341 of 418 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars The Amazing Spider-Man - point by point
I read a lot of reviews for this movie before watching it myself. In the end, they all boiled down to a few basic criticisms, which I kept in mind as I made my own appraisal. Here are the major problems people seem to have had with Marc Webb's "Amazing Spider-Man", along with my responses.
1. The reboot was too soon.
This more or less depends on your...
Published 13 months ago by Kyle Shultz
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars You're friendly neighborhood spiderman
3 Stars for the movie. Saw the movie in theaters and was thoroughly disappointed as I thought Andrew would be able to outplay Toby's take but was wrong. Yes I understand they were trying to go for the more teenage style unrestrained cocky peter parker, but I just couldn't stand Andrew's acting. Really have more respect for what Toby was able to do. Special effects were...
Published 5 months ago by word2ya
Most Helpful First | Newest First
341 of 418 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars The Amazing Spider-Man - point by point,
This review is from: The Amazing Spider-Man (Three-Disc Combo: Blu-ray / DVD + UltraViolet Digital Copy) (Blu-ray)I read a lot of reviews for this movie before watching it myself. In the end, they all boiled down to a few basic criticisms, which I kept in mind as I made my own appraisal. Here are the major problems people seem to have had with Marc Webb's "Amazing Spider-Man", along with my responses.
1. The reboot was too soon.
This more or less depends on your point of view. True, the last Spidey movie was in 2007, a mere five years ago - more than long enough to warrant another Spider-Man film; not exactly long enough to call for a complete reboot. On the other hand, I think a lot of people would agree that it's been more like eight years since the last GOOD Spider-Man film. I loved Raimi's work with the character, though I do criticize him on some minor points. But in the end, he really dropped the ball with Spider-Man 3, running a lot of good characters into the ground and painting himself into a corner with two hours of very messy plotting. In the end, whether a reboot was necessary per se is a matter of personal preference. But even if you think it wasn't necessary, is it fair to write off the new movie completely as a result? I don't believe it is.
2. We've heard it all before.
Yes and no. This is another interpretation of Spider-Man's origin story. But it's very different from Raimi's first Spider-Man film. More importantly, it's a well-done interpretation. At the heart of this "origin story" is Peter Parker's development from a somewhat geeky, trouble-making teen into a true hero. This transition happened far more quickly in Raimi's first movie, mainly because Maguire's Peter had a more strongly-developed moral compass to begin with. Neither version is objectively inferior in my opinion, but I do have a personal preference for the deep character drama achieved by Webb. The point is, yes, this is the spider-bite story again, but it's a good spider-bite story.
3. The hype about "secrets being revealed" was a big lie.
Yes, it was. This is most definitely not "the untold story". Significant-sounding lines from the trailers such as "Do you think what happened to you was an accident?" and "If you want the truth about your parents, Peter, then come and get it" didn't even feature, which I'll admit kind of annoyed me. That amounts to false advertising in my opinion. I was very happy with what I got, but it wasn't what I was promised. The thing is, there is some big mystery going on in this movie with Peter's parents. However, their story doesn't feature very heavily in this first movie. The elements of it that do were given away in the trailers. So don't bother watching this solely to find out more about Richard and Mary Parker. Their story will have to wait until the sequel.
4. The villain was weak.
My main problem with this film's take on Dr. Curtis Connors was that it diverged so heavily from the comics. The Connors I remember was an intriguing villain because he was a father and a husband who transformed himself into a monster in a quest for healing. Billy Connors and his mom aren't around here. Instead there's a bachelor, British-accented Connors who frequently runs the risk of going boldly where so many villains have gone before. Fortunately, Rhys Ifans' performance is good enough to prevent this happening most of the time. Connors' motivation makes sense overall, though little time is given to truly flesh it out. Perhaps if his mysterious connections to Norman Osborn had been explored in greater detail, he would have been more memorable.
5. The Lizard's design was flawed.
Most people who didn't care for the Lizard's look seem to describe it as "too human". The face certainly is. It wasn't really that scary. I've seen alternate designs which the production team ultimately abandoned which I think would have been a lot better. So basically I would agree with this criticism, but for me it was a minor quibble.
6. It had too much teenage angst and Twilight-esque drama.
Actually, it had none. The teenage interactions were more mature than I'm used to seeing in film or TV, with even Flash Thompson evolving from a typical bully into a likable character over time. There are a few moments of stereotypical rebellion from Peter, but they lead rapidly into the tragic events that change him, so they're quickly forgotten. Despite the early publicity saying that this movie would be "darker", I don't think I'd describe it that way. It's a little less cheesy and a little more gritty in parts, but there are enough moments of clever humor to give the viewer a break from the gradually building tension.
The Amazing Spider-Man does have flaws. But in my opinion, its good points are so good that they cancel out the missteps. Andrew Garfield brings the wisecracking, geeky, sometimes mischievous Peter Parker from the original comics to life better than anyone I've seen (or heard, in animation) thus far. He nails the sense of humor that was frequently lacking from Maguire's Spidey. I had my doubts about Emma Stone as Gwen, but her acting was superb as well. She and Garfield have great chemistry on screen, which bodes well for the future. Really all the main cast was terrific, but I must make a special mention of Dennis Leary's Captain Stacy. He truly did a fantastic job. The special effects in regard to Spider-Man's web-slinging and other stunts were breathtaking, and clever cinematography draws the audience into the action effortlessly. The music was forgettable for the most part, but served its purpose in the more dramatic scenes (much like the soundtrack to The Avengers).
In short, watching this movie was a delight for me as a long-time Spider-Fan, even with the memory of Raimi's better efforts fresh in my mind, and I'm very much looking forward to the sequel (teased at the end of this movie by an intriguing mid-credits scene). Worth buying, worth watching, and worth re-watching. It's a fun, engaging superhero film, and deserves to be judged on its own merits, which are considerable. Please don't let the unfair amount of negativity surrounding this movie scare you away from it. If you give it a chance, you won't be sorry.
21 of 27 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Fitting Reboot of a Comic Legend,
Marvel seems to be producing more mature, rebooted versions of all their super-hero series and I actually prefer this variation on the Spider Man story as well, especially the disappearance of the pointless Mary Jane obsession (which always made me respect Spidey a little less). I suspect that a more scientifically savvy audience appreciates an ever evolving origins story and I also enjoyed the initial dealing-with-new-superpowers interlude which was very amusing and again just seemed a much more realistic reaction from Peter Parker to his new abilities. Exceptional performances for Peter and Gwen are what truly make this production stand out from every other action-packed big-budget flick out there, not to mention a truly scary and menacing super-villain causing some sequences to play a little like a horror film. The tragic loss of his uncle is intensely emotional making the motivation for becoming a vigilante seem more credible, while the use of fantasy tech to supplement his powers added to this as well. love Martin Sheen as uncle Ben, never been much of a Sally Fields fan but apparently the producers were looking for star power to offset the use of mostly unknowns in the starring roles (which I think was a stroke of brilliance by the way).
The FX action sequences are seamless, gorgeous, captivating and again convincing (hitting on this alot I know but I think it's an essential factor). It's the details that make the difference, like while on the job at dizzying heights getting a call on his cell from aunt May reminding him to pick up eggs on his way home. The wise-cracking Spidey is not only back but actually funny with flawless comedic timing throughout and the gratuitous Stan Lee cameo was priceless. This is a new Spider-man, a better one, one whom you will be emotionally invested in by the dramatic ending which brilliantly wraps up an all-around excellent, excellent film! :o)
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Fun, fast moving.,
This review is from: The Amazing Spider-Man (Three-Disc Combo: Blu-ray / DVD + UltraViolet Digital Copy) (Blu-ray)Fun, fast moving popcorn flick the whole family can enjoy. Good extra features, too. Great for a Saturday night at home watching the big screen.
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars A Reboot that offers a darker, more detailed look into the world of Peter Parker,
This review is from: The Amazing Spider-Man (Three-Disc Combo: Blu-ray / DVD + UltraViolet Digital Copy) (Blu-ray)I want to start this review by acknowleging the fact that I did enjoy Sam Raimi's take on Spider-Man. I, like many was one of the fellow fans that expected a Spider Man 4 as a continiuation to the series. I like many was caught completel off guard when the announcement was made that the sereies was going to be rebooted; as a matter of fact, I was angry. I decided that nonetheless, I was going to see if Sony could make a better Spider-Man. I said, "this is a movie I am either going to like or completely hate." And after multiple viewings, plus a blu-ray purchase later, the consensus is: I hate that I like this movie so much.
Starring Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker/Spider- Man, The amazing Spider-Man tells the origin story of how Peter Parker came to become the famed web-slinger. While this movie does NOT (spoiler) include Uncle Ben's infamous advice he gives to Peter about responsibility, the story (unlike Sam Raimi's films) revolves primarily around Peter's parents, specifically his father. Actually, the film starts out when Peter is still quite young. The story is not quite suspensful or thrilling, but it has a balanced even tone of humor; more notably the humorous side of Spider-Man is present in the movie.
Another likable aspect in the movie is the chemistry between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone (Gwen Stacy) in the movie. Peter is as we all know the guy that is easily bullied and unpopular, but has a particularly brilliant thinking mind when it comes to science, Gwen is easy on the eyes and the girl every guy admires and dreams about, and in The Amazing Spider Man its Peter's smarts (and his courage early on) that sets him apart from the rest. The chemistry between these two helps the movie in more ways than none.
