Movie Review: The Amazing Spider-Man

June 29, 2012 — 14 Comments

In discussing remakes I usually try to avoid discussing the film in relation to its original. I am generally not interested in what the film does the same or differently, so long as it does those things well. Remakes are hardly ever necessary, but that doesn’t devalue them in my eyes. I’ve loved plenty of remakes, from The Thing to The Fly to Let Me In. Is it nice to see when one of these films ventures on its own path away from its inspiration? Sure, but I don’t see that as a strict necessity, and so I don’t like to even bring up the original. It’s always about the film at hand.

Well, almost always. Though The Amazing Spider-Man is not a remake, and though I prefer to look only at the film I’m reviewing, in this case I can’t help but compare the film to its brother from 2002. Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man is not a film beloved in my neck of the woods. I think it handles the origin story of a super-powered hero better than any other film in the modern era of comic book films, but I also find the film visually unappealing, poorly acted, overly silly and paced pretty unevenly. I also think these problems got worse with the sequel. But at its core, Spider-Man did the origin right. In terms of story beats I’d almost be willing to say it did Spidey’s origin perfectly. I’m not opposed to the idea of The Amazing Spider-Man being another origin story, but by being one so half-heartedly, and by sticking too closely to the one in the 2002 film, it forces the audience to recall a much better telling of the same basic story.

Before I start sounding too negative on The Amazing Spider-Man, I’d like to talk about its good qualities. I liked the film. I enjoyed it quite a lot. I was entertained the whole way through, and though the movie is well over two hours long, it didn’t actually feel that long to me. So a big win in that basic department. If you want simple summer escapism, The Amazing Spider-Man will do the trick fairly well, with about as consistent a level of basic entertainment as something like The Avengers, though on a smaller scale.

The film’s direction is also pretty darn great. Marc Webb, director of (500) Days of Summer, helms this Spidey outing, and he brings with him the fresh, clean and energetic style of that earlier film. Particularly enjoyable are the action sequences, which, even when occasionally too cheesy, are a pleasure to watch. Webb’s approach during these sequences is essentially to untether the camera. It’s always pointed at Spider-Man, which makes things very easy to follow, but the camera itself flies and jumps and spins all over the place, putting the audience in the perspective of the web-slinger. As the shots spin upsides down and shift perspective the sense of exhilaration is palpable. The 3D only adds to this. It’s certainly the best action ever done in a Spider-Man film, and with solid effects to back things up.

The casting is equally strong. Emma Stone is wonderful and charming as always, bringing chemistry to every interaction she has with any other actor. It’s an amazing talent. Dennis Leary, Rhys Ifans, Sally Field and Martin Sheen all bring their A-game to the supporting roles. And then, of course, there’s Spider-Man himself, Andrew Garfield. The kid is a major talent. He knows how to play just the right level of cocky teenager and awkward nerd. This isn’t your regular stuttering teenager performance—the kind you’d see from Michael Cera or Jesse Eisenberg—but a more natural, relatable kind of teen. Garfield does a great job as Peter Parker, and I hope this is the beginning of even bigger and better things for the young actor.

Unfortunately, here’s where we need to talk about the story. Basically, it’s another origin. It follows well-tread territory and adds in a conspiracy involving Peter Parker’s missing parents. It also introduces a new villain to the film series, with Rhys Ifans turning himself into The Lizard. In terms of structure, though, it’s pretty same-y. And not just to the original Spider-Man, but to most other origins. Parker is a normal kid with some problems, gets his powers, learns how to use them while also getting entangled with a villain, must defeat said villain and then look forward to the future. We know how this goes. We’ve seen it many times before. It’s not necessarily a bad thing, but what makes it problematic in this case is how closely it resembles the first Spider-Man, as well as the slight differences.

*POTENTIAL SPOILERS BEGIN HERE*

There was no particular reason, except maybe to appease comic book nerds, for The Amazing Spider-Man to stick so closely to some of the beats of the original story. A spider bite and learning to use some powers would have been enough. The film makes two serious missteps, though. Clearly the makers understand that they’re doing a bit of a re-tread, and so they attempt to speed things up. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it does take away some of the awe in discovering the powers. Worse than that, though, is the decision to once again kill Uncle Ben. As the scene began I could feel the audience groaning internally. “Oh, they’re doing this again. They’re going to kill him. Again.” It’s the “again” part that’s key. Had we not already gotten a very emotionally heavy section of the 2002 film dedicated to this plot point it might have carried more weight. But it’s not just that we’ve seen it before, it’s that this new film tries ever so hard to appear different. Ben gives the “with great power comes great responsibility” speech, but the words are changed and that exact line is never spoken. The makers are far too conscious of the fact that audiences will sense similarity. The scene in which Ben is shot also happens under slightly different circumstances. Ultimately, though, once the scene starts, it’s clear where it’s going, and the only the only emotion in it is exasperation with a film that felt the need to go there even though it really didn’t. In the 2002 film, that death is basically THE major event of the film. It informs everything. In The Amazing Spider-Man it’s just a story beat the film needed to hit.

*SPOILERS END*

The need to hit story beats is what brings the film down, and what calls to mind comparisons to the original film. Here is all feels dictated by necessity, not borne out of true story and character motivation. So many points in the plot feel like they exist only because the studio felt it necessary to go back to the beginning if they were going to have a new cast for the series. In Raimi’s film, though I didn’t care for the filmmaking or the acting, the way the story played out always felt like it had weight, both thematically and emotionally. I didn’t like Dunst in the film, but the idea of Maguire’s Parker longing for the girl next door since childhood lent a lot to their relationship. The way Uncle Ben’s death sparked an incredible soul-search for Parker had a huge impact on the film. The script was sometimes cheesy, but then so is the new film. Basically, the new film has the same story, with some big and small changes so that it feels a bit different, but ultimately not quite as fulfilling a journey for the character.

It’s really too bad considering the talent involved. By constantly reminding me of what was done better in the original film’s story, I couldn’t help wishing that the original film had never been made, but that its script had been used by Marc Webb and his fantastic cast and crew. What I wouldn’t give to see Andrew Garfield’s Spider-Man facing off against Green Goblin shot Marc Webb’s wonderfully acrobatic camera. This is one of those cases where, if a good script is written and if Marc Webb comes back, a sequel might be fantastic. Certainly this film sets up a sequel, and in a manner a bit more natural than some other recent franchise-starters. Until that sequel comes out, though, what we’ve got is this film. The Amazing Spider-Man is fine. It’s a decent summer action spectacle. It’s well shot and well acted and has some nice thrills. Sad that the studio and the filmmakers chose to hamper it with an overly familiar and overall less effective origin story that audience already know so well. The talent present in this film clearly could have given us something so much more… amazing*.

*I’m so, so sorry. I couldn’t resist.

Advertisements

14 responses to Movie Review: The Amazing Spider-Man

  1. 

    Something you don’t address that really bothers me with the advertising is how often Peter Parker is shown doing Spidey stuff without his Spider-Man mask. (Like the last photo above.) It comes off like the film wants to show the face of their star, but what’s the point of having a mask to hide your identity and then not using it. The only logic is marketing.

    • 

      Actually, the times it happens in the film are very organic. In fact, in one case it’s actually kind of a beautiful scene, though a bit cheesy.

      That said, part of the benefit of him taking off the mask is that it makes certain scenes more impressive from an effects standpoint. I found it very difficult to tell where the stunt team/real human in a suit ended and the cgi Spidey began. In one scene he full on fights with the mask off, and it looks like it was done with a lot of wire work. Makes it much cooler even though it’s not totally necessary.

    • 

      Now I’m like, well duh! Truly thufnkal for your help.

    • 

      Haha, shouldn’t you be charging for that kind of knowledge?!

  2. 

    I really wish they did the origin story as an opening montage scene or something, do we REALLY need to see that again? But perhaps I will hold off judgment until I actually see this one. I mean, it sounds great, I just hate that its another origin story.

    • 

      I thought I’d be okay with the origin stuff, but the way it was done made it feel too similar to the original film and not nearly as effective from a plot standpoint.

      • 

        My main problem is who the hell DOESN’T know Spidey’s origin story? Even my mom does and she knows next to nothing about this kind of thing.
        David Fincher (who was originally attached for this) had the exact right idea.
        http://io9.com/5869055/david-fincher-reveals-the-title-sequence-for-his-spider+man-movie-that-never-was

        • 

          Fincher’s ideas were pretty crazy and awesome. As to everyone knowing the origin, there was a visceral thrill in the first film of seeing that origin and discovery of powers play out on the big screen and in live action. What’s weird in the new film is that it seems to feel the need to hit all those origin points, but doesn’t actually want to focus on them. The discovery of powers is there but not nearly as fleshed out. The Ben thing is almost forced into it. It ends up feeling like, well, why not just have taken a bit from Fincher and like you said, put all that in an opening credits sequence.

          And there’s a precedent for this as well, though not from a great film. Incredible Hulk was effectively a reboot that had an opening sequence to get people acquainted with the origin.

  3. 

    I really disliked this. I didn’t know why it was necessary. I thought Andrew Garfield was in fact too good-looking to play someone like Peter Parker and that Emma Stone was completely wasted. They should have had more of them, because their love story felt rushed and it was not that believable. Lizard was awful. The action scenes were literally left hanging in between. My favourite thing however were Dennis Leary and that Stan Lee scene. Also Emma Stone’s smile at the end was pretty magical.

  4. 

    Oh man, I so disagree. I didn’t feel like this was retreading new ground. Sure, the story beats are similar, but the way they play out and how James Vanderbilt’s story exposes the idea of the hero made for a film that I thought had a much different arc than the original film.

    This film takes it time getting to Peter Parker’s transition into Spider-Man, exploring how he starts out using his powers to get even, then using his powers to get revenge, seeking to hunt down Uncle Ben’s killer, until he finally realizes how he should be using his powers. I think it makes for a much more dramatic and nuanced understanding of what it means to be a hero and what the journey to being a hero is.

    That alone made it different enough for this to feel like a fresh take with enough distinctions of it own to stand as a completely separate take of the character, plot point similarities aside.

    • 

      The thing is, I kept sensing the film was restraining from outright doing the same plot points. Doing them because it “had to” and then not doing them quite the same way for fear of feeling too much like a remake. The end result was a film I felt I’d seen before, with better talent behind it but that still managed to play the story less effectively than the original.

  5. 

    I totally agree with you in saying that the film was a bit pinned on being ‘different’ despite using the same plot. I think in some regards it achieved thi but for the most part, it seemed like a more advanced, better shot edited and acted version of the original. What I think is going to be the real interest is when the sequel releases in 2014. It will be interesting to see their take on the original comics – something not very well done by the original filmmakers in regards to parts 2 and 3 of the original trilogy.

Trackbacks and Pingbacks:

  1. My Week in Staring at Screens: 07/01/12 « justAtad - July 1, 2012

    […] Amazing Spider-Man (Cinema) – I’ve already written about this here. I’ll add to my thoughts in a podcast to be posted on Tuesday. For now I’ll just say […]

  2. The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) « Nigredo's Room - July 18, 2012

    […] Movie Review: The Amazing Spider-Man (justatad.wordpress.com) […]

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s