OFFICIAL Rate & Review the Amazing Spider-Man! - Part 1

[Radioactive1980]

Originally Posted by BobbyCorwin88

I don't like being "that guy" but you mentioned that Peter shooting webs out of his hands was part of his power set, which is incorrect. He constructed web shooters in the film.

I have to disagree with you on the "great power great responsibility" re-work. They pulled Ben's monologue straight off the pages of Ultimate Spider-Man and I thought it worked perfectly, especially since the argument Ben and Peter were having started to center on his Dad. In USM, Ben said it the same way and it still had the same impact.

In fact, most of the time in USM, the characters would often say "with great power, there must also come great responsibility." Small re-wording, sure, but I always thought it was interesting that Bendis wanted to word it slightly differently in his iteration than in the original 616-verse. It gives you the idea that they really are trying to differentiate the two universes and keep the core of the message the same, something I thought the film did very well.

1) USM, whilst it had it's fans, will always be inferior to the original Lee/Ditko/Romita issues. Similarly it's the deviation from the source when it comes to PP/SM's origin in TASM that gives us a less developed Spider-Man, character wise, and a weaker story.

2) Bendis did not word anything slightly differently. That is how the mantra originally appeared in Amazing Fantasy issue 15.

[bapi]

I'm so dissapointed! This movie is absolutely 'non-compact'! I love every scene with Peter/Gwen but the rest of TASM is full of plot holes, stupid decisions and... ehm... cranes. Spider-Man 3 strikes back! Would love to see a dramatic rom-com set in high school with Andrew, Emma and directed by Marc Webb, to be honest. But The Amazing Spider-Man is not amazing.

7/10

[bapi]

And the Lizard was so lame. Sorry.

[Smegger56]

Originally Posted by Spider-Fan

It made sense in SM1. Easily could have been added. It just takes decent writing, which this film lacked in certain scenes.

IMO, the line wasn't missed, as Ben said the new version fine as. The whole film was about responsibility and learning, and it all showed. IMO, not perfect, but I thought it was a well written film for the most part.

IMO of course

[Flemm]

Originally Posted by Angry Sentinel

Having said that, just the fact that they bothered to have more "true-to-the comics" characterizations sucked me in more and distracted me from other elements I didn't like. But you seem to be right, they clearly did not have the same affect (work) for other people

Maybe. I do think they could have given Peter a much clearer character arc than they did.

The first confrontation with Flash felt almost like a scene out of Captain America, where you have this character with the heart of a hero, but the body of a weakling. He can't stand up to the bully physically, but he is still heroic despite that.

Then they have Peter himself act like a bully for a while (humiliating those weaker than him). While this is perhaps an understandable development, in the sense that a weak person suddenly gifted with powers might act like this, it's a role reversal that really needs to be resolved somehow in act 3, but never really is.

Some people have said that the movie portrays Peter as an attractive "badboy" type, and I think this aspect of the movie is why. Peter turns into a bit of a jerk, but it's never really a problem for him: Gwen likes him just as much when he acts like that as she did previously, if not moreso.

When I look at this I tend to think that Flash was not really necessary. I think that's a retread element that they could have dropped in favor of simply focusing on Peter and Gwen. Peter can be the self-centered teenager with a chip on his shoulder who learns to take some responsability for his actions and use his talents/abilities for the benefit of others, rather than thinking only of himself. The scenes with Peter getting beat up by Flash, then humiliating him in return, don't really show any maturation.

I think the scenes with Flash only serve to muddy the waters, distract from what should be the main focus (Peter learning responsability) and increase the feeling of "been there, done that." Flash himself is such a caricature that I don't think he would really be missed. Or, rather than a bully, make Flash (or replacement character) an attractive character, but more straight-laced than Peter. The guy Gwen's father wants her to be with. Something like that. Gwen is attracted to Peter, but he needs to prove himself to everyone (Gwen, Gwen's father, Uncle Ben, Aunt May, etc.).

Basically I don't think the "Peter gets bullied" element really fits this version of the character. It fits moreso the Raimi version.

