Reviews by Joshua "LF"

Ocean's Eleven is not trying to be a masterpiece. I greatly appreciate this about Ocean's Eleven. It's not trying to be perfect (because it clearly isn't). It's only goal is to provide a very entertaining two hours, in which it succeeds and excels at.

Danny Ocean has just gotten out of prison, and has no intentions of returning to society as a model citizen. Rather, he plans a heist to rob three of Vegas' biggest casinos and loot over 150 million dollars. Of course, this job is too big to do alone. Ocean get's 10 other recruits, for a total of eleven people, making this genius heist.

Ocean's Eleven would like to convince you that there's an emotional core to the film. In fact, there is, in the form of Ocean's ex-wife Tess, whom he is trying to win back. Alas, this romance is written with a minimal of elegance, and creates problems for the film's pacing. Ocean's Eleven is at it's best when ignoring the romantic aspect of the film, and focuses on entertaining.

Despite the fact that Ocean's Eleven is, in fact, a heist movie, the action is not what makes Ocean's Eleven such an entertaining film. It's the characters, whom are funny, developed, and best of all; memorable. Ocean's Eleven has a huge assembly of wonderfully entertaining characters who really make the movie.

George Clooney plays Danny Ocean who we sympathize with, and he gets much of the one-liners. Brad Pitt portrays Rusty Ryan, who may strike one as less humorous than the rest of the cast. Matt Damon plays a nervous wannabe named Linus Caldwell, and Julia Roberts acts as Tess- Ocean's ex. The more humorous characters, Saul, Basher and Reuben (the arguable standout that should've been in more scenes) are played by Carl Reiner, Don Cheadle and Elliott Gould respectively.

Constant attempts at "quotable" lines are made, and while most of them work, a decent amount fall flat. Some are so bad you may wince. Though it's unlikely you'll remember too many of the bad lines when there are so many memorable ones. You're likely to have a couple favorites by the end of the film.

Similarly to Ocean's Eleven's attempt at romance, this film also tries to convince us that this is an intelligent film. This is by no means a smart movie. Nor is it a dumb one. While it's general ignorance to things like common logic may irritate some, this is still far more intelligent than most popcorn flicks.

The score, by David Holmes is not poor, by any means. It's just a little generic. It has a basic jazz feel without doing anything truly unique. The emphasis on electronic sounds was also irritating. It works well for the movie overall, but it's extremely forgettable. Also, the music played at the end is truly atrocious, mostly because it doesn't match the film at all. A clunky piano piece and a sudden change to orchestra made the ending feel incredibly dramatic, like the conclusion to a masterpiece. Ocean's Eleven is not a masterpiece, and the music is almost laughably out of place at the end.

Flaws aside, Ocean's Eleven is marvelously entertaining and incredibly fun. Not everything works, but it's such a fun ride you'll hardly care. A true winner, if far from perfection.

The Lord of the Rings is a somewhat dull trilogy. The Fellowship of the Ring had enough exciting moments to warrant a recommendation, but The Two Towers was inexcusably boring. The final chapter in the trilogy, while still being tedious in parts, is by far the most entertaining.

The plot has not changed in this third installment. Frodo and Sam are trying to get to the land of Mordor to destroy the ring with the (supposed) help of Gollum.

The film's opening is the strongest opening of the entire series. We see Gollum as a hobbit (his name was Smeagol) fishing, when his friend finds a ring in the river. The two fight, and it ultimately ends in Smeagol strangling his "friend." We see years pass as Smeagol slowly transforms into the Gollum. The transformation is grotesque, and to some, maybe even nauseating, but it's wonderfully creepy and truly enjoyable.

Gollum continues to be the most interesting character. With the dark side of him winning over the good side, Gollum begins to get Frodo to think Sam is his enemy. The psychological parts of the first have nothing on these.

The Return of the King is by far the most dark of the three films. Unfortunately, the ending feels way too happy. After the darkness of the film, I was expecting an appropriately tragic ending. Alas, it feels happy in a forced sort of way. And the ending is certainly not assisted by an unnecessary 30 minute epilogue.

