Skip to content

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

July 25, 2012

4/10 Tangled Webs

Same shit, different cast.

The Amazing Spider-Man is the story of one Peter Parker: a New York City high schooler with a big brain, little game, and a slight chip on his shoulder from all the crap that life’s thrown his way, like dead parents and stuff. But then one day life throws him a wild card in the form of a genetically-altered spider bite. He wakes up the next morning, discovers he’s superhuman, and gets to humiliating bullies and mackin’ it with the ladies. Life is good for Peter Parker, that is until his punk-ass behavior inadvertently leads to his uncle’s death, and then his mentor turns into a giant lizard that’s hell-bent on turning everyone else into giant lizards. Since the NYPD isn’t exactly equipped to deal with these kinds of problems, Peter steps up to save the world while juggling all those great responsibilities that come with his great powers.

I’m sure someone can explain it to me since I don’t know a thing about the studio politics behind this, but what the hell? Yes, Spider-Man 3 was bad, and nothing can ever erase that God-forsaken jazz club scene from our collective consciousness. But for all its emo haircuts and random acts of patriotism, was it really that bad? Bad enough to nix the idea of Spider-Man 4 and reboot the franchise entirely just five years after the last entry came out? Hell-to-the-no it wasn’t, Howard the Duck didn’t even deserve that fate. ‘Cause, folks, you’ve gotta be a grade-A idiot to reinvent the recipe after one bad batch, especially if the first two were certified crowd-pleasers. But alas, there’s a first time for everything in a world where anything can be rebooted, remade, and “sequeled” at any time if the dollar sign’s big enough.

So, being a first-time offender in this sad, sad moviegoing world that we live in, the optimal question isn’t so much whether The Amazing Spider-Man is better than Spidey 3, but rather does justify its own existence?

In short: no, it doesn’t. But for the sake of long answers, let’s start with what’s new.

Well, there’s the obvious. Mary Jane Watson’s been replaced by Gwen Stacy as Spidey’s main squeeze, which means Kirsten Dunst is out of work and Emma Stone continues her deserved reign as the hottest commodity since sliced lava. And not counting Martin Sheen’s awesome turn as our new Uncle Ben, Emma Stone’s involvement is the best casting call of the lot. Not that I ever had an issue with Dunst to begin with, but as long as Stone keeps doing what comes natural, that girl will keep putting my ass in seats. She’s also the one reason I’m even remotely interested to see the inevitable sequel to this that they’re gonna make, and considering what’s ahead in the rest of this review, that says a lot.

It also means that Andrew Garfield’s in for Tobey Maguire. From what I’ve been hearing, the general consensus seems to consider this is an upgrade. And not that I disagree, but I never thought there was anything wrong with Maguire. Word on the street is that he came off as a whiny bastard. I never got that. I actually thought he was kinda fantastic, at least way better than I thought he would be back when I first heard he’d been cast for the part. I mean, he obviously did something right, ’cause this whole superhero jones we’re on wouldn’t even be happening if Spider-Man hadn’t taken off the way it did. Oh, how quickly we forget…

But anyway, Garfield is good as Parker. I’d like to give him some higher praise than that since he seems like a great guy off-camera and he’s been great in other movies, but for some reason, his endearing, subtle mannerisms felt like they were dialed up to 11 here. Constantly stumbling over his words, constantly tilting and shaking his head like a nervous junkie, generally doing anything to make Peter seem edgier and angstier than the mild-mannered, picked-upon Peter that we’re used to. He even gets a warehouse dance/skateboard montage just like the one Kevin Bacon got in Footloose! Yay? Jury’s still out on that one. Ultimately, the only things you could really call “new” about this Peter Parker is that he’s way bigger into parkour and he does a crap job of keeping his identity under wraps. If anything, his new identity crisis is probably the most significant and intriguing change to the Spider-Man formula that we’ve got, but much like Tobey Maguire, I didn’t really think there was anything wrong with how his identity crisis was handled in the first place.

And as far as what’s new is concerned, that’s about it.

The story, the plot, the characters, the nick-of-time New Yorkers that keep coming to Spidey’s rescue: it’s all right here, it’s all the same, only it’s way cornier than you ever remembered it. This was like déjà vu all over again, and it has been a long, long time since I last say the original Spider-Man.

Just look at Rhys Ifans as The Lizard. The only difference between him and Willem Dafoe is that Norman Osborn wore a mask and Curt Connors turns into a goomba. From their good intentions, to their human testing conundrums, to their unfortunate turns to madness that only Spider-Man can put an end to, everything that happened in the Green Goblin’s storyline is exactly what happens in The Lizard’s storyline. Not an exaggeration, and, honestly, why even bother changing villains?

As you can probably tell, this whole it-doesn’t-work-because-it-was-already-done-better-ten-years-ago problem is of seriously high occurrence here. Part of my feels like I should apologize or something for bringing up the same complaint for every aspect of this movie, but then again, why would they do that? Why would the team behind this say, “Let’s just make Spider-Man again and hope the 3-D glasses’ll make the Kool-Aid taste better,” then expect it to work?

You wanna know what they should have done instead of making the same goddamn movie we saw ten years ago? They should have listened to the fans, cast Donald Glover as Spidey, and had the balls to go with Miles Morales’ storyline. Kill off Peter Parker, start anew, and at the very, very least, give us a non-white superhero to root for aside from War Machine and Nick Fury. Probably too late to set any of these wheels in motion right now, but hey, a lot can happen in a decade.

Oh, and it’s got a shit sense of humor to boot. When it’s not taking cringe-worthy stabs at one-liners by having Peter yell “AYY! I’M SWINGIN’ ‘ERE!” over rush-hour traffic in his worst Brooklyn/Fonzie accent, every other “laugh” revolves around one thing: that Peter keeps forgetting he’s Spider-Man. It’s just one super-forced, eye-roller of a scene after another where Peter forgets his own strength, forgets his Spidey sense, and forgets shit sticks to him whenever he touches it. It gets older than dirt before it can even get new, and before you say it, yes, that’s exactly what they did in the original Spider-Man. But the difference is that it worked in Spider-Man because it was new…and because Sam Raimi is hilarious.

And J. Jonah Jameson is also nowhere to be found, which sucks big time.

For the past couple weeks whenever anyone has asked me what I thought about this movie, I’ve always added, “…but it’s fun,” at the end of each conversation in some vain attempt to not step on the toes of those who liked it. Well, I’m done with that. It’s certainly not the worst superhero movie I’ve seen, but the more time that’s passed and the more I keep thinking about it, the more I realize how totally un-fun it was and how utterly unjustified its existence is. Ultimately, my experience watching The Amazing Spider-Man was pretty similar to how Jacobim Mugatu felt about Blue Steel. This right here is a carbon. effing. copy. of the Spider-Man we’ve already seen, only with a new coat of paint to throw off the masses. Frustrating as sin, especially when I can’t even see the new paint because the camera’s moving too fast for me to make out what I’m watching. Everyone seriously needs to stop doing that during action scenes.

Although if there was an upside to sitting through all 136 minutes of this shameless cash whore of a movie, it was the newfound appreciation I gained for what Sam Raimi did with this franchise. While Spider-Man 2 is one of the best superhero movies ever made, I always thought the original Spider-Man was good and that was about it. Now, it borders greatness thanks to the faults of one, and to tell you the truth, that’s alright with me.

All the same, paying 28 bucks to feel duped is one seriously horseshit date night.

50 Comments leave one →
  1. July 25, 2012 12:25 am

    I have disagree with you on this review of Spidey. It was a great flic and yes Emma made it great. End of story.

    • July 25, 2012 11:17 am

      End of story? But I already agree with your second point! How can we have such differing opinions!?!?

  2. Branden permalink
    July 25, 2012 12:54 am

    Aiden, you are not alone with your distaste of this movie. I went into the movie wanting to like it, but I thought it was boring as hell. Pathetic villain, the crane salute, the hanging subplots, etc.

    • July 25, 2012 11:16 am

      Glad to hear it, man. Speaking of hanging subplots, why did Peter Parker just up and stop looking for his uncle’s killer all of a sudden? They totally tossed that storyline to the wind.

      And don’t even get me started on that goddamn crane salute…

      • Branden permalink
        July 25, 2012 2:03 pm

        It was a subplot cut out of the movie like the disappearance Iffran Khan’s character. I thought the genesis of that scene was very convenient. I totally get the Footloose reference. I had the same.

