The new Spider-Man Movie

[Xalibar]

I just watched the new spider man movie, and honestly I'm dissapointed. I'm sure like other people who will see it, I compared it to the maguire movies.

Firstly, when I heard they were doing a reboot, I figured they were going to make it apart of the marvel cinematice universe, but I found out it wasn't, since sony still had the rights.

The first half hour or so of the movie was just the origin story, which was annoying nd a bore to go over again. And it was a little weird. In the maguire movies he actually gets sick and nauseous because of the bite. In this movie he gets bit and then has his powers no problem. Then there is a short montage of him swinging around a warehouse with his abilities, testing them out, and building his webshooters etc. The maguire movie did the same but it was just paced better, and he seemed more cautious and experimental with his abilites.

Some things I did like about this movie was the fact that they had the webshooters, and it showed him making his costume, kind of, as it was montaged. In the first one people commented on the fact that maguire drew the standard spidey costume then showed up at the arena with what looked like gym clothes. However, I always wondered where he got his actual costume done, particularly since it had rubber lines for webs and such and just seemed more prefessionally done, than parker would've been able to do.

Also was the fact the in the maguire movie he confronted his uncles killer and is there when he accidentally falls out of the window and dies, giving peter a sense of the power and responsibility thing. However in this one, he doesn't find the killer, but decides to use his powers for good after saving a kid in a car. It just didn't feel like the emotional spark was there for him to become spider man like it was in the maguire movie. And on a side not, I did like in this movie that aunt may is more parent aged and brunette hair rather than the grandma looking one in the maguire ones.

Overall, the maguire movie just had better character development and plot development and pacing.

Of the two actors playing spider man, I prefer maguire. Although sometimes his character does seem too nerdy. Garfield was also nice and I like that he was thinner, as spider man is generally drawn with a thin build. But then I do like the maguire ones better.

It's a shame they cancelled spider man 4 to work on this disappointing one. They could've kept the same general storyline. i don't understand why they even needed to do a reboot.

Anyway, what do you guys think?

[Jinx]

I have no desire to see this film.

[Del Murder]

I'm also going to pass on this one unless I hear some great things about it.

I just don't see the need for a Spidey reboot this soon, especially another origin story.

[Pike]

I want to see it anyway just because it's Spidey and he's one of my favorites.

[Freya]

I want to see it anyway just because it's Spidey and he's one of my favorites.

That. It's apparently got in the 70% rating on rotten tomatoes?

[Shorty]

I kindof want to see it, but Tobey Maguire is stuck in my head as "the" Spider-man and I'm not super sure this new doe-eyed Peter Parker would actually be great at it. But I'm still curious!

I will say that the cancellation of Spider-man 4 was probably a blessing. 3 was a joke, and it was only downhill after Doc Ock.

Not sure how I feel about the lack of Mary Jane, but Emma Stone has to be better than Kirsten Dunst as the love interest.

[charliepanayi]

Andrew Garfield is hardly 'doe-eyed' - from what I've heard it's OK, and Garfield and Stone are both meant to be very good, but I don't think I have much desire to see this.

[Shiny]

Tobey Maguire was nerdy enough. Now they're bringing in someone even nerdier than him. I'm not a huge fan of Andrew Garfield in the role, but I'll still go see it because Spiderman comics are my favorite.

[Old Manus]

I inexplicably found myself in the cinema watching it last night (doing things just for the hell of it, I feel like I'm 17 again!), and it was pretty decent. I sort of preferred it to the 'original', which I admittedly barely remember. I enjoyed the first three quarters of it, but after all those cranes started aligning themselves towards the end in some kind of stupid 'PATH FOR SPIDEY' it was clear that toothy marine predators were starting to be leaped over. I guess that was a spoiler.

I preferred the blonde as the love interest this time over the carved-out-of-granite acting shenanigans from the previous offerings, but I don't know what they were playing at pretending that she was meant to be 17. She was definitely more interesting though.

They should have expanded on the Lizard more. His basic plot was man with one arm wants to regrow it, ends up as giant lizard, suddenly decides to kill everyone, then gets arrested. That lab in the sewer was ridiculous. What was with the giant rat cameo? What happened to the asian bloke who stole the serum? He got attacked in his car then was never mentioned again (a bit like the dude who killed Uncle Ben).

And finally, pulling out the box of eggs at the end was so laden with cheese it almost ruined the move entirely. That was a spoiler as well.

[Slothy]

Don't have time for a detailed review or anything, but for what it's worth from a lifelong Spider-Man fan who was skeptical of a reboot; Andrew Garfield is the better Peter and Spider-Man, Emma Stone was much better than Kirsten Dunst, they both have more chemistry, and while I like Sam Raimi, it's nice to not have his trademark campiness. It might have worked 10 years ago, but the movie is better off for not having it. Anyone passing on this one is making a mistake because overall it's the better movie by quite a wide margin.

Edit: bit more time now so why not add a few things in response to the OP.

The first half hour or so of the movie was just the origin story, which was annoying nd a bore to go over again.

