Tag Archives: Emma Stone

Jan 22 2017
Leave a comment
Reviews

“LA LA LAND” Review (✫✫✫)

So does “LA” refer to music, or Los Angeles?

Musicals don’t exist in realms of reality. If you have this as your mindset when you go into a musical, 9/10 times you won’t be dissapointed. This expectation helped me to enjoy La La Land, a delightful, energetic musical experiment that is equal parts joyful, uplifting, and honest with itself. I enjoyed it very much even though I knew it wasn’t realistic, and that’s part of the influence of cinema: escaping one reality so you may be immersed in another.

Taking place in modern-day Los Angeles, La La Land follows two hopeful dreamers who aspire to be successful Hollywood artists. Mia (Emma Stone) is a down-on-her-luck actress who works as a barista while simultaneously auditioning for shows. Sebastian (Ryan Gosling) is a jazz pianist who was recently fired from his performance job at a nightclub. As these two run into each other coincidence after coincidence, they soon fall in love with their artistry, and eventually, each other.

With La La Land being the third film written and directed by Damien Chazelle, it feels strange that he would want to come back and do a musical. His last film, the masterfully-paced and enthralling Whiplash, was a tense exercise in perfection and practice, while 10 Cloverfield Lane also demonstrated Chazelle’s characteristics of pacing with tension. La La Land, however, feels so starkly different from those films. From the emotional mood to the artistic direction, La La Land exists in ambiance, throwing you back to the classic musical days where characters broke out into song and dance instead of engaging in conversation with each other. If Whiplash is a vicious, violent train chugging down the tracks at a lethal pace, La La Land is like a feather, whimsically dancing in the wind as it quietly falls down to its next restful stop.

That change of mood is fine. What isn’t is sacrificing quality along with it, and La La Land definitely has a few things to answer for, particularly in the runtime. The movie is two hours and eight minutes long, and it definitely feels like it. From the writing to the editing, there were small things in there that were not needed and could have been resolved with a few quick rewrites and tighter edits.

Example: In the middle of the movie, Mia is caught in a love triangle between Sebastian and her boyfriend Greg (portrayed by Finn Wittrock). None of these scenes were needed. None of them. Greg served no purpose in the film other than just to have Finn Wittrock in it, who admittedly is a talented actor, but that’s not a good enough reason to have him awkwardly shoved in here. He offered no development in either Mia or Sebastian’s story, and the film would have moved on much more smoothly without him in there as a distraction.

There’s other small things, from the sudden dance montages to characters conveniently lacking cell phones in really useful moments (I.e. at Sebastian and Mia’s first meeting, when he asks her out on their first date, when she gets an audition callback, etc.). In an age where cell phones flood every part of our culture, it’s so hard to imagine two people lacking them so often, especially in the heart of a city like L.A.

Compare this to the tempo and flow of Whiplash. Nothing is wasted in that film. Nothing. Every practice scene, every beating of the drum, every fiery argument between Neiman and Fletcher drives home a point about passion and sacrifice. Whiplash was tight, effective, and masterful in its art. La La Land has more fun with it.

That’s not to say La La Land isn’t enjoyable. It definitely has an upbeat, feel-good rhythm to it, guaranteed to get you dancing on your feet and humming the song’s melodies out loud. Part of this is because of the wholly earnest energy sprouting from Gosling and Stone’s chemistry. With this being their third collaboration together (the first two being Crazy, Stupid, Love and Gangster Squad), this film is easily the best representation of their talents together. They do well no matter what scene they’re in, whether they’re subtly flirting with each other, sharing a moment of romantic passion, dancing the night away in a wonderful musical number, or are arguing in a heated moment. They make every moment come alive and immediate. Stone especially demonstrates immersive talent, and in her audition scenes as an actress, she feels like she’s playing two characters at once. That’s because she is.

I like a lot of things about this film. The music is catchy and meaningful, with each number saying more in each scene than character’s dialogue can sometimes. The set design is bright, vibrant, and colorful, with some scenes painting a more vivid picture than any painting or photograph can. The choreography is especially impressive, with characters moving, leaping, tap-dancing, and flying into synchronized rhythms in-time with the music.