The Return of the King is not devoid of dull moments, but it's comparatively faster paced than the other two. There is more action than the other two, though much of it isn't very exciting. The best action segment (and quite possibly my favorite segment of the series) involves Frodo being deceived by Gollum and lured into the layer of a humongous spider. I do have a very slight fear of spiders, so this was especially scary for me, but in a good way. This makes up the most thrilling part of the film, with the possible exception being a fight between Frodo and Gollum near the end for the ring.

There really isn't anything to be said regarding the acting, score or special effects that I haven't already covered in my reviews of the other two Lord of the Ring films. Everything is excellent.

The Lord of the Rings will not go down as my favorite trilogy, or even my second favorite. But this satisfying conclusion makes me look at the trilogy in a more positive light. Through all the flaws of the series, and even this particular series, I suppose it has been pretty epic.

After a strong, if somewhat wobbly first film, The Lord Of The Rings trilogy goes significantly downhill with it's inferior sequel. The Two Towers has all the strengths and flaws of the first, though the strengths have diminished slightly, and the flaws have an even bigger presence.

The Two Towers is a continuation of the original film, in which a young hobbit named Frodo Baggins, as well as some friends, attempt to destroy a mystical ring, though dark forces oppose them.

At the end of the first film, the main characters are split up, which unfortunately, makes the film extremely complicated. Various plot lines are juggled and if the audience doesn't keep track of them all, things can get extremely confusing.

One plot line, involving Frodo and Sam attempting to destroy the ring on their own meet the Gollum. The Gollum is truly the most interesting character in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. His conflicted nature splits him into two personalities, one who wants the ring, and will kill to get it, the other that truly cares about Frodo and Sam.

The most uninteresting plot line involves Pippin and Merry being taken by walking trees and forced to do....nothing. We scarcely ever see the duo, and when we do, it's often dull. The primary source of comic relief in the first film is gone, making The Two Towers especially hard to watch.

There's less action and more talking. The length has actually been increased by a quarter hour, which makes the film even more tedious than the original. Even the dramatic battle at the end of epic scale is little compensation, as it doesn't feel very exciting.

At times, it feels like The Two Towers is repeating itself over and over again. You can count on the fact that every hour or so, someone almost dies, only to be saved an arrow to the offender's head. It's the primary source of escape in this film.

The acting, at the minimum, has not been hurt. Elijah Wood, Ian McKellen and the rest of the cast are as strong as ever. Christopher Lee's role, however, is significantly smaller, which is unfortunate.

Special effects also have not been affected in a negative way, and they are just as grand and marvelous as ever.

The score, by Howard Shore, feels a bit weaker than that of the original. The main theme is used less frequently, and the usage of lighter pieces are almost completely gone, due to the film's darker nature. It's still a good score, but it's weaker than it's predecessor's.

Dull to the point of hair pulling, The Two Towers fails to entertain. Even with the addition of Gollum, The Two Towers is boring beyond belief, and the action scenes are minimal. With little to excite viewers, it's a marvel that this tedious sequel actually has a positive reputation.

It is unsurprising that critics have taken The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring to liking. It's rich story, fantastic set pieces and marvelous special effects make all this clear. And fans of the books are certainly pleased, I would imagine. But frankly, I'm still not quite sure how anyone else managed to enjoy this film. It's excessive length and constant chatter can make The Fellowship a somewhat tedious affair at times.

As complicated as the film may be, The Fellowship is really about a hobbit (think a small person with very large feet) named Frodo Baggins, who receives a ring from one his relatives, that must be destroyed. Easier said than done, though. Many dark powers have sought to take the ring for their own, and will go to great lengths to secure the ring.

Of course, the film is much more complex than that. With many unique (if a wee bit bland) characters, as well as other things that truly enrich the story. Still, what I have explained above is the basic plot.

