Duh: 'The Amazing Spider-Man' Will Be a Trilogy
At the very least!
there are several words i can use to discribe this movie and none of them are even close to amazing
the first 80 minutes or so is if i was in 2002 all over again watching a better spiderman movie take place boring romantic comedy drama and so on!!!!!this movie should have been called twi-spiderman instead of amazing spiderman.
CGI looked like it came from 1998 instead off 2012 and if anyone did not know(Marc Webb) Peter Parker being spiderman was a little bit of a secert? that is why he wore a ah MASK!!!!!!!!and spiderman was in the movie all of what 20-25 minutes my gosh man and half of that time his mask was off showing himself to everyone.
this is what you get when you take a director of 1 movie a bad try of a romantic comedy(500 days of summer) and put him in charge of a 215 million dollar (yes people that was the budget of this movie)( the avengers was 230 million) blockbuster action adventure spiderman movie and turn it into a sub-par twi-spider movie with very little thought very poor CGI and average at best(what few there were) acton scenes.
if this is best sony can do for spiderman which we know it isn't the case(spiderman 1,2,3) then disney should get it and see what they can do with it (the avengers and see what they did with that)and make a real spiderman movie because this trash was from a galaxy far far away!!!!
This installment is weak compared to the Tobey Maguire films. Peter Parker is a punk at times; insensitive and disrespectful. The whole transition form Peter Parker to Spider-Man, which was so excellently dealt with in the first film, is really glossed over. Maybe because it was done so well, the producers did not want to rehash what was done so well.
Martin Sheen and Sally Field are both ineffectual as Uncle Ben and Aunt May and the tagline so famous with Spider-man is never given in the film.
Norman Osborne makes a ghostly appearance in the credits sequence, but here is little peer interaction for Peter Parker as there was in the first film. Harry Osborne never appears in this film; and the same for Mary Jane Watson.
Denis Leary does a commendable job as Captain Stacy and Emma Stone is superb as Gwen Stacy.
Overall, I was disappointed. They didn't have to make Peter Parker ignoble.
The negativity towards this movie is completely unfounded! This is a GREAT movie, well acted, didn't have Toby Maguire's weird gyrating or Dunst's HORRIBLE singing. This is not the first time Gwen Stacy has been portrayed as a science nerd, so everyone can calm down. I thought this was better than all three Raimi movies combined. Because when you REALLY look at it, only Spider-Man 2 was really good...
Whoever wrote this article has no concept for a good action movie. "... at least two more films?" How about minus one. This movie sucked and the next two (at least) will suck too.
I am reading a lot of negative comments from people who apparently loved the 3 Toby and Kurstin (sp?) films SO very much. But, to me they were both miscast. Spiderman is set in NYC, lower urban NYC at that, and there was always poverty and financial/social/racial hardship involved. By contrast, Toby and Kurstin seem like they just stepped out of Beverly Hills high after noshing on Sunset. They are soft and well-fed and so very unlike the comics I remember, where (black-haired) Peter was always behind on his rent and worried about his Aunt's medical problems and so forth. So what I am wondering is this: are all these posters angry, rather like finding out Bruce Springsteen is democrat, that Peter Parker did not have a trust fund like THEY did?