The Amazing Spider-Man (The Movies)

[Barry the Nomad]

I still want to see it, it looks decent enough, though I still don't think it will better than Spiderman 2,

I think thats why AS-M is pissing me off a little. There is this sudden backlash against Raimi's movies, as though the first two were shit. But they weren't, they were considered some of the best modern superhero movies at the time. And by "at the time" I mean just five years ago, which is pretty fuckin recent. I still think Spider-Man 2 is one of the best comic book films of the past fifteen years.

But then this reboot comes along and a lot of people come out of the woodwork and try to rewrite history and how the original trilogy was perceived by audiences. I call bullshit on this. I, and I'm sure many of the peeps on this board, were there and recall the hype of the first movie and how awesome the second one was. Even Star Wars Attack of the Clones was given a run for its money when the first film released. Freakin STAR WARS was in trouble thanks to Spider-Man. That's impressive. Sure the third film was the weakest of the three, but it does not hurt the first two in the slightest. I rewatched Spider-Man 2 last week and it still holds up. The setup, the bad guy, the action sequences, the love triangle. It all works very well. I just can't see Amazing Spider-Man being the better film compared to Spider-Man 1&2, even if it does end up being decent and better than Spider-Man 3.

Take a look at Willem Dafoe's performance outside of the Goblin suit, it's pure gold! Even when he's on the glider it works really well. Only time he doesn't work, IMO is when he was walking about. It looked like a Power Rangers villain of the week when he was walking about. But Peter's origin story was fantastic, the evolution of the costume (love the sweatsuit and bag head look) was great, his friendship with Harry was touching throughout the films (even in the third). Moving onto the second, Doc Ock was great. Like Dafoe, he was awesome out of costume pre-transformation. But unlike Dafoe, Doc Ock was terrific when he got the arms. Really some of the best non-GC effects work in years (the arms were freakin puppets!). The whole Peter vs. Harry thing carried over from the first film real well, JJJ was great as always, and MJ worked for me. Really MJ only became annoying when she learned S-M's identity. Then it was like "give Peter a break! He's Spider-Man!". But that was the third film, so no biggie.

Point I'm getting at: Raimi's movies, especially the first two, do not deserve to be compared to the reboot in a negative light. They're fantastic comic book films and will continue to be great. The reboot, I'll give it a chance, but I'm keeping it as from from the Raimi ones as I can mentally. It's its own new thing, it looks decent, but isn't exactly THE reboot we needed nor is Spider-Man the superhero franchise that deserved a reboot. It could have sat dormant for a bit, but thanks to money and contracts they had to make a film lest they lose the rights.

I want to say that Amazing Spider-Man 2 could be great, but they replaced the writer with the Tranformers writers. Not a good sign...

[Carbo]

The only Spider-Man movie I'd like to imagine isn't holding the same amount of weight in hindsight when it comes to the initial impact is the first movie, if only because of the iffy scriptwriting, lame special effects and Willem Dafoe's schizophrenic performance. He's a fantastic actor perfect for the role of Norman but the fact that he can convey such a stern and dominating emotion only because of his mere presence makes the Jekyll and Hyde thing look so laughably terrible when he acts all scared. Other than that it was a solid movie that only proved that it was possible to make a modern, good super hero movie.

Spider-Man 2 on the other hand, still holds up today as a really, really great movie, not only bringing one of Spider-Man's most iconic villains of all time into the mix, but by actually bringing out the issues in Peter's life that are central to his entire character, which is something that is never explored in the first movie. To date, I still consider Spider-Man 2 one of the most groundbreaking super hero movies of all time along with Burton's Batman and Iron Man, because all three of those movies are responsible for pretty much shaping the entire perception of super hero movies in general and what can be made of them. And then there's the best scene in any super hero movie ever.

