Rating: 




After plans for a fourth Spider-Man film fell through following disputes between Sony and director Sam Raimi, news that the series was to receive a reboot came as a shock to many. After all, reboots have to this point been reserved largely for resuscitating flagging franchises such as Batman and James Bond rather than propping up a series the last film of which grossed $890m worldwide.
The blockbuster landscape changed considerably with the release of The Dark Knight, promoting a grittier, darker tone and aesthetic to comic book films, and so Marc Webb’s The Amazing Spider-Man reflects this, repurposing Raimi’s goofy style with something more mature and downcast. The change, however, is negligible; The Avengers proved that light and fun still works, and the overall motivation behind the project, to release another Spider-Man film before the rights reverted back to Marvel, makes the project seem cynical before the first frame has even been fed through the projector.
What scribes James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent and Steve Kloves should have realised from the outset is that if you’re going to reboot something that’s fresh in audience’s minds, it’s best not to rehash what has come before. The blueprint, in fact, should have followed 2008′s The Incredible Hulk, which breezed through a “Previously On…” restructuring montage during its opening credits. Rather, we get a discouraging – if slickly confident – slog through well-trodden territory.
If there’s anything this new take does right, it is to delve further into Peter Parker’s disconnect from his dead parents, as Parker (Andrew Garfield) discovers a mysterious briefcase belonging to his father, leading him to his old partner, Dr. Curtis Connors (Rhys Ifans). Parker, the same social outcast we know and love, pines for gorgeous science geek Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), before an encounter with a radioactive spider at Connors’ lab sends him on a collision course with the man himself who, while experimenting with regenerative limb technology, has accidentally transformed into a hulking Lizard.
The inherent problem with The Amazing Spider-Man is that it’s too front-loaded with everything we’ve already seen; the full first hour is a rehash of all the constituent elements, from his feud with Flash, to pining for the girl he likes, getting bitten, experiencing sensory oddities, getting used to his abilities, having Uncle Ben die after a grave mistake, realising his powers can be used for good, fighting criminals, and then after just minutes inside of an hour, finally donning the iconic suit. All these precursor moments, while indisputable comic touchstones, are recycled in dispassionate, unapologetic fashion. Only the transformative aspects of Spider-Man feel at all reworked, pertaining to the implementation of practical web-shooters (as opposed to Raimi’s organic ones), and a greater focus on Peter’s increased mental acuity.
However, if you thought the wait for the Spidey suit was something, it’s even longer before The Lizard shows up, and when he does, he simply follows the straight Raimi lineage of a sympathetic but boring mad scientist who destroys cities yet deep down isn’t all that bad. While this characterisation is fully in step with the source material, when it’s used for the fourth time in a row – within a decade, no less – it ends up feeling awfully rote. Also, goofy Lizard visual effects – particularly when Ifans’ down-pitched voice is plastered onto the monster’s moving mouth – don’t help much, especially when this more mature take aims to hew away from the series’ inherent silliness.
Compounding this, the screenwriters have fielded out more narrative, ahem, webs, than they can handle in the remaining hour, including but not limited to: the yin-and-yang of Spidey and Lizard, the disconnect between Peter and Aunt May (Sally Field), his relationship with Gwen, and the factor of her NYPD Captain father (Denis Leary) hunting Spider-Man as a vigilante. Elements such as Parker’s issues of identity and his romance with Gwen feel haphazardly rushed through, while The Daily Bugle is excised entirely.
It’s a shame the script has such a cynical contempt for originality, because Andrew Garfield makes a Hell of an effort in the iconic lead role. For better or for worse depending on who you’re talking to, Garfield’s Parker is not as stereotypically hopeless as Tobey Maguire’s camper, more two-dimensional take. Here, Parker is a keen skater, wears contact lenses, and is both obnoxious and often ill-tempered, particularly once Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) meets his inevitable demise. Furthermore, this is not the Peter Parker who is cripplingly inept with women – he’s still awkward for sure, but Garfield has an intoxicating sense of wit and charm that makes these scenes with the equally-enticing Stone a real hoot.
In fact, the whole cast is excellent, so it’s a shame they’re wasted on these warmed-up leftovers. Martin Sheen boasts an effortlessly endearing, grandfatherly appeal, and Field slips into these welcoming, salt-of-the-Earth-type roles with absolute ease. Denis Leary is also well-placed as Gwen’s disgruntled cop father, and Rhys Ifans tries hard with the little his character is in both forms limited to.
