The Shrine

The Shrine is a film that has been floating around for a few years now but only got a UK release in February of this year. The basic premise is that an American tourist, Eric Taylor, goes missing whilst travelling across Europe, Poland to be precise, and nobody knows what has happened to him. The Polish police aren't very helpful and the American police are too busy to spare the man power to look into the case in any depth. The case is picked up by a reporter back in Eric's hometown. The opening few scenes suggest that the reporter, Carmen (Cindy Sampson), is in the middle of a career slump and needs a big story to help her get 'back in the game'. She goes to her boss with the story but he tells her to leave it alone and to focus on a local story involving bees. Being the brash, aggressive, 'eyes on the prize' type, Carmen completely ignores her boss. This is merely one of numerous mistakes that she makes throughout the film. It's established early on in the film that Carmen has a slightly strained relationship with her boyfriend, Marcus (Smallville's very own Jimmy Olsen, Aaron Ashmore - not to be confused with X-Men's Iceman, Shawn Ashmore). She doesn't seem to have time for him, acts on a whim and seems to be mainly focused on whatever benefits her.

That stain's gonna be a bitch to get out - where's the Vanish?

After meeting Eric's mother, Carmen borrows Eric's diary - his luggage having been returned home - and finds out his last recorded steps. This leads to a small, primitive Polish town that literally has a dark cloud hanging over it. The locals are depicted as basic, aggressive, secretive and wary of 'outsiders'. It's established that only a few of the locals, mainly the children, speak English. It's also established that the villagers aren't afraid of making visitors aware that they are not welcome. Carmen has managed to convince Marcus, conveniently a photographer, and Sara, an intern at the newspaper, to fly to Poland with her to get the real story on what happened to Eric. Following Eric's last steps, the group come across a large cloud that constantly floats above the woods. This is basically the last thing Eric saw, meaning that they go into the woods for a further inspection. The cloud is thick, dark and gives no visibility. Marcus holds back from going into the cloud, whereas the girls let their curiosity get the better of them and both go in, one by one, for a closer look. Once inside the cloud, the girls can see nothing at all until they individually come across a creepy looking statue. Sara is the first to find her way out of the cloud, followed by Carmen. The unhappy locals then turn up and a chase ensues. The film then gets into familiar territory, with the protagonists getting captured and tortured. The film then takes a largely refreshing change of pace and tone, with the real story becoming clear.

Carmen, Marcus and Sara - the 'victims'

I wasn't expecting much from The Shrine, but I was pleasantly surprised. Whilst it's not going to change the face of the horror genre, it is great little feature. It has some familiar plot points and some familiar characters but it manages to do something different with them than so many other films do. There's a sense of predictability during the most part of the film, then it changes things up and shows influences from the likes of The Wicker Man, The Exorcist and Sam Raimi. I was expecting the usual, standard, throwaway horror. Instead I got a genuinely freaky film with some standout moments. The one big gripe I did have was with the main lead, Carmen. She comes across as obnoxious, selfish, annoying, uncaring and insincere - not the traits I'd normally look for to get sympathy and concern for the supposed victim of the piece. Still, there's Aaron Ashmore to cheer for, and he does a good job as the more logical, rational and 'everyman' type. The rest of the characters are fine for what they are, with a nice appearance from Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer's Trevor Matthews as one of the villagers. The Polish spoken seems a little off to me, but I'm no expert in that and it's likely down to the fact that most of the villagers aren't actually played by Polish actors.

All in all, I'd say to give this film a chance if you're at a loose end one night. You just might be surprised by the not so formulaic twists and turns.

Not winning...

Documenting The Grey Man

The first thing that grabbed me about this film, as with so many films of a similar nature, was the DVD cover art. It depicted a young girl, back arched, floating above her bed. It was an instantly creepy image and definitely piqued my interest. Maybe I'm just a sucker that gets easily drawn in by shock imagery.

