Superhero films have exploded in recent years. CG technology has enabled directors to create the fantastic scenarios inherent in the genre, so it's no surprise that we've had around 30 such movies since 2000. Ten years ago, Spider-man, the original movie with Tobey Maguire, made over 400 million in US theaters (only The Dark Knight and The Avengers have done better). That story arc had two sequels, but Marvel decided to 'reboot' the franchise with the Amazing Spider-man, released this past week. An all-new cast, and a new origin story, are at the heart of this remake. While several other superhero movies have done reboots, this attempt was perhaps the riskiest, as only 5 years have passed since the last Spider-man (Spider-man 3 was released in 2007), so the last arc was fresh in the mind of the audience. And why re-do an origin story last presented only 10 years ago? Why not continue the existing arc, but with different actors? Marvel took a chance on this one, knowing the story would come under increased criticism for these reasons.
The Amazing Spider-man is similar to the 2002 Spider-man in many respects. In both, we see Peter Parker get bitten by the 'special' spider, come to grips with his transformation and subsequent powers, and struggle through the idea that "with great power comes great responsibility." This new release differs in that it attempts to be more true to the comic, and grittier- it's not as dark as The Dark Knight, but certainly lacks some of the light-hearted comic feeling the first release had. It also has no mention of Mary Jane Watson, Spidey's love interest in the first three films. You get to meet Peter's parents at the beginning of the film, before their death, which was interesting (and a first).
The villain, The Lizard, was alluded to in the first 3-movie arc, but never seen, so that was original to this release. And, pleasingly, I felt the villain was well-done- clearly a person with a plan he thought would bring good to the city, he wasn't pure evil, just short-sighted, out of control (at times), and misguided. He doesn't kill wantonly (most of the time); he has a specific objective and doesn't hurt unnecessarily. He even helps Spidey a bit in the end. In that respect, I thought the movie did well.
Another area I thought was well-captured was Parker's interaction with his foster parents. You get a real sense of the struggles of being a teenager on top of dealing with unexpected powers come through in his relationship with Uncle Ben and Aunt May.
Some final good points: the effects were fantastic (to be expected these days), the humor was well-done and not forced or over-the-top, and all of the characters were good.
The movie wasn't without fault, but it was good. Marvel did well here. Coming out of the theater, I thought it probably was better than the 2002 Spidey, though I doubt in this day it will make the kind of money the original did- cracking the 400M barrier is increasingly difficult, as superhero flicks are no longer the new and intriguing genre they were 10 years past. I'd imagine this performing in the 300M range, good for 6th or 7th place in the ranks for superhero flicks.
Rating: A
No comments:
Post a Comment