When Sony announced at the beginning of last year that they were rebooting the Spider-man franchise I thought "Really?!". Then I thought some more and realised that the last two were dubious and I really didn't like Tobey Maquire, so why not?

I had my reservations, but Andrew Garfield is a far better Spider-Man than Maguire, but more importantly he is a better Peter Parker; he's a smartass but also has an unwavering conviction that he couldn't fight if he tried. Emma Stone is a better love interest with her Gwen Stacey, than Kirsten Dunst's Mary Jane; she never plays the damsel in distress. It may just be the character or just that I have a soft spot for Stone. Is it a better film? That will really depend on who you talk too.

The Amazing Spider-Man tells a far more interesting origin story than his previous outing, touching enough of the lore to hit the highlights without sacrificing time spent on drawing out the other characters and telling its own story.

The casting of Martin Sheen and Sally Fields as Uncle Ben and Aunt May was spot on. They were real people, not caricatures. We don't get "With great power comes great responcibilty" (spoiler?), we get the sentiment over a couple of scenes in a way that wasn't shoehorned in just to say the line; it felt like it could have been my Dad talking (that was a compliment Dad).

Rhys Ifans has some wonderful moments as Dr Curt Conners, the reflection scene from the trailer springs to mind. My real gripe would be that his descent isn't quite fully realised so his moment of redemption didn't hit like it should.

A minor role played by C. Thomas Howell is cleverly handled and serves as a insight into the cities thoughts of Spider-man through one man and the aid he lends felt really satisfying. I found Denis Leary, though brief, to be believable as both the Police Captain and as a father.

The big question of any Spider-man incarnation though is how does he move? Like a fucking Spider-man!!! Swinging looks great, the moments of POV tantalise and made me want more, but it's how he moves on a surface that out shines Maguire's Spider-Man. He is fluid, slick over a wall or ceiling, bounding effortlessly and it's just beautiful to watch. Yes it's a digital double for great lengths as before, and yes the technology has come a long way, but it's the choreography that sells it; there is rhyme and reason to his every movement.

Visually it is darker, glossier film than 2002's Spider-man which always felt a bit stuffy and it suits it well.

The ever dependable James Horner delivers a fantastically stirring score.

So is it a better film? I had a lot more fun than before and I can easily see myself watching it a few of times, where as I watched 2002's twice and was very much done. 2002's felt grander though, the parade sequence had a scope that the equivelent here doesn't have, but I don't think that was to its deteriment. The whole film feels more personal, it captures the same sorts of moments but you feel closer to them. It's a people story, rather than a superhero story and I liked that. The scene with Peter and his skateboard and the chains was magic. You find his power along with him in an organic manner, rather than 'stand on the roof and wait for him to figure out what we already know and throw a joke in'. When Maguire gets the shit kicked out of him I kind of thought good (actually I said it), where as here I really felt it.

...I think I've talked myself in to it, I prefer The Amazing Spider-Man, it's a more fun and enjoyable film.

Stay through the credits for a bit and you'll see a glimpse at a thread, briefly touched on during the film, in 2014's sequel.

Oh, and Stan Lee's cameo is one of the best yet!


Totally web-slung!