it was a nice surprise when it actually turned out to be good

Rating: 6/10 (10 July 2012)

STORY Well the story is fairly obvious, guy gets bitten by spider....guy becomes Spider-Man. It has been seen. However, its the other subplots and character developments which make this film actually (in my opinion) better than the 2002 film. I felt more attached to the characters like Uncle Ben for example. I won't go into details as I don't give spoilers but it was more emotional, and characters were much more relatable. The only real flaws I thought were the villain who's scenes felt a little rushed and the film didn't dwell on his character enough, and also the fact that Peter just wasn't nerdy enough, although that may be down to casting. 3/5
EXECUTION Firstly, I really enjoyed the directing, and with the 3D it did actually look pretty impressive. The camera work was smooth and really made each scene stand out especially the ones that actually showed Spider-Man. The acting was good all round, I think Martin Sheen stole some of the scenes he was in and Rhys Ifans played the part of Dr Connors really well, although he probably was't seen enough as I would have liked. Andrew Garfield is a good actor but I'm just not sure he's right for this role, Spider-Man is meant to be the repressed but sarcastic science geek and that just wasn't carried out well. This is just nit picking though, the film was executed very well in my opinion. 4/5
CONCLUSION After being dragged to this film by some mates, it was a nice surprise when it actually turned out to be good. It was slightly more gritty and emotional than the 2002 film whilst staying true to its roots. I'd recommend a watch as its probably worth seeing. At the very least I think people will be glad they saw it. 3/5 + 4/5 = 7/10