As a musical, La La Land fulfills every requirement and then some, with it being not just catchy and melodic, but also visually spectacular and dynamic. It could have been more effective in some areas, but at the end of the day, Chazelle is doing what he loves by telling this story about two unlikely lovers pursuing their dreams. We can learn an important lesson here. It’s easy to give up on the impossible. It’s hard to pursue your dreams. Imagine what it feels like reaching them.

Tagged , , , ,
Jan 15 2015
Leave a comment
Awards Coverage, Trending

The Unexpected Virtue of Being Nominated

I am never more conflicted with myself than when Oscar nominations are released. It’s the same time every single year, and every time I look at them I feel a strange combination of pride and disappointment. Of course many actors and filmmakers are nominated across the board, and most of them are well deserved. But then there are always a good amount of snubs that are equally undeserved. Example: Since when does The Fault In Our Stars, Interstellar and The Lego Movie deserve zero nominations in any of the major categories?

Snubs happen every year. I expect it at this point. But what I find particularly interesting is that this year’s ceremonies are more well-rounded in their nominations. The eight best picture nominees, for instance, are also the pictures with the most nominations in the show. I think that reflects well on the Academy, especially because the best picture award isn’t won by only being nominated for best original song.

Regardless, the nominees have been released and the Oscars race has officially begun. Here are all of the best picture nominees.

Birdman

Otherwise known as The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance, Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu’s black comedy epic stars Michael Keaton as Riggan Thompson, a struggling stage actor who is desperately trying to escape his image as formerly portraying a superhero. Considering the irony that Keaton has been most known for playing Batman in Tim Burton’s movies, I can’t help but think he relates more to the film than he lets on. Birdman is nominated in nine categories, including best picture, best director, best original screenplay, best cinematography, best sound editing and mixing, and best acting awards for Keaton, Edward Norton, and Emma Stone.

The Grand Budapest Hotel

A surprise standout out of the other nominees, The Grand Budapest Hotel is a comedic escapade about Concierge Gustave H. (Ralph Fiennes), who is framed for the murder of one of his hotel guests and for stealing her most cherished painting. As he tries to outrun law enforcement and the family assassins that are after him, he teams up with his lobby boy Zero (Tony Revolori) to set out and prove his innocence. Written and directed by Wes Anderson (The Royal Tennenbaums, Moonrise Kingdom), The Grand Budapest Hotel has already won best comedy at the Golden Globes, so it is off to a good start in the Oscars race. The film ties with Birdman with nine nominations, including best picture, best director, best original screenplay, best cinematography, best costume design, best editing, best makeup and hairstyling, best original score, and best production design.

The Imitation Game

This historical epic stars Benedict Cumberbatch as Alan Turing, a brilliant physicist during WWII who worked with a team to crack Enigma, a German processing machine which masks German messages through cryptographic messages. Directed by Norwegian filmmaker Morten Tyldum and also starring Keira Knightly, Matthew Goode, and Mark Strong, The Imitation Game is nominated for eight academy awards, including best picture, best director, best adapted screenplay, best editing, best original score, best production, best actor for Benedict Cumberbatch and best supporting actress for Keira Knightly.

American Sniper

Based on the true story of Chris Kyle (Bradley Cooper), American Sniper tells his story working for the U.S. military, and the 120 kills he garnered throughout his military career. Directed by Clint Eastwood and written by Jason Hall, American Sniper is a late entry to the Oscars race, but it came out strong regardless. American Sniper is nominated for best picture, best adapted screenplay, best sound editing and mixing, and best actor for Bradley Cooper.

Boyhood

The 12 year epic that everyone is talking about, and the movie everyone is dying to see. Boyhood follows the story of Mason (Ellar Coltrane) from childhood to adulthood, through puberty, love, heartache, loss, and life. Richard Linklater directs Coltrane among others through this masterfully crafted drama, filmed over the period of 12 years. Ambitious both in production and vision, Boyhood was nominated for best picture, best director, best original screenplay, best film editing, and best supporting actor and actress for Ethan Hawke and Patricia Arquette.

The Theory of Everything

The fluffy, inspirational adaptation of Stephen Hawking’s life, The Theory of Everything stars Eddie Redmayne as King and Felicity Jones as his wife Jane, and follows their relationship from college to their marriage, and covers the issues that they’ve had to face together. I personally didn’t find this film to be as imposing as the other nominees, but Redmayne’s performance and the film’s intentions are definitely something to be admired. The film is nominated for best picture, best adapted screenplay, best original score, and best actor and best actress for Redmayne and Jones.

Whiplash

One of the best under-the-radar films of the year. Whiplash follows Andrew (Miles Teller), a young college student who is enrolled in an orchestra and is working to be the best drummer there is. His teacher is Terence Fletcher (J.K. Simmons), a narcissist conductor who treats his students like he is Gunnery Sergeant Hartman. As their rivalrous relationship builds to a tense climax, both men learn more about themselves as artists and teachers to each other. Written and directed by independent filmmaker Damien Chazelle, Whiplash is one of the year’s most standout films. Featuring strong performances from its leads and masterful direction from Chazelle, Whiplash is nominated for best picture, best editing, best sound mixing, and best supporting actor for J.K. Simmons. The movie is also nominated for best adapted screenplay, even though it’s an original idea crafted by Chazelle.

Selma

Directed by Ava Duvernay and starring David Oyewolo as Martin Luther King Jr., Selma follows the civil rights movement as it builds to a climax in the march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama. The interesting thing about this film is that it only has two nominations for the evening: best picture and best original song for John Legend and Common’s “Glory.” If that is the logic behind the nominations, should Selma even be nominated for best picture? It’s more than deserving of the nomination, but it certainly isn’t great just because of the song that’s in it. Where’s the best director nomination? Best actor? Best screenplay? I feel like this movie had potential in many different categories at the Oscars, and it was snubbed for mostly all of them. It’s an utter shame to see so many great films get snubbed at the Academy Awards, and this film perhaps has been snubbed the most out of all of them.

Other films that were nominated in other categories include Foxcatcher, Interstellar, Mr. Turner, Into The Woods, Unbroken, The Lego Movie and Guardians of the Galaxy. We can gripe more about which films deserved which nominations later on, but for now, let’s be excited that Barney Stinson is hosting the awards.

– David Dunn

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Oct 18 2014
Leave a comment
Reviews

“BIRDMAN” Review (✫✫✫✫)

The artist’s struggle, all in one take. 

Birdman, or otherwise known as The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance is one of the most mesmerizing films I’ve ever seen. It is also one of the most unique, disturbing, shocking, and confusing films I’ve ever seen too. That’s okay. This film was reaching for a specific vision, and director Alejandro Inarritu has expanded beyond it. I admit I don’t know what to expect as far as the public reacting to this, and I also don’t know how accessible it is to non-film aficionados either. But I have seen the movie frame by frame, and I think it’s one of the best films of its kind. On the surface value, it’s about the struggles of Broadway theatre. In deeper insight, it’s about ego and the obsessive human condition.

The film stars Michael Keaton as washed-up actor Riggan Thompson, who has been forgotten by his adoring public after portraying the lead role in a series of superhero films titled Birdman. This is ironic, because in real life, Keaton portrayed a superhero in Tim Burton’s 1989 film Batman. Desperate for a comeback, Thompson sets out to write, direct and star in his favorite Broadway play: What We Talk About When We Talk About Love by Raymond Carver.

Things immediately hit the fan during the week of their first preview. One of Riggan’s actors gets a head injury from a loose light on the set. His replacement, Mike Shiner (Edward Norton) is a talented but brash and arrogant actor who sees himself as Riggan’s superior. And, as he faces personal problems with his estranged daughter Sam (Emma Stone), Riggan begins to feel the closing pressures of Broadway when a malicious theatre critic tells him she’s going to “kill his play.” Now Riggan is trying to keep the play and his sanity afloat, and he will make whatever sacrifices he needs to make sure both happens.

Written, directed and produced by Inarritu, Birdman is the first black comedy made by the filmmaker, his most successful films to date being Oscar nominees Babel and Biutiful. Now he has made Birdman, and I am tempted to say it’s the best film he’s made yet.