[Streetlight]

Originally Posted by bapi

I'm so dissapointed! This movie is absolutely 'non-compact'! I love every scene with Peter/Gwen but the rest of TASM is full of plot holes, stupid decisions and... ehm... cranes. Spider-Man 3 strikes back! Would love to see a dramatic rom-com set in high school with Andrew, Emma and directed by Marc Webb, to be honest. But The Amazing Spider-Man is not amazing.

7/10

Considering what you said, your rating of 7/10 seems pretty high

[bapi]

Originally Posted by Streetlight

Considering what you said, your rating of 7/10 seems pretty high

I'm trying to be optimistic. We'll see it tomorrow again.

[BobbyCorwin88]

Originally Posted by roach

that would still be considered part of his power set regardless if its natural or man made...are Iron Man's power set the ability to build things or do we consider the armor and its abilities....dont we count Cap's shield or Thor's hammer????

I see your point, but I'm thinking more of abilities that they have. Web-shooters are something he made, not an ability, so I'll stand by that. In Iron Man's case, I would say his armor becomes an ability of his after Extremis. Cap is the only one who can really wield his shield the way he does, so I'd say that one is pretty close, and Mjolnir pretty much makes Thor in the first place.

I guess it can be argued that no one can really use the web shooters like he can, but I still don't like calling it an ability of his.

Originally Posted by Radioactive1980

1) USM, whilst it had it's fans, will always be inferior to the original Lee/Ditko/Romita issues. Similarly it's the deviation from the source when it comes to PP/SM's origin in TASM that gives us a less developed Spider-Man, character wise, and a weaker story.

In your opinion maybe, but I find USM to be the most heartfelt out of any origin out there. I just can't relate to 60's Spidey. I respect it for what it is, but I feel like Ultimate is there for a reason, and I'm glad we have it.

2) Bendis did not word anything slightly differently. That is how the mantra originally appeared in Amazing Fantasy issue 15.

Thanks for enlightening me, didn't know. People have been saying "with great power comes great responsibility" for a while now, so that's more or less where I'm coming from.

[AbsractPo3tic]

Found this somehow and thought it was an interesting opinion piece on the movie. It's a guy who writes for a newspaper in Greensboro, NC

Amazing Spider-Man

July 12, 2012
How odd – the critics, who are supposed to have some kind of superior vision, have been almost universal in despising the new Spider-man movie.

It's as if they all were organically connected to the 2002 Sam Raimi-directed Spider-Man starring Tobey Maguire, and by bringing out, not a sequel, but a reboot of that movie, some vital organ had been ripped from their bodies.

I'm curious. What makes a movie "unnecessary"? That's how some critics are describing The Amazing Spider-Man, directed by Marc Webb ((500) Days of Summer) and starring Andrew Garfield (The Social Network).

In point of fact, all movies are unnecessary. Think of any movie ever made. If it didn't exist, we would get along just fine. We would never know that it was missing. (Yes, that includes Citizen Kane. Especially.)

If you doubt me, let me assure you that there are thousands of excellent scripts that have never been filmed, for reasons ranging from idiocy to cowardice. The fact that they remain unmade does not shatter our lives or prevent an occasional good movie from getting made.

One might make a case that all movies with the name "Dr. Dolittle" in the title were unnecessary.

But if a movie is very, very good, then who cares whether it was "necessary." All that matters is if, having seen it, we're glad we saw it and hope to see it again. Then it has made itself necessary.

And if these critics were not so biased by their own prejudice, they would realize that The Amazing Spider-Man has made the earlier Spidey movie unnecessary.

Let's put things in perspective. When Tobey Maguire first breezed above the streets of Manhattan in Spider-Man in 2002, superhero movies were still being played for campiness. Tongue in cheek.

It was the tone set by the Richard Donner Superman – the one that introduced us to Christopher Reeve back in the previous century. There were serious moments, but also frequent winks at the audience. Lex Luthor was a pathetic joke of a villain. The menace was absurd. It was all for laughs.

