The Amazing Spider-Man Review and Discussion Thread (spoilers) - Page 6

DarthPipes · July 4 2012, 06:03 AM

I just got back from it. It took me awhile to get into it but I ended up enjoying it. The first half was pretty slow for me before he became Spider-Man. But the second half picked up nicely.

Thought the web-slinging effects were awesome and that fights between Spidey and Lizard were great. I was glad they kept the robber origin intact though I felt it was odd that he didn't end up finding him. As pointed out, there seemed to be a lot of plot threads that never got resolved.

Although too old for the role, I thought Andrew Garfield did a great job. I liked the fact that Spider-Man actually told jokes when he was in costume. I never understood why Sam Raimi never bothered to make Peter funny when he was in costume. Emma Stone was really good as Gwen, much better than Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane in the original trilogy. She has good chemistry with Garfield (considering they're dating in real life, that shouldn't come as a surprise) and it was refreshing that the entire final battle didn't consist of Peter having to rescue her.

The rest of the cast did a great job. Denis Leary is always entertaining and his dinner scene with Peter was fun. I had a feeling things were going to play out with him like they did, especially since it came from the comics. Martin Sheen manages to do likeable characters really, really well. Sally Field definitely looked like she had some scenes left on the cutting room floor but made the most out of all the scenes she was in. The actor who was really wasted was Irrfan Khan. I saw that guy on In Treatment and he's an amazing actor. He might as well have not been in the film. Although he really annoyed during an interview I read with him last year where he said he originally didn't want to be in a "violent American fantasy."

Ifans was very good as Conners and I liked the design of The Lizard. I take it there have been some storylines in the comics where the Lizard maintains Connors personality? His "make everyone a lizard" plan reminded me of Doc Ock's zero energy plan. That's the one thing with Spidey's rogues gallery. He has a lot of memorable villains to be sure but most of them are either in it for crime or to kill Spider-Man. He doesn't have many "rule/destroy the world" types to fight. So they give Spidey's villains in the movies scenarios where Peter has to save the city from destruction and so on.

Parts of this film definitely felt like a remake of the first film. Telling another origin story wasn't necessary and the film was better once Peter became Spider-Man. But I did end up enjoying it and I think the FX has gotten a lot better. I can't say I'm looking forward to the return of Norman Osborn though.

Emh · July 4 2012, 06:47 AM

DarKush wrote:

One of the biggest issues I had with the film was not including Curt Conners's family. I think the lack of a wife and son made him less of a tragic figure and also muddled his last second conversion back to the good side.

I agree with this completely. It's this aspect of The Lizard that makes really like the character and it's disappointing that it wasn't part of the film. What's really odd is that there were early reports that both characters had been cast (Law & Order alum Annie Parisse was reported to play the wife) but there hasn't been any mention of them since then.

RoJoHen · July 4 2012, 07:13 AM

No family, huh? I think that's one of the best things about the Lizard story -- his family also having to deal with it.

DigificWriter · July 4 2012, 07:18 AM

Cross-posted from another board:

DigificWriter wrote:

I just got back, but before I review the film, I want to say that it really isn't fair to judge this movie based on Sony's decision to hit the 'panic button' on the Raimi Spidey franchise and start from scratch regardless of how many years ago the first and last films in said franchise were released.

Now, my review:
The Amazing Spider-Man is about as near-perfect a Spider-Man movie as you can get. It definitely rivals Spider-Man 2 in terms of quality, to the point that I honestly can't decide which of the two is the better film.

There were a number of things that were present in the trailers but were not present in the final film, and, while their absence didn't really hurt things, it would've been nice to see them included... in particular Gwen telling Peter that he's a wanted man and Connors asking Peter if he thought what happened to him was an accident.

People have been doing a lot of talking about the film retelling Spider-Man's by-now-familiar origin story, but the way things are handled is completely different from the Raimi trilogy, drawing a lot more on the Ultimate Comics' version of Spidey's origins than on the mainstream Marvel origin story while also injecting a few changes of their own in as well.

The cast was phenomenal from top to bottom, and the chemistry between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone was palpable (you can definitely see why they fell for each other IRL).

I think someone said above that it was pretty obvious who came to talk to Connors in the mid-credits scene, but I have to disagree; yes, we get a couple of name-drops for Norman Osborne in the film, but the way the mid-credits scene plays itself out doesn't automatically scream 'the supposedly ill and dying Norman shows up to talk to Connors', so there's a degree of ambiguity in terms of using the mid-credits scene to telegrpah/foreshadow the sequel.

