The Amazing Spider-Man

Why didn’t they shoot this movie first? And why do they even shoot movies like this? Marvel wants to squeeze as much as possible out of Spider-Man and so they’re reviving the trilogy with completely fresh faces, new characters and new villains. In any case, I have to congratulate the authors. I like Spider-Man. I actually watched it when I was a kid. So it’s really surprising to me that this Spider-Man is much closer to the original character than the one in Raimi’s trilogy. They view the entirety of Spider-Man’s character in a different light. It’s more in-depth and more according to the comic original. Actually, it’s overall way more like I’ve always wanted. I don’t even know why they shot the previous trilogy the way they did. I don’t like these reboots, but I have to say that this one was a downright joy.  Somebody tried really hard this time. It’s most evident when it comes to the casting. Garfield and Stone were an awesome choice. Especially Emma. She’s such a pretty face that I could just watch her forever and I’d never get sick of her. But Rhys Ifans, Martin Sheen or Denis Leary are also great. This mix of actors really did the trick in this movie. When did they say the sequel was coming out? (11/18/2013)

The high school introduction reminds us where Webb's roots are and with them the solid ground beneath his feet. The moment Peter Parker becomes Spider-Man, the creative cluelessness is on full display. It doesn't work in regard to the catchphrases, and motivations, and especially not in the action, which may have squeezed a lot of processor cores, but the virtual camera can fly all it wants - there's not one bit of real physicality in there. The fact that the crane operators work well in the film is just the bizarre icing on this overblown yet perfectly empty cake. (07/15/2015)

Sam, Mark Webb can’t hold a candle to you. Under Raimi, Spider-Man was better in every sense: funnier, more imaginative, livelier. Parker's becoming acquainted with his new abilities was rendered much more inventively, while Webb dispatches him with one awkward scene on the subway and a skateboard romp. In the second half, the all-too-new Spider-Man gets tangled with a digital lizard and has nothing more to offer. I won't even elaborate on the fact that the action scenes have no charge and are sometimes strangely edited. And the stars? Tobey Maguire was such a nice guy next door, a good friend with whom you'd go for a beer (well, in his case more like a glass of Kofola), while Garfield is just a grinning and weakly wisecracking brat. Summary: a pointless reboot. (10/25/2012)

This time the climbing hero chose a battle he could hardly win. Ten years after the universally popular film that first introduced us to the spider on the big screen, a reboot is such a risky step that its more than solid box office revenues had already shocked me beforehand. And yet despite the lukewarm critical reviews, for me, The Amazing Spider-Man is more comic book-like, playful, and indeed also slightly better than the original Sam Raimi vision, even though I like that one as well. Some people complain about Peter/Spidey's awkwardness and the fact that Tobey Maguire was a smiling friend in adversity, while Andrew Garfield boldly cracks jokes and struggles with puberty. But that's exactly how the main comic book hero and hero of my favorite animated series is supposed to be and that's how I want to see him. Outspoken and more unrestrained. The boy next door who sometimes has a big problem being Aunt May's nephew, whom she needs. And it must be said that Garfield was born for this role. It is all that much more regrettable that I can't say the same for Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy. In her portrayal, Gwen is not Gwen, but just any one of Emma's witty roles, like in Easy A. The chemistry of the main duo works, and it works great, but she herself does not fit into this universe. Despite having one of the more everyday Spider-Man villains, for some reason, I can watch this movie anytime. It simply has a specific mood that is irresistible, even if it ultimately fails to live up to being one of the best comic book efforts, as I concluded after a second viewing. (10/29/2012)

I like this different approach to Spider-Man, I’m content too with Webb’s directing focused on the arachnid’s more human side. Unlike Rami’s Spidey, this picture is much closer to how I imagined an adaptation of Spider-Man. But in the end, we are left with a pretty miserable screenplay and a pretty soft villain. The reptilian has better potential and he isn’t as well-handled in terms of special effects. Garfield plays superbly and he and Emma Stone get on like a house on fire. In terms of story, it is obvious that this is just the first part of a trilogy, questions about his parents are just lightly touched upon. So let’s see where the next part takes us. By the way, Horner’s music is way off. It doesn’t suit this picture at all and reminds me too much of Avatar. (07/18/2012)