Customer Discussions > Movie forum

The Amazing Spider Man


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 167 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jul 4, 2012 9:22:57 PM PDT
J. Case says:
I saw it on Tuesday, and it was Amazing.

A teaser for a sequel.
Norman Osborn before the end is shown briefly.
Curt Connors as the Lizard has a motive you can understand.
More than 3 wisecracks from the Wall crawler, characters change, Flash is humilated,terrific climax, enough action, and there is a reference by Captain Stacy to Godzilla.
Peter Parker is shown to be a scientific whiz, Gwen Stacy was done justice and she does not die.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 11:05:18 AM PDT
Green Meanie says:
did Peter Parker have a British accent ?

Posted on Jul 5, 2012 12:16:43 PM PDT
I thought it took a little too long for Peter Parker to become Spiderman. The 3-D effects were better than most. It looks like what they did was to shoot almost each main actor in front of a green screen, then have a blurry background(s) projected over the green area. It's not altogether a new idea. Lots of old movies would shoot people sitting inside of a car and behind the back window would be a projection screen showing a film of city street and sidewalks.

Posted on Jul 5, 2012 9:03:57 PM PDT
The Amazing Spider-Man was a good movie, not a great one. While Sam Raimi's Spider-Man was better pace, this one had the better writing and was better cast than Raimi's. Still, Spider-Man 2 remains the definitive Spider-Man movie.

As a teaster to my full-blown review tomorrow, I'm giving this film an 8 out of 10.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 4:38:08 PM PDT
J. Case says:
No Spider Man 2 the definitive Spider Man movie.
Doctor Octopus a super villain that redeems himself at the end.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 7:59:04 PM PDT
J. Case: ''No Spider Man 2 the definitive Spider Man movie.''

Yeah, that's what I said. Pay attention. I said that The Amazing Spider-Man is better than the original and Spider-Man 3, and yet ''Spider-Man 2 remains the definitive Spider-Man movie.''

To put this in perspective, here are the quick ratings of all 4 Spider-Man movies:

Spider-Man: 6 out of 10
Spider-Man 2: 9 out of 10
Spider-Man 3: 5 out of 10
Amazing Spider-Man: 8 out of 10

In preferential order, here's the list as I present it:

Spider-Man 2
The Amazing Spider-Man
Spider-Man
Spider-Man 3

Posted on Jul 6, 2012 8:19:11 PM PDT
J. Baker says:
Top 5 Spidey movies:

1. Spider Baby
2. The Spider Woman
3. Spider
4. Ziggy Stardust & The Spiders From Mars
5. Earth vs. the Spider

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 6, 2012 8:48:50 PM PDT
J. Case says:
I should have said Spider Man 2 is not the definitive movie if that's your opinion I won't disagree.
I'll be seeing Amazing Spider Man again on Sunday.

The Lizard came very close to Killing to Spider Man.

Posted on Jul 6, 2012 9:40:04 PM PDT
Green Meanie says:
The Emo Tobey Spiderman Films were Sony. This Limey Spiderman is Marvel Studios I believe.
Now they can have Spidey in other Marvel Films.

Posted on Jul 8, 2012 6:06:34 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 8, 2012 6:33:41 AM PDT
Lev says:
The Amazing Spider-Man - Spoiler Alert

There are many scenes in this movie that are not integral to the plot, they are simply integral to relaunching the franchise. For example, Parker's hunt for the man who killed his uncle just fizzles out. Presumably, it will resume in the sequel.

Compare with 'Star Wars'. A franchise was spawned from it, but 'SW' did not contain scenes just for the sake of the franchise. It was a coherent, stand-alone movie. 'TAS-M' is less a movie, more like an episode in one of the old serials, e.g., 'Rocket Man'. With superfluous scenes and story lines, 'TAS-M' becomes inchoate and the pace sags--a very long 136 minutes.

Martin Sheen and Sally Fields demean themselves in roles that don't allow them to act. Neither appear to have aged very well, so they were more disconcerting than wholesome--at least, to me. It may be called "The Amazing Spider-Man," but not a single aspect of this film was amazing. No suspense, no excitement, flat humor, passable acting, sublunar special effects. It should have been called "The Ho-Hum Spider-Man."

There are 3-5 different people in this film who learn Spider-Man's secret identity, or have good reason to suspect it, which pretty well drains the suspense out of the effort to keep it secret, and the horror of it being revealed. That cliche is simply done to death here.

Why did we have to spend the first hour of the film watching the origin of Spider-Man, a story that we already know, before the plot even begins?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 8, 2012 10:12:02 AM PDT
Green Meanie says:
They consider the newer generations who were not old enough for the Raimi Trilogy. Boy , the newer generations have it so good compared to when I was young.

Posted on Jul 8, 2012 11:24:45 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 8, 2012 11:59:00 AM PDT
People seem to put so much emphasis on the title having 'Amazing' in it. It's the same title as the original comic books. It's titled that way because of the abilites of Spider-Man. People make it seem like the title was supposed to mean the movie will be "amazing". I feel the movie did Spider-Man justice and would've like it to be this way the first go round. If you don't like something you can't blame it on the title you felt was misleading. That's like saying The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen wasn't an extraordinary movie. It's the original title based on what the characters were able to do.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 8, 2012 8:47:17 PM PDT
J. Case says:
Yeah but the title of a movie should be what the movie is about. There was Friday the 13th movie with Jason Takes Manhattan, and most of the movie is shown on a boat not in New York City.