      • July 31, 2012 5:01 pm

        Yeah, that bridge scene as a whole was bullshit from start to finish. Love how The Lizard also just conveniently disappears when Spider-Man is saving that kid from the burning car.

      • Branden permalink
        July 31, 2012 9:09 pm

        I didn’t like the scene when Spidey was waiting for the Lizard and playing on his phone.

      • August 1, 2012 11:29 am

        Didn’t really notice it at the time, but now that you mention it, yeah, that was stupid, too. Lot of that going around in this movie.

      • Branden permalink
        August 2, 2012 11:18 pm

        Yep. I still hate it.

  3. wordsformusic permalink
    July 25, 2012 5:55 am

    I gotta disagree i really enjoyed it, think it done spiderman justice. I thought the previous three were a bit childish also, i think this is spidermans best villan.

    • July 25, 2012 11:15 am

      Aw, man. We ain’t seeing eye-to-eye on this one. That first Spidey ten years ago was violent dude, the last fight scene with the Green Goblin in particular. Thought it was about the furthest thing from childish when I first saw it, still think it’s pretty rough actually. And no love for Doc Ock or Green Goblin? Killin’ me here, dude!

      • July 25, 2012 4:20 pm

        I don’t know I just thought they were to linear and this Spider man it just had more of a story line, like showing you his past with his parents, how close he actually was with his uncle Ben and Aunt May (which was a lot younger in this one, which I liked).

        Come to think of it though I agree with the green goblin fight, I watched it earlier, just refreshed my memory of it haha. I loved Spider man 2, I should have excluded that one when I said ‘Childish’, because I Doc Ock was also a great bad guy.

        The Lizard has always been my favorite Spidey Villain since the cartoons, he always looked the most threatening.

        Next Superhero film you’re looking forward to?

      • July 31, 2012 5:04 pm

        Oh, man. Just chomping at the bit for Edgar Wright to make Ant Man already. That’s the only one I’m really, REALLY looking forward to. You?

      • August 1, 2012 4:16 am

        Yeah I’m really looking forward to that, and I wanna see if they can actually do anything good with Superman this time

      • August 1, 2012 11:31 am

        Man, I would love it if Man of Steel was good. That teaser trailer looked promising, if only because it didn’t look at all like a Zack Snyder movie. Chris Nolan’s involvement with the script is also a very good sign.

        Supes deserves so much better than what he’s gotten, even though I didn’t think Superman Returns was as bad as most people remember it being.

      • May 14, 2013 1:16 pm

        Yeah, gotta agree that the previous three felt a little silly at times. I really liked them, except for the first one which I thought was the most silly of them all. They just didn’t have that slightly-darker, kinda nitty-gritty feel that this one had. Tobey Maguire was good as Parker, but I always felt he made a better Peter than he did Spidey. I think Garfield was an improvement.

        Overall, I don’t think this movie was “necessary” but I don’t think it was unnecessary. It took the previous films and upgraded them to more solid storytelling.

      • May 14, 2013 1:25 pm

        Very interesting take and happy to hear you liked it more than I did. Just watched some of Spidey 2 again on TV last week, and while I wasn’t as fond of it as I once was, it’s still up there in my Top Three superhero adaptations in my book. Idk about the darker/nitty-gritty thing though, man. That first Spider-Man movie was REAL dark. That final fight scene with the Green Goblin alone was freaking GNARLY. Was not expecting that at all when I first saw it.

        Anyhow, this is one I could go back-and-forth with you on all day, but hey, maybe we’ll find more common ground with Spidey 2. What are your thoughts on those first pics of Electro and Rhino?

  4. HermioneO permalink
    July 25, 2012 7:06 am

    I didn’t even bother going to see it. I’m pissed at the studio and pissed at the viewing public for going to see this trash. We’ve already seen it and people are lining up to drop their money. What idiots. I like Emma Stone, but I will see her in other films. I think she made a career mistake associating her name with this trash.

    • July 25, 2012 11:00 am

      Agreed. Really hard to knock the studios for making this with so many moviegoers dropping dime on it. And as good as Emma Stone always is, you can continue to avoid this and continue watching everything else she’s in.

