When Sony announced at the beginning of last year that they were rebooting the Spider-man franchise I thought "Really?!". Then I thought some more and realised that the last two were dubious and I really didn't like Tobey Maquire, so why not?

I had my reservations, but Andrew Garfield is a far better Spider-Man than Maguire, but more importantly he is a better Peter Parker; he's a smartass but also has an unwavering conviction that he couldn't fight if he tried. Emma Stone is a better love interest with her Gwen Stacey, than Kirsten Dunst's Mary Jane; she never plays the damsel in distress. It may just be the character or just that I have a soft spot for Stone. Is it a better film? That will really depend on who you talk too.

The Amazing Spider-Man tells a far more interesting origin story than his previous outing, touching enough of the lore to hit the highlights without sacrificing time spent on drawing out the other characters and telling its own story.

The casting of Martin Sheen and Sally Fields as Uncle Ben and Aunt May was spot on. They were real people, not caricatures. We don't get "With great power comes great responcibilty" (spoiler?), we get the sentiment over a couple of scenes in a way that wasn't shoehorned in just to say the line; it felt like it could have been my Dad talking (that was a compliment Dad).

Rhys Ifans has some wonderful moments as Dr Curt Conners, the reflection scene from the trailer springs to mind. My real gripe would be that his descent isn't quite fully realised so his moment of redemption didn't hit like it should.

A minor role played by C. Thomas Howell is cleverly handled and serves as a insight into the cities thoughts of Spider-man through one man and the aid he lends felt really satisfying. I found Denis Leary, though brief, to be believable as both the Police Captain and as a father.

The big question of any Spider-man incarnation though is how does he move? Like a fucking Spider-man!!! Swinging looks great, the moments of POV tantalise and made me want more, but it's how he moves on a surface that out shines Maguire's Spider-Man. He is fluid, slick over a wall or ceiling, bounding effortlessly and it's just beautiful to watch. Yes it's a digital double for great lengths as before, and yes the technology has come a long way, but it's the choreography that sells it; there is rhyme and reason to his every movement.

Visually it is darker, glossier film than 2002's Spider-man which always felt a bit stuffy and it suits it well.

The ever dependable James Horner delivers a fantastically stirring score.

So is it a better film? I had a lot more fun than before and I can easily see myself watching it a few of times, where as I watched 2002's twice and was very much done. 2002's felt grander though, the parade sequence had a scope that the equivelent here doesn't have, but I don't think that was to its deteriment. The whole film feels more personal, it captures the same sorts of moments but you feel closer to them. It's a people story, rather than a superhero story and I liked that. The scene with Peter and his skateboard and the chains was magic. You find his power along with him in an organic manner, rather than 'stand on the roof and wait for him to figure out what we already know and throw a joke in'. When Maguire gets the shit kicked out of him I kind of thought good (actually I said it), where as here I really felt it.

...I think I've talked myself in to it, I prefer The Amazing Spider-Man, it's a more fun and enjoyable film.

Stay through the credits for a bit and you'll see a glimpse at a thread, briefly touched on during the film, in 2014's sequel.

Oh, and Stan Lee's cameo is one of the best yet!


Totally web-slung!

[6.3/10] There are plenty of good ideas in *The Amazing Spider-Man*. Coming a mere five years after the ignominious conclusion of Sam Raimi’s Web-Head trilogy, director Marc Webb had to tell a new Spidey story and differentiate it from the iconic take that came before. In that, the film largely succeeds.

Peter’s love interest is Gwen Stacy rather than Mary Jane, and she and Spidey not only get together, but share their superheroic secrets almost straight away. Her father, Captain Stacy, is a major character and secondary antagonist to Spider-Man, rather than a hastily-included afterthought. The movie focuses on Peter’s status as an orphan, and how the loss of that still weighs on him, even before his uncle’s death. And it throws in a heavy dose of conspiratorial intrigue, an element never present in the prior series of films.

In short, it’s different, palpably so. Say what you will about the movie, which does deign to retell and remix Spidey’s origin story once more, but it’s more than a recapitulation of the last, successful take on the character for the silver screen. And the big swings it takes are admirable.

They’re also nigh-incoherent. I wish I could tell you what this movie is about. Take it at a wide enough lens, and the answer is the same one it usually is for Spidey -- with great power comes great responsibility. (Only we have to rephrase it in a less elegant way and try to frame it in different terms so you don’t think we’re just reheating the 2002 *Spider-Man* film’s leftovers.) But the way *TASM* dramatize the idea is muddled at best.

Is the movie about a troubled kid finding their potential? Is it about a dangerous, forbidden romance? Is it about efforts to help gone awry? Is it about the harm keeping secrets can cause? Is it corporate malfeasance taken to an extreme? Is it small acts of kindness coming back to you in bigger ways?

I can’t tell you. All of these themes are present in *The Amazing Spider-Man* and, with better execution, that would be a feature not a bug. The problem is the movie tries to service all of these points, leaping wildly from one to the other like the webslinger himself, and comes off like a story and a film borne of a dilettante-written, script-by-committee approach.

That jubledness extends to the movie’s tone. At times, *TASM* is a story of a determined young man trying to exorcise the ghosts of his past by uncovering a shadowy conspiracy involving his mother and father. At times, it’s a kitchen sink drama about a troubled youth and his concerned surrogate parents trying to keep him out of trouble and on the right path. At times, it’s an off-the-shelf, big and bombastic cape flick extravaganza. And at times, it’s a story of two cool high-schoolers having a playful romance with one another. None of these tacks is outright bad exactly (Okay, the conspiracy business feels miscalibrated from the jump), but they never fit together comfortably.

Oddly enough it’s that last one, the peculiar courtship between Peter and Gwen, that is the film’s biggest strength. The great Scott Mendelson noted *TASM* as Sony’s answer to the *Twilight* films, which were then blowing up the box office. It shows, in direct ways like a similar “Telling you what I am” confessional scene between the romantic leads, and in the way the movie is as much fueled by investment in the relationship hurdles of the central couple as it is the grander supernatural threats.

It’s to the movie’s benefit. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone became a real life couple after their work together on these films, and their chemistry bears it out. There's bits and pieces of twee, mumbly courtship which feel of a piece with Webb’s prior work on *500 Days of Summer*. But despite the of-its-time way their flirtation and affections are presented, the playfulness, passion, and potency of their connection shines through despite the film’s many structural or tonal problems, which is a good thing considering it’s one of the cornerstones of the film. The casting directors struck gold with Stone and Garfield, and it elevates the material they’re given.

To the point, whatever problems with plot and tone *The Amazing Spider-Man* has, its main cast features a bevy of future and former Oscar contenders who bring more gravitas to the script than it could necessarily earn. Martin Sheen injects a working class earnestness into Uncle Ben. The film’s Aunt May is underserved, but Sally Field’s performance creates the illusion of more shading for the character than is really there. And Denis Leary, the least decorated among the film’s main cast, absolutely nails the role of Captain Stacy, giving him a caustic edge that makes him work as a foil for both Peter and Spider-Man, with a kindness and devotion that makes him more complicated in his opposition.

The pieces are there, at least in terms of the major players. *TASM* just can’t figure out how to use them to their highest potential, something ironic given the film’s themes (or one of them at least). Part of the problem is that, in contrast to the emotional but still very heightened reality of the Raimi films, Webb and company aim for something more grounded here. But while that works for Parkers’ domestic strife and the compelling romantic entanglement of loving a young woman whose father hates both of your guises, it’s a poor fit for the laughable hints and machinations of a vast conspiracy or the gigantic lizard rampaging through the city.

More than that, there's very little levity to the film. Peter and Gwen’s patter is cute and endearing. Uncle Ben gets one funny line about being his nephew’s probation officer. Stan Lee’s cameo as an oblivious librarian in the middle of a superpowered fight is a big laugh. And Spidey himself gets to have a little fun when toying with a carjacker. Those handful of exceptions aside, though, *The Amazing Spider-Man* is an unexpectedly dour film, very severe and serious, with little of the sense of fun or enervating bent the title character is known for.

This is also, very importantly, the Cool Spider-Man:tm:. Gone is the paradigmatic nerd-turned-buffster. In his place is a dude with elegantly disheveled hair, who mumbles sometimes, and seems like a misunderstood but soulful misfit more than a geek, and has skateboarding montages where he does parkour in an abandoned warehouse set to Coldplay songs. It’s a valid take on the character, but one that feels dissonant and jarring from Spidey’s roots, and like a transparent effort to make the central figure of the franchise more hip and dreamy to teens watching the film ten years’ after Spidey’s prior cinematic debut. This movie doesn’t want you to enjoy it so much as it wants to impress you, and make you remark at how cool and of-the-moment its young adult stars are.

I can forgive that on the altar of cinema-goer wallet-chasing. What I can’t forgive is how utterly drab and ugly this film looks. Webb and company do a few flashy shots, but they tend to be out of step with whatever’s happening at the moment. So much of the movie has a dark, washed out palette that dulls the sense but contributes to that vague aura of seriousness the film aspires to. And the fine editing, choreography, composition, and animation that fueled Raimi’s contributions have been replaced with an utter hash when it comes to the action.

Some of that's just the awful-looking CGI. I don’t know how *TASM* manages to look worse than its predecessors from the same studio on that front, but boy does it. It’s obvious and immersion-breaking when Spider-Man is CGI. Key objects in the frame like buildings and cars don't pass the visual plausibility test. And the only thing worse than The Lizard’s ugly, unremarkable design is the unconvincing way he’s placed into the “real world” of the film. He moves with no proper weight, and seems utterly out of place in almost every scene.

But maybe that's appropriate, given what a waste of a character he is here. Rhys Ifans is fine in the dual role of The Lizard/Curt Connors. Yet, he’s reduced to a combination of bog standard monologues, over-the-top paroxysms, and an array of snarls and growls. Connors’ motivations and character work are inconsistent and occluded. He’s yet another character in a Spider-Man film who seems like a fairly normal, if somewhat out of the ordinary, man, who turns capital-C crazy and evil when some random sciencey thing happens. The film aims for a sense of tragedy with him, but he’s the least interesting, most poorly developed part of the proceedings, which is no small achievement.

Despite that, I admire some of *TASM*’s big shots. Nothing comes of it, but leaning into Peter’s lingering pain over losing his parents is a worthwhile tack that Garfield makes a meal out of. Bringing Gwen over the wall on Peter’s alter ego right away makes for a compelling dynamic between them from the jump, with Gwen’s anxieties over already knowing how each day her dad leaves for work at the precinct, he might not come home coming to the fore. And those fears are commendably played out, with Captain Stacy recognizing the good in what Peter is doing, but making him promise not to involve his daughter in it, as a dying wish to the young man.

There's meat to all of this. *The Amazing Spider-Man* simply never seems to know how to cook it, or for how long. It’s a grab bag of ideas -- some well worth it, some that should have been left in the scrap heap -- that never quite go together. There's enough to build on in Peter’s relations with the Stacys alone, and in his complicated adolescence and home life.

But in the years that have passed, since the film’s debut, it’s become the forgotten middle child of the Web-Head’s cinematic adventures. And revisiting the movie, it’s easier to see why. Whatever the film’s laudable aims, it never commits to one solid idea, one core animation notion, that could justify its existence so soon after the last web-slinger flick and lodge itself in the memories of fans and skeptics. It is, instead, like the film’s protagonist himself: pulled in too many directions, trying to do too much, and not succeeding at nearly enough to feel good about it.

Part 4 (of 8) of my Spider-Man movie re-watch marathon in preparation for No Way Home. Once again, I'm not going to update my original score for this movie (7/10) based on this viewing.

