The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) - Movie Review

The Amazing Spider-Man is the 'untold' story of Spider-Man, except kinda sorta.  Didn't we just get told the story of Spider-Man ten years ago?  Spider-Man 3 was only 5 years ago, but I guess it's time for a reboot already.

If'you're wondering why we are getting a reboot so soon after the previous trilogy, it comes down to one thing: money.  Basically, if Sony doesn't have a Spider-Man movie out or in production by a certain date, the rights will revert back to Marvel/Disney, and they can't let that happen.  The same is also true with the X-Men franchise and Fox, which is why X-Men: First Class was rushed out so quickly. Because of this, we get a totally unnecessary reboot of the Spider-Man franchise just a few years after Spider-Man 3.  After watching The Amazing Spider-Man, I hope Warner Brothers rethinks their idea to reboot Batman after Nolan's trilogy

This review might be a little spoilery, but to be honest, if you've seen the trailer and you've seen any of the other Spider-Man movies, I really won't be spoiling anything to you.  I feel like only minor details have been changed.  Some for the better, and some for the worst.  Also, I'm not someone that's intimately familiar with the Spider-Man comics (I was more of an X-Men and Superman guy), so I won't be making a lot of comparisons there, just the things I've aware of from over the years.  But again, since I'm talking largely about the plot, you might just want to skip to the end if you plan on seeing this soon.

The movie begins by introducing you to Peter Parker's father, Richard (Campbell Scott).  After discovering a break-in to their house, he and Peter's mother scramble into hiding, leaving Peter to be taken care of by his Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and Aunt May (Sally Field).  We fast forward to Peter (Andrew Garfield) now in high school, who's more of a brooding loner now.  He's bullied by many of the students, including Flash Thompson, and has a huge, borderline stalker crush on classmate, Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone).

When cleaning out the basement, Peter finds his father's old briefcase and documents that link him back his former partner, Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), who works at OsCorp.  Peter goes to OsCorp and is bitten by a genetically modified spider.  Peter almost instantly starts to develop his abilities and becomes Spider-Man.

This part felt dragged out as it's a good hour before anything substantial happens in the movie.  When he does start to develop his powers, they seem to gloss over many details very quickly, like the creation of his costume, and his mechanical web shooters.  Much was made about the fact that in the first Spider-Man trilogy, he has organic web shooters, rather than the mechanical shooters from the comics.  The significance of this was Peter Parker in the comics had a genius-level intellect and invented both the web shooters and the web formula.  However, in the movie, while he invents the shooters, the web formula he stole from OsCorp, so it seems odd that they would go the mechanical web shooter route, but then not have him responsible for the actual web formula.  One of consistent themes in the Spider-Man books has been Peter running out of web-fluid or having issues with his web shooters at crucial times, but they don't take advantage of that in The Amazing Spider-Man either, so again, it just a minor point that they brought back the mechanical web shooters, and then not use them as used in the comics.

As an aside, Peter Parker was always portrayed has having limited financial means, and I believe there was an issue where I think Tony Stark advised Peter that he'd be rich if he would just patent and sell some of his inventions, his web fluid being one of them.

Anyway, back to the story.  When meeting with Dr. Connors, Peter shows him an equation from his father's work that helps Connor's current project.  They are able to regenerate the missing limb of a rat, and this has particular interest to Dr. Connors, as he is missing part of his right arm.  Connors is forced to experiment on himself and becomes The Lizard.

The Lizard is one of the weaknesses of the film.  Once Dr. Connors becomes The Lizard, he has some kind of plan, but they never really go into details about it.  They don't show you much about his motivation and you don't really care.  I didn't find any fault with Rhys Ifans' performance, but there's just not enough of a backstory between him and Peter Parker to make for their fighting to have any weight or significance.  It all just felt like an afterthought. Plus, I thought the CG-for The Lizard looked really bad in parts.  The Lizard's face didn't look menacing at all and kind of silly at times.

