text:
- Studio: Columbia Pictures
- Release Date: Jul 3, 2012
User Score
Generally favorable reviews- based on 1374 Ratings
User score distribution:
Positive: 1,095 out of 1374
Mixed: 137 out of 1374
Negative: 142 out of 1374
Review this movie
- User score
- Most active
- By date
- Most helpful
- Most Clicked
Jul 21, 2012The film was good, don't get me wrong. The characters were much better, and much more likable than Raimi's version, but I feel it was too soon.
The world is the same, the story and structure is very very similar, it terms of effects nothing has changed, and the first person shooting was quite annoying. My original score was 7 but I'm bringing it down to 6 because of the so called "3D", which just seemed to make the screen darker with no REAL added value.… Expand
May 4, 2014Very decent spider-man film, sadly the main problem i have with the film is the fact that it really feels, slow, boring and doesn't have that FUN witty Peter Parker/spider-man charm also the Villain, The Lizard was pretty terrible their wasn't any really reason for me to FEEL anything for him. Otherwise its a good film with amazing visuals and a brilliant cast with cool little hints at 2 whats to come from Marc Webbs spider-an film series.… Expand
Apr 8, 2013The Amazing Spider-Man is the Spider-Man film that we were all waiting to see. It has a fantastic cast that all give great performances, a great score to accompany it, and great action sequences that can only be put as simply: amazing.
Jul 23, 2012Most of the negative reviews on here are really uninformed reviews. While this movie is titled "The Amazing Spider-man;" this movie seemed more like a strange mixture of both series "The Amazing Spiderman" and "Ultimate Spiderman." Most people are familiar with "The Amazing Spiderman" series because it's been printed since the 1960s. So if things seem unfamiliar about this movie it's because the writers picked out elements from ultimate spiderman. I personally didn't like the fact that they mixed the two comic series together, because I was expecting there source material to be the comic they named it after not two different comic series.
This movie is actually really good I wouldn't say it's completely superior to the first three movies but it does excel in several places where the first three movies didn't. First of all the cast is far superior in my opinion. While the first three movies had great actors it just didn't seem like they were that into the making the movie and it really showed in their performances , not to mention there were some really strange casting decisions ( I.E. Eddie Brock/ Venom being play by the guy from that 70s show).
Secondly the plot is far more comic accurate than most probably give it credit for. The villain actually has amotives and goals he wants to achieve, and they're well thought out. What I mean is that the lizard man initially is running his experiments to find a way to genetically engineer genes into people so they can grow back limbs and stuff like that, but of course something horribly wrong happens and he becomes a monster; however, as the monster he feels real power and thinks humans are weak overall. These thoughts lead him to trying to figure out a way to either eliminate or modify humans. The green goblin in the first movie just did everything because he was crazy; it never really feel like he had any motives besides I want to kill people for the heck of it. What I hated about the first trilogy is that at the end of every movie they killed off the main villains. I know this sounds nit picky but it almost seemed like they did it just because it was convenient. Instead of placing one scene at the end of the movie where it shows norman osbourne being locked up in a prison or something like that they just killed him off so they never had to mention him again in the next two movies.
Thirdly the character development is phenomenal and the talent really gets the heart and soul of the characters spot on.
The main negative thing about this movie is occasionally it feels like it drags on and this is in part of the character development. There are a lot of tear jerking scenes in this movie that just don't really feel necessary. These scenes are in there to make you feel more invested in the characters but they could have accomplished this by doing scenes that were more entertaining in my opinion.
Another thing where this movie fails is that it feels less fun than the original 3. If there is anything the first 3 did right is that it didn't take itself serious at all really and that's why they were pretty entertaining even pretty bad at the same time. The most nit picky thing I didn't like about this movie is that the physics were really ridiculous, for example there is one scene where he throws a football at normal speed and it hits and bends the goal post; that's physically IMPOSSIBLE the only way he could accomplish that is if the football was first indestructible and then he threw it at like 500 mph.
Overall this isn't the best comic movie I've seen but it definitely isn't the worst. The actors deliver believable great performances and the story is very true to the comics. Definitely give it a try at least.… Expand
Jul 28, 2012I love marvel comics and specially the superheroes. This movie is great. It's my favorite movie. I recommend it to the people who like action and some comedy. It is a fantastic movie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jul 30, 2012I love Spiderman movies ever since 2007, this should be on sales now! The movie is more than 2 hours of entertainment, making me impressed of the whole story.
Jul 31, 2012Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, and everyone else in the cast is fantastic. The special effects are some of the best ever. What is really amazing though is that the story of Peter Parker becoming Spider-Man is just as fresh and emotional as the first time it was told 50 years ago. (and the last time we saw it less than 10 years ago.)
Jul 30, 2012I am really not "getting" all the positive reviews this movie is getting, seems very formulaic to me, was too long by quite a bit. Spidy didn't seem nerdy enough to me as Peter Parker. I thought the whole becoming spiderman sequence from bite to finish was better in the first film. I thought Spideys spinning and swinging and Spiderman stuff was better in Spidey one. There was little if anything to recommend this over the first film, character development, villain, action all seemed to be worse to me.
I am not one who says the movie has to be a slave to the original comic, but other than Gwen Stacy v. MJ as the original girlfreind the first movie seemed to follow the early comics better, and it did it so well that where the 2nd strayed it bugged me. The new one also seemed like a 60s ish story with a 20xx vibe rather than the nostalgic consistency of the first one.
Wasn't expcting all that much, was still disappointed.… Expand
Aug 1, 2012I watched this recently, and I think 80% of the time the movie was catching your eye, so you don't really ever get bored, also funny sometimes. (Sometimes, not a lot)
Aug 2, 2012Best Spider-Man yet. The younger casting of Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone paid off big time! They were much more believable in their roles than the Spider-Man franchise has ever given us. Though the villain was not that exciting, this is the first superhero movie that I've ever seen that I honestly want to see again. Usually the genre is a little boring to me, but this movie is top-notch.
Aug 3, 2012This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Tis movie isn't amazing but it is one of the best of the spiderman movies. there are some memorable moments but thre are some ridiculous scenes, like the scene with the construction workers giving spiderman a lift. the cgi wasn't the best but it was still good. The movie dragged a little and the lizard shared similarities to the 2002 Spidermans Green Goblin in an overall score.
Great… Expand
Aug 5, 2012my roomate's step-mother brought in $15301 last month. she has been making cash on the computer and moved in a $482100 condo. All she did was get fortunate and put into work the information given on this web NuttyRich.com
Nov 10, 2012This was a great movie, despite what people have been saying that 'Its just another spiderman film' well, they are right, it is, but thats just it, all spiderman films have been brilliant and given the spectator a very great feeling at the end of it, just as I had during, and at the end of it. There were a few very minor errors I noticed, so minor that I can't even fully remember them, overall, it was an 'amazing' film.… Expand
Aug 20, 2012After the atrocity that was spider man 3 i didn't know what to expect from this one. Not only can I safely say that this redeems itself for that steaming pile of pig s**t I can also say that this is a great super hero movie in its own right and in my opinion is better than The Dark Knight Rises. (But not quite as good as The Avengers, The Dark Knight or Spider Man 2)
Aug 12, 2012I'm sorry, but the reboot just didn't work for me at all. The story was just all over the place, and it moved so slowly. I understand that they were going for a character piece here, but they're focusing too much on every plotline that it's just hard to hold on too. Also, I know they're trying to go on a more darker approach to the Spider-Man storyline, but another main reason for Spider-Man's appeal to audiences is the wonder and joy of discovering and using these powers, and it's utterly lacking in this movie. Yes, there's some humor on Peter using the powers for the first time, but it's hardly wonder. And Jesus, the new Spidey costume sucks. Andrew Garfield was pretty good as Peter Parker though. Oh well. Hopefully they learned from their mistakes in time for the second movie in 2014.… Expand
Aug 21, 2012I expected less from this movie, but it was well made and deep and I'm willing to rewatch it. The Amazing Spider-Man is very entertaining and there isn't anything really bad about it
Aug 29, 2012Firs of all, it's a good Spiderman movie. Don't compare it to the other ones, because it's stupid - this is amazing Spiderman. Andrew Garfield played a pretty good role, so did Emma Stone - I was really surprised. It had a good plot. And Spiderman was how he should be, always making fun of his enemies and everything. It was great movie for me. Although I liked the first Spiderman movie better. But this is a new movie, and it's a new Spiderman and it's a good one.… Expand
Nov 18, 2012Spiderman at his worst. It was like Twilight trying to become a super hero movie. Gwen Stacy's only importance was that she worked at a top secret laboratory, despite being a high schooler. Her role as a love interest seemed very forced because she didn't help Spiderman get stronger at all. Heavy emphasis on how cool Uncle Ben is was over done because it took nearly half of the movie for him to die, which shows how much it dragged on for. Aunt May is a withering grandma who only wants eggs, a joke that excuses Peter Parker from telling her anything that goes on in his life. Dr Connors is a desperate in-debt scientist whose role is to be a Spiderman's personal problem because Peter gave him the formula to be a lizard; absolutely no style. And Peter Parker himself, a cool skateboarding high schooler who gets beat up only because he stands up for others; nothing nerdy about it. When he's Spiderman, he seems very weak. Gets shot in the leg and can barely walk; Gets surrounded by a bunch of thugs and runs away. Marc Webb's directing is very straightforward, which is good for his other movies, but not for this first action movie. Viewers should take note that most of Spiderman is viewed in the dark, perhaps for Webb to push a darker theme for Spiderman. However, Spiderman isn't Batman, and Spiderman's Personal/Hero life really isn't as complicated. Raimi, please come back.… Expand
Dec 14, 2013Amazing Spider-Man is truly amazing movie superhero, if i can compare with sam raimi movie, the different look in costume, story, character, by the way i enjoy watch this movies...so entertaining...can't wait the sequel...good job Marc Webb
May 4, 2014The Amazing Spider-Man is not a perfect film, by any stretch of the imagination. It isn't a groundbreaking one, either, by virtue of being a reboot. However, the film that we got was far better than I expected it being, and is in my opinion, the best Spider-Man movie we have to date.
For the rest of this review, I'll be referencing the original Spider-Man from 2002, directed by Sam Raimi, which I will refer to as "SM1." I'll be referring to this film as "TASM."
Being a reboot, it improved, and even managed to fix, a lot of problems that SM1 had. The biggest overall difference is the tone of the film itself. It's more grounded in reality than SM1. It's still a fantastical film, what with a teenager having super-powers, and giant lizard people, yet the tone the film establishes, despite these fantastical elements, works very well. This is thanks to the caliber of acting and the dialogue itself.
Characters are played believably. The character of Peter Parker is one of an average, teenage high-schooler. He's smart, but not obnoxiously smart. He's nerdy enough to be overlooked and bullied by the popular crowd, and he doesn't have to rely on tired nerd stereotyped that were outdated in the 1960s, ala SM1. Andrew Garfield's performance, both as Parker and Spidey, works very well. We believe that he's an average high schooler in this world, and we also believe he's the wise cracking, mask wearing web slinger thanks to his overall range of acting. You buy his emotional scenes just as much as you do his comedic ones, again, thanks to the well written dialogue alongside his shining performance.
Garfield stars opposite of Emma Stone, who plays Gwen Stacey. Gwen's character may not steal the show as much as Garfield's but she's easily one of the best actors in the film. She's just as believable as Garfield is on screen, and so is the romance that occurs between the two.
Marc Webb had previously directed an off-beat romantic film, called (500 Days of Summer), and his talent with that genre shows here. The on-screen chemistry between Garfield and Stone is almost so real you can feel it, and both actors turn in amazing performances while doing interesting things with established characters from the source material.
The pacing of the film is a little off. Considering this is a reboot, it retreads tired ground we've seen in SM1. That doesn't mean that these new takes on old scenes are bad, mind you. In fact, I prefer most of them. It's just that it takes a decent amount of time for the movie to actually kick off and get started as a kick-ass superhero flick. The grounded tone may help the pacing a bit, but not enough to save it from dragging on just a tad bit too long in the first act.
The scenes shown when Parker gets his Spider-Man powers are hilarious as they are intriguing. It was great seeing him adjust to all of these sudden changes, as well as producing his own wrist mounted web shooters and the webbing they use. Considering Garfield is believable in this role, it's not a stretch to imagine that Peter would be capable of doing such a thing.
The costume design reflects this notion, as well. While some aren't too happy with the costume in this film, I'd say it works well for what the director was trying to achieve. The thin lines on the suit help to accentuate Spidey's more slim tone, and he doesn't look beefy in comparison to Maguire's build in SM1, and overall, it compliments the character of both Parker and Spider-Man.
Every main character in this movie is developed very well. We get to see a glimpse into all of their lives; their workplaces, their schools, etc., and how they act and react to and around people, and all the performances are believable. Character development, especially on Peter and Gwen, as well as Cpt. Stacey, is done exceptionally well.
This movie would have perfect character development if it weren't for the villain. Without giving anything away, after some pretty gnarly stuff goes down with his character, we're not too quite sure what his general intentions are after that. Not enough time was spent on his character, and this is a 2 hour film. It's a shame.
The action scenes work surprisingly well, sometimes opting for practical effect which look amazing, and wonderful CGI scenes that are just as serviceable. Most of the action takes place during the night time, which is kind of a shame for Spidey, whose costume works very well during the day, but as a whole, the film and its effects are enthralling to watch.
All in all, I'd say this is a great superhero film. It's not as grounded as Nolan's Batman trilogy, yet it's not as campy as Raimi's Spidey films. It hits a perfect balance somewhere in between. The humor, characters, action, romance; everything in this film just works, and I highly recommend it to both fans of the character and those looking for a solid summer film to watch, in general. It's a great film, let only down by poor development on the villain.… Expand
Oct 1, 2012Worst Spiderman movie. Ever. End of story.
Whoever wrote this movie's plot (I don't even want to know his name) should be ashamed. I can only feel disappointed in all the people that actually went to see the movie. It's just so terrible. Almost nothing new or relevant is revealed. I'm surprised nobody sued these people. The acting is a bit childish, and the cheesy romance played by Andrew and Emma is like a new version of Twilight, and I think I speak in name of all people when I say we don't want another Twilight. If you haven't seen this movie so far, then you've done good.… Expand
Jul 26, 2013Watching it again I realized this filmed was completely flawed albeit mostly entertaining. Aside from Uncle Ben, everything in this rings completely false.
Jan 5, 2013Out of all the 2012 superhero movies, this one was my least favorite and a big disappointment. I was hyped for two years for this and went to the midnight release and The Amazing Spider-Man at times was great and other times when it was complete trash. The positives though go to the well chosen cast, they were all great and I enjoyed each of the scenes they were in. Unfortunately this movie loses serious points because this is the most rushed movie I watched in my life. There are so many scenes that had potential but aren't just ruined, they are destroyed by editing, that's where I start getting fumigated. There are a lot of plots that lead to no where, so theres more points taken off. The Lizard is also a wasted villain with no special back story or meaning to the character, it felt like he was just thrown in there. This movie isn't bad, but it surely ain't amazing, so far this is not a good start for a reboot, and I think Sony is to blame for a lot of the problems in this movie. I recommend this for any Spider-Man fan, but I can't guarantee you'll love it.… Expand
Oct 10, 2012This movie is truly Amazing. It sucks you into the story, and creates realistic and relate-able characters. While some users here might say the first half was boring, I heavily disagree. The first half does nothing but develop characters, establish important plot points, and reel you into a semi-realistic action/tragedy/comedy story-line. This movie, in terms of acting, is leagues ahead of the classic trilogy, and does not at ALL sound "forced". Now while I can respect what the original actors tried to do, they just didn't deliver as greatly as Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, and all of the other actors did. This movie is simply phenomenal, and I can, without question, call it my favorite super-hero movie of all time. Here's to hoping that the sequel will be even more amazing. Great work, Marc Webb.… Expand
Nov 14, 2012The original spiderman movies are some of my favorites of all time, so how does this one measure up? It's a good movie that does certain things well (the fight scenes and choreography are fantastic- I believe they are just as good as in the original films), but I feel that Peter Parker is less likeable than he should have been. The movie just isn't as compelling as the originals. As was expected, many of the plot lines are left unraveled by the end of the movie (in fact, no plot lines are wrapped up at all in the course of the movie), so let's hope that we can get some answers soon- otherwise most of this one is just a bunch of cryptic mumbo-jumbo.… Expand
Oct 27, 2012Absolutely horrible. Riddled with nauseating cliches from beginning to end. This may be the worst and most unnecessary reboot ever. There is absolutely no originality in the plot. Even the soundtrack is ridiculously annoying. I'd have thought these directors could learn from the Nolans and the Snyders on how to make good superhero movies. The only high point in this movie is Emma Stone's solid acting. Garfield tries and his moments too, I'll give him that. The CGI is absolutely horrendous. It's like they're using software from 1999. Dr. Lizard has got to be the most un-terrifying bad guy ever. The 3D gimmicks are off-point and cheesy. Really, I have no idea how this movie got into production in the first place. Biggest letdown of the year.… Expand
Dec 9, 2012It's a dumb, predictable popcorn flick where every scene has a painfully obvious meaning and you always know what's going to happen next. I hate that kind of cinema but the funny thing is, the action here is actually thrilling (the crane scene was amazing!), the added psychological depth makes Parker a compelling character, and, perhaps most importantly, Garfield totally nails it. There are worse ways to spend two hours.… Expand
Nov 5, 2012An interesting new take on the Spiderman franchise. I like the way this film gives us a feel for who Peter Parker is as a person by taking us through his past and then introducing the key characters that make up his life in the present.
Jan 6, 2014Mudou um pouco a história e realmente ficou interessante.
Nov 29, 2012This movie was surprising in a good way - much better than I'd expected. It's far better than the last two Spiderman movies, and even though they re-do the Spiderman origin story I liked the way it was done in this movie much better than the original movie. This is regardless of the comic book series. Sometimes the original stories from comic books don't carry over well for modern movies so I think the story was well done to accommodate both movie fans and original comic book fans.… Expand
Nov 11, 2012I thought another Spiderman movie would be a waste. I was pleasantly surprised. Sally Fields &I Martin Sheen brought credibility to the story line. The actingand special effects kept my attention throughout the movie.
Nov 14, 2012A great movie with quite a few plot holes that keep it from being amazing. The action is really captivating, the drama between the characters is interesting. The film keeps with the comics quite a bit which is nice for a change. You have a credible enemy who is a decent match for a hero who is just coming into his powers. Glaring plot holes at the beginning of the movie loses the movie points. What also loses points is the campy ending which is coherent yet lacks total believability in the circumstances. It's a fun and enjoyable movie.… Expand
Nov 23, 2012The Amazing Spider-Man is the amazing reboot to Spider-Man. Andrew Garfield plays a believable Peter Parker, as many nerds can relate to his emotions and his lifestyle. Plot(no spoilers): The Amazing Spider-Man gives audiences the back story behind the mysterious disappearance of Peter's parents. One day when Peter stumbles upon his father's old briefcase, his life changes forever. Many signficant changes to his ordinary lifestyle include his new relationship with fellow classmate, Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone); To the murder of his beloved fatherlike Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen). Ultimately, these are nothing compared to the mutated spider bite which gives him Spider like powers such as sticking to walls and great reflexes. As he becomes thankful for his powers, he accquires a relevation that makes him want to become much more, The Amazing Spider-Man, keeping the streets of New York clean. Along the way however, he becomes a part time lab partner with Oscorp Industry's Dr. Connors (Rhys Ifans) working towards the better health of mankind. However when Connors injects himself with the untested regenerative antidote, he becomes The Lizard and is a potential threat to the well being of New York. As Peter realizes his part in The Lizard's creation, he believes it is his responsiblility to make sure he doesn't harm any civilians. My opinion: the CGI was top notch and the acting combined with the story is enough to make any audience feel for the emotions Peter experiences throughout his lifechanging story. Comparison to Spider Man: A decent number of scenes, lines, and story plot are quite similar in terms of his origin story, and his family life. However The Green Goblin and The Lizard have completely different motives as antagonists, however they both have similar origins. I would recommend this to anyone, especially those who have never fully experienced a live-action Spider-Man movie, and to those who are die hard fans… Expand
Dec 10, 2012This was a worth while reboot. The original Spiderman suffered from a cartoonish undertone, and horrid acting from most of the main cast. The few good things about it were crushed by its played out take on the whole thing.
