The Amazing Spider-man?

Spiderman reborn.

Hype, so much hype has been around the return of your friendly neighbour Spiderman to the big screen that I couldn't help taking a look at it. Mixed critics are not only found at IMDB, but in the whole virtual world of the internet and beyond. Was it really necesary to reboot Sam Raimi's Spiderman trilogy? and, Is it fair to compare the new Spiderman movie with Raimi's trilogy in the first place?

I've been a fan of Spiderman since childhood (haven't we all?)  In fact, Spiderman has been  an iconic Marvel Comics character for ages so  enjoying Spiderman 1, 2 and 3; almost felt like a natural thing for comic book lovers. Of course, opinions about which Raimi movie was the better may vary.

So despite the little time that has gone by since Spiderman III (merely 5 years) the industry delivers a refreshing new take on the Amazing Spiderman. Why not? why do we have to settle for the Sam Raimi trilogy as the ultimate Spiderman filmographic document? why do we even have to compare the new rendition to the past ones? If that was a rule, maybe, but it isn't, and one thing we're not at [Spam]-Alternative is being the unique bearers of universal truth. I was more eager to seeing this flick, because this movie was rebooting the Spiderman franchise promising the "untold spiderman story". Unfortunately, it turned out to be a big disappointment. Bad script, confused and weak characters, bad direction and bad editing are some of the major flaws. Story was too bland, no spice, no excitement.

I'm back! I mean, I'm reborn!

What's not to like about The Amazing Spiderman

The important scenes where Peter gets bitten or hones his skills or makes his suit have been hurried and short, while the irrelevant scenes have been dragged. Why?

Spiderman gets beaten, defeated, injured repeatedly. In fact, the audience was laughing hard on the repeated scenes of him coming home all thrashed and bruised and his aunt talking to him about it. He keeps removing his mask for just anybody and that's not very Spiderman-like, I mean you're a hero, aren't you supposed to have a secret identity? Did the producers try  to repeat Jon Favreu's Ironman style?

Most action scenes were non-thrilling. In a scene where Spiderman rescues a boy from a falling and burning car, he wastes almost 5 minutes trying to convince Jack (the boy) to be brave, climb up and hold his hand. He even gives the boy his mask, but the boy doesn't follow him. So in the end he has to throw his spider-thread to pull Jack up. He could have done that already and spared us of that boredom.

It was just an example. Most encounters between the lizard-man and Spiderman were equally boring, dragged and nonsensical.

There were a lot of loose ends and missing links in the story. Like the story of Peter's parents was never shown, but the characters kept mentioning it. Dr. Ratha talks about some Mr. Osbourne, but neither the man nor his story was shown. Maybe they're keeping it for the sequel, but the confusion totally spoiled this movie. A lot of inconsistencies were there too. Sometimes things stick to Peter's hands and break by little force, sometimes they don't.

The romance between Peter/Spiderman and Gwen looked lukewarm and forced. The scene where the burglar kills Peter's uncle looked awkward and disconnected like many other scenes.

Andrew Garfield didn't look much convincing either as nerdy Peter Parker or as Spiderman. He was good in The Social Network but a disappointment in this movie. In many body-close-up shots he was bending forward apparently to hide his penis-line from showing in the tight-suit. That made the already weak Spiderman look even weaker. Since when have Hollywood actors become this bashful?

Been caught stealing.

What's to like about The Amazing Spiderman

The Amazing Spider-Man begins with Peter Parker in high school. Though an amateur photographer, Peter's main interest is science - and he bluffs his way into an audience with his deceased father's ex-partner Dr Curt Connors. After impressing Connors with his knowledge of cross- species genetics, Peter enters a classified area and is bitten by a mutated spider. As his powers and secret identity develop, so too does his relationship with Connors protégé, and Parker's classmate, Gwen Stacey. But when the desperate Connors attempts to fight his personal weaknesses using the same untested method, he undergoes a more disastrous transformation into "The Lizard", a creature with a twisted view of how best to 'cure' humanity.

The Amazing Spider-Man's origin story is undoubtedly an improvement on Raimi's Spider-Man, a decade prior. The characterisation is a lot more realistic, which makes it easier for the audience to feel Parker's teenage pain, awkwardness and ultimate escapism when he dons the guise of Spider-Man. Emma Stone's Gwen Stacey is also a welcome replacement for Mary-Jane, who's sole purpose in Raimi's films was either to moan or scream. Stacey by contrast, is an intelligent character in her own right, who doesn't shy away from getting her hands dirty when Spider- Man's in trouble. 

Killer Cro...I mean, The Lizard.

The truly wonderful thing about the movie is, the lame humor of the past is gone. There isn't a Russian landlord chasing Peter for rent. And Peter doesn't feel like a whiny, little girl like Tobey portrayed him. For instance in those movies, in all three he screamed like a girl when hit.

The Spiderman suit keeps the classic colours from the original design from the comic book. It has minor updates that make it look more like some kind of fabric body suit and the boots are a weird crossover among a pair of sneakers and average boots. I liked the eyes of the mask, they reminded me of vintage Spiderman comic books.

Spidey likes to go wall climbing in his spare time.

The story was solid, but not strong. They had it in the right direction, but I think they needed to build on a few things. I didn't buy the main plot of the Lizard. OK..whatever but I was thinking...really? The story was still good enough to be called good and by far the best of the Spidey movies.

Fight scenes, Spidey web slinging through the air, and the CGI all great. No complaints there.

Love.

The chemistry between Peter and Gwen, they have what Tobey and Kirsten Dunst did not have. They need to seriously expand on that in the next movie. The man is what drives the hero. They need to get the balance right, and they need to develop his relationships a bit more.

Emma Stone in the mood for some cock.

Peter Parker's new family.

Overall, The Amazing Spiderman is just another movie that won't live up to the extent of its hype, it won't be a cult film and perhaps, we won't be talking about it in a couple of weeks. I had huge expectations from this movie. I had thought andrew would suck and I was kind of right, I just can't help thinking of him as some sort of teen pop idol that lacks everything a teen pop idol lacks: real talent.

The story is pretty different from the previous spiderman movies. However, the first half is similar to the first half an hour of spiderman 1! yes, it is that boring! Andrew Garfield has done a pretty good job, but his dialogue delivery is kinda sad. I was really impressed by Emma Stone. she looks pretty and has a don't-mess-with-me attitude,which is crucial for her character.

This nude Gwen Stacy is the reason why spidey takes pictures.

I found myself looking at my watch for almost most of the first half. The story, however, picks up in the second half with the advent of the lizard. The 3-D was mediocre, almost useless. I seem to believe that the 3D tech is thought to be a film quality enhancer, yet it is the other way round for most of the films that continue to use this technology as if stating "in 3D" certified something.

The film industry is definitely getting used to release any sort of crap without thinking about the key elements that make a movie, a good movie. The Amazing Spiderman feels like a made for TV movie, not a big screen experience. a Pity.

Anyways here's the movie trailer: