The Amazing Spider-Man
The untold story begins.
Peter Parker is an outcast high schooler was abandoned by his parents as a boy, leaving him to be raised by his Uncle Ben and Aunt May. Like most teenagers, Peter is trying to figure out who he is and how he got to be the person he is today. As Peter discovers a mysterious briefcase that belonged to his father, he begins a quest to understand his parents' disappearance—leading him directly to Oscorp and the lab of Dr. Curt Connors, his father's former partner. As Spider-Man is set on a collision course with Connors' alter ego, The Lizard, Peter will make life-altering choices to use his powers and shape his destiny to become a hero.
I don't care what anyone says, this is my Spidey and I love it, warts and all.
Before I continue I feel the need to emphasise that I in no way factor in the debate about the necessity of a reboot this soon, nor will I compare them to Raimi's three films as I consider these factors irrelevant to my opinion of this film. Films should be judged in their own right, if they're good, they're good, if not, too bad.
This film has some problems that lie mainly within the script and the pacing. It tells the origin of Spider-Man well enough, but it skirts over some of the 'getting to know you power' bits too quickly. The focus…
Your father was a very secretive man, Peter.
I am in shock at how good this film was and at the decisions that were made in doing the reboot. Those decisions are what makes the film so good. I have to say that I think this film is better then the first Spider-Man. Was a reboot necessary? No, but who cares. I don't watch films because they are necessary, I watch them to be entertained.
The decisions made that surprised me is that the film probably has less action, less villains and less characters in general then Spider-Man 3. So obviously if all you want is more action and villains you're not going to like this much.
I'll remind you what happened. Richard Parker said just about the same thing then that you are saying now. The clock is ticking, Dr. Connors.
My original review can be read here.
This is the first time I've rewatched Amazing Spider-Man since seeing Life of Pi. I forgot that Irrfan Khan was in Amazing Spider-Man. I forgot that Peter Parker's father was named Richard. Every time Khan said "Richard Parker" I was looking for the tiger.
Two or three minutes into the "The Amazing Spider-Man," I shifted in my seat, worried that the film was about to make no connection with me whatsoever. My shifting was for not as "The Amazing Spider-Man" is an excellent superhero film. Providing a personal, emotionally resonant, and somewhat low-key origin to the beloved-by-many character, the film is solidly-crafted, ideally-cast, exhilarating, and moving. Though it slips into well-worn, super hero operatics in its final act, this film, with its heart of a quieter film and its soul of a monster movie, is an undeniable pleasure.
First things first, yes I'm a fan of Sam Raimi's Spider-Man films. Well the first two anyway the third is a steaming shit pile. Spider-Man 2 is one of my favorite comic book films of all time. Before seeing this reboot directed by Marc Webb I'd read several reviews where people said they liked this film better than Raimi's first film, but not better than Spider-Man 2. So going in that's how I was hoping it would turn out for me. It didn't quite work out that way.
One thing I definitely liked better about this film compared to Raimi's films is the casting. I think Andrew Garfield is a better Spider-Man, and Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy is well…
I am one of the few people in the world that didn’t like the original Raimi trilogy (and yes that includes the second film, officially The Greatest Superhero Film of All Time™) which meant that I was rather looking forward to a new take on the character, even if an origins reboot was a little soon.
I’m pleased to say that for the most part Marc Webb’s take on the iconic hero is the film I have wanted to see since I first read the comics as a kid. What makes this film work for me, where Raimi’s were so flat and off, is in the casting. They aren’t always faithful to the source material (Sally Field as Aunt May…
The Spider-Man revamp has arrived far too soon, and while Andrew Garfield serves up as a witty, humourous and likable character on-screen, the film still lacks a solid story, and antagonising/memorable villain. I ultimately felt that the lizard man looked a little foolish (and similar to the Goomba's in Super Mario Bros. ). I did not feel the presence of the villain, which made the Sam Raimi directed Spider Man so entertaining to watch. However, without constantly comparing the film to the 2001 installation, I feel the film struggles a little to stand on it's own two feet, but still served up some charming funny moments and a few good action thrills.
popcorn thrills, but I wasn't to jazzed about how the plot progressed. It felt like the entire movie was just to appease the action scenes, which is common for superhero films I guess.
It has only been a decade since Sam Raimi’s ‘Spider-man’ came out in 2002. Raimi’s Spider-man remains fresh in my mind. Tobey Maguire’d fit perfectly in the shoes of Peter Parker. Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane?…MEH…she could have been replaced by someone better though. Raimi’s Spider-man brought back the true vim of the comics, cheese and charisma in equal proportions. Looking back on Raimi’s Spider-Man now, it feels like “Yea it could use come ‘Dark Knight’ treatment for the web slinging superhero”. But still the unnerving question remains…Is it time already for a reboot? And are we ready to accept it.
I’d been having mixed feelings since I heard the news that Marc Webb was at it with ‘The Amazing…
Surprisingly good, but still the most unnecessary reboot in recent history.
And am I the only one growing tired of superheroes?
Falls into the large category of "unnesscessary and bland superhero movies". Not exactly as horrifyingly awful as Captain America, but nowhere near the fun of the original spider man films.
There is so much to be done with the character of spider-man. Nothing here is new or all that interesting.
Emma Stone tho.
It's......ok...... it has some good stuff in there but stuff we've seen before. And quite recently too. Also, I just don't buy Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker, he seems too tall and good-looking. He's far too confident, which is wrong for the character.
A pretty good reboot with very honest plans. The only real issue with this movie is that the plot is too introducing and at the end we definitely want to see more.
Overall, great acting, I think Andrew Garfield plays a different but very moving Peter Parker. Emma Stone is really sweet as Gwen Stacy.
All the action is very well packed even though I wish the lizard would have been a bit more threatening.
Some very good points for this movie, I cannot wait for part two!
This review reportedly contains spoilers. I can handle the truth.
Raimi's original Spider-Man movie is one of my favourite films, ever, and I always found the sequels never really lived up to just how great that movie was. Then Amazing Spider-Man happened, which not only lived up to that original Spider-Man greatness, but also turned out to be the best superhero film of 2012 (in my opinion).
It wasn't flawless by any means, the whole genre mashup thing never quite worked but it was heaps of fun and does a lot of justice to my favourite superhero, probably more justice than Raimi ever did.
If Webb can build on the flaws of this one and keep what made this one so good for the sequel, we really will end up with the perfect Spider-Man film.