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

[Eduardo]

Trekker4747 wrote:

---

The movie certainly could have used some tighter editing and maybe even a couple watch-through to ensure all of the details are closed up. What DID happen to Dr. Connor's boss? We never see him again after the bridge scene!

There seems to have been quite a few cuts in the movie, and that's the most notorious one. There are stills showing that character finding the Lizard's Lair, and Peter fighting Connors there, with the other guy restrained. This is the scene supposedly where all the dialogue about "the truth about your parents", "do you think what happened to you was an accident" etc. from trailers would have gone.

[Warped9]

Eduardo wrote:

---

This is the scene supposedly where all the dialogue about "the truth about your parents", "do you think what happened to you was an accident" etc. from trailers would have gone.

And THIS bugs me to no end. The whole contrived notion that everything has to be tied together cute-and-tidy. It takes away part of Peter Parker's appeal: that it could have been any of us bitten by that spider.

[Captain Craig]

The film as a piece of work, forget adaptation, is just that flawed.

I don't read questions about plot holes that bad in MIB3, Avengers or even Snow White for crying out loud. Prometheus comes close but TASM has editing issues that from what we know of footage heard in trailers and other places might have tightened this up.

The Connors family was cast, is that correct? Did they ever shoot any footage? I imagine the time to see them might have been when Peter stops by the house. They make a point to show Curt wearing a wedding ring after all.

[Admiral James Kirk]

I haven't seen ASM yet but it sounds like another Daredevil, where they cut out all the scenes that would have made the movie make sense as a whole.

Hopefully, like Daredevil, ASM will get a directors cut.

[Praetor_Shinzon]

i thought the movie was fine as is. none of the 'missing' bits from the trailer bothered me. i had no problem with Conners portrayal or motivations at all.

[Gryffindorian]

I saw the movie today and thought it was excellent. If I could sum it up in four words, my review would be "Best Spiderman film yet."

When I first heard that Andrew Garfield was tapped to play Peter Parker/Spidey, I thought, "Interesting choice. Eduardo Saverin from The Social Network?" It's not that I didn't think he was right for the role; it's just that he was a fairly new actor, but sometimes it's the newcomers they choose to play superheroes. For instance, Brandon Routh's portrayal of Superman wasn't bad; in fact, I thought he made a pretty good Clark Kent. Garfield definitely has the nerdish, youthful looks to play an adolescent Peter Parker.

The story was much better than Sam Raimi's Spider-man 3. (If I could choose one of his previous films I liked, however, it would be the second one featuring Doctor Octopus as the villain.) Although I haven't read any Spider-man comic books, I hear that this new film--at least the origin plot--is more faithful to the source material compared to the first film done by Raimi; e.g., the web shooters that Peter created himself, Spidey cracking jokes, Gwen Stacy being the first girlfriend.

I really felt that this movie focused on Peter Parker's character--who he was and how he came to be the crime-fighting vigilante/hero. He apparently had a difficult childhood when his parents left him at a very young age to the care of Peter's Uncle Ben and Aunt May. I came from a big family, and I thought, while his legal guardians were very loving and supportive people, it must've been sad, to say the least, for him to grow up not having his real parents around. That sort of upbringing helped shape Peter into the anguished, yet good-hearted teen he was. And Andrew's performance as an angsty teen and sudden superhero was top-notch.

I'm not really fussy about his costume; for an actor of his stature and build, he did wear it well. In an appearance on Ellen DeGeneres' show, Andrew revealed that he had nothing underneath the skin-tight outfit. During the filming, the papparazzi were busy taking pics of him at the studio lot. In fact, if you Google some of his images, you'll know what he was talking about.

Speaking of performances, I have to say that Martin Sheen and Sally Field played a much better Uncle Ben and Aunt May, respectively, than their predecessors. Overall, their characters and lines were well written, witty, and humorous, and I found myself and the audience laughing at the dialogues. Sometimes I thought, "What did [the characters] say? I missed that!" because I was too busy laughing or the audience was. I guess I should watch the movie again. The only thing I didn't like was

that Uncle Ben's death was anticlimactic. He was shot by the thug whom he fought with and was killed instantly without talking to Peter or saying anything before he died.

Emma Stone was good as Gwen Stacy; she and Andrew Garfield had a nice onscreen chemistry together. I noticed that some of their lines/scenes originally shown in the trailers were omitted, like "My father has XX officers looking for you." To which Peter replied, "That does sound a bit excessive." I don't remember the exact words. Another one was at the high school football field where Peter and Gwen sat on the benches. One guy yelled, "Hey, Parker. Want to play ball?" "No, thanks ..."

As for Dr. Connors/The Lizard, he was a good choice for a villain. Rhys Ifans' performance as a brilliant and ambitious scientist whose mind was corrupted by his latest scientific breakthrough was almost parallel to Alfred Molina's Otto Octavius/Doc Ock persona in Spider-man 2.

The CGI animation was also better than the previous films. Nowadays, when I see CGI-rendered characters like the Hulk or Lizard, I can't helping thinking they're CGI, no matter how good they are. Andy Serkis' motion-capture portrayal of Gollum in LotR is still unmatched.

Overall Rating: A+

[captcalhoun]

the red light flashing when he shoots webs is from his webslingers on his wrists.

[DarKush]

To Gryffindorian,

About your belief that Amazing Spider-Man is more faithful to the source material than the Raimi films, I think you are partly right. I'm not a Spider-Man expert, though I have read his comics off and on over the years, and I think that both the Raimi films and Amazing Spider-Man both lifted aspects of his Spidey's origin and story from the comics and also changed some things up. For me, I felt the first Raimi film actually felt more authentic to Spider-Man's comic origin, despite the organic web shooter change.

[Warped9]

DarKush wrote:

---

To Gryffindorian,

About your belief that Amazing Spider-Man is more faithful to the source material than the Raimi films, I think you are partly right. I'm not a Spider-Man expert, though I have read his comics off and on over the years, and I think that both the Raimi films and Amazing Spider-Man both lifted aspects of his Spidey's origin and story from the comics and also changed some things up. For me, I felt the first Raimi film actually felt more authentic to Spider-Man's comic origin, despite the organic web shooter change.

Yep.

[DarthPipes]

Admiral James Kirk wrote:

---

I haven't seen ASM yet but it sounds like another Daredevil, where they cut out all the scenes that would have made the movie make sense as a whole.

Hopefully, like Daredevil, ASM will get a directors cut.

The thing is, I thought ASM was too long already. It could have benefitted from some editing.

[TremblingBluStar]

DarthPipes wrote:

---

The thing is, I thought ASM was too long already. It could have benefitted from some editing.

I agree it was for a theatrical experience, but I wouldn't be opposed to a longer version on DVD.

One thing I enjoyed more about this film than the Raimi versions was the humor. Spider-Man was always a smart ass who would make wise cracks to throw off his enemies, and that was missing from the previous films.

[Donald Draper]

I thought this was superior to the others ones by a huge margin. I actually liked Peter Parker/Spider-man in this one. Toby was always very bland to me.

[sonak]

Well, my $0.02.


Initially, I was skeptical, thinking that a "reboot" this soon after the previous trilogy was pushing it. To my surprise, I liked it. A lot. More than any of the previous three, except for Spider-Man 2, which I think is in the top 5 of comic book movies anyway.

Garfield makes a good Peter Parker. Martin Sheen makes a terrific Uncle Ben. I liked that they changed up the origin story to make it seem fresh. The battle scenes with the Lizard and Spider-Man were much less cartoony than the effects of the original movies. Pretty neat to see what almost a decade of CGI improvements will get you.


Isn't Spidey a little too casual with his identity, though? He reveals his face to a kid who's DEFINITELY old enough to remember and describe it. He lets Gwen know. He LEAVES A CAMERA WITH HIS NAME ON IT when he's fighting as Spider-Man. Then he gets captured and discovered by Stacy's dad.

Over half the main characters in this movie knew his identity by the end it seemed like. I'm surprised Flash Thompson wasn't told.

[stj]

Captain Craig wrote:

---

...this film has structural and pacing issues that make it less than desirable. Things happen in the film just to move the story along. It does not feel like sequences move in a fluid manner from one to the other...

Some of it's due to starting the sequels now, some due to repeating itself rather than moving on and some is due to arbitrary motivations. But, agree.

...The lack of Curt Connors family in the movie is a sad omission. Connors having the family is what largely separates him from being just another scientist gone gonzo. ...

He was always evil, having assisted in murdering the Parkers, for, apparently, no reason at all. Pretending to be outraged at the prospect of secretly testing unsuspecting patients makes no sense. And for my part, Rhys Ifans failed completely at coping with a poorly written character.

...Keeping in mind when you watch a film of certain types you have to suspend some logic. However, certain things still have to make sense. Like I get peoples issue with Black Widow and her 9mm as a point. Likewise, in this film there is no way, none at all, that a high school intern(police chiefs daughter or not) has access to lab equipment not only after hours BUT has codes to various equipment. If she did they would be tied to time access....

The film's inane insistence on doubling everything meant that Gwen couldn't just be a girl at school but had to be part of the action plot, no matter how much it stresses willing suspension of disbelief.

Peter's webbing. So is it Oscorp micro filament or did you make it? We see him opening and experimenting with cases he ordered AND he tells the car thief "it's something I created", so which is it? If a bunch of Oscorp, commercially available micro filament is out there it doesn't take the dark knight to figure out where large quantities are going that don't match a user profile for the stuff. Also, why aren't the cops using this as well? Screw tasers....

That one I can help with. Peter lied to May about the fight, Peter lied to Connors about creating the equation, Peter lied to the clerk about the internship, Peter just lies.

The all to convenient "NY loves you Spider-man" moment....

I still like the sequence but it was remarkably clumsy how they set it up. C. Thomas Howell talked about one crane operator, but there were what, four? It's like Marc Webb didn't understand any of the dialogue.

...The fight at the high school served what end? At one point did Connors go vendetta crazy?...

A snatch of dialogue stated he was going to stop Peter. Cornering him at home would have been a lot smarter than going after him in a high school. What really needs explaining is how the hell the Lizard managed to walk in and find Peter so quickly.

Hell, as the Lizard he was trying to stop Osborne's stooge from doing random tests at the VA for crying out loud. Then 45 minutes later he suddenly wants to turn NYC into one big Lizard Lounge? WTF??

I think they meant for Connors to break down and pre-empt the stooge from random secret testing by taking it himself. Then after his instant psychosis he went after the stooge to keep the stooge from locking him out of his lab. Except the stooge survives, but, in contradiction to the dialogue earlier, does nothing, not random testing, not taking Connors' "toys" away from him. Again, it's like the director doesn't understand the dialogue.

...Dennis Leary stole every scene he was in during the film. Him dying is a true comic element and I hated seeing him go so soon.

Most of what you said is quite true, but I have to admit I don't agree about Leary stealing scenes: They were given to him by the script, they were about him doing a slow burn prick for the teenies to hate on. But if his dying was intentionally comic, it's news to me. It's true that he was pretty painfree (where did they hide the morphine drip?) And it's true that the old I'll die when I give up and close my eyes visual trope is so old that it's been neglected for years and years. But they didn't intend for the scene to have any humor in it. Giving up Emma Stone was supposed to be tragic, even if Stacy dying wasn't. Old farts should die, especially when they get in the way of hooking up.

About Emma, yes, she's pretty (though we still didn't need it announced, much less announced twice.) But the line "I'm 17" took me straight out of the movie for a moment. She was overdressed for a high school student and overdressed for an intern in a working lab, which is not the same as an office.

[OdoWanKenobi]

^I'm pretty sure he meant that Captain Stacy's death was an element that was true to the comics, not that it was humorous.