Retro/Modern Review: The Dark Knight Trilogy

      Ah, Batman. Besides Superman, you're easily the longest running comic book film franchise in cinematic history. How many actors have played you now? How many fans have endlessly debated which version of you is the best? The Animated Series is the best television show, I know that much. The Arkham Games are the best video games, that is also certain. But the films are much trickier. While I do have a soft spot for the two Burton films and the first Schumacher film (what can I say, I'm in love with Jim Carrey's Riddler) the best Batman in film is obviously the Chris Nolan trilogy. Now that The Dark Knight Rises is out, and I have seen it three times (being the obsessive fanboy that I am) I have decided that instead of doing just a review of the third film, it would be better to review all three films as one, in order to point out the themes and motifs that run through the films and how they all sync up in order to form one big story.

      Batman Begins is a great way to start the trilogy, and is easily one of the best, if not the best, superhero origin stories in modern cinema. Chris Nolan did a fantastic job in making Batman come off as real, and making all of his gadgets plausible. Using fear as a motif was brilliant, in that it reverberates in everything from Bruce's origin to his motivation to become Batman to the plans of the villains. Speaking of which, Cillian Murphy and Liam Neeson steal their scenes as Scarecrow and Ra's Al Ghul. Christian Bale is fantastic as both Bruce and Batman, and carries the pain of his parent's death on his shoulders magnificently.

     The supporting cast is great too, with Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, and Katie Holmes all delivering excellent performances as Fox, Alfred, Gordon, and Rachael Dawes, respectively. If there are any complaints with the film, it's that the latter half isn't as engaging as the first, with the scenes of Bruce Wayne in the mountains learning to be Batman easily more interesting than when he actually becomes the Caped Crusader (as awesome as it is when he does).

      And then there's The Dark Knight. Wow. For a long time, I proclaimed this as my favorite superhero film, which is ironic considering it doesn't play out like how a hero film normally does. It feels a lot more like a crime drama than a superhero story, even if the main character does dress up like a giant bat. As teased at the end of the first film, The Dark Knight deals principally with the theme of escalation, with Batman's presence in Gotham bringing in The Joker and ultimately corrupting Harvey Dent into Two-Face. Joker and Two-Face are among my favorite Batman villains, and the way they are portrayed here is simply amazing. Aaron Eckhart's fall from grace is not only convincing but tragic to watch, and I actually felt for the guy.

      As for Joker, what is there to say that millions haven't already? Heath Ledger steals every scene he's in, period. I've probably memorized every line of dialogue he utters, and I can't help but root for him knowing full well he's the villain. He's the perfect antithesis to Bale's Batman, and I love his portrayal. Posthumous or not, he deserved that Oscar, and while his death was tragic, at least his performance has truly immortalized him. If there are any flaws with this film, it's that the beginning, for me, doesn't match the mesmerizing twists and tuns of the end. As awesome as the Joker robbing the bank was, as was the scene in Hong Kong, the film doesn't really get going until the big chase scene between Bats and Joker. Everything after that is a treat to watch. Batman flipping over the truck, his interrogation of the Joker, Harvey becoming Two-Face, Batman's fugitive status at the end, all of it is so captivating I can't pull my eyes away whenever I watch it. How in hell could Nolan ever follow this up with something just as good?
 
     I"m glad to say that he did. The Dark Knight Rises heralds the unthinkable: a perfect film trilogy. Not only does this film break the dreaded "third movie curse" that plagues so many film franchises, it actually emerges, I think, as the best of the three Nolan Batman films simply due to its story. And boy, is there a lot of story. Thankfully, unlike films such as the third Spider-Man and X-Men that suffer due to too many plots and characters, Nolan has a better understanding of how to make them all gel together into a cohesive whole. Every character gets their due, and while the resulting run time gets to nearly three hours, the pacing never makes the film feel boring.

