Showing posts with label Spiderman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Spiderman. Show all posts

Thursday, 6 July 2017

SPIDERMAN HOMECOMING; Full-Tilt Review

“Can't you just be a friendly neighborhood Spider-Man?”
Tony Stark


"With great power..."

Synopsis:
Following on from the events of Civil War, well-meaning high school student Peter Parker excitedly awaits his next mission with the Avengers, unaware that he has been essentially 'shelved' from the most dangerous assignments because Tony Stark isn't confident he's ready for the big-leagues. Elsewhere, salvage specialist Adrian Toomes is all but put out of business by Stark Industries, and so turns to selling illegal weapons created from alien technology to support his family. When Parker stumbles across Toomes' operation the stage is set for a super-powered battle of wills with far-reaching consequences.

For your consideration...
Spiderman Homecoming does not exist within a vacuum. Most will realise that this is the third reboot in 15 years (that's a reboot every 5 years for the slow of math). I've always maintained that re-boots not only deserve to be, but in all fairness should be, considered alongside previous incarnations. After all, if you don't feel confident that you can improve on what's already come before, then why are you rebooting something? The first of Sam Raimi's Spiderman films was a film for adults pretending to be one for children (complete with an attempted rape, a bone-crunching final and a hero who fails to 'get the girl'). His second Spiderman was a children's film pretending to be for grown-ups (featuring a villain who 'learns the error of his ways' and redeems himself saving the hero, as well as some sickly-sweet soul searching). Raimi's third entry failed in just about every way, but by now Raimi had proved once and for all that superheros could be big business. Marc Webb's (oxymoron alert) 'Amazing' two efforts somehow turned everybody's favourite unassuming teenager into a prick; there's more to updating a character than giving him a skateboard and an attitude (he was more of a Bart Simpson than any Peter Parker). It was therefore with a mixed reception that Marvel finally managed to buy back Spiderman's rights from Sony and announced yet another reboot by launching the character into it's expanding MCU (the Marvel Cinematic Universe). There were those who were happy to see the character back in safer hands, those who were upset that they would never see the close of Marc Webb's announced trilogy (idiots mostly), and those who thought a third reboot was simply too much too soon. Even Kirsten Dunst,Raimi's leading lady, waded in to the debate. "We made the best ones, so who cares?... They’re just milking that cow for money.". It was a fair comment, and in most instances she'd be dead right; the first 2 Raimi films would be hard to top, but let's not forget the movie business is still a business and I'm sure she's taken the odd job 'for the money'. However, on this occasion Ms. Dunst may have to eat those well chosen words... The first thing that needs to be said about Spiderman Homecoming is this; it's by far the best Spiderman movie to date, and one of Marvel's strongest entries. Secondly, it's very, very funny. Most of the Marvel films to date have been an entertaining combination of whip-smart banter and explosive mayhem, with Guardians of the Galaxy thus far being the most humerus. However, Spiderman goes one step further to the extent it's probably first and foremost a comedy and a super powered adventure second. That's certainly no bad thing... I once said the time for a perfect Spiderman has come and gone, but I was (as the scores might suggest) dead wrong, although I do feel vindicated in the accuracy of some of my points. I said Marc Webb's Nolan-esque take on the character was a step totally in the wrong direction, and for a character like Spiderman it should sway more into the comedic realms of Kick-Ass (which in so many ways essentially was a Spiderman story). Homecoming is EXACTLY that, thanks to a terrific script credited to no less than 12 writers, which would normally result in disaster. Read-on, Spidey fans...

Script: 1/2
Despite the fact that the script is incredibly entertaining, there's no disguising the fact that, so far as the plot is concerned, it's pretty silly. However, that said, you're not watching a Spiderman film for the plot, right? By placing Spiderman into the Marvel universe (a God-send in so many ways), it does mean having to embrace some of the more 'wild' elements of that franchise, including alien technology. But with Marvel's favourite son back on home ground and in safe hands, it's a very small price to pay... On another note, it always bothered me how anybody was supposed to overlook the fact that a teenager on a low to modest income could afford to create the Spiderman outfit and web-shooter tools (a point that became laughable in Marc Web's gritty attempt). In Tony Stark the Marvel universe finds it's answer, and it's at once such an obvious and shrewd move. Naturally, Stark is responsible for essentially bankrolling Peter Parker and providing him with the tech, and it becomes suddenly believable that the suit would be blue and hot-rod red (this from a flashy and extravagant billionaire who designed himself a gold suit). Minor grumble; too many gadgets for my liking, but it feels a reasonable fit for the MCU. Wasn't overly sold on the suit's internal-voice, but it proved a great way of keeping the character talking and provided the occasional laugh.

Pace: 2/2
While I was watching the film I always felt like we were moving from scene to scene with such speed and efficiency that by the time it ended it had felt like a relatively short experience. I was surprised to read that actually the film was just over 2 hours in length. While I adamantly stand by my opinion that most stories can be told successfully in 90 to 120 minutes, Homecoming obviously stands as proof to the fact that a well told film will justify it's length. Thankfully, none of this time is spent wasted on an origin story (not even Civil War bothered). The Marvel head-sheds, quite wisely, have figured out most people know the whole 'uncle Ben thing' pretty well by now, and instead just get on with telling the story at hand.

Acting: 2/2
Not sure how else I can put this, but Tom Holland IS Peter Parker. He's perfect; he's nerdy, he's self deprecating, he's enthusiastic, he's innocent, he's witty, he's good natured while never being a goody-two-shoes. He's not wet like Toby McGuire was (his moping got tedious after a while), and he's not too-cool-for-school like Andrew Garfield. And, shock-horror, he's pretty close to actually being of genuine high-school age- that's a first and it makes a huge difference. McGuire and Garfield were both clearly adults, adults in peril. Holland looks like a kid, sounds like a kid, acts like a kid- he's just a kid doing the right thing in the face of real danger, and all the more braver for it. That's what Spiderman should be about!... In Raimi's first Spiderman, Willem De Foe chewed the scenery with relish and gusto, and made for the perfect Green Goblin. There will never be a better Goblin, why try? Wisely, Marvel didn't bother. Instead, they've found a perfect foil in Michael Keaton, and rather than dial in a zany Beetlejuice-styled performance, Keaton again proves his range by making Adrian Toomes a very nuanced character. He's ruthless but not an entirely unlikable, he's a character that started with honest intentions and, true to life, found himself on a slippery slope. He's justified his crimes (he has a family to support), he had the opportunity (the alien technology from his clearance days) and he had the motivation (forced out of work by Stark Industries). Ruthless but not cruel, nothing he does ever feels for the sake of causing suffering, although he's clearly dangerous. It all comes from an honest emotional place, who hasn't at some point felt like they're put upon by 'The Man'? And, in a refreshing turn, Toomes, AKA The Vulture (although in the film nobody ever calls him this) is one of the few villains in the Spiderman rouge's gallery who isn't the result of a failed science experiment.
I don't think it's saying too much to point out that, once again, the villain learns of Spiderman's secret identity (after all, it's only happened in every film so far; Green Goblin, Doc Ock, Harry Osborne, Venom, Sandman, Lizard, Hobgoblin). So naturally, Parker also learns who Adrian Toomes is (in one HUGELY shocking twist which I did not see coming). In the scenes that follow with Holland and Keaton sans-masks, the air is electric and both actors show the standard of their game; Holland looks genuinely heartbroken and terrified all at once, and because he's (importantly) "just a kid" he looks all too vulnerable. Keaton is totally conflicted- all seething rage and reluctant adoration. It's a Hell-of-a scene, and sets up the dramatic tone for the remainder of the film. On that subject, like Ant Man before it, Homecoming's stakes are relatively small. There is no doomsday bomb, no city-sprawling gas-cloud, no alien invasion. Ant Man (while not the best film in the Marvel cinematic franchise) was, in the end, a man trying to save his daughter from a maniac: as an audience we can relate to those stakes much easier than, say, the Avengers saving the world from aliens. Spiderman's stakes concern an attempt to steal a shipment of powerful weapons, but that's about it. But, given the smaller-scale, and Spiderman's relative inexperience and the terror he feels confronting the Vulture, that's significant enough. This is about bravery, loyalty and dedication, and what is at the end of the day (super powers not withstanding) "just a kid".
Other mentions; Robert Downey Jr is always a delight as Tony Stark, although his long-suffering assistant 'Happy' Hogan, as played by Ironman director Jon Favreau, has more screen time in his function as Parker's minder. Marisa Tomei gets a few laughs as a MILF-style aunt May, and Disney heartthrob and teen model Zandaya is a 100 miles from her usual glam image as one of Parker's fellow students (I dare not say more). Laura Harrier plays Parker's popular but sweet natured love interest Liz, while Jacob Batalon is a joy as Parker's nerdy best friend; he and Hollander have a warm and believable chemistry which the film does well to exploit.

Aesthetic: 2/2
The effects are (despite earlier misgivings) all good, and the suit design has grown on me some. The Vulture (never my favorite villain) here has a cool makeover, and the scenes where he's flying around while fighting Spiderman are all serviceable. Most of this sort of action we've seen a lot by now, no matter how good this reboot is there's no denying a strong sense of deja vu in the visuals. What makes it different this time round are the characters and situations at play. That said, the film does include a few novel touches; by moving much of the climax to very high-up in the air (beyond the 'playground' of buildings seen in most of the other films) there's a genuine sense that Spiderman is out of his element and in great danger, and it's also funny to see Parker suffer from a bout of vertigo, a joke that works all the better for Holland's youth. In fact, his relative inexperience is a cause for many of the funniest moments- it's refreshing to see that, just because he has the suit, this doesn't make him the fully-fledged and capable hero that McGuire and Garfield instantly became (although I admit things on occasion did go wrong for McGuire). But yes, the budget and effects are well utilised, and the smaller scale means that the spectacles somehow feel more grounded in reality.

Intention: 2/2
Homecoming is the first film that nail's it's target audience, in the purest sense. It's a film about a teenager, for teenagers. But, by extension, teenagers being the middle-audience, there's something here for everybody. It's funny (very funny), it's sweet natured (while never saccharine) and it's exciting (especially if you're too young to remember the first 3 films). Familiar themes and characters are given fresh overhauls, but are never so different that they're somehow offensive to long term fans. As a child I grew up on Spiderman, and I personally thought the changes were not only made with good intentions but entirely necessary; I've seen Aunt May as doddery, I've seen MJ as the perfect cheerleader type, I've seen Flash Thompson as the mindless brute, I've seen Harry as the best friend. I honestly didn't have high hopes for Homecoming, like a lot of people I thought it was a film the world didn't need, even if Marvel would likely do better than Marc Webb (I really, truly, hated those films). But, happily, I was wrong. Another feather in Homecoming's cap is how it essentially stands alone. Sure, it references events from Avengers Assemble and Civil War, but in such a way that, even if you have no prior knowledge, the film feeds you this information easily. Sure, it also features Tony Stark, and 'Happy' Hogan, both to great effect (Stark's relationship with Peter is particularly poignant in parts, hysterical in others, not to mention an excellent way to introduce Spiderman into the MCU) but, again, it's set-up in such a way that anyone can enjoy this film without an encyclopedia-like knowledge of all the other Marvel output. This didn't feel like a 'tent-pole' film; it wasn't there just to set-up more cross-overs, an issue that plagues many of the Marvel films. Nor does it suffer from the twin plagues of too many characters and establishing too many plots. No, Homecoming is Homecoming, it's that simple. Refreshingly, anyone can enjoy this on it's own merits.

Final Word: 9/10
Let's hope “friendly neighborhood Spiderman” is less a disparaging remark and more of a statement of purpose for the wall-crawler's future films, because it's this smaller scale which is one of the films most vitalizing and promising strengths. Will something be lost in seeing Parker transform from a well-meaning but fledgling hero into a sure-footed mega-hero on par with the other Avengers, as it was in the dreadful Kick-Ass sequel? We will have to wait and see, but the future is looking bright. It was very brave for the studio to have the entire climax of the film take place without use of the iconic Spiderman suit, (for reasons I can't discuss just yet), but like Tony Stark chastises “If you're nothing without the suit, then you shouldn't have it”. And with those words, Marvel invest everything they have in the character of Peter Parker and not the cash-cow image of Spiderman, a conviction that pays off in spades. I've heard Homecoming described as "Harry Potter meets Avengers", and while that's not entirely inaccurate it also fails to capture the films level of success or significance: Homecoming didn't try and rework that old line "with great power comes great responsibility"; it lived it. Homecoming isn't just the title, it's the Marvel welcome the character deserves. A joy from start to finish. Kudos Marvel, one right out of the park.







Friday, 11 March 2016

"EVERY GAME HAS A WINNER AND A LOSER..."

Dick Jones (Robocop)

OK, as you should be able to tell by the pictures accompanying, this isn't a Robocop post, but it's an apt quote...

Looks more like a computer game graphic, right? But no, this is the MCU Spiderman. Official.


The internet has recently been set ablaze by the new MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) interpretation of their favorite son: Spiderman. The response has been overwhelmingly positive from what I can tell. I've been meaning to write about this since I heard the casting, but to be honest life's been a little bit hectic.

Months ago, Marvel announced Tom Holland as their replacement to Garfield in the role of Peter Parker / Spiderman. "Good choice" I thought, "it will make a nice change to have a character of genuine (or near as damn it) high-school age." And Holland looks the part as well; unassuming, a bit nerdy, and not the too-cool-for-school good looks of Garfield's Parker. Also, after the last two failures, I was actually glad to hear that MCU had cut a deal with Sony to get the character back on home turf. "If anyone can do that character justice, it's Marvel" I thought. After all, superhero films may be ten-a-penny these days, but even the worst of Marvel's output has generally stood head and shoulders over most other action films (and let's be honest, what's a superhero film if not an action movie where the hero wears a tight suit?). So, rather excitedly, I waited for the 'grand reveal'...

To get right to my point, I watched the new Captain America: Civil War trailer today. I'm not the biggest Avengers fan, but Civil War looks to be a cool film. Rather than the typical hero vs giant threat, Civil War turns hero against hero (before DC jumped on that particular bandwagon as well) and I'm confident it'll be one of Marvel's most dramatic and most exciting yet. But... To be absolutely frank- MCU's Spiderman is SHOCKINGLY AWFUL!

It gives me no joy to fly in the face of public opinion on this one. I grew up on Spiderman, and it never crossed my mind the MCU would botch this, but they really have dropped the ball. What we got was some of the worst CGI I've seen in  a major blockbuster for the last 5 years (perhaps even 10); little definition or texture, no weight or physicality. Sam Raimi's much criticised CGI in the first of his Spiderman films is by far superior.

On that note, where possible Raimi opted to use a 'guy in a suit'. Oddly, the MCU revealing final shots could easily have been enacted with a 'guy in a suit'- so not only is the CGI for MCU's Spiderman poor, but worst of all, also poorly employed! I hope the character won't be entirely rendered this way, but sadly this may be the case!

...And as seen in The Amazing Spiderman 2.

As for the design? It's the worst Spiderman's ever looked! I felt like, what with the MCU Spiderman essentially being bank-rolled and kitted out by Tony Stark, at least that nagging "how did he make a suit like that at home?" issue would be nicely sidestepped, but it's a hideous suit! It's so bland with an almost military aesthetic (the V design near the shoulder like a soldier's rank, the design of the pouches on the belt). That may be in keeping with the Avengers setting, but I dislike it immensely. But going back to "bland", compare the fine detail to characters like Ironman, Thor, Cap, Antman- their outfits are all beautifully textured and detailed; leathers, rubbers, belts, buckles, straps, padding, armor, etc. Spiderman's outfit is just, well, plain ol' spandex...

And the eyes? What the fuck is that all about? Animated eyes that change shape, used to employ expression as in the cartoons (and, more recently, the Deadpool film). I'm sure Stark will have fancy 'tech talk' as to why Spiderman's eyes do that, but it feels so at odds with the an aesthetic that leans towards realism whenever possible; Ironman, Thor, Cap- all of them have a faithful yet gritty re-imagining for the silver-screen. Spiderman, by comparison, looks like he was designed and rendered by a teenager in his bedroom. I was so underwhelmed on first seeing the outfit my first reaction was "must be another fake". Holy shit, it really is official. Whatever my complaints were about the Amazing Spiderman 2, I have to admit that was one hell of a suit! It's a poor start for the MCU Spiderman if my first overwhelming thought is "the Amazing Spiderman 2 design was better"...

Still, judge for yourselves, but for my money- a rare miss for the Marvel camp.

However, for every loser, as Dick Jones informs us, we must also have a winner.

Enter Ben Affleck's Batman.

It's like a goth version of the YMCA

I still insist his inclusion in a Superman crossover is a bad idea, but credit where it's due, Affleck really impressed me in the trailers (I imagine he's shut down many of the neigh-sayers by now), and his suit is a gorgeous bit of design reminiscent of the Frank Miller material. I've already said as much, but I really prefer this stripped-back look to the Nolan / Bale armored design. And the way he takes out the warehouse full of thugs in the final trailer? Well, it actually has me excited enough that I may risk a trip to the cinema for it. I hate to pat myself on the back (who am I kidding, of course I do), but if you reread some of my earlier posts concerning Batman, and what I wrote in the review to Oldboy, this really is a Batman like I said it should be done...

Nolan's Batman was so armored that he looked like a Goth take on Ironman...


On a final note, when the Hell did Batman Vs Superman Dawn of Justice become a film with Aquaman and Wonder Woman in it? The absurdity is mounting. My concern is this, the MCU pulled of its cross-over by sheer force of spectacle, novelty-value and a healthy dose of good humor. Also, every main character was given their own lead-in movie... Comparatively, the DC cinematic universe (DCCU?) is doing the whole 'muture thing' (read: dark and sulky), takes itself waaaaaay too seriously, and is piling in at least 4 big characters alongside Superman before any of them have their own film to shine. Pulling off an 'Avengers Assemble' with a cast full of scowls is probably going to be unintentionally hilarious, but unlikely the effect which DC will be hoping for, and the whole project has a whiff of jealous desperation about it.

To my mind, in both the comic world as well as the cinematic one, DC has always been the stiffer entity, muddling along in the footsteps of it's more lively and energetic rival, and I say that as a big Batman fan (although I can take or leave most of the other DC characters). The crossovers worked for Marvel (worked very well, actually), and now DC wants to prove that it can have the same success... And I always thought the green eyed monster was supposed to be the Hulk?

Anyway, we will have wait and see, won't we?

At the end of this round: Spiderman 0, Batman 1.

Saturday, 5 September 2015

"THIS IS MY GIFT, MY CURSE... WHO AM I? SPIDERMAN!"

Peter Parker (Spiderman)


A pointless bit of theorising. I don't often allow myself this. It doesn't serve any purpose...

But.

I think we've missed the opportunity for a perfect Spiderman film now-days. I've seen all the perfect elements come together, half realised, and drift apart.


Something I photoshopped up. Am I right?

For my money, the perfect Peter Parker, in terms of casting, demeanor, and how the character would fit realistically into a modern setting, has already been pulled off. Sadly, not in a Spiderman film. Aaron Taylor-Johnson's portrayal of Dave Lizewski / Kick-Ass was bang on the money.

Emma Stone makes for a perfect Gwen Stacey, shame the Amazing Spiderman films couldn't do her character justice.

The suit itself has never looked better than in The Amazing Spiderman 2 (that's one hell of a design).

And lastly, can anyone think of a better casting call than Willem Defore as the Green Goblin? Sure, the suit / armor could have been miles better, but the casting itself? Perfect.

And who would I put in the directors chair? In my ideal world Alfons Cuaron would be a solid choice. His career so far involves the best of Harry Potter, Children of Men and Gravity. He understands budgets, character, and can serve up family-friendly and a way that doesn't trivialise or make the material stupid.

So there you have it. 'MY' Spiderman will never be...


The MCU alternative.

Admittedly, the Marvel Cinematic Universe now have the rights back for the Spiderman character, so Garfield is now out and relative unknown Tom Holland is set to take his place. Tom Holland looks to be a good fit (he's nearer the correct age, too), and the MCU does have a good track record, they're quite astute. Even their failures have been interesting... If anyone can do this character right, then surely it has to be Marvel themselves?

Watch this space.

Saturday, 26 May 2012

"YOU'RE A WANTERD MAN, PETER PARKER..."

Gwen Stacey. The Amazing Spiderman (2012)

Oooooh, a 4 minute trailer!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtdgzQWmQFg&feature=relmfu

Just some thoughts on the content.



Obviously, watch the trailer first.

BAD
Meh, getting the feeling I've seen this bridge scene before somewhere? Oh wait, I remember, wasn't there a moment almost exactly like this in the first Raimi Spiderman film?... And giving the kid his mask, I'm not feeling it- forced sentimentality is the worst. And what is it about this guy? He seems to be whipping that fucking mask off every chance he gets! You're wearing the bloody thing to hide your identity- keep it on or don't bother wearing it!

GOOD
I like this costume actually, and I think he moves well in it. Certainly a leaner Spiderman than in the Raimi films, truer to the comics. I like the shape of the eyes too, and 'love it or hate it', he has his web-shooters back.

BAD
Why are the police actually shooting at Spiderman? They don't look like rubber bullets judging by the damage to the wall. Seems a little excessive, no? Considering he's not actually killed anybody or knocked off a bank. Do the police in New York city not have anything better to do with their resources? five hundred men IS excessive, I doubt that many went out looking for the Reservoir Dogs.

GOOD
Nice to see Spiderman getting a bit lippy with the criminals now, rather than the wet-blanket approach of the previous films.

