The Amazing Spider-Man Review and Discussion Thread (spoilers)

[davejames]

Yeah I saw that, but I don't know if I would call 80% "divided down the middle."

[Relayer1]

the G-man wrote:

---

From what I've read, the consensus appears to indicate that they should have just done Spidey 4, with the new cast.

I could have lived with that, even though I wasn't very impressed with the first three (although the second one had its moments).

I'm not big on reboots but this at least looks better than its predecessors. Fingers crossed...

PS - there's talk of cross licensing Spidey into Avengers universe !

[PKerr]

Count me as another that will eventually see the film but not overly excited.

For me one the first things I noticed was the gawd awful ugly suit and that kind of just stuck in my craw.
The second was another re-boot, why? just call it Spidey 4 and be done with it.

[Captain Craig]

the G-man wrote:

---

Spidey Peters out: hardly awful but not coming close to living up to that adjective in the title either. Sometimes dull and mostly uninspired, it’s much less a satisfying reboot like “Batman Begins’’ than a pointless rehash in the mode of “Superman Returns.’’

This.
As noted they should've called this Spider-man 4 and kept the Raimi continuity in check. Enough of the main players are already in place for "Pete's sake"!!

The Deadline article praises the overseas $50m opening but states that tracking in the States is flat.

[Warped9]

This evening I popped in Spider-Man (2002) DVD and watched this after not seeing it for some years.

I loved it all over again. I even found Kirsten Dunst acceptable whereas before not so much. If I look at her portrayal of MJ in terms of how Peter sees her as opposed to how I see her then it works.

My only quibbles production wise were the same ones I had when the film was released, and they're minor. The scenes where Peter makes his first leaps across rooftops just doesn't look right. After that I don't have any problems with it. Certainly some of the acrobatic scenes still gave me a touch of vertigo. Also the Goblins suit didn't really work for me. I understand not going with the original comics' design, but I sill think something better could have been done.

[Admiral_Young]

Sony wanted a clean break from Rami and his continuity, which is why they came up with the reboot and decided not to hire another director to carry on the Rami'Verse. The alleged leaked treatment for "Spider-Man 4" was horrid. Essentially it would have turned out to be basically "Spider-Man 3.5" which was what a lot of fans were calling it anyways at the time. It would have potentially turned out to be the Spider-Man equivalent of "Batman and Robin" which was something Sony wanted to avoid big time.

Marc Webb interview. He's joking about Mime

http://collider.com/amazing-spider-man-sequel/177106/

[Warped9]

Hmm, this is rather cutting.

[JacksonArcher]

I'm seeing it tonight. It better be amazing.

Or else.

[Skywalker]

JacksonArcher wrote:

---

I'm seeing it tonight. It better be amazing.

Or else.

What if it's spectacular? Or sensational?

[Admiral_Young]

Or Ultimate!

[Professor Zoom]

Or FRIENDLY?

[Admiral James Kirk]

Or Web Of... ish? Damn you guys! You got all the good titles!

[Kestra]

JacksonArcher wrote:

---

I'm seeing it tonight. It better be amazing.

Or else.

I saw it tonight but only because we had free tickets and got to laugh at the people sitting in line for hours for a midnight showing. Seriously, was it that anticipated of a film? These people were camped out for a long time.

It was okay. It made me feel old. I didn't like the Peter Parker character and I didn't like his girlfriend. She was completely ridiculous, as a person like that would clearly never exist. There was also way too much cheese for me in the movie. Is Spiderman just a really cheesy franchise though? Feels like it.

I love how they glossed over the suit making. Nice sewing and crafting skills Peter! Do you secretly lurk on the Etsy forums?

The fact that it was a reboot so close to the previous films also made for an awkward viewing experience. There were a ton of points that jogged up images and lines from the previous incarnation.

I'll end on a good note (because it really wasn't a bad movie). Normally I hate 3D and the glasses but these were comfortable and I enjoyed some of the scenes of him zipping around the city quite a bit. Especially the nighttime scenes.

[clint g]

Well, just got finished seeing it and I loved it. Consider me pleasantly surprised, I would have bet money that it would suck. The audience seemed to have been pleased as well

[Aragorn]

Roger Ebert gives it *** 1/2 out of **** stars. This is from his opening paragraph:

In its broad strokes, "The Amazing Spider-Man" is a remake of Sam Raimi's "Spider-Man" (2002), but it's not the broad strokes we care about. This is a more thoughtful film, and its action scenes are easier to follow in space and time. If we didn't really need to be told Spidey's origin story again, at least it's done with more detail and provides better reasons for why Peter Parker throws himself into his superhero role.