The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
1,313 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
1/10
If the studio doesn't care, why should I?
FrontAlleyBoys11 July 2012
Warning: Spoilers
No one involved with this movie cared about making a good movie. Because they don't need to. The Spiderman movies will make money no matter good or bad they are. But that doesn't mean they should not try to. Why did this movie get made? Simple, Sam Raimi wasn't given enough time to make a fourth spider-man film so he quit, and the fans wanted to see the lizard on screen. This movie wasn't made for any other reason.

First off, Peter Parker doesn't have a goal in this movie. At first its to find out what happened to his parents, which isn't explained in this movie. After half an hour he now tries to control his new powers, in scenes that don't help the audience. In the original spider-man, Peter learned about his powers in a controlled environment, he didn't beat up innocent people on a subway train. It's nice to know no one on that train reported that a man beat up five people while climbing walls. But Peter learning his powers can't be an entire focus in the movie, so we kill Uncle Ben. This time it doesn't work because the only reason Peter let the criminal get away was because Peter couldn't get a chocolate milk. To get so upset that he couldn't afford a chocolate milk that he would let a robber get away with the stores money is a contrivance in every way. So for about ten minutes Peters new goal is to bring uncle Ben's murderer to justice, let the police can't link all these look alike criminals spider-man does capture with the man who did kill peters uncle. After a while he just stops doing this, with no reason! And there is still about an hour left, so what are we going to do now? How about introduce that main villain you've been promising us? The Lizard is horribly written in every scene he's in. Why does he go to so much trouble to knock cars off of a bridge just to tell one guy (who is never seen afterwords) that their vaccine isn't ready yet? Because we needed another action scene. After that they bring up that the daily bugle wants pictures of the lizard, a point that doesn't amount to anything, except the lizard finding out who spider-man is. For someone as smart as Peter Parker has been set up to be it was really stupid for him to put his name on the camera he was using to take pictures of the lizard.

The climax doesn't work for 2 reasons. The first being this is the same climax we've seen in about four other superhero movies. The second one being there are no stakes. Only half of Manhattan would be infected 8 minutes after the lizard started his chemical missile, decreasing the people at risk greatly. Also THERE'S A CURE FOR THIS!! You know, the thing Gwen has been working on for the past 6 minutes? Whoever gets infected can just get the cure shot into them afterwords, and as of right now there are only 10 people infected, so why waster your time trying to put the cure into the missile that will stretch half of Manhattan and only effect 10 people?!

Gwen Stacy's dad dies and tells Peter to leave Gwen out of this, and proceeds to still date Gwen. What a great way to respect someone who died protecting people! Don't watch this movie, don't waste your time with this movie, even Spiderman 3 was better than this, so just watch the Sam Raimi trilogy, at least those movies had effort put into them.
458 out of 647 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
The Amazingly Unnecessary Spider-man
Ben_Horror17 July 2012
With the success of the first X-Men movie in 2000, Bryan Singer pretty much paved the way for all the comic book movies we see today. That included a certain super hero movie made by Sami Rami in 2002 where a nerdy guy (Tobey Maguire) gets bitten by a radioactive spider and inherits superhuman powers. If Singer had paved the way, then Rami provided the icing on the cake: a faithful, smart, well-acted super hero flick that had as much heart and sincerity packed in as it had all those set pieces. It also lead to a superior sequel and the much maligned, though underrated, third episode.

Which brings us to what we have here: while not a beat for beat remake, you get the same story more or less with a different love interest and villain. Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) sneaks into a research facility and gets bitten by a radioactive/genetically enhanced spider. He gets super powers and becomes Spider-Man. Meanwhile, a doctor (Rhys Ifans) working at the same facility, is being forced to close down his research into tissue regeneration. In desperation, he injects himself with an untested self-generating lizard vaccine and becomes… a half man/half lizard thing. Spider-Man is then forced into action to stop him from spreading this contagion throughout the city of New York. Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) is the damsel in distress/love interest and plays a role in trying to stop the crazed beast.

First things first: this is not a bad film. It's well acted by all the principals, has good effects, a scary and menacing villain, some nice action sequences and web swinging effects that are generally slightly more realistic than the Rami version. Parker is more evidently scientific and intelligent here. Also the police's notion that Spider-Man is a menace to the public is more clearly defined, especially in the scene where he disarms an officer. The new idea is that Parker can hear the movements of spiders and it's a good addition. So where does it all go wrong? The short answer: it's just that it's so… pointless.

We had already seen the story before. There was absolutely no reason to tell it again. This movie could easily have been Spider-Man 4 with Andrew Garfield filling in the Spidey spandex instead of Tobey Maguire. But Marvel – in their infinite wisdom – just chose to tell the same story a second time. Going by that rationale, presumably Andrew Garfield will be cast aside like a disused sock when they inevitably choose to 'reboot' the franchise again in ten years or so. It is a scarily unimaginative tactic and it is one they will continue to do until there is a massive financial failure.

This movie follows the same set up as the 2002 version: Parker being picked on, getting advice from his sage-like uncle (Martin Sheen), being bitten, getting his powers/climbing walls, and turning his back on a situation which unfortunately has tragic consequences for a family member. It's all a case of been there, done that. If you want to compare it to the Rami original, then the short answer is; as good as Andrew Garfield is, Tobey Maguire was better. Maguire filled the suit better; on occasion, Garfield is prone to looking thin and scrawny during several scenes. Even the suit looked better in the Rami movies. And those earlier movies had a heart and sincerity – especially in the relationship between Peter and his aunt and uncle that you don't see here. Again we ask: why does this movie exist?

And there are holes: there's a massive lizard running around, wreaking havoc; yet the police are more preoccupied with pointing their guns at Spider-Man – despite the fact that he saved a child in a (surprise, surprise) rehashed scene set on a bridge taken from Rami's first movie. In another part, the citizens of the city (once again - in a bit taken from Rami's movie) unite to help Spider-Man cross the city using tower cranes – despite the fact that there are buildings all around him. Heck, even the villain is initially a do-gooder like Norman Osborn and Dr. Octavius – again from the Rami movies.

It also seems to pull inspiration from another super hero movie: Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins (2005) in that it's slightly darker, tells such a large origin story that just like Batman Begins, Spider-Man doesn't actually show up on screen for the first hour. So if you take two parts Batman Begins and add a touch of Rami's Spider-Man, the result is what you have here. Additionally, the introduction of the web shooters, while being faithful to the original comics and emphasizing Parker's intellect, is a bit of a mixed blessing. The notion of the web being an organic material rather than being fired from mechanical devices actually made more sense.

