Craptain America Reviews: The Amazing Spiderman 2D

When I heard that they were rehashing the Spiderman franchise I have to admit that I was excited. Raimi's run was great (part three the exception). But I felt that after the final part it had reached a point where, personally, the enjoyment had died. Marc Webb (500 Days Of Summer) was put forward to direct which seemed an interesting choice. Garfield and Stone were cast (both of which I approved of). The villain was one that most fanboys had relished. It has felt like a long time coming but was the wait worth it? Yes and No.

Watching the set reports you could see a very different Spiderman taking shape. The costume was met with it's fair share of disapproval and approval. I fell along the lines of the latter. I couldn't have imagined how great it translated onto the big screen. There are many elements of this movie that also did the same. The set pieces, although very few of them, were well executed and, in my opinion, surpassed those of Spiderman and Spiderman 3. Spiderman 2 being the only outing, I think, will be hard to outdo.

Garfield was every bit the Spiderman I am a fan of. Having read predominantly the Ultimate Spiderman run I think this was the Spiderman I had come to know and love. He was vulnerable, beaten, quirky, funny and heroic. Garfield executed these at the right times and in a manner. I think that, although controversial to say, he was more my Spiderman than Maguire. That's no taking anything away from Maguire but this interpretation was more to my liking.

Emma Stone, as always, was great in her part as Gwen Stacy. Although a little underused it allowed Garfield to have the most screen time and explore his journey. Thankfully, the love story took and backseat but still played a pivotal role within the movie's story arc.

Ifans was fine as Conners. Again, he seemed a little underused and rushed. That's not taking anything away from the performance. The performance was just enough to not steal the show. I'm sure it will be a character we shall see revisited in a later installment. Most probably as one of Peter's allies. Coupled with his involvement in Peter's past it seems inevitable.

All of the supporting cast we great. Sheen was a stand out as Uncle Ben but, as with most, he and Field took a step back. Khan was a sinister addition to the movie. His part was so brief he could easily be forgettable. It seemed a shame but most of these issues I shall highlight in a moment.

The CGI was well done and seamless in most areas. The Lizard's CGI could have been handled a little better. It felt a little cartoony at times. When we have had Hulk in 'The Avengers' and Caesar in 'Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes' there is a real benchmark as far as how an entire figure should be done. This seemed, sadly, badly done on some occasions. He looked great during the school battle but later, when talking for example, he looked slackly finished.

The story was actually refreshing. People can highlight similarities between Spiderman outings but it is the same character facing the same problems. Maneuvering away from the source material so drastically would only have served in bringing us an unrecognizable character. I liked the tweaks and I liked the homage paid to previous comic arcs. But the story isn't my main issue with this movie. The execution was. But I have a feeling I don't have Webb to blame for this.

As most have said, there seemed to be many many parts that featured in TV spots that didn't make the final (studio) cut. I always have a problem with a studio who put out a movie and expect it to do well on previous merit alone. They do this to make the initial money to warrant a second outing to feed a cash cow. Instead of doing what Marvel did with 'Iron Man' and making a great first outing they seem to want to cut elements out that would make a sequel worth making. But they cut so much that the first outing becomes inconsistent and, almost, irritating to watch.

My main issue with 'The Amazing Spiderman' was that, although a decent length, the character development, with the exception of Garfield, was awful. Conners went from being a defiant genius working for the greater good, to someone with ambition to help himself, to someone who was causing havoc (which could be forgiven for the drugs side effects), to a Norman Osborn rip-off (voices in his head that came from nowhere), to somebody who wanted to harm the human race (possibly misplaced help) and back to a savior. There was barely any motive for all of the above.

Khan seemed to disappear off the face of the planet and Cap. Stacy seemed more obsessed with stopping a vigilante than a giant lizard that's wreaking havoc. Then back again. There was no development between any of these characters. I know I could be calling for overkill here but the seams were there for all to see. No consistancy at all. Then it all seemed to become a marriage of convenience between all of the scenes. It almost became facepalming time (which I woke my girlfriend up doing when that father cheesily broke out the cranes to help Spiderman. I felt like I was watching a scene from 'Battleships').

This type of tinkering has stopped so many movies recently from being great. I'm calling studio interference. And it's a shame that it, possibly, held this movie back from being, not just a great superhero movie but, a great movie.

I relish a sequel and the further exploration of this Spiderman's story. I look forward to seeing the delving into why Oscorp has such a hold on this version of Spidey's universe. I hope Webb returns and I hope it makes enough that he will get free artist reign over it. Garfield was great, the supporting cast just as well (if a little underused). The story was refreshing and most of the CGI was done well and was a pleasure to watch. There is plenty of good work to continue and plenty of mistakes to learn from. If they are then I anticipate and even better Spiderman outing. It could quite possibly be THE best to date...the wait will be intolerable.

******* 7 stars out of 10

As always your Craptain salutes you!