Hollywood at its worst.

I pretty much agree with James point for point. But I would also add this remake (from an enormously successful franchise) seemed not to be the result of a creative decision, but rather the last resort from a fallout Sony had with Raimi over creative direction. It was Sony who interfered with the Spiderman 3 story and demanded that Raimi add Venom to the plot. This ultimately thinned out the intended story and created the character twists that fans have long complained about with this installment. So it should come as no surprise that when Raimi and company left, so did the creative flare of the series. So should it really be that surprising that Sony instructed it's latest director to do a color-by-the-numbers treatment to jump start a new series that wasn't warranted? The Raimi Spiderman trilogy was enormously successful. And the last installment actually grossed MORE worldwide than the first two. So while the plot suffered, the cast was still widely embraced by fans. So it wasn't an aging, tired franchise that was losing money like the old Batman franchise was doing. It was Sony's endless meddling in the process that created this "reboot". And the results speak for themselves. A predictable remake done by an unseasoned director who would follow direction and be Sony's "yes" man. The general public didn't need a reboot. Sony wanted it because of this conflict. Therein lies the reason.

The Amazing Spider-Man fails for two very specific reasons:

1. No J. Jonah Jameson(my favorite Spidey character). Would it have been so hard for J.K Simmons to at least make a brief appearance?

2. No Bruce Campbell cameo. It's not a Raimi film, so I can understand, but those little moments with Bruce in the original trilogy were always fun.





I probably would have liked to have seen a Tobey Maguire cameo in this film as well, but that's extraneous.

I went in with low expectations (before reading JB's review) and I'm happy to say they were greatly exceeded. I rank this just behind Spiderman 2 and above one and three (obviously). Garfield was very good and believable, the romance was definitely better, Gwen was a very strong character, the villan was complicated and well-portrayed by Mr. Ifans, the CG was excellent (I especially enjoyed the POV shots), and the action was done very well without the cartoonish, "fakey" quality of the prievious Spidermen.

Definitely disagree with JB on this one.

The parents are barely touched upon. We find out nothing about why they disappeared. It's obviously being left for the sequel, which is hinted at in a scene that occurs in the middle of the closing credits.

This ruined the movie for me. Webb got everything wrong about the 3D. In short, the camera is too still, too close, the lighting is too dark, and the cuts are too quick. The narrative not withstanding, if Avatar is a blueprint for how to make a 3D film, this is what not to do.

I missed 500 Days of Summer, but from what I'm seeing here, I'm gonna say that he's an actor's director, not an action director. On that note, where I disagree with you in a way JB is that I think that MacGuire and Dunst have more emotional chemistry, where Garfield and Stone have more physical chemistry; the first pair look like they're in love, the second pair look like they want to make love.


This is exactly the word that was running through my head while watching this thing. "Pedestrian."

I think one of the biggest weaknesses of the screenplay is how little is resolved.

In a scale between 1 to 4, I give 1 to this movie to the first part and 100 to the second part , only for this second part, this film is worthy to go to the cinema to see it. By the way, the 3D in the second part really is adding entertainment to the visual experience with very good special effects and if you go to see it in 2D then you will be missing out

Andrew Garfield is excellent as Peter Parker Parker/Spiderman and Emma Stone very good as Gwen Stacy. The Lizard not so good

In brief go to see it in 3D

I thought this was a pretty exciting film, it's not quite as good as the original films, but it's still pretty dman good, Garfield might look a bit too old to be a high-school student, but he acquits himself so well I stopped noticing, Del Toro is pretty intimidating as the lizard, Emma Stone is in some ways better then Kirsten Dunst, as she's more understanding and like someone else mentioned, it's nice to see alove interest who isn't a damsel in distress for once. Despite having never directed an action film before, Webb does an excellent job in the action department, the final fight is breathtaking, Webb seems much more suited to action films then he does with rom-coms, I for one am very excited as to where the next installment of this series is going.

I have to say that I really, really enjoyed this film. It was much better than Spider-Man 3 and though not up to the level of the first two, it was still a pretty exciting and enjoyable film.

The biggest minus gotta be Andrew Garfield. I personally wouldn't say he is any better or worse than Tobey Maguire. They were both equally monotonous and uninspiring as Peter Parker. I'd give the edge to the former but he was nothing to write home about, especially in scenes like the one where he loses his uncle. They both were clearly out of their depth when it came to emoting. Thankfully, Peter Parker is no Bruce Wayne and as such doesn't really require someone to display a wide range of emotions. So, they're both fine.

Apart from that, I thought everyone else was brilliant. Emma Stone is in this film for one reason; and she's blonde as well. (OMG!) But seriously, apart from looking great, I've always considered her to be one of the brightest young actresses around and though Gwen Stacy doesn't require a lot of effort on her part besides looking gorgeous, she played her part nicely. Gwen Stacy is also a much better, stronger, and more individual female character than little, old whiny Mary Jane, who I've despised for a long time. This version definitely had that going for it over the original trilogy.

Rhys Ifans is someone who has been growing on me with each performance (I thought he was outstanding in Anonymous), and he was great in this as well. As someone posted, I'd have loved a J.K. Simmons cameo but this film wasn't really focusing on that part of Peter's life which we are more likely to see in the sequel.

Most importantly, what I really loved was the 3D. And the difference between a film shot in 3D and post-converted was clearly evident here. Yes, the director could've added a lot more 3D touches in many of the scenes but the places where he used the extra dimension, he used it perfectly. I can't remember the last time I heard so many WOWs! in an auditorium. Each time the extra dimension was on display, the crowd were thrilled. I think that is the true purpose of 3D and the director has clearly understood that.

Overall it is definitely a film that I'd enjoy watching again. Sure it is not going to challenge The Avengers or The Dark Knight Rises any time soon but as a comic book nerd, I definitely enjoyed watching another take on Spidey's origins. A solid 3 out of 4 from me. And like Vexer, I am interested in the sequel as well.

MovieBob absolutely skewers this film: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/ ... Spider-Man
Essentially the same points as James has made, but a bit more fleshed out.

This was pretty solid. I say that with the proviso that I don't especially care about the small gap in time since the last movie that took a shot at adapting this material, and I also don't care that it includes several of the same plot points. (As both movies are adaptations of the same source material, it damn well should.) In the long run, it's not going to matter to anybody.

I do think that this movie is a lot more correct to the Ditko comics, which remain the best in Spider-Man reading after all these years. The dark, slightly paranoid atmosphere and quirky, not-entirely heroic characters are more in that style than Raimi's sunlit cartoon. There's nothing wrong with that Raimi feel, but it's not entirely appropriate for this character. Ditko is all narrow panels, characters in the grip of panic or megalomania or other strange emotions, sweat sprouting from the forehead, and so on. I got that from this movie. And (Lawd have mercy!) we finally have an appropriately witty, slightly snotty Spider-Man, which has been absent from the screen until now.

That said, there's nothing in this movie to compare to the exhilirating, whiplash first act of the first Raimi movie, and this version of Curt Connors doesn't feel as sympathetic as he should be. Oddly, Raimi's Doctor Octopus nailed that, and Doc Ock is traditionally treated as nothing more than a narcissistic nut job. The rest of the characters are suitably charming, and I'll be pleased to see the actors' inevitable return to these roles.

And (I feel like I'm conducting an autopsy when I bring up this cerebral, technical point) I think all the different story elements in this one--the powers, the love interest, the villain, the bad publicity--are tied together into a cohesive story reasonably well, whereas in the 2002 film, the origin material and the hero vs. villain element were almost two separate movies.

Hmm... what else? The direction of the action sequences fell down on the job a little, I think. I would have loved a few moments of daring camerawork that apes the sense of stomach-churning freefall, and it look like they tried in a few spots, but it makes the camera feel like a housefly flitting in and out of crane arms and bridge suspension cables. I'm tempted to assume that the obligation to do 3D-friendly scenes led the filmmakers to place more importance on objects flitting into the foreground than achieving a convincing sensation of plummeting, swinging back up to the apex, and plummeting again.

(I did not see it in 3D.)

Anyway, I liked it. I suppose I was pretty close to loving it, and there are some bits that are worth loving. I just wish it were a little better.

I've heard a few specific things that sound pretty bad, wondering if anyone wants to comment on or defend them.







JB pointed out that repeated acts of idiocy mar the film. If those things are what they sound like, I'd say he's correct.

To answer your first question

Nope, now the cool people are the outcasts.

^I just watched 21 Jump Street, and regardless of the movie's quality(I like it), the movie has some perceptive ideas when it come to modern day's high school dynamics. And vexer, although I don't think it has to do with Glee (They changed way before that, but Glee helped push them further along for sure), there was a line in that movie where one character who used to be a jock said of the changing social scene: "F*** you Glee!"

Yeah I saw that, and that line came to mind when watching this film, which was why I mentioned it.

I finally saw it. I thought the web swinging was really well done and Emma Stone was fantastic, but I'd say just about everything else was inferior to the Raimi's 2002 version. OK, fine, the Stan Lee cameo was better. But that's it. I didn't care for the casting of Sally Field as Aunt May at all. Nothing against Sally Field, but she just doesn't look or act at all like Aunt May. Why would Peter not tell this Aunt May he's Spider-Man? If you're going to tell anyone, why not Aunt May if she isn't frail with a heart condition? I thought Uncle Ben's death was very poorly handled. Garfield was particularly unconvincing in that scene. Basically, I never believed Andrew Garfield as Peter felt anything toward Aunt May or Uncle Ben. Finally, it saddens me that we never hear the words, "With great power comes great responsibility."

Nobody actually spoke this phrase in the original comic, and the fact that it gets shoehorned into the dialogue of so many adaptations comes off as very stilted to my ears.

Uncle Ben inspired Peter by setting a strong example, not by moralizing in purple prose.

I don't care if it was "spoken" in the original comic. It was in a caption in the last panel of Amazing Fantasy #15, the very first appearance of Spider-Man, dammit. It's been in lots of comics since then, too.