Official Amazing Spider-man review thread (All reviews here )

[mndb369]

- The retelling of the origin was a waste of 45 minutes - we all know it.

 

Nope, wrong. The retelling of the origin wasn't for you, and there are millions of people who will see this movie that don't know it; most notably, all those 8-14 year-old boys and girls who have never touched a comic, or in other words, the demographic that this hobby desperately needs.

 

These movies aren't being made for the 45 year-old with 60 long-boxes in his basement.

 

+1

 

 

Well said - it is incredible how many movie critics this forum has and many of them forget the reason we are here: the love for comics and comic collecting. For our hobby to have a sustainable future we need to continue to capture a new generation of readers and collectors. Peter Parker in a tie and sweater vest will not relate to this day and age. They maintained the essentials: spider bite, death of Uncle Ben, guilt leading to duty, high school geekiness, Flash as the bully, Gwen as his first love and so on.

 

The movie was excellent as a reboot. I found the first series entertaining but much more campy and goofy at times. This had a more decisive plot and the acting was much better. The only thing I felt it lacked was a deeper attention to the death of Uncle Ben. Strong A-

[DiceX]

You're right. All future sequels they make should also have a 45 minute retelling of the origin.

I'd hate for someone that was born next week not know the origin when the sequel comes out in two years.

 

 

Yes, because 2 years and 10 years are the same thing.

 

Just admit I ripped the heart out of your silly argument and move on.

It will make it less painful.

 

 

[COI]

You're right. All future sequels they make should also have a 45 minute retelling of the origin.

I'd hate for someone that was born next week not know the origin when the sequel comes out in two years.

 

 

Yes, because 2 years and 10 years are the same thing.

 

Just admit I ripped the heart out of your silly argument and move on.

It will make it less painful.

 

 

With 10 years since the last origin movie, a new cast, wanting to take a new direction with the franchise, and a new generation of young movie-goers to reach, please explain why a reboot complete with a redone origin is a bad idea. Because the 45 year-old fanboys who want everything to cater to them are butthurt?

[DiceX]

You're right. All future sequels they make should also have a 45 minute retelling of the origin.

I'd hate for someone that was born next week not know the origin when the sequel comes out in two years.

 

 

Yes, because 2 years and 10 years are the same thing.

 

Just admit I ripped the heart out of your silly argument and move on.

It will make it less painful.

 

 

With 10 years since the last origin movie, a new cast, wanting to take a new direction with the franchise, and a new generation of young movie-goers to reach, please explain why a reboot complete with a redone origin is a bad idea. Because the 45 year-old fanboys who want everything to cater to them are butthurt?

 

I just pray they remake all the Lord of the Rings movies with a 4 hour recap of The Hobbit so everyone under the age of 20 has the opportunity to watch them and understand all the back story.

 

 

[delekkerste]

My wife and I saw it last night. It was by far the best of the four movies. We liked the modern spin on the character. I'm glad they opted to go with Gwen Stacey instead of MJ.

 

I thought Garfield and Stone were well cast....

 

Would people even been complaining if this weren't a reboot?

 

Obviously, the film struck a chord with some people, as you're not the only one who thought it was the best of the four films. However, that is not a consensus view, especially among the critics. Would I have enjoyed it more if it wasn't a reboot? Possibly - I think I would have just accepted Gwen and Peter being more of an "Ultimate" take than "Amazing", and I think I wouldn't be nearly so annoyed by those praising the film at Spidey 1 & 2's expense, given that the latter were both excellent films whether they were to everyone's exact liking or not. Also, they would have been able to borrow more from the original source material had the first trilogy not been made.

 

However, I still would have been all over the film for its inexcusably sloppy/lazy writing and editing (I'm hoping that a future Director's Cut might significantly improve it), the complete and utter lack of tension, build-up and purpose in the romance, the absurd plot contrivances and the general lack of a point/motivation for a lot of the film. Even without comparison to the original trilogy, I don't think this film stacks up very well against Iron Man, The Avengers, X2 and XMFC, and would probably still trail a couple/several other Marvel films as well.

[mndb369]

You're right. All future sequels they make should also have a 45 minute retelling of the origin.

I'd hate for someone that was born next week not know the origin when the sequel comes out in two years.

 

 

Yes, because 2 years and 10 years are the same thing.

 

Just admit I ripped the heart out of your silly argument and move on.

It will make it less painful.

 

 

With 10 years since the last origin movie, a new cast, wanting to take a new direction with the franchise, and a new generation of young movie-goers to reach, please explain why a reboot complete with a redone origin is a bad idea. Because the 45 year-old fanboys who want everything to cater to them are butthurt?

