New Spider-man Movie

[oldmanwinters]

Wife liked this one better than the first one.

Man, I hated the CGI on the bit where Toby MaGuire first jumps into action in his "Man-Spider" costume to leap around the city after Uncle Ben's killer.  It's just so cheesy looking and the transition point is so blatantly obvious.

[cmdrkoenig67]

I have not seen the movie, but I saw this clip and the young man in the clip is not the Peter Parker of the comics..

http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/the-amazing-spiderman/trailers/the-amazing-spider-man-clip-take-it-29631598.html

This is what I posted about the clip there...

"Awful...Peter Parker of the comics doesn't ever do this stuff, because hes TOO SMART! This is something an idiot Peter Parker would do."

I'm not a fan of Spider-Man, but I know enough about the character to know that Peter uses his brain.  The Peter Parker in the clip reveals waaaaaaaay too much.

Dana

[Tomato]

Yeah... that clip is kind of out of context.

Spoiler

First of all, Flash Thompson (the guy Peter's messing with) beat him up like the day before. And not like kinda nicely messed with, no, I mean punched in the face and kicked in the stomach a few times BEATEN UP. Also, the reason Peter HAS the basketball in the first place is because he caught it in midair to prevent Flash from throwing it at a freshman girl who was just trying to work on something in the gym.

On top of that, Peter had JUST gotten his powers at this point. In the comics, this led to him going on television and showing off in a wrestling ring to make himself money, so him just messing with Flash is kind of mild by comparison.

TL/DR: Don't complain about things without knowing the full context behind them.

[cmdrkoenig67]

I disagree, this was still a huge and careless display of his powers.

Dana

[Tomato]

I disagree, this was still a huge and careless display of his powers.

Dana

He wasn't trying to hide them at this point though. He'd JUST found out he had them that day, it wasn't like he'd had a weekend to absorb the fact that he woke up one morning and had superpowers, and miraculously he's supposed to leap to the conclusion that maybe he should hide them JIC he wants to someday run around in spandex and fight crime?

Again, this is a guy who, in the comics, turned around and immediately decided to use his powers to make money. Smart he may be, but he's still a teenager, and prone to every selfish and stupid action that statement implies. It isn't until Uncle Ben's death that he really starts to grow up and become the hero we all know him as.

[murs47]

Even genius adolescent boys do stupid things. I don't see how this is out of character for a teenage male. Making mistakes, and learning from them is very "Peter Parker." In the film, after that basketball court scene, Pete realizes his behavior was a poor choice. Don't base your opinions on a clip, watch the whole thing yo.

The movie was good, far better than the previous three. Is it a home run like Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and Avengers? No. But I'd place it right there with Iron Man, which I thought was very good.

[GogglesPizanno]

I liked it much more than i thought I would.
It works better then the previous trilogy in some ways, and in some ways it doesn't.

My biggest fault is some of the blatant dangling plot elements that get introduced and then just kinda disappear or weird incosistencies in story from scene to scene.
Ive read this potentially had to do with the last minute cuts/edits to downplay and remove some of the changed origin story that it was originally pushing (that lots of people were not too thrilled with)

Definitely entertaining and worth seeing though.
And Emma Stone is great as Gwen Stacy -- way better love interest than Mary Jane from the previous films.

[XStream]

My biggest fault is some of the blatant dangling plot elements that get introduced and then just kinda disappear or weird incosistencies in story from scene to scene.
Ive read this potentially had to do with the last minute cuts/edits to downplay and remove some of the changed origin story that it was originally pushing

What changes?

[oldmanwinters]

I really enjoyed sitting through this movie in the threatre (I was fortunate enough to get a non-3D showing).

However, there were a few scenes that made me do the face-palm.  And I had a sense that I would probably be able to pick this movie's flaws apart if my "it's a new movie!" rush of adrenaline were lower and  I were paying more attention to detail.  Overall, however, jolly good show for a first installment.  I'm sure we'll be seeing much more of Garfield and Stone in the coming years.

Also... Michael Masse.  Remember that name.  Just sayin.

[GogglesPizanno]

My biggest fault is some of the blatant dangling plot elements that get introduced and then just kinda disappear or weird incosistencies in story from scene to scene.
Ive read this potentially had to do with the last minute cuts/edits to downplay and remove some of the changed origin story that it was originally pushing

What changes?

