 |
| The Chief on the red carpet! |
What's it all About? Peter Parker gets bitten buy a crazy spider that gives him spider-like abilities. No, really. Across town, Dr Curt Connors is an amputee searching for a way to regrow dead tissue/missing body parts. It goes without saying that by messing around with science and nature, the results he gets lead him into a head on collision course with our web slinging hero.
 |
| The Odeon Leicester Square had an impressive display outside |
Best bits? Difficult to pick a best bit as I'm not sure there were any 'WOW' moments.
Did it make you think thoughts? Spider-man, Spider-man, does whatever a Spider...........has done before? Hhhmm. This flick is certainly not something new and original. One of the complaints that has been doing the rounds was related to the idea that we didn't really need a reboot of a film that is only 10 years old (Sam Raimi's 2002 Spider-man). I know this because I was one of the dissenters. However, on reflection, although we get an origin story it is slightly different. Instead of the former films, 'spidey shoot web goo out of his wrists,' we get a more comic-book-accurate web shooting device attached to his wrist. We also get a small glimpse of what happened to Peter's parents as well as Gwen Stacy instead of Mary Jane Watson as the love interest. But then that's about it as far as spidey 'newness' goes.
 |
| The lovely Emma Stone as Gwen Stacey |
The film did make me think that Andrew Garfield is a terrific actor. This guy has just got it. I think the film makers wanted to create a Peter Parker that didn't wallow in self pity, wasn't a mega nerd and was filled with confidence and in the Garfster, they found the guy to pull that off. The rest of the cast is adequate and does a good job with a script and story that only has a few clunky cheese infested moments (yes, the crane scene I'm looking at you).
As far as villains go, The Lizard is a strange choice. Before the film started, the stars and producers were on stage telling the audience how great The Lizard was and how he is considered a fan favourite amongst Spidey fans. I'm not sure what fans they polled but as far as I'm concerned he is a bit naff. You don't really care about Doc Conners plight and the fact that his alter ego has such little screen time doesn't help matters.
 |
| Are those footie boots he's wearing? |
Length is another issue. Was I entertained? Yes I suppose I was, but it didn't half take a while to get going. When it did, the action scenes were good (not amazing) and the cgi was smooth. The web swinging bits looked a lot more realistic than the 2002 film but then that's to be expected with advancements in computer techniques. They also gave Spidey a more slender, less butch look which worked well.
Would you watch it again? Umm, I wouldn't rush out to watch it again in a hurry although I'll probably catch it when it hits dvd.
 |
| Watch out for that man-hole Spidey! |
Rating (out of 100%): Overall, the main failing that the film suffers from is something that all 'first of a franchise' films suffer from. The unmistakeable stink of being a set-up film for future endeavours. I felt that even the great Avengers film fell foul of this at some points. My conclusion is that we didn't in fact need a reboot, remake or reimagining. They should have just done Spidey 4. I give The Amazing (Good) Spider-man a perhaps-more-than-it-deserves 66%