 

I just pray they remake all the Lord of the Rings movies with a 4 hour recap of The Hobbit so everyone under the age of 20 has the opportunity to watch them and understand all the back story.

 

 

That argument is nonsensical. LOTR is a series of classic novels based on pure fantasy and has never evolved its content for the time period it was written in or being read in.

 

Spider-man is a character in comics that has had period-writing and content that has evolved for every generation. Based on your argument he would still be in the 60s and the comics would be written and drawn in that style. And he would be 60+ years old.

[Tony S]

You're right. All future sequels they make should also have a 45 minute retelling of the origin.

I'd hate for someone that was born next week not know the origin when the sequel comes out in two years.

 

 

Yes, because 2 years and 10 years are the same thing.

 

Just admit I ripped the heart out of your silly argument and move on.

It will make it less painful.

 

 

With 10 years since the last origin movie, a new cast, wanting to take a new direction with the franchise, and a new generation of young movie-goers to reach, please explain why a reboot complete with a redone origin is a bad idea. Because the 45 year-old fanboys who want everything to cater to them are butthurt?

 

I just pray they remake all the Lord of the Rings movies with a 4 hour recap of The Hobbit so everyone under the age of 20 has the opportunity to watch them and understand all the back story.

 

 

That argument is nonsensical. LOTR is a series of classic novels based on pure fantasy and has never evolved its content for the time period it was written in or being read in.

 

Spider-man is a character in comics that has had period-writing and content that has evolved for every generation. Based on your argument he would still be in the 60s and the comics would be written and drawn in that style. And he would be 60+ years old.

 

Come on now. It was early for a reboot. It was only five years ago that movie #3 came out. Another boardie explained it well. The studio had to reboot for financial reasons. And I guess no one at Marvel or Sony wanted to wait another few years for a Spidey payday

 

Spidey would not be in his 60's if Marvel had never rebooted the comics. Everyone knows comic book time isn't the same as real world time. It took Parker 12 years to graduate college. Peter could easily be in his early to mid 30's without any reboots or retellings.

 

Let's be reasonable here. The movie is good in spite of a premature reboot. That the (real, paid) movie critics generally give it good reviews is strong testament to good acting and directing. It's the -script and characterization that most - including me - seem to be questioning.

 

And speaking of critics, let's look at a few facts

The first Spider-Man movie did 821 million box office world wide and had an agregate critic score of 89 per Rotten Tomatoes

The second Spider-Man movie did 783 million world wide and had an agregate critic score of 93 per Rotten Tomatoes.

The third Spider-Man movie did 890 million box office world wide and had an agregate critic score of 63 per Rotten Tomatoes.

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012, #4) has an agregate critic score of 73 and has had the lowest opening box office $$$ of all four Spider-Man films. By a lot. Though a successful movie for sure, it is going to sell the least tickets and make the least amount of money of all four.

 

[Comicopolis]

[Tony S]

 

Never doubted it.

[The Troll King]

Ok, here's my take on the film because my wife, my son and I just saw it today in 3D (for only $6.50 each mind you)

 

I'm 40 years old. Spidey was always my favorite character growing up.

I always liked the Jeckle and Hyde aspect of the Lizard. He's not the greatest Spidey villan ever but he's interesting as a robust character with two sides to him.

 

The Gwen/Peter story I find incredibly emotional. I admit, I'm a sap. I still cry when ET dies and when Mic dies in Rocky 3 with Rocky snotting all over him.

 

Spider-man Blue is an excellent example of giving further insight into the importance of Gwen in Peter's life and I always recommend it as a must read.

 

Now about the film, I was nearly a blubbering mess the entire movie. Why? Because I am old enough to know what becomes of Gwen. It's a tragedy. It's as close as a comic book version of Shakespearian tragedy as they come. A decision is made and the worst happens anyway in that single panel with the word "snap".

 

It's not the death of Ben, and Captain Stacy that make Peter, it's the death of Gwen at his own hands that does.

 

Emma Stone was excellent as Gwen. Garfield was ok. He was over the top cocky when he starts but so was Peter in the early days, before the "snap".

 

Web shooters were a huge plus and really added to the experience.

 

I was ok with the more modern aspect of the film. This is 2012 after all, it's not a period piece.

 

SPOILER if you haven't seen it.

By the time Captain Stacy died I was nearly uncomfortable sitting there because of how emotional I was. All I could think was PLEASE don't let Gwen die yet! If she does I'd have to leave! My wife and I felt the same way because we were both nearly in tears when we walked out.

 

All that said, even if I am a "Big Baby" as I was told by a board member friend, I have no complaints whatsoever about the movie, other then two minor plot points, one of which I believe will be revealed in the next movie. That being, if someone else were bitten by one of those same spiders would they become Spider-man? I'm assuming the answer is no and that Peter has altered genetics by his father that we don't know of yet.

