MovieChat Forums > The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) Discussion > Upon Further Review: This is a BAD BAD f...

Upon Further Review: This is a BAD BAD film, period

posted 11 years ago by DUKEJBM
109 replies | jump to latest

Back when I first saw this in theatres I called it mediocre with some merit and some hope for the future. Re-watching it again on DVD makes me realize I was being far too kind. This film is a mess. So much so, that it actually angers me as a Marvel fan.

This mock trailer basically sums up what was wrong with this awful film... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2KSPiTOMR8&feature=player_embedded

This movie is just poorly written. They turned Peter Parker from likeable nerd to douchebag outsider. They played off a "relationship" with Gwen that was never established or believable at all. Every supporting character is one dimensional and used as a bad set piece. That includes Uncle Ben and Aunt May and THAT is a crime. Aunt May should be more than a dimwit asking for eggs. She's never used as Peter's moral compass and that is a KEY in any Spider-Man tale. Uncle Ben's death is handled poorly and the emotional impact is glossed over. Peter is depicted as more angry than guilty and that's adds no depth at all. He also orders the web cartridges through the mail and does nothing but develop the delivery system. WHAT? A few smart-ass douchey comments is also NOT good humor. There's also nothing that's memorable about any scene or fight in this movie. NOTHING. The Lizard not only looks terrible but is so cliched as a villain.

Overly praising this effort because you like the cast or have high hopes for the future doesn't do anyone any good if they think it's OK to write a script this bad for the sequel.

[–] bond_98 11 years ago

I disagree, peter felt so much more real. I mean my two teenage cousins are complete douchebags. Just like peter.

[–] raimund-berger 11 years ago

Hahahahaha.

You know, that goes exactly along the lines of what I use to think about anyone telling me that this film felt "real".

[–] blackdoug 8 years ago

Not exactly news here either. The more you think about these two movies the more you wonder what the hell was Sony thinking?

[–] mightymac101 11 years ago

And I don't want to see a movie about your two teenage cousins either...

[–] fastdontlie 11 years ago

Good one Sir! Thanks for the Laugh

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] wickedcapedkid-1 11 years ago

I agree that this movie is not good. Perhaps terrible. The worst part was how the Lizard discovers Spider-Man is Peter Parker, based on finding his camera...which clearly reads "Property of Peter Parker". Were the screen writers for real?

Uncle Ben gets shot...out of the consequence of Peter getting mad at a convenience store clerk for not giving him chocolate milk?

Peter then spends the first part of the movie actually beating up and victimizing local thugs out of his own anger and frustration. The premise of him becoming Spider-Man solely to enact revenge. Ugh. There are more problems to list... I do not see how so many people can like this movie.

----
http://sleeplittlenemo.blogspot.com

[–] raimund-berger 11 years ago

do not see how so many people can like this movie

As a matter of fact, it's just a tiny gay crowd. And also just due to a "deleted scene" showing a thickly mascaraed Garfield sporting bare tits and a mini skirt while sucking chocolate milk from a baby bottle.

[–] stevendd 11 years ago

Wow, you've really sunken far into troll-dom now haven't you?

The rating on the FILM (since you have such a problem with that word being associated to this FILM)
shows that more people like this FILM than not, and it has sold more than enough to warrant a trilogy and really shut every one of you butt-hurt trolls up who try to make this FILM seem like a failure, when critically and financially, it's clearly not. Perfect? No. Divisive? Yes. Terrible in any way? No. And guess what? Just because you and your "tiny gay crowd" don't like it, doesn't mean everyone else feels the same.

And the irony of you saying "thickly mascaraed Garfield", Spider-Man 3 actually had Maguire wearing the closest thing to Mascara, at least eye-liner and eye-shadow.

You're a walking parody of yourself. Kinda like... IAMSUPERMAN?

[–] DUKEJBM 11 years ago

ASM2 = Ultimate Spidey?

