The Amazing Spider-Man

Hey, gang. Sorry it's been so long. Who am I kidding, you didn't miss me. Well, screw you, too, pal. I thought we were friends. You're a real snake in the grass. I'm sorry I've been busy living my life while you've been aimlessly staring at your computer screen waiting for an update from your's truly. What? You haven't been waiting around for yours truly to update this blog that underwent (very) few changes (like the name, because I'm going to be teaching kids and I don't want them finding my inane ramblings on the internet)? Eat my shorts, ass. I'm sorry. I didn't mean that. Are we good? Good. [Cyber-Hug]

Anyway, it's summer movie season and I watched a bunch of movies. This review center, or whatever it is/was/might become, has been barren lately because I haven't had a whole lot to say about the movies I've seen. I saw The Avengers (three times) just like everyone else. And just like everyone else, I loved it. It was true enough to the comics - and more importantly, faithful to the characters - and it made sense. The action was tops, the banter was ace, and they got the Hulk really right. There just wasn't much for me to add to the conversation about The Avengers, so I kept my mouth (keyboard) shut (untouched). Prometheus was a clusterfuck and I'm still not sure how I felt about it. Great review there, right? Those are the two big ones thus far this summer, and I didn't know what to add, so I didn't. Addition by subtraction, eh? How's that for maths, Mrs. Weber? Twelve on my ACT in math sounds pretty stupid now, huh? The scoring system is all wrong on that test, anyway, it doesn't make sense, and it is ethnically biased (not towards my ethnicity, but still).

So finally we have arrived at a film that I do have something to say about. A whole helluvaot about, as a matter of fact. I've loved Spider-Man as a character for as long as I can remember. He is firmly ensconced (great word) in my Top-Five Favorite Superheroes Of All-Time List at number four (because I know you're curious - 1. Batman (duh), 2. Captain America (it's called patriotism, shitheads. Try it), 3. Superman (he's everything humanity should strive to be), 4. Spider-Man (the closest superhero in character to me), 5. The Incredible Hulk (he smashes shit and yells stuff, he's just like me, except I don't smash shit, am not green, know next to nothing about gamma radiation, and have never smooched a girl named Betty - although I'm open to it ;) )). I love Spidey. He's a great character that the karmic gods consistently crap on. He has depth. He has range of emotion. He uses humor and sarcasm as a defense mechanism (I'd never do that). What's not to like?

Seriously, people fucking miss this?!

In 2002, something crazy happened. Sam Raimi made a little flick called Spider-Man and it was huge. Like, the Incredible Hulk's pectorals huge. It was the second big comic book movie adaptation, and without it, I have a feeling that we wouldn't have Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, The Avengers, or any of that really good stuff we all know and love today. It was a watershed moment for geeks. Something confined to the funny pages transcended its origins as a nerd escape and became accepted by the mainstream population. How geeks felt when Spider-Man the movie got as huge as it did is similar to how I suspect BDSM weirdos feel about Fifty Shades of Grey. Comic books - at least the characters - became acceptable, and the medium wasn't stuck in the greasy hands of acne-dotted teenagers anymore. It belonged to the world. I saw the movie at the tail-end of my sophomore year of high school. It was shortly before my renaissance as a stud (I smooched no less than four babes that summer - three in a one-week span), and right before "Hot in Herre" by Nelly became the anthem of a generation. I loved that fucking movie. I did. It was great. Then, something weird happened two years later - Spider-Man 2 came out and it sucked. It did bank at the box office and everybody except for me loved it. I couldn't stand it. It was claptrap, shit, tripe, nut-butter, any other adjective/noun that can be used negatively - that's what Spider-Man 2 was to me. But it was popular, so whatever. Then, three years after that, something even weirder happened - Spider-Man 3 came out and it made me want to off myself like a shamed member of the Yakuza. My hatred for Spider-Man 3 is well-documented. It made me lose faith in humanity. It made me question the existence of a higher power. It made me want to open-mouth kiss a blender.

Thankfully, Sam Raimi opted out of a fourth Spidey flick, and his absence ensured that Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst would not return, either (thank the nerd gods). Sony, who owns the rights to Spidey on film, opted to reboot the franchise and now, in 2012, this is what we've got.