I actually quite enjoyed the new take on his origin, largely because it avoided the camp of having him try to wrestle to win some money and, well, it just avoided the camp in general. Seeing him make the web shooters was nice as well, though you'd think someone will eventually catch on that he's buying webbing from Oscorp.

In the maguire movies he actually gets sick and nauseous because of the bite. In this movie he gets bit and then has his powers no problem.

(SPOILER)Except that he was passed out on that subway car if you didn't notice. Still, I don't see the big deal with skipping something which is fairly superfluous. Seeing him struggle to control his powers was more interesting than seeing him come down with a flu then wake up ripped.

In the first one people commented on the fact that maguire drew the standard spidey costume then showed up at the arena with what looked like gym clothes. However, I always wondered where he got his actual costume done, particularly since it had rubber lines for webs and such and just seemed more prefessionally done, than parker would've been able to do.

Maybe I'm forgetting here, but didn't the wrestling promoter have the costume made for him? I might be confusing it for another incarnation of Spidey though. Still begs the question of what he did anytime he ripped the damn thing. Also, slight aside which is kind of related to both movies; sewing spandex is hard, and you did not do that by hand Peter. There's a reason I decided against sewing my own unitard for a Superman costume a few years ago.

Also was the fact the in the maguire movie he confronted his uncles killer and is there when he accidentally falls out of the window and dies, giving peter a sense of the power and responsibility thing. However in this one, he doesn't find the killer, but decides to use his powers for good after saving a kid in a car. It just didn't feel like the emotional spark was there for him to become spider man like it was in the maguire movie.

The importance of the burglar wasn't in being confronted by Peter, it was in Peter realizing he could have stopped him before he killed Ben but did nothing. That's the impetus for him putting on a costume and going out there. He's a character driven by immense guilt because his own inaction caused the death of his uncle. And I honestly felt the progression in this one was more natural. (SPOILER)He starts out beating up petty thugs looking for the killer out of guilt and probably some amount of desire for revenge, but after the bridge scene realizes he could be doing a lot more.

Of the two actors playing spider man, I prefer maguire.

Couldn't disagree more. Maguire's Peter Parker was good, despite hamming it up on a few occasion's, but his Spider-Man never felt right. There were no quips, no one-liners, no feigned cockiness to try and keep his enemies off guard. He was just nerdy Peter Parker in a dorky costume. In an actual fight, Spidey would be talking your ear off and they never had that right with the original movies. Hell, even in the Spider-Man games where Maguire voiced the character, his delivery fell flat. He may have done a good enough job of playing Peter (though after watching some of Spider-Man 2 on TV on Saturday I'd argue his performance is quite dated and doesn't play as well as nostalgia would like me to believe), but he wasn't the best Spider-Man. He just had the distinction of being in one of the first super hero movies in a decade or more to not completely suck.

i don't understand why they even needed to do a reboot.

I have lot's of love and respect for Sam Raimi, but those original Spider-Man movies have not aged as well as we'd like to think. Certainly better than the likes of Tim Burton's Batman movies, but even less than ten years later those movies are too campy, and just don't hold up as well now when compared to the likes of Iron Man, Avengers, or the Nolan Batman films. For the time they came out they were amazing pieces of superhero cinema, and we can almost certainly thank them and X-Men for every great superhero movie that came after, but the bar has been raised so much since then that if they were going to try and do something Spider-Man related they really needed a reboot to let them start fresh without being tied to what Raimi did which would have worked against them if you ask me. Especially with how reviled Spider-Man 3 was by the general public.

[Shorty]

Andrew Garfield is hardly 'doe-eyed' - from what I've heard it's OK, and Garfield and Stone are both meant to be very good, but I don't think I have much desire to see this.

He looks doe-eyed to me! Doe-eyed and baby-faced, which isn't how I'd prefer Spider-man but of course I'm just judging him from the previews and posters I've seen.

[Freya]

Just so you lot know, if you think the chemistry between Garfield and Stone is great it's cause they are actually dating. THE MORE YOU KNOW.

[Slothy]

Just so you lot know, if you think the chemistry between Garfield and Stone is great it's cause they are actually dating. THE MORE YOU KNOW.

It helps that they can both act too.

[Xalibar]

Don't have time for a detailed review or anything, but for what it's worth from a lifelong Spider-Man fan who was skeptical of a reboot; Andrew Garfield is the better Peter and Spider-Man, Emma Stone was much better than Kirsten Dunst, they both have more chemistry, and while I like Sam Raimi, it's nice to not have his trademark campiness. It might have worked 10 years ago, but the movie is better off for not having it. Anyone passing on this one is making a mistake because overall it's the better movie by quite a wide margin.

I do suppose both maguire and dunst did seem kind of flat. Both garfiedls and stone were more animated an lively. What campiness are you talking about?

I actually quite enjoyed the new take on his origin, largely because it avoided the camp of having him try to wrestle to win some money and, well, it just avoided the camp in general. Seeing him make the web shooters was nice as well, though you'd think someone will eventually catch on that he's buying webbing from Oscorp.

