Today we're going to read about this Marvel's SuperHero, the level is a bit hard but you have to set some difficult goals in order to develop your Reading Skill.
On the other hand for those who want to become familiar with writing reviews, this is an example of a Movie Review.
When a studio reboots a franchise, starting from scratch while unavoidably having to repeat much of the same subject matter, comparisons are inevitable. Usually, though, the turnaround doesn't occur five quick years down the line (well, okay, this also happened with 2003's "Hulk" and 2008's "The Incredible Hulk"). In keeping this rather undesirable ritual going, Columbia Pictures has found a new creative team, a new cast, and added an adjective to the title ("What's better than 'Spider-Man'?" one studio exec probably said during pre-production. "How about 'The Amazing Spider-Man'?"). While 2002's "Spider-Man," 2004's "Spider-Man 2," and 2007's "Spider-Man 3" marked that rare trilogy that remained consistently successful over three films, its particular story and character arcs involving Peter Parker, Mary Jane Watson, and Harry Osborn had admittedly played themselves out by the end of the last one. For this so-called "re-imagining," director Sam Raimi is out and Marc Webb (2009's "(500) Days of Summer") is in, taking on a daunting summer tentpole about one hundred times bigger in size than his lovely indie debut. Meanwhile, screenwriting duties fall to sole returnee Alvin Sargent, and is extended to James Vanderbilt (2010's "The Losers") and Steve Kloves (2011's "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2"). As for the lead actor, 28-year-old Andrew Garfield (2010's "The Social Network") has been chosen to play 17-year-old Peter Parker because, apparently, there are no talented actual teenagers in Hollywood.
If not as tightly paced or even as emotionally gratifying as its forefather, "The Amazing Spider-Man" delivers spectacle and a hard choice near the end that suggests this rebooted series, like Christopher Nolan's "Batman" trilogy, may fully come into its own with a superior second entry that has already gotten the familiar setup out of the way. This one must be judged alone, however, and there is no getting around its been-there-done-that tedium and underlying reason for being: Columbia Pictures was desperate to add another surefire franchise release to their schedule, even if it meant returning to a well dipped into a measly half-decade ago. "The Amazing Spider-Man" can be immersive - the climax is certainly pulled off on an ornate scale - but does it also capture a comparable pure heart and freshness to Raimi's vision? No. Its creation and conception simply smell of too much cynicism.
Indie: Independent movie.