![]() ![]() But Garfield, a tremendously appealing and intelligent presence in The Social Network, seems misplaced and a bit wasted as a human arachnid. It’s as if there was a script meeting where someone threw up his hands and said, “Eh, just let ’em be cute together.” Stone has a knack for giving a just-OK line a dry Rosalind Russell snap, and her character, the valedictorian and molecular-biology whiz Gwen Stacy, does get in a few amusing retorts. ![]() They tend to trade lovey-dovey compliments rather than screwball-comedy barbs. That could have been the basis for a genuinely memorable romantic storyline, but Garfield and Stone aren’t given enough good dialogue to speak. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone-who have become an item in real life since the last movie, to the joy of the tabloids-seem to interact within a charmed, charged space: When they flirt with each other, it feels real. It does, and its existence provides for a few small pleasures, even if the project as a whole conveys a drab sense of bureaucratic necessity, a “let’s get this over with” wheeziness. And most of this movie’s action sequences, in which a web-slinging Spidey swoops gymnastically among Manhattan skyscrapers to yank unsuspecting pedestrians out of the path of hurtling vehicles, closely recall the visual thrills of the 2004 Raimi film (allowing for the advances in digital effects that have been made since).īut there’s no use shaking your fist at the heavens (or even more futilely at Sony/Marvel) and demanding why this Spider-Man franchise needs to exist. Maybe every generation gets the Spider-Man it deserves, but must every micro-generation? Andrew Garfield’s scruffy, sincere kid-with-a-backpack incarnation of the Peter Parker/Spider-Man character isn’t so different from Tobey Maguire’s that it constitutes a reinvention. The relatively fresh memory of that Spider-Man can’t help but lessen the purported amazingness of Marc Webb’s The Amazing Spider-Man 2, the second chapter of a drearily unnecessary franchise reboot that creaked into motion in 2012 (in large part, it seems, because Sony was contractually obligated by Marvel to make a Spider-Man movie at certain intervals in order to hold onto its rights to the character). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |