REVIEW: The Amazing Spider-Man

What makes a reboot different to a remake? How many things have to change in the story before filmmakers feel comfortable in trying to flog the film as something 'new'? And finally, what is our fascination with being told the exact same story again and again?

I could list off a whole load of remakes, but that would be a waste of time. I've never really looked forward to any remake, except when The Amazing Spider-Man was announced. It was promised to be more in line with the comics and tell the 'untold story' of Spider-Man. That was it. I was hooked. However, the story follows more of the same structure as the 2002 film directed by Sam Raimi, Spider-Man than the filmmakers really let on.

The Amazing Spider-Man follows loveable geek, Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) as he struggles to come to terms with high school, bullies, the love of his life, Gwen Stacey (Emma Stone) and trying to find out why his parents left him with his Aunt May (Sally Field) and Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) when he was a young boy. When he lets a thief pass him by in the street that ultimately leads to the death of his beloved Uncle Ben, Parker vows to seek vengeance on the thieves out on the street and more importantly, the one who killed his uncle. At the same time, Parker finds a briefcase containing files which provide clues to his Father's secret work when he was younger. As Parker tries to find out more of his Father's shady path, it puts him onto a collision course with Oscorp and Doctor Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), the man whom his Father used to work with, which challenges his fate to become the hero he is destined to be.

Now, I'll admit straight away that I am quite a fan of Spider-Man. I find him to be more charismatic than Batman, more intriguing than Superman and more sympathetic than Iron Man. However, to say that The Amazing Spider-Man tells the 'untold story' of Spider-Man is a bit of a lie. I just can't help but feel that this film is a bit of an anti-climax to the superhero that I like the most. Call me biased, call me a fan-boy, but I didn't learn anything new in The Amazing Spider-Man than I didn't already know from Raimi's Spider-Man.

Firstly, the plot is pretty damn similar. Parker is left with his Aunt and Uncle (standard) and is bullied by Flash Thompson (Chris Zylka) in high school. The bullying in this film still feels really 90s cliche, like something we would have seen in Clueless or Not Another Teen Movie(!) Moving on... Parker is still the cause of his Uncle's death (pivotal to the plot really), but he's responsible in the exact same way - letting a thief bypass him when he could have stopped him. The villain is still green (OK, that one is very tenuous!) and he still pines after the girl in high-school and then gets her when he gets the swag of being Spider-Man on his side (original comic-book girlfriend, Gwen Stacey in this case, not Mary-Jane Watson.)

To be a true 'untold story', I would have liked to have seen more background to Spider-Man. Think more like Nolan's Batman Begins, where we truly get to know the heartbreak behind Parker's parents disappearing, because The Amazing Spider-Man seems to gloss over key points. Some of these being, Rajit Ratha (Irrfan Khan), who is never truly explained as to why he is working so closely with Oscorp, Parker's Father or Doctor Connors. In fact, in the third act he just disappears. The thief that kills Uncle Ben, because Parker swears vengeance against him, spends the first hour of the film hunting him down and then just forgets about him. Connors past with Parker's Father is never truly explored and his sudden turn to 'good' at the end seemed a little cheap and came out of nowhere. Finally, The Lizard/Connor's plans to turn the citizens of New York City into lizards felt a bit half-baked. He gasses some armed policemen into lizards and never uses them - in fact they are never seen again until the end of the film when they are turning back to humans. Surely he would have used them as his foot soldiers?!

However, it's not all bad. Director Marc Webb does brilliantly with what he has been given and actually ends up making a beautiful looking film. The night scenes and much darker and grittier than the 2002 film, the Spider-Man swinging scenes are thrilling and the battles are quite exciting. It is a shame that the music in the film (courtesy of James Horner) is quite jarring and doesn't really compliment the visuals that Webb puts on the screen. A prime example would be when The Lizard is stalking the labs of Oscorp and Gwen Stacey is hiding in a cupboard - its like Horner put in some cheap 80s horror film music.

Also, the casting of the film was pretty inspired. To step up and fill the shoes (or boots) of Tobey Maguire was a big ask, because he certainly made the role his own, but Andrew Garfield did a brilliant act of balancing the awkwardness of Parker and the cockiness of Spider-Man. Emma Stone as Gwen Stacey also played a much more likeable and interesting character than Kirsten Dunst's Mary-Jane. Finally, Rhys Ifans also did his best with the limited role of Doctor Curt Connors, but I would have loved to see more a struggle with the loss of his arm - something similar to the struggle we saw with Doc Ock (Alfred Molina) loosing his wife in Spider-Man 2.

Finally, while I don't think the film went into as much detail of Parker's life than I would have liked, an obvious tell-tale sign would have been the list of writers that are credited with the film... A mixing pot of James Vanderbilt (Screenplay and Story), Alvin Sargent (Screenplay) and Steve Kloves (Screenplay) certainly wouldn't have helped the film. In fact, I think it probably contributed to the clashing elements of the film. The first half of the film does brilliantly in setting up Parker as a superhero with all the responsibilities that come with it, and the death of Uncle Ben was actually quite upsetting and full of drama. However, as soon as The Lizard was thrown into the mix, the film became a paint-by-the-numbers superhero film that offered nothing new and killed off all the intriguing subplots (vengeance against the thief, Parker's father's history, the evil Ratha and Connors' connection with Parker's Father.)

So, as a whole The Amazing Spider-Man is a much better looking film than Raimi's Spider-Man, but doesn't really offer enough of anything new to make it truly remarkable and worthy of rebooting the franchise. If only Spider-Man could of had Christopher Nolan behind the writing of the film to truly make it an origins story.

*** / *****