Spoiler

The story goes that they originally had his father alter his DNA as part of the experiments, so that when combined with the serum, he would survive and be basically patient 0. This in effect changed his origin from an accidental bite to a planned genetic experiment.  That along with some of the other stuff that was cut, but that was hinted at in trailers and such is gone over in this link: http://badassdigest.com/2012/07/05/was-the-untold-story-cut-from-the-amazing-spider-man/

Also for those that are looking for a real in depth analysis of the movie and how it doesn't work should check out Film Crit Hulk's take. I fell into the "give it a pass" camp he talks about, but it does a good job of illustrating its problems from a story and character standpoint. :
http://badassdigest.com/2012/07/06/film-crit-hulk-smash-the-amazing-spider-man-has-99-problems-but-an-uncle-be/

Also, anyone who has any interest in film criticism and analysis should check out all of Hulk's stuff. Its long, and its in all caps, but they are amazingly detailed and insightful bits of film writing.

[Tomato]

Mehhhhh... I don't want to burst your bubble Goggles, but I didn't really feel the same way you do about that article. I only go through part of it (the whole all-caps "Hulk am hulk" playacting BS got annoying fast) but I personally felt like 80% of the "flaws" he was pointing out were either nitpicky and utterly pointless to the film, or were personal dislikes rather then legitimate cinimatic flaws.

Case in point: The relationship between Gwen and Peter. In the article, "Hulk" goes on and on about how everyone else is stupid for liking it because it's not a real love story and blah blah blah. However, the only criticism he seems to have is that the relationship has no overt conflict... they don't have a major fight, Peter doesn't have to woo her away from another guy, that sort of thing. And because there's no forced, made up, nonsensical ZOMG drama, obviously we're all dumb for accepting it as a good love story.

Despite what most movies would have you believe, not all relationships are ZOMG ANGST. Some people legitimately do just click... there might be little fights here and there, but most of the time it's over stupid stuff like putting the seat down.

Now, I'm not saying this film isn't flawed... it is, and some of those flaws "Hulk" does legitimately point out. But it's not even half as flawed as he'd have you believe, and that's doing a disservice to a movie that might well be the best spiderman film to date.

[Podmark]

I saw it today and I liked it.

It was an odd movie to me. A lot of it felt more like a teen drama than a Spider-Man film. I was really impressed with Andrew Garfield. He's still not the perfect Peter Parker but I liked him more than Maguire. Ben, May, and Flash were all superior compared to the Raimi movies for me.
It felt Spider-Man the Smallville-esque TV show to me.

I liked elements of it better than the first trilogy, but the first trilogy seemed more like a tradional Spider-Man film. Not sure which one I liked better.

[GogglesPizanno]

But it's not even half as flawed as he'd have you believe, and that's doing a disservice to a movie that might well be the best spiderman film to date.

Where Hulk and the relationship thing lost you.... this is where you lost me.
It was the epitome of harmlessly entertaining "meh" -- it unfortunately will never be on my best (or worst) of anything list.

But hey, to each their own.

[Tomato]

Except that I'm comparing it to the Sam Raimi films. Between the horrible cgi and somewhat goofy acting in Spiderman 1 (and the random time skips), and the plethora of bad decisions in Spiderman 3, about the only competition it really has is from Spiderman 2... and I have issues with that movie due to SPIDER-MAN UNMASKING IN THE MIDDLE OF A TRAIN CAR AND NO ONE TAKING A PHOTO. Also, Mary Jane in those movies automatically knocks it two notches below ASM, because Emma Stone is SOOOOO much better as Gwen.

Basically what I'm saying is: This wasn't "Avengers" or even "The Dark Knight," but the previous films were just as flawed. And as far as introductions go, I like this one SO much better... Oscorp is a constant part of the movie without forcing Norman Osborn on us right out of the gate. The Lizard makes a far more believable first villain then Green Goblin because his origin is actually similar to Peter's, rather then being tacked on and forced. And the tone at least ATTEMPTS to take itself seriously, something the previous films never really did.

[JeyNyce]

I haven't seen the new Spider-man movie yet, so I'm not going to judge, but I am wondering........

Could it be that when the first Spider-man movie came out that we were so happy to see a good, decent Spidey movie, that we just skip, accepted, ignored the flaws of the film?  Now that it has been rebooted, we have something to  compared it to and now we notice all the flaws of the first Spidey movie.  Just a theory because I don't remember anybody talking bad about the first Spidey movie and that this one is out, it seems that all I'm hearing is how flawed the first one was.

[Podmark]

I haven't seen the new Spider-man movie yet, so I'm not going to judge, but I am wondering........

Could it be that when the first Spider-man movie came out that we were so happy to see a good, decent Spidey movie, that we just skip, accepted, ignored the flaws of the film?  Now that it has been rebooted, we have something to  compared it to and now we notice all the flaws of the first Spidey movie.  Just a theory because I don't remember anybody talking bad about the first Spidey movie and that this one is out, it seems that all I'm hearing is how flawed the first one was.

I don't know how much I've said it on here but I've always had issues with the Raimi movies. I like them but they're not my favorite movies. I've had non-comics friends who weren't impressed with them at all.

[GogglesPizanno]

I wasn't saying that the Raimi films didn't have their issues (though I like the part 3 a lot better than most did -- even the dancing). I just mean for all their flaws, they feel complete in their own way. There was some goofy decisions made, but they were universally goofy in the world the they created. They were consistent. You can argue that Garfield is a better actor, or that the plot is more exciting, or that the CGI is better,  but the new one for me was just some good individual moments that never gel into anything more than just a series of scenes strung together. As whole, I just didn't get invested.

It reminded me most of the Ed Norton Hulk movie. It got some of the stuff right, and looked pretty good doing it, but leaving the theater it wasn't like I was pumped or excited about it. It was just sorta there.

[oldmanwinters]

Except that I'm comparing it to the Sam Raimi films. Between the horrible cgi and somewhat goofy acting in Spiderman 1 (and the random time skips), and the plethora of bad decisions in Spiderman 3, about the only competition it really has is from Spiderman 2... and I have issues with that movie due to SPIDER-MAN UNMASKING IN THE MIDDLE OF A TRAIN CAR AND NO ONE TAKING A PHOTO. Also, Mary Jane in those movies automatically knocks it two notches below ASM, because Emma Stone is SOOOOO much better as Gwen.

I know there was an agreement among the train care people that "we won't tell anyone" but yeah, some peeps would have totally snapped that pic!  I guess SM2 came out a little while before Facebook hit it big.  And Twitter hadn't even established themselves as the dominant social media yet. 

I always thought it was odd that Doc Ock didn't get a peak of Parker's face at that point.  After all, he was apparently watching the whole thing unfold from a near proximity.

All that said, I still think SM2 is an awesome cinematic accomplishment, despite the fact that I didn't like MaGuire's acting that much.

[XStream]

My wife and I saw the film today. Let me begin by saying, I had low expectations for this movie. I really hadn't been that excited about it, and had rarely taken the time to read anything on the inter-webs. It wasn't like Avengers where five movies had built up my anticipation to the point that I was giddy like a school girl. We just went to the movies to see a summer action flick. And I loved every minute of it. Yeah, there was some teen angst in there, but it didn't feel pushed like so many movies do. It was an acceptable amount for the point of the story. For those on the fence, go see it. It is a great movie with only minor problems. I loved the first two Spider-Man movies (although they are showing their age now, movies are just different today than they were in... what? 2001-2002?), but I felt this to be a genuine Spider-Man movie. It felt less like someone's interpretation (I had issues with Raimi's stuff). This movie is full of what makes Spider-Man so much fun in the comics. I loved how the story had lots of stuff for us comic fanboys, but felt accessible to those who were there based on having seen the previous films. I thought it was great!

Spoiler

I totally think they should have messed with his origin! I know some of you hate that idea, but I think it would be intriguing to find out that Peter's powers came from the combination of the spider bite and genetic manipulation by his father. Even if it were an accident that led to the discovery of the formula. They so should have done this years ago instead of that whole Animal Totem thing.

I thought the story was very emotional from the beginning. I believe this Peter Parker went through enough loss in two hours for the audience to believe he will continue his cruesade to keep New York safe.

I know there has been a lot of discussion on the search for Uncle Ben's killer's abrupt stop, but I felt like it was somewhat resolved. When Peter has dinner with the Stacey's, Captain Stacey points out that this masked vigilante was not out to save the people but was on a personal vendetta. Then Peter saves the people on the bridge, and realizes what Uncle Ben was trying to teach him the night he was killed. Don't waste your gifts on yourself, use them to help others. Oh, and then the whole I created a giant lizard man who is now trying to turn the whole city into lizard hybrids happens and he becomes kind of busy. I don't feel that it took away from the movie. Do we honestly need to see the guy trip and fall out a window?

