I refrain from comparing new adaptations to existing
properties in film, I consider it unfair and pointless because the director’s
visions are wildly different and shouldn’t be compared to each other. After
all, I never compared Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy to Burton’s film, and
while I did include references to Batman and Robin it was only for
humorous purposes. I only bring this up because I plan on doing it for the
first time today, and let me tell you why.
In 2002 acclaimed director and pioneer of cinematography Sam
Raimi gave the world the first real film adaptation of Spider-Man that
didn’t turn out to be a colossal joke.
Oh for Christ's sake...
Casting talented actors in well written roles, injecting his
usual brand of humor and brilliance, and even creating a new film-making method
to properly convey the style of Spider-Man’s signature parkour fighting style
and web-slinging, Sam Raimi brought a film to life that was a perfectly
balanced story of superheroes and human drama.
Raimi followed this up with two highly successful sequels: Spider-Man
2, which in my mind rates up there with X-men 2 and The Dark
Knight as the best comic book films to date, and Spider-Man 3, which
was… less impressive. Spider-Man 3 is a lot like George Romero’s Day
of the Dead for fans like me, it was a subpar film compared to the first
two, but no one really holds Sam Raimi accountable for its failures. The amount
of production interference in the film is now legendary, forcing Raimi to make
changes to the film such as making Flint Marko responsible for Uncle Ben’s
death, including scenes that in no way belonged in the film, and forcing his
hand in telling the story of the symbiote. They even went so far as to make him
include the villain Venom, which Raimi fought against vehemently because he
even stated that he didn’t understand the character and didn’t want to do him
an injustice.
Afterwards Raimi was looking forward to redeeming himself
with Spider-Man 4, but before he could get too far the studio cancelled
his project and began to develop a new darker, more realistic Spider-Man
film to follow the success of Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy. Raimi’s films
were never completed, and the only pause between the conclusion of his films
and an unnecessary reboot was the breath the pitch manager had to take between
announcing the end of Raimi’s films and the upcoming reboot. All this film is
trying to do is make a quick cash grab while Spider-Man is still fresh in people’s minds, and for that
reason I am going to absolutely hold it to the same standard as Raimi’s film
legacy.
I can’t really say I hated The Amazing Spider-Man, in
fact I can’t even really say The Amazing Spider-Man was a bad movie. It
wasn’t a great movie by any means, but I’m sure a lot of people liked the film,
and as I’m going to cover later there were even several parts of the film that
I actually enjoyed myself. But the biggest thing that this film also isn’t is a Spider-Man film, and
we’ll discuss why.
The biggest problem I had with the film was the
mind-bogglingly bad choice of tone. Now for those of you not as invested in
film as I am (also known as healthy, normal adults) tone is the overall mood or
feeling of a film, and can usually be established very early on in a film
through the use of shading, direction, music, and atmosphere. For example,
compare the feeling you had while watching Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy
to that of Joel Schumacher’s Batman Forever, or worse, Batman and
Robin. Nolan’s films perfectly convey the feelings of dread and dark
atmosphere that are such a staple of the Batman universe, while Schumacher’s
films convey a feeling of something you would see in a clown academy or a
circus. Tone is the most important thing to establishing how the audience
should feel while watching a film, and with some decent directing it can make
you feel anything from happy, to scared, to tense, and one of the best examples
of properly setting a tone can be found in one surprisingly awesome scene from
the surprisingly awesome CW show Supernatural.
First, some back story to the scene. Lucifer has been freed
from Hell and has released the four horsemen of the Apocalypse, calling on
Death to unleash a massive storm that will wipe out the city of Chicago. Our
hero Dean Winchester has been tasked with using Death’s legendary scythe to cut
the ring from Death’s finger and stop Lucifer from beginning the Apocalypse
(this is probably the coolest sentence I have ever written) when this happens:
This scene resounds even more emotionally with fans because
this is the first time we ever actually see Dean legitimately scared. The man
has faced down demons, ghosts, vampires, and even Satan himself, and he always
faces death with a quirk or a grin, but this scene is the first time we actually
see him worried, speechless, and flat out scared of the man he is dealing with
when he brings up the idea that one day he will have to kill God.
He has reason to be scared as well, but even though this is Death we are talking about Death
never really tries to intimidate the man who was just trying to kill him. He
lets his past and his future tasks do the talking for him, and even after going
out of his way to tell Dean that he has no intention of killing him the way he
does this makes Dean even more frightened of his abilities. The writing in this
scene is so good that Death never relies on clichés to make him sound
terrifying, it just comes across naturally in the dialogue and with the actor’s
subtle nuances and annoyance at being Lucifer’s pet.
