The Amazing Spider-man (2012) **½ /5: As a definitive interpretation of the Spiderman mythos this film misses the mark

The Spiderman film legacy has officially been muddled by inchoate pseudo- scientific explanations and a mish mash of facile commentary futilely seeking to be absorbed within the superhero film canon. Did you get that? Well it’s the same feeling you will get when you encounter the mysterious formulas that propel the story of  this film The Amazing Spider-Man up until its lazy climax. You should not worry however for these formulas mean nothing and amount to mere twaddle.  The film does have engaging set pieces and the 3D stereoscopic images do enhance the scale of the picture on display although artificially. It is unfortunate however that the film was not able to supersede the original Spider-Man (2002) as well as Spider Man 2 (2004). It will go down in history as a farcical version of its predecessors by trying to engage the audience with a script that would be more suitable within the context of Frankenstein and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde rather than in the Spiderman universe. Peter Parker also seems to be a tortured beautiful mind (reference to the film A Beautiful Mind (2001)). I say that it is unfortunate because this film makes it clear that gaps were indeed left by Raimi and his crew such as the mystery behind who were Peter’s parents etc. It borrows shamelessly from the precepts developed in its predecessors as well as a plot influenced significantly by Christopher Nolan’s Batman Begins (2005). The main villain’s plan in The Amazing Spiderman (2012) is similar to the one orchestrated by Ra's Al Ghul in Batman Begins where he attempted to spread fear toxins throughout Gotham city. The main failure of this film therefore is that it failed to supersede its predecessors as well as other superhero films. It has therefore contributed nothing new to our understanding of what it means to be a superhero in the mythical fantasies that have gripped the imagination of film goers. The film has good moments that are not elevated sufficiently to the point where the premise would soar into that great creative void of filmdom. The inability of the screenwriters and the directors to flesh out a premise therefore reveals the struggle in the final scenes of the film to achieve the emotional release it sought in the retelling.  These final scenes seem to be tacked on mercilessly as the filmmakers make it apparent that they are seeking that moment where the emotions or the imaginations of the various audience members will rally around this misunderstood hero.  The wrong approach was taken in this film where the elements of  Raimi’s first two efforts were seemingly absorbed within the space of 2 hours and change which is the duration of this film. The emotional release of Spider-Man 2 was understandable considering the build up and restraint exhibited in Spider-Man. The teen angst of Peter Parker is understandable but his exploits as Spiderman clearly question whether or not it is heroic. He appears to be so brow beaten and weathered by despair, infatuation and a desperate urge for retribution that you begin to realize that he is merely acting out a teenage fantasy. Raimi took the smart approach by avoiding all that unnecessary drama because now this new interpretation seems to be swamped in a state of bathos. In other words Spiderman himself is not amazing although the film is amazingly lackluster. One wonders if Sony should not have sought to retell the story in a more progressive manner. It is admitted that Spider-Man 3 (2007) suffered more by trying to continue after the emotional release experienced in Spider-Man 2 (which is still the most satisfying dramatic offering from marvel studios. Iron Man (2008) was mere spectacle which would account for the current crisis of facile interpretations of the subject) than the perception that it was such a terrible film. Love it or hate it the film had the right elements although much of it was jumbled. Whatever the perception of that film the right idea was still there as Raimi and crew sought to move forward with the story. Sony wasted a lot of money on this endeavour by acting so regressive. As the star is 28 years old have him play an older Peter and reinterpret from there instead and keep the series moving forward and have him delve into his past from there.

This film is about Spiderman/Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) discovering the secrets of a shady aspect of his past involving his parents and their longtime friend Dr. Kurt Connors (Rhys Ifans).The deeper Parker delves the more superficial the story becomes as the longtime friend of his parents, based on a pseudo scientific formula provided by Peter, creates a chemical that allows for the transference of animal DNA into humans as a means to heal disfigured limbs or for general purposes of regeneration and security against health hazards. After a crisis at work Dr. Connors in desperation uses the chemical on himself and he is transformed into a giant lizard that becomes the new terror on the block. Peter must now account for the consequences of his failure as well as he seeks to stop the giant lizard that has formulated a diabolical plan which is sure to endanger the citizens of New York City despite the best intentions of the poor doctor.

What’s good about this film?

The film does make a good case for the reinterpretation of Spiderman’s origin story. The extent which the filmmakers and Sony were able to achieve its objective is debatable. Firstly, not much is known of Peter’s parents and the film attempts to address and should be commended although the story is rather shady and is not clearly resolved. Secondly it is acknowledged in the comics that Gwen Stacey was the first girlfriend of Peter Parker and the film adheres to this tradition instead of making her an afterthought as was done in Spider-Man 3. It will be interesting to see how Mary Jane is portrayed in this series of films. She will probably be portrayed as the more mature type however that remains to be seen. In any case Stacey is portrayed with the customary verve associated with Emma Stone and does play a significant role in defeating the villain. She does seem distinctive as a character and does set herself apart from the dominant Mary Jane figure that the audiences are so accustomed to. One wonders whether she will be the perennial girlfriend for this series of films. Her father, Captain Stacey (Denis Leary), as a high ranking police officer does provide a significant contrast to Spiderman as a man that represents the hypocritical bourgeois code of ethics. The debate between himself and Peter at the dinner table does expose the infantile perceptions of Peter Parker and his delusions of grandeur. He keeps calling himself a hero and up until then did not realize that he had not done enough to justify calling himself a hero of the people. One crucial element in that discussion was the reference to organized crime. Peter having thought that he captured a car thief as spider man is informed by the police chief that the car thief was linked to crime bosses. He is also exposed as a superhero that leaves an easy trail to follow and this naiveté is found out by the Lizard. I have always thought that a serious discussion about Spiderman’s role as a crime fighter was important because although Spiderman does keep the streets safe he has never really demonstrated that he can go after the top crime bosses who launder money or who deal in the lucrative drug trade or the brutality of gang warfare. In the Raimi films, as well as this one, he only handles small timers such as petty robbers and then goes home and whines about the burdens he has to bear as a crime fighter. In this film he is a major whiner and so they never improved on this idealized quality of peter parker who is merely a petty bourgeois living in a bourgeois world trying to become a professional scientist and aid in the growth of labour productivity so that capital can be better served. Parker has not demonstrated in any of the Spiderman films that he can interact with the dark side of New York. As a so called hero he is pretty one dimensional. It is no surprise that his main villains have been scientists like himself who have veered down the dark side of capital as they desperately seek to have their scientific discoveries embraced by the populace so that capital will continue to shine and dazzle the weak minded. Most people should be aware by now that most of the discoveries in science are in service to capital.  He would have to go on anti-depressants if he took on the caseload of the batman who goes deep into the heart of crime. In such a case it will be good to see if the creators introduce Kingpin as a major villain in this series because he alone of all Spiderman’s villains is closely linked to organized crime.

The context seems to be more extensive in this film and is less colourful than the Raimi versions which were so bright that even when Spiderman went to the dark side it was only for a short while and never altered dramatically the overall cheerful mood. Peter parker in this current release does seem more grounded in reality. The technology is up to date and one wonders why parker uses Bing instead of Google as a search engine; does it have anything to do with competition or the inability to come up with the sums sufficient to pay for the right to broadcast the image? Who knows what goes on behind closed doors when it comes to discussions between these giant corporations? Oscorp looms as the bastion of scientific knowledge in this film and one hears the name of Norman Osborne mentioned a lot which suggests that he will come to play a major role in the next installments. The edgier tone does make Peter parker seem like a geek/nerd from the real world for based on how he acts I have seen people who act in a similar fashion. This peter parker does stand up to the bullies and only lacks the physical strength to become a significant force although that all changes when he is bitten by a radioactive spider and becomes feared by his peers. The presentation of the film makes one wonder whether or not Peter parker is just an ordinary nerd acting out his fantasies as he seeks to punish those who have dared to cross him. A lot of juveniles that have experienced or are experiencing bullying will readily identify with the parker trials and how this bullying can create a powerful imaginary effect in the minds of the oppressed that focuses on what one would do against these bullies if only he or she had the power. I would get suspicious when a nerd is suddenly able to dunk a basketball and shatter the glass in the process.