Great movie, considering how little I expected of it. Go see it.

Oh, and my wife enjoyed it too.

[MJB]

Good synapses, XStream! In my opinion people should jump off the fence & see this in 3D. I'm not a fan of 3D at all but I feel for this movie it really adds to the experience.

[XStream]

You know, I have only seen one movie in 3D and I found it distracting. It was Transformers: Dark of the Moon, and the characters are extremely detailed and maybe that was the problem?

I haven't been willing to shell out the extra cash to experience it again. (And my wife hated it).

[cmdrkoenig67]

I disagree, this was still a huge and careless display of his powers.

Dana

He wasn't trying to hide them at this point though. He'd JUST found out he had them that day, it wasn't like he'd had a weekend to absorb the fact that he woke up one morning and had superpowers, and miraculously he's supposed to leap to the conclusion that maybe he should hide them JIC he wants to someday run around in spandex and fight crime?

Again, this is a guy who, in the comics, turned around and immediately decided to use his powers to make money. Smart he may be, but he's still a teenager, and prone to every selfish and stupid action that statement implies. It isn't until Uncle Ben's death that he really starts to grow up and become the hero we all know him as.

I dunno...Making money with his powers is kind of a smart thing to do, really...It was also a good way to test his powers, but he went to the wrestling match with a mask on!

As for the dropped plot point...

Spoiler

Genetic manipulation by his father?  Are they ripping off Spider-Woman's origin now?

Dana

[XStream]

Dana,

This scene fits perfectly into the movie. The context of Peter Parker has changed. This Peter Parker grew up in the late 90s early 00s. He is an equal blend of skater / science nerd. He comes across as a real kid who has been dealt a big loss early in life and has issues. He feels that his parents abandoned him, and he is struggling with that. It has created a complex for young Mr. Parker.

Spoiler

What you don't see in this scene is Uncle Ben's reaction to Peter's abuse of his power. This outburst is actually part of the build up to the fight that leads to Uncle Ben's death (only further making Peter feel responsible). Uncle Ben points out that Peter just wanted to humiliate the guy who punched him, and it is a really nice scene that helps add to the emotion of Ben's death. I can't tell you enough Dana how well all of this was done.

You really want Uncle Ben to make it in this movie. You understand how important he was to Peter. Peter really matures in this movie. Instead of a quick retelling of his original origin we get a very dramatic telling of the events that create Spider-Man.

I will say that this is not The Avengers, but this movie also doesn't have five prequels to set up the movie. I think it is my favorite comic movie. Planning on taking some middle and high schoolers to see it this weekend.

[Shogunn2517]

So, I saw it yesterday and though, I liked it, I am still heavily partial to Raimi films(meaning Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2).  I can't say this was a bad movie, I just thing Raimi/McGuire did a much better job of capturing Spiderman than this one.  With the exception of the banter with the car thief, this one was rather devoid of Spiderman's typical wisecracks.  McGuire was full of cracks from the beginning.  In this one, his powers seemed much more intuitive as if he's had them and know how to use them immediately.  In the Raimi Spider-Man, his powers and identity developed.  I even think McGuire got Peter Parker a lot better in SM and SM2.  He seemed really hard luck, couldn't get a single thing to go his way, even after he had powers.  This one just seemed too clean.  It seems they tried to MAKE him into an underdog sort of guy, but it really didnt play right to me.  Garfield's Parker seemed rather unassuming and actually pretty trendy.  McGuire's Parker was a COMPLETE nerd, buttoned up, goofy looking and uncool.  Thats what I'd think if I saw Peter Parker.  I think they also did a better job capturing the origin as well in Raimi's film.  But someone said it right, it seemed more like a teen angst drama wrapped in a superhero movie.  Raimi's Spider-Man was a full, fun Spiderman movie.

In retrospect, Raimi may have had some problems, but I really thought it was an overall better movie, better experience and much more entertaining.  Like I said, ASM was a good movie, I just think Raimi did it better.

[Talavar]

I finally got around to seeing Amazing Spider-man, and thought I'd add my two cents:

It's definitely better than Spider-man 3; let's get that out of the way.  It's also definitely worse than Spider-man 2. 

