This is my own review & thoughts about the film(s). They're meant to be subjective, so don't take it too serious. If you're not happy about it, feel free to read other articles/entries or you can reply in the comment section. Just don't get nasty. :)
I for one am not a big fan of the new Spider-Man reboot. One thing for sure is that it was a huge mistake to reboot the franchise. Although, Spider-Man 3 is relatively to its predecessors a big pile of turd, it didn't kill the franchise, much less get close to. Just think, although SPOILER ALERT Venom & Eddie Brock was killed at the end of the film, there's still that remaining symbiote sample that Peter gave to Dr Connors earlier in the film. Heck, they can even use Dr Connors as the next villain for the next film (which they eventually did with the reboot).
| This guy doesn't even need to transform into the Lizard to haunt my dreams - that facial expression itself would just do. |
Alas, they eventually decided to restart over the whole franchise which was all unnecessary, considering the previous one still had a lot of potential left. Before I talk about why I dislike the new Spider-Man, I'll make it a fair argument by stating the merits of it first.
 |
| Which to me, is pointless. |
THE BESTS OF THE REBOOT
Andrew Garfield plays a great Spider-Man in the film & so did Emma Stone as his love interest, Gwen Stacy. I love the chemistry between the two of them which I think is much better than their previous counterparts. I'm not sure about the comics, but there's always a great frustation between Peter & Mary Jane Watson in Sam Raimi's version. I always have this feeling - I blame the screenwriters for this - that Mary Jane was only interested in Peter because he's Spider-Man. In other words, I see her kind of being a bitch.
 |
| At least she's a hot bitch. |
Another great aspect of the reboot is that the filmmakers decided to stay closer to the comic books than Raimi did by having Peter inventing is own "web-shooters." It really did show us that Peter was really a "special" kid before being bitten by the radioactive spider, something Raimi should really be envy for not thinking of the same thing. Plus, it was kind of creepy & disgusting to think where did the sticky webs originate from in Raimi's version. It makes me think of ...
 |
| That explains everything now. |
I'm not going to say anything about the costumes & the special effects of both versions because they are both top-notched for a film from their own respective time. The action scenes in both incarnations are also spectacularly choreographed.
 |
| The best CGI I have seen in years. |
THE BESTS OF SAM RAIMI'S TRILOGY
Now here comes the problem with the reboot: the villains. Even after the newly-released sequel, my prime beef is still with the villains. They're all so thinly-writen & we couldn't care much about them, no matter how much we want to. Doc Ock from Spider-Man 2 is still the best villain of them all but the filmmakers repeated the same mistake as Spider-Man 3 did by cramping in 3 villains into the same film. The Lizard, no matter how ugly some people think it was designed, was still okay. We get to see his humane side, his motives, though his character is still underdeveloped. The Electro, on the other hand, was so dull. You attacked other people because you needed attention from others? His misunderstanding with Spidey was also dull & it was a lame excuse to drive the plot forward. I also think Harry Osborne's transition into the Green Goblin was way too early. They should've saved him for the next film.
 |
| Because out of all Spider-Man villains, let's use the Green Goblin twice. |
The special thing about Raimi's Spider-verse was his style & technique of filmmaking. I still think The Dark Knight is the best superhero film of all time but if you're looking for the best comic book film of all time, I'd say Spider-Man 2. His films are corny at times but the fast-paced technique & "jumpy" soundtrack really make you feel like watching a comic book coming to life. He really did capture the text balloons & the "wham!" effects of the comic books the films were based of. The reboot feels more like many other superhero films out there: heavy with special effect but with nothing special to offer.
 |
| Like I said, the best CGI I have seen in years. |
Remember when I said Garfield plays a great Spider-Man? Well, he's not a great Peter Parker. I don't blame him, but he lacks the nerdy character that many audiences can relate to through Tobey Maguire. Maguire's Peter was really flawed & we pity him. The emotional scene between Peter & Uncle Ben in Raimi's films were also more emotional. I have this feeling that girls were flocking at the cinemas just to see Garfield because he's a good-looking guy. I was afraid of this because the reboot has now become a new Twilight franchise & I become more suspicious when someone told me that Sony's making the reboot just to hold on to the rights to make Spider-Man filsm & just get cash out of naive filmgoers.
 |
| Wait, hold on. They only want my money? I should've seen that when they forced Raimi to cram in the Venom before rebooting. |
Lastly, Sam Raimi's ace in the hole - J.K. Simmons as J, Jonah Jameson.
 |
| They should've made a spin-off based on him instead of rebooting the franchise. |
In summary, although the reboot has some great aspects, I still prefer Raimi's Spidey-verse. I don't mind the reboot being based on The Ultimate Marvel Universe & I don't mind about the short screentime the Rhino gets in the second film - I blame the guys in marketing for overhyping it. A sequel & a spin-off based on the Sinister Six have been announced & I hope Sony can finally learn from their past mistakes & save this franchise before eventually (let's admit, they're going to do it) rebooting it again.
Spoiler alert
Thanks for reading & let me know what you think of this article by writing in the comment section below. I don't even mind if our opinions differ, just don't be rude. :)
*all images belong to their respective owners*
No comments:
Post a Comment