The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

Director:  Marc Webb

 It’s impossible not to recognize the obvious question when discussing the new film The Amazing Spider-Man…is it too soon for a reboot (or is one really necessary at all)?  Ok, so that’s two questions.  Well, I’ll say this about that.  Marvel, the comic book publisher of Spider-Man comics, has done a terrific job of building a movie enterprise out of The Avengers, which began in 2008 with Iron Man and, over the course of 4 additional entries, built slowly into the payoff of this summer’s kick-off film, The Avengers.  This is an example of the movies modeling what comics have done (albeit on a much smaller budget) for years – providing heroes like Iron Man and Thor with their own comics to headline while bringing them together for a mash-up of sorts in The Avengers comic line.  So, in spirit of transitioning the business model comics have employed for decades over into the movie business, we now have a new version of Spider-Man “drawn” by a new artist.  It’s as simple as that. 

I thought this new version of Spider-Man was appropriately timed in its release this summer, arriving at theatres between The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises.  The Avengers was the pinnacle of comic-to-screen look and feel.  The action soared and the characters/colors felt torn right from the pages.  It was picture-perfect, a superhero blast of a movie.  Now, in contrast, The Dark Knight Rises promises to be spectacular in its own way.  I’m ready for more doom and gloom in the hands of Christopher Nolan, the director who has truly created a singular on-screen vision for the Caped Crusader that reflects our current political and economic climate.  Stuck right in the middle is The Amazing Spider-Man, a  movie that wants to be both real (Peter Parker in skinny jeans and a hoodie and quirky, shy-guy mannerisms) and spectacular.  At times it can feel disjointed.  Bringing the more realistic approach to the film didn’t always work for me.  It was handled best in Peter’s interactions with Captain Stacy (father of Peter’s love interest Gwen Stacy).  In these scenes Andrew Garfield was able to layer the foundation of a more confident Peter Parker, a boy becoming a man and learning to stand up for his beliefs. 

To add, I didn’t feel I needed to see a Peter Parker who can get bruised, cut, and bleed like the rest of us.  This added-reality element really works for Batman (as he is a tortured soul anyway) but not for Spider-Man.  Let’s face it, Spider-Man is at best a fantasy for little boys to watch and read about.  Peter is a good kid to whom something magical happens, but he still has to learn to uphold his values and remain a contributing member of society.  He has to learn the Golden Rule, Do unto others…

As for the added backstory of Peter’s parents, I felt it was just not needed and a bit distracting.  Also, just as I was thinking I was witnessing the first Spider-Man movie that would not leave me with anything truly amazing, the climactic battle sequence between the Lizard and Spider-Man was presented.  It was a visual and technical achievement of the highest order, with a nice blend of heartfelt support thrown in for Peter from the public who has learned that he is trying to help (much better than the bridge sequence at the end of the 2002 Spider-Man).

So, was this new version of Spider-Man necessary?  I don’t know, and to be honest I don’t really care.  I do know this – little boys (and those boys who grew up in the age of blockbuster cinema) all over the world love to see Spider-Man swinging between tall buildings and those in the audience (my son included) seemed to love it.  That makes it worth it to me.