I dont believe that was Osborn though.

This movie made Spiderman seem more of a highschool kid than I remember him in the comics or the last movies. I thought that worked well here.

I have to disagree with Matt and go with Denny on this one (though Matt has a fair point about the Lizard looking like a Goomba). This was a lot of fun, and overall, superior to Raimi’s version (though Raimi is still the better director). Garfield manages to capture the elements missing from Maguire’s interpretation, mainly, the smartass comments and acting like a teenager. Even more surprising, the casting choices turned out to work pretty well on film.

Yes, it was another origin story, but it was different enough from previous versions so as to not be tiresome.

I don’t get the hate about Emma Stone’s version of Gwen Stacy being smarter than Peter. If anything, I’m grateful to finally see a female character in a superhero movie as something other than a helpless, stupid victim. She held her own and was integral to Spider-Man’s eventual victory.

Oh, and the director’s intentionally being vague about the identity of the man in the end credits scene. On one hand, it’s a cheap copout I usually hate, but on the other hand, it’s totally in line with how many original Marvel comics used to end.

Emma Stone is so much better than Kirsten Dunst, that alone helped me like it more.

Stone and Garfield are more believable as teenagers falling in love, the cgi is better and I liked the fights more. Lizard as the villain was lame though.

I think Raimi is better at expressing a certain… Raiminess in his films, but I never liked his approach to Spider-Man. They always felt campy in a way that was both emotionally dishonest and more Power Rangers than Evil Dead to me. Webb doesn’t have a lot of style of his own that I can identify from the two movies he’s made so far, but he feels a lot more sincere overall. Both Raimi and Webb have done the NY Loves Spider-Man thing and Webb pulled it off without making me gag, which Raimi did not. I love Raimi at his best (all of the Evil Dead Movies, A Simple Plan, Drag Me To Hell), but I wish he had never made any of the Spider-Man movies. I’m well aware that I may be alone on that one.

I refuse to believe this is better than Spiderman 2.

It wasn’t, but it was decent. Better than Avengers, I thought.

I don’t think I’ve ever disagreed more with anything I’ve read on the internet.

I actually thought it was a fairly “meh” film. I LOVE LOVE LOVE Emma Stone, and she was flawless in her performance here, but I thought the script was incredibly predictable and bland. I’m fairly neutral on Garfield in the role, although I thought he wasn’t NEARLY nerdy enough as pre-bite Peter Parker…I was okay with him afterward, although at times he REALLY reminded me of Hayden Christensen’s Anakin. (Voice, intonation, etc. Happened a couple of times toward the end, it was weird.)

I thought the Lizard looked wrong, mostly in the face, and there were several things that happened that just seemed nonsensical. Why is Spider-Man sliding down the roof of that building, when he’s proven that he can grab any surface at any time? Why doesn’t the liquid nitrogen affect him at all when he points it at Lizard’s tail, WHICH IS WRAPPED AROUND HIS NECK? When his web missed the crane and he started to fall…where was the crane that was holding up the beam that caught him?

I am one of the LEAST nit-picky guys on this board, and I certainly didn’t hate the movie, but it felt pretty uninspired, aside from the fact that Emma Stone brought more emotional intensity than I’ve ever seen in a comic book movie.

I enjoyed it, and I’m glad I saw it, but I wasn’t NEARLY as impressed as a lot of you guys, and that surprises me. I’m not that hard to please when it comes to movies.

This movie was horrible. I really didn’t want to see it, but my 7 year old was dying to see it so we went.

First of all, why, why, WHY waste so much time on the origin crap? Who needs to see that again? Not me. Not my son, since he already watched the first 2 movies (not the third one because I don’t want to torture him) and has read some Spidey comics. I can’t really figure out what audience members needed to see that stuff.

The Lizard’s face looked almost comically bad. Not menacing at all.

What the hell was the purpose of the crane scene during the climax? Obviously, i know what they were trying to do, but good god that was hamfisted and terrible. And Spiderman could have just swung between the buildings like we’ve all seen him do a million times before - no need for the stupid, illogical cranes at all.

I know they were trying to go lower budget on this, but there were no real set pieces to speak of until the very end of the movie - and that wasn’t even very memorable. I don’t need a movie to be all-out action, but this had a story that we’ve already seen 1000 times and then the action was also lame. That kind of leaves nothing for me to be interested in. I found it very boring.

I liked the performances, I guess. But there was little to nothing for them to do in this.

I thought it was fairly “meh”, too.

I just though Avengers was also “meh”, but inferior.

And you’re certainly entitled to your opinion! I just disagree, because I thought the Avengers was bloody brilliant.

But this thread isn’t the place for that conversation, so carry on, all. :-)

I actually don’t believe you. Liar.

This is about as close to objectively wrong as an opinion can get. I congratulate you on riding the cutting edge!

It wasn’t. According to the actor who played Connors, it was someone employed by Osborn that fans would be familiar with. Considering all the Ultimate Spidey elements in the movie I would guess it’s Electro.

Which is what IGN reported, but I didn’t want to say it, in case someone felt I had spoiled something for them.



Just saw it. Agree with a lot of the criticisms here such as the overlong intro (though that was made up for by Martin Sheen), the few dropped plot points that are developed and then cast aside, and the godawful adverts for BING! BING BING BING!

Plus the only good fight in the entire movie was the one where Webb has Lizard show up at Parker’s high school. In contrast to the finale that fight gives us some actual interplay between the two characters and has a few nice long shots of the action. The finale is instead staid and predictable - “two minutes to detonation.” Really?

Also did anyone not roll their eyes when the Oscorp suit decided to go test the serum at the veteran hospital?

Just saw it, really enjoyed the movie. Much better than Raimi’s efforts. The chemistry between Garfield and Stone was great, and the former is far, far superior casting for the role than McGuire.

The problem with yet another Spider-Man origin story is also that, of all the superheroes I can remember, he’s probably the one least needing an origin story.

Actually, on second thought, he probably takes a second place to Hulk. Either way, in medias res seems to be a lost art in superhero movies.

I agree their chemistry was great (I’d hope so, dating in real life and all), but I just am NOT a fan of Garfield in the role of Peter Parker. Even compared to Tobey Maguire, at least circa Spider-Man 1. He just wasn’t nerdy enough for me.

Or Superman. But yes, none of them ever need another origin story done. (The proper way to handle it is like they did Hulk’s origin in the most recent Hulk movie. That’s all you need…five-minute montage, bam, done.)

I’d like to think that origin stories were only necessary to introduce movie audiences to the idea of super heroes, and that now that they’re well established, even new heroes will have to spend less time on them.

Thor wasn’t really an origin story per se, and a Hawkeye and Black Widow never got much beyond “here’s a guy, he has a bow, deal with it”, so I have hope that it’s the direction we’re going in.

Supposedly we’re going to get a Guardians of the Galaxy movie, and I can’t imagine them doing origins for that, but it might be easier because their origins are all “he’s an alien”.