Film Review: The Amazing Spider-Man

Note: The author's views are entirely his or her own and may not reflect the views of RetoxMagazine.com

Pictured above: Spiderman in 'The Amazing Spider-Man'.

The Amazing Spider-Man

A new Spiderman film? Who is that tall, dark and handsome fellow? I may have an incredibly biased stance on the current hot cinematic release of The Amazing Spider-Man; lifelong comic/cartoon fan, excitable/hormonal teenager at the release of the first Sam Raimi induced trilogy and currently a budding filmmaker in my early twenties with a morbid obsession with the new Mr Peter Parker himself Andrew Garfield. After years of experience in study and analysis I now have the true test between being a (fanatical) fan something that resembles a critic... Main point to remember, try not to compare it to the previous instalment (too much).

We all know the story; boy lives with aunt and uncle after parent's mysterious death, uncle dies, boy stays with aunt and becomes boy wonder. Marc Webb's retelling of Peter Parker's initial transformation from overwhelmingly geeky to the underdog superhero is disappointingly average. The quirky director of 500 Days Of Summer fame cannot manage to spin (pun intended) his own interpretation of the fifty odd year old ultimate coming of age tale. Understandably it is a hard task for anybody to attempt; there are only a couple of ways to portray a boy getting bitten by a radioactive spider... But to be fair, if it ain’t broke, don't fix it, and maybe then the problem lies with the audience for their awareness of the origin of Spiderman.

The remainder of the plot however is incredibly satisfying for all audience members alike. Whilst the smooth transition between the villain story of 'The Lizard' and the personal tale of Peter Parker and Gwen Stacey (plus the rest of the supporting cast), the almost seamless winding between plots adds to the entertainment value and keeps everybody interested for the (unnoticeably so) two hour length blockbuster. Despite this, at times it does feel that some scenes have been lost in the editing process and thus affecting the audience's connection with some of the supporting characters. Especially so in the case of Gwen Stacey's character where Emma Stone's well known charismatic acting is lost, saving it for DVD extras possibly...

Images: 1. Andrew Garfield, The Amazing Spider Man; 2. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone in The Amazing Spider Man

The Cast of The Amazing Spider-Man

Casting wise, there are no major complaints. All of the actors chosen are well suited to their roles and bring something unique to it.

Martin Sheen as Uncle Ben being a particularly spectacular example. A talented and well respected actor that has been around for decades still manages to evoke emotion as he takes on the task of portraying the untimely death of his character... or was that just me?

Garfield and Stone seem to have perfect chemistry and played well off one another, and we all know why that is, no jealousy or anything on my part.

Sally Field as Aunt May, genius decision. Someone with enough years behind them to bring maturity and a lot of sass that Field is famous for.

Rhys Ifans as Doctor Curt Conners was if anything, quite a safe choice. The correct age and stature for the comic character; his performance wasn't terrible by any means but slightly bland at times. Possibly this could be blamed on Webb's direction, if he had stated "Rhys, can you just be British? That's what we need".

What we really need to know is did Garfield pull off the famous Spidey one liners? By hell he did. With a perfected New York accent and a pretty convincing performance, as an angst ridden teenager as well. Not too bad for a 28 year old.

Kudos to Webb for also creating one of the funniest Stan Lee cameos known to the world of Marvel comic films.

Not that I am an out of control fan of him or anything...

Bedazzled to full effect

The special effects within the film are dazzling. The transformation of Connors turning into The Lizard being a highlight. The visual spectacle of Spiderman web-slinging through the New York skyscrapers looked spectacular also. So much so I'm beginning to think they just paid some suicidal stuntman to do it. What is evident though is that this film did not need to be in 3D. There are plenty of opportunities to make that choice worthwhile but only two in two hours seem to occur. Marketing wise Sony are guaranteed those extra bucks just by making us don those plastic glasses.

A Spiderman too soon?

So just five short years after the last Raimi instalment of Spiderman, should it have been attempted so soon? Considering the film has been two years in the making I hate to say, no it didn't. It feels as if the grace period from the previous film hasn't lapsed yet. No doubt it is better than the previous trilogy combined but seems little impolite to show 'em how it's done so soon. However, now we have it, we can enjoy it and fall into the escapism that is 'The Amazing Spiderman'.

My rating: 4 out of 5.