The Amazing Spider-man

In 2002, Spider-man (starring Tobey Maguire) raked in over 400 million at US theaters, leading to two sequels (in 2004 & 2007, respectively) and kicking off a superhero movie explosion that has continued to present day.  Now, just 10 years after that movie's release (and 5 since the mediocre and poorly-received Spider-man 3), we get a reboot- The Amazing Spider-man.  Spidey is back, but this time, there's a whole new cast, and the story starts over.

That's right- The The Amazing Spider-man starts completely from scratch.  It's the origin story all over again- take Spider-man, change the cast, tweak some things, and there you have it.  The villain is different (The Lizard instead of The Green Goblin), the main players are slightly different (no Mary-Jane this time- here Gwen Stacey is Peter Parker's love interest), but the essentials remain the same.  Peter Parker, science wizard and social outcast, lives with his Aunt Mae and Uncle Ben, as his parents have passed away years ago.  While visiting Oscorp, he gets bitten by a spider, and, well . . . you know the rest.

It's gutsy to "re-do" a popular movie only 10 years after its release.  How do you tell the same story and hold interest?  Well, this time around, there's a noticeably darker and grittier feel to the film- I think The Dark Knight has influenced more than one action/superhero film in recent years.  And, supposedly, this reboot holds more true to the comics (I'm not familiar enough myself to know)- for example, Spidey has to build his web-shooters (like in the comics) rather than have them naturally develop in his body.  Finally, we also get a little more insight into Peter's parents, and what may have happened to them all those years ago.  So, while the story is the same, there are enough variations to make it interesting.

So, was the risk worth it?  I think so.  The movie, overall, is solid.  The humor throughout is good, and the action is stellar.  The story is good, if not surprising.  In fact, I really enjoyed the first half of this movie.  In the second half, it tapers off a bit- some elements of the plot seem rushed or unnecessary- but the film is worth it on the whole.  Critics and moviegoers gave it an almost identical rating to the 2002 movie, implying that most people were at least as satisfied with it as with the original.  It is somewhat surprising, then, that the 2012 film grossed much less- "only" 262 million stateside.  Why?  I think the answer is timing.  No matter how good this film was, the original three movies are still relatively fresh in people's minds.  The comparatively poor box office showing may be in part due to a backlash of fans, intent on resisting the film based on principle alone.  Is such action warranted?  I'm not sure.  But, it is what it is.  If you're into superhero movies, and/or Spider-man, check out this flick. 

Rating: A