El Sorprendente Hombre-Araña

This movie " The Amazing Spiderman, " has been way over-due. Ever since it's initial creation by Stan Lee (who makes his usual Cameo appearance), audiences have been hungrily awaiting this new addition. This time, Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) confronts a new and incredibly powerful super villain called, 'The Lizard'. Self created by a one armed scientist, named ( Rhys Ifans ) or Dr. Curt Connors, Spiderman unknowingly gives the fantastic formula to a desperate man who has been trying to invent a way for a human to re-generate a missing limb, without realizing the unfortunate side effects. From the beginning, the film has a dark, foreboding and sinister aspect, which pervades through the entire story. Indeed, this sequel returns to it's early history in that the audience is introduced to Parker's lost parents, as well as his present guardians superbly played by Martin Sheen (Who adds a bit of Panache to the movie and Sally Field. Furthermore, Parker is given a new girlfriend called Gwen Stacy and her father seriously played by Denis Leary. The movie itself is incredible, what with all new high flying action sequences, aerial effects and numerous exciting scenes. Although a bit heavy in using mostly nighttime exteriors, it does lend credence to Parker's equally somber state of mind. Over all, the film is grimly superior to earlier chapters and is therefore easily crafted to enthrall us. As a result, the cast and crew, have intentionally created a Classic in the process. Easily recommended to all. ****

I must admit I wasn't expecting much from The Amazing Spiderman. I knew the special effects would be great, but I had my doubts whether Marc Webb would be able to add anything new and interesting to the Spiderman franchise, particularly since it has only been a few years since the Sam Raimi version was in theaters.

Well he did, and he didn't.

The casting of Andrew Garfield as Spiderman/Peter Parker was a great choice. Gone is the klutzy and nerdy Peter Parker played by Toby Maguire in the Sam Raimi version. In his place is a normal kid (although very intelligent), who while not being the most popular student at his school is not the class dork either.

This version of Spiderman also concentrates more on what happened to Peter's parents, and the effect that has had on him. The discovery by Peter of his father's suitcase and the ensuing investigation, is what leads him to becoming Spiderman. This investigation into his parents' disappearance will apparently be one of the common threads that will tie in future installments of Webb's Spiderman.

Gone also was The Daily Bugle, J Jonah Jameson and Mary Jane Watson, and although they will all return in The Amazing Spiderman 2, due out in 2014, I did miss the rantings of JJJ, portrayed so wonderfully well by J. K. Simmons in the previous version.

Marc Webb has instead used Gwen Stacey as Peter's love interest in his adaptation, played very service-ably by Emma Stone, and to be honest the chemistry between Stone and Garfield is much better than that between Toby Maguire and Kirsten Dunst, who played Spiderman and MJW respectively in the Sam Raimi films.

Denis Leary who is always good joins the cast as Gwenn's father – police Captain Stacey, and as is becoming a trend in super hero movies, big name actors are playing the parts of the hero's parents, or in this case uncle and aunt, with Sally Field and Martin Sheen taking on the roles of Aunt May and Uncle Ben. Both, as usual give very polished performances.

The excellent Rhys Ifans plays the one armed Dr Curt Conners, who used to work with Peter's father at Oscorp until he disappeared, and since then has been struggling to complete their work on cross species genetics on his own; unable to discover the final equation that will allow it to go forward.

Peter supplies Conners with the equation, and following pressure from his boss at Oscorp tests the formula on himself. Of course it has unintentional side effects, and as well as repairing his lost arm, turns him into a giant lizard who then wreaks havoc throughout New York; as well as trying to turn everyone else in the city into creatures like himself.

And the battle between Spiderman and the Lizard begins. As expected the special effects are great, and although I am not usually a fan of 3D, I highly recommend seeing The Amazing Spiderman in that format if possible, as the scenes of him swinging through New York are (no pun intended) amazing.

Marc Webb has done a fine job. There are holes in the script and story, but they are not that noticeable, and it can get a bit clichéd at times, but these things are to be expected in a big budget film such as this; however they can also be forgiven.

All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed The Amazing Spiderman, and am looking forward to the next installment of Marc Webb's version, which at this stage will see Jamie Foxx playing the villain Electro and is due out in 2014.

7.5 out of 10

With the success of the first X-Men movie in 2000, Bryan Singer pretty much paved the way for all the comic book movies we see today. That included a certain super hero movie made by Sami Rami in 2002 where a nerdy guy (Tobey Maguire) gets bitten by a radioactive spider and inherits superhuman powers. If Singer had paved the way, then Rami provided the icing on the cake: a faithful, smart, well-acted super hero flick that had as much heart and sincerity packed in as it had all those set pieces. It also lead to a superior sequel and the much maligned, though underrated, third episode.

Which brings us to what we have here: while not a beat for beat remake, you get the same story more or less with a different love interest and villain. Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) sneaks into a research facility and gets bitten by a radioactive/genetically enhanced spider. He gets super powers and becomes Spider-Man. Meanwhile, a doctor (Rhys Ifans) working at the same facility, is being forced to close down his research into tissue regeneration. In desperation, he injects himself with an untested self-generating lizard vaccine and becomes… a half man/half lizard thing. Spider-Man is then forced into action to stop him from spreading this contagion throughout the city of New York. Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) is the damsel in distress/love interest and plays a role in trying to stop the crazed beast.

First things first: this is not a bad film. It's well acted by all the principals, has good effects, a scary and menacing villain, some nice action sequences and web swinging effects that are generally slightly more realistic than the Rami version. Parker is more evidently scientific and intelligent here. Also the police's notion that Spider-Man is a menace to the public is more clearly defined, especially in the scene where he disarms an officer. The new idea is that Parker can hear the movements of spiders and it's a good addition. So where does it all go wrong? The short answer: it's just that it's so… pointless.

We had already seen the story before. There was absolutely no reason to tell it again. This movie could easily have been Spider-Man 4 with Andrew Garfield filling in the Spidey spandex instead of Tobey Maguire. But Marvel – in their infinite wisdom – just chose to tell the same story a second time. Going by that rationale, presumably Andrew Garfield will be cast aside like a disused sock when they inevitably choose to 'reboot' the franchise again in ten years or so. It is a scarily unimaginative tactic and it is one they will continue to do until there is a massive financial failure.

This movie follows the same set up as the 2002 version: Parker being picked on, getting advice from his sage-like uncle (Martin Sheen), being bitten, getting his powers/climbing walls, and turning his back on a situation which unfortunately has tragic consequences for a family member. It's all a case of been there, done that. If you want to compare it to the Rami original, then the short answer is; as good as Andrew Garfield is, Tobey Maguire was better. Maguire filled the suit better; on occasion, Garfield is prone to looking thin and scrawny during several scenes. Even the suit looked better in the Rami movies. And those earlier movies had a heart and sincerity – especially in the relationship between Peter and his aunt and uncle that you don't see here. Again we ask: why does this movie exist?

And there are holes: there's a massive lizard running around, wreaking havoc; yet the police are more preoccupied with pointing their guns at Spider-Man – despite the fact that he saved a child in a (surprise, surprise) rehashed scene set on a bridge taken from Rami's first movie. In another part, the citizens of the city (once again - in a bit taken from Rami's movie) unite to help Spider-Man cross the city using tower cranes – despite the fact that there are buildings all around him. Heck, even the villain is initially a do-gooder like Norman Osborn and Dr. Octavius – again from the Rami movies.

It also seems to pull inspiration from another super hero movie: Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins (2005) in that it's slightly darker, tells such a large origin story that just like Batman Begins, Spider-Man doesn't actually show up on screen for the first hour. So if you take two parts Batman Begins and add a touch of Rami's Spider-Man, the result is what you have here. Additionally, the introduction of the web shooters, while being faithful to the original comics and emphasizing Parker's intellect, is a bit of a mixed blessing. The notion of the web being an organic material rather than being fired from mechanical devices actually made more sense.

It's not that reboots are a bad idea, they're not. In certain situations they can work well, provided for example, enough time has elapsed. But there is no point in retelling the same story if the initial release is still relatively recent. In addition, it helps if the story wasn't covered well the first time, or it was a bad movie to begin with. Going by this criteria, Marvel's latest cash cow is unnecessary on all three accounts.

In closing, if you haven't already seen the Rami movie from 2002, go watch it instead. If you have seen it, then this probably won't live up to it and you will be left feeling a little underwhelmed. It's fair to say that for anyone over the age of eighteen, this movie will seem rather half-hearted and senseless; for those under eighteen, this movie will probably be the greatest super hero flick ever. Yes, it's a movie that will divide opinions, primarily on the sole reason for its existence. Not a bad, or a badly made flick, by any means… just a pointless one.

Being a Spider-man comic book fan I can say that a lot of the stuff that happens in this story is true to the comic book Spider-man. Spider-man has web shooters, Spider-man likes to joke a lot, Gwen Stacy was Spider-man's first love, etc. So Anyone who is a fan of the comics will respect this movie on that merit, the merit that it was faithful to the source material while bringing in new stuff without losing what made Spider-man who he is.

People who've only seen the Spider-man films and never bothered to read any of the comics. Won't like this film as much. They'll say the same old stuff. "Why was this made? We've seen this already?" Blah blah blah.

Let me go off saying that behind Spider-man 2, this is probably the best of the Spider-man trilogy for one reason.....it avoids all clichés that the original trilogy didn't. In fact the film pretty much avoids all clichés at all. I'll try and explain a few without spoiling the film.

Well first of all the woman in this film aren't morons. One of the main problems I had with Sam Raimi's films was the fact that all woman were pretty much portrayed as objects that Spider-man can save. None of them do anything helpful. Sure Mary Jane tried to hit Doctor Octopus with a plank in the second film, but she couldn't even do that right. That's not the case here. Gwen actually has a confrontation with with villain and she doesn't screw around, I won't say what she does but when I saw it happen I couldn't help but cheer. Finally a Spider-man film where the woman have a brain-stem.

The second cliché it avoids is being predictable. The original films basically have Spider-man going through the motions. Girl gets kidnapped, Spidey saves girl, Spidey defeats villain or jumps out of the way so the villain can do harm to himself. That is not the case with this film, a lot of the time you think one thing is going to happen but then it doesn't and the opposite happens.

The third cliché it avoids is having silly moments. The first trilogy had a lot of them, yes even Spider-man 2 (The raindrops keep falling on my head scene). Going back an having re-watched the Sam Raimi trilogy before seeing this one, the films are more like popcorn films. Sam Raimi is the master at making B movies and that's what the original trilogy was, an epic scale B Movie. With this film, they get a little more serious. There's not really any goofy moments that I can think of and if there are then it's usually played for laughs.

Also THANK GOD They got Flash Thompson right. Sam Raimi used Flash so he could be the stereotypical bully, and at the beginning you think that's what Marc Webb plans to do, but then he shows that Flash isn't as big a douche as he makes himself out to be. Flash is one of my favourite Spider-man characters in the comics, and I'd like to say "thank you Marc Webb for avoiding the cliché of him just being a bully and actually making him a human being with depth." The film also does other things right besides avoiding clichés. The actors all do fantastic jobs and I will go on record saying that Andrew Garfield is the perfect Spider-man and a great role model for young boys even though he has his flaws. Martin Sheen was great as an Uncle Ben who is kind, understanding, but at the same time doesn't take any crap. Emma Stone was great as the kind of jokey but intelligent Gwen Stacy who is a strong positive role model for young woman. The Guy who played the villain was great, The girl who played Aunt May was good in the few scenes she was in. Not a weak link in the bunch.

So I've done nothing but praise this film so far, so why is it still behind Spider-man 2 in my books? Well the film does have flaw, mainly two. One it's rushed, the only one who really pays for it being rushed is the villain who only gets one line of dialogue to explain his motives and even then we're not sure why he's doing that. The second flaw is that it doesn't have this big epic feel that Spider-man 2 had, it doesn't feel like it was made to be a big summer blockbuster, instead it was made to be an Indy film with a big budget....although maybe that's why I liked it so much, it focuses more on characters than action.....hurm.....I'm still on the fence with that last one.

The Amazing Spider-man is a good film. It avoids most if not all clichés, it's fresh, it's interesting, it's got characters you love to see and actually feel for played by fantastic actors, it's a great Spider-man film and it's sad that a lot of fans seem to be hating it right now. I honestly can't see what's to hate.

Good film, go see it.....oh by the way.....I wouldn't recommend seeing it in 3D, there are a few moments where you're like "Whoa cool" but not much.

I admit that I too didn't exactly get that excited when I heard that this was in the making. The Sam Raimi trilogy was a fun ride, and the idea of making another Spider-Man movie with a completely new cast seemed strange and unnecessary. When the cast was announced, I got a little bit curious, but nothing more.

However, when I watched it, I got a whole other impression. I really liked it. The atmosphere was great, and perhaps a little darker than the Sam Raimi movies at times. I know many of you who read this will hate me for saying this, but I actually think this movie was a LITTLE bit better that the previous ones. Not much, but just a hint better. One thing is the cast. I really didn't like Tobey Maguire as Spider-Man that much. I didn't have a huge problem with him back then, but now when I saw this, I must say that I like Andrew Garfields "version" better. He's a little more tougher, both physically and in personality. Also, I think Emma Stone did good as Gwen Stacy. I liked her better as Peter Parker's girlfriend than Kirsten Dunst. The Villain, too, was great. I won't say more about him, not wanting to spoil anything.

When I read many of the reviews in here, I don't see much positivity about this movie. I think that's unfair. At least, it's mediocre. Giving this a 1/10 is criminally wrong. At least I think so. If you wonder if you should see this or not, at least give it a chance. Don't let the bad reviews scare you away.