     As with its predecessors, Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, and Gary Oldman all deliver stellar performances here. However, I must give significant praise to Caine, who does so much with a role that is radically reduced this time out. His performance is so tearful and heartfelt, and his scenes with Bale really illustrate just how much Alfred cares for Bruce. Bale also gives his best performance out of the three, delivering a Bruce Wayne who's become a recluse after eight long years and is haunted not only by Rachel's death, but how all he accomplished for Gotham was based on a lie.

    And then there's the newcomers, including Tom Hardy as Bane and Anne Hathaway as Catwoman. These two actors completely encapsulate the Bane and Catwoman of the comics, and come off as fully realized characters who own every scene they're in, even if their personalities aren't as magnetic as Ledger's Joker. Hardy's Bane is an extreme terrorist, who conveys malevolence and brute force with every step he takes. He is a more than capable threat for Batman, and the fact that Hardy can convey so much emotion when his face is covered by a mask speaks volumes of his ability to portray this monster of a villain. 


    Hathaway is the Catwoman of the comics, period. She's smart, sexy, and is a perfect match for Bale's Batman. She brings some much needed humor to the proceedings, and just like the comics has her own moral code that makes her walk both sides of the law. She occupies the gray area throughout the film, and Hathaway does such a great job at conveying that moral ambiguity that I'd even go so far as to say she's the definitive live action Catwoman. 


     But they're not the only newcomers to Nolan's Batman universe. Marion Cotillard and Joseph Gordon Levitt are also introduced as Miranda Tate and John Blake, respectively, although the latter half reveals them to be characters fans have been clamoring for in these films for a long time. The revelations of their true identities are expertly staged and come off as shocking twists, even if some fans won't find it surprising. They are (spoiler alert) Talia Al Ghul and Robin, who play major roles in the film when, towards the end, it becomes obvious they are meant to carry on the legacies of Ra's Al Ghul and Batman. 


     The name "Robin" is only referenced; Blake never wears a costume, although he does inherit the Batcave towards the end. Still, his role as a police officer is great here, as he establishes himself as a true hero in his own right who believes in the Batman and sets himself up as the logical successor to Bruce Wayne. As for Cotillard, her Miranda Tate facade is fairly uninteresting, and it is only the twist that she's Talia at the end that makes her character more intriguing. Out of all the characters, she's the only one who doesn't feel fully developed until the big twist at the end, probably because so much is going on that we don't have time to focus on her. 


      Like I previously mentioned, this film is filled with a huge amount of story. Thankfully, Nolan has such talent for presenting even the most convoluted stories in a logical fashion that the film never feels confusing. What I found really impressing, however, is how the story manages to wrap up the loose threads of the first two films and carry those previous themes and motifs to their logical conclusions. Escalation is continued in the form of Bane, who threatens to nuke Gotham and isolates it from the outside world, priming its citizens for urban warfare against Bane's army of criminals. The lie that Bruce and Gordon made to make Gotham a better place is upended as well, with all the characters dealing with the aftereffects of learning the truth behind Harvey Dent's corruption and Rachel's choice to be with him. 


      The motif of fear that drove Bruce to become Batman is, at the start of the film, nonexistent within Bruce. He welcomes death, and so when he becomes Batman again he is unprepared for Bane's ferocity. When Bane, in a moment of pure comic book geekiness, breaks Batman's back and stuffs him in an ancient prison, Bruce has reached the lowest point in his life. He is forced to learn, all over again, about the fear that drove him all those years ago, and by re-learning that fear gains the motivation to truly become Batman again, rising from the hellish pit of the prison and returning to Gotham to save it. Quite literally, "The Dark Knight Rises". 


      All of these themes come together really well to give the saga of Bruce Wayne a proper conclusion, even though the story of Batman, as teased with Levitt's character, has yet to end. As teased in the previous film, Bruce secretly wishes for a normal life beyond Batman, and becomes a recluse in this film because he couldn't move on after Rachel's death. With the introduction of Catwoman, Bruce finds a woman who's a perfect match for him, and at the end he finds peace when he and Catwoman leave to seek a new life together. What's more, he finally becomes the hero that Gotham needs, in that he apparently sacrifices himself to save Gotham from Bane and Talia's nuclear bomb. All of the themes are, by the end, reinforced and played out, culminating in an emotional finale that ends the trilogy on a high note. 


