Marc Webb/Andrew Garfield's 2012 Spider-Man movie megathread

[Scott Taylor]

I saw the trailer, read early reviews, and opted not to see the film in the theatre based on what I saw and read. Then recently rented the movie. My original assessment that it was a film not worthy of spending my precious theatre budget on was correct, imho. Its still a good flick, but not one I will own on DVD.

[Stars 'N Stripes]

The film's Spider-Man outfit, upon further watching, looks rather off. I dunno if it's the silver soles on his boots/shoes or the orange eye lenses, but.....I dunno. It looks odd.

[E. Wilson]

Actually, one thing I'll say that really disappointed me: the film didn't take advantage of being a 3D movie at all. It's a 3D Spider-Man movie; the effects should have storyboarded themselves.

[Lars C]

The film's Spider-Man outfit, upon further watching, looks rather off. I dunno if it's the silver soles on his boots/shoes or the orange eye lenses, but.....I dunno. It looks odd.

I hated the suit at first, but I slowly got used to it. Still prefer the one Tobey Maguire wore, but this one was okay after all. Looked better in motion.

[Madcap Luck]

I am not afraid to say that I am not a fan of the movie.

Garfield- given the role as a James Dean/mysterious loner type Peter Parker, rather than a science wiz/geek type. Studio trying to relate to today's "geek" instead of cannon just felt waaaay off. Peter Parker is the kid getting dunked in his food by Flash, not the guy defending said kid.

Field- in a cash grab moment as Aunt May.. They hardly had any scenes together, the ones they were in are forgettable. Am I to believe this is the same relationship that Peter gave up everything for in OMD?

It's the first movie of a new set, there is already 3+ people who know his identity and he was out of mask in costume just as much as in...

The only things I thought were adequate were:
1) use of webs in fight scenes (pull himself across the floor, etc..) much more dynamic than past films.
2) more wisecracks- but still not on par for the comic book Spidey.

Maguire made a better Peter, Garfield a better Spiderman.


I was hoping beyond hope that this was a one and done deal like Superman Returns- and perhaps we could get someone to vome in and give Spidey some justice-but alas, looks like we are stuck with another sub-par film...

[derekakadrock]

Garfield- given the role as a James Dean/mysterious loner type Peter Parker, rather than a science wiz/geek type. Studio trying to relate to today's "geek" instead of cannon just felt waaaay off.

What? Peter showed an interest in and knack for science more in ASM than any of the Raimi films. He invented webshooters, solved Connors's equation, showed up several lab interns during Connors's lecture, invented a motorized bedroom lock, used engineering to fix the leak in the basement, was seen reading Connor's book (Connors even asks, "And you understood it?" implying that it was not at all a high school-level read), had a clear interest in Einstein, and had formulas scribbled all over his skateboard. And that's just off the top of my head. You even got plenty of dialogue telling us this ("I snuck in because I love science!" or Gwen's "He's second in his class.")

Today's idea of a geek is much different from what it was in the 1960s. You couldn't take the coke-bottle glasses, sweater vest/tie combo and slicked-back combed hair straight out of Amazing Fantasy #15 and not have it come off like an anachronism in 2012. The important thing is that Peter is treated as an outsider by his peers.

Peter Parker is the kid getting dunked in his food by Flash, not the guy defending said kid.

Is it really that out of character for Peter to stand up for someone else, even pre-powers Peter? It's not like he came off as some sort of hero anyway; he got his ass kicked for defending the kid regardless.

[Lars C]

The only complaints I have about the movie is that they just dropped so much. I guess it ended up on the cutting room floor or cost too much to make? We could very early find some spoilers that Spidey would fight a mutated SWAT team, so those cops that Connors transforms were supposed to be something more. I wonder if the crane scene replaced that? In that case, bad move, man. Then the whole thing about Peter's parents. We saw scenes in the damn trailer that wasn't in the movie, like "If you want the truth about your parents, Peter. Come and get it". It just seems as hey dropped so much!

Oh, and he was without his damn mask way too often.

But still, I think it was a great movie. Sure, too much reminded of Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 1, and because of that I have to wonder what I would have thought about Amazing Spider-Man if this was the first. I probably would have loved it even more.

What I do like is that they seem to plant the seeds more carefully here, I think they have a basic plan for what is going to happen in the coming movies. And Garfield is damn good in the role too.

[Confuzzled Mutie]

Garfield- given the role as a James Dean/mysterious loner type Peter Parker..

What was remotely "James Dean" about Garfield's Parker other than the big hair? Plus, he wasn't really a loner completely by choice. In the beginning, when Sally Avril approached him, he jumped at the opportunity to talk to her thinking she was asking him out on a date. And he was a regular old goofball around Gwen. The social awkwardness was entirely there, complete with an abundance of stammering.

[President Kang]

Agreed that Parker was definitely a nerd in the movie, didn't have any friends, and I actually like that he stood up to Flash for the kid and then promptly got smacked down (the "Let him go, EUGINE!" bit did also imply that they were childhood friends at one point and then it went sour, which is a nice bit of character and I loved the way Garfield delivered it). Parker can still be a loner geek and not have to rock a sweater vest and carry a book that says "Science" under his arm. Nerds use skateboards too, y'know.

[Darman456]

Agreed that Parker was definitely a nerd in the movie, didn't have any friends, and I actually like that he stood up to Flash for the kid and then promptly got smacked down (the "Let him go, EUGINE!" bit did also imply that they were childhood friends at one point and then it went sour, which is a nice bit of character and I loved the way Garfield delivered it). Parker can still be a loner geek and not have to rock a sweater vest and carry a book that says "Science" under his arm. Nerds use skateboards too, y'know.

The whole point of the film was to modernize Peter. And they did a great job of it. However, there were many scenes that were cut that I feel should've been in the film. I hope they fix it in this next installment. Plus, Electro. That's cool. I hope they also have a big reference to Osborn. Though, with Harry, I guess we'll get that.

[Mister Mets]

It's months old, but I just listened to the review of the film on NPR's Pop Culture Happy Hour. This was the first 20 minutes of the July 13 episode. It's worth tracking down for anyone with an interest in commentary about the film.

One interesting comparison they make between Marvel and DC films is that Marvel tends to have consequential interactions on ordinary matters, in addition to all the superhero stuff. So Tony Stark and Coulson will talk about his girlfriend in Oregon, while Bruce Wayne doesn't really have those talks with Lucius Fox or Alfred.

The NPR crew was also happy with Andrew Garfield as a believable teenager, which is why he's sometimes awkward and a jerk.

[Judo Grip Batman]

I saw this movie once in theatres, probably a good month or so after it came out. I'm a pretty big fan of the first two Sam Raimi films, despite their 'cheese' factor, and I don't even think the third one deserves as much of the guff it receives (yes, dancing emo-Peter and magic-symbiote-from-outer-space are terrible, I'll admit).

I didn't think Amazing was flawless. It rehashed too much familiar ground, boring me. One of the more original subplots it dangled before its viewers (the mystery of Peter's parents) seemed to dissolve completely after an hour or so, much like Spider-Man's webbing, and the villain...well, let's face it, he was just boring. It's by no means the actor's fault, but there was simply no way The Lizard was going to live up to the awesome performance of Raimi's first villain (even stuck in his Power Rangers mask, I'd take Defoe's Green Goblin). Basically, to me, Connors came off as a lesser version of the Goblin and Raimi's other great bad guy, Otto Octavius from Spider-Man 2, all rolled into one.

BUT...but...buut....the really, really redeeming factor to me in this movie is something I simply wasn't expecting: an absolutely riveting performance by Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker/Spider-Man. I never *minded* Tobey Maguire, but I think Garfield dominates him effortlessly. Heck, I'd say he completely destroys most people who've tried bringing a comic-book superhero to life. I'd put his performance on the same threshold as Christopher Reeve's Clark Kent/Superman, Hugh Jackman's Wolverine, and Robert Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark/Iron Man...which is to say, he makes the role his own while remaining loyal to the source material.

I felt the angry isolation of teenage outcasts pouring out of the screen. I liked that his Spidey's more of a wise-ass (although I also realize that's an effect of the script, so I'm not sure it's fair to dump on Tobey for it), and he was more convincing in his 'super-powered but arrogantly selfish' phase, pre-Uncle-Ben death. And, of course, as most critics have remarked, Garfield's on-screen chemistry with Emma Stone's Gwen Stacy is great...and it'll all be that much more devastating if they follow the classic comics.

Anyway, all this to say...I hope the second one, now that the boring origin stuff is out of the way, gives this creative crew more breathing space, so we can have a truly great Spidey movie.

[USERNAME TAKEN]

I didn't enjoy it as much as Spider-man 1 and 2 but it was better than Spider-man 3.