So. Amazing Spider-Man.
THE GOOD: Emma Stone. Like Frank Langella in Masters Of The Universe, Jurgen Prochnow in The Replacement Killers or David Warner in anything ever, Stone is by far the gem in this film. Thoughtful, emotional, well-acted - every scene she's in is a total joy to watch no matter who she's with. She's not only pretty but she can ACT which is rare in this age of gross out comedy and blithering false-feminist feel-good fuck-swap like Perfect Pitch (do NOT google that film). I am deeply impressed with her in this.
Martin Sheen and Sally Field are an interesting pick as Ben and May Parker. It doesn't totally work but it also does - while they don't seem like the comic characters, they do seem very true to life. However, they do seem much colder compared to Cliff Robertson (I'll get to that later).
The movie has a nice color palette to it.
THE BAD: the directing is very, very... VERY flat. It's impossible to compare it against Raimi's in the same way it would be impossible to compare Stanley Kubrick to Paul Verhoeven; and in this case, this film is the more "Kubrick" though without the intellectual bent. It's cold and detached and uninterested in telling a heroic tale. It's not a dumb film but...
Just look at them: homogenized and deadly white-bread. This film is poisonously dull. I can remember two scenes in the film that work and work well but...
1.) neither of them deal with web-swinging or stopping the villain. Or the "A" plot (as opposed to the "B" or sub-plot(s))
2.) though well-done, felt entirely out of place in a superhero movie and would be more in place with a good romance film like Until September or Kate & Leopold.
And so... why does this movie exist if it can't give you good action scenes? As a point of preference, it's interesting to me that compared to this film, the Raimi films are chock full of practical effect shots or at least well rendered greenscreen mattes. All the action sequences in this are CG renders from what I remember and it robs it of both visceral feel and realism. Spider-Man (in this hilariously stupid costume design) leaps about like a feather on the wind: he glides but there is no feeling of muscle or power behind it.
THE UGLY: Garfield is the worst thing to happen to Peter Parker since getting his coke-bottle glasses. Instead of being a quirky, solitary nerd, this version of Peter has a text book case of Aspergers. He twitches, is unable to make eye contact, talks with his hands, stutters and generally acts like a dinner theater version of Billy Bibbit. It was very, very painful to watch him because aside from the twitching and speech impediment, he was also a massive asshole to everyone. His aunt and uncle, the kids in school, Gwen, everyone. I felt bad the other characters had to interact with him.
(Side Note: this film is like a 12 year old's response to Captain America, where the good German doctor said about the little guy appreciating what power was. Well... In this movie, when you get power, you decide to become an asshole the size of a CNN article response thread.)
The thing about Spider-Man, rewrite or not, the character exists as this: nice guy gets powers and makes a tragic mistake that loses him his Uncle Ben and he learns with great power must come great responsibility. This movie purposely avoids that. There is no lesson, Peter goes nowhere and becomes no one special. He is not a hero because he never completes any of the trials a hero must: makes no sacrifice, feels no guilt, doesn't evolve or change. He puts on a mask and... thats it. No hero's journey.
Garfield's Peter Parker is Cameron Fry if he stayed in bed instead of going out with Ferris Beuller.
Instead, Peter loses his Uncle Ben (props to how they twisted his fate) and so he puts on his tights and goes on a vigilante spree to find the guy. While chasing the original killer into a warehouse in the original movie is an act of passion, a montage of beating up fleeing blonde men strikes more as misplaced revenge. That's not Spider-Man because thats not heroic.
The Horner score is lilting. It's not bad but it's not heroic. The caper is a complete point of convenience and though not insultingly bad is unraveled as you watch it. You can outsmart the movie very quickly and truth be told, the film cribs it's last 5 minutes from the last 30 seconds of the original Spider-Man.
All in all, the film isn't BAD. It didn't make me angry and I didn't hate it but it did make me sad. Spider-Man was one of my *things* growing up, defining an identity of morals as opposed to The Punisher or Superman... and the fact that we've gone so far from me (and this will make some uncomfortable to read) crying Field Of Dreams style in the theater when Peter talks to Ben in Spider-Man 2 to me nodding off during the climactic fight in this version shows how far we haven't come.
The film isn't made for fans of the series but, instead, made to interest Twilight fans. Garfield's hair is quaffed like the lead vampire in that movie and I'm pretty sure it's for this reason. The leaden action sequences, odd dialogue (they even swipe a throw-away joke from the original Raimi movie!) and a schmear of really bad one-liners and you get this.
The Aspergers Spider-Man
(If you see it, and I'm sure you will, the two parts I liked both involve Gwen. The first one is her trying to heal Peter after fighting the Lizard and it's touching; however, I can't tell if it's because the acting works or because I was having painful flashbacks to Megan and it was like finding a home movie of a good memory, down to hand gestures and her dimples. So when you see the picture, take note of that scene and see if affects you as strongly as it did me.)
