The Amazing Spider-Man

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. (10/24/2012)

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. (07/17/2012)

The main motto of Spider-Man, “With great power comes great responsibility”, was stretched out over the entire film. Fulfilling this concept brings greater satisfaction to both the protagonist and the viewer than a battle between a spider and a lizard on the streets of New York. The new Spider-Man is for the most part a (well-directed) high school comedy about the troubles of growing up, in which a spider bite serves primarily as an accelerator of hormonal development. The attempt to combine the school and superhero aspects comes across as half-baked (the scene of intoxication after the first date with Gwen is excellent, for example) not because of the believably shy Garfield, but because of the matter-of-factness with which the other characters – e.g. the dream girl and the school bully – accept him in his new role. As in other recent comic-book adaptations, The Amazing Spider-Man is most entertaining in the moments when the traditional hero concept is called into question in various ways. It goes even farther in this regard than those other films, as the nerdy protagonist plays with the bad guys rather than terrifying them (like Batman), and until the moment of his awakening, he plays solely for fun, with a similar light-heartedness as if he were playing a video game (probably Mirror’s Edge). The needlessly drawn-out final third replaces the model of the irresponsible boy with that of a man who takes responsibility, which surprisingly is weighed down with pathos as could be expected, though we can wonder how seriously Webb intended some of the scenes with subversive potential (e.g. the eggs). Thanks to the connection between Peter, seeking a surrogate father figure, to the other male characters (his uncle, Gwen’s father and, at first, Dr. Connors), the transformation is unabridged and psychologically comprehensible, with the only digression from it being the “sunny” shot before the credits, which at most is understandable from the commercial perspective. Like its protagonist, The Amazing Spider-Man is somewhat inconsistent and slightly comic-bookish, and a bit (more) of a romantic comedy, but – like the protagonist – it is likable in that it doesn’t show off too much, has a sense of humour and doesn’t make an epic tragedy out of the fact that one crackpot scientist decided to give backward humanity a bit of an upgrade. 70% (07/12/2012)

It was supposed to be called Charming Spiderman. If, in connection with The Avengers, I developed the theory of a lack of conflict between comic books, then Webb raises the bar. It's a pubescent, developed, cheeky and sometimes pleasantly self-ironic ride, which does not completely fit (especially the combination of the almost sitcom stuttering scenes and superhero action), but it entertains from start to finish. If Spidey has any added value, it is straightforwardness, fresh self-irony and pure pleasure that gush from both Garfield's hormonally tumultuous performances (it's a pity that she is killed by Czech dubbing) and from an angry and joyfully eclectic directing solution. With all its playfulness, Amazing Spiderman doesn't pretend to be anything, doesn't wrinkle its forehead and breaks down even those lines where Raimi solved problems (puberty, responsibility, guilt, etc.). But this spider just jumps on roofs and doesn't reason much. Although it once again doesn't have a proper story and actually only reopens the familiar universe, the real spider's giddiness is there. More pure genre fun than a reevaluation of The Avengers. (06/27/2012)

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)