The Amazing Spider Man (2012)

Dir: Marc Webb

Starring: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, Martin Sheen, Sally Field

A little introduction to my personal feelings towards comic book adaptations is required before proceeding with this review. My opinions and thoughts on this particular genre are best compared to the relationship between Ronald Reagan and air traffic controllers. From a critical standpoint, I’m biased as during my childhood I always preferred to play outside rather than reading superhero comics and, as a result, the whole mythology and affection displayed by the fans passes me by. Still, I have seen my fair share of superhero movies and contributed to the monstrous box office grosses that, for the last decade have taken over Hollywood.

To me 90% of the superhero action movies are seen as mere last resort source of entertainment and enjoyment on a slow Summer day, and as such aren’t subjected to any meticulous analysis from my part.

However, there are exceptions: Some weeks ago I heard about a concept I was oblivious to, and a personal trait I possessed and did not know of: I am an assumed “Nolanite”. A person who praises Christopher Nolan as the man who single handedly revolutionized a whole genre and created a superhero saga to the those that aren’t particularly fond of those type of movies, while at the same time delivering the goods for the comic book aficionados. And yes, during the process with both “The Prestige” (2006)  and “Inception” (2010) he was able to create what can be called of “Elite Popcorn Blockbusters”: the kind of movies filled with action but also with content and a storyline that allows one to sound and look smart while discussing the movie with friends.

Anyways, I always take the enthusiastic reviews of a non-Nolan superhero movie with a grain of salt, and that’s what happened with “The Avengers” (2012) earlier this year. Sure it is a great entertainment movie, with good action sequences, funny performances by most of characters and it captures, without a doubt, the whole essence of what Summer Blockbuster should be.  But the fans, the industry and the critics are taking it way too seriously (BEST PICTURE OF THE YEAR? Yeah, sure…). Movies like “The Avengers” should be seen and perceived like “Independence Day” (1996) was: good fun, improbable plots, a couple of flaws, millions at the box-office, and NOT TAKING ITSELF TOO SERIOUSLY. (The latter point being completely missed by the excessively high praises from fans and critics alike)

Now don’t get me wrong, every two years I need my “Iron Man/Robert Downey Jr.” shot of sarcasm , good humor and AC/DC riffs, but somehow “The Avengers” is taken a step further, seriousness-wise, than it should. (Still a 7/10, in my opinion and a superior movie within its genre).

AND NOW, for the actual review…

Plot: Average teenager Peter Parker is on the lookout to find out the truth about the mysterious departure of his parents, and while attempting to find out more on a file left by his father, at the Oscorp HQ is bitten by genetically modified spider. While discovering the use and range of his newly acquired abilities he bumps into Dr. Curt Connors mutated self, the Lizard: a result of a failed genetic enhancement experience.

“The truth and nothing but the truth”: It doesn’t take a math genius to understand that when the revenues of a product decline and the cost of producing said product increases, the profit margin you get from it grows thinner. While in most industries the average product is made extinct, in Hollywood a new solution exists: areboot. This is exactly what happened to Sam Raimi’s Spider Man trilogy (2002,2004,2007), a record breaking, mixed opinion generating, studio Summer tent pole, revenue generating set of movies which made Sony executives smile harder than Ash whenever he killed a “Deadite” (Those who have seen Raimi’s less profitable and more modest “Evil Dead” (1982) will know what I’m talking about).

10 years after the release of “Spider Man” (2002), now comes “The Amazing Spider Man” (2012), a new and improved version correcting all the “bugs” and inaccuracies of the prior version AND presented to your fully enjoyment in the glorious splendor of 3D! (That Tony Stark sarcasm shot starts to reveal its effects).

Let me tell you something: back in 2002 I had no idea of what critics and fans thought about “Spider Man”, because back then I couldn’t care less, and thus I went to see it anyway. Apparently it was inaccurate and flawed in a way that it distorted the facts presented in the comic books. I guess the $130 M budget wasn’t enough to settle the fact that Peter Parker’s first crush was Gwen Stacy and not Mary Jane and I guess it takes an additional $100 M ($230 is the reported budget for this movie) to set the record straight.

With the previously written statement proving to be implosive the reader finally gets to my problem with the whole reboot story: Why didn’t the writers, the director and the whole creative team got it right, 10 years ago?

While, some clear improvements on the original story are noticeable, even for a comic book heretic like me, it’s still not enough to overcome the fact that I’ve seen this before and not so long ago.

The casting of Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone is an upgrade and both deliver solid performances, with Garfield being able to deliver a hipster/modern version of Peter Parker that most audiences will immediately associate with a familiar face and Stone delivering an impressively believable performance of Gwen Stacy. Martin Sheen and Sally Field add some panache to the supporting cast and Denis Leary’s Capt. Stacy interaction with Parker providea much needed and well-suited comic relief (See the “Godzilla remarks”)

Some overall points, concerning the storyline, can be raised, indulging my own belief that this new version is in some aspects superior to Rami’s and to the overall movie genre outputs that reach theaters on a worldwide scale: For once, Spidey doesn’t catch the man who killed Uncle Ben (a SPOILER WARNING! shouldn’t be required here, I think), leaving some room for this issue on the upcoming sequelS. Also, like in Nolan’s Batman, (SPOILER) the villain isn’t killed at the end of the movie, a standard practice on this particular genre that gives everyone the “wrapped up story” good feeling when leaving the movie theater.

Among the major downsides, is the villain: Dr. Curt Connors / The Lizard is an adequate villain but while there could be some room for a deep and intense transformation process in the style of Jeff Goldblum in David Cronenberg’s “The Fly” (1986), the story prefers to award style over substance, and still manages to fail by delivering a Lizard that is a serious candidate for “The Most Overused Meme in 2012” Award.

Moreover, the “new” Spider Man acts, talks and walks like a cross between David Lee Roth circa 1986 and Sam J. Jones in “Flash Gordon” (1980), and even in some moments the supehero’s action have drawn my memory to that campy and dreadful sequence in “Spider Man 3” (2007). (THE HORROR!)

The proverbial “plot device”, which on this case is an actual device, is a bit too “in your face” and the explanation of its use and obvious relevance dumbs down the viewer.

Sure, there are several values well represented in the movie such as the role of science vs. religion, with the Oscorp building being a clear representation of the “Tower of Babel”. The notions of redemption, power and responsibility (exhaustively used in the original trilogy) are vaguely represented, but in a movie so self-obsessed with the visuals, there’s few room for further development on this field. Still, fans who over analyze the movie will, I’m sure, find new and deeper meanings in some moments. (Apparently, now viewers state that there’s an anti-corporation message hidden in “The Avengers”. Again, TAKING IT WAAAAY TO SERIOUSLY)

Still, and despite the aforementioned aspects, “The Amazing Spider Man” is a balanced effort and an average superhero movie that amuses you as long as it lasts. There’s a lot of potential for this entry to be perceived as a build-up for a greater and bigger thing, that years from now will be seen as a landmark within the genre. Sadly, I won’t be around any movie theater to see it happen, unless the rumors of having either Jon Hamm or John Slaterry from “Mad Men” (2007-) as Norman Osbourne prove to be true.

“Show Me The Money”: With a six-day earning of $ 137,022 M, the movie fell short of the prior’s entry results for the same period.  With decreases of 38%, 49% and 62% (historical values) for each entry of Raimi’s trilogy, respectively, an expect fall of around 50% over this 6 day period amount can be expected for next weekend (with projected earnings between $65-70M), implying that it’s almost a given fact that this movie will be cruising the $200 M revenue line, next weekend, and breaking even (with the reported budget) sometime along the week after that. The premiere of “Ice Age 4: Continental Adrift” (2012) won’t pose as a threat, as this movie will likely open in #2, counting with the majority of its revenue coming from international markets, since this release will be met in an condensed market that is currently being served by “Madagascar 3” (2012) and “Brave” (2012). The main conclusion to be retrieved here is that “The Amazing Spider Man” has two weeks to make the big bucks before “The Dark Knight Rises” premieres and takes over the box office. So in a nutshell, if, and that’s a big IF, it crosses the $300 M line it will still be the lowest entry of the Spider Man saga.

“Money-Shot”: The overall sequences of Spider Man cruising New York are always a good sight. And, I’m afraid that’s all there is to say here….

Bottom-Line: 6/10. An average entertaining movie, that doesn't add or deliver as much as it could simply because of the existing oversaturation (but apparently that's just my percption) of the market associated with this specific genre along with the short time span, since the original was released. Still, it will be a crowd pleaser that packs a strong enough punch that will ensure a couple of sequels before this decade ends. 

But of course, this is just my opinion, I could be wrong…