      • May 18, 2013 11:33 am

        In reply to our previous conversation (since I couldn’t reply up there):

        You seem like a really great guy and I admire the fact that you don’t get offended by differing opinions and that you respect them and don’t lose your cool. I did feel that SM2 was the strongest of the trilogy so yes, I think we can find common ground. (Or did you mean Amazing SM 2?) Alfred Molina gave one of the most solid performances in comic book film history.
        Ultimately, the difference between Sam Raimi Spider-man and Marc Webb Spider-man is simply what flavor ice cream you prefer. Both have different tastes but ultimately serve the same function.

        Honestly, I think the Rhino and Electro are a bit far-fetched, but then so was Venom and Sand Man and all the rest. I hope they “Nolan-ize” them and make them a bit more ground in reality.

      • May 20, 2013 1:18 pm

        Haha. Oh, David, you are far too kind. Thanks for the kind words, it’s much appreciated. What’s the use in getting overly-defensive about a movie of all things, right?

        Can’t remember which sequel I was referring to, but either way, happy to hear we’re on the same page with Spidey 2. And you’re totally right, the more I find myself talking about this movie in comparison to Raimi’s trilogy, the more I’m finding that it’s a matter of different strokes being for different folks. Just crossing my fingers that the next movie will jive with me more than this did.

        IMHO, they should have gotten rid of Sandman entirely in Spidey 3, would have made everything else flow so much better. And Venom’s the better villain anyway. Heck, the’s THE villain, dude.

        From the pictures I’ve seen, Electro looks a bit ridiculous, but I’m digging what they’ve done with Rhino, even if he does look a bit ridiculous too. Like I said, just crossing those fingers.

  5. July 25, 2012 10:18 am

    I completely disgaree with you. I think this is a much better version of Spiderman because its closer to the comics, doesn’t rely on dodgy looking CGI for most of the action sequences and has a much more believable Peter Parker. The fact that he is a science geek, has dodgy one-liners when he fights and is out of his depth most of the time is what makes Spiderman so appealing.

    • July 25, 2012 10:55 am

      Man, if that’s what the appeal is, then I am really not getting it. I also never thought there was anything wrong with the CG in the original trilogy, and to be honest, it’s rare that CG quality plays a factor in whether a movie is good or not for me. Anyway, I was pretty harsh on this movie, maybe a bit too harsh, but glad you liked it more than I did. Think I’m gonna be agreeing to disagree with a bunch of folks on this one. I miss Sam Raimi.

  6. July 25, 2012 12:12 pm

    I haven’t seen the movie, and your problems with the movie being too close to Raimi’s are exactly why. There’s no point to it, and I refuse to waste my time on it. If I preferred the actors/directors perhaps, but I don’t. I’m sure it’s fun in its ways, but they really didn’t need to rehash the origin. Imagine if every Batman sequel with a cast change (or James Bond!) did something dumb like that.

    I also have to second your mention of what they should have done. I think casting Glover or another black actor would have been great, and perhaps could have led to more prominent roles for black actors. Instead we get the same old shit delivering in a less satisfying way. I’m hoping whatever the next Batman movie is goes this route. We really need some ethnic equality in the big, tent-pole summer films.

    Thanks for reinforcing everything the trailer made me think about this movie. Great review too, I loved the goomba joke.

    • July 31, 2012 10:52 am

      Thanks and you’re welcome! I feel like I make the goomba reference quite a bit in these parts, but then again, he totally looked like a goomba.

      And I agree, no idea why they opted to rehash the origin story rather than: A) continue on with Spidey 4, or B) go with a different storyline completely.

      And nice to hear someone else who would’ve have LOVED to have seen Glover get the spotlight here. Not that the overwhelming whiteness of Marvel and DC has ever really detracted from their heroes, but they should really break out of their racial bubble one of these days. Just hope they don’t make the Black Panther white.

  7. laurenthejukebox17 permalink
    July 25, 2012 12:51 pm

    For the record, the reason it came out so soon is because Marvel has a deal with the studios that they have to keep making movies in the franchise, otherwise they get the rights back. That’s why there was another X-Men movie, too. As for why it had to be a reboot, I don’t know. I can’t disagree with much on your review except for Andrew Garfield. I thought he was awesome. I just choose to ignore how close the story is, and it’s enjoyable.

