Just got back from seeing it - my verdict is it's okay. Not bad, but not great, and certainly not better than The Avengers.

And since there will be people who want to read my tl,dr; on the subject, I finally took the advice from the right people and set up a blog with my longer review here. Enjoy.

 

Ok Silens, first of all, that is a horrible font on a horrible looking blog. Use a template or something so things like word wrap when I shink the window come over. But mostly the font. It was unreadable.

As for the movie, it was enjoyable. I mean, it's a regular action movie and the chemistry between that facebook movie dude and Emma stone made it a lot better than average. Some of the moments that absolutely broke my immersion were:

1) Uncle ben's death was not nearly emotional enough.

2) The whole decay formula thingy was not the least bit believable and a high school student figuring out what it meant/how to apply it? Fuck that. The whole formula just reeked of really bad ill-thought out "sciency stuff".

Err, I can't remember more, but there were a couple of other small moments.

 

Sorry to post completely Off-Topic (I'll edit with content when I see it on Saturday) but I can't let this one go by.


Do you ever get off your own cock long enough to take shits?

 

I dunno, it seems like it's Sam Rami's cock that he's really interested in.

I don't think the accusation of TAS not having anything new rings true. The appeal of TAS, compared to the previous films, is Peter Parker's character done right. And also not being so cringeworthy as to have half the scenes be unwatchable.

I think you're seriously overrating the 2002 Spider-Man, Silens.

 

I do acknowledge that the 2002 Spider-Man is flawed, but there's a charm to the campiness that I like, for the most part. I don't think it's nearly as cringe-worthy as some think (particularly in comparison to elements of Spider-Man 3, and those weren't that horrible, if I'm being fair), namely because I know the source material. There may be moments of silliness, but I'll take that with the better script and much stronger supporting cast over admittedly better leads, but a script that's either cribbing wholesale from the 2002 movie or lacking a significant amount of charm in its own right.

As I said in my review, I think the best possible Spider-Man movie would have the tone and supporting cast of Raimi's movies and the leads of the new movie, but that's just my opinion.

And on that note:

I can shit just fine, thank you very much - a healthy amount of fibre is great for a balanced diet. But when I care about your opinion... yeah, I still won't ask for it.

EDIT: yeah, I picked that font as an aesthetic quibble, but I get it if people find it hard to read. The new one should be significantly better.

 

Except he didn't. His dad figured it out, but it was just a little too convenient that the folder his dad was hiding from OsCorp just happened to be at Uncle Ben and Aunt May's. Said folder contained the formula. He just studied it until he understood it.

 

Did we see the same film here? Watching Peter stumble through talking to Gwen not as a shy nerd but as Forrest Gumps younger, dumber brother was one of the most excruciating hour of film I've ever had to sit through.

 

I actually kind of liked that. That the shooting was so sudden that he couldn't even say anything to Peter made it seem even more tragic to me.

I really liked Martin Sheen as Uncle Ben in this. My only problem is that the version of "with great power comes great responsibility" was very roundabout and more long-winded than it had to be. I didn't really have a problem with it then, because I figured Peter would repeat the real phrase later or it would be in the complete version of the voicemail, but it never came up.

This is Peter Parker we're talking about. If he wasn't constantly shit on in life and had the right financial backing/equipment, he could be on par with or even surpass Hank Pym at science-y stuff. Well, when he's about ten years older than he is in this film. Besides, he had his dad's notes to work with here.

As for the idea that things were too "convenient" in this film... never even occurred to me when watching, and it doesn't bother me much at all looking back at it.

 

Pretty much this. The original was alright, but Maguire was not a great Peter. As for your review, Silens, I could not possibly disagree with you more.

What? "Cribbing wholesale from the 2002 movie" and "lacking a significant amount of charm"? There are certain elements that have to be in the first Spider-Man flick of a series no matter what, and I thought they did a solid job making it different. Uncle Ben's death was certainly more upsetting to me, and I definitely laughed more than I ever have for the Raimi films. I think I'm just going to chalk this up to you having a decidedly different (read: bad) taste in movies.

Forrest Gump's younger, dumber brother? Yeah, IDK what you saw, bro, but it wasn't the movie I saw.

