Review - The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

The Amazing Spider-Man is a futile exercise in film-making and is nothing new. But it is good enough for further installments.

The love birds... oh sorry, one is a Human-cum-Spider.

It all started when production of fourth installment of Sam Raimi's Spider-Man films when sour, due to "creative difference" between Sony and Raimi. When Raimi backed out, Tobey and Dunst backed out as well. Sony's multi-million dollar franchise's future was unclear.  The solution to this was rather simple - a clean reboot of the film series. Just like you reboot your computer when it is not responding.

But that's really unfortunate that film series' reboot is not as simple as your computer. The third Spider-Man film by Raimi was met with luke-warm reception with critics and audience alike; it grossed pretty below expectations. Was rebooting the entire franchise in such a short time interval (about 5 years) a good move?

While I will keep my final judgement regarding this to myself until I see the sequel to this film, but it is fairly safe to assume that future of Marc Webb's version is safe. The film follows the original Spider-Man (2002) very closely, although there are some good and bad changes here and there. For example, uncle Ben's death here is presented a lot more clearly; while Peter's evolution as Spider-Man is rather sketchy and rushed. Also, setting the story in high-school is a welcome change.

Our friendly neighbourhood is now played by Andrew Garfield who plays Spider-Man in a lot more pausible
attitude as compared to Tobey, and his looks suit the whole high-school set up. Tobey, on the other hand had some better skills at comic timing and on-screen charm, which Garfield certainly lacks. Garfield's Peter is a cry-baby, tearing up quite often. Love interest here is Gwen Stacy rather than Mary Jane Watson. Emma Stone is really good as Gwen, certainly more suited companion to Peter than Mary (played by Kirsten in previous films in a rather dull way). Other returning characters include Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and Aunt May (Sally Field, for a paycheck certainly). Norman Osborn and Harry Osbron are not in the film, although majority of the film's action takes place at the Oscorp.

First half of the film is exactly more or less same as the first Spider-Man. The new villian introduced to us is Rhys Ifans as Dr. Connor/Lizard (finally he is a biologist rather than a physicist). His transformation as the Lizard is so badly written that I would rather not comment on it. And yes, our Irrfan Khan is also present for two-three scenes with some dailogue. His work in Life of Pi, released in same year, adds more to his resume than this. The built up to the climax is hurried and under-developed. The entire ending is also your typical super-hero ending, with no new element.

Marc Webb's vision is stylish and technically sound as it should be, but it lacks straight-forwardness and cinematic grandeur that Sam Raimi brought to the screen. The film is shot in Red EPIC in 3D, and the night scenes certainly look too pristine and brightly lit to be real. The trademark spider-cam shots are present too, with new POV shots, which look really good. Editing is really bad, many scenes feel rushed and abrupt. Visual Effects are passable, the Lizard doesn't look intimidating at all; something which should be attributed to the failure of the production design team.

So should you keep your faith in this new Spider-Man? Certainly yes; mainly because of the two leads - Garfield and Stone. They make a really good pair, play their parts with conviction. Without them, this Amazing Spider-Man has nothing "amazing" to offer.

2.5/5