Under the Silver Lake (3½ Stars)

Conspiracy theories! I love them! It's not that I believe them, I just find them fascinating. It's beautiful the way random facts can be linked together to create a new truth. Just to take one example, the theory that the Moon landing was faked. Clues are strung together from Stan Kubrick's films which are supposed to be a confession that he created the Moon landing in a film studio. Of course, it's nonsensical for anyone to say "I believe the conspiracy theory that <fill-in-the-blank>". As soon as you believe something, you no longer call it a conspiracy theory, you call it a fact.

That's what "Under the Silver Lake" is about. A young man called Sam who lives in Hollywood observes things happening around him. The richest man in Los Angeles has gone missing. Dogs are being killed. His neighbour moves out of her apartment overnight, after she's seen with a man dressed as a pirate. He thinks they're connected, and his investigations lead him into contact with a comic book writer who's a walking encyclopaedia of Los Angeles conspiracy theories; except he doesn't call them conspiracy theories, he calls them facts. A woman who's naked apart from a bird mask has been killing men for hundreds of years. A free gift in a cereal packet is a map of secret locations in Los Angeles. A new pop group, Jesus and the Brides of Dracula, has been putting secret messages in their songs. There's a secret society, an elite in Los Angeles, that can read the messages. Everyone else is blissfully ignorant.

When I watched the film the first time I gave it a high rating. It doesn't seem so good the second time round. What I like is the atmosphere and the mystery. When the mystery is unravelled, the explanations are so absurd that I can't accept them. I don't want to go into them, except to say that the explanations are more absurd than the theories themselves. Let me give a parallel: In the case of the faked Moon landing, someone finds out that Stanley Kubrick was hired to make the film by inhabitants of the Moon who wanted to remain secret. That's a similar level of insanity.

On the other hand, I've read film reviews that claim that the final scenes aren't really happening. Sam is so obsessed with his conspiracy theories that he imagines things that justify them. In general, I reject film interpretations that claim everything is imagined or dreamt or the visions of a psychotic breakdown. In this case it makes better sense than accepting the final scenes at face value. Did Sam kill the neighbour that he thought had moved out? Anything is possible in a film like this.

Success Rate:  - 3.9

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Spider-Man: No Way Home (5 Stars)

Today I watched the "More Fun Stuff" version of the film in the cinema. That's a silly name. Couldn't they just have called it the Extended Version? That would have been more dignified.

I'll refrain from writing about the film itself, even though I didn't say much about it in my past reviews. I'll just comment on the More Fun Stuff changes. The added scenes, a total of 13 minutes, are almost entirely at the beginning of the film, apart from a new after-credits scene. In my opinion, the new scenes don't improve the film at all. They're mostly interviews which just slow the film down. I'm not saying the scenes are bad, I'm just saying that it doesn't matter whether they're in the film or not. If there's a More Fun Stuff Blu-ray release, I'll only buy it if it's very cheap.

The original theatrical version had an after-credits scene that was effectively a trailer for "Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness". The More Fun Stuff version has an after-credits scene with Betty Brant praising her fellow students on being accepted into college. It's a cute scene, but totally unnecessary.

Here are a few sketches used in the final credits. They're simple but beautiful. I wish I were a gifted artist. Or even an average artist. I can't draw at all. On a scale of 1 to 10, I'm a zero.

Success Rate:  + 8.4

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Spider-Man: No Way Home (5 Stars)

This is the 27th film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). If you think that I must be smart to remember something like that, you're over-estimating me. I have a list of the films in a spreadsheet which I keep open while writing about MCU films. I also have little green stickers on the spines of my MCU Blu-ray discs, so I know what order they should be on my bookshelf.

Logically, "No Way Home" (I'll abbreviate the title) continues from the 26 previous MCU films, but it's unique in that it incorporates elements from non-MCU films. The film is all about the multiverse, so it re-introduces characters from previous versions of Spider-Man. In particular, we see the previous actors who played Spider-Man reprising their roles.

Three Spider-Men! Or should I say three Spider-Mans? What's the rule for the plural of proper names? Someone who's as fanatical about the English language as me ought to know the answer to that question. Please don't ask me when we meet in person, because I'd be sure to turn bright red.