I'm giving the film a solid 'A+'; I can't decide if it's better than Spider-Man 2 (as noted above), but it is definitely one of the best comic book movies I've ever seen, and completely sets itself apart from the Raimi trilogy.

It is also most definitely better than its current 71% critic score on Rotten Tomatoes would indicate.

AvBaur · July 4 2012, 08:10 AM

DarthPipes wrote:

I was glad they kept the robber origin intact though I felt it was odd that he didn't end up finding him.

Maybe they want him to become Sandman in part 3.

davejames · July 4 2012, 08:18 AM

Thought it was pretty good... but unfortunately I have to agree it's got some issues and doesn't work nearly as well as I was hoping it would.

Despite the gritty look and more naturalistic pacing, the story was still just as simplistic and one-dimensional as in the previous Spidey movies. And the big "untold story" surrounding his parents didn't really amount to a whole lot.

And yes, the Lizard did make for a very boring villain. Much like with the Goblin in the first movie, I couldn't help but wish the director had just focused on Spidey alone and ditched the cheesy supervillain stuff. Peter learning how to use his powers while dating a cute girl, catching dangerous criminals, and evading the police is all you really NEED for an origin movie.

As for Spidey himself, I'm a bit conflicted. Garfield gave a great performance and was easily the most compelling part of the movie... but in the end I'm not sure his dark and moody Peter Parker is the way I really WANT the character to be. It just felt a bit off somehow, and really made me miss the light-hearted and geeky Peter Parker of the previous movies.

I will say the new costume looked absolutely fantastic in action though. And the scenes between Peter and Gwen were just as sweet and charming as everyone said.

But ultimately... I have to admit Raimi did it better.

Mutenroshi · July 4 2012, 08:50 AM

It made me forget the sour taste that SM3 left.

Trekker4747 · July 4 2012, 11:30 AM

Captain Craig wrote:

Trekker4747 wrote:

Peter Parker is an above average high-school student (apparently) going to an Advanced Placement high-school for the science curriculum. (Maybe, it was hard to tell as it was called a "science school" but also had your usual high school shenanigans going on it) and the twitchy, nerdy, outcast.

Really?
So he's what then the King Nerd of all NERDS?
Essentially even the "dumb" jocks at Nerd high are AP student caliber material then?

Until I see it tomorrow I'll reserve full judgement but just this type description piles onto the reasons why you don't tinker with an already perfect origin OR retell it again so soon when it was done so recently and that one adhered so closely to the perfect original origin.

I dunno. It was hard to tell, it seemed like a regular high school most of the time but then the name of the school had "Science" in it and Gwen Stacy had a job at Oscorp -something pretty meaningful for a high-school student to have.

clint g · July 4 2012, 11:41 AM

Trekker4747 wrote:

Captain Craig wrote:

Trekker4747 wrote:

Peter Parker is an above average high-school student (apparently) going to an Advanced Placement high-school for the science curriculum. (Maybe, it was hard to tell as it was called a "science school" but also had your usual high school shenanigans going on it) and the twitchy, nerdy, outcast.

Really?
So he's what then the King Nerd of all NERDS?
Essentially even the "dumb" jocks at Nerd high are AP student caliber material then?

Until I see it tomorrow I'll reserve full judgement but just this type description piles onto the reasons why you don't tinker with an already perfect origin OR retell it again so soon when it was done so recently and that one adhered so closely to the perfect original origin.

I dunno. It was hard to tell, it seemed like a regular high school most of the time but then the name of the school had "Science" in it and Gwen Stacy had a job at Oscorp -something pretty meaningful for a high-school student to have.

For what its worth, it seemed like it was based on one of the specialized science high schools in new York city. I went to one of them growing up and even in a school like that you had your "nerdy" people and your jocks, its just that the jocks were pretty smart.

Captaindemotion · July 4 2012, 02:45 PM

This poll arguably needs a halfway point between 'Good' and 'Excellent'. because it didn't, I voted 'Good' as I don't think that this movie reached the excellence of The Avengers, the last movie I saw. However, there was still much about it that was very good.

While I liked Toby Maguire as Spider-man, I much preferred Andrew Garfield's performance, from his look, to his voice, to his ability with a wisecrack. Altogether more like the Spider-man in my head. I liked Martin Sheen as Uncle Ben, though I think Rosemary Harris was a better Aunt May than Sally Field (who, to be fair, I think was sidelined in order to make this movie less like the Raimi ones).

