The 'Amazing' Spiderman

Went to watch it last night. It's better than the Toby Maguire series, but that was never going to be a difficult thing to do. Still falls short of it's superhero competitiors though in Avengers and likely Dark Knight Rises.

Script was littered with cliches and very predictable and at times can be detrimental to the pace of the movie, I found myself checking my watch on more than one occasion.

Andrew Garfield was good though. Thought he fit the character of Parker a lot better than the aforementioned Maguire, and had a couple of good scenes he portrayed his emotions really well.

Other positives would include the special effects, thought they were done really well, and Emma Stone who is smoking hot (which always helps)

Not the greatest movie you'll see, but not the worst. Passes a couple of hours and provides entertainment (for the most part) and people will pay to watch it because of the brand, which is what it set out to do, was never going to be Oscar nominated.Won't write this reboot off just until we get it's inevitable sequel in a couple of years time

The Batman films and Dark Knight franchise shouldn't be classified under the whole comic/superhero genre. They have a lot more to them.


I heard it's more aimed at the females as opposed to the males but I haven't seen it.

Thanks for the review, which is consistent with others I've read (general flavour being that it should perhaps be called "The Mediocre Spider-Man", but praise where due for Garfield and Stone). May see it over the weekend if the stars align, but am not going to go out of my way.

Thomond wrote:The Batman films and Dark Knight franchise shouldn't be classified under the whole comic/superhero genre. They have a lot more to them.

So because they are better writen and directed than most comic/superhero film they shouldnt be in the genre, even thought they are based on a Comicbook hero and the storyline comes from a comic book? baffling

They're more based on a graphic novel. I wouldn't class them in that mainly because they're not done in the same style as a comic book film. No need to be acting the langer about it either.

Went to see it last night, firstly (and this might have bearing on the way you recive my review) I think you're incredibly harsh on the Rami Trilogy, boh 1 and 2 set the standard for superhero films to follow, 2 only being surpassed by the Avengers recently (I don't class Nolan's Batman in the classic superhero mould), yes 3 was a bit over indulgent and silly but still good fun.

And now you have discovered I am a total Spiderman mark, the new one, as Peter Parker I would say Garfields portrayal is superior to that of Maguire's, and the film is as much, if not more so, about the Peter Parker character than just his masked alter-ego, in terms of the supporting cast Stone was great as Stacey and her interactions with Garfield really worked, Martain Sheen made a great Ben Parker, the only memeber of the cast I felt let down by in comparing to the Rami trilogy was Sally Fields' Aunt May, that said not a lot of time was donanted to her character and I felt a lot more could have been done with the relationship, especially when you consider Peter lived at home throughout the film (in comparison to the Rami triolgy when he lives indepenantly from someone who might wonder where he had gone).

Moving on to the Spiderman side of Spiderman, the problem I found wasn't with the webslinger himself but more with the Lizard, oddly though I found nothing at fault with Iifans performance or the character itself but the character just somehow lacked the pizzaz of Spiderman's more classic villians. I enjoyed the action as it did work in a more 3D fashion that you should get with a man who can crawl on walls, in contrast to Rami's Spiderman where the action with the notably exception of the bank robbery sequence of Spidey 2 had a tendancy to work in a more 2D fashion. I was also enjoyed how more was made of Spidey's agility and gave the fight sequences a unique feel.

All in all I enjoyed the 1st installment of Webb's Spiderman world (because there will surely be a sequal) and it leaves the door open for many possiblities, despite feeling a tad rehashed in places it does have a different feel to the Rami triolgy, more human and less big blockbuster (I am aware it is a big blockbuster but it was possible to forget that at times) and I feel stands well on its own as a great film and a worthy addition on recent superhero standards.

Thomond wrote:They're more based on a graphic novel. I wouldn't class them in that mainly because they're not done in the same style as a comic book film. No need to be acting the langer about it either.

Im not acting the langer, I was just baffled by you post and the Graphic Novel usually comes out after it has been in comic book form, just to let you know (thats me being a langer )

You still can't really compare the two films as they are completely different and are filmed/made in a different way.

You cant compare the films but it doesn't mean that the last 3 Batman films shouldn't be classed in the Superhero/comic genre

Fair enough, I just wouldn't because the Batman films are almost a sub genre. They are not like any other previous Super Hero film.

Semantics in my view - everyone is entitled to classify in their own way (e.g. would you include Watchmen, Sin City or 300 because they are adaptations of graphic novels? What about comedy/spoofs such as My Super Ex-Girlfriend / Super / Superhero Movie [or whatever the instalment in that ghastly series was called]? Kick Ass?).

Having said that, and slightly digressing, I thought it was a great idea of Marvel Studios to deliberately make different "styles" of film for their characters and choose directors as appropriate - Iron Man is the traditional superhero / origin adaptation, Captain America was a bit like a 1940's wartime action serial, Thor had some Shakespearean themes in it about father/sons, consequences and redemption.

Anyway, who cares as long as we enjoy (at least some of) them.

It's not just because it's a graphic novel but because it's not you classic superhero film. Kick Ass comes under that banner and I haven't seen Sin City or Watch men so can't comment.

Saw this yesterday at IMAX and it was stunning.

So wishing that the Punisher would've shown up at the end credits, but it didn't happen. Shame. If they did a re-boot of the Punisher and fit him in the Spiderman films, could easily have a superb movie on their hands.

Thomond wrote:It's not just because it's a graphic novel but because it's not you classic superhero film. Kick Ass comes under that banner and I haven't seen Sin City or Watch men so can't comment.

Although considered one of (if not THE) greatest comics (or GNs if you must) ever, I found it not particularly brilliant. I actually preferred the film version if I am being really honest.

Adam D wrote:

Thomond wrote:It's not just because it's a graphic novel but because it's not you classic superhero film. Kick Ass comes under that banner and I haven't seen Sin City or Watch men so can't comment.

Although considered one of (if not THE) greatest comics (or GNs if you must) ever, I found it not particularly brilliant. I actually preferred the film version if I am being really honest.

Interesting PoV. I found both The Dark Knight Returns and Arkham Asylum to be disappointing (except the artwork in AA) but Watchmen was a truly stunning maxi-series (not a GN, a 12-issue maxi-series - that's what we called it when it came out!). The film was really good, but the comics were, and still are, awesome IMHO. Not to mention the zeitgiest of it back in 1986. Watchmen and 'Mazing Man - those were the days!

Saw this last week and thought it was better than the Raimi effort. Like how it focuses more on the back stroy and how he doesn't become Spider Man so quickly .Wasn't a huge fan of Ifans' as the villain but I enjoyed Martin Sheen's role as Ben Parker, although he got considerably more screen time than the fellow who played him in the Raimi ones. Would give it a bout 3.5 or so.