Customer Reviews

The Amazing Spider-Man (Blu-ray + UV Copy) [2012][Region Free]

5 star:		(70)
4 star:		(32)
3 star:		(30)
2 star:		(13)
1 star:		(17)

 

 

This film is a triumph of "Disaster Casting". Andrew Garfield is a decent actor, but he's NOT an action hero and he isn't funny. His misguided reading of the character means that Parker comes off as semi-retarded and obnoxious. Rhys Ifans doesn't fare any better as his nemesis and Emma Stone is as irritating as usual in the girlfriend role. This is a pointless reboot of a film that was only made about ten years ago, proving that Hollywood has once again become an artistic wasteland only interested in 3D fantasy films and cuddly rom-coms. Sad.

This version, The Amazing Spider-Man shows a slightly different side to Peter Parker and his story while still keeping some aspects of the original trilogy. Peter is still a geeky teenager, this time with a skateboard in tow. He's still into photography, he's still a geeky science lover (due to what his father does/ did) and he doesn't have friends and gets picked on at school. However, there is no Mary Jane in this film and instead we have the love interest in the form of another girl.

As I didn't like Toby Maguire, I was just as unsure of Andrew Garfield who I had never heard of before this film, maybe that was why I was so unsure. However, I liked him a whole lot more as Peter. While he played a geeky character, he was not quite as strange as Toby Maguire. I found his character (even though it was the same character) to me much more likeable and I warmed to him quickly. I also thought he showed a much braver and stronger side to him than I was expecting which I thought was a good addition to him. I also found the way in which he became Spider-Man to be more interesting, although again, pretty much done in the same way.

I think a lot of this was due to the plot differences. I loved the inclusion of Dr. Curt Connors who was played by Rhys Ifans. As Dr. Connors was Peter's father's partner, there was a background story to discover. Although I think this could have been done in a bit more detail, I think it gave Peter a great reason for going to Oscorp in the first place. He wanted to find out more about his parents and he knew that only Dr. Connors could have explained anything about what happened/ about what his father was like. I felt a real connection between these two characters early on in the film which was a nice touch. Ifans was fantastic as Dr. Connors who later turns into Lizard.

In comparison to the other Spider Man film, I preferred this villain due to there being a sort of awkward friendship between the two characters, which wasn't there in the other film. When Dr. Connors becomes Lizard, he changes completely into an angry and resentful person (?). I loved how this showed exactly what the effects of untested drugs could do to a person, along with the obvious problem of being turned into a lizard. Ifans was able to be a nice character and show sympathy and empathy whilst also playing someone who was mean and hateful.

I absolutely loved Emma Stone as the love interest Gwen. She was one of the biggest reasons why I wanted to see this film to begin with as I have loved her in everything she has been in. Her character is slowly brought in to Peter's life as he begins to get to grips with his abilities. She has an interesting family relationship, which affects Peter very much as he becomes Spider-Man. These things mixed in with her personality and likeability, made her a great character and one which really made the film better overall. I do think that she could have been used more in a few places but I'm hoping the next film brings in her character more.

Yes, there will be a sequel. Or a few. If this first film is anything to go by though, I think this will be a fantastic series overall and I can't wait for the next release in 2014 now.

I don't get why I'm now not Spider-Man I am very very very very very very very very disappointed. Merrrr

Based on some of the good reviews i made the mistake of getting this movie. What a disaster. The story for the first hour is exactly the same as the 2002 movie but not as good with, i'm sorry to say, wooden acting from the lead character and no action of any kind. They could have just spliced in the original movie and saved time. I'm not sure if it got better as i switched off at that point.

Ultimately The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) is not that amazing and is far too early given the Raimi films which are still quite recent in memory (and expensive).

The plot isn't memorable. The baddie scientist Dr Connors is not very interesting or indeed believable.

The over-used CGI (which now seems inevitable and unavoidable for films like these) is not as great as I thought it would be, the plot is a little stiff/dull, and I think the film doesn't really add anything modern or entertain as well as it could.

The direction is not memorable but there are some flashes of good cinematography.

Andrew Garfield is a great actor but is not enough to carry the film. It's a tall task for someone who doesn't do "buff". Ultimately, he is not believable and the humour isn't that funny - just awkward which is fine but doesn't make for a unique or intriguing superhero.

The Amazing Spider-Man is directed by Marc Webb and collectively written by James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent and Steve Kloves. It stars Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, Denis Leary, Martin Sheen and Sally Field. Music is by James Horner and cinematography by John Schwartzman.

Peter Parker (Garfield) was orphaned as a boy when his parents were killed in a plane crash, raised by his Uncle Ben (Sheen) and Aunt May (Field), he is a clever lad but something of an outcast at high school. While investigating the disappearance of his parents and sporting a crush on class mate Gwen Stacy (Stone), Peter's life is tipped upside down when he is bitten by a radioactive spider that gives him abnormal powers.

