Honest Trailers - The Amazing Spider-Man

[DarkWarriorBlake]

I agree, but there's not much competition there in my opinion. Other than the initial "Oh, shit!" feeling when the first Spider-Man movie came out, I didn't like any of the Raimi films all that much.

They haven't aged well, but they had more to them than The Amazing Spider-Man. TASM is almost not a Spider-Man film, little of it is to do with Spider-Man until the generic finale with the generic villain. It's hollow, and there is a reason no one is talking about it even these few months later in the same way as SM1, SM2, TDK, and other things. It's very believable that the early description of Twilight with Spider-Man is what they were going for because you could probably do an edit of the film that removed the spiderman parts and have a coherent 90 minute romantic drama with wafer thin characters and a poor attempt at trying to disguise the fact that it is a reboot by introducing this parental mystery that goes nowhere.

[Confuzzled Mutie]

They haven't aged well, but they had more to them than The Amazing Spider-Man. TASM is almost not a Spider-Man film, little of it is to do with Spider-Man until the generic finale with the generic villain. It's hollow, and there is a reason no one is talking about it even these few months later in the same way as SM1, SM2, TDK, and other things. It's very believable that the early description of Twilight with Spider-Man is what they were going for because you could probably do an edit of the film that removed the spiderman parts and have a coherent 90 minute romantic drama with wafer thin characters and a poor attempt at trying to disguise the fact that it is a reboot by introducing this parental mystery that goes nowhere.

I agree that the parental mystery is stupid and dragged the movie down.

But on the other hand, Honest Trailers is bashing Peter's characterization in the movie for wisecracking and having angry outbursts under stress. Which are CORE Peter Parker qualities. Shut up Honest Trailer Narrator!

[DarkWarriorBlake]

I agree that the parental mystery is stupid and dragged the movie down.

But on the other hand, Honest Trailers is bashing Peter's characterization in the movie for wisecracking and having angry outbursts under stress. Which are CORE Peter Parker qualities. Shut up Honest Trailer Narrator!

Basically the scene with the carjacker is the best part of the film and a solid representation of Spider-Man. And he wisecracks which is good. The rest is all pretty bad and while they are apparently developing a new trilogy purely to keep the rights from Marvel, I have a feeling this will be one of the most forgettable superhero series out there after like...Fantastic Four. I mean i should care when Uncle Ben dies, I was completely ambivalent about it and all the other deaths which I won't spoil here. I felt no attachment to any of the characters and while Emma Stone is a hot blonde in thigh highs, heck, MJ from raimi's films had more character and she was a perpetual villain plot device. Add in the frequent de-masking, the constant displays of physical ability that should telegraph to everyone who he is (as pointed out in the trailer with him bending a freaking metal post with a ball) and the James Horner music and its just a terrible film.

Oh and it had the American ra-ra-ra flag background again which was as eyerolling as it was back in Spider-Man 1.

I used to adore the first Spider-Man though I certainly had complaints about the Goblin outfit even then and it has aged terribly and I really don't like it now, but it had a lot more character to it.

[Confuzzled Mutie]

Basically the scene with the carjacker is the best part of the film and a solid representation of Spider-Man. And he wisecracks which is good. The rest is all pretty bad and while they are apparently developing a new trilogy purely to keep the rights from Marvel, I have a feeling this will be one of the most forgettable superhero series out there after like...Fantastic Four. I mean i should care when Uncle Ben dies, I was completely ambivalent about it and all the other deaths which I won't spoil here. I felt no attachment to any of the characters and while Emma Stone is a hot blonde in thigh highs, heck, MJ from raimi's films had more character and she was a perpetual villain plot device. Add in the frequent de-masking, the constant displays of physical ability that should telegraph to everyone who he is (as pointed out in the trailer with him bending a freaking metal post with a ball) and the James Horner music and its just a terrible film.

Oh and it had the American ra-ra-ra flag background again which was as eyerolling as it was back in Spider-Man 1.

I used to adore the first Spider-Man though I certainly had complaints about the Goblin outfit even then and it has aged terribly and I really don't like it now, but it had a lot more character to it.

I was highly disappointed with the movie when I watched it for the first time as well, but I recently watched it again when a friend managed to get a Blu-ray copy well in advance of its release, and this time, I enjoyed it a lot more- probably because this time I knew what exactly to expect going in. As a movie by itself, it falls between decent to good, mainly thanks to Andrew and Emma pouring charm and spirit into their respective roles. And the parental mystery bit isn't as time consuming and annoying as I remembered it to be from the first time I watched the film.

Though I agree that Raimi's SM1 is a much richer experience, thanks in no small part to the inclusion of J. Jonah (solid performance by Simmons) and MJ being the love interest. Even a crappy interpretation of MJ like Dunst's holds more substance than a heartfelt Gwen performance by Emma Stone because they managed to get some of MJ's basics right in the original film- young girl with starry ambitions, mirroring Peter's own goals and sense of living up to expectations. People cared for the romance because they were brought about to care for MJ's hopes and dreams for herself, and the effort she put behind achieving those dreams. Contrast it to Gwen in TASM who, much like Gwen in the Silver Age comics, was only there to serve as an ideal love interest for Peter Parker. Emma's chemistry with Andrew was stronger than Kirsten/Tobey (even with the lack of an iconic scene like the brilliant "upside down in the rain" kissing scene), but Gwen was once again a nobody by herself, defined only by her relationships with Peter and to a lesser extent, her dad. At least with Kirsten Dunst's MJ, we were made to believe that Peter was nowhere near being the end all and be all of her life.

[Phantom Roxas]

Yes, I'm aware of those flaws, but for fuck's sake, the similarities between this movies and the first trilogy aren't as bad as people make them out to be, since I think it at least tried as hard as it could be to stand out. I loved the movie. Then again, I thought the crane scene was good.

But still, this was pretty funny, I will at least admit that.

[linkspirit97]

To people who didn't like this movie, if it wasn't for the other three, what would you have thought?

[Wayne 26]

More People would of thought that the movie was amazing. Why? Because every flaw pointed out in the ASM is always a comparison to the other three films.

[wyokid]

To people who didn't like this movie, if it wasn't for the other three, what would you have thought?

I would probably have hated it more because it would be the only Spider-Man film ever made.

More People would of thought that the movie was amazing. Why? Because every flaw pointed out in the ASM is always a comparison to the other three films.

I've only compared it to the original in one aspect and one aspect alone and that's Gwen's terrible terrible characterization vs the actual character that is Mary Jane.

[DarkWarriorBlake]

Yes, I'm aware of those flaws, but for fuck's sake, the similarities between this movies and the first trilogy aren't as bad as people make them out to be, since I think it at least tried as hard as it could be to stand out. I loved the movie. Then again, I thought the crane scene was good.

But still, this was pretty funny, I will at least admit that.

The crane scene was a 'nice' scene ruined by the America ra-ra thing. Nothing against America but anyone outside the country will roll their eyes at that, and they did the same thing in the first or third film. Maybe both. As if it takes being American to turn a crane and save the day.

I disagree on your other point though, it didn't try at all to stand out. It did what it had to, have Spider-Man in it. That was the only goal of the film and that alone is why it made money because that piss-poor CGI Lizard wasn't a draw. Without the original trilogy it'd still be a bad film because I dont even like the original trilogy that much and we're including that atrocious third film here so its not like people think those films were a perfect series. It could have rebooted the film effectively, it failed. If Raimi hadn't locked Peter and MJ into a relationship from the start, I would've James Bond'd it and just carried on the other films with new cast without referencing them much. No one wants to see that origin anymore. Batman passed because his training hadn't been shown before, 1989 Batman was just Batman from the start, the parents death is a constant thing.

Spider-Man getting bit by a rogue spider is kind of lame, but Spider-Man wandering into a high security facility, wandering into a top secret lab, and getting bit by a spider is just blah.

I did at least like that they gave him a makeshift outfit rather than the silk panel thing Raimi had which looked bad and just made no sense in terms of where the hell Parker got it.

[sage6paths]

For the record the scene in Spider-Man 3 were everyone is clapping for Spider-mans arrival is far better then the Crane scene in ASM. But Spider-Man 3 was still crap lol.

[Mister Mets]

They haven't aged well, but they had more to them than The Amazing Spider-Man. TASM is almost not a Spider-Man film, little of it is to do with Spider-Man until the generic finale with the generic villain. It's hollow, and there is a reason no one is talking about it even these few months later in the same way as SM1, SM2, TDK, and other things. It's very believable that the early description of Twilight with Spider-Man is what they were going for because you could probably do an edit of the film that removed the spiderman parts and have a coherent 90 minute romantic drama with wafer thin characters and a poor attempt at trying to disguise the fact that it is a reboot by introducing this parental mystery that goes nowhere.

There's a conflicting argument that the Raimi films are so stylized that they'll age better than more generic films.

You do have a good point that there seems to be less discussion about ASM than previous Spider-Man films.

Although part of it may be the shock of the new with Spider-Man, the excellence of Spider-Man 2 and the increased competition from the Avengers and Nolan Batman films.

[DarkWarriorBlake]

There's a conflicting argument that the Raimi films are so stylized that they'll age better than more generic films.

You do have a good point that there seems to be less discussion about ASM than previous Spider-Man films.

Although part of it may be the shock of the new with Spider-Man, the excellence of Spider-Man 2 and the increased competition from the Avengers and Nolan Batman films.

Well that's part of it, the Raimi films were praised because they treated the comic book film with more class than it was used to. Batman 1989, I love it, but obviously it takes a lot of liberties with the character which I, as a 4 year old viewer, was not aware of such as the quite frequent murders that 1989 Batman commits. But that is heavily stylized and with the long-lasting theme and the kind of pseudo sequel in terms of the animated series, it still holds up, so does Returns IMO and obviously that film's Catwoman. But then you had a lot of crap and general disrespect for comic films and Spider-Man amped that up.

But since then we've had Begins (which obviously isn't as culturally massive as...) TDK and you have the Avengers related films which, while not all individually notable/memorable/long-lasting like Hulk and probably Captain America and Iron man 2, the scope and scale of the project plus the culminating Avengers film (while fairly generic in terms of plot) is a big deal and the associated records of both those films will keep them going for a lonnnnnnnnnnng time. In a post TDK world, skimping on quality is not a valid option and Sony rushed the job to make sure they held on to the lucrative rights, and its a smart business decision, I mean this film made MONEY. LOTS of MONEY, despite it being a pretty poor film overall.

I definitely wouldn't say it was written by someone with any particular knowledge or passion for the character, or a lot of talent. It hand waves a great many things and Peter is pretty much a horrible person t hroughout. May is marginalized, which if it was the Raimi version I'd say was a good thing, but here she is sat at home worrying while he comes home frequently with half his face caved in and refusing to tell her why. It definitely lacks a lot of the more light hearted parts of Spider-Man and the overall thrill of that character is swinging through the city which is kind of mooted here too. And hte approach to hitting similar notes as Raimi's first such as the wrestling arena come off poorer. If there had not been that first film would it still be poor? Probably, it was weak, but with the Raimi version? It never stood a chance, that wrestling setup was a really great part of the film, the tease of the costume before hte reveal of the "spider-pajamas" (the dialog obviously hurts the scene "That's a nice outfit, did your husband knit it for you?") but its a really good scene.

I don't see people really noticing TASM even next year, I only watched it in the last few weeks and I feel no desire at all to ever see it again and there isn't a single moment I can point to or that I want to tell others about/rewatch which is easy to say about SM1 (Wrestling scene, burglar scene), 2 (Train fight), Batman 1989 (Most Nicholson scenes), Batman Begins (Much of the end segment from the summoning of the bats on), TDK (everything to do with the Joker), even TDKR (The return of Batman really drew some emotion from me, its always amazing to see Batman return from retirement) which I'm very much not fond of, and the Avengers (Mostly Loki stuff). I didn't even like Captain America that much, but its more ...charming I guess than TASM. Peggy and Rogers are at least fun to watch, and the overall old-world aesthetic.

[David Walton]

I agree, but there's not much competition there in my opinion. Other than the initial "Oh, shit!" feeling when the first Spider-Man movie came out, I didn't like any of the Raimi films all that much.

You're normally a man of such refined taste! I'll chalk this up to, "No one's perfect."

ASM was okay. Not a disaster, and some cool stuff to build on.

But they spent way too much time rehasing the origin, and it was NOT an improvement. They BUTCHERED the burglar scene.

But the Spidey/Lizard stuff was WAY cool, and Dennis Leary rocked even though he was criminally underused.

Pretty much everyone gave a great performance, even where the script was lacking.

So I'll be interested to see where it goes from here.

[Phantom Roxas]

The crane scene was a 'nice' scene ruined by the America ra-ra thing. Nothing against America but anyone outside the country will roll their eyes at that, and they did the same thing in the first or third film. Maybe both. As if it takes being American to turn a crane and save the day.

I disagree on your other point though, it didn't try at all to stand out. It did what it had to, have Spider-Man in it. That was the only goal of the film and that alone is why it made money because that piss-poor CGI Lizard wasn't a draw. Without the original trilogy it'd still be a bad film because I dont even like the original trilogy that much and we're including that atrocious third film here so its not like people think those films were a perfect series. It could have rebooted the film effectively, it failed. If Raimi hadn't locked Peter and MJ into a relationship from the start, I would've James Bond'd it and just carried on the other films with new cast without referencing them much. No one wants to see that origin anymore. Batman passed because his training hadn't been shown before, 1989 Batman was just Batman from the start, the parents death is a constant thing.

Spider-Man getting bit by a rogue spider is kind of lame, but Spider-Man wandering into a high security facility, wandering into a top secret lab, and getting bit by a spider is just blah.

I did at least like that they gave him a makeshift outfit rather than the silk panel thing Raimi had which looked bad and just made no sense in terms of where the hell Parker got it.

Yeah, I knew that about Batman, so I avoided bringing him up for that reason.

I'll have to compare the movies again for the sake of comparison. I do agree that the movie was only made to keep the rights, but I feel it justified it. As for him breaking into the high security facility, they specifically showed him noticing the password, although didn't they show that Dr. Ratha used some eye-recognition technology, or did he just leave it unlocked for some reason?

[Confuzzled Mutie]

For the record the scene in Spider-Man 3 were everyone is clapping for Spider-mans arrival is far better then the Crane scene in ASM. But Spider-Man 3 was still crap lol.

Yes, mainly for the reaction it got out of an already down and out MJ!

"Aw, applause for me. Wow, I-... oh wait!".