It's not that reboots are a bad idea, they're not. In certain situations they can work well, provided for example, enough time has elapsed. But there is no point in retelling the same story if the initial release is still relatively recent. In addition, it helps if the story wasn't covered well the first time, or it was a bad movie to begin with. Going by this criteria, Marvel's latest cash cow is unnecessary on all three accounts.

In closing, if you haven't already seen the Rami movie from 2002, go watch it instead. If you have seen it, then this probably won't live up to it and you will be left feeling a little underwhelmed. It's fair to say that for anyone over the age of eighteen, this movie will seem rather half-hearted and senseless; for those under eighteen, this movie will probably be the greatest super hero flick ever. Yes, it's a movie that will divide opinions, primarily on the sole reason for its existence. Not a bad, or a badly made flick, by any means… just a pointless one.
486 out of 725 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Spiderbland Warning: Spoilers
In one scene, right after a spider in the Oscorp Laboratories bites Peter Parker: he falls asleep in a subway only to be awakened by a random loser who (for some strange reason) places a beer bottle on Parker's head. A drop of water from the bottle rolls down onto Peter's face, causing him to fling to the top of the car and stick to the ceiling – like a spider.

Over a dozen people witness this spectacular feat... and what happens next? A lady gets miffed because some of the beer spilled on her clothes. That particular reaction sums up how amazing the entire film is. After fully realizing his powers and using them to skateboard with furious bravado outside his high school, Peter Parker (much too) quickly dons the Spidey outfit that seems more like a surfer's wetsuit than a real transformation.

He seeks his uncle's murderer from the supposedly pivotal scene lacking the tragic fate of the protagonist's mentor in Sam Raimi's version. This doesn't perpetuate Parker into a vengeful vigilante misusing his powers, but gives him reason to fly around wielding his skills that actor Andrew Garfield never seems in any particular awe about. The SOCIAL NETWORK star, resembling Anthony Perkins had he become a melancholy hipster, doesn't give Peter Parker the underdog value Tobey Maguire successfully conveyed – but that's the scripts fault. Parker's not a nerd or even an outcast; having lost his parents for mysterious reasons, he's simply not a happy camper.

Other than the rushed changeling into the titular superhero, there's hardly any character arc for the good guy or the villain. Osco's resident genius Dr. Curt Conner's transforms into The Lizard so quick, running amok New York City like a raptor on steroids, there's not much reason, or worthy motivation, for his actions.

But (all) this lack of purpose fits a movie that, when not wallowing in romantic melodrama between Parker and girlfriend Gwen Stacey… whose dad is a hard-nosed cop and a weak replacement for a much-needed human antagonist like J. Jonah Jameson… doesn't live up to the original film or the comic books that at least, for better or worse, had a good time.

For More Reviews: www.cultfilmfreaks.com
238 out of 349 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
A pathetic movie
legioner88004 July 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Probably it's because I've seen the Tobey-Man and this is the reason I give this movie such a low score. I wanted to learn more about Peter's parents, but did not. "They were scientists." So what? That's not even 5% of what I needed to find out. Tobey-Man was on par with emotions, stunts and discovering the character. Here your uncle dies and what you see is 2 mins of drama about him. They really did not expand the characters and that led to my disappointment.

This really isn't the spider-man I wanted to see (full of questioning, thoughts and hardship). This guy was crying one minute and kissing the girl in another. Did I even mention that the suit did not fully fit him? Did I mention that Peter became a super scientists in 5 mins after he start reading 2 books and a couple of documents that do not make sense? Since when kids study genetics in school so deeply?

Tobey-Man's story deeper and more interesting. You could see the bright side of having super powers and the dark of constantly having the responsibility to hide your identity and take care of the closest. The new Spidey did little effort to hide his id. I could actually say that he was waving his mask the entire movie...

If you were happy with Tobey-man, stick with him!
221 out of 330 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Exciting, Action-Packed Reboot,,,,,But Is It Worth It?
g-bodyl28 January 2014
Only five years after the universally-hated Spider-Man 3(not me, though), Columbia Pictures have decided to give Peter Parker and his alter ego, Spider-man a fresh start. This film is essentially quite similar to 2002's film, but also features a few differences mainly a personality change in Peter. I don't know if I like this film any better than the original trilogy. This film is action-packed, has a great cast, and a rather fun villain in "The Lizard," but this film doesn't live up to the trilogy that gave Spider-Man a name for himself.

Marc Webb's film explores the origins of Spider-Man and also unlike the trilogy, we learn more about Peter's past including what happened to his family. As Peter is exploring his past, he is lead to his father's former partner who happens to be too smart for his own good. Also, Peter strikes a relationship with the daughter of the police captain, Gwen Stacy.

The acting is really not too bad. An Andrew Garfield/Emma Stone pairing is not as good as the Maguire/Dunst pairing, but they still do very good and it's nice to see some cockiness in Peter's attitude instead of complete nerdiness. The Lizard, played wonderfully by Rhys Ifans, is a good villain to watch. The rest of the cast rounded out with Denis Leary, Martin Sheen, and Sally Field gives this film some starpower.

Overall, this is definitely not a bad film and it's very entertaining. But we must ask ourselves, is this a necessary reboot? Honestly, I would rather have seen a Spider-Man 4, but who's to complain. This is a solid entry into the superhero genre despite really offering anything new. But hey I was entertained and that is all what matters. I rate this film 8/10.
59 out of 82 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
same story, better details
phiup9 December 2012
Warning: Spoilers
IMO, i think the super A plus to this movie is the realistic application of physics. It shows a more limited spiderman. He must operate within parabolic physics and they tie that into the story.

I thought this spiderman was a more fun, spunkier, angstier Peter Parker. He was definitely way more nerdy than Toby Mcguire.

The addition of Gwen was great and I really look forward to seeing how this franchise manages upcoming installments under the new label.

Dialogue was slightly lame, key point being, "Gwen! Gwen! I understand! Your boyfriend is a man of many masks!" CHEESY!!!!

My other knock was that it spent the entire time developing the angst of peter parker and didn't give enough development to Gwen, Aunt May, and Doc. Connor.

I am a huge marvel guy, so i will continue to watch with a sense of forgiveness for the many flaws that Comic to Movie translations present.

I am glad I waited for DVD because so few movies obtain that silver screen quality. If you liked this movie check out the other Marvel and DC titles. They are doing some decent work.
29 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
The Amazing Spiderman is amazing.
ryokan_wc13 July 2012
When i first saw the trailer of this movie last year, i thought- another Spiderman movie?, and again earlier this year- seriously, another Spiderman move?. In all honesty, i was not compelled to watch the movie- may be it was the trailer or that thought of how far can a Spiderman movie be different than the one produced about a decade ago? How 'amazing' can it be, as its title suggests?

After going against the odds, i came out from the movie very pleased. In fact, i enjoyed the move thoroughly and felt very entertained. And i finally understood the word 'amazing' in the title- because it is really, pretty amazing!

It is not one of those movies with excessive ZOMG factor, for sure. The movie is amazingly captured with great use of CGI. The first half of the movie explores the dark side of Peter Parker's family history in a fairly comical manner. I got to know about Peter's father, which was not much explained in the previous trilogy and i don't exactly read the comics.Then there is his high school stories of his love. The next half of the movie was gripping and fast-paced, with well angled shots to make you feel like swinging from building to building and climbing up towers- i watched it in 2D and i could still feel the height! This part of the movie focuses on the transformation of Dr Connors as the Lizard, the villain of this movie, who happens to be Peter's father's working partner. His wish to regenerate his arm goes awry, leading him to produce a biological threat that forces Spiderman to a race to save the people in the city.

As i said, i was entertained. The movie was light hearted, like watching The Captain America, with brilliant cast. Andrew G performs magnificently as Peter Parker, to a certain extent, i felt him outshine Tobey M. He fits the character well. I enjoyed the scene where he first discovers of his special ability, particularly with the flipping of his skateboard. Much credits to Emma Stone, Sally Field, Martin Sheen and Rhys I, and director Marc Webb for taking the risk of rebooting this franchise. Watch out for Stan Lee in a show-stopper scene. Flash, played by Chris, gives me the feeling of a sequel where he will be featured in a bigger role- like Jacob in Twilight.

Give this Spiderman a try. For a two-hour movie, this movie does not fall short and does not feel long. And a sequel is pretty likely- stay for the post-credit (duh! almost all Marvel movies has this).

I have to say this one more time: The Amazing Spiderman is amazing.
29 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Now this is more like it!
hnt_dnl1 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Hardcore fans of Sam Raimi's Spiderman can rail all they want to. THIS version of the Marvel Comics superhero, Marc Webb's THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN (2012) is BETTER! While I really did like Raimi's 2002 initial Spidey flick, I absolutely loathed the incredibly overpraised 2004 sequel. Thankfully, there is a bit more debate about which film is actually better, because I've always been in the small camp that believes Spiderman 1 is better than Spiderman 2. Part 2 regressed all the good will that Raimi built up in 1. And there is pretty much universal agreement that 3 isn't very good. But I still contend that 2 SUCKS. The huge difference that I already see in this 2012 reboot that is better than anything from the 2000s trilogy is that while the Raimi flicks TRIED and FAILED to have emotion and depth in telling the story of Peter Parker/Spiderman, Webb's reboot actually SUCCEEDS! TAS stars the pretty "amazing" newcomer Andrew Garfield (who was superb in The Social Network) as the well-known iconic character of Peter Parker/Spiderman. Peter is a bullied nerd whose parents mysteriously left him with his Uncle Ben and Aunt May (superbly played by acting legends Martin Sheen and two-time Oscar winner Sally Field) as a child.

Peter's father was a brilliant scientist working on cross-genetics technology that allows an organism to cure and re-generate itself by merging with another. Peter, a novice photographer who inherited his father's science acumen, accidentally stumbles upon some of his father's work in his Aunt and Uncle's attic, including a formula that solves the cross-genetic puzzle that his father's former colleague Dr. Curt Connors (sublimely played by Rhys Ifans) has been trying to solve for years. After sneaking into the Oscorp facility and passing himself off as an intern, Peter snoops into a lab full of test subject spiders, one of which latches onto him and bites him, giving him spider-like abilities: strength, speed, elusiveness, scales, web-shooting.

Connors works for Oscorp, whose founder and leader Norman Oscorp is dying and in need of a cure, and so Connors is trying to use the cross-geneticism to accomplish this. With Peter's help, the puzzle is "solved" and Connors ends up using himself as the first human test subject as he has only arm, which becomes regenerated, but it also has enormous side effects, transforming him into The Lizard, Spiderman's first enemy.

During this time, Peter, caught up in his work with Oscorp and bemoaning his parents' abandonment, selfishly chooses to ignore a robbery, which inadvertently leads to his Uncle Ben's death, so Peter initially uses his newfound powers to go an a rampage to find his Uncle's killer as he stalks the streets of New York on a nightly basis, bringing lowlife criminals to justice.

A romance develops between Peter and his fellow high-schooler, the equally scientifically inclined Gwen Stacy (played with exquisite charm and maturity by the gifted Emma Stone). The Peter-Gwen relationship is really the heart of this film. Very beautiful and engaging. In addition to his Aunt and Uncle, Gwen actually gives Peter a purpose and direction. Even though in virtually every modern superhero film, the girlfriend always seems to find out the secret identity, this is the first film that I think does it in a truly genuine, clever, mature, and natural way, and not just for shock value or cheap effect. I dare say that the romantic aspect is really the MAIN reason why this film works, whereas in Raimi's flicks, I couldn't wait for the "romantic" parts to come and go to get to the action! Credit really must go to Garfield and Stone for having incredible chemistry and being terrific actors. The Raimi films are really juvenile by comparison when it comes to the realistic love story in TAS.

Special mention should also go to legendary comedian Denis Leary, who does an extremely effective and refreshing turn as Gwen's father Police Captain Stacy, injecting the character with his trademark sarcasm, but also coming across as very commanding.

Another thing this film does is that it literally builds Peter from the ground up as a hero, making him learn the hard way through attempts, failures, experiences, pain, loss, and gain. Even many times when Peter is wearing the suit, he still acts very human and down-to-earth. He has to LEARN how to be a hero by still using his own instincts and common sense. It's not just about looking cool scaling walls and kicking ass! Spiderman isn't Superman!

The film also stages the action as realistic as possible, with a healthy dose of CG effects, of course. But, here, unlike in Raimi's films, every action scene makes sense and we get to see how Spidey must use his webs on ACTUAL surfaces! Not just magically touching the sky, the webs hit just about everything in sight: buildings, cars, windows, and even other people!

Garfield is simply superb as the awkward, gifted teen-aged Peter Parker, who has led a tragic existence, but finds a purpose through the memory of his parents, his aunt and uncle, Gwen, and the innocent citizens of New York. I usually think sequels suck, but I patiently await the sequel to his underrated, under-appreciated, extremely compelling and original superhero flick!
31 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Best Spider-Man Yet
Califorever121 December 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I first was going to see another movie, but my cousin wanted to see this. I walk into the movie theater thinking: 'Yeah this'll probably suck and be boring' and came out with chills. I saw this movie in 3D and it felt like I was there with the actors, in all the scenes! Of course the fight scenes were a little bland and they could have added a little more action. But the part when Peter is Spider-man and he was doing flips up in the air, also swinging across buildings, literally gave me an adrenaline rush. It was an amazing feeling.