Sticking with the positives, it is also surprisingly well directed by (500) Days of Summer’s Marc Webb, who naturally nails the teen angst but also has an unexpectedly firm handle on the spectacle, too. It is a superficial compliment, though, because without a script reaching to do more, this is a lukewarm film we positively did not need. It is the sort of awkward “first” film that suggests a sequel will probably be better, that is until a post-credits stinger blows the promise completely by suggesting that the web-slinger’s next outing will deal with a foe Raimi already more-than-adequately covered. So it seems, the recycling will continue.
Simply put, it has the technical chops, and Garfield is a fine substitute for Maguire, but didn’t we already see this film ten years ago?
The Amazing Spider-Man is in cinemas Tuesday July 3rd, 2012.
You Might Also Like...
- Post-Credits Scene Reveals Sequel Villain?
- Spider-Man Could Feature in The Avengers 2
- Poll: Will The Amazing Spider-Man Cross $1 Billion Worldwide?
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.











14 Comments
Oh look another Critic not analyzing the movie as its own but rather analyzing it as a reboot of a franchise they personally think should not have been made. It seems critics are going in to this film with their minds already made up. It’s unfortunate that these critics are rather biase.
Not that I’m trying to put words in Shaun’s mouth but it is impossible not to go into the cinema with an opinion. You do it every time you pay your money to see a film. I imagine you are under the impression you are going to enjoy the film and that it can improve on what went before it… that thought will “cloud” your judgement because it all forms part of your opinion.
It is a problem Sony and the filmmakers had to face. How can we justify charging people to see the origins of Spider-Man told again. And the fact is, if they fail doing so, the backlash for the film could be strong as the majority of people I know have also formed the opinion before they go and see it that the movie will be a waste of everyone’s time, money and effort.
So it’s REALLY gonna be the Green Goblin ? Damn, as if that reboot wasn’t rising enough comparisons with Raimi’s franchise, they’re going to go even further in comparisons with the two Green Goblin. At least I hope they’re going to make it more like the comic book version, like a real goblin, with the purple suit and pumpkin bombs. Not that I didn’t like Raimi’s goblin (I thought it was the coolest-looking villain ever !). They should’ve picked Electro, or the Scorpion. Or Vulture. Or Shocker. Or Rhino. I thought it was understood that when your reboot is deemed “unnecessary”, you don’t try to re-hash what has been done 10 years before. Oh well, I still can’t wait to see it.
I’m personally stoked at a more drawn out origin, I found the first film was too quick to get Spiderman out of school but I love that he is a young guy. To be honest, it’s all about the action and stunts for me.
There is a reason why you’ve seen a lot of the same stuff from the Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man origin story because it’s a REBOOT and an ORIGIN STORY. What a major complaint. And if you really do like the acting, then wouldn’t the story be good anyways? Were you hit by a rock or something? It’s not pointless. It’s an interpretation. And it even may be a better adaptation of an old comic book setting in modern day. The movie seems like a good watch especially when you celebrate Spidey’s 50th anniversary.
I didn’t read the whole article because I want zero spoilers and zero negative propaganda. Even the title annoyed me. Why could you not just assess the film on it’s own merit without comparing it to a movie from 10 YEARS AGO and calling this one ‘pointless’.
There was no where else for Raimi’s films to go. He got screwed over by Sony on Spider-Man 3. He got storylines shoved down his throat. The actors were ready to leave. Tobey didn’t give 2 craps, he wasn’t in shape AT ALL and didn’t even try. A fourth Raimi film would have been a disaster. I was negative about a’reboot’ but all trailers made this look to be a fresh new take for a new generation.
Is it too much to ask to have gotten a review that simply assessed the film on it’s own merit and not on a film from 10 years ago. Matt this is where your editorial control would have greatly benefited. Yet you defend this poor review. The review should have assessed the film on it’s own merit, then, as a minor part compared it to Raimi’s film. Instead we have A diatribe of POINTLESS negative comparison and minimal on assessing the film on it’s own merits.
000
I didn’t read the whole article because I want zero spoilers and zero negative propaganda. Even the title annoyed me. Why could you not just assess the film on it’s own merit without comparing it to a movie from 10 YEARS AGO and calling this one ‘pointless’.
