The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) - The Un-imaginative Hipster Reboot

After the fan pleasing crossover in last year's No Way Home, much focus has gone onto Andrew Garfield's interpretation of the friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man. Many people are now calling for his timeline to continue as the web crawler. And while his second outing in 2014 was hindered by executive interference, resulting in a cluttered mess, it is always exciting to see different interpretations of popular characters. But a question has lingered in my mind, and that's whether Garfield got to start his take on the character on the right footing?...

That's a hard question to answer though, because for all the good things about this film, there's one key issue that lingers over this film. And that's how unimaginative it's origin story is. This film came out 10 years after Tobey Maguire's origin story for the web-slinger, and yet little to nothing about this film's origin is unique to it. It goes through all the motions. From the spider bite, to the clique bully interactions, to the rehashed death of Uncle Ben. (Martin Sheen) Even certain action sequences feel recycled. The first big action sequence at the bridge feels recycled from Maguire's first outing, as does the concept of New York coming together to help Spider-Man in the third act. We've seen from Spider-Man films since then that origin stories don't need to follow the same plot points beat for beat, yet the team behind this film decided to play their cards way too safe!

Having seen Garfield perform his version of Spider-Man, it actually would've made more sense to have this interpretation of the character take place during the prime of the hero's powers, potentially during Peter's college days, rather than starting from the ground up in high school. Again, retreading recently covered ground. This is something the MCU did right, by abandoning the traditional origin story. I strongly believe Garfield's portrayal of Spider-Man, perfectly capturing the quippy nature of the character, while still having him being a heroic symbol. It's when I see Garfield portraying a teenage Peter Parker, that the portrayal falls flat. In all tellings of the story, Parker starts out as a geeky loser, yet Garfield's interpretation feels more like a skateboarding hipster, and doesn't even appear to be unpopular. I don't buy the idea of Garfield being a teenage high school loser, but I completely buy into his antics as Spider-Man. So had the film makers set the story a few years into Spider-Man's career, this would've been a more cohesive performance.

The romantic chemistry between Garfield's Parker and Emma Stone's Gwen Stacey is by far the strongest aspect of this film. They are just an adorable pairing. Their support for one another and genuine affection is far more believable here, than that seen between Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst in the Rami trilogy. It feels more genuine here, due to how well crafted the dialogue is between them. It doesn't rely on pre-school sappy dialogue to portray romance, as these two world class actors can convey that with ease. The fact that they were dating in real life was likely a big contribution towards that effortless chemistry too.

The production design is sublime throughout, with there being a huge improvement in the swinging sequences compared to the Maguire films. John Schwartzman provided some vibrant shots as cinematographer, and really makes you feel like you are swinging through the city as Spider-Man. The Maguire trilogy made you feel like an observer to Spider-Man's antics. But these films made you feel like you actually were the hero. The use of POV shots really sells the moments swinging through the city. The visual effects are of a higher consistency throughout this film compared to the previous trilogy, and provide some incredible spectacle. The biggest issue I have is with the costume design, most noticeably the design of Spider-Man's costume. It looks more like a basketball that was stretched over the human body, and then spray painted. I can appreciate the rather crude look to the early costumes, due to Parker finding his footing, but once he actually becomes Spider-Man, the costume he's wearing looks frankly ridiculous! The costume improves dramatically in the 2014 sequel, but in this case, it was not a good starting point.

Overall, this is still a good Spider-Man film, but I wouldn't call it a flawless starting point for a reboot. It was far too soon after the disappointing Spider-Man 3 to start from scratch, and it followed the beats of the 2002 original far too often, resulting in a film that felt far too generic and lacking in it's own unique voice. Again, had this been set during Peter's college years, and shown us Spider-Man already established in a similar sense to 2017's Spider-Man: Homecoming, this would've felt less like a retread. There is plenty to like about this film, and could've lead to bigger and better things had the studio executives not butchered Garfield's second outing. For now though, I'm glad we got this first film, and that Garfield got to really show off how good he was at Spider-Man both here and in No Way Home. Whether he will get that desired third outing, we'll just have to wait and see...

SCORES

Story - 3/5

Characters - 4/5

Production - 4/5

Acting - 4/5

Music - 2.5/5

TOTAL - 7/10