I realized I never posted my review on the "The Amazing Spider-Man." The hubster and I decided to go watch it last weekend to see how it compared to the first one that was made. This was actually a re-boot of the Spider-Man flick that originally starred Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst and James Franco. This re-boot was completely different that the original.......so, what are my thoughts? How did it compare to the original 2002 Spider-Man movie?
This movie didn't disappoint at all. Andrew Garfield's portrayal of Peter Parker/Spider-Man put a completely different spin on the character. If you remember in the original movie with Maguire, Peter Parker was a huge nerd who wore glasses, didn't say much, and had no self-esteem what-so-ever. Peter Parker, played by Garfield, is a smart-ass/sarcastic character that does have a voice and stands up for others. He was more vocal in this one, and I appreciated this. He was also more vocal while playing the Spider-Man portion of the character, which, in my opinion, made it a bit more entertaining than the original movie.
In the original movie, the love interest was Mary Jane (MJ) played by Kirsten Dunst. I thought Dunst did an OK job in this role, however, in most parts she seemed awkward and out of place. In the new movie, the love interest is Gwen Stacy, played by Emma Stone, and I think Stone did a fantastic job with the part of Gwen Stacy. The relationship between Stacey and Parker grows gradually in the movie, and it is a good depiction of what a high school love is about/how it feels. They had great on-screen chemistry, and I'm really looking forward to see these two together in future Spider-Man flicks.
The villain in this movie was Dr. Curt Connors, who is deemed "The Lizard." I am picky on villains in movies, and to me, this was an OK choice, however, not the best. I still dig the villain in the first Spider-Man movie with Tobey Maguire (Norman Osborn aka The Green Goblin.) Willem Dafoe did such a great job playing that part, that I think it's going to be hard to live up to.
So, as far as the story is concerned, it really showcases how smart Peter Parker is. Instead of organic web-shooters, he makes his own. At first, before even seeing the movie, I wasn't sure how I felt about this. In the versions of Spider-Man I had seen, the web-shooters were organic, and came with his 'spidey powers.' After seeing this done a different way, and seeing his home-made web-shooters, I think it helped portray Parker as a genius, which he is supposed to be. This version of the movie also spent a lot of time showing his new 'powers', like super human strength, enhanced sight and sound, and, my favorite, his spidey sense. It is shown at first in a funny way while Parker is getting used to these new things, but then it is shown in a more serious way when he is fighting his villains.
I don't want to give much away with the movie in other aspects, because in my opinion, it is worth a viewing on the big screen. Quite a few items are similar between the movies: Parker becomes Spider-Man by being bitten by the spider; he must come to terms with this and become acclimated to his new powers; Uncle Ben dies, which ultimately shapes the beginning of Parker's 'destiny' to continue down the Spider-Man path; and Spider-Man defeats the villain.
So, comparing apples to apples, I think that this version beats the first version by far! I related to the characters better in this version (with the exception of the villain) and I thought the depiction of Peter Parker/Spider-Man in this version was right on the money.
Are there things I would change? Certainly. The movie is not perfect. It's no Avengers, but, I give it a solid 3.5 out of 5 stars.