Looper

Director reunites with Joseph Gordon-Levitt to deliver Looper, a very different type of film to their previous collaboration, the cult indie Brick. 

Or is it? 

Because Looper, despite promoted as yet another sci-fi action flick, shares much with the indie mentality of believable characters, a constantly-developing story and the marrying of great actors with great material. Johnson's script is full of great scenes, whether it be the stand-out diner confrontation between Joe Simmons (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and his older self (Bruce Willis) or the emotional revelation from a troubled mother (Emily Blunt) about her 'special' child. 

Johnson also manages to cram in enough original and clever ideas to ensure Looper remains a science-fiction film, as opposed to being an excuse for action like recent offerings (In Time, Prometheus, John Carter, Total Recall, Cowboys & Aliens and the rest). Not that the action is lacking. There is plenty to keep mainstream audiences munching on their popcorn, as Willis fires dual machines guns and henchmen ride flying motorbikes. But genre-wise, Looper is closer in-line with Duncan Jones' Source Code and happily addresses the sci-fi elements of time-trickery. For example, a particularly innovative scene features a character rapidly losing their limbs because his past self is being brutally maimed by a torturer. Very clever, very haunting.

Johnson is equally capable of holding the camera, as well as the pen, and he assembles his film with the skill that you would expect from a previous winner of the Sundance Jury Prize for Originality of Vision. Like the recent Dredd, Johnson creates a believable futuristic world with a relatively low budget. The exposition-heavy opening is also expertly-crafted. Using a combination of voice-overs, montages and narrative flow, Johnson manages to establish an alternative future, introduce characters and teach the audience about 'closing the loop' and telepathy without ever sounding like a lecture.

Looper's greatest strength is its story, which will not be spoiled in this review. Suffice it to say, the twists and turns will keep the audience hooked. It is genuinely hard to guess where the story is going (a rare find in cinema today), even more so when the action relocates to a corn-farm for the second half of the film. 

A final mention must be given to the cast. Joseph Gordon-Levitt further cements his leading-man status, now adding action hero to his CV. He also perfects the trademark smirk of a young Bruce Willis. Meanwhile, Willis himself proves that he can still dispatch a room full of henchmen but equally reminds audiences that, unlike the rest of the Expendables, he can actually act. But most impressive is child actor, Pierce Gagnon, who holds his own against all of the grown-ups and steals a fair few scenes himself.

Looper is a refreshing genre-bending marvel: part-blockbuster, part-science-fiction, part indie. It looks set to win over the Friday night crowd and the film critics alike, whilst Johnson edges towards becoming an established name in Hollywood. 

Here's hoping we don't have to wait another four years for the next Rian Johnson film.

★★★★★

Dredd

Dredd is an unusual approach to a comic book adaptation: low-budget, simple plot, small cast, few big names and it's only 95 minutes long. In many ways, it feels like an extended pilot for a TV show. But, based on this evidence, there is plenty of potential for franchise development.

It is not surprising that a Judge Dredd reboot has been approached with caution. 

After all, the eponymous futuristic law enforcer from the 2000 AD comic strip has a relatively small fan base compared to the likes of Spider-Man, Batman and Superman. Plus, the last time Dredd was brought to the big screen was in Danny Cannon's 1995 flop, Judge Dredd, starring Sylvester Stallone in the titular role. This earlier attempt floundered at the box office, offended the fans (Dredd never takes his helmet off in the comics), garnered disapproval from Dredd creator John Wagner and earned Stallone a Razzie for Worst Actor, so naturally a relaunch was only going to be green-lit provided it would be a low-risk affair.

As such, director Pete Travis and writer Alex Garland obligingly keep things simple. The plot is straightforward: Dredd (Karl Urban) is partnered with a rookie (Olivia Thirlby) on a routine triple-homicide investigation at Peach Trees, an apartment block under the rule of psychotic drug-queen Ma-Ma (Lena Headey). When Ma-Ma's lieutenant (The Wire's Wood Harris) is arrested by Dredd, Ma-Ma locks down the block and the Judges have no choice but to fight their way upwards through multiple floors of henchmen.

Audiences are therefore presented with a low-stakes mission, limited to one location and a handful of characters. The lack of scale is a smart move and offers cinema-goers a gentle introduction to the Dredd mythology. We get a glimpse of dystopic Mega City One, a brief mention of mutants and an element of the supernatural in the form of Thirlby's telepathic rookie, all of which play a bigger part in the comics and have presumably been reserved for a better-funded sequel.