This movie is not without its cons, many of which I was able to overlook and forget about, but a few worth mentioning. Rhys Ifans stars as Dr. Connors. And for you familar Spider-Man fans, we all know what character Dr. Connors transforms into. Unfortunately his take on the villain he portrays is not as menacing or memorable as it should be and the CGI is well.....eh but oh well. Now as my headline said this Spider Man movie feels a lot darker compared to the prievious Spider Man movies. Among the common complaints from a few of my fellow colleagues that watched this movie, the most common one was that this movie copied the original Spider Man movie or that it felt too modernized. I do feel that some things were borrowed from the orginal, but I do not feel it is a big enough probblem to be worrried about. Flaws in The Amazing Spider-Man? Sure. Is it still a good movie? Yes it is.
All that aside, The Amazing Spider-Man is creative; be it that it is also really exceptional (and I mean unconventionally Exceptional). It has its faults, but overall it holds its ground well as a start for the new series.
Supporting Cast: Martin Sheen, Sally Field, Dennis Leary, Irrfan Khan
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars You're friendly neighborhood spiderman,
This review is from: The Amazing Spider-Man (Mastered in 4K) (Single-Disc Blu-ray + Ultra Violet Digital Copy) (Blu-ray)3 Stars for the movie. Saw the movie in theaters and was thoroughly disappointed as I thought Andrew would be able to outplay Toby's take but was wrong. Yes I understand they were trying to go for the more teenage style unrestrained cocky peter parker, but I just couldn't stand Andrew's acting. Really have more respect for what Toby was able to do. Special effects were nice but not blown away like I was in the original spiderman movie. There ail be 3 more movies coming out in the series with Andrew signed on, perhaps we'll see him step his game up and evolve both as Peter and the actor.
30 of 43 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Go ahead, watch it. You'll be disappointed.,
Is this a re-telling? More like a re-hanging. In fact, if you haven't already seen a Spiderman movie, you won't know what is going on. There is no scene where we get an idea that Peter Parker is anything special until we see some ridiculously high-tech remote control door lock. Up to that point he is just a loner with an army jacket and a hoodie. He's also a stalker (which of course seems to excite and intrigue teenage girls who only wear knee socks). Every time there's a question, it's covered by assuming you already know the story and are watching the divergent moments for orientation.
Personally, I believe in a shady fight promoter willing to cheat Parker on a technicality far more than I believe in a surly clerk who won't let Amazing Parker take a penny from the counter. It's a belief that comes from the exposition behind the ethics of letting the thief escape. A clerk who won't let a penny from the "take a penny" cup isn't doing something that is deserving of justice. The truth is, the clerk has a real point (if there was a clerk on Earth that would even look up at this transaction) and nothing to gain or lose by his treatment of Amazing Parker. On the other hand, the shady fight promoter profits both by Parker's win, and inflates his profit by cheating him, in the original genesis story. The Amazing Parker is just petty. Petty in his revenge against Flash, and then petty in his revenge against the clerk. With the clerk Amazing Parker is an accomplice - "Not my problem" here means "I got mine" with his milk in hand, instead of "Why should I help you after you ruthlessly cheat me for a profit that is not yours."
If you want to reach for a way in which this movie has any merit, it is the way that Amazing Parker functions as a stand-in for white male privilege. Consider the scene in which he attends the Oscorp tour. He takes a badge meant for the Rodrigo Guevara. Even as Parker and the woman at the counter seem to make a joke of the badge he chooses, he gets a pass. Moments later, the real Guevara (played by Milton Gonzalez) who looks and sounds like he matches the name is dragged away by security. Everybody laughs. Ha ha, look at the Latino, fussing and fighting, as he's dragged away by uniforms. Don't that let that happen to you boys. Ok, back to my knee socks.
Amazing Parker is further afflicted by the work of his father, an easy metaphor for privilege passed on even in the absence of his parent. Certainly, this Parker is not our accidental hero, born out of side effects of science. He is created by his father's work. Even once recognized as passing himself off as something he is not, Gwen has no problem with security's detention of the wrong man, she furthers her complicity with selfishness as well ("don't get me in trouble?" Can you get more vapid?). This of course is typical of the societal support that privilege finds in the world.
Truth is this re-telling is only a flimsy framework for some special effects that aren't all that special. It's a framework completely hinged on the work done by three other movies, and the comic book series. Without that, you are lost because there is no character development within the film. The original Parker is interesting, because he is chosen by science and fate and must claim responsibility for what he does with this power. The Amazing Parker is just a selfish child, bent on revenge, revenge for his father's death, revenge for his uncle's death, and revenge for his not being able to spend two pennies from the penny cup. It's not really a re-telling at all. Perhaps it is a(what should be insulting)misinterpretation of the story marketed at young audiences. More likely it is a complete misunderstanding of the Spiderman myth and what made it so good- Parker's struggle with being a vigilante in the first place without damaging justice. Just because you dress the kid like Travis Bickle crossed with Ted Kaczynski doesn't convince me that you understand the Spider Man.
