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)

The Amazing Spider-Man is fine (actually, I liked it more than the ones by Raimi – though I’m not entirely sure, I hardly remember them), but it’s a real shame that it doesn’t try go any further (an not only it doesn’t try, it even ignores what it has right under its nose, e.g. the guilt for the death of the uncle). Basically, it’s your typical bland super-hero origin story that it’s pulled up by the likeable guy in the main role. In contrast, the Lizard is the least charismatic villain since the evil cosmic cloud in Green Lantern. In short, a nice but in no way exceptional comic-book routine that’s also very painfully edited or re-written – the haphazard / jumpy / shallow way it delivers some of the twists and reveals (Peter’s discovery of the identity of the Lizard, his coming to terms with the death of his uncle, the change in the behaviour of Flash, etc., etc.) is almost amazing. 7/10 (07/15/2012)

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)

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? (11/17/2013)

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 that he could hardly win. Ten years after the universally popular film that first introduced us to the spider on the big screen, the restart is such a risky step that its more than solid box office revenues shocked me in advance. However, despite lukewarm critical reviews, for me, The Amazing Spider-Man is more comic book-like, playful, and I have to say, also slightly better than the original Raimi's vision, although I also like that one. Some complain about Peter/Spidey's clumsiness and the fact that Tobey Maguire was a smiling friend in adversity, while Andrew Garfield boldly cracks jokes and fights with puberty. However, that's exactly how the main comic book hero or my favorite animated series hero should 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 exactly for this acting position. It is even more regrettable that I can't say the same about 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 one of the more routine Spider-Man villains, for some reason, I can watch this movie anytime. It simply has a specific mood that is irresistible, even though it doesn't ultimately live up to being one of the best comic book attempts, as I thought after the 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. (07/17/2012)

It's a very weak affair. The retold story of a nerdy kid who loses his uncle and realizes that with great power comes great responsibility... I'd rather watch a sequel to the Kirsten Dunst trilogy. (01/05/2017)

I hoped that after the new Batman episodes and the reboot of the series, whose old episodes are basically forgotten or, at best, set aside, filmmakers had finally understood how to adapt comics. Unfortunately, they did not. While Spiderman could have similar attributes to the torn hero Bruce Wayne, there is a difference. Unlike the millionaire, we have a simple guy who has his own problems with identifying with his alter ego. But there is a complete lack of fatefulness and the further you go into the film, the more you can feel the flaws from previous episodes: sentimentality, righteousness, last-minute help, the transformation from a bad boy to a good boy, a caring aunt and a proper uncle – by the way, Martin Sheen is excellent. Ladies and gentlemen, it's boring. The action is decent, the first-person shots are innovative (otherwise, the technical aspect is hardly distinguishable from the older films), but there is no deeper meaning, no thrilling scenes. The film works best (intentionally?) as a story of two teenagers getting to know each other – the chemistry between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone is captivating. I expected more, but the only reboot is maybe only from a commercial perspective. (07/21/2012)

I watched it for the second time today, and it's so much better... I'm gawking. Most of the complaints I had are gone. In fact, all that's left is the Lizard's eye-popping digitality and the deadly serious (and therefore ridiculous) crane scene, but otherwise everything is in place in this comic book film. Horner's music is perfectly delightful, but it's a pity that the second film is not going to have it (this is truly a really stupid custom). (07/13/2013)

In the end, the gulf between Webb and Raimi wasn't as wide as I first feared. Sam Raimi is of course a class above Marc Webb as a director, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Webb couldn't make a good and at times quite funny film about my favorite superhero. It's admittedly a bit more juvenile than Raimi's first, but Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker the 2nd doesn't have many flaws – indeed, I found myself at times perhaps even liking him more than the overly geeky Tobey. Two hours ago, I wouldn't have believed I'd be so hungry for more. Oh, and the greater involvement of the "new Mary Jane" as a "supporting superhero girl" wasn't bad at all. (01/11/2014)