Category Archives: Andrew Garfield

Movie Review: The Amazing Spider-Man

1 Reply

After the disaster of “Spider-Man 3,” which all but destroyed the hero that made superheroes box office gold, the world wasn’t exactly craving more Spider-Man. “The Amazing Spider-Man” isn’t the superhero movie we needed, but we got it, and it’s actually a stellar installment of the myth of a man in red spandex.

To compare “The Amazing Spider-Man” with Sam Raimi’s “Spider-Man” is to tiptoe on a tightrope, as saying that the new one is better than the old one would be potentially putting down something that I deeply cherish. “Spider-Man” was one of the first movies I watched multiple days in a row when it first arrived on DVD, and it spurred an interest in comic books that led me to a giant box full of them in the attic (benefits of having an older brother). But then again, what makes “The Amazing Spider-Man” work is its ability to build on and improve the flaws of its predecessors.


“The Amazing Spider-Man” seems most similar to the fantastic, revisionist Ultimate Spider-Man graphic novels. However, “The Amazing Spider-Man” also takes on a life of its own. It starts at the very beginning, during one of the crucial moments of Peter Parker’s life. As a child, Parker’s father, a brilliant scientist with a controversial view on genetics, is under constant threat. In order to keep Peter safe, he is to go and live with his Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and Aunt Mae (Sally Field) in their working class Queens home. One thing remains constant throughout the evolution of the Spider-Man Story: poor Uncle Ben can never catch a break.

Years later, and Peter is the nerd we always knew. Except this time, he’s more of brilliant punk than a plain old brainiac. Spotting a skateboard, square glasses, and an old jacket, he looks more like the new generations definition of cool kids as seen in “21 Jump Street” (hint: reduce, reuse, recycle). Andrew Garfield plays him with just the perfect amount of teenage awkwardness that is uncomfortable and funny all at once. Because of this, him and Emma Stone, who portrays Gwen Stacy, bounce off each other well as love interests.

“The Amazing Spider-Man” is very slow to start. However, there is a lot of necessary world-building that goes on which does not pay off until later in the story. But really, the movie could have done without the scene in which Peter researches the mystery of his father’s death by searching on the Internet. Obviously, this is the way research is done nowadays. However, there is nothing interesting about watching someone typing words into a search engine, nor does it make someone look any smarter.

Once Peter is bitten by the radioactive spider and starts to experience symptoms does the story really take off. It starts off with a series of ingenius sight gags, directed to comedic perfection by Marc Webb. Webb, who previously directed “(500) Days of Summer,” shows off flashes of self-awareness that first established his talent. After all, we are dealing with a man with spider-like powers who wears a tight red body suit. There is something inherently silly about that. Webb plays around with the humor, but without ruining all seriousness in the story. This was the biggest problem in “The Avengers,” and it does not get the best of the new “Spider-Man.”

Unlike many blockbusters, the action here is well shot and edited. It moves at a pace that anyone can follow, and it doesn’t alternate shots every millisecond. Webb’s indie sensibilities, overall, bring a much more humanized feel to the entire movie. However, there is a major action set piece towards the end, coupled with some emotional backstory, that comes off as quite trite. All I will say is that it involves crains, and I can picture the writers saying something like “we need an easy way to get Spider-Man from one place to another. I know: deus ex machina!”

The fact that “The Amazing Spider-Man” at all had me thinking about the nature of superheroes and comic books shows just how different of a superhero movie this is. It all stems from the creation of a “new” Spider-Man and Peter Parker. Putting a mask on is a way of being two different people at once, and then gaining the ability to do what you couldn’t without a mask on. The old Peter Parker is timid and clumsy, while the old Spider-Man will climb up the tallest of buildings without fear. Meanwhile, the new Peter Parker and Spider-Man are almost one in the same: they are both brilliant, sarcastic, and sometimes too proud and too much in need of getting even. As Peter Parker, he gladly shows off his new ability to jump by playing basketball and smashing the backboard. As Spider-Man, he spends a large chunk of time trying to track down Uncle Ben’s killer.

In addition, Spider-Man is not just a superhero here. Rather, as Police Chief Stacy (Denis Leary) describes him), he is an outlaw, roaming the city with his own code of justice, while hiding behind a mask. When he swings through Manhattan alone on silk ropes, it now feels more like a cowboy walking off alone into the sunset.

While the Spider-Man of the 2000s gained the ability to shoot webs from the spider bite, the Spider-Man of Stan Lee’s creation had to create the web blasters himself. This makes a big difference, as it reveals even more how smart Parker is. No more of that “Go web go!” stuff. Unfortunately, the movie forgets to include what happens when Spider-Man runs out of his webs, which was always one of the more interesting elements of the comics. Seeing Spider-Man fight bad guys without his webs is like seeing Samson without his hair. Only this Samson can jump much higher.

Superheroes, in general, were created to pull of the physical feats that humans could not. The first villains of Captain America and Superman were Nazis. “The Amazing Spider-Man,” in a way, is about what makes a hero. Peter can be a hero with or without the mask. If superheroes are made to do what humans are incapable of, then the point of one armed Dr. Connors’ (Rhys Ifans) cloning experiment was to prove that humans on their own are weak, and only with the help of the genetics of others can they truly excel. Maybe this is foolish, as the experiment goes awry and turns Connors into an evil lizard monster (not as ludicrous as it sounds). Humans might not have the strength or ability to grow back dismembered body parts that other life forms have the ability to do. However, they do have the ability to distinguish right from wrong.

I might be overanalyzing a bit here, but the fact that “The Amazing Spider-Man” at all put these thoughts into my head shows that this reboot runs deeper than one might imagine. It is in line with “Prometheus” as smartest blockbuster of the summer. The real difference between this Spider-Man and Spider-Mans past is character. By adding motivations to every action, the story no longer feels like a bunch of set pieces of a teenager having fun with his magical powers. “The Amazing Spider-Man” is far from perfect, but I truly appreciate its ability to take long stretches of time without blowing something up. The superhero movie has truly come a long way since its humble rebirth ten years ago.

Sidenote: Don’t see this in 3D. 

Oscars ’10: The Snubs

3 Replies

With every set of Oscar nominations comes a set of even more ridiculous snubs. Even with another year of ten best picture nominations, there were still plenty of egregious snubs to go around.
On this day, the day the Oscar nominations are announced, I would like to recognize not those were selected, but those who strangely missed the mark. Not everyone can make the cut, but these people and films certainly deserved to:
Andrew Garfield (The Social Network)

This one seemed like a sure thing. The man who is destined to be Spider-Man broke out this year and brought the pathos to “The Social Network.” With Zuckerberg being mainly emotionally cold, Garfield made Eduardo a character impossible not to connect with. Every emotion he injects into the film, he also injects into the audience. Then when his character turns from nice to angry in the film’s dramatic climax, the transformation is so believable that it makes the already devastating conclusion even worse. “The Social Network” might’ve been about Mark Zuckerberg, but it’s hard to believe there ever would’ve been a great story without Eduardo Saverin and Garfield’s performance.


Chloe Moretz (Kick-Ass)

There should have been room for two teenage actresses who could use a weapon in this year’s Oscars. So many have praised Hailee Steinfeld, but forget the almost similar performance given by Chloe Moretz as Hit-Girl in “Kick-Ass.” She managed to act lightyears more mature than her superiors while always maintaing child-like innocence. She showed off the kind of creepy excitement a typical tween might have over Robert Pattinson while slicing off limbs and dropping the c-bomb. Fourteen-year-olds don’t typically steal the show in a film, but Moretz did enough so that it was at times hard to remember that the movie is called “Kick-Ass” and not “Hit-Girl.”


Christopher Nolan (Inception)

Seriously, what does Christopher Nolan have to do to get a Best Director nomination? Is turning a confusing, mind-f***ing idea into both a work of art and a $300 million grossing summer blockbuster not enough? How about changing the rules of physics? Or how about returning blockbusters to their original state in which they began in the 1970s? The Best Screenplay nomination for “Inception” can be disputed, but few would argue if Nolan finally got his long deserved Best Director nod.

Leonardo DiCaprio (Shutter Island)

To this day, people have trouble taking DiCaprio’s performances seriously. The common excuse is his youthful looks make it hard for him to seem mature. If anyone still argues this, they obviously haven’t watched “Shutter Island” yet. DiCaprio went from good actor with some talent to great actor with soul. He was so smoothly able to handle the massive transformation of his character without loosing the ambiguity. Then there is the way he delivers that final line, “which would be worse, to live as a monster or to die as a good man” which is delivered in a way that is so heartbreaking that it could almost produce tears. With maybe a few more films, DiCaprio can truly become Scorsese’s new De Niro.

Danny Boyle (127 Hours)

Over directing usually isn’t an admiral trait in a director. Unless of course your name is Danny Boyle. Boyle made a story about one man in one location epic enough to be engaging for its entire running time. He injects every frame of this film with so much life. Everything from a drop of water to the desert sand seem to be living, breathing, interacting characters. That’s how you make a movie about a man stuck in a hole. Boyle, like a great director, realizes this essential fact: a good film is about what it’s about; a great film is about how it’s about.

