The Amazing Spider-Man

It is impossible to not compare The Amazing Spider-Man to Spider-Man which has a 10 year difference in release date.  It is a bit frustrating watching the entire origin story retold when most of America already knows what occurred.  But here we are re hashing an old story.  But to the credit of the movie's stars, director, and creative team they are able to create an interesting and engaging story.  The Amazing Spider-Man is a solid summer blockbuster that has enough energy and fun story-telling to hold you off till The Dark Knight Rises comes out

This first part will hopefully answer the question as to why this movie is coming out and it all has to do with money.   Had Sony decided to do a fourth movie with the entire crew they had on, a sizable chink of the movie's budget would have gone to the movie's stars including 50 million to Tobey Maguire and far more creative control to director Sam Raimi after having Venom shoved down his throat despite not wanting to deal with that villain.  So it was cheaper to go out and get a new younger staff of up and coming actors that are bordering on the A-list if not already there and a director who has only done one other movie and that being (500) Days of Summer.

The other factor being that Sony was about to lose the rights to the character. Back in the 90's Marvel was hemorrhaging cash so they sold off their characters to various movie studios.  Had Sony not made a new movie by this year the rights to the character would have reverted back to Marvel and they could have made their own movie.  So that is why this movie had to be made.

So they went out and they got their younger cast crew.  First off and this is an easy point to get past but how do Andrew Garfield, who is 28, and Emma Stone, who is 23, look like they belong in high school? But no movie high schoolers ever do.  The next problem is that Garfield is a good looking guy, and doesn't really get the same nerdy image we got from Maguire when he played the young teen.  But a credit to his skill Garfield is able to get at the awkwardness that any out of touch high school student may feel, making the character  believable.  Emma Stone may have been the best piece about this movie, and far better portrayed than Bryce Dallas Howard throw away part in the third movie.  The chemistry between the two actors, who are dating in real life now, pops on the screen and drives the story forward.  I loved Martin Sheen as Uncle Ben and thought he played a very strong mentoring figure, but there was no way that Sally Field was going to be better than Rosemary Harris for the role of Aunt May, Harris was perfect for that part just look at the difference.

 

But with a remake and re imaging of the series they have the opportunity to go in whatever direction they like, but when retelling the story that seems to be all they do, retell the story.  Even if Uncle Ben is now played by President Bartlett how can anyone continue to feel for him if we know he is going to die every decade or so.  Both Batman series got it right, with Tim Burton's he didn't feel the need to start Bruce Wayne out before he was Batman; everyone already knew he was.  Christopher Nolan recreated the origin story when he rebooted the series because he took his Batman in such a different and grittier direction.

In Spider-Man we still see Peter Parker as a dweeby high school student who gains his power when he is bit by a radioactive spider and understands his responsibility after his Uncle dies.   The only more depth we get is the audience watching Peter's parents walk out on him and the burden that leaves on the boy.  He even reappears in a wrestling ring and lets his Uncle's killer get away, nothing has changed. To their credit, the creative team does a great job retelling the origin story, and connects you with who this Peter Parker is going to be.  But it takes up the whole first half of the movie, and you almost wish they just could have skipped all that and gone straight to the action.

It is unfair to always comparing the two franchises, if you can judge this movie on its own merits it really is good.  Garfield and Stone carry this movie and Webb writes towards that strength.  It is easy to see just why Emma Stone is all over the place in Hollywood as she has become such a versatile actress.  And Garfield does great with teenage angst.  The on-screen chemistry bursts off the screen and you get a real sense of first love all on top of a gloomier timeline for Peter Parker.  The visuals are stunning and there is a solid use of 3-D specifically in the fight sequences and inside the lab.  It was also nice seeing our hero doing some live stunts instead of going straight to CGI as soon as the mask comes on.  I didn't need the first person point of view as Spider-Man flies through the streets, but I respect Webb taking a chance and going for it.

The Lizard wasn't an especially daunting villain and his motives seemed too crazy and illogical even for a mad scientist.  I really wish that the physical threat of the Lizard could have been what they made the Venom character into.  Despite a darker  tone, as the movie reaches its climax the characters get a little campy.  That is understandable as that is always how Spider-Man was written, even though it appeared he wasn't that way at all until the movie reached its last few fight sequences.

There is a good movie in here and walking into The Amazing Spider-Man with low expectations helped.  You expect to see the same thing, and unfortunately they show you the same thing.  It is very similar to hearing your friend tell you the same story again and again, but you don't mind hearing it because it is a really good story.  But in the back of your head you already know how this one is going to end. B-

Oscars 2011: First Glance

It's Oscar Season. Followers of this blog know that I love this time of year and like to draw it out as much as possible. So while I do plan on doing a post on my predictions for the awards, first here are a few things that caught my eye.

I knew that The King's Speech would be Oscar bait, I didn't think it would be leading the pack with 12 nominations. I thought it would be The Social Network. But the movie leading with all the best picture awards already didn't even garner second place. True Grit, which is a fun movie don't get wrong, took second with ten nominations.

This may be because of the glaring omission of Andrew Garfield as Supporting Actor. I genuinely thought all three men, Garfield, Justin Timberlake and Armie Hammer all deserved nominations for their performances, but that wasn't legitimately possible. Instead none get nominated and that is unfortunate.