BAD
What the hell have they done with the Lizard? It looks more like the Hulk. Actually, more like the thing that the Hulk fights at the end of the Edward Norton version (was it Abomination?), or even Thing from Fantastic 4. That's disappointing. I can see why they've upped the scale, it certainly looks different to anything in the previous films this way, and it looks very dangerous, but the face just looks a bit, well, 'wrong'. I miss the long crocodile mouth of McFarlane's artwork. At least we see it in a ripped lab-coat for a few moments.

GOOD
Mmmmmm, hello Gwen Stacy. She was always a better love interest than MJ.

BAD
Put away the skateboard you fucking Emo.

WTF?
What the hell was the giant cloud-explosion on top of the tower? Is that plot related?

VERDICT:
Still out. I think this film is on shaky ground, but I'm hoping for the best.


Did you know? For the first Spiderman films, which were eventually handled by Sam Raimi, directors approached for the job include James Cameron and David Fincher. Fincher?!? Now THAT would be a film worth seeing!

Wednesday, 25 April 2012

"HEY, WEB HEAD!"

 "Commencement: the end of one thing, the start of something new." 
Green Goblin. Spiderman (2002).

OK, so anyone I've spoken to before now knows I wasn't exactly over enthusiastic at the talk of a re-boot. I mean, come on, it hardly seems that far back that we got the Raimi films, does it? And in the early release pictures the new suit looked, well, a bit camp (the red looked pink for a start), and why hire an English actor in his mid-twenties to play an American teenager?...

I don't often change my stance on things like this, but I'm actually looking forward to this now.




1/ First off, the suit no longer looks pink, thanks to the on-set tendency for dark lighting. And anyway, end of the day, it's a body tight red and blue gimp suit- it's always going to look a little camp. I'm glad to see a leaner body shape too, and I was never all that impressed with the outfit in Raimi's films anyway- what was with all the silver?

2/ As much as I think Defoe nailed the Green Goblin (the ultimate Spidey villain- bonkers suit or not), my personal favorite has always been The Lizard. While I'm not really an Ifans fan, I have nothing against him and look forward to seeing the final reveal of the creature... I'm hoping to see the more feral McFarlane style monster, so long as they don't drop the ball with the CGI.




3/ Let's face it. On re-watching them the Raimi film's weren't actually all that good were they? Sure, it was nice to see Spiderman on screen, and compared to the benchmark it really didn't have much superhero competition. Times are different now, so maybe it's not such a bad time for a serious re-boot after all?

4/ The parent mystery. Seems a strange place to take the Spiderman origin story, but I'm game. I don't want a remake, I want something different.

I realise I'm probably just writing this for myself. That's OK.



Don't get me wrong, there is still plenty of opportunity for disaster.

I dislike the guy in the lead, Garfield, I don't think he's up to much and I thought his breakout role in Never Let Me Go (or whatever it was) was amateur level. And casting agents- for God's sake, hire an American for an American role! While you're at it, stop paying people in their late teens to play high school kids! If you want to tell the high school years, cast younger, or alternatively (originality, shock horror) Just tell the story of him as an adult, everyone already knows the origin! For me, I quite liked the kid in Kickass, he'd have made a fairly decent Parker- and let's face it, he basically was.



The Lizard (as yet still under wraps despite some grainy leaked test footage) could look awful, and that would sink it. Harsh but true. The CGI for Spiderman leaping around could also prove to be shockingly bad...

Is the girl playing Gwen Stacey (the love interest) going to be irritating? Are they going to stay true to the comic and kill her off, or will she perhaps live to the inevitable sequel?



Why complicate things with the Web-shooters? Yeah, they're in the comic, so what? They were a stupid thing, (controversially) well side-stepped in the Raimi films. In a realistic world, how does that work? And how will they explain Parker's funky new costume this time round? That rarely holds up to scrutiny.

On a final point, thanks largely to Nolan's Batman re-boot, the mood for superheros seems to be dark & edgy, I just hope this dosn't follow suite, but unfortunately that seems to be a very likely possibility, judging by the trailer. While realism and grit is all fine and good, let's not forget that this is Spiderman, not The Crow. Dark worked for Batman because Batman is dark, not all characters need that treatment- just look at the balance struck in the first Ironman film, that worked a treat.

Anyhow, them be my thoughts on the subject, feel free to express yourselves. I'm now down on record as officially excited and you can all tell me how wrong I was if this thing falls flat.

So long, web-heads!