Most crucially, this focussed approach allows newcomers the opportunity to discover Dredd himself, rather than getting distracted by sub-plots and the wider mythology. Urban's Dredd is thankfully faithful to the 2000 AD comics: a grim, uncompromising, incorruptible force, with no time for humour or wisecracks or mercy. And Dredd purists will be relieved to hear that Dredd keeps his helmet firmly on, resulting in some admirable chin-acting courtesy of Urban.

Travis delivers as director, realising that if a film is low on plot then it should be big on style. Travis keeps the action brutal and the tone dark but can equally deliver inventive camera-trickery when necessary, such as when Thirlby's psychic invades a villain's head for information. The frequent drug-induced sequences are particularly captivating. The aptly-named drug, Slo-Mo, allows for some beautifully balletic sequences as glass shatters, bullets fly and blood splatters, all in slow-motion, with saturated colours and added special effects. These sequences were perfected by VFX supervisor Jon Thum and Alex Garland in post-production and justify paying for those 3-D glasses.

Various critics have noted that Dredd shares its plot with that of The Raid, the Indonesian martial arts flick that wowed audiences earlier this year. Many have argued that Dredd suffers from this comparison due to the frenetic - and admittedly better - action sequences delivered by The Raid. 

But whilst The Raid swiftly negotiated fight after fight, Dredd is more evenly-paced and allows room for the characters to shine. The Raid was populated with two-dimensional characters, headlined by a vanilla hero. Whereas, Dredd offers plenty of engaging characters, such as Thirlby's psychic and Headey's vicious gang leader, with Dredd himself already established as an enigmatic anti-hero. And whilst The Raid relied on Pentak Silat martial arts to excite audiences, Dredd has the advantage of being set in the future which provides plenty of equally cool gimmicks: Dredd's multi-tasking gun (the Lawgiver), his formidable bike (the Lawmaster) and his ever-iconic helmet.

If there is a criticism to be levelled at Dredd, then it would be the lack of scope. But then, as said earlier, this narrow look at the Dredd world was a necessary approach for the relaunch. Predictably, a sequel would heighten the stakes, add some complexity to the story and delve into the wider communities of both Mega-City and the ranks of law enforcement. And hopefully, based on this teaser, cinema-goers will demand a larger-scale Dredd adventure.

But you can be the judge of that.

★★★

Expendables 2

Let's get one thing straight: Expendables 2 is not a good film. It offers two hours of terrible dialogue, wooden acting and forced cameos. But it's a hell of a lot of fun and the best bad film that you will see all year.

Thankfully, the sequel fixes the mistakes of its disappointing predecessor, which made the crucial error of taking itself too seriously. But Sylvester Stallone has wisely vacated the director's chair for Simon West, director of the ever-enjoyable Con Air, who knows exactly how to approach this type of film. Namely, make the most of the famous faces and low expectations and just have some fun! 

And West succeeds. In fact, the first ten minutes of Expendables 2 offers more cheese, more silliness and more ridiculous action than was found in the entirety of its predecessor. Audiences can leave their brains at the door and enjoy Jet Li dispatching henchmen with cooking utensils, Jason Statham disguised as a kick-ass monk, Sly facing off against Jean-Claude Van Damme and Arnold Schwarzenegger ripping the door off a Smart Car. West knows how to deliver action, as do his veteran cast.

Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your sense of humour), the cast cannot deliver dialogue, nor can Stallone write it. The dialogue is comprised of tough guy talk ('Track 'em, find 'em, kill 'em!'), bad puns ('Rest in pieces!'), worse puns ('I now pronounce you man... and knife!') catchphrases ('Yippee ki yay!'), laziness ('You have an ego the size of a dinosaur'), nonsense ('You've been back enough, I'll be back!'), racism (the Chinese woman's favourite meal happens to be crispy aromatic duck) and lifeless banter ('If you need me, call me, or I'll kill you').

The acting is as bad as the dialogue but you knew that already. The only cast member in danger of doing any acting is Liam Hemsworth but they kill him off nice and early to keep the plot moving. On the other side of the acting spectrum is Yu Nan, as newly-appointed technical expert Maggie Chan, who is just plain terrible. Presumably, she was cast to make everyone else look good and anyone who can make Dolph Lundgren look like Marlon Brando is a very rare find indeed.

