Badmovies.org Forum

Movies => Good Movies => Topic started by: A.J. Bauer on July 03, 2012, 11:22:59 PM



Title: The Amazing Spider-Man
Post by: A.J. Bauer on July 03, 2012, 11:22:59 PM
Right now I'm hiding out in my house after squealing like a fan-girl while watching this film.

Gotta say, Andrew Garfield did a better job than Toby Meguire, much more lively.

Spidey was actually cracking wise in this one.


Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man
Post by: Psycho Circus on July 04, 2012, 05:31:22 AM
Will never understand why it needed a reboot. They could've just carried on and used a new cast. No-one's really going to care are they? Saw the trailer for this when I went to see a re-showing of Jaws at the local cinema (which was Jawsome!), just looked like 90 odd mins of CGI spiderman flying around in mid-air with a CGI Lizard. That does not constitute "action" in a movie for me, I can see all that stuff in an xbox game...


Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man
Post by: dean on July 04, 2012, 07:40:58 AM

The question is was it good though?

I haven't heard much hype about this one, strange considering how strong the previous films were at the box office.

Less strange considering how terrible Spiderman 3 was.  I still hold out hope being a Spidey die-hard and a Garfield fan, but the fact I haven't heard much, good or bad, usually means its not going to go well.


Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man
Post by: The Burgomaster on July 04, 2012, 08:21:28 AM
Decent, but not great.  Other than a few scenes, the 3-D was uninspired and unnecessary.  I thought the casting was good.  But how can you have a Spider-Man movie without J. Jonah Jameson and the other Daily Bugle characters?  Nooooo!



Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man
Post by: dean on July 04, 2012, 09:04:27 AM
Shame...


Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man
Post by: tracy on July 05, 2012, 12:16:24 PM
Decent, but not great.  Other than a few scenes, the 3-D was uninspired and unnecessary.  I thought the casting was good.  But how can you have a Spider-Man movie without J. Jonah Jameson and the other Daily Bugle characters?  Nooooo!



No J.Jonah Jameson.....? Wow....


Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man
Post by: Hammock Rider on July 05, 2012, 02:54:30 PM
J.Jonah? Bah! He never provided any entertainment value.  :buggedout:


Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man
Post by: The Burgomaster on July 06, 2012, 10:19:54 AM
Decent, but not great.  Other than a few scenes, the 3-D was uninspired and unnecessary.  I thought the casting was good.  But how can you have a Spider-Man movie without J. Jonah Jameson and the other Daily Bugle characters?  Nooooo!



No J.Jonah Jameson.....? Wow...

Nope.  No Robbie Robertson, Ned Leeds, or Betty Brant, either.  Not to mention the lack of Harry Osborne and Mary Jane Watson.  I guess they didn't want to overload this one and decided to save up a few characters for the sequel.

 


Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man
Post by: tracy on July 06, 2012, 01:01:39 PM
Decent, but not great.  Other than a few scenes, the 3-D was uninspired and unnecessary.  I thought the casting was good.  But how can you have a Spider-Man movie without J. Jonah Jameson and the other Daily Bugle characters?  Nooooo!




No J.Jonah Jameson.....? Wow...

Nope.  No Robbie Robertson, Ned Leeds, or Betty Brant, either.  Not to mention the lack of Harry Osborne and Mary Jane Watson.  I guess they didn't want to overload this one and decided to save up a few characters for the sequel.

 


Could be....too bad.


Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man
Post by: Archivist on July 08, 2012, 06:20:04 AM
I caught it this weekend, the first weekend of its screening in Australia.  The turnout was not big, but I usually go to a small independent cinema rather than a multiplex.

To me, it was a solid movie but not over-the-top awesome.  Having seen the many Spider-Man movies over the decades, and read a fair number of comics, I have witnessed the evolution of the character and story lines, and this one seemed like a good retelling of the story.  I can see why they left out J. Jonah Jamieson and everybody else, as this concentrated on his early life.  The action scenes were superb but throughout I would suddenly remember that they were being done with CGI, and I found myself trying to discern what was CG and what was not.  After a while I just gave up and enjoyed it.

