24 of 38 people found the following review helpful
Just as good as Raimis' Spiderman and a good reboot, but, not completely necessary.
, October 11, 2012
This review is from: The Amazing Spider-Man (DVD)
Lets get something straight, you don't HAVE to choose which take on Spiderman you prefer. Know one says you can't like The Amazing Spiderman if you liked Raimis' trilogy. You can have BOTH. You don't HAVE to choose. Also, some people are saying "THIS is the TRUE take on Spiderman" or "Sam Raimis Spiderman was the REAL Spiderman" this is FALSE. One thing I love about the Spiderman character is that there are multiple takes you can spin on the character. Raimis' Spiderman trilogy was the more classic 60s cheasy Spiderman, while this movie is a little more modern for a take on Spiderman. There is no "true" take on the character, see? Personally (as a big Spiderman fan), I actually ended up enjoying this movie and the old trilogy EQUALLY.
Now That THAT'S out of the way, The Amazing Spiderman pretty much started production once Spiderman 4 was cancelled. I was really looking forward to Spiderman 4 at the time, and when they decided to reboot the series, I was pretty ticked off. Don't get me wrong, if they had just made Spiderman 4 to give that series a conclusion, I would have been perfectly fine with a reboot. To me, a reboot just didn't seem necessary. In my opinion, the only purpose in rebooting a franchise is if the series had a strong ending, or if the latest entry was so terrible that it would be time to try something new. Looking back, Spiderman 3 did have a good ending to that trilogy overall, but this reboot still came out WAY to soon. 5 years, really? WAY to soon.
Once the first trailer and marketing began for The Amazing Spiderman, I decided to finally accept that the trilogy is done, and this reboot is really happening. Now, after seeing the film, it's very good, and does a great job at separating itself from Raimi's trilogy. However, there is ALOT of hit and miss with this film.
The plot is pretty simple. Peter Parker is a nerdy, geeky teen at high school. When he gets bitten by a radioactive spider however, he develops "amazing" spider-like powers. Laters, to avenge the death of a loved one, he becomes the superhero "Spiderman" with his new abilities. Along the way, he develops a romance with a crush, and later must come face to face with the villain "the Lizard" a powerful creature Spiderman is (ironically) responsible for.
-Most of the cast was great. I loved almost each portrayel as I did with the cast in the old trilogy. Andrew Garfield did just as good a job as Tobey Maguire, while giving a very different take on the character.
-The effects and action were very good. Not improved over the old trilogy by THAT much, but still very good.
-MOST of the writing was really good. They did a great job at establishing this new world for future movies.
-The dircting was great. The film was paced very well.
-If there is one thing that was "improved" comparing this to the old trilogy, it's Gwen Stacy. I actually thought Gwen Stacy was both written and acted very well in Spiderman 3, but, Emma Stone stole the show whenever she was on screen. Also, the love story was very good in the old trilogy, but, it's REALLY good in this movie. Garfield and Stone did a great job together.
-The biggest problem with this film is how it never feels that "necessary". Say what you will about Spiderman 3, but it certainly wasn't TERRIBLE. The trilogy just didn't feel "complete" at the time. A reboot to compare this to is Batman Begins. Why did Batman Begins work as a reboot? It was a reboot that NEEDED to happen (considering the last Batman film we had before this was the horrible Batman and Robin). Also, Batman Begins was a VERY different film in comparison to "Batman, 1989". The Amazing Spiderman, however, is another origin story. Although Amazing Spiderman is very different from "Spiderman, 2002" there is still writing that is almost identical (with it being another origin story). If this came out BEFORE "Spiderman, 2002" this movie would have seemed much better. But, watching this, there are differences for the sake of it, so you can't help but think "this scene is almost identical to the first film" or "that was changed ONLY to be different from the original", so that can be a problem while viewing this movie.
-In terms of casting, almost all the actors did a great job. However, the one character I thought was MUCH better in the old trilogy is Uncle Ben. The actor in this film is OK, but isn't nearly as good as the original actor.
-Another big problem with this movie is the Lizard. For one thing, the character design isn't BAD, but it reminds me WAY to much of Killer croc from Batman: The animated series (just with a tail)The CGI was great, but I didn't care for the design at all. Some people are trying to defend this design beacause it's based off of the "original" Lizard character (because of him not having a snout) BUT, when you compare the designs, they are still VERY different. Also, I personally thought the Lizard character was written the weakest out of all the characters, which is a shame considering he is the main villain. They had a great build up and origin for the character, but once he was established, it seemed like they ran out of ideas. As a villain, I thought his character was written REALLY badly in the climax.
-This film was promoted as "the untold story" but in reality, they don't give you much more information than what you got in the old trilogy. Specifically, they HEAVILY marketed a plot premise in this film, which is the fate of Peters parents. Unfortunately, everything you get in this movie about his parents is pretty much given to you in the trailers. There isn't any plot twist or "reveal" given at all, as the trailers promised.
-And another thing I hated? MORE false advertising! In the trailers,there are a few lines of dialogue that aren't heard (or even hinted at) in the film: "Did you actually think that what happend to you Peter, was an accident?" and "If you want the truth Peter, come and get it!" I swear, there is NO WAY these lines were cut from the film without there being changes in the writing first, NOTHING like these lines were even hinted at in the film.
-The 3D. I didn't HATE the 3D, but it is converted, which I was not aware of. There are 1 or 2 cool scenes in 3D, but that doesn't make up the ticket price. This movie just is NOT worth paying the 3D price, which is a shame considering Spiderman is a PERFECT concept for a 3D movie.
Overall, the biggest things that weigh this movie down is the poor writing of the Lizard, and that you can't help but think of the old Spiderman trilogy in some scenes, which takes the fun out of the experiance. But hey, Spiderman is one of my favorite super heros, and I thought they did an excellent job in this new direction. Like I said, there is no "true" take on the character. Tobey Maguire did a great job with his performance, and Andrew Garfield gives a great performance to. Overall, The Amazing Spiderman isn't quite "amazing" but it is just as good as Spiderman 1 and 3 (just not nearly as good as Spiderman 2) So, if you didn't care for the "classic 60s" take on Raimis' Spiderman movies, you should have a good time with this one. A solid 4 out of 5 star superhero flick. :)
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?