The Amazing Spider-Man

[ecstasy]

The old guy with the headphones on got a laugh because that was Stan Lee.

I can never spot his cameo in a movie. Didn't know that was him.

[AniNate]

well okay...I don't laugh at those movies either though.

Normally baumer loves those kinds of movies though, so I'm shocked that he seemed to miss the humor there. Might've just been playing it up to support his negative feelings on everything else, I guess. Edited July 5, 2012 by tribefan695

[Jay Beezy]

He used almost that exact same motif in Jumanji. I now understand why people complain about him rehashing his old scores.

People didn't seem to care about Alan Silvestri's score in The Avengers, but his score has to be considered better than James Horner's score here. Silvestri's score just felt empowering and made you want to stand up and kick ass for the world like the Avengers did. I found nothing memorable about Horner's score here.

[ecstasy]

People didn't seem to care about Alan Silvestri's score in The Avengers, but his score has to be considered better than James Horner's score here. Silvestri's score just felt empowering and made you want to stand up and kick ass for the world like the Avengers did. I found nothing memorable about Horner's score here.

I only like one song from the Avengers score. I have it in a playlist that I listen to everyday. I don't even know the name of it but it feels awesome. I didn't like the rest. But that one song just gets me going.

[ddddeeee]

People didn't seem to care about Alan Silvestri's score in The Avengers, but his score has to be considered better than James Horner's score here. Silvestri's score just felt empowering and made you want to stand up and kick ass for the world like the Avengers did. I found nothing memorable about Horner's score here.

I really like Silvestri and am indifferent to Horner, love some scores and hate others. But TASM definitely had a better score IMO, The Avengers was a less good G.I. Joe, and that score wasn't great in the first place.

[CloneWars]

Oh lord I'm seeing this next week and I'm just dreading it after reading some reviews hereIt thoroughly sounds like I won't like it ... I mean I'll go in with no pre determined thoughts but damn everything about this movie sounds just so redundant and mediocre at best

In my opinion, the film is redundant and mediocre. And, here's the thing, I love Spider-Man films. I've loved Spider-Man since I was a kid. Heck, I wasn't even bothered that we were getting the origin again since this was a reboot. But, watching the film, everything feels half-assed and nothing seems fully fleshed out or reaches its complete conclusion. I feel as if they are spending two films to do the origin instead of one and really I feel there is no reason to not bring many of the plot elements to completion in this film. The film is such a mess. I know some people liked this, but personally, I found it boring and lacking the emotion of the first two Spider-Man movies, and also the villians were better in the other movies, and this shouldn't have been the case since Connors and Parker were friends. We don't really get that dynamic playing out in this film. The Lizard becomes evil and that's pretty much it. There aren't any motives or anything. TASM feels like just an average comic book movie, and this day and age, average just isn't good enough when we have been treated to so many better comic book movies including better Spider-Man movies.

[Webslinger]

To address some points that have stuck out to me in this thread...

1.) The movie does have plenty of low-key humor that works. Although this movie takes itself more seriously than Sam Raimi's 2002 film (not necessarily a strength), it's still peppered with little chuckles here and there. In fact, I was surprised by how much humor there was after the ad campaign tried so hard to push the idea that this was going to be a serious Spider-Man movie.

2.) It seems silly to compare the chemistry between Garfield and Stone here with Maguire and Dunst in the previous film because the relationships run on significantly different dynamics. Maguire and Dunst had grown up knowing one another, and Peter has always secretly carried the torch for her while she was in relationships with other guys. Their relationship is meant to play on a surface level like one between close friends (the film even goes as far as having Peter refer to her in narration as "the girl next door") that becomes deeper as the movie goes on. Having been in quite a few such relationships, I think they capture the difficulty of interacting at the edge of the friend zone very well in the 2002 film. On the other hand, Garfield and Stone play out like a more traditional boyfriend/girlfriend relationship. That changes the game, and calls for chemistry that tips them closer to lovers than it does to friends. They do have more sexual chemistry with one another, but sexual chemistry wasn't the point of the relationship between Peter and Mary Jane in the 2002 film. Apples and oranges.

