[bad-beat]

I think the biggest thing working against this film is that we are only a decade past from the last spider-man origin story. Because of this closeness, it has to try so much harder to do the same things differently. The weighting of Uncle Ben's death was only saved by Martin Sheen doing such an amazing (heh) job as Uncle Ben up to that point. It's hard to build up such an emotional scene when we've only recently been on the same journey. I suspect that if the death wasn't such an instrumental aspect of the spider-man mythos, the film may have done something differently, like it did with the inclusion of Gwen Stacy at the expense of Mary Jane, and the exclusion of the Daily Bugle and shunting Norman Osborne to name-drop territory. I'd imagine their inclusion in ASM2, when we've all hopefully forgotten the Raimi films, all but certain.

However, I don't think it is a bad film. Far from it. I think Andrew Garfield is a far superior spider-man/Peter Parker than Tobey Maguire and the action scenes, in particular the increased emphasis and originality of the webbing during the fighting. People have been critical of the Lizard as a villain but this film has just continued the trend of poor villains in origin films.

All in all, If this film had been done in 2022 instead of 2012 or if the Raimi films had not been made I can't help but feel amazing spider-man would be getting far more praise. Unfortunately Sony are so desperate to hang onto it'd cash cow it has produced a film that just feels slightly unnecessary and left me feeling like this is just a time killer until we get The Dark Knight Rises in a few weeks. The almost perfect superhero film that is The Avengers probably doesn't help this movie as it really has pushed the bar in terms of superhero films.

Overall I liked this film but I feel that it was given to us at the wrong time.

[Deserana 12]

Originally Posted by lordo350

The intriguing revenge plot with the star tattoo is just forgotten about. The disappearing parents are never explained..

The two scenes at the end clearly suggested that these were two plot points that are on-going.

Saw this film tonight and far far more interesting than Raimi's IMO. Garfield is so much better than Maguire and I think it is the miserable Parker in Raimi's films which is why I'm not a huge fan. This Parker was fun. The car-thief scene was fun and it was still a light film don't where the "darkness" quotes are coming from. Watch TDK and BB then say this is a dark film.

So yeah better than I thought it would but not on a level of Nolan. Very fun.

[viewaskew]

I thought it was 100% improvement on the original with Tobey Maguire - Garfield blew him out the water as well.

Only thing I didnt like - the fact that he had web-shooter devices and not being able to produce webs himself.

[Saigo]

Originally Posted by viewaskew

I thought it was 100% improvement on the original with Tobey Maguire - Garfield blew him out the water as well.

I saw it last night and thought the whole thing was excellent and really enjoyable.

Only thing I didnt like - the fact that he had web-shooter devices and not being able to produce webs himself.

This was always the case in the comics and cartoons - Peter Parker makes his own web shooters.

It was only the Raimi/Maguire trilogy that introduced the organic webs.

[Muttley76]

Originally Posted by Deserana 12

The two scenes at the end clearly suggested that these were two plot points that are on-going.

but it's an established fact that this film has been heavily edited stuff about Parkers parents was cut, again go watch the trailer, and think about the things that didn't actually appear in the film, one very heavily trailered point in particular was more than noticeable by it's absence.

I didn't like the film, you did, and that's fine, but it was most definitely hacked to pieces pretty late in the day, that's undeniable.

[Saigo]

I don't understand the people complaining about the CGI? I thought the Lizard CGI was excellent - it never looked fake to me and was believable. Much better than other movies.

I also liked that there were more physical stunts of Spiderman swinging and fighting rather than the rubbery looking CG Spiderman of the other films. It only went CG for the really crazy stuff but had a lot of actual stunt work and Garfield (a gymnast) did a lot of his own stuff which I thought really helped a lot.

I thought there were some funny/witty moments - more than the Raimi trilogy.

It made me want to be spider-man!


=====

A lot of the reviews seem to be anooyed that there is a re-boot so soon and are taking it out on the film. This is unfair, the film should be treated on its merits and not dismissed because of the time period since the last trilogy.

For me, the third Raimi film was terrible and I really like Spidey. It was good to see it get another shot and I really enjoyed it. It looks very different from Raimi's and really makes the most of the character. Who care how many years since the last one? Not everyone saw the others anyway.

[Muttley76]

Originally Posted by Saigo

I don't understand the people complaining about the CGI? I thought the Lizard CGI was excellent - it never looked fake to me and was believable.Much better than other movies

lol, you can't be serious!

It never looked fake? Hilarious!

Much better than other movies? If you contrast the cgi lizard to the hulk from the avengers and tell me that you think the lizard was better and more realistic, I may have to die of laughing....

[Saigo]

Originally Posted by Muttley76

but it's an established fact that this film has been heavily edited stuff about Parkers parents was cut, again go watch the trailer, and think about the things that didn't actually appear in the film, one very heavily trailered point in particular was more than noticeable by it's absence.

