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

[KalMart]

Yeah, the movie needs a really solid sequel to cement Andrew Garfield as Spidey for me. He has extremely good potential and the guy was pretty much born to play Spider-Man, so I'm really hoping they don't waste him on a bad movie.

That's not good...it should have done it with the first one to even earn a sequel. The shouldn't be making up for things in a second film.

 

[Majik1387]

He already did in all honesty.

 

[Anno_Domini]

That's not good...it should have done it with the first one to even earn a sequel. The shouldn't be making up for things in a second film.

To built up on the character and to make it definitive.

Someone doesn't need to bring out an amazing performance just to warrant a sequel. Look at Evans as Captain America. He was brilliant in Avengers as Cap while The First Avenger was only okay.

He already did in all honesty.

Meh, lol.

 

[KalMart]

To built up on the character and to make it definitive.

Someone doesn't need to bring out an amazing performance just to warrant a sequel. Look at Evans as Captain America. He was brilliant in Avengers as Cap while The First Avenger was only okay.

Firstly, I don't think Cap (or anything) is a good excuse, since its shortcomings also aren't excused by Avengers. Secondly, I think for a reboot of a lone character, like Spidey, it's all the more important to secure that new actor's performance from the get-go. It also doesn't have to be 'amazing' to not feel it needs another movie to fill out. Others seemed to buy it right away, so maybe there's just something you didn't like...which will probably continue if there's a next one.

 

[Oscorp]

Hahaha!! Is there a way to make this gif an avy? I tried but the picture doesn't move for me

 

[Anno_Domini]

Firstly, I don't think Cap (or anything) is a good excuse, since its shortcomings also aren't excused by Avengers. Secondly, I think for a reboot of a lone character, like Spidey, it's all the more important to secure that new actor's performance from the get-go. It also doesn't have to be 'amazing' to not feel it needs another movie to fill out. Others seemed to buy it right away, so maybe there's just something you didn't like...which will probably continue if there's a next one.

I personally feel that Garfield needs more room to show off his performance as I felt the same for RDJ and Bale, so to each their own I suppose. I haven't felt like someone "earned" their role in the very first film except for Christopher Reeve as Superman.

 

[AF3619]

I personally feel that Garfield needs more room to show off his performance as I felt the same for RDJ and Bale, so to each their own I suppose. I haven't felt like someone "earned" their role in the very first film except for Christopher Reeve as Superman.

or Michael Keaton as Batman for me :P
i liked Garfield but i want to see more of him to be THE Peter Parker

 

[KalMart]

I personally feel that Garfield needs more room to show off his performance as I felt the same for RDJ and Bale, so to each their own I suppose. I haven't felt like someone "earned" their role in the very first film except for Christopher Reeve as Superman.

Maybe the story itself needs more room to dig deeper into a character ,which is natural...but did the actor not meet said first story's requirements of the character? Maybe he did, but he was held back by the limitations that story imposed.

I think Jackman earned his role from the first 10 minutes of him as Wolverine.

 

[Anno_Domini]

or Michael Keaton as Batman for me :P
i liked Garfield but i want to see more of him to be THE Peter Parker

Indeed. Garfield is a great Spider-Man, but I need to see more of him to say he's now the better Peter Parker.

Maybe the story itself needs more room to dig deeper into a character ,which is natural...but did the actor not meet said first story's requirements of the character? Maybe he did, but he was held back by the limitations that story imposed.

I think Jackman earned his role from the first 10 minutes of him as Wolverine.

On some moments, it's hard to get into a character when you're not a fan of the film itself, just as with Jackman as Wolverine, but I have faith in The Wolverine.

 

[BobbyCorwin88]

On some moments, it's hard to get into a character when you're not a fan of the film itself, just as with Jackman as Wolverine, but I have faith in The Wolverine.

I really hope The Wolverine does well. I would think that after First Class any other X-Men related film would try and work off of that tone. I think that near the end of X2, Jackman started to lose me with his Wolverine. It kind of turned into Hugh Jackman with claws form then on out. He was introduced beautifully in the first film, but I would say that the guy is too handsome to be Wolverine. One of the biggest failings of Origins is that he looked way too pretty. Wolverine is Marvel's resident Bad-A and they really need to revisit that part of his character.

 

[KalMart]

Indeed. Garfield is a great Spider-Man, but I need to see more of him to say he's now the better Peter Parker.



