Directed by Marc Webb
Starring
Andrew Garfield -Peter Parker / Spider Man
Rhys Ifans - Dr. Curt Connors/Lizard
Denis Leary - George Stacy
Martin Sheen - Uncle Ben
Sally Field - Aunt May
It would seem to me that there are very few reasons to remake a movie.
The original was made quite a while ago is a good jumping off point....
This could be a version of the first one, the movie was made in a period where technology was cruder. The movie can now be remade with newer tech to improve the look in many areas of the film. King Kong might make a good example here. Harryhausen's armateurs and stop motion were at their height when the first movie was first made. Modern tech however vastly improved the movement of the ape with CGI and animatronics. Good or bad, these technologies will draw a newer and larger audience.
Looking at a newer audience base of viewers.
The original was made long enough ago that the majority may never have seen it on the big screen and with some older movies simply not working well on newer screens. ( that is weak but has happened)
And ultimately the director and crew feel that they have something substantive to add to the movie or canon if the movie is a series or some such.
So how does this argument apply to The Amazing Spider Man? One begins to wonder. As far as substantive, do they think adding material that isn’t even in the canon? Parker’s earlier life that as far as I can remember is not part of the Spider Man history and in truth they leave out more than they add in. As far as looking for newer audience....well you would almost think that this means people that may not have seen or are not familiar with the earlier works. I really find this one to be a bit of a stretch. The first Spider man movie (of the present set mind you. I am not aware of anything but animated and a short lived tv Spider man from as far back as 1967) was made in 2002 which in my mind really cuts down on the “new” viewers.
So with The Amazing Spider Man we have a product that technology wise has little in the way of improved special effects. A movie where the majority of viewers can compare both movies from the same, point of view, as an audience viewer.
Overall I consider the movie was made too soon...but that is my opinion, Technically there is nothing new and I felt they played a bit fast and loose with the history. Finally their choice for Peter Parker missed the mark completely, never once could I suspend belief enough to think that it was him under the mask even though the director thought he was the quintessential Spider Man.
With nothing in the way of special features on the rental disk, the movie has to stand on it's own - I would give it an 8 just because it is as good as anything out there, but as far as a SM movie, it left a lot on the table.
4 comments:
I wasn't what you would call happy with this myself. I would 6 - 6.5 but that's it for me.
One of the reasons was him as Peter.
Second was the story line seemed to be well, lets just say not correct.
Third was Fields as Aunt May.
Fourth was no J. Jonah. You just need that nasty old fart there for a good movie.
Just didn't do it for me, regardless of effects, etc. Far as I'm concerned, this is about on par with the TV versions filmed in the 70's.
Personally, I felt they should have done what the Ed Norton Hulk movie did ... a kind of "soft reboot" which doesn't try to redefine the character's origin, but simply re-establishes character with a slightly new take. I think you hit it on the head; it's as good as anything else out there, but wasn't particularly special.
Josh
Yeah, I could have worked with a movie that didn't take so many liberties. But then on the other hand they exasperate the problem I first observed. That the film really takes no chances with the history, and the ones they did were to add people that we didn't even know in the first place.
Kallamis! wow, your comments show that you prob. should have done the review! Dead on sir Exactly!
Post a Comment