The Amazing Spider-Man

Only Slightly More Amazing

Will it become common practice to start rebooting series a mere ten years after the release of the original? Now that Nolan's batman trilogy has concluded, when might we expect the next version of Batman Begins? I didn't run to the theatre for The Amazing Spider-Man; in fact, I waited a good long while after its release to watch it. It seemed unnecessary to me. Perhaps it is, but I was in the mood for some action entertainment after the slew of dramatic films I've seen recently.

I liked Sam Raimi's original Spider-Man. It still remains my favorite of his three; I liked the second one and found the third to be a mind-bleeding, torturous experience. Raimi is a skilled director, who has brought us some ground-breaking films like The Evil Dead, and some masterpieces like A Simple Plan, and over-the-top, fun entertainment like Drag Me to Hell. After the release of Nolan's version of a superhero film, Raimi's Spider-Mans seem rather cartoonish in retrospect. They aren't bad films (at least the first two aren't), but they feel like inferior entertainment. Still yet, I enjoy them, and do recognize the progress they represented at the time of their release.

With The Amazing Spider-man, director Marc Webb has brought us something a little different from the Raimi films (in particular the original), though the first half of the film certainly revisits several of the same plot points as Raimi's film, just in slightly different ways. Webb's film, however, does make several improvements that allow it to succeed both as entertainment and a viable reboot. His version feels grittier, less cartoonish than Raimi's. The villain this time around is certainly more formidable, and somehow also seems less cartoonish, even though it shouldn't. Perhaps it's my feeling toward the green goblin, whom I never much liked as a villain.

Of course one of the most noticeable differences is the replacement of Tobey Maguire with Andrew Garfield, who immediately burst onto my radar with his spectacular performance in 2010's The Social Network. I like Tobey Maguire, but never enjoyed him as much in the Spider-man films as I did in other work like The Cider House Rules and Wonderboys. Garfield works much better for me; much of this may have to do with the synthesis of Maguire's acting and Raimi's directing. Webb wisely dropped the voice over narration that was present in all three of Raimi's films, often to cringe inducing levels. None of that is here. The writing in general is more top-notch in Webb's screenplay - Peter Parker never talks to himself like he did in the Raimi films, which was nothing more than lazy exposition for the audience.

Another huge change is the absence of Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst in the originals), though she has a replacement in Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), the daughter of a police captain. It's no secret from the trailers that Gwen discovers the identity of Spider-man long before the end of the film, whereas in Raimi's trilogy, Mary Jane didn't learn such information until the very end of the second film.

All in all, the acting on behalf of both Stone and Garfield is more subtle and nuanced; the screenplay smarter; the filmmaking grittier. Was it an unnecessary film? Maybe. Cash grab? Perhaps. But that doesn't change it's enjoyability and entertainment factor. Sure, we've seen some of it before, but in many ways, despite perhaps an unfair advantage, it improves upon Raimi's film. I'm not sorry I didn't see it in theatres, but also not sorry I spent two hours watching it. I'll see the sequel, though once again, I won't run to the theatre.

***/****