RECENT WATCHES: The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

“Spider-Man 3” was a massive money-maker but everyone recognized that the film had its problems, its director most of all. Sam Raimi was determined to make up for it with an epic-in-scope “Spider-Man 4.” That sequel would've featured John Malcovich as the Vulture, Anne Hathaway as a Felicia Hardy that became either the Black Cat or the Vulturess, and more contrived melodrama than you could shake a spider leg at. (Oh yeah, and Bruce Campbell would've had a cameo as an overweight Mysterio.) When Raimi realized he couldn't deliver a decent film by the May 2011 release date Sony was demanding, he dropped out of the project. With all the cast refusing to return without Raimi's involvement, it was clear this iteration of “Spider-Man” was over.

Normally, that would be the end of things. However, Sony could only hold onto the rights to this highly lucrative character if they kept making “Spider-Man” movies, least they revert back to Marvel. So a new Spidey adventure immediately went into production. Mere days after Raimi's “Spider-Man 4” officially died, Marc Webb was hired to direct a reboot, presumably because his last name made a good pun. Thus was born “The Amazing Spider-Man,” a misbegotten film that launched a doomed franchise strictly to meet a release date and legal shenanigans. Now that we know how all this turned out, how does one look at “The Amazing Spider-Man” now?

So what are the big differences between “The Amazing Spider-Man” and Raimi's “Spider-Man?” Everyone is a little younger and sexier. Peter builds mechanical web shooters, instead of having organic ones. Uncle Ben still dies in a similar manner to last time, though minus the pro-wrestling. Mary Jane is traded out for Gwen Stacy, Peter's other major love interest. The plot involves Peter Parker investigating his disappeared parents, which brings him to Oscorp scientist Dr. Curt Connors. The one-armed Connors is experimenting on mixing human and animal genetics. This results in the super-spiders that bite Peter, transforming him into Spider-Man. It also changes Connors into a humanoid lizard monster with nasty plans for the whole city, forcing Spider-Man to swing into action.

From the beginning, “The Amazing Spider-Man” was a movie torn in multiple directions. Sony was eager to capitalize on what was trendy. Because “Batman Begins” was popular, this “Spider-Man” was an origin story, even though the first Raimi film did that less than ten years prior. Because “The Dark Knight” was popular, this “Spider-Man” was going to be darker and grittier. He would run from the cops and beat up random people on the subway. Because “Twilight” was popular, this “Spider-Man” was going to focus on romance. One assumes that's why Marc Webb, previously of “(500) Days of Summer,” landed in the director's chair. You can also see a desire to address the criticism people had about Raimi's films. People thought Raimi's Peter Parker was too mopey, too dorky, not enough of a joker. So this Peter rides a skateboard and constantly cracks jokes while fighting muggers. They even made the Lizard the villain of the movie, seemingly because fans were annoyed Raimi teased that character repeatedly without ever delivering.

Of all those somewhat questionable decisions, the choice to rejigger Peter Parker's origin is by far the most questionable. Yes, the comic books eventually revealed that Peter's parents were secret agents. However, for the most part, the elder Parkers simply do not matter. Despite that, Webb's film tries to build a mystery around what happened to the Parkers. It opens with a flashback to the last night Peter saw his parents. Peter still deeply feels the loss of his mom and dad. His father is made a scientist, with links to both Dr. Connors and Peter's eventual transformation into Spider-Man. All of this is hugely unnecessary for other reasons too. Surprisingly, “Amazing Spider-Man” finds the perfect Aunt May and Uncle Ben in the forms of a funny but truly maternal Sally Field and a shockingly wise but down-to-Earth Martin Sheen. The scenes they share together are great and any focus on the grand secret of Peter's parents takes away from that.

As much as “Amazing Spider-Man” wanted to distance itself from Raimi's trilogy, Webb is clearly emulating his directorial style. He includes multiple point-of-view shots from the perspective of Spider-Man or his web shooters. Admittedly, this does lead to some pretty cool visuals, such as the reveal of Peter's overly muted suit. We get another P.O.V. shot when the construction workers of New York City unite to help Spidey out, a moment clearly inspired by a similar scene in 2002's “Spider-Man.” Webb does bring a graceful energy to the action scenes. Spider-Man utilizes his webbing a lot more offensively, formulating more complex webs to hold his opponents back. The fight scene with the Lizard in the school has him spinning around the supervillain, cocooning him in a novel way. It's all, admittedly, pretty cool.

People who hate “The Amazing Spider-Man” complain that its version of Peter Parker is a complete betrayal of the character. They argue that Peter Parker is an essential dork. He doesn't skateboard, stand up to Flash Thompson, or have perfect hair. Which are all fair criticisms. Yet I genuinely do enjoy Andrew Garfield as this hipper, sexier Spider-Man. As overwritten as his jokes may be, Garfield has enough style and timing to make the jokes land. He also has the perfect physicality, as spindly and aerodynamic as Spider-Man has always been drawn. Moreover, Garfield has incredible chemistry with Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy. Stone is even funnier, smart, tough, and stunningly beautiful. Whenever these two are playing off each other, “The Amazing Spider-Man” truly comes to life.

From the moment Dylan Baker showed up as Dr. Curt Conners in “Spider-Man 2,” fans were wondering when he'd transform into the Lizard. Raimi never got around to using that character, and apparently wouldn't have even in “Spider-Man 4,” so it fell upon the reboot to handle it. Rhys Ifans steps into the part of Dr. Connors, leaning a little too hard into the sinister intent but otherwise doing fine. But there's a problem. First off, the design of the Lizard is more David Icke than Marvel comics, which bugs me. Secondly, perhaps the script reveals why the Lizard had never been the main villain in any of the previous films. Dr. Connors' descent into full-blown villainy involves him wanting to turn everyone in New York into lizard people. He plans to do this via a heavily foreshadowed dispersal machine. He wants to this because he comes to believe reptiles are superior to humans in the most ham-fisted way possible. The decision to directly tie Connors' research in with Peter's origin further reveals the desperate measure the screenwriters have gone to in order to make this smaller scale, more personal threat into a bigger deal.

Ultimately, there are things I admire about “The Amazing Spider-Man.” The two leads are pretty good, despite the obvious loops the script sends them through. The direction is often slick. The action scenes are cool. It does course-correct some of the issues I had with “Spider-Man 2” and 3. However, the film makes so many weird choices in what it chooses to emphasize, resulting in a reboot desperate to be hip and cool but deeply misunderstanding why we find these characters interesting in the first place. [6/10]