THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN (Marc Webb 2012)

[Chris Knipp]

Marc Webb: THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN (2012)

http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/2806/p10603522.jpg
EMMA STONE AND ANDREW GARFIELD IN THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN

The joy of flying

In The Amazing Spider-Man, a reboot of the comic book superhero classic and the fourth American blockbuster movie on the theme, Andrew Garfield has replaced Tobey McGuire as Peter Parker. That was the essential change. McGuire did the job three times. Now he's 37, and his Spider-Man days are over. And like Matt Damon and the Bourne movies, he may have felt stuck in a franchise. The English-American Garfield, who last played Eduardo Saverin in the David Fincher-Aaron Sorkin collaboration The Social Network, is a lively, fresh take on the role. He adds not only soulful eyes and a bashful grim, but a long, lean physique that fits the spidery super powers Peter acquires -- not to mention a thoughtful, highly energetic performance. He's more quirky than goofy, and adds a touch of panache McGuire didn't have. Getting this part was a coup for Garfield, who has had some good roles, but is not very famous. This may also define his limitations. Can he move on from superherodom to dramatic stardom? His skinny, muscular, aw-shucks looks are peculiar, promising a too-long boyhood and not perfect for classic romantic or heroic roles. He resembles Tony Perkins. His future may depend on his taking on spooky and neurotic roles as Perkins so successfully did.

This is true to the Marvel Comics theme, a reiteration of Spider-Man 1, but it reimagines the character and the story. Garfield is cooler than Tobey McGuire, more of a geek than a nerd. Peter's thing with blond sort-of-girlfriend Stacy (Emma Stone) is independent of his new arachnid powers. The daughter of the police chief (Denis Leary), already likes him before he ever starts dazzling people by flying through the air and smashing things. This simpler plot (without James Franco and Willem Dafoe of the Sam Raimi films) puts more emphasis on the fraught romance and makes it more a meeting of equals. The simplicity and emotional warmth and Garfield's Tony Perkins-exsque gawky almost-cool physicality are attractive, but you can still say, as I might, that Spider-Man 2 is the best of the four. This time the action part isn't as strong as the emotion part, as it was in number two. This is a Marvel blockbuster in which the kisses may be the best part. The director, Marc Webb, was previously known for his 2009 romantic comedy, (500) Days of Summer.

This version goes back and hints at early family history. It begins with Peter as a 4-year-old (Max Charles) whose father (Campbell Scott) leaves him with his aunt and uncle (Sally Field and Martin Sheen) because a break-in seems to endanger some scientific secrets. But we're soon with young adult Peter, and we stay with him for the rest of the movie, with many extreme closeups of Garfield's big, mobile features. They're fun to watch, but boyish or not, seen up so close he's obvioiusly 28, not 18. (Emma Stone looks too old too, and could as easily be a high school teacher as fellow student.)

Garfield's Peter Parker has less of a Walter Mitty quality than Tobey McGuire's. He may be an outsider, and uncertain, but he's taller than Flash (Chris Zylka), the bully who at first taunts him but becomes his friend and unconscious admirer, wearing a red spider T-shirt. "Nice T-shirt," says Peter. "Yeah," says the convert Flash. "He's weird, but the chicks dig him." Though he's a dressed-down skateboarder in dark clothes and hoodie, Garfield's Peter is somebody the chicks might have dug all along -- wearing specs only as a homage to his lost dad. Though his new powers enable him to immediately cow the bulllies, he wasn't the one they were beating up on when we first see them anyway; he clashes with them by interceding for somebody else.

Peter's early spider-hood is fun to watch here, as when he trounces some unfriendlies on the subway from Queens, winding up stuck upside down on the roof of the car and then swinging a support pole he's broken off in his hand. At school he tries to sink a basketball to impress the bullies, but flies too far up in the air and smashes the basket and backboard. He does a lot of apologizing, not only for coming home late and forgetting the eggs but for smashing things.

This movie uses more simple showing off and visual stunts and less CGI, helping to enhance Garfield's natural physicality -- quite a new thing for him, though he got beat up repeatedly in the British Red Riding series, perhaps his most challenging role before this. Without too much going on, the chemistry between Garfield and Stone and Garfield's quirky presence in the many scenes he dominates, have a better chance to carry the day.

