This might be a fun summer blockbuster if only it even remotely needed to exist.
Yet another foolish critic basing his/her review off of another film... The first trilogy should be completely irrelevant in regards to your review.
Jul 3 - 07:40 PM
This comment has been removed.
Previous films*, sorry.
Jul 3 - 08:00 PM
I totally agree with you Ron. What's the matter with these " Top" Critic, the only terrible thing out there are the 3 previous spiderman films.
Jul 8 - 08:17 PM
Maybe if this was BETTER than Raimi's Spider-Man then maybe it would of been reviewed better. Obviously there are going to be comparisons, you should know that.
Jul 3 - 08:06 PM
If a trailer comes out for a new Batman movie to drop in 2014, would you defend its right to exist? What if they were remaking Lord of the Rings next year? At least when Edward Norton's Hulk film came out it was replacing one that was generally disliked. The Raimi Spider Man movies, at least the first two, were well-recieved and well-liked. It's a troubling precedent that a reboot with only superficial differences should be coming out only a decade later.
Jul 3 - 09:15 PM
Yet another idiot thinking that just because someone disliked the review it makes them a fanboy.
Don't make comments about understanding opinions if your just going to generalize anyone who voices theirs.
What a hypocrite.
Jul 4 - 06:30 AM
Exactly. This Carson kid is just foolish irony.
Jul 4 - 01:20 PM
Krischan: Fanboy 2 and counting
Jul 7 - 08:39 AM
Jul 4 - 08:30 AM
First come with some opinion Sir.
Jul 4 - 12:04 PM
First come with some opinion Sir.Then only think about making people fucking shut up.
Jul 4 - 12:07 PM
Dont compare spider-man with Star wars...star wars is not based on a comic book where you have 50 years of stories connected to it.
If your going to stop with the three Spider-man, all the other stories will be wasted...the Amazing spider-man is a reboot but it is not retelling the same story...
it started with the origin because it needed to...they want to put some stuff that the first trilogy didn't have like the web shooters, Gwen stacy's story, the whole high school years of peter being spider-man before going to college, etc etc...
Jul 4 - 08:03 AM
Barry IT didnt RETELL anything but the ORIGINS and Uncle Bens Death...Everthing else was different. LIZARD was never a Villian and Gwen should came before MJ. This movie and script should of been made ten years ago... I found this movie to be The BEST SPIDERMAN Movie EVER made.
Jul 4 - 08:39 AM
i couldnt agree more ron!!
Jul 4 - 09:09 AM
this is how Spider-man is done. this is thee best spidey movie to date. end of story!
Jul 4 - 09:11 AM
"This might be a fun summer blockbuster if only it even remotely needed to exist."
So it is a fun summer blockbuster but you are negative towards it because of another film? Pretty lame reviewing skills.
Jul 4 - 05:39 PM
Yep. Because of another movie made over a decade ago.
Jul 6 - 02:00 AM
If someone were to reboot Star Wars, they'd probably make a better movie than Lucas ever could.
Jul 4 - 08:30 PM
They should. I can't imagine it being worse than what it became.
Jul 5 - 01:22 PM
the new ones, not the old
Jul 6 - 05:06 PM
No, it shouldn't. By remaking a movie that was just done not too long ago, they are essentially saying, "We can do it better." That forces you to use the other films as a metric for comparison. They didn't do it better.
Jul 5 - 05:46 PM
Nonsense. This idea that it's a remake of Raimi's movie is ridiculous. It's a Spider-Man movie, period (and they're also delving much more into Ultimate Spider-Man here, which itself was a reboot). Raimi didn't invent the Spider-Man origin story. Nobody was accusing Raimi of remaking the 1960s cartoon series?
Jul 6 - 02:03 AM
Um no. They were going to make a sequel. But some how it was lost. So Sony, wanted it still to be exsisted so they remade it with a toty different spiderman reboot with sone same points. There was ramni and webb battle here.
Jul 7 - 08:40 PM
Wrong. Of course it was going to be compared to the previous films. Saying one shouldn't is like saying food critics shouldn't compare similar steakhouse restaurants.
Jul 5 - 11:29 PM
Food and movies. Dont seem the same to me.
Jul 7 - 08:42 PM
Ron S: Fanboy 1 and counting
Jul 7 - 08:41 AM
Allister whatever, and counting dumb-ass #1 and counting. I cant beleive im defending fanboys but its actuallu quite overrated how people call people fanboys. Yea, whatever. Nothing wrong to love something. He defended the movie in a right way. And people need to notice that even if they hated the movie.
Jul 7 - 08:48 PM
Many people (myself included) think the original 3 Spider-Man movies sucked. It was such a joke. Tobey Maguire was a horrible actor, Kirsten Dunst did nothing great, James Franco (despite being awesome in any other movie) was corny and laughable, etc. Peter Parker in the Raimi films wasn't anything like Peter Parker in the comics. At least in this movie, Peter makes his lame, corny joke/insults at the bad guys like he's supposed to. At least he actually shows just how genius he is by developing web-shooters (the way it was supposed to be), and Uncle Ben's death was actually sad in this one.
Jul 18 - 03:03 PM
If it's a fun summer blockbuster then it's a good film.When will people understand that when you review a reboot it should be judged as a film on it's own and not be compared to Sam Raimi's SpiderMan films.!!
Jul 3 - 07:55 PM
Why do reviewers try so hard to find something negative about this movie? So many say that if this wasn't a reboot, then it would have been a really good movie. The fact of the matter is this: the movie is really good, but being wretches that you are - you will dislike this movie just because it is a reboot.
Well said sir, its a better more well rounded film than the first SM film.
Jul 3 - 09:25 PM
I agree with this 100%
Jul 3 - 09:46 PM
Agreed!! This movie was awesome!
Jul 3 - 11:07 PM
Took the words right out of my mouth.
Jul 4 - 06:32 AM
Jul 4 - 07:40 PM
Because suddenly liking a movie makes you a fanboy?
Lots of mature name calling going on here...
Jul 5 - 10:33 AM
They don't try to dislike it. They watch it and if they feel that something doesn't feel right about it they will criticize it. They understand movies differently than you do.
Jul 4 - 06:45 AM
there's nothing hard about finding what sucks about this movie. the plot is tedious. it's painful to see what you already know. again. its like going to church to hear the same story every year.
Jul 4 - 07:50 AM
I watched the first Spider-man movie numerous times and i still love it...what's the problem of watching it again with a different cast?
I'm a big Spider-man fan and i believe that this movie needs to exist because i can't wait another 5 years to see another trilogy of my favorite hero...
Jul 4 - 08:09 AM
Ok movie- not the best by far. Any chance of Marvel introducing Black Panther (school mascot that got lots of screen time) through this franchise?
Jul 4 - 07:49 PM
I heard a rumor that they were going to tie Black Panther in with the next Avengers movie, but anything is possible.
Jul 4 - 11:06 PM
*slow clap* I tip my hat to you, sir.
Jul 4 - 08:26 AM
No effort was required. This film was god awful on multiple levels. Trying to find something good about it, however, was certainly difficult. The best I could come up with was "well, at least it was better than Green Lantern."
Jul 5 - 11:31 PM
Exactly. It's this whole -- "it's pretty great but..." Seriously, why shouldn't it exist? Who cares if they did one (a convoluted sequel) 5 years ago?
And I think this critic is the only person on earth woh wants to see Maguire and Dunst playing versions of these characters in their 30s. Even Maguire and Dunst didn't.
Jul 6 - 02:06 AM
This review doesn't need to exist. We already know it's a reboot. If you can't think of anything interesting to say, just don't review movies.
Jul 3 - 08:11 PM
Did you even took your time to read the full review???
Jul 4 - 01:13 PM
Did you even "take" your time to read your comment before posting? And it's true, most of the critics' sum-up reviews are that they don't like that it's a reboot.
Jul 5 - 04:46 PM
Exactly. Or that it's not an over-styled Raimi movie. Or that Raimi told the same story (boy gets bit by spider, loses uncle) a decade ago.
Jul 6 - 02:09 AM
Yeah, I did. Half of it is explaining that it's a reboot. The other half is explaining that it's actually a good movie, but yet rotten... because reboot!
Jul 6 - 08:35 AM
She got paid for this?
Jul 3 - 08:23 PM
Great question. This is coming from the same critic who gave Rock of Ages a fresh rating.
Jul 3 - 09:59 PM
DAMN dude, did you find a discrepancy between her views on another film and the public's? NICE
Jul 3 - 10:48 PM
A lot of people gave Rock of Ages fresh. It's not like it had a 4% and she was one of 5 to like it. Ebert and Travers both liked it. Don't be so picky.
Jul 4 - 06:47 AM
Where's your shepherd at?
Jul 5 - 04:47 PM
He can't have an opinion of his own?
Jul 16 - 10:26 PM
ITT: People get butthurt over a movie review.
Jul 5 - 02:49 PM
I understand the opinion that a reboot so soon is premature, but a critic shouldn't base their entire opinion on that. The reason that this was rebooted is due to the increasing cost of the last franchise and the fact that Sony would lose their cinematic rights to Spidey if they didn't put something out soon. I'm sorry, but I just can't fault Sony for not wanting to give up a multi-billion dollar industry due to a little criticism. This Spider-Man reboot was going to happen. It should be noted that they assembled a team with integrity to pull-off the endeavor. That's more than I can say for critics that take easy punches that are based on personal bias over actual content.
Jul 3 - 09:40 PM
So it is a good movie, but in your opinion we don't need it.... but it is a good movie? Well I say it is the best Spider-Man movie ever made, and your review does not remotely need to exist.
Jul 3 - 09:44 PM
Spider-Man 3 was a DISASTER. Thank you Sony for wiping the slate clean. These reviewers have to stop complaining just because it's a reboot. It's better than the Raimi films. Period. If this had come out first, RT score would be 95%.
Spider-man 3 was not a disaster. The only thing wrong was Venom being cast wrong with Topher Grace,and when Peter had his emo dance,and the fact that Sandman never killed uncle Ben.
Jul 4 - 09:18 PM
So poor acting, poor scripting, and poor plot? Yeah, sounds like a bunch of minor flaws to me! :P
Jul 5 - 11:05 PM
it is a remake done right
Jul 3 - 10:10 PM
also the original looks like an old episode of the Power Rangers and the acting is only okay.
Jul 3 - 10:11 PM
dave well said..the fight scenes in Amazing Spider-man were awesome. from start to finish this movie is great. director webb nailed it. And the Lizard was awesome too. and andrew garfield actually takes pride in being spider-man unlike that other guy. i saw it last night and im going to see it again in an hour. never have i been this excited to see a movie for the second time than for the Amazing Spider-man
Jul 4 - 09:17 AM
I'll admit the original trilogy looks a little dated now, but to be honest, the CGI in ASM is some of the worst I've seen in a long time. It looks really "cheap".
Jul 5 - 12:44 PM
I'm going to say my piece, and you're all going to listen because it seems to be the only unbiased stance in this thread.
Here's a fact: Marc Webb knew he was making a reboot. He knew everyone already knows the origin of Spider-Man because the first film was only a decade ago. However, because it was a reboot, he needed to revisit everything; how he got his spider powers, Uncle Ben's death, and the rise of Spider-Man.
But here's what I noticed: He didn't spend nearly as much time on those elements as he did on the new ones. A new version of Peter Parker, one that I can say for certain a 19 year old teenager only one year fresh from high school can more easily relate to; Gwen Stacy and her father and Peter's dynamics with both of them; The mystery surrounding Peter's parents and the conflict with Oscorp and Curt Connors; and of course the new villain, The Lizard.
One more thing to note is that in this movie the writing is significantly smarter, the acting is more real, and the story is more personal. Not to mention the action being flippin' fantastic. These things make it feel more like Spider-Man. You didn't hear Spidey making that many wisecracks while fighting the baddies, but in this movie they went straight for it. And in the first movies, the big action scenes were just for action, but Webb figured out how to make all of the epic fights keep you emotionally invested.
I won't go into the source material, even though it is much more accurate in this film. But basically, the reboot was not necessary, however I'm very glad it was made and I'm eagerly anticipating the sequel that's already underway.
Jul 3 - 10:22 PM
Tyler M, you said exactly what was on my mind in a much more eloquent way than I could have hoped. Since when do movies even need a reason for existing? Summer blockbusters especially are made for entertainment and in that regard this movie delivers.
Jul 3 - 10:40 PM
@Andres M You're an idiot or something? I think it's pretty much obvious that if they don't like "original" movies and like this one then this one is better for them. And for almost every Spider-man fan I know...
Jul 4 - 12:23 AM
Barely different? Other than the re-introduction (which was necessary since it is a reboot, duh!), I can't see how similar the original is compared to the new reboot. As a matter of fact, I re-watched the original and compared to the new film and saw plenty of noticeable differences. Your level of stubbornness and stupidity is extraordinary.
Jul 4 - 12:30 AM
Andres is a troll. Why give him attention?
Jul 4 - 08:50 AM
Yout lost me when you said I has to listen.
Jul 4 - 10:19 AM
Very well said. I couldn't agree more. The only other thing I would have said is that the music was also markedly better. Spidey's theme was good and recognizable in the old ones, but It was used for anything that was happening and didn't always fit the mood of the scene. The music in the new one is so dynamic and beautiful, it really helps to emphasize the great performances in this movie.
Jul 4 - 11:51 AM
Really? I happen to have hated the score on this new movie. It was the movies major flaw.
Jul 5 - 01:27 AM
I agree with you almost completely. My one disagreement is that the reboot was "not necessary" I mean, who decides that? I LOVE Spider-man, and if they want to make more Spidey films ten years from now, I'll be all for it. It's just like with Batman. I know this one ends the trilogy, but if they want to make more movies after that, I'd be all for it. It's about the character, not the fact that there is a movie. For me, anyone complaining that a Spider-man movie is being made just needs to shut the hell up.
Jul 5 - 01:26 AM
I agree with Andres ( thank god theres a sane person here). This movie was a mediocre remake. Every thing in the movie was predictable even the stuff after Uncle Ben died. Lizard was a cheesy villan who was nowhere near as iconic as Willem Dafoes portrayal of the Green Goblin or Alfred Molina as Doc Op for that matter. Sam Raimi told this story before with style, humor, and class. If you just look at Sam Raimi's list of movies you'll know how masterful and ballsy a director he is. What has Marc Webb done? 500 Days of Summer (another bad movie) and a bunch of music videos. I think many of you watched this movie with blinders on and obviously would have liked it no matter how bad it was. I feel like this movie was a waste of time.
Jul 4 - 12:55 AM
BUT IT'S SPIDER-MAN ! It just can't be bad.....
Jul 4 - 08:32 AM
Dude, calm the hell down. Your reaction is exactly the stereotype that gives the phrase "Fanboys" a bad name. It's just his opinion, accept it; not going around bashing people who didn't like the movie on comment threads on an internet website. And by the way, it wasn't "five years" in the original after Uncle Ben died. They just cut forward a few months later when Peter graduated high school.
Jul 4 - 10:22 AM
Dude, you need some Prozac. And therapy. Lots and lots of therapy.
Jul 4 - 11:38 PM
You need some Prozac. And therapy. Lots and lots of therapy.
Jul 4 - 11:49 PM
This film was not mediocre at all, it was a great emotional action drama film. It's not mediocre, just because of its score on here doesn't mean it's mediocre.
Jul 4 - 09:16 AM
Isn't it funny how we always bring actual facts to the table and the only thing the fanbous respond is "fuck you, get out this movie is awesome" LOL It's clear that we are right and they get pissed about it. We are probably the only smart people here.
Jul 4 - 01:32 PM
Facts? Grow up kid.
Jul 5 - 01:28 AM
500 days of Summer was bad? You're a joke.
Jul 5 - 01:29 AM
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.Accuracy to the source material doesn't make good movies.
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. "
Yeah...your points are faulty but all I really need to do to show how seriously we SHOULDN'T take you is to point out that you haven't even learned to count yet. It actually goes 1,2,3,4,5,6 not 1,2,3,4,5,5.
And the comics were the inspiration for Amazing Spider-Man, not Raimi's cheesy first trilogy.
Jul 4 - 11:04 AM
Exactly! I agree.
I don't understand wanting to hate anything before seeing it.
The film does hit a lot of the same notes, but in a fresh way. One that's more reverent to the history of Spider-Man and opens up the story to many new options once painted-out by Raimi's fine trilogy.
Sony is wise not to have given up a multi-billion dollar industry just because of some naysayers. This turned out to be a fine film in its own right.
Jul 4 - 02:54 PM
What is with calling people who liked the movie a FANBOY? It's the lamest, overused "insult" on rotten tomatoes.
Just shut up with your long tirade that nobody would read or care about.
Jul 4 - 07:44 PM
I'd like to point out that I don't think it's the best Spider-man ever. I still think Spider-man 2 is the best one. It was, however, better than part 1 and 2. Also, it was nowhere near the same movie. I'm sorry, but anyone that thinks so to me was just already not wanting to like it. Part 2 with this cast will more than likely be better than Spider-man 2. Come on, Garfield is everything Tobey wasn't.
Jul 5 - 01:23 AM
This movie its closer to the comicbook, how lame to think the real spiderman its the film and not the comic, thats retarded.
Jul 6 - 12:58 PM
In my opinion this movie is too good.
Jul 3 - 10:14 PM
What does that mean?
Jul 4 - 12:58 AM
Jin. I'm glad you enjoyed your remake sooooo much fanboy nerd.
Jesus Jin you are really embarrassing yourself on these posts.
Jul 4 - 10:00 PM
It didn't need to exist, but I'm glad it did.
Considering Sam Raimi ruined the story with small details, such as "organic web," which in fact didn't exist. Also, Gwen Stacy is the original love interest of Peter Parker. Finally, somebody brings up the almost-untold story of Peter's parents. This background story comes up in the comics and was nice to see in this motion picture. Now they can finally follow the comics by redoing the originally story as it should be told.
Jul 3 - 10:39 PM
No he doesn't...In ultimate universe he made web shooters...
Jul 4 - 12:24 AM
Ummm, he did make web-shooters in the ultimate universe. And also in the ultimate universe Gwen knew he was Spider-Man...
Jul 4 - 04:23 AM
Haha shows how much you know.
The people in these comments are hilarious.
Jul 4 - 06:35 AM
Better luck next time Andres! Thanks for the back up guys. It's nice to see that some people actually know their stuff.
Jul 4 - 06:50 AM
Hey, fanboy. Was it accuracy that you wanted from this movie? Okay, let's talk accuracy.
The only thing straight from the comic book origin are the web shooters. Here's everything else NOT from the comic book:
Uncle Ben being shot by a grocery store thief.
Peter Parker going after every thug that looks like the thief.
Peter Parker giving Dr. Connors his father's secret formula. Hell no!
Peter Parker responsible for creating The Lizard. LOL!
The suggestion that Connor's serum will also create The Green Goblin. NO!
Aunt May, Gwen Stacy, Captain Stacy, Dr. Connors all know PP IS Spider-Man in a short amount of time??? At this rate, the whole world will know Peter Parker' secret identity!!!! And don't forget the countless times he removed his mask so the whole world can see his face! Of course no one in this day and age carries a smartphone with a camera!
Jul 4 - 06:58 AM
Actually douchebag, if you haven't figured it out, this seems to be following the "Ultimate Spider-Man" story. Uncle Ben is killed by a car-jacker that Peter didn't apprehend previous to the killing of Ben. They made notice of this when Peter was hiding in the back of the car when the identical man was in the midst of a carjacking. HE knew to watch out for the guy in a carjacking situation.
IT also hasn't been completely suggested that it is the Goblin. Only time will tell on that...assumptions won't help your case. But looking at the research in this movie, it shows that his serum could stem into what caused the Goblin, based on the fact that it shows major strength increase. This exact serum doesn't have to be the cause, but it could be the root of the Goblin serum.
In Ultimate Spider-Man, Gwen does know, again you're assuming that May knows...and in the comics she's always been suspicious. Dr Connors also does know.
As for removing his mask, he did it during the action scenes. Nobody is stopping to get their phone out, turn on their camera app and hopefully get a picture, everyone is running for their lives.
Jul 4 - 07:21 AM
I see that you like to cherry pick your facts from throughout the Spider-Man mythos and use them to support your hollow arguments. Sorry bud, logic doesn't work that way. While it's true that this plot is primarily inspired by the Ultimate comics(from the directors own mouth), the story still took considerable liberties on that particular material. If you want to get technical, Ultimate Gwen never dated Peter until long after MJ, and even then it was for a very short time. He even tells MJ himself that she's more like a little sister. She also never worked at Oscorp, didn't know Connors, got killed by carnage before they started dating, was definitely not a science whiz, along with a myriad of other differences. Go ahead and bring up the Ditko/Romita version, and I'll be happy to shoot that down as well.
This tired argument about comic book accuracy needs to be put to rest, it has absolutely no bearing on which movie can be considered "better". It's like arguing over whether the Walmart or Costco brand cola tastes more coke; who really gives a damn? This movie changes as much, if not more, than the Raimi series, and that's whether you go off of the Ultimate books or Amazing, look at the damn costume for crying out loud. Regardless, it doesn't matter. It's time we start judging these movies as films instead of comic book carbon copies.
Jul 5 - 05:45 PM
I'm pretty sure Dr. Connors knew who Parker was in the comics; the originals, even.
Jul 4 - 12:35 PM
Since I can't reply to Andres' response directly for some reason, I'll do it here:
I find this movie superior for much larger reasons than it being "barely different". Mainly, the fact that the lead actor feels like a much more diverse performer as opposed to Maguire's one note song. Maguire made a pretty good Peter Parker, but he was a terrible Spider-man, he lacked the humor and fun attitude that Spidey employs when fighting crime. The only humor I found in the first Spider-man film was when Peter Parker was trying to web swing the first time, the rest was dreadfully serious and depressing.
Also, you are using the same logic that you insult us for: You liked the first films better, so you say this one sucks. I enjoyed the first trilogy (with exception to 3's horrible Jazz scene) but I feel that the Amazing Spider-man is a much better depiction of the source material and is a better film for it.
Jul 3 - 10:57 PM
I think the humor in this movie is not spidey either, the knife joke is cool. but the rest is peter being a jerk. He was sarcastic and funny but never a "bully"
i didn't use the same "logic" i don't hate this films and i don't think it sucks. but if i had to choose i would go with the original. for me there is things from the comics like the web-shooters that i just found unrealistic.
Jul 4 - 01:26 PM
are you a fucking idiot!?!? I'm serious right now. You found things from the comics "unrealistic". THIS WHOLE STORY LINE IS UNREALISTIC. You should look up "fiction" in a dictionary......hypocrite.
Jul 5 - 01:00 PM
Who cares what she says. It doesnt make it right because she feels that way. I feel even if the perfect movie is made there will be one critic to disagree with it. A critics opinion will never change the way i feel about movies that i find personally good.
Jul 3 - 11:33 PM
What a dumb review. Basing a review on other films before it? The movie good - deal with, and Andrew Garfiled takes one giant dump on Tobey's version of Parker. No contest and it starts there.
Jul 4 - 12:03 AM
why was star trek not so massively pelted by critics for having a reboot? they made a star trek every year almost. the critics loved it too. yet this movie gets remade, the right way i might add. and all the critics roll their eyes? 71% fresh because of people like dana stevens who cant open her mind. she has no business being a critic with a review like that.
Jul 4 - 12:04 AM
The difference is Star Trek was GOOD.
Jul 4 - 06:46 AM
Jul 26 - 09:29 PM
Star trek is an extremely poor example to use. ST is rooted in tv and not so much in movies. Second of all the story is unique in star trek lore. Third they are going back to the roots which is from the 60's. Spiderman and other comic book origin movies if redone will always have the problem of having certain elements that need to be told
I swore I would not compare it to the original and I will not. THIS was just a great movie. I loved the additions to the story that gave it more depth. I was not a fan of the Lizard as villain alone, but I can deal with that. I did not buy Andrew Garfield as Spider-Man simply because he is so puny, but again, I can get past that. What I cannot get past is why this is such a good movie to critics who will give it a rotten review on the basis of it being a reboot. Someone mentioned Star Trek, a valid point. Um, Batman Begins came out only 8 years after the last Batman movie, and there was no uproar. Superman is coming out in a year, less than 6 after the last one, and again, no uproar. This movie is hated, i think, because so many people want Sony to revert control of the Spider-Man character back to Marvel, and that will and can not happen as long as he is being used in movie properties for Sony.
Jul 4 - 01:24 AM
do you even read Spider-man? the new guy was almost spot on toby was the worst thing that could happen to spiderman now everyone thinks his trash acting was what parker should be. ugh just thinking people believe that makes me sick
Jul 4 - 01:33 AM
"I did not buy Andrew Garfield as Spider-Man simply because he is so puny"
Haha really? Then I guess they called him all the time "Puny Parker" in the comics without a reason :P
Jul 4 - 02:43 AM
Tobney MacGuire was a terrible Spider-Man! Holy Crap, you people...Spider_man was always kinda small, HE WAS A NERDY KID! Jesus, How about this "Amazing SPider-Man 2, played by the Incredible Hulk?
Jul 11 - 07:57 AM
The Amazing Spider Man is lame as hell.
Jul 4 - 01:55 AM
Jul 4 - 10:28 AM
if only this criticism needed to exist, oops the irony
Jul 4 - 02:35 AM