The Amazing Spider-Man (SPOILERS BEWARE!)

horacethegrey

First Post
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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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.
 

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
 

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
 

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.
 



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.
 

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?
 

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.
 

Remove ads

Top