Now onto the scene construction itself, notice how the
framing, lighting, shading, and blocking all construct a sense of light versus
dark, good versus evil. Dean is always shown in good lighting and contrast and
his face is always visible while Death’s face is always partially in the
shadows, almost like he is one with them like Colonel Kurtz in Apocalypse
Now. The only time we really see his face well lit is when lightning
strikes, which is always during poignant points in his speech, and I don’t know
if this is Death’s intention or a personal touch from the director himself, but
either possibility is absolutely brilliant in terms of filming.
The music is pitch perfect to setting the tone as well, a
dark piece of work that conveys a sense of tension at what is happening on
screen. Notice how Dean’s dialogue is always nervous and naïve, a subtle
reference to the naïve nature of innocence as opposed to Death’s knowledgeable
and often angry tones, often times disgust bordering on hatred. One final note
is that in almost every scene Death is in he is fond of eating junk food, a
reference to the Freudian theory of the “Death Drive”, a theory that states in
order for a human to sustain life, he must create death (i.e. destroying the
food he is eating). You probably didn’t even notice these touches while
watching the scene but then again that’s the whole point of setting a proper
tone and making allusions, your brain is absorbing this information to
establish what is going on in the scene even if you aren’t aware of it.
Now, if the C-freakin’-W channel can construct proper tone
in a scene as brilliantly as this, then how the hell can a film with such a
massive budget completely miss the tone of what Spider-Man is all about? I
don’t really know which is worse, choosing the wrong tone like in this film, or
having a flat, boring, vanilla tone like the stupid Twilight films, but as much
as I hate those movies, they never come across as a comedy, which is the
equivalent to how wrong these films feel. How could they screw this up so
badly? Quick answer… riding the coat tails.
You may have noticed this trend in Hollywood that is getting
flat out annoying at this point… the gritty reboot. It started with some
properties that benefitted from the realistic approach such as Casino Royale,
Batman Begins, or True Grit. Adapting an established property to
an appropriately darker tone can be a great way to remind everyone of what the
property should be. James Bond was
originally known as an amoral and dark secret agent instead of a suave and
campy playboy, and Batman was always legendary for being the darkest and
broodiest of well established comic heroes.
But in the last five or six years gritty reboots and
re-imaginings have gotten so far out of control that it’s f**king annoying. In
fact I’ve brought this up before, but between 2007-2010 over 95% of all
Hollywood films were either reboots, re-imaginings, prequels or sequels. A few
years ago I made a crack about how they were going to eventually make a gritty
reboot of Hansel and Gretel, but things have gotten so out of control that they
recently did just that and now I almost feel bad about it, like someone who
picked on the retarded kid on the playground. The point is that now Hollywood’s
“Hey, me too!” attitude has decided that Spider-Man, the happy, comedic, most
feel-good comic on the Marvel roster needed the Dark Knight treatment and
made it into a dark film as well. This is such a bad choice in direction, not
only did it completely undo everything Spider-Man is about, but the tone and
atmosphere through the whole movie are tainted with this new approach.
As if this wasn’t bad
enough, they decide to completely undo this baffling decision with an even more
baffling choice in villain. The film goes out of its way to make this film
darker and more realistic, which I don’t like, but I can kind of understand
because it’s the hot ticket in Hollywood right now. But then they completely
ruin this approach by having Spider-Man fight a giant dinosaur. At least in Sam
Raimi’s films (until we hit 3 at least) the villains seemed like they were
distantly possible due to science gone wrong. After all, enhanced gene therapy
(which created the Green Goblin) and cybernetic nanotechnology (which created
Doc Ock) have been in development for years with DARPA, so these characters
seemed a lot more believable than the Lizard ever was.
To top this off, they also made the Lizard a boring as
boring and uninteresting as possible, making his only motivation wanting to fix
his missing arm. In the comics Kurt Connors was always riddled with guilt over
his transformations, often leading to him attempting suicide on many occasions.
Here however, he seems to revel in the role of evil, and goes out of his way to
be a prick for no reason to be evil than for the sake of being evil.
Horrible choice in atmosphere aside, there were plenty of
other things to dislike about this film. One of the biggies was the director
trying to make Peter Parker more relatable to kids through a myriad of terrible
changes to the character. Peter Parker was created in a time when nerds were
universally unacceptable to be associated with in high school, this is why for
nerds like me growing up Spider-Man resounded so deeply. It was a story of
heroism despite the fact that the world had more or less turned his back on
him. It was also the first time (besides Revenge of the Nerds of course)
that the nerd was made out to be a hero, but most importantly, it was a story
about personal problems first and being a superhero second. But now this movie
doesn’t even give a crap about the characterization anymore, and this weenie on
screen is unrecognizable as Peter Parker, and in a lot of ways unlikeable.