The only fair comparison is with the original Spider-man, and I'm waffling back and forth there as to which I prefer.  'Amazing's' Gwen Stacy as played by Emma Stone was definitely superior to Kirsten Dunst's Mary Jane.  'Amazing' had better FX, but that's what 10 years will get you.  I liked 'Amazing's' handling of the Lizard in this film, and his ties to Peter, better than the original's handling of Norman Osborn.  The original's J. Jonah Jameson was phenomenal, and not nearly equalled by Amazing's Captain Stacy. 

As to Peter himself, I think the new actor was fine, but he's playing a very different version of the character than Tobey Maguire did.  Maguire's Peter Parker was a classic, old-school dork, while the new version of Peter is actually kind of cool, with his contacts and skateboard.  Sure, he's not one of the popular athletic kids, but he's also not the kid Flash tries to force-feed his vegetables.  If he was on the show 'Freaks & Geeks,' he seems more likely to be out in the smoking section with James Franco than in the AV club with the geeky kids.

In the end, though I enjoyed the film, I'm left with the feeling that it just seemed unnecessary.  A reboot of the origin story - and to spend so much time on it - seems weird when the original Spider-man wasn't so long ago.  And while the original Spider-man had flaws, so did this one - just different flaws.  If you could somehow combine the two maybe you could create an awesome Spider-man origin movie, but instead we've got two middling quality ones that seem to mirror each other far too much.

[XStream]

Talavar pointed out the better FX of Amazing. I was really impressed with the FX. I remember how blown away I was when I first saw Spider-Man, and even more so when Spider-Man 2 came out (except for what felt like excessive unmasking). It made you believe that a man could swing. But there was always one thing lacking, that I believe the third installment was successful at (just one thing, we can give it one thing), the fighting. Maybe I should rewatch, but I don't remember a good fight scene in the first Spider-Man. Even the final fight is fairly disappointing (looking back, at the time it seemed fine). Spider-Man 2 I remember the fight on the side of the building and the train (which led to the unmasking....) being pretty epic. Spider-Man 3 failed on so many fronts, but I remember the action being pretty good. The sewer scene with "Black Suit" Spider-Man and Sandman, Peter and Green Goblin 2 (is that what we called Harry?), and the final fight was epic. But there was something missing in all of these fights.

In Amazing Spider-Man it felt like the fights came right out of a comic. Spider-Man was all over the place hoping around, crouching, and clinging to his enemies. I believe Amazing has much more fanboy action (of course it is almost as long as 1 and 2 together...)

Two things that I missed in Amazing Spiderman.

I missed Bruce Campbell.

And I missed the rest of the Marvel Universe. The Marvel Studio movies have ruined it for me on an "out of continuity" movie... I want to see Peter giddy around Tony Stark, I want to see Captain America giving him lessons on how to be a hero, I want to hear Hulk say; "Crush puny Peter Parker!", I want to see Peter blush around the Black Widow, and I want to see Hawkeye and Spider-Man quip back and forth in the heat of battle. I found myself wishing for tie-ins that would connect the movies, but I knew it wasn't possible.

[stumpy]

Saw this a couple days ago and have kind of been wondering if my opinion would change much with some reflection. It hasn't, really. I enjoyed the movie as did the people I went with, but it kind of felt... unnecessary? I mean, it was like I had seen this movie before and I didn't get all that much out of seeing it again. The acting was generally fine, the principals turned in performances that were equal or superior to those of their Spider-Man (1) counterparts. The technical parts of the movie were better, though that is something we have come to expect - newer movies will have better camera work, CGI, etc. than their predecessors. But, it just never really impressed.

BTW, I agree with Tomato's comment regarding the romance. In fact, one of the things I hate most about action movies is the need to tack on needlessly complicated romantic entanglements, love triangles, etc., largely predicated on the notion that people will never come out and actually explain why they did the seemingly hurtful thing they did, even when it's obvious they should and they have no reason not to. Anyway, this movie had some of that but less than others, IMO, which is a good thing.

I also liked the less emo, more wisecracking Peter we see in this film. That was one of my favorite aspects of Spidey, back when I read some of the books as a kid.

