Webb's webs are artificial, yet are they more real?

Rating: 7/10 (4 July 2012)

The looming question many people should have when entering The Amazing Spider-Man is was it justified to reboot a series that's original film turns ten this very year? Entering the film and hearing about it throughout the course of the past two years, I thought the idea was undeniably foolish. A reboot's purpose, in my eyes, is to introduce a character audiences have likely forgotten about, or have not been properly acquainted with. The recent Captain America film was justified by two reasons; the upcoming Avengers film and the fact that audiences are likely not wholly familiar with his story.
Today, even after seeing The Amazing Spider-Man, I believe the idea of starting a whole new series is a foolish idea with only money in mind. I fear that this review will quickly turn into a list, as I am planning to compare/contrast this with Raimi's original Spider-Man film, a rarely credited, well done superhero film.
As far the story goes, the idea hasn't changed too much, but the Green Goblin has been traded for "The Lizard" and the love interest is no longer Kirsten Dunst's Mary Jane but Emma Stone's Gwen Stacy. The origin-story of Peter Parker hasn't changed much either. After going to a genetics laboratory, sneaking in for that matter, he is bitten on the neck by a spider and starts to encounter strange symptoms, beginning with catlike reflexes and, finally, with sticky hands and the ability to leap and jump higher than imaginable.
After Parker's uncle is shot and killed (played by Martin Sheen in a very convincing role), he decides to use his powers for defending New York City from crime and scum. On the side, he frequently visits Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), an Oscorp scientist who worked with Parker's dad for numerous years. Connors has ambition to create a regeneration serum to give him his right arm back, but when something goes horribly wrong, he becomes "The Lizard," an evil, menacing creature, who serves as the story's main villain.
Parker, played by Andrew Garfield, is still his geeky self, but it has been reduced quite a bit from Raimi's effort. The original Spider-Man had Peter Parker tripping on his own shoelaces. Here, Garfield makes the character noticeably an outcast, but doesn't hammer in the idea that the character is rather soft. When it comes down to Tobey Maguire or Andrew Garfield, while both actors never cease to impress me with their choice of roles or on-screen presence, I was still more sold on Maguire, who had the role down to a tune. Garfield is a very talented actor, and I think he has many things here to rebound off of, such as Emma Stone's memorable charisma and personality, yet I feel he provides almost too much confidence to a character who is supposed to be rather unassuming. The comic book character was easily identifiable if you were an outcast, but Garfield gives his role to much of a hybrid-appearance.
As far as confidence goes, the film has quite a lot of it. It is stylishly put together, memorably crafted, and very, very dark. The original film incorporated many primary colors and flashy action sequences to remind us of the panels of a comic book. Director Mark Webb makes this an inevitably more stylistic piece, by adding more darkness to the picture and to the story of Parker himself. He projects the character's struggle and agony in a believable way, and this was something Raimi's installment neglected. Some scenes of battle and peril go on for too long here, but one scene, on a bridge during one of the first main Lizard fight scenes, is incredibly moving and touching.
There are times when Webb's direction and the screenplay, written by James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent, and Steve Kloves, is pleasantly patient, yet there are times when it's rushed and impatient. Part of the problem is there is so much to handle when making a "Spider-Man" film. Even Raimi's original had some trouble with pacing. The problem is you're trying to breathlessly juggle an immense amount of truly meaningful characters, subplots, and instances that some of them go a tad underdeveloped. Take for example the love story between Peter and Gwen, a welcomed addition to the story. Although the romance is sweet and good-natured, the love story involving Peter and Mary Jane played much better, mainly because of the sincere and open discussions they had along the way. There is so much going on with this film that the love story seems rather traditional at times. Not to mention, it is noticeable that the story of Dr. Connors was somewhat undermined to incorporate more scenes of action and romance.
I stand by my views when it comes to The Amazing Spider-Man's purpose of existence, which is slim and rather unnecessary. The story is all too familiar, and will be for the next few decades seeing as we now have two franchises, one in its early stages, about the same character with relatively the same line of events. Raimi's film was the first feature film about the character, and after twenty-five years in development hell, it was refreshing and welcoming to be shown a hero of such depth and charm. While I say this, I can recognize that the film is aesthetically pleasing, visually enjoyable, and acted with gratitude and satisfaction. I too admire Marc Webb's direction, which in just a matter of three years went from sentimental indie romance to lightning fast blockbuster.
Starring: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, Denis Leary, Campbell Scott, Irrfan Khan, Martin Sheen, Sally Field, and Chris Zylka. Directed by: Marc Webb.