What does this movie have that the other doesn't? Adult jokes, better explanation of his back story, and better acting. I really hope that they make a sequel.
Nov 30, 2012Under the engaging direction of Marc Webb, "The Amazing Spider-Man" is an intimate and energetic reboot of Sam Raimi's original blockbuster trilogy, and for sharing so many similarities to the first film, it stands on its own very well and is impressively refreshing. Andrew Garfield puts forth a more relatable, complex and yet simpler Peter Parker - he's **** and egotistical when he has the upper hand early on, yet also delivers the emotional sobriety during the more serious and dire moments, and overall delivers a very solid performance as a teenager taking on these enormous new powers. The chemistry between him and Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy is perhaps the biggest improvement - where the MJ/Peter plot in Raimi's trilogy grew tired out and soap opera-ish, here the romance is tangible and very authentic. The film also has some very nice emotional moments, particularly near the end, that lends it some dramatic credence it might have been lacking until then. However, the action scenes are not nearly as fun as Raimi's, and even during the climax they don't seem to carry much tension or suspense - which doesn't mix well with the otherwise darker and more serious treatment - and a couple of moments that should be emotional heavyweights are treated with surprising briskness. Overall, it's a very solid and enjoyable reboot, but so far Raimi's trilogy is still the better Spider-Man.… Expand
Jul 29, 2013Well cast and shot, but I think the story was a bit lacking. The 'greatness' that Peter Parker was supposedly destined for according to Uncle Ben was nowhere to be seen. The first half, in which the protagonist is often seen without the costume, is more engaging. There were some memorable scenes, like the first time Peter talks to Gwen. This is my second favourite movie of the character after Spider Man 2.… Expand
Jan 15, 2013I still don't think this movie needed to be made, but I honestly didn't care so long as it was a good film; The Amazing Spider-Man is a good film. Sure, it covers some familiar territory, but it also adds/changes some aspects of the story which is much appreciated; it stands on its own and is more than capable of sustaining another franchise for a while longer. Andrew Garfield is a very solid and likable Peter/Spider-Man (as well as a solid actor), and Emma Stone is great as well; their fantastic chemistry is what drives this film. Rhys Ifans is an adequate villain, but he's underwhelming to say the least. I look forward to the sequel and potential future Marvel collaborations.… Expand
Mar 31, 2013This is a solid reboot of a rather recent series of films that probably didn't need to be done so soon, but it has been done very well. Andrew Garfield is great as the new Peter Parker and overall it's a great cast! Storyline is similar to how the other series starts out but things change here and there. MJ is no more but Gwen is in the leading lady role played by the gorgeous Emma Stone who does a great job! Overall it's nothing but entertainment and quite enjoyable to watch … Expand
Jan 23, 2013Its a made well movie but not great. Some errors like lines and ageing makes it bad, worst part is that they are 29 and 27. THEY ARE TEENS! They can't be 30 it's like seeing Iron Man be 74. It is a movie likely to succeed but a prequel would not be high in getting a prequel.
Dec 28, 2012No, I didn't think a reboot was warranted, and nothing in the previews urged me otherwise. That said, I thought for sure they'd do a great job with it, with the track record of hero-based reboots being taken seriously and respected in the last decade. I expected to at the very least be entertained. If you can read between the lines of the above, you can understand where I'm coming from when I say I am completely dumbfounded by the consistent amount of praise I see for this adaptation. Aside from looking more sterile and overly-indulging in video game caliber CG in places where it wasn't even necessary, making films from over a decade ago look modest in their graphics work, there were nothing but issues for me. From the set designs that actually didn't require green screens to the casting, I am left scratching my head because usually when I get online to complain there are 10 other people touching upon the bases I have been running in my head. A lot of reviews praise the additional back story. If by additional back story, you mean cliche scenes of going against the grain in high school complete with jock bullies, and locker drama seen in countless other 'teen angst overcame' movies, okay...you got it. They may have spent more time in his school and very non-Parker-esque like household, but that doesn't mean the extra time spent was actually "building" on anything. It wasn't even just the CG that was over polished and sterile, but even the story lines, and even the big build up scenes. Dennis Leary seemed to be completely playing up what must've been countless people's comments telling him that he reminded them of Aaron Eckhart in Harvey Dent's shoes, and the very hard to get wrong cliches got as thin as it gets when playing up the "rich girl brings rough-around-the-edges" kid to an extreme needlessly "formal" dinner at the Stacy residence. It was a series of scenes I spent wondering if Leary was embarrassed to be rattling off the script he was given for this, as surely the fans and rest of the internet would be tearing this thing to shreds. Silly me... or have I just gone mad? An honest wonder.
The sewer drama unfolded like the audience had the brain capacity of a 7 year old, having to blatantly have a smart kid like Parker being so thoughtless as to rig up his camera so carefully to snap the lizard's photo, then zooming right in on the back of the camera to the "property of Peter Parker" label on the back that looked like it's only purpose being stuck there was for this scene specifically, covering most of the bottom of the item, then the movie pans right up to this, spoonfeeding us this "clue" in case we missed it. There is little to no attention to detail even on such a pivitol scene (like the rest of the film) to even make the label look worn...like "oops, forgot that was even on there". Nothing subtle here...and yes, subtly does work even for a comic book movie. Other tidbits that left me biting my tongue include the scene of the spider crawling out of the bite wound, and the fact that they got away with banking on the praise they'd receive for one aspect, namely "being truer to the original, and truer to reality" by incorporating the synthetic web shooter vs. the spider's venom itself passing on web-spinning capabilities as in some variations of these stories. The rest of the movie negates this cry for credibility in every way -- nothing felt natural. I guess I've been spoiled -- most movies I sit through are concerned with all of these things so my mind doesn't even have to wander to consider picking apart things like that. Much like an ex wife who lost a divorce who is defending her meltdown, "I've grown accustomed to a certain lifestyle!" In all honesty I expected this to be good, because they had so many skeptical eyes on them for such and early reboot and a legacy to uphold or outdo, and since that has actually been achieved by others more often than before, Marvel and Co. surely would only back something that would do it justice. In that light, this 4am squinty-eyed review is one I was not expecting to write, and I would've guessed I'd be more likely to write something like this for a movie like 'Chronicle', which I enjoyed much more than I thought I would. The Amazing Spider Man turned out to be quite the table turner for me.… Expand
Jan 20, 2013This movie is awful and i gave it 4 out of 10 just because there are some things on which i can't close my eyes and got to admit, that they're done well. But there's some many wrong choices, especially in plot. I don't want to tell like every mistake, but most irritating for me was the fact, that this movie didn't bring main topic of Spider-man's existing, this movie never told us, that: with great power, comes great responsibility. In this movie this phrase never appears, and if authors wants to tell us about that in later movies, it's a big mistake, because then this movie looks even worse and cannot live on itself, only as a part of a trilogy, and i hate that tendency. This movie creates some interesting topics and never gives us answers, just to carry for other movies. This movie must be a self-contained story, but story is not only problem. I don't like this much "edgier, dark and realistic" atmosphere. I don't like this Parker with his tight jeans and skateboard. They wanted to tell us THE OTHER STORY THAT ISN'T REALLY REVEALED but instead it's the same story and not even finished. Effects and Ema Stone only saves this movie for me.… Expand
Feb 28, 2013This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. When I heard that Spider-Man was going to be rebooted, I was not supportive of the idea because I felt the story might not be good, and it's going to be weird seeing Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker /Spider-Man instead of Tobey Maguire. Nevertheless, I saw the Amazing Spider-Man and I was pleasantly surprised about what I saw. Its not perfect, but still manages to be a well creative story. So whats different about this movie? Well, the movie does a better job of telling Peter Parker's back story than the original Spider-Man trilogy. Second is the relationship between Uncle Ben and Peter Parker is a lot better. Third, I loved Uncle Ben in the original film, but I felt like he was side-tracked and I didn't knew much about him. This Uncle Ben is funny, he cares about his Peter, and wants to help him through his troubles. Its a sham that he dies during the movie because I really liked him. All these make the Amazing Spider-Man good, but I still have a few major issues with it. First is Andrew Garfield's dialogue isn't that great. He is good in the suit, but not in the speaking. Second is the characters, Emma Stone is a good actress and she does a good job as Gwen Stacy, but others like Dr. Conners isn't really that interesting, Denis Leary as Gwen's father was disappointing. I like Denis Leary, but I believe this is not one of his better movies, and everyone else is bland. The main problem I have with all these characters is we don't know much about their back story or their motive. Dr. Conners was okay, but I didn't know much about him. Even though the movie is basely on Spider-Man, I want to know about other characters even the scene is only 5 minutes long. The Amazing Spider-Man is a good movie, not one of my personal favorite, but still watchable.… Expand
Feb 3, 2013As a fan of the original spider-man movie trilogy I was a little concerned over the concept of a re-boot, but marvel did a great job of making it feel fresh. The new actors are definitely stronger than the original which was a nice surprise. I felt the chemistry between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone was great and The action was fantastic as we've come to expect from marvel films. The problems I had with the films however were mainly with the familiarity of certain scenes to ones in the original. Obviously we have to see some scenes from the original spider-man again but there was a strong sense of deja-vu in a lot of the scenes. Also the lizard as the villain had the most cliche origin in all of comic books ever. I think this was a amazingly strong reboot and I hope the sequel improves on the fantastic foundation set by this movie!… Collapse
Feb 5, 2013A well acted action packed superhero film that makes this well needed a reboot a success. This new storyline proves that we will see Peter Parker's teenage years and will show a bigger development in the story than a huge jump from high school-er to photographer.
