This Is Why You Can’t Play Frisbee With Cookie Monster. 

My Workout For Tuesday January 21

I earned 728 points for my workout on Fitocracy!

Stretching +2 pts

0:10:00 (+2 pts)

Pull-Up +8 pts

12 reps || assisted || 145 lb (+2 pts)

6 reps || assisted || 130 lb (+2 pts)

4 reps || assisted || 130 lb (+2 pts)

4 reps || assisted || 130 lb (+2 pts)

Bent Over Barbell Row +112 pts

55 lb x 12 reps (+26 pts)

65 lb x 12 reps (+28 pts)

75 lb x 10 reps (+29 pts)

75 lb x 10 reps (+29 pts)

Upright Barbell Row +93 pts

55 lb x 12 reps (+23 pts)

65 lb x 10 reps (+24 pts)

65 lb x 9 reps (+23 pts)

65 lb x 9 reps (+23 pts)

Plank +20 pts

30 sec (+10 pts)

30 sec (+10 pts)

Stiff-Legged Barbell Deadlift +199 pts

55 lb x 12 reps (+46 pts)

65 lb x 12 reps (+49 pts)

75 lb x 10 reps (+52 pts)

75 lb x 10 reps (+52 pts)

Side Plank +42 pts

30 sec (+21 pts)

30 sec (+21 pts)

Dumbbell Shrug +75 pts

20 lb x 12 reps (+18 pts)

25 lb x 12 reps (+19 pts)

30 lb x 10 reps (+19 pts)

30 lb x 10 reps (+19 pts)

Reverse Crunch +76 pts

15 reps (+19 pts)

15 reps (+19 pts)

15 reps (+19 pts)

15 reps (+19 pts)

Dumbbell Bicep Curl +101 pts

15 lb x 12 reps (+26 pts)

20 lb x 12 reps (+27 pts)

25 lb x 6 reps (+25 pts)

25 lb x 5 reps (+23 pts)

Think you can beat me, or want to comment?

Fitocracy is the social fitness community that has helped hundreds of thousands level up their fitness. Start your fitness transformation today!

Now available for free on both iPhone and Android!

My Workout For Tuesday January 07

I earned 614 points for my workout on Fitocracy!

Reverse Crunch +53 pts

15 reps (+19 pts)

15 reps (+19 pts)

12 reps (+15 pts)

Plank +30 pts

30 sec (+10 pts)

30 sec (+10 pts)

30 sec (+10 pts)

Side Plank +42 pts

20 sec (+14 pts)

20 sec (+14 pts)

20 sec (+14 pts)

Chin-Up +8 pts

12 reps || assisted || 145 lb (+2 pts)

8 reps || assisted || 130 lb (+2 pts)

6 reps || assisted || 130 lb (+2 pts)

4 reps || assisted || 115 lb (+2 pts)

Dips - Triceps Version +8 pts

12 reps || assisted || 145 lb (+2 pts)

5 reps || assisted || 130 lb (+2 pts)

6 reps || assisted || 130 lb (+2 pts)

4 reps || assisted || 115 lb (+2 pts)

Bent Over Two-Dumbbell Row +165 pts

20 lb x 12 reps (+41 pts)

30 lb x 10 reps (+43 pts)

30 lb x 8 reps (+41 pts)

30 lb x 7 reps (+40 pts)

Dumbbell Bench Press +208 pts

30 lb x 12 reps (+49 pts)

40 lb x 10 reps (+55 pts)

40 lb x 8 reps (+53 pts)

40 lb x 7 reps (+51 pts)

Dumbbell Bicep Curl +98 pts

15 lb x 12 reps (+26 pts)

20 lb x 8 reps (+25 pts)

20 lb x 7 reps (+25 pts)

20 lb x 5 reps (+22 pts)

Stretching +2 pts

0:10:00 (+2 pts)

Think you can beat me, or want to comment?

Fitocracy is the social fitness community that has helped hundreds of thousands level up their fitness. Start your fitness transformation today!

Now available for free on both iPhone and Android!

My Workout For Tuesday January 28

I earned 680 points for my workout on Fitocracy!

