REVIEW: THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN

An appropriate "Wait, what?" was expressed by all when it was announced a Spider-Man reboot was getting a release this summer.  "Spider-Man 3," the one movie every one seems to hate but I kind of liked back in 2007.  5 years?  Is that all the time they're waiting to restart? Where's Mary Jane?  And then, once the cast was revealed, I gained a lot of faith.  In 2010 Andrew Garfield (Peter Parker) and Emma Stone (Gwen Stacy) both released movies that showed they were ready if not overqualified to take on big Hollywood roles, in "The Social Network" and "Easy A" respectively.  These roles earned them Golden Globe nominations and an established part of young Hollywood, or whatever they want to call themselves these days.  And then the million dollar question still remained: would it go in the direction of "The Avengers," or southbound, a la "Green Lantern."

I'm not sure if the box office success will match it, but the film certainly points in the direction of "The Avengers" in terms of superhero storytelling (and super storytelling in general.)  When it comes to superhero movies nowadays, anyone that comes out is inevitably compared to "The Dark Knight," which, in its own right, set the standard for superhero movies.  YouTube movie critic Peter Rallis said that "Dark Knight" has influenced most of the genre's films post 2008 when it came out.  I wasn't sure how to take that; I thought it was just a superfan talking.  But when I viewed "The Amazing Spider-Man," I was surprised, but I did find some "Dark Knight" DNA lodged in there.  Nolan's movies tried not to be so reliant on special effects, even though that's what everybody comes for.  It paid off naturally, and I can see "Spider-Man" does the same thing here.  The first half doesn't even feel like a superhero movie. Perhaps it's not.  It could be just the story of a young high-schooler who gets bitten by a radioactive spider on the sides.  The real issue the movie faces is the romance between Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy.  

Stone's becoming one of today's best actors, period

Garfield is great, if not better than Tobey Maguire's interpretation, but who's comparing?  The movies are totally different in style, so I won't constantly parallel them.  Garfield easily portrays a character we're all familiar with, perhaps with a more sensitive and awkward touch than we're used to thinking of Parker.  His scenes with Stone seem so honest and natural I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they were improvised.  Stone turns in another bravura performance as Gwen, a sly, sexy addition to Parker's otherwise bland lifestyle of getting bullied and studying extremely difficult sciences. After seeing her in "Zombieland," "Superbad" and "Crazy, Stupid, Love," it's not a wonder that Stone is cinema's finest, funniest young actress right now.  A long film career is surely ahead for her.  A cynical critic could dismiss her as another pretty face, but, uh, she has something former it-girl Megan Fox doesn't have that might be a little more useful down the road: talent.


But enough Fox-bashing.  The first hour of the film may drag on more than you would want it to, but that's only because we're so anxious for the transformation into Spider-Man.  My generation...screw it, I grew up on Spider-Man.  I dressed up for him in Halloween, I have all the movies on DVD, there's countless merchandise stuffed in between corners of my house.  And I know for certain I'm not the only one.  America loves Spider-Man, that's why they all groaned when "3" came out because it tried to juggle too many villains, too many stories, and fell flat for some.  After practically being raised on Peter Parker, you want a movie like this to work.


Coming back to performances, let's be honest, Rhys Ifans isn't exactly a household name, or a pronounceable one at that.  While I was excited to see an actor unknown to me play a villainous role I had only seen a few times in comic strips and stuff, Ifans brought a lot to the Lizard, one of  "Amazing Spider-Man's" highest points.  Unlike these other super-villains who just seem bent on destroying the world for kicks, the Lizard only goes after the ones who've wronged him, or the people who get in his way.  Dr. Curt Conors (Lizard) just wants his arm back, and isn't really a terrible person.  Like Parker, he's thrown into this supernatural lifestyle on accident.  The film also does well with the origin of Parker's identity, how he got the costume, how he got the name.  It's all wrapped together very nicely, and doesn't come across as rushed.

So if you're a die-hard "Dark Knight" fan I have a few things for you:

1. I'm going to be doing a DVD review of it in the next few weeks and 
2. Realize it's OK to like this cliche-free and well-acted  ridden reboot, despite the short time lapse from the third one.  It's already announced this will be the first of the trilogy, so we just to have sit back, and enjoy the web-slinging ride through New York City's skyscrapers.

Rating: 3/4 stars

P.S. Stay after the credits!