The Amazing Spider-Man (Marc Webb, 2012) Review

I lied! WHAHAHA! Big was just a trick! Here's the film you were expecting...right? I could sum up the the film right here, right now...a clue to how good it is is in the title. You know, 'amazing'. I was as reluctant as the next person when this film was announced. It was too soon, the new cast didn't look as good but I am glad I was wrong. Oh so very glad. Why? Let's find out.

Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield), while being looked after by his uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and his aunt May (Sally Field) after his parents go missing, is a nerdy highschool student as well as an accomplished photographer. While researching what happened to his parents, he discovers that his father worked with Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), a scientist working for Oscorp. While there, he ends up bitten by a radioactive spider. He later discovers that he has new abilities such as strength, spider sense and the ability to climb walls. Meanwhile, Connors is experimenting on a way to cross lizard DNA so that humans can regrow limbs like they do. When he tests it on him self in order to grow his arm back, it doesn't quite work as he planned and ends up becoming the ferocious Lizard.

Yes, the film does reenact certain scenes from the Sam Raini Spider-Man trilogy such as Uncle Ben's death (don't act surprised, it happens every time) which is taken to a tear jerker level. The film is much darker that the last and certain scenes like that really show the change. In contrast, some scenes are made much funnier as well. The scene where Peter discovers his new powers is just hysterical. I was laughing throughout the entire scene. The film does a great job of balancing funny scenes and sad scenes together. It's helped by the new rebooted Peter Parker. When he's Spider-Man, he is a wisecracking smartass. That is how he was in the comics and that's how he should be. That was one of my biggest complaints in the old trilogy and I am glad it's here.

The actors in this version are much better. Of course, Andrew Garfield is compared to Tobey Mcguire...he's better. Don't argue, Garfield is much better because he is more accurate to the comic. Mcguire was good but he was a better Peter Parker than he was a Spider-Man. Can't compare Emma Stone to Kirsten Dunst because they are different characters. Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) is the RIGHT love interest to start with which always bugged me that Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst) was in the last films before her. Rhys Ifans blew me away. For someone that generally does British comedies, he really pulled through as Connors and creates an excellent Jekyll and Hyde character (better than Willem Dafoe in Spider-Man). Martin Sheen does an excellent job as Uncle Ben and greats a much more developed character who you actually feel remorse for when he dies. While I didn't think Sally Field would make a good Aunt May, he surprised me and is a really sincere character. It's the little things. Captain George Stacy's (Dennis Leary) best quality is his rivalry with Spider-Man and you can feel the tension when he's talking with Peter. There's some great acting involved in this film and it's much better than the last...and there's no J. Jonah Jameson. Sad, I know. I guess if I had ONE major issue that stops in from being truly amazing is that the world is way small. It's full of coincidences and moments of 'just so happens'. Hopefully the sequels will expand the world...and maybe so J.J. Jameson, huh?

The Amazing Spider-Man is a much improved reboot of the last trilogy. Many people say it wasn't needed but I disagree. It improves all the problems with the last film and the new cast is fantastic. The writing is a lot less silly and it's more believable...except one small detail: would a nerdy highschool student like Peter use Bing? No...he wouldn't. Bad product placment. When the worst part of the film is the search engine the protagonist is using, I'd say that this is a damn good film. It also features hands down the best Stan Lee cameo to date. These details are important. The Amazing Spider-Man is everything the last films should have been!

Verdict:
7.5/10
A well needed reboot. I'm impressed one film can be more enjoyable than a whole trilogy.

Big (Penny Marshall, 1988) Review

Expect The Amazing Spider-Man? Too bad, Tom Hanks time. For those who don't know, Big was one of Tom Hank's first films (give or take a few films)...at least it was one of his first (excuse the pun) big films. It brings forth a pretty clever and unique idea that does work well. It also has a decent enough moral. I guess it's time to take a look into Big. I would make another size joke but I can't think of one...It comes naturally.

Josh Baskin (David Moscow) is a typical 80's kid who dreams of being bigger and be treated like an adult. When he visits a travelling amusement park, he uses a wish machine so he can ask to be grown up. Normally this wouldn't work but this a film so naturally...it works. He wakes up the next day to find that he is now a fully grown adult (Tom Hanks). There's just one problem...no-one recognises him. He's kicked out of his house after being mistaken for an intruder, he flunks out of school for obvious reasons and has to stay in an appartmen ton his own. His luck turns around when he's hired to test out toys (since he is still a child inside). Now he has to make a choice, stick with his new life or try to find the wish machine.