And what we've got is good. Real good. Like "Amazing Spider-Man, I'ma get you pregnant" good. And the primary reason why it is so good is so stupidly simple that I can't figure out why we haven't gotten a cinematic Spidey like this yet: it stayed true to the characters on the comic book page (mostly).

The thing that never resonated with me with Raimi's interpretation was his characters. The horrible, bland, boring, lame characters. He didn't nail them at all. Peter Parker is a wise-ass by his very nature. He's a loner (because he has to be). He's stubborn. He's a good guy who sacrifices his own well-being and happiness at every turn in order to help others. He's like Jesus, but with webs. Raimi's Parker was never like that. He wasn't funny. He was awkward, but he didn't rely on sarcasm or self-deprecation in big moments. He spent half of the second movie playing out some weird "my-lack-of-super-powers-is-actually-a-metaphor-for-impotence" shit that made me want to hit myself with a plastic toy truck. The thing about Spidey is that he's a smart guy. He doesn't need to be reminded why he's a hero every movie. He's a hero because he lost his uncle due to his own un-heroic behavior. It's that simple. Stick to it and move on, don't dwell on it. Don't throw the suit out in the trash and act like a little baby.

Does whatever a spider can...
except kill his lover after they mate.
That's illegal.

Raimi's Spider-Man took all the great things about Spidey's character we love and threw it out, and what was left was a sad, pathetic person who felt really crummy about himself all the time. Imagine taking Superman as a character and stripping away his constant optimism and good nature (calling everyone 'Ma'am' all the time, for example). All you're left with is an asshole with super-powers that nobody cares about or can relate to. And that's what happened with Spidey in the Raimi-verse - he was a schmuck who felt really bad for himself and just whined all the time, until in the third movie he decided to go full-emo and get a funny haircut and wear eyeliner and dance around Manhattan for a while before punching his ex-girlfriend in the face. Add in the fact that Mary Jane, who was supposed to be a total babe bombshell turned out to be a really underwhelming Kirsten Dunst (not because she's not pretty, but because the movies tried really hard to make her look really plain), and Aunt May went from a rambunctious senior citizen to an old lady who spends the majority of her time crying into a cup of decaf, and it was just a huge mess. Huge.

Even the villains sucked, by and large. The Green Goblin in Spider-Man was a bit of a missed opportunity (which I don't fault the movie itself for, because it was a comic book movie with training wheels at that point, and Amazing Spider-Man's villain, The Lizard, left a lot to be desired, too... we'll get there). Norman Osborn is Spidey's Joker - the one villain who means more to him than all the rest. He knows Spider-Man inside and out and hates his stinkin' guts. The interplay between them can be potent. Instead, we got a green Power Ranger. In Spider-Man 2, we got Doctor Octopus, who turned out to be the best villain of the Raimi bunch. Aside from a supremely campy introduction in a hospital operating room, he looked awesome and posed a great threat to Spidey. However, his motive for destroying Manhattan didn't make a lick of sense and he got caned by Aunt May at one point, so whatever.


Spider-Man 3 is where everything really went to shit with the baddies. The Green Goblin and Doc Ock at least made sense. In Spider-Man 3 we had three(!) villains, and none of them were worthwhile or remotely interesting. Harry Osborn, Norman's son, took the mantle of the Goblin and hoverboarded around before losing his memory and kissing MJ for some reason. The Sandman, who was - get this - retconned in the film itself to have been the one responsible for Uncle Ben's murder, spent the entire movie staring at a fucking locket and turning into sand at odd intervals. Then, when Spidey finally confronts him for killing his uncle, he just lets him go because I don't fucking know why. There was zero character development and the best part of Spidey's origin - similar to Batman's - was ripped from him, that a simple crime and un-heroic behavior from Peter resulted in Ben's death. It changed from being a crime of the moment to some cosmic destiny shit that was preordained to happen, and it cheapened Ben's death. And then we get Venom, played by Topher Grace - the one guy less manly than Tobey Maguire in the entire world - and the less I say about him the better. Even thinking about him gets me mad. If you grew up in the '90's, chances are your favorite villain of all time in comics is Venom because he's fucking Venom!, just look at him! And they screwed it up. Horribly.

