The Amazing Spider-Man

With the success of the first X-Men movie in 2000, Bryan Singer pretty much paved the way for all the comic book movies we see today. That included a certain super hero movie made by Sami Rami in 2002 where a nerdy guy (Tobey Maguire) gets bitten by a radioactive spider and inherits superhuman powers. If Singer had paved the way, then Rami provided the icing on the cake: a faithful, smart, well-acted super hero flick that had as much heart and sincerity packed in as it had all those set pieces. It also lead to a superior sequel and the much maligned, though underrated, third episode.

Which brings us to what we have here: while not a beat for beat remake, you get the same story more or less with a different love interest and villain. Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) sneaks into a research facility and gets bitten by a radioactive/genetically enhanced spider. He gets super powers and becomes Spider-Man. Meanwhile, a doctor (Rhys Ifans) working at the same facility, is being forced to close down his research into tissue regeneration. In desperation, he injects himself with an untested self-generating lizard vaccine and becomes… a half man/half lizard thing. Spider-Man is then forced into action to stop him from spreading this contagion throughout the city of New York. Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) is the damsel in distress/love interest and plays a role in trying to stop the crazed beast.

First things first: this is not a bad film. It's well acted by all the principals, has good effects, a scary and menacing villain, some nice action sequences and web swinging effects that are generally slightly more realistic than the Rami version. Parker is more evidently scientific and intelligent here. Also the police's notion that Spider-Man is a menace to the public is more clearly defined, especially in the scene where he disarms an officer. The new idea is that Parker can hear the movements of spiders and it's a good addition. So where does it all go wrong? The short answer: it's just that it's so… pointless.

We had already seen the story before. There was absolutely no reason to tell it again. This movie could easily have been Spider-Man 4 with Andrew Garfield filling in the Spidey spandex instead of Tobey Maguire. But Marvel – in their infinite wisdom – just chose to tell the same story a second time. Going by that rationale, presumably Andrew Garfield will be cast aside like a disused sock when they inevitably choose to 'reboot' the franchise again in ten years or so. It is a scarily unimaginative tactic and it is one they will continue to do until there is a massive financial failure.

This movie follows the same set up as the 2002 version: Parker being picked on, getting advice from his sage-like uncle (Martin Sheen), being bitten, getting his powers/climbing walls, and turning his back on a situation which unfortunately has tragic consequences for a family member. It's all a case of been there, done that. If you want to compare it to the Rami original, then the short answer is; as good as Andrew Garfield is, Tobey Maguire was better. Maguire filled the suit better; on occasion, Garfield is prone to looking thin and scrawny during several scenes. Even the suit looked better in the Rami movies. And those earlier movies had a heart and sincerity – especially in the relationship between Peter and his aunt and uncle that you don't see here. Again we ask: why does this movie exist?

And there are holes: there's a massive lizard running around, wreaking havoc; yet the police are more preoccupied with pointing their guns at Spider-Man – despite the fact that he saved a child in a (surprise, surprise) rehashed scene set on a bridge taken from Rami's first movie. In another part, the citizens of the city (once again - in a bit taken from Rami's movie) unite to help Spider-Man cross the city using tower cranes – despite the fact that there are buildings all around him. Heck, even the villain is initially a do-gooder like Norman Osborn and Dr. Octavius – again from the Rami movies.

It also seems to pull inspiration from another super hero movie: Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins (2005) in that it's slightly darker, tells such a large origin story that just like Batman Begins, Spider-Man doesn't actually show up on screen for the first hour. So if you take two parts Batman Begins and add a touch of Rami's Spider-Man, the result is what you have here. Additionally, the introduction of the web shooters, while being faithful to the original comics and emphasizing Parker's intellect, is a bit of a mixed blessing. The notion of the web being an organic material rather than being fired from mechanical devices actually made more sense.

