Login
Arriving only five years after Spider-Man 3, 2012's The Amazing Spider-Man represents a reboot of the Spider-Man film series, starting again from scratch a mere decade after Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy kicked off. It's important to note, though, that The Amazing Spider-Man was not produced because the filmmakers had a fresh new story that needed to be told - instead, the Sony Corporation hastily rushed it into production because their film rights to Spider-Man would elapse if they didn't have another movie in the can by 2012. Thus, after cancelling Spider-Man 4, Sony decided to simply reboot the franchise with cheaper actors and a more obedient director. In other words, from its very inception, The Amazing Spider-Man was about business, not passion, and every frame of the film's torturously extended running time feels like the worst kind of soulless, passionless, mechanical, assembly-line, commercially-focused, corporate filmmaking. Worst of all, the movie actually feels like a remake of 2002's Spider-Man since it treads the same narrative ground, failing to justify itself for hitting the reset button.
As a young boy, Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) was left in the care of his Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and Aunt May (Sally Field) after his parents disappeared under mysterious circumstances. Growing into a reserved teen interested in photography, Peter begins looking to learn more about his father's work with Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans). While Peter sneaks around Connors' workplace, a genetically engineered spider bites him, giving the teenager superhuman abilities and heightened senses. Peter's beloved Uncle Ben is soon murdered by a street criminal, leaving the newfound superhero hungry for revenge. Peter begins to prowl the night-time streets of Manhattan in search of the culprit, eventually developing into an enigmatic, web-slinging vigilante known to the public as Spider-Man. As Spider-Man's reputation grows and Peter's relationship with classmate Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) burgeons, the one-armed Dr. Connors tests his latest serum on himself. Connors experiments with lizard DNA to stimulate limb regrowth, but the experiment goes awry, transforming the scientist into a giant, psychopathic lizard.
Rather than conceiving of a whole new origin tale, writers James Vanderbilt, Steve Kloves and Alvin Sargent (who actually co-wrote Spider-Man 2 and 3) lazily stick by the narrative beats of Sam Raimi's movie: Uncle Ben's murder, Flash Thompson bullying Peter, Peter getting bitten by a radioactive spider, Peter creating a suit and going vigilante, Peter falling for a young woman, a mentally fractured villain showing up whose experiment makes him go haywire, and so on. Plus, it's executed here with far less gusto than a decade ago. Furthermore, the second half of The Amazing Spider-Man is a rhythmic remake of 2002's Spider-Man, following the same beats but substituting a different villain. It might be faithful to the comics, but it only triggers déjà vu, feeling like reheated script leftovers rather than an audacious new adventure.
To its credit, while the broad narrative strokes are the same, The Amazing Spider-Man does introduce a few new elements to Peter's background. The problem is that the new stuff is awful, alternating between the outright wrongheaded and the laughably coincidental. See, Peter's father's science partner just so happens to have been the future The Lizard, and they just so happen to have worked for Norman Osborn, and their experiments just so happen to be tied to the genetically engineered spider that turns Peter into Spider-Man. And Gwen Stacy just so happens to work for Dr. Connors. Wow! Writers may think that they're being clever by making everything interconnected, but they're only serving to make a sprawling world of possibilities feel small, in the process removing the "accidental everyman hero" aspect of Peter's personality. Another problem with the script is that it's, for lack of a better word, lame. At one stage, the writers start to care about where Spidey's webs are attaching, leading to a moment during the climax that's meant to be moving and uplifting but is instead the stupidest thing ever witnessed in a Spider-Man movie (even worse than Spider-Man 3's emo dance). Such malarkey constantly shows up throughout the film, extending to a horrible showdown with Flash Thompson on a basketball court and a groan-worthy moment on a football field. Oh, and for unknown reasons, Flash becomes a sensitive soul off-screen and befriends Peter...right after Peter humiliates him.
