(Finally - a Spiderman with BALLS!!! YEAH!!!)
CAST: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, Denis Leary, Sally Field, Martin Sheen, Campbell Scott, Embeth Davidtz, Rajit Ratha, Chris Zylka.
DIRECTOR: Marc Webb
WARNING: Some awesome web-slinging antics (one awesome web-slinger) straight ahead...
IT'S LIKE THIS: First, there was BATMAN BEGINS in 2005, which "rebooted" the Batman franchise after the potential coffin-nailer that was BATMAN & ROBIN in 1997. Then there was CASINO ROYALE in 2006, which "rebooted" the James Bond franchise after the potential Extinction Level Event that was DIE ANOTHER DAY in 2002. Now, we have.... THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN.... which intends to reboot (note the lack of quotes this time) the Spiderman franchise after the three-ring circus clusterfuck that was SPIDERMAN 3 in 2007. Some folks are a bit skeptical since the original SPIDERMAN came out just 10 years ago, and are questioning the need to start again from square one so soon. Me, personally? I say, BRING IT!!!! All I want from my Spiderman movies are: (1) a Peter Parker/Spidey who is noble AND ballsy; (2) a villain who is complex AND scary; (3) a heroine who is sweet AND resourceful; and (4) action scenes that are dazzling AND realistic. THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN delivers on all counts, but more about that later in the BUT, SERIOUSLY portion of the review.
For now, let's reboot, er, recap. Like SPIDERMAN '02, we meet our hero Peter Parker. Unlike SPIDERMAN '02, he is played by Andrew Garfield and NOT Tobey Maguire - which is a very good thing. But, again, more on that later. As with the original movie, we learn that Peter is living with his Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and Aunt May (Sally Field). Unlike the original flick, though, we get the backstory of what happened to Peter's parents. Or rather, some pieces of it. Seems Dr. Richard Parker (Campbell Scott), Peter's pops, was involved in some sort of top secret experiment that forced him and his wife (Embeth Davidtz) to go on the run - and leave their son behind. Hmmmm... what could Dr. Parker have been working on that was so dangerous that he would leave behind his beloved kid in the care of Aunt May and Uncle Ben - and go on the run? Ahem?
Anyhow, little Peter grows up into big Peter. Unfortunately, in addition to carrying around a knapsack in school, big Peter also carries around the scars of abandonment. He seems completely oblivious to the fact that he looks a lot like Andrew Garfield, and skulks around campus like he looks like Gollum from the HARRY POTTER series. He also has a serious jones for Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), one of those driven and brilliant chicks who are destined to end up becoming ridiculously hot scientists. You know? The kind that appear in James Bond movies? Paging Dr. Christmas Jones? Unfortunately, Peter is too shy to make his feelings known to Gwen known, and prefers to dance around her orbit. I suppose it doesn't help that Gwen's dad is Captain Stacy of the NYPD - and is a bit of an asshole.
While the Peter-Gwen drama is going on, Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), who is also a former colleague of Peter's father, is busy trying to continue Richard's research and try to develop a serum that will allow people with missing limbs to regrow their, uh, missing limbs. And since we all know lizard can regenerate their severed tails, it should come as no surprise that Dr. Connors has been ransacking the DNA of his lizard test subjects to boost the serum - which he eventually will test on himself because he is missing an arm. Say it with me now: none of this will end well, Curt. Oh, and I forgot to mention the little tiny detail of Peter being bitten by a special spider in Dr. Connors' labs.
Sure enough, before you know it, Peter is displaying the agility of a.... well, it really looks like the agility of a cat. Judging by the way he pounces off wall after wall and climbs up really high places and slinks through narrows spaces like he's trying to give Casper and Guido a run for their money. But I supposed to call this movie THE AMAZING CATMAN when it's already been advertised as THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN would just be stupid. Besides, he got bit by a spider. Not a crazy cat - which is basically my daily story. I'm surprised I haven't transformed into Halle Berry yet. Anyhow, let's just say Peter is as nimble as, um, as a spider now. Which, I guess, would explain why he can now shoot a shitload of webbing from his wrists. See what happens when animals attack?
Back on the other side of town, our misguided friend Dr. Connors injects himself with the regeneration serum. And it works. For about thirty minutes. Then he turns into an ugly-ass lizard. How's that for significant results? And just like that, we got ourselves a full-fledged villain, folks. Before you know it, Lizardman (what the fuck else should we call him?) is smashing his way through the city, just a little bit pissed off that he's got gross scaly skin now. I supposed advising him to invest in some Neutrogena Body Oil would be a waste of time at this point. And just like that, the countdown to the Spiderman/Lizardman smackdown begins.
Who will win this battle? Spiderman? Lizardman? Will Gwen get caught in the crossfire? Will Captain Stacy ever discover that the "masked vigilante" in a red and blue spandex suit is the same guy dating his daughter? How long can Gwen resist the sight of Andrew's, er, Peter's, er, Spiderman's small but perfect bubble butt in that spandex suit?
My money's on Andrew, er, Peter, er, Spiderman... and on that small but perfect butt.
BUT, SERIOUSLY: The best way to seriously review THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN is to compare it to SPIDERMAN 2002. We will focus on five main areas: (1) Hero, (2) Heroine, (3) Villain, (4) Supporting Cast, (5) Plot, and (6) Action.
1. Hero:
In SPIDERMAN 2002, Peter Parker and Spiderman were played by Tobey Maguire. In AMAZING SPIDERMAN, they are played by Andrew Garfield. While Maguire was okay in the role, and reasonably captured the character's sense of isolation and loneliness, he was also just a tad too wimpy and blank in the role. The flaws of Maguire's performance are highlighted by the strength of Garfield's. In the new film, Garfield gives us a Spiderman who is still vulnerable and fragile, but also has some real backbone and fire - which flares when the chips are down. This also makes Garfield a much more believable action figure when he switches to Spiderman mode. It also helps considerably that the 6-foot-tall Garfield's long, lean, muscular body looks much more graceful and dynamic in the Spiderman suit than Maguire's short and diminutive one. There's a huge difference between watching the Garfield Spiderman swing from building to building and watching the Maguire Spiderman do the same thing.
Also, there's no getting around it: Garfield is just a far better actor than Maguire. There were scenes in AMAZING SPIDERMAN where we were tearing up because of the way Garfield played Peter's angst. Some key scenes: Peter finally venting his pain over his parents abandoning him; Peter making a dying character a vital promise; and Peter distancing himself from Gwen to keep her safe. There are others, but these are the three standout scenes. They're as powerful as they are because of how subtly but powerfully Garfield expresses all of Peter's conflicted feelings. Put it this way: whenever Maguire emoted in his movies, he sounded like a whiny little kid. When Garfield does it here, it's the pain of a young man navigating the hard road life has given him. Basically, you end up wanting to slap Maguire's Peter. By contrast, you want to comfort Garfield's Peter. That is great acting.
Also, Garfield is terrific at suggesting the strength and conviction under Peter's tender surface. Even before he turns into Spiderman, Peter has real courage and stands up for the other downtrodden students at the school. From his very first scenes, Garfield gives us a hero with real intensity inside him without changing the original damaged nature of the character. This is a far more compelling lead than one who shuffles around and squeaks like a mouse, as Maguire played Peter back then. To be clear, Maguire isn't bad as Peter Parker or Spiderman - he's just nowhere near as good or as interesting as Garfield's much more intense interpretation.
I first noticed Garfield several years ago in the British film BOY A, where he played a 24-year old recently released from prison for killing someone when he was just 10. You could tell then that this guy has not only screen presence - but also real talent. We then saw him the haunting NEVER LET ME GO, where he further proved his ability to blend strength and vulnerability and held his own against Keira Knightley and Carey Mulligan. He then played real-life Brazilian-American Eduardo Saverin, the co-founder of Facebook, in THE SOCIAL NETWORK. I have not seen that film, but I have seen most of Garfield's scenes on various sites, and I agree 100% with certain quarters who feel he should've been nominated for Best Supporting Actor at the Oscars. And when I heard he'd been cast as Peter Parker in THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN last year, I knew he would do something special with this role. And, once again, he doesn't disappoint. This guy is, as his movie says, amazing.
2. Heroine:
Another reason THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN is vastly superior to SPIDERMAN 2002 is because of its leading ladies. While Kirsten Dunst is an actress I've always liked, and while she does an okay job playing Mary Jane Watson, in the end character is just a relentless and passive damsel-in-distress. While the Peter-Mary Jane relationship is the trilogy's emotional fulcrum, and while it did elevate the superior SPIDERMAN 2 over its predecessor, there's no escaping the fact that this woman is mainly there to be kidnapped and imperiled so that Peter will have to rescue her and confront the bad guys. A friend of mine jokes that Mary Jane should walk around carrying a battle-axe at the rate that she gets snatched by the bad guys. I understand completely. There's nothing I love more than a resourceful and clever heroine - and Mary Jane is never given any opportunities to contribute to the plotline. You could argue that she is there to help flesh out Peter's emotions, but after awhile that gets old. Give her something to do besides pout, fret, and be abducted. Or replace her.