There was no where else for Raimi’s films to go. He got screwed over by Sony on Spider-Man 3. He got storylines shoved down his throat. The actors were ready to leave. Tobey didn’t give 2 craps, he wasn’t in shape AT ALL and didn’t even try. A fourth Raimi film would have been a disaster. I was negative about a’reboot’ but all trailers made this look to be a fresh new take for a new generation.
Is it too much to ask to have gotten a review that simply assessed the film on it’s own merit and not on a film from 10 years ago. Matt this is where your editorial control would have greatly benefited. Yet you defend this poor review. The review should have assessed the film on it’s own merit, then, as a minor part compared it to Raimi’s film. Instead we have A diatribe of POINTLESS negative comparison and minimal on assessing the film on it’s own merits.
I didn’t read the whole article because I want zero spoilers and zero negative propaganda. Even the title annoyed me. Why could you not just assess the film on it’s own merit without comparing it to a movie from 10 YEARS AGO and calling this one ‘pointless’.
There was no where else for Raimi’s films to go. He got screwed over by Sony on Spider-Man 3. He got storylines shoved down his throat. The actors were ready to leave. Tobey didn’t give 2 craps, he wasn’t in shape AT ALL and didn’t even try. A fourth Raimi film would have been a disaster. I was negative about a’reboot’ but all trailers made this look to be a fresh new take for a new generation.
Is it too much to ask to have gotten a review that simply assessed the film on it’s own merit and not on a film from 10 years ago. Matt this is where your editorial control would have greatly benefited. Yet you defend this poor review. The review should have assessed the film on it’s own merit, then, as a minor part compared it to Raimi’s film. Instead we have A diatribe of POINTLESS negative comparison and minimal on assessing the film on it’s own merits.
If they do the Death of Gwen Stacey in the second film with the Green Goblin then i have to admit i will love the series.
Although it is a pointless reboot at the moment it looks like a pointless reboot done ok. From your review the script sounds bad but if they are developing the Gwen relationship and follow through with the ‘death of gwen’ then i think i might forgive them for messing up ‘the Lizard’
Going to watch the film next week, hopes its better than you said. I`m doing a parody of it and so far nothing interesting to work with ><
It’s disappointing if it’s a slow film and if ‘Lizardman’ doesn’t hit the mark, but I am glad that they’ve “re-done” the original. The other Spiderman trilogy was in my personal opinion an complete failure. I was so looking forward to the ‘Venom’ storyline and they couldn’t have f***** it up anymore. Casting was horrible in all three. Kirsten Dunst and ‘Mary Jane’? Please, she was about as useful to the Spiderman series as a chocolate teapot. I think that Emma Stone would have been an amazing ‘MJ’ but looks equally good as ‘Gwen’. Tobey Maguire? Spiderman should NEVER have been Tobey Maguire. I almost feel this film finally looks like its in-keeping with Marvel successes, the likes of ‘Thor’ and ‘Ironman’. I like Andrew Garfield as Spiderman, he actually looks appropriate for an ‘Avengers’ position and he could join the ranks of those elite actors. Another big hate of the previous films is Parkers web-slinging, tinny holes in his arms with a organically produced web is pathetic! Thank the Nordic Gods for them correcting Spiderman’s web slinging with cartridges.
I do appreciate that a detailed revisiting may have seemed a little unnecessary. The original origin Hulk film was below par at best too but I enjoyed the Edward Norton’s portrayal of The Hulk mainly because they skipped the crap and got down to the good stuff. Though I do feel Mark Ruffalo was exquisite for the casting of the Hulk in Avengers. In Spideys case, I don’t feel like it would have been right to not give the origin the time of film it deserved. Maybe that’s biased on my behalf because I don’t want this to be associated with the previous generation of Spiderman in any way. The bottom line is I hope this Spidey is the starting block for bigger and better things. I would really like a ‘Mysterio’ sequel believe it or not. Though if they could pave over the previous Venom storyline I’d have no objection! Also ‘Charnage’ would have interesting elements.
I will be judging this film on its own merit because hopefully it can wipe a decade of poor Spiderman films from memory. Others will want to see it as an extension of the Spiderman franchise and thats OK too, they might be disappointed.
On a side note, as a personal opinion I don’t think there’s a right way to write a review. It’s a personal interpretation of a film and that doesn’t mean its unbiased. As I’ve said, people are going to want this film to be different things and it can’t appease everyone. Though I might not ‘like’ Shaun’s opinion he is right to have it and this review does cover the important elements of the film. You should be able to make an informed decision before telling someone they are wrong, that involves watching the film for yourself.