 

The second is, the web fluid is suppose to dissolve after a specific amount of time, and that is never mentioned.

 

I did read a comment saying something about Garfield being too lanky to be Peter. To that, I point to Ultimate Spider-man because he looks like that there.

 

I loved the film. I like movies that stir my emotions, and this one did just that. If Gwen has to die in the next film, it will be terrible.

[peewee22]

It's a movie...suspend disbelief and enjoy it.

 

We can pick apart every superhero movie ever made.

[The Troll King]

Oh, and I should add. My nine year old son did get a little frightened by some of the Lizard scenes.

[sufunk]

Oh, and I should add. My nine year old son did get a little frightened by some of the Lizard scenes.

 

So did my almost 8 year old and he isn't exactly sheltered when it comes to movies. He's seen Jaws and Alien but for some reason the Lizard definitely scared him

[Mark 1]

Oh, and I should add. My nine year old son did get a little frightened by some of the Lizard scenes.

 

I'm glad to hear i'm not the only one....my 7 year old son also got scared and put his jacket over his head during a few Lizard scenes.

[Prince Namor]

You're right. All future sequels they make should also have a 45 minute retelling of the origin.

I'd hate for someone that was born next week not know the origin when the sequel comes out in two years.

 

 

Yes, because 2 years and 10 years are the same thing.

 

Just admit I ripped the heart out of your silly argument and move on.

It will make it less painful.

 

 

With 10 years since the last origin movie, a new cast, wanting to take a new direction with the franchise, and a new generation of young movie-goers to reach, please explain why a reboot complete with a redone origin is a bad idea. Because the 45 year-old fanboys who want everything to cater to them are butthurt?

 

I just pray they remake all the Lord of the Rings movies with a 4 hour recap of The Hobbit so everyone under the age of 20 has the opportunity to watch them and understand all the back story.

 

 

That argument is nonsensical. LOTR is a series of classic novels based on pure fantasy and has never evolved its content for the time period it was written in or being read in.

 

Spider-man is a character in comics that has had period-writing and content that has evolved for every generation. Based on your argument he would still be in the 60s and the comics would be written and drawn in that style. And he would be 60+ years old.

 

Come on now. It was early for a reboot. It was only five years ago that movie #3 came out. Another boardie explained it well. The studio had to reboot for financial reasons. And I guess no one at Marvel or Sony wanted to wait another few years for a Spidey payday

 

Spidey would not be in his 60's if Marvel had never rebooted the comics. Everyone knows comic book time isn't the same as real world time. It took Parker 12 years to graduate college. Peter could easily be in his early to mid 30's without any reboots or retellings.

 

Let's be reasonable here. The movie is good in spite of a premature reboot. That the (real, paid) movie critics generally give it good reviews is strong testament to good acting and directing. It's the -script and characterization that most - including me - seem to be questioning.

 

And speaking of critics, let's look at a few facts

The first Spider-Man movie did 821 million box office world wide and had an agregate critic score of 89 per Rotten Tomatoes

The second Spider-Man movie did 783 million world wide and had an agregate critic score of 93 per Rotten Tomatoes.

The third Spider-Man movie did 890 million box office world wide and had an agregate critic score of 63 per Rotten Tomatoes.

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012, #4) has an agregate critic score of 73 and has had the lowest opening box office $$$ of all four Spider-Man films. By a lot. Though a successful movie for sure, it is going to sell the least tickets and make the least amount of money of all four.

 

And Batman comes to town in two weeks. That won't help it.

[Prince Namor]

My review: Cake tastes great, but that doesn't mean it's good for you.

When the sugar buzz wears off, history will not be kind to this movie.

 

[fantastic_four]

My review: Cake tastes great, but that doesn't mean it's good for you.

When the sugar buzz wears off, history will not be kind to this movie.

 

Do pundits define history? Superman Returns got solid critical reviews and won Saturn awards, but writers love to bash that film.

[Prince Namor]

My review: Cake tastes great, but that doesn't mean it's good for you.

When the sugar buzz wears off, history will not be kind to this movie.

 

Do pundits define history? Superman Returns got solid critical reviews and won Saturn awards, but writers love to bash that film.

 

No they don't. And that's the point. Regardless of what anyone says, this won't be remembered as a great movie. In fact, I think it's going to be seen as a disappointment.

Just my opinion.

[Ogami]

I'll chime in and add that my 8 year old girl was frightened of the Lizard as well.

[The Troll King]

I'll chime in and add that my 8 year old girl was frightened of the Lizard as well.

 

In our 7-9 year odds defense, this thing scared the mess out of me when I was around that age.