The film does deal with a specific period of Peter’s life: his late teenage years. There is therefore a lot of teen angst in this film as peter comes to accept that he must become responsible before he can call himself an adult. The Raimi versions which stayed true to the comic books brushed aside these teen years. Even the early comics do not provide a suitable explanation of Peter’s teen years. This film tries to ground itself deeply in this period. It could be said too deeply because by the end it fails to achieve the release it was looking for i.e. making spider man imprint (this is no reference to twilight) himself on the imagination of movie goers. I can say with certainty that this spiderman will not be tolerated by some moviegoers. 

There are a bucket loads of tears in this film which would highlight that this is more  a serious dramatic film  as opposed to the more fun loving Raimi versions.

The pseudo science on show here does seem more in depth and the actor seems more in command of what he is saying portraying a 17 year old. In the Raimi versions peter did not seem like an innovator in the field of science whereas in this new release he does seem to be able to hold his own with fantastically, yet meaningless, conjured algorithms which are hardly serious and must be classified as comic book science. The senior scientist in this film oohs and aahs when the mish mash of a mysterious algorithm is presented to him. Regardless of the pseudo science on display it does make the film seem grounded as we watch it progress and we see peter parker get more involved with the mysteries of science. I say pseudo science because most of the science on display should only be theoretical but in the world of comic books it comes alive.

The action was fairly well done although it does not add anything new to the franchise. The movements of Spiderman remain the same although they have opted for artificial web shooters as opposed to the self-generated, organic webs from the body of peter parker in the Raimi versions. Aside from this the movements of Spiderman remain the same when he fights and slings around the city. There are some movements that are taken directly from the Raimi versions. The 3D images however provide a first person point of view style of web slinging where we can imagine what it is like to be Spiderman. Eventually these actions only serve to bring back fond memories and this new series has yet to demonstrate that it will supersede the action seen in the Raimi versions.

 I liked that Jonah Jameson  the vulgar editor  in chief was absent. I suppose that you cannot rule him out for long.

What’s bad about this film?

The main problem that several moviegoers will have with this film is its inability to sufficiently reinterpret the Spiderman mythos i.e. not much will distinguish it from the Raimi versions apart from the edgier tone. This is because it still borrows from the previous Raimi versions. This reinterpretation probably came too early and so  there was not much time for Sony to clear its head. In terms of finding its own footing therefore it had to borrow from other franchises that experienced a similar revival. The most obvious example would be the batman franchise which started promisingly under Tim Burton in 1989 but crashed in ignominy with the fourth installment Batman and Robin (1997). Christopher Nolan, his brother and David S. Goyer provided a fresh interpretation with Batman Begins (2005) which was edgier in tone and would eradicate to some extent the camp and buffoonery of the 90s versions. The success of this new realistic interpretation was made evident with the worldwide success of The Dark Knight (2008). The writers for this film seem to be going for that formula to the extent where a rip off of Nolan’s approach to storytelling was evident particularly when it comes to the plot of the main villain which is a giant man lizard. It was a shameless knock off and quite obvious to the experienced moviegoer and the sad thing was that it was not necessary because the mad scientist rap has been extensive in this series with Norman Osborn and Doc Ock. They could have gone for a new type of villain such as a Kingpin who of all the Spiderman villains would fit in with the edgier tone here for no matter how edgy you become you cannot justify a giant man lizard in the real world. How effective would it be if the petty criminal he is looking for so as to avenge the death of Uncle Ben was linked to this imposing crime boss. The rip off of the Nolan approach does not even offer a new spin and even manages to vulgarize it in this farcical version where the solution to the main villain’s plan is simply resolved. The villain obviously is not noteworthy apart from his menacing physique which is good for the brief passages of entertainment but it is not sufficient when one considers that he does not resonate with the audience after the credits roll.

(Just a small note here: the Spider Man series developed by Sony does not necessarily have to borrow from Nolan's version because the Raimi versions set its own standards within the super hero canon. The Spider man universe is rich enough whereby it does not need  to borrow from Nolan's take on the batman series. Nolan himself is not original on all fronts. There are some elements in his films that were preceded by the Sam Raimi versions.)

 ‘The villain was this big lizard. I don’t really remember what he wanted. I think it had to do with his relationship with Peter. He kept saying poor Peter as if he was going to hug him.’

