The Not So Amazing ‘Spider-Man’
Justin Huft | Jul 10, 2012 | Comments 8
It ended up somewhere between “Spider-Man 3” and “Green Lantern.” It wasn’t quite as bad as “Electra,” but it was close.
“The Amazing Spiderman” was one of the most disappointing movies of the year. While I didn’t expect much from the “Spider-Man” franchise after a pseudo-musical number in the last movie and a beyond failing musical, I was really hoping that some of “The Avengers’” glory would have somehow seeped into the film reels of this latest movie by magical superhero osmosis. It didn’t.
Marc Webb’s latest movie fell flat on its stupid, spidery face. While at times it felt like I was watching something resembling a superhero movie, most of the time it seemed more like a failed RomCom pretending to be a superhero movie. Perhaps Webb has yet to outgrow his “(500) Days of Summer” roots. Unfortunately, instead of a charming as heck Gordon-Levitt as a leading man, and a stunning Deschanel, we are stuck with the Edward Cullen look-a-like, Andrew Garfield , who was just as awkward as his fictional doppelganger, and Emma Stone, who, while usually less than impressive in her previous performances, managed to dance acting circles around Garfield.
While the story seemed to match the original comics fairly well, which was a slight joy to us comic book fans, the overall presentation left much to be desired.
Besides the terribly inconsistent effects, which would alternate from the 1950s “Godzilla” to the mediocre “Incredible Hulk,” Webb decided it would be a good idea to experiment with his fancy new Red cameras. Unfortunately for the audience, this meant dizzying first-person shots while Spiderman swung around the city.
While this movie wasn’t a total wreck, Garfield left much to be desired. For one, it would have been nice to see more than just two facial expressions: tired and beaten up, or a ridiculous coy smile usually somewhat masked by his floppy hair. He was both the Bella and the Edward of the movie.
What “Spiderman” did right was its casting, minus Garfield as the leading man. That seems to be one of the consistently good things that Marvel does well (ignoring “Daredevil”). Rhys Ifans did an excellent job playing both the torn scientist and the power-crazed villain. Stone did what she does best: the cute, quirky girl who you don’t realize is surprisingly attractive until twenty-three minutes into the movie. Martin Sheen and Sally Field played a darling aunt and uncle. Dennis Leary took the cake, though, for his role as the police chief and Stone’s father. While he wasn’t outside his comfort zone of being an asshole, he did it well, and didn’t take over the scenes he was in.
As much as I complained about the movie, I’m going to be honest: it wasn’t the worst thing I’ve ever seen. One of the main reasons why I am so hard on it was because of my high expectations for the director, cast and “Spider-Man” franchise. I don’t know what I was thinking, though. It was pretty much exactly what one should expect after watching the last “Spider-Man” movie, which isn’t saying a lot.
All in all though, there was a lot of potential in the movie. There were a few scenes that were really impressive. The last fight scene between The Lizard and Spider-Man was great. Actually, almost every fight scene was excellently done. The usual Spidey-flavored comic relief and witty jabs were well-timed and didn’t feel forced. Probably the best thing about the movie was the storyline; it found the sweet spot in storytelling. Just enough questions were answered to make people happy, but not enough to rule out a sequel. Besides some cheeseasaurus dialogue, it was a well-written, compelling story.
Overall, it was a very decent movie. Too hyped up? Yeah. A bit disappointing? Definitely. A good bargain at the dollar theater? For sure. Unfortunately, unlike some superheroes (I’m looking at you, Thor), people actually like Spider-Man, and expect a certain quality from the movies, so the bar is set much higher. I think if Garfield spent as much time preparing for this role as he did inventing Facebook, it would have been a lot better.
Rating: 3/5
Filed Under: Entertainment • Featured Big
also, “overall it was a very decent movie”
What does that mean? It was very…middling?
“While I didn’t expect much from the “Spider-Man” franchise after a pseudo-musical number in the last movie and a beyond failing ”
and
“it was because of my high expectations for the director, cast and “Spider-Man” franchise”
You’re terribly inconsistent, just like you would describe the special effects to be. It was a fine movie.
I completely agree with you, Garfield’s acting was bad in this film. I also think that the script was a little off as well. In one scene they made a point of showing him wearing both contacts and glasses and after he gets the spider bite having him still wearing his glasses. I just didn’t get the point of some of those worthless shots. I think they could have done much better than this for a reboot of a 10 year old film.
Yup, completely agree with the other comments on here. I felt the amazing spider man was WAY closer to telling the real story of peter parker, was much more heartfelt, thought out and planned. Everything the other trilogy did well was essentially good use of special effects, with much better casting this time in a wicked unexperienced spider man, including all that entails.
Although what i do agree with is that since the last movie was only 10 years ago, it might seem like a rehash of the same story. But that’s not ASM fault – they told a much, much better story, only the got the second shot at it.
Hi, I would just like to say that your option was terrible. Spiderman 3 is one of the worst movies ever made. The entire “original” Spiderman series is mediocre at best. I mean Toby Mcguire??? The guy is like 5’8″ playing a character that is 6’1″ and lanky, on top of the fact that he managed to make every acting face look like he also needed to use the restroom. Garfield was leaps and bounds better. I will agree out of everyone cast in the movie I think his role still could have been cast better, but considering he still was above average. Final point, you have one of the most negative article titles I’ve read reviewing this movie, yet you spend more time praising it then bashing. I suggest you rewatch the “original” series to regain a sense where we are coming from and then maybe you will be able to make a more accurate option.
http://marvel.wikia.com/Spider-Man_%28Peter_Parker%29
Mr. Huff, I think you had some bad popcorn, or a bad Slurpee or something. You couldn’t be more wrong on this one. The Amazing Spider Man was absolutely fantastic on all counts.
You spelled my name wrong, so I’m discounting your entire argument.