The Amazing Spider-Man, anybody?
Who else saw it? And, who else saw it and had as horrid a reaction as I did?
My review (spoilers) here:
Five years after the box office monster that was Spider-Man 3, Hollywood shells out another issue of the arachnid hero in the form of The Amazing Spider-Man, this time with new direction from Marc Webb (500 Days of Summer) and a hipper set of protagonists, Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone. The visuals, colors, and performances of the film are enlightening and respective to the long line of comic book lore that Spider-Man bestowed. On the flipside, the filmmakers seemed to have forgotten about Spider-Man 3’s poor reception; not much has changed.
The story was penned by James Vanderbilt, an avid Spider-Man fan who drafted a treatment long ago for a potential Spider-Man movie. The script was denied; maybe for good reason. For reasons unexplained, this man has managed to weave his way into the Hollywood infrastructure and presented a “polished” Spider-Man script for producers and studio execs to green light. They must’ve been idiots.
The Amazing Spider-Man gives us a story we already know, with characters we already know, with an inevitably melodramatic ending—this, we also know. This makes it nearly impossible to care for any of the characters. A significant factor is that we’ve already seen this movie before. It was called Spider-Man and was released ten years ago. Watching the money-fueled reboot, it is impossible not to compare it to Sam Raimi’s version—hell, avoiding evocation is futile entirely. Seeing Andrew Garfield scale up a wall is reminiscent of Tobey Maguire crawling up a wall; Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy contrasts Kirsten Dunst as MJ in a comparison of who’s hotter—but even without comparing old and new, The Amazing Spider-Man is a rather drab picture.
Andrew Garfield plays the titular Spider-Man, although he’s not so much “amazing” as he is “confused” or “sarcastic”. Garfield’s interpretation of the role is laudable. He captured the teenage elements and mingled it believably with the duties of his superhero counterpart. The romance between him and Gwen Stacy was also a treat, but this was advantageous because they’re a real-life couple. As long as they aren’t bothered by cameras filming their nightly routines, they’ll make a perfect screen couple too.
The movie picks up quickly with young Peter Parker in a game of hide-and-go-seek. The whole movie he is searching, and as the audience, so are we. For reasons unexplained (again), Parker is left to the care of his aunt and uncle while his parents disappear into an unsolved plot hole. Parker grows up, feuds in moral bouts with his uncle, gets spider powers—but these are trivial, unimportant and uninteresting matters. I wanted to know more about his god damn parents—and this, the movie never answers. Rather, it assures itself of monetary success and sets up this mystery in an inevitable sequel. I’m not sure if I’ll be attending that picture years from now, though I’ve no reservations it’ll be called The Inevitable Spider-Man.
I must mention the film’s villain The Lizard, who is perhaps the sharpest thorn in the side of sheer success. The film did not warrant an antagonist (Parker’s inner struggle with himself, and evading the police, is material enough to pass two hours), but, producers want money, so, they MUST have The Lizard. Let me just say that Godzilla never looked faker scaling up a vertiginous tower. But hey, at least this time he could talk.
The Amazing Spider-Man sets up with an ambitious premise and ends on an unfulfilled promise. These are the sick entrails of vicious Hollywood producers at work—not the director or actors, whom I cannot malign. Although that script is something worth questioning ANYBODY’S sanity; Martin Sheen agreed to that? He must be hard up for money; his son Charlie’s racking up the medical bills.
"I'm your huckleberry."-Val Kilmer as Doc Holliday in Tombstone