Welcome back, Spider-Man #1, played by Tobey Maguire from 2002 to 2007. He's aged in the last 15 years. Haven't we all? I wish they'd used makeup to make him look younger.

Welcome back, Spider-Man #2, played by Andrew Garfield from 2012 to 2014. His career was cut short when "Amazing Spider-Man 3" was cancelled. I was never happy that Peter Parker's father was made an important character, but I wish the third part of the trilogy had been made to tie up the loose ends. The final scene of "Amazing Spider-Man 2" introduced the Rhino, possibly as a member of the Sinister Six, but the next film was never made.

Accompanying the Spider-Mans into the Marvel Cinematic Universe are Doctor Octopus, Green Goblin, Sandman, Electro and the Lizard. Strangely, the wrong version of Venom was drawn into the MCU. Eddie Brock from Earth-TRN688 arrived, not Eddie Brock from Earth-96283. I assume this was a blunder, because there's no logical reason for it.

The story is continued in the 28th MCU film, "Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness", which I plan to watch later this week. The two films couldn't be more different. "No Way Home" is a serious film, whereas "Multiverse of Madness" is spoilt by too much humour. Still, I'm biased in favour of Sam Raimi, so I'll make an effort to enjoy "Multiverse of Madness" when I watch it again.

Happy Hogan uses a CPAP machine to get eight hours of undisturbed sleep.

This is Zendaya's third film as Peter Parker's girlfriend MJ. She looks more attractive in each film. Remind me to publish a photo gallery showing her development from film to film.

Tasty! I'd visit her café for a donut every day.

Peter Parker doesn't have a sweet tooth. He just orders a cup of coffee.

One question is left unanswered, in this film at least: are there just three Spider-Mans or many many more? Maybe there are many versions of Mike Hood aka Dancer in the multiverse. Some of them probably write better blogs than me. I should meet them to get a few pointers. Or maybe I'm a singularity who only exists in one universe. Until then, don't forget:

I am Dancer.

Success Rate:  + 7.5

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Spider-Man: No Way Home (5 Stars)

I finally got a chance to see the new Spider-Man film today. It's been sold out for the last two weeks, unlike "The Matrix Resurrections", which hasn't been so popular with cinema audiences.

I don't want to give away too much for a new film, so I'll restrict myself to what we see in the trailer. At the end of "Spider-Man: Far From Home" it was announced to the world that Peter Parker was Spider-Man. This has disrupted his life, so he visits Doctor Strange and asks him to cast a spell to make everyone forget who he is. The spell tampers with the multiverse, so we see various enemies from other versions of Spider-Man appear to challenge him.

To get technical: this film, along with the whole of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), takes place in a universe called Earth-199999.

Sam Raimi's Spider-Man films take place in Earth-96283.

The Amazing Spider-Man films take place in Earth-120703.

Don't blame me! I didn't invent these numbers!

On a less technical level, after the merging and alliances of various film studios, there was a push to reconcile the different versions of Spider-Man with one another. This idea scared me. It's a recipe for disaster. I was pleasantly surprised that the film turned out so well. It's chaotic. Anyone who walks in who hasn't watched dozens of Marvel films over the last 18 years won't have any idea what's going on. Nevertheless, "No Way Home" accurately captures the style and atmosphere of Marvel comics. The plot gets ridiculous as it progresses – no spoilers! – but it fits the story.

Maybe just one spoiler: Wong is now the Sorcerer Supreme? That's just silly!

Amazing Spider-Man 2 (3 Stars)

This is a film that should never have been made. The same is true of the previous film, "Amazing Spider-Man", but at least that was a better film. "Amazing Spider-Man 2" is just a mess. Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy was brilliant. He should have been allowed to make a fourth film with Tobey Maguire. I've been told that Raimi was fired because he refused to make "Spider-Man 4" in 3D. What??? Is that the only reason? I admit that I'm biased. I don't like watching any films in 3D. It's not that I'm against 3D in principle. My complaint is that the current 3D technology is just pseudo-3D. Once you get used to it, it looks artificial.

And so, without Sam Raimi, the Spider-Man franchise was rebooted. Uncle Ben died again. There was a new Peter Parker who looked nothing like the comic book character. Supposedly Andrew Garfield is a Spider-Man fan and he was excited about being picked for the role. He gets the Spider-Man banter right when he puts on his costume, but without his costume he fails miserably. Walking around with a skateboard? Please! Peter Parker was never that cool. If you want to know what Peter Parker was like, watch Sam Raimi's "Spider-Man". That's a film that got everything right. The rebooted Amazing Spider-Man films get almost everything wrong.

And what's with all the rubbish about Richard Parker bio-engineering the spider that would one day bite his son? That's just too silly for words.

The Amazing Spider-Man films should have been a trilogy. It was cancelled after this film, leaving loose ends dangling. The studios knew it was too bad to continue. I'd be happy to forget the Amazing Spider-Man films ever existed, but Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man is being revived in the next MCU Spider-Man film. That's embarrassing. Let's hope it isn't too bad.

Success Rate:  + 0.4

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Amazing Spider-Man (4 Stars)

This is the fourth film that I've watched to remember Irrfan Khan, who died four days ago. I regret that I've seen so few of the 98 films that he made in his career.

Unwittingly, I've watched these four films in the order of the morality of Irrfan Khan's characters.

In "The Life of Pi" he plays Pi Patel, a highly spiritual man.

In "Slumdog Millionaire" he's a policeman who is brutal in his duty, but fair to the innocent.

In "Jurassic World" he plays Simon Masrani, a billionaire who does good unless it gets in the way of making money.

In "Amazing Spider-Man" he plays Dr. Ratha, a high ranking executive who's willing to kill to achieve his ends.

This is an order of moral decline, but he plays all of his roles perfectly. He can be a saint or a sinner, and he's impressive in all his performances. As Dr. Ratha he's quiet but terrifying. It's his pressure that leads Dr. Curt Connors to inject himself and become the Lizard. I'm glad I've never worked for a boss as evil as him.

Irrfan Khan
7 January 1967 – 29 April 2020

Amusingly, he made two films in 2012 in which he had to deal with a Richard Parker.

Success Rate:  + 1.3

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Amazing Spider-Man 2 (3 Stars)

This is the sequel to "Amazing Spider-Man", the second part of a trilogy that was never completed. It's just as well. I could grudgingly accept that the first film had some quality, but the second film is a mess. The blackwashing of Electro is one of the smallest problems. What's more disturbing is the increase in the Richard Parker sub-plot and the hasty addition of the Green Goblin.

To deal with the second point first: after two hours showing the conflict between Spider-Man and Electro, the Green Goblin flies onto the screen. It's at the 1 hour 57 minute mark, to be precise. He isn't even announced as the Green Goblin. Anyone who hasn't read the comics or seen the Sam Raimi films would have no idea who he is. This is bad scriptwriting and even worse directing. The director is mostly to blame, because there are several deleted scenes involving the Green Goblin that were removed at the last moment to make the film shorter. Marc Webb needs to go back to film school.

Instead of shortening the film, it should have been made longer. The Green Goblin is defeated after a four minute fight. As one of Spider-Man's deadliest enemies he deserved at least 30 minutes.

Now to Peter Parker's father Richard. The film opens with a lengthy scene of his plane being sabotaged and crashing. During the film we see various video recordings that he made. Peter Parker spends the film doing research into his father's disappearance, when he isn't busy fighting Black Electro.

Today I discovered an alternative ending on the Blu-ray that I missed when I bought it three years ago. The film should have ended with Richard Parker approaching his son at Gwen Stacy's grave and apologising for his disappearance. According to Marc Webb, this scene was removed because test audiences unanimously complained about it. I'm not surprised. I would have thrown something heavy at the screen. What a disgusting way to ruin the film! Richard Parker even speaks the words "With great power comes great responsibility", the words that have forever been associated with Ben Parker.

The ending was rightly cut out, but it tells us that we could expect Peter Parker's father to return in the third film. I'm glad it was never made. Let's forget the silly Richard Parker story-line once and for all. Let's also forget "Amazing Spider-Man 2". It's an embarrassment.