Wouldn't fancy my chances against her in a limbo competition

The basic premise surrounds a South Carolina legend called The Grey Man. The Grey Man is a spirit that appears on the beach to warn the locals when a hurricane is on it's way - think Michael Fish but without the 'tache and glasses. As well as haunting the beaches, a local family claim that he haunts their family home. The film starts off with a documentary crew discussing The Grey Man. They are just a normal group of filmmakers but decide that they are going to pose as ghost hunters and investigate the spooky goings on. They plan to film their documentary in two parts; one where they purposely stage haunted events and one where they reveal the tricks they used to convince people of the ghostly occurences. They go in with the logic that the legend of The Grey Man is a myth, merely an urban legend. They want to expose how easy it is for the ghost hunters of the world to fake spooky goings on. The film is shot in the handheld, found footage style of predecessors such as The Blair Witch Project, Paranormal Activity, Cloverfield, Pamela & Tommy Lee, et al, with the cameras being on throughout the entirity of the teams' adventure.

The film starts slow, with the crew interviewing a few locals about The Grey Man. From there they move on to the house in question, a large, isolated, rural property way out in the sticks. Here you get introduced to the family, the Simms', that are apparently haunted by the spirit. There's the concerned and open wife, there's the private, non-believing, distant husband, and then there's the slightly creepy daughter. The house also has a Scooby Doo-esque caretaker type character. I was just waiting for Shaggy to try and remove the caretaker's 'mask', only for it to be real, Scooby to give out a "Rikes!" and then hiliarty to ensue. Sadly this was not the case.

"G-g-g-g-ghost!"

As the crew are having sit down interviews with the family members and setting up cameras across the house, it becomes apparent that all is not as fake as they had anticipated. The film teases the tension well at times, not giving away too much too soon. This backfires though. The film only runs for just over an hour - I think 1 hour 4 minutes is the official running times, credits and all. That's a ridiculously short length for a feature film. Even worse is that the first real scares start to come at about the 40 minute mark, leaving just the final 20 minutes of the film for the spookiness to make itself known. The initial shock moments work relatively well, it's just the big pay off that disappoints. The final part of the film, the big finale, the part that everything thus far has been hinting at just falls flat on it's face. It leaves you shrugging your shoulders and mumbling "meh". It's just a throwaway, nothing ending. You know what's coming, it comes, it doesn't get entirely explained why, and then it's a case of 'la FIN!' and done.

The crew planning their hoax haunting

The general idea of the film had a lot of potential. The slow build up throughout the film works well, the tone is set, the action isn't rushed, the scares don't happen right off the bat... then the last 20 minutes just crams everything together. I can't even call it a case of pacing problems as so much as it's more the length of the film that has me scratching my head. The first 40 minutes would work fine if it was a 90 minute film. The fact that it's a 64 minute film just throws everything off. Another big flaw with the film is the acting. The majority of the delivery is horrendous. It can get away with this at times, especially when the crew involved are essentially playing the roles of over the top ghost hunter types. It's at the other times where the poor levels of acting stand out, even from the opening scene of the film.

If you're a fan of the recent found footage style film then you may want to give this a try. One of the plus points is that at least it is short, with you being able to get through it in basically an hour. When the scares do come then a few of them work well, the more subtle ones. It's when the supposed 'big scares' happen that you just don't get a sense of terror. It just feels inflated, over the top and poorly acted. As I've said though, and as a self confessed horror geek, this may be worth a watch for some genre fans. Lord knows I happily sit through films that I'm fully aware may be seen as trash by most, and even at times by myself. It's almost par for the course of being a horror fan.

Michael Fish - Could this be The Grey Man?

The Dark Knight Rises

So, it's finally here. The Dark Knight Rises. It's been billed as the perfect end to an epic trilogy. It's the film that brings to a conclusion Christopher Nolan's grounded in reality Bat-tale. It's predecessors have been both critically and publicly appreciated, admired, praised and respected. Heath Ledger even got a posthumous Oscar win; something unheard of for an actor in a mere 'comic book' movie. Not much to live up to then...

Will it be a 'happy ending?'

