I've just come from The Amazing Spider-Man 2. I liked it A LOT better than the first one, but I still have a lot of problems with it. I'll address those issues in detail in my formal review later this weekend, but for now I need to talk about how Raimi did it better.
Obviously I can't argue this point without talking a bit about the new films, so please be aware that I will be addressing some plot points from the new films, but I'll do my best to avoid anything too spoiler-filled.
First off, the tone. Raimi's Spider-Man nailed it right off the bat. Light, bright and fun. I've always heard some arguments that it's a little too cheesy and aimed too directly at a kid audience. I think it's a fair criticism, but I also believe Spider-Man was the first of its kind. This movie helped shape the superhero genre as we know it today. I know it's not the first superhero movie, but in terms of the level of blockbuster film making we've come to expect from the genre this movie paved the way, so I think Raimi earns a little bit of leeway here. Anyway, Raimi realizes immediately the ridiculousness of a teenager with spider like abilities and simply goes right over the top with it as only he can do.
For a movie over a decade old, some of the effects really don't hold up, like, at all, but still the infectious tone is what really helps it stand out.
The Amazing Spider-Man though, goes a darker route. It tries to present Spider-Man in a more realistic way, like The Dark Knight did with Batman. Problem is though, Spider-Man doesn't need that realism. Spider-Man enjoys his job as a crime fighter, which comes through with his sarcastic interactions with criminals as he's dealing with them, among other things.
And this is where a lot of my conflict over The Amazing Spider-Man comes in. I really like Tobey Maguire as Spider-Man. I like his overall boy scout innocence he brings to the character, as well as a believable physicality that's needed.
BUT.
Andrew Garfield is SO good as Spider-Man. I don't enjoy his Peter Parker as much in the first Amazing Spider-Man, but that's more of the script's fault than his. His snarky attitude while fighting criminals is so spot on it hurts. Not to mention, he FEELS like a teenager more so than Maguire ever did, making the responsibility he has to carry all the more impressive.
Ugh, and the chemistry between Garfield and Emma Stone is just too cute. I actually like Kirsten Dunst a lot as Mary Jane, but fuck, EMMA STONE.
I also will admit the tone of the The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is much more fun than the first, even though it's forced to follow a lot of the threads that made the first so frustrating, which again, I'll go through in my formal review later.
Anyway, The Amazing Spider-Man feels like a retread, mainly because it is. Did we need another origin story? No, but if it's done well, then who cares? Well, they didn't do it very well, not again at least.
Raimi keeps things short and simple. In his film, Peter's parents are dead. He's raised by his aunt and uncle and ends up being bitten by an engineered spider of some sort giving him his powers.
In the Amazing Spider-Man though, Peter's parents were on the run from something ( of which we still don't know, even after two films), dropped Peter off at their brothers, and were never heard from again. Then, while trying to figure out more information about his fathers research at his old work space, he gets bit by a spider that just so happened to be the subject of his fathers research. There is actually more information given in The Amazing Spider-Man 2 that makes this origin story even more convoluted than it already is, but I'll let you discover that on your own. Suffice it to say that I just couldn't buy it.
What I love about Raimi's first film though is that it gets to the point so fast and believably. Parker gets bitten and Osborne is set up as a villain within the first 15 minutes and it's all so simple and set up so wonderfully and confidently by Raimi that you can't help but get sucked in.
Even if you can't handle the cheesiness of the first Spider-Man, I feel like Raimi answers that with Spider-Man 2. That sequel still sports a very light and bright tone like the first, but Raimi raises the stakes with a villain that has actual purpose and motivation with Doc Ock. He believes Spider-Man is not only responsible for his wife's death, but that he cheated him out of creating the first renewable energy source the world has known.
The Amazing Spider-Man and its sequel just can't come up with a decent villain though. The Lizard in the first film just never felt convincing, acting more like a necessary plot point than an actual threat. In the second, and I feel this isn't too spoilery, Harry Osborne shows up as the Green Goblin. His reasons for hating Spider-Man really don't make sense. Again, I won't spoil it here since I know the film just came out, but Raimi did it better.
More specifically, the transition from Norman Osborne as the Green Goblin to Harry Osborne as the Goblin. Raimi took three films to make the transition, but the seed was planted in the first, with Harry believing that Spider-Man caused his fathers death. This good old fashion revenge motivation against Spider-Man is much more effective than Osborne's motivation in The Amazing Spider-Man 2.
Maybe this is my main complaint about this new version, we've seen it already, and we've seen it better. I enjoy Spider-Man as a character, and I like seeing him on screen, but to see basically the same story with the same characters within 5 movies and 12 years, I just want them to shake it up a bit.
To be fair, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 has a pretty intense ending (which I'm sure you can guess) and I have to admit I'm excited to see if they can build on the mild improvement they've already made from the first film. Still, I'm sitting here, beer in hand watching Raimi's first Spider-Man and I can't help but think, " Good luck".
