The Amazing Spider-Man - Review

SPOILERS THROUGHOUT THIS REVIEW

Back in 2010, it was announced that Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 4 was being scrapped and that the entire franchise was going to be rebooted with a new director, cast & story. And, like most people, I was of the opinion that this was a bad idea - it was too soon, the Spider-Man movies were really excellent (with the exception of 3) and should be left alone, etcetera etcetera.

However, when it was revealed that Andrew Garfield would be playing Peter Parker and that Marc Webb -- who directed one of my all time favourite films, (500) Days of Summer -- had signed on to direct, I was swayed and thought this film would be awesome. Plus, they scrapped Mary Jane in favour of Gwen Stacy, and Emma Stone had been cast in the role (and anybody who knows me well knows that I love Emma Stone.)So, I was pretty excited for The Amazing Spider-Man, and even though none of the trailers had me bugging out like Prometheus and The Dark Knight Rises, it was still one of my most anticipated films of 2012. Having now seen it (in IMAX 3D), I have to say that the film itself isn't the problem and is very, very good; it is Sony's interference where the problems lie.

First off, all the action sequences in the film are in the trailers. Like, all of them. There was no element of surprise during any of the scenes when the Lizard is trying to take over New York. The antidote that Spider-Man disperses into the sky, which ultimately saves the day, is in the trailer! Don't get me wrong, I understand that action sequences have to be shown in the trailer to draw in an audience, but to show pretty much everything is just a poor effort on Sony's part. Likewise, there are action sequences in the trailers that aren't in the movie! So, not only are the audience expecting sequences that haven't made it into the final cut, but all the scenes that have made the cut are in the trailers anyway. This is a classic example of when studios have more power than the director - Marc Webb isn't a big-shot director; he doesn't have a high status within the industry anyway, let alone in comparison to Sam Raimi, or even out of the Spider-Man franchise, directors like Ridley Scott and Christopher Nolan. Because of this, he essentially has no control how his film is marketed.

Take Prometheus or The Dark Knight Rises for example - the marketing for both these films have been so clever in terms of giving things away. Prometheus went down the viral route, releasing short films/promos leading up to the film itself, which was perfect, because people were intrigued by what was actually going to happen based on these viral videos. Similarly, The Dark Knight Rises has given absolutely nothing away in its trailer - it's not even clear who Marion Cotillard's character is (unless you've done your research). The prologue was cool, but it hasn't given away any of the plot for the film, so people are going in not really knowing the context in which things are happening, which is again, perfect. The reason this has been allowed to happen is because Ridley Scott & Christopher Nolan are very highly regarded in the film world, especially within the genres they are working in - Scott's previous two science fiction films are regarded as the best in history, and Nolan's Batman series and Inception have been commercial and critical successes - why would you mess with them? Because Marc Webb has only directed one film before The Amazing Spider-Man which was an indie sleeper hit, Sony hold all the power, and because of this, too much footage was released. This eventually did happened to Raimi too with Spider-Man 3, and look how that turned out...

Following on from this, another major problem was that Sony released way too many clips. Sleepy Skunk made an excellent supercut of all the footage released from The Amazing Spider-Man prior to its release, which equalled out at 25 minutes. That's a lot of material to release, considering the film is only 2 hours 15 minutes. This sounds long, but for a movie of such a grand scale, the less footage released, the better. I only watched five minutes of this supercut, simply because I didn't want things spoilt for me and had avoided watching all the released clips anyway for the exact same reason. But the fact that Sleepy Skunk made this supercut to show how much Sony had released from The Amazing Spider-Man before it was even released just proves that audiences would rather just see a couple of trailers of basically the same thing, rather than have too much being available to watch. And just on a side note, I think it's hilarious that Sony keep trying to take it down, considering they were the ones that released the clips in the first place.

Now, onto the film itself. The casting is absolutely perfect - Andrew Garfield is a much better Peter Parker than Tobey Maguire; he's sarcastic, charming, angsty (in a good way) and hot -- which is good for me because I have a weird crush on Peter Parker -- resembling the Peter Parker from the comics who everybody loved in the first place. Emma Stone is also excellent as Gwen Stacy, and the chemistry between the two characters is electric -- as you'd expect it to be, considering Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone are dating in real life -- and definitely a lot better than in Raimi's series, because Kirsten Dunst and Tobey Maguire hated each other. Martin Sheen and Sally Fields are also great as Uncle Ben and Aunt May, who were so annoying in Sam Raimi's series. Aunt May's hectoring made me want to gouge her eyes out as well as my own. And let's face it, any film with Martin Sheen in is worthy of a watch - what a legend. Rhys Ifans as the Lizard was fine - I have no complaints really, I'm just not a huge fan of the Lizard as a character & the special effects were a bit goofy.

In terms of directing, Marc Webb did a great job, particularly with the human moments. The quiet looks, the awkward exchanges and all that fun stuff were so well done, it almost got to the point where I just wanted to watch the human stuff rather than the Spidey stuff. That's arguably quite problematic for a Spider-Man film, as the appeal should predominantly be Spidey swinging around New York fighting bad guys. The action sequences aren't necessarily bad in this film, they just didn't have much impact because they've already been shown in the trailers. However, Webb did make this Spider-Man a lot more suspenseful than the previous instalments. For instance, the scene when Gwen is hiding in the cupboard at OsCorp waiting for the Lizard to arrive, is awesome - really horror movie-esque and because she was a sympathetic character, it was easy for people to fear for her safety. However, I did not feel that way when Spider-Man saves the little boy from the burning car, simply because the CGI was pants.

The sad thing about this as a comic book movie is that it doesn't really have an identity; there's nothing really iconic about it. Unlike in the first Spider-Man where you have the upside down kiss in the rain, the Green Goblin flying about, and the epic montage of Peter Parker creating his Spider-Man suit - scenes that I personally identify with Raimi's series - don't really exist in this film. It's not like the Batman movies where you can differentiate a Tim Burton interpretation to a Nolan interpretation. Apart from maybe all the shattered glass, there's nothing that really stands out as Marc Webb's Amazing Spider-Man series. Maybe that'll be more apparent in the sequels, but it is a shame that this film didn't have its own identity.

My biggest problem with the film is the editing, which I'd like to stress isn't Marc Webb's fault - it's Sony's, yet again. The tagline for this movie is 'The Untold Story', promising that this film would give us answers about Peter's parents and that perhaps it was his destiny to become Spider-Man through some sort of genetic mutation or something. After The Amazing Spider-Man was over, 'The Untold Story' is still to be told - we are only smidgens closer to finding out why Peter's parents disappeared, and still don't know if Peter is in fact special and destined to adopt these Spidey senses, or if it was just an accident. You could argue that the answers will be revealed in the sequels, but this was the film that promised to tell the untold story, not 'we'll start it, but you'll have to wait until the second and possibly the third film to get your answers'. However, I think this is because of last minute editing changes from Sony, which I will now illustrate.



PHOTO ABOVE COURTESY OF BADASSDIGEST.COM

In May, these photos were released by Sony, clearly showing a confrontation between Dr Connors/The Lizard, Spider-Man & Dr Ratha. Yes, Dr Ratha, do you remember him? He's the guy who works for Norman Osborn and knows that Connors is working with cross-species DNA merging. He's also the guy who the Lizard attacks in the cab and then just disappears for the rest of the film. But this obviously wasn't meant to be the last time we saw Dr Ratha, as these photos show. Clearly a confrontation between Connors and Ratha takes place in the sewers, probably about Peter Parker, which Spider-Man arrives in half-way through, eliciting to all hell breaking loose and Ratha's demise. It was explicitly mentioned by Ratha in the trailer 'Do you think what happened to you, Peter, was an accident?', but was completely cut from the movie! And because we never actually found out why, his death was axed and he was just left in his cab. SONY, WHAT ARE YOU DOING? Why would you cut the untold story, the story you've been promising us, from the final cut of the movie?

Likewise, the whole storyline of looking for Uncle Ben's killer, which is the main reason why Peter becomes Spider-Man, is just forgotten. It's like you could just tap Peter on the shoulder and be like 'Err, dude. You still need to catch Uncle Ben's killer...' and he'd be like 'Oh shit, yeah. I still need to do that!' I know that Captain Stacy said that Spider-Man wasn't helping people and was just hunting these guys for vengeance, and that's probably why he stopped, but it just didn't have any closure whatsoever. Whether or not that was an editing goof, I don't know, but I felt there was no tying up of that story, and it just fell off Peter's radar like it was nothing. When Martin Sheen is your uncle, it DOES NOT slip off your radar. Ever. Have you not seen the man put on a jacket?

Another thing that also annoyed me was the post-credits scene. Usually Marvel delivers on the post-credit scene and you're pumped for the next film. This post-credit scene however, WAS IN THE TRAILER. I'm sorry, but that is just lazy and cheap. How can you get excited for something that you've seen in the trailer and were expecting to see in the movie? I don't care if they are setting up the sequel - these questions were meant to be answered in this film, not hinted at for future films. And it's pretty obvious that Connors is talking to Norman Osborn. Who else could it be? He was mentioned at least 2 or 3 times in the movie, and Connors works at OsCorp - who else could it be? Also, it would make sense if they're going with the whole Gwen Stacy storyline... So yeah, my bet is that it is Norman Osborn. Some people are claiming it's Mysterio - just go home.

So overall, I did really enjoy The Amazing Spider-Man, but felt it suffered due to Sony's interference and their primary goal of making sure they didn't lose the rights to Spider-Man. If Marc Webb had been given full reign, I think this film would have been tighter narratively, and the marketing wouldn't have ruined the impact of the movie, especially the action sequences. The cast is better this time around, and it's not as cheesy as Raimi's series, which is always good. Bring on the sequels, that's what I say, 'cause I want to still hear this untold story. Or maybe a Director's Cut...



The Amazing Spider-Man IMAX screen before the film started.



Martin Sheen's Jacket Flip in Badlands

Badass Digest Article

The Sleepy Skunk Ultimate Super Preview

Prometheus Review

Back in 1979, Ridley Scott’s second full length feature, Alien, was let loose on the world and changed the way in which Science Fiction was viewed forever. It tampered with the rule book of not just the Science Fiction genre, but cinema in general – Ellen Ripley was the strong female protagonist that was long overdue in a predominantly masculine genre. It was made on a shoestring budget and proved once again that the best Sci-Fi is made on a virtually nothing but ideas (see 2001 and Alphaville if you need more convincing). It’s filled with pivotal scenes that are regarded as some of the scariest film moments of all time, and has forever implanted the fear of coming face-to-face (no pun intended) with face huggers and chest-bursters. Numerous sequels followed, some with success (Aliens, although personally I’m not a huge fan) and some with not so much success (Alien 3, Alien Resurrection, etcetera.), but one thing is certain, the Alien universe has become a cultural phenomenon and subject to fanboys, intertextual references (Postmodernists just can’t get enough) and being a hot choice for Halloween costumes.

33 years on and we are back in Alien territory, with Ridley Scott returning to the directing chair for Prometheus – a sort-of prequel that has ‘strands of Alien DNA’ in it. The budget is substantially bigger at $120 million and has an A-List cast comprising of Noomi Rapace, Michael Fassbender, Guy Pearce, Charlize Theron, Logan Marshall-Green and Idris Elba. Not only has Prometheus received the big budget treatment, it has had one of the best viral marketing campaigns since The Dark Knight, with the release of numerous videos starring some of the characters within the film – all of which hint to connections to the Alien world. The excitement was off the scale – this was going to be Ridley Scott’s Sci-Fi hat-trick: Alien, Blade Runner and Prometheus. In a year of The Avengers, The Hobbit, The Dark Knight Rises & The Amazing Spider-Man, Prometheus was the film everybody was most excited to see. Plus, Michael Fassbender is in it, and any movie with Michael Fassbender is worthy of watching. So, did it live up to the hype? Did the viral marketing campaign and awesome trailers match-up with the finished product? Were pants shat all across the land from its awesomeness? Will Christopher Nolan have shat his pants with worry? Let’s just say Nolan’s pants will have encountered a mere bit of pee, and as for everything else – it’s a very mixed bag.

The word that keeps coming up to describe Prometheus is ‘disappointing’. Critics and cinephiles alike who have revelled in the trailers, viral videos and just the prospect of another Ridley Scott Alien movie have generally felt let down by its difference in ideas, the fact that it isn’t as stripped back as the original, and its poor script. I’m privy to agree on some levels, as I’m a massive fan of Alien – not the whole franchise; I’m not a huge James Cameron fan, so I wasn’t as taken with Aliens as everybody else, and Alien 3 really wasn’t anything special, but is quite strong stylistically and is the germ for David Fincher’s signature visual eye which, anyone knows me well will know, I’m a huge fan of (I’m a Fincher fangirl – leave me alone!). So although I’d seen the Alien movies, I wouldn’t call myself a hardcore fan of the series, just the first film. In relation to Prometheus, it obviously doesn’t hold-up to its predecessor, or successor depending on how you look at it, but as a standalone film, it isn’t as bad as a lot of people have been saying.

Just to clarify, we’re not on LV-426, Prometheus is on LV-223 - the Alien world isn’t known yet. Archaeologists Dr Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) have found a star map of the same pictogram amongst several cultures across the globe which they believe were made by the ‘Engineers’, our creators as in invitation to be found. The now elderly Peter Weyland of Weyland Corporations funds the mission for Prometheus to follow the star map onto LV-223. Already, this contrasts with the Alien world, which presents a more rational explanation of where we came from and focuses more on what we as human beings have done. Prometheus takes a more creational viewpoint, which initially seems fine, as it suggests there could be a shift in ideologies, leading towards the rational look. However, this is problematised by the beliefs of film’s lead, Elizabeth Shaw. She believes in God – something that we’re constantly reminded of as she is sporting a silver cross around her neck during the whole film, yet she wants to meet our creators, which almost instantaneously, causes the science/religion debate to become muddled. SPOILER And yet, by the time we do meet the only Engineer left on LV-223, it’s this porcelain looking bald guy who doesn’t talk and likes to beat people up. Talk about underwhelming – I would rather have had an ambiguous, open to interpretation ending that people could debate and discuss for months after, just like the ending of Inception. However, it wasn’t all bad in the end, and we are at least two films away from Alien, so maybe more blanks need to be filled, but I thought the whole humanoid thing was dumb. Apparently in the original draft of the script by Jon Spaihts, it was a lot more like the Alien, but brought in the bigger questions about humanity. However, after Damon Lindelof (Lost, Cowboys and Aliens) was signed on to do the re-write, it appears that stripped down, less is more approach was abandoned and making a big Sci-Fi epic became a primary goal. I’m not criticising Lindelof here, Ridley Scott was the one that hired him for the re-write after all, but I can’t help but wonder what the film would’ve been like if a big studio film writer hadn’t been hired for the re-write. Lindelof writes blockbusters and Prometheus probably would’ve served better not being a blockbuster, rather than an intelligent Science Fiction movie, just like its foundation film.

Prometheus asks really interesting questions about morality and humanity, and whether or not the two coincide. It’s another example of Science Fiction that is about ideas and is grand in scope - the Sci-Fi which I think is the best. Take away the futuristic elements and Prometheus could still have a story. Although traits are shared with Alien, the film also shares traits with Scott’s other Sci-Fi masterpiece, Blade Runner, especially in relation to humanity. This is most obvious through the character of David (Michael Fassbender), the Android space butler. To quote the ‘bot himself, he understands human emotion although he doesn’t feel them himself, which puts forward the question about the state of human beings in the future and the fear of people becoming desensitised to everything around them. SPOILER For example, when David infects Holloway, there’s neither remorse nor rationale behind his motives. Is David trying to suggest that by interfering with things that are greater than you, it can only lead to disaster, or that we are facing a world that is no longer concerned with ethics and simply being conditioned to partake in activities that’ll give us a higher status or claim on society? This obsession with image and perception that is common with the 21st Century is exacerbated in Prometheus, with the implication that this is what the future will be.

The film also parallels with the actual story of Prometheus – the Greek titan who stole fire from the God’s and gave it to man who used it not only for good but for evil and as a result, Prometheus was tied to a rock and had his liver pecked out by an eagle every day for the rest of his life. The crew of Prometheus are essentially doing the same thing – they are messing with the masses (the Engineers) and because of this, they are punished.

Because the film is fuelled on huge and complex ideas, it is hard to relate to the characters on a personal level. In Alien, the characters spoke in small, mumbled conversations about everyday things like Parker wanting to get paid and go home. They were relatable characters, so the realisation that the majority of them were going to die filled viewers with a horrid sense of dread. The iconic chest-burster scene had so much impact because it was so calm beforehand. In Prometheus however, all the conversations are big picture, big ideas, and big questions. And for that reason, the characters are foreign and are no longer relatable to an audience like they were 33 years ago. Furthermore, unlike in Alien when Ripley isn’t presented as the heroine until over halfway through, it is clear who the lead is and the rank in which the other characters will die. Shaw is our new Ripley, her feminine counterpart. Her relationship with Holloway doesn’t serve any real purpose other than as a plot device. She is a very strong character, but that’s overshadowed by her conflicting beliefs that we are constantly reminded of, and the fact that she goes all gooey in most of the scenes she shares with Holloway. It isn’t until a pivotal moment well into the third act that it is clear how strong Shaw really is, and if it wasn’t for Noomi Rapace’s sterling performance, people wouldn’t care about Shaw by the time that moment arrives. Idris Elba and Charlize Theron are severely underused, and although Elba does get a couple of laughs and a shining moment towards the end, Theron has nothing to do except set David his orders and repeatedly saying not to engage with things. SPOILER Plus, she gets the most redundant movie death ever, which is pretty ridiculous considering she’s Charlize Theron – it’s not like she’s Rafe Spall or even Idris Elba; she’s a big Hollywood star who has nothing to do, which makes me question why she agreed to be a part of it in the first place.

THIS PARAGRAPH IS FULL OF SPOILERS.
In terms of scares, Prometheus is quite impressive. The death of Milburn is pretty nasty – there is something about breaking bones alone that is unsettling, not to mention a snake-looking alien entering a person’s body through their mouth. The mutation of Fifield however was a bit goofy; he just looked like a hankered old drunk guy wanting another drink. He killed some crew members, sure, but were they anybody we cared about? No. And to be honest, when the other crew members did kill him, it wasn’t exactly gutting. The two worst bits for me – and I must confess, I am a bit of a baby when it comes to this kind of stuff – were surrounding Holloway and Shaw. Firstly, when David infected Holloway by putting the black liquid in his drink, my stomach turned – it was the ‘here we go’ moment. *Just FYI, no one will ever be making me a drink ever again. When Holloway then slept with Shaw that night, which was obviously going to happen, disastrous consequences were going to ensue. The morning after Holloway’s eye is looking a bit bloodshot and nasty, and then a tiny little worm thing wriggles out! Fucking ERRR, that was disgusting. Anything to do with eyes is repulsive. But without a doubt, the worst bit was when we realise that Shaw, who can’t have children (yeah, they played that card), was pregnant, but not with a human foetus. Yes, that already happened to Ripley too, but this time it was a lot more claustrophobic, due to the fact that not only does Shaw survive this, but she has to perform her own caesarean with the help of self-operating pod that is introduced in the beginning. This was what I was looking forward to most scare-wise; I had my fist in my mouth, my stomach was churning, I was cursing repeatedly – it was grotesque and intense, and it was the shining moment in the film. That moment also cemented my reasoning for seeing it in IMAX 3D – it was amplified to its highest and just made it even scarier. The only problem was that there was still 40 minutes to go, and unlike Alien in which the scares snuck-up on you right into the final 10 minutes, Prometheus ran out of steam after that whilst I waited for something even bigger to happen. Alas, it did not.

So overall, I did really enjoy Prometheus. It wasn’t the movie I was expecting it to be, and my mind wasn’t as monumentally blown as I hoping. That being said, I thought it was a solid film in parts and has created new iconic movie moments that nerds like myself will be discussing in years to come. The 3D was good, but it didn’t add to the experience much – although the IMAX screen did; I would’ve preferred an IMAX 2D experience, just because 3D is a bit disorientating after a while, but it didn’t ruin the experience for me at all. It doesn’t deserve the hate that it has been getting from the film community – it’s not a bad film, it was just a disappointment in comparison to Alien. If it were a standalone Science Fiction movie without any links (or even just knowing links) to Alien, it would serve a lot better as a film about big, ambitious ideas. Plus, Noomi Rapace & Michael Fassbender are awesome, and that’s always worth celebrating.