Though there's some memorable business with a holdup man and a car thief, the best action moments are not battles with enemies but ones where Spider-Man is simply flying around between buildings, plainly having fun. Marc Webb's emphasis on these is long shots and deep space and there's a good sense of real movement rather than computer fakery. Garfield conveys Peter's delight, and Webb seems more interested in the joy of flying than in saving the city from a monster.

The young superhero must battle an epic villain to provide an action finale, but this aspect is not the film's strongest. In this iteration the Green Goblin is replaced by the Green Lizard, Dafoe by Rhys Ifans, who is Dr. Curt Connors, a one-armed man involved in a biotech firm called Oscorp, where Gwen is an intern, and, it turns out, a former colleague of Peter's father. Hints of revelations in a sequel, or just details left on the cutting room floor? We don't know.

Dr. Connors wants to develop a cross-species genetic injection that will use reptiles' ability to regenerate limbs to grow back his right arm. Of course he jumps the gun, prodded by an impatient executive (Irrfan Khan), injects himself, and turns into a giant reptile. This part of the movie is a bit too Incredible Hulk, and robs it of much of its emotional authenticity and intimacy. Ifans is an intelligent and interesting actor, but he has only a few chances to show complexity, and then turns into a big overstuffed monster. Dr. Connors keeps morphing back into Dr. Connors, though, and conveniently winds up in prison, with final scenes that give a hint of another Spider-Man movie.

The Amazing Spider-Man was released in the US, UK, and eight other countries July 3, 2012.

[tabuno]

Chris commentary here is rather fascinating in and of itself because it never really offers an overall opinion of the movie, except to state that Spider Man - 2 was the best of the series, including this reboot. I probably didn't like this version as much as Chris did because like No Country For Old Men (2007) I tried but couldn't overlook a number of theatrical flaws that greatly dampened my enthusiasm for this movie. Surprisingly I wasn't turned off by the relatively quick reboot of the original series that began a decade ago as I thought I would and quickly accepted this version and its premise, of course Emma Stone's huge gorgeous eyes and her legs bared with a miniskirt in almost every scene likely made watching the movie a lot easier.

I wasn't taken as much with Spiderman's swinging through the landscape, most likely extended for the 3-D crowd much like a theme park ride, where unfortunately the director really fell through here by not using the first-person perspective which was suggested but not really taken advantage on in this movie (like Brainstorm, 1983). It's hard for me not to distance my preference as a nerd for the original 2003 movie version as opposed to this "geek" version as described by Chris and the relational moments didn't seem as captivating in this movie, excepting the physical attraction of Emma Stone. I enjoyed both Spiderman 2 and 3 for the more biting confluence among the primary characters. In this movie there seemed to be more script manipulation that detracted from the believability of the storyline (i.e., then denial of the police chief in there being a monster on the bridge and his continued focus on Spiderman didn't seem believable).

Overall, this Spiderman was entertaining and had a number of darker sequences that held promise, but ultimately this movie just had too many holes to be thoroughly enjoyed completely.

[Chris Knipp]

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/4945/theamazingspidermanv1we.jpg

I grant you that I ought to have offered an overall evaluation, and I shortchanged the reader by omitting one, but I felt ill equipt as well as under-motivated to give it. You have a very good point though. My review is lacking. I'm not a huge fan of this type of movie, and can't get excited about their relative merits. I didn't think this one blew away the earlier ones, or at least the no.2 one, which I have found very good. I liked this new one for the specific places where it excelled. The relationship between Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield -- who turn out to be a couple in real life, which means they enjoyed the kissing and there was preexisting chemistry. And giving us a chance to see Andrew Garfield do the role. He makes it different, I like him, and I liked watching him in it a lot. He's a good actor and he did the physical stuff really well too. He looks great in the Spider-Man outfit. I enjoyed him in Spandex as much as you enjoyed Emma Stone's legs.

If you want to pick holes in this movie maybe you can, but I think it's got a lot of good stuff in it, and I did not feel the shortcomings you did. You can read my pleasure in the movie and particularly in Andrew Garfield in my saying he is "cooler" than the Tobey McGuire version, and that the "simplicity and emotional warmth and Garfield's Tony Perkins-exsque gawky almost-cool physicality are attractive." And when I said that this is a Marvel Comics superhero movie where the kissing may be the best part, that was not, for me, a criticism at all.

I didn't see the holes you refer to, and maybe you should have gone into more detail about them. But we can leave it here if you like. When I said Spider-Man 2 was the best Spider-Man movie, I meant it. I recognize that Sam Raimi's Spider-Man movies were good, and I can't justify their making another one this soon, or ever for that matter, but as you say, it didn't matter to me, and I was glad because I was glad Garfield got a chance to do a big classic action role that he rightly considered it an honor to be given to do. I think he has a great physicality -- he is athletic, and moves well, and his rangy body lends itself to spidery moves. On the other hand, I'd have been as happy if he'd gotten a great purely dramatic role, and I'm not sure this is the best stepping stone to a further dramatic career. The Bourne movies arguably are more sophsiticated, but obviously after three of them, Matt Damon has had to stop too, like Tobey McGuire, not because of age (though that could be a factor against doing the stunts himself -- as Garfield reportedly did a lot of for this movie) but because he wants to be a dramatc actor, not just the coolest of the world's stunt men. And so does Garfield. But how could a young actor capable of doing it turn down a role that's so high profile, such a pop icon, such a boost to his fame, such a challenge, and so much money? I think an actor who would turn this down is really somebody who would not be offered the role.

[Chris Knipp]

P.s. I avoid 3D. Most 3D movies are also shown in 2D and I go to those screenings. I don't evaluate the visuals for how much they were designed for 3D. If the movie is any good it will look good in 2D. This one did. I didn't find the shots of Spider-Man flying through the air lacking in any way. I didn't mind a lack of fist person POV. In fact I think we get too much fast and furious POV shots that can barely be read, and I liked the distant shots, which gave a nice sense of flying through the air. A nice sense of perspective. That was the meaning of my title.

[tabuno]

Chris has helped me to realize with his focus on Andrew Garfield and his positive regard of him that some of my lack of interest in this movie is perhaps personal in that I much preferred and identified with Toby Mcguire's character than with Andrew's version on a personal identification, not a performance level. And even the relationship between Andrew and Emma Stone for me wasn't as intimately connected or haunting or excruciatingly twisted as the one between Toby and Kirsten Dunst's character. All of such reflection which results in me wondering if the true judgment of a movie still remains primarily subjective instead of objective.

[Chris Knipp]

http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/3776/garfieldspder582012.jpg

No need to apologize, tabuno. It's not your fault you saw the earlier Spider-Man movies and liked them. Naturally they influence you; you can't just put them out of your mind. And this new movie is at once too similar and too different for it to quite work for you.

Here are the Metacritic ratings showing the critical evaluation of the quality of the four Spider-Man films:

Spiddr-Man 1 (2002) 73
Spider-Man 2 (2004) 83
Spider-Man 3 (2007) 59
The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) 66

For young audiences, it was not too soon to have a new "Spider-Man 1." Because ten years is forever if you're 7 or 12, or 15. If you're 18 I don't know if you care. If you're an adult, S-M 4 may work best if you missed the previous S-M's. But they took a chance in starting the whole series over again so soon otherwise, because the Sam Raimi series was popular. It still seems unfair though, to compare The Amazing Spider-Man with the whole earlier series, which tends to happen with some people. Tobey McGuire "was" Spider-Man, and he proved it in three feature films, all released within a five-year period. The Sam Raimi series went out with a thud. After a good reception in Sider-Man 1, Raimi and McGuire absolutely soared with Spider-Man 2, gaining ecstatic reviews. And then they wore out their welcome with an overlong, fumbling sequel. Rober Ebert (whose review gives the film according to Metacritic a dismal 50 rating) summed it up thus:


Spider-Man 3 is, in short, a mess. Too many villains, too many pale plot strands, too many romantic misunderstandings, too many conversations, too many street crowds looking high into the air and shouting "oooh!" this way, then swiveling and shouting "aaah!" that way. Perhaps this dismal showing helped give the new crew the courage to start over with the reboot, The Amazing Spider-Man. But starting all over when the 2002-2007 trilogy overall, with an average score of 71.6 that still outranks the new one's 66, is, in a sense, a doomed venture, as it turned out. The Raimi Spider-Man series started out well, and hit it out of the park with Number 2. Even though they went out weakly, they left a good memory. As some have said, the new Spider-Man crew needed to hit it out of the park to earn acceptance as worth the effort. And in the critics' collective view, though some love this new film, they did't do that.

