The Amazing Spider-Man - Nov 09, 2012 Reviews

[MrClarke]

Originally Posted by eastx

Not as great acting? Are you serious? Have you seen Tobey Macguire and (to a lesser extent) Kirsten Dunst act in the Spidey films? :\

The take in Amazing is much different from Raimi's version. That one was bright, cartoonish, and silly. This one is darker, more serious, and yet captures Spidey's sense of humor so much better. I always wanted a Spidey movie played straight and with decent special effects and fights, and now we finally have one.

No I haven't. I based my opinion solely on word of mouth... -_-

Of course I saw them. And I thought the acting was great (especially from Kirsten Dunst btw, who I think is a great actress).

Spider-man has always been kinda cartoony and campy. You can't turn every superhero movie into The Dark Knight. The "serious" angle works for Batman. I personally don't think it works as well for Spidey.

[MrClarke]

As a side note: I'm not slamming anyone who preferred the new one. It was a good film, so there was plenty to like. And I'll be getting this one cos I'm sure it'll be a great series once it's all said and done. I just personally like the other series better

[spidy]

Tobey was not a bad actor at all in Spider-man. I think some of you guys just don't like his style or the way he portrayed Peter Parker/Spider-man. Andrew Garfield is able to portray a wider range of emotions. He is more like a typical teenager and I'd bet that some of you can relate to him better whereas Tobey's played a different character.

That's all i have to say. Most younger guys like this new version better and that's fine. However, this movie is not the blockbuster that the last version was at the box office so that should at least account for something. It's 2 different takes. I like the Raimi version better but there are things I like better about this version. In the end I like both versions. It's actually possible to like both versions believe it or not.

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by spidy

Tobey was not a bad actor at all in Spider-man. I think some of you guys just don't like his style or the way he portrayed Peter Parker/Spider-man. Andrew Garfield is able to portray a wider range of emotions. He is more like a typical teenager and I'd bet that some of you can relate to him better whereas Tobey's played a different character.

That's all i have to say. Most younger guys like this new version better and that's fine. However, this movie is not the blockbuster that the last version was at the box office so that should at least account for something. It's 2 different takes. I like the Raimi version better but there are things I like better about this version. In the end I like both versions. It's actually possible to like both versions believe it or not.

Blasphemy! You can't like both!

Oh, wait, I do too. If I had to choose, it would likely be the latest though. Spider-Man was much more of the smart ass he is in this one.

[nekromantik]

Im 27 and I loved this one and thought Rami's was ok.
I do not like Toby Mcquire at all, his version of Peter Parker was not what I wanted to see to be honest while Garfield is the better actor and portrays the character better imo.

[Batmon77]

Originally Posted by nekromantik

Im 27 and I loved this one and thought Rami's was ok.
I do not like Toby Mcquire at all, his version of Peter Parker was not what I wanted to see to be honest while Garfield is the better actor and portrays the character better imo.

at 17 years old what did u dislike about Tobys take on Peter Parker?

and what references were you drawing from in 2002.

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by spidy

That's all i have to say. Most younger guys like this new version better and that's fine. However, this movie is not the blockbuster that the last version was at the box office so that should at least account for something. It's 2 different takes. I like the Raimi version better but there are things I like better about this version. In the end I like both versions. It's actually possible to like both versions believe it or not.

It'll end up north of $750M or only about $30M shy of Spider-Man 2.

[Jumpman]

Originally Posted by Batmon77

at 17 years old what did u dislike about Tobys take on Peter Parker?

and what references were you drawing from in 2002.

I'm in the same boat. I never, ever dug Raimi's take on Spider-Man after that first film. Tonally, it never worked for me. The visual effects were dated the moment it was released. And, I especially didn't like the relationship angle between Peter and MJ and how it was done. More so on the MJ side than Peter, but ultimately, I just didn't buy that relationship one bit. MJ's declaration of love at the funeral is what killed any hope I had of liking these two together. Frankly, it just didn't make sense for MJ to say that..at all.

Spider-Man 2 is a good, good film that I have problems with. I know for a lot of people, it's probably the greatest adaptation of all time. That's a good argument because I can't deny that some of the action beats are classic, even for today.

3's not worth discussing. Just horrible.

With Amazing, this is the tone that I wanted from the outset. It's not darker. It's more honest. More grounded. And yes, the chemistry between Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield is off the charts. If they go where they say they want to go in this new trilogy, I'm going to be in ruins at the end, because the final moment between Gwen and Peter in the classroom is one of the most sweetest moments I've seen in a long time, yet also one of the most tragic moments...if they go there.

Andrew's the Peter Parker I've always imagined. Emma's perfect as Gwen. The visual effects are ridiculously good. The 3D effect in this film is some of the best I've seen. And frankly, I just buy this take on the origin more than Raimi's because of the tone...while also firmly admitting that this film is essentially a remake of Raimi's film.

To some, that's what turned them off to this film. I get it. I totally understand the outrage. Heck, they could've just stayed in Raimi's universe and just recast everyone and continue on. They probably SHOULD'VE done that.

For this 33 year-old viewer, like with Batman Begins, I got the Spider-Man film I've always wanted. It's pure gravy now. If the trilogy sucks from here on out, well, then at least I got one.

But, with Andrew and Emma in the roles, they'll be the glue that holds that trilogy together and I can't wait.

[joenostalgia23]

I like both series(though Spider-Man 3 is a huge disappointment).

I think both Tobey and Andrew played very good Peter Parkers. There are very different interpretations of the character because he's been around since the 60s. So there is no definitive one.

But Andrew Garfield's is more accurate to the one I remember reading in comic books and playing as in video games.

Both series have their flaws(both have ugly green villains that don't look nearly as cool as they did in the comics) but they also have enjoyable moments.

I'd give TASM the edge though. I just loved the cast, and I actually cared a lot about the romance between Gwen and Peter, whereas Mary Jane was just infuriating in the Raimi series(especially SM3)

It was too soon for a reboot and ANOTHER origin story... but they did a great job with telling it, and no one can complain about having an origin story in the sequel. If they stay true to the comics storyline, I could see TASM 2 being a really strong sequel.

[Batmon77]

Peter Parker was a skateboarder?

[IndyMLVC]

Originally Posted by spidy

Tobey was not a bad actor at all in Spider-man. I think some of you guys just don't like his style or the way he portrayed Peter Parker/Spider-man. Andrew Garfield is able to portray a wider range of emotions. He is more like a typical teenager and I'd bet that some of you can relate to him better whereas Tobey's played a different character.

That's all i have to say. Most younger guys like this new version better and that's fine. However, this movie is not the blockbuster that the last version was at the box office so that should at least account for something. It's 2 different takes. I like the Raimi version better but there are things I like better about this version. In the end I like both versions. It's actually possible to like both versions believe it or not.

I'm 34 and I loved the new version. My dad is almost 70 and loved it as well. In fact, he said "George Lucas should have hired these guys for the prequels because those sucked visually."

Tobey was atrocious. He's horrible and exactly the same in everything he does.

[KoukiR]

Originally Posted by spidy

That's all i have to say. Most younger guys like this new version better and that's fine. However, this movie is not the blockbuster that the last version was at the box office so that should at least account for something.

You can't really say that because when SM1 came out there wasn't and big SM movie before that so it had no benchmark or anything to live up to in the sense of a big movie. So everyone went to see that movie and thats why it did so well.( I could say the same thing about The Dark Knight and why it was such a big hit but I don't want to offend anyone with my view on that)

But with the reboot of TASM, the close minded people who were saying "oh this wont live up to the original" and so on; didn't go see it TASM. So it wasn't as big of a "blockbuster" as the first. But I still think that this one was great. I like both and if I had to rank them it would be TASM, SM2, SM1, SM3.

[Batmon77]

Originally Posted by KoukiR

You can't really say that because when SM1 came out there wasn't and big SM movie before that so it had no benchmark or anything to live up to in the sense of a big movie. So everyone went to see that movie and thats why it did so well.( I could say the same thing about The Dark Knight and why it was such a big hit but I don't want to offend anyone with my view on that)

But The Dark Night/Batman did well at the box office and had a trilogy of films in its rear lights.

[KoukiR]

Originally Posted by Batmon77

But The Dark Night/Batman did well at the box office and had a trilogy of films in its rear lights.

What I meant by what I said was this. And I don't mean to offend anyone but this is my opinion.

I don't think the Dark Knight would have made the numbers it did if not for Heath Ledgers death. I'm not saying it wouldn't have done good but I don't think it would have smashed all the records it did at that time. I still thinks its a great movie(though I think it was maybe about 15-20 minutes to long)but I honestly don't think the numbers would have been as high if not for the death.

[Batmon77]

Originally Posted by KoukiR

What I meant by what I said was this. And I don't mean to offend anyone but this is my opinion.

I don't think the Dark Knight would have made the numbers it did if not for Heath Ledgers death. I'm not saying it wouldn't have done good but I don't think it would have smashed all the records it did at that time. I still thinks its a great movie(though I think it was maybe about 15-20 minutes to long)but I honestly don't think the numbers would have been as high if not for the death.

Yeah i agree but what does Legder have to do w/ The Adoring Spider-man's box office numbers?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-...b_1657672.html

[spidy]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

It'll end up north of $750M or only about $30M shy of Spider-Man 2.

I was referring to Domestic numbers. Comparatively, if you factor in inflation and the added 3D cost TAS is lagging significantly. Spider-Man is one of the most popular heros in the US and IMO this movie should have done MUCH better.

Originally Posted by IndyMLVC

I'm 34 and I loved the new version. My dad is almost 70 and loved it as well. In fact, he said "George Lucas should have hired these guys for the prequels because those sucked visually."

Tobey was atrocious. He's horrible and exactly the same in everything he does.

It's hard to respect such a harsh opinion when the "why" isn't stated. Just because the movie didn't fit your taste doesn't mean he's atrocious or horrible.

Originally Posted by KoukiR

You can't really say that because when SM1 came out there wasn't and big SM movie before that so it had no benchmark or anything to live up to in the sense of a big movie. So everyone went to see that movie and thats why it did so well.( I could say the same thing about The Dark Knight and why it was such a big hit but I don't want to offend anyone with my view on that)

But with the reboot of TASM, the close minded people who were saying "oh this wont live up to the original" and so on; didn't go see it TASM. So it wasn't as big of a "blockbuster" as the first. But I still think that this one was great. I like both and if I had to rank them it would be TASM, SM2, SM1, SM3.

I liked the TAS as well. Think about this though, Spider-Man had very few superhero flicks behind it and the technology for visuals was lagging compared to today. Still the movie got good reviews and many that I have spoken with liked it. Peter Parker is Spider-man was light hearted and wasn't rough around the corners and I think that's one reason half here didn't like the Raimi version as well as the love story as some mentioned. The love story in TAS didn't do much for me either as it seems too much of a teen flick in this regard. Having said that, TASM came in with many other hero movies and much past history to learn from in addition to technological advancements. This movie SHOULD have been much better than the Raimi version. Instead, it received worse reviews and performed worse at the box office. Some reviewers may have been closed minded but a great movie can change a person's take. I went into Thor with an attitude thinking this is going to be really corny but left the theater liking it.

Despite like the first series better (the third one strayed from the first two though), I am looking forward to TAS2.

Originally Posted by Batmon77

But The Dark Night/Batman did well at the box office and had a trilogy of films in its rear lights.

Perfect example! If original Spider-man only created hype the box office would have spoken in the 2nd and 3rd movies. They didn't do as well as the first but they still did well. I really expected TAS numbers to do much better domestically. I thought it might compete against Batman with Spider-man's popularity but man was I wrong there!

[Batmon77]

I think the second TAS is going to be its 'Empire Strikes Back".

They have the tools to get back on track. More Spider-Man, less love, and a good story leaving the origin in the dust. Just like SM2 took the kid gloves.
No cheering construction workers.

[eastx]

Originally Posted by Batmon77

But The Dark Night/Batman did well at the box office and had a trilogy of films in its rear lights.

Yes, but the number of years between the old films and the new one was much greater. TAS came so soon, which many people can't get over despite Spider-Man 3's almost universally agreed-upon badness. A new Spider-man movie that isn't a sequel? It should not exist! How many people said that in reviews (IGN) and in this very thread?

[nekromantik]

Originally Posted by Batmon77

at 17 years old what did u dislike about Tobys take on Peter Parker?

and what references were you drawing from in 2002.

I had no references apart from the cartoons in the 90s.
I just did not feel like he was a fit for Peter Parker and something felt off for me.
Just my personal take it on it anyway. I rewatched Spiderman 1 a month before I saw Amazing Spiderman and again I thought it wasnt that good.

[Batmon77]

Originally Posted by eastx

Yes, but the number of years between the old films and the new one was much greater. TAS came so soon, which many people can't get over despite Spider-Man 3's almost universally agreed-upon badness. A new Spider-man movie that isn't a sequel? It should not exist! How many people said that in reviews (IGN) and in this very thread?

ill agree that it was too soon but the differences years between films was not "much greater". I thought so as well, but Spidey is 5 and Bats is 8. Thats not much greater.