jeff3523

(2013-05-22 04:13:53)

If you want to....we can change.

First if I may I would like to give you a good review over this film onboth film and story wise. Both good and bad. Fist i will start with the bad. It was completely un-original. Now is that a bad thing. No not even alittle bit. At least we know what to expect when we go into watch thisfilm. But that in itself speaks for itself. We do need to come up withbetter ways to tell this story especially if we are going to reboot itevery 5 years or so. Story line. Boy is in high school. Boy meetsblonde, boy falls in love. boy gets a power, finds responsibility, hasto grow up quickly. We have a good guy and a bad guy, with not a wholelot in between. Even the dad story is very vague. (However I do realizethey will prolly make 7 of these movies. so that story will hopefullycome later.) It was creepy predictable and anybody that knows anythingabout film was going to guess what was going to happen next and youknew that the stuff he was going to have to face through out the story.And even borrowed lines from not only previous Spiderman movies butother comic book movies as well. So we can't help but wonder why theycouldn't come up with a story line that is somewhat original and neededto find a way to see the difference of old spidy and new spidy. Filmwise. They had a bunch of mistakes that involved bad direction or justplain Ole forgetting backpacks, where your hand is placed on a cup whencut to a new angle. So needless to say the editing was not good when itcame to jump cuts. Through out I counted a total of 8 out of focusshots and I know enuff to know when they are on purpose for effect. butwhen you have a pivot swing from a crane shot you have to do well enuffjob to see you will go out of focus. Sure enuff. Now I know an amateurlike myself won't even come close to being able to pull off that shotbut I do expect them too. I absolutely hated the ending. Especiallywith the cranes and once you see it you will know what I am talkingabout. I do not like the bad guy story line. Its too simple and notgood. And it ends awkwardly. We don't get enuff of the Aunt and Unclein my opinion. We see them enuff to give them some good wisdom pointsto Peter but that is it. So because of those things I would of given it a 4 out of 10. But here is the good. When it comes to the story I did enjoy the fact they finally touched onthe parents. We have missed out on so much not knowing anything aboutthe parents. What little we find out about them we finally see them. SoI hope we see them come up more in the next few movies. Villain wise,we finally see a character that didn't just come out of no where. Wesee emotion and character. However not good, its finally good enuff tosee on the screen to care about to follow along with his story. Theidea to make his own webbing was cool. However originally that wasapart of his powers when he was bitten. They just don't give it to him.But it is different. However brief it was I do like the Sally Field andMartin Sheen as the Aunt and Uncle and I love them as actors and theydid such an amazing job. Which leads me into my next thought. The castdid a really good job. Andrew Garfield is a better spiderman and I havea small crush on Emma Stone so this was good to see her with blondehair. The idea of bringing in Gwen instead of M.J. was better and if Iam not mistaken, accurate to the comic book. (I haven't read spidyadventures. sorry fans) But I believe that is correct. Sorry if i amnot. Editing from this aspect was really well done. There wasn't thoseawkward transitions, a little darker filter, and the last movementthrough New York, there is a shot that is slowed way down and it isabsolutely fabulous. I can't stress that enuff how amazed I was whenthe frame rates went way down and it was the best shot in the entiremovie. Major props to the editing crew Alan Edward Bell, MichaelMcCusker, Pietro Scalia for doing that move. The special effects inthis movie were tons better. I can't express enuff how much better theywere in this film. The score was good as well. Enticing and kept youinterested in the action. Towards the end there is a scene where theyuse hard piano chords and it was great. I loved it. That was perfect The director left big gaping holes in the story, but, we do have manymore to come. One thing I do want to give him credit. The idea ofSpidy/Peter Parker, finally, having wounds. He doesn't get hit and ismiraculously healed instantly. He is bloodied up and bruised. Andfinally someone noticed it. All of this is what made me give it a 6 out of 10 stars. It was good,could of been better. But it is a good start for something to berebooted. Even tho it was just like the other movies. But still good towatch in theaters. (I do want to apologize to all those who made it through this reviewand caught all of my mistakes grammar wise. I am not the best.)

ashyoko

(2013-05-21 17:55:28)

amazing is only one word to describe this movie

after watching all 4 of the spider-man titled movies over the pastdecade Marc Webb's the amazing spider-man is by far the best yet with anew cast put into past roles and past characters put into differentpositions this adaptation is spot on instead of just placing Gwen Stacyin the middle of a series like spider-man three Emma stones characterhas finally developed a back story and ties in great compared with itscomic book predecessor.and Andrew Garfield fits his role perfectly ashe is a quit nerdy kid by day a like the comics a sometimes obnoxiousand cocky to his enemies vigilante by night. Although there just acouple of scenes which leave you thinking what was the point of allthat and leave some groaning but if you are a long time comic fan thenthis is a must see with the Dark knight Rises release getting closer iwould see it fast as the hype will die down come July 20th to concludethe amazing spider-man is a must see for one reason AMAZING STORY andno random character drop ins and also Martin sheen

miruleyall

(2013-05-19 20:13:12)

