It's been soo loong. I don't know what better way to describe "this comeback" in a more proper way anymore. Look at this tangle of thorns messy but still lovable web personal space of mine here. Maybe there's barely no people reading it, and the submission writings were not gaining champions or what so called that while I haven't put out the banner etc. I am not whining here, nor winning, lol, there are times for that my friend.
You know I've had this blog for so long that I can never imagine myself wiped all my writings after all this time (since 2010) to have a fresh, new, more "new image", to reboot this because after all the alay-ness, the unsteady-phase or what so called transition phase I had as a teen starting to write her blog in her junior high school I still thought that this blog has in some way maintained to be a documentation of some stage, some portrait of moments in my life. Though I found myself sometimes cringed or just wanted to laugh at myself reading at my past writings with all the wrYthin9 style possible (but I am not too violent with that, you know, I still managed to make my past-entries to be more readable), I think that knowing how sometimes I found myself recalling the moments and re-thinking and re-picturing about moments I've write here before - moments that I realize is not really being remembered until I read the specific post, it feels that it was amazing.
So how could I try to wipe and reboot all of this, dear, lone readers who lost or find your way, I ask you?
Whoops, look at the title, I think I managed to get to the topics rather smoothie-ly. LOL.
 |
| This picture aren't miine okay. From here. |
About this movie I put as my title, it's rather to the fact that it is a reboot film of Spider-Man movie for me, I guess. Please note that I don't read the original Marvels comics and will not really responding to have a discussion or debates about the movie-because-the-comics or the like. The Amazing Spider-Man has its new Peter Parker and almost "rebuilt" everything of the story of Spider-Man to refresh the viewers after Spider-Man 3.
See, I've never talk specifically about a movie to review it before this so I think its good to warn that I won't be really systematic or everything but I'm trying my best to arrange what's my points here. I hope this clear enough. Other notes before I really trying to get to my points is because I care to you so much, I hope you can continue reading with enough understanding about how this title (TASM 2)'s storyline and background story included what's it about in the previous TASM movie, since its almost 9 PM here and I kind of sleepy to recap the synopsis. You do know you always iMDB or the like in your hands.
If you still don't know, in case, TAS refers to The Amazing Spider-Man, dear, see I am really trying to be considerate here.
First thing first about the overall movie, I do think that this movie is amaazing, indeed, I repeat, an amazing reboot to built, to have Spider-Man with all the enemies and the story in the other new way after having three Spider-Man movies before. Why can I state this are based on how I appreciate the story's "linearity" about everything in this second installment (oh I love using this phrase, it do seems so magazine-like xD), since everything about the-super-spider and how-the-heaven-it-can-make-Peter-has-superpower, the "absent" of Peter's parent (that we can aware of since TAS first movie), and how it eventually makes way for Peter to Harry Osborn is explained and has the right and logical reason and correlation. It's even pictured better than the previous Spider-Man, which the spiders, the superpowers, even Harry Osborn are now feels so "popped out from somewhere there" compared to how all of that entangled and connected in TASM.
Other appreciation are also the main villain, Electro, that kind of gives me thrills and strummy-sensations yet the cringe-y heartfelt of how he was before he was Electro and after he has become Electro. No wonder and what you can expect from the Academy Awards winning Jamie Foxx can never be less... About the three enemies showing appearance teased in trailers are just meh, hmmkay thing for the Rhino but so much more hmmooches for The Green Goblin, or specifically Harry Osborn. I must admit here that Dane Deehan are waay more fitting as Harry and he can potray a fearful-powerful-unstable-young-adult-snobby-but-actually-sympathizing heir of Osborn... even his physical appearance are really supporting the image of Harry Osborn more than James Franco, especially that powerful fringe (LOL) that gives Deehan a look of being more youthful and "vulnerable" and unstable as a young gentlemen... though of course there's no doubt that Deehan and Franco are both good looking in the general context; calm down! ...and am I showing my bias in Harry/Mr. Deehan here? Sorry for not sorry xD.
Done praising/appreciating the storyline and has "accidentally" slipped to the cast-talking, then I think we should really take a dive to it xD
Because this will sent me to the Point I've wanted to say and confess first place until I decided on this entry title, that eventough TASM 2 has amazing story and all but apparently not amazing main-cast of the hero. Hereby I confess that I am not satisfied enough in Andrew Garfield's portraying his own Peter Parker.
At first place I thought that my explanations would be long but now I think it won't really that long.