We shouldn't forget Stan Lee's cameo. He appears as a guest at Peter Parker's graduation ceremony for five seconds. Those are the best five seconds of the film. We can forget the rest.

Success Rate:  + 0.4

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Amazing Spider-Man (4 Stars)

This is a film that I have difficulty rating. When I first saw it in the cinema I gave it five stars. When I watched it on Blu-ray two years later I dropped the rating to four stars. After watching it today I felt tempted to drop the rating further, but after thinking about it for a while I decided that four stars is a fair rating. It's not a bad film. In fact, it's a very good film. Its problem is that it stands in the shadow of the Sam Raimi Spider-Man films. It's poor in comparison, so I can only judge it fairly by not comparing it. Or maybe it's the other way round; maybe comparing it with the other films is the only way to judge it fairly.

It's a repeat of Spider-Man's origin story, as told in Sam Raimi's "Spider-Man". Peter Parker is bitten by a spider and Ben Parker dies. Those are the fixed points crucial to the story. Everything else is changed. Instead of being bitten on a school trip, Peter Parker is bitten when he impersonates an intern to enter Oscorp. Instead of Ben Parker being killed in his car he's shot when he tries to stop a mugger. The school bully Flash Thompson isn't a football jock, he's the captain of the basketball team.

I could go on and on listing more details, but one thing stands out. This film has the sub-plot of Peter's relationship with his father. Richard Parker was an Oscorp employee who bred the spider that bit his son. A notebook left behind by Richard Parker contains a formula that Dr. Curt Connors uses to transform himself into a human lizard.

It's my attitude to the father-son sub-plot that makes it difficult for me to rate the film. This is a feature totally alien to the comics. Peter Parker's father is irrelevant in the comics. He's dead. That's all. Telling a story about Peter's father isn't just a minor change in details in the origin story, it twists the premise of Spider-Man beyond recognition. If I accept Richard Parker and his scientific background I can just about give the film four stars. If I rejected the story I'd have to give the film three stars at most. It's a dilemma.

Let's just talk about something positive in the film. Stan Lee has a delightful cameo as a school librarian. In the 11-second scene he scans a book while listening to music over headphones, oblivious to the fact that Spider-Man and the Lizard are fighting behind him.

Success Rate:  + 1.3

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Under the Silver Lake (4½ Stars)

This is the 20th film in the Stuttgart Fantasy Film Festival.

"Under the Silver Lake" is the film I was most looking forward to in this year's film festival. The trailer (which I'd seen at least five times in the cinema) fascinated me. The film almost lived up to my expectations. Almost, but not quite. I think the film has too much humour. I would have preferred it if it had been played completely seriously. That's the only reason I've deducted half a star.

Andrew Garfield plays Sam, a young man who lives in an apartment building in Los Angeles. He falls in love with another resident that he sees in the building's swimming pool late at night. They arrange to meet again the next day, but when he arrives at her apartment the next morning, only a few hours later, she's moved out. Her furniture and everything else is gone. Who moves out in the middle of the night?

Sam becomes convinced that there's a giant conspiracy going on around him. He thinks that there are secret messages being passed around that only a rich and powerful elite can understand. He finds clues in symbols scribbled on walls, in comic books and in song texts. Someone is killing dogs in Los Angeles in order to fulfil an ancient prophecy. A new rock band, Jesus and the Daughters of Dracula, seems to be involved. The prostitutes in an elite escort agency know more than they admit.

There's a parallel world in Los Angeles. While normal people go about their lives there are others who are living in a different world. Sam wants to find out the truth.

Silence (4 Stars)

This film offers a glimpse into a forgotten part of history: the persecution of Christians in Japan. Although the story is fictional it references places and events in the 17th Century. The Roman Catholic Church first sent missionaries to Japan in 1540, along with Portugese traders. Christianity flourished, in particular in Nagasaki and the surrounding districts. It's claimed that by the end of the 16th Century almost everyone in Nagasaki was a Christian. The Japanese government outlawed Christianity in 1587, but this wasn't enforced at first due to local governors being Christian. In February 1597 persecution began with the crucifixion of 26 Christians, a mixture of foreign missionaries and local preachers. The initial murder of Christians made the church flourish, and by the early 17th Century the Japanese government preferred to ask Christians to publicly give up their faith rather than kill them. Any Christians who didn't immediately recant were tortured until they changed their minds, for instance by being covered with boiling water or by being hung upside down while their blood was drained from small cuts.

