Today, "Spider-Man" fans across the world will, for the first time ever, get to see their favorite comic book character spring to life and web-sling his way onto the big screen. How thrilling. Of course, I'm only referring to those fans currently struggling with the looming fear of going to kindergarten this fall and the terrors of using a big-boy toilet.
The rest of us have been watching -- and profoundly enjoying -- "Spider-Man" installments on the big screen since 2002. And I think we can all agree that the definitive, three-part meditation on mutated arachnid teens has been completed and that any tacked-on additions would be totally super lame and dumb.
So it's a bit baffling how this perfected franchise is already getting a "reboot" by a bunch of stupid-faces who are stupid!
Now it's kind of true that I have not yet actually seen this movie in its chronological entirety. (Not being a member of the kowtowing, elitist, Hollywood press core, I've been mercilessly tasered by security at the entrances to countless screenings around the globe and several of my bullhorns have yet to be returned.)
So I've had to piece it together by watching the trailers many, many times (possibly thousands of times), while curled up with a tub of nachos, peach schnapps, and a rolling tape recorder to document my insights on how stupid and dumb it looks. I think I've got the gist: Peter Parker, radioactive spider, something about great power coming with great responsibility, yada yada yada, credits.
Nothing new here, folks. My advice to you thrifty and trend-averse cinephiles is to simply enjoy your 2002 DVD copy of the original "Spider-Man" in the comfort of your own home with the brightness turned down and the blue tint turned up. Boom: instant "darker" reboot of an unsurpassable classic.
Also check out: An Interview with "Amazing Spider-Man" director Marc Webb
And who's this new director they've brought aboard -- Marc Webb? Seriously, was it just because of his last name? Was the "Spider-Man" trilogy's cumulative, $2.5 billion box office gross so disappointing that Columbia Pictures thought they could do better with a guy only known for an angsty, singing and dancing indie with the maliciously deceptive title "(500) days of Summer"?
They thought he'd be better suited to bring a "darker" vision to the wall-crawling icon than a legendary director whose last film was called "Drag Me to Hell"?
Or perhaps the producers were confused and under the assumption Webb would be adapting the thespian killing-jar and literal Broadway smash hit that is: "Spiderman: Turn Off the Dark." At least that would be breaking some new ground by satisfying all those wives and girlfriends who thought "Spider-Man" movies could be tolerable if only Peter and the Green Goblin would burst into a song U2 probably wrote on a dare.
At least I could fathom the reason for hooking up this franchise, clearly on its last breaths, to that cash pumping respirator.
Be warned, Christopher Nolan: the moment you wrapped the "last" of your Batman trilogy, Wes Anderson, no doubt, began principle photography on"The Amazing Batman" across town. It'll be nearly identical to yours, only it'll take place in 1972 and the Joker will be wearing corduroy.
So, to sum up my first and last movie review... If you're a four-year-old, or were recently bludgeoned in the head and forgot the entirety of the 2000's, or your favorite internal organ is the appendix, or your favorite Star Wars film is episode 1, 2 or 3, then I suppose you might want to check out this "Spider-Man" rip-off with the words "The Amazing" cleverly glued onto the front, and watch them beat a dead horse for another 136 minutes of pointlessness. You won't hear me complaining.
But it is for dumb stupid-heads.
Grade: F - minus a trillion
* In case it's not very, very clear, Sam Raimi did not really write this review.