Click to Skip Ad
Closing in...

'The Amazing Spider-Man': The Good, The Bad & The Ugly

by The Playlist Staff
July 6, 2012 12:26 PM
  • |

The Ugly

Amazing Spider-Man Lizard skip crop
1. The Lizard in general
This is the fourth movie in the "Spider-Man" canon and the third to feature a scientifically minded mentor of Peter Parker's who suffers a psychological break and a physical transformation that turns him into a villainous monster. Been there, done that. (Another example of how all this "reboot" talk is a lot of hot air.) And while director Webb can talk all he wants about how the movie's central thematic concern is "finding your missing piece" (with Peter looking for the truth about his parents and the deranged doctor Curt Connors looking to replace his arm), it never quite comes across, especially since Connors seems to be working almost solely at the behest of the never-seen Norman Osborn. His injury seems more like a convenient plot device than an actual quest (and much of this was probably stripped away when Webb and company decided to delete scenes involving Connors' wife and child, turning him into more of a two-dimensional cartoon dinosaur). His character is a mess –- does he change into the Lizard at a certain point, werewolf-style? Can he control it? Will he eventually get stuck that way forever? Do his scales fall off and drop into his soup or coffee? These questions beg to be answered. His evil scheme is never fully defined either –- he wants to turn everyone in New York into a fearsome lizard-beast. Or something. For what? There's some half-baked implications about fixing imperfection, but it mainly comes across as something he's doing because he saw Ian McKellen try THE EXACT SAME PLAN in the first "X-Men" movie. From a visual standpoint, the Lizard is a bore too – his facial features owe a considerable debt to the Killer Croc design from the "Batman: The Animated Series" cartoon, and he only gets to wear his trademark lab coat (a visual benchmark for the character since its inception) in what feels like half a scene. (The fact that we were cheering on the return of a lab coat tells you how low our energy was.) "Some random dinosaur guy" would have been a more appropriate name than "The Lizard."

2. The compromised storyline hacked to death in post-production
It’s not unusual for films to feature lines of dialogue and sequences in ad campaigns that don’t make the final cut of a film. But “The Amazing Spider-Man” featured a significant chunk of material that viewers had seen in trailers and stills before release. Even without that knowledge, however, it’s not hard to see that “The Amazing Spider-Man,” which emerged from the aborted cocoon that was “Spider-Man 4,” feels like three movies stapled together. What suffers is Marc Webb’s supposedly grounded approach, which falters when we’re pointlessly zipping from location to location, day-to-night. The first third of the film features Peter learning about his parents, trying to figure out what they were hiding, discovering their magic equation and taking it to Connors. The mid-portion seems dedicated to Peter learning about his new powers, completely abandoning anything about his parents and then coping with the passing of Uncle Ben. And then the last third, where both his parents and Uncle Ben are never mentioned (nor any growing pains Peter had from his new powers, or struggles working his new web-slinger), finds Spidey facing off against the Lizard’s sketchy mad-science plan to turn New York into Koopatown. Never mind the fact that characters like the threatening Oscorp higher-up (Irrfan Khan) splits when the Lizard starts rampaging and never shows up again. And never mind the fact that, when Spidey first sees his scaly opposition, he doesn’t bat an eye. It’s very possible there was an excised scene before this where Spidey audibly reacts to Connors becoming such a terrifying creature, and maybe a scene later where Parker tries to reason with his old friend inside the lizard skin, but it's not be found here, symbolic of the disjointed nature of the film overall.

The Amazing Spider-Man Andrew Garfield
3. Huge plot holes/suspension of disbelief
While Vulture clued us in a little bit more as to what happened to the Indian guy who worked for Oscorp and wanted to use the Lizard's serum on a bunch of war vets, we walked out of the screening assuming he was still hanging by some spider-web off the bridge. But that's not the only dangling thread or unbelievable moment in the movie. What about Spider-Man's epic, 20-minute hunt for similar-looking criminals that ended not in an arrest but in a tacked-on moment towards the end where the criminal is still on his "to do" list, pinned on his cork board? Or how about Gwen Stacey, a low-level intern, being able to synthesize an anti-venom and load it into some kind of machine that will dispense it across all of New York? (And what happens to people who haven't been exposed to the Lizard serum who are then sucking down the anti-venom? Couldn't there be serious health risks or, at the very least, annoyingly loud coughing?) These are just a few of the huge plot holes/gaps in logic that "The Amazing Spider-Man" assaults you with almost every moment it's on screen. When we brought these up to a friend of ours, they said, "It's a slippery slope criticizing a comic book movie for a lack of realism." And it's not a lack of realism – we're clearly sitting in a theater about to watch a radioactive spider give a moody teenager enhanced abilities – it's the clumsiness of the script, the lack of its own internal logic, that is the most grating and (worst of all) actively pulls us out of our enjoyment of the film. It doesn't help that the movie is coming out so close after "The Avengers" – a movie that reminded us how much fun the "comic" part of comic book movies can be, with an internal logic that was occasionally cartoonish but never far from compelling or believable.

4. The science.
And on a similar note, "If it bends, it's funny, but if it breaks, it's not funny,” a great writer/director once wrote. The same theory applies to the suspension of disbelief. And there’s something ungainly about the science in “The Amazing Spider-Man.” Yes, it’s a comic book movie, and yes, Peter Parker is the son of scientist Richard Parker, and so he’s inherited much of his intelligence and aptitude. However, we’re to believe that Peter Parker is the only amateur scientist in the world who has figured out how to use Osborn’s biocable technology to create web shooters? Yes, this is the way the origins go down in the comics, but when you’re creating a fairly dark and realistic Spider-Man movie -- which ostensibly the movie wants to be most of the time; see how often the story is rooted in character and emotion -- it’s much easier to buy that Parker would inherit true and holistic spider-powers instead of creating web-shooters that will carry the weight of a teenage boy swinging all over Manhattan (the fact that Peter jumps right off a building without safety-testing the webshooters and whether they work seems to act counterintuitively with a boy we’re supposed to believe is a super genius). Sure, we’re shown moments of Peter’s intelligence beforehand -- Uncle Ben telling us he stopped being able to help with Peter’s homework after the age of ten, and Parker’s affinity for making gadgets around the house -- and perhaps this is where, once again, all the clunky editing and dropped sub-plots come in -- but, Peter seems to go from smart kid to genius in a few short, unbelievable steps. Also, why is it that the technology in Oscorp seems to be right out of “Prometheus,” but the rest of this world is pretty similar to ours? The science of 'Spider-Man' doesn’t seem to always jibe with the rest of the movie.

Emma Stone The Amazing Spider-Man
5. It never quite justifies its existence
The whole "reboot" angle to "The Amazing Spider-Man" is a cynical corporate ploy. This is less a reboot than a faithful remake of the first "Spider-Man," with slight alterations to characters and plot and, for the most part, it's almost exactly the same. It ends the same, Uncle Ben dies in a scene almost shot-for-shot like the original, there's even a similar music cue for the first time Peter Parker climbs a wall. But more than specifics, it just kind of feels like a watered-down version of Raimi's film. If the most successful reboots in recent memory – "Star Trek," "Casino Royale," and "Batman Begins" – have taught us anything, it's that you can't be too precious with the pre-existing mythology. People will respond, loudly, to huge shifts or alterations as long as they're pulled off with style and panache, and it would have been really fascinating to see a version of Spider-Man where, say, Uncle Ben didn't die but something else spurred on Peter Parker's commitment to masked vigilantism. (Hey, if "Star Trek" can blow up the planet Vulcan, Spider-Man could get away with this.) You hunger for deviation from the norm watching "The Amazing Spider-Man," but everything seems so similar – there's a heroic moment on a bridge, an example of New Yorkers teaming together to save our hero, and even major character changes like having Gwen Stacey be the center of attention instead of Mary Jane (or having The Lizard beat up on our hero instead of Green Goblin) seem arbitrary and underdeveloped. The biggest difference we can tell is that Gwen is blonde while Mary Jane was a redhead. Besides that, they're kind of the same. Which is something you could say about a lot of "The Amazing Spider-Man."

