"THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN" (2012) Review

"THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN" (2012) Review

Five years after the release of 2007's "SPIDER-MAN 3", Sony Pictures and Marvel Films decided to release a new SPIDER-MAN movie. The latter proved not to be a third sequel to the 2002 movie, "SPIDER-MAN". Instead, it turned out to be a franchise re-boot featuring a new actor in the lead and the first film of a new trilogy. 

With Andrew Garfield now portraying Peter Parker aka Spider-Man and Marc Webb directing, "THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN" commenced upon an entirely new saga about the web slinger. In this film, Peter is a geeky high school student and science major who lives with his Uncle Ben and Aunt May in a suburb of Queens, New York. At least a decade earlier, he had witnessed the mysterious disappearance of his father and mother, scientist Richard Parker and his wife, Mary. After discovering his father's old briefcase, Peter makes the acquaintance of the latter's former lab partner, Dr. Curt Connors, who is now working as a geneticist at Oscorp. Dr. Connors is working on cross-breeding experiments in order to discover a formula based on lizard DNA in order to regenerate missing limbs. During his first trip to Oscorp's Manhattan offices, he discovers that the fellow Midtown High School student that he loves, Gwen Stacy, is working there as the chief intern. Peter is also bitten by a genetically engineered spider. 

During the subway ride home, Peter becomes aware of his new abilities. He also continues his visits to Dr. Connors at Oscorp. His new powers and visits to Oscorp lead to his growing neglect of his household duties. Peter also manages to help Dr. Connors by giving the latter Richard Parker's "decay rate algorithm", the missing piece in the scientist's experiments. After a quarrel with Uncle Ben, Peter storms out of the house and the latter hit the streets looking for him. Unfortunately for Uncle Ben, he encounters a thief who had just robbed a convenience store and is shot dead. Determined to find his uncle's murderer, Peter decides to assume the identity of the costumed vigilante, Spider-Man. When Oscorp executive Dr. Rajit Ratha decides to fire Dr. Connors and use the latter's formula at a VA hospital under the guise of a flue shot, Connors tries the formula on himself and becomes the human/lizard hybrid, the Lizard.

Many Marvel and Spider-Man fans had complained about the lack of need for a Spider-Man re-boot so soon after the last Sam Rami film. What many did not know was that Sony Pictures had signed a deal, guaranteeing major control over the Spider-Man franchise as long as the studio releases a movie every five years or less. Sony originally had plans for a fourth Spider-Man movie with both Rami and actor Tobey Maguire. But the plans fell through and the studio decided to re-boot the franchise with a new actor, a new director and a new trilogy. 

Some fans and critics claimed that "THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN" was a lot closer to the original comics tale than the Rami films. I found this claim ironic, considering that the movie proved to be no more faithful to the comics than the films made in the last decade. Comic book fans know that Peter Parker's first love was Betty Brandt, whom he dated in high school and who eventually became J. Jonah Jamerson's secretary at The Daily Bugle. Peter met both Gwen Stacy (of this movie) and Mary Jane Watson (from the 2002-2007 films) in college, not high school. He was a lot younger when his parents died. But hey . . . I managed to enjoy both the Rami/Maguire trilogy and this film.

That is correct. I enjoyed "THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN". It had plenty of well choreographed action. The special effects team from the Pixomundo company did an excellent job with the action sequences featuring Spider-Man's battles with the Lizard. The company's efforts were ably supported by Marc Webb's direction and the three cinematographers - Alan Edward Bell, Michael McCusker and Pietro Scalia. One of my few complaints about "SPIDER-MAN" was that the film almost seemed like two separate stories. I could never accuse "THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN" of that flaw. Screenwriters James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent and Steve Kloves made sure that Peter's transformation into Spider-Man and Dr. Connors' transformation into the Lizard were connected plot-wise. After all, Peter's visit to Connor at the Oscorp labs led to his painful encounter with a genetically altered spider. And the visit, along with Peter's discovery of his father's notes, led to the creation of the formula that enabled Connors to become the Lizard.