And while I wasn't disappointed with their chemistry with one another (they are dating in real life, after all), I was disappointed in Emma Stone's performance. She's not bad, but after so many performances where she radiated large quantities of energy, she seemed restrained here. It probably has something to do with the nature of the role (when has the love interest ever really upstaged the hero in a superhero movie?), but whereas her Wichita from Zombieland, Olive from Easy A, and Hannah from Crazy Stupid Love are all memorable characters, Gwen Stacy doesn't stand out apart from being Spidey's girlfriend. I know this is the typical trend in superhero movies (and it most definitely applies to Kirsten Dunst in the other Spider-Man movies), but I was hoping someone as talented as Stone could buck it.

3.) Whoever said they wouldn't be surprised if the movie was originally structured differently is spot-on. The way the screenplay simply forgets about two pretty major plot threads from the first half of the film (namely, Peter's desire to find out what happened to his parents and his pursuit of Uncle Ben's killer) is frustrating and makes me think that the film was originally more intimately focused on Peter's journey toward understanding who he is, as opposed to shifting its focus to stopping The Lizard. The 2002 film also shifted focus after Uncle Ben's death, but the shift was significantly cleaner because the thug had been dispatched; we no longer had to concern ourselves with how Peter was going to avenge Uncle Ben's death, but rather with how he was going to take that motivation and use it to become a do-gooder superhero. On the other hand, the fact that the screenplay of this film devotes as much time as it does to Peter's preparation for hunting down the thug (and by making it his prime motivation for becoming a vigilante) makes it a significant enough plot point that it should be concluded rather than left open-ended; past superhero movies have done just that - think not only of the 2002 Spider-Man, but also of Batman Begins, where Bruce wanted to kill Joe Chill, but was beaten to the punch and realized after telling Rachel his intentions and confronting Falcone that he wasn't cut out for killing people. That story's done, so now the focus can shift. But by leaving the events with the thug open-ended, the shift in focus away from Peter trying to capture him feels jarring. And honestly, after The Lizard and keeping in mind the gallery of super-powered rogues still yet to be used in the Spider-Man universe, saving one thug for the sequel is an unnecessary and unpromising move. There's no compelling reason offered within this film for why that subplot could not have been wrapped up.

Switching gears, it's also problematic that the film does relatively little with Peter finding out "the truth" about his parents. The filmmakers might have been able to get away with it had it just been meant to serve as setup for the next movie at the end, but making the departure of Peter's parents into the opening scene of the movie suggests that it's going to be very important and explored in depth during the actual movie, not the sequels. So in that sense, getting a string of hints and non-answers about this "untold story" of the character's origin feels like a cheap cop-out on the screenplay's part.

4.) The James Horner score sounds decent enough, but his infamous history of ripping from his previous work dampens my enjoyment of it.

5.) Writing off negative opinions of the film as being "clouded by nostalgia" (or whatever) is a.) off-base and b.) counterintuitive to discussing the actual movie. Are there viewers out there whose lack of enjoyment of this film probably has something to do with their preference of the other one? Absolutely. (Conversely, are there viewers whose enjoyment of this film will be somewhat elevated by qualms with the other one? Undoubtedly so.) Movies don't exist inside a vacuum, and these two movies share so many of the same story beats that it's hard not to compare them with one another. And yes, there are some viewers who were skeptical of the motivations for rebooting/remaking Spider-Man so soon. But is it really so hard to believe that someone who greatly enjoyed the original Spider-Man could go into this one with an open mind rather than with a pre-set agenda to not like it? I did, and I fully expected to enjoy it. Ultimately, I didn't enjoy it nearly as much as I thought I would. Is it because I love the first Spider-Man movie and didn't want a new origin story to tread the same territory? No. These stories are different enough stylistically that they can both exist. Rather, it's because I didn't think most of the common points were done as well in this movie as they were in the previous one (and my most recent viewing of that film happened a few months ago, so I can't be accused of relying on a fuzzy memory that just remembers having a good time a while ago), and because for this movie in particular, I thought the pacing was awkward, the screenplay wasn't as satisfying as it should have been, and neither the action scenes nor the big emotional scenes felt totally impactful to me. Yes, there is accounting for personal preference that needs to be done, but it's off-base to write off an opinion like the one I've outlined in this post (or other well-reasoned critiques of the film) as being the product of nostalgia rather than critical thought.

