• Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version.

The Amazing Spider-Man The Amazing Spider-Man (First Reactions: Critics, Fans) (Spoiler Alert) - - - - - Part 14

The spidey sense thing was pretty self explanatory that he sensed danger, we in the audience obviously understood what it was. No need to get excited over such pointless things.

Batman 89 had no explanation of where he got all his sweet gear/batmobile yet it didn't take away from the film but it was nice that Nolan included some info on where batman gets all his **** from.
 
watched it last night and i'll give it a solid 8/10

great start to a new franchise. my score would have been higher if they showed more Connors and delved more into Peter's parents. i felt that 60-70% of the film focused too much of Gwen & Peter.

hopefully this isn't the last we see of Connors. i'd love for him to come back and help Peter.
 
So I take it you dont like Nolans way of spelling everything out in his bat-films?

I am fine with it either way...I wasn't on here excited to see Peter google spandex, stating how this series is going to be more grounded and realistic because of that. I'm showing the hypocrisy and irony of that because people for some reason care about a sewing scene but not about the explanation of Spidey sense that's omitted in this movie.

I like Nolan's explanation and Raimi's explanation of some things and I also like purposeful ambiguity like Prometheus. It just depends on the movie.
 
Nolan did a better job of showing it. The only real flaw I had was with the Tumbler, which I'm sure somebody would have recognized. But for the rest of it Nolan takes great care in showing how Wayne did this without getting caught, such as buying the material through dummy corporations from several different suppliers and then actually building his equipment himself. Wayne can afford this easily. Nolan also had the benefit of being first. Prior to Batman Begins, we never saw superheroes do this sort of thing. Trendsetters are always more popular than bandwagon jumpers, for any product not just film. We've seen it lots by this point, the best of the imitators being Iron Man where it really is a crucial part of the character. It is old hat by now. TASM reminds me of an NFL team switching to a 3-4 defense after watching the best teams in the league use it, without really understanding what makes it work.
 
I wouldn't say the Avengers has no story. At the very least, it shows a character evolution of Tony Stark from smarmy, self-absorbed a**hole to the guy who's willing to risk the ultimate sacrifice to save others.

Avengers doesn't try to be this deep, emotional story though, it's pure spectacle and it's unapologetic about it, which is fine as it does that well. I think without doubt Amazing Spider-Man has the far better story with far more to chew on, that said it does feel like something isn't quite right with it. Hard to put your finger on it though. It's very much in the vein of Batman Begins but not nearly as polished.
 
Saw it for the 4th time today, yup, still Awesome! I loved the musical score, Horner did a great job, downloaded it, the mp3 album.:D:up:
 
Last edited:
Doug Walker posted his review. I don't think I can post it since there might be a f word but it's very positive - check it out.
 
Avengers doesn't try to be this deep, emotional story though, it's pure spectacle and it's unapologetic about it, which is fine as it does that well. I think without doubt Amazing Spider-Man has the far better story with far more to chew on, that said it does feel like something isn't quite right with it. Hard to put your finger on it though. It's very much in the vein of Batman Begins but not nearly as polished.

Your premise is off. This movie doesn't try to be deep, it just turns Spider-man into some kind of teen angst drama ala the Twilight franchise with Emma Stone substituting for the girl who wants the "bad boy", and Peter being the emotionally distant conflicted hero.

What feels not quite right is there is not one original thing in this movie. The movie is just a rip off of numerous other stories. Hell they couldn't even help ripping off the Avengers in using Oscorp tower and the magical device that's going to reek havok on the city.

The ONLY redeeming thing in this movie is Garfield's performance and Martin Sheen.
 
[YT]yxXraLvNwbY[/YT]
Sequeeeel!:oldrazz:
 
5/10. Disappointed. First Tobey movie was far superior in every way. I was so disappointed that when I got home, I had to watch Spider-Man to wash away the abomination that was known as the amazing spider-man.
 
My take on the film copy and pasted from the review thread:

Okay, finally saw the Amazing Spider-Man and my verdict? It's pretty good...in certain parts.

First of all, I thought the action choreography was also well-handled, particularly the web-slinging and wall crawling sequences from Spider-Man which I definitely think surpassed the Raimi movies. Perhaps that's, in part, because you know there are certain moment in which you can tell it's an actual person swinging as opposed to a completely CGI figure, which helps to better sell the illusion. Not to mention the POV shots actually looked great as well (although why in the world they felt it necessary to chop up the first one that got shown in the teaser trailer I have no idea). It's definitely come a long way from ten years ago

I also thought all the performances we're really well done, in particular Martin Sheen's portrayal as Uncle Ben and, surprisingly, Denis Leary's Captain Stacy (although technically he is playing himself to a degree). Andrew Garfield was pretty good, although I think he plays a much better Spider-Man than he does Peter Parker, but I think that's a fault of the material he has to work with rather than his acting ability. I mean, whenever he was in costume, that was definitely Spidey right out of the comic book, poses, quips, and all. You can tell he definitely was having fun playing the part and really got into it. And I also like how the film actually SHOWS Peter is a budding scientist rather than just telling us.

By contrast, Rhys Ifans made for a great Dr. Curt Connors but a lousy Lizard, which certainly wasn't helped by the awful design choice. Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy certainly makes for a more capable and active love interest for Peter than Kirsten Dunst's Mary Jane did in the Sam Raimi films, but she kind of came across the same as Dunst personality-wise at times and, while she and Garfield have good chemistry, the romance wasn't as engaging or developed. And while I liked Sally Field as Aunt May, she was criminally under-used in this story.

That leads me to the story, and my gosh, was it a complete and utter mess! Don't get me wrong, there ARE good and decent moments in the film, but some of those moments get ruined by inconsistent tone, choppy editing, and poor pacing. Interestingly enough, all the retold origin elements (which, yes, do follow nearly the same identical beats as the Raimi film) are actually the best parts of the movie, particularly the moments when Peter is discovering his powers (although I think Peter trying to stop Flash from bullying the student and the glass breaking when Peter slammed the front door should have been cut). But the moment after Uncle Ben's murder is when things began to slide off the tracks until, by towards the end of the film, the movie has completely derailed. Granted, I understood what the film was trying to get across with Peter wanting to get revenge on his Uncle's killer and how he learns, thanks to Captain Stacy, how he's not actually helping others, but what should be his driving motivation--his belief that his Uncle's death is his fault and that he wants to make amends--is all but non-existent and the fact that his Uncle's death and the search for his killer gets sidelined in favor of the Lizard plot doesn't help either, particularly when everything about that was by far the weakest and illogical aspect of the entire film.

Same goes for the "untold story" about Peter's parents, which, to be honest, even if the scenes that emphasized it were back in the film, it still wouldn't have added much to the overall story apart from what happened to Iffan Khan's Dr. Rafta. Oh, and BTW, the carjacker scene STILL doesn't make any sense (again, how did Spidey get into a locked car or even know the carjacker was going to steal that particular car in the first place?) and that scene with the crane operators was FAR cheesier and nonsensical than anything Raimi ever did in his Spider-Man films. However, the best scene of the film by far is the moment where Spidey saves the little boy from the car; that truly captured the essence of Spider-Man, I thought, and showed how he had became a real hero.

So overall, a pretty decent film, better than Spider-Man 3 anyway, but not quite up to the level of the first two, in my opinion. 2 1/2 out of 4 stars for me.
 
Drew McWeeny just tweeted that his parents just told him he was wrong on Spider-man.

Haha! disOWNED!
 
Lol.. Amy Nicholson of BoxOffice.com gave TDKR a 3.5/5 and TASM a 4/5

weeeeee
 
Horner, not Zimmer.

I mentioned a while back that since Zimmer did Batman and now doing Man of Steel, it would've been the trifecta if he worked on Spider-Man as well. That would just be freaking awesome if you ask me.

Lol.. Amy Nicholson of BoxOffice.com gave TDKR a 3.5/5 and TASM a 4/5

weeeeee

Did any part in her review for TDKR criticize the movie for the lack of Joker? :oldrazz:
 
I dunno, I didn't read the review. It's on boxoffice.com

Not hard to find.
 
Lol.. Amy Nicholson of BoxOffice.com gave TDKR a 3.5/5 and TASM a 4/5

weeeeee

Ha, hopefully this wasn't posted already, and I know it's just one guy's opinion, but Roger Ebert gave TAS 3.5/4 and TDKR 3/4.

And I applaud Drew McWeeney's parents! They should do his job for him, lol. Actually applaud Moriarity for tweeting it, that's funny.
 
Here's my take on the new Peter Parker from the "which was best" thread.

Both Parkers are very different, that's for certain. Maguire's Parker comes across as an earnest, noble boy who always has good intentions. He seems to be the kind of kid who was raised in a stable household, listens to his parents, and stays out of trouble. He's the kind of average, shy, quiet boy who would work hard in class, associate with his school teachers, and understand morals.

I knew people like that in high school, and as a result it was easy to sympathize and relate to that version of Parker. He is the type of person who nobody would know very well, but who would prove to be sweet and thoughtful if approached and spoken to. He is respectful of others, and easily deserves such respect to be reciprocated. As the audience, we follow his journey through young adulthood and learn about his character, making it much easier to understand and relate to him as an ordinary kid with a big heart.

I like and respect that version of Peter Parker. He makes sacrifices, and rarely chooses to be selfish; when he does, he is always treading into unknown territory with a guilty conscience, and appears as though he is in doubt of what he is doing. He has morals, understands the benefits and consequences of every action, and shows weakness in his character. Such aspects of his character are what make him human. He is multi-dimensional, and is like any other civilian. He becomes a superhero because he feels he is obligated to, else he would feel guilty and conflicted. He appears to develop his intelligence from a combination of hard work and natural ability, and seems like just a very bright individual without being the arrogant genius of the new film.

Garfield's version of Parker exudes confidence, but also demonstrates a lack of responsibility, a lack of morality, and disobeys nearly everybody he speaks to. He is arrogant. This Parker has trouble communicating, disappears late at night, and appears to have a very rocky relationship with his teachers. He comes across as a troublemaker; he may have the mind of a genius, but he is a juvenile delinquent. This type of character is not likeable, and would be considered the class loser in school based on his sense of self-righteousness. Maguire's Parker was teased because he was a quiet geek and perhaps a pushover; Garfield's Parker is bullied because he is not approachable and does not seem very friendly. His character is somebody who is easy for his classmates to dislike. He does not consider what others tell him, has no courtesy for others, and feels his opinion is superior to everyone else's. He sneaks around, and feels entitled to do whatever he wants.

I've seen people like this as well, and I can see why the character polarizes his audience. He is a punk, a 'bad boy,' and can perhaps be seen as the new "cool" face of Peter Parker. He may be an intriguing character to watch on screen, but as an individual, he is very difficult to respect; consequently, he is somebody many viewers can not relate to or sympathize with. He is a child delinquent, the sort of boy many would try to avoid in reality. He is witty and can say some of the most incredibly insulting things while wearing a mask, but as a person he is not very likeable. He saves people because he wants to be a hero, and unlike Maguire's Parker, is very happy to be New York City's savior.

Perhaps Garfield's Parker will be further developed in the second film, but as of now I miss the humility and good-natured Peter Parker from the previous trilogy. Perhaps not all will agree with me, but by comparing both characters, we are simply comparing a "good boy" with a "bad boy," both of whom are very smart, but also whom share few personality traits. One would be a gentleman and help the elderly or disabled on the street, the other would walk right by.

If Peter has no morality, then why does he stand up to Flash in the beginning? If he had no morality, why is he spending time on being a hero for NO pay?

Sure, he may be doing it because he wants to be a hero, but don't we all, down deep inside, want to be a hero? He's also doing it because it's within his power to do so, and because of that, it's his responsibility.

Disobeys people he speaks to? I can see that with some things, like skateboarding in school. But for other moments, I feel his disobeyment can be excused.

1. Disobeying Gwen by not staying in the tour group: He wants to find out more about his father and his research. He knows that there's something secretive going on involving his father and his research.
2. Disobeying Uncle Ben by not picking up Aunt May: he forgot.
3. Disobeying Aunt May by not picking up eggs: he forgot.
4. Breaking his promise to Captain Stacy: You can't keep two people who love each other away for that long.

He learned in the bridge sequence his true responsibility to the city, and it's something that he was working on in the film. He felt the need to take down the Lizard, because he was responsible for it, because he gave Connors the algorithm needed to make the serum.

He may be arrogant, but Spider-Man WAS arrogant in the comics. Just wait until Gwen's ultimate demise.

His 'rocky relationship with his teachers' was only established at the end of the movie, and it seems like it's because of the fact that he's Spider-Man. He doesn't consider what others tell him? Yea, I guess that's why he ultimately brought eggs home for Aunt May.

If he's a punk or bad boy then I'm surprised. I wouldn't try to avoid him, I would try to be friends with him. It's clear that he was suffering emotionally even before Uncle Ben died. He needs friends, but he's a loner. I wouldn't be surprised to see if he would push me off as a friend in real life, but it's understandable. He's an orphan who feels like his parents just up and left.

I guess opinions just differ about the character...

Yes, I believe his primary reason for being Spider-Man is because he has been looked down upon and belittled his entire life and wants to prove his importance to the city. He wants to finally be bigger than everybody else, which affirms his ego. The way he acts towards everybody as Peter Parker tells me much of his attitude can be attributed to poor parenting.

Uncle Ben and Aunt May have differing opinions about how Peter should be raised, with May being too gentle and Ben being harsh. There is little coordination or compromise between the two, which perhaps explains why Peter feels disconnected and does, in fact, act like a punk.

He ignores them for much of the film, disregards promises, and has a poor relationship with nearly everybody at school. When visiting Connors after school, he ignored Ben's phone call -- if anything, that should have jogged Peter's mind about picking up May later that night. Instead, he ignores the call. As Peter Parker, he shows little responsibility and seems incapable of doing anything right as a regular civilian.

Those four points you made are excuses for his incompetent behavior; they are likely the same ones he would have made to cover up his mistakes and his own ignorance. When he finally picks up May's eggs at the film's conclusion, the eggs should no longer matter anymore to May; this is just a half-baked apology by Peter. Any sensible kid would prioritize his parents' wishes ahead of anything else, unless he had a poor relationship with them. To make excuses for everything he does, and then to receive no punishment from his parents, explains his main problem -- he has no accountability for anything. Furthermore, May shows no concern at all for where Peter has been and why he has been beaten up; if it's really just about the eggs, she really should be considered a horrible parent. She has no strength or voice as a parent, and is easily taken advantage of; if Peter bringing home eggs is enough to win over May's heart, this explains why he acts the way he does in his regular life. He even rejects Ben's request that he fix the basement leak, even before he discovers his father's briefcase. Ben's response: "oh, okay. Just bring everything upstairs." That's just stupid parenting.

Peter Parker is an irresponsible young man. As Spider-Man, he may feel somewhat obligated to stop a giant lizard creature from turning everybody in the city into lizards, but who wouldn't. Anybody, in their right mind, would feel obligated to stop a raging beast like that if they could. The fact that he became Spider-Man as a vigilante shows he is completely fixated on his own self-interests rather than anybody else's. Aunt May is worried sick for much of the film, and Peter constantly disappears so he can hunt down and kill one man. He has no regard for her feelings until he brings home the eggs, and even that is just a sorry excuse for disappearing night after night for much of the film.

The only truly heroic, selfless feat by Spider-Man was to stop the Lizard -- as I've pointed already, though, it's plainly obvious that the Lizard has to be stopped or everybody he knows is 'virtually' dead/replaced by evil lizards. It would be common sense to go after somebody who schemes to destroy all of New York.

I blame the parenting of Uncle Ben and Aunt May for the troubled person Garfield's Parker has become. He has wit, but he isn't likeable as a character at all, and shows no competence as a human being. It's as if he dons the Spider-Man mask because that's the only thing he knows how to do properly. His life as Spider-Man is an escape from his sorry, pathetic life as Peter Parker.

This is definitely a different take on Peter Parker, and the equivalent of a troubled boy becoming a superhero. He isn't as much a geek as he is a loser. It's very difficult to relate to or sympathize with the new Parker.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"