Comments on: Review: ‘The Amazing Spider-Man’ Is A Good Teen Romance Struggling To Escape A Mediocre Superhero Movie

By: JoD

JoD — Fri, 13 May 2016 12:09:17 +0000

Andrew Garfield: very likeable and borderline sexy, way too young looking for mature Emma Stone, who is way too blond; Rhys Ifans: Why in the world wasn't this great actor used more in the film? His "Lizard" was the laziest rendered dumbest looking creature of the past decade. The sloppiest "Ape" was better than this ridiculous "monster". It looked like out of Boris Karlow's days. And the most irritating thing to me: Not to spoil it for you, but why so many unnecessary major casualties? And – a minor problem (joking!): A lot of plot-threats were given up and never resolved. Not a good script. A lot of fun, altogether, while watching (if you closed your eyes halfways when the Lizard was on and looked big when Spidey was being sexy and manly), but looking back, disappointing as of story-telling.

By: JAB

JAB — Fri, 13 May 2016 12:09:17 +0000

(Disclaimer: Evidently I'm the only person on this planet that really liked Spider-Man 3.)
You say that this is the 1st time in super hero movie history that the central characters felt like actual human beings, but I feel that the tremendous success of Nolan's Batman movies is largely due to the same quality (& the vastly underrated "Watchmen" has it as well).

By: Yemi

Yemi — Fri, 13 May 2016 12:09:17 +0000

just like Raimi's, this version plays it by recipe, just liiiitle bits of more surprises. And less noble idiocy, thank God.

By: sasha

sasha — Fri, 13 May 2016 12:09:17 +0000

"This isn't Peter Parker as a stereotyped nerd, it's a teenage boy whose tragic past has stopped him from ever truly connecting and engaging with people, and that feels like a fresh take on the character that genuinely makes sense for a modern audience."

— And just how was Tobey Maguire's Peter Parker not like this? Even though what happened to Peter's parents is not central to the 2002 Spider-man film it wasn't needed in my opinion. Maguire's performance deftly touched on how socially awkward, introverted, lonely and isolated Parker was. Maguire's characterization–which was very close to Stan Lee's 1960s comic book version–was completely easy to identify with as well.

"It's a fairly serious film with some comedic elements that turn on the more traditional, goofy Spider-Man vibe (the one that Sam Raimi nailed so well). ."

–I don't understand why people think Raimi's Spider-man was "goofy" or campy. It was no more a comedy than this film is. The only aspect of the original films that I would consider goofy or camp were J.K. Simmon's scenes as James Jonah Jameson but in saying that Simmons' performance wasn't anything outside what that character actually is. He totally captured Jameson and I thought it was great.

The earlier films were just as much about emotions and the relationships between the characters as you say this one is. Take the time to revisit the early films first before making comparisons to this new one. We don't always remember things as they actually were.

By: Great Scott!

Great Scott! — Fri, 13 May 2016 12:09:17 +0000

"But as a film involving relationships between human beings — arguably the first in the genre"

If you say so… I'd like to hear that argument.

By: KT

KT — Fri, 13 May 2016 12:09:17 +0000

Yeah, I'll pass on this one…