Went to the UK Premiere. If you have questions I can try and answer them for you. BTW there is a little mid credit sequence!

Nothing major but cool, no mention of Avengers anywhere. When asked about adding him to the next Avengers - Tolmach (SP) - one the producers said were just trying to get Spidy II out of the way first.

um, yeah. does the movie suck a little or a lot? I've heard it's most comparable to The Green Lantern which isn't too surprising. spill your guts. does the Lizard really turn the SWAT into SWAT-Lizards? How's this baby end. and what's the mid-credit scene? Any cameo's?

I hear it's the Twilight of superhero movies.

Idiotic reboot. I hope it bombs. Absolutely bombs.

EDIT: I don't want to eat my words on this.

i loved it no suckage at all,

i don't think this Spider-man will ever appear in an Avengers movie. Sony was smart to hold on to the rights. If the rights revert back to Marvel Studios (if this one tanks, the year 2017? five years after the last Spider-man film is made, right?), they can't reboot for the third time. I doubt we'll ever see a Marvel Studios version of spider-man, unless Sony agrees to just distribute a Marvel movie

Or if the geniuses at Disney decided to dip into the goldmine they are sitting on and buy the character back from Sony before 2017. Making a half-assed attempt to reboot the franchise in order to demand more money down the road for the character rights is a smart move by Sony, even if this thing tanks.

The longer they wait, the more nervous I get as a fan that the people in charge of the Marvel-verse have any sense.

Btw, looks like they might reboot the Hulk for the third time. And personally I'm a fan of the idea.

Isn't that basically what happened in that 2003 Hulk movie? Did they run out of superhero origin stories?

No, well, I don't think. Maybe?

I never really put that together. I assumed this new spiderflick was based more or less on the 'Ultimate Spiderman' origin. But was that a rip-off of Anglee's Hulk? Or vice versa? Huh. Curious.

Either way, neither characters classic origin went that way, and it didn't add an ounce of interest to the Hulk movie. Not sure why they are going with it here.

Chronological edit of the 25 minutes released thus far from [s]Ultimate[/s] Amazing Spider-Man

[flash width=640 height=385]http://www.movieweb.com/v/VIvVjtxBC3dfyC"[/flash]

One of the only real negative reviews I've seen but it seems on point with what the geek community is expecting: a needless and inflammatory reboot.

I got sneak preview tickets - it's clear Sony is working triple time to get this film to deliver Avengers-like business.

So is this a bitch-slap to the Spider-verse and an ultimate epic fail of an effort? Or did this disaster-in-waiting end up being pretty great forcing CoGro to eat his words once again?

Answer: it's not a train-wreck movie and it some stuff right. It's also a completely needless reboot that is, almost embarrassingly, pretty boring for long periods. It just stinks so strongly of "been there, done that." The origin story is literally twice as long as it was in Raimi's 2002 film and there's not even close to enough new or interesting material to validate starting from scratch.

As a reboot, this is an epic fail. The changes they did make to the origin story are tacky and stupid. The film also feel pretty soulless, which is probably a result of its terrible script and the fact that this movie could not be more wrong tonally.


EDIT: The more I think about it, the worse the movie gets. The script abandoning plot points midway, the tone... just way off. The acting is mostly strong - especially from the leads - but there's just this imbalance to the entire show that made me not care as much as I should have.

What went right?

For starters, the Spidey-Swinging scenes - particularly the end swing - are tremendous and exhilarating. More a product of time and technology than anything directorial, but it's pretty fantastic. Some of the action scenes are also visually cool, although they all lack suspense and feel pretty dry. Think Incredible Hulk-type action scenes and you'll know what I mean.

The Gwen / Peter / Captain Stacy dynamic is pitch perfect even though there's not enough Gwen / Spider-man / Peter action going on. If Raimi's film had sex with this one, we'd get the perfect Spider-Man 1.

ETC:

• Garfield v. Tobey? Garfield's Peter is much more bratty and harder to get behind as a hero. Garfield comes off more genuinely like a troubled high schooler confused about how to handle this new life that's handed to him. I can make an argument for either - wash.

