The short version was that I had a great time at the film. Then again, it’s hard NOT to at a Marvel screening. More detailed, spoiler free comments following:
Is it better than “The Avengers?” No. “The Avengers” remains, to me, the new gold standard of Marvel superhero films. Literally years in the making, it’s pretty much unfair to make comparisons.
Is it better than the first “Spider-Man” film? If you’re looking for fealty to the source material, then no. The story, along with Marc Webb’s direction (was any director more aptly named for a project?) provides us a darker, more emotional story…so emotional, in fact, that Uncle Ben’s death almost come across like an afterthought. The main emotional story involves Peter Parker’s feelings of abandonment by his parents. That’s pretty potent stuff: so much so that everything else takes a back seat to it. Peter’s core lesson of “With great power comes great responsibility?” Never spoken, although Ben Parker talks around it. Peter’s wrestling career driven by a need for money? Gone. Peter’s realization that his negligence allowed Ben’s killer to escape? Instantaneous rather than delayed. It’s almost as if the filmmakers are saying, “We know all this; let’s move along.” Even so there’s still a sizable delay until Spidey shows up in his modified (from the original) costume, complete with what look like racing stripes.
On the other hand, what fans feared would be a simple regurgitation of previous stories turns out to be a wholly original endeavor (if you ignore the Spidey annual years ago that actually did explore the fate of the Parkers). In a way, it’s more outer-directed than the previous film. “Spider-Man” was Peter Parker’s exploration of himself: his lessons, the sides he wanted to take, the sacrifices he had to make. “Amazing Spider-Man” is more outward: Peter trying to make sense of the world he’s living in; a world where his parents abandoned him, leaving him in the care of Gidget and Josiah Bartlett.
A mid-closing credits sequence is absolutely essential viewing, because otherwise you’re left sitting there at the end going, “But wait…what about…?” At least the filmmakers acknowledge that issues remain unresolved, presumably to be further explored in subsequent films.
And the Lizard looks kinda silly. Not Gorn-level silly, but silly. But what’cha gonna do? He’s a humanoid lizard. There’s one brief scene where, like the comic book, he’s wearing a lab coat. I can see the story rationale for him ridding himself of it; he’s trying to leave humanity behind. But he looked cool in the coat; made him unique.
The film also suffers from the same thing the first three did: perpetual maskectomy. The need to see how many times Spider-Man can lose his mask, presumably so we can see the actor’s face for the truly emotional bits. Say what you will about “V for Vendetta”–at least they didn’t feel the need to unmask him every twenty minutes so we could see Hugo Weaving emote.
But all of this pales in comparison to the quality of the acting. From top to bottom, the actors take the film squarely on their shoulders and singlehandedly, under Webb’s direction, make the film worth your while.
First there’s Andrew Garfield, with an impeccable American accent and David Tennant hair (especially when he takes the mask off–it all stands straight up.) And just as Tennant’s lifelong love of the Doctor shone through in his portrayal of the time lord, so too does Garfield’s love of Spider-Man shine through on every frame. This is a guy who’s living the dream and it makes his performance literally irresistible.
Then there’s Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy, dressed as if she just stepped out of the 1970s with knee high boots and mid-thigh skirts. The Peter/Gwen relation is underwritten, but the chemistry of the two actors carries it to such a degree that you can readily believe the actors have hooked up in real life. Sally Field and Martin Sheen bring a new vitality to Aunt May and Uncle Ben, who in previous incarnations going all the way back to “Amazing Fantasy #15” always seemed like they had one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel.
And then there’s Dennis Leary’s Captain Stacy. This is not the older, avuncular version of George Stacy from the original series, nor even the younger one from “Ultimate.” It becomes quickly apparent why the movie doesn’t require J. Jonah Jameson; Stacy fills the role of authority figure who despises Spider-Man and his vigilante tactics. And what’s interesting is that, whereas with JJJ you just figure it stems from jealousy or a desire to sell newspapers or both, Leary actually manages to sell the audience on his POV. You get where he’s coming from. He has no patience with what he sees as some áššhølë taking the law into his own hands, and really, after the Martin/Zimmerman case, who can blame him?
And they’re aided and abetted by great special effects. They’ve traveled lightyears since Spidey hit the big screen ten years ago. Not only is the web swinging seamless (long time fans will welcome back the mechanical web shooters. Me, I never had a problem with the organic web spinners, but then again, having done it a decade earlier in Spider-Man 2099…) The filmmakers seem to take pride in seeing just how much they can twist Spidey into a spidery pretzel as he soars through the air.
