(Dir. Marc Webb / 136 minutes / 12)
WARNING:
The following review contains zealous and (some would say) delusional fanboy
ramblings and controversial Christopher Nolan criticisms.
The
Amazing Spider-Man features a handsome boy in skin-tight lycra, the President
from The West Wing and a giant lizard. Seriously, what’s not to love?
End
of review.
Oh,
you’re still not sold? Really, you need more convincing of the movie’s merits?
Hmph. Fine. Have it your way… though you could have gone out and bought it by now.
This
year saw three major releases to emerge under the superhero banner. Joss Whedon’s
wild and witty caper Avengers Assemble, Christopher
Nolan’s hotly anticipated and ambitious Batman swansong in the form of The Dark Knight Rises and Marc Webb’s unexpectedly
emotional and (comparatively) overlooked Spidey reboot (such an ugly word), the
latter of which I hope you are now in the process of ordering on Blu-Ray. You may
as well get the 3D version while you’re at it. And buy a few copies for your
friends too, just to be on the safe side.
Despite
socialising awkwardly in the circles of the same sub-genre, these three films
couldn’t be more different. They nod politely towards each other, but that’s it
(a good thing, if you ask me, as I found something to enjoy in all of them). Both
Avengers and Batman smashed the magic $1 billion mark at the box office, whereas
Spider-Man trailed behind in their
wake, only able to muster a lowly $750 million. It pains me to acknowledge (I’d
love to ignore the financial evidence, and still might yet), but it’s probably
fair to say that Spidey wasn’t quite
the runaway success of its cape-clad competitors. Indeed, dear reader, you are
probably looking at this review, your temples pulsating Hulk style, thinking
how in the name of holy Gotham City can you prefer this – THIS! - to Batman,
you heathen! Well, how is Justin Bieber famous – sometimes strange, terrible,
inexplicable things just happen.
For
me, Spider-Man felt smaller, simpler,
smarter, and often, less is more. I can’t fault Christopher Nolan’s ambition – The Dark Knight Rises was huge and
cinematically spectacular, but I was left exhausted and with the impression
that Nolan, the Hollywood equivalent of Manchester United, was going-for-broke.
The film was so desperate to be taken seriously, so hell-bent was it to
out-epic its (superior) predecessors, that it tipped into the realm of
pretension, sacrificing emotion and heart and humour in the process, forgetting
that, at its core, crucially, it is essentially a light-hearted, fun fantasy
story about a mask-wearing cape-swishing Defender. I’m bracing myself for the
inevitable deluge of negative feedback! Sharpen those pitchforks. Aim for the
heart. Likewise, I had a similar problem with Avengers Assemble, though to a lesser extent – in that it felt a
bit superficially enjoyable. True, we have Whedon’s usual quick-fire sharp
dialogue, lots of explosions and relentless action, an almost overwhelming
exhibition of special effects, a veritable visual toyshop, Scarlett Johansson
as Wonder Woman, all of which combined disguise the fact that beyond all the
bells and whistles, there’s really not all that much in terms of character and
plot. Where’s the humanity?
It
all boils down to what you want from a superhero film, I suppose. I guess there
will be many people out there who don’t want humanity, who couldn’t think of
anything worse, just as long as there’s an abundance of fighting and action
sequences galore, right? Three dimensional relationships and character
development and emotion just get in the way of the carnage. Why have your hero
fall in love when he could fall off a burning building instead? Ideally I’d
have both but it’s all subjective, though I fear those turning to the new
Spidey looking for all-out action, for a film that faithfully follows generic convention,
may be disappointed. Granted, you do get a big mutant CGI lizard for your money,
though arguably this is the one misfire the film shoots; a pre-transformation Rhys
Ifans makes for a far more sinister villain in human form) and it seems to me
that the narrative is actually at its weakest when it falls into the trap of
fulfilling the prerequisites of its genre and becomes ‘just another superhero
picture’. The Amazing Spider-Man’s real
strength lies in how it depicts the burgeoning relationship between Peter
Parker (Andrew Garfield) and Gwen Stacey (Emma Stone). Director Marc Webb’s
first feature was the excellent and structurally unconventional (500) Days of Summer and here his
rom-com credentials lend themselves effectively as the film packs a real
emotional punch, more so than any superhero film I can immediately recall. This
approach won’t satisfy everybody, but I thought it added an extra layer of
depth and imbued the film with a soul.
But,
when all’s said and done, the success of a film such as this rests almost
solely on the shoulders of its leading actor. Your CGI lizard can be the best
computer animated reptile in the business, but If your main man doesn’t
convince, doesn’t fit the bill, then you’re in big trouble. I liked Tobey
Maguire just fine, but I never quite accepted him in the role. Maguire has now
undergone a pleasing upgrade and regenerated into up-and-coming British actor
Andrew Garfield (who currently occupies the number one spot of my Crush List), who,
without wishing to hyperbolise too dramatically, inhabits the role perfectly.
He simply *is* Peter Parker. His acting chops are of the highest standard -
plus he looks incredible in spandex, which always helps.
Garfield
made his name starring in edgy, often gritty British dramas, such as Channel 4’s
Boy A and The Red Riding Trilogy, but didn’t come to worldwide prominence until
he co-starred in David Fincher’s much-lauded The Social Network. It’s been an interesting career to follow
because in every single role, his performance has been completely different. For
every character he’s played, he somehow manages to reinvent himself entirely,
find a different part of himself to convey, and this film is therefore no different
and yet again demonstrates his versatility (check out some of his lesser known
TV credits and you’ll see what I mean). I was totally able to accept him as a
high-school student despite Garfield’s 29 years. I predict big things for him.
He brings vulnerability and awkwardness to his incarnation of Peter, a shyness
that is both adorable and funny, but also a determined sense of principle. There’s
teenage angst too; brought about by the demons of his past (his parents
mysteriously disappeared when he was a child) and by the stirrings and
awakenings of first love and heartbreak. Then, when he becomes his alter-ego,
everything changes before our eyes; the way he moves, the way he carries
himself. There’s a confidence and cockiness. He’s lighter on his feet,
literally moving like a spider. There’s an energy to him, a quickness both
literally and figuratively. Watching his transformation is arguably far more
impressive than Rhys Ifans becoming a lizard.
Before
the film was released, the naysayers were up in arms claiming it was a travesty
to kick-start the franchise, far too soon to revisit the ‘origins’ story. I
suppose these people have to keep busy somehow. I know many a person who deemed
this film a load of rubbish without having seen a single second of it and many
more who have vowed to not see it out of a sense of bogus, misguided principle.
After all, Tobey Maguire’s debut swing was only a decade ago and Spider-Man 3 (which doesn’t exist,
remember) is still fresh in its grave. These people won’t be swayed - a shame
really, because they don’t know what they’re missing and sadly probably never
will. Sure, there are elements of repetition here, but the execution is
different enough and fresh enough to allow The
Amazing Spider-Man to stand on its own eight legs, not just as a worthwhile
film, but as a superbly entertaining one in its own right.
This
reviewer is unashamedly out and proud in his love for this film and happy to
admit that he saw it 4 times at the cinema. In terms of the sheer enjoyment
factor, The Amazing Spider-Man is my
movie of 2012.
