stay for the credits but the thought that there might be a sequel hardly gets me excited.
DeleteBtw: The cheapo showing I went to cost me just THREE pounds - Nah nah na-nah nah!
I still dont get why they remade a film that's only 10 years old.
ReplyDeleteSeems lazy to me.
Reboot is marketing speak for "it's a remake, but that sounds bad, so we'd better make it look like something special"
Stephen, when I first heard about this picture being made I'd assumed that it was going to be another Spiderman film with a new story, only with Garfield replacing Maguire. The fact that they re-done the original either means that someone powerful thinks the 2002 film was conspicuously unsatisfactory or there's a total absence of imagination somewhere, neither of which surprises me.
DeleteTo me, the film was pure pleasure. I particularly liked the fact that this could be classified as a coming-of-age story, with greater emphasis on human relations rather than on special effects. The British-American actor, Andrew Garfield who recently completed the role of Biff in "Death Of A Salesman"(was very impressed by his performance) shines with star quality. The chemistry with Emma Stone is just so right. All in all, a very satisfying experience.
ReplyDeleteFair enough, Paul - though I must say it is totally unexpected to read that you enjoyed it as much as you did. I can only say "Good for you!" - while wondering what it was that I could have missed.
DeleteI'd never heard of Garfield until 'The Social Network' came along - that film of a couple of years ago, notorious for me in that I just couldn't decipher what most of the characters were saying (mumble mumble!). I haven't been particularly endeared towards him ever since, though I do try to put that behind me. (Yes, I'd heard that he is capable of giving a good stage performance.)
I also ought to declare a scepticism towards the usual film portrayals of 'young love' where characters display an emotional maturity far beyond their years, with the ability to verbalise their emotions so expertly, but without the gaucheness that comes along with immaturity. Often I'm just sitting there in the dark cringing, while saying to myself "Come on. For goodness' sake, get on with it!" And I was doing precisely that during this film.
I was (am) a huge fan of the Toby M Spider-Man film (well, the first one any way) and left the theater with my heart pounding and anxious to see it again.
ReplyDeleteI left this movie thinking: meh...it was better than working in the yard in the hot sun or listening to Fox News...
It did genuinely cross my mind wondering what you'd make of this film, S/b, knowing that you, more than any blogger I know, would be seeing it.
DeleteI agree that the first one was more fun - the Green Goblin was a quite fascinating villain, and the film had another 'plus' for me in having in its cast 'hottie' James Franco.
Yes, I suppose the fact that it 'passes the time' just about sums it up adequately.
I thought the movie dragged a bit; funny though how I can believe all sorts of rubbish in a film only to be taken aback by something small, such as 'wait a minute, how did he get his costume on in only a few seconds???"
ReplyDeleteI can't say that I thought it seriously dragged, as such, Dr Spo - though it's always a bad sign when extraneous thoughts enter the mind while the film is in progress - or, as you did here, start challenging details when it's supposed to carry you along in a state of 'disbelief suspended'. But I know what you mean - and now you mention it, yes, how DID he manage that?
Delete