Amazing Spider-Man -- early reviews are in

[Zauri]

While the embargo - in similar fashion of how it went down with The Avengers - is expected to be lifted soon in the United States (June, 27th, Gwenesday), some reviews are starting to surface from overseas for The Amazing Spider-Man, and they are very positive. Here are excerpts of them:


Andrew Pulver writing for The Guardian gives a 4/5 review, and says that "Marc Webb's successful synthesis of action and emotion, together with a terrific performance by Andrew Garfield, means that this Spider-Man is as enjoyable as it is impressive".

"Be that as it may, Webb successfully treads a fine line between keeping the hardcore superhero-movie fans happy and injecting a dose of meaningful affect. Parker is generally reckoned to be the most "relatable" figure in the superhero canon, but the pastel-bright synthetics of the earlier movies did little to dispel the sense that the comic-book world could only construct its characters out of clunking great blocks of melodrama".

Another 4/5 review from Robbie Collin via The Telegraph, where he controversially says that "though it still packs plenty of testosterone, Marc Webb's new Spider-Man is the superhero film for the Twilight generation".

"While Raimi got fanboys drooling with Kirsten Dunst in a rain-soaked vest top, Webb's leading lady remains clothed and dry. Instead, the camera ogles Garfield, whose enviable glutes are showcased quite magnificently in his skin-tight bodysuit. Raimi's films were for the teenage boys who used to dress up in Spider-Man pyjamas; Webb's is for girls whose other halves may soon be dressing up in Spider-Man pyjamas for their benefit."

The Times from London gives yet another 4/5 review, saying that "A spider without bite (but you'll like falling into his web): A great instalment: The Amazing Spider-Man". To read the full review a subscription is needed though. I did have access to the review though and I will post a quote of it here:

"As Spider-Man always says: "With great power comes great responsibility," and British actors suddenly seem to have the combination of physical and mental agility which will make them responsible for this year's biggest blockbusters worldwide. Garfield is a kinder, gentler, sweeter Spider-Man than his predecessors, and may be intended to appeal as much to teenage fangirls as fanboys.

This latest Spider-Man is an 'origins' story, a prequel and a partial overlap with the three previous films starring Tobey Maguire. Garfield is more Spider-Boy than man, and pushing it at 28 to play a high-school Peter Parker, who gains his superpowers after a nasty nip on the neck from a genetically modified spider."

Ian Loring writes for EatSleepLiveFilm, claims that Andrew Garfield delivers the best performance in a comic book movie since Heath Ledger, giving a 3,5/5 rating.

"All this being said though, there are individual qualities to the film which make it stand out and give it an identity of its own, which in the process certainly make it worth a watch on the big screen. After sleeping on it, I am firm in the belief that Andrew Garfield puts in the finest comic-book movie performance since Heath Ledger's Joker. Michael Fassbender, Mark Ruffalo, Chris Hemsworth and the other relatively new guys are all cracking, but this is a performance by a guy who obviously has been waiting his whole life to specifically play this part and he imbues it with the warmth of spirit you always want Peter to have. Tobey Maquire rocked the hell out of his Peter but it's a different performance, losing the 'aw shucks' nature of his Peter and instead playing it more as the comics seem to sugges,t with a quippy and universally charming nature which never feels too broad or too clever-clever, instead being very naturalistic and at times incredibly funny. Garfield shows off great comic chops with his line delivery and a surprisingly expressive face; one shot of him perfecting his shooters is in particular memorable."

Richard Taverner for The Upcoming also gives a 4/5 review, reflecting:

"It feels like a long time since we saw a young Tobey Macguire don the spidey suit, on a mission to rid Manhattan of its criminal plague. Spider-Man received widely positive reviews from critics but many were unhappy with the lack of depth. It was all well and good seeing Peter as the finished product but the film overlooked how he became the superhero we know and love. The Amazing Spider-Man does just this. The villain comes in the shape of an 8ft lizard formally known as Dr Curtis Connors (Rhys Ifans) and the action sequences, which are supported by the superb use of 3D and CGI, suffice; we remember that Spider-Man is only a seventeen-year-old boy who has to become unusually familiar with death very quickly."

Dave Golder, for SFX gives yet another 4/5, saying that "he is still the king of swingers". Very positive review, but I wouldn't suggest people to read it since it contains heavy spoilers.



Marlow Stew, writing for Newsweek's The Daily Beast puts Amazing Spider-Man on their best of 2012 so far list.