--Oliver Lyttelton, Gabe Toro, Drew Taylor and RP

Free Indie Movies and Documentaries    


  • DIGITDEVELOPMENT | October 31, 2012 1:37 AMReply

    Personally I loved the film! i was never ever a fan of Sam (trainwreck) Raimi, I think his style is campy- which is fine for him I guess but it seems like the man cannot get over his whole Evil Dead style to the point where it was just flooding the Spiderman movies in camp value. That's my bias opinion and the rest of my comments about the film I will try and keep with fact.
    1st off, Raimi's TWO films, I dont include the 3rd because... well who would honestly, were decent... I did enjoy 2. Maguire I never liked as Parker. He was overly harassed and picked on in the first, to the point where it seemed like lazy writing and cliche. Matthew Vaugh's Kickass, I believe is the best version of how Parker should be treated... a loser who's invisible... although he obviously wasn't a boy genius how Peter is in both the film and comic. Garfield fits the physical build of what spidey is supposed to look like. Maguire always looked a bit too pudgy in his suit (which was somewhat the equivalent to Keaton's batsuit- overly rubber and Hollywood); no way do I believe that Parker made that suit himself (talk about suspension of belief!). Amazing's suit was also a bit Hollywood, but it moved and had wrinkles and reacted to Garfields body, like it does in the comics. Spidey also moved and fought how I always believed he should for once. Skinny, yet ripped, and agile as shit. Maguire's whole mirror muscular scene he was too big... never have I seen spidey that big and overly muscular. Garfield was thin and very toned... almost how Bale in Begins made it believable that HE WAS infact beating the shit out of baddies because of his build.
    Maguire was bit by a super spider genetically enhanced (for reasons they dont go into), and your telling me that this super scientific facility goes-oops a spider escaped for no other reason than a plot device to bite Maguire's hand (again suspension of belief anyone?! hello).
    SOME of the action scenes seemed a bit overly CG, but the characters in Amazing allowed me to buy it because for once I was invested in the characters. Avengers, the Hulk... seriously was anyone going "man thats so real I believe that thing is real??? Yet here we are complaining about CG effects-- which without them Spidey wouldn't be moving how he does, which WAS how he moves and looks in the comics. Raimi's Spidey webslinged over and over again in overly done CG shots which had Spidey swinging like a stiff board with not a lot of movement as far as the classic Mcfarlane skinny spidey is supposed to look when he swings. Plus every shot in SPIDERMAN 1 looks CG as hell.
    Why is everyone complaining about it being the same as Raimi's origin??? Im sorry, do we want him to go into outer space and get bitten by an alien?? What do you expect? He gets bitten by a radioactive spider.... THATS SPIDERMAN!
    Spiderman is also supposed to make wise cracks. I thought Garfield's jokes throughout the movie were hilarious and is how Peter Parker behaves as Spiderman. The cast made great 3 dimensional characters, especially the adult supporting cast- Ben, May, and Captian Stacy. Ben Parker was especially done very well... and not just an old man spouting comic book lines of great responsibility.
    How can anyone talk shit on the Lizard when Green Goblin was like something out of a Power Rangers movie?? (and btw I adore W Dafoe as an actor but his character WAS 2 dimensional) All of Raimi's villains were split personalities and it got very old... and yes I understand the Lizard was talking to himself but IF your read the comics or watched the Animated Series he is a man battling himself. Although Conners from the animated series will always be my favorite and loved the fact that he had a family. He wants his arm to grow back- thats the story of Conner's... if the movie went off the deep end and departed from the comic character- you'd complain, yet when it's true to the source material- you complain.
    Parker NEVER EVER worked for Conners.... he was merely assisting him because Conner's was working on his father's project. You think he's getting a paycheck or something??? SERIOUSLY??? Peter Parker developed webbing and web shooters in the comics and animated show... Raimi's whole biological spiderweb was BS- if your gonna go with the whole, he can make webs like a spider, well than technically the web should be shooting out of his asshole LIKE a spider. Maguire showed no signs of being genius... infact if you read the comics Parker does in fact work with Conners and is his brightest prodigy.
    How are you going to complain about the school scene, when Raimi has Green Goblin show up at a hospital and force Aunt May (sterile and boring btw) to spout off a prayer--? Raimi's movie cashed in with this whole "GO NEW YORK YAY!" post 9-11 bullshit, which made it of the time... whereas Amazing stands on it's own and is true to the character of Parker and the comics.
    My last comment about the film was yes, it was a bit darker than others, especially for Spiderman... but if he had made it look bright and comic book-- youd be complaining even more so about how much it was a rehash of Raimi's films. It's different, deal with it. Plus if you really wanna analyze it-- New York is a dangerous rough place, its dark and creepy at night in certain areas-- which is another reason why Spidey needs to be silly and funny... its how he counteracts the messed up city he's in.
    I loved the movie but seriously this backlash from people for reasons which make no sense and their arguments totally contradict themselves is getting on my nerves. If you're gonna debate something, have something to say that holds a point and try not to say shit that counteracts what your arguing because all those points could be argued AGAINST Raimi's trilogy. It's like saying "I didn't like Batman Begins because i've already seen Bruce's parents die, been there done that..."
    Finally I will end on a slight positive note about the Raimi films.... aside from the 3rd.... Danny Elfman's score was terrific! One of the few great things about those films.

  • Mynameisunimportant | October 21, 2012 5:46 PMReply

    I think the reason that I loved this film while alot of other Arachnophiles didn't is because I've always preferred Peter Parker to Spider-man. In fact it's a commonly overlooked fact that Peter Parker isn't Spidey; Spidey is Peter Parker. Everything about Spider-man is an extension of Pete's personality. He's a shy, unpopular kid in real life, so he makes his alter-ego a confident wisecrack machine. He lost his father figure because he didn't stop a completely unrelated crime when he could, so he cannot stop being Spider-man because the same might happen again. In fact, that is one major change in this as a reboot. In this film he begins as a vigilante because of revenge, but the voice of reason, in the form of Capt. Stacy, makes him see that he isn't trying to help people like he tells himself he is. It's also why Uncle Ben has to die. Before his death Peter used his powers selfishly and carelessly, I'd go as far as saying that he'd probably become a villain if it wasn't for Ben's death.

  • Z-man | August 20, 2012 5:46 PMReply

    This movie completely destroyed the future of Spider-man for me. This movie was so horrible, I asked the movie theater for my money back. There was so much that was wrong with this story line I don't even want to get into it. It's like they completely burned all of the original comic books, and stole all of the ideas. I was hesitant to see this movie the moment I saw what the costume of Spider-man was going to look like. I should have stayed home instead of waste $20 on this movie.

  • Couch Potato Cop | July 21, 2012 2:27 PMReply

    OK, I was a huge Spider-man fan growing up, and I guess I still am. Sorry to say: I was disappointed big time with "The Amazing Spider-man". I much prefer the Sam Raimi trilogy.
    In a nutshell:
    --Very odd pacing. The movie focused on "smaller moments" and let them unfold slowly, but it made the movie hard to sit through.
    --Why make unnecessary changes to the origin story? The die-hard fanboys know what I'm talking about.
    --By having the origin story play out so slowly it delayed the eventual Spidey vs. Lizard plot, which almost seemed like an after-thought.
    --No J.Jonah Jameson, Daily Bugle, Betty Brant, etc ?
    --Capt. George Stacy was a proponent of Spider-man in the comics, NOT his adversary.
    --Andrew Garfield is a gifted actor and did a good job overall. But he looked gangly & spindly in the awful costume.
    --The action sequences failed to dazzle.
    --The opening briefly introducing PP's parents really didn't pay off anywhere. But why even bring in the parents anyway ? They didn't even appear in the first 20 or so years of Spider-man comics, and even then, ever-so-briefly. They were minor characters. And by the way, they were spies, not scientists.
    --The dude who had his convenience store robbed was a douche-bag and kind of deserved it.
    [That's neither here nor there, but just thought I'd throw it out there.]
    --The cryptic end-credit "extra scene" added nothing. In fact, it was so poorly done that even Spider-man "experts" don't know who the mystery character was supposed to be.