The Average Spider-man 2012

Why does this movie even exist? Sony cant even wait 10 years untilremaking a modern classic and not doing it justice by letting too manysubtleties slip through their fingers.We are never told what happens to uncle bens killer, their is no realdriving force behind what anyone is doing besides 'its just happeningand i need to do this stuff because i want to bla bla bla' everythingseems rushed.The CGI is OK for the mostpart until we get to see the lizardman, wowthey cant even get lipsync right in 2012 when the 10 year old originalmovie could.I have seen older indie movies with better cgi, in this is was over thetop and quite unessicary.Some more practical effects would have been nice.Sony get butthurt after their meddling of the 2007 Spiderman 3 movie.Sam Riami quits and now they remake his superior movie in favor of thisteen centric generic movie with more product placement then a 80'sscifi.Sure it got the basics right but it never tried to do anything new likeSpiderman 2002.On top of a equally generic story, music, themes and obviouslypredictable outcome.There is just no point to this movie AT ALL.Hopefully 2 will be better like 2004's spiderman 2 but at least theymight fix whatever the hell was going on with Spiderman 3.7/10

younagendra

(2013-05-19 13:57:42)

It is a re-remake of Spider Man

"The Amazing Spider-Man" I was really excited to watch this since firstlook of this movie,when i watched the trailer it seems to me that ithas good expectations.I just watched this movie it has very goodtechnical crew you have to appreciate the entire team.Firstly thedirected Mark Webb has done a great job regarding the script work .Hecomes out with an experiment to make this Spider Man though people haveseen the Spider Man before.The core part of this movie isscreenplay,and the treatment of Spider Man character it was very cheekyand fun mixed way not very seriously designed.Andrew Garfield did verywell,and Emma Stone as well she looks very clean "cheeks".When youwatch this in 3d it would feel you great,and very exciting also.Theproducers has to be admired for those selection because they believe inthe script even though The Spider Man was done in the past.I would saythis is much better than the first Spider Man but there should havebeen more thrilling in the action sequences.

Sisiutil

(2013-05-18 00:44:41)

Too soon!

I have nothing against a franchise reboot. It certainly didn't hurt therecent Batman films, or Star Trek. However, the conditions have to beright. And conditions were decidedly NOT right for a Spider-Man reboot.Sam Raimi's first two Spider-Man films are not only recent (the firstonly 10 years old), they are also successful, popular, and well-liked.We haven't had a long period of time go by and/or tolerated a series ofmediocre franchise entries. As a result, the audience is inevitablycomparing this film to the previous ones (I haven't seen a single IMDbreview, even the sparse positive ones, that avoid mentioning the Raimifilms). Even worse, it's obvious that the film-makers were comparingthe films as well. As a result, it's nearly impossible for ASM toinclude things that WORKED from the previous films because they'll seemtoo similar. Thus, the whole origin sequence seems forcibly, awkwardlydifferent rather than natural, organic, and elegant.The film has other problems too. It's incredibly inconsistent in how ittreats plot points. Significant elements are raised (the fate ofPeter's parents, Spider-Man's hunt for Uncle Ben's killer) and are thendropped for no discernible reason.Characterization, especially of Peter, is another problem: for a kidwho's obviously a scientific/engineering prodigy, he's astonishinglyinarticulate. I suppose this was an attempt to recreate the verbalstumbling typical of adolescence, but unfortunately it results in acharacter who seems more stupid than he really should be and a lot ofawkward, forgettable dialogue.It's too bad, because in some regards the film showed promise. MartinSheen was great, as he always is. The effects and action sequences arewell-done, if not exceptional. And one thing they did better than theRaimi films is including more of the non-stop wise-cracking typical ofthe comic book Spider-Man. I really think if the film-makers had either(a) let 5-10 more years go by or (b) as some other reviewers havesuggested, just got a different director and cast and did Spider-Man 4without retelling the origin story, it would have turned out a lotbetter.

rivertam26

(2013-05-17 02:22:35)

Just above average spider man

You would think someone named Mark Webb would be a shoe in to direct amovie version of Spider man with that name. You would also think amovie entitled the amazing spider man would be in in fact an amazingtake on the material. On both of these accounts you'd be wrong. Not tosay the film doesn't have moments and is generally entertaining but forthe most part it's kind of a mess. This time around the take on PeterParker is a more realistic one. He's a little annoying, a littleselfish, a lot more sarcastic so your normal teenager. The events inthe film transpire accordingly with the bite of the spider and thedeath of his parents and than Uncle. But the film unravels in aninteresting way making the material seem fresh and mostly unvisited.What the film gets wrong mostly lies in it's direction. Despite a fewstabs at the darker side of things this seems like spidey light. It'svery comical, with lots of jokes and a sort of disneyish genericatmosphere. Which is all fine and dandy but the film just doesn't meshwell. It moves sloppily back and forth beneath genres and subplotswithout building a realistic engagement to the events depicted. Thegood lies in the films interesting and inspired casting choices AndrewGarfield is geekyily gorgeous in the lead and although his character issomewhat angsty he manages to make him likable and is truly gifted atbeing emotionally resonant. Emma Stone is cute but unnecessary as hislove interest and even though the 2 share winning chemistry theirrelationship isn't allowed time to develop appropriately and seems alittle forced. Sally Field also adds some solid support as Aunt May.The film sports nice special effects but the 3D is just so so. A bettertake on the material would have been a darker one such as as the darkknight is to Batman franchise. I do think they made the right decisionin rebooting the material as the last installment in the previousfranchise had worn out it's welcome. As Spider Man films go this onefalls into being the second best. However, it should be noted thatalthough I enjoyed the original film immensely I wasn't a big fan ofthe others. There's a lot to enjoy here and I would welcome anotherinstallment but I do hope Marc Webb is not a part of it as well as thescreenwriters that penned this installment. Although a piece ofpassable Hollywood blockbuster entertainment the film admirably worksbetter on it's human levels which is a great feat to accomplish. Thatbeing said the film ends up being a just above average spider man thanan amazing one.

leoskyrai

(2013-05-14 16:20:20)

Doesn't reach the heights of Spiderman 2, but a great movie nonetheless.

Looking back at the previous three Spiderman movies, the 2nd one wasthe best followed by the 1st, while the 3rd one as we know crashed andburned. This movie -- though it deserves to be looked at by its own -- beatsthe 3rd one by mile, is somewhat a little better than the first one,but falls way short of the 2nd one (which I consider one of the bestsuperhero movies). This movie goes back the origin of Spiderman and it does well exploringPeter Parker as a character. Unlike Tobey Maguire's Peter Parker, thisPeter Parker lacks the charm and sincerity. That being said, Garfieldis excellent in portraying the vulnerability and insecurity of PeterParker, who after all is an adolescent with a big void left in hisheart by his parents. This movie drops the innocence and 50's-likeatmosphere for a grittier set-in the 21st century feel, in which PeterParker has a cell phone -- remember Raimi's Parker calling from apayphone?Anyway, the plot line involves the transformation of Dr. Connors intothe Lizard, and how Peter Parkerand his parents fit into that. Director Marc Webb has done a great job. More than the action scenes,he has aced in the emotional content of this movie. The scenes betweenEmma Stone who plays Gwen Stacy and Garfield are brilliant. And whatcan I say about Emma Stone? She's absolutely a dream.

Matthew Walker

(2013-05-14 14:24:48)

With great films come great risks. This movie took none.

When I first heard of the Amazing Spider-Man, I was highly skeptical.Indeed, a reboot of a series only ten years old would need to bringoriginality to a character whose image is still close in our memories.However, after hearing from friends and reviewers of its above averagequality, my expectations were changed. Nevertheless, The AmazingSpider-Man unfortunately was no more than what I first expected, makingmany mistakes that seemed elementary.When the developers of this project presented The Amazing Spider-Man asa "reboot", what they meant to say was "remake". There was simply nooriginality to this piece, failing to differentiate from itspredecessor, and as a result was dwarfed by superior writing,characters, and casting.It's cinematography was make do, lacking style and was completelyunspectacular for its spectacular subject. The soundtrack I've heard amillion times, attempting inspiring tones, but ultimately feelingamateur and lacking in rhythm or flow. The Amazing Spider-Man is filledwith lazy plot elements to rush the story along.A victim of its unoriginal story and characters, the casting seemedoff. Though the performances of the original trilogy were painfullybad, they were casted perfectly. Toby Maguire, though terrible atlooking sad, was born to play Spider-Man. Andrew Garfield was just tocool to be an awkward nerd. It would be like Jim Carrey as theGodfather. The acting was definitely a massive improvement to theoriginal, and it did produce one or two heartfelt scenes.But alas, this was all null and void. The Amazing Spider-Man lackeddirection. It aspired to be dark and emotional, but the writing did notsupport the move. The characters would be acting ultra serious andforeboding, but the stupidity of some of the scenes was an unbearablecontrast. It was catered to the lowest common denominator. They helpedthe inattentive audience with blatant foreshadowing and presentationsscreaming, "THIS IS HIS PLAN!!! LET ME SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU!!!" But forthe audience such as myself that has at least a sliver of focus, thisfelt insulting and annoying. At parts I (literally) laughed at how lametheir effort was. In one scene, Spider-Man discovers Dr. Conner's evilmaster plan, as a result of a childishly convenient 3D animationdemonstrating step by step with fun little graphics how the dirty deedwill be done. Why does Dr. Conner have this on his computer? Is heworried that he will forget his plan? Really, he's much too young forthat level of senility. As a result, the movie was completelypredictable and by the first 15 minutes, I knew the entire plot. Exceptfor the surprise ending, which unfortunately spat in the face of themain idea of the movie.Yes, the one recycled from the original (with great power comes greatresponsibility), but the failed to improve on it, and for the almostthe entire movie, completely neglected it. This movie was horridlyshallow, which rubbed off mostly on Parker's and Gwen Stacy'srelationship, which was simply laughable. It was the old, "Oh, you likeme? 'Cause I like you! Let's make out." Face-palm.Not merely does it hide in the shadow of the original trilogy, but inthe shadow of every other super hero and action movie ever made. As aresult, The Amazing Spider-Man was completely unspectacular andunoriginal. With great films comes great risks, but The Amazing Spider-Man took none. Having only the acting and a couple of powerful scenesto give me air to breathe, I became suffocated with boredom. This didnot feel like Spider-Man. Spider-Man doesn't need mechanical webshooters. Spiderman grows as a hero (it's called characterization JamesVanderbilt). No, this is Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, and Rhys Ifans onHalloween.

jasongrace15205

(2013-05-13 21:35:39)

Review

Every fan of Spider-Man, Andrew Garfield, Marc Webb should go and seethe movie."The Amazing Spider-Man" when you see it as a reboot of aprevious Spider-Man film franchise which was a hit, everyone expectsmore from this movie.Marc Webb has done a great job in retelling thestory of Peter Parker but has not done a great job in using the 3Deffects to its fullest. Andrew Garfield has done an amazing job as anactor in the movie. He is in many ways a more convincing PeterParker/Spider-Man than Toby Maguire. But has not been able bring theinnocence of Peter Parker to the big screen as was done by TobyMaguire.Marc Webb could have made it a better movie had he emphasizedmore scenes of Peter Parker realizing his responsibility asSpider-Man,New York city's opinion about Spider-Man's action as avigilante,more 3D effects.Chemistry between Emma Stone and AndrewGarfield is excellently portrayed.It is a good movie to watch butcannot be compared to previous Spider-Man franchise in terms ofdirection.