What worked so well with the film? The first thing is the editing and the cinematography, which was shot so wonderfully by Oscar winner Emmanuel Lubezki that it places you in the moment, in the reality of the film, not making you watch it from a cushion seat on the eighth row of a dark movie theater. Lubezki, who worked with Inarritu on short films in the past, decided to shoot the film and edit it into a continuous fashion, giving off the illusion that the entire film was filmed in one take. Even though the movie wasn’t filmed in one shot, the feeling it gives off makes it feel alive and moving, not unlike the world of theatre that Riggan is trying to prove himself in.

I wonder how much effort this takes, not just from the cinematographer and director’s point of view, but from everyone else involved in the film as well. How many hours did the actors need to rehearse their lines in order to get their roles right? How much pressure was the tech and lighting crew under while they were filming, knowing that if they screwed up, everyone would have to start back to square one? How many hours did film editors Douglas Crise and Stephen Mirrione have to sit in front of a computer, making sure the shots transitioned so well that you couldn’t even see the transitions? The illusion not only worked because of the idea that Lubezki and Inarritu offered, but because of the commitment it received from everyone involved with the film. In many ways, their efforts were all worth it: the camerawork here expresses more of the story than the character’s dialogue does.

The parallels in this movie are also ingenious. How does Keaton feel playing as Riggan Thompson in the movie, knowing that he reached international fame as Batman earlier in his career and having since then never been able to match a more recognized role? How does Inarritu feel, going through all of the production pressures Riggan did in making the play as he himself did in making the movie? Did he intend this movie as self-reflection? Is he telling the audience what he goes through daily as a filmmaker? Or is he using his struggles as a platform to tell a much deeper, more important story to the audience?

For me, I don’t get as much joy out of interpreting as much as I do out of experiencing. And make no mistake: Birdman is an experience, surreal, tantalizing, and thought-provoking all at once. I’m still sitting here, hours later, not quite fully realizing what exactly Inarritu was trying to portray in this film. Is he commenting on the artist’s struggle? Commercial vs. independent film? Fatherhood? Friendship? Family? Lost love?

I think it’s all of the above. Or maybe none of the above. I honestly don’t know. In the movie, Inarritu battles labels that are placed on artists and on the art that they produce. Is Riggan Thompson a superhero, or an actor portraying a superhero? Is he a former shell of who he is, or a flower that has yet to bloom? We see in this film how these labels influence his life and how much stress and anxiety it presses upon him. To put labels on the movie would contradict Inarritu’s intentions. It would be offensive to the film.

My bottom line: Birdman is a masterpiece. It is so distinct in its own language and style that I think it is impossible to define it, let alone replace it. Critics will applaud it for it’s technical and emotional achievements. It will definitely garner some Oscar nominations. It’s a sure contender for visual effects, cinematography and editing. It is also sure to confuse certain people, to which I would recommend stop trying to understand it. Birdman is not meant to be understood. It is meant to be experienced, and if you can help it, interpreted.

Post-script: A thought I had after seeing the movie that I think viewers will also have. Because of how profoundly his role as Birdman affected Riggan, is Inarritu attacking the superhero genre of film? I believe he is, but I choose not to acknowledge that. After all, for every time a superhero film was called too simple, couldn’t you call any art film too complicated? I quote Mark Twain: “Too much of anything is bad.” 

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Oct 14 2014
Leave a comment
The Scope

An Afternoon With Alejandro Inarritu

“And did you get what you wanted from this life, even so?

I did.

And what did you want?

To call myself beloved, to feel myself beloved on the earth.”

– Raymond Carver

These were the words that director Alejandro Inarritu (Babel, Biutiful) chose to quote at the beginning of his meticulous film Birdman, or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance. It was also the first words that came back into my head minutes before I was to interview him.

This weekend, I had two great experiences happen to me. Firstly, getting to see Birdman, a viciously unique film that tackles it’s characters and themes with pinpoint precision: a masterwork by a master director. The second you already know. If you don’t, you didn’t read my first paragraph.

Alejandro gave myself, along with about ten other college journalists, the privilege to talk to him about his upcoming limited release. After seeing the movie, this surprised me, because there was a moment in the film where a journalist accuses the main character of injecting semen into his pores to maintain his young features. I suspect Mr. Inarritu hosts a very guarded spirit while being interviewed by the press, and I certainly don’t blame him for that if that is the case. Now that I think about it, maybe that’s why Inarritu wanted to host the interview over the phone in the first place.