Bent Over Barbell Row +118 pts

55 lb x 12 reps (+26 pts)

75 lb x 12 reps (+30 pts)

85 lb x 10 reps (+31 pts)

85 lb x 10 reps (+31 pts)

Pull-Up +6 pts

12 reps || assisted || 145 lb (+2 pts)

6 reps || assisted || 130 lb (+2 pts)

2 reps || assisted || 115 lb (+2 pts)

Dumbbell Bicep Curl +100 pts

15 lb x 12 reps (+26 pts)

25 lb x 8 reps (+26 pts)

25 lb x 5 reps (+23 pts)

25 lb x 6 reps (+25 pts)

Stretching +2 pts

0:10:00 (+2 pts)

Dumbbell Shrug +79 pts

25 lb x 12 reps (+19 pts)

35 lb x 12 reps (+20 pts)

40 lb x 10 reps (+20 pts)

40 lb x 10 reps (+20 pts)

Stiff-Legged Barbell Deadlift +202 pts

55 lb x 12 reps (+46 pts)

75 lb x 10 reps (+52 pts)

75 lb x 10 reps (+52 pts)

75 lb x 10 reps (+52 pts)

Upright Barbell Row +91 pts

45 lb x 12 reps (+21 pts)

65 lb x 10 reps (+24 pts)

65 lb x 9 reps (+23 pts)

65 lb x 8 reps (+23 pts)

Reverse Crunch +82 pts

17 reps (+22 pts)

17 reps (+22 pts)

15 reps (+19 pts)

15 reps (+19 pts)

Think you can beat me, or want to comment?

Fitocracy is the social fitness community that has helped hundreds of thousands level up their fitness. Start your fitness transformation today!

Now available for free on both iPhone and Android!

A Focus on the Basics

A new year has begun.  It is a time for reflection, a time for nostalgia, and a time for motivation.

2013 was the craziest year of my life so far.  It was an emotional and visceral roller-coaster from which I learned a lot about myself, about what I want and need.  As I look back, I realize the one thing that I need to start doing in my life if I want to succeed as a professional, as a husband, and as me --- focus on the basics.

In 2012, I was scared that I was stagnating professionally, worried that I was going to be stuck in autopilot and become the unambitious, listless worker everyone fears to be for the rest of his or her life.  I went to graduate school to gain a deeper understanding of my engineering interests, and it was frittering away.  It affected my personal life as well --- I became less productive at home and started to believe that I wasn't living up to the husband I wanted to be.  By the end of 2012, I took a risk and left my job for another with the promise of a real challenge.  There was a lot of thought and deliberation for that decision, and I can honestly say it was a great decision.

However, my stagnation concerns returned, and inward crept the fears again.  My job took more and more of my time, and I felt like I was neglecting my personal life.  I wrote film critiques and played guitar less and less, I struggled keeping in touch with friends and family, and I rarely stopped to look and appreciate where my life had taken me.  My fitness level dropped like a stone in water, and every time I tried to restart working out, something would come up that would take me out of it.

On the professional side, it wasn't a fear that I was wasting my knowledge away, but a fear that I would never be an equal to my co-workers and respected by my superiors.  For every step forward that I took, I felt that there was something that would happen that would knock me two steps backward.  Every time that happened, I looked at myself and wondered whether I should have become an engineer.  I thought I was growing at a snail's pace while everyone else was significantly further along.  The challenge was winning. 

As 2014 begins, I realize that perceived lack of growth is just that --- perceived.  I have grown significantly throughout 2013, and thankfully only a small percentage of that is my weight.  I still have a long way to go, but the hindrance is me.  I'm so focused on gaining advanced knowledge and skills that I've neglected basic principles.  I want to play hard guitar songs without practicing my scales and learning my modes.  I want to be five years down the road personally and professionally so badly that I forget to learn how to live and work now.

So, starting in 2014, I will strive harder to find the work-life balance.  I will improve my fitness to be as good as, if not better than, it was my first year of marriage.  I will focus on learning and memorizing the engineering basics so that I have a foundation of knowledge that won't be on mental sand.  I will learn to understand that I will fail several times before I succeed.  I will play my scales and modes so that my fingers stay nimble enough for playing along with my songs.  I will find a little bit of time to read leisurely, regardless of how long it takes me to finish a book.  I will write more film critiques and complete the cycle of Star Wars critiques I began a couple of years ago.  I will stop and take stock in the life that I have so that I have a solid foundation for the life I will have.  For all who read this, please hold me accountable.  I know I can't do this alone, but I know that I can do this.

My Workout For Thursday January 16

I earned 723 points for my workout on Fitocracy!

Bent Over Two-Dumbbell Row +86 pts

25 lb x 12 reps (+42 pts)

30 lb x 12 reps (+44 pts)

Side Plank +17 pts

25 sec (+17 pts)

Dumbbell Bicep Curl +104 pts

15 lb x 12 reps (+26 pts)

20 lb x 12 reps (+27 pts)

20 lb x 10 reps (+26 pts)

20 lb x 8 reps (+25 pts)

Plank +7 pts

20 sec (+7 pts)

Reverse Crunch +68 pts

15 reps (+19 pts)

15 reps (+19 pts)

12 reps (+15 pts)

12 reps (+15 pts)

Dumbbell Shrug +73 pts

15 lb x 12 reps (+17 pts)

20 lb x 12 reps (+18 pts)

25 lb x 12 reps (+19 pts)

30 lb x 10 reps (+19 pts)

Upright Barbell Row +93 pts

55 lb x 12 reps (+23 pts)

65 lb x 10 reps (+24 pts)

65 lb x 8 reps (+23 pts)

65 lb x 8 reps (+23 pts)

Cycling (stationary) +19 pts

0:05:00 || 1.1 mi (+19 pts)

Stiff-Legged Barbell Deadlift +190 pts

45 lb x 12 reps (+43 pts)

55 lb x 12 reps (+46 pts)

65 lb x 12 reps (+49 pts)

75 lb x 10 reps (+52 pts)

Bent Over Barbell Row +56 pts

65 lb x 12 reps (+28 pts)

75 lb x 8 reps (+28 pts)

Stretching +2 pts

0:10:00 (+2 pts)

Pull-Up +8 pts

12 reps || assisted || 145 lb (+2 pts)

6 reps || assisted || 130 lb (+2 pts)

4 reps || assisted || 130 lb (+2 pts)

6 reps || assisted || 130 lb (+2 pts)

Think you can beat me, or want to comment?

Fitocracy is the social fitness community that has helped hundreds of thousands level up their fitness. Start your fitness transformation today!

Now available for free on both iPhone and Android!

