|
 With
“The Amazing Spider-Man,” Marc Webb and Sony have crafted a film whose biggest
flaw might be its redundancy. As it unfolds, it’s difficult to shake the sense
of déjà vu it engenders--weren’t we just here ten years ago?
Indeed we were, and, just as Sam Raimi’s film did a decade ago, this reboot
delves into Spider-Man’s origins: science whiz-kid Peter Parker (Andrew
Garfield) is bitten by a genetically engineered spider, gains super-powers, and
enters the vigilante crime-fighting business after his uncle Ben (Martin Sheen)
is killed by a petty thug.
This much is expected--after all, this stuff was pretty much etched in stone by
Stan Lee and Steve Ditko nearly fifty years ago; however, “The Amazing
Spider-Man” largely follows the same beat that Raimi set this material to.
Whatever changes are cosmetic or minor--the girl in this case is Gwen Stacy
(Emma Stone), and the villain is Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), who ends up
transforming himself into The Lizard in an attempt to grow back a missing arm.
The vaunted “untold story” concerning Peter’s parents is merely a surface level
addition that instigates the action--Connors once worked with Richard Parker,
which prompts Peter to track him down. Whatever meat remains to this mysterious
back-story is actually dangled in a post-credits teaser for part two.
Because of this, “The Amazing Spider-Man” is another film that feels like an
extended set-up for something more interesting--and presumably different--yet to
come, and it’s compounded here by the familiarity re-treading old ground. Not
only are you told that you have to wait for something new, but you also have to
sit through the old story first. It’s an approach that sounds like a sure-fire
dud, and I assumed hewing too closely to the first film would turn me off.
However, I found that it doesn’t really matter--somewhere along the way, “The
Amazing Spider-Man” won me over with its performances and zest.
Yes, zest. There was a sense that Sony was going to “Dark
Knight” Spider-Man up here by grounding him into a grim, joyless film, and
the red flags go off early on, especially when the film opens with a somber,
rainy sequence that details the day Peter’s parents ditched him, which has
caused him to grow up as a somewhat brooding, angst-ridden, hoodie-wearing teen
with some daddy issues. However, for the most part, Webb nails down a properly
bouncy tone. The “Amazing Spider-Man” swings when it needs to, and it delivers
great moments, both big and small. One of them involving a convoy of crane
operators (headed up by C. Thomas Howell) might echo of a similar scene in
Raimi’s film, but it’s one of those syrupy, heartfelt moments that reassures you
Webb hasn’t crafted a tone-deaf film that isn’t afraid to be fun.
The film even soars when it’s grounded; like the previous films, “The Amazing
Spider-Man” isn’t just a super-hero film, but also a coming-of-age story
centered around Pete’s love life. However, this is where Webb’s film makes its
best departure by ditching the soap-opera love triangle that began to plague Raimi’s films (by part three, it had become a malignant tumor). Sure, it’s a
little disconcerting to see Peter Parker get the girl so easily--he’s usually
the perpetual, everyman underdog, but the alteration here allows “The Amazing
Spider-Man” to breathe and actually do its own thing, at least until it has to
revisit the required story beat where Peter considers the danger of pursuing
both a relationship and crime-fighting.
Webb’s lead duo are strong anchors. Garfield plays Pete with a little bit more
of a tortured teenage edge rather than an “aw shucks” geekiness; because of
this, he excels a little bit more at being smart-ass, and his Spider-Man feels
slightly more faithful in this respect. His wise-cracking interactions with the
street-level criminals capture this side of the character so well that I wish
we’d seen more of it.
The pairing with Stone is inspired, as the two have a crackling chemistry; her
take on Gwen Stacy infuses the character with maturity that melts away into a
charming schoolgirl awkwardness when the film hits the romantic beats. It’s also
worth noting that Gwen actually does something during the action bits that
doesn’t entail being tied up as a damsel in distress, a welcome change after
three movies that saw Kirsten Dunst dangling helplessly in various precarious
situations.
The supporting cast is more than solid. Sheen is a terrific as Uncle Ben, and I
suspect Sally Field will eventually make for a good Aunt May. One of the film’s
biggest missteps is that we see so little of the most important woman in Peter’s
life, but one of their few interactions does pay off in a great small moment
towards the end. It probably shouldn’t come as much of a surprise that Webb
manages to find a lot of cute, sweet moments given his directorial feature (“500
Days of Summer”). There’s a genuineness to the emotional undercurrent that
weaves throughout “The Amazing Spider-Man,” and it’s even felt in Peter’s
contentious relationship with Gwen’s father (Dennis Leary), the police captain
who also considers Spider-Man to be a menace. This is an arc that’s unexpectedly
fulfilling and provides one of the few wrinkles that hasn’t been seen on-screen
with the character before.
Ifans’s Connors is certainly out of the typical Spider-Man mold, as he’s another
good man turned into a monster of his own making, complete with unceasing voices
inside of his head. His shift to his reptilian nature is appropriately jarring
because Connors is so warm and fatherly to Pete (for a guy missing his father,
he has no shortage of father figures in this film), and he infuses the character
with a delightful villainous theatricality during the big action sequences.
Webb handles those pretty well, too, as the film is peppered with the requisite
amount of effects-laden spectacle that does its best to recapture the awe of
something that was so well-done the first time around. There are some striking
visual moments, and it’s certainly rousing to see Spidey swinging through the
New York City skyline (James Horner's score really soars here). The various
brawls involving The Lizard and Spider-Man bustle with a kinetic fluidity, and
Webb largely resists shooting herky-jerky action, opting instead for good-old
fashioned scope and scale that allows us to see everything.
Technically speaking, there’s nary a hair out of place on this sleek production;
Webb is interested in painting it as distinctively as he can, and “The Amazing
Spider-Man” manages to transcend its familiarity by simply being a good story
that’s well told--okay, re-told--with a voice that often wants to be different
as possible. It may be a testament to Sam Raimi that this film can’t really
manage to feel any more faithful to Spider-Man, but Webb and company should be
commended for respecting the property enough not to stray too far from the
appropriate light-hearted and lively tone.
This might put “The Amazing Spider-Man” in the unique position of justifying its
own existence, and, for some, it may only do that by being better than
“Spider-Man.” I’m loathe to really get that reductive even though the two
obviously invite comparison; in short, each does some things better than the
other, although I would give the edge to this film in that Raimi's film botched
the main villain a bit. Indeed, Webb trumps Raimi 2 out of 3. Not only over the
first film but Amazing easily bests Raimi's dreadful third sequel. Spiderman 2
is still the movie to beat. Amazing Spiderman manages to be enjoyable enough to
justify itself. The movie may kind of feel like an elaborate dress rehearsal
with a new cast, but I'm intrigued by where it goes from here, even if it does
resort to the infuriating trick of leaving certain plotlines hanging. Webb has
dutifully laid the groundwork by reconstructing this world, and I hope he gets
to really play in it the next time out.
"The Amazing Spider-Man" never sags under the weight of its baggage, even when
it's doing itself no favors of reminding you that it's there. By the end,
though, it's effectively shuffled it off, which is its greatest triumph. |
