So I’m likely
seeing The Amazing Spider-Man this
week and I’m actually really pumped for it, much more than I was a few months
ago when that really “meh,” vaguely Twilight-ish
first trailer hit the Net. By all rights, I should be irked by the film’s very
existence—the final part in Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man
trilogy came out only five years ago—but I can’t find it in me to generate even
a modicum of outrage. And that’s because, as unpopular an opinion as it might
be, I didn’t really dig Raimi’s trilogy. Specifically, I don’t think the movies
did the character and his universe justice, even the critically-lauded Spider-Man 2.
But glancing
over the smorgasbord—some might say plethora—of trailers and clips released
over the last couple months, I’m seeing glimpses of a movie that is as true to
the character of Spider-Man as Batman
Begins was to its eponymous hero.
Spider-Man:
I never bought
Tobey Maguire as Spider-Man, simple as that. Even his Peter Parker wasn’t all
that effective. One of the really endearing things about the character is, as
nerdy and awkward as Peter might be in everyday life, he’s able to become the wisecracking
cool kid everybody likes when he pulls on the mask. While Raimi’s movies had
their fair share of snarky Spidey moments, they always seemed to fall flat, in
large part because of Maguire’s delivery. There was no real confidence to it,
and instead of being smart-alecky Maguire’s Spidey came off passive-aggressive,
with emphasis on the passive side, like a high school nerd shouting at a
laughing bully’s back, “Yeah, you better
run!”
With Andrew Garfield,
though, I’m sensing that edge that was missing from the Raimi films. Take this clip that shows Spider-Man taking down a carjacker. Not only does he
effortlessly string the guy up, but he’s hilarious every second he’s doing it.
Sure, Garfield’s voice cracks as much as Maguire’s, but there’s still bite to
it (not to mention he’s supposed to be portraying a teenager anyway). And
moreover, he’s having fun. Spider-Man is dedicated to protecting the lives of
the innocent, but damn if he doesn’t have a good time doing it.
The Villain:
Raimi spent two
movies setting up the character of Dr. Curt Connors, one of Peter Parker’s
university professors and his future opponent the Lizard. I emphasize ‘future’ because
the character’s arc never panned out, with Raimi leaving the series after Spider-Man 3 and before Connor’s could
inject himself with the drug that would inadvertently turn him into a vicious
humanoid reptile. With the reboot came recasting, and Dylan Baker was the
second person after Billy Dee Williams to be Billy Dee Williamsed.
And yet, after
seeing a few clips of Welsh actor Rhys Ifans in the role of Connors, I can’t
help but think that he’s better suited to the role. Baker played Connors as a
thoroughly nice guy, and while there’s a definite tragic element to the Lizard’s
story there’s still the fact that his repeated transformations feed off the
more unsavoury aspects of the poor doctor’s personality. Shed, a four issue 2010 story arc written by Zeb Wells and
pencilled by Chris Bachalo and Emma Rios, explored Connors’ struggles with the
territorial and sexually dominant impulses in his “reptilian” brainstem and the
resulting horror when the scientist permanently gives in to those primordial
parts of his psyche. I’m getting a similar, sinister vibe from Ifan’s portrayal
and if it’s there in full force for the actual movie I think we’re looking at a
really good on-screen Spidey villain.
Which is not to
say that Raimi’s selection of antagonists was horrible: Alfred Molina was
undeniably awesome as Doctor Octopus in Spider-Man
2 and, for all the slag hurled at him, Topher Grace’s Venom is hands down a
better take on the character than the character’s original incarnation in the
comics. But Willem Dafoe’s genuine malice as Green Goblin in the first film was
hampered by a goofy, seemingly Power
Rangers-inspired metal costume, and Thomas Haden Church’s Sandman was just
not interesting. With the exception of Venom, all of the selected villains were
chosen by Raimi to embody Spider-Man’s earliest adversaries, and while the
nostalgia factor is a nice touch half of them felt half-assed. Which is sad,
considering there was a lot of potential there (although a vastly different
interpretation of the character, check out Green Goblin in the Ultimate Spider-Man series; he’s perhaps
one of the most unsettling villains in comics).
Action:
I won’t lie:
with the exception of Thor, Hellboy and Swamp Thing, I generally prefer my
superheroes to be a little bit on the lithe side. Perhaps I’m soured on big,
tank-like figures because of Rob Liefeld, but slimmer characters, like Spider-Man
or Animal Man or Jim Aparo’s Batman just seem better suited to fast-paced
combat. Regardless, Tobey Maguire’s—or rather, his stunt man’s—slightly stocky
build never really jived with me. Neither did the suit, for that matter. With
performances, you can notice the subtle different between an actor playing a
part and an actor utterly inhabiting a role. Likewise, I never saw Maguire’s
Spidey-suit as anything more than a costume, while Garfield’s getup just seems
practical enough—or maybe just shot with the right amount of lighting—to look
real and not like a Power Ranger.
And the action I’ve
seen just seems more Spidey-like. While I’m not the biggest fan of Todd
McFarlane, there’s no doubt his depiction of webslinging was above and beyond
anything drawn previously in the comics. I’m getting a similar vibe from the
new film: the fights and chases look twisty and dynamic, and more in line with
how the Spider-Man of the comics fights in comparison to the comparatively
clumsy Maguire.
Todd McFarlane
So yeah, while I
can’t attest to the film’s quality, having not yet seen it, I honestly have a
good feeling about this one. Will it be on the same par as The Dark Knight or The
Avengers? Maybe not, but I’m sensing a solid flick.
No comments:
Post a Comment