Options
The Amazing Spider-man Movie Discussion (Spoilers when the movie opens July 3)
matchkitJOHN
Posts: 1,030
I decided not to go see it until blu-ray but I was curious that there has not been much discussion recently on the forum or a thread created since the new forum was created. Unless I missed when I checked. Despite my negativity towards the movie I vowed not to be a troll and just wanted to hear other peoples takes.
So is anyone going?
I guess I can add something positive though.
Effects look great.
I actually like the idea of Denis Leary as George Stacey. New York cop who has seen everything now has to deal with a guy in a spider-suit.
And Lizard is a nice old school villain.
So is anyone going?
I guess I can add something positive though.
Effects look great.
I actually like the idea of Denis Leary as George Stacey. New York cop who has seen everything now has to deal with a guy in a spider-suit.
And Lizard is a nice old school villain.
Comments
When there's a really big film coming out, I'll sometimes read the last paragraph of a review right before I see the film, as it sums up the entire review, but doesn't contain any spoilers or direct references to the film's plot. So here's the last paragraph of a few reviews for the movie.
Michael Moran of Bleeding Cool Billy The Kidd of AICN Harry Knowles of AICN Perri Nemiroff of Shockya Scott Nye of Shadowlocked Josh Spiegel of Sound On Sight Peter Paras of E! Online
SPOILER warning for anybody who didn't pay attention to the thread title.
The rehashing of the origin was my biggest concern going in and I actually enjoyed that portion of the movie much more than I thought I would. It felt a little like Ultimate Spider-Man vs classic Spider-Man. They kept enough intact to be true to the origins but changed enough so that it felt a little fresh and added some mystery involving his parents that may carry through the next few flicks. I felt that Peter, Gwen, Uncle Ben, Aunt May, and Capt Stacy were well written and developed. Curt Connors got the short end of the stick. I dont feel we got to know much about him before the transformation and afterwards it was hard to get a feel of what his motivation was. The CGI and effects were hit and miss. Spidey and the Lizard looked good most of the time but there were a few backgrounds and inanimate objects( ex. Cars) that looked bad. However, the 3D was pretty good. It didn't look muddy or too dark and there wasn't a lot of gotcha moments(other than a blatant one at the end).There were also a few bad ADR spots. I did enjoy the action sequences and felt we got a little more comic book movement to Spidey than in the previous films. I also liked the prescence of a major character even though he didn't really appear in the film (Give you 2 guesses on who he is,but you'll only need 1). My biggest gripe, the same as the first 3, is why would Spider-Man go to the trouble of making a mask if he voluntarily removes it every time he is in costume? I know the actor wants their face on screen but it happens so much it is distracting. Overall, it is much better than it could have been but still has room for improvement. 4 out of 5 frekking sweers.
for reference:
Spider-Man - 4 out of 5,
Spider-Man 2 - 4.75 out of 5,
Spider-Man 3 - 2.75 out of 5
There is also a mid-credit scene for anyone wondering.
Just saw the movie and really enjoyed it. I wasnt too excited for it when it was announced, but the trailer looked great so I was expecting a decent movie. A few minor qualms were when Peter threw the football at the goalpost and bent it from the stands. Nobody is going to question that or a broken backboard with a superstar dunk? The story at parts wasn't too on par with the comic book origin which I prefer, but didn't go too far off the path. A few other nitpicks but nothing major overall.
I would give it a 4.5/5 and even enjoyed it more than the other 3 films, but that might be muddled because I've seen them so many times and this was fresh air. At least we don't have another origin for 10 years.
Any thoughts on the mystery person after the credits? I'm thinking Osborn but I dont think they'll go for the goblin as the villain in the next movie.
I thought Garfield was great. The offscreen romance between he and Emma Stone clearly helped the film. I generally hate origins in film (everybody knows the basics of all the main characters anyways) but it was handled pretty well. Introducing Connors, Oscorp, and making that all fit into a movie origin works and really speeds the film along. The fighting scenes were amazing... when Spidey crawled all around Lizard and actually webbed him up in a similar manner to a real spider trapping his prey, I almost lost it.
Now, about that mid credit scene. Who is that guy? I have been more a DC reader but I know Spidey's rogues gallery and nothing came to mind. Mysterio maybe... seems to 'comic book' to work as a film character. Chameleon? Not well known. Morbius, would make sense with the plot of the film, but I just don't know. With all the set up any sequel will have to have Norman Osborn, but that could not have been him. Any thoughts?
As a sidebar, that's one of my big hesitations with another Shadow movie. Sure, Raimi has the rights, but there were some elements used in the movie that weren't in the original source materials.
Enjoy Amazing Spider-man, though.
M
The Bleeding Cool excerpt actually said two things that I was going to say already so now it looks like I'm stealing from them - Andrew Garfield did seem a bit too hip to be the class nerd, but in all fairness, high school aged kids are weird, so it's not completely out of the realm of possibility. Also, the Stan Lee cameo might have been my favorite (although Iron Man was also a good one).
Other points.
Other than the aforementioned gripe, I think I like Garfield a bit better as Parker than McGuire.
I know I like Emma better as Gwen than Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane. She completely got it right.
This movie very very much felt like old school Spider-Man comics with a modern flair. More so than the previous movies or the Ultimate books.
I really loved (to my surprise) the new origin given to Spider-Man. Although I always thought the wrestler thing was kinda corny, especially in modern times.
The connection between the spider experiments and the lizard experiments seemed a bit vague to me to be honest.
I didn't like that he told Gwen, but I've come to expect that that's a staple of these adaptations.
I loved seeing a smartass Spider-Man. That was something we didn't see enough of in the Raimi movies, but is an integral part of the character (nerd out-of-costume, smartass in costume, partly that the mask gives him more confidence, partly that he's trying to cover up and hide the tension).
I liked Flash. He's an easy character to make a bit too over-the-top like he was in the Stan Lee days and end up with a campy character (and that was one of the things that I liked about this version over the Raimi version. Not that I didn't like the campy moments like... well, any scene with JJJ, but I like even more the fact that there wasn't any campiness in this movie).
With that said though, I wouldn't have minded seeing at least a cameo from JJJ, but he could be a difficult character. You go too far to one extreme, he gets campy. You go too far to the other extreme, he's unlikable.
I got a laugh at the end of the movie when the credits finished and nothing happened. Almost the whole theater was still there waiting, there were a few boos and someone in the back yelled out "Where's Nick Fury?" That person sounded like he was joking, but I'm not sure how many people in there knew that this was not actually a Marvel Studios movie.
They had me going for a bit where I thought it would end with Spider-Man being the hero which would have made me upset (at least if we're planning on sequels, which we obviously are. If there was ever an actual ending to Spider-Man, it would be nice to see him go out a hero, but if the story is continuing, it doesn't fit the character).
Is there anything I'm forgetting?
http://www.rpsteeves.com/2012/07/wrapped-up-like-movie-review-amazing.html
http://popwatch.ew.com/2012/07/03/amazing-spider-man-ending-villain/
http://www.vulture.com/2012/07/what-was-cut-from-the-amazing-spider-man.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+nymag/vulture+(Vulture+-+nymag.com's+Entertainment+and+Culture+Blog)
http://www.rpsteeves.com/2012/07/wrapped-up-like-movie-review-amazing_04.html
I felt that overall this was superior to the McGuire films in most respects. Whatever happened to Tobey? Is he still working? I can't recall the last film he was in
Plus, the fact that his "secret" identity really shouldn't be secret anymore - I mean he was unmasked in front of a crowd of people who were looking right at him (no one took a picture?). And how about Aunt May, does she know? It sure seems that way - but it was ambiguous. Why??
And the cranes scene?? Very weak - seemed like a tepid remake of the great scene in Spidey 2, when the New Yorkers come to Spidey's aid against Doc Ock.
And the final scene? Was that in Connors' mind? Or was the guy really in the cell? And who was he? I assume it's supposed to be Norman Osborn - but really? Last we heard he was dying offscreen. The scene as shown is pretty unintelligible.
Plus, the noodling with his origin wasn't helpful. So I assume his parent are alive? And why did they flee? B/c they were afraid their research was going to be used for bad stuff? Why? Why didn't they go public? why have they been in hiding? Why insert such mysterious things into a movie? All for future movie setup? And having the burglar (well, not even a burglar now) end up uncaught? Again, why? Just to set up the next movie? These threads weaken THIS movie.
On the bright side, I DID like Garfield overall. He was a bit too much of an asshole in places (I think Toby McGuire is a better Peter), but he did an OK job. And the movie did have a nice quotient of action. But it really needed a better editor.
Very disappointing.
e
L nny
Sony confirms that two more Spidey sequels are on the way:
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/
@ctowner1 I hear you about the ending (and I think everyone saw him using that aerosol device to fix everything at the end), but I guess to me it's a comic book movie, and sometimes you just have to sit back and enjoy the ride.
My wife liked is MUCH better than the original movies, so that tells me that possibly it'll really hit home with the general population. For me it would be like a 4/5 Frekking Sweers.
It is not poorly made, and it may be that it is doing a good job at connecting with the younger viewers of right now. Using a Harry Potter/Twilight sensibility for that generation. And if so, then great. Not everything has to be for me.
But I agree with much of what @CTowner1 said- I got bored as the movie dragged on. Maybe because I just don't need another origin story. But also because I feel like the voice of the movie started getting lost as it continued on. Tonally it started to be all over the place. It didn't seem like it could commit to being funny or earnest, so it would have moments of either, but did not consistently do either well.
That said, it had moments that really worked for me- rescuing the kid from the bridge was earnestness that really worked. But needing to pay off the father with the ridiculous parade of sky cranes was just silly. And didn't seem justified (a wounded leg is keeping Spider-Man from swinging?) There were a lot of logic conveniences that could have been solved in smarter ways (Peter gets cell phone service in the sewer tunnel, but supposedly rich corporate guy can't be reached by cell phone when he is going over the Williamsburg Bridge? I don't think I have ever seen someone put their name on their camera- and not even their actual camera, as we saw that camera earlier and it didn't have his name, so he just puts it on his flash? Come on. You're writing a supposedly $220M movie, you can take another pass at that.)
And probably the biggest weakness, especially given that it is a Spider-Man movie, is that it wasn't funny. I don't think any of his jokes actually made me laugh. And tonally, one of his quippiest scenes was when he was confronting someone that may be Ben's killer. So, again, it seems like the tones clash.
Rhys Ifans was arch and dull. It's a shame we never got to see Dylan Baker as the Lizard, I think he would have been much more interesting. And they even went to the trouble of giving Lizard a sort of actorly, expressive Gollum face instead of a more exciting big lizard snout... and Ifans still did little with it.
I do like Garfield, though I have trouble believing him as anything but the school's artsy heartthrob. I think he plays hangdog and put upon well, as he did in the Red Riding adaptation, and he was excellent onstage in Death of a Salesmen. But he seemed to really strain for high school nerd.
Finally, and this might be my hang-up more than most, but I hated their fake New York. Sure, they did a little bit of shooting here, there were occasional authentic locations but it was mostly fake New York in LA and soundstages. Which is a bummer as New York City is a character in Spider-Man. New York has been captured so well in many of the comics, and Raimi and his people did an excellent job of making that character a part of things, and this time around that character was mostly faked. And not faked well.
But they didn't even put an effort into geography that made sense (as opposed to the recent Avengers movie, whose NYC geography was specific and really authentic), or even pinpoint where the threat to the city was happening (they seemed to be pretending that the Oscorp Tower was near the park, basically where the Time Warner center would be, I think. But then the evacuation was from 53rd Street and south, which is almost 10 blocks off, and then later we hear that 'the residents of LOWER MANHATTAN can rest easy tonight...' which is silly as Lower Manhattan starts south of Canal. I think Grand Theft Auto 4 had better geography. Again- you are writing a $220M movie. Get a $10 tourist guidebook.
And that was the whitest and sunniest Manhattan high school I've ever seen. I'm in New York schools all the time for my work and... nope. That might as well have been Ridgemont High because it sure isn't the New York City I live in.
And, again for a big budget movie, the "New York" we saw often felt very empty. As did the lives of the characters- did Ben and May have no friends? No one comes to help comfort her the night Ben is killed. When Ben is shot and dying on the street, a crowd doesn't gather? Even the cast was pretty spare. It just feels like the movie could have used a few more characters.
But, so it goes. I am glad to hear that it is connecting with many people. I think this one was just not for me. And I may just be too old for it, I don't know. I think it may be targeted elsewhere, and that is okay.
Besides... two weeks until Dark Knight. Oh HELL yeah.
That being said I thought your points were valid and not wrong. Hope you like the Dark Night a little better :)
Me? not so much. Found myself sighing throughout the film, just wishing they would get on with it.
I did enjoy the fact that Emma Stone's Gwen wardrobe consisted entirely of mini-skirts and gogo boots.
I wasn't' so put off by the quips, though. I think they did a reasonable job of portraying Peter/Spidey as a teenager - even the Peter/Gwen teenage awkwardness was well done. And if his quips aren't that funny, most teenagers don't have good joke writers.
The name on the camera thing was ridiculous to me, as well. I also forgot that Connors is yet another guy who knows Peter is Spider-man. that secret ID really isn't going to hold for long!
I also thought that the scene in the sewers with him sitting on the webs was kind of an interesting idea, but didn't really make that much sense - b/c he's shooting the webs down the sewer and what are they latching onto?? In fact, the whole webbing thing seemed off to me in that it was just so strong. With all those cars hanging off of the bridge?? OTOH, I liked his deveopment of the shooters - right down to the gizmo he had attached to the table when he's testing it which, IIRC, is right out of Amazing Fantasy #15.
One odd thing: was there no Spider sense in this movie? I don't recall him using it. why would they take away one of his signature powers like that?
Also, on the crane scene: that was the dad of the kid he rescued?? duhhh. Right over my head! lol. As @nick mentioned, yes, it doesn't make much sense the way Spidey swings through the city, and the cranes would help - but that's true for EVERY webswinging scene in the comics and previous movies. I've always taken that as a suspension of belief type thing b/c it doesn't really make sense otherwise. So that being the case, no need for the cranes.
Finally, I would have liked a snouty Lizard myself - he just didn't look right the way they showed him - particularly that joker-like grin they had around his mouth. And they only had him in the labcoat very briefly. I like the comic look much better!
e
L nny
e
L nny
Or maybe it was the sewer cell phone tower ;)