The Batman movies got progressively darker – but no less stupid at their core.

So with Spider-Man, Sam Raimi took us to a new level of seriousness. We were actually invited to believe in Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker. We were supposed to care when Cliff Robertson, as his Uncle Ben, gave a lovely little death speech in Peter Parker's arms.

And we did care. Many of us saw it more than once, because the story resonated with us. There was a core of reality. It was less comic and more book.

But as the series went on, it got campier. The Batman reboot with Christian Bale set a new standard of seriousness in superhero movies – especially since Batman has no superpowers.

Iron Man – about another superhero without superpowers – gave us wit without camp. As portrayed by Robert Downey Jr., Iron Man was funny within the movie. He didn't stop and wink at the audience, he winked at the other characters. He didn't break the fourth wall.

Also, the Smallville television series – by far the best screen treatment of the Superman character – did a much better job than Spider-Man of exploring what it means to a kid to have adult responsibility thrust upon him.

And because of several very bad superhero movies— several Hulks, a Four, Iron Man 2, the Superman reboot attempt – our standards rose. We began to recognize how lame most villains were in these movies, how trivial the distinction between good and evil – or, to be honest, between nice and nasty, which is about as deep as the moral reasoning went.

So in the 10 years between the Tobey Maguire Spider-Man and the Andrew Garfield Amazing Spider-Man, it had become as impossible to continue the existing Spider-Man franchise as it had been to go on with the first Batman franchise or, for that matter, Star Trek in its first sequence of feature films.

I'm not sure when they made the decision to make this a reboot instead of a fourth installment; I know there was a script for the sequel, and all reports were that it was wretched.

Nor do I know which of the three credited writers is most responsible for the quality of this script – though it would be nifty to think it was Steve Kloves, who contributed so much to making the Harry Potter movies non-stupid.

But whoever was responsible, the script for The Amazing Spider-Man did away with the last shreds of self-conscious unearned melodramatic cheesiness. The most telling demonstration: Uncle Ben gets no last words after he's shot.

This is a script that expects the audience to think; it's a script that isn't counting on special effects to get us past the weak spots.

In the climactic confrontation between hero and villain, we don't have the overworked cliche of the hero being at the point of losing, and then he has a moment of digging down deep in his soul and coming back with a new burst of will that allows him to win.

Bursts of will get you the charge of the light brigade; bursts of will get you a couple of invasions of Russia; they don't give you victories.

Spider-Man wins (come on, you didn't think he was going to lose, did you?) by staying focused on the primary goal, which wasn't beating the bad guy; he wins because he has help from Denis Leary in his most sympathetic role ever.

There were moments with emotional demands, but in my opinion they were wholly earned within the script, rather than reaching for external manipulative tools. The thing with aligning the cranes was earned, I thought – it was way more thrilling than merely showing Spidey swooping from building to building (which we have already seen).

The entire group I saw the movie with received that moment with a sense of affirmation: Yes. The people recognize that Spider-Man can't do this alone, and so they do what they can to help – and it's not nothing.

In other words, the superhero isn't a species apart. The superhero needs the people.

Was this a lesson learned from the Batman reboot? Probably – who cares? Artists build on what they learn from each other. Some learn by trying to turn the achievements of others into formulas; others learn by actually understanding how a good effect was brought off, and adding the technique to the artist's tool set, to be used only when appropriate.

Yes, there was an actual ticking clock near the climax – I didn't say the movie was perfect, did I? But at least director Marc Webb did not cut back and forth between the action and the clock with the obsessiveness of formula films, in which the ticking clock is all they've got.

They had the script; they had a director with judgment and taste; and then they cast it. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans and Denis Leary, Martin Sheen and Sally Field had way more to work with than the cast of Spider-Man had; but they also did more with what they had.

Or rather, they did less. Underplaying was the order of the day in this movie. They didn't poke us with their "moments." They stayed surprisingly real. It's as if they thought they were in a film directed by Robert Redford or Nora Ephron – absolutely clear storytelling, emotional without sappiness, with real characters.

Real? In a comic-book movie? Absolutely. Like Smallville, The Amazing Spider-Man is actually a coming-of-age movie. Most adolescents don't get actual superpowers, but they all get radical transformations in their minds and bodies, and have to deal with them; they either accept responsibility and become adults, or they fail to do so.

In that sense, The Amazing Spider-Man is an allegorical documentary of adolescence (the way that Rise of the Planet of the Apes was in that astonishing reboot of an exhausted series).

The result of all this is performances that these actors need never be ashamed of. If acting awards were given for honest, powerful performances instead of scenery chewing or obvious "technique," then this cast would be in contention; but that's not the planet we live on, so the actors will have to be content with having delivered re-watchable performances – rather like the terrific and underappreciated ensemble of Twister from 18 years ago, whose work is still delightful to watch.

No doubt the third Batman movie will top this one at the box office; nobody will be talking about The Amazing Spider-Man at Oscar time. But I'll bet that in 20 years, this will remain as one of the good movies from the era of the superhero film. And Andrew Garfield will get his Oscar – not for this movie, but because of the talent and skill and artistic judgment that this movie gave him a chance to show.

[Jexx]

I like that opinion piece, it's well thought through.

[TheWallCrawler]

-The Amazing Spider-man Review- (heavy spoilers)

Introduction

Back when the first Spider-Man movie hit the theaters I was 9 years old, and I loved it, but back then, no matter what it was or how good/bad it was, if something had Spider-Man I loved it. Also, it was really the only version of Spider-Man, so I didn't want to be picky. But now, I no longer feel that I have to stick with those movies because, in my humble opinion, this is THE Spider-man.

I went to see this movie with very neutral expectations. I was on the reboot's side from the beginning, but as this movie had some bad reviews, I felt that I really should not be biased and see the movie for what it is, and not sugarcoat it to myself because I've been craving for a new version for so long. Also, one of the biggest complaints about the movie has been that "it's a carbon copy of Spider-Man 1" so I promised to myself that if the movie feels like that, I would not let that slide. Happily I can say that I didn't feel that at all and I loved the movie! Of course, there are a few nitpicks, but I'm a guy that can look past small problems if everything else is really well done. But, of course in a proper review you have to review the movie as a whole so I have to put even the small things on the table, even if they didn't affect my enjoyment.

Peter & Spider bite

So, starting from the beginning. From the very start of the movie I realized that what kind of feel they were going for. For some reason people have had some trouble explaining the tone of the movie, but I think I got the perfect description for it: a more emotionally serious tone. So no, it's not copying TDK vibe in any way. Anyway, after the emotionally exciting intro we get to Peter in high school. In many interviews Webb has said that he explored the fact that how being an orphan affects Peter, and it really shows surprisingly well! The parents thing isn't just a gimmick that I was worrying it would be, it actually fits the story and doesn't overshadow Ben in any way. After Peter finds the leather bag, he goes to Oscorp to search for answers, and already in the first Connors scene I find Rhys' portrayal very likable and I feel the passion he has towards his goals. Then, we get the spider-room scene... man was I surprised how good it was! Peter accidently triggers something that makes the spiders fall on him, and later we see that one of them hitched a ride on him. This scene is the prime example that even the few keypoints that are in theory similar to Spider-Man 1 are played out differently and feel completely different overall (one probably has to see the movie to know what I mean).