I guess that's part of why I didn't really like ASM nor am I looking forward to this sequel. I'm a huge Marvel fan but I really do hate the Ultimate Universe. I couldn't stand the books so it's only natural that any film based in that mythology would turn me off.

Still, I tried to put that aside and enjoy ASM as a film. To me, it fell flat as a stand alone movie. I hope the writing is better this time around whoever they hammer in to the plot. I really do like the cast. At this stage, the cast and the potential coolness of the character itself are the only two things positive going for this franchise.

[–] IronBallsM 8 years ago

Most real fans hate that Ultimate Universe stuff and it's ULTIMATELY why Marvel killed it.

[–] archer1949 11 years ago

Raimi's Peter wasn't "a likable nerd". He was a boring, vacuous, slack-jawed doof.

At least this new guy has a semblance of a personality. I can't WAIT to see their take on Mary Jane Watson.

"Aw Dammit! Hot Bitches!"

[–] LukeLovesFilm28 11 years ago

It's like you're trying to find any reason at all to hate on the old, better Sam Raimi films.

[–] archer1949 11 years ago

I'm sorry, but finding the MAIN PROTAGONIST to be a nebbbishy, whiny plank of dull is hardly "any reason at all". It's pretty much a deal breaker.

At least Garfield got to let lose a few quippy one-liners when he was in costume. Maguire couldn't even manage that.

"Aw Dammit! Hot Bitches!"

[–] Viltrumite 11 years ago

The new MJ surely can't be worse than the old one. She got on my nerves. Don't get me wrong, Kirsten Dunst is hot, but her MJ was a weak, needy, pathetic little thing. The only thing the character had going for her is looks.

"Why do you say this to me when you know I will kill you for it?"

[–] archer1949 11 years ago

Don't get me started on that mewling, damp dishrag they called "Mary Jane Watson" in the Raimi movies. Dunst's version made Stan Lee's original Little Miss Perfect Sweetheart version of Gwen Stacy look dynamic and complex.

MJ is not, nor has she ever been, the sweet "girl next door" who needs a dork like Parker to make her feel worthy. She's a kick-ass babe who is way out of Parker's league, but nevertheless finds him diverting. But overall, she can live without him. That's also why I was never crazy about the Parker/MJ marriage and glad it's been done away with in the comics.

Honestly? I found the most interesting character in the whole Raimi trilogy to be James Franco's Harry Osbourne. I wish the movies were about him.

"Aw Dammit! Hot Bitches!"

[–] ItsEddieHaskellBeyotch 11 years ago

"Honestly? I found the most interesting character in the whole Raimi trilogy to be James Franco's Harry Osbourne. I wish the movies were about him."

Thats really the only praise I can give the Raimi Spidey films. Franco and Willem Defoe to an extent(despite the lame Goblin costumes) knew how to play the right notes, everyone else's performances seemed scattered almost like each actor was in a different film yet in the same setting.

"Lemme at 'em! I'll splat 'em!"

[–] DUKEJBM 11 years ago

I think it's more than obvious that they melted MJ and Gwen together for the first Raimi film and it worked perfectly. Forget the books, as a film that is EXACTLY what MJ should have been.

Also, people say Spidey wasn't cracking enough one liners in the Raimi trilogy but just look at what happened in the reboot. There's a fine line between being "witty" and coming off sounding like a douchebag and it seems many people feel the quips came off as making Peter seem like a douchey twerp in ASM. It's tough to write funny one liners and ASM did NOT do a good job of it. It's better to say nothing then to push viewers towards disliking your lead character.

[–] Sir_Artimus 11 years ago

Well then it's obvious those people don't understand Spider-Man and think Tobey is the quintessential version.

You've never spanked the dolphin before?

[–] LukeLovesFilm28 11 years ago

I think Spidey saying, "Here's your change" or "Did your husband make it for you?" is a lot more like the comics, than Garfield's street-rapping as!!ole, modernized character.

[–] Phanatic77 11 years ago

Absolutely agree here Luke.