Which brings us to Gwen Stacy. Emma Stone is one of my favorite actresses and has starred in some of my favorite films (EASY A, THE HELP), and she is given a character who is not a damsel-in-distress and plays a vital role in the unfolding story. And here's the best part: not once is she kidnapped or held hostage in THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN. Amazing, isn't it? Considering you could pretty much set your watch by the frequency of Mary Jane's kidnappings from the first three movies? This isn't to say that Gwen doesn't find herself in dangerous situations or scary encounters with Dr. Connors/Lizardman. She does - but she takes care of herself and uses her wits and skills to escape the situation. Not once does she rely on Peter to rescue her. That alone puts her ahead of the near-useless Mary Jane.
Also, Stone brings the same fire to her role that Garfield brings to his - which sparks their chemistry considerably. There were times when I was watching Maguire and Dunst as Peter and Mary Jane in the first films where I would think, "Gosh, this is one downer couple." There just always seemed to be a curious lack of energy between them. This is not the case with Stone and Garfield as Peter and Gwen. Their relationship has a nice cat-and-mouse aspect where you're never quite sure who's chasing who. They also convey a lot of feeling through short lines, small gestures, and fleeting expressions. Watch for the look on Gwen's face - a mix of fear, surprise, and excitement - when she realizes that Peter is Spiderman, right before he kisses her. Great look - and great scene.
Then there's the scene near the end where Gwen manages to escape (on her own) from Lizardman's laboratory - and runs into her father and his armada of cops waiting outside. She wants to go back in to find Peter, but Captain Stacy orders his men to forcefully take her away to safety while he goes inside to help Peter himself. Gwen says one line to him before he goes: "Make sure he's okay!" The way Stone tearfully but bravely delivers this plea is a textbook example of how to get maximum reaction and subtext from a single line.
In fact, so potent is Garfield and Stone's on-screen chemistry here that it spilled over into real life: they are now in a relationship. Not surprising.
3. Villain:
In SPIDERMAN 2002, our baddies was the Goblin AKA Norman Osborne (Willem Dafoe). He was a very good villain with the right degree of complexity. Goblin was easily the main strength of the movie. In AMAZING SPIDERMAN, Lizardman AKA Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans) is cut from the same cloth - a decent, noble figure who is driven over the edge by personal tragedy. In this area, both SPIDERMAN 2 and AMAZING SPIDERMAN are equal. Both Dafoe and Ifans do themselves proud, turning in low-key but riveting performances.
4. Supporting Cast:
In the original SPIDERMAN, I always thought that Uncle Ben (Cliff Robertson) and Aunt May (Rosemary Harris) were a little too "Quaker Oat Meal" for me. In other words, the felt like movie or comic book "characters" - and not relatable, dimensional human beings. Not sure if this was the writing, or how the roles were played, but I find Martin Sheen and Sally Field much more compelling in the same roles in AMAZING SPIDERMAN. As a result, Uncle Ben's death in the new film is much more affecting than the one in the older film - and it's largely due to how Martin Sheen portrays the character. Sally Field is also a much more colorful and interesting presence than Rosemary Harris - who felt like a stereotype. Then there's Denis Leary who, just as in THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR 1999, plays an acerbic-but-noble cop who is torn between duty - and doing the morally right thing. Sheen, Field, and Leary easily trump the supporting cast of SPIDERMAN 2002 - who felt like comic book cartoons. Fine for a comic book - but not for a movie.
5. Plot:
Both SPIDERMAN 2002 and AMAZING SPIDERMAN deal with the troubled psyche of Peter Parker. But THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN gives Garfield more compelling issues to tackle - mainly his abandonment by his parents - and he does so in a very classy and soulful way. As opposed to Maguire's Peter - who was basically just moping and moping and moping and moping over Mary Jane. There's also a melancholy undercurrent to the new movie that is just right - and not heavy-handed like in the original film. AMAZING SPIDERMAN also has a central threat that actually feels threatening and not cartoonish (Lizardman spreading a reptilian contagion) - much like the main danger in BATMAN BEGINS. In the original film, I could never feel a sense of danger. It felt like a comic book. Again: fine for a comic book - but not for a movie. THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN feels like a real film.
6. Action Scenes:
I'm told that the original Spiderman was very heavy on CGI - and it shows. I remember feeling curiously detached from all of Spidey's swinging and slinging. I felt like I was watching a video game. And I still feel that way anytime I watch any of the last three movies. In THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN, there's supposed to be more reliance and actual high-wire stunts and real action setpieces. There's still some CGI, but not as much as the original film - and it shows. You actually feel like you are swinging along with Peter as he slings from building to building. And that makes a huge difference.
In closing, THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN is superior to SPIDERMAN 2002 for the reasons listed above. It feels like a real adventure, and not a comic book. And the presence of Andrew Garfield as the new Peter Parker cannot be overstated. No offense to Tobey Maguire, but Mr. Garfield knocks him right out of the water.
