Review: The Amazing Spider-man

Let me start off by saying that I was not excited to see the Spider-man reboot for two reasons: 1. Spider-man 3 left me cold on thr all wall-crawler and 2. I had zero interest in seeing his origin again. For those of you who know me, you know that I don't like origin movies. As a comic fan, I'm well versed in the origin and don't really need to see it. I would much rather get to the action. In the case of this movie, I'd just seen the origin about a decade ago. No need to rehash it. That being said, the marketing blitz that preceded the release turned me around a bit for two reasons: 1. The web swinging looked much better and 2. It looked like I was finally going to get a Spider-man that was going to wisecrack, something sorely missing from Raimi's interpretation. So in the end, I was cautiously optimistic walking into the theater.

As a warning, since it has been a couple weeks since release, this review will have spoilers. So let's get to it.

The Plot
As I stated before, this is an origin film. I'm sure everyone knows it by now but here's the basic recap: Peter Parker is a nerdy kid in high school. He gets bitten by a radioactive spider and gets superpowers such as the ability to climb walls, enhanced strength, and an acute "spider-sense" that warns him of incoming danger. Instead of stopping a small-time thief, he lets him go only to find later that that same thief kills his Uncle Ben after his escape. He could have stopped him. From this point on, Peter vows to only do good since "with great power comes great responsibility". He then goes on to fight a similarly genetically enhanced foe who has a personal connection to him, which both tries him emotionally and physically. Along the way, he also finds a way to romance the girl he's had a crush on for a very long time.

Sound familiar? It should. This origin was told in Raimi's first Spider-man film and not much has been changed. The main differences would be that this film is truer to the source material in that his love interest is Gwen Stacy and not Mary Jane Watson. Though MJ is the more recognizable of the two, Spidey-fans will know that Gwen was his first love. And instead of giving us the Green Goblin like in Raimi's movie, we get The Lizard. But as clearly stated above, the basics remain the same.

What Worked:

1. Spider-man - my biggest complaint of Raimi's Spider-man films was that while he nailed a very 60's Lee/Ditko era Peter Parker, he dropped the ball on Spider-man. Spidey is supposed to be sarcastic, cocky, and trash-talking. He's the polar opposite of the nebbish Peter Parker, an outlet for the shy kid. Webb and his writers completely get this part of Spider-man and it's great to finally see him in action. In addition to that, the aforementioned swinging scenes helped add to the character. While I loved the CG of the original, there was a certain weightlessness to it where it was obvious that it was a CG double. In this film, they actually used gymnasts and acrobats for many of the scenes, adding the weight and realistic reactions of the human body (not like the ragdoll physics of CG doubles).
2. Andrew Garfield - the guys puts in a great performance. He really makes a difference between the nerdy Peter and the heroics of Spider-man. A lot of it has to do with his physicality. He is a bit awkward and lanky as Peter but confident as Spider-man. This even shows up right after he is bitten by the spider. His moves in a different way, jerking here and there, as if moving like a spider. There's also a great sense of control about him, particularly with emotional scenes. You can see that there is pain in his eyes even when the scene doesn't call for outright crying. These subtle touches really help create a memorable performance. I look forward to seeing him grow in the role.
3. Emma Stone - I like Emma Stone. There's a quality to her that seems very down-to-earth. She is not unbelievably gorgeous but she is attractive. She looks quite a bit like the girl next door. But she also has a part of her that seems like she could be "one of the guys" which also makes her endearing. She is the perfect Gwen Stacy. I can believe that she'd be into a guy like Peter. I can believe that she's really intelligent. I can also believe that she's really the wholesome daughter of a police captain. Great casting for this role.

What Didn't Work

1. The Plot - As I stated earlier, the movie is one big rehash. This wouldn't really be so bad if it weren't for the fact that the plot spends an equal amount of time building to the Spider-man reveal as the first Raimi movie without offering much different. The marketing promised an "untold story" but this stuff must have been left on the cutting room floor. Sure there are hints about the tragedy that struck Peter's parents and that there was some kind of conspiracy going on with Oscorp and Curt Connors being behind the murders. But it doesn't really go beyond the toe-wetting stage. There is a bit more character development done between Uncle Ben and Peter (which was wonderful as it really helped establish their bond, which Raimi's film fell short of a bit) but his purpose in the story is still the same. And he doesn't even get to say the most famous line, "With great power comes great responsibility". Of all the things they keep the same, they drop the most iconic line? Seriously? To make matters worse, the film also rehashes emotional beats from the first movie. Remember that scene in Raimi's in which the New Yorkers on the bridge unite and help out Spider-man? We get something like that with a bunch of construction workers and cranes. Remember how Norman Osborn started going insane because of his experimental drug and starts talking to himself? Curt Connors does it too. That's the big problem with the movie. It's a rehash that feels like a rehash, that retreads the same story beats and even some of the same emotional ones while completely under delivering in the "untold story" the marketing promised. Poor form.
2. Peter Parker - I get that Peter Parker is supposed to be a troubled youth. I also get that this Peter is a much more accurate reflection of a modern teenager. Tobey Maguire with his "aw shucks" wide-eyed enthusiasm was perfect in capturing that 60's era Parker. And as I stated above, Garfield is great as the character. My problem is with the character himself as he is written. He's very "emo". There is no other word for it really. I half expected him to listen to some whiny band as he put on black eye liner. I understand Peter is supposed to be troubled. But why is he so angsty? He seems damaged and emotionally scarred, two things that Garfield plays very well but are not things I associate with Peter Parker. Leave the angst to Batman. This makes me really sad since I love that they nailed the Spider-man character while messing up Peter Parker. I suppose this change in the character was done to appeal to a younger demographic (particularly the Twilight subsection of teen girls) and I must really just be out of touch with it.
3. Where's the Fun? - Peter isn't the only one that is ridden with angst. It permeates the feel of the whole movie. Webb spends so much time making this more serious Spider-man movie that he takes a bit of the fun out of it. By erring on the side of emo for Parker, we don't get enough of the joy he gets when discovering his powers. Maguire looked like he was having fun when getting used to his webs and when crawling up walls. Garfield looks like he's working, trying things over and over until he gets it right. There's a certain sense of humor that Raimi captures about a young teen discovering himself and coming into his own. Webb is more intent on making his version of Batman Begins. Again, this approach works for Batman, but not for a character like Spider-man who is supposed to be able to rise from his problems and still be positive.

In Conclusion

I thought the movie was good. Not great by any means but good. I checked my watch many times during the movie because it felt longer than it really was. This wasn't the fault of the filmmakers per se as the pacing of the movie seemed spot on. It was simply that I'd "been there, done that" and there wasn't enough different that kept my attention. My biggest gripe (in addition to the whole rehash thing) was the biggest lack of a sense of fun in the film, particularly in the character of Peter Parker. If I could, I would take the feel of Raimi's first film, inject a bit of the whimsical wide-eyed Parker into this film and we would have a perfect Spider-man movie. As it is, we have two imperfect films. Taken on its own, as if Raimi's film hadn't existed, I would probably rate this movie higher. The same issues with character and feel would still exist but overall the movie had some good acting and the pace was well done. Unfortunately, the movie doesn't exist in a vacuum and Raimi's movie do exist. Thus, the review must reflect that.