Amazing Spider-Man : July 3rd, 2012 (1 Viewer)

[Patrick Sun]

Did they even address Spidey's "spidey-sense" yet in this film? I think maybe once, but it was a fleeting moment.

 

[Zack Gibbs]

Did they even address Spidey's "spidey-sense" yet in this film? I think maybe once, but it was a fleeting moment.

They did not, that's sort of the point. The 'origin story' isn't over and it shouldn't be. Similarly I liked how even at the end of the film Parker was just starting to realize the full potential of his web-slinging on the cranes.

 

[TravisR]

A film isnt a comic book - and I cant think of anything that would kill tension of a character joking constantly when he should be fighting for his life.

Spoiler alert: Spider-Man is always going to live through every fight so there's no tension to begin with.

 

[Rocky F]

While I was originally of the "it's too early for a reboot" mindset, I finally realized that since that was going to happen whether I wanted it or not, I may as well just judge this movie on its on merits. And you know what? I actually kind of enjoyed it. Sure, it changed Peter from a nerd into just a really smart emo-kid, but he still had a bit of a sense of humor, at least when he was in the suit. And I ended up enjoying the origin, I felt the first hour of the film was actually the strongest. I did feel it got a bit rushed in the back half, when we actually get into the Spiderman/Lizard conflict. Far from a perfect film, and certainly not anywhere near Spiderman 2, but I still thought it was a fun ride. As hard as it is, I think most folks would enjoy it more if they just stop trying to compare it to Raimi's trilogy (although I saw elements taken from several other superhero films as well,

Spoiler

mostly the similarity of the Lizard's plan to Magneto's in the first X-Men movie.)

 

[JonZ]

Originally Posted by TravisR /t/254830/spider-man-4-july-3rd-2012/510#post_3945091
Spoiler alert: Spider-Man is always going to live through every fight so there's no tension to begin with.

Doesnt mean he will win every fight. Point is still that when a character is fighting to stay alive, he shouldnt be constantly joking.

It also doesnt do the villian any favors either is Spidey is constantly shooting one liners at them.

 

[TonyD]

Doesnt mean he will win every fight. Point is still that when a character is fighting to stay alive, he shouldnt be constantly joking.
It also doesnt do the villian any favors either is Spidey is constantly shooting one liners at them.

Arguing that a comic book character shouldn't be cracking wise, umm ok.
Anyway he does that not only to ease his own tension but to distract the bad guy.

 

[Bryan^H]

Doesnt mean he will win every fight. Point is still that when a character is fighting to stay alive, he shouldnt be constantly joking.
It also doesnt do the villian any favors either is Spidey is constantly shooting one liners at them.

I think the Spiderman comics were always pretty spot on with the zingers he used to dish out. Most times if it was a bad guy that he could handle easily, or didn't feel he was in much danger he would hand them out one after the other(normal thugs, The Beetle). If he were fighting a terribly dangerous opponent(Scorpion, Dock Ock) he wasn't so comedic. Or at least until he got smacked around enoough to know he might not get out alive.
Anyway, what I didn't like about the movie:
-I realize they had to establish the origin once again....it is essential to the movie. However, why couldn't they cover it in the first five or ten minutes of the movie? Narration by Peter explaining what happened, Comic book style panels illustrating how he came to be Spiderman, I mean the whole doggone movie...again? Now the original Spiderman was made 10 years ago, so for the teen audience(read:target audience) this is all new and fresh. I guess that explains it, but for a lifelong Spidey fan that has read,or watched the origin so many times I could pass out, well then this is kind of like torture. Just give me the action story darn it!
-Peter Parker/Gwen Stacy stammering awkward moments. The first time it was cute, by the third time I was wondering why they couldn't complete their sentences without the stammering, and awkward body language.
What I liked:
-Emma Stone as Gwen Stacey. Beautiful, raspy voiced actress that made me care about her. That is something.

 

[TravisR]

I think the Spiderman comics were always pretty spot on with the zingers he used to dish out. Most times if it was a bad guy that he could handle easily, or didn't feel he was in much danger he would hand them out one after the other(normal thugs, The Beetle). If he were fighting a terribly dangerous opponent(Scorpion, Dock Ock) he wasn't so comedic. Or at least until he got smacked around enoough to know he might not get out alive.

