The
Amazing
Spider-Man
comes
back
with
an
unfamiliar
bang
and
unhurried
charm.
Andrew
Garfield
(remember
the
skinny
guy
who
played
the
CFO
in
Facebook
"The
Social
Network"?)
replaces
the
effable
Tobey
Maguire,
and
Emmy
Stone
replaces
Kirsten
Dunst.
Director
Mark
Webb
seems
to
love
his
surname
so
much
that
he
ought
to
make
a
webby
film
out
of
it.
He
has
done
a
pretty
decent
job
of
building
a
credible
first
take
on
the
Spiderman.
It
delves
on
the
improbable
origins
of
Peter
Parker
in
the
annals
of
cross-genetics
and
how
Peter's
father
helps
Dr
Curtis
Connors
in
his
research
using
complicated
calculus
formulae
that
go
into
making
algorithms
that
alter
biologically.
A
good
deal
of
time
gets
spent
in
establishing
how
Peter
Parker
(Andrew
Garfield)
goes
on
to
investigate
his
roots
from
adopted
father
Martin
Sheen
(always
good
to
see
him
back
in
any
cameo),
how
he
meets
Dr
Curtis
Connors,
gets
bitten
by
a
genetically
altered
spider
and
shoots
webs
at
will
and
walks
on
walls
and
jumps
from
one
skyscraper
to
another
in
union-jack-red-and-black
attire
that
still
looks
like
an
urbane
swimming
trunk!
What
can
get
a
spider?
A
Lizard.
And
so,
the
villain
Dr
Connors
becomes
a
giant
mutant
lizard
that
stomps
the
streets
of
New
York
and
pulverizes
people
and
caravans
of
cars
like
a
Godzilla
-
most
of
the
stunts
between
the
Spiderman
and
the
giant
lizard
are
nightly
in
nature.
Nevertheless,
the
plot
moves
on
to
more
complex
matters
-
the
lizard-man
becomes
more
menacing
and
engulfing
for
mankind
and
our
friendly
Spiderman
gets
help
from
New
York
Police
just
in
time
to
thwart
Dr
Connor's
dangerous
tricks.
In
between,
a
decent
romance
between
Andrew
Garfield
and
Emmy
Stone
that
is
more
prolonged
than
seen
in
Spidey
movies
(without
a
love
triangle).
How
good
is
the
characterization
and
the
performances?
To
be
fair,
Andrew
Garfield
gives
a
towering
performance
that
will
appeal
well
to
the
fans
of
the
Marvel
Comic
character.
Early
versions
of
Spiderman
starring
Tobey
Maguire
had
a
genuine
likeability
about
him,
so
it
kind
of
grew
on
you
with
an
earthy
and
credulous
touch.
The
scenes
showing
the
adhesive
nature
of
the
superhero's
hands
and
feet,
and
the
commanding
horsepower
of
his
routine
actions
resulting
in
weird
consequences
like
glass-shattering,
basket-ball
goal-post
smashing
are
eye-popping
and
well-picturised.
Even
a
simple
act
of
googling
his
own
spidey
behavior
results
in
the
unraveling
of
the
keyboard
letters
which
is
intense
and
believable.
The
origins
of
a
superhero
and
the
coming
of
his
age
were
never
shown
so
fluently
in
any
movie
before.
Most
humor
is
embedded
in
these
initial
sequences,
afterwards
the
plot
gets
thicker
and
serious.
Character-wise,
Martin
Sheen,
Sally
Field
and
Rhys
Ifans
(who
plays
Dr
Connors)
play
their
parts
flawlessly.
Dr
Connors
character
lacks
texture
and
depth
and
definitely
comes
nowhere
close
to
the
swagger
of
the
villain
seen
in
first
three
Spidey
movies.
That
is
the
major
flaw
in
this
movie
-
the
villain's
characterization
lacks
substance
and
enough
justification
and
as
if
there's
a
late
realization
of
this,
director
Mark
Webb
shows
him
just
after
the
movie's
primary
title
credits
in
conversation
with
another
invincible
power
as
to
how
to
betray
Spiderman
yet
again.
How
good
is
the
3D
Effect?
Not
that
good.
Except
in
one
of
the
final
stunts
where
the
giant
lizard
leaps
out
of
nowhere
to
browbeat
the
Spiderman,
I
could
not
perceive
the
third
dimension
with
any
telling
effect.
These
days,
the
camera
work
in
2D
is
so
exceptional
that
one
need
not
wear
3D
glasses
to
feel
you
are
walking
in
the
air
with
Spiderman
over
the
nightly
skyscrapers
of
the
Manhattan,
or
"touch" that
totempole
of
an
Empire
State
Building
or
puke
a
web
on
the
villain's
face.
That's
a
bit
disappointing.
Andrew
Garfield,
as
I
said
before,
has
worked
his
lanky
frame
to
give
a
unique
tilt
to
the
character,
almost
as
incredibly
as
Tobey
Maguire
does.
I
am
sure
the
shutterbags
will
soon
report
how
Andrew
has
also
done
gymnastics,
martial
arts,
weights
and
high-end
cardio
to
stand
out
as
an
agile
Spiderman
-
who
needs
to
move
at
top
velocity,
in
non-linear
fashion,
at
tangent
to
gravity,
within
vertical
limits.
The
effort
shows
-
like
one
pose
where
he
literally
does
a
Shirshasana.
Is
there
anything
else
to
rave
about?
Yes,
there
is.
James
Horner
-
that
majestic
Music
composer
-
the
only
stalwart
who
scored
award-winning
music
on
a
par
with
John
Williams
-
has
scored
memorable
BGM.
It's
on
Sony
Classical
and
I
am
going
to
own
one.
I
went
with
low
expectations,
having
watched
all
of
the
three
Spidey
films.
This
one
was
quite
watchable
with
few
guffaws
and
one
or
two
Indian
tricks.
One
is
Irrfan
Khan
-
it
is
quite
a
forgettable
role,
I
wonder
if
it
can
be
even
called
a
cameo
as
memorable
as
what
he
did
in
Slumdog
Millionaire.
Of
course,
we
Indians
cannot
match
Hollywood
in
SFX
or
scripting
or
storyboarding
or
marketing
of
a
franchise.
The
spiderman
and
other
comic
heroes
will
continue
to
make
money.
The
First
Spiderman
walked
away
with
$400
million
at
the
Box-Office.
In
India,
it
collected
Rs
26.2
crs.
The
second,
Rs
33.4
crs
and
the
third,
Rs
68
crs.
All
this,
when
the
Income
Tax
Officers
didn't
adjust
the
Cost
Inflation
Index
for
the
four
years
very
high
between
2002-2007.
As
far
as
The
Amazing
Spider-Man
goes,
the
Rupee
depreciation
is
going
to
assure
that
with
1,000
screens
hit
with
the
movie
(762
screens
for
"Avatar"),
Hollywood
is
going
to
rake
it
even
more.
Well
done,
Mark
Webb.