The Amazing Spider-Man

With the success of the first X-Men movie in 2000, Bryan Singer pretty much paved the way for all the comic book movies we see today. That included a certain super hero movie made by Sami Rami in 2002 where a nerdy guy (Tobey Maguire) gets bitten by a radioactive spider and inherits superhuman powers. If Singer had paved the way, then Rami provided the icing on the cake: a faithful, smart, well-acted super hero flick that had as much heart and sincerity packed in as it had all those set pieces. It also lead to a superior sequel and the much maligned, though underrated, third episode.

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.

The Amazing Spider-Man is supposed to be a reboot of the Spider-Man movie franchise. Tobey Maguire is replaced by Andrew Garfield in the protagonist role of Peter Parker. His main love interest switches from Mary-Jane Watson to Gwen Stacy, and the villain in this installment is Dr Curt Connors aka Lizard. As expected, this reboot goes back to the beginning when Peter Parker becomes Spider-Man only it is told in a rather different way to the 2002 movie. This time they also try to add a bit more character oriented storyline.

Is it a good movie? Yes, particularly since I saw this movie in IMAX. This made the action scenes more exciting to watch. It also uses a villain that hasn't been used in the previous movies so at least it does make it different from the previous movies.

Is it a successful reboot of the franchise? In my opinion, not really. It's been five years since the last Spider-Man movie came out, and ten years since the movie franchise was first introduced. Even when they made the announcement of this movie being made, I was questioning it because it's just too soon to make a reboot. For the same reason, this reboot is not refreshing. Without trying to give anything away, you can recognise that this movie takes some of the elements from the 2002 movie. The character oriented storyline doesn't add that much meat to the character of Peter Parker as its supposed to. Its easier to count this as another installment only with different actors playing the roles.

I really enjoyed the first three Spider-Man movies, and yes that includes Spider-Man 3. This new Spider-Man movie is also enjoyable but it fails to refresh the series. It seems that I was right in thinking that its too soon to do so.

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.

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.

This movie " The Amazing Spiderman, " has been way over-due. Ever since it's initial creation by Stan Lee (who makes his usual Cameo appearance), audiences have been hungrily awaiting this new addition. This time, Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) confronts a new and incredibly powerful super villain called, 'The Lizard'. Self created by a one armed scientist, named ( Rhys Ifans ) or Dr. Curt Connors, Spiderman unknowingly gives the fantastic formula to a desperate man who has been trying to invent a way for a human to re-generate a missing limb, without realizing the unfortunate side effects. From the beginning, the film has a dark, foreboding and sinister aspect, which pervades through the entire story. Indeed, this sequel returns to it's early history in that the audience is introduced to Parker's lost parents, as well as his present guardians superbly played by Martin Sheen (Who adds a bit of Panache to the movie and Sally Field. Furthermore, Parker is given a new girlfriend called Gwen Stacy and her father seriously played by Denis Leary. The movie itself is incredible, what with all new high flying action sequences, aerial effects and numerous exciting scenes. Although a bit heavy in using mostly nighttime exteriors, it does lend credence to Parker's equally somber state of mind. Over all, the film is grimly superior to earlier chapters and is therefore easily crafted to enthrall us. As a result, the cast and crew, have intentionally created a Classic in the process. Easily recommended to all. ****