But the best part of this movie wasn't the action, but the chemistry between Peter (Andrew Garfield) and Gwen (Emma Stone). Every time they had a scene together, I could absolutely tell that they were in love. Their love story was one of the best parts of this movie because it blossomed from them being cute and flirty, to being completely head over heels in love with each other. They were both charming but also pulled it off as their character very well; Emma as the intelligent, graceful Gwen, and Andrew as the cute, but awkward and nerdy Peter. They were definitely the highlights of this film.

Like every movie, it had it's flaws. I think that they could have chosen a better villain than 'The Lizard'. Don't get me wrong, Rhys Ifans was a good actor in this film but his character just felt rushed to me. One moment I see him as a brilliant, kind-hearted scientist to him then becoming psychotic and turning himself into a giant green monster way too quickly. Also, I didn't think he looked like a lizard at all. Honestly, I think once he turned into 'The Lizard' he looked a lot like 'Lord Voldemort' from 'Harry Potter'. He was the only character I had an issue with though everyone else was great and was perfect for their part.

Another issue, that a lot of people complained about was the lack of thrilling fight scenes. The fight scenes in this movie were a little cliché like you have seen it in another action movie. Also the fight scenes just kind of came and went. They were so quick and just very boring, like you knew every move Spider-Man (AKA Peter) was going to make. I thought they should have put a little more effort into these scenes and they should've put a lot more action into them.

Honestly, overall this is a terrific movie! Despite some flaws, I think it is definitely worth seeing. Andrew and Emma are very charming in their parts and look adorable together on-screen. It has some cute lines were I had to laugh out loud because they were just really funny! If you like a super-hero movie with a comedic and romantic twist into it, I think you will enjoy this movie!
35 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
The Weak Spiderman
AbhisarSarmandal29 June 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I've been a fan of Spiderman since childhood. In fact, he has been my favorite superhero. I liked Spiderman 1, 2 and 3; watched Spiderman 3 twice, despite many reviewers bashing it.

So it's natural I was waiting eagerly for The Amazing Spiderman. I was more eager because this movie was rebooting the Spiderman franchise with new cast that included Indian actor, Irfan Khan and it was getting released in India before US! Unfortunately, it turned out to be a big disappointment. It was like they didn't make a Spiderman movie, but a caricature-remake or a spoof of it. Bad script, confused and weak characters, bad direction and bad editing are some of the major flaws. Story was too bland, no spice, no excitement.

The important scenes where Peter gets bitten or hones his skills or makes his suit have been hurried and short, while the irrelevant scenes have been dragged.

Spiderman gets beaten, defeated, injured repeatedly. In fact, the audience was laughing hard on the repeated scenes of him coming home all thrashed and bruised and his aunt talking to him about it. He keeps removing his mask for just anybody and that's not very Spiderman-like.

Most action scenes were non-thrilling. In a scene where Spiderman rescues a boy from a falling and burning car, he wastes almost 5 minutes trying to convince Jack (the boy) to be brave, climb up and hold his hand. He even gives the boy his mask, but the boy doesn't follow him. So in the end he has to throw his spider-thread to pull Jack up. He could have done that already and spared us of that boredom.

It was just an example. Most encounters between the lizard-man and Spiderman were equally boring, dragged and nonsensical.

There were a lot of loose ends and missing links in the story. Like the story of Peter's parents was never shown, but the characters kept mentioning it. Dr. Ratha talks about some Mr. Osbourne, but neither the man nor his story was shown. Maybe they're keeping it for the sequel, but the confusion totally spoiled this movie. A lot of inconsistencies were there too. Sometimes things stick to Peter's hands and break by little force, sometimes they don't.

The romance between Peter/Spiderman and Gwen looked lukewarm and forced. The scene where the burglar kills Peter's uncle looked awkward and disconnected like many other scenes.

Andrew Garfield didn't look much convincing either as nerdy Peter Parker or as Spiderman. He was good in The Social Network but a disappointment in this movie. In many body-close-up shots he was bending forward apparently to hide his penis-line from showing in the tight-suit. That made the already weak Spiderman look even weaker. Since when have Hollywood actors become this bashful?

Irfan Khan appeared in just 3 short scenes. He was more like an extra. But the audience welcomed him with a bout of whistling!

Everyone seemed to be waiting anxiously for the movie to end, which ends after further boring you for some time after the defeat of the villain. So much I wish, they had made Spiderman 4 with Tobey Maguire instead of this disaster.

I might as well watch Rajnikant's Robot now…
547 out of 871 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The worst Spider-Man yet...
christhebodishot4 July 2012
Warning: Spoilers
After the last film, I was hard pressed to think that this one could be worse. Well, sure enough it is.

Warning, spoilers ahead.

The reasons that this film isn't good are simple: Most of the action scenes, take place at night- and are visually uninteresting as the CGI and night sky don't make good bedfellows. There is one action scene at day in which you can actually see what's going on, and its in a high school that clearly isn't anywhere within a three mile radius of New York.

We all understand how they shoot interiors in Culver City.. But the last spiderman films seamlessly blended shoots from Chicago, New York, Los Angeles without the audience ever noticing. This film does not, in fact the only attempt to make the high school look like New York is a lame sign.

This film's story has been done before, you've seen it before and with the exception of the Osbournes and the color of the love interests hair, there is not much new to this story.

Dennis Leary is great, as is Martin Sheen but they're both killed off. Martin Sheen is killed off in the beginning of this boring movie, making it more painful as he was one of the only reliefs.

Aunt May is written so poorly, that she has nothing to do in this movie. She sits at home and watches TV and screams at Peter when she sees him. Not exactly a challenging role for the great Sally Field.

There was little care that went into the quality of this film, and the attempts at making it dark are just flat out Corny such as the cannibal rat, which is pure comedy and comes out of nowhere to 'shock' the audience.

There seems to be no conflict between Peter and his girlfriend at the end of the story, which one would logically want to assume that she holds out some contempt for spiderman as Harry did in the original spiderman after Spiderman played a hand in his death. Spiderman did play a hand in the Captain's death, yet the daughter doesn't seem to mind that Peter was there when he was murdered.

This film had great visual effects, obscured by the night time setting and slow down camera techniques. Other than that, it's a music video and it pulls NO surprises. You have already seen this film if you've seen the extended trailer, or the 2002 Green Goblin movie.

The chemistry between the two leads is lame, with Andrew Garfield who is wonderful in other films and stage productions giving a few moments of over-acting that take away Peter's humanity and spell the word HAM with it. Also, they appear to be improvising in some of their scenes, the result is two young, MEGA-RICH people trying to imagine what blue- collared kids from Queen's social customs would be like, and let me tell you they FAIL in a telling and Inauthentic way.

