Regie:
Marc WebbKamera:
John SchwartzmanMusik:
James HornerBesetzung:
Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, Sally Field, Martin Sheen, Denis Leary, C. Thomas Howell, Chris Zylka, Stan Lee, Irrfan Khan, Kelsey Asbille (mehr)Streaming (7)
Inhalte(1)
Der jugendliche Außenseiter Peter (Andrew Garfield) versucht, das Geheimnis seiner Vergangenheit zu lüften und das Herz seiner Highschool-Liebe Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) zu erobern. Ein mysteriöser Aktenkoffer seines Vaters, der ihn als Kind verlassen hat, führt Peter zu dessen ehemaligen Partner Dr. Connors. Die Enthüllung des Geheimnisses um seinen Vater, besiegelt sein Schicksal, „Spider-Man" zu werden und sich Connors' bösartigem Alter Ego, der Echse, zu stellen. (Sony Pictures Home Entertainment)
(mehr)Kritiken (15)
On the one hand, the assertion that superhero comic books are reading material for children and teenagers is of course nonsensically prejudiced. On the other hand, if something similar can be said about any of the established comic-book film franchises, it can be said about Spider-Man. Like other superheroes, Peter Parker grew up with his readers and took on a darker hue, but at his core and despite Venom, the deaths of his loved ones and tragic twists, he essentially remained an ordinary young man for whom his superhero adventures are a catalyst for growing up. That is also one of the main reasons that the cinematic Spider-Man received a reboot “just” ten years after the first instalment directed by Sam Raimi. Since then, a new generation of viewers has grown up. Nevertheless, for today’s youth, anything that’s more than a few years old seems prehistoric, which of course isn’t such a matter of ignorance as some overly clever old-timers past the age of thirty like to claim, but a sign and product of our overblown contemporary media pop culture, which constantly spews out new perceptions. Today’s teenagers will refuse to watch ten-year-old films not only because they have a lot of other entertainment options, but also because the old Spider-Man very possibly will not appeal to them. In that respect, cinema is approaching the level of television, where reboots are developed or at least changes are made in major franchise superheroes for each new generation. This definitely suits the film industry because, as an industry, it can’t simply profit off of old products, but has to constantly turn out new titles within the economic cycle. When taking this “cold calculation” into account, The Amazing Spider-Man is enthralling as a well-thought-out and precisely rendered project. The attempt to align with the tastes of the young audience and concurrently create a film that will stand as an ambitious and original work in the canon is apparent in the hiring of screenwriters James Vanderbilt (Zodiac), Alvin Sargent (the last two Spider-Man movies and a number of Oscar-winning films before that) and Steve Kloves (all of the Harry Potter movies with the exception of The Order of the Phoenix), as well as the hiring of director Marc Webb on the basis of his independent hit (500) Days of Summer. In their rendering, Spider-Man goes back to high school, but greater emphasis is placed on his connection with other people and his growth as both a young man and a hero. All of the supporting characters are given a more consistent presentation, emotional dimension and, mainly, a more active role in the narrative and thus also in relation to the development of Peter Parker himself. What’s especially appealing is this film’s version of Gwen Stacy, who retains her traditional role as a motivational element for the hero as prescribed by the Spider-Man canon, but she is not portrayed as a mere passive object of the hero’s love. She serves as one of the supporting characters who shape the hero (from the well-developed characters of Uncle Ben and Aunt May to Captain Stacey, Dr. Connors and Flash Thompson). In a number of scenes, however, Gwen in particular has the upper hand over Peter Parker as a personality as well as in terms of social intelligence and ingenuity. Though it may seem that, primarily because of the nature of Webb’s previous work, Gwen will turn out to be yet another “manic pixie dream girl”, she at least distances herself from that stereotype through her active role in the narrative and the presentation of her leisure, study and family environment. Peter Parker himself thus isn’t just another variation on the cliché of scatterbrained adolescent nerds. Thanks to the fact that he is presented through a web of relationships with other characters, though primarily through the physical acting of Andrew Garfield, he is given the form of a believable young man with demons, fears and anxieties, as well as joy, desires and shortcomings. Tellingly, he has his mask removed through most of the film even though he is dressed in his Spider-Man costume, thus highlighting the equality between Peter Parker and Spider-Man, who this time serves not only as a psychological reflection of the protagonist’s idealised version of himself, but is also gradually brought into equilibrium with Parker’s personality (which in the course of the narrative grows beyond that idealised image). We can add to that the apparent inspiration taken from Nolan’s Batman in terms of the masked superhero’s connection to his city (in addition to the concept of emphasising the hero behind the mask) and the result is one of the smartest yet entertaining superhero movies that respect their target audience. Spider-Man’s basic dilemma of “with great power comes great responsibility” is not merely superficially spoken as an affected slogan, but is rather fully incorporated into one of the main motifs that the narrative conveys and examines from various angles. The main strength of the film thus consists in the fact that it doesn’t rely on bombastic action sequences, but on the scenes that develop the relationships between the characters. _____ Update nine years later: I now remember nothing at all from this film. And I’m not exaggerating; I really do not remember a single scene or glimpse of the trailer. And so it goes with these enthusiastic immediate reactions to blockbusters.
()
(weniger)
(mehr)
Man hätte das ganze mit Charming Spiderman betiteln sollen. Sofern ich im Zusammenhang mit The Avengers die Theorie der Konfliktlosigkeit unter Comicshelden hervorgehoben habe, so legt Webb die Messlatte doch noch etwas höher. Es ist eine Art pubertierende, fröhliche, freche und manchmal angenehm selbstironische Fahrt, deren Einzelteile zwar nicht immer vollends passend zusammengefügt werden (insbesondere die Kombination aus bis zu sitcomartig dahingestotterten Szenen oder Superhelden-Action), jedoch der Streifen ist von Anfang bis Ende unterhaltsam. Sofern denn dieser Spidey irgendeinen Mehrwert hat, so ist es die Geradlinigkeit, Eingegrenztheit, frische Selbstironie und pure Extase, welche sowohl aus Garfields hormonell turbulenter Leistung (nur zu schade, dass dies vom tschechischen Synchronsprechen gekillt wird) als auch aus einer tobenden und freudig eklektischen Regieführung emporsprudelt. Bei all seiner Verspieltheit gibt der Amazing Spiderman eigentlich dennoch nichts vor, runzelt die Stirn nicht allzu sehr und baut sogar diejenigen Handlungsstränge ab, wo Raimi Probleme gelöst hat (Pubertät, Verantwortung, Schuld usw.). Doch diese Spinne springt einfach auf den Dächern herum und klugeifert nicht viel herum. Zwar gibt es hier eigentlich keine richtige Story und eigentlich wird hier lediglich erneut ein vertrautes Universum erschlossen, aber das waschechte spinnenbedingte Schwindelgefühl schwingt da schlichtweg wieder mit. Ein reineres Genrevergnügen als die überbewerteten Avengers.
()
Ausgesprochen schwach. Die neu erzählte Geschichte eines Strebers, der seinen Onkel verliert und merkt, dass mit großer Macht auch große Verantwortung einhergeht... Ich hätte lieber eine Fortsetzung der Kirsten-Dunst-Trilogie.
()
Heute habe ich diesen Film zum zweiten Mal gesehen und er war so viel besser… Ich bin richtig verwundert. Die meisten Dinge, die ich an ihm auszusetzen hatte, sind futsch. Es bleiben eigentlich nur Lizards auffälliger digitaler Charakter und die todernste (und deshalb lächerliche) Szene mit den Kränen. Ansonsten ist in diesem Comicfilm alles an seinem Platz. Horners Musik ist überwältigend. Schade, dass mit ihr der zweite Teil nicht mehr rechnet (es ist wirklich eine dumme Gewohnheit).
()
Während sich viele User hier beschweren und den Film schlecht machen, hat mir persönlich der neue Spider-Man mit neuem Hauptdarsteller und unter der Regie eines neuen Regisseurs in vielerlei Hinsicht gefallen. Das Titelpaar (Garfield und Stone) hat mich viel mehr fasziniert als das Original (Maguire und Dunst), und ich fand, dass die Chemie zwischen ihnen besser war. Was die visuellen Effekte angeht, war es eine schöne Show, vor allem in 3D, was ich selbst gesehen habe. Der Bösewicht Lizard war wirklich furchteinflößend und visuell gut gemacht (auch wenn sein Aussehen anders war als in der Zeichentrickserie). Es ist ein typischer Hollywood-Film, der seine Vor- und Nachteile hat, aber ich hatte Spaß daran, und das ist für mich das Wichtigste.
()
Ein typischer Spiderman-Relaxfilm, der weder überrascht noch enttäuscht. Sowohl Andrew Garfield als auch Emma Stone haben meine Sympathien längst gewonnen, Rhys Ifans spielt hervorragend, und Denis Leary altert irgendwie überhaupt nicht.
()
Sam, Mark Webb can’t hold a candle to you. Under Raimi, Spider-Man was better in every sense: funnier, more imaginative, livelier. Parker's becoming acquainted with his new abilities was rendered much more inventively, while Webb dispatches him with one awkward scene on the subway and a skateboard romp. In the second half, the all-too-new Spider-Man gets tangled with a digital lizard and has nothing more to offer. I won't even elaborate on the fact that the action scenes have no charge and are sometimes strangely edited. And the stars? Tobey Maguire was such a nice guy next door, a good friend with whom you'd go for a beer (well, in his case more like a glass of Kofola), while Garfield is just a grinning and weakly wisecracking brat. Summary: a pointless reboot.
()
The main motto of Spider-Man, “With great power comes great responsibility”, was stretched out over the entire film. Fulfilling this concept brings greater satisfaction to both the protagonist and the viewer than a battle between a spider and a lizard on the streets of New York. The new Spider-Man is for the most part a (well-directed) high school comedy about the troubles of growing up, in which a spider bite serves primarily as an accelerator of hormonal development. The attempt to combine the school and superhero aspects comes across as half-baked (the scene of intoxication after the first date with Gwen is excellent, for example) not because of the believably shy Garfield, but because of the matter-of-factness with which the other characters – e.g. the dream girl and the school bully – accept him in his new role. As in other recent comic-book adaptations, The Amazing Spider-Man is most entertaining in the moments when the traditional hero concept is called into question in various ways. It goes even farther in this regard than those other films, as the nerdy protagonist plays with the bad guys rather than terrifying them (like Batman), and until the moment of his awakening, he plays solely for fun, with a similar light-heartedness as if he were playing a video game (probably Mirror’s Edge). The needlessly drawn-out final third replaces the model of the irresponsible boy with that of a man who takes responsibility, which surprisingly is weighed down with pathos as could be expected, though we can wonder how seriously Webb intended some of the scenes with subversive potential (e.g. the eggs). Thanks to the connection between Peter, seeking a surrogate father figure, to the other male characters (his uncle, Gwen’s father and, at first, Dr. Connors), the transformation is unabridged and psychologically comprehensible, with the only digression from it being the “sunny” shot before the credits, which at most is understandable from the commercial perspective. Like its protagonist, The Amazing Spider-Man is somewhat inconsistent and slightly comic-bookish, and a bit (more) of a romantic comedy, but – like the protagonist – it is likable in that it doesn’t show off too much, has a sense of humour and doesn’t make an epic tragedy out of the fact that one crackpot scientist decided to give backward humanity a bit of an upgrade. 70%
()
The Amazing Spider-Man is fine (actually, I liked it more than the ones by Raimi – though I’m not entirely sure, I hardly remember them), but it’s a real shame that it doesn’t try go any further (an not only it doesn’t try, it even ignores what it has right under its nose, e.g. the guilt for the death of the uncle). Basically, it’s your typical bland super-hero origin story that it’s pulled up by the likeable guy in the main role. In contrast, the Lizard is the least charismatic villain since the evil cosmic cloud in Green Lantern. In short, a nice but in no way exceptional comic-book routine that’s also very painfully edited or re-written – the haphazard / jumpy / shallow way it delivers some of the twists and reveals (Peter’s discovery of the identity of the Lizard, his coming to terms with the death of his uncle, the change in the behaviour of Flash, etc., etc.) is almost amazing. 7/10
()
The high school introduction reminds us where Webb's roots are and with them the solid ground beneath his feet. The moment Peter Parker becomes Spider-Man, the creative cluelessness is on full display. It doesn't work in regard to the catchphrases, and motivations, and especially not in the action, which may have squeezed a lot of processor cores, but the virtual camera can fly all it wants - there's not one bit of real physicality in there. The fact that the crane operators work well in the film is just the bizarre icing on this overblown yet perfectly empty cake.
()
Why didn’t they shoot this movie first? And why do they even shoot movies like this? Marvel wants to squeeze as much as possible out of Spider-Man and so they’re reviving the trilogy with completely fresh faces, new characters and new villains. In any case, I have to congratulate the authors. I like Spider-Man. I actually watched it when I was a kid. So it’s really surprising to me that this Spider-Man is much closer to the original character than the one in Raimi’s trilogy. They view the entirety of Spider-Man’s character in a different light. It’s more in-depth and more according to the comic original. Actually, it’s overall way more like I’ve always wanted. I don’t even know why they shot the previous trilogy the way they did. I don’t like these reboots, but I have to say that this one was a downright joy. Somebody tried really hard this time. It’s most evident when it comes to the casting. Garfield and Stone were an awesome choice. Especially Emma. She’s such a pretty face that I could just watch her forever and I’d never get sick of her. But Rhys Ifans, Martin Sheen or Denis Leary are also great. This mix of actors really did the trick in this movie. When did they say the sequel was coming out?
()
This time the climbing hero chose a battle he could hardly win. Ten years after the universally popular film that first introduced us to the spider on the big screen, a reboot is such a risky step that its more than solid box office revenues had already shocked me beforehand. And yet despite the lukewarm critical reviews, for me, The Amazing Spider-Man is more comic book-like, playful, and indeed also slightly better than the original Sam Raimi vision, even though I like that one as well. Some people complain about Peter/Spidey's awkwardness and the fact that Tobey Maguire was a smiling friend in adversity, while Andrew Garfield boldly cracks jokes and struggles with puberty. But that's exactly how the main comic book hero and hero of my favorite animated series is supposed to be and that's how I want to see him. Outspoken and more unrestrained. The boy next door who sometimes has a big problem being Aunt May's nephew, whom she needs. And it must be said that Garfield was born for this role. It is all that much more regrettable that I can't say the same for Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy. In her portrayal, Gwen is not Gwen, but just any one of Emma's witty roles, like in Easy A. The chemistry of the main duo works, and it works great, but she herself does not fit into this universe. Despite having one of the more everyday Spider-Man villains, for some reason, I can watch this movie anytime. It simply has a specific mood that is irresistible, even if it ultimately fails to live up to being one of the best comic book efforts, as I concluded after a second viewing.
()
I like this different approach to Spider-Man, I’m content too with Webb’s directing focused on the arachnid’s more human side. Unlike Rami’s Spidey, this picture is much closer to how I imagined an adaptation of Spider-Man. But in the end, we are left with a pretty miserable screenplay and a pretty soft villain. The reptilian has better potential and he isn’t as well-handled in terms of special effects. Garfield plays superbly and he and Emma Stone get on like a house on fire. In terms of story, it is obvious that this is just the first part of a trilogy, questions about his parents are just lightly touched upon. So let’s see where the next part takes us. By the way, Horner’s music is way off. It doesn’t suit this picture at all and reminds me too much of Avatar.
()
I hoped that after the new Batman episodes and the reboot of the series, whose old episodes are basically forgotten or, at best, set aside, filmmakers had finally understood how to adapt comics. Unfortunately, they did not. While Spiderman could have similar attributes to the torn hero Bruce Wayne, there is a difference. Unlike the millionaire, we have a simple guy who has his own problems with identifying with his alter ego. But there is a complete lack of fatefulness and the further you go into the film, the more you can feel the flaws from previous episodes: sentimentality, righteousness, last-minute help, the transformation from a bad boy to a good boy, a caring aunt and a proper uncle – by the way, Martin Sheen is excellent. Ladies and gentlemen, it's boring. The action is decent, the first-person shots are innovative (otherwise, the technical aspect is hardly distinguishable from the older films), but there is no deeper meaning, no thrilling scenes. The film works best (intentionally?) as a story of two teenagers getting to know each other – the chemistry between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone is captivating. I expected more, but the only reboot is maybe only from a commercial perspective.
()
In the end, the gulf between Webb and Raimi wasn't as wide as I first feared. Sam Raimi is of course a class above Marc Webb as a director, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Webb couldn't make a good and at times quite funny film about my favorite superhero. It's admittedly a bit more juvenile than Raimi's first, but Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker the 2nd doesn't have many flaws – indeed, I found myself at times perhaps even liking him more than the overly geeky Tobey. Two hours ago, I wouldn't have believed I'd be so hungry for more. Oh, and the greater involvement of the "new Mary Jane" as a "supporting superhero girl" wasn't bad at all.
()