You can’t help but approach this film with some trepidation. Most film-goers over the age of 11 will have at some point seen some of Sam Raimi’s original Spider-Man trilogy from the early 2000’s, and for that reason will be very familiar with the whole “geek gets bitten by a spider… gets super powers… gets told he should be responsible… saves the city… gets the girl” scenario. In fact, I’m not even sure that you need to have seen Spider-Man on the silver screen to be aware of how this hero gets his powers, but that’s what we get here in the Marc Webb-directed The Amazing Spider-Man.
Let me get one confession out the way early: “My name’s the Phage… and I’m a comic-aholic, and in recent years I’ve relapsed with waves of sweet, sweet comic ecstasy pouring straight into my eyes and ears like a junkie. I don’t repent.” For this reason, I can’t help but adopt an almost snobbish attitude to comic book movies, especially those stemming from the Marvel stable. And recent stellar output from Marvel Studios (Avengers Assemble, Thor, Captain America: The First Avenger,
The Robert Downey Jr. Show Iron Man) really makes it an uphill battle for Sony Pictures’ ol’ webhead to shine on the screen, even for the non-comic loving viewer. Does he succeed? Well… almost.
First things first, Andrew Garfield is inspired casting as Peter Parker. He brings that nervous, awkward energy with him, which sits perfectly with the insular Parker, but also breaks out the wit when his alter-ego merits it. In my opinion, a far better choice than Tobey Maguire, who could never bring out the sarcasm of Spider-Man… add to this the fact that Garfield didn’t sweep his hair to one side and dance down a street in one of the most cringe-worthy moments of Spider-Man 3, and we’re golden. Probably not a routine that Maguire insisted on, so he may not be totally to blame; but it’s his face that’s burned into my retinas, so he’ll take the fall here. Go on… have another look and live it again.
So where does the film fall down for me? No, it’s not the fact that this is essentially just a (well crafted) love story between Garfield and Emma Stone, where one of them just happens to have superpowers. It’s more the fact that you can’t shake away the feeling of déja-vu. The film hits the same beats as its predecessor, even down to the villain. Sure, William DaFoe‘s Norman Osborn / Green Goblin is a different physical entity to Rhys Ifans’ Curt Connors / Lizard, but they’re essentially the same with both gradually losing their respective grips on reality before inevitably being whooped by our hero. However, it is refreshing to see a Spider-Man film where the villain is not defeated with such… “finality”… as previous iterations. Wise move Sony… wise move indeed.
So all this begs the question as to why this was even rebooted. The cynic in me just screams “money you fool – money!“, hence the hokey 3D job to tag a few more dollars / pounds onto the ticket price. Also, with Sony making this movie they avoid the sticky issue of giving the rights to Spider-Man back to Marvel Studios. And let’s be honest, Sony marketing this as the “untold story” of Peter’s parents was unnecessary with the story barely licking the surface of that particular plot. However, the optimist in me is telling me that this reboot could rejuvenate the franchise and clear the sour taste that Spider-Man 3 left in every fan-boy’s mouth. At least the origin story is now done with, and we can progress to bigger and better things in the 2014 sequel…
Origin stories, when done right, leave the viewer feeling invigorated and filled with wonder. However, retelling the origin is like opening your Christmas presents, having a day of play and then wrapping them up again for next year. Yes, it’s fun to play with those familiar things again… it’s just not all that exciting or surprising. That being said, I’ve high hopes for the sequel, where hopefully we’ll see more of the cocky guy in the blue and red suit, as opposed to him learning about responsibility. Again.
I loved the two Sam Raimi versions (yes, only two, and I’m sticking by that) for all the goofy, Raimi-esque fun they were. But this is probably my favourite incarnation of Spiderman on the silver screen. So much so that I would argue 4 stars! Of course it was because of licensing reasons, but can you imagine how potentially awful it could have been? Despite retreading the entire origin spiel, I definitely think this iteration is superior and can’t wait for the next one. Perhaps a version where they do Venom properly?
i personally think this was amazing adaptation-the sarcastic comments made it- a far better spider man!
Oh I definitely agree on the character of Spider-Man being better – it was better acted and better written than the Maguire / Raimi creation, I just wish they’d been a bit more daring and skipped over the origin story, just as The Incredible Hulk did back in 2008 by (thankfully) forgetting all about Ang Lee’s Hulk. As I say though, I can’t wait to see what they bring to the table with Spider-Man II.
Spiderman > avengers > batman. Yeah I went there
Wow, now they’re some mighty brave words. Come TAS-M2 I may agree more (though Avengers 2 will be close by then w/ Thanos)… or I may need to watch Spider-Man again; though the mere thought of the origin story again makes me shiver. The 1994 Spider-Man cartoon dealt with the whole origin story in a 10 second flashback at the end of season 1. That’s how it should be done! Quickly and painlessly.