  • carlos rodriguez | July 19, 2012 5:10 PMReply

    spiderman 4 would of been a hit with jim carrey as carnage the lizard black cat and SPOILER morbius but instead they raped tobey maguire and rebooted there is so many things wrong with this movie lets start :1the suit is more futuristic not original 2 doctor connors is all around evil he's not suppose to be all evil hes suppose to be akind scientist with a son and wife trying to get his arm back then he turns into evil lizard. 3 aunt may is 68 not 40.4 there is no no untold story as the movie display stated only the original.5 he was suppose to be in a wrestling macth the skrewd dat up . 6 the lizard did not look like a lizard look up spiderman 4 lizard poster and then tell me wich is da shit . 7 spiderman does not take off his mask every 3 seconds in this case he does i hate this movie. 8 ign reviews were write when they said there coping batman they make it night all day exept one scene its sunset oh the next one is gonna be a villian weve never seen in are lives proto goblin OTHER WISE KNOWN AS SWAMP BEAST WTF P.S.: THANK U SONY FOR RUINING MY CHILD HOOD HERO:(.

  • james | July 11, 2012 4:19 PMReply

    this uncle Ben sucked the previous one felt more real and this one was just a dick and im sorry sally field i loved u in the bandit but she makes a horrible aunt may come on she didn't even have the gray hair this was a good movie but it was just to soon from raime ones which i loved all the characters for the most part except kirsten just because before this movie she had played a whore in pretty much everything and it just felt weird seeing her in a role like this anyways i believe people need to stop arguing that the amazing spiderman is better simply because its new everyone needs to watch the other first two to remember how good they were and then maybe argue about it

  • Austin | July 9, 2012 3:13 PMReply

    The ending with the ugly got me to thinking that you haven't read the comic books before judging the movie, or haven't had any background experience with The Amazing Spider-Man, the actual comic book name of this series. In the beginning Gwen was Peter's first love and afterwards he met Mary; and the sole concept of the villain being lizardman was important, as the green goblin wasn't introduced quite yet.

    I'm also inclined to disagree with the review on the action scenes as they were supposed to be a extreme suspension of disbelief, I mean heck you have a lizardman fighting a human mutated to have the genetics of a spider. Overall cut the movie some slack, the movie was well-made and had some holes, but none too big to judge it otherwise.

  • Katie Walsh | July 9, 2012 1:04 PMReply

    The Good: Frankie the Cannibal Lizard Mouse

  • JW | July 9, 2012 12:12 AMReply

    I loved this movie and spiderman
    Garfield is way better than maguire
    Everything about it is better

  • The Village Videot | July 8, 2012 8:02 PMReply

    You must have seen a different movie than the one I did.

  • RJ | July 7, 2012 5:05 PMReply

    Arguably, the most use of the word 'arguably' in any one article, of all time (arguably)

  • mpbstereo | July 7, 2012 2:25 PMReply

    Solid analysis, don't necessarily agree with all of it. I though Ifans did just fine with severely limited material. The school fight was intriguing, if underdeveloped. I agree that Webb has a bit of ways to go as far as handling action, but if you look back at Batman Begins (and the reviews for that film suggest as much), Nolan was a bit out of his element there as well. To a degree, I'm reminded of Superman Returns - emphasis on character with questionable plot mechanics and slightly underwhelming action sequences. Truthfully, I'm rather relieved they went "small" for this movie and let the character beats do the driving. Next time out (and let's not kid ourselves, there will be a next time out), I'm hoping Webb stays on at least as a producer. They could push this FAR if they stick to a certain moment in the comics that changed everything (a certain death that is not only canon, but has never been reverted).

  • Comic Book Candy | July 7, 2012 11:45 AMReply

    Great review! I left the theater wanting to like this film more than I did. The movie felt like cinematic deja vu. It was too soon to use so many of the same beats from the Raimi film. It really needed to deviate greatly (much like Webb attempted to do with the style) for it to stand on its own.

  • Tom M. | July 7, 2012 8:07 AMReply

    It's a goddamn comic book movie, hipster-Playlist! You're looking for the most insane things to pick apart because you believe it makes you better than the mainstream. This is a film made for children and teenagers - people who adore Spidey. I'm sorry if it doesn't satisfy your indie/art film tastes, you pretentious wanna-be-filmmakers. Get your heads out of your arses... Call this article a critical look all you want, I don't care.

  • Jose Cuervo Enchillada Carlos Jr. | July 20, 2012 7:16 PM

    Amen. This guy gets paid to spout out this crap? There's too much wrong with this article to even bother. I mean come on, did the writer of this nonsense even pay attention to the movie?

  • Carmine | July 7, 2012 5:15 AMReply

    I liked the action sequences though there seemed to be too few of them. I think it's hard to sit through a 2 hour plus super hero movie that doesn't do well with storytelling and plot movement.

    I think some of the reviews left out an overall insult to the intelligence of the audience that watched this movie. After gaining his powers, Peter Parker didn't seem to be inconspicuous at all. He was doing amazing things in his high school with no questions asked. The background people just seemed to act like this over the top stuff was normal. He jumps to the top of the subway car and sticks there, and not one person is truly amazed by this? Some of the people see this and actually try to fight him? He dunks a ball and breaks the backboard? Catches a football, throws it back bending an upright in the process, and you just here a football player say "Come on!"? Just over the top. It shouldn't be easy to guess who Spiderman is, but you had a feeling that anyone at his school should have known. There could have been creative ways to show off his powers without making it blatantly obvious!

    I honestly enjoyed the movie, but it was promised that this movie would be more authentic than the last installments. Though Spiderman's smart allic lines while fighting were welcomed by me (were any of your critics Spiderman Comic fans at all? That is one of the main characteristics of Spiderman), the changes in the origin story should have been handled better if there were going to be any. I also know that the stars require some face time, but I was starting to feel like this movie should have been called The Amazing Peter Parker as Spiderman traipsed around the movie mask-less more often than he did with his mask on. His identity was revealed four times. Wow! This is not including how many people saw Peter Parker do Spiderman like things and could have just described Parker to the Police sketch artist to collect some of that reward money for the arrest of Spiderman. Last, but not least, the city has a giant Lizard with a chemical warfare weapon which was seen running amok, tossing cars off a bridge, and getting the masked vigilante off the street takes priority?

  • Donn | July 7, 2012 1:34 AMReply

    As much as I wanted to like this movie, I just can't. Did Marc Webb even read a Spidey comic before making this? There are so many things wrong with this movie, too many to list, but it all starts with this: Where was the phase that made Spiderman/Peter Parker who he is today, "With great power comes great responsibility"??? Simply put, without that line, there is NO Spiderman. None. Hoping the second one is better because I certainly don't want to see them kill off this franchise!

  • Nightwing | July 7, 2012 5:14 AM

    It's said when Peter comes home when he forgot to take Aunt May home, right before he goes out again. Uncle Ben says that if he can do something, then do it for others, and that it is all about responsibility. They based it off of the Ultimate Spider-Man, when Uncle Ben says "Great things will happen, Peter. Great things. And with that comes an awful lot of responsibility." He didn't quote the original, but the concept was there.

  • Alan | July 6, 2012 11:48 PMReply

    ""If it bends, it's funny, but if it breaks, it's not funny,” a great writer/director once wrote. " Lol. I love it when people cite this quote from 'Crimes and Misdemeanors'. The Alan Alda character says it, and he's depicted as an obnoxious, self-deluded, egotistic moron with no undestanding of drama and comedy. In the scene in question, the Woody Allen character rolls his eyes at the po-faced blankness of the suggestion: why do people, then, quote it as if it's some form of great statement of art?

  • Alan | July 6, 2012 11:30 PMReply

    "And yet almost on cue, Gwen, walking away, turns around as says to Peter "He made you promise, didn't he." It's a moment that makes us adore the character's smarts" Really? I thought that the dialogue was too obvious and the moment would have been more effective with just a look from Gwen.

  • Zack | July 6, 2012 7:59 PMReply

    You address this, but I wasn't a big fan of the fact that Uncle Ben's killer was left as a deliberately dangling, ostensibly recurring plot thread. The way I see it, the killer isn't supposed to be some Moby Dick figure; he's random, faceless and easily brought down once Peter actually cares enough to do it simply to emphasize how horrible things can come from petty, banal places that we don't think are worthy of our attention.
    And on a less pretentious note, why the fuck was he packing when his robbery strategy involves robbing the register while the clerk's back is turned?

  • Nightwing | July 7, 2012 5:18 AM

    1) With all the complaining about how Webb copies Raimi, you really need to ask why Peter didn't just off him two minutes after Uncle Ben's death, and not make him a plot device for the next/other film(s)?
    2) He didn't need to use it right off the bat, and probably took it in case he had to use it. And if I were him, I would use it as little as I could as well. You know, with the legal system and stuff these days. Also, he showed off a sense of finesse and craftsmanship by just reaching in, walking out, and disappearing.

  • Great Scott! | July 6, 2012 5:08 PMReply

    I feel that unless a person has watched the new movie and the first Raimi film within a few days of each other, that person should not be permitted to write reviews, goods/bads/uglies, or comments comparing the two. Have you all done this? I have. They were largely the same, neither was perfect, both did some things better and some things worse... Both highly emphasize interpersonal relationships (both of the romantic variety and otherwise). Both villains were ultimately painted too cartoonish to make a lasting impression. TAS darker? No film containing that ridiculous Stan Lee scene anywhere in it can be called dark. Sheen a better Ben? Watch Babylon 5: The River of Souls; discover Martin Sheen is an awful actor. In TAS he more often than not came off as wooden. As of right now, I still prefer Raimi's because I know the amazing sequel it led to...maybe TAS will deliver something greater after it deals with its growing pains.

  • james | July 11, 2012 4:09 PM

    nice comment i get annoyed by all the people likeing this movie better simply because it was newer i found this one a little cheesy but good and fun to watch but i just loved the first two spiderman movies mainly because of the action the fights scenes in the second were just epic to me and the fast that spidy didnt get his but kicked every time he would find the villian i agree that people should have to watch the amazing spider and the first spiderman back to back before being able to judge anything

  • GREAT SCOTT! | July 6, 2012 5:47 PM

    @Congrats, had I not specified, some equally hilarious joker like yourself would no doubt ask in an incredibly witty manner whether, since I just wrote a comment, I had. Instead I get you. Nice work!

  • Congratulations | July 6, 2012 5:40 PM

    "I feel that unless a person has watched the new movie and the first Raimi film within a few days of each other, that person should not be permitted to write reviews, goods/bads/uglies, or comments comparing the two. Have you all done this? I have"


  • Max | July 6, 2012 4:57 PMReply

    have no idea why the blog-o-sphere is puzzled by the film's post credits sting when its safe to assume that Dr. Connors was merely talking to his splintered "evil" personality that was borne out of the serum injections he self administered through out the film. One scene that supports this idea is the part where Connors while in the sewer, is seen talking to his evil alter ego urging him to kill Peter Parker.

  • EF Brackett | July 6, 2012 4:26 PMReply

    I liked the movie overall, and the big reason is Garfield and Stone. It does have its problem, but I'm on board with this new direction because the previous incarnation needed to end. It does seem inconsistent though when you mention the slow pacing early in the film, but also give kudos to the emotional and relationship coverage in the movie. Most of the emotional and relationship stuff is established early in the film, and it's done well. Personally, I would have liked to see even more of the relationships built between the characters and less of the obligatory, summery action scenes.

  • rodie | July 6, 2012 3:02 PMReply

    "they didnt believe the audience could relate to a villain who didnt have a human face"

    You've pinpointed a major problem with Hollywood today. The prequelization of movies and characters. Why in the world do audiences have to RELATE to a VILLAIN? He's a villain! You relate to the heroes. Just because Lucas saw fit (or ill-fit, if you will) to use three movies to explain the backstory of Darth Vader so audiences "relate" to him, doesn't mean that the right thing to do. One of the reasons Nolan's Batman films have been so engaging I feel is because of how little back story we truly get on the villains.