My review is better than this movie.
185 of 270 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars The 'Amazing' in the title is justified,
This review is from: The Amazing Spider-Man (+ UltraViolet Digital Copy) (DVD)There are only so many ways you can tell a superhero story, especially through a movie and you have the dodgy task of taking a popular superhero with the elements of his story try to breathe new life into it and adapt it to the big screen in a way that can reach a wide audience; families, kids, teenagers, adults and generations while at the same time making it appeal to the die hard superfans and collectors. This is the hard task that the 2012 reboot of the Spider-Man franchise The Amazing Spider-Man is attempting to achieve.
Superhero films have received a revival in interest new since the first decade of the new millennium and throughout the 2000's to the current day. It's become a popular trend in Hollywood and already we've seen plenty of superheros head to the big screen; some with great mainstream success at the box office (X-Men, Spider-Man, Batman) and some poorly received (Daredevil, Superman Returns, Green Lantern). Spider-man is one of those superhero characters that caught on most as a movie franchise and was successful enough to spawn two sequels. The trilogy of Spidey films of the 00's was mostly well received but when attempts of re-singing actors for a fourth title failed there was only two options: 1) Give up on making more Spider-Man films in the near foreseeable future or 2) Get some fresh faces to replace the already established actors and come up with an alternate take on the story of one of the greatest Marvel characters and superheroes of all time. This reboot is a different Spider-man altogether and in this case it's actually a good thing. Garfield as Spider-Man was what was going to make or break this movie and his Peter Parker is a fresh one with slight twists that I think audiences will approve of. The retelling of the Spiderman story works here because they did an actual reboot, using the same characters and comic universe but it's a different take it's obviously not a remake yet it's not a re-imagining either being that this character has already plenty of history to chose from. If you watched any of the 3 previous ones you will be able to tell that the angle and tone they have here are very different. The back story already is quite different, they explain more about Peter Parker's parents, in this one his love interest is Gwen Stacy not Mary Jane Watson (and very different from the Gwen Stacy we saw in 2007's Spider-Man 3 too), the villain (Dr. Curtis "Curt" Conors/The Lizard), the way the events happen (how Peter gains his powers etc.) is not quite the same and the way its presented is unique which is all a plus in my book.
A lot of us were wondering how Andrew Garfield (The Social Network) would fare as the lead role compared to Tobey McGuire (as if there weren't going to be any comparisons) and that it would directly make the biggest impact on the fate (and perhaps sequels) of this reboot. I must say I was impressed. MacGuire was cast for the trilogy of Spider-Man films from 2002-07 and I think most would say Tobey pulled off the job really well, came off as likeable and people tend to identify him in his role of the spandex web-slinger. Looking back McGuire was suitable and a good choice for the role but Garfield brings something else to the table, portrays the role different with more flair, more attitude. Not as shy and innocent as Macguire's portrayal of Spidey. Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man you can sense from the get-go is in ways better or improved on MacGuire's if comparisons must be made. He doesn't look as weak, is a bit more like the High-Schooler you would imagine, has the smart comments, is more aggressive and is taller and fills the suit better. Enough has been said, Garfied makes a rather convincing Peter Parker, student and Peter Parker as the masked hero. Those are both different Spider-Man overall, different takes on the same character and each have their positives but in the end I think I'd take Garfied over McGuire any day (no disrespect to Tobey intended I thought his take on the role was excellent and certainly put his stamp on the character). Emma Stone was very believable as Gwen Stacy and has that edge of the character she portrays and she looks the part, she has actual chemistry with Garfield and although we know her more for her comedy acting roles (Superbad, House Bunny, Easy A and others) she has no problem playing a more serious role and I could well see her do more of this type of acting. Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and Aunt May (Sally Fields) were nicely cast although I had grown very fond of the actors who played them in the trilogy of Spidey films and thought they were more effective than they are here. Rhys Ifanswas fantastic as Dr. Curt Conors/The Lizard and although there are lots of special effects for his transformation to being the Lizard I thought the human counterpart was played quite well and made his background story come through nicely. Also notable was Denis Leary as Captain George Stacy, Gwen's father.
The fighting and action scenes are probably the greatest improvements over the first 3 titles. Not that it was bad in any of those films but the way they captured the action in this one was fantastic and simply superior and are bad-er and mean-er. Those sequences were well executed which is important in a superhero movie. The stunts came off looking somewhat less surreal yet amazing to watch. Instead of the hero shooting web from his wrists they go back to the original story with the artificial web-shooters which was a good idea. We even manage to feel something for the villain and the Lizard's backstory was always one of my favorites and the character looks fantastic on the big screen with details and texture; this is one cool looking villain, I cannot imagine Lizard being done better. I was very happy when they chose Kurt Conors as the villain and the result turned out fantastic, at least they didn't take one of the previously seen villains for this first chapter in the cinematic saga. Not that I'm against using a previous bad guy again but someone else was a good choice to begin. Something that I thought was particularly great is that we saw Peter Parker as a child a further glimpse at what made him who he is. In fact the first few minutes are of an "origin of Peter Parker" scene that gives the viewer more insight on the character. What they did with the story, the hero, the villain, the romance, the stunts is commendable, especially considering that this is taking an already successful movie franchise and trying to revive and do something different yet interesting with it that would keep fans an moviegoers excited about it.
On a quick note I don't have much to say on the film's 3D probably because while it's not bad, it's not a big presence and the focus was mostly on the story and as a result there are very few times when the 3D stands out in any way.
There are similarities between this film and the original Spider-Man but there is plenty of differences too (there's only so much you can change) and it doesn't come off as watching the same movie twice this series is moving forwards. Ultimately the fans will decide how this film will go down in movie history (and superhero movie history). All I have to say is I got my money and time's worth with The Amazing Spiderman, I was certainly not disappointed, I was pleasantly surprised and found it very enjoyable; definitely worthy of the "Summer Blockbuster" title. It think it's safe to say that the "amazing" in the title very well reflects the viewing experience as a whole and that this is one that fans and non-fans will enjoy. The highest rating, highest recommendation. *****
6 of 8 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars A Shadow of its Former Glory,
29 of 42 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Fantastic movie; but Ultra-Violet needs to DIE,
However this is not a review of the actual movie. My problem is with Sony and this Ultra-Violet non-sense. Seriously? This is the first movie I have purchased with Ultra-Violet (rather than a real digital copy) and I am not pleased at all. I did not want to create a new account to download my movie, but I did it. I did not want to create YET ANOTHER account with Flixter (to link with the UVU account) but I did it because I want to be able to enjoy the movie on iTunes. Well here is a warning for you: If you use the license code on the UVU website, it will disallow you from using it on Flixter to transfer to iTunes because you have already used the code on UVU (or whatever the name of the site is. Seriously, who cares? It's an iTunes/Android world, Sony. Come to peace with it already.)
I wanted the Blu-Ray and should be able to have a true USEFUL digital copy for the price I paid. Needless to say, I am not happy with the packaging and feel swindled. I am not inclined to jump through all the hoops to get the iTunes situation corrected, and from what I have seen online about Ultra-Violet it looks like that's a whole new fresh hell for most people. Maybe later after I've climbed down from the ceiling I will go through those motions. For now: I can't recommend this package unless you are just needing the hard copy Blu-Ray or DVD. If you need a digital copy and have an Apple TV to view it on your TV (or just need it for iPhone or iPad), then I suggest sticking with an iTunes purchase. The price in FRUSTRATION is just not worth it.
73 of 107 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Storyline Was The Problem,
Weigh your decision by yourself, but here's what I thought: The special effects and CGI for Spider-man's character were crisp and realistic, but the movie's screen-story, including its writing and direction, were disappointing compared to recent comic movies and the Spider-man comics.
Though your opinion may differ, the studio veered from the classic comic storyline, and any overall challenging plot - for that matter - in a way that made the movie uncomfortable to watch. This movie was loosely based on the modernized/re-imagined Ultimate Spider-man Universe ( Published Oct 9, 2000), written, not by Stan Lee, but by Brian Michael Bendis who lengthened "the original 11-page origin story into a 180-page, 7 issue comic arc." The Amazing Spider-man's screenwriter, James Vanderbilt, along with Mark Webb and a few others distorted and rewrote Bendis' work in their adaptation. This is where Bendis' story became their story. Though I think the classic Stan Lee version over-rules all of them, I respect Bendis' writing, which came closer to the original than Vanderbilt and Webb's. All those small changes added up to an uncomfortable watch (each detailed below).
As for the special effects, Spider-man's costume, acrobatics, colors, angles, and webs were fantastic, but they can't be a blindfold. Realistically, the acting was average - nothing personal to Emma Stone or the other guy, but those were big roles to fill, and I was expecting a cast that would do better than Tobey and Dunst (not only better, but far surpass). Nothing personal to either actor (Stone was good in Superbad/Easy A and Garfield was decent in Social Network), but they weren't right for these parts. To see what I mean, do a comparison between this cast and Batman's Christian Bale/Heath Ledger or Iron Man's Robert Downey Jr./Gwyneth Paltrow. If you can't see the difference or think that it is not a fair comparison, then you probably disagree with my review. Spiderman's importance is equal to Batman or Ironman's; therefore, it deserves the same quality. Looking back, Tobey Maguire did a decent job - despite Spiderman 3, which also had writing and directing problems. However, for Spider-man 1 and 2, Tobey had decent direction; a decent script; and time to do embody the role. He played a lovable ultra-nerd well, but he needed to step aside after number 2 - e.g. Topher Grace should have been Spider-man for number 3, not Venom, but that time has past.