Mar 2, 2013This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The Amazing Spiderman, what do I think of this movie, it's... AMAZING! Let's start off with the pros of this movie. First, Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone's acting. I found the perfect performance of Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy. They show how they are both excellent actors because they show their romance for each other on screen well, they execute their scenes perfectly and adding a better relationship. I really like this acting. Another pro of this movie is the special effects. Spiderman and the Lizard have never looked better on screen in the school scene and the Oscorp scene etc. Since both those scenes were shot with CGI, this makes Spiderman and Lizard look amazing as I've said. More on the effects, when Spiderman web swings, the CGI blends so well together, I actually wished there were more scenes of Spidey web slinging. Next, director Marc Webb made a great mash-up of Comedy, Drama and Action together and I really loved how they gave Dr.Connors a split personality like Sam Raimi did with Norman Osborn and the Green Goblin. Finally, the crew have mad sure to follow the storyline correctly which is amazing because I loved Spiderman for 9 years. Now onto the cons of the movie. The suit development was short. We all know that Peter is a smart guy so making the suit was the one way to show his intelligence. But it went by so quickly it left the audience with little development. Next. the Lizard's writing. The character feels so bland because you didn't get to know him well. If Dr.Connors/Lizard was more deeply explored, he would've been a lot more likeable even though I did like his character. Finally,The quote "With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility". It was paraphrased but I would've preferred it to be said in those exact words. But wait there some more things I want to talk about. I found some really awesome scenes in this movie like the gang fight in the alley, the school scene with Spiderman and The Lizard etc. Also the movie had a bit of a dard tone to it and I don't make The Amazing Spiderman look like Batman because a lot of other movies are dark but it's not Batman all over again. My final verdict is a 9.5 out of 10. The cons listed held this movie back from being a 10 out of 10 but it was still fun and entertaining.… Expand
Feb 18, 2013This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. When I first heard the Spider-Man film series was gonna be rebooted, I was pretty pissed. But then I saw the a trailer, and I thought "Hmm this could be pretty good". So one day I was on a plane, decided to watch a movie, and there it was the Amazing Spider-Man. And what do I have to say? It's just as good as the first movie. I find Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man more humorous then Tobey Maguire's, however I felt Tobey's fit the high school dork role, with Andrew seeming more like of the everyman. So I believe while Tobey was a better Peter Parker, Andrew is a better Spider-Man. Although I do have issues with the whole promising to stay away from the dying man's daughter only to say "Promises you can't keep are the best kind"....wtf? I was a little peeved she didn't slap him in the face. I have mixed feelings about switching back to the web shooters from the comics. As while they may be iconic and a sign of the character's intellect. I've always felt Spider-Man should naturally posses the ability, but that's just nitpicking. As for the love interest, I personally have a preference for Mary-Jane over Gwen, having grown up on the 90's animated series where Gwen didn't appear. However I happen to be a fan of Emma Stone (Superbad, Zombieland, Easy A) and whoa was she great in this movie. She's got me hoping that they do not follow the death of Gwen Stacy from the comics. Rhys Ifans also does a great job of making Curt Conners sympathetic, and the Lizard villainous. Although I think the Lizard would've looked better with a snout like in the comics. All in all, solid acting, a decent story, and amazing effects. It's really a shame that the film was over-shadowed by The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises......Okay I'm just kidding those films were both better. But The Amazing Spider-Man is defiantly worth a watch.… Expand
Apr 20, 2013Does "The Amazing Spider-Man" do anything new to movies? Well, no. But the genres that exist are all in there. The movie has its moments of humor, horror, romance, action, adventure, thriller, it has simply everything, and the way they used all that to make a superhero movie is simply one of the best ways they could use it.
Feb 28, 2013It's not a movie that wins awards and it's not close to reaching the magnificent height of "The Dark Knight", the best super hero-movie to date, but who cares? This film has got just the right amount of action and humour that is expected out of a Spider Man-film, and Andrew Garfield actually makes a great performance as the classic super hero.
Jun 12, 2014This movie got a lot of hate and I understand why. It's just not what people expected it to be. I strongly believe that this was a lot better than the older ones with Toby McGuire. This seemed like it actually was able to tell a story. And doing it in a lot better acting. The squeal to this was expected to be good, but I thought it was kind of awful to be honest. Once again I choose, the first over the second.… Expand
Apr 24, 2013This reboot of the Spider-Man franchise delivers with a strong performance by Andrew Garfield as the lead character, and big names in some of the other supporting roles. Acting great Martin Sheen, host of the Breakthroughs with Martin Sheen show, gives a strong performance as usual, in the role of Uncle Ben. Denis Leary, better known as a comedian than an actor, also shines as the father of Peter Parker's love interest.
It's great to see well-established actors and thespians, like Sheen and Sally Field, who plays Aunt May, share the screen with up-and-coming actors like Garfield and Emma Stone, who plays Gwen Stacy. The young stars hold their own with these heavyweights, and show that they belong. Although Sheen does not appear in as many movies these days as he did in his heyday, he shows the talent that has helped him remain in show business since the early 1960s. These days, Sheen hosts the Breakthroughs Martin Sheen show, and also appeared in a movie directed by his son Emilio Estevez called "The Way."
The Martin Sheen Breakthroughs show examines positive and intriguing stories across American society. It airs on public television stations across the nation, including some PBS-affiliated stations. The Martin Sheen PBS program (www.breakthroughsptv.com) looks at medical subjects, environmental topics, business stories and more. The Martin Sheen public television program looks at education stories as well.
Hopefully, the producers and director of the sequel to this entertaining and enjoyable movie can bring back all the principal actors and actresses for the sequel.… Expand
Apr 11, 2013I was a big fan of the original Spider-man trilogy (yes even Spider-man 3), and i was being optimistic in hoping that this film would introduce a new darker quality to the character and the retelling of the origin, but overall i found the film to be underwhelming, unoriginal and in some parts, just plain stupid. Firstly i must point out that Andrew Garfield did a great job of portraying Peter Parker, as did Emma stone of Gwen Stacy, and they have good chemistry, but the script is not particularly thoughtful nor engaging, just classic cheeky rom-com stuff, but i guess there's nothing wrong with that, and the romance between the two is what makes this film a hit with the ladies. The Lizard on the other hand, played by Rhys Ifans, is a complete Ra's al Ghul rip off from Liam Neeson in Batman Begins, speaking in a slow wise voice and his plan to evolve the human race into raging lizards, for the benefit of the future of the planet or some crap. Much like Ra's extreme views of wiping out corruption for the the same reason. Much of the story is the same, dont be fooled, apart from the back story to peter's parents, its much like the original Spider-man of 2002. The special effects were pretty impressive but that basically meant the action sequences were hectic and cartoonish, which i guess is to capture the comic book style, but overall are boring. There are no cleverly planned out set pieces or twists in the plot, the final fight is on top of a skyscraper at night and another confrontation takes place on a bridge at night, very imaginative. This film is well made and the acting is pretty solid, and i can understand why newcomers to spiderman are loving it, but if you are familiar with Sam Raimi's trilogy and have watched a fair few superhero films like myself, you are likely to be disappointed with this film. Hopefully the sequel can find its own groove.… Expand
Jul 7, 2014This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I just saw this film for the 32nd time now... It is by far my all-time favourite super-hero flick! I enjoyed every single second! This I believe is the reboot Spider-Man needed... Andrew Garfield i think (in my opinion) best portrayed Peter Parker! the script was amazingly well-written by James Vanderbilt (who also wrote Zodiac and 2003 film Darkness Falls). I absolutely love the director Marc Webb's fresh modern take on the super-hero's origins, from when Peter gets bit by the radio-active spider, and the building of his webbing device! Also want to give huge props to the Cinematographer, John Schwartzman (who recently is working on Dracula Untold, Jurassic World and did the 1996 film The Rock).… Expand
Apr 25, 2013It is much like the 2002 version, the plot and relatively good action scenes Guides, reasonable performances but q makes the 2002 version better and charisma tobey maguarey, which has adrew garfield
Nov 16, 2013More like the "The Amazing Computer-Generated Imagery Man!" This is a none-too-original origins story trite teenage romance hybrid in which dumb coincidences abound and the level of ridiculousness (e.g., a secret laboratory in the city sewers) grows increasingly tiresome. I won't say it's spectacular, but it is a spectacle of sorts all right, and I'd say skip it if only to dissuade them from making any more sequels.… Expand
Jul 15, 2013No me empeño en dañar las peliculas que a muchos les Gusta sino en valorar en este caso lo excelente que venia siendo Spider Man, no esta Peter Parker, es una nueva Historia un nuevo inicio a la clasica historia del hombre araña que no arranca muy bien.
Nov 24, 2014Peter Parker isn't a nerd, but a handsome hipster only labeled a nerd so he can be the misunderstood boy in girls' middle school fantasies. Am I watching High School Marvelous or a comic book adaptation? The 2002 version is much better.
May 13, 2013Of course this film has to measure with the older Spider-Man Films.I really like Kirsten Dunst but Emma Stone is a better actor and Andrew Garfield is very sympathetic to me and a thousand times better than Tobey Maguire.
I cannot say that i didn`t enjoy the film.The actors are good and i like the action sequences.Sometimes there are some logical mistakes and the characters are not always smart but it was nothing what was destroying my joy.
The bad guy is also not the best,Very simple structured for some intelligent guy as he is but ist makes the movie not worst but also not better.
All in all a film that you can watch when you want a good action movie which entertains you for 2 hours when you don`t wont to use your brain to much.… Expand
May 28, 2013This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. If I were to sum up how I feel about this movie, I would say: mahogana. That is a bizarre expression, but that what this film is to me: Bizarre. There was of course A lot of talk about why a reboot to a series no even that old enough to deserve a reboot. The reason why was because Fox was about to lose the license to the series, and so they needed to kick Raimi out of the project, he was working on the 4th one but it would take too long for him to finish. So in the end we get a new spider man, new director, and brand new cast. With all of that stuff being hurled at us, can I as a viewer withstand it? Almost. I almost can withstand all the new stuff, but I can't stand some of the decisions they made though. The actor they got was pretty good to play Peter, but as Spider man he's either too dark or too even for spider man. The villain is almost a contender for most disappointing villain in an actually decent superhero movie, he's so boring, and is just a ridiculous villain. I think his abilities are unclear, as in he can regenerate at an incredible rate is rather unexplained. Lizards don't grow their limbs back immediately, it takes quite a while. His plot makes no sense, make the whole city lizards, why? What good would come out of doing that? One of the most important scenes in the spider man universe is done horribly in this picture, the death of peter's uncle. The saying is: with great power comes great responsibility, but that doesn't matter because his uncle is an idiot for trying to wrestle away a gun from a younger thug. The whole T.V mentality of this is really infuriating because now we have to wait until the next one because filmmakers discovered that they don't have to tell a story in one film, but rather have it spread to multiple films. I guess I can say I don't hate this film, but I should highlight that I don't like it.… Expand
May 30, 2013I don't understand why anyone would hate this movie. I actually like that its a reboot because its a fresh new start. At first I didn't like the new costume but now its growing on me. The fighting sequences were really good and so was the story. I liked Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone as Spider-Man and Gwen Stacy. I kinda wished the movie had a second villain like Scorpion. Its pretty much the Batman Begins of Spider-Man movies.… Expand
Jun 17, 2013This may not be the best Spider-Man film, but its an excellent reboot. The cast is definetely one of the best. The movie kills it with action, emotion and origin. It's a retelling of Spider-Man but in a way that has secrets.
