Not a bad movie for Spiderman...and like any movie it's a personal taste whether you will like it or not....but I'm not reviewing the movie itself.. I'm reviewng the 4K ability....The film is NOT true 4K so lets get that out the way as the truth of the matter is,no movies have been made yet in true 4K...However...this upgraded version is fantastic...much better then Blu Ray...The depth of colours and picture refinement is very detailed and for some reason they seem to have tinkered with the sound quality too giving it a lot better separation and steering,especially in 5.1...If your looking for an almost 4K experience then get this to test your 4K TV....as long as your Blu Ray player has 4K upscaling too..which mine has then you will enjoy this immensely..Cheers
I’m not one of those people who insists that all remakes are bad. I like to at least see them before I decide. I guess it’s the play lover in me. Even so, I did think it was a little too early for The Amazing Spider-Man, a film that attempts to set up a new take on the superhero. But since Spider-Man is one of the few heroes I know anything about outside of the movies (and that’s limited), I was curious enough to see it. It really doesn’t hold up against the last one.
As a young boy, Peter Park is left with his Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and Aunt May (Sally Field) right before his parents are killed in an accident. Years later as a teen, Peter (Andrew Garfield) finds his father’s old brief case that contains information on the project he was working on with Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans).
When Peter tries to meet Dr. Connors, he winds up getting bitten by a radio active spider, a bite that gives him strange powers. It also brings him into closer contact with Dr. Connors’ assistant, his fellow student Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone).
But when Dr. Connors tries an experiment to use lizard DNA to grow a missing arm back, it turns him into The Lizard, a powerful monster that starts destroying the city. Can Peter use his new powers as Spider-Man to stop him?
One issue I have with the current glut of super hero movies is the origin story of most of them. They are so similar as a result even if the details are different. I can’t help but think about that here since we’ve got another origin story that covers the familiar bases. On the other hand, tying it back into Peter’s dad was interesting.
My very limited knowledge of Peter Parker includes nothing about Gwen Stacy, but I tried to approach this movie with an open mind as a result. And you know what? I do like her. In fact, I found their budding romance one of the best things in the film.
Likewise, I thought all the acting was great. The characters felt real to me, and that’s all I truly look for. It was interesting to see heavy hitters Martin Sheen and Sally Field in this, but they added some depth to their characters that really brought them to life. And Andrew Garfield had fun delivering the few one-liners he got as Spider-Man. Note to the writers, give us more of those in the sequel.
On the other hand, the effects needed some work. Most of the time, I bought them when they involved Peter as Spider-Man. However, when Dr. Connors turns into The Lizard, it was pretty bad. We’re talking laughably for 10 years ago bad. I don’t know how it got approved, to be honest.
Of course, the danger with a remake is that fans will inevitably compare the two, and I couldn’t help but do that as I was watching. Keep in mind, I loved Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man, so this one had stiff competition. But I felt the emotional level of the original was better than this one. While I liked this movie’s Peter and Gwen, they didn’t feel as real to me as Peter and Mary Jane did ten years ago. This film felt more by the numbers in character development as well as story.
This film isn’t bad, and those looking for another super hero movie will certainly enjoy it. But The Amazing Spider-Man doesn’t have the emotional gravity to live up to its predecessor.
on 31 May 2015
This 2012 reboot of the Spider-Man franchise may not be as amazing as the title suggests, but it does delivers a few elements that make it worth your time, for anyone acquainted with Sam Raimi's bombastic take on the web-slinging superhero from the previous decade's trilogy of crowd-pleasing material.
As far as origin stories go, this film takes another approach on the renowned Peter Parker origin story; adds in another villain that did not appear in the Sam Raimi's films; and the fan-favourite character, Gwen Stacy, as Parker's high-school interest; some up-to-date visual effects, and we should get a satisfying superhero film for its 2-hour-plus running time.
However, the pacing seems rushed, as it is trying to hard to avoid the pratfalls that Raimi's trilogy encountered. And whilst it does deliver the goods, the experience remains under-whelming in the era of Marvel films, and just struggles to stand up against some of this decade's monumental superhero releases from this decade. The shoehorned Stan Lee cameo, as conventional as anything goes in Marvel's world of cinema, breaks up one of the many fight scenes between the main hero and villain pretty badly. The script also seems to rush with developing all of its characters, giving the impression to the average moviegoer not much time to be acquainted with one character after another. At least for the geeks, they do provide some screen time for Parker's rarely seen nor mentioned biological parents, alongside Martin Sheen's cartoonish take on Uncle Ben, and Sally Field's screen worthy take on Aunt May.
The Amazing Spider-Man may not hold up as a standalone film in the cinematic world of Spider-Man, but at least it does takes itself serious enough to give respect for the fans that maybe still recovering from the infamous Spider-Man 3.
on 24 June 2013
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 27 September 2015
A new fresh take on the spider-man story. Looking at some of the positives compared to the 2002 version, Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone had natural chemistry and Garfield as Spider-Man was a fine choice, with more jokes, truer to the comics. His wiry frame also worked visually as Spider-Man. The special effects are obviously a lot sharper and more realistic than the CGI from 2002 which does look a bit dated now. Emma Stone dances circles around Dunst when she's acting and Gwen's character has far more depth and life than MJ.
One negative I thought was that the portrayal of Uncle Ben and Aunt May wasn't as good as the Sam Raimi version and the back story with his parents didn't do much for me, Aunt May is more or less written out of the second half of this film.
In contrast to the 2002 version the film switches the focus of Peter's emotional relationship from his Aunt to his girlfriend. Maguire's 2002 portrayal of Peter comes across almost sexless at points, it isn't great for a superhero to be scared of women. When Peter tells MJ at the end he only wants to be friends, Only a friend?" she asks?. "That's all I have to give," Maguire says....hmmmm. In this version (2012) the chemistry between Peter and Gwen is a little more suggestive, they are meant to be real teenagers after all, not just asexual characters in a kids film, superhero films are no longer made for little children anymore but basically for adolescents and adults these days, The Amazing Spider-Man gets this aspect right.
The film made the correct choice by just picking a single villain and giving enough time to develop his story, something the sequel failed to learn from. The music from James Horner complimented the film well too (His last finished work). I think my favourite scene was when Spider-Man saves the boy on the bridge, a point where we see the kind side to Spider-Man's as he gently reassurances the boy in danger. Take note Man of Steel, superheros need to be protecting and saving people not letting thousands die.
on 19 April 2015
It is not a miracle, but it is an epiphany. They even tried to make the supernatural transformation natural. The superhero is seen and shown as a plain ordinary man, I mean boy who is more or less bullied now and then, a weak one indeed who is trying to get in touch with the only man he knows had been working with his father before his parents disappeared after leaving him in the care of an uncle.
He manages to get where he wants to go and he manages to suffer the fatal accident, the accident that is going to kill the boy in him forever and make him become Spider-Man. That accident, fatal or not, is just plain banal and yet it is the transformation of a human into a spider. That's nice, delicately done, empathetic, attractive. That boy becomes adorable after that transformation in which he recuperates what his father had been researching about.
Unluckily he gives away a formula he should never have given away and that is nearly the end of the world, and this time no epiphany, just a plain apocalypse. And there that's what you are looking for, so don't expect me to tell you what that formula will produce.
On the other side of the natural-supernatural divide there is the love affair of this Peter Parker, that new wave Peter Pan of a Protector Plus in propria persona who comes into the picture Per Procurationem. He is adorable indeed and the poor girlfriend he conquers is no fool. She knows the difference between a real lover and an impotent rapist and you can imagine when her father, a cop mind you, intervene in this sexy love affair that was perfectly safe and back covered to put an end to it.
The end is thus nicely sad since the poor spider will live alone, like all spiders, and his mate will have to go her own way where all kinds of janitors are making sure there are no spiders nor cobwebs in the corners of our minds.
The special effects are funny and disquieting at times but the film has a certain beauty in its brutality.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
Okay, no one was more cynical than me when I heard the news that Hollywood was `rebooting' Spiderman only a couple of years after Spiderman 3 was released. I thought it was a complete pointless waste of time. Tobey Maguire's version was so popular, I didn't see how it could be repeated.
Yes, The Amazing Spiderman is a repeat, but, amazingly, it's not as bad as I thought. In fact, I almost enjoyed it more than the original.
I read a lot of internet message boards which criticise BOTH versions from not staying truthful to the source material, i.e. the comics. But, seeing as I've never read any of those, I can't tell which one sticks closer. One of my main gripes with Tobey Maguire's version was that it felt a little too `cartoony' with its bad computer-generated special effects and teen-choice feel.
The Amazing Spiderman is also centred around high school kids (from what I knew of the comic, Peter Parker was a MAN, not a boy, but anyway...). However, the whole affair seems a lot darker. The Lizard is a good baddie to start off with. It would have been nice to see the (proper) Green Goblin (i.e. not just a man in a green suit of armour), but I'm guessing he'll crop up later on in the franchise.
Andrew Garfield is a better hero than Maguire. Despite both playing teenagers, Garfield is also moody and darker, revelling in his newfound powers and even taunting his (lesser) enemies. It seems that the makers of this film looked at Christopher Nolan's Batman franchise with its `flawed hero' mould and decided to borrow that style to make Peter Parker a little less `squeaky clean.' My opinion: it was all the better for it.