So, yeah, I'm happy Raimi and Co. didn't return for a fourth installment. It was better for everyone. Raimi got to move on to do what he does best - oddball horror and slapsticky stuff - and Maguire got to become an actor who ruins other movies for me (I'm already dreading The Great Gatsby just because of him. They get DiCaprio to play Gatsby and Maguire to play Nick - they get the most talented actor of his generation to play an iconic character and some guy who looks like he couldn't bag groceries efficiently to play the anchor for the film. My God). Sony wisely decided to just start from scratch and give audiences a new, fresh look at Spider-Man.

"Thwip!" goes the web

Now we get to the actual discussion of the new film, The Amazing Spider-Man, which has been the scorn of the internet since being announced. People were up in arms because it's only been five years since Spider-Man 3 and it seems awfully quick to do a reboot, I guess. I don't know, I think that when a character as beloved as Spidey is screwed up so terribly the first time, a reboot is fine. As a comic book fan, maybe I'm just more used to different interpretations and retellings of origins because comics do it all the time. Each creator has something different to say about a character, so it's fine to see a different version on screen, especially if this version is more faithful to the character. Eight years passed between Batman and Robin and Batman Begins, so it's only three fewer years for a new Spider-Man. It's not a big deal to me. But that's really neither here nor there. The fact is, the new movie is a reboot and it's impossible to avoid comparing it with Sam Raimi's trilogy.

There's been a fair amount of criticism because people think we just saw the exact same movie ten years ago. We didn't. Spider-Man and The Amazing Spider-Man are two radically different flicks. In ASM, Peter Parker is very much a loner. He's still hurt by his parents abandoning him. He is an outcast because he doesn't fit in. He's bullied. He's not a dork, but he's not a part of the cool crowd. He is, like most adolescents, trying to find his way. He's really smart (and we get to see it, we're not just told!) but in 2012 that doesn't make you a geek. Intelligence is, get this, a good quality to possess! It's not the '80's when smart people were nerds. It's 2012, and guys like Bill Gates are the richest, most powerful people in the free sector. I'm glad that this is finally reflected in movies. Peter Parker is just an awkward kid trying to make his way and then he gets bitten by a spider that gives him superpowers. This is when it becomes fun.

This is adorable. I mean it.

He doesn't just become a superhero over night. There's a process here, and he struggles with his new powers. He doesn't act like a hero right away, he grows into it. The wise-cracking and sarcasm is there throughout, but it's more mean-spirited here than in the comics. But it makes sense, because he's an angry kid trying to make sense of his dead uncle. He's a teenager, of course he's going to be a prick. But he grows as the narrative unfolds through his encounters with other people, namely Gwen Stacy and her dad, the police chief of New York. He realizes that his actions have repercussions and he must be accountable for that. Even as the film ends, he's still struggling with this, and it adds for some nice dramatic tension and sets the stage for what's to come in sequels. It's called character progression, and it's something you don't see a lot of in these types of flicks. I'm surprised at the depth of the characters and how some of the narrative is left open to interpretation at the conclusion.

The film nailed the characters, and that's all I really cared about at the end of the day. The Raimi movies can't be ignored for their impact (and in some cases should be looked at as a "what not to do" thing), but as I just spent the last few hundred words or so detailing, they never nailed the character of Peter Parker. Marc Webb's ASM does, and that's why I liked the movie so much. When you get the essence of a character, you're allowed to tweak other aspects of the story and the audience will stay with you. That's why Christopher Nolan's Batman movies work so well - they get who the characters are and build realistic stories around them. It doesn't matter that in The Dark Knight The Joker doesn't have bleached skin from a chemical accident; what matters is that his character is the truest to the comics of any interpretation we've yet seen. In Tim Burton's Batman, The Joker's origin is almost identical to the comic book one, but The Joker in that movie isn't nearly as powerful as the one in Nolan's because the character isn't the same as he is on the printed page. Character essence is so important for me in comic book adaptations - if you can get that right, you can screw around with the other stuff. So Peter Parker is different from Comic Book Peter Parker in the sense that his origin and his parent's disappearance is different, but the essence is there. Everything else is background noise and can be fiddled with to "modernize" it or whatever.