This movie does not have you believe in the setting or characters at all. It is just ridiculous.
365 out of 576 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
I really don't get all the hate!
TheNorwegianGuy10 November 2012
I admit that I too didn't exactly get that excited when I heard that this was in the making. The Sam Raimi trilogy was a fun ride, and the idea of making another Spider-Man movie with a completely new cast seemed strange and unnecessary. When the cast was announced, I got a little bit curious, but nothing more.

However, when I watched it, I got a whole other impression. I really liked it. The atmosphere was great, and perhaps a little darker than the Sam Raimi movies at times. I know many of you who read this will hate me for saying this, but I actually think this movie was a LITTLE bit better that the previous ones. Not much, but just a hint better. One thing is the cast. I really didn't like Tobey Maguire as Spider-Man that much. I didn't have a huge problem with him back then, but now when I saw this, I must say that I like Andrew Garfields "version" better. He's a little more tougher, both physically and in personality. Also, I think Emma Stone did good as Gwen Stacy. I liked her better as Peter Parker's girlfriend than Kirsten Dunst. The Villain, too, was great. I won't say more about him, not wanting to spoil anything.

When I read many of the reviews in here, I don't see much positivity about this movie. I think that's unfair. At least, it's mediocre. Giving this a 1/10 is criminally wrong. At least I think so. If you wonder if you should see this or not, at least give it a chance. Don't let the bad reviews scare you away.
114 out of 171 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Great film worth the price
nekomathing19 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
not the best film but a great film for a action movie. it follows the comics a little. when I saw the film I saw it in 3D man it was good but this maybe is the best spider man film. a action film for people who likes action . but for some will say it is the worst spider man film . like the school scene that scene was a good scene really action the building the sewer this could also be a family film .

this did not waste my time my buddies also liked it so did a lot of people .recommended film for people. good acting good movie . since marvel is better than DC in my opinion so I liked it a lot. but at this film it looks like peter parker or spider man seemed weaker than the past film. really action good for kids adults etc.

If you are a fan of spider man you will like this.

the villain the lizard was was really powerful maybe stronger than some villains in marvel. the spider man villains usually is stronger than a lot of other villains

Good film overall 8/10
27 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Are you kidding me?
philipjkite3 July 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I don't like to be the downer on this movie, but I've just got back from watching it at my local cinema and I've already forgotten about it! I was expecting good things, 215 million spent on the movie, Emma Stone (big fan), Andrew Garfield (up and coming, great in Social Network) and Martin Sheen as a co-star, come on it should have been better.

I got lost in the lack of a plot, it felt like it all happened over a day or two, the acting was limited, even Emma Stone only seemed to convince in a few scenes. At times it was as if I'd gone back in time and was stuck watching the Hulk again! please, please, not again! It just seemed so mixed up,there were a few, and when I say a few, I mean more than two! decent scenes! a couple of jokes thrown in, but then it was back to mediocre, what the heck happened to Denis Leary, after Rescue Me, you'd think that this guy could act now.

For me, and this is only my humble opinion, it was a bid disappointment that made me wonder why I went in the first place. Once again Hollywood got me, with their big budget advertising machine.

But maybe it's me, IMDb's never wrong is it? and maybe, just maybe, as I didn't watch it in 3D and could see the movie this time, I'm wrong!
176 out of 272 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
this movie is what I've been looking for (despite the criticism)
amielwrite2 February 2014
Warning: Spoilers
SPOILER WARNING:

let me make one thing clear the original spider-man movies never got it right, spider-man was not this punk little man who takes the heat from everybody he comes across and makes dumb statements like poetry quoting and crying, and in every film he was the same person when he puts on the mask and takes it off, hes never funny hes never doing anything science related and the ending villain fights are all the same. The villain comes, he threatens spider-mans girlfriend, they fight for a bit, and the villain kills himself. the movies rush any accuracy it was going for like making him spider-man after he graduates and giving him Mary Jane before Gwen, and don't get me started with the green goblin. making him the goblin before you show the power hungry business man what where they thinking? But when i saw this film i cloud have never been this happy since the dark knight, its not better than the dark knight or its equal, but just as the dark knight finally made a batman film I've been waiting for, the amazing spider-man did the same with spider-man, it made some changes necessary for it to be a movie while keeping true to its source material its the Peter Parker I've been waiting for, its the girlfriend I've been waiting for and hes funny hes smart his body looks like a spider rather than a sumo wrestler and the bad guy is serious, and the ending fight is different like when Parker warns his girlfriend that the lizard is coming instead of being kidnapped she helps people and uses a blow torch to fight him off, and the side characters are developed not so many throw away characters, so yeah i love this movie i want to see where they take it next.
34 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Finally a Spider-Man I can agree with
jackbauer1299 July 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Alrighty this movie was awesome! Yeah it could of used a little here and there, but the fact of the matter is that it is SPIDER-MAN. I am a comic fan, and after watching this I could agree that they captured the true spider-man, not some Toby creation

The moment i realized that he was building his own web slinger i knew that this was going to be good! I loved how Spider-man made funny jokes, he didn't shoot his fingers as guns and people walking by, he actually was funny, nerdy, and AWESOME!!! Gwen Stacey is great! Dr. Connors is amazing, when he transforms its gnarly, it gives you the feel of how he is being taken over.

There are some plot errors, like how does he get the web slinger stuff, and what happens to the semi transformed cops, while they are transformed. but other than that it flows pretty nicely.
34 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Completely unnecessary but still entertaining enough
Robert_duder3 May 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Going back a few years when Sam Raimi's Spiderman released it was jaw dropping. It was sort of the spring board for the current excess of superhero films we see now. Most of us were definitively disappointed in Spiderman 3 but disappointed enough that we thought it should end the franchise and encourage a reboot only TWO years later? Fortunately for them the reboot isn't so bad and actually very entertaining and spidey fans won't be disappointed. I don't think its nearly as good as the original Raimi's Spiderman but then at that time it was new and fresh and captivating to see a live action, non-campy superhero on screen. The Amazing Spiderman does manage to make itself different enough to make you not feel like you're watching something you've seen a dozen times over. Its a different spin on the Spiderman story while still keeping key elements firmly in place (maybe Marc Webb should give Zack Snyder a few tips.) They also establish enough back story to make this a lucrative franchise for at least three films if they don't screw it up some way and get it scrapped like they did the first time around. At the same time of being different enough it isn't really that far fetched from Raimi's trilogy. It still has the same feel and intensity and solid special effects. As someone who despises CGI I didn't find it silly or overused (though its clearly used a lot) its done very well including The Lizard who is complete CGI.

If they absolutely had to do this then Andrew Garfield was a great choice for the role of Peter Parker and Spiderman to a lesser extent. Its funny because I always thought Tobey Maguire made a great Spiderman but lacked as Peter Parker and Andrew Garfield makes a great, awkward, angsty teen Peter Parker but lacks something significant as Spiderman. I don't know what it is...but its something. Still he is at least good in both roles. Emma Stone is terrific as Gwen Stacy. Her chemistry with Garfield is perfect (though again not quite as good as Dunst and Maguire) and she shows once again why she's one of the best young talents in Hollywood. Stone outdoes herself in her role. Rhys Ifans is also perfectly suited as our villain Kurt Connors/The Lizard. Playing a villain (especially a giant Lizard) is extremely difficult to not make campy but Ifans plays it very seriously and is a very viable enemy. He absolutely brings the comic villain genius to life. Denis Leary is a great addition to as Gwen's father and Police Captain who is also somewhat of a nemesis for Spiderman and Peter Parker. His character adds a certain layer of depth to the story and he plays it very seriously even when he's being sarcastic and angry. It wouldn't even be fathomable for me to mention Martin Sheen and Sally Field, two absolute legends of Hollywood playing Uncle Ben and Aunt May. Sadly they are very underused and only have a few good scenes in the beginning of the film but I wanted to see more of them because of who they are as actors.

Part of the issue I had with The Amazing Spiderman was perhaps the lack of emotional depth, the human side that we miss out on. The connection between Peter and his Uncle and Aunt isn't quite felt as well as it should have been. I wasn't moved enough when Uncle Ben was killed. However, this film gets definitively and absolutely better as it goes on. The end of the film is superior to the first part in every way. Its intense, emotional, action packed and jaw dropping. If the entire film was at the quality of the latter half it might have been a ten. The High School Spiderman/Lizard fight is legendary (especially with one of Stan Lee's best cameos), the scenes between Garfield and Leary and the final battle all make this an absolute must see. Marc Webb did an excellent job of creating something that could have and almost should have been a disaster into a viable and watchable franchise. I wanted to complain about how incredibly cheesy and melodramatic the "crane" scene was during the last scene but darned if it didn't make me get goosebumps and feel all warm and squishy. One thing is for certain, there isn't a Spiderman fan out there that can't say this isn't well done and very entertaining. There is some terrific Spiderman imagery (again especially towards the end.) Let's hope Marc Webb can hold this together throughout the franchise's life. Its greatest feat was to overcome was being far too soon for it to be made and it does overcome that. 8.5/10
24 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Truly Amazing
DarkVulcan297 July 2012
I don't want to say that this was better than the 2002 Spider Man, I think they are both good in there own right, this film does things a little bit better than the first film, but both films where good in there way.

Peter Parker(Andrew Garfield) a smart 19 year old, with a huge chip on his shoulder, who has a secret crush on Gwen Stacey(Emma Stone), lives with his Uncle Ben and Aunt May(Martin Sheen and Sally Field), still trying to figure out what happened to his parents, only to discover that his dad worked with Curt Conners(Rhys Ifans), while visiting his lab, is bitten by radioactive spider, and gains the powers of a spider. Okay there is so much more that I do not want to give away.

Andrew Garfield was great as Peter Parker, I liked the way he does not try to be carbon copy of Tobey Mcguires Spider Man, but playing the part in his own way. Emma Stone was super charming as Gwen Stacey, she really brought a lot to the film, and she and Garfield have incredible chemistry. Martin Sheen and Sally Field are also great here. Not to mention Denis Leary and Rhys Ifans. And the effects don't disappoint either.
24 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Other than that lizard... it's very good
aharmas8 July 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Great previews usually lead to great movies, and there's a fantastic preview right before "Spidey". When I first heard about Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone heading this cast, I thought that it would be amazing. This film's previews looked great. Here's finally, the end product, and it's for the most part a fantastic movie, and the only criticism that we can come up with is that too bad it wasn't perfect, that the villain was well, not up to the rest of the story. Originally, the fear was that it was too soon to remake it; then you hope some good writer is part of the package (Argent) comes in, and we can see his touch, giving each of the central stars juicy lines to make them real, interesting, and endearing.

Andrew Garfield is the best thing that could have happened to the franchise. His eyes are full of wonder, inquiring, able to convey a myriad of emotions in seconds, and his genuine chemistry with Stone certainly makes us care about what could happen to either one. She is not a typical damsel-in-distress, and here's a hero who can shed a few tears in the right place without looking insincere or stupid. This is particularly important in the early scenes involving the incident with his uncle, and his yearning for his long-lost father.

Yet the film is a lot of fun, specially in the learning stages of his newly-acquired powers, when he can't really understand what is happening to his body. "Chronicle" did this effectively, but there was always an impending sense of doom. Here's only our expectations about how powerful he might become, which leads to the point of his nemesis, a terrific looking being that is well, not very threatening, particularly in this summer, full of some terrific antagonists.

The special effects are fantastic, and New York hasn't looked this great in years. Watching Spiderman swing from building to building, and his little adventure in the sewer system of Gotham City is exciting. The best we can say is that here is another part that feels just right. If only Lizard Man's ego has been unleashed in the way that a few other egomaniacs have shown up recently. Remember the psychotic Joker, and that prince from another galaxy demanding respect from his "new subjects"? I loved the claws, but if the best you can do is scratch people with it...? Back to Garfield's acting... This young man is one of the best things to come out of England/Hollywood recently. He can certainly carry a film and make it better and stronger than it might be. We want to continue seeing his adventures. Let's just give someone or something more terrifying and more threatening to go against next time.

**** out *****.
22 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
The Amazing Spider-Man Movie Has Already Been Made
thesar-24 July 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I don't have an argument that Spider-Man's origin story didn't need to be remade for I've seen plenty of very decent to mediocre reboots before. But, what makes this a worthless remake was that it backtracked on all that was good before it.

Heart, soul, good soundtrack, excellent score, acting, chemistry, heroism, humor and quotable dialogue were present in the original Spider-Man movies – and yeah, even #3. This movie lacked ALL of those. Heck, it even deleted one of the main characters and often hilarious: J. Johan Jameson. Shame.

I was even willing to over look the obvious first hour or so that inevitably retold the same old story of pansy Parker, a love interest, the bullies, the Aunt & Uncle, the spider bite, the transformation and the first try-outs. Without anyone (and I guess me now) spoiling that, we all knew that was coming. But, what I didn't foresee was how blah it all was going to be. How boring and trite.

And please…PLEASE… do not let the advertisements fool you into filling a seat for a movie you've seen before: "The Untold Story" was about as revealing as finding out about Ellen Ripley's all-but irrelevant daughter in the director's cut of Aliens.