The run time is monstrous at nearly 3 hours in length. And because much of the film involves a lot of talking, this feels even longer. Yes, there are some action scenes that, while not being truly innovative or unique, at least bring some true excitement, which The Fellowship desperately needed more of.

Outside of action scenes, the slow, laboring pace is only assisted otherwise by two hobbits that join the journey, named Pippin and Merry, who provide comic relief.

Special effects are gorgeous, as are the costumes and set pieces. You really do feel transported to another world. With imagery both beautiful, and sometimes disturbing, The Fellowship brings some fantastic visuals to the screen.

The score, by Howard Shore, is appropriately mysterious, and lighthearted when it needs to be. The main theme may not be initially memorable, but it is quite beautiful, and those who really pay attention to the score will be rewarded.

The acting was extremely strong. Truly some of the best I've seen. Elijah Wood plays the confused and determined Frodo, while Sean Astin plays Frodo's faithful companion, Sam. Ian McKellen plays a majestic and somewhat mysterious role as Gandalf, a wizard and friend of Frodo. And Christopher Lee lends a wonderfully sinister Saruman.

The Fellowship Of The Ring can be tedious at times, and the bloated run time can really take it's toll, but this first chapter in The Lord Of The Rings trilogy manages to have enough high points to make for a (perhaps, slightly hesitant) recommendation.

Bedknobs And Broomsticks is rather obscure when compared to Disney's other films. This isn't a bad thing, though, considering most of Disney's other films are far superior to this overlong production. Lacking any excitement, or even laugh-worthy humor, Bedknobs And Broomsticks has little appeal to those over the age of 10, and even the youngest will likely be bored by the constant chatter and uninventive musical numbers.

Three children named Carrie, Charlie and Paul are temporarily adopted by Eglantine Price, whom they discover to be a witch. Ms. Prince gives the children a traveling spell, in exchange for keeping her secret, which allows their bed to teleport to any given location. The four also snag Emelius Browne- Ms. Price's witch teacher- into the adventure as well.

As one would expect, there are countless plot holes and silly things that are overlooked by the characters, but this is the least of the film's problems.

Bedknobs And Broomsticks runs for a taxing two and a half hours. Had Bedknobs And Broomsticks been truly entertaining, this would not be a problem. Another Disney musical, Mary Poppins has a run time around the same length, and is loved and adored by all ages. Needless to say, Bedknobs And Broomsticks is no Mary Poppins. The content of this dull musical, does not justify the relentlessly long length.

The number of songs in the film are not nearly as high as that of Mary Poppins, but they are far less inventive. Despite being penned by the Sherman brothers, the same duo that wrote the songs in Mary Poppins, each and every number is dull to limit. Occasionally, dancing takes place during these numbers, though the choreography is poor and uninspired. What's strange is that the beat of the music, often does not meet the beat of the dancing, which seems truly lazy.

The score, also by the Sherman brothers isn't too shabby, and the bed traveling theme is relatively strong, but the score often sounds too similar to the Mary Poppins score (especially in the earlier segments). Also, if you hate bagpipes, you will definitely want to avoid this, as the aforementioned instruments make more than one appearance.

Bedknobs And Broomsticks is specifically known for the Land of Naboombu, which is completely animated. It's always a marvel to see live-acted characters interact with animated ones. Alas, despite being showcased as the main attraction in Bedknobs And Broomsticks, the Land of Naboombu occupies a measly 30 minutes of the extensive run time. Talk about misleading!

Special effects often look dated, and the strings that are used to suspend objects in midair are clearly visible most of the time. There are some decent effects though, make no mistake about it. But not all of the effects are as polished as others.

The children are poorly acted, and most other actors fall into the unspectacular area. Only Angela Lansbury and David Tomlinson stand out.

Bedknobs And Broomsticks is wholly unspectacular. It lacks the humor and excitement it needed to translate into the fun adventure it fails to be. Add that with the overlong run time and the dull musical numbers, and you get a animated musical that is unlikely to leave anyone coming back for more.

Note: The Director's Cut is the version viewed.

Close Encounters Of The Third Kind is not entertainment. It is torture. Despite Close Encounter's legacy, I cannot recommend it on almost any level. Yes, it has greatly impacted culture and films, but this is not entertainment. This is the destruction of a family, a father slowly turning insane, and an overall traumatizing affair turned into a film. I repeat for a third time, Close Encounters is not entertainment.

The, slightly confusing, story follows a man named Roy, who's life is changed when he sees several UFO flying around his hometown. He becomes obsessed with a strange shape and sculpts it endlessly. He begins to go crazy, and his family is devastated. In a nutshell, that is the plot. And while parts of the story seem somewhat intriguing, they are executed poorly.

A good portion of the film centers around Roy growing crazy and the effect it's having on his family. Do we really need all this screen time focusing on the arguments and stress that his family is experiencing? We get the point, his family is vexed, you don't have to emphasize your point with a sledge hammer!

But watching Close Encounters is not only stressful, but it's also incredibly boring. At over 2 hours in length, Close Encounters is a tedious film. It lacks any kind of excitement (minus in one somewhat crucial scene involving a UFO abduction) and is generally devoid of humor. UFOs are teased to the audience, but never in length until the end.

The slowness of the film may not have been a big deal, had the pay-off been substantial. Alas, it's just as dull as the rest of the film, though the most impressive special effect work occurs here, and it is indeed impressive.

The score is shockingly pedestrian, despite coming from master composer, John Williams. There is actually little music to speak of, excepting the famous five note theme. I've come to expect so much more from Williams, but this is a major disappointment.

I feel little need to waste any more of my life than I already have on Close Encounters Of The Third Kind. I despised it and saw it as an exercise in tedium and stress. To see a family fall apart is not entertainment. If other plot points were executed well enough, this wouldn't be a problem, but the whole thing is a big mess. If you want aliens and Spielberg, you'd be better off watching E.T. again.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that I never really liked the Muppet films. Don't get me wrong, I love the Muppets themselves, and The Muppets Take Manhattan is one of my all time favorites, but the rest of the Muppet movies haven't quite met my fancy. Alas, this bright new Muppet film, aptly titled The Muppets, was not only a Muppet masterpiece, it's also perfectly fun for even Muppet novices.

In a purposely cheesy and paper thin plot, the Muppets and co must raise 10 million dollars to save the Muppet Studio from being torn down by oil tycoon, Tex Richman. The only way to do this: Put on a show! (Of course!) But will the new wave of audience members, who have long since forgotten the Muppets, fall in love with them again?

The Muppets is not only a practice in nostalgia, but it also has enough humor and good cheer to easily stand as it's own movie to those who haven't grown up with the Muppets. The whole gang is back (Rizzo the Rat excepted, not that I mind), and they're just as you remember them (even if Statler and Waldorf are just a wee bit less witty). Certain Muppet's screen time is limited (so don't expect Scooter to rival Kermit for the limelight), but having all the Muppets back is certainly a treat.

Of course, there are certainly some new Muppets too. The main character, Walter, for instance. Walter is what you would expect from a main character; bland and hopeful. Some of these characteristics were purposefully overdone, others feel less purposeful.

The strength of The Muppets come from it's humor, which is fun and varied. Witty one liners, references to previous Muppet films, satire humor, and some slap stick for the kids. There's also a lot of breaking of the fourth wall, which is done superbly to hilarious effect. This is arguably, the funniest Muppet film yet.

You feel obliged to laugh, not just from the humor, but from the atmosphere. Everything is just so happy and cheerful, it's feels ridiculous, but in a good way. It's hard for me to imagine someone not smiling during The Muppets. I personally had one plastered on my face for almost the entire run time.

Of course, musical numbers also make up The Muppets. And while these numbers aren't quite as memorable (or catchy) as that of The Muppets Take Manhattan, they're fun and oozing with joy. Life's A Happy Song is hilariously happy and cheesy, and the film's villain get's a brief rap which is humorous and unexpected. The Mupppets actually won an Academy Award for the song Man or Muppet. Personally, I thought this was one of the weaker songs in the film, and I'm surprised it was even nominated. By no means is Man or Muppet bad, it's just not that memorable.