I give TASM a 9/10
Jun 19, 2013This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. A well chosen cast, great special effects and looks more like the comics. This movie is simply awesome, even if it's not as fresh as Sam Raimi's trilogy.… Expand
Jun 21, 2013Marvel never ceases to amaze me with their movies well most of them, but this particular film was well... AMAZING! First of all Andrew Garfield did a really good job playing the Spider-man character, but his Peter Parker performance wasn't as great as Toby Maguire's portrayal. Stone and Garfield don't really have chemistry in acting so that made this film awkward at times. The film also told a really good story and separated itself from the first Spider-man in 2002. Although some of the plot points are similar, the villain is different and this movie actually shows Peter's parents rather than not show them at all. Also, when this movie came out on DVD it shows many of the deleted scenes that would have been great character development for Doctor Curtis Connors (The Lizard) who despite didn't have the greatest development did a really good job portraying The Lizard. Overall this movie was a really good one and I highly recommend it.
Overall: 8.5/10… Expand
Nov 29, 2013This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The Amazing Spider-Man, unfortunately, wasn't the solid reboot that I was hoping for. Now don't get me wrong. It's not necessarily a bad movie. I still found it decent but it just felt like things were really missing in this movie. The CGI and visuals look great in the movie, the acting is pretty solid, and it started to go somewhere towards the end. However, the problems I have with the film is 1.) the pacing, 2.) the writing felt a little lazy, 3.) the first act felt just the same as the first act in the 2002 Spider-man film, 4.) the action scenes weren't that great and were far and few in between, and 5.) the romance between Peter and Gwen felt awkward and shallow.
So overall, not a very good reboot. However, I still do have high hopes for The Amazing Spider-man 2 coming next summer. If that movie can fix the problems I mention (has better pacing, writing and action) and has Spider-man being more and cracking more jokes(which is what I did like about the Spider-man in this movie expect he hardly cracked any jokes and they weren't very funny) then I guarantee it'll be a great movie. But as for the Amazing Spider-man. It's at best, ok/decent. Not bad, not good, just ok.… Expand
Jul 4, 2013With science and wit dangling from its webs of storytelling, "The Amazing Spider-Man" uses Garfield and Stone's acts to soar, and leaving a wonderful impression in the end.
Aug 11, 2013I think this is a fantastic movie and in my opinion better than the other Spider-man movies. They choose the perfect actor to play Peter Parker/Spider-man. Overall a really enjoyable movie for comic book fans and fans of good movies.
Aug 17, 2014This reboot is less impressive than the original.
There are many silly and weird things that just don't make sense in this movie, and the actor Andrew Garfield as Spiderman is the most disappointed thing, he's so irresponsible. There are some boring and silly scenes that just kept me bored while watching this new Spiderman movie, and there isn't that much positive aspects, (maybe the CGI).
The the less enjoyable action, and a less impressive soundtrack truly made this movie worse than the original movies.
The Amazing Spiderman get a 6.5… Expand
Aug 1, 2013Serving two fantastic leads in Garfield and Stone as well as a great villain in Rhys Ifans as The Lizard, everything works out perfectley in this superb reboot of my favorite superhero. It's truly amazing, not just amazing, but quite spectacular!
Aug 11, 2013Meh, this movie seemed to take the things I liked from the original and throw them away and take the parts I didn't like and magnify them. Its an average super hero movie with a drawn out beginning. Its not bad, but I wasn't really impressed either.
Sep 20, 2013Two hours long, this reboot of the Spiderman franchise is substantial; a solid film. It is nothing like the original trilogy, but it still keeps your attention for a little bit, occasionally losing focus, then hitting a solid note again. It's a drifting movie looking for a target.
Sep 21, 2013This film was undoubtedly awesome and slightly better than Spider-Man (2002 film) as the story was explained in a much better manner. There was a lot mentioned about his parents, his memories as a child and a briefcase which his father leaves behind that leads to him becoming Spider-Man. The important thing was that not many things were copied from Sam Raimi's first Spider-Man film. And for that, I guess I could Marc Webb a thumbs up right now! At first, he had some personal vendetta of finding his Uncle's killer...and then he learned the concept of wearing a mask, and eventually, he found a way to put his powers into proper use...by saving people. For those of you that think The Lizard was a lame piece of think again...there was this scene in Oscorp where Peter asks Dr.Connors, "How would a predator track a reptile?" Now think of Spider-Man as the predator and The Lizard as the reptile. Plus, it was more about cross-species genetics. If you're looking for a more badass villain, I suggest you wait for Electro to arrive in the upcoming Amazing Spider-Man 2.… Expand
May 5, 2014This film is the second worst spider man film, ok this is more kind to it source material but it is still a bad movie with a terrible vilain, but emma stone save a hole part from this film.
Oct 29, 2013It's a good film so I'll give it a 8/10. The actions are pretty cool too, the way Peter Parker gets his webbing powers are well-explained. The film has a few hilarious scenes so it's a great movie to watch for all age.
Jan 13, 2014An interesting beginning in the reboot franchise, but too tweeny for my liking. Andrew Garfield is the essence of Peter Parker but his acting gets lost in a cloud of CG.
Nov 15, 2013Don't like this one compared to the original. Peter Parker in this version is a lot more arrogant and rude. I know it's just a movie but Peter's arrogance indirectly got his uncle killed.
Dec 17, 2013The Amazing Spider-Man is a mostly successful reboot of Spiderman despite having an agonizingly weak antagonist and shared plots with first Spider-Man movie.
Dec 12, 2013Stays a lot like the first Spider-Man in terms of plot, but action-packed fight sequences and great use of CGI make it a fresh take on Peter Parker's story.
Mar 4, 2014I really think this is underrated by a lot of people. Despite the obvious flaw of a rehashed story, I think looking past that, every aspect of this film is immensely superior to any other adaption, not just that of Raimi. Amazing acting; Stone never ceases to amaze me. Smart slick humour which I always love, and pretty damn great action sequences. A few odd soundtrack choices, but apart from that and a few other flaws, I don't see much wrong with this film. I thoroughly enjoyed it!… Expand
May 30, 2014Fantastic Movie for the Summer! The Amazing Spider-Man is packed with action and romance and is lead by an amazing performance from Andrew Garfield who makes this film entertaining most of all.
Aug 16, 2014The movie was ok for the visually stunning part but for the acting and the action scenes the movie just failed.There was not enough action and when there was some of it,it was filmed like ****
Apr 16, 2014Amazing movie! It has some flaws but with good cast and a great direction allows The Amazing Spider Man to amaze! The visual effects are stunning but the action itself, it could been better. Spider Man is way different than the previous films, he is more funny but he hasn't the strenght the other Spider Man had. That's because he's still learning his powers to improve them. The other problem that this movie has is the same points of Spider Man 2002 film. The Spider bite, the Uncle Ben's Death and even the final swing all those things we already seen. Even knowing that this movie has some mistakes, the relationship between Peter and Gwen it's just incredible: They both have better chemistry than Tobey and Kirsten and when you see the movie, you will agree with me. Overall this movie is great, the dialogue, characters and details are well done in spite the same plot points from the very first movie and the action sequences not that great. Really recommend to watch this movie!… Expand
Apr 27, 2014An alright superhero movie. I was never a big fan of the first Spiderman movies and not a fan at all of Spiderman in general. He is one of my least favourite superhero's. There were some cool action scenes in this movie to keep me entertained enough but nothing to special at all.
Apr 27, 2014This movie surprised me. After the fiasco that is Spider-Man 3 I just about lost hope for the Spidey Franchise as a whole. So once i heard they were rebooting the franchise just 5 years after Spider Man 3 you could see my concern. But I am very happy to report that this film was great. Andrew does a great job as Peter and the chemistry between him and Emma just bring this movie to life. Rhys Ifan's as Dr. Curt Connors a.k.a. The Lizard was the one weak spot in the movie. I didn't feel any emotion or life in this CGI villain. But other then that this is a good film. Two thumbs up.… Expand
May 1, 2014great movie, with intense action and good characters. My favorite Actor was Andrew Garfield He's amazing in this film, and The writing was good. This movie was stellar movie with a stellar cast and great writing to keep you interested
May 3, 2014This movie came out a while ago and so ill keep it simple for anyone who hasnt seen it yet. Its a good movie. period. It makes for one awesome summer flick! very enjoyable!
May 25, 2014If you could fully trust the title of this movie then I wouldn't be writing this review. While it isn't "amazing", it sure was great. The main draw are the action sequences. Obviously, viewers are limited in terms of feeling like spider man (because, well, it's a movie) but the camera angles give a great sense of swinging like Tarzan across New York City. I especially liked when it would be in a first person perspective. It all gets quite action packed when Spidey fights the big lizard. Spider man climbs atop ceilings, slides, and dashes to evade the destructive force of his opponent. There's is a lot of walls being smashed. So unless you must see explosions in action movies (there aren't much) then you'll be satisfied with the fight scenes. Andrew Garfield gives a very good performance (He's the actor who plays Spider Man). It's comical when he first starts to use his powers. So all of that's great but there are some bad stuff. Some parts are not original. It's been far to many times when the bomb or device is stopped at the last second. And Gwen only falls for peter because he's a superhero. So occasionally you might feel like you've seen this before. But those complaints aren't significant enough for you to not see it. This is definitely one of my favorite superhero movies.… Expand
Nov 22, 2014I enjoyed the revived Spiderman even more than the any of the films from the original trilogy. This film focuses more on the Spiderman that we see in cartoons and comic books and Andrew Garfield just seems more suited for the role than Tobey McGuire did. He could never win the fans bad after the dance scene in Spiderman 3. I like the addition of Gwen Stacey as a main character as they are following the storyline that should have been followed during the first 3 films.… Expand
Jul 29, 2014I believe "The Amazing Spider-Man" has some better qualities than the "Spider-Man" trilogy. Garfield's take on the character seems pretty interesting and fresh, compared to Maguire's, and Emma Stone is adorable as Gwen Stacy. The plot is nothing new and original, the story may seem pointless after so much Spider-Man on screen in the 2000s, but the chemistry between Garfield and Stone and some beautiful CGI and sound save the day.… Expand
Nov 10, 2014The Amazing Spider-Man is a mostly successful reboot of Spiderman despite having an agonizingly weak antagonist and shared plots with first Spider-Man movie.