Why was Peter called crazy by the woman of a guy when Peter think's he's Uncle Ben's killer?
Also after seeing that Peter is very strong why did the other guys on the train still decide to fight him?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 9, 2012 6:37:39 AM PDT
I'll be happy to answer that. The guy was obviously the woman's pimp so as misguided as she already was by defending the guy that was slapping her around she called Peter crazy. The fight on the train was simple enough. They were a bunch of macho meatheads that didn't know what they were getting into. Heck, Peter didn't even know what they were getting into. As antsy and panicked as he was already acting they kept thinking he was an easy mark.

As far as Jason Takes Manhattan goes, I think there were just attempting to keep cashing in on the franchise. If I remember correctly most of that movie was filmed in Canada and the little bit of Time Square they did show they didn't even have a permit to film there.

This is my rundown of why I loved this movie.

1. It felt more believable as to the how and the why. It had the right balance of cause and effect.

2. Of course, I love the wise-cracking Spidey. That's what I've been missing since the whole thing began.

3. The supporting cast seemed to have a purpose. All of them weren't just there for scenery.

4. They focus on how smart Peter really is. He's pretty much a young genius.

5. This also adds to the realism, but after a tough fight he has the cuts and bruises to show for it. In Raimi's version, Peter got hit in the face plenty of times. In the first movie the only time I seen him bleed was when he got cut on the forearm and the last fight with GG in costume. Out of costume he didn't have so much as a shiner. In 2 and 3 he didn't get marked up at all.

These things were mostly missing from the Raimi films. Don't get me wrong I still like Spider-Man 2, but after seeing it again it was like watching a soap opera. All three of them were to be honest. This one at least felt more believable.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 9, 2012 6:52:57 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 9, 2012 10:25:46 AM PDT
T. Reid says:
I loved the The Amazing Spider Man. It was miles better than the other Spidey films. And in my opinion Spider Man 2 was a very bad film. First, Doc Ock is NOT a sympathetic character in the comics. I don't know why they did that to him for that film. Second, too much CGI in the other films. I wanted to see real people doing the swinging and I got that in The Amazing Spider Man.

The last scene of Spidey shooting the web at you in what I think is a McFarlane pose was classic. Great film.

Posted on Jul 9, 2012 9:41:14 AM PDT
Green Meanie says:
***** ~Spiderman~Spiderman~~~~~~ Does whatever a Spider can ~~~~~***********

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 9, 2012 10:50:11 AM PDT
You couldn't hold that in, could you? The Aerosmith version of that theme was awesome.

Posted on Jul 9, 2012 9:41:00 PM PDT
J. Case says:
Was Aunt May thinking that Peter was going to bring the Spider Man costume out of his bag?
I think she knows Peter is Spider Man.
She noticed he left after Captain Stacy announced there is a arrest warrant for Spider Man, secrets have a price and where do you go at night who does this to you.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 9, 2012 11:20:09 PM PDT
Green Meanie says:
Those are great.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 10, 2012 5:32:12 AM PDT
Lev says:
J. Case says: Was Aunt May thinking that Peter was going to bring the Spider Man costume out of his bag? I think she knows Peter is Spider Man.

Lev: Her and the rest of NYC! He was either telling someone, or showing his face, or getting his mask ripped off in every second scene. He blurted it to Gwen after their first kiss--Is he going to tell every girl he kisses?

Posted on Jul 10, 2012 8:33:32 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 10, 2012 11:01:25 AM PDT
Peter's face is one of millions in New York. The only people who are going to remember him are those that are close to him whether friend or foe. It's better than beating around the bush for 1 and 3/4 movies until the girl finally figures it out. It's kinda like what someone else in another forum said that there are some elements of the Ultimate Spider-Man comic book series in this movie. At some point in the series all the people close to Peter knew he was Spider-Man (e.g. Aunt May, Mary Jane, Gwen Stacy. Even Norman Osborne knew).

Posted on Jul 10, 2012 10:12:53 AM PDT
Green Meanie says:
All we need is Ben Riley.

Posted on Jul 11, 2012 7:31:31 PM PDT
Hikari says:
Haven't seen the movie yet. Have they updated Peter's age for this new version? Because Andrew Garfield is 27-going on-28, isn't he? He's getting a little mature for even a collegiate Spidey, never mind one in high school. Tobey Maguire could play young quite a bit longer.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 11, 2012 8:34:09 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 11, 2012 8:35:19 PM PDT
StaticFox says:
He plays the part of a teenage spidey very well. Sure, he's intelligent, but he's also moody, rebellious, a little reckless, and overall, well...looks close enough to a teenager for me!

They do a fine job at allowing him to develop why he becomes spiderman and what he fights for. You can see him learning throughout the film, rather than simply being pounded over and over again by " with great power comes great responsibility."

Posted on Jul 11, 2012 9:37:23 PM PDT
Justin says:
I loved The Amazing Spider-Man, and I'm generally not a fan of Marvel's superhero films. I thought Andrew Garfield was a fantastic Peter Parker, and I loved how the film was as much a coming-of-age flick as it was a summer superhero blockbuster.

But what else would we expect from Marc Webb?
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Movie forum
Participants:  24
Total posts:  167
Initial post:  Jul 4, 2012
Latest post:  Nov 11, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions