Comparing The Amazing Spider-Man with Spider-Man

Feature Mark Harrison 13 Jul 2012 - 08:32

It’s just over 10 years since Sam Raimi’s first Spider-Man movie, so how does Marc Webb’s The Amazing Spider-Man compare? Mark takes a look…

The response to The Amazing Spider-Man has been largely positive, considering how expectations weren't exactly through the roof in the run-up to its release. Coming between The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises, the marketing was eager to pitch the film as a closer relative of the latter than of the superlative fun we got from Marvel's big superhero team-up. 

If we were to speculate upon a reason for that, it's that the reboot is essentially a refresher for Marvel's agreement with Sony on the rights to the characters. Just as Fox has to keep making X-Men movies if it wants to retain the rights to that property, Sony had to make another Spider-Man movie to avoid the situation where he returns to Marvel's stable and joins the line-up in The Avengers 2. 

After parting ways with Sam Raimi, who planned to make Spider-Man 4 in the same vein as his previous retro take on the series, the studio decided to go back to the beginning and reboot, but it's only just over ten years since we last saw a version of Spider-Man's origin story, in 2002's Spider-Man

Personally, I saw the film without any of the baggage of the previous films, which I liked, but it's interesting to compare how different crews took different approaches to the origin story. How different are they in essence? Are some of the changes in the reboot simply for the sake of change? And of course, which one makes a better job of it? 

Peter Parker

Any Spider-Man movie has this young man at its centre, and it’s to Andrew Garfield's credit that he does such a spectacular job in a role that's already been well-established by Tobey Maguire. The two actors make very different portrayals of the character, but the overriding feeling coming out of The Amazing Spider-Man is that you want Garfield to keep playing Peter for the foreseeable future. 

However, it's an almost unique case of an actor's performance being so likeable as to overcome any perceived problems with the character. Maguire's Peter is a dork, through and through. He's nerdy, perhaps set apart from his classmates by the fact that he lives with much older relatives. His parents aren't even mentioned. Garfield's Peter is, by contrast, an outcast, which comes with cooler connotations involving skateboards and big hair.

Garfield's Peter is somewhat similar to Edward Cullen from Twilight, though he's much more interesting for the virtue of spider-powers and facial expressions. Many have made the case that he acts like Spider-Man even before he's imbued with superpowers, going by the scene in which he stands up for a fellow classmate, resulting in a beatdown from Flash Thompson.

Whatever the problems with the script, which will be discussed in more depth later, Garfield's talents and great charisma shine through regardless. He's different enough from Maguire that we can like both in different ways – the original Peter leaves high-school about half an hour into Spider-Man, while The Amazing Spider-Man seems to have couched itself there for the duration of its planned trilogy, and perhaps it is time for this more popular interpretation of Peter to get its dues on the big screen. 

The origin story

Here's where the reboot falls down a little. While Spider-Man zipped through the whys and hows of Peter's dalliance with a genetically-modified spider in the first ten minutes or so, The Amazing Spider-Man expands the origin to feature-length and backwards into Peter's childhood. Much of “the untold story”, ominously promised in the film's marketing, doesn't come to light in this first instalment, anyway. 

In the run-up to the film's release, it wasn't uncommon to see messages on the Twittersphere that went along the lines of “I really don't care about Spider-Man's parents”, and it's hard to disagree, given what they rustled up. There's something to be said for the implication that Peter only got superpowers from his bite, rather than, say, a potentially lethal transfusion of spider venom because his father's work led him to meddle with Peter's DNA, but haven't we heard that somewhere before?

Look at how the last big reboot of a Marvel property handled its re-telling of the origin story. The Incredible Hulk shows Edward Norton's Bruce Banner being subjected to gamma radiation during a montage in the opening credits, with some later dialogue tying his research to the super-soldier serum that created Captain America. The Amazing Spider-Man thus takes its lead from the wrong Hulk movie – 2003's Hulk also linked its origin story to a scientist father's experiments.

If we count the death of Uncle Ben as part of the origin story, and we should, then the first film does a better job again, discounting the laughable retcon performed in Spider-Man 3. Even though Martin Sheen is superb as Peter's uncle, you can see the filmmakers tiptoeing around the story as we know it – this film's version of the classic line, “With great power, comes great responsibility” doesn't pass muster, precisely because the screenwriters are obviously trying to say it without using those words.

Structurally speaking, you can align 2002's film with Superman: The Movie, but 2012's reboot takes its cues, in more ways than one, from Batman Begins. It's a much darker, mostly serious telling of a story we already know, and it's not like there was anything wrong with the more sprightly and colourful interpretation from a decade ago. And even more troublesome is that there's not a single superhero who seems less at home in a Nolan-ised adaptation than Spider-Man does.

Spider-Man

Although Peter Parker is Spider-Man, there are still grounds to separately compare the film's portrayals of him while masked, especially when it can be argued that the earlier film has a better Spider-Man, even if Garfield is a better Peter than Maguire. It's not really down to the actors, seeing as how Spidey's design basically precludes facial expressions, no matter how good you are at acting.

This one is more about design, direction and script, and the differences that make the original so much better. The costume in The Amazing Spider-Man is plain ugly, and frankly, it's different for the sake of difference. Perhaps it's a little more practical, and maybe it's slightly more believable that a teenager with little disposable income could assemble it, but it's an inferior version of the more colourful variant seen in the original trilogy.

The problems don't stop with the costume, though. Much of the reboot focuses on fan service and supposed corrections of creative decisions in the previous adaptations – seeing as how the mechanical web-shooters are well handled in this one, it's hard to declare a preference for either that kind, or the organic web seen in Raimi's films, but there are other difficulties.

This includes Spider-Man's tendency to make quips, a much-celebrated aspect of the comics that frequently has his villains driven to distraction (and defeat) by how annoying he is. On the big screen, the audience might sympathise with them, instead of enjoying how much he irritates his foes into submission. 

Whether it's the writing, or that aforementioned incapacity for facial expressions, Spidey's quips just don't come off like they're supposed to in the reboot. I never understood why people claimed it was absent in Raimi's version; he makes some quips throughout all three films, but he doesn't go so far as to sound like he's doing a bad stand-up routine either.

New Spidey has some stellar moments, though, with the scene where he saves a child from a burning car suspended from a bridge being a particular highlight. One of the really good decisions in the film is to show this moment as the point where Peter realises Spider-Man's power as a symbol of hope, and his interaction with the young boy is lovely. 

Likewise, the idea of having Peter take his rucksack out with him while crime-fighting is a nice touch that really lends an authenticity to his geekiness that might not be present through his not-so-wise-cracking and general super-heroism. It helps remind us that he's under the mask. But honestly, I never lost that feeling when I was watching any of the original films, even though Garfield goes without the mask a lot more often than Maguire. That's a problem with the representation of the hero, if not with Peter.

The villain

If nothing else, Dylan Baker can take comfort in the fact that his Lizard probably would have been better, had the cancelled Spider-Man 4 come to pass. Having played Dr Curt Connors in Spider-Man 2 and Spider-Man 3, there was a bit more groundwork to his relationship with Peter before he accidentally turns himself into a giant lizard than the reboot musters.

Rhys Ifans does a good job, but he's given shockingly little to chew on in his role as Connors. Aside from vague allusions to his friendship with Peter's father, which seems to be all that's left of the otherwise implied “untold story” after reshoots and edits, there's not a lot to him. Certainly, there's no feasible reason given in his brief pre-Lizard scenes with Peter for his immediate desire to turn everybody else into a lizard just as soon as his own transformation takes place.

Compare this to the villain in Raimi's Spider-Man. Although the problems with casting the world's most expressive actor and then putting him under a static fibreglass mask should speak for themselves, Willem Dafoe gets a lot of work to do as Spidey's most iconic foe, Norman Osborn, also known as  the Green Goblin. His arc sets up a sub-plot that would power the entire trilogy, in a way that Connors' eventual commitment to an asylum just doesn't.

More importantly, his relationship with Peter is better established. Although the movies have tended to contrive connections between Peter and the antagonist at times, hence the awful retcon with Sandman and Uncle Ben, Raimi always did it better than Webb manages. Norman likes Peter, Peter admires Norman, and so their superpowered clashes actually mean something later on, especially when Norman tries to plead with his fractured personality on Peter's behalf.

There's a risible attempt to do the same thing in The Amazing Spider-Man, which focuses on Connors having an agreement with himself. Not an argument, but simply an internalised discussion with his split personality on the topic of killing Spider-Man. They're both for the idea. All of this is not to mention the awful CGI used to render Connors' lizard alter-ego, all of which adds up to a deployment of one of Spider-Man's most interesting foes that is underpowered, as well as overdue.

Romance

For better or worse, Twilight has come up a lot in people's analyses of The Amazing Spider-Man. Seeing as how Gwen Stacy is a girl with a policeman father, who falls in love with a big-haired, super-powered loner, you can't entirely deny the parallels. It's a shake-up in comparison to the ongoing dynamic between Peter and Mary Jane in the Raimi movies. 

For as far as the origin story goes, the chemistry between Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst sells the romance between Peter and Mary Jane. He adores her from afar, and by the end of the movie, we're gratified to discover that she's fallen in love with Peter, not with his alter-ego, despite an iconic clinch in the rain. It's only in the sequels that Dunst starts to wear on the viewer a little bit, with her problems paling into significance compared to the issues that Peter deals with every day. 

Gwen isn't the type to get kidnapped at the end of every movie and scream her arse off either. And frankly, Emma Stone's portrayal is what will tip you head over heels in love with the actress, if you weren't already there, after her extremely likeable turns in Zombieland and Easy A. 

By making Gwen into Peter's intellectual equal, there's a connection that we didn't see when he was clumsily courting queen bee Mary Jane in the earlier movies. Although the rooftop scene where Peter web-yanks Gwen into their first kiss isn't as iconic as the alleyway in the rain – and arguably, nothing else in this film is so iconic either – the smouldering attraction between them is one of the best things about the reboot. Expect tears, if the sequels draw from the Gwen Stacy saga of the comics for inspiration. 

And the rest...


The Amazing Spider-Man doesn't just make up for the lack of JK Simmons by omitting J Jonah Jameson from the story, but by having a couple of characters whose casting is equally perfect. In addition to having a better Peter Parker, the reboot supersedes the original by casting Martin Sheen as Uncle Ben and Denis Leary as George Stacy.

James Cromwell's Captain Stacy only appeared in Spider-Man 3, but accounting for how fantastic Leary is in the role, it's not difficult to conclude that Cromwell looks worse off. Leary's superb comic timing enlivens the film's slower moments, even though his character's fixation on arresting Spider-Man rather than stopping the giant lizard, even after it launches a biological attack on his turf, is part of this version's unfortunate debt to Christopher Nolan's Batman movies.

If Spider-Man is equivalent to a Richard Donner-esque Spider-Man: The Movie, then The Amazing Spider-Man is Spider-Man Begins, but the dark, edgy take on Spider-Man doesn't suit the webslinger one bit. Others rate the reboot more highly than we do, but it's ultimately a pretty hollow attempt at difference for difference's sake, with a few strokes of genius casting to make it watchable. 

Adjusting for inflation and accounting for the 3D surcharge, the film's box office take makes it the weakest performer of all of Sony's Spider-Man features, so perhaps audiences weren't as turned onto the idea of a darker Spidey than the critics, who largely seem to have enjoyed it. We can at least agree that Andrew Garfield should play Spider-Man again. We'd just rather see Sony cut a deal with Marvel, so that he can show up in The Avengers 2.

Ultimately, the major failing of The Amazing Spider-Man is not that it came after a largely acclaimed run with the character by Sam Raimi, but that it would still be the weaker film if it switched positions with 2002's version of the origin story, and had came out first. Spider-Man became instantly iconic when it was released, but there's not nearly as much to remember in this spin on the now-familiar story.

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here .


Disqus - noscript

What a biased article, Toby maguire is a disgrace to Peter Parker and spiderman. The amazing spiderman is better than all three of raimis films put together, I'm not the only one who thinks so just look at every other reviewers opinion.

poorly written polemic here, the writer has set out to prove Rami's is better. fair enough but state that clearly instead of pretending it's a balanced look. There are a lot of Valid points about changes for the sake of changes, I don't think they had to do the whole origin story again (in 7 batman films we've only had one origin tale) but comparing it to begins as dark? seems way off it is nowhere as dark or intense and intact I would say arguments could be made for saying it is lighter in tone, just look at the Stan lee cameo. the film suffers the problem all origins suffer in that the meat of the story outside the origin is poorly serviced due to time taken up by the creation of Spider-man but they should be applauded ##SPOILER### for not killing the lizard to allow the story to further develop, the green Goblin was wasted in the original.
all in all it was a well written high school movie with a supehero infused with it but the writer here has been unfairly dismissive of many of its stronger points

Why is it biased? I thought it well reasoned actually. It doesn't just say 'Well Raimi's was better!' It explains why and where the shortcomings were.

I'm yet to see the re-boot, but I loved Raimi's Spider-Man films and thought Maguire was a perfect PP. The balance of comedy, action and tragedy was brilliant, and I count Spider-Man 2 as the high watermark for Superhero films. Completely agree with the Donner parallels the article makes - and the similarities are a good thing as Spidey and Superman are supposed to be the 'feel-good' heroes.

I'm really enjoying Nolan's Batman films, but much as I love them, they don't feel very 'super'. So I rate them highly as action films, but not as tales of the Batman - not least because Wayne/Batman/Bale has been consistently the least interesting part of the films. Compare this with the 90s animated series (and The Mask of the Phantasm movie particularly), where you just couldn't get enough of Conroy's Dark Knight.

Biased... or exhibiting a measured, considered opinion different to yours?

Michael I agree with dan, the impression from the article is almost that mark harrison set out to prove TASM wasn't as good as the original hence why I referred to it as a Polemic. A lot of reasoned points which I disagree with but that's what you want, I just felt TASM never stood a chance in this article from the outset

The comment from one person who said they didn't care about Peter Parkers family, they clearly don't like Spider-Man or know it at all as Peter's parents are quite important to the story. Personally this 'reboot' of Spider-Man outshines it's predecessor's. Andrew Garfield captured the whit and attitude of Peter Parker/Spider-Man he was always a hero as he was always a bit nerdy. Although in all honesty out of Raimi's trilogy, 2 was the best how Doc Oc wasn't quite right as the point was you couldn't reason with him.
On another note it is nice to know that Andrew Garfield was the person in the Spider Man suit (mostly) and it wasn't padded to make him look musclier! You could just tell it wasn't Toby alot of the time in the others.
For me this was by far the best Spider Man adaptation to date and i think closely follows the Comic (minus a couple of things here and there, nothing major though)
All those TRUE Spidey fans will love this film!

It's a rare occasion when I completely agree with a review. Excellent casting aside (and I still thought Maguire was excellent) this film is trying too hard to be a/ different, and b/ like Batman begins....

The classic line "With great power, comes great responsibility” is only ever said in Raimi's version, it's a narration in the comic, and it's a cheesy line that doesn't fit in that film when Ben is only talking about Peter becoming a man. I think the way it's said in Amazing is far more natural and appropriate.

The section on Spider-Man is just opinion and not reasoned at all.

Excellent, well written review.

Personally, when it comes to comic book films, generally the sequels are better than the first one, I find (with the possible exception of Iron Man, and of course, X3 and spidey3, both which are just rubbish), mainly due to the fact that, especially in Spider-Man, Batman and Superman's case, everyone knows the origin. Even back in 2002, being no comic geek, and before seeing the film, I could've told you that Spider-Man's uncle died, so did Bruce Wayne's parents, and Superman's planet exploded/imploded/was somehow destroyed (depends on the adaptation).

As for TAS, I loved it, and so did the missus. Garfield's Spider-Man was a lot funnier than Maguire's, a lot smarter (an aspect that is often left out even in the comics), and a lot more adaptable (how many times did Maguire-Spidey use his webslinging offensively across all three films? Maybe ten times, if you count shooting a few people in the face with the stuff. Garfield tended to use them more than his physical prowess, I thought, not to mention the fact that Garfield-Spidey used the web-zip!)

Also, TAS was a lot less cheesy than S-M, a fact I'm quite thankful for. None of this stupid catching the food on the tray stuff that led to a stupid "OMG HE'S A FREAK!" moment, and as for Raimi's attempt to include the community of NY (I refer to the infamous Deus Ex Machina of "You mess with one of us, you mess with all of us!") we get a properly seeded, and I have to say somewhat unexpected resolution that actually helps Spidey (the cranes), although I have to say the set-up for that was a bit ropey (certainly Stacy's replacement needs to have a stern word and a Gibbs-slap with the officer that shot him; if that's not disregarding a direct order then nothing is).

As for the parents issue, I agree, I was hoping for a bit more than "I worked with your father" and "Have you told him the truth about his father?" "No, and you stay the hell away from him or I'm busting out of here and taking your ass for breakfast!", but TAS seems to take it's cues from the Ultimate run (and, interestingly, we all know how that ended up for Peter... dun dun dun), which I believe included a lot more backstory about Peter's parents, so, with a proper, planned out trilogy (how rare are those in films that aren't book adaptations these days?!) that should be built up a bit more hopefully.

Personally, I say "More please, Sony!". Also, Gobbo'll be in the third flick, and Gwen'll probably cark it then as well. Certainly, she's in trouble when he does show...

I think Raimi's first Spider-Man was a better film than Amazing is, but I can see this one producing better sequels. I mean, did anyone actually like Spider-Man 3?

It does indeed have subtle hints of being biased. The article itself is titled
Comparing The Amazing Spider-Man with Spider-Man which it does but with more of an intent to say whats wrong with TAS compared to Spider-man 1. Even at the end of the article the writer admits that the film is not favoured as a whole by himself or his colleauges. If you're not going to like it that's fine but at least call the article 'Why we think TAS isn't as good as the original. I personally like both of them. I dont care much for 3 however I do think that now the reboot exists the old version can look corny in comparison. That's not to say it isn't good. There's being on the right side of corney (Spider-man 1 & 2) and being on the wrong side (Spider-man 3). I like serious and brooding which is why a prefer the new take. A lot of people are enjoyin TAS and I hope it only improves with it's sequels. I've always been surprised by the people who wanted Spider-man 4 rather than the re-boot. If Spider-man 3 was anything to go by it would have gone down the same road as the Batman franchise after Batman and Robin and we may not have had this new version. Spider-man fans are lucky that this film turned out the way it did.

(I refer to the infamous Deus Ex Machina of "You mess with one of us, you mess with all of us!") - However thinks this doesn't know what Deus Ex Machina means!

Whoever not However

POORLY WRITTEN ANGRY COMMENT OR SUTIN!!!!! >:S

Of course the article is biased, the author clearly prefares Raimi's films. But instead of just saying 'nothing can top Raimi, not going to give anything else a chance', he has compiled a convincing list of the REASONS for his bias.

I did not think the CGI lizard was bad at all. Looking online after the movie, and incredible amount of their fight scenes was animated (Including the entire hallway of the school in which they were fighting). I never would have guessed.

LOVED the new version. Garfield's Spiderman reminded me of the Spidey of my 'yoof', the Spidey of the animated TV series in the early 90's. The Spidey I wanted Maguire to be, but was disapointed by.

Yeah, how dare he be so REASONABLE? What a bastard.

I feel you guys are being way to critical. You guys seen like hipsters, hating it for the sake, I think spiderman needed this, I love Rami but his spiderman was too cheesy all three were to slap stick, I understand it's his style but I thought the terrible acting in the first three between Toby, Kirsten and James was what slightly ruined it. The romance is better the portrayal is better delivery in general is better. The only reason this movie wasn't a 5/5 but instead a 4/5 is the way the Lizard looks. It's cool in two years when the sequel blows you away you'll be on this ones nuts just like everyone else.

The sequel is coming from the writers who brought us Transformers 2. But no, you're right, I can't wait for the Aunt May pot brownie scene. I didn't hate the movie, I just didn't like it. Parts of it, I actually preferred to the Raimi trilogy, (which also isn't great, except for Spider-Man 2) as I explained above. If the sequel does turn out to be superior, this one will still be a letdown.

I personally prefer TASM but I appreciate that the writer may prefer the original trilogy, but he is a bit childish in his comments "Sony had to make another Spider-Man movie to avoid the situation where he returns to Marvel's stable and joins the line-up in The Avengers 2"...Thats complete rubbish as there are even talks now of spidey making an apperance in The Avengers sequel..."On the big screen, the audience might sympathise with them, instead of enjoying how much he irritates his foes into submission"...Yes really, I did sympathise with the car theif when Spidey was making fun of him...errm dufus it was hillarious and it made me wish therehad been more of this in the original trilogy....Very bias, childish and somehow interesting article.

Where's the reasoning here: "The costume in The Amazing Spider-Man is plain ugly, and frankly, it's different for the sake of difference. Perhaps it's a little more practical, and maybe it's slightly more believable that a teenager with little disposable income could assemble it, but it's an inferior version of the more colourful variant seen in the original trilogy."? Just bias.

I agree with most of what your saying. But there were also quite a few things wrong in Raimi's movies too. For me, (and this includes some parts of the reboot) it was too emotional. people were dying, the love story, at certain times, it just didn't go along with (in my opinion) Spider-Man's fun, happy-go-lucky personality. In many of the other MARVEL movies it wasn't like that. I think, if they "combine" certain areas of the original, and certain areas of the reboot, they would have a near perfect Spider-Man movie.

I loved the first Spiderman, found #2 to be a tad cheesy but good. In Amazing, the transformation was not as natural as the 1st, but the romance was extremely well done, and the first real rescue that Andrew Spidey attempts is amazing. Overall it was a very good reboot, enough to surpass #2 in my opinion, but not #1

Also, I found the biggest mistake of Amazing Spider-Man to be not using the original theme. The new one is okay, the old theme tune was classic and almost single-handedly sets the tone for Spiderman.

You're absolutely right.
Also, not to Varsas, to the... you call yourself a journalist? The costume was NOT "different for the sake of difference", they couldn't use the previous suit or any likeness of the previous suit (which basically included directly designing the suit used from the comics) because it was not their property. Although Sony and MARVEL are both involved with the 2 different series of Spider-Man, 2 different groups were involved with the design of the suit.

That's 1 example of ignorance and bias, among others such as:
"Dylan Baker can take comfort in the fact that his Lizard probably would have been better" I highly doubt this. Dylan Baker, in previous Spider-Man movies, was very bland and monotonous. He sounded like he was forcing the lines out. The only thing 'better' would have been the backstory of having the teacher-student relationship.

"If we count the death of Uncle Ben as part of the origin story, and we should, then the first film does a better job, discounting the laughable retcon performd in Spider-Man 3."
That's gold. In the Raimi film series, the stupid idea of Flint Marko accidentally shooting Ben IS PART OF THAT ORIGIN STORY. You can't just take out whatever parts of the entire story you don't like to make the story better than it is. The entire story in Raimi's films that Uncle Ben was believed to be shot by Dennis Carridine when he was, in actuality, shot by Flint Marko when Carridine bumped his arm.
Uncle Ben died as somewhat of a street hero when he was shot trying to disarm a street thug.

The Amazing Spider-Man's was more realisic and plausible.
If we compare 1) an old man sits and waits in his car outside a library only to be mugged and then shot, to 2) an old man has a scuffle with a gun-weilding criminal; one who literally robbed a store moments before, who accidentally pulls the trigger and shoots him, then option 2) is definitely the more believable one.

What's worse is that you don't offer your points as moot, you present them as if they're factual. "The suit is just plain ugly" is subject to debate. "In my opinion, the suit is just plain ugly because _____" would have saved you some discredit as a 'journalist'.

Also, in my opinion, the new suit looks cooler than the previous. Of course, Maguire's suit is a classic that stays true to the comic design, but, considering how they had to create a new suit, The Amazing Spider-Man has more of a 'teenage' type of idea and it actually goes into detail of Peter searching for his materials.
Then it uses some grunge, smudge and dripping art styles which are very common in today's art, particularly graffiti.
Spider-Man's costume: A classic and an original, more formal costume.
The Amazing Spider-Man's costume: Believable that a teenager designed it, more informal but more profound with its art.

One of Spider-Man's biggest themes is tragedy and loss. It was because of Spider-Man Issue #121 and #122 (the comics that story Gwen Stacy's death at the hands of the Green Goblin) that comics left the what were 'family friendly', cheesy and corny style of comics in comparison to what became darker, adventurous and reckless themes in the stories.
I'd say that more people die in the Spider-Man comics than any other comic.

This article does come across as somewhat biased towards the Raimi version to fit the review the site gave. I'm not saying I disagree with every point, but this doesn't come across as a writers opinion on what did and didn't work, it reads like 'Here's the facts idiots that liked the film.' to me.

While I agree that the lizard was very poorly handled (although I would argue Ifans did nothing with the little he had) and it was a mistake to base it on the idea that there's an untold story regarding his parents, especially now that sub plot seems to have been cut quite hurriedly the idea that the costume is 'ugly' seems ridiculous. It's almost exactly the same with the exception of the belt of red across his waste and the small bits of blue on his boots and gloves which aren't even noticeable in motion.

I think it's true that Maguire and Dunst didn't have the chemistry that Garfield and Stone do. I think Dunst is capable of better than she brought to the Raimi trilogy. I watched Spider-man 2 again recently (and it was excellent) and Tobey Maguire is doing the heavy lifting regarding the PP/MJ relationship. I also think it handled the May and Ben stuff as well as the old films. Sheen is a better Uncle Ben and Rosemary Harris never got much to do as Aunt May so, while she didn't make much impact in this film, there's plenty of opportunity for Aunt May to be better realised in a sequel than she was with Raimi.

I also liked the quips and I want to see more of that. 'Here's your change' in Spider-man 2 wasn't enough. I don't have a problem with the quips in this either, I want them better written next time because I want to see a progression with his confidence in being Spider-man. To me, the quips in this film struck me as someone letting loose for the first time in their life. Someone who has been bullied and pushed around finally being free from that and having fun so I wouldn't expect him to be super witty, he's too caught up in the rush of no longer being the victim to be Stewart Lee.

I don't think The Amazing Spider-man is the best Spider-man, but it has potential, it was entertaining and not nearly as awful as this site seems keen to make out, in my opinion. As long as they address some of the issues and don't drop plot threads in the sequel, I have hope.

Deau Ex Machina, wherein an actor playing a god who swoops in via wires to resolve a problem, is a plot device originally used by the ancient Greeks and Romans (the phrase is actually Latin). Generally an apparently unsurmountable problem is suddenly resolved by the somewhat contrived interpolation of new elements, previously unflagged. In this light, the 'You mess with one of us...' moment was a DEM. Who, genuinely and without reference to hindsight, foresaw that?

That's' DeuS' - oops!

Guess what, it's just a film.

Your "comment" is "appreciated"!

They're also the writers behind the fantastic series "Fringe"; Imdb indicates that a writer from the first "Amazing" film is also involved.

Considering that The Amazing Spider-man is currently at 7.7 on IMDB and Spider-man is at 7.4, they seem to be of very similar quality and like all things are a matter of personal taste. I enjoyed the hell out of Raimi's original Spider-man, but have yet to see Webb's Amazing, but I'm all I'm hoping for is that it'll be good fun, not too OTT with the special effects and the plot won't be a complete and utter mess.

Mind you I never find time to get to the cinema these days, so it might have to wait for DVD just like the Avengers (although I think more than enough people made up for my absence!).

Starting to think I am the only writer on Den of Geek who liked The Amazing Spider-man... but then again according to some critics I am its core, and only, demographic. I think its unfair to keep comparing the two, its done now, can we talk about what villains we'd like to see in sequels now?

Ah the old Parker luck... Anywho, I thought the moment with the robber and the knife was the closest to Spidey-wit I've seen in any films, if it was still a little sarcastic :S

This film has the lowest box office take of the Spidey films? Shocking, given that it's been out for just over a week.

True it's only been a week, but it's trending well below the other Spider-man films and will finish with a significantly smaller gross than all of them at it's current pace which considering inflation and added 3D prices isn't very good. It'll by no means be a box office disaster though.

Also take note that The Dark Knight Rises will also cut the legs from under it in a weeks time.

I loved the original films as I'm a huge spidey fan but I hated Maguire, he made a ok peter but spider-man he did not. I agree that yes the Raimi films did have spidy quips in it but Maguire just couldn't deliver them, he was so boring. Topher Grace should of been spidey in those films. Not only did Garfield have quips also but he was funny, I was sat in the cinema and everyone laughed. The only time I remember anyone laughing in the rami films was when he trying to shoot his web. As for the comment about comparing the romance between Pete and Gwen to twilight, really!!! Yes they are very similar but you forgot one key thing there, Spidey and Gwen came long before twilight was even a idea so you can't say the film was copying. Also how can you say Baker would of been a better Lizard, that is a unjust comment, nothing agaisn't him but he never got the chance so you can't say one would be better then the other. It is fair to have a opinion about the two but you stated it almost as if it was fact. Over all I thought it was a very bad article as it did seem very biased.

Oh and just want to add, when you do an article like this when you compare films like this your supposed to say whats good and wrong in both films. This article just says whats good in the Raimi films and whats bad in Webbs. Where's the bad in Raimis? Where is the good in Webbs?. Also want to point out I loved all 4 films, in fact I'm watching Spider-man 2 as I type this. I do think Amazing is better, mister author take note this is what we call a opinion, I'm not stating it as a fact it's just what I prefer.

Well, Mr. Ham, I suggest you go back through and read the points where I say that I THINK Garfield is a better Peter than Maguire; the romance is better than in Raimi's films (irrespective of what you apparently see as a negative comparison to Twilight); about the stupidity of the Sandman-related retcon in Spider-Man 3, about the problems with putting Willem Dafoe in a mask where you can't see his facial expressions-- actually, I don't need to repeat myself, just try the reading thing.

Mark Harrison Dude... No offence, but are you trying to come off as a total ass here? Because you are doing an astonishingly good job of it. The criticisms in this thread have been more than reasonable for the most part, and I was thinking the same thing while I was reading the article, so why not show a little courtesy instead of just making snarky comments? Respect goes both ways...

Yup - he's a human/lizard beast. If he DOESN'T look a little strange, then something is wrong. I thought the CGI was great.

Neither of these movies are perfect. They both made sacrifices in order for the films to be different than what the viewers expect. Overall I enjoyed Amazing Spider-Man more mainly because it felt more contemporary. But each film has it's faults and peaks.
For me, I had 3 problems with Raimi's Spider-Man.
First was the organic webbing. I didn't see the need to change the web shooters as they were intended to show Peter's intellect and what I always considered creative problem solving. While this isn't a major issue I felt it slightly diminished Peter's character.
Second was Green Goblin's costume. Seriously, he looked like a Power Ranger villain. They copied Spider-Man's costume direct from the comic and though I'm not sure if Goblin's outfit would have worked just as well taken from the pages, I think they could have done better.
Lastly I was disappointed they did the scene on the bridge, which is supposed to be Gwen and not Mary Jane. I understand why they did it, the Sophie's Choice moment is very powerful and moving, especially on screen, but if they weren't going to go all the way and have the death at the end then they should have gone another route.
All that being said, TM was a great Peter Parker and he did an excellent job of bringing the original Spider-Man to life. As did Willem Dafoe with his Norman O and GG, I for one couldn't get enough of him. Give props where they're due.
Now Amazing Spider-Man also had it's own problems.
First of course was the origin. For me this was forgivable because Raimi had done the story already. They'd be crazy to do the same thing with Uncle Ben that we've already seen so to hold this against the film is a little childish. I'm not paying to see a movie where I've already watched the first half a decade ago. As for Peter's parents though I felt they were severely underused. I thought the movie was really trying to sell the fact that they were important to this story and then aside from the occasional reference and the father's research with spiders they never expanded on their connection to Oscorp and Conners. I assume the sequel will go deeper in to this arc though so I am looking forward to that.
A lot of people seem to have disliked the CGI Lizard but I don't share that feeling. The lack of a snout refers back to the original way the Lizard was drawn which was cool. As for the CGI stance, the other option is to have a guy in a rubber suit and come on, is that really what we want? As for Conners I felt that his leap from helping disabled people to trying to make everyone in his image was sudden and forced like the article says. That definitely could have and should have been fleshed out more.
I like the new Spidey suit though. I think it fit this version of Peter great and was really in line with his style. I also thought AG was more wise-cracking and a better Spider-Man on the whole. His Peter was reckless and really just acted like a teenager which was the point. I most enjoyed the romance between Gwen and Peter. That was absolutely the strongest arc of the film and I loved it.
Good article.

I still can't accept a Spiderman played by a Bilbo Baggins clone!

Thank you for commenting. It's lovely to read a well-reasoned disagreement that doesn't personally attack me for writing it. You'd be very welcome to hate the article cos we differ on a lot of points, but I'm glad you enjoyed it and didn't find it biased, childish, etc.

This is my first time that I have ever posted on this site but this article did drive me to say something. I understand that this is pure opinion as any review or article written on the site is but I really feel that DoG has a real axe to grind with TAS. I loved the film and I agree with a lot of the positives that were highlighted here but I do think some of the negatives are a bit of stretch in the effort to make the point. It was by no means a perfect film but I think its getting an exceptionally hard time on your site. I think headlining the article as a comparison is a bit of a liberty. Mark you should have at least re-iterated your point from your review that you disliked the movie right at the start. In fact it probably would have been fairer to get a different writer to write this piece given your strong feelings from the review. The one thing I do feel that was missed out of the analysis that made TAS much better for me was that I the CGI and live action stuff seemed seamless. When watching the original movies I always felt that I was watching something computer generated whereas this time I really found it hard to separate where the PC ended and the actor began and I loved that that allowed me to be much more wrapped up in the overall story. Ultimately I think its a poor show that a site such as DoG is drawing attention to a low taking with such glee (we have the Daily Mail for that) and Mark your bit in the comments about the sequel being made by the team who brought us Transformers 2 just seems bitchy and unnecessary. Personally whether I like a individual movie or not I love (and always have) the super hero movie genre and every time a movie comes out I wish it success as the success of one leads to more being made and that, in my eyes, can only be a very good thing.

That was my first post so it's very cool to get a reply. I had to cut a lot of my comment out since it was already so long. I actually agree with a lot of what you said about the casting and various plot points but overall I like the new spin on Spidey. To each his own. Love your articles, they're always detailed and well stated. Keep em coming!

this movie was garbage. whiny, crying, emo fest. only good thing was emma stone as gwen stacy, though why they had her parading around in that stupid skirt i have no idea. anyone who thought this was a good spiderman movie is delusional.

I think the obvious choice would be for Norman to appear next and with him the Green Goblin but they could throw a curve ball and hit us with something new. I'd love to see Vulture personally.

"whiny, crying, emo fest"

This is actually a completely different movie from Spider-Man 3. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Seriously, the fact that you criticise Spider-Man or his movies for being "whiny" or "crying" show that you're asinine to his story. He's all about tragedy, suffering and loss.

Here's an idea. Kill Gewn Stacy. But keep Emma Stone to play Mary Jane! Have your cake and eat it too!

your clearly upset that i didnt like this terribly written movie. ive read spiderman comics for over 30 years. im sure my opion is more valid than yours. someone who blindly seeks to defend sonys attempts to keep their cash cow going. i could write a better story in my sleep.

i saw this with extremely lowered expectations and i was still bored. It was far too soon to reboot a well established franchise. The only positive thing to come out of this was andrew garfield who was really well cast and did a great job. The lizard was awful! did he come from wales or london?? the accent was shody at best. I just hope sony can learn from this and move on and try and do something exciting in the sequel. Marc Webb has said that he thinks Mysterio is one of the best villians, well here's hoping that Sony has the spunky spacehoppers to give him opportunity to bring him to life. We've already had the Greengoblin. And his son (spider-man 3). It would be nice to see a decent baddie get a chance. If they are really trying to establish Norman Osborn as a potential next baddie then i would rather watch my father erotically dance to 'crazy in love' wearing speedo's than watch the tired old retelling of the greengoblins origins. We watched it 10 years ago. Just like spider-mans too. Spider-man has been established, the audience will accept him now, just move on sony before you flog your cash cow to death and milk powder from it's once prospective teats. Better still...let spider-man just rot and relinquish the property back to Marvel. Maybe they have direction, insight and respect for the characters origins. Is anyone really bothered about about Peter's parents?? They were double spies in world war 2 and they double crossed the red skull! this will not work in Sony's remaining of spider-man (due to time scale etc) but it is a whole lot more appealing if you consider how it would suit Marvels current slew of films (it would fit like a lubed up glove on a udder). Amazing Spider-Man will doubtlessly please your average cinema goer but it showed scant respect, or regard for people that have grown up or invested countless hours reading the character in various incarnations. He was bitten by a spider...everyone knows this....curt connors becomes a lizard....didn't we just spend 4 years building up to this?? as a lifelong spider-man fan if we have to retread another origin rehash i will take a rubber mallet to my ballbags and not stop swinging until i witness strawberry yoghurt dripping down my toned thighs!

I do not think you should pretend to write an unbiased comparison when you clearly like the first Spiderman movie better.

I for one loved this one because it was darker and more believable. Also less stupid with better cast.

A friend of mine said that to me the other day too! He's not into web forums, or geeky sites, or anything, so it's interesting that people are having the same idea about keeping Emma Stone around forever! Next time they reboot, she should be Spider-Man! :D

The fact that you haven't even mentioned the score is enough for me!

I liked Danny Elfman's main theme better than James Horner's. Ohh, now you're just trying to get me in trouble, aren't you?!
No, seriously though, you're right, it is a glaring omission- what were your thoughts on the score?

Just to counter the idea that Den of Geek has an "axe to grind" and that the site has a blanket downer on The Amazing Spider-Man, I wrote a piece last week lauding the arrival of a new Spidey flick as a good thing and, likewise, loved the film. I'd say that Den of Geek definitely isn't a site that takes glee in public pillorying, misfortune and snark. This place is a bastion of balance and geek enthusiasm!

I haven't seen the Amazing Spider-man yet, but I felt that Elfman's Spider-man theme is one of those ones that is so iconic for that era that it would be hard to beat. Just like the Man of Steel is going to have a ridiculously tough time beating Superman: The Movie's original score. That said, I would welcome something that would be as iconic and as good... but I doubt it happening now. I think score's are very important to how you feel about characters once you've left the cinema. If I come out of a film humming the theme tune then it's worked. It's why Lost will stick with me too. I think superhero score's now are all getting muddy and murky and lost in all of the darkness that is on screen, and losing their heroic gravitas in the process. Also, I must stress the word 'yet', I will be seeing this very soon! (Although I am very bias towards Raimi's Spidey films. Spider-man 2 is in my top ten.)

Yeah, I can't even remember any of Horner's score, but that main Elfman theme rules. 60s theme trumps both though, amiright? Also, I don't think it's biased to say you like the Raimi films, regardless of the apparent consensus here. To paraphrase The Princess Bride, people keep using that word on here- I do not think they know what it means. Thanks for the comment! :)

I'm biased, and so's my wife.

Great Review Mark .. and yeah you are right in your conclusions..

I have listened to the entire score non stop since I saw the film last Saturday. I'm a huge Elfman fan but i have to say the new theme is far catchier and leaves you feeling more heroic.

I agree that AG made a much better job of the role than TM. Superhero roles can be tricky, as they are almost a dual roal, playing the hero and his secret identiy, but still keeping the charecter in both. (if that makes sence!) In the origonal movies, TM's Spiderman came across as a compleatly different person to his PP, whereas AG did a better job, in my opinion.

I was disopionted with the lack of bacstory, but I'm willing to suspend that for the moment. As GD Batman says, I'm not paying to see the same story I've had on DVD for years. Also, I'm willing to wait a couple of films for development before I loose pacients.

However, I have to say that I think the comment about Dylan Baker's Lizard was a little unfair. If you think the Lizard in this movie sucked, fair enough, but there really is no way of knowing who would have been better without seeing both in the role.

if i saw "Twilight" one more time in the review, i was gonna punch a baby

I thought the new film beat out Rami's in every way. Honestly, Mary Jane is beautiful in the comics... Not his movies. Peter is not a nerd. To say they had better chemstry is, in my opinion, simply not true. They were awekward. This new movie's actors... i don;t know... I, along with those that saw it with me... They made us feel something for them. This new movie did a much better job making Spiderman feel like spiderman... And feel like fun, then Rami ever did. And please, don't forget, Spiderman three was an abomination by almost all standards.

Very well. Welease biased.

I dont see how the author of the article can keep on comparing parts of this film to Twilight, because i'm pretty sure that The Amazing Spider-man comics were out long before Twilight was, so they cannot be compared? If anything, you should suggest that parts of Twilight were copied from The Amazing Spider-man comics

The scene with the cranes was absolutely brilliant if a little circumstancial. That scene (along with many others in TAS) actually raised the hairs on the back of my neck which Raimi's trilogy didn't manage to do. This movie definitely didn't lack for spectacle and i loved it. I just thought the soundtrack was a little underwhelming but i guess Hanz Zimmer was taken...

To be fair, after Avengers Assemble's success, few were expecting TAS to be a runaway cashcow, also TAS was released during the peak holiday period in UK & Europe, people saving their "movie money" for their hols, etc. It will be interesting to see how TDK performs - maybe I'll be proved wrong!
P.S. Haven't seen trailers for TAS, have seen several for TDK, repeat of John Carter's poor publicity?

Yes it sucked and glad the writer of this article said it clearly, however politely.

and yet you seem so invested in it.

I would say thatalthough the articles good your statement that if switched the amazing spiderman would be the weaker film is well silly, if reveresed raimis spiderman would be automatically outdated and poorly recieved and amazing spiderman would be well ahead of its time instead of very much update with the time as it is. So this alternative dimension your talking of their makes zero sense. In my opinion amazing in many ways is just a little bit superior then spiderman 1 & 3 but still not to spiderman 2 standard but thats just my opinion.

i liked toby as peter, but garfield ended up feeling more right. i think the new film is an improvement in most every way

i agree, except calling changes that were delving more into the comic book roots "for the sake of change" seems like a cheap potshot everywhere i read it. the only thing i didnt like about this new film, is that i got antsy at points during the overly long origin--even though it was done well, and i really enjoyed his discovery and playing around with his powers. i liked too, that his nerdy/outcastiness has more menace and consequences--its not cute memories of nerds, its the danger of being a beta in highschool. i did like the transition to acceptance and friendship that standing up to flash coupled with flash's empathy made.

bam! nice!

only one person liked 3, it was me. of course i also found raimi's first spidey fairly bland. i liked this new one far far more than i ever expected. for me, it just did everything better, and really gave off what felt like the right tone, mood and character that i feel about the comics i grew up with( a long long time ago)

i remain unconvinced. and much of his reasoning can be reduced to 'this was better because it was better and i liked it more', which is fine, but it doesn't equal some sort of objective attempt at weighing of merits. for heaven's sake, he declared the lizard to be a worse lizard than the one that would have been, just because we all know, right? thats the bar that the author set for his criticism

nicely done. . .i didn't have the patience. i dont mind an article saying i liked x more just cuz. but i dont like everyone who agrees with the premise to pat themselves on the back at what a reasoned critical examination it was.

did you really struggle to come to that conclusion? it was in fact a film, I will confirm--in case you start to doubt yourself. this is a film review website, the article is a discussion of films, and the commenters are responding to and further discussing the films. that said, your addition to the discussion does seem somewhat lacking.

the fight scenes were so dynamically choreographed, and with such cramped tight moves from spiderman. i couldnt help feeling it really brought to life the style that spiderman fights with in the comic, especially as he is so often up against a more powerful foe. and he really did make more use and more creative use of his webs.

i dont know why everyone cares so much about spiderman making an appearance in the avengers? it just starts to seem a bit crowded. and it is already a team movie--with many other heroes if one wants to switch things up, why shoehorn in another hero, especially a hero audiences are so used to being sort of in a world of his own.

spidey's teasing and quipping was so on target in this movie. its like you didnt know what was missing from the other trilogy and then you watched this one and the light went on-'hey the real spiderman is back!'

and spiderman is always tormented by threats to his family and friends. a life long theme in the comics is that being spiderman comes at a great cost and sacrifice for peter, in all kinds of ways.

i loved it too. it also served to remind me that this isnt post college spiderman. this is a picked on teenager who now has power. it's intoxicating and he has fun with it, but there is a bit of spite working itself out too

raimi's May had the advantage of looking pitch perfect. Sally Field, hands down, is way better at emoting and filling the screen with feeling. i wouldnt have pegged it, but she was a great choice.

your take on his wisecracking and teasing rings exactly true. and man, i enjoyed it.

this new movie so resonated with my sense and feeling of the comics from the 60's/70's that i feel like they could get away with any villain--unlike how difficult it often is to transition things from comics to the screen. even something outrageous like the sinister six. ok, i may be overexhilarated, i just got back from seeing it tonight.

i always picture john malcovich as the vulture. though oddly, dafoe would be perfect too(not that they could do that)

nowadays there is a lot more competition at the theatre for blockbuster/spectacle/comic/sci-fi type movies too. i think its been such a big year for films that a spidey reboot no one asked for just didnt generate that much interest. too bad.

i didnt understand the twilight comparison. twilight is a triangle revolving around a passive damsel in distress. in spiderman, there is no triangle, or obstacle. they are equals (number 1 and 2 in their class for science), she moves the plot and has agency(her making the remedy at oscorp). it seemed like a really cheap swipe from someone who was enjoying lording his love of the raimi films just a bit to flagrantly

ah, i didn't even n otice that you were the author. i'll just paste this (a comment i made above concerning the twilight comparison):

i didn't understand the twilight comparison. twilight is a triangle
revolving around a passive damsel in distress. in spiderman, there is
no triangle, or obstacle. they are equals (number 1 and 2 in their
class for science), she moves the plot and has agency(her making the
remedy at oscorp). it seemed like a really cheap swipe from someone who
was enjoying lording his love of the raimi films just a bit to
flagrantly

hence why the author, in a fair and balanced way, declared the lizard in the new film to be substandard to a lizard he imagines could have been in the previous films, and the elaborated jab likening the burgeoning romance in spiderman to twilight; refers to returning to roots as change for the sake of change, and calls the suit ugly as a self-evident argument. yep, no axe to grind there. i dont mind the axe. its the dishonest axe that pretends it isnt there. i like old and new, and lean more to the new right now, but this article did not read as a disinterested comparison. it was as someone said, a polemic and that fact has been observed over and over in the comments. let him own it and take a stand as a raimi man. no foul there.

snort.

i have incidental music from the '67 cartoon stuck in my head. not title song or main motif, but inbetweener music. sigh.

is it the theme from the raimi films that is being called iconic? I can't think of what it is. i normally pay a fair bit of attention to how music is used in film, but i am drawing a blank

This "journalist" is an idiot.

"Thanks"!

Let's not forget that Marc webb's Spiderman is based more on the comics. as a matter of fact, it's more accurate than Raimi's version. Sandman was never Ben Parkers killer. Green Goblin from the first movie looked horrible. Spiderman 2 was the only descent Raimi film. Garfield is exactly like the Spiderman comics. Forget Raimi's movies. They were horrible

i LOVED 2002 Spider-Man sooooo Much. better than this garbage pile

Totally agree with this review, Raimi's first 2 brilliant, iconic. The Amazing Spider Man weak and forgettable, just rubbish, and the dark take looks foolish compared to the nerdy brilliance of Maguire in the original.

I watched the TAS last night for the first time, I realise how delayed I am. But this proves (much to my dismay) the fact that the film didn't do half as well as Raimi's spidey. I felt the review was an honest review and apart from the opinions stated as fact I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. I enjoyed S-M as a kid and TM's spidey made 10 year old me want to be a hero like him. If it wasn't for TM's performance I wouldn't be on such a spidey 'Buzz' now. AG's acting in TAS was one that I thoroughly enjoyed, it made me laugh, made me shout at the tv and a whole variety of other emotional things. For me the difference in the 2 film generations is exactly that, a split in age for me Raimi's spiderman was a superhero and was entirely fictional and was something I could only ever dream about. Where as TAS made being a superhero more plauseable (I know how stupid that sounds). So for me as it stands I prefer TAS but I can guarantee that if you had 10yr old me to compare the 2 films Raimi's would win hands down. I realise this is a late comment to this thread but I'm late to TAS so sorry :)

hahahahaha are you stupid,op the amazing spider-man was ten times better than the previous trilogy, well you are dumb enough as not to know that the amazing spider-man was absolutely memorable.

the amazing spider-man is better in everything that the sam raimis movies.

Hi there, showoff idiots.
If you have no idea about the origins of Spiderman as created by Stan Lee, stop complaining meaningless things about 'The Amazing Spiderman'. Sam Raimi did a pretty good job with the cast in his trilogy, but he never did justice to the storyline and the character details. And for your information, Marc Webb seems to have a more accurate concept about the storyline, and also knows how to pick actors who actually 'resemble' the characters. Yes, I'm talking about Andrew as Peter. We know Tobey was our movie-spidey since 2002, until 2012...when we got to saw the more realistic Peter Parker we used to see in the comics.
P.S.- There's no harm done to the costume as well. Both franchises are out of fault. Marc Webb wanted to portray young Peter's first days as Spidey, so you can't see him right away in the famous classic professional suit. Everything has its roots. Its been 2 years and hence Spidey's gonna appear in an improved suit in 'The Amazing Spiderman - 2', again a justified adaptation/continuation of the original(correct) storyline.

bullseye!!!

Dis is a gud explntion. Doz ppl need 2 get their eyes on it. to d point.
indeed true facts. (Y)

Oh, so that's why it made less money, was less critically received, and got no major award recognition unlike the Raimi trilogy! Because it was "ten times better"!

The Amazing Spider Man is bullshit

Am Emily Powell from Canada I never believed in spell casters until my life fell apart when my lover of 4 years decided to call it quit. I was so devastated that i had an accident that left me bedridden. After 7 months of emotional pain and languish, a friend of mine introduced me to a certain spell caster, this was after I have been scammed by various fake spell caster. I was introduced to DR ONIHA ( A Spell Caster). In less than 12 hrs i saw wonders, my Lover came back to me and my life got back just like a completed puzzle... am so happy.. Dr ONIHA have all kinds of spells from pregnancy to love,from employment to visa lottery winning. He has spell to stop divorce,spell to make someone look attractive and others. here's his contact for serious minded people only, it might be of help....onihaspiritualtemple@yahoo.com. wow Dr.ONIHA...thanks am so grateful as you saved my life.

I loved the newer one, especially the second instalment . I have never been a Toby McGuire fan, and I loved the way Peter has been presented in the newer movies, intelligent with skills beyond his spidey senses. As someone who read the comic books as a kid I could never get into the previous saga because to me it just didn't reflect the funny and smart superhero I'd come to idolise. I for one am really grateful these movies were made.
Not to mention, Gwen is so much better than Mary Jane to me!! I must have been the only one who couldn't feel the chemistry between Dunst and McGuire in the last movies. As a girl, I never found many superhero girlfriends drawing, seeing as they were always weak and useless to their heros cause. Gwen is smart and driven and her relationship with Peter not only makes sense but her own personal life compliments the story.
I would much rather getting twirled into a mans arms with his web shooters then risk having him throw up in my mouth from hanging upside down too long!!!

Loved the article though guys

Hold on there. Why is everyone so butt-hurt about the mention of Twilight? The author did mention that it was similar in a way that both leads had police officer fathers and fell in love with a "big haired" guy. That's all. He didn't say anything about copying.

Sponsored Links