I rarely found any of TASM's Spidy's quips funny. I honestly can't say with certainty if it's closer to the comics or cartoons over Raimi's version, but people who complain about this seem to always forget that in the cartoons it's very different. And in the comics, it's mostly how a person imagines the dialogue in the mind. But I will say that Raimi's Spidy's quips, although not as many, seem to fit better and capture the essence of Spiderman more.

'Say, that's a cute outfit, did your husband give it to you', is not only so cleverly written, it's absolutely witty, and it was integrated very naturally into the context of the scene as opposed to be thrown in there for kicks.

'Here's your change' is another one.

Believe it or not, his line during the burning building 'It's YOU who's OUT, Gobby, OUTTA your mind', although cheesy as hell, still is purely awesome the way it was integrated and delivered.

And sometimes it's not about how much he says, rather how he says it'.
During the world unity festival, when he notices the kid about to be squashed by the crane, and utters 'come on, move kid..' or 'Hey kiddo, let mom and dad talk for sec will ya', as he zips JJJ's mouth..

Or just simply uttering 'oh boy...' as he watches on NYPD trying to tackle Goblin.. or uttering 'oh-great...' as he sees razors coming out of Goblin's pumpkin bomb..

Actually, one of my favorite lines come from SM3 (as messed as it was), after his first encounter with Sandman.. He sits on the roof, takes off his mask that is full of sand, takes off his boots and spills out an ocean of sand as he mutters 'where do all these guys from?' .. It's not a laugh out loud remark.. but simply witty in its simplicity. It's funny, clever, campy.. Basically, everything bit of what Spiderman should be..

[–] LukeLovesFilm28 11 years ago

Unfortunately, for me and for many others, I think, was a major letdown after the brilliance of Spider-Man 2. I mean, Spidey didn't have a lot of great quips in SM2, mostly because he was so goddamn depressed. But, most of the things he did say were freakin brilliant.

Like, "Here's your change."

I love all of the dialogue in the elevator scene.

Man Riding Elevator: "Cool Spidey outfit."

Spider-Man: "Thanks."

Man Riding Elevator: "Where'd you get it?"

Spider-Man: "I made it."

Man Riding Elevator: "Looks uncomfortable."

Spider-Man: "It gets kinda itchy.... It rides up in the crotch a little bit too."

ROFL. I mean, how brilliant was that? I mean, who would ever get on an elevator with a guy, dressed like Spider-Man and think that it's actually Spider-Man??

I'm trying to remember any one brilliant line that Garfield vomited out in The Amazing Spider-Man. But, I can't.

Maybe the whole thing about being a car thief? But, even the subtext behind those lines is just retarded.

[–] Phanatic77 11 years ago

The problem that many people have here is confusing quantity with quality.
Yes, there were slightly, and I mean slightly more quips in TASM, but it really felt, and when I say REALLY, I mean how it comes across without any bias since I actually like the movie, as if they were just thrown in there for good measure.

Actually in SM2, you should watch the deleted elevator scene, where Spidy adds 'Yeah, sometimes it gives me a wedgie'.

In SM and SM2 (and slightly in SM3) it's not so much what he says, even though cleverly written, rather how he says it.

I don't know, it's kinda of like when I discuss Jerry Seinfeld's comedy. He's regarded, even now, as one of the funniest and most famous and successful comedians on the planet. But if you compare his material of the last formal routine he had 'I'm telling you for the last time' to the likes of Eddie Murphy's Delirious or Raw, Eddie's material is simply funnier hands down. But again, it's not about the material per se', but rather how it is delivered. Yes, it needs to be clever, witty and all that, but delivery and confidence is about 70%-80% of the act.

Much like here in SM an SM2. Alone in itself, saying 'here's your change' as he zip-webs the bag straight onto Dr Ock isn't all that great.. But the way Tobey delivered it added that quality to it. The same with 'It's you who's out Gobby, Outta your mind', line. I honestly think it's a fairly un-inspired line, but the way it was delivered.. was simply fantastic. The same with Bonesaw match and the cute outfit line, brilliant.

And with all honesty, the car thief quip wasn't bad at all, but it was so generic, pretty much something anyone would say in such a situation, anyone but Spiderman. If anything, it feels like its beneath him to deliver such lines. They need to be more awkwardly cheesy somehow, yet funny enough not to be too hokey.

See when the car thief pull a knife, we see Spidy get all down on his knees and does that odd routine where he says, 'oh no, you found my weakness, it's small knives'...

If anything lines like 'A knife... You should've brought a sword'
or

'Really..., a knife... I mean.. really...?'
or better yet

'Oh that's clever, what are you gonna do, butter me with that thing?'

Or even better yet,

(In Australian accent 'that's not a knife', pulls out a spoon 'that's a knife'

The last one was taken from the Simpsons, but I'm sure they've could've worked around it somehow..

[–] ItsEddieHaskellBeyotch 11 years ago

MJ in the comics eventually got retconned into more of a 'down to earth' character way back in the 80s. It was around the time she revealed she knew Peter was Spider-Man and eventually revealed her home life wasnt so peachy keen either.

"Lemme at 'em! I'll splat 'em!"

[–] LukeLovesFilm28 11 years ago

"MJ is not, nor has she ever been, the sweet 'girl next door 'who needs a dork like Parker to make her feel worthy. She's a kick-ass babe who is way out of Parker's league, but nevertheless finds him diverting. But overall, she can live without him. That's also why I was never crazy about the Parker/MJ marriage and glad it's been done away with in the comics."

What you people don't seem to understand is that comic books are not the same moving pictures. Not moving cartoons. Moving pictures. We're talking, real people photographed in real time.

You can't have a character the original, sassy Mary Jane Watson in a film with our hero, pining for her. You just can't. You would lose the audience's interest in both of the characters. Audiences know they're going to be stuck in a movie theater for 2 hours, without a lot of room to stretch out. They don't want to see characters, like MJ make the hero of the story, Peter Parker, feel like he's lower than dog *beep* for two hours. Even if he didn't allow her to make him feel like crap, it would be so passive in character, Peter would almost come off hollow and one-dimensional.

The constant bickering between MJ and Peter, with both characters constantly fighting their feelings for each other in Spider-Man 2, was so much more interesting and compelling to me, than ANYTHING in any Spider-Man movie since.

[–] archer1949 11 years ago

The constant bickering between MJ and Peter, with both characters constantly fighting their feelings for each other in Spider-Man 2, was so much more interesting and compelling to me, than ANYTHING in any Spider-Man movie since.

Really? Because that nonsense made me want to bash my brains out to end the pain. They took these two and lowered them to the level of Nicholas Sparks characters. To hell with that.

Give me sassy "Face it, Tiger" MJ or go home. Parker never "pined" for MJ. She was never really the love of his life. Perfect girl Gwen Stacy was. But she was taken out and MJ decided to hang out with him, and Peter became cool through association.

If the screenwriters can't handle that dynamic, then they should do without.

I don't want to see The Notebook or Twilight again. It was bad enough the first time.

"Aw Dammit! Hot Bitches!"

[–] LukeLovesFilm28 11 years ago

You're a total idiot, if you think the romance between Peter and MJ was done nearly as badly and as unconvincing as that Twilight sh!t.

[–] bond_98 11 years ago

Yeah he as a Personality. A Personality of a dumbass Douchebag. Who is to stupid to make his own Webshooter.

[–] Rayek_ 11 years ago

The only nice things I can say about "The Amazing Spider-Man" is that it's a great example of how slightly altered images played in rapid consecutive succession can create the illusion of movement. And out of all the movies I ever saw, it was definitely one of them.

A true artist should hate respectability and respect ability.
- Hans von Bulow

[–] DUKEJBM 11 years ago

SM3's crime was trying to jam too much in to a film. That led to shortcuts in plot and character but it actually did do some things right. It certainly spent the budget well. There are worse things than being over ambitious.

