# The Amazing Spider-Man (SPOILERS BEWARE!)



## horacethegrey (Jul 1, 2012)

Thought I'd do a thread for the film, which I just watched today. All in all, it's a great film and a much better origin for everyone's favorite wall crawler than Sam Raimi's _Spider-Man_ film from 2002. So... on to the review:






SPOILERS AHEAD!!! SKIP THE POST IF YOU DON'T WANT TO READ!







LIKES

*Andrew Garfield *- First things first, I liked Tobey Maguire in the role of Peter Parker. But good as his performance was in the Raimi films, Garfield's already got him beat just with this film alone. Where Tobey portrayed Peter as a shy and sweet natured geek, Garfield plays him as a skateboarding social misfit with abandonment issues. Peter may be a good hearted geek, but he's also got a temper to match if push comes to shove. The film is not afraid to show him acting like an arrogant jerk in moments like when he shows up Flash Thompson on the basketball court, or humiliating a car thief in his first time in full costume as Spider-Man. It's a multi faceted performance that for me is much closer to Stan Lee's and Steve Ditko's characterization of Spidey in the early issues of Amazing, that of an immature teenager trying to make his mark as a superhero, only to find himself way in over his head. Hell, Garfield is pratically a splitting image of how Ditko drew Peter Parker (Tobey on the other hand looked more like John Romita's Peter).

*Emma Stone* - Have I mentioned how much I love Emma Stone?  Not only is she cute but she can act circles around Kirsten Dunst any day of the week. Emma's Gwen is the girlfriend any nerd would love to have. Smart, capable, and more than willing to put up with a superhero in training. The romantic scenes she shares with Garfield have a palpable chemistry (which isn't surprising, since they are a couple in real life now).

*The Lizard* - I've nothing against Rhys Ifans, but count me as one of those unconvinced that he could play Curt Connors. To my surprise though, he does a very good job at it. Ifans convinces us that Connors really isn't a bad guy, just a misguided scientist whose experiments get the better of him. And while his Lizard form isn't the best CGI in the world, damn if it isn't scary. He's a much better antagonist for Spidey  than Williem Dafoe's Green Goblin.

*Supporting Cast* - When you've got the Illusive M- er... I mean Martin Sheen and Sally Field playing Uncle Ben and Aunt May, plus Denis f***ing Leary playing Captain George Stacy, how can you go wrong?

*Grounded feel* - While the film isn't neccesarily as dark as any of the Nolan Batman films, it does have a gritty atmosphere and looks convincingly set in New York as opposed to the Raimi films. Raimi's NYC looked like a fantasy, the Manhattan in this film looks like the genuine article. So director Marc Webb should get kudos for that.

*Action *- Another thing Webb should get kudos for is the action. The scenes with Spidey fighting the Lizard are a joy to watch, and a better showcase of what Spider-Man is capable of.


DISLIKES

*Musical Score* - The score wasn't bad, just not memorable. In comparison to Danny Elfman's score for the Raimi films, it kind of falls flat. I really wished they could have again used Elfman's score for this film.

All in all, a great movie. And count it as a reboot that works like Nolan's _Batman Begins_. I eagerly await the sequels that Marc Webb has planned for this flick.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Jul 1, 2012)

Interesting - I'm sure I'll see the movies, but the trailers have left me with 0 desire to see the movie.

Thanks for the review 

It's been a while since I read the original Amazing Spider-Man comics (I had  softcover novel sized books that reprinted issues 1-6 and another that reprinted 7-12, and a bunch of issues between 29-50) - but, I always remembered Peter as the shy, nerdy type, more like Tobey Maguire - Flash Thompson would mock him by calling him a "wallflower" and similar.  Sure, he got a bit cocky when he first got his powers & ended up losing Uncle Ben, but I thought I remember him sticking with that nerdy persona.


----------



## Richards (Jul 1, 2012)

Thanks for the review, it sounds like I might like this a little more than I had anticipated from the trailers I've seen on TV thus far.  Here's what was already getting my goat and making the thought of going to see this movie far less exciting than I would have otherwise hoped:

- The Spider-Man costume.  I absolutely HATE it when changes are made for no apparent reason.  Spider-Man's costume is iconic, and to me should not be changed on a whim.  While it's obviously based on the original design, the fact that it has blue fingers, a different spider logo on the chest, and the red web design on the chest doesn't flow into a red "belt" at the waist screams to me "we changed it just so it will be different from the costume from the previous set of movies."  And that, to me, means "we changed it for no good reason at all, just because we could."  I tell myself that this shouldn't bother me as much as it does, but this REALLY bothers me.

- The Lizard design.  The comic book Lizard, likewise, has a very distinctive look, and the Lizard I've seen in the trailers simply does NOT look like the Lizard.  In fact, he looks to me rather more like one of the reptilian aliens from the recent "V" miniseries.  (Where's his reptilian snout?  Where are the ridges over his eyes?)  Also, in my mind, a Lizard who runs around naked is no true comic book Lizard, who obviously needs a pair of ripped pants and a lab coat to look "normal."  Realistic?  No, but we're talking about a comic book movie here; if we're going to raise the "realistic" flag, then Hulk should be running around stark naked all the time because there's no way any normal pair of pants would survive his transformation.

Those two issues, while not deal-breakers, bumped "The Amazing Spider-Man" down from "I must see this as soon as it's released" (my attitude going into "The Avengers" - and well-deserved in that case), to "I'll eventually want to see this, but maybe I'll wait a month or two until it hits the base theater and I only have to spend $3.50 to see it."

After your review, it sounds like it might actually be worth the extra money to go see it the weekend it opens, despite the irritations mentioned above.  So thanks again!

Johnathan


----------



## Richards (Jul 1, 2012)

By the way, is this a "Marvel Universe" movie?  Is it made by the same company that's released the Iron Man/Thor/Captain America/Avengers movies, so Spider-Man may eventually get to interact with those characters?  Or is this new Spider-Man series still segregated from the other Marvel superhero movies?

Johnathan


----------



## horacethegrey (Jul 1, 2012)

Richards said:


> By the way, is this a "Marvel Universe" movie?  Is it made by the same company that's released the Iron Man/Thor/Captain America/Avengers movies, so Spider-Man may eventually get to interact with those characters?  Or is this new Spider-Man series still segregated from the other Marvel superhero movies?
> 
> Johnathan



No chance for that unfortunately. Spider-Man's film rights are owned by Sony, not by Marvel Films. You won't see Web-Head joining the Avengers anytime soon.


----------



## horacethegrey (Jul 3, 2012)

Bumping this since the film premieres today in the US. Tell me what you guys think.


----------



## frankthedm (Jul 3, 2012)

Movie bob has his undergarments in a bunch over the movie.

The Escapist : Video Galleries : Escape to the Movies : The Amazing Spider-Man


----------



## RangerWickett (Jul 4, 2012)

Music was lame. Movie was fun. I truly adored Gwen Staci being smarter than Peter Parker, and actually using her brains several times (like setting off the fire suppression system to try to lock Connors out [though if it worked like I thought it worked, shouldn't that have suffocated her?]).

So yeah, I dug it.


----------



## wingsandsword (Jul 4, 2012)

horacethegrey said:


> No chance for that unfortunately. Spider-Man's film rights are owned by Sony, not by Marvel Films. You won't see Web-Head joining the Avengers anytime soon.




Then why the heck did they reboot the franchise?

I had just assumed it was to work Spidey into the larger framework of the Marvel film universe, but if that is not going to happen, why bother?


----------



## GSHamster (Jul 4, 2012)

wingsandsword said:


> Then why the heck did they reboot the franchise?
> 
> I had just assumed it was to work Spidey into the larger framework of the Marvel film universe, but if that is not going to happen, why bother?




What I've heard is that Sony has to make a new movie every few years, or the rights revert back to Marvel. So we get a new movie.


----------



## Richards (Jul 4, 2012)

No real need to make this a reboot, though.  If Tobey Maguire didn't want to return to the role, simply recast him and carry on with _Spider-Man 4._  (How long did the James Bond franchise carry on with different actors in the role before finally rebooting with _Casino Royale_?)  That's the part I don't get.  Now, instead, we're starting over from scratch, instead of building upon the first three movies.  It seems like kind of a weird decision.

Johnathan


----------



## RangerWickett (Jul 5, 2012)

Because Spider-Man 3 was atrociously bad, and a reboot lets you plan a plot arc across multiple movies.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 5, 2012)

wingsandsword said:


> Then why the heck did they reboot the franchise?
> 
> I had just assumed it was to work Spidey into the larger framework of the Marvel film universe, but if that is not going to happen, why bother?



Take your pick from this buffet of possible options:
1) Sam Raimi had lost it by the time the third movie came out, and screwed the series up so badly that it would have been difficult to figure out where to take it.
2) Tobey was arguably too old for the part way back in 2002 already.  He can't convincingly play an early 20s Spiderman.  Same for Dunst.  Plus, "classic" Spiderman is more of a teenager anyway.  And heck, it seems likely that neither one of them would want to reprise those roles after so long either.  I think it was a struggle to get them into Spiderman 3 as it was, IIRC.
3) Raimi wasn't interested in doing another one, and nobody was interested in following his vision instead of striking out on their own.  Heck, there might have been legal requirements to leave Raimi's stuff alone and not build on it directly for all we know.
4) Reboots seem to work, while "fourth installment" is a less compelling draw for audiences.
5) Great opportunity to write a slightly edgier Spider-man including some of the anti-corporate paranoia that made the Ultimate Spiderman comic books interesting.

In any case, I thought it was by far the best Spiderman movie yet.  I enjoyed it immensely and highly recommend it.  Especially if you're more a fan of Ultimate Spiderman (before they killed Peter Parker--why does the Ultimate Universe so badly want to just kill off all its main characters and blow itself up all the time, anyway?) than original--I think it had a bit more of the feel of the Ultimate version in many ways than the original.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jul 5, 2012)

Saw it this morning and enjoyed it.  True the villain could have been more convincing and the music was not as evocative as it could have been but overall very good and the casting was 90% excellent.


----------



## wingsandsword (Jul 5, 2012)

Hobo said:


> Take your pick from this buffet of possible options:
> 1) Sam Raimi had lost it by the time the third movie came out, and screwed the series up so badly that it would have been difficult to figure out where to take it.
> 2) Tobey was arguably too old for the part way back in 2002 already.  He can't convincingly play an early 20s Spiderman.  Same for Dunst.  Plus, "classic" Spiderman is more of a teenager anyway.  And heck, it seems likely that neither one of them would want to reprise those roles after so long either.  I think it was a struggle to get them into Spiderman 3 as it was, IIRC.
> 3) Raimi wasn't interested in doing another one, and nobody was interested in following his vision instead of striking out on their own.  Heck, there might have been legal requirements to leave Raimi's stuff alone and not build on it directly for all we know.
> ...




Eh, to each their own, but to me it's more a matter of why should I go see a Spider Man movie when I already have 3 of them on disc.  I liked them at the time, and it's hardly like the first one became hideously dated in the last decade.  

I was always a casual fan of superhero comics, so the movies shaped my mental image of the characters just as much, or more, than the original comics.  Tobey Maguire is Spider Man to me the way that Christopher Reeve was Superman or Robert Downey Jr. is Iron Man: I have trouble seeing anybody else in the part.  Can't really say that about Batman, he's been through so many actors over the years that no one actor has really become super-associated with the role (at least serious-Batman, Adam West has campy silver-age Batman all to himself).  Lou Ferigno might not be The Incredible Hulk anymore, but he's still so associated with the part they found ways to work cameos into the two Hulk feature films.

I didn't really hear anybody talking about how Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst were too old at the time.   I remember comic book fans squealing with joy at the movie, especially the first one (with some slight gripes about basically cheating at the end instead of playing the key scene from The Night Gwen Stacy Died straight).   The third one was a bit of a dud, but the first two rocked.  Spider Man 3 suffered the same "Villain Overload" problem that the later Batman films suffered: trying to cram so many supervillains into one movie that it loses focus.  Sandman, Hobgoblin AND Venom in one film was like Batman & Robin having Bane, Poison Ivy and Mr. Freeze.  

I understand from a rational perspective that Sony will churn out a new Spider Man movie at least every 5 or 6 years now ad infinitem to keep the rights, but do we really need/want a new rebooted film series every few years?  How many versions of the origin story of Spider Man (or Superman, or Batman or any other iconic superhero) do we need?


----------



## Aeolius (Jul 6, 2012)

Mark CMG said:


> Saw it this morning and enjoyed it.  True the villain could have been more convincing and the music was not as evocative as it could have been but overall very good and the casting was 90% excellent.




Music can make or break a movie. To this day, "Batman Returns" is my favorite Batman movie, due in part to Elfman's wondrous soundtrack.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jul 9, 2012)

This was not a good movie but was it bad, I think so.  

