The Amazing Spider-Man: Some Thoughts

As most people know, I am a Spider-Man fan. Nut. Whatever. I've been a bit in love with ol' Web-head for many years and I'd like to think that I know the character of Peter Parker pretty well. Better than most. Well, let me start this by saying that Andrew Garfield IS Peter Parker. Really. He is. I forgot I was watching Andrew Garfield and completely believed I was watching Peter Parker. No mean feat.

I'm a big fan of Tobey Maguire as Parker and, like many others, found it hard to imagine anyone else in the role once the reboot was announced, but Garfield won me over and I'm sure he will win everyone else over as well. He is quite simply fantastic and the best thing about the film by a mile. It's been said by quite a few reviewers that Garfield is better than the film and it's true - he is. But that's not to dismiss the film completely. I've had quite a few people (mostly fellow comic fans) tell me that they didn't like it at all, but I found much to like. That's not to say that it's perfect: it isn't. There is much to criticise, but there's no denying that it's an enjoyable way to spend a couple of hours. It has a long way to go before it reaches the heady heights of Avengers but, then again, what will this year? (Oh, OK, The Dark Knight Rises is in with a shot.)

I think the film does a fairly good job of re-telling the origin story. It tries hard (too hard?) not to cover the same ground as Raimi's Spider-Man and pretty much succeeds, but some parts feel rushed and glazed over as if the thought 'yeah, they know all this, let's get on with it' is foremost in mind. I couldn't help but wonder throughout if they could have just skipped the origin story and jumped straight in, but now I have a pretty good idea where this trilogy (for it has just been announced that there will be another two films) is headed, then I can see why they felt they had to start at the beginning. Emma Stone and Denis Leary are both also exceptionally good, although I feel Leary isn't given enough screen time. 

Some of the bad: I dislike the costume intently (despite Andrew's bottom looking rather lovely in it). I prefer Maguire's by long way. I also disliked the portrayal of Peter as a skateboarder. Just no. And the less said about that bloody Coldplay scene, the better. But the worst thing about the whole film is the villain. The Lizard is just silly. There's no getting around it. Rhys Ifans does an OK job as Connors, but there's just too much CGI when the Lizard is on screen - and not great CGI either. I found myself wishing for a different villain pretty much all the way through. The bit with the Lizard & the camera: oh dear. That could have been handled a lot better. Very clumsy.

The second half is much better than the first half. We get our wisecracking Spidey (a pleasure to see, but we still need more jokes please), we get some amazing web-swinging and probably Stan Lee's best cameo yet. We also get the scene that may just compete with the train scene from Spider-Man 2 for my favourite Spidey scene. I won't spoil it, but I'll just say that I love it when the people of New York help Spidey out.

There's definitely more emotion to be found than in any of Raimi's films. There was a guy in his 40s sat next to me who shed a tear in a couple of places and I must confess to shedding a tear or two myself at a couple of points. That is down to Garfield's performance. He's got Peter's emotional self-flagellation down to to a tee.

So, no, Spider-Man 2 it is not. But there is more than enough there to warrant you spending your money to go and see it. Andrew Garfield is worth the money all by himself. Trust me.