Red Letter Media's THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN Review

Red Letter Media's THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN Review

The boys - joined by Rich Evans - dedicate an entire episode of "Half In The Bag" to Marc Webb's Spidey reboot. Short version - they're not big fans!..

Follow Mark "RorMachine":
By Mark "RorMachine" Cassidy - 7/8/2012


For my money, Red Letter Media's Half In The Bag/Plinkett reviews offer some of the more unique and humorous takes on the latest movie releases out there. I do think they are quite harsh on The Amazing Spider-Man here, but it's still a fun watch..



So like I said, harsh. But that being said, I can't actually argue with any points the raise either, although I thought the performances were of a very high standard - Garfield in particular. Do you guys agree/disagree? Sound off below.









DISCLAIMER: This article was submitted by a volunteer contributor who has agreed to our code of conduct. ComicBookMovie.com is protected from liability under "safe harbor" provisions and will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. For expeditious removal, contact us HERE.
4
LIKE!
95 Comments
1 2
TheBigBoss917 - 7/8/2012, 7:43 AM
Sabconth - 7/8/2012, 7:50 AM
F**k yeah! I love these reviews, thanks for the heads up.
RorMachine - 7/8/2012, 7:53 AM
hah, Tea he's all over the TDKR articles, tirelessly posting the only not overwhelmingly positive - but still nowhere near negative - first reactions to the movie he can dig up, all from one Brazilian journalist. Tis a right larf.
AutobotCommander84 - 7/8/2012, 7:56 AM
I think TASM is a better movie than Avengers so, I do disagree with them.
prettynuclear2 - 7/8/2012, 7:58 AM
This review is kind of weak. Why would peter make a suit out of dissolving web?
Kingdork - 7/8/2012, 8:10 AM
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.
coolguy - 7/8/2012, 8:19 AM
Personally I thought spidey 3 had more redeeming qualities and to me was te better film.
Oxbow - 7/8/2012, 8:27 AM
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...

TexasAvenger - 7/8/2012, 8:30 AM
"I think TASM is a better movie than Avengers so, I do disagree with them."

Lmaooooooooooooo
Kingdork - 7/8/2012, 8:30 AM
@ coolguy - I loled ^^
thwip - 7/8/2012, 8:31 AM
what a collection of twats. they complain about film companies not caring about "guys like us" who "care about the material" and producers not knowing anything about the story or characters in their films.

yet they spend an obnoxious percent of the video asking the comic book store owner who gwen stacy is, why spider-man's villains are all scientists, and other idiotic questions.

some people love to act dissatisfied, because it thinks it gives them an aura of superiority above the simpletons who enjoy things that are enjoyable.

it's been said before, but it bears repeating... the amazing spider-man was not a perfect movie, nor was it the perfect spider-man movie. but neither is the dark knight. neither is iron man.

i watch and read these kinds of things to hear interesting points and arguments being made, to give me stuff to think about. these guys, however, just ended up annoying me with their immaturity.
Spidey31 - 7/8/2012, 8:32 AM
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.
NerdyGeek - 7/8/2012, 8:34 AM
forthesakeofnow - 7/8/2012, 8:35 AM
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.
NerdyGeek - 7/8/2012, 8:38 AM
drax94: TDKR hasn't got a negative review, unless you count a B+ Chinese review.
RorMachine - 7/8/2012, 8:38 AM
Hmm, would one of those negative reviews be my own FOUR STAR review by any chance? Make more sense please.
Oxbow - 7/8/2012, 8:42 AM
^ btw i wasn't trying to imply that teenagers are dumb or anything, just that they were around when the Original spider-man origin movie came out
GUNSMITH - 7/8/2012, 8:43 AM
chuskito - 7/8/2012, 8:43 AM
I saw this movie twice already. Loved it. I disagree with this review, but I also understand that as regular moviegoers and not just Spider-Man fans, it might be tiring to watch an origin story. For me this was the ultimate reward, because the first Raimi Spider-Man movie told a great origin in the first half, and then was a complete letdown in the second. This time around the movie stays strong evenly throughout.
CaptainJackSpareribs - 7/8/2012, 8:51 AM
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.
WireySpindell - 7/8/2012, 8:52 AM
Meh, I usually love their reviews, but I can't take anyone seriously who says the Raimi movies are better than the TASM. Feels like they're reaching on this one, as their negative reviews are the most popular.
WireySpindell - 7/8/2012, 8:57 AM
Good point on all the superhero movies having the bad guy gas plot, though
Kingdork - 7/8/2012, 8:58 AM
@ chuskito - It didn't. The Lizard stuff was pretty weak. Lack of clear understandable motivations, clearly underwritten character, silly looking facial design, he didn't seem to fit in the movie's attempt at a realistic approach. The movie wasn't strong evenly throughout. The second part where the hero had to tackle the villain were weak for the aforementioned points.
WireySpindell - 7/8/2012, 9:04 AM
Yeah seriously, they're actually saying Tobey was better than Garfield at the end? GTFO, this review is shite
WarNoodle - 7/8/2012, 9:05 AM
I think these guys are idiots and have nothing better to do than nag on stupid little things. TASM is a great movie that is fun! people keep looking for the perfect super hero movie and when something they see and dont like... they go all ape sh!t on it.
Tainted87 - 7/8/2012, 9:07 AM
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.
BattlinMurdock - 7/8/2012, 9:09 AM
I think this movie is more of a Spidey placeholder than anything else. Keeps us interested in the character.