Yes, you cannot escape the fact that this film is basically the same one you probably watched ten years ago, but with a different cast. However, if you can get over that and accept that that's just how Hollywood rolls these days, you should enjoy it as a decent entry into the superhero genre.
Yes, spider-man is back again in a somewhat questionable reboot of the 2002 Spider-Man which starred Toby Maguire & spanned an enjoyable trilogy, of an already modern take on the franchise. This time around the more svelte Andrew Garfield (...Doctor Parnassus) dons the role as a, what feels like, a more fitting Peter Parker in James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent and Steve Kloves's reworking of the classic Marvel comic book hero. The first half of the film is more direct with it's action, as the first action sequence appears about 25 minutes in, during Peter's origin story & how he becomes Spider-man. We already know the origins from the first film, sure, but TASM added a new glimpse at the beginning of the film into Parker's family, and for me this made things a bit more interesting, especially with the secretive parts. It also felt more emotional & heartfelt in a way, in which you can connect better with Peter Parker's reasoning for becoming this superhero.
This is thanks in part to the great support cast. Martin Sheen (Apocalypse Now) & Sally Field (Mrs. Doubtfire ) were very believable as the doting Aunt & Uncle which made the emotional tie & background story to Peter's life that bit better. The love interest is well played by Emma Stone (The Help) as the sexy yet intelligent Gwen. The police captain Denis Leary (Rescue Me) was just right as the by the book & protective father. Rhys Ifans (Notting Hill) was surprisingly good as the mad scientist turned Lizard man baddie & ex-work colleague of Peter's father.
Andrew Garfield in the lead role was impressive. His spidey was a bit more adventurous after learning about his new abilities, perhaps a little too much so. In some sequences he was unpredictable as well, in that you were never sure what direction he was going to take when leaping off buildings, or if indeed he was going to be able to save someone(bridge scene example). I also liked that edge of vulnerability to his character, which i thought was just right. He's not the polished superhero yet, he's very much learning his way.
The special effects were well done, and there were some clever new ideas used in places, like the first person view from Spidey as he jumped from buildings. It did make me feel a little queasy, but was only used sparingly to good effect. The action sequences weren't in short supply, they were paced well through the film, with the battle of strength V's agility of the main leads making for some of the most intense fight scenes, albeit with a tinge of deja vu. The few light hearted moments helped balance out the sad ones, as it hit home emotionally really well due to the great cast. So thankfully it wasn't all doom & gloom. With a sequel already in the works, there were plenty of hints as to what we might expect in the next installment, with Norman Osborne's (AKA the Green Goblin) name being dropped. And no doubt the love story will intensify between Peter & Gwen, as it was more of a physicaly restrained courting relationship, but more information shared between them.
In conclusion, The Amazing Spider-man changes things up a little at the beginning by giving us a glimpse at Peter Parker's parents, and goes on to tell us the story we recognise with a more interesting & refreshing approach. I still prefer the older Spiderman 2 over this, but TAMSM is certainly 2nd place overall. Recommended.
on 8 May 2014
Great film love the effects and Spiderman of course !!
Unfortunately I watch the second one first, so spoilt my viewing of the 1st one but nothing to do with the film
Definitely would watch the 3rd !
on 6 May 2013
I have loved Sam Raimi films ever since I first watched “Evil Dead”, So I was very thrilled to hear that he would direct the Spiderman film (2002), I was excited and he delivered, Spiderman 2 is actually my favorite, but Spiderman 3 was not too good, So with the collapse of Spiderman 4 and 5 during pre – production, Raimi walked away, So then Marc Webb directs the Reboot, honestly they have been a lot of Negative’s and Positives being thrown around about the reboot, but I liked it, Webb did a very good Job with this, the 3D is not the best out there, but it ain’t the worst either, story wise I felt it was well paced.
The Blu-Ray package is very nice, it consists of 2 Blu Ray discs, the second Blu Ray disc is packed with features, this is what is not specified here on Amazon, the first disc of this set has both the 3D and 2D versions of the movie, they are both on the same disc, just pop it in and select the version you want.
The Video is flawless, Crisp and Very detailed, The Audio is well timed and detailed too.
Codec: MPEG-4 MVC
Aspect ratio: 2.40:1
Original aspect ratio: 2.39:1
English: DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1
French: Dolby Digital 5.1
Spanish: Dolby Digital 5.1
English, English SDH, French, Spanish
50GB Blu-ray Disc
2 Disc set (2 BD's)
UV digital copy