The Amazing Spider-Man

I have to say that I really liked the movie. The previous Spider-man films all did a great job in establishing the motivations and primary characteristically of the villains in the films (outside of Venom), but the character of Peter was always pretty blah and underdeveloped... Amazing Spider-man takes the opposite approach. Garfield does a much better job than Tobi every did, and the film does great job of establishing who he is and why and then taking him through a character arc through out the film, but the Connors' isn't really developed, and the film doesn't to a great job of establishing that there is a Jyckl and Hyde scenario in play and that Connors' and the Lizard aren't the same character. Lizard isn't as compelling or interesting as Goblin, Oc or Sandman were in the previous films, and Amazing Spider-man doesn't do much to invoke sympathy for the character - which I would have thought would have been easy - but the end result is that Peter Park (Spider-man) receive more focus and development than in the other three films combined, which is more than a fair trade off and really is the point of this reboot in the first place.

Emma Stone is obviously a much better lead than that dead fish Dunst, and Garfield and Stone have great and believable chemistry (unlike Tobi and Dunst). The middle of the film got a little bogged down with romance stuff that I personally could have done with less ff... but all the girls I saw the film with loved that junk, and as a result they think this is the best of Spider-man films... so I guess there is some merit in that. Even when I was getting a little bored, I never rolled my eyes and groaned, like when I watched Thor, and Portman was making googly eyes at Hemmsworth... so there is that.

It would have been nice if the Lizard had been exicuted a little better, but I think the end result is great, and I would recommend seeing it in theaters.

Yeah, I like Emma Stone. She's about the only draw for me.

I heard

Spoiler:
Norman Osborn makes an appearance in the mid-credits scene. Is this true?

I've also heard that J.K. Simmons doesn't play J. Jonah Jameson. Is this true as well? Because if so that's very disappointing.

Originally posted by srankmissingnin
I have to say that I really liked the movie. The previous Spider-man films all did a great job in establishing the motivations and primary characteristically of the villains in the films (outside of Venom), but the character of Peter was always pretty blah and underdeveloped... Amazing Spider-man takes the opposite approach. Garfield does a much better job than Tobi every did, and the film does great job of establishing who he is and why and then taking him through a character arc through out the film, but the Connors' isn't really developed, and the film doesn't to a great job of establishing that there is a Jyckl and Hyde scenario in play and that Connors' and the Lizard aren't the same character. Lizard isn't as compelling or interesting as Goblin, Oc or Sandman were in the previous films, and Amazing Spider-man doesn't do much to invoke sympathy for the character - which I would have thought would have been easy - but the end result is that Peter Park (Spider-man) receive more focus and development than in the other three films combined, which is more than a fair trade off and really is the point of this reboot in the first place.

Emma Stone is obviously a much better lead than that dead fish Dunst, and Garfield and Stone have great and believable chemistry (unlike Tobi and Dunst). The middle of the film got a little bogged down with romance stuff that I personally could have done with less ff... but all the girls I saw the film with loved that junk, and as a result they think this is the best of Spider-man films... so I guess there is some merit in that. Even when I was getting a little bored, I never rolled my eyes and groaned, like when I watched Thor, and Portman was making googly eyes at Hemmsworth... so there is that.

It would have been nice if the Lizard had been exicuted a little better, but I think the end result is great, and I would recommend seeing it in theaters.

Sweet, pretty much what I expected.

Originally posted by ares834
I heard

Spoiler:
Norman Osborn makes an appearance in the mid-credits scene. Is this true?

I've also heard that J.K. Simmons doesn't play J. Jonah Jameson. Is this true as well? Because if so that's very disappointing.

Some are saying it's e glimpse of

Spoiler:
Proto-Goblin or some Goblin as the mid-credits scene. I'll let ya know when I get a chance to go see it.

There's a very short scene half-way through the credits.

Sweet, so don't stay for the entire credits?

I think there should have been a different story in continuation. getting reboot just after three flicks is too early. atleast there should have been four or five before that.

Originally posted by Scythe
Sweet, so don't stay for the entire credits?

I as told there's only a scene at the mid-point by the theater manager, so I left after that scene.

Originally posted by Robtard
I as told there's only a scene at the mid-point by the theater manager, so I left after that scene.

I'm wonderin' how uneventful the mid-point scene was.

If they end up making a Venom movie and shit, to me it's all gonna be a waste if they don't tie it all in to Avengers 2 or 3 like they've been wanting.

I saw the scene on youtube. Its pretty boring and doesn't make a lot of sense. Plus it

Spoiler:
doesn't appear to be Norman as the guy teleports.

Originally posted by Scythe
I'm wonderin' how uneventful the mid-point scene was.

If they end up making a Venom movie and shit, to me it's all gonna be a waste if they don't tie it all in to Avengers 2 or 3 like they've been wanting.

It wasn't anything special, here's what happened:

Spoiler:
We see Connors sitting in his jail-cell and there's a voice coming from the shadows that we learn is Norman Osborn, Connors says something like "why are you interested in Parker, leave him be." Osborn is barely seen, as it's mostly shadows and he's wearing a hat. IMO, just a glimpse that Goblin will probably be the villain or a villain in the sequel.

Originally posted by ares834
I saw the scene on youtube. Its pretty boring and doesn't make a lot of sense. Plus it

Spoiler:
doesn't appear to be Norman as the guy teleports.

Wat? Hahaha.

Originally posted by Robtard
It wasn't anything special, here's what happened:

Spoiler:
We see Connors sitting in his jail-cell and there's a voice coming from the shadows that we learn is Norman Osborn, Connors says something like "why are you interested in Parker, leave him be." Osborn is barely seen, as it's mostly shadows and he's wearing a hat. IMO, just a glimpse that Goblin will probably be the villain or a villain in the sequel.

I see. Makes sense I guess.

Spoiler:
There's a hard-on with having freakin' Goblins in Spider-Man films, why the fu-?

It's because the Green Goblin is Spiderman's arch-nemesis. He is to Spiderman what the Joker is to Batman.

Plus he is awesome.

Edit: Here is a link to the after credits scene for those intrested.

Good movie. Best Spider-Man movie imo.

I thought it was friggin awsome..

Yeah you have to wait for the action, but when it comes it's great, and honestly I wasn't bored at all through the whole build up (which was long)..

Andrew Garfield's a star.. I really think he and Webb have made Spidey a lot more lovable kind of like what Robert Downey and John Favreau did for Iron Man.

It's my fav Spidey film by far.. I forgive all the unmasking because there was actually a point to it all.. It was all leading somewhere..

And those people who are saying the reboot is pointless and just a repeat are talking nonesense. This film was completely different to Spiderman 1. The only similarity was getting bitten by a Spider to get Spider powers and Uncle Ben dying. The whole rest of the movie was completely different Imo.

As for the end credit scene:

Spoiler:
It sounded like Osborne, but him disappearing and being... well, mysterious.. makes me think it's Mysterio.. It's actually unconfirmed who it was even by Webb

Oh and the one thing I didn't like

Spoiler:
was Spidey getting shot Twice! He's supposed to be unshotable.. And didn't really see much from his Spider sense

There's an inner drive to want to think in linear terms of improvement. And, especially on the heels of SM3, people were ready to embrace this.

There's a couple inherent problems with doing this movie. Not with the movie itself - which was fine. First, it's an origin story based on very known - and occasionally cliche - source material. Many initial superhero movies have this same problem, and it kills momentum until about midway through. Second, this same origin story has already been done, recently enough that we can remember it well. Yes, details are changed, actors are different, the CGI is better and brighter. But it's still a spider-bite to a nerdy kid who becomes a wisecracking superhero. The progression is exactly the same, right down to the police being against him but New Yorkers banding together in inexplicably coordinated fashion to help the hero (also retrod territory for the movies). So there weren't going to be surprises.

Given those hurdles, it does well. Or rather, nothing smacks you upside the head as being bad. Reviews are mixed on the acting and chemistry, but generally positive. Action, good. Plot, good. Camp level, mostly pretty low (there is the football toss...).

I actually can't stand comic fans basing any kind of opinion on canonical adherence, or really anything other than the basic elements of a good movie. Our fandom gets in the way in those cases. It's happened to me too (took me a while to warm up to Lord of the Rings, for example, because I was such a fan of the books). But it's a hard character to mess up. When SM1 came out those years ago, it took everyone by surprise in popularity and longevity. The character really, truly, struck a chord with viewers. The same power is there with this iteration.

...my one medium-sized gripe, that detracted from the dramatic value: in SM1 when he makes the decision to protect those he loves, we all expect him to give in and be with Mary Jane. And then...he doesn't. I remember listening to people who were furious, because they wanted to see the love story completed (usually girls, sorry ladies). But that was the point. That sacrifice, that internal struggle, defines Peter Parker. It was incredibly poignant. In this one, they had Pete wrestle with it for all of about 6 minutes of screen time before throwing Hollywood a bone with his line to Gwen. I realize this was for a reason; Pete isn't perfect, he's still learning, and it foreshadows tragedy. But it lacked the emotional punch of the cemetery scene in the original. The scene in his doorway with Gwen was a perfect analogue to the cemetery scene, but they destroyed most of the impact in the very next scene with the two of them.

That's it. Good otherwise. Well done all around. Not going to compare it directly to the earlier films. It's fairly pointless to do so, outside a few elements I've mentioned, and much easier just to enjoy them in their own right.

...

My friends expected me to tell them who the man in the credits was. I had to leave them hanging. They really gave us nothing to go on, and the hat doesn't point to anyone specific. I could list 4-5 that it might be, but none with any degree of certainty.

The "man in the shadows" in the end credits is Michael Massee. He is listed as being David Lowell, aka Sundown.

I just came back from the theaters and I was underwhelmed. The actors all did an admirable job portraying their characters. Andrew Garfield's Parker was actually very well played despite my earlier misgivings about him being cast. Furthermore, Emma Stone blows Dunst out of the water as Parker's love interest.

The plot has its strengths like pitting Spider-man against the Lizard first due their similar natures and creation. Even better is the conspiracy the movie builds up and I'm quite eager to see where it goes. Unfortunately, it has many weaknesses as well. The Lizard's "endgame" is uninspired and eyeroll worthy and there is far too much teen drama.

However, what really lowers the movie is the tone. It fails to capture the charm, wit and fun the original two Raimi outings had. This is likely due to the movies attempts to make Spider-man more "dark and gritty". Spider-man though isn't a dark character though and therefore the film flounders. Instead of going for a realistic tone, the film should have followed in the footfalls of the Marvel movies which embrace their comical nature.

Ultimately, the movie is worth seeing but fails to live up to the first two Raimi films or the films of the Marvel Cinematic Universe but it still manages to find its footing and provide an enjoyable ride. Overall, I give it a 7/10 and would recommend any Superhero fan to check it out.

Sorry for the double post but the guy at the end is confirmed to not be Norman Osborn.

Also, how busy was the theater for everyone else? Maybe it's because I went on the fourth but there wasn't even 15 people in the theater I went to.

Originally posted by Digi
When SM1 came out those years ago, it took everyone by surprise in popularity and longevity. The character really, truly, struck a chord with viewers. The same power is there with this iteration.

Yeah but Digi surely you must see the hype was huge for that movie because it was the first time we saw Spidey on the big screen. The hype for this one was never going to compare.

Originally posted by Digi
...my one medium-sized gripe, that detracted from the dramatic value: in SM1 when he makes the decision to protect those he loves, we all expect him to give in and be with Mary Jane. And then...he doesn't. I remember listening to people who were furious, because they wanted to see the love story completed (usually girls, sorry ladies). But that was the point. That sacrifice, that internal struggle, defines Peter Parker. It was incredibly poignant. In this one, they had Pete wrestle with it for all of about 6 minutes of screen time before throwing Hollywood a bone with his line to Gwen. I realize this was for a reason; Pete isn't perfect, he's still learning, and it foreshadows tragedy. But it lacked the emotional punch of the cemetery scene in the original. The scene in his doorway with Gwen was a perfect analogue to the cemetery scene, but they destroyed most of the impact in the very next scene with the two of them.

Ah but thing is Digi it's all going somewhere. He's going to regret that decision.

The Toby/Kirsten love story never made sense to me anyway. He chose not to be with her, told her he doesn't have feelings for her when she's offering him everything, and then learns poetry to try and woo her?? What?!

Also I never found it believable in S1 how MJ fell for Parker saying "I love you Peter, I love you so much".. How and when did that happen? Never made sense to me.

This love story was miles better Imo, and it has a point, and is all moving to the Gwen Stacy Saga by the looks of it.

Originally posted by ares834

Also, how busy was the theater for everyone else? Maybe it's because I went on the fourth but there wasn't even 15 people in the theater I went to.

Yeah theater wasn't packed, but then it wasn't packed for Batman Begins either, but look at the hype now for the third installment.

So basically I couldn't care less how packed the Theater is, I just wanted a good Spidey film which I finally have.

And I have to disagree with you and Digi in that I think this was miles and miles better than Ramai's Spiderman 1.

The fight scenes were miles better, Parker and Spidey were portrayed miles better, the love story was miles better, everything was better Imo.