The first hour of the movie is pretty much the same as the first Spider Man (2002), the second hour isn't very different too. They just replace Mary Jane with Gwen and Norman with Dr Conner. Sure the relationships between charcaters were a LITTLE different, but that's it
I'm a big fan of the Spider Man trilogy, which I have seen time and time again, and so it was weird to see a different cast in this movie. Old cast was way better in my opinion.
Overal it's an entertaining movie, but the ones who have seen the other Spider Man movies will not enjoy this movie very much.
Andrew Garfield is hot hot hot.
When Sony announced at the beginning of last year that they were rebooting the Spider-man franchise I thought "Really?!". Then I thought some more and realised that the last two were dubious and I really didn't like Tobey Maquire, so why not?
I had my reservations, but Andrew Garfield is a far better Spider-Man than Maguire, but more importantly he is a better Peter Parker; he's a smartass but also has an unwavering conviction that he couldn't fight if he tried. Emma Stone is a better love interest with her Gwen Stacey, than Kirsten Dunst's Mary Jane; she never plays the damsel in distress. It may just be the character or just that I have a soft spot for Stone. Is it a better film? That will really depend on who you talk too.
The Amazing Spider-Man tells a far more interesting origin story than his previous outing, touching enough of the lore to hit the highlights without sacrificing time spent on drawing out the other characters and telling its own story.
The casting of Martin Sheen and Sally Fields as Uncle Ben and Aunt May was spot on. They were real people, not caricatures. We don't get "With great power comes great responcibilty" (spoiler?), we get the sentiment over a couple of scenes in a way that wasn't shoehorned in just to say the line; it felt like it could have been my Dad talking (that was a compliment Dad).
Rhys Ifans has some wonderful moments as Dr Curt Conners, the reflection scene from the trailer springs to mind. My real gripe would be that his descent isn't quite fully realised so his moment of redemption didn't hit like it should.
A minor role played by C. Thomas Howell is cleverly handled and serves as a insight into the cities thoughts of Spider-man through one man and the aid he lends felt really satisfying. I found Denis Leary, though brief, to be believable as both the Police Captain and as a father.
The big question of any Spider-man incarnation though is how does he move? Like a fucking Spider-man!!! Swinging looks great, the moments of POV tantalise and made me want more, but it's how he moves on a surface that out shines Maguire's Spider-Man. He is fluid, slick over a wall or ceiling, bounding effortlessly and it's just beautiful to watch. Yes it's a digital double for great lengths as before, and yes the technology has come a long way, but it's the choreography that sells it; there is rhyme and reason to his every movement.
Visually it is darker, glossier film than 2002's Spider-man which always felt a bit stuffy and it suits it well.
The ever dependable James Horner delivers a fantastically stirring score.
So is it a better film? I had a lot more fun than before and I can easily see myself watching it a few of times, where as I watched 2002's twice and was very much done. 2002's felt grander though, the parade sequence had a scope that the equivelent here doesn't have, but I don't think that was to its deteriment. The whole film feels more personal, it captures the same sorts of moments but you feel closer to them. It's a people story, rather than a superhero story and I liked that. The scene with Peter and his skateboard and the chains was magic. You find his power along with him in an organic manner, rather than 'stand on the roof and wait for him to figure out what we already know and throw a joke in'. When Maguire gets the shit kicked out of him I kind of thought good (actually I said it), where as here I really felt it.
...I think I've talked myself in to it, I prefer The Amazing Spider-Man, it's a more fun and enjoyable film.
Stay through the credits for a bit and you'll see a glimpse at a thread, briefly touched on during the film, in 2014's sequel.
Oh, and Stan Lee's cameo is one of the best yet!
Totally web-slung!
Good enough. Emma Stone is love.
Light years better than the Tobey Maguire era.
As much as Spidey isn't a superhero I particularly like, this is the wise cracking geeky genius teenager personified.
This is a very enjoyable film with spot on casting (minus Emma Stone not being MJ, what's that all about?) and a very zippy pacing that works well. Sally Field and Martin Sheen are excellent, as is Dennis Leary.
What lets this down from being great is - motivation.
He gets bit and develops powers but doesn't even blink before he sets about using them. The villain turns evil straight away despite seemingly not being a bad guy.
So it's little things like that which bear down on the enjoyment of the second half. But the first half is excellent. The last quarter owes a lot to the Batman Begins school of character growth. It's just that section there that robs us of any real emotional attachment to the motivations.
But this is a proper film and needs a proper watch. Not the cheap, poorly cast, Disneyland missteps of the Maguire era.
7.75/10
Part 4 (of 8) of my Spider-Man movie re-watch marathon in preparation for No Way Home. Once again, I'm not going to update my original score for this movie (7/10) based on this viewing.
THE BAD: At release, this film was criticized for being too rapid of a reboot, coming only five years after Tobey Maguire's last outing. Personally, I don't think that should be held against it, as it's kind of a meta criticism, but I will say, having just marathoned Sam Raimi's trilogy, I definitely understand where the criticism is coming from. I think the big issue is the origin story. While the movie tries to shake things up, all of the main ingredients are identical (Oscorp, spider bite, Uncle Ben, etc.). And unfortunately, some of the new elements don't exactly land. The overly ambitious attempt to tie Peter's parents to the plot through some larger conspiracy feels misguided at best. This is especially true nine years post, when we know that all of this ambitious world-building doesn't culminate in anything, having been scuttled due to the less than record breaking, and in fact diminishing box office returns of Amazing Spider-Man 1 & 2. While most of the intentional cheesiness of the Sam Raimi films has been jettisoned, there are still some eye-rolling scenes (e.g. the crane operators saving the day near the finale). The main villain is underwhelming, especially compared to Willem Dafoe's Green Goblin. Peter's whiplash change of heart at the end is pretty bad, going from "I promised your dead dad I would stay away from you to keep you safe" to "lol, jk" in less than 4 minutes.
THE GOOD: Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone are a nice change of pace over Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst. They both just seem to be having fun, which helps sell the characters and the moments of humor. On the character side, the Peter/Gwen relationship is much more palatable than the strange and messy Peter/MJ relationship we saw before. The quick reveal of Peter's secret identity also helps avoid treading the same boring ground. The non-organic web-shooters are appreciated, as are the creative uses incorporated into the action sequences. The web-swinging is top notch.
[6.3/10] There are plenty of good ideas in The Amazing Spider-Man. Coming a mere five years after the ignominious conclusion of Sam Raimi’s Web-Head trilogy, director Marc Webb had to tell a new Spidey story and differentiate it from the iconic take that came before. In that, the film largely succeeds.
Peter’s love interest is Gwen Stacy rather than Mary Jane, and she and Spidey not only get together, but share their superheroic secrets almost straight away. Her father, Captain Stacy, is a major character and secondary antagonist to Spider-Man, rather than a hastily-included afterthought. The movie focuses on Peter’s status as an orphan, and how the loss of that still weighs on him, even before his uncle’s death. And it throws in a heavy dose of conspiratorial intrigue, an element never present in the prior series of films.
In short, it’s different, palpably so. Say what you will about the movie, which does deign to retell and remix Spidey’s origin story once more, but it’s more than a recapitulation of the last, successful take on the character for the silver screen. And the big swings it takes are admirable.
They’re also nigh-incoherent. I wish I could tell you what this movie is about. Take it at a wide enough lens, and the answer is the same one it usually is for Spidey -- with great power comes great responsibility. (Only we have to rephrase it in a less elegant way and try to frame it in different terms so you don’t think we’re just reheating the 2002 Spider-Man film’s leftovers.) But the way TASM dramatize the idea is muddled at best.
Is the movie about a troubled kid finding their potential? Is it about a dangerous, forbidden romance? Is it about efforts to help gone awry? Is it about the harm keeping secrets can cause? Is it corporate malfeasance taken to an extreme? Is it small acts of kindness coming back to you in bigger ways?
I can’t tell you. All of these themes are present in The Amazing Spider-Man and, with better execution, that would be a feature not a bug. The problem is the movie tries to service all of these points, leaping wildly from one to the other like the webslinger himself, and comes off like a story and a film borne of a dilettante-written, script-by-committee approach.
That jubledness extends to the movie’s tone. At times, TASM is a story of a determined young man trying to exorcise the ghosts of his past by uncovering a shadowy conspiracy involving his mother and father. At times, it’s a kitchen sink drama about a troubled youth and his concerned surrogate parents trying to keep him out of trouble and on the right path. At times, it’s an off-the-shelf, big and bombastic cape flick extravaganza. And at times, it’s a story of two cool high-schoolers having a playful romance with one another. None of these tacks is outright bad exactly (Okay, the conspiracy business feels miscalibrated from the jump), but they never fit together comfortably.
Oddly enough it’s that last one, the peculiar courtship between Peter and Gwen, that is the film’s biggest strength. The great Scott Mendelson noted TASM as Sony’s answer to the Twilight films, which were then blowing up the box office. It shows, in direct ways like a similar “Telling you what I am” confessional scene between the romantic leads, and in the way the movie is as much fueled by investment in the relationship hurdles of the central couple as it is the grander supernatural threats.
It’s to the movie’s benefit. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone became a real life couple after their work together on these films, and their chemistry bears it out. There's bits and pieces of twee, mumbly courtship which feel of a piece with Webb’s prior work on 500 Days of Summer. But despite the of-its-time way their flirtation and affections are presented, the playfulness, passion, and potency of their connection shines through despite the film’s many structural or tonal problems, which is a good thing considering it’s one of the cornerstones of the film. The casting directors struck gold with Stone and Garfield, and it elevates the material they’re given.
To the point, whatever problems with plot and tone The Amazing Spider-Man has, its main cast features a bevy of future and former Oscar contenders who bring more gravitas to the script than it could necessarily earn. Martin Sheen injects a working class earnestness into Uncle Ben. The film’s Aunt May is underserved, but Sally Field’s performance creates the illusion of more shading for the character than is really there. And Denis Leary, the least decorated among the film’s main cast, absolutely nails the role of Captain Stacy, giving him a caustic edge that makes him work as a foil for both Peter and Spider-Man, with a kindness and devotion that makes him more complicated in his opposition.
The pieces are there, at least in terms of the major players. TASM just can’t figure out how to use them to their highest potential, something ironic given the film’s themes (or one of them at least). Part of the problem is that, in contrast to the emotional but still very heightened reality of the Raimi films, Webb and company aim for something more grounded here. But while that works for Parkers’ domestic strife and the compelling romantic entanglement of loving a young woman whose father hates both of your guises, it’s a poor fit for the laughable hints and machinations of a vast conspiracy or the gigantic lizard rampaging through the city.
More than that, there's very little levity to the film. Peter and Gwen’s patter is cute and endearing. Uncle Ben gets one funny line about being his nephew’s probation officer. Stan Lee’s cameo as an oblivious librarian in the middle of a superpowered fight is a big laugh. And Spidey himself gets to have a little fun when toying with a carjacker. Those handful of exceptions aside, though, The Amazing Spider-Man is an unexpectedly dour film, very severe and serious, with little of the sense of fun or enervating bent the title character is known for.