      The actions of Bruce, as well as the characters around him, point to one indisputable fact: by now, Batman has become, as Ra's Al Ghul told Bruce when they first met, "more than just a man. A legend." Now that Batman has risen from the pit, he fulfills the heroic archetype set forth by Joseph Campbell's monomyth, reinforcing the idea that Batman is a modern myth or legend for our time and signifying that even in this modern day and age, we still have a need for heroes. If any new theme or motif were to be introduced in this film, it would be "hope". Hope that we won't give in to evil and corruption, even after a horrific truth is revealed to us, and hope that anyone can rise to greatness after sinking into the depths of despair. In another brilliant way that the new film echoes its origins, Bruce falls so he can learn to pick himself up. 


     Nolan achieved what some say is unacheivable: he pulled off a perfect film trilogy. And how did he do it? Simply, he realized that each sequel has to serve as a natural extension of what came before, so that the three films together coalesce into one big story. The Dark Knight Rises is proof that he understands that, and the way he executed everything, from the story to the characters to the editing to the action (once again amazing as in its predecessors), only further illustrates his genius in bringing what is the first wholly perfect comic book film franchise to the silver screen. Batman is destined to live beyond this trilogy, whether as a continuation or a reboot. But whatever form he takes the next time he graces the cinema, this standalone trilogy by Chris Nolan has cemented itself as one of the best interpretations of the character outside of comics, and with this amazing ending in place, we now have a complete story that will live on for generations to come. 


     

Retro Review: The Spider-Man Film Series

   Since the release of "The Amazing Spider-Man" two weeks ago, I have seen the film a grand total of three times, no doubt due to my massive obsession with the character. This is an obsession I have nursed since I saw "Spider-Man 2" back in '04, the film that served as the catalyst for my love of Spider-Man and superheroes in general. I've made it pretty clear in articles past that I have a deep love for the Sam Raimi trilogy for this reason, but after seeing "Amazing" a couple times, I'm beginning to wonder how it actually compares to the originals. I said in my "Amazing" review that I would analyze the film on its own merits without actively comparing it to the old films. With this article, I intend to do nothing but comparing. I plan on looking back at the original three "Spider-Man" films, what I thought of them then and what I think of them now, and how they stack up compared to the new film. Let us begin.

    The first Spider-Man film is still, in my mind, one of the best superhero films out there. The storyline is simple but effective, the cast is excellent, the action fantastic, and there is something awe inspiring about seeing Spider-Man come to life on screen for the first time. Tobey Maguire is very likable as Peter Parker, and manages to convey the shyness that pervades the character as well as his intelligence and awkwardness.

    The rest of the cast, from Kirsten Dunst's Mary Jane and James Franco's Harry Osborn, to Rosemarry Harris's Aunt May and Cliff Robertson's Uncle Ben, all do a magnificent job of bringing Peter's friends and family to life. However, performance wise I must give significant praise to Willem Dafoe's Norman Osborn/Green Goblin and J.K. Simmons' J. Jonah Jameson. Simmons is a standout, both in this film and its two sequels, and brings an enormous amount of humor to the film. Dafoe's Green Goblin makes for a credible antagonist, delivering an over the top performance that is nonetheless threatening.

    While the cast may shine, there are some aspects of the film that seem extremely dated after only ten years. The action, while still effective, suffers from CGI that doesn't quite hold up now as it did back then. The citizens of New York seem too overtly friendly, but then again this was released in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, so I guess I can let that slide. And then, of course, there's the Green Goblin suit. While I love what Dafoe brought to the character, the look of the Goblin is probably the biggest detriment to the film. Dafoe may come off as scary, but the costume does not. When Spidey and the Goblin fight, it feels like something from a Saturday morning cartoon. In a time when hero/villain battles are becoming increasingly more sophisticated on film, these battles seem rather childish by comparison.

