Saw it last night.
I loved the old Spiderman films so seeing the new reeboted series was a big deal.
I dont think, overall, it was as good as the last lot, but some things were improved.
It was much better in a way as it actually followed the pattern of the original comic book.
Im not a film critic so just a few points;
1. The lizards face as Dr Connors looked stupid
2. It ended well on a cliff hanger for the next one
3. The visuals were really impressive
4. The lizard should have been more evil and with more of an explanation to things
5. Good film, good characters. has the potential for a great 2nd film.
Enjoyed it and thought it was cool
Anyone seen it?
0
Comments
Some people take things much to seriously.
It's a film you either want to see it or you don't.
did he have sex with a spider?
I was sat there, totally confused for the first 45 minutes. Because I'd seen this story before. Peter Parker, the nerd, picked on by bullies, gets bit by a spider and turns it around. Was this supposed to take place in an alternate universe to the other films? Why tell the same story again only very slightly differently?
There have been a number of reboots that have been done well or are quite interesting (Batman, Star Trek), and that was because they breathed fresh air into an old franchise. But this one is totally ridiculous. It is the same film as the first Spiderman only with a different nemesis.
Thought it was fantastic. Very well-done rendition of a comic book character that has been around since 1962.
Criticizing a comic book film for rebooting would seem to miss the point that the comic books (upon which the cinematic content is based) do this continually, retelling the same story over and over again from different perspectives and with relevance to contemporary times. There have been all kinds of attempts to bring Spiderman to the screen, mostly in tv shows, and they have all been nearly uniformly awful. Sam Raimi's version was remarkably good and reinvigorated the franchise. The fact that another very good film was made about the same character within shouting distance of Raimi concluding his efforts would seem to be a good thing. Ultimately, the Amazing Spiderman is a good and thoroughly entertaining movie.
The larger backdrop is that comic book movies have historically been terrible -- particularly those based on Marvel characters. That the content is so consistently good (and intelligent) now is remarkable.
The "nothing new under the sun" tag that seems to be the dominant meme is wrong. Before taking my daughter to the new spidey film, we saw Disney's Brave over the weekend. That, to both of us, was a new and interesting film. The top grossing film in America from the past weekend was the adult comedy Ted. What did that reboot or restart? There were more people at the theater to watch Magic Mike than Spidey. Is a movie about male strippers somehow better than Prometheus because it is original content? Is Oliver Stone's Savages of greater intrinsic value than The Avengers because it is an (arguably) novel idea?
Isn't the only thing that matters whether the story on the screen is good or not?
My 12 year old son is desperate to see it though and i don't want to rain on his parade.
Plus Spiderman 3 was rubbish and I think they might have struggled to take the story somewhere, Toby Maguire was after massive money to carry on...
i.e. Financially, they 'had' to make one, and thought this would (in the short term and long) make more money.
For me, a few minutes into the new film and those fears dissipated. If you end up taking your son, I hope they do for you as well.
old fartsexperienced Pro's.It would keep the iPhones etc out of it and would have been better and have felt more original.
As for re-boots, some work, as mentioned above Batman and Star Trek, others struggle e.g. Ed Norton's Incredidle Hulk.
If Warners re-boot Nolan's Batman, that would be barmy. Suspect a Justice League movie will be on the cards to rival Avengers, after the Man of Steel's return (another re-boot?) next year.
It played out like a proper cynical Hollywood accountant's paint-it-by-numbers flick. Which isn't surprising after the way the reboot came about. But the plotholes! My word, the plotholes....
- The only reason Gwen worked (she's at high school!?) in a lab was so she could fulfil the plot requirement of searching the lab at the end. But a 16-year-old with a high-profile job inside a hi-tech lab? Seriously?
- What happened to Norman Osborne's rep who was on the bridge? He was never seen again!?
- The big finish - they replaced the poison with a cure - but who did they cure!? The 6 cops who took the entire final reel to transform presumably? But nobody else! Worst. Cure. Ever.
- Who decided to evacuate New York, and why!? How did anyone else know what was going on?
- I have no interest in seeing superheroes answer the mobile. Ridiculous.
- Spidey spent way too much time taking his mask off. Almost every major Spidey scene. Batman only did it after Rachel died. Briefly. Nolan won't let Bale take his cowl off on set, let alone to answer a frikkin mobile phone in the movie.
- The crane scene was one of the most pathetic/ ridiculous sequences in comic book movie history.
- What happened to Peter's search for the Uncle Ben killer? Clearly it's sequel baiting, but as a self-contained movie, it simply tailed off and didn't work.
- Andrew Garfield is bloody great in everything he does though.
For me, Spidey 2 is second only to The Dark Knight in comic book classics. It's fantastic. The Doc Ock sequences (especially the Evil Dead-style hospital scene), the elevated train bit... Raimi gave his movies a massive heart. This one is dead inside.
Thought is was brilliant.
Actually looking forward to the 3rd now, bit of a spiderman comic geek.