The film begins in 1640. Two Jesuit priests, Father Rodrigues (Andrew Garfield) and Father Garupe (Adam Driver) travel to Japan to search for their former teacher, Father Ferreira (Liam Neeson), who has disappeared for 15 years. When they arrive in Goto, near Nagasaki, they're astonished to find a large Christian community. At first the priests are hidden by the villagers, but eventually they're captured by samurai led by the inquisitor Inoue. The inquisitor offers freedom to anyone who publicly renounces Christianity by standing on a picture of Jesus, but those who refuse are beheaded.

After Rodrigues is forced to watch Garupe being killed by drowning, he's entertained in comfort by Inoue. He's fed well and the two engage in daily theological debates. Inoue doesn't believe that Christianity is wrong, he just believes that it's "wrong for Japan". He says that the people of Europe need Christianity, but Buddhism is better for Japan. He goes on to explain that even the Japanese Christians realise this by adapting Christianity to their previous beliefs. When Japanese missionaries arrived in Japan they called their God Deus, because the Japanese language contained no word for a supreme God. The Japanese were confused by this foreign word, so they translated Deus into their own language as Dainichi, the word for the Sun. To Inoue this means that the Japanese Christians are really praying to the Sun.

Inoue has no intention of killing Rodriques. He wants him to publicly renounce his faith as an example for the Japanese Christians. When he's unable to persuade Rodrigues by friendly discussions he resorts to pressure. Inoue no longer frees the Japanese Christians who renounce their faith. They have to be tortured until Rodrigues gives up his faith. Inoue tells Rodrigues that his stubbornness is causing hundreds of death.

The silence in the film's title is God's silence. How can God remain silent when his followers are suffering so much?

Christianity is the religion of a silent God. Its believers are called on to have faith, believing in someone that they can't see or hear. This leads non-believers to mock them. because they say the reason that they can't see or hear God is because he doesn't exist.

Let's just assume for a moment that God does exist. Let's assume that God is sitting observing his followers and isn't answering them. Why not? The official answer of Christianity is that it's a test of their faith. That's a weak answer. For me the answer is that God is weak and foolish. God's silence has led to thousands of years of war and suffering. God's silence (assuming that he's the Christian God) has led to his religion being corrupted by superstition and hate. God's silence has allowed new, even more corrupt religions to rise up.

Maybe God is unable to answer. That's forgivable. Maybe he's dead, as Friedrich Nietzsche claimed. Maybe God got bored of the Earth and wandered off to create another planet somewhere else. Maybe God isn't omnipresent, and he's currently sitting in Alaska chatting to an Eskimo. That's a lucky Eskimo. If God travels round the world talking to one person at a time I can tell you that he hasn't got round to me yet.

I'm not an atheist. Far from it. All the evidence points to the fact that one or more Gods walked the Earth at some time in the past. So where is God now? I sincerely hope God isn't watching the world at the moment, because if he is watching us in silence he's an evil being who has to take full responsibility for the world's suffering.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Amazing Spider-Man 2 (4 Stars)

Everyone has a part of themselves they hide even from the people they love most.

I can't really add much to the review I wrote last year after seeing the film in the cinema. I'm still disturbed by the same points. What I forgot to mention last year is that I was (and still am) disappointed with Jamie Foxx's performance as Electro. He's one of the worst actors I know. The only film in which I've seen him acting well is "Django Unchained". Maybe it's because that role didn't demand much from him.

Things have moved on since last year. Despite its box office success, the public at large was very critical of the film. They paid their money on the strength of the previous film, and they went home disappointed. There won't be an "Amazing Spider-Man 3". There will probably be a film starring the Sinister Six, but it's unlikely that Andrew Garfield will return to play the role of Spider-Man. Despite the amusing banter, which was more true to the comics than the way Tobey Maguire spoke, Andrew Garfield was miscast for the role. A new younger actor will be chosen for the next Spider-Man film. It'll soon be time for Ben Parker to die again.