On some moments, it's hard to get into a character when you're not a fan of the film itself, just as with Jackman as Wolverine, but I have faith in The Wolverine.

I think the best that anything of Jackman/Wolverine will be was in Xmen and X2. By now, it's already past its 'expiration', and they'd be better off rebooting and reconceptualizing.

 

[Nave 'Torment']

Well I finally watched the movie on Spidey's birthday. It kind made the experience memorable I remember coming out of the first Raimi movie determined to write fanfictions on it because "holy it's spidey in real life guys!" Granted, I was a wee lad back then so the impulse and the excitement was a lot more than it was this time around. Here's my initial reaction to it:

But in all honesty, I think both films have its share of ups and downs. For me the first Spider-Man will always be the best and most memorable one personally, and I don't really believe that we can objectively deduct a movie. But apart from that ASM was pretty well shot. The best bits were, as some have already said, the personal human dramas involved. I don't think the Uncle Ben/Pete exchanges were ever so well done than it was in ASM, same goes for Pete's scenes with Connors in the lab, his interaction with Gwen, etc. Garfield did a better job at being a teenager, you felt like this was a kid who was exploring his own body the minute he transforms himself, that's something Maguire didn't have going for him despite all the white stuff coming out of his body. :P However, it didn't do a convincing job for Peter's relationship with Aunt May. Half way through the film it seemed almost criminal that everyone else knew about Peter's secret but the one person who'd probably get a heart-attack for not knowing didn't. Granted, it shed a new dimension to their relationship where Aunt May trusts Peter and knows he needs to have his own secrets and that he's doing that to protect her, she gets that and that's a beautiful dynamic that wasn't present in past; however, in all those scenes of Pete bursting into the house, it seemed like this kid was on drugs or really hanging out with the wrong crowd. He gets the munchies, he comes home late all beaten up and preoccupied, Aunt May would've been doing more than just be worried about him and just trust him on that even after seeing him like that. That was a flaw, in my opinion, a nitpick but since his movie seems to stand on its human relationships instead of the larger-than-life aspects, I think it was worth a clarification.

I also wasn't too big on the idea that it repeated some of the same emotional beats as the first movie. A lot of people say that it's done a better job at convincing us why Pete became Spidey, but I think the first movie did it better. For one thing, this movie moves like a revenge plot: he becomes Spider-Man because it kinda happens to him, because he's trying to track down Uncle Ben's killer, because he feels "responsible" for Doc Connors. Sorry Pete, no. Connors became the Lizard for his own obsessions that wasn't your responsibility. Okay so you still be the hero, that's great, but while the first one convinces us in two short scenes that Spider-Man has to save the day because he's got all these powers, AMS doesn't clarify that. Why's he fighting criminals all of the sudden? WHy the hell would Pete, a science-whiz-come-skateboarding-punk give a **** about protecting innocent people? Uncle Ben's death in the first film was a catharsis - the point where everything changed for Pete. Here it just made him more bitter about everything. The ideal film would've given us this destructive angst-ridden Parker from AMS in the minutes before Ben's death (which is a scene I believe was beautifully made here -- the lecture on responsibility was solid and more convincing than what we had back in 2002) and then mix it up with the 2002 Peter acknowledging his responsibility as a superhero. With Ben's death, he'd change. Honestly, AMS could just remove the superhero aspects and just focus on the science-fictional element of inter-species integration and end it there. It was not a crime drama or a crime film to support the fact that Pete became a vigilante, something that both Spider-Man and Batman Begins managed to explore.

Regarding the repeated narrative beats: you have Ben's death, the origin story, and near the end a father pulling a "Don't tell harry" moment for Gwen. A lot of similar things were repeated that the filmmakers were trying to throw away as clever allusions ("the greatest philosophical question is 'who am I' " ; the NYC cranes helping him do the Spidey-thing; the clerk being a jerk to Pete before Ben's death; the wrestling mask; the transformation montage; Lizard pulling an inner-devil-voice like Goblin and Doc Ock; Pete pushing Gwen away), but just seemed like poorly done. What was good, on the other hand, was what mattered: Garfield as Spidey was not only convincing but a truer translation of the Pete from the books. Just not when he's trying to be a punk. As Spidey he's got the whole thing down. The most memorable scene would be when he springs the trap like a real spider in the sewers. New York felt like New York; it wasn't the 60s wholesome village from the Raimi movies but a real urban locale.

