RELATED
The Amazing Spiderman: It's Spidey Through The Looking Glass
Derided in some circles as a needless reboot, The Amazing Spiderman is a fresh and exciting take inspired by the 'What If' Marvel Comic books which cast their superheroes into parallel universes.
Ten years after the original Spiderman launched in 2002 with Tobey Maguire Columbia Pictures/ Sony Entertainment spends $220 million or so on this third sequel, perhaps to bring a new face to the table in Andrew Garfield. A 37 year old Maguire would have been an interesting look at the wall-crawler all grown up, but the relatively unknown 29 year old Garfield does a fine job as the series progresses into this alternate universe. Considered a “reboot” it is actually a different look at the Spiderman saga – a different ending for Uncle Ben, a different Spider-bite for Peter Parker and The Flying Nun as Aunt May. Perhaps Sony was being a bit cute with the obvious references that were bound to be made to Director Marc Webb’s name – the fellow behind music videos from Santana, Green Day, Blues Traveler, Weezer and others…and, of course, the return of the Flying Nun.
“I can’t deny the fact that you like me, right now, you like me!” Sally Field once famously said, and though now-85 year old Rosemary Harris is the quintessential Aunt May (as perfect a casting as Patrick Stewart was as Professor X in The X-Men if you grew up on the comic books in the 1960s), this “What If?” version of Spiderman works with Martin Sheen as Uncle Ben, Field as Aunt May and Denis Leary looking so much like William Dafoe from Spider-Man 1, replacing James Cromwell in the role of Captain Stacy and doing a good job. ”What If?” , by the way, was a series of Marvel Comic books dealing with parallel universe stories …the Marvel heroes in different dimensions, if you will. And that’s what this film is. A look at the Spider-man series through a prism and getting a different perspective on things.
This is an exciting movie for the summer of 2012, Andrew Garfield playing the role with a spirit and enthusiasm that is captivating
When the screening of the film concluded one day at the end of June a critic blurted out “Worse than Daredevil.” It could have been The Boston Globe’s Ty Burr who gave this film a dreadful review, saying – and I quote – “Dumbed down, tarted up, and almost shockingly uninspired, it’s the worst superhero movie since “Green Lantern.”
Hardly the case. This is an exciting movie for the summer of 2012, Andrew Garfield playing the role with a spirit and enthusiasm that is captivating, the high-tech gloss a nice touch bringing “the Frankenstein effect” into yet another movie, man tampering with the forces of nature…as well as the unnatural.
Rhys Ifans is more diabolical than Dylan Baker would have been, Baker set to play the Lizard before the “reboot mania” started at Columbia/Sony. The Lizard looks like a dreaded step-son of Roland Emmerich’s 1998 Godzilla, and perhaps that was the intent. On a production budget of 130m Gozilla brought in 379m worldwide so a little Jurassic Park can go a long way these days.
Two hours and sixteen minutes is a very long movie. But it works. You Marvel Comics fans will enjoy your time in the theater on this one, exactly two months after Marvel’s The Avengers took the world by storm at two hours and twenty-two minutes. Back in the day we used to wait breathlessly for the Marvel comics “Annuals” during the summer, the thicker books with terrific stories. Forty years later blockbuster films have replaced those sagas and this one, The Amazing Spiderman, is a winner.
If you liked this, have a go on these other great articles
Your Sister’s Sister: Proving That Rom-Coms Don’t Have To Be Sugary Nonsense
Shame Is A Great Film, But What About Fassbender’s Bush?
10 Alien Films That Are Much Better Than Prometheus
Click here for more articles about TV and Film in Sabotage Times
Click here to follow Sabotage Times on Twitter
Click here to follow Sabotage Times on Facebook
If you like it, Pass it on
COMMENTS
i'm sure this film isnt to "bring a new face to the table in Andrew Garfield" - you obviously missed The Social Network, Sugar Rush and the underratd Never Let Me Go. I'd say the past 2 years wouldnt consider Andrew Garfield an 'unknown'. And what do you mean "considered a 'reboot'"? It IS a reboot - since Disney bought Marvel and wanted to make their own film/money - its not a sequel.
Thanks for your comment, H.D. All due respect but Garfield did not get to play Mark Zuckerberg in Social Network - this film will make him a star. I stand by my perspective that this is an alternate universe version of Spiderman. The Batman reboot was just that, bringing Batman to his original roots after the series went haywire. Spiderman needed no such reinvention. Spider-man 3 is currently #23 on the all-time worldwide revenue list, Spider-man #31, Spider-man 2 #37 (above both Iron Man films) for an approximate total of $890.9, $821.7 and $783.8 - over 2 billion. 1997's Batman & Robin brought in $238,207,122 worldwide on a budget of 125m; Batman Begins brought in $372,710,015 on a budget of 150m and spawned The Dark Knight. Those are the facts I employed to differentiate "reboot" and "alternate universe." A sequel to Batman & Robin would have been weak; a sequel to Spider-man 3 with Tobey Maguire and the old cast would still have done good business. Methinks Sony just wanted a guy in his 20's, not some dude almost pushing 40, thus the change. However, as stated, I think an older, wiser Spider-man still would've worked.
Its not an unneccessary reboot - sure Spiderman 4 might still have made money but it would have been poor; they were too cartoony, too corny, plus the casting was terrible - Kirsten Dunst doesn't need to be put in any movie, let alone cast as MJ. Certain changes like spidey actually having webshooters this time are an important improvement and having a film that is actually a decent story with half decent characters is something needed in all modern comic book conversions - characters in the comics have depth and aren't as one dimesional as previous cinematic depictions. You're slightly right that this is an 'alternative' version but these stories need to be updated to be relevant - eg Blade, Iron Man, Superman etc. The Mandarin and some other characters could never be depicted the same these days. Spiderman needed the treatment after the awful 3rd film - Ultimate Spiderman is a mixed race kid these days and what constitutes a 'nerd' also needs to be updated from the 1960s depiction. Remember Spiderman 3? 'bad' spidey turned out just to be an awful dancer with emo hair. And throwing in all the villains under the sun was just awful. Not all comic book/graphic novel readers are 10 years old and its about time Hollywood are recognising that - again, the Superman reboot will undoubtedly show that people want a litle more than 'truth justice and the american way' flag-waving hero with no flaws... which reminds me - please tell me there's no sickening shot of spidey on a flagpole with the stars and stripes
However - if too much is too similar to the previous franchise, or its shit, then i'll eat my words and call it a lazy, unnecessary remake and sulk until DKR
ALl this "its not a reboot its an alternate universe" distinction is just made up in the author's mind. Alternate universe stories take the original, and branch off at a certain point. Unless there is an unknown introductory scene at the start of this film of Tobey Maguire wondering "what if" over brunch, this is a straight retelling - a reboot.
I'm looking forward to seeing Rhys Ifans as The Lizard. Marvel seem to get most things right recently. Mark Ruffalo was made for The Hulk too, so even that one seems sorted going forward.
it was crap
SABOTAGE