People say that the Spider-Man of Raimi's films lacked the snark and wit defining him. The thing is, there were no practical moments that really lent itself for this to happen. The first movie only had one moment, namely the wrestling game. What happens after this? His uncle dies. Doesn't exactly go hand in hand. Sure, we get the occasional "woohoo's", but the rest of the movie is basically him going against Green Goblin, and in Spider-Man 2 there's no place for this either when the entire movie has to do with Peter's internal struggles.

The one movie where it finally happened, Spider-Man 3, it was overplayed to the point of flanderization mostly because of Toby Maguire's inability to convey any sort of wit, but also because Raimi was pissed with the executive meddling that was hampering his interest in doing his own vision of the movie.

As such Spider-Man 3 only comes across as a sour aftertaste that takes miniature flaws of the first two and amplifies them only to warp the perception into thinking that the first two movies were terrible, which to be honest, they never really were. While I'm less bothered by the idea of a reboot now than I was then, at the end of the day it is still doing less of a favor for most of the movies by retreading and putting focus on plot elements that most of us already recognize from the original trilogy, putting in one or two things that don't make any sense and instead focusing on treating the movie as a "the real truth" origin story rather than just going with a good foundation to something we all know.

I feel I won't ever be able to appreciate The Amazing Spider-Man as much as the original Raimi movies, not because it won't be a good movie (it probably will be decent enough in my eyes), but because the original movies were only possible because of Raimi's devotion and love of the comics, and because it didn't exist just to become some overpublicized budget movie that's trying so hard to be relevant with The Dark Knight Rises looming behind it's back you almost just want to euthanize it and get it over with. The movie literally only exists for the reason because Sony want to make a quick cash grab to preserve their license, only because they don't have the time to think out a more viable plan in this very moment of time to make a product that will actually matter.

I also have to say, while I do think Garfield is a better actor than Maguire and fits the bill better, the more I watch the "small knives" scene the less witty it looks and the more it just comes across as being a forced douche with not a single iota of tact.

[pppp]

I think thats why AS-M is pissing me off a little. There is this sudden backlash against Raimi's movies, as though the first two were shit. But they weren't, they were considered some of the best modern superhero movies at the time. And by "at the time" I mean just five years ago, which is pretty fuckin recent. I still think Spider-Man 2 is one of the best comic book films of the past fifteen years.

But then this reboot comes along and a lot of people come out of the woodwork and try to rewrite history and how the original trilogy was perceived by audiences. I call bullshit on this. I, and I'm sure many of the peeps on this board, were there and recall the hype of the first movie and how awesome the second one was. Even Star Wars Attack of the Clones was given a run for its money when the first film released. Freakin STAR WARS was in trouble thanks to Spider-Man. That's impressive. Sure the third film was the weakest of the three, but it does not hurt the first two in the slightest. I rewatched Spider-Man 2 last week and it still holds up. The setup, the bad guy, the action sequences, the love triangle. It all works very well. I just can't see Amazing Spider-Man being the better film compared to Spider-Man 1&2, even if it does end up being decent and better than Spider-Man 3.

Take a look at Willem Dafoe's performance outside of the Goblin suit, it's pure gold! Even when he's on the glider it works really well. Only time he doesn't work, IMO is when he was walking about. It looked like a Power Rangers villain of the week when he was walking about. But Peter's origin story was fantastic, the evolution of the costume (love the sweatsuit and bag head look) was great, his friendship with Harry was touching throughout the films (even in the third). Moving onto the second, Doc Ock was great. Like Dafoe, he was awesome out of costume pre-transformation. But unlike Dafoe, Doc Ock was terrific when he got the arms. Really some of the best non-GC effects work in years (the arms were freakin puppets!). The whole Peter vs. Harry thing carried over from the first film real well, JJJ was great as always, and MJ worked for me. Really MJ only became annoying when she learned S-M's identity. Then it was like "give Peter a break! He's Spider-Man!". But that was the third film, so no biggie.

Point I'm getting at: Raimi's movies, especially the first two, do not deserve to be compared to the reboot in a negative light. They're fantastic comic book films and will continue to be great. The reboot, I'll give it a chance, but I'm keeping it as from from the Raimi ones as I can mentally. It's its own new thing, it looks decent, but isn't exactly THE reboot we needed nor is Spider-Man the superhero franchise that deserved a reboot. It could have sat dormant for a bit, but thanks to money and contracts they had to make a film lest they lose the rights.

I want to say that Amazing Spider-Man 2 could be great, but they replaced the writer with the Tranformers writers. Not a good sign...

I always hated the Sam Raimi movies because they're not what Spider-Man should be. Ask any real Spidey fan that actually reads the comics. The Sam Raimi movies are boring and unfaithful to the comics. Maguire and Dunst had no chemistry, MJ's characterization was terrible, The writing was terrible(Aunt May,is that an angel?) and the acting was laughably bad (Dafoe was only retreading the Jekyll and Hyde thing, how is that gold?). The reason that now you hear many people say that the Sam Raimi movies are bad is because comic book fans are actually looking forward to this one, so all of them are being extremely vocal about it.If you ask me most of the love the Raimi movies get is because of nostalgia. It's like with Sonic : Adventure games - Series becomes something it shouldn't be ; Colors/Generations return Sonic to form even though some people still say the Adventure games are Jesus.

Another example of what i mean:

This reminds me of how some people still say Batman 89 is still the best Batman movie. The Burton movies aren't really about anything. It's just Batman stopping villains. The Nolan movies gave the characters depth and explored all the themes from the comics. They're also actually about Batman while the Burton movies are more about the villains.

I'd also like to quote my my favorite Spider-Man buddy Dissident's thoughts after watching the movie for the first time in years(He still loved the movie before re-watching):

Wow. That was fucking awful. Mary Jane was an awful, loathsome bitch. I hate her. Not just because she's different, but because she's nothing more than a dumb slut in these movies:

"Hey Harry, your dad just died? Oh, you need me for love and support? Tough shit, I'm hot for Petey now."

"Too late Petey, you turned me down. I like this new guy now. Getting married. Sucks to suck, Pete."

"Wedding day? Possibly the biggest day of anyone's life? Guess I'll just not show up and leave John hanging without saying anything to him at all! I LOVE YOU PETEY WETEY!"

"WHY DOES SPIDER-MAN GET MORE ATTENTION THAN ME!? IT'S ALMOST LIKE I'M NOT AS IMPORTANT AS A SUPERHERO OR SOMETHING!"

Just... ugh. Fuck her. And fuck Raimi for turning a great character into an absolutely miserable human being.

Edited July 1, 2012 by pppp

[Speederino]

Ask any real Spidey fan that actually reads the comics.

Edited July 1, 2012 by Speederino

[MegaMan_EXE]

Hell yeah! I consider it more of a different movie series, rather than a reboot. Without much explanation, I'll just say it's more loyal to the original The Amazing Spider Man Comics. Oh, and I might get the game. Spidey's been a childhood icon since Spider Man 2 back in 2004!

:D

[Sami]

After the reboot was released, I honestly expected myself to grow to dislike the Raimi movies if I liked the reboot better, and decided that I'd treat them as their own separate entities so as to keep myself from being hypocritical.

The problem is, however, that upon rewatching them a few months ago, I just didn't enjoy myself as much as I remembered enjoying them as a kid. Admittedly, my opinion of Spider-Man 2 is based off of the director's cut, but I honestly found the movie to be painfully dull for a majority of the time. The actions scenes were very well choreographed, but I felt the were far too few and far between, and the duller moments of the movie were absolutely unbearable. Other than Otto Octavious, who I felt was a fantastic character, I couldn't drive myself to care about Peter or Mary Jane. Peter was annoyingly indecisive ("BUT I LOVE HER BUT I CAN'T BE WITH HER BUT I WANT TO BUT I CAN'T" really got on my nerves) and Mary Jane was a total bitch for reasons

While I don't believe the Raimi films are true to the character or universe by any means, I'd be perfectly happy with them if they held up by their own merit... I just don't think I can say they can anymore. While the first movie has a narmy sort of charm that makes it a lot of fun to watch with friends, it really isn't something I'd say is well-written or anything. It's... good, I guess, but I wouldn't call it great.