Movie Review: The Social Network

2 Replies

Every time any of us log into Facebook (which is most likely every .02 seconds), I don’t think any of us have ever thought of why Facebook even exists. Is it because someone wanted to find a way for people to better connect with friends and family? Or did some asshole just want his ex-girlfriend to notice him? These are both of the answers provided in “The Social Network.” Neither of these answers are necessarily right or wrong.

“The Social Network,” like any good movie trying to understand a mysterious reality, doesn’t strive to tell the whole truth but rather come as close to the truth as humanly possible.
This is all fitting, as most of the movie takes place in a context where one must swear the whole truth and nothing but the truth. In the almost present day, Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) finds himself being sued by two former classmates, the Winklevoss twins (Josh Pence and Armie Hammer), for apparently stealing their idea. At the same time, he is also being sued by his disgruntled former CFO (and best friend) Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield).
During the cases, the film provides a series of very important flashbacks. They track Facebook’s conception during Zuckerberg’s sophomore year at Harvard along with the site’s rise to popularity under the watch of Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake), and Zuckerberg’s fall into further pain and loneliness.
If I had known “The Social Network” would have been this good when I saw “Inception,” I would have saved my “generation defining” praise for a few months. “The Social Network” has no idea where this generation is headed, but it does understand where it is right now. All of the paranoia, angst, and frustration garnered from wondering what status your friend is going to post next and how that leaks out into the real world is shown in full form here.
“The Social Network” says a lot about this generation, a lot of things that should’ve been saved for a long time down the road. Yet, maybe these are the things we need to hear right now. If the internet is the future of civilization as one character puts it, than Facebook is likely the end of mankind.
What I thought was greatest about “The Social Network” is that it isn’t all its message. It takes a subject that probably would’ve been really dull and makes it so endlessly interesting and engaging. This could be partly from the brilliantly written dialogue by Aaron Sorkin, which is mainly a series of observations about life.
Along with Sorkin, much credit belongs to director David Fincher. This is a return to form for him, now that he’s done begging for an Oscar (that’s what happens when you make a film like “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”). The film reminded me of some of the surrealist structure of “Fight Club” mixed with the more realistic style of “Zodiac.” In every location, there is a feeling of actually being there. Fincher fills the campus of Harvard with random people walking. And in a club scene, it’s so loud that it’s impossible to even hear what the characters are saying. Some directors strive so hard to make their characters the center of attention that they forget that there’s an actual world around them. Not Fincher though. The most interestingly shot scene of the year, a scene that involves a rowing race, is in this film.
“The Social Network” is graced with at least three of the year’s best performances. After his tenure as a pop singer ended, Timberlake showed he could do comedy. Now, he shows he can do drama. He is the film’s most engaging and enthusiastic character. Then, there’s Garfield (star of the upcoming “Spider-Man” film) who shows so much potential for a great future career. He is the film’s most emotional and possibly sympathetic character, even though it’s possible to not feel sympathy for him.
Then there’s Eisenberg, who took a great leap forward with his career in this performance. Recently, people were carrying the same complaints about him that they did with Michael Cera: that he plays the same awkward character in every movie. Yes, Zuckerberg is pretty awkward, but he’s even deeper than that. Zuckerberg is portrayed here as someone who is too socially inept to be a sociopath. He believes his genius computer hacking abilities should excuse all his other flaws, which usually includes wearing a hoodie and sandals to important business meetings.
It is both Eisenberg’s portrayal of the character and Sorkin’s writing of him that turns Zuckerberg into such an interesting and amusing character. He is not made out to be some sort of god for the way he revolutionized the world through his invention. He may be a genius, but he’s also a twisted and haunted genius.
A lot of people have had the audacity to compare “The Social Network” to “Citizen Kane.” “The Social Network” will probably never be as good a movie as “Citizen Kane,” but it might just be the answer to “Citizen Kane” that all film fanatics have been looking for for almost 70 years. It is “Kane” in spirit. “The Social Network” could be considered the modern day “Kane” because it is also about the difficulty to find the truth amongst modern forms of communication. While no one could break down the Charles Foster Kane behind the newspapers, few people can break down the Mark Zuckerberg behind the computer screen.
Like Kane (who is based on William Randolph Hearst), Zuckerberg is portrayed here as someone who surrounds himself with millions of “friends” but doesn’t truly have one. That final shot (which I won’t give away), is just about as powerful as the utterance of “Rosebud,” but without a single word spoken.
“Citizen Kane” tested the ability of a movie to lie to its audience. “The Social Network” does just about the same. While characters in the film can’t trust anything Zuckerberg says, there has also been doubt in reality that many details in the film are totally true. This helps turn “The Social Network” into the year’s most entertaining practice in self-reflexivity. Much of the movie may not be true, but the greatest movies are supposed to convince us that its lies are real, even if the film doesn’t know whether or not it’s actually lying to us.