dev_chieftain (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
dev_chieftain) wrote2012-07-03 02:17 pm
dev_chieftain) wrote2012-07-03 02:17 pm
So, the Amazing Spiderman
It was pretty good! I personally think it was better than the other Spiderman movies. Much less heavy handed in most places (I'll get to that in a minute).
The short, non-spoilery review is pretty simple: Good performances, decent script. Nicely done! I liked it.
The spoilery version is funnier but, you know, spoilers. This is a pretty highly anticipated movie so I wouldn't want to ruin it for anybody who hasn't gone yet and is going to go.
Anyway! Here are the pros:
-Someone figured out that sympathetic villains are more interesting than people who are impossible to reason with. Woo! So the villain is actually pretty rad.
-Peter's got his fair share of guilt, but not more than. Peter Parker has always been a dick, but he's only getting punished equivalent to his dickhood here, and the moments where he realizes that he'd really rather be a genuinely good person are nice.
-Pretty good comedy
-Liked the handling of the bully scenes and resolution of that situation without glorifying counter-bullying.
-The Construction Workers' Code of Honor = way more entertaining / less corny than "we's New Yorkers and we stick together!"
-I really like Emma Stone
Here are the cons:
-Fake science is still patently and simply fake (Look, we all know about the lizard tails, and I think most of us know that "regenerative" lizard tails are actually just cartilage and blood, not nerves, bones and muscles; as someone who's genuinely interested in the medical science behind stem cell research and research into things like cloning organs to help provide viable, healthy organs to transplant into persons suffering from chronic disorders, I think it would behoove the writers of a comic book movie to try a teensy weensy little bit harder to research what actual science is investigating right now about potentially regrowing lost limbs. I remember reading a story two years ago about treatments using some kind of pig's stomach cells or something that successfully regrew a guy's missing finger. WITH bone, muscle, nerves, etc! So if it's actually scientifically being explored right now, it's not like the writer couldn't have, I don't know, researched it a bit.)
-Peter Parker actor kid, if you "cutely" do the "shy" thing where you shake your head mutely like a "loveable dog", I will put a collar on you and make you sleep at the foot of the bed. Look people in the eye and talk to them, don't act like a beaten puppy! (This was like, a kind of okay character quirk at the beginning, but it quickly got overdone).
Other than that, I didn't really have any qualms with the movie. I think they did a good job of wrapping up enough not to piss people off if they don't get a sequel, while setting up enough of the setting and the characters to make a sequel viable and possible. Of course, the movie could have used more female characters and characters of color, but it wasn't totally backwards, and I don't really look to Spiderman for being the paragon of equality in representation anyway. Still, it doesn't have the two named female characters interact with each other, and there was only one person of color who had enough speaking lines to really be called a character.
I'm actually kind of curious how one can slice a movie that revolves around the premise of a disabled man seeking to "cure" all disabilities forever with genetic splicing research. Is it abilism because he's basically saying that no one should have to be disabled, or is he championing the idea of equality for disabled persons by seeking to make them no longer disabled? (It wasn't very clear if he meant to take on mental disorders; it sounded like he pretty much was focused squarely on physical conditions that debilitate affected persons.) I think he had a right to want to be able to get his hand back, but I also thought the framing was a bit on the insensitive side. This is a guy who's so unaffected by his disability that he's making millions working as a top research scientist for a (made-up) global empire with the money to keep him living comfortably for the rest of his life, while most people suffering from a disability might actually find it difficult to get employment, let alone such lucrative employment.
I liked the film, but I'm a little concerned that the handling of that part of the story could be poor. Not being disabled myself, I don't think I'm the right person to judge because I don't have to live with this every day. I really don't know if it would offend someone living with a disability.
The short, non-spoilery review is pretty simple: Good performances, decent script. Nicely done! I liked it.
The spoilery version is funnier but, you know, spoilers. This is a pretty highly anticipated movie so I wouldn't want to ruin it for anybody who hasn't gone yet and is going to go.
Anyway! Here are the pros:
-Someone figured out that sympathetic villains are more interesting than people who are impossible to reason with. Woo! So the villain is actually pretty rad.
-Peter's got his fair share of guilt, but not more than. Peter Parker has always been a dick, but he's only getting punished equivalent to his dickhood here, and the moments where he realizes that he'd really rather be a genuinely good person are nice.
-Pretty good comedy
-Liked the handling of the bully scenes and resolution of that situation without glorifying counter-bullying.
-The Construction Workers' Code of Honor = way more entertaining / less corny than "we's New Yorkers and we stick together!"
-I really like Emma Stone
Here are the cons:
-Fake science is still patently and simply fake (Look, we all know about the lizard tails, and I think most of us know that "regenerative" lizard tails are actually just cartilage and blood, not nerves, bones and muscles; as someone who's genuinely interested in the medical science behind stem cell research and research into things like cloning organs to help provide viable, healthy organs to transplant into persons suffering from chronic disorders, I think it would behoove the writers of a comic book movie to try a teensy weensy little bit harder to research what actual science is investigating right now about potentially regrowing lost limbs. I remember reading a story two years ago about treatments using some kind of pig's stomach cells or something that successfully regrew a guy's missing finger. WITH bone, muscle, nerves, etc! So if it's actually scientifically being explored right now, it's not like the writer couldn't have, I don't know, researched it a bit.)
-Peter Parker actor kid, if you "cutely" do the "shy" thing where you shake your head mutely like a "loveable dog", I will put a collar on you and make you sleep at the foot of the bed. Look people in the eye and talk to them, don't act like a beaten puppy! (This was like, a kind of okay character quirk at the beginning, but it quickly got overdone).
Other than that, I didn't really have any qualms with the movie. I think they did a good job of wrapping up enough not to piss people off if they don't get a sequel, while setting up enough of the setting and the characters to make a sequel viable and possible. Of course, the movie could have used more female characters and characters of color, but it wasn't totally backwards, and I don't really look to Spiderman for being the paragon of equality in representation anyway. Still, it doesn't have the two named female characters interact with each other, and there was only one person of color who had enough speaking lines to really be called a character.
I'm actually kind of curious how one can slice a movie that revolves around the premise of a disabled man seeking to "cure" all disabilities forever with genetic splicing research. Is it abilism because he's basically saying that no one should have to be disabled, or is he championing the idea of equality for disabled persons by seeking to make them no longer disabled? (It wasn't very clear if he meant to take on mental disorders; it sounded like he pretty much was focused squarely on physical conditions that debilitate affected persons.) I think he had a right to want to be able to get his hand back, but I also thought the framing was a bit on the insensitive side. This is a guy who's so unaffected by his disability that he's making millions working as a top research scientist for a (made-up) global empire with the money to keep him living comfortably for the rest of his life, while most people suffering from a disability might actually find it difficult to get employment, let alone such lucrative employment.
I liked the film, but I'm a little concerned that the handling of that part of the story could be poor. Not being disabled myself, I don't think I'm the right person to judge because I don't have to live with this every day. I really don't know if it would offend someone living with a disability.