Death Of Uncle Ben

The origin wasn't like the old one, where it felt like they just had to get it out of the way and then it was like "ok, no what?". It was a natural progression of him becoming a hero through out the film, and at least to me it really felt necessary to start this new series with it. I liked the death of uncle ben, but I think that they should’ve just went full ultimate spider-man on that one and it would’ve been perfect. After Ben’s death Peter goes to look for his uncle’s killer on the streets, and the scene that follows I found to be quite emotionally shocking. That was again one of the moments when I said to myself “yep, better than Raimi’s”. Then he becomes Spider-Man, but not because he wants to be a hero, but because he seeks vengeance upon Ben’s killer. After the dinner scene though Peter clearly start to think about his motivations, and when Peter saves a boy from a falling car on the bridge, and sees his father hugging him, he seems to realize that he is becoming something more than just a vigilante, and that he SHOULD be more. Some people don’t get this, but I think the problem here is that as people have such a firm idea of Spider-man’s origin in their heads that they’re taking some things for granted, so their heads are trying to place the classic Spider-Man motivations into this story. Of course that doesn’t work, because this story is thematically taking a different direction. So, some say that the story arc doesn’t get closure, I think it does. But, I’m totally not blaming people for not getting this, I’m actually blaming the film makers. The movie should be more vocal about this change because something like this hasn’t yet been done with Spidey’s origin ever. The part where Gwen and Peter talk at the football field Gwen says that it’s not Peter’s job to hunt the lizard down, and Peter responds with “Maybe it is”. People are taking that for granted because this is the fourth Spider-Man movie, but in fact, that’s a nod to the whole theme of the movie. When Peter is looking for Ben’s killer he thinks it’s his responsibility, but he realizes that his real responsibility is to get something out of it and really help people. And I don’t know if it’s Andrew’s acting or the script, but the way that Peter says to captain Stacy “I believe he stands for what you stand for, protecting people from bad guys” you clearly get from the subtle arrogance that the lesson hasn’t sunk in yet and that he’s misinterpreting Ben’s lesson. So my point is: I think what they done with this was brilliant, but it’s the film makers’ fault that they weren’t clear enough about it.

The Lizard

The Lizard wasn’t a bad villain by any means, but his simple comic bookie plans and “one note villainy” just paled in comparison to what could’ve been done emotionally with the character. This part is gonna be a whole lot shorter because, to be honest, there just isn’t any stuff about him that I could really bite into. Literally everything that was done with the character here can be explained with a short sentence: he’s a good willed scientist who turns into a Lizard and feels that it’s a better way of living. That’s kinda sad when everything else was handled so brilliantly. But, he’s a good “starter villain”, the only gripe really is that my favorite villain of all time was not more than Spidey’s first big challenge.

Supporting cast

The best aspect about this movie is that every actor and actress absolutely shines in this movie, and when Gwen and Peter developed a relationship, it felt very natural and sweet and I was really invested. Martin Sheen is a brilliant unce Ben (though I prefer Cliff Robertson) and Sally Field as Aunt May is absolutely fantastic here! You can really see that Marc Webb directed this movie, all the human characters are fantastic, but action and the lizard could’ve been done/paced a little better. Still, this is Webb’s first time doing a big movie, and everything that he did well he did really well, so I’m not gonna give him a hard time just yet. I really hope that the experience he got from this movie shines in the next one, because if he keeps repeating those mistakes I will not be so forgiving.

So, in the end my rating is the following: as a Spider-Man movie it’s 9.5/10, as a comic book movie it’s 9/10, and as a movie it’s 8.5/10

[Hugebear]

Originally Posted by AbsractPo3tic

Found this somehow and thought it was an interesting opinion piece on the movie. It's a guy who writes for a newspaper in Greensboro, NC

Amazing Spider-Man

He lost me when he said Superman was campy movie. He should see Batman and Robin for an example of campiness.

[roach]

people are not saying this movie is unnecessary...just that retelling the origin was

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

I'm going with my friend to see it in 3d in about an hour. Really looking forward to it and I shall post my review when I get back

[Liquidsolidus]

Hello everyone, new poster to SHH, I've been sorta lurking the past few days, and I had an account a couple years back but rarely posted, and I thought I should give my two cents on ASM. Long story short, I loved it. 10/10 for me. I've described it this way to people so many times - It took me back and gave me the feeling I had when I first saw the first Raimi film back when I was 8 or 9. It reminded me why I love the character so much. I thought Andrew and Emma were great together, the action was intense, Stan Lee's cameo was easily his best, Uncle Ben was heartfelt and lovable, and I was just thoroughly entertained throughout. I still need to think on it to decide whether or not its my favorite Spidey film, but it is easily up there. I'd recommend it to anyone who hasn't seen it. Simply Amazing.