jfgibson73

(2013-05-13 07:20:51)

A fun take on the Spider-Man story

I enjoyed this movie. I thought it was fun and mostly well-written. Iliked the casting and the visuals. They took many of the familiarelements of Spidey's origin and did two main things differently: theywent further back into his childhood, involving his parents(particularly his father), and they set the story very firmly in thepresent. The scenes that take place in the school felt especiallycontemporary, as did the science lab. The equipment and technology weresome of the better visual elements, showing colorful touchscreens andthree-dimensional projections that are not yet in use, but felt likethey might not be far off. I liked the character of Curt Conners, and Iliked Emma Stone's Gwen Stacey. I felt like the movie got fairlyformulaic in the last act, when the hero has to save the city in abattle on top of a skyscraper before the bomb goes off. But the first3/4 of the movie were different. It didn't feel tired or clichГѓВ©d, andit didn't feel like they took any shortcuts in the story, so it was agood setup. I would look forward to another installment by the samecast and filmmakers.

anurag-awesome

(2013-05-13 15:02:26)

A refreshing take on our beloved superhero.

Peter Parker(Andrew Garfield) finds a clue as to why his parentsabandoned him when he was a boy. He meets Dr. Curt Connors(Rhys Ifans)a man who worked with his father for many years. This movie is mainlyabout Peter Parker when he was in high school. It follows The AmazingSpider-Man comics much more faithfully than the previous movies. So, wehave Gwen Stacy(Emma Stone) as his love interest, because Gwen Stacywas Peter Parker's first love interest in the comics. Peter lives withhis Uncle Ben(Martin Sheen) & Aunt May(Sally Field).First off, I want to say that I liked it as much as the original:Spider-Man(2002). I loved the fact that Spider-Man mocks the bad guyswhen he's fighting them, like he does in the comics. The 3D was great,especially when Spider-Man swings from building to building in New YorkCity. However, some scenes were better in the original. The characterof Aunt May was more likable in the original. Certain crucial sceneslike a key character's death was more emotional in the original.Spider-Man doesn't even avenge the key character's death though a lotof time is wasted trying to find him. For a couple of minutesSpider-Man fights crime only wearing a mask. Later on, he just randomlywears a red & blue spandex suit & doesn't even give himself a name.However, later when someone asks him he says he's Spider-Man.Furthermore the New York Police Department led by Captain Stacy(DenisLeary) is desperate to catch the vigilante known as Spider-Man. But,they're not at all bothered about capturing The Lizard even though he'sa bigger threat. Spider-Man willingly takes his mask off for Gwen Stacyrevealing that he is Spidey himself. I thought Peter Parker was his'secret' identity. Anyway, too many people find out that he'sSpider-Man which is not very Spidey-ish. There is no affection betweenPeter & Aunt May like in the previous movies. In Raimi's trilogy AuntMay was portrayed as an affectionate, loving & caring woman. In thismovie the only thing Peter & May do is fight, argue & fight some more.This is why Rosemary Harris' portrayal of Aunt May was much better. Imissed the characters of Harry Osborn(Raimi's trilogy: portrayed byJames Franco) & Daily Bugle editor J. Jonah Jameson(Raimi's trilogy:portrayed by J.K Simmons). These are minor flaws though. However, thecharacter of Mary Jane Watson is not missed. Emma Stone as Gwen Stacyis the perfect replacement. She's not just a damsel in distress but asmart & intelligent girl who's ready to help Spider-Man when she can.The romance between Peter & Gwen is adorable. The only problem I hadwith this movie is that Peter takes too long to become Spider-Man. TheLizard was a great villain. Andrew Garfield is amazing as PeterParker/Spider-Man. Garfield easily slips into the shoes of Peter Parker& dons the costume of Spider-Man with ease. The new costume is muchmore slick & stylish. I loved the concept of the web shooters,following the original comics to the T. Emma Stone is impressive asGwen Stacy. Martin Sheen is great as Uncle Ben. Denis Leary isbrilliant as Captain Stacy. Sally Field was first of all too young toplay Aunt May & she was unimpressive in the role. Rhys Ifans isoutstanding as Curt Connors/The Lizard. The supporting characters likeFlash Thompson(Chris Zylka), Richard Parker(Campbell Scott), MaryParker(Embeth Davidtz) & Rajit Ratha(Irrfan Khan) are effective aswell. The ending definitely paved a way for a sequel which Sonyannounced is releasing in 2014. Stick around during the credits for acrucial scene that gives a hint as to who might be the antagonist inthe sequel. The Amazing Spider-Man is worth a watch. So, grab your 3Dglasses, clear your mind, stop comparing it to the old movies, sitback, relax & enjoy 136 minutes of full on entertainment!

Harmeet Heer

(2013-05-13 04:45:06)

It truly was "Amazing"!