ASM's crime is that it didn't handle much right at all and when it did, it did so in mediocre fashion. EVERY supporting character was a waste including Aunt May and Uncle Ben and THAT for Spider-Man is an unforgivable crime. The villain was flat out awful as well.

Here's hoping they deliver much better with ASM2.

[–] LukeLovesFilm28 11 years ago

Nice one, DUKEJBM. That's exactly how I feel about Spider-Man 3 and The Amazing Spider-Man.

[–] DUKEJBM 11 years ago

I think a lot of people still have SM3 over ASM.

http://whatculture.com/film/50-greatest-marvel-movie-moments.php

I just saw this at "whatculture" and they correctly place ASM far behind all three other Spider-films with not one scene deserving to be in Marvel's top 50.

[–] LukeLovesFilm28 11 years ago

That's good to know.

But, Spider-Man 3 is definitely not without flaws. But, at least, it wasn't amateur hour. I mean, some of the cheap cinematography in The Amazing Spider-Man reminded me of The Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Movie. I'm not kidding. And I haven't seen that movie in ages. I tried my hardest to forget it.

[–] shacklefort 11 years ago

When you try and do Spidey comedy and fail like this film does it comes off as making Peter look like a douchebag. That's another huge flaw of this film. A "hero" you just want to punch yourself.

Honestly, this needs to be fixed in the sequel. Most people I know thought he came off as a douchebag. Humor is harder than action.

[–] LukeLovesFilm28 11 years ago

They've already established that Garfield's Peter Parker / Spider-Man is a fcking douchebag. They can't change that... unless they have someone really skilled behind the camera. But, that's not gonna happen.

[–] DUKEJBM 11 years ago

It's not a Webb VS Raimi thing.

There's no doubt among sane, non-fanboy viewers that Raimi's trilogy is FAR better than ASM. Yes, ALL three films outclass ASM as pure movies. Raimi knew how to deliver emotion and depth to go along with the adventure. ASM was simply so poorly written that I don't know if it's fair to blame any one person.

[–] yarik83 11 years ago

I am not a huge fan of marvel comics and only because I did not grow up reading anything that was not written by actual authors in a big 700 some page book about magical stuff somewhere in the universe of elves and trolls.

My first real interaction was sitting in waiting room at dentist's office about 15 years ago and watching out of the corner of my eye a cartoon about spider man. A while later I saw spider man as a movie and then the sequels and then I thought to myself that at some point they had to stop making these things. And they did...err...nope they did not. When I heard there was a 4th movie coming out I was absolutely convinced I would not watch yet another spider man movie. I quickly forgot about it until my netflix queue started running thin so I had to put something in it.

And so the 2012 movie came and my initial impression of it was... "ohh nooes they did ent." Seriously... they have to retell yet again how peter parker got bit etc etc etc? I sat through the film at the crossroads of marveling at its brilliance all while contemplating the absurd inevitable... how does this film stack up against what I already saw?!

This rendition takes us to I guess mid 21st-22nd century where story was overhauled for today's audience. Peter was a kid yada yada got bit yada yada became a spider man.

He was surprisingly flamboyant and just ever so slightly obnoxious and I did not like that. First 20 minutes of the film show him as compassionate and caring and then boom as if someone flipped the switch. And then the scrony nerd bares some skin and is pumped up like some sort of professional athlete. Those minor issues aside I honestly thought that at face value movie was pretty good. Spider man was shown more human and less of a masked hero. He was also more spider-y than previous spider man. Unfortunately there were 3 spider men in this movie and I almost have a lingering suspicion that Andrew Garfield only played in first 20 minutes of the film and rest of the movie he is CGI even in non spider footage. His face changes so dramatically between shots... its unfathomable. At first he is some whiny baby faced guy and then he is a sex stud with Brad Pitt+George Clooney mixed into one womanizer fragnance and then he looks like his face is pasted into the dialogue shots...so while I liked the movie I did not like Garfield in it.