"Although people questioned whether it was too soon to reboot the Spider-Man franchise just five years after the underwhelming Spider-Man 3, and early preview footage looked a bit too 'adorkable' for our taste, director Marc Webb, best known for helming the indie dramedy 500 Days of Summer, has achieved the near-impossible with The Amazing Spider-Man: he's not only made the best superhero film since The Dark Knight, but also the best Spider-Man movie, period. Webb's film is an original story that follows Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield), a geeky high-school outcast, who is smitten with Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone). After discovering a mysterious briefcase belonging to his father, Parker finds himself on the path to becoming the web-slinging superhero, Spider-Man, and facing off against Dr. Curt Conn ors (Rhys Ifans), who transforms into the Lizard. Webb's film boasts outstanding use of 3-D - you feel like you're swinging through the city - and outstanding performances from its stars, in particular Garfield and Stone, whose chemistry is so magnetic it's no wonder they're rumored to be dating off screen as well."

Other websites like TotalFilm (4/5), Static Mass Emporium (4/5)and a lot others will be starting to weigh in their opinions, BEWARE the spoilers though.


If all these reviews don't let your spider-sense tingling like crazy in anticipation, I sincerily don't know what else will. Most of the reviewers quoted are no noobies, they are respected reviewers from big outlets from UK and they are tough very tough to please. The Amazing Spider-Man while not getting the same love that The Avengers, is yet to be seen if it'll be seen as the better film or not by the fans and even critics, since the jury is still out. I'd predict that The Amazing Spider-Man will end up getting an 85-93 approval on Rotten Tomatoes and $400m domestically, becoming the first Spider-Man film making more than $1B WW.


PS: To the OP: Mixed my bum. Reviews are overwhelmingly positive, and the single one reviewer that gave a bad grade and it's from the guy that can't do research right and didn't wrote review since...a long time. It looks like he forgot how to do this...so The Amazing Spider-Man is still waiting for a "good" bad review. Positive buzz AND reviews around this are going crazy, and it's to prove that:

THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN Early Overseas Reviews Mostly Positive

Sony's new 'Spider-Man' poised for amazing opening

So fast your seat belts and start your diet right now, naysayers. You are in for eat a hell lot of crow. As for us Spider-Fans, I truly think that I've heard from enough people that I trust that this is the best Spider-Man film yet, and it rivals The Avengers in terms of excitement. July couldn't come soon enough.

[Mr. Holmes]

He also says it has amazing action scenes and will please the fanboys.

Sounds to me that the romance might be done in a more mature way than in Raimi's films. Don't get me wrong i liked the first 2, but the romance was just... beyond terrible.

Indeed, the Peter/MJ stuff was just awful.

[jesse_custer]

I haven't read or watched Twilight, but the Twilight bashing and comparisons are starting to get REALLY old.

I'm willing to bet that Twilight isn't one of the worst movies ever made.

[jediracer]

I'm willing to bet that Twilight isn't one of the worst movies ever made.

maybe not, but possibly one of the worst books ever written.

[BrotherUnitNo_4]

I haven't read or watched Twilight, but the Twilight bashing and comparisons are starting to get REALLY old.

I'm willing to bet that Twilight isn't one of the worst movies ever made.

Having seen a few of the Twilight films...they're pretty bad. The acting by the film leads is atrocious.

In regards to the Twilight comparisons, they're not basing the comparison on the quality of the films. They're basing it on the teenaged romance. Apparently Twilight was the first film of its kind that focused heavily on teenaged romance.

[Mat001]

The anti-Twilight crowd is afraid there might be girls in the theatre.

Considering that there was teenage girls in the other films, I'd say that's not the issue. We just make fun of someone's awful looking hair and don't want to see a film that is as bad as that.

avier Bardem in No Country For Old Men had quite a memorably ridiculous haircut. But no one ever cares about that. And there are a million other examples of messy hair that date way before Twilight.

1. Javier Bardem didn't look like Robert Pattinson.

2. "No Country For Old Men" wasn't a love story that was horribly made and make you want to rip out your eyeballs afterwards.

[OrpheusTelos]

I haven't read or watched Twilight, but the Twilight bashing and comparisons are starting to get REALLY old.

I'm willing to bet that Twilight isn't one of the worst movies ever made.

Honestly, having actually seen the Twilight, they're no where near as bad people like to bash the series for. There's hocky acting, but for comparisons sake it's a lot like people who rag on Barney the Dinosaur. Unless you're in the demographic the series is catering too (Teenage Girls and apparently their mothers) the movies aren't going to appeal to you.

[Legato]

Considering that there was teenage girls in the other films, I'd say that's not the issue. We just make fun of someone's awful looking hair and don't want to see a film that is as bad as that.



1. Javier Bardem didn't look like Robert Pattinson.

2. "No Country For Old Men" wasn't a love story that was horribly made and make you want to rip out your eyeballs afterwards.

So by this logic every bad romance movie is considered a Twilight knockoff? Even the ones that came way before Twilight? Also comparing a movie to Twilight just because someone had the same hair as the lead Twilight actor is kinda a ignorant comparison by the haters of the film IMO.

[Jared]

It's weird when people who don't even like read/watch Twilight get all defensive about it when something they haven't seen yet but are hoping to like is potentially being compared to it.

Look, Andrew Garfield does resemble Robert Pattinson, and he's British, and the new movie is apparently more teen-romance oriented than prior Spidey efforts. It may well be a very good movie despite all that, but there's nothing to get upset about if someone describes it as a Twilighted version of Spidey. It wouldn't surprise me at all if that's exactly what the studio suits were going for, though obviously they won't put that on the press releases.

[hugh45]

Honestly, having actually seen the Twilight, they're no where near as bad people like to bash the series for. There's hocky acting, but for comparisons sake it's a lot like people who rag on Barney the Dinosaur. Unless you're in the demographic the series is catering too (Teenage Girls and apparently their mothers) the movies aren't going to appeal to you.

Ah,Ty. Never seen Twilight,but now I understand why some people are not looking towards this movie.

[S.H.I.E.L.D.]

I think this movie will do good once its out I mean as long as it can make me forget about the 3rd spider-man movie its done its job.

[EuphemismForSex]

Eep, now I'm more excited.

[Legato]

It's weird when people who don't even like read/watch Twilight get all defensive about it when something they haven't seen yet but are hoping to like is potentially being compared to it.

Look, Andrew Garfield does resemble Robert Pattinson, and he's British, and the new movie is apparently more teen-romance oriented than prior Spidey efforts. It may well be a very good movie despite all that, but there's nothing to get upset about if someone describes it as a Twilighted version of Spidey. It wouldn't surprise me at all if that's exactly what the studio suits were going for, though obviously they won't put that on the press releases.

What makes you think they haven't seen or read the Twilight series? I can see how some would get upset because instead of other people judging Amazing Spider-Man on it's own merits they judge it because they believe it's Twilight but with Superheroes. Eventhough nothing about it resembles Twilight in plot or anything else and because the guy is British and it's a teen romance flick doesn't count as a good reason to compare it to Twilight as Teen Romance flicks have been around way before Stephanie even came up with the concept of Twilight and they have casted Foreign Actors to play American roles before so I don't see how this is some new craze that Twilight created

[kalorama]

It's weird when people who don't even like read/watch Twilight get all defensive about it when something they haven't seen yet but are hoping to like is potentially being compared to it.

Look, Andrew Garfield does resemble Robert Pattinson, and he's British, and the new movie is apparently more teen-romance oriented than prior Spidey efforts. It may well be a very good movie despite all that, but there's nothing to get upset about if someone describes it as a Twilighted version of Spidey. It wouldn't surprise me at all if that's exactly what the studio suits were going for, though obviously they won't put that on the press releases.

Well, that door swings both ways as it's highly likely that the people making the Twilight comparisons haven't actually seen Twilight either which, for me, is what's annoying about it. People who haven't seen Twilight but are opposed to Twilight on principle using the negative aura surrounding it as a club to hammer Amazing Spider-Man, another movie that they haven't seen and appear opposed to on principle.
Someone who forms a concrete negative opinion of a film they haven't even seen yet based on the fact that the lead character has a vague physical resemblance to the lead character of another movie they haven't seen but hate anyway is not someone whose opinion should be given much regard. It's ignorance perpetuating ignorance.

[kalorama]

Hardly.

http://forums.comicbookresources.com...1#post14686429



Now back up in that same thread and you'll see that I also basically said it appeared to be copying the Batman franchise by showing him wanted by the police and you'll see many going off on me for that comparison. I'd actually forgotten about that part as I blew off the comments as being unworthy of memory.

Nonetheless you can see I didn't revise anything. I quipped a comment about the hair and earlier made a vague comment of "take everything that sucks about Twilight" which I never expounded on at the time beyond the hair. I don't even really recall what I meant at the time but you'll see that I got blasted throughout that thread for even daring to mention Twilight.

How dare I not gush in awe over this movie and the fact that Spider cracks wise over tiny knives???????????

Can't remember if it was that thread or another but I also said at one time I'm admittedly very biased as I found the first two Spidey movies near perfect and the third good, if flawed, so this reboot rubs me the wrong way. So I'm wearing my potential bias openly, how about everyone else?

And with that, you make my point for me.

You're trying to claim that you were just harmlessly talking about his hair like it had no bigger implication. That's the "revisionist" part, as (by your own admission/implication here) you were clearly using the bogus Twilight comparison as some kind of commentary on what you perceived to be the viability/quality/worthiness of Amazing Spider-Man film itself. You hate the idea of this movie and are comparing to to Twilight as a way suggest it's junk, just like you think Twilight is.