  • james | July 11, 2012 4:12 PM

    true that dude people say yay the darknight but we all know the majority of the people go to see the movies because they wanna see how sick the villian is

  • waltkovacsq | July 6, 2012 2:52 PMReply

    raimi's original script treatment for 4 did indeed have the lizard. sony nixed the idea...they didnt believe the audience could relate to a villain who didnt have a human face

  • Eric | July 6, 2012 2:39 PMReply

    I admired the detail of this review, but I wondered what its purpose was. I enjoyed the movie, despite what the reviewer's POV saw. I'm no novice - having watched movies for 60 years, and written two award-winning (unproduced) screenplays. And I don't care about the validity of the science, or the first act being (semi)repetitive of the Toby Spidey movies. Who cares? I like it, and it got produced! HEre's my much-shorter review:
    "AMAZING SPIDER-MAN" A great new start.

    I was curious: Why another Spiderman movie so soon? I saw it in 2D the other night, and I loved it. I've been going to movies for 60+ years, and have written 2 award-winning screenplays. I liked the first two Toby movies, but compared to this one, Toby's seem like romantic comedies. (I turned off the DVD of Toby III because of the foolish petty-jealousy subplot.)

    Garfield's Spidey seems more sensitive and intelligent than Toby's. And Gwen is more humble and vulnerable than Mary Jane. While I was at first put off by The Lizard (shades of Godzilla!), when he Jekylls back into his human form - with a hopeful inspiring vision - I could accept it. I liked the climax and the ending. And sit through the credits!

  • Juan Caruci | July 6, 2012 2:26 PMReply

    In my opinion, I feel like you have missed the point of ASM. Though your review has several good points, one can't help but notice that you compared Webb's film to Raimi's way too much. I understand why you would do that, but you're forgetting that the whole point of the reboot was to make it DIFFERENT than Raimi's films. The first two Raimi films ended with Spider-Man swinging around Manhattan. However, this film took a different approach and decided to show Spider-Man's acrobats and reflexes over his simple, boring ability to swing. That's why it ended with him swinging and jumping through an alleyway, avoiding things in his path (very much like the Web Rush in the ASM video-game). As for the dark-comedy confusion, I personally believe that's what makes the film stand out. The fact that Peter Parker has lost every father figure he has had the opportunity of coming across is tragic; it truly is a dark story. The jokes are necessary for Peter to stay sane. Stan Lee mentioned it himself in an interview, if Peter Parker wouldn't be making jokes or laughing, he'd just be crying all the time. And that's the sad truth, he has a tragic life and the humor helps him through it. It was in the comics, it was in this movie, and I thought it couldn't have been better.

  • Juan Caruci | July 6, 2012 2:48 PM

    Oh and Uncle Ben has to die, without his death, Peter wouldn't learn about responsibility. That's like saying you wish Peter wouldn't get bitten by a radioactive spider. And another thing, Gwen and MJ are nothing alike. She falls in love with Peter, meanwhile MJ falls in love with Spider-Man. She's intelligent and dedicated, meanwhile MJ is wild and sassy. She sticks to the books, meanwhile MJ wants to be an actress. It's a whole new take on Spider-Man and his supporting character.

  • Joshua Rizzo | July 6, 2012 1:36 PMReply

    I just think this review is ridiculous. It was a good movie to the average moviegoer & I'd recommend it to anyone.

  • KT | July 6, 2012 2:24 PM

    I swear 'The Playlist' has more idiotic commenters than the gossip sites.

  • The Playlist | July 6, 2012 2:02 PM

    But it's not a review. You can see a link to that in the first graph.

    It's a deeper dissection of the film we do **after** we've already written a review to get into specifics about things we loved, things we liked, things we disliked and things we hated (and we use it for film like this that have a bit of everything).

  • bill__brasky | July 6, 2012 1:47 PM

    Wow. I thought I just finished reading a well-written and thoughtful piece on The Amazing Spider-Man but your rebuttal has completely changed my mind. I agree that ASM is a good movie (at best) and not the complete train wreck that some are making it out to be, but it does have some HUGE problems. If you want to completely ignore these flaws, that's fine, but offering comments like "I think this review is ridiculous" is a disservice to the critical discussion.

Email Updates