Trying to grade anything superhero related on a curve can be a tricky thing: wanting to take them on their own terms, even as they’ve become, within our current cultural framework, wholly ubiquitous.
For a variety of reasons though, The Amazing Spider-Man films were never really given that benefit of the doubt. And as someone who has a deep soft spot for them, their rather mixed reception has always felt like something of a missed opportunity.
Caught in the crossfire of the comic book movie boom and boardroom meddling.
But where they excel?
They continue to impress: whether it is director Marc Webb (and his larger creative team), bringing comic-book spectacle to life, the fantastic chemistry between leads Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone or an interpretation of Peter Parker which remains, for my money, the best overall portrayal of the character shown yet.
And with ten years-plus of hindsight on both movies now, with TASM 2 first releasing in May of 2014, it seemed like a perfect opportunity to take a look back.
Besides (and long-time readers can attest to this), I’ll never pass up an opportunity to talk some Spider-Man.
So here is Part I of II - 2012’s, The Amazing Spider-Man.
As a potential, Sam Raimi-helmed Spider-Man 4 fizzled out in the early 2010s, the franchise instead shifted gears towards a reboot.
The result? The Amazing Spider-Man.
Inherently, sure, it was fighting something of an uphill battle right from the get-go: the fourth Spider-Man film to arrive within a decade, retreading familiar ground with the origin story angle and following-up a much (and still, rightfully) loved interpretation as presented by Raimi and actor Tobey Maguire.
But in taking heavier cues from the Ultimate Spider-Man comic run, most notably, it stands on its own, distinct in the character’s live-action outings.
Maybe it is the relatively darker, contemporary take on New York City, underscored by composer James Horner: blending adventure and haunting mystery with the precision that defined so much of his career - or perhaps it is the slow progression of watching Peter craft his first costume, one that remains the most unique of the movie suits (the flashing lights of his web-shooters, the yellow-shaded lenses, the more prominent blue accents, etc).
A concentrated effort on various fronts: from the practical stunt work, the VFX or the craftsmanship of cinematographer John Schwartzman, all working in tandem, to bring a unique feel to quieter moments and set-pieces both (the few first-person shots, from Spider-Man’s perspective, for example, are a nice touch).
Additionally, by way of Webb’s direction, the actors and the combined efforts of the movie’s credited screenwriters (James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent and Steve Kloves) there are steps taken to present their characters with a down-to-earth humanity, even within those occasionally restrictive, genre parameters.
Experimenting with your newfound spider-powers while jamming to Coldplay? Why not! Or maybe it is trying to deescalate a fight, even when you’re at a disadvantage.
From the sympathetic notes struck by Rhys Ifans as Curt Connors/The Lizard, his at-first unselfish goals ultimately coming into conflict with Spider-Man and heightened through his complex relationship with the wall-crawler’s alter-ego - despite the comic book-flavoured predictability driving his third act scheming.
There is the late Irrfan Khan, an inspired choice as a morally-grey Oscorp executive (even though his character’s story was only properly concluded in a deleted scene).
Chris Zylka is memorable in brief work as Flash Thompson, his small, comic-lifted arc from Peter’s bully to friend being played well but more prominent is the no-nonsense take on Captain George Stacy by Denis Leary.
Far gruffer than the character has been traditionally written in the source material and other adaptions but allowing Leary the space to command every moment of his screen-time.
Martin Sheen and Sally Field as Ben and May respectively, feel clearly like people who have raised Peter for most of his life, though not without struggle and compromise, as they bring their signature gravitas. Sheen in particular, doing much with very little, given the nature of his role.
But at the heart of the Amazing duology?
It is both the independent portrayals and the collaborative dynamic between Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker/Spider-Man and Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy.
And in the early-to-mid 2010s, neither had quite ascended to their career peaks but they were already well on their way.
Garfield, as of this writing, has won a Golden Globe, a Tony and has been nominated for two Academy Awards following his initial Spider-Man work and Stone, has been nominated for four Oscars, winning Best Actress twice (La La Land and Poor Things).
Terrific, accomplished performers, two of their generation’s best who, in utilizing their real-world chemistry brought the relationship between their characters to the forefront with a genuine intensity (they famously dated over the course of both movies - a time-honoured Spider-Man tradition, it seems).
Peter and Gwen, the planet for which everything else orbits around: a high-point for not just the larger franchise but superhero movies as a whole, with Stone in particular, imbuing Gwen with a great sense of individualism (well beyond what we see from the character’s heyday in the source material).
A brilliant scientist, who can match anyone both intellectually and with her wit, yet isn’t afraid to put herself in harm’s way to protect either innocents or the people she cares about.
Finding her own place between the written law her father works to uphold and the specific nature of Spider-Man’s vigilantism, as she comes to assist Peter after learning his secret and their relationship deepens.
It can be a hard balance to strike, with so many moving pieces but Stone, as usual, absolutely nails it, bringing confidence, charm and an honest, lived-in energy to every scene.
And Garfield?
Listen, succeeding Tobey Maguire was always going to be a tough ask. He was Peter Parker for multiple generations of movie-goers, myself included, as he originated the role on the big screen: heck, one of my earliest movie memories is watching Spider-Man 2 in theatres.
But for a character with such a rich history (50 years, at the time of TASM 1’s release) it would be incredibly short-sighted to limit anyone to just one specific interpretation.
And Garfield’s version is delivered in stark contrast to his predecessor, embodying a more fully-realized Peter Parker.
From his physicality in the suit to his innate understanding of the character’s sense of humour. Writing a bevy of quips is one thing, delivering them, either in classical jest or to mask fear, is another thing altogether. He tackles it with ease.
A Spider-Man constantly talking, bantering, both for his own benefit and to throw his enemies off their game? Two webbed thumbs up. Exactly right. No notes.
He is tremendously intelligent, kind-hearted and driven to do the right thing, whatever the cost but he is also a little moody and can be, at times (frankly) somewhat abrasive. Charismatic, yet still-awkward, caring but deeply emotional, right or wrong. Always trying to empathize with the villains he faces, however he can: wanting to talk them down instead of brawling, if he’s able.
Garfield, capturing, in my opinion, a complexity that neither Maguire before him nor Tom Holland after him (so far) can match.
It is very much in line with how the character has been written for stretches of Amazing Spider-Man’s decade-long run or during the heights of the Ultimate Spider-Man run in the early 2000s, specifically - at least in respect to Peter’s initial, more-jaded characterization.
He begins his vigilante career not out of altruism but through pursuing a misguided sense of justice as he looks for the man who killed his uncle: someone he could have stopped.
Without fault? No but watching him in the aftermath of a skirmish with the Lizard, choosing to save lives over pursuing Connors, is seeing the character realize that he can and should be, aspiring to something greater: a certain responsibility, as Ben once told him, setting him on the path towards true heroism.
It is, I’ll acknowledge, a little clunky but with the reboot nature of the whole operation in mind, a different approach is still appreciated, as it was back upon release.
I mean, whenever I was reading Spider-Man on the page growing up, I always envisioned exactly what Garfield delivered on the screen, in both films. It is awesome work.
Elsewhere? The film’s third act is mostly expected, if not without flourish.
Connors, committing himself to his big-bad plan, only to be thwarted by his one-time protégés in Peter and Gwen. And with Captain Stacy learning Spider-Man’s identity, he reverses course on his anti-Spidey sentiment, giving his life to protect Peter’s: his death and dying words, eventually looming over the sequel like an inescapable shadow.
But… the stage was set, right?
The origin story box had been checked off, so now, here was this new era of Spider-Man. Led by two incredibly talented performers and an on-the-ground, actor’s director who all seemed eager to take the franchise in a fresh, exciting direction.
And they absolutely did - even if movie-making in Hollywood is never that simple.