The Amazing Spider-Man Reviews
The story is above average, with a powerful mix of guilt and redemption, with fun action sequences mixed in. The chemistry between the two leads is nothing special, but it's not bad either; a bit more than passable. It's a fun ride all the way through; although the last line of the movie really ruining the heroism of the last 5 or 10 minutes to set up a needless sequel. That aside a good move. B/B+
Which brings us to what we have here: while not a beat for beat remake, you get the same story more or less with a different love interest and villain. Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) sneaks into a research facility and gets bitten by a radioactive/genetically enhanced spider. He gets super powers and becomes Spider-Man. Meanwhile, a doctor (Rhys Ifans) working at the same facility, is being forced to close down his research into tissue regeneration. In desperation, he injects himself with an untested self-generating lizard vaccine and becomes... a half man/half lizard thing. Spider-Man is then forced into action to stop him from spreading this contagion throughout the city of New York. Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) is the damsel in distress/love interest and plays a role in trying to stop the crazed beast.
First things first: this is not a bad film. It's well acted by all the principals, has good effects, a scary and menacing villain, some nice action sequences and web swinging effects that are generally slightly more realistic than the Rami version. Parker is more evidently scientific and intelligent here. Also the police's notion that Spider-Man is a menace to the public is more clearly defined, especially in the scene where he disarms an officer. The new idea is that Parker can hear the movements of spiders and it's a good addition. So where does it all go wrong? The short answer: it's just that it's so... pointless.
We had already seen the story before. There was absolutely no reason to tell it again. This movie could easily have been Spider-Man 4 with Andrew Garfield filling in the Spidey spandex instead of Tobey Maguire. But Marvel - in their infinite wisdom - just chose to tell the same story a second time. Going by that rationale, presumably Andrew Garfield will be cast aside like a disused sock when they inevitably choose to 'reboot' the franchise again in ten years or so. It is a scarily unimaginative tactic and it is one they will continue to do until there is a massive financial failure.
This movie follows the same set up as the 2002 version: Parker being picked on, getting advice from his sage-like uncle (Martin Sheen), being bitten, getting his powers/climbing walls, and turning his back on a situation which unfortunately has tragic consequences for a family member. It's all a case of been there, done that. If you want to compare it to the Rami original, then the short answer is; as good as Andrew Garfield is, Tobey Maguire was better. Maguire filled the suit better; on occasion, Garfield is prone to looking thin and scrawny during several scenes. Even the suit looked better in the Rami movies. And those earlier movies had a heart and sincerity - especially in the relationship between Peter and his aunt and uncle that you don't see here. Again we ask: why does this movie exist?
And there are holes: there's a massive lizard running around, wreaking havoc; yet the police are more preoccupied with pointing their guns at Spider-Man - despite the fact that he saved a child in a (surprise, surprise) rehashed scene set on a bridge taken from Rami's first movie. In another part, the citizens of the city (once again - in a bit taken from Rami's movie) unite to help Spider-Man cross the city using tower cranes - despite the fact that there are buildings all around him. Heck, even the villain is initially a do-gooder like Norman Osborn and Dr. Octavius - again from the Rami movies.
It also seems to pull inspiration from another super hero movie: Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins (2005) in that it's slightly darker, tells such a large origin story that just like Batman Begins, Spider-Man doesn't actually show up on screen for the first hour. So if you take two parts Batman Begins and add a touch of Rami's Spider-Man, the result is what you have here. Additionally, the introduction of the web shooters, while being faithful to the original comics and emphasizing Parker's intellect, is a bit of a mixed blessing. The notion of the web being an organic material rather than being fired from mechanical devices actually made more sense.
It's not that reboots are a bad idea, they're not. In certain situations they can work well, provided for example, enough time has elapsed. But there is no point in retelling the same story if the initial release is still relatively recent. In addition, it helps if the story wasn't covered well the first time, or it was a bad movie to begin with. Going by this criteria, Marvel's latest cash cow is unnecessary on all three accounts.
In closing, if you haven't already seen the Rami movie from 2002, go watch it instead. If you have seen it, then this probably won't live up to it and you will be left feeling a little underwhelmed. It's fair to say that for anyone over the age of eighteen, this movie will seem rather half-hearted and senseless; for those under eighteen, this movie will probably be the greatest super hero flick ever. Yes, it's a movie that will divide opinions, primarily on the sole reason for its existence. Not a bad, or a badly made flick, by any means... just a pointless one.
After the last film, I was hard pressed to think that this one could be worse. Well, sure enough it is.
Warning, spoilers ahead.
The reasons that this film isn't good are simple: Most of the action scenes, take place at night- and are visually uninteresting as the CGI and night sky don't make good bedfellows. There is one action scene at day in which you can actually see what's going on, and its in a high school that clearly isn't anywhere within a three mile radius of New York.
We all understand how they shoot interiors in Culver City.. But the last spiderman films seamlessly blended shoots from Chicago, New York, Los Angeles without the audience ever noticing. This film does not, in fact the only attempt to make the high school look like New York is a lame sign.
This film's story has been done before, you've seen it before and with the exception of the Osbournes and the color of the love interests hair, there is not much new to this story.
Dennis Leary is great, as is Martin Sheen but they're both killed off. Martin Sheen is killed off in the beginning of this boring movie, making it more painful as he was one of the only reliefs.
Aunt May is written so poorly, that she has nothing to do in this movie. She sits at home and watches TV and screams at Peter when she sees him. Not exactly a challenging role for the great Sally Field.
There was little care that went into the quality of this film, and the attempts at making it dark are just flat out Corny such as the cannibal rat, which is pure comedy and comes out of nowhere to 'shock' the audience.
There seems to be no conflict between Peter and his girlfriend at the end of the story, which one would logically want to assume that she holds out some contempt for spiderman as Harry did in the original spiderman after Spiderman played a hand in his death. Spiderman did play a hand in the Captain's death, yet the daughter doesn't seem to mind that Peter was there when he was murdered.
This film had great visual effects, obscured by the night time setting and slow down camera techniques. Other than that, it's a music video and it pulls NO surprises. You have already seen this film if you've seen the extended trailer, or the 2002 Green Goblin movie.
The chemistry between the two leads is lame, with Andrew Garfield who is wonderful in other films and stage productions giving a few moments of over-acting that take away Peter's humanity and spell the word HAM with it. Also, they appear to be improvising in some of their scenes, the result is two young, MEGA-RICH people trying to imagine what blue- collared kids from Queen's social customs would be like, and let me tell you they FAIL in a telling and Inauthentic way.
Webb is basically the wrong guy for the job, he really lacks the strength to sell the story all over again. he was probably the right guy to continue the series with a new crew and continue the series where spider man 3 left off. the action scenes are well handled but retreading the first film really left this film struggling.
the cast are quite excellent and well chosen especially martin sheen who gets the short end of the stick. Garfield isn't geeky enough to work as Peter Parker but he does suit the spider man part. he gives the role a lot and is well supported by Stone.
the story is a little all over the place and really won't unfold until the next addition. what I dislike is the need to leave important plot points out just to include in the next film. I can understand a tease at the very end but a whole tease of a film annoys me. what happened to the old fashion create a great film and move on from there.
a good night in but definitely not the classic like the previous 3 films, the sequel which is envitable has its work cut out because the spider man 2 is close to being the best sequel ever made.
I caught this film again and have reduced to 3 due to problems with the film. Stupid Peter Parker dunking scene and skateboarding around, this just feels forced. Wouldn't people ask questions and attempt to recruit him to the basketball team? The Spiderman scenes are great and this where the film shines, great work but not that only makes a half good film. This origin story rehash is dumb and shows that rebooting is not a great tool, feels like recycling when the garbage men throw items in the same trash as normal trash. Not a great Spiderman film and very much closer to the Spiderman 3 film in regards to overall quality. 22-10-2017.
Overall a very enjoyable movie, with a new insight on the character and a really good realization, but it's far from what it could have been.