The acting is appropriately hammy, and audience members will certainly find themselves chuckling from the acting alone. Jason Segel, playing Walter's human brother Gary, and his girlfriend Mary played by Amy Adams don't have much to do during the film, but they at least appear to be having fun. Cameos abound. Whoopi Goldberg, Selena Gomez, Neil Patrick Harris and many others get humorous small parts. Jack Black also receives a slightly longer role, portraying himself.

The score by Christophe Beck is comedic and fits like a glove for The Muppets. At times, it feels like it doesn't have much to do, but it does a great job blending with the Muppet world.

It would be hard to dislike The Muppets, even if you haven't been a fan of the Muppet's exploits to the big screen. Overflowing with joy and happiness, and with humor and cameos to spare, The Muppets is one of the most fun and enjoyable films I've had the pleasure of seeing. In a world where gloomy films like The Dark Knight trilogy dominate, it's nice to know that happier films like The Muppets are still around.

Mirror Mirror has a serious identity crisis. What is it, exactly? A parody of the Snow White tale, a modern adaption of the story, a comedy, a drama, a typical triangle romance, etc. Mirror Mirror never truly nails a feel or even a genre, making it feel like a jumbled mess of ideas and thoughts that no one bothered to sort out to make it seem cohesive.

The (curiously un-named) Queen has selfishly ruled the (once again, un-named) kingdom as her own, though it is rightfully Snow White's. Making life miserable for everyone, The Queen issues heavy taxes and outrageous laws to make everything convenient for her. Snow White, however, wishes to do away with The Queen, and restore the kingdom back to the way it was when her late father was king. Through a crazy (and convenient) series of events, both The Queen and Snow White attempt to win the hand of Prince Alcott for their own goals and reasons (love, being rich, etc.).

The 7 Dwarves also get worked into this, but they've been given new names and personalities (or, lack of), and it's unlikely that anyone will ever label them as "cute."

This new take on the Snow White tale is so unlike the story we know and love, one wonders why the makers even bothered to make this a supposed "adaption" of the fairy tale. Many of the elements from the story, such as the poisonous apple, are so incredibly forced. The apple that I just mentioned doesn't appear until the very, very end, and it's apparent that it was only added to make the story similar to the Snow White tale.

Other liberties have been taken too, and the end result really doesn't feel like the Snow White tale at all.

At the very beginning of the film, it seems Mirror Mirror may be a mockery of the classic tale, but it quickly seems to be a modern revision of it. It gets many, many genre changes as the film goes by. It almost becomes a kind of game to see how many different varieties of films it's trying to be.

This genre confusion is somewhat disorienting at times. For the most part, Mirror Mirror feels like a comedy (though laughs are a little scarce), but some scenes are so absurdly serious for the kind of film it's generally presented as (though I suppose what exactly it IS presented as is anyone's guess) that at times, it feels more like a cheesy romance.

Still, the visuals do shine. While the costumes are often ridiculous (some unintentionally so), they can be quite stunning, if not always on purpose. Most of the special effects are good, the set pieces in general are quite attractive and colorful. The woods, however, in which a good portion of the film occurs, look very cheap. It's painfully obvious where the set meets the painted backgrounds.

The Queen is the only inspired part of the film, aside from the visuals, and even she isn't always entertaining. Some of her quips are amusing, while others aren't so much. There are many attempts at humor, and while some may evoke smiles (or laughter at it's higher points), much of the humor falls flat.

Actually, there is some jokes that are a little off color. At a glance, it's all innocent, but taken out of context, there are several gags that feel a bit risque. The Prince accidentally given "puppy love" magic and licks people's faces, the servant that turns into a cockroach later is said to have been "taken advantage of by a grasshopper," etc. It's gags like these that will indoubtedly raise the eyebrows of more than a few parents.