Do you need to see it in 3D? Well, it’s not a movie that I’d describe as a MUST see in 3D, like “Hugo.” On the other hand, there are plenty of sequences where you’ll find yourself saying, “Man, I wish I was seeing this in 3D,” so I figure you might as well.
Ultimately, (no pun intended), despite the script shortcomings, “Amazing Spider-Man” proves an irresistible endeavor, exploring emotional depths in a fresh, original manner, buoyed by terrific performances and versatile direction. A must-see for Spidey fans.
PAD
• 
Life long Spidey fan and so glad this film seems poised to remove the burn of the third film.
BTW, how did the Spidey wisecracks work for you? That is the element I missed the most from the Raimi films.
Thanks for the review. Looking forward to seeing Spidey swinging again!
Haven’t seen it yet, and probably won’t until the weekend. (The one time I went to a midnight premiere of a movie was the original “Batman” in 1989, and I concluded I zoos where the animals are in cages, thank you.) I’m working the 4th (extra money when you work for USPS), and can wait. May see it at the local theater with the balcony that allows no one under 21 inside. I haven’t even looked through the MAD magazine with the movie parody featured on the cover.
I does make me feel VERY old to know that Sally Field is playing Aunt May. As a kid, I had a serious crush on her, even during her time as Sister Bertrille. (Ask your parents.)
On the other hand, though I was giving serious thought to seeing “Ted” today, I’ve decided I’m going for a rare (for me) third viewing of “The Avengers.” (The first two were on consecutive days, which is even rarer for me.) I had been telling people that the only movie which has a chance of topping it at the box office this year is “The Dark Knight Rises.” But, unless “TDKR” REALLY lives up to, or tops, the first two entries of the trilogy, it’s not going to happen. And even then, it’s doubtful.
Now, if only The Academy can remember it next year.
Sorry, that should’ve been “I concluded I PREFER zoos where the animals are in cages, thank you.”
“As a kid, I had a serious crush on her”
Who didn’t? Gidget was completely adorable.
We love her ! We really love her !” (although, for me, it was in Smokey and the Bandit that I discovered her).
“although, for me, it was in Smokey and the Bandit that I discovered her”
Yeah, me too, but it was reruns of Gidget that made me love her.
I frst remember seeing her in reruns of The Flying Nun.
I’m old enough to have watched “The Flying Nun” when it was first run. “Gidget,” too, but it was on opposite “Gilligan’s Island,” which I preferred watching at the time. But from 1967 – 1968, one of my local stations reran “Gidget” on Saturdays.
Yeah, even though this is a positive review, reading it just confirmed for me that I really don’t want to see this movie. I’m pretty sure I’ll be bored out of my mind. There’s just nothing about it that appeals to me: the actors, the director, the villain, the story line. The MASKECTOMIES.
“On the other hand, there are plenty of sequences where you’ll find yourself saying, “Man, I wish I was seeing this in 3D,””
I don’t think I’ve ever thought that about a movie. I have, on the other hand, thought, “Man, I wish I was seeing this in 2D.” I saw Avengers in 2D, thought it looked just fine. Saw it in 3D, and suddenly everything looked fake and cheap and murky, like a videogame from the ’90s. I honestly don’t see the appeal.
AVENGERS was shot in 2D and converted to stereoscopic 3D. I avoid 2D-to-3D conversions like the plague for the reason you gave above — it doesn’t look right.
On the other hand, most of AMAZING SPIDER-MAN was shot in actual 3D, with only a few shots requiring 2D-to-3D conversion. So it’s definitely worth seeing in 3D.
This website will help you figure out which films are worth the 3D premium in ticket prices: Real or Fake 3D
Interesting list. Why is it necessary for Life of Pi and The Great Gatsby to be in 3D?
I’d probably be more inclined to see an actual 3D movie rather than a “fake” 3D movie, but still, I’d rather just save some money and see it in 2D. Even Hugo in 3D seemed liked an unnecessary distraction. To me, 2D is actually a more immersive and satisfying experience.