Whenever I joke about a studio making a character more
appealing to kids the biggest joke I crack is always a stuffy producer saying
“Give him a skateboard, kids like skateboards”. It’s humorous because it’s so
stupid and out of touch with kids that it’s something that only a person with
no finger on the pulse would propose, but in this film they actually make Peter Parker skateboard! It’s just
another example of how this movie is just another soulless, heartless ,
assembly line film as opposed to the predecessors. Say what you will about
Raimi’s trilogy, and it certainly had its list of flaws (especially the third),
but no matter what you say about them you can at least tell that Sam Raimi
interjected a lot of heart and soul into the film. He put a lot of himself into
the cinematography, the music, and the story of the film, making it truly his vision and as a result, films with
heart to them.
This is especially true in the second film, and what made it
so magical was that not only was it so thoroughly Sam Raimi through the use of
some of his signature techniques (especially the legendary “Sam-O-Cam”, but it
was the best film to date when it came to capturing the essence of Spider-Man
by making it a human story first, and a superhero story second. Remember Uncle
Ben’s death in the first Raimi film? How powerful it was and how it resonated
with both you the audience and Peter? It taught Peter the importance of using
his powers responsibly through personal pain, hence the catchphrase “with great
power comes responsibility”. Compare that scene with the completely emotionless
death scene in the new film, and how it not only didn’t teach Peter anything about responsibility, but turned him
into a bloodthirsty, revenge driven vigilante.
The last thing that really bugged me about the film is
relatively small, but still irritating to me on a personal level, and you may
not have even noticed it. In my X-men First Class review I made a stink
about how lame Professor X and Magneto’s namesake was brought up in the film,
just sort of thrown out in a kind “Meh, how about this name?” sort of way.
Namesakes and creations are a big deal in the comic world, remember Bruce
Campbell’s booming announcement and introduction of “The Amaaaaaaaazing Spider-Man!”
in the first film?
How about Christian Bale’s legendary first delivery of “I’m
Batman” from Batman Begins?
They’re great, standout scenes that establish the character’s
names in a neat and unique way. How does this introduction go in the new film?
Man: Who are you?
Spider-Man: Um… Spider-Man.
Not exactly the same feel as the previous two examples eh?
Now believe it or not there were a few things about this
film that I actually liked, the first and largest of which was Dennis Leary’s
outstanding turn as Captain Stacy. Bringing a perfect balance of good cop and
cynic to what could have been a thankless role, Leary really made this
character shine, and presented the first real, believable reason of why a
person may distrust Spider-Man to the films. Distrust of the webhead was always
given to J Jonah Jameson in the original trilogy, and as much as I actually
loved JK Simmons’ portrayal of him in the films they never really flushed out
any reason of why he hated Spider-Man
so much other than it sold newspapers. Here however, Stacy’s disapproval is
explained in detail, and he views it as more of a disruption to justice than a
personal vendetta of any sort.
I also liked how in the film they went out of their way to
explain the origin of Peter’s webslingers as well as opposed to just having it
as a part of the mutation. It was neat to kind of see him put these together as
well as the rest of his costume, and even though it was a hamfisted attempt to
do so I also appreciated how they went out of their way to explain what a
scientific wunderkind Peter really was. Having him solve complex genetic
equations that the best minds in the field couldn’t solve was a bit too much,
but I at least appreciate the effort. Finally, I actually liked the quips and
one-liners Spidey delivered in costume, as they seemed much more organic and
real than the well written and rehearsed lines Tobey often used in the first
trilogy. The one-liners in the new trilogy really seemed more fitting for the
moment, and there were a few times where they actually had me chuckling at
their use.
At the end of the day The Amazing Spider-Man isn’t really
that bad of a film, but knowing the
politics that went on behind the scenes, having the original trilogy still
fresh in my head, and seeing this new soulless lifeless interpretation compared
to the vibrant, colorful, and lively Sam Raimi films puts this movie in a negative
light for me. Honestly, if the first three films had never been made I think I
may have hated this film a little less, but since the studio decided it was so
stinking important to push out another film as fast as they could the amount of
care they put (or didn’t put) into the film is incredibly evident. Tell me that
I’m seeing this movie with rose tinted glasses all you want, and you’re
probably right, but in this case I think it’s only fair that these films should
be held to a higher standard.
5.5 out of 10
I like directing my readers to other works they may enjoy, and for a great listen give the gentlemen on the podcast Reel Junkies a shot. A great and funny poscast featuring knowledgeable insight into film.
No comments:
Post a Comment