I saw the movie today and thought it was excellent. If I could sum it up in four words, my review would be "Best Spiderman film yet
When I first heard that Andrew Garfield was tapped to play Peter Parker/Spidey, I thought, "Interesting choice. Eduardo Saverin from The Social Network
?" It's not that I didn't think he was right for the role; it's just that he was a fairly new actor, but sometimes it's the newcomers they choose to play superheroes. For instance, Brandon Routh's portrayal of Superman wasn't bad; in fact, I thought he made a pretty good Clark Kent. Garfield definitely has the nerdish, youthful looks to play an adolescent Peter Parker.
The story was much better than Sam Raimi's Spider-man 3
. (If I could choose one of his previous films I liked, however, it would be the second one featuring Doctor Octopus as the villain.) Although I haven't read any Spider-man
comic books, I hear that this new film--at least the origin plot--is more faithful to the source material compared to the first film done by Raimi; e.g., the web shooters that Peter created himself, Spidey cracking jokes, Gwen Stacy being the first girlfriend.
I really felt that this movie focused on Peter Parker's character--who he was and how he came to be the crime-fighting vigilante/hero. He apparently had a difficult childhood when his parents left him at a very young age to the care of Peter's Uncle Ben and Aunt May. I came from a big family, and I thought, while his legal guardians were very loving and supportive people, it must've been sad, to say the least, for him to grow up not having his real parents around. That sort of upbringing helped shape Peter into the anguished, yet good-hearted teen he was. And Andrew's performance as an angsty teen and sudden superhero was top-notch.
I'm not really fussy about his costume; for an actor of his stature and build, he did wear it well. In an appearance on Ellen DeGeneres' show, Andrew revealed that he had nothing
underneath the skin-tight outfit.
During the filming, the papparazzi were busy taking pics of him at the studio lot. In fact, if you Google some of his images, you'll know what he was talking about.
Speaking of performances, I have to say that Martin Sheen and Sally Field played a much better Uncle Ben and Aunt May, respectively, than their predecessors. Overall, their characters and lines were well written, witty, and humorous, and I found myself and the audience laughing at the dialogues. Sometimes I thought, "What did [the characters] say? I missed that!" because I was too busy laughing or the audience was.
I guess I should watch the movie again. The only thing I didn't like was
Emma Stone was good as Gwen Stacy; she and Andrew Garfield had a nice onscreen chemistry together. I noticed that some of their lines/scenes originally shown in the trailers were omitted, like "My father has XX officers looking for you." To which Peter replied, "That does sound a bit excessive." I don't remember the exact words. Another one was at the high school football field where Peter and Gwen sat on the benches. One guy yelled, "Hey, Parker. Want to play ball?" "No, thanks ..."
As for Dr. Connors/The Lizard, he was a good choice for a villain. Rhys Ifans' performance as a brilliant and ambitious scientist whose mind was corrupted by his latest scientific breakthrough was almost parallel to Alfred Molina's Otto Octavius/Doc Ock persona in Spider-man 2
The CGI animation was also better than the previous films. Nowadays, when I see CGI-rendered characters like the Hulk or Lizard, I can't helping thinking they're CGI, no matter how good they are. Andy Serkis' motion-capture portrayal of Gollum in LotR is still unmatched.
Overall Rating: A+