This is also, very importantly, the Cool Spider-Man:tm:. Gone is the paradigmatic nerd-turned-buffster. In his place is a dude with elegantly disheveled hair, who mumbles sometimes, and seems like a misunderstood but soulful misfit more than a geek, and has skateboarding montages where he does parkour in an abandoned warehouse set to Coldplay songs. It’s a valid take on the character, but one that feels dissonant and jarring from Spidey’s roots, and like a transparent effort to make the central figure of the franchise more hip and dreamy to teens watching the film ten years’ after Spidey’s prior cinematic debut. This movie doesn’t want you to enjoy it so much as it wants to impress you, and make you remark at how cool and of-the-moment its young adult stars are.
I can forgive that on the altar of cinema-goer wallet-chasing. What I can’t forgive is how utterly drab and ugly this film looks. Webb and company do a few flashy shots, but they tend to be out of step with whatever’s happening at the moment. So much of the movie has a dark, washed out palette that dulls the sense but contributes to that vague aura of seriousness the film aspires to. And the fine editing, choreography, composition, and animation that fueled Raimi’s contributions have been replaced with an utter hash when it comes to the action.
Some of that's just the awful-looking CGI. I don’t know how TASM manages to look worse than its predecessors from the same studio on that front, but boy does it. It’s obvious and immersion-breaking when Spider-Man is CGI. Key objects in the frame like buildings and cars don't pass the visual plausibility test. And the only thing worse than The Lizard’s ugly, unremarkable design is the unconvincing way he’s placed into the “real world” of the film. He moves with no proper weight, and seems utterly out of place in almost every scene.
But maybe that's appropriate, given what a waste of a character he is here. Rhys Ifans is fine in the dual role of The Lizard/Curt Connors. Yet, he’s reduced to a combination of bog standard monologues, over-the-top paroxysms, and an array of snarls and growls. Connors’ motivations and character work are inconsistent and occluded. He’s yet another character in a Spider-Man film who seems like a fairly normal, if somewhat out of the ordinary, man, who turns capital-C crazy and evil when some random sciencey thing happens. The film aims for a sense of tragedy with him, but he’s the least interesting, most poorly developed part of the proceedings, which is no small achievement.
Despite that, I admire some of TASM’s big shots. Nothing comes of it, but leaning into Peter’s lingering pain over losing his parents is a worthwhile tack that Garfield makes a meal out of. Bringing Gwen over the wall on Peter’s alter ego right away makes for a compelling dynamic between them from the jump, with Gwen’s anxieties over already knowing how each day her dad leaves for work at the precinct, he might not come home coming to the fore. And those fears are commendably played out, with Captain Stacy recognizing the good in what Peter is doing, but making him promise not to involve his daughter in it, as a dying wish to the young man.
There's meat to all of this. The Amazing Spider-Man simply never seems to know how to cook it, or for how long. It’s a grab bag of ideas -- some well worth it, some that should have been left in the scrap heap -- that never quite go together. There's enough to build on in Peter’s relations with the Stacys alone, and in his complicated adolescence and home life.
But in the years that have passed, since the film’s debut, it’s become the forgotten middle child of the Web-Head’s cinematic adventures. And revisiting the movie, it’s easier to see why. Whatever the film’s laudable aims, it never commits to one solid idea, one core animation notion, that could justify its existence so soon after the last web-slinger flick and lodge itself in the memories of fans and skeptics. It is, instead, like the film’s protagonist himself: pulled in too many directions, trying to do too much, and not succeeding at nearly enough to feel good about it.
In the sake of diversity Homecoming made too many changes in my opinion. In this film there may be a lot of dei-ja vu from the 2002 movie. But it’s also as entertaining.
The good is the cast, Flash Thompson more like he was written in comics. The action is fine and I love the musical score by the late great James Horner.
Homecoming to me has less exciting action as Spider-Man 1-2 and yes Amazing Spider-Man 1. It also made MJ homeless looking and Flash Thompson a twerp. That this Flash Thompson would have beat up.
Gwen Stacy and Emma Stone <3
It's been less then 24h I came out of the cinema & I'm still stunned by it.
That was the best 3D experience I had after "Avatar" - just awesome.
I pretty much loved every mismatch to the old one and I am surprised how the writers pulled out this great new perspective on quite the same story.
I was very sceptic about Andrew Garfield when I heared he was casted but I think he did an amazing job. Was he a better spidy then Maguire - hmmm it depends... each one has his advantages, so it really up to you.
But as @MajorMercyFlush already wrote (great review by the way) the new Spider-Man is more dark, also he is more direct, more offensive & less sensible.
I was blown away by the movements and the incredible CGI of the Lizard also the humor was a great combination and I think it fits the original Spider-Man animated series very well.
Oh yeah and I loved Emma Stone - she is just one of the reasons I love the new Spider-Man more ;)
Kinda like the green lantern with CG that was just as good, story slightly better, and i didn't leave totally disappointing but I still felt like saying "meh". The tone was a little disjointed for what it was and the character development surprisingly lacked for a movie that was just about as long as gladiator...
amazing movie that still plays after a few hours in my head, recommend everyone to see this movie on the big screen in the cinema...
That's quite an amazing backpack he has... he can abandon it anywhere and it finds him at some point anywhere in the city, whether he's wearing street cloths or his suit.
And how did the Lizard get all that stuff - including electricity into the sewer system?
Um, hell yeah? Now, this rendition is obviously missing some of the heart and campy nature of the Raimi series, which I can see being a setback. But it absolutely makes up for that in acting and action and just general excitement.
Andrew Garfield plays probably my perfect version of Spider-Man. There were some scenes where I could feel the witty and cocky guy from the animated series and that’s just so good to me.
Andrew Garfield sounds like Hayden Christensen.
