Tell us what you thought of 'The Amazing Spider-Man'
The web slinger reboot hits theaters this holiday
"The Amazing Spider-Man"
Credit: Columbia Pictures
Are you a fan of In Contention?
Sign up to get the latest updates instantly.
The reactions to "The Amazing Spider-Man" have been kind of schizophrenic. I haven't seen it, mind you. A) Wasn't invited. B) Probably wouldn't have been able to drum up the interest if I had been. Surely these decisions, what gets made, what doesn't, they have to mean more than money. Right? Right? I guess the wheel keeps on turning, but the holiday just doesn't feel all that exciting to me at the multiplex. Anyway, I'll save all of that until after I finally DO see it (whenever that might be). For now, though, I imagine many of you have seen it or will, so offer up your thoughts in the comments section below if/when you do.
Kristopher Tapley has covered the film awards landscape for over a decade. He founded In Contention in 2005. His work has also appeared in The New York Times, The Times of London and Variety. He begs you not to take any of this too seriously.
Related Events
-
movies
Trending Now on HitFix Boards
| Topic | Started By | Latest Post | Replies |
|---|---|---|---|
| DarylRichardson |
3 months ago
|
1
|
|
| gregel |
7 months ago
|
9
|
|
| Discuss Oscars on HitFix Message Boards » | |||
2012-2013 OSCAR PREDICTIONS
UPDATED: FEB 25, 2013
Best Picture
Best Director
Best Actor
Best Actress
Best Supporting Actor
Best Supporting Actress
Best Adapted Screenplay
Best Original Screenplay
Best Cinematography
Best Costume Design
Best Film Editing
Best Makeup And Hairstyling
Best Original Score
Best Original Song
Best Production Design
Best Sound Editing
Best Sound Mixing
Best Visual Effects
Best Animated Feature Film
Best Documentary Feature
Best Foreign Language Film
Latest Posts
-
Matthias Schoenaerts the ensemble standout in overlong period thrillerFriday, May 24, 2013
-
This one looks poised for an awards runThursday, May 23, 2013
-
Amusing moments outweighed by sour notes in minor-key family dramaThursday, May 23, 2013
-
Patricia Highsmith adaptation marks the director's return to the big screenWednesday, May 22, 2013
Comments
Option 1
Comment instantly as a guest GuestOption 2
Option 3
Login or create a HitFix account Login SignupRoy
July 3, 2012 at 8:58PM EST Reply to CommentReally didn't care for this at all. Plot threads go absolutely nowhere, the villain's goals make no sense, there is no sense of story propulsion and it's depressingly joyless. The actors were excellent, but I just did not find this remotely engaging. This was akin to watching a Resident Evil or Underworld movie, in that pretty things are happening on the screen but I'm just not connecting to any of it in any way.
Biggest letdown of the summer, for me, so far.
soulsociety
July 3, 2012 at 9:45PM EST Reply to CommentTo whoever thinks that this version of the spiderman origin is some what 'wrong or too unfocused on the way everything plays out' I would just like to say, have even watched the movie and if you have, have you even red any of the Spiderman comics because from the comment I have seen so far it seems that half of you are just basing you "reviews" on the previous Spiderman trilogy. So I beg you pliz shut the Fuck up if you don't know what you are talking about.
Adam You spelled "read" wrong
July 3, 2012 at 11:55PM ESTChris138
July 3, 2012 at 10:04PM EST Reply to CommentI liked it a lot. There are definitely some familiar elements that reminded me of Raimi's first movie from 10 years ago (God, how time flies) but I thought it was pretty well done.
FUZZ
July 3, 2012 at 10:29PM EST Reply to CommentI loved the slightly darker tone for this reboot. I felt that the chemistry between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone was electric and really made the film. I was also particularly impressed by the visual effects. Enjoyed that it was full of heart. B+
thatguy
July 3, 2012 at 10:44PM EST Reply to CommentI'd give it a B-
A mixed bag of a film, really. The acting is good, and the dialogue (well, most of it) is more grounded/realistic than the Raimi trilogy, but everything else is a mess. From a weak villian (AGAIN a sympathetic corporate scientist who experiments on himself, goes crazy, and starts having conversations with himself) with murky motivations, to the death of his uncle feeling oddly disconnected (not to mention the responsibility lesson being glossed over), to the romantic subplot being rushed.
Peter and Gwen go from having just met to acting like they're in love in the span of a couple days. However, both Garfield and Stone are terrific so those individual scenes end up being the best parts of the film. Leary is also in top form as Gwen's father and has some poignant moments near the end.
The effects are fine but the action isn't anything we havn't already seen in the previous movies. The movie is both too long (Peter's search for his uncle's killer is way too drawn out, and then it's dropped just like that for no reason). Speaking of, several major plot points are brought up and then dropped, including the much bally-hooed subplot about Peter's parents which is never resolved.
Anyways, intermittently entertaining due to Garfield and Stone, but overall a disappointment.
thatguy *both too long and too short
July 3, 2012 at 10:45PM ESTeric I feel like you wrote my review for me. Well said.
July 10, 2012 at 12:04PM ESTKyle Fuller
July 4, 2012 at 1:49AM EST Reply to CommentI am not a fan of the original trilogy at all. I felt like Raimi remade the same film three times, and didn't find any of the incarnations all that interesting (narratively, emotionally, aesthetically). I'm not well versed in comic lore either, so I feel like I come to most of these comic adaptation films with a slightly less clouded set of expectations. That being said, I thought this film was joyous. It feels alive, like a breathing, living entity, unlike so many other films of this genre. Garfield, Stone, Ifans and Leary were all excellent (even if slightly underwritten....), the effects were spectacular and well staged (there wasn't a single moment of CGI that I felt wasn't coherently executed and awe inspiring)...but what really made this film for me is a sense of excitement that is palpable. There is something larger than life and messy and lovely and wonderful that is communicated through the performances, the visuals, and I felt, most importantly, Horner's absolutely RAPTUROUS score. There are hints of his other scores (always a problem with Horner), but there are cues in this film that I want to wrap myself within and just surrender to. Overall, the most fun I've had at the movies this summer, although I acknowledge that there is too much set up for a sequel here that could definitely leave some viewers feeling dissatisfied.
Kyle Fuller I think what I'm trying to say here, rather uneloquently, is that there is a humanity to this film that I really connected with.
July 4, 2012 at 1:53AM ESTJJ1 Well, I know it's probably blasphemous, but I did not enjoy any of Raimi's Spider-Mans, either. I never cared for Maguire or Dunst. And the execution never lifted me out of my seat. I probably liked the 1st film best. But, yeah. Shrug-worthy. And I've had to hear for over a decade how amazing the first 2 were.
July 4, 2012 at 9:02AM ESTNow, THIS version comes along with an interesting new writer/director, 2 leads whom I love, an interesting supporting cast, and some updated special effects. To say that I am excited to see this new version is an understatement. I hope to see it within the next couple of days; when my work schedule allows.
July 4, 2012 at 5:11AM EST Reply to CommentIt was phenomenal. Best film I've seen in years. I thought it was as good as if not better than the avengers
Jonnybon That second part is not saying much.
July 4, 2012 at 6:06AM ESTJohn You really don't watch a lot of movies, do you?
July 5, 2012 at 7:59AM ESTNathan_drake No just stop. Don't even try comparing it to the Avengers. That movie is nowhere near where the Avengers is and it never will be.
July 7, 2012 at 1:53PM ESTJonnybon I've not seen Spidey yet, but from what I've read, I can imagine enjoying it more than The Avengers.