 

Oh, I agree there have to be elements that have to be in any Spider-Man story - Uncle Ben's death, for one, and while I personally liked the 2002 version of the event better, I can accept that as varying tastes - but we're not just talking about specific events or elements. Let's talk broader, second/third act plot, once we're out of the rehash period. I'll be polite and throw this in spoiler tags.

Spoiler

We have Connors having his research shut down because something didn't work (just like Norman in the first movie). We have Connors in desperation choosing to experiment on himself, which has adverse side effects. We have an attack where Connors goes after the 'target' responsible. We have a conversational scene where Parker and Connors both discover each other's secret identities (I'd add that the whole camera-with-Peter's-name on it is awfully contrived). And if we're going to take notes from the second movie, we're going to have a mobilization of the crane operators to help Peter which is a clear thematic lift from the train sequence in Spider-Man 2. I get that some of the elements have to be similar for the Spider-Man story to work, but when you have the cheat sheets of three great Spider-Man movies that came before, I expect something new when you venture outside of the first act.

And I'm not even talking about the elements that are missing here, most glaringly the presence of everyone's favourite newspaper chief J. Jonah Jameson. Yes, there were some elements that are pretty funny, and I did laugh a lot, but overall, I'm more of a fan of strong scripting and storytelling than just acting prowess. The script for this movie is clumsy, particularly with exposition, and it's not nearly as tight as it should be - there is a reliance on coincidence and 'it just so happens that' plot events that really hurt this story.

So yeah, I do like the first Spider-Man movie more than this one for a lot of the reasons I explained, but I will admit The Amazing Spider-Man is okay. And as I said in my review, I'm kind of psyched for a sequel here: between Gwen Stacy's inevitable demise (you know it's coming) and the fact they won't be forced to include the origin story, they might take things in a new and interesting direction. Will it be as good as Spider-Man 2, which is widely held to be a classic superhero movie? Eh, possibly - Raimi's work with regards to direction and tone are hard to top, particularly if we're drawing direct inspiration from the comics. But then again, I know I have a bigger tolerance for camp than most people do (hell, I actually kind of liked Rock of Ages), so let's chalk this up to differences in opinion. I get where you're coming from by labelling my opinion 'bad', I just disagree.

 

I hope it doesn't. For one everyone is expecting it so it lacks the surprise element that make it memorable in the first place. If anything I'd do a reverse and bring MJ in the next film to kill her in the end. Now that would surprise everybody, especially if it is kept from being spoiled before the premiere. For two I like Gwen and I want her to have a happy ending at least in the movie verse.

Also, I don't care it's reboot, there is only one person who can play J. Jonah Jameson. Bring back J.K. Simmons!

 

Eh... interesting idea, but I think I'd rather just have a good adaptation of the story than make up twists solely for shock value. Everyone was expecting Sirius to die in Order of the Phoenix, but they didn't have Remus die instead just to shake things up.

I definitely want J.K. Simmons back though. No one else can be Jameson in my eyes.

 

That bastard!

On topic was a pretty good film, closer to the source material than Raimi's trilogy, and enjoyable to boot.

I left before the credits :facepalm

 

I thought that it was right on the mark with the character of Spider-Man. Peter is a bit of smart arse

Spoiler

The quip with Flash, for one, the car thief scene for another

, and is finding himself as Spider-Man, especially with the swinging scene after the car scene.

His awkwardness with women was lifted straight out the comics and modernised. If you read Amazing Fansty #15 he tries to ask girls to the science fair and fucks up majorly. Situation is different as Gwen is interested in science so it's just the awkwardness of asking her out.

I didn't like

Spoiler

Gwen finding out he was Spider-Man so quickly but I can overlook it easily

I thought the Uncle Ben death scene was emotional, it made more emotional impact than the Tobey Maguire one.

Garfield is one of my favourite actors as well and, in my opinion, this was one of my favourite super hero films. I enjoyed it more than The Avengers but I love the Spider-Man universe more than I do the characters of The Avengers. And before people compare it to The Dark Knight Rises, I don't think you can as DKR has established it's story and characters, whereas TAS is just beginning to.

 

It was just some of the lines that came out of Garfield's mouth. Nervous, kinda awkward? Good enough. When he's stuttering so bad it takes five or six attempts to get a word out? Not so much.

