The Amazing Spider-Man - Nov 09, 2012 Reviews

[dirkblack]

Originally Posted by dirkblack

I imported this to the UK, it has a UV Code that is US only, if anyone wants it PM me.

First Come, First Served.

Code has now been claimed, I will have a look in my collection as I imagine I have a few more

[spidy]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

...The "darker" comment was sort of a poke at the whole concept now of making Superhero movies "dark" since The Dark Knight had a much more serious tone than any previous comic book movie and of course in Hollywood, monkey-see, monkey-do. Thats why this Spiderman was supposed to be "darker" versus the Raimi films which are too cartooney. Superman is also getting this treatment via Man of Steel where we'll be greeted with a miserable, tortured-soul version of Superman. Because the world is clamoring for misery based superhero films.

Hearing everyone wanting a "darker" version of every superhero film got old as well. Just like Superman does not need to be darker but rather a good story line. I think the Avenger films proved that good superhero movies can be made without being dark such as TDK. The Avengers pretty much proved that. TAS really wasn't any darker than the Raimi films and while I did like it I don't find the chemistry between Garfield/Stone any better than Maguire/Dunst in the first two films. I think that many here liked it better because likely they relate to the characters in this film more. Personally, I find the the romance in this film kinda "teenish" in many ways. Personally, I care more about the hero portion of the film much more than I care about a romance between two teenage kids.

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

Originally Posted by spidy

Hearing everyone wanting a "darker" version of every superhero film got old as well. Just like Superman does not need to be darker but rather a good story line. I think the Avenger films proved that good superhero movies can be made without being dark such as TDK. The Avengers pretty much proved that. TAS really wasn't any darker than the Raimi films and while I did like it I don't find the chemistry between Garfield/Stone any better than Maguire/Dunst in the first two films. I think that many here liked it better because likely they relate to the characters in this film more. Personally, I find the the romance in this film kinda "teenish" in many ways. Personally, I care more about the hero portion of the film much more than I care about a romance between two teenage kids.

Your name is "spidy", but your avatar is Thor?

They're playing teenagers, and in Peter Parker's case, he's never had a gf before Gwen Stacy. I think playing up the awkwardness makes sense.

I really hope, though, that they don't go with a love triangle in the sequel. Introduce MJ Watson as a good friend of both Peter and Gwen, but not devolve into .

[spanky87]

Originally Posted by rickah88

Threads, overwhelmingly, have "best movie ever" & "+1" anyway. That isn't going to go away. So your assumptions couldn't be further off base, as negative posts will always be met with resistance from the fans(which is why they post in the thread to begin with).
Some people just like to be "that guy" and buck the trend. I never understood the reasoning, myself, as it seems like a total waste of time. Never have I seen a fan say: "Oh yeah, ignore my previous 20 posts stating how much I like this movie, I just realized that I don't like it".
Nope, never happens.
By all means, though, keep being "that guy". I'm envious of all the free time you have at your disposal. You must have a lot, becuase I see you post negative feedback in serveral other threads.

If I understand these boards correctly, it states that it is to 'discuss' movies. So there's going to be difference of opinions, which I personally enjoy reading when it's done sensibly. The user you are talking about actually came in to post respectfully, that they were disappointed in the film. So why is that such a big deal to you, and why would others call him a 'troll'? They didn't just come in to spout the usual "worst movie ever, piece of crap" nonsense you see everywhere. They stated what they thought, and gave reasons, thus adding to the discussion.

And about this 'free time' posting about movies you didn't like, it only cut into their time on 'blu-ray.com'. Their free time that they would have been wasting on (wait for it)... blu-ray.com anyways.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by spanky87

If I understand these boards correctly, it states that it is to 'discuss' movies. So there's going to be difference of opinions, which I personally enjoy reading when it's done sensibly. The user you are talking about actually came in to post respectfully, that they were disappointed in the film. So why is that such a big deal to you, and why would others call him a 'troll'? They didn't just come in to spout the usual "worst movie ever, piece of crap" nonsense you see everywhere. They stated what they thought, and gave reasons, thus adding to the discussion.

And about this 'free time' posting about movies you didn't like, it only cut into their time on 'blu-ray.com'. Their free time that they would have been wasting on (wait for it)... blu-ray.com anyways.

Using your descriptive term: I respectfully commented on his comment.
I don't think it's trolling, but it always disrupts the flow of the thread. Which is why I questioned doing it in the first place. Rarely, if ever, does anything good become of negative comments...short of thread derailment. I don't make the rules, just observing.
Last I checked, time is time. It's non-negotiable.

[Falaskan]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

Hit IMDB or any other forum.

Everyone on IMDB hates everything, and they all post like 12 year olds.

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

Originally Posted by Falaskan

Everyone on IMDB hates everything, and they all post like 12 year olds.

So true!

[Yojimbo68]

After watching the film for a second time I think quite simply that The Amazing Spider-Man is not a very good movie. With the exception of Emma Stone, I think the entire movie is miscast and the story too revisionist. Most of the blame can be directed at Marc Webb’s feet. (One has to wonder if he got the job because of his last name.) I’m not sure what lead actor Andrew Garfield is up too but whatever he’s doing it’s not Peter Parker. Seeing his performance made me realize just how much Tobey Maguire nailed the character. Rhys Ifans tries to infuse a bit a pathos as Dr. Curt Connors but falls short. Martin Sheen is an interesting choice as Ben Parker but far from definitive and Sally Field is all wrong as Aunt May. Denis Leary as Captain George Stacy? Doesn’t work in my book. We spend the first half of the movie waiting to get the origin story over with because we are all too familiar with it. The filmmakers try to spice up the origin story with Peter’s parents and some sort of conspiracy but it truly goes nowhere. The action scenes are decent but after the Avengers seem rather ho-hum. I think it was mistake to reboot this franchise. Sony did not want to pay the admittedly high sums it would have taken to get Maguire and company back for a fourth installment. They had to make a Spider-Man movie in order to keep the rights for the character. So, we get The Amazing Spider-Man. Let’s hope that the follow up film does a better job of envisioning the best of all the Marvel characters.

[sephiroth61787]

Originally Posted by Yojimbo68

After watching the film for a second time I think quite simply that The Amazing Spider-Man is not a very good movie. With the exception of Emma Stone, I think the entire movie is miscast and the story too revisionist. Most of the blame can be directed at Marc Webb’s feet. (One has to wonder if he got the job because of his last name.) I’m not sure what lead actor Andrew Garfield is up too but whatever he’s doing it’s not Peter Parker. Seeing his performance made me realize just how much Tobey Maguire nailed the character. Rhys Ifans tries to infuse a bit a pathos as Dr. Curt Connors but falls short. Martin Sheen is an interesting choice as Ben Parker but far from definitive and Sally Field is all wrong as Aunt May. Denis Leary as Captain George Stacy? Doesn’t work in my book. We spend the first half of the movie waiting to get the origin story over with because we are all too familiar with it. The filmmakers try to spice up the origin story with Peter’s parents and some sort of conspiracy but it truly goes nowhere. The action scenes are decent but after the Avengers seem rather ho-hum. I think it was mistake to reboot this franchise. Sony did not want to pay the admittedly high sums it would have taken to get Maguire and company back for a fourth installment. They had to make a Spider-Man movie in order to keep the rights for the character. So, we get The Amazing Spider-Man. Let’s hope that the follow up film does a better job of envisioning the best of all the Marvel characters.

Really? Where were the quips then? Where was his scientific mind actually on display? In this movie, he creates the webshooters AND solves the Decay Rate Algorithim.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Raimi trilogy for various reasons. Tobey played a version of Peter Parker. He did not play the definitive version of Peter Parker though.

[Show spoiler]

[Monkey_Boy]

Originally Posted by sephiroth61787

I don't automatically think "That's MJ" when I see Shailene Woodley, but I'm willing to see what she brings to the role. They cast Gwen well. Let's hope she brings it as MJ.

I actually didn't think Kirsten Dunst was a very good MJ, so the bar isn't very high for the new girl. With as well as the story has been handled so far, just as you are, I'm willing to wait and see if Woodley might could pull it off with some good direction. Although, I'm still not understanding why there wasn't a casting call for a natural-freakin'-redhead!

I found this film much more superior to Raimi's version. First off, the death of Uncle Ben seemed more graphic & tragic; Peter is desperatly trying to keep blood from pumping out of Ben's bullet wound, but to no avail. This was definetly a burden on Peter more than it was the first time around. Second, his relationship with Gwen was perfect! They didn't hook up right away, but we also didn't have Peter denying his love for her through to the next movie like they played it in the original trilogy with MJ. That was my main problem with the OT (can I use that term outside of "Star Wars"?), they stretched their problems over the course of 2 movies before they finally became a couple, and they STILL had relationship problems in the third! How anybody could say that Pete & MJ's relationship was better than Pete & Gwen's is beyond my level of comprehension. Finally, the story with The Lizard was one I had been waiting to see since Peter mentioned Doc Connors in the very first Spider-Man! (I was so disappointed that they went with Sandman and Venom for the third flick when it seemed like they had been building to The Lizard!) I definetly wasn't disappointed with what we got in this movie! Peter was exactly the way I expected: Doing his best not to hurt the Doc, and yet not become a dead body himself!

I had a great time seeing this in the theater, and I've had an even better time watching it on BD! Can't to see what we're in store for with the second!

[Yojimbo68]

Originally Posted by sephiroth61787

Really? Where were the quips then? Where was his scientific mind actually on display? In this movie, he creates the webshooters AND solves the Decay Rate Algorithim.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Raimi trilogy for various reasons. Tobey played a version of Peter Parker. He did not play the definitive version of Peter Parker though.

[Show spoiler]

The creation of the webshooters was definitely a step in the right direction. But the Raimi trilogy gets more right with Peter Parker than wrong.

[eastx]

Originally Posted by Yojimbo68

The creation of the webshooters was definitely a step in the right direction. But the Raimi trilogy gets more right with Peter Parker than wrong.

Sure it does. I've always thought of Peter as a clumsy buffoon who gets knocked over by everyone he passes despite his superhuman speed and spider sense. He also fails at pretty much everything because he's a loser. So the Raimi trilogy captures all that perfectly... Not that any of it feels true to the comics or is fun to watch.

[spidy]

Originally Posted by blu-ray_girl_fan

Your name is "spidy", but your avatar is Thor? ...

My avatar was Spider-man for a while but it's been changed several times. Both Spider-Man and Thor are great characters but it's Thor for now.

[Agent Bond]

We spend the first half of the movie waiting to get the origin story over with because we are all too familiar with it.

I'll admit I probably would've enjoyed the movie better if the first hour hadn't been wasted. They should've just done a 5 minute clip job explaining things like in The Incredible Hulk.

Sure it does. I've always thought of Peter as a clumsy buffoon who gets knocked over by everyone he passes despite his superhuman speed and spider sense. He also fails at pretty much everything because he's a loser. So the Raimi trilogy captures all that perfectly... Not that any of it feels true to the comics or is fun to watch

Worked for me.

[Falaskan]

Originally Posted by Monkey_Boy

Although, I'm still not understanding why there wasn't a casting call for a natural-freakin'-redhead!

I think it's better to just hire the best actress and dye her hair red.

[eastx]

Originally Posted by Agent Bond

Worked for me.

That's really not the same kind of thing I was criticizing at all.

I also think it's bad to rely too heavily on just the sixties interpretation (as Raimi did) when the character and tone of the comics has obviously evolved dramatically in the years since.

[Brahby]

Originally Posted by eastx

That's really not the same kind of thing I was criticizing at all.

I also think it's bad to rely too heavily on just the sixties interpretation (as Raimi did) when the character and tone of the comics has obviously evolved dramatically in the years since.

I think Raimi was just going with the classic spider-man and this new one is more following the ultimate line. You can already kind of see that in the way Lizard is simply a villain. As I remember Lizard, he was almost the equivalant to how the Hulk is. Connors was trying to get rid of the Lizard gene and stop him from becoming it. I was so lost by his attitude in the film that I had to wiki it which basically showed me it was following the ultimate story line. I grew up reading the McFarlane era which if we went by that Peter wasnt really much of a nerd at all and he was ripped.

[jjbsn5192]

Originally Posted by Yojimbo68

After watching the film for a second time I think quite simply that The Amazing Spider-Man is not a very good movie. With the exception of Emma Stone, I think the entire movie is miscast and the story too revisionist. Most of the blame can be directed at Marc Webb’s feet. (One has to wonder if he got the job because of his last name.) I’m not sure what lead actor Andrew Garfield is up too but whatever he’s doing it’s not Peter Parker. Seeing his performance made me realize just how much Tobey Maguire nailed the character. Rhys Ifans tries to infuse a bit a pathos as Dr. Curt Connors but falls short. Martin Sheen is an interesting choice as Ben Parker but far from definitive and Sally Field is all wrong as Aunt May. Denis Leary as Captain George Stacy? Doesn’t work in my book. We spend the first half of the movie waiting to get the origin story over with because we are all too familiar with it. The filmmakers try to spice up the origin story with Peter’s parents and some sort of conspiracy but it truly goes nowhere. The action scenes are decent but after the Avengers seem rather ho-hum. I think it was mistake to reboot this franchise. Sony did not want to pay the admittedly high sums it would have taken to get Maguire and company back for a fourth installment. They had to make a Spider-Man movie in order to keep the rights for the character. So, we get The Amazing Spider-Man. Let’s hope that the follow up film does a better job of envisioning the best of all the Marvel characters.

i am going to have to agree with you i purchased the film expecting a really great spider man film i think they cut out alot of things that needed to be in the final cut of the movie i can only hope the sequel improves more then the first did for me

[Drewbee87]

Has anyone talked about Connors grabbing Peter to stop him from falling off the building? He's Spider-Man, he could have just stuck his hands on the glass.... Him being able to climb is not do to him having web shooters. Unless the gloves stop him from doing that himself and the shooters helped with climbing while he has the suit on.

[jjbsn5192]

Originally Posted by Drewbee87

Has anyone talked about Connors grabbing Peter to stop him from falling off the building? He's Spider-Man, he could have just stuck his hands on the glass.... Him being able to climb is not do to him having web shooters. Unless the gloves stop him from doing that himself and the shooters helped with climbing while he has the suit on.

good point! i think i fell asleep long before that scene but valid statement