[the anime man]

Originally Posted by bapi

I'm trying to be optimistic. We'll see it tomorrow again.

I enjoyed the film enough on my first viewing, but I *LOVED* it once I saw it a second time. I think you'll enjoy it more once you see it again.

[DyeLorean]

I really liked the movie. I feel like is the best representation of the character so far. Andrew Garfield -and Emma Stone- did a wonderful job.

The way Spider-Man moves, the use of his powers and webbing, the detective-esque little things, finally there's some use of his 'nerd' skills, etc, I think they nailed it in that department. It all made for a much more interesting version than Raimi's, something I always wanted to see in that trilogy (part 3 being the worst in that aspect).

The only thing I thought could've been better was the portrayal of the villain. It was too... ordinary. There was nothing fresh or new -at least Spider-Man didn't have to save his girlfriend... finally!-. Still, I think the Lizard worked, it was a blast seeing both fighting.

The music was a big 'meh'. It can't top the amazing score of Danny Elfman. In fact, in some sequences of him swinging, I played his score in my head.

Great movie, is nice to finally see a true version of the character on screen. All in all, I think it was a good idea to reboot the series. I can't wait to see what's gonna happen next.

As for the mid credits scene, I haven't read anything about it in this threads, but my guess is Mysterio. For the simple fact that he suddenly 'disappears'. If they go with him for part 2, I'm sooooo in.

8/10

[ManX07]

6.8/10
I thought Emma stone was great as Gwen Stacy. To be short and to the point I felt like the movie was missing something.

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Just got back from seeing it and I thought it was fantastic! Andy and Emma were superb and Martin and Sally nailed it. Overall I couldn't ask for a better Spidey film. 10/10

[I Am The Knight]

Originally Posted by AbsractPo3tic

Found this somehow and thought it was an interesting opinion piece on the movie. It's a guy who writes for a newspaper in Greensboro, NC

Amazing Spider-Man

That's a nice review. I definitely feel like too many people were down on the movie just because of the so called "been there, done that" story.

[AF3619]

out of topic but were there any "in memory of Laura Ziskin" in the credits?

[bapi]

Originally Posted by the anime man

I enjoyed the film enough on my first viewing, but I *LOVED* it once I saw it a second time. I think you'll enjoy it more once you see it again.

Didn't help.

[Lorus]

Originally Posted by AbsractPo3tic

Amazing Spider-Man

I'm honestly confused by aspects of this criticism of other criticisms. I'm not sure what this guy is trying to say about why TASM is better than Raimi's films or what makes it better than other comic films, which is what I think the writer is suggesting.

His comparisons to other films confuse me because he recognises that just because films employ 'camp' or 'cheese' to varying extents doesn't make them any worse at telling their stories but then seems to praise TASM for not using these elements. His example about Uncle Ben and his lack of a post mortem speech being an example of the scripts intelligence isn't greatly thought out as the script still indulges in an unlikely speech from Uncle Ben in the form of a bizarre answer machine message.

His criticisms of other films for their lack of moral complexity don't gel with TASM either and his other comments about the film earning its sentimental moments are completely unsubstantiated.

I'm sure he has some interesting things to say but I don't know where he's going with his comparisons and it comes across, to me at least, as an attempt to defend bits of TASM by saying negative things about other films.

[bapi]

Have to say I was dissapointed that they didn't use more real exteriors with real light.

[Flemm]

Originally Posted by Lorus

I'm sure he has some interesting things to say but I don't know where he's going with his comparisons and it comes across, to me at least, as an attempt to defend bits of TASM by saying negative things about other films.

That review is ridiculous imo. In the same way a review bashing the movie as worthless tripe with no redeeming qualities would be ridiculous.

TASM is "an allegorical documentary of adolescence." Whatever lol. He also suggests towards the end that the cast of this movie should be in contention for Oscars, if only the people making those decisions had better judgment and taste. Complete nonsense.