Viewed in
2013
Formats
HDTV
Premise
It's the Peter Parker story, this time with Andrew Garfield!
Liked
Charming cast.
Disliked
Not enough differentiation from Sam Raimi/Tobey Maguire entries.
Thoughts
In a vaccuum, this was a pretty entertaining Spider-Man origin story.
The best part was the cast. Garfield was very charming, whether he was web-slinging or struggling with high school bullies. A friend had a great point that this Spidey was better than Tobey Maguire's because he was more like the comic book version, more wise-cracking, minimal emo. The lovely Emma Stone was adorable as Gwen Stacy. Her chemistry with Garfield was very charming, even if the mumbly-awkward teenage dialog scenes felt really out of place with the rest of the slick movie.
As for the rest of the cast, Martin Sheen and Sally Field, as Uncle Ben and Aunt May brought their gravitas to the teenage angst scenes. Rhys Ifans was solid as Dr. Curt Conners, a sympathetic villain, a scientist obsessed with his lost limb, disguising it as doing it for the good of humanity.
Money was also well-spent on visual effects, from gravity-defying aerial skyscraper swinging, to Spider-Man's web-based Lizard-tracking, to a dizzying (in a good way) battle atop a tower. Having our hero Tarzaning around recklessly, sometimes missing his mark, was a nice touch to Parker's teenage exuberant charm. However, the lizard effects were very uneven. Often times the sewer-dwelling reptiles looked like obvious CGI sprites. Whenever Ifans transformed, he turned into a clunky hybrid of man-in-suit painted in computer graphics.
While there were "differences" between this and the Sam Raimi trilogy (Gwen Stacy instead of Mary Jane, Spider-Man's not-so-hidden identity, Parker's science background [much like some of the comic book incarnations], electric web-shooters), the movie still couldn't shake off the the factor of time. The origin story was still essentially the same, and characters still had to run through all-too-familiar plot points. Even though the Maguire never faced the Lizard, I couldn't help but view this villain as a combination of Alfred Molina's Doc Ock and Willem Dafoe's Green Goblin.
Other smaller flaws: some of the subplots felt more like set ups for sequels (Flash Thompson) than true complications with satisfactory payoffs. Also, with all the interesting/plausible sciencey science, they allowed Parker to get crystal-clear cell phone reception in the sewers of New York.
Look, I'm usually not one of those "it's all about the art" elitists, so I totally understand the financial/contractual reasons why Sony rebooted Spidey when it did. If I were in their shoes, I would've done the same thing. You don't walk away from money-machines.
I was just glad that they made the effort to-and mostly succeed-in making an entertaining summer flick that wasn't lazy or cynical. But just because I can accept the reboot's existence, doesn't mean I have to like it. The immediacy baggage of Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 unfortunately worked against my enjoyment of The Amazing Spider-Man.
