Review : THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN

Ten years. Does that constitute as a long time? In the history of the universe, it's barely a fraction. To the average joe above the age of 25, it probably doesn't seem quite as lengthy as once previously felt.  A premiership football manager? Now they would probably think differently. A politician? Almost certainly. A sixteen year old living in 2012? Now that's a life time!

Cynically-minded or not, one suspects this is exactly what the hacks at Columbia pictures are banking on with The Amazing Spider-Man, a reboot of a well-loved Marvel creation that already had its origin story fairly well depicted by Sam Raimi a decade previously. Yet, after the The Evil Dead genius & his original Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) opted to jump ship not long after Spider-Man 4 was slated for production, Columbia opted to press the reset button instead & go for a new vision of our friendly neighbourhood web-slinger - merely 5 years after the wretched third instalment that was dogged by emos, villain-overload & general bad haircuts for all concerned. "Too soon" a collective voice cried? "Not when there's plenty of dollars to be made from gullible teenagers" chuckled studio heads Doug Belgrad & Matt Tomach (probably).

So with Raimi & Maguire gone, enter Marc Webb & Andrew Garfield. Webb, an able if somewhat unproven director with the decent (if a little overrated) anti-rom-com (500) Days Of Summer being the only feature attributed to his modest back catalogue. Garfield, a genuinely talented performer who has steadily made his name from television fare like The Red Riding Trilogy to David Fincher's near-Shakespearean depiction of Facebook in The Social Network. Both key appointments were intriguing. Webb had already demonstrated a solid ability to work with actors and develop characters, yet had displayed no real nack of nailing an elaborative set-piece (unless you count the impromptu song & dance number in Summer, which if we're being honest, the likes of the Green Goblin, Venom or the Vulture are unlikely to indulge in). Garfield, a self-confessed Spidey fan, undoubtedly had the acting chops, but was closer to 30 than an adolescent school boy. Perhaps he's too old to be playing a teenage superhero? Yet, as the impressive cast list grew with the likes of Emma Stone, Martin Sheen, Sally Field & Rhys Ivans added to proceedings, one begun to wonder. Maybe there's wisdom in these choices? Maybe there's more to this Spidey reboot? Maybe it'll give us something that the previous three films didn't offer. Maybe, just maybe,  it'll be 'Spider-Man Begins?'

Alas, it is not. What we have instead is a workman-like superhero film with reasonable stabs at character building, yet when analysed a little closer, is a shell of a Spider-Man film. It's curious that the average fan boy seems to have responded positively to Webb's effort, largely thanks to the re-introduction of Spidey's web slingers - something the Raimi's films had altered previously. Yet many seem to have not picked up on a fundamental change in its entire approach - the character of Peter Parker himself.

Whilst this is admittedly a personal point of view, one of the most interesting aspects about the Parker character was always the contrast between his teenage normality and his masked alter ego. For decades, Spider-man has resonated with people not just because he was one of the very few teenage superheroes, but because of the empowerment his great power & responsibility enabled. Parker represented something the likes of a Clark Kent or a Bruce Wayne could never be. A teenager, with all his social awkwardness, neuroses & anxiety being able to become something confident, something strong, unperturbed by confrontation and injustice. A teenage fantasy who not only had the strength & courage to confront the face of antagonism, but had the charisma to get the girl of his dreams. As an adolescent, we all wanted to stand up to bullies, to feel confident in ourselves, to tell the girl we liked how we really felt - yet many of us didn't, or couldn't. With Spider-Man, we had a figurehead who represented that, better than anyone or anything.

The Peter Parker of The Amazing Spider-Man however, is something altogether different. Despite a brief montage of him being somewhat excluded from high school social etiquette, it doesn't take long for him to become confrontational. To say what he really thinks. To be confident enough to sneak into a laboratory using an Hispanic alias. To charm his way into the thoughts of Gwen Stacey. Previously, these are things Spider-Man would do. They are not things Peter Parker would ever consider without the aid of a mask - or at least not as early on. There is a legitimate argument that this change in Parker's approach embodies the fact that in 2012, the geek is the new cool. Facebook, Apple, Google, Game Of Thrones, The Big Bang Theory. Things that once would be considered specialist interests, are now very much part of the mainstream. This might well be the case, but it doesn't defuse the problem that this circumstance has turned Parker into a far less compelling & identifiable creation as a result.