July 7, 2012 at 2:58PM ESTTaj
July 4, 2012 at 6:34AM EST Reply to CommentToo much non-excitement to be a Spiderman movie. It's like they were focusing on the love of Peter and Gwen more than Spiderman himself, and those cuddling/talking scenes were way too long. It was "alright" I'd give it a 7/10. The best scenes was with the lizard, he should've had more screen time (with the screen some Peter/ Gwen screen time cut short). I found the other 3 Spiderman movies to be better because they kept me excited all the way through, this one bored me halfway through...
Cheflen
July 4, 2012 at 9:54AM EST Reply to CommentToo long! Didn't like acting, special effects were best part.
Duncan Houst
July 4, 2012 at 10:07AM EST Reply to CommentIt was something of a mess, with an overtly sympathetic stream going through it and a score that annoyed and distracted more than it inspired. Andrew Garfield is pretty spot on in figuring out the flaws and endearing qualities in this Peter Parker, and you only wish the film was as cohesive as his performance. Emma Stone is lovely as ever, but the character is kept too strictly on the sidelines to have enough real purpose beyond love interest, be it a very sweet romance. I admired the way they made New York City look, because it feels so much more like a sprawling and occasionally grungy city than in Sam Raimi's "Spider-Man". I think what I expected, and absolutely wanted from it, was a film akin to the 90's animated series, with all the requisite edge and powerful emotional smackings. This film played things too safe for its own ambition.
thatguy It was nowhere near different enough from the original trilogy to justify its existence. Even the tone wasn't far off. People act like Raimi's films were devoid of character development and an honest romance...go back and read the reviews, that was exactly why critics loved it then.
July 4, 2012 at 11:11AM ESTAnyways, what I'm getting at here is, besides a few cosmetic changes here and there, it's almost the exact same movie as the '02 incarnation.
Duncan Houst That really exists as insult to both films. The '02 film rendered a much more significant villain and performance in Willem Dafoe, the action played better, and for all its corniness, it knew what it was.
July 4, 2012 at 1:46PM EST"The Amazing Spider-Man" doesn't quite know what it wants to be, but it has some much better aspects than Raimi's film. Andrew Garfield is a much more honest interpretation of the character in the comics. Emma Stone has much more charisma than Kirsten Dunst. But it doesn't handle the plot aspects of him becoming Spider-Man as well. To say they're the same film is to insult the individual merits of both films.
JJ1 I mostly agree with what Duncan said ^ :
July 4, 2012 at 2:42PM EST"... it has some much better aspects than Raimi's film. Andrew Garfield is a much more honest interpretation of the character in the comics. Emma Stone has much more charisma than Kirsten Dunst. But it doesn't handle the plot aspects of him becoming Spider-Man as well. To say they're the same film is to insult the individual merits of both films".
thatguy When I say they're the same, I'm talking about the overall plot as well as the villian's arc/motivations. And it's not an insult to the original because the original did it all first. By not forging its own path stylistically and as far as plot mechanics, Amazing is lacking in creativity.
July 4, 2012 at 4:16PM ESTI do agree that Raimi's film does things better in many areas. The only area that I thought ASM did better were the performances (except for Ifans, but that wasn't his fault.
Dean
July 4, 2012 at 11:49AM EST Reply to CommentA-fucking-mazing ! Made up for all 3 of the toby-dunce bastardisations
Dean
July 4, 2012 at 11:52AM EST Reply to CommentClassic spidey type plot with a twist or three this was easily better than all three of that Other spiderman series...
KATIE
July 4, 2012 at 1:49PM EST Reply to CommentI loved it! It was amazing! It had drama, action, romance, comedy... it really had something for everyone. The Amazing Spider-Man is probably the best movie I have seen in a long, long time!
JJ1
July 4, 2012 at 2:26PM EST Reply to CommentSome of the comments here sound like either slams by those who love the earlier trilogy OR over-the-top praise to combat the haters.
My opinion of the movie: Very good. I enjoyed it. The best aspects are Garfield, Stone, the choreography (yes!, no shaky cam or horrifically blurred CGI), the effects, and the humanity of it all.
The plot(s): ehh, could have been better. Could have been far worse. My biggest gripe -- how did the doctor/lizard get his equipment into the sewers? I mean, really?
But otherwise, I really did enjoy this. It felt like a Summer movie. The action (a little less than expected) was very well-handled. There's humor. The crowd was into it. Not "amazing", but very good, indeed.
BigTallDrew
July 4, 2012 at 5:54PM EST Reply to CommentThe new and rebooted "Amazing Spider-man" is both highly entertaining and really unfortunate.
First and foremost, it's better made. I think John Schwartzman's cinematography is really smart and flashy especially in the cityscape at night. The rush of colors and sheen feel crisp and alive.
As does the acting. Maguire and Dunst, ten years removed, feel so stodgy and dare I say, old. The dialogue so stilted; so overly heightened. Stone and Garfield are incredibly good at mining the touches of first love and youthful angst yet don't let them get lost in the grander, flashier, pieces of the film.
Their scenes are the best part. Garfield's awkwardness and isolation feels authentic and Emma's Gwen Stacy is subtler than some of her other characters but she's so incandescent that she still steals your heart.
I thought James Horner's score to be really incessant and too ever-present. Choice silence can be so moving if used correctly and they don't care a smidgen about using any of it.
As much as I liked almost every element of the film better than Raimi's first foray, there isn't enough differences to warrant being considered all that special. I kept thinking....okay there's that box checked. There wasn't enough big new elements or story overhauls to warrant a reboot. That being said if they stick to this vein, I'm excited to see what they can come up with.
JJ1 This was extremely well-put. Very fair. I agree with almost everything. It could have been better, yes. But I was highly entertained. And I think this film trumps at least 2 of the 3 Raimi films in several key areas.
July 4, 2012 at 7:51PM ESTBigTallDrew Thanks. I just kept thinking I wish this would be the very first film....then we could finally purge the third film from our brains. Spiderman 2 is still a great piece of pop craftsmanship, but this new venture is better than the other 2 for me.
July 4, 2012 at 11:59PM ESTRichardZ
July 4, 2012 at 8:24PM EST Reply to CommentThis reboot is very good, but I really missed the joy and wonder gee-whiz discovery phase as done by Tobey Maguire. That's not to say that Andrew Garfield wasn't excellent. He was broody and angsty--a truly modern teenage mood that was served the conflicts with his parents/family well. As a whole this isn't as good as the Raimi's version.
Dear Emma Stone: This is your second hairstyle disaster. Get some help. Sincerely, Fans.
Nothing like seeing C. Thomas Howell to make me feel really old.
Matthew Starr
July 4, 2012 at 10:24PM EST Reply to CommentPretty boring overall. Garfield tried his best though.
benjamin
July 5, 2012 at 1:24AM EST Reply to CommentIt blew me away, I went in expecting a standard romp and instead found myself cheering for the leads more than any similar superhero film. The chemistry between the leads is so much more electric than anything maguire and dunst ever managed, and it raises the film to a different level, despite the lazier plot elements.
Cde.
July 5, 2012 at 1:39AM EST Reply to CommentIt's alright.
It's basically just another damn Spider-Man film. Not different enough to justify its existence.
JJ1 The idea of it's existence may not be justified. But we got another damn Spidey anyway (haha). But for what we got, I thought it was above average; thanks mostly to the actors & Webb.
July 5, 2012 at 8:47AM ESTKyle Pinion
July 5, 2012 at 9:27AM EST Reply to CommentAfter watching this yesterday, and realizing how "paint by numbers" the whole plot was, it made me that much more excited for next Nolan film. While I'm perfectly happy with pop-corn entertainment, does it have to follow the exact same pattern we've seen 100 times now in regard to this genre? Had this film come out in 2002, I'd say...awesome! Can't wait to see the next one, but today? I can barely remember what happened...short of its most predictable elements. We're in a post-Dark Knight and Avengers world, time to do better.
Nice to see a funny Spider-man at least.
Yohan
July 5, 2012 at 11:30AM EST Reply to CommentAndrew Garfield is miles better than Tobey. His awkwardness with the environment is much more believable than Tobey's geekiness
Emma Stone tried her best, but her character wasn't really well written aside from one or two moments when she was with Garfield. Her wardrobe especially at Oscorp just didn't work in my opinion
Martin Sheen was good, but his character wasn't as well written as the first of Raimi's Spidey. I especially miss the 'with great power. ..'speech
Sally Field' aunt May was there to be there when Peter comes home and did practically nothing much.
Dennis Leary was good and I like his delivery on him not being the mayor of Tokyo. Of all the supporting characters, I think his was the most satisfuong to watch.
Overall the movie is good, not great but certainly not horrible (battleship is a lot worse than TAS). The fx is great, and we get to see ahow spidey should look if he does exist.
Rhys Ifans wasn't bad, but his part wasn't really well written and his looks is not the Lizard. He reminded me of Killer Croc with a tail.
Stan Lee's cameo is the best out of all of his cameos.
The downside is the fact that the story is too strectched. It could have been edited and the pacing would have been a lot better. The origin story and how he came up with the suit were done better by Raimi the first time around.
It works and it can pave the way for the sequel.
Tye-Grr
July 5, 2012 at 1:33PM EST Reply to CommentI really enjoyed this version a lot, and the key reason was the palpable chemistry between Garfield and Stone. IMHO, Garfield nailed every nuance of the teenage Peter Parker trying to find himself through his father's mysterious past while dealing with the angst of high school and suddenly having super powers. Stone is just so watchable. There's something about her that just commands attention, and she and Garfield were a delight on screen together. 'Spider-Man 2' is still my personal favorite, but this is a solid 2nd best in the series for me.
THE Diego Ortiz
July 5, 2012 at 1:43PM EST Reply to CommentI really enjoyed it. It felt real. I remember Roger Ebert saying in his reviews of the Raimi trilogy that there was no weight to Spider-Man. He looked like he just floated in the air.
This one had more realistic effects. It looked like a real guy swinging from building to building.
I think this is the 'Batman Begins' for Spider-Man fans. My friend was with me when we saw the movie. Turns out he was a big fan of the character growing up with the comics and the cartoon. He kept telling me after the movie was over how this was the best. How it was more like the comic book and how the Raimi trilogy was too silly. As a Batman fan, I felt the same way with 'Begins'.
Also, Emma Stone looked really good in the movie. I always like her as a redhead but now I'm really digging her as a blonde.
JLPatt Ebert never said that about the "trilogy," he said that about the first film and the first film only. Remember, he had "Spider-Man 2" in his top 5 of 2004, calling it the best superhero movie since "Superman II."
July 5, 2012 at 5:07PM ESTAndrej
July 5, 2012 at 11:56PM EST Reply to CommentFun but massively holed. The Lizard surprisingly looks way better than I had imagined.
Nathan drake
July 7, 2012 at 2:01PM EST Reply to CommentIn my opinion the movie wasn't close to the comics as it should be. Gwen never new Spidey's identity and ultimately blamed him for her fathers death. Emma Stones performance was great but not for Gwen. Maybe as another character. Peter was a nerd. That's what made him likable was him being a social outcast, nerd. I think the best way the should have done the movie was what the Incredible Hulk did. It was a reboot but not in a traditional fashion. Many have seen the other Hulk movie and knew of his origin. So the decided not to retell it and sorta went a different way. That would have been the best way to go with this movie.
m1
July 8, 2012 at 5:43PM EST Reply to CommentMany of the same plot points are revisited, but I thought it was a very competent reboot. Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield are two of the best actors of their generation. The visuals are wonderful. The dialogue is hilarious. The script, unfortunately, includes plot holes and some dropped storylines, but I enjoyed it much more than I expected to. The last few minutes of the movie really make it better. So, 6.5/10.