It's not that reboots are a bad idea, they're not. In certain situations they can work well, provided for example, enough time has elapsed. But there is no point in retelling the same story if the initial release is still relatively recent. In addition, it helps if the story wasn't covered well the first time, or it was a bad movie to begin with. Going by this criteria, Marvel's latest cash cow is unnecessary on all three accounts.

In closing, if you haven't already seen the Rami movie from 2002, go watch it instead. If you have seen it, then this probably won't live up to it and you will be left feeling a little underwhelmed. It's fair to say that for anyone over the age of eighteen, this movie will seem rather half-hearted and senseless; for those under eighteen, this movie will probably be the greatest super hero flick ever. Yes, it's a movie that will divide opinions, primarily on the sole reason for its existence. Not a bad, or a badly made flick, by any means… just a pointless one.

Spider-Man is my favorite super-hero of all time. I've read the comics (mostly the Ultimate comics, but some of the 60's comics as well), played some of the video games, and watched the cartoons (The 1994 and 2008 series being some of my favorite animated shows of all time).

I enjoyed Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy (yes, even Spider-Man 3). When I heard that the series was being rebooted, I wasn't happy to hear about it. My expectations were neutral as time went by and when I walked out the theater, my expectations were blown away.

I don't want to compare this movie to the original trilogy, but I think it's necessary to see where this movie improved from the originals.

Let's start with the casting. Andrew Garfield is a great successor to Tobey Maguire. I can really relate to him like I always do with other incarnations of the web slinger. Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy is even better than Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane Watson. Gwen is a much stronger character and the chemistry between her and Garfield as Peter Parker is believable. Rhys Ifans is great as Doctor Connors (a.k.a. The Lizard) and I like how he is a "Jekyll and Hyde"-type of villain (kind of like a few other villains... yeah). Martin Sheen and Sally Field as Uncle Ben and Aunt May, respectively, are also great as well. All the characters are portrayed very well and are believable.

The visual effects and the action scenes are good as usual, but nothing new.

The musical score by James Horner is also great, although I prefer Danny Elfman's score in the original trilogy because they felt more memorable and left a lasting impression. But, who knows? James Horner's score may grow on me over time.

If I have to name some complaints, it would have to be that some parts were rushed (although it's a minor nitpick) as well as a couple of parts not evaluated much. I think an extended cut of the movie would be necessary when it's released on DVD, but that's just me.

Overall, "The Amazing Spider-Man" is a fresh new start on the franchise. It has superb acting, thrilling action scenes (especially the climax), an amazing score, and being faithful to the comics but at the same time taking liberties to make it more interesting. Best Spidey movie ever? It's too early to tell but maybe. It's definitely worth watching and I am looking forward to the sequel.

I must admit I wasn't expecting much from The Amazing Spiderman. I knew the special effects would be great, but I had my doubts whether Marc Webb would be able to add anything new and interesting to the Spiderman franchise, particularly since it has only been a few years since the Sam Raimi version was in theaters.

Well he did, and he didn't.

The casting of Andrew Garfield as Spiderman/Peter Parker was a great choice. Gone is the klutzy and nerdy Peter Parker played by Toby Maguire in the Sam Raimi version. In his place is a normal kid (although very intelligent), who while not being the most popular student at his school is not the class dork either.

This version of Spiderman also concentrates more on what happened to Peter's parents, and the effect that has had on him. The discovery by Peter of his father's suitcase and the ensuing investigation, is what leads him to becoming Spiderman. This investigation into his parents' disappearance will apparently be one of the common threads that will tie in future installments of Webb's Spiderman.

Gone also was The Daily Bugle, J Jonah Jameson and Mary Jane Watson, and although they will all return in The Amazing Spiderman 2, due out in 2014, I did miss the rantings of JJJ, portrayed so wonderfully well by J. K. Simmons in the previous version.

Marc Webb has instead used Gwen Stacey as Peter's love interest in his adaptation, played very service-ably by Emma Stone, and to be honest the chemistry between Stone and Garfield is much better than that between Toby Maguire and Kirsten Dunst, who played Spiderman and MJW respectively in the Sam Raimi films.

