Tweet
Just got back from a matinee with both kids (had to take my 4-year old since my mother-in-law took ill at the last minute).
I'm still trying to process my thoughts, but I felt it was a very well-done, well-conceived movie. On it's own merits, it is a very entertaining film. It is not as "emo" as many feared it would be. The pathos feel very genuine, especially if you cast your mind back to your teen years. There is plenty of action in and out of costume.
Of course comparisons are going to be made to the Raimi films. My initial thoughts are that this film is more cohesive. It feels like more thought was put into telling a compelling story, versus just getting Spider-Man translated well to the screen. But that may be the nature of a reboot like this. We've seen it all before, now we have to dig in and really see what makes it tick. I think this movie does that.
Garfield's Peter Parker is more likable than Maguire's interpretation. He really sells Peter as a very intelligent, quirky individual with a strong moral compass. Again, he is given more of an opportunity to do more with the character than Maguire, because this story does have a more personal feel to it.
Spider-Man does indeed seem more "Spidery". Garfield's lanky build really works toward achieving those classic comic poses. The costume looks good on screen. The new details barely matter. The more true red and blues are appreciated, but I think I still like the old suit design better. But this will do.
The Lizard is very convincing, and once things got rolling my reservations about his design were forgotten. It works within the context of the movie much better than in static images. Ifans does a nice job with Connors as well. I actually cared about the guy, despite the fact I knew he was going to end up as the heavy.
Emma Stone's Gwen Stacey is a much stronger, more likable character than the Mary Jane we saw in the Raimi films. They actually did some refreshing things with her that I really appreciated.
Dennis Leary is Dennis Leary as Captain Stacy. You get what you pay for, and he does a nice job with it.
Martin Sheen and Sally Field also seem more "real" than the previous Ben and May, because they too are given more time to shine, and not just be "generic elderly mentor" characters.
The effects are pretty flawless, and the reliance on practical acrobatics over CGI is much-appreciated. I wasn't taken out of the film by rubber Spider-Men. I know tech has advanced, even since Spidey 3, but it was still nice to NOT see the puppet strings.
Overall, I have to say this movie resonated a bit more than Raimi's movies. Raimi still has that old horror showman in him, where he ups the drama past 11 at times. The drama in this film was more organic, and built gradually over time. It's just a different feel. It is a bit like comparing Burton's Batman to Nolan's version. More grounded, more character-driven, more introspective.
All that being said, I still didn't get the goosbump feel I got when I first saw the ending of Spider-Man I, when he's swinging across the city. You can't recreate that!
Chris
I'm still trying to process my thoughts, but I felt it was a very well-done, well-conceived movie. On it's own merits, it is a very entertaining film. It is not as "emo" as many feared it would be. The pathos feel very genuine, especially if you cast your mind back to your teen years. There is plenty of action in and out of costume.
Of course comparisons are going to be made to the Raimi films. My initial thoughts are that this film is more cohesive. It feels like more thought was put into telling a compelling story, versus just getting Spider-Man translated well to the screen. But that may be the nature of a reboot like this. We've seen it all before, now we have to dig in and really see what makes it tick. I think this movie does that.
Garfield's Peter Parker is more likable than Maguire's interpretation. He really sells Peter as a very intelligent, quirky individual with a strong moral compass. Again, he is given more of an opportunity to do more with the character than Maguire, because this story does have a more personal feel to it.
Spider-Man does indeed seem more "Spidery". Garfield's lanky build really works toward achieving those classic comic poses. The costume looks good on screen. The new details barely matter. The more true red and blues are appreciated, but I think I still like the old suit design better. But this will do.
The Lizard is very convincing, and once things got rolling my reservations about his design were forgotten. It works within the context of the movie much better than in static images. Ifans does a nice job with Connors as well. I actually cared about the guy, despite the fact I knew he was going to end up as the heavy.
Emma Stone's Gwen Stacey is a much stronger, more likable character than the Mary Jane we saw in the Raimi films. They actually did some refreshing things with her that I really appreciated.
Dennis Leary is Dennis Leary as Captain Stacy. You get what you pay for, and he does a nice job with it.
Martin Sheen and Sally Field also seem more "real" than the previous Ben and May, because they too are given more time to shine, and not just be "generic elderly mentor" characters.
The effects are pretty flawless, and the reliance on practical acrobatics over CGI is much-appreciated. I wasn't taken out of the film by rubber Spider-Men. I know tech has advanced, even since Spidey 3, but it was still nice to NOT see the puppet strings.
Overall, I have to say this movie resonated a bit more than Raimi's movies. Raimi still has that old horror showman in him, where he ups the drama past 11 at times. The drama in this film was more organic, and built gradually over time. It's just a different feel. It is a bit like comparing Burton's Batman to Nolan's version. More grounded, more character-driven, more introspective.
All that being said, I still didn't get the goosbump feel I got when I first saw the ending of Spider-Man I, when he's swinging across the city. You can't recreate that!
Chris
Comment