Naturally, Expendable 2's biggest draw is its wish-fulfilment casting. Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis are both back with thankfully more screen time and Jean-Claude Van Damme is a welcome addition to the cast as the new villain. He can still pull off those flying kicks. Best of all, Chuck Norris pops up in the most insanely crowd-pleasing cameo ever seen on the big screen. Norris rocks up in a baseball cap, dispatches an army single-handedly, tells an actual Chuck Norris joke (!) and then saunters off into the sunset.

Predictably, Sly isn't done yet. Expendables 3 is due to start filming later this year. Sly has been talking big about rounding off the trilogy and shifting the genre to keep audiences engaged, bless him. But over-thinking it would be a mistake. As ever, the credits will be the biggest draw. And with Sly already approaching Steven Seagal, Wesley Snipes, Nicholas Cage, Harrison Ford, Clint Eastwood and Jean-Claude Van Damme (who would play the twin brother of his character in this film!), the box office looks set to be bigger than ever.

In the meantime, Expendables 2 offers enough adrenaline-pumping action and laughable lines to keep you sufficiently entertained until their next outing.

And just to reiterate: Expendables 2 is a bad film. But that doesn't stop it being bad-ass.

★★★

Brave

Only an animation studio with Pixar's reputation could produce a film like Brave and leave audiences feeling slightly disappointed. Whilst the standard of the animation, voice-acting and writing is as high as ever, Brave lacks that one crucial aspect that we have come to expect from a Pixar outing: originality.

Arguably, from a Pixar perspective, the world's greatest animation studio were doing something very original indeed. After all, the past two Pixar films have been sequels and so a host of new characters is a welcome arrival. Brave breaks a lot of new territory never before seen in Pixar's feature-length filmography: a female protagonist, a princess protagonist, a British setting, the use of magic and this is the first Pixar film to be set in the past. In short, this is Pixar's attempt at a fairy tale and they put their gritty, well-researched take on the usual cuddlier fair. 

This is also the first Pixar film to focus on a mother-daughter relationship and therefore acts as a thematic companion piece to the father-son relationship in Finding Nemo. The portrayal of Princess Merida's troublesome relationship with her mother is so smartly-written that even the youngsters in the audience might side with the mother. No doubt, the involvement of Pixar's first female director, Brenda Chapman, was the key to nailing this relationship.

However, whilst all of this might be new territory for Pixar, it is old news for the average cinema-goer.

Audiences have seen plenty of rebellious Princess stories over the years: The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, Pocahontas, Mulan, The Princess and the Frog, Tangled and those are just the Disney examples. Brave dutifully follows the formula of such films and therefore feels very familiar. It arrives at a predictably tidy resolution and offers few surprises along the way (with the exception of one big metamorphosis twist which, fair play, they managed to hide from the multiple trailers). Who would have thought a Pixar film would ever be labelled formulaic?

Let's be clear. Brave is still the best animation you will see on the big screen in 2012: lovingly-crafted, beautifully-scored by Scottish composer Patrick Doyle and there are plenty of laughs to be had from the bickering Scottish clans. 

But it lacks the courage to challenge the Princess formula and so Brave fails to live up to its title.

★★★★

Ted

After a decade of Family Guy and American Dad, Seth McFarlane finally makes his directorial debut on the big screen. However, as with any episode of Family Guy, the reality is a mixed bag of gags, with equal measures of hits and misses.

This is a shame because, on paper, Ted should be an instant hit.

The concept driving the film is a truly original idea: young John's wish is granted and his teddy bear comes to life. But then John grows up (Mark Wahlberg) and he still has his walking, talking teddy bear as a best friend. McFarlane's writing explores the consequences of this scenario, both the dramatic and the comedic: what affect would this have on John's relationship with Lori (Mila Kunis)? How can John act his age with his teddy bear in tow? What would happen when the teddy bear reaches the legal drinking age? Unfortunately, the drama is often handled better than the comedy.

Much of the comedy is hoped to be generated by Ted himself. Sticking with the Family Guy formula, McFarlane aims to produce laughs by having a human partnered with a sidekick that shouldn't do adult things... but does. We have seen this with Family Guy's Brian and Stewie: a dog and a baby that drink, smoke, swear, fight, crack wise and have sex. Ted follows suit. Admittedly, seeing a teddy bear raise its middle-finger, say the F-word and smoke a bong in the trailer was hilarious. But with a feature length film, the joke soon gets old.

The comedy is stop-start. Some jokes land but many fall flat. 

Highlights include Ted's failed attempts to get fired, Mila Kunis picking up poo, McFarlane's trademark pop culture references, Ted squaring off with a chicken and Mark Wahlberg in general, who needs to be given more comedy roles. We also get Sam Jones (the original Flash Gordon) playing himself at a house party, necking shots, snorting cocaine, tripping out, fighting a disgruntled Chinese neighbour ("Miiing!") and overall just being an ageing Hollywood bad-ass.

But the lowlights include Patrick Stewart's opening voiceover which fails to get the film started, a wasted Joel McHale as Mila Kunis' sleazy boss and crude, loud moments such as when John farts in a restaurant. Chaotic, see-what-sticks comedy is fine in a long-running TV show like Family Guy. But with a film, when you only get 110 minutes, you need to have all killer and less filler.

That said, chaotic comedy can work on the bigscreen, as seen with Anchorman and 21 Jump Street (which retains the crown of Comedy of the Year), but only if the gag rate is high. However, McFarlane chooses to give equal weight to the dramatic scenes exploring John and Lori's turbulent relationship. This is not necessarily a bad thing because these scenes are well-written and well-acted. But it does put extra pressure on the comedy, which, as noted, does not always deliver.

Nevertheless, maybe this is being unfair. 

In many ways, Ted is the Avengers of comedy films: highly-anticipated and never going to please everyone. After all, this is Seth McFarlane's first feature film and it was never going to live up to the astronomically high standards demanded by Family Guy fans. As such, it is important to be clear: Ted is a superior comedy. It is certainly funnier than the tiresome rom-coms and formulaic Ben Stiller comedies that are churned out every year. It is just testament to McFarlane's reputation as a TV comedy don that we expected some more belly-laughs.

But McFarlane can walk away from this proudly. And based on the potential on offer here, both McFarlane and Ted deserve another outing on the big screen.

★★★

The Dark Knight Rises

How do you top The Dark Knight? Simple. You don't.

For better or for worse, Christopher Nolan has concluded his epic Batman re-imagining with a very different type of film. The Dark Knight was the superhero version of Heat, a fast and frenetic face-off between Batman and the Joker. It was a cinematic tour-de-force and smashed $1 billion dollars at the worldwide box office. As such, you may have expected TDKR to follow the same formula. And maybe it would have done if this was just another sequel or the franchise had been handed to a lesser director, as occurred with the X-Men films. It would have made money but it wouldn't have reaped the five-star gold medals.

But, no, if Christopher Nolan, one of the greatest film-makers of our generation, has decided to return to the director's chair then it won't be to simply rehash familiar territory. Instead, Nolan means business. Because this isn't a mere sequel. This is the concluding part of a trilogy. And that changes everything.

The concluding part of a trilogy must do exactly that: conclude. Story strands established in the opening instalment must be revisited and resolved, long-forgotten villains will suddenly make a reappearance and much-loved characters must meet their end (whether it be happy or sad). And before all of that can happen, things have to reach an all-time low for our heroes: Frodo ditches Sam, Andy goes to college, the DeLorean runs out of gas and Ewoks die. As Harvey Dent once said: "The night is darkest before the dawn."

As you would expect, Nolan is a pro and observes trilogy protocol dutifully. This means we get crowd-pleasing reminders of the first two films, ranging from flashbacks to familiar faces, and the stakes are raised higher than ever. Bruce Wayne has seen better days: he is eight years older, walks with a cane and his company is on the verge of bankruptcy. Meanwhile, Batman is villified in order to protect the legacy of Harvey Dent and he is held responsible several murders committed by Dent after he became Two-Face. Both ego and alter-ego have taken a beating. And all of that is before Bane arrives with an army of terrorists and holds the city to ransom. As such, TDKR is the darkest and least fun of Nolan's Batman films: allies turn, backs break and Gotham crumbles. This means that the re-watch value is arguably low but at least it delivers in shocking the audience and upping the tension. For the first time in the Nolanverse, we feel genuine concern for Bruce.

