The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

I read a lot of reviews for this movie before watching it myself. In the end, they all boiled down to a few basic criticisms, which I kept in mind as I made my own appraisal. Here are the major problems people seem to have had with Marc Webb's "Amazing Spider-Man", along with my responses.

1. The reboot was too soon.

This more or less depends on your point of view. True, the last Spidey movie was in 2007, a mere five years ago more than long enough to warrant another Spider-Man film; not exactly long enough to call for a complete reboot. On the other hand, I think a lot of people would agree that it's been more like eight years since the last GOOD Spider-Man film. I loved Raimi's work with the character, though I do criticize him on some minor points. But in the end, he really dropped the ball with Spider-Man 3, running a lot of good characters into the ground and painting himself into a corner with two hours of very messy plotting. In the end, whether a reboot was necessary per se is a matter of personal preference. But even if you think it wasn't necessary, is it fair to write off the new movie completely as a result? I don't believe it is.

2. We've heard it all before.

Yes and no. This is another interpretation of Spider-Man's origin story. But it's very different from Raimi's first Spider-Man film. More importantly, it's a well-done interpretation. At the heart of this "origin story" is Peter Parker's development from a somewhat geeky, trouble-making teen into a true hero. This transition happened far more quickly in Raimi's first movie, mainly because Maguire's Peter had a more strongly-developed moral compass to begin with. Neither version is objectively inferior in my opinion, but I do have a personal preference for the deep character drama achieved by Webb. The point is, yes, this is the spider-bite story again, but it's a good spider-bite story.

3. The hype about "secrets being revealed" was a big lie.

Yes, it was. This is most definitely not "the untold story". Significant-sounding lines from the trailers such as "Do you think what happened to you was an accident?" and "If you want the truth about your parents, Peter, then come and get it" didn't even feature, which I'll admit kind of annoyed me. That amounts to false advertising in my opinion. I was very happy with what I got, but it wasn't what I was promised. The thing is, there is some big mystery going on in this movie with Peter's parents. However, their story doesn't feature very heavily in this first movie. The elements of it that do were given away in the trailers. So don't bother watching this solely to find out more about Richard and Mary Parker. Their story will have to wait until the sequel.

4. The villain was weak.

My main problem with this film's take on Dr. Curtis Connors was that it diverged so heavily from the comics. The Connors I remember was an intriguing villain because he was a father and a husband who transformed himself into a monster in a quest for healing. Billy Connors and his mom aren't around here. Instead there's a bachelor, British-accented Connors who frequently runs the risk of going boldly where so many villains have gone before. Fortunately, Rhys Ifans' performance is good enough to prevent this happening most of the time. Connors' motivation makes sense overall, though little time is given to truly flesh it out. Perhaps if his mysterious connections to Norman Osborn had been explored in greater detail, he would have been more memorable.

5. The Lizard's design was flawed.

Most people who didn't care for the Lizard's look seem to describe it as "too human". The face certainly is. It wasn't really that scary. I've seen alternate designs which the production team ultimately abandoned which I think would have been a lot better. So basically I would agree with this criticism, but for me it was a minor quibble.

6. It had too much teenage angst and Twilight-esque drama.

Actually, it had none. The teenage interactions were more mature than I'm used to seeing in film or TV, with even Flash Thompson evolving from a typical bully into a likable character over time. There are a few moments of stereotypical rebellion from Peter, but they lead rapidly into the tragic events that change him, so they're quickly forgotten. Despite the early publicity saying that this movie would be "darker", I don't think I'd describe it that way. It's a little less cheesy and a little more gritty in parts, but there are enough moments of clever humor to give the viewer a break from the gradually building tension.

The Amazing Spider-Man does have flaws. But in my opinion, its good points are so good that they cancel out the missteps. Andrew Garfield brings the wisecracking, geeky, sometimes mischievous Peter Parker from the original comics to life better than anyone I've seen (or heard, in animation) thus far. He nails the sense of humor that was frequently lacking from Maguire's Spidey. I had my doubts about Emma Stone as Gwen, but her acting was superb as well. She and Garfield have great chemistry on screen, which bodes well for the future. Really all the main cast was terrific, but I must make a special mention of Dennis Leary's Captain Stacy. He truly did a fantastic job. The special effects in regard to Spider-Man's web-slinging and other stunts were breathtaking, and clever cinematography draws the audience into the action effortlessly. The music was forgettable for the most part, but served its purpose in the more dramatic scenes (much like the soundtrack to The Avengers).

In short, watching this movie was a delight for me as a long-time Spider-Fan, even with the memory of Raimi's better efforts fresh in my mind, and I'm very much looking forward to the sequel (teased at the end of this movie by an intriguing mid-credits scene). Worth buying, worth watching, and worth re-watching. It's a fun, engaging superhero film, and deserves to be judged on its own merits, which are considerable. Please don't let the unfair amount of negativity surrounding this movie scare you away from it. If you give it a chance, you won't be sorry.

The Peter Parker we find in this film is grittier, more real than one in Sam Raimi's previous trilogy. He's kind of a spaz and he looks it. The kind of guy you could easily imagine geeking out with all his geeky friends, playing World of Warcraft between hits on a bong. Not that there's anything like that in this movie (where's Harry Osborn when you need him?), but you get the idea. It's this more "real" take on Peter Parker, not quite so perky and preppy as Toby McGuire's version, that's the thing I liked most about this movie.

Other than that, there's not a huge amount to say. Emma Stone's Gwen Stacy is cute but utterly unremarkable, and so too for most of the other performances. Sally Field injects more than we are used to seeing into Aunt May, but that's about it. I'm not entirely sure that Martin Sheen was even trying. For long time spider fans, or even just those who've watched a handful of superhero summer blockbusters, this isn't a film with too many surprises. Or even, dare I say it, any surprises. It's an entertaining extravaganza, but it's not the kind of thing that very many people over the age of 15 will feel the need to see more than once. You may want to bear that in mind when making the decision whether to rent or buy.

It is worth noting that this film is clearly designed to set up a sequel, and more than likely a trilogy. There are questions raised and themes presaged that are then just left hanging within the scope of this individual movie.

The only thing I would say actively went wrong in this film was its attempt to have Spider-Man spout the kind of witty banter he uses when fighting his comic book battles. You may be able to get away with that kind of thing on the printed page. But in this medium the pace of the banter was totally out of sync with the blitzkrieg action of the fighting itself. For this reason it came across as completely forced, and to be frank, as a rather poor and awkward voice-over. Fortunately, although glaringly obvious, this flaw was rather minor and forgivable in the scope of the movie as a whole.

Finally, I might as well make my own prejudices clear. I personally am quite sick of the endless reboots that plague the genre. I think things at least have the potential to get far more interesting when the universe is left running for longer periods. There is at least the chance for writers to move beyond endless recapitulation of the same basic storylines a form of writing that once again I believe is a plague upon the genre. I know that Bruce Timm's work in the DC Animated Universe was far, far more interesting back when all the shows made up a definite continuity: a true universe with scope and depth and history and a future that the viewers and the writers got to explore together.

What I personally would most love to see are productions that allow for real development and change. That don't require all the principles to be treated as such valuable pieces of intellectual property that they must be preserved forever in aspic. Or perhaps, to go with a more apt analogy, treated like action figures who must never be removed from their packaging because to do so would annihilate their value on the collectables market.

A hopeless dream, I know.

Theo.

Buy The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) Now

WAY better than all the other spidermans. Andrew Garfield has much more of a personality than tobey Maguire did. This film also reflects the comic books more than the others did.

Read Best Reviews of The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) Here

Best Spiderman out of all the others! The new actor fit well with the new 'Spidey' script and I enjoyed the edgy attitude the

writers gave for this Spiderman. Although Tobey McQuire in the previous films was a little more buff this the new scrawny Spiderman made the story more plausible and real. Sally Field as Aunt May gave a surperb performance and Charlie Sheen was an ok uncle. All in all for me this was the best Spidey!

Want The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) Discount?

There are only so many ways you can tell a superhero story, especially through a movie and you have the dodgy task of taking a popular superhero with the elements of his story try to breathe new life into it and adapt it to the big screen in a way that can reach a wide audience; families, kids, teenagers, adults and generations while at the same time making it appeal to the die hard superfans and collectors. This is the hard task that the 2012 reboot of the Spider-Man franchise The Amazing Spider-Man is attempting to achieve.

Superhero films have received a revival in interest new since the first decade of the new millennium and throughout the 2000's to the current day. It's become a popular trend in Hollywood and already we've seen plenty of superheros head to the big screen; some with great mainstream success at the box office (X-Men, Spider-Man, Batman) and some poorly received (Daredevil, Superman Returns, Green Lantern). Spider-man is one of those superhero characters that caught on most as a movie franchise and was successful enough to spawn two sequels. The trilogy of Spidey films of the 00's was mostly well received but when attempts of re-singing actors for a fourth title failed there was only two options: 1) Give up on making more Spider-Man films in the near foreseeable future or 2) Get some fresh faces to replace the already established actors and come up with an alternate take on the story of one of the greatest Marvel characters and superheroes of all time. This reboot is a different Spider-man altogether and in this case it's actually a good thing. Garfield as Spider-Man was what was going to make or break this movie and his Peter Parker is a fresh one with slight twists that I think audiences will approve of. The retelling of the Spiderman story works here because they did an actual reboot, using the same characters and comic universe but it's a different take it's obviously not a remake yet it's not a re-imagining either being that this character has already plenty of history to chose from. If you watched any of the 3 previous ones you will be able to tell that the angle and tone they have here are very different. The back story already is quite different, they explain more about Peter Parker's parents, in this one his love interest is Gwen Stacy not Mary Jane Watson (and very different from the Gwen Stacy we saw in 2007's Spider-Man 3 too), the villain (Dr. Curtis "Curt" Conors/The Lizard), the way the events happen (how Peter gains his powers etc.) is not quite the same and the way its presented is unique which is all a plus in my book.

A lot of us were wondering how Andrew Garfield (The Social Network) would fare as the lead role compared to Tobey McGuire (as if there weren't going to be any comparisons) and that it would directly make the biggest impact on the fate (and perhaps sequels) of this reboot. I must say I was impressed. MacGuire was cast for the trilogy of Spider-Man films from 2002-07 and I think most would say Tobey pulled off the job really well, came off as likeable and people tend to identify him in his role of the spandex web-slinger. Looking back McGuire was suitable and a good choice for the role but Garfield brings something else to the table, portrays the role different with more flair, more attitude. Not as shy and innocent as Macguire's portrayal of Spidey. Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man you can sense from the get-go is in ways better or improved on MacGuire's if comparisons must be made. He doesn't look as weak, is a bit more like the High-Schooler you would imagine, has the smart comments, is more aggressive and is taller and fills the suit better. Enough has been said, Garfied makes a rather convincing Peter Parker, student and Peter Parker as the masked hero. Those are both different Spider-Man overall, different takes on the same character and each have their positives but in the end I think I'd take Garfied over McGuire any day (no disrespect to Tobey intended I thought his take on the role was excellent and certainly put his stamp on the character). Emma Stone was very believable as Gwen Stacy and has that edge of the character she portrays and she looks the part, she has actual chemistry with Garfield and although we know her more for her comedy acting roles (Superbad, House Bunny, Easy A and others) she has no problem playing a more serious role and I could well see her do more of this type of acting. Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and Aunt May (Sally Fields) were nicely cast although I had grown very fond of the actors who played them in the trilogy of Spidey films and thought they were more effective than they are here. Rhys Ifanswas fantastic as Dr. Curt Conors/The Lizard and although there are lots of special effects for his transformation to being the Lizard I thought the human counterpart was played quite well and made his background story come through nicely. Also notable was Denis Leary as Captain George Stacy, Gwen's father.

The fighting and action scenes are probably the greatest improvements over the first 3 titles. Not that it was bad in any of those films but the way they captured the action in this one was fantastic and simply superior and are bad-er and mean-er. Those sequences were well executed which is important in a superhero movie. The stunts came off looking somewhat less surreal yet amazing to watch. Instead of the hero shooting web from his wrists they go back to the original story with the artificial web-shooters which was a good idea. We even manage to feel something for the villain and the Lizard's backstory was always one of my favorites and the character looks fantastic on the big screen with details and texture; this is one cool looking villain, I cannot imagine Lizard being done better. I was very happy when they chose Kurt Conors as the villain and the result turned out fantastic, at least they didn't take one of the previously seen villains for this first chapter in the cinematic saga. Not that I'm against using a previous bad guy again but someone else was a good choice to begin. Something that I thought was particularly great is that we saw Peter Parker as a child a further glimpse at what made him who he is. In fact the first few minutes are of an "origin of Peter Parker" scene that gives the viewer more insight on the character. What they did with the story, the hero, the villain, the romance, the stunts is commendable, especially considering that this is taking an already successful movie franchise and trying to revive and do something different yet interesting with it that would keep fans an moviegoers excited about it.

On a quick note I don't have much to say on the film's 3D probably because while it's not bad, it's not a big presence and the focus was mostly on the story and as a result there are very few times when the 3D stands out in any way.

There are similarities between this film and the original Spider-Man but there is plenty of differences too (there's only so much you can change) and it doesn't come off as watching the same movie twice this series is moving forwards. Ultimately the fans will decide how this film will go down in movie history (and superhero movie history). All I have to say is I got my money and time's worth with The Amazing Spiderman, I was certainly not disappointed, I was pleasantly surprised and found it very enjoyable; definitely worthy of the "Summer Blockbuster" title. It think it's safe to say that the "amazing" in the title very well reflects the viewing experience as a whole and that this is one that fans and non-fans will enjoy. The highest rating, highest recommendation. *****