This reinterpretation is muddled by pseudo science i.e. science that remains only theoretical. I say again that pseudo science is something everyone can come up with theoretically. What if I could absorb the strength of an ant through a special chemical? I could then become ant man.  In this case the science project seems so futile in its approach to seem original that it only manages to look ridiculous particularly when peter gets involved and provides the mysterious solution. The experienced scientist who is the main villain and the friend of peter’s parents merely accepts this solution without critical analysis. He accepts but never offers a rigorous logical scrutiny to test its viability. What the screenwriters do is have the process simulated through a test of  the formula on the computer on  what would represent the biological makeup of a rat.  This is the only scrutiny it will experience and it is not even wondered that the success was too blinding. In Spider-Man 2 the explanation for Doc Ock’s demise becomes evident here although his scientific experiment was more realistic as it dealt with energy and not some warped biological experiment that has no precedence. The development of new energy sources has been a priority of man over the last two centuries. Elements from Doc Ock’s dementia are also shamelessly brought back in the makeup of this new lizard type of villain. It can therefore be said that this new villain who is supposed to test Spiderman’s resolve is hardly worth the ticket price. You can see it coming from a mile way when you first see him and hear of the experiment he is working on. He is so desperate that he relies on the advice of a junior scientist that stole notes from his father’s untested formulas. Spider-Man 2 was superior in the development of its villain. This movie rips off that approach and throws in the Nolan formula for good measure.

The spiderman legacy has therefore been muddled in its attempt to appear distinctive. It tried to offer a new interpretation but upon closer inspection it is clearly a rip off of better films that were not so burdened by satisfying the corporate urge for new profits. When the films by Raimi and Nolan came to the fore their stories were fresh and had no precedent although each borrowed one way or the other but its own distinctive context made the telling acceptable to the audience. Spider-Man was the first major film about the hero and likewise Nolan’s approach to batman reversed the one offered by the franchise of 90’s. The burden of the legacy on this new film seems to be too much and comes down heavily and smothers it with its weight and therefore makes it difficult to supersede and become distinctive or walk on its own two feet. This is not helped because it borrows so heavily from the previous Raimi versions that made Spiderman distinctive. This new version does not make Spiderman seem distinctive at all and not even the 3D first person point of view shots help significantly. If it wanted to escape the burden of legacy it should have gone for a different approach as to how Spiderman fights crime. He is supposed to take responsibility for creating a giant lizard.

This is why I suppose they focus on the teen angst of Peter Parker as opposed to the Spiderman as a distinctive hero. Peter Parker is portrayed as downtrodden punk trying to make a difference. He has all the attributes of the nerd and is burdened by his past because his parents deserted him over a phony science project. There are a lot of tears in this film on his part as he loses his adult mentors particularly Uncle Ben. He still has the interest of Gwen Stacy which  feeds his infatuation. The love story is hardly memorable however for the kiss between Mary Jane and Peter in Spider-Man and the finale of Spider-Man 2 were much more memorable. In this film the two actors attempt to act younger than they really are and it is so sad. The romance seems more adult than teen and here Raimi was a success for he highlighted the various transitions from teen to young adult etc. In this film the two seemed burdened by the world. It is not memorable and will be forgotten let’s leave it at that. The burden that Peter parker feels as an outcast is translated in his approach to playing Spiderman. He tries to sound clever but he does not pull off most of the jokes and it is too bad because Tobey McGuire from the Raimi version was much more relaxed in his demanour and it was reflected in his delivery. In this one peter parker seems too burdened and Spiderman wades around like a drunken man in some cases and does seem like a lost teenager who is not really a hero. In the final shots when you see Spiderman slinging around it does not seem as if you are watching a definitive superhero. It seems as if the filmmakers were trying to make him appear hip and iconic when he is not in this case.

Lastly this burden felt by the teenage peter parker sees the filmmakers try to evoke some emotions but this falls flat and must count as a failure. They burden parker and the audience so much with the teen angst that you can see the need for an emotional release. It seems as if they tacked on several final scenes with the hope that the audience will be left wondering. This is not the case here because the more scenes at the end suggest that the filmmakers missed the mark. They were too desperate for that final flourish that would make spidey seem iconic and it appears as if the tragedy of the franchise continues.   They shamelessly tried to absorb the themes of the first two Raimi films that the casual moviegoer may not realize, but should, that this is overkill and that they are being burdened unnecessarily. This is why most audience members will not feel as if the film resonates with them after the credits roll.

All in All a mediocre film but as a definitive reinterpretation it misses the mark. It should go down as a good try.