Anyhow, I had 20 minutes to listen to the director’s innermost thoughts, and while I only got to ask him one question, I enjoyed the experience as much as any other college journalist who participated in the call. While all of these aren’t my questions, these are the ones I found the most relevant to the film, and the ones I believed Inarritu would have preferred to be answered in the first place. So without further adieu, here is Alejandro Inarritu on the unexpected virtue of ignorance.

Question: Your film is unique, hyperactive and full of energy. How do you communicate to your cast the complex tone you’re wanting to portray?

Answer: I always try to be very specific, help them to clarify and simplify things by having a very clear objective. I think every scene has an objective, and every character has something they want to achieve in each scene. When you have cleared your objective, and to try one or two possible ways to get that done through an action verb, I think that would simplify the work not only for me, but for everybody.

Q: What were some of the challenges you faced while making the film? 

A: It was a very short shooting — 29 days. We rehearsed a lot before arriving to the set, so basically it was a very intense and meticulous work of precision with actors, camera and crew. Everything was designed and matched the needs of the film that was basically predecided in rehearsal.

Q: You have a big role behind your scenes in producing, writing and directing all of your films. What is it like taking on all of those jobs at once? 

A: I have been lucky to have been the producer and be involved in all of my films in a very personal way. I think there is no other way to make it. I think if you have a film that is personal, if you are doing your own film, there is no other way to not produce it, because I think it’s a part of the film. Producing means a lot of decisions that will impact your film one way or another.

Q: In the movie, Riggan Thompson is overshadowed by a superhero role he played earlier in his career. In real life, Keaton is overshadowed by his role in Tim Burton’s Batman. Is that an intentional casting decision that you made?

A: Keaton adds a lot of mental reality to the film, being an authority and one of the few persons of his work that pioneered the superhero thing. But at the same time, he has the craft and the range to play in drama and comedy, and very few actors can do that. He plays a prick in this film, and I need someone who was adorable, somebody who you can really like. He has that likeness, that likeness that was required. All of these things made him the perfect choice for it. I think he was very bold in trusting me with this role.

Q: One of the things that is particularly interesting with the film is the long take. Can you talk about why you made that visual choice?

A: I wanted the long take to make the people really feel the experience of this guy. I think it’s important for every director in every film to pick the point of view, and in this case I wanted radical point of view, and the people were in the shoes of the character to experience his emotions. I felt that was the most effective way to do that.

Q: Why did you choose to portray mental illness in a film that is at least extensively a comedy?

A: I think ego is a part of our decease as a society. I think the ego is a necessity, but I think when the ego takes over and we attach our personalities to the ego, and he domains a person absolutely without being discovered or controlled. That’s mental deceit, and I see in a way Riggan Thompson suffering from that illusion of ego that’s distorting him. He thinks he does things that he does not do, he’s in like a manic state of mind. He’s an extreme case of ego.

Q: Is that part of the commentary?

A: Everything is part of the tone of the film. That’s why it opens with a guy meditating in tidy whites.

– David Dunn

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
May 02 2014
Leave a comment
Reviews

“THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2” Review (✫✫✫✫)

Don’t worry: it’s not “Spider-man 3.”

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is the standard of a superhero movie that everyone should aspire to. It’s exciting, action-packed, gut-bustlingly hilarious and emotionally involving to a point where I was surprised at how personal and genuine it really was. “Amazing,” in fact, is not a good enough word to describe this movie — “Superior” is more like it.

Taking place after Curt Connors, aka The Lizard, attacked New York City, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 shows Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) as he continues to adapt to his new life as the spectacular Spider-Man. He’s just about to graduate, he’s getting a job as a freelance photographer at the Daily Bugle and his relationship with Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) is going strong. Being Spider-Man has its perks and its downfalls, and this is a rare high point in Peter’s life.

Elsewhere, however, dark forces develop under Oscorp. Engineer Max Dillon (Jamie Foxx) gets electrocuted by bio-electric eels, transforming him into the chaotic villain known as Electro. Russian mobster Aleksei Sytsevich (Paul Giamatti) gets equipped with a fully armed mechanical suit, becoming the Rhino. And Harry Osborn (Dane DeHaan), an old friend of Peter’s, returns with a dark secret that he’s hiding from everyone.

