The Debate Is Still Open

Rating: 8/10 (5 July 2012)

I'll just say it: I thoroughly enjoyed the new Spider-Man. Yes, it was completely unnecessary, but despite it's cash-in purpose, it actually added something to the lore, rather than take away from it. It's not often audiences get to see the exact same movie, featuring the exact same plot within the exact same ten-year span. At the end of the day, The Amazing Spider-Man is a movie-making study that the audience has been invited to take part in. How does, say a masterpiece like 2002's Spider-Man, compare with its own remake exactly ten years later? How do the opinions of adults and kids defer on this matter? What does all this say about American culture or better yet, the way of the world itself now days? These are the questions that went in with me into the theater and these are the questions that I enjoyed answering while watching. It was a rare experience that fascinated me. Yes, I was a hater of this reboot form the get-go, but sitting down to Andrew Garfield's sympathetically lost, troubled teenager, (modern if you will), turn as Spidey, I found myself lost in a psychological, philosophical study on movie-making that I had never had before. However, the conclusion ended just like it always does: Hollywood is truly dying.
But, like I said, I enjoyed this little rehash namely because it allowed me the chance to compare and contrast with the now ancient masterpiece, (in my opinion, perfect masterpiece) that was 2002's Spider-Man. And believe it or not, new Spidey came out on top in a handful of ways: Gwen Stacy was more effective this time around, Peter's parents are somewhat explained (but did anybody care what happened to them anyway), the high school scenes don't reek of late 90's/new millennial dialogue and fashion choices, yet, ten years from now, people are going to make fun of our present little shabby-chik era because it's inevitable. And the suit! The suit was so detailed and just, well, perfect.
Things went wrong too, and a lot of them at that, somehow overlooked by the cast and crew. The worst for me was the Lizard. He had a handful of effective moments, but half the time his action scenes were over-exposed and just plain cheesy as the talking dinosaur with a big grin on his snout. If they had utilized shadows or steam or something to help the audience get used to a giant-talking-lizard it would have resulted in less boring close-up CGI and more movie magic. That said, that was about the only REAL problem with this installment. Director Marc Webb is used to little romantic comedies so I assume he had a whole lot to learn about big budget effects. Say what you will about Spider-Man 3, the action was incredible. Yes it was terrible storytelling, but when you compare its action sequences to things like, say, its own reboot, I found myself wishing Sam Raimi, or even Pete Jackson, or dare I say it, George Lucas was behind the CGI keyboard.
As for Andrew Garfield, I get it, I get that he lacked conviction, but hey, kids now days are so morally ambiguous, it was actually pretty convincing that Spidey would in fact retain a bit of a flawed compass when it comes to right/wrong.
All in all, The Amazing Spider-Man is a beautifully shot and acted film, especially when dramatic scenes take center stage. Some of its logic not so much, it's choice in angles with the Lizard not so much, its 3D capabilities not so much (it was pretty flat in my REAL-D theater), but if anything, its worth seeing for the rare experience noted earlier. However, if I was to sum up the amount of decent reboots and remakes in recent years, in the least I would call them interesting if nothing else. Thus, I left the theater asking myself, how long can I keep this up with these re-hashes? How long until interesting ceases to be and becomes just plain insulting?