I didn't like the film, you did, and that's fine, but it was most definitely hacked to pieces pretty late in the day, that's undeniable.

I am not bothered about time being spent on Spidey's parents. It's not like he is Batman, his motivations come from something else.

[Muttley76]

Originally Posted by Saigo

I am not bothered about time being spent on Spidey's parents. It's not like he is Batman, his motivations come from something else.

I'm not talking about the plotting, I am talking about the editing, two completly different things. It's never a very promising sign for a film when the studio need to hack it to pieces late in the day like they have with this film.

[varsas]

Originally Posted by Muttley76

I'm not talking about the plotting, I am talking about the editing, two completly different things. It's never a very promising sign for a film when the studio need to hack it to pieces late in the day like they have with this film.

I did notice that scenes I'd seen in trailers or clips were missing but it didn't feel like it was edited poorly at all; taking the film alone it didn't feel like anything was missing.

Originally Posted by Muttley76

The first half meandered along like a mediocre episode of Dawsons Creek, complete with adults trying to play teenagers in a wholly unrealistic manner. The second half, when the action kicked in, was even less engaging, ironically, and the cgi was, quite frankly, embarrassing, especially in the case of the Lizard, it was just dire!
...
The only other positive I can really take away from this turkey of a film is that it makes me appreciate how truly expectational a film of this genre that The Avengers really was....now THAT was a film worthy of being called Amazing.

3/10

I have to disagree I thought the teenage story was done in a pretty realistic manner and that's why it worked so well between Garfield and Stone; the relationship about which most have commented very positively.

I don't think the CGI was bad at all including in comparison with Avengers Assemble; it didn't stick out and it helped that most of it was at night. As for Avengers being the best of the genre; it was great fun and a showcase but I think the Dark Knight is a far better film. In reference to Amazing, it doesn't have anywhere near the "heart"; Spider-Man stories should always be more "personal" while the Avengers stories should be just be about bigger broader themes.

Originally Posted by lordo350

Things do work in this movie, though. Andrew Garfield is a terrific Peter, despite me feeling ironically he was a little too good looking for the role at first. But dude: STOP TAKING OFF YOUR MASK! Yes, I know you have a lead actor who is pretty attractive. But Spider-Man's mask is as much a part of him as his Spider powers! Look at Batman Begins. Christian Bale is an attractive man. Is he taking his mask off every five seconds?

I think this is probably the funniest repeated criticism; there's only one point where he takes off the mask for no reason,

Spoiler

in the high school; otherwise it made sense: he took it off to re-assure the boy when Spider-Man is not-considered a hero by the public and Captain Stacy takes it off when he thinks he has him cornered

.

Originally Posted by thierrynadal

...I felt the amazing spiderman was much darker and less humorous than the original spiderman movie...The Green goblin is a better villain....

I re-watched the first Spider-Man film last night and I don't think it's anywhere near as funny as Amazing but it's still fun. The Green Golbin is a much better villain but I think the choice of the Lizard is perfect; it allowed them to focus the story on Peter and any Green Goblin story needs to be built up over time because he is effectively Spidey's arch-nemesis.

[Saigo]

Originally Posted by Muttley76

lol, you can't be serious!

It never looked fake? Hilarious!

(putting aside your hyperbolic incredulity) Well, obviously it looked fake in the context that it wasn't real, but as part of a fantasy comic book film and as a monster that does not exist in real life, it never took me out of the moment.

Much better than other movies? If you contrast the cgi lizard to the hulk from the avengers and tell me that you think the lizard was better and more realistic, I may have to die of laughing....

I think it looked better. A scaly, lizard like monster lends itself better to CGI than a humanoid and muscular character. The Hulk always looks overtly CG because it is supposed to mimic humanoid proportions and movement.

[Deserana 12]

Originally Posted by Muttley76

but it's an established fact that this film has been heavily edited stuff about Parkers parents was cut, again go watch the trailer, and think about the things that didn't actually appear in the film, one very heavily trailered point in particular was more than noticeable by it's absence.

I didn't like the film, you did, and that's fine, but it was most definitely hacked to pieces pretty late in the day, that's undeniable.

I swear DS posted an article about the cut material. It mentions nothing about parents stuff. The mid-credit sequence CLEARLY points out that the parents thing is a continuing story-arc. Even if it was cut it never bothered me.

Uncle Ben's murderer was also clearly pointed towared being a continuing story.

And I just watched the trailers.... what exactly was cut from the parents thing?

Originally Posted by Muttley76

lol, you can't be serious!

It never looked fake? Hilarious!

Much better than other movies? If you contrast the cgi lizard to the hulk from the avengers and tell me that you think the lizard was better and more realistic, I may have to die of laughing....

It looked fake, then anything in CGI usually does. But it looked nowhere near as bad as you are exaggerating. The Hulk wasn't exactly a piece of CGI mastery.

[whedon247]

when i watched the film i did not get the sense that it had been edited badly and also the cgi looked fantastic to me.

think some people have their reboot axe out and looking to grind.

[Deserana 12]

Originally Posted by whedon247

when i watched the film i did not get the sense that it had been edited badly and also the cgi looked fantastic to me.

think some people have their reboot axe out and looking to grind.

This ^

[Boselecta]

Anyone seen the 3D version and is it any good? I think 3D only looks good in bright and well-lit scenes. F'rinstance I thought 3D in last Potter movies was a waste of time as 95% of film was dark and gloomy. Cos I only go to flicks a few times a year I tend to go "all in" with 3DImax but this time I might save some pennies if 3D is a bit naff.

[Deserana 12]

Originally Posted by Boselecta

Anyone seen the 3D version and is it any good? I think 3D only looks good in bright and well-lit scenes. F'rinstance I thought 3D in last Potter movies was a waste of time as 95% of film was dark and gloomy. Cos I only go to flicks a few times a year I tend to go "all in" with 3DImax but this time I might save some pennies if 3D is a bit naff.

I saw it in 3D IMAX. The slinging scenes are good but there isn't a lot of wow scenes. If it was out of 2D and 3D go 2D but I'd see it in IMAX.

[whedon247]

i saw it in 3d,as deserana says it doesnt have a wow factor but its alright

when you get blu ray(if you get blu ray) you will most probably watch it in 2d so if you dont mind 3d give it a whirl in the cinema as a one off.

[GilaGora]

Saw it yesterday, loved it. Cheesy as hell but that's what Spider-Man is all about! Andrew Garfield and Rhys Ifans were both impressive.

[Stansfield]

Originally Posted by viewaskew

I thought it was 100% improvement on the original with Tobey Maguire - Garfield blew him out the water as well.

Only thing I didnt like - the fact that he had web-shooter devices and not being able to produce webs himself.

But you could only improve on Maguire....he was awful in the 'original'.

Spider-Man 2012...8/10...I loved it.
Emma Stone...10/10.

But the Crane bit was way to Cheesy.....

[AnniesBoobs]

Spiderman 1 and 2 blew TASM out of the water...........

TASM was better then Spidey 3, however that didn't take much.

[thierrynadal]

Originally Posted by AnniesBoobs

Spiderman 1 and 2 blew TASM out of the water...........

TASM was better then Spidey 3, however that didn't take much.

I agree. Spiderman 1 and 2 is much better than the new one.

[ASIFZED]

I agree that The Amazing Spider-Man was far better than number 3 of the previous trilogy, but that wasn't going to be particularly hard.

In all, I felt this was a bit of a disappointment and very much a film geared towards a teen crowd. Odd that they should go with main actors who are too old for the primary roles (Garfield and Stone), which makes it a tad tiresome watching them act out teen romantic affectations.. all umming, ah-ing etc. Bit like Maggie Grace in Taken, which was embarrassing to watch.

Spidey's origin is so well known and, to devote the opening hour or so to telling this again, admittedly with a few twists, did try my patience. But fair shout - it's a 'reboot'. As for Garfield's take on the old web-head? A fairly solid attempt at capturing the humour of Spidey. As Peter, he was channelling Jeff Goldblum I thought (doing The Fly) when facing the early signs of his morphing.

The physical effects were great and the cinematography lent this a far more earthy look and feel, differentiating from what came before. The darker pallette did enough to hide some of the the poorer (Lizard) effects. Editing left something to be desired - the basketball game and some of the initial fight scenes were pretty disorientating. But these are fairly minor points. Aerial scenes were well executed and to see the New York skyline presenting Spidey with a challenge (queue the crowd pleasing scene with the cranes...), was nice. Disappointed that the new musical score by James Horner didn't resonate with me and, paled against Danny Elfman's version in my opinion.

Overall, if you can endure the trite luvvy-duvvy stuff, then you may enjoy this new iteration. The mystery associated with his parents disappearance will no doubt be explored further in numbers 2 & 3 (i say, 'Spectacular' followed by 'Sensational'), so this one is very much a set-up for the other films, whilst doing just enough to stand on its own. Of course, coming so soon after a still popular trilogy by Raimi's hand, a lot of this may feel overly familiar. But the goodwill of audiences and fans of the characters, will ensure The Amazing Spider - Man is a box office smash, irrespective of whether this occasionally plodding, tad sentimental and only fitfully entertaining version deserves it or not.

Rating – 7/10.

[Wulfster]

Well, just came back from an IMAX 3D showing of TASM, and for me personally I can sum up the experience in two words ... Intense Disappointment.

