Batman's fit perfectly, the X-Men's rejuvenated them and Superman will try to exchange his without the receipt in 2013, but now it’s Spider-Man’s turn to try on a brand new pair of reboots. But beside Sony Pictures, who wanted it? No doubt that the final installment in the Sam Raimi trilogy was indefensible, but his first two chapters were more than adequate and 2002’s “Spider-Man” is the gateway film for the modern super hero boom in Hollywood today. However, playing Mephisto’s advocate, 0.0 people were clamoring for another Batman movie after the release of the title whose name George Clooney dares not speak, and from those ashes rose what’s poised to be the greatest super hero trilogy of all time. Perhaps though, that is the overwhelmingly enticing and ironic web that trapped the creators of “The Amazing Spider-Man.”
Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield, “The Social Network”) is a genius high school student, gets bit by a radioactive spider. . . yada, yada, he now has the proportionate powers of a spider, we’re all very impressed.
Never before has such a successful trilogy been rebooted so quickly. The Raimi Spidey films are in the top 40 all-time box office grosses worldwide. And the original “Spider-Man” from 2002 has barely had enough time to work its way into the DVD bargain bin at Wal-Mart. So anyone who says “Amazing” should be critiqued without a direct comparison to its predecessor is not only being unrealistic, but also inflammatory. Placing aside all the rhetoric from cast and crew about how this version is telling the “untold” story of the web slinger, it’s unmistakable that director Marc Webb (“500 Days of Summer”) is trying to “Batman Begins” the franchise. So was he successful? The short answer is “No.” By the time Joel Schumacher completed his coup d’état of Batman in 1997, it had actually only been 8 years since Tim Burton’s character defining classic, but the glaring contrast is that Batman had regressed back to the camp-filled Adam West serial of the ‘60’s and the triumphant translation of Raimi’s silver screen wall crawler is still fresh in the minds of “geek nation.” Added to that, the unprecedented achievement of Marvel’s recent films leading up to “The Avengers,” which utilize a high gloss, shiny, backlit template, and it makes a darker, more reality rooted attempt at Spider-Man seem all the more dispensable.
Even if Webb could somehow magically erase all the preconceived opinions of another set of Spider-Man films, it’s futile to conceal that he’s simply not as proficient with this type of material as Raimi. “The Amazing Spider-Man” does have a few much improved special effects, especially in the gravity and weight of the character as Spidey swings through the city, but the staggered flow of the storytelling and the underutilization of integral characters shorten the strides that this incarnation of Marvel’s flagship character can achieve. Webb allocates such a high percentage of the first half of the film on Peter’s metamorphosis into Spider-Man, something that could have been taken care of in an opening credits sequence; by the middle of the second act all the supplementary story arcs enter “ludicrous speed.” And perhaps the most neglected character of them all is the city of New York itself. New York is just as much of a super power to Spider-Man as his strength, agility or Spidey sense, and how he relates to its citizens has been an eternal struggle in Peter’s psyche.
The subpar directing is certainly no reflection on its over-achieving cast. Andrew Garfield is more than a moderate improvement over Tobey Maguire (“Spider-Man,” 2002). Not that he’s a superior actor; both are well versed at their craft. However, Garfield manages to tune in the perfect frequency of shy awkwardness in Peter Parker without the oddness inserted by Maguire, which was not entirely misplaced due to most real-life genius' exhibition of odd personality traits. But in terms of a truer 1:1 match to the source material, Garfield excels both in physical and behavioral prowess.
After three movies starring Kirsten Dunst (“Spider-Man,” 2002) in the female lead, Emma Stone (“Crazy, Stupid, Love”) improves the outlook of the film just by showing up. But attendance is a severe understatement of Stone’s talents. Finally a love interest that’s actually interesting. The writing is nothing spectacular, but she has the ability to deliver lines with intelligent and attractive undertones, making the viewer believe she is actually smart, not just playing it and waiting for Spider-Man to reappear on screen.
With the exception of Denis Leary (“Rescue Me”) as Captain Stacy, who turned out to be much more than a fill-in-the-blank character, the other supporting cast members including what’s suppose to be the all-important villain of the film, The Lizard/Dr. Curt Conners (Rhys Ifans, “Anonymous”), either fall severely flat or are undervalued. The Lizard is merely a mix tape of previous “big bads” from other films, most notably Dr. Octopus/Dr. Otto Octavius from “Spider-Man 2,” 2004. And casting highly decorated actors like Sally Field as Aunt May and Martin Sheen as Uncle Ben in such diminutive roles is nothing more than an embarrassment of riches exemplifying the film’s $230 million budget.
For every facet “The Amazing Spider-Man” improves upon the former series, it leaves another behind in the dark. Instead of having Peter Parker take off his mask in every scene just so the audience can take a gander at Andrew Garfield’s pretty face, Marc Webb should’ve been maximizing his star’s performance of what is the most genuine Peter Parker/Spider-Man to ever be portrayed in a live-action production. All is not lost though for this future trilogy if Webb or another director can realize the full potential of the superior cast they have to work with, they should be able to steal back some of the cache from the "Avengers" films and elevate this new series to a height that places Spider-Man back atop the Marvel Universe.
Story: 6.5
Acting: 8.5
Writing: 6.0
Captivation: 7.5
Replay Value: 7.0
Total = 7.1 out of 10