Arguably the most anticipated film of the year (obviously behind Piranha 3DD), there was a lot resting on the shoulders of the Caped Crusader in this one. How would Nolan wrap up his Bat trilogy in a way fitting to the previous two installments? How would any villain/actor be able to follow on from The Joker/Ledger? How could the Bat be pushed to limits that exceeded those that the Rachel Dawes/Harvey Dent story arc pushed him to? How would the Batman-on-the-run story get a fitting climax? All of these questions and more are answered here. With the film missing Heath Ledger and Maggie Gyllenhaal for differing reasons, how would the new cast members step up to the plate? In came Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Anne Hathaway and Tom Hardy amongst others. Along with these additions, we see the return of familiar faces such as Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman and, of course, Christian Bale.

The story picks up 8 years after the events of The Dark Knight. After the 'honourable' death of Harvey Dent, Gotham introduces a Harvey Dent Day and also a Dent Law. Harvey Dent Day serves as a reminder of the 'white knight' and what he stood for, a symbol of justice. The Dent Law is responsible for locking up 1,000 or so criminals. Due to this, there is no need for the Batman - Gotham no longer needs a Batman, a hero. Bruce Wayne is now a hermit of sorts, hidden away in Wayne Manor. Sure, he is still a billionaire, there are still functions held at Wayne Manor, Wayne Enterprises is still a huge global company. It's just Wayne himself that stays out of the public eye; a battered down man who's been savaged by the war he's waged on Gotham's criminal presence. He starts the film as an unkempt, unshaven cripple holed up in one of the many rooms of Wayne Manor. He has no need to be anything else. It's only the impending threat of Gotham's destruction that pulls back the Bruce Wayne mask and once again brings the Batman to the fore. That impending threat is titled simply Bane.

Bane in his best Steve Harley inspired jacket

Firstly, if your only knowledge of Bane is from Joel Schumacher's 1997 Batman & Robin, forget everything you think you know. That portrayal was a mockery, a disservice to a truly fascinating villain. Bane is a highly intelligent master strategist with the bulk, strength and power of a brute. He is aware that Bruce Wayne is Batman and uses this to expose his weaknesses. In the comics, Bane was introduced in the critically acclaimed story known as Knightfall. He sees Batman's heart, nobility and determination as his weakness. He knows that the Dark Knight will keep on fighting as long as there is a criminal on the lose. He prays on this by breaking the majority of Batman's rogues gallery out of Arkham Asylum at the same time, causing the Bat to become worn down in his constant uphill struggle to find and capture said criminals. Once weak enough, Bane strikes, literally breaking the Bat in the process (courtesy of backbreaker that even Bret Hart would be proud of). This causes Bruce to give up the mantle of the Bat, to hang up his cape and cowl.

Truly one of the all time classic Batman images

In The Dark Knight Rises, Bane is portrayed as he should be; as Batman's intellectual and physical equal, even surpassing him in some ways. He hits Batman where it hurts, he hits Gotham. He bankrupts the city, declaring a state of Martial Law (not the Sammo Hung starring TV series), and waiting for Gotham to eat itself. He does all this whilst also making some very valid points. You almost feel yourself siding with him at times. Before all of this occurs though, Bruce is attacked from another angle. A rival of Wayne Enterprises commits fraud against the company, leaving Wayne without a penny in the process. Bruce is left with nothing, fighting the question of whether he has what it takes to take down Bane after spending 8 years out of the cowl. Is he up to the job?

As well as all of this going on, there's also Anne Hathaway's brilliant Selina Kyle looking out for personal interest and playing all sides against each other. Joseph Gordon-Levitt's Officer Blake steps up to the plate to be one of Jim Gordon's go to men. Gordon himself spends the opening of the film troubled by the cover up and lies that he has had to tell about Harvey Dent in order to protect Dent's image and to keep the hope of justice alive in Gotham. Michael Caine's Alfred is the emotional rock for Bruce Wayne again, giving sage advice at difficult times, making difficult, life changing decisions and having to do what's right regardless of the consequences. Caine is brilliant in this, his best portrayal of Alfred to date. After the events of The Dark Knight and the death of Rachel Dawes he is a tormented soul, desperate to see Bruce pull himself away from his reclusive behaviour, to see Bruce get himself a 'normal' life, for Bruce to not get into fights that he cannot win. The rest of the supporting cast, principally Morgan Freeman's Lucius Fox and Marion Cotillard's eco-friendly love interest, Miranda, are fine for what they are. Freeman's banter with Wayne is still as sharp as ever, with Cotillard filling her role perfectly.

