Amazing Chemistry - Lousy Superheroics

Rating: 3/10 (30 January 2013)

You just can't review this movie without comparing it the to Tobey McGuire-Sam Raimi trilogy that gave birth to it. Sam Raimi already created the special effects and style that helped make Spiderman a movie character so it wasn't that hard for someone else to come in and slide on the work already done there. What I don't like about the new movie is that Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker is a young jerk. I really don't see Peter Parker stealing a security badge, sneaking into a secure scientific lab, antagonizing Flash Thompson, alienating his Uncle Ben nor mocking a car thief. If anything, Garfield's Spiderman like Christian Bale's Batman talks too much. The best part of the first movies was its believability, something that was sort of missing in the third movie and is definitely missing in this installment. (The scene with Peter discovering his superhuman strength is nothing but slapstick and looks out of place with the rest of the movie.) Now let's get to the new suit. It looks horrible!! I had a hard time accepting Tobey's Peter could create the costume he wore, and I have an even harder time accepting the new costume (much less that Garfield's Peter could even get the material!). It just looks horrible! In the dark, the red and blue colors run together and look purple. Even worse, Garfield looks horrible in it. The first bright version had a muscular body suit under it; the new version has nothing. About the only thing this movie has is better chemistry between its stars. I really had a hard time buying Kirsten Dunst as a high school kid, but Emma Stone really sparkles as Gwen Stacy and really blows the former "Interview With a Vampire" actress out of the water. That's basically where "Amazing Spiderman" (Spiderman 4?) works best. The story between Peter and Gwen takes center stage, but Rhys Ifan, possibly best known as Captain Hook from the Peter Pan prequel, works well too; his right arm is digitally removed with the same technology that removed Gary Sinise's legs in "Forrest Gump." The problem is the villain's story as the subplot takes up too much screen time. It was handled great in the first two movies, overdone in the third movie and extremely noticeable in this movie. It just takes too long getting into the plot. What bothers me most is the unnecessary reboot to Peter's origin. Do we really need to make Peter that much more tragic by over-emphasizing the reasons why he was left with Uncle Ben and Aunt May. I have nothing again Martin Sheen or Sally Field in the roles, in fact, they share just about the same amount of wonderful chemistry as Garfield and Stone, but there's too much exposition here to a movie where we already know who the characters are. I also can't stand the fact that the movie is a reboot; re-inventing his origin and chopping out whole chunks of it, and what's this thing about the mystery of his past? What mystery? He was left with his Uncle Ben and Aunt May. End of mystery. Bottom line: Amazing Spiderman is passable, but Sam Raimi with his familiarity to the subject already pulled it off, and we've seen it before. We've seen everything before. The only new thing is the chemistry between Garfield and Stone, but is that all it takes to make us believe this movie is superior to all the hard work Sam Raimi already did? The hard work was already done; this movie is just sliding forward on the momentum. Take this movie back in time to BEFORE Spider-Man 1 and then I'll say it outdoes the original, but then, that would make the original not so original, wouldn't it?