     However, as a piece of nostalgia, the film still works, not to mention it still does a fantastic job of portraying the origin of Spider-Man and, by the end, is just as effective as a standalone film as it is setting up for its sequels. Fans waited forty years to see this iconic hero brought to life, and for the first film ever to feature the character, it does a more than capable job of introducing him to new generations while remaining true to what makes him so appealing in the first place.

     I am in love with this film. Even eight years after seeing it for the first time, this film still largely holds up and is easily the best of the Raimi trilogy. All the major cast members return and give more layered performances, while the plot goes deeper into the mythos and serves as a logical extension of the plot threads left dangling in the first film. In terms of the villain, Alfred Molina's Doctor Octopus is a much better antagonist than the Green Goblin. Not only is Molina pitch perfect as Doc Ock, visually he is much more threatening than the silly look of the Goblin. He gives the film a tangible threat, and the battles between him and Spidey are the highlights not only of the film, but of the entire trilogy. They still hold up almost a decade later.

      That is not to say it's completely perfect, or devoid of criticism. Mary Jane's fiance, John Jameson, has no real personality or character to him, which is puzzling considering his father is by far the trilogy's most memorable character. The romance could be developed better, since Peter's insistence on staying away from MJ plays out as being too angsty. That said, Peter's motivations for quitting Spider-Man and resuming the mantle are excellent, and all around the film is near flawless. Maybe it's nostalgia talking, but I honestly can't find a lot to complain about this film. It still holds up for me whenever I watch it, and I get completely sucked in to the problems facing these characters. This is one of those rare examples in cinema where the sequel is actually better than the original. It improves on its predecessor in every way, and I couldn't enjoy it more. 

      
    I have very mixed feelings when it comes to this film. It is certainly the weakest of the Raimi films; that much is certain. However, there is a dedicated fanbase online who claims that this movie is the next Batman and Robin. While there are scenes and plot elements that certainly support this claim, even after seeing it again I can't say I hate this film the same way I hate that aforementioned stain on the Batman legacy. 


    The problems plaguing the film definitely stem from having too many plot threads going on at once. While the last two films were building to a confrontation between Peter and Harry, this movie shoves it to the sidelines to make room for new plots involving Sandman and Venom, who frankly are underdeveloped and don't come off as worthy antagonists, even though they both look fantastic. Venom in particular gets the shaft, with the symbiote storyline thrown in haphazardly and ultimately made a mockery of with the little song and dance number midway through the film, not only ruining Venom but making Peter into the world's biggest jackass as well. Giving the most popular Spider-Man villain fifteen minutes of screen time comes off as glorified fanservice, and ruins what could have been potentially the best story arc to run through the Spider-Man films. 


   The excuse to put Sandman into the movie completely rewrites the perfectly fine origin set up for Spidey in the first film, and as a result the villain Raimi obviously cared about the most comes off as more of a victim for Spidey to use as a punching bag than a legitimate threat to worry about. Harry's storyline is not given the justice it deserves, with Harry going from villain to best friend back and forth multiple times without any sense of conviction, not to mention his motivation towards the end is the result of another pointless retcon of the first film. 


    Not only do the villain storylines fall flat, but the romance between Peter and MJ that was so poignant the first two times plays more like a bad soap opera here. The chemistry between the leads is gone, replaced with excessive whining and a sense of tiredness between the actors. Multiple times did I ask myself: "are these two really in love? Is MJ really so perfect Peter would risk his life three consecutive times to save her?" The introduction of the Stacys feels pointless, as neither Gwen or her father are given much to do and we never get to really know them as characters. 

     When I first saw this film in theaters I loved it, but multiple viewings really exposed the flaws to me. So when reviewing a film like this, knowing full well it has a lot of things going against it, I have to ask myself is there anything good about it? What redeems this film in my eyes? Well, while Sandman and Venom may not have been done right as characters, their origin sequences are still fantastic, not only as CGI showcases but the only real insights we get into them as characters. I understand Eddie Brock's shame at being humiliated in the church, and when the symbiote envelopes him the transformation feels real: instantly he feels a rush in power and embraces the chance for vengeance. 


