REVIEW: "The Amazing Spider-Man"

[Legato]

I thought people have said the second one is the best comic book movie made at that time.

You also have people that would claim the third movie isn't as bad as the critics and some others say. Matter of opinion really.

[felix77]

I liked it. The Emma Stone and Garfield chemistry really works here.

[DonC]

The review is by someone named Katie.

Yeah, she probably has cooties or something.

[hysang]

I honestly have never been crazy about the romance aspect of the Spider-Man movies. It's needed, both in storytelling and audience identification terms, but it slows the movies down in a way that has never really been a good thing.

I would love to see a balance between the two. Thankfully (far as I can tell from the trailers) there's no secondary Harry Osborn plot. I *hated* the Harry character, which I guess was the point, but he should have died in the second movie...Franco and the character are my least favorite part of the Tobey Maguire movies. That and the whiny obsession with Mary Jane Watson, who frankly comes across as a clueless, vain idiot in the movies. Did Raimi not get that her whole vain bit was an *act* and she was actually sweet?

And oh, brother, that scene where Tobey Maguire cries on the bridge made me want to throw popcorn at the screen. Peter Parker is many things, but he's not some dude who would blubber over MJ dumping him. She did it twice in the comics, and he moped around for a few issues, but he moved on. I agree with Christopher Priest (Jim Owsley) on this...Peter Parker is not a wimp.

[blaXXer]

I saw this movie on Sat night with my 5 year old nephew, wife, 2 good buddies and one of their 13 year old daughters in a movie theater in South Korea (we get all the big movies a week earlier than the States).
I can not stress how bad this movie is.
This was not only the worst comic book movie of the recent Hollywood comic book love affair, this is the worst movie I have ever sat all the way through. If it weren't for my nephew, I would have walked out at ~the 75 minute mark.
As the reviewer says in the article, ALOT of Peter Parker development early (no big deal. trying to establish a clear difference from the SM trilogy). But SM doesn't show up on screen until 58 minutes into the movie! Reboot aside, EVERYONE ALREADY KNOWS HE's Spiderman!!!
On a positive note, while my friends and I all agreed the movie was horrible, every female (too include a whole row of Korean females in front of us) liked the movie. When I, unscientifically, surveyed why they all liked the movie it was 100% due to Garfield as Peter Parker. So the casting crew gets an A+.
This movie will likely make Sony's $$ back, but will be a relative flop and I hope this kills a continuation of this particular version of the SM franchise.
Just my opinion, so take it for what it's worth.....not much.

Seriously?! I also saw it on Saturday (in Germany) and I thought it was great. Garfield WAS Peter Parker moreso than Maguire could ever be. He was quipping, keeping his mask actually ON during most of the fights and making great use of his webshooters. (he loses it, in the last act as a plot point, but I won't spoil anymore).

In contrast to Dunst's MJ, Stone's Gewn Stacy was actually important to the plot and not just a dumb damsel in distress. She was portrayed as intelligent, funny, charming. Big plus on that one from me.

Also, just to clarify: not everyone knows that he is Spider-Man. He doesn't even wear the costume at first, only a cobbled-together mish mash of stree clothes and a (purposely) goofy looking mask. He actually introduces himself as Spider-Man to a (rather important) bystander after the Lizard's first rampage.

Ohh the Lizard...great CGI (not quite as in the comics, but still well done) and Connors really sells the transformation.

In conclusion, The Amazing Spider-Man was probably closer in tone and humour to The Avengers (and X-Men: first Class) than the Raimi films.
Also, and I can't stress this enough: he actually moves like the Spider-Man we're used from the various animated series and games. The Raimi films were kinda wooden in comparison.

[Legato]

I honestly have never been crazy about the romance aspect of the Spider-Man movies. It's needed, both in storytelling and audience identification terms, but it slows the movies down in a way that has never really been a good thing.

I would love to see a balance between the two. Thankfully (far as I can tell from the trailers) there's no secondary Harry Osborn plot. I *hated* the Harry character, which I guess was the point, but he should have died in the second movie...Franco and the character are my least favorite part of the Tobey Maguire movies. That and the whiny obsession with Mary Jane Watson, who frankly comes across as a clueless, vain idiot in the movies. Did Raimi not get that her whole vain bit was an *act* and she was actually sweet?

And oh, brother, that scene where Tobey Maguire cries on the bridge made me want to throw popcorn at the screen. Peter Parker is many things, but he's not some dude who would blubber over MJ dumping him. She did it twice in the comics, and he moped around for a few issues, but he moved on. I agree with Christopher Priest (Jim Owsley) on this...Peter Parker is not a wimp.

Nor is he the guy that would walk around in a emo haircut and dance around in public in the third movie. Also Dunst's MJ's whinyness was a little irritating. It's one of the pet peeves I have about superhero girlfriends, they knew what they signed up for when being involved with a superhero yet they still nag about their lifestyle

[Spiceweasel]

Its probably me being a fanboy for (almost) everything that is spider-man, but I liked this one.
Sure it has it flaws.. plot convenience, logic, pacing.

The scene with the cranes is just plain stupid. And don´t get me started on the source where peter buys his web fluid...

But everything else is just fine. I especially like how peter isn´t fighting crime because "with great..." you know the phrase. No, he is just hunting for the guy who killed uncle Ben. Well, until Peter meets Captain Stacy. Maybe the talk they had changed spider-mans M.O or it´s just plot convinience but, it changes.

[Legato]

Seriously?! I also saw it on Saturday (in Germany) and I thought it was great. Garfield WAS Peter Parker moreso than Maguire could ever be. He was quipping, keeping his mask actually ON during most of the fights and making great use of his webshooters. (he loses it, in the last act as a plot point, but I won't spoil anymore).

In contrast to Dunst's MJ, Stone's Gewn Stacy was actually important to the plot and not just a dumb damsel in distress. She was portrayed as intelligent, funny, charming. Big plus on that one from me.

Also, just to clarify: not everyone knows that he is Spider-Man. He doesn't even wear the costume at first, only a cobbled-together mish mash of stree clothes and a (purposely) goofy looking mask. He actually introduces himself as Spider-Man to a (rather important) bystander after the Lizard's first rampage.

Ohh the Lizard...great CGI (not quite as in the comics, but still well done) and Connors really sells the transformation.

In conclusion, The Amazing Spider-Man was probably closer in tone and humour to The Avengers (and X-Men: first Class) than the Raimi films.
Also, and I can't stress this enough: he actually moves like the Spider-Man we're used from the various animated series and games. The Raimi films were kinda wooden in comparison.

How is the dialogue btw? In the Raimi films, especially the later two, were pretty cheesy. Not cheesy in a enjoyable way either but cheesy in a"who the hell wrote this crap" way.

[blaXXer]

I honestly have never been crazy about the romance aspect of the Spider-Man movies. It's needed, both in storytelling and audience identification terms, but it slows the movies down in a way that has never really been a good thing.

The chemistry between Garfiled and Stone is way better than between Maguire and Dunst, and while there is a certain plot point towards the end that almost mirrors the after-cemetery-scene of the first Raimi film, it is nicely subverted.

I would love to see a balance between the two. Thankfully (far as I can tell from the trailers) there's no secondary Harry Osborn plot. I *hated* the Harry character, which I guess was the point, but he should have died in the second movie...Franco and the character are my least favorite part of the Tobey Maguire movies. That and the whiny obsession with Mary Jane Watson, who frankly comes across as a clueless, vain idiot in the movies. Did Raimi not get that her whole vain bit was an *act* and she was actually sweet?

Nope, no Osborn whatsoever on screen. Norman is name-dropped numerous times however, being the owner of Oscorp and all.
and, again: Stone isn't whiny, she doesn't have to be rescued and is quite capable on her own.

And oh, brother, that scene where Tobey Maguire cries on the bridge made me want to throw popcorn at the screen. Peter Parker is many things, but he's not some dude who would blubber over MJ dumping him. She did it twice in the comics, and he moped around for a few issues, but he moved on. I agree with Christopher Priest (Jim Owsley) on this...Peter Parker is not a wimp.

This Parker isn't. Cocky? Yes. Conflicted at times? Hell yes, comes with the territory, I suppose. angsty? A little bit, after Uncle Ben's death - but he recovers quickly. This Peter Parker is actually resourceful and (mostly) smart.

[blaXXer]

How is the dialogue btw? In the Raimi films, especially the later two, were pretty cheesy. Not cheesy in a enjoyable way either but cheesy in a"who the hell wrote this crap" way.

I can't speak as to the original English (it was dubbed) but I found it not as wooden as the Raimi films. I actually even enjoyed the quieter scenes - also watch out for Sheen's uncle Ben. This one's actually kind of a real dad to Peter and at times hilarious (meat loaf, anyone?). They do come to blows but it's all in a father-son kind of way and no Sandman doesn't kill him this time around.

[We R. Venom]

Definately a terrible review. Every other one ive seen says the completee opposite. Not that it matters. I saw it for myself and it is excellent! Excellent!

[blaXXer]

Definately a terrible review. Every other one ive seen says the completee opposite. Not that it matters. I saw it for myself and it is excellent! Excellent!

Amazing, even ;) This one's actually closer to the comis than the Raimi version ever was. It's not as cheesy, it has a sense of scale the previous movies never had. With all Raimi films, I was always feeling that I knew they were walking around in set pieces, this one didnt make me fell that way.

[Legato]

Nope, no Osborn whatsoever on screen. Norman is name-dropped numerous times however, being the owner of Oscorp and all.
and, again: Stone isn't whiny, she doesn't have to be rescued and is quite capable on her own.


This Parker isn't. Cocky? Yes. Conflicted at times? Hell yes, comes with the territory, I suppose. angsty? A little bit, after Uncle Ben's death - but he recovers quickly. This Peter Parker is actually resourceful and (mostly) smart.

Now I'm not trying to start another DC vs Marvel Films trend, which happens to be pretty popular here as of late, but I was a little worried that from what I had seen from the teaser trailers that Sony was trying to go with a more Nolan Batman approach with Spider-Man in making Spider-Man all dark and broody with a touch of realism thrown in. But having seen the later trailers I was a little relieved that isn't the case. Don't get me wrong I like Nolans Batman but we really dont need another superhero movie like that. Now sure Spider-Man may have his cases of being broody but one of the reasons I liked the character, before OMD, was that the guy can at least bother to pick himself up and go on with his life with a smile on his face. Not spend every waking hour all broody and depressed like your usual dark and broody hero. Also what Peter has over those guys is he can bother to have a social life and have a relationship with someone.

Also it's good to see a resourceful female supporting character. We had that with Agent Hill from Avengers to Gwen Stacy in Amazing Spider-Man and I hope that trend continues in future superhero films cause you know what you call characters that had to be rescued every single time? A burden

[Legato]

Definately a terrible review. Every other one ive seen says the completee opposite. Not that it matters. I saw it for myself and it is excellent! Excellent!

Getting the vibe here that I see some people finding it hard to believe that not everybody likes the film.

[Steve Broome]

Don't know anybody that's really all that excited to see this, this is what happens when you reboot a 10 year old movie. Been a great summer for blockbusters even without it.