The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) - ***1/2

Decent, if at times even spectacularly decent reboot of the Spider-Man franchise that is less Sam Raimi's movie from a decade ago and more Sony gunning for Spidey in the BATMAN BEGINS mold. The cast was good, with the leads in Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone are great, dynamite chemistry but I must admit I was disapointed that they made a point of introducing Stone's Gwen Stacy as an intellectual equal of Peter Parker, only for the movie to do absolutely nothing with that introduced element. (Then why bother?) Garfield's Parker is more inert, more awkward, more clumsy, and quite frankly more interesting than Tobey Maguire's portrayal was.

People complain about the origin story being rehashed, but that's an irrelevant concern. You've seen movies before, why watch them again? You've seen a movie about Jesus before, why see another one? Hey they already made Batman movies, why did we need Christopher Nolan's (superior) movies? Hell fans know most of these superhero origin tales by heart, so why bother? Because some stories we love to hear, even if we're very familiar with them.

I was mildly engaged, I laughed at most of the intended punchlines, I was excited, and I'm baffled by complaints that the CGI is not good. Realy guys? I saw Raimi's SPIDER-MAN on TV some weeks back, and it's amazing (no pun intended) how much CGI has evolved just in the last decade.

I do admit he first hour sorta dragged, but I can't decide if it was the story being told (technically nothing wrong with it) or the fact I didn't get much sleep last night. Also the ending turned me off, and I'm not sure why. It keeps with the tone of the movie was going for and faithful (more or less) to the Spider-Man comics, but I dunno it feels sorta contrived? Maybe it feels short in the aftermath of THE AVENGERS, but that can't be helped. It feels too contrived of the first SPIDER-MAN movie, such moments of creative lazyness that somewhat hold this back.

If there is a real reason to go see ASM, there were some scenes as I alluded to that were rare moments when I go from critically watching a movie on a technical level and get myself lost in the moment as a moviegoer. Spider-Man tying up criminals and hanging them outside the local police precinct? His great plan to get a picture of the Lizard down in the sewers that horribly backfires? Goofing off playing games on his smartphone during a stake-out? Taking his mask off to get a kid to escape a burning car? Playfully revealing his spandex hobby to his girlfriend? Such charming scenes that give a nice reminder of why Spider-Man is one of the superhero heavyweights in global popularity.

Again not a great movie, but at least it's better than SPIDER-MAN 3. That's a nicer compliment than I intended. I hope the sequel is even better, and I think that it can. Definately doesn't deserve some of the intense backlash from the Internet. (Yet it got an "A-" from Cinemascore, a decent if not gospel barometer of audience WOM.)

NOTE: I think it's funny that the marketing made a big friggin deal about how "you've not see the whole story!" mystery aspect of Spider-Man, especially regarding his parents. Which as you Spidey/comic book fans might remembere, were never around or mentioned. And you know what? I never cared about them or their fate, either as a kid or adult, and I'll argue most people feel the same way. It's like wondering about young King Lear, I mean who cares?

But regardless, ASM doesn't answer it, leaving it again for the inevitable sequel so don't worry about it. I liked the movie in spite of that shamelss marketing bait & switch. (But Sony, please no Green Goblin again. Why not try Mysterio? He was my favorite Spidey villain as a kid.)