I don't dislike the Raimi movies because they aren't what real Spider-Man movies should be; I dislike them because I just don't enjoy them. The first one doesn't have much beyond the 60's-esque charm that I never asked for, and Spider-Man 2 honestly bores me more than anything else. I don't like the characters and, as a result, the character-driven film falls right on its face. I don't think I even need to bring up Spider-Man 3.

The Amazing Spider-Man may not be the best movie ever, but above all else, it really does look like a Spider-Man movie; and that's more than I can say for the Raimi films. I'll find out for myself in a few days if it really is, though.

[lounge]

I really do hope more and more people rewatch raimi's first two spiderman films and notice the huge negatives that have always bothered me. I still hear people say Spidey 2 was one of the greatest. All I can say to that is have you watched it recently?

[Soniman]

I really do hope more and more people rewatch raimi's first two spiderman films and notice the huge negatives that have always bothered me. I still hear people say Spidey 2 was one of the greatest. All I can say to that is have you watched it recently?

We're not fucking stupid, we knows what happens in the movies. As Carbo took the time to explain why, jesus.

I didn't know someone suggesting that maybe the Rami movies weren't abominations was so taboo around here :/

Edited July 1, 2012 by The Noodle

[Sami]

I really do hope more and more people rewatch raimi's first two spiderman films and notice the huge negatives that have always bothered me. I still hear people say Spidey 2 was one of the greatest. All I can say to that is have you watched it recently?

Spider-Man 2 is a good character-driven film.

Problem is, I fucking hate the main characters. Funny how that goes.

[Barry the Nomad]

Oh for the love of...did you seriously just say this? What about me then, the guy who has literally read hundreds upon hundreds of Spider-Man comics? The only "unfaithful" thing about the (first two) Raimi movies is the lack of wisecracks, otherwise they nailed it.

Trust me. I'm a "real fan" after all.

Agreed. Not going to spend much time replying to pppp. Austin Powers clip, declaring that no "REAL FAN" would like the Raimi movies and then just listing off every element of the movies and adding "was bad"/"was terrible" is just not worth getting into a internet debate over.

The truth is: Some people loved the Raimi movies and some of them are real big Spider-Man fans. Those fans have a right to be skeptical of the reboot. Not sure why we need a black and white "real fans loved it", "real fans hated it" sort of discussion. Like I said, I liked the first two Raimi movies a lot, thought the third had some redeeming qualities but is probably not as good a movie as Amazing Spider-Man will be, which in turn is probably not as good a movie as the first two Spisder-Man movies are. Once I see AS-M I'll make more solid statements on my opinions. But from the reviews I read from reviewers I generally agree with, it's looking like a so-so movie with a lot of changes for the sake of being different from Raimi, lots of retold elements from the first two movies and a lot of plot holes and bizarre convenient moments. AS-M has a same screenwriter as Spider-Man 1-3, which probably explains the last point.

[Carbo]

Bending a bit here but there's something that really needs addressing.

This reminds me of how some people still say Batman 89 is still the best Batman movie. The Burton movies aren't really about anything. It's just Batman stopping villains.

Burton's Batman had quite a few problems, but if there's one thing you need to understand it's that this movie is probably what is the most important Batman movie of all time, and also one of, if not the most important super hero movie of all time. That movie is the only real reason Batman is relevant in today's day and age and why we got the animated shows and media that would eventually turn him into the goddamn overplayed man which he's known for today.

There are a lot of reasons to prefer Burton's Batman because it's more of a traditional super hero movie than Nolan's trilogy which are less super hero movies and more just crime thrillers featuring a millionaire in his Halloween wear. If you like the grittier and more realistic route of things which embraced a lot of the series' dark undertones that's fine, but for many traditional fans of both Batman and the comics who appreciated a lot more of the quirky grunge era with a smaller Gotham and more concise scale, it's easy to see why one could prefer either one.

