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)

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)

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. (21/07/2012)

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)