Directed by: Marc Webb
Written by: James Vanderbilt, Steve Kloves, and Alvin Sargent (based on the Marvel Comic character created by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko)
Let's go back ten years, shall we? It was a much simpler time (no, not really, but bear with me), when "social networking" meant actually speaking face-to-face, phones were used primarily for making actual phone calls, and 3D filmmaking was considered retro and kitschy. I was a bright-eyed, chubby-cheeked 15-year-old about to embark on what was, at the time, the most exciting day of my young life.
You see, if you don't personally know me or haven't read ANY of my previous film reviews up to this point, I consider myself to be quite the prolific nerd. My primary area of deep-seated interest is comic books, especially those featuring superheroes. My all-time favorite was, of course, the amazing, spectacular, and sensational Spider-Man. And what luck, considering that in early May of 2002, the very first cinematic adaptation of Marvel Comics' flagship character was to finally be released.
Needless to say, I was sort of excited.
It was kind of a major event for me, to be honest. As silly as it sounds, I had an intensely personal connection to the character and his franchise since I was six years old, and his printed adventures deeply engaged me as I grew up, almost as if he was a bigger, imaginary brother to me. So when I finally saw director Sam Raimi's film in all its glory on that unforgettable day in 2002, I felt like my years of waiting were absolutely worth it.
So let's flash-forward to early 2010. After Raimi's first record-shattering entry, two more films were released in 2004 and 2007 (the former even better than the first, the latter surprisingly lackluster), but upon creative differences with Sony Pictures, Raimi and lead actor Tobey Maguire dropped out of negotiations for a fourth film, leading the studio to quickly announce their intentions to reboot the series and start from scratch.
Naturally, this led everybody (yours truly included) to scratch their heads, wondering why a retelling of a familiar story would work so soon after the origin was still so fresh in the viewers' minds. Of course, this being Hollywood, a cash cow is a cash cow, so along came Spidey 2.0, in the form of The Amazing Spider-Man.
Raised by his loving Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and Aunt May (Sally Field) years after his parents Richard (Campbell Scott) and Mary Parker (Embeth Davidtz) suddenly and mysteriously left when he was a child, Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) grew up to become a brilliant yet introverted social outcast, relentlessly bullied by high school classmates such as Eugene "Flash" Thompson (Chris Zylka), but also secretly pining for his lovely classmate Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone).
One day, Peter discovers an old briefcase of his father's, containing documents leading him to his father's old employer, the biotech giant OsCorp. Conning his way into OsCorp (where Gwen also interns), Peter meets and impresses one of OsCorp's top geneticists, the one-armed Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), who happened to be a former partner of Peter's father.
After sneaking into a lab containing experiments regarding cross-species hybrids, Peter is bitten by a genetically altered spider. Over the course of the night, Peter discovers that he's developed bizarre, spider-like abilities, including superhuman strength, wall-crawling, and an ESP-like "danger" sense.
As Peter tries to get to the bottom of his genetic quandary and the mystery of his father's connection to Connors, a family tragedy compels Peter to use his newfound abilities for the betterment of mankind.
Creating a stylized suit and two mechanized "web-shooters" to allow him to swing through the urban canyons of New York, Peter must not only contend with letting Gwen know how he feels about her, but also the fact that her police chief father George Stacy (Denis Leary) has issued a warrant for the "Spider-Man's" arrest; not to mention Connors using an experimental serum to regrow his arm, which just so happens to transform him into a monstrous Lizard-creature increasingly bent on reshaping the city in his own image.
You can guess my distress over initially hearing about Sony putting the kibosh on Raimi's mostly terrific series and starting over. After all, how can you really re-tell Peter Parker's story without hitting so many of the same notes? The reason why the "Batman" and "Star Trek" movie reboots worked so well was because they covered major origin-story ground that was left out of the original movies. Here, there's not much wiggle room, and as such, The Amazing Spider-Man immediately has a "been-there, thwipped-that" feel to it. Nerdy outsider? Check. Uncle Ben? Check. Spider bite? Check. Mad scientist/mentor figure wreaking havoc on the Big Apple? Check.
As such, surprising director choice and peculiarly-surnamed Marc Webb-- a music video veteran whose only previous feature film experience was 2009's fabulous indie rom-com (500) Days of Summer-- decided the best way to differentiate his film from the prior movies was to stray from the more colorful and gee-whiz attitude of Raimi's films and go for (as the kids call it nowadays) a "grittier" and "more realistic" approach.
But what is Spider-Man without a bit of fantastical whimsy? A major reason why Raimi's films (and yes, to a limited degree, even the maligned third entry) worked was because they never eschewed their inherently campy roots and even embraced the flamboyant silliness of the comic book source material. But here, Webb decided that the Christopher Nolan route was better, making the web-slinger as contemporary as possible (gone are Raimi's biological web-shooters in favor of the original mechanical ones; J. Jonah Jameson and the signature wrestling match are gone too; and this Peter Parker is, like, way into skateboards and hipsterish hoodies, etc.).
In fact, Webb decided that it was best to focus more on the human side of Peter more than anything, at the expense of a lot less wall-crawling action. Now don't get me wrong, I love me an action film with actual character development, but at times, it seems as though you could excise the special effects and have a quasi-sequel to (500) Days of Summer. Luckily, Webb corralled himself quite the terrific cast to make the film worth watching.
Though I have and always will have a soft spot for Tobey Maguire's excellent and soft-spoken portrayal of Spidey, I must say that British thesp Andrew Garfield (The Social Network) does an admirable job filling the tights. More aggressive and ironic than Maguire's wide-eyed, innocent wallcrawler, Garfield does an impressive job etching out the more tragic and angsty side of the character. He also brings out a more wise-alecky side to the character, deftly balancing the humor and drama needed for such a well-known icon.
Garfield also has a decent chemistry with Emma Stone, who brings a more nuanced, three-dimensional aura to the love interest character than Kirsten Dunst did as Mary Jane Watson (though the sexual chemistry here is nothing compared to that one upside-down kiss from the first film). Leary is snarly as ever as Gwen's disapproving cop dad, and Sheen and Field also add more dimension to Peter's uncle and aunt (though the absence of Ben's trademark "with great power comes great responsibility" line bordered on blasphemy).
The one big disappointment from a casting angle, though, was Rhys Ifans as Curt Connors/The Lizard. As the good doctor, Ifans is quite sympathetic in his quest to cure himself of his "imperfection", but once he transforms into that big green menace, there's absolutely nothing to be interested in, whether it's the villain's motives, his appearance (the use of CGI is way too obvious here), or whether or not he lives or dies by film's end. That, and the fact that the general character arc is all-too familiar after seeing Willem Dafoe's Green Goblin or Alfred Molina's Doctor Octopus deal with essentially the same ordeals (and ten Lizards here couldn't stack up to just one of Molina's pitch-perfect portrayal of Ock).
Tech specs are pretty much stellar across the board, from the improved special effects mixed with practical effects to make Spidey's web-slinging that much more dynamic and "comic-booky", to the impressive production design by the late J. Michael Rivas. The score by James Horner is servicable, but was lacking in the quirky bombast that Danny Elfman's scores used so well.
And that's the word that I'd say was most descriptive of Amazing Spider-Man: "lacking". Although the film is certainly not bad by any stretch and boasted quite a few moments of humor and imagination, I rarely felt that infectious sense of fun and wonder that Raimi cultivated so brilliantly. In its attempts to appeal to a younger, Twilight-type crowd, the flamboyant joyfulness of the previous trilogy was seemingly lost in the shuffle. Perhaps now that the origin is out of the way (um, again), maybe the inevitable sequel will focus more on the iconic, thrilling aspects that have made Spider-Man such an enduring cultural icon for the last fifty years.
Unnecessary? Perhaps. Too soon? Most likely. The Amazing Spider-Man is definitely worth a watch but is pretty much a case of cinematic deja vu to those who appreciated the campy cheerfulness of Spidey past.
Letter Grade: "C+"
No comments:
Post a Comment