I also did not like Dennis Leary in the movie... not one bit. Man does not know how to act and is a not so funny comedian. If there is one role he excels in it would be playing the obnoxious guy but in this movie he played a complete opposite and did a piss poor job of it until maybe the very last second of his dialogue.

As for movie itself... even though it retold the story I heard 19 times before... it did it in a less regurgitated way which I think worked for the film. It was something of a treat watching spider man in his element but there were so many loose ends and smoking guns left that it left me pondering attention span of screen writers. Questions like... what was the point of a high school bully if he served no purpose other than at the beginning of the film because for 2 hours afterwards he was a completely different person?! Questions like basketball and football scenes being so bizarre that how they were not followed up with repercussions is beyond logic.

I am honestly struggling with giving this movie a proper grade.

Primary character development 6/10
Secondary characters development 3/10
Story line 6.5/10
CGI, music score etc 7/10
inconsistencies 3/10

I think collectively this movie deserves a 5/10 but given its gaping holes and halfway decent story line I think I will raise that grate to 6/10

[–] kcode112358 11 years ago

Raimi's version was a cartoon...

[–] shacklefort 11 years ago

Go to any real site and this is the majority reaction to ASM...

"Re-watched AMAZING SPIDER-MAN two nights ago. Does NOT hold up. It's not a very good movie story-wise."

And that's the ones being kind.

[–] ItsEddieHaskellBeyotch 11 years ago

"Go to any real site and this is the majority reaction to ASM...

"Re-watched AMAZING SPIDER-MAN two nights ago. Does NOT hold up. It's not a very good movie story-wise."

And that's the ones being kind."

So, everyone is supposed to go with the majority opinion mentality?

This site is "fake"? Damn, we've all been duped.

Did the 'be your own individual self' teachings of Penelope "Punky" Brewster teach us nothing?

"Lemme at 'em! I'll splat 'em!"

[–] kcode112358 11 years ago

I don't need a 'real site' to tell me what to think. And the majority of people posting things on a site are not the majority of movie-goers. The general public doesn't usually take the time to go to a site and update us on how they rewatched a movie and it wasn't good the second time around. Besides if you didn't like the movie why would you watch it again? If I don't like a certain restaurant, I'm not going to go back, order the same thing and say 'yep, it's even worse the second time!'...

[–] DUKEJBM 11 years ago

I grew up loving Spider-Man and truly hope they get it right with the sequel. I've let the Raimi trilogy go long ago.

It's just that ASM was that big of a let down and that poorly constructed. Cutting them slack for a bad effort doesn't do anyone any good.

[–] mightymac101 11 years ago

It's true, giving them reason to believe that the first film was anything but mediocre means they had better do a better job in the sequel. Not many liked ASM.

[–] blackdoug 9 years ago

Shack knows where it's at!

[–] Cold_In_Space 11 years ago

He's not a douchebag. He just wanted to pay Flash back, that what every teenager would do. And as for teasing the carjacker, that's what Spidey always does in the comics. Spdiey saving the child was memorable for me. Aunt May and uncle Ben were fine for me. His death wasn't handled any better in the old film.

- Gothamite #4

I've learned that it's OK to be flawed - Winona Ryder

[–] DUKEJBM 11 years ago

It looks like they haven't learned their lesson on the sequel at all. Going even more Ultimate is simply a bad idea. BAD comments are all over the place after that Electro photo was leaked.

"It's like Schwarzenegger's Mr. Freeze killed Obi-Wan and stole his clothes. Terrible. Just terrible."

And that's just superficial. The core is what killed ASM.

[–] RetroNewWave 10 years ago

I feel like Peter is more responsible for Uncle Ben's death in the old one so it has more weight to it. I think that the overall tone with Amazing Spider-Man didn't really fit the content. It's just offputting to me.

I was MovieKid56, but then I was cured alright