Denis Leary who is always good joins the cast as Gwenn's father – police Captain Stacey, and as is becoming a trend in super hero movies, big name actors are playing the parts of the hero's parents, or in this case uncle and aunt, with Sally Field and Martin Sheen taking on the roles of Aunt May and Uncle Ben. Both, as usual give very polished performances.

The excellent Rhys Ifans plays the one armed Dr Curt Conners, who used to work with Peter's father at Oscorp until he disappeared, and since then has been struggling to complete their work on cross species genetics on his own; unable to discover the final equation that will allow it to go forward.

Peter supplies Conners with the equation, and following pressure from his boss at Oscorp tests the formula on himself. Of course it has unintentional side effects, and as well as repairing his lost arm, turns him into a giant lizard who then wreaks havoc throughout New York; as well as trying to turn everyone else in the city into creatures like himself.

And the battle between Spiderman and the Lizard begins. As expected the special effects are great, and although I am not usually a fan of 3D, I highly recommend seeing The Amazing Spiderman in that format if possible, as the scenes of him swinging through New York are (no pun intended) amazing.

Marc Webb has done a fine job. There are holes in the script and story, but they are not that noticeable, and it can get a bit clichéd at times, but these things are to be expected in a big budget film such as this; however they can also be forgiven.

All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed The Amazing Spiderman, and am looking forward to the next installment of Marc Webb's version, which at this stage will see Jamie Foxx playing the villain Electro and is due out in 2014.

7.5 out of 10

This movie " The Amazing Spiderman, " has been way over-due. Ever since it's initial creation by Stan Lee (who makes his usual Cameo appearance), audiences have been hungrily awaiting this new addition. This time, Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) confronts a new and incredibly powerful super villain called, 'The Lizard'. Self created by a one armed scientist, named ( Rhys Ifans ) or Dr. Curt Connors, Spiderman unknowingly gives the fantastic formula to a desperate man who has been trying to invent a way for a human to re-generate a missing limb, without realizing the unfortunate side effects. From the beginning, the film has a dark, foreboding and sinister aspect, which pervades through the entire story. Indeed, this sequel returns to it's early history in that the audience is introduced to Parker's lost parents, as well as his present guardians superbly played by Martin Sheen (Who adds a bit of Panache to the movie and Sally Field. Furthermore, Parker is given a new girlfriend called Gwen Stacy and her father seriously played by Denis Leary. The movie itself is incredible, what with all new high flying action sequences, aerial effects and numerous exciting scenes. Although a bit heavy in using mostly nighttime exteriors, it does lend credence to Parker's equally somber state of mind. Over all, the film is grimly superior to earlier chapters and is therefore easily crafted to enthrall us. As a result, the cast and crew, have intentionally created a Classic in the process. Easily recommended to all. ****

So when I watched this movie for the first time (way after it had come out), I was under the impression that it was a pretty forgettable movie by the Marvel fandom and I just needed to watch it so I could understand what would happen in No Way Home. So I have it watch.

Honestly, it was better than what I thought it was, but definitely one of the weaker Spider-Man movies. There are things that don't work in this movie - personally, Peter Parker as a skate kid didn't do it for me, a couple unsolved plots, and Uncle Ben (where was the famous line??) but there were good things too

The action and design of this movie was phenomenal. The swinging action is still the only movie that fully captures the agility of Spider-Man (the newer MCU ones don't really have these action shots) and the fight scenes are so cleverly made. Andrew Garfield got the Spider-Man half right - he captured the clever and witty personality of Spider-Man better than Maguire did. The second thing, really what stood out about this movie is the chemistry between Gwen and Parker. Something about their relationship connected and really made me think they were destined to be together. It's better than any other marvel ship that comes to my mind and thus just made the ending so satisfying for me.