"Watch it for Andrew Garfield, he's really good!"
"Mark Webb has really put some soul into the movie."
"It's a refreshing take on the franchise."
"It actually works on an emotional level..."
"The 3D is amazing!"
No. I'm not going to watch The Amazing Spiderman, so stop telling me I should. I saw and liked the first one, was mildly amused by the second one, and struggled to keep my eyes off my cell phone during the third one. The Amazing Spider-Man might actually be a decent watch, but I'm not going to see it.
Why? Call me old-fashioned, cynical, jaded, whatever you want, but I’m sick of these summer blockbusters that pummel us with formula. Every time June rolls in, I cringe at the wave of banal, soul-less, CG (computer-generated) flicks that rise up and threaten to drown our minds and senses while laughing all the way to the bank. I've had it with movie studios sucking every ounce of life from stories and books and comics that thrived on wit and soul and character development apart from sheer jaw-dropping daredevilry – that's you, Van Helsing, Transformers and The Avengers. The less said about the movie adaptations of children's classic like Snow White, the better.
Those of you who have seen the latest installment of the Spider-Man franchise may be shouting out – "but that's exactly why you should see the film!" Sorry. I liked Andrew Garfield in The Social Network; I love that his romantic interest in the film, the charming Emma Stone, can pull off roles like in The Help and Superbad with equal conviction; and I enjoyed director Mark Webb's 2009 comedy-drama (500) Days of Summer. But even they aren't going to be able to get me to watch this film, because I don’t see the point to it.
Firstly, we know the story of Spider-Man. We really do. High school loner's life is changed by a spider bite; he undergoes some hormonal changes and starts to fight crime while his aunt gives speeches about why the world needs a hero. And he has girl issues.
So was there really a need for a fourth Spider-Man movie, five years after the last one? Even in 3D? As far as I’m concerned, by the time a movie reaches its fourth installment there’s really just one reason why it was made – brand milking. Spider-Man 3 was made for a reported $250 million, and the first two installments raked in $1.6 billion. Need further proof that the filmmakers are in it for money? You can argue that there's nothing wrong in making money, but for me these brain-numbing, CG mega-action films are the cinematic equivalent of a street mugging – except the mugging is over faster.
Look, I don't hate Spider-Man. He's cool. As a five-year-old, I used to cut out strips from my Marvel and DC Comics collection and have Spidey fight with Superman. Heck, I drove my mother to the brink of frustration because I wanted a Spiderman outfit, and had her comb the length of Colaba in the sweltering Bombay heat looking for one. But there's only a certain amount I can take of seeing Spiderman swing from skyscraper to skyscraper, stop a bank robbery, halt a runaway train and rescue Mary Jane by holding up a falling building. You can ooh and aah at our leotard-hero flying through the corridors of Manhattan with the son of the Green Goblin in hot pursuit on a flying skateboard, but where’s the soul? Where's the originality? It worked once, maybe twice. But do we need to see such FX four times?
Spider-Man movies are unapologetic fluff. The first one was good (full props to Sony for hiring horror genre director Sam Raimi and trusting him, as a comic fan, to give the movie direction) because it had a mind and heart. The second had its moments, but for every moment that worked – Peter Parker, working part-time delivering pizzas, resorting to Spidey speed to guarantee delivery in 29 minutes – there came an assault of repetition that made me want to plead for mercy. My nerves were frayed, and not because of any eye-popping FX. The third...well the third just didn't engage me.
Maybe Webb's interpretation of Parker's story has turned a high-flying adventure into something moving. Garfield and Stone may have some chemistry. The film may touch the heart. But it's been bracketed in the same genre as those big-budget summer movies that just run in their places, without a pulse, untouched by human hands, and made with budgets double the size of some small country’s GDP. I've had it with summer blockbusters.
We live in an age where potentially anything goes in cinema. The problem is that increasingly, films are being conceptualized in boardrooms, not on floorboards. It's become marketing: put an existing property out there, see if it makes money. If it does, repeat the process (sequels, prequels and spinoffs). Instead of good stories or good performances, studios are pumping money into good CG (Michael Bay, you're killing cinema).
I want movies that focus on stories that are intriguing and original, not massive and filled with tent-pole pictures set pieces and green screens. So instead of forking out money to go watch The Amazing Spider-Man, I'd rather fire up my laptop and watch shows like Breaking Bad and The Wire, shows with real human characters in unique situations. Those are exhilarating. Swinging from building to building? It's getting a bit dull.
Comments
0 comment