10 of 11 people found the following review helpful
The Peter Parker we find in this film is grittier, more real than one in Sam Raimi's previous trilogy. He's kind of a spaz and he looks it. The kind of guy you could easily imagine geeking out with all his geeky friends, playing World of Warcraft between hits on a bong. Not that there's anything like that in this movie (where's Harry Osborn when you need him?), but you get the idea. It's this more "real" take on Peter Parker, not quite so perky and preppy as Toby McGuire's version, that's the thing I liked most about this movie.
Other than that, there's not a huge amount to say. Emma Stone's Gwen Stacy is cute but utterly unremarkable, and so too for most of the other performances. Sally Field injects more than we are used to seeing into Aunt May, but that's about it. I'm not entirely sure that Martin Sheen was even trying. For long time spider fans, or even just those who've watched a handful of superhero summer blockbusters, this isn't a film with too many surprises. Or even, dare I say it, any surprises. It's an entertaining extravaganza, but it's not the kind of thing that very many people over the age of 15 will feel the need to see more than once. You may want to bear that in mind when making the decision whether to rent or buy.
It is worth noting that this film is clearly designed to set up a sequel, and more than likely a trilogy. There are questions raised and themes presaged that are then just left hanging within the scope of this individual movie.
The only thing I would say actively went wrong in this film was its attempt to have Spider-Man spout the kind of witty banter he uses when fighting his comic book battles. You may be able to get away with that kind of thing on the printed page. But in this medium the pace of the banter was totally out of sync with the blitzkrieg action of the fighting itself. For this reason it came across as completely forced, and to be frank, as a rather poor and awkward voice-over. Fortunately, although glaringly obvious, this flaw was rather minor and forgivable in the scope of the movie as a whole.
Finally, I might as well make my own prejudices clear. I personally am quite sick of the endless reboots that plague the genre. I think things at least have the potential to get far more interesting when the universe is left running for longer periods. There is at least the chance for writers to move beyond endless recapitulation of the same basic storylines - a form of writing that once again I believe is a plague upon the genre. I know that Bruce Timm's work in the DC Animated Universe was far, far more interesting back when all the shows made up a definite continuity: a true universe with scope and depth and history and a future that the viewers and the writers got to explore together.
What I personally would most love to see are productions that allow for real development and change. That don't require all the principles to be treated as such valuable pieces of intellectual property that they must be preserved forever in aspic. Or perhaps, to go with a more apt analogy, not be treated like action figures who must never be removed from their packaging because to do so would annihilate their value on the collectables market.
A hopeless dream, I know.
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
on September 13, 2015
It appears audiences have gotten too hip to buy into the "radioactive spider" bite scenario, so the writers opted for a gene splicing spider bite. The film incorporates many of the original Spider-man ideas, people, and scenes, while maintaining a certain amount of originality. The plot of the film has already been compromised (40 year anniversary of first publication), so there is no need for me to dwell on it.
3D holograms are used in the film, and of course Spider-man flies directly at your head. If you have the wallet and opportunity, I would suggest the 3D version.
In all honesty I preferred Toby McGuire to Andrew Garfield as Spider-man. That is not to say Andrew did a bad job, he didn't. The part was written different. I am a big fan of Emma Stone (Gwen Stacy), who has been in High School going on 6 years now. She can play the hottie and the nerd both better than most actresses. But what this film didn't have was that one defining moment that will forever be played in movie pop culture history and that was "The Kiss" which drove women into the theater. Yes, Emma and Andrew swap spit, but it wasn't the same as that upside down, remove the mask, just rescued me moment.
Denis Leary, who typically plays an angry comic, delivers in his role as Captain Stacy. Good action. For a 2 hour plus movie, it moves rather quickly. The real unanswered question is, "Will Andrew Garfield join the Avengers?"
PARENTAL GUIDE: No f-bombs, sex, or nudity.
on December 6, 2014
“I guess it’s never too late to write a review for a movie, after seeing the first three previous “Spider-Man”
movies, and how Toby McGuire's perky but more reserved character work so well, now Andrew Garfield” give
us almost the same continuation factor, that I love actually, it’s hard when you stop movies when they have sequels
to come, then you get new actors for the next one, my first impression with Mr. Garfield at the helm was pretty impressive,
I don’t think he wanted to impress us to the point of overdoing it, which is very good on his part, don’t think it’s
hard to overdo the spidery-wet suit caper man of web, all his villainy characters do a fine job of that,
I Really Enjoyed This..Movie..
1080p High Definition 2.40:1 widescreen.
English 5.1 DTS-HD Master Audio.
Run Time 136 Min.
2 of 3 people found the following review helpful
on November 25, 2013
Overall, I'm a fan of the trend set by Christopher Nolan and his darker edgier approach to things. Spiderman unfortunately is not a character where this approach works, at all. I understand that with it being a reboot coming out so close to the last one finishing, they needed a different look and feel. Unfortunately, I feel Spiderman should be a mostly fun movie with the drama inserted in after. This movie is the opposite with spectacular action pieces spaced between and "fun" SQUEEZED in there periodically.
The most important flaw was that I rarely cared that much about the characters- with the exceptions being Uncle Ben and Aunt May who were better than the original and a surprising Dennis Leary. There seemed to be an invisible disconnect that other than the completely lifeless sound track & Emma Stone (very talented actress) but miscast here, I couldn't quite put my finger on why it had next to no mojo.
This movie's worth one look, a shrug and maybe a 2nd to confirm that it wasn't anything special.
2 of 3 people found the following review helpful
Unlike the other Spiderman movies, this latest version provides more depth of character to Peter Parker. Seemed slow at first with the character development, background, and family life episodes. However, in retrospect that is what makes this version unique. It also provides a more realistic (far fetched, I know) - view of how this would really play out in real life. That being: Peter Parker would not just suddenly have a SpiderMan suit. He would not suddenly be liked by all. The storyline grew this as an evolution.
Also a nice touch to add that among the first few criminal captures turn out to get bungled (capturing a police insider).
It still had all the Big Screen action, sound and graphics effects you would expect from a Marvel movie. However, it did not completely patronize the audience, by having just the 'bad' guy die... but did have some limited 'good guy' deaths, and some emotional repercussions.
Well done. Likeable movie. Great Friday night viewing with a good high quality surround sound system.
Don't expect too much artistic depth... but definitely an improvement for Hollywood and an enjoyable action movie all-around.
5 of 7 people found the following review helpful
The Amazing Spider-Man arrives at blu ray with MPEG-4 AVC 1080p 2.40:1 encode. Unlike Raimi’s previous Spider-Man films, which featured candy coated bright colours and lots of daylight, the new director, Marc Webb, painted this picture with constant gloom that lingers over the entire film. The credit goes to the RED camera system, the first time being used, beating out Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit, but more specifically, the RED Epic, capable of filming 3D picture at 5K resolution. Textures are perfect, as furniture, skin, clothing, hair, lizard scales are all so lifelike. The depth of picture, naturally, is astonishing, from the top down looking at the floor or from standing level looking at the distance. When the Spider-Man suit is finally unveiled, the texture, the detail, and the way it gets dirty and muffed up, it's a character of its own. Black levels are superb. Nighttime exteriors are brilliantly captured, with deep, accurate blacks and perfect shadow detail all around. Flesh tones are consistently true-to-life as well. This isn't a glossy, shiny film, but it is still visual perfection and demo worthy from start to finish. (5/5)
The Amazing Spider-Man 3D arrives with MPEG-4 MVC encode. The transfer retains the same exacting details as found on the faultless 2D-only release. The image is notably darker. The movie was not the brightest by design in the 2D version, and the palette appears even dimmer in 3D. Colours are stable and consistent but lack much in the way of vibrancy, even in the most well-lit scenes and considering the brightest shades. It somehow lacks invigorating 3D depth and pop. (4.5/5)
The audio is the same for both the 3D and 2D versions, which consists of a fantastic DTS-HD 5.1 Master Audio lossless track. It places precision elements all over the stage, creating a seamless and real-world sound environment with perfect clarity: from small effects like a swinging, squeaky door to drenching rains and booming thunder. More impressive is the seamless sense of space; Sony's soundtrack paints a vivid sonic picture of every environment, completely immersing listeners into the school hallway, the Oscorp labs, and the busy city streets. Music reproduced James Horner's high quality score with the sort of lifelike realism that defines lossless audio at its best. I was also wowed by how much work was put into making webslinging not just a visual aspect of the film, with swoops through channels accented by bass that sells the speed the action takes place at. Dialogue is firm and absolutely clear. This is a stellar soundtrack. (5/5)
Sony took a brave step forward by going back to retread an origin story we all know, while defying the odds and creating a truly inspired film that captures the spirit of the characters in a way we have never seen before. The Amazing Spider-Man is worthy of the title, both the adjective and the full name of the original comic series from 1963. The true origins for Spider-Man are made more mature. There is an additional scene in the credits, after the main names get their flashes before the title scroll, featuring Dr. Curt Connors and a man seen only in the shadows, setting up a sequel, proposed for 2014. (4.5/5)
The Amazing Spider-Man has an estimated budget of $260 million, and has grossed $696 million worldwide. This is a relative disappointment, when it was compared to Spider-Man 3 ($890 million), Spider-Man 1 ($806 million) and Spider-Man 2 ($786 million).
This film marks the first time Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans) becomes The Lizard on film. Although Curt Connors appeared in the original Sam Raimi films, played by Dylan Baker, the character never became the Lizard despite some strong hints.
This marks the second time that Martin Sheen and Cliff Robertson have shared a part. They previously played John F. Kennedy in Kennedy and PT 109, respectively.
This is the first Spider-Man film to not feature Spider-Man's perennial love interest Mary-Jane Watson (in the original three films played by Kirsten Dunst). Instead, Peter Parker's original girlfriend Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) appears (who had been played by Bryce Dallas Howard in the third film).
Did you know that Emma Stone (Gwen Stacy) and Sally Field (Aunt May) share the same birthday? (November 6)
The 3D version consists of 4 discs: 3 BD-50 discs and 1 DVD, each with its flipper case. Thankfully, the 3D and 2D movies are housed in separate discs, with a separate BD-50 disc for Special Features. The front cover does have its lenticular look in 3D, which looks quite sharp.
The thought of The Amazing Spider-Man may offend fans of the original film series, especially since the death of one series and the birth of another are forever connected, but this take really does hit the spot in a way the Raimi films could have only dreamed of doing. I was hesitant, and while some of the casting is questionable, the end result is the Spider-Man film I've always wanted, the closest to the comic we've ever seen.
Both the video and audio in 2D version are top-notched, and this is the best of the Spider-Man films so far. And I am really looking forward to future sequels of this new Spider-Man franchise. The 3D version is only ordinary, not spectacular, not like Brave, Avatar and Titanic, and is $8 more expensive than the 2D combo. However, this set has an entire BD-disc for special features, unavailable in the 2D blu-ray combo. This 3D set is recommended if you also want the 3D version and tons of special features, otherwise, the 2D version seems to be of greater value.
I hope the above review is helpful to you.