Skyfall Review

    History has a way of defining a person, place, or thing.  There are two extremes to dealing with history - embracing it or burning it down.  The history of the James Bond film series is no exception, and the 50th anniversary of the release of Dr. No serves as a milestone for reflection on the series' history.     Two films define the series' dichotomous directions - From Russia With Love and Goldfinger.  From Russia With Love is the quintessential spy film - James Bond as a soldier for Great Britain, while Goldfinger is the quintessential spy movie - James Bond as a hero for the people.  Both present the series at its finest, and every subsequent film contain elements of both with varying results.  The rest of the best of the series - On Her Majesty's Secret Service, The Spy Who Loved Me, Goldeneye, and Casino Royale - were near-perfect balances of Russia and Goldfinger.     With Casino Royale, the history of the film series was scuttled and refreshed successfully, telling the story of Bond as a neophyte coming to terms with the cost of being the soldier and hero.  Quantum of Solace followed, and while parts of the film were well done, the overall result lacked the spark expected from a Bond film.     Skyfall, the 23rd entry in the James Bond film series, brings back the fun of the series while keeping the depth that Casino Royale brought, resulting in another near-perfect balance.     James Bond, after a failed mission that starts the film briskly, goes into self-imposed retirement, dealing with his failings as an agent and the failings of his superiors.  An attack at MI6 headquarters pushes him to return to the fold.  However, the star agent struggles to reintegrate into the spy life - his talents have worn down, and his emotions are unstable.  The impending world threat, a former MI6 agent named Silva, allows Bond slowly to gain his abilities and self-confidence.  Along the way, he sees the toll the threat has on his boss, M, who is dealing with an internal investigation on her from her superiors.  As the threat grows, Bond and M have no choice but to escape to Bond's family estate, Skyfall, and Bond has to face his past and his possible future.     That's a lot of plot points and thematic elements for a Bond film, but Skyfall never loses its focus, and all of the pieces come together in an impressive and fashion.     The script by Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, and John Logan is superb.  Constructed as a traditional Bond film, it has a deep respect for the history of the film series, yet it continues the deep emotional strides made with Casino Royale.  As traditional of a Bond film as the structure is, the writers made sure to defy expectations, peppering the structure with shocks and surprises, and the shocks never come at expected moments.  Even better is that the writers weren't afraid to pursue dark and challenging moments, be it the opening chase sequence, Silva's attack during M's hearing, and the final assault at Skyfall.  Purvis, Wade, and Logan found the perfect balance of the classic and the modern with their script.     The actors reinforce the emotional depth with excellent performances, never squandering any moments.     As the expected "Bond Girl" of the film, Bérénice Marlohe is a wonderful blend of sexiness and fragility.  Her character is removed from the equation just as she is getting interesting, the only real flaw of the film, but her moments with Bond are electrifying, filled with chemistry.  If Marlohe had been given more on-screen time, she would have been just as memorable as the rest of the cast, but she provides the audience with a good Bond girl.     Naomie Harris infuses Eve, a fellow agent of Bond's, with strength and independence.  Eve has a sexiness about her, not just in her beauty but in her wit and reliability as an agent.  Her moments with Bond are fun and saucy, and Harris will be able to build off of this great role since it is hinted that she will be a recurring character.     In a small but vital role, Albert Finney provides a strong foundation in the final act of the film as Kincade, the gamekeeper of Skyfall.  He gives Kincade a lived-in quality, someone who has seen the fall of the Bond family and is determined to keep the Bond history alive, however small of a life it may be.  He is a window to Bond's past, and Finney is an excellent mix of tragedy and levity.     Ben Whishaw is a delight as Q, the quartermaster of MI6 and Bond's armorer.  He is as mentally active in the mission as Bond is physically, and his dry, quick wit cuts through Bond without hesitation.  The chemistry between Bond and Q is undeniable, and with some of the dark turns the film takes, Whishaw is a welcome relief and fits perfectly into the Bond universe.     Ralph Fiennes is authoritative as Gareth Mallory, M's boss as the Chairman of Intelligence and Security Committee.  He's introduced as the governmental figure who rebels like Bond and M frustrate, but as the film progresses, his shades of grey are developed, becoming someone who fully understands M's struggle between fulfilling governmental duty while being an independent thinker.  Fiennes is another wonderful addition to the cast, and with his role being hinted at as recurring, he will be able to grow into the universe.     The Bond villain is a role that is known to attract fine actors, but sometimes the role doesn't live up to the actor who plays it.  This is not the case with Javier Bardem as Silva.  He's already played an iconic cinematic villain as Anton Chigurh in No Country For Old Men, and his Silva is destined to become  an iconic Bond villain.  Theatrical but infused with terror, Silva is never underestimated.  His approach to torture is more psychological, and he brings the audience to the brink with how successful he is with his plot.  This may be the first Bond villain in a long time who makes the audience feel like he could win, or at least force Bond into a pyrrhic victory.  As commanding and deadly as Red Grant and Rosa Klebb in From Russia With Love and as theatrical as Auric Goldfinger in Goldfinger, Silva stands among the finest Bond villains, and Bardem should take almost all of the credit for it.     Judi Dench has been M since Goldeneye, but this film may be her shining moment as Bond's boss and the head of MI6.  She has a personal connection to Silva, and she has a close relationship to Bond.  The terror and disappointment in her eyes when sharing scenes with Silva is amazing - she shows so much history with the villain without ever digging into the backstory, and it takes a lot of skill to be able to show that history without telling it.  Even more impressive is that she never takes over a scene when she isn't required, and her scenes at Skyfall are just tremendous.  M is trying to come to terms with her failings as a leader throughout, but Dench not only allows M to deal with these failings but also reinforce why she was the only leader who could have shaped Bond into who he is and trust him unconditionally.     In his third outing as James Bond, Daniel Craig has fully ingrained himself into the legendary spy.  He was a blunt instrument in Casino Royale and a vengeful warrior in Quantum of Solace, but in Skyfall, the spy life has taken its toll on him.  Craig has only been Bond in three films, but he carries a sense of torrid history not seen in any of the previous Bond actors.  He doubts himself and his superiors, but he knows that the mission is most important and strives to overcome his doubts.  What he sees in Silva is his own possible future, while a reference to Skyfall and his eventual return to his family's estate hints at his tortured past.  Bond is a man who is coming to terms with the loss his past contains while learning to appreciate the future M gave him, all the while containing the wit and class the character has had for the past 50 years.  His delivery of the one-liners still needs a little work, but that's a minor quibble compared to how fantastic Craig is as Bond, reinforcing his place as the second-best Bond, and arguably giving Connery competition as the best Bond ever.     The music has always been important in a Bond film, and Thomas Newman's score is a perfect blend of classicism and progressivism.  The James Bond Theme is prevalent as it should be, but some of the more progressive touches are welcome.  There are moments when the music becomes a cousin to the works of Brian Eno, focusing on ambient overtones from electronic instruments.  The balance between past and future is expertly captured by Newman's score, but the microcosm is at its finest with the theme song sung by Adele.  It's as if Shirley Bassey has been properly updated for the 21st century, which may be the highest compliment any Bond theme song could receive, and it stays in the head and gets into your soul.     A special note must be made about the cinematography by Roger Deakins.  His work in Skyfall elevates the film into a visual work of art.  He's worked consistently with the Coen Brothers, and he loves to play with colors.  Just look at the vivid yellows of Turkey, the blues of Shanghai, the reds and browns of Macau, and the greys and stone-like tones of the United Kingdom.  It is a master class in color-focused cinematography, and the framing is a perfect mix of grand and personal.  Deakins' work on Skyfall is nothing short of legendary.     Sam Mendes was the biggest wild card in the film as the director.  Winning an Academy Award for his directorial debut, American Beauty, Mendes is known as a dramatic director with no experience with action scenes, and some of his works have been considered pretentious.  However, Skyfall has no pretentions - Mendes makes sure it is the event film it is meant to be.  He structures the film as a traditional Bond film - a three-act work with a prologue and epilogue - and the film is the second-longest film in the series, but it is wonderfully paced, never overstaying its welcome nor having an overabundance of action or drama.  Everything feels necessary, allowing the audience to become fully invested in the film.  He knows how to work with the actors, and he understands what will make the biggest impacts.  The series has had classy directors before, but no one as unique as Mendes, and his artful eye does wonders for the film and the series.     Skyfall is a traditional Bond film with significant depth, heart, and soul.  It has the expert tension of From Russia With Love, the fun of Goldfinger and The Spy Who Loved Me, and the emotional consequences of On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Casino Royale.  It pays homage to the series' history while looking and moving forward, and it presents a story about the importance of history and the understanding that one may be defined by his or her past but is not controlled by it.  Skyfall is the closest a Bond film has ever come to being an art film, and it sits alongside the best in the series and the best in the genre. Movie Rating: 9.5/10 A somewhat underutilized Bond girl is a minor gripe to what may be one of the most thrilling action films since the turn of the century. Film Rating: 9/10 A Bond film that acts as a successful commentary on the effects of individual history with superb music and visuals that match the themes. Bond Film Rating: 10/10 Another classic that stands alongside From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, The Spy Who Loved Me, Goldeneye, and Casino Royale.

Bond Rating: 9.5/10 Although the delivery of some of the one-liners still needs a little work, Daniel Craig not only reinforces how effective he is as Bond, but he also arguably matches Connery's status as the greatest Bond.

Struggles with writing

I must admit something to everyone --- I have been attempting to write a screenplay for quite some time now.

The idea came to me while I was recollecting my film reviews and thinking about how most film critics haven't had a produced screenplay or actively participated in the filmmaking process (the notable exception to this is Roger Ebert and his script for Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. My educational background is in engineering, but one of my passions since high school was watching movies and films and becoming an amateur critic and cinephile. I love seeing the disparate genres and techniques, the history of American and international cinema informing and influencing specific artists and works, and evolving my idea of what makes a film or movie "good" or "bad."

However, I believed that my critiques would be limited in quality and understanding if I didn't at least attempt to participate in some part of the filmmaking process. In the film adaptation of High Fidelity, Rob Gordon, purveyor of "high pop culture," decides to try his hand at the music business by helping some local skater punks put out a record they recorded and he liked. As Laura, his girlfriend, highlights, he is now a part of the culture that he and his friends have observed and critiqued from a bird's eye view. With High Fidelity being one of my favorite films and with wanting to hone my critical eye, I was partly inspired by that plot development to participate in the filmmaking process by writing a draft script.

However, there have been several issues that have popped up throughout the process. The first and most important issue is that I haven't written fiction since junior high for assignments. I haven't lost my sense of imagination --- I've had several ideas for stories appear in my thoughts, and I can come up with a couple of big scenes that I feel would make a major impact. The problem is that I can't fill in the blanks when it comes to those thoughts. Since the beginning of college, I have been a glorified essayist as an amateur critic. Nonfiction has been my writing field. Writing critiques and essays come more naturally to me because the audience is me. The thoughts are mine. Everything said is what I want to say.

This informs of my second major issue --- Who is my audience?

Writing critiques and essays does require understanding of who the author wants to read his/her work, but the tailoring process, at least to me, is easier with these works because the end result is still clearly in the author's control. Compromises are made in the flow and diction, but the thoughts are pure.

When I write critiques or essays, my idea of the audience is people who want to read the "hows" and "whys" or for people who want to learn to read the "hows" and "whys." My critiques are never "cut-to-the-chase" works. I want to lay out what I thought was good and bad and then show why the structure is strengthened or weakened due to those proficiencies and deficiencies. Ideally, I want the "cut-to-the-chase" readers to read my critiques and become more inquisitive about the idea of "good" and "bad." Understandably, this is a flawed hope due to my writing approach being static and wanting more people to become elastic when it usually takes the approach to become more elastic to get the static readers. I still hold to my ideals, though, and it is why I see writing critiques and essays as a less compromising form.

My attempt at writing fiction stalls because my definition of the audience has now increased in size. I don't want to write a script that only caters to me (i.e. Michael Scott from The Office and his script for Threat Level Midnight). I want to write something that will keep someone's interest yet be authentic with the characters and their motivations. It's easy to write characters with my voice and thoughts, but I obviously can't make every character that way. It worked for Kevin Smith for a decade, but then it stopped working for Kevin Smith (one can only write so many permutations of Clerks before the idea loses traction). Once I think about the audience, I start to lose grasp of the idea, gaps begin to enlarge, and it all iterates until I have hit the point of overthinking.

My final major issue, and one that is specific to screenwriting, is this --- how the hell do I write something that is interesting for at least 90 minutes?

This issue is due to how the logical part of my mind works. I look at my ideas and develop a very basic plot. While looking at the plot, I fill in the blanks and realize that the plot could be completed in 15 to 30 minutes (if one thinks this is how writing for a television show works, that's only part of the battle --- a American season is at least 13 episodes, and coming up with a good story arc for several episodes is no easy task, so good luck coming up with the other 12+ episodes). Then I start thinking of subplots, but they start to appear arbitrary to the general plot, and the whole structure collapses in my head. The unwritten rule for a feature film is at least 90 minutes. If I can't come up with something that will hold for a third of that, then how will I be able to develop something for more?

I haven't even gotten to the actual writing part and have seen how difficult the process is. I have a deep respect for those who can write fiction in any medium. It takes a great deal of effort and focus just to get through the initial steps. Maybe I should focus on developing a short-film idea, maybe I'll never finish that screenplay or am not meant for fiction, or maybe the mental breakthrough will happen some ways down the road.

The goal of writing a screenplay is currently out of reach. It's frustrating as hell, but maybe I'll learn something from this journey to expand my horizons.

My Workout For Saturday January 11

I earned 111 points for my workout on Fitocracy!

Running (treadmill) +16 pts

0:05:00 || 0.3 mi || 1 % (+16 pts)

Cycling (stationary) +79 pts

0:07:30 || 2 mi || 7 % (+49 pts)

0:06:20 || 1.5 mi || 5 % (+30 pts)

Chin-Up +8 pts

12 reps || assisted || 145 lb (+2 pts)

8 reps || assisted || 130 lb (+2 pts)

7 reps || assisted || 130 lb (+2 pts)

4 reps || assisted || 115 lb (+2 pts)

Dips - Triceps Version +8 pts

12 reps || assisted || 145 lb (+2 pts)

12 reps || assisted || 130 lb (+2 pts)

4 reps || assisted || 115 lb (+2 pts)

5 reps || assisted || 115 lb (+2 pts)

Think you can beat me, or want to comment?

Fitocracy is the social fitness community that has helped hundreds of thousands level up their fitness. Start your fitness transformation today!

Now available for free on both iPhone and Android!

A tree in the Schaumburg winter.

The Amazing Spider-Man Review

    It's been ten years since Sam Raimi unleashed his vision of the Marvel Comics superhero Spider-Man onto global audiences.   With dry wit, tight action, impressive structure, and soulful acting, Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy became the definition of the comic-book superhero film series for the 21st cetury, with Spider-Man 2 being the golden standard alongside Superman: The Movie for what the genre can and should be.     The series' importance carried through even after the release of Christopher Nolan's masterful and game-changing Batman tale, The Dark Knight.  While Nolan focused on rooting superhero mythology into an image of the current state of the world, Raimi followed the path of the genre as a means of escape, showing that both approaches can exist with equal success.      The third Spider-Man film failed to catch a fire among audiences, meaning that a new story from a new perspective was wanted.  Enter Marc Webb, director of (500) Days of Summer, to take the reins of Spider-Man and tell his own story of the hero from the beginning with The Amazing Spider-Man.     The trajectory of the beginning hits all of the basic notes of the origin story in the previous series' first film.   Peter Parker is a geeky New York high school student who doesn't fit in.  He lives with his Uncle Ben and Aunt May, inadvertently wanders near a secret project that leads to a radioactive spider biting him and giving him superpowers.  At first, he struggles to get comfortable with his abilities, but a personal tragedy brings him perspective and a raison d'etre, and a threat to New York City shows him the man he needs to be.     With there being only ten years separating the previous series' first film with this one, it could have been either lazy or boring to cover a lot of the similar ground.  Then why does it feel different?     1.) We are shown who Peter's parents are and, to a degree, why they left them in Ben and May's care.  This has a profound effect on Peter, showing why he is so intelligent, has a chip on his shoulders, and almost prefers not to fit in with his classmates.     2.) The love interest is Gwen Stacy, a geeky fellow student who works as an intern at Oscorp, the place where Peter's father's colleague, Dr. Curt Connors does research, and the place where Peter eventually gets his powers.     3.) The webbing he shoots is man-made, not an organic effect from the bite.  This emphasizes his intelligence and well as provides a sense of danger in a couple scenes.     4.) Spider-Man is seen as a vigilante more than a hero.  The police, led by Captain Stacy, want to lock him up as a criminal due to his outside-the-law crime-fighting activities.     5.) The criminal who caused Peter's personal tragedy isn't caught.  This gives Peter a sense of failure that he carries throughout his endeavors, knowing that what happened to him could easily happen to someone else.     These changes, as well as other stylistic choices, all keep the film fresh and engrossing, allowing the audience to see it as its own entity without reminding them of the previous origin story.  The comic-book universe has several storylines for one character that play out, some in parallel with each other, and this is something that could be difficult to accept on film. Credit must be given to everyone working on the film for trusting the audience to give the film its own chance.     The script, written by James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent, and Harry Potter alum Steve Kloves, is tight, having a constant sense of propulsion while allowing the audience to delve deep enough into the characters to want to join in on the ride.  It tries to balance the grittiness and reality of Nolan's Batman series with the dry wit and fun of Raimi's Spider-Man series, and, for the most part, works well.     The main actors shine thoroughly.  Andrew Garfield has immense talent, as his work in The Social Network and Never Let Me Go shows, but it is still a surprise how natural a fit he is as Peter Parker/Spider-Man.  He gives Peter the arrogance, heart, humor, doubt, and strength that fits perfectly for this film.  Garfield understood how to interpret Peter in this universe, and his interpretation is wonderful.     Emma Stone comes off as strong, snarky, tender, and sexy as Gwen Stacy.  Gwen's personality could take any man on, but she lets her guard down with Peter, and the tender moments with Peter are a sight to behold.  Her chemistry with Garfield is natural and flawless.  Even if the rest of the film was terrible, every scene with Stone and Garfield together would still make it worth watching.     Rhys Ifans as Dr. Connors is a conflicted man struggling with keeping a secret from Peter about his parents' whereabouts and with a formula that gives him his arm back but at the cost of becoming The Lizard.  Ifans' filmography shows his range, and he maintains the humanity of Connors when the script sometimes forces him into the Lizard's psyche completely.     The supporting roles work as well as they need to, but some are better than others.  Martin Sheen takes his role in Wall Street and focuses more on how he manages home life, making Uncle Ben the father figure we love and respect.  Sally Field isn't given enough time with Garfield to develop the connection they need, but her Aunt May is still welcoming.  C. Thomas Howell is a great embodiment of how the world sees Spider-Man.  Irrfan Khan plays a one-note character, but as one of Dr. Connors' bosses, he has plenty of menace.     However, of the supporting roles, Dennis Leary is the standout as Captain Stacy, Gwen's father.  His acting chops were honed on his show Rescue Me, and he takes the abrasiveness and New York pride of Tommy Gavin and files it down to a more sensitive, fatherly base.  He feels threatened by Spider-Man as the superhero is doing the job that the police are supposed to do.  This tension carries through the dinner with his family and Peter as a guest, and when he sees Spider-Man's true identity, he understands that while he may not agree with the concept of Spider-Man, he knows that the hero is an asset to the city and not a hindrance.  Leary is superb as the moral center of the film.     Director Marc Webb started out with music videos and short films before his impressive feature debut, (500) Days of Summer.  That film showed how comfortable he is with a good script and great actors, and that carries through here.  The best moments are the smaller ones, not only the scenes between Peter and Gwen but also when Spider-Man rescues a child from a threatened vehicle, when Ben and Peter are together, when Peter begins to get comfortable with the new powers, when Spider-Man is in full smart-ass mode, and when Spider-Man goes to the sewer to pursue the Lizard.  Webb understands the power of a delicate touch, and when he applies that touch, the film reaches the greatness of Spider-Man 2.     However, there are enough flaws that keep it from reaching those levels consistently.     First, the construct of the villain doesn't work as well as it should.  The design of the Lizard is too artificial, and when the Lizard starts talking about how he wants to create perfect beings, it's jarring because of how Dr. Connors was never wanting that to begin with.  The Lizard is an interesting villain in the comics, but he doesn't fit with the grittiness of the film.     The post-credit scene is also disconcerting because it introduces an unnamed figure and randomly expands the Parker's parents storyline and Oscorp into the sequel.  It takes away from the film holding up as its own entity, but at least it allows for future films to give this one some additional meaning.     The music by James Horner is faceless.  While Danny Elfman's work in the previous series didn't have a strong theme, it fit the film better than this score does this film.  Horner knows how to up the drama, but nothing from the music is memorable.     The Amazing Spider-Man is not the greatest Spider-Man film ever made, but it matches the first film in the previous series in quality, and the trajectory of the story along with the acting and directing makes me excited to see where this series goes next, and that is most important. Movie Rating: 8/10 The action is good, the drama even better.  The villain isn't a good fit, but this film doesn't skimp on excitement. Film Rating: 8/10 The sense of loss, doubt, responsibility, and love carries the film effortlessly, and the scenes with Gwen and Peter together are perfectly done. Comic-Book Superhero Film Rating: 8/10 It tries to balance Nolan's grittiness with Raimi's sense of fun, and while it doesn't work completely, it's a great example of how good the genre can be. Spider-Man Film Rating: 8.5/10 It may not be as fun as Raimi's series, but it has more heart and as much depth, and it's as good as the first film in that series.