Aug 20, 2014Reboot time! The 2002-2007 Sam Raimi Spiderman franchise came to a close once SM3 disapointed many fans. So long story short the franchise was rebooted. July 6, TASM came . Andrew Garfield starring as Peter/ spiderman and Emma stone starring as gwen stacey. The main villian in this movie is Dr. Conners aka the lizard. Overall the movie was a decent film. I give a 7.8. I did enjoy it though!
Sep 3, 2014I really love this movie, its great! Spider-man is undoubtedly my favourite super-hero in the marvel universe, and probably out of all the super-heroes there is at the moment! I loved the new actor and the new plot too, it was a remake off the first spider man with Tony Maguire, and I didn't think it would work before I watched it but let me tell you I've never been more wrong! Also, some great music in it!… Expand
Oct 14, 2014The Amazing Spider-Man is not as good as the first and second part of the saga of Sam Raimi but it's entertaining and also gives us a new Spidey for a new generation. It's noteworthy a story full of mysteries with a great improvement about the special effects and a nice soundtrack by James Horner. (68 - 100)
Oct 22, 2014The Amazing Spider-Man is the story of Peter Parker, an outcast high schooler who was abandoned by his parents as a boy, leaving him to be raised by his Uncle Ben and Aunt May. Like most teenagers, Peter is trying to figure out who he is and how he got to be the person he is today. Peter is also finding his way with his first high school crush, Gwen Stacy, and together, they struggle with love, commitment, and secrets. As Peter discovers a mysterious briefcase that belonged to his father, he begins a quest to understand his parents' disappearance – leading him directly to Oscorp and the lab of Dr. Curt Connors, his father's former partner. As Spider-Man is set on a collision course with Connors' alter-ego, The Lizard, Peter will make life-altering choices to use his powers and shape his destiny to become a hero.… Expand
Nov 9, 2014After The Avengers and X-Men: Days of future past,The Amazing Spider-Man it's the best superhero movie of all time.A great movie and great actors.The best Spider-Man movie with the second movie of Sam Raimi's trilogy.
Nov 12, 2014Soy un gran gran de las películas de Raimi, y esta me pareció muy buena película. Buena historia (más apegada al cómic), buena acción y buena actuación por parte de Andrew Garfield y Emma Stone. Aún así, en mi opinión, no logró superar al Spider-Man de Sam Raimi, y varios factores como un Peter más rebelde y un traje con un diseño bastante distinto al original, además de la carencia de una buena música (como la de Danny Elfman de la trilogía de Raimi), hizo de esta no se sintiese como una película de Spider-Man. Aún así, disfruté mucho viéndola. Saludos.… Expand
In short, the character is a lot like the way Stan Lee first envisioned him, but the trilogy's screenwriter Steve Ditko would probably loathe this new, unsatisfying, and hollow-feeling entry into the new cinematic Marvel Universe.
On the whole, it's passable stuff, a surprise, given how mechanical the masked character seemed.


text:
Through its history, Arkansas has been governed by five constitutions. Each of the five constitutions symbolizes a shift in the state's political status: statehood in 1836, joining the Confederate States of America during the Civil War in 1861, military occupation near the end of the Civil War in 1864, Reconstruction in 1868, and …
The Arkansas History Commission houses over 4,000 historic maps of Arkansas and the surrounding regions among its holdings. The entire historic maps collection is available for use in the Arkansas History Commission's research room, while selected examples have been digitized and made available here. For more information on the …
There are thousands of historic postcards in the Arkansas History Commission's holdings, from locations and events all over the state, dating back to the 19th century. We have gathered the best of our postcards collection and digitized them here.
The first World War demanded much from Arkansas. The Arkansas National Guard was incorporated into the U.S. Army, cotton prices rose with the need for uniforms and bandages, the lead and zinc mining industry grew rapidly, factories were built to make weaponry, all while 71,000 soldiers from Arkansas served, creating a massive labor …
This collection contains lesson plans created by Arkansas History Commission staff through a partnership with the Arkansas Humanities Council. Currently, the collection contains lesson plans on Reconstruction in Arkansas, the Great Depression, Ex-Slave Narratives, Settlement in Arkansas, as well as the Symbols of the State of Arkansas …
Welcome to the the online digital archive of the Arkansas History Commission, Arkansas's official state archives!
Here you will find digitized documents, visuals, maps, broadsides, pamphlets, and three-dimensional objects significant to Arkansas history and culture, from the holdings of the Arkansas History Commission. New collections are always being added, so check back often to see what's new!
These materials represent only a fraction of the Arkansas History Commission's extensive holdings - the cream of the crop, so to speak - while the majority of which remain only available at the Arkansas History Commission. If you would like more information about accessing the AHC's collections, please visit our website, or contact us by emailing email@example.com, or calling 501.682.6900.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Downloadable Audio Books
DOWNLOADABLE AUDIO BOOKS or E-AUDIO BOOKS
- Can I download audio books?
Do I need my library card to download an audio book?
How long can I keep e-audio books?
How many e-audio books can I take out at one time?
How do I set up an account to download audio books?
What should I do if I have trouble downloading or accessing my e-Audio Book?
Will an e-Audio Book show on my library card account?
Can I download audio books?
You can download audio books onto your home computer. You can then either listen to the books on your computer or transfer the audio file to an MP3 player. Most of the titles are formatted as WMA files, and are not compatible with iPods. However, our vendor has started adding some iPod compatible titles. TOP
Do I need my library card to download an audio book?
Yes. A library card is required in order to access the downloadable audio book and the other databases. Only card holders from libraries purchasing the downloadable product will be able to set up an account. TOP
How long can I keep e-audio books?
The e-audio book file will be good for 21 days after which you can renew it for an additional 21 days. After that, you won't be able to access the file and will need to remove the file from your computer or MP3 player. However, you can download the same title as many times as you like.TOP
How many e-audio books can I download at one time?
You can have up to ten e-audio books at on your account at any given time. Each e-audio book will "time out" after 21 days. If you finish listening to the book before that, you can't return it until the 21 days is up.TOP
How do I set up an account to download audio books?
What should I do if I have trouble downloading or accessing my e-Audio Book?
Make sure that your cookies are enabled and you allow popups for that site. You can also check to see if www.NetLibrary.com is a trusted site for your browser. Beyond that, if you run into any problems, call the Library and we'll do our best to help you.TOP
Will an e-Audio Book show on my library card account?
No, your audio downloads do not show up on your library card account. You have a separate account with NetLibrary that is only for e-audiobook downloads. All of your e-audiobooks that are currently "checked-out" to you show only on that account. The information is kept on NetLibrary/Recorded Books server and the actual e-book downloads are on your home computer and/or MP3 player. Library employees have no way of accessing your NetLibrary/Recorded Books account information.TOP


text:
Get the Look: Emma Stone at Amazing Spider-Man Premiere.
July 1, 2012 | written by Teri Cosenzi, Editor | Comments Off |
Emma Stone looked adorable, as she always does, at the premiere of her latest movie The Amazing Spider-Man. See the image below for all the details on her makeup look, as done by CHANEL Celebrity Makeup Artist Rachel Goodwin.
tagged Emma Stone | Categories: Celebrity Looks, Get the Look


text:
|Press Release
John Hall
January 13, 2007
DES MOINES, Iowa The mystery over who bought the winning $19.97 million Hot Lotto ticket from an Indianola retailer is over! A small business owner stepped forward Friday to claim the record prize.
John Hall of Indianola, 40, claimed the prize at Iowa Lottery headquarters in Des Moines with his wife, Dena, 40, and his four children Jeremy, 19, Justin 17, Jonnah, 14, and Jessica, 7.
John, who owns American Perfection Basement Waterproofing in Des Moines, purchased his winning ticket at Hy-Vee Gas, 912 Jefferson St. in Indianola. He said this was only his third time playing the game.
I don't even play [the lottery] until the jackpots get way up there. I might buy a ticket here or there. Then, I started hearing Hot Lotto commercials on TV. I didn't even know what it was, so I talked with my brother and he told me my chances of winning playing Hot Lotto were better.
The next time Hall stopped for gas, he decided to try the game out.
The couple didn't check the ticket right away. It wasn't until Dena had a doctor's appointment and the family physician mentioned that the winning ticket was still unclaimed that they remembered to check the numbers on John's ticket.
Dena said, The doctor said, Did you win? The winning ticket was sold at Hy-Vee Gas.' I thought, I think we might have bought it there. I better go check it.' I went home and I was speechless!
Dena immediately called her husband to share the good news.
As of right Friday, the couple did not have any specific plans for the $19.97 million prize. John Hall chose to receive the jackpot in a lump-sum payment.
John Hall is the sixth person to win the Hot Lotto jackpot in Iowa. Iowa Lottery CEO Dr. Ed Stanek said he was thrilled to see another big winner in Iowa.
This is our third big winner in three years. In 2005, we had Hugh Hawkins win a $113.2 million Powerball jackpot. In 2006, we had Tim & Kellie Guderian claim a $200.8 million Powerball prize. We couldn't be happier to see Iowans winning!
This is the largest jackpot prize in Hot Lotto since the game began in 2002.
The winning numbers in the Jan. 13 Hot Lotto drawing were: 3-18-27-38-39 and Hot Ball 10.
Last month, the Indianola Hy-Vee Gas received a $5,000 bonus for selling the jackpot-winning ticket.