What is the camp? And it wasn't entirely a new take on his origin, just presented differently. Him wrestling for money is what he originally did in the comics.

In the maguire movies he actually gets sick and nauseous because of the bite. In this movie he gets bit and then has his powers no problem.

(SPOILER)Except that he was passed out on that subway car if you didn't notice. Still, I don't see the big deal with skipping something which is fairly superfluous. Seeing him struggle to control his powers was more interesting than seeing him come down with a flu then wake up ripped.

The maguire movies did have him struggle with his powers. And yes I did see him on the subway passed out, or sleeping. And the flu showed his body adjusting to the changes.

In the first one people commented on the fact that maguire drew the standard spidey costume then showed up at the arena with what looked like gym clothes. However, I always wondered where he got his actual costume done, particularly since it had rubber lines for webs and such and just seemed more prefessionally done, than parker would've been able to do.

Maybe I'm forgetting here, but didn't the wrestling promoter have the costume made for him? I might be confusing it for another incarnation of Spidey though. Still begs the question of what he did anytime he ripped the damn thing. Also, slight aside which is kind of related to both movies; sewing spandex is hard, and you did not do that by hand Peter. There's a reason I decided against sewing my own unitard for a Superman costume a few years ago.

No he didn't have it made for him. He just had it.

i don't understand why they even needed to do a reboot.

I have lot's of love and respect for Sam Raimi, but those original Spider-Man movies have not aged as well as we'd like to think. Certainly better than the likes of Tim Burton's Batman movies, but even less than ten years later those movies are too campy, and just don't hold up as well now when compared to the likes of Iron Man, Avengers, or the Nolan Batman films. For the time they came out they were amazing pieces of superhero cinema, and we can almost certainly thank them and X-Men for every great superhero movie that came after, but the bar has been raised so much since then that if they were going to try and do something Spider-Man related they really needed a reboot to let them start fresh without being tied to what Raimi did which would have worked against them if you ask me. Especially with how reviled Spider-Man 3 was by the general public.

The spider man movies help set the bar of what the iron man, avengers and nolan batman films could be when it came to storytelling and character interaction. They were more inspirational and awe inspiring. Its the garfield movie that falls short of achieving this. It just seemed choppy and underdone. The old films are still fine even after all these years and hold up perfectly well when compared with them. Spider man 3 may have been worse than the previous ones, but it was no need to reboot the series. Also, with the old ones it felt like an entire world was there, whereas in this one the most people i saw was the 10 or so people on the bridge running away. And again what was campy?

Regardless, I think it was too soon for a reboot. it may have been 10 years since the first one, but it was only 5 since the last entry.

[Slothy]

What is the camp? And it wasn't entirely a new take on his origin, just presented differently. Him wrestling for money is what he originally did in the comics.

Corny might be a better choice of words in retrospect. Hell, Willem Dafoe spends half the first movie hamming it up. It's part of Sam Raimi's style honestly, and as much as I love the guy, that doesn't really fit or play as well for me anymore.

As to the origin story, I never said it was new. I did say I liked the presentation of it quite a bit more than in the original. And I'm fully aware that in the comics he originally wrestled for money. I'm also fully aware that that was originally done in the 60's and it's more than a little silly now, and I'm glad it wasn't there.

The maguire movies did have him struggle with his powers. And yes I did see him on the subway passed out, or sleeping. And the flu showed his body adjusting to the changes.

They had him struggle with his powers for a scene or two maybe, then he's basically an expert and doesn't think anything of the fact that he can now climb walls, lift cars, and shoot webbing from his wrists. The entire flu scene is rather superfluous anyway. His body adapting to the changes isn't all that interesting. Peter not understanding what happened right away and basically freaking out afterwards it.

The spider man movies help set the bar of what the iron man, avengers and nolan batman films could be when it came to storytelling and character interaction. They were more inspirational and awe inspiring.

I never said they didn't do all of this. I did say they don't hold up as well anymore. Just look at the Tim Burton Batman films as a point of comparison. For the time they were probably the best examples of a Superhero movie that wasn't the original Superman from the 70's. They set a new bar which no other comic book movies would surpass until Blade. They also really suck in retrospect. Now I'm not saying the Sam Raimi movies outright suck, but they were kind of cheesy and corny, and they aren't as good as the likes of Iron Man, the Avengers, and certainly not the Nolan Batman series thus far.

And that's to say nothing of their complete butchering of a pretty pivotal character in Spider-Man's life like Gwen Stacey, or the little mishandling of Venom, and how utterly uninteresting Harry Osborn was by the 3rd movie. If a reboot let's them fix this stuff (which it already is with Gwen at least), then I'm fine with that.

Regardless, I think it was too soon for a reboot. it may have been 10 years since the first one, but it was only 5 since the last entry.

I might have agreed with you when I saw the original trailer, but honestly, the movie was just done better than Sam Raimi's efforts, as good as they were. The acting was better, the characters were more true to their origins in the comics, and it let's everyone move on and forget where the series left off.