The Amazing Spider-Man

Being a Spider-man comic book fan I can say that a lot of the stuff that happens in this story is true to the comic book Spider-man. Spider-man has web shooters, Spider-man likes to joke a lot, Gwen Stacy was Spider-man's first love, etc. So Anyone who is a fan of the comics will respect this movie on that merit, the merit that it was faithful to the source material while bringing in new stuff without losing what made Spider-man who he is.

People who've only seen the Spider-man films and never bothered to read any of the comics. Won't like this film as much. They'll say the same old stuff. "Why was this made? We've seen this already?" Blah blah blah.

Let me go off saying that behind Spider-man 2, this is probably the best of the Spider-man trilogy for one reason.....it avoids all clichés that the original trilogy didn't. In fact the film pretty much avoids all clichés at all. I'll try and explain a few without spoiling the film.

Well first of all the woman in this film aren't morons. One of the main problems I had with Sam Raimi's films was the fact that all woman were pretty much portrayed as objects that Spider-man can save. None of them do anything helpful. Sure Mary Jane tried to hit Doctor Octopus with a plank in the second film, but she couldn't even do that right. That's not the case here. Gwen actually has a confrontation with with villain and she doesn't screw around, I won't say what she does but when I saw it happen I couldn't help but cheer. Finally a Spider-man film where the woman have a brain-stem.

The second cliché it avoids is being predictable. The original films basically have Spider-man going through the motions. Girl gets kidnapped, Spidey saves girl, Spidey defeats villain or jumps out of the way so the villain can do harm to himself. That is not the case with this film, a lot of the time you think one thing is going to happen but then it doesn't and the opposite happens.

The third cliché it avoids is having silly moments. The first trilogy had a lot of them, yes even Spider-man 2 (The raindrops keep falling on my head scene). Going back an having re-watched the Sam Raimi trilogy before seeing this one, the films are more like popcorn films. Sam Raimi is the master at making B movies and that's what the original trilogy was, an epic scale B Movie. With this film, they get a little more serious. There's not really any goofy moments that I can think of and if there are then it's usually played for laughs.

Also THANK GOD They got Flash Thompson right. Sam Raimi used Flash so he could be the stereotypical bully, and at the beginning you think that's what Marc Webb plans to do, but then he shows that Flash isn't as big a douche as he makes himself out to be. Flash is one of my favourite Spider-man characters in the comics, and I'd like to say "thank you Marc Webb for avoiding the cliché of him just being a bully and actually making him a human being with depth." The film also does other things right besides avoiding clichés. The actors all do fantastic jobs and I will go on record saying that Andrew Garfield is the perfect Spider-man and a great role model for young boys even though he has his flaws. Martin Sheen was great as an Uncle Ben who is kind, understanding, but at the same time doesn't take any crap. Emma Stone was great as the kind of jokey but intelligent Gwen Stacy who is a strong positive role model for young woman. The Guy who played the villain was great, The girl who played Aunt May was good in the few scenes she was in. Not a weak link in the bunch.

So I've done nothing but praise this film so far, so why is it still behind Spider-man 2 in my books? Well the film does have flaw, mainly two. One it's rushed, the only one who really pays for it being rushed is the villain who only gets one line of dialogue to explain his motives and even then we're not sure why he's doing that. The second flaw is that it doesn't have this big epic feel that Spider-man 2 had, it doesn't feel like it was made to be a big summer blockbuster, instead it was made to be an Indy film with a big budget....although maybe that's why I liked it so much, it focuses more on characters than action.....hurm.....I'm still on the fence with that last one.

The Amazing Spider-man is a good film. It avoids most if not all clichés, it's fresh, it's interesting, it's got characters you love to see and actually feel for played by fantastic actors, it's a great Spider-man film and it's sad that a lot of fans seem to be hating it right now. I honestly can't see what's to hate.

Good film, go see it.....oh by the way.....I wouldn't recommend seeing it in 3D, there are a few moments where you're like "Whoa cool" but not much.

Here are my quick thoughts,

I had my reservations and kept my expectations in check going into this film and didn't know what to expect but thankfully Marc Webb managed to do a fantastic job despite the fact that he did hit a lot of the same elements from Sam Raimi's 2002 Spider-man, nonetheless this is a promising start to a new trilogy.

Andrew Garfield hits it out of the park with his performance as Peter Parker and Emma Stone is Wonderful as Gwen Stacey their chemistry is obvious from the start. The inclusion of Dr. Curt Connors/The Lizard was long overdue and was played adequately by Rhys Ifans, Martin Sheen and Sally Field were great as Uncle Ben and Aunt May as was Dennis Leary's Captain Stacy.

In short, a solid cast, great story and wonderful effects inject new blood into an already great blockbuster franchise.

So when I watched this movie for the first time (way after it had come out), I was under the impression that it was a pretty forgettable movie by the Marvel fandom and I just needed to watch it so I could understand what would happen in No Way Home. So I have it watch.

Honestly, it was better than what I thought it was, but definitely one of the weaker Spider-Man movies. There are things that don't work in this movie - personally, Peter Parker as a skate kid didn't do it for me, a couple unsolved plots, and Uncle Ben (where was the famous line??) but there were good things too

The action and design of this movie was phenomenal. The swinging action is still the only movie that fully captures the agility of Spider-Man (the newer MCU ones don't really have these action shots) and the fight scenes are so cleverly made. Andrew Garfield got the Spider-Man half right - he captured the clever and witty personality of Spider-Man better than Maguire did. The second thing, really what stood out about this movie is the chemistry between Gwen and Parker. Something about their relationship connected and really made me think they were destined to be together. It's better than any other marvel ship that comes to my mind and thus just made the ending so satisfying for me.

Spider-Man is my favorite super-hero of all time. I've read the comics (mostly the Ultimate comics, but some of the 60's comics as well), played some of the video games, and watched the cartoons (The 1994 and 2008 series being some of my favorite animated shows of all time).

I enjoyed Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy (yes, even Spider-Man 3). When I heard that the series was being rebooted, I wasn't happy to hear about it. My expectations were neutral as time went by and when I walked out the theater, my expectations were blown away.

I don't want to compare this movie to the original trilogy, but I think it's necessary to see where this movie improved from the originals.

Let's start with the casting. Andrew Garfield is a great successor to Tobey Maguire. I can really relate to him like I always do with other incarnations of the web slinger. Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy is even better than Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane Watson. Gwen is a much stronger character and the chemistry between her and Garfield as Peter Parker is believable. Rhys Ifans is great as Doctor Connors (a.k.a. The Lizard) and I like how he is a "Jekyll and Hyde"-type of villain (kind of like a few other villains... yeah). Martin Sheen and Sally Field as Uncle Ben and Aunt May, respectively, are also great as well. All the characters are portrayed very well and are believable.

The visual effects and the action scenes are good as usual, but nothing new.

The musical score by James Horner is also great, although I prefer Danny Elfman's score in the original trilogy because they felt more memorable and left a lasting impression. But, who knows? James Horner's score may grow on me over time.

If I have to name some complaints, it would have to be that some parts were rushed (although it's a minor nitpick) as well as a couple of parts not evaluated much. I think an extended cut of the movie would be necessary when it's released on DVD, but that's just me.

Overall, "The Amazing Spider-Man" is a fresh new start on the franchise. It has superb acting, thrilling action scenes (especially the climax), an amazing score, and being faithful to the comics but at the same time taking liberties to make it more interesting. Best Spidey movie ever? It's too early to tell but maybe. It's definitely worth watching and I am looking forward to the sequel.

I admit that I too didn't exactly get that excited when I heard that this was in the making. The Sam Raimi trilogy was a fun ride, and the idea of making another Spider-Man movie with a completely new cast seemed strange and unnecessary. When the cast was announced, I got a little bit curious, but nothing more.

However, when I watched it, I got a whole other impression. I really liked it. The atmosphere was great, and perhaps a little darker than the Sam Raimi movies at times. I know many of you who read this will hate me for saying this, but I actually think this movie was a LITTLE bit better that the previous ones. Not much, but just a hint better. One thing is the cast. I really didn't like Tobey Maguire as Spider-Man that much. I didn't have a huge problem with him back then, but now when I saw this, I must say that I like Andrew Garfields "version" better. He's a little more tougher, both physically and in personality. Also, I think Emma Stone did good as Gwen Stacy. I liked her better as Peter Parker's girlfriend than Kirsten Dunst. The Villain, too, was great. I won't say more about him, not wanting to spoil anything.

When I read many of the reviews in here, I don't see much positivity about this movie. I think that's unfair. At least, it's mediocre. Giving this a 1/10 is criminally wrong. At least I think so. If you wonder if you should see this or not, at least give it a chance. Don't let the bad reviews scare you away.