Not as much bondage as Michelle Pfeiffer but just as stunning

That brings me to the man himself, Christian Bale. His portrayal of Bruce Wayne and Batman picks up from where it left off. If you are a fan of the Bale Bat then you will enjoy his performance. If you are not of fan of his Caped Crusader then you likely won't have your thoughts swayed by him in this either. I'm a big fan of certain features of his Batman but not such a fan of other aspects. In this film he spends a lot of his time as a beaten down Bruce Wayne, a victim of a monstrous attack to both his body and his mind. It's a great performance from Bale. I'm sold on him as the troubled Bruce Wayne, the self sacrificing Wayne, the whole facade of the Bruce Wayne mask. The part I still find myself struggling with is his Batman. It's the same issues I've had from the previous two films. It's something to do with his jaw, mouth, and animalistic Batman voice. I understand the logic behind the aggressive, unnatural voice but it's merely a personal preference of mine and it doesn't get in the way of a fantastic film for me. And this is a truly fantastic film.

The story flows just as smoothly as the last two films. The running time is a little under three hours but you won't notice that. The film has a great flow to it, matched perfectly by Hans Zimmer's intense, perfect score (again!). The story differentiates slightly from the comics and graphic novels but I'll let Nolan's tinkering slide as he does such a brilliant job with the story. There's one slight problem I have with something towards the end of the film but I can't go into that without giving away some spoilers. There'll be a time and a place for that, and it really is only a tiny gripe.

If only he had Keaton's jaw...

The film has a truly epic feel to it, with the last half an hour cranking everything up to 11. I get goosebumps now just thinking about it, especially the final few minutes. It's the perfect finish to a truly epic trilogy. Was it worth the wait? Was it worth the hype?

Of course it was. But you knew that already.


On a side note, my thoughts go out to those in Aurora, Colorado who did the same as me and so many others around the world. They'd anticipated an epic film, they'd looked forward to it for months, years even. They went to a midnight showing only to be gunned down horrifically by a lunatic. All they wanted to do was to see Batman, yet many have been injured and several have been killed. Keep those guy in your thoughts.

The Best Batman Is...

So, the burning question rages on - who is the best Batman? Now, this question can throw up numerous possibilities. What does one judge their answer on? Is it who's Bruce Wayne is the perfect playboy? Is it which Batman balances the correct tone of intelligence, grit, determination and symbolism? Is the Batman in question judged by his script? Is it the ability to banter with supervillains? Is it a case of familiarity and what Batman you grew up with? Is it simply who has the better jaw? I'd like to think that the answer is made up of a nice amalgamation of all of the above and then some.

Firstly, this is merely my personal preference. Some people may agree with my choices, others may dispute each and every one of my picks. This is my list though, meaning my thoughts and my reasoning (I can't promise that the aforementioned reasoning will be in any way rational). I've also decided that it's going to work better as a top 5 type of list, building up to my number 1. I'll do my best to describe the logic behind my picks, so try and stick with me as best you can. So without further ado...

5) Adam West - This is purely a personal choice based on the fact that as a kid I would spend hours upon hours watching the classic Adam West and Burt Ward Batman TV series whenever it was on. Sure, this version of Batman was as camp as Tom Cruise jumping up and down on Oprah's sofa but it was entertaining. It played on the kitsch factor. It didn't take itself seriously in the slightest, poked fun at itself and ticked all of the cheesy boxes required (see cliffhanger endings, rope walking up walls and giant 'POW!' signs). This was the version of Batman that brought the Bat into the public eye for a whole new generation of people. Granted, things like Aunt Harriet looking after Bruce and Dick were ideas that strayed from the original material, but this was the Batman of over the top cheese and campness. I'm not saying it was a great portrayal of the Caped Crusader, I'm just saying that it's a Batman that resonates a lot with me as it's the version of the Bat that I first came across.