When I saw the original 2002 movie, I liked it. But to be honest, itdid have some moments that were a bit goofy or didn't make sense likeSpiderman and Green Goblin having a conversation on a rooftop. If itwas suppose to be taken seriously...I have to say Green Goblin put itbest. Also, all I kept thinking in my head was "Wasn't Gwen Stacysuppose to be Peter Parker's first girlfriend"? But don't get me wrong,I still like this film.But when I saw "The Amazing Spiderman" in the cinema, I was absolutelymind-blown! Even though it doesn't quite follow the original source ofthe comic books, I personally don't care so long as the material works.This film had more dark and adult themes; it was a gritty, suspensefuldramatic movie and that's what I expect from a Spiderman movie. Also,unlike the original 2002 film, I really like how they really divinginto making these characters more relatable and likable. AndrewGarfield, in my opinion is a believable Spiderman, and that is theSpiderman I love to see, and that doesn't mean I hate Tobey Maguire, Ilike him, I really do, I just prefer Andrew; He is smart, witty andresponsible in most cases. Finally, The chemistry between Andrew andEmma was perfect, it was really awkward, but romantic at the same time;this film also explained the origin of Peter Parker really well thanthe original 2002 film. One more thing I would also like to add is inthis version of the film, Spiderman is funny, he's very enjoyable andhe creates this great personality, I really like to see more of AndrewGarfield as Spiderman.Although, this film did have some flaws to it. Like for example, atfirst they made the villain Dr. Curt Connors/The Lizard interesting andyou sort of feel sorry for him and he seems sort of complex but as soonas he starts turning into The Lizard, they really don't go too muchinto his personality or what's his logic, it just feels very rushed andI think that is a problem because when you get to his big master plan,your not really sure on why he's doing it or you don't see theprogression to how he got there. Also, another flaw with this film isthat Uncle Ben's death was really rushed and it didn't hold as muchimpact as Raimi's version of when Ben dies and I liked the fact thatthey delve into the history of Peter's parents but the movie spendskind of a short time on it once he meets Dr. Curt Connors, its likethey're almost forgotten entirely. But overall, I really enjoyed this film, they've chosen a really goodcast. If you want a Spiderman film that has more dark and adult themesto it, I really recommend this. Otherwise, just stick to the original2002 film. But I think that this is really enjoyable for any Spidermanor Marvel fans out there! Watch this film! I think you would reallyenjoy it!10/10

edisondsa-365-568793

(2013-05-12 10:04:43)

Worst Film OF 2012 so far and one of the worst in this decade !!!

First Twilight now this !!!!This is the worst adaptation of spider mani have seen yet . It is the worst movie i have seen this year. It is aninsult to spider man and his fans .... What awful acting by AndrewGarfield, Emma stone and the other actors as well. Spider man (2002)was 100000 times better than this . Really lousy directing i have seenbad Hindi movies this year but this one beats all i don't know who madeMark Webb a director. I will surely nominate this one for a Razzie . Ireally hope it wins worst picture and bags most of the Razzieawards.The story is so slow and boring animation is poor as well.I urgepeople to please stay away from this one even if you have nothing elseto watch.

Danii Disaster

(2013-05-11 17:42:53)

Unimpressed!

What exactly was this? A remake? Or a prequel? Not clear.First of all, who the hell remakes a 5 year old movie!? It's acceptable to remake movies from the 70s, 80s, and even the 90s!But the original "Spiderman" franchise is only FIVE bloody years old!Come on! If it ain't broke, why fix it? If it was meant as a prequel, then why are we seeing the same stuff wesaw in the original, and why are all the characters so different? I honestly have no idea what possessed these people to produce suchcrap. The original "Spiderman" was (and still is) 100 times better, andit's not REMOTELY old or outdated.By the way... this is NOT an action movie; it's a chick-flick!Literally.And what's with this annoying tendency to cast 30-year-olds to playteenagers? It's lame. Speaking of the actors, they couldn't have pickeda worst set of amateurs. I don't even remember their names, and I hopethey're going to retire from the movie industry sometime soon, becausethey have no business being in it.The direction was seriously bad. Like I said before, it's NOT an actionmovie, but the VERY LITTLE action there is, is happening in totaldarkness, so you don't actually see it! Stupid and annoying! This is NOT the real "Spiderman"; it's a cheap imitation. Some pathetic30-year-old wimp, pretending to be a teenager, is running around andgetting beat up by regular folk? What an insult to "Spiderman" fans! Oh, and why release this utter nonsense in 3D if 90% of the movie is in2D? This weak, useless, uninspired chick-flick was made for one reasononly: to capitalize on the name of the "Spiderman" franchise and rippeople (fans) off!Shame on you!

bnjmn

(2013-05-11 02:37:53)

Very good characterization, but off at other points

First off I gotta say that I liked this version of Spidey better thanthe Raimi movies, although they could've done a lot better. It seemslike nobody's really able to get it THE right way, but then again, whatcomic adaption can provide that (I mean, not even Nolan's Batman moviesare what I would consider THE right way).I really enjoyed the buildup of The Amazing Spider-Man, they took theirtime introducing all the characters and developing the story, but theproblem with retelling an origin story is - wait for it - that it hasalready been told (duh). So you got to change it as much as not to berepetitive and not too much to be able to stay true to the original.The outcome then is basically the same motives and action with just theouter story elements changed slightly. You could really see how they,at some points, desperately tried to avoid to sound too much the sameas Raimi's Spider-Man; take for example the scene where Uncle Ben dies:I think they already did a great job telling it in the previousSpider-Man movies, so this just seemed a little bit like a worseversion.Although I thought the cast was very I good, I couldn't quite fit EmmaStone in the character of Gwen Stacy at first, but in the end Icouldn't deny that she was a superb choice. Unlike Andrew Garfield, whowas an as good - if not to say better - Peter Parker/Spidey than TobyMaguire. I could've used a bit more wise-cracking from Spidey (yeah,the car thief joke was good, but apart from that...). He even managedto do a better job in ripping his mask of at every opportunity... Imean, seriously guys, you just overdid it there, after the second timeit was just plain ridiculous.Speaking of masks the suit looked cool in its own way, but I would'vegone with a more comic-like look. In making it look more "dark" and"realistic" the designers managed to actually make it look lessrealistic, because which teenager can sew this suit on his own? Regularspandex would've been more realistic, but okay, that's a problem everysuperhero with a costume has, I guess. Overall I think they overdid ita little with wanting the movie a darker and more adult look, it allseemed a bit forced.Nonetheless they mostly managed to stick to the comics where it madesense (I couldn't stand watching Toby Maguire swinging through townwithout having to use webshooters) and thus generated the rightatmosphere to have fun with this movie. The Lizard was the right choicefor a villain, even if by his look he appeared to be more of a badKiller Croc rip-off than a lizard (by the way I liked how they let himwear a scientists cloak at two points as a homage to the comic'sversion). Another thing that just personally bothered me with thisversion of the Dr. Connors/Lizard is that he's not depicted as this Dr.Jekyll & Mr. Hyde kind of character, but rather as a bad person overallafter injecting the serum, but people not that familiar with theoriginal character may not be concerned with this.Writing was slightly off at some points, meaning things were made tooeasy for the characters with obvious clues (i.e. lizards crawlingtowards New York sewers; "Property of Peter Parker") and alsoeverything came across just a whit too interconnected and planned out,but that was just in the back of my head when watching the movie.I don't know who they hired for the score of The Amazing Spider-Man andI honestly couldn't care less for his name, but I just hope they won'tgive him another job. Because the music in this movie was just too damnaverage, if not to say awful in some scenes. I mean, Spidey fightingthe Lizard in school to crappy epic/heroic skirmish... what were theythinking? All in all I guess the reboot is enjoyable not only for fansof the comic, but also for the casual movie-goer. I for my part had alot of fun during it. Storytelling concerning Peter's background wasvery good and you could really feel for the characters. Overall theydid a lot of things right, but it definitely needs a little polisharound the edges. I hope they will solve some problems with the sequel(especially introducing some of the typical Spidey characters). I'mlooking forward to it.

nickmesafilms

(2013-05-10 16:54:23)

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) - The Untold Story!

Directed by Marc Webb, and released to immediate box office success,"The Amazing Spider-Man" is a reboot of the original Spider-Man trilogyfrom director Sam Raimi, that's also the first in a new and re-imaginedversion of the series! I have been looking forward to check out thismovie ever since the news came out. But even though I was entertainedby the majority of it all, "The Amazing Spider-Man" is my first bigdisappointment of the year, but it sure is a guilty pleasure. Thismovie follows the exact story about a boy in high school, Peter Parker,whose been abandoned by his parents, lives with his aunt and uncle, andcan't fit in with his surroundings. Until he gets bit by a radioactivespider, gets impossible powers, something tragic happens in his life,and now becomes Spider-Man. It's the basic idea, yet retold in quite anunnecessary way. That's just my main problem with this movie, now thatI've seen this film, it's finally clear to me that a reboot of theAmazing Spider-Man just wasn't a bright idea. I know that some rebootslike to change some material, to not make it too similar to theoriginal story. But this movie definitely takes the cake, making majorchanges to a story that doesn't need to be re-told. Also, this movietotally falls into a mother-load of plot holes. The movie tries tofocus on Peter trying to find out what happened to his parents, andlive through the tragedy involving his uncle, but the movie quicklytakes that away, and instead focuses on Spider-Man saving the city fromthe Lizard. This movie had no clue which way it wanted to follow! But,did I mention that it was kind of long, and at the same time, kind ofslow? Yeah, that's what I thought! But, good news, there were a fewpositives that helped save this movie. The casting is completelybrilliant, all delivering such wonderful and memorable performances.Andrew Garfield really saves this movie, recreating the role of PeterParker a.k.a. Spider-Man. If it wasn't for his performance, this moviewould have fallen to the ground. In every scene, he delivers a greatcharm to the performance, and makes the audience support himthroughout. Emma Stone is also great playing Parker's love-life GwenStacy, whom also shares a believable and glowing chemistry between herand Garfield. I bought the romance in this movie, and these two guyswere cute together. Although not really interesting as the Lizard, RhysIfans still delivers a great performance as Dr. Curtis Connors. DenisLeary plays Capt. George Stacy, Gwen's cop father hunting down themasked hero, and Uncle Ben & Aunt May are portrayed masterfully byMartin Sheen and Sally Field, respectively. The effects are astounding,the music is haunting, and the action scenes just help save this movieby delivering what I came for, fun popcorn entertainment. But overall,there's nothing really special about this movie. Some scenes kind offeel misplaced, there are tons of giant plot holes, and changing thisstory wasn't that smart. Nothing is terrible about this movie, becauseI still came to this movie and got what I wanted. I just wish that thismovie could have been a lot better, and I was really expecting morefrom this giant motion picture. Not a terrible film overall, but "TheAmazing Spider-Man" is a fun spectacle, but it's barely quite not theright choice to be rebooted. "The Amazing Spider-Man", in my review,"exciting fun, but sadly unnecessary".

Achyuta Ghosh

(2013-05-10 02:24:45)

The Amazing Spiderman- fly, swing and get positively amazed!

"The best types of promises are those that are meant to be broken"Superhero movies reached their nadir with the atrocious and mindlessBatman and Robin in 1997, which is why the next superhero movie to comeout- Sam Raimi's Spiderman in 2002 is remains especially memorable, inaddition to it being a great movie in itself. So why make a remake? IsMarvel's comic book chest this threadbare? Or is it a testament to thefact that no matter darkest nights or assembling avengers, Spideyremains one of the most bankable stars, and a seriously capablesuperhero.You have seen it all, you have read it all, folks- coming of age storywhere boy becomes spider and spider becomes man, dealing with loss andtaking on responsibility. High school kid gets bitten by a radioactivespider and begins to acquire spider-inspired superpowers. That andpersonal issues conspire to make a vigilante out of this teenager,resplendent in impossibly tight red and blue spandex. The first hour ispredictably mushy family stuff, so have some patience, because thesecond half literally explodes out of the screen with visceral 3Daction.Yet that's where the similarity ends, and there are a bunch of thingsthat make this movie to find its own voice. Compared to the 2002version, this one is a far truer representation of Spiderman and hisuniverse as Stan Lee envisaged. For starters, this is more about PeterParker than Spiderman, Peter is the face, Spidey is just an act. Its ateenage superhero, so much of the movie takes place in a college. Thisone is actually the polar opposite of The Dark Knight- nothing heavyhanded, mostly light-footed, breezy treatment, with the core being alove story rather than moral corruption. This version attempts toanswer a lot many questions that the previous brushed under the carpet-for example, what happened to Peter's parents? How does Spidey get hiswebs? Where does he gets his super sized brains from? And thisSpiderman is THE Spiderman- right out of the comic book downrightfunny- always ready with the one-liners, not able to take out his kidself whatever situation he may be in. Director Marc Webb who certainly knows how to weave love stories (asshown in his previous outing, 500 Days of Summer) , gives this movieits moments of magic- No upside down kisses, but Spiderman using amobile phone, the sequence in a crowded train where Peter begins todiscover his powers, and him using a web to tell Gwen that he isSpiderman, in addition to the Godzilla inspired climactic showdown withthe Lizard where Spidey keeps delightfully improvising just to keep upwith a powerful villain were awesome. Unlike wide eyed Toby Maguire, Andrew Garfield with his nervous energy,and a nerdy demeanor, gives his own spin on Peter Parker. Effortlesslycharismatic, even a bit of a showoff right from the start, with aslightly reckless attitude- he even takes on the school bully when in anon super-powered state. He is bumbling, awkward, socially inept, butdeeply charming. Hell, what a casting coup this is- watch closely, evenwithout his spidey suit, Andrew with his thin frame and gangly armslooks like a spider! Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy is no bimbo and not aperennially damsel in distress as Kirsten Dunst's Mary Jane Watson was,but she is smart, sassy, and sensitive-perfectly complementing ourhero. She in terrific form, as the only one who is able to enter thesanctum sanctorum of this confused, gawky teenager struggling to usehis powers, and makes him her own, and in so many ways, completing him.Martin Sheen and Sally Field as Uncle Ben and Aunt May are solid, andour very own Irfan Khan plays a small but crucial role in the film.It has its weaknesses though- sometimes it felt the editors went onstrike, not in an overtly bad way though, but the movie felt a bitoverlong. For all of Sam Raimi's flaws, no one can still question himfor making impact in his trilogy, this one though sincere, is less so.Rhys Ifans as Dr Curt Connor whose experiments go wrong and turns intoa giant Lizard is serviceable, but not scene stealing as Raimi's DocOck and Green Goblin were. And at the end, he is not truly evil, just akindly soul gone astray.I have a secret to share. When I was a kid, I used to try to get myselfbitten by spiders- Spiderman has always been and will remain myfavorite superhero- not only because he is vulnerable, but because healways has a knack of seeing the lighter side of things. And unlikeother superheroes, his character has not changed according to the whimsand fancies of writers. The last Spiderman movie was just 5 years ago,yet this reboot is welcome enough for me just to see Andrew Garfield asthe titular character- he is the best Spidey ever, and his act alone isworth the price of admission. From the scheme of things, a sequel seemsto be already in the works. But I have had enough of reptiles, is ittoo much for me to wish for more "Venom"-ous action? 9/10- Go ahead, take to the air with Spidey- fly, swing and getpositively amazed, enjoy with your family!

tendobear

(2013-05-09 06:06:37)

Nothing Special

Not good not bad. Thankfully I went into this knowing that it will bedifferent from Raimi's Spider-Man. There are things I liked aboutRaimi's version and Marc Webb's version.Here's what I liked and didn't like about both movies - 1) I still likethe idea that Spidey's web-shooting ability being a genetic mutationrather than coming from a device. 2) Maguire was suitably geeky andnerdy as Peter Parker. 3) Garfield's Peter Parker was too cocksure tobe convincing that he'd ever be bullied at school, have trouble makingfriends or get the girls. Also his version of Spider-Man was too cocky.4) Raimi's style meant the movie had a horror comedy feel which made itstand out from the other polished and shiny superhero movies. 5)Although typical of most superheroes, Raimi's Parker's desire to keephis identity a secret to protect his loved ones makes the characterricher and easier to root for. Whilst Webb's Parker seems to be a lotmore immature and reckless with his powers; like a teenager who seemsdisinterested in anything else except getting the girl. 6) Uncle Ben -I prefer Martin Sheen's Uncle Ben way more than Cliff Robertson's. 7)Aunt May - Sally Field's Aunt May doesn't seem to have much more to dothan pout around the house waiting for Peter to come home. However, I'mnot sure if I prefer this or Rosemary Harris' naggy version. 8) Raimi'smontage of Peter's realisation, acceptance and transformation intoSpider-Man was more fun to watch and more structured; it showed theprocess. Whereas Webb's montage was more like a Nike commercial ormusic video. 9) The pace of Webb's movie was a little uneven, it justjumped from one set-piece to another before the previous one hasfinished. 10) In Webb's Spider-Man, I do appreciate the implications ofPeter's mysterious family history and shadowy parents, but ultimatelyit didn't really have any real impact on the story, unlike thebackground of the Hulk for example.All in all, I think I'm leaning more towards Raimi's Spider-Man as themore superior movie by a narrow margin.