While I've read Spider-Man for close to a couple decades now, I know there's people in this thread that are much more well-versed in Spidey lore than me but your take on Spider-Man's wisecracks is the same as mine.

 

[Michael Elliott]

I was shocked to see only ten other people in my screening this morning but......
Overall I thought the movie was good. I've never read a single comic and really don't care to so I'm not sure how this would rank against any of them. I also don't think it's fair to compare it to the previous films but I must say that Raimi's imagination was really needed during the action scenes. It's weird but I actually enjoyed all of the character build-up and personal drama a lot more than anything else. It might have taken up too much time but I thought for the most part it was good. The performances were good enough to pull this off and I really thought Martin Sheen stole the picture. Stone looked great in the mini skirts and Garfield was good in the lead. Sally Field was pretty must wasted but oh well.
What I didn't like about the film were the actions scene (I know) and the villain. I thought the action scenes looked extremely cheap and there just wasn't any energy behind any of them. The villain was a complete bore to me. I didn't care for the scientist and his "issues" and when he turned into the monster it just left me bored and wishing the other characters would come back.

 

[DaveF]

To my surprise, I enjoyed the movie a good deal. It was a satisfying two hours in the theater. Spidey tells pretty coherent story with a hero and villain who make sense. I enjoyed it more than The Avengers, which was more about the character pieces, than having a coherent story.
There ate some gaps and overly rapid character changes. But it worked. The story, the emotional arc, were good.
And it didn't commit then grievous sin of putting Wilem Dafoe in a mask.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Originally Posted by DaveF /t/254830/spider-man-4-july-3rd-2012/540#post_3945638
To my surprise, I enjoyed the movie a good deal. It was a satisfying two hours in the theater. Spidey tells pretty coherent story with a hero and villain who make sense. I enjoyed it more than The Avengers, which was more about the character pieces, than having a coherent story.
There ate some gaps and overly rapid character changes. But it worked. The story, the emotional arc, were good.
And it didn't commit then grievous sin of putting Wilem Dafoe in a mask.

But it did turn Rhys Ifans into an unconvincing reptile!

 

[TravisR]

I liked the last 30 minutes well enough but the first 45 minutes were wasted telling an origin that virtually everyone already knows. Even if a handful of people don't know Spider-Man's origin, it could have been summed up in an opening credit montage. If they dropped the origin, the movie would have been under 90 minutes, I'd have been happier and Sony could have saved millions of dollars. Overall, it's not a terrible movie but I doubt I'll ever bother watching this again.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Originally Posted by TravisR /t/254830/spider-man-4-july-3rd-2012/540#post_3945749
I liked the last 30 minutes well enough but the first 45 minutes were wasted telling an origin that virtually everyone already knows. Even if a handful of people don't know Spider-Man's origin, it could have been summed up in an opening credit montage. If they dropped the origin, the movie would have been under 90 minutes, I'd have been happier and Sony could have saved millions of dollars. Overall, it's not a terrible movie but I doubt I'll ever bother watching this again.

That's why I have no interest in seeing this film. I almost felt the same way about the new Bourne film, but have changed my mind once I learned a little more about what that storyline is going to be in that film.

 

[DaveF]

But it did turn Rhys Ifans into an unconvincing reptile!

I far preferred it to Dafoe in a mask. The former is decent FX. the latter is a crime against Dafoe's incomparable expressiveness.

 

[Sam Favate]

I really enjoyed it, after going in with admittedly lowered expectations. Garfield and Stone are terrific; those two will have great careers if they make the right choices. Some of the action sequences were by the numbers - another skyscraper, at night, same lighting. Can't a movie have a climax in the middle of the afternoon? On a sunny day? Also enjoyed Sheen, Field and Leary, and was glad to see an important part of Spider-man mythology with Leary's character. Really pleasantly surprised by the movie. Goes to show how a strong cast can save a film from a script with some problems (which is not to say it was bad!). Will definitely see this on blu-ray and without the sound issues my theater had today and without the large group of 3-to-5-year-olds present.

 

[TravisR]

Garfield and Stone are terrific; those two will have great careers if they make the right choices.

