The Amazing Spider-Man review

Many people have complained about the mere notion of rebooting the Spider-Man series so close from the release of the much derided and reviled Spider-Man 3. Many have also complained that it's even too close to the original Spider-Man movie (released in 2002) to reboot the series on a whole.

I'm not one of these people - in fact, it sort of annoys me how much this has been brought up. Who cares when the last movie came out? Especially if we could get something better? Why not be hopeful and wait and see how it turns out before complaining. I mean, seriously, do you like Spider-Man? I know you do, so who cares if it's "rebooted" or not.

Maybe it's because I have a background in reading comic books. You see in comics, it's rare for a creative team (mainly the writer and the penciller) to stick together on a series for more than a year or so. Then another creative team comes on board and sure it's still the X-Men, Batman, Superman, or whatever but it's a new look and new style that often accompanies costume and storyline changes. Sometimes much of what the previous writer did is ignored by the current writer. So in a way, comic books have been rebooting constantly for nearly a century. It keeps things fresh. Sure it's not always great, sometimes it's downright horrible, but it is what it is.

So no, I don't have a problem with rebooting franchises. However, I do have a serious problem with retelling an origin story. This was the main reason I was possibly going to pass on the Amazing Spider-Man (at least 'till it was on the small screen). I won't go into my hatred over Hollywood's mismanagement of comic book properties with regards to their beginnings again, but only because I've already gone over it in THIS ARTICLE.

But what the Hell, a new Spider-Man movie was out so I might as well check it out...I'd heard mixed reviews but mainly good things from people I trust.

Turns out, the Amazing Spider-Man is pretty darn good.

It's not THIS awesome...but it's awesome.

Right off the bat, the action and tone is all much better here than in Raimi's movies. I like Spider-Man, I LOVE Spider-Man 2 and I hate Spider-Man 3...but even with my love of the first two movies, I've only ever found Raimi's vision to be acceptable. Sure they work, but they're also OFF. Too hokey and oft-beat. A little too innocent and a tad corny. Raimi's Spider-Man is full of cringe-worthy lines (and delivery) and sappy sentimentalism that's way too heavy-handed and not very realistic. Seriously, check 'em out again, you'll find the years haven't been all that kind to those movies.

Not to mention, I've always hated Danny Elfman's score and James Horner's trumps his easily.

With the Amazing Spider-Man, director Marc Webb (the man behind the fantastic 500 Days of Summer) has created a more real, lived-in world that feels closer to reality. A lot has been said about the studio wanting to make Spider-Man dark like the Dark Knight and while that may be true of what the suit's wanted, to me it just feels like Webb made a more realistic Spider-Man movie. And I don't have a problem with that. Sure, Spider-Man isn't a dark character, but his world is and he's a tortured young man that has had truly horrible things happen to him. However, again, I don't feel like this movie is a dark flick that is trying to mirror what Nolan has done with the current Bat-films.

The love interest is better - and not because it's Gwen Stacy instead of MJ, after all MJ in Raimi's movies was really just a mix of the two anyway - but only because Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield have real chemistry. In fact, the casting here knocks the movie right out of the park. With all due respect to the late Cliff Robertson, Martin Sheen is phenomenal as Uncle Ben. He just oozes paternal and yet he's cool enough to give Peter his space - wow, just spot on, loved it. And I really enjoyed what Dennis Leary did with his role as Gwen's dad, Captain Stacy. In many ways, Nolan's Batman series has been so great because it was casted very well right from the beginning. I feel like the same can be said here as well.

With that said, I didn't love Garfield as Spider-Man - whoa, wait...I didn't hate him either. I'm just on the middle on this one. I think he did a fine job but I felt that he was let down a bit by this slightly warped version of Peter Parker that they are going for, a little too hipster/emo with way too many Edwardian Twilight hints for my taste. But I can't blame Garfield for this, I'm just too distracted by it at first to give his performance as Spider-Man a real shakedown. I'm gonna see this flick again, and I'm sure as time goes on I'll come to say that I think Garfield makes a great Spider-Man. It can't be hard to beat Tobey, though - who was a little too mopey for my taste.

I'm not really going to give this flick too much of a synopsis, mostly because I don't think I have to. However I will say that my fears of a repeating origin weren't all that realized. Very little time is spent on Spider-Man's origins and it doesn't feel too repetitive because honestly, it's a lot more enjoyable than the 2002 version. Part of that is the cast, but I would argue most of it is Marc Webb. It's still there though when it really doesn't have to be, so I'm sure over the years it might annoy me more, but right now, it's okay. Once the Lizard is introduced the movie goes into full swing (heh) and the action is very good with Spider-Man poses and moves pulled right off of some of my favorite comic book covers. The special-effects are excellent and the webbing is used to a much higher and smarter degree than we've seen before.

Now, with all that said. Let's go into a little of what I DIDN'T like about the Amazing Spider-Man.

Elephant in the room - look closely, but there is a large portion of storyline that's been cut from this movie. You can see it in the trailers if you're observant enough and it's sort of what the "Untold Story" tagline has been hinting at. And in fact, there are pieces of it lurking in the finished product. Apparently, there was to be a whole plot development about how Peter's parents had done something to his DNA as a child that would allow him to gain the Spider powers that he eventually does. I EFFING HATE THIS IDEA.

You see the main problem with Hollywood and their interpretations of these iconic characters is that they wildly misunderstand them. What makes Spider-Man tick is that he's a normal dude. He's a science geek in High School that has nothing going for him on any social level. He's awkward, nervous, and well - geeky. Bam, he get's powers he gains some confidence but he's always having life shit on him. Losing Uncle Ben, losing Gwen Stacy (spoiler alert - she doesn't die in this movie but the Green Goblin chucked her off the Brooklyn Bridge to her death in the comics), having New York hate him while he's helping, J. Jonah Jameson chewing him out constantly, always facing off against enemies that are stronger, faster, and deadlier than he is. That's the thing, Spider-Man is always the underdog. He's a normal dude. Having his parents do SOMETHING (that will probably never be properly explained) to his DNA messes with the "normal guy get's powers" core of what makes Spider-Man awesome.

Now for whatever reason, this storyline was mostly dropped from the movie. But the remnants are still there - this possibly means they'll touch on it in Part 2 (which is coming, btw). In some ways it's weird that the parent angle was even used at all because while it's heavily touched on at the beginning of the film, it's dropped for the rest of it. Like literally dropped and never brought up again until the very end for the credit sequence. This is just improper planning. I will sort of wait and reserve full judgment until the next installment.

Also, I wasn't very fond of the Lizard's overall look. And I'm a big fan of the Lizard as one of Spider-Man's villains. I've been wanting him to come at Spidey for YEARS. A lot of people are defending the design by saying that they were going for the early Lizard incarnation's look. I don't think they were purposely going for that regardless of what they say, but whatever. For most people, the Lizard looks like this:

He does NOT look like a Goomba from the Super Mario Bros. movie. I'm sorry, but the design for the Lizard changed over the years because the original design sucked. Say what you want, but that Lizard up above would have been WAY cooler to watch fight Spider-Man than the wannabe Killer Croc we saw. Oh yeah, I got jokes for days, yo.

Speaking of jokes, Spider-Man is a comedian. I'm serious. He's constantly cracking one-liners, telling jokes, and making fun of the guy's he's fighting (it's part of his tactics - throws his opponent off of his game). Now we've seen this a bit in the Raimi movies but I can count on one hand how many times Maguire makes quips in ALL three Spider-Man movies. I can count on one hand how many times Garfield does it in one movie - so it's improving, I'll give them that, but it's far from where it should be.

Minor complaint, not a fan of the costume. I feel like Spider-Man's costume is too classic to modify (nor should one try) and this version is too over-stylized and looks somewhat like it was made out of basketballs. Stop over-thinking things...jeez.

With that being said, I still found WAY more to like about this Spider-Man than I expected to. I've heard a ton of complaints that range from Parker wasn't geeky enough to he becomes a hero by first only seeking revenge - that's great, but these are nitpicks. And none of the nitpicks are MY nitpicks. I feel the character was serviced well in a world that was relatable and realistic. The actors all did great jobs and the characterization was mostly spot-on. The action set-pieces were great and the fight choreography was pretty darn exceptional. Oh, and the music was much better...

It's a good movie, folks and a very decent Spider-Man entry. It's not quite as good as Spider-Man 2 but I felt that it was absolutely better than the original Spider-Man. Definitely worth seeing.


8 / 10