Amazing Spider-Man 2 (3½ Stars)

I'd better write this review fast. After leaving the cinema today I gave it four and a quarter stars in my head. When I sat down to think about it I dropped it to a round four. And as I began to write I struck off another half point.

So what's good about the film? The web-swinging scenes are breath-taking, even better than in Sam Raimi's films. Spider-Man makes death defying leaps before firing his web to swing back up. The action scenes with Electro are good, although it's not the real Electro that we know from the comics. And that's where the problems start. The film includes three of Spider-Man's old villains from the 1960's, and none of them look vaguely like their comic book equivalents. Why doesn't Electro wear his shocking green and yellow spandex? (Sorry, I couldn't resist that pun). Why does the Rhino look like a robot? And why does the Green Goblin's hair stand up on end? Click on the pictures below to see the contrast between the real villains and the cinematic fakes.

The structure of the film is bad. I have serious doubts that Marc Webb knows what he is doing. Everything was fine when the film started and as long as Spider-Man was battling Electro. But the Green Goblin sequence was like a last minute addition, just slapped on for the sake of getting Gwen Stacy killed. That's not a spoiler to comic book fans, because we all know that Gwen Stacy was killed by the Green Goblin, leading Spider-Man to kill the Green Goblin in revenge. But apart from that, it was the wrong Goblin. It was the first Green Goblin, Norman Osborn, not his son Harry, who killed Gwen Stacy.

And then the Rhino is tagged on at the end for no reason at all. Maybe it was intended as an introduction to the Sinister Six, but this could have been done without the idiotic fight scene. The death of Gwen Stacy was highly emotional, even in the way that the film mis-portrayed it, so it could have been left to finish there. Please, can someone fire Marc Webb before he makes things any worse? Better still, bring back Sam Raimi. He's a director with skill and vision.

Amazing Spider-Man (4 Stars)

I decided to watch this film today in preparation for going to see the sequel in the cinema this afternoon. After giving it five stars in my last two reviews I had to down-rate it this time. It's the most superfluous reboot ever. Totally unnecessary. Even if Tobey Maguire was no longer available to play Spider-Man the studio could have continued with "Spider-Man 4". Changing an actor mid-series can be an unfortunate necessity, but if it's done well it's not too unpleasant. It's best to pick a new actor who looks similar to the previous actor, but look at the James Bond films. The departure of Sean Connery, then Roger Moore, then all the others was relatively painless.

Instead of this the new guy, Marc Webb, decided to start again from the beginning and do everything differently. Peter Parker's father plays an important role in the story, even though he was hardly ever mentioned in the comics. OsCorp has become an all-powerful corporate entity in New York, responsible not only for Spider-Man but for all the super-villains. Spider-Man's origin was simplified. There are some similarities between Sam Raimi's "Spider-Man" and "The Amazing Spider-Man", but whenever they differ Sam Raimi's version was better and closer to the original comics. Maybe with one exception: the reboot follows the comics and makes the web shooters mechanical, not organic as in Sam Raimi's version.

The trouble is that Marc Webb was -- and still is? -- a beginner. Before this film he had only directed one other film. Maybe if he had waited another ten years he would have honed his skills and been able to make a better Spider-Man film. This project was way too big for him.

On the other hand, if the Spider-Man film franchise really had to be rebooted, it could have been done better. We could have seen Peter Parker becoming Spider-Man at 15, the right age. By choosing the right actor -- definitely not Andrew Garfield -- we could have kept him in school for a few films. We could have seen his rivalry with Flash Thompson develop, as well as his relationship with Liz Allan and other schoolmates. Oh well, it's too late now. Maybe that's an idea for the next reboot.

Amazing Spider-Man (5 Stars)

I watched this film last year in the cinema and reviewed it here. I now have the film on DVD and watched it yesterday afternoon. I was very hesitant to give it a five star rating. I felt tempted to deduct at least a quarter star. In itself this is an excellent film and worthy of five stars. The problem is that however good it is, it isn't up to the quality of Sam Raimi's Spider-Man film, which was perfect in every way. It was a lot closer to the comic book canon, especially where the origin was concerned.

To be honest, I don't understand the need to reboot the Spider-Man franchise so soon after the last three films were made. After all, "Spider-Man 3" was released in 2007, only five years before "The Amazing Spider-Man". I understand that Tobey Maguire didn't want to play the role any more, but it should still have been possible to continue with another actor. The reboot seems superfluous. Except for maybe the need to show Gwen Stacy's death, which will almost certainly happen at the end of "The Amazing Spider-Man 3".

Anyone who is unaquainted with Spider-Man in the comics will doubtlessly enjoy the new film. As a standalone piece of work it's remarkable. As a Spider-Man fan of many years my problems are with the departure from canon. Peter Parker's father was never an issue in the comics, so all the back story about him being a geneticist at Oscorp is unnecessary. Evidently the secrets of Peter's father's death will play a big role in the sequels, based on the after-credits scene.

However, my main problem is the choice of actor to play Spider-Man. Andrew Garfield is such an abysmal choice that it's embarrassing. He looks nothing like Peter Parker in the comics. A much better choice would have been Kodi Smit-McPhee. But it's too late to change things now, we have to put up with him for the next two films. The usual mistake is made that Spider-Man takes off his mask too often. It would have been unthinkable in the comics that Spider-Man would take off his mask while walking around school, just assuming that all his classmates have run away and won't see him.

But let's look at "The Amazing Spider-Man" in a vacuum and give it five stars. Watch it and enjoy it. It's exciting from start to finish. And Rhys Ifans is perfect as the Lizard. He's Mr. Cool in person. I'm looking forward to the next two films in the trilogy. And please please please, keep the mask on.

Amazing Spider-Man (5 Stars)

I confess that I was very skeptical about the reboot of the Spider-Man film franchise. Sam Raimi did such a good job with the original trilogy that it seemed superfluous to start again only 10 years after the first Spider-Man film was released.

It might seem strange to viewers not acquainted with the original comics that Gwen Stacy is presented as Peter Parker's love interest. In the Sam Raimi films Mary Jane Watson was his lover, and Gwen Stacy was only introduced in the third film. Let me make it clear now, as all comic fans will agree, that only the comics themselves are canon. The stories in the comics are what really happened. The films are just adaptations, more or less accurate interpretations of the stories told by Stan Lee and the writers after him. Gwen Stacy first appeared in Spider-Man #31 and was indeed Peter Parker's first lover. Mary Jane Watson was introduced 11 issues later. Mary Jane didn't become his lover until after Gwen's death in Spider-Man #121. Incidentally, the rumours are that Gwen's death will be shown in the third film of the new trilogy. Let's wait and see.

Rather than review the film, let me talk about the differences between Spider-Man in this film and the first Sam Raimi film. My main problem with the new film is the actor in the title role. Andrew Garfield was a poor choice. He looks nothing like Peter Parker did in the comics. The hair is wrong. He looks too tall. Tobey Maguire, on the other hand, was perfect. Born for the role.

Apart from the physical appearance, Peter's clothing in the new film is wrong. He should wear glasses, not contact lenses. He shouldn't wear cool clothing like a hoody. And he definitely shouldn't carry a skateboard around. Peter Parker was a nerd in the comics, but in the new film he just doesn't look nerdy enough.

I don't like the fact that Peter is fast to take revenge on the classroom bully Flash Thompson after gaining his powers. In the comics he took great pains to retain the appearance of being weak.

In the first film the webbing was part of Spider-Man's transformation, while in this film it fires from a mechanical webshooter. The new film is more accurate in this respect. Peter Parker was a science expert and invented the artificial webbing himself.

The costume is less accurate in the new film than it was in the first. When I saw the photos months ago I was dismayed. In the film itself it doesn't matter so much. The costume details are hidden by the action.

Of course, the whole origin story in the first film is close to canon. Peter was bitten by a spider on a school trip. His uncle was shot by a robber after Peter had taken part in a wrestling match. The new film changes the facts, but the changes don't spoil the story.

Click here to view the trailer.