First - did we need a re-boot?  There are pros and cons, I just don't think it was needed.  Sure, you want to add 'Flash' to the story so you can now have Vemom as a story arc because everyone knows Vemom is cooler than a dino for the nex movie!  The target viewers of this movie (those 13 or younger). 

Second - Peter Parker, kind of a dick.  Did not like.  Spiderman has always had a mouth on him but the lines came across wrong.   

Third - No J. Johah Jameson!  

Forth - Story, this goes back to a re-boot debate but this is very slow to devolop.  I thought I was watching a teenager romance movie NOT an action adventure one.  

Fifth - CGI, just did not look well done.  

Sixth - Music, just did not mix.  Not sure why it brother me. 

Acting - at least there was some good acting in the movie, I love me some Emma and it did not hurt to see her in boots and short skirts.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Jul 9, 2012)

Here is one of the reason why they decided to go with a 'reboot'


*Marvel exec Avi Arad explains why they nixed Raimi's Spider-Man 4*



Richards said:


> No real need to make this a reboot, though. If Tobey Maguire didn't want to return to the role, simply recast him and carry on with _Spider-Man 4._ (How long did the James Bond franchise carry on with different actors in the role before finally rebooting with _Casino Royale_? That's the part I don't get. Now, instead, we're starting over from scratch, instead of building upon the first three movies. It seems like kind of a weird decision.
> 
> Johnathan


----------



## The Red King (Jul 9, 2012)

I will be taking my kids to see it this week.  I wish I was looking forward to it more.


----------



## Aeolius (Jul 10, 2012)

I saw the movie last night. To be honest, I think I preferred Spider-Man (2002) over The Amazing Spider-Man (2012). The older movie seemed less disjointed, to me. The newer movie was intentionally darker and emo, which is fine for some, but I think the Batman reboot has spoiled an entire generation of films.

In the new movies defense, Emma Stone (Gwen Stacy) can act circles around Kirsten Dunst (Mary Jane Watson).

But that’s the only positive aspect of the entire movie. I could not empathize with the actor who portrayed the Lizard. In contrast, the actor who played Doctor Octopus in Spider-Man 2 (2004) carried the entire movie.

And then there was the music. I was forewarned that the soundtrack to the new film was dull and uninspiring. That is an understatement, to be sure. Mind you, no one can compete with Danny Elfman, but the soundtrack seemed “canned”, as if it was generic movie music thrown in as an afterthought.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 13, 2012)

Aeolius said:


> I could not empathize with the actor who portrayed the Lizard. In contrast, the actor who played Doctor Octopus in Spider-Man 2 (2004) carried the entire movie.




Completely agree here.

I had hoped the Spiderman 3 would have been a Lizard movie, since they had already put Chekov's gun on the mantlepiece there... I always liked the original comic book Lizard who was strong and tough but Spidey knew that it was his friend Dr Connor which made it harder for him to fight him. It would have had much more meaning and built better on the previous films than bringing in sandman, green goblin 2 and (ugh) venom. Secret Wars has so much to answer for!

I agree that Alfred Molina was a superb villain as Dr Octopus. Spider Man 2 is still my favourite of all of them, because of him.

My only real complaint about this Spiderman though - what has happened to his spider-sense? Gone on holiday?


----------



## Janx (Jul 13, 2012)

Truth Seeker said:


> Here is one of the reason why they decided to go with a 'reboot'
> 
> 
> *Marvel exec Avi Arad explains why they nixed Raimi's Spider-Man 4*




From a writing standpoint, the new movie could have been done in a non-contradictory way with the original 3 movies.  Peter Parker goes back to college.  Meets Dr. Connors in biology class.  Meets Gwen Stacy because he and MJ broke up, or MJ still exists.

The problem from the article is the use of the words Sam Raimi and Toby Maguire as a dependency for the project.  A 4th movie didn't need those two, and a good writer can make it work.



I saw the movie yesterday.  I was hesitant to go see it, given its reboot nature and what I felt was a lack of respect to the other 3 movies (even if the 3rd had problems, a reboot is rather insulting to the original).  then I heard NPR's review.  It was postive.

So we saw it.  And I liked it.


----------



## Richards (Jul 15, 2012)

I saw it yesterday, and let me echo all of the kudos on the casting, especially on the part of Aunt May and Uncle Ben.