There was good chemistry between Garfield and Emma Stone, though I'm in the minority who liked Kirsten Dunst. Dennis Leary made for a more vital Chief Stacy than James Cromwell. The SFX were, inevitably, an improvement on the Raimi era and I liked how Webb used the 3-D. Also, being kind of an old-school Spidey fan, I was happy to see a larger role for Flash Thompson and the return of mechanical webslingers.

The big thing going against this movie was the familiarity. While they did all they could to make it different from 2002's Spider-man, there's only so much you can vary Spidey's origin story. And we again got a good-intentioned scientist, who becomes a father figure to Peter, transformed by his own creation. Admittedly, the emphasis on Peter's parents and the mystery which looks to span the next movie (or two) did give it some distinction and the now-compulsory post-credits scene was intriguing.

I'd say it's much better than 3, at least as good as Spider-man but not as good as 2. Worth seeing anyway.

DarthPipes · July 4 2012, 04:55 PM

I liked the Flash Thompson stuff too. The return to high school was good for the Peter character and the brawl with the Lizard there was pretty wicked.

It's inevitable that this new series leads up to a confrontation with the Goblin but if Sony thinks people are going to be looking forward to the return of Norman Osborn, I think they are sadly mistaking. The Green Goblin isn't the Joker, as much as Sony would like to make him.

Amasov · July 4 2012, 05:15 PM

ManOnTheWave wrote:

Professor Zoom wrote:

Emh wrote:

Where to start? First and foremost, I allow me to start with the praises. James Garfield was everything I always wanted for Peter Parker and Spider-Man,

Not THE James Garfield? Woah. I didn't expect that. Didn't think he had it in him.

Holy shit, that is impressive. I may have to see this now.

But seriously, I'm finding it difficult to get excited about a reboot. But it is Spider-Man, so I'm sure I'll see it sooner or later.

Listen, if Abraham Lincoln can hunt down vampires, then Jimmy can most certainly play Spider-Man.

AvBaur · July 4 2012, 06:49 PM

Looks like the movie's a huge success at the box office: http://www.hitfix.com/news/box-offic...illion-tuesday

I'd say a sequel is all but certain.

trekkiebaggio · July 4 2012, 06:59 PM

I haven't read through the thread yet so I'm just going to offer my opinions on the film. I'll save commenting on the direction of sequels and other stuff later. I'm not going to compare them with Raimi's Spider-Man films because this is a whole new adaptation and it doesn't really matter if one is better than the other. They both have good points and bad points, and they could make 10 new Spider-Man films every year and I'd probably go see them all.

Now Spider-Man is my all-time favourite and I was super excited, it was the most excited I've been since Star Trek. It didn't disappoint. It wasn't a perfect film by any means but I really enjoyed it.

Firstly Andrew Garfield was amazing as Peter Parker, he portrayed each facet of the character perfectly. I'm a huge fan of Emma Stone as well and I thought she made a really good Gwen.

The only cast member that disappointed me somewhat was Martin Sheen as Uncle Ben.

I loved the action, it was intense and I loved the emphasis of the impact of the webbing.

I liked The Lizard, thought he was pretty menacing and Rhys Ifans conveyed the tragic nature of the character.

I REALLY liked how they incorporated wrestling.

I liked how they included the stuff about his parents, it seems a part of the characters history which kinda gets glossed over.

I also loved that he had an Elvis poster on his bedroom wall.

For stuff I didn't like...it felt a bit rushed to me, like almost like they had to reach certain story points and they were going to reach them no matter what.

I also thought some of the stuff which happened at school may have raised some suspicion.

Overall though I thoroughly enjoyed it, and I'm looking forward to where they go with it in the sequels.

captcalhoun · July 4 2012, 07:25 PM

i loved it. it was better than the 3rd Raimi flick by a country mile, i'd even say it was better than the 2nd.

it's definitely better than Raimi's first because that rushed Parker out of high school WAY too fast.

plus it also gets points for a. having civvies help Spidey in a better way that bunging rocks and shit at Gobby for no reason than 'hey, New Yorkers are awesome' and b. quips from Spidey.

it's clearly setting things up for more installments, but that's not a bad thing. i also smirked at the vaguely silghouetted Norman Osborne figure in the OsCorp tower.