Most of this concern arises from Tom Hardy's Bane: a buff, brutal strategist who mercilessly holds Gotham hostage. He is a villain so dangerous than even the League of Shadows kicked him out. Hardy is perfect casting for such a nemesis. Few actors can rival his physical presence, as seen in Bronson, and Hardy makes good use of his bulk. It could have stopped there. Bane could have been reduced to a glorified henchman, as was the case in the awful Batman and Robin. 

But Nolan's treatment of the character is more faithful to the comics and the script favours Bane's fierce intelligence as well. Hardy obliges by taking the frankly ingenious decision to give Bane a well-spoken voice. This voice is a bizarre blend of David Attenborough and Gandalf but it is more memorable and more chilling than Bane's fists. The voice exudes wisdom and cynicism (indeed, his first line is a quip outsmarting Aidan Gillen's CIA agent) and serves to make Bane even more intimidating and fearsome than if he was just a heavyweight terrorist. Quite simply: Bane is Batman's physical and mental superior.

Admittedly, in terms of performance, Bane is no Joker. His mask severely limits the range of Hardy's acting expressions and, aside from a few lines, he will never charm the audience by cracking jokes and jerking around. But let's not forget that the Joker is Batman's most iconic, charismatic and crowd-pleasing villain. Hell, he is the Batman villain. And in the case of TDK, Heath Ledger's interpretation of the Joker was an Oscar-winning, career-best performance. Bane was never going to live up to that. A less imaginative director might have tried. If Nolan wanted another Joker, then he would have introduced the Riddler (Johnny Depp!) and had some fun. But this wasn't about testing the Bat once again, this was about breaking the Bat. And, as comic book zens will tell you, it was Bane who famously broke the Bat. 

Incidentally, the closest thing to a Joker performance in TDKR comes courtesy of Anne Hathaway's Selina Kyle, better known as Catwoman. Hathaway exudes sexiness and ass-kickery in her most controlled performance to date. The goofy days of The Princess Diaries and her emotive, hysterical role in Rachel Getting Married are long forgotten. Instead, this is a Hathaway more akin to Scarlett Johanson's Black Widow: cool, cunning, deadly and looking for redemption at any cost. Her Catwoman will keep you guessing until the end - villain, ally, love interest? - and will deliver some applaud-worthy moments along the way. Indeed, Hathaway's is the performance you will be reliving and quoting on the drive home.

...which is a shame because Nolan has assembled another superb A-list cast and none deserve to be overshadowed, least of all Christian Bale, who is often underrated for his three-film humanising portrayal of Bruce Wayne. And let's not forget Michael Caine's tear-jerking Alfred or Gary Oldman's dependable commissioner or Morgan Freeman's Lucius Fox (or should that be Q?) whose gadgets always steal the show. Also, new to this film is Joseph Gordon-Levitt's cop John Blake, who gets as much screen-time as Bruce Wayne and further cements his status as a Hollywood leading man. And that is without drawing upon the huge supporting cast of familiar faces that have arisen throughout the trilogy, many taken from popular TV shows (Band of Brothers, Prison Break, Lost, The Wire, 24, Game of Thrones, Torchwood and more). You can have a lot of fun trying to spot them all.

But despite Nolan's reputation as King of the Ensemble, the Batman films have never been solely about the acting talent. Nolan has two further strengths, arguably more essential to his films' popularity.

The first is his ease with negotiating increasingly-elaborate action scenes and TDKR has the challenge of topping Inception's revolving corridor brawls. Nolan, never one to rest on his morels, ups the ante. So we get a motorbike chase with stockbrokers strapped to the back of the villains, we get a new flying Bat-vehicle for airborne assaults, we get a plane hijacking another plane and we get the much-publicised football game assault (although, this was the money-shot from the trailer and so it feels like old news). We also get the most brutal and prolonged fist-fight yet with Batman and Bane squaring off. Nolan crafts expert action-scenes: less Michael-Bay-frenzied-shaky-cam and more a James-Cameron-clear-and-controlled approach. And Hans Zimmer's score keeps the adrenaline pumping throughout.