If you haven't already seen the Raimi movie from 2002, go watch it instead. If you have seen it, then this probably won't live up to it and you will be left feeling a little underwhelmed. It's fair to say that for anyone over the age of eighteen, this movie will seem rather half-hearted and senseless; for those under eighteen, this movie will probably be the greatest super hero flick ever. Yes, it's a movie that will divide opinions, primarily on the sole reason for its existence. Not a bad, or a badly made flick, by any means… just a pointless one.
To have a superhero movie that doesn't make me go "YOU GO, SPIDEY"... it's just... not right. I want to root for him, I want to feel everything he feels... and I didn't.
I didn't buy Andrew as a shy nerd Peter Parker. I didn't see a boost in his confidence when he became Spiderman.
By the way, come on, man, just keep your damn mask on. There must be a reason why you have it, right?
I am a huge fan of Sam Raimi's Spider-Man Trilogy, although I think Spider-Man 3 was bad I especially like the first film, which is one of my favorite superhero films. Since I saw the trailer of The Amazing Spider Man it didn't caught my attention, I just didn't care. Spider Man is one of my favorite superheros and I didn't care? Well, maybe it was a sign... I saw it now and as I thought I would, I am disappointed.
One of the most important parts of Spider Man's story is when he gets bitten, he learn his skills and makes his suit. In this film all of that is so rushed! Other scenes with no relevance are longer than what's really the important key in Peter Parker's life.
We spent most of the film trying to figure it out what happened to Peter's parents and we never saw that. Uncle Ben died I didn't felt the emotion required for that kind of scene and Peter seemed to overcome his uncle's death so quickly. More emotinal depth was needed in the story.
I am not the biggest Tobey Maguire fan but I think he got what was required for being Spider Man and I liked him! Andrew Garfield is not bad in the role he is cool and stuff but is not as good as Maguire. He is a super confident Peter Parker, I would like to have seen a much more nerdy and awkward guy, so unfortunately he didn't convinced me much. I love Emma Stone and for much that I love her I didn't like to see her as Gwen. I must be the one of the few people that didn't felt the chemistry between Garfield and Stone. The romance between Peter and Gwen seemed so forced and lame.
Everything that is presented to us in this film was already seen before, this was in some way retelling the story that we already saw in Raimi's 2002 Spider Man with just a few new elements. In my opinion there was not point of retelling this story again. If Marvel wanted to do a new Spider Man film, why they didn't do a Spider Man 4 but without Tobey Maguire in Spider's role?
Overall, as I thought, it was a disappointment. The film has some good scenes but the bad overcomes the good and I don't know if I wanna see this year's new film, the trailer looks like a videogame and if it's going to continue like this I prefer not to... I'll wait for the reviews first.
I wasn't so sure about this one, but the new trailer (No.3) looks smokin' hot.
Now you got me ;]
Best spider man ever created
you found my weakness!
it's small knives!
In all honesty when I heard just after only a few years after the release of the third Spider-Man film of the Sam Raimi trilogy that they were going to reboot the franchise I was a bit angry. Yeah Spider-Man 3 kind of sucked, but both Spider-Man 1 and 2 were solid great films. Both films were so great I'd like to think Sam Raimi help set the bar that every superhero film has to met or excel higher than it. I thought for sure they were going to make a forth in the franchise. Alas they went ahead with the reboot, and I must say - Thank you! The Amazing Spider-Man was a great change of pace from the original Sam Raimi trilogy. Marc Webb did an excellent job and the cast were all amazing. I felt the entire film was much better in every way (although it could have used some more action scenes) than the Raimi trilogy, much better. I'm looking forward to the next films in the new trilogy and helpfully if Avi Arad can get Sony and Disney together in a room we could see Garfield playing his version of Spider-Man in the next Avengers film - Hey, I can dream can't I? (I actually wrote this review back when this film was first released. 10 years later after No Way Home, I can't believe this dream became real is so many ways!)
When watching remakes I can't help but compare it to the original. There were things that were better about the original and there were things that were better about this one. I personally preferred the green goblin as a villain to the Lizard but both were portrayed really well. The CGI is better in this one though that is to be expected. but in conclusion I think both movies are on a level playing field.
spider-man 1 is so much better than this.
There must be some original ideas for movies out there. It took practically two years for me to get around to watching yet another reboot of this character. Fact is, I could have waited another two years, but this was better than I thought it had any right to be. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone are as acceptable but not yet as familiar as the equally quirky Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst. As is to be expected, the special effects are good but the Lizard was underwhelming.
I don't really care if I ever see another Spiderman movie. I'll probably bump into the next sequel, but I won't seek it out based on my lukewarm thoughts about this one.
The cranes scene made me shed a tear
I never dared to watch this movie as the review were seriously bad, but it was a little better than expected. Its biggest flaw is that it takes itself too seriously despite the juvenile writing and silly teenage angst. "The Dark Knight" just became a huge hit, and everyone was obviously trying to go for a darker, grittier tone at all costs. I am not saying that Spider-Man is not incompatible with this formula, but next time maybe hire a decent screenwriter and better suited director. Parker is absolutely obnoxious both before and after his transformation, but the main cast performances were all right (at least better than Maguire and friends). Raimi's trilogy had its obvious flaws, but at least helped to shape a genre. This time it's just a less than mediocre film among many others.
NOTE FOR MYSELF SO I REMEMBER SOMEDAY, ONLY REPRESENTS MY OPINION FOR MYSELF NOT A “REAL REVIEW“, SO YOU PROBABLY WONT AGREE WITH IT
@ trakt pls make private comments/notes possible:hearts:
Andrew is just so cute (yes let me simp okay xD) and fits the role of the "friendly neighbourhood Spiderman" perfectly + he's such a good (and underrated!) actor its amazing (pun intended) watching him.
