The Amazing Spider-man

[The Dark Knight]

I'm thinking all the mask revealing was to show duality. One of the things Maguire wasn"t good at was showing the duality: he acted far differently as spider_man than as peter parker (Raimi even indicates thats why they had him remove his mask in the trail scene). Garfield clearly captured the dualit.

What a complete cop out. The Raimi films were blasted for showing sequences of mask removal. Yet TASM, which doesn't seem to justify it's existence and is more of a retread than a reboot, gets a free pass, and people still find a way to slam the Raimi films where it happens there as well. It's apparently vastly different in the retread. People wanted next to no mask revealing when the retread was announced. Here we get more than ever. So now the retread supporters change their tune and defend it? And therefore end up siding with what they were detesting at the start?  I've never had much of an issue with taking off the mask, but the history of the debate is just hilarious and must be called out.

And I don't get what you're saying about Maguire. You say he wasn't good at showing duality -  but then say he acted far differently in the suit as opposed to playing Peter. That doesn't make sense whatsoever. You contradict yourself. When superheroes put on suits they transform into something different mindset wise. That's part of the whole point. Citing that as a criticism is bizarre. How dare an actor get into character and treat the two roles as separate. 

[The Joker]

Off to see this in a few hours.

Took the time to watch this entertaining review video, and it sounds like a complete train wreck.

If anything, I figure Dark Knight might enjoy this. I'll see if I agree pretty soon.   

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escape-to-the-movies/5995-The-Amazing-Spider-Man

[The Dark Knight]

If anything, I figure Dark Knight might enjoy this.

I don't really get any enjoyment out of it. The fact they kicked out the 'good old days' to replace it with something so average makes me ferociously angry and depressed at the same time. Nothing I see betters the past version - be it musically, aesthetically or whatever else. And remember, these comparisons were meant to look bad for Raimi- not bad for Webb - who directed his second movie ever with TASM.

I don't want to go too overboard, but it's like nailing Jesus up on the cross and realising afterwards what you had. When I first heard the news of Sony's decision, I was guttered and gobsmacked but others were cheering. I found it to be like this scene from Revenge of the Sith:

WHOO-HOO! BRING IT ON, BABY! I just wish that Marvel Studios was handling it, like Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk. Hopefully they'll get someone that is fairly young so he can stick around for more than 2 sequels. Tobey got old with the part... VERY FAST. I also like how they are shooting for a 2012 release. Just in time for Spidey's 50th anniversary!

I found it to be pointless - and especially pointless now that they didn't play the differentiations as much as they could have. Sony made their bed. If SM3 sapped enthusiasm for the series, this retread saps everything out of it before they've even really started. Will we hear that crowd get into this soulless affair as much as they did with SM3?

Brilliant review/observations here:

http://www.craveonline.com/film/reviews/191131-review-the-amazing-spider-man

[The Joker]

Here. We. Go.

Checked this out last night. Was OK. Not amazing. There's most definately some very noticeable changes in the Spider-Man mythology going on here, but that's to be expected with it being so recently done in the Raimi film, and Raimi was actually more faithful here with regard to telling the original Lee/Ditko origin story (which unfortunately was later meddled with by the Sandman retcon/subplot).

Having gone to the local theater to watch this, I made a effort to view this as a new movie franchise, far removed from the 1960s and 1970s comics. What you get here is something more akin to Brian Bendis' Ultimate Spider-Man comic, where there's an obvious intent to be more 'modern' with the material, and with that, the mythology can play out very differently. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. But it's definately a different presentation much like how Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends was changed from the previous 1960's cartoon, and the Electric Company along with the Nicholas Hammond Spider-Man episodes making even bigger departures.

As far as the film itself goes, I felt the inclusion of the web shooters worked quite well. BUT once again ... they couldn't have Peter Parker 100% create them. Needed a hand from Oscorp for the raw web material of course, which unfortunately, didn't surprise me.

I will say that I liked the chemistry between Gwen and Peter. Both Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield were good in their roles and most of the acting is of a fairly high standard. Gwen evoked that classic Gwen Stacy that I know from the Lee/Romita days, and Peter was more of that Ultimate approach where he's more of a hipster teen with angst. Certainly a departure from the Lee/Ditko days where Peter was a bit more dorky and which I felt Tobey Maguire played all too well. I also enjoyed how Flash Thompson was a bit more fleshed out as a character than how he was presented in Raimi's version, which was that of a very generic High School bully. The light hearted, often comical approach that Raimi took is gone, and replaced with a more gritty aesthetic look. This can be a positive or negative depending on one's POV.

The Lizard looked like a very generic SyFy villain rather than the character from the comics (really missed the snout, and yes I'm aware of Ditko's original design of the Lizard being snoutless, but I felt he resembled the goomba's from the Super Mario Bros. live action movie a little too much, with a little Killer Croc thrown in for good measure). At least he did wear a labcoat a couple of time, if briefly, and looks-aside, was serviceable as the main villain.

Want horrible contrivances and coincidences? You will get them here. So if people don't mind bitching and moaning about Spider-Man 3, there should be some equal bitching and moaning for this endeavor as well.

Not 1. Not 2. But 3 major characters find out Peter's secret identity, which is crap. Peter revealing his identity to Gwen is too easy -- it allows him to alleviate his burden, shirk his responsibilities (like the hint at the end that he won't keep his promise to Captain Stacy; not exactly a Peter Parker trait in my estimation), and yes, there's lot's of unnecessary 'face time' in this. It's a trait that was undoubtedly in the Raimi films, and I felt it was only amplified here.

There is a scene involving crane operators helping Spider-Man that is absolutely cringeworthy. Go crane operator!

And there seems to be a reluctance to allow Spider-Man to be the main hero. At the end they seem to want to allow Captain Stacy and Gwen to have as much of a share of the action as our hero. To this end, Spidey's spider sense seems to abandon him half way through the film, and he gets hit by bullets, tasers, punches that he should be able to evade, but I guess that's adding to the overall dramatic effect of the climax.

Oh, and I have to say I was quite amused in the end credits by the revelation that the Spider-Man costume is made by Cirque Du Soleil. 

[gordonblu]

I would call it the "Alright" or "Acceptable" Spider-Man. I ended up liking it more than I thought I would, but I do not consider it a game changer the way Raimi's was. I thought the cast did well enough, except I REALLY missed Rosemary Harris as Aunt May, Sally Fields was a poor replacement IMO. I also kept wondering what Dylan Baker could have done with the Connors/Lizard material.

There is a scene involving crane operators helping Spider-Man that is absolutely cringeworthy. Go crane operator!

When that scene happened, I immediately thought the filmmakers were prepping the video game tie-in for level suggestions!



Also on a side note, during the Dark Knight Rises trailer that preceded (how can a trailer precede? Hmmm...) a character asks Bane who he is, and while I know what he really said, I started snickering because it sounded like he responded: " I am this city's rectum."

I can be a little perverted at times.

[The Dark Knight]

I'd rank the movies:

1. Spider-Man 2
2. Spider-Man 3
3. Spider-Man
4. The Amazing Spider-Man

[Paul (ral)]

I'd rank the movies:

1. Spider-Man 2
2. Spider-Man 3
3. Spider-Man
4. The Amazing Spider-Man

SM3 better than SM1? Really? Is TASM that bad?

[riddler]

I'm thinking all the mask revealing was to show duality. One of the things Maguire wasn"t good at was showing the duality: he acted far differently as spider_man than as peter parker (Raimi even indicates thats why they had him remove his mask in the trail scene). Garfield clearly captured the dualit.

What a complete cop out. The Raimi films were blasted for showing sequences of mask removal. Yet TASM, which doesn't seem to justify it's existence and is more of a retread than a reboot, gets a free pass, and people still find a way to slam the Raimi films where it happens there as well. It's apparently vastly different in the retread. People wanted next to no mask revealing when the retread was announced. Here we get more than ever. So now the retread supporters change their tune and defend it? And therefore end up siding with what they were detesting at the start?  I've never had much of an issue with taking off the mask, but the history of the debate is just hilarious and must be called out.

And I don't get what you're saying about Maguire. You say he wasn't good at showing duality -  but then say he acted far differently in the suit as opposed to playing Peter. That doesn't make sense whatsoever. You contradict yourself. When superheroes put on suits they transform into something different mindset wise. That's part of the whole point. Citing that as a criticism is bizarre. How dare an actor get into character and treat the two roles as separate. 

Because playing a dual role is all about balance; it's the same person playing 2 different personalities. Basically it's like playing a role and a half. Clooney for instance played the exact same character in and out of the suit. Tobey failed to make it believable that His Peter parker WOULD take the mantle of spider-man. He was clearly the wimpy nerd. Check the scene early in the Amazing spider-man when Peter stands up to flash WITHOUT powers; that implies he is a hero a heart whereas MaGuire's clearly was not.

[Gotham Knight]

I'd rank the movies:

1. Spider-Man 2
2. Spider-Man 3
3. Spider-Man
4. The Amazing Spider-Man

SM3 better than SM1? Really? Is TASM that bad?

Agreed. SM1 was fantastic IMO. In fact, I'd say it was almost better than 2, but I know 2 has it's own sub camp of support, and deservedly so.

[The Dark Knight]

SM3 better than SM1? Really? Is TASM that bad?

I love SM3. I don't see what the big deal is. I like SM1 a lot (its direct competition is TASM and it wins) but like the other two more.

TASM really does feel soulless and going through the motions. It doesn't have any heart.

And things that were made to be a big deal, like having web shooters, were reduced to very quick montages and not emphasised much at all.