     Sandman's transformation, on the other hand, highlights the differences between him and Venom in that he doesn't want this power, but after seeing the monster he becomes decides to use it for the sake of his daughter. It's a beautiful sequence that I love watching. In addition, the action scenes are still breathtakilng, and J.K. Simmons' Jameson is still hilarious to watch. Overall, I'd say that the film has a couple amazing moments, but ultimately it's let down by the fact that it consists of moments only, and unlike the last two doesn't work as a cohesive whole due to all the plot points running around. The amount of story in this film alone had the potential for two movies, but Raimi's and the studio's insistence that all the plots be shoved into one film to give the series closure doomed it to mediocrity. It has enough moments that make me see the potential it had, but ultimately I can't call it a good film. Not terrible, not the worst ever, but not up to the level of the first two, and a definite disappointment. No wonder Sony decided to reboot after the film's reception. Speaking of which...

      
   I already posted my review of this film, so there's no need to go into detail about what I thought about the story, the action, or the characters. There is, however, a need to finally talk about how this film compares to the original trilogy, and whether or not I think it's better, worse, or simply just as good acting as an alternative interpretation of the character.

   In a lot of ways, "Amazing" is a vast improvement over its predecessors. Webb may not have the love and passion for Spider-Man that Sam Raimi had, but he certainly knows how to find the raw emotion that drives the Spider-Man mythos. Andrew Garfield is an infinitely better Peter Parker and Spider-Man than Tobey Maguire, since he captures the intelligence and humor of the character better than Maguire did. The Stacys feel like actual characters this time around, as opposed to SM3, and Gwen has infinitely better chemistry with Garfield than Maguire did with Dunst, not to mention Gwen actually contributes to helping defeat the Lizard instead of acting as a hostage. The Lizard, speaking of which, is a worthy antagonist. While I still think Doc Ock is the best film villain for the strength of his performance and character arc, Lizard was both visually intimidating and a great sympathetic character, so I would put him just above Goblin in terms of his effectiveness as a villain.

    However, the comparison I think is most important is how effective is this film as an origin compared to the original. Is this, ultimately, a better character arc for Peter than the first movie? I think so. While the first film adapted the origin from the comics exactly, the new film has Peter learn the importance of responsibility through direct action, instead of feeling guilty for failing to stop his uncle's killer. New Peter still lets the killer get away, but instead of wallowing in grief and immediately using his powers selflessly, he goes on a revenge spree until the bridge incident, which forces him to realize he needs to be more responsible with his gifts. New Peter initially thinks he can honor his uncle by taking in the guy who killed him, but comes to realize it's better to embody his ideals on responsibility. The same story arc, only told with more emotional resonance and realism. I felt like New Peter went on a better journey and experienced more growth than the old Peter did, and for that reason I realize that this film is better than the first film as an origin tale.

     Now don't get me wrong: I still love the old films, and the origin from the first film is still well told. However, the new origin seems more realistic from a contemporary point of view, and portrays a Peter that is not only more likable but struggles with real world problems. We get a better sense as to why an ordinary teenager would devote his life to superheroism. The first film was good as an introduction to the Spider-Man character and selling the epic grandeur of his world, but the new film is better at exploring relationships and experiences between characters. In my mind, it is better than the first and third films, and just as good as Spider-Man 2. The original trilogy was good for its time, and while some might consider the reboot premature, I am fully on board with this new iteration of Peter Parker. Compared to the first three, the new film is a worthy entry in the Spider-Man series that is deserving of carrying on the original trilogy's legacy. It is ready to tell a new story with an old character, one that may outshine the originals but doesn't negate the impact of what came before, or the significance.

The Amazing Spider-Man review

   I'm going to be frank: this is a very difficult film to review for me. Words cannot describe how much Spider-Man means to me as a character. I remember, eight years ago, when I sat down in a dark theater and watched Spider-Man 2 for the first time. That was my first superhero movie. The film that got me not only into the Spider-Man mythos, but into the world of comic books in general. I owe the entire Raimi trilogy a huge debt, for they set a standard for me by which I compared all other superhero films until the release of Avengers and Dark Knight.