A big part of capturing this essence lies in the hands of the actors, and they're really good. Andrew Garfield will be a big star now because of this. And good, because he is the Peter Parker I've always wanted. He's skinny. He's awkwardly handsome. He's not Channing Tatum, and he's not Tobey Maguire (have we figured out I don't like him yet?). He's Peter Parker, and that's what I've always wanted. I've said for years that I would have been a great Peter Parker - not because I'm handsome or muscular or anything like that (I'm not), but because I'm naturally a small kind of guy and I am a huge wise-ass and I rely on sarcasm like my life depends on it. I'm insecure. I'm funny, sometimes (my jokes miss more often than they hit, similar to Spidey's "throw everything at the wall" approach in battle, hoping something sticks and he can divert the attention of his foes). I've got the right build and I know the character. If you give me Hollywood money and access to Hollywood foods, I could tidy myself up and be a great Peter Parker. Assuming, of course, I had any acting talent whatsoever, which I doubt I do have, but that's unimportant because this is hypothetical and I can dream, right? Point being, Tobey Maguire was never right for Spider-Man in my estimation. He just doesn't have it for Spidey, and that's fine, that's all in the past now, because now we do have someone who is right for Spider-Man, and that's Andrew Garfield. He has the look, the movements, the mannerisms, and the ability to play a smart-ass when need be (which is often, for this character). He brings the right amount of sadness inherent in the character, too, even if some scenes border on melodrama at times.

Seriously, how adorbs are these two?

Emma Stone is also really swell as Gwen Stacy. She's cute, adorable, and perky. She doesn't take shit from anyone, which is nice because all Kirsten Dunst ever did as MJ was play a damsel in distress (the feminist in me can't stand that). Gwen is just as smart as Peter, and she doesn't sit around when the shit hits the fan. But really, her scenes with Garfield are amazing. I was in awe of their cute, budding relationship. It was weird, it was odd, it was awkward, it was uncomfortable, and it was so friggin' adorable it hurt my heart. That's how these young wooings should go - they're awkward kids awkwardly figuring out the opposite sex. It's perfect. Their chemistry is well on display whenever they share the screen together (I guess they're dating in reality now, too, for whatever that's worth).

The biggest stumbling block in the flick is the villain, The Lizard. He's just too much like Raimi's baddies - he's a scientist and shit goes wrong for him and he loses his mind. We've seen it way too many times before, and it sucks. Rhys Ifans is fine as Curt Connors, and The Lizard itself looks fine, if a bit like a certain Super Mario Bros. character at times. The action scenes with The Lizard are all awesome visually, and it looks excellent, and you feel the velocity of the fights and all that jazz, it's just there's not a real connection to the villain, nothing that really jumps out at you when he's around. He's just window dressing for the rest of the movie and an excuse to make Spider-Man appear in cool fight scenes (and they are cool, they just don't resonate beyond that). It doesn't help that The Lizard is so un-human that it makes it hard for the audience to identify with him at all, and he's not anything at all like other villains who just own the screen when they appear (like The Joker in TDK or even Magneto in X-Men: First Class, but then Heath Ledger and Michael Fassbender were/are incredible talents). He's just there. I hope that a sequel introduces Norman Osborn as the Green Goblin so we can finally see him how he was meant to be - unhinged, insane, ruthless, cunning, and sans Power Ranger outfit. Here's to hoping.

Ultimately, the flick's pitfalls are overcome through capturing the characters correctly. There's a scene near the end of the film when Peter strolls into class late and the teacher is lecturing on the nature of storytelling. She says something to the effect that there's only one type of story - "Who am I?" - and I couldn't help but feel that this was a subtle jab at the Raimi movies. That question really is central when adapting any type of medium for a different one - you need to ensure that the characters know who they are and are represented appropriately. Raimi's Spider-Man had the costume, it had the webbing, it had the action, but it lacked the true essence of Peter Parker. Something was just missing. And now, finally, we have a Spider-Man on screen as he was meant to be. And, goddammit, it's pretty fucking amazing.

Really, this sequence was better than the entire Raimi trilogy