View Poll Results: How do you rate The Amazing Spider-Man?
Excellent	23	34.33%
Good	29	43.28%
Fair	9	13.43%
Poor	4	5.97%
Terrible	2	2.99%
Voters: 67. You may not vote on this poll

July 4 2012, 06:03 AM	#76
DarthPipes Rear Admiral	Re: The Amazing Spider-Man Review and Discussion Thread (spoilers) I just got back from it. It took me awhile to get into it but I ended up enjoying it. The first half was pretty slow for me before he became Spider-Man. But the second half picked up nicely. Thought the web-slinging effects were awesome and that fights between Spidey and Lizard were great. I was glad they kept the robber origin intact though I felt it was odd that he didn't end up finding him. As pointed out, there seemed to be a lot of plot threads that never got resolved. Although too old for the role, I thought Andrew Garfield did a great job. I liked the fact that Spider-Man actually told jokes when he was in costume. I never understood why Sam Raimi never bothered to make Peter funny when he was in costume. Emma Stone was really good as Gwen, much better than Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane in the original trilogy. She has good chemistry with Garfield (considering they're dating in real life, that shouldn't come as a surprise) and it was refreshing that the entire final battle didn't consist of Peter having to rescue her. The rest of the cast did a great job. Denis Leary is always entertaining and his dinner scene with Peter was fun. I had a feeling things were going to play out with him like they did, especially since it came from the comics. Martin Sheen manages to do likeable characters really, really well. Sally Field definitely looked like she had some scenes left on the cutting room floor but made the most out of all the scenes she was in. The actor who was really wasted was Irrfan Khan. I saw that guy on In Treatment and he's an amazing actor. He might as well have not been in the film. Although he really annoyed during an interview I read with him last year where he said he originally didn't want to be in a "violent American fantasy." Ifans was very good as Conners and I liked the design of The Lizard. I take it there have been some storylines in the comics where the Lizard maintains Connors personality? His "make everyone a lizard" plan reminded me of Doc Ock's zero energy plan. That's the one thing with Spidey's rogues gallery. He has a lot of memorable villains to be sure but most of them are either in it for crime or to kill Spider-Man. He doesn't have many "rule/destroy the world" types to fight. So they give Spidey's villains in the movies scenarios where Peter has to save the city from destruction and so on. Parts of this film definitely felt like a remake of the first film. Telling another origin story wasn't necessary and the film was better once Peter became Spider-Man. But I did end up enjoying it and I think the FX has gotten a lot better. I can't say I'm looking forward to the return of Norman Osborn though. Last edited by DarthPipes; July 4 2012 at 06:37 AM.

July 4 2012, 07:13 AM	#78
RoJoHen Awesome Location: Wherever life takes me	Re: The Amazing Spider-Man Review and Discussion Thread (spoilers) No family, huh? I think that's one of the best things about the Lizard story -- his family also having to deal with it. __________________ I am the Quintessential Admiral. Get ready to grow your EQUINOX BEARD!

July 4 2012, 08:18 AM	#81
davejames Vice Admiral Location: Sac, Ca	Re: The Amazing Spider-Man Review and Discussion Thread (spoilers) Thought it was pretty good... but unfortunately I have to agree it's got some issues and doesn't work nearly as well as I was hoping it would. Despite the gritty look and more naturalistic pacing, the story was still just as simplistic and one-dimensional as in the previous Spidey movies. And the big "untold story" surrounding his parents didn't really amount to a whole lot. And yes, the Lizard did make for a very boring villain. Much like with the Goblin in the first movie, I couldn't help but wish the director had just focused on Spidey alone and ditched the cheesy supervillain stuff. Peter learning how to use his powers while dating a cute girl, catching dangerous criminals, and evading the police is all you really NEED for an origin movie. As for Spidey himself, I'm a bit conflicted. Garfield gave a great performance and was easily the most compelling part of the movie... but in the end I'm not sure his dark and moody Peter Parker is the way I really WANT the character to be. It just felt a bit off somehow, and really made me miss the light-hearted and geeky Peter Parker of the previous movies. I will say the new costume looked absolutely fantastic in action though. And the scenes between Peter and Gwen were just as sweet and charming as everyone said. But ultimately... I have to admit Raimi did it better.

July 4 2012, 08:50 AM	#82
Mutenroshi 亀仙人 - 武天老師 Location: Mutenroshi	Re: The Amazing Spider-Man Review and Discussion Thread (spoilers) It made me forget the sour taste that SM3 left. __________________ Let There Be Rock! Jack Beauregard: "You shine like the door of a whorehouse!" *Nobody:* "I like folks to see me."

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US

July 4 2012, 02:45 PM	#85
Captaindemotion Vice Admiral Location: Ireland	Re: The Amazing Spider-Man Review and Discussion Thread (spoilers) This poll arguably needs a halfway point between 'Good' and 'Excellent'. because it didn't, I voted 'Good' as I don't think that this movie reached the excellence of The Avengers, the last movie I saw. However, there was still much about it that was very good. While I liked Toby Maguire as Spider-man, I much preferred Andrew Garfield's performance, from his look, to his voice, to his ability with a wisecrack. Altogether more like the Spider-man in my head. I liked Martin Sheen as Uncle Ben, though I think Rosemary Harris was a better Aunt May than Sally Field (who, to be fair, I think was sidelined in order to make this movie less like the Raimi ones). There was good chemistry between Garfield and Emma Stone, though I'm in the minority who liked Kirsten Dunst. Dennis Leary made for a more vital Chief Stacy than James Cromwell. The SFX were, inevitably, an improvement on the Raimi era and I liked how Webb used the 3-D. Also, being kind of an old-school Spidey fan, I was happy to see a larger role for Flash Thompson and the return of mechanical webslingers. The big thing going against this movie was the familiarity. While they did all they could to make it different from 2002's Spider-man, there's only so much you can vary Spidey's origin story. And we again got a good-intentioned scientist, who becomes a father figure to Peter, transformed by his own creation. Admittedly, the emphasis on Peter's parents and the mystery which looks to span the next movie (or two) did give it some distinction and the now-compulsory post-credits scene was intriguing. I'd say it's much better than 3, at least as good as Spider-man but not as good as 2. Worth seeing anyway. __________________ Hodor!!!!!!!

July 4 2012, 04:55 PM	#86
DarthPipes Rear Admiral	Re: The Amazing Spider-Man Review and Discussion Thread (spoilers) I liked the Flash Thompson stuff too. The return to high school was good for the Peter character and the brawl with the Lizard there was pretty wicked. It's inevitable that this new series leads up to a confrontation with the Goblin but if Sony thinks people are going to be looking forward to the return of Norman Osborn, I think they are sadly mistaking. The Green Goblin isn't the Joker, as much as Sony would like to make him.

July 4 2012, 06:49 PM	#88
AvBaur Commander Location: Munich, Germany	Re: The Amazing Spider-Man Review and Discussion Thread (spoilers) Looks like the movie's a huge success at the box office: http://www.hitfix.com/news/box-offic...illion-tuesday I'd say a sequel is all but certain. __________________ HIPSTERS VS. ROBOTS - my webcomic: http://www.hipsters-comic.com

July 4 2012, 06:59 PM	#89
trekkiebaggio Vice Admiral Location: Dancing to the Jailhouse Rock	Re: The Amazing Spider-Man Review and Discussion Thread (spoilers) I haven't read through the thread yet so I'm just going to offer my opinions on the film. I'll save commenting on the direction of sequels and other stuff later. I'm not going to compare them with Raimi's Spider-Man films because this is a whole new adaptation and it doesn't really matter if one is better than the other. They both have good points and bad points, and they could make 10 new Spider-Man films every year and I'd probably go see them all. Now Spider-Man is my all-time favourite and I was super excited, it was the most excited I've been since Star Trek. It didn't disappoint. It wasn't a perfect film by any means but I really enjoyed it. Firstly Andrew Garfield was amazing as Peter Parker, he portrayed each facet of the character perfectly. I'm a huge fan of Emma Stone as well and I thought she made a really good Gwen. The only cast member that disappointed me somewhat was Martin Sheen as Uncle Ben. I loved the action, it was intense and I loved the emphasis of the impact of the webbing. I liked The Lizard, thought he was pretty menacing and Rhys Ifans conveyed the tragic nature of the character. I REALLY liked how they incorporated wrestling. I liked how they included the stuff about his parents, it seems a part of the characters history which kinda gets glossed over. I also loved that he had an Elvis poster on his bedroom wall. For stuff I didn't like...it felt a bit rushed to me, like almost like they had to reach certain story points and they were going to reach them no matter what. I also thought some of the stuff which happened at school may have raised some suspicion. Overall though I thoroughly enjoyed it, and I'm looking forward to where they go with it in the sequels. __________________ Angelic Hellfire - My novel. Man of Yesterday - My blog, in which I'm writing a superhero story.

July 4 2012, 07:25 PM	#90
captcalhoun Admiral Location: gone	Re: The Amazing Spider-Man Review and Discussion Thread (spoilers) i loved it. it was better than the 3rd Raimi flick by a country mile, i'd even say it was better than the 2nd. it's definitely better than Raimi's first because that rushed Parker out of high school WAY too fast. plus it also gets points for a. having civvies help Spidey in a better way that bunging rocks and shit at Gobby for no reason than 'hey, New Yorkers are awesome' and b. quips from Spidey. it's clearly setting things up for more installments, but that's not a bad thing. i also smirked at the vaguely silghouetted Norman Osborne figure in the OsCorp tower.