The 3-D in The Amazing Spider-Man may be “real,” but it’s also one of the worst examples of 3-D effects I’ve ever seen. It’s haphazard, as though the director picked objects at random and decided to have them pop out of the screen. The spatial relationships make no sense. Objects that should be several yards away from each other appear to be inches apart. I did like a few sequences near the end. There were a few scenes in which Spider-Man’s webbing really did seem to be occupying three-dimensional space, and I could imagine a few comic-book artists thinking, “I’ve spent years trying to get that effect.” But on the whole, I would say that if you want to see great 3-D imagery, save a few dollars and look at a Jack Kirby drawing.
Except if the movie is named “Avatar”, I avoid 3D whenever possible. I have the same complaints as Robert, and the fact that I have to pay more for it is salt on the wound.
Thank you, Mr. David. I’d skipped on Spiderman 3 and wasn’t sure I’d give the next attempt a shot. You’ve convinced me to do so. Nice to see the nod to ‘Hugo’ as well.
One question, non-spoilery in nature: We’ve been able to see the scene with Spidey confronting the car thief on Youtube for a couple of weeks (well, it may have been taken down by now – I watched it probably two days after it first went up), and I’d like to know if Spider-Man keeps up with the quippage in some of his other scenes. It is one of the character’s defining traits, after all, and the one I missed most sorely in previous outings.
Not all the way through, but way more than in the previous films. He also makes wisecracks while he’s webswinging.
PAD
Yaaaay!
This movie is high on my list of “movies I didn’t need”. But then again, so was “X-Men: First Class” and that turned out a lot better than I thought. So yeah, I’ll give it a shot.
“X-Men: First Class” is the BEST X-movie, IMHO. I was beyond pleasantly surprised..”X2″ comes close and that’s it.
.
This thread has me excited to see this movie..I was leery of the idea of a reboot and some of the proposed ideas I’ve seen and the trailers have left me underwhelmed..but Roger Ebert, of all people, gave “Amazing” a glowing review and now PAD…I was going to see it anyway, but now I’m excited again.
.
I like the idea of focusing on his parents…We are so used to Aunt May – and Uncle Ben – we tend to forget that Peter parker is an orphan and what that means..J.M. Dematteis did a brilliant story once in which the Harry Osborn Green Goblin inadvertently brings back the repressed feelings and the trauma of Peter Parker being told his parents were dead..As readers, we are so used to his tragedies we fail to realize that Peter is remarkably well-adjusted for all his tragedies – it’s something I don’t think was even brought up as a point of comparison in the Spidey/Batman crossovers.
.
That, and I loooove that the world is getting introduced to Gwen Stacy.
.
Also, I know you hate the NY Post, PAD, nbut they had a nice story a week ago on how they tried to make his web slinging more spectatcular and believable at the same time, so you feel like you are watching a human spider versus watching CGI.
“That, and I loooove that the world is getting introduced to Gwen Stacy.”
She was in Spider-Man 3.
I’m sorry..Let me clarify..being introduced to Gwen Stacy as a true love interest, the first love interest, rather than a distraction, which is what I felt she became in “Spider-Man 3”.
All I’m thinking is that “Weird Al” Yankovic needs a new Spider-man song now. The old one is outdated. :/
isnt this movie in fact much more based on bendis’ take in ultimate?
i believe that may and ben were originally created older so that we would buy into peter and his money probs
may not working…not much money in social security…etc
and tell me…how does peter get his webbing in this movie
i know the idiot children of today think making webshooters proves that parker is a genius, but it was the web formula that did it in the 60s…im under the impression that our hero stole it…from a secure area at oscorp that has no cameras
im just hoping this series continues to loosely follow the ultimate version and kills off the pencil necked geek
I’m so glad to hear that the Uncle Ben stuff takes a back seat and we don’t have to hear that “great power blah blah blah” line ad naseum.
The character is 50 years old and has been seen, heard, and read about in just about every media platform there is. The Uncle Ben story is very important to the origin, yes, but enough already, I think as a society, we get it. It’s not nearly as emotional as it was the first 12,000 we’ve heard about it. And the wrestling scene just doesn’t work in today’s world, so I’m glad that it’s gone.
Some people took your review to confirm NOT to see it. Weird. I’m even more excited. To each his own, I guess!
Have you ever written a negative review of a Marvel film?
Well, I don’t remember what I wrote, but I don’t recall liking Elektra. Or the first Hulk movie. I didn’t like Iron Man 2 as much as I had Iron Man 1. Didn’t like Spider-Man 3. Does that help?
PAD
I’m surprised so many people liked Iron Man better than Iron Man 2. I preferred the second one. I felt like the emotional story of the first one ended the moment he left the desert. After that it’s just suit-building and fighting. In the third one Tony has father issues that he works on for the entire movie. Those issues are even reflected in the villain’s story. So it felt like the emotional story actually lasted for the whole film.
But the daddy issues were half-baked, and they manifested as a brief spell of alcoholism that is quickly resolved when Tony has this huge epiphany concerning his father and it turns out to be… a triangular arc reactor. To replace the round arc reactor. Um, okay.
My main issue with IM2 was that the whole thing keyed around that he was dying. There were two problems: first, it made the film a huge downer. And second, you knew he wasn’t going to die, so why get worked up about it?
PAD
I guess that didn’t bother me. Most action movies put the main character in danger and he fights to overcome it. This just framed it as his intellect versus a disease instead of his gun versus the bad guy’s gun. So yeah, the stakes were life and death and we knew he’d overcome them, but that’s true of a lot of movies.
Thanks for explaining that, PAD. The movie didn’t hit me that way, but I think now I get why other people felt that way.
A co-worker explained to me his feeling about Ironman 1 and 2 as follows. Iron Man 1 is one of the few superhero films were the characters instead of being tormented he is happy with his “powers” – or armor in this case. Once he starts building that armor he is enjoying every minute of it. On the second film that sense of fun and enjoyment is gone. It is all about facing death and father issues. Which as PAD says is a downer.
http://www.newsarama.com/film/amazing-spider-man-press-conference-arad-tolmac-webb.html
Nrama: Why did his mask come off so often?
Webb: I tried to keep the rationale organic. There’s the scene with the boy. The mask is a symbol, and I wanted to endow that with a certain power; the scene with the boy in the car, he’s really saving himself, he’s saving the child in himself, so it felt right!
Then there are times you want to express certain emotions and connect with the character, and you need his face for that.
Arad: It’s a natural thing for Spider-Man, for Peter Parker to lift the mask and take a look at the situation. Every time the mask came off, you look at it, it’s an organic technique; it’s to make sure we get the emotions, but at the same time it’s a part of the story itself.
Umm, yeah, whatever, guys. They’ve managed to do it for 50 years in the comics, I’m sure that professional actors can manage to show emotion through a mask on screen.
Also:
Arad: For us, After four Spider-Man movies, I never took out my sheriff’s badge, because we always work with people that care.
I’m sorry, but wasn’t Arad really the man responsible for Venom being shoehorned into Spider-Man 3?
“Umm, yeah, whatever, guys. They’ve managed to do it for 50 years in the comics, I’m sure that professional actors can manage to show emotion through a mask on screen.”
.
Well, as much as I detested constantly seeing Tobey Maguire’s face as Spidey, I will withhold judgment until I see it and see if they did truly make the maskectomies more “organic” or just an excuse for us to see Garfield’s face.
.
“I’m sorry, but wasn’t Arad really the man responsible for Venom being shoehorned into Spider-Man 3”
.
He played a big part. But I actually felt that Raimi handled his addition well..I felt things like the ridiculous dance, a Gwen Stacy who was basically a nothing character, a Mary Jane who had become annoying, boring and irrelevant did far more damage to the film
I don’t think anything about Spider-Man 3 was handled well. That movie was worse than Batman and Robin.
IMO, Spidey 3 and X-Men 3 were just complete messes, and certainly among the weaker Marvel-related offerings in the last 10 years. But I don’t think either reached B&R territory. 🙂
But at least Batman and Robin kind of knew it was bad. It was campy, and it didn’t take itself seriously. Spider-Man 3, on the other hand, took itself too seriously (except when it went for comedy, which was even worse), and it ended up being more risible than even B&R, in my opinion.
I loved X-Men 3, though. In fact, it’s my favorite Marvel movie ever (yeah, yeah, I’ve heard them all).
“Umm, yeah, whatever, guys. They’ve managed to do it for 50 years in the comics, I’m sure that professional actors can manage to show emotion through a mask on screen.”
The comic cheats. Lots of artists have shown Spidey’s eyes changing shape based on his emotions. Sometimes it’s subtle and sometimes his eye holes are pretty much winking.
Sam Rami actually tried to do that with computer effects in some tests for his first movie. It looked creepy in live action, so they didn’t do it. So that’s an advantage that the comics have that the movies don’t.
Umm, yeah, whatever, guys. They’ve managed to do it for 50 years in the comics, I’m sure that professional actors can manage to show emotion through a mask on screen.
I dislike the frequent unmasking because it seems contrived no matter what you do, but to be fair, the comic book mask can do things that they can’t do on screen. Artists will do subtle things with the mask, widening or narrowing the eye pieces, or have the mask lengthening to convey surprise. And of course there’s always the handy shock wave lines that radiate. The Spider-Man mask, however, is–from my understanding–fairly solid. You seem him pull it on and off, but the actual in-use mask is inflexible so it holds its form from shot to shot. There’s nothing you can do with it as an actor. Then again, as I noted elsewhere, they didn’t feel the need to unmask V in “V for Vendetta.”
PAD
I’d say the mask in V for Vendetta was more emotive. That mischievous smile conveyed a lot. Plus, the character was supposed to be an unknowable cypher, while Spidey is “Peter Parker, the Amazing Spider-Man”. We’re supposed to feel a stronger link to him.
I agree that the unmasking comes across as contrived very often. I just kind of grit my teeth and accept that this is what the filmmakers feel they need to do.
No matter what the rest of the movie is like, I’m simply not interested in paying theater prices, even matinee, to be re-told Spider-Man’s origin for the umpteenth time. They couldn’t have simply taken the origin as “read” and spent more time on the main story? I will rent the DVD, thank you, so I can skip through the rehashing.
Uh, no..since it is a reboot and the fact is that teens who will be drawn to this movie were 4 or 5 when the Tobey Maguire Spidey first came out…by a lot of accounts, the “rehashing” is more powerful..I mean, really, Spidey’s origin is still pretty classic…The effects are supposed to be more realistic…You have Gwen Stacy, Captain Stacy, the Lizard…and to me, big blockbusters like this – and “Avengers”, though spectacle becomes a greater part of the equation if the story is weaker – can ONLY be appreciated on an IMAX screen..it’s escapism and I want the full experience, “rehash” or not
What those kids who were 4 and 5 when the Raimi film came out didn’t grow up watching them?
I kind of agree with both of you. Part of the reason I don’t want to see it is because I don’t want to sit through the origin story again. On the other hand, it’s a reboot, the beginning of a whole new continuity and story, and it would be bad storytelling to not include an origin story (like The Incredible Hulk which gave him a new origin but simply summarized it in the opening credits). So I’m annoyed either way, and that’s just the way it is.
Yeah, that’s the part that annoys me the most… couldn’t we have just taken it as a given that he’s Spider-Man, maybe done a quicky origin story during the opening credits/as a flashback/pseudo-animated panels/etc. at the beginning? Did we REALLY need to spend half the movie introducing everything? Even my mother knows that Peter Parker gets bitten by a radioactive spider!
Also, the suit. Didn’t like it in pictures, didn’t think it improved in video. Especially without the mask…
Didn’t like how pretty much anybody found out that Spidey = Peter, or the whole skateboarding thing.
I enjoyed the movie as a whole, though. And the actors were great – I think Garfield was more believable as Peter Parker, Science Nerd. And Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy was good, and I couldn’t believe that was Denis Leary!
I’m glad to hear that the origin shifted focus. a) The comic origin can’t be done better than Sam Rami did it in his first movie and b) Sam Rami overdid it by revisiting the origin in his third movie. The purest in me says that they shouldn’t de-emphasize those elements that PAD mentioned, but in this case it actually makes me more interested in seeing the movie.
I saw THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN tonight and thought it was decent but far from, well, amazing. (Shameless plug for full review: http://thearmchaircritic.blogspot.com/2012/07/amazing-spider-man.html ) While I generally liked the acting, it took *far* too long for us to see Spider-Man onscreen and spent far too long re-telling the origin anyone vaguely familiar with Spider-Man already knew. (While SUPERMAN RETURNS was pretty weak, at least it didn’t spend half the movie telling us there was a planet called Krypton, and Clark Kent has all these powers, and so on…) I liked the cgi Lizard (arguably the most physically menacing comic book villain since the Abomination) but felt Spidey’s mask came off way too much. (With the Tobey Maguire movies, this happened more with each sequel; here it’s happening in the first one.)
MILD SPOILER: Did anyone else think of the old SIMPSONS episode — where Bart got trapped in the well — when Spider-Man, in full costume, set up cameras with the words “Property of Peter Parker” written on them with a labelmaker? That’s just dumb. It’s be like Batman writing “if found, please return to Bruce Watne” on his Batarangs.
Yeah, that’s a fair criticism. When that happened I had the church lady in the back of my mind going, “Isn’t that conveeeenient?”
If they wanted the Lizard making the connection via the camera, I would have had Peter using a much older style camera. And when Conners comments on his using an antique (with film, no less!) Peter could say, “It’s one of the few things I have left from my father.” So when when it resurfaces later the Lizard puts two and two together.
PAD
While I generally liked the acting, it took *far* too long for us to see Spider-Man onscreen and spent far too long re-telling the origin anyone vaguely familiar with Spider-Man already knew.
That was one of my own biggest complaints about Bendis’ mind-numbing Ultimate Spider-Man. I keep hearing this movie compared to that title. I was on the fence about the movie anyway. That it even has pacing issues similar to USM is pushing me off the fence…on the “no way” side.
–Daryl
Just got back from watching the movie. I liked it much more than I expected–but there is one thing in the film that snapped me out of my “suspension of disbelief” mode: There is abso-fricking-lutely NO WAY that Peter Parker would be using Bing.
I really have mixed emotions about seeing this movie. I LOVE Spiderman 1 and 2 and detest 3 to the point I just ignore it like I do X3. I have read several reviews comparing Amazing Spiderman to Batman Begins and that bothers me. Spiderman is NOT Batman nor should he be compared to him. I understand both are orphans but the both Bruce and Peter are different people and have completly different backgrounds. It just bothers me that Sony went the re-boot route and inserted some of Batman Begins elements and looks like judging from the early box office results people like it. I may see it but I don’t know.
I’ve made the Batman Begins comparison myself, but not in the sense that you’re thinking. Its a comparison of the overall tone of the films, not the characters. I feel that Batman Begins looks and feels more “real world” than Burton’s Batman, as does Amazing Spiderman compared with the Raimi film. They did not make a Batman film and slapped Spiderman label on it. There are some differences in how the characters behave, compared to the Raimi films; but I feel that the differences are subtle and well within the established norms for the characters.
Speaking of comparing Batman to Spider-Man, a little-known fact is that after the warner decided to sever ties with Burton on the Bat-Franchise, another director who loved the character lobbied them to let him take the directorial reins. That director was,,Sam Raimi. Howver, Warner decided to go with Schumacher and two franchises were affected irrevocably. It’s interesting to think what Raimi’s take on the Dark Knight would have been..or if Warner would have strangled his creativity as well..or if Spidey would have taken off like it did under another Hollywood director.
I completely agree that there were too many maskectomies, but the only one that really bothers me was the one in the school, because of how pointless it was (and how it literally came out of nowhere). I felt that the others were justified by the story, and the first made for a genuinely powerful moment.
PAD nailed it when he points out that the performances really made the film. Garfield and Stone were perfect–in fact, I thought that the best thing about this film was the cast.
I enjoyed the film–I didn’t have a bug up my @$$ about it being a reboot, since the usual snark response to people who were wailing about it was, “Well, did you bìŧçh about SPIDER-MAN 3? That’s why this film is happening.”
The web-swinging looked amazing (no pun intended) and yes, Spidey made wisecracks–a lot more of them. But what really made the film for me was the (SPOILER) rescue of Jack from the burning car, where Peter gives him the mask to put on, telling Jack that it will make him stronger.
This was a great character-driven superhero film. No, it isn’t THE AVENGERS or Nolan’s Batman films, but it’s dámņëd good, and the pluses far outweigh the minuses.
And to those who want it to fail to “teach Sony and Marvel a lesson”….knock it off. You’re a bunch of dunderheads.
Saw the movie today. I liked it. I don’t know yet if I liked it more than Raimi’s movies. Like Doug said, the comparision with Burton-Nolan in Batman is appropriate. Raimi’s was more cartoony, Marc Webb’s more “realistic”.
I do think Raimi’s caused a greater impact, because at the time we weren’t so used to good, faithful superhero movies. Now, not even a month after watching AVENGERS, another Marvel movie that is good. It’s becoming blasé to watch good Marvel movies. 🙂
I was surprised that a few things were MORE faithful this time. Artificial web-shooters. Flash Thompson. Wisecracks. Garfield’s physique mirroring the skinny Ditko Spider-Man.
And my girlfriend made the perceptive comment that Gwen Stacy, amazingly, is a love interest that never hinders the hero in this movie. She actually makes herself very useful.
The Dark Knight Rises receives a standing ovation during its first press screening. Critics are loving it and calling it a worthy final chapter.
Cant wait to see it.
I saw it. It was pretty good. Some things were good. More wisecracks. Peter building the web-shooters. Flash Thompson being a jerk one minute and not a bad guy the next (much like Flash in the comics). Not sure how I feel about Gwen Stacy. But then, when it comes to comics, I started in the ’90s. I can’t help thinking of Gwen as “girl who got thrown off a bridge decades ago”. Also, I was fighting the urge to make my own wisecracks when Peter was in the Oscorp building. Especially with the big screen going on about Oscorp’s good deeds. “That’s right. Oscorp: pushing innovation and building pumpkin bombs since 1965”. The place is destined to be “mad science central”. It should have a perpetual lightning storm behind it just for dramatic effect.
I liked the movie, and I thought the leads were amazing (pun intendid).
I did have a couple of story problems with the film though. The Oscorp goon/lawyer just disappears from the film after the bridge scene, and Peter never catches the thief who killed Uncle Ben.
As Spidey-fan & an admirer of your (PAD’s) writing, I was wondering about your review. I largely agree with you. But I had one very big issue with the movie:
I simply couldn’t recognize Peter Parker from the characterization.
For which Andrew Garfield is not to blame. The guy does a great acting job. Well, to be fair, I don’t think he has a Peter Parker face, but this wasn’t the issue. It’s the fact that Peter mostly acts like a jerk, especially to May and Ben. I really liked the romance with Gwen, but I had no idea what she could possibly see in him.
This movie’s Peter Parker’s awkwardness is nowhere the same as with the comic book characters, where it’s always easy to sympathize with Peter, be it because of a peculiar charm to his behavior, like when he makes up awkard excuses to him being late or having bruises all over. He’s always friendly and well-meaning, even when ignoring his classmates.
In the movie, he just smiles silently and doesn’t even try to come up with an explanation.
Is his behavior part of his development through the new series? Might be, remains to be seen in the sequel. If it is, it’s too slow to my liking and this movie suffers from it.
As Spider-Man, though, he’s great. I would say that Andrew Garfield makes the better Spider-Man… but Tobey Maguire makes the better Peter Parker.
Also: no-one mentioned the ridiculousness yet of the sequence of events with the crane driver in the end? Stretched even beyond comic-book belief…
I still enjoyed the movie, as I did Sam Raimi’s first, which wasn’t perfect either – in the end, I would rank the two movies about equal, in slight favor to Raimi’s – because I his Peter Parker speaks truer to me than Webbs does, which makes a small but important difference.
Peter, I don’t understand why they don’t get you to write these screenplays. Your above example of the convenient camera shows you’re much more skillful at writing than the people who ‘the powers that be’ have chosen.
I was shattered you didn’t do The Hulk.
I finally got to see “Amazing Spider-Man” and I just have to say I LOVED it..I was one of the ones who thought a reboot was unnecessary..well, it’s clear The Powers That Be knew what they were doing this time.
.
I thought Garfield and Stone had amazing chemistry..it thrills me to no end that the general public is getting to know Gwen Stacy as THE true love for Peter Parker….I thought the origin story outdid every one done prior, INCLUDING “Amazing Fantasy” #15…I loved how we really got a look at Peter being portrayed as an orphan and what the repercussions of that may be…I thought the effects were the best yet, Flash was the best yet, May and Ben were the best yet, that it was a nice change to not see J.Jonah Jameson and instead have Leary playing a Captain Stacy who is a hard-ášš, but believeable as a character with authentic reasons for his words and actions..I also loved the web shooters.
.
Final verdict: This is now my favorite Spider-Man movie. Now that the origin is out of the way, I feel that people will catch it on DVD and that combo should result in an even better and box-office breaking second film, much like “Batman Begins” was a moderately successful reboot that got enough word of mouth and enough positive feelings that “The Dark Knight” became the historic success it was.
.
“Amazing Spider-Man 2” can’t get here fast enough:)