This hugely elaborate production is supposed to be the reboot of a foundering franchise, but rebooting a computer wipes the silicon slate clean. In the movie, what's old is old again.
How more accurate do you want it to not be? Everyone who compares this to the reboot is in my opinion dazed. I loved the movie from start to finish. Not only it surprised me how Andrew nailed being Peter/Spider-Man he was way better than Tobey's performance all the way.
Jul 3 - 07:38 AM
Woa, hey, Tobey M. was a great Peter Parker...
Jul 3 - 12:24 PM
Sorry but it is the truth watch for yourself. Acting says it all and Garfield IS Peter Parker.
Jul 3 - 01:07 PM
Couldn't disagree more Cody.
Jul 3 - 03:06 PM
I agree with Cody! Raimi turned Peter into an EMO BITCH. Garfield Nailed the part. And Garfield looks like Peter Parker from the Comicbooks. The Amazing is the Best Spiderman Movie EVER made.
Jul 3 - 06:48 PM
Tobey was a good Peter Parker but a terrible Spider-Man. I want the comic book Spider-Man! The one that had the witty remarks and the attitude! "The Amazing Spider-Man" and Andrew seemed to bring that out more than the Tobey M. versions did.
Jul 6 - 09:40 AM
Critcs are stupid, this movie was awesome. They over analyze so much. I don't care how high or low this scores it's the best spider-man movie out.
Jul 3 - 08:06 AM
This critic didn't like any of the last superheroes films. Spider-man, The Avengers, Captain America, Thor, Iron Man 2 and etc.
If you don't like the genre, do not watch it, because you'll end up talking trash about good movies of this genre.
Jul 3 - 08:16 AM
Well, Gustavo - from all the cited films only Iron Man saves its arse (I haven't watched The Avengers yet - and I am not sure I want to): Captain America is just lame...
Jul 3 - 09:20 AM
All the cited films are fresh, and I liked then all except Iron Man 2. But the fact is, it's not coincidence, he doesn't like the superhero genre, so he can't review these movies properly.
Jul 3 - 09:42 AM
That logic doesn't work. How then, are like-minded moviegoers supposed to approach gathering information about this film? Reading reviews from gushing comic book fanatics? Not likely. I don't personally find worth from someone reviewing something they typically don't enjoy, but just because I, as a Spider-Man fan, feel that way doesn't mean that they don't have a right to voice a contrarian opinion. The point of view is still useful to people with similar interests; comic book fans don't have a monopoly on movie reviews.
Jul 3 - 10:03 AM
I'll say this much friend, if you don't see "The Avengers" you'll cheat yourself, that's all i'll say on that issue.
Jul 3 - 12:20 PM
Yeah, he kinda sounds like some old stiff ass who needs to loosen up a little. That's the problem with critics like this guy, not all but some, if the film is not based on real life issues they can't seem to enjoy it. There is such a thing as escapism in movies, somebody needs to remind this critic of that.
Iron Man (excluding part 2) is the only good Marvel movie pre-Avengers. The rest you named are average at best.
Toby Mcguire's first Spider Man is good so the new Spidey flick needs to beat that and so far it doesn't.
Jul 3 - 12:51 PM
Did he like the Dark Knight....you know...a truly great film?
Jul 4 - 08:37 AM
why do you hate everything :(
Jul 3 - 08:17 AM
this reboot is all about money.. 3d showcase easy!
Jul 3 - 08:19 AM
this is a stupid review
Jul 3 - 08:34 AM
I feel like so many critics are on the "I've seen this before" band wagon. What did they expect? Spider-Man is Spider-Man you can't change anything.. When its the same critics complain and when it different (i.e. Michael Bay's Ninja Turtles) people freak. So theres no good side to this. The movie was good. I enjoyed it and any Spidey fan or movie goer in general should go see it.
Jul 3 - 09:47 AM
You're missing the point. If it was done better, but still similar(which it of course would be), then it wouldn't be an issue. If it's NOT as good as what came before, then it's looked upon as missing the mark. Everybody keeps denouncing the critics with their fallacies without stopping for two seconds to think about it.
It isn't a matter of "Why tell the same story twice", it's "Why wasn't the story told BETTER" this time around. Most of the positive reviews are echoing the same sentiment, that while this move is well done, the areas that overlap with the 2002 film simply aren't done as well, leading me to believe that there is a fair bit of credence to these criticisms. I'm still expecting to like this movie, but I do have my reservations, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's a perfectly valid thing to critique if you stop for a minute and think about it.
Jul 3 - 09:55 AM
I don't think that's right, some critcs fail to aknowledge why it's not as good. Some just simply say" I saw this 10 years ago" besides I saw it and I can safely say its much better than SM1 it has more depth and emotion.
