Amazing Spiderman

[CJF]

I need to kill a few hours and the only thing playing at the theater is Amazing Spiderman. All seven screens. Is this worth my time?

[San Juan Sun]

I need to kill a few hours and the only thing playing at the theater is Amazing Spiderman. All seven screens. Is this worth my time?

I thought it was pretty good. Not as good as the Avengers, but probably better than the first Tobey Maguire one.

[LA Ute]

Saw it tonight with the LAU Hija. It's the best of all the Spiderman movies, mainly because Andrew Garfield can act a lot better than Toby Maguire. The story was well-written and even the score was good (the latter made sense once I saw that James Horner did it). Just a lot of good super-hero fun. Better than The Avengers, IMO, because there actually was a story and characters who developed and I could care about. Definitely worth the time and the price of admission.

[oxcoug]

Saw it tonight with the LAU Hija. It's the best of all the Spiderman movies, mainly because Andrew Garfield can act a lot better than Toby Maguire. The story was well-written and even the score was good (the latter made sense once I saw that James Horner did it). Just a lot of good super-hero fun. Better than The Avengers, IMO, because there actually was a story and characters who developed and I could care about. Definitely worth the time and the price of admission.

Agreed on all fronts w/ LAU. Just saw it with my nephew in AF. Thought it was far better than the Toby Maguire versions. Only took me a few minutes to adjust to Eduardo Saverin as Peter Parker.

[Slim]

I thought it was kind of boring. Too much smooching and not enough action.

[Commando]

I thought it was kind of boring. Too much smooching and not enough action.

I thought that HS scene w Lizard was the best superhero action sequence of the year- Avengers included.

[CJF]

I passed.

[TripletDaddy]

I thought that HS scene w Lizard was the best superhero action sequence of the year- Avengers included.

Better than the scene wherein metal reptiles flying through the sky are felled by ScarJo's pistol that fires regular bullets and eye patch dude's bow that shoots regular arrows?

[Jeff Lebowski]

I thought it was kind of boring. Too much smooching and not enough action.

Smooching is action!

[Commando]

I passed.

ahh. Well... you have your very own thread to suit your personal whim now. Enjoy it. Next time you're wondering about a movie, check the Last Movie I Watched thread.

[Green Lantern]

I thought Amazing Spider-Man was a decent time-passer but was nowhere near in the same league as the first two Sam Raimi movies. I liked Andrew Garfield and (especially) Emma Stone--their chemistry was great--but the film itself gave short shrift to the character of Spider-Man. His transition to hero lacked the emotional punch of the first film, his thirst for vengeance upon his uncle's killer just kind of petering out as he gets caught up chasing the Lizard. I kept feeling like some of the film must have been lost in the editing booth.

For every minor improvement (Hooray for the mechanical web-shooters!) there were bigger missteps (the pointless focus on the conspiracy involving his parents) and while I liked Rhys Ifans as Dr. Curt Connors, I thought the Lizard was seriously lacking as a villain--cheesy at best and downright distracting at worst. The action scenes, while enjoyable, had none of the inventiveness of Spidey fighting Doctor Octopus in the 2nd film.

I think it was mistake to redo the origin like they did. It had none of the heft of the original telling and Peter ended up coming across as more callow than heroic. Either find a dramatically different way to present the origin (kind of hard with a story as iconic as Spider-Man's) or jump past it and get on with a new tale.

[lambdacoug]

I need to kill a few hours and the only thing playing at the theater is Amazing Spiderman. All seven screens. Is this worth my time?

Emma Stone. Yes, it's worth it.

[Green Lantern]

Emma Stone. Yes, it's worth it.

I guess I could have postponed my wordy statement and just replied to this with a "+1."

[LA Ute]

I thought Amazing Spider-Man was a decent time-passer but was nowhere near in the same league as the first two Sam Raimi movies. I liked Andrew Garfield and (especially) Emma Stone--their chemistry was great--but the film itself gave short shrift to the character of Spider-Man. His transition to hero lacked the emotional punch of the first film, his thirst for vengeance upon his uncle's killer just kind of petering out as he gets caught up chasing the Lizard. I kept feeling like some of the film must have been lost in the editing booth.

For every minor improvement (Hooray for the mechanical web-shooters!) there were bigger missteps (the pointless focus on the conspiracy involving his parents) and while I liked Rhys Ifans as Dr. Curt Connors, I thought the Lizard was seriously lacking as a villain--cheesy at best and downright distracting at worst. The action scenes, while enjoyable, had none of the inventiveness of Spidey fighting Doctor Octopus in the 2nd film.

I think it was mistake to redo the origin like they did. It had none of the heft of the original telling and Peter ended up coming across as more callow than heroic. Either find a dramatically different way to present the origin (kind of hard with a story as iconic as Spider-Man's) or jump past it and get on with a new tale.

Good points. I liked the movie a lot. I try to remind myself that no move will ever capture a comic book legend exactly the way the legend's devotees see it. (None of the Superman movies have succeeded, for example, IMO.) So I go in with lowered expectations. For me, this movie succeeded because I actually liked and cared about Garfield's Peter Parker, something that I found hard to do with Toby Maguire. Aunt May and Uncle Ben seemed more like real people to me, too. And Emma Stone is just great.

[UtahDan]

Good points. I liked the movie a lot. I try to remind myself that no move will ever capture a comic book legend exactly the way the legend's devotees see it. (None of the Superman movies have succeeded, for example, IMO.) So I go in with lowered expectations. For me, this movie succeeded because I actually liked and cared about Garfield's Peter Parker, something that I found hard to do with Toby Maguire. Aunt May and Uncle Ben seemed more like real people to me, too. And Emma Stone is just great.

This. This made it much better than any of the others for that reason, for me. Better actors with better chemistry makes such a huge difference. I get less involved in thinking about how they could have done the story a different way or what elements they could have done better. For me if I connect emotionally with the characters, the story worked.