Nolan's second unsurpassed strength is his ability to tell a story. Nolan has always been able to assemble a complex story structure without alienating his audience (Memento, Inception) and TDKR is no exception. Flashbacks and sub-plots and memories are all intricately interwoven into the main story, some lasting no more than a couple of seconds, but all serving their purpose to reveal more about Nolan's enigmatic characters. The impact of some of Nolan's twists would not be so great without the foreshadowing of these little snippets of back-story and it is testament to Nolan's subtlety that these snippets never feel forced, nor do they distract too much from the events occurring in Gotham. It would be nice to see Nolan put aside the big budget for his next film and craft another Prestige or Following.

So, having read all of that, surely TDKR is close to perfection? Well, no. 

Ten days after its release, there are some common criticisms arising. They range from the bizarre ('I can't understand what Bane is saying!') to the petty ('It takes itself too seriously!'). Several have noted that the start was fairly slow-paced and failed to live up to the opening of TDK. But considering TDK has possibly the best opening to any movie ever, it would be fair to cut Nolan some slack on this count.

And, yes, the re-watch value is possibly the lowest of the series. Of the three films, TDKR is the least standalone film and knowledge of the previous instalments is essential for maximum enjoyment. A newcomer to the series would be baffled by the footage of Two-Face ('What the hell was that thing?!') and the reappearance of Ras Al Ghal ('Hey, look, Liam Neeson!'). But you would expect a certain amount of foreknowledge when delivering the concluding part of a trilogy.

There is valid criticism about the length of the film. 165 minutes is a long time to be sat in the cinema. Not that it feels particularly long but a trim would have made it leaner and meaner. As Stephen King once said: the second draft should be the first draft minus 10%. Nolan could have severed several of the sub-plots, such as the three soldiers who show up and get hung almost immediately, Gordon-Levitt's bus-load of children, Matthew Modine's police chief and whatever was happening with that lispy rival businessman. And, as ever, Nolan puts in one action scene too many. Did we really need a climatic chase scene after the Talia Al Ghul twist?

It could also be argued that Nolan wavers slightly into cliché territory at times, which is a shame because Nolan usually reinvents the wheel. But TDKR features a romantic encounter by a roaring fire and the Jedi-like return of Ras Al Ghul and a ticking time bomb diverted at the last second and the aforementioned bus-load of children (not just children, orphans!) that need bravely rescuing. Most of this is harmless but it is very clichéd for the gritty Nolan-verse.

But even five-star films have their flaws and be under no doubt, TDKR is a five-star film. It is unlikely to be the Film of the Year (Skyfall vs. Hobbit) but it is superior, well-crafted, masterful story-telling and a worthy swansong to Nolan's trilogy. 

Like Bruce Wayne, the Nolan Bat films leave their own legacy. Their serious handling of the Batman legend breathed new life into the caped crusader, bridging the gap between escapism and realism. The films united cinema-goers, pleasing regular crowds with mainstream thrills whilst retaining enough integrity to earn the respect of film critics. And Nolan delivered a superhero trilogy with the scale of an epic: a seemingly-endless cast, a story that spans decades and action that sprawls across city-wide, world-wide locations.

Above all else, it is a complete, consistent and concluded trilogy, the vision of one director and one of our best directors: Christopher Nolan. As such, it will sit alongside Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Back to the Future and Toy Story as one of cinema's few great trilogies.

Maybe it's about time that we made Christopher Nolan a knight? #sirchristophernolan

★★★★★

The Amazing Spider-Man

The Amazing Spider-Man is best described with borrowed words from The Dark Knight. Specifically: he isn't the hero that we need right now. But he's the hero that we deserve.

After all, audiences were not exactly crying out for a Spider-Man reboot. The Sam Raimi trilogy only concluded five years ago and many still remember it fondly. 

And why not? Back in 2001, the reverse of the above statement was true: Raimi's Spider-Man was the hero that audiences needed. In the wake of 9/11, a dispirited country needed a film where an all-America hero saved New York from a maniacal terrorist. Peter Parker embodies the American dream as he journeys from zero to hero and his suit matches the colours of the American flag. The world needed Spidey and they also needed something to raise their spirits after the recent horrors inflicted on America and the resulting War on Terror. 

All of this was dutifully provided by Raimi. His Spider-Man trilogy is light-hearted, straight-forward entertainment: often fun, sometimes silly and always uncomplicated. Spidey gets the girl, beats the baddy and everyone goes home happy with a belly full of popcorn.

And so we didn't necessarily need a Spider-Man do-over. 

