The Amazing Spiderman: 4.25/5
I really enjoyed it - Peter seemed slightly arrogant, more emo, even badass compared to the 2002 Spiderman and more of a wisecracker (especially when he first starts using his powers), we see more closely his relationship with Ben and May and how his father not being around has affected him. Essentially the story is Spiderman Begins, so on one level I question the need to tell his origins again (Spiderman 3 is only 5 years old FFS! :eek: ), but the dark(er) style worked and the emotional content was better realised than Raimi's first film which was still very good but lighter.
Gwen Stacy was good, she had good chemistry with Peter, and you can understand Connors' motive at first (kinda) but he got out of control.
The CGI Lizard looked naff imo, a cross between King Bowser from that Mario Bros. film, Godzilla and The Hulk Though I did like the possible Godzilla joke when Peter tells Gwen's dad about him and he's like "Do I look like the mayor of Tokyo?"
I think I might even like Batman better then this after I am dragged to see it next week. I thought the last Batman was awful and I was expecting to like Spiderman better.
Saw this today. Took my Mum who absolutely hated the first 3 Spider-Man films (actually I don't think she even bothered with the third) but she loved this one! I thought it was brilliant and much prefer Andrew Garfield than Toby Maguire.
Saw this movie tonight. All I can say is how fantastic it was. So much better than the Tobey movies. Loved the villain, but he could've looked a bit...better. Loved Andrew as Peter, he played him perfectly. Uncle Ben and Aunt May were perfectly played too. Dr. Connors was very well acted, and I loved his character. Gwen shocked me quite a bit too, as I didn't think I would like her playing the love interest.
Watched all 3 of Raimi's films... never captured me, could not understand fascination with Spiderman.
Got dragged along to see TASM... now signing up to the Spiderman fan club (figuratively not literally).
Loved everything about it, as for plot holes... this is a film about a guy who gets bitten by a spider and acquires spider like super powers... I think pursuing authenticity in this context is a futile exercise.
This, I really enjoyed it. the Raimi films never really caught me and I just loved this.
Did I just miss it or was this bit in the trailer but missing from the film:
When Gwen and Peter were sitting on the stands and the coach says to Peter if he wants to try out for the football team and Peter replies no, its too dangerous.
Well finally decided to get round to seeing this today and i felt this was such an imporvement on raimis trilogy, after reading on here about various parts of the film they didn't like such as the web slingers ect, i wasnt too sure about going, i loved the trilogy for what it was but this film really was amazing because i loved how we got to learn more about peter, his family, his relationships with others and the way he handles becoming spiderman (learning to help others rather than himself) , where as the first film in the raimi trilogy just kinda rushed peter to become spiderman, yes this film does drag at first but in the end you can see why and become glad it did, you seem to know more about peter, i'll probably get slated here but its just my opinion but after being disappointed with TDKR last week i think spiderman is more a favourite for me than that.
@caz06: I prefer Amazing to TDKR too; I think TDKR is a better film but the characters and the more personal story in Amazing was more enjoyable.
Avengers comes in a very close 3rd of the superhero films; I really enjoyed it the 1st time and although still light fun the 2nd time it lost something when one knows the punch lines. Spidey was better the 2nd time and I think TDKR will be too when I get around to it.
Did I just miss it or was this bit in the trailer but missing from the film:
When Gwen and Peter were sitting on the stands and the coach says to Peter if he wants to try out for the football team and Peter replies no, its too dangerous.
There are a few bits cut; I've seen promo clips with additional scenes but the film doesn't loose anything without them.
Just watched this for the first time over the weekend.I dunno...mixed feelings.
I thought Peter/Spidey himself was much better served with Andrew Garfield. He was more alive and sparky compared to Macguire, who was OK but never hit that comic book Spidey feel for me. Garfield seemed to handle the wisecracking much better. I also loved the chemistry between him and Gwen too. It was never cloying, and very believable. Both really good actors and great choices.
But the film overall suffered a bit with an underwritten villain and a tendency to a darker tone. I found Kurt/Lizardman somewhat lightweight and found his motivations muddy and unconvincing. I was more bothered by this than the oft-mentioned poor CGI of the lizard. I also found the retread of the origin story somewhat unnecessary, though I appreciate that on their terms they had to do it.
