CGM Reviews: The Amazing Spider-Man

Given that this summer movie season is defined by superhero movies with the juggernaut that was The Avengers kicking things off and the The Dark Knight Rises on the way, The Amazing Spider-Man should be hitting screens with a similar level of tongue wagging fanboy anticipation. Yet somehow, that’s not really the case. It should be since ten years ago Spider-Man’s record breaking box office run was what kicked off the current superhero movie renaissance and if Sam Raimi had been allowed to return to atone for the dreadful Spider-Man 3, we can guarantee the Comic Con crowd would be desperately counting down the days to release.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
extermin8or1576d ago (Edited 1576d ago )

What a pisstake, I saw the film yesterday and it was well above the 2.5 they gave it here... there review seems fair, however they seem to be mistaking that someone being a nerd means you have to look like the stereotype; as someone who myself wishes to study physics at uni, like video games, and things such as dr who, spiderman and batman (before they became cool again lol) I have often been labled a nerd yet I don't wear glasses or have combed over hair etc so their complaint there seems pretty pointless; from what I saw Andrew Garfield was a far better actor than toby maguire EVER was or will be, his character was I think far more relatable and plenty of people I know agree with me there, the film was just in everyway considerably better than any of the last series films-no cheesey crap all the time; also can someone please explain to me why sites keep raving on about the 2nd spiderman film from the alst trilogy because it was ok yeah but in my opinion the 1st was far better; here's hoping this new series doesn't follow that trend :p
Edit:Also how many reviewers have slated it for being an origin story.. I mean WTF?! they seriously seem to be saying there should've been a 'recap' of how he became spiderman then bam straight into it which is ludicrous; I bet they'd have been the 1st to call out the stupidity of that if it had been done... also they claim that his parents "being involved in a conspiracy is barely explored" did they watch the film because I'm pretty certain it was a)shown they are supposed to have died in a plane crash and b) that it was no accident and it was because his father hid the decay formula for the cross species 'cure'... also there point about Gwen working in the lab; well I could go and get a job (hypothetically) as a lab assistant say in the national physics lab or somewhere you only need AS/A levels not a degree to do that sort of job so as she's working there clearly part time as an intern it does sort of make sense (i don't know what the english equivalent of an intern is so i could be wrong but im assuming it's sort of like paid work experience or something) and the reviewer clearly does not realise that garfield did most of those stunts himself; not "some stuntman on wires" anyway despite my picking it apart that was a fairer review than some of the others I've seen however it deserves at least 3.5/5 if not 4 because it's much better than 50% if you look at other movies rated the same.

edwest1576d ago

Brave review score. I must agree on the Lizard's lipsynching, his puckered up expression did him no favours.

extermin8or1576d ago

hmm yeah hsi lip syncing wasn't great but it hardly ruined the film (not this review) but plenty of reviews I've seen have either put it down for being the origin story (what next lower score for being about a superhero?) or it felt like they were purposefully looking for reasons to hate the film and in a way the director Mark Webb-few places have an issue with Stone or Garfields acting (well how could you it was good...) yet there seems to be a fair bit of hate on the director which is unfair- it's his 2nd film and in my opinion considering that only makes the film look better, and he's done a better job than at least 2 of Ramani's films soo....

Saleem1011576d ago

This movie was plain terrible...