Andrew Garfield throws a fit when spotting the paps with pal Tom Sturridge

Hollywood never learns from its own mistakes. Partially what made Sam Raimi’s ‘Spiderman 3’ so bad was the overloading of villains. That, and the stupid Venom story the studio forced him to include. Then BAM, in order to keep the movie rights to the character, Sony scrambled to put out a new Spidey film on time. Instead of respecting moviegoers’ intelligence even a little, they gave us another origin story like we weren’t going to complain. With ‘The Amazing Spiderman 2,’ we go back to my first sentence about being incapable of learning. The movie was a silly mismash of “anti-cinema” with way too many villains and missed opportunities. Even star Andrew Garfield had to admit to its failure, but not in a way I just did. He actually dropped an F-Bomb and mentioned penises. I’d never do that to you.


Chatting with The Daily Beast about this, that, and the other thing, eventually they got around to asking him about ‘Spidey 2.’ He started out mellow with his answers, but when asked why he was taken aback by the critical response, he had this to say:

“What are the people actually saying? What’s underneath the complaint, and how can we learn from that? We can’t go, ‘Oh God, we fucked up because all these people are saying all these things. It’s shit.’ We have to ask ourselves, ‘What do we believe to be true?’ Is it that this is the fifth Spider-Man movie in however many years, and there’s a bit of fatigue? Is it that there was too much in there? Is it that it didn’t link? If it linked seamlessly, would that be too much? Were there tonal issues? What is it? I think all that is valuable. Constructive criticism is different from people just being dicks, and I love constructive criticism. Hopefully, we can get underneath what the criticism was about, and if we missed anything.”

When asked what he felt the real problems were with the film, he kinda went on to answer his own questions. Just with less colorful language.

“It’s interesting. I read a lot of the reactions from people and I had to stop because I could feel I was getting away from how I actually felt about it. For me, I read the script…and I genuinely loved it. There was this thread running through it. I think what happened was, through the pre-production, production, and post-production, when you have something that works as a whole, and then you start removing portions of it—because there was even more of it than was in the final cut, and everything was related. Once you start removing things and saying, ‘No, that doesn’t work,’ then the thread is broken, and it’s hard to go with the flow of the story. Certain people at the studio had problems with certain parts of it, and ultimately the studio is the final say in those movies because they’re the tentpoles, so you have to answer to those people.”

If anything, Garfield makes sure you know that it wasn’t his fault. He also helps us understand things we already knew: studios ruin movies. Their first mistake was rebooting the series. Their second mistake was adding too many villains. Then they did all these things here. But also, when he talks about all that extra editing going on, isn’t he kind of taking a shot at the director of this piece of shit? Meh, whatever. I’ve seen movies suck before and have more or less washed my hands of anything Spiderman.


Via – The Daily Beast



Category: Comics, Film

Tags: , , ,

Comments are closed.