**THE BAD:** At release, this film was criticized for being too rapid of a reboot, coming only five years after Tobey Maguire's last outing. Personally, I don't think that should be held against it, as it's kind of a meta criticism, but I will say, having just marathoned Sam Raimi's trilogy, I definitely understand where the criticism is coming from. I think the big issue is the origin story. While the movie tries to shake things up, all of the main ingredients are identical (Oscorp, spider bite, Uncle Ben, etc.). And unfortunately, some of the new elements don't exactly land. The overly ambitious attempt to tie Peter's parents to the plot through some larger conspiracy feels misguided at best. This is especially true nine years post, when we know that all of this ambitious world-building doesn't culminate in anything, having been scuttled due to the less than record breaking, and in fact diminishing box office returns of Amazing Spider-Man 1 & 2. While most of the intentional cheesiness of the Sam Raimi films has been jettisoned, there are still some eye-rolling scenes (e.g. the crane operators saving the day near the finale). The main villain is underwhelming, especially compared to Willem Dafoe's Green Goblin. Peter's whiplash change of heart at the end is pretty bad, going from [spoiler]"I promised your dead dad I would stay away from you to keep you safe" to "lol, jk" in less than 4 minutes[/spoiler].

**THE GOOD:** Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone are a nice change of pace over Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst. They both just seem to be having fun, which helps sell the characters and the moments of humor. On the character side, the Peter/Gwen relationship is much more palatable than the strange and messy Peter/MJ relationship we saw before. The quick reveal of Peter's secret identity also helps avoid treading the same boring ground. The non-organic web-shooters are appreciated, as are the creative uses incorporated into the action sequences. The web-swinging is top notch.

This was the first movie I bought on Blu Ray (yes, I stuck to my old DVD player as long as possible).

I recently rewatched the movie, because of the new "No Way Home" Trailer and I still enjoy it immensely.

And I know some people think it’s blasphemy to say this, but I prefer this one by miles over the Raimi Spider-Man.

As someone who grew up on the comics and 90s animated show, Tobey Maguire never captured Peter Parker for me, Andrew Garfield however was a huge step up.

Was he perfect? No (we wouldn’t get a perfect live action adaptation until Tom Holland) but he captured the essence of Spider-Man so well and was funny and likeable while still managing to be slightly awkward. I also bought the "mad genius" aspect way more here, because his Peter is actually shown to be smart and innovative (show don’t tell, people). Also, thank God the organic web shooters are gone.

I get the criticism of Garfield‘s Parker being too "hypsterish“ or more of a "cool skater dude" than the nerdy underdog, but for the film it worked. And more than that, he made for an excellent Spider-Man. He had fun as a superhero, taunted criminals and was embracing his new status instead of feeling tortured by it.

Andrew Garfield is also just overall a fantastic actor and always a joy to watch.

Speaking of casting, overall it’s excellent. Sally Field and Martin Sheen make for a likeable Aunt May and Uncle Ben duo and Rhys Ifans is good as Doctor Connors aks The Lizard.

I am not the biggest fan of the Lizard‘s design or that they went a bit copy and paste with the Green Goblin‘s split personality, but as a character he overall works just fine. Too bad they cut out the scene about his wife and daughter, which would have made his motivation a bit more personal and plausible.

One of the biggest treasures however is Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy. The Raimi trilogy put a lot of emphasis on the romance between Peter and Mary Jane, but unfortunately it ended up being a never ending melodrama without much chemistry. Here, the romance is suddenly one of the best and most intriguing aspects of the movie.

Stone and Garfield ooze chemistry and the courtship between Peter and Gwen is believable, awkward and sweet. It never feels overdone and it never takes over the plot too much.

There’s also the fact that Gwen is allowed to be a character outside of being a love interest. She is smart, she is interested in science, has her own connection to Connors and is the person responsible for the lizard antidote that saves the day. It was also a genius move to have Peter tell her right away about being Spider-Man to avoid all the boring and cliched secret identity hijinks.

The action scenes are well done as well and I especially appreciate Garfield‘s movements as Spider-Man.

I also have such a soft spot for the crane scene, as cheesy as it might be.

The movie also still has my favorite Stan Lee cameo.

What probably bring it down a bit, and that’s something the MCU thankfully avoided, is that we have seen a lot parts of this origin story as well and some aspects feel like "been there done that." The biggest hook of the film is "the untold story" aspect, involving a mystery surrounding Peter’s parents and their connection to Oscorp, but that mostly just stays as a sequel hook and nothing more.