But what felt like a rip-off was that it didn't deliver what it promised to: the truth about Richard Parker's disappearance. That was supposed to be the major focal point of the entire story; the other "unresolved" thing that bugged me (no pun intended). If Peter's entire vigilantism is based on trying to get the guy who killed Ben, why isn't that resolved immediately? It makes me wonder if he'd consider his mission fulfilled once he does capture the thug with the tattoo. It's like the "untold story" remains... er... "untold."

I'll just reiterate a point I made in another thread: Spidey's rogues gallery is distinct enough to stand on their own. Connors was more similar to Octavius than he was to Osborn. But pitting a half-man half-lizard against a half-boy half-spider protagonist gave this film the sort of symbolic depth that they had going in dark knight. I loved that.

I think that overall the film was well-made and was a good adaptation of Spider-Man and rivals the first. But that's just it; it feels like a revised origin story, which even if you get over the initial skepticism of it, makes all the "good bits" of the movie like the more emotionally-engaging cast, feel like the sort of progress that you would expect since it does have the advantage of a previous film telling the same story -- it's supposed to learn from the mistakes and strengths of the original and be what it is, and that unfortunately reduces the good qualities of this film and is, i'd say, unfair to it. The Peter-to-Spidey montage wasn't well made because it tried to be different just for the sake of being different. And those unresolved issues, and the nod to Norman Osborn came because of a strong restraint on part of the film-makers. You felt that the actors, like Garfield, Stone and the rest, gave out their best, but the director, writers and editor seemed confused as to whether or not they want to go all out and override the original or be a sort of "X-Men First Class" where it's telling a Spider-Man story in that narrative gap in the original where Pete dons the costume but before he meets Goblin (it's not. It can't be. The continuities don't allow it, but it seems to be something at the back of everyone's minds while watching this). Someone compared it with Superman Returns rather than Batman Begins, and that's unfair because Superman Returns was essentially a remake of the Donner-films down to a visual cue. It wasn't as vast and exploratory as Batman Begins, but it's neither. It's the first Spider-Man movie made in a post-Dark Knight context where everything is more realistic. The film's greatest strength comes from its emotional core that I believe is missing in the other superhero films to date, and in doing so it remains something memorable. But it fails at its plot. There were too many father-figures to make any of their deaths seem significant to the audience. It just... got shaky at the end. If you have to compare it with Batman Begins, then it's the middle-act, with a middle-act villain and ending with the Scarecrow captured. What I'm saying is that it could've been much more than that if the filmmakers just considered their own responsibility in completing the story that they started instead of saving up for sequels.

I won't give it a rating, movies deserve better than damned numerical grades that tries to assess quality. It had its strengths and weaknesses, and it seems that they sort of match each other off for me, just like the first movie. In regards to characterisation it was well executed. It feels like a revised script combining the successful beats of Spideys 1 & 2, and with Gwen involved, you know that's true. It could've been better if they just focused on one aspect and stuck with it.

I still feel sorry for Aunt May and Gwen So, I guess Pete doesn't keep his promise to one dying father (Stacy) but keeps the other (Ben) while having forgotten the first ("Be good" he said, distancing himself from his son the way he always did). Gwen & Pete were much better than MJ & Peter any day. A sequel could redeem all that, but like others have said, it should've had to.

A few questions I have to everyone here: what ever happened to Irrfan Khan's character? Did he die there on the bridge? And was that tattoo of Ben's killer that of a spider's? I'll be watching it again this weekend, but yeah, those two points went past me in the first view.

 

[Nave 'Torment']

Oh and I have to admit that when I first saw the images of Spidey's costume I was belligerent towards it. It felt like a terrible change and utterly useless, but after watching the movie yeah i have to admit it does look cool. That was a pleasant turn of events for me

But yeah bottomline, Spidey 1 is still golden for me. The webswinging looked a lot better this time around, as was expected, and this Spidey really moved like Spidey, so garfield did his work right, but nothing can take away from that lucid thrill of seeing Spider-Man swinging through new york from the first-film. CGI or not. That was just brilliant.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

I've seen the movie 4 times in theaters (the most recent time being in 3D). This is now officially one of my favorite superhero flicks. Man its been a great year for superhero flicks. While I recognize this isn't the greatest film of all time, it is definitely the greatest Spider-Man film of all time. But I'm not here to compare it to previous films, I love this movie and I am so thankful to the creators for making it cool to like Spidey again.

Each Andrew, Emma, Martin, Sally, Dennis, and Rhys did a phenomenal job bringing their respective characters to life. Their relationships and trials were unique and entertaining to watch. The messages conveyed actually affected me in real life. My favorite scenes in the film are Peter's skateboarding sequence and any scene with Spider-man vs. the Lizard (and there are plenty!). What some people deem as "plot-holes" in the film, I call mystery and cliffhangers until further notice.

While I was disappointed for a minute that Nick Fury wasn't seen after the credits (cut me some slack, I'm allowed to hope), I was given new hope when I read about the potential for more than just three films. That "Sinister Six" is even on the table, gets me more hyped than any other potential superhero movie on the planet. If they keep this up, I'll gladly give them $50+ of my money every time Andrew-Spidey is in theaters. 9/10 for this film, and I wholeheartedly believe the sequel has potential to beat that.

 

[Homer J. Fong]

I finally got around to seeing this today, and I mostly liked it. Most of the criticism of it seems to be focused on how unnecessary it is because it's a retelling of the origin story, and while I don't think it was the best idea to retell the origin story now either (I've been against that since it was announced that that's what this vie was going to be), I try to follow the Roger Ebert rule of, "It's not what a movie is about, but how it's about it." Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, A Christmas Carol, these are stories that are retold often, and far more often than every 10 years (the amount of time it's been since Sam Raimi's first Spider-Man). On the other hand, there's only one story of Hamlet, there's only one story of Romeo and Juliet, there's only one story of Ebenezer Scrooge, whereas there are countless Spider-Man stories that could be told to reboot this franchise. But oh well, it's another origin story. How is it?

I thought it was mostly well done, the highlights being the performances of Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone (particularly Stone). I wish there was more awe to the early scenes of Peter discovering his powers (a scene with Peter taking Gwen out for a swing through the city is especially disappointing for its lack of wonder). I didn't think The Lizard was as compelling as I want my superhero movie villains to be, but I don't know, he might have ben as compelling as that character can be. This isn't a movie I have a lot of problems with, but it's not a movie of many triumphs either. It's not the sameness that bothered me, it's an overall feeling of, "That was solid, but only just."

 

[JerseyJoker]

http://thejerseycritic.wordpress.com/2012/07/27/stub-review-the-amazing-spider-man/

my blog review of the film and i loved it. Im a bit of a Spidey fanboy, but tried to keep a keen and unbiased look at the film and what i loved and what i think could of been improved.

 

[TheWallCrawler]

enjoyed reading your review JerseyJoker but you should say more about what you thought of the Lizard I think. Yeah he isn't in the movie really too much, but he is still the main antagonist

 

[TheForgotten]

The Amazing Spider-Man is probably a 4 star film. Though the Lizard really brought down what I think is a true captivating drama film. I liked how it was more Peter Parker focused than Spider-Man focused.

 

[Human Torch]

Who would've ever thought we'd have a Spider-Man film that didn't show Spidey during the day....the same year where we have a Batman film that shows Batman during the day!

 

[AF3619]

Who would've ever thought we'd have a Spider-Man film that didn't show Spidey during the day....the same year where we have a Batman film that shows Batman during the day!

what about the school fight?

 

[Human Torch]

what about the school fight?

Did he ever leave the building?I honestly forget.But,yeah,good point!

 

[Herolee10]

You know, even to this day, I can still feel, see, and understand on why a lot of folks felt very mixed regarding this film.

Imho, I feel like there was a richer quality to how everyone approached the source material for this film, with the story arcs in this film being better in general in Sam Raimi's (especially with Peter's motivation in this film not being about his love interest), but in the same time, I felt like Raimi's film accomplished in getting Peter from Point A to Point B in terms of how he developed as a character better than Marc's take.

Honestly, I think what'll personally help me when it comes to really evaluating this film is where they take the sequel and how they execute it since it'll help me answer as to whether this reboot was done so at the right time.

 

[Nathan]

Hahaha!! Is there a way to make this gif an avy? I tried but the picture doesn't move for me

 

[Oscorp]

Thanks alot Nathan! Now I have another awesome avy though but I know which one will be next now

 

[AF3619]

hey Nathan could you make this 75*75? please