However, I was disappointed in the plot, as it was basically rehashed from the original X-Men movie.  (Magneto: "I'll turn all of New York City's populace into mutants!  Then they'll have to accept us!"  Lizard:  "I'll turn all of New York City's populace into humanoid lizards!  Then they'll, uh, be glad that they're lizards, or something....")  Also, since when does turning into the Lizard make Dr. Curt Connors stronger, faster...and _smarter_?  The stronger and faster are a given, but I fail to see how a human being being injected with lizard DNA is suddenly going to become even smarter than a top-level scientist.  And that's not just me reading into what I saw, that was actually spelled out in the movie in a scene in Connors' makeshift sewer lab, when the computer simulation was showing the transformation from human into humanoid lizard.

And that, really, is what made me dislike this movie as much as I did.  It seems like at every turn they felt the need to make a change from what has been shown before (either in the comics or in the previous movies), just to be different.  I HATE the "change purely for the sake of change" mentality.

And finally, any Spider-Man origin that does not include the simple 6-word phrase "with great power comes great responsibility" has utterly failed at its task.  Those six words right there are the whole core of the Spider-Man story.

Johnathan


----------



## Janx (Jul 17, 2012)

Richards said:


> Also, since when does turning into the Lizard make Dr. Curt Connors stronger, faster...and _smarter_?  The stronger and faster are a given, but I fail to see how a human being being injected with lizard DNA is suddenly going to become even smarter than a top-level scientist.  And that's not just me reading into what I saw, that was actually spelled out in the movie in a scene in Connors' makeshift sewer lab, when the computer simulation was showing the transformation from human into humanoid lizard.





um, because the writers said so?  It's science fiction.  If a boy gets bit by a spider, he gets sick or dies normally.  Instead, this one gets super powers.  Because the writer said so.

And we're not talking about injecting a human and getting him to be smarter than a top level scientist.  We're talking about injecting a top-level scientist and getting him to be smarter than a top level scientist.

And to wind it all up, the Lizard THINKS he is smarter than he was.  That does not mean he actually is.  the world is chock full of people who think they are smarter than everybody else, but they usually aren't.  There's even a psychological phenemenon about that.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jul 17, 2012)

Janx said:


> um, because the writers said so?





Doesn't work that way, quite.  The level of explanation has to match up with the tone and style of the story, science fiction or otherwise.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jul 17, 2012)

Evil is always smarter because they don't care about the outcome, no judgement calls, no mental compass saying this is wrong, no oops.


----------



## Oryan77 (Jul 17, 2012)

Hand of Evil said:


> Evil is always smarter because they don't care about the outcome, no judgement calls, no mental compass saying this is wrong, no oops.




"....evil will always triumph, because good is dumb."

-Dark Helmet


----------



## Fiery James (Jul 19, 2012)

I liked everyone in the movie and thought they all did a great job, but felt that it was pretty much unnecessary with the decent Spider-Man less than a decade old.  But, I think that may be the result of Sony being nervous about straying too far from tradition and what worked before and not letting the film-makers tell the story that they actually wanted (and made).

When the Sony execs first screened the film, word is they did not react well, and the movie went through a massive re-cut.  You can see scenese and sequences in the trailer that did not make it into the movie or appeared in a different fashion.

It's pretty clear from early word and stuff we saw that Peter Parker's parents were involved in the mutant spider project, and that Peter Parker himself was the key to making the animal/human hybrids work.  Doctor Connors said that no hybrid had ever survived, but Peter did without any explanation (and it's clear that's because his dad was the one who developed the spider - would have been interesting if we found out that he used Peter's DNA or something in its creation and that's why it was compatible...)

There was more to the story about Ratha presurring Curt Connors into testing his experiment on humans.  I've seen pictures from a final confrontation between them in the Lizard's sewer lair that wasn't in the movie.  Ratha just sort of disappeared (waiting for sequels?) after the bridge scene.

And what was with all of the lizards running into the sewer anyway?  They could have explained that with some throw-away line, but instead it just was...

And the SWAT lizards?  Awesome of him to gas them and turn them all into dangerous creatures, but were they?  We don't know, the next time we heard about them, they were all recovered.  He pretty much could have just used knock-out gas for the same effect...

From the trailer, there was clearly more to the Peter Parker origin story, implying that he was more than accidentally changed into Spider-Man, that his parents were somehow responsible or involved, and that he was a special case.  Would be interesting to see a director's cut some day.  Maybe the Sony guys were right and it didn't work, but i was certainly open to seeing something different and a different take on the character.


----------