    • July 31, 2012 4:55 pm

      Man, ignoring the story similarities was definitely the way to go on this one. Thanks for clearing all that studio politics nonsense up, but like you said, still leaves me wondering why they opted for a reboot.

      And no disrespect to Garfield, I just think the Tobey Maguire backlash five years after the fact is pretty undeserved.

  8. July 25, 2012 5:36 pm

    Another one that was on my Avoid list. Which is a lot longer now than it was twenty years ago, let alone thirty years ago. The Maguire/Raimi/Dunst efforts were entertaining; this looked like a callous squeeze on a dry breast.
    But you sealed it for me with your comment on the length.136 minutes? Blade Runner was 117 minutes long back in the days when 90-100 mins was the usual length for a flick. But Blade Runner held my attention from start to finish. A major problem with movies these days is that they are simply too long. They’re made for the home viewer with the big flat screen who can hit pause and go for a toilet break or a fresh drink any time it suits. But the fact remains: 90 minutes worth of story told in 90 minutes is entertainment; 90 minutes of story stretched over 120 minutes (or even, gods forbid, 136 minutes) is boredom.

    • July 31, 2012 5:11 pm

      “A callous squeeze on a dry beast.” That’s poster-worthy, man.

      And in regards to movies being too long these days, I agree to a degree. Think it’s more of an issue of film makers not knowing how to edit and telling stories for the sake of telling them rather than telling them for a purpose, if that makes sense. I could go on, but in a nutshell, subtlety and succinctness are hard to come by these days.

      And while there were far more egregious problems with this movie, the run time didn’t help. Definitely one of those movies that was more boring than purposeful. 136 minutes was overkill and then some.

  9. July 26, 2012 11:59 am

    wow, that bad, huh? i never saw a spider-man movie, but was actually considering it because of garfield and stone, but oh well… we’ll see…

    • July 31, 2012 5:12 pm

      Ignore this, see the first two, and then stop while you’re ahead. Wish I could have done the same.

  10. datablam permalink
    July 26, 2012 1:03 pm

    That’s disappointing. I haven’t seen this one yet, and this review combined with the opinions of friends determines that I’ll probably never see it. I was excited for this one, considering that I thought the previous Spider-Man movies sucked. I think we should just leave the super-hero story telling up to Christopher Nolan…

    • August 1, 2012 11:17 am

      Amen to that. We should probably leave just about everything up to Chris Nolan these days.

  11. July 26, 2012 9:25 pm

    I agree with you, especially about this movie not justifying it’s existence. I didn’t find it good enough to recommend. Emma Stone was the best thing about it, but that’s about it. (I found Garfield to look WAY too old for the part, even though he was only a couple years older than Maguire in his first Spider-Man film.)

    Also, the script was just badly written. Big sections were just dropped when they didn’t know what to do with them (i.e. the guy threatening Connors must still be in his car hanging off the bridge because he never appeared again.)

    • August 1, 2012 11:19 am

      The script really was garbage. Don’t know why I totally forgot about that guy, but yeah, that whole conflict got non-resolved quite conveniently, didn’t it?

  12. August 2, 2012 10:15 pm

    The only good thing about this movie was Andrew Garfield’s performance as Spider-Man; he fit the character perfectly. Other than that, underdeveloped script and I’m still questioning what was up with the whole idea of the lizard dude. Great review.

    I nominated you for a Liebster Blog Award; you can check it out here:

    • August 3, 2012 12:19 pm

      Thanks! Probably was harsher on Garfield than I should have been, but what can I say, I’m a Maguire fan. And, yeah, the script blew.

      And double thanks for the nom! Much appreciated and will get to answering those questions!

      • August 3, 2012 12:40 pm

        Haha, your welcome 🙂 I accidently commented under someone else’s account-sorry about that.