Overall the movie isn't mind blowing or anything but I like it and it definitely has its heart-felt moments
7 - 7.5
The Amazing Spider-Man
I found the movie to be just as good as the first in Sam Raimi's trilogy. It's been criticized for things happening too fast, but I found it a good way of telling the story instead. I wasn't crazy about Andrew Garfield's acting, but Emma Stone definitely raised the quality of the film with her excellent performance. All in all, the movie is ok, I don't have much to say, but as mentioned before, Stone made it a good movie. For fans of superhero movies, I would definitely recommend this movie.
[-] Andrew Garfield's acting didn't blow me away ; nothing that special, but nothing that bad either
[+] Emma Stone's acting ; good way to handle the plot, different from how it was handled in Sam Raimi's trilogy
5.5/10
Overhated movie.
Andrew Garfield, as the amazing actor he is, delivers a good Peter Parker/Spider-Man, darker than the usual because of the early lost of his parents and the death of Uncle Ben. His jokes are funny and his moves are really smooth.
The plot as a lot of similarities to Sam Raimi's Spider-Man, replacing MJ to Gwen and Dr. Otto Octavius to Dr. Curt Connors. I think writters could've done better.
Besides that, it's a entertaining movie to watch!
Spider-Man gets a reboot in The Amazing Spider-Man, which takes a darker and more serious tone. In this version Peter Parker, obsessed with the death of his uncle, becomes a vigilantly in pursuit of his uncle’s killer, but when the Lizard attacks New York, Peter must rise up to become a superhero. Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Martin Sheen, and Denis Leary form a solid cast and deliver some strong performances. However, the serious tone doesn’t feel right; as it was Raimi’s embracing of the camp and fun of the comic that made the original series so amazing. Additionally, the storytelling isn’t very cohesive; leaving far too many open tangents. Still, the special effects are quite good and make for some impressive action sequences; adding a lot of energy to the film. Yet while it’s entertaining and has some exciting action, The Amazing Spider-Man fails to offer anything appreciably different than the previous Spider-Man films or justify the need for a reboot.
I much prefer this to the Toby trilogy. Garfield is more believable as both Peter and Spider-Man.
THIS MOVIE IS SO FREAKING UNDERRATED. It's so full of heart and Andrew and Emma have one the best chemistries i've actually ever seen in any movie. It's wild how it was made in 2012 but looks SO recent and fresh. This was the movie that first made me fall in love with the super-hero genre and it will always be special to me for that reason. Had to make sure I still loved it enough to have it on my top 5 super hero movies of all time and damn right I do.
10/10
A good popcorn-movie with enough heart to keep you watching.
I'd avoided watching this one, thinking there wasn't much point in investing in a storyline that was already over, but I was pleasantly surprised. The story has a few really heartfelt moments, and I enjoyed Garfield's take on the character. James Horner's soundtrack was great, and although it lacked an identifiable theme for Spider-Man, it was a typically grand and sumptuous score.
If a movie is as long as this one and it lacks character development that is a pretty bad sign already. Now add to that weird cuts, camerawork and inconsistencies and you get the Amazing Spider-Man. This does not even feel like a standalone movie and was probably never thought out to be one, so in hindsight the Amazing Spider-Man 2 ruins this mediocre flick even more.
I recently wanted to re-watch but stopped about 30 minutes in because I was bored to death. I didn't remember it so bad.
This movie is truly amazing.
Pretty much just a rehash of the movies a few years ago. How many times can his grandparents die ffs! The movie was well done though and excellent quote at the end kind of made up for it.
Frickin awesome!!!! the story was top notch & all the actors played their parts to perfection & i was one of the people not too happy about toby maguire not being spidey this time but i can say without question andrew garfield was the perfect guy for this role infact it prob wouldn't have worked otherwise.
i loved the original spidey trilogy but this took it to a whole other level & i can't wait for the rest. i am surprised to have read some bad comments about this i can't see any faults to it & i'm glad they're retelling the spidey story it's easily the best super hero franchise by far i just wish all the super hero flicks turned out like this coz some of the recent one's have been weak when they should've been good.
can't say a bad word about it therefore i'm going with 10/10 highly recommended!!
Same story, different approach. The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) takes the origin story of spiderman and turns it into a more action oriented film than the previous version. Andrew Garfield does an acceptable job as Peter Parker and so does Rhys Ifans as the Lizard, but the thing that made the movie less appealing in my opinion was the cast of great known actors like Sally Field, Martin Sheen and Denis Leary. Great actors with limited acting in terms of character. At the end of the day, The Amazing Spider-Man is an acceptable film and definitely entertaining, but nothing amazing.
Same structure as the first Movie. Fails to delivery a good plot or a surprise. Predictable from the beggining to the end.
Not a big surprise at all. You can Skip this one on the cinemas and wait for the Blu-Ray or the DVD release.
The good point is the interaction between Parker and Stacy. They make a good couple. The rest of the characters are forgetable.
Saw some negative reviews so I was a bit worried. I saw it today (IMAX!) and was great. Far better than the earlier trilogy. Great story, incredible effects, all around awesome movie. Oh, and Emma Stone=huge upgrade over Kirsten Dunst.
Andrew Garfield is the best Spider-Man. Fight me.
It was even better after watching it a second time!
the special effects are great
This was the first movie I bought on Blu Ray (yes, I stuck to my old DVD player as long as possible).
I recently rewatched the movie, because of the new "No Way Home" Trailer and I still enjoy it immensely.
And I know some people think it’s blasphemy to say this, but I prefer this one by miles over the Raimi Spider-Man.
As someone who grew up on the comics and 90s animated show, Tobey Maguire never captured Peter Parker for me, Andrew Garfield however was a huge step up.
Was he perfect? No (we wouldn’t get a perfect live action adaptation until Tom Holland) but he captured the essence of Spider-Man so well and was funny and likeable while still managing to be slightly awkward. I also bought the "mad genius" aspect way more here, because his Peter is actually shown to be smart and innovative (show don’t tell, people). Also, thank God the organic web shooters are gone.
