Why? Why are we doing this again? It's nearly impossible not
to pose this question as one watches The Amazing Spider-Man, a reboot of the
big screen franchise featuring everyone's favorite wall crawler. Some will call
this a remake, and while there's some truth to that, the latest film is more of
a do-over, a restart. It's a chance to go back and focus on some different
aspects of the central character, Peter Parker, and to introduce some new
characters who figured prominently in the comic book, including love interest
Gwen Stacy.
After the third film in the previous series, it's easy to
see why a reboot was warranted, but does this one do the Webslinger justice?
It's definitely a mixed bag of scenes and themes that work well and others that
could very well have been left to the splicer.
It's mostly the early sequences of the film that fall flat
and seem overly contrived. Andrew Garfield is fine as the always disheveled
Parker, and who can't like Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy? Denis Leary appears as
Gwen's police captain father and Rhys Ifans as the tragic figure of Peter's
scientist friend Dr. Curt Connors.
The problem with the first 30-plus minutes of the film is
that it's little more than a rehash of what we already know happens to Peter.
And the sequences depicting his struggle to control and understand his newfound
powers are contrived and often just plain silly. The film could very well have
done without the entire scene on the subway in which Peter inadvertently strips
a girl of her outer clothing and then proceeds to fend off a host of would-be
vigilantes coming to her aid. None of this is really very funny or entertaining
unless you're five years old. And let's not even mention the monster lizard
rat. Even in a modern comic book such a thing would be dismissed out of hand as
simply absurd.
And why are we rehashing the Spider-Man origin story again
in the first place? There are some minor changes, but the core of the
Spider-Man mythos remains intact. So why retell it? Given that Peter's love
interest is now Gwen Stacy instead of Mary Jane Watson, couldn't the action of
this film have been joined in medias res and the origin changes conveyed via
flashbacks? This, arguably, would have made the film as a whole less contrived
and more of an independent entity of its own.
Among the aspects of the film that work very well is the
depiction of Peter as more of a typical, willful teenager rather than the
syrupy goodness that was the Tobey Maguire Parker. The behavior that leads to
the eventual death of Uncle Ben feels more real and less contrived than it did
in the previous version. The same lesson about using super powers responsibly
is conveyed, although in the form of a more powerful declaration that
Spider-Man has a moral obligation to use his powers to help others. Peter makes
mistakes and regrets them and seems all the more like a real person because of
it.
The Amazing Spider-Man is also a film of strong emotions.
Many scenes, including the death of Uncle Ben and the aftereffects of his
death, are genuinely moving. Other powerful scenes include the climax of the
final battle with the Lizard and Spider-Man's rooftop heart-to-heart with
Captain Stacy. Parker's promise to Captain Stacy is heart wrenching and we know
will lead to future conflicts.
The action focuses primarily on Dr. Connors and his desire
to discover how humans may re-grow limbs like other species. He has a vested
interest in the research because he has lost one his arms. The answer to the
puzzle, he is certain, lies in being able to splice human DNA with that of
species capable of regeneration. This same genetic research also leads to the
bite that turns mild-mannered Peter Parker into the wisecracking Spider-Man.
One thing is certain: Our science has moved us beyond the
simplistic idea that radiation can turn normal people into super-heroes, that
the bite of an irradiated spider can make someone stronger and faster and able
to climb walls. So at least the gene splicing gives us a sense of plausibility
in the reboot, and instead of shooting web out of his wrists as in the Tobey
Maguire version, this Spider-Man is more in keeping with the comic book version
wherein a special formula derived from research allows Webhead to devise his
own web shooters.
There is one very notable--and perhaps
unforgivable--omission in this rehash: J. Jonah Jameson is nowhere to be found.
Can we have Spider-Man without his greatest non-super-powered nemesis? I
suppose casting Jameson would have been difficult if J. K. Simmons were not
reprising his role. Still, I find it difficult to imagine any Spider-Man
franchise without the cigar-chomping news editor.
The Amazing Spider-Man is far from a great film, but it's
certainly not a failure either. Aside from introducing movie-going audiences to
one of Spider-Man's most intriguing villains in the Lizard, this film seems to
be going through the motions as more of an introduction to the new series. Much
of it, I argue, is completely unnecessary. If you eliminate the contrivances
the sole purpose of which are to re-establish an entirely new Spider-Man, it's
an engaging and thoroughly enjoyable movie. The contrived scenes and some
occasionally dreadful dialogue are jarring and even awkward. If the next
installment can stay away from these mistakes, this could be a stronger
franchise than the original.
