The Amazing Spider-Man

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? (18/11/2013)

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)

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)

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. (22/07/2012)