How soon is too soon for a remake/reboot? Could it be five years as with Ang Lees ‘Hulk’ (2003) to Louis Leterriers ‘The Incredible Hulk’ (2008)? Or 10 years much like Raimis ‘Spider-Man’ (2002) to Marc Webbs ‘The Amazing Spider-man’ (2012). This is seemingly answered by the risks the studio is willing to make when overhauling old material.

At the start of the year this film was probably at the top of my list of must see films. You might think ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ owned that accolade but in Nolan we trust and thus that was in a category all of its own.

Having seen the original trailer for The Amazing Spider-man’ which teased towards the ‘untold story’ tag line, I wondered what could possible be told that hasn’t been told before. The answer was that there is nothing new to be told, or at least this film fails in the first hour to explore it.

We know that Uncle Ben dies, we understand that Peter Parker is a geek who gets powers and the hot girl in school, we get that he gets bitten by a spider etc etc. Why the film makers then decided to spend 45 minutes of the film going over old ground is beyond me. They could have quite easily done what ‘The Incredible Hulk’ did and show that storyline in the opening credits, easily setting itself up for an interesting stand alone story. Its a real shame that the studio did not feel the need to take any risks, especially given the expectations and source material at hand. (If rumour is to be believed this is all due to the need to make another film so the studio could retain the Spidey license.)

By making a safe film that simply retreads old ground, ‘The Amazing Spider-man’ does nothing to spark the imagination of a public who now come to expect more from the super hero genre. With ‘Avenger Assemble’ and ‘TDKR’ destroying perceptions of the comic book genre, films like ‘The Amazing Spider-man’ can no longer get away just ‘slumming it’ on the sidelines.

The film, editing wise, is a real mess with some characters completely disappearing after major actions scenes with no resolution on there fate. Random story beats come and go that have no reasoning; e.g The Lizard has little lizard ‘babies’ walking around his lair at one point, how did they get there!? There is no explanation for oddities like this and in a film as formulaic as ‘TAS’ is, there is certainly no room for ambiguity.

The bad editing leads to a muddled storyline, with certain scenes not progressing to their natural ending due to them clearly being held back for the sequel already green lit for 2014.

Its not at all a bad film though and has a hell of a lot of saving graces. Andrew Garfield is a much more likable Parker, dealing with Spideys cocky quips in a much more entertaining way than the whiny Tobey Maguire did across all three of his efforts. His on screen chemistry with Emma Stone is also perfect, with Webb bringing out the best of them, seemingly channeling his skills akin to his efforts in ‘500 Days of Summer’ (2009) with Deschanel and Gordon -Levitt.

The cinematography should also be praised as it gives is a fresh and new perspective, doing a good job of making you feel a different, darker tone as oppose to Raimis more light hearted efforts. The Spidey first person vision is also an awesome addition and leaves you feeling a little more involved.

If the clues from this film are to believed, the sequel also poses to retread ground covered by the previous Spider-Man films. This is a huge shame considering that this is a character that deserves much more than a just a rehashing.

Not a bad effort overall though, certainly a fun film but not a patch on the other comic book hero outings we have seen this year.

7/10

By Craig Huntley

Possibly too much CGI? Love the 4:3 ratio at the beginning, I just hope the overuse of effects isn’t too distracting like it was in Alice in Wonderland.

While Marc Webb swings high with the web slinger franchise at the box office, Sam Raimi is busy with ‘Oz: The Great and Powerful.’ With James Franco playing a younger version of the aforementioned wizard and some excellent supporting cast via Michelle Williams and Rachel Weisz, this could be one to watch over the next few months.

Shaun:

Craig seems to that ‘Iron Man’ is an incredible film and a real ‘game changer’ for Marvel. I don’t know what Marvels game was before this, but it didn’t need to change. They have been on the right lines since the first X-men/Spiderman, granted a few hiccups along the way (Ang Lees take on the ‘Hulk’) has hindered box office pull but they always seem to get there superheroes back on track.

Iron Man is the first in a long line of films leading up to the current box office smash ‘Avengers Assemble’ flick. After watching Iron Man upon its release in the cinema, it’s has been a long while since I have touched it. At the time, I felt the same way coming out of the cinema as I did re-watching; this is Robert Downey JRs film. After his Oscar nomination for ‘Chaplin’ (1992) it’s safe to say he slipped of the Hollywood radar in a big way. Almost unemployable for a time, he was set back to supporting roles and bit parts, which he excelled in, but it always felt like a REAL waste of his talent.

Then came Iron Man, a second rate superhero which on the surface is a bit dull when it comes to overcrowded superhero market.

Tony Stark is about as likeable as a kick in teeth. He is rude, obnoxious, ignorant, crass and arrogant. But i honestly defy anyone to watch this film and despite those points fall in love with him. And its all down to Downey Jr who owns this film. Without him, it would be a very poor watch. Sure you have Bridges flexing his evil muscles and Paltrow supplementing the humour of Stark at a perfect pitch, but provide nothing fresh or exciting in the same way RDJ does.

Jon Favreau does an okay job of directing and keeps the film very focused (unlike its narrative jarred sequel) but there is clearly no flair to his style and it all comes off a bit stagnant. Not one scene made me think ‘technically brilliant’ in the way X2 set pieces did for example.  Don’t get me wrong, the CGI is standard for this kind of film; it gets the job done, but that’s where it ends.

The film gains its identity through Robert Downey JR, without him, we may not have an assembling of Avengers, and that would be very sad indeed. Maybe he, is in fact, the real ‘game changer’, he took a film that risked mediocrity and made it flash and fun, not many actors can pull that off these days, and to me, he is the only fantastic thing to come from ‘Iron Man’ everything else just screams ‘average’ to me.

7/10

Craig:

With the avengers flying high on the box office charts, a discussion was sparked between myself and Shaun as to the merits of the first of the Marvel Avenger films; ‘Iron Man’ (2008). A lot of comments centered around the importance of the film and how integral it is to the Avengers series. My argument for Iron Man is this:

3.5/4