There's one thing to expect form a film starring Tom Hanks...he is going to be great. It's not different here at all. He is still the same great Tom Hanks. If you don't like Tom Hanks then stay away but then again...I don't know anyone that does. This is a good introduction to his acting and manages to portray a character with child like naivety. He makes this film and is the main reason you would want to see it...that and the writing.

The thing I love most about this film is, as previously stated, the idea of the film. I love the idea of having a child in an adults body. It presents some great scenes and lines that perfectly portray a naive child but, obviously, is said by Tom Hanks. I love the scenes where women try to hit on him but he obviously misses the point such as thinking they want to have a sleepover (you know, not in THAT sense). The writing helps this and I give the writer(s) much respect.

Big isn't really a film for everyone. It does move at a slow pace in the second half and it's ending is just obvious. It's the bad kind of obvious where, not only do you know what's going to happen, but it's disappointing cliché and boring. It isn't Tom Hanks' best film by any means but it isn't his worst either. It's in the middle. I would recommend it if you haven't seen it but there are much better films out there (see The Terminal).

Verdict:
6.5/10

Spider-Man 3 (Sam Raimi, 2007) Review

*ahem* This may be hard to get off my chest. Let me just...prepare myself. I'm going to blow your mind....I like Spider-Man 3. Surprised? If you said no then you clearly don't spend enough time on the internet. For those who don't know, the last film in Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy did pretty well when it first came out but OH MAN were the fans pissed. There are many reasons to this but I think we should look at the narrtive first. Let's dive in.

After the finale of Spider-Man 2 where Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst) discovers Peter Parker (Tobey Mcguire), Harry Osborn (James Franco) decides to take revenge into his own hands and tries to kill Spider-Man for killing his father (if you've seen the first film, you know that's not entirely true) and is put into a coma after a run in with Spidey. This results in Peter and Mary Jane's relationship deteriating and isn't helped by the introduction of Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard). Meanwhile, escaped convict Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church) escapes into a testing laboratory and is turned into the ferocious Sandman. Could things get any worse? Yes. Yes they can. A black substance crashes on Earth and proceeds to manipulate Peter and brings out his dark side. Also, A new worker at the Daily Bugle, Eddie Brock (Topher Grace), is gunning for Peter's job! This is just one of those days.

One of the biggest complaints is that there are way too many villains in this film. Sandman, New Goblin/Harry Osborn and Venom all feature as the main antagonist (although New Goblin is downplayed in comparison). The reasont his is so complained about is because it does feel cluttered with villains but I feel it's spaced out well. Each villain is given time to develop (except Venom...more on that later) and it does pay off for one hell of a finale. Personally I feel there are way too many side characters. Was Gwen Stacy really nessecary? No. No she was not. Venom, for those who don't know, is Spider-Man's biggest villain. He's like Batman's Joker, Iron Man's Mandarin or Superman's Lex Luthor. Naturally he was hyped up as hell...it's a shame he was in it for ABOUT TEN MINUTES!!! Point taken off for that. It's unacceptable.

I must address the BIGGEST criticism and that is Peter Parker when he's infected with the symbiote. Instead of being angsty and emo as the posters would suggest he's...dancing around and eating milk and cookies. I wrote that last bit with my hand resting on my forehead...eeeehhhh. Yes, I hate the infamous dancing as much as the next guy but I look past that and focus on the best scenes of the film including all the fights with Sandman (especially the subway battle) and the epic finale. The last couple of scenes wrap up the trilogy very tightly with a big reveal that goes back as far as the first film.

Spider-Man 3 is attacked by haters for reasons that can easily be overlooked (except maybe the dancing scene...that was...questionable to say the least) and I just focus on the good stuff. There is a lot in here that people miss out. Best in the franchise? No. Worst? Yeah. Bad film? No way! It's a great finale to the series and I can't wait for the reboot, The Amazing Spider-Man. What's that? It's out already...we'll see what happens then...keep watching this space.

Verdict:
7/10
A good film filled with great characters and a decent plot that people seem to ignore.

Spider-Man 2 (Sam Raimi, 2004) Review

Comic book sequels...you know the drill. I've mentioned countless times that comic book sequels are usually better than the previous film in the series. It's never more obvious with Spider-Man 2. The first one was good for a first attempt but there were still some huge problems with it such as some questionable casting, over the top acting and cheesy dialogue. It's all gone here. Is that better for the franchise or does it make it worse...let's find out.

Spider-Man (Tobey Mcguire) is now a symbol for New York having saved it from the threat of the Green Goblin but he begins to question whether he should continue when he has to juggle his life as Peter Parker and his life as Spider-Man. He misses deadlines with people such as seeing Mary Jane's (Kirsten Dunst) play and he starts to wear down his relationships. Meanwhile, Dr. Otto Octavious (Alfred Molina) is ready to show off his new invention which allows humans to control the power of the sun. When it makes a disaterous consequence, he dons four robotic arms and vows to destory the city for make up for what has taken from him...which may or may not have been his fault. Debatable.

I mentioned in my last review that, while it seemed like a good idea, Willem Dafoe seems a bit...over the top as the villain. This time the villain is Doctor Octopus played by Alfred Molina. He is great! I am a fan of Molian and this film reinforces the reason why. He is at his best here as he creates a sympathic yet badass villain. Maybe the trenchcoat has something to do with it. Tobey Mcguire has improved greatley. His Spider-Man is much more competant than last time.

Spider-Man 2 takes a much more serious route with the narrative. The last one was clearly a comic book film complete with cheesy dialogue but this time, it almost becomes a Shakespearean tragedy. Trust me, it works and makes characters such as Peter and Octavious much better characters. They go through some great character development. The dialogue is much better than the last time and characters like J. Jonah Jameson is are as good as ever.

Spider-Man 2 fixes a lot of the problems the first film had. The characters go through great development and the narrative is MUCH better than the last time. Green Goblin is a much worse villain than Dr. Octopus who dominates this film and is easily the most memorable part. Alfred Molina is enough reason to see this film. If you liked the last film you will LOVE this one. One more film to go in the Spider-Man series and BOY are we in for a doozy.

Verdict:
8.5/10
Manages to dump the cheesy dialogue to make room for a deep storyline. A much improved sequel.

Spider-Man (Sam Raimi, 2002) Review

There's a reboot among us! It's not this one though. This is the classic (and by classic I mean from ten years ago) Sam Raimi Spider-Man. You know, the one with  Tobey Maguire that started off great but ruined itself with the third film. Well this is the first one of that series. Released near the start of the comic book era of films (which is STILL going!) that is now it's own genre, Spider-Man is an adaptation of the legendary comic book series that has reached it's 50th anniversary. Is the film a worthy adaptation? Let's find out.

Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) is a nerdy, shy high school student who lives with his aunt and uncle and also has a crush on the girl next door, Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst). On a school trip to a genetics laboratory, Peter is bitten by a radioactive spider that escaped. It seems nothing happened...at first. He learns that he has great reflexes, can climb walls, has increased strength and can even shoot webs out of his wrist but with great power comes great responsibility as Peter's uncle Ben Parker (Cliff Robertson) is shot and killed by a car jacker. He decides to use his power to protect the city from evil. Meanwhile, the scientific mastermind Norman Osbourne (Willem Defoe) has developed a new formula which he tests on himself...with disastrous consequences.

What sets this film among previous comic book films is that it manages to balance a serious tone with comic book aspects. Before this, it was either one or the other. The writing for the film conveys a very comic book style (such as Spider-Man calling Green Goblin "Gobby" and also "We'll meet again, Spider-Man!") but it contrasts the very serious tone of the narrative. It teaches a good moral about power and responsibility but there are some moments that you just can't help but laugh at...whether or not it was intentional.

The cast is mixed. While Tobey Maguire is a great Peter Parker, he isn't really the best Spider-Man in the world. He's a bit too wimpy to pass off as a super hero. Kirsten Dunst is actually pretty good as Mary Jane and creates a great damsel in distress character. Willem Dafoe is a great pick for the Green Goblin but his execution of the role was...questionable. He works well of James Franco (playing Norman's son Harry) but it's when he becomes Goblin is when things get...weird. He is so over the top that it sort of doesn't belong here. Personally I love over the top villains like the Riddler in Batman Forever or Moriarty in Sherlock but here...it's just out of place. That's the main cast but there is one person I must address: J. K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson. Simmons was BORN for this role. He is absoluley perfect for the role and is one of the best parts of the whole trilogy. His absence in the reboot is just devastating.

Spider-Man is a great comic book film that works well on both sides of the spectrem, it's both serious and silly at the same time. It doesn't take itself too seriously and I respect that. While this may not please some people who are expecting a very serious film like The Dark Knight, they will have to wait for The Amazing Spider-Man which is shaping up to be an even better adaptation.

Verdict:
7.5/10
It's what it should be: a comic book film that doesn't take it's self too seriously.

Garfield 2 (Tim Hill, 2006) Review

Garfield does London! Why? ..............................If I knew, I'd tell you. Apparently Garfield was so popular and so well received (which is a lie of course) that it deserved a sequel. Film logic...I love it. The only difference however is that it couldn't be in America. It HAD to be in England for reasons I cannot possibly comprehend...maybe. Get ready for loads of ellipsis's because we're taking a look at Garfield 2 or as it's known as elsewhere Garfield: Tail of Two Kitties...*sigh*.