Continuing the matter, I'd like to begin with how much the three installments (uhum) of Spider-Man had left me with so much deep impression of how Tobey Maguire can deliver a Peter Parker who is a very humble, gentle, "selfless" being (in terms of how he would always tend to prioritize others before him) no matter how he's kind of having an alter-ego in becoming a Spider-Man. But I also think why would we have to differentiate Peter Parker from Spider-Man if his famous saying had been (one of them) "Who am I? I'm Spider-Man.".
All of that without making Maguire's Peter Parker becoming less adorable.
Yet some viewers had their opinions after TASM 2 that Garfield's Peter Parker are better than Maguire's because of the more-youthful, humorous look and act shown in TASM 2. I am not here to object others opinions, before I stated that of course I also aware and appreciate the "joking" manner that Garfield can show to the viewers of TASM 2 while playing Peter Parker, but the problem is I am having a quite hard time to correlate those "playful manner" with the whole Peter Parker Garfield's trying to deliver or convey in TASM installments.
I evaluate, as whole, that Garfield's Peter Parker are not as strong as Maguire's in terms of how in every act, every saying or everything he do in the context of being Spider-Man, being a man desperately in love with his girl and and being a bestfriend with some problematic issue are not really coming together, aren't worked out in my perspective.
What I see is a Peter Parker of Garfield's that is somehow hides some kind of worrying-issue of being close to Gwen (while having images of her late father warn him to keep Gwen away from danger of him as Spider-Man after the first movie's events) but in other hand shows a very "selfish" possession of not losing his girl in any way, even when his girl stated that she pursue an important scholarship in Oxford, UK. Count their kissing scenes, dear, that feels quite excessive and I can not take away my thoughts that while kissing Emma Stone, Garfield can be more enjoying kissing her as his current-boyfriend-real-life than as Peter Parker so in short he/she/them has their own enjoying on their sneaky make out time sorry its rude. Is this the Peter Parker trying to deliver to me as one of the viewers? Because that doesn't worked out for me, I am not impressed by his "more playful manner" that much to state that he can portray his version of Peter Parker.
I am sorry to say that Garfield's Peter Parker are resulting a very much inconsistent character, he can not deliver a single "line" of Peter Parker on how he behaves and talks throughout the movie, or if he do, that doesn't work for me. I have think that maybe this TASM's Peter Parker are way more different slighly because he's kind of starting as high school student with its teenage issue and all, but in the other hand I still getting impression that somehow the Peter Parker in TASM are still maintaining the qualities of being "noble", and somehow "awkward" like Peter Parker in Spider-Man - yet the outcome is the part when he was supposed to show that he has a noble qualities (say, to not harm Gwen by saying that he sees her late father "images", or not to give Harry his blood so that Harry won't get hurt) aren't going smooth to blend with other qualities of the extent he can be, like being "funny", being so touch-smoochy to Gwen (the public kiss at the graduation party, seriously? What kind of Peter Parker is that who then at night become awkward when Gwen invites him to eat dinner with her family and say that he can not let Gwen be in danger and so on?), and so on. The extent in how Garfield's Peter Parker can show quite a selfish manner to make Gwen not go from his side by having all that ILU in the bridge with his webs are very puzzling to me, to make it together at what is the kind of Peter Parker I have now?
The Peter Parker I know that has its place since Spider-Man 3 won't be too funny or all that, I admit, but other than being still-adorable, he is a very persistent types of guy who has a lot of feelings not excessively shown but has its own intensity that can be felt in his eyes when he see the other people he loved may have misunderstood him, or when he just decide to stay silent, or saying anythings subtle to keep other people's feelings for what complicated thing they don;t know shoot in becoming a Spider-Man.
...well, I am also aware that perhaps I have been too attached to the portraying of Peter Parker from Tobey Maguire after all this time, and I have ponder about it but I decide that actually that's not really relevant to bring up because I consider myself to be quite objective of what I saw in movies, give it prove to the character Harry Osborn, which apparently the "new" cast can worked it out well despite his physical qualities. I wonder why can not it applies to for Peter Parker as well?
Eventually, evrything are not meant to be perfect, so there's always room for being better, and that also applies to good movies that can always be better in the future^^
Done praising/appreciating the storyline and has "accidentally" slipped to the cast-talking, then I think we should really take a dive to it xD
Because this will sent me to the Point I've wanted to say and confess first place until I decided on this entry title, that eventough TASM 2 has amazing story and all but apparently not amazing main-cast of the hero. Hereby I confess that I am not satisfied enough in Andrew Garfield's portraying his own Peter Parker.