But to go back to the dates and the demographics, there is an audience out there that may not remember Raimi and is ripe for another Spider-Man movie. Plus there are Andrew Garfield fans like me who want to see it. I had been looking forward to this movie for months. I was excited to see this movie and I love Garfield as Peter Parker and Spidey, whatever the overall success of the movie.

The new Spidey is doing well at the top of the box office for the past six days, but still below Number 3, $140 million vs. $155 million for the six day period.

I don't know what's going to happen. I guess they're going to attempt to do sequels, one anyway. I think Spider-Man 2 did so well partly because McGuire had acquired a following and the filmmakers had developed teamwork and skills. Then by Number 3 they'd run out of ideas and were stealing from Nutty Professor. I can see Garfield's chartacter, with his cooler, broodier quality, developing nicely in a 2nd outing. But if this Amazing Spider-Man isn't deemed enough of a blockbuster that could put a damper on the whole enterprise. This is risky business.

This is all Sony's idea, you know. They're still making the profits. They gave up on a Spider-Man 4 because 3 tanked, and decided to start all over again. Some elements of the new version are closer to the original comic books, particularly Peter Parker's being a science genius, which Raimi lost, but the new version has. On the other hand, Spider-Man's role as a publically recognized and beloved superhero is underplayed in the new movie, while it was highly developed in the Raimi series. Time will tell if this aspect is fleshed out in a Garfield sequel. But this one has plenty of good things going for it, new features justified by the original Marvel Comics.


--This is a more thoughtful film, and its action scenes are easier to follow in space and time. If we didn't really need to be told Spidey's origin story again, at least it's done with more detail and provides better reasons for why Peter Parker throws himself into his superhero role.--Ebert.

--This fourth installment is a complete reboot, returning to the web-slinger's creation story, and Garfield, more than any other factor, contributes to the sense of a bleaker vision along the lines of "The Dark Knight."--Jones, Chicago Reader.

--The film is also faithful to the smartassery of the Spider-Man of the comics, and Garfield's spindly physicality evokes the Marvel illustrations of the 1960s.--Village Voice

--When a new actor slips on the Spandex for a superhero franchise reboot, we should, you know, notice. And we do with Andrew Garfield.--Chicago Tribune

--As a new chapter in the superpowered arachnid saga, it stands on its own quite nicely, focusing more on human emotions than on a panoply of special effects.--USA Today..

[Johann]

I will see this on a big screen this week, but I know it won't live up to my expectations because I've bought the 2 issue comic book adaptation from marvel comics and it is weak. Weakly written.

I like the new "LOOK" to the Spider-Man, but I don't know exactly if this is what they were aiming for in terms of a HUGE reboot.
Is this for kids? All ages?

Spider-Man deserves some ICONIC treatments. Come on. It's the 21st century. Throw us some GOLD, like Chris Nolan will do very shortly...
(July 20th).

[Chris Knipp]

Why go with your mind made up that it's not going to be up to par? You used the word "weak" twice. Is that necessary? Why judge it by a comic book version? It's a movie. It has had mixed reviews (what doesn't?) but they're generally favorable. Not "weak." Maybe sequels will make it become grand. You ought to like that it's more sexy and brooding and not so squeaky clean, the hero brilliant not funny. But on the market, the Dark Knight movie will blow it away. That is preordained.

[tabuno]

When I first saw Mission Impossible (1996) I had been so tied to the television series that I came away hating the movie. When I forced myself to see the movie a second time, I really liked it as its own movie without the baggage of the television characters.

[Johann]

I want to see it on a big screen even though I know it's not a home run.
The comics adaptation gives you a clear idea of what the movie is, and I'm not blown away.
They just changed the actors and costumes and wrote something lightweight.
It sucks to wait for sequels in order to get their act together.
The medium is polished now. What is Sony doing?
Holding their hand out while they tweak?
Insulting.
I like darker but I don't like sexier.
I don't look to Spider-Man for sexiness, thank you very much.

[Chris Knipp]

Okay, you're determined. But have you seen all the Marvel Comics movies lately? I don't have that impression. THOR? THE AVENGERS? CAPTAIN AMERICA? Why this?

[Johann]

I saw Thor and The Avengers, which were good, not awesome by any means.
Ghost Rider 2 and Captain America: The First Avenger I haven't seen yet.

These movies could all use improvements. They just seem to throw them together very quickly and cash in, Spider-Man is no exception, and I'm dropping money into Sony's bank account. It's enraging, but this is what we have to live with.
Frank Miller should keep directing movies. The Spirit tanked but I liked it and I know Frank can bring it. He just needs more directing jobs.

I don't know who Marc Webb is and even tho his name seems fitting, his direction does not seem to be. I'll let you know when I've checked the movie out. You need a man who can EXECUTE, like Guillermo del Toro or Chris Nolan.
The whole project takes a hit when the man at the helm has limited vision (Joss Whedon, for example).
You can't have just some sprinkling of cool stuff for fanboys and pass it off as great. It has to have the "multiple-view" factor- meaning it stands the test of time and you aren't staring at your TV or monitor going "Why the fuck did they do that??"

Standards are higher nowadays and ignorance by studios seems to have never gone away.
Note to them: "Cha-Ching" will be written on your tombstones.
The Avengers movie made more than a Billion dollars.
If the sequel doesn't blow my head clean off to Mars, then everyone working on it should be shot.
You made a shitload of money on a barely passable superhero movie.
If the Avengers II doesn't lay waste to every other comic book movie ever made, then TEAMS of people need to fucking die.

The audience has to take what you make, but we aren't suckers.
I'll call you on it.
Mark my words.

[Johann]

Also, I'm glad you mention that Spider-Man flies or swings around better than the Sam Raimi Spider-Mans.
That's one thing I'll be looking for- is Spidey swingin' around too fast or too CGI-like?

imdb reviews are mixed- some say it's weak (like me) and some say it's Awesome.
I'll post as soon as I've seen it. It's a summer movie I can't miss, negative preconceptions or not.

[Chris Knipp]

"The Marvel" is a huge money-making machine in Hollywood and if you expect them to keep their peace for years waiting to produce a masterpiece that's looney. But anyway, a comic book masterpiece? What's that? I don't get it; never have; would rather watch KICK-ASS. Or to see a movie made from "The Spirit" or "Plastic Man," forgotten comics that seemed cooler to me as a kid. Nolan has gotten a free ride, higher than usual critical ratings because critics like high concept flicks, and he has always done those. His combining big budget Marvel Comics blockbuster with high concept fanboy darkness is a clever ploy that has kept his career Metacritic average higher than Scorsese's Mark Webb's is higher than Oliver Stones, and only a few points from Nolan's, but he has only done one previous film, a very original -- high concept -- rom-com, starring the always interesting Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who made it into the over-promoted and over-rated INCEPTION, which for many was, nonetheless, going by word of mouth, a disappointment. For me BATMAN BEGINS and DAR4K KNIGHT were long slogs, their auteur qualities difficult to detect with the unbiased eye. It's a bit odd to lump THOR and THE AVENGERS together as "good, not great," since their critical ranking is so wildly different, but I personally enjoyed THOR as much as or even more than THE AVENGERS; Chris Hemsworth and Natalie Portman were fun to watch. In box office terms these two were hugely different too though: THE AVENGERS has been a long-legged money-maker that made it to the $500 million mark extra fast. THE AVENGERS seems the most blatant Marvel money-making effort of all, since putting everything into one omnibus movie is deemed to be the way to fill seats. And it worked. With PROMETHEUS, not so well.

