While not quite "amazing", "The Amazing Spider-Man" is a good, solid and very fun (albeit unneeded) reboot, and has made me excited for a potential new series...

Rating: 8/10 (3 July 2012)

I should go into this review stating that I wasn't really looking forward to this film. I was 14 when Sam Raimi's 2002 release "Spider- Man" came out, and his initial trilogy (featuring two sequels released in 2004 and 2007) truly and completely wowed me as a teen-aged film-goer and captured my imagination in a way that few films had done before.
When Sony decided to trash the planned "Spider-Man 4" and instead focus on this reboot, I was a bit crest-fallen. I wanted more Sam, Toby, Kirsten, etc. But, as more and more details came out, and I saw the first images and trailers, I steadily gained interest, bit-by-bit. However, I was never eagerly anticipating this film, so when my best friend handed me a ticket for the midnight screening (from which I've just come), I was only half-excited.
I'm glad I went, however, because despite being completely unneeded, this reboot is actually very, very good!
Mark Webb directs this tale, from a script by Alvin Sargent, James Vanderbilt and Steve Kloves.
Essentially an origin story (at times frustratingly and detrimentally similar to the 2002 film, but different enough to stay fairly fresh), this film follows Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield), a young man in high school whose parents left him when he was a child, following a bizarre break-in at his scientist-father's home. Now living with his Aunt May (Sally Field) and Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen), Peter is a quirky geek in school. After discovering some of his father's old files, he tracks down a former co-worker of his to Oscorp, where he works. There, Peter is accidentally bitten by a genetically-engineered spider, giving him bizarre superhuman powers.
After a tragedy, Peter decides to use these powers for good, and becomes Spider-Man. At the same time, Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), the man who used to work with Peter's father, is inadvertently transformed into a hulking Lizard-like creature, and Peter (with the help of his crush, Gwen Stacy, as played by Emma Stone) must stop him at all costs from destroying the city.
The film is very well-made. The script is well-written and paced, and the dialog is certainly a lot fresher than the Raimi films. (Which suffered from some hammy lines) Webb's direction is also top-notch, going for a darker, edgier and slightly more realistic style than the former films. (Though I did prefer Raimi's camera-work slightly more) And the visual effects and design are awe-inspiring. Spidey looks startlingly real in this film, as compared to the plastic-y look of the last trilogy. And the design of his costume and the villainous lizard, in addition to the incredible sets, it quite nice. (Don't listen to other reviews who claim it is "Twilight"-like. I've forced myself to watch those films, and this is nothing like them, whatsoever. Those reviews are extremely inaccurate.)
The acting is also outstanding. Garfield is phenomenal as Peter, giving him much more of sense of humor than previous on-screen incarnations. Emma Stone is great as Gwen, giving her a believability and adorable likability. Ifans is menacing, but slightly under-utilized as Connors/Lizard- he does a good job with his performance, but isn't given enough to do. Sheen and Fields make Ben and May extremely lovable and identifiable. And other roles by the likes of Denis Leary and Chris Zylka are great.
That praise being said, there are some big problems. For starters, the film does feel a little stale, simply because only 10 years ago, we saw this exact same origin story on screen, with only some differences. It was hard to sit through it again, only about 5 years since the last film. Also, there are some problems with the story- certain plot lines are dropped halfway through (including the important search for a man responsible for hurting Peter in an unforgivable way), and some characters are neglected when the pace picks up, giving it a slightly uneven feel. The action is far too abbreviated, with most of the battle scenes lasting between 30 seconds and two minutes, which was a tad anti-climactic. Also, the score by James Horner, while admirable, cannot compare to Danny Elfman and Christopher Young's masterful work from the first trilogy.
That being said, I was still extremely impressed with this film, and shocked at how well it worked and how much I loved it. I was worried that it wouldn't hold a candle to the Raimi trilogy, but this proved that Spidey is in good hands, and I'd say this film is as good as Raimi's first film. (Although not as good as 2004's "Spider-Man 2", which was one of those rare, perfect superhero movies.) I'm very excited at the prospect of sequels to this film, and while I wish we had gotten the planned "Spider-Man 4" instead, this is still a very good film, and has made a believer out of me.
I give "The Amazing Spider-Man" a very good 8 out of 10. It isn't perfect, but it's a web of adventure and excitement that you'll want to take a swing through at least once. Check it out!