Similarly, there's reasons to enjoy Raimi's first two movies over the new ones, and if there's one thing it already holds over the reboot's apparent superiority in source material coverage it's that it isn't playing any liberties with Parker's origin story, putting focus on subject matters that shouldn't even matter. A good deal of the characters are insanely memorable and overall before Iron Man it was probably the closest a comic book movie was a really, really good comic book movie while still being grounded in reality, believable and incredibly modern.

Oh yeah on another note speaking of the whole Burton Batman vs Nolan Batman; let's not pretend that TDK is the flawless masterpiece gem heralding the starchild either. The movie sets it self up to end at least three times and overstays it's welcome way, way too much, and the finale is exhausting and not engaging at all.

The Nolan movies gave the characters depth and explored all the themes from the comics. They're also actually about Batman while the Burton movies are more about the villains.

No matter how much Nolan's movies tried to flesh out Batman as a character, not a single person in the world walked out of The Dark Knight praising Batman as it's strongest point, which quite frankly is probably to be expected since the majority of the population give lesser shits about Batman and more about the villains, which are the only reason Batman is in any way interesting; because people want to see Batman beat up the guys driving the narrative of the movie.

[Brad]

Firstly, there's never really a "true" fan of anything honestly. But maybe that's just my opinion.

Next, I consider myself to be a pretty big Spidey fan. When Raimi created his movies not only did he have to appeal to the Spidey fanbase he also had to appeal to the casual audience too. What movies boil down to in the end is the income they make and there's a reason all of the trilogy were hugely successful. When I look back at the movies (which was recently as you totally can't find them full length on YoutTube) I see the negative and positives Raimi's take and overall they're still hugely enjoyable blockbuster adaptions (apart from the casting imo, Tobey has never been a good Spidey to me). Spider-Man 2 remains the crown jewel of them all though.

And this scene is just awesome: http://youtu.be/L1s-PVl3k5c?t=4m15s

I also have to say, while I do think Garfield is a better actor than Maguire and fits the bill better, the more I watch the "small knives" scene the less witty it looks and the more it just comes across as being a forced douche with not a single iota of tact.

This I really have to agree with. I've always enjoyed Spider-Man's wit, especially since it's so cleverly written in most cases (see: Spectacular Spider-Man). That scene however just looks so incredibly "tries hard to be funny" rather than genuinely funny.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Zero-Boom

[Sami]

I actually really love the "small knives" scene. It captures Spidey's wit and attitude perfectly, as far as I'm concerned.

[Kuzu]

It does feel a bit forced, especially when compared to Spidey's usual wit; I mean I can understand that kind of behavior to one of his Rogues, but it feels a bit unnecessary. I think it just drags on for too long to still be funny.

[Sami]

Don't forget that it was also probably the first time he had actually fought crime; he still didn't know how to web-swing and he wasn't expecting the cops to come after him. I'd get a huge kick out of it too.

[Mangoaxe5]

I'm on the fence about whether to see this movie or wait for it to come out on DVD. I really enjoyed the first two Spider-Man movies. Yes the third movie had it's problems but I still feel it's too early for a reboot.

All of the jokes in the preview seem forced.

[Melru]

I can't wait to see this movie tomorrow, been waiting for, hm, I believe about a year and a half? A year? So excited. Unfortunately a midnight release and coming home at 2 AM on Tuesday morning doesn't quite go well with my parents.

I saw the original trilogy about two months ago for the first time since I was a child, while I still enjoyed them I found the first one really hammy and the acting to... be hard to take seriously, quite frankly (though it was still pretty good!) and the third one to have major issues. However, I still think the second was an absolutely excellent film and I saw it again yesterday for some preps for tomorrow. I know the movie retreads familiar ground in terms of the origin story, and I was even skeptical with the first couple of trailers (Seemed a little too angsty at first lol), but comon', it's Spider-Man, and I love Spider-Man.