I don't think it's stronger than Raimi's original. This film cut corners with Connors, when it could have been so much more considering his comic background. The Peter/Gwen relationship was incredibly underplayed.

Good acting from leads is not a substitute for complexity within the rest of the story, but because it's front and center, it's easy to tag onto. I had quips with the film for a few of the reasons they said in the video, but their best one was that they noted how Uncle Ben's death was a true catalyst in the first trilogy. Of course, I don't know how they'll do the rest of the movies, but something Raimi got right was how impactful the loss of Ben was to both Peter and Aunt May, and how they constantly revisit that.

6.5 out of 10.
Kingdork - 7/8/2012, 9:10 AM
Martin Sheen was FANTASTIC!
BattlinMurdock - 7/8/2012, 9:11 AM
I'll also say that Rosemary Harris is Raimi's secret weapon. The woman is an absolute acting phenomenon, and in Spider-Man 2, she channels some of the most genuine, real emotions I've ever felt in a film, period.
returnhangar - 7/8/2012, 9:13 AM
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
P90 - 7/8/2012, 9:20 AM
They don't like much actually. I will admit that they are some of the funniest and best reviewers online, but they seem to only review movies that they don't like and/or have no opinion about. Summer movies/super hero movies/action movies/stupid comedies etc. There is an air of arrogance and snobbery that is boiling right below the surface especially with Jay. As for Rich Evans nobody cares what that [frick] [frick]ing fraud has to say.
RorMachine - 7/8/2012, 9:26 AM
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.
Ranger14 - 7/8/2012, 9:28 AM
Funny...Let's get this straight...Ror and other editors/CBM overall are accused of being pro-Marvel and yet when Ror posts a not-so-positive review on a Marvel film he still gets chastised by the fanboys of the film. It's what they are supposed to do. Be unbiased and post both sides of the coin. Guess you can't win no matter what you do.
ShreckGT350 - 7/8/2012, 9:33 AM
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!
WellDrawn - 7/8/2012, 9:35 AM
It's interesting that they didn't point out that the original Spiderman as well as this new one, both had over the top, cringe worthy, ham and cheese, 'people working together moments in the final act

- The first movie had that scene with the people on the bridge "This is New Yowk Baby! You mess with one of us, you mess with all of us!" (probably because it came out within months of 9/11)

-This new one had the goofy Crane scene, in which miraculously, there was a crane on EVERY block of the city leading up the Oscorp, and the movie had OFFICIALLY become a video game.
txrangersfan72 - 7/8/2012, 9:43 AM
The movie was an "amazing" disappointment.
Ranger14 - 7/8/2012, 9:46 AM
"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"

It's their opinion and what they feel. It is no more valid or invalid than your opinion that it is a great movie.
ShreckGT350 - 7/8/2012, 9:55 AM
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.
THORGodOfThunder - 7/8/2012, 10:04 AM
Terrible review
BattlinMurdock - 7/8/2012, 10:06 AM
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.
kevberg - 7/8/2012, 10:06 AM
Great Review!

I could easily tell by just some clips and the trailers that Garfield is a goofy and annoying Peter Parker. Its his delivery , tone and cadence.

and Im hearing the same thing..Bens death doesn't hit you. the stuff with Petes parents doesnt mean d@ck. They were never the thrust of what motivates the character.

yeah you can mine that for emotion, but it wasn't important to the character of Spider-Man.

You try to slam Raimi all day long, but he got the origin the closest. I'm not a fan of Toby's teary-eyed melancholy nerd ...but he was OK.

IF I see this it'll be because it visually looks great.
xXkryptoniteXx - 7/8/2012, 10:12 AM
Lol these people are just hating, I'm not even supporting the new spiderman but these people are just hating with there reviews.
Ranger14 - 7/8/2012, 10:17 AM
"In all, they did bash it though."

If I don't care for it when I see it this next week, I will bash it to. All the skepticisms I have had based on footage and the direction I have seen them take with it falls a lot in line with what they address in the video. I will find out for sure when I see it.

"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."

Raimi and the writers chose to skip the Gwen Stacy story and go right into the Mary Jane story. I wouldn't say it was incorrect, they just didn't chose to go with that storyline. If you want to get real technical, Webb and the writers did it incorrectly because Gwen isn't a romantic interest of Peters until he is in college. ;-) All little nuances that bother some and don't bother others.
fanboy03191 - 7/8/2012, 10:23 AM
Disagree big time.
ShreckGT350 - 7/8/2012, 10:25 AM
@ BattlinMurdock

I get your great point about people (including me) going straight to the "lets see you make the movie". That is not their job, rather to critique the movie. They did however beat this movie like a pinata when, as with all movies, their were good and bad points.

I also completely agree with your comments:
"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."

Give me a straightforward critique with good and bad points and I'll go with it...no need for the acting at the beginning, leave that to the filmmakers.
invinciblespidey - 7/8/2012, 10:26 AM
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.
ShreckGT350 - 7/8/2012, 10:26 AM
Ranger 14:
Great points!
BattlinMurdock - 7/8/2012, 10:37 AM
@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.
Kolossus - 7/8/2012, 11:18 AM
These comments make it official: Spiderman fanboys are worse than Nolanites...
SuspenseSmith - 7/8/2012, 11:44 AM
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.
1 2

Please log in to post comments.

Don't have an account?
Please Register.

.