Amazing Spiderman review

Plot: Peter Parker is a teenage outcast who lives with his aunt and uncle after the tragic death of his parents. While trying to uncover the mystery of his parents death he goes to the Oscorp building where he is bitten by a genetically modified spider, giving him super strength, speed, and perception. Spurred by the murder of his Uncle Ben, Peter becomes Spiderman.Along the way he starts dating Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), whose father, played by Denis Leary, is a police chief on the hunt for Spiderman.

A reboot only five years after the original trilogy ended?

Review: When the first Spiderman movie came out in 2002, it was the dawn of a new era in superhero movies. In the years to follow, dozens of comic book properties (superhero or not) made it to the big screen. Spiderman was followed by two sequels, the first of which is one of those rare sequels that's better than the original. The third, however, was a whole different story. An emo Peter Parker, the wierd dance number, too many villains, not to mention that they totally fucked up Venom, one of the coolest comic book villains ever.

Sam Raimi's Spiderman trilogy ended horribly. But it did make money. And Hollywood wasn't ready to pack up the Spiderman franchise for twenty years. When I heard they were doing a reboot of Spiderman, my initial thought (and that of many film/comic geeks) was "Why"? What fresh concept can they possibly bring to the Spiderman mythos within only a few years of the trilogy ending?

So I approached this new incarnation of Spiderman with cautious optimism. On the one hand Spiderman is one of my favorite superheroes. On the other, this was being directed by Marc Webb of "500 Days of Summer" fame (I hated that movie with a passion).

500 Days of Gwen Stacy? Thankfully not.

Overall I thought the movie was pointless. There was no need for it. It wasn't a bad movie though. Far from it. It was a very competent telling of Spiderman's origin. But was it really necessary?

The whole Peter Parker's parents angle was interesting, but they were using it as a jumping off point for further sequels, and they tried to cram in to much for one movie (the origin, Uncle Ben's death, the romance, the villain, etc). It's ambitious, I'll give them that, but they were setting up this whole overarching conspiracy which ate up a huge amount of the screen time. They should have focused more on Peter Parker becoming Spiderman, since they were rebooting the story from scratch.Throwing in all the other stuff just made the movie feel cluttered.

The effects were good, but nothing too special. I remember being wowed by some sequences in Spiderman 2. In this movie, there was nothing memorable. Plus the villain's CGI looked like something from the mid-00's, but more on that later.

The performaces were good, and I honestly liked Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker more than Tobey Maguire's. Emma Stone, the new cute it-girl, was good as Gwen Stacy, but her part wasn't really that fleshed out. If they do the sequels and follow comic lore, than she will have more on her plate, but in this movie I felt she was just the typical "love interest" for Peter. Rhys Ifans did a good job as Dr. Kurt Connors/The Lizard, but the CGI work for the Lizard was kind of jarring. I expected better for 2012, but it is what it is.

Overall, if I had never seen the original Spiderman trilogy, I would've viewed this movie in a better light. But a reboot so soon after the original trilogy was totally pointless and an obvious cash grab. It was a well made movie, but brought nothing new to the table. Here's hoping the sequels to this movie carve out a niche for themselves separate from the original films.

C+