WARNING: This post contains spoilers. So don’t read it if you haven’t seen the film. Otherwise, you have no one to blame but yourself.
First of all let’s establish something; Marc Webb’s The Amazing Spider-Man is far from a great film. It is a pretty average superhero movie at best, but a good kind of average – the right side of wrong. For every moment of rib tickling comedy, there is a moment of uninspiring CGI. For every stylistic web sling, there is a cheesy speech. Despite this rope pull between substandard comic book fare and worthwhile reboot, one thing is certain; The Amazing Spider-Man is much better than its predecessor.
[Insert fan boy abuse] I know, I know, some of you will consider that statement to be wildly inaccurate and inflammatory. But if you would be so kind as to grant me an audience for the next few minutes, I will explain myself.
1. Andrew Garfield Is A Better Peter Parker
Tobey Maguire was definitely a very brave actor for taking on the Spider-Man role when he did. In today’s environment of Dark Knights, Green Lanterns, X-Men and assembled Avengers, it’s hard to imagine a time when comic book films were considered a gamble for a young actor. The 2002 Spider-Man film spent 25 years in development hell, and when things finally got moving at Sony, studios executives where very hesitant to hire Raimi’s first choice of Maguire. The baby-faced actor was considered something of a nobody and was in competition against the likes of his better known peers Leonardo DiCaprio, Freddie Prince Jr and a post-Knight’s Tale Heath Ledger. No one except Raimi wanted to see Maguire as Peter Parker, but they held to their guns and he turned out a performance in strong alignment with the comics.
That being said, Andrew Garfield is a much stronger performer. His take on Parker is more in keeping with how you’d expect a 17-year-old modern geek to be. Garfield’s Parker doesn’t sit in his room weeping and hiding inside lockers at school, he has a level of personality, charm and heart. Parker still gets bullied, he still has no friends, and he is still a massive science nerd, but Garfield portrays it with a level of panache. It has always been a hard sell that Maguire’s mega dweeb would grow to such a powerful and confident superhero, but Garfield’s Parker feels as though in another life he could have been born into this position. The thing that sells Peter Parker’s transformation as believable is that he had this hero within him all along, this ability to do great things; Maguire still looked weak even in the spider suit, whereas Garfield wears it well.
You Might Also Like...
- 5 Ways To Make A Stand-Alone Venom Movie Work
- Interview: Louis Plamondon, From The Sleepy Skunk
- James Franco Critical Of The Amazing Spider-Man
Want to write about the stuff you're passionate about and have your work read by an audience of over 10 million a month? Click here to become a contributor.
7 Comments
You hit the nail on the head, particularily with Uncle Ben. Some people and reviewers have complaining about lack of emotion and heart, compared to Raimi’s version. But I don’t understand why they think that, especially with Uncle Ben’s death as a prime example against that. In Spiderman #1, his death just didn’t resonate with me, there wasn’t much of an impact, and I think that was mainly to do with the lack of development of the Uncle Ben and the relationship between him and Peter. With The Amazing Spiderman, his demise was so much more emotional and genuine. It was really affecting, especially with the aftermath too. The performances completely added to it. The heart in this version made Spiderman #1 look pretty shallow in comparison.
I completely agree with your points Brad- to me, The Amazing Spider-Man felt like a far better watch than the vast majority of the Sam Raimi trilogy. There are still places where the new series needs to find its feet- the CGI and a good transformed villain, mainly, as Curt Connors was actually interesting- but this was on a par with Spider-Man 2 for me, which is saying something!
I just came back from watching it and I completely agree. Andrew Garfield was magnificent as Spider-man especially during the dramatic parts that Tobey Maguire basically failed at. Great movie.
I agree, I think all the areas that are weakest are where the film makers made decisions based on Raimi’s film. The action was much better and more spiderman like than any of Raimi’s films. They were good, but the moments when it was a guy in a suit and not a cgi model never felt like spiderman. Here, the practical stunts were full on spidey with flips and weird kicks just like you’d expect. Yes it wasn’t perfect but for me, it was the closest thing to the comics we’ve had yet.
Another thing that this film has over the Raimi trilogy is how ‘the girl’ is portrayed, and what her role in the film is.
Kirsten Dunst’s MJ was the archetypal damsel in distress; she spent the much of the three films screaming hysterically and waiting to be rescued. Emma Stones’ Gwen Stacey, on the other hand, doesn’t come across as fragile, needy or insecure; nor is she ever placed in a position of weakness or vulnerability from which she is crying to Spider-Man to save her. It was refreshing to see.
You know, there was a lot I liked about the movie, but in many ways it could have been better.
I actually DON’T like the fact that his identity is revealed so quickly. Raimi did this too, revealed his i.d. to at least one person every movie. Has everyone forgotten that Spider-Man was the first super hero to experience real anguish because of his dual identity? He was a teenager with the same angst we all felt as teens, plus he had this really huge secret he couldn’t share with ANYONE. I mean here he is, suddenly burdened with the financial responsibility placed on him by his uncle’s death, then bam! Aunt May has a heart attack and her doctor warns Peter that any shock could kill her outright.
Before him superheroes pulled of their double lives no sweat, and I for one think that any proper adaptation should acknowledge and address that issue.
Although you may not think of it as a love letter to New York, I still see some of that. If not to New York, then to New Yorkers. Those girders didn’t line up by themselves, you know. And you know what? I like that about it.
How can you say he makes the right kind of science nerd when Garfield’s Peter Parker shows no interest in science at all? The only thing he does along those lines is to repeat a formula of his father’s he’d memorized. Didn’t you notice that? He didn’t even invent his own web formula!
Also, I haven’t really noticed any tradition of villains dying in first films. Sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn’t. I just don’t see a pattern there, so it wasn’t in any way unexpected to be missing.
As for things I liked as opposed to Raimi’s version? I agree that Garfield makes a better Peter. I also couldn’t be happier to see Gwen’s film introduction as love interest. Marvel has put too much effort into minimizing her role so that MJ could replace her as the love of his life. I don’t think Gerry Conway ever intended her that way when he wrote her in as Peter’s girlfriend. She left Harry without a second thought (his father had just died!), she flirted with him the whole time he was with Gwen, and she fooled around with Flash not long before the marriage! Hell, that was when Pete realized Flash had become a decent person. Flash said MJ had told him that the two of them were split and apologized. Do these seem like the actions of the perfect person to you?
No, the real reason MJ belonged in Peter’s life simple: She was there to mess with his head. Especially when Gwen’s clone finally appeared. When it comes to love, Peter Parker’s life has always been a tragedy. That’s probably why I was never satisfied with his marriage to MJ. He stopped hurting all the time.