I didn't mind Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker/Spider-Man, but I felt his character came off poorly.  Besides the brooding, I never felt like he was the nerdy everyman that you got with Tobey Maguire's portrayal.  Garfield's Parker wasn't as sympathetic and seemed unlikable in many ways.  He was always kind of biting everyone's head off when talking to them, and didn't seem to have much of a bond with his Aunt and Uncle.  When Uncle Ben dies, it just doesn't have the same weight.  Also, Uncle Ben's death is done in a way that's less tragic and Peter really isn't responsible for like he was in the first film.  Peter seems to be motivated solely by revenge for most of the movie, where in the first trilogy this is reconciled much sooner.

I thought Emma Stone was great as Gwen Stacy though. She really carries the chemistry between her and Garfield, where I thought Garfield was too awkward at times.  I do think this is where Marc Webb's direction came into play.  I was a big fan of (500) Days of Summer and I thought he would at least get the young romance right and I feel like he did.  Overall, I think Marc Webb did a good job directing, but I think he was victim to an underwritten script.  The screenplay by James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent, and Steve Cloves (once again, three writers...ugh) is too uneven and misses many of the points that made the first Spider-Man work.  While many of you may be happy that this does feature more of Spider-Man's during-fight banter, the movie as a whole is missing the fun and innocence of the earlier films.

As far as the rest of the cast, I also thought Dennis Leary was good as Captain Stacy, and I really enjoyed Martin Sheen and Sally Field as Uncle Ben and Aunt May.  It seems like it's been a few years since we've seen Sally Field on the big screen and it was good to see here back up there.

Oh, and I hate to keep bringing up 2002's Spider-Man (I'm watching it as I write this review), but did you realize that True Blood's Joe Manganiello played Flash Thompson?

One of the upgrades to this reboot is that technology is better now, so they were able to have a much more realistic and fluid looking Spider-Man.  The action sequences are very good.  Also, they used something called the RED camera, which is a high-end, digital, HD camera.  The colors are super vibrant and you really can see every detail.  Overall, the movie looked great.  I just wish there had been a little more action here to sink my teeth into.  The movie was too slowly paced to tell a story we are already familiar with.  I actually found it kind of boring at times.

Oh, and a friend asked me to count how many times Spider-Man removes his mask.  Here's what I recall:

1 - Removes it while saving a kid to ease the kid's fear.  (Acceptable to me)
2 - Casually removed while waiting in the sewers for The Lizard to show up.  (Lame but at least no bystanders would be able to see him.
3 - Removed voluntarily while in a fight with The Lizard at a school where there are potentially lots of people around still. (Dumb)
4 - Removed by the police when captured.  (Maybe don't get captured next time.  Don't you have, like, super-human abilities?)
5 - Removed by the Lizard during a fight.  (Seemed unnecessary as The Lizard was already aware that Peter Parker was Spider-Man at that point)

Additionally, he reveals to Gwen Stacy almost right away that he's Spider-Man, at then she seems to pursue him more than he pursues her.  So much for using your secret identity to protect those close to you.

The Amazing Spider-Man is a great looking film, with a nice cast, some decent performances and action, but it's just too soon for a reboot.  The characters are underwritten and movie is too slowly paced.  It seems inexcusable to reboot a franchise after such a short period of time, and then not really do anything new or particularly great with it.  If you've never seen a Spider-Man film, it's an okay place to start, but this is not an upgrade over Spider-Man or Spider-Man 2.  I'd say it's worth a matinee if you're dying to see it, but I think this better suited to watching at home on your HD-TV.

3 (out of 5) Death Stars

The Five-Year Engagement (2012) - Movie Review

Jason Segel and Emily Blunt star as Tom and Violet, a couple living in San Francisco that have been dating for a year.  In what shouldn't be a spoiler to anyone, since it's the title of the frigging movie, they get engaged.  Due to career changes and other issues that come up, they have to keep delaying their wedding.  This gets stretched out over several years, once again illustrated by the title.  Can you have spoilers when the title is, in itself, a spoiler?

Right out of the gate, The Five-Year Engagement is very funny and San Francisco natives will probably get a kick out of seeing many familiar sites.  At one point, even I laughed when they went to a neighborhood a friend of mine used to live in and I was like, "Hey, I've been there a bunch before!"  The familiarity helped me get into the movie and identify with it.

Anyway, shortly after their engagement, Violet gets accepted to a two-year graduate program at the University of Michigan. As a compromise, they decide to postpone the wedding and Tom quits his chef job.  Unfortunately, this happens just as he's about to be named head chef of a new restaurant, so as they are leaving there's already an element of 'what could have been' for Tom. Things are going well for Violet after the move, but Tom has difficulty getting work and has too much time on his hands.  Having a lot of time to think probably isn't the best thing in this situation.

As the movie progresses, Violet's stay in Michigan is extended further due to her success and things continue to get worse for Tom.  It becomes less about their engagement and more about how they keep dealing with the strains of their careers, being away from their family and friends and Tom's resentment and depression about the whole situation.  Eventually, it gets to the point where they doubt their whole relationship. 

While that may make it sound like the movie is depressing, it managed to be consistently funny.  It's one of those movies where people were laughing enough that sometimes you couldn't always hear the next thing said.  Like many Judd Apatow-produced comedies, it's a little on the raunchier side for a rom-com.  However, it still manages to feel realistic and have a little more substance that you would normally expect.  I'm reminded of Funny People, another movie that was very funny but ended up dealing with some serious issues.  While The Five-Year Engagement is not a totally conventional rom-com, the way the story develops doesn't leave you with many places to go, so you know how it's going to play out.  The ending had an almost magical, fairy tale feel to it, but at the same time didn't seem cheesy.  

A comedy is usually only as good as it's supporting cast and this doesn't disappoint.  Many of the supporting roles really stand out.  Alison Brie is great as Violet's sister and fans of Community may be surprised to see her speaking with a British accent.  She ends up in a relationship with one of Tom's chef friends, played by fellow NBC Thursday night alum, Chris Pratt.  Those two steal every scene they are in.  Tom's co-worker, played by comedian Brian Posehn, has some great lines, and Chris Parnell was funny as a 'faculty husband'.  The research team Violet works with, featuring Rhys Ifans, Kevin Hart, Mindy Kaling and Randall Park are consistently funny.  I think I enjoyed the supporting characters more than the leads.

That doesn't mean I have an issue Blunt or Segel though.  Emily Blunt keeps up her streak of having great chemistry with whoever she seems to be cast against.  I think she might be the reigning queen of romantic comedies.  Jason Segel gives another good performance as well and it's hard not to sympathize with what his character is going though.  Together, they make for a cute couple and you want to see them work things out.

Director/co-writer Nicholas Stoller teamed up with Jason Segel again and did a pretty good job balancing out the cast and all the elements of the story.  They previously collaborated on Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Get Him to the Greek and The Muppets, so you can find a lot of similarities to all of their previous films in The Five-Year Engagement.

It's not a perfect film though. The main problem with the movie is that it's a little long and starts to drag on a bit.  Granted, with it being 'The Five-Year Engagement' and not 'The One-Year Engagement', they have to cover a lot of time, but it gets to a point where you start to wonder exactly how much of their life we going to witness and if it was actually going to end.  This seems to be a recurring thing with other films in the Apatow family in that they run just a tad too long.  It's a minor complaint though.

There's a part (and I will try not to spoil it) that seemed to be edited very poorly, where a character is getting progressively drunker despite that you haven't seen him drink anything for a while.  While this is happening, their state of undress is also extremely inconsistent.  The scene was done for laughs, so it's easy to forgive and some may not even notice it, but it really stuck out to me as odd.  Oh and speaking of undress, I can probably use a little less nudity from Jason Segel moving forward.

As I commented in my Think Like a Man review, this is the second comedy I've seen in two weeks where one of the characters is a chef and eventually opens his own food truck.  Why is this becoming so common in films now?  I can imagine the start-up costs for a food truck are much lower than opening a restaurant, but they are always super successful and have great food, when normally I don't associate food trucks with either.  It just seems like it's getting to be an overused profession and plot device when they aren't sure what they should do with a character.

Sure, I'm nit-picking a little, but that's my thing.

At it's heart, The Five-Year Engagement is still a consistently funny and sweet romantic comedy about how love and relationships are never perfect, but when you find the right one, you'll find a way to make it work.  While it ultimately doesn't stray too far from typical rom-com conventions and runs a little long, the strong supporting cast helps makes it very enjoyable to watch.  It's a really good date movie to check out this weekend.

4 (out of 5) Death Stars