Why The Amazing Spiderman is Inferior
Thursday, July 5, 2012 at 6:42PM
First off, I would like to say that I went to go see this movie already knowing that I would not like it. So you can most likely guess what type of review this will be (unless the title gives it away). I'm sure I'm not the first to ask Why in the world did they remake a Spiderman origin?... Money...Maybe...introduce new actors to the role...possibly, but why another origin? Is it safe to say that even your abuela (grandma) knows how Peter Parker became Spiderman. That is the flaw of this film, even with the little tweaks to the story I was still not impressed. How many times do we have to watch Uncle Ben die? About the only new factor was the Lizard sort of. Rhys Ifans did a good job, as did Emma Stone as Gwen Stacey. Which leaves Andrew Garfield...sorry but I prefer Tobey Maguire's performance, but for the sake of letting new actors take on new roles, I'll put that aside. What sucks about this movie is that, the story should have continued with Spiderman already being established, that way you don't bore the moviegoers with the same origin. In defense I will say that some aspects of the film did introduce true comic book material like Spiderman using cartridges instead of webbing just spewing out of his wrists. All in all the Sam Raimi Spiderman was better in my book, Peter Parker was more of a nerd not a skater, Maguire's dialogue was more genuine compared to Garfield's portrayal. Some will say its just because Tobey came first (TRUE) Either way, the word on the net seems to be similar. Its pretty simple to compare, which one did you like better?
Andrew Garfield,
Emma Stone,
Lizard,
Tobey Maguire,
box office,
comic con,
marvel,
reboot,
remake,
spiderman 
