New superhero film fails to reinvent franchise
Many who watch "The Amazing Spider-Man" will stop for a moment and ask themselves, "Wait, didn't I already see this movie before?"
Maybe that's because it's only been 10 years since Sam Raimi's "Spider-Man" hit theaters.
So was there any need to reboot the Spider-Man franchise other than to cash in on the result during Fourth of July weekend? I can't think of any.
But that's not to say that "The Amazing Spider-Man" isn't without its perks. Director Marc Webb ("500 Days of Summer") does give us a darker version of the normal high school nerd-turned-superhero who still deals with adolescence and young love with entertaining effects, but he drops the opportunity for a potentially better revision because of a faulty screenplay.
Now, I could go on about how this movie is basically the same film we all saw in 2002, but that is a trap that the producers got into themselves when they decided to make this film. Some of the familiar aspects were inevitable (the overall origin story including the spider bite and the power and responsibility lecture) while others didn't have to be, like the corporate scientist gone mad, the high school bully and a death of a certain family member.
Providing a plot synopsis would be pointless since it has the same familiar basis, but there are a few different elements here. We get a quick look into Peter Parker's (Andrew Garfield) childhood when his parents leave him with his aunt and uncle before disappearing forever. The loss of Peter's parents supposedly adds some emotion in the first portion, but it doesn't do much for the rest of the film.
A teenage Peter then meets Dr. Curt Connors, who has worked with Peter's father in perfecting a cellular regeneration serum that would help regenerate amputated limbs. After testing it on himself, Connors succeeds, but soon he succumbs to a very big side effect.
The biggest problem aside from redundancy is the character of The Lizard. Remember how Dr. Octavius from "Spider-Man 2" had a legitimate motive behind his actions, which made him a compelling villain? Well, this villain has the motivation and dramatic scale of Godzilla, causing destruction just for the sake of giving Spider-Man someone to fight. Plus, the movie never specified whether or not The Lizard was supposed to be an alter-ego like the Green Goblin.
The main problems with "The Amazing Spider-Man" lie directly with the screenwriters, who miss out on an opportunity to reinvent the origin story like Christopher Nolan did for "Batman Begins."
From a technical standpoint, though, the movie finds success. Webb displays some dazzling special effects as well as some nicely constructed action sequences. At times, however, the effects come off as too cartoonish, like during the first-person camera work of Spider-Man swinging around New York City. The final confrontation is too generic and conventional with no feeling of hazard. Again, that's the screenplay's fault.
Webb's transition from a light romantic comedy to a big action blockbuster may sound strange, but his experience rubs off on the likable couple of Peter and Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) and the thrills of first love. Some of the film's best moments happen in scenes where Peter acts like an adorable geek around her or when the more emotional moments come into play. The two leads, Garfield and Stone, also shine during these moments, such as when Gwen has to keep her father from discovering Peter snuck in.
The performances of Garfield and Stone help sell the film. Garfield brings a dark, sarcastic and more angsty Peter Parker to the screen while the screenplay gives a bit of depth to his character. Stone brings an adequate amount of perkiness to her role as the intelligent Gwen Stacy. Together, they present great convincing sexual energy and chemistry (probably because they became a real-life couple while making the film).
So, is "The Amazing Spider-Man" amazing? Not really. Is it bad? Not really. Is it necessary? Not really.