4) Val Kilmer - Mr Batman Forever himself. Val has played some of the all time legends on screen, mainly Batman, Jim Morrison, Elvis and John Holmes amongst others. That said, there's likely something to be said about the fact that I classify Batman in a list with other actual real people. Back to the case on point, Val picked up the Bat mantle at a strange time. Tim Burton was originally slated to come back for a 3rd film in his Bat series but that fell apart. Step up Joel Schumacher and his vision of the World's Greatest Detective. The film has it's flaws, many of them, but Kilmer is a pretty bad ass Batman. His Bruce Wayne falters at parts but his Bat is intimidating at the right times and he is a bit more aggresive in the role than his predecessor, Michael Keaton. Similar to Keaton, he is an imposing, physical presence and he often shows the torment that Bruce/Batman is feeling. The film could have been so good but due to the camp factor, script and the tongue-in-cheek feeling at times, the film, and subsequently it's hero, gets dragged down. The film also suffered from large cuts and rewrites, often losing scenes that further expand the Bruce Wayne character and the torment he feels. It's disappointing to think what could have been if Burton would have managed to stay aboard the project with Kilmer as his Dark Knight.

3) Christian Bale - Yep, 3rd. I went there. This will likely be the part where most people huff in disgust and spit at their computer (much like Bale spitting his dummy with extras, soundmen and producers). I'm a big fan of Bale as the Bat. He pulls off the broody, selfless Batman whilst also playing up the brash, flash, playboy lifestyle of Bruce Wayne in order to keep public suspicion from linking the two together. He differentiates the body language, the way he carries himself and, most noticeably, his voice and the way he projects it. He is physically intimidating as Batman, using the shadows and his environment better than any other live action version of the Bat, as well as giving a glimps into where he gets his 'wonderful toys' from. A lot of people classify Bale as THE Batman. Not me, sadly. The gritty, grounded in realism stories and films so far involving Bale's Batman are arguably the best Caped Crusader stories and films that have reached the big and small screens. I wouldn't agree that he's the best incarnation of the World's Greatest Detective though. His pure physical presence isn't in doubt, but the two things that bother me about Bale's Bat is his Batman voice/growl/primal noises, and, as silly as it sounds, his chin. Whilst I fully understand the logic behind giving Batman an animalistic, intimidating voice in order to distance himself from Bruce Wayne, I just don't feel that Bale's voice works in this sense. It may be down to the slight lisp he has, I don't know. His voice just feels too forced and hard to understand for my liking. I understand that there's a case as to why this is perfect for the desired outcome, but it just doesn't work for me.... and it's my list, so ner.

2) Kevin Conroy - Those of you that say 'Who?' need to go and have a word with yourself. Conroy is not the most known of Batman to some, but he's played the Dark Knight for more time than anybody else. In case you haven't guessed by the above picture, Conroy played Batman for the Paul Dini/Bruce Timm animated series. The series started to air in 1992 largely based on the success of Tim Burton's Batman in 1989. Burton's film had generated mass interest in the character once more and Warner Bros saw fit to cash in on this with the animated series. The series was dark, brooding, edgey and flushed out the Batman/Bruce Wayne character, later elaborating on the Bat Universe and bringing in a vast array of his rogues gallery as well as familiar faces such as Dick Grayson, Barbara Gordon, Jim Gordon and Tim Drake amongst others. Anyways, I'm drifting off point just a tad. The point is Batman. Conroy gives his Bruce Wayne a stern, flash public image, whilst also offering the warmth, trust and leadership qualities to those around him, such as Dick. He also brings a genuine warmth and compassion to his Batman that is rarely seen in any other incarnations of the Dark Knight. It simply comes down to the fact that he is the voice of Batman to me. If I read a Batman comic then that's the voice in my head. He's the voice jumping from the panels and pages of the book. There have been several people voice Batman in animated form since Conroy but all pale in comparison to the dulcet, smooth tones of Kev... even Billy Baldwin.