Below are some things I'm pointing out for those who read the comics and novels. Feel free to correct me on anything. For anyone else reading, you may be interested in the differences. The bar is high though; it's been raised since Spider-man 2002. Trust me, if a cast who can imbody the characters similar to Batman or Ironman's (maybe Jude Law, Jake Gyllenhaal, Ewan McGregor, along with Christina Hendricks, etc) paired with a writer similar to J.J. Abrams, John Semper Jr., Christopher Nolan, or Joss Whedon did Spider-man, it would be par to any Batman story. If you're going to do Spider-man, it needs to be pretty much on target, and really good! Side Note: In the video, Dominic Purcell (Venom) and Topher Gracer (as Spidy, not venom) are also mentioned and very good picks.
WTF, why did they do these things:
( 1 ) They left out Peter/Spiderman's inner-monologue, which is huge in the comics and is half the reason Spiderman's character can pull the weight of a solo act.
- If you have time to check out good Peter/Spiderman inner-monologue, Christopher Daniel Barnes did such an amazing job in the 90s that they brought him back as a voice actor for two recent video games, 2011s Spider-Man: Edge of Time and 2010s Spider-Man: Shattered Dimensions.
( 2 ) Peter was WAY WAY to cool, lean muscular, good looking, and strong at the beginning.
( 3 ) The Spider that bit him
- There were 3,000 genetically altered spiders that never get destroyed, so basically anyone can be Spiderman, which begs the question, when Peter tells Gwen, wouldn't she want to go get bit? Wouldn't anyone want to get bit if they knew it would give them powers?
- Venturing into a room with 3,000 freely roaming Spiders seems to be pushing it.
- He keeps the spider that bit him and shows it to Gwen Stacey (AWH!!! and the existence of that entire scene - plus, the football throw had unrealistic responses)
- Weird logic - The spiders that bite Peter Parker in this new movie SPECIALIZE in making web, so even though they've brought back web fluid/shooters (correcting a major flaw in the 2002 movie) they've made it more logical now that Spiderman gain web making abilities over anything else (web comes out of his body).
- In Stan Lee's classic Spider-man and even in Bendi's new version, there is only one "affected" spider that bites peter and then dies immediately after.
( 4 ) Spiderman takes off his mask any chance he gets?
- In Bendis' version (the one the movie's supposed to be based on), Gwen doesn't know Peter is Spider-man until a few issues before her death, and actually blames Spider-man for her father's death.
- In the better, classic version, Gwen never finds out Peter is Spider-man, not even before her tragic end, making it snd the actual cause of her death even more poignant. What really killed her?
( 5 ) YES A REBOOT WAS NEEDED... BUT not from the beginning.
- This Spider-man should have started with Peter, either half-way through college, at the end of college, or even later. With a fresh cast, making it clear that this is new version of Spider-man, the studio could have blatantly showed Peter using web shooters and fluid. The Daily Bugle updates well with a Huffington Post - like structure, and Peter could have taken on a column with his photo-journalism, or to separate him from Clark Kent, Peter could have upgraded his camera to a video camera, taking video footage of spider-man. Not to mention, he could be mid-way through his relationship to Mary Jane or even farther. Moreover, villains/other heroes could just appear in scenes, without explaining their elaborate back stories - though writing the dialogue, personality, and character with the back-story everpresent - leaving people questioning (in a good way), "I wonder how he became this or she became that."
- Using a more mature Peter, opens the path to prequels later on. If they had done this, people wouldn't have said, "Was a reboot really needed?"
- Spiderman doesn't have to be in High School all the time. In eighth grade, my generation read him as being in college and we loved him, and still related very well.
( 6 ) The web fluid was made at Oscorp, not by Peter himself.
- IMPORTANT: Why does it matter if Petter makes his web fluid from scratch? It adds to Peter's character just as Batman's nifty gadgets add to his character. Half of Spider-man's powers are a result of his ingenuity and intelligence - something you earn, not something you are given or steal from Oscorp. Furthermore, when you make him a good hearted lab rat rather than a skater, Peter becomes a character you would like to see attain super powers because you know that he'll have the intelligence to use them for good. Moreover, the intelligence to use them to get out of jams.
- In the comics and novels, Peter Parker (the lab rat) created his web fluid from scratch, before he was Spider-man, as a science fair entry to earn a college scholarship. After studying multi-polymer compounds for a few years, he produced a liquid adhesive that, when manipulated, could create unimaginably, strong, thin strands. To Peter's frustration, the science fair entry was problematic since his compound dissolved after a few hours. However, after gaining powers, Peter realized that his compound could imitate spider webbing, and the main setback to his science fair entry benefited Spider-man because he wouldn't be trashing the city with webs. Moreover, as a crazy polymer compound, he could shoot it out and create different objects, in mere moments ( e.g., a shield , parachute , club , small raft [i.e., him sitting on the small shield in water] etc.).
