For some reason, Sony's not releasing the new Spider-Man film until January seventh in Japan. I guess that's better than Ghostbusters: Afterlife, another Sony film, which isn't being released until February. What gives? Sony's a Japanese company and Covid's not nearly as bad in Japan. I guess I'm not bent out of shape about it--I hated Spider-Man: Far From Home and the new one has the same director and writers. I guess it goes to show how much I like the character that I'm willing to shell out money to see it. Or maybe I'm just happy that it managed to beat out China's propaganda film, The Battle at Lake Changjin, to be the top grossing film of the year. But, really, the entertainment media look like a bunch of saps for having faith in the numbers China reported for Chiangjin and Hi, Mom. You're really trying to tell me there are more people in China who wanted to see a cheap period war film than who wanted to see No Time to Die or even Venom 2?
Anyway, whatever my love for the character, I realised I'd never gotten around to watching 2011's The Amazing Spider-Man. This is despite the fact that I like Emma Stone and I thought Andrew Garfield was amazing in Never Let Me Go. I guess I was sore about them booting Sam Raimi. Well, now Raimi's making one for the real MCU, though I heard Disney's demanded a lot of reshoots of him. Yeah, though he can make a Spider-Man or Evil Dead 2, Raimi does now and then make a Spider-Man 3, but I'd still say the price for allowing an auteur his freedom is well worth it in the long run. Eighty years from now, a lot of the MCU movies will have about the same status The Egyptian or The Robe has now, those massive sand and sandal epics of the 1950s most people don't remember who were born after 1960.
And The Amazing Spider-Man stands as testimony of just how boring a film can be when it's produced by people whose concerns are limited to marketability.
Garfield and Stone do give good performances, particularly Garfield, who manages to make all of the many moments his Peter Parker is at a loss for words completely distinct and reflective of internal motives. It's great, too, seeing a Spider-Man movie again where the love interests seem like they're sexually attracted to each other instead of just accepting couplehood by default. Altogether, though, The Amazing Spider-Man feels very small.
A big part of it is the cinematography, which is much darker than the Raimi films or the Jon Watts films. It seems more appropriate for a Batman movie but Batman movies are more stylish than this. This movie's whole style concept just seems to be "darker". And that extends to Spider-Man's costume which includes big sunglass lenses for the eyes.
But, just like the Raimi and Watts films, he spends way too much time with the mask off. It's especially egregious in the Jon Watts movies when the mask's eyes are more expressive. The filmmakers never let the audience get used to the idea that this is his normal face, that Peter Parker's face is the disguise. After it worked so well with Deadpool, there's no excuse for it now.
Anyway, the performances are all good in The Amazing Spider-Man except they never overcome the lifelessness of Webb's direction. Garfield has a lot of time to spend with Sally Field and Martin Sheen who create a distinct dynamic for the Parker household. But the scenes are shot like those general purpose, stock videos sold to advertisers.
So, if Sony knows what's good for it, they'll never waste time revisiting this iteration of the character . . . The Amazing Spider-Man is available on Netflix in Japan.
No comments:
Post a Comment