The Amazing Spider-Man

Well, to my surprise and relief, The Amazing Spider-Man plays off the solid tried-and-true Marvel superhero stories, and does it quite well. The real thing is how it compares to the Maguire-and-Sam Raimi Spider-Man series, first launched a decade ago. I admit I haven't seen Spider-Man 3, but I can tell you that I've read the novelization and heard enough about it, how it killed the franchise.

TASM is a definite improvement, although it does try to make it seem like the first movie, changing up things enough so it doesn't feel like the original with names changed. It swaps MJ for Gwen Stacy, changes the set-up in which Ben dies (alas, Uncle Ben is Doomed By Canon), makes Dr. Curt Connors the "new" Norman Osborn (complete with schizophrenia!), alters the focus of the character (more on vigilantism and finding out what happened to his parents), which arguably makes him less angsty. It avoids the common pitfalls and embarrassments of the first movie (the "upside-down kiss", the "throwing trash cans at the villain"), no long monologues while web-slinging, no over-the-top dorkiness in high school.

That being said, while it doesn't tear into its canon too much, it definitely feels like its treading on well-worn ground. Besides a few similarities to the 2002 Spider-Man, there's all sorts of things that remind viewers of any number of Marvel movies (including Iron Man) and the Dark Knight Saga. It has plot (unlike anything recent by Michael Bay), it has action, it has a story (superhero movies that don't tend to do this so well, such as the Green Lantern movie from last year, tend to not do so well financially or critically), and it doesn't deviate from its source material too much (Catwoman, anything from Uwe Boll are basically in name only). Following those four criteria (and plus an interesting side story, too) will result in something generally enjoyable, at least, spending money at the cinema.

Carbonizer says: YES