And it's also counterintuitive to make such a sweeping point when debating a movie for a few reasons. First, it's an evaluation of a perceived reaction to the movie rather than the movie itself. Second, it amounts to making an excuse for a particular point rather than actually examining it. I'm totally open to opposing viewpoints, but they need to be more detailed and substantial than just the equivalent of "this person doesn't get it because..." (And there are examples of well-expressed opposing viewpoints in this thread.) Responding to a criticism about the movie not being as good as the 2002 one with specific evidence from the movies (which has been done in this thread): good. Responding to that criticism by saying it's just clouded by nostalgia (which has also been done in this thread): not so good. And third, when a statement like that is made, it sounds like the person who makes it is leaving his/her own thoughts and trying to tell other people what they (meaning the other people) must really think about something and/or why they think it. And if one person in the debate apparently knows everything about the other person, what's the point of even having the conversation? I say this not just because of this thread or even this board (and I don't mean to single anyone out; I don't even remember who wrote it, or if several posters made similar comments along those lines), but because this tactic unfortunately seems all too common on the Internet, and it stifles good debate rather than encouraging it. (*steps off soapbox*)

Edited July 5, 2012 by Webslinger

[BK007]

And you are the rare poster that is actually objective.I use sweeping statements sometimes because it actually and unfortunately sums up the feeling of the board/posters/etc.Even leaving out TASM and using other films or a contrast between a poster's reactions to a film they like/dislike, it's pretty damn difficult to find people that actually are willing to back up their opinions or who will discuss openly, objectively and fairly. Hypocrites are of course the worse making it even less appealing to engage in proper conversation.As I summed up in my first post in this thread, or maybe second, it's great I enjoyed it, too bad you didn't, let's move on because I don't think with arguments already presented and feelings already well-known that it'll change anything. Of course I took the bait countless times after which I actively am trying to stop but, honestly that's what you get 95% of the time on a forum. It's unfortunate, but it's true.

[Jay Beezy]

I really like Silvestri and am indifferent to Horner, love some scores and hate others. But TASM definitely had a better score IMO, The Avengers was a less good G.I. Joe, and that score wasn't great in the first place.

I can barely remember any themes from TASM.

[The Dark Alfred]

I re-watched SM3 and I think I prefer it it TASM. Yes, it's a mess of a movie, pathetic weeping and disastrous third act, but the first hour is pretty damn good. The Green Goblin story line is executed perfectly, Sandman is much better than Lizard, the action-scenes are bigger, larger and more spectacular, the score is better. It's a great film till the ridiculous shift to the dark side and the rushed and forced Venom cameo. The only thing that's in TASM's favor is Garfield and Stone, which is hope for the sequel. The pace of TASM is really bad, you guts will understand what I mean after the second viewing then the excitement and the buzz is not that high. TASM is poor with repeat viewing.

[Jay Beezy]

I re-watched SM3 and I think I prefer it it TASM. Yes, it's a mess of a movie, pathetic weeping and disastrous third act, but the first hour is pretty damn good. The Green Goblin story line is executed perfectly, Sandman is much better than Lizard, the action-scenes are bigger, larger and more spectacular, the score is better. It's a great film till the ridiculous shift to the dark side and the rushed and forced Venom cameo. The only thing that's in TASM's favor is Garfield and Stone, which is hope for the sequel. The pace of TASM is really bad, you guts will understand what I mean after the second viewing then the excitement and the buzz is not that high. TASM is poor with repeat viewing.

Back to my score comment, that one actually had a theme. This didn't.

[baumer]

We seriously must have watched different movies, then, because my audience was roaring at some joke at least every five minutes.

Yes, we must have been. Mine didn't. Strange isn't it.

[raniE]

3.) Whoever said they wouldn't be surprised if the movie was originally structured differently is spot-on. The way the screenplay simply forgets about two pretty major plot threads from the first half of the film (namely, Peter's desire to find out what happened to his parents and his pursuit of Uncle Ben's killer) is frustrating and makes me think that the film was originally more intimately focused on Peter's journey toward understanding who he is, as opposed to shifting its focus to stopping The Lizard. The 2002 film also shifted focus after Uncle Ben's death, but the shift was significantly cleaner because the thug had been dispatched; we no longer had to concern ourselves with how Peter was going to avenge Uncle Ben's death, but rather with how he was going to take that motivation and use it to become a do-gooder superhero. On the other hand, the fact that the screenplay of this film devotes as much time as it does to Peter's preparation for hunting down the thug (and by making it his prime motivation for becoming a vigilante) makes it a significant enough plot point that it should be concluded rather than left open-ended; past superhero movies have done just that - think not only of the 2002 Spider-Man, but also of Batman Begins, where Bruce wanted to kill Joe Chill, but was beaten to the punch and realized after telling Rachel his intentions and confronting Falcone that he wasn't cut out for killing people. That story's done, so now the focus can shift. But by leaving the events with the thug open-ended, the shift in focus away from Peter trying to capture him feels jarring. And honestly, after The Lizard and keeping in mind the gallery of super-powered rogues still yet to be used in the Spider-Man universe, saving one thug for the sequel is an unnecessary and unpromising move. There's no compelling reason offered within this film for why that subplot could not have been wrapped up.

Considering you referenced one of my posts here (I was the one who said I wouldn't be surprised if the film was originally structured differently), I'm wondering why you didn't read my reasoning for why dropping the hunt for uncle Ben's killer was a strong point in the film. "The fact that Pete let go of finding uncle Ben's killer is ... part of his journey to becoming a hero, letting go of vengeance as a motivation and embracing helping and saving people instead."Yes, they could have gone with a scene where he finds the guy and ties him up for the cops instead of killing him, but I think that could have both been a bit cheesy, and would have felt weird to add in after the bridge sequence, pacing-wise.You don't have to agree, but I think it should be acknowledged that it's there.

[CloneWars]

Considering you referenced one of my posts here (I was the one who said I wouldn't be surprised if the film was originally structured differently), I'm wondering why you didn't read my reasoning for why dropping the hunt for uncle Ben's killer was a strong point in the film. "The fact that Pete let go of finding uncle Ben's killer is ... part of his journey to becoming a hero, letting go of vengeance as a motivation and embracing helping and saving people instead."Yes, they could have gone with a scene where he finds the guy and ties him up for the cops instead of killing him, but I think that could have both been a bit cheesy, and would have felt weird to add in after the bridge sequence, pacing-wise.You don't have to agree, but I think it should be acknowledged that it's there.

The thing is that Peter didn't let go of finding Ben's killer. That plot point is unresolved. This is proven by one of the last scenes showing that Peter still keeps a photo of the killer in his room that he still looks at all the time. So, he doesn't let go of seeking revenge.

[Warhorse]

Saw it yesterday, and I give it a B. Loved the cast, moreso than Raimi's version (and I wished they would scrap the whole Mary Jane sidestory and stick with Gwen, who I really liked) After thinking about it, I also liked this characterization of Spider-Man/ Peter Parker more than the first time around. Only thing I didn't care for, was for the villain. I liked Green Goblin more.

[FTF]

I know we all have different taste and opinions, but some of these reviews make me feel like I walked into the Amazing Spiderman demo reel. I didn't see half of this emotion and spark and brilliance that some of you did. I just saw a movie with a bad plot, bad lizard, glossed over plot points and completely forgotten characters. Are you sure you saw the same movie as me?

The difference is you had seen the movie before you walked into the theater ;)The mind is a powerful thing, and yours had decided TASM's fate already (unfortunately). A self fulfilling prophecy sort of speak. Edited July 6, 2012 by FTF

[Thrylos 7]

That annoyed me as well that he didn't pull out his cell phone and call for an ambulance, especially considering how often we see him on his cell phone. That seemed so cheap when he said someone call for a cop. Unfortunately, I feel there are many nuances like this and you just go WTF.Also, I was pissed that we didn't get the line With Great Power Comes Great Responibility. Instead, is said differently and it packs no emotion, that and Uncle Ben was talking about something Peter's father said instead of it coming from Uncle Ben's heart. Actually, now that I think about it, Peter doesn't seem as close to Uncle Ben in this film as he did Raimi's movies. His whole parental relationship thing is really messed up in this movie and they build it up and then it goes nowhere.In many ways, this feels like half a movie, and I agree that the Lizard is a lame villian. He comes across as a cardboard cutout. It could have been so much better, especially because Connors and Peter are friends before the transformation. Where is the inner conflict like we see with Doc Ock in SM2. And, I also agree that he looks like a fricking Goomba from the live action Mario Bros.This movie is sad on so many levels. And, here is a question, I've read every review here, and some of you talk about how you didn't like the film that much and pretty much admit it's very flawed and yet give it a grade of a B and sometimes even an A/A-. What gives people? I personally think that some people are being nicer to this film because its a Spidey, and it isn't as bad as SM3, but if this were any other SH film, I think people would be giving this a more harsher grade. Even I feel my grade might be a bit generous which is a C, but I almost never give out D's and F's unless the film is really bad, so a C from me is a low, low grade.

The Lizard could have been an awesome villain if they had treated it like a horror movie monster instead of the shit we got .

[HeyItsMoses]

Screw you guys with the hate reviews and bad plots, and bad this, and what not.The film was great. Great acting with the leads and the chemistry. Plot was good, and I had no problem with the Lizard, he looked fine. Yeah, he could've used a snout, but I'm sure the people designing the character had that in mind and it probably didn't work out for a reason, so stop whining. Oh, and from what I've remembered (only watched the cartoons when a kid), he could talk as a Lizard:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3dYCZk7Ui4&feature=relatedYeah, he took his mask off. Only 3 times (from what I remember). Mask off to show the kid he's a person, big deal? It's a kid, like the little brat is gonna remember him and go to the police with a description of the masked vigilante. Mask off when he was on top of a high-rise building on the phone, big deal? He's hundreds of feet in the air, on top of a building, doubt that anyone is out looking for him with a god-damn telescope. Mask off when the Captain caught him, big deal? He was the only person to get a good look at him, and he busted out and shot the webs to the guys around him. Plus, he was moving quick enough for no one to actually get a good look at his face. And the bystanders were pretty damn far away. Try looking at someone over 100 feet away in the dark and tell me you got a good description of how he looked.The crane scene at the end? I liked it. Not cheesy at all. The way I see it, he's a kid in high school, he barely got his powers, and he's fighting a fuckin 7 foot lizard! He got shot on his leg, he was already a mess prior to him going to the Oscorp. Him getting help from the guy that he helped save his kid, was great. I think it shows that even though he's super human with super abilities, deep down inside, behind the mask, he's still human. It's never a bad thing to get help.Oh, and for the record, the first Spider-Man wasn't fuckin perfect either.

Great film. A. Loved it, and will watch again in 3D. Edited July 6, 2012 by InFamous Nolanite

[BK007]

The thing is that Peter didn't let go of finding Ben's killer. That plot point is unresolved. This is proven by one of the last scenes showing that Peter still keeps a photo of the killer in his room that he still looks at all the time. So, he doesn't let go of seeking revenge.

Um, Jesus Christ people, not everything has to be resolved in one movie. Was it really likely Peter would find his Uncle's killer?I mean, I don't read the comics that everyone seems to have read but realistically it doesn't need to be shown. Some people arguing for Prometheus showing absolutely nothing and weaving their own stories to fill in the massive gaps-that's unresolved. Of course it would have been better to have some indication of whether Peter still holds the grudge or if it's just a picture to remind him of his selfishness. Either way I actually doubt that image from the movie happened after considering the massive edits.And finally, I'm going to be in the minority, non-American, non-comic book reader, but do the movies really need to follow the comics? They are hundreds of them. If a movie so chooses to tell its own story and exist on its own foundations, let it instead of ripping it to shreds over quibbles and semantics.

[chasmmi]

To be fair I liked the Lizard character and thought he was well acted. My issue was that the progression (and the talking to himself) just felt like a different version of Green Goblin with different skin.THe end credit scene is a pain as well, especially if even comic geeks aren't acreaming that its obvious who it is.THe thing for me is that (despite its box office success), Spiderman as a movie has an inherit disadvantage in that there seems to be no seminal villain.If you were to watch a Superman origin film that were to lead up to an end scene credit that introduces the ultimate foe for part two you would no it's got to be Lex Luther.With batman you know its the Joker.Spiderman... as a non comic reader I have no idea who is supposed to be Spidey's number one enemy like I do with the others.(Although after the Raimi films I suspect it is the Goblin Brigade, but does that mean that TASM2 is going to not only be folliwing the sets of the previous trilogy but also have Green Effing Goblin as its villain as well?)