And yeah, while the jokes seem a little forced, I thought they were still kind of funny, haha.

[Carbo]

So I just got home from the earliest screening in this town seeing how I didn't feel compelled to wait going out in the evening. It's pretty awesome to see kids wearing their Spider-Man merch into the movie, and I saw a good deal of them on the way to the theaters after the earliest screening as well.

The movie, where do I even begin? It's... Good. It's not bad, but it's not great either. It's just good. Is it better than the third one? Yes, obviously. Is it better than the first one? It's a bit better yeah. Better than the second one though? I don't quite think so. I have a lot of ground to cover but I honestly don't even know where to start when it comes to it because it's left me rather underwhelmed when searching for context.

The starting impressions are, frankly, pretty great. The movie does a way, way better job in establishing the premise than the original movie did, and for me that did a good job in restoring some of my hopes and expectations when it came to this new re-imagining of Spider-Man. It's your standard fair, and the acting is pretty damn great, mostly because of the actors who are far more engaging characters because of it. Overall it's well structured and starts off standard enough to give enough leeway for the characters to create context.

... And then it stays there. For the rest of the movie, and because of this, the movie not only suffers from a lot of awkward pacing, it becomes incredibly formulaic and predictable. The thing is, it's predictable for the wrong reasons. For all the talk about how this was supposed to be a return-to-roots version of our favorite web-slinger, the film does absolutely nothing new. This movie isn't a reboot of the franchise, it's a reboot of the first movie. Were you looking forward to snarky Spider-Man? Then watch the small knives scene on YouTube, because that is literally the extent to which he's actually memorable. Everything else is literally Spider-Man 1 with web shooters, different set pieces, different actors, different love interest and a different villain.

Oh yeah, the whole "the untold truth" running subplot and the "mystery of Parker's parents" that the trailers and promotional materials were talking about? Yeah, you'll only hear about that in the first third of the entire movie to give context to some family tension between Peter and his aunt and uncle, and then once he finally dons the suit it kind of just... stops mattering. In fact, a lot of the scenes and lines that were in the trailers were pretty much cut from the entire movie. The whole "twist on the origin story" is never touched upon once, with the most obvious explanation being that they're saving this for the sequel, which undermines a lot of the theories and reveals through promotional material and sources that's going to hamper a lot of the sequel's potential to surprise audiences.

If Spider-Man 2 was a good character-driven movie that had good context but a weak cast, The Amazing Spider-Man is a character-driven movie that has good characters but bad context. The actors and characters are great, much better suited to the part than the entire original cast, but the pacing kills their potential, and the movie does nothing new to the franchise or itself. The entire reveal of Spider-Man is not handled with any tact, Andrew Garfield's performance is heartfelt and passionate but undermined and the most moments that drag on are the really awkward ones (the "Mayor of Tokyo" scene is a lot worse in the actual movie).

To be honest I'm kind of glad I went in with rather low expectations, because despite all of my qualms the movie was still enjoyable. The characters kept it alive, Uncle Ben has never been as engaging, the college atmosphere is captured well and the action scenes really pop despite questionable CGI. While the atmosphere is new however, it doesn't do anything to stand out as anything but a simply okay super-hero movie that's not going to hold a shred of significance unless it's sequel goes above and beyond, and one which is most definitely not going to hold a candle against Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises this year.

Oh yeah, I'm spoilering this even though this isn't really a spoiler since we've seen the scene but;

That scene in the trailer where this overshadowed guy is talking to Connors in the mental institute? That's our post-credits sequel hook. They literally put a goddamn trailer highlight as a sequel hook, and there's pretty much nothing different about it. At all.

[Speederino]

BREAKING NEWS!!!

Moviebob really didn't like it.

And of course, rather then look up other reviews, visit the Wikipedia page, or, I dunno...decide for themselves, the comments section is jumping on the bandwagon.

In other news, the sky is blue, oranges are orange, and I'm a really sexy beast.

[Nepenthe]

EDIT: I got super-ninja'd by Speederino- imagine that. The spoiler details my reactions to the review and how it's changed my impressions of the film.

Anyone like MovieBob or watch his movie reviews on The Escapist? In place of his other show The Big Picture, he's done a Tuesday review of Spider-Man instead. And watching just this one scathing review has immediately dashed a lot of the middling hype and hopes I had for this. He doesn't put up a spoiler warning, but I imagine there are things in here people don't want to know before seeing the film, particularly the deal about Peter's parents.

I try not to let reviewers dictate what I will and won't watch, but Movie Bob has shown an admirable amount of knowledge about film and their business; even when we disagree heavily on the enjoyability of a finished project, he can articulate his points well and make a convincing case for his own train of thought, and on top of that has pretty much always accurate about what literally appears in the film as I had to learn the really, really, really hard way with The Green Lantern, and it's this accuracy that's proven to largely lower my expectations for Spider-Man.

Honestly, is there an hour or so of high school bullshit before the film decides to get to the superhero bits? I'm really not opposed to proper character development in a super hero movie: it's partly what made The Avengers so damn fantastic and rewatchable, but Jesus, this high school level drama kick action movies have felt to insert in with teenage protagonists is a complete turn-off to me, generally inaccurate to its portrayal of high school and thus a right chore to slog through. It's a problem with Transformers, it's a reason why I won't even touch Twilight, and now it's here in Spider-Man too? I've really only seen these kinds of devices subverted in Chronicle, and I never had any expectation for this film to outdo that one anyway. Beyond all else, I'm not looking forward to that if I go see this film. -.-

Edited July 3, 2012 by Nepenthe

[Carbo]

Honestly, is there an hour or so of high school bullshit before the film decides to get to the superhero bits? I'm really not opposed to proper character development in a super hero movie: it's partly what made The Avengers so damn fantastic and rewatchable, but Jesus, this high school level drama kick action movies have felt to insert in with teenage protagonists is a complete turn-off to me, generally inaccurate to its portrayal of high school and thus a right chore to slog through. It's a problem with Transformers, it's a reason why I won't even touch Twilight, and now it's here in Spider-Man too? I've really only seen these kinds of devices subverted in Chronicle, and I never had any expectation for this film to outdo that one anyway. Beyond all else, I'm not looking forward to that if I go see this film. -.-

There's a lot of high school stuff in the beginning, yes. Having to see Peter Parker trying to open up his locker because some dweebs were making out right in front of his locker with what is the passion you'd expect to be present in a porno already threw me out of the movie despite it ironically being what probably would be a faithful depiction.

Honestly, I agree with MovieBob with the movie being insanely contemptible for many reasons, but for me the movie is just unspectacular, despite being enjoyable in certain aspects. I was ready to move on from the Raimi trilogy, but this movie is not how you do it. It has no soul.

[Barry the Nomad]

Many thanks for the review Carbo, given that from your past comments it seems we're very similar in our expectations and Spidey opinions.

So it's good, but not great? I figured as much.

Regarding your comparisons to Spider-Man 1, I get the feeling that Amazing Spider-Man has too many "we'll expand on this further in a later movie because you just KNOW it'll be a trilogy" moments whereas Spider-Man 1 felt much more like a self contained story with very little unexplained bits and more open for expansion bits. Is this accurate?

[Match]

I honestly thought it was spectacular. I loved the cast and thought they all did great. I don't know what people are talking about with the CGI, I thought it looked brilliant. The pacing didn't bother me either.

[Carbo]

Regarding your comparisons to Spider-Man 1, I get the feeling that Amazing Spider-Man has too many "we'll expand on this further in a later movie because you just KNOW it'll be a trilogy" moments whereas Spider-Man 1 felt much more like a self contained story with very little unexplained bits and more open for expansion bits. Is this accurate?

Yeah basically. It's a shame that every moment that end up hinting these things are stuff we already saw in the trailers, including the completely lame post-credits stinger.

[turbojet]

A lot of what you guys wrote about was settled in the game.