Webb's Spider-Man, Spider-Man, does what ever a Spider can.

The Amazing Spider-Man is directed by Marc Webb and collectively written by James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent and Steve Kloves. It stars Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, Denis Leary, Martin Sheen and Sally Field. Music is by James Horner and cinematography by John Schwartzman.

Peter Parker (Garfield) was orphaned as a boy when his parents were killed in a plane crash, raised by his Uncle Ben (Sheen) and Aunt May (Field), he is a clever lad but something of an outcast at high school. While investigating the disappearance of his parents and sporting a crush on class mate Gwen Stacy (Stone), Peter's life is tipped upside down when he is bitten by a radioactive spider that gives him abnormal powers.

While the Spider-Man franchise doesn't (thankfully) come packaged with the kind of bizarre mania that comes with Batman, the acolytes are a tough bunch to figure out. Sam Raimi's trilogy garnered close towards $2.5 billion worldwide, yet now, with this reboot (actually it's a reimaging) trundled off of the Sony production line, there are plenty of "fans" coming forward to say they never rated Raimi's films! Magurie was this, Dunst was that, Raimi missed the beat of the comic version of Spidey and etc and etc. Well I'm sorry, but I just don't remember any fall out apart from the near unanimously agreed upon over stuffing of Raimi's part 3. Perhaps I just didn't go on the right Spider-Man forums? But even then it's hard to argue with a box office take of $2.5 billion, those figures have to be made up of a good proportion of Spidey fans, surely? You would reasonably think.

I mention it because The Amazing Spider-Man has met with reviews from each end of the scale. Those at the high end who support the "reimaging" seem to focus on it being close to the real Spidey universe they wanted, with great casting, better effects work and a origin story of worth. At the other end is the arguments that "reimaging" a film that is only ten years old is daft, especially since it actually doesn't bring the promised new direction or origin story of worth. In fact it just juggles bits of the Raimi trilogy and plays it out with other Spider-Man characters instead. While Garfield is hardly an improvement since he's way too old for high school as well! The truth is that Webb's movie falls somewhere in between both sides of the argument, and that's not just me being Switzerland and staying neutral!

Negatively it plays out as a compromised production and not the film that the makers initially set out to make, there are too many dangling threads and haphazard edits that leave narrative gaps. An Important character disappears off the radar, other characters are given limited time to breathe, and crucial plot points are arrived at with stupendous leaps of logic. A coda spliced into the end credits tries to entice us for the sequel, suggesting that the quick wipe over the origin "origin" story was deliberate, it's unlikely, and feels like an afterthought. For a film that purports to be putting its own stamp on the Spidey universe, it quite often makes you think of Raimi's films anyway. It may be The Lizard instead of Green Goblin and Gwen instead of MJ, but the emotional and psychological beats are still the same. Reboot? My arse. Oh and Horner, who I'm normally a fan of, has turned in a score that lacks vim and vigour, it aspires to be full of swirling superhero fervour to raise the goose flesh on your arms, but instead it's just goose, and not a decently cooked one at that.

However, on the positive side of things, low expectation really helped me to enjoy the film, and I even watched it a second time to check over some initial reactions I had. There is still a lot to enjoy here. Acting is of a high standard (Ifans' performance as Curt Connors gets better on repeat viewings), with good chemistry generated between Stone and Garfield, the effects work is (obviously) better ten years on; something which gives us a better-more acrobatic-moving Spider-Man, while the whole make-up of Parker as a geek who becomes cocky, even arrogant, really adds a kick to the first half of the movie's coming-of-age narrative bent. It's also good that with a running time of over two hours the makers have the time to expand Peter as a character, making the audience wait with expectation of his life changing date with the spider. As for the villain, it's true enough to say that The Lizard is hardly an inspiring choice, but it does fit in with the whole origin story plan that Webb and his team want to tell. Though it should be noted that those seeking wall to wall fights between Spidey and The Liz are going to go a little hungry.

It's big on human story and not the lazy cash in movie it could have been, and undeniably it's fun, but the holes, dangling threads and logic leaps stop it breaking out to achieve its intentions. Looking forward to the sequel, mind 7/10