Though I was expecting to sit through another origin story for Spider-Man, I didn't expect Peter Parker's transformation into the web crawler to be so uninteresting. Superhero origin stories can be fun and entertaining, full of opportunities to develop an ordinary character before he or she becomes extra-ordinary (see Batman Begins). I just wasn't entertained by Peter's story before or during his becoming Spider-Man. I think what I was looking forward to most were the little details, particularly how he creates the costume and web shooters. The movie speeds past these details so quickly, utilizing mere seconds to explain how a high school kid (genius though he is) can perfect such polished accessories, the signature visuals that define Spider-Man! It was a let down. The Raimi version handled his origin much better, taking its time to make it fun and interesting.
In this version, a new family back story has apparently been created for Peter's parents, complete with secrets that supposedly tie in with the villain (Dr. Curt Conners, aka Lizard) as well as Peter's own unique abilities. This back story felt forced, unnecessary, and poorly written. Instead of serving the current story, its only purpose is to set up questions which I assume are to be answered in the eventual sequels, with no payoff for those watching this movie.
I didn't have a problem with Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker. Afterwards though I read another review of the film which brought up an interesting point that I'm inclined to agree with. Peter Parker is not supposed to be a kind of cool-hip-skater nerd, as portrayed by Garfield. He's supposed to be a nerd-nerd, making his transformation into Spider-Man much more entertaining and meaningful, as designed by the comic's creator. And on a side note, I didn't like the casting of Uncle Ben or Aunt May. Martin Sheen was alright as Uncle Ben, but I didn't believe he was married to Sally Field as Aunt May. Such an odd pairing. I prefer Raimi's version, casting unknowns in these roles, making Ben and May much more believable.
The Amazing Spider-Man isn't terrible, but keep your expectations low if you are going to take a spin...
The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)
If there's a movie you'd like me to review, past or present,
In this version, a new family back story has apparently been created for Peter's parents, complete with secrets that supposedly tie in with the villain (Dr. Curt Conners, aka Lizard) as well as Peter's own unique abilities. This back story felt forced, unnecessary, and poorly written. Instead of serving the current story, its only purpose is to set up questions which I assume are to be answered in the eventual sequels, with no payoff for those watching this movie.
I didn't have a problem with Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker. Afterwards though I read another review of the film which brought up an interesting point that I'm inclined to agree with. Peter Parker is not supposed to be a kind of cool-hip-skater nerd, as portrayed by Garfield. He's supposed to be a nerd-nerd, making his transformation into Spider-Man much more entertaining and meaningful, as designed by the comic's creator. And on a side note, I didn't like the casting of Uncle Ben or Aunt May. Martin Sheen was alright as Uncle Ben, but I didn't believe he was married to Sally Field as Aunt May. Such an odd pairing. I prefer Raimi's version, casting unknowns in these roles, making Ben and May much more believable.
The Amazing Spider-Man isn't terrible, but keep your expectations low if you are going to take a spin...
The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)
If there's a movie you'd like me to review, past or present,
send me a request and I'll see what I can do.