Worse, the film cannot quite figure out who Peter Parker is (other than not Tobey Maguire and not the comic character). Depending on what happens in a given scene, Parker alternates between a slacker, an emo kid, a wiseass, a hipster, a loner, a skater, and a mumbling Michael Cera type. Plus, there's no arc to Peter's character: he starts as an adolescent dick obsessed with his own problems, and he is exactly the same at the end of the film. A lazy Uncle Ben voiceover at the end tries to establish that Peter has changed, but the next scene completely undoes this intention. Little care goes into establishing Spider-Man and his reputation, too. Raimi's film examined Spider-Man's portrayal in the media, establishing that the public perceives him as a hero. Here, director Marc Webb dedicates all of two minutes to Spider-Man's public introduction. Not to mention, Parker's transformation into Spider-Man feels equally rushed. But it's Dr. Connors/The Lizard who fares the worst. There's literally no justification for his transformation into the story's villain - he's just a guy who's pissed about having one arm and whose scientific experiments turn him into a lizard. There is nothing at the root of his evil beyond his boss wanting to shut him down. From there, he turns into a reptilian fascist who wants to turn all residents of the city into lizards because... Errr... Fuck, I don't know. We're never told. The film has no idea who this character is or what his motivations are. And in the space between a couple of scenes, Connors single-handedly manages to haul heaps of laboratory equipment from Oscorp to the underground sewer system. Okay...
Raimi's Spider-Man movies are colourful creations that feel like true comic book movies, but The Amazing Spider-Man is grittier and more morose in tone. As a result, it often feels self-serious, stripping light-hearted fun out of the equation. And, occasionally, the film looks surprisingly cheap despite its large budget, with strictly workmanlike technical contributions across the board. And the CGI Lizard looks horrifically inept. Seriously, The Lizard looks like the result of bad '90s CGI rather than the digital effects of a big-budget 2012 blockbuster (even The Asylum would be embarrassed to have this shit in their films). To his credit, Webb does show promise in his handling of the smaller scenes. Webb cut his teeth with 2009's fantastic (500) Days of Summer, so it's unsurprising that isolated dramatic moments do work here and there. For example, Peter's verbal stuttering is spot-on, and the death of Uncle Ben is emotionally affecting. On the other hand, Webb's handling of the action is less exciting and, for a summer blockbuster, there is a distinct lack of thrills and exhilaration. Furthermore, the film cheats by having Parker be instinctively good at everything from the get-go. Raimi's Spider-Man shows Peter feeling out his powers, developing strategies and doing a lot of trial and error. Here, Peter masters his skills without even trying, illustrated by an awful subway sequence that devolves into silly slapstick.
I must also mention the 3D. Even though The Amazing Spider-Man was shot natively in 3D, this is the worst 3D presentation I've seen in years. It's not eye-gauging; it's just obnoxiously underwhelming and flat. It looks 2D more often than not, as there's no sense of space between objects or, indeed, any sense of depth. I constantly removed my glasses, and the screen looked exactly the same (except brighter). Save yourself the ridiculous cost of a 3D ticket, and see it in 2D...if you have to see the movie at all.
It almost goes without saying, but Andrew Garfield cannot pass for a 17-year-old Peter Parker - instead, he looks his actual age (28). Garfield shows some promise as Parker, but his acting is overblown for the most part, and the Brit has trouble masking his natural accent, which is troublesome. Not to mention, his performance is reminiscent of Robert Pattinson as Edward Cullen. Emma Stone makes the best impression here; she's a pitch-perfect Gwen Stacy with immense spirit, quirk and likeability. Her chemistry with Garfield is also better than expected, and Stone's innate charm helps make the leaden dialogue sound better. Meanwhile, Denis Leary makes for a terrific Captain Stacy (Gwen's father), and Martin Sheen is wonderful in the role of Uncle Ben. Sheen is easily the best thing in this movie; his Uncle Ben is kind, well-articulated, responsible and level-headed, and his performance resonates in a hugely effective manner. On the other hand, Sally Field is a tragically vanilla Aunt May who lacks everything that made Rosemary Harris such a standout in the role. Rhys Ifans is also wasted here as Dr. Connors.
Not only is The Amazing Spider-Man a lousy movie, but it's also one of the summer's most despicable and deflating motion pictures. In the right hands, a Spider-Man reboot could've yielded a refreshing new take on the character, similar to Matthew Vaughn's exceptional X-Men: First Class. Instead, it's a riskless, artless, unimaginative, pointless, lackadaisical endeavour that only exists because Sony believed that even the laziest Spider-Man feature would turn a profit. In other words, the makers had nothing but contempt for their audience. Even the film's okay parts - the fights, web-slinging, etc - have been done better within superior movies.
4.2/10