What the movie is trying to tell us is that Spider-Man is a hero, that he loves Gwen Stacy and that, despite how great the Hulk looked in The Avengers, a giant lizard man can look real on screen using 1996's technology. No apologies: I didn't buy any one of these things the script displayed. In fact, it showed so much and yet, so much felt left out. So many story lines began and either faded or we're given half-ass explanations.

Don't get me wrong; I didn't full-on hate on The Amazing Spider-Man. Of the approximately 20 minutes (of 136) of screen time Spidey was on the screen, he looked…decent, albeit the shots still looked like deleted scenes from the previous series. And even though Tobey Maguire spun webs around Andrew Garfield's Parker, he still did a good job. I will even give it to both the script and Garfield: Spider-Man's signature sarcasm was funnier this time around.

Is it redundant to give the synopsis since I already reviewed the 10-year-old original? Yes, except this time around instead of a green bad guy from Oscorp being human, this one had a green bad guy from Oscorp being a laughable CGI Godzilla offspring. Oh, and as much as I love Emma Stone, her character, Gwen Stacy, first introduced in Spider-Man 3, was so lifeless, you'd have to miss Kirsten Dunst's Mary Jane.

I simply cannot recommend this movie. Again, of the 136 minutes, 40 were good, but that did not outweigh the bad-3-D effects or 96 other slow-paced, unoriginal and uninspiring minutes.
283 out of 454 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Great film, seems to be more geared toward a younger audience than previous films.
mrooney983 July 2012
I enjoyed this movie because it was a superhero film with many funny bits. I like to be able to laugh while watching a movie, not just watch loads of CGI action. I also liked the fact that the villain wasn't killed just defeated and put in prison, giving him a second chance. However, I do believe that was partially do to the fact that the producers/writers wanted something to write a future film on. I think that Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone did exceptionally in their roles. Garfield really seemed to actually be Peter Parker and I love to see that in a film. Although this movie is a superhero movie I do believe it was geared toward a younger audience, unlike the Dark Knight. The fact that Spider-man is a teenager in this one and that it is not nearly as dark as some other films certainly convinced me of this. I recommend this to anyone who enjoys action and superheroes. Side note: Denis Leary was great!
37 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Why a Spider-Man reboot so soon? Here's why…
TheSquiss6 August 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I have to admit I had low expectations for The Amazing Spider-Man. Yes, I enjoyed the first of Tobey Maguire's outings as Spidey back in 2002 but the quality diminished with each sequel to the point that I didn't care if a fourth installment came to fruition or not. More than anything, it was the feeling I had a mere five years after the last installment, and I'm sure I'm not alone in this, of 'Why another Spider-Man so soon?' However, the decision to return to the timeline of the source comics and introduce Gwen Stacy as Peter Parker's girlfriend (instead of the more familiar Mary Jane Watson) increased the interest. Maybe this would be a new approach. Then the casting of Andrew Garfield intrigued. His superb turns in Never Let Me Go and in the more widely seen The Social Network certainly suggested he may have something new to bring to the part. The trailer clinched it for me, hinting at a Spider-Man Begins leaning. If Christopher Nolan could obliterate the camp, tarnished Adam West Batman with a completely reinvented trilogy, what could director Marc Webb (500 Days of Summer) create with The Amazing Spider-Man? It's not Batman Begins, let's get that straight immediately. Nolan's trilogy stands head and shoulders above all other superhero films at the moment and is unlikely to be dethroned any time soon. But The Amazing Spider-Man is a huge success and an extremely enjoyable first foray into Spidey world by all involved and this is down to some fine writing by James Vanderbilt (who has just penned next year's RoboCop reboot) and the courage of Webb not to rush into the action and villain chasing too soon.

A large part of the film is spent meeting, understanding and developing a relationship with Peter Parker through his childhood, the loss of his parents, his relationship with his aunt and uncle, the death of his uncle and his decision to become the superhero and gradual evolution of his crime-fighting alter ego. We see that Peter is flawed. He's cocky at times, he's angry, emotionally wounded, damaged goods and incredibly lonely. When he's bullied at school, it isn't the obvious type of bullying that results in a dramatic conversion to prize-fighting champion, it's the slow, constant drip-drip that niggles, that eats away at confidence and distills the inner turmoil to anger that could easily become rage but veers towards sulky stubbornness and carries its own consequences.

Such time is spent with the family that when Aunt May (Sally Field on fine form that surely must lead to more screen time in the sequel) rebukes Peter we, too, sit up and listen and when Uncle Ben (the ever-excellent Martin Sheen in another flawlessly strong and sincere performance) is murdered in front of his nephew, though we know it will happen and is only on a screen, it wrenches our gut and we know Peter's anguish for ourselves.

When Gwen steps into Peter's life it, too, is gradual and believable. There are no great fireworks or sudden changes but a slow maturing of their friendship into something stronger. The chemistry between Garfield and Emma Stone (so much more watchable here than in the good but overrated The Help earlier this year) is tangible and a pleasure to witness. They work together, they suit each other and one really hopes they stay together.

Inevitably, the superhero must eventually take centre stage and the catalyst has to be an (almost) equally super villain. In this instance it's Rhys Ifans' Dr. Curt Connors, aka The Lizard, with a destructive agenda. So good has The Amazing Spider-Man been up to this point that it's almost a pity when The Lizard arrives at all. It has to happen and it brings with it an increased level of excitement and action but something dims, the quality dips slightly and it becomes a more predicable, certainly a more standard comic book flick.

Ifans is dangerously close to panto villain at times but in his human form he is straight enough to offset the predictable swerves in naturalism and believability when he transmogrifies into lizard form. His make-up is better than the CGI and at times The Lizard's moves are clumsy and the facial expressions lacking in emotion. In the wide shots, however, Spider-Man's leaps and swings are far smoother and more elegant than in the Maguire years and are a minor annoyance when they are less than perfect rather than a jarring disturbance.

The Amazing Spider-Man is very good indeed and I am, for the first time, looking forward to Spidey sequel but I'm guessing the real amazement will come next week when at last The Dark Knight Rises.

For more reviews from The Squiss subscribe to my blog at www.thesquiss.co.uk
33 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Great film, especially for spidey fans! Equal to Spiderman 2
spiderdan10115 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
First off, Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Martin Sheen, Sally Field, and Dennis are all Perfect in their roles. This movie is very different from the original, except for the origins which can obviously not be changed. The action is what spidey fans have always dreamed off. The chemistry between peter and Gwen is priceless. New and interesting story lines are created to be explored through out the trilogy/saga. The new suit is great in my opinion, but it has been changed for the sequel, yet either way I like them both. Andrew Garfield's emotional scenes are unbelievable. Finally, I absolutely loved the humor. And the ending left me satisfied and happy, yet excited for what is yet to come. Overall, this is an origin that succeeds on many levels and out does the previous origin (which is still great) and only Spider-man 2 is equal in its acting, style, humor, action, and theme.
40 out of 57 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
"Why the sudden interest in cold blood?"
classicsoncall9 July 2012
Warning: Spoilers
There was no way I was going to miss this film, but after reading a number of reviews by fans here I began to have some reservations. Most of that had to do with the retelling of the origin, and fundamentally I agree that this probably wasn't necessary after only ten years since the Tobey McGuire version. But now that I've seen it, I can say my second thoughts were unwarranted because this film provides an adrenaline rush with every spider web fired.

I always had this unsettled feeling with the McGuire Spider-Man, or more accurately, with the McGuire Peter Parker. I found him to be too much of a wuss, wimping out whenever confronted as the timid teenager. With Andrew Garfield, I didn't get the impression he was OK to let things go whenever a bully came on the scene. With only one picture under his belt as opposed to Tobey's three, I'm going with the new kid in town.

Whether intended or not, I also preferred the darker tone to this take on the Spidey character. Many of the action scenes occurred at night and better conveyed a sense that this costumed hero might be more of a menace than a friend. Peter Parker's dinner clash with Captain Stacy (Denis Leary) helped push that agenda and it worked pretty well.

As for the main villain, a mixed reaction. There were times The Lizard (Rhys Ifans) looked a bit corny and other times truly menacing. It seemed to me that the film had trouble establishing the villain's proportion in relation to Spider-Man and other humans. In some scenes he looked like a monster, at others merely somewhat larger than Spider-Man. However the concept of cross-species genetics on which The Lizard came to being was handled rather well and proved effective.

As always, my favorite moment in a Marvel hero movie did not leave me disappointed. Stan Lee makes a cameo appearance once again, this time as the oblivious librarian listening to a symphony while Spidey and The Lizard make a shambles of the bookcases in the background. I can't believe he'll be ninety at the end of this year.
29 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Amazing Spiderman a total failure
barok_23214 July 2012
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is a cash-in.First thing that occurred to me was that I previously saw everything worth watching in the movie's trailer.For example, note that Spidey's swinging scenes which are spread out in the trailer ended up being one scene in the movie (the crane scene)!Also,I didn't see ONE new bit of action in the movie that I hadn't already seen in the trailer and if I did,it was not a highlight.It really gets on my nerves when Hollywood manages to fool me with an impressive trailer that I am going to see a good movie, only to discover that it's far from that.

It is more than obvious that everyone's eyes are on the Parker character, played by Garfield.I believe he did a decent job with what he was given and if at times there was some awkwardness with the character,it wasn't his fault.The bad thing is at some points I got a "Harry Potter" feeling by him.The rest of the cast did well,Stone was great and cute,Field and Sheen felt like cameo appearances just to help the film sell more(although happy to have seen them),Leary was very fitting to the role of captain Stacey and Ifans was sufficient as Connors(again he did nothing wrong,not his fault that his character was poorly developed). I also got a question here: would a half-arm person lift his sleeve up to the point where his rest arm is shown unless he is a beggar on the street? I think not.As for the Peter-Gwen romance,it was cute but I honestly think it never got deep emotionally.The movie also failed to explain to me why Gwen got attracted to Peter.

The film is about Peter trying to find the truth about his parents. I honestly couldn't care less.And besides,there are only repeated references of that matter and no actual clues to follow,another cheat sponsored by the trailer.The rest of the film focuses on Peter getting bitten by the spider (since the movie is a reboot) and then on the lizard matter. Comparing with the original Spiderman(Sam Raimi's) at this point is inevitable. The question is raised: is there anything more they could possibly tweak/alter? Couldn't they stick to the comic plot at all? It's as if they are changing everything no matter what.The result was to go worse everywhere since the Raimi version did amazingly well with Spidey's story.Huge example is uncle Ben's death.What was that?No guilt was established for Peter as nobody in the audience would assume Peter was obliged to stop the thief and Ben's death had no actual impact on him,just a shallow crying scene over Ben lying on the sidewalk. Since they like to alter things so much, I say, let Ben live in this one flick!Connors is underdeveloped,so his motives are not clear,lizard wants to turn everybody like himself, although able to talk (with fantastic pronunciation!!!)and be sane.I don't get if there is a second persona or a crazy Connors behind the lizard,the film doesn't really explain and the scene where Connors hears the lizard talk to him only complicates things more.

The director,in order to promote this film,boasted that this film uses very little cgi technology if any.That is a big lie.Not only there is extensive use of cgi, it's actually also very bad.I can't comment further on this matter as it is something one has to realize on his own.What gives it away is motion,colors are OK. Gravital issues also occur as the lizard sometimes appears to be really heavy(Hulk-Godzilla-like)and at other scenes he climbs and jumps like a feather. The only action scene I enjoyed in its entirety was the car thief scene. There is no cgi there as far as I'm concerned and it is a very enjoyable scene overall(Garfield's humorous lines help too).The flaw there is how the heck did so many police cars get there so quick!.At this point I want to comment about the suit.I really hate it.Had there not been the Spiderman mask,I would never recognize the man wearing this suit as Spiderman.Mechanical (-electrical?) web shooters are indifferent although faithful to the comics(let's give them that),but I think Raimi's idea of giving Peter organic web shooters was a real improvement.Like I said above, in this new film they did EVERYTHING differently.The scene when Peter tests the web shooters is far from realistic as he chose to fall off a skyscraper in order to do that!.

One of my first thoughts was how many times had the director(Webb)taken me to Peter's school and Oscorp.Most of the film's scenes take place either at school or Oscorp.I find this unacceptable unless this is a television series or something. Furthermore,Webb never seemed to understand what is important or not in this film and I believe his whole approach to this project was false.Few examples:Peter Parker being a skateboarder (!) while a genius geek at the same time.There are more than enough scenes after Parker was bitten by the spider where his hands glue. Spider sense was not portrayed properly.I could literally go on forever.To conclude, there is no stigma,style,interesting shots, there is nothing.I don't know where this guy Webb came from and I haven't seen his other movie, but he did an amateur job.Take out the CGI and production money and you have yourself a fan-made film.Christopher Nolan did another take on Batman but you can see he can direct,and his movies are really "heavy",meaning important and professional.

I fear for what's coming next for the Spiderman franchise.It is certain that I will avoid seeing the future amazing Spiderman films.The biggest problem is that they do no honor to Spiderman and tend to destroy him before the eyes of us fans.
97 out of 149 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed