Have you ever gone somewhere for dinner and eaten yourself something you eat at home often? The meal in front of you is so much more delicious and supple, that you suddenly realize just how bland what you’ve become used to really is? Well that phenomenon is possible in movies too. A storyteller can come along and tell a story you already know, but tell it in a way that adds subtleties and warmth where there was once only a cold, blunt formula.

THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN begins by introducing us to a very young Peter Parker. One night, his father’s study is broken into and ransacked. Fearing that the thieves were after a particular piece of scientific research Mr. Parker had well-hidden, he gathers up his wife and young Peter and heads to Peter’s aunt and uncle Mae and Ben (Sally Field and Martin Sheen). Peter is to be left in their care for a while, though mysteriously, “a while” becomes the rest of his life.

Now a teenager, Peter (Andrew Garfield) is a quiet loner at school. He takes photos, keeps to himself, occasionally gets his ass kicked, and pines after Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone). One day, when going through some of his father’s old things, he discovers the piece of research that his father had hidden from the would-be bandits all those years ago. As Peter – an excellent student of science himself – begins to look into it, he realizes his best shot at answers would come from Oscorp, his father’s old employer. Specifically, he goes in search of Dr. Curtis Connors (Rhys Ifans), his father’s old research partner. When he does, a surprise is in store. In sneaking his way into Oscorp, he discovers that Gwen is one of Connors’ top interns…and being able to show off his scientific prowess does a lot to score points in her eyes.

While he’s there, Peter discovers that Connors is research human/animal genetics. Connors himself is an amputee so the way in which lizards can regenerate their limbs holds a certain promise. Parker eventually wanders through the wrong door, and finds himself in a lab where Oscorp is experimenting with spiders. It’s while he’s in this room that he gets bitten by one of them and begins to feel some curious (and amazing) side effects.
The question that has been asked endlessly since this project was announced is “why do we need to see the origin story again?”. In reflecting upon THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN, I find myself realizing the answer. It’s the same answer I give when people ask me how I could watch any given film more than once: If you already know the story, you’re able to focus your attention on other details. You zero in further on acting, pacing, visuals, and nuance. When you pay attention to such things in THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN, you come away realizing that it’s a surprisingly solid film.

The story of Spider-Man spends a lot of energy telling the story of Peter Parker. That might seem like a facile statement, but remind yourself that Peter Parker is a young protagonist, so his shyness, isolation, and anger create a different narrative than a rich orphaned brat or a technologically inclined playboy. What we feel for Peter is what decides whether a Spidey story succeeds or fails, and by that measure, THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN works. Andrew Garfield plays Peter in a way that is intelligent, honest, yet wildly uncertain. He embodies who we all should be, but in a way that would leave us with our lunch money stolen if we were. Garfield spends many of Parker’s scenes looking like a stiff breeze would blow him over, and by doing so he really underline’s Parker’s timidness. It doesn’t take much to realize that inhibition comes from his parents going missing, which gives Spider-Man’s story a sadness that’s usually missing.

What THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN does best is bring us moment after moment of wonderful human interaction. Sometimes it’s between two young people in love, sometimes its between a mentor and a pupil, sometimes it’s between a parent and a child. Every one of these moments feels genuine, and for that I think full credit must be given to director Marc Webb. Webb was an unconventional choice to direct this film given his modest track record so far, but on that track record is a film that exhibits some wonderful human interaction: (500) DAYS OF SUMMER. In that film, as in this film, Webb had a deft touch that captured conversations with warmth and honesty. His ability to use that same deft touch in a comic book film, and actually make us care about the characters is an unexpected surprise.

It has been asked by many – including me – whether or not this film was necessary, and after watching it and thinking about it, I’ve realized that the answer is “yes”. The sad fact is that the last Spider-Man film before this left the franchise as a burning, twisted wreck. Major characters had been painted into corners, villains had been killed off, secondary and tertiary characters were misused, and the sad fact was that there was nowhere left to go. So even if Sony had decided to just make “Spidey 4” and try to make everybody forget about what happened in Sam Raimi’s third film, they couldn’t because of the mess that script had made of the canon. Spider-Man had to be brought back to square one. Happily, in doing that, all involved with the film decided to create a better “square one” than we got last time, which brings the franchise back to solid footing.

I cared about everybody in this story more than I’ve cared about characters in a comic book film for quite some time. As a villain, Doctor Connors’ relationship to Peter feels far more intricate given his work with Peter’s father. Watching the two of them work and discuss the equation the elder Parker left behind adds a complexity to what comes later. It’s not just a hero and a villain fighting, Peter’s fighting a mentor, and a window into his past. I was also more smitten with Gwen Stacy than I thought I’d be. THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN knows better than to take an actress like Emma Stone and simply make her the damsel in distress. She’s someone Peter is striving to reach not only romantically, but also academically, making her an even more elusive rabbit that he’s chasing.

THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN faced a lot of challenges, and for some those challenges will be insurmountable. For me though, this film passed with flying colours. It hits the “reset” button better than I thought it could. It feels very grounded and plays with a very casual nature. And most importantly, It brings more humanity to a superhero story than almost any comic book movie I have seen.

Matineescore: ★ ★ ★ 1/2 out of ★ ★ ★ ★

What did you think? Please leave comments with your thoughts and reactions on THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN.

22 Replies to “THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN”

  1. Ah crap. Not you too 🙁

    I really disliked this film. I actually really loved it till the part after the basketball thing and hallway supercute fail flirting between Peter and Gwen. But then the whole Uncle Ben thing happens again and it just becomes this bad copy for me. I did not like the action scenes. I hated Lizard and how he didn’t have that big revelatory moment. I could not believe the romance would surmount to so much because there isn’t enough time given to it. The big crisis at the end was blah.

    My biggest problem, at the end of the day was that Emma Stone is robbed in this movie. I mean my biggest problem with the Sam Raimi films were also the heroine, because I could not stand Mary Jane Watson and the films revolved around her too much. Still, I could understand Peter’s love for her. Here the love isn’t explored enough. Stone- who is oh so brilliant and luminous, isn’t shown enough. Then we come to Garfield who is just toooooooooooo good-looking for someone like Peter Parker. I could not understand for a second how everyone wasn’t in love with him. He was still pretty decent, but I just could not believe it.

    Loved Dennis Leary and Stan Lee. Hated the film in general.

    1. Also, I’m pretty sure now that you are in the majority and it is me who is in the minority. God India adores this film. All the cinema halls are showing this. Brave isn’t even there anymore. Aaargh this film!! -.-

    2. Yup, me too.

      I didn’t get too far into this in the post because I wanted to stay on-point, but where you see it as a bad copy, I now see the original as a rough draft. The action scenes are a lot better – there was actually a lot of grumbling when the original was released about how cartoonish Spidey looked when he swung around. As for The Lizard, he’s not perfect, but he’s much better than the talking-but-mouth-ain’t-moving Green Goblin.

      I wasn’t completely fussed about Lizard’s dastardly plot, but it didn’t sink the whole film for me.

      I hear you on Stone, but I don’t believe she was as wasted as you say. It’s hard for me to articulate why without spoiling the whole story, but consider that this time out, the apple of Parker’s eye is also someone who challenges him intellectually…not just someone he thinks is cute.

      You’re right, Garfield-as-Parker is too cute (and too old). But I’ve known an awful lot of pretty or handsome kids that were just too self-conscious to really shine through. Looks are one thing, but confidence is what really sets us apart, right? That’s what Parker is lacking – not the looks (which he had when Toby Maguire was playing him too btw), but the attitude that would allow him to stand out.

      You raise a lot of great points Nik – a lot of great points. But I leave you with this:

      Try to shut off your previous experiences and re-watch Raimi’s Spider-Man with fresh eyes. Compare it to the new one in every facet and do up a post on how they really compare.

      Thanks for reading!

    3. I don’t think I can. I happen to love the first Spiderman. I remember watching it in the theatre with Spidey swinging around New York and I thought it was magical. And for me personally, the supervillain is a huge part of the superhero movie because in most cases that is who I side with, and a bland supervillain- one who is as badly made as Lizard, and someone as awesome as Rhys Ifans could not save, was just so sad.
      And this whole origin story crap. Like why sell it like that when the film isn’t going to be about it, and it will be pushed aside at the first opportunity. Also the Osbourne plot- what the hell happened with that?!

      I really did want to like this film, but maybe I saw it when I was in an extra nit-picky mood. What’s even worse is that I’ll probably watch it again for Garfield and Stone and hate it again. It’s a vicious cycle 🙁

  2. I like Stone/Garfield a lot, thought they have great chemistry together. I liked the actions scenes and even the 3D is very well done. But I am still trying to figure out why I feel so indifferent about the movie. If I have to rank it, it’s better than Sam Raimi’s first Spiderman but not as good as Spiderman 2, which is still the best Marvel movie I have seen.

    I am still trying to figure out why I didn’t like this more though.

    1. So many of us are hung up on the film’s “necessity” and comparing it to its original to just sit back and watch the film. It requires turning one’s brain off a little more than usual.

      Not to bring up such grandiose terms, but think of it as an adaptation of Shakespeare – you know a good production of “Hamlet” from a bad production of “Hamlet” when you see it.

      Your point about this being better than Raimi’s first film suggests that perhaps this is in fact a good production of “Hamlet”.

  3. I definitely liked the movie more than I expected. I was initially not too crazy by the fact that half the film is spent retelling Spider-Man’s origin, but once Spidey is in full swing (pun kinda intended), I found myself enjoying things more.

    The film also features one of the better Stan Lee cameos.

  4. Eh, I don’t know if I’ll go and see this. I desperately wanna get outta town these holidays and do something normal, but this is the only thing mildly interesting that I wanna see. I think I’ll just wait for The Dark Knight Rises.

    I’m glad that Andrew Garfield was impressive, though. I thought he’d be far too old to play the part, but he is quite a talented man.

    1. In your case, knowing the time and money involved with getting to a show, I’d suggest you can give this a miss – but not because I think it’s not worth seeing.

      If you like Garfield’s work, then good things await you when this arrives on blu-ray.

  5. I agree that this story has a lot more nuance to it. I think the arc of becoming the hero has a lot more shades to it that make the story a lot more compelling than the original because we’re taken through a gradual shift and evolution of Peter Parker into Spider-Man. I’m glad I check this one out.

    Also, maybe you just have better restaurants in Toronto, but I’ll take home cooking over a restaurant meal any day of the week.

    1. Well that means you’re party to the good stuff at home…whereas I’ve met a lot of people who can’t get spaghetti right.

      Something I think this story paid careful attention to is building a solid foundation for anything that could come later. At the moment, most of the comic book films out there are origin stories. So many of them are told without something you hail this film for: nuance. So when it comes to tell us more about the characters, we find that we don’t care about their ups and downs and instead want them to just start kickin’ ass again.

      I’m really sold on this film, and think it will look even better when Webb & co make more of them.

  6. Huh. You make a compelling argument for the retelling of the origin story, that’s for certain, Ryan. Personally, I thought it was very well done, but I did have a little bit of “been there, done that fatigue” I just have to call it like I see it. No matter how well done this origin story was, it did feel like a repeat of a recent show. To me.

    That’s certainly not to say it wasn’t a top notch flick, it was… I liked it a lot! As you point out, it captured those dramatic moments very very well.

    1. My curiosity going forward now will be about the Raimi films, and especially Raimi’s first film. It’s only mildly loved, nobody has stepped up and said it told this chapter “better”, and thanks to TBS and TNT it’s wickedly over-played.

      Think it will eventually become an afterthought?

  7. Stone and Garfield make this film in that I doubt, imagining other actors playing their parts, this film is nearly as good as it is. I mostly enjoyed , but on the whole I’d say, for my money, it either does certain things as well as the 2002 Sam Raimi film, or it does them worse. I much prefer the action in the 2002 picture. I recall, even on first viewing, thinking the set pieces to be very colourful and coherent, which was not always the case in this new version. The library set piece was cool, but the one in the sewer and even the climax felt like treading old territory

    I also think Rhys Ifans is a strong actor playing a pretty boring part. The direction his character takes felt very uninspired, especially in the latter stages.

    1. In some ways, I think this film is doing two things at once that few other films have had to do(or chosen to do):

      I think it is trying top both cleanse the palette and set the table.

      i think it wants to nail down the pegs of its own universe, by introducing everyone and giving us a clear indication of who can do what, all the while, it has its eye on the future when it can up the ante in every respect. It’s a precarious position to put a film in, which might be what’s turning so many people off.

  8. Glad to see a positive review from you Ryan. I have some issues w/ it, especially with how misleading the marketing was about the promise of the ‘untold story,’ but I think overall it’s still a solid film and you are right about the humanity of Peter Parker, I also mention that as the strength of the film. I think Garfield is perfectly cast, as well as Emma Stone. So far I haven’t been disappointed by anything Garfield does, LOVE him!

    1. Congratulations Ruth – you’ve just tapped on why I pay little attention to the marketing. I’ve been misled too many times by a film that purports to be one thing and is in fact something else, that I now just take the concept, a quick glimpse, and make up my mind from there.

      Not knowing about that ‘untold story’ might well have made the difference between liking what I was given, and missing what I believed I was getting.

      You’re right though – Garfield is quickly becoming an automatic ticket for me (Stone already is).

  9. Awesome review. I wasn’t sure if another Spidey film was needed but I’ve read many reviews that say it’s even better than the original. I’ll be watching it during the week.

Comments are closed.