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. ****

The Amazing Spider-Man is supposed to be a reboot of the Spider-Man movie franchise. Tobey Maguire is replaced by Andrew Garfield in the protagonist role of Peter Parker. His main love interest switches from Mary-Jane Watson to Gwen Stacy, and the villain in this installment is Dr Curt Connors aka Lizard. As expected, this reboot goes back to the beginning when Peter Parker becomes Spider-Man only it is told in a rather different way to the 2002 movie. This time they also try to add a bit more character oriented storyline.

Is it a good movie? Yes, particularly since I saw this movie in IMAX. This made the action scenes more exciting to watch. It also uses a villain that hasn't been used in the previous movies so at least it does make it different from the previous movies.

Is it a successful reboot of the franchise? In my opinion, not really. It's been five years since the last Spider-Man movie came out, and ten years since the movie franchise was first introduced. Even when they made the announcement of this movie being made, I was questioning it because it's just too soon to make a reboot. For the same reason, this reboot is not refreshing. Without trying to give anything away, you can recognise that this movie takes some of the elements from the 2002 movie. The character oriented storyline doesn't add that much meat to the character of Peter Parker as its supposed to. Its easier to count this as another installment only with different actors playing the roles.

I really enjoyed the first three Spider-Man movies, and yes that includes Spider-Man 3. This new Spider-Man movie is also enjoyable but it fails to refresh the series. It seems that I was right in thinking that its too soon to do so.

Spider-Man is my favorite super-hero of all time. I've read the comics (mostly the Ultimate comics, but some of the 60's comics as well), played some of the video games, and watched the cartoons (The 1994 and 2008 series being some of my favorite animated shows of all time).

I enjoyed Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy (yes, even Spider-Man 3). When I heard that the series was being rebooted, I wasn't happy to hear about it. My expectations were neutral as time went by and when I walked out the theater, my expectations were blown away.

I don't want to compare this movie to the original trilogy, but I think it's necessary to see where this movie improved from the originals.

Let's start with the casting. Andrew Garfield is a great successor to Tobey Maguire. I can really relate to him like I always do with other incarnations of the web slinger. Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy is even better than Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane Watson. Gwen is a much stronger character and the chemistry between her and Garfield as Peter Parker is believable. Rhys Ifans is great as Doctor Connors (a.k.a. The Lizard) and I like how he is a "Jekyll and Hyde"-type of villain (kind of like a few other villains... yeah). Martin Sheen and Sally Field as Uncle Ben and Aunt May, respectively, are also great as well. All the characters are portrayed very well and are believable.

The visual effects and the action scenes are good as usual, but nothing new.

The musical score by James Horner is also great, although I prefer Danny Elfman's score in the original trilogy because they felt more memorable and left a lasting impression. But, who knows? James Horner's score may grow on me over time.

If I have to name some complaints, it would have to be that some parts were rushed (although it's a minor nitpick) as well as a couple of parts not evaluated much. I think an extended cut of the movie would be necessary when it's released on DVD, but that's just me.

Overall, "The Amazing Spider-Man" is a fresh new start on the franchise. It has superb acting, thrilling action scenes (especially the climax), an amazing score, and being faithful to the comics but at the same time taking liberties to make it more interesting. Best Spidey movie ever? It's too early to tell but maybe. It's definitely worth watching and I am looking forward to the sequel.

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.

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.