The Amazing Spider-Man

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 (15/07/2012)

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. (29/10/2012)

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. (27/06/2012)

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. (15/07/2015)

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? (17/11/2013)