Overall I do still prefer the Raimi films. They feel like a Jack Kirby, proper Marvel outing compared to this newer one. There's just more energy and vibrancy in the original film, and it's more entertaining imho.
I've turned it over after 40 minutes. What an abysmal film!
Not ONCE have I ever seen Peter Parker been portrayed as a mumbling, quivering, stuttering idiot who looks like he's got some kind of mental illness. Seriously, what's with all the head shaking?
Yes, Peter Parker is a bespectacled, science whizz who gets picked on by Flash Thompson but I can't recall ever seeing him skateboarding and skipping (f****g SKIPPING!) down school corridors in any of the comics.
My opinion matters little when I've only watched 40 mins and not actually seen "Spider-Man" in the film, but I can't bear to watch anymore. I'd rather watch Nicholas Hammond's version.
That's not to say Tobey Maguire is the perfect portrayal either, but at least the first Raimi film is a near perfect adaptation of the first Spider-Man comic, albeit with the character of Gwen Stacey being replaced by Mary-Jane. And that for me, means the 2002 version is the better origins film.
I watched again last night after last seeing it in the cinema and my mind is still made up, it is just not as good as the trilogy, It is really hard going, it feels more like a teen angsty film and the superhero stuff is an afterthought. Are they making anymore? I hope not.
I watched again last night after last seeing it in the cinema and my mind is still made up, it is just not as good as the trilogy, It is really hard going, it feels more like a teen angsty film and the superhero stuff is an afterthought. Are they making anymore? I hope not.
I share the same feelings and it really disappoints me because i'm not going to watch this incarnation of Spiderman films as it stands.
I enjoyed the film, but from what I remember of it. Andrew Garfield was too mumbling and emo for me. Peter is supposed to be a science whizz/nerd - the intense emo stuff didnt fit with the wisecracking way Garfield played Spidey. In that sense, for me, Tobey Maguire did a much better portrayal
I dunno. I enjoyed Raimi's when they were out but now I don't think they're very good at all.
I enjoyed TASM a lot. Far from a perfect superhero film but I liked it. Also the cast makes a massive difference in this film for me. I really like Garfield and Stone whereas Maguire and Dunst annoy the sh1te outta me. And I thought the villain was very good too.
This version of Spidey incorporates more of the Ultimate Spider-Man version, which works for me.
Andrew Garfield's Spidey is wisecracking and flippant, which as a lifelong Spider-Man fan I want. Tobey Maguire's Spidey is more reminiscent of the comic book version of Daredevil, although I liked his Peter Parker. Plus, Emma Stone's Gwen blows Kirsten Dunst's MJ away!
I watched again last night after last seeing it in the cinema and my mind is still made up, it is just not as good as the trilogy, It is really hard going, it feels more like a teen angsty film and the superhero stuff is an afterthought. Are they making anymore? I hope not.
They're going to keep churning them out or the rights will revert back to Marvel.
Im not a fan of superhero movies but got dragged along to the film when it was released by my boyfriend, after watching the Maguire/Dunst trio the day before and loved Garfield's portrayal far more. He was funny, i felt the story was much better and the whole revealing himself too often issue didn't bother me as he is gorgeous so it gave me the chance to see his gorgeous face..
Watching it on Sky yesterday, I feel now more than I did at the time it is superior to Maguire and Dunst and it reinforced his gourgeousness
It's a bloody good movie and in fairness, eclipsed my expectations as I was quite a big fan of Maguire/Dunst in the previous installments. Wasn't sure how I'd feel with the changes and reboot but it worked and Stone is just magnificent as always, bloody brilliant actress.
Comments
I really enjoyed it - Peter seemed slightly arrogant, more emo, even badass compared to the 2002 Spiderman and more of a wisecracker (especially when he first starts using his powers), we see more closely his relationship with Ben and May and how his father not being around has affected him. Essentially the story is Spiderman Begins, so on one level I question the need to tell his origins again (Spiderman 3 is only 5 years old FFS! :eek: ), but the dark(er) style worked and the emotional content was better realised than Raimi's first film which was still very good but lighter.
Gwen Stacy was good, she had good chemistry with Peter, and you can understand Connors' motive at first (kinda) but he got out of control.
This, I really enjoyed it. the Raimi films never really caught me and I just loved this.
I think Garfield was a much more likeable, ballsy Spiderman.
I totally agree with this:cool:
When Gwen and Peter were sitting on the stands and the coach says to Peter if he wants to try out for the football team and Peter replies no, its too dangerous.
Well finally decided to get round to seeing this today and i felt this was such an imporvement on raimis trilogy, after reading on here about various parts of the film they didn't like such as the web slingers ect, i wasnt too sure about going, i loved the trilogy for what it was but this film really was amazing because i loved how we got to learn more about peter, his family, his relationships with others and the way he handles becoming spiderman (learning to help others rather than himself) , where as the first film in the raimi trilogy just kinda rushed peter to become spiderman, yes this film does drag at first but in the end you can see why and become glad it did, you seem to know more about peter, i'll probably get slated here but its just my opinion but after being disappointed with TDKR last week i think spiderman is more a favourite for me than that.
Avengers comes in a very close 3rd of the superhero films; I really enjoyed it the 1st time and although still light fun the 2nd time it lost something when one knows the punch lines. Spidey was better the 2nd time and I think TDKR will be too when I get around to it.
There are a few bits cut; I've seen promo clips with additional scenes but the film doesn't loose anything without them.
I thought Peter/Spidey himself was much better served with Andrew Garfield. He was more alive and sparky compared to Macguire, who was OK but never hit that comic book Spidey feel for me. Garfield seemed to handle the wisecracking much better. I also loved the chemistry between him and Gwen too. It was never cloying, and very believable. Both really good actors and great choices.
But the film overall suffered a bit with an underwritten villain and a tendency to a darker tone. I found Kurt/Lizardman somewhat lightweight and found his motivations muddy and unconvincing. I was more bothered by this than the oft-mentioned poor CGI of the lizard. I also found the retread of the origin story somewhat unnecessary, though I appreciate that on their terms they had to do it.
Overall I do still prefer the Raimi films. They feel like a Jack Kirby, proper Marvel outing compared to this newer one. There's just more energy and vibrancy in the original film, and it's more entertaining imho.
I've turned it over after 40 minutes. What an abysmal film!
Not ONCE have I ever seen Peter Parker been portrayed as a mumbling, quivering, stuttering idiot who looks like he's got some kind of mental illness. Seriously, what's with all the head shaking?
Yes, Peter Parker is a bespectacled, science whizz who gets picked on by Flash Thompson but I can't recall ever seeing him skateboarding and skipping (f****g SKIPPING!) down school corridors in any of the comics.
My opinion matters little when I've only watched 40 mins and not actually seen "Spider-Man" in the film, but I can't bear to watch anymore. I'd rather watch Nicholas Hammond's version.
That's not to say Tobey Maguire is the perfect portrayal either, but at least the first Raimi film is a near perfect adaptation of the first Spider-Man comic, albeit with the character of Gwen Stacey being replaced by Mary-Jane. And that for me, means the 2002 version is the better origins film.
I share the same feelings and it really disappoints me because i'm not going to watch this incarnation of Spiderman films as it stands.
I enjoyed TASM a lot. Far from a perfect superhero film but I liked it. Also the cast makes a massive difference in this film for me. I really like Garfield and Stone whereas Maguire and Dunst annoy the sh1te outta me. And I thought the villain was very good too.
Andrew Garfield's Spidey is wisecracking and flippant, which as a lifelong Spider-Man fan I want. Tobey Maguire's Spidey is more reminiscent of the comic book version of Daredevil, although I liked his Peter Parker. Plus, Emma Stone's Gwen blows Kirsten Dunst's MJ away!
They're going to keep churning them out or the rights will revert back to Marvel.
Watching it on Sky yesterday, I feel now more than I did at the time it is superior to Maguire and Dunst and it reinforced his gourgeousness
It didn't stand out from the crowd.
Nothing 'Amazing' about it.