Taking centre stage instead appears to be the void left by absent family members, specifically the disappearance of Parker's parents & of course, the tragic death of Uncle Ben indirectly caused by Parker's misguided approach to perceived justice. In other words, the creation and development of his alter ego has been inspired by either a desire to seek answers regarding his past, or to atone for his previous mistakes (aside from the obligatory spider bite of course). This in itself is a reasonably interesting approach, yet at the same time it doesn't offer a clear road map to the inevitable need to save the day. After all, this is supposed to be a superhero film first, not necessarily a tale of existentialism & redemption. Try as he might, Webb's film unfortunately cannot satisfyingly bridge the two, and as a consequence, neither side fully convinces.   

For any superhero or vigilante story to work, the creation in question has to have a connection to its surroundings - either in a positive or negative manner. The likes of Batman succeed because of Bruce Wayne's relationship with Gotham City - infused by his own personal tragedy caused by the ills rooted at the heart of Gotham society. In Raimi's Spider-Man, you were also never left in any doubt of the relationship between the web head & New York City. Perhaps the then recent events of 9/11 reinforced this idea a little more than you would normally expect, but nevertheless, you felt Spidey's personal correlation with the Big Apple, and the NYC community's subsequent embrace of Spidey - resulting in the stakes feeling just a little bit higher. In The Amazing Spider-Man, only once does this feel to be the case. In an excellent scene that takes place during the Lizard's rampage on the Brooklyn Bridge, our hero is sidetracked by the threat of a young boy dangling in a car that's all set to descend into the Hudson river. Up to that point, Spidey has been pursuing an agenda based on self-interest. In this scene, it feels like its the dawn of a realisation to his wider responsibility, yet sadly this realisation is never satisfyingly delivered. Any attempts to build on this by in large either fall flat or is portrayed half-heartedly, and consequently, the big heroic deed towards the end neither feels dramatic, nor earned. 

Perhaps this is a consequence of a poorly devised script, leading to a film that frustrates rather than compels. It's to the credit of the cast that these deficiencies are challenged, yet there's only so much papering over the cracks they can muster. At one point, Parker proclaims to Stacey that he enjoys kissing her. On paper, this is as cringe-worthy as the "it's only because I'm so in love with you" awfulness in Star Wars Episode III: Revenge Of The Sith, yet gets away with it thanks to the way both Garfield & Stone play it. Had this scene been in the hands of less able performers, you would really fear for its success - something which is symptomatic throughout the films duration. Some poor writing also leads to the antagonist in the form of Dr. Curt Connor's (Rhys Ivans) unconvincing transition from determined ethical scientist with a personal trauma to  an insane genocidal monster with an inner schizophrenic monologue, in barely a handful of beats. Furthermore, plot lines will be drawn, then completely forgotten about as another immediate incident comes sharply into focus. Perhaps there's an intention to revisit these threads in a future film, but in a supposed stand alone feature, they are irksome to the point of distraction.

Which leads to the overwhelming feeling that The Amazing Spider-Man provokes. A feeling of deja vu. That we've been here before. This is where the argument over how a 16 year old perceives this in comparison to an older viewer becomes crucial. At the time of Spider-Man, the target audience for the 2012 version would have been in nappies or engrossed in The Tweenies, playing in sandpits and eating crayons - blissfully unaware of the adolescent pragmatism to follow. It is likely therefore, that this will connect with the teenagers of today more than the Raimi original, for the simple reason that it is made for their generation - irrespective of plot threads & specific aspects being regurgitated or not as well executed. Colombia know this, and as a result, they are capitalising on this generational gap. This isn't necessarily a problem if the retelling is stronger than the one previously told, but it isn't. Any improvements over the 2002 version are largely incidental to overall picture (the majority of the cast, the special effects), whilst the crucial aspects are for the large part, tame or repetitive in comparison. You know something's wrong when the best set-pieces involving spidey reflexes occur when Parker's not in costume. Then again, there is a case that maybe this isn't the Spider-Man many of us know and love, and perhaps that's the problem.

2/5