Are you ready for the new 'Spider-Man'?

Watching the trailer for The Amazing Spider-Man, I already feel old. It feels like just yesterday that I was watching Tobey Maguire as Spider-Man giving Kirsten Dunst that iconic upside-down kiss. Man, that background music makes that moment feel so cheesy. On second thought, maybe it is time for a new Spider-Man.

However, the fact that they're re-booting the franchise just five years after the third film starring the original cast of characters signals so much that's wrong with Hollywood. Spider-Man "4" was originally going to star Maguire and Dunst and be directed by Sam Raimi. It was only after those oft-cited "creative differences" emerged that Columbia went ahead with an all-new cast and director. The trailer shows us we'll be getting a lot more of the same-old. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone have the same feel as original stars Maguire and Dunst (even though Stone plays Gwen Stacy, not the Dunst role of Mary Jane Watson). IMDB says Rhys Ifans plays "Dr. Connor/The Lizard," so that solves who the mysterious green, monstrous enemy in the trailer is right off the bat--though comic book fans undoubtedly knew that already.

One thing I'm excited about is that an entire set piece appears to take place on the Williamsburg Bridge. I live near the bridge, and last year I saw the production filming a number of times. One night, they trained high-powered lights on the bridge that lit it up from end to end. I thought that was the kind of thing that was normally done in CGI, so the time, money, and effort that went into that impressed me. I was completely charmed by director Marc Webb's (500) Days of Summer, but I wonder how much of that sensibility will translate to this big-budget, action-centered production.

Of all the superhero franchises, Spider-Man definitely skews young. There certainly isn't the kind of darkness in the Batman series that changed with each director's iteration and made the superhero have appeal beyond the youth set. If they're only going for kids, perhaps it makes sense that a reboot will occur just ten years after the original and five years after the third film in the franchise. 

I can't help feeling a little bored with it all. The Amazing Spider-Man will have to live up to something that's only ten years old in our cultural memory. When Hollywood is already remaking something that premiered in this millennium, how can they expect adults to show up? And how can original screenplays ever have a shot?

Dear Harry Potter, thanks for the memories

By Sarah Sluis

In the decade since Harry Potter first came out, I've aged from 16 to 26. There were a couple of movies lagging toward the end (including the penultimate Potter, Deathly Hallows Part I) that had me questioning my loyalty to the series. Maybe I had just outgrown it.

Rest assured, Harry Potter fans. The final film will not disappoint. Clocking in at a swift 131 minutes, the story propels swiftly the finish. Action scenes, which can be a little harder to visualize on the page, adapt to the screen in perfect form. After seven films, the eighth still manages to innovate on the existing Potter shorthand. As the series has evolved, it seemed as though we would be stuck with whatever the original set designers came up with. Instead, we get a Gringotts bank like you've never seen it before. Small changes, like the layout of the Gryffindor common room, help keep everything fresh.

Seeing Harry Potter and the evil Lord Voldemort duel for the final time adds excitement and finality to the series. Unlike earlier films, which had to omit or adapt the charming, meandering scenes that made the book so great, the final film is mostly business. The attack on Hogwarts castle is even more memorable than in the book, especially with the epic-level crowds of wizards fighting for control.

As the advance tickets sales and midnight screenings that characterized the series suggest, Harry Potter is one of those movies that demands to be seen with an audience. There are very few films that prompt audiences to clap and whoop not only after the movie, but during (I won't say when). So much of the laughter and involvement was from seeing Harry, Ron, and Hermione evolve over the decade. In flashback scenes, Harry looks so young! It's like flipping through a family photo album.

Deathly Hallows Part I finished with just under $1 billion worldwide. Surely, the final film will attain the $1 billion mark. I hardly believe that will be the end for the series, which is something like the Star Wars of a generation. DVDs will be bought. Books will be re-read. Action figures will be purchased. The series will live on as a theme park experience.

In fact, I couldn't help but watch the Gringotts scene and think that the creators must have consulted roller coaster creators when staging the set piece (which includes a water soaking, a traditional roller coaster addendum). The just-opened, wildly successful Wizarding World of Harry Potter attraction in Universal Studios has plans (indeed, a mandate) to expand and incorporate material from the final films. What better way to cap the Harry Potter experience than to take a ride through Gringotts yourself?

Analysis of an awesome trailer: 'The Social Network'

By Sarah Sluis
So far there have only been posters and teaser trailers for The Social Network. While movie geeks like me are already sold by the combination of the screenwriter (Aaron Sorkin) and director (David Fincher), it's hard not to get a little tingle on your spine when you hear the tagline, "You Don't Get to 500 Million Friends Without Making a Few Enemies." Who would have thought the story of Facebook would sound more like Wall Street meets The Skulls and less like an underdog winning gold at the Olympics?

Here's the trailer:

The #1 reason this trailer is awesome is that it doesn't introduce any characters until 48 seconds into a 2 minute, 30 second trailer. Instead, the trailer reels the audience in by forcing us to reflect on how we, the viewers, use Facebook. Screenshots of parties, profile pictures, weddings, and babies are edited to the lyrics of Radiohead's "Creep," sung by women with high voices and a melancholy tone (the Vega Choir). The lyrics pretty much say it all: "Don't care if it hurts/Wanna have control/Wanna perfect body/Wanna perfect soul/I want you to notice/When I'm not around/You're so very special..."

The latter, story part of the trailer emphasizes Ivy League intrigue, decadence, and excess among the rich. I counted nine scenes of drinking/partying, including liquor swilled straight from the bottle, champagne spraying, puking during fraternity hazing, and post-success imbibing of appletinis. Will these kind of storylines ever go out of style? I give the trailer one point for an unconventional but oh-so-Ivy scene with an indoor erg rowing machine that uses actual water (never seen one of those, but where else but Harvard?). However, Fincher loses points for a shot of Jesse Eisenberg as the Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg writing a formula on a window. We've already seen A Beautiful Mind and Good Will Hunting, thankyouverymuch.

On a final note, Fincher's Citizen Kane-like epic is also worth seeing for its strong cast composed of rising stars: Jesse Eisenberg, Justin Timberlake, Rashida Jones, and Andrew Garfield, the next Spider-Man. And if you're wondering, like I did, why Zuckerberg hasn't sued, it's because he's a public figure and therefore open to portrayal. Also, it might potentially be more embarassing to sue than to keep things quiet. As for suppression, it doesn't look like The Social Network will be advertised on Facebook due to their advertising rules, but everywhere else is fair game. Zuckerberg doesn't have quite the influence of William Randolph Hearst.