I'm still struggling to accept the recycling of the Spider-Man franchise, with a trio of films featuring Toby Maguire as arachnid-endowed superhero Peter Parker followed by a new cycle starring Andrew Garfield; so much money, telling the same story over and again, while a budget that's probably the equivalent of one day of Spider-Man special effects creates something as fresh and exciting as Locke.
And the misgivings are not merely philosophical. Though there is some credit to Marc Webb's new film, it still misfires for long periods, both in terms of the storytelling and the action. It's less "amazing" and more so-so.
It starts well, with a flashback to the fate of Peter's parents (played by Campbell Scott and Embeth Davidtz). The opening sequence is exciting, and very sad, and signals the chief quality of the film as a whole, which is its emotional content.
In the story proper, this is manifested in Peter's off-on romance with Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), a much friskier, funnier affair than that between Maguire and Kirsten Dunst. The old-fashioned, romantic quality to their sparring is largely due to Stone's portrayal of Gwen as a strong-willed gal keen - when the opportunity arises - to be a protagonist in Peter's adventures.
The villains are far less satisfactory. Yet again they are involved with the multinational Oscorps, which any government with an iota of sense would have closed down long ago. Chief among them is Electro (Jamie Foxx), a geeky nobody with bad hair who falls into a vat of eels and emerges with the national grid at his fingertips.
The film suffers from too many characters and storylines, all vying for attention. And though Garfield is amusing, the film has some misjudged comic moments - the appearance of a lipstick-wearing mad scientist being its nadir. "Spidey" flying through the air is exhilarating, but the action sequences are instantly forgettable.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article