• Much preferred Raimi's Uncle Ben / Aunt May and the origin story overall.

• Connors' arc is rushed and the suddenness of his transformation from murderous villain to remorseful / tragic character at the end came off a bit silly. The Oscorp connection was also tacky.

• Lizard's CGI isn't terrible. Minus the poor design, he moves as I'd imagine him to.

• Spidey's costume is so stupid.

• Garfield as Spidey (in the suit) comes off clumsy as doesn't match the acrobatic CGI model at all. It didn't feel right at all.

• EDIT: Spidey does not crack wise in this movie. It's not at all funny or playful, but awkward. The cadence is off and Garfield cannot pull off witty banter. He simply comes off ilke a guy trying to egg on a fight. Maguire did a way better job here even if he wasn't always given the best material.

When I think back to Spider-man 2002, what once was (and still is) a great quip by Spider-man during the cage fight ("that's a nice outfit; did your husband give it to you?") would never be written into a movie these days. Webb's Spider-man also doesn't talk to himself, nor do we get the internal thoughts, which is a Spidey staple.

• I thought it was a weak score at the time, but Elfman's Spider-man music is far, far and away a better fit for the character. Horner's is invisible and the opposite of heroic.

• I'd venture to guess it's Norman who talks with Connors at the mid-credits sequence - which is a useless 10 second scene.


Conclusion: Raimi's origin got more right than Webb's. I wish Raimi's film was called "The Amazing Spider-man" because I just love the idea of naming Marvel properties by the comic titles. The charm, the style, the casting (at least JJJ, Osborn, Harry, etc) the narration, the observance to comic lore...it all wins out even though "Amazing" has a note perfect Gwen Stacy and a more acrobatic CGI Spider-man.

Might be one of the most useless reboots / misguided productions of all time.

Wow. Thanks for posting, CoGro. And thanks for saving me $40!

Unless the tide of opinion turns against you in the weeks to come, Im going to Redbox this bitch for a dollar before Christmas.

Opened here today and got a chance to see it.

In depth reviews aren't normally my go, but I was impressed - to cut a long story short. I'll let others (with a comic background) go into detail with what they thought worked and what didn't.

The origin story did go for a lot longer that Raimis version, but I thought the whole Connors/Lizard story was infinitely better than the Osboune/Goblin counterpart.

I didn't stick around for the credits, did I miss much?

The entire mid-credit's sequence is basically shown in one of the trailers.

That's right - the whole "did you tell the boy about his father" shot you've already heard and seen is the "special secret scene."

There's that line and then Connor's says something like "leave the boy alone." It's literally 10 seconds.

I liked it, I liked it a lot.

Do we need another retelling of Spider-man's origin? No, but the film is necessary in so much as they had to distance themselves from Raimi's Spider-man. That particular arc ran its course and although Dylan Baker would have made for a far more convincing/tragic Curt Conners/The Lizard, by the end of the third film I really felt that Raimi's team had done just about everything they could with Spider-man.

As a long time Spider-man, I definitely had issues with some of the choices they made going into this movie but once the flick got started I was on board. That's not to say that I didn't roll my eyes a few times during the opening scenes but the cast and the writing won me over.

I really think the gripes regarding the new costume design are much ado about nothing and echoed the complaints about the redesigned bat-suit in the months leading up to "The Dark Knight's" release. The important thing is that the outfit is instantly recognizable as Spider-man in the film.

Could I pick this film apart and talk about all the little things that bugged me? Yeah, I mean I definitely agree with many of CoGro's comments, particularly about the score (Elfman's theme wasn't exactly classic but it damn near sounds anthemic compared to Horner's work on this film) but I can't deny that I walked out of the theater completely satisfied and confident that Spidey is in pretty good hands with Marc Webb.

I'm with Joe on this. I didn't want to like it, and no, not everything is necessary, but it modernized the origin story (seriously, who still wrestles these days). I'd recommend it.

More info from Rhys Ifans about the ending scene.

I just assumed it was Richard Parker. Others have suggested it was Norman Osbourne. That looks like its been shot down.

It's not Norman Osbourne in person because the guy has not been casted yet. I bet it's as simple as that.