Where was Nolan's nomination for director? Two years ago they expanded the Best Picture field to include blockbusters that don't get love from the Academy. So while Inception is rightly included in the best picture field it didn't get any love in the directing field. Nolan probably deserved more accolades for his directing than his screen writing. But if it were the other way around I'd probably still be bitching about it.

For lead actors Ryan Gosling got robbed. His performance with Michelle Williams is symbiotic, how is it possible for one to get nominatted and not the other. I imagine it was Javier Bardem who took his spot. Like most of America though I haven't seen Biutiful but I plan on getting to the bottom of this. I hear good things though, and to his credit Bardem becomes the first actor to be nominated as solely specking in Spanish throughout the film.

Call me crazy but I enjoyed Julianne Moore's performance more than Annette Bening's from The Kids Are Alright. Both deserved nominations and if only one was going to get the honor everyone knew it was going to be Bening but I thought Bening had a one strong moment where as Moore was consistently good throughout the movie.

Wasn't Waiting for "Superman" supposed to be the documentary everyone had to see to save our children? How did this movie not get nominated?

I love that Melissa Leo earned a nomination as the maniacal mother in The Fighter but where is the love for Barbara Hershey an equally if not more sinister parental figure for Black Swan because I'm not actually even sure if she was that evil or not.

Everyone is saying that The Town deserved more accolades. And with ten pictures being nominated for Best Picture it is really hard to snub a film anymore when it really only comes down to one or two films. What about directing or the screenplay. I actually agreed with the Academy on this one, and while it was a fun movie, unlike Nolan (who I would gladly substitute for Tom Hooper) I couldn't take anyone off the directing list for Ben Affleck.

What did you think. Am I wrong in any of these nomiantions? Is there someone else you thought got snubbed? Let me know

The Social Network

When word first came out that there was going to be a Facebook movie that was my first reaction "There is going to be a Facebook movie?!?" It was tough to initially sell it for me, but then the movie gained director David Fincher (Fight Club, Se7en) and screenwriter Aaron Sorkin (The West Wing, A Few Good Men). Then the critical reviews started coming out (it currently has a 97 on Rotten Tomatoes). The moment that sealed the deal is when the trailer featuring Kanye's song "Power" hit. I was hooked I needed to see this movie, and by most accounts many of you will probably see it in the near future if you haven't already.

The movie opens in a Cambridge bar that I have frequented on several occasions, and like most great motivators it all starts with a bad break up. Sorkin shows off a fast paced dialogue while Fincher sets the mood with the grungy lighting and turns a casual encounter into an eerie setting, their work really mashes up well together. In fact most of the best scenes happen when the characters are sitting down at a table with quick cuts and quicker dialogue. The sharp wit moves a mile a minute and if you lose focus you may miss an entire conversation.

Jesse Eisenberg stars as the CEO Mark Zuckerburg, many just may consider him Michael Cera lite but don't be mistaken, Cera may be better know but Eisenberg is a much better actor with a quality resume of films with another great addition. This role isn't too far off from his base, a socially inept outcast, but he somehow makes a self-interested asshole likable. You can't help but feel sorry for him at moments, or not depending on your perspective. Sorkin doesn't write the script taking one side or the other. He gets as many sources as he can and allows the audience to play the jury on each character which becomes fitting as the frame story takes you in and out of two lawsuits occurring simultaneously. The one source he is unable to get is Zuckerberg himself, not surprising, but what is stunning is that the lack of participation may have helped the story. By not getting this perspective it's no longer the Facebook/Zuckerburg movie, but rather a book about Zuckerburg adding more ambiguity to the character and more free range for Eisenberg to let loose.

This movie features a very strong ensemble cast and is easy to see why these actor will be the next generation of big names. Andrew Garfield plays Eduardo Saverin the C.F.O. and Zuckerburg's only friend in the entire film. I've heard some people say that the nicer the person the worse the businessman. Well Saverin is the nicest player in the whole group and in a group of various shades of gray he may be the lightest shade but still doesn't come out squeaky clean. Rooney Mara plays the heart breaker Erica Albright and her fast tongue and strong performance set the tone for the movie and is probably what landed her the lead role in the American version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. It wouldn't be a David Fincher movie without some tricky computer imaging and that's exactly what he does to have one actor play both Winklevoss brothers. Then there is Justin Timberlake who you may not be able to take seriously due to some of his past endeavors. He really proves himself as the young entrepreneur who co-found Napster Sean Parker. He keeps the character sleek and his work on SNL helped hone in on his delivery skills. Timberlake flirts with the audience the entire movie so one minute you’ll love his enthusiasm next you’ll hate his treachery. He proves to be fantastic which may be why Entertainment Weekly wrote an article about how all three supporting actors could receive nominations come award season. That may not be true but Sorkin definitely will and Fincher should.

The Social Network is a modern day Citizen Kane. Both films feature a young upstart looking to make a name for himself in and both want acceptance from society. Even some of the scenes in the movie bear striking resemblance to some of Orson Welles' masterpiece. And why shouldn't this be a modern day retelling, the Internet has clearly taken the over as our main source of information. While I was writing this review I had Facebook up in the background the entire time, not doing anything with it but merely catching up on the tedium of some of my friends life that their inherent narcissism felt the entire world should know. That's what Facebook is all about, it’s an ego driven way to share the minutia of everyday life and I am right up there with some of the worst offenders. Sorkin is able to capture this feeling and addiction to this program in his script and makes this film an early Oscar contender. A