Showing posts with label Andrew Garfield. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Andrew Garfield. Show all posts

Saturday, 23 June 2012

The Amazing Spider-Man review

The Amazing Spider-Man (12A/PG-13, 136 mins)
Director: Marc Webb
★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆

In what may be the most craven piece of Hollywood marketeering yet, a superhero franchise that is only ten years old gets rebooted with an entirely new cast and filmmaking team.

It’s been done before of course, most notably with Batman Begins, but that was justified because the series had become a bad joke, it was essential past ghosts be exorcised, and it didn’t hurt that its dark new direction took the Batman movies to unprecedented heights.

But there’s nothing like that here. In many fundamental ways, The Amazing Spider-Man is exactly the same film we all saw a decade ago in Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man; the story of how Peter Parker becomes a spider-powered superhero. That can often make it a frustrating experience because when it ploughs its own furrow, there are moments that delight.

But because it’s so beholden to the existing mythology, certain plot points have to be ticked off and the sense of familiarity becomes overwhelming and may lead audiences to question the entire purpose of the enterprise. That’s a dreadful shame because it’s sufficiently different in subtle ways that it just needed the courage to commit to being its own entity.

This is something demonstrated immediately in an attempt to broaden the mythology by suggesting that Peter’s scientist father was somehow unwittingly involved in his ultimate transformation. With threats arising through his work, he’s forced to leave Peter, as a small boy, in the care of his Uncle Ben and Aunt May (Martin Sheen and Sally Field).

Moving on to Peter as a teenager, where he’s played by Andrew Garfield, he’s geeky and picked on at school, but willing to stand up for other bullied kids. While searching for clues to what happened to his parents, Peter finds possessions of his father that connect him with Dr Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans) who has been experimenting with cross-species genetics.

A visit to the OsCorp building (a link to Norman Osborn, Willem Dafoe’s baddie from the original) where Dr Connors works leads to Peter being bitten by a genetically engineered spider and gaining incredible strength and sticky limbs, the better to climb walls and swing from rooftops.

Connors meanwhile, in an attempt to re-grow his missing arm, is transformed into The Lizard, a monstrous giant, erm, lizard, whose overarching machinations feel somewhat recycled from the first X-Men movie.

Clearly this all means it’s still an origin story, but in the way it cuts to the chase, it’s also clear that the filmmakers are assuming some existing knowledge on the part of the audience regarding just who and what Peter Parker is.

The trump card is undoubtedly Garfield, whose Peter Parker is even more awkward and vulnerable than Tobey Maguire’s. Nervous, sweet and graceful, yet equally convincing in the suit as the cocky wise-ass webslinger, he’s a revelation, with the discovery of his powers yielding a rewarding combination of comedy and moving the story forward with style.

But more importantly, this is also the story of Peter’s relationship with classmate Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), and Garfield and Stone light up the screen, giving it a strong emotional centre, with the film is at its best in their exchanges.

As such the web-slinging exploits are often a sideshow, the action boiling down to little more than a series of skirmishes between Spidey and The Lizard. Another problem is the weak villain who here, as is so often the case, is a scientist with noble intent gone wrong, begetting a monster, and this is an area desperately in need of freshening.

There can be no faulting the technical expertise with which it all unfolds, but there’s something not quite right with a movie whose grace notes are stronger than its plot points, and whose flashes of soaring brilliance can never quite compensate for its frequent crushing superfluity.

Monday, 11 October 2010

The Social Network review

The Social Network (12A, 121 mins)
Director: David Fincher
★ ★ ★ ★ ☆

A year or two ago there came a flurry of announcements about upcoming movies based on the most unlikely of properties, chief among them board games like Monopoly and Battleship (which is currently in production by the way).

One such curious idea was Facebook: The Movie, and the question on everyone’s lips was how on earth a convincing film could be made based on a website. But that’s pretty much what has transpired in the shape of The Social Network, which details how Harvard University student Mark Zuckerberg created The Facebook in 2003, becoming the world’s youngest billionaire in the process.

What keeps it compelling is a clever structure that intercuts the story of the website’s creation with not one but two legal hearings that take place a couple of years later. In one, Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) is being sued by fellow students who claim that what eventually became Facebook was their idea and they had hired him to work on it. In the other, Mark’s best friend Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield), who financed the site in its infancy but later had his percentage share vastly reduced, is suing him for $600m.

This comes about after Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake), the creator of Napster, is drafted in to help with the site’s expansion, adding conflict as Mark and Eduardo’s ideas begin to diverge and their relationship is tested.

It’s this deeper look into friendship and loyalty that gives the movie a human angle not immediately apparent in what essentially is a story that boils down to not much more than a bunch of supremely arrogant and irritating rich people redistributing hundreds of millions of dollars between themselves.

But it grips relentlessly, thanks to a trio of first rate performances and lightning fast, scintillating dialogue exchanges in a screenplay from the creator of The West Wing, Aaron Sorkin, that’s as revealing of character as it is bitterly funny.

Being a David Fincher movie it was always going to be visually striking, and it may be the best looking college film ever, bathed in a murky, vaguely menacing half-light. This is a director at or near the top of his game, and he propels the film through exquisite use of editing and music, not getting bogged down in ponderous detail like he did in his last two movies, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and Zodiac.

If there’s a nit to be picked it’s that while many individual scenes are electrifying, the whole doesn’t quite equal the sum of its parts. And we never quite get to the bottom of what is driving Zuckerbeg – he’s a genius, always the smartest guy in the room, but no effort is made to paint him as anything other than deeply unlikeable, something pulled off remarkably well by Eisenberg. The final irony of this superb drama is that, just maybe, all he really wanted was to be liked.