When I was growing up there were two Marvel Comics series that I read pretty religiously. The first was the X-Men. In the late 80's and early 90's the X books, which included The Uncanny X-Men, X-Factor, and X-Force among others, were Marvel's flagship money makers. Chris Claremont, who wrote them, was pumping out some of the best story arcs the series would know (Days of Future Past, Inferno, X-tinction Agenda, etc.).
The other series I could not go without was The Amazing Spider-Man. I still remember reading Todd MacFarlane's run on the comic, including the creation of popular villain, Venom, and the Torment story arc which featured The Lizard like he had never been seen before. MacFarlane's unique take on the web-slinger, including his insanely detailed work on the web strands themselves, was revolutionary for its time.
 |
| Todd MacFarlane's dynamic work on Spider-Man was revolutionary for its time. |
MacFarlane -- along with other great artists like Erik Larsen -- were doing fantastic work on Spider-Man in that era and, for me -- a pretty stereotypical pre-teen boy -- I was drawn to Peter Parker's story. A young teenager, orphaned when his parents died in a sudden car crash, who is raised by his caring Aunt May and Uncle Ben. Bullied in high school because he is a nerd who excels at science, one day he finds himself bitten by a radioactive spider that bestows upon him all the attributes of the arachnid. Super strength and agility, the ability to stick to walls and a spider sense that warns of him of impending danger.
Spider-Man has always been the peoples' comic book hero. He was created by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko in 1962, and, in a medium that is populated by characters that can do extraordinary things, his story has always been about the day-to-day struggles of just dealing with life just as much as about being a costumed vigilante and fighting super-villains. I identified with that much more than many of the other popular superheroes. Sure I loved them too, but Peter Parker seemed to represent the common man much more.
How could I know what's it like to use my inherited billions to invent a ton of gadgets, dress up like a bat and fight crime? Can I really empathize deeply with an alien immigrant from a distant planet, gifted with the powers of a god, and raised to be the protector of humanity? But, a New York kid who struggles to pay his bills, maintain a normal relationship with the girl he loves, care for his widowed aunt and deal with a jerk of a boss? That hit a little closer to home for me.
Then, you throw in the spider powers and a healthy amount of guilt that stems from the violent death of Uncle Ben. He is gunned down by a common thief who Peter could have stopped, but selfishly chose to let go. Now you have a very complex character that is recognizable as a human being, just as much as a superhero -- flaws and all.
Because I grew up reading Spider-Man, it is difficult for me to watch a movie adaption of his comic while divorcing myself from my emotional connections to the character(s) on the page. To be clear, I am not the kind of moviegoer who demands a slavish conformity to the source material if the picture is adapted from an earlier work. I do feel that the themes that made the original work successful should be intact in some way, but if changes need to be made and they make sense and I can understand why the filmmaker did it, then I'm not going to argue. So, it is with this in mind that I attempt to collect my thoughts after seeing Marc Webb's second shot at bringing the wallcrawler to the screen in The Amazing Spider-Man 2.
I should preface this review by saying that I was not a big fan of Webb's first Amazing Spider-Man a few years ago. There were aspects of it that I thought improved over Sam Raimi's previous trilogy. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone are better choices than Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst. Their chemistry is better and they even are better actors, in my opinion. The choice to use Gwen Stacy as Peter's first love is important and truer to the comic. When Raimi just threw her into Spider-Man 3 as a foil for Peter and Mary Jane, I was really appalled. Returning to having a single villain with The Lizard -- played well by Rhys Ifans -- was also a good choice. The Lizard is one of Spider-Man's greatest and most tragic foes. Also, the tense relationship with Gwen's father, Captain Stacy (Denis Leary), was important to add more dimension to the difficult choices Peter has to make when trying to have a relationship with Stacy's daughter.
Everything else in the movie was awful. After going through our hero's origin again, which has him getting bitten by a genetically-altered spider, he must stop Dr. Curt Connors -- who has transformed himself into The Lizard -- from turning the entire population of New York into millions of reptiles like him. It was not as bad as Raimi's Spider-Man 3, but it was pretty underwhelming.
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 picks up right where the first one left off, and, in some ways, it improves on the first; but not enough for me to whole-heartedly give it my stamp of approval for Spider-Man fans everywhere.
First, the film continues the unnecessary back story of Peter's parents and the mystery surrounding their demise. In both the comics and Raimi's original trilogy, his parents died in a freak car accident. There was no conspiracy involved, no Oscorp involvement. Having them killed for some experimental work that Richard Parker was developing and having that very same work being the cause of Peter's super powers takes away from that very same reality I said the comic was grounded in. For me, it cheapens the back story of Spider-Man and takes away from what made it unique.
Next, there is not only the choice to overly stuff the movie with three villains (although the Rhino only appears briefly), but there is the choice to make Electro the main villain. I guess I should have known he would come up at some point; he is a big member of Spider-Man's rogues gallery. But, he has always been one of the lamest for me. I think Webb tried to make him more interesting by making him sympathetic. In the comics, he is simply struck by lightning and has no prior connection or obsession with the web-slinger. He immediately turns to crime, stealing equipment to charge his powers. Webb also tried to update Electro's look, giving him a glowing blue form (Matt is right, he looks like a Dr. Manhattan rip-off) and cooler black costume. He can also de-materialize at will; something the original character could never do (how does that costume re-atomize with him?). I guess if you've ever seen Electro in the comics, you will understand the need to give him a face lift. Actually, they gave him an entire re-imagining, because Jamie Foxx's villain is nearly unrecognizable from the guy in the comics.
 |
| If you were making a Spider-Man movie, would you really choose this guy as your main villain?? |
I don't disagree with all the changes to Electro (save the de-materializing thing), I just don't think they should have used him at all. I feel other unused villains like the Vulture, Kraven the Hunter, or Mysterio would have been better choices. Or they should have just focused on Harry Osborn and his transformation into the Green Goblin. The Goblin has always been Spider-Man's greatest foe. And while I thought Dane DeHaan's performance was great -- and one of the highlights of the movie -- I can't get past the fact they shoved Norman Osborn under the rug so quickly. Readers of the comic know that it's actually Norman who is the original Green Goblin and the worst enemy Peter Parker has ever faced. Not to spoil the film, but the events that unfold at the end are caused by the older Osborn in the original story, not by his son Harry, who becomes the Goblin later. It might be a minor quibble, but it's a shame to see the character get the shaft so suddenly. I don't really understand why they even got an actor of Chris Cooper's stature to play what amounted to a five minute scene.
 |
| Max Dillon (Jamie Foxx) develops an unhealthy fixation on our hero after his life is saved by the wall-crawler. |
There is some good here, though. Garfield and Stone are even better as their love story grows even deeper and more complicated. The best scenes in the movie usually involve them navigating these complications. Again, it's here where the film feels more like the comic as Peter tries to decide how he should handle his love for Gwen. Jamie Foxx does the best he can with Electro. Dane DeHaan makes me excited to see where the Green Goblin can go. And the ending of the movie is handled well, as it brings to the screen one of the most important events in Spider-Man's history and, despite the issues I brought up earlier, they are as true as they can be to the original story.
 |
| These two are great together. If they just cut out Electro and focused on them and Harry Osborne this might have been good. |
Sitting there, watching The Amazing Spider-Man 2, I asked myself the same question I had asked when I saw Webb's first chapter in this proposed series. Why? Why was this series re-booted so soon and why did it bore me? I love Spider-Man. I mean, I was excited for this sequel. Not as much as others. Why is that?
I came to the conclusion that my apathy towards this new Spider-Man series has more to do with the current state of Hollywood's summer blockbusters than it does with these actual movies. There were 5 years between the end of Sam Raimi's trilogy and the start of Marc Webb's. Could it be that it was too soon to reboot? The box office numbers certainly don't lie as the money is pouring in for these movies. Warner Brothers had great success financially and critically with rebooting the Batman franchise in 2005 with Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins. That led to 2008's The Dark Knight, widely considered by many -- myself included -- to be the greatest comic book movie ever made.
 |
| Fans line the streets to see Star Wars at its premiere in 1977. Movies would never be the same. |
No, I think when I look at the slate of summer films, I yearn for something original to break through. It's clear that the major studios have figured out that pop culture icons of old -- including comic book heroes from Marvel's and DC's canon -- are like an ATM machine for hundreds of millions of dollars worldwide. Disney's acquisition of Marvel and the Star Wars and Indiana Jones franchises showed that these major companies have figured out what audiences want. Year after year, they will release sequel after sequel. Transformers 4, The Avengers: Age of Ultron, Batman vs. Superman, and Star Wars: Episode VII are sure things in their book and, when gambling on fortunes being made or lost, no one wants to take a chance on an unproven script.
It was Steven Spielberg's Jaws that began the era of the summer blockbuster back in 1975. Throughout the 80's and 90's -- the golden age of these types of movies -- we were given such classics like Raiders of the Lost Ark, E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial, Back to the Future, Aliens, Terminator 2: Judgement Day, and Jurassic Park, among others. When will a director like Spielberg or James Cameron come along with vision to create original movies like those? Today's popular directors like J.J. Abrams, Joss Whedon and yes, even Michael Bay, are slaves to source material. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy their movies very much. I love the nostalgic feeling of watching characters that are familiar and fun. But, don't you think it's time for studios to take some of this money they're raking in and spend it on some new scripts with original ideas and story lines? I certainly do.
There is one movie coming out this summer I am anxious to see, and, surprisingly enough, it is not based on any previous work. It is called Jupiter Ascending and it's directed by the Wachowski's. The same siblings who gave us The Matrix back in 1999. It stars Mila Kunis and Channing Tatum, and looks to be an exciting sci-fi adventure. My fear is that it will completely tank, and it probably will. Many critics I read are selecting it to be the flop of the summer. That would be a shame if it actually turns out to be a good movie. I like the idea that it is out there, though, about to come out in July, and that the Wachowski's still had enough Matrix cred to get it made. You may or may not like their work, but I'm sure they could have directed any Marvel or DC movie they wanted, but chose to stay true to the kind of movies they want to make.
 |
| Oh my! A big budget summer movie no based on anything!!!! |
In closing, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 will make a ton of money. Does it deserve to? Not really, in my opinion. But it does have its good moments. It tries to do too much and moves too far away from what makes the character great for me to say it's good.
No comments:
Post a Comment