The movie also boasted some excellent performances by the cast. Andrew Garfield was outstanding as Peter Parker aka Spider-Man. He did an excellent job of portraying a fatherless boy in search of a father figure, who is forced to grow up on his own. Emma Stone portrayed Gwen Stacy, the girl whom Peter dated during his early years in college. Stone's Gwen was a smart, witty and earthy young woman who found herself torn between Peter and her father's opinion of Spider-Man and vigilantism. Another excellent performance came from Rhys Ifan, who did an excellent job in revealing the complex man whose disappointments in life led him to utilize the formula that transformed him into the Lizard. He also managed to convey Connor's darker personality through the CGI figure of the Lizard.

Other first-rate performances came from Denis Leary, who portrayed Gwen's father - NYPD Captain George Stacy. The latter role seemed a slight cry from Leary's usual roles. Although he managed to utilize his usual rapid fire wit, Leary also conveyed the image of a stern and responsible man, who harbored concerns not only for his daughter, but also the citizens of New York City. Martin Sheen and Sally Field created excellent chemistry as Ben and May Parker, the couple left to raise Peter after his parents' death. It is a crime that the pair never worked together before, because I thought they really crackled with chemistry. I could say that both had great chemistry with Garfield, as well. But I feel that Sheen had more interesting scenes with the young actor than Field. Irrfan Khan had to be convinced by his children to take the role of Oscorp executive, Dr. Rajit Ratha (a character created for the movie). I am glad they did, for he proved to be very effective as a shadowy representative for the corporation's reclusive CEO, Norman Oscorp. The movie also boasted solid performances from Chris Zylka as Flash Thompson; and from Campbell Scott and Embeth Davidtz as Richard and Mary Parker, Peter's parents.

I will not deny that "THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN" was a very entertaining movie for me. But it had its flaws. One, there seemed to be a minor lack of originality in the script. A good deal of the story seemed to be borrowed from the previous SPIDER-MAN movies. As with Maguire's Peter, Garfield's Peter started out with an unrequited crush with the leading female character. And Dr. Connors' career faced extinction, just as Dr. Otto Octavius did in "SPIDER-MAN 2". However, the movie also borrowed a subplot from the 2000 movie, "X-MEN". Just as Erik Lensherr plotted to transform the world's population into mutants via a machine, the Lizard in this movie, plotted to transform New York City's population into reptilian/human hybrids. In fact, his scheme struck me as lame. The problem for me laid in the fact that Connors did not transform into the Lizard, until the second half of the movie. 

Speaking of the Lizard, as much as I had admired Ifans' performance, I was not that impressed by the villain's role as Spider-Man's foe. I mean, honestly . . . the idea of Spider-Man facing a giant lizard rampaging all over Manhattan did not do anything for me. Frankly, I saw dealing with the problem of the Lizard as a job for the Men in Black, not Spider-Man. Everyone seemed to be filled with praise for Emma Stone's portrayal of Gwen Stacy . . . including me. However, I had a problem with the screenwriters' portrayal of Gwen in this movie. Frankly, she seemed too perfect . . . too ideal. She lacked any real personal demons that could have made her interesting to me. I could never say the same about the comic book Gwen - even if she had a tendency to be a crybaby. 

Could someone explain why Peter suddenly decided to end his search for the thief who had killed his Uncle Ben? It seemed as if the entire subplot had been dropped. And what happened to Dr. Ratha after Peter saved him on the Williamsburg Bridge? I have one last complaint . . . and it has to do with C. Thomas Howell's character, a construction worker named Ray. In the Williamsburg Bridge sequence, Spider-Man saved Ray's son from falling into the East River. Ray reciprocated Spider-Man's actions during the latter's final battle with the Lizard by using several cranes to help convey the web slinger (who had been shot in the leg by the NYPD) to Oscorp's tower, in order to stop the Lizard from using the formula on New Yorkers. I found that minor scene so incredibly cheesy that I practically cringed with embarrassment. It seemed as if the screenwriters were trying to re-create those moments from two of Sam Rami's films in which New Yorkers came to Spider-Man's aid. Only in this movie, I found Ray's actions embarrassing, not inspirational.

"THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN" had much for me to admire. It had excellent performances from the cast led by Andrew Garfield. Marc Webb's direction in the action sequences and intimate scenes was first-rate. And the screenwriters managed to avoid the mistake from the Sam Rami 2002 film of creating a fragmented plot. Unfortunately, I believe that"THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN" had other flaws - including a lack of originality - that made it difficult for me to embrace the idea that it was the best SPIDER-MAN movie ever made.

"THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN" (2012) Photo Gallery

Below are images from the reboot movie, "THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN".  Directed by Marc Webb, the movie stars Andrew Garfield as the new web slinger, Emma Stone and Rhys Ifans:


"THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN" (2012) Photo Gallery

"VANITY FAIR" (2004) Review

"VANITY FAIR" (2004) Review

William Makepeace Thackery's 1848 novel about the life and travails of an ambitious young woman in early 19th century has generated many film and television adaptations. One of them turned out to be the 2004 movie that was directed by Mira Nair. 

"VANITY FAIR" covers the early adulthood of one Becky Sharp, the pretty and ambitious daughter of an English not-so-successful painter and a French dancer during the early years from 1802 to 1830. The movie covers Becky’s life during her impoverished childhood with her painter father, during her last day as a student at Miss Pinkerton’s Academy for Young Ladies, where she meets her only friend Amelia Sedley – the only daughter of a slightly wealthy gentleman and her years as a governess for the daughters of a crude, yet genial baronet named Sir Pitt Crawley. While working for the Crawleys, Becky meets and falls in love with Sir Pitt’s younger son, Captain Rawdon Crawley. When Sir Pitt proposes marriage to Becky, she shocks the family with news of her secret marriage to Rawdon. The couple is ostracized and ends up living in London on Rawdon’s military pay and gambling winnings. They also become reacquainted with Amelia Sedley, who has her own problems. When her father loses his fortune, the father of her beau, George Osborne, tries to arrange a marriage between him and a Jamaican heiress. Leery of the idea of marrying a woman of mixed blood, he marries Amelia behind Mr. Obsorne's back, and the latter disinherits him. Not long after George and Amelia's marriage, word reaches Britain of Napoleon's escape from Elba and control of France. Becky and Amelia follow Rawdon, George, and Dobbin, who are suddenly deployed to Brussels as part of the Duke of Wellington's army. And life for Becky and those close to her prove to be even more difficult.

The first thing I noticed about "VANITY FAIR" was that it was one of the most beautiful looking movies I have ever seen in recent years. Beautiful and colorful. A part of me wonders if director Mira Nair was responsible for the movie's overall look. Some people might complain and describe the movie's look as garish. I would be the first to disagree. Despite its color - dominated by a rich and deep red that has always appealed to me - "VANITY FAIR" has also struck me as rather elegant looking film, thanks to cinematographer Declan Quinn. But he was not the only one responsible for the film's visual look. Maria Djurkovic's production designs and the work from the art direction team - Nick Palmer, Sam Stokes and Lucinda Thomson. All did an excellent job of not only creating what I believe to be one of the most colorful and elegant films I have ever seen, but also in re-creating early 19th century Britain, Belgium, Germany and India. But I do have a special place in my heart for Beatrix Aruna Pasztor's costume designs. I found them absolutely ravishing. Colorful . . . gorgeous. I am aware that many did not find them historically accurate. Pasztor put a bit more Hollywood into her designs than history. But I simply do not care. I love them. And to express this love, the following is a brief sample of her costumes worn by actress Reese Witherspoon:

  

I understand that Witherspoon was pregnant at the time and Pasztor had to accommodate the actress' pregnancy for her costumes. Judging from what I saw on the screen, I am beginning to believe that Witherspoon's pregnancy served her role in the story just fine.

Now that I have raved over the movie's visual look and style, I might as well talk about the movie's adaptation. When I first heard about "VANITY FAIR", the word-of-mouth on the Web seemed to be pretty negative. Thackery's novel is a long one - written in twenty parts. Naturally, a movie with a running time of 141 minutes was not about to cover everything in the story. And I have never been one of those purists who believe that a movie or television adaptation had to be completely faithful to its source. Quite frankly, it is impossible for any movie or television miniseries to achieve. And so, it was not that surprising that the screenplay written by Julian Fellowes, Matthew Faulk and Mark Skeet would not prove to be an accurate adaptation. I expected that. However, there were some changes I could have done without.

Becky Sharp has always been one of the most intriguing female characters in literary history. Among the traits that have made her fascinating were her ambitions, amorality, talent for manipulation and sharp tongue. As much as I enjoyed Reese Witherspoon's performance in the movie - and I really did - I thought it was a mistake for Fellowes, Faulk and Skeet to make Becky a more "likeable" personality in the movie's first half. One, it took a little bite not only out of the character, but from the story's satirical style, as well. And two, I found this change unnecessary, considering that literary fans have always liked the darker Becky anyway. Thankfully, this vanilla-style Becky Sharp disappeared in the movie's second half, as the three screenwriters returned to Thackery's sharper and darker portrayal of the character. I was also a little disappointed with the movie's sequence featuring Becky's stay at the Sedley home and her seduction of Amelia's older brother, Jos. I realize that as a movie adaptation, "VANITY FAIR" was not bound to be completely accurate as a story. But I was rather disappointed with the sequence featuring Becky's visit to the Sedley home at Russell Square in London. Perhaps it was just me, but I found that particular sequence somewhat rushed. I was also disappointed by Nair and producer Jannette Day's decision to delete the scene featuring Becky's final meeting with her estranged son, Rawdy Crawley. This is not out of some desire to see Robert Pattinson on the screen. Considering that the movie's second half did not hesitate to reveal Becky's lack of warmth toward her son, I felt that this last scene could have remained before she departed Europe for India with Jos.

Despite my complaints and the negative view of the movie by moviegoers that demanded complete accuracy, I still enjoyed"VANITY FAIR" very much. Although I was a little disappointed in the movie's lighter portrayal of the Becky Sharp, I did enjoy some of the other changes. I had no problem with the addition of a scene from Becky's childhood in which she first meets Lord Steyne. I felt that this scene served as a strong and plausible omen of her future relationship with the aristocrat. Unlike others, I had no problems with Becky's fate in the end of the movie. I have always liked the character, regardless of her amoral personality. And for once, it was nice to see her have some kind of happy ending - even with the likes of the lovesick Jos Sedley. Otherwise, I felt that"VANITY FAIR" covered a good deal of Thackery's novel with a sense of humor and flair.

I have always found it odd that most people seemed taken aback by an American in a British role more so than a Briton in an American role. After all, it really depends upon the individual actor or actress on whether he or she can handle a different accent. In the case of Reese Witherspoon, she used a passable British accent, even if it was not completely authentic. More importantly, not only did she give an excellent performance, despite the writers' changes in Becky's character, she was also excellent in the movie's second half, which revealed Becky's darker nature.

Witherspoon was ably assisted with a first-rate cast. The movie featured fine performances from the likes of James Purefoy, Deborah Findley, Tony Maudsley, Geraldine McEwan, Eileen Atkins, Douglas Hodge, Natasha Little (who portrayed Becky Sharp in the 1998 television adaptation of the novel), and especially Romola Garai and Jonathan Rhys-Meyers as Amelia Sedley and George Osborne. But I was especially impressed by a handful of performances that belonged to Bob Hoskins, Rhys Ifans and Gabriel Byrne. Bob Hoskins was a delight as the slightly crude and lovesick Sir Pitt Crawley. Rhys Ifans gave one of his most subtle performances as the upright and slightly self-righteous William Dobbins, who harbored a unrequited love for Amelia. Jim Broadbent gave an intense performance as George's ambitious and grasping father. And Gabriel Byrne was both subtle and cruel as the lustful and self-indulgent Marquis of Steyne.

In the end, I have to say that I cannot share the negative opinions of "VANITY FAIR". I realize that it is not a "pure" adaptation of William Makepeace Thackery's novel or that it is perfect. But honestly, I do not care. Despite its flaws, "VANITY FAIR" proved to be a very entertaining movie for me. And I would have no problem watching it as much as possible in the future.

"ELIZABETH: THE GOLDEN AGE" (2007) Review

"ELIZABETH: THE GOLDEN AGE" (2007) Review

Nine years after the release of 1998's "ELIZABETH", director Shekhar Kapur returned to direct a sequel called, "ELIZABETH: THE GOLDEN AGE". Like the 1998 movie, it stars Cate Blanchett as England's "Virgin Queen" and Geoffrey Rush as the sovereign's most trusted spymaster, Sir Francis Walsingham. The movie covers a period during Elizabeth I's reign in which she had faced the double threat of Philip II of Spain (Jordi Mollà) and Mary, Queen of Scots (Samantha Morton). The movie also features a romantic triangle for Elizabeth that features Clive Owen as Walter Raleigh, famous poet and explorer (and the Queen's object of desire) and Abbie Cornish as one of Elizabeth's ladies-in-waitng and Raleigh's future wife, Bess Throckmorton.

Despite having the same director and star as the previous film, "ELIZABETH: THE GOLDEN AGE" seems like a different kettle of fish from its predecessor. Michael Hirst and new writer, William Nicholson's screenplay seem more somber and less violent than the 1998 film. The most graphic violence shown in the movie is actually heard as Mary Stuart's neck is severed by a sword (or axe). And its sensuality almost seem subdued in compared to the earlier film. The most titillating scene seemed to be Cate Blanchett's backside after she disrobes in one scene.

The movie covers a period in Elizabethan history that has been featured many times in the past - namely Elizabeth Tudor's decision to execute Mary Stuart for plotting treason. It also covers the consequences of this act - namely Spain's decision to send an armada to England. Although I found this mildly interesting, I wish that one day in the future, some filmaker would focus upon a period in Elizabeth's reign that did not cover her early years as queen, Mary Stuart's death or the Spanish Armada. Unfortunately, these incidents seem to define her reign in history. Perhaps that is why I found the story's main conflict anti-climatic. At least the royal triangle between Elizabeth, Raleigh and Throckmorton managed to provide some spark in the story . . . even if this actually played out in the early 1590s, instead of the 1580s as shown in the film.

The performances are basically first-rate - especially by Rush, Owen and Cornish. Although I must confess that I found Owen's presence in the movie to be almost irrevelant. Aside from participating in the defense of England against Spain, he had no serious role in the movie's main story - namely Elizabeth's conflict with Mary and Philip.

I really do not know what to make of Jordi Mollà's portrayal of Philip II. I guess I found it rather odd. I think he had tried to portray the Spanish sovereign as someone more eccentric than he actually was. And quite frankly, screenwriters Hirst and Nicholson did not serve him well by dumping some rather pedantic dialogue upon him that seemed focused around insulting Elizabeth's character. I do not know what he had called English queen more - 'whore', 'bastard' or simply 'darkness'. Quite frankly, he had made a much better villain in "BAD BOYS II".

As for Blanchett, I really enjoyed her performance in the movie's first half. She seemed more self-assured, mature and perhaps manipulative than she was in the 1998 movie. Yet, once when affairs of both the state and the heart began to sour for her, she engaged in more over-the-top mannerisms than Bette Davis did during her entire 17 years at Warner Brothers. Before one starts thinking that I was more impressed by Blanchett's performance in "ELIZABETH", let me assure you that I was not. If anything, her twitchiness in the movie's second half only reminded me of the same mannerisms that I almost found annoying in the first movie. Yet . . . she still managed to turn in an excellent performance.

Like its 1998 predecessor, "ELIZABETH: THE GOLDEN AGE" is not perfect. It lacks the previous movie's colorful panache, despite the lavish costumes and sets. In fact, those very traits nearly threaten to overwhelm both the story and its characters. Thankfully, Kapur manages to prevent this from actually happening. And although it is historically incorrect, at least it is not marred by an unforgivable revision of history as was the case with the Elizabeth/Dudley storyline in the first film. Despite its imperfections, I suggest you go see "ELIZABETH: THE GOLDEN AGE". Especially if you enjoy lavish costumes in a historical setting.

"VANITY FAIR" (2004) Photo Gallery

Below is a gallery featuring photos from the 2004 version of William Makepeace Thackeray's epic novel, "VANITY FAIR". Directed by Mira Nair, the movie stars Reese Witherspoon and James Purefoy:


"VANITY FAIR" (2004) Photo Gallery