That makes three villains in total for this sequel. Concerned? You should be. The last time we had three villains in a Spider-Man movie, that film was Spider-Man 3. I’m never going to get that image of Tobey Maguire doing the Elvis Presley-stride out of my head, ever. Does anyone have any hydrochloric acid I can pour into my eyes?

Well, you can rest easy, fellow web heads. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is not Spider-Man 3. Quite the contrary, actually. This is a significantly better Spider-Man than its predecessor, a film that bounces in between multiple tones and genres all at once and does all of them brilliantly.

An early fight scene in the film, for instance, is as wacky and funny as a Looney Tunes cartoon, with Spidey struggling to grab all these plutonium canisters off of a moving truck like he’s in the middle of a pinball table. In another scene, he’s in the middle of an action sequence so exhilarating and mind-blowing that it could have come straight from a video game cut scene. In another moment, him and Gwen are dealing with a real emotional struggle neither quite know how to handle, something that has haunted Peter since the first movie.

That’s what makes this Spider-Man better from the other one: It has many tones, story lines, characters and emotions that it’s juggling all at once. That’s a weighty order, and not one to handle easily. Yet director Marc Webb handles the challenge excellently, delivering just as relevant a character drama as he does an exciting action movie.

The cast members have expert chemistry with each other, but that should be expected because of their exceptional performances in the first film. We already expect Garfield and Stone to be perfect with each other because they were nearly inseparable in the first round of the series. It’s more efficient, then, to focus on the newer cast members: Jamie Foxx and Dane DeHaan. 

Foxx is electric as the high-voltage villain, pun intended. At first he’s just a socially silly and awkward scientist, similar to Jim Carrey’s version of the Riddler in Batman Forever. When he goes through his transformation into Electro, however, everything changes. He becomes an angry and malicious supervillain, a man who is mad and frustrated at everything and just wants to kill everyone, then jump start their heart just so he can kill them again. DeHaan, especially, was desperate and conniving as Harry Osborn, a menacing and starkly different Harry than the James Franco version we are used to in the original trilogy.

Both of these villains serve a pivotal role to Peter’s development. Electro is the physical conflict Peter has to face in the movie; Harry is the emotional one.

There’s another concern comic book fans will have about this movie, and that is the same concern they have with Captain America: The Winter Soldier: We’ve already read the comics. We already know the twists that are coming up, and as a result, our reaction is dulled when that moment comes in the movie.

Let me make a reassuring statement for my fellow comic book lovers: I could see the twist in this movie come from a mile away. Yet when I saw it, I reacted as if I was witnessing Peter’s tragic story for the first time.

There are apparent concerns to have with this movie. The multiple story strands are worrisome, the overload of villains can be an issue and Max Dillion’s character is far too silly to fully accept as being realistic.

Does that change The Amazing Spider-Man 2’s influence, or for that matter, its effect on the audience? The answer is no, it does not. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is still a great sequel, an excellent expansion to the Spider-Man universe and a more-than-welcome development to Peter’s never-ending growth as Spider-Man. I’m tempted to compare it to the legendary Spider-Man 2, although I’m not sure if it’s quite there yet. One thing is for sure, however: it’s head-over-heels over Spider-Man 3. If Webb keeps this up, he just might surpass Sam Raimi’s original trilogy.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Apr 30 2014
Leave a comment
Reviews

“THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN” Review (✫✫✫1/2)

♪Does whatever a spider can♪

If I were to have a reboot of one of my favorite superhero films made just ten years ago, The Amazing Spider-man would be that reboot. What can I say about the film that will accurately do it justice? That it is exciting, suspenseful and displays visual effects that leaves the old one in the dust? That the writing is just as acute and skilled as the direction is? That Andrew Garfield has perfect chemistry with Emma Stone? No. Instead, I will describe the film by simply using just one word: amazing.

When Peter Parker was a young, bright-minded child, he lived in the content and warmth of his parents home. When his house was broken into, his father’s office searched through in every crook and cranny, his father Richard (Campbell Scott) quickly packs a suitcase, drives Peter to his Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and Aunt May’s (Sally Field) house, and tells Peter him and his mother will be gone for a while. A few days later, the plane that Peter’s parents were on was reported to have crashed. They didn’t make it out.