At first place I thought that my explanations would be long but now I think it won't really that long.
Continuing the matter, I'd like to begin with how much the three installments (uhum) of Spider-Man had left me with so much deep impression of how Tobey Maguire can deliver a Peter Parker who is a very humble, gentle, "selfless" being (in terms of how he would always tend to prioritize others before him) no matter how he's kind of having an alter-ego in becoming a Spider-Man. But I also think why would we have to differentiate Peter Parker from Spider-Man if his famous saying had been (one of them) "Who am I? I'm Spider-Man.".
All of that without making Maguire's Peter Parker becoming less adorable.
Yet some viewers had their opinions after TASM 2 that Garfield's Peter Parker are better than Maguire's because of the more-youthful, humorous look and act shown in TASM 2. I am not here to object others opinions, before I stated that of course I also aware and appreciate the "joking" manner that Garfield can show to the viewers of TASM 2 while playing Peter Parker, but the problem is I am having a quite hard time to correlate those "playful manner" with the whole Peter Parker Garfield's trying to deliver or convey in TASM installments.
I evaluate, as whole, that Garfield's Peter Parker are not as strong as Maguire's in terms of how in every act, every saying or everything he do in the context of being Spider-Man, being a man desperately in love with his girl and and being a bestfriend with some problematic issue are not really coming together, aren't worked out in my perspective.
What I see is a Peter Parker of Garfield's that is somehow hides some kind of worrying-issue of being close to Gwen (while having images of her late father warn him to keep Gwen away from danger of him as Spider-Man after the first movie's events) but in other hand shows a very "selfish" possession of not losing his girl in any way, even when his girl stated that she pursue an important scholarship in Oxford, UK. Count their kissing scenes, dear, that feels quite excessive and I can not take away my thoughts that while kissing Emma Stone, Garfield can be more enjoying kissing her as his current-boyfriend-real-life than as Peter Parker so in short he/she/them has their own enjoying on their sneaky make out time sorry its rude. Is this the Peter Parker trying to deliver to me as one of the viewers? Because that doesn't worked out for me, I am not impressed by his "more playful manner" that much to state that he can portray his version of Peter Parker.
I am sorry to say that Garfield's Peter Parker are resulting a very much inconsistent character, he can not deliver a single "line" of Peter Parker on how he behaves and talks throughout the movie, or if he do, that doesn't work for me. I have think that maybe this TASM's Peter Parker are way more different slighly because he's kind of starting as high school student with its teenage issue and all, but in the other hand I still getting impression that somehow the Peter Parker in TASM are still maintaining the qualities of being "noble", and somehow "awkward" like Peter Parker in Spider-Man - yet the outcome is the part when he was supposed to show that he has a noble qualities (say, to not harm Gwen by saying that he sees her late father "images", or not to give Harry his blood so that Harry won't get hurt) aren't going smooth to blend with other qualities of the extent he can be, like being "funny", being so touch-smoochy to Gwen (the public kiss at the graduation party, seriously? What kind of Peter Parker is that who then at night become awkward when Gwen invites him to eat dinner with her family and say that he can not let Gwen be in danger and so on?), and so on. The extent in how Garfield's Peter Parker can show quite a selfish manner to make Gwen not go from his side by having all that ILU in the bridge with his webs are very puzzling to me, to make it together at what is the kind of Peter Parker I have now?
The Peter Parker I know that has its place since Spider-Man 3 won't be too funny or all that, I admit, but other than being still-adorable, he is a very persistent types of guy who has a lot of feelings not excessively shown but has its own intensity that can be felt in his eyes when he see the other people he loved may have misunderstood him, or when he just decide to stay silent, or saying anythings subtle to keep other people's feelings for what complicated thing they don;t know shoot in becoming a Spider-Man.
...well, I am also aware that perhaps I have been too attached to the portraying of Peter Parker from Tobey Maguire after all this time, and I have ponder about it but I decide that actually that's not really relevant to bring up because I consider myself to be quite objective of what I saw in movies, give it prove to the character Harry Osborn, which apparently the "new" cast can worked it out well despite his physical qualities. I wonder why can not it applies to for Peter Parker as well?
Eventually, evrything are not meant to be perfect, so there's always room for being better, and that also applies to good movies that can always be better in the future^^
No comments:
Post a Comment