  13. August 4, 2012 3:38 pm

    Oh, I really liked the movie, I don’t know you at all and this is your first review I’ve read, but it made sad knowing that you have it in such a low place hahaha
    I think that this plot problems you see are the natural plot problems of every superhero movie, like, mmh….romantic comedys that are pretty much the same thing. I don’t think that knowing how the movie is going to end is such a trouble when dealing with this kind of movie. Specially for me if the film is Spiderman, because I already saw all those vilains in the comics or in the animated series.
    What really made me enjoy the movie – even more than the previous trilogy – was the actors. Although I love Kirsten Dunst and Mary Jane, Emma Stone is killing as Gwen. Maguire wasn’t bad, but Garfield has much more facial expressions and charm.
    The 3D has really a media role, but I think that the big difference is that we are more sympathetic to the new cast than we were before. Well, maybe you isn’t hahah
    Anyway, I can’t agree with you in this case, but I really enjoyed your style, so, if it matters, I’ll be coming back for more haha

    • August 8, 2012 10:57 am

      Haha. Well I’m glad you liked it more than I did.

      My problem with the plot wasn’t so much that it was similar to other superhero movies, it was more that the plot was really sloppy and pretty much cut-and-pasted from the first Spider-Man instead of opting for a new direction. The ending really didn’t factor into the Verdict here, especially ’cause you always know how these movies are going to end (except for The Dark Knight Rises, I was pretty unsure about that). Although I did hate that line where Peter whispers to Gwen about how the best promises are the ones that get broken. Corny. As. Hell.

      If there’s one thing I think we can all agree on, it’s that Emma Stone is awesome. Garfield is good, but he’s not on the same level as Stone, not sure I like him more than Maguire either. Too many facial expressions, man.

      Didn’t see it in 3D either, so can’t really comment on that, but trying to keep up with the action scenes in 2D was hard enough.

      Sorry we can’t see eye-to-eye on this one, but thanks for stopping by all the same! Definitely been one of the more divisive reviews around these parts.

  14. August 31, 2012 9:08 pm

    The best Spiderman film would have to be Spiderman 2. Good movie. But this tops the other two. However, as much as I liked Garfield in The Social Network, I’ve always enjoyed Maguire’s work. He’s not a great actor, but he’s almost like a guilty pleasure actor for me (if that even makes sense). I feel like Garfield’s a better actor, but Maguire’s a better Spiderman.

    • September 11, 2012 10:29 am

      Totally agree, might even be the best superhero movie period, IMHO. But idk, I honestly think this might be the worst, even worse than 3. Still feels so very, very unnecessary.

      However, I am so with you on Maguire as Spidey. I think we might be the only two people on Earth who feel that way these days. Very sad…

  15. ben buckley permalink
    October 30, 2012 7:18 pm

    What an arse this guy is, has not got a clue what he is talking about at all. Spider 3 was an awful movie. The reason for the reboot was that the original films hadnt told the story of how his father had so.ething to do with him becoming spiderman. Also the original director couldnt meet sonys deadline so they rebooted it. Get ya facts right

    • November 5, 2012 9:35 am

      My word! Of all the things to call someone an “arse” over! Ben, man, you’re killin’ me. This is a safe space! Enough with the negative waves.

      Anyhow, I thought I made it clear that Spidey 3 is most definitely a bad movie, a really bad movie even. However, I didn’t think it was bad enough to justify starting the entire franchise over from scratch. And as far as Peter’s father is concerned, he was hardly even in this movie and his presence hardly changed Peter’s storyline in the process. It’s ridiculous how similar this plot is to the first Spider-Man’s, and I don’t think anyone out there was ever bothered by the fact that Peter’s father wasn’t brought into the original trilogy. Alright, I’m getting a little too worked up over here, but I gotta say, man, that argument ain’t swaying me.

      And are you absolutely positive that the other reason they rebooted this series is ’cause Raimi couldn’t meet Sony’s “deadline”? I don’t know about that one, man. I DEMAND PROOF!

      Still, thanks for stopping by!

  16. yourfriendlyneightbourhoodspyderguy permalink
    November 7, 2012 6:23 pm

    I love your review and your responses to comments. You have such class man! I agree with everything you say by the by. I loved the Raimi trilogy and thought this reboot was a mess. I really gave it a chance because I love the character of Spider-man, but after seeing it twice at the cinema I am of the opinion that it was awful for more reasons than I need to mention. But, I’ll sum up my disappointment in two words: chocolate milk!

    Rock on dude.