It is also illusory to expect any director to deliver a Marvel comic blockbuster that excels in all aspects of the genre, the stunts, the CGI, the visuals, the acting, the romance, the character development, the interesting villain, the well-developed back-story. I like THE AMAZING SIDER-MAN because it has a new actor who is just right for the part as it's conceived, the brilliant, brooding adolescent, and physically wiry and spidery. The flying through the air puts more emphasis on swinging between skyscrapers and making long drops. Garfield did a lot of his own physical stuff but the hardest was done by an Asian American stuntman, Ilram Choi (http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/07/secrets_straight_from_spidermans_stuntman_spiderma n_is_asian.html). Wearing the mask, he could get away with being Asian, since he's physically proportioned like Garfield. Choi says the most fun and also most dangerous stunts were those big swings through the air from building to building. In this movie there is an emphasis on seeing it from a distance from a neutral POV, rather than clipped motion shots from Spidey's POV that don't let you see the whole siwing or leap as well.There is always CGI but this has less CGI than Raimi resorted to and I think that's a plus; CGI is numbing and obviously plastic and fake.

http://img803.imageshack.us/img803/8296/ilramchoi.jpg

Also in considering THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN never forget that Raimi's SPIDER-MAN 3 tanked, which makes anything with a much higher rating golden, and also anything different from Raimi because his approach had run dry.

[tabuno]

I don't know how a live-action, authentic, gritty superhero movie can encompass the very nature of the comic book hero as the medium is so suggestive of the imagination of pure other-world sci-fi/magic. The more feature films bring realism into a superhero production, some of the fantasy, dreamy as a young kid experience - impossible action thrills and scenes become lost. In a fascinating way, it is the very nature of "special effects" fused with the comic book illustrations that bring the medium to life on the movie screen. But by adding more personal live action stunts into the mix, in a way destroys the original comic book nature of the story as experienced from the paper medium.

If the goal is to capture the comic book experience in 3-D full feature medium, then the direction of the art of film-making may be going in the wrong direction. If the goal is to create a new form of superhero movie experience similar perhaps to the television series Heroes (2006-2010) or even better The Lost Room (2006, TV-miniseries), then maybe the credit needs to be focused more on original television scripts than comic books.

[Johann]

I don't know what "The Marvel" is. You say it's a money-making machine. How come I have never heard of "The Marvel"?

RE: Batman Begins/The Dark Knight- the auteur is in plain sight Chris. When I watch these two movies now, all I notice is Chris Nolan's direction. You are right he's High Concept, but not of the kind that Jerry Bruckheimer is so famous for. Nolan's got intellect on his side. He could be seen to be pandering in a way, but who isn't who makes a comic book movie? At base the very act is pandering to fans.
Chris Nolan assumes the audience is smart. Jerry Bruckheimer just hopes they have a couple hours to kill.
I just watched Batman Begins again, and I see almost no flaws. I don't like Katie Holmes. And what a distraction she is now- her marriage imploded and it's all you think about when you see her as Rachel Dawes. Warner Brothers was right to give her the boot for promoting Cruise's War of the Worlds over Batman in 2005


The Spirit was made into a movie, but I don't think you would like it at all. It's Frank Miller's Spirit, and it tanked huge.
But I like it. They definitely should do a faithful movie of Will Eisner's art, like Tin-Tin.
Plastic Man would be a great film too. He can be seen in some of the animated DC cartoons, but no movie has been made yet.
He would be a great movie character. They kind-of did it with Mr. Fantastic in The Fantastic Four movies.

Critical rankings don't concern me, especially two comic book movies like Avengers and Thor.
I give them both the same grade. I enjoyed them equally the same- no one better than the other.
Marc Webb can't sniff Oliver Stone's boots. That ranking is pitting a Giant against a flavor of the month director.
I reckon Marc Webb could never make something like Nixon or Platoon. Never in his life would he be able to.

Andrew Garfield does seem perfect for the role- way better than Tobey Maguire, who looked like he was acting the whole time.
That said, the first 2 Sam Raimi Spider-Mans were very good. Thumbs up. But #3 blows donkey balls and always will.
That series imploded because of that movie.
We see this new reboot because of that movie.
I can't even LOOK at the cover of that DVD, it's so horrible. Hudson Hawk horrible. Howard the Duck horrible.

Comic book Masterpieces have been made, but there are only a scant few of them.
The Dark Knight is probably the closest we've seen to a Comic book Masterpiece.
The cast, the characters, the drama, the tension, the score, the action, the camerawork (can I say IMAX?)- Nolan is the full meal deal, and I can't wait to sit in front of another Batman in just over a week.

If only he'd think about Aquaman. LOL I can dream, can't I?
Imagine a Chris Nolan Aquaman movie. It would be something else.

[Chris Knipp]

http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/9619/marvelcharactercomposit.jpg
-Image from Screennrant (http://screenrant.com/marvel-comics-movies-characters-carl-6766/)

Tabuno, I think that's a great point. The Marvel Comics blockbusters don't really, truly evoke the comic books world of my childish imagination, which was fantastic and unreal, vivid, strange, and at the same time two-dimensional in a dreamlike kind of way. But the Marvel Comics blockbusters have overwhelmed the imagery of the original paper creations. For all I know the majority in the audience have not even read a comic book. The creators and the publishers give the nod: why wouldn't they if it make them rich?

Johann: There is no one The Marvel. Marvel Studios<Disney<Columbia/Sony/Fox<Paramount: many have pieces of the pie. You haven't heard of the Marvel because it's everywhere.


[Nolan] He could be seen to be pandering in a way, but who isn't who makes a comic book movie?

You said it, pal.

We had this conversation about The Spirit before, and of course I mean Will Eisner's not Frank Miller's. If The Dark Knight is "the closest we've come" to a comic book masterpiece, then we can stop looking, and stay home -- and page through our comic book collection.

If there be a blockbuster-auteur, by common consensus it would probably be Spielberg. In the studio era there were studio auteurs. Maybe James Cameron would make a grand comic book blockbuster.

I hope the final DARK KNIGHT will be a great movie and great fun, and not a long slog for me like the last one. I'm suspect it will have good production values and a committed cast. But damn it, comic books are small. They're full of imagination, but they're small. And they're for kids.

[Johann]

Nice image there.

Ah, The Marvel is a corporate monster. My bad.
You actually highlight something Chris. People should stay at home and read their comics.
Comics are not for kids. Most are, but Watchmen is not for kids. Sin City is not for kids.
The Dark Knight Returns is not for kids. Erotic animae is not for kids.
The Dark Knight Returns is actually being made (Rated R?) into an animated film and I can't wait to see it.
Comic books have an appeal that spans all ages and demographics, from Archie to The Crow.

The movies are getting damn close to matching the comic book medium. We just need that Holy Grail Hail Mary from a fanboy filmmaker lurking out there...

[Johann]

I'll bet five dollars that THE DARK KNIGHT RISES is a slog for you, Chris.
Five bucks.
Wager?

[Johann]

I saw Kick-Ass and I enjoyed it.
Nic Cage as Big Daddy was Awesome.
Good heart to that movie.
And he'll be in the sequel: BALLS TO THE WALL

[Chris Knipp]

In the post 70's blockbuster movie world, comics and graphic novels have obviously become equally fertile fields to mine for profitable movie material for all audiences. But in my opinion the dark, adult side of comics as exemplified by Frank Miller's work is a development of the last few decades, Miller being born in 1957. The comics I grew up with might have been "dark", though that word was not really the cliche it is now if used at all, but they were designed for kids. Movies were not rated, let's remember. There were no "adult" comics or "adult" movies. It might be best to consider the Frank Miller material "graphic novel" material. And "graphic novel", however it may go back to medieval drawings, Frank Maserel and Max Ernst, is a more recent and more adult-oriented medium.

I am afraid you are right and I won't lay a wager that for me THE DARK KNIGHT RISES is going to be a slog. I accidentally heard and partly saw part of a promo trailer and just the droning heavy-handed "significant" music gave me a headache. This is a problem with BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD, which has good things in it but pushes its significance too hard aurally.

But yeah, on the other hand KICK-ASS is a "superhero" movie that dares to be outrageous, even offensive, and is not out to fill seats in cineplexes, though it did sell some. It has a light touch. And it gets at the origin of comics in kids' fantasies or the catering to them.

As for anime, which is just the Japanese word for "animation," that's a medium that has gone erotic, while I gather manga, which means comic books, has gone toward the cutysy and appealed to young girls young boys, and gays, and sometimes is erotic and sometimes not. Anime is sometimes a medium for animated martial arts tales. In other words, the Japanese have taken animation in their own rich directions. You meant "anime," not "animae, which is Latin for souls. Many animae have been lost to anime.

[Johann]

Chris has got it right with his thoughtful and considerate review.
I would add that I have done a 180 on this.
The 2-issue comic book adaptation gives NO inkling of the cinematic delights contained in Marc Webb's confection.
Martin Sheen and Sally Field are veterans who give this a human element that I was not expecting. This is a very human treatment of Peter Parker, and I have to say that I was not expecting this to be a very good movie. Shame on Marvel for making me buy a mediocre comics adaptation!

I really enjoyed this film. Really did.
The costume was cool, the SFX were cool, the story was cool (to re-launch the Marvel Icon of Marvel Icons), and I cannot criticize it.
It was Great.
No complaints.
this Nerd/Geek is very happy.
Watch the next Spider-Mans. I like Garfield's Spidey/Parker very much.
Awesome first step. Human, grounded yet Fantastic.
Spider-Man fans have zilch to complain about.
It is influenced by Chris Nolan, but that isn't a bad thing by any stretch.

[Johann]

Last Words, Last Words



OUT

[Chris Knipp]

Well gee, I'm really glad. I told you so, I really did. I'm happy you saw the light! There have been a lot of Sam Raimi fan nay-sayers, but if a true fanboy gives it his imprimatur, that counts for a lot. I don't really count in these things. I was already an Andrew Garfield fan. I'm not a fanboy. But I like your praising the "human" side. It's strong there.

[Johann]

It really is a terrific movie.
I did a 180 on it big time.
So enjoyable on so many levels.
I underestimated it. That comic adaptation is deceiving.

Last words- why do my posts have ads embedded in them?
And why did no one tell me?

[Chris Knipp]

It really is a terrific movie.
I did a 180 on it big time.
So enjoyable on so many levels.
I underestimated it. That comic adaptation is deceiving.

I admire you for this.

There are no ads here. It's something in your browser -- an ad blocker is needed.

[Johann]

OK, got it. (I'm using a friend's laptop)

HUGE thumbs up for The Amazing Spider-Man.
It *amazingly* makes you forget Tobey Maguire for a split-second.
You're right Chris: Spider-Man 2 (the Raimi) was Outstanding.
But this is new, fresh, human and a great new direction for Spider-Man at the movies.
No complaints.
If you gripe about this one, you need help.

[tabuno]

I'm puzzled by Johann's gushing praise of this movie in the context of Chris's commentary which I read as much more sedate and carefully managed, an attempt to avoid a glittering, fabulous full out endorsement of the movie as great or a classic.

[Johann]

No need to be puzzled, tabuno. I stop short of calling it a classic. It is just a really entertaining take on a comic book Icon.
I'm not gushing, I'm just saying that as a movie of Spider-Man, it Rocks.
No complaints. It does exactly what it is supposed to do. I look forward to the sequels.

Some camera tricks really surprised me. It is a tidy, fluid movie. Which is what Spider-Man should be.
And Stan Lee's cameo was priceless.

[Johann]

Interesting that a skateboarding, punk-style Peter Parker would have a framed poster of Hitchcock's REAR WINDOW in his room.
A teenager who has that is definitely bright, and Parker is portrayed as such.

The wisecracks that Spidey is famous for in the comics are here, and even though his origin story has been done again, I was never rolling my eyes.
I just hope the origin is NEVER filmed again. (Ha ha). We've been there, done that. No more re-tellings of Spider-Mans origins! Finito! LOL

Dennis Leary is perfect, and the character of Gwen Stacy is handled great and her casting is perfect. I love her lisp- glad the filmmakers are not afraid to show traits that movies can all-too-easily avoid. This film is grounded, and I was expecting something else.
Very pleasantly surprised.
It can go toe to toe with The Dark Knight Rises, and I'm sure there are people out there who liked it better.