The Amazing Spider-Man - Review

Alright! Before I write this review for The Amazing Spider-Man, I need to get something off my chest. Now, that Christopher Nolan has finished his Dark Knight trilogy, can superhero films please stop trying to copy the Batman formula! I get it, Nolan's trilogy was awesome. I loved the movies, you loved them, everyone loved them, but come on people! Batman is NOT the only superhero around, and not every flick to feature a costumed crime-fighter has to be about some dark and brooding anti-hero. I mention all of this, because for the last few years, I've seen so many movies guilty of this, though the recent reboot of the Spider-Man film series, is arguably the worst offender. I can only assume that the filmmakers were trying to distance this particular film from the previous trilogy, and they figured a much looser interpretation of the Spider-Man mythos mixed with not-so-subtle "elements" (ie, a nicer way of saying ripped off) from Batman Begins and character beats reminiscent of Twilight was the way to go. Oh yeah... btw, the film takes a good dose of "inspiration" from Twilight too... my God what have they done to you Spidey???

*As per usual, I'm going to avoid spoilers when I can, but in this review, there might be a few story details I'll be discussing that may or may not be considered "spoiler-ish." That said, most of what I'll be talking about is familiar territory and should come as no surprise to anyone who's seen the 2002 film. I'll say this much, I promise that I won't reveal anything beyond the first act. Take that as you will.

The Amazing Spider-Man is a retelling of Spider-Man's of-told origin story. As a young boy, Peter Parker was left in the care of his Aunt and Uncle, Ben and May Parker (played by Martin Sheen and Sally Field respectively), after his parents inexplicably left and never returned. The story fast forwards years later to the now teenage Peter (Andrew Garfield), who has become a shy outcast among his high school peers. Curious to discover why his parents abandoned him, Parker digs up his father's old briefcase, which reveals that he was an Oscorp scientist working alongside the one-armed Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans) on a top secret project that could merge human and animal DNA. Determined to learn more, he visits Dr. Connors at his lab to discuss his past. It is here, where Parker gets that fateful spider-bite from a scientifically enhanced bug that gives him his superpowers to become Spider-Man. Meanwhile, Dr. Connors, in an attempt to regrow his lost arm, injects himself with a serum composed of reptile DNA. While the serum manages to replace missing arm, it brings forth the unfortunate side effect of turning him into a human-sized and reptilian monster known as The Lizard. With a homicidal Lizard loose on the streets of New York, Spidey takes to the streets to stop him before it's too late.

I'm going to do something I don't normally do right here. Typically, I don't consider it really necessary to discuss my feelings or history for a series like Spider-Man. That said, every time I've had a discussion with someone about this movie, I've been called a Sam Raimi fanboy or comic geek that either is too in love with the previous trilogy, too attached to the comics, and/or doesn't appreciate change or modern interpretations of these characters. So I'm just going to get this out of the way and let you all know exactly where I'm coming from. Yes... I have always been a huge fan of Spider-Man. I was a casual reader of the comics growing up (though I haven't read one in years), enjoyed the shows, liked most of the video games, and was a fan of the previous three movies. I loved the first film, really loved the second (my second favorite comic book movie behind Dark Knight), and thought the third was decent despite a few really stupid moments (say what you will folks, but I don't think Spider-Man 3 is as bad as it's been let on). Do I think it's kind of lame that they're retelling the origin story with the previous flicks still so fresh in people's minds... yeah kind of, but not enough to not give this film a chance. Do I hate modernizing comic book properties or re-imagining characters to fit a new theme... of course not, as long as they're done well. It can be kind of frustrating when properties are re-imagined to a point where they barely resemble their source material, BUT as long as they work in a narrative sense while honoring the themes and ideas of the original material, I'm cool with that. So I don't mind reinventing the character... in fact, I encourage it. So yeah, just wanted to get that out of the way.

So after all of that, what did I think of The Amazing Spider-Man? To be honest, I found it to be pretty damn average. It's not bad in the strictest sense as there are a number of things I did genuinely like, but there was just too much about it that I found forgettable, overly-familiar, or just plain bad. To be fair, the film boasts a great cast, promising director, and a couple of pretty cool action scenes. Unfortunately, they're all serving a narrative that is problematic from start to finish. I have no problem with the decision to set this film in high school and it's pretty cool that they decided to make Gwen Stacy the love interest instead of Mary Jane Watson (Gwen came before MJ in the comics). None of that makes up for a script full of plot holes, pacing issues, and problematic characters.

That last point I mentioned is really the biggest problem with this flick, the characters don't work, especially the lead character. I'm not critiquing the cast so much right now, but just the characters from a narrative perspective. In an effort to differentiate Andrew Garfield's Peter from Tobey Maguire's version, this flick downplays the science nerd aspects of the character and instead turns him into... actually kind of a cipher. That's not inherently a bad thing, as it can add a level of mystery to the character that might keep the story engaging as it unfolds. Unfortunately, the best way to actually describe him is something like Edward Cullen meats Bruce Wayne (as in, Bruce before he became Batman)... and no, that's not a good thing. His character is so inconsistent that we never really get a feel for who he is as a person... except that he's kind of a douchebag. At times he's an emo, at times he's a skater, and at he's a manic depressive. None of that would bother that much if they took the time to make the character likable in some way, shape, or form, but they really don't. Throughout the film, Parker is, quite frankly, kind of an asshole. The theme of his "character arc" (I use that term loosely because there's next to no character development) is less about "With great power comes great responsibility" but rather "When you get superpowers, try not to be a douche." I hate to compare this flick to the previous 2002 movie, but since the film goes out of its way to remind you of it, I can't help but think how much better it was done in the first. Take for example the scenes where Peter's Uncle Ben is murdered. In the original, Ben is killed because Peter refuses to take down a thief who robbed a guy that cheated Peter out of 3000 dollars. It was an irresponsible move on Peter's part that led to his Uncle's death, and it suddenly puts things in perspective of what Uncle Ben meant when he said "With great power comes great responsibility." He takes up the Spider-Man mantle as a means to honor his Uncle's death and his wisdom. That's a great start for a superhero and it really makes you root for the character. In this flick, Uncle Ben dies because Peter refuses to stop a thief from robbing a convenience store after the clerk refused to sell Peter a chocolate milk for being a few pennies short. Do I even need to explain why these two don't compare? To make matters even worse is that Parker created the Spidey mantle as a way to avenge his uncle's death. A movie can survive a lot of things, but a bad lead character is a tough hurdle to overcome, and unfortunately this movie struggles because of this.

Now, if there's one way to make up for a weak hero it would be a decent villain and The Lizard was a promising choice for Spidey foe. He's a Jekyll and Hyde kind of villain, an otherwise decent person who turns into an evil reptile when testing an experimental serum to regrow his lost arm. This, in it of itself, is a good setup, and Rhys Ifans is a good choice for the part. Unfortunately, the character suffers thanks to odd structure and strange motivations. Once he turns into the actual Lizard creature, he inexplicably also turns him violent and evil... a bit strange but I can buy that. Where it gets confusing is when he periodically changes back to a human and for some odd reason still retains his evil qualities. As the movie progresses it only gets more absurd. Eventually, the lizard serum not only makes him evil but also turns him into something of a "reptilian fascist" with a mission to create an all lizard society. None of this really adds up or makes much sense, especially when you consider that his only real motivation in the first place was to fix his missing arm. Once again, a promising villain totally wasted. There are a whole bunch of little plot holes and inconsistencies in the script that detract from the movie's quality. Everything from abandoned sub plots and pointless characters are here. Plus, the other major thrust of this narrative was to explore why Peter's parents disappeared, which is only barely explored and left unanswered to presumably be examined in the inevitable sequel. You can basically sum up the screenplay with this statement, promising material ruined thanks to sub-par execution.

From a technical perspective, the film is hit and miss. Spider-Man's new costume is a bit over-designed but unmistakably recognizable as Spider-Man. Fortunately, it gives Garfield the ability to move around in what are some admittedly decent action scenes. There are a couple of enjoyable hand-to-hand combat segments along with some exciting web slinging moments. From a pure geek perspective, I do have to admit that it's cool to see Spidey using the mechanic web shooters instead of the organic ones from the previous trilogy. The settings were a bit odd though. Why they had to set so many scenes in lens-flare saturated nighttime shots, I don't know (well, I guess they were trying to emulate The Dark Knight) but I don't have too many complaints on that front. Unfortunately, I do have some majors issues with the cgi used to render The Lizard... my God does he look terrible. The design is problematic, as he looks like a cross between The Lizard and those goombas from the Super Mario Bros movie. It's not helped that the cgi itself looks like a cut-scene from a mediocre video game. Their efforts to find creative angles to film him in order to make him look less awful were commendable but none managed to remedy just how awful he turned out. You know, a lot of people complained about the Green Goblin's goofy looking suit in the first movie, but I'd rather have a cheesy looking practical effect any day as opposed to sub-par cgi. If there was one thing a summer blockbuster like The Amazing Spider-Man has to get right, it's decent action and production value, and despite the Lizard, it's more-or-less mission accomplished.

Finally, we come to the cast. For the most part, I don't have much to say about the chosen actors, none were great but none were bad either. Andrew Garfield has done some great work prior to this, namely as Eduardo Saverin in The Social Network, and as Parker he does a commendable job working with such a flaky script. Emma Stone, once again, gives another strong performance as Gwen Stacy, who is both the love interest, but also manages to contribute a bit to the plot as well. Rhys Ifans does what he can as The Lizard, and despite the weird motivations, looks like he was having some fun hamming it up a bit as the villain. Martin Sheen and Sally Field were a bit on the nose as Uncle Ben and Aunt May, but they do their usual good job. The only real stand out to me was, believe it or not, Dennis Leary as Captain Stacy, Gwen's police chief father. Leary is primarily known for his comedic roles, so seeing him do a role somewhat against type worked to his advantage. He's a strong character who cares deeply for his family as the safety of New York's citizens, and at first approaches Spider-Man as a dangerous vigilante. While we know Spidey isn't evil, he nonetheless acts somewhat reckless and kind of a dipshit, so it's understandable why Stacy would be reluctant to trust him, and Leary does a good job personifying that kind of character. Overall though, I can't complain too much about the cast. Most did a solid job and managed to somewhat elevate the film.

Overall, The Amazing Spider-Man is hardly what the title implies. It's by no means amazing and not even that particularly good. It's just pretty average when you get down to it. I know this film was plagued by a rushed schedule and frequent re-writes, so hopefully the sequel will improve on this front. Overall though, I wasn't that impressed but not overly disappointed either. If it's still playing in theaters and you've managed to miss it, keep on doing that or wait for a DVD rental.

My Score: 2.5 out of 5!