   While those films are better in terms of quality than the Raimi films, I still hold the Raimi trilogy very close to my heart. Now comes this reboot, clearly existing only for Sony to keep the rights away from Disney. Knowing that this was a reboot too soon,  when I went in to see this film I swore to analyze it on its own terms. So many "professional" critics give this film a bad rep simply for this reason. Well, these are the same concerns fans have voiced since the film was announced, and that was two years ago. I may not like the idea of going back to square one, but I've made peace with it, so I've decided to review this film not on how it ranks to the previous trilogy, but how well it does as a standalone film and as a proper interpretation of the Peter Parker character and his extensive mythology.

    Right off the bat, let me say that the filmmakers made the right choice with Marc Webb as director. Webb's only previous film is 500 Days of Summer, and while I've not seen it, I hear it's one of the best indie romances in quite a while. Anyone who has read the Spider-Man comics knows that, at heart, amid all the big hero battles, Spider-Man is supposed to be an indie romance, and Marc Webb really understands this. While it may seem pointless to redo the origin, it does afford Webb the opportunity to spend more time with our characters and get to know them better, not to mention show off his talents as a master at presenting relationships. Thanks to him, we get a clear interpretation of Peter Parker.

    Ah, Peter Parker. Out of all the comic book characters, his is the one I relate to the most. The new Peter, Andrew Garfield, seems to understand this, as he is by far the better Peter Parker (no offense to Tobey Maguire). Garfield plays Peter as a loner by choice, the result of being abandoned by his parents at a young age. In a time when nerds and geeks are considered "cool", making Peter a willing outcast makes a lot of sense. He's at a time in his life where he's trying to find himself, starting with discovering what happened to his parents.

   Garfield stutters and comes off as incredibly shy as Peter Parker and plays him with a darker edge, again the result of his loner status. As Spider-Man, he is simply fantastic, as we finally get the wisecracking Spidey we know from the comics. He's smart enough to invent his own webshooters (yes!) and he just exudes Spidey with his classic poses and the way he acts in combat. I would go so far as to say that, as both Peter and Spidey, Garfield's role is definitive. He wasn't kidding when he said he is enormously passionate for the character, since the Spider-Man he presented is the Spider-Man I've grown to love from the comic books.

   Not only does Garfield do a magnificent job, but Webb had enough insight to surround him with a supporting cast that truly encapsulated the characters from the comics. Emma Stone is the perfect Gwen Stacy. She's gorgeous, intelligent, and has amazing chemistry with Garfield. A scene where the two of them try to make plans for a date and end up stumbling with their words is a treat to watch, because it feels like something two teenagers would actually say. Plus, Gwen contributes to the plot, and isn't there just to play damsel in distress.

   Dennis Leary plays her father, Captain George Stacy, who for the majority of the film acts as the J. Jonah Jameson substitute as he tries to bring Spidey to justice. Leary plays the character well, as he goes from enemy to supporter of Spider-Man and comes to understand why there is a need for superheroes when the police can't handle the situation. His relationship with Gwen is great too, as they really play like a true father and daughter.

   Then there's the Parkers. Aunt May and Uncle Ben were pitch perfect in this film, especially the great Martin Sheen as Ben. He acts as an excellent mentor to Garfield's Peter, and while it may seem familiar, his death scene was very tragic and emotional thanks to the loving father figure Sheen wholly embodied. A scene, post-death, where Peter replays a voice message Ben sent him before he died was a clever way to illustrate how torn up Peter feels about losing his uncle. As for Aunt May, Sally Field played the character well. She was definitely loving enough, always looking out for Peter's well-being and freaking out when he comes home late at night with scars and bruises (whether or not she actually realizes he's Spider-Man at the end is anyone's guess, though).