1) George Clooney - Hold on there! Clooney's Batman is seriously underrated. He brings a humour to the character that is desperately lacking in any of the previous installments. People can rip on the Bat-nipples but it's just the character's way of showing that he is comfortable with his sexuality. The film is often called campy, flash and over indulgent - I just think it's simply unadulterrated fun. Clooney's Batman is involved in numerous large set pieces, showing off the Dark Knight's fighting ability. There's also the expertly executed tension with Robin over the affection of Uma Thurman's Poison Ivy. As for Clooney's Bruce Wayne, he plays the perfect father figure in the way that he ends up fighting with Dick over Poison Ivy, leading by example in how to control one's emotions. In fairness, I don't actually mind Clooney's Bruce at times, mainly the public appearances his Wayne makes, but I really hope that anyone reading this is fully aware that George at number 1 is never going to happen unless you're talking in From Dusk Til Dawn terms. Clooney is nowhere near my top 5 when the Bat is involved. Now for the real number 1, my personal favourite Batman, my favourite incarnation of the Dark Knight...

1) Michael Keaton - Of course the number 1 on my list of favourite Batman was always going to be Keaton! Whilst my first taste of Batman was Adam West, the Batman that I truly embraced was Michael Keaton in Tim Burton's 1989 film. At the time, Keaton was coming of Mr Mom and Beetlejuice - not exactly the type of roles you'd associate with the brooding character that saw his parents shot down as a child. As it happens, the casting of Keaton turned out to be a masterstroke. Burton saw something in him that many others didn't. He saw the complexity that he could bring to both Bruce and to Batman. The one thing that really stands out and resonates with me about Keaton's portrayal is that you always feel as if he's playing Batman. Bruce Wayne is the facade, the mask, the cover up - Batman is who he really is. There's a constant anguish and troubled look in Keaton's eyes whether he's Bruce or the Bat, particularly during the scenes where he's in his own comfort zone in Wayne Manor, with those aware of who he truly is (basically Alfred). You really feel his anguish as what he has to go through, you feel his pain where the Joker is concerned; his worry that he can be be held partly responsible for the creation of the madman that is terrorizing Gotham. Michael Keaton to me is at the top of the list as far as on screen Batman goes. He was the first Batman I saw where I thought he just looked bad ass. He's clinical in the way he takes down the bad guys, he's thorough in his thought process, his suit and utility belt looks the coolest, he has the best 'I'm Batman' delivery and, more importantly than any of the above, Keaton has the required jaw needed to pull off the cape and cowl look. Mr Keaton, I salute you.

Notable mentions go to Lewis Dean for playing the first live action Batman in the 1940's series, William Baldwin for doing a surprisingly good job in Justice League: Crisis on Two Earths, and Ben McKenzie in the recent animated Batman: Year One. Now I'm just waiting to see Bale in The Dark Knight Rises at 5am on Friday morning. Excited much?!


Also, whilst I've got your attention, there's a few really cool videos that every Bat fan should check out. One is a comedy short featuring Sam Rockwell as Batman and Justin Long as Robin. The premise is that Robin is on a date with a stunning girl - said date gets crashed by an unwanted, sleazy Batman. The second video is something simply titled Grayson. This is just a stunning piece of work by John Fiorella which focuses on life after Batman. Batman is dead, possibly under mysterious circumstances. A now retired Dick Grayson senses a cover up and ends up donning the Robin tights for one last time in a frantic search to find the truth behind the death of his mentor. There's numerous cameos from the DC Universe along the way, including quite a few of Batman's classic rogues gallery. It's only a trailer for a fictional film but after watching this it will have you demanding that the film is made. Enjoy!

The Amazing Spider-man

So, as of yesterday, the next installment in the Spider-man franchise came to the big screen. Obviously, by next installment I actually mean a new origin, a new director, a new cast and the infusion of 3D - these days affectionately, or not, known as a 'reboot'. So don't go into this expecting Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, JK Simmons, Rosemary Harris, Cliff Robertson (RIP), Elizabeth Banks, Willem Dafoe, Dylan Baker or even Ted Raimi. This is a fresh batch. For whatever reason, the original plan of Sam Raimi returning to direct Tobey Maguire in Spidey 4 was shelved. Spider-man 3 was generally frowned on by most people, including the powers that be. Whilst it wasn't up to the level of Spider-man or Spider-man 2 (the best of the trilogy in my eyes), I certainly didn't warrant it bad enough to halt that arc of the Spider-man story and to have all principal players hung, drawn and quartered. Either way that is what happened, albeit maybe not with hung, drawn and quartering exactly happening (just told not to come back would likely be a more realistic description). So that brings us to The Amazing Spider-man.

