Spider-Man, Spider-Man, the New Movie is Pretty Bland

Rating: 7/10 (4 July 2012)

The Amazing Spider-Man tries to recreate and remold the titular hero but does so with diminishing results. Like a radically different cover of an old standard tune, the notes are different but the words are essentially the same. A crazed villain still tries to wreak havoc on the city, Uncle Ben still dies, and the love story is still left unfinished and open ended. There are of course differences but they don't have enough flair or pop to really stand out.
It has been only five years since the last installment of the Raimi trilogy and it seems that the principle lesson the studio learned from Spider-Man 3 was don't give the director too much freedom. Sam Raimi's pop sensibilities and ego admittedly got the better of him resulting in disaster. So to compensate for Sam Raimi's too much muchness, they got very green director Marc Webb (of 500 Days of Summer fame) willing to play by the rules at least for now.
There were aspects of the film I did like. Much of the impetus of the story revolves around the mysterious disappearance of Peter's parents which brought new elements to the story. Spider-Man comes home with multiple scabs, bruises and welts from the night's action which is much more realistic when you're leading a life of a crime fighter. Emma Stone's Gwen Stacy was an instantly likable character as was her no nonsense police commissioner father played by Denis Leary. Emma Stone is one of those lucky, popular young actresses who can find universal recognition and praise. She has multiple sides to her which shines in the majority of her performances and makes her incredibly likable. Had the movie been about her I might have actually enjoyed it much more.
Which brings me to probably the biggest complaint I have about The Amazing Spider-Man. I do not like Andrew Garfield as Spider-Man. Not at all. At 28 the actor looks too old to be in high school and much too good looking to be the nerdy, mild-mannered Peter Parker he should be. Once in the suit, he spends an awful lot of time without his mask; likely so people will be distracted by the fact that the costume makes him look like a deflated Voight basketball with legs.
There are those who would argue that this Spider-Man is closer to the smartalecky, brilliant young genius from the comic books. I respectfully disagree. I question whether such praise is deserved when he impresses Dr. Connors (Rhys Ifans) by looking him up on Google then regurgitating what he has read to gain notice. He then further impresses Dr. Connors by giving him the algorithm he needs even though he actually found it in his dad's briefcase and didn't actually come up with it on his own. Then there's the webslingers which I suppose were ingenious until you consider he only invented the mechanism to shoot his webbing. He actually took the cartridges creating the web itself from Oscorp. Oh and then there's the scene where he leaves behind a bulky camera with the words "property of Peter Parker" printed on it for The Lizard to find. Yeah not exactly the makings of a genius here.
And what of The Lizard? The fact is the character is ultimately treated as inconsequential. An almost compulsory character thrown in because every superhero must have a super villain. His motivations are tenuous at best and nothing in his scenes while transformed really leave an impact. Also as an aside, the New York water filtration systems seem to have an awful lot of exotic looking lizards and great phone reception. Someone should really check into that.
http://theyservepopcorninhell.blogspot.com/