   And then there's the villain: Rhys Ifans as Dr. Curt Connors, aka the Lizard, a villain I've been waiting to see on screen for years. Ifans plays Connors as the sympathetic man from the comics, obsessed with regrowing his arm and developing warped ideals on what's best for humanity once he goes full lizard. The look of the villain is fantastic. While it may not have a snout, the Lizard's humanoid face allows him to emote better, and he still comes off as a legitimate threat. Plus, he wears a lab coat at one point. How could I not be excited? His plan to mutate the city into an army of Lizards was straight from the comics as well, and the overall presentation made the Lizard an excellent antagonist to Garfield's Spidey.

    There is no doubt in my mind that the direction and cast for this movie was, dare I say it, amazing. The story, however, does seem a little familiar, in that it borrows several plot elements from the previous trilogy. I know I said I would analyze the film on its own merits, but making a reboot ten years after the original is bound to draw comparisons. This film has the spider bite, the bullying, death of the uncle, a green villain connected to Oscorp, a funeral at the end, and even elements from the sequels, with an antagonist who is initially against Spidey helping him against the villain after unmasking him only to end up dying and Spidey even spending part of the film tracking down his uncle's killer.

   With all of this said, the film still delivers in terms of story. It's not that the story beats are similar, it's that the way they're presented are so different that we emerge with a character arc for Peter that is fundamentally different from the old films yet at the same time doesn't betray the core concept of who Spider-Man is. Uncle Ben's death and Peter's origin as Spider-Man are the principle examples of this.

   The vanishing of Peter's parents becomes the catalyst for the film, in that it causes Peter to go searching for clues that ultimately lead him to Oscorp and his transformation into Spider-Man, not to mention the eventual transformation of Connors into the Lizard when Peter gives him the regeneration formula his father came up with. When Uncle Ben dies, it once again is the result of Peter failing to act when a crime was in progress. However, Peter's right there when the death happens, and the killer gets away. His guilt over his uncle's death is immediately channeled into a desire for vengeance, and this becomes his initial motivator to become Spider-Man. However, he begins to learn how to be a proper hero and use his powers responsibly thanks to a scene on a bridge following Lizard's first change, that has Peter giving a child a confidence boost when he gives him his mask. 

    It is then that Peter realizes that Spider-Man can be about so much more than vengeance, and that he has a responsibility to protect the city and stop the Lizard, which he had a hand in creating. The immediate threat of the Lizard plays more on his new role as Spider-Man, and therefore takes precedence over what happened to his parents or his uncle's killer. Those are personal threads that will be resolved when the time is right, but the point of the film is to put personal goals aside for the greater good. Any true Spider-Man fan would know this is the moral of the character, one which was portrayed perfectly in the previous trilogy and is portrayed equally well here, if only through a different interpretation. Thus, the personal arcs about Peter's dead family members are left behind to focus on the arc that develops Peter as he comes to embrace Spider-Man as a part of his identity.

    Realizing this, I have come to wholly embrace this new film as a fantastic take on the Spider-Man mythos, one that establishes its own identity away from the Raimi films despite the familiarity but still keeps the core concept of the character intact. Everything is modernized, and there is a grittiness and a touch of realism to the proceedings, but the film still knows how to have fun when it wants to. It's hard not to fall in love with Parker and Stacy as a couple, not to mention how Garfield finally embodies the wisecracking Spider-Man we know from the comics who assaults his enemies with puns as well as punches. Of course, the action is also a huge contributor to this film's entertainment value.  Peter's movements make him seem like a real spider, and the choreography of his web slinging and fights with criminals and the Lizard are very impressive.

    All in all, this is an excellent addition to the Spider-Man film franchise, one that sets up a new Peter Parker and a new story arc for a new generation. It may seem like the wild card this summer sandwiched between Avengers and Dark Knight Rises, but this Spider-Man cannot be overlooked. At the end of the day, I'm glad to see my all time favorite superhero back on the big screen, and reinterpreted in a way that remains faithful to who the character is and why he has stood the test of time for the last fifty years.