His only weakness is the ladies.

Rating: 6/10 (7 July 2012)

Entertaining, but very unimpressive, the Spider-Man franchise reboot "The Amazing Spider-Man" may only be interesting for anybody under the age of ten. Working with an average script (containing too many one liners for my taste) Marc Webb directs this version with a CGI first mentality, which does become overwhelmingly distracting over time. In Webb's version, Spider-Manwell, if you don't know the story of Spider-Man by now then you probably have a life and aren't going to see this version anyway; therefore, I'm not going to waste ink explaining it to you now. So, if you are familiar with the 2002 version, the only elements that differ in this latest version are as follows: scenes which develop more of an origin story dealing with Peter Parkers parents, Peter Parker's relationship with Gwen Stacy (as it was in the original comic) and Spider-Man (played by Andrew Garfield) and his battle against one of the lamest villains in the series: Dr. Curt Conners aka The Lizard (who isn't even wearing the signature white lab coat). I will say this, if you are expecting a darker remake, you will be sorely disappointed. If anything Raimi's version was darker and this one is much more kid friendly. So let's get to the point; does the heavy CGI and the slightly revamped storyline set "The Amazing Spider-Man" apart as one of the best summer super hero films in recent years? No, not really. Simply stated, as a Marvel superhero film, it falls somewhere under "The Avengers" or "Iron Man", but still ranks higher than the catastrophe that was "Captain America: The First Avenger".
OK, so this isn't so bad, in fact it was more or less entertaining throughout, due to some funny bits of dialogue and engaging performances from the entire ensemble. The problem here, which will resonate time and time again in the minds of anyone who sees "The Amazing Spider-Man", is how this reboot isn't on the same level as the 2002 version, and furthermore doesn't even attempt to set itself apart from that version, as a good reboot should. I hate to constantly be comparing this version to Raimi's 2002 version, because I'd rather review this title on its own merits, BUT since "The Amazing Spider-Man" is only ten years removed from a far too similar version (and only five years removed from "Spider-Man 3"), I would be pretty naive to even attempt to avoid comparisons to "Spider-Man". So, let me get this comparison thing over with now: 1. Toby Maguire (Seabiscuit) plays a better (nerdier looking) Spider-Man than Andrew Garfield (even though Garfield is remarkably believable as a teenager).
2. Sam Raimi's vision compared to Marc Webb's by the numbers, CGI driven (befitting a Green Lantern sequel) film, was truly the sign of a more accomplished director who wanted to do something different with the beloved Spider-Man character. In short, Webb's version looks like the old one, and Raimi's looks like the revamped, more stylized, reboot.
3. The witty writing style of David Koepp (Mission: Impossible, Angels and Demons) definitely was a huge factor in bringing the 2002 version out of the cartoonish television realm. As for the playful screenplay, which really brought "The Amazing Spider-Man" back down to a more child-friendly level, written by the team of James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent and Steve Kloves, while does tell a more accurate story, doesn't contain the same level of life Koepp's script had (I don't know how else to say it).
The fact is that the only real improvement from "Spider-Man" to "The Amazing Spider-Man" is the performance of Emma Stone playing Gwen Stacy, which is a substantial improvement over Kirsten Dunst (Marie Antoinette) as Mary Jane Watson. So, there you have it, 2002's "Spider-Man" was an all around better version and I challenge anyone to argue against anything I've just said.
Side Note: The problem with rebooting an immensely successful franchise not a decade afterwards, is that unless it is remade to be so drastically different in story or tone (aka what Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight series did for the Batman legacy) it will always be seen as a disappointment or simply unnecessary. In fact, the way this film plays out, a strong argument could be made that the ONLY REASON a new Spider-Man film was made at all (and so soon) was because Sam Raimi's speculated "Spider-Man 4" catastrophically fell apart a few years ago.
Final Thought: While I do commend these filmmakers for attempting to bring forth a Spider-Man remake whose story is almost entirely built off of the "The Amazing Spider-Man" comic books (a storyline all but ignored in the Raimi's trilogy) I still don't believe that that is a strong enough reason as to why this reboot/remake needed to be made, or watched (by anybody not into superhero films) for that matter. Also to make things worse, there is no need to stay for the teaser after the final credits roll, as it's one of the most disappointing and confusing since the inception of the superhero end credit teasers.
Written by Markus Robinson, Edited by Nicole I. Ashland
Follow me on Twitter @moviesmarkus
For other reviews go to: movieswithmarkusonline.blogspot.com