They couldn’t have done a quick montage to go through the origin, because too many characters from Raimi’s trilogy were so far from their comic-book counterparts and need to be re-done. Also, there would be confusion as to why he’s all of a sudden in high school when the people who don’t know much about the character, because all they’ve seen is Raimi’s films, think he should be in college. Gwen would have to come out of nowhere, there would be no connection with the villain through both their origins, people who know the comics well and love uncle Ben would miss out on a great performance from Sheen. This origin is also much more detailed and thorough than the 2002 Spiderman. My biggest beef with people who say we don’t need a reboot is that they don’t understand how messed up the characters were in Raimi’s trilogy. So many characters were nothing like how they were supposed to be, were horribly miscast, and you want to talk about rushing the second half of this film? That whole trilogy tried to rush through decades of Spiderman comics in the course of one film, and subsequently managed to take away any possibility of going back to the source material for good stories after the 3rd film. Sure you got sandman right, but hobgoblin? Venom? Venom? Need I say it again? VENOM? I could take that part of the 3rd film alone and provide a massive, well-though-out, VERY convincing article as to why Spider-man was in need of a reboot, and needed to re-tell (but also change, because you still can’t get the fact that the only things that are the same are the main staples of the Spider-man franchise) his origins.
I agree with some of these comments. I have yet to see the film, but I agree that retreading parts of the origin are fundamental. The original Spiderman origin was handled very quickly, spidey bite-powers bloom-amusing wrestling match-uncle Ben bomb-Peter’s revenge and boom. Done.
The whole Uncle Ben, Great Power….blah blah, thing hovered over all three movies. They even found a way to make it impact the bloated corpse of the series (3) and while I could forgive this, it was pretty heavy considering Uncle Ben’s screen time.
I think that spending more time in these early moments, more time out of the suit as well, is fundamental in creating a Peter Parker that we care about. The comparison was drawn with Batman Begins in a purely negative light, but the other similarity is the fact that this IS an origin story so the most important person here is Peter Parker, not Spiderman. In Batman Begins Bruce Wayne is a cool character who does bad ass stuff….in The Dark Knight, he is totally dull by comparison and you are always waiting for the suit to come on. I think it is great that PP is getting some serious screen time, not just to be a victim and nerd and write love poems about MJ but to be a character with a history.
Whether or not Webb’s reboot is the bees knees in my opinion has little to do with the repeating of some plot points from Raimi’s film. They are such HUGE points they couldn’t be ignored. Even Ultimate Spiderman killed off Uncle Ben.
Anyway, I’m not bashing Shaun as he isn’t wrong it’s just his opinion and no review I’ve seen so far has been more than 3/5.
being the spiderman fan i am i need to say this… the reboot was in fact unecessary they could have just had marc webb continue raimis version… but the reboot happened.. i could live with that… i am happy that they didn’t go with the vulture as a main villain (although i was pretty curious to see how that would have worked with raimi) i am also happy that they went with the lizard (although they almost ruined the villain everyone wanted to see) it’s a sign they want to keep this fresh!!!! speaking of fresh, from what i read that end scene involves irrfan khan… many people believe he was screwing with us when he said he doesn’t want to do the proto goblin so it is possible that the proto goblin will be the main villain (though it also means the green goblin is coming eventually) i heard they wanted to put the venom in the sequel to work a spinoff so i’m guessing proto goblin and venom in spiderman 2 cause the green goblin and venom would be too much for the film to handle… (the amasing spiderman could be a trilogy where they try to reach the green goblin by spiderman 3 cause this film seems to be really attached to oscorp and maybe also to finish where the original raimi films started as a tribute) btw anyone here think spidey should join the avengers? (i think sony won’t allow that and pete is too young but there is some speculation, i believe that if he was to join the avengers it would have to be sam raimis spidey)
They should never have retold the origin again in this Reboot, it’s pointless really and to hear that the next villain is to be the Goblin, christ! talk about a lack of imagination. Like Batman there are so many great adversaries for Spidey to face. I think the review should have concentrated on the film at hand and not compareing to others gone before. Mind you, Harry Knowles review on Aint it cool was just a complete wankfest over Emma stone and nowt about the movie.(Emma stone is georgous mind!)I’d just like to see some more original ideas in futre films. for the record, I aint goin to the cinema to see this. one for the downloads me thinks!