Movie review: The Amazing Spider-man is ... just amazing
The performances are quite amazing. Of special note is the role of Ben Parker, brilliantly played by Martin Sheen. Ben and his on screen wife May Parker (Sally Field), play the role of aging surrogate parents to their nephew Peter, all the while managing the teen’s anxiety over the mysterious disappearance of his parents. They are ably supported by a strong performance from Emma Stone who plays the role of Peter’s love interest Gwen Stacy. The scenes in which she falls for Peter are surprisingly as sweet as young love can be. Their romance and chemistry is the strongest I’ve seen in a superhero film, rivaling even that of Lois and Clark in Richard Donner’s Superman (1978). But the actor who really steals the show is Andrew Garfield. As the film is a reboot of director Sam Raimi’s previous trilogy, which is still fresh in our minds, comparisons are drawn automatically. But while Toby Maguire was quite good in the previous movies, Garfield is Peter Parker personified. Although the actor is said to be 28, he is extremely convincing as a gawky teenaged high school geek. When costumed as the web slinging spider-man, Garfield displays martial arts skills, physical flexibility, and athleticism that should satisfy longtime fans of the superhero. Furthermore, and in what was missing from Toby Maguire’s depictions, here Spidey characteristically taunts bad guys with a barrage of one-liners which should leave purists nodding in approval. Interestingly enough, Peter Parker has significantly more screen time unmasked, but Garfield’s embodiment of Peter Parker/Spider-Man is so seamless, that it feels welcome.
On the whole, the narrative is quite good, and those familiar with the story of Peter Parker’s accident with a radioactive spider will know what to expect in this origin tale, especially those who have seen Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man (2002). Where this reboot differs is that it offers a grittier and more realistic version that is clearly inspired by Christopher Nolan’s Batman films, and an overall truer examination of Parker’s origins. New on screen are aspects such as Peter’s first love Gwen Stacey, mechanical web shooters, and a bigger mystery over his parent’s disappearance.
Also new on screen is the film’s antagonist, the amputee scientist Dr Curt Connors, who while experimenting with a serum that might help him regrow his lost limb, predictably transforms him into the psychotic and powerful scaly super villain, The Lizard. With his hulking size, menacing demeanor, and massive tail, The Lizard is a foe for the web slinger, yet the character is far too clichéd and one dimensional to be compelling. Still disappointing are the film’s 3D effects, which feel as slapped on as they come.
The 3-D lapses aside, The Amazing Spider-Man’s action scenes are perked up by some fine CGI and are also given some gravity by the soulful script, resulting in action sequences which stimulate on multiple levels. With The Avengers behind us, and The Dark Knight Rises to follow, 2012 will be known as the year of the three great comic book films, with each one offering something unique. This one clearly offers heart.
Published in The Express Tribune, Sunday Magazine, July 15th, 2012.
COMMENTS (9)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1721802858-0/makdee-(1)1721802858-0-270x192.webp "ghosts love and clich s galore five bollywood horror flicks that embrace camp with glee")
Being a old time Spidey fan, I must say that the new Amazing Spider man movie rocks. To me, it's simply the best Spidey movie ever.
I could go on and on about why Mark Webb's Amazing S.M was better than the Sam Raimi versions but really, it always boils down to a matter of opinion.
Spider man 2 was a great movie, but I can't say I care much for the way the characters of Peter and M.J were portrayed in the Sam Raimi films.
Tobey's Peter Parker was a whining, cheesy, corny goofball with only one thing on his mind. An unhealthy obsession for a certain redhead.
And Kristen was a far cry from the confident, sexy and glamorous M.J from the comics.
And what was the deal with those organic web shooters? Yikes!! Everybody knows ol' Spidey wears a pair of awesome DIY web shooters.
Amazing S.M was a winning combination. Great actors, great action. Plus, it's got soul.
And the best part? It's about time Gwen Stacy gets some movie cred! She was Spidey's first true love after all and everybody should know. Love it that Mark didn't forget Gwen's trademark brown boots, hair band and that lovely blonde bangs. (Andrew, you are one lucky dude! We know you date Emma Stone is real life too...) In a nutshell: It was awesome.
@Someone: More one liners? Strange. I counted about two or three one liners made by Toby over the course of the whole trilogy, whereas I remember Andrew made about a dozen or so jokes in just the one film. Perhaps it depends on what one finds amusing.
This is the worst spider-man film to date. Spiderman 3 was the best. 1 was great. 2 was boring.
it's look amazing
I thought exactly the opposite about the film. No where near the class of Spider Man 1. The character platyed by Toby was much more real to the comics. Toby is a kind of guy that can be easily overlooked in an High School environment. There where practically no ONE LINERS by spidey (except where he catches the car thief). I was amazed how quickly he entrusted his spidey identity to the Heroin. Overall the director passed an awful lot of time in telling the things we already know. A little more of action (maybe another villian) might have done the trick for me.
Comic books go through reboots every ten years. Why not films?
I don't know what you guys are talkin' about. I thought this movie was great. Definitely superior to all the previous Spidey films, except maybe number 2, which it's probably on par with. I thought all the actors were great, it was always interesting, the actors were good, the only thing that just mildly disappointed me was The Lizard. He just wasn't as deep as he was in the comics. Probably because his son, Billy, wasn't in it, because Billy's usually what keeps Curt Conners determined to trump his Lizard persona. Dr. Octopus was probably a more complex baddie. I'd give it four starts out of five.
this movie does'nt have that kind of vibe the previous movies had..