A quick turn for 'Spider-Man'

A quick turn for 'Spider-Man'

July 6th, 2012 Michael Phillips/Chicago Tribune in Chattnow Movies

In this film image released by Sony Pictures, Andrew Garfield is shown in a scene from "The Amazing Spider-Man.

Photo by Associated Press/Times Free Press.

When a new actor slips on the Spandex for a superhero franchise reboot, we should notice. And we do with Andrew Garfield, who plays Peter Parker in director Marc Webb's "The Amazing Spider-Man."

Garfield, anchoring his first franchise outing, represents a significant change from Tobey Maguire, who played Parker/Spidey in the three "Spider-Man" films spanning the years 2002-2007. Maguire was wide-eyed astonishment cut with a blase comic delivery of the lighter material. Garfield by contrast is pure adolescent angst (though he's nearly 30), more openly emotional and James Dean-y. He's a rebel with a cause and ultralight ultra-thin metal cable shooting out of his wrists.

And he's very good. The nerve-racking duality of his character's situation - abruptly and mysteriously disappearing parents; a serious midfilm loss of a loved one; warring responsibilities as both ordinary citizen and extraordinary crimefighter - is all there in Garfield's face and body language. The Spider-Man guise gives this jangling bundle of loose ends a purpose and physical grace.

Director Webb, whose previous film was "(500) Days of Summer," has a clean-lined script that clears away the clutter of the last "Spider-Man" installment from '07. Here the storytelling carries the virtue of simplicity and a lack of camp. Peter squares off with the genetic expert associate (Rhys Ifans) of Peter's now-missing father (Campbell Scott). Dr. Connors, who gave up his right arm in the name of science, transforms into The Lizard, a character from the early '60s "Spider-Man" comics. Martin Sheen and Sally Field ease comfortably into the roles of Peter's aunt and uncle.

This is not a film of stunning set pieces. For better or worse - at the box office, that is - it's actually interested in character and, to some degree, to the degree the Marvel franchise machinery will allow, things like pacing and rhythm (though it feels a bit long). I'm not sure about the way the Lizard is handled here as a terrifying digital mini-zilla who periodically turns "The Amazing Spider-Man" into a full-on horror movie. But when he gets the chance, Ifans, a fine and subtle actor, works in the same confidential and privately suffering key as does Garfield.

Is the interest in a new "Spider-Man" sky-high? I'm speaking only for myself now: Not really. It has been only five years since Maguire gave up the modified wrestler's mask. (How Peter Parker gets the notion for his Spidey persona, specifically the headgear, becomes a clever addition to the new film.) Five years isn't long enough to miss a crimefighter. Similarly, it seems as if "Superman Returns" (2006) just came and went, and next year brings the arrival of the reboot "Man of Steel."

That's a lot of superheroic air traffic. Director Webb and Garfield can't do anything about that. All they can do is attempt to pull off the illusion that this is the first time we've seen this story. And, more or less, they have.