Spider-man done Star Wars stylee - love it :)

For those who are familiar with the comics, The Amazing Spider-man tends to lean more towards the Ultimates series. For those not familiar with the comics, Ultimate Spider-man basically focuses on Peter Parker purely during his high school years. It also updates the story to go along with modern times, mainly Parker, whilst being the nerd, is also a bit of a skater kid and into all modern gadgets, such as mobile phones, etc. The film embraces all of these elements and you really do get the sense and realisation that behind this big, strong superhero is just a normal, skinny, everyday teenager. There's no Norse God, there's no super soldier, there's no invincible, adamantium boned savage. There's just a boy. Granted, said boy is a science whizkid with the proportional strength of a spider. Still, you find yourself constantly aware that this is just a boy, a normal boy with a caring family (the family members that are still around, that is). He has the every day problems a normal teenager has, the well meaning but often perceived as over bearing parental figures, the high school crush, the school bully, having to remember to pick up eggs on the way home, and the every day occurrence of coming home covered in bruises after having fought criminals throughout New York. Y'know, the usual?!

Clearly feeling the pain of having awesome powers and a stunning girlfriend

Surely by now most people are aware of the story of Spider-man. Socially awkward, yet morally strong and wittily astute, high school science nerd gets bitten by a radioactive spider, thus giving him the proportional strength of a spider, the ability to stick to walls and to shoot webbing from his wrist/webbing devices (depending on which origin you follow). There are a few similarities here to the origin given in Raimi's 2002 Spider-man; mainly involving a thief, Uncle Ben, a wrestling ring and, oh, the red and blue spandex coupled with webbing and superhuman abilities. Uncle Ben is portrayed by Martin Sheen this time around, with Aunt May being portrayed by Sally Field (Smokey & The Bandit FTW!). The couple are perfectly cast and they really portray a sense of sadness and regret at what has happened to Peter over the years. You see, in this film, a large chunk of the story revolves around Peter's parents and their sudden disappearance when he was a child. The story hints at wrongdoings, cover ups and general misdemeanors involving Richard and Mary Parker, all of which Peter is trying to get more information on. The story segue-ways nicely with the fact that Dr Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans) used to work closely with Peter's father, Richard, on several science projects, most importantly on cross-species genetics.

The main story with the scientifically brilliant Doc Connors is that he is missing his right arm, with his life's work leading towards growing the arm back through the means of science. This in turn is heavily influenced by cross-species genetics and, in particular, lizards and their ability to regenerate limbs. Peter stumbles across some of his father's old work and seeks out Doc Connors for some answers. It is there that the ever smart Peter comes up with a science equation that could possibly allow Doc Connors to regrow his arm. As is often the case with the realms of comics and all things superhero, this doesn't quite go to plan. There's a tad bit of an adverse reaction, turning Doc Connors into The Lizard. From here on in, Connors slowly goes from an almost humanitarian figure to a full on crazy scientist that believes he has found a way for all humans to achieve perfection - mainly, he wants to turn them all into creatures similar to himself. Of course it falls on Spidey to have to stop him.

Peter about to stick the nut on

Whilst all of this is happening, Peter also finds himself developing a bit of a crush for the ever pretty but super sciencey (I'm not even sure if that's a real word) Gwen Stacy. As with the comic books, Gwen is Peter's first love. Forget Mary Jane, back in the day it was originally all about Gwen. It was only when Gwen was 'out of the picture' that Peter met MJ. Along with Gwen comes her family, most notably her father, Captain Stacy of the NYPD. This is where things differ a little from the comics. In the books Captain Stacy is a believer in Spider-man, with Gwen resenting ol' webhead (Stan Lee represent) for his acts. In this film the feelings of Gwen and the Captain are a little different. That's all I can really say without spoiling parts of the films or what may likely be around the corner in the inevitable sequels. Suffice to say, yes, there is going to be a sequel and, yes, there is the now standard after credits scene which alludes to this. Again, with the film only coming out yesterday, it would be a little bit harsh of me to ruin too much of the film.

