Saw it at the junket in New York. Got to throw questions at director and producers, Denis Leary, Sally Field, Martin Sheen, Rhys Ifans, Andrew Garfield, then had a one-on-one with Leary. Totally dug the movie. Parts of the same story, different approach, great new ideas, very assured directing and acting (though I didn't really buy Emma Stone in the part). Nice use of 3D depth, lots of back story early on -- much more than in Raimi's -- but the pace really picks up close to an hour in. Garfield has a different take on the role, and good for him! His stamp is now on it. Terrific Marvel staple of a sympathetic villain/monster, nailed by Ifans. More later, when I review it.

what did they go with as far as spiderman's web production? is it organic as in the previous versions ( a travesty imo). or is it a synthetic web shooter designed by peter parker in his home laboratory?

kirok wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 6:45am:

what did they go with as far as spiderman's web production? is it organic as in the previous versions ( a travesty imo). or is it a synthetic web shooter designed by peter parker in his home laboratory?

Judging from the trailer I'd say Peter builds the webshooters.

Caleb451 wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 11:45am:

kirok wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 6:45am: what did they go with as far as spiderman's web production? is it organic as in the previous versions ( a travesty imo). or is it a synthetic web shooter designed by peter parker in his home laboratory? Judging from the trailer I'd say Peter builds the webshooters.

It would appear that they have gone back to the original as far as the web shooters are concerned.  I am not so sure about the rest of the story.  It looks somewhat shaky to me.  I will definitely wait on this one.... although Ed says it is great.  The first trailer looks horrible.  Ed says the Trailers 2 and 3 are better. 

The web shooters are Peter's design. He's into science and likes tinkering, a trait that's attributed to his admiration for his scientist father.

You should all go to see this. I'm more impressed with it after thinking about it for a few days. The trick, of course, is to take it on its own, not make any comparisons to the earlier works. Difficult to do, but worth trying.

I particularly liked Rhys Ifans, who gets stronger, more confident, and just better with every role. He gets to do a classic sympathetic Marvel villain.

Here's my "Spidey" review:
http://www.freetime.com/onscreen-the-amazing-spider-man/

THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN is decently done. The cast is fine. Garfield, though 29, is a good Spidey. Emma Stone is cute, but even my younger nieces & nephews remarked about how mature she was for the role. Martin Sheen and Sally Field are two fine exemplars of their acting generation.

On the downside, the villain is kind of lame and the whole lizard thing gets silly after a while. There are also far too many "coincidences" in order for the plot to work. And, some sloppiness too - How did the front door glass that Peter breaks get repaired so soon, for example?

Still, the special effects have improved. There is a better feel for high school life than in the 2001 version.

But, in the end, you kind of just shrug your shoulders and say, "meh". You've seen it before, and pretty darn recently. Some things are better in this version, a few worse, but, mostly just about the same. If I had to total them up this version might have the slightest edge, but it ends up a tie.

In Baseball, Tie goes to the Runner. When it comes to remakes, Tie goes to the Original in my book.