Grade C: I’m not sure there was a need for the movie The Amazing Spider-Man. Not that I don’t think there should ever be another Spider-Man film or that the first trilogy of movies were so good they were untouchable. Just that since much of what happens in The Amazing Spider-Man was already covered in previous films there really wasn’t much need for this one.
In The Amazing Spider-Man, teen Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) is bitten by a genetically enhanced spider and is given spider-like powers of strength, climbing and knowing when danger is about. Parker must protect his girlfriend in the making Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) along with the citizens of NYC from the evil Lizard/Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans) who’s out to transform everyone in the city into lizards too.
And if that’s all there was to The Amazing Spider-Man, I’d be perfectly fine with it. Instead, though, much of this movie is an origin story of Peter Parker/Spider-Man, almost all of which was covered before in the three previous movies, the live-action TV series, comic books, cartoons, etc., etc., etc. I can’t imagine there’s anyone out there who doesn’t know the origin to Peter Parker/Spider-Man, so much of The Amazing Spider-Man is a waste in that respect.
The creators of The Amazing Spider-Man did try to differentiate their film from the previous Spider-Man movies by having their NYC be dark and gloomy and rainy. In fact, the NYC of The Amazing Spider-Man feels a whole lot like the Gotham City of The Dark Knight, and I get the sense that this was intentional. But while “dark and gloomy” might work for a “dark and gloomy” character like Batman, it really didn’t work all that well for The Amazing Spider-Man.
I hate to say this, but I found the relatively weak Spider-Man 3 (2007) film more enjoyable than The Amazing Spider-Man.
