The Flickering Myth writing team trade opinions on The Amazing Spider-Man. Beware of spoilers through-out…
If there’s been a question mark hanging over any of this year’s triumvirate of big superhero releases (please note: we’re discounting Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance here), it’s The Amazing Spider-Man. From the very first moment back in 2010 when Columbia Pictures and Marvel Studios announced that (500) Days of Summer director Marc Webb had been hired to reboot a series not ten years old, opinion on Spidey’s latest big screen adventure has been split right down the middle: one one hand, it marked the death of creativity; the other, a chance to redeem the wall-crawler after the disappointment of Sam Raimi’s previous effort, Spider-Man 3.
Although the casting of Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker / Spider-Man – and, to a lesser extent, Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy – went some way to appeasing some concerned fans, there remained plenty of dissenting voices. A somewhat bland marketing campaign failed to generate anywhere near the same level of excitement as those for Marvel’s The Avengers and Warner Bros.’ The Dark Knight Rises, but nevertheless Spidey’s star power appears to have pulled the film through.
Topping the box office charts on both side of the Atlantic in the wake of its release last week, The Amazing Spider-Man has so far banked a healthy $361m and counting from audiences around the world. Critics have generally been kind too, although that hasn’t really been reflected in our coverage here at Flickering Myth, with the disappointed views of Oliver Davis, Luke Graham and Rohan Morbey countered only by a ★★★★ appraisal from Martin Deer. But is that reflected throughout our entire writing team? Here’s the Flickering Myth reaction to The Amazing Spider-Man…
Kirsty Capes: Andrew Garfield’s buttocks are phenomenal. That is all.
But on a more serious note, I was never a fan of Tobey Maguire, so seeing a new take on the role was refreshing. The chemistry between Stone and Garfield is fantastic, and the general tone and drive of the story was spot on. However there were some things the Maguire era did better, such as the action shots and attention to detail in the storyline. Overall though, my appetite has been pleasantly satiated. And I reiterate, ANDREW’S CHEEKS. I died.
Martin Deer: This doesn’t have the big action spectacle you’d expect it to, but frankly, that’s a non issue as it’s all heart, and all Peter Parker. Brilliant film.
Gary Collinson: I wasn’t holding out much hope for The Amazing Spider-Man. As bad as Spider-Man 3 was, it seemed like a pointless reboot and I hadn’t been impressed by any of the trailers. So, my expectations were low, but as it happened I really enjoyed the film. I thought the casting was spot on (even if Martin Sheen and Sally Field were just Martin Sheen and Sally Field to me), the action was pretty good and I wasn’t too upset by any of the changes to Spidey’s origins. I suppose the filmmakers were in a tricky situation here – had they been more faithful to the origin, it would have been way too similar to Sam Raimi’s film, adding plenty more fuel to the “we’ve seen this all before” fire. I did have a few gripes though – some of the plot strands went nowhere, The Lizard’s ‘master plan’ was weak, and I didn’t like the fact that Spider-Man revealed his identity to Gwen Stacy, especially with the whole Death of Captain Stacy storyline. I think they’ve missed a trick for the sequel, and should have had Gwen blaming Spidey for her father’s death.
Luke Graham: Apart from an interesting original teaser trailer, my expectations for the film declined as more footage and behind-the-scenes appeared. Apart from a few bright moments, it was tedious producer-driven nonsense. At this point, the only thing that would tempt me to watch a sequel would be the decision to have the Green Goblin in it, wearing a green latex mask and bright purple elf hat. Nothing less will suffice!
Rohan Morbey: Too many problems to mention. I’ll just say it was laziness captured on digital.
Luke Owen: Okay, so I really liked parts of the movie. Garfield and Stone were great as Parker and Stacy and their chemistry was superb. The action scenes were pretty decent too with some good effects work on Spider-Man to make him feel alive rather than the swinging sprite he was in Raimi’s version.
Chris Cooper: I enjoyed it a lot. Sure the story beats were very similar to SM1, but they had to be if an origin story is the aim. I do feel they were covered a lot better this time. Spider-Man was cockier and far more entertaining, and the use of practical effects really shows. Much more impressive. The high point is the Peter/Gwen relationship, which is just lovely and touching, if a bit rushed. Sure it has the odd it of ropey CGI, but overall a successful start to a new trilogy. P.S. Webshooters are much cooler than organic.
Luke Owen: However, the film has a lot of issues. Most notably it struggles to overcome Raimi’s shadow no matter how hard it tries which is unfortunate, but that’s what you get when you just make the same film we saw no less than 10 years ago. My main issue with the film (aside from The Lizard, who was very poor) was the horrendous pacing the film has. Webb was juggling far too many balls and he couldn’t handle all of them, so a lot of ideas are never fully explored, the character dynamics are misguided and it sort of leaves the film as this fairly awful mess with some shining moments. With all of that said, I do feel that the sequel will be much better as Webb (should he direct it) won’t have to deal with the “we’ve seen it all before” baggage that has been hanging over this movie like a wet fart. And, to steal a line from Miss Capes – Emma Stone’s buttocks are phenomenal. That is all.
Anghus Houvouras: There’s a scene that sums up everything right and wrong with Marc Webb’s take on the Spider-Man mythos. The well documented and oft covered confrontation between Uncle Ben and Peter. Arguably the most famous line in comic book history:” with great power comes great responsibility.” And Marc Webb changes the line. That takes balls, my friends. Pure balls. However, that exchange between Andrew Garfield’s Peter Parker and Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) has more impact than the combined emotional weight of the three Sam Raimi takes on the character. Webb got every character moment right, thanks in no small part to casting exceptionally talented actors. That scene is a window into how this was adapted. They took the most famous thing about Spider-Man and changed it, even though it didn’t need changing. And yet, because of talented actors and deft direction it still works. Amazing Spider-Man is a fantastic adaptation because Webb didn’t try and bring a comic book to life. Instead he took the source material and made a coming of age movie that works on a human level. As a blockbuster it was underwhelming. I can’t argue with anyone talking smack about the cheesy Lizard FX and another disposable mad scientist taking over Manhattan plot. But if you ever wanted Spider-Man: the independent film, this is the closest you’re ever going to get. Just for the balls alone i would recommend it.
Oliver Davis: Raimi would have used real lizards. Also, Peter Parker comes across as a total douchebag. First off, he doesn’t comfort Aunt May after her husband’s death (for which he was arguably responsible). Secondly, the last scene between Peter and Gwen has him effectively going back on the promise he made to her dying father. Her dying father. He’s making a mockery of his last wish – to keep her safe. Thirdly, he shot his spider webbing right in my face in the film’s final shot. I LOVE IT WHEN 3D MAKES THINGS FEEL LIKE THEY’RE COMING OUT OF THE SCREEN! BECAUSE MOVIES SHOULD BE MORE LIKE THEME PARK RIDES. HA HA, HOW ENTIRELY NON-GIMMICKY…
Luke Graham: Can any explain to me why Gwen actually likes Peter? Maybe I just don’t get girls, but she witnesses him lose a fight, bully a kid (twice), only speaks to her in mumbles, then he starts turning up to school covered in bruises and wearing his hood up like a super intense loner, then he mysteriously (for her) drops onto her balcony out of nowhere, much like a stalker would. Also, much like a stalker, he takes lots of pictures of her when she is not aware of it… Perhaps a gamebreaker for me is, despite Andrew Garfield being really charming, the character, as written, is a horrible douchebag. But it’s cool though because he has an old school camera and a poster from Rear Window, because only “kewl” people have posters from Hitchcock films on their walls… While it makes sense that to change Pete from a nerd (because nerd’s get all the respec’ these days) to something else, I had no idea that, today, hipsters were the oppressed minority?
Anghus Houvouras: I disagree on the characterization. I think he acts like a kid who constantly acts out. left by his parents, hidden resentment towards the two parental figures that have always been there for him but kept secrets. he’s a selfish 16 year old. That’s how 16 year olds act. Petulant and entitled. Becoming Spider-Man is him acting out after the death of his Uncle. Through the entire process, he’s basically a teenage kid dealing with guilt. The responsibility of his role doesn’t dawn on him until later. He’s a selfish kid, just like Peter Parker was when he first becomes Spider-Man in the comics. The fact that they don’t make his transformation from selfish, angry kid to boy scout is actually kind of refreshing.
Kirsty Capes: Gwen likes Peter because he’s sexy and mysterious……And probably because of his excellent hair and bottom.
Chris Cooper: But, he does get Aunt May the eggs in the end! So all is not lost.
Liam Trim: I’ve been really surprised by how divisive this film has turned out to be. It really is a Marmite movie. I assumed everyone would be mildly disappointed by it and it would generally flop at the box office, but instead people seem to be either ‘for’ or ‘against’. I had very low expectations, and all the promotional material didn’t seem very promising, but I have to say I am closer to loving this interpretation than hating it. Sure, this is a very flawed film. In fact it’s in many ways a weak comic book movie. The least you expect from a superhero romp nowadays is good special effects and big budget, somewhat impressive action sequences. At times the CGI is really quite dodgy (by 2012 standards), and some of the supposedly grander set pieces are samey and average. However, as Martin said in his review, this film has got bags of heart and emotional depth. It might sound cheesy to say that but it’s all too often a rare thing in this type of film. I completely agree with the point that it’s depressing to see reboot after reboot, remake after remake, rather than new and original stories coming out of Hollywood. This film symbolises a lack of creativity for many people and I sympathise with that. Frankly though, it also shows that there are some new, positive trends in big budget filmmaking too. How refreshing to see a blockbuster release like this nail immersive characterisation and acting, and slightly disappoint on the action front, rather than the other way around. Garfield and Stone are absolutely fantastic; unbelievably good, in fact, for this type of movie. I like Garfield as an actor and he delivers a fun Spider-Man, closer to that of the cartoons, as well as a complex, realistic and human Peter Parker. The convincing, tender scenes are superbly handled by Marc Webb. I hope studios continue to hire directors like him to ensure their stories have emotional resonance in spades, as well as plenty of spectacle.
Simon Columb: I think it was okay. Not great but it’s set up a franchise that has legs and that’s the first hurdle. I reckon the future installments will be better and that’s exciting. Now lets hope Columbia calls Disney in time for The Avengers 2…
Luke Owen: The more I think about it, the more I disliked it. And it was mostly because of the pacing which was beyond bad. The pretty sub-par writing didn’t help matters either.
Scott Davis: I wasn’t a fan of this one on the whole. Thought Garfield was great throughout as Parker, bringing some new life to the character; however, his Spider-Man, whilst truer to some interpretations, just came off as too cocky, and made me care very little for his plights. Stone was great but a little underused, Sheen and field were both exemplary too. Biggest disappointments; action was few and far between, and lacklustre for the most part when it did appear; and Ifans, while engaging as Connors, was subjected to big standard “rid the world of evil” billion duties, and the Lizard on the whole was poorly executed in both design and story. Some decent flashes of excitement, but not enough to get the blood going, and not anywhere close to the adventure and playfulness of Raimi’s first two. Nowhere near as bad as 3 though…
There you have it, then… a mixed verdict from the Flickering Myth team towards The Amazing Spider-Man, which – like Prometheus before it – is clearly a divisive film. In general, most of us were pleased with Marc Webb’s casting choices and disappointed with the visual effects, but opinion was firmly split on the characterisation of Peter Parker. Still, with two sequels already announced, Sony are confident that Marc Webb has got their lucrative franchise back on track, so like it or not we’re going to be seeing plenty more of Andrew Garfield’s friendly neighborhood Spider-Man in the coming years.
What’s your opinion on The Amazing Spider-Man? We’d love to hear your thoughts…
The Amazing Spider-Man is in cinemas now.