theycallmemrglass

(2013-05-09 03:49:18)

Spiderman: The RETOLD Story is enjoyable with plenty of heart but just not fresh enough

I enjoyed this, it offers just about enough to set it apart fromRaimi's trilogy but I didn't feel there was anything really outstandingabout it. There are no moments in the film which made me go, oh wow. Ifit was a decade ago, I might have but not today, now that we aresaturated with CGI effects movies. It simply moves along amicably withspots of charm, a tiny bit of humour, plenty of teenage angst and aheavy dose of anger all of which is framed within a washed out darktoned colour palette as opposed to the vibrancy and rich colours ofRaimi's trilogy.There are some decent big action set pieces but they lack invention andnone of it has the visceral energy and savviness as say Avengers orRaimi's trilogy...oops, you know I did promise myself not to makecomparisons to Raimi. But I cant help it. So much of the this film is aretread of 2002 Spider-Man and Spiderman 2 that I simply cant ignoreit. You really have to be patient with going through all the blastedexposition again. And not just that but an all too similar journey ofOctavia as well, albeit in the form of a Lizard. Having said that, itIS all done well, there is plenty of heart and the performances aresincere. Andrew Garfield is born for the role, he is a major reason forwatching this film. I always felt the wrong actor won the best actoraward in Social Network. Should have been Garfield! But anyway, henails Peter Parker's flippancy, geekiness, and angst perfectly. Hisawkwardness and playful relationship with Gwen Stacy are some of thehighlights of the movie for me. Emma Stone gives Gwen an attractivespark despite ultimately not differing too much to the Mary Jane ofRaimi's films but Gwen has more geek in common with Parker and a littlemore brains too.One of the areas this film disappoints in is dialogue. Not that itsbad, it just lacking some spark. There is a couple of quips fromSpiderman but nothing more and if you've seen the trailers, you'veheard most of them. Its the only thing I'm actually disappointed withthe Spiderman character himself because otherwise I love this versionof the web slinger, he is a lot more vulnerable and less all roundpowerful than Raimi's version. I also see the benefit now of having theseparate electronic web slinger narrative wise, as Spidey depends onit, if it fails, our hero is in trouble...I like that extravulnerability, we feel more anxious for Spiderman here, can he reallycope with the mighty dangers ahead? That's all done well. The Lizard is pretty good but all too similar to Octavious in terms ofmotive and character and the effects are seamless. But I have to makecomparisons again. The Dr Connors/Lizard is a paler version ofOctavious in Spiderman 2 who was by far the more superior and complexvillain. The Connors/Lizard character is a not given enough depth forus to empathise with or even fear for that matter.The soundtrack is serviceable, there is no standout theme forSpiderman, well there is but its a bit meh, certainly not James Hornersbest work. Storywise this film lacks imagination and seems too frightened to takerisks somehow. It introduces a mystery but then completely abandons itand only returns to it midway through the end credits! The rest of thestory is simply old themes already covered in previous films. TheUntold story? More like The Retold Story. Whatever we get of thisuntold story, is absolutely minimal and I get the feeling its meant tobe a story arc which might be spread over perhaps a trilogy of thesemovies.I know I've emphasised the film's negative points but I did still enjoywhat it had to offer and to be honest, most of you might prefer this toRaimi. If Raimi's spider-man is milk chocolate then this is the darkchocolate version.I'd still look forward to a sequel but I'll say this, I don't have anurge to see this again. With films such as Avengers, X-Men:FC,Spiderman 1, 2 and yeah even 3, I have an urge to see them again or atleast anticipate watching it again on Blu Ray. Unfortunately I have nosuch urge with this film.These are my personal comparison ratings for all the Spiderman films inthis millennium:Spider-man 9/10 Spider-man 2: 9/10 Spider-man 3: 7.5/10 (yeah I hadblast with this one, to hell with the haters ) The Amazing Spiderman:7/10

piyushbagaria2005

(2013-05-08 21:22:31)

the 'not so' amazing spider-man

Went with high expectations since this is the first spider-man movie iwas going to watch in a theatre.All 3 versions earlier i saw on TV orDVD.The first half is very very slow n boring.In fact Andrew Garfieldas spider-man doesn't suit at all.The film becomes a little watchableclose to 2nd half when that big creature enters.But the film is sopredictable.No twists .The actions scenes were good to watch.But the romantic angle which wasalso a vital part in the earlier spider-man movie is missing.The newspider-man is just too kiddish.Even the action scenes weren't that good.The problem is that this movieis coming after 3 very good spider-man movies.This makes theexpectations sky high. And people who will go with high expectationswill get disappointed.