Spoilers ahead.
When "The Amazing Spider-Man" was released in 2012, I avoided it. I wasn't ready for another cinematic Spider-man, after the Sam Raimi series went kaput after 2007's "Spider-man 3." A five year gap feels practically overlong these days, but at the time wholly rebooting one of the biggest film franchises of the past decade in such a fashion felt too fast and abrupt. Sony's plans to create a whole cinematic universe out of the series to compete with the MCU also raised eyebrows. On some level I knew I wasn't going to be able to give the "Amazing" films a fair shake, so I simply didn't watch them.
However, with rumors of crossovers to all kinds of different Spider-media coming in the next Jon Watts Spider-film, I thought this would be a good time to catch up. And honestly, I'm glad to have the distance from all the drama and all the expectations around the "Amazing" films when they were released in 2012 and 2014 respectively. It's really striking how these films already feel dated in some respects. They borrow some of the gloomier mood and grittier visuals of Christopher Nolan DCU films, and are clearly designed to be part of the wave of 3D action films of the 2010s. They're also aimed at an older crowd than the Raimi and Watts films, perhaps unwisely. However, I admit to getting so much joy out of the Stan Lee cameos, which I wasn't expecting.
Anyways, let's get down to it. I very nearly titled this post "When Emma Stone Was Gwen Stacy" because she's easily the best part of these films, and the best female character I've seen in any Spider-media outside of, well, Spider-Gwen. Andrew Garfield is a perfectly good Spidey in all respects - a little nerdy, a little broody, and good with quips. Emma Stone, however, constantly steals scenes from him. I like the dynamic between her and Peter so much better than the more one-sided romance from the Raimi films, and the bravest thing that Webb does is to commit to Gwen's abrupt exit in "Amazing Spider-Man 2." Having Gwen so prominent also gets us her police captain father, George Stacy (Denis Leary), in the mix, who is very good - and also results in "The Amazing Spider-Man" killing off four parental figures in the same film. Like I said, these films are aimed at an older, angstier crowd.
When it comes to Spider-man's other battles, however, the Webb films sometimes have trouble distinguishing themselves from Raimi's. The villains echo previous villains too much, and there are too many of the origin story beats that play out too similarly. The Lizard (Rhys Ifans) is another scientist mentor who goes off the rails, like Dr. Octopus. The Harry Osbourne (Dane Dehaan) arc is awfully similar to the one we've already seen, even with the new terminal illness wrinkle. And Peter losing his Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) to street crime again was just handled so much better in the 2002 "Spider-man." At least Aunt May (Sally Field) got a slightly more fleshed out role, especially her big moment in "Amazing Spider-Man 2."
Taken individually, "The Amazing Spider-man" is a strong film. I consistently enjoyed it more than "Spider-Man" or "Spider-Man 3," but it's not as audience friendly as Raimi's films, and doesn't land the humor as well. However, it's the gloomy visuals and emphasis on Peter losing his parents that make me wonder why Webb kept trying to turn Spider-man into Batman. The action sequences are excellent though. "Amazing Spider-Man 2" is more lively, but also overstuffed with characters and plotlines, ridiculously rushed, and ends on such a downer. I don't mind Jamie Foxx's Electro, but he got a crummy ending. I wish we could have had less of him and more of Paul Giamatti's Rhino. And really, the cliffhanger was infuriating.
I'm glad I watched the "Amazing Spider-Man" films, but I understand why audiences didn't embrace them. There was no novelty to the character anymore, and the creators managed to alienate younger audiences in a misguided attempt to get more dark and serious. The quality level was perfectly fine, but the films weren't as much fun to watch. It would have been interesting to see what some of the other villains in this universe would have looked like, but I have no interest whatsoever in a Shailene Woodley Mary Jane after losing Emma Stone's Gwen Stacy.
I think I would have had an even more negative view of these films if I'd watched them when they came out, but after "Spider-verse" and the Watts films, I've actually become very fond of Spidey. So it was nice to see a different take on the character and his universe. Still, I can't say I'm too sorry that the Sony "Spider-man" universe never really got off the ground.
---
No comments:
Post a Comment