Now that I've had some time to process the film I still can't call it good. When it does something well it does it well but there were just too many contrived coincidences for me to stay immersed in the film. Not to mention every single fucking time they tried to act 'science-y'. I was audibly groaning at some of those scenes.

 

Just got back from Spider-Man.

Apart from an obnoxious group of teenagers who were on their phones every five goddamn minutes (I would've said something, but I fear confrontation and youth gangs) I really enjoyed the film.

While I wouldn't place it in the same class as Avengers, namely because it's like comparing apples and oranges, and they're only tenuously linked through Marvel and the superhero genre, I would say it's just as good--but different.

Good different.

I can excuse the pseudo-science, given that I'm watching a film about a giant lizard v. human spider, and for the most part I fail to find fault. I liked Garfield's Parker, even his awkward stuttering. I got the impression of a kid who is thinking of a dozen things at once, almost five steps ahead with every thought, and his tongue just couldn't keep up with his mind.

On the negative, I would've liked to have seen more of New York's reaction to Spider-Man. In the original trilogy, the Bugle hyped him up as villain through the roof. It seemed like very little time past in this film, and while it works, I wanted to see him foiling more crime.

But as an origin movie, that's probably asking a touch too much.

4/5, because nothing's perfect. But a strong 4/5.

Oh, and Aunt May totally knows Peter is Spider-Man.

 

I really enjoyed it. The leads in this movie far surpassed the leads in the last in my opinion. Maguire did a really good first film, but I think Garfield will out act him in the sequels. Spider-man 3 really sank Tobey's superhero legacy. And Kirsten Dunst has never really tickled my fancy as an actress.

To those saying the science being unbelievable is funny considering you're watching a comic book movie adaptation.

I agree, however you pointed out the main reason for this. Origin stories don't have a lot of time outside of pure character development. You can bet this will play a much more substantial role in the next movie. Similar to Spider-man 2, which is still one of my favorite superhero movies.

As for the Uncle Ben in this movie... way better. That voice mail was awesome. As cool as 'With great power comes great responsibility' was, it always struck me as odd that an old man would give such advice to an awkward teenager. It makes sense to talk to a superhero like that, but Uncle Ben was talking to a kid really. Like it would make more sense if Martin Sheen was giving Robert Downy Jr a pep talk while he was in his Iron Man get up. Or maybe I'll just get crucified for questioning one of the greatest super hero lines of all time. But it always bugged me.

tl;dr: Pretty good movie. The Stan Lee cameo alone was worth the price of admission.

 

Saw it and thought it was tehmayzin.

I love how the cops are portrayed as competent but hopelessly outclassed. The way the city's construction workers pulled for Spider-man was a hell lot better than the cable-car folks throwing rocks and shit at the Green Goblin.

The fight scenes were a hell of a lot better than anything in the other trilogy. No magic I flip over, you die bullshit but rather Spidey using his wits and abusing his mobility instead of stupidly going punch for punch.

The camera revealing his identity was a bit silly. The red LEDs on the web shooters seemed unnecessary and just meant to help market the inevitable toys.

May and Ben had actual interaction, another point over the trilogy.

Peter discovering his powers was a bit predictable, since I was laughing a few seconds before the keyboard gag.

The dialogue was well written and well-delivered. Instead of a melodramatic, one-dimensional bipolar villain in 2002, we get a more complex bipolar villain who has more facets. The female lead isn't a useless tit that screams on cue every 15 minutes but complex and competent, trying to defend the macguffin though again, outclassed by mutants. Even the bully who gets at most 5 minutes of screen time has more to him than generic asshole.

One problem I have is that Garfield throws on a bit of a Bronx accent during the scene that's in the trailer. Also, he doesn't cry like as much of a bitch as Macguire, so points there to 2002.

On an aside, I laughed like a retard at the Twilight premiere.

 

I don't know about you, but that cop who drew his gun on Peter after he took down the carjacker and shot at him was appallingly incompetent. He came inches away from hitting the guy while he was helplessly webbed-up against the wall, and Spider-Man wasn't even threatening his life in any way. Hopefully he was fired on the spot.