I liked it. Liked it better than the Raimi version.
I liked it. Liked it better than the Raimi version.
Wait. Gwen being reduced to kidnap fodder was a good thing? Please tell me you meant "wasn't", because if it didn't, I'm skipping this flick.DuneMuadDib said:
I enjoyed it a lot. I liked how the story was relatively true to the origins we know, yet spun them in a way that didn't make the film a complete rehash of the Raimi film (even though certain parts inevitably felt similar due to the source material)
I know many reviews criticized the character development (for some reason), but those were the parts (aside from the awesome fight scenes) that drew me into the story the most. There was actual chemistry between Gwen and Pete... Peter's stupidly heroic act in the beginning that sparked Gwen's interest, their high-schoolesque awkward flirting... All of that felt much more believable than the Pete/MJ relationship in Raimi's film.
That being said, I loved what the filmmakers did with and how Garfield portrayed Peter/Spidey. His personality felt more true to the comics (more like the Ultimates version) and Peter himself felt more like a person who would choose to become a hero (awkward but brave and willing to sacrifice himself). I'm sure there will be constant debates as to who's the better Spidey for a long time coming.
And suited up? This is exactly how I've imagined Spider-Man moving. Quick and graceful, using his agility to make up for his lack of strength (although the WTF breaking of everything scenes right after he was bitten were hilarious). And honestly, the suit was pretty decent on screen. I'm SO glad there was the 15 second web search of purchasing costume materials.That's one of the only things I was praying for in the movie.
The Lizard design still doesn't work for me... Still looked too much like a goomba, and the close up shots made the CGI less than believable. They should have opted for just a LITTLE bit of snout to cover up the less than stellar facial animation...
I could go on, but other people have covered pretty much everything. I know people are going to be "Ugh, another origin story" but origin stories are constantly reworked in the comics. Just think of Amazing as a revisioning like that.
He definitely meant wasn't. No traditional end-of-film damsel in distress final battle.Jeyl said:
Yeah, she wasn't a kidnap victim like Mary Jane in the Raimi flicks - a complete lame Superman issue I had with those movies... I assume he meant "wasn't". .)Jeyl said:
I disagree. Peter showed his face to the little boy he was saving in the car hanging off the bridge. The police was seriously trying to arrest spiderman so wouldn't they have the kid see a sketch artist to figure out the identity of spidey?Vivek said:
I didn't like the film. There was no chemistry between Peter and Gwen Stacy. The pace was off. Everything felt rushed. It seemed like they tried to avoid overlapping Raimis version so they rushed over scenes. Plus there were a few too many cheesy scenes.
Yeah, that's the problem you get when making a remake so close to another series. There are the key scenes that both will have to have... and they will inevitably be compared when basically treading the same ground. I felt they made a nice departure in the new one, showing Ben as the guy that Peter will eventually become and in part already was - the guy who doesn't shy away from doing the right thing, even though he's seriously outmatched.EvilRocketeer said:
Yeah that's what I was hinting at, as it was something that was shown in the trailer. But there is no way the kid nor his father would give away Peter's identity after what he did for them.EvilRocketeer said:
The pacing was indeed off in the second half, but their chemistry is what I felt was one of the strongest qualities of the film.EvilRocketeer said:
Yes, I mean wasn't. D'oh. She wasn't just window dressing to be kidnapped.Jeyl said:
My guesses about the figure at the end.....I have only seen the movie once. Last night. So this was all just initial reaction from last night and my thoughts still make sense this morning.....
Spoiler:
But those three are my guesses.
This movie was as necessary as a tuxedo for a goat.
But what's the goat supposed to wear to prom?
Glad to see I'm not the only one.
I for one was glad they kind of went with a more serious story. Dark and gritty. I know it's just the new fade with movies in general, but it set the tone to retell the story in a different light. Little hints at the old origins, like the wrestling mask, but without the corny wrestling scene like in the first. Little things.
The highschool flirting and chemistry between Andrew and Emma was great. Made the relationship more real life and believeable. Also more believeable was how he swung on the webs and buildings. Still had the cool moves every now and then, but still kind of unstable or falling like qualities.
I thought it was a great retelling. A bit early for a reboot I agree, but very well done. I wasn't thrilled on it until I saw it. Can't wait for the sequel to see who the shadowy figure really is and how the story of Gwen and Peter really plays out.
Can anyone answer this question for me? It is somewhat a spoiler so the question is in the spoiler....
Spoiler:
I think Emma was the greatest part of the movie.....And I think what happened between them in the end PEFECTLY set up the means for a good sequel.
Dozer, all I remember about that scene was the kids were talking about pendulums and whether the weight of the object made the swing faster. I figured it had an influence on how Pete swung, but I don't recall any reference to anything that would affect the costume.
I didn't either. I didn't hear the whole thing clearly. I kind of thought like you it was just some science behind his swings and dismissed the whole scene in general. But as we were walking out of the theater, he asks me if I heard what his suit was made out of.DuneMuadDib said:
I had no idea what he was talking about and then he told me about that scene. I thought I missed something, so I wanted to ask. Thanks Dune. Yeah, like you said, all I can recall from it was the science of the swing. Nothing about the suit.
Just got back from seeing it in 3D. Don't know if the 3D is a bit off in my cinema but I thought it was pretty poor. The 3D that is, not the movie.
I really enjoyed this movie. Taken as a whole I'd say I preferred it to Raimis version. McGuire was good but Garfield IS Peter Parker IMO. Plus as others have said Peter and Gwens chemistry was great.
Was it perfect? No (what film is?) The spidey humour of the comics was there but personally I would've liked more of it.
Uncle Bens death scene seemed a little rushed to me as did some other parts of the film.
The movie did seem to set up several plot points that it just as quickly forgot about but I'd guess that a lot of them will be picked up in the sequel.
For me, what I came away with was that this film has character, it has soul. With so many movies today dropping character for stunning visuals and huge action scenes it's nice to see one that reins it in a little and isn't scared to have scenes with well written dialogue that's lasts longer than 20 seconds.
And I'm not saying that TASM doesn't have stunning visuals and huge action scenes. It does and they're great for the most part.
Redtogusa said:
This is a great way to describe it. A friend asked me today what I thought, and in few words, I said it reminded me of Thor a lot. I was hinting at the reasons mentioned, but could not put them as well. But that is perfect.
It shares that quality w/Thor. A quality movie. Some campiness, sure. But that is Marvel. If you don't like it by now, or at least acknowledge it, you never will. I felt the same way. There were many powerful scenes. I don't know much about Andrew Garfield having not seen the Social Network. But I have to say and agree, he did bring great emotion and character to the role of Peter Parker.
A good start to the reboot.
Everything seemed tight enough for this type of movie....
AND then....
The crane scene...
It movie was tight...and then it got loose....oh...so very loose
Last edited by jason_ehl; Jul 3, 2012 at 6:34 PM.
Yeah, I really liked the interaction between Gwen and Peter. I thought this movie had a lot of heart and that played very well. I really enjoyed it. I felt the weakest aspect was the villain. I didn't find his story or story arch that interesting or engaging. But I was fine with that as everything else had such a nice feel to it.Vivek said:
The movie was a dissapointment . Picked up towards the end , overall I left feeling empty.
Saw it in Imax 3D. Not really by design but circumstance. Paid $16.50. But, I gotta say the 3D was really good. For me, the best super hero movie is Spider-Man 2. I'd say the reboot was better than Spider-Man 1, not as good as Spider-Man 2, and much better than Spider-Man 3.
Raimi did the Spider-Man I remember as a kid. The Ditko/Romita Spider-Man. So I figure Webb is doing the updated Spider-Man that's closer to what the comics are about today (whatever THAT is because I haven't read the comics on a regular basis in years.)
I liked the web shooters! I liked some of the stylistic choices in how Spider-Man fights -- the way the combat scenes were constructed and edited were fun. There seemed more thought put into how to incorporate Spidey using his webs against his enemies, even cocooning the Lizard at one point. That was awesome.
I also appreciated the attempt to use more real stuntmen in Spider-Man's web-swinging scenes. It felt a lot more real than Raimi's (virtually) all CGI approach.
I thought retelling the origin story was necessary to give the audience the feeling that this character has been through, and earned, the powers he's given. Since it's a new actor playing the character, I think they pretty much HAD to do it. That said, the Spider-bite sequence was just okay. (they really ought to work on their security at that lab)
The death of Uncle Ben felt rushed. The villain was okay. scary in a couple scenes. They decided to incorporate the actor's face in the design. Eh. Same thinking I've seen in so many other films. Feels a bit paint by numbers. Or maybe seeing the actor's face in the creature is just the best solution in terms of creating a "performance."
Other thoughts: I didn't need to have Dennis Leary die at the end. When they killed Gwen's Dad in the comics, it was one of the best, emotionally charged moments in the entire run of the series (because as he dies he reveals to Spier-Man that he's figured out he's really Peter Parker and that he wants him to take care of Gwen.) In the movie they essentially flip that moment: "Stay AWAY from Gwen." I wasn't feeling it. And for Peter to say 'yes' to his deathbed request... and then walk it back in the movie's last scene with Gwen... HUH? And, it's also the exact conflict from the second Spidey movie. "I can't be with you because my enemies will hurt you." Well... we've been there and done that.
I thought Garfield was pretty good. Emma was cute and attractive and their banter felt real and charming.
When I was a kid I LOVED Spider-Man. I didn't quite love this movie... but it had a bunch of moments where it made me feel something emotionally. So I think it's well worth seeing. Excelsior.
Just to bring a point up-I've heard people complaining about how the Lizard looks. For one instance, someone has said that the Lizard's head is supposed to have a long snoutlike shape. Now I may be wrong, but from looking at ASM #6 his head is in fact roughly human but with scales all over it. He did not have a snout at all.TK9120 said:
Again, I may be wrong. That's just how I see the Lizard's head in the comic.
loved it, thought Garfield nailed Peter Parker. Totally pulled off the teenage super hero without coming across as a punk. If your on the fence or a fan of the original comics, give it a chance. Would love him to be in the next Avengers, or even team up with Wolverine.
Reply with Quote