However, we certainly deserved one. There are numerous flaws with Raimi's Spider-Man films. The performances are forgettable, the script is bland and the action scenes look surprisingly dated. It's shocking how much CGI has evolved in the past decade. Plus, Raimi sat in the director's chair. It goes without saying that Raimi was a popular choice - this is the guy that directed Evil Dead 2! - but, on the other hand, this is the guy that directed Evil Dead 2, a horror renowned for being ridiculously entertaining but also completely ridiculous. 

As such, for every iconic upside-down Spidey kiss or Doc Ock splitscreen tentacle melee, we also have to endure a corny exchange with Aunt May or Spider-Man turning emo or an improvised jazz dance or an exposition-heavy British reporter. There is also far too much flag-waving patriotism, as seen when the citizens of New York start bombarding the Green Goblin with junk: "You mess with Spidey, you mess with New York!" My gag reflex is tingling.

As such, we deserved a reboot - whether we realised that we needed it or not - and thankfully Sony and director Marc Webb (most appropriate name ever) obliged.

Enter The Amazing Spider-Man: a sexier, cooler interpretation of Peter Parker's origin story, bursting with charisma and personality thanks to its talented cast members. Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker and Emma Stone's Gwen Stacy slip effortlessly into their lead roles and their natural likeability means they instantly outshine Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst from the Raimi trilogy, both of who were bland, whiny and uninspiring.

James Vanderbilt's script helps the performances. Every character is handled with care (even the school bully has a story arc) and the one-liners are generously shared out. Michael Sheen's Uncle Ben and Denis Leary's Captain Stacy raise the odd smile in their supporting roles, although the biggest laugh is courtesy of Peter Parker toying with a car-thief: "You discovered my weakness! Small knives! Achoo!" 

Vanderbilt's script is also a more modern take on the characters. He recognises that the leads are high-school kids and approaches the characters as such. We therefore get a Spider-Man who skateboards and shows-off and gets awkward around cute girls and plays games on his SmartPhone whilst waiting for the villain to arrive. We also get a 21st century Gwen Stacy who is smart and heroic, as opposed to Dunst's Mary Jane whose prime function was to dangle helplessly from various buildings.

The Amazing Spider-Man will also win favours amongst comic book purists. This Peter Parker designs his own web-slingers as depicted in the comics so the fans can finally stop complaining about Parker naturally spawning webs from his wrists as seen in the Raimi trilogy. Fans will equally be happy to see the Lizard on-screen, played by an oddly-cast Rhys Ifans, after teasing cameos in the earlier films of a pre-transformation Dr Curt Connors. And the traditional Stan Lee cameo is a particular treat.

As director, Marc Webb has assembled an immersive and engaging film. It would be tempting to say this is a darker and grittier Spider-Man but this is still a long way from the Dark Knight Nolanverse. But it does feel more real than the colourful Raimi offerings. Webb's attention-to-detail ensures that each location is true-to-life and more documentary than studio set. Webb is also an actor's director and naturally he gets some very believable performances from his cast, especially when utilising the chemistry between Garfield and Stone. No less than you would expect from the director of 500 Days of Summer.

The Amazing Spider-Man is not without problems, most caused from a horrible sense of deja vu. After all, we have seen the Peter Parker origin story before (getting bit, learning to swing, Uncle Ben's death) no matter how differently it is packaged. And how many times have we seen superheroes face-off on top of a skyscraper? Also, the Lizard is new to the bigscreen but hardly a villain to rave about. Presumably, the Lizard was chosen as the equivalent of Batman Begins' Scarecrow: a minor villain designed to test the hero without overshadowing him. Which begs the question, who will be Spider-Man's Joker?

But the reboot series is just getting started. Sony are clearly franchise-building and happy to take it slow. The film ends with both leads still in high-school so the Daily Bugle days could be entire films away. The opening intrigue surrounding Peter Parker's parents looks set to continue in a multi-film arc, as does the anonymous villain who cameos during the closing credits (blatantly Norman Osborne AKA The Green Goblin). They also made the smart move of keeping the Lizard alive so he can reappear throughout the sequels, again like Nolan's Scarecrow in his Bat trilogy. 

In any case, the release date for Spider-Man 2 has been set for 2 May 2014 and now that the origin has been dutifully revamped, the Sony team can start exploring some new (more amazing) territory in the sequel.

In the meantime, audiences have finally been given the Spider-Man film that they deserve.

★★★★