On a holiday to London, Garfield (Bill Murray) is mistaken for another cat who happens to look identical in every way. Got to love these coincidences. The cat in question is a cat named Prince (Tim Curry). Prince lives in luxery in a giant mansion so naturally, Garfield doesn't mind being mistaken at all. The only problem is that Lord Dargis (Billy Connolly) wants Garfield out so he can turn the mansion into a resort...dead or alive. Meanwhile, Prince is enjoying a simple life with Jon (Breckin Meyer), Liz (Jennifer Love-Hewitt) and Odie.

You may a realised that, yes, this is a Prince and the Pauper story. Imaginative, I know. The story doesn't do the film any favours as it is just rehashed. It's the same problem with Avatar in the sense that we've seen it, done that but while Avatar had some great visuals that worked in it's favour to pull off a whole new world...Garfield 2 looks the same as the old one...Garfield looks slightly out of place and all the main animals should be CGI as well. It doesn't fix ANY problems the first one had and that's just bad.

I was horrified when I saw the cast of this film. Some excellent and talented people were in this film and...well...they don't do too well in this film. Bill Murray is, once again, the only thing that rescues this film from crapitude (that's a word now...deal with it). Tim Curry is just...Tim Curry. Nothing more, nothing less. He's as good as you make it but when I noticed legends such as Bob Hoskins, Richard E. Grant, Rhys Ifans and Billy Connolly...you can see why I was horrified. I actually thought Billy Connolly was too bad. The rest however...can be best forgotten...as well as this film.

Garfield 2 is a film that REALLY didn't need to exist. I love the Garfield franchise but this was just uncalled for. Bill Murray saves it as always considering he is perfect for the role but call him up when a Garfield adaptation that is bound to be good comes up. The jokes are redundant (as the picture shows), the acting is sub-par and it just doesn't work. The Prince and the Pauper story has been done to death and should just lie down and die. Skip this film and only watch the first one.

Verdict:
3.5/10
A worse film than the previous. Once again, Bill Murray saves it from being terrible on a grand scale.

Garfield (Peter Hewitt, 2004) Review

You know the drill, successful cartoon/comic/book = film adaptation. In most cases it usually exceeds the source material. Not this time. Now, I like Garfield whether it's the cartoon or the comics so, naturally, I was excited for this film. It had a CGI Garfield in a live action world. It looked great...it ultimately was not. It could have worked well but you can tell it didn't. Why? Let's find out.

As you may know, Garfield (Bill Murray) is a fat, lazy house cat who lives with his owner Jon (Breckin Meyer). When Jon decides to adopt a new pet, Odie, Garfield is less than excited. After lots of abuse from Garfield, Odie is entered in a dog show accidentally. His performance gains the attention of a TV personality, Happy Chapman (Stephen Tobolowsky), who is looking for an animal he can use for publicity. After Garfield locks Odie out of the house, Odie runs away, leaving him open to Chapman's clutches. Now it's up to Garfield to get Odie back.

Yeah, this film kind of sucks. There, I said it. It had promise but couldn't deliver. I may have to start with a good point though and that would be Bill Murray's performance. He actually isn't that bad as Garfield and I couldn't really think of anyone else that would fit the role. It's funny that Bill Murray played Peter Venkman in Ghostbusters and the voice of Venkman in the cartoon is Lorenzo Music, the original voice actor for Garfield. It goes round and around and around! Breckin Meyer wasn't bad as Jon either but there were probably people that were more sutable to the role.

Now what DIDN'T I like about this film. Oh boy where to start. Well for starters Odie isn't CGI. It wouldn't be such a problem but it just doesn't seem like Odie. If Garfield can be CGI then why not Odie. Hell, why aren't Nermal or Arlene CGI? They look or act nothing like they should. Happy Chapman is an adequate villain. Sure he has a scheme but he was clearly conducted for the kids. I don't care and neither should you. Liz (Jennifer Love-Hewitt) is okay. Just...okay. She isn't entierly in character but is more so than Nermal or Arlene. Also, where's Lyman? It shows Odie's introduction so Lyman should be there too...at least Pooky is there...briefly.

The jokes were clearly written with only kids in mind and, while some are quite funny, generally leave a silent atmosphere were there should be laughing but, alas, there is not. Bill Murray saves this film from being a complete disaster but that cannot excuse the poor writing, crap new characters and ruined old characters. Just as well they didn't make a sequel or else that would have...what?...there IS a sequel? Is it too late to kill myself?

Verdict:
4.5/10
Just under average. If it weren't for Bill Murray, this would have been terrible.