    • November 16, 2012 1:46 pm

      Thanks, man! I do what I can, and glad we both agree on this one. Cannot believe what a divide this has caused! Sure, the Raimi trilogy wasn’t perfect, but it didn’t need to be discontinued to make way for such a horseshit ripoff. And I totally forgot about the chocolate milk thing! What the hell was that?!?! Ugh, serenity now. If you haven’t seen the Honest Trailer for this yet, enjoy: Makes me so happy to know I wasn’t the only one who couldn’t handle Garfield’s stammering.

      And likewise, brotha’.

  17. boogiebudgie permalink
    January 5, 2013 4:09 pm

    I would have preferred it if Maguire had stayed as Spidey. Garfield could have been the Scarlet Spider. Why on earth did Sony have to ruin a good thing in the Spider-man movies. A very good thing, business wise. Having a re-boot of one of their best money making machines was always going to be a crap choice. Also replacing the original actor will always mean Garfield is in Maguire’s shadow.
    There are so many super heroes that Sony could have made a movie about.
    Do they think they are really intelligent or do they think we are all very naive?
    As soon as i knew there would be a re-boot i thought to myself, “What is the point?”.
    I’m sure everyone else thought this also, as this re-boot was a first in breaking re-boot boundaries. Nobody expected it!
    People deserve better. Stop giving your hard earned money to these rogue movie studios like Sony.
    As for this being more accurate to the comics,i disagree. Spider-man’s head never looked like a basketball in the comics.
    Besides maybe the original trilogy were deliberately made inaccurate so there would be fools complaining and asking for a re-make. Ever think of that people? THE JOKE’S ON YOU!
    Hence the new Spidey’s basketball crappy costume and messed up origin.

    Bring back Maguire and finish the original story. Did Peter and MJ get back together or what?!?!
    Spider-man 4………Please?

    • January 15, 2013 5:35 pm

      Preaching to the choir. Wouldn’t get my hopes up for Spidey 4 though, ’cause this train probably ain’t stopping.

      Hope to god they fix some of this shit for the next one though.

  18. Guy Turner permalink
    February 15, 2013 8:55 am

    A bit late to the party here, but I tried watching this again on DVD last week after really not enjoying it at the cinema in the hopes that I may enjoy it on a second viewing.
    One of the things that surprises me is when people say that Garfields Peter Parker is close to the comic version – Not at all. Garfield played Parker as a semi cool skatebording type, that had no problems standing up to the school Bullies and he already had one of the hottest girls in the school showing him some interest. Peter in the comics wasn’t even just an outcast he was nigh on invisible to the other kids in school – unless he just happened to be in the line of fire. For all of this though he was generally happy with his lot in life and would not moan about it out loud to his aunt and uncle – unlike this version that liked nothing more than to whine every five minutes about how crap a hand he’s been dealt in life and seemed to have little regard for his aunt and uncle!

    The Lizard was inconsistent with his MO changing throughout the movie with no steady progression or even a believable reason that leads to him deciding to mutate the whole of the city at the end – I guess he must have just watched X-Men. (if he didn’t the writers certainly did)

    The humour just wasn’t that great in this movie either, while Raimi’s funnies were genuinely funny.The ridiculous Skateboarding sequence used for him ‘discovering’ his abilites wasn’t a patch on the Raimi movie either which actually took it’s time with these elements.

    I haven’t read all of the comments but I did notice that someone said the Raimi movies seemed ‘childish’ and while they did carry a sense of wonder, which is what a Spider-Man movie should be filled with, there were plenty of moments where the tension levels were lifted and presented some quite dark imagagery such as the Glass Shard flying at Doc Ocks wife’s face and the Octopus arms breaking out of the Hospital, (This scene was filmed in a similar style to what would be found in the likes of Raimi’s Evil Dead movies).

    While I didn’t see the point in Re-Booting the franchise I really I wanted to like The Amazing Spider-Man, but I just thought it was a re-hash with changes made purely for the sake of change which did nothing to improve the series.

    • February 19, 2013 5:07 pm

      Dude, at this point, I don’t have a single good thing to say about this movie. What an effing travesty. Was so happy to hear recently that Sam Raimi still hasn’t seen this, if only I could say the same. Your last paragraph sums up my feelings entirely. Screw this movie, man, this is what’s wrong with Hollywood today.

Drop that knowledge!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: