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. (24/10/2012)

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). (13/07/2013)

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)

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. (17/07/2012)

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% (12/07/2012)