Jul 3 - 11:26 AM
So the movie has more emotion and depth because you say so, but when a contrary viewpoint comes from a critic it's invalid? Not only is that hypocritical, but that logic is completely fallacious. In fact you just did it your damn self, "more depth and emotion" without explaining WHY. It's the same as saying "This movie sucks" and leaving it at that. Sure, SOME reviews don't detail their reasons, the same way that SEVERAL positive reviews don't explain why they think this movie is superior. It works both ways.
Whatever the case, the problem with a lot of people here is that they either don't read the content of the reviews and only look at the blurb, or simply refuse to comprehend the actual CONTENT because it doesn't conform to their personal bias. 90% of the negative reviews I've read, save for some poorly written ones, detail why they dislike the movie in enough depth to be reasonable. Some examples are that the parents angle is merely glossed over and forgotten, the Uncle Ben death scene and build up is poorly executed, the villain is underutilized and underdeveloped, and that some of the obvious differences are half-assed exercises to say "we did it differently from the other film" These are all valid criticisms I've read from all of the negatives around RT, and yes I actually READ them and comprehended their content. If you call BS on any of these critiques, then I defy you to tell my why the positive reviews are viewed with any credibility, when they typically say nothing more than
"The script is so well written"
"There's such wonderful emotion on display here!"
"Their chemistry is undeniable"
"Breathtaking action scenes"
and other trite platitudes of the sort. The problem with the fanbase of movies like this is that instead of asking what MIGHT be wrong with this movie, or what they might NOT enjoy about it, they only care to stroke themselves and confirm what they know they'll already enjoy. That's garbage, and it only serves to inflate egos and incite petty bitterness.
Jul 3 - 12:32 PM
Oh who gives a shit? People can have an opinion and they can enjoy the movie if they want to, no matter whether it contradicts what you thought of the movie.
Jul 3 - 12:29 PM
...which is exactly my point.
Jul 3 - 12:34 PM
Finally, a rationale poster! As I said somewhere else, you can't say it's a great movie while ignoring the fact that it's a reboot anymore than you can't say it's a bad movie simply because it's a reboot. The reboot part plays a role in it's reception, whether people like it or not, and rightfully so.
Jul 3 - 02:41 PM
calm down, fanboys. take a breather.
Jul 3 - 11:06 AM
NO! I WON'T CALM DOWN!!!
Jul 3 - 12:26 PM
Saw this movie and was expecting it to be shit, came out with a massive grin on my face. Why? Simply because it did everything Sam Raimi's movies never did; it followed the comic books very closely. Was very pleased. Then again I can see how it isn't everyone's cup of tea, you have to be able to have more than 2 brain cells to process the greatness that this movie oozes.
Jul 3 - 11:33 AM
lol, I hear that...
Jul 3 - 12:27 PM
Lol when it comes down to the wire if this was the first spiderman movie it would be much better. Well if you want evidence then here it is. Peter goes through so much in the movie and you feel for him, the characters are explored much more than the 1st film and the realtionships are so real. Andrew and the rest of the cast brings so much to their characters and they all react off each other. In the 1st film there was not as much depth I didn't care for Peter as much and all the others. When ever Peter cried in the TASM I actually felt sorry for the kid unlike I did Tobey, I didn't feel that attachment. Also this film excels in displaying peters heroism and determination by using his orgin as the ultimate stepping stone, Peter developed so well throughout the film as did the rest of the cast. He became the man he was at the end becasue of all the tragic things that happen to him throught the whole movie. This is by far the most well rounded Spidey film, hell its the most well rounded Super hero film becasue it explores romance,action,drama,and comedy. This film deserves better than this and I think saying this brings nothing new and creative to the table is a bad argument,why? Well it's a comic book movie and the movie does change to where it can still stay true to the comics like raimi did. This brought plenty of new things to the table. When I see a bad review I shouldn't have to read " didnt we see this 10 years ago?" becasue if you are giving a film a bad review talk about the acting flaws, the scripting flaws, don't question why the film was made becasue it's here and you can't do anything about it. I see plenty of reviews that say " Im getting déjà Vu" but still give it a good review because they're Judging the acting and story despite it being a reboot of a film that we saw 10 years ago.
Jul 3 - 12:56 PM
When it comes down to the wire, there's no way to prove that claim because you can be sure that if the previous trilogy didn't exist, this movie would have been immensely different.
Anyway, every negative review I've read provided counterpoints to every aspect you just listed. Every single one. Problem is that people either don't read these reviews or go in knowing that they WILL disagree with them, and that's where I take issue. Why bother read the negative reviews at all if you don't even want to hear a contrarian opinion? I'm as amped for this movie as any other Spidey fan, but I read the positive and the negative to get a better picture of the entire experience. There are valid points being made on both sides, but you wouldn't know it visiting these comment sections. The funny thing is that the positives are mostly echoing the same sentiment, in that there's an uneasy air of deja vu with this movie, and not in a good way. The fact that nobody ever mentions this, coupled with how the comment threads in all of the positive reviews are a graveyard by comparison, tell me that nobody is even interested in reading them at all, and nobody even has a clue what they're saying.
The bottom line is that this wouldn't be a talking point if the movie UNEQUIVOCALLY did all the retread elements in a more profoundly interesting manner, instead the headlines would be saying "innovative, mesmerizing new interpretation of the Spider-Man mythology", or something to that effect. This criticism is as valid as any praise that can be levied towards the film, and if you honestly can't respect that then I'm sorry, but you're letting your bias cloud your judgment. You don't have to agree, but you can at least respect the point of view.
Jul 3 - 02:02 PM
Good post. Im still interested in seeing it and i love the raimi spidermans. Well the first two anyways. I recently watched them and they definitely deviate from the comics but to make a good movie you have to know when to do that.
For example in the comics parker is kind of broody and while i commend webb for going in that direction in the movie from what i hear i also like raimi's take on parker.
Jul 3 - 09:09 PM
Why isn't Roger Ebert's review up here yet?
Jul 3 - 01:08 PM
It is. It was publised a few days ago
Jul 3 - 01:21 PM
Roger Ebert's review has been up since last week, he gave it 3.5 stars out of 4.
Jul 5 - 10:55 PM
I respect opinons of the reviewers but im sick of them being so close minded, i enjoyed the film alot, it had good action and a great grasp on the comic characters few CBM's have. But mainly apart from a few moments thos film is barely recognisable or comparable to raimis original, they feel completely different, after seeing it i truly am amazed by the amounts of reviewers who are saying the same thing which is untrue or people are going in expecting a film on the scale of spiderman 2 when this is an origin story.....its mad! And what are you reviewers doing..making a checklist ....oh spider bite...check....uncle ben dead....check....okay now i can switch off my brain the next hour and a half dosent matter. This film deserves a better class of reviewer luckily their are few respectable reviewers in the rotten list, so everyone should be happy with that :)
Jul 3 - 02:53 PM
I'm really impressed on how stupid the fanboys are. You are complaining that the critics hate the fact that it's a reboot. You wan't it to be criticized as its "own". But why the hell do you wanna see the same film again? Why do you wan't a reboot that tells the same story? Why do you wanna see a cheap version of the old movie? The only logical explanation for all this is that are Andrew Garfield fanboys, and you wan't him as spidey.
You obviously want this movie to be successful but why? Shouldn't you like the movie for it's own merits regardless of the success that it may have? The problem with you is that you bought Sony's marketing: "The untold story" "a more accurate spiderman film". You idealized the movie so in your mind this is already the best spidey film ever even if you haven't seen it. The critics are not judging the movie because the reboot it's too soon, they judge it because the story is basically the same, it's a REMAKE!
Before you start bitching learn what the word "reboot" means, and also compare to other reboot like batman begins or even the new superman movie.
1.This is a REMAKE!
2.Sony's marketing was a lie.
3.You are gonna love the movie even if it sucks.
4.You won't have the balls to admit that the original is better.
5.If the original Spiderman film wouldn't exist, this film would be even worse because it wouldn't have the inspiration it took from the original.
Jul 3 - 04:04 PM
IGNORE ANDRES. He was against this movie before it came out.
Jul 3 - 06:52 PM
Ignore Jin J. He is too enamoured with the movie from the start
Jul 3 - 09:27 PM
lol Great comeback bro! thanks for the backup afrosan.
Jul 3 - 10:13 PM
Quit posting the same message on every page. Get a life.
Jul 3 - 10:28 PM
I want it to do well because I am a fan of spider man and I want to see more films with the wall crawler! Even that however wasnt enough for me to like spiderman 3, in fact I borderline hated it. This new spiderman I really enjoyed alot and whats so wrong about that.
Besides I say the same thing about viewing the movie without the raimi comparisons if im commenting on a good or bad review. My stance dossnt change based on if they liked the movie or not, read my other comments and you would see that. Its just my opinion that they should view it as its own film.
And last, I understand that critics dont want to see the origin story again but they have to for the sake of thier jobs. The public on the other hand should know exactly what they are getting into when they buy a ticket, acting suprised by what they had seen in the movie? Your telling me you couldnt tell by ALL the clips what it would be about? Some kid on youtube put together a thirty two min video with all the footage they put out!
Jul 3 - 10:31 PM
Funny how some of you come on here because you disagree with a critic. Its there job to criticize and most of the time we dont see eye to eye with them. Fuck what they have to say. We should worry about what the normal people have to say instead of some bastards who over analyze movies too much.
Jul 3 - 11:26 PM
In my opinion this movie is too good.
Jul 4 - 06:25 AM
That isn't how a computer reboot works at all. Everything is left on the "silicon slate" until something writes over it.
Jul 4 - 11:53 AM
Reviews should be from a strict movie basis. I don't want it compared to others. It's a new movie that shows a completely different side of Spider-Man. Let's not go into a movie expecting a shot for shot remake and don't go see "Spider-Man" if you are expecting "The bridges of Madison County", if you catch my drift.
Jul 6 - 09:46 AM