I know this movie has a lot of fans (on this thread for a start) and it looks like the box office will be huge, but I'm afraid it just didn't click with me at all.
This year I've been quite tolerant and even quite enjoyed Battleship and MIB3, but I've got to be honest guys, there were some moments in the film where the quality of the script and scenes almost had me walking out and I've never thought I would feel like that!

I think one of the reasons why I felt quite upset and strongly about it was, that for 5 fantastic minutes ... this was the best Spidey movie ever, and that was never repeated.
The "car-thief" scene, with the zinging one-liners, sarcastic quips, effortlessly humilating the cops and webbing everything in sight. Then swinging across the bridge whilst whooping for joy. THIS was perfect Spidey, and seemed to recapture the joy and sheer escapism of the character, in a way that was even better than Raimi's version.

Unfortunately the rest of the film (for me) felt like a cross between a Channing Tatum / Zac Efron rom-com, and a wanna-be (Nolan) Batman rip-off.

The origin was stiffly handled and seemed rushed (why re-tell it, if you don't add anything particularly new).

The Uncle Ben relationship was fluffed. There was no "With great power, etc" moment and he seemed a bit of a shouty git who brought things on himself really. So there was no gravitas or heart, or even real guilt associated with the character.

I know they are (allegedly)a real-life couple, but there wasn't any real chemistry or reasons for the attraction between Stone and Garfield. Most scenes (especially the dire roof-top scene) seemed overly mawkish.

The "Alley-way" scenes were far too similar to "Batman" (especially "Year One" book and film) and one character actually says "This city needs you".

Garfield is okay, even if he does have at least 2 Darth-Vader-"Nooo!" moments, but Stone and Ifans seem wasted.

Also, I've never seen a movie with so many scenes in the trailer, that are missing in the film! 3 come to mind straight away:
1) "Peter lives with his Aunt and Uncle"
2) "You want the truth Peter, come and get it!"
3) The main POV swinging scene.
Vanished!

And that damned webbing! Can anyone tell me ...

Spoiler

... where the hell it came from? To all intents and purpose, to me it looked like Peter simply brought cartridges of the stuff from Oscorp. Bio-Cable? If it's freely available, why aren't other people swinging from rooftops? He says in the film that he had a hand putting it together. When was this then? We see him making the shooters but not the webbing. Sloppy.

The reason I'm being so negative is that I could see that there was a fantastic film just below the surface, but it was being held back by, I'd imagine, studio preferences (like the continual mask-off scenes).

On the plus side, the Reptile is not as bad as I feared it would be, and the large spider-web in the sewer was a nice idea.

But still, disappointment of the year for me so far, and I would personally only give it 3/10.

[varsas]

Originally Posted by AnniesBoobs

Spiderman 1 and 2 blew TASM out of the water...........

TASM was better then Spidey 3, however that didn't take much.

Have you watched them recently? I've watched 1 and 2 over the last couple of nights. I loved them at the time but having learnt more about the character through the original Lee/Ditko comics and the superb Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon they just don't stand up as well now for me though still fun.

Originally Posted by Wulfster

I know this movie has a lot of fans (on this thread for a start) and it looks like the box office will be huge, but I'm afraid it just didn't click with me at all...

And that damned webbing! Can anyone tell me ...

Spoiler

... where the hell it came from? To all intents and purpose, to me it looked like Peter simply brought cartridges of the stuff from Oscorp. Bio-Cable? If it's freely available, why aren't other people swinging from rooftops? He says in the film that he had a hand putting it together. When was this then? We see him making the shooters but not the webbing. Sloppy.

...
But still, disappointment of the year for me so far, and I would personally only give it 3/10.

I'm one of the fans and fundamentally disagree with your assessment so there's no point discussing it.

Regarding the webbing

Spoiler

my understanding was that the oscorp material was experimental and Peter stole a cartridge and modified it, including the formula, to be used as webbing; he refers to creating it himself later on. I don't think that's sloppy, things shouldn't need to always be shown; although the film does do that a lot. Also even if the oscorp formula is not modified and could just be used to swing the person still needs the skill and agility

.

Prometheus is probably the biggest disappointment so far this year for me; I'm guessing you really liked it? I have a feeling we're going to see lots of moaning about DKR!

[Yuffie]

Originally Posted by Boselecta

Anyone seen the 3D version and is it any good? I think 3D only looks good in bright and well-lit scenes. F'rinstance I thought 3D in last Potter movies was a waste of time as 95% of film was dark and gloomy. Cos I only go to flicks a few times a year I tend to go "all in" with 3DImax but this time I might save some pennies if 3D is a bit naff.

Seen it twice in 3D, first in IMAX 3D and second in regular 3D.

I was really impressed in IMAX D, then left really unimpresssed by regular 3D.

So I'd say either go see it in IMAX or 2D!