Darlene Becker of Dubuque, a 64-year-old grandmother, won the first jackpot claimed in the game, a $3.6 million prize in the drawing on July 10, 2002. Don Sporrer of Denison, a retired IBP worker, became Iowa's second Hot Lotto jackpot winner, claiming a $2.7 million prize in the drawing on Christmas Day 2002. Todd Brobston, who works for the Fort Madison street department, won a $1.3 million jackpot in the drawing on Nov. 1, 2003.
Danny Good, a Des Moines police officer, won a $1.65 million jackpot in the drawing on Dec. 20, 2003. And Moses Bittok, a Kenyan immigrant who now is a correctional officer in Iowa, won the $1.89 million Hot Lotto jackpot in the drawing on Sept. 26, 2005.
Hot Lotto players choose five numbers from a pool of 39 and another number, called the Hot Ball, from a pool of 19. The Hot Lotto jackpot starts at $1 million and grows until someone wins it. Tickets in the game cost $1. Hot Lotto drawings are held Wednesdays and Saturdays, just before the Powerball drawings.
Iowa Lottery players have also won six jackpots in Powerball, including a $113.2 million prize that was won by Hugh Hawkins of Des Moines in December 2005 and a $200.8 million jackpot that was won by Tim and Kellie Guderian of Fort Dodge in September 2006.
Since the Iowa Lottery's inception in 1985, more than $2 billion has been awarded in prizes and more than $1 billion has been raised for state programs.
Jackpot amount: $19.97 million
Multi-State Lottery Assocation, All Rights Reserved
Hot Lotto is a trademark of the Multi-State Lottery Association


text:
You must log in to access this feature. Sign in with Twellow or Facebook to get started.
By signing in to Twellow, you indicate your agreement to our terms of service.
Simply connect with Facebook and kiss those password blues away,
or go here to reset your password.
Dr. Andrew Schneider is a graduate of Temple University School of Podiatric Medicine and completed a comprehensive residency at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in East Orange, NJ. He is board certified by the American Board of Podiatric Orthopedics and Primary Podiatric Medicine and a member of the American Podiatric Medical Association and the Texas Podiatric Medical Association. Dr. Schneider assumed the role of medical director of Tanglewood Foot Specialists in 1998. Dr. Schneider focuses on stateââ¬âofââ¬âtheââ¬âart therapy to offer relief from foot ailments in the shortest time possible. He treats athletes in all sports, working with them to minimize or eliminate time away from activity. Physicians throughout the city rely on his knowledge and skill in the area of biomechanics and orthotics and regularly send their own patients to him. He has become a resource for other podiatrists to refer their more challenging biomechanics cases as well.


text:
Oz opposition says to stop hackers first stop refugee boats
Australia's federal opposition has pledged more money for the nation's security agencies, and more online activity, and tied the latter increase to freeing up resources currently going towards dealing with "irregular maritime arrivals". Speaking yesterday at CeBIT Australia, Senator George Brandis said he is alarmed by the …
Over the period from 2002 to 2008, the average number of "irregular maritime arrivals" was 64 per year. Last year the number was 25,000. The cost of this has blown out by more than $3.2 billion since the government's February forecast, as immigration minister Brendan O'Connor admitted the record rate of boat arrivals "is not acceptable in terms of the risks to human life, or the budget".
Sure seems out of control to me.
Re: Really?
Really? Miranda Devine? I actually lol'd.
Let's clear up a few things. One way to reduce the amount of "irregular maritime arrivals" is to not let the refugee boats reach the shore. That is Liberal Party policy.
You'd have to lived under a rock for years to not know how that works. Let the boats sink with huge loss of life such as SIEV-X with 353 dead. Or maybe lie to the nation about refugees threatening to throw children overboard. Or ignore established maritime law. And so on.
Compared to many other countries Australia has very few asylum seekers* arriving by boat but we still bang them up in what amount to concentration camps.
* I use asylum seekers in the true and legal sense, not the Daily Mail frenzy of racism sense.
@Mahatma Coat (Re: Really?)
Obviously I pressed a button, since your response addresses points that I did not make, and fails to address the single point that I did make - that "irregular maritime arrivals" are out of control. Are you familiar with the term "straw man"?
Re: Really?
I love that people have the notion that worldwide refugee numbers are somehow determined solely by the immigration policy of Australia, and not external factors such as war, famine, racial prejudice, etc.
Immigration ministers seem to have a habit of admitting their policies don't do very much, on both sides of politics:
"The former Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Chris Evans, has argued, along with many refugee advocates and journalists, that the introduction of TPVs was ineffective in reducing the number of unauthorised boat arrivals"
The Howard government saw a massive spike on the introduction of their TPV's, similar to today's numbers - I'm surprised the Daily Telegraph used 2002 figures - if they went back just one more year they'd have seen numbers similar to recent years. I guess they were "out of control" from 1999-2001 as well? Or does the term only apply when a party you don't like is in power?
Obviously deterrents to the immigrants themselves don't work (and why would they? they're not coming here for a holiday, they're risking their lives because they'll lose them if they stay) - perhaps if that 3.2 billion was put into helping rectify issues in other countries we'd have less boat people? But of course such a move would be political suicide; the FUD surrounding "sending billions offshore" would be pounced on by Abbott et al regardless of the effect it would have on stopping the boats. 3.2 billion spent is the result of years of boat people being a political football. Make no mistake, this is an election issue because it determines votes, not because it affects the lives of anyone in Australia.
It's quite damning that Australia is happy for "international waters" to be controlled by Australia when legal (according to international law) whaling vessels travel into those waters, but when a boat full of people moves in on the same waters we want nothing to do with them because they're in "international waters".
Re: @Mahatma Coat (Really?)
Obviously I pressed a button
Yes, you did. I am a migrant to Australia.
Are you familiar with the term "straw man"?
Are you familiar with the phrase "quoting Miranda Devine isn't a smart way to win a debate"?
Re: @Mahatma Coat (Really?)
Are you familiar with the phrase "quoting Miranda Devine isn't a smart way to win a debate"?
Are you familiar with the phrase "attacking the messenger"?
The link to Miranda Devine was intended to provide a source for the numbers I quoted. Those numbers are established fact. I could possibly have provided another, less divisive source for the same data, but that would not have altered the numbers. In any case, that was the first link that popped up. The link was not an implied endorsement of her opinions. You responded by attacking Miranda Devine, without challenging the numbers.
That was not logical, as it in no way addressed the point that I made.
You seem to let emotion overrule logic. That is quite common. Hopefully you don't write software.
Re: @Mahatma Coat (Really?)
I too am a migrant to Australia. I however chose to come here legally rather than arrive on a boat and claim refugee status despite having travelled thousands of miles thus making Australia not the first safe port of call, paid middle men along the way and in all reality being an economic migrant who knows they won't get in otherwise.
Re: @Anon 2:38
How far you travel doesn't determine your eligibility for refugee status. People don't come here on sinking boats because it's "easier" to get in - it's because it the only option they have.
Mind if I ask which war-torn country you came from? And what atrocities you were escaping?
Re: @Mahatma Coat (Really?)
"I however chose to come here legally rather than arrive on a boat and claim refugee status"
Lucky you!
Re: @Anon 2:38
"How far you travel doesn't determine your eligibility for refugee status. People don't come here on sinking boats because it's "easier" to get in - it's because it the only option they have."
No, it doesn't.
However it should. If you've passed through several countries willing to take you in and offer you safety, you realistically cease to be a refugee. You become an immigrant as your life is no longer in danger!
Just because you chose to step on a leaky boat to try and get somewhere better doesn't give you a right to go there.
Beggars can't be choosers and all that jazz...
Re: Really?
Miranda Devine!?
Nasty, 2 dimensional, sock puppet.
Re: @Mahatma Coat (Really?)
While claiming NIMBY status instead?
Re: @Veldan
How many countries you've passed through doesn't determine how *far* you've travelled either. Nice strawman though.
The definition of "take you in" and "safety" varies from country to country as well - Australia is surrounded by small developing nations that have enough trouble caring for their own people, let alone "taking in" refugees.
People seem to think Australia is surrounded by tourist resorts, and that they're qualified to comment on how "great" conditions are in those countries simply because they own an Bintang singlet.
Re: @Veldan
I'll grant that it is was a slight strawman, but I'll try to justify it by saying that Australia is in almost all cases farther away than other countries that are willing to take people in, unless there is a war in New Guinea, New Zealand or Indonesia perhaps...
The fact you're missing is that whether or not it is a developing country, they are no longer in danger. They don't get to jump from war zone to first world country. They get to go from war zone to "not a war zone". It is an opportunity to remove themselves from harm.
If they want to then follow on to a first world country, well they can damn well apply like everyone else!
I don't think we're surrounded by tourist resorts, most of our close neighbours are not post industrial societies, some struggle to even be industrial.
I just fail to see how that should change anything if they're willing to harbour them?
Re: @Anon 2:38
"If you've passed through several countries willing to take you in and offer you safety, you realistically cease to be a refugee."
Go on then - name the countries between here and Sri Lanka or Afghanistan that offer safe refuge to Sri Lankan or Afghan asylum seekers. There's a reason why people go to so much trouble to arrive in Australia instead of staying in Thailand or Indonesia, and it's not the Air Miles.
Re: @Anon 2:38
So I guess Malaysia is no longer a country? As they offer asylum and are closer...
Indonesia does offer asylum as well, additionally Bali will take in seekers and unlike Indonesia is predominately Buddhist and Hindu (I realise it is "owned" by Indonesia but they do conduct most of their own affairs).
The Phillipines is just as far as Australia and also accepts asylum seekers, the passage is also easier to navigate (in terms of sea conditions, which matter in crappy boats).
Also Pakistan and Iran also host refugees and they are also closer...
nothing like old fashioned racism
Well we all know the game in play with "asylum seekers".
The pure unadulterated racism is disgusting. The Leader of the Opposition (who is not a fool) randomly mixes up the term "asylum seeker" and "illegal". The government is in a spin and has been for since 2001 when it let its hard men overtake any sense of humanity in the Tampa affair and revealed a moral bankruptcy that was astounding.
The obsession with the boats is costing $3.2 BILLION!!! This is plain lunacy!! How many "boat people" could we have resettled, how many refugees could we have helped with that money instead of operating prison camps (and because I defy anyone to say they are not!).