While the Spider-Man franchise doesn't (thankfully) come packaged with the kind of bizarre mania that comes with Batman, the acolytes are a tough bunch to figure out. Sam Raimi's trilogy garnered close towards $2.5 billion worldwide, yet now, with this reboot (actually it's a reimaging) trundled off of the Sony production line, there are plenty of "fans" coming forward to say they never rated Raimi's films! Magurie was this, Dunst was that, Raimi missed the beat of the comic version of Spidey and etc and etc. Well I'm sorry, but I just don't remember any fall out apart from the near unanimously agreed upon over stuffing of Raimi's part 3. Perhaps I just didn't go on the right Spider-Man forums? But even then it's hard to argue with a box office take of $2.5 billion, those figures have to be made up of a good proportion of Spidey fans, surely? You would reasonably think...

I mention it because The Amazing Spider-Man has met with reviews from each end of the scale. Those at the high end who support the "reimaging" seem to focus on it being close to the real Spidey universe they wanted, with great casting, better effects work and a origin story of worth. At the other end is the arguments that "reimaging" a film that is only ten years old is daft, especially since it actually doesn't bring the promised new direction or origin story of worth. In fact it just juggles bits of the Raimi trilogy and plays it out with other Spider-Man characters instead. While Garfield is hardly an improvement since he's way too old for high school as well! The truth is that Webb's movie falls somewhere in between both sides of the argument, and that's not just me being Switzerland and staying neutral!

Negatively it plays out as a compromised production and not the film that the makers initially set out to make, there are too many dangling threads and haphazard edits that leave narrative gaps. An Important character disappears off the radar, other characters are given limited time to breathe, and crucial plot points are arrived at with stupendous leaps of logic. A coda spliced into the end credits tries to entice us for the sequel, suggesting that the quick wipe over the origin "origin" story was deliberate, it's unlikely, and feels like an afterthought. For a film that purports to be putting its own stamp on the Spidey universe, it quite often makes you think of Raimi's films anyway. It may be The Lizard instead of Green Goblin and Gwen instead of MJ, but the emotional and psychological beats are still the same. Reboot? My arse. Oh and Horner, who I'm normally a fan of, has turned in a score that lacks vim and vigour, it aspires to be full of swirling superhero fervour to raise the goose flesh on your arms, but instead it's just goose, and not a decently cooked one at that.

However, on the positive side of things, low expectation really helped me to enjoy the film, and I even watched it a second time to check over some initial reactions I had. There is still a lot to enjoy here. Acting is of a high standard (Ifans' performance as Curt Connors gets better on repeat viewings), with good chemistry generated between Stone and Garfield, the effects work is (obviously) better ten years on; something which gives us a better-more acrobatic-moving Spider-Man, while the whole make-up of Parker as a geek who becomes cocky, even arrogant, really adds a kick to the first half of the movie's coming-of-age narrative bent. It's also good that with a running time of over two hours the makers have the time to expand Peter as a character, making the audience wait with expectation of his life changing date with the spider. As for the villain, it's true enough to say that The Lizard is hardly an inspiring choice, but it does fit in with the whole origin story plan that Webb and his team want to tell. Though it should be noted that those seeking wall to wall fights between Spidey and The Liz are going to go a little hungry.

It's big on human story and not the lazy cash in movie it could have been, and undeniably it's fun, but the holes, dangling threads and logic leaps stop it breaking out to achieve its intentions. Looking forward to the sequel, mind... 7/10

My boys love to watch this film, they are 5 and 2 so it's good for them, I prefer the old ones.

This is just a personal opinion, but I don't know how many times you can tell the same story and still get it wrong!!!

The movie itself was actually pretty good, on par with the 'original' Tobey Macguire Spiderman (some would say even better).
But I want to focus my review on the 3D aspect of this item. The 3D is, simply put, appalling. When you sit to watch a 3D film, you expect things to be coming out of the screen left right and centre... well they don't. This movie's 3D presentation is very poor. It adds some depth and perspective, but other than that it was very disappointing. I watched it on a Samsung ES6300 40" 3D LED TV with active 3D glasses.
I would strongly recommend everyone to skip the 3D version and just buy the cheaper standard BluRay - you'll enjoy it more.

The first half is so similar to Spiderman from 2002 that it is shocking that the studio allowed a reboot to repeat so much of the (already known) story. The SFX are pretty good and there was at least some passable acting in places. In general it was quite twee and probably needs "darkening" up in a way that Spiderman 3 was headed towards. The new lead (Garfield) looks like Andy Murray.

With all the superhero reboots of a film we all watched only a few years ago (years not decades), you have to wonder where imagination is left in the studios making these. It is comparable to the original films, but Toby Macguire was more convincing as Parker.

Average with a few scenes worth a watch for excitement.