The Amazing Spider-Man

The Spider-Man movie I grew up with

Action/Sci-fi ‧ 136 minutes ‧ PG-13 ‧ 2012 ‧ 6 min read

"Really? You seriously think I'm a cop? Cop in a skin-tight red and blue suit?"

The Amazing Spider-Man is a weird movie for me to review because I have so much nostalgia attached to it. This was the first movie I ever saw in a theater. I was a kid, Spider-Man was already one of my favorite characters, and then I got to watch him on a giant screen. There is no way I am ever going to look at this movie the same way someone who first watched it years later can. That does not mean I think it is better than it is. It just means there is a part of me that is always going to love it.

Coming back to it now, I still like a lot of this movie. I also understand why it sits at a 3/5 for me. The Amazing Spider-Man retells a huge amount of the same story as the 2002 movie. Peter gets bitten, Uncle Ben dies, Peter blames himself, Peter learns how to use his powers, and eventually he becomes Spider-Man. Watching it after the Raimi movies makes the repetition impossible to ignore. There are differences, but for a movie that was supposed to be a fresh start, it spends a lot of time going back over ground we already covered.

What saves it for me is that this version actually has its own personality. The whole movie has this early 2010s grunge and Paramore kind of aesthetic that I still love. Peter dresses differently, the music feels different, the colors are different, and the movie generally feels moodier and a little messier than Raimi's version. It is very much a movie from the period when it was made, and honestly, I like that. It gives The Amazing Spider-Man an identity even when the story underneath it is familiar.

Andrew Garfield is also a big reason I can still enjoy this movie. His Peter is not Tobey Maguire's Peter, and I do not think he should be. Garfield plays him as more sarcastic and restless, someone who makes jokes when he is uncomfortable and is more willing to let people know when he is annoyed. There is a little more attitude to him. He can come across as a jerk, but that is part of what I like about this version. He feels like a teenager.

Garfield is also really good once Peter actually becomes Spider-Man. There is a looseness to the way he moves that fits this version of the character. He looks like he is having fun with it. The web swinging has a different rhythm from the Raimi movies, and the mechanical web shooters give Peter more of that science kid side that I like about the character. Some of the CGI has aged, but I still think the movie does a good job making Spider-Man feel physical.

Then there is Emma Stone's Gwen Stacy, who is probably the best part of the entire reboot. Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield just work together. Their chemistry is so natural that the scenes between them can make the movie feel better than whatever plot is happening around them. Gwen is smart, funny, and clearly has her own life. She does not just sit around waiting for Peter to show up, and the relationship actually feels like two teenagers who like each other.

The romance is also what makes this version of Peter feel different from the one in the Raimi movies. Peter and MJ in Spider-Man 1 are built around years of Peter quietly loving someone he thinks he cannot have. Peter and Gwen are much more immediate. They talk. They flirt. They annoy each other. They actually spend time together. It feels less like a fantasy and more like a relationship.

Captain Stacy works for similar reasons. Denis Leary gives the character enough personality that his relationship with Peter does not just feel like another obstacle between Peter and Gwen. He does not trust Spider-Man, which puts Peter in the uncomfortable position of having to deal with Gwen's father while also secretly being the exact person he is criticizing.

The Lizard is where things start falling apart. Rhys Ifans is good as Curt Connors, and I like the idea of him being someone Peter looks up to. That part actually fits Peter really well. The problem is that Connors becomes much less interesting once he becomes the Lizard. His motivation is simple, his plan is not particularly convincing, and the villain never feels as memorable as Norman Osborn or Doctor Octopus.

The parents subplot is even more of a problem. I do not hate the idea of Peter wondering what happened to Richard and Mary Parker. I hate how much space the movie gives it. The mystery keeps getting brought up, hints keep getting dropped, and the story keeps acting like there is some huge revelation waiting for us. Most of the time I just want to get back to Peter being Spider-Man.

More importantly, I do not think Peter needs a special family mystery to make him interesting. One of the best things about Spider-Man 1 is that Peter becomes a hero because of a choice he made and the consequences of that choice. His parents do not need to secretly explain why he became Spider-Man. Peter becomes interesting because of what he does with his life after tragedy, not because his parents had some connection to Oscorp.

That subplot also hurts the pacing. The movie already has Peter, Gwen, Curt Connors, the Lizard, Captain Stacy, Uncle Ben, Aunt May, and the whole process of Peter becoming Spider-Man. That is enough. Every time the parents mystery comes back, it feels like the movie is reminding me about a storyline that is less interesting than the one I actually came to watch.

Even with all of that, I cannot say The Amazing Spider-Man does not have its own identity. That is probably the thing I defend most about it. I do not think it is some forgotten masterpiece, and I do not think it improves on the Raimi movies. But it is not just a cheap copy either. Garfield's Peter is different. Gwen is different. The tone is different. The visual style is different. The movie feels like its own little corner of Spider-Man even when the plot is borrowing heavily from the first movie.

That distinction matters even more when looking at The Amazing Spider-Man 2. I have become much more negative about that movie over time, while I have actually stayed pretty consistent on this one. TASM 1 has problems, but at least I can see the movie underneath them. The sequel takes a lot of the same ingredients and piles on so many other things that the whole thing starts to feel directionless.

I also cannot talk about this movie without mentioning the nostalgia. I know it is probably doing some work here. I remember being a kid and seeing the opening credits and the Spider-Man logo on a theater screen. I remember the suit. I remember the swinging. I remember Andrew Garfield putting it on for the first time. Those memories are part of how I experience the movie now, and I do not think there is anything wrong with admitting that.

The Amazing Spider-Man gets a 3/5 from me. It is too repetitive to be a great reboot, the Lizard never reaches its potential, and the Richard and Mary Parker storyline drags the movie down whenever it takes over. But Garfield and Stone are great together, the movie has a style I genuinely love, and it does manage to stand on its own despite retelling so much of the same origin.

I know I am probably softer on this movie than I would be if it had not been my first theater experience. I am fine with that. Spider-Man 1 is the movie I love most. Spider-Man 2 is the movie I think is more technically accomplished. The Amazing Spider-Man is the Spider-Man movie that belongs to a specific part of my childhood. It is not perfect, and it does not need to be for me to still have a lot of affection for it.

(Three stars. I just happen to have a lot of childhood memories attached to those three.)