So, what was missing from this movie? Just some interesting part of the story or insight into the character that I hadn't seen in the other movies. I know that there is going to be some repetition whenever an origin story is re-told, but I didn't really get anything new out of this re-telling. Sure, there is some throwaway backstory about Peter's father being a geneticist, but ultimately it's the same basic story of Peter and the radioactive spider and Uncle Ben and so on that we saw last time. And, it's a good story and it is well told and it doesn't need to be changed. But, I have heard it before. And, that's really the issue to me: It's not that this wasn't a good re-telling of the Spider-Man origin story; it may well be the best that's been put on film. It's that there's no need for a re-telling of the origin story. Ultimately, I would have gotten more out of a movie that didn't re-tell Spider-Man's origin, but instead picked some other compelling story arc from his decades of comic stories and turned that into a good movie.

Do the movie folks think any three-party superhero arc must start with a re-telling of the origin story? Even when a perfectly watchable version is already sitting on everyone's shelf? There are times when that is justified. For example, I would be pleased with a reboot of the Superman franchise. As much as I enjoyed the campy 70s/80s movies, they aren't up to today's technical standards for movies, and the 2006 continuation of that line was so flawed that there's no need to try and salvage it. That's not the case with the Spider-Man franchise. Put it in this context: The next Iron Man movie is due out next year; should Marvel studios plan on rebooting the series with a new origin story to be released five years later (ten years after the first in the series)?

[Shogunn2517]

You know, I don't get it.  I don't see how people see this Spiderman/Peter Parker completely opposite of how I do.  I saw this Parker, and to a greater extent, the movie being MUCH more serious, MUCH more emotion and drama and less of the wisecracking Spiderman I'd expect. 

I mean outside of his cracks with the car thief I really didn't find Garfield funny at all.  McGuire's Spiderman had jokes throughout the movie, jokes on Bone Saw, Jamison, MJ, Goblin.  It just seem like Garfield was trying to play a part and his different and seemingly cooler Parker's commentary came off not a fresh.  It was like his Peter and Spidey were the same and acted the same.  McGuire's Spidey clearly was a different, more bolder person with the mask than not.  That showed more in McGuire than Garfield.

[Tomato]

You know, I don't get it.  I don't see how people see this Spiderman/Peter Parker completely opposite of how I do.  I saw this Parker, and to a greater extent, the movie being MUCH more serious, MUCH more emotion and drama and less of the wisecracking Spiderman I'd expect. 

I mean outside of his cracks with the car thief I really didn't find Garfield funny at all.  McGuire's Spiderman had jokes throughout the movie, jokes on Bone Saw, Jamison, MJ, Goblin.  It just seem like Garfield was trying to play a part and his different and seemingly cooler Parker's commentary came off not a fresh.  It was like his Peter and Spidey were the same and acted the same.  McGuire's Spidey clearly was a different, more bolder person with the mask than not.  That showed more in McGuire than Garfield.

The difference is that Garfield can actually deliver them effectively. Maguire might have SAID more funny lines, but his delivery was always a bit off... I can't really describe it that well, but he almost sounds... tired? Listless maybe? I mean, compare his lines with those delivered by pretty much ANY of the voice actors to have played the role (Josh Keaton in particular). There's just a lack of energy in how Tobey delivered them that always made those lines feel forced rather then natural (and it's even worse in the VGs he did voice work for). Garfield might be almost TOO a-hole-ish with his delivery, but at least him quipping in the middle of a fight feels natural.

[steamteck]

I just saw it last night and I think it'll have to jell and i'll have pop in the rami spider-man to compare but as I feel now.

I must have gotter the good cgi version of theolder movie because somethings in thenew one were much nicer but all in all except for obviously the Lizard, theonly difference I could see is the could make himseem more agile in some scenes. Definately not the webswing scenes. He never seem to get thehang od it through the whole movie compated to Rami's he ssemed quite clumsy.

I did not care for Martin Sheen as uncle ben. In fact the  whole pre  Spider-man  family stuff seemed inferior with the exception of Sally Field who had some life. I really missed the Great power comes great responsibilty " line. I prefer the wrestler to the convience store.

Garfield did what he did very effectively but Peter needed alittle more range IMO.

Emma Stone was a thousand times better than Kirstin Dunst IMO.

The fight scenes were well done but strangely unsatisfying. I guess it seemed that  Spider-man never had a chance to do any more than delay the Lizard and his first outing with thugs pre mask was before he really got used to his powers.

I thought they tied Dr connors and Peter together very well. Captain stacy was nicely done.

I enjoyed it but wasn't blown away. I will go see any sequels but would have prefered not another origin story.