The Amazing Spider-Man

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)

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)

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)

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)