Now, enough about the plot. The lead role of Spidey was always going to be a tough one to fill, especially given the huge success of the previous 3 films with Tobey Maguire firmly cemented in the red and blue spandex. That said, Andrew Garfield is fantastic as both Peter Parker and Spider-man, bringing a sense of emotion, power and the classic Spider-man wit to the character. There's a lot of humour sprinkled throughout the film, with it ranging from being heart-warming in it's sincerity to being one of of Spider-man's classic one liners. Garfield pulls off the teenage Parker brilliantly well and takes the character to places that Tobey Maguire never quite reached. I'm a fan of Maguire as the character but Garfield is the perfect fit for the new direction that they are taking the character in, that of the Ultimate Spider-man books, that of the troubled, everyday teen. Maguire seemed to get buff for the role, whereas Garfield has just the right look to pull of the gawky high schooler who has all of this power within. His relationship with the inspired casting choice of Emma Stone is perfect. They have the perfect balance of banter, emotion and torment, especially towards the end of the film. The tone of their relationship is just fantastically well done and is truly one of the highlights of the film. Again, the casting of Denis Leary as Captain Stacy and Rhys Ifans as Doc Connors proved to be strokes of brilliance, with each bringing the required dynamic to each character; Leary playing the honourable, strong, badge loving Captain, and Ifans expertly juggling the sympathetic and outright crazy aspects of the Doc Connors character.

Rhys trying to reenact the bath scene from Twin Town - "Fuckin' had you!"

The film is also a joy to look at, bright, vibrant and with several key set pieces standing out; one in particular that looks great involves an incident on a bridge with Spidey having to save a young child from a falling car. The film also incorporates many point of view shots - that view being of the hero in question. You get to see the New York skyline, the bright lights, the buildings, the people, the vehicles, all whilst Spidey is swinging from platform to platform. One aspect where the film does fall down, however, is the actual appearance of The Lizard. The CGI used doesn't look particularly horrendous, it just feels like it isn't up to the level of CGI used in other recent films and appears that the character will date pretty badly; almost having a Mummy Returns feel at times. One big gripe from me is the lack of a snout on The Lizard. This is merely just a pet peeve of mine as I grew up reading the books, watching the cartoons - all of which involved The Lizard having a very reptilian like snout, even leaning towards a crocodile at times. As I said, that's likely just a personal grip of mine and those who are only coming across the character for the first time now won't bat an eyelid at his current depiction. Harping back to the original character design, it was nice to get an, albeit brief, scene with him wearing his customary lab coat when under The Lizard guise. I also can't helping feeling sorry for Dylan Baker in all of this. He played Doc Connors throughout the first three Spider-man films with countless references and hints towards him becoming The Lizard, yet here he is missing out on his chance of playing the role of the big, bad supervillain. I can't help that he put in so much groundwork for it but was left with no payoff. That said, this is a reboot so I guess all previous work is to be forgotten. It's still a big shame though, much similar to Billy Dee Williams as Harvey Dent in Tim Burton's Batman films.

The Lizard rocking the pants, lab coat and snout look

All in all I'd say to get yourself and see Spider-man whenever you get a chance. The film absolutely flies by, lasting at over 2 hours 15 minutes yet only seeming to be in front of your eyes for 1 hour 30 minutes. Marc Webb makes sure that the pace is fairly frantic from the get go and covers a lot of ground in seemingly little time. It doesn't seem long until Spidey is swinging through the streets, but then you realise that so much has been covered in the time leading up to that, Peter's parents, Aunt May and Uncle Ben, the introduction of Doc Connors, even Flash gets some entertaining screen time. There's a few hints throughout the movie of what's to come, yet it also leaves enough answers blank to keep you guessing which direction the inevitable sequel will go in. Also keep your eyes peeled for arguably the best Stan Lee cameo so far.

Is the film worth the risk of restarting an already successful franchise? Is it better than the previous three Spider-man films? That's a whole new debate - one I may even write another blog on - but I'd say to just get yourself along, enjoy it and make your own mind up.