Twelve years later, Peter (Now played by Andrew Garfield), now in his teen years, is in high school, gets picked on by the local bullies every now and then, and has a crush on this pretty blonde-haired genius named Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone). While in the basement one day helping his Uncle unclog the water pipe, Peter makes an interesting discovery: his father’s briefcase, filled with notes, theories, and algorithms Peter has never seen before. While looking and studying the notes his father left behind, Peter realizes everything points to one scientific company in particular: Oscorp.

From there, Peter snoops around, goes into a lab he wasn’t supposed to go into, a radioactive spider bites him, and well… you probably already know where it goes from there.

If we look at the story, it is on repeat from the first Spider-man. But the repeat isn’t what we care about. The Amazing Spider-man is done with a new style, energy, and enthusiasm to it than the original one was. Funny, I didn’t expect this movie to be as energetic as it is. This film is directed by Mark Webb, who to date, his only directing experience being music videos and the 2009 romantic-comedy 500 Days of Summer. Quite a difference in genres, I know, but Webb handles the transition well. He makes Spider-man as he sees it, as a young man coming out of puberty using his powers for playful, mischievous reasons rather than the heroic acts of courage and responsibility that most heroes are known for. This Spider-man is more jokey and sarcastic than the original one, spitting witty one-liners while arresting a criminal or web swinging past bystanders.

He fuels the action scenes, inspires laughs, and is the source for original entertainment. If Tobey Maguire is the more emotional Spider-man, this Spider-man is the more sporadic and amusing one.

Andrew Garfield does a great job in portraying this Spider-man in a totally different dynamic. His character is definitely different, retorting to puns, jokes, and one-liners that would only result with awkward silences if Tobey Maguire tried to pull off the same thing. Garfield, however, is more talented than a one-dimensional joker. Like any great actor, his character portrays a flurry of emotions, and he portrays all of these emotions well. We can tell exactly when he is troubled or concerned, when he is angered and enraged, when he is happy and content, or when he is saddened and alone. Peter experiences many tragedies in this movie, and Garfield does a good job expressing the emotions for all of them. Emma Stone, equally, is incredible in this movie, providing the film’s beautiful, smart heroine. Together, their chemistry is irreplaceable, and forms a romance that rivals that of the chemistry Maguire and Dunst made in the original Spider-man movies.

Here is, regardless of pre-conceived opinions, a great movie. It is a blockbuster that does a great job balancing in between spectacular action, heartfelt emotion, and genuine humor, all combining into a reboot that makes it not only fun, but unique in its own right.

From a technical perspective, this film has no flaws. It, however, is not about what it did wrong; its a matter of who did it better.

The biggest weakness with The Amazing Spider-man is its release date. This is ten years after the first movie came out, and five years after its most recent one. Why did it need a reboot? It cannot help but bring up the comparison game when you watch this movie. And what happens when you compare things? You recognize which one did things better, and which one did things weaker. In comparison to the old one, The Amazing Spider-man cannot help but look inferior.

But how, exactly? The flaw exists in the writing, dear reader. There are just simply not enough moments in the film that are as emotionally real or relevant as there was in the first two Spider-man movies. Take, for example, the scene in the original Spider-man where Peter’s Uncle Ben dies because Peter did nothing to stop a criminal that ran past him. In the original film, this was a tragic, painful, and heartbroken realization for Peter that it was not the burglar who killed Uncle Ben, but Peter’s inaction and lack of doing the right thing. Here, it’s just on repeat as something that Peter needs to go through in order to become Spider-man. Peter, however, never acknowledges his responsibility in the matter, and neither does he ever even confront the criminal. How, then, does the issue ever become resolved? Answer: it does not. At the end of the film, everything is resolved except for that one specific conflict.

That’s the film’s only real weakness. I don’t want to go on about this weakness, though, because I’d be beating the bush. The main point: The Amazing Spider-man is still utterly fantastic. It is action-packed, suspenseful, energetic, relentless, exciting, humorous, and highly, highly entertaining. The production is all-around strong, the cast is even stronger, and the story is as driven and purposeful as it has ever been, despite a few moments of misplaced emotion. This is a reboot to one of my favorite superhero films of all time, and the surprise is I wouldn’t mind seeing a sequel to it in the slightest.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,