Wednesday, July 11, 2012

The Amazing Spider-Man in Theaters Now

I went to see The Amazing Spider-Man last night. In my opinion, it's too soon for a reboot, but I was interested in seeing it, all the same. I really love Emma Stone (who plays Gwen Stacy), and the previews looked pretty awesome.

Overall, I enjoyed it. Not that it matters, but I got some great previews beforehand, all movies I'm excited to watch (The Dark Knight Rises, Breaking Dawn 2, and Total Recall). The beginning of the story was a little slow for me. I'm one of those who didn't know anything about Spider-Man before I watched Tobey Maguire play the part, so I didn't know what to expect when I saw those Spider-Man movies, which is part of the fun. I love being surprised in a story, and I generally don't like spoilers. So, this time around, with the story relatively fresh in my mind, I was a tad bored. I knew what was coming. Peter Parker gets bullied. Then he gets bitten, and suddenly he's the top, spider. His uncle dies. I wanted all this set-up to move along...although it was done differently than in Tobey Maguire's version, which I appreciated and enjoyed.

But what makes this movie stand out from previous Spider-Man movies are the characters. Yes, there's a new villain, but that's not even what I'm talking about. The actors are good, but the characters are unique. Actor Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man is still a good person (as Peter Parker is supposed to be), but he also has a rebellious streak that never quite goes away. He's a younger, edgier, saucier, leaner Spider-Man. And it works. Gwen Stacy is a different love interest, a smart, sweet girl who gets to know Parker's secret right away.

The second half of the movie picks up with a complex villain, one we haven't seen on screen before, a doctor experimenting with science to recreate his own lost limb. But the experimentation goes awry, and the doctor's evil side comes out.

I noticed, particularly, that the Spider-Man swinging sequences were different in this movie than in the Tobey Maguire version. I didn't get the same stomach-dropping feel I got watching Maguire's Peter Parker experiment with his abilities for the first time. Also, in this version, Spider-Man doesn't manufacture his own webbing. He needs special equipment to make it. Nonetheless, the special effects are great, and there are a few beautiful, iconic shots of Spider-Man in action.

Be sure to stay after the initial credits for the set-up for the next movie.

Three stars.


  1. I felt the same way: it was too soon for a reboot, but at least the film was good. Only a few times did I feel like I was watching the previous films, which is good because I was afraid from the trailers that this would be too much like them. I thought it was smart to use a villain who hadn't been in the previous films in order to differentiate itself. That's one of things that made "Batman Begins" work well. When it was over, I wanted to see more. And I have a theory who the next villain will be.

    I would go on about how this one is derived from a different era of comics from the previous films, but I'll spare you that (at least until we hang out again).

    1. Yeah, making this Spider-Man different was important for the success of this movie. I think they did pretty well. I was aware that some of the key differences I noticed were from a different era of comics, as you said. I think I had heard discussion on it when the first Spider-Man movies came out. I'd be happy to hear more, though.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.