I get the criticism of Garfield‘s Parker being too "hypsterish“ or more of a "cool skater dude" than the nerdy underdog, but for the film it worked. And more than that, he made for an excellent Spider-Man. He had fun as a superhero, taunted criminals and was embracing his new status instead of feeling tortured by it.
Andrew Garfield is also just overall a fantastic actor and always a joy to watch.
Speaking of casting, overall it’s excellent. Sally Field and Martin Sheen make for a likeable Aunt May and Uncle Ben duo and Rhys Ifans is good as Doctor Connors aks The Lizard.
I am not the biggest fan of the Lizard‘s design or that they went a bit copy and paste with the Green Goblin‘s split personality, but as a character he overall works just fine. Too bad they cut out the scene about his wife and daughter, which would have made his motivation a bit more personal and plausible.
One of the biggest treasures however is Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy. The Raimi trilogy put a lot of emphasis on the romance between Peter and Mary Jane, but unfortunately it ended up being a never ending melodrama without much chemistry. Here, the romance is suddenly one of the best and most intriguing aspects of the movie.
Stone and Garfield ooze chemistry and the courtship between Peter and Gwen is believable, awkward and sweet. It never feels overdone and it never takes over the plot too much.
There’s also the fact that Gwen is allowed to be a character outside of being a love interest. She is smart, she is interested in science, has her own connection to Connors and is the person responsible for the lizard antidote that saves the day. It was also a genius move to have Peter tell her right away about being Spider-Man to avoid all the boring and cliched secret identity hijinks.
The action scenes are well done as well and I especially appreciate Garfield‘s movements as Spider-Man.
I also have such a soft spot for the crane scene, as cheesy as it might be.
The movie also still has my favorite Stan Lee cameo.
What probably bring it down a bit, and that’s something the MCU thankfully avoided, is that we have seen a lot parts of this origin story as well and some aspects feel like "been there done that." The biggest hook of the film is "the untold story" aspect, involving a mystery surrounding Peter’s parents and their connection to Oscorp, but that mostly just stays as a sequel hook and nothing more.
The best super heroes movie made in years. =)
This is solid but not great. It feels very similar to the first Spider-Man which is why I think I like Homecoming so much. I liked Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone a lot. The lizard is an ok villain but he just looks off to me.
No kirsten dunst fuck yeah! 'merika!!!
There are some stuff I don't seem to find comfortable with this movie. One thing, it could get a tad boring for a while when it's taking on the drama part, especially on Gwen's romantic relatioonship with Peter. The other, is the destined Uncle Ben's death. As @CatyAlexandre has said, it feels a bit rushed for a character that has quite bonded with the viewers for the first half of the movie (especially when compared with Sam Raimi's Uncle Ben). This makes Spiderman seems to lack a clear motivation when he switched the attention from hunting Uncle Ben's murderer to saving the world. The same goes with The Lizard's motivation to turn the world in danger - though I assume he went insane with the serum affecting him.
On the plus side, Andrew Garfield did a good job for a contemporary geeky Peter Parker; confident, funky, and easy-going. I don't really like this kind of Peter, but considering today's audience it's a good shot. Rhys Ifans also did a good job portraying Curt Connors, having a calm, mature doctor while keeping some kind of weirdo vibe. The Lizard's fate as the main villain also seems unusual for a superhero movie - though, looking at the trailer for the upcoming second movie, I could guess why it became so.
Other than that, excellent movie.
Because Andrew Garfield, that's why.
I feel bad for marc webb. He's so happy with his not-so-amazing spiderman that it makes me worry about the next movies. I really hope it get better, I loved Andrew as Peter and expected a lot from this. Hope they don't keep ruining something that could've been great.
I bet Sam Raimi probably watched thinking to himself... Man I could've done this 10 times better!
Plus Garfield was a laughable Spider-Man at best. I dont want to troll or anything but I SO PREFER the old Spidey to this one...
i just love this movie.
Like all the other spiderman movies, it's great but it's different. It's missing something though. I don't know what or who... Jamie Foxx.
I’m not even against approaching Spider-man in the same way that Christopher Nolan approached Batman (especially since I didn’t care for Raimi’s take), but when you strip almost all of the pulp away and don’t bother to write a more complex story, I wonder what the point is. Don’t get me wrong, I like this movie. I like Marc Webb’s indie sensibilities behind the camera, the web slinging/perspective shots look great and there are a few memorable scenes (e.g. the train sequence, the bridge). Garfield and Stone are both great and have excellent chemistry, it’s their relationship that feels like the soul of the film. Garfield seperates his Peter from Tobey’s in an interesting way by turning the character into an angsty mad genius, which I find more compelling and relatable. Even the supporting characters are all pretty well drawn and played by overqualified actors. However, the cracks start to appear when it comes to the writing. For starters, the plot is just too typical for this kind of film, there’s not a story (or character) beat that’s not predictable. It also just kinda drops the whole uncle Ben killer plotline, which is pretty odd because that’s the event that motivates our main character in the first place. Moreover, there are some attempts at doing something more cheesy or fun (e.g. the crane scene, Lizard with a lab coat), but in the context of this film it feels silly. So, while this thing doesn’t make any major mistakes, it ends up feeling unambitious. The shift to a darker, grittier tone is simultaneously its biggest risk and the reason why it feels too safe.
6/10
Reminder that I really like Spider-Man
9/10
Superb
Although
Tom Holland (the best Spider-Man)
and his MJ are
my absolute favourite
Spider-Man and Girlfriend
couple of all time I must say
I enjoyed Andrew Garfield
as Spidy way more than
Tobey's Spider-man.
Andrews Movies are a
Gazillion times better than
Tobey's.
Andrew and Emma
have off the charts
Chemistry way more
than Tobey and kirsten
ever did.
Emma as Gwen is way way
More likable a much
much better actress
and Knocks it clean out the
Ball Park in the role.
I much Prefer
This Peter and Gwen
Than any love interest
in Tobey's films.
Tobey's Movies have aged
so poorly, it really shows
but Andrews ones still stand
Today and are aging lovely.
The vfx in this movie were
so clean and crisp,
I loved the darker tone
in theme not in the lack
of lighting.
The Humour landed
and the jokes were
Spot-on.
absolute solid
performances and a lovely
pacing.
Andrews double bill
are just superior
movies in every way
possible to anything
that has come before.
Wow he smashed it
in the role way more
than anyone previously
up till this point.
As a forever fan of the Sam Raimi trilogy, this is a damn-good Spider-Man movie. While Tobey Maguire was a great Peter Parker but a bad Spider-Man, Andrew Garfield is a fantastic Spider-Man, but a… bad Peter Parker (I’m beginning to notice a pattern here…)
Emma Stone is a fabulous Gwen Stacy and she actually defends herself (and Peter) more often than not, rather than getting kidnapped a lot and screaming her head off! (Looking at you, Mary-Jane)
The villain and plot is a bit underwhelming though.
But still, I recommend Spider-Man fans to give this a watch!
This version of Peter Parker is a massive unlikeable dickhead and the movie is almost a beat-for-beat recreation of Sam Raimi's with slight adjustments. The plot moves forward with a lot of conveniences and contrivances, as various subplots are quickly abandoned, and I just don't have any reason to care about the characters in this movie nor do I understand their motivations. Feels way too influenced by the dark, gritty world portrayed in Christopher Nolan's Batman films and the fun of Spider-Man was annihilated in the process.
There is something hypnotic about this spectacular spin on the lines in each edition of Spider-Man. However, the plot with M. J. was somehow better written, and thus Kirsten Dunst came out more naturally.
I really don't like they yellow lens on Spider Man's suit, looks off putting.
Not bad.. But definitely not Toby and Kirsten. Definitely a good watch tho
I always thought I preferred the original trilogy. After re watching though, I find that i liked the Amazing Spider-Man more.(still haven't re watched the sequel, I remember I didn't like that one)
Andrew Garfield is more believable as Peter Parker than Tobey Maguire. His chemistry with Gwen/Emma Stone is a lot better than the original with MJ/Kirsten Dunst.
The story is good, Rhys Ifans is amazing and they did a great job with the Lizard!
But the best thing that stands out here are Spidey's movements. The way he moves, fights, swings. I recently replayed Mravel's Spider-Man for the PS4 and the movie reminds of the game which is probably why I liked it so much.
I appreciate this franchise's need to distance itself from the missteps of Spider-Man 3, to start from scratch with a villain besides the Green Goblin, and to get back to the character's roots as an awkward kid in an adult's costume, wise-cracking to mask his uncertainty. I even like the decision to tell a completely Mary Jane-free story, as I felt the old "girl next door is the only one for me" story was a path the Raimi films walked far too quickly. Despite those perfectly noble, admirable intentions, though, this reboot just doesn't click.
In the ten years since the first Spider-Man, the landscape of cinematic superheroics has changed dramatically. The Avengers family has upped the action ante, while Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy has proven a hero's story can be about more than just the mask. With the glut of action heroes now on the scene, Peter Parker needed this chance to differentiate himself, but instead he fades further into the wallpaper.
Andrew Garfield turns in a laudable effort, but his renditions of Parker and Spider-Man are written to be so drastically different, it's often tough to imagine they're actually the same person. Martin Sheen is the film's only real standout as poor, ill-fated Uncle Ben, but that's a role so inherently sympathetic that it would take an unmitigated disaster to screw up. All things considered it's certainly not a bad effort; the cast is loyal to the source while still seeming contemporary, the action scenes are breathtaking (if surprisingly infrequent) and enough leftovers remain on the table to feed several sequels. But multiple dull spots, a foil that seems too run-of-the-mill and universally inconsistent characterization stop it from being as amazing as the title would have us believe.
Okay so I watched the first 1 1/2 hours a few weeks ago until I fell asleep (because I was really tired, not because it was boring), and I remember liking it up to that point, but now I've watched the last quarter it's kind of meh? The monster is really boring and weird-looking and that very unsubtle US flag shot and whole "working man's hero" didn't really do it for me. I like Gwen and the way she is actually competent, Andrew Garfield is fine as Spider-Man (he certainly has better quips than Tobey Maguire), and the cityscapes look cool (though very futuristic), but the action sequences were pretty cookie-cutter, as was the plot: ultimately it's just another retelling of the same old story.
I have a lot of nostalgia for the old Maguire trilogy, and I also thought Homecoming was fresh and interesting (and funny) enough, but this one is just kinda... in the middle.
None of the villains in all the Spider-Man movies are compelling. They gotta come up with some other thing than freak-off-the-week. But the lizard guy from this one is by far the most boring one. I really like the movie and Andrew Garfield is infinitely better than Maguire ever was. Sally Field and Martin Sheen were stellar choices. But the lizard guy drags the whole thing down. I'm not one to compare Marvel and DC usually, because there's not much of a competition. Marvel right now is another stratosphere. But DC has the better villains. Joker, Lex Luthor, Two Face, Riddler... Those are complex villains. Lizard Guy or Electro Guy are just freaks.
Under-rated film due to a fine cast and a great score by late great James Horner. It's just a shame that they messed up so quickly with part 2.
Sure a lot seemed like the first Tobey Maguire film all over again but to me it might even be better. Since I think the Parker and MJ stuff was overdone in the originals. Especially with the Parker narration in all of them about how great MJ is and how bad Parker wants her.
Here the Parker and Gwen relationship is one of the strongest things about this reboot. Their scenes are cute together. Webb never smothers us in their relationship like Raimi did with Parker and MJ. Here Parker and Gwen have a realistic relationship without Gwen constantly bitching at Peter.
Plus here we actually got the Lizard right away. With the canceled Raimi part 4. He was introducing Vulture and still wasn't on to the Lizard yet. So sue me, I prefer this movie. The reboot just never should have put so much focus on what happened to Peter's parents.
it are not spider man this is spider man 2
I liked the movie a lot. It's too bad Sony messed up with the second one so much that they gave Marvel the rights back.
Not a proponent of change. It was OK.
Many are comparing this to the Raimi versions and this is a much better origin story, but the high point is still Spiderman 2. That said, this bodes well for the eventual sequel. Garfield and Stone were both excellent and the action sequences were much more interesting visually. More time seems to have been put into making these characters connect with the audience and the dramatic beats were much better earned this time round.
It reminded me of what I like comic book movies! Andrew Garfield is a fantastic Spider-Man. I could not stop smiling the whole movie.
Very well done. Excellent Peter Parker
What a days now, people just wanna see hot bodies and faces, I was truly satisfied with the original spiderman and the simplicity of peter Parker although this new movie was amazing too but no comparison :)
made the first 3 look like they were made in the 80s both in screenplay and graphics loved it.
"The Amazing Spider-Man" has no reason to exist. Spider-man is a hero everyone knows. He's been around for so long everyone is familiar with his origin, comic fan or not. Its basic pop culture. Then you have the Sam Raimi's movies. Everyone saw them. They made loads of money and they're always on TV. They are entertaining movies. "Spider-Man" gave us a good origin story in 2002. This movie simply wasn't needed. Now I gave it the benefit of the doubt. There's Burton's Batman and Nolan's. Maybe this was a different Spider-Man. A more "dark" vision perhaps! Maybe the movie spent a few minutes on the origin and then wisely moved on with its story. Maybe... well maybe it wasn't just another rehash. A shameless attempt to remake, or how they say it these days, reboot the same idea with minimal changes except the cast. I was naive. The whole movie is about Spider-Man's origin. They traded Mary Jane for another love interest and held off on "The Green Goblin" because that would be too much "rubbing it in the face" for the fans, I guess. We get Gwen Stacy and "The Lizard". The rest is same old, same old. The same uncle Ben plot, the same scenes about making the suit, learning how to control powers, the search for the criminal Spider-man lets get away with horrific results. Same thing. Except everything is done without a spark of energy or creativity. Raimi's movies were energetic, flowing with excitement. They were "new". Seeing Spider-Man on the big screen, webbing all over the city, fighting "The Green Goblin", it was amazing. We didn't have "The Avengers" back there, or "Iron Man". This was like a dream come true for comic fans. "The Amazing Spider-Man" smells of old cheese. I tried to take the movie for what it was but it was impossible. My mind would not let me. I knew what was going to happen next. I knew all the plots! I'd seen it all before! But even ignoring that deja-vu the movie just does not work. Its slow, turgid with an unlikable Peter Parker and a CGI lizard for a villain. Parker is a whiny, self centered idiot. His relationship with aunt May and uncle Ben is never fully explored and what little there is consists of Parker being a rude jerk for no reason at all. The movie has one thing going for it. The cast. Sally Field and Martin Sheen are great with what little material they have. Emma Stone is sexy and sweet which is "her thing" and again she pulls it off brilliantly. Rhys Ifans is decent as Curt Connors and surprisingly I loved Andrew Garfield as Spidey. Yes, seriously! He looks perfect for the part and he did his best with the horrible script. He's charismatic and brought his own touch to the role instead of copying Toby Maguire. If the movie is even slightly original its because of him. Some of the action in the last third of the movie is also spectacular. Spider-man's movements when fighting are really well done as is the web-slinging. The action is well directed and exciting and the movie sets up a sequel rather nicely. But its asking a lot to go over the material everyone knows for two hours for a few minutes of cool action. The movie plays it so safe it hurts. Its competent but never brilliant. Tedious and far too long with little spots of action but few and far between. I hope in the sequel this "Spider-Man" can find its own style and its own place. Given space to grow and evolve, on the strength of the character and Garfield's acting this could be the weak start to a new amazing super-hero trilogy. Then again, maybe i'm just naive.
This new spiderman is HOT.
The movie has a few good moments but overall its a CRAP.
Yepp, a well done movie. I have to say that this one is probably the best of all spider-man movies.
I am no big fan of Spiderman, but the movies always were entertaining.
But I gotta say: this movie is the best of all Spiderman movies made. Wow. Amazing.
No big deal of identity hiding. No Hollywood bullshit love story.
Simply great.
Muy buena peli !!! Ahora a esperar la secuela :D
Me gusto mucho la peli !!! Ahora a esperar la secuela :D
Thumbs Up! Better than any of the previous 3 I think.
This was utterly abysmal, so bloody long and boring, I fell asleep twice. totally unnecessary to reboot Spiderman again, this is dross compared to the previous films.
This movie was good. I even liked it better than Dark Knight Rises.
Weak sauce, but good special effects
What MajorMercyFlush said. Really. One sentence synopsis you ask?
"It's a people story, rather than a superhero story and I liked that"
My Friends and me think this is One of the standart Hollywood Films - Not a spidey Film. 6/10 Points.
Shout by egeidalBlockedParent2012-11-16T15:26:02Z
Better Spiderman than the last time...better girl. Awsome effects, and a better story. All in all a great comic book adaption :D