|Are you ready to give this a chance?|
The first and loudest complaint detractors seem to enjoy is that "this movie is just a cash in reboot", and while sometimes I think that leads to bad movies, in general complaining that a studio is making a movie so they can make money is a pretty weak insult. Yeah, they are making it to make money, that's why they make all movies genius. That's the point for them. In a similar vein they suggest this is being done despite the first Spider Man movie coming out in 2002, only ten years ago. Yeah that's a short span for a reboot of something, but face facts. If we want any more Spider Man movies (and I personally DO want that) then they need to reboot. Spider Man 3 was a goddamned disaster, and what they did in that movie was so destructive, so very bad, that you could simply not proceed after it. To draw a comparison, consider that the span between the first X-Men movie, and X-Men: First Class was about the same, and presumably similar reasons drove that retelling. While First Class might've been a more drastic retelling, the comparison I think stands. All these things aside, if you are so against the damned reboot, and have this unassailable "ugh why even like, bother man" attitude about it, then why even go see it? This get's down to the core of why I like movies, as opposed to many others who seem to review or even watch them. I like to be entertained, and I watch movies with that goal in mind. Even the bad movies I review on here, for the most part are entertaining to me, for a variety of reasons. If you go to a movie with the intention of enjoying it, you might come out disappointed or upset, but if you go in with the intention of hating every minute of it, well chances are you probably will.
|Is this not enough inventing for you internet?!|
|TONY STARK MADE WEB CARTRIDGES IN A CAVE!|
|Let's go jump off a building.|
|Spider Man as he was meant to be: Beat to hell.|
|You aren't arm-wrestling this guy.|
|Wait so she does things other than look pretty?|
All of these aspects work together to make a movie that I found more convincing, more natural, and truer to the character and his origin story than the 2002 film. While you could debate a need to make the movie over and I've certainly defended the necessity for that, this movie was from my perspective superior in execution to Sam Raimi's films. The setup was more thorough, the characters were more like real people, and the movie spent more time focused not on crime fighting, but on Spider Man himself. I don't know how so many people can miss this point, because the movie actually comes out and says it. There's only one sort of story, and that is the story about people. This was the singular reason why so many super hero movies from past and present have failed, and why the others did not. While action spectacle enhances a movie, it only works if the audience is invested in the proceedings, and the only way that ever happens is if you make them care about the people in the movie. By the end of the Amazing Spider-Man, I was invested in the characters, and that made the film a rewarding experience. Don't let detractors scare you away, go in with an open mind and I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
|Fuck you Tobey Maguire, you emo bastard.|