The Amazing Spider-Man [3D] (2012)
Brief review: Let's be clear - this ain't a remake of Sam Raimi's version from ten years ago, simply because Raimi didn't invent the story - Marvel did. Therefore, Webb's "The Amazing Spider-Man" should be considered a reboot, and as such, it takes the franchise to whole new heights. Yes, it comes way too soon and it's far from necessary, but the new director Marc Webb manages to refresh the series and put his own cool spin on it, in a way no one had expected. Аpart from the lack of originality, "The Amazing Spider-Man" is not only way slicker in execution and technically superior to the 2002's "Spider-Man", but also bigger, better, smarter, funnier and much more accomplished. Eat your heart out, Sam Raimi! Webb skilfully balances strong character development with thrillingly innovative action, and his uber-stylish direction features an exceptionally dynamic and diverse camera work that sets the energetic pace of the movie. The humorously witty script contrasts with the dark visuals, which are absolutely stunning, and the use of 3D is effective, without being overpowering. As Spider-Man, Andrew Garfield is much more engaging and sympathetic than Tobey Maguire, not to mention the incredible Emma Stone, who draws the viewer's attention every time she shows up on screen. Compared to Dr. Octopus from "Spider-Man 2", the Lizard is not as memorable, but is still a decent and worthy enough villain.
Brief review: Let's be clear - this ain't a remake of Sam Raimi's version from ten years ago, simply because Raimi didn't invent the story - Marvel did. Therefore, Webb's "The Amazing Spider-Man" should be considered a reboot, and as such, it takes the franchise to whole new heights. Yes, it comes way too soon and it's far from necessary, but the new director Marc Webb manages to refresh the series and put his own cool spin on it, in a way no one had expected. Аpart from the lack of originality, "The Amazing Spider-Man" is not only way slicker in execution and technically superior to the 2002's "Spider-Man", but also bigger, better, smarter, funnier and much more accomplished. Eat your heart out, Sam Raimi! Webb skilfully balances strong character development with thrillingly innovative action, and his uber-stylish direction features an exceptionally dynamic and diverse camera work that sets the energetic pace of the movie. The humorously witty script contrasts with the dark visuals, which are absolutely stunning, and the use of 3D is effective, without being overpowering. As Spider-Man, Andrew Garfield is much more engaging and sympathetic than Tobey Maguire, not to mention the incredible Emma Stone, who draws the viewer's attention every time she shows up on screen. Compared to Dr. Octopus from "Spider-Man 2", the Lizard is not as memorable, but is still a decent and worthy enough villain.
Overall summary: Although it comes only 10 years after the 'original', "The Amazing Spider-Man" not only does Marvel's original story justice, but surpasses Sam Raimi's version in terms of execution, visuals, acting, entertainment value, action and CGIs, as it's amazing indeed.
16 comments:
My thoughts exactly. I was really, really impressed with this movie. From a director who's not done much else, either. Thought Garfield's Spiderman was more true to the comics. And he was snarky!
Alex, it's good to know we agree 100% on this one. I thought it was better the Spider Man 1 & 3 put together, and almost on-par with SM2, which I adore. I've never liked Tobey as SM. I thought he was completely miscast from the very beginning. Garfield did justice to the characters and he was much more captivating in general.
Damn, I still can not believe how good this movie was! :)
Thank god, I was getting sick of reading negative reviews of this film. I completely agree with you, expect in one thing: this WAS necessary. After watching it I realised just how off Raimi's version was, so this was much needed!
Film Flare, there's so much to like in this version, I wonder how anybody could hate it. Seriously. I haven't ready many negative reviews of it, but there will always be grumpy film "connoisseurs", who hate films for no reason.
I dunno, I was impressed with Raimi's version back in 2002. 10 years later it feels a bit too dated, but I still have a huge respect for it. Webb's version is more my cup of tea though.
Thanks for the comment. :)
I figured Marc Webb would add a fresh, exciting perspective to this age-old canon and that is exactly what he did. Great review! I, too, was pleasantly surprised.
Matty, to be honest, I wasn't sure about it at first, but in the end, it turned out FANTASIC, plus, made me question Sam Raimi's "incredible" skills as a director.
Thanks, buddy. Appreciate it. :)
Terrific review, I really liked this movie as well. But...
I might add, though, there is absolutely nothing wrong with Raimi's take on Spiderman. Marvel had people write the scripts, Marvel approved the direction and in fact, both of these versions stray greatly from the comics. I do see why you would like this version better, however, I think they're both equally good. Of course, I am not that into Spiderman to begin with, I prefer my heroes to be grown ups. ;)
Marc Webb is a talented director, though, and the rest of his Spidermans should be quite entertaining.
Mel, I have huge respect for Raimi's version, and as I mentioned above, I LOVED it back in 2002. I dunno, maybe because I was only 20 back than. LOL. Spider-Man 2 remains my favorite of the series, so I don't think Sam Raimi is weaker director than Webb. No way. Webb's approach was more to my likings though, and I literally can't wait for the nest 2 installments.
You're not? What's your favorite superhero then? Just don't say Superman! :)
Thanks for the compliments, sweetheart, and for the Twitter shout out as well. Hugs!
I guess I misunderstood your comment to Matt. Sorry! :)
My fave hero has always been Wonder Woman, she kicks ass for the ladies. But if I'm going all manly, it has to be Thor, Iron Man & Batman. Gods and billionaires with wicked cool toys and gadgets. How could I resist? ;)
You are absolutely welcome on the Twitter shout out, sweetie. hugs!
Mel, no you didn't. I was so impressed by Webb's skills behind the camera, it made me wonder if Raimi played it too safe when he filmed Spider-Man back in 2002. But hey, that was whole ten years ago, so it's not a surprise that TAS is technically superior, right?
I'm not entirely familiar with Wonder Woman. I mean I know who she is, but never read the comics.
Thor is okay.. Batman is a cliche (sorry), but I love Iron Man!
I'll have to go with Hellboy. :) For me, he's the coolest superhero ever.
I totally agree George. This movie was a breath of fresh air and the CGI wasn't overly done.
Glad you liked it as much as I did, Maurice. It was awesome, wasn't it?
As for the special effects - those were super-slick. :)
I completely agree. Emma Stone was amazing in this movie.
www.modernworld4.blogspot.com
Gina, Emma was amazing indeed. She made the movie even better that it already was. Thanks for the comment. :)
I can't say I was excited to see this as some of the other super hero movies, but it turned out better than I thought. Part of it was I didn't believe Andrew would work as Spiderman, but he did a good job. Yes, Lizard wasn't as memorable, but I liked him. I thought there was a little too much time in between action scenes for me. Sometimes I get bored quickly. What isn't boring is the Dark Knight? When are you going to get a chance to see it?
HorrO, I pretty much felt the same way about TAS. :)
I'll be seeing it on Friday, Jul 27 - its release date in my country, which is a whole week later than the one in the US.
Are you sure it ain't boring at all? To me TDK was completely humorless, and I heard it's the same case with TDKR...
Post a Comment