Emma Stone portrays a really sweet and no-nonsense kind of girl, and Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker was very well played.  I liked how they used a lot of Spidey-mannerisms like the wise-cracks, and webbing up people's faces, eyes, mouths and hands just like in the comics.  I'm told that the 3D version is even more visually cool, but we only saw it in 2D.

Something that kind of spoiled the movie for me was knowing what major plot things were going to occur, and you can see it coming from miles away.  Yes, he's going to be bitten by a spider.  Yes, Uncle Ben is going to die.  Yes, he is going to invent web.  Somehow he gets inspired to put on a mask.  I think the problem with remakes and reboots of classic stories is that you know where it is going to go, and you're just waiting for them to get it over with so you can see what they do with it.  Had I never read a Spider-Man comic or seen any of the movies I would have enjoyed it a lot more, I think.


Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man
Post by: WingedSerpent on July 08, 2012, 11:21:26 AM
This was not a movie made by artists. This was a movie made by business men.  This was the movie Colombia pictures had to make or lose the rights to the franchise. This what the first couple of seasons of Smallvilie would have been like if it followed Spider-man instead of Superman.  As you can probably tell, I was disappointed with this movie.

For starters, even if they wanted a reboot-they should have done what the Incredible Hulk movie did and at least assume its audience knew the deal about Spider-man. They could have hinted at the origin while still establishing that this was a new series.

Secondly, I though a lot of the dialogue was pretty bad.  I liked that Spider man was cracking jokes, but most of the non-superhero moments where something out of a bad CW show.

Thirdly, I really didn't care about most of the characters.

As for the Lizard...While I consider myself just a casual fan of the Spider-man series, the Lizard is one of my favorite Marvel villains.  So I know in his earlier appearances he was really more of a man with reptilian features, but as my one friend Mike put it-he looks like a Goomba from the Super Mario brothers movie.
(http://www.dan-dare.org/dan%20mario/SMBMovie-Goombas.jpg)(http://collider.com/wp-content/uploads/amazing-spider-man-lizard-image-promo.jpg)

*Mild Spoilers*
And his plan would have been a lot better if we had seen it more as a real threat. He infects only a handful of people that we don't see again when their cured. It didn't seem really justified for the measures they took to stop it.
*End Spoilers*

So yeah...wasn't too happy coming out of the theater that night.


Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man
Post by: HappyGilmore on July 08, 2012, 11:33:49 AM
Off to see it now. But I'm opting for 2D as it's cheaper, and it's the early show. Didn't feel like waiting til 10:30 tonight for the 3D.

By the trailers it looks like it's attempting to be a ripoff of Nolan's Bat-series, all angsty and dark.

But I assume I'll find out.


Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man
Post by: HappyGilmore on July 08, 2012, 05:31:33 PM
I really, really dug this.


Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man
Post by: Mr_Vindictive on July 08, 2012, 08:14:09 PM
I have plans to see it tomorrow with my girl and some friends. Looking forward to it!


Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man
Post by: HappyGilmore on July 08, 2012, 09:15:17 PM
So...the post-credits scene.  Any guesses who it is?

Granted, if one is somewhat familiar with the comics, there's a pretty good chance one would know who it was.

But, that leads to Gwen and all.   :buggedout:


Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man
Post by: Psycho Circus on July 09, 2012, 07:26:20 AM
So...the post-credits scene.  Any guesses who it is?

Granted, if one is somewhat familiar with the comics, there's a pretty good chance one would know who it was.

But, that leads to Gwen and all.   :buggedout:

It'll be the green goblin.


Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man
Post by: Hammock Rider on July 09, 2012, 10:47:33 AM
I liked it a lot. Better than the Raimi's.


Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man
Post by: tracy on July 09, 2012, 12:53:36 PM
Well....I haven't been too excited about it but I read an interview with Uncle Stan and he's pretty happy with it. I think I'll give it a shot.


Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man
Post by: HappyGilmore on July 09, 2012, 01:32:28 PM
Pretty sure if there's a sequel, we'll see the introduction of the Daily Bugle, Green Goblin, and MJ or Betty Brant.

Not sure if they'll have the bridge incident in part 2 or 3.


Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man
Post by: Mr_Vindictive on July 09, 2012, 05:20:46 PM
Saw it in IMAX 3D today. It was far superior to the original. It just felt more like the source material. Much better than I was expecting!


Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man
Post by: BoyScoutKevin on July 09, 2012, 05:35:43 PM
There are rights than there are rights.

Columbia Pictures may have the film rights to Spiderman, but they--apparently--don't have the TV rights to the character. For there is an animated Spiderman TV series called "The Ultimate Spiderman," which is produced by Film Roman Productions/Marvel Animation and distributed by Disney XD on the cable TV channel Disney XD, which is aimed at boys 6 to 14.

And I keep hearing that the Marvel characters, or, at least, some of them will start appearing at the Disney theme parks, both here and overseas, sometime next year, except at Walt Disney World, as Universal has the exclusive rights, the theme park rights, to that part of Florida.

At least Columbia Pictures was smart enough to maintain the rights to distribute the Spiderman film. Unlike Paramount who produced "The Avengers" film with Marvel, but whose film was distributed by the Walt Disney Company, who, as I heard, got 53% of the worldwide gross of the boxoffice, right off the top or so far over $700 million dollars just for distributing it.

Of course, all this may be moot, as I have heard all rights or most of the rights to the Marvel characters revert back to Marvel in two years.

When it comes to rights, who has 'em, who doesn't have 'em, who will have 'em, who won't have 'em, I think Shakespeare said it best: "What fools these mortals be."


Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man
Post by: Jim H on July 09, 2012, 08:08:25 PM
Quote
The action scenes were superb but throughout I would suddenly remember that they were being done with CGI, and I found myself trying to discern what was CG and what was not.

One thing that IS interesting is how much of this film was clearly done practically.  Well, at least done with live actors in front of a green screen.  Really a lot of the web slinging in this one was actually shot with real people, and a lot of the lizard fighting was mocapped by Rhys Ifans.  It does actually pay off a bit - things seem much more weighted and believable than in the Raimi films.  That said, I don't think the action scenes are as good, because Raimi is actually a really good action director. 

Overall, I thought this one was OK.  Personally, I think it would have made a far more interesting trilogy if the Lizard's plan had succeeded.  Maybe someone will write a comic where that happens. 

Several plot holes though, and the change in the backstory with Uncle Ben is mindblowingly bad.

**SPOILERS**

They changed it from Peter being able to easily intervene and do the right thing, which would have saved Uncle Ben, to MAYBE being able to POSSIBLY have intervened, to stop Uncle Ben from getting HIMSELF killed.  This is a really stupid change, obviously.

**END**

It's a 6/10 from me.


Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man
Post by: HappyGilmore on July 09, 2012, 08:59:49 PM
Ultimate Spider Man, the toon, is really good.


Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man
Post by: Vik on July 10, 2012, 08:56:22 AM
Eh. I really liked Emma Stone in this. The rest I thought was okay-ish, I guess?


Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man
Post by: HappyGilmore on July 10, 2012, 06:11:36 PM
Emma Stone is pretty good in everything, even terrible films.


Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man
Post by: The Burgomaster on July 11, 2012, 11:01:57 AM
Emma Stone is pretty good in everything, even terrible films.

And her slight overbite is oddly sexy.



Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man
Post by: Chainsaw midget on July 11, 2012, 11:53:48 AM
I don;'t much care for how they changed Spider-man's costume. 


Title: Re: The Amazing Spider-Man
Post by: rebel_1812 on July 16, 2012, 11:21:58 PM
I don;'t much care for how they changed Spider-man's costume. 

This one didn't have the heart or the fun of the raimi film.  The villain was also better in the raimi film, he had a plan, a personality; unlike the mindless monster in this one.  The raimi one had an overall theme about heroism which this one lacked.  The only thing I liked better in this version was Emma as Gwen Stacy was alot better then Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane.