Red Letter Media's THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN Review

F**k yeah! I love these reviews, thanks for the heads up.

I think TASM is a better movie than Avengers so, I do disagree with them.

Overall I agree with them. But nevertheless I enjoyed the movie because of good Spidey scenes. But yeah no need to see it again, or maybe on rental. Nothing memorable, far from being a classic or anything. People give it a pass cause it's Spidey and they were letdown by Spider-Man 3.

YES, it was a heartless cash grab...AND Webb & co. still did a good job with the shitty situation they were given by Sony. TASM was good, could have potentially been great if they did not retell the origin story so soon!

That was their biggest blunder...it's been only ten years since the last one, so ya any teenager could have told you what a dumb idea that was...

@ coolguy - I loled ^^

Personally it was the second best spider-man film. It had a lot going against it and still came out great. Now that all the reboot crap is out of the way the sequel will not be a heartless cash grab and it should be a great film.

I never gave a crap about spiderman 1 and 2 so when 3 came out i loved how ridiculous it was in the same way i love batman and robin as i dont care for burton's bat movies.

this one i prefered as a romantic dramedy than as an action movie which tries to also be a drama and a romantic comedy, so the tone arguement is apt.

a bit like inglorious basterds the silly stuff ruined the great serious stuff for me and the serious stuff bad the action seem out of place.

for me it was fun in places and deep in places but the contrast wasnt done well enough for me.

Hmm, would one of those negative reviews be my own FOUR STAR review by any chance? Make more sense please.

Yeah. I have no idea for all the hate. This movie actually got me liking Sider-Man again after Raimi's and Maguire's creepy nerdy Spider-Man/Peter Parker. Garfield NAILED it. The look, the feel, etc. I always felt Maguire sucked alot of sausages in Hollywood to get that part. Him being Spider-Man is like Brad Pitt playing Pee Wee Herman. But Garfield got the witty a-hole aspect of the character down pack and more. And it was a bit more gritty. I think it was just too soon. Oh well.

Good point on all the superhero movies having the bad guy gas plot, though

Yeah seriously, they're actually saying Tobey was better than Garfield at the end? GTFO, this review is shite

Some funny points, but I disagree with them about too much to take them seriously.

Andrew Garfield was a better Peter.
Sally Field was a better Aunt May (she just didn't have enough scenes).
Martin Sheen was THE BEST PART OF THE MOVIE as Uncle Ben.

I didn't enjoy the movie and I tried really hard to... but give credit where credit is due.

Martin Sheen was FANTASTIC!

i personally refuse to trust a review of a guy that hasnt followed spiderman for over 10 years, for me the guy hasnt got a clue, and saying spiderman shouldnt have had the tone if a comedy, jeez guys spiderman is hilarious theres always contrasting moments in the books, and i love that, i loved the film it was the spiderman movie ive always wanted

No probs.

Ijack, sorry bud, you won't be posting that same damn collection of reviews on any or my articles, it's already everywhere and is almost spamming at this point.

As for the above review, I post any CBM related Half In The Bag or Plinkett reviews, this one just happens to be negative, i'd have posted it either way.

Just a few things....

- How about these guys create a script for a new Spiderman movie, go through a 3 to 4-year process (including dealing with ad execs, Sony execs, Marvel execs, and thousands more), and promote the film saying the same thing to the same questions thousands of time over. Then when the movie comes out, I'll grab two friends, all wear plaid and bash the heck out of it. I'm sure we'd all love it! (insert a sarcastic tone).

- In the same way Marvel created the Ultimate Spiderman, or had other Spiderman titles (Web, Spectacular, Amazing) this movie tells another story that is similar in ways and different in other ways to the the original movie. There are certain things that we know about Spiderman so they have to hit them in some way, even if for a second. So I see their point about something such as Uncle Ben, but since it was such a HUGE part of the original, why hash that part so hard just to have these guys bash the movie even harder. :)

- (**Personal opinion time**) Andrew Garfield did a PHENOMENAL job with Peter Parker! Since he is an actor and must recite lines, it has to be hard for him to stray away from the lines int he script. Comparing his delivery of these lines from what Tobey did, I see no contest. Tobey always sounded whiney and in need of a blanket and it never worked for me. Andrew's portrayal just seemed more real and how any one of us would have acted if placed in a crazy situation.

- Lastly, I hate how these guys hit NOTHING about how Rami's first movie made Mary Jane Peter's first love and never touched Gwen until the third movie. COMPLETELY WRONG! Especially with the Green Goblin dropping Mary Jane from the bridge, and not Gwen. Also WRONG!
To me, this is the biggest item that they got right in the new movie, yet these guys all overlook it completely. Epic fail.

All in all, I can understand fans having issue with parts of a movie, or conveying their opinions, however they BASHED (the caps were warranted) what was overall, a great movie and did follow the source material of the comics in better way!

The movie was an "amazing" disappointment.

I agree Ranger14....everyone can have their own opinion which is what makes these movies fun for all. In all, they did bash it though.
The main point I was trying to make was that the Gwen element was overlooked by them though. That is a huuuuuuuuge part of Spiderman and something that Rami did incorrectly.

Why do people go to the "Let's see YOU make that movie" argument?

They're not filmmakers. They're critics. Online personalities. It's not their job to make movies. They review films as art in its specific genre. It's a form of journalism. IF they didn't understand how the movie-making business works, they'd be less credible. But seeing as how most professional critics do, you can take their opinions with some merit.

Critics get such a bad rap these days, because "they don't like anything." It's not that they don't like anything, it's that they see every [frick]ing movie that comes out every [frick]ing weekend and they're tired of seeing rehashed material. So, when a movie brings something fresh and new and exciting and genuine to the table, they celebrate it. They don't like reboots, they like reinventions. And they understand the ins and outs of the business.

If a critic doesn't like a movie, so what? They're not asking you to like it. They're just saying why it doesn't work in comparison to the other catalog of films like it.

Lol these people are just hating, I'm not even supporting the new spiderman but these people are just hating with there reviews.

Disagree big time.

this review is pretty hard to watch. I hate when people said that it is a retelling the original Spider-Man because clearly its not. This film presents an origin different than any other Spider-Man adaptation and comic book. It contains many elements from the Ultimate Comics, but it is really its own story. (Spoilers) What Uncle Ben does in trying to stop the burglar is incredibly powerful. When he see the gun, he doesn't make a choice; he feels its his responsibility to stop him. And make no mistake, Spider-Man's origin is dark. When Amazing Fantasy 16 ends, there is no vow that he will be a superhero. There is just a kid crying and walking off into the shadows, full of regret. This origin is the best Spider-Man origin ever, including the comics.
Also the review contained too much fantasy story telling, in that they are mad that the movie did not tell the story they wanted, despite the fact that there is indication it would.
What the Raimi films missed is the fact that Peter Parker is a teenage superhero. And it's not their fault; by the time the films had been released it had been almost forty years since Peter was in high school. However, the groundbreaking part of Spider-Man was that he was a teenager. It is fitting that this film is called the Amazing Spider-Man because this film mimics the feeling of learning and coming of age from Amazing Spider-Man 1 to 28.
I just wish reviewers would realize that it is possible to like both films. Like both TASM and the original Spider-Man does make you less of Spider-Man fan; I like both Spider-Man's amazing fantasy origin and his ultimate one. The origin can be told in many different ways as long as it hits the right core elements. Spider-Man is a 50 year old comic book icon. His stories will be retold again and again, especially his origin. There will be plenty of new younger teens who have never seen the first film and this will be their Spider-Man. Those of the previous generation still have their Raimi films.

@Shreck

I agree with you. I think that this review as presentation is pretty...horrid. Their attempts at humor fall pretty flat. And while I do think they bash the film, they bring up a few things I never thought about.

I think as journalists, they could have talked to someone better than a guy who hasn't read Spider-Man for the last decade, even though I'm sure he's well-knowledged on the 60s-90s. I don't know the history of these reviewers and had never heard of them before this. They make a few valid points, but they start to ransack the mythos itself instead of the actual film. "Why does Spider-Man fight scientists?"

Because scientists work with experiments that go horribly wrong? In the Marvel universe, like one in every twelve people is either a mutant or survivor of some cataclysmic accident that genetically warped them. Scientists are at the top of the list.

I liked Garfield and Stone, too, though I think their relationship was just as fantastical as the giant lizard running around.

I like these guys... but in small doses. I can only take so much cynicism at a time.

I think that it's highly disingenuous to say that everyone involved with a film just wants to cash in on the film. Film making has to be a business. Films are expensive to make. So of course the producers are going to sell their product. But there are other individuals that are involved with these films that honestly want to express themselves artistically and give something special to the audience. I get that vibe from Marc Webb and Andrew Garfield that they do care about making the best film they can.

Also you have to realize how much of a risk it is to try and make a living in the film industry. Most people don't go into the film industry to make loads of cash. They do it be a part of film and to share their dreams and stories with the world. If you just want to make money, you'd never in a million years pick film as a career choice.

But producers and studios are business men first. When you're managing billions of dollars every year, a producer has more in common with a CEO than an artist.

If they had absolutely no interest in anything but money, they would have just forced Spider-Man 4 on us after Spider-Man 3 because Spider-Man 3 made money.

The Amazing Spider-Man was actually a HUGE financial risk on their part, and a rather unnecessary one. They didn't have to reboot it, but even some of the studio execs wanted to have Spider-Man done right, even to the point of one of them stepping down from Columbia Pictures to be a producer for this film.

I do agree that the villain was wasted. The Lizard was probably the best opportunity to make the villain/hero relationship personal, but they didn't. Connors didn't even have a family in this and barely met Peter before becoming the Lizard.

And finally, this IS the best 3D movie I have seen. Unlike Avatar, I enjoyed the movie even without 3D and effects. And this 3D was done well. I watched it in 2D first and felt like I was being left out on a few things so I went back. This is one of the few times that I'd say that 3D made a huge difference.

Also I think it's no mystery that these guys are no fans of reboots or sequels or pretty much any big blockbuster. It'd have to be freaking Citizen Kane before they can enjoy a reboot.