Enjoyable nostalgia

Rating: 7/10 (9 July 2012)

It proves problematic analysing this film without comparing it and Sam Raimi's 2002 approach to the same character. These similarities and differences are both detrimental and admirable to Marc Webb's picture.
As one of 2012's most anticipated films, 'The Amazing Spider-Man' suffers greatly from it consciousness. Excuse the pun, but the tone during the 136 minutes a certain 'Spidey-sense' about itself; knowledgeable of its existence as a reboot, and not a new trilogy. The unfortunate consequences of this are within the nostalgic narrative, which we all remember from a decade ago. Not only does this film follow the original story, but it's aware of it, causing the evolution of Spider-Man to be rushed as if the director is saying, "you've seen it before, let's just swing through this part of the story". There is more to see from this series, reportedly, at least a trilogy, though the first of three could have been condensed into the opening title sequence, as the formulaic story has already been tested once before in cinema by Raimi. Nevertheless, the love story between Peter Parker and Gwen Stacey presents itself as more convincing than what we saw from Raimi's films with Mary-Jane Watson. Our female love interest (portrayed by Emma Stone) actually provides the plot with some importance, and does not need to be saved by our hero in the climax as her predecessor (Kirsten Dunst) repeatedly did in all three of Raimi's pictures. In its entirety, the film feels as if it is an introduction to a story, the blurb of your favourite novel, forgotten, because you enjoyed what followed so much more.
The angle taken by Webb and the cast can be applauded. The choreography, characterisation and dialogue have successfully adapted to the approach of having Peter Parker becoming Spider-Man whilst still in high school. Andrew Garfield portrays the character as arrogant, rebellious and at time reckless, in both personality and acrobatic style (give credit to his stunt doubles also), hugely contrasting from what we saw from Tobey Maguire. Both actors provide various memorable qualities to the comic book hero, contrastingly so, meaning preference between the two is no clear choice, simply down to opinion. There are a number of factors to consider when selecting a winner. On one hand, 'The Amazing Spider-Man' explores the origin story of the character which is yet to be completely revealed, leaving the anticipation for fans for future sequels. Furthermore, we encounter a far superior romance story between Gwen Stacey and Peter Parker so in terms to Spider-Man's humanity, Garfield's interpretation wins out. However, Maguire simply fits the costume better, and makes for a better Spider-Man. We can contribute much this to his voice and the CGI of the character used by studio. Furthermore, the actually story of Spider-Man just does not feel very heroic this time around. The suit itself though with a warm home- made approach to it, bluntly worded does not look as good as in Raimi's series. Though we shouldn't necessarily judge a hero by his mask right? Well depending on what the mask represents. Any suit, whether it is Captain America's, Batman's or Spider-Man's should be a symbol for what these characters believe in, yet this film explores the use of the suit in a continuous quest for vengeance by the character, consequently signifying less of an American hero as we saw from Raimi. Webbing together what exactly this means; Garfield wins the Peter Parker award, while Maguire wins the Spider-Man trophy, resulting in my personal favouritism leaning towards Maguire.
"Who am I?" The primary theme of identity is highly emphasised by Webb, as the character attempts to deal with a variety of relatable human and superhero problems. He never really does find himself within the film, yet indicates a certain growth in character because of the adversity he faces, often from his own hubris, making him a tragic hero who is required to fathom that ''with great power, comes great responsibility".
There are certainly aspects of this film that are an evident improvement from what Raimi did. Conversely, many components that I adored in the previous series are severely missed, making it intricate to establish a definite preference between the two. The music in this reboot is a satisfactory bungalow when up against the Empire State that was the score by Danny Elfman in the first two Spider-Man films, and Christopher Young in the third. No disrespect to James Horner whose contribution to 'The Amazing Spider-Man's' score is excellent, but with the will to compare, it's like a butter knife to a gun fight.
I do not wish to bore those reading, as endless comparisons between the two and analysis of the stand alone film could provoke me to write a dissertation of needless proportions. Therefore, I will conclude by stating my comprehension of this review's bias, due to my obsession with the comic book hero, I almost refrained from observing its many imperfections. However, after watching it three times already I felt I have identified 'The Amazing Spider-Man' as a motion picture that had great potential to reboot an already successful film franchise. Was it necessary for Webb to reboot? Yes! I feel that he has introduced a new story for Peter Parker/Spider-Man that was not considered by Raimi. The execution may not have been perfect, yet this instalment does provide a great sense of well performed humour, action and emotion that perhaps is only existent due to the 50 year anniversary of Stan Lee's and Marvel's most successful character. This highly enjoyable reboot will hopefully instigate a more original story is subsequent sequels. 6/10 is perhaps too critical of Webb's work, yet the almost identical narrative to 2002 is this film's biggest downfall, as our villain in Dr. Curtis Connors/The Lizard acquires indistinguishable motives to that of Norman Osborn as the Green Goblin. It is Marvelous nonetheless, to see that the adored character Spider-Man has yet to spin his last Webb in cinema.