Julia Roberts does a over the top performance as The Queen, and ends up being the highlight of the movie. The other actors, however, don't fare quite as well. Lily Collins and Armie Hammer as Snow White and Prince Alcott respectively are often cheesy, or else wooden. The acting feels un-natural, and often clunky. Other cast members fare more or less the same. Nathan Lane as the bumbling Brighton performs a bit better, though his performance is by no means memorable.

The score, composed by Alan Menken, is actually one his better scores in the last several years. It's light and fun, though there are times when it doesn't seem to have much to do.

Mirror Mirror is perfect entertainment for younger children (if you don't mind a couple questionable jokes), but for adults and teens, Mirror Mirror has little to offer. Some laughs and pretty visuals won't compensate for clunky acting, genre clashes, and frequently flat humor. Mirror Mirror will probably be remembered as little more than trippy version of Snow White, or even more likely, won't be remembered at all.

If there's one classic that I think has the most potential to be a masterpiece, Peter Pan is it. Disney did an admirable job with their animated adaption, and Dave Barry and Ridley Pearson have written a marvelous book series about Peter Pan. Hook, unfortunately, isn't nearly as good as it should be. It's silly premise, lack of comedy, and long length this a considerably lesser Pan-tale.

Peter Banning has long since forgotten his childhood as Peter Pan, and is now a middle-aged lawyer who puts work before family (and is severely afraid of heights to boot). But when his kids, Jack and Maggie, are kidnapped by Captain James Hook, Peter is forced to remember his life at Neverland, and learn to best Hook and save his children.

One of Hook's many problems is that it's a children's movie. Much of Hook will only appeal to the younger crowd, and the extensive running time (nearly two and a half hours) and it's slow, crawling pace will leave most children bored out of their minds.

The action is extremely minimal until the end, in which a battle against the pirates and the Lost Boys ensues, which mostly consists of dull slapstick. The humor is also extremely childish. It seems most everything in Hook is geared toward the youngest of children. Yet, as I just mentioned, it has an ominously long run time, which diminishes the film's audience to, well, no one.

It's such a shame too, because Hook might've been a decent film. There was a lot in Hook that I loved, and had Hook played it's cards right, this could've been the Peter Pan film I've been waiting for. Alas, the few elements of Hook that I enjoyed are vastly overshadowed by it's many flaws.

The premise is awkward, and even a bit confusing. The awkwardness is mostly due to the fact that Peter Pan is a middle-aged lawyer. Talk about shattering your childhood dreams. No one wants to see Peter Pan as an adult. His naive perspective of life and staying young is part of what made Pan so appealing in the first place. With Pan being all grown up, much of what made him such a loveable character is gone.

One rather tasteless scene that's worth pointing out occurs during Pan's dinner with the Lost Boys in which a rather grotesque and childish series of name calling occurs. In addition to names like "Mucus Muncher" and "Zit Popper," there are many others not worth repeating. As sorry as I feel for those who watched this scene (including myself), I am much more sorry for the actors that had to memorize these obscene names, as well as the writers who had to come up with them.

The score by the consistently incredible John Williams is perhaps a bit under-par. It's not bad, but it's not quite as good as William's other scores. The score isn't playful enough, nor is it grand enough. Compared to William's other film scores, it's a bit of a disappointment, but it's still mostly solid.

The acting is something of a mixed bag. No one does a poor job at acting, but there are problems, regardless. Robin Williams plays Peter Pan. This is a problem as Peter Pan is no longer a boy, he is now a man. This is a completely different version of Pan, so the actor needs to leave a completely new imprint. Unfortunately, Robin Williams is too big a star for this part, so instead of remembering Peter Pan as a confused and loving father, we remember him as Robin Williams.

Dustin Hoffman, on the other hand, blends excellently as Hook. When we see Hook, we don't see Hoffman. I'm sure the wig and makeup helped, but Hoffman is considerably less recognizable then Robin Williams, which makes his role much better. Hook, as a character, is already one of the better parts of the film, with his subtle elements of satire and humor, and this is aided even further by Hoffman's performance.

