I'll start off by saying that "The Amazing Spider-Man" is not entirely amazing, but to close to it. I know that sounds corny and cheap because I used the word amazing to describe "The Amazing Spider-Man" but it is true. The reboot of Sam Raimi's original franchise is equally exciting and thrilling and filled many elements that make this film work. "The Amazing Spider-Man" is just one of the new blockbusters that succeed very well because of its acting and technical aspects and I will talk about those later. But first a history lesson.
Back in 2007, Sam Raimi released the third film in his "Spider-Man" franchise with "Spider-Man 3" and it has been the outcast compared to the original "Spider-Man" and "Spider-Man 2". That is because it received mixed reviews from both critics and fans alike. The general consensus between the critics and fans was that the film was disappointment. Compared to the reviews with first two films, "Spider-Man 3"'s reviews were the weakest. It is now a film that you either disregard it completely and hate it or you like it to some degree. But even with the somewhat harsh reviews, the film made its money so a fourth film was greenlit.
Now we flash-forward to 2010, three years after the release of "Spider-Man 3" and the fourth film has not made much progress even though director Sam Raimi and star Tobey Maguire agreed to return. There was the usual casting rumors that come along with any blockbuster film, but that was it. However In 2010, Sony pulled the plug on the project and cancelled the proposed "Spider-Man 4" all together. This mainly due to the fact that they were disappointed by "Spider-Man 3"'s numbers and the fact that the fourth film would not be ready for its scheduled release date and the fact that Sam Raimi basically left the project. Instead they announced, on that same day, that they were going to reboot the entire franchise and start all over and show Peter Parker's transformation into Spider-Man with a new cast and crew. In case you wondering why they started all over…. then there is your answer.
So yes, the film tells the story of Peter Parker and how he became Spider-Man. So we see Peter Parker (now played by Andrew Garfield) in high school. Many years earlier his parents left him with his Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and Aunt May (Sally Field) before they went away not telling them where they were going. So we see Peter in high school where he is shy and basically an outcast who keeps to himself (most of the time). Emma Stone plays Gwen Stacy, a classmate of Peter's and he has a crush on her.
One day he finds notes that his father left behind and that leads Peter to his father's former co-worker. He is a scientist with only one arm named Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans) and works at company called OsCorp where he is attempting to make his arm grow back. Peter goes to OsCorp in attempt to find Connors, but sneaks into a lab where spiders are being held, but these aren't ordinary spiders; they are basically spiders that are modified and have been tested on. One of the spiders bites Peter and on that same day he begins to be different. He has spider like sense and quick agility. However, unlike Sam Raimi's "Spider-Man", he doesn't fling web from body. Or in other words, the web doesn't come from inside him. Instead, he makes a device, somewhere in the middle of the film, that still shoots web from wrists, but it is not from his body.
After an event happens, he tries to fight crime with his new powers. Meanwhile, Dr. Connors injects his himself with a formula in hopes that his arm will grow back. Instead, his skin turns scaly and he begins turn into a humanoid lizard and becomes the villain known as The Lizard. As he terrorizes the city, the captain of the New York Police tries to stop both The Lizard and Spider-Man while Spider-Man tries to stop the crimes of Dr. Connors/The Lizard and try to come to terms with his new powers.
Now it must have been a challenge for Andrew Garfield to take on the role Peter Parker/Spider-Man after Tobey Maguire made it famous in the original films. However, Garfield makes the character all his own because he manages to both impress with the drama and the comedy. He manages to make Peter Parker a sympathetic and likeable character. He manages to funny in some scenes as well. One such scene when he shows off his powers. Even though some people say he is probably too old to play someone in High School (he's 28), but who really cares? He was very good and believable as a high school student, so I say let it be or keep it the way it is.
He also has excellent, and I mean EXCELLENT, chemistry with Emma Stone (who is basically become the best actress of today) also gives a memorable performance as Gwen Stacy. Their romance scenes together are the high points and the strengths of the film. There are scenes that are just authentic because the scenes in which they are happy together are very warm and fun. Then there are the darker scenes with them together that really are really heartfelt. Their on-screen presence makes you really care about them and it makes you champion their romance. Prior to making this film, director Marc Webb made a romance film back in 2009 called "(500) Days of Summer" with Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel and he knows how to make romance scenes work. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone have the best chemistry that I have seen out of two actors this year. Is it also due to the fact that they are actually dating in real life? Maybe, but they still good never the less.
But the supporting cast also remains memorable and very good. Dennis Leary actually does some of his best work in years as the cop trying to bring down Spider-Man. He is very intimidating as a cop, but manages to show the softer, fatherly side in his scenes with Emma Stone. They too have good chemistry that makes their father/daughter relationship real and it makes the film all the more heartfelt.
Other veteran actors that shine are Martin Sheen and Sally Field who play Peter's Uncle and Aunt. Martin Sheen almost steals the show as Uncle Ben because manages to back and forth between feeling sympathetic for Peter and being a disciplinary figure for him. He can back to feeling sad for him and being mad at him at it is very convincing in all his scenes. Sally Field also manages to very effective scenes with Andrew Garfield and that makes her memorable as well.
Another performance that found very well was Rhys Ifans' performance as Dr. Curt Connors/The Lizard. I always found Ifans to be a very underrated actor, but he shows how good he is here. I always said that you have to have good and memorable villain to have good film and Ifans manages to both memorable and menacing. He doesn't go over-the-top as mad scientist, but instead shows a conflicted character that doesn't to do bad, but the thought of it consumes his mind and decides to go with it anyway.
There is no doubt that Ifans is very good in this, but where does he rank amongst the other villains from the other films? Well I think he comes in second behind Alfred Molina's Doctor Octopus (a.k.a Doc Ock) from "Spider-Man 2" because Molina's character was more tragic compared to the other villains. However, I felt that Ifans was a better villain than Willem Dafoe from the original "Spider-Man" because I felt that Dafoe was too silly, kid friendly and over-the-top as the Green Goblin. As for "Spider-Man 3" I felt that there were too many villains because there was Sandman, Venom, and the New Goblin. The effects were good on the Sandman character, but he wasn't really that memorable. We didn't see too much of Venom and that was basically everyone's complaint of the third film and James Franco was fine as the New Goblin, but he just seemed lost amongst the many villains and storylines. So yes, I feel as though Ifans' The Lizard is the second best out of the other villains. But I also have to say that the effects are also very good on the Lizard character.
Speaking of the effects, the effects and the stunts are very well done. The fight scenes are very good especially when Spider-Man fights The Lizard. They are very exciting and thrilling to watch and those scenes manage to keep you interested. Sometimes in films, action scenes might not be exciting and that will bring the film down. A good example of that would be "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" which didn't have exciting action scenes. At first, I don't know what to expect because director Marc Webb hasn't directed an action film before. But "The Amazing Spider-Man" does have exciting action scenes and that is what makes the film thrilling. This goes back to the likeability to Andrew Garfield's performance as Peter Parker because you really care for him and you're engaged by him so want see him win. This also goes back to Rhys Ifans' performance because he makes the Dr. Connors/Lizard character interesting as well, so we want to watch these characters fight. It is also good that Garfield and Ifans have chemistry as well because that helps add to a convincing and realistic hero/villain relationship.
Now everyone is going to compare this film to the original Sam Raimi films starring Tobey Maguire. The comparisons are going to be inevitable, so I guess I should do it too. I know some people are going to compare all three original films with this film. I don't know why all three because I feel as though that this film should be compared to the original from 2002 (that's ten years ago, has it really been that long!?) because they tell the same story of Peter Parker becoming Spider-Man. So, which film do I think is the better film, 2002 or 2012? Well I was never actually a fan of the original film and didn't like the third film either. However, I have mentioned in the past that I liked "Spider-Man 2" a lot and I will talk about that later, but for now I'm just going to compare the original film to the new one. "The Amazing Spider-Man" is a better film than the original "Spider-Man" for a few reasons. You already read that I thought that Rhys Ifans was better than Willem Dafoe in the terms of which villain was better.
However, I also want to talk about the tone of each film. The original "Spider-Man" was more comical, yes there is humor in "The Amazing Spider-Man", but different. Sam Raimi's "Spider-Man" was basically comic book humor and at times it seemed rather silly and borderlined on camp. This is also evident in the dialogue between some of the characters in Raimi's "Spider-Man" because the dialogue was rather cheesy. "Spider-Man" seemed more kid friendly. Sure there was action and that iconic kiss, but it seemed directed towards kids because the Willem Dafoe as the Green Goblin was silly. The tone of "The Amazing Spider-Man" is darker, grittier and more mature than compared to the original "Spider-Man". I said that there was humor in "The Amazing Spider-Man", but the humor in it was funnier and it felt more real and that it didn't come straight out of a comic book.
This one is also going to be the topic of debate: Which one is the better Spider-Man? Is it Tobey Maguire or is it Andrew Garfield? Like I said earlier, I am only going to compare them in regards to the original and the new. Well, I am just going to say it……Andrew Garfield is the better Spider-Man. OK if you think Maguire was better, are you done protesting? I actually think Garfield is the better Spider-Man for a few good reasons. Yes, I understand that Maguire made the character famous on-screen, but Garfield did some elements better than Maguire. That is not to say that Tobey Maguire is a bad actor because I think he is a very good actor and he has proven that in other films such as "Pleasantville", "The Cider House Rules" and "Brothers", but I just feel that Garfield did other elements better. One thing Garfield did better was showing Peter Parker as an outsider in a more realistic way. In the original, Maguire was more of a stereotypical, comic book nerd and his misfortune is sometimes played for laughs. An example would this would be one of the first scenes when he misses the bus and everyone laughs at him. That feels like it came right out of a comic book scene while in "The Amazing Spider-Man", Andrew Garfield shows Peter Parker as an outsider in a darker fashion. When I first saw him and his actions, it seemed more true to real life than Tobey Maguire. That also helps affect the tone of the film as well. Maguire's Peter Parker adds more comic book tone while Garfield adds a darker and mature tone.
While also comparing the two you also have to compare their interactions with the others. As I said earlier, I thought that Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone had great chemistry with another and that was the high point in the film. However, the chemistry between and Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst (as Mary Jane) only in the first film was less believable and I didn't really feel a spark between until "Spider-Man 2". It was also during that film that felt the complexity of the Peter Parker character from the Tobey Maguire character. That is because during that film he questioned whether or not if he needed to be Spider-Man knowing the risks of putting the love one in danger and that is what made "Spider-Man 2" better than the first one. However, that complexity of the Peter Parker character is featured in "The Amazing Spider-Man" and I feel that it grow once the series continues. That somewhat internal conflict didn't exist in the original one. Also in each film, after Peter Parker gains spider-like powers, they play it for laughs. In the original it wasn't really that funny, the new one it is.
In the drama and serious scenes, Andrew Garfield was effective than Tobey Maguire. I can't say much about them, but I feel that Garfield was better at bringing sad moments. I think that also has to deal with the tone because in the original, the drama felt out of place. In the new one, it feels welcome.
However, which one is my favorite "Spider-Man" film now? I always said in the past that "Spider-Man 2" is my favorite. However, it now has competition with this one because I equally liked it. So I'll cheat and say I like them both the same. Time will really tell because I know there will be a franchise out of this.
"The Amazing Spider-Man" is thrilling and exciting that is filled with very good performances by Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone and Rhys Ifans. All three actors have great chemistry with one another, especially Garfield and Stone. The effects and stunts are great and it is more realistic than the original "Spider-Man" because its characters and tone are darker and more mature.