The current policies of both major parties are just disgusting and inhuman no matter what spin they wrap them in.
Re: nothing like old fashioned racism
I'm sure that for many people there is a racist aspect. Others are appalled at the waste of money. It seems to me that the least objectionable solution would be to let asylum seekers obtain jobs and pay taxes while their claims are assessed, but the union movement is opposed to that, so it won't happen. Also, that would increase the number of asylum seekers by an order of magnitude, and that is unlikely to be accepted by the general population.
The opposition approach is to attempt to wind back the clock by being sufficiently nasty to remove the incentive to come here. This seems to be the approach favoured by a large number of Australians, and the one most likely to attract votes. It does however damage our international reputation, and is unacceptable to many on moral grounds.
All of this brings me back to my original point, made earlier, that the current situation is out of control. I think that much is self evident since it is damaging the economy and getting worse every year.
Pretending that it is not a problem is not rational.
Re: nothing like old fashioned racism
"for many people there is a racist aspect. Others are appalled at the waste of money."
Or, in my case, both.
MW, as you say, there is a problem, But, until there is some political will to deal with it sensibly and humanely, we are stuck with the opposition's "stop the boats!" mantra (and a government that is completely unable to respond effectively to this BS).
Re: nothing like old fashioned racism
"The obsession with the boats is costing $3.2 BILLION!!! This is plain lunacy!!"
We all know that Labor couldn't manage a PUIAB but it's pretty impressive that the Coalition (who supposedly espouse small government and Australian jobs) are also so keen for a system which shovels quite so much Australian money outside Australia and provides quite so much employment for foreigners.
Re: nothing like old fashioned racism
I downvoted you because of your cry of racism - a cry used all too often to silence debate on what has become a serious issue.
First off, you should know that while Australia is big, it's also inhospitable. That vast tract of land you see spanning half the southern hemisphere is fucking desert. We might be the size of the continental US, but we have only a tenth of the fresh water, so we can support only a tenth of the population. Consequently, our government has a responsibility to ensure that population growth doesn't get out of hand. And our current growth is being maintained by immigration as it is.
The problem with "boat people" is that they arrive here with no credentials, no passports or any means of identification. They are not vaccinated, and may be carrying a host of diseases which we are very lucky not to have in Australia. We have no malaria, no rabies, no polio, no yellow fever, all of which these illegal arrivals have been found carrying. We also have a vast and diverse range of unique animal and plant species, found nowhere else in the world, which are extremely vulnerable to imported diseases and invasive species that are carried in on the boats. Our strict quarantine and vaccination laws are in place for a very good reason.
Without identification, how do we know they aren't criminals or terrorists fleeing justice, or Islamist nutjobs like the bastards that murder people in broad daylight on your city streets? We need to be able to check their backgrounds, establish identity, and prevent such violent thugs from entering our country and ruining the very way of life that everyone wants to come here for. Of course not all boat people are terrorists or disease carriers, but we need to be able to confirm this for each one. Once we can confirm it, we let them in, no problem.
It takes time, effort and money to complete background checks on these refugees, to make sure that they can support themselves in Australia, and to make sure they are vaccinated and not carrying any disease. But they're flooding in faster than we can complete these processes, so what are we to supposed to do? Just let them all in willy-nilly and hope the bad ones don't start murdering people in the streets and infecting our kids with malaria and polio? The only thing we can do is keep them somewhere while we sort them out and get them through as best we can.
I'm sorry if these facts offend your delicate liberal sensitivities, but we have a fucking right to protect ourselves, our kids, our wildlife and our way of life from murdering fanatical thugs, deadly tropical diseases and invasive feral species.
Re: nothing like old fashioned racism
No-one so far has claimed that they don't need to be processed. But the sky might not be falling quite as quickly as you'd have people believe.
People coming from France could potentially be carrying measles too - yet there's no cries to stop them coming here. In fact the number of people vaccinated *within* Australia is dropping - at least boat people can be intercepted and vaccinated as they're processed - if, as you say, they're disease risk, why are we not rounding up unvaccinated citizens and vaccinating them too?! It seems somewhat hypocritical that we're subjecting immigrants to vaccinations because "they spread disease" but our own citizens are free to travel overseas, unvaccinated, and return with whatever they've brought back with them.
The terrorism argument has been thrown around for years. 9/11 attacks were carried out by people on tourism or study visas (can't remember which) - point is, they were here "legitimately", the London bombers were citizens, as was Timothy McVae - all the large terror attacks have been carried out not by people who were "illegals" but by those who were able to arouse the least suspicion from the "citizens=good, immigrants=bad" camp. Ultimately, if someone wants to commit a terrorist attack, they don't get on a leaky boat for 2 months, with little chance of survival, in the hope that they get picked up by the Australian Military.
You can regurgitate the "Australian way of life" horseshit for as long as you like - the fact is that you don't need "delicate liberal sensibilities" to see the need for a humanitarian solution to what is a humanitarian problem. Yes, they need processing. Yes, it takes time. But "turning back boats" does nothing but cause a humanitariam disaster, and makes Australia look backwards to every other developed nation, and unless the problem is addressed at the source (ie the countries they're coming from, or neighbouring countries dealing with people smugglers themselves) then their numbers won't drop.
Vulture South getting tired...
...and running out of idea? The only difference between the article's title and what is generally a funnier sub-title is the change from "Oz" to "Australian".
I want my funny sub-titles back!!
No Customs/Immigration Officers at Airports
"More "irregular" arrivals come by plane"
So we're letting people in through immigration with no passports now? Last time I looked the Federal Police had quite a strong presence at Australian airports, and incorrectly documented people got very short shrift indeed.
Maybe the the words you're looking for are "visa overstayers" - although, in contrast to the maritime arrivals, these people all had valid entry visas in the first place.
Muppet (or possibly Green voter, since this is the smokescreen they seem to use most in their bleeding-heart rants)
There is no way in hell you would come to Australia by boat from Indonesia or India unless you are truly desperate.
The risk of dying at see with your family is very real.
We open our arms for arrivals by plane and up until recently by ship (I'm one of the infamous 10 pound poms).
So the line is if you have the money to afford the flight - your welcome.
If your a true refugee the Liberals don't have really care if you die at sea.
The whole "boat people" debate makes me ashamed to be an Australian - no wonder we are often thought of as red neck racists around the world.
Whilst the cost is blowing out, we have a responsibility to take on refugees and treat the humanely.
Compared to most developed countries we have next to no refugees as we are surrounded by a bloody big ocean in the middle of nowhere!
I am an Australian, and thus would like to ask the following questions:
For all those of you non-Australians decrying Aus.Gov's handling of the Refugees... may I ask what *your* country's share of Refugee intake is? I'm specifically looking at you, USA.
A downvote, but no reply. And yet, I am curious for an answer. It seems to me that the most vocal proponent of the you-must-take-in-refugees-regardless point of view seem to be mostly from countries that do not have such a high Refugee problem (and I'm not talking about people simply crossing a border without a passport, a la USA's Mexico problem).
But, as I said, it *seems* to be such - so I was trying to get a feel for the facts - does *your* country practice what you preach? Instead, I get an anonymous downvote. I guess that's an answer in itself.
It's fairly similar to all the Asian countries (India, China, Japan, Korea, etc) that complain whenever we consider lowering our immigration rate.
Yet ask any of those countries what their immigration rate is....
Almost 0!
As John Howard said, "Australians should decide who is eligible to come to Australia, and we will decide under what circumstances they arrive.
It's that simple people. No racism, just common sense.
Most read
- Hi-torque tank engines: EXTREME car hacking with The Register
- Review What's MISSING on Amazon Fire Phone... and why it WON'T set the world alight
- Product round-up Trousers down for six of the best affordable Androids
- Antique Code Show World of Warcraft then and now: From Orcs and Humans to Warlords of Draenor
- Why did it take antivirus giants YEARS to drill into super-scary Regin? Symantec responds...


text:
This intensive eye treatment helps:
- Protect skin from damaging environmental assaults.
- Minimize the appearance of fine lines, wrinkles and crow's feet.
- Target dark circles and puffiness.
- Reduce the look of age spots, discolorations and sun-damaged skin.
- Support skin's natural collagen to help give eyes a firmer, more lifted look.
- Brighten the look of skin in the eye area so eyes appear younger and revitalized.
Test Results
- 97% of women tested saw an immediate improvement in the look of skin around their eyes. * In addition, after 12 weeks of continued use*:
- 88% felt softer, smoother skin.
- 85% saw an improvement in the texture around eyes.
- 76% saw a reduction in the appearance of fine lines and wrinkles around eyes.
- 75% saw a tightening and toning under the eyes.
Shown to work on even severe dark under circles** :
- 94% felt their eyes looked brighter.
- 89% saw a reduction in the appearance of under-eye dark circles.
- BEST Get-Gorgeous Eye Treatment -- Shape Magazine's 8th Annual Beauty Awards, 2011.
- Best Anti-Aging Serum, Self Magazine, 2011.
For the very best results, use PREVAGE® Anti-aging Eye Serum every morning and night for intense antioxidant protection and correction to skin's appearance. In the morning, make sure to follow with PREVAGE® Anti-aging Eye Cream Sunscreen SPF 15 to moisturize and protect your skin from sun and harsh environmental aggressors that can damage and dehydrate the delicate skin around your eyes. "
*For face products, environmental protection is against oxidative stress due to sun, smoke and pollution, with Idebenone compared to alpha lipoic acid, kinetin, vitamin C, vitamin E and coenzyme Q10.


text:
Storm Alert
Humidity 10%
Winds 16.1mph
Humidity 10%
Winds 16.1mph
Aug 29, 2013 8:15 PM by Brian White
Apple Cider Syrup
1C. sugar
2 T. cornstarch
1/2 tsp. cinnamon
1/4 tsp. nutmeg
2 C. apple cider
2 T. lemon juice
1/4 C. butter
Combine sugar, cornstarch, cinnamon, and nutmeg in a medium saucepan. Add cider and lemon juice; stir well. Cook over medium heat until think; boil for 1 minute. Add butter, stirring syrup until butter melts. Serve hot over pancakes.
4 hours ago