Julia Roberts, on the other hand is severely miscast as Tinker Bell. Most other actors do decent, yet not outstanding jobs, though Bob Hoskins performs amusingly as Hook's assistant, Smee.

This different take on Peter Pan fails to find an audience. It's too long for kids, too slow and devoid of action for teens, and too childish for adults. I wanted to like Hook, but it misses the mark as an action film, a comedy, and a family film. It tries to be too much, and it ends up being nothing at all.

Typically, when one walks into a film, they have pre-conceived notions and opinions about it. This was true for me when I walked into The Amazing Spider-Man. I had doubts that this reboot would be as good as the original 2002 film, and I was pretty sure it would just cover the same plot points as the original. This is why I was so surprised at how much I enjoyed myself. It's not the greatest film to grace the silver screen, and it is basically the same film we saw 10 years ago, but it's a lot of fun, and sometimes that's all I need.

Peter Parker (who was separated from his parents at the age of four) is a typical science nerd. That is, until he gets bitten by a genetically enhanced spider, and begins to develop spider-like abilities. Now, he must learn to control his new found power in order to stop a monster called The Lizard.

One thing that surprised me about The Amazing Spider-Man was how different it felt from the original. Yes, it's mostly the same as the 2002 version (but with improved CGI and a new villain), but the feel is so much more different. It's more light and more comedic. Which, based on how you look at it, isn't a bad thing. An overly serious super hero film can quickly become disastrous.

There's significantly more action in The Amazing Spider-Man then there was in the original. And although the action is less inventive, the improved visual effects and the greater intensity overcomes the lack of originality.

Emotionally, The Amazing Spider-Man can't touch the original. The characters are less developed, the plot is less complex, and the romance (though there's less of it) feels forced. The Amazing Spider-Man isn't as touching or intelligent as the original.

But that's okay, that isn't the focus of The Amazing Spider-Man. The Amazing Spider-Man only tries to be fun and exciting entertainment, and it does this splendidly. By eliminating most of the emotional aspects of the original, The Amazing Spider-Man makes more room for comedy. This won't appeal to everyone, but it makes it feel more fun.

J. Jonah Jameson, the publisher of The Daily Bugle was one of the best parts about the original trilogy. Sadly, he has been completely omitted from The Amazing Spider-Man. However, considering this is a reboot, it's unlikely that the same actor would've been hired, and even more unlikely that a new actor would be as memorable.

The Lizard can't touch Doc-Oc or The Green Goblin, as he's very straight forward. Kill Spider-Man. Take over the city. Revenge. Let's face it, the villain's development is rushed in favor of getting more action into the film, but I'm oddly okay with this.

The new league of actors perform well, but because of the straight forward nature of all the characters, the acting feels less impressive by comparison of the original. There are no actors that truly stand out. Andrew Garfield, replacing Tobey Maguire, plays a decent Spider-Man, but he tries too hard to imitate Maguire's performance. The mumbling, the shyness, it feels a bit too forced and not as natural. The acting is by no means bad, it's just not as good as in the original.

The score, composed by James Horner, is hands down better than that of the original. With surprisingly heavy use of the piano, and a minimal of techno effects and heavy percussion, the score improves on the original. There are some problems, though. Maybe I wasn't listening hard enough, but there didn't appear to be a recurring theme in the music, which may come back to bite Horner, considering that this is intended to be a franchise. Also, Horner is infamous for copying his own work in his scores, and while I haven't heard enough of Horner's work to judge, I've heard rumors of his Star Trek score finding it's way into The Amazing Spider-Man.

The Amazing Spider-Man isn't as intelligent, or defined as the original. It lacks the inventiveness and complex plot, as well as the iconic villain(s) that made the original such a hit. But The Amazing Spider-Man becomes a slightly better film by being what matters most in a film: Entertaining. It's light tone makes it much more comedic, and the action is more exciting. The votes will always be split as to which Spider-Man is better, but based on what I've seen so far, The Amazing Spider-Man shows an awful lot of promise.