I definitely agree with that. I've seen Emma Stone in enough stuff that I just assumed that she'd be good and I've only seen Andrew Garfield in The Social Network (where he was very good) so he was more of a wildcard but I thought they both did well.
Now that the origin is out of the way (again), I'm hoping that the sequel can take what was good from this movie and build on it.

 

[TheBat]

That's why I have no interest in seeing this film.  I almost felt the same way about the new Bourne film, but have changed my mind once I learned a little more about what that storyline is going to be in that film. 

I had no desire to see it either. I also had very low expectations and also enjoyed the original 3 films. I would recommend checking it out. you might like it.
it was alot better then I thought it was going to be.
Jacob

 

[Simon Massey]

Seems like a lot of criticism is aimed at them telling the origin story again. I really enjoyed the origin part and thought it was much better than the Raimi version but then I know a lot loved the Raimi film and can see why many view it as a waste. That said does this mean we should dismiss Man of Steel as I think the Superman origin story has been done pretty well already. Batman Begins was only 15 or so years after the burton version I think. If there was something that people didn't like about the origin story in this film fair enough but I don't think it should be dismissed solely for telling the origin again.
Seems to me they are setting up a lot of things for the sequel though I do think they should have addressed something about Peter's parents in the actual film ( it was a selling point of the trailer ) and also they left one of the characters to disappear after the bridge sequence ( Osborn's assistant can't remember is name ) - would have been better to kill him off really. The post credit sequence was also pointless. Another odd moment - the transition from him creating the suit and the first time we see the POV shots of him in the suit and then to him on the top of the skyscraper seem very poorly edited and felt like they had been cut at the last minute.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Originally Posted by Simon Massey /t/254830/spider-man-4-july-3rd-2012/540#post_3946206
Seems like a lot of criticism is aimed at them telling the origin story again. I really enjoyed the origin part and thought it was much better than the Raimi version but then I know a lot loved the Raimi film and can see why many view it as a waste. That said does this mean we should dismiss Man of Steel as I think the Superman origin story has been done pretty well already. Batman Begins was only 15 or so years after the burton version I think. If there was something that people didn't like about the origin story in this film fair enough but I don't think it should be dismissed solely for telling the origin again.
Seems to me they are setting up a lot of things for the sequel though I do think they should have addressed something about Peter's parents in the actual film ( it was a selling point of the trailer ) and also they left one of the characters to disappear after the bridge sequence ( Osborn's assistant can't remember is name ) - would have been better to kill him off really. The post credit sequence was also pointless. Another odd moment - the transition from him creating the suit and the first time we see the POV shots of him in the suit and then to him on the top of the skyscraper seem very poorly edited and felt like they had been cut at the last minute.

I don't "dismiss" the film because it retold the origin. Heck, I kinda defended it, as the filmmakers were in rock/hard place territory: unless they wanted to literally continue the story from "Spidey 3", they needed to reboot and retell the origin.

I dislike "Amazing" because I think it gets the TONE of Spider-Man wrong and it has plenty of other problems. I do think the origin goes way too long, but the movie's main problems are that it doesn't "feel like Spidey" and it lacks the expected sense of FUN...

 

[Simon Massey]

Wasnt aiming the comment specifically at you Colin just a general reading of negative reviews seem to bring the origin up a lot.
But as to the tone I'm not sure why it being different from the comics is a bad thing. I have never read the comics so I guess I come from a different perspective but it sounds like most feel Raimi got the tone of the comics ? So in that respect a different approach IS a better thing IMO. Repeating the same tone would have left even more thinking why bother. I guess you can feel the influence of the Nolan films in that everyone thinks they should make their superheroes "dark" or "grounded" but I don't think this film goes too far in the direction - the romance between Stacy and Parker helps to balance that and I found Garfield to be much more engaging than Maguire. I also much preferred Rhys Ifans here than Dafoe as for me the Green Goblin was too over the top (I suppose that's why I liked the second one since they got the villain right with Dr Octopus). I have the feeling they are going to repeat the Dark Knight here and eventually kill Gwen off which may not be a good thing but we will see.
Personally I think the main issue for me is they are looking at this as part of a larger arc but they forgot to make this film completely stand on its own too as they left too many major plot or character points unresolved. I suppose further films will help this but they should have still made this stand as a single film. Raimi's first film at least did this.