::::::: Side Note: Why had Peter taken on the science fair project? He was attempting to make inexpensive industrial strength rope for large ships, as a replacement for thick steel twined ropes. However, this "shipping rope" motive is a side note, since I don't remember where I read this.
((I just quote the comics and novels in the next two dashes))
- A quote on the matter from Stan Lee/Peter David:
"The adhesive was a mixture he'd already been working on,
but had back-burnered because he'd hit a snag. The intention
had been to submit it for a science fair. He'd hoped it would
be the sort of thing that would garner attention; perhaps even
a Westinghouse scholarship or something that would ease the
financial burden when it was time for college.
It was a super adhesive.
The problem he'd run into was that it was only temporary. It
stuck like nothing else on the market, but after a couple of
hours, it dissolved into wisp-thin threads. The drawback,
however, had no impact on the use to which he intended to
- Another old (60s style writing), more simplistic version of Spider-man's web fluid origins.
"Peter "devoted long hours of study to learning everything
he can about spiders... his web-making ability is one of
his most closely-guarded secrets. He makes his own web fluid
under the most exacting conditions in the lab, storing it
in small, compact cylinders like miniature toothpaste tubes...
Spidey can eject his web fluid in any one of the three
a. As a thin, incredibly strong line
b. As a fine, quick-spreading spray
c. As a thick, tremendously adhesive liquid."
- Any storyline with Peter making web fluid from scratch is only believable if he's a over studying lab rat, not a skater. No offense to skaters, I skate myself.
( 7 ) The Car Theft Scene (What happened here?)
- Spider-man keeps shooting web at the already incapacitated criminal; begins to laugh/clap as the criminal screams for help; and starts bragging about how he created the webbing himself. The criminal had taken out a knife, not to hurt peter, but in self-defense, saying not once, but twice, "Just let me go." ( I get the Uncle Ben Parallels, but torture seems to push the boundaries a bit )
- The cop rolls up and immediately pulls out his Loaded weapon. Instead of saying, lay on the ground or something. The cop says "Who are you?" Then, the cop goes for kill shots on Spider-man.
- The cop shoots many times directly at the incapacitated criminal tied up on the wall, almost assassinating him in the head once as the brick powders out a few inches away from the criminal's face - all without much provocation or warning - if anything, the cop would be more likely to pull out a taser.
- Who steals new cars anymore? Nobody. Car thefts are down 70 percent or more since the 90s because of gps and tracking. Cars people do steal are from the 90s or early 2000s, not newer cars, but the guy did have a big pocket computer to break the lock.
- How did Spider-man get into the car? This is not as nit-picky as it seems if you go back and take a look at the scene. If there was a sun roof open or broken window, the car check guy would have noticed it, but if he didn't, the criminal trying to break into the car would have, instead of using his complex method of opening the door. Thus, we must conclude Spider-man appeared there out of thin air.
- There is a difference between funny, witty, spider-man sarcasm and blood-vengeful, derisive, and conceited comments. Without finding Ben's Killer, it was a strange combination of Spidy sarcasm, real passion for the death of a family member, and arrogance.
- You end up feeling bad for the criminal.
( 8 ) The portrayal of Dr. Connors and the Lizard.
- Dr. Connors was not written as a stereotypical city wide criminal that goes to jail ( and then gets let out, somehow, every time they want to make a new movie ). It was enthralling how, in the comics, Dr. Connors struggles with his transformation and becomes one of Spiderman's (not Peter's) greatest allies. He helps peter through his mutagenic phase and becomes a pivotal part of many other storylines. Also, the interesting relationship between him and his wife and child is highly believable - that is, for a work of fiction.
- In the comics: Even in Brian Michael Bendis' version (the version this movie is based on), Dr. Connors is an American War Veteran that lost his arm and attempts to grow it back with his wife and child in mind. In the classic tale, Spider-man finds Dr. Connors in the Florida Everglades, still an american vet and still with wife and child.
- Dr. Connors goes to jail (AWH! NO!)
- Dr. Connors, the person, is supposed to be trapped in this abomination/mutation with a beastial mentality ( it hisses and does lizard things with glimpses of Dr. Conners, a good person, trying to free himself - and certainly doesn't talk that much, although this is debatable), but when he changes back to human form, he absolutely despises and hates what he has turned himself into, and struggles to find a cure. They dumbed down the lizard to be this talking sociopath who does a city-wide disaster, King Kong remake at the end.
- The Look: a lizard Hulk - Why not the alligator headed lizard, made popular in the comics? [warning: the following may be nit-picky] Moreover, making clear differences between "the Lizard" and "the Hulk" seems important. Granted, the lizard seems to have the hulk anger issue and the Jekyll/Hyde syndrome, but if he grows into a BIG (emphasis on size) green monster, what is the difference? A human sized, lean muscular, fast, powerful lizard seems more palatable. Also, some semi-plausible explanation for the extra-muscle, skin, bones, and tissues (e.g. the nutrients in Captain America's transformation capsule) helps highten the character's believability. Having Peter eat a ton of food was a good addition in this movie, and if they had made the lizard human sized, they could have done the same with Dr. Connors. I know it sounds like minutia, but people like the symptoms of transforming into a superhero/villain.
- Having the Kingpin as the main boss and the lizard as a side story (all taking place in the sewer with no king kong ending) would have been awesome.
( 9 ) All the love scenes were too much. Spiderman/Peter is always at odds with girls, until Mary Jane ( and they are super quick and a little spicy, not tender)
- Fact: According to IMDB, girls under 18 not only ranked it higher than any other group, but voted on it more than any other group as well.
- An in depth marketing study on why "Peter" was portrayed in this new way, google search "Untangling Spider-Man Bob Chipman" It was a dollars and cents decision.
- Peter was never suave like this rendition, the girl was always the aggressor - e.g. the black cat (even though that is way later in the series, it goes to show that he never becomes suave), and the scenes were really short but good.
( 10 ) Actual spider's webbing as web fluid
- We can't call it web fluid anymore.
- Although it is fiction, people enjoy the believable, and seeing as though, in reality, it took 70 people four years, using 1,000,000 (1 million) spiders to create the world's only textile made of Spider-webbing, and its only 11-foot by 4-foot (a size: medium Poncho), Oscorp would need a lot more spiders than that to make a profit. I guess you can rationalize it, but then, how would Peter get his webbing? And if he did, it would be in pretty limited supply, and their would be large sky-scrappers full of spider's to keep up with the demand.
( 11 ) No wrestling scene
- Here, they strayed from every Spider-man comic book. In Bandis version (the one they based the movie on), after breaking Flash's nose, Peter wrestles to pay off Flash's medical bills.
- It sets everything up. How he gets his costume and why he gets Ben shot.
( 12 ) Lack of storyline focus or acting focus on Peter's struggle with web-slinging. Takes away from the believability. All of a sudden, he's a pro.
( 13 ) Peter's parents helped make him Spiderman (AWH!)
( 14 ) The entire basketball scene with Flash Gordan ( unnatural responses, over the top, and in no comparison to The First Spiderman's fight scene )
- Stan Lee & Peter David's version of the basketball scene is very good, which is quoted word for word in the comments.
( 15 ) Spiderman's / Peter's Moral Compass (AWHHHHHH!!!)
- He steals milk - in the comics he would shoot out a line of webbing for a newspaper, and then, shoot back his payment from a roof overhang.
- Special thanks to Daniel Kelly's review for reminding me.
( 16 ) The entire skateboard scene ( Spiderman's a brain, not a skater athlete - skating is awesome though )
( 17 ) WATCH Spiderman: Season 1: Episode 1 - Night of The Lizard
- This sums up the whole storyline much better in 22 minutes ( remember for 1994, this is pretty good graphics )
- Another portrayal of Dr. Connors, the comic book original, was set in the Florida Everglades (I had read Anthony L. goes into this in length, so I won't)
( 18 ) All the scenes with Gwen Stacy ( they were not necessarily acted bad [I like Emma Stone], but definitely written poorly )
( 19 ) The best rendition of Spiderman's Storyline in motion picture was represented in the 1994-1998 animated series.
Theme by: Joe Perry (Aerosmith)
- As a child, I would hum the electric guitar solo with a piece of white thread connected to both arms of my Spiderman Action figure, and "web sling down the hall.
Spider-man 3 [the truth]:
Unfortunately, this was Sam Raimi's first time as the main writer along with his brother. Yes, Avi Arad changed his script. Raimi didn't want to write for Venom: he didn't grow up with venom. SONY had too many cooks in the kitchen, and still does because they should have let Brian Bendis adapt his own story to this movie. As for Raimi, this is not to say he didn't do an excellent job directing the first two movies: he did. But, the snowboard glider and the infamous beatnik, goth, jazz band scene with Tobey was no bueno. Good luck to him in the horror genre (his roots) and the upcoming Evil Dead.
Many people thought that "The Amazing Spider-man" was a great movie, and although I am not one of them, it would be a shame if this review stopped you from seeing something that you would like.
Note: I hate critics, and I hate myself for writing this because I know so much time, effort, and people power went into this movie, but since this isn't Youtube and people spent their money on this, including myself, I felt obliged.
Most Helpful First | Newest First
The